|
|
ª K
© A K 7
¨ A K Q J
7
§ A 9 8 5
ª J 9 7 5
2
ª A 10 4
© J 3
© 8 6 4 2
¨ 9 3 2
¨ 8 6 5 4
§ 7 3 2
§ 10 6
ª Q 8 6 3
© Q 10 9
5
¨ 10
§ K Q J 4
|
This type
of deal is very difficult to bid for North-South.
The ideal contract, looking at both hands, is 6NT.
Even in rubber bridge or teams this is a safer and
more profitable contract than 6§
or 6¨.
It has the added attraction that while many players
will lead an ace against a suit slam, it is far from
recommended against 6NT and declarer will make all 13 tricks
if
©J drops in three rounds or if the same player
holds
©J x x x (x) and
ªA unless the opponents cash their ace.
So playing pairs in a mixed field 6§
+1 might score 16 MPS (66%) while 6NT +1 will score 22 MPS
(92%). In a
high class game it is likely that 6§
would score far less, even with an overtrick.
|
The real problem for both partners is their
shape. 24 points
5-4-3-1 with a singleton King is a hard hand to describe safely.
It is easy to end up playing a silly contract.
Similarly, South’s hand is hard to describe as 4-4-4-1 hands
tend to be.
Playing standard Acol, the bidding might go:
|
North
South
2§
2¨1
2NT2
3§3
3¨
6NT4
|
1 : although holding 10 points it is
best to make a waiting bid.
If South responds 2NT the bidding is raised a level.
2 : North has a problem rebid.
3¨
might take the contract too high in the minors.
3 : Stayman
4 : with 33-34 points South has no
problem.
|
Other versions of Acol should follow a similar
path.
Playing Blue Club (if I can remember it) it
might go:
|
North
South
1§
1©1
2¨2
2NT3
3§4
etc5
|
1 : 6+ points, 0-2 controls
2 : five card suit.
No need to pretend to be balanced.
3 : no five card suit nor support for
partner’s
4 : a second suit.
5 : I’m not sure how to avoid 6§
after that start.
|
The problem from North’s point of view is that
South may not hold
ªQ nor
ªA. From
South’s it is that there is just room for the opponents to hold
ªA K.
I welcome suggestions on how it should be bid.
|
