Dubious Logic

Sun, Sea and System

Seven years! Who'd have thought it possible? Seven years ago Debby Sutcliffe wasn't even a Sutcliffe but she and I played at Brighton. Here we were again – and famous for fifteen minutes. Sunday morning I passed a group of occasional team-mates and they appeared to be enjoying the bulletin that accompanied each day's play. Brian Senior had written:

Blackwood is a wonderful thing. In my match this deal was flat in 6NT just making. Not so in some other matches, where Blackwood was not used, or at least not understood. How would you feel if you bid freely to 7♣ and went one off - you would be quite pleased to find that you had gained 3 IMPs on the board, would you not?

I am told that the 1♠ response denied a four-card major and that 2♠ showed diamonds. 5NT was pick-a-slam, and 6♣ selected that suit as trumps. The raise to 7♣ was a guess, I suppose. South, being a gentleman, did not double; one off for –100.

Here, everything was going swimmingly up to the 4♣ bid. Unfortunately, it was intended as Gerber, and the 4♥ response read as showing one ace, while at the other side of the table 4♣ was read as RKCB for clubs, with the response showing one key card. This South took a more practical approach and doubled, feeling that there was a good chance that 7NT would fail with him on lead; –200 and 3 IMPs to the ALLFREY team.

Well, to say I've never understood Gerber is obvious. I think of it as a device over a no-trump opening that solves a problem of what to do with hands rich in playing tricks that need to know about aces. That it can occur in the middle of an auction mystifies me. Debby and I did have an agreement that removing no-trumps (only 3NT was discussed it's true) to four-minor was key card for that minor – that's what I thought we had here.

Seven years ago I wrote about our experiences for Table Talk and Debby, then editor, generously published it uncut. I had subjected her to learning a system completely new to both us based on four card majors, contrary to both our experiences. What had I got for her this time?

Well, this time the boot was firmly on the other foot. Though we saw the Brighton Teams in the middle of August coming we failed to heed the warning. "Caution! Dates in the calendar are closer than they appear!" We started with a private practice then a run-out at Ipswich & Kesgrave the day before we travelled. So with no time for 'serious' preparation, we took as a base the convention card Debby played with Maria. What do you think? It looked like a set-up to me.

We were playing five card majors and an unusual two-over-one style. Well it was unusual to me and most of our effort, sorry, most of my effort, was expended in coming to terms with it. I changed a few things and proposed them to Debby, they came back, well, almost as the original. I was beginning to get suspicious. But why all this worry about two-over-ones?

Over the years they've got stronger as opening bids have got weaker. The old Acol style of allowing the auction to die virtually anywhere has retreated and only those who learnt their game forty years or more ago and have been inactive or in denial since, still play that way. Mostly everyone treats a change of suit as forcing. So, after say:

If you come from the other side of the Atlantic it can be more extreme, 'Two over one game forcing' means exactly what it says; after responder's 2♣ above, you are forced to game. The disadvantage include 1NT having to take an unwelcome amount of pressure, covering a range from 6 to 11 HCP. As even Acol players fret about holding 15 HCP opposite a 6-9 HCP response, you can imagine their worry. So… This goes hand-in-hand with playing a stronger no-trump, say 15-17, and having to put some of those balanced hands with a five card major in that opener too. You can see how the choices produce ramifications and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

What happens of course is players select a little of what they like and arrive somewhere between the now-we're-bidding-now-we're-not style of early Acol and the game forcing American method. The trouble is those ramifications are still there. You can have some of the plusses of a light system; get your suits in, avoid the wide-range 1NT response - but lose the certainty about strength when you've got it. The Acol style favours part-scores, stealing contracts, diagnosing fits for light games. The scientific method favours slams, game selection and hides information from the opponents. You pays your money…

We had an odd hybrid: after the 2/1, bids up to and including a repeat of opener's suit were forcing for a round. Despite the 14-16 NT opener we employed, opener's 2NT rebid was strong but if responder got there, it wasn't. So responder could make some light calls because he or she could get out at 2N but not so skimpy because we opened light anyway. Furthermore, when responder made any bid supporting opener's first bid suit, it was invitational not forcing, as it would be a classic five-card major two-over-one system. Thus we were giving up a lot of the advantage of early suit agreement that helps both slam bidding and choosing between 3NT and other strains for game.

