(This commentary relates to Board 4 played on April 3^rd 2012)

In the pairs game it can sometimes pay to gamble and break the mould by bidding in third position with a substandard hand. Our opponents did just this on the above hand when East opened the bidding with 1 despite having only 9HCPs including a singleton K. Sitting South I had no reason to bid , and neither did North when West responded 1. Now East  passed  and although I realised that he could not have a good hand I had no sensible bid I could make. The contract of 1 was an easy make losing only three clubs and three aces on normal defensive play.

This earned us a complete bottom as the hand was passed out on 5 occasions , on three occasions N/S played in a NT contract making 8 tricks , and on one occasion N/S achieved a +200 penalty.

Of course E/W might have bid to too high a contract if I had intervened in the bidding , but East chose his moment well and I applaud him for his enterprise.

John C Williams April 6^th 2012.

(This commentary relates to Board 5 played on October 4^th 2011).

In the cut and thrust of the pairs game it is important to get into the bidding , make life difficult for the opposition , and above all try to visualise partner’s and the opponents’ hands.  

After North had opened 1 East has not quite got enough to double. With a fourth spade (instead of a club or diamond) a double would be correct. South bid a clever 1 to try to make bidding difficult for West and knowing  that , if doubled , he could retreat to 2. West passed for the minute and North bid 2. East now took some action and doubled.

From West’s point of view he now knows a lot about the hands. East must have about 11/12 HCPs with four card heart  and club suits. Both North and South must have a minimum of HCPs and also probably hold all the diamond honours. Having a good club fit , a void in diamonds , and a huge spade suit sitting over South , West’s hand now has enormous playing strength in clubs.

Sitting West I immediately bid 5 , but on reflection I wish I had showed a void by bidding 4 first , and then 5 over partner’s response. He might then have bid 6. In fact with a 2-2 trump break the club grand slam is an easy make with a combined holding of only 23 HCPs. However bidding 5 still achieved a goodish result.

(Note that  E/W can also make a small slam in either hearts or spades).

John C Williams October 6^th 2011.

(This commentary relates to Board 31 played in session 4 of the EBU Swiss Teams at Brighton on August 21^st 2011).

I am always impressed when good , accurate , sensible bidding , without the need for conventions, leads to an excellent contract. The use of a Blackwood-style slam convention certainly has its place , but I believe over-reliance on these conventions to the exclusion of more natural cue bidding is to be discouraged.

A simple 1 opening (despite the three loser hand) keeps the bidding low , and after a natural spade response 2 was forcing for one round (American style). 2 sets the suit and suggests a minimum hand with at least a doubleton honour or three small hearts in support. Cue bids of A , A , A and K follow , and West then jumps to the slam knowing that East holds the ideal cards. (NB East cannot hold K or he would not have made a simple limit bid of 2).

Despite the bad 4-1 trump break the slam is cold , and simply bid on only 24 combined HCPs.

An Ace-asking convention will always find out about the aces and will find out that East holds a K. But which one is it? Cue bidding solves this problem.

John C Williams August 22nd 2011.

(This commentary relates to Board 11 played on August 2^nd 2011).

Holding a balanced 19/20 HCP hand what action do you take when the opponents freely bid a 4 contract before you get a chance to bid?

Partnerships need to be clear on the meaning of defensive actions when their opponents bid what looks like a distributional/pre-emptive game.

This and the subsequent hand demonstrate the difficulties. At our table South decided to open a weak 2 (6-10 HCP but devaluing his singleton K).  Non vulnerable , North decided to put pressure on the opponents  and raised this bid to game. East doubled which was passed out .  South was favoured with a club lead and he scrambled eight tricks for -300. East can make eleven tricks in a NT contract , but only four pairs bid and made 3NT. Four pairs either bid the 3NT contract the wrong way round  (as West can only make eight tricks on a heart lead) , or bid the wrong game conceding +100 to N/S. If West bids 4 in response to his partner’s double this contract will fail as declarer has to lose two Aces , and either club ruffs or at least two trump tricks after repeated heart leads.

John C Williams August 3^rd 2011.

