The column description of the play of the hand would require East’s spade holding to be J102 rather than the J92 that is actually presented.

The same theme is still possible with East holding J92, but the play of the 9S would probably be a bit harder to find (and a stronger play for that fact).

I would note that — if the Board had another entry — an alternate line for declarer would be to come to hand and lead a small spade hoping to duck a QS play by West. When West plays small, declarer would win the AS and lead towards hand, hoping to see the smallest outstanding spade appear from East. If East plays the QS, declarer wins leads a small spade and hopes. Here, that line would work (but that vital second Board entry is absent).

Hi Jim2,

Well analyzed, as usual.

Several cosmetic errors were present since it is North, not South which had the weak hand, but still should respond 1 spade, because of his 5 card major suit and “almost” a legitimate bid. Also, in response to 3 clubs (rebid) by the weak hand, his partner, the strong hand, is required to bid 3 diamonds and pass a return to his partner’s original suit response at the 3 level except if the rebid (in this case) is 3 hearts which would show a hand such as:
s. K10765, h. J8762, d. 10, c. 32 and ask partner to take a preference at the 3 level so that North could then pass, if South has not already. South, on this hand, with equal length would prefer 3 spades allowing partner to pass.

Sometimes, with what some of us would call a perfecto as a 2NT bidder, e.g. s. A84, h. AK, d. AJ65, c. K542 he might “jump” to 4 spades overruling his partner, but that is very rare and must, for partnership confidence, only be done because the strong hand should be sure that the weak hand will have 5+ spades and the doubleton AK of hearts, together with holding 3 spades will make the opening bidder even stronger for a spade contract.

As a final note, partner could have, s. K10xxx, h. xxxx, d. xx, Jx, but then he might not have kept the bidding open in the first place.

Jim2: the ten of spades is on the board. The column line is correct as is.
Mr Wolff: Three spades by North is probably makeable. (North could establish a club trick on which to shed a red loser from hand).
If this were a problem in the “Bidding Box” (ACBL Bulletin) what scores would you give for 2NT, 3S…
Not necessarily propaganda for the Wolff Sign-Off (which I play) since some pairs play Transfers after 2NT.

Michael Beyrouti –

So, how does “[East] should therefore split his spade honors to prevent declarer from ducking the trick to West” make sense then?

Hi Michael,

OK, here are my bidding box ratings:

2 Spades=10
3 Spades=8
1NT=7
2NT=6
2D=5
4 Spades=4
3NT=3

What would be yours, Michael and yes many good pairs play all sorts of things over a strong 2NT rebid, however there is much to prefer in a simple Wolff SO method as long as there are not too many frills.

Also, Jim2 what would be your Bidding Box ratings on this specific hand?

Jim2: The way I understood it is that the Jack and nine are “equals” when East can see the ten in Dummy. I realize that this was an unusual use of the term “split his honors” since they are not touching…
Thank you Mr Wolff for the scores. You are too harsh as usual! (tongue in cheek). Since it is almost impossible to stop in 2S once North responds 1S, I would give 3S a 9 and 1NT an 8… although I don’t like 1NT and 2NT even less from a beauty of the auction point of view.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your comments and most of all, your opinions.

Yes, I am harsh, but I think for good reason. Perhaps a forcing club system could easily stop in 2 spades after North signals fewer than 6 HCP’s South might then allow North to play the 5-3 fit at the 2 level. Also a final contract of 1NT might remain in the picture.

Besides The Bidding Box scoring should not take into consideration the practicality of current bidding systems, but rather the necessity, or at least the joy, of creating better ways to describe hands, while not getting too high in the process.

Ever onward, ever upward, and yes, bridge is not a game for the feint of heart or for players who have a fear of failing. It is for pioneer creators, always thinking and working toward perfection in spite of the difficulty and, unfortunately up to now, having to deal with the inability to achieve some lofty goals.

Michael Beyrouti –

Very “unusual,” indeed. Too much so for me, I fear. Do note, however, that I agreed in my original post that the theme was still intact.

I am a beginner, and would have bid 2 Clubs instead of one Diamond.

I am using “Bidding in the 21st Century” as a guide.

Please explain the bid.

James