This is something of a misnomer, for the time being at least as, scour as I might, I've failed to come up with any individual hand that illustrates a really significant point [but please feel free to put me right].

More generally, this was an imp-scored event, which means we do things differently. How so? Playing our normal match-pointed pairs for example, we would strain to gain as few as 10 more points on a hand compared to the rest of the field, perhaps by choosing a possibly slightly riskier 3NT contract over a safer 4-major. If that works, we've made a huge gain. But in imps scoring, we would have gained precisely zero, and we should choose the safer contract. But, with imp-scoring, we're prepared to bid thin games, because if we're successful we stand to make a sizeable gain.

What about slams? Should we again strain to bid a slam contract that we might eschew in match-pointed scoring? The answer now is probably not. Imagine we've found a heart contract, and we estimate that the difference between 11 and 12 tricks is down to whether a finesse is successful. Assuming we're non-vulnerable, the successful finesse scores us 980 for bidding the slam as opposed to 480 for staying in game, a gain of 500 or 11 imps. But if the finesse fails, the slam bidder loses 500 [450 + 50], i.e. the loss matches the gain. So in the long run we come out even [note that this is ignoring the fact that a slam may still fail as a result of other factors such as adverse distribution, even if the finesse works].

Returning to the theme of bidding thin games, the other side of this particular coin is that accurate defence is crucial. My partner and I scored 37.2 imps last night, out of which 24.61 came from three boards where opponents went down in contracts. Once again, in imp-scoring we defend from a different perspective. We're prepared to concede an overtrick in an attempt to defeat a contract [anathema in match-pointed pairs], but the consequences of conceding a contract-making trick are severe. So, armed with the knowledge that opponents will quite often reach thin game contracts, we're more likely to defend passively, leaving opponents to try and find their tricks.

So why do we like to play imped-pairs once a month [teams-of-4 being temporarily unavailable]? Now you know.

As David Beever and partner Bob Holder are lying 6th in the overall national ranking as we write with a magnificent 69.73%, we could hardly object to his taking the floor, well page, with his proposed hand. Though there are those of us who might have preferred never to see this hand again [it's the bidding at our table that's shown for this hand]. Over to David.

The Children in Need Simultaneous Pairs always manages to include interesting slam hands.  Monday evening's heat was no exception, with at least one in each direction.  Both of them were easy to make but less easy to bid and, as usual, were likely to have opposition bidding, which makes it more difficult to judge the final contract

Hand 13 was a very good example of a hand which was difficult to bid, and remarkably it produced a different auction at almost every table.  Most Easts opened with a minimum weak 2♥  and created an immediate problem for South, with a strong hand in the black suits. 

Many players doubled with the South hand.  I believe that this is not the best way to bid a strong 2-suiter. With two good suits of your own it is more important to try and tell that to your partner.  If possible, a bid of the opponent’s suit is a much better way of showing the hand. Even a simple overcall in the better of your suits after a one level opener is rarely passed out and your other suit can be introduced later.

After a weak 2 opener it is more difficult, but a bid of 3♥  over the 2H opener on this hand must show a strong 2-suiter.  However I must admit that it did not achieve any great success. [And of course there are those of us who have Leaping Michaels in our armoury for just such a situation - Ed]. The opening bid which achieved most success was a multi-2♦  by East, and this really does create problems for South, who probably has no alternative to a double.  At both tables where East opened 2♦ , the final contract was 3♣  by South. [Incidentally, 4♣ over a multi-2♦ is also played as Leaping Michaels, though obviously the major held is initially unspecified. -Ed].

The two best results for NS were 6NT by North.  At one of these South doubled the 2♥  opener, North bid 3NT and South showed great faith in partner by bidding 6NT.  At the other table East passed, West bid 2♦  over South’s 1♣  opener and in a longer sequence South was able to describe his strength and shape, North to bid NT twice and South eventually to raise to 6NT.

Only two  pairs bid 6♣  and nobody found the higher scoring 6♠  slam.

David Beever

Click here for Andrew Robsons Commentary.pdf  on hand 13 and all the others

Board 16 had similarities to its predecessor, and also provided an interesting lesson in when not to bid.

Note that East's 3♦ bid was a Bergen raise showing four trumps and 7-9 points.

West's 4♥ was a very poor bid [Ed: touch of sackcloth and ashes here]. Apart from anything else he has a very poor playing hand, with wasted values in short suits but, in addition, where are the spades? 4♥ will not be making, so he should let the opponents play in 4♣: there is a serious danger that, given another chance, they will find a spade fit.

Added to poor bidding, West now found the poor lead of ♥A, enabling declarer to discard his diamond loser [more s & a].

David Beever

Another bonus week, with two hands from David Beever with a major theme in common, a second common point, plus an endplay on this hand which could be foreseen at trick one.

The major theme was the importance of spades

North led ♥A, which introduces the second common theme - how often the lead of the Ace in your suit, which partner has supported, is a poor choice. After this lead, declarer can see a likely endplay if trumps behave.

North now switched to a club, taken in hand by declarer who led a trump, covering North's 9 with the 10, and taken by South with the Ace. South now led a second club, taken in dummy. It looked as if North had started with ♠Q9, so declarer cashed ♠K, followed by a spade to hand, and cashed ♥K discarding a club from dummy. Now declarer exited with a club and claimed, as whichever defender took the trick had to concede a ruff and discard or find ♦Q for declarer.

David Beever

Thanks to David Herod from darkest Spain for this contribution [Ed: I've shown the bidding at our table]. Over to David.

We're making up for last week's omission by looking at two hands this week.

Firstly Hand 5. Steve Gore asks how it's possible to keep out of 6♥. I've shown the bidding at our table. Playing three weak twos we don't have a strong 2♦ bid available, but I personally wouldn't use it anyway. My style is to open all strong single-suited hands via 2♣, using my rebid to show just how strong. On this hand I have 10 playing tricks, so I rebid 4♥, leaving it to partner to decide if he can add two further tricks - he decided not.

With no entry to dummy, declarer is obliged to attempt to drop the single ♥K, but there's then no way of avoiding two losers. Unless East is obliging enough to kick off with a club. Time for declarer to buy a lottery ticket!

Postscript from Charles:

6♥ is cold once you have dropped ♥K assuming a spade lead.

The line is to play off all trumps leaving three cards remaining:  ♦x and  ♣Ax  in hand, ♦K and ♣QJ in dummy.

What does West keep?  He/she is squeezed to let go a diamond and is now end-played on a diamond lead to lead away from  ♣K.

Following Charles' excellent seminar, I'd hoped we'd be able to find a hand where the pointers we'd been given on defensive strategy and execution came into play, but sadly not. Or at least, not fully.

EW were playing inverted minor raises so, following West's opening 1♦, East was obliged to respond 1NT [responding 3♦ with a relatively balanced hand and only a 4-card suit would be quite wrong]. Partner having denied a 4-card or longer major with his 1NT response, West was a little uneasy with his spade doubleton, but at least the J10 might serve to reinforce East's holding, and this was imps scoring, so he tried a raise to 2NT. Nothing doing as far as East was concerned.

Now the spotlight's on South, and this is where one of Charles' messages came into play. East declared a no-trump contract five times, and four times the lead was a club. The fifth time, yes against us, South was a little more thoughtful. East had denied holding a 4-card major, and West hadn't bid a major, so was leading an anaemic 4-card club suit likely to be the best chance of beating this contract? And remember that our defensive aim in imped pairs and teams is to beat the contract: if we concede an overtrick in the attempt this is not too serious.

So well done South [says he with gritted teeth] for a) deciding that the defence's best chance was to attack a major, and b) attacking spades. In the end, East at our table needed the diamond finesse to scrape together eight tricks.

One further point, let's say East was in 3NT, the contract at one table, and the opening lead was a club. Do you let in run round to your queen? Let's say your queen holds the trick - can you make nine tricks? Two clubs, four hearts, and . . .You still need the diamond finesse to be working to get to your nine tricks. Again, in imped pairs and teams, the overriding aim is to make the contract, especially when it's a game contract. So I'd have said there's a strong case for playing ♣A at trick 1, crossing to ♥K, and going for diamonds immediately. But what do I know?

Nigel L

David Beever's suggested we look at this hand, partly in view of the good fortune I had to make all 13 tricks.

