October 2014 - 39

Bridge Bulletin auction: (3♠)-Pass-
(Pass)-Dbl; (Pass)-4NT [minors]-
(Pass)-5♥; (Pass)-6♥-All Pass
Scores: 6NT (W) 11; 6♥ (W) 10;
5NT (W) 7; 5♥ (W) 3; 6♣, 6♦ (W) 1
Jones-Bartusek 26, Lien-Agica 28

Problem 6

East deals. E-W vulnerable.
West
♠K74
♥4
♦QJ9
♣KQ7632

East
♠A92
♥965
♦ A K 10 6 2
♣AJ

Jones

Bartusek
1NT
2♦
3♦
4♠
Pass

2♣
3♣
3♠
5♣

3♣ was natural, game forcing and
did not guarantee a four-card major.
Bartusek described 3♦ as ambiguous
- club support or insufficient majors
to bid 3NT. Over 3♠, Bartusek was
rightfully concerned about hearts. He
decided to offer 4♠ as a place to play
in another potential Moysian fit, and
Jones corrected to clubs.
Lien
2♠
3♥
4♠
5♣
5♠
Pass

Agica
1NT
3♣
3♠
4NT
5♦
6♣

2♠ functions as a "size" ask and
could also show long clubs - partner responds 2NT with a minimum, 3♣ with
a maximum. Agica had a maximum and
Lien's 3♥ showed heart shortness and
club length. Agica was able to upgrade
his hand because his honors should
mesh well with partner's hand.
3♠ was a control bid. Lien bid 4♠
as an offer to play. 4NT was simply
"forward-going." Lien's 5♣ was
another offer to play, and 5♦ showed
a control. 5♠ was a safety bid - Lien

made the call to show the ♣K Q, just in
case 4NT was intended as RKCB.
Bridge Bulletin auction: 1NT-2♠
[transfer to clubs]; 2NT [support for
clubs]- 3♥ [shortness]; 3♠ [control
bid]- 4♠ [control bid]; 6♣ - Pass
Scores: 6♣, 6♦ 10; 5♣, 5♦ 5
Jones-Bartusek 31, Lien-Agica 38

Problem 7

South deals. N-S vulnerable.
West
♠KJ
♥ A J 10 8
♦ K 10 8 3
♣AKQ

East
♠AQ864
♥K
♦6
♣ J 10 8 7 4 2

Jones
2NT
3♠
4♥
5♣

Bartusek
3♥
4♣
4♠
6♣

After Jones accepted the transfer to
spades, Bartusek bid his second suit.
4♥ was a control bid. Bartusek was
willing to sign off in 4♠, leaving it
up to Jones to press further for slam.
Knowing that partner had at least five
clubs (he would not bid 4♣ with
J-x-x-x), Jones bid 5♣.
Bartusek said that the key to the hand
was partner promising club length,
presumably four, and not making a
control bid in diamonds. The pair tends
to show first- or second-round controls, but with Bartusek's distribution,
partner might bypass the ♦K. He said
Jones must have at least the ♣A K, the
♥A and the ♠K. With a good chance of
six club tricks, he took a shot at slam.
Lien
2NT
3♠
4♥
6♣

Agica
3♥
4♣
4♠
Pass

4♥ was RKCB for clubs and 4♠
revealed one key card. Lien said that he
was always preferring clubs to spades.
If he had raised spades, partner would
have expected three-card support. Lien

also noted that if Agica had showed
zero key cards by bidding 4NT, he
could have passed.
Bridge Bulletin auction: 2NT-3♥
[transfer]; 3♠-4♣; 4♥ [control
bid]-4♠ [control bid]; 6♣-Pass
Scores: 6♣ 10; 6♠ 9; 6NT (West) 6;
5♠ 4; 5♣ 3
Jones-Bartusek 41, Lien-Agica 48

Problem 8

West deals. Both vulnerable.
West
♠ 10 9 2
♥ A Q 10 8 5
♦K5
♣ Q 10 7

East
♠K6
♥92
♦QJ974
♣AK96

Jones
1♥
2♥
3NT

Bartusek
2♦
2NT
Pass

A rebid of the major, 2♥ in this case,
can show a minimum, balanced hand
for this pair. Bartusek's 2NT is unlimited, but usually shows a balanced
minimum.
Lien
1♥
2♥
3♦
4♣
Pass

Agica
2♦
3♣
3♥
4♥

2♥ is also the default bid for Lien
and Agica. 3♣ was natural. 3♦ did
not promise a fit - Lien was not sure
how to proceed and requested help
from partner. 3♥ by Agica promised
some kind of heart fit and suggested a
problem in spades. Lien bid 4♣ to tell
partner about a club fit, followed by
Agica taking him back to hearts.
Bridge Bulletin auction: Pass-1♦;
1♥-1NT; 2♣ [NMF] -2♦; 2♥-Pass
Scores: 2♥ 10; 1NT (E) 9; 3♥ 6; 2NT
(E) 5; 2♦ 4; 4♥ 3; 3♣, 3NT 2; 3♦ 1
Jones-Bartusek 43, Lien-Agica 51 ◾
October 2014 Bridge Bulletin

39
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2014
