Maybe someone can fill me in as to how this hand was bid at the tables. It was played three times with N-S scoring 50, 100, and 150. So, it appears that E-W stole the bid all three times.
Board #1
North dealer
Neither side vulnerable
| | North
♠ 6
♥ J 4
♦ J 9 7 6 5 2
♣ A K 9 6
| | West
♠ 9 8 7 3 2
♥ A 8
♦ 8 4 3
♣ Q 8 4
| | East
♠ Q 5 4
♥ K Q 9 7 6 5 3 2
♦ Q
♣ 7
| | | South
♠ A K J 10
♥ 10
♦ A K 10
♣ J 10 5 3 2
| |
|
North's hand is one point short of the rule of 20. I suppose that one might add a little for the very nice side suit, but that is a little aggressive. I personally would only pass with this hand if a 2♦ bid was not available (Flannery, for example). Yes, I realize that East does not have two out of the top three or three out of the top five honors. When I am playing at the nursing home, I will probably revert to passing these hands. Until then, if my partner insists on me passing a hand like this, I might initiate a search for a new partner.
If North did pass, then East must clearly open 4♥. If ever a hand screamed for a preemptive bid, this is it. It even meets the criteria of the rule of 500 (six losers means down three at the four-level, which costs 500 points not vulnerable if the opponents double).
But what if North had opened 2♦? Does that change things? It is true that the experts say that you should not 'preempt a preempt'. However, they also insist that the person who is short in the opponents' suit is the one who should take action. East's singleton diamond confers that responsibility on him/her. It seems silly to bid anything less than 4♥.
What a revolting development this is for South. One possibility is to lay the double card on the table and collect 300 or 500. The question is whether a diamond slam is conceivable. The trump suit is probably not a problem, but look at all of those ugly clubs. I think that I would have chosen to play defense and doubled the stakes. I might have tried 5♦. Of course, if my partner did not open 2♦, that course would never occur to me.
I would have never found South's winning bid of 4♠. That unexpected action would have (assuming that North recognized it as a constructive move) probably elicited a 5♣ response from North. It would still take a lot of guts for South to bid 6♦, but it is within the realm of possibility.
I cannot understand the actual scores. If I were sitting South, I would not have allowed East-West to play an undoubled contract. Since it appears that East-West have only their eight trump tricks, the minimum that North-South should have scored would be 300.