I didn't play the hand as well as I might have, but the essence is deciding how to play the diamond suit. Even if both major suits were to yield 4 tricks, this still leaves declarer requiring at least 3 tricks from diamonds, and this is the suit that should be tackled first, partly to discover how many major-suit tricks will be required to fulfill the contract, partly because if the suit doesn't break it's useful to force the hand with short diamonds to have to find discards.

I took quite an odd line, electing to lead small from dummy towards the nine, which as it happens held the trick. As David points out West could have risen with ♦10, though I'd have been quite happy with that as I can cover and play small to the jack, giving me four tricks on any 4-2 break, and meaning I would only need six tricks from the majors [♠J falling, spades breaking 3-3, or heart finesse working]. But, as David points out, trying a small diamond to the jack is the best approach, giving an immediate 50% chance of 3 tricks from the suit with a good chance of 4. And there's still the chance of the suit breaking 3-3 or the ten coming down even if the queen is wrong.

Anyway, as they say, if you can't be good, be lucky!

Nigel L

It's funny how the hand of the week so often seems to focus on a good board for the author!

This bidding begins straightforwardly enough with a 1♥ opening, a 1♠ response, and a 1NT [15-17] rebid. Now South elects to make a 2♣ checkback enquiry. Perhaps on the light side? Undoubtedly, but South does have the option of an attempted extrication via 2♠ if the auction develops awkwardly.

Now the spotlight switches to North. He's certainly going to rebid hearts, but should it be 2♥ or 3♥ with this 16-count. For me, the balance was tilted by my K10x holding in partner's suit, so out came 3♥. Back to South. As North hasn't denied holding three spades, I think the bid should be 3♠, but partner elected for 3NT. Now what?

The 2♣ checkback bid isn't there for a simple strength enquiry - 2NT does that job - it's also enquiring about opener's major-suit holdings, akin to using 2♣ opposite partner's opening 1NT, and responder shouldn't be using it in this situation without either three hearts or five spades. So I converted to 4♠, which duly came home. Well done partner for your light checkback!

Nigel L

Monday was definitely slam night - perhaps BBO thought we deserved a little fun after the frustrating time some of us had during the day trying to get connected!

There were five slam hands, one of which [board 17] offered 13 tricks in either diamonds or no trumps. Well done to the two pairs who found 7♦. We did our best to make things difficult for our opponents with an opening 3♣ pre-empt, but it didn't stop them finding 6NT.

But I've picked out board 3, where five pairs bid and made 6♥ and 13 tricks was possible. But disappointingly partner and I languished in 4♥. Where did we go wrong?

Partner opened 1♣ and. over my 1♥ response, he rebid a 4♦ splinter. After a few moments reflection I simply bid 4♥. I was tempted to try a 4♠ cue-bid - after all I was a few points better than I might have been for my initial 1♥ bid. Is partner now worth a further bid? He has a diamond void and an excellent club suit, but his three small spades are a concern. If my hand is minimum with some of my limited values in diamonds, anything more than 4♥ might be doomed.

My conclusion, which I failed to reach at the table, was that if partner could force to game opposite what could have been a miserable 6-count, I was worth 4♠. Too late now!!

It was one or two decisions like this that helped to put us in the position of supporting the rest of the NS field.

Nigel L

Love-all hands - often the most fiercely-competitive battleground in the pairs game. Hand 17 was no exception. With a combined 25 HCPs it seemed to belong to EW, but NS hadn't paid their £3 fees simply to sit back and admire EW's bidding. South was keen to show his 5-5 in the majors, and a 1♣ opening bid from East [playing strong no trump and 5-card majors] was all he needed. At least, that's what North thought his 2♣ overcall was showing.

Over West's 2♦ bid, North elected to pass - a course of action he might have profitably adopted on several other hands! East's 2NT rebid showed 12-14, and West now contributed 3♣, which East converted to 3♦. This was passed round to North, who took the view that sitting back and admiring EW's bidding had probably gone on long enough. And his assumption as to the meaning of South's original 2♣ overcall had been confirmed by the subsequent bidding. So, with a 3-card fit for each major, and in the light of EW's apparent view that 3♦ was as far as they wanted to go, he trotted out 3♥. And there proceedings ended, much to North's satisfaction. Assuming EW could make nine tricks in a minor, anything no worse than 2-off in 3♥ should be a highly acceptable score. And so it proved.

According to the hand analysis, EW can make 3NT, and two of the pairs that tried it were successful. And eleven tricks were available in either minor, but no-one tried that.

Should EW take any further action over 3♥? One of our pre-bridge seminars a few months ago focused on one aspect of competitve bidding in pairs, specifically on asking yourself the question How many match-points do I think we'll get if their contract makes? If you conclude that the answer's very few, then you should take some action. You have next to nothing to lose, and potentially quite a lot to gain. Bidding 4♦ will gain 8-12 match-points, doubling 3♥ [if it's left in] will gain 16 match-points. Take your pick, but pick something.

[And if you take a look at my score from last night, and take the view What does he know?, I'll completely understand!].

Nigel L

Board 7 produced some interesting bidding at all tables.

After South’s normal opening Pass, West’s hand passed at 3 tables, opened 3♣  at 5 tables and 4♣  at 4 tables.  At one table South opened with 2♣ , showing a weak hand with both majors!

At game all 3♣  usually shows a decent 7-card suit so 4♣  should show a hand with rather better playing strength, normally an 8- or 9-card suit which will not be solid (when there would be the option of 3NT) so probably missing one of the top honours.  The Wests who passed presumably were worried either about the vulnerability or did not wish to miss out on a possible 3NT contract.

Over a 3♣  bid East’s big hand must be worth a slam, whether or not North bids Spades, and is unlikely to be able to find out if something more is playable, so should just bid the Club slam.  This happened after both 3♣  and 4♣  openers at most tables and 6♣  was also bid at the tables which passed initially.

At one table the bidding was more adventurous, as presented above.

After the 4♣  bid by partner, East gave some thought to the implications:  at the vulnerability the bid probably shows an 8-card suit, in which case his A, AK and A make 12 tricks certain in No-trumps and 13 very likely.  If 7NT will make, then 7♣ certainly will and might have extra chances , so he decided to try 7♣.  North now refused to give up, and 7♦ offered an alternative sacrifice.  East now had to think yet again: it was not clear what 7♦ meant, but if it showed ♦K he wanted to be in 7NT.  In the end he decided upon discretion and the safe double.

EW were happy with -1700 for 6 light, but NS claimed it as a triumph because it was better than -2140 for 7♣ making, but a triumph yielding 0% seems a rather faint one.

Sadly, all this took so long that there was no time to start the next board!

David Beever

Board 10 caused quite some interest in yesterday's event. EW can make both 6♥ and 7♣, but no slams were bid. Should EW get to a slam of some kind, and how should they sensibly reach it?

What did happen was that at five tables West simply bid 4♥ directly, either immediately or following a multi-2♦ overture, and that was that. At five tables, West elected to double, ending up in 5♣ twice and 5♥ once. At one table West essayed an initial 3♠ overcall [which I think most people would play as asking for a stop for 3NT] before ending in 4♥, and at one table West bid 4♣ over South's opening 2♠, and finished in 5♣.

So what do we think should have happened? Obviously West had an extremely powerful hand, a combination of 2-suited distribution and raw power. and I'd like my first bid to get over as much of that story as possible. The bid that I think does that best is the Leaping Michaels 4♣, as employed at just one table.

The typical situation in which Leaping Michaels is used is when [usually] right-hand opponent opens with a weak two in a major, and the overcaller has a strong distributional hand which is at least 5-5 in the other major and a minor. 4♣ says the minor is clubs, 4♦ says it's diamonds, and the bid is usually played as game-forcing, so it's showing a powerful hand, typically 18+ HCP. So overcaller's partner now has a very good idea of the hand that's facing him/her, whereas if West starts with a double this could be anything from a 12-count with four hearts upwards.

Opposite a double, East will probably resort to a Lebensohl 2NT bid, showing a maximum of seven points. This is requesting a relay to 3♣, but West cannot afford to have that passed out, so will likely take the bull by the horns and rebid 4♥ directly. That isn't necessarily the end of the story, as West looks like he/she has a hand that was too strong to simply bid 4♥ immediately, so although East only has seven HCP, the king of trumps and an outside ace are as good as they could be. In the end though, with no knowledge of West's shape outside hearts, East will probably pass.

