No, no, no

Hi all

Yesterday I had a solid night with Frank, we were offered a few gifts and presents we couldn’t say no to, resulting in +47 imp. The intrinsic message in solid is lack of spectacle, so here’s a story I heard at the bar (starring Martin and Hoek).

North
x
8xx
KTxxxxx
xx

All vulnerable you pick up this rubbish. An easy pass and your partner opens 2 (weak with or some strong hand). If you are completely cut off from any tablepresence you can add some destructive number of bids to that, but let’s stay calm and listen to what partner has to say.

West
North
East
South
 
pass
pass
21
pass
22
pass
23
pass
2NT4
pass
35
pass
46
pass
57
pass
pass8
pass
 

1. Weak with or strong
2. Waiting
3. Strong with , forcing for one round
4. Second negative
5. Gameforcing twosuiter
6. I have nothing, leave me alone
7. Really?
8. What did I just say!

North Dealer
All Vul
North
x
8xx
KTxxxxx
xx
West
98xx
Kxx
Qx
KQTx
East
JT
xx
AJxx
Jxxxx
South
AKQ7xx
AQJT9
Ax

Declarer discarded a from dummy on his , ruffed a and ruffed a with the 8. Losing only one trick to the King of trumps, scoring +680.

So should North have raised? I think not. But making a little bit of fun because of North’s cowardness is always nice.

2 thoughts on “No, no, no

  1. Ah, you took some artistic license ;-) for the post mortem discussion didn’t reflect actual play. I seldom jeopardize the contract I’m in just to make a point. A bit dull, I know.

    At the table West lead the Queen, ducked in dummy, the Ace by East and ruffed. East gave the whole show away by mumbling that he didn’t expect a void in my hand, and twelve tricks were easy. Not a bad defense if West had held KTx of and a singleton . But would I really have gone to 5 with just AQJxx and a singleton ? I hope not.

    Had we been in 6, the play would’ve gone as you suggested, with one minor difference. After a lead there’s a trap. The ruff must come before the ruff, or you’re an entry short and you lose control of the hand.

    Now on to the bidding. Partner’s final pass is bad. Indeed, he described his hand excellently up to 4: it’s pretty worthless. The 5 bid means “I heard you partner, but still, can you think of anything positive?” (In my book, it also promises first controls in all suits.) North could have had a void, a preference for with just two of them, and 6-5 in the minors, for example. His actual holding is golden and worth a confident raise to six. I wasn’t asking for a repeat of the same message, but for a re-evaluation, so “What did I just say!” can never be right.

    That evening, two pairs reached 6, one making and the other down one. The other pairs reached the inferior contracts of 4, 5 or 6 . Oh, and one pair remained excitingly in 1, just making. Didn’t hear their post mortem. Anyway, this slam should’ve been reached.

  2. After the normal lead there is an interesting safety play. After Ace-King of (discarding a ) and a ruff you can ruff a , ruff a with the 8. If you now play a and finesse you are one off on the ruff. So you have to play the Ace and another and you are making the contract because the hand with the short has the short as well. This is the safety play. As you need the to be 3-2, you make the contract when the King is onside, but by playing the Ace of hearts you can also cope with the actual lay-out.

    So for :6H to make, the need to be 3-2 with the 3-3 or 4-2 (except the case when west has four and Kx of ), so the contract has only about 53% chance.

    Let’s say I was happy with the IMPs we collected for being in instead of . I still feel my hand is pretty worthless, my are of questionable use and I had only three . Sure, 5 asks whether I have anything extra given my previous bidding, but I guess Hoek is not arguing that I should have bid slam because of the beauty of the 8 of . If my singleton would be the 8 however …

Leave a Reply to Hoek Cancel reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

!S 
!H 
!D 
!C