Centre Island Teams Match Two
| Board 13 North Deals Both Vul | ♠ Q 8 4 ♥ J 10 4 3 ♦ J 9 2 ♣ 9 8 2 | ||||||||||
♠ K 10 2 ♥ A K 8 6 ♦ A 8 4 3 ♣ A 7 |
| ♠ 5 3 ♥ 7 5 2 ♦ K 10 ♣ K Q J 10 5 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ A J 9 7 6 ♥ Q 9 ♦ Q 7 6 5 ♣ 6 4 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Livingston | Burrows | ||
| Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| 2 ♦1 | Pass | 2 ♠2 | Pass |
| 2 NT | Pass | 3 ♣3 | Pass |
| 3 ♦4 | Pass | 3 ♥5 | Pass |
| 3 NT6 | Pass | 5 ♣ | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
|
| 5 ♣ by East |
This hand featured one of our pet conventions and a IMP theory of my own.
We use the Mexican 2♦ popularized by George Rosenkranz and currently played by some of the top Italian pairs. Our responses are home grown.
At a different vulnerability I might have opened 3♣ but second seat vulnerable we have higher standards.
In our style we frequently bash 3NT with balanced (no singleton or void) hands however here I chose to investigate a possible 5=3 heart fit. This decision was made because of the weak doubleton spade. Having not found a heart fit the vagaries of our system meant that I was forced to ask for four spades on route to 3NT - an immediate 3NT would have shown two four-card majors. When partner denied four spades I knew that we had at most five spades between our two hands. This led me to choose 5♣ rather than 3NT as the final contract. At IMPs we should play 5-minor more often than in Matchpoint duplicate pairs. Perhaps 3NT is reasonable on this hand but over the past couple of years I have done many simulations in which on similar hands 5-minor was at least as good as 3NT.
In addition sometimes going beyond 3NT will allow you to find a good minor suit slam.
No comments:
Post a Comment