Suffolk Contract Bridge Association

CLUB DIRECTOR TRAINING COURSE

Club Director training sessions will be run at Barleylands, Billericay (CM11 8UD) later this year.

The course is in four parts on Sundays September 14/28 and October 12/26. Each session lasts approximately 5 hours.

The director is Jacks Morcombe.

Cost for EBU members is £72 per session.

To apply or see more details of each day's session login to your MyEBU page on the EBU website then click on Utilities and Book Courses.

Refreshments are available at Barleylands.

Switch to Desktop

Release 2.19r

Pages viewed in 2025

Pauls Reports

County match v Essex, 2/3/25

Resignation.

It is with deep regret that I take this opportunity to inform you all of my decision to resign from my role as County Captain, effective immediately. I had always intended to remain as captain for more than just one season because you really cannot achieve anything in one season, but it was not to be.

When Rick Hanley asked if I would take on the role, I was honoured that he should consider me for the job. I thought that I could add something to the role and, hopefully, help to improve the performances of our 3 teams. However, I knew that, if I took on the role, there was a big risk involved. My long standing partnership with Ralph Parish was coming to an end. Ralph had not been available for most of the matches in the 2 seasons prior to me taking over from Rick. He had lost interest and our results were showing it. I, therefore, had to find another partner and, as I will only play for any decent period of time with a partner who is prepared to play an advanced strong club system, it was going to be difficult to find a suitable partner.

At about that time, Noel Mullan appeared on the scene and I approached him to see if he was prepared to give it a go. He agreed but, unfortunately, it has not gone as well as we had hoped. Personally, I was satisfied with our progress and we started rather well topping the cross-imps for the A team on our first two outings together. However, my own performance has been very poor in more recent weeks on club nights and in the NTL, and Noel is no longer enjoying our relationship at the table. As he is no longer willing to continue playing with me, we will fulfil our NTL commitments for this season and then, after that we will go our separate ways. In fact, I am thinking very seriously about whether to play much bridge at all in the future because of the difficult of finding strong club players.

There are other reasons for this decision. My family have gone through a very trying period for the past 5 years. Hopefully, some of the problems are coming to end now and that could have been coped with but, without a suitable partner, I think that it is time to pack it in. So, unless there is somebody out there who would be interested in playing an advanced strong club system with a view of getting into the A team, I wish you all success in the future.

And now for the report. It is probably the longest I have written so far, but what the heck, you might as well go out with a bang :-

A team.

The A team had a very close match and were tied at the end of the 3^rd quarter but we could not quite keep it up to the end. We started O.K. :-

Board 1 North

None vul.

Dealer North ª 8643

¨ K102

§ A532

West East

ª K1052 ª AJ9

¨ J9 ¨ AQ864

§ J942 § KQ106

South

ª Q7

¨ 753

§ 87

West North East South

1NT Double 2¨

Pass 2© double All pass

This looks like a fairly straightforward auction but it did not feel like it from my seat. I was sat in the West seat and this looked like the usual dilemma that these auctions often create. The problem is, do I try for game or do I accept the double which might prove to be an inadequate penalty but could be the best that we could do? I believed that 2© was not going to make but it would need to go 3 down for us to score well if we could make game.

I might try for 4ª, after all there was an indication that partner had 4 spades, but it was only a slight indication. I doubted that my heart holding would be enough to make 3NT a good contract and 5 of a minor seemed a long way away. Little did I know that I had 2 heart stops and 3NT was the best contract, so I left the double in.

Jeff and Michael found the unlikely contract of 4ª on the 4-3 fit. But the play proved to be quite straightforward, and the game was made. At the other 2 tables, Essex were only able to make part-scores and so we gained 9 imps.

Board 2 was flat 1NT going 1 down at all 4 tables. On board 3, the 6© slam was only bid at one table, by Essex at my table. This was disappointing because the slam was cold and, once North has received heart support from South, he hardly needs to look much further. The Essex pair had a fairly long bidding sequence which was obviously successful, but hardly necessary.

The rest of the 1^st quarter was just a case of small gains for each side and we were just 3 imps down at the end of the quarter. However, board 5 was interesting :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª QJ10

¨ AKJ106

§ 1072

West East

ª A98765 ª K3

¨ Q7532 ¨ 98

§ 9 § KJ1085

South

ª 42

¨ 4

§ A643

West North East South

1NT pass 4§

4ª pass pass double

All pass

Well, you might think that my 4ª bid was too much, and so it proved, but I was not the only one to try it. But, unfortunately, 4© does not make and so it was a phantom sacrifice. However, 3NT has a good chance and it was bid and made by John Wilmott and Bill Tweddle in the B team. 4© should have been a make. Without moving any of the court cards but with a couple of slight changes of the small cards, 4© would have been cold. Better luck next time.

The second quarter also started well, although rather fortunately :-

Board 9 North

E/W vul.

Dealer North ª J7652

¨ KQJ109

West East

ª AKQ9 ª

¨ 765 ¨ 842

§ 1076 § AKQJ952

South

ª 10853

¨ A3

§ 843

West North East South

2ª 3§ 3ª

3NT 4ª pass pass

Double All pass

When my first chance to bid occurred, I am looking for game and the choice was 3NT or 5§. Neither of these 2 contracts will make on a diamond lead and so we were in dangerous waters but North came to our rescue with 4ª, and I certainly knew what to do with that. But there was another gift to come. Noel led the Ace of clubs which North ruffed and he led a small spade………and played a small one from dummy! I cashed 4 top spade tricks and led a club for +1100.

Jeff and Michael tried 3NT and were one down. 5§ was bid by Essex at Jenny and Norbert’s table but Jenny led a trump. And at the other table, Essex were in 4§ just making and so we only scored 6 imps.

Board 10 was flat and we gained 5 imps on board 11 winning the part-score battle, but lost 1 imp on board 12. Board 13 was interesting :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª Q65

¨ 1098

§ J7

West East

ª A4 ª KJ1083

¨ A42 ¨ Q5

§ 82 § Q10943

South

ª 972

¨ KJ763

§ AK65

West North East South

Pass 2ª pass

2NT pass 3§ pass

3NT All pass

Noel’s 2ª opening bid showed 6-9 points with 5+ spades and a minor suit and 3§ showed clubs, so he was probably 5-5 in the back suits. Of course, if I thought that Noel might have a couple of hearts, then 4© would have been the best contract. But is that likely? With my luck as it has been recently, he was more likely to be void in hearts and so I tried 3NT. At least, there would then be a chance that either the hearts or the spades would run.

However, the fact that I had not bid the hearts proved to be an advantage, North led his 4^th best heart. I took it in dummy and led a spade to the ace and then the ace of hearts to see how badly they split. Finding that North started with 5 hearts, I led my remaining spade and finessed. As the spades behaved well, i.e. queen in North and a 3-3 split, I had 5 spade tricks, 3 hearts and the ace of diamonds.

As nobody else made game, that was a 10 imp swing in our favour. Unfortunately, we gave it all back on board 14. At 3 tables, the contract was 4ª making 11 tricks. Unfortunately, Jenny and Norbert tried 6© which was not successful. However, we just had our nose in front by a solitary imp at the end of the first half.

Again, we made a good start to the 3^rd quarter picking up an over trick imp on board 17 and a further 10 imps on board 18 :-

Board 18 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª K6

¨ 7

§ Q764

West East

ª 10842 ª QJ75

¨ AJ963 ¨ Q854

§ J9 § A53

South

ª A93

¨ K102

§ K1082

West North East South

Pass 1§

1¨ double 3¨ pass

Pass 3© All pass

I do not often make such poor overcalls as this one, but the conditions could not be better if you want to try to stir things up a little. Noel had already passed, we were not vulnerable but our opponents were and I could introduce my suit at the 1-level. Noel’s 3¨ raise was just what I had hoped for. 3¨ cannot make but it would not go too many down, but I thought it very unlikely that it would be passed. I expected to be doubled, and I would have been happy with that because it looked as though they had game on. But our bidding had deprived them of valuable bidding space. North bid 3© but South had a difficult decision and decided to pass. 4© was bid and made at the other 3 tables.

Boards 19 and 20 were flat but 21 was a bit of a disaster. 3NT was bid at all 4 tables but it can be defeated if a diamond lead is found. Essex found it but Suffolk didn’t. But 10 imps came back on board 23 when Helen and David made 4© but it was not found at all the other 3 tables. It is a marginal game but is probably one that should be bid at teams. We lost 6 imps on board 24 leaving the scores exactly level going into the final quarter.

We picked up 5 imps on board 25 but that was the last plus score for us. Board 26 was the start of our demise. I made a terrible, inexplicable error going 4 down vulnerable in a 4-2 fit. Game was found by one Essex pair but not by any Suffolk pair and that was 13 imps away.

Board 27 was a cold slam but it was only found by one of the 4 pairs, and they were not from Suffolk. Another 13 imps away. A couple more went on 28, 29 was flat and 4 more went on board 30.

Board 31 was all about getting the club suit right. Whether you are in 3NT or 5§, you have to avoid 2 losers in the club suit. There are several theories about how a 9-card suit should be played. Do you play for a 2-2 split of the outstanding cards in the primary suit? Do you lead from dummy and play the jack or is it better to go up with the king? It might even work if you led the 9 in this case and run it if the right hand opponent plays low. In this case, you had to lead from dummy and play the jack if East played low. This draws the ace and the king on the next round drops the remaining clubs. Unfortunately, only one pair got that right and that was another 11 imps away.

And finally, to round off a very poor quarter, Essex achieved 4 plus scores on the last board. They were only small gains, but they added up to 8 more imps in the wrong column. This was a disappointing end to a tight match and not the way I would have liked to bow out but there were some good things here and I hope that the A team gets stronger in the future. The team is now at least able to compete a little better than previously and we were not far off this time.

B team.

The B team did not start too well. They lost a couple of imps on the first board. 3NT seemed to be an elusive contract on this board for Suffolk. But they got 5 imps back on board 2 winning the part-score battle.

However, on board 3 the slam was only bid once, by Essex. We do need to look at our slam bidding machinery because this slam should be fairly easy to bid. The successful Essex pair in this match had a little bit of interference bidding to deal with but, once North had received a heart raise from his partner, he jumped straight to 6©. At the 3 tables where the slam was missed, South opened with a pre-emptive bid in diamonds and pre-empts are notorious for pre-empting partner as often as they pre-empt the opponents. But, in this case, I still feel that, once South had raised the hearts, North must go for the slam. Assuming that the heart raise makes the heart suit solid, the slam cannot be worse than 1 out of 2 finesses being successful.

On board 4 Essex again found a slam that Suffolk missed :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª AKJ2

¨ AQ107653

§ Q2

West East

ª Q74 ª 109

¨ 984 ¨ K2

§ J85 § A94

South

ª 9653

¨ J

§ K10763

West North East South

Pass 1¨ 1© double

2© 6ª all pass.

6ª appears to be a massive punt, and so it is, and so it probably proves that a little gamble now and then is a good thing. When Ralph Parish and I were at our best, had we had an uncontested action, we might have bid this hand like this :

North South

1§ 16+ pts. 1NT 8+ pts, 5+ clubs

2§ relay 2© 4 spades

2NT relay 3ª 4315 distribution

4§ control ask 4© 3 controls

Even after this revealing auction, North is not sure that the slam is good. If South’s 3 controls happen to be the ace and king of hearts, the slam will go down on a club lead. The diamond singleton is not necessarily a good feature opposite North’s best suit but it does mean that the diamond suit can be made good by ruffing and so, it looks as if North only needs South to hold the king of clubs for the slam to have a good chance. Do you take that chance or not?

But that is not the full story. There are other asking bids that can be used that might help. Normally, after controls have been asked for, the relayer can ask for queens. At this level, either 4NT or the suit containing the singleton can be used to ask for queens. But knowing about any queens that South might have is not going to help, something else is needed. However, there is a little used special asking bid which asks in a specific suit about what top controls partner holds in that suit. In this case, I would bid 5§ over 4© to ask about South’s club holding. When he shows 2^nd round controls, i.e. either a singleton or the king, the slam is much more attractive.

However, at the table there was always some form of interference bidding which often ruins a relay sequence, or any other sequence for that matter and so punting it is probably all there is.

So, 28 imps were lost in 2 boards, but they struck back on board 5. This is a strange hand as can be seen by what happened at my table in the A team match. The problem is that there does not seem to be a making game anywhere. However, Bill Tweddle and John Wilmott managed to find 3NT. Normally, this would not have a chance but, because West has no outside entry to his spade suit, he can never set up any extra tricks in the suit other than the ace and king.

But 9 imps were lost on board 7 when Essex managed 3 plus scores when a part-score was all that was possible. However, Tim Evans and Chris Park got lucky on board 8. They were the only pair to make 4ª because the lead of ace and another diamond puts it straight down, but Tim received a club lead and he made no mistake after that start. But they were 13 imps down at the end of the quarter.

Another 14 imps were lost on board 9 when 3NT was bid at 3 tables. It cannot make on a diamond lead losing the first 5 tricks, but at one table the Essex declarer received a heart lead. He did not bother with finessing, he took the lead with the ace and cashed the next 10 tricks in the black suits. Admittedly, Mark Honess, who was on lead, had no idea that Caroline held a good 5-card diamond suit because East had opened the bidding with 3NT! Essex seemed to have a lot of luck with this type of gamble.

A strange thing happened on board 10. 3NT was bid and made 11 tricks at 3 tables but, at the 4^th table, the Essex pair had a bidding misunderstanding and ended up playing in 2©, a 3-2 fit! The declarer still made it but that was still 11 imps to Suffolk.

Board 11 was another 11 imp loss. 4© was the popular contract but only one declarer made it :-

Board 11 North

None vul.

Dealer South ª Q8764

¨ J7

§ 103

West East

ª J952 ª A3

¨ 54 ¨ K1086

§ AK94 § J8652

South

ª K10

¨ AQ932

§ Q7

West North East South

1NT

Pass 2§ pass 2©

Pass 3© pass 4©
All pass.

All the unsuccessful declarers did what came naturally and drew trumps as soon as possible. But that is just ignoring the problem and they were bound to lose a spade, 2 club tricks and a diamond. With all these hands with a secondary suit, the secondary suit usually needs to be developed before trumps are drawn. The successful declarer received a club lead and a diamond switch. He took the second trick with the queen of diamonds over the 10 and led the king of spades. The king held and so he led the 10 covered by the jack and queen and taken with the ace. The second club trick was taken and another diamond was led. Now only one diamond ruff was required to dispose of any diamond loser and the trump finesse could be taken.

The defence had developed the side suit for the declarer instead of leaving him to his own devices. His lead of the king of spades was an attempt to find an entry to dummy so that the diamond finesse could be taken. East did well holding off with his spade ace to prevent the entry to dummy but West led the diamonds for him when he had taken the second club trick. Declarer knew what the problem was and played in the best way he could in the hope that he could find a way into the dummy. In fact, it was difficult for the defence to avoid giving him entry to dummy and taking at least one of the required finesses for him.

The rest of the second quarter was fairly uninteresting but Suffolk lost another 13 imps over the last 5 boards and Suffolk were 40 imps behind at the half way point. However, Suffolk won the 3^rd quarter. They lost another 10 imps on boards 17 and 18 missing a game on board 18. But the recovery began on board 21. 3NT was the contract at all 4 tables but it was only made once by Caroline Gemmell. She was lucky in the way that the defenders played the heart suit but they really went wrong when they did not lead diamonds if not at trick one but as soon as they could do.

They lost another 8 imps on board 22 in a part-score battle but they struck again on board 23. At 3 tables, the contract was 4© making 10 or 11 tricks but at Andy Higginson and Chris Kennedy’s table, Andy threw in a 2§ overcall and it seemed to make it difficult to bid the game. That was just as well because the declarer only made 9 tricks. He made the strange error of being in too much of a hurry to take a discard on his spade winners. This left him with no entry to dummy to lead a trump towards his king. In fact, he was left always having to lead from his own hand.

The final quarter started with 2 flat boards but Essex closed the door on board 28 :-

Board 28 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª A7

¨ 8

§ KQJ10532

West East

ª K10964 ª 2

¨ A92 ¨ KJ10654

§ 86 § A

South

ª QJ853

¨ Q73

§ 974

West North East South

Pass 1§ 1¨ 1ª

2¨ 3§ 3¨ pass

Pass 4§ pass 5§
All pass.

This was the auction at Mark and Caroline’s table. I think that East should have gone on to 5¨. It looks as though someone can make game and there is no real way of knowing which pair had the game. Therefore, 5¨ was a bit of insurance. In fact, I would have been rather more aggressive on the first round. The Unusual 2NT overcall has it’s detractors. The experts say that it gives declarer a blue print of the defender’s hand if the stronger pair do get to declare the contract. I would have bid 2NT here mainly because of the pre-emptive affect but also because it lets partner know that you hold a 2-suiter so that he knows that there are 2 places to play the hand. This would bring the hearts into play and 4© can make whereas 5¨ goes down on the lead of 3 rounds of hearts the 3^rd being ruffed by South.

Chris Kennedy also overcalled with just 1¨ but he jumped to 5¨ at his next turn to bid after partner had raised the diamonds. This was doubled but was one down even though he got the diamonds right. He still had to lose 2 hearts and a spade.

It was then all over. Some imps were exchanged, both ways, in the last 4 boards but the damage was already down.

C Team.

I had hoped that the C team might have been able to record a win this time. I have had difficulty finding players during this season to fill all 3 teams and that will always mean that the C team suffers. This time, however, the team appears stronger on paper but it was not to be. I tried for you. I hope next season brings you better luck.

Board 1 caused problems again and just one pair found 3NT, Essex of course. 6 imps came back on the next board after a part-score battle. But board 3 turned out badly. Surprisingly, 3 of the 4 pairs bid the slam which was better than in the other matches but, unfortunately, it was a Suffolk pair that did not bid it and that was 11 imps away. Another 11 imps went on board 5. This is a deal that caused problems in all 3 matches and not always just for Suffolk but it was not good for the C Team. It appears to be a hand where 4© should make and 4ª should be a good save. How wrong can you be.

Board 6 was interesting :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª KQ7

¨ Q4

§ KQ5

West East

ª J432 ª A65

¨ AKJ3 ¨ 10862

§ J93 § A106

South

ª 1098

¨ 975

§ 8742

West North East South

1§ pass

1¨ 1© 1NT pass

Pass double All pass.

Josh Santanelli-Clarke was East and I personally think that his bidding was a little strange, and very brave. I would have raised Pam Pope’s 1¨ bid to 2¨ and would have been happy to play in 2¨ or 3¨. 1NT doubled seemed very precarious, particularly as North’s 1© overcall told South which suit to lead. I would have run to 2¨. However, although his bidding could have been better, his play certainly made up for it.

South led the queen of hearts and North, surprisingly, took his king to lead another heart. Josh was then able to hold up his king until the 3^rd round which he would have been unable to do if North had ducked and kept his ace until Josh was forced to play the king. But this was wrong for another reason, it told Josh how to play the hand. He cashed the ace and king of diamonds, mainly to avoid losing a diamond trick to the danger hand, i.e. North. When the queen dropped, Josh had 7 tricks but he was not satisfied with that. He now had time to set up an 8^th trick for a valuable doubled over trick.

Unfortunately, that was the only highlight for Suffolk in the 1^st quarter and the quarter ended with Suffolk 34 imps behind. The 2^nd quarter was a very close affair with 5 flat boards. Suffolk picked up a couple of over trick imps on board 11 but they lost 5 on board 13. Everyone was trying for game on this board which is the one where I bid to 3NT and received the rather lucky lead of a small heart. That is the only way game can be made. 4© has no chance at all and 3NT does not make on a diamond lead, which was the lead when Dennis and Jo tried 3NT. They lost another 3 imps on board 7 to reach the half-way point 40 imps behind.

In the 3^rd quarter, Suffolk lost a couple of over tricks on boards 17 and 18 but made a good pick-up on board 20 :-

Board 20 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª 82

¨ 108654

§ 63

West East

ª K54 ª AJ9

¨ Q7 ¨ A9

§ AQ854 § J1097

South

ª Q10762

¨ KJ32

§ K2

West North East South

1§ pass 1© double

2§ pass 2NT pass

3NT All pass.

Pam and Josh had a sensible auction to 3NT. This seemed to be a bit tight if you stick closely to point-count theory but the 5^th club looked like the extra trick that might be required. At 2 of the other 3 tables, the contract was 1NT making 7 of 8 tricks so it looked as though Josh was up against it a bit. However, South led a spade and, when the club finesse worked, he had 9 easy tricks. The difference was that at the tables that played in 1NT, it was declared by West and the spade lead from North is more difficult.

Suffolk picked up another 3 imps on board 21 but lost 19 imps on boards 22 and 23. The biggest problem on board 22 was when Dennis and Jo got a little carried away in a contested auction when vulnerable. 3© went 3 down. It was not doubled but -300 on what was just a part-score hand is never a good score.

Board 26 was another board where drawing trumps early was bound to fail :-

Board 26 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª A9

¨ 103

§ J865

West East

ª 106432 ª KQ8

¨ A7 ¨ K9864

§ KQ103 § 2

South

ª J75

¨ QJ52

§ A974

4ª was bid 3 times in this match but was made only once and that was at a table which was lucky enough not to get a trump lead. However, when declarer took the diamond lead, she led a trump which North took but failed to lead a second trump. North led another diamond and declarer made no more mistakes. She led a club taken by South who led another diamond but declarer ruffed with the 10, crossed to dummy with a spade and ruffed another diamond. Declarer now had 10 tricks and she just drew the last trump and cashed out.

Even the successful declarer did not play this hand in the best way possible because, if the defenders had continued with a trump when declarer first led one, declarer would have been cut off from dummy and would have lost a spade, a heart and 2 club tricks. The best play would be not to draw trumps at all until the diamonds had been ruffed good. Then a trump would have been available to cash the promoted diamond. Good defence would have beaten this contract no matter what declarer did, but the contract is possible if the trumps are left alone for a while.

This is often the case. I have often been asked how do I know when to draw trumps and when not to? The answer is quite simple. If I can count enough tricks for the contract, I draw trumps as soon as possible to ensure that the defenders do not get an unexpected ruff. However, if I am a trick or 2 short, I look to see if I can make better use of the trumps. There is always the risk of an over-ruff, but if the contract is not going to make anyway, what have you got to lose.

That was 14 imps away but worse was to come on board 27. One Essex pair bid 6©. This slam makes if declarer can play the clubs for no losers. This little problem disappeared when Josh made a very reasonably singleton club lead which found the queen for declarer. Unlucky.

The match was well and truly lost by this time but there was a consolation prize on board 31 :-

Board 31 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª K3

¨ A754

§ 986

West East

ª Q954 ª 762

¨ Q862 ¨ K1093

§ A10 § Q2

South

ª AJ108

¨ J

§ KJ7543

The 2 Suffolk North/South pairs had an uncontested auction to 3NT and, due to a fortunate lead, they both made 10 tricks, but there was always 9 tricks available. At Josh and Pam’s table, they were East/West and the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass

Pass 1© pass 2§

Pass pass double pass

2ª pass pass 3§

3¨ All pass

This was 3 down for -150 but would still have been a good sacrifice if it had been doubled. Obviously, Essex’s bidding was not best and they should, at least, have doubled 3¨. Personally, if I had been sat in the West seat, I would have passed 3§ because it certainly looked as though they were not finding 3NT and, if a part-score was the best that North/South could achieve, 3¨ doubled would not have fared so well. But who can argue with success but at least Pam and Josh were competing and deserved a good score.

I do not know what went wrong at the other table but Essex just stopped in 2NT and that was 14 imps to Suffolk.

Well folks, that is my last report. Sorry that it is so long but there were some interesting deals and I hope that my observations are of help. I have met a lot of new faces during this season and made new friends which I am grateful for, and I hope I will meet you all again some time in the future. The season has had it’s highs and it’s lows but was always interesting. But finding 3 teams was always difficult and I thank you all for your support. However, the one incident that will always remain in my memory was one afternoon last year when someone had had to drop out at the last minute.

Unfortunately, I was in Oxfordshire with my daughter and her family and I had been trying to contact Celia Jeal to see if I could persuade her to fill the gap. I had never met Celia and did not know her at all but she managed to call me back. At the time, I had just come out of an attraction for children in the middle of Oxford and reception was awful. Celia was very understanding and very helpful, as she has always been. But she is not the only one, several people have been just as helpful and, with that kind of attitude, Suffolk should do well in the future. I certainly hope so.

NTL match 6, 12/2/25

Agate v Read.

Agate had a good 20 imp win this week, but they cannot say that they did not have a little luck. On board 2, they bid 6¨ at one table missing 2 cashing aces. Luckily, the lead was ace and another heart and then the ace of spades never had a chance to see the light of day. However, Michael Sherer did make it as difficult as possible by jumping to 6¨ more or less on his own so that the information given to the opponents was kept to a minimum. They would have cashed 2 aces if they knew that they had 2.

Unfortunately, they gave all of those imps back, with interest, on board 4 :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª A43

¨ AQJ10

§ K7

West East

ª J10986 ª K752

¨ 32 ¨ K54

§ Q952 § A10843

South

ª Q

¨ 9876

§ J6

The auction at one table was :-

West North East South

Pass 1NT pass 2¨

Pass 2© pass pass

2ª 3© 3ª 4©

Pass pass 4ª all pass

This is a difficult hand because the strength is fairly evenly divided and 10 tricks can be made in spades by East/West and 9 in hearts by North/South. North/South pushed as far as they could but, perhaps, a little too far. In my opinion, the 4© bid is the only reason that East/West pushed to 4ª. They might have stopped in 3ª without that final push. Was it worth risking the game swing when you might be able to leave them in a part-score. 5© would have been one too many as it is likely to be 3 down and so, if that is the case, which is the greater risk? Passing or bidding on?

This is a problem that occurs fairly frequently and there is no magic wand available for this one. However, I have always had a personal agreement with myself to the effect that I will never push the opponents into game, they will always have to bid it themselves.

At the other table, North opened the bidding with 1¨ and that was passed out. 10 tricks were made when East cashed the ace of clubs instead of saving it to take the king. I have some sympathy with East/West here, but I am sure that I would have overcalled 2§ with the East hand or, if there had been 2 passes around to West, I would have tried 1ª. I doubt that 4ª would have been found, but a spade part-score would have saved a few imps.

7 imps came straight back on board 5 when Agate bid to 4© at one table and made it whereas Read only bid to 2© and made only 8 tricks. It was one of those deals where there was a number of ways to the play the hand and a little luck was required to select the right one. The next 4 deals produced another 8 imps for Agate in part-score battles but then board 10 turned up. Read decided to play in 4ª which looks like the best contract but goes one down on a heart lead. At the other, table Agate bid to 3NT and made it because declarer did not receive a heart lead which could have put the contract 2 down at least, although it can be made as we shall see in the Emerald match.

And the luck was still with them on board 11 when they bid 6§ which goes off on a diamond lead, but a club was led. Read bid to only 5§ at the other table.

Read got a little revenge on board 14 when they bid a slam that was not bid in the other room. The trump suit was weak, just a 5-3 fit missing the king and jack ,but everything was well placed and all 13 tricks were made. But this was too little too late.

Emerald v Young Turks.

Emerald had a good win even though they were 21 imps behind at half-time. They scored 43 imps in the second half conceding only 4 to win by 18 imps, the proverbial game of 2 halves. They had a lucky start on board 2 when the Young Turks bid the diamond slam, but no mistakes were made and the 2 aces were both cashed and 10 imps to Emerald.

But then board 4 caused problems but totally different to as in the Agate match. At one table, the Young Turks were able to enter the auction at a relatively low level and secured the contract in 3ª making 11 tricks. At the other table, they conducted a simple bidding sequence starting with 1NT by North and a transfer to hearts by South, North going on to 3© making 10 tricks. So, they had secured plus scores at both tables. However, in both cases, at least 1 extra trick was made when the lead was an under lead of an unsupported honour. In a part-score at teams, the extra over trick is not very important and might, occasionally, be the only way to defeat the contract but I have noticed that this is happening a lot and unmakeable games have been given away by such an approach. Be sure, if you are considering such a move, that there is nothing better, there often is.

On board 6, Pauline and Con had a very long auction before arriving in 7©. The 5-1 distribution 0f the outstanding trumps soon put paid to that, 6NT making in the other room. I actually admired their auction in many ways except that they did not have an 8-card fit. In fact, to bid suit slams, I prefer a 9-card fit at least so that we can be reasonably sure that the trump suit is solid. If they had held a 4-4 heart fit, 7© might well have been made by ruffing the diamond suit good and discovering where the jack of trumps was situated, and it would have had a better chance than 7NT but the trump fit is vital.

But the second half was much better. On board 10, 3NT was bid at both tables. Pauline made it by the simple expedient of holding up the ace of hearts until she had to take it on the 3^rd trick. As the only cards that the defence could re-take the lead with were both in the South hand who had no more hearts to lead, the contract was made. In the other room, declarer neglected to hold up the ace of hearts and was defeated easily.

4 imps were lost on board 11 but then followed 3 consecutive 10 imp pickups which put them comfortably ahead and led to the 18 imp victory. Board 12 was interesting :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª Q975

¨ QJ

§ Q9643

West East

ª K642 ª A3

¨ A1053 ¨ 9872

§ § AK872

South

ª J108

¨ K64

§ J105

The Young Turks auction went like this :-

West North East South

1© pass 2§ pass

2¨ pass 3¨ pass

3ª pass 3NT all pass

The auction was similar at the other table but they did not bother with the 3ª bid but went straight to 3NT. However, the Young Turks declarer made a crucial mistake. There are 9 tricks available on this hand but he managed to cut his own communications so that he could not move easily from hand to hand and could not cash all his tricks.

