Join Bridge Winners
Wild Deal in Erie at the D5 NAP Qualifier

West
96
AQ10987542
K
J
North
5
K
AQJ1097432
A2
East
K832
J63
5
107643
South
AQJ1074
86
KQ985
W
N
E
S
4
5
5
5
6
X
P
6
P
P
P
D
6 South
NS: 0 EW: 0

When I posted the East hand as a bidding problem, the vote was 2:1 against raising to 5.  I'm not sure this is correct at matchpoints, since (1) we may be making 5, and (2) East has enough spades to suspect that this South will have to decide between 6 and double here.  This can't be an FP situation since East may have all of South's high cards and be bidding to make.

I bid 6 with two purposes in mind.  (1) I wanted to show partner that I had enough offense for a profitable save, and (2) I wanted to be defending 6, not 6 since a club lead from me would beat the slam whenever partner had either black ace.

Obviously, on this deal, we were both nuts to bid again after my preempt, and I agree that that is a common occurrence.  But the opponents picking an inferior slam on a jammed auction is also a common occurrence.

And my real reason for posting this is that I would like to start a discussion of negative slam doubles vs. positive slam doubles.  My partner and I discussed this briefly, and neither of us has much of an opinion one way or the other.

16 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top