I expect that you have heard of Burn’s Law of Total Trumps: When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents.
But in bridge, there are exceptions to most rules. Take this spectacular deal from the 2025 Bermuda Bowl final between USA and Denmark.
South's 2♣ rebid was Gazilli, showing various hands and not promising anything in clubs, 2♦ just showed a game force and I believe that 3♠ promised a very strong red 2-suiter. So the Danes played a grand slam in a 5-1 fit in a suit that was bid for the first time at the 7 level. So much for Burn's Law.
Schaltz did remarkably well to pass 7♣ and after a trump lead, he brought home the slam by squeezing West in diamonds and spades. That was worth 17 imp when the Americans were two down in 7♦.
A few weeks later, this hand came up in the rather more mundane surroundings of a club duplicate at Poundbury.
We were playing 2-over-1 so my 2♥ was forcing to game and I had a problem over 3♦. I was reluctant to bid 3NT with such a feeble stop and I thought that partner would expect three trumps if I bid 3♠, so I tried 3♥ and ended up in another contract that Mr Burn would not approve of.
I won the spade lead in hand and played a top trump to East's ace. A low club switch would have given me a tricky guess but he returned another trump. I played the other top trumps, cashed the ace and queen of spades (throwing a club) and ruffed a spade. Now a diamond finesse and the last spade meant that East could only make his master trump.
On reflection I think that 3♠ is probably the best bid over 3♥, and in this specific sequence does not have to have three trumps. 4♠ would also have made but I was right to avoid 3NT as it goes down on a club lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment