16th February – Board 5: North/South Vul. Dealer North.
The hands were so tedious last Thursday that I could only really find one that warranted any discussion – but what a hand it was! It’s not too often that you pick up a one-loser hand and of course you are not given an easy ride when you do, although I think things could have been even more difficult. The following is what happened when the eventual winners sat North/South:
West
|
North
|
East
|
South
|
|
2D
|
No
|
2H
|
4D
|
5D
|
No
|
5H
|
No
|
7H
|
End
|
|
Although it is really easy to sympathise with North’s last bid, things might not have been so rosy if partner had started with four small hearts so I was wondering if perhaps North should not have bid 6D over 5H. Perhaps it’s asking a lot but the only real interpretation of that bid is to suggest a grand slam in hearts and for partner to consider whether she has more than promised so far. As Qxxxxx is so much more than xxxx a case could be made for passing the final decision to partner, something which at least will prove to be of value in any post-mortem if things go wrong! I actually think West should bid 5D at his first turn because as the opposition are going to end up in game and you are going to sacrifice why not do it now and make things really difficult. North could bid 5NT now – pick a slam partner – but over 6H it will be a complete guess whether or not to add one for the road.
I agree I should have bid 5D I regretted not doing it as soon as I had put the bidding card down.
ReplyDeleteI doubt whether it would have made any difference as North bid the grand anyway, but the principle of preempting to the hilt is a sound one - although sometimes it enrages the opposition and they bid to a (making) grand that they would not have bid otherwise.
ReplyDelete