See the next hand for some general comments on defensive bidding in these circumstances

(This commentary relates to Board 14 played on August 2nd 2011)

Holding a balanced 19/20 HCP hand what action do you take when the opponents freely bid a 4 contract before you get a chance to bid?

Partnerships need to be clear on the meaning of defensive actions when their opponents bid what looks like a distributional /pre-emptive game. This and the previous hand demonstrate the difficulties.

 East opened 1 and West, cleverly, immediately raised the auction to 4. North doubled and if South passes this contract is an easy make , losing only a heart , a diamond and a club trick. However if South bids 4 and West doubles , this contract it is likely to go at least  4 off. South may then decide to believe West and try 5 which will only go 2 off. If E/W bid 5 South needs to respect North’s double for one off. Three E/W pairs made 4 doubled, one pair was not doubled and two pairs made ten tricks in a heart part-score. Three E/W pairs penalised N/S gaining 200, 800 and 1500 (on the bidding shown above). Only one N/S pair scored a positive result with + 50.

John C Williams August 3^rd 2011

General comments on defensive bidding in these circumstances

On hand 2 the best action for N/S is for both to pass and let E/W have their 4 game. However it seems more normal for North to double and unless N/S find their club contract they are now in trouble. On hand 1 it is difficult for E/W to find their optimum NT contract by East. This all goes to show why pre-empting is so useful and difficult to deal with.

Over four level contracts it is usual to play a double as holding more than 16 HCPs and probably take-out orientated,  4NT as showing a two-suiter hand  , and a cue bid of the opponents’ suit as a very strong two or three suited hand.

 In any competitive auction leave the five level to the opponents.

(This commentary relates to Board 15 played  on November 2^nd 2010).

It is not often that a pair finish up playing in one of the opponents naturally bid suits , but it happened to my partner and I on this hand.

After West opened 1 , North (my partner) made a take-out double which either always promises a four card spade suit , or a strong hand on which he is able to handle any subsequent bid from me.  East however now bid 1 (not everybody’s cup of tea on 5 HCPs and an anaemic suit) and, sitting South , I was a bit stuck for a bid. 1NT without a real heart stop did not appeal , a double might suggest both minors , and 2 (a cue bid of the opponents suit!) would suggest that I was asking my partner to bid NTs. I selected 2 showing a four card suit with 6-8 HCPs , but when West rebid hearts and it was passed round to me I had to find another bid. I bid 2 and my partner (North) had to fathom out what I had. Reasoning that since my 2 bid had been a limit bid , and that therefore 2 could not be forcing , he realised that I must have four spades. (Full marks , however he thought for some time before passing).

I wish I could say that I made my contract , but I was limited to 4 spade tricks, a heart ruff in my hand , a club trick and a diamond trick for one off. However this was better than letting the opponents make nine tricks in a heart contract , and earned us an above average score.

John C Williams November 3^rd 2010  

(This commentary relates to Board 13 played  on June 8^th 2010)

One of the disadvantages of using conventions is that it gives your opponents the opportunity to double the bid to indicate a good holding in the suit for a possible sacrifice or lead opportunity.  On the above hand playing 5 card majors I opened 1 and my partner bid 3, a conventional bid known as Bergen indicating 10-12 HCPs and a three card spade suit. With a 5 loser hand I was interested in a slam and bid 3 , a cue bid. My partner now bid 3 and my 4 bid ended the auction. With no real indication as to what to lead East led the 5 to South’s 7 , West’s 10 and my K. I drew trumps and by playing East for the J made all thirteen tricks when East discarded a diamond. But West had missed the opportunity to double the 3 bid , to indicate a lead that would have held the contract to 11 tricks. As it was a team competition it only cost 2 imps. However had we bid to the slam then a heart or a diamond lead would have given me the contract , and on a spade lead the contract is made via a correct diamond guess suggested by the shortage of trumps in the East hand.

Similar opportunities exist in doubling conventional responses to a 4NT ace-asking enquiry. Also , when leading, do not forget the negative inference from partner’s failure to double a conventional bid. Perhaps try a different suit.

John C Williams June 10^th 2010.

(This commentary relates to Board 45 played in the Essex Helliar Trophy at Mountnessing on Sunday February 21^st 2010.)

