Minor Suit Raises

Most top pairs now play "inverted" minor raises. Using this method, a double raise is weak and a single raise is a one round force with invitational values or better. However I prefer the single raise to have its traditional meaning: four card support and about 5-9 HCP.

Suppose partner opens 1♦ and you have a hand such as:

Kxx

xx

Qxxx

Q10xx

It is a bit much to jump to three diamonds with no shape and partner possibly having only three diamonds, so, playing inverted raises, this hand would probably respond 1NT. There are two important reasons that a 2♦ response is likely to work out better.

The first is that the 1NT response is likely to lead to any notrump contract being played from the wrong side. Maybe the two hands are something like this:

Q10x	Kxx
AQx	xx
AKxx	Qxxx
KJx	Q10xx

There is a much better chance of making 3NT when played by the West hand. Since the 1NT response with four card support will be made on a weak hand with no four card major it is quite likely that the hand will lack good stoppers in the majors and a NT contract will play better from the other side after an auction such as 1♦-2♦-3NT.

The second reason to bid 2♦ is that supporting immediately allows partner to compete when it is correct to do so. Maybe the full hand is something like this:

	J10xx
	109x
	Kx
	98xx
xx		Kxx
AQxx		xx
AJ10xx		Qxxx
Kx		Q10xx
	AQxx
	KJxx
	xx
	AJx

South will double the 2♦ response and West can bid an immediate 3♦. This may or may not shut out the opponents, but you are assured of a plus score since 3♦ makes and 3♠ is down at least one. If South had responded 1NT instead, South would double. It isn’t really safe for West to bid 2♦ because partner could easily be 3325 and with the doubler likely short in diamonds as well it could get very messy. So when West passes and North bids 2♠, East has to guess whether to compete to 3♦. Maybe the full hand is:

	J10xx
	109x
	KJxx
	xx
xxx		Kxx
AQxx		xx
A10xx		Qxxx
Kx		Q10xx
	AQx
	KJxx
	x
	AJ98x

You will probably be down two doubled in 3♦ and the opponents’ 2♠ may not make either. If you play a weak notrump West will not have that hand, however if the king and ten of diamonds are switched West will have a 1♦ opening and both 2♠ and 3♦ are still down.

There is plenty of space to handle stronger hands with support for partner’s minor because we can use jump responses. Traditional strong jump shifts don’t occur very often and weak jump shifts have little advantage over just bidding and rebidding the major suit.

I recommend the following structure over a 1♦ opening:

2♦	Four card support and about 5-9 HCP
2♥	Five spades and four hearts with about 7-9 HCP
2♠	Four card or better support and about 10+ HCP
2NT	16+ balanced
3♣	Five card support and about 7-8 HCP
3♦	Five card support and 4-6 HCP

I like to use the 2♥ response for a hand such as Axxxx KJxx xx xx because otherwise a 1♠ response and 2♦ rebid from partner will make life difficult. Partner could have either of the following hands:

x	x
AQxx	xxx
AKxxxx	KQJxxx
xx	AKx

Opposite the first hand I want to be in four hearts. Opposite the second I would prefer to be in 2♦ but can live with playing 2♥ or 3♦. But after a forcing and unlimited 2♥ rebid partner really has to drive to game with the second hand. There is also a possibility that partner could have 1444 shape and we can make 9 or 10 tricks in hearts but could be playing 2♦ if I respond 1♠ and partner rebids 2♣.

I also like to have a bid for strong balanced hands as these are hard to describe accurately, for example:

xx		Kx		AQxx
Ax	or	Ax	opposite	Kxxx
KQxxx		KQxxx		Ax
Axxx		Axxx		KJx

After 1♦-1♥-2♣, East would like to stop in 3NT opposite the first hand but 6NT has good play opposite the second. Fourth suit forcing can be used but this tends to show doubt about strain, rather than necessarily extra values. Responding 2NT with 16+ balanced solves this problem and a natural 2NT response is not really needed as we can respond either 2♣ or 2♠ with those hands. I don’t recommend that you play 1♦-2♣ as forcing to game even if you normally play that a two over one is game forcing.

We also have two ways to show five card support. Since we are already at the three level with no space to investigate further without going past 3♦, it makes sense to have narrower ranges in case partner is considering bidding on.

All of this does mean that our forcing raise is two steps higher. However there is still plenty of space to investigate stoppers below 3NT.

If the opening bid is 1♣, you can do the same one step lower or rearrange things a little if you prefer, e.g.

2♣	Four card support and about 5-9 HCP
2♦	Four card or better support and about 10+ HCP
2♥	Five spades and four hearts with about 7-9 HCP
2♠	Five card support and about 7-8 HCP
2NT	16+ balanced
3♣	Five card support and 4-6 HCP

A final point is that a single raise, 1♣-2♣ or 1♦-2♦, does not deny a four card major. Though you will often respond in a major, there are considerable tactical advantages in bypassing a major to raise partner’s minor, especially when the major is hearts. If your side has a 4-4 heart fit and you have support for partner’s minor suit, there is a good chance the opponents can make a spade contract. Maybe they can still find it if you raise, but your LHO opponent may not be willing to overcall at the two level, or may have a hand that cannot double for takeout due to short hearts, for example:

	Jxxx
	Axx
	Jxx
	Q10x
Q10x		xx
KJxx		Q10xx
AKxx		Qxxx
xx		Kxx
	AKxx
	xx
	xx
	AJxxx

East-West can make eight tricks in either red suit, while North-South can make nine in either black suit. If East responds 1♥ to West’s 1♦, South will double and North-South will go plus in a spade contract or defending 3♥. If East instead raises to 2♦, it may go all pass. East-West will certainly not be upset to score 90 in 2♦ instead of 110 in 2♥.

