After 60 out of 120 deals, Palmer is leading 109-69 over Wittes. A little amazing, so far, the result of the other match: Weingold, a team once defeated in quarterfinals, is leading over Baker, the one who got the bye to semifinal; the result is still close, 150-143, but there are eerie signs for Baker because she led +48 after the first thirty deals.
The hand of the day: The Beast, or when Misunderstanding is in ambush.
E-W Vuln; Dealer North; you, in South, get these cards:
♠7 ♥K5 ♦QJ10852 ♣K1074
Partner opens 1♠, you respond forcing 1NT, and partner bids 2♥. What now?
It looks a good idea to bid 3♦: an invite with a good suit, and two entries for a possible 3NT contract.
But suppose you had not those cards above but these ones below:
♠Void ♥5 ♦QJ108532 ♣107432
Would you be happy to pass partner’s 1♠ opening or – when early agreed ‒ wouldn’t you prefer bidding the forcing 1NT response followed by 3♦ sign-off over anything rebid by opener but clubs?
It is matter of agreements, of course, nevertheless it is whorth to note the suggestion that comes from Eugenio Chiaradia’s Neapolitan Club (1966 edition, pag. 63). Neapolitan Club opens 4 Card Major, therefore the response 1NT isn’t forcing, however the great theorist advised not to pass such very weak and very unbalanced hands. Even if the partner passed your 1NT, there are more chance that opponents would reopen after 1NT than after your pass: this because the opening suit is often their best one, whereas, after 1NT response, they know very little about your cards and would be pushed to bid by the competition’s anxiety.
Actually, the N-S line had:
After 1 ♠-1NT; 2♥, at one table South bid 3♦ and the partner, who maybe had read Neapolitan Club, passed. At the other table South ‒ she too possibly knows Chiaradia ‒ preferred the coarse but sure inviting 2NT and partner bid the easy 3NT.
Paolo Enrico Garrisi
Official site: http://usbf.org/2016-wusbc