He started well by taking the spade lead and playing on hearts. John Bloomfield held up the heart ace and, instead of continuing with the hearts, declarer switched to a low diamond. Richard took this and led another spade ducked by declarer and John led another spade taken with the king. all declarer has to do now is force out the ace of hearts, take the next trick and play ace and another diamond for 9 tricks. Instead, he cashed the ace of diamonds and led another diamond. John made no mistake, he cashed the ace of hearts and led a club. Declarer was stuck in his own hand and had to lose the last trick, the hearts lying wasted in dummy. Con did not make the same mistake, and the game came home in comfort.

Board 13 was a triumph for the weak 1NT opening bid :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª AJ7

¨ J8653

§ K4

West East

ª K106542 ª 98

¨ A2 ¨ KQ7

§ A53 § J10

South

ª Q3

¨ 1094

§ Q98762

West North East South

Pass 1NT 2© 2NT

3ª All pass

Richard opened with the weak 1NT bid and East overcalled with 2ª. 2NT, I presume, was Lebensohl and West had a difficult decision to make. Does he raise his partner’s suit on K5 support or does he mention his own long suit. He chose the latter but East felt that he had done all he could and so he passed. 3ª just made but 4© was made in the other room. At the other table the auction went like this :-

West North East South

1¨ 1© pass

2¨ pass 3© pass

3ª pass 4© All pass

I must admit that, if I had been in the East seat, I would have made a weak jump overcall and that would allow West to bid 4© immediately saving time and ensuring that North/South would take no further part in the auction. They did not bid again anyway, but East was not to know that that would happen. I have a soft spot for the weak 1NT bid and I would use it if playing a natural system. I know that the experts prefer the strong 1NT, but my experience is that the weak one does make more problems for the opponents and the strong variety is more for those who wish to play it safe, which is often the better policy at teams, but not in this case.

To put the icing on the cake, Richard and John found 6NT on board 14 and it was, inexplicably, missed at the other table. With a 17-count and a source of tricks in diamonds opposite a decent opening bid, surely a slam try should have been made. But well done Emerald, this was a good win.

Phoenix v Bridgemates.

Phoenix continued their winning ways with a 13 imp win over Brigemates. They lost 3 overtrick imps on board 3 but that was the only score, by either side, in the first five boards and it looked like being a close match, but they finished the 1^st half with 3 consecutive double figure pickups.

On board 6, Tim and Chris found the diamond slam. 6NT is a better contract but the slam was not found at the other table. On board 7, Tim and Chris found the obvious 3NT contract and made an over trick. At the other table, Jenny and Norbert decided to enter the auction on poor values and even worse distribution but it had the right affect. The opponents stopped short of game, which is just as well because declarer played the hand completely wrong and only made 8 tricks.

Board 8 was rather strange :-

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª J1073

¨ KQ84

§ J3

West East

ª KQ982 ª A654

¨ 2 ¨ AJ1063

§ 754 § A

South

¨ 975

§ KQ109862

At one table, Bridgemates bid :-

West North East South

Pass pass 2NT pass

3ª pass 3NT All pass

This received just what it deserved when Chris led the King of clubs. Declarer cashed the next 7 tricks but, when Tim gained the lead with the jack of spades, he had a club left so that Chris could cash the rest of the tricks. The 2NT opening bid was just bad bridge in my opinion but what was even worse was when East decided to bid 3NT rather than 4ª. What was he trying to gain when they had a known 5-4 spade fit?

4ª was bid and made with 2 over tricks at the other table, but can 6ª be bid? the crux of the problem is the 2 singletons, one in each hand. If you have a system that can identify West’s singleton, I would be glad to hear about it. Perhaps, East should jump to 4§ to show spade support and a singleton. West would still sign off in 4ª but then East could bid 5§ showing that he held a void or singleton ace in clubs and also pinpointing the fact that East is interested in something in diamonds.

The match was virtually over at this stage but Bridgemates did score 19 imps on the next 2 boards. They managed to make a part-score at both tables on board 9. On board 10, declarer made an error in the play and failed to make 4ª :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª 753

¨ QJ

§ 954

West East

ª QJ1086 ª A42

¨ K9763 ¨ A4

§ 6 § KQJ83

South

ª K9

¨ 10852

§ A1072

The lead was the king of hearts taken by the ace. Declarer led a diamond to dummy’s king and then led the queen of spades. South won this and led a heart taken by North who led another heart which declarer had to ruff. Declarer then drew the remaining trumps but that left him with insufficient entries to ruff a club and then cash the club winners.

Instead of drawing trumps, he should have led a club to force out the ace then he could have won the next lead in dummy to ruff a club. Then he could draw trumps ending in dummy to cash 3 club winners. Entries have to be carefully preserved, even when they are in the trump suit.

But the match really was over now. Phoenix picked up another 9 imps in part-scores an Bridgemates picked up just 6 before the end of the match but Phoenix were safely over the line.

Amethyst v Dianthus.

Amethyst also won, only by 9 imps but a decent win none the less. They had scored 46 of their total of 47 imps by board 9. They had a large slice of luck on board 2. They bid 6NT which can lose the first 4 tricks. Luckily, North led ace and another heart and declarer had his 12 tricks.

On board 4, Mark Honess took what can only be called a ‘flier’ and punted 4© on his very poor hand. The opponent at the other table were more ‘sensible’ and stopped in 3© but 10 tricks are always there.

But everything changed on board 10. Dianthus scored 25 imps conceding just 1 imp in the last 7 boards, but it was not enough and Amethyst won by 9 imps. But board 12 was unfortunate. 3NT was bid at both tables but Dianthus made it and Amethyst did not. This was another example of the need to manage entries. Declarer had the tricks but could not get from hand to hand. All that was needed was to keep the 10 of diamonds in dummy so that the 4^th round of diamonds is preserved as an entry to cash the heart winners.

NTL match 5, 5/2/25.

Agate lost very heavily to Bridgemates who are top of the division. However, the fault is mainly mine. I really had a bad day and I let the team down badly. Sorry guys. Amethyst and Phoenix had a close match, Phoenix winning by 10 imps. But Emerald managed to come away with a very narrow win (2 imps) against the Lock-up Squad, who are quite a decent team.

Emarald v the Lock-up Squad.

This was an interesting match with many points of interest and so I have devoted a lot of space for it in this report, perhaps to the detriment of the other matches. But it is worth studying.

Emerald’s campaign got under way on board 3 :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª AK1053

¨ 103

§ K643

West East

ª Q9 ª 8

¨ AQJ987 ¨ 64

§ 2 § AQJ9875

South

ª J7642

¨ K52

§ 10

West North East South

Pass

1¨ 1ª 2§ 4ª

Double pass 5§ All pass

This was the auction at Richard Evans and John Bloomfield’s table and there was a little luck here because 5§ should go 1 down losing a trick in each suit except diamonds. North cashed his king of spades at trick one and tried to cash his ace and now Richard was able to set up his diamond suit without loss and was able discard his losing hearts. a heart lead at trick one defeats the contract.

At the other table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass

1¨ 1ª 2§ 4ª

All pass

The 4ª bid should be fairly natural and it was bid at both tables. Luckily, Richard decided to take John’s double out and try for the game. Well done.

Emerald were leading by 20 imps until board 7 :-

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª 9862

¨ 87654

§ QJ6

West East

ª AQ75 ª J4

¨ AJ102 ¨ K3

§ 109 § K842

South

ª K103

¨ Q9

§ A753

West North East South

Pass

1ª pass 2© pass

2NT pass 3§ pass

3© pass 4NT pass

5§ pass 6© All pass

This is actually a horrible slam to be in, until South leads the ace of clubs. In fact, the next lead of the 9 of diamonds from Q9 also simplified things for the declarer. The slam still needs the king of spades to be in the South hand, but it was and so declarer made no mistake and took the rest of the tricks. 4© was bid and made in the other room South, this time, leading a trump.

Leading against a slam can often be difficult. Some experts are prepared to take risks in an attempt to defeat the contract. Less experienced players may lead out an ace to take a look at dummy, but that can often assist declarer as in this case. If the ace is led to take a look at the dummy, that can be a waste of the lead. It is better to try to determine from the bidding what declarer and dummy hold and try to come up with a plan before the first lead. In this case, many experts would do as South did against 4© at the other table and lead a trump.

What are the chances of defeating the contract? The response to RKCB would suggest that the required number of top controls are held and so the defence will not have 2 ‘fast’ tricks, i.e. it will not be possible to defeat the contract immediately. Therefore, declarer or dummy holds the king of clubs, but who has the queen and jack? Aces are meant to kill kings. But also, a trump lead might just embarrass declarer particularly as South has 4 of them. It is often a safe lead giving little, if anything, away.

Many experts have written about whether to make an aggressive or a passive lead. If it seems from the auction that declarer should have little difficulty in making his contract, then any lead that might surprise him could be attempted because you cannot lose by such a lead although it may not gain anything by it. It might be your best bet. However, if the auction might suggest that the opponents bidding does not appear to be very confident, a passive lead designed not to give anything away is a sensible thing to do.

On this particular deal, it is not easy to decide whether an aggressive or a passive lead is required. When that is the case, it seems reasonable to make a passive lead and try not to do declarer’s work for him. Also, holding 4 small trumps often suggests that a trump lead may have merit, either as a passive lead or to prevent declarer taking too many ruffs in the short trump hand. For me, the trump lead stands out on this deal.

Emerald were still 9 imps ahead until board 10 when John and Richard made an uncharacteristic mistake in the auction :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª AK954

¨ 93

§ A1092

West East

ª J873 ª 2

¨ Q102 ¨ AKJ65

§ J87 § KQ

South

ª Q106

¨ 874

§ 6543

West North East South

1© Pass

1ª pass 2¨ pass

2© pass 3¨ pass

3© All pass

I think that John (West) should have bid 4© rather than just 3©. It appears to be a bit of a stretch, but Richard had shown 2 suits and had gone to the trouble of repeating his second suit which must show 5-5 distribution at least and a little extra strength. Therefore, holding 3-card heart support including the ace with decent support for Richard’s second suit, the West hand is definitely worth a shot at game. However, I must admit that, if I had been sat in the East seat, I would have found it very difficult to pass 3©, particularly at teams.

The Lock-up Squad took a 1 imp lead at this point but Emerald bounced straight back on the very next board although the opponents really brought it upon themselves :-

Board 11 North

None vul.

Dealer South ª A

¨ AQ9872

§ 8

West East

ª Q10754 ª 983

¨ 1063 ¨

§ J532 § AKQ1074

South

ª KJ62

¨ KJ54

§ 96

Jo opened the South hand with 1¨, presumably playing a strong 1NT system. Dennis took a practical approach and jumped to 5¨. A heart was led and Jo was able to draw trumps and discard dummy’s singleton club on the king of spades. A club lead would have defeated this contract but West had nothing to go on because of Dennis’s jump to game.

The opponents at the other table adopted a slower approach to the auction and, finding that 2 of the 5 aces were missing but they still bid 6©! Due to the appalling trump split, they could not even make game. It just goes to show that, no matter how good your bidding system is, the practical approach is often the best.

They picked up another 6 imps on board 12 when the opponents tried a very speculative 4ª and could not make it but then disaster struck on board 13 :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª AK7543

¨ 62

§ 2

West East

ª Q102 ª J986

¨ K97 ¨ 10854

§ AJ765 § 10

South

¨ AQJ3

§ KQ9843

West North East South

Pass pass 1§

Pass 1ª pass 2¨

Pass 2ª pass 3§

Pass 3© pass 3NT

All pass

It appears that Dennis does not like weak 2s when holding 4 cards in the other major, which is what most text books advise, but it might have simplified this auction had he ignored that advice. However, I must say that I would have passed 3§ rather than bidding 3©. This, more or less, forced Jo to bid 3NT, although I hate 3NT with a void in partner’s suit, and now she was cut off from the table. However, she had a chance of getting close to the contract when West led the 5 of hearts. Jo played the 8 from dummy and East took the ace. Unfortunately, Jo played the 7 under it and so threw away her only chance of reaching the dummy. She should have played the jack and then the queen would drop under her king on the next round of hearts and she would have an entry in hearts so that she would have 4 tricks from the dummy, the contract is still not easy but can be made so long as declarer sets up a couple of club tricks before entering dummy.

At the other table the opponents were in 3§ and made it. However, the lead of a small diamond from Kxx was not successful. A small club would have made the contract impossible. Here was another lead away from an unsupported honour that did not fair well. There are times when such a lead is the only way to defeat a contract, but there are far more times when the lead at least gives away one trick and sometimes several tricks as in this case.

Things got worse on board 15. At one table, the opponents bid to 4© which was doubled, but the contract was cold. At the other table, John and Richard took a sacrifice in 5© over 5§ and were one down giving 12 imps to the opponents. This was a little unlucky. South would appear to have 4 tricks in top cards particularly as the club suit was not supported by North. That was not to be and, at the other table the 5© sacrifice figured to score well, however, 5§ should be defeated losing a heart, a diamond and a spade trick.

At this point, Emerald were 3 imps behind. Luckily, on the very last board, Emerald found the diamond fit and made 3¨. At the other table, the opponents played in 3© which had to go 1 down. That was 5 imps in and a wind by just 2 imps!

I have spent a lot of time on this match mainly because it was such a roller-coaster ride, and the decision could have gone either way. Also, each hand reported here has an interesting learning point.

Phoenix v Amethyst.

Phoenix had the best of this match and were a little unlucky not to win by more, but board 13 took the icing off the cake. Amethyst did not go down without a fight. The only double figure pick for Phoenix occurred on board 6 :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª K865

¨ J654

§ Q62

West East

ª 10732 ª AQJ9

¨ AQ102 ¨ K93

§ K75 § A84

South

ª 4

¨ 87

§ J1093

West North East South

1NT 2©

Double pass 2ª 3§

3ª pass 4ª pass

Pass 5© double All pass

Of course, 4ª should not make but it would be easy to let it succeed. If South starts with 3 rounds of hearts North ruffing the 3^rd round, with the king if necessary, declarer has a club loser, unless North switches to a diamond. However, Phoenix were spared this when Amethyst took it out into 5© which Tim Evans was happy to double. At the other table, N/S were allowed to play in 3© and were not even doubled. This only went 1 down scoring 10 imps for Phoenix.

After this, there was a series of small gains with Phoenix usually winning the part-score battle. Also, there was an interesting 5 imp pick-up on board 11 when Amethyst bid game at both tables but were unable to make either of them. And, on board 12, another 6 imps were made when, defending 3ª, they were able to find their heart ruff but it was not found at the other table.

At this point, Phoenix had scored 31 imps and Amethyst only 5, but board 13 must have given them some hope. When Caroline Gemmell declared 3NT, a small club was led. She took it with the queen and led the 9. West took this with the jack and led……the queen of hearts! East then put up the ace and it was far easier to jettison the jack after this start. Suddenly, dummy was resurrected and the game was made. Amethyst was only able to score 3 more imps in the remaining boards leaving Phoenix 10 imps ahead.

Agate v Bridgemates.

I have not written anything about this match partly because it was so embarrassing for me personally but also because I would not know where to start. I doubt that anything could be learned from my bad play on this occasion.

NTL match 4, 29/1/25.

We only had one win this week, Phoenix beat Young Turks by 64-21. Agate had a small loss, 45-49. Emerald lost 41-67 and Amethyst had a bad day at the office losing 19-87.

Agate v Déjà vu.

This was certainly a match that Agate should have won, they were 35 imps up after just 4 boards. Board 2 was a little lucky. Agate failed to bid the slam but, as West was the declarer, North could not lead a spade and so 12 tricks rolled in. The opponents in the other room bid the slam but declared by East. David Wilson, sitting South, made no mistake (the auction was quite revealing) and he led a spade for Ralph Parish to ruff. They had to make a diamond trick later for one down and 11 imps in.

Board 4 was more interesting :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª AK82

¨ 54

§ K

West East

ª 1054 ª J963

¨ AQ103 ¨ 762

§ 9 § J8762

South

ª Q7

¨ KJ98

§ AQ10543

At one table, the opponents bid 3NT by North. David Morran led a ‘boring’ 4^th best spade, but it hit the jackpot. The bad club split and West holding the diamonds over South made the contract impossible.

At the other table 3NT was declared by South. A spade lead would still have defeated the contract, but West decided to lead his lowest diamond. Hearts had been bid and so a heart lead did not look so good and so a diamond would seem to be as good as anything. It wasn’t. David Willson took the lead with the 8, cashed the king of clubs, crossed back to hand with the queen of spades to lead the ace of clubs learning of the bad break. He exited with a small club and East switched to a heart.

David had to take the ace and then he cashed the ace and king of spades and threw West in with a diamond. West cashed the king of hearts and led the jack of hearts. this was very fortunate because all West had to do was cash the ace of diamonds, the king of hearts and then exit with a heart. East would then win the last trick, the defender’s 5^th, with the 9 of spades. There was a big clue that Dummy’s 8 was not the master, even if West had failed to take note that the jack had not been played. Declarer had not tried to cash it, therefore, it must be right to cash his 2 red suit winners and exit into the North hand. Not cashing the ace of diamonds meant that declarer could take the queen of hearts and then lead the spade. East was then forced to give David the last trick in clubs.

Unfortunately, David could not cash his remaining top club any earlier because that would promote at least one more club winner for East.

Their luck changed on board 5. Déjà Vu bid 7ª but, in the other room, Agate only bid 6ª and all 13 tricks were taken by declarer at both tables. Agate only had one good board after that, board 8, where they took a good sacrifice in 5¨ doubled, just one down, whereas 4© was bid and made at the other table.

Board 10 was not their best effort. After the good sacrifice on board 8, you might have thought that they would have done a little better on this one. At one table, Déjà Vu bid the diamond game as E/W at one table, but bid to 4© by South at the other. The board could easily have been flat it they had gone on to 5¨ over 4©, but they chose to double 4©. It went one down, but it could have been made. But it was still another 9 imps away.

They were still I imp ahead until board 15. This was only a part-score deal and everything depended on the opening bid. Déjà Vu opened the West hand with 1© and North overcalled in 2¨ and was allowed to play there, and that was 3 down, vulnerable. At the other table, Agate opened the West hand with 1NT and was allowed to play that. It made but that was only +90 against -300 at the other table.

Phoenix v Young Turks.

The Young Turks are very unpredictable, they can be brilliant and they can also be quite poor. Agate lost to them in an earlier match, but Phoenix did very well indeed. Board 3 was their first major swing :-

Board 3 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª Q964

¨ AK108

§ 987

West East

ª J52 ª AK1083

¨ J76532 ¨

§ § AQJ432

South

ª 7

¨ Q94

§ K1065

West North East South

Pass

Pass pass 1§ 1©

Pass 1NT 2ª pass

3ª pass 4ª all pass

This was a very reasonable contract in spite of the fact that the points were equally divided between the 2 pairs. Jenny’s 5206 distribution would certainly make up for some of those missing points. However, the contract is not cold. South made a bad mistake when he discarded a small club on the second round of trumps. Jenny was then able to draw 3 rounds of trumps and then lead ace followed by the queen of clubs. South had to win this but the clubs were then set up and so Jenny just lost 1 heart trick, 1 club and 1 trump trick.

I might have played it differently. After leading the jack of spades, which was covered with the queen, I would have ruffed played ace and queen of clubs and ruffed out the king of clubs. You have to be careful that you do not ruff too many clubs while having to re-enter your hand by ruffing hearts and so shortening your own trump holding too much, but it can be a better play with some distributions. But well done Jenny.

At the other table, game was never considered. Just as well because declarer could only make 9 tricks.

We have already seen what a difficult deal board 4 could be. Phoenix did very well here. At one table the Young Turks tried 3NT and went one down which should have been the par contract. However, at the other table West believed that his 3541 9-count was worth an opening bid and he bid 1©. This gave Tim Evans a bit of a problem because he held 6 hearts. He made the correct decision and he passed and so did East.

Now, the spotlight was on Phil Matthews, he re-opened with a double. If his intention was to show his suit on the next round showing a strong hand and a good suit, then I applaud his bid. If he intended it to be a standard take-out re-opening double, then it was the wrong bid, but you cannot argue with success. When this was passed to Tim, there was no decision to make and 1© doubled vulnerable became the final contract. That was 3 down for +14 imps!

Another 7 imps rolled in on board 6 when the opponents doubled 4ª which made with an over trick. In fact, 6ª is cold and 12 tricks were made at the other table, but only in a contract of 4ª, and I am sure that, as she was doubled, Jenny played safely to ensure the doubled contract came home.

The only significant loss occurred on board 9. The Young Turks, presumably trying to get back in the match, bid a game that really has no chance. A trump lead would defeat it and another trick was given away when a small diamond was led towards the king. South rose with the ace giving declarer 2 diamond tricks, instead of just one. At the other table, Tim and Phil stopped in 2© and just made it.

Then board 10 hit the table and Phoenix made no mistake here :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª 10953

¨ J1075

§ 63

West East

ª AK642 ª QJ

¨ AQ6 ¨ K98432

§ A852 § J

South

ª 87

§ KQ10974

West North East South

Pass 1©

1ª 2© pass 4©

Double all pass

I have to admit that Norbert’s 1© opening bid is not to my taste. I would open in my longest suit and jump in the other on my next turn to show my distribution. However, you cannot argue with success. Jenny did well to find a heart raise and then 4© would seem to be obvious. Of course, West could not believe that he could not take at least 4 tricks and so he doubled, but he did not defend well enough. A lead of ace and another club would have beaten the contract, but ace, king and another spade did not. But, even if 4© had gone down, it would be a good save if Tim and Phil could find 5¨, and they did and that was a massive 16 imps. Well down all 4 players.

To round off a very good match, another 12 imps were picked up on board 13. Jenny and Norbert had a simple auction to the top spot, 4©. But the opponents needed something approaching a miracle and they tried for a slam, resting in 5© when Blackwood showed that there were 2 aces missing. Even this was a step too far as there is a trump loser to go with the 2 missing aces.

Emerald v Slater.

This was a match of double figure swings. Unfortunately, Emerald did not have as many of them as Slater did. They only made plus scores on 4 deals, 3 of them being double figure swings. But Slater scored on 7 boards, 4 of them being double figure swings and 2 of them were 14 and 16 imp swings, and they also picked up another 7 imps on board 8.

They had a good score on board 2 when the opponents tried 6ª. As the trumps split 5-0 and a club was led, there was no play for this contract. However, they might have made 6©. This will always make if West is the declarer. If East bids hearts first, South can lead a spade for North to ruff and then a diamond trick later in the play will kill it.

Board 3 proved difficult to handle in all 4 matches. At Chris Kennedy and Andy Higginson’s table, the spade game was not reached. West opened the bidding with probably the worst weak 2¨ opening bid West has ever made. However, it prevented Chris from bidding at his first opportunity. I cannot condone his pass. If you wait a round before starting to show a strong 2-suiter, you will never be able to convince partner that you have a good hand. This is one for all regular partnerships to discuss with their partner. Some will double first and then change the suit on the next round to show one of the suits but, more importantly, to show that the hand is better than a minimum hand. Others will bid 3¨ to show a 2-suiter. There are several ways of bidding such a hand, but they all require the East hand to bid immediately. Later is often too late.

Board 4 caused trouble again. Jo and Dennis had a strange auction which ended up in 5§ which is an impossible contract :-

West North East South

Pass 1© pass 2§

Pass 2© pass 3¨

Pass 3ª pass 4§

Pass 5§ all pass

It is the 3ª bid that surprised me. Surely, that should be ‘4^th suit forcing’? If so, North should just bid 3NT. That is not a certainty but it does have chances and was bid and made at the other table.

Emerald did pick up 12 imps on board 9 but only because declarer in 4© badly mis-managed the hand. He had several opportunities to make the contract but managed to choose badly on every decision. Very surprising when you consider the rest of the match.

On board 10, the opponents recovered well and picked up another 16 imps making 5¨ at one table and 4© doubled at the other. Double game swings are rare but they do happen and the only way of guarding against them is by ‘bidding one more’. This is a concept that is definitely frowned upon and can only be successful when the distribution is wild. This can either be with one pair having the balance of strength but the other pair have a distributional hand or the points are evenly distributed and both pairs have distributional hands.

Emerald made one final attempt to get back on track on board 14. At one table Slater tried for a slam but had to stop in 5ª when 2 aces were missing. This went one down when South led a diamond. The auction transferred the declaration to East and so declarer lost 2 diamond tricks and a club. Ironically, 11 tricks were made at the other table when West was declarer. North could have kept it to 10 tricks by leading a club to South’s ace and South leading a diamond back, but 4ª was always cold.

They picked up another 7 imps on the last board but the damage was already done.

Amethyst v Bridgemates.

Amethyst only managed to score 19 imps on 3 boards. There were 3 flat boards but the other 10 were won by the opposition, and 6 of them were double figure pick-ups. They did have one success, board 5. Paddy Lockwood and Dave Allen managed to bid the grand slam in spades and made no mistake in the play. It does not seem to be too difficult to bid the grand on this one, but it did not happen very often. Well done gentlemen.

However, they did not do so well on board 6. They played in 3ª making 11 tricks when it is possible to make a slam if the opponents do not lead a trump at trick 1. The hand can be difficult to bid depending on what the 2§ opening bid means. If it is unconditionally forcing to game, then 3ª should not have been passed. However, if it could show a hand with less than game going values, West will pass. I would have made sure that game was bid because you do not need much from partner to make game.

More worrying than anything else was board 14 :-

Board 14 North

None vul.

Dealer East ª 8742

¨ AQ

§ 10752

West East

ª KQ10953 ª AJ6

¨ K7 ¨ 982

§ QJ93 § K4

South

¨ J106543

§ A86

West North East South

1© pass

1ª pass 1NT pass

3NT all pass

I understand East’s 1NT rebid, so long as you are playing ‘5-card majors’, but I do not understand West’s 3NT rebid. It might produce a top at pairs if you can make as many tricks in no trumps as everyone else is making in 4ª. However, there is little point in such a bid at teams. 4ª would be safer most of the time. I would have rebid 3ª showing that game is good and that I held 6 spades. The decision as to whether to play in 3NT or in 4ª is then shifted to East who has more information to go on. With 3-card trump support, the decision is not difficult. Also, I would have been worried about the Kx holding in diamonds. If East has no bolster in diamonds, a diamond lead in 3NT could sink the contract very quickly. But, in 4ª, this is not a problem because there are only 3 losers in the minors and 10 tricks are easy.

NTL match 3.

Agate won the ‘local derby, against Amethyst. Phoenix had a good win against The Lock-up Squad but Emerald were beaten.

Agate v Amethyst.

The very first board was interesting. Agate suffered small losses at both tables but both Agate pairs were simply ensuring that they did not give away a game swing. -4 imps would seem to be a small price to pay.

But Agate scored 10 imps on board 2 when 4© was made at one table but not at the other. There should be 2 diamond losers, a club, a heart and possibly a spade loser and so the chances of making this contract are slim. But when Ralph Parish declared the hand, he received the lead of a small diamond and Ralph played low. South was forced to play the ace and so, that reduced Ralph’s diamond losers to just one. He took the heart switch and cashed 2 top spades and tried to ruff his small spade. This was over-ruffed by South, but that was effectively 2 losers going on 1 trick and so 10 tricks were made. The same mistake was not made at the other table and declarer had to go down. A diamond lead was needed, but North should have led the queen.

The rest of the first half was just a case of bits and pieces and Agate were 11 imps up at half-time. However, Amethyst fought back and scored 13 unanswered imps in the next 5 boards. Board 12 did the most damage. The contract was 4ª which can be defeated immediately by the lead of a club to the ace, a club ruff followed by the queen of diamonds through the king. Singleton leads are often very effective.

However, it was board 15 which clinched the match for Agate :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª A43

¨ J8

§ KQ98753

West East

ª Q98 ª K75

¨ 10753 ¨ A62

§ J § 106

South

ª J1062

¨ KQ94

§ A42

4© was bid at one table and 5§ at the other, and both went down, Agate picking up 7 imps. This is the type of thing that can happen when both pairs at the table have a 10-card fit. The ‘Law’ sometimes breaks down. On this deal, the total number of tricks (TNT) in this case is 20, i.e. 2x10-card fits. Therefore, it is very likely that one of the 2 pairs should be able to make game. But, N/S can make 10 tricks in a club contract and E/W can only make 8 in hearts, 2 tricks short of what the TNT suggests is possible.

This hand is a freak. If I was East, I would have raised partner to 4© at my first opportunity. The reason for that is that, if we do not hold the balance of points, we have made it as difficult as possible for the opponents to find their game, if they have one. However, nobody has game on this hand but, at the vulnerability, the odds are in our favour and, even if we are doubled, the sacrifice would be a good one when they do have game on. And, if they do not double, we should do well on the board. Also, there is very good chance that 4© will push them to 5§ and that cannot be made, this time. But, always remember, the 5-level belongs to the opponents. If they make it, we have done our best, but if they don’t …………….

It is N/S that have the problem and have the difficult decisions to make. South opened the bidding but it was only a fairly minimum opening bid. North had 10 points and a long club suit and so, if they had held a major suit fit, they should bid the game. But 5§? That is probably a step too far and they probably should have doubled 4©.

Phoenix v The Lock-up Squad.

Phoenix won by 31 imps! They only conceded 19 imps, 12 of them on the last board. Yes, they were 43 imps ahead after 15 boards. What happened guys, did you relax on the last board? Strangely, there were 6 flat boards and the opponents scored on 4 boards. Therefore, they scored 50 imps on just 6 boards and 28 of those from just 2 boards, 13 and 15.

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª AQ4

¨ AJ54

§ 62

West East

ª 7632 ª 1098

¨ 1087 ¨ 6

§ A54 § Q109873

South

ª KJ5

¨ KQ932

§ KJ

Tim Evans and Chris Park had a short, simple bit effective auction : 1NT-3NT. East led a small club and Tim inserted the jack which forced the ace from West. Tim now had 9 tricks on top and he wasted no time cashing them.

