Dlr E
Vul Both
| ♠ J 9 | ||
| ♥ Q J 10 7 3 | ||
| ♦ A 8 2 | ||
| ♣ J 9 2 | ||
| ♠ 4 2 | ♠ A Q 10 8 7 | |
| ♥ 8 5 | ♥ A 9 2 | |
| ♦ Q 9 7 5 3 | ♦ 6 4 | |
| ♣ A Q 5 3 | ♣ K 10 4 | |
| ♠ K 6 5 3 | ||
| ♥ K 6 4 | ||
| ♦ K J 10 | ||
| ♣ 8 7 6 |
Franco | Andy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
West | North | East | South |
| 1♠ | Pass | ||
| 1NT* | Pass | 2♣ | Pass |
| 2♠** | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| All Pass |
** 8-10 (reverse Bart)
[Andy]
1NT was semiforcing, and some would say that I should pass hold a balanced 13 count, but I don't think it's right. Partner could have any hand, and there could be vastly superior contracts, and then even if partner has an ordinary hand it isn't particularly clear that 1N will be better. Looking at the hand, I feel gratified with my decision, in that after a heart lead against partner's 1N the likely result would be down 2.
Sadly for me, many players got to 1N from my side, commonly after opening a 14-16 NT with the East cards. This typically received the fortuitous lead of a spade.
Anyway, in 2♠ they led the ♦J, with North tanking for a while before playing the A. North played a heart with I ducked, then switched to the ♠9 which I covered. I won the spade return, drew trumps, and led a diamond up to take 9 tricks. It seems like the best chance for the defense is to open lead a trump, but with the clubs 3-3 just about all routes will lead to 9 tricks.
Below
What's the advantage of switching the Bart methods there?
ReplyDeleteI think it just increases the chance that the auction will time out well. Let's consider 1H-1N-2C for simplicity. We play that 2H is a constructive (8-10) preference and that 2D shows either a weaker preference, or else on of the strong Bart hand types. Opener will presume the weak preference, and so will bid 2H over 2D the vast majority of the time. Then if the 2D bidder does have the strong hand type, there will be space to show it. In contrast, if 2D can be the 8-10 preference or any of the stronger hands, then opener will often need to take some action without knowing responder's hand type, and sometimes you run out of space to describe the hand conveniently.
ReplyDeleteThere was an article in the Bridge World on this subject, I think entitled Anti-Bart and written by Marc Umeno, iirc.