NBB - Dutch Bridge Federation

Final Dutch NC Imps Teams

Onstein Castle BC Vorden - Modalfa BC Amsterdam

Amsterdam, RAI Exhibition and Convention Center

Session 1, Boards 01-08

December 09, 2000

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = To our opinion, Muller underbids with 2§, while Verhees does not do justice to East's shape with 2NT. Our second choice would be 3¨, or even 3NT, promising a 6⁺ suit and 18-19 hcp.
2 = Fourth Suit Forcing may not work out here, for after 3©-4¨, 4© sounds more like a control bid with ¨ as trumps, then as an attempt to let East choose between 4© and 4ª. Secondly, 4© does not sound as a slamtry.
3 = East clearly has preference for hearts.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = This hand is too nice to preempt with. There can still be game for EW, even though East passed in first chair.
2 = No inverted minor raises after RHO gets in.
3 = Asking West to pass if he has some sort of ª-fit.
4 = Clubs will play better, for East is unlikely to have a goos 6⁺ suit in ª.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = South's ©-suit does not qualify for a Muiderberg weak-2.
2 = West's opening cuts North off the bidding.
3 = East lacks the 4-card support, needed for a Bergen raise to 3§, which also promises a balanced hand and 7-9 hcp.
4 = Short suit game try.
5 = West's singleton or void hits East's best suit, so East should sign off.

Westerhof overcalled 2ª with 2NT, prepared to bid to 3¨, if Jansen would show §-preference. In the matchpoints pairs competition of South Limburg district, class 1 of 1998, one player took the same action with better red suits. His spontaneous action turned out to be the only way to get to an excellent 4©-contract, but found nu mercy in the eyes of the director, who awarded him a severe penalty for 'screwing up the auction'.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = We recommend vulnerable Muiderbergers only on a good 5-card major, and a 5⁺ minor.
2 = North would bid 2¨ (5⁺ suit, 8-11 hcp) without 3-card ©-support.
3 = Support double: 3-card ª-suit, unlimited strength, forcing to 2ª.
4 = Competitive redouble: 3H would only be an attempt to win the battle for partscore, so South must come up with something else to invite to game.
5 = North would be very happy to play 2©**.
6 = North is on top of his previous bidding.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Jansen and Maas favor 1NT, thereby following a recommendation of Acol 2000 by Schipperheyn and Sint, and Five Card Majors Western Style by Max Hardy, for example. We however, do not like to horse around with distribution, unless we are forced to do so.
2 = The 6-card ©-suit should come first.
3 = We don't favor inverted minors in competition, but 3¨ would be preemptive anyway, since East can cue or bid 2NT to show a better hand. North may still hold as little as 3 diamonds, and 3NT may still be there. Two good reasons not to raise to the level of four.
4 = West should be cautious, for is unaware of the double fit, that would be exposed if North opens 1NT and East overcalls a Landy type of 2§.
5 = Competitive double, as introduced on previous board. North has lots of strength to spare.
6 = East has no strength to spare, he actually had a minimum overcall.
7 = South has not the strength to pass for penalties, or accept game by bidding 3NT or 5¨.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = In Walsh approach, West denies a 4-card major, unless he has enough to reverse with. This time, West is strong enough to reverse, but that alone does not guarantee a 4-card major.
2 = Should show the unbid suits, regardless of the 2-suited weapon used when RHO has opened (Ghestem, Top & Bottom, or Michaels). The Unusual 1NT, used by Jansen, serves the same purpose, but leaves South guessing for his shorter minor, which Maas seems to show with the cuebid. We would cuebid 2¨ with a shorter ¨-suit, and would expect Maas to join us.
3 = We prefer to use this double to show a good or longer §-suit, but we could make a case for a support double for West's diamonds as well.
4 = Giving clear ©-preference. A (support) redouble should show 3-card support for both majors.
5 = Investigating 3NT by asking for a ©-stopper, for the one West holds, will not be enough.
6 = North majors are just about even, so he should allow South to decide which suit to lead against 3NT and 5§, and therefore skip the double of a suit, EW are not going to play anyway.
7 = Denying the ©-stopper, but still reaching for game in clubs.
8 = Though North's cuebid of 2§ greatly increases the chance of an unfavorable §-break, West has no alternative but to accept the invitation, unless EW have agreed on doubling to show a good 5-card suit, and 3§ to show a good 6-card suit. 

Game zone does not allow too much for subtleties. By jumping to 3© as South, Ramondt smartly denied De Boer the opportunity of becoming subtle at all, or should De Boer have doubled to ask for a ©-stopper? In the closed room, Jansma deprives himself of chances to get subtle, offered to him by Westerhof and us.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Many bridge players tend to forget to look for the 5-3 ª-fit.
2 = At least 4-card ©-suit, perhaps 5-card ©-suit or 4-card ª-suit.
3 = No reason to keep looking for an 8-card fit in a major.

More discussion to follow.

Recommended bidding sequence:

1 = Slightly too strong to overcall 1ª.
2 = North's takeout double would give East even more reasons to bypass a 4-, 5- or even 6-card ¨-suit in favor of search for a fit in a major.
3 = South should be glad East's 1©-response relieves him of the obligation to keep the auction going.
4 = East's 1©-response forces him to bid. 1NT requires a ª-stopper, 2¨ requires at least 16 hcp.
5 = North faces the conseuqences of his initial takeout double.
6 = Attempt to deny NS the partscore. A (competitive) double would show 3⁺ §-support and be invitational or better.

Go to session 01, boards 09-16

Copyright © 1999 by Michel Franssen