Maybe I don’t understand how the big time pros play preemptive bids but why would north bid four NT? He has nothing in hearts or spades, he has described his hand, and he has a partner. I think it was great that west found the correct opening lead, but it seems rather logical to me that a heart is correct. I also think east should trust that west has the heart king to make that lead. He did bid a game vul.

When four NT gets doubled, once again by the big time pros, isn’t it time to jump the shark and pull to five diamonds?

The heart continuation by west was the key to the punishment the north south pair deserved. Looks like the pros can get carried away just like the rest of us at times. I imagine a plus 1700 result held up.

Hi Bobby, Jane,

If North is going to bid at all over 4S, wouldn’t double be more flexible, suggesting some defence and a maximum pre-empt?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Jane A & Iain,

First, Jane, the style often played by top players (often a connotation of professional, but sometimes, not here, exaggerated in stature) is to preempt with nothing more than QJ10xxxx and perhaps an outside singleton (especially NV). IOW North had a super maximum, unless their partnership had a special understanding to the contrary. In any event North’s continuation to 4NT confirmed a willingness to duel it out with them. Although South was half psyching with his 3NT venture (unless their system dictated differently), perhaps what he thought to be an iron clad spade stop, but turning out to be waste paper was indeed his probable disappointment of that year. What the 4NT bid did say, is that “partner you should not be disappointed in my diamond suit, and a side ace to boot”.

And Iain, I sort of agree, but because of only holding an ace outside, North could not be sure that West’s distribution would not carry him through the day. As you know, when long suits collide (especially between the partners solid) it often allows various games to be made both ways on any given hand, and my guess is that North never had a better three level preempt than this one, instead, of course, something like, s; void, h xx., d. QJ10xxxx, c. xxxx.

Summing up, North had only two legitimate choices after partner’s 3NT response, West’s 4 spade intervention, his 4NT raise and East’s penalty double, 1. run or 2, pass with redouble to be kept under wraps, although for reporting purposes even more exciting (-3400 anyone?).

The good news for most readers is the now understanding that even among the top players in this wide world, there is a strong gambling element always in the air when strength plays against strength. No place for timid or wishy-washy souls.

Shouldn’t E play HQ at trick 1? If he did, I’m sure his partner would have bought him at least one drink after the session.

Hi Bobby,Could you please suggest a sensible bidding sequence for this hand at pairs,NS vul Dealer S.Playing Acol. n K987 Q63 A843 K7 e J4 J87 K7 QJT643 s AT5 AK94 JT9652 void w Q632 T52 Q A9852. South 1D W pass N 1S E 2C, S Dbl(support double) W 3C N 3N E 4C, S 4D W pass N 4S pass out.4S only makes once and nobody got to 5D,though data shows u can make 6D as well. 4S went off.. I thought pard should bid 5D..regards~Patrick.

Hi David,

Probably, but not necessarily.

The problem, therefore the solution, lies in not only the class of players (both defenders) and his knowledge, but how each defender views the situation.

Some relatively good players rarely, if ever, vary from the 3rd seat simple rules of 3rd hand high, and although this hand might speak the right time for it, either partner might not agree.

Adding to the above fact are the ethics of 3rd hand hesitating before inserting the queen, and then when South ducks, West may get the impression that he did so or not, for some reason other than not having the ace.

Yes bridge and its ethical complications do now and have always since I started playing so many years ago, and regardless of others thinking that the laws should not be so strict, I disagree. Simply because bridge becomes unplayable when unauthorized information is passed between defenders, and although not in the same horrible ballpark as dirty, filthy illegal signalling, it still, at least to me, takes all the magic away from our great game.

IOW’s, after breaking tempo as 3rd chair and then playing either the ace or queen is pretty strong evidence that the 3rd seat player has both, likely forcing West to cash the king of hearts and not “read” his partner.

Yes, my above suggestion is very aggravating, but without which I do not think we are playing a game worth playing, so obviously I feel strongly about not changing. However others have the right to view it as they think, not because I, alone, (and I am not) view it differently.

However, I am not being fair to you since you did not suggest playing a slow queen, making your partnership free to do exactly as you have described. Drink after the session and more.

Hi Bobby,

I think David has a point here – if West decides not to lead his own suit, will he really be leading a small heart from Jxxx rather than Kxxx?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Bobby,

So what do you think is best for preempts? My style, although I am certainly no top player, is to hold nothing much outside my long suit, especially in first and second seat. Does not place my partner in a position to guess which hand I have either. How could this south know opener held a pretty decent hand unless that is their agreement, which I think could be a bit unusual in elite type games.

I agree with David and lain about east playing the heart queen. If west does not hold the heart king, the hand is making. I also like the idea of north doubling the four spade bid to let partner know he has a better hand rather than a weaker one.

I think Kenny Rodgers sang it best however- “you got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em”. (I am not a singer either!)

First, Patrick,

No doubt North, after having partner make a “support double” exactly three spades (partner’s bid suit) should raise partner’s diamonds to five , instead of tackling the difficult 4-3 spade fit for game. Yes a small slam can be made, simply by declarer, South squeezing West (at the death in spades and his ace of clubs, assuming he did not lead it, which would then, of course, not require a squeeze, but would be on no diamond loss for a grand slam.

No doubt, under the Aces long ago “charging system” North would be given a unilateral “black mark” (the most severe possible) for his not raising partner to 5 diamonds.

I doubt that either partner could chance a small slam, although South has a reason to do so and, if holding the K of diamonds instead of the Q, methinks he should. However, since playing results, is neither instructive nor polite I will leave it up to you to ponder who, whether and why about level, but not about diamonds as the strain.

Hi Bobby,Four spades should make as the JS comes down in two rounds..that’s another matter..my sincere thanks again for your kind help. Best regards~Patrick.

Next David, Iain & Jane A,

No doubt both David’s suggestion about playing the queen of hearts at trick one and, even more important, the “free drink” partner should buy him after the session is totally applicable, there needs to be (at least I think) a little more delving before signing off.

As usual, the actual disclaimer about playing IMPs or Rubber bridge, instead of the bastardized game of matchpoints, will be the subject. To shine a little more light on the above statement, Whist was Contract bridge’s grandfather and was relatively later spurned for Auction bridge (Contract’s father) simply because with different rules, mainly no dummy, but other significant differences as well, Whist was just too difficult a game, making some of the playing only a guessing game without any way to legally transmit partnership messages during the bidding (when Auction bridge then formed) nor the ability to legally signal, because of basically not enough information to be able to be gleaned.

Then from Whist we officially went to Auction bridge, which improved detective work, when the dummy entered the scene, but still lacked completeness since there were not game and slam levels necessary to be bid, only made to get credit, so that again the bridge analysis, so necessary in high-level play did not come into being until Harold Vanderbilt (I suppose) made his incredible invention in 1927 of Contract Bridge.

However, soon thereafter matchpoint duplicate bridge emerged where the frequency of gain (on each hand) raised its head instead of what I think is the far more important aspect of our beautiful “now” game, rubber bridge, or IMPs of the “amount of gain” being the chief goal, and by a significant degree.

IOW, when an overtrick at matchpoints can be just as important as a delicate slam, bid and made, then I believe that the values when playing the game have been horribly distorted.

In any event, back to the ranch of the hand in question, a hand taken from an IMP match, featuring amount rather than frequency.

West may have held AKJxxxx and strongly suspected that declarer had the Qxx for his 3NT venture, not North who only chirped 4NT because of his relatively good diamond suit (partner almost surely has the ace, especially on this bidding when vulnerable defensive bidding is quite alive). Add that diamond suit to a majestic side ace and presto, magico, an unusual 4NT raise becomes logical.

Make no mistake, especially with the vulnerability, Eric Rodwell’s 3NT over a probably random very weak 3 diamond opening (this time a super maximum) was intended to be a semi-psych in order to do the hated opponents out of a vulnerable game for fear of coming in, which apparently is justified by their opponents now bidding 3NT with the intent to make it. Even if 3NT goes down 4 or 5 NV it is a significant gain against a vulnerable game which starts at the 600 level.

However, on the way to the forum a strange thing happened with the original 3 diamond bidder (Jeff Meckstroth) now raising to 4NT allowing his partner to do whatever he thinks best, even if it is to ride it out doubled (which he gallantly did).

Note: North’s 4NT raise had nothing to do with anything other than a good diamond suit and that precious ace of clubs.

Now we (I) appear ready to get to the nuts and bolts of my point. If East merely goes up with his ace of hearts and surely leads a spade back, he is hoping that his partner will have 7 immediate tricks (IOW declarer having only Qxx instead of QJx) but when West now realizes when declarer puts up the queen, that he is morally bound to now have at least the QJx (by partner not leading the jack). Horrors, West now needs another entry to his partner which, in itself will be the setting trick, but also contribute all those defensive spade tricks in addition.

Therefore West will certainly risk a low heart back, otherwise he belongs playing another much easier game than is high-level bridge.

Finally I have just reached my whole point. No doubt if holding only Jxx or Jxxx of hearts West should not lead his lowest one, but some times with all these things to think about when playing against top-level bridge players, an opening leader can get careless and if so, with West having the AKJxxxx instead of AK10xxxx in spades the whole world will have ended when East sticks in his very thoughtful queen of hearts, serving both his desire to please partner and indicating a second entry to his hand, but the patient immediately dying a very painful bridge death when South produces the king.

My above “tome” is only to try and build a fence around the many “moving parts’ of high-level bridge. They are everywhere one looks and it is so easy to get careless and only concentrate on the main issue e.g. getting partner in to lead spades through, that one could overlook what he may think is a small error which, by that definition, is like calling 9/11 just a tactical mistake made by our worst enemies.

No doubt, David is to congratulated for his ingenuity of being “right on” for his “congratulatory queen play” (when, of course, it holds the trick), but what if partner was careless, then is it all West’s fault and not East?

Many will say it is, but if the spades and hearts would have been different (as discussed) I believe East would have to share at least a little blame (maybe not much) but I doubt if either E nor W would feel like wanting to be in each others company, drink or no drink.

Yes, bridge is definitely a partnership game (especially at the top-level) but one thing is certain (which the Aces found out perhaps almost 50 years ago) there is often, at least, another possibility to sometimes consider.

BTW, who knows what was going on with and in the players minds (especially EW) while they defended this beauty.

Hi again Jane,

Yes, I like your style of preempts being very weak, rarely, if ever, having an outside ace, but sometimes, usually (and in my past, not my future) when I may vary making one when having what some may take as a one bid, just to make a different bid than the one likely at the other table, usually when I felt, late in the match, that we didn’t want to just exchange tied results which only help the team which happens to be ahead.

And, I always enjoyed Kenny Rogers rendition of that song where the best thing which could happen is to “die in one’s sleep”. I cannot sing either, but we both can empathize.

And not to go -1700 in a big knockout game either. My partners might have helped put a nail in my bridge coffin in this case.

Thanks for the great explanations. I know bridge for the high level games is quite different than for the rest of us, so it is great to have someone take the time to show us what “evil” could be lurking in the minds of some.

Hi Jane A,

If this month happened to be February instead of October and on the second, a ground hog would have seen his Shadow, who, in turn would have described the “evil” which could be lurking since he, and he alone (aka Lamont Cranston) becomes invisible, allowing him to learn all about it.