Join Bridge Winners
Most east-west pairs got in the auction. Should they have

West
10
KQJ104
J62
Q1053
North
82
A63
AK53
A976
East
AKJ974
95
974
42
South
Q653
872
Q108
KJ8
W
N
E
S
1NT
?
D

Sectional A/X pairs, 7 tables.  No way to know what methods other tables used, but likely North opened 1N (15-17) at most.

Results: 5 E-W pairs played spades, 4 of them taking 6 tricks, one taking 7.  Only one was doubled (and it wasn't the only pair who were in 3 rather than 2).

1 N-S played 2 NT.  Possibly E passed, south used Staymen, found no spade fit, bid NT and N passed, as N surely would.  Using Staymen with a 4-3-3-3 8 count would be agressive for matchpoints, but possible.  But perhaps E acted and N-S ended up in 2NT rather than defending.  

The N-S was in 3 NT.  Since almost no pairs would bid that badly in an uncontested NT auction, I bet E-W were in the auction.

So why this article? My partner thinks that at this vulnerability with our methods (DONT in direct seat; natural except 2C = majors in balancing seat) I should have passed in 2nd seat and he should have passed if South passed.  Obviously that did not happen at any of the tables where E-W declared spades, and probably at those tables E acted directly (either showing spades only directly, or an unspecified one suiter directly).  

Further, though other pairs would have different methods in the balancing seat and might not have passed, the other methods would not likely lead to a 2S contract, would they?

So would you have acted over 1NT-?  Over 1NT - P - P - ?  A balance becomes more attractive if you are playing Cappeletti, but even the vulnerability is unfavorable.

38 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top