All News

Kiwi Triumph in Australian National Open Teams.

Michael Whibley was a member of the Ashton team which won the National Open Teams in Canberra last week. His partner was Nabil Edgtton  and teammates were Sophie Ashton – Peter Gill and Andy Hung – Sartaj Hans.

In the 64- board final, they won 133-76.1 over Ziggy König, James Coutts- Liam Milne, Justin Mill -Rodrigo Garcia da Rosa. The following board did not contribute to that victory but offered some interesting options in bidding and  play issues.

We gave a bidding problem from it to our Panel:

 

The bidding is natural, 2NT showing 11-12 with a spade hold. We were certainly strong for our 1 opening though every alternative (at the 2 level) had its drawbacks too. We survived the big danger of opening 1, that we are passed out when our partner’s smattering of high-cards is enough to make game but we have a different problem now, the options of slam.

Michael Ware “3: unanimous reply, surely: asks for double stopper.”

Michael did have at least one supporter, though I do not think that makes for “unanimous”!

Andy Braithwaite “3: Unless partner is 4333, they will have a 4 card minor so I start with 3 and after the expected 3NT bid 4 with the expectation of playing 6 of a minor or 6NT if partner’s spades are good enough.”

Yes, we seem to have a 4-4 fit in one of the minors. One question is how to find out….and there are different suggestions.

Nigel Kearney “4: 3 is not forcing so 4 is the way to start. Seven requires perfect cards but six can make opposite many quite poorly fitting hands as long as we have eight trumps. If partner discourages strongly by bidding an immediate 4NT over 4, I will let them play it there. Otherwise, I will drive to 6 or 6.”

Well, if there is doubt about how forcing 3 is, then 4 is certainly forcing…though could it just ask for aces, or even showing 5-5 in the minors? In no doubt about the forcing nature of 3 are:

Stephen Blackstock “3: This is forcing - occasionally not forcing would be preferable if holding a weak 5-5 opener, but playing that way would make bidding strong hands too difficult. South could have length in either minor in this auction. So, let's explore. The values and minor intermediates suggest a slam-invitational raise in NT if a minor fit isn't found, although the lack of real length in any suit is liable to make 6NT marginal. But no need to cross that bridge until we see what develops.”

Bruce Anderson “3: partner should not have 4 hearts; they would have made a negative double, and they should not have a long suit (5 plus) as they would have bid that suit naturally given their high card strength.

So is safe to assume partner is flat, which means a small slam is possible, but in not guaranteed, particularly if the hand is played in no trumps.

If partner has 4 clubs he/she will bid 4 forcing. It is possible partner has 4 diamonds but a flat hand and a spade stop, in which case I will hear 3. In both cases I will make a move towards the minor suit small slam, which should be a better proposition than 6NT.

That bid should not be preference; with only 3 diamonds and a 4333 shape, partner should bid 3NT, a bid I will pass.”
not even a tiny quantitative raise to 4NT?

 

Peter Newell “3: I certainly have strong slam aspirations with a 21 count and the 109 are a plus too. However, it would be helpful to establish whether we have a fit, and whether 6NT is a possibility will depend to a degree on partner’s spade holding. I'm a little nervous that East may hold the K or K given their overcall which might sink any slam.  So firstly, I'll start with 3 to seek to establish whether we have a club fit, and see whether partner bids a discouraging 3NT or something more encouraging. 

 

Here’s one way round the difficulty of club bids:

Kris Wooles “3: which is surely forcing whereas 3 is likely not. Should partner now bid 3NT I would bid 4 as I have visions of a possible slam in one of my suits.” 

 

Here’s another view, with slam very much on Michael’s mind:

Michael Cornell “5NT: pick a slam. I am actually pretty marginal but partner is favourite to hold a minor suit.He could easily have a weak 5 card club suit e.g. Kxxxx and slam would be  big odds on.

 

Worse case scenario is 6NT on a flat 32 count but with any spade honour onside, it should have play.

While we finish back where we started:

Leon Meier “3: Oh, how nice it would be to be able to bid 3 forcing, alas I cannot. All we need to make slam pretty good is something like

Axxx

Kx

Jxx

Jxxx     and the 2NT bidder will have more.

 

So clearly our hand is worth some looking, but the problem is we can't bid 3 forcing in a normal system so our options are 4, 3 or 3. With 3 natural(hiding our clubs!) and 4 probably suggesting a 5-5(1 more card in each minor than we have!), our only option to show a serious hand is 3. Hope to hear 4 from partner.

Sidenote now if partner bids 4/now I think that would show a super hand for / respectively.
Nice idea but let’s sort out first whether 3 is forcing. There will be hands where you wish you can stop in 3 though it seems a good idea to explore for slam below 3NT if we can. Next time, we may have a good 18-19 count and still wish to explore for slam. With minimum hands, pass 2NT or if you can rebid your (longer than here) diamond suit.

 

There were different approaches at the 2 tables in the final. For Ashton, Nabil Edgtton did not have any of the above issues. He continued to bid his hand conservatively signing off in 3NT. That looked like to be an imp winner as a dubious slam was reached at the other table:

 

 

Justin Mill’s 5NT asked his partner to pick a slam and the choice of 6 seemed reasonable until the 5-0 diamond break emerged. With an inevitable trump loser, the success of the contract seemed to hinge on the heart finesse.

 

No joy for a declarer but Sophie Ashton had a problem with a choice of opening lead. As it happens, a spade lead does not help the declarer but a heart lead did. Q won trick 1 and then a heart to the ace, A and a  heart ruff, trump finesse and three rounds of clubs, the third being led from the South hand. Peter Gill could ruff and concede (he did) or discard a spade. The marked spade finesse allows  one of North’s losers to be discarded while the other is ruffed by dummy’s remaining trump. The over-ruff is the defence’s only trick.

 

So, success for Ziggy’s team on this board but overall success to the Ashton team. Nick Jacob and GeO Tislevoll were in the team of one of the losing semi-finalists.  

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items