|
Beijing, the 1995 semi-final of the World Teams Championships (contesting the Bermuda Bowl) between Sweden and Canada.
Bjerregård, South, picks up: | W/NS | | | ♠ | K Q J 8 5 4 3 | | | ♥ | K J 9 | | | ♦ | 7 4 | | | ♣ | 10 | |
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| Molson | Morath | Baran | Bjerregård | | 1NT1 | pass | pass | 2♠ | | 3♣ | double | pass | ?? |
1 15-17
After having seen his partner pass, the 1NT opener will usually not bid voluntarily again. But here, over South's natural 2♠ overcall fourth in hand, West, Molson, battles on with 3♣. North comes to life with a double. What should South do?
Bjerregård ponders but cannot come to a conclusion, so he hands you his cards. What would you do?
Solution Critics are often heard to say that in modern bridge the penalty double is all but extinct. Possibly that is the explanation for Bjerregård's action: he bids 4♠; obviously he thinks the double is showing general strength! | W/NS | ♠ | — | | | | ♥ | 8 4 2 | | ♦ | Q 10 9 5 3 | | ♣ | K J 9 8 6 | | ♠ | 9 2 |  | ♠ | A 10 7 6 | | ♥ | A Q 7 6 | ♥ | 10 5 3 | | ♦ | K J | ♦ | A 8 6 2 | | ♣ | A Q 7 5 4 | ♣ | 3 2 | | | ♠ | K Q J 8 5 4 3 | | | ♥ | K J 9 | | ♦ | 7 4 | | ♣ | 10 |
East, Baran, thinks it is his birthday: he happily welcomes South's game bid by doubling. After the ♦K lead South ends up down five: −1400 (he could have made a trick more).
Probably South's approach was a bit too sophisticated. What reason is there to assume that the double is not for penalties? North simply states: 'I want to defend this contract.'
The deal was in fact even more frustrating for the Swedes at the other table: as EW they doubled 2♠ and collected 500. That seemed to be an excellent result, since EW will usually not bid game here — which is proven at 'our' table, where East indeed passed 1NT. And if EW bid 3NT, they haven't yet made it.
Many players would therefore happily jot down a plus sign in the margin of their score sheet next to the +500. Having to learn that the deal actually costs 900 points will then be disappointing, to put it mildly!
By the way: defending 3♣ doubled would not have been a piece of cake for NS. True, that contract should and probably will be set, but NS cannot afford any mistakes. And West will not be defeated by a lot of tricks: two is the maximum, down only one is quite probable. Which will certainly frustrate North... |