Question: Could E bid NT instead of diamonds after West's jump shift?
Vic:
Yes, East could have bid 1NT
instead of 2D.
East has 7 HCPs, all
"Quacks". The good news is three of the Quacks are supported &
the hand also has three nice spot cards. I would consider it to be a reasonably
solid 7 HCPs.
Bidding 1NT would have had
the advantage of capping their point count at 10, but the disadvantage of not
showing their impressive diamond support. East has a right to assume a total of
nine diamonds between the two hands.
Bidding 2D promised at least
4 diamonds, but did not cap the point count at Ten. Both bids deny a 4-card
major. So flip a coin. I like the 2D bid.
The 2D bid left West with a
hard hand to describe. I think West did well to bid spades. But there was no
reason to jump shift to 3S. In fact, there was a good reason not to.
A bid of 2S would be a
Reverse which would promise that spades were shorter than diamonds (most likely
5 diamonds - 4 spades). That is not true in this case, but not a lie
that is likely to cause problems. Because 2S is a Reverse,
it would also promise an extra value hand (17+ HCPs) which West
was obviously eager to do.
A bid of 3S is a "Jump
Reverse", a nonsense bid in terms of showing a strong hand. An experienced
player would probably interpret 3S as a Splinter Bid in support of diamonds.
Over any spade bid they
understood to be natural, East would once again have the option to bid NT
(lowest available level) or diamonds (lowest available level). Once again, I
like diamonds which would be the safer of the two bids. West should pass 4D (they
have finished describing their hand & should trust East to set the
contract).
Turns out EW deserve to
take eight tricks in NT & ten tricks in Diamonds. They deserve to be down
one if they bid to game in either strain.
Ain't bridge a great game?
No comments:
Post a Comment