Bobby hi

On BWTA, why not bid 2H straight off?
Both cases basically deny spades, so those bids won’t stop the opponents from balancing.
precisely because of my weak hand, I would rather show partner support and a weakish hand, then let the opponents find a club fit or lead direct.
And should partner make a game try, or leap on his own, then he better play it well.

Hi Avi,

Regarding the BWTA, I have absolutely no quarrel with instead raising hearts immediately and accepting your strategy for the reasons you carefully explained.

However, for those who play a forcing 1NT response, the column explanation is what many good players prefer. By so doing, the wily opponents may be led astray in assessing the overall distribution, since usually 1NT denies 3 of the major, and as many play, could also have 4 spades.

This deception, although common, sometimes strategically creates a working smoke screen which, in turn, allows the original bidders to buy the hand at a low level.

As you suggest, bidding two hearts is very straight forward and although very weak, is still within reason, and may keep your partnership from exclaiming later, “We have found the enemy and the answer is us”.

Hi Bobbi,

The way the column plays out, I think South didn’t cash his 3rd heart winner before exiting with the club as the rest of the column (including West exiting at trick 10, not trick 11) seems to read that way.

Great play in any case in some ways showing the intimidating power of a 2NT opening. East had no reason not to believe South was not holding the AC and if West had dreamed that South only had Kx, not Kxx in clubs, he would have no doubt made things clear by playing the A before the Q. It is always fun to watch a master bring in an “impossible” contract.

Mr. Wolff,
In an earlier discussion, you indicated that on-balance with all aspects considered, you prefer to play the 1NT as semi-forcing (or “intended forcing” as JKW subsequently referred to it, and as I now announce it).
One benefit you mentioned is that LHO will be under some pressure to act, not knowing whether you have started a weak three-trump raise, or whether you may be in 11/12 strength range; and thus LHO has an opportunity to make an error.
So with today’s BWTA hand, bidding 1NT intended forcing, you might end up in 1NT when 2M might well be better. Presumably over the long run this trade off will work in favour of the 1NT intended-forcing approach. Is that the right interpretation?

er, Bobby, not Bobbi. Way too early here.

Hi Jeff,

I think the column description was correct in reporting that declarer first tried for the heart break before exiting with a club. East gets squeezed, while West was cashing his club tricks, between guarding the spade ten and the ace of diamonds.

Yes, scintillating declarer’s play (sometimes described as double dummy play, symbolizing playing as if an opponent’s hand is crystal clear for all to see) is what all aspiring players like to envision for themselves.

It can happen to anyone who is young at heart, numerate, and is disciplined to learn how to envision hands with accurate detective work. For example, how about you?

Hi Clarksburg,

You sometimes, especially in bridge bidding, have to give to get.

In return for likely stealing the hand in 1NT (with a 5 count opposite a 12-14 point balanced opening bid) you will then be forced to play an usually inferior contract in return for keeping the opponents from making a certain part score (or even a possible game) contract.

Such trade-offs are usually profitable, but, of course, especially if vulnerable, are sometimes not.

However it will always be wise for an aspiring partnership to discuss such antics as both practical and, more importantly, a learning experience.

Yes, you are, as seemingly always, right on.

I must be missing something. With the queen of clubs as a lead, south takes the first club trick and starts on diamonds. Isn’t south always down one? Four clubs and the diamond ace? I can understand why east held up for one round but I don’t understand why he does not take the second diamond and then lead a club back to west who has four good clubs waiting to cash. If south has the club ace, then he is more than likely making the contract anyway. It seems pretty obvious that south needs an entry to the board and may only need two diamonds to make his contract. And yes, I also know that east does not know for sure that west has five clubs, but he led clubs for a reason. This time it was a really good reason.

But then you would not have put this hand in the paper either, right?

Hi Jane,

All my answers to you are YES (maybe I am lucky I was not born a female), however my partner has definitely shown East (by giving count) that declarer has precisely three diamonds, making it possible to deny declarer making more than two diamond tricks, by ducking the first two.

The bidding has not indicated anything spectacular (why can’t West have QJ10x(x) in clubs?), so all East can do is apparently in front of his nose, which means duck and hope, but alas, his prayers are not answered and your defense would have defeated that enemy, but not this talented opponent who sorts out the only winning solution to this difficult bridge problem.

If I were one of the two defenders I would immediately order transparent cards to keep this evil spell from happening again or, at the very least, a very stern look from West once East ducked the first time (horrors, only kidding).

Furthermore for all bridge analysts who might suggest for West to give East a false count of how many diamonds he had (so that he would take the second one and fire back a club), what if declarer instead had:
s. AKxx, h. AK, d. QJx, c. K654 and East took an early diamond?

BTW: if so, East would have held: s. 10xx, h. Q9xxxx, d. Axx, c. x and since I set up these hands that defense would have failed.

However, I will give you yet another yes, since I was taught very early in life, “Let the WINNER explain”.

After W leads the CQ and sees S win the K and lead DQ, it seems to me he knows two things: a) E almost certainly has the DA, and b) partner does not know that he (W) has the CA. He should therefore play low-high (3-8). E would then be forced to win the DA on the second lead of that suit, and he would then, of course, have no choice but to return a club. Down one.

Hi David,

After all this time, crossing in Cyberspace might have paid off, both on your supposition and my attempted retort

These types of conundrums happen and, in truth no one is right, no one is wrong, but what a tangled web one mounts, when first he practices to give false counts.