The story of 3 boards in the team-match at Atomic from last Friday, 28-01-2005.

Theme: Fat scores in bidding the game, although little chances.

In teams the premium of bidding game scores. It is the difference with the other table(s) that counts. Even if the percentages of making the contract are below 50.

To illustrate this theme 3 idiot boards, all from the third match.

I thought: play sneaky J, if not covered play low, then to the A and it wins if H is 2nd

The other 2 tables 3NT -2 and 5 dbl down, which scored for us +11+15 = 26 imps.

This board has a story at the end. West hurried away very quickly after this last board of the evening. He was thinking: do I catch the last bus or shall I miss it? He should have mentioned this problem. We would have brought him home, probably not a great effort, and we prefer to win at a normal way. Also now that he gave us the contract we gladly would have brought him home.

The bidding needs some explanation.

EW play a system where 1 promises 17 points or more.

NS defend with Rainbow-transfers, where bidding is obligatory.

ii 1 promises 4+ card and 0 points or more.

After this the bidding becomes not clear.

iii 2 promises 5 controls, but West said in Rumanian he wasn’t sure after interference.

If he was sure I think bidding 7NT is simple. 5 controls is A+A+ K

To be certain he took 4NT. This cannot be asking for aces, the 5 controls he already knows. But if 2 is real, then it is Blackwood.

Many pairs play modified RKCB (answers: 5 1 or 4 and 5 0 or 3 aces).

If this is the system, he has to bid 5, and West can pass.

With good defence the result will be -1. East answered 5. West called 5. If East didn’t hear the explanation of 2, he has to pass. Unless this asks for trump Q or kings. Then 5 is the correct answer.

East answered 6. In my opinion (referee with the diploma) this is not allowed.

East has had his 2, with or without explanation and is supposed not to have heard the comment of his partner. The result, 6 -4, NS couldn’t double.

The lead 9 for the A

to K and A (pity, the wrong decision). 10 continuation to Q and a -ruff.

This board has also a final story

6 -4 is a better result for EW then 4 contract in NS.

Because K is bare (easy because West has 17+ points, so don’t finesse K) the tricks that are lost: 1+1+1. Crazy with NS holding 17 points.

Another board.

i Promises 6+ points, but with an 8-crd I couldn’t say pass.

Trick1: A - 7 - 2 - 10

Trick2: 6 – J – A – 3

Trick3: 2 – 4 – K – Q

Trick4: K ruffed

Trick5: ruffed.

Trick6: Q and 5 discarded, to make the contract?

No, aaah, East ruffs with 4. After that I lost 2 -tricks.

Also this board has a comment at the end.

-1 is a good result for NS against 3NT for EW.

If this contract is reached, and declarer supposes North has -length with a few -points, South must have a few -spots because he opened the bidding.

When you treat the -suit beginning with K then declarer makes: 4 -tricks and 5 tricks in the other suits with aces and kings. 5 can also be made after K lead and starting with A, then K and play 9. The following J is ruffed with 10, cross with 7 to 8 and give away a . The last is higher then the 2 from South.

There are variations of play which lead to 5 contract, to make 4 is sure. So 2-1 was a good result against that for NS.

Did we score on this board? Yes and no.

On the first table NS went 3 -3

On the second table the bidding was completely different.

i 5- card and something else.

ii Preference

This 3 contract went -4.

After a weak 2 there is a convention, Lebensohl, to tell the difference in points after the dbl from your partner.

With 7+ points West bids his suit, slightly encouraging.

(Except 2, which is to play)

With 0-6 points West bids 2NT.

East bids 3, and West can pass (with ) or call his preference.

If East does not bid this 3 he has a good suit of his own.

With this convention it was possible to reach the 3NT.

The game-playing Louis.