All News

“Crime” should not pay.

“Crime” refers to getting away with making a contract you really should not bid. This is particularly true in the slam zone. What would you lead to 6H after this sequence:

 

5 showed 0 or 3 key cards, presumably 3 in view of North’s bidding.

There is a danger in leading an unsupported ace, especially in the Teams environment where you cannot claim just to be saving the overtrick if it indeed allows the contract to make! There is also a big danger in not leading your ace in any form of the game when the four hands look like this:

 

The ace should be greeted by the king from East and the continuation is then obvious. Slam defeated and hopefully a large number of imps in. If the North-South bidding had been as above to 3 then the slam does not really deserve to make. That is because a simple cue-bidding sequence should highlight the club problem at a very early level:

When South bids 4 as a cue-bid (1^st or 2^nd round cues together), North will be aware immediately that their partner has neither first nor second round control in clubs. Even if one bids first round before second, North must be cautious as they know A is missing and after showing their strength with 3, should not go beyond 4 without second round control in clubs.

It is a little harder for South if North slightly overbids their hand after hearing the 1 response and jumps all the way to 4. It looks like the partnership is in the slam zone but other than the potentially very useful K, South has nothing to cue…and so is likely to resort to Key Card. If 5 is the response showing 0 or 3 then East would help the defence by doubling (“helping” depends on what West would lead to slam without the double…lack of a double would surely reduce the chance of the A being led). With a 5 response, South may well take a chance on slam, risky with both black suits potentially dangerous.

Although one could count something extra for the two doubletons and the 6-card trump suit, the South hand is a 7 loser and the North hand a 6 loser. While I am not a great fan of “Losing Trick Count”, the warning is there that one should not venture above the 5-level.

Over 4, 5 would be a nice cue- bid from South. If North is looking at good controls in the black suits and plenty of aces, they will surely bid slam as what else could their partner have to try for slam other than good trumps?

So, unless one was well behind in a Teams or Rubber match, bidding slam is a punt.

This deal occurred in the past weekend’s Taranaki Bridge Congress at New Plymouth in the qualifying rounds of the Teams. 4 pairs bid and made 6. A further 8 pairs bid the slam and recorded – 50. The remaining 14 North-South pairs stopped safely in game, all bar one in hearts at the 4 or 5 levels.

The weekend started off with the Marion Hill Open and the Intermediate/Junior Pairs. Despite Liz and Blair Fisher scoring a massive 75.10 % in the first session, the winners of the Open Pairs were Jeremy Fraser- Hoskin and Moss Wylie with a huge average of just under 66%, a total 197.11%. Zachary Yan and Malcolm Mayer were 2^nd with a 3-session score of 187.40% and Liz and Blair were 3^rd on 185.12%.

Diane Waite and Anne Putt from Hawera won the Intermediate/Junior Pairs in fine fashion with a 64.34% average finishing over 10% ahead of clubmates  Patricia Armstrong and Mara Robinson with Jane Shaw and Kaye Wyatt of New Plymouth a further 4.17% further back. There were 46 pairs in the Open and 26 in the Intermediate/Junior field.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items