27th October – Board 5: N/S Vul. Dealer North.
Some hands are just so difficult to bid with any degree of certainty. All kinds of things might have happened – and indeed did – on the featured hand, but who was right and who was wrong is hard to say.
West
|
North
|
East
|
South
|
|
1H
|
No
|
2D
|
2S
|
4H
|
4S
|
No
|
No
|
5D
|
End
|
|
South might conceivably have bid 1NT at his first turn, lest partner got too excited, but I can’t see that 2D can come to too much harm, and 1NT seems just a bit too off-centre for my liking. West is bound to compete giving North a tough decision, but with the good diamond fit a direct bid of 4H does not look unreasonable. Of course East should not be silenced at that vulnerability but with no wasted values in spades opposite North should probably have one more go with 5D. In truth nobody really knows who can make what and 6D is on the (failing) diamond finesse. And if West decides to compete at the five-level then he will find that to be a cheap save against the vulnerable game.
2 comments:
My partner bid to and made 4S. I think our opponents didn't bid 2D over the 1H opening (my memory is not nearly good enough), which then worked for us because North won't know it's worth competing in diamonds at the 5 level. I don't think I would have responded 2D on the basis I would expect W and E together to have more chance of having the diamond honours than N and N could just as easily have Spades (at the time of South's first decision to bid something).
I suppose the defence tried to cash the ace of diamonds at one stage because it seems that declarer has four losers on top. I know South has an awkward bid but if he bids 1NT North might just as easily bid 2S I suppose. But then perhaps South would bid 3D. So maybe you are right and maybe the hand isn't worth a bid at the two-level. I would hate not to bid the suit at all though and you saw what happened when he didn't.
Post a Comment