At the other table the auction was the same, but East choose to lead the top of an interior sequence, i.e. the 10 of clubs. Declarer still has to mentally toss a coin, does he play the jack of the king. He chose the king and lost the first 9 tricks.

I have reported on board 15 earlier in this report but Tim and Chris added something different to that. They were allowed a free run in the auction, which was surprising, and they ended in 5§ which really should not make. However, ‘it is not over until the fat lady sings’ according to Will Smith. A trump was led and Tim took that and led the jack of diamonds. Luckily, East took it and led another trump. Tim immediately discarded his losing heart on the 3^rd round of diamonds and set about the spades, leading the jack. The jack ran to the king and another spade was led, the queen forcing Tim’s ace. He crossed to dummy with a trump and ruffed dummy’s last diamond. Tim was left with a small spade and 3 trumps and West held the master spade and both opponents held hearts. to cut a long story short, Tim led trumps out and West discarded his master spade and kept the ace of hearts. Tim’s remaining spade took the last trick.

Emerald v Reece.

Unfortunately, Emerald had a really bad day at the office. They only made a plus score on 1 board. The problems started on board 1. 4ª was bid at both tables but it should not make. There are a couple of ways of defeating this contract. Andy Higginson and Chris Kennedy were on the right track when they started by leading trumps. Unfortunately, when they had the opportunity to lead the 3^rd round of trumps, they didn’t leaving declarer with an extra entry to dummy for later in the play so that the clubs could be developed and hearts discarded. They could, of course have cashed 2 heart winners at tricks 1 and 2 and defeated the contract out of hand, but they also missed their second chance.

Board 2 was also a big problem. The opponents at one table bid 4H and made it on similar lines to how Ralph Parish played it for Agate. But Emerald tried 3NT at the other table and that was always going to be an uphill battle. He diamond soon defeated that contract. Most of the rest of the match was a matter of small (ish) losses in part-score battles but board 9 was an 11 imp loss.

Board 9 North

E/W vul.

Dealer North ª A862

¨ QJ106

§ A54

West East

ª 54 ª Q

¨ A94 ¨ K52

§ KQ976 § J1083

South

ª KJ10973

¨ 873

§ 2

The auctions started in a similar way at both tables :-

West North East South

Pass 1© 2ª

3§ 4ª ?

At this point, Emerald decided to double 4ª. At the other table, Reece decided to try 5§. 5§ was successful and 4ª doubled was only 1 down. This is a difficult hand and this is a difficult decision. There was another hand earlier that was similar to this one and some of the same principles apply but this one is more difficult. Sometimes, you just have to guess.

NTL match 2.

Agate and Emerald both had decent wins this week.

Agate v North South.

The first half in the Agate match, had 4 flat boards and seemed to be quite tight. In fact, the scores were tied at half-time, 11 imps to both teams. However, there were 2 major swings, one for both teams. We lost 7 imps on Board 1 when Noel and I decided not to bid 3NT when the spades were wide open but, at the other table, our opponents bid 3NT but a heart was led and declarer made the first 11 tricks. A little unlucky really, but 5¨ does make so I suppose we deserved it.

We made 9 tricks on Board 8 to even the scores at half-time. In this case, 5¨ was on for N/S but it was not bid at our table. But Jeff Orton made no mistake and was even doubled which was a bit of a bonus.

Board 10 was slightly strange :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª 97432

¨ 52

§ KQ4

West East

ª A1085 ª 6

¨ KJ1073 ¨ AQ64

§ 82 § 653

South

ª KQJ

¨ 98

§ AJ1097

West North East South

1© 2§

Double 3§ All pass

This seemed like a fairly innocuous auction and the play was easy with 5 club tricks, 2 spades and 2 hearts. I suppose we were warned off the spade suit when West doubled which, presumably, showed diamonds and spades. Not so at the other table :-

West North East South

pass 1§

1¨ 1ª pass 2¨

Pass 3ª pass 4ª

All pass.

East did not think that his 9-count was worth an opening bid and so South opened the bidding with 1§. West overcalled with 1¨ giving North an opportunity to show his spades. With a 15-count, South decided that he was strong enough for an Unassuming Cue Bid (UCB) but North certainly was not strong enough to invite game, as he did. When the trumps split badly, 4ª was never going to make and that was a useful 5 imp swing in our favour.

We picked up another 4 imps on board 12 when 4© was bid at our table by the opponents and we took it 1 down by ‘safe’ defence. I led the king of diamonds asking Noel for the count. When he showed a doubleton, I was able to give him a ruff and had to collect another trick later to kill the contract. At the other table, 1© just made. It is worth looking at but my reports are always too long, so I leave it to you. It is worth looking at.

The only other board worth looking at was board 15 :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª A98753

¨ 93

§ 106542

West East

ª 10 ª QJ2

¨ AQJ65 ¨ K

§ AQ83 § KJ97

South

ª K64

¨ 108742

West North East South

pass

1¨ 2ª 3© pass

4NT pass 5§ pass

6©

This was the auction at my table and what appeared to be a very good slam was bid in spite of Noel’s weak jump overcall. I felt that the slam was going to fail but I did not double it for fear that they might try 6NT. That fails as well, so long as we find the spade lead, but I had no way of knowing that. I led the 4 of spades praying that Noel had the ace in the suit he had bid and, when he took the ace, I just had to wait to collect my trump winner later.

I had a lot of sympathy for our opponents when I saw the result because I expected a flat board. Surely, the same contract would be found at the other table? But no, our team mates contented themselves with 4© and that was 11 more imps to us. I would hope that I would have bid the slam. It is difficult, if not impossible, to detect a 5-0 trump split in the auction and the odds are definitely in favour of the slam being successful. This is the type of slam that should be bid as there is much better than a 50-50 chance of success and we cannot afford to miss slams like that. And, as I alluded to earlier, this should have been a flat board. So, Jeff and Michael, how did you get this one right? If you have some magic method to discover that 5-0 split, I want to know about it so that I can use it.

Emerald v Read.

Emerald had a fairly convincing win. They only won by 15 imps in the end but they were never behind and the difference would have been greater except for board 15. Richard Evans and John Bloomfield tried the slam, in clubs this time, but they were disappointed when the bad splits, both in clubs and in hearts, defeated this slam and it was not bid at the other table. Unlucky guys.

They started well on the very first board :-

Board 1 North

None vul.

Dealer North ª A10876

¨ 10

§ J976

West East

ª 2 ª Q53

¨ AQ9872 ¨ K63

§ A52 § 1043

South

ª KJ94

¨ J54

§ KQ8

The Read pair has a straightforward auction, i.e. 1NT-3NT, but this had to go down when John lead the 4 of spades and Richard ensured that they did not block the spades.

Pauline and Con Hanson had a more technical auction :-

West North East South

Pass 1NT pass

2§ pass 2© pass

3¨ All pass

When Con’s Stayman enquiry showed that they only had 3 or 4 spades between them, he signed off in 3¨. 5¨ always makes but that is not so easy to bid and a 5 imp pick up is not to be sneezed at.

Pauline and Con did well again on board 4 bidding and making 5§. At the other table, Richard opened the bidding with a weak 2¨ and John raised to 3¨. strangely, their opponents did not enter the auction and so Richard went 1 down for another 11 imps in the bag.

Board 7 was amusing :-

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª K1087

¨ KJ3

§ KJ6

West East

ª J5 ª AQ632

¨ AQ10 ¨ 9654

§ AQ75 § 10843

South

ª 94

¨ 872

§ 92

West opened with 1© and Richard overcalled with 1NT. When East passed this, John had nowhere to go. He would, presumably, have liked to sign off in hearts, but that hardly looked right when hearts had been bid on his left. So, Richard had to declare 1NT. He scrambled 3 tricks for -400 and he must have expected a poor score, but this was the auction at the other table :-

West North East South

pass

1§ 1NT 2§ 2©

Pass pass 2ª pass

3NT double 4§ pass

Double all pass

This is the sort of auction that can happen when each pair has one partner with a good hand and the other with a poor hand. Nobody can be sure who can make what. Con played this contract rather well. He had a good idea where everything was from the bidding and so he did not bother with trying to draw trumps or to take any finesses, except for the spade finesse which was likely to make on the bidding. The lead of the ace of hearts was a big help and he made the most of that taking 2 discards on the hearts early in the play, and then taking the spade finesse. After that, he took a couple of ruffs and came to 10 tricks for +710 and a 7 imp pick-up.

They picked up another 5 imps on board 10 when N/S tried that 4ª contract that had no chance. Then, Richard made one of the luckiest game contracts on board 12. 4© has no chance on decent defence. If South begins with the king and ace of diamonds, as I did, 4© has no chance at all. However, South led the king of spades, but the contract was still seemingly doomed to failure. But, at trick 10, South was on lead with the ace of diamonds and he held K104 of clubs and the 8 of diamonds. Declarer is known to hold the master diamond and the defence already had 3 tricks in the bag. Declarer held the 7 of hearts, jack of diamonds and AJ of clubs. South led the 4 of clubs to give Richard his contract! South just has to exit with the 8 of diamonds and Richard would have to lose a club.

After that, there was just that bad slam on board 15 and Emerald ended up winning by 15 imps. Well done everyone.

Amethyst v Young Turks.

Amethyst lost by just 10 imps and you would think that that would have been a close match. However, Amethyst had not scored any imps at all until board 14 and they were 32 imps behind at that point. Young Turks had had some luck along the way. For example, they played in 3NT on board 12 and it is unbeatable because South cannot get North into the lead to cash his spades. But it is a better contract than the more common 4© or a 3© part-score and so, perhaps they deserved their luck. Mostly, they had just steadily accumulated imps scoring on 10 of the first 14 boards, the other 4 being flat.

Amethyst scored 22 imps in the last 3 boards. On board 14, Bill and John tried 3NT and, surprisingly, North led a heart rather than lead his spade suit which his partner had raised in the auction. The spade lead leaves declarer with just 8 tricks and he cannot make any more without help from the defenders. The opponents in the other room tried 5§ but that has to go 1 down.

And on board 15, the opponents tried that 6© contract and Amethyst settled for the game. The last board gained them an over trick imp but it was too little too late.

Phoenix v Slater.

These were very swingy boards. It was very easy to make the wrong decision, often for all the right reasons, and it is difficult to give any advice on how to do better next time. Board 1 was a typical example. Both teams bid 3NT and the lead was vital. A spade lead breaks the contract, so long as the defenders do not block the suit, but any other lead allows declarer to take the first 11 tricks. Slater got it right and Phoenix got it wrong but there was no indication as to which lead was the correct one. Some would say that South should lead 4^th best, but many experts would not make that lead from a broken 4-card suit with a 4333 hand.

Slater slipped up on board 2. Admittedly, if you are a point-count advocate, the game appears to be very tight but it cannot be beaten. But board 4 is instructive :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª J53

¨ KJ10742

§ 32

West East

ª A108 ª K74

¨ ¨ AQ6

§ J10964 § KQ875

South

ª Q962

¨ 9853

§ A

West North East South

1© pass 3§ pass

4NT pass 5ª pass

6§ all pass

It is never a good idea to play in a slam with 2 cashable aces missing, and Blackwood is seldom of much use when you hold a void. Also, there is only one response that will allow you to stop below slam when your suit is clubs. There has to be a better way.

This particular hand can be dealt with quite easily when the opponents do not enter the auction. After the 3§ response, West knows that he wants to play in game or in slam, but Blackwood is not going to help. I would bid 4¨ which is a splinter raise showing good support for responder’s suit and a singleton or void in diamonds. This bid tells East all he needs to know. Because the only ace that East holds is in West’s short suit, he must sign off in 5§ and West has no reason to bid on.

After that, it was just a case of bits and pieces here and there until board 15 when Jenny and Voelker tried the slam. Unlucky.

Match v Northants.

After our performance against Norfolk last time, the A team reverted to type and received quite a thrashing. I was more to blame than most and Noel and I were at the bottom of the cross-imps list, which is a first for me. Sorry folks. However, it was not all bad news and Jeff Orton and Michael Sherer had a pretty good card. Well done guys.

We started badly scoring only 8 imps on the first 8 boards and conceding 32! The first bad board was board 6 :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª A107

¨ 1072

§ 953

West East

ª KJ9852 ª 43

¨ Q9843 ¨ K

§ 8 § AQ1062

South

ª Q6

¨ AJ65

§ KJ74

West North East South

Pass 1© pass

1NT pass 3§ pass

3ª all pass

1NT was alerted by Noel but he had forgotten this part of the system. Noel has graciously agreed to learn my strong club system and he has done very well in the time he has had so far, and this part of the system can be confusing. If my opening bid had been 1ª, then 1NT is an artificial forcing bid which can be made on 3 different hand types, i.e. (a) a value raise, (b) a weak hand with a long suit, or (c) a hand that will play better in any suit except spades. However, over a 1© opening bid, 1ª fulfils that role and 1NT replaces the natural 1ª response. There are logical technical reasons for this, but I will not go into that now.

As Noel thought that I had the artificial force, he jumped to 3§ to show his 5-5 shape and all I could do was rebid the spades and hope he would pass. He did but I could not make 9 tricks. This was only a part score hand, but it was 5 imps away.

Board 6 was worse as we had minus scores at all 4 tables. Where East opened with 1NT, it was passed out and declarer could only come to 5 tricks for -200. At the other tables N/S ended up in 2ª for -50. That is a total of -500 and 11 imps away. At each table, the auction panned out in a way that would not have been expected. It really depended on the system that we were playing and we would all probably do it the same way next time and expect a better result.

Board 8 was another mistake at my table. We had the balance of power and a known 6-2 heart fit. But we chose to double 4ª instead of bidding on to 5© which makes.

We actually won the 2^nd quarter by 4 imps. There were 2 major swings, one each way. On board 12, we lost 16 imps when the defenders chose to under lead the king of spades from Kxx. This gave our opponents the extra trick needed whereas, when we declared the same contracts, a safer lead was selected. At both tables, the auctions were not exactly confident. It would seem that declarer had little to spare. This is not the time for brave leads, it is a time not to give anything away.

However, we had picked up 14 imps on board 10 when Mark and Caroline bid and made 3NT. But, again, this was down to the lead which gave Mark 3 spade tricks when he might only make 2 if he had to lead them himself. A diamond lead would have killed the contract. We also received a bit of help at another table :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª 10842

¨ J3

§ 742

West East

ª AQ93 ª J5

¨ A72 ¨ 865

§ QJ85 § AK9

South

ª K76

¨ KQ1094

§ 1063

West North East South

1© 2¨

2ª pass 3§ pass

4§ pass 4ª all pass

This seems like a very strange auction to me. Obviously, East believed that the 2¨ bid must show 5 diamonds at least. If that is the case, then West should have doubled to show the black suits and probably only 4 spades. This went 4 down vulnerable for +400.

We picked up 8 more imps on the last few boards of the 1^st half but that still left us 20 imps behind. We started the second half quite well. Board 17 is interesting because game is possible for N/S in either minor and for E/W in either major. Noel and I engaged in a fairly competitive auction but, when our opponents stopped in 3ª, I passed in fear of pushing them into game. After all, 5 of a minor only makes if declarer finesses in diamonds so I am happy with that decision. Game was made at all the other 3 tables giving us a 7 imp pick up.

We picked up another 11 imps on board 19 when one of the opposition pairs tried for 6ª and had to go down whereas game was bid and made at all the other tables. But it went badly after that. Game was bid only once on board 20, but that was done by one of the opposition pairs, and they made it. We clawed some back on board 27 when Jeff and Michael bid and made 6ª when everyone else played in 4ª only. But that was it, things got worse from then on and we ended up losing by 64 imps.

The B team match was certainly ‘a game of 2 halves’. They started well when good defence by Jenny and Voelker defeated 4ª on board 1 when game was made at the other 3 tables. But they only scored another 6 by the end of the 1^st quarter whereas Northants scored 31! Board 3 requires some comment :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª

¨ KQJ9

§ KJ65

West East

ª 10964 ª AKQJ52

¨ 10854 ¨ A6

§ Q82 § 973

South

ª 873

¨ 732

§ A104

West North East South

pass

pass 1© 1ª pass

2ª double pass 3©

Pass pass 4ª all pass

Tim Evans and David Matthews were N/S on this board and I do not want to be too critical because they are not an established partnership and they played well. However, this is the type of auction that occurs a lot and it is well worth thinking it through and coming up with an understanding with your partner. I have written quite a lot about the need for having pre-emptive, as well as value, raises of partner’s opening bid of 1 of a major. As you are probably aware by now, I am an advocate of 5-card majors and so, when Tim’s 1© was overcalled with 1ª, David could have raised to 3© immediately. This should not be misunderstood because a value raise could go via 2NT or an Unassuming Cue Bid, whichever you prefer. This might prevent West raising his partner’s spade suit but, even if West manages to bid 3ª, North is in a much better position to compete further, even at the 4- or 5-level.

Some would say that 4ª should have been doubled and, as E/W were vulnerable and N/S were not, that would have scored well. However, that is very difficult to predict in the auction. The points are evenly divided between the 2 pairs and distribution is a little wild. Also, the North hand looks better suited to play than defence and it is obvious that North needs very little in South’s hand to make 4©, and possibly 5©, which makes because the club finesse works.

At teams, what we have to try to avoid is the double game swing, i.e. game bid and made by your opponents, N/S at 1 table and E/W at the other. It is not clear during the auction who has the balance of strength on this board. In fact, in terms of point-count, nobody has. But it is fairly clear that someone might well have game on and, if you are not vulnerable, you have to be prepared to take out a little insurance against the game swing and make sure that you bid your game. Of course, it is never as simple as that, but it is a reasonable guide to such auctions.

14 imps were lost on board 10 when only one pair found 3NT, but they got 13 back on board on board 11. But that was the end of the good news in the 3^rd quarter and they trailed by 23 imps. Another 11 imps drifted away when Pauline and Con Hanson tried the ill fated 6NT on board 19 and so the deficit was then 35 imps! But then followed a remarkable come-back. On board 20, Jenny and Norbert found 3NT and made it when nobody else could. They picked up another 5 imps on board 21 which was all about finding the club fit and staying out of 1NT which Tim and David neatly defeated.

Another 8 imps were won on board 22 :-

Board 22 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª AK86

¨ AQ2

§ 95

West East

ª Q42 ª 75

¨ 1084 ¨ 3

§ QJ1073 § AK82

South

ª J1093

¨ KJ9765

§ 64

West North East South

1© pass

1NT pass 2§ 2¨

2© 3¨ 4© pass

Pass double all pass

This was a strange auction and I am not sure that I would have been brave enough to double 4©. Perhaps Pauline expected a little more from Con’s 2¨ overcall. However, you cannot argue with success, but it still had to be defeated. Pauline backed up her decision to double with steady defence giving nothing away and taking her king of hearts at a safe moment. There are always 4 losers but it would be easy to go wrong in the defence.

Another 13 imps rolled in when one of the Northants pairs missed the cold slam on board 23. At the end of the 3^rd quarter, our B team were just 6 imps behind. But then they picked up 11 imps on boards 26 and 27. Pauline and Con were the only 1 of the 3 pairs that bid the slam on board 27. Well done folks. This gave the B team a useful lead but they lost it all back again on the next 3 boards. But, with gains of 10 imps and 13 imps on boards 31 and 32, they emerged the winners by 19 imps. However, board 13 was rather lucky. Pauline and Con rejected the more normal contract of 4ª, which really should not make, but did in some matches, but not this one. 3NT has no chance at all if North had led his clubs out from the top. When he led his 5^th best club, Con rose with dummy’s queen and cashed the 1^st 9 tricks.

Jenny and Norbert and Andy Higginson and Chris Kennedy had good cards but everyone played their part. These 32 boards were very ‘swingy’. If you made the wrong decision or were a little unlucky, it was easy to suffer badly and this is reflected in the way this match played out, but the B team coped with it all very well to emerge deserved winners. Andy and Chris gave us all a lesson here. They ended up with a good score mainly by bidding and playing conservatively and not trying to be too clever, however, I do not know how they avoided being doubled in 2© on board 10. 4-2 trump fits are rarely successful. They might have been able to escape to 3¨ but that would have been 2 down doubled vulnerable anyway. But this does not detract from what was otherwise a good card.

Unfortunately, the C team suffered a small defeat just losing by 9 imps. It did not start very well when 4ª was bid at all 4 tables but was only made once, by Northants, on board 1. The lead was the same at all 4 tables which meant that declarer was spared the club lead that would make the contract too difficult. But, on the diamond lead, the contract should make. The 10 of diamonds was led and everyone covered it automatically with the jack! The diamond suit was distributed like this :-

KJ82 A3

1097654

If we assume that the 10 of diamonds is likely to be South’s highest club, which it will be if the opponents are using standard leads, what is the point of covering it with the jack? Are you actually going to finesse on the next round? I think not. Try playing the 2 and congratulate yourself when North has to play his singleton queen so allowing the contract to be made.

Board 3 caused difficulties in all the matches and is covered earlier in this document, but the C team suffered when they failed to double 4ª whereas it was doubled when Suffolk bid it. But a ‘useful’ pick-up was achieved when the opponents at Pam Pope and Josh Santinelli-Clarke’s table bid 3NT and Josh doubled it. He then found the good lead of the King of spades and that was 7 down for +2,000 to the good guys. Why on Earth did West not take it out into 4¨? It still goes at least 3 down, but that is better than 7 down.

Another 10 imps disappeared when a Suffolk pair ended up in a 4-2 fit on board 10. There was some justification for this. South opened 1NT and North, with a very poor hand but with 4 cards in both majors, decided to try to improve the contract by using Stayman. Unfortunately, South had to respond with 2¨ and passed when North tried 2©, obviously hoping that North had 5 hearts and 4 spades.

There are various ways of looking at this problem. Some have an understanding that rescue operations do not begin until 1NT has been doubled, unless responder has a 5-card suit. Others agree that the sequence above shows a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors and so South can convert 2© to 2ª so that you play in the 4-3 fit instead of the 4-2 fit. With a weak hand and 5-4 in the majors, transfer to the 5-card suit. The choice is yours but an agreement is necessary to avoid similar mistakes.

Another 6 imps were lost on board 11 but, more importantly, 17 were lost on board 13.

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª 103

¨ KQJ4

§ KQ10865

West East

ª A72 ª Q4

¨ A10987 ¨ 532

§ J42 § 973

South

ª KJ9865

¨ 6

§ A

West North East South

1§ pass 1ª

2¨ double pass 2©

pass 2NT pass 3©

Pass 3NT all pass

I have to say that I do not agree with John Heath’s decision to play in 3NT when responder had shown at least 5-5 in the majors and could be quite weak. I would have corrected 3© to 3ª, but then, if I had been in the South seat, I would have taken 3NT out into 4ª. Weak 2-suiters usually play better in one of the weaker hand’s 2 suits and there are often entry problems in 3NT. But, again, John and Dennis are another untried partnership and I am very grateful for their support.

So, at half-time, the C team was losing by 33 imps but they were able to reduce the deficit considerably in the second half. Another 7 imps were lost on board 17 but were recovered on board 18. In fact, 22 imps were recovered on the next 2 boards. On board 19, one Northants pair tried 6ª and the 4-1 trump split defeated their attempt. Game was bid and made at the other 3 tables. On board 20, Pam and Josh found the 3NT contract that seemed so difficult to find at other tables and in other matches. Well done folks.

After that, there were a few part-score exchanges which did not significantly change the score very much but their fate was sealed on board 28. John and Dennis found themselves in 4© which was a little pushy, but I am sure that they did not expect the devastation that ensued. South doubled and the contract was 3 down for -500. That was another 11 imps away and they could not recover from that in the remaining boards.

This was a valiant effort and deserved better. It is always the C team that struggles the most when we are missing some of our more experienced players as was the case this time. As mentioned earlier John and Dennis are not an established partnership and Nick and Sarah Farr only play occasionally for the County. Thank you all for your efforts.

The next match is on 2/3/25 and is the final match of the season. It is against our other next-door neighbour, Essex. It would be nice to finish with another win so, please, put the date in your diary and try to keep it free.

NTL match 1.

And so, a new season begins. Agate did not start too well managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This was a close match but was lost on one board, board 12. But I will come to that at the appropriate moment.

Agate v Young Turks.

Board 1 was flat but we lost 10 imps on board 2 when 3NT made in one room and not in the other and it was the lead that caused it to fail. There was nothing that we could do. But we struck back on the next 2 boards. At my table, South opened with 3§ and played there. At the other table, David Morran opened with 1§ and Jeff Orton ended up in 3NT. East led a spade into Jeff’s AQ tenace and so he had 9 tricks on top.

On board 4, we did rather better :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª A3

¨ AK10943

§ J9

West East

ª J8542 ª Q

¨ 5 ¨ 76

§ KQ53 § A1076

South

ª K10976

¨ QJ82

§ 842

At our table, North opened the bidding with a rather strange 1NT opening bid. Noel put in a 2© overcall showing 5+ hearts and a 4+ card minor. This seemed to be enough to put the opponents off. South did try a 2ª bid but that left North with a problem and so he tried 2NT hoping that South could raise to game, but South passed. On Noel’s heart lead, opener had 9 top tricks. Even a club lead would not have helped because they split 4-4.

At the other table, Jeff opened with 1¨. The auction became rather competitive but Jeff ended up in 5¨ which was cold on any lead, including a club.

3 flat boards followed but our opponents were able to square the scores on board 8 just before the interval. Whereas our opponents in the other room were able to bid 3NT, Noel and I were a bit reticent. I had a minimum opening bid and a rather moth-eaten 6-card diamond suit. Noel had a 12-count and so, although he managed to bid 2NT, I did not think that my hand was good enough. I should have bid it at teams, but we were still in the match as the scores were tied.

The opponents scored a couple of over trick imps on board 9 which was followed by 2 flat boards. Then board 12 reared it’s ugly head :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª J76

¨ A654

§ QJ10

West East

ª A10985 ª Q32

¨ K97 ¨ Q103

§ 9 § 86532

South

ª K4

¨ J82

§ AK7

I opened the West hand with 1ª, Noel gave me a pre-emptive raise to 2ª, South doubled and, as Noel was weak, I assumed that the opponents had something good on and so I re-raised to 3ª. We had 17 points between us and so I could afford to be 2 down if everything went wrong, or so it seemed.

I enjoyed playing this one although I was not sure how to play it to start with. The lead was a club, and I ruffed the second round. This lead put me on the right track because I decided not to try to draw trumps because continued club forces could cause me to lose trump control. So, I led the king of hearts which was taken with the ace and a second heart was led. I discarded a diamond on this trick and a club on the next round. I led a diamond to the queen which held the trick, and I then led the 10 taken with the ace. Another diamond was led and so I discarded a club on it and the king won. I then led my last heart which was ruffed by North and I over ruffed with the queen. Having only trumps left in my own hand, I led one from dummy inserting the 8 from hand. North won this and whatever he led, I would make the remaining tricks. 9 tricks made.

I was expecting a decent score because the opponents had the balance of strength, but things did not go so well in the other room. The auction started in the same way, but West did not re-raise as I did, and Jeff and David were left to their own devices. There appears to be a passable fit in hearts, but West held KQJ5 in hearts and he doubled 3©. David retreated to 4¨ but that was even worse and the result was -1100 or 14 imps away. The only way that North/South have any chance of a plus score is to play in no trumps but there is no way that they could make 3NT and so the attempts at my table to shut them out were wasted although I would certainly do it again because such tactics are usually more successful than this.

The match was virtually over now but we did not know it at the time. 2 more flat boards followed but then we had a bit of luck on board 15. The hand does not appear to be quite good enough for 4© and so Noel and I correctly stopped in 3©. I made this and I played it in a way that I considered safe for 9 tricks. Our opponents in the other room went on to 4© and went one down. However, I was a little cross with myself because I think that I could make 10 tricks if I had played it differently. This was the deal :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª 109872

¨ K64

§ K1086

West East

ª 5 ª AKQJ4

¨ AJ83 ¨ Q5

§ J72 § A54

South

ª 63

¨ 10972

§ Q93

The lead was the 10 of spades and I took that with the ace and led the king to discard a club. I then led the queen and South ruffed in with the 8. If I had needed 10 tricks, I would have discarded another club on this trick. South is likely to lead a diamond at this point and I would run that towards my queen. North would take this and would probably lead another diamond. I now have the entries to play the trumps from dummy and I would lose just a ruff, the ace of hearts and the king of diamonds.

We did even better on board 16 but, I must admit, we did not deserve it. I forgot a part of my own bidding system. Noel, who is quite new to the system, got it right but I had a mental block (I blame it on my age). Noel believed that I had a 1-suited hand with a 6-card major, which is what I should have had. We ended up in 3ª down one. Luckily, our opponents at the other table ended up in 4ª, down 4!

But in spite of these last 2 boards, we still lost by 4 imps. It could have been worse.

Emerald v Déjà Vu.

Emerald had a good win. The first swing occurred on board 3. Richard Evans and John Bloomfield found the 3NT contract and received the hoped for spade lead. On any other lead the contract should fail and East could have chosen to lead from either major suit, but the same thing happened in the Agate match.

They lost an over trick imp on board 4 but then a game was missed on board 5 leaving them a couple of imps behind. Board 4 should always be played in 4©. North opened with a 2¨ bid which I assume was a Multi-2¨ bid. East passed and I believe that this is where the auction went wrong. I would have overcalled immediately with 2©. It should not be difficult to find 4© after this start to the auction.

A couple of flat boards followed and then a useful 5 imp pick-up occurred on board 8. The opponents reached 3NT and Richard Evans led from his 6-card spade suit. The game was possible, but declarer decided to finesse in the diamond suit and so he had to go 1 down. At the other table, Andy and Chris stopped in 3¨ for a well-earned swing.

