NBB - Dutch Bridge Federation

Final Dutch NC Imps Teams

Onstein Castle BC Vorden - Modalfa BC Amsterdam

Amsterdam, RAI Exhibition and Convention Center

Session 2, Boards 09-16

December 09, 2000

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = South forgets about the possible ª-fit, and takes away as much bidding room from EW as he can.
2 = Vulnerable East must have ©Axxxx and values in his other suits. If he brings nothing of value in ª, NS may well be missing game, or even more, in one of the black suits. Jansen judged better than Jansma, but Ramondt's pass took away the need to jump to 6© immediately:

3 = When partner has bid a suit, a jump cue in oppenent's suit shows the equivalent of a limit raise or better.
4 = Though he has only one top honor in his suit, East may treat his overcall as sound, so he can starts showing controls, in case West is looking for more than game. Of course, 3ª denies a ¨-control.
5 = This control bid is nonsense, unless West has a ¨-control as well.
6 = Repeating his control bid, therefore promising first round control.
7 = RKCB, 1403-variation.
8 = 2 or 5 aces, but denying ©Q.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Walsh approach, possibly bypassing a 4-, 5- or 6-card ¨-suit, so South must alert.
2 = South has not nearly the point count to reverse, so this is the only action he can take for now.
3 = Fourth Suit Forcing, asking for more, and sometimes complete info.
4 = Raise of fourth suit promises 4-card support in that fourth suit, unless previous bidding rules that out. Verhees found a flaw in the system of De Boer and Muller, by doubling the fourth suit for penalties. We would rather have redoubled than conforming to a beginner's rule: "Fourth Suit Forcing always asks for stopper in 4th suit." Note that Muller insisted on bidding NT at his next turn to call.
5 = Usually the best spot with a moderate 5134 and 3 aces, opposite a moderate 0454.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Way too strong to open 3© or 4© with, even in third chair.
2 = In our system South's hand is too good for a single raise, Bergen raises require 4⁺ support, and 2¨ forces game, so the forcing 1NT-response is the only option left.
3 = Showing a hand too strong for an initial preempt of 3© or 4©.

The play is easy. North draws trumps and finesses ¨ twice, for a 75% chance of making 11 tricks.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Walsh approach, so West must alert again.
2 = Balanced hand, 4-card ª-support, and 18-19 hcp. Jansma and Verhees have convinced us of this approach, except for 1©-1ª-3NT, where we stick to 6⁺ © and 18-19 hcp.
3 = First or second round control of clubs. This hand with 10 well placed high card points and singleton of © is definitely worth a slamtry, which is not the same is bidding slam.
4 = ©-control, denying ¨-control.
5 = RKCB, 1403-variation.
6 = 0 or 3 out of 5 aces. That's what 1403 means: responses of 5§ and 5¨ reversed, not just for fun.
7 = Asking for the queen of trumps, needed for a sound 6ª.
8 = Denies queen of trumps.

The slam appears to have a 51% chance of making after all: if North has the stiff ªQ, or South ªQ stiff, ªQx, ªQxx, or ªQxxx, East can ruff a © in hand for his 12th trick. The slam also requires 3 ¨-tricks though, and they will develop in only 62% of these 51%.

For the 2% some visitors think to be missing when it comes to escaping without ª-losers: Making 4 ª-tricks in dummy, which indeed has a 53% chance, is not the same as not losing any trump tricks. There is little or no hope when South shows up with 5 trumps.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Without interruption, we would bid 3§ with 4⁺ ©-support, balanced hand, and 7-9 hcp (Bergen raise).
2 = Reversed good-bad 2NT. South's 2© takes deprives West of the invitational (or better) jump cue. Over 2©, the cuebid of 3© would virtually force game, an action for which West, with his doubtful values in ©, is not strong enough. The solution is the so-called good-bad 2NT, where a raise to 3 would invite, and 2NT would show a competitive or preemptive raise. The inventors claim, this treatment will be easier to remember with other applications of the weak Lebensohl 2NT. It is, however, so conflicting with basic concepts of competitive and preemptive bidding, along with the principle of fast arrival, that it cannot find mercy in our eyes. For this reason, we use 2NT to show the better hand, similar to other applications of Truscott 2NT, and 2-way game tries as well.
3 = Not enough strength to take any action. A competitive double would force, not invite game.
4 = East has an above average vulnerable overcall, so he should adhere to the rule of Belladonna and Garozzo for previously taken actions with a wider range: "Bid game, unless you have a sub-minimum."

