BIL Question

Mary,  BIL member, asked the question: 

Do you ask or show stoppers on the way to notrump?

Simple question, complex answer!

Best to consider a few auctions. Firstly, consider an auction where partner raises your minor suit and there is no opposition, say

West	North	East	South
1♣	p	3♣	p
?

Here bids would SHOW stoppers for notrump purposes. The same is true for the auction 1♣ (Pass) 2♣ (Pass) ?.

When there is no competition, you generally show stoppers unless the auction uses the fourth suit. For example,

West	North	East	South
1♥	p	1♠	p
2♣	p	2♦	p
?

2♦ is fourth suit forcing and asks opener to describe his hand further, in particular it asks whether opener has a diamond stop. Although fourth suit forcing does not deny a stop, it may express doubt over 3NT if the opener does not show a stop.

When there is competition there is a simple rule: if the opposition have shown ONE suit, then bidding that suit ASKS for a stop; if the opposition have shown TWO suits, then bidding that suit SHOWS a stop. For example,

West	North	East	South
1♥	p	2♥	2♠
?

Here, 3♠ asks for a spade stop.

West	North	East	South
1♦	2♦	3♦	p
?

Assuming that 2♦ shows the majors, then the opener bids the suit that he stops.

Xmas Fun

Penny graciously agreed to be the nominated driver and give shmbo and myself a lift to the Berwick club's Xmas party.

Over 30 club members were there and we had a good meal with wine following. However when the coffee came out you could see that people were itching to get the tables cleared and bridge equipment out.

In order to increase the fun partnerships were assigned by the 'management'. Hels was less keen on this as her Acol is very rusty but seemed to get on fine with Margaret and then Kate.

I played the first eight boards with Louis. I'm not sure if he knew who I was but coped well whenever I put down a dummy with fewer points than my bidding suggested. The most exciting hand was:

Board 8; Aggregate

	♠ Kxxxx ♥ ♦ x ♣ QJTxxxx
♠ x ♥ KJT ♦ QT9xxxxx ♣ x		♠ ♥ AQxxxxxx ♦ AKx ♣ xx
	♠ AQJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ x ♣ AKx

West	North	East	South
Paul	Penny	Louis
4♦	5♣	5♥	5♠
7♥	7♠	p	p
p

Naturally, holding three hearts and eight diamonds, I led a heart and next I wrote -1510 on my scorecard. From an instructive perspective, Penny should probably not overcall with such a weak hand, despite its distributional values - don't pre-empt a pre-empt is a good motto.

I had bid 7♥ as I expected them to bid the slam and so I'd save immediately. Penny bid 7♠ without a blink!

Naturally there were quite a few good scores on this hand, including Hels making 6♠ doubled with an overtrick against Jean.

I played the second set with Christine. Apparently Gerald, the excellent host and bridge organiser, thought she might learn something playing with me. We did discuss the following hand:

♠ Axxx ♥ Qxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ xx

Partner opens 2♣, showing with 8 playing tricks in any suit or 19-20 balanced. What do you respond?

Despite its popularity I don't have a book on Benjaminised Acol and I doubt if many in the club do. So it is unclear what you need to make a positive response and, of course, bidding 2NT may wrongside the final contract. Americans are quite happy bidding 2♦ as a 'waiting' bid, but then they often struggle to differentiate between weak and strong hands subsequently.

My view is that a suit positive should be a good suit, so with this hand I'd either bid 2♦ or 2NT. Our auction has been edited to protect those of a nervous disposition:

West	North	East	South
Paul	Penny	Christine	Joan
2♣	p	.	p
.	p	.	p
.	p	.	p
6♣	p	p	p

This contract was lucky to only go down one trick :)

There were lots (perhaps too many) prizes at the end. Hels had the second best score North/South, I had a huge negative score but even the East/West winners were negative so the cards were clearly stacked North/South.

Gerald then told everyone that they had played the hand four years ago in an SBU simultaneous pairs - of course, no-one remembered them.

