The Good, The Bad and The Ugly by Foxymoron

A number of people have asked how they can have a gentle introduction to online bridge. Three Woodberry groups meet at the weekends for social bridge, free of charge, and would welcome new players as they often struggle to get eight people. On Friday, Andy Conway has a group that starts around 1 pm, and, on Saturday, Stefanie Rohan organises a group at 3pm while on Saturday evening, around 8 pm, Bill Linton runs another group. I am sure you can find the emails of all three if their group interests you, but if not ask a Woodberry officer as we don't normally put emails on a blog because of spam. The heading does not seek to categorise these three groups and was a reference to three interesting hands from a recent match. I am sure you know who played The Good in that film (was it really 1966?) but can you recall who played The Bad and who played The Ugly?

The 16-board match yesterday was between The Goodies and The Baddies. Sadly Tim Brooke-Taylor of the Goodies died (of corona virus) earlier this year. The Baddies was one of their best episodes, featuring as guests Julie Andrews and Liberace, and was also known as "The Nicest Person in the World" and "Double Trouble". But enough waffle. On to the bridge:

The Good

Chantal did well to bid three times on her powerful 13-count, and doubled 2ª to show good spades and then bid her five-card heart suit. Ken Barnett had no problem raising to the good game, and Liz Clery increased the loss with a double. There was no defence, as declarer just lost a spade, a diamond and a club, with no guess in the heart suit. I wonder, if East had bid 4¨ on the second round, whether NS would have reached game. And the sacrifice is only 300 but Gerry did not want to bid "one more for the road". A tough hand.

The Bad

If the first one was good, this was definitely bad with the blame entirely on East for the missed game. The hand is far too good for a weak two, and should be opened at the one-level,. after which even the most timid West would bid game. Given that xx KT9xxx xx KTx would have no play for game, Liz's 3© looks normal. Bidding 2NT then 3© should be a stronger invite, asking partner to go to game unless dreadful. 3©, while it is pass/correct, does not stop partner bidding 4© or 4ª over it, contrary to popular belief. It should say "I have three hearts and three or more spades, and am happy to play at the 3-level opposite a real ugly hand. But East's hand here is very good, not bad, and he should bid game.

The Ugly

What do you call an eight-card suit? The linguist might say "octonary", but the bridge player just says "trumps".  Chantal followed the latter advice when she wasn't have any of defending Four Hearts. The focus was on Bill Linton, North, who made the fairly normal lead of the ace of hearts. Now, South knew North had five hearts, and North knew South had four hearts and South knew that North knew that South had four hearts, and both knew that West had a singleton heart! South's card should therefore be suit preference, but he played an ugly and unclear five. He should play either the two, asking for a diamond which is probably best, or the jack asking for a spade, which will also do the trick. When Bill thought Tim's five asked for a passive heart, saying "don't kill my queen of spades or jack of diamonds" he played a second one and that was that. And South should bid 4¨, fit, instead of 4© on the first round of the auction which will help; an opportunity missed by East on the first hand! This rounded off a big win for The Baddies, by 58-22.

So, always think what partner knows that you know ... Which reminds me of the group of three logicians going into their regular real-ale pub.

"Are we all having Ruddles?", asked the barman?

"I don't know." replied the first;

"I also don't know." replied the second;

"Yes we all are", replied the third.

How do you explain that?