The Compound Squeeze

I have recently read the 2010 edition of 'Bridge Squeezes Complete' by Clyde Love. Love died over 50 years ago and the latest edition was updated by Linda Lee and Julian Pottage. The highlight for me was the section on compound squeezes. The book devotes 72 pages to them, compared to close to zero pages in other books I've seen. The example below is mine, not from the book:

♠ x x x ♥ K x x ♦ x x x ♣ A K Q x ♠ A K Q J x x ♥ A x x ♦ A x ♣ x x

Let's say you reach 6NT at matchpoints and receive the jack of clubs lead. Obviously you have 12 tricks and would like to make an overtrick. Before reading the book, my first reaction would be that I need someone to have five hearts and four clubs, or they may discard badly and expose themselves to a double squeeze. In fact, thirteen tricks can always be made when West has four or more clubs. Let's take a typical layout where both opponents control both red suits:

♠ x x x ♥ K x x ♦ x x x ♣ A K Q x ♠ x x ♠ x x ♥ Q 10 x ♥ J 9 x x ♦ K 10 x x ♦ Q J x x ♣ J 10 9 x ♣ x x ♠ A K Q J x x ♥ A x x ♦ A x ♣ x x

You win the club and play off five rounds of spades. West can afford two diamonds but on the fifth spade he must leave his partner in sole control of either hearts or diamonds. You can then cash the top card(s) in the suit now guarded solely by East and complete a double squeeze by playing the last spade. If West unguarded hearts, then diamonds will be the pivot suit for the double squeeze and if he unguarded diamonds then hearts will be the pivot suit.

You do need to read the position. If West sees what is coming he should let go a heart early so he can discard his second diamond at the crucial moment. You may then choose to play West for 2434 instead of 2344. Then the squeeze will fail and you will be held to 12 tricks.

This is not a particularly unusual situation since it doesn't depend on the precise location of the cards to any great extent. I expect compound squeezes come up much more often than people notice.

Bermuda Bowl Analysis

I have done some analysis on the performance of each pair in the Bermuda Bowl final.

The method is based on assigning each pair an IMP score on each board reflecting the result they deserve to get relative to an error-free world class pair. In most cases I did this independently of the actual result so a minus would be assigned for missing a good game regardless of whether the game made in practice.

There is also a luck score for each board which is not assigned directly and is just the difference between the accumulated 'deserved' IMPs and the actual IMPs that changed hands. The total of this over the 128 boards was only 6 IMPs (in favour of the USA) so luck had very little effect overall though there were big numbers on individual hands.

Here is an example of the methodology. On board 2, Lauria/Versace were -200 in 4C and Nickell/Katz were -100 in 3NT. Based on the N/S cards I judged that 4C will normally make and 3NT will be down one. However, on the actual lie 4C is down one (though it can make double dummy) and 3NT is down two. Accordingly I penalized Lauria/Versace 3 IMPs for an unnecessary extra undertrick, Nickell/Katz 6 IMPS as they 'deserved' -100 against +130, and Fantoni/Nunes 3 IMPs for letting Nickell/Katz get out for -100 instead of -200. Since the USA gained 3 IMPs and the deserved IMPS totalled zero, this counted as 3 IMPs in the luck column for the USA. The luck here is in the fact that an unusually bad lie converted a possible partscore swing against the USA into just a question of undertricks.

The totals were:

Pair	Num Boards	Avg. IMPs per board
Meckstroth/Rodwell	128	-1.15
Hamman/Zia	80	-1.59
Nickell/Katz	48	-2.10
Lauria/Versace	96	-1.50
Fantoni/Nunes	80	-1.21
Sementa/Dubion	80	-1.95

As you can see, Meckstroth/Rodwell did slightly better than Fantoni/Nunes, while Lauria/Versace did slightly better than Hamman/Zia. Nickell/Katz and Sementa/Dubion were easily the weakest pairs on their respective teams.

It appears that the choice of lineups accounts for almost the entire winning margin. The US played their best pair for every board and their weakest pair for the minimium number. If Italy had done the same, by my reckoning they would have closed the gap from 36 IMPs to 7 IMPs - less than the carryover.

The calculations are in this Excel spreadsheet. I am certainly open to any of this being disputed as there may be excellent reasons for the bids and plays chosen that I am unaware of.

The play records are located here.

The Case for the Weak NT: Summary

So far we have seen:

Both the weak and strong notrump carry negative inferences that are useful after opening one of a suit. However, because the weak notrump includes all of the weakest playing strength opening hands, it has the effect of increasing the lower limit of your other one level openings. This is a big plus.

The strong notrump leads to awkward rebid problems on unbalanced hands in the 15-17 range. This is less of a problem with the weak notrump as the suit opened can be rebid with a minimum opening and 1NT is available with a better hand.

Missing a 4-4 major fit is a possible disadvantage for the weak notrump, but this happens much less often than is commonly believed and need not always lead to a bad result even when it does occur.

The side that opens 1NT is much better placed in the subsequent auction. A weak notrump means this advantage is enjoyed more often. A weak notrump opening also means the opponents need to consider whether they have a game or can extract a penalty, in addition to just locating their best partscore. All of this in the very limited space available to them when you have started with 1NT.

Finally, a computer analysis of the likelihood of being doubled for a penalty after opening 1NT shows you can expect a 10 IMP loss once every 800 hands, under assumptions very favourable to the opponents. Under more realistic assumptions, the loss is probably miniscule or non-existent.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that the weak notrump works just as well with a five card major system and 2/1 game force as it does with Acol or similar systems. Do try it!

