Bridge
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I DO not know who suggested the following idea, but it seems to have advantages over the traditional methods.
The original scheme, proposed by Alan Truscott, was that, if the bidding was opened with One of a suit and the next hand doubled, any natural raise to Three of partner's suit was replaced by a bid of 2 no- trumps, and Three of partner's suit was pre-emptive. Fine when the opening bid was in a major suit, for then it would be unlikely that the best final contract would be in no-trumps - it would be either Three or Four of the agreed major.
But if the agreed suit was a minor? No problem if the opening bidder intended to play in that suit, but if 3 no-trumps was the best final contract? Surely it would be better played by the stronger hand when the doubler would be on lead?
Take this deal: South opened One Diamond, West doubled and, with a raise to Three Diamonds, North dutifully bid 2 no-trumps. Now 3 no-trumps is the only final game contract (if played by South). Here it was played by North and was easily defeated after East's natural lead of !10.
So, what is the suggested improvement? That a raise to Three of a minor is natural, with the stronger hand being declarer if the final contract is 3 no-trumps, while 2 no-trumps replaces the pre-emptive raise in the minor. On this deal, 3 no-trumps by South cannot be defeated . . . Yes, if you are playing a Strong Club system this only applies to diamonds but, even so, it is worth bearing in mind.
Love all; dealer South
North
48 4
!A 7 2
#Q J 8 5 2
2K 5 2
West East
4A J 9 7 410 6 3 2
!K J 5 3 !10 9 8 4
#7 #9 6
2A 8 4 3 29 7 6
South
4K Q 5
!Q 6
#A K 10 4 3
2Q J 10
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments