Hi Bobby,

Not so sure about the BWTA given the tendency to have off-shape 2N opening and rebids. The other night I held Qxx x xxx 108xxxx and pard opened 20-21 2NT. I passed unhappily and RHO (who’d thought about bidding over 2N) led a heart from xxx AJ10xxxx xx None – but not the Ace. Partner had AKx K J10x AKQJxx and ran for home at high speed; the oppo can take all 13 tricks and also make 4H. As you say, it is a bidders game – or you could maybe lead the HA!

Regards,

Iain

Let’s see: on BWTA, suppose partner has Axx, Ax, AKQxx & AKx and H break 5-1. Now not only does 4H fail and 3N come home, but with a 2-1 D break, 6D makes. 6D makes even if D are 3-0 so long as H are 3-3 or if partner lacks the DQ but D are 2-1. So what would I do? Over 2NT, I would transfer to H and then bid D, looking to play game in either H or D.

Hi David,

Will partner have brakes, though? You may find yourself well above 4H if partner has something superficiallu suitable e.g. with HKJx and DAKx amongst his assets. Of course he’s already shown a huge hand but many players will forget that.

regards,

Iain

Hi Iain & David,

Methinks that all reading your posts may learn from all three of them, 1. gleaning various possibilities, 2. defining and therefore deciding on one’s own choices, 3. above all, with some to understand various complexities, how to deal with at least some of them, and coming to grips with our game the way it is, only being enabled to explore a few so, according to what one thinks, pick the ones most likely to occur.

Factors on this specific example:

1. Deciding on the range of the opening 2NT and what many play, first 2 clubs (artificial and forcing) and then rebidding NT over partner’s response. With the expert community and with those playing a more or less standard system, 2NT= a good 19 (not many quacks, a random 4-3-3-3 distribution and/or a scarcity of 10s and 9s) through 21, with 2 clubs first, then NT 22-24. However while holding a singleton ace or king, possibly: s. KQx, h. K, d. AKQxx, c.Axxx or some such, with the belief that to instead open only 1 diamond may catch your partner with: s. Jxxxxx, h. xxx, d. xx, c. xx or other similar fits and run a risk of missing a good game. Of course, if the responder’s length is in hearts instead of spades, down will go even 3 hearts while 1 diamond will no doubt make,

2. While I have already expressed my opinion with the BWTA in today’s bridge puzzle, no doubt Iain & David (not surprising, neither of them being shy) have voiced other possibilities.
Iain with seemingly a tumultuous and ghastly result for the opponents, and David with perfection itself, when deciding to show his 5-5 virtual bridge bust.

3. While their examples might serve as bookends on the shelf, nevertheless they are good barometers of possible extremes causing all of us to address the issue, every time choices arise which could influence our decisions.

4. Yes, I believe the most effective judgment blends positive and negative thinking, together with optimism (bidder’s game) breaking ties.

5. Even the virtual newbie to our game will begin to understand that even a very lucky person (and I do not believe one exists, otherwise they would own the world) will not come close to always being right, but rather experience alone will raise a 50% chance to the mid 60’s once a player realizes what to expect, not only partner’s hand as he exchanges bids, but having been there, done that, tends to make a dedicated player wiser to his surroundings (and I do not mean compromising bridge ethics as he sees fit).

Finally, I think this discussion, and others should join in, with at least the thinking, not necessarily with posts, since, by doing so, it is probably the best way to improve one’s game, by the bridge intelligence one gets by hearing different approaches, but decides for himself, the route to take. And, as a post script I think there is a similarity between playing high-level bridge and being a military general during a life or death struggle out on the battlefield. At the very least it starts out with, avoiding the battlefield (not having to deal with one’s enemies or his bridge opponents) should be everyone’s first choice. IOW, and if it is possible, sneaking up on those worthy opponents, so that they do not have a way of knowing what you are doing, is almost always the winning choice.

I am afraid that as an old rubber bridge player, I will stick with SJ Simon’s dictum of the best results possible rather than the best possible results. While, playing some advance strong-club-and-relay system with spiral scan thrown in, and assuming partner and I could remember all that, we might make our way to a marvelous diamond slam and capture all the match points in this BWTA, I think Four Hearts is the best place for this hand, played by declarer.

I have seen Garton Churchill discussing how he should have bid the hand to get to the right contract, in his own system, while my partner and I, in our scientific 2/1 homebrew, went 1NT-3NT. Skid would have been pleased.

Bob

Hi Bob,

You, I may learn to have wished for it secretly, to have an admirer in me.

Science seems to lean to attempt at perfection, eg. best possible result. Sure, it can be satisfying like searching for the “perfect martini”. However when all martinis, at least for the time being, seem to brighten the world, why search for Nirvana?

If for only two reasons, one, it is not necessary, nor, even fashionable, to be obligated to find the peak and, even more important two, on the way, one may experience just too many failures, any one of which might translate, for whatever reason, to be fatal.