The Case for the Weak NT: Going for a Number

Nobody likes to get doubled and concede a big penalty. There will be times when this happens and you get a bad result that could only have been avoided by not playing a weak notrump in the first place. The question is how often this happens and whether the cost outweighs the benefits described in the previous three sections. I've done some computer analysis on this, using the following assumptions:

- Your weak 1NT opening is in first position at any vulnerability.
- An unpassed opponent will double your 1NT if and only if he has 15 or more HCP.
- A passed opponent will double your 1NT if he has a decent single suited hand (DONT).
- If RHO has a double, LHO never bids in front of him.
- When 1NT is doubled you will always run to a suit contract.
- You always end up in two of your best fit. With good runout methods you can usually achieve this.
- After you run, opponents always make the optimum double dummy decision, i.e. doubling you if and only if the penalty they can get exceeds what they could score in their own best contract.
- The scoring is IMPS and the theoretical par contract is achieved at the other table

These assumptions are very favourable to the opponents of the weak notrump bidder. In reality, there are all kinds of things that may go wrong for them:

- They may double and you make.
- They may get an inadequate penalty.
- You may have the balance of power and redouble, either making (1560 is not unheard of) or penalizing them.
- They may choose to bid or pass instead of doubling when a penalty is possible.
- Even if your doubled contract is theoretically optimum for them they may drop a trick on defence. In low level contracts, defence is harder than declarer play and opening leads are harder still.
- Similarly, even if the penalty is theoretically optimal because their game or slam fails double dummy, it might make in practice.

The results of the computer simulation are as follows, for each position of the weak notrump opener:

1st seat: 1NT opened on 8.08% of hands. An average loss of 0.22 IMPS per hand each time 1NT is opened.
2nd seat: 1NT opened on 3.65% of hands. An average loss of 0.18 IMPS per hand each time 1NT is opened.
3rd seat: 1NT opened on 1.47% of hands. An average loss of 0.45 IMPS per hand each time 1NT is opened.

Put another way, this averages out to one 10 IMP loss once every 640 hands. If you don't play the weak notrump in third seat, it's a 10 IMP loss once every 800 hands.

Remember this assumes the opponents make perfect decisions every time. They certainly won't in practice, and you'll break even or gain for all the reasons listed above. Actually, after adding back in the times you get +180 or they have some other kind of accident, you may well end up showing a profit even on the hands where doubling is an option for them. This is added, of course, to the gains in all the situations discussed under the other headings.

The Case for the Weak NT: Advantages of opening 1NT generally

The limited strength and distribution of a 1NT opening allows auctions that are less revealing to opponents compared to opening one of a minor. The contracts reached after a 1NT opening are therefore more likely to make. You'd rather bid 1NT-3NT than 1D-1S-1NT-3NT because you have a better chance of a favourable opening lead and the subsequent defence will be more difficult as well.

The weak notrump occurs more often so it gains the most from this.

When the hand belongs to the opponents, it is more difficult and dangerous for them to enter the auction when you open 1NT, compared to opening one of a minor:

• They have to start bidding at the two level
• They have the additional objective of trying to get a penalty, not just bidding to their own best contract
• If they pass with a decent hand, there may well be no second opportunity
• Whether your partner passes or bids, there is still no safety for them as your side can have almost game values and no fit
• The limited shape and strength of the 1NT opener makes it easier for you to judge when to double them
• The 1NT opener has not shown a suit so takeout doubles and cue bids are not available for them
• Auctions over opponents 1NT are generally not discussed and understood as well as auctions over their suit opening.

Over a strong notrump, finding your best partscore is the overriding objective and methods can be tailored just to do that. Defences such as DONT, Meckwell and Lionel are all designed to do this but you'll find it hard to extract a penalty or bid constructively towards game if you try using these against a weak notrump.

There's no real solution to this - bidding accurately over an opponent's weak notrump is just extremely difficult. Here are a couple of examples:

♠	xx		♠	xx		♠	KQxx
♥	KQJ10xx	or	♥	KQJ10xx	opposite	♥	xx
♦	Qxx		♦	AQx		♦	Kxx
♣	xx		♣	xx		♣	Axxx

If West has the first hand, 1NT could well make if he passes and 3H is too high if he bids and partner invites. On the second hand, E/W have a game in hearts. After a 1C opening, both hands are easy to bid depending on whether your jump overcalls are weak or intermediate. Starting a level higher after a 1NT opening, there isn't enough space to do everything.

♠	AQxx		♠	Kxxxx		♠	xx
♥	x	opposite	♥	Qxxx	or	♥	QJxxx
♦	KJxxx		♦	Qx		♦	xx
♣	Qxx		♣	Kx		♣	Kxxx

Let's say E/W have a bid showing spades and another suit. West will be reluctant to bid over 1NT, especially vulnerable, in case East has the second hand and he concedes a significant penalty against a part score. Of course, if East has the first hand he will miss an easy game. There is no such problem after a minor suit opening.

♠	AQxx		♠	Kxx		♠	xxx
♥	KJx	opposite	♥	Qxxx	or	♥	xxxx
♦	AQJx		♦	xx		♦	xx
♣	xx		♣	QJxx		♣	QJxx

If West doubles, his partner with the second hand will have no choice but to pass and concede something like 380 (or 960 if they redouble). Obviously if he passes and partner has the first hand, E/W will miss either a game or a sizeable penalty. If West doubles a 1C opening for takeout opposite the second hand, E/W will get no higher than 1H or 1S, probably down one undoubled.

The Case for the Weak NT: Playing the wrong partscore

After a 1NT opening there is always a risk of a missing a 4-4 major fit on a partscore hand. The weak notrump occurs with greater frequency which makes this more likely and also the extra strength of the strong notrump means that 1NT will still often make when a better spot is available. To actually lose IMPs this way, though, several things have to happen:

1. 1NT has to go down while 2 of a major is making
2. The opponents must remain silent over 1NT. If they bid, you can make a takeout double and still find your 4-4 fit.
3. The opponents must not be able to successfully outbid you. It is risky to enter the auction over 1NT, while balancing when opponents bid and raise at the two level is relatively safe. So you might never be able to play 2 of a major anyway.

