| West | North | East | South |
1 |
Pass | 1 |
|
| Pass | 2NT | Pass | ??? |
Bridge Brief Broadcast Archive |
Back to Bridge Brief Archive Index
May 5, 2001
Partnership Strength
The Scorecard is the publication for ACBL District 16. I was asked and consented to write
a regular column aimed at the 0-299 masterpoint player. I will post my columns here as
they may be of benefit to the same readers that benefit from my newsletter.
Scorecard, Volume 33, No 3 - May/June 2001
A bridge partnership is much like a personal relationship. You have to have a set of solid
understandings for the team to work smoothly. Surprisingly it is often not the context of
the agreement that is important, but simply having an agreement in the first place! Let us
look at a few of the more common areas where an established partnership should have a firm
agreement.
#1
| West | North | East | South |
| 1 |
Pass | 1 |
|
| Pass | 2NT | Pass | ??? |
| South (you) |
 KQ65 |
| KJ65 |
 965 |
| 96 |
Is it possible for partner to hold a four-card spade suit? If the answer is no, then
your action is an easy 3NT signoff. If the answer is yes, then you must have some
mechanism at your disposal to find out about a spade fit before deciding on the proper
game contract. It does not particularly matter what method you choose to play, only that
you and partner agree.
#2
Just what are the limits of your opening 1NT bid? Are a five-card suit and 17 HCP too
much? Are a five-card suit and 14 HCP too little? Is it acceptable to hold a five-card
major suit? Once again there is plenty of room for style and preference. What is most
important is that you and partner agree. Better understandings will translate into
superior decisions at the table. You might discuss the following hands with partner. You
might be surprised to find that you and partner are not as simpatico as you thought.
A |
| AQ4 |
| 87 |
| KJ754 |
| AK6 |
B |
| AQ4 |
| KJ754 |
| 87 |
| AK6 |
C |
| KJ754 |
| AQ4 |
| 87 |
| AK6 |
D |
| KJ754 |
| 87 |
| AQ4 |
| AK6 |
E |
| AQ4 |
| 87 |
| KJ754 |
| A96 |
F |
| AQ4 |
| KJ754 |
| 87 |
| AK6 |
G |
| KJ754 |
| AQ4 |
| 87 |
| A96 |
H |
| KJ754 |
| 87 |
| AQ4 |
| A96 |
#3
Competitive actions are also in need of discussion. For example what about direct cue
bids? "No problem!" you say. "We play Michaels!" Then what is
difference between the North hands in the following two auctions? I will tell you that two
auctions carrying the same meaning is both inefficient and dangerous.
| West | North | East | South |
| 1 |
Pass | ||
| 1 |
2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 1 |
Pass | ||
| 1 |
2 |
#4
How about auctions after a 1 opening? Does responding 1 to a 1 opening deny holding a four-card major
suit? Always? Unless the diamond suit is longer? Only with less than a game forcing hand?
After a 1 response is opener suppose to show a four-card major suit?
Always? Only if unbalanced?
Partner opens 1, what do you respond on these hands?
A |
| KQ74 |
| 876 |
| KJ75 |
| 96 |
B |
| KQ74 |
| KJ6 |
| 7532 |
| 96 |
C |
| KQ74 |
| 87 |
| KJ754 |
| 96 |
D |
| KQ74 |
| 87 |
| AKJ75 |
| 96 |
E |
| KQ74 |
| 8 |
| J75432 |
| 96 |
You open 1 and partner responds 1. What do you rebid on these hands?
F |
| AQ53 |
| AQ98 |
| 74 |
| Q92 |
G |
| AQ53 |
| AQ9 |
| 742 |
| Q92 |
H |
| AQ53 |
| 98 |
| 7 |
| AQ9642 |
I |
| AQ53 |
| |
| A974 |
| KQ962 |
J |
| AQ53 |
| A974 |
| |
| KQ962 |
These examples are but a few of the areas that need definition by a regular partnership. There are many more subtle areas where you and partner need to be on the same wavelength. You also need a good method of recording your agreements so that disagreements (usually the result of a poor result) can be adjudicated. Find a method that fits your life style. Use a spiral notebook, a Big Chief tablet, a yellow pad, or your computer to record your partnership understandings. Start with these ten major sections. Later you can add or subdivide sections as your record becomes more complete.
Under each heading, try to define the basic auctions. As discussions come up you can
add detail on special situations. This document will serve several functions. It will be a
resource to resolve disagreements. It will highlight areas where you and partner think you
play the same way, but in fact do not. It is a great study guide before a major game or
tournament.
Is this a bunch of work? You bet, but no one said bridge was easy. If you look at
successful results, it is generally the best PARTNERSHIP that wins and not the single best
PLAYER. Let me hear from you.
Thanks!
Gary King