New suit by responder after intervention
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 will be looking at:
Defining the meaning of a new suit by responder after intervention depending on the level it is bid at.
Problem 1
| W | N | E | S |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♣ | 1♠ | 3♦ | |
| Pass | 3NT |
The facts
These are two talented students who progress rapidly, but they did not understand each other well in this sequence, ended up going down two in this non-existent game contract. Whose fault is it?
Arguments
North: “I took your 3♦ bid as a limit bid, 9-10HCP with six Diamonds, a little less than what you would have for a 2-over-1, which is bid from 11HCP on. I have 14HCP and high hopes of quickly amassing nine tricks. I remind you that there is no pre-empt opposite an opening bid.”
South: “You have already forgotten our last lesson where our teacher taught us and recommended to respond 2♦ with 9-11HCP and six Diamonds. So, logically, 3♦ is a pre-emptive bid with seven cards and I don’t see written anywhere that opposite an opening pre-empts are prohibited, with or without intervention.”
This article is reserved for BRIDGERAMA+ subscribers.
Subscribe to access all our articles