Thanks to Gerald, Christine, Marguerite, Jean and everyone who helped organise and run the event. Fun as always!

49ers vs Merchiston

Les and I took on Miro and Veronica (Sam's partner in the ladies trials) in the final league match of 2007. As is my norm I made a couple of poor decisions but the team won comfortably to avenge last season's defeat.

The first half was fairly dull. Miro and Veronica missed a game and bid one they shouldn't, but got that back when they bid a fair slam. I doubled a weak 1NT with a balanced 19 count and found I could not beat it when Les failed to produce a useful card.

The second half started with another weak 1NT from Veronica. Naturally I did not double with my balanced 14 points but Les, a passed hand, produced a few useful cards this time and it went down three vulnerable.

The first interesting hand was board 18:

♠ AKx ♥ KTxx ♦ 9x ♣ Kxxx

I heard Les open 1♦ and rebid 2NT to show 17-19 balanced. I thought for some time: we have no fit and a maximum of 32 points; however I have a very good 13 count and could upgrade; but we will not have a club fit unless Les is 5-4 in the minors, which seems unlikely. So I simply raised to game.

As it happened Les had 18 points but slam only needed ♦AQ1076 opposite ♦92 to play for four tricks. Discussing it later no-one knew the odds for this, but SuitPlay tells me it is 44.5% so you should be staying out of slam. It was right to do so this time, as both diamond honours were offside.

Les (and SuitPlay) actually misplayed the suit. Both correctly led the Curse of Scotland (♦9) but followed from hand with the Beer Card on the first round. How can you get a beer when it is played on the first lead?

The penultimate board:

♠ Kxx ♥ KT9xxx ♦ KTx ♣ x

West	North	East	South
Paul	Miro	Les	Veronica
			1♦
1♥	2♥	p	2NT
p	3NT	p	p
p

Your lead?

And then onto the final board:

♠ AQTx ♥ QJx ♦ Ax ♣ KJxx

West	North	East	South
Paul	Miro	Les	Veronica
1♣	p	1♦	3♥
?

At this point 3NT is the obvious call, but I doubled. I was concerned about Les having a good hand with 5 diamonds, 4 spades and heart shortage, but when he has this he may bid on, and when he doesn't then 3NT is the most likely game. Actually game was not great but would make, which could not be said of 4♣ with its 6-0 break.

I'm not playing over Christmas but will probably be back with Patrick in the next league match in early January.

Gold Cup Congress - Swiss Teams

The Swiss Teams was nine 8-board matches, three on the Friday evening and then six more on the Sunday.

Sam (arm), Jenny (cold), Tim (cough) and I (well fit, though perhaps not in the sense that my niece uses the term) started well despite the ailments. Jenny and I return with two +800s on our card (14 IMPs each) but this was the hand that everyone was discussing:

♠ Jxx ♥ xx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxxx

The opposition have an auction like 2NT-4NT-6NT and it's your lead. Essentially the question is, do you lead your ace or not?

In the second match Jenny and I missed a game and took an insufficent penalty against another game, but our third +800 and beating a game that Tim made easily meant we escaped with a 14-6 win.

In the last match Jenny and I combined for a poor score:

Board 18; IMPs

	♠ T9x ♥ xx ♦ Jxxx ♣ KJ9x
♠ Jxxxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ A ♣ Txx		♠ Kx ♥ KJx ♦ Txx ♣ Qxxxx
	♠ AQx ♥ ATxx ♦ KQ9xx ♣ A

West	North	East	South
Jenny		Paul
		p	1♦
1♠	3♦	p	3NT
p	p	X	p
p	p

Jenny's overcall is a little frisky but within partnership limits. My double was an attempt to bully out the opposition out of a making contract, but unfortunately they believed their own hands. We slipped an overtrick and lost 8 IMPs. On the upside Jenny and I beat three solid games so we still won the match comfortably.