About 13% of hands qualify for a weak notrump opening. On about 10% of these, responder will pass when you have a 4-4 major fit. Moderately aggressive opponents will only let you play in 1NT on about 20% of such hands. Overall, this is about one in every 770 hands, not including those where they can successfully bid over your two of a major but would pass 1NT, or where the 1NT contract does as well as, or better than, two of the major.

You can also alleviate the problem by responder using Stayman on weaker hands with 4-4 in the majors. As long as partner doesn't open 1NT with 2254 or 2263 shapes you'll play a 4-3 at worst which may still be better than 1NT. It's better to have two decent suits for this as three trumps opposite four small ones doesn't usually play well. You also need to agree that after 1NT-2C-2D-2H opener must correct to 2S holding three spades and two hearts.

There is also a corresponding situation where a 1NT opening makes it easier to locate an eight card major fit. This is where opener is balanced and responder has a five card major. After a 1NT opener, responder will transfer and pass. After a 1C/D opening and responder bids his major, opener may raise with three cards or bid 1NT. If he bids 1NT responder will pass and the eight card fit will be lost. If he raises, you'll play a 4-3 fit some of the time and the range of opener's raise is uncomfortably stretched if it may include a weak balanced hand with three card support. Playing a 5-2 when responder transfers and passes is less likely to be wrong than missing a 5-3. The extra frequency of the weak notrump is therefore a benefit on these hands. Furthermore, when 1NT is not opened, a three card raise on a balanced hand is not a stretch as opener will have 15+ HCP.

Finally, after opening one of a minor with 12-14 balanced it is not clear what is supposed to happen with a 4-4 fit when responder does not introduce the suit immediately, e.g. opener has four spades and the auction starts 1C-1H. If opener bypasses 1S and rebids 1NT, you lose spades when responder is too weak to act so are in the same position as a weak notrump opener except your two extra bids have helped the defence. If opener bids 1S instead of 1NT you risk playing 1NT from the wrong side or not at all when that is the best contract.

To summarise, opening 1NT may risk missing a 4-4 major fit on a partscore hand and the weak notrump does make this more likely. However this is much less frequent and less serious than is commonly believed, and in any case such hands will not usually end quietly in two of a major after a minor suit opening. There are other situations where a 1NT opening makes it easier to correctly find a major suit part score.

The Case for the Weak NT: Offshape 1NT openings and rebids

Playing a weak notrump, there is less need to open 1NT with imperfect shape. For example:

♠	x
♥	AJxx
♦	Kxx
♣	AKJxx

Playing a weak notrump you open 1C and rebid 1NT if partner responds 1S. However, playing a strong notrump you have a real problem. The hand is not good enough to reverse but too good to rebid 2C. I suspect most experts would open 1NT if the singleton spade was an ace or king, otherwise open 1C and either 'upgrade' to a reverse or 'downgrade' to a 2C rebid. This is unsatisfactory as there is a significant gap between the upper limit of a simple rebid of the suit opened and the lower limit of a reverse. I suppose you could also try a 3C rebid on a five card suit but that is a significant misdescription.

Opening 1NT leaves you poorly placed if partner is weak with five spades (he'll transfer and pass) or when he has four hearts, e.g.

♠	xxx
♥	KQxx
♦	xxx
♣	Qxx

Or a balanced hand with no spade stop:

♠	xxx
♥	Kxx
♦	AQxx
♣	Qxx

And the worst case is good club support:

♠	Axx
♥	KQx
♦	Ax
♣	xxxxx

It would be a pity to bid 1NT-3NT when 7C is possible. Even if you only open 1NT when the singleton is an honour, a hand with the king of spades instead of the king of diamonds would do equally well in 7C. If the hands didn't fit well 6C would still often be a good contract.

After opening 1C and hearing 1NT from partner, the 1NT rebid is not ideal either but you do avoid the worst of the problems with an offshape 1NT, exemplified by the example hands above. The reverse problem does not apply with an offshape 12-14. Without the king of diamonds you would be too weak for a 15-17 1NT rebid but there is no problem as you can open 1C and rebid 2C if partner bids 1S.

There are some players who are happy to open 1NT offshape and believe they gain by doing so. If you are one of them, then you won't regard it as a disadvantage that the strong notrump forces you to do so. However, the idea that you gain by opening 1NT as often as possible is also yet another argument in favour of the weak notrump.

The Case for the Weak NT: Inferences when 1NT is not opened

Balanced hands in the 12-14 range have the least playing strength of all opening hands. Therefore, the weak notrump effectively increases the minimum strength of opening bids of one club and one diamond so these have a narrower range. Conversely, the strong notrump removes intermediate range hands from the one of a minor openings. Consider the following hand:

♠	Qxx
♥	AKxx
♦	xx
♣	AKxx

LHO makes a preemptive jump to 3S over your opening bid. Partner passes. There is no problem if you opened a strong notrump as you've shown extra strength already so have no reason to bid more. It's more difficult if you opened 1C playing a weak notrump. Suppose you pass 3S. Consider three possible hands for partner:

♠	x	♠	Jx	♠	xx
♥	Qxx	♥	Qxx	♥	Qxxx
♦	Axxxx	♦	AJxxx	♦	Axxx
♣	Qxxx	♣	Qxx	♣	Qxx

The first hand gives some play for 4H or 5C though I think partner might double, rather than pass. The hand with shortness needs to take the lead in these situations. It would be nice to have a fourth heart but a 4-3 fit could be ok. Even playing a strong notrump, there are plenty of hands where you want to be in the auction but it will be hard for opener to act after a pass.

The second hand is probably close to a maximum pass. You might make 3NT but it needs some luck. Likewise the third hand is marginal for 4H and partner would double if stronger.

Examples like this suggest to me that it's acceptable to pass an average strong notrump in this situation. Also bear in mind that partner can make a negative double a bit more freely playing a weak notrump as he knows you won't have a weak balanced hand. And none of the above would be straightforward if the opening bid was a 15-17 1NT instead of 1C.

