“Impossible bids”
North-South have reached a very poor contract. As so often, each of the two players considers that his partner is responsible for the accident. And you, what do you think?
This month we look at: “Impossible bids”.
[Comment: A bid is said to be impossible when it cannot be natural.]
Problem 1
| W | N | E | S |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♥ | Pass | 1NT | |
| Pass | 2♦ | Pass | 2♠ |
| Pass | 3♦ |
The facts
An excellent Diamond game was “forgotten” in both rooms; the opponents at the other table were satisfied with a simple raise to 3♦. Let’s listen to the arguments of our candidates who were closer to getting to the correct contract.
Arguments
North: “I understood that your 2♠ bid was not natural but I took it for values in Spades and Diamond support. I only have 12HCP and your points in Spades fall opposite my singleton. Under these conditions, it takes a miracle to get eleven tricks.”
South: “I understand your reasoning but I have not found a good alternative bid to show a maximum with excellent Diamond support. 3♦is insufficient, and 4♦ extremist. 3♦ over 2♠ doesn’t promise additional length. You can have only four Diamonds – I don’t think I can make a second effort.”
This article is reserved for BRIDGERAMA+ subscribers.
Subscribe to access all our articles
