as usual, a very elegant solution to a knotty declarer problem. If i were South, I would count my side’s points, put the CK with West and eat dirt later. Playing a club game or sectional, the time constraints can disincline one from more serious analysis. Particularly since it takes lesser mortals longer to come to a more elegant or even simply better approach. Nothing to do I suppose but I wondered if you had a thought or two on the subject.. Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Your post is both topical and at the same time, beautiful, at least to me extolling the strengths of our game and because of, the varying nature of different strokes.

Left unsaid in the text, that the values to overcall in hearts, having only five would much more likely than possess the crucial club king, making the double heart duck necessary for success, but, at the same time, more likely fit the bidding to where the cards are likely to be.

The above fact, although germane, would get lost in the shuffle if West had both six hearts and the club king, since, while playing matchpoints, many, if not most of the declarers would take 12 tricks, not 11, by the unthinking play of the queen of hearts from dummy at trick one.

And who is to say that the “greedy” line is not correct at matchpoints, where some would say that even with holding 6 hearts West figures to hold the king of clubs, especially being vulnerable (which he was).

However, this conundrum is why I have always thought that IMPs (or rubber) bridge is a better game (test of skill) than is matchpoints, simply because of hands like these where, at least to me, safeguarding the contract (or at the very least, increasing the likelihood of scoring it up), lies directly at the heart of the game rather than just another factor.

However, far be it from me to comment on what others may think just another plus factor in the excitement, bridge usually has to offer.

Yes, increased titillation, but to me, an impossible determination better off left to a casino rather than a World Championship bridge tournament.

What say you?

Hi Bobby,

What does declarer have to lose by ducking the opening lead in both hands? In other words, declarer cannot take more tricks by playing high from dummy at trick 1 regardless of how the cards lay. This makes the form of scoring irrelevant for the play on this deal. I hope I’m not missing something.

Mircea: If the C finesse works, S can make 12 tricks, unless he ducks the opening lead and then W cashes the HA: only 11 tricks.

RE: Column hand
In preparation for the GNTs this week, I’ve spent a lot of time with Eddie Kantar on Defense. It has been helpful in opening my mind to more possibilities where there is a logical opportunity to make the key play. The book is 100% focused on rubber/IMP scoring where setting the contract is the only goal. Hopefully it nudges me from ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to having a clue on how to defeat a few hands. Many of these matches come down to one hand either way.

Conveniently, Frank Stewart’s column today had the hand where one defender had to jettison the A from Ax to give partner a needed entry with Qx. He noted that while this play may likely give up a trick in matchpoints, it was worth the risk anyway.

RE: LWTA
I can’t remember the last time I saw a flight-B or higher player play a non-forcing NT over a major. Then again, put west in third or fourth position and you end up in the same place anyway so it is still a useful question from that standpoint.

@slar and Mr Wolff
Virtually all of the strong Club players around here also play the 1NT over Partner’s major as Forcing.
Meanwhile I still stick to 1NT semi-forcing. Why? Because of what is recommended by many respected writers (Bergen, Cohen, this Blog and if I’m not mistaken the most recent Bridge Standard International, if that’s the correct name).
How does one weigh up the trade off between never being able to play in 1NT when it’s the best contract, versus the risk of being passed out with a three-trump limit raise in Partner’s suit (or having to work around it such as with a three-trump Bergen raise)?

Hi Mircea1,

You are missing very little while playing IMPs or rubber bridge, but at matchpoints you lose the opportunity to make 12 tricks, if the king of clubs happens to be onside instead of not. Also since West had overcalled he was probably more likely to hold the king of clubs, but not on this hand.

You are clearly right to duck in both hands and then if the hearts are 6-2 instead of 5-3 the hand will make since East, when in with the king of clubs, will not have another heart to lead back for his partner.

Hi Slar,

Yes both Eddie and Frank are great bridge writers (and also sensational players) but both represent the previous generations in bridge (me too). In those bygone days the sequence with the LWTA was very commonplace since the forcing NT with 2 over 1 GF didn’t arrive on the scene until about 40+ years ago, although it was rattling in the dell.

BTW for all who are interested, my preference is still for 4 card majors and a NF 1NT response to a major.. Likely a little less scientific and thus not quite as accurate, but the opportunity for more preemption after an opening bid and in any event getting the bidding up higher quicker, which usually both preempts the opponents and makes it harder for them to defend.

However, with 5 card majors the comfort zone occurs more often, but also for the worthy opponents who play against it.

Hi Clarksburg,

Right on with your thinking. Also with 1NT only intended forcing rather than a GF, there needs be limit raises (jump to the three level) with only 3 of the major and, of course, a convention such as Jacoby 2NT as a GF over a major suit opening.

Resulting in passing 1NT with basically 12 or 13 hcps after opening with 1 of a major suit with any 5-3-3-2 hand and perhaps a few 5-4-2-2 any suit except 5 spades and 4 hearts and honors in both of the short suits.

Therefore a 1NT response to a major suit is limited to 12 hcps instead of unlimited and AFAIAC works just fine.

The differences in system mentioned here and many places will NEVER IMO, and in the long run, make the difference between winning and losing, but rather how one plays, defends and develops his partnership as well as being compatible partners with experienced judgment developed no matter what the future brings, as time goes by.

Hoagy Carmichael would have been proud.

For what it’s worth, just for the record:
The document I referred to above is Bridge World Standard 2001, produced by Bridge World magazine. It reads in part:
G After our Major suit opening:
(a) a one-notrump response is “semi-forcing” (limited to at most game-invitational values)
The polls on which the document was based show semi-forcing favoured by both experts (58 to 42 percent) and the readers (56 to 44 percent).
Of course 15 years have passed since 2001. (just showing off numeracy here Bobby :))

Hi Clarksburg,

It’s flattering to me that you would and could dig up proof of what we have been talking about.

In no way could I vouch for what you have found, since, at least it seems, that the preponderance of the top-level players, play 1NT a GF, allowing them no real limit on their hcp’s nor have to make an exception when holding three of partner’s major suit opening.

However, the other side of the coin is that, yes a pair playing “intended forcing” can still wind up playing a 7 trick contract that Goren once stated (in one of his first books) that “1NT is the favorite place to play an indifferent contract”.

Although not sure of the definition of an”indifferent contract” somehow it feels right and, above all, I applaud your determination to justify what we have been discussing.

Today, the local duplicate, tomorrow, the World Championship, and all because of numeracy!