Now for the Leaping Michaels scenario. East's miserable four clubs suddenly look a little less miserable, and again seven points including ♥K and an ace can be uprated. I'd like to think that if I were holding the East cards I'd find 4♦. With at least ten cards in hearts and clubs, West isn't going to take this as a suit, it has to be a control, but he/she doesn't yet know just where they're going. 4♥ is probably the best bid, and now East can show a preference for clubs, which I'd expect West simply to raise to six.

Let me know if you'd like to add anything to this, or of course to take issue.

Incidentally, Leaping Michaels is not restricted to being used over an opening weak two in a major, it can also be used over an opening weak 2♦, over a multi, and following opening 3-level pre-empts, but that's another story.

Nigel L

Many of you will be aware that we have a panel of players [and anyone else is welcome to join their number] who look out for a hand in the most recent Burnham event that has an interesting or instructive aspect.

Two of today's hands have been suggested - boards 5 and 10. An article on board 5 follows, but as far as board 10 is concerned, the question is how do EW get to slam [and which one] assuming South opens 2♠. Please let me have your thoughts on this, and I'll add a second article covering this.

Now for board 5, with thanks to Nigel Marlow.

Yesterday's was an interesting pairs session with several hands requiring tight decisions:

• on hand 1 do EW play in their 5-3 spade fit or their 4-4 diamond fit? And how far do they go? Do NS sniff out their heart fit?
• on hand 2 do EW play in their optimim diamond suit? Does South overcall 2♣ vulnerable despite an indifferent 5-card suit? If West insists on a no-trump contract, does he/she overreach?
• on hand 3 does South remove EW's doubled contract or sit for it in the hope that North has enough to take six tricks?
• etc, etc.

But I've picked board 18 - this is the stuff that makes match-pointed pairs the interesting game it is. All but one EW pair landed in 3NT played by West with an opening lead of a heart [10 times] and a diamond [4 times - presumably East had mentioned hearts]. This is all about the battle for the overtrick - 3NT= is worth 35%, but 3NT+1 is worth 81%. There were a couple of unusual results [aren't there always?], but the remaining results were split equally between nine tricks and ten tricks. The hand analysis tells us that just nine tricks should make.

Of the two red suits, declarer would prefer a diamond lead: the heart suit will always yield three tricks, given time, and so will the diamond suit once it's been led.

Declarer has decisions to take. Hearts will generate three tricks, diamonds might generate three tricks. Clubs will generate at least three tricks given time, spades will produce at least one trick. Timing is all. Having won the heart in hand, it's best to tackle diamonds. Losing to South is okay as this protects spades from an immediate attack. At our table, South won ♦A and led her remaining heart, which is exactly what declarer wants. In the fullness of time, West lost the two red aces and ♣Q, for ten tricks.

So what should happen to restrict EW to nine tricks? Again, timing is important. Although the potential for ten tricks is there, declarer needs entries to dummy. The best defence is for North to hold up ♥A till the third round, then lead a fourth [he doesn't want to be end-played on the fourth heart]. This gives declarer the problem of finding a discard, which will probably be a small spade. If declarer tackles diamonds after winning the first heart, South can see that declarer can probably be cut off from dummy if he ducks two rounds. Once the second diamond holds in dummy, declarer's last chance for an overtrick is the club finesse, which fails. North exits with a club, and when South gets in with ♦A he leads a spade. Nine tricks.

Tricky hand all round.

Nigel L

John Coleman contributed this hand, straightforward as he says, but an object lesson in how to get a good score at pairs.  Playing against Naomi & Michael, at John's table the bidding went P - 1♦ - 2♠  - 3NT [End].  3NT played at 10 tables, making 12 tricks at all but one. You've guessed which one!

South led a spade and sees Ax in dummy plus solid diamonds plus ♣Kxx.  Declarer will have a spade stop and almost certainly a source of tricks … presumably clubs.  Even if declarer needs a club finesse to establish the suit it will work.  

Declarer wins ♠S and plays on diamonds. At John's table South waited until the third round to take the Ace, thereby allowing North to signal for a heart.  South duly switched and North was able to take ♥A before the deluge of EW winners. This was worth 82% to NS, the only pair who managed to take 2 aces against 3NT.

Thoughtful defence, but aided by West's decision to open 1♦ rather than 1NT. This allows North to show a probable 6-card suit, meaning East started with a doubleton honour, presumably the king in view of his 3NT bid over the 2♠ overcall. So North obviously has something to go with 3 points in spades.

Hand 14 was an easy slam to play and should have been easy to bid at most tables if the players  – especially South - realise the value of their distribution.

North has a very strong hand with 9 probable tricks and 21 points.  At most tables it was opened 2♣  showing some sort of strong hand.  South responded  2♦, either a relay  or a negative bid, depending upon partnership agreement and North should rebid 2♠.

At this stage South must re-appraise his hand.  From being an ordinary hand with a moderate  eight points it now has excellent support for partner, including a singleton and a KQ, and South must do something to show it.  By far the best bid is 4♦, a splinter showing good spade support with some values.

After this bid it is a very pessimistic North who does not bid a slam; he is not sure where South’s values are, but whether they are in diamonds or hearts they are likely to be of use.  RKCB will probably come into action, mainly to check for a grand slam, but the fact that partner shows no key cards should not prevent the slam being bid.

At some tables the EW managed to find a very sub-minimum bid; at one table West opened a psychic 1♥ with a bad 5-card suit and a 7-count, and at another table it was opened  with an even more remarkable 2♥.  It might still be possible for NS to reach the slam, but of course it is more difficult, which is why third-in-hand semi-psychic  bids have addicts.

David Beever

Charles Chisnall's seminars, both last month's and this month's, have focused on specific aspects of bidding, opener's rebid and responder's second bid respectively. But common to both topics is the notion that bidding is a conversation, and the two bidders are constantly re-evaluating their hands as further information comes to light. Information concerning distribution,  strength, and fit.

The first three bids in the board 7 auction are fairly straightforward, then things become less so.

South has good 4-card support for diamonds, but doesn't want to overstate the strength of his hand, so simply uses 2♥ to show his limited values. But North regards his hand as being worth a further try, and his 2♠ bid shows both his precise shape and the fact that his hand is strong enough to push things up a level. Now South is worth another bid: he has a good 5-card spade suit, good support for partner's second suit, and maximum hcp for his bidding so far. So his hand is worth 3♠ in pairs [4♠ in teams]. This is all North needs to hear to raise to an excellent thin game.

This is an example of good, co-operative bidding.

Many thanks to Charles for this contribution.

Partner and I didn't manage to bid the cold slam on this hand, along with a further eight NS pairs. Very frustrating, as we can see that 6♠ is a good slam, and 7♣ even better - an example of a 4-4 trump fit being superior to 5-3.

As it happens 7♠ also makes, but if you bid that you should also queue for a lottery ticket.

Who should take the bull by the horns? Once North hears that responder has a club suit, with at least 10 HCP, is 3♣ adequate? We're always concerned about bypassing 3NT, but with club support, a 5-3-1-4 shape, and 17 HCP, 4♣ would be a horn-taking bid. For us, 4♣ would be a Minorwood enquiry, and would elicit the response of 4♥ showing 0/3 keycards. 4♠ would now be asking about ♣Q. 5♣ would deny the queen, as would 4NT. Any other suit bid at the five level would confirm holding the queen together with the king of the bid suit. With no such king, South would bid 6♣. Without knowing about South's wonderful spade support, North will probably now leave things be.

If North does limit his rebid to 3♣, can slam still be reached? Although South could simply now raise to 4♠, this South attempted to show a little extra than already promised via a second response of 3♦. Over North's 3NT, now South converted to 4♠. At this stage North can be fairly sure of 3-card spade support, but is unsure of the quality of South's club suit. It seems clear that South is better than the 10-count initially promised. 4NT will elicit a 5♥ response [2 keycards without the queen]. 5NT isn't going to help because North needs to know about both ♣K and ♣Q to bid the grand, but it would allow the partnership to rest in 6♣..

