|
Hand played on |
7th February 2008 |
|
Board number 13 |
Red Section |
|
Dealer |
North |
|
Vulnerability |
Both |
|
Submitted by |
Alaric Cundy |
|
|
North ♠Q94 ♥QT7 ♦2 ♣K98642 |
|
|
|
|||
|
West ♠T72 ♥A642 ♦A85 ♣AT7 |
|
East ♠K865 ♥953 ♦QJT643 ♣void |
|
North |
Bidding:
East |
South |
West |
|
|
South ♠AJ3 ♥KJ8 ♦K97 ♣QJ53 |
|
|
No 1NT |
No End |
1♣
|
No |
|
|
|||||||
Do you sometimes look at the traveller after you have played the hand and notice the rather odd score at another table and ask yourself "how on earth did that happen?" There is usually a simple explanation, as is the case on this board...
At the end of the evening the traveller showed: 5♣*-1 by South, twice, and 3NT making 9 tricks by South (3 times) and 10 tricks by North (once). But in amongst them was our peculiar 1NT-1 by North... So how did that happen?
We play the 'inverted minor' style of responses to one of a minor openings, so that in response to a 1♣ opening, 2♣ would be forcing, 3♣ shows nominally 6 or 7 HCPs and 4-card support (or equivalent) and 1NT shows 8-10 HCPs with 4-card support. Preference to showing a 4-card major would normally over-rule any of these options. The North hand isn't ideal for any of these bids, but North selected 1NT as the best match - it's too good for 3♣ but too weak for 2♣. Holding an unimpressive balanced 15 HCPs opposite, South decided that at match-pointed pairs the odds favoured playing in a No Trump part-score, and so passed it out... So now this hand is played by North, with critically, East on lead.
East found the obvious diamond lead and Declarer was under immediate pressure. With the benefit of hindsight ducking twice would have been a good ploy, but ... East / West took the first six diamond tricks and also made the Ace of Clubs, but, thankful for small mercies, West didn't cash the Ace of hearts, so Declarer 'escaped' for one off.
5♣ looks a plausible landing spot, but with all three missing Aces in the West hand the contract will be doubled and defeated. In fact the defence can take 4 tricks on a passive defence, as there is a potential spade loser as well.
At other tables 1♣ - 3♣; 3NT is a plausible auction, but now South is Declarer and West has to find a small diamond lead at trick 1 to beat the contract if played that way round. I must confess that 3NT+1 by North is almost as puzzling as our result. On a diamond lead from East, even if Declarer now does the best possible in the suit, the Defence should take 3 diamonds and 2 other Aces, limiting Declarer to 8 tricks. Am I allowed to say "How on earth did 3NT+1 by North happen?"