Playing a weak notrump, the inferences after a 1C/D opening occur in situations such as the following:

♠	AQJxx		♠	K10xx		♠	K10xx
♥	xxx	opposite	♥	Axx	or	♥	Ax
♦	xx		♦	AQxx		♦	AQxxx
♣	Qxx		♣	xx		♣	xx

In each case, the bidding starts 1D-1S-2S. Opposite the first hand, you cannot make game and are in danger at the three level. With the second, game is close to 50% and worth bidding at IMPs. Removing hands such as the first one by opening them with 1NT means opener's playing strength falls with a narrower range and decisions about whether to bid game are therefore more accurate. What tends to happen playing a strong notrump is that opener will stretch to bid 3S on hands not much stronger than the second, which may well lead to a hopeless contract opposite a minimum responder.

The exclusion of strong notrump hands from an opening bid of one of a minor does not carry any such useful inference as opener may still have an unbalanced hand of equivalent playing strength.

The Case for the Weak Notrump

This is the introduction to a series of posts analysing the merits of a strong (15-17) notrump vs a weak (12-14) notrump. The name of this post might suggest the analysis will not be particularly objective, but the evidence is strong enough that it's hard to avoid any other conclusion.

I will assume the rest of the system is five card majors and a 2/1 game force structure, though there won't be much difference if not. The arguments for or against the weak notrump fall roughly into five categories:

• Inferences when 1NT is not opened
• Offshape 1NT openings and rebids
• Playing the wrong partscore
• Advantages of opening 1NT generally
• Going for a number

I'll post on each of these over the next few days plus a summary at the end.

NZ vs Italy

The following is a report of the NZ vs Italy match from the Bermuda Bowl round robin. I don't have much experience in formatting bridge hands in HTML so let me know if it doesn't look good in your browser. The relevant system cards can be located here.

The first board was a cold 3NT at both tables - no swing.

Bd: 18 ♠ J3 Dlr: E ♥ AKJ984 Vul: N/S ♦ Q ♣ A1043 ♠ K8542 ♠ 1097 ♥ 1062 ♥ 53 ♦ J52 ♦ A643 ♣ Q5 ♣ 9872 ♠ AQ6 ♥ Q7 ♦ K10987 ♣ KJ6 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 1 4 1 3 1 N 11 8 11 10 11 E 1 4 1 3 1 S 12 9 12 10 12

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P 1NT P 2♦ P 2♥ P 3♣ P 3NT P 5♥ P 6♥ P P P ♠2 ♠3 ♠9 ♠Q ♦7 ♦5 ♦Q ♦A ♠7 ♠A ♠4 ♠J ♦8 ♦2 ♥8 ♦3 ♥A ♥3 ♥7 ♥2 ♥4 ♥5 ♥Q ♥6 ♦9 ♦J ♥J

A 13 IMP swing to NZ from a combination of judgment and systemic differences, where the systemic differences were more luck than superior methods.

6H is a good contract by South, but not by North, so the strong notrump worked better. 4H by Cornell would have been a mild slam try, as with just game values he would bid 4H over 2H. Bach would probably have passed this, but was happy to go on to slam over the more strongly invitational 5H with help in partner's long suits along with primary cards in his short suits.

Bd: 19 ♠ K543 Dlr: S ♥ Q86 Vul: E/W ♦ AK105 ♣ KJ ♠ J10976 ♠ A82 ♥ K4 ♥ A102 ♦ 7 ♦ J64 ♣ AQ632 ♣ 10854 ♠ Q ♥ J9753 ♦ Q9832 ♣ 97 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 9 4 4 10 N 6 4 8 8 3 E 6 9 4 4 10 S 6 4 8 8 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 2♥ 2♠ 4♥ 4♠ P P Dbl P P P ♦K ♦4 ♦8 ♦7 ♦A ♦6 ♦9 ♠6 ♠7 ♠3 ♠2 ♠Q ♦Q ♠9 ♦5 ♦J ♣A ♣J ♣4 ♣7 ♣2 ♣K ♣T ♣9 ♥Q ♥2 ♥3 ♥K ♠T ♠4 ♠8 ♥5 ♣Q ♥8 ♣8 ♥7 ♣6 ♠5 ♣5

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P 1♠ 1NT Dbl 2♦ P 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♥ Dbl P P P ♣5 ♣7 ♣A ♣J ♦7 ♦T ♦J ♦Q ♥3 ♥4 ♥Q ♥A ♦6 ♦2 ♥K ♦K ♣2 ♣K ♣4 ♣9 ♥8 ♥2 ♥5 ♠6 ♥6 ♥T ♥J

New Zealand is probably the most aggressive preempting team in the competition and Italy the most conservative.

On this hand Bach's threadbare 2H opening led everyone to stretch and Dubion/Sementa ended up too high in 4S, though both their actions are understandable. The contract is not bad just looking at the E/W cards, but the bidding made bad breaks likely and a forcing defence meant the contract was unmakeable. Dubion might have escaped for one down with good guessing but ended up two down for -500.

At the other table, Nunes passed and N/S took a while to find their heart fit allowing E/W to communicate their (lack of) values at a lower level. Fantoni's final 4H bid is clearly too much, though without knowing their style it's possible that Nunes's 3D was the main culprit. On a club lead and diamond switch, this might also have gone two down but Ware failed to rise with KH on the trump lead from dummy so could only ruff with the winning trump. KH would be wrong if East might double with Jxx of hearts plus AS and KC.

