Bidding Q&A 04
Now we can have a look at real life, not just theory, and see what everyone at X-Clubs did given the monstrous and quite unbelievable deal that the computer threw up.
The full deal was:
Board 3 . Dealer S EW Vul
| ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
73
AJT2
T3
QJT64Unfortunately, as I pointed out, just looking at the South hand does not mean that the computer or its dealer would have any nefarious designs relating to the other hands, and that proved to be the case so 7S AND 7D were both easy to make grand slams though two did fail. The occasion must have got to them. I would have much preferred the computer to deal the other hands so that 7D was a make but not 7S, or where 6S made but 7D did not, but let’s have a look at the actual results. I find them really hard to believe, there appears to be much room for bridge education! These were the actual results:
- Two pairs in 7S redoubled and making
- Five pairs in 7S with one of them being minus 1!
- Eleven in 7D, one of these also a minus 1
- Five in 6NT, fortunately for them, by North, all making seven
- One in 6S
- 34 in 6D
Well, at least these 35 knew to bid a slam, though a conservative one
But then ...
- Twenty pairs in 4S, 19 in 5D, and 7 in 3NT with worse to come...
- Thirteen pairs in 2S (strong Acol twos by South, weak twos by North?)
- and a similar scenario with five Souths in 2D!
But then those who must have got started but stopped along the way:
- Five in 3D, two in 4D, five in 3S
As well as the usual aberrations of a North in 5H down three and one South in 5NT who must have kept asking and North had said enough; and the two Souths who decided to open 1S and one who opened 1D, only to be ignored by partner despite an eight count.