Earlier this year two teams of four from Lingwood won the right to represent Essex in the Garden Cities Regional  Finals to be held on 22^nd May 2010 , by being the aggregate winners in the Essex Helliar Trophy.

The hand below needed both East and West to take appropriate action to ensure the optimum result.

South responds 1NT to North’s 1 opening bid after which North gives South the option of playing in either minor. South bids 2 which is passed round to East. East must now take some action as this contract is an easy make. His thoughts should go along the lines of:--

    * Obviously West has upwards of 8 HCPs or why have the opponents not explored game.

    * North must be at least 5-4 in the minors or he would probably have passed 1NT.

    * South does not have a 4 card major.

    * By converting to 2 South has shown a 5-4 diamond fit.

East needs to ‘protect’ the situation as it is almost certain that East/West have a reasonable major suit fit, but West has been shut out of the bidding. East should double for take-out even though he only holds 8 HCPs. Now West needs to consider carefully.  With his well placed honour cards he should either bid game in hearts or bid 3 to suggest a possible game. In fact 4 is an easy make for East/West but even a part score in hearts is better than allowing North/South to make an easy 2.

John C Williams March 23^rd 2010.

(This commentary relates to Board 17 played  on April 20th 2010.)

Players were presented with a difficult choice of slams on this hand.

After opening his longest suit and hearing South’s game force bid of 2, North reversed into 2 , normally showing 15+ HCPs. With two fairly robust long suits however I approve of this bid even holding only 13 HCPs. South bid 2 (fourth suit forcing) and North completed the description of his 6-5 hand by bidding 3. South’s 4NT is Roman Key-card Blackwood , and he found that North had two aces but was missing the Q. When South bid 5NT he learned that North had the K. It is normal to select the known 5-3 fit for a slam and South can sign off in 6. However the danger is that this may fail if hearts break badly and , with a surfeit of HCPs and two strong 6 card suits , 6NT may prove to be a better spot.

Anybody who chose this bid hit the jackpot as 6 does indeed fail , losing two heart tricks whilst , thanks to the kind break in clubs , 6NT makes with 5 club tricks , 3 diamond tricks and 2 in each of the majors.

(I did realise the possible danger in 6 but , being greedy and hoping that one or other of the minor suits may be solid , I bid 7NT. Served me right , as this contract of course failed by one trick.)

John C Williams April 24^th 2010.

(This commentary relates to Board 32 played in the Swiss Pairs at the Woodham Ferrers Congress on January 24th  2009.)

Before deciding to open a vulnerable weak two it may be important to study the opponents' defensive measures. Although on the West hand above 2 looks like a reasonable bid , N/S play an immediate double as penalty and not for ‘take out’. East , perhaps surprisingly , decided to try 2 which South imaginatively doubled.  This contract went two light for -500 and a N/S top.  (2 would have been even less successful).

In fourth position it is not so important to have a penalty double , since your suit is sitting under declarers , and it is best to retain a double for take out.

In second position a simple convention is to use 3 for a weak (11-15 HCP) ‘take out’ and 3 for a stronger (16+ HCP) ‘take out’

(This commentary relates to Board 26 played on August 25^th 2009).

When should one open light in fourth position after three passes? This was the question facing North on this hand.  A good rule on opening light in this position is to do so only when holding a reasonable length spade suit , and only then if the hand satisfies the ’rule of 15’. In this rule you add  the number of cards in the spade suit to the number of HCPs in the hand , and if the result is 15 or more then open 1. (e.g. with a 5 card spade suit and 10 HCPs the rule comes to 15 , and opening 1 is reasonable).  Spades is the ‘boss’ suit and an opening bid in this suit has a pre-emptive value in that opponents must now enter at the two level. On the above hand North can be certain that each player has exactly 11 HCPs and may be tempted into opening 1. However applying the above rule , 6 spades + 7 HCPs only makes 13 , and it is wiser to pass. Even though N/S can make 2 , if North does open 1 then South will almost certainly respond 2NT , and now North will be forced to bid 3 , going one off. The only way to play in 2 is to open a weak two which is not generally advisable on such a poor suit , even though it works well on this hand.

8 tables passed the hand out, whilst 2 N/S pairs played in spades making 8 and 9 tricks and 2 N/S pairs went off in contracts.