Board 9 was flat but Andy and Chris did well on board 10. When I was West, I failed to bid 4ª and was a bit cross with myself, but the spade fit was only a 5-2 fit and I chickened out. Andy had no such inhibitions. Chris began with a weak 2¨ opening bid, South bid 2© and Andy just jumped to 4ª! I doubt that any expert would advocate this style of bidding but it certainly worked this time. Well done Andy.

2 flat boards followed but then the opponents won an over trick on board 14 and then scored 10 imps on board 15. The contract at both tables was the same, 4©. Emerald went one down but Déjà vu made it. If you want to know how to play this one, see my description earlier in this document in the Agate report or look at the play at the other table. In both cases, on the 3^rd spade lead, declarer discarded a club when he could have ruffed it. This was a ploy to ensure that trump control was not lost.

Emerald were winning when the last board hit the table but they stretched the lead with a fortunate pick-up on the last board. They were able to make a part-score at both tables but 3ª was only made because the opponents could not find their heart ruff. Well played by all 4 players.

Phoenix v Reece.

Phoenix and Amethyst did not fare so well. Phoenix had a reasonable start picking up 10 imps in board 2 when the opponents chose the inferior 4ª game whereas Phoenix bid and made 3NT at the other table. Unfortunately, they gave most of it back on board 3. Chris Park decided to pre-empt with the South hand just as happened at my table. It is virtually impossible to find 3NT from that start and, although 3NT depends on the lead, it is a good game to be in at teams. The experts would say that, with 10 points and 9 of them outside of the long suit, this hand is not a very good pre-empt. I would open with 1§ if playing a natural system.

The next 2 boards lost a couple of over trick imps but 6 more imps were lost when the opponents found a making part-score at both tables. I feel that Tim Evans was a little timid. Chris opened the bidding with 1ª which was doubled on his left. Tim passed at this point with a 9-count. It is not the best 9-count I have ever seen but it did mean that he knew that he had the balance of strength and, therefore, he should compete. How you compete depends on your system. 2¨ is possible or redouble might be your choice. Either are better than pass. 2¨ would probably work out best because Chris would be able to bid 3¨ over 3§.

But, Phoenix got the 6 imps back on board 8 squaring things at half-time. This board is a difficult 3NT contract for East/West but it makes if declarer plays for a 2-2 split of the outstanding diamonds. But Chris and Tim made life difficult for their opponents to bid it. The game is marginal and so, if your opponents are competing, you are almost bound to be a bit conservative in the auction. We need to be able to compete whenever our hands are suitable.

Unfortunately, things went South in the last quarter of the match. Phoenix had a 1 imp lead when board 13 hit the table. 3NT is impossible if it is defended properly. I made it but it was due to poor defence. The problem that declarer has is that he only has 8 tricks on top and, after the opening diamond leads, as soon as declarer looses the lead, he should go down so long as North holds on to his diamond winners and the ace of spades. North is worried that he would give the contract away if he bares his king of hearts, but if declarer comes down to the bare queen of hearts, North has to risk baring his king hoping that South holds the jack. This cannot hurt because the contract is not going down any other way.

Things got worse on board 15. This is a difficult 4© contract which I have described earlier in this document. There is no shame in going down in this one but the opponents managed to make 11 tricks! This can easily be countered by ensuring that either the 10 or 9 of trumps is covered. In fact, put the ace up at trick 1 or 2 and lead a club. 5© cannot make then.

So, after a tight 1^st half, Phoenix lost by 25 imps. But those 2 big swings in the second half were a little unlucky.

Amethyst v The Lock-up Squad.

Amethyst started very well and were 19 imps up by board 6. Unfortunately, they lost 32 imps in the next 3 boards. They scored 7 imps in the next 3 boards to put them just 6 imps behind but then they lost another 20 imps in the last 4 boards. However, even their 6 imp swing on board 6 was rather lucky. An early diamond lead would have killed the 2NT contract. The 10 imp gain on board 2 was also a little fortunate because the wrong contract was selected by the opponents.

Board 8 was a little unlucky. Bill Tweddle was declarer in 3NT from West. He chose to finesse in diamonds instead of going for a 2-2 split. On another day, he would have been right. Board 7 was strange. Mark Honess opened the South hand with 1¨ and Caroline responded with 2NT, which Mark passed. Surely, opposite an opening bid, the North hand is worth 3NT? Or, perhaps it may have been correct to make some other forcing bid. In any case, I think that it was important to ensure that game was reached.

However, board 9 was very poor. East opened with a strong 1NT bid and Mark, with his poor 7-count, doubled. Presumably, the double showed clubs, but this is not the type of hand to be messing with a strong 1NT. The hand was a misfit and Mark ended up in 3§ doubled -6! Such tactics might be worth a go at pairs when you are in need of a good score, but not at this level at teams.

Board 13 was a bit unlucky. Bill Tweddle found himself in the popular contract of 3NT but North made no mistake baring her king of hearts and holding on to 2 diamond winners to go with the ace of spades to defeat the game.

This was not their finest hour, but they are all better players than that and they should do better next time.

NTL Match 12.

This week, Emerald were comprehensively beaten but Phoenix and Amethyst had good wins and Agate beat Bravehearts by 45 imps to 9! Bravehearts were in 2^nd place before this match and so nobody was more surprised than we were. There was some luck involved but it was not all luck, but they were not on form and we did not seem to be able to do too much wrong.

The fireworks started on the very first hand :-

Board 1 North

None vul.

Dealer North ª J854

¨ AJ32

§ A865

West East

ª AQ103 ª K

¨ 4 ¨ KQ10965

§ KQ972 § 4

South

ª 9762

¨ 87

§ J103

At my table, Ralph was East and he had a powerful hand. We had a fairly natural auction as far as 4©. Ralph had every right to believe that a slam would be good and all he really needed was a reasonable trump split and 2 aces. Therefore, he asked for controls and I gave him 3. Therefore, I could not hold the necessary 2 aces and so we ended up in 5©, which was high enough.

However, this is where the luck came in. Ralph received a spade lead and he made no mistake. He took the ace felling his own singleton king and discarded the 4 of clubs on the queen. He then led dummy’s singleton diamond and North ducked it. This would normally be good play because it rarely pays to relinquish your control card in opener’s best suit too early. In this case however, it meant that Ralph could play the rest of the hand as a cross ruff losing just 2 trumps at the end.

At the other table, East was in 4© and could not make it. The lead was a club to North’s ace and another followed taken in dummy with the queen. When declarer led dummy’s singleton diamond, North made no mistake taking the ace. Declarer could not escape 2 heart losers at the end for 1 down and 11 imps to the under dogs.

We lost 5 imps in the next 3 boards but then the next 2 boards gave us a big lead :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª 953

¨ Q9642

§ 942

West East

ª Q8762 ª AKJ104

¨ 10 ¨ 85

§ 87 § A653

South

¨ AKJ73

§ KQJ10

Ralph opened the bidding with 1ª, South doubles and I jumped to 4ª which was passed out. When I saw Ralph’s hand, I thought that he was going to make it, but he would need to ruff a diamond and 2 clubs for that to happen. To do that, he needed a 2-1 split of the trump suit and he got 3-0. However, it did not matter because, at the other table, the auction was the same as far as 4ª, but on the strength of David Wilson’s take-out double, he decided to try 5¨. He made 12 tricks when the opponents did not find the heart lead. That was another 11 imps to the good guys and this swing was well earned by good bidding in both rooms.

Board 6 was another large slice of luck :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª AQJ42

¨ KQJ4

§ 53

West East

ª K97 ª 10863

¨ 73 ¨ 1095

§ A64 § 10972

South

ª 5

¨ A862

§ KQJ8

I think that a wheel must have come off in their auction because they ended up in 6NT which should not have a prayer and they really deserved to lose imps on the hand. However, 6¨ is unbeatable. Unfortunately, Ralph made an error in the defence and, if declarer had spotted it, he would have made 6NT.

I started with the jack of hearts to Ralph’s king and declarer’s ace. Declarer led a club which I took with the ace and continued with another heart. Declarer then played 4 rounds of diamonds and, on the 4^th round of diamonds, Ralph discarded a club. This gave declarer 3 club tricks in stead of just 2 but, worst of all, it gave declarer the ability to squeeze me. On the 3 remaining club tricks, I played my last club and I had to hope that declarer had not spotted the squeeze and so I discarded both my heart winners. At the end, I held K97 of spades, dummy had AQJ of spades and declarer had the 5 of spade and the 6 and 4 of hearts. The hearts were winners, but declarer did not know it and he led his spade. I had to take a trick with the king at trick 13.

That was the end of it really. In the second half, the boards were just part-score battles and so we expected to finish in front, but we were able to score another 13 imps to their 4 and so we did deserve to win this one.

Phoenix beat Dianthus by 4 imps to 17. They only really had one bad board :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª A

¨ QJ43

§ 10

West East

ª 10973 ª K86

¨ 92 ¨ A10875

§ KJ98742 § 65

South

ª KQ542

¨ K6

§ AQ3

The auction by the Phoenix pair was :-

North South

2¨ 2©

3© 4©

I would have thought that South had sufficient strength to make a slam try of some kind after partner had showed a strong hand. They play that 2¨ shows 8 playing tricks and, although the North hand is probably a minimum for that, South is certainly strong enough to move towards slam. In fact, I think that RKCB would be sufficient in this case, rather than signing off in 4©. A response showing 3 key cards would be enough, surely.

We are not very good at bidding slams. Several of our NTL matches that we lost could have been won if our slam bidding had been better. I have written an article about slam bidding that should be downloaded on the County website under ‘Raising the bar’. It offers a few suggestions that might help but the key feature in many of the deals that have caused us problems have been due to pairs underestimating their strength. I believe that this is what happened here, but if South is correct to sign off in game on the deal above, then something is wrong somewhere else.

However, it was a fine win. On 3 occasions, they bid easily to the correct game and their opponents in the other room stopped in game. They were much better than their opponents in all departments, except for that slam.

Amethyst won by 15 imps which was better than it sounded when they were 18 imps after 10 boards, and it would have been worse except for board 3 when the opponents injudiciously doubled 3§ but could not defeat it. The fight back started on board 11 when, this time, the opponents doubled 3¨ and could not defeat that one either. It looks to me as if they had not got their agreement right as to when a double is take-out or when it is for penalties.

Then again on board 13, they doubled 2¨ and, this time, I am sure that the double was meant for take-out but it was left in and 2¨ doubled made with 3 overtricks! We need to get our slam bidding right but they need to sort out their doubles. The final nail in the opponents’ coffin was when Paddy Lockwood and Dave Allen found themselves in an impossible game and the opponents defended it very badly. They had the sort of problem that occurs in natural systems :-

Board 14 North

None vul.

Dealer East ª QJ10

¨ QJ653

§ AJ94

West East

ª 87654 ª A2

¨ 83 ¨ AKQ9754

§ 103 § Q85

South

ª K93

¨ J106

§ K762

West East

2§

2¨ 3¨

3ª 4ª

I do not know if Paddy and Dave play just one strong bid, i.e. 2§, or if they have a method of showing a game forcing hand and have a separate bid for showing 8 playing tricks. But, looking at the auction, you could be forgiven for thinking that Dave was playing it as 8 playing tricks and Paddy thought that 2§ was forcing to game at least. If 2§ meant either 8 playing tricks or a game force, problems such as this will happen from time to time.

There is no certain game on this deal although 3NT will make unless North is on lead and has the nous to lead the jack of clubs at trick 1. Many experts playing just one strong bid, i.e. 2§, will open the East hand with 1¨. This may well be passed, as game is not there, it will come to no harm. However, there will always be the occasional hand that gets passed out at the 1-level that would have made game and so it is a matter of choice. However, I have some preference for giving up on the weak 2 in diamonds and playing 2§ as game forcing and 2¨ as 8 playing tricks, or better still, to play these 2 bids the other way around.

Emerald struggled this week and nothing they tried to do had any success. It started to go wrong on board 2 :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª A8

¨ 1083

§ K96532

West East

ª KQ1096542 ª J

¨ 652 ¨ Q974

§ Q § AJ84

South

ª 73

¨ AKJ

§ 107

West North East South

Pass 1©

4ª pass pass double

All pass

This was the auction at one table Dennis Valtisiaris making the practical jump to 4ª. From his view point, it looks as if game should be on for the opponents and so 4ª doubled -2 is a good sacrifice. I did the same thing. However, 4© does not make and so -300 should not be a good score. However, the 4ª bid is so often a good move that most people bid it but, unfortunately, Dennis’ team mates decided to try for 5©. When South doubled 4ª, North decided to take it out into 5§, corrected to 5© by South and that was 13 imps away.

I would only consider taking the double out if I held a singleton or void in the opponents’ suit and better trump support. In that case, with 7 or 8 points and with an ace in any suit except the opponents’ suit, 5© would have a good chance of success. As things were, South believed that he could defeat 4ª and there was nothing to suggest that a contract at the 5-level had a chance. Therefore, take the money.

Most of the rest of the match was part-score battles and Emerald struggled. However, board 9 was interesting. Jo Harpur opened the bidding with 1¨ and Dennis raised to 2¨ which Jo passed. 3NT was bid and made at the other table. This looks to me as if Dennis was playing inverted minor suit raises and so 2¨ was forcing. But Jo was not on the same wave length. This just goes to show how important it is for partners to work at their system so there are no bidding misunderstandings, if that is what happened. I am sure Jo will tell me if not.

NTL Match 9.

Unfortunately, all 4 Suffolk teams lost this week. However, after finding themselves 19 imps behind at half-time, Agate were able to pull some of that back and only lost by 6 imps in the end. Most of the deficit in the first half occurred on board 6 :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª 10873

¨ AK72

§ 102

West East

ª K654 ª AQJ92

¨ 85 ¨ 109

§ 873 § 96

South

¨ QJ643

§ AKQJ54

At my table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1§

Pass 1NT pass 2§

Pass 2NT pass 3¨

Pass 4¨ pass 5¨

All pass

1§ was Precision, 16+ points and any distribution. 1NT showed 4 controls, i.e. a king = 1 control and an ace = 2 controls. The rest of the auction was natural. My partner, Michael Sherer, had a difficult decision to make. He knew how many controls I had but did not know where they all were, and if any of them had been in the spade suit, 6¨ would have been out of the question. Therefore, he settled for 5¨. Unfortunately, our opponents in the other room bid the slam but, as North had bid diamonds first, he knew that his king of diamonds was safe and so bidding the slam was easier for them.

I made things worse on the very next board when I played a part-score very badly and went 1 down. After that, it was all bits and pieces until board 14 :-

Board 14 North

None vul.

Dealer East ª KQ94

¨ KQJ4

§ 9875

West East

ª 105 ª AJ832

¨ A107 ¨ 853

§ AJ2 § 4

South

ª 76

¨ 962

§ KQ1063

West North East South

1ª pass

1NT pass 2© pass

4© all pass

I was East and I opened the bidding a little light. This propelled us into a game that had little chance if the trump finesse failed. But I never give up if there is the slightest chance of success. The lead was the king of clubs which I took with the ace. I then led the queen of trumps and ran it. It was allowed to hold and, at that point, I thought that I had 10 tricks. But I did not draw any more trumps just yet because the spades needed to be developed. I led the 10 of spades which was covered with the king and I took the ace and led another spade. North took this with the 9 and led a diamond and I had to take the ace. I then led the 10 of hearts but overtook it with the ace when North showed out.

At this point, the contract suddenly seemed to have a better chance of success and so I continued by leading a spade. South could have ruffed with the king but then I could discard a diamond and so, by discarding a loser on a loser, I would have reduced my losers to just 3. Therefore, South correctly discarded a club. I ruffed, ruffed a club and led another spade and South discarded again. All I had to do now was ruff another club and lead the now promoted jack of spades and, no matter what South did, one of my losing diamonds was going to get discarded and an unlikely game rolled in.

Of course, South could, and should, have defeated the contract simply by taking the king of trumps at the first opportunity and then leading a diamond. Then, when North gained the lead with a spade, he could cash 2 diamond tricks. Later on, I did think that the contract could be made if I had not led a trump at trick 2 but kept the trumps intact until I had developed the spades. But this does not quite work because South would have been able to ruff the promoted spade winner with his small trump. I would then have to over ruff that and would still have 2 diamond losers and the king of trumps to lose. Interesting deal.

We picked up another 8 imps on the very last board when, at David and Jeff’s table, West opened the bidding with a weak 1NT bid. East was very weak and they ended up in 2§ doubled for -800 which was better than the 4© contract that was on for North/South.

Amethyst lost by 15 imps and their problems started on board 2 :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª 10

¨ A742

§ QJ86

West East

ª J632 ª KQ974

¨ 109 ¨ KQ653

§ A9542 § K

South

ª A95

¨ J8

§ 1073

West North East South

1ª 2©

3ª 4© 4ª 5©

Pass pass 5ª Double

All pass

This was an undisciplined auction and the 5ª bid was not good at all. The 5-level belongs to the opponents. 4© makes, but 5© does not. Declarer was 2 down doubled and this was a 10 imp swing when the opponents in the other room were allowed to play in 3ª just making. Declarer could have saved a trick if he had not started on trumps immediately. South led the ace of hearts and then switched to a diamond. North took the ace and led another diamond won by declarer. If he had then cashed the king of clubs and led a small diamond, South is fixed. If he discards, declarer can ruff the diamond and discard a heart on the ace of clubs. He can then lead trumps and he losers just the 3 aces.

Board 12 caused more problems, whereas in the Agate match, both declarers played in 3NT, in the Amethyst match, both teams were in diamonds. Unfortunately, Amethyst tried 6D and were doubled for -500 and a 9 imp loss. I do not blame them for trying, but there were 2 losers in the trump suit, Q1042 sitting over AKJ853. But they had a bit of a boost on board 13 :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª Q87

¨ KQ8743

§ 10842

West East

ª A9643 ª 5

¨ ¨ 962

§ AK96 § Q5

South

ª KJ102

¨ AJ105

§ J73

The bidding was lively at both tables but both East’s ended up declarer in 5©, Caroline Gemmel finding herself doubled. At this table, there was nothing to the play and Caroline only lost to the ace of trumps. But, at the other table, South led the ace of diamonds and declarer discarded the ace of spades on it! I can only think that this was a mis-click but South pounced on it and led the king of spades and, with the ace of trumps to come, declare had to go 1 down.

Alas, such good fortune does not last for long and board 14 just wrapped up the match for the opposition. As we have seen in the Agate match, 4© is unlikely to make but Bill and John took a sacrifice in 5§. That was doubled and was 3 down which was even more than the game would have been, if declarer could make it. 3© was bid and made in the other room for another 8 imps away.

Emerald only lost by 8 imps and this was a match that they could have won. They were leading by 10 imps after 9 boards but then they lost 12 imps on board 12 putting them 2 imps behind :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª K105

¨ AKJ853

§ Q75

West East

ª AQ42 ª J873

¨ 7 ¨ Q1042

§ 108632 § J

South

ª 96

¨ 96

§ AK94

The 2 auctions were rather different but the contract was the same, 3NT. However, Emerald declared it from the North seat and their opposition declared it from the South seat. The opposition declarer received a club lead and so he was able to set up his diamonds making his contract with an over trick.

When Richard Evans had to play this contract, he received a spade lead and, playing in a straightforward manner, he had to lose 3 spades, a heart and a diamond trick. However, if he had played down to the ending below, he would have succeeded :-

North

¨ KJ853

West East

ª 2 ª J

¨ ¨ Q10

§ 108 §

South

¨ 9

At this point, declarer leads the 10 of hearts from dummy and East is fixed. He can take the heart and then cash his spade trick, but declarer then makes the rest of the tricks. This is a difficult deal and this play not lead to success, unless East is in control of all the important suits when South leads the heart 10. But there are clues that suggest that this play will produce the winning line.

There were no clues from the bidding because East/West did not enter the auction. However, the lead of the 3 of spades suggests a 4-card suit and, when declarer takes 2 rounds of clubs, the singleton is found. That leaves 8 cards for the red suits and so, if East controls the hearts, as well as diamonds, there is every chance that he can be end played. It is important to cash the ace of diamonds before trying the clubs but then the 3 club leads squeezed East down to the position shown above and then the 10 of hearts puts East on lead with no lead available to him that does not give up the extra trick.

8 imps came back on board 14 when Jo and Dennis bid to 4© but their opponents sacrificed in 5§. Dennis doubled that and that was +500 to the good guys. Unfortunately, they lost 13 more on the very next board. Richard and John bid 6ª probably in an attempt to win the match. Unfortunately, he would be unaware of the fact that Emerald were still a couple of imps ahead at this point and there was no need to try a speculative slam. With the king of diamonds off-side, the slam could not be made. Bad luck folks.

All the action in the Phoenix match occurred in the second half. First of all, they lost 9 imps on board 9 when Jenny and Norbert tried 3NT. There seemed to be enough strength for game but there was only 1 heart stop and so the contract had to go down. However, they gained 17 imps on the very next board! 6© was bid at both tables but Tim and Chris were successful when East lead ace and another spade setting up the spades for Tim. After that, the deal presented no more problems. At the other table, Norbert refrained from leading spades and declarer had to lose 2 spades at some time in the play.

However, board 12 reared it’s ugly head again. Tim and Chris bid to 3NT but from the North seat. Tim received a spade lead and did not find my suggested play shown earlier in this article. At the other table, the opponents played in 4©! This sounds strange as they only had a 5-1 fit but the contract made. Luckily, the outstanding trumps split 4-3 and so declarer only had 2 heart losers and the ace of spades.

The opponents struck again on board 13. At one table, they bid and made the easy 6©. At the other table, the auction was more competitive :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª Q87

¨ KQ8743

§ 10842

West East

ª A9643 ª 5

¨ ¨ 962

§ AK96 § Q5

South

ª KJ102

¨ AJ105

§ J73

West North East South

Pass 2© Double

4© 5¨ pass pass

Double all pass

Norbert only opened the bidding with a weak 2, rather than a weak 3, because he was vulnerable and he only held 6 points. I have some sympathy for this, I might have done the same. However, I do feel the Jenny should have tried for the slam with good 4-card heart suit, a void in diamonds, both top controls in clubs and the ace of spades plus the likelihood that Norbert would have a singleton somewhere.

5 imps came back on board 14 but boards 15 and 16 were a nightmare. Tim and Chris tried for the slam on 15 but it was just not there. Brave attempt though. Board 16 shows why many experts have given up on the weak 1NT opening bid, particularly at teams. Jenny had the distasteful task of playing 1NT doubled vulnerable. She wound up 4 down for -1100 with only game on at the other table.

There were a number of things which, on another day, might well have swung the other way, so better luck next time.

Match v Norfolk.

It gives me great pleasure to report that the A and B teams managed to defeat our Norfolk neighbours. Unfortunately, the C team were not so successful but 2 out of 3 is not bad, not bad at all. The A team certainly did not have it all their own way, in fact we started rather badly and were 30 imps behind after 8 boards. But the fight back started immediately, and we won the next 3 sessions to finish 12 imps ahead.

We were not playing well during the 1^st 8 boards. I made an unforgivable mistake on board 3 and was doubled for -800. I made a ridiculous overcall at adverse vulnerability and was bound to suffer because there was no fit available. I solemnly promise not to be so stupid ever again. We also lost imps on board 4 but we were not the only ones at fault on that board. However, it is not an easy board so we can consider ourselves to be a little unlucky.

Our fight back started on board 14. However, we cannot claim to have done anything brilliant on this one. Tim Evans and Chris Park on their debut in the A team, managed to make game when nobody else could, although they received a little help when West failed to cover the jack of diamonds lead from K10xx so that only one ruff was needed to establish the suit. Board 15 was a little more interesting :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª AK

¨ KQ10

§ A1098762

West East

ª 109862 ª J43

¨ A53 ¨ J64

§ KQ5 § 3

South

ª Q75

¨ 9872

§ J4

This was the auction at my table :-

West North East South

Pass

1§ 2© pass

Pass 5§ all pass

Noel’s weak jump overcall kept South quiet and left North with a difficult decision. His singleton ace did not look like the right type of holding for no trumps and so he punted 5§. If he had held an entry to dummy, he could have made it by finessing in clubs through my hand, but it was not to be and he had to go 1 down.

At Tim and Chris’s table, Tim decided to open the North hand with 2§. I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of this because, as a confirmed strong clubber, I am not qualified. All I can say is that it worked and, because it was a strong bid, it encouraged Chris to make 2 bids with his weak hand so that they were able to play in the unbeatable 3NT. Well done Tim and Chris.

At half way, we had cut the deficit down to just 16 imps. We lost another 11 imps on board 17 when one of the Norfolk pairs were brave enough to bid the grand slam. But we got most of that back on the very next board :-

Board 18 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª J64

¨ QJ984

§ 103

West East

ª 9532 ª 10

¨ 72 ¨ K1063

§ A742 § KQJ98

South

ª AKQ87

¨ A5

§ 65

This was the auction at my table :-

West North East South

1¨ double

Pass 1ª 2§ 2¨

3§ pass pass 3ª

All pass

Somehow, our bidding put the opponents off enough so that they missed the game. Not that it is an easy game to bid, but South might have managed it if he had expected North to hold 4 spades for his 1ª response to South’s take-out double. Tim and Chris had no such hang ups, and they bid the game. However, their opponents only bid to 2§ and so, perhaps, they did not sound very strong. At all the other 3 tables, East/West competed to 3§ and that seemed to be enough to prevent game being bid so it was a good effort all round.

We struck again on board 24 :-

Board 24 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª AQ974

¨ J92

§ 9876

West East

ª K105 ª 2

¨ 84 ¨ AK1053

§ QJ542 § K10

South

ª J863

¨ Q76

§ A3

At Bill and John’s table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass pass 1© pass

2© pass 3¨ pass

3© pass 4© all pass

Bill was lucky because the South cashed the ace of clubs and then led a diamond. All Bill had to do then was cash 2 top trumps, cash the king of clubs, then the ace and king of diamonds and ruff a diamond. Then he could discard his losing spade on a club, losing just 2 trumps and the ace of clubs.

When Noel was declarer in the same contract, he was not so lucky but he played the hand impeccably. South started with the ace of clubs but then switched to a spade. Noel was now looking at 2 possible trump losers, a spade and a club. North continued with another spade and Noel was forced to ruff so weakening his trump holding but, expecting the worst, he cashed the ace of trumps and led the Jack. South covered and Noel took that with the King and so he had reduced his trump losers to just 1. But that was not the end of his problems. He could not draw another round of trumps because entries was a problem the jack of clubs blocking the club suit, and the diamonds needed developing. But he did not put a foot wrong. He cashed the king of clubs, cashed the ace and king of diamonds and ruffed the 3^rd round. He then led the queen of clubs and discarded a diamond. South had to ruff but Noel had the rest.

This was just typical of Noel’s performance throughout the match. I do not think he made a single error in the play of the hand and the only slight error was a bidding system error which is not surprising as we have only been playing together for a few weeks.

Out final double figure swing occurred on board 31 when Noel and I bid 3NT and so did Bill and John, and both declarer’s were successful. Norfolk failed to bid the game even though there was no opposition bidding.

This win was a good all round effort and I would like to congratulate Noel for his almost perfect performance and, also, Tim and Chris on their successful debut and Bill and John who did rather well on their 1^st run in the A team this year.

The B team also started badly and were 20 imps down at half time. Their problems started on board 6 when Chris and Andy failed to find 4H which was bid and made at all the other 3 tables. Chris opened with 1H and Andy raised him to 3H. As I do not know their system, I di not know what went wrong here, but it is certainly a game that needed to be bid. Both hands are evenly distributed and there are only 25 pojnts in the 2 hand, i.e. a minimum for game, by games are vital at teams and any slim chance for game should be taken because you can bet that your opponents will be bidding it.

Worse was to come on board 8 :-

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª QJ10965

¨ Q7

§ 92

West East

ª 87 ª AK

¨ 1085 ¨ KJ9643

§ AKQ87 § 1065

South

ª 432

¨ A2

§ J43

This was the auction at David and Celia’s table :-

West North East South

Pass 2¨ double 2©

3§ all pass

I presume that the 2¨ opening bid was a Multi 2¨ opening bid which, in this case, proved to be a weak 2 opening bid in spades. Personally, I would not have doubled with the East hand. The distribution was all wrong and, if the East/West hands were slightly different, West could find herself playing in 4 of a major on a 4-2 fit. As it happened, she ended up playing 3§ when 5¨ was good.

It cannot be right to not show a 6-card suit. A simple overcall of 3¨ should be enough to get a 4¨ raise from West and then East should raise to 5¨, particularly as the king of hearts is protected from the lead when East is declarer.

5¨ was bid once by a Norfolk pair and 3ª was the contract at the other 2 tables. At Jo and Dennis’s table, the defenders took their 5 tricks for 1 down but, at the other table nobody thought to lead clubs and so declarer wound up with 10 tricks, that was a little unlucky but 5¨ is another game that needed to be bid.

They struck back on board 12 when 3NT was bid at all 4 tables but one Norfolk declarer started on the wrong suit and, instead of finessing in hearts, he played ace and another and hand to lose 5 tricks. Unfortunately, that gain was lost back with interest on board 13. Norfolk bid and made game at 2 tables and Suffolk bid one and failed to make it and stopped in a part score at the other table.

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª Q65

¨ K4

§ AJ10753

West East

ª 8 ª AKJ973

¨ AJ9873 ¨ 52

§ K962 § Q

South

ª 1042

¨ Q106

§ 84

This was the auction at Pauline and Con’s table :-

West North East South

Pass 1ª pass

2¨ pass 3© pass

3NT pass 4ª

A sensible auction to a reasonable contract. I played this hand in 3NT from the West seat and recognised very early on that entries were the key to the hand. Therefore, at my first opportunity. I led the 10 of hearts. South decided to take it, presumably working out that she would not make it all if she ducked the first round.

