Bridge Club Sittard - Sittard BC
Kerstdrive - Xmas Matchpoints Pairs
Sittard, Gemeenschapshuis De Baandert - Baandert
Community Center
December 19, 2000
Boards 17-20
Board 17
N/-
WEST |
NORTH
ª Q 5 3
© K J 2
¨ T 6 5 2
§ A 9 8 |
EAST |
ª J 9 6 2
© T 8 3
¨ A K J 3
§ J 4 |
SOUTH |
ª A K T
© A 4
¨ Q 8
§ K Q T 7 3 2 |
|
ª 8 7 4
© Q 9 7 6 5
¨ 9 7 4
§ 6 5 |
|
|
NS score |
Frequency |
MP NS |
MP EW |
100 |
1 |
42 |
0 |
50 |
1 |
29 |
13 |
-150 |
1 |
16 |
26 |
-400 |
1 |
14 |
28 |
-420 |
1 |
12 |
30 |
-430 |
2 |
9 |
33 |
-480 |
1 |
6 |
36 |
-490 |
3 |
2 |
40 |
|
|
Recommended bidding sequence:
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| --- |
pass |
1§ |
pass |
| 1ª1 |
pass |
3NT2 |
pass |
| pass3 |
pass. |
|
|
|
1 = Walsh approach: West bypasses his 4-, 5-, or even 6-card ¨-suit, unless he holds at least 12 hcp, in which
case the possible 4-4 fit in spades will certainly not run away. East should alert, if EW
indeed adhere to Walsh approach.
2 = 2NT would show 18-19 hcp allright, but with 5§332
at best. 3¨ is even worse, for that would show
6+ ¨ with only 16-17 hcp, and
therefore not be forcing.
3 = With 28-29 hcp between East and West, 5§
could hardly be a better matchpoints contract, while slam requires at least a queen more
from West.
More discussion to follow.
Board 18
E/NS
WEST |
NORTH
ª Q 5 3
© A K J 6 2
¨ A 7 3 2
§ A |
EAST |
ª K J 7
© 9 8 3
¨ K Q T 5
§ J 6 4 |
SOUTH |
ª 9 8 4
© Q 7 5
¨ J 8 6
§ T 7 5 3 |
|
ª A T 6 2
© T 4
¨ 9 4
§ K Q 9 8 2 |
|
|
2000 |
1 |
42 |
0 |
690 |
1 |
40 |
2 |
660 |
5 |
34 |
8 |
650 |
2 |
27 |
15 |
630 |
3 |
22 |
20 |
620 |
3 |
16 |
26 |
600 |
2 |
11 |
31 |
200 |
1 |
8 |
34 |
-100 |
1 |
6 |
36 |
-200 |
3 |
2 |
40 |
|
|
Recommended bidding sequence:
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| --- |
--- |
pass |
pass |
| pass |
1© |
pass |
1ª1 |
| pass |
3¨2 |
pass |
3NT |
| pass |
pass |
pass. |
|
|
1 = This has nothing to do with the Walsh approach discussed on previous board. South
is just too weak for a 2 over 1-response, definitely when NS have agreed to treat such
responses to a major as forcing to game.
2 = Anything else would be a great distortion of distribution or hcp (= high card point)
count.
18. (Discussion to follow)
Board 19
S/EW
WEST |
NORTH
ª A K 9 7 6 5 3
© K 7 2
¨ T 7
§ 9 |
EAST |
ª 4
© T 6 5
¨ J 5 3 2
§ K 8 6 3 2 |
SOUTH |
ª Q J T 8 2
© J 8 3
¨ Q 9 4
§ J T |
|
ª - - -
© A Q 9 4
¨ A K 8 6
§ A Q 7 5 4 |
|
|
NS score |
Frequency |
MP NS |
MP EW |
590 |
1 |
42 |
0 |
430 |
2 |
39 |
3 |
420 |
5 |
32 |
10 |
400 |
1 |
26 |
16 |
-50 |
1 |
24 |
18 |
-100 |
8 |
15 |
27 |
-150 |
3 |
4 |
38 |
-300 |
1 |
0 |
42 |
|
|
Recommended bidding sequence:
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| --- |
--- |
--- |
1§ |
| pass |
1ª1 |
pass |
2©2 |
| pass |
3ª3 |
pass |
4¨4 |
| pass |
4ª5 |
pass |
pass |
| pass. |
|
|
|
|
1 = South should alert again, if NS adhere the previously discussed Walsh
approach.
2 = As we have seen before, it is more practical to bid ©
first with a 0445-hand.
3 = Promising 6 or more spades, and forcing game from a partner who has just bid reverse.
4 = Still looking for a better spot. In 3NT, dummy may be (virtually) unreachable
5 = Some smart asses will argue in favor of 4©, but how can they be sure ©
break 3-3, and ª 5-1, without peeking into
East's cards? The 7-card ª-suit can deal much
better with 4-2 and 3-3 breaks, which together happen to occur in 85% of all cases.
More discussion to follow.
Board 20
W/All
WEST |
NORTH
ª J
© T 4
¨ K T 7
§ A T 9 6 5 3 2 |
EAST |
ª K Q T 6 4
© Q J 9 3 2
¨ A J
§ J |
SOUTH |
ª A 9 8
© A K 8
¨ 8 6 3 2
§ K Q 4 |
|
ª 7 5 3 2
© 7 6 5
¨ Q 9 5 4
§ 8 7 |
|
|
NS score |
Frequency |
MP NS |
MP EW |
-650 |
2 |
41 |
1 |
-660 |
1 |
38 |
4 |
-680 |
1 |
24 |
18 |
-690 |
1 |
10 |
32 |
-710 |
1 |
8 |
34 |
-1430 |
4 |
3 |
39 |
|
|
Recommended bidding sequence:
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| 1ª |
2§1 |
dbl2 |
pass |
| 2© |
pass3 |
3§4 |
pass |
| 3©5 |
pass |
4©6 |
pass |
| pass7 |
pass. |
|
|
|
1 = Many Norths will not be able to make a preemptive overcall 3§, because that would show some 2-suited hand in their system (like
Ghestem). They should be glad, for North's clubs are not good
enough for a vulnerable preempt anyway.
2 = Like we have discussed before, a negative double shows either a 4-card suit in an
unbid major, or an opening hand. No one can object against East having both.
3 = North has told his story, and should not stick his neck out to provide NS with the
option of doubling for penalties.
4 = Forcing game, and asking West to tell more about his hand.
5 = Promising 5/5 in the majors.
6 = Though East is fully aware of the double fit in the majors, he stops in game, for slam
virtually requires West to have ªK, ªQ, ©Q, at
least a second round control of diamonds, ¨A or
§A, and, the jack(s) of the majors(s) that
break 4-1. There is always the chance, NS will make a premature ruff in the major not
chosen as trump suit.
7 = For West, the slam zone holds even more uncertainties than for his partner
Why go to slam anyway, when taking 12 tricks in game already scores 76.2%?
Go to boards
21-24
Copyright © 2000 by Michel Franssen