By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Bridge 6/13
A bid too little and a bid too much
Placeholder Image
    An anonymous person said, "The most difficult part of attaining perfection is finding something to do for an encore."
    This week, though, we are looking not at perfection, but at flawed bidding and play in deals from social games. On the only Friday the 13th this year, how would you critique this auction?
    After East opened one heart, South passed, and West responded one spade, North used the Unusual No-Trump to show at least 5-5 in the minors. East passed, and South gave preference with three diamonds. West rebid three spades, and North raised to four diamonds, which was passed out.
    In the play declarer blew one trick, misguessing the diamond 10, to go down three instead of down two. But minus 150 was small change when it was seen that the opponents could make a vulnerable game in hearts or spades.
    North's two no-trump was aggressive, but acceptable for three reasons: favorable vulnerability, consumption of bidding space, and longer clubs than diamonds (so that if South had equal length in the minors, the better fit would be chosen).
    After East's and South's correct calls, West's game-invitational three spades was a big underbid. He had 13 points opposite an opening bid. He should have doubled three diamonds, or jumped to four spades, or — for experts — cue-bid four diamonds, offering a choice of major-suit games.
    Finally, North's four-diamond rebid was bad because it promised a strong hand. South might have had only two diamonds and fewer clubs (or one diamond and no clubs!). Don't tell the same story twice — and give West another chance.
Sign up for the Herald's free e-newsletter