By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Bridge 6/11
Some bidding under the microscope
Placeholder Image
    This week we are looking at deals from social games. In this one, North-South missed two laydown games. Who was at fault?
    East did not open one no-trump, because it would have shown only 12-14 points, not the normal 15-17. (East explained that if played 15-17, he would never open one no-trump, because he is such a bad card holder!)
    South overcalled one heart. After West passed, North cue-bid two clubs, which showed exactly three-card heart support and at least game-invitational values. (With four or more hearts, he would have bid a conventional two no-trump.) South rebid two hearts, and everyone passed. Cui culpa?
    The play took little time, declarer losing one club and one heart.
    Over one heart, West did not want to pass, but his hand was too weak to respond two diamonds, and he was not using weak jump-shifts in competition (when he could have bid three diamonds).
    North's cue-bid raise was in the modern style (although most, preferring a two-no-trump advance to be natural, use it to show three or more cards in partner's suit).
    South might have rebid more aggressively. Despite having only nine points, he had good distribution. But North showed very poor judgment in passing over two hearts. A jump to four hearts is feasible. However, I like two spades so that partner can judge how well the hands fit. Then four hearts or four spades would be reached.
    Remember, fit is fantastic. And a double fit is delicious.
Sign up for the Herald's free e-newsletter