Extreme Lofty-mind with a Miserable Fate

It happened in the third round Swiss Qualification of the 2018 National Youth Bridge Championship.

Board 7
Vul: Both
Dealer: South
South
♠ A 3 2 South West North East
♡ A 6 1♣ pass 1♡ 2♢
♢ A Q 6 pass pass X pass
♣ T 9 7 6 2 3NT AP

I really don't understand why South bids 3NT, even if she is my teammate. North makes a balancing to keep bid on. Maybe North just wants to reach a part score deal depending on good distribution. So this take out double might be more slight than other position. How to make a 3NT contract if North only holds 8 points. South is self-contradictory. If South has capacity to bid 3NT, why do not bid 2NT in last turn? Although I do not agree to bid 3NT, it is undeniable that 3NT is a challenged and excited contract.

♠ QT74
♡ J873
♢ 7
♣ KQJ4
----------------
♠ A32
♡ A6
♢ AQ6
♣ T9762

In fact, South cashed all the tops after knocking out ♣A and claimed down one. South is not good at play. Apart from applying squeeze and throw-in into practice, it is a big challenge to her to analyze all the distribution outside, even if in an easy case. Where does her self-confidence come from to bring such a contract home?
Please bid in accord with your real play level!!! Please do not bid too high. Please put the fact in the bottom of your heart that your play level couldn't afford your radical bidding!!!

I have shared this deal with Rocky and he has given the clear analysis on his blogger. Here I will not go further on this issue.
Link: http://rockytam.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-little-bit-too-high-my-friend-shared.html#more

Comments

NOTICE: Suspension of publication

Dear readers: For some personal reasons, I am sorry that the blogger would not be updated for a long time, at least one month. Thank you for your understanding. Best Wishes! X. Li 2018.9.30 ...

Online training: An unexpected but reasonable ducking

HAHAHA, after one month off bridge, I'm back!!! This deal happened in our weekly online training, Nov 5th, 2018. First of all, I have to admit my mistake. Hahaha, to be honest, the training was quite boring. After 12 boards, the scores were still 2:2. Although I knew X was not allowed and I would be fined if 3♣X was brought home, I still couldn't help to doing that. Board 13 Dealer: North Vul: Both North East South West Pass Pass 1♢ 2♢* 2♡* 2♠ Pass Pass 3♣ X AP 2♢: Michael 2♡: ♣ suit, better than 3♣ Lead: ♡3 (if hasn't raised, count has a priority. That is to say, xxx lead the smallest card) Table followed ♡9. Normally, you would play ♡Q causally. Would it be correct in this case? Leading analysis: Eas...

Interactive Hand Testing

Fu Bo shared this deal with me. This deal happened in the open pair qualify of the 15th Would Bridge Series. She asked me could you find out the defense even if you saw 4 hands. Interactive hand analysis was interesting and played an important role in improving bridge technique. Although double-dummy analysis always stood on a God view, it was essential in a post-mortem analysis. This was first time to show a interactive hand analysis here. I'd appreciate if you could share any interesting double-dummy with me. How to defend 4♠? In this case, defenders should prevent declarer from ruffing ♣ or from winning 3♢. How to cut the connection between table and hand became a serious problem. Timing and speed were the crucial point. 1. Leading ♣ A slow step, losing an upper hand. Declarer could win with the ♣A and sent out small ♣. Even if the defender shift to trump, the declarer was a step ahead. (a) Returning small trump, won by North, ruffing a small ♣ and finessing ...

My Small Bliss

Search This Blog