Bridge news Sheet 286

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 286 has seven articles.
It starts off with a player holding ♠Q7 ♥A ♦KQ987 ♣KQ1083; partner opened 1♥ and he incorrectly responded 2♣ instead of 2♦. Partner rebid 2♥ and then this player jumped to 4♦. Sheer lunacy of course (on both bids) but fortunately partner did not assume that it was a splinter as it should be. 3NT was the top spot and 4♥ went two down. Next we have the same player holding ♠J98 ♥AQ8 ♦K53 ♣AJ64; he chooses to open 1♣ (I would pass, this flat hand does not conform with the The Rule of 20 ). Anyway, LHO bids 1♦, partner bids 1♥ and RHO bids 1♠; what do you bid now? Then we have the two usual Dave columns on the play of the hand and a third one which is a double-dummy problem which one member claimed Deep Finesse had got wrong. Finally there are two articles on trusting partner. In the first one you hold ♠7 ♥J632 ♦K9842 ♣KJ7; RHO opens 1NT and LHO bids 2♣ Stayman, partner doubles this and RHO bids 2♥, LHO bids 2NT which is passed out; what do you lead? On the next deal you hold ♠KJ ♥95 ♦AKJ84 ♣K653 and choose to open a strong 1NT. LHO overcalls a natural 2♥ and partner doubles, what do you do?

Bridge News Sheet 285

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 285 has ten articles.
It starts off with a player overcalling a weak NoTrump holding ♠KJ107542 ♥109 ♦4 ♣J54, the 500 away was a clear bottom when they had no game. Next you hold ♠AQ32 ♥A108 ♦5 ♣AK642 and the uninterrupted bidding goes 1♣ – 1♦ – 1♠ – 2♦ – ?, what do you do? Then we have a player holding ♠A10 ♥9 ♦J1082 ♣AKQ1074 who removed his partner’s 3NT bid in the middle of the auction to 5♣! (9 tricks were available in either contract of course). Then there are two articles where people ignored  The Law Of Total Tricks and both got too high vulnerable. There are then two articles where it starts: bid, double, redouble – in this situation responder is generally looking for a penalty and on both ocassions the opener bid to let them off the hook! There are the usual two Dave columns on the play of the hand and finally a discussion about the ethics when an opponent asked about your bid and partner gave the wrong information.

Bridge news-sheet 283

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 283 has 8 articles.
It starts off with the double of a strong 2♣ opening – is most certainly not take-out, it shows ♣’s and asks partner to lead ♣’s . Then there’s an article about when not to ‘cover an honour with an honour’ – when it’s likely that declarer has a two-way finesse and is ‘fishing’ to locate a missing queen – do not cover a jack unless it’s likely that partner has the ten. Then there’s a multi two diamond mix-up when a player got confused about the responses when partner bis 2♠ over his 2♦ opening. My advice is simple – do not play the Multi Two Diamonds unless you understand all of the sequences including over partner’s 2♠ and 2NT response. Then there’s an article where you hold ♠9 ♥J93 ♦AKQ43 ♣AQ105 and you open 1♦ , partner bids 1♥ – do you rebid 2♣ or 3♣? Next there’s an article about raising partner’s major suit overcall – use the Unassuming Cue Bid , i.e. bid opener’s suit to show three card support and a sound raise to the three level. Next you hold ♠AJ8 ♥AQ52 ♦AKQ ♣AJ2; this hand is not worth 3NT (however you bid that) because of the 4333 type shape – settle for 2♣ followed by 2NT to show 22-24. Finally there are the two usual Dave Cutler columns on the play of the hand.

Bridge news sheet 281

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 281 has just 3 articles.
It continues last week’s  feature about 5 out of 6 pairs missing the 4-4 ♥ fit and playing in silly 2NT and 3NT contracts when 4♥ is cold for +1.  The hands were  ♠J952 ♥A1042 ♦A5 ♣A62 opposite ♠AQ43 ♥Q753 ♦KJ643 ♣- and the bidding went 1♣ p 1♦ p 1NT p 2(or3)NT. Who got it wrong?

Then there are the usual two Dave columns about the play of the hand.