I'd be very happy to add a postscript with your [doubtless superior] bidding sequence. 

At our table, East came in with 2♥ [Michaels] over North's 1♥ opening bid, showing at least 5-5 in spades and a minor.

There are quite a few bidding situations where the first bid has a more-or-less well-defined meaning, but how well-defined are responses and rebids?

I say more-or-less well-defined because bids such as Michaels and the Unusual No Trump are pretty well understood in terms of distribution, but what about strength? The usual understanding is that the Michaels hand is either weak [<10] or strong [16+], and that responder assumes weak until subsequent bidding shows otherwise.

It's particularly important when extreme distribution is involved that the two members of the partnership are on the same wavelength, otherwise some large scores will change hands. As we saw.

With this particular hand, East's 2♥ was passed round to West at our table. What are the options? Well, not a spade bid for sure! For me I bid 2NT, which is asking East to show his minor suit. This is distinct from 3♣, which is simply for pass or correct. But actually there is a more descriptive bid for the West hand, and that is 3♦. This shows a reasonably good 6-card diamond suit, and is non-forcing. East can pass this or, in the event that North continues bidding, is now in a better position to decide whether to bid on or defend.

Nigel L

As a postscript to this discussion there's the question of what action East should take over North's 1♥. My partner chose to use Michaels to get across the 2-suited nature of his hand, but at some other tables East decided to emphasise his/her 6-card spade suit, and so simply overcalled 1♠. This raises a further question related to your system understanding: had you had the East cards and overcalled 1♠, how would you interpret a 2♦ response from your partner? I'd be interested to hear and add any views on all of this.

David Beever's kindly provided some additional analysis as a post-postscript on this extremely variable hand with scores of 800 in each direction.

At one table North opened 2♣  (presumably Benji style) and East overcalled 2♠. The outcome was 3♥ - 3 by North, a 40% score for EW.

At the other 11 tables North opened 1♥.

At seven of these tables East overcalled 1♠ and the results varied from 800 to NS (5♣x - 4) to 800 for EW (4♥x & 5♥x - 4), but in general above average for EW.

At 2 tables East overcalled 2♠ and results were 90% & 73% for EW (4♥x - 4 and - 3).

At 2 tables East bid 2♥ and results were 40% and 23%  for EW.

So only 2 tables used Michaels (or Ghestem).

DB

One final post-post-postscript is to note that when we open the bidding and partner passes, any subsequent bids other than a re-opening double should be tempered somewhat. For example, if we open one of a suit and partner passes, a 1NT rebid should be better than it would be had partner responded. And the same applies when it comes to rebidding a suit. North has a 7-card suit here, but it's not the best suit in the world in terms of quality. Where East shows a distributional hand and partner passes, this is an indication that suits may be breaking unfavourably, so caution is required.

There were several suggestions as to hands we might discuss, but I also wanted to write about a board where we had a good result - a criterion that severely limited my choice! Hand 7 seemed to fit both bills.

I think most Souths would open this hand 3♥ - over to West. West has several choices of bid, all of which are 4♣, but my partner chose to double. So, after briefly flirting with the probable 4-3 fit in spades, I elected for 5♣. I wanted to be in game, and I was nervous about half of my points being ♥AK. Nervous is not something one can accuse my partner of being, and the 6♣ bid rapidly appeared.

Not at all a bad contract if you ignore the three top losers! But South's never going to find a spade lead - this could be the only lead that gives declarer his contract, so out comes ♥Q and away go the losing spades.

So we were a trifle fortunate that the lead was with South. Had West come in with 4♣ and East raised to 6♣, what does North lead? Perhaps with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and possibly even without I'd have said ♠A. EW haven't had the opportunity to exchange much information, so there may well be holes in the contract, and sight of dummy might be very helpful as to what to do at trick 2. It's not going to take North long to weigh up his options, especially when he sees partner's encouraging ♠10.

Easy game!

Nigel L

Hand 5 from yesterday's event was particularly interesting for those of you that sat in on Charles Chisnall's pre-bridge seminar-via-Zoom. As a reminder, the seminar focused on opener's first rebid.

Charles was assuming the following system:

• 12-14 no trump, 4-card majors
• 15-17 1NT rebid, 18-19 2NT rebid
• 2♣ checkback over the 1NT rebid, 3♣ checkback over 2NT

On hand 5, what would your rebid be following partner's 1♥  response? Charles was sitting East, and he followed his own recommendations by rebidding 2NT. The logic is that this bid conveys the hand's strength, and is unlikely to miss a spade fit as partner has 3♣ available as a checkback. In practice, West raised 2NT direct to 6NT, a resting place found by two other pairs [who were both attending the seminar - coincidence?]. Six pairs played in 6♠, and one pair armed with baskets of 4-leafed clovers were in 7♠.

Note that 6NT scores better than 6♠, and makes even against an adverse spade distribution.

Thank you Charles both for the highly instructive seminar and for suggesting this hand.

I thought I'd pick an unusual hand from today's assortment, namely one on which partner and I achieved a positive imp score.

At our table we were allowed to simply play in 4♥ after partner decided his hand merited some sort of action opposite my pre-emptive 3♥ opening. If he doesn't make a squeak it's much more likely that South will venture into the auction. Those NS pairs who did get involved and found their modest diamond fit were richly rewarded - 5♦ is untouchable, and it was Christmas Day and birthday combined when EW found a double! If NS find 5♦, EW have to bid on to 5♥ to salvage something from the situation.

When ♣3 hits the table as the opening lead, this is an obvious singleton: question is does South give his partner an immediate ruff. If EW have been pushed on to 5♥ then the decision's fairly simple.But defending against 4♥ it's not clear where two further tricks are coming from. Maybe ♠A and a further heart, but maybe diamonds. South has to be clear about his objective: this is a cross-imped event, so the same considerations apply as in teams, i.e. the objective is 100% to beat the contract, overtricks are irrelevant.

Partner's singleton club tells South that West started with four clubs to go with his presumed seven hearts, so there are only two cards unaccounted for and, once West can get in to draw trumps, one of these cards will get parked on dummy's long club. South has to construct a hand for West that will allow the defence to come to four tricks before that can happen. ♣A followed by a club ruff would be a good start, and South only has one chance to do that - he's not going to get back in. It looks like the best strategy is to give partner a ruff and hope that there's a further trump trick to go with ♠A.

As it happens, West has a spade void and the contract is unbreakable, but this doesn't invalidate the thinking.

Still, if you look at where partner and I finished on the leader-board, what do I know??

Nigel Lancaster

ps: David Beever [and hand-analysis-author Bo Haglund] have pointed out that 4♥ can be defeated on the initial lead of ♥A followed by a second heart. Now, when South gets in with ♣A [or a diamond] there are two diamond losers to go with the club. With this scenario South is unaware that declarer holds four cliubs so will almost certainly attempt to cash two diamonds.

NL  

I played this hand in 3♠.

As soon as dummy goes down I realise the hands fit very well and we've missed game

At our table.East opened 2♥ third in hand. Quite a scruffy suit for a vulnerable weak two, but you are third in hand. With a good 6-card spade suit and outside shape South has to be worth 2♠, even with ♥Q 9 6. West passes, and partner finds 3♥. What does this mean I asked myself. Does he have 3NT in mind, or is this an encouraging raise in spades? It seemed to me that my options were to repeat spades or bid 4♦ and, on account of my 6th spade, I bid 3♠. I'm only a 12-count, with two of the twelve looking to have dubious value. Then, if partner really does like spades, he can convert to four.

But, as I say, when dummy goes down, together with the opening lead of ♥K, I'm regretting my caution. Okay, one man's caution is another man's wimpishness.

What went wrong would you say? The opponents' bullishness, partner's choice of the 3♥ bid, my 'cautious' rebid. It would be interesting to hear how things went at your table, then I'll add some perspective to this sorry tale.

