More or Less!

Today’s is a strange article. In it comes a most unusual admission. Those who know me well, and that includes my non-playing wife, would consider that I play more bridge, far more bridge than most other players, certainly considering the time I spent at the bridge table. I would have to agree with that view. So, how is it that a player who indeed plays so many hands can end up playing less than the majority of other bridge players?

Maybe these examples will help clarify.

Here’s a bidding situation for you. I cannot call it a problem, well not really. As North, you hold:

♠︎AT97    ♥︎AQ3   ♦︎953   ♣︎T95

and with only the opposition vulnerable, both opponents and your partner have passed. What say you?

I said “let’s play the next board.” We all rush to refer to “Pearson’s Rule” in such instances, the guideline that says your number of spades and high cards should add up to at least 15 to make opening in 4th seat worthwhile. It’s close..and if you added half a point for each 10, you would be there…but the shape is poor and there are so many potential losers, that it was not for me. Let’s look at all 4 hands:

The above was not the bidding at our table: far too long! East employed the Drury convention, with 2♣︎ promising 3 hearts and 10 or 11 hcps. The 2♥︎ reply said West did not have an opening bid, really, or a very poor one, and the partnership rested in the unmakeable heights of 2♥︎. “Unmakeable” if North could find a spade lead which they could not and on the club lead taken with the ace, declarer lost just one spade, one club and three trump tricks. A great result for East-West and Drury as otherwise, the heights of 3♥︎ may well have been reached.

Nevertheless, I had plenty of company here. Out of 118 tables in the Open field, 32 North-Souths returned a plus score, 33 a minus while 53 entered a “no play”. Obviously, a conclusive result that West should have opened in 3rd seat and North should certainly have not in 4th. Well done, Pearson!

We had far less company below. I was in  second seat and both sides were vulnerable. Here, in 4th seat, after three passes, partner was confronted with :

♠︎QJ  ♥︎AJT86   ♦︎JT43  ♣︎92 .   That is less than one quarter of the high card points, full of those semi-useless jacks and of course with poor looking spades. Pearson came up with 11, well short of 15 and within seconds, the next board was on the table. Pretty common? If you call 2 out of 15 common!

If West could not open with their 5 controls, then why should North despite holding a massive 12 count? Being vulnerable and having to open 1♠︎ (playing a strong no-trump opening) just did not appeal. A 1NT opening would have got North-South to their making 2♥︎ contract.

Meanwhile, opening 1 would lead to 1NT by South, makeable on a red suit but not a black suit lead.  Here the scores went 7 to North-South, 6 to East West and 2 passers in the middle. Pamela Nisbet also did not open the North hand. Good on you, Pamela!

We can skip the bidding very quickly on this final board.

♠︎A6  ♥︎1087   ♦︎QJ854  ♣︎A52 was the 4th seat holding after 3 passes and East may have been tempted but Pearson said “no” (13 Pearson points this time) and some interesting “post-mortemising” followed:

South suffered "the sin of discipline”. We do not need to open a Weak 2 with a 4-card major on the side as someone will open for you. Not West with a poor 11 count. What about North’s flattish 10 count? Not East’s fair 11 count.

This really was a part-score hand though unless West found a diamond lead at trick 1, South could see their way to 10 tricks in a spade contract.

Since both East and West held 11 counts, I had considerable sympathy for South’s initial pass and the fact that no-one opened the bidding. Any other distribution of their 22 hcps and there would certainly have been an opening bid.  Yes, I could have started the ball rolling in 3rd seat but such an opening with that 10 count is hardly obvious.

So, the plusses and minuses. Out of 39 tables in play, there were 28 plusses for North-South, mainly 140, 9 plusses for East-West and 2 passed in scores, not in the middle this time!

So, you can see why I have to play a lot of bridge, to make up for all the boards I do not get to play. The above 3 deals all occurred in February this year. 

Richard Solomon

ps  Someone once said to me that if you do not open the bidding, the opposition cannot misdefend. Has anyone told "Pearson" that!