RealBridge 02

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Wed, 16/03/2022 - 13:53

There was some not so good declarer play and defence on this deal, a deal that should not have presented either declarer or defenders with a problem. As it happened, nothing made any difference to the end results. But there is a lesson to be learnt nevertheless.

Board 2 from Monday 14/03/22
Dealer E NS Vul

862
643
QJT7652
KT973
J7542
AQ
9
AJ54
Q8
KT972
K4
Q
AKT963
J85
A83

Some Bidding For You

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Mon, 14/03/2022 - 11:41

You are South each time and match points.

1. Dealer East NS Vul
The bidding has been:

SouthWestNorthEast
---1
?

Your bid holding

J9632
AKT2
AK43

X-Clubs Play 12

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Mon, 07/03/2022 - 09:49

Here is a simple declarer play problem. Well, it should be simple. The hand pretty well plays itself, but declarer needs to think just one step ahead in order to get the best result.

Board 10 from Tuesday 1-Mar
Dealer E All Vul

97
KQJ96
AT73
AQ
8
T83
KQJ65
J432
AKJ2
754
942
876
QT6543
A2
8
KT95

RealBridge 01

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Tue, 22/02/2022 - 18:27

This series will review deals from RealBridge as played at the Hutt Bridge Club. This one was also played in X-Clubs sessions on 21/02/22. Playing on line is a bit different to the real thing, some things you can do and some you can’t. One thing you can do on line is ask for an “Undo”. Playing the wrong card at the table just can’t be undone.

This deal provided the players with a bit of a chuckle.
Dealer S Nil Vul

QJT52
86
74
AJ72
AK9643
32
8
QT94
8
AK7
AJ932
K865
7
QJT954
KQT65
3

Evil 22-08

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Fri, 11/02/2022 - 12:20

This rather freakish deal came up in a teams match some time ago. Yes, the hands were somewhat freakish but such freakish hands do occur, and in a teams match can create huge swings both ways.

Dealer S All Vul

AQ4
83
QT
JT9532
T975
AQT7642
K4
J862
KJ95
KJ986
K3
A75432
AQ876

Evil 22-07

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Fri, 04/02/2022 - 12:39

As I will be away for a week, I guess I had better not keep you in suspense about the “Evil Doubles”. In competitive bidding, when three suits have been bid or implied, a double of opponents’ suit shows either two or four cards in the unbid suit and either ace or king. There is good reason for this being so specific. Three or five cards seldom present an opportunity for a ruff for the defence and there are other ways to bid a hand that does not meet this very specific requirement. So, let’s take a look at the deal from No.6 and see what might happen after an Evil double.

Dealer N Nil Vul

A
JT653
AQT2
532
T752
A97
J954
AT
KQ864
42
876
KJ8
J93
KQ8
K3
Q9764

Evil 22-06

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:17

Match point bridge can be cut throat at times, as a correspondent who sent me this deal found out.

Dealer N Nil Vul

A
JT653
AQT2
532
T752
A97
J954
AT
KQ864
42
876
KJ8
J93
KQ8
K3
Q9764

Evil 22-05

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Tue, 01/02/2022 - 12:31

From across the world, a reader sent me this deal from a teams contest in Ireland. Neither side distinguished themselves on the deal, my correspondent ending up in the ungainly contract of 2H in the South seat. Their team mates, in the EW seats, were in 4S. Both contracts failed. Let’s take a look at the full deal:

Dealer S All Vul

A97
6
97542
KQ87
KJT2
QT42
AKJ6
6
Q8543
753
QT83
A
6
AKJ98
JT96543

Evil 22-04

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Tue, 01/02/2022 - 08:01

Few NS pairs managed to buy this contract in 5C, which sometimes made with an overtrick (or two!). The problem was that for some reason, the NS pairs did not have a good understanding of their own takeout double methods. Most Souths opened 1D and most Wests overcalled 1H. This presented North with a problem that should not have been there. Why? Because it seems that the ‘expert’ Norths could not double because that would show four spades! So, the only options remaining would be 1NT without a heart stopper, or an overbid of 2C which many other ‘expert’ pairs even play as game forcing. The ‘modern’ way seems to be that a double shows four spades and a bid of 1S shows five. I find that incorrigible and in fact have persuaded all my partners that this is a total waste of bidding space when one can always bid 1S with four spades and double to show the other MINOR. Let’s take a look at the full deal:

Board 6 from Thursday 27/01/22
Dealer E EW Vul

AJ9
T75
T
KT8743
65
AK9842
KQJ4
6
Q742
QJ63
732
92
KT83
A9865
AQJ5

Evil 22-03

Submitted by Vil Gravis on Mon, 24/01/2022 - 12:26

Here is the actual deal that our opening lead problem was based on. Maybe you won’t agree with the bidding, but the bidding of opponents is not your concern, only what you can infer from it. I believe that the opening lead against the bidding that took place is not difficult to find IF you take notice of the bidding and the correct inferences. Let me repeat the bidding: 1S from West, 2NT from East, 6NT from West. Looking at the South hand, what should you be thinking? I was hoping that at least one of my readers would find the correct answer, and I do believe that there is only ONE card that South should lead.

Dealer W Nil Vul

7
43
K8743
T9854
AKQJ93
AJ
AT
J73
T5
KQ7
Q762
KQ62
8642
T98652
J9
A

The closest to the right (and you will agree that there IS a RIGHT when you read on) answer came from one of the many readers who would lead the ten of hearts. His rationale was perfect up to a point but he missed the punchline.

Syndicate content