Questionable Judgement

Sydney Morning Herald

Wednesday November 10, 2004

Ron Klinger

The worst bidding area for most top players is the slam zone. Not only do you need sound methods to determine whether the right controls are held for slam, but good judgement is also essential. On today's deals from major championships, lack of judgement led to poor slams. The first comes from the final of the 2003 Bermuda Bowl:

The 3H bid showed 7-9 points with four trumps. South had enough shape to take a shot at 4H. He ruffed the diamond lead and led a trump to the queen and ace. East switched to the C5: ten - ace. With trumps 2-2, declarer could now make an overtrick for +650.

At the other table:

Both North and South were over-enthusiastic. Opposite 8-9 points with no shortage, the best South could hope for was SKxx H Qxxx D xxxx C Ax. That would make the slam about 50%. Over 3H South should be content with 4H. The actual outcome was a slam off two aces and down two for -13 Imps.

Answer to yesterday's problem:

After 2NT a sensible move by South would be a void splinter jump to 4D. When North signs off over that, South would have no cause to go further. Even 5H was too high.

This deal arose in the first round-robin of the 2004 ANC teams:

Round 1 : Board 9

North dealer; E-W vulnerable.

Pauline Gumby - Warren Lazer bid the East-West cards to 4S and made twelve tricks on a non-club lead. At the other table the Victorian East-West started 1H ; 1S, 2NT (showing six hearts and three spades). Despite the two unsupported queens West pushed on to 6S.

This slam has an advantage over the 6H reached by Italy. It has a theoretical chance. However, after North led a club and South returned a diamond, the contract was two down for -200 and 13 Imps to NSW.

No brain is stronger than the weakest think. (Tom Masson)

Tomorrow's problem:

© 2004 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home