We have been asked to look at Hand 2 from today's event. There were four different results - 5♥ - 1 [1], 4♣ [7], 5♣ [4], 4♥ [3]. I haven't looked in detail at how things progressed at every table; I've concentrated on tables involving Burnham league-of-8 players. Points of interest:

• East's opening bid. This was 1NT at most tables, 1♣ at a couple of tables
• South's action in the immediate overcalling position. For many partnerships 2♦ would be a conventional bid, so South has to do something different. Three South's chose to double - the diamond length and strength is ample recompense for the lack of HCP, at least two came in with 3♦, and one or two passed. This latter course of action is high risk - leaving the field open for EW to utilise their normal system. One South snatched defeat from the jaws of victory: having passed initially and heard LHO raise directly to 3NT, he/she now found a double, which West had no difficulty treating as a transfer to 5♣!
• West's action over South's intervention. Over 2♦, there's scope for West to come in with 3♣ and, if South now continues with 3♦, this leaves the way open for West to introduce hearts and find the best contract.

The summary of what can be made on each hand shown on the hand records can be misleading about what should be made in practice. It knows the position of all the cards and can drop singleton Kings offside and play unlikely squeezes.  But when you have gone down in a contract after having taken what seemed to be the best line it is still upsetting to find that it can be made – especially when it’s a slam.

East led an unhelpful Diamond [he'd been at the seminar!].

One line might be to lead a Spade from dummy and play the ♠9 if it is not covered, but this relies upon West having ♠KQx(xx) or a doubleton honour, which is a very poor chance.

The only realistic line, although against the odds, seemed to be to play out the top 3 Hearts and hope that the Jack drops, but when this fails there is virtually no hope; it is now too late to try and set up tricks in Spades because there are not the entries.

So North, who tried the “best” line was upset to find out that the analysis shows the contract as makeable, presumably by taking the inferior line.  But after much thought on the following day he realised that it is possible to combine the two lines.

The best play after taking the lead in hand is to cross to HA and play a spade. If covered this permits 3 spade tricks, with sufficient entries to make them.  If the S9 loses to an honour the hearts can still be tried, and the contract makes if the Jack falls. This risks going more down, but that is insignificant as compared with the slam score if it succeeds. The lesson to be learned is that even when you can see the most likely line, it might be possible to also look for another possibility and see if the two can be combined.

Returning to the bidding, North probably should rebid 3♣ and not 2NT.  After the 2NT rebid it is very difficult to find the much superior 6♣ slam.

David Beever

This was a slightly irritating board, for two reasons.

Firstly, having found the best denomination in which to play the hand, we finished up with an indifferent score. It seemed to us that the only way to end up with 12 tricks in no trumps was either by West gifting the 12th trick via a spade lead, declarer taking an unlikely finesse of ♦10, or West discarding a diamond.

Secondly, how do we bid to the excellent 6♥? It's fairly straightforward up to the point where South rebids 1NT [15-17 for us]. North now has two choices, either using 2♣ checkback to ascertain whether South has three hearts, or rebidding 3♦ to better communicate his distribution. I opted for the latter, as this guarantees five hearts but also provides another possible denomination in which to play the hand. When South now bids 3♥ we now know where we're going. And it's down to me as North to investigate a slam if anybody's going to; South has already described and limited his hand.

So I think the North hand is good enough to bid RKCB over South's 3♥. The 5♦ response [0 or 3] makes slam a fair bet, and declarer can take out two rounds of trumps before ruffing the diamonds good with ♥A.

Mea culpa.

I've chosen this hand because the results ranged from 4♠-1 [1 result] through 4♠= [2 results] through 4♠+1 [4 results], all played by North. Four East's found the potentially contract-beating diamond lead, either ♦9 [3 times] or ♦10 [once].

I'm interested in this hand because I'm presenting the March seminar on Beating the contract [or similar wording]. 

Starting with the lead, I think the diamond lead stands out. I don't want to lead away from an Ace, leading away from a jack often costs a trick, and leading a trump seems like too passive to succeed given the auction.

Do you lead ♦10 or ♦9? Always the nine for me, promising shortage or the ten. If it's shortage, West can see that the defence will take one and only one trick in the suit, otherwise he can duck in the knowledge that there may be two defensive diamond tricks coming if he can get East back in.

Defence is the most difficult part of the game, and as defenders we have to formulate a plan just as we do as declarer. We have information from the auction, and from partner's opening lead, and we add to this is the play unfolds. What we're trying to identify is declarer's [and therefore partner's] point-count, distribution, and tricks taken or available.

As West, we can see the defence has just one one club trick, two possible diamond tricks, no trump tricks [North was showing 5+], and therefore at least one heart trick will be needed. So we duck the diamond lead [there's no point doing anything else], and declarer wins with the Ace. So two diamond tricks are possible as long as East started with three card in the suit. Declarer plays a spade to the Queen, before leading dummy's ♣5. This looks like declarer must have the King, otherwise there will be a high probability of East regaining the lead and firing through a further diamond. If West ducks, declarer will take his King and ruff  any further clubs, so it must be right to rise with the Ace. The problem now is that, having decided that declarer holds ♣K, we know he will discard one of his possible diamond losers once he gets in. If he holds ♣Q as well, both possible diamond losers will disappear.

What do we know now? Declarer has 5+ spades, three diamonds [an assumption, otherwise we don't have the possibility of two defensive tricks in the suit], at least two clubs including the King, so at most three hearts. It's unlikely that declarer has just two clubs, otherwise partner would probably have led his 6-card suit headed by QJ, so now we're down to declarer having at most two hearts. If one of these is the Ace, then declarer has his contract. If declarer doesn't have ♥A, his HCPs are at  most four in spades, four in diamonds, one in hearts, three-plus in clubs, i.e. 12+ in total. With a semi-balanced 12-count including a spade suit containing KJ at best, declarer may well have opened 1NT, so maybe he isn't semi-balanced, i.e. he might have a singleton heart.

All in all, the indications are that West should play East for having ♥A, certainly in teams play, and probably in pairs also [the risk of declarer having ♣KQ being the deciding factor].

What's my excuse for opening this hand with a 4-count? Okay, so I owe partner a point. I'm working my way through a series of Mike Lawrence books at the moment, and one of his tenets is that players who bid are more difficult to compete against than players who are over-cautious. Not that he would advocate opening this North hand - another of his tenets is that partners must be able to trust your bids. But still, we are where we are.

East is immediately presented with a problem. You can hardly pass, the heart suit isn't good enough for a 3-level overcall, so it has to be a double. Over to West. For me [yes, the one who opened with a 4-count], West's 6-count indicates a 2NT [Lebensohl] response, requesting East to rebid 3♣, but in practice West responded 3♣ and East rebid 3♥. Holding ♠AQ, West converted to 3NT. South decided it was time to enter the fray with a double.

So, what does this double mean? The possibilities are:

• please lead your suit
• please do not lead your suit
• lead dummy's suit.

It seemed hardly likely that partner wanted me to lead my suit after West had bid 3NT, and the usual reason to double opponents' 3NT is to request a lead of dummy's first-bid suit, so out with ♥7. Having decided that this is what partner wants, which heart to lead. This is a question of partnership understanding, which for me meant a normal MUD lead. The hand's all over now.

Whilst this led to a good result for NS, I can't claim my opening bid was justified, but it does go some way to justifying the general point that getting involved in the bidding, particularly with some form of pre-emptive bid, does make life very difficult for opponents.

I think our opponents felt sorry for the idiots who'd bid to 7♠ on the previous board.

The first two bids were fairly unexceptional, then East has to decide how many clubs to bid. I decided I wanted partner to know what suit he could lead, but I also felt I should be cautious at adverse vulnerability. So, wimp that I am I advanced 2♣. Now South brushes my intervention aside and rebids 3♦. North's second response was 3♥, raised to 4♥ by South. So, where does North go from there?

A hand that opens 1♦ and rebids 3♦ is typically showing a 6-card diamond suit and 16+ points. When South then shows four hearts, what conclusions can North draw? There's a slight inference that South has seven diamonds: with six diamonds, four hearts, and a 16+ count, it's quite likely that South would have reversed into 2♥ for her first rebid. Anyway a fit has been found. Our North now bid 4♠, and South passed! What do we think?

North has taken the trouble to show a second suit and, having been fortunate enough to find a fit, that's where we're going to play; it's just a question of at what level. So 4♠ is a cue-bid from a hand with slam aspirations, and I'd expect South to bid on, probably with 4NT as RKCB. North responds with whatever bid shows three key-cards, and South bids 6♥.