In 4ª, Pauline received a club lead to the ace and a heart back from North. She decided to take the ace and king of hearts and try to ruff the 3^rd round. Unfortunately, North was able to over ruff and then lead a club. Pauline discarded her losing heart on the king and tried to return to hand to draw trumps by ruffing a club. But South was able to over ruff and the defenders still had to make a diamond.

Pauline would have done better by ducking North’s heart lead at trick 2. Then she loses only 1 heart trick, a club trick and a diamond trick. This depends on a 3-3 trump split and the trump finesse and the odds are not great. This was a bit unfortunate because Pauline’s play would normally have better chances of success.

But the real fight back began in the 3^rd quarter. They scored 52 unanswered imps in 8 boards! In fact, from board 17 onwards, it was practically all one way traffic. There were a couple of boards that lost imps. On the last board, an opponent bid the slam and a game was missed on board 25 but that is just nit picking. This was a very good win, well done all of you.

Unfortunately, the C team are suffering at the moment which, compared with previous seasons, is very unusual and have often been our only winning team. However, this season, they have not had a settled team and have had to cope with several pairs that are not regular partnerships, such as Jenny and Pam this time. But the good thing is that we do have players who are prepared to play with anyone so that we can actually field 3 teams. And the C team should be proud of the number of players that have played for the C team in the past who are now playing in the A and B teams.

NTL Match 8.

Agate met Dianthus this week and won by 25 imps. Our other 3 teams were, unfortunately, not so successful. The fireworks started on the very first board :-

Board 1 North

None vul.

Dealer North ª K9863

¨ QJ8

§ A10

West East

ª A5 ª J

¨ K5 ¨ A97642

§ Q543 § K92

South

ª Q10754

¨ 103

§ J876

This was the auction at my table :-

West North East South

1ª 2¨ 4ª

Double all pass

I was West and, by the time the bidding got around to me, my options were rather limited. Ralph’s overcall could have been very weak and might only be a 5-card suit and so I did not relish trying to find a game contract at the 5-level. However, I had a good hand with 3 fairly sure tricks, 1 in spades and 2 in hearts, and I had a couple of honours in the minors that would, hopefully, produce another trick. Also, perhaps Ralph would provide a trick as well. So, if we had game on, perhaps the double would win back most, if not all, of the imps that game would have provided. As it happened, we were able to take all our tricks, i.e. 3 in the majors and 3 in the minors scoring +500.

At the other table, Jeff and David also bid to 4ª and their opponents did not even enter the auction. Also, the defence started by cashing the ace and king of hearts and then led a club. Declarer took the ace and cashed the queen of hearts discarding a diamond loser. Therefore, declarer was just 2 down for -100 and Agate had picked up 9 imps on the first board.

In the Phoenix match, Helen Mason made a brave weak jump overcall in diamonds. Unfortunately, that seemed like good news to her partner who jumped to 5¨. this contract had no chance where as 5© can be made although it is not easy. I applaud their courage and determination in trying not to lose their game. Better luck next time.

Agate had managed to score 31 unanswered imps in the first 4 boards. By half time, Dianthus had clawed half of that back, but we never lost the lead. There were no more swings of 10 imps or more but board 11 was interesting :-

Board 11 North

None vul.

Dealer South ª KQ102

¨ 53

§ AJ987

West East

ª 98763 ª A

¨ AKQ98 ¨ J10642

§ § 1032

South

ª J54

¨ 7

§ KQ654

West North East South

Pass

1ª pass pass 2§

2¨ 4§ 4¨ 5§

5¨ all pass

What an auction! Certainly not an auction that I would recommend to anyone. Nobody wanted to give in and allow their opponents to declare the hand. Only North can claim to be innocent, everyone else made some error either big or small. South made the first mistake. She could have quietly defended 1ª. I had to show my second suit at this point and North made a good leap to 4§. I am not sure that I would have gone to 4¨ with Ralph’s hand but it encouraged me to have a go at 5¨.

There was nothing to the play. I simply ruffed the club lead, drew trumps in 2 rounds, crossed to dummy in spades and led the queen of hearts which was covered with the king and my ace. That just left me with 2 heart losers.

At the other table, our team mates had what looked like a bidding misunderstanding and they ended up in 4© down 4, but that was still 5 imps to the good guys.

In the Phoenix match, the opponents found 5¨ at one table. At the other table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass

1ª 2§ pass 2©

3¨ pass 4¨ 5§

All pass

This is difficult because nobody can be sure who has the balance of strength. However, West’s hand is far stronger than it’s point-count might lead you to believe, once a fit is found which is always vital with a 2-suiter. Also, South has made an unusual bid. How can he possibly pass at his first turn to bid and then have the strength to bid 5§? North’s 2§ bid was only an overcall. Personally, I think that 5§ was a bad bid because it has given East/West another option, i.e. double. Of course, it is possible that 5§ is making, after all the points are split 20-20. But in that case, 5¨ is going to be a good save.

So, for me, there are 3 options, i.e. pass, double or 5¨. Of these 3, pass is the only wrong bid. Double or 5¨ will both score well. 5¨ would normally be the best choice because it is a 2-way bid. Either 5¨ will make or, if 5§ is making, 5¨ would be a good save. Some people would suggest that pass is forcing in these situations. But, although a forcing pass would have worked on this deal, a pass of a high level contract in a competitive auction can only be considered to be forcing if it is obvious which pair are the stronger and that is not the case on this deal. In any case, with 2-suited hands like West’s, it is usually better to play the contract rather than to double the opposition.

I tend to run out of time when writing these reports and this is no exception, but I just wanted to share this last deal with you. For once, it is the defence that I wanted to put before you because I believe that defence is the most difficult part of this game but we do not give it sufficient attention. This was board 15 :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª KJ1076

¨ AK5

§ 9754

West East

ª 5 ª A432

¨ 1093 ¨ J742

§ AK83 § Q6

South

ª Q98

¨ Q86

§ J102

West North East South

Pass

1© 1ª 2© 2ª

3© 3ª all pass

Again, not the best auction in the world and it sounded more like a pairs auction than teams. However, I was fairly sure that we could not make 4© and so I passed 3ª and decided to defend rather risk going down, possibly doubled.

At the other table, Jeff Orton made 3ª. He started trying to draw trumps but, when West showed out on the 2^nd round of trumps, he was going to be a trick short. Therefore, he cashed his side suit winners and made the rest of his trumps separately. Luckily the diamonds split well and so he was able to make the contract.

At my table, Ralph led a heart taken by the ace and declarer decided to ruff a heart. He then led a spade towards the dummy which Ralph ducked. Declarer then ruffed another heart and led another trump. Ralph took his ace this time and led another trump drawing declarer’s remaining trumps and leaving him with one left. Declarer was then able to cash 3 diamond tricks but the remaining 4 tricks were all ours. The secret to this successful defence was the way Ralph took advantage of the way declarer had played the hand by timing when he took his ace of trumps.

Many players are far to quick to take the ace of trumps. Last week I played another hand when an opponent took the trump ace on the first round from A109x. If she had held it up for just 1 round so that her ace would have covered one of my honours, I would have lost 2 tricks in the trump suit and the contract would have failed by 1 trick.

NTL Match 7.

Agate and Emerald met this week and Agate won by 29 imps. Most of this was due to small pick ups in part-score battles where, perhaps, the experience of the Agate team helped them through. However, there were 2 significant swings for Agate, the first of these was board 4 :-

Board 4 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª Q10986

¨ AJ1098

§ 94

West East

ª A5 ª J42

¨ 542 ¨ Q76

§ 1072 § AQ83

South

ª K73

¨ K3

§ KJ65

At one table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

1§

1© 1ª 2© pass

Pass 3¨ pass 3ª

Pass 4ª all pass

In spite of some interference bidding Agate managed to find their spade game. There was very little to the play and 10 tricks were made. At the other table, the auction was rather different :-

West North East South

1NT

Pass 2© pass 2ª

Pass 3¨ pass 3NT

All pass

Even with no interference bidding, Emerald ended up in the wrong contract. 1NT was 12-14, 2© was a transfer to spades and 3¨ must show 5-4 or better in spades and diamonds. So, what went wrong. In my opinion, both players made a mistake. First of all, with the North hand, I would have bid 4¨ rather than 3¨ to stress that the hand is unbalanced. However, 4¨ might have a special meaning and so perhaps that is not an error as such. Personally, I would want to bid 4¨ to show 5 spades and 5 diamonds and sufficient strength for game to be good. This simplifies the auction, and South cannot go wrong after that.

However, if I had been in the South seat, I would not have bid 3NT. A 5-3 spade fit has been identified and North has also shown some distribution. There might be a singleton in the North hand even if North only has 5-4 in the 2 longest suits. 4ª would seem to be safer and that is important at teams.

The other major swing was board 12 :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª 1098654

¨ J92

§ Q9

West East

ª KQJ32 ª A

¨ AK ¨ Q854

§ K10 § A752

South

ª 7

¨ 10763

§ J8643

West North East South

2§ pass 2¨ pass

2ª pass 3§ pass

3© pass 6©

This was a simple auction to a good slam but it did miss the grand. East has a difficult decision to make after West has bid 3©. He is fairly sure that a slam is on but how can he decide between 6© and 7©? He really would like the stronger hand to bid RKCB but, if he bids any number of hearts less than 6©, West might well pass. He might bid 4NT himself, but it is not as informative to the weaker hand because he has no idea of the overall texture and total strength of the West hand, whereas West only needs to know that East has 2 aces and 4-card heart support.

This is an area where strong club systems have a big advantage. I would bid it like this :-

West East

1§ 1ª 9+ points with even dist or 3 controls with a 3-suiter

1NT relay 2© 9-11 points, 4+ hearts

2ª relay 3§ 4 hearts and 4 clubs

3¨ relay 3NT 1444 distribution

4§ control ask 4ª 4 controls

4NT queen asks 5¨ diamond queen

7NT

Complicated? Well yes, but not as complicated as you might think and look at the information that East has given to West. His full distribution is known, i.e. 1444, he has also shown 4 controls, i.e. an ace is 2 controls and a king is 1, and the queen of diamonds. West can count 13 tricks in hearts or in no trumps and could claim 13 tricks before the first lead is made.

Now, after my bit of preaching, back to the board and the events at the other table. The auction there went like this :-

West North East South

2§ pass 2¨ pass

2ª pass 4§ pass

4© pass 4ª pass

4NT pass 5© pass

7ª

Emerald ended up in the wrong grand slam. 7© and 7NT are cold but the 6-1 spade split killed 7ª. I am not sure exactly what went wrong here, perhaps those concerned might enlighten me. I presumed that 4§, rather than a straightforward 3§, was intended to show extra values and, therefore, slam interest. Then West showed his second suit and East bid 4ª, but was this a cue bid showing the ace or was it setting spades as trumps? The second of these seems unlikely on a singleton, even if it is the ace, but it seems that West took it for spade support. And so, after RKCB showing 2 aces, West bid 7ª, quite reasonably if 4ª showed spade support.

In fact, similar difficulties were experienced here as at the other table. 4ª might be a good bid to ensure that the strong hand could use RKCB but you need an understanding with partner if that is the case. Perhaps, East should have converted to 7NT.

Amethyst found themselves up against Dianthus and lost by just 10 imps. They also had difficulties with board 12. Bill Tweddle and John Wilmott play Precision Club, but it is rather different to the version that I use. It has been said, many times, that strong club systems are vulnerable to aggressive interference bidding. That is true to some extent, but so is Acol’s 2§ opening bid. I would have bid 2ª over 2§ taking away another level of bidding from them.

When Bill opened the bidding with his system’s strongest opening bid, i.e. 1§, North bid 2ª, i.e. weak jump overcall. John then bid 2NT, and I am not sure what that means in their system but it must, at least, be a positive response showing the values to make game opposite a minimum 1§ opening bid. If that is the case, Bill’s 3NT would seem to be very pessimistic. 6NT would appear to be easy with 7NT depending on how many aces John held.

At the other table, Dianthus was only able to find 6© but that was 11 imps to them and that was enough to win the match.

Phoenix did rather well beating Slater by 16 imps mainly by a few imps here and a few imps there, but they started well on the very first board :-

Board 1 North

Non vul.

Dealer North ª A5

¨ Q

§ Q98732

West East

ª ª Q10642

¨ J108763 ¨ AK94

§ K § AJ104

South

ª KJ9873

¨ 52

§ 65

West North East South

Pass 1ª Pass

2© pass 3§ pass

3¨ pass 3NT pass

4¨ pass 5¨ all pass

Tim Evans and Chris Park had the auction above and found the game. Unfortunately, there was a slam on and Tim played the hand well and made all 13 tricks. Can slam be bid? I must say that, if I had been in the West seat, I would have bid 4¨ instead of 3¨ showing at least 5-5 in the 2-suits. However, where you go from there is debatable. Does East bid 5¨ now, or should he bid 6¨. If East only bids 5¨, does West bid 6¨? I doubt that 7¨ is biddable because it depends on the queen of diamonds being singleton and you cannot predict that in the auction.

Still, as it happens, it was not necessary to bid the slam. At the other table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1ª Pass

1NT pass 2§ pass

2© 3§ all pass

I found this auction almost unbelievable. Why would anyone respond 1NT on the West hand. I understand that 1NT is often used in Acol when responder does not have the strength to bid at the 2-level but must bid something. But this hand may not have the requisite number of points to bid at the 2-level, but is far more powerful than many hands that have a lot more points.

I applaud Helen Mason’s bravery in bidding 3§, but she was lucky because she could, and should, have been doubled by East. This would still be good if their team mates at the other table had bid and made a slam, but they didn’t. Personally, I would have opened the North hand. It more than fulfils the rule of 18 and, although North’s best suit is a minor, it will still change the whole structure of the auction. East’s 1ª opening bid becomes an overcall which has a totally different point-count range and makes it a little more difficult for West to know what he holds with any accuracy. To be honest, I do not know how the auction would progress after North opens the bidding, it depends too much on what the opponents might do, and 3-suiters are notoriously difficult to bid, particularly when you do not have the singleton or void in opener’s suit. However, as someone once said ‘fore-armed is he who gets his blow in first’.

After that, it was just bits and pieces picked up in the part-score battles but it was pleasing to see that Tim and Chris bid 7NT on board 12.

Match v Cambs & Hunts.

The A team had a real torrid time of it in this match. In fact, I have never lost a match by so much before. The B team did not do a lot better but they did rally a little in the last quarter, in fact, they out scored their opponents in the last 8 boards, just, and the board 28 helped them to do that.

Board 28 North

N?S vul.

Dealer West ª 654

¨ 83

§ J8

West East

ª 1087 ª AK9

¨ KJ942 ¨ Q

§ A973 § KQ10642

South

ª QJ32

¨ A10765

§ 4

West North East South

Pass pass 1§ 1¨

1NT pass 3NT all pass

Sometimes, all the technique and experience just does not help you and a more practical approach was required. Dennis Valtisiaris opened the bidding with 1§ and South overcalled with 1¨. Jo Harpur was left with a difficult decision to make. She selected 1NT which is hardly ideal with a singleton in hearts and 3 small in spades. But is did show stops in diamonds and that was all that Dennis needed to know. He held stoppers in the majors and a long club suit, hopefully enough to run 9 tricks.

The opponents started with 3 rounds of hearts and so Jo could not afford to lose the lead. But she had 9 tricks on top once the opponents had promoted a heart trick for her, and so she just cashed out. Nobody else in the B team match bid the game and that was 7 imps in.

The point is that bidding theory would suggest that 5§ should be the final contract and it 5§ does make. However, bidding 5§ is always difficult and so Jo and Dennis took a more practical approach and were successful, and nobody in this match was able to bid 5§ either. It is perhaps possible to bid it when there is no bidding by the opponents but, when South bid, 3NT seems a lot easier than 5§, even when he only made a 1¨ overcall. Jo was right to show that she controlled the diamonds and Dennis made a good shot at game and deserved to be successful.

The C team actually did quite well on this board when 3NT was bid at 3 tables but Chris Kennedy found herself in 5§ doubled which earned them a couple of imps. But, although their defeat was not so devastating as the A team’s was, they were decisively beaten as well.

The C team were doing quite well at half time trailing by a single imp. Board 3 was a good start :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª Q1032

¨ A82

§ A643

West East

ª 75 ª KJ64

¨ KJ109 ¨ Q6

§ Q10987 § J5

South

ª A98

¨ 7543

§ K2

West North East South

Pass

Pass pass 1© pass

2§ pass 2ª pass

3NT

Andy Higginson and Chris Kennedy bid the hand as shown above. This auction was not managed at any of the other 3 tables but Nancy Williams and David Allen ended up in a reasonable 3© contract and just made it. But both Suffolk pairs did better than the opponents could manage. The auction above seems very reasonable to me. If you are a point counter, then the hands are not quite strong enough for 3NT. However, there are two 5-card suits, one in each hand, and one of them will usually create an extra trick, and this is teams and hands like these win matches. Not this time, unfortunately, but it is surprising how often they do.

The auction was interesting at Richard Evans and John Bloomfield’s table :-

West North East South

Pass

Pass pass 1© pass

1NT double pass 2¨

All pass

I must admit that I prefer 2¨ to 1NT although it might be a point or 2 light. It starts to show West distribution which 1NT certainly does not, and distribution is more important than point count. However, Richard’s take-out double after having passed originally hit the spot in a surprising way. John had to bid 2¨ and I will bet that he was not looking forward to playing that. But it worked rather well because the opposition failed to double it. Good work all round.

Board 5 at Richard and John’s table was interesting :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul

Dealer North ª Q2

¨ KJ1083

§ KJ4

West East

ª J43 ª 1076

¨ 94 ¨ Q76

§ AQ92 § 1087

South

ª AK985

¨ A52

§ 653

Again, they ended up in 3NT with slightly less than the normally required point count but the deal was definitely worth a shot at game and, again, there were 2 useful 5-card suits. But, I must say that I would not have played the hand in the same way that Richard did. He received a club lead taken by West who then led a small club. Richard was lucky that he did not receive a heart lead. The contract is still makeable but it is not easy but, when the jack of clubs held the 2^nd trick, there was more than one way to play the hand.

I would have led the spades and, when the suit split nicely, Richard could count on 2 club tricks, 5 spade tricks and 2 diamonds. There was no need to try the diamond finesse at all. However, after cashing 5 spade tricks, I would have exited with a heart. Whoever wins this trick has 3 suits to choose from for his next lead. If he chooses to lead another club, then you have to cash out and nothing is gained. But, if he leads another heart, you have an over trick, but if he leads a diamond, you make all the rest of the tricks. You never know how the opponents might help, until you give them the chance to get it wrong.

Unfortunately, it all went wrong in the second half, and the C team also finished second. Better luck next time.

NTL match 5.

This week, Emerald and Amethyst both lost and they both had problems on boards 5, 6 and 7 losing a game swing on all 3 boards.

This was board 5 :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª 42

¨ AKJ542

§ AJ

West East

ª A5 ª Q10963

¨ 7 ¨ 983

§ K97532 § 864

South

ª KJ87

¨ Q106

§ Q10

At one table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

1¨ pass 1©

2§ 3¨ all pass

South for Emerald was Richard Evans and, unfortunately, he missed an opportunity here. I am sure that he kicked himself afterwards but he really should have bid 3NT. John Bloomfield’s 3¨ rebid was the key. It surely must show about 15-17 points with a good 6-card suit. Richard only had an 8-count, but they were the right kind of points for no trumps. The KJxx in spades ensured that the spade suit was safe, Q10x in diamonds seems to solidify the suits and the Qx in clubs should come in handy. The heart bid would probably prevent a heart lead. Yes, the hand is a definite minimum, but everything seems to be working and the diamonds should provide an extra trick or 2, and this is teams where games are of primary importance.

At the other table, the auction was rather different. North doubled the 2§ bid and South bid 2ª. That was enough for North who bid 3NT so that the declaration was in the other hand protecting the king of hearts. 3NT did make, but I have to admit that I did not agree with declarer’s play. The lead was a club giving declarer 2 club tricks to go with 6 diamond tricks. He only needed one more trick, but he started by cashing his diamonds. I would have taken the club lead in hand and I would have led a spade playing the jack if East played low. Declarer now has his 9 tricks to cash as soon as he gets the lead back, which he must at some time. In fact, when West wins the ace of spades, he is likely to continue the clubs seeing that dummy started with just Q10. Playing any other way is more risky because hearts would appear to be vulnerable as far as declarer can see.

In the Amethyst match, the auctions were almost a carbon copy of those in the Emerald match with exactly the same result. This was board 6 :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª Q107

¨ AJ1064

§ K85

West East

ª A ª J642

¨ K873 ¨ Q92

§ QJ1096 §

South

ª K9853

¨ 5

§ A7432

These were the 2 auctions in the Amethyst match :-

West North East South

2© pass

4© all pass

West North East South

Pass 2¨

Double pass 3© all pass

4© is not an obvious contract but it can always be made and, as this is teams, it should be bid. 10 tricks were made when 4© were bid but only 9 in 3©. However, if you only need 9 tricks, it often pays to play safe which is probably why declarer drew trumps early. To make 10 tricks, you have to ruff 2 spades before drawing trumps.

In the Emerald match, the auctions went like this :-

West North East South

2© pass

2NT pass 3© pass

4© all pass

West North East South

2© 2ª

3© 4ª all pass

At the first table, 2NT has to be some form of asking bid, probably Ogust, but 3© appears to be a bit strong as the point-count of the East hand is only 6. However, I am assuming that East thought that the void was worth a point or 2. 11 tricks were made at this table because declarer went for a full cross ruff and ruffed 3 spades in the dummy.

However, the problems came at the other table. West can see that the points are just about evenly shared between the 2 pairs. Therefore, the chances of either pair making game seem slim. Therefore, West should double 4ª but, as East has that void, he should try 5© and then he has to play the full cross ruff to make it. But this is all very close and so a little luck creeps in. Anything is possible on hands like this. However, I think that, if I have been West, I would jump to 4© as soon as I could. This is a 2-way shot. It might well make but, if it does not, then North/South have something on and it should be a good sacrifice. Also, there is a better chance that they will not bid over 4©, whereas 3© is asking for further interference. This was board 7 :-

Board 6 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª KQJ7

¨ 1043

§ 98

West East

ª A62 ª 103

¨ AJ ¨ Q9872

§ J1063 § 7542

South

ª 9854

¨ K65

§ AKQ

In the Emerald match, John and Richard bid to 3ª by South and that was just as well because there are at least 2 diamond losers, a spade and a heart. However, at the other table, 4ª was reached from the North seat. East led a diamond and West decided to win with the ace and lead another. This allowed declarer to take the 2^nd trick with the king and cash 3 top clubs discarding a diamond loser and now he only has 1 diamond, 1 heart and 1 spade loser. If only West had taken the jack of diamonds at trick 1.

In the Amethyst match, the Amethyst pair bid 4ª by North and the defenders avoided leading diamonds and so declarer was forced to lose 2 diamond tricks. But at the other table, 4ª was played from South and West led the ace of diamonds allowing the game to make. Luck still plays a part in this game. But there is a moral to this story. Aces are made to kill kings and we should not be in too big a hurry to cash aces until we are sure where the king is.

NTL match 4.

This week, Phoenix and Amethyst had a close fought battle against each other Phoenix just winning by 5 imps. However, both Agate and Emerald did not fare nearly so well.

Board 1 caused difficulties in all 3 matches :-

Board 1 North

Non vul.

Dealer North ª 105

¨ AQ92

§ A7

West East

ª K96 ª AQJ42

¨ ¨ 10875

§ 98632 § 5

South

ª 873

¨ KJ643

§ KQJ104

At our table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

1© 1ª Double

3ª pass pass 4¨

Pass 5¨ all pass

I was West and I jumped to 3ª, which can only be a pre-emptive raise in our system, and was bound to give the opponents a problem. However, they solved it and found the cold game. Luckily for us, declarer made probably the only mistake he made all evening and he only made 10 tricks. We made it easy for him because we did not lead a club, so he only needed to ruff his 3^rd spade before drawing trumps and then he has 5 tricks in both minors and the ruff.

Unfortunately, our teammates did not do as well as they might have, even though they received less awkward pre-emptive bidding than we came up with. I feel that 4¨ definitely should be bid on the auction at that table. 4¨ will always make but 5¨ will go down against best defence.

In the Phoenix/Amethyst match, Helen and David bid to 4¨ and made 11 tricks, but at the other table, Caroline and Mark bid to 5¨ and made only 10 tricks. So, the par contract is 4¨ just making but, on the day, Lady Luck had her say and confused nearly everyone.

In the Emerald match Andy and Chris were defending 5¨ and they cashed 2 spade tricks and then switched to the club singleton. That was a trick too late and now 11 tricks were easy for declarer. At the other table, East/West bid 4© and only failed because of the terrible trump split. Nobody really did anything wrong at either table but, the next time I have a singleton such as the club singleton in East’s hand, I will think about playing it as soon as possible, particularly if I can see no other way of defeating the contract.

To be fair, there is little to report on this week. Many of the errors that were made are errors that are unlikely to be repeated and there were several other swings that really were a matter of luck, or bad luck depending on your point of view. There is not much that is worth mentioning from the angle of trying to improve performance. However, I have decided to include board 13 in this report :-

Board 13 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª KQJ84

¨ AJ72

§ 10

West East

ª 10976 ª A532

¨ 954 ¨ 108

§ KQ6 § AJ8

South

¨ KQ63

§ 975432

At one table, North opened 1ª and this was passed out. At the other table in the same match, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

1ª pass 1NT

Pass 3¨ pass 4¨

Pass 5¨ all pass

12 tricks were made but I have no idea how you could possibly bid 6¨. Neither auction is wrong but, this time, one was more successful than the other. The problem is that the North hand is too strong and North is praying that partner will make a bid of some kind so that he can show his strength. I sympathise with South when he passed but it is a bit of a risk with a 7-count and so, perhaps, the 1NT response is a better option so long as your system allows it.

As a Precision Club player, I do not have this problem. If partner opens the bidding with 1S, which shows 10-15 points and 5+ spades, I could pass not expecting to be missing anything. With a maximum of 22 points in the 2 hands, I would expect that this was a part-score hand and pass might easily be the best action. Also, I could have responded with 1NT but that has an entirely different meaning and, after this response, I could bid the clubs on the next round and opener would be forced to pass. However, I think that passing 1¨ would be the best option.

However, with a 17-count, North would have opened the bidding with 1§. this bid is artificial and forcing and the auction might have continued like this :-

West North East South

1§ pass 1¨

Pass 1ª pass 2§

Pass 2¨ pass 3¨

Pass 3© pass 3ª

Pass 5¨

Again, the slam would probably be missed but we should find the game. The meanings of the bids are :-

1§ shows 16+ points with any distribution.
1¨ shows 0-8 points.
1ª shows 16-19 points with 5+ spades.
2§ shows 5 clubs with better than a minimum.
2¨ shows 5 spades and 4 diamonds.
3¨ shows 4-card diamond support.
3© is a cue bid showing a maximum with either the ace or a void in hearts.
3ª is cue bid.
5¨ is a sign off.

This is not a straightforward Precision auction and a certain amount of judgement is required but, at least, we would have a good chance of bidding the game, and an outside chance of finding the slam. Precision does not have all the answers but it does have a number of advantages over natural systems. If anyone would like to give it a try, give me a call.

Match v Herts.

Well, I suppose that nobody is surprised that all 3 teams lost against Hertfordshire. They are a good team, but there was a lot of things to be quite happy about. For example, the A team was made up of 2 pairs who are not regular A team players and the other 2 were not regular partnerships, but they all played rather well. We were still drawing after 3 rounds but, unfortunately, we had a bad 4^th round and lost by 26 imps in the end. Helen Mason and David Matthews played very well and had the highest cross-imps score after 3 rounds. But my thanks goes to David Willson and Michael Sherer who were forced together as a last resort and they supported us the best that they could.

Similarly, Celia Jeal and Jenny Price were also a last minute pairing. How Celia managed to squeeze it in in between her teaching commitments is a miracle in itself and Jenny and Celia have been very supportive and helpful to me while trying to put any teams together at all. But there are others that also deserve a mention. I am very pleased in one particular way, i.e. I never need to worry again about having to put together players who have never played together before. All of our pairs did their best under very trying circumstances. It might seem odd to be so satisfied with a performance when we all lost, but everybody tried very hard trying to support our county and it could have been a lot worse. My biggest problem for the next match, assuming we have some players back from other commitments, will be who to select, who to leave out, who to demote and who to promote, but it is a nice problem to be faced with.

The first round did feel a bit tough for the A team and Herts did quite well when, on board 5, one of their pairs bid and made 6ª+1. They had already made a few small pick-ups before that, and this gave them a 22 imp lead after just 5 boards. However, on board 6, Helen and David managed to find 3NT and made it for a 6 imp pick-up to stop the rot and then this board turned up :-

Board 7 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª Q7

¨ J762

§ K1075

West East

ª 1096 ª AKJ83

¨ KQ1053 ¨ A8

§ A § Q42

South

ª 542

¨ 94

§ J9863

At my table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

Pass

1¨ pass 1ª pass

2¨ pass 6¨ all pass

We were in the wrong contract. 6ª is cold but 6¨ definitely is not. I received a small spade lead and that definitely put me off a little. I dared not finesse this early in the play and so I took the first trick with the Ace. The contract seems to depend on 2 out of 3 things working : (a) the diamonds breaking 3-3 or me being able to finesse the jack, (b) a successful heart finesse, or (c) me being able to find the queen of spades. But the last thing to try is the spade finesse, that can wait until later.

