All News

How High Would You Go?

..in clubs, that is. Who needs the “boss” suit, when you have clubs…and plenty of them!  If you were North-South this week, there were some interesting decisions.

The first one came about when your partner as North opened 3 in first seat. The vulnerability may be significant in that only your side was vulnerable. Thus, partner should not have too bad a collection, should they? You have a fair one, yourself:

 KQ96                      AJ75                       AKJT                        K

There are some interesting comments to make here about one’s ace-asking approach. Many pairs, using “key card” swap the first 2 responses to 4NT so that the first step shows 1 or 4 and the second 0 or 3. This is particularly helpful when hearts are trumps so that opposite the 1 or 4 response, you can ask and get the answer of whether partner has the Q and stop in 5 if they do not. You are more likely to want to know when partner holds one key card than none.

However, there is no advantage when clubs are trumps. The above hand demonstrates why sticking to step 1 (5) as 0 or 3 is a good idea. If partner produced 0 key cards, you would not want to be higher than 5.

However, would you try slam if partner produced one key card? If so, then try 4NT.

However, at least one pair had an even better approach. After a pre-empt in a minor, the bid of the other minor at the 4 level is of little natural use. So, after a 3 pre-empt, you can jump to 4 as “key card”. Partner shows 1. So, you might ask for the Q and outside kings. You can ask and stay at the game level if the answer is negative. If you do this time, partner has the Q and no outside kings. Are you going to slam? 

You would be glad if you did:

 

A pretty good 6 slam even on a testing 10 lead. A good reason to keep those adverse vulnerability pre-empts up to scratch. If you are missing the AK of trumps, it is very handy to have some reasonable middle trumps though QT9 to seven clubs and an outside ace would probably satisfy most as we all know the jack would fall in two rounds when partner has the singleton king!

It was a little harder for the club bidders on this board:

 A43     AK8   -  Q987543 after this auction:

West              North            East                South

                                                1                 2

2                 3                  5                 ?

Only North-South were vulnerable. You do have excellent major controls and a partner who has some club support. Enough for slam? Here’s hoping! If you do, the opponents may bid more diamonds with 6x being as good as both sides could get (-500).

 

A good slam or a lucky slam (you choose) as it required a well-placed Q to take care of the spade loser.

Another decent swag of clubs came to North later in the night:

3  QJ7   6  AKJ76432

This time the vulnerability was reversed with only the opposition vulnerable. This is either a 4 opener (if you can) or 1.

At one table where it started with 1, it looked like North had wished they had opened 4as North made up quickly for lost time:

West              North            East                South

                        1               1                 Pass

2                  5               5                 6

6                  ?

If partner really has club support but cannot bid over 1, then the vulnerability looks perfect for a sacrifice over 6 though what would worry me more than the worth of bidding 7 would be whether one would be pushing the opponents to a making 7 over which you are helpless.

 

At the table, Fuxia Wen was one of those who did bid 7 and emerged with a good -800 (4 down) but the grand slam so nearly made:

 

The bad diamond break meant that in a spade contract,there had to be a heart loser this time so that 7x was the place North-South wanted to be, assuming a small slam had been bid.

A 4, or even 5 opening, should also have the same result with South having no defence to the small slam which West should bid once their partner enters the auction with a high- level spade bid.

So, once again, the lowest ranking suit had the final and winning say on the board!

Richard Solomon

 

 

 

 

Go Back View All News Items