All News

Hand for a strange year.

Everyone says it. So, it must be true. 2020 has been the most unusual year for a very long time. That comment needs no further explanation in a bridge column. Here though is a hand befitting this year, a hand not right to open but too good to pass. Naturally, a computer dealt it in 2020. Let’s look:

 

 

Sometimes you wish you had first shot at the bidding but have to wait for one, two, even three players to make a bid before you can. Not so, here. It is you, first to speak. Would you? If so what?

The Best Prediction of 2020

It is nice to know that bridge players still make very rash statements and we start off our analysis of the Panel’s choices with a statement which was very rash in the days of Master Solvers Club which featured regularly in the “paper” issue days of NZ Bridge Magazine. I wonder if it is any less rash in 2020.

Michael Ware “1: Unanimous surely?"

Back in the days of the Master Solvers Panel, such a comment required around 20 panellists to agree. In 2020, it is only agreement from 9. “Simple” you might think.

I am still looking for anyone to agree with Michael, in vain. With 5 spades and 6 hearts, one might open 1. Yet, I am not so keen with a variant of 2 cards. Yet, is this hand a 1 level opener at all? It does not conform to the Rule of 20 (its 2 longest suits and high card points only add up to 19). However, Michael was not alone in opening at the 1-level:

Michael Cornell “1: a bit light but this is close to a 4 loser. Far too good to pre-empt, especially with the spades. Obviously will always bid with this hand so why not open and partner now will always know I have more diamonds than spades? Unless partner has a very big hand, we cannot play in spades if he has only 3.

I am unlikely to pass any penalty doubles from partner below the 6 level!"

Peter Newell “1: The hand is strong enough to open at the 1 level with heaps of playing strength. The diamond fit is going to be critical as to what we can make. These types of hands don’t play well in spades unless partner has at least 4 or some diamonds as my hand is likely to get forced off otherwise.

2(spades and a minor) is an option, but we would have a lot of catching up to do playing strength wise, but more importantly it doesn’t bring the diamond suit, and particularly the length into the picture. So, let’s try and take it slowly…and if the opponents do pre-empt at least by bidding spades later, it will convey this type of hand, more likely 5/6 with better diamonds, but not far off what I’ve got.”

I would have thought your partner might be just a little disappointed with the quality of your diamond suit had you opened at the 1-level. I do agree that it will generally be much safer playing in that suit and that opening 2 just does not do justice to the hand.

We offered the Panel the option of opening the hand 2 (5 spades, 4+ minor, less than opening strength), an offer accepted gratefully, or maybe not so gratefully, by several of the Panel:

Nigel Kearney 2: Since I have a two suited opening, I may as well use it and bid more diamonds later. I don't mind pre-empting and bidding again when my hand is unusual. It won't be any easier next time if I pass, and I want to make it hard for them by taking up space.”

Bruce Anderson 2: If I can show 5 spades and a minor.. 6-10 points in this way, why not? I do not want to pass a hand that has tremendous potential playing strength. I am not opening 1; if partner has a very strong hand, they will never believe I have only 7 high-card points. My bid does not preclude bidding diamonds subsequently to show a highly distributional hand.

Opening 2 also means our opponents have to start competing at a high level. Partner may have the hand to penalise heavily.”

Partner may wish to “penalise heavily”. Like Michael Cornell, I would have a lot of difficulty in believing partner is right. There is a very big difference between a 4-card and a 7-card diamond suit on the side!

If “diamonds are a girls’ best friend”, then our “girl” (apologies, Pam) was very coy about mentioning them:

Pam Livingston “2: Planning to bid diamonds at some point if it looks right and partner doesn’t raise spades. 2 is always exactly 5. If I make another unsolicited bid, it would show something special - 6 (or 7!) in my second suit.”

And most begrudgingly:

Stephen Blackstock “2: if that is the method, I am stuck with it here, since if I don’t use it, partner will never play me for a two-suiter.

I must add that it is a vile method, verging on the suicidal at IMPs.”

That last comment rather makes me feel guilty at even suggesting the bid! More so when it would not be my choice. What, though, do you think about “the silent ones”? For how long will they stay silent?

Matt Brown “Pass: I don't think the decision is very close, even with the option of showing spades and a minor. How would partner know that I have 5-7? I will await developments and almost certainly be bidding my suits later. For now, I just wait.”

Kris Wooles “Pass: I don’t play the weak 2 suiters. Some years ago, an Italian did an analysis of 2 Level openers at top level from 1987 to 2003 including all the deals played at European Championships, and the knock out stages at Olympics and World Championships. He concluded that the least performing “multi” style bid was the 2/ weak 2 suiter. These bids showed a significant loss at top level perhaps because they revealed so much when the other side was declarer and he concluded that it was better to stick to weak 2’s all round based on all the data.” 

Maybe we should allow Stephen Blackstock the option of changing his bid, too. To Pass? Well, there really is no bid suitable available, even the 2 bid as described, to show our hand. So, do not make one up.

If everyone passes, just make a polite murmur about only having a 7 count! Yet, someone is going to open this board and then you may be able to step in without exaggerating your high-card strength with an opening bid or under-selling your shape by opening 2.

However, when the cards are favourable, the 1 and “unanimous” but on his own Michael Ware with 1 would be better placed to power their way to slam. These were the actual hands:

 

There was no trouble in making 12 tricks in either spades or diamonds. What, though,would North bid after:

                                      North                    South

                                       1                          2

                                        ?

(3...surely not.)

Or                                  North                    South

                                       1                        1

                                       1                         2    4th suit, game forcing

                                      2                          3       slam try

                                       ?

Fortune favoured the brave, this time.

Defending...on your own?

 

The opposition seem to coast into game. You have a 15-count which does not leave a lot for your partner and dummy has 14 hcp with declarer having at least a 9 count for their two bids. “Any jacks, partner?”

Well, partner has already produced one good card as when you led K, they followed with 10. Declarer allowed you to win that trick. You continue with Q on which South discards 4 (low card encouraging in the suit thrown).

At trick 3, West plays a low diamond to dummy’s ace, to be followed by a second diamond to South’s jack, and declarer’s queen…. Plan the defence.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items