12 IMPS to NZ. NZ 25, Italy 0.

Bd: 20 ♠ J84 Dlr: W ♥ Q1082 Vul: All ♦ Q852 ♣ 109 ♠ K1076 ♠ AQ93 ♥ 764 ♥ J5 ♦ J10 ♦ 93 ♣ 8432 ♣ KQJ75 ♠ 52 ♥ AK93 ♦ AK764 ♣ A6 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 3 8 2 3 8 N 9 5 11 10 5 E 3 8 2 3 8 S 9 5 11 10 5

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♣ 1NT P P P ♣3 ♣T ♣J ♣A ♦4 ♦T ♦Q ♦3 ♦2 ♦9 ♦A ♦J ♦6 ♥6 ♦5

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1♣! Dbl P 1♥ P 2♣ P 2♦ P 4♥ P P P ♣K ♣A ♣2 ♣9 ♥A ♥4 ♥2 ♥5 ♥3 ♥6 ♥Q ♥J ♥8 ♣7 ♥K ♥7 ♦4 ♦J ♦Q ♦3 ♦2 ♦9 ♦A ♦T ♦K ♠6 ♦5

Another combined system/judgment swing, this time to Italy. Over East's 1C opening, Bach chose a 1NT overcall which ended the auction while Nunes doubled and reached a successful 4H game.

My view is that South is both too strong and too suit-oriented for a 1NT overcall. Bids with one flaw often succeed, but with two flaws you are better off trying something else. Here the options are 1D or dbl. Heavy overcalls are not my style so I would double, though 1D is possible and would be the choice of many experts.

After the double I prefer a 3H raise to Nunes's cue bid followed by 4H. South has a good hand but with loads of space available there is no need for him to essentially bid game on his own. North's two working queens are enough continue if invited and both are needed to make game good.

10 IMPS to Italy. NZ 25, Italy 10.

Bd: 21 ♠ AKJ762 Dlr: N ♥ 96 Vul: N/S ♦ QJ5 ♣ Q8 ♠ ♠ 83 ♥ KJ52 ♥ Q8743 ♦ AK1086 ♦ 32 ♣ J943 ♣ K765 ♠ Q10954 ♥ A10 ♦ 974 ♣ A102 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 4 4 10 8 9 N 8 9 3 5 3 E 4 4 10 8 9 S 8 9 3 5 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♠ P 4♠ Dbl P 5♥ Dbl P P P ♠4 ♥2 ♠6 ♠8 ♦A ♦5 ♦3 ♦4 ♦K ♦J ♦2 ♦7 ♦6 ♦Q ♥7 ♦9 ♥3 ♥T ♥K ♥6 ♣3 ♣8 ♣K ♣A ♠5 ♥5 ♠2 ♠3 ♣4 ♣Q ♣7 ♣2 ♠A ♣5 ♠9 ♥J ♣J ♥9

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 2♠! P 4♠ P P P ♥3 ♥A ♥2 ♥6 ♠T ♦6 ♠A ♠3 ♠7 ♠8 ♠9 ♦8 ♥T ♥K ♥9 ♥8 ♦K ♦5 ♦2 ♦4 ♦A ♦J ♦3 ♦7 ♦T ♦Q ♣5 ♦9 ♣8 ♣7 ♣A ♣3 ♣2 ♣4 ♣Q ♣K

NZ gained 9 IMPS when Ware judged a high level competitive auction better than Dubion. The 2S opening by Fantoni was intermediate so both Wests were in a similar position. Ware passed and collected 100 against 4S (though 200 was possible). Dubion doubled and Sementa in 5HX chose to play 'safely' for -300 rather than hope for 2-2 trumps and risk losing control. Bach also helped to create the swing with his heavy 4S jump. Unlike Nunes, he was facing an unlimited opener.

I think double is the percentage action with West, but it can obviously be wrong as it is here. East's 5H is also reasonable though passing the double is an option as well.

9 more IMPS to NZ. NZ 34, Italy 10.

Bd: 22 ♠ KJ976 Dlr: E ♥ J643 Vul: E/W ♦ 84 ♣ 86 ♠ 104 ♠ AQ53 ♥ Q1092 ♥ K ♦ Q32 ♦ AJ105 ♣ 10975 ♣ AQJ3 ♠ 82 ♥ A875 ♦ K976 ♣ K42 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 9 7 7 9 10 N 4 6 6 3 3 E 9 7 7 10 10 S 4 6 6 3 3

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♣ 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♦ P 2♥ Dbl P 3♣ P P P ♠8 ♠T ♠J ♠Q ♥K ♥A ♥2 ♥3 ♦6 ♦Q ♦4 ♦5 ♣5 ♣6 ♣A ♣2 ♣3 ♣4 ♣T ♣8 ♣7 ♦8 ♣Q ♣K ♠2 ♠4 ♠6 ♠A ♠3

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1♣! P P P ♠2 ♠4 ♠9 ♠Q ♥K ♥A ♥2 ♥3 ♥5 ♥9 ♥J ♣3 ♣A ♣2 ♣5 ♣6 ♣J ♣4 ♣7 ♣8 ♠A ♠8 ♠T ♠7 ♠3 ♥7 ♣9 ♠6 ♦Q ♦4 ♦5 ♦K ♣K ♣T ♥4 ♣Q

This is a pretty good 3NT that might have been reached after an offshape 2NT opening. Both Easts, however, opened 1C and played a club partscore. I agree with the 1C opening which makes it much easier to reach a minor suit game or slam (or partscore) and the risk of missing a game is small.

Italy gained 1 IMP for an extra overtrick. NZ 34, Italy 11.

Board 23 was a routine 3NT and Italy gained another overtrick IMP. NZ 34, Italy 12.