Bridge news sheet 280

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 280 has 5 articles.
It starts with a feature about 5 out of 6 pairs missing the 4-4 ♥ fit and playing in silly 2NT and 3NT contracts when 4♥ is cold for +1.  Later you hold  ♠42 ♥972 ♦AJ98 ♣A1097; partner opens 1♦ and RHO overcalls 1NT, what do you do? Double seems obvious to me, but this is followed by another article where a player removed a penalty double with no reason whatsoever that I can see. Are people afraid to double for penalties these days? Or is every double for take-out? And, of course, there are thr usual two Dave Columns on the play of the hand.

Bridge news sheet 279

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 279 has 9 articles.
It starts with a feature about a bid which was not forcing. You hold  ♠K3 ♥AKQ8722 ♦Q963 ♣5; partner opens 1♣, you bid 1♥ and partner bids 1♠, what now?  The bid chosen was 3♥ but this is not good enough as it’s not forcing. The best bid is 2♦ (4th suit) followewd by a 3♥ bid which is then game forcing.
Then we have an Acol sequence where a pair missed a simple 4♥  contract and you are asked who was to blame. Thene there is a series of three articles about co-operating with partner during the bidding if he is liiking to defend a doubled contract.
There are the usual two Dave columns about the play of the hand and finally a note about asking for the trump queen when playing Roman Keycard Blackwood.

Bridge news sheet 278

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 278 has 6 articles.
It starts with a failure to open a Gambling 3NT ♠1094 ♥42 ♦Q ♣AKQJ942 which led to a complete bottom. Then there’s something that I feel very strongly about – open 1♣ when 4-4 in the minors. The ‘experts’ who advocate 1♦ holding ♠Q3 ♥KJ3 ♦Q875 ♣KQ107 really need to read what happened – 1400 away when a simple 1♣ opening causes no problem. Then there are the usual two Dave problems on the play of the hand and finally an article on who overbid to an unmakeable 4♠.

Bridge news sheet 276

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 276 has 7 articles.
There are two articles where people denied a 4-card major and ended up in an inferior NoTrump contract. For example, one player held  ♠A654 ♥KJ7 ♦1086 ♣KQ4; he opened 1♣, got a 1♥ response and then bid 1NT. The 4-4 ♠ fit was lost and so was a decent score.
Then there are two Dave play problems about safety plays. They are from an Eddie Kantar book and I totally disagree with one of then at matchpoint scoring. You might say ‘who am I to disagree with Eddie Kantar?’. If so, look up the article.
Then there’s a misfit deal; partner opens 3♣ and you hold  ♠A963 ♥KJ7 ♦AQ10942 ♣-, what do you do? To bid 3♦ is very foolish, it is a forcing bid and you will simply get too high on a mis-fit, you should pass.
There’s the usual bridge cryptogram and then an hand where LHO opens 1♣ and partner doubles; you hold ♠J1085 ♥J62 ♦3 ♣KJ652, what do you bid?

Bridge news sheet 275

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 275 has 8 articles. There’s the usual article about the ‘automatic’ re-opening double playing Negative Doubles. Then there’s some ridiculous bidding when somebody doubled a 1♠ opening holding  ♠KJ92 ♥Q1092 ♦86 ♣KQ10, the next hand held ♠4 ♥K743 ♦AK76 ♣J986 but failed to redouble (and collect 800), instead she chose to go down in 3NT. Then we have a help-suit gane try by the overcalling side followed by two Dave columns on play. Then there are two articles where an established partnership disagreed about whether the bids were forcing or not. Finally there’s an example of a 3rd seat opener that is unacceptable at our club (a 1♣ opening holding ♠952 ♥J ♦8542 ♣A9432) and then there’s the usual bridge cryptogram.

Bridge news sheet 274

This week’s bridge news sheet No. 274 has 6 articles. There’s an article about a hand which is unsuitable for an ‘automatic’ re-opening double after the sequence 1♥ – 1♠ – pass – pass – ? , the hand being ♠- ♥AQJ8742 ♦K632 ♣J5, where 2♥ is surely best. Then there’s an article about bidding after partner has made a long pause before passing. Then you hold ♠7 ♥10542 ♦9643 ♣A432 and partner opens 1♠ in 2nd seat – do you pass? Suppose you bid 1NT, would you then pass partner’s forcing 3♥ rebid? There are two Dave’s columns about the play of the hand. Finally there’s an interesting deal concerning both the Josaphine Grand Slam Force and Negative Free Bids.