CONTRACT BRIDGE MIXED SUCCESS IN SLAM BIDDING
(Contributed by
J.R.W.)
The lucrative bonuses *warde< by the scoring table for calling and making 12 or 13-trick contracts make the lure of the slam bld ilnwwt irresistible to bridge players of r) rt * ndarts - Despite the proliferation of conventions cr “ ted ?y .tbe theorists, only about half the makeable slams are called even at the highest level of the game while the average player, relying on his point count and a rudimentary method of checking on aces, probably does even worse. The following three deals from a recent evening of rubber bridge illustrate some of the problems and some of the possible answers. The first featured an uninspired performance by the East player: W. E. S—AQJ94 S—KlO32 H—A63 H—J54 D—AKQ D—108653 C—AS C—J W. E. No 2S 2N.T. 3 N.T. 4—S No The declarer duly made five tricks in spades, five in diamonds, the aces of clubs and hearts, and a club ruffed in dummy for thirteen in all. East’s final call of four spades might have been made on a hand like this:— 5—10733 H—-J654 C—10986 Consequently West did not feel inclined to continue. While admitting this. East maintained that even though his partner’s bidding was probably based on 25 points or so, the addition of his own five still left the total short of the 32 required for a ■mail slam. A more accurate method of valuation would be to regard West’s calling as showing game in his own hand and therefore nine or 10 tricks. East’s king of spades and singleton club should produce at least two more, so X-. call of five spades would have been much nearer the mark than four. This would, 1 have been sufficient induce-1
ment for his partner to go on to the small slam at least Blew Hot and Cold The second deal also shows it is better to tell than to ask. N. S—QB4 H—A5 D—KJ 109 54 C—7s W. E. S—A973 5—65 H—KQB3 H—J10976 D—Q3 D—C—Q4 9 6 C—AKJIOB4 S. S—KJIO2 H—4 2 D—AB 762 C—32
North led a diamond and the declarer made 12 tricks —three hearts in his own hand, six clubs, the ace of spades and two diamonds ruffed in dummy. East’s first rebid of three diamonds was a semiconventional call in fairly common use, indicating a good fit with his partner’s hearts, a hand good enough to guarantee game and first round control in diamonds. On this occasion it was if anything a slight overbid. After South's double West took the opportunity to call three spades showing some strength in the suit. East then bid four clubs, which by agreement was asking for aces, and finding his partner with only one, left the contract in four hearts.
It is true that a spade lead would defeat a small slam, but after West’s call of that suit a diamond or trump lead was much more likely. It would have been quite an achievement to bid and make six hearts with a total of 22 points, and East must take most of the blame for missing the opportunity. He blew hot and cold and finally did not ’allow his partner any say in the final contract It is seldom of much use to ask for aces
on hands containing a void, and on his actual holding East would have been wiser to have shown his heart support and left his final decision to West The latter, knowing about bis partner’s void in diamonds, would certainly have continued to six hearts. Checking Up The third lead was handled with more success: W. E. S—7 S—JB3 H—AKIO 8 H—Q97 65 D—KQJ94 D—AlO2 C—A76 C—4} 10 W. E ID 1H 4C 4H 6H No Having heard his partner had a heart suit West wanted to be in a slam if two aces were not missing. He therefore used the four club convention for its correct purpose, as a means of checking up. When East showed one ace the slam was called and duly delivered by way of five tricks in hearts, fite in diamonds, the ace of clubs and a spade ruffed in West’s hand. It is true that had East’s ace been in spades and had South led a club the defence might have set up a winner in the suit before the diamonds, were established. But West felt this was an unduly pessimistic view and that the defenders were just as likely to lead a spade as a club. In any case there was that slam bonus beckoning him on.
The auction was: W. N. E. 1C S. No 1H 2D 3D Dble 3S No 4C No 4H All pass
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19680424.2.99
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31662, 24 April 1968, Page 13
Word Count
781CONTRACT BRIDGE MIXED SUCCESS IN SLAM BIDDING Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31662, 24 April 1968, Page 13
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.