Overnight we were lying third on 53/60 VPs.

Our first match on Sunday was an easy affair as we outbid and outplayed our opponents at both tables. The second match, against the eventual winners, saw a competitive board:

Board 33; IMPs

	♠ Kxxx ♥ xxxx ♦ xx ♣ KQJ
♠ ATxx ♥ AKx ♦ xx ♣ Axxx		♠ ♥ JTxx ♦ Jxx ♣ T9xxxx
	♠ QJxxx ♥ Qx ♦ AKQxxx ♣

West	North	East	South
Jenny	Sue	Paul	Andrew
	p	p	1♦
X	1♠	2♣	4♣
X	p	5♣	5♠
X	p	p	p

We were lucky that the distributional hand had to make a decision before his partner doubled, but we were always winning the board once we had bid to 5♣. The fact they bid on converted our 4 IMPs to 12 IMPs.

A good win in this match, followed by a big win in the final afternoon match, set us well for the final session.

We had a narrow win in our first match on Sunday evening, but it was frustrating to lose IMPs on this board:

Board 22; IMPs

	♠ Qx ♥ Txx ♦ QJTxxxx ♣ x
♠ 8xxx ♥ QJ ♦ xx ♣ KQJxx		♠ AJx ♥ AKx ♦ x ♣ Axxxxx
	♠ KT9x ♥ xxxxx ♦ AKx ♣ x

West	North	East	South
Jenny		Paul
		1♣	X
1♠	2♦	X	p
3♣	3♦	4♣	p
p	p

West	North	East	South
	Tim		Sam
		1♣	X
3♣	3♦	5♣	p
p	5♦	X	p
p	p

I'm not sure I approve of Jenny's approach in our room. ♠8xxx is not really a suit worth bidding when you have good 5-card support for partner (who has shown a real club suit), but it's hard to argue with success as ten tricks are the limit.

In the other room Tim did not want to pre-empt immediately as Sam could have a strong balanced hand, but it seems clear to sacrifice at the end. Unfortunately this combination lost 9 IMPs, but we did enough on the other boards to eke out a small win.

At this point, after seven rounds of the teams and six rounds of Swiss Pairs, Sam and I were yet to lose a match! Unfortunately we achieved this in the penultimate match when we lost 5-15 VPs. Some random actions by most of the people at our table were responsible for this result!

Going into the final match we were 2 VPs behind the leaders and well clear of third place. The boards were very flat and we had a small win, but the leaders had a slightly win and we fell 4 VPs short. The final board of the weekend was a wild one, giving us the chance to win the event or to finish well down the field! We took a middle road, but what would you expect to happen?

Board 8; IMPs

	♠ AJTxxx ♥ Qx ♦ AJTx ♣ x
♠ ♥ Kxxx ♦ Q ♣ AKQTxxxx		♠ x ♥ AJTxx ♦ xxxxx ♣ Jx
	♠ KQxxxx ♥ xx ♦ Kxx ♣ xx

So we finished 2nd, a good performance from our team in a reasonable field.

We then retired to the bar, finally permitted Sam to have a few glasses of wine, and commiserated with Les and Jim who had lost in various stages of the Gold Cup finals. A good time was had by all.

Frustration with Falkirk

pointless ...

drive 50 miles ...

play 3 boards ...

mess one up ...

fourth falkirk pair not coming ...

drive 50 miles home ...

just pointless

Gold Cup Congress - Swiss Pairs

Sam had turned up injured on Friday. Apparently she had hit a table with her elbow ... hard! She was on a cocktail of antibiotics, ibuprofen and paracetamol, combined with little sleep and no alcohol. She was in significant pain.

Come Saturday morning she looked even worse, not least as she had hardly slept. However she keen to play as long as I did not shout at her during the session.

The Swiss Pairs would be six 8-board matches. Unlike the Brighton congress the match scores were not converted to victory points, instead you just kept your normal matchpoint score and were paired against others who were on the same percentage. New to me but it worked well.