I started by drawing 3 rounds of trumps leaving the jack outstanding and then I led a low heart to the 10 which held the trick, returned to hand with the ace of clubs and I led another heart. The jack won and I cashed the ace felling the king. So, the heart finesse worked but I had a trump to lose and there was still the spade queen to negotiate. All I could do was return to my hand and lead the queen of hearts, which North discarded on, and then I could only lead a spade. North held the Q7 doubleton and the queen fell under the king. I then led the jack which North could ruff but I would be left with the winning trump. That was probably the luckiest slam I have ever made. I felt even luckier when I discovered that nobody else in the A team match had bid a slam even though 6ª cannot be beaten.

The slam had put us back in touch and the 1^st round ended with us just 4 imps behind. The next 2 rounds were quite close with 1 big swing each and a swapping of a few imps left us exactly square, and so we moved into the last round with some optimism. Alas, we could not keep it up. It was boards 28 and 29 that really finished us off. When Mark Honess was declarer in 3NT, he unfortunately received a spade lead whereas, at all the other 3 tables, the lead was the jack of clubs. The club lead is safe so long as the same hand holds the ace of diamonds but, on a spade lead, the opponents will get the chance to lead clubs from the other side of the table through declarer’s KQx holding. Then 29 finished us off :-

Board 29 North

All vul.

Dealer North ª J107654

¨ A103

§ 4

West East

ª 9 ª A2

¨ K984 ¨ Q7

§ 103 § QJ98752

South

ª KQ83

¨ J652

§ AK6

When Helen was North, declarer in 4ª, she unfortunately made a critical error. I do not report this to embarrass Helen, she had played very well until this hand, but I do so for the benefit of others. The error she made is one that I have seen so many times and the position is quite a common one. She received a club lead to her ace and led a trump. East took the ace and led another club. Helen took the king and discarded a small heart. This proved to be fatal because she had 2 diamonds, a spade and a heart to lose. The heart lead did not improve her position, she still had a heart loser. If she had discarded a diamond, that would have left her with just one diamond loser instead of 2 and the contract would have been made.

However, she could have recovered from this error. If she had drawn the last trump, ruffed her last club, cashed the ace of hearts and exited with a heart, one of the defenders would have been end-played. The position just as declarer is about to exit with the heart would have been :-

North

ª J76

¨ A103

West East

ª ª

¨ K984 ¨ Q7

§ § J9875

South

ª 83

¨ J652

On the lead of the Jack of hearts, East has to take the king and either lead a club giving declarer a ruff and discard, or he has to lead a diamond reducing declarer’s diamond losers to just one. East might try to cheat his fate by dropping his heart king under the ace but, in that case, West would be end played. Interesting hand.

The B and C teams had a hard time of it this time, but I can only put that down to the fact that the teams did not look much like the teams that we fielded in the previous match. There were some good things though, Tim Evans and Josh Santinelli-Clarke were 1 of only 2 Suffolk pairs that had a positive cross-imp score. They have played together before, they are not a regular pairing for the county and so that is very encouraging for the future. However, after praising them, I feel that I have to report on a hand that was not a success for them because, just as for Helen’s play on board 29 there are lessons for all of us to think about :-

Board 18 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª K

¨ K982

§ Q762

West East

ª A76 ª Q1084

¨ 10 ¨ AJ7654

§ A10953 § K4

South

ª J9532

¨ Q3

§ J8

West North East South

1¨ 2¨

Pass 4© all pass

This was 3 down and they were lucky that it was not doubled. This is typically a hand where a new partnership can easily go wrong. However, personally I never use a Michaels cue bid, or any bid that shows a weak 2-suiter, with less than 5 cards in both suits. 10 imps were lost on this board but, if it had been doubled, the score would have been a lot worse. If I was going to overcall with the South hand, I would have bid 1ª but, at this vulnerability with such a poor suit, I would have passed.

Going by his jump to game, I assume that Josh expected Tim to hold at last 5 hearts. The hand would play much better if it was a 9-card fit but, even then, the king of spades is a waste. A plain singleton with the points in any other suit would have made the trick taking capacity of the hand much better. If the vulnerability is favourable, then you can afford to be 3 down doubled so long as the opponents have a game on. When it is unfavourable as in this case, you can only afford to be 1 down. Therefore, when jumping to 4©, Josh has to believe that he can make 9 or 10 tricks. This makes the bid a 2-way shot, either game is going to make or, if it is 1 down, hopefully the opponents were due to score well in their own contract. I am sure that the surprise element of the 4© bid was why it was not doubled, but it would probably have been doubled in an A team match.

In my opinion the South hand is just not suitable for a Michaels cue bid at this vulnerability. The hand does not even contain a singleton and the reason why Michaels can be so effective is that tricks can be made against the balance of strength because of the good distribution. A 4-4 trump fit is not going to do that very often whereas a 5-4 fit would fare much better. I would pass the South hand but, at favourable vulnerability, I would overcall 1ª, and I know of several experts that would not even go that far because the suit is so feeble and would pass the hand at any vulnerability.

However, Josh and Tim did much better on board 32 :-

Board 32 North

E/W vul.

Dealer West ª AKQ83

¨ AQJ

§ 52

West East

ª J4 ª 97

¨ 108765 ¨ K4

§ KQ87 § AJ1063

South

ª 10652

¨ 932

§ 94

West North East South

Pass 1ª 2§ 2ª

3§ 4ª all pass

Even though Josh and Tim were vulnerable again, this was a much better auction. Many players would suggest that a 2§ overcall of 1ª is not going to achieve much but this deal shows you just how wrong experts can be sometimes. But the one thing that such an overcall can do is to sow a few seeds of doubt in the opponents’ minds as to who has the balance of strength, and that is what seems to have happened here. Presumably, if there had been no interference bidding, the opponents would have a method of making a value raise or a pre-emptive raise.

If Ralph had bid 1ª, I would have jumped to 3ª which is a pre-emptive raise. However, the 1ª bid in our system shows no more than 15 points and so North would have no interest in bidding game. But natural systems are more vulnerable to pre-emptive action in a situation such as this one. What does South bid with his hand? The 2ª bid appears to be a competitive bid showing support and the ability to compete at the 2-level. Therefore, North would have been strong enough to expect game to be on. But the 2§ overcall has made it difficult for the opponents to judge the strength of their hands as accurately as if East had passed. Of course, if North/South’s methods are less than perfect, they will always have a problem and that is as good a reason for competing as anything.

But note, East’s club suit is much stronger than on board 18. There is still no singleton but there are 2 doubletons and the king of diamonds can expect to take a trick. The 3§ raise appears to be a little timid but it is just about right. This looks like a part-score battle and East/West are out-gunned and vulnerable. Push to the 3-level and pass. At least, there is a chance that you have made the opponents guess. They will not guess correctly every time as this example shows. The big question is : what do you do if they just bid 3ª instead of 4ª? The answer is pass, without thinking about it. 3ª might already be too high, or they might have missed game. They have had to guess and they cannot be sure if they have guessed right. Do not give them another option, they may just take it and double you. Ralph and I have a rule, when we are competing and we are weaker than our opponents, we compete to the 3-level but no further, unless the distribution is really wild. It does not work every time, but it does most of the time and certainly pays in the long run.

The C team are not used to losing and certainly not by so much as this time. When we are short of players, it is always going to be the C team that will suffer the most, but my thanks go to Jenny and Celia as mentioned earlier for coming together at the last moment, to John and Caro also for joining us at the last minute and, in fact, for the whole team for supporting us in their usual fashion. I hope things will be different next time. I do not intend to embarrass them too much by showing their worst boards, however, I feel that board 5 deserves a few more words than I gave it earlier in this report. I am embarrassed to say that none of the A team pairs managed to bid this slam and there should be a way :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª KQ987654

¨ 5

West East

ª J2 ª 103

¨ 93 ¨ KJ10862

§ AKJ9743 § 85

South

ª A

¨ AQ74

§ Q1062

This was the auction at John and Caro’s table (they were East/West) :-

West North East South

4ª pass 4NT

Pass 5ª pass 6ª

All pass

Obviously, I am not sure how they play their responses to 4NT but it certainly worked for them. At other tables, South passed! I am not sure that the Blackwood method is the best over a 4ª opening bid, but it is better than pass. At my table, I was West and North opened the bidding with 1ª. After that, they were unable to see that 6ª is lay down. Of course, I stuck in a 3§ overcall but that should not have slowed them down.

But I am interested in the best way forward after a 4ª opening bid. Some play that 4NT is not Blackwood but asks opener to bid a side suit that contains the ace. This has some merit but, in this example, it would leave South worried about the club suit. Personally, I would look at the problem slightly differently. The 4ª opening bid suggests that opener has a decent 8-card suit and, therefore, there is likely to be a singleton or void or 2. So, I would consider that my values are sufficient to expect 5ª to make and I would cue bid a top control below the level of 5 of opener’s suit, i.e. 5¨ in this case. Usually, such a bid would suggest something good in the trump suit as well plus slam interest and should be enough on it’s own for North to bid the slam. But nothing is easy when the auction starts at such a high level. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know.

NTL match 3.

Phoenix had a good win this week but the other 3 teams did not fair so well. In the Agate match, Noel Mullan was acting as substitute because we were so short of regular players and was paired with me. He is to be my partner in the County match this weekend, so this was good practice for us. Unfortunately, I still have some work to do to learn Noel’s system but we did not do too badly.

Board 4 was interesting :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª AQ1052

¨ K

§ KQ

West East

ª K64 ª 983

¨ A2 ¨ 1087653

§ A542 § 1063

South

ª J7

¨ QJ94

§ J987

At our table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1ª All pass

Our defence was less than inspired and declarer made 11 tricks. However, we were expecting a decent swing because 4© is unbeatable, but bidding it is rather difficult, apparently. At the other table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 2§ pass 2¨

Pass 2ª pass 2NT

Pass 3© pass 3ª

Pass 4§ pass 4ª

Unfortunately, our team mates ended up in the wrong game contract. They did nothing obviously wrong and it is the type of hand that natural systems struggle with. Playing a strong club system, the bidding might have gone like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1§ pass 1¨

Pass 1© pass 1ª

Pass 2ª pass 2NT

Pass 4© all pass

The meaning of these bids are :-

1§ shows 16+ points with any distribution.
1¨ shows 0-8 points.
1© shows 20+ points.
1ª shows 0-5 points.
2ª shows a 5+ card suit but just less than game forcing strength.
2NT shows even distribution with less than 3 spades.
4© shows 5-5 distribution in the majors.

The 4© bid is easy to make because responder must have at least 3 hearts for the 2NT bid.

In the Phoenix match, Helen and David bid the hand like this :-

West North East South

Pass 2¨ pass 2ª

Pass 3© pass 4©

This was rather successful, particularly as the same game was bid at the other table but declarer took the wrong line and went down. However, it seems to me that it was rather lucky that hearts were bid before spades. The 2ª bid was alerted and I am not sure what it meant but I admit that I would have rebid in spades intending to bid hearts on the next round. Having to start at the 2-level to show a strong hand does make it difficult to bid 2-suiters so well done David and Helen.

This is a problem that natural systems have never really been able to cope with completely. You can either bid 1 of you best suit and hope partner can keep the bidding open or you can bid 2§ often on hands that do not have game going values and hope that you do not get too high. You have to make a choice neither of which will cope with all hands of this sort of strength.

Phoenix continued to make gains all through the match although they were fortunate on board 5. They bid and made 4ª and made it at one table but the game can be defeated on a heart lead. At the other table, the opponents stopped in 3ª and also made 10 tricks so that was another 10 imps in.

Unfortunately, things did not go so well for Agate. The score was 13-13 at half time and we scored another 9 imps on the next 3 boards. However, the tide turned on board 13. Noel and I bid to 3ª and stopped and there are 4 losers so I just made the contract. At the other table, the opponents bid to 4ª and our team mates failed to take all their tricks. Declarer was allowed to set up 2 club winners to discard a diamond and the queen of hearts. a little bad luck on the last 2 boards left us 19 imps down.

Amethyst really had a ‘bad day at the office’. Everything they tried to do went wrong and it was not always easy to see where they went wrong. There were 2 slam hands that made a significant difference. The first was board 6 which was flat in the Agate match, 6ª bid and made at both tables :-

West North East South

1§ pass 1NT pass

2¨ pass 2ª pass

3§ pass 3NT pass

4¨ pass 5¨ pass

6¨

1§ was strong and I believe that the 1NT response showed 4 controls, i.e. Ace = 2 controls and king = 1. All the following bids were natural and, if I was being picky, I would have said that the 4¨ rebid was an error. Did 3§ show 5 diamonds and 4 clubs, or at least 5 cards in both minors? Personally, I would have jumped to 4§ instead of simply bidding 3§. That would be intended to show at least 5-5 in the minors and slam interest. Then East would have supported clubs and the correct slam would have been reached. It is not wrong to rebid a 6-card suit but it is a suit with holes in it and that would have prompted me to bid the clubs strongly.

Emerald played quite well but boards 7 and 8 sealed their fate. Their opponents bid and made 6§ on board 8 whereas they were content with 3NT at the other table. Board 7 was a shame, really :-

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª 10875

¨ 1075

§ 73

West East

ª QJ94 ª A32

¨ KQ4 ¨ J963

§ J542 § 8

South

ª K6

¨ A82

§ AKQ1096

Emerald played in 3§ by South and it went 1 down, as it should on a diamond lead. However, there was a chance of making it. The king of diamonds was led and declarer took the ace. Declarer then cashed the top clubs and left the jack outstanding. He then led the jack of hearts and ran it when West played low. East made a mistake and he with held the king. Unfortunately, declarer finessed again and declarer could not avoid 2 diamond losers and a loser in each of the other 3 suits.

To make the contract, declarer only had to cash the ace of harts and led a spade towards the king.

At the other table, the opponents bid to 3NT. this also should fail on a diamond lead, but the queen of spades was led. Declarer took the king and led the jack of hearts. When the jack held the trick, declarer played 4 rounds of clubs giving West the lead with the jack. At this point, West led a heart but declarer made no mistake, he took the ace and cashed the ace of diamonds and 2 club tricks to make his contract. The diamond lead was not obvious but it would have removed the entry back to declarer’s club winners.

NTL match 2, correction.

In my report on the NTL match 2, I made a gross error suggesting that 4H was a good contract on board 3 and that my team mates should have bid and made it. Anyone reading this, who is half awake can see that I could have defeated the game at my tables simply by leading the ace and king of spades and a small one for my partner to ruff. I, therefore, offer my apologies to my team mates for this error. I will try to do better next time.

NTL Match 2.

I am having great difficulty with Agate playing on BBO while everyone else is on RealBridge. Obviously, we are playing different hands and so I cannot compare the hands across all 4 teams and it is easier to analyse the hands when you have played them yourself. So, the first part of this report is based on Agate’s performance, and I hope some of it will be of interest to everyone.

Unfortunately, we did not win, losing by 3 imps to a team that was relegated at the end of the last season from Div 2. However, we were not at our best and this is really a match we should have won.

Our problems started on board 3 when game was bid and made by our opponents at my table but our team mates were unable to bid the game. Admittedly, it was a close game and, perhaps, it might not be bid at pairs, but this is teams and so, with 24 points in the 2 hands and a 6-card major, it has to be bid at teams. There followed a few part-score swings that went against us and as we started the last board of the first half, we were 28 imps in arrears. However, board 8 allowed us to win a few back :-

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª A109754

¨ 106

§ AQ7

West East

ª KQJ832 ª 6

¨ Q7 ¨ A95

§ J108 § K9643

South

¨ KJ8432

§ 52

At our table, the bidding went like this :-

West North East South

2ª pass Pass double

All pass

Weak 2s have stood the test of time and, usually, they are very effective, but this one was about to come to a very sticky end. Of course, as North I wanted to double 2ª for penalties, but double in this position is far more flexible if it is used for take-out. The only bid left to me immediately over the opening bid was pass. Luckily, Ralph had a void in spades and he had 2 places to play. In the other room, South felt that there might be a slam on and so, instead of doubling, he bid 3ª. After that, they could not stay out of game, i.e. 4©. Unfortunately, even though declarer successfully finessed in trumps, the 4-2 split meant that he could not draw trumps and develop the diamonds and had to go 1 down.

At our table, I had no problem in passing Ralph’s double. Admittedly, I might have been giving up on a possible slam but, as the distribution was obviously very wild, I felt that defending was a better option. Also, it was very likely to score at least as well as game particularly as I sat over declarer. Declarer was 4 down doubled for 800 to the good guys.

Board 8 had given us a chance. The second half was much closer and, as we went into board 15, we had pulled back 3 whole imps. But it looked as if we were going to give it back, probably with interest :-

Board 15 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª QJ653

¨ 62

§ A853

West East

ª K87 ª A942

¨ 10975 ¨ KQ84

§ 76 § 42

South

ª 10

¨ AJ3

§ KQJ109

West North East South

1¨

pass 1ª pass 1NT

pass 2ª All pass

Ralph abused our system here. His 1NT rebid is completely wrong. 1¨ followed by a 1NT rebid in our system shows 10-12 points with even distribution and singletons are not allowed. My 2ª was a sign off and I ‘knew’ that Ralph would provide at least 2-card support for spades. Obviously, he had hoped that I would pass 1NT but, if he had held even distribution, playing in spades might well allow me to stop the run of the opponents’ best suit.

At the other table, N/S played in 3§ and easily made it. Therefore, I was facing a loss of a few imps. I have to admit that, when I first saw dummy I did not think that I had a chance of getting close to making this contract. But there is no point in giving up and I have some experience of playing in 5-1 fits (thanks Ralph).

The lead was a club and I took it in dummy with the king and I immediately led the 10 of spades. To have any chance of making the contract, I needed to draw their trumps if possible so that I could make club tricks. East took the ace and led the 4 of hearts. west cashed 2 heart tricks and led another club. Luckily, the clubs split 2-2 and so I was able to win in hand and lead the queen of spades. West won and led a heart. I ruffed, cashed the jack of trumps and led a trump. East, who held the outstanding trump, discarded a diamond but had to ruff the next round. He had to lead a diamond to dummy’s ace and so I cashed the last club to discard a diamond which just left me with the last trump. 8 tricks made and then I let out a rather heavy sigh of relief. Luckily, they cannot hear you on BBO.

The defence against me was not of the best. My only chance was to be able to draw 3 rounds of trumps and still have one left to regain the lead when they have to ruff my clubs. Their plan should have been to continue leading their heart winners so that my trump holding was shortened until it was shorter than theirs.

That flattened the board and so we were still quite a long way behind. But we had a little luck on the last board when I was in 5ª going 2 down, whereas the declarer in the other room was 3 down doubled. This gained us 9 imps and so we lost by only 3 imps.

Emerald were a little unlucky as they were leading going in to the last board but ended up losing by just 3 imps. However, there first problem occurred on board 2 :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª K5

¨ QJ62

§ AK8

West East

ª 108 ª Q9743

¨ A109753 ¨ 4

§ Q2 § J10754

South

ª AJ62

¨ K8

§ 963

West North East South

2ª Pass

2NT pass 3§ pass

3ª All pass

This board was lost in the auction. North held an 18-count and passed thorough out. Both the 2ª and the 2NT bids were alerted and I presume that 2ª was a Tartan 2 showing 5+ cards in the bid major and 5 cards in a second suit, usually a minor. 2NT was presumably a request for the second suit and 3§ was a sign off. Basically, neither opponent has shown a strong hand and so, North should have been aware that passing could be fatal because game might be missed and should, at least, doubled the final contract for penalties. However, it is always best to enter the auction at your first opportunity because, if you don’t, the action could have reached an uncomfortable level before you get another chance. I would have doubled 2NT, for take-out of course.

If North had doubles 2NT, it might prove difficult to find the 4-4 heart fit, but South would probably steer the auction towards 3NT, which also makes. Ralph and I do not play Tartan 2s but we do have a method to show any 2-suiter with 6-9 points and these bids often score better than they should. Few pairs bother with a defence to such bids because they meet them so rarely but you cannot go too far wrong with a take-out double.

After this, there were a series of part-score hands on both sides and one game swing, i.e. board 8. The opponents at one table, stopped in 4§ when, at the other table, Emerald went on to 5§ which made comfortably. Always bid those games.

So, now we come to board 16. Emerald were leading by 11 imps :-

Board 16 North

N/S vul.

Dealer E/W ª AJ10862

¨ 108

§ KJ9

West East

ª 3 ª K754

¨ KJ6 ¨ A95432

§ AQ108743 § 2

South

ª Q9

¨ Q7

§ 65

West North East South

1§ 1ª 2¨ 3©

This was the auction at one table with Emerald in 4© doubled. This proved to be a disaster and it is not easy to see why this went so far wrong. Declarer was 4 down for an 800 loss. Of course, the opponents had 2 diamond winners and had a club winner and a club ruff. There was also the king of spades to lose and the ace and king of trumps. The problem lies in that East/West had singletons and North/South had doubletons.

South knows that he has a 2722 distribution and a very weak hand in terms of high cards. There is no point in having a long suit if you cannot ruff anything. This should have persuaded South to be a little cautious. In the other room, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

1§ 3ª double pass

5§ All pass

Dennis Valtisiaris was very unlucky. 5§ was a good bid and, it he could have found one of the missing club honours in the South hand, he would have made it. As it was, he could have saved the match if he had played in 4§. The lead would have narrowed but Emerald would have won. Tough luck Emerald.

Phoenix had a torrid time finally losing by 34 imps. They had a similar problem on board 2 as Emerald finding it difficult to find 4H or 3NT after having to deal with a Tartan 2 opening bid. It is obviously worth discussing with your partner how you will deal with these bids in the future. After board 7, Phoenix was 20 imps behind but managed to salvage 11 on board 8. Helen and David bid a terrible slam that should have been off if the opponents had led a spade. But, on a diamond lead, all 13 tricks rolled in. Unfortunately, they had very little luck scoring only another 5 imps whereas their opponents scored another 30 imps mainly due to 2 game swings. The first was board 12 when Jenny took an unfortunate line when playing the clubs. The odds suggest that, with AJxxx opposite Qxx, the lead of a small club to the jack and then cashing the ace on the second round will provide at least 4 tricks in the suit and 5 when the opponent being finessed holds Kx. But, when the suit is divided as it was, declarer does better to lead small towards the queen on the second round. This loses to the king but the 9x can then be finessed. Unlucky.

Phoenix were also a little unlucky when the opposition on board 16 found the only making game, i.e. 3NT.

Amethyst are the only Suffolk team to win this week. Their campaign started on board 6 when they found and made a part-score at both tables for a useful 7 imp pick-up. Then, on board 8, the opposition bid the slam and Caroline Gemmell found the sensible lead of an ace and, when she saw Mark’s 10 under it, she led another to get the slam down. Team mates at the other table, settled for 5C and made all 13 tricks, but that was 10 imps to the good guys.

However, they had a set back on board 9 when Mark and Caroline were a little too optimistic. They tried for a slam, ended up in 5H, one down. This is the type of hand that makes me glad that I play a strong club system with relays. But, also, Ralph and I do not use Blackwood, we use a control asking bid. This was the N/S hands :-

North South

ª J ª KQ872

¨ Q76 ¨ J3

§ AKQJ3 § 4

Responses to the control asking bid are made in steps and, as an opening bid other than 1§ shows 10-15 points, the 1^st step response shows 0-3 controls and each subsequent step adds another control to the total. Therefore, as the auction started : 1§-1©-3©, responded could have bid 4§ which is the control asking bid and North only has 3 controls, i.e. the ace and king of clubs. (An ace = 2 controls and a king = 1 control).

Responder would know that 6 controls were missing and that there was very little, if any, chance of slam making and he would be able to sign off safely in 4©. the full auction would be : 1§-1©-3©-4§-4¨-4©.

Another 5 imps were lost on board 11 when a wrong view was taken by declarer. But they did quite well after that picking up a few imps in part-score hands. Then board 15 turned up which sealed the match for them. This board is quite horrible and I am surprised that it caused little difficulty for the other teams :-

Board 15 North

N/S vul.

Dealer South ª Q1085

¨ 97

§ Q92

West East

ª 92 ª KJ7

¨ 864 ¨ KQJ53

§ K1053 § A76

South

ª A643

¨ A102

§ J84

Caroline and Mark ended up in 2© which was a very uncomfortable contract and it went 3 down vulnerable. But at the other table, the auction went like this :

West North East South

1NT

Pass pass double all pass

This was well bid by Bill Tweddle and John Wilmott. Double in 4^th seat of 1NT is for take-out but, with 8 points, Bill made the sensible decision of passing for penalties. that was 3 down doubled vulnerable and 11 imps in. The match was virtually over.

However, they lost 13 imps on board 16 when the opposition bid and made 3NT and Amethyst tried 5©. This is not really a mistake. In the auction it is very difficult to see that 3NT is a good contract. But this was generally a good performance by the whole team.

NTL Match 13.

Sorry for the lack of a report for last week. I was attending my nephew’s wedding and it turned out to be a 4 day event! I am still recovering. So, to this week. Good wins for Emerald and Phoenix. Agate and Amethyst fought each other to an honourable draw. It seems that I am something of a Jonah because, whenever Agate plays any of the other Suffolk teams, we never win when I am in the line-up. Well played Amethyst.

Our problems started on board 5. Unfortunately, I made a mistake in the bidding. I was playing with Michael Sherer who plays a version of Precision Club but it is not the same as mine and Ralph’s and I confused the 2 systems and came up with the wrong answer playing in a hopeless slam. However, we got some of the deficit back on board 7 :-

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª 1073

¨ AK43

§ A105

West East

ª J642 ª 5

¨ 5 ¨ J10876

§ KQ7 § J842

South

ª AKQ98

¨ Q92

§ 963

West North East South

1ª

pass 4ª All pass

Both pairs were playing a version of Precision Club and Precision players would rarely pass a hand such as South’s, although the deal was passed out at several tables. I was sat West and, similarly, I would almost always overcall 2© with that West hand. In a way, I was fortunate because North had something of a problem. He had an 11-count, i.e. 2 aces and a king and he was wondering whether they had a game on. Also, his spade support was hardly of the best and so, rather than raise the spades, he decided to double. Michael did well by raising me to 3© and this was passed back to North. With no more information coming his way, the decision was his. As South had passed 3©, perhaps he should have passed as well, but he was really worried about missing that possible game.

Of course, we might have doubled 4ª, but neither of us had enough to consider a double. Even though I had 4 trumps, that was not enough on its own. My hearts were not very good and, as I had been raised, I doubted that they would have many heart losers and, apart from his hearts, Michael’s hand was nothing to shout about either. So, they played in 4ª and went 2 down.

We picked up 5 more imps on board 8 when Michael was able to pass my 1NT rebid. At the other table, they were not playing Precision and so West opened with 1©. Jeff Orton bid 3¨ and so they ended up in 3©, which was not very successful. And, on board 9, we had another decent pick-up when I decided to keep quiet when East opened the bidding with 1NT in spite of the fact that he held 5 hearts. I am against this style of bidding, it is a personal thing but, whenever I have had to play such systems, they have gone wrong, as it did this time. They ended up playing in 2ª after a transfer sequence and it went 3 down vulnerable. Our partners at the other table bid up to 3NT which had to go one down but that was 8 imps to us and put us in the lead.

Unfortunately, we could not maintain that lead.. Amethyst picked up 6 imps on board 12 leaving us just 6 imps in front, but then came board 15 :-

Board 15 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª A952

¨ 74

§ KQ107

West East

ª J1086 ª Q743

¨ Q8632 ¨ 109

§ AJ5 § 932

South

ª K

¨ AKJ5

§ 864

West North East South

1©

pass 1ª pass 2¨

Take the 9 of diamonds in hand with the king or 10, ruff a spade, ruff a heart and ruff the last spade. Declarer has to lose a club at the end, but he makes 10 tricks, rather than the 9 scored at both tables.

If the outstanding trumps had split 3-2, I would have made the contract but, of course, they didn’t. This is a game that I would always want to be in and I was surprised that it was not bid at the other table. If Michael had held 4 hearts instead of 4 spades and East had only 3, 4© would make. But with 11 points in one hand and 14 in the other, you should be in game, no matter how the hands are distributed, normally. At the other table, South did not open the bidding which is understandable, sort of, but such action will often miss game and I am not unhappy in how we bid it, but that was a 6 imp loss and put both teams on 25 imps. Board 16 was a push and I had done it again, what a Jonah!

Phoenix had a horrible start losing 24 imps in the first 3 boards and were 30 imps down after 6 boards. That is a lot to recover in 10 boards. The first problem was board one where Helen and David suffered severe interference bidding. However, I will say that, if I had been in the East seat, I would not have tried 6H with a doubleton in the opponents’ suit, I would be expecting to find another doubleton, in partner’s hand. Also, the opponents were vulnerable and they had stuck their necks out. 5 down doubled would be very good compensation, even of the slam would make.

Board 3 was the next big loss and I am sure that Norbert is having nightmares over this one because he is a far better player than this :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª J96

¨ Q9

§ K9542

West East

ª Q108 ª 542

¨ AJ84 ¨ 1065

§ AQ10 § J863

South

ª AK73

¨ K732

§ 7

3NT by North was the contract at both tables but East, at Norbert’s table, found a neutral lead of a spade leaving Norbert to do all the work himself. On the spade lead, he had 3 spade winners and, if they split 3-3, he also had 4 heart tricks. The problem was to find 2 more. A diamond was obvious but the opponents were not likely to allow him to make 2 diamond tricks and so he had to hope that the king of clubs could be promoted. But, there is another problem. You have to be able to enter dummy to cash the king of clubs when it has been promoted.

The mistake came at trick 2. After having ducked the spade lead promoting dummy’s jack, he should have taken trick 2 with the ace or king. He can then lead a diamond towards the queen, which will probably hold the trick because West sets up a second diamond trick if he takes the ace, and so you return to hand with a heart and lead a club. You have no real play for the game unless the ace is in West’s hand, unless the opponents help you and so you might as well put the king up if West plays low. However, West should rise with the king seeing the singleton in dummy and, if the jack of spades has been used, he can guess that there will be no entry to declarer’s own hand. But, if it has been preserved, when declarer regains the lead, he can cross to the jack of spades to cash the king of clubs and then cash his 9 tricks.

