A 4-3 fit is often known as a Moysian fit, but in itself it seldom qualifies as poor bridge. Here are two boards where contracts were reached with an even more shaky trump-holding, displaying poor bridge from both sides.
I'll start with a self-experienced example, against an elderly couple with more experience than skills. South was dealer, with all vulnerable:
Both Vuln
Dealer S
| |
|  | |
| |
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| Me | | Partner |
| | | 1NT1 |
| X2 | 2 | Pass | 2 3 |
| Pass | Pass4 | Pass | |
| Notes |
|---|
| (1) | 15-17, obviously trying to maximise his chances of playing the hand. |
|---|
| (2) | Not alerted, but this seems to be a typical "optional double". The definition is that you give partner an option — if (s)he passes when the contract makes an overtrick it's always their fault. |
|---|
| (3) | Still trying to play the hand. We had no agreements, generally following the principle that everything that could be misunderstood should be misunderstood (it's possible to use transfers here). |
|---|
| (4) | I saw no reason to rescue partner as long as it was undoubled. As a sidenote, the last time a partner had bid like this he had opened a "semibalanced" 15-17 NT with 2=7=2=2 and seven running hearts. Neither of these 1NT openings would be considered standard, but on reflection they were both playing with me, which seems to have influenced my partners towards some discreet hogging... |
|---|
You might think the reason this hand found its way to this web-site was that we were doubled in 1NT and found a way to play undoubled in our 3-2 fit with a 7 card fit in all other suits? Also note that we have no making contract above 2
. Well, the play is the thing, and partner received a club lead to the King and Ace. He then played a diamond to the Queen and another diamond to the King and Ace. West now happily tried to cash his
J, but unluckily this was ruffed. Declarer cashed the
A and ruffed a club. East was quick to ruff the fourth round of diamonds, overruffed with the Ace and West discarded a spade. A club was ruffed by East (West and dummy discarding spades), who returned a spade. Since West had only trumps left he had to ruff the last club, but East was already into the habit of ruffing, so she overruffed. Now at last the contract was unbeatable, the J8 of hearts in dummy would always be promoted to a trick (East had only the singleton Queen left, her partner had K94). +110 was an excellent matchpoint score for North/South.
Here is another example of a successful contract with less than the traditional number of trumps:
With North/South vulnerable South opened 1
, West interfered with a weak 2
, North produced a negative double and South bid 3NT. So far everything is normal, but now North decided to leap straight to 6
, passed out. This was the only table in the top heat of our County teams where a slam was bid. Those of you who would have preferred the slightly better diamond slam can post your suggested bidding sequence on some other site.
West led his singleton diamond and East erred by inserting the Queen. Declarer felt he had done enough poor bridge already by landing in a slam on a 3-3 fit. He now did very well, leading the Ace and Queen of spades. This was covered by the King and ruffed in dummy felling the Jack, thereby setting up the Ten. Declarer now led the
J from dummy. At this point East probably realised that he should not have parted with the
Q. Not being someone who makes the same mistake twice (at least not on the same board) he refused to cover with the
Q. Had he covered declarer would be stuck in dummy on the second club, and the slam would have failed. East later admitted that he never had considered the possibility that declarer might be in a 3-3 fit slam (how poor is that?). As it was, declarer played out the trumps and cashed the
10 (discarding the two losing hearts from dummy). East could ruff when he pleased, but the vulnerable slam made.
Home
Articles
About
Contact Us