For me, as North I'd bid 4NT rather than 4♠. I'm interested in the quality of South's heart suit and whether she holds ♦A. Over the 5♠ response, I'm very happy to bid 6♥.

I don't suppose I'm the only one who scans his/her results post-bridge with a particular focus on those red zeros.

Some of you will remember Ted Martin, a very fine bridge player and Welsh international who played at and for Burnham before tragically succumbing to cancer in his early 50's. His particular wont following a match or other event was to award 'monster points' to team-mates and others who he regarded as having been guilty of significant transgressions [at the bridge table]. Those accumulating the greater number of such points could expect to have to put their hands in their pockets at the bar or restaurant table.

Which brings me to board 16. As East you hear partner open 1♥ and North overcall 2♣. With an 8-count and four cards in each of the unbid suits, I thought a take-out double was appropriate [we don't play support doubles]. I was slightly surprised to hear South enter the fray with 2♠, but partner hasn't finished yet, and a 3♦ bid appears on the table. That's enough to silence the rest of us, and it drifts off for the dreaded -200.

Where do your monster points go? Well, wherever they go, I'm writing this piece so I get to say.

I know the tendency in modern bridge is to bid with what I regard as sub-minimum hands, and I can just about stomach the opening bid, even though it's not for me. But to continue to the 3-level vulnerable with such a hand, with both opponents bidding, I think is asking for trouble. And it got it. Although partner was hoping I would be short in clubs for my double, there simply aren't the values to underwrite a 3-level contract vulnerable. Having said all that, I'd have thought North was worth a raise to 3♠, but perhaps he suspected what might be coming!

Last board of the night for us - my excuse for my slightly pushy 3♥ bid as South.

Once West has passed, East's 3♦ bid is a fairly wide-ranging pre-empt. Question is: do you come in as South? For me, I knew partner had 5+ spades and that the only way I could indicate some values and where they were was to bid immediately. I'm slightly light for the bid, but partner will take into account that the 3♦ bid has limited my room for manoeuvre [at least I hoped so!]. Although West did his best to put the pressure on with his 5♦ bid, North is now in a position to select 5♥ as the correct bid, preferring a vulnerable game to doubling EW's non-vulnerable sacrifice.

We're featuring a relatively wild hand this week, unless you happen to be sitting East.

The initial focus is on South as dealer. There used to be rules about pre-empting, such as you should expect to go no more than three down if non-vulnerable, no more than two down if vulnerable, but things have moved on. Would you open 3♠ with the South hand? Rules apart, you would like your HCP values to be in your pre-empt suit, partly to ensure the suit's worth a sensible number of tricks, partly because this reduces your hand's defensive value. The amount of aggressiveness you want to display varies according to seat, and you still need to have an eye on vulnerability. In first seat you can afford to be pretty aggressive. In second seat [to quote Michael Lawrence] you don't have as much concern that the hand belongs to the opponents so you don't have to pre-empt unless your hand is classic. Actually Mike Lawrence quotes the South spade suit virtually exactly as being worth a pre-empt non-vulnerable, but not vulnerable.

So for me, I wouldn't rule out pre-empting with the South hand but, if South passes, I would rule out pre-empting 3♥ with the West hand. But you pays yer money and etc.

At our table, South passed and West bid 3♥. Now the spotlight's on North. You can't double as that would promise a spade suit. You have a biddable diamond suit, but that would take you above 3NT, and you have what looks like two stops in hearts. So my choice was 3NT, with the option to escape into a minor suit if doubled. Well, I wasn't doubled, but there was no way South was going to stand for 3NT with his 7-card spade suit and a heart void, so 4♠ was the contract we finished up in.

At least we weren't doubled and 4♠ - 1 took us to the right side of 50% on the board. So West's pre-emptive bid has done its job? Actually I think NS may well finish up in the same spot without any help from West, but what do I know?

A couple of interesting points on this hand.

East has to decide how to handle his/her 2-suiter, whether to open the strong, 6-card diamond suit and risk losing a heart fit, or to open 1♥ planning to rebid diamonds. At our table, East opened 1♦ and hearts never got a mention. Not to worry: 3NT is the optimum contract - providing declarer makes an overtrick.

3NT was declared three times by West, each time with the obvious opening lead of ♣6. South can't be sure whether the lead is from a doubleton or MUD, but must retain the Ace as a subsequent entry [playing ♣A immediately allows West to hold up ♣K to the third round]. West wins ♣K, and clearly has to bring the diamond suit in without the defence getting back in. Finesse or play to drop the queen in two rounds?

If declarer takes the view that he/she needs to make an overtrick to achieve a good score, perhaps it's better to cash one top diamond before returning to hand via a spade finesse? Although this would pick up a singleton diamond in the South hand, the diamond suit wouldn't be coming in anyway, so all we're doing is postponing the awful moment of decision.

Short of employing the well-known technique of a mirror on a long stick, with South holding at least five clubs, there's more space for ♦Q to be in the North hand than with South, so declarer has no reason not to take the finesse. And be doomed!

Going back to East's original decision, I plump for opening 1♥. Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice. 

The bidding was as I recollect at our table - I've forgotten whether North made a contribution.

It's interesting in that EW can make 6♥, although no-one found this slam.

Once NS get as far as 4♠, it seemed to me as East that we would be taking whatever tricks were available outside of the spade suit and, vulnerability being as it was, this would probably yield a better score than would be available in any game contract. West saw no reason to disturb this as it could be that East had a useful spade holding. So there things rested.

One of our poorer boards from last night - though there were a couple of other contenders!

Our opponents found their way to a poor slam via the bidding sequence given. The opening bid and 2♥ response are likely to have been replicated at all tables. What do we think about West's rebid? Would 3♥ have been forcing? Does 4♥ deny an interest in proceeding further?

As is apparent, the best defence is to get off to a club lead, establishing a trick in the suit before declarer can get the spades going. Alternatively, the defence has a good chance of collecting a heart trick to go with ♠A. In practice, South kicks off with a small heart, and declarer's now got a chance of bringing in the suit for no losers and establishing the spade suit before the defence can attack clubs. Ah well, it's Christmas!

With 5-5 in the majors and a void in clubs, North must think there's a good chance for game with both opponents having passed. So 1♠ was presumably the opening bid at all tables, with North expecting to rebid in hearts over any responsive bid from partner. But 2♥ was certainly not the response he/she expected, and it's time to think again. Game is no longer simply 'a good chance', and it's all about exploring the slam possibility.

At our table the bidding was as shown: North elected to splinter in clubs and South quite reasonably decided that his values didn't merit going beyond 4♥. Partner and I [we were EW] had a brief discussion as to how we would have bid the hands, and thought that North was worth a further try over 4♥, probably via 5♦. The difficulty here is that South has shown 10-11 points with five hearts, and his/her only other values are in partner's splinter-suit, so is unlikely to do anything other than bid 5♥.

So how could North proceed:

• punting 6♥, on the grounds that it will be impossible to get across how good a fit he/she has, and any non-diamond lead should make slam odds-on.
• rebidding 4♣ as a splinter and then 5♣ over South's 4♥ 'sign-off' to show definite slam interest with a void in clubs.
• rebidding 4♣ as a splinter and then 5♦ over 4♥. But what can South do now? He/she won't know about the club void or the 5-5 heart fit, and any bid other than 5♥ commits NS to a slam.
• rebidding 4NT over South's 2♥ response in an attempt to ascertain where South's 10-11 points are located. In this particular case this will elicit the information that South holds ♥K but not ♥Q, and also ♣A. So a further 3-4 points somewhere. If those 3-4 points include a king, 6♥ should be cold. If not the slam should depend on a successful spade finesse at worst.

So my take is that the slam decision will be North's, and that using a splinter rebid is simply providing information to opponents without having any realistic chance of South doing other than to rebid 4♥. Going via 4NT at least has the benefit of extracting information, and may provide the ammunition to justify the punt to 6♥, which will surely follow!.

There were one or two candidates for this week's featured hand, including one that achieved a 'save' of 1100 against opponents' possible, non-vulnerable 3NT.

But the hand I've picked is the unlucky-for-some board 13. As is often the case it's the part-score battles where judgement and interest are to be found.