I decided to put Sam in a better mood by slopping a trick on the first board we played - at least she'd be able to blame me for the score now - and then the opponents bid to 6NT. Not an auspicious start, but we recovered in the match to end just above average.

We could have done better on this board in the second match, but it's unclear who did anything wrong (especially at matchpoints):

♠ AQxx ♥ KTx ♦ A9xx ♣ Kx

♠ x ♥ Ax ♦ Kx ♣ QJTxxxxx

West	North	East	South
Sam		Paul
		1♣	p
1♦	1NT1	2♣	p
3NT	p	p	p

¹ Majors

We made 12 tricks for slightly below average, surprising but many must have bid 6♣.

We ended the session in 12th place (out of 158).

Sam felt a lot better in the evening. Sleep and the fact I'd not commented on any of her decisions, and made some dubious ones of my own, all helped but really it was Christine and her professional opinion that Sam's arm was not about to fall off!

Our first match in the evening was against Peter and 'birthday girl' Ann Naa. Everyone thought they'd lost the match, but it transpired that we'd scored 54%. Typical of matchpoints.

The penultimate match was against John and Ronald, a Glasgow pair. I thought John and I were largely spectators as Sam and Ronald explored ways to lose the match. Luckily for us Ronald was more successful, but he did have a difficult hand to bid on this one:

♠ ATx ♥ Qxx ♦ KJTxxxx ♣

♠ KQxx ♥ KT ♦ Axx ♣ Axxx

West	North	East	South
Ronald	Paul	John	Sam
		1NT	p
3♣1	p	3♦	p
5♦	p	p	p

¹5-card stayman

Hands like these depend greatly on your methods, and even then not many can deal with 3370 distributions efficiently. Playing in the diamond game, with 12 tricks also available in spades and notrumps, was not a great matchpoint score. How would you bid it?

A good score in our final match put us on 56% and 8th overall. We'd certainly have settled for this at the start and, although we had a few chances, it was difficult to see how we could have improved the score significantly.

As you might infer from this report, we did not do anything particularly spectacular. But we defended solidly, bid our games and generally just played soundly. Sometimes that is all you need to do at matchpoints.

Before the bridge, and during the breaks, we were following the Gold Cup semi-finals. Les, playing for the Armstrong team and the only Scot left in the event, lost his semi-final comfortably to Allfrey. His team mates demonstrated how bridge is different at the highest level by playing a doubled grand slam with a trump suit of ♥AK opposite ♥862. Only the best can do this! In the other semi Stevens caused a big upset by demolishing the Liggins team.

Gold Cup Congress

This was my first Gold Cup Congress. Held at Peebles, it attracts a sizeable entry and a greater number of English teams that the Summer and Autumn events, and you also get time to watch the Gold Cup semi-final and finals.

I was playing with Sam, Jenny and Tim. Friday lunchtime and I waited for Sam and Jenny to arrive to tell Tim and I what the partnerships were going to be for the weekend. It transpired that I'd be playing the teams events with Jenny and the pairs event with Sam.

The congress starts with the Friday afternoon open teams. We scored steadily and eventually finished 4th (of 40). Jenny's choice of opening bid helped on board 4:

Board 4; IMPs

	♠ ♥ KQJxxxx ♦ Qxx ♣ Axx
♠ AKQJxxxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ Jxx		♠ T9x ♥ xx ♦ AKJ9 ♣ KQxx
	♠ xx ♥ Axx ♦ xxxxx ♣ xxx

West	North	East	South
Jenny		Paul
4♠	5♥	X	p
p	p

We did not find the diamond ruff so we only gained 4 IMPs when North went down 3 (-800). Once Jenny opened with a pre-empt, certainly a practical call, the result seems inevitable.