4ª is an excellent contract. It only depends on the position of the king of spades. From the bidding, North is far more likely than South to have it. We can only guess why Jansma and Verhees did not reach game. Until early 1999, Verhees played for many years with Ed Hoogenkamp, who made a strong case in public for good-bad 2NT, 2NT to show the weaker hands. If Verhees agreed with Jansma to play it 'our' way, he would certainly have accepted the invitation. We find it much more likely, that Jansma downgraded his hand too much for its wasted values in hearts, or that he lost his concentration for a second.

In the other room, Jansen used 3© to invite to 4ª. If Westerhof would have had his doubts about what Jansen had in mind with his cue, he would certainly have responded 4¨. We figure, the pair from Groningen would gain 10 imps for Modalfa in at least 2 out of 3 of similar cases. However, this was not a bidding contest, and the 6 imps they lost, were the only that counted.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Multi-colored, this time based on a (moderate) weak-2 in ©.
2 = Too strong too confine with an overcall of 2©, even with the stiff king of clubs downgraded.
3 = A pass would show a good 5⁺ suit in ¨, giving East the extra option of passing it out at 2¨.
4 = Responsive double. North backfires to South for one simple reason: he has no 4-card major, and wants South to pick a suit, presumably a minor.
5 = Any other action from East would be insane.
6 = Any other action from South would be very ungrateful to Saint Nicholas (December 5), or Santa Claus (December 25).

De Boer and Muller appear to have other agreements about the responsive double in this special case, for elese, that would certainly have accepted this rather large donation (800 points) from the system of EW.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = We prefer to stick to the rule that says: if vulnerable, don't open, or try to show a weak-2, when your suit is worse than KQxxxx or AJTxxx. Muller and Ramondt would never teach other players to take action with this hand in first chair, but with the cards in their own hands, they can't resist the temptation, as Matthew 26:41 (KJV) says: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
2 = In Walsh approach, East does not bypass a 4-, 5- or 6-card ¨-suit, when he is strong enough to reverse. In standard approach, East would respond the same we, so this time, West does not alert.
3 = If South's suit is not strong enough for a vulnerable weak-2 opening bid, how can it be strong enough jump overcall, when both opponents have bid?
4 = Balanced hand, spade stopper, 12-14 hcp. The 1NT-rebid with 18-19 hcp only applies when East has passed.
5 = Forcing at least one more bid from West.
6 = 4-card ©-suit.
7 = RKCB, 1403-variation. Cuebidding here, with a hughe hand and all suits controlled, would be more helpful to the opponents then to West.
8 = In 1403-variation: 1 or 4 out of 5 aces.
9 = Asking for queen of trumps, a key card for 6©.
10 = Promising either ©Q and §K, or, ©Q, ªK, and ¨K (variation developed by Jansma and his former partner Rob van Wel).

With their less disciplined multi-2¨, Muller and Ramondt keep EW out of a beatable slam. Muller showed us how it should be beaten: after ªQ to the ace, three rounds of trumps, ªK, and a ¨ from East, he rose with ¨A and returned a ¨ immediately. Verhees won the queen, took the king, Muller discarding a spade, crossed to dummy in clubs, and decided to finesse North for the queen of clubs. This may appear to be correct, since North started out with twice as many clubs as South. In slam, Verhees would probably have asked himself the question: "How likely would vulnerable Muller have been to open 2¨ with such a bad suit and only 6 hcp?"

If Muller would have ducked his ace of diamonds, Verhees would have ducked the second round of ¨, and endplayed him:

¨ JT  § T865

© J  ¨ 7  § K932                                                    © T  ¨ K9  § AJ7

ª JT54  § Q4

South would have been forced to return a spade. West would have ruffed in dummy, discarded a § from hand, cheched the ¨, and then have led ©T, catching North in a genuine show-up squeeze. We are pretty sure of Muller predicting this line when he rose with ¨A, for he has done such brilliant things many times before.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Adherents of Ghestem and Top & Bottom Cuebids would overcall 2¨, showing ª and §, but we adhere to Michaels Cuebid, which would show both majors over 1¨.
2 = 5⁺ hearts, 8-11 hcp. Such negative free bids (at the 2-level) are still gaining ground worldwide.
3 = If West holds ¨A instead of ¨K, he should splinter with 4§.

More discussion to follow.

Go to session 03, boards 01-08

Copyright © 1999 by Michel Franssen