I've given the bidding at our table. For me the East hand is not worth an opening bid second in hand, irrespective of vulnerability. In this case, the diamond bid assists NS in quickly establishing their heart fit, though I think it would come to light even if East passes [P P 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♣ P 2♥]. EW would probably come in rather than let 2♥ play, but NS will be prepared to compete to 3♥.

With the bidding at our table, what should West bid? 2♥ is promising a good raise in diamonds, but the high-card points outside are relatively 'soft'. The other option is a direct raise to 3♦ - close decision but I think the one I'd go for in view of the soft values and relatively balanced shape outside the trump suit.

Once EW have landed in 4♦, the other aspect of the part-score battle comes into play, namely accurate defence, which should take the contract two off but, as the traveller shows, two pairs did better than that, actually making ten tricks in one case.

The net result of 4♦ -2 yielded the much-sought-after score of 200 in the part-score scenario.

I imagine the auction was similar to ours at most tables, with the possible exception of North's double. At our table, this was alerted as being for take-out. At one table, 2♠* was allowed to play, a dangerous decision in teams, and South quite reasonably chose to rebid 2NT, giving North a relatively straightforward raise to 3NT.

At all 3NT tables, West kicked off with a spade honour, and now battle commences.

South can see there's going to be a struggle to arrive at nine tricks, but the defence is going to have to be on its toes to stop this happening. Where to look for these nine tricks? Four clubs for sure, two hearts by force, two spades by force once the queen and ten have been conceded, and the chance of an eventual diamond. Our declarer took ♠A at trick 1, led a small club to dummy, and returned a small heart, ducked by East and won with ♥J in hand. Now declarer led a small spade, taken by West's ten. Crunch time.

From West's point of view, South can't hold ♣A and ♥K, else she will have nine top tricks and nothing in diamonds, so there'll be no messing around in spades.

With ♥K and ♦A, declarer will establish her three club tricks to go with four hearts and two aces.

With ♦A and ♣A, declarer would have started with 14 HCP, which is not impossible, but seems inconsistent with the 2NT rebid. And this would put East with ♥K and ♦Q. But the odds are on South scrambling to nine tricks.

With ♣A and neither ♥K nor ♦A, South must hold ♦Q to make up an initial 12 HCP.

So, West has to assume that ♥K is with East. Probably ♥10 as well as declarer hasn't sought to establish a third heart trick. There's no urgency in cashing ♠Q, as West has a further entry with ♦K. All in all, the stand-out lead after taking ♠10 is a heart.

Well done declarer, you put us to the test, and we failed!

We were fortunate to be on the receiving end of our opponents' mis-bidding on this hand: the bidding at our table is as shown.

Probably most of us use the Jacoby 2NT response to an opening 1-major bid to show a game-forcing hand with support for the suit opened. Opener can rebid four of the original suit to show a relatively minimal opening hand with no interest in going beyond game.

I say 'mis-bidding' firstly because the 2NT bid is defined as showing a relatively balanced hand with no singleton or void - we have splinter bids for that. If East responds 4♣, West is in a much better position to judge that the hands are not fitting particularly well, and will certainly not now overbid her response.

More generally, it's important that partnerships' agreements on bidding systems and conventions are built on a sound and referable base. For the Jacoby 2NT, pairs need a joint understanding of why the convention exists, when to use it and when not. Looking at the Burnham System Card on the website, the HTML version has a number of topics underlined, Jacoby being one. Clicking on an underlined topic provides access to a detailed explanation, and sometimes allows the browser to drill down even further. In the Jacoby explanation, there is a further underlined hyperlink leading to an article in English Bridge by David Bakhshi. You may not want to play the convention his way, in which case you can replace his version with your own. What is important is that you and your partner are singing from the same hymn-sheet, to which you can refer when things go wrong.

Breaking the Law

Board 14 does not seem to be a very exciting hand, but it is likely to be a  typical part-score battle.

The bidding at one table was as above. At another table, East came in with a skimpy double over 2♦, and EW were allowed to play in 3♠, going one-off.

Unluckily for NS, East had been reading a book by Larry Cohen the arch-prophet of “The Law of Total Tricks”.  This states that the total number of tricks available to the two sides playing in their respective longest trump suits is equal to the total number of trumps held by the two sides.

So East did a quick calculation:  it was virtually certain that EW had 8 spades and probable that NS had 9, or possibly 10 diamonds.  So the total number of tricks available in their best suits was 16 or 17.  In other words, if EW could make 3♠ NS could make 1/2♦ and if EW were going one down, NS could still only make 2/3♦.

North had “broken the Law” by going a level higher than his sides trump total.

So East did what Mr Cohen instructs, and doubled, not without misgivings.  He was very relieved when North had to lose 4 tricks after a heart lead.

So, was the double a great triumph?  Not really, as at the three tables where EW had pressed on to 3♠ they were allowed to play there [results =, -1, -2: it needs more than Mr Cohen's Law to explain this disparity!]. 4♦^x -1 doesn't hugely improves EW's score compared to 4♦ -1, but at least it should have the benefit of getting West to pull out a Pass card.

David Beever

What do you open as East [if anything]?

If your non-vulnerable weak two bids are in the 5-9 range that would seem to rule out 2♥. But for me, with such a poor-quality suit, 2♥ seemed the most practical bid. If partner's holding the spades, I don't want to be fighting him for where to play; if opponents have the spades I'd like to get my pre-emptive bid on the table. As in many situations, we have to find a bid for the hand rather than the other way round.

My 2♥ was followed by two passes, and North in the protective position came in with 2♠. After two passes, West doubled: what does this mean? The general rule is that a double following partner's pre-emptive bid is for penalties, although I'm not sure my partner and I saw things completely eye-to-eye on this point. Anyway, I passed, and after a lead of ♥A and accurate defence, 2♠* was two-off for 500.

Morals:

• find the best bid for the hand rather than sticking rigidly to a system
• make sure you're on the same wavelength as your partner with doubles following pre-empts
• don't be over-concerned about doubling low-level contracts in match-pointed pairs, especially when at favourable vulnerability.

This is ironic in that the West hand is ideal to investigate a slam using the Minorwood bid of 4♣. Ironic in that the only pair to find 6♣ was partner and I and we weren't playing Minorwood! Partner responded 3♣ to my opening 1NT, and I rebid 3NT on account of my lack of first-round controls. Not to be put off, partner now found 4NT so, with three clubs including the King, two other Kings, and a potential source of tricks in diamonds, I decided to bite the bullet and respond 6♣.

The problem is that by looking for a club slam in this way, we bypass the potential match-point-winning 3NT contract, right? Wrong! As you'll know if you came along to our Minorwood seminar in March 2011 [Graham]. The Minorwood system allows for the slam-investigating player to sign off in no trumps, usually at the 4-level.

If you would like a copy of the Minorwood Powerpoint presentation, in one form or another, please contact Graham or Nigel.

Harping back to the October seminar, this is a North hand you would like to open 1NT if playing a weak no trump. Even if 1♠ only promises a 4-card suit, this is not a suit you would want to rebid.

Having said that, an opening 1NT by North is going to be doubled, and one would expect a rescue into 2♦ by South will suffer the same fate, for an EW top [give or take the odd 800 being thrown into the mix!].

Anyway, at our table North opened 1♠, East overcalled 1NT, and there things rested. South led ♠A, perhaps a little dangerous with East having promised spade cover, and East is now able to set about hearts. With ♥10 coming down, the defence is now restricted to taking its three aces.

♦2 is the most successful lead, although a heart lead to the Ace followed by a diamond switch will similarly hold declarer to 8 tricks.

The topic for last night's seminar was Opening 1NT with a 5-Card Major, and this hand was an example.

There is an argument for opening 1♠ opposite a passed hand, but a suit headed by AJ is not one which opener would be comfortable rebidding. Another consideration is that, with a 3-card heart suit, West is perfectly content with being transferred into 2♥, should the situation arise.

Once we've opened 1NT, partner is in the driving seat for the remainder of the auction: all we need to do is to respond appropriately to any bids partner makes.

At our table, West opened 1NT, East bid 2NT [strength enquiry or transfer to a minor], West rebid 2NT [minimum], and East ended proceedings with 3♣. The hands fit together very well, diamonds break 3-3, and ten tricks roll in.