This is one of those hands that just needs careful planning at trick one. Norbert could actually have made the contract if he had played for the hearts to split 3-3 because of the way that the opponents had played their cards. However, if he had played as I have suggested, he can leave the hearts until right until the end of the play and a count of the hand would have shown that they were about to break favourably. Also, although there is not going to be a genuine squeeze available, but if West had held 4 hearts and the AJ of diamonds, he just might have discarded a heart on the run of declarer’s other winners.

The fight back began on board 7. Not being a Precision player, Jenny did not think that the South hand warranted an opening bid but West decided that his hand was worth a weak 2 in hearts. When this passed back to Jenny, she showed her spade suit. East doubled and West passed! That was worth 13 imps and, suddenly, the momentum had changed hands. Another 7 imps came in on boards 8 and 9 and then, on board 10, it was Helen’s turn to find herself in an easy making doubled contract. The Edwards team really needs to sort out it’s doubling policy :-

Board 10 North

All vul.

Dealer East ª AQ72

¨ 4

§ K3

West East

ª 10864 ª J93

¨ K87 ¨ A9643

§ J1084 § AQ962

South

ª K5

¨ QJ102

§ 75

West North East South

1¨ pass

Obviously, East intended his double to be for take-out probably trying to indicate that he had a few spades as well as a secondary club suit. His partner did not get the message and Norbert made 10 tricks. This was worth 14 imps because Jenny and Norbert had pushed their opponents into 5© which had to go one down.

However, if I had been sat in the South seat, I would not have passed over the 1¨ opening bid. I would have overcalled with 1© and then North just has to bid 4©. this way there is no way that the game would be missed or that North could raise to an inconvenient level to make life difficult for the opponents. Helen and David were lucky that they ended up in 3© doubled. That South hand really needs to get into the auction immediately, but you cannot argue with success.

There were a few imps exchanged over the next 5 boards but Jenny and Norbert managed to bid, and make, 6© on board 16. Luckily, they did not get a club lead. But it was worth a shot because they were still behind at this stage. But the slam rounded off a really dramatic recovery.

Sorry Emerald, even though you had by far the best score of the 4 Suffolk teams, there is nothing of great interest or any important learning points arising from the action in your match. However, you comprehensively out-played your opponents by steady, accurate, bidding and play with no theatrics, just plain steady bridge. Probably something that we can all learn from after all. It is just as important to keep it simple instead of always looking for the unusual. Very well played indeed.

NTL Match 11.

Only Phoenix played in the NTL last Wednesday, 10/7/24. Presumably, the other 3 teams were all watching the football. Unfortunately, they were up against a good team, Joules, and they lost by 29 imps. Some of the losses were a little unlucky and there were some boards on which I am sure that they would do better on another day. I got the impression that they were not at their best. So, not wishing to embarrass them more than I already have, this is a short report and I just want to look at one board that caught my eye, i.e. board 4 :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª 64

¨ Q98

§ KQ

West East

ª KQ1083 ª 9

¨ AK1064 ¨ J532

§ 10 § J9732

South

ª AJ752

¨ 7

§ A8654

West North East South

1ª 2© pass 4©

5¨ pass pass double

All pass

First, let us look at the auction. North’s 2© overcall was very sensible and almost obligatory as far as I am concerned and the bid was made at both tables. But then the paths diverged. The Joules South decided on raising all the way to 4© on just a small doubleton in hearts whereas, the Phoenix South chose to respond with 2NT. This allowed West to show her second suit, i.e. 3¨, and was allowed to play there.

When the 4© bid came around to Tim Evans, he was in a difficult position. I am sure that South had expected him to try 4ª and he was definitely ready to double that. But Tim had a second suit and so he tried 5¨. This was also doubled, although probably with less certainty, and Tim was really too high. There is an argument that suggests that he should have doubled 4©. It goes like this. 2© was an overcall and may not be very strong. South’s jump to 4© was bid to make life difficult but, if South had thought that there was a chance of making it, he would have employed an Unassuming Cue Bid. Therefore, it can be assumed that the jump raise was a pre-emptive barrage bid. Chris Park had not raised spades, which he surely would have if he could and so, if there is a fit, it is in diamonds and that means that declarer has to make 11 tricks. In fact, Chris could only pass and so, the chances of making game are slim. Double and take the money.

But it is the play that interested me. Usually, the best way to play 2-suiters such as this one, is to develop the second suit first before drawing trumps. That is not a certainty every time, but it is a good policy to keep in mind when dealt such a hand. In this case, that would mean trying to ruff the spades good. So, after the heart lead, cash the ace and enter dummy with the king to lead the singleton spade. South will almost certainly take the ace because he can see that the lead is a singleton and, if he is any good, he will lead his singleton trump. Go up with the ace, cash the queen of spades and lead another. North is likely to ruff in with the queen and lead his last trump in this position :-

North

¨ 9

§ KQ

West East

ª Q10 ª

¨ K1064 ¨ J53

§ 10 § J97

South

ª J75

§ A865

Of course, North does not have to ruff in with the queen to lead another trump, but nothing else is any better. Ruff the spade, ruff a heart and lead another spade. If North ducks again, ruff in and exit with a club. North will have to take that in this position :-

North

¨ Q9

§ K

West East

ª Q ª

¨ K106 ¨ J

§ § J97

South

ª J7

§ A86

Another club does not help, declarer ruffs and leads the queen of spades. North can only take the queen of diamonds and 10 tricks are still made. A diamond lead actually allows declarer to make 11 tricks, but nobody would do that. The only other possibility is for North to lead his last heart, but declarer can ruff that in either hand and still only has to lose to the queen of trumps. 10 tricks made again.

Note that it would be a mistake to try to cash both the king and the queen of spades at the first opportunity. You need to cash one of them, but not both, and the remaining honour could be useful in the end play.

NTL match 10.

This week, Agate won rather convincingly and Phoenix won by a single imp. Unfortunately, Emerald and Amethyst did not fair so well. Agate started well on the very first board. This was a triumph for the strong no trump. The opponents, playing the weak no trump could not avoid 3NT when their Stayman sequence could not find a 4-4 major suit fit. They lost the first 6 tricks when South ran his spades and there were 2 more to come in diamonds. The Agate pair in the other room could not open with 1NT and so they started with 1C. The opponents intervened in spades and so Agate ended up in 4C. they actually made plus 1 but 5C was not a good contract. There are 3 losers off the top.

There followed a few small pick ups as Agate seemed to get the better of the part-score battles but the big gain came on board 10. They bid accurately to 6NT and made with an overtrick. There bidding was correct as there was a king missing and a grand slam missing a king is not good odds. However, the opponents in the other room bid the grand slam. But declarer was reluctant just to go for the finesse in spades but, if she was looking for a squeeze, she was going completely the wrong way about it. Anyway, there was no possibility of a slam and she should have taken the spade finesse, which would have been successful and so it could be said that Agate was very lucky here but they had made a 17 imp pick up at an interesting point in the match.

At this point Agate were leading by 40 imps to 2 and the match was out of reach for the opponents. They managed a couple of minor pick ups but nothing to trouble the good guys. Then board 15 really wrapped it up. Agate bid and made 4H at their table but their opponents in the other room bid only 3H and just made 9 tricks. That was 10 more imps for a very convincing win. My congratulations to David Wilson because he still seems to be playing as well as ever.

Board 15 is worth looking at. The trumps split 4-0 but David Morran dealt with that very well and he refused a finesse in diamonds and played to ruff his diamond losers. This worked far better than the finesse did at the other table.

Phoenix had the worst of it in the first half being 21 imps behind. 14 of those imps were lost when Tim and Chris played board 6 in 4S when they should have been in 3NT. There was some justification in this because the opponents had bid hearts and it looked as if the hearts would be open once the ace ha been forced out. However, things dramatically improved in the second half and Tim and Chris got their revenge on board 12. This time 3NT was doomed to failure because the heart suit was wide one this time, but Tim and Chris avoided this trap and played, successfully, in 5D.

Things got better on board 13 when the opponents at Tim and Chirs’s table tried a very optimistic 6H. North made a splinter response on an 8-count and, even though he had 5 card trump support, that is just not enough. Some players cannot resist using all their gadgets even on unsuitable hands, or perhaps they were smarting from Tim and Chris’s well bid 5D contract on the previous hand. But, no matter what the motivation was, opener was not going to stop short of game with a 16-count when partner had showed the values for a splinter raise.

At this point, Phoenix were just 1 imp behind but they were able to snatch victory on the last board by making 2 tricks more than their opponents in the same contract for a hard earned and well deserved victory. Jenny Price played 3NT from the South hand and played it in a way that I would not have considered.

Board 16 North

E/W vul.

Dealer West ª 632

¨ AQ106

§ KJ3

West East

ª QJ4 ª A85

¨ J72 ¨ 942

§ 97 § 1062

South

ª K1097

¨ K85

§ AQ854

Playing in 3NT, she took the opening heart lead with her singleton king and crossed to dummy in clubs to lead the 6 of spades to her king, which held the trick. I would not have done that because, if the AQJ of spades had all been behind her king, she would have lost 3 spade tricks, whereas if she had just cashed all her winners, she had 11 tricks anyway. I might have tried it at pairs if needing a good score, or if I had bid the slam, but perhaps Jenny had ‘diagnosed’ that they were still behind and every trick counted. The king of spades held the trick and Jenny proceeded to cash all her winners, and her opponents both decided to discard hearts. The 9 of hearts won the 13^th trick and the match. Well done Jenny.

Amethyst had a torrid time and seemed to be on the wrong end of all he difficult decisions. They were on the wrong end of 4 double figure swings and only 1 went their way. The bid swing that they made occurred on board 13 when the opponents tried the very poor 6©. They had similar problems to Phoenix on board 6, i.e. not sure of they had a heart stop, but hey tried 5¨ which was also 1 down with 3NT making at the other table. But the most serious problem was on board 10. The opponents were lucky because they board 7© and the spade finesse was successful. However, only game was bid at the other table and that was a 16 imp loss.

To be fair, the opponent in the West seat decided to make a very weak opening bid after hearing 2 passes. He bid 2¨ which was alerted but I do not know what it meant but, looking at his hand, it probably showed 5-4 or better in the majors. North simply bid 3NT leaving partner with nowhere to go. Assuming that 2¨ does show both majors, there are various ways of coping with them. Probably, the best method is to play that 2 of a major is a take-out device showing up to 15 points and a shortage in the suit bid and double shows a strong hand. Therefore, on board 10, North doubles and South now has space in which to show North that he is quite strong. If East passes, South probably does best to bid 2ª which asks for a stopper for no trump purpose. There is now no need for North to jump to game but can be content with bidding 2NT and then South should invite the slam by bidding 4NT. you will probably not find 7NT but 6NT is certainly biddable in this way.

There are various ways in which to cope with such bids and they all have their successes. The important thing is to have some understanding with partner and to use it sensibly. To be honest, Ralph and I do not have an understanding to deal with bids like this. However, we do have a similar agreement over the multi-2¨ opening bid and so we would have worked out that double has to be strong. In fact, there are other interesting possibilities here. It is possible to play like this :-

Double is strong.
2ª shows diamonds longer than clubs.
2NT shows equal length in the minors.
3 of a minor is natural usually a 6-card suit.

The choice is yours but, if anyone knows of anything better, please let me know because I am interested.

Emerald also had a very torrid time of it. However, they did manage something that no other Suffolk team managed. They bid and made 6¨ on board 4. I am no Acol or 2 over 1 expert being a confirmed Strong Club player, but they had what seemed to me to be a very sensible auction to the best contract. It might be worth studying for those of us that are always looking to improve our performances. There was nothing to the play, particularly after the spade lead, but the bidding was the thing here. Well done Richard and John.

NTL Match 9, 26/6/24.

This week, Agate and Amethyst both had narrow victories in what were essentially very close matches, but both had a little luck. Unfortunately, Emerald and Phoenix were not so lucky. Agate’s luck came on board 7. At both tables, South opened the bidding with a weak 2ª. Agate bid on to 4ª and made it comfortably. At the other table, North stopped at 3ª, which in one way, was lucky because declarer made a mistake at trick 1. A trump was led, the queen was played by East, and declared ducked it! As the winning margin was just 12 imps, and this board accounted for 10 of them, the second half of the match might well have turned into a very nervous event.

Amethysts piece of luck came early. This was board 2 :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª A5

¨ KJ1097

§ Q874

West East

ª 10763 ª J984

¨ Q85 ¨ 43

§ 10952 § AJ6

South

ª KQ2

¨ A62

§ K3

3NT by South was the contract at both tables. On the lead of the 10 of clubs, Mark Honess had no problem. He simply took the first trick with the king of club and took the diamond finesse through West making 5 diamond tricks, a club and 3 spade tricks.

At the other table, Tony Philpott led a spade. Declarer can still make by leading a club to the king and then following Mark’s line finessing through West to protect the queen of clubs. But he didn’t. Instead, he immediately started on the diamonds by leading the jack and running it. That was one down. If he had stopped to count tricks at trick one, he would realise that, if diamonds behave, he still requires another trick. Therefore, he has to lead a club at some time, and there is no better time than trick 2. Then, he can lead the diamonds from hand so that, if the finesse should fail, his queen of clubs is protected.

Emerald’s downfall came on board 5. They only lost by 8 imps but they lost 12 of them on this board :-

Board 5 North

N/S vul.

Dealer North ª 103

¨ AQ64

§ Q

West East

ª AQJ72 ª 98654

¨ 87 ¨ 1053

§ A92 § K1075

South

ª K

¨ KJ92

§ J8643

The auction stated the same at both tables, North opened with 1©, East passed South raised to 2© and West came in with 2ª. But now, the paths diverged. When Emerald were North/South, North jumped straight to 4© but, at the other table, North bid 4§. Of course, I am not sure what the 4§ bid meant but it seems likely that it was either a splinter or a cue bid. Either way, it would seem that North liked his hand so much that he was making slam try and so South was happy to go on to 5© when East bid 4ª.

Had I held the North hand, I might well have only bid 4© at first. There are 2 losers in the black suits and the diamond suit does not appear to be too robust. However, once the opposition had sacrificed in 4ª, I would definitely have tried 5©. North has 10 cards in 2 suits and a singleton. Also, there is a good chance that partner is short in spades but, more importantly, North/South are vulnerable and East/West are not. Therefore, we are not going to make much out of this hand if we defend, even if we double 4ª.

Phoenix did well on this board taking the push to 5H at one table and getting away with 4S doubled for -100 at the other. But, unfortunately, they had trouble on boards 8 and 10. On 8, a rather ‘speculative’ 3S pre-emptive opening bid, followed by an even more speculative raise to 4S caught them out. But, as North had doubled for take-out, I might well have doubled for penalties if I had been sat in the South seat.

They got a little carried away on 10. This board is a part-score hand but they tried 4S going 1 down doubled for -200 and the opponents in the other room stopped safely in 1NT. They lost a further 9 imps on board 12. 2NT was the contract at both tables which is not an easy contract. The opponents made it when declarer concentrated on developing tricks in diamonds. at the other table, declarer went for the spades which was not so successful. However, they were actually leading by 2 imps with one board to go. I was pleased to see that all 4 teams had no trouble bidding the slam on board 6. But nobody made 12 tricks on board 16. Unfortunately, Helen and David were in 6H making 11 tricks. However, declarer could have done better :-

Board 16 North

E/W vul.

Dealer West ª K

¨ AQ4

§ K10

West East

ª Q109 ª A7532

¨ J109632 ¨ K

§ 732 § 98654

South

ª J864

¨ 876

§ AQJ

North was declarer and East led the ace of spades felling North’s singleton king. If you count the tricks, there are 7 hearts, 3 clubs and the ace of diamonds, 11 in total. Declarer has to generate a 12^th trick. The diamond finesse could provide the 12^th trick but that is just a 50-50 chance and I prefer better odds than that. One diamond can be discarded on the 3^rd round of clubs but that still leaves us facing that diamond finesse. Or does it?

East continued with a second round of clubs and declarer’s jack fell under West’s queen. West then led a club. All declarer had to do was to take the club in dummy and ruff a spade, then draw trumps ending in dummy. The jack of spades is now good and can be used to discard a diamond. 12 tricks made with no fancy end plays or coups.

You might be saying that this all smacks of hindsight, but I am sure that I would have found it if I had played the hand. Once you discover that you are a trick short, you have to look for ways of finding an extra trick. True, the diamond finesse might be good but it is worth trying everything else first saving the finesse as the last resort. The play described above is not difficult, you just have to think of it. If, like me, you detest leaving everything to a chancey finesse, you might have found it, particularly as it can cost nothing to try for it. It might not work but you are still able to try the finesse later.

Match 8

NTL Match 8, 19/6/24.

This week, Amethyst was well beaten by a team who seemed to make the right decisions on all the difficult hands. There is little that can be said about that except, perhaps, that a more aggressive style might have paid when the distribution was a little extreme. Phoenix started badly losing 20 imps on the first 2 boards. However, they fought back well and ended up just 4 imps behind at the end. They literally ran out of boards. A couple more and they would probably have won the match. But this week, I have concentrated on the Agate v Emerald match.

Agate seems to reserve it’s worst bridge for when we play the other Suffolk teams, and this match was no exception. However, Emerald seem to know how to play against us and I applaud them for that. They did well, but I have concentrated on this match because there are lessons to be learned from it. The first board that really irritated me was board 2 :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª A9

¨ KJ976

§ 86

West East

ª QJ1054 ª K862

¨ 8 ¨ 52

§ 73 § A10942

South

ª 73

¨ AQ1043

§ KQJ5

This is mainly for the few of us that use Strong Club bidding systems. Playing with Michael Sherer using his version of Precision Club, Michael opened the East hand with 2§ which shows 11-15 points with either (a) 5+ clubs and a 4-card major, or (b) 6+ clubs. I responded with 2ª which shows 8-11 points with 5+ spades and is invitational, and Michael passed. Michael did admit that he probably should have raised to 3ª. I hate this opening bid and Ralph and I do not use it because the bid used to cause us more poor scores than all the other opening bids put together. It is either mis-used or not fully understood by many of it’s users. The bid can be useful when used correctly but many pairs will mis-use the 2D relay response. This bid should only be made with at least inviational values and no in the hope that opener will rebid in a 4-card major when responder has a poor hand with 2x4-card majors. Ralph and I would have bid the hand like this :-

West North East South

1¨ pass

1ª pass 2ª pass

4ª All pass

That jump to 4ª would seem to be a bit strong but such distribution coupled with a known 5-4 spade fit has to be worth a shot at game and our opponents in the other room had no trouble bidding it.

Board 4 annoyed me because I mis-played it. Usually, declarer play is my main strength, but I got this one wrong :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª 62

¨ 53

§ KJ2

West East

ª K9 ª AJ103

¨ QJ7 ¨ K642

§ 109874 § AQ5

South

ª Q8754

¨ A1098

§ 63

We had actually done well in the auction, and we registered a small gain on the board but, if I had made the game (3NT), the gain would have been rather better. In fact, if I had tried running the 10 of clubs after holding up the ace of hearts for 1 round at least, the game would have rolled in. However, I was trying too hard this time. As North had opened the bidding with a weak 2© bid, I assumed that the vast majority of the top cards outside of the heart suit would be in the South hand. That was convenient in a way, it meant that I would not lose any more heart tricks, but I was in danger of losing a heart, a spade, a diamond and 2 club tricks.

Therefore, I decided to play on the diamonds. Hopefully, the diamonds would split 3-3 or, perhaps, South might be persuaded to part with the diamond ace prematurely, but Jo Harpur was too good for that and so I had to go down. Next time, I will play the clubs first, and still go down when they are all badly placed. This is a cruel game at times.

Something similar occurred on board 5 when I, again, ended up in 3NT going 1 down. Luckily, my opponents in the other room tried 5§ going 2 down. Unfortunately, I was stuck in dummy unable to lead towards the long club suit. If I had led a small one, I would have made the contract but, unfortunately, I have read the text book which states the I should lead the king in case there was a singleton queen. The book inconveniently failed to state how to deal with a singleton ace, even if you could detect it.

We had a little luck on board 7, Michael and I found the easy 4© game and David and Jeff were able to win the auction in 3¨, not doubled! At half time we were 1 imp up but we were rather lucky to have managed that meagre lead.

We made a 6 imp pick up on board 9 making a plus score in both rooms, but then came board 12. Michael and I thought we had done well when our opponents stopped in 4© when 6© was relatively straightforward :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª K10842

§ K

West East

ª J7 ª 9653

¨ J10754 ¨ A3

§ J97 § AQ10832

South

ª AQ

¨ KQ9862

§ 654

12 tricks are easily made when the jack of trumps came down under the ace on the first round of trumps. Declarer was then able to finesse the queen on the next round of trumps. Unfortunately, this was the auction at the other table :-

West North East South

Pass 1© 2§ 2¨

Personally, I would have bid the North hand rather more aggressively although I also think that, after hearts had been bid 3 times, I would have bid 4© with the South hand. But, instead of bidding 2© on the second round, I would have bid 3ª! That gets the shape and power of the hand out there in 2 bids and ensures that game is found because South cannot possibly not bid game now. All South has to do is choose which major to play in.

I have some sympathy for missing the slam but game should always be bid but I cannot complain because I could have saved the match by bidding a slam on board 18, but we will not go into that. And I will end this report by congratulating Emerald on their deserved win.

Match 7

NTL Match 7, 12/6/24.

This week, I was on holiday and so I apologise for the lateness (and shortness) of this report. Agate proved that they do not need me because they recorded a rather professional looking win after 3 successive defeats. However, the play in this match was not very exciting but Agate came out best in most of the part-score battles and made the odd game swing to clinch the match.

I do not know what happened in the Amethyst V Emerald match because the results page is incomplete and so I do not even know who won. Perhaps someone will let me know what happened.

Unfortunately, the Phoenix team was unsuccessful in their match against the Scottish Warriors. However, it was a board that they did well in that first caught my eye. This was Board 3 :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª K10

¨ 10843

§ 7542

West East

ª 74 ª 65

¨ QJ962 ¨ AK75

§ J1093 § AK6

South

ª AQJ9832

§ Q8

The Phoenix N/S pair has a straightforward auction to the spade game :-

West North East South

1ª

Pass 2¨ pass 2ª

Pass 3ª pass 4ª

All pass

At the other table, N/S stopped short of game after East had doubled North’s 1NT response. On point-count theory alone, they were correct to pass short of game, but distribution is far more important than points and South’s hand is far stronger than his 11 points might suggest.

However, I did not like either auction very much. Why should North select 2¨ rather than 2§? I have some sympathy for the 1NT response because it does describe the hand better, but it does not show where North’s strength lies. The problem is that, no matter what North chooses for his response, he could be wrong and finding the game is probably a matter of luck only. But, in my opinion, the fault lies with South. I would have opened that hand with 4ª.

You might be thinking that such a bid is tantamount to gambling and drags Bridge down to the level of Poker or any of the popular casino card games, but I would disagree with that opinion. There are important tactical reasons for making such an opening bid. First of all, it avoids the ignominy of missing a cold game and we all know how badly that can affect the whole match and might never be recovered. Secondly, if the opponents have the balance of strength, you have ‘got your blow in first’ and put the opponents on the back foot. And thirdly, any action that they take now will be a complete guess and, the more that you can make them guess, the more they will guess wrongly. You never know, you might earn a couple of extra imps when they double you out of sheer frustration. For me, it is the void that swings it and suggests that very little is required from North for game to have play.

Basically, there is a time for a sophisticated, constructive auction and there is a time for the proverbial ‘blunt instrument’ and, so often, the blunt instrument is so effective at teams.

Unfortunately, Phoenix gave it all back with interest on board 4 :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª K109

¨ K10742

§ A10

West East

ª AJ83 ª Q542

¨ 86 ¨

§ Q875 § KJ962

South

ª 76

¨ AQJ953

§ 43

The Phoenix East/West pair had a typical unopposed Stayman sequence to the ‘obvious’ spade part-score. But, unfortunately, the effect that voids can have on the trick taking capacity of a hand is often unpredictable, and so it was in this case. At the other table, the auction was very different :-

West North East South

1NT pass 2§ 2¨

2ª 3¨ 3ª pass

4ª All pass

In this case, the interference bidding by the Phoenix pair actually seemed to help the opponents to find a very unlikely game contract. This game was never even considered in the Agate match. However, you cannot fault South for getting into the auction. I would have done exactly the same thing. But, the little detail that should put North/South off a little is that they have no short suits. North might have done better by bidding 4¨ rather than 3¨ to encourage South to sacrifice in 5¨ over 4ª but there is nothing that can be done to prevent the opponents bidding 4ª if they are determined to do so.

Basically, this is one board that I am glad that I did not play because it is very lucky to be able to find that game. Yes, the void does offer a good chance of making more tricks than the point-count, or the losing trick count, might suggest but it could go so wrong if some of West’s points were in the same suit as East’s void. Normally, I try to analyse such hands and come up with some hopefully helpful advice. Sometimes, it smacks of hindsight because it is so often easy to see exactly what to do when you can see all 4 hands but, in this case, I think that the Phoenix team was unlucky.

Match 6

NTL Match 6, 5/6/24.

Unfortunately,.Agate scored their 3^rd loss in succession snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on the very last board. This was always a tight match and there was never going to be much in it either way but we were leading at half-time (just). Board 2 was interesting :-

Board 2 North

N/S vul.

Dealer East ª A9

¨ 87

§ 632

West East

ª K87 ª 5432

¨ AKQ62 ¨ 53

§ K97 § AQJ1054

South

ª QJ106

¨ J1094

§ 8

The auction went like this at our table :-

West North East South

Pass pass

1§ 2© 3§ 3©

5§ All pass

Luckily North started off by cashing his 2 aces and then led another spade. 11 tricks were easy after that because I could discard 2 spade losers on the 3^rd round of diamonds and the king of hearts. This contract will fail on a minor suit lead because the diamonds do not split evenly but, during the auction, I felt that the contract had good chances. Of course, if East is declarer, there is no play for the contract on the lead of the queen of spades but, thanks to our strong 1§ opening bid, the stronger hand held the declaration protecting the unprotected major suit kings. The heart lead was expected on the bidding and it did not matter what the defenders did after cashing the ace of hearts, I would make 11 tricks.

North might have switched to a minor suit at trick 2 but that was too late. I would cash the ace and queen of trumps followed by the ace and king of diamonds and then I would ruff the 3^rd round of clubs. Then I can discard 3 spades on the king of heart, queen of diamonds and the 5^th round of diamonds.

At the other table, the auction was very weird :-

West North East South

Pass pass

Double pass 4§ pass

4ª All pass

4ª was not so successful. Note that both East/West pairs were determined to bid a game but both missed the only safe contract, i.e. 3NT. I could have bid it, but I only had one heart stop and so it did not look as though that was going to be a good contract. But 4ª was certainly the worst of a bad bunch. But this was one of those boards where it is important to bid game in case the opponents at the other table bid it, so long as you select the correct game.

In the Phoenix match, the auction at one table went like this :-

West North East South

Pass pass

1¨ 1© 1ª 2©

2NT All pass

I do not understand the 1ª bid. It is a major suit but bidding a feeble 4-card suit rather than a strong 6 card suit, even when it is a minor, seems to be a little weird. But it actually worked because West bid 2NT. Nothing would have stopped me from raising to 3NT on the strength of the strong club suit and because it was a game and we all know that we should bid the games, even the iffy ones, at teams.

I thought that Amethyst were a little unlucky. They tried 5C but from the East hand. South led the queen of hearts and the contract just had to go down. In the Emerald match, the auction at one table was :-

West North East South

Pass pass

1¨ 1© 1ª 3©

Double All pass

Again, that strange 1ª bid reared it’s ugly head. If the problem is that your system does not allow you to bid the 2-level on 7 points even with a 6-card suit, then there is something definitely wrong with your system. In Precision, a 2-level response requires 11 points or more in the uncontested auction but, in my opinion, this is too much to ask for in the contested auction. That club suit is just too good to be left unbid so, in the contested auction, Ralph and I play any new suit as non-forcing and must be at least a 5-card suit. This makes the competitive auction much easier to deal with. You might think that this is more appropriate for strong club systems, and that may well be the case, but this should at least be a matter for discussion with your favourite partner.

But there is another problem here. Is that double for penalties or for take-out. I may be wrong but it looks as if West meant it to be for take-out and East thought it was for penalties. if it was for penalties, then it is rather dubious because several of West’s top cards are lying under North and 2 of those top cards, i.e. the major suit kings are unsupported. If it was for take-out, East should bid 4§. It would not score very well and North might still try 4©, but it should be better than 3© doubled plus 1. And, at the other table the opponents had a straightforward auction to 3NT. This was a bit of a punt but, sometimes, you just have to be lucky.

Board 8 was probably the most difficult board of the match and everyone struggled to find a successful contract. 3NT by North/South is the only game contract with a chance of success but how you bid it depends on the type of interference that you have to put up with :-

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª K10865

¨ 2

§ K643

West East

ª A72 ª Q93

¨ KJ9754 ¨ 6

§ § AQ109852

South

ª J4

¨ AQ1083

§ J7

At my table, I was West and the auction went like this :-

West North East South

2§ 2ª 3§ 3¨

Pass 3ª pass 4ª

All pass

I opened with 2§ which has 2 possible meanings, either (a) a weak in diamonds, or (b) a weak 2-suiter in hearts and a minor. The 2-suiter has to have at least 5 cards in both suits and so I bid this as a weak 2 in diamonds. This seemed to confuse our opponents and it was not clear what South’s 3¨ bid was intended to show. It was not alerted and I did not ask because I thought that North would not know an y better than I did. North decided to rebid his weak 5-card spade suit and soon found himself in a poor 4ª contract. That was only one down but I was very happy with that.

