July 2007 - 54

ADVANCED PLAYERS

Our Readers Ask

Eric Kokish
kokish-kraft@rogers.com
Dear Eric,
Who is most responsible for
missing game on this deal (none
vulnerable at matchpoints)?
North
K2
 10 9 4
A
 A 10 9 7 6 4 3
South dealt:
2
3

South
Q5
A J 7 6
QJ864
K5
1
2
Pass

Spades were led but clubs were
2-2, so game rolled home. We were
the only pair in 3; everyone else
was in 3NT.
North believed that he wasn't
strong enough to force to game
because his suit won't run opposite
a singleton club. South believed
that with only one fast trick outside
of clubs and a possible danger spot
in spades it wasn't right to bid on,
even with the fitting K 5.
Henry Sun
Both North and South present
sensible cases. The main problem is
that North could not know that his
partner had a balanced hand. Imagine
that South opened 1NT, as he - randomly - would have done if playing
54

weak notrumps. Would North stop
short of 3NT or 5? No, he would
not, for better or for worse. Similarly,
had South elected to rebid 2NT rather
than 2, North would have driven to
one game or the other.
Should this uncertainty about
South's hand being balanced determine the partnership's fate?
Sometimes too much knowledge is
a dangerous thing. North felt he had
to pull in a notch because South's
bidding "sounded" like he would
often hold an unbalanced hand, and
in most of those cases, club shortage
would be a lively possibility. Had
you been playing IMPs, the jeopardy
in missing a non-vulnerable game
would not be as serious, and indeed,
game is no bargain. At matchpoints,
however, you'd like to be in the same
contract as most of the field even if
you might go down many tricks if
all goes badly for you. As a practical
matter, as North would open the bidding as dealer, he might as well take
the position that he should force to
game once South opens, as there's not
enough hard evidence that the hands
will fit poorly. Although that may be
imperfect technically, it's part of life.
Incidentally, many would bid on
over 3 with the South cards on
the strength of the K 5, but as it's
hardly automatic to do so, I believe
there's more to be said for protecting
the likely plus at 3 by passing.
Dear Eric,
Friends think I'm not up to date
because I don't play 2/1 forcing
to game when playing duplicate
scored at matchpoints. I'm writing
to ask you which of the following
propositions (if any) you agree with.
Theodore Dunn
(a) 2/1 forcing to game (by an
unpassed hand over a 1 or 1
opening by partner) necessitates

playing 1NT forcing.
Yes, or at least semi-forcing, in
order to accommodate responder's
10-12 HCP hands that might qualify
for a go-as-you-please 2/1 response.
And to play this method well, you really need even more science.
(b) 1NT forcing has a number of
drawbacks, such that, if it were not
for the benefits of 2/1 forcing, few
would play it.
It's difficult to get an accurate take
on the word "few" as you use it, and
it's not quite true. For example, if
your 2/1 promises another bid and
forces to game unless responder
rebids his suit in a potentially minimum-range scenario, you would like
to start those 10- to 12-point hands
lacking a long suit with 1NT. But,
yes, drawbacks there are.
(c) The major benefit of 2/1 game
forcing is improved chances of
getting to slam with fewer than 33
points.
That's much too extreme. Certainly,
improved slam bidding is a benefit of
2/1 forcing to game, but so too (and
much more frequently) is dramatically improved game bidding by being
able to avoid awkward fourth-suit
sequences to make a forcing natural
bid and to be able to make minimum
natural forcing bids without having to
jump with suits of dubious quality.
(d) For scoring at IMPs, play 2/1
forcing; the value of getting to a
slam in IMPs more than makes up
for the disadvantages of 1NT forc‑
ing.
That's a conclusion you might
reach if you "believe the hype" you
present in (c). While not being able to
stop at 1NT might seem an important
consideration at matchpoints, it can
work to your advantage for a limited
responding hand to be assured of a
second turn to explore different suit
contracts.
r
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2007
