Source: 8th European University Championship – Wrocław – Bulletin 3
I have had many long discussions with partners about how to invite game after a sequence such as 1
– 2. Some have preferred long suit trials, others short suit trials or the Romex approach of using the relay bid to initiate one of these possibilities and using direct suit bids for the other possibility. A few prefer the no trial bid approach, they just bid the game.
Yesterday I came across a fifth variant of trial bids – the “Opposition Trial Bid” (which actually confirms the use of the no trial bid approach and makes the case for the short suit trial a bit stronger) – which I have never discussed in depth with any of my partners, surely because of its infrequent occurrence. This was the bidding in the match between Prague KI and Belgium:
Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable.
A Q J 5 8 4 4 Q J 8 6 4 3 |
||
| K 2Q J 10Q 10 3 210 7 5 2 |
7A 9 6 5 2A 8 7 5A K 9 |
|
| 10 9 8 6 4 3K 7 3K J 9 6— |
Billy Eisenberg &
| West | North | East | South |
| De Donder | Macura | Amsel | Vozabal |
| Pass | |||
| Pass | 1 |
1 |
1 |
| 2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Pass | Pass | Pass |
Milan Macura had a good third in hand 1 opening and a perfect raise of partners suit. This was surely a battle about the part score with North/South being favourites to come out winners, having the higher major.
Game was unlikely to be reached. However, East changed the likelihood of North/South stopping in a partscore by introducing the opposition trial bid for their opponents. He bid 3 , which allowed David Vozabal to re-evaluate his hand and bid game. West could show he was not happy but the Belgians were unable to set the game.