Unfortunately, this was the auction at the other table :-

West North East South

1¨ 1ª 2§ double

2¨ 2© 3§ 3©

All pass

3© was 2 down and so we lost a couple of imps when I was hoping to score a few imps. North in one of our other teams bid the 3-card heart suit as well. Sometimes, in response to a take-out double, we are forced to bid a 3-card suit, but I hate it, even when it is the correct thing to do. Personally, if I had been sitting North, I would have silently thanked West for rebidding his diamonds and I would have passed. Basically, North has a minimum opening bid and he has shown his hand already. South knows that North/South are close to game and should find another bid but it is difficult to speculate on what that should be because it depends so much on what the opponents do.

This is the type of hand where I would be happy to stop in a part-score or allow the opponents to win the auction hoping that we can defeat them. I have always found this to be winning tactics overall whenever partner and I do not hold an 8-card or better fit and we cannot determine if we have all suits stopped for no trump purposes. Certainly, you will normally need extra strength to make game when there is no fit.

Match 4

NTL Match 4, 15/5/24.

Unfortunately, all 3 teams were defeated this week and Agate was completely white-washed after winning their 1^st 3 matches in succession. We were up against good opposition, but we were really not very good making mistakes that we should not be making. However, it looked more like a lack of form rather than anything specific and we can only hope that we will play better next time. However, there were boards of interest such as board 4 :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª QJ2

¨ K8

§ K109653

West East

ª 84 ª K953

¨ AQ3 ¨ J952

§ QJ742 § A8

South

ª A1076

¨ 10764

In the Emerald match, the auction went like this at one table :-

West North East South

Pass 1NT Pass 2§

Pass 2ª All pass

10 tricks rolled in although it was helped by the lead of the ace of clubs but 3NT was bid and made at the other table. It seems to me that any auction that does not show your most important feature, i.e. North’s club suit, cannot be right and must make the subsequent auction difficult. In my opinion, North’s hand is not a 1NT opening bid or, at least, if you are going to bid this way, you should have some method of showing the club suit on the next round. However, I would not have used Stayman in response either. With a poor hand, Stayman is a useful tool with this type of hand. But, with good major suits and a void, South is worth a game try of some kind. I would have transferred to hearts and then bid 2ª over opener’s 2© rebid as an invitation to game in a major.

Board 6 threw up an interesting play problem.

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª Q1085

¨ K32

§ Q1074

West East

ª K93 ª AJ76

¨ Q108754 ¨ 6

§ J2 § AK985

South

ª 42

¨ AJ9

§ 63

West North East South

1§ 2©

3¨ pass 3NT All pass

Ralph and I had an easy auction to the correct contract, i.e. 3NT. unfortunately, Ralph was unable to find the winning line and I will not embarrass him any more by recording his play here. The lead was the 6 of hearts and he rose with the queen from dummy which held the trick. Once that heart trick had been one at trick one, the rest of the play is quite straightforward. The problem with the hand is that South is known to have a long heart suit and the last thing declarer needs is for North to gain the led and to lead a heart through declarer.

This is avoided by what is known as a ‘double avoidance’ play in the club suit. The jack of clubs is led from dummy and declarer plans to run it to South if North plays low. But North is almost bound to cover it and so declarer takes the ace and returns to dummy to lead the 2 of clubs, again intending to play the 10 letting South win it if he can. If South does win a club at any time, leading another heart provides declarer with a 3^rd heart trick but, in this case, the second finesse also wins the trick. Declarer now has 2 heart tricks, 5 club tricks and 2 spade tricks.

Of course, if South wins a club trick, he may not return another heart. However, if he switches to spades, declarer then has 3 spade tricks. A diamond switch is the most difficult for declarer and will break the contract if the switch occurs while North still has a heart to lead, but that might be difficult for South to found. East bid no trumps and one would expect him to have a partial fit for West’s diamond suit as well as heart stops.

So, 3NT can be defeated if South gets a chance to lead a diamond. However, that is not obvious, and the greater fear is that North gains the lead to lead a heart. Therefore, the play has to be to avoid North getting the lead. However, when the perfect position in clubs turns up, the contract is unbeatable.

Match 3

NTL Match 3, 15/5/24.

This week Agate just managed their 3^rd win in succession. However, it was a rather messy match with mistakes being made on both sides. Of course, mistake free bridge does not exist, we are only human after all. But some of the mistakes were very avoidable but they are not the kind of mistakes that we can learn from and so I will concentrate on the Amethyst and Emerald matches. Unfortunately, they came up against very tough opposition and they were unable to contain it this time.

Several of us had difficulty with board 6 :-

Board 6 North

E/W vul.

Dealer East ª Q96

¨ 632

§ 109

West East

ª 102 ª AK7

¨ K109 ¨ AQJ84

§ KJ875 § 32

South

ª J8543

¨ 75

§ AQ64

At our table, Ralph and I had it easy. Ralph opener the East hand with 1NT (13-15 points in Precision). I raised to 2NT although I was a points short in our system but hoping that the 5^th club would provide an extra trick, and Ralph bid 3NT because he was a maximum and held a 5-card diamond suit. This was a bit pushy and it should have gone down. But the Scottish South seemed to be more interested in the Celtic match and was not concentrating as he should have. He made a mistake allowing the game to be made.

However, I feel that this is the type of game that should be bid at pairs. Basically, you cannot afford for your opponents at the other table to bid it when it makes and you not to be in it. And defenders can make mistakes.

You cannot fault the auction by the Amethyst pair. East bid 1¨, West responded 1NT and East passed. But, at the other table, the game was bid via a fairly ordinary weak no trump and Stayman auction. It seems the weak no trumpers were bidding it and the strong no trumpers were not. Declarer played the hand better than Ralph did. After the defenders had led hearts, it looks as if it will be able for them to set up 5 tricks before declarer sets up 9. But declarer could see the problem, he knew that he only had 8 top tricks and so he immediately led a club to try to set up his 9^th trick before the defenders could work out what was going on. Ralph had left the clubs until later in the play when South should have known exactly what was going on but, luckily, South made that mistake and he let Ralph make the king of clubs.

I favour the weak no trump myself but I am not trying to convert anyone. It is very much a matter of choice, and many experts prefer the strong no trump at teams. But, if you play the strong no trump, you need to work out how to deal with hands like this one.

In the Emerald match, the opponents had an interesting auction but they found the game. Unfortunately, the defence failed here. North started with the king of hearts and then switched to a club. This cashed South’s ace of clubs before he could use it effectively and had set up declarer’s 9^th trick for him. A lead of a small heart (4^th best) would have made certain that the contract failed.

At the other table, East opened with 1¨ and South overcalled with 1ª and was able to win the contract in 3ª. This was doomed to fail and it went 2 down but the contract was not doubled and so this was an 11 imp swing for the opponents. This is not an easy hand but the old saying that you should bid the games at teams seems to apply here. It will not pay every time but, when the game fails, there is every chance that the score will be duplicated at the other table or, if they stop in a part-score in the other room, the swing will only be 4 or 5 imps. But, more importantly, whatever you can do to attempt to persuade them not to bid game has to be worth a try.

Unfortunately, board 13 caught all 3 teams out. Ralph and I had a bidding disaster. We had recently modified our system slightly and Ralph thought I had shown 4 controls when I had actually shown 5. He bid 6NT but would certainly have bid 7NT had he understood my control response. But neither the Amethyst, nor the Emerald pairs even bid a small slam, let alone the grand. I can only suggest that you look closely at the auctions bid by the opponents in all 3 matches as I am no expert at natural strong 2§ systems. However, I think that hand evaluation is an important factor here. The South hand is very strong after a strong 2§ opening bid and he should ensure that slam is reached.

Amethysts Paddy Lockwood and David Allen should be praised for bidding to 6C on board 15. The score would have been very much closer had they been able to make it :-

Board 15 North

None vul.

Dealer South ª AJ43

¨ Q92

§ KQJ3

West East

ª 85 ª KQ10972

¨ J1086 ¨ K5

§ 54 § 1096

South

ª 6

¨ A743

§ A872

Ralph and I bid 5C and I was able to make an over trick. I received the same lead as David and that really should have made the contract fairly straightforward. Let the lead run around to declarer and you have 4 heart tricks. You also have 4 club tricks, a diamond and a spade, 10 in all, so what is needed is a couple of ruffs. Therefore, after taking the first trick with the 10 of hearts, play ace of spades and ruff one. Then draw 2 rounds of trumps with the king and queen and lead a 3^rd spade ruffing low. West has no more trumps and so he cannot over ruff. Cross back to the Queen of hearts and ruff the last spade with the ace of trumps. We have reached this position :-

North

ª J

¨ Q92

§ J3

West East

ª ª Q107

¨ J108 ¨ K5

§ § 10

South

¨ A743

You can now cross to dummy with the 10 of hearts, cash the jack of clubs, come back to the South hand with a diamond to the ace and then discard two diamonds on the ace and king of hearts. Declarer just loses a spade at trick 13.

If the lead is anything other than a small heart, the contract is much more difficult and can only be made by a complete cross ruff and a little luck.

NTL 1.5.24

NTL Wednesday, 01/5/24.

Games and slams.

The first match of the new season saw wins for Agate and Emerald but, unfortunately, Amethyst were not so lucky. Every time I look at the results for these NTL matches, I find that it is invariably just one or two hands that swing the whole match, and this week was no exception. Agate and Emerald have board 12 to thank for much of their lead :-

Board 12 North

N/S vul.

Dealer West ª A742

¨ QJ2

§ Q87

West East

ª J96 ª 10

¨ A83 ¨ 10965

§ 654 § KJ32

South

ª KQ853

¨ K74

§ A109

At the Agate table, the opposition bid :-

West North East South

Pass 3ª pass 4§

All pass

2© was a transfer and 3ª, I presume, was a super-accept with 4-card support. This seemed to push South into believing that a slam might be on. His 4§ bid was alerted and, as I do not have their card in front of me, I am not sure of its meaning. It could have been a cue bid or it could have been Gerber or probably several other things, but one thing is for sure, it was an encouraging bid of some kind. The rest of the auction seemed to just take-off and it seems that it was not going to stop before a slam was reached. If any of you who played this hand have a better idea of what the full auction meant, please let me know because I am always interested in different ways of bidding.

However, it seems to me that South’s bidding was rather optimistic. North’s 3ª bid might have sounded encouraging but it has to be looked at along with everything else that South knows about North’s hand. He knows that there is a maximum of 30 points in the 2 hands. That is a little short of the 33 points that we usually need for a slam, unless there is distributional compensation, and we can identify that enough top cards are held. But his own hand is fairly evenly distributed, and he knows that North’s hand is certainly evenly distributed. O.K. he has 4-card spade support but he has no short suits to make use of those trumps.

So, the point is that the only ruffing value may be in South’s own hand, i.e. the heart doubleton, but that does not increase the number of trump winners. You need to be able to make ruffs in the hand with fewer trumps to create more tricks.

This is essentially an evenly distributed hand and so the full number of points, or there-abouts, are likely to be needed. There is an ace and a king missing plus 3 or 4 other points and so it is unlikely that a slam would be successful. I would have been more conservative on this deal (I was not playing this week), as were the Agate and Emerald players at the other table so creating a 13 imp pick-up.

In the Amethyst match, both pairs that were faced with this deal also bid more conservatively and signed off in game. Unfortunately, it was board 9 that tripped them up losing 11 imps on the board when they lost the match by just 10 imps. Strangely, a 1NT opening bid attracted more interference bidding than the 1§ opening bid at the other table :-

Board 9 North

E/WS vul.

Dealer North ª 8

¨ AK932

§ 107

West East

ª K72 ª QJ103

¨ 10854 ¨ Q76

§ KJ95 § AQ86

South

ª A9654

¨ J

§ 432

At one table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1NT 2§

As the 2§ bid showed the majors, North could see the perfect fit and he jumped all the way to 4©, and there was no defence. North was probably not sure whether this was a making contract or whether he had found a good sacrifice, but he must have been fairly sure that he was going to get fairly near to making the contract and might even show a profit if the opponents only had a part-score on. So, he got quickly to game to shut out the opposition.

At the other table, the auction went like this :-

West North East South

Pass 1§ 1ª

1NT All pass

and I can see how this appeared to be quite difficult both for North to get into the auction or South to find a rebid without any support from partner. However, North was a passed hand and so any bid from him would be considered to be competitive only and so he could have risked a bid of some kind. I would have tried 2¨ and then, hopefully, South could try 2©, or perhaps 3© if East bids 3§. Whether we could be brave enough to try for the game after that is debatable.

This all sounds a bit brave and smacks of hindsight but, when playing with Ralph, nothing would have stopped either of us bidding 2¨ over 1NT. in fact, even if North had not been a passed hand and his first chance to bid was after the 1NT bid, we would still bid 2¨. There is a good argument for bidding 2© here, or even doubling to show both red suits, but that is just a matter of choice, but playing a new suit in this position as not forcing is better than playing it as forcing. First of all, in terms of frequency, you are far more likely to have a weakish hand than one with which you would like to force partner to bid again. But, secondly and far more importantly, we need to be able to compete as often as possible. But, on those few occasions when you have a strong hand, you can always double first and change the suit later.

If there is a moral to this story, it is that we should always try to bid, and preferably, make the games. We all know that really, it is drilled into us usually very early in our bridge careers, but it is so important at teams, particularly when we are only playing 16 boards. There simply is not the time to recover from an adverse game swing.

NTL 10.4.24

NTL Wednesday, 10/4/24.

Just one little slip.

Agate played Amethyst this week and the match was quite close but Agate managed to win by 13 imps in the end. There were a couple of game swings but these were mainly just slip ups and a little bad luck so I am not going to comment further on that match. Emerald had a very close match and it would have been a draw except for the deal below :-

Board 3 North

E/W vul.

Dealer South ª K532

¨ A3

§ 32

West East

ª Q97 ª 10

¨ J984 ¨ 765

§ Q87 § AKJ1094

South

ª AJ864

¨ KQ102

§ 65

The auction was identical in both rooms :-

West North East South

1ª

pass 3ª pass 4ª

All pass

The lead at both tables was the 4 of diamonds and declarer could think himself lucky that he had avoided a club lead and that his 4^th diamond trick had been set up for him. The opposition declarer made the most of this, but the Emerald declarer did not. I am sure that he is well aware of his mistake and will not be making another similar mistake for some time.

After taking the diamond lead with his 10, declarer cashed the king of trumps and then led another trump. As East showed out on the second round and declarer took his ace, but now he has a problem because he has blocked his own diamonds. He played a diamond to the ace on table but he is now in the wrong hand to cash the 2 remaining diamond tricks. He tried to gain entry to his hand by leading a heart, but West took the ace of hearts and switched to clubs. Declarer lost a trump trick, the ace of hearts and 2 club tricks. One down.

The difficulty with the hand is obvious and I can only assume that declarer lost concentration for a moment. If West had led a club at trick one, the contract is un-makeable, but his actual lead should have given declarer his contract. On the actual lead, declarer can make at least 4 spade tricks, 4 diamond tricks, a heart trick and a club ruff, 10 tricks in all. But, as most text books will tell you, when the contract looks easy, that is the time to look for ‘hidden’ snags.

On this deal, the only snag could be entries and so it is necessary to unblock the ace of diamonds while declarer can still return to his hand in trumps. As is so often the case, it pays to plan carefully early in the play, preferably before playing to trick 1. We have all been made aware of this at the beginning of our bridge careers but we are all prone to the occasional lapse in concentration, particularly when a contract appears to be easy. But that is the time to be extra cautious. The top players will always tell you to play the whole hand in your head before playing to the first trick looking for difficulties that might lie ahead. But we are not all as good as that and so the best we can do, perhaps, is to plan our play and then check it for possible problems. Take your time at trick 1.

NTL 27.3.24

NTL Wednesday, 27/3/24.

The highly contested auction.

There was a real upset this week when Emerald trounced Agate. Well done Emerald. The Agate team made some bad mistakes, mostly mine, and Emerald took advantage of them. Jo Harpur did particularly well in the first half against Ralph and myself. Unfortunately, Amethyst did not fair so well. However, they were a little unfortunate and most of the swings were just a few imps here and there and so the match could have been a close thing, except for 2 boards that let them down. Unfortunately, these matches are only 16 boards long and it is often impossible to recover from a single game swing and 2 bad boards are almost always fatal.

First of all, declarer failed to find the correct line in 3NT on board 7. This was just one of those things. The only winning line is for declarer to recognise that, unless the outstanding clubs split 3-3, 3NT is unlikely to be a success. Therefore, as this is teams and the only thing that matters is making your contract, declarer should play for that one possible winning play. Board 4, however, raising an interesting point or two :-

Board 4 North

All vul.

Dealer West ª KQ3

¨ Q

§ KQJ97

West East

ª AJ1086 ª 9754

¨ J9743 ¨ A1082

§ A § 10743

South

ª 2

¨ K65

§ 652

The auction at one table, with Amethyst sitting North/South, went like this :-

West North East South

1ª 2§ 3ª 4©

4ª pass pass 5§

This is one of those dreadful deals where either side might be able to make game but, in reality, nobody can. I was declaring 4ª from West on this board but, with KQx in trumps behind my ace, I was doomed to failure but I was bidding it because I thought that it might well make. However, on the auction above, I would question South’s decision to bid 5§ over 4ª. North has only overcalled and, therefore, could have been made on a weaker hand than this and so there is no guarantee that North/South can make game on this board. But, of course, if East/West can make 4ª, a 5-level contract may prove to be a good sacrifice.

But East only raised to 3ª. Now it depends on what their methods are but I would suggest that East had an alternative bid to show a stronger hand, say 2NT or 3§. So, who is bidding to make game and who is sacrificing? That is the question. Personally, I would suggest that South has shown his hand with the 4© bid and any further action should be left to North. Any action could be correct on hands like this but South is risking going 2 down doubled for -500 when there might only be a pat-score available to both sides. I am very surprised that 5© was not doubled, but as things went, not too much damage was done.

The real problems occurred at the other table :-

West North East South

1ª pass 2ª pass

pass 3§ pass pass

Double all pass

In my opinion, the worst bid was 2ª. East should bid 3ª here and, then, there would have been a good chance that East/West would buy the contract in 3ª. If you are playing 4-card majors and so feel that 2ª is the best that East can do, then please read my articles on 5-card major in my column on the County website entitled ‘Raising the bar’. The ‘Law’ states that, when you detect that you have a 9-card fit, it is in you best interests to bid to the 3-level as soon as possible. Of course, this hand is a perfect example of the Law in action and it is not always as accurate as this, but the important part of that statement is : ‘it is in your best interests’, because you do not always have to make to create a good score for your team.

Yes, the jump to 3ª may well have bought the contract and I do not understand why North did not overcall with 2§ at his first opportunity. They may have had an understanding that to pass first and then overcall on the second round is stronger than an immediate overcall. But that theory does not perform so well in practice because what would North have done if East had bid 3ª instead of 2ª? Does he come in at the 4-level?

However, the 2ª raise was not the only questionable bid in this auction. Obviously, I do not know what West had in mind when he doubled 3§. Was it intended to be for penalties or was it asking East to bid something else? Doubles at the 3-level often give rise to confusion and it pays to have a hard and fast rule as to what the double means. Cartainly, if it was meant to be a take-out double an ace and 4 clubs to the 10 was not enough to leave it in for penalties. And there is no reason to suggest from West’s point of view that 3§ would go down. Always be wary when an opponent comes into the auction late. He knows the risks he is taken and must be prepared for a double.

No, as far as I am concerned, double was the wrong bid. 3¨ has merit showing a good 2-suited hand, but I think that I would have stuck to 3ª and then wait to see how the auction developed. Ralph and I have an agreement that all doubles at the 3-level are for penalties, mainly because it prevents confusion. It does not mean that the penalty is lost. If you have 4 or 5 good trumps and believe that to double it would be the best bet, pass and hope that partner will double for take-out, so that you can pass it. The chances are that he will be short in the opponents’ suit if you have good trumps and, so long as he has some outside values, as the take-out double would suggest, the penalty should be a good one.

NTL 20.3.24

NTL Wednesday, 20/3/24.

Slam Bidding.

In my opening article entitled ‘Under new management’, I mentioned my intention of reporting on the NTL matches as well as the county matches. I had not intended to start immediately but the match on 20/3/24 raised a very important issue. Slam bidding is so very important at teams because, if you lose a slam swing, you may not be able to recover from it.

All 3 of our teams were playing this week and Amethyst and Emerald were drawn against each other. Agate managed to lose by 1 imp and the whole match revolved around slam bidding. On boards 7 and 8, our team mates bid a slam on 8 and stayed in game on 7. Unfortunately, they should have bid slam on 7 and stayed in game on 8 but, to be fair, these were not straightforward hands.

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª J2

¨ J1074

§ J1073

West East

ª AQ853 ª K1074

¨ AKQ3 ¨ 9652

§ 5 § AKQ98

South

ª 96

¨ 8

§ 642

South opened with 3© and, from then on, bidding the slam was going to be problematic, but not impossible. West doubled probably so that he can show a big hand on the next round. However, East jumped to 4ª and this left West with a problem because he could easily imagine that North could have a heart singleton and was about to obtain a ruff. Quite understandable really.

At my table, the auction started in the same way but, over the 4ª bid, West bid 4NT (RKCB) and, after a response showing 2 card keys, the slam was bid as if there was no problem. At no time was the heart void shown and so the slam is a bit on the speculative side.

Unfortunately, I think that this had an effect on board 8 because there was a temptation to try to make amends for the previous hand.

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª

¨ J9

§ 10763

West East

ª AJ1092 ª K87653

¨ 108654 ¨ K732

§ AK5 § 9

South

ª Q4

¨ AQ

§ QJ842

Unfortunately, at my table, I decided to overcall the 1ª opening bid with 2©. East cue bid 3© and Ralph jumped to 5©. This was good tactics at least most of the time but, on this occasion, it made it virtually impossible to bid a slam.

At the other table, our team mates had no interference to contend with and sailed into 6ª. This was an impossible contract with the ace and queen of diamonds lying over the king. It is difficult to spot the 5-4 fit when you have already found a 6-5 fit and so it is not too surprising that the diamond losers were overlooked. The auction went like this :-

West North East South

1ª pass 2NT pass

2NT was a good spade raise and 4© was a splinter. 4NT is RCKB and that was followed by the slam. I cannot say that I am happy with this auction. There is an horrendous duplication of values in the heart suit. AQ opposite a void is a terrible waste of values and would suggest that there is a ‘hole’ somewhere else. I do not like RCKB after a splinter, cue bids usually work better. I would have bid 5§ over 4©. Then West would have to sign off in 5ª because he has no diamond control. Then East might have felt that 6ª was a step too far.

In the Amethyst/Emerald match, Paddy Lockwood and David Allen did well to bid the slam on board 7, although they had it a little easier than might have been the case, when the opening bid was 2©, rather than 3©. As the South hand only held 4 points, the hand is not technically strong enough to bid 3© especially at the vulnerability and so it would seem to be reasonable to play the hand as a weak 2. However, as is so often the case, the technically accurate bid can be less effective than the ‘tactical’ bid. The 2© opening bid gave David the opportunity to bid 3© to show a strong hand with sufficient bidding space to find a fit. Blackwood looks far more useful from the West hand, but it prevents any chance of bidding the grand slam, but that would be very difficult after any opening bid made by the opponents.

Unfortunately, they were not as successful on board 8 but anyone who bids a slam on this hand should not be too upset. The difficulty with the hand, as described earlier in this article, is the diamond suit and, unless you play a relay system such as Ralph and I play, and unless there is no interference bidding, it is so very difficult to get this one right. In fact, you need to be a good guesser.

Finally, the last slam of the match was board 16. At my table, I was rather surprised when our opponents failed to bid the slam. I put in a 2§ overcall but it was more to secure a decent lead if Ralph became the opening leader than to achieve anything in the auction. It hardly seemed to be a big problem for them to overcome, but neither opponent felt that they were strong enough to make a move towards slam.

At the end of board 15, we had fought back and recovered 12 of a 13 imp half-time deficit. I had high hopes that our team mates would be able to find the slam and win the match for us. But it was not to be. They received far more interference bidding than Ralph and I put up and so they settled for a ‘safe’ game.

But in the Amethyst/Emerald match, Richard Evans and John Bloomfield conducted a fairly simple auction and bid the slam. However, this hand intrigues me a little because the strength of the hand lies in the double fit. If it could be possible to determine that East/West held a solid 9-card spade fit and a solid 8-card diamond fit with aces in both short suits, it would be easy to bid the grand slam. It is possible to get close to it using a system such as the one that I use if there had been no interference. The hand was :-

Board 16 North

E/W vul.

Dealer West ª 65

¨ 63

§ KQ9873

West East

ª J10987 ª AKQ3

¨ AKJ52 ¨ Q108

§ J § A106

South

ª 94

¨ 974

§ 542

With no interference, Ralph and I would bid :-

West East

1ª 10-15 pts, 5+ spades 1NT relay

3NT precisely 5251 dist. 4§ control ask

4ª 5 controls 6ª/7ª?

East knows West’s precise distribution and that he holds 5 controls (ace= 2 controls, king = 1 control), which can only be 2 aces and a king and not 3 kings and an ace because East has a king and singleton kings do not count as a control. Unfortunately, the grand slam depends on which king West holds. If he holds the heart king, the grand is dependent on a finesse whereas, as it is the diamond king, the grand is a lay down. As grand slams should not be bid on a finesse, we would be obliged to settle for the small slam.

However, there is a way that this grand slam can be bid. There is a little known asking bid that would supply the answer. In the sequence above, 4NT over 4ª would ask for queens but a bid of one of West’s short suits immediately over the 4ª bid would ask about the suit bid. Responder is obliged to show if he has anything more in the suit than has already been shown. Therefore, East bids 5© and 5ª would show nothing more than the ace already shown and 5NT would show the king. When West bids 5ª, East knows that West’s king is the king of diamonds.

Unfortunately, an elegant sequence such as this one is impossible when there is any interference and so we would have had to settle for the small slam. Slam bidding is so important at teams because one slam missed could cost you the match particularly when playing only 16 boards. There are so few boards available to make up for it. Bearing in mind that the reason for us joining the National Teams league was to improve our performances, it might be worthwhile looking at your slam bidding methods to see what might be done to improve in this area. I am not expecting anyone to change to my methods, but many slams simply cannot be bid with any accuracy if you rely solely on Blackwood.

To some extent, the same arguments can be applied to games at teams. We cannot afford to miss one because a game swing takes a lot to recover. However, bidding games is so much easier than bidding slams. In fact, it is often good tactics to adopt a bullish philosophy and just jump to game when there is any chance of success at all. The odds change, though, when a slam is a possibility. Whereas, if you punt a game, there is every chance that your opponents at the other table would also bid the game, that is not necessarily the case when considering a slam. It is more important that the slam should make.

Therefore, slams require careful consideration of the pair’s full assets and, if you are not sure, you will often be better off settling for game. Certainly, just bidding Blackwood will often not be enough, particularly when there are singletons and voids about. Blackwood is only there to check that key cards exist and gives no indication of overall strength, and how many of you have the methods required to show queens other than the queen of trumps? This can be vital when considering a slam in no trumps.

Of course, I am not the best person to be giving advice on how to bid slams using a natural system. I only use natural systems when there is no alternative. But I feel that a fairly easy natural sequence would be sufficient on this deal :-

West East

1ª 2NT strong raise to 3ª at least.

4¨ 5-5 in the 2 suits 4NT RKCB

This does not show the king of diamonds, but West has nothing in spades and must have more than 2 aces for his opening bid so 6ª should be good. Any of you Acol experts who have a better sequence, please let me know. Unfortunately, at every table, North overcalled with 2§ and, at some tables, clubs were bid several times making it very difficult to bid the slam. However, East should bid 3§ (Unassuming Cue bid) or 2NT, if that is your method, to show a strong raise in spades. After that, it will depend on each pairs ow methods. Would 3¨ show a suit or is it showing slam potential and a top diamond control?

Some play that 3¨ shows a diamond control and denies a heart control and so 3© would show a heart and a diamond control and 3ª shows none of these and a minimum bidding 4ª with no outside control and a maximum. This seems to be a useful understanding to have.

Most Precision players use either Italian style asking bids or relays where the strong hand asks specific questions of his partner and partner gives specific responses. There is no need for ‘flair’ or expert ability because the work is done for you by the system itself. In natural systems, the main method for bidding slams is by using cue bids and these are open to interpretation and not everyone interprets them in the same way. Good partnerships need to work on this area together so that they are sure that both members of the partnership use cue bids in the same way so that the correct information is given and understood.

NTL Wednesday, 20/3/24.

Slam Bidding.

Board 7 North

All vul.

Dealer South ª J2

¨ J1074

§ J1073

West East

ª AQ853 ª K1074

¨ AKQ3 ¨ 9652

§ 5 § AKQ98

South

ª 96

¨ 8

§ 642

Unfortunately, I think that this had an effect on board 8 because there was a temptation to try to make amends for the previous hand.

Board 8 North

None vul.

Dealer West ª

¨ J9

§ 10763

West East

ª AJ1092 ª K87653

¨ 108654 ¨ K732

§ AK5 § 9

South

ª Q4

¨ AQ

§ QJ842

1ª pass 2NT pass

Board 16 North

E/W vul.

Dealer West ª 65

¨ 63

§ KQ9873

West East

ª J10987 ª AKQ3

¨ AKJ52 ¨ Q108

§ J § A106

South

ª 94

¨ 974

§ 542

With no interference, Ralph and I would bid :-

West East

1ª 10-15 pts, 5+ spades 1NT relay

3NT precisely 5251 dist. 4§ control ask

4ª 5 controls 6ª/7ª?

West East

1ª 2NT strong raise to 3ª at least.

4¨ 5-5 in the 2 suits 4NT RKCB

This site is built with BridgeWebs, the easy web solution.