John C Williams 26th August 2009

(This commentary relates to Board 14 played on August 4th 2009)

Competitive decisions at the five-level are always difficult , and there is an old adage amongst bridge experts that one should leave the five-level to the opponents. East opened 1H (personally , despite having only 14 HCPs , I would have opened 1, the longer suit, and reversed with a rebid of hearts) , South overcalled 1 , and West raised to 2. Sitting North I bid 4 , and East bid 5 which was passed round to me. Despite the adage , I bid 5 which was doubled by West. Of course this contract failed by one trick , and the opponents 5 would also have failed by one trick (or two if South finds an improbable diamond lead) , thus suggesting the adage is right. However if the opponents’ spades had divided 3-2 instead of 4-1, then 5 would have made. No wonder the five-level is so hard!

Six N/S pairs took the same decision as we did and lost either 50 or 100 depending on whether or not the opponents doubled. Two E/W pairs made 5 (once doubled) ,and four failed in heart or diamond games.

John C Williams August 6^th 2009.

(This commentary relates to Board 11 played on July 7^th 2009).

For all East/Wests this hand proved the most difficult of the evening to bid - nobody bid the small slam in clubs ,  let alone the grand slam. However , with the 2-2 distribution in clubs , there are always thirteen tricks available on any lead.

After South opened 1 East had a difficult bid. If he doubles then he knows West will assume he has a spade suit , so my partner contented himself with a simple overcall of 2 in the sure belief that this would not end the bidding.  South repeated his hearts and I decided to bid 2. I did this in case we had a 4-4 spade fit and East had not got a suitable hand to double the initial 1. (I could easily fall back on supporting diamonds later if necessary , and my partner now knows I cannot have a strong spade suit as I did not overcall 1 initially). My partner now made a valiant effort with his 4 bid - obviously he had a strong minor two-suiter.  However my 5 bid ended the auction. On reflection I should certainly have jumped to 6.

Three pairs made 5+2, two pairs made 5+1 and one simply 5. The other three pairs played in minor suit part scores making eleven or thirteen tricks. Thus 5+2 achieved a near top for us , but I still did not feel I had done the hand justice.

John C Williams 8th July 2009.

(This commentary relates to Board 20 played  on May 5^th 2009)

In Pairs , on a part-score hand , one has to strive for the best possible score ,unlike team events where one is normally happy with a plus score.

John C Williams May 6^th 2009

(This commentary relates to Board 3 played on May 5^th 2009)

When partner makes a good bid in Pairs , do not spoil it by not allowing for the fact that he may have taken some risk.

When South opens 1 West has no satisfactory bid and therefore has to pass. North will bid 1NT and East has to decide whether to bid 2 or quietly pass. At pairs it is important to compete if at all possible and despite only holding eight HCPs  (incl. three Jacks) , the sixth spade should probably influence his decision to bid. When South bids 3 West’s initial reaction is probably to bid 4. However he should allow for the fact that East may be light (taking into account N/S’s bidding) and only bid 3. [Alternatively West could bid 3 indicating spade support and inviting game. When East bids 3 confirming he is light , West should have the discipline (and courage) to pass.]

 In fact East may make nine or ten tricks. To make 4 he needs to both correctly guess the club situation (playing 9 to the CJ) and also ruff two clubs before drawing all the trumps. However just making3 is better than letting N/S make 3 or 3. Had it been a Teams competition I would have chanced 4 holding West’s hand.

Five N/Spairs made contracts in hearts or diamonds and one pair collected a penalty.Two E/W pairs made 3+1, one pair made 3S, two collected penalties of 100 and 50 and one pair made 3 doubled plus one. Thus 3+1 earns a near top without the need to bid game.

(This commentary relates to Board 22 played on April 7^th 2009)

Experts and club players alike differ on what to open with the East hand. Some open with the suit below the singleton (1 in this case) , some with the middle of three touching suits (1) , and some with the best , in this case only , minor (1). All can work out well or badly and on this hand 1 probably fares best , as West is likely to bid 1NT which should easily make. 1 may also fare well , as E/W are likely to finish in 2 which is difficult to defeat. Our opponents , after an opening 1 bid , reached 2 , which went two off.

