All News

Blair Fisher with one of his partners, George Masters. George is not exactly
short, which lets you know that neither is Blair!

A BID TO MATCH HIS HEIGHT.

So, you do not pick up a near solid 9 card suit that often? What about a 4-card suit of dubious quality on the side? Seven high-card points and two voids. That gives us 17 points…a pretty good hand, but you know that anyway. The vulnerability is not in your favour. Yet, who cares as you are not going that many light? So, your opening bid is:

You do have 5 losers at worst and 4 level vulnerable openings are supposed to be within 2 tricks of making. It would be a very inconsiderate partner who could not look after just one of your losers. The 4 level seems to be the thinking of:

Kris Wooles “4: Given I have an extra spade and crazy shape; I’d likely bid again if pushed. However, I am awaiting the further auction with interest.  It could be fun if my partner bid 5 on his/her solid 8 card suit ”

Peter Newell “4 for me. This kind of hand will be impossible to describe. So, I’ll take the approach of bidding what I expect to make and pre-empt to try and make it hard for the opponents.  While of course it’s a very powerful hand, we are vulnerable against not. So, a 1^st seat 4 should be sound….

We will come to the 1-level shortly but firstly a player with a very reasonable if hard to achieve request:

Matt Brown”4: I think the ideal number would be 4.5 Spades... I think 5 is classically asking for a raise to 6 with A/K of trumps, though?

I would open 4 at the table and may or may not bid again.”

However, Matthew, 4.5 spades is ideal. If that becomes the final contract, “half doubled”, the penalty for losing 5 tricks would be a mere-650…well why not forget the minus?!  I do, though, take your point.

No-one else mentions 5 though Matt’s suggestion of its meaning is indeed correct. It looks like you need a little more than, say K, to make 12 tricks.

Going down to lower levels is:

Michael Cornell “1: The advantage of the boss suit. I reckon I will get another go! I will get some idea of partner’s hand and if I have to rebid 5, he should get some idea of mine.

And even lower:

Nigel Kearney “Pass. 4 would not be wrong but it's very likely I will then need to make a unilateral decision at the five level (or higher). It's hard to shut opponents out at this vulnerability and I want as much information as possible before making a decision. So, I hope pass will help produce that.

I think before you enter the auction with 4 at a later stage, you should ask the opponents for an “undo” claiming that you meant to bid earlier. When they refuse, bid it any way. Get doubled and score an overtrick!

Actually, the two low-level actions do have merit though it does seem that your bidding of spades at a high level will make a little more sense if you had started with a bid rather than a pass…but an interesting approach, nevertheless.

So, the panel range from passing and listening to “4 and a half” spades. It is time to look at what happened in the match from the Social Distancing Teams where this hand did occur.

At one table, Jonathan Westoby did open a relatively standard, especially at this vulnerability, 4. However, South at the other table, was the "relatively" tall Blair Fisher. Whether he could not reach down far enough to find the 4 opening card, only he can say. He decided to “set the cat amongst the pigeons” by starting at the slam level, 6…and await developments. There were some:

 

In the West seat was Michael Cornell, who has seen plenty in his bridge career. Maybe, he had not seen a Blair Fisher 6 vulnerable against not opener before. Michael could place Blair with a void club and otherwise pretty solid apart from perhaps a diamond loser (though that kind of hand would be ideal for a 4NT specific ace-ask opener).

So, Michael took what he expected to be a relatively cheap 7 sacrifice. Russell Wilson had also not seen such an opener from Blair before but holding a key void, an AK and Kxx of trumps, 7 would probably be an under-bid!

Pity, then, East, Vivien Cornell. If Matt Brown could open 4.5 spades, then she should be able to bid 7.5 clubs even if 8 was not allowed. She tried but was sworn to silence.

 

 

Even the dive in 7NTx would have cost 2,900 (11 down). So, she had to pass.

Yet, would 7 make? At the table, Michael led the A (the ace of his shorter suit) which speeded up the play as Blair, who would have taken a minute or three to take in dummy and thank his partner “many times”, had ample entries to set up dummy’s 5^th and 6^th diamonds for heart discards. Yet, even with a trump lead, Blair had the necessary 5 entries (3 in trumps and AK) to set up these two diamond tricks.

There should be a special award to all those who can overtake the 2 of the trump suit with the 3 in order to make such a play.

So, a flat board you may think? Not quite. It was a family affair at the other table with husband and wife, Jonathan Westoby and Linda Cartner, taking on father and daughter, Denis and Susan Humphries.

Denis, West, overcalled, Jonathan’s 4 opening with 5. Linda jumped to small slam in spades with Susan able to do what Vivien Cornell could not, raise clubs.

Jonathan made an important pass suggesting that he had no club losers if his partner wanted to bid on… but she took the money… and Denis did not have much to give away, just two down …-300 and a healthy 18 imps to the Wilson team.

Textbook or not but Blair’s somewhat offbeat 6 level opening had created the swing. I do like the comment made previously by an often-wise Michael Courtney.

“What do you call a person with a 9-card suit?”

The answer is “declarer”!  Good advice.

Covering or not covering honours is a perennial problem for defenders. So, here is such a problem:

 

4 and 4 were first or second round cue-bids. 5 showed two key cards and no Q.

Your partner leads Q. At trick 2, declarer leads Q. Do you cover?

See you on Thursday.

Richard Solomon

 

 

Go Back View All News Items