It hurt. Why not, I asked, allow responder to pass opener's simple repeat of suit? I was told it was too ingrained, too much of a reflex to change. Well there are some things you can't fight and in the end I gave in. With a compromise or three:

• All strong hands had to be developed by a jump shift in the modern manner: that meant no two suiters – if responder's bid a second suit it was a control and showed exactly three-card support for opener's first suit.
• All four card support either made an immediate splinter or an artificial two no-trumps. Over the latter I had us able to bid a waiting 3♣ that simply said "Better than a sound minimum, no descriptive call" in order not to crowd responder.
• Oh, and I insisted that we play fit jumps in competition – not connected with this discussion of course, just as pay-back.

Other than that we played Debby and Maria's card. We sat down and the first match went like a dream.

Note no jump shift after 1♠ but no easy forcing 2N call with the East cards at the second turn either (despite 2♠ being forcing). West was between a rock and hard place over 3♦ and 3♥ is OK. However, returning the control bid with 4♦ was over-egging it somewhat.

Well, not a great contract but vastly improved when South led the ♦9 and the first trick ensured four diamond tricks. The spade king still needed to be onside but it was. We'd bid another slightly better slam a couple of boards before as well and then this:

NS Vul

Debby chose the great call of 5♠ and I raised to six producing, prima facia, our best effort to date. Unfortunately North held two black singletons and we were quickly down one. That was a –11 IMPs but we still had enough for a 20-0. Good news but we had the feeling all our fortune had arrived in one lump. We won the next match as well and got ourselves to local table two – to meet Forrester / McIntosh and Allfrey / Robson. Which brings us to the bulletin hand. It wasn't all bad that match – there was one saving grace when both tables missed 3NT to play in a slightly awkward 5♦.

Both East-wests failed to diagnose the combined club stopper as suitable enough for 3NT and came to rest the diamond game. I received the clever lead of the club king and the actual lie of the suit cannot have been what South, McIntosh, wanted. I took a trump finesse and played with maximum care (i.e. slowness) to bring in eleven tricks.

At the other table Peter Sutcliffe made an even cleverer lead of the spade ten. During the auction East-West had admitted to a seven card spade fit and this was the equivalent of leading his partner's doubleton. Of course North didn't need to get in but when East took the top diamonds playing for trumps 3-2 the beating of the game was assured. North didn't believe his partner had underled the spade ace but his actual club play when in with the ♦Q made it impossible for East to draw trumps with the spade ace extant.

Later on the Sunday we drew against the team who had been enjoying the bulletin article and these hands occurred:

As South prepared to lead he pointed at my four hearts call; "One ace?" he asked…

Incidentally, what's your line on the lead of the spade deuce? This was a bit precarious so I took what I though was my best shot on the opening lead, running it to my ten. When it held I was able to draw trumps. Spades were 3-3 and the diamond QJ were both under the ten but the defence forced dummy when in with the heart ace to stop the over trick; it was a flat board.

Hands dealt at the table or by computer that are actually good double dummy problems are a rarity but it does happen:

South makes six hearts against any lead – answer elsewhere in the magazine.

At the table this contract was hard to reach:

South gave serious thought to another call; what it was I don't know but you can see that six clubs is a lot easier to make that 6♥.

I had a lot of fun at Brighton – but why were there so few other from the county there. Surely this is the event that fits all; you get to play a name or two early on and then find, in most part, people like you up for good game. We might have played a bit better for a bit more agreement beforehand but I suspect that was all part of Debby's master plan - to ensure I didn't foist any more artificiality upon her than her poor memory could stand (her words). In fact, of course, we neglected some important areas – like the Gerber fiasco. Our two over ones however, didn't put a foot wrong.