Bd: 24 ♠ Q652 Dlr: W ♥ J1065 Vul: None ♦ K984 ♣ Q ♠ K9743 ♠ J10 ♥ AQ2 ♥ K983 ♦ 2 ♦ AQJ103 ♣ 9842 ♣ 63 ♠ A8 ♥ 74 ♦ 765 ♣ AKJ1075 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 8 8 8 6 N 7 5 4 5 7 E 6 8 8 8 6 S 7 5 4 5 7

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♦ 2♣ 2♠ P P 3♣ P P P ♦2 ♦4 ♦T ♦6 ♣3 ♣5 ♣2 ♣Q ♥5 ♥3 ♥7 ♥Q ♥A ♥6 ♥8 ♥4 ♣4 ♠2 ♣6 ♣7 ♣A ♣8 ♠5 ♦3 ♣K ♣9 ♦8 ♦J ♣T ♠7 ♥T ♥9 ♣J ♠4 ♥J ♠J ♠A ♠3 ♠6 ♠T ♠8 ♠K ♠Q ♦Q ♥2 ♦9 ♥K ♦5 ♦A ♦7 ♠9 ♦K

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1♦ 2♣ Dbl P 2♥ P 2♠ P P P ♣Q ♣3 ♣K ♣2 ♠8 ♠3 ♠Q ♠T ♠5 ♠J ♠A ♠4 ♣A ♣4 ♥6 ♣6 ♣T ♣8 ♥T ♦3 ♣J ♣9 ♥5 ♥3 ♣7 ♠K ♥J ♦T

Both West's, oddly I think, chose to commit their side to 2S on what could easily have been a singleton opposite their K9xxx. I prefer either to pass 2C or make a negative double and pass partner's 2H.

As it happens, 2S is makeable though Ware went down after Nunes found the excellent small trump switch from Ax at trick two. The defence then took the first six tricks. For South's overcall, he could easily have KD and QS instead of AS but whether he would have found the same switch from Qx is open to question of course.

Bach chose to bid 3C over 2S though I prefer pass. With the wide range of hands partner may hold, it's better to let him decide rather than go on just because I have a bit extra. I would expect either 2S or 3C (and possibly both) to usually fail if partner cannot raise my overcall or make a negative double.

4 IMPS to Italy. NZ 34, Italy 16.

Bd: 25 ♠ AJ Dlr: N ♥ AQ7 Vul: E/W ♦ J942 ♣ J653 ♠ 542 ♠ K86 ♥ 9654 ♥ K1082 ♦ AK8 ♦ Q1076 ♣ A104 ♣ 98 ♠ Q10973 ♥ J3 ♦ 53 ♣ KQ72 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 7 5 8 7 5 N 6 7 4 6 8 E 7 5 8 7 5 S 6 7 4 5 8

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 1♣ P 1♥ P 1NT P 2♣ P P Dbl 2♠ P P P ♦A ♦2 ♦6 ♦3 ♦K ♦4 ♦7 ♦5 ♦8 ♦9 ♦T ♠3 ♠7 ♠4 ♠J ♠K ♦Q ♥3 ♥6 ♦J ♠6 ♠9 ♠2 ♠A ♣3 ♣8 ♣Q ♣A ♥4 ♥A ♥2 ♥J ♣5 ♣9 ♣K ♣4 ♠Q

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1NT! P 2♥! P 2♠ P P P ♣9 ♣Q ♣A ♣5 ♣4 ♣6 ♣8 ♣K ♥3 ♥4 ♥Q ♥K ♦7 ♦3 ♦K ♦2 ♣T ♣J ♠6 ♣2 ♦6 ♦5 ♦A ♦4 ♥5 ♥7 ♥2 ♥J ♠3 ♠2 ♠A ♠8 ♠J ♠K ♠7 ♠4

Another partscore swing. Fantoni/Nunes, playing a weak notrump, declared 2S by North after a transfer sequence. Cornell/Bach, playing a strong notrump, ended in 2S by South. Since East had a doubleton club and a trump entry, the Italians were one down while NZ just made.

4 IMPS to NZ. NZ 38, Italy 16.

Bd: 26 ♠ AQJ85 Dlr: E ♥ AQ43 Vul: All ♦ J ♣ Q73 ♠ 9762 ♠ K103 ♥ 5 ♥ J109876 ♦ A752 ♦ 94 ♣ AJ105 ♣ K4 ♠ 4 ♥ K2 ♦ KQ10863 ♣ 9862 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 4 6 6 4 5 N 8 5 6 7 8 E 4 6 6 4 5 S 8 5 6 7 8

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P 3♦ P 3♠ P 3NT P P P ♣J ♣Q ♣K ♣2 ♣4 ♣8 ♣T ♣3 ♣A ♣7 ♥J ♣6 ♠6 ♠Q ♠K ♠4 ♥T ♥2 ♥5 ♥Q ♦J ♦4 ♦Q ♦A ♠2 ♠A ♠3 ♦3 ♠J ♠T ♦6 ♠7 ♥3 ♥6 ♥K

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 2♥ P P 2♠ P 3♦ P 3NT P P P ♥J ♥2 ♥5 ♥Q ♦J ♦4 ♦K ♦2 ♦Q ♦A ♥3 ♦9 ♣5 ♣3 ♣K ♣2 ♣4 ♣6 ♣A ♣7 ♠7 ♠A ♠3 ♠4 ♥4 ♥6 ♥K ♦5

Style again helped create a swing as NZ opened with a preempt at both tables.

After opening 3D, Bach ended in 3NT by South and was down fairly quickly after the JC lead and later spade switch established five tricks for the defence. Fantoni declared 3NT by North. He won the heart lead in hand then overtook the JD and continued diamonds, knocking out the ace and happily noting the fall of the 9. Though there are now 9 tricks on top, the blockage in hearts means a spade switch followed by a heart back would beat the contract. Ware instead tried a low club but Fantoni guessed correctly to play low and had no further problems.

