Page 0072

(12), (13), (14), (15) & (16). Comment 13 is

clearly an understatement. Even though he has

opened the bidding, North's bid of 3t is clearly in

the nature of a sign-off. He indicates unmistakeably

that he has no other suit to bid, cannot support

clubs and has good reason to dislike no trumps. If

South felt that his hand was only good enough for

2NT on the second round, his only justification for

bidding 3NT on the third is either a fit with his

partner's diamonds or a solid suit of his own. He

had neither. South could not seriously be blamed if

he had bid game on the second round, since his

partner could scarcely have less to open vulnerable

and the actual contract is not altogether

unreasonable. His selected mode of procedure,

however, was illogical, and West's remark (15)

therefore irrelevant and ignorant.

(12) A. (13) A. (14) A. (15) B. (16) A.

(17) A. This is a further consideration in favour

of bidding game on the second round, without

exposing too obviously to the opponents the misfit

nature of the hand.

(18), (19), (20), (21). There is little to be said in

favour of North's passing 2NT. It is true that North's

hand is weak in honour tricks and his opening

justified only by the length and intermediates in

diamonds. But if these values are an essential

component of his opening bid, it is undesirable to

play the hand in a contract where they may not

materialise as tricks. A bid of 3t here is not a rebid

in any constructive sense and is essentially negative

and discouraging. If South held a more balanced

type of hand with the tA, or even the tJ, 3NT

might well be possible, and South would not be out

of order in bidding it.

(18) B. (19) B. (20) A. (21) A.

(22), (23). South should take the view that,

without an honour in diamonds, 3NT is too risky a

proposition. Even with one, it may be far from a

certainty but unlikely to be altogether impossible on

any lie of the opposing cards.

(22) B. (23) A.

(24), (25). East should not seriously contemplate

a spade bid, especially when vulnerable. After

North's opening diamond there is already some

evidence of a misfit for North-South, with possible

trouble for whichever side plays the hand. Purely as

a lead directing bid, 1´ cannot be worth the risk.

South would be fully justified in doubling such a

bid, and East-West would have incurred a loss of at

least 50 points to save a game which should not in

fact be made. Even if West rescues into 2™, and it is

doubtful whether he should, he loses 200, and is

lucky not to lose more.

(24) B. (25) A.

72 English Bridge August 2018 www.ebu.co.uk

West North East South

Pass 1t Pass 2®

Pass 2t Pass 2NT

Pass 3t Pass 3NT

Pass Pass Dble Redble

All Pass

Game All. Dealer West.

´ A 8 7

™ 9 5

t K Q 9 8 7 3

® Q 3

´ 9 3 ´ K Q J 2

™ Q J 10 8 3 ™ 7 6 2

t 4 t A J 6 5 2

® J 10 9 8 2 ® 7

´ 10 6 5 4

™ A K 4

t 10

® A K 6 5 4

N

W E

S

RICHARD FLEET'S

CONTEMPORARY TAKE ON

'POST MORTEM'

The quiz was set by J C H (Jack) Marx who also

wrote the commentary, originally published in the

December 1946 edition of Contract Bridge Journal

(available on the EBU website). Marx was widely

regarded as the academic brain behind Acol and, in

conjunction with the twins Bob and Jim Sharples,

developed a version of the system that influenced a

generation of British players. He was also the

original developer in this country of the 2®

response to 1NT asking for a four-card major,

though Ewart Kempson had earlier suggested

something on similar lines: George Rapee came up

with the same idea in the USA and it was publicised

there by one of his team mates. Although it would

be more logical to refer to the convention as

'Kempson-Marx-Rapee', Sam Stayman's name will

forever be attached to it.

Marx was a prominent tournament player before

the War and part of the Acol team that won

Index

  1. Page 0001
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056
  57. Page 0057
  58. Page 0058
  59. Page 0059
  60. Page 0060
  61. Page 0061
  62. Page 0062
  63. Page 0063
  64. Page 0064
  65. Page 0065
  66. Page 0066
  67. Page 0067
  68. Page 0068
  69. Page 0069
  70. Page 0070
  71. Page 0071
  72. Page 0072
  73. Page 0073
  74. Page 0074
  75. Page 0075
  76. Page 0076