I was sitting South , but if I was sitting East what would I do? I hate opening these hands. Experience has taught me to pass whenever possible , and holding three miserable Jacks in the above 12 HCP hand I would have  no hesitation in passing. Even if the J were replaced with the Q in a 13 HCP hand I would probably pass. (If East did pass , the hand would probably be passed out.)  These hands are difficult to describe and it is easy to get to a poor contract. If the hand is stronger or has better honours and playing five card majors , I am forced to open 1 , but now have to rebid 2NT over a 2 bid.

For the record , 5 N/S pairs made plus scores of 200, 100 and 50 (three times) by defeating E/W contracts. 6 E/W pairs made plus scores: 120 (1NT + 1), 110 (twice - presumably 2) and 90 (three times, presumably 1NT). So had I been East I would have received a score slightly below average , but at least I would have got onto the next (hopefully better) hand faster!

(This commentary relates to Board 25 played on March 3^rd 2009.)

(This commentary relates to Board 14 played on March 3^rd 2009.)

Alphonse Moyse was an American publisher and an ex-editor of the Bridge World Magazine. Unlike most Americans he advocated the opening of a four card major and supporting the rebid of his partner with only three card support. For this reason any contract played in a 4-3 trump fit contract is now universally known as a Moysian fit  Here are four examples (not all of them successful) but , in my opinion , all worth bidding.

[Hand 2] (This commentary relates to Board 8 played at the Chelmsford Bridge Club on February 16^th 2009.)

[Hand 3] (This commentary relates to Board 1 played in the Essex versus Bedfordshire match on February 1^st 2009.)

[Hand 4] Some years ago at Lingwood, my partner and I bid the above hands as shown. (Using Roman Key-card Blackwood ,  West's response of 5 showed 2 Aces and Q , and 6 showed 1 King)

 (This commentary relates to Board 15 played at the Chelmsford Bridge Club on January 12^th 2009)

(This commentary relates to a Board  played on 2nd December 2008)

How do you treat a jump to five , or a raise from four to five in a major?

You sit South with a flat hand and 15 high card points , East opens a weak NT so you should double , right? Not necessarily. As this hand showed , you should be wary of doubling with 15 points , so scattered between the suits and unsupported by 10s and 9s that no suitable opening lead stands out.

If South does double then West can redouble for penalties , or pass for a good score. Poor North does not know what to do for the best , as for all he knows South may be able to run a long suit , or otherwise take seven tricks , whereas if he bids 2♥ he may find partner with a shortage opposite. One East made 1NT redoubled + 1 for an unusual score of 1160 and another East made 1NT doubled +1 for a second top score of 380. Even if North does take out to 2♥, luckily finding partner with four hearts, he is likely to lose at least six tricks (1 spade, 2 diamonds, 2 clubs and a heart) , probably doubled , for a below average minus score.

 Left to their own devices East West either played in NTs with five pairs making 7, 8, or 9 tricks  whereas two pairs who used Stayman to play in spades made an easy ten tricks (discarding the losing club on the established fourth diamond). However nobody bid the spade game.

My partner has over time persuaded me that it is important to overcall on some light hands to suggest a lead.

On the indicated hand, after an opening 1D from South , I overcalled 2C even though we were vulnerable against non-vulnerable strong opponents. If the 98 of clubs had been smaller cards then I would probably have passed. Of course it can be dangerous and I have many scars, however I judged that the KD may be well placed and I certainly wanted my partner to lead clubs should North play in NT's. North had a difficult bid as a double would show stronger hearts and a bid of 2D a longer suit. He elected to pass and South not unnaturally did likewise. In the play I was able to play on hearts and emerged with eight tricks for a good result. Although best defence probably defeats me by one trick , even this would have been a good result since if I pass it is likely that N/S will play in a successful part score. In fact four pairs made nine tricks in NT's (a low club lead from West?), two pairs made eight tricks in NT's and three pairs made a part score in diamonds. Two pairs were one off in a contract. Note however that a club lead from East holds a NT contract to only seven tricks which was the point of the bid. He is unlikely to lead the suit without it.

John C Williams June 3rd 2008