4 IMPS to Italy. NZ 38, Italy 28.

Bd: 27 ♠ A85 Dlr: S ♥ AQ63 Vul: None ♦ 1085 ♣ A96 ♠ 7642 ♠ Q9 ♥ 72 ♥ KJ54 ♦ 94 ♦ AKQ7 ♣ KJ1085 ♣ Q72 ♠ KJ103 ♥ 1098 ♦ J632 ♣ 43 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 7 6 6 6 9 N 6 7 7 7 4 E 7 6 6 6 8 S 6 7 7 6 4

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♣ 1NT P P P ♥T ♥2 ♥A ♥5 ♥3 ♥K ♥9 ♥7 ♣7 ♣3 ♣J ♣6 ♣T ♣9 ♣2 ♣4 ♠2 ♠5 ♠Q ♠K ♥8 ♣5 ♥6 ♥J

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 1NT! Dbl P! P P ♦K ♦2 ♦4 ♦5 ♥5 ♥8 ♥2 ♥3 ♦3 ♦9 ♦T ♦Q ♣7 ♣3 ♣K ♣6 ♥7 ♥A ♥4 ♥9 ♦8 ♦A ♦6 ♠7 ♣Q ♣4 ♣5 ♣9 ♣2 ♥T ♣J ♣A ♠A ♠9 ♠3 ♠2 ♠5 ♠Q

Whibley doubled Fantoni's weak notrump and Ware chose a characteristically aggressive pass, rather than 2C. Double dummy this can be defeated if East leads clubs which declarer must duck twice allowing West two entries to push hearts through. In practice though, it was always going to be a question of overtricks and Fantoni managed eight tricks for +280.

Cornell/Bach play a strong notrump so East overcalled Cornell's 1C with 1NT. He appears to have misread the heart position after the 10H lead but the defence failed to take their tricks so another +90 to Italy and 9 IMPS.

NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 37.

Bd: 28 ♠ Q972 Dlr: W ♥ Q65 Vul: N/S ♦ 8 ♣ J6432 ♠ J ♠ AK108653 ♥ K10984 ♥ J72 ♦ A942 ♦ K5 ♣ Q98 ♣ 5 ♠ 4 ♥ A3 ♦ QJ10763 ♣ AK107 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 6 9 9 5 3 N 6 4 4 7 9 E 7 9 9 6 3 S 6 4 4 7 9

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin P P 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ P 2♠ 3♣ P 4♣ P 5♣ P P P ♠J ♠Q ♠K ♠4 ♥2 ♥3 ♥K ♥5 ♥T ♥6 ♥7 ♥A ♦T ♦A ♦8 ♦5 ♥9 ♥Q ♥J ♦3 ♣2 ♣5 ♣A ♣8 ♦6 ♦2 ♣3 ♦K ♣J ♠3

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware P P 4♠ P P P ♣A ♣8 ♣J ♣5 ♦Q ♦A ♦8 ♦5 ♠J ♠2 ♠3 ♠4 ♣9 ♣6 ♠8 ♣T ♠A ♦6 ♥4 ♠7 ♦K ♦3 ♦2 ♠9 ♥5 ♥2 ♥A ♥8 ♥3 ♥9 ♥Q ♥7

Preempting style again caused a swing here. Whibley opened 4S in third seat on the East cards and Nunes chose to which was correct on this hand as 4S failed by one trick with the bad trump break and QH offside. Meanwhile Sementa was content to open 1S and Cornell/Bach reached an optimistic 5C which had some play single dummy but no chance on the actual hand with Qxx of trumps offside and KH also badly placed. This failed by two tricks for a 6 IMP swing to Italy.

NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 43.

Bd: 29 ♠ AK1064 Dlr: N ♥ AK4 Vul: All ♦ Q102 ♣ K2 ♠ J975 ♠ Q832 ♥ 9 ♥ J10 ♦ AJ73 ♦ 85 ♣ AJ64 ♣ 98753 ♠ ♥ Q876532 ♦ K964 ♣ Q10 NT ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ W 2 4 1 3 6 N 10 7 11 9 5 E 2 5 1 3 7 S 10 7 11 10 5

N E S W Cornell Sementa Bach Duboin 2NT P 3♦ P 3♥ P 5♥ P 5♠ P 6♦ Dbl 6♥ P P P ♦8 ♦4 ♦A ♦T ♣A ♣2

N E S W Fantoni Whibley Nunes Ware 1♠! P 1NT! P 2♣! P 2♦! P 2♥! P 3♠! P 4♣! P 4♦! P 4♥ P 4NT! P 5♠! P 6♥ P P P ♥J ♥2 ♥9 ♥A ♠4 ♠2 ♥Q ♠5 ♥8 ♣4 ♥K ♥T ♠A ♠3 ♣T ♠7 ♠K ♠8 ♣Q ♠9 ♦2 ♦5 ♦K ♦A ♦3 ♦T ♦8 ♦4

A flagrant violation of Burn's law with both tables reaching a slam off two aces. However Italy made the slam and New Zealand did not.

I don't claim to fully understand the Fantoni-Nunes auction but if Nunes intended his 4NT as RKCB, he would have been disappointed to find himself too high after North showed two key cards and the heart queen!

Cornell chose to upgrade his 19 to a 2NT opening and Bach was understandably very interested in slam. I don't know whether they have a way to agree hearts and initiate cue bidding, but once the auction took a quantitative route it was always going to end too high as the hands fit poorly and have considerable wastage.

Obviously a lead of either minor suit defeats the contract. There is some justification for Whibley's trump lead as North will have short trumps plus a ruffing value and East has some useful spade cards that will limit the discards from South on good spades. However declarer will still usually get the ruffs they need and North's fifth spade at least will be established eventually. There's probably not enough of a reason to depart from the usual practice against a slam of making an aggressive lead to try and set up a trick.

Quite a lot of luck was involved in this swing, not only on the lead but also in finding the jack of diamonds and the fact that Fantoni/Nunes were able to declare from North without the benefit of a transfer sequence.

17 IMPs to Italy anyway. NEW ZEALAND: 38, ITALY: 60.

The last three boards were more or less flat with NZ gaining another 2 IMPS and Italy 3 IMPS for extra undertricks. So the final score was New Zealand 40 and Italy 63, or 20-10 in VPs.