And here are Mike’s comments.

I thought Board 21 from the May 18th two table bridge IMP match was interesting; Bob invited me to supplement the blog for that game with my discussion of the deal. Unfortunately, my amateurishness was front and center, as I failed to accurately capture all four hands before they were reshuffled to start a new two table IMP match on May 23rd. I did accurately record the East – West hands, however, and as it happens they did all of the bidding on the deal.

Looking at only the East – West hands, one would not be surprised to learn that 3N succeeded, as it did at the table. The cards lay very poorly for a no-trump declarer: ♦KJTx lay behind the declarer’s ♦AQ98, while ♠A9x lay behind dummy’s ♠KQ and ♣Ax lay behind dummy’s ♣KQJx. If the defense does everything right, and if declarer mis-guesses the heart suit, then the 3NT contract may be beaten. The cards lay very nicely for a club declarer: both spades and hearts broke 3-3 while clubs broke 3-2. Dan received a friendly small heart opening lead from ♥Qxx and so did not lose a heart trick playing 3NT, while Bob had to play hearts on his own, guessed wrongly and did lose a heart trick playing 3C: East – West plus 400 vs. East – West plus 130 meant a 7 IMP swing in favor of Joanna and Dan.

I was surprised to learn that Lew passed 3♣ — I would think that the “normal” meaning of West’s sequence is to accept East’s 2NT game invitation, while describing his distribution within one card, most frequently 5=4=1=3. Partner can accept the 3NT invite or hedge by bidding a major suit that might play OK in a seven card fit (you might still back into 3NT if your singleton diamond was say the jack). I suppose that it is even possible that partner might respond 4♣ to your 3♣ call should he have chosen 2NT holding say 1=2=4=6 with only moderate diamonds and honors in the short major suits. And of course, you might be 5=4=0=4 instead of 5=4=1=3 when you bid 3♣ (as in today’s deal), and this possibility complicates the subsequent auction for both partners. On the plus side, both partner’s participate in the inevitable judgement calls that the sequence demands. Perhaps Lew’s passed hand status influenced his decision to pass: his upper limit for 2N would be a bit higher had he been an un-passed hand; also West will open some hands in 4th seat that he might pass as dealer, say ♠K9652, ♥AT74, void, ♣Q874. Even if Lew understood that 3♣ was forcing, he might choose to pass once he decided not to bid 3NT — his hand will not be a particularly useful dummy in a club contract.

All artificial conventions extract a price for their use — this deal is interesting to me because it illustrates the downside of an artificial treatment that I have used for several years, and which I believe is used today by at least some top pairs (My most recent sighting was a Levin – Weinstein National Tournament Report in the Bridge World perhaps 18 months ago.) I play that the sequence 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3H♥ or 3♠ suggests that partner pass, and that 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♣ (artificial) -3♦ (forced) -3H♥ or 3♠ is the game forcing version of a 6=4 or 5=5 major suit opening bid.  If I want to show game acceptance with short diamonds (as in the example hand), I use the auction 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♣ (artificial) -3♦ (forced) -3N (ostensibly 5=4=1=3).  If instead, I want to bid 3NT showing short clubs on the way, the sequence would be 1♠-1N-2H♥-2N-3♦-3N. Obviously, this agreement is hardly ideal for the cards that were dealt on May 18th, although I may well have survived whatever choice I decided to make.

Now Bob writing again – since this bridge game that we are blogging about is an individual movement with many partnerships playing as little as 4 hands 2-3 times in the past 5-10 years, specialized systemic agreements such as this are not something you review with partner as you sit down to play your next 4 hands.