All News

Twice in a Lifetime?

Well, it’s not for me. I am still waiting for the first time. At a time when I thought every South would be reaching for a little used convention locked deep far down in their box of favoured conventions, few did. Would you?

 

It’s Pairs. It’s your bid. It’s just wonderful!

I asked the Panel and expected answers like:

Andy Braithwaite “4NT: specific ace ask with 6 rebid unless partner shows A - then 7.”

Nigel Kearney “4NT: specific ace ask if we are playing that. Otherwise 2. If partner has a heart void and the A, we will reach a 52% grand but I can't find about his heart void and 52% is ok at matchpoints when almost the entire room will be in at least 6.”

Michael Ware “4NT: specific ace Ask. Still pre-empts them out of finding a 6 dive and will answer the key question. Does partner have the A. If so 7 might still go down but hey its well above the percentage required. If you don't open this 4NT - don't play that convention!”

And explaining the responses to this specific ace ask request is:

Kris Wooles “Specific ace- ask where the responses are 5=0 5,, and 6 the ace in the bid suit and 5NT 2 aces.”

Oh, Kris. I thought 5NT was the A and 6 levelbids showed two aces. Two ways to play a so rarely used convention!

Some have abandoned this convention:

Michael Cornell “2: l would have to open 2, bid hearts a couple of times and unless something good happens bid 6. Obviously if available I would open 4NT, specific aces request.

However, as we have not had a hand that we have wanted to do this this century, we use the bid for big minors and we have had a couple of those.”

 

We have differing views over which action is likely to keep the opponents silent:

 

Peter Newell “2: looks like a game force to me. 2 because it gives us the best chance to find out whether partner has the A (unless you have an opening bid asking for aces which would be best).  I don't particularly like a 6 opening bid as that could easily encourage a 6 dive and gives up on bidding higher. 2 is more pre-emptive and clearer than the quiet 1”.

It seems sad that with 12 almost solid tricks in our hand that we have to consider pre-empting our opponents!

 

Then, we have the direct bidders:

Stephen Blackstock “6: Very marginally, and subject to a number of caveats. As 6 is 52% opposite a heart void and no aces, we clearly want to be there, and if possible reach 7 if North holds the A and enough in trumps to play the suit for no losers. However, we also want to avoid a paying E/W sacrifice, and to give away little information so the wrong lead might concede an overtrick in 6. While irrelevant at IMPs, at Pairs stealing an overtrick can be as valuable as bidding a good grand slam.

The main alternative is 2, giving ample scope to explore the grand. It also gives the opponents scope to find a sacrifice and may well identify which ace will cash against 6. On the other hand, how many pairs will save vulnerable at the six level in this country? The disadvantages of 2 will vary depending on the level of the event and the ability (if known) of the opponents. At IMPs I might, with reservations, open 2, since I wouldn’t want to go to score-up having missed an easy grand by not trying to get there. An opening seeking specific aces (not in my bag) might at least reduce the opportunities to find a save.

 

A far- out option is to start low and walk the hand, trying to conceal its strength. This isn’t really practical, since starting at 1 and then bidding all the way to six will alert the most somnolent opponents.”

 

Bruce Anderson “6: For two reasons: it will still have a big chance against a void in hearts and a club loser, and is almost sure to make if partner has one heart. And the bid makes it hard for our opponents if they have a big spade fit and a cheap save, or perhaps 6 is a make if partner has long diamonds and little else.”

 

Pam Livingston “6: I have a void in the boss suit.  We could miss 7 if partner has A but opening 2 (second choice) allows the opponents to get into the auction for a dive.”

 

So, is it more important to keep the opponents out of the bidding or explore for grand-slam? Although it might not be if our partner has say a preponderance of black cards, the dive was very relevant at the table.

 

In some ways, the 2 opener might have worked out better for South (we have altered the positions from what they were at the table for ease of readers). West would bid 4. Now, if South contented themselves with 5, would one of their opponents compete to 5…and then with absolutely no regret, South would bid hearts again…and might just buy the contract.

 

Strangely, only two South players, John Skipper and John Wang, opened 4NT. John Skipper managed to be doubled in 6 but John Luoni (West) bid on to 6 after John Wang’s 4NT.

6x is an interesting contract. There are various ways to escape for -800 and John Luoni found one of them. He ruffed the opening heart lead with 8, drawing trumps and finishing in dummy. A losing club finesse was followed by a second heart ruffed and a diamond exit…and then three top diamonds from South. However, on the third round, John Luoni discarded a small club from the West hand. South was left with a string of hearts and John Luoni discarded a second small club from hand as he ruffed in dummy to escape with losing 3 diamonds and a club..-800.

800 or 1100. That was particularly significant at one table for a very strange reason. Fasten your seat-belts for a South Island special…. Suction!

West          North                   East            South

Somerville Livingston            Buzzard      Tuffnell

                                                                      2

4               All Pass

Well, is it or is it not? Anne Somerville and Greg Buzzard play Suction where in defence to an opponent’s strong opening (you cannot get much stronger than 2!), the bid of a suit shows the suit above the suit bid or the two suits above that..

Or that’s what Anne thought! Greg thought it did not apply in this case with a 4-level bid…and Graeme Tuffnell decided to defend. He could not deny Anne one trick which meant +900. So, Graeme and a somewhat bemused Pam Livingston would have appreciated those in 6x who had conceded 1100 rather than 800.

For the record, of the 30 tables, 6x was the contract 7 times. 8 times 6 was undoubled, once with an overtrick. 6 was doubled for 1100 4 times and 800 3 times.

Of the rest, a couple of times 5 was passed out and others played spade contracts undoubled while one North-South pair were unsuccessful in 7. A struck the table at trick 1!

We reported last year on a successful 4NT opener by Jane and John Skipper. Here is number 2. Like me, you may still be waiting to make this bid for the first time.

Once more tomorrow is Fri Day for our newer players.

Richard Solomon                             

 

Go Back View All News Items