NBB - Dutch Bridge Federation

South Limburg District Class 1 Title Match

Sittard 8-Sittard 9

Sittard, De Baandert Community Center

December 05, 2000

Boards 01-08

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = West does not have to have a 4-card major in our system. This treatment has to be alerted in Europe.
2 = Denies 4-card majors. Needs no alert, for it has been standard for at least 45 years.
3 = Natural and forcing.
4 = 4- or 5-card ¨-suit.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = West is not good enough for a strong takeout double.
2 = NS play negative doubles (even through 4ª), so this shows a 5-card suit, which needs to be alerted in Europe.
3 = We were sort of sleeping when we gave this hand a short first look. 1NT is only correct when North can have a 4-card ª-suit for his bid.
4 = In the Netherlands, the concept of Five Card Majors is still mixed up with the technically inferior Short Club, described by Gert-Jan Förch in his extensive trilogy on bidding and play in 1973. Many Dutch partnerships would open 1¨ with 4/4 in the majors and a 3-card ¨-suit.If the opponents open 1§ on a 2⁺ suit indeed, some Wests would be tempted to make a natural 3§-call here. This idea may work out well at matchpoints, but should be rejected at imps.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = In our system: one round force, many distributions, 5-11 hcp in general.
2 = ª-suit is excellent, but an outside king short to rebid ª jumpwise.

NS take 5 tricks, unless NS do not give proper count when asked for, something like: §A, ¨ to the ace while dummy plays low, § to the king, third § in order to give South a ruff, and after §Q, ¨Q and ªQ, one of West's ©-losers flees on ¨K.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Walsh players bypass 4-, 5- and even 6-card ¨-suits when they are not strong enough to reverse, having less than 12 hcp.
2 = East has no reason to suspect West of having a hughe hand, so he signs off in game rather than giving more info to the enemy.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = South is slightly short of trying for game. An extra spade and one diamond less would make the difference. With 4441 and 4414, South would always take action, regardless of point count. The South player of Sittard 8 had a more optimistic view:

2 = South did noy have to have a 4-card major himself, so North alerted according to Euopean rules.
3 = North could still have 4-4 in the majors, or 5©332.
4 = Highly invitational.
5 = Sticking to the succesful device of Giorgio Belladonna and Benito Garozzo: "Accept game, unless you have a sub-minimum." The good 5-card ©-suit clearly gives North more than a minimum.

East led ©T. Declarer asked dummy to cover, hoping to finesse with ©8 later, following the rule of Restricted Choice.
Having won with the ace, North immediately led towards ¨Q, and returned a § from dummy. West took his king, and parted with a ¨ for the ace. North next led ªQ, covered by king and ace, and a low trump from dummy, intending to finesse the nine West was expected to have. When West showed out, North has to yield a heart, a spade and another club for down one.

Don't ask how the other NS-pair managed to end up in 2¨.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Uncontested by West, North would have responded 2ª, Garozzo Splinter: 4⁺ ©-support, some singleton or void, and either 8-11, or 16⁺ hcp. Now, his second choice takes effect: raising to game immediately with 5⁺ support, some singleton or void, no outside aces, and 7-9 hcp. Many partnerships would bid that way regardless of what West does.
2 = West would have doubled for takeout with 16 or more hcp. In addition, East has a singleton in West's suit, so taking action with this hand would be losing bridge, both now and in the long run.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Many Dutch players would open this hand 1§, as we already discussed with board 3.
2 = Inverted minor raise: 5⁺ support, 6-9 hcp, or less point count, compensated by distributional values.
3 = South would bid 3NT opposite a standard, invitational double raise. He is a king or so short of going to game opposite a hand standard players would give a single raise with.

Any lead by West gives declarer an extra entry. With all vital cards on side, South has an easy play for 10 tricks.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = North would rebid 3© with a 6-card suit and 16-17 hcp, 3NT with a 6-card suit and 18-19 hcp, and open 2¨ or 2§ with anything of more strength. That frees the rebid of 4© for hands too strong for an initial preempt. With ¨A for ¨K, North would rebid 3©, his excellent 7-card suit compensating for the 2 hcp otherwise missing.
2 = ª-control, obviously lacking control in one of the minors. This clearly is a board, where control bidding has a higher priority than asking for aces.
3 = ¨-control, denying §-control.
4 = Wise to stop right now, since EW know which suit they have to lead.

Our South started with RKCB:

He got 5ª for response: 2 (or 5) out of 5 aces, and ©Q as well. He could not turn back, or he should have gambled on making 5ª, and North failing in 6©, as both happen to be the case. Fortunately, East did not lead a §, but a ¨, allowing North a free ride to 13 tricks.

Practical play at the highest level has shown that one should lead a sure winner against speculative contracts. Not checking for controls is even more of a gamble. So East can hardly be excused for not leading the ace of clubs. What happened at the other table was even worse, both for bidding and defensive play. So the result did some justice.

Go to boards 09-16

Copyright © 1999 by Michel Franssen