An anti-system bid worked out well later on board 20:

Board 20; IMPs

	♠ AJ96 ♥ 84 ♦ A2 ♣ Q9753
♠ T2 ♥ KT ♦ QT9764 ♣ J84		♠ K7 ♥ AJ93 ♦ K85 ♣ AK62
	♠ Q8543 ♥ Q7652 ♦ J3 ♣ T

West	North	East	South
Jenny		Paul
p	p	1♥	p
1NT	p	3NT	p
p	p

Playing a minor-based 4-card major system (sic), I should have opened 1♣. When I failed to do this North, reasonably, led a club and 10 tricks rolled in. At the other table they led a spade and we gained 12 IMPs.

What do you mean we're playing tonight?

This post is out of order but I have not sorted out all the Peebles hands so that will get done after this one.

Anyhow partying at Peebles went on late on the Sunday night and I did not get to bed until after 4am, and I'm told Sam was even later. So it seemed just a couple of hours later that we were playing with Dee and Alan in the Atholl Cup, the East District Pivot Teams.

We were playing Liz, Tim and two others. I started with Sam (against the 'other two') and we lost the 10-board set by 20-36 IMPs. They bid a slam that needed an unlikely lead to beat it for 13 IMPs and then Sam had a choice:

♠ KQxx ♥ KJx ♦ Ax ♣ AQxx

♠ x ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ KT9xxxx

West	North	East	South
	Paul		Sam
	2♣	p	2♦
p	2NT1	p	4♣2
p	4♦3	p	4♥3
p	4♠3	X	p
p	5♣	p	p
p

¹ 19-20, balanced
² natural, slam try
³ cue bid

East led a trump (1-1) and I led a spade to the king and ace. East cashed the ♥A and exiting with a spade. I ran all the trumps but there was no squeeze.

[update] This lost 10 IMPs as Liz won the trump lead in dummy and lead a heart to the jack, endplaying Dee. Unfortunately for us this line was clear as Dee had (reasonably) doubled her 1♣ opening bid.

Sam and I did bid a vulnerable game missed at the other table and competed aggressive for a partscore to keep the match close.

I played the second stanza with Alan and we closed the match to 46-54 IMPs. We started well with two big swings, although the first had a little fortune:

Board 11; IMPs

	♠ KQJ ♥ Qx ♦ KQJxx ♣ KTx
♠ x ♥ Jxxx ♦ xx ♣ Jxxxxx		♠ xxxx ♥ Ax ♦ Axxxxx ♣ x
	♠ ATxxx ♥ KTxxx ♦ ♣ AQx

Paul		Alan	Liz
West	North	East	South
	1♦	p	1♠
p	2NT	p	6♥
p	6♠	p	p
p

In practise the slam will fail on the bad trump break if East has the nine or ten of spades. I led the a club and Liz won in hand to play a heart to the ♥Q and Alan's ♥A. Alan did well to return a trump and eventually ruffed a club when Liz tried to return to her hand to establish the clubs. Dee and Sam stopped at the five level to win 11 IMPs.

On the next hand, Alan and I combined well in the bidding:

♠ xxxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ AJTxx

♠ ♥ AQJ ♦ Txxxx ♣ KQxxx

West	North	East	South
Paul		Alan
p	p	1♦	p
1♠	p	2♣	p
3♣	p	3♥	p
4♣	p	5♣	p
p	p

I thought I did well to respond and then to raise clubs, but they found the same contract in the other room. Alan's semi-psychic fourth-suit 3♥ bid induced a heart lead away from the king and he was able to cross ruff for eleven tricks. Sam and Dee led a trump to give us a second 11 IMPs swing.

I played the final 10 boards with Dee, who was still reading our system notes when I got to the table. It started well when the opposition missed an easy game when they opened a weak 2♥, causing them to miss their 5-4 spade fit. On the next board they missed a thin slam, bid by Alan and Sam much to Liz's chagrin. We gained another 10 IMPs when a notrump game was played the other way around, but lost IMPs when Alan and Sam missed an easy game and misdefended another one.

In the end we won by 84-74 IMPs.