If on the other hand West opens 1♠, one would expect East to respond 1NT and play there, scraping 7 tricks or being allowed to make an overtrick. West has no reason to disturb 1NT, and a 2♠ contract gets its just desserts.

This is an interesting hand from several points of view: bidding, declarer play, defence. Assuming East opens 1♥ [adding a bit of interest to South's meagre collection], how should West respond? If a 2-level response requires 10 points, the only option is 1♠. East may choose to forge directly to 3NT, although 2NT [typically showing 18-19 HCP] would leave things open for West to show a 5-card spade suit. In practice, West only has four spades so we're going to finish up in 3NT anyway.

The auction on board 19 will depend on whether North/South are playing weak or strong NT and if outside their NT range whether a spade opening shows at least a 5-card suit. I am surprised that more than half the field played in 3NT when North has a fine 6-card heart suit. The best way to handle the heart combination for 5 tricks is to take two finesses, which works here. If West leads ♣K then declarer will be held to 11 tricks, but that will not be easy if South has opened 1♣. On any other lead South should make 12 tricks if two heart finesses are taken and it is strange that two declarers only made 11 tricks on a neutral diamond lead.

If North/South are playing a strong NT then South might open 1♣ or 1♠. I would normally recommend opening the lower suit with only 4 cards in each, which is best to ensure that no fit is missed, but here the spade suit is so good that at pairs there is a strong case for opening 1♠ provided it only guarantees 4 cards.

If the 4♥ contract is reached then most pairs will make 12 tricks. A fine defence is needed to hold declarer to 11 tricks. A club must be led (not easy to find if North is declarer). Declarer rises with the Ace and 2 clubs are discarded on the 3 top spades. Declarer takes a losing heart finesse and the spotlight falls on East. He must play a fourth spade which West ruffs with the heart Q to promote a second defensive trick for ♥9.

Dick Davey

Our last board of the night and without doubt our worst.

East as dealer passed and South opened 1♦. West passed and North responded 1♠. South made a game-forcing jump rebid of 3♣, which North converted [or so he thought] to 3NT.

South now unconverted to 4♣. Question is what is this? The possibilities are:

• South has doubts about 3NT making, and wants to play in five of a minor
• South thinks 3NT may well make but thinks five of a minor will yield a better score
• South thinks 3NT may well make, but is certain six of a minor will yield a better score
• South intends 4♣ as RKCB in clubs.

Well, our North [my good self] took 4♣ as RKCB and responded 4♦ to show one key card. Our South, who had intended his bid as a request for suit preference between the minor suits, took 4♦ as suit preference for diamonds, and punted 6♦. So what do we think of all this? Partner and I have a general understanding that removing 3NT to four of a minor is RKCB, but this is normally where that minor has been agreed.

My own view is that if partner thinks we should be playing in five of a minor for whichever reason, the most unambiguous route is to unconvert 3NT to 5♣ for pass or correct to diamonds.Whereas if he is hell-bent on playing in a slam, he could similarly unconvert 3NT to 6♣.

Finally, having wound up in 6♦ what's the best line? This is all about playing the diamond suit for just one loser. How do you set about this, missing KJ10xx? You're in dummy after the opening heart lead, so you embark on trumps. What are the possibilities?

• diamonds break 3-2 with the King on-side - no problem, finesse the Queen and claim
• diamonds break 3-2 with the King off-side - your Queen loses to the King and you're down unless J10 doubleton is on-side
• diamonds break 4-1 with the King on-side - finesse the Queen
  • if the off-side singleton is the Jack or the ten you rely on the principle of restricted choice to play for K10 being on-side
• diamonds break 4-1 with the stiff King off-side - play the Ace on the first round and hastily hide the mirror on the long stick you were using
• playing the Ace on the first round also scores if the King is in a doubleton either side and you play low on the second round
• if diamonds are 4-1 with a singleton J or ten off-side, playing the Ace at trick one leaves you without recourse.

I'll leave you to work out which course of action has the best chance of success.

Hand 2 from last night was a good example from the seminar given on Monday [Responding to partner's overcall].

East will open 1♣ and South would overcall 1♠. West may well bid 2♦. Now North can bid 2♥ IF you play non -forcing responses to overcalls, as advocated in the seminar.
Without that understanding North cannot really bid.

Now East has to decide what to do over 2♥.

3♣ or maybe 2NT: either bid will be passed out. At our table East passed and we played in 2♥ going one-off.

A couple of points to note:

• if South, unsure as to whether partner's 2♥ is forcing, raises to 3♥, this converts a 79% board to a 14% board - an indication that agreement as to whether responses to overcalls are forcing or not is vital.
• if West raises 2NT to 3NT on the grounds that there may be 9 tricks to be made, he/she is demonstrating sloppy thinking in a match-pointed event. 3NT making, as it might, certainly gives EW a complete top, but 3NT-1 is an absolute bottom. If 9 tricks are making in no trumps, 2NT+ 1 is already a 71% board for EW.

It's interesting that when looking for a hand from Monday evening to feature in Hand of the Week, many hands raise some point worthy of dicscussion.

Hand 19 raises one or two interesting points.

Firstly, when you pick up a 12-14 hand [assuming you're playing a weak no trump] containing a 5-card major, otherwise balanced, do you open the major or 1NT? If you always give the same answer whatever, this is an easy decision for you. If not, what criteria do you employ in coming to your decision? Perhaps this should be a seminar topic.

Anyway, let's assume that with the South hand you open 1NT. The spotlight switches to West. Do you have methods to get involved here? Many Burnham players use the Modified Landy system, where a 2♦ overcall shows a 4-card major and a longer minor, but let's assume that vulnerability keeps West quiet for the moment at least.

Moving on to North, some players [and today's author is one such] always respond 2♣ on any hand containing two 4-card majors. Had opener rebid 2♦, on this hand responder now bids 2♥, typically showing a weak hand with 5/4 in hearts/spades respectively. Assuming opener is on the same wavelength as responder, he/she will pass except holding two hearts and three spades, in which case he/she will convert to 2♠, just in case partner's major-suit holdings were 4-4.

At our table last night, North responded 2♣, East passed, South rebid 2♥ , and this was passed round to East, who now came in with 3♦. South decided his 5-card heart suit was worth a further contribution, and West decided quite reasonably to remain silent no longer, and trotted out 4♦.

This is where matters rested for us, but the final point is, should NS have taken further action? If 4♦ is making and NS judge that this is going to yield very few matchpoints for them, they have little or nothing to lose and should bid 4♥. If they don't think 4♦ is making, they should double their vulnerable opponents. Bear in mind that if 4♦* makes and 4♦ making would have been a poor score anyway, the double is unlikely to have cost much.

In practice, a NS heart contract plays very well, but that's just luck of the draw. My point is that NS should take some action over 4♦.

This is board 26 from last night's teams. Five pairs languished in 4♠ [including partner and myself], two were in 6♠, one in 6NT. Every declarer made 12 tricks.

Question is how to bid and should you be in a slam?

At our table, East opened 1♠ and West responded 2NT [game-forcing Jacoby]. Spotlight on East who has the crucial decision as to whether he/she regards his/her hand as minimal [rebids 4♠] or better-than-minimum [for us we'd rebid 3♣ to show a reasonable-quality second suit of at least four cards]. This East took the wimp approach, largely based on the stiff ♥K.

West has an awkward initial response: even though our opening spade bid shows at lease five, the Jacoby response should still show at least 4-card support. But what else can West respond? The only 4-card suit is hearts, but 2♥ would promise at least five. Maybe West can respond with a temporising  2-minor bid, knowing that he/she can convert to spades if opener gets too excited.

I was favoured with a heart lead, which helped not one jot if your goal was 12 tricks. Once the spade suit has behaved itself, it's fairly clear from the outset that squirm as one might the point will come where declarer has to lead a club from dummy towards K10. As it happens both ♣A and ♣Q are with North, leaving even this declarer no opportunity to fail to make 12 tricks.

Did I make the wrong decision with my initial rebid? Well, if I'd employed the mirror-on-the-long-stick technique to tell me that the missing club honours were favourably placed and the trumps were behaving, I'd have taken a different view. But having left my m-o-t-l-s at home, I'm not castigating myself: for a slam to be worthwhile in teams it has to be at least a 50% chance, and this was less than that, so I'm prepared to take it on the chin.