| W/All | | | | | ♠ | Q J 10 8
|  | ♠ | 7 2
| | ♥ | A J
| ♥ | K Q 7 3 2
| | ♦ | A J 7
| ♦ | 4
| | ♣ | A 8 7 3
| ♣ | K Q 9 6 2
|
| West | North | East | South |
|---|
| 1NT | pass | 2♦ | pass | | 2♥ | pass | 3♣ | pass | | 4♣ | pass | 5♣ | pass | | pass | pass | | |
Playing matchpoint pairs EW end up in the wrong game. East makes 11 tricks in his 5♣ contract (NS start off cashing the ♠AK) but +600 gives EW a bottom. Virtually all other EW-pairs bid 3NT and effortlessly they make 11 tricks as well, scoring +660. Even if NS had not started cashing the ♠AK against 5♣ — East would have made 12 tricks then, scoring +620 — EW would have had a bottom. East: 'Why didn't you bid 3NT over 3♣? After all, you have guards in diamonds and spades.'
West: 'I thought you were interested in a club slam, that's why I raised your suit.'
Who was wrong?
Solution One could say that this is a matter of agreement.
But practice shows that in most cases it is pointless to introduce a minor suit opposite a notrump opening as a possible trump suit for game (but: if responder considers a slam there's nothing wrong with a minor suit!). In the great majority of cases 3NT is a better game than five in a minor.
A club bid like East's should be reserved for slam purposes, therefore. East bids like this if he thinks a slam might be on opposite a fit in West's hand.
West's raise to 4♣ was correct, since in view of the bidding he has got about the best hand he can have.
(Aside: interchange West's diamonds and spades: 6♣ is on despite East being too weak for his slam try. This brings us to West's pass over East's inconsistent 5♣ bid (inconsistent since he first tried for a slam with 3♣ and then, after West's positive 4♣ bid, signs-off in game). In view of his superhand to West an undisciplined raise to 6♣ was certainly an option. After all, East did make a slam try. If NS fail to take their two spade tricks, EW will score very well, whereas in playing 5♣ they usually will not. And if NS do take their spade tricks, down one in 6♣ will not score much worse than making eleven tricks in 5♣...) East would have done better by bidding 3NT instead of 3♣, giving West a choice between passing and bidding 4♥.
PS: Some will disagree; they want to be able to bid 3♣ on a hand without slam potential (for it is true: once in a while 5♣ is better than 3NT and somewhat more often 4♥ in a 5-2 fit is superior to 3NT). They should agree that if East was only interested in finding the best game, he should be able to bid 4NT over West's 4♣ as the final contract. So 4NT is not Blackwood then. If East is interested in a club slam, he should, over 4♣, show a control with 4♦, 4♥ or 4♠. |