Reasons purely inadmissible
North-South have reached a very poor contract. As so often, each of the two players considers that his partner is reponsible for the accident. And you, what do you think?
Problem 1
The facts
Ten tricks without any effort. One of the two players has underestimated or incorrectly bid his cards.
Arguments
South: “This is the only trial bid that leads me to devaluate my hand and respond with a negative 3♠. 3♣ specifically asks me to look at how many Club losers I can cover. With your balanced distribution, the only sensible bid is 2NT – then I show in which suits I have values if I am not minimum. I answer 3♦ and you leap to game.”
North: “I consider this hand to be a two-suiter. 3♣ is simply natural and would be indisputable if I had had a singleton in Hearts or Diamonds and King-third in the other suit. I grant you that I could have said 2NT, but I don’t agree with your 3♠ bid, which is more than pessimistic.
Verdict
You need a Funbridge Premium or Premium+ subscription to keep reading.
To read the rest of this article by Alain Lévy, please log in with a valid Premium or Premium+ account.
Yes I like the article.
I don’t like it but I love it
Very interesting analysis. i really like this keep it up.
Mi piace molto istruttivo continuate grazie !!!