All News

Hard Choice.

A low-level opponents’ auction seemed to be petering out quietly when belatedly your partner entered the bidding. What does their double mean and what should you do about it?

 

You are playing Teams. It is your bid.

Our Panel are sure that the double is for take-out and almost all are going to be taking it out but to where? Certainly not the unbid suit, spades. However, one of the Panel is prepared to defend:

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: I can only pass and pray here. There is no safe haven for us. The only alternative is 2 as it looks like partner is 4441 or more likely 5341 but 5431 is also a possibility although less likely as doubling 1 would have been an option. 

My hopes are for 2 spades either by ruffing or setting up 2 winners for partner- along with A and 2 heart tricks. I lead a spade on that basis .”

I think Andy means 2 spade tricks or one with a cheap ruff, K , A and 2 heart tricks. I am doubtful about the likelihood of partner holding more than 4 spades.

Our other Panellists are running to 2 with varying degrees of optimism:

Nigel Kearney “ 2. We do not have good enough trumps to defend at the two level. Since I did not overcall 1, partner will not expect me to have better diamonds than this and can scramble if necessary.”

Leon Meier “2: This bid seems to be take-out of clubs. It does not make sense to be penalty and it cannot be take-out showing all unbid suits because that is only spades. I would bid 2thinking it is pretty likely partner has diamonds.”

Take-out for sure but read on…

Stephen Blackstock “2:  The puzzle here is to work out what shape and values North can possibly hold. Not 5 spades (no overcall) so presumably four, although it is still a surprise that neither East nor West bid 1 with four, as they might have missed a 4-4 fit. North must have at least three hearts, and with four could have doubled 1. We also know that North is fairly short in clubs, so the shape seems to be something like 4351 or 4342. Either way diamonds looks like our best strain.

North cannot be strong, or could have acted earlier. Entering now with one of these shapes looks like the bridge equivalent of Russian Roulette, so I am likely on the wrong track entirely. Or when all is revealed I will be just as puzzled what he was up to as I am now.....”

I agree, Stephen, that bidding with those shapes seems extremely risky. So, maybe, partner has better shape than that.

Michael Cornell “2:   I think partner has a reasonable hand 4-3-5-1 to balance vulnerable here- with 4-4 in the majors, he would have doubled at their first opportunity.

I think RHO is 3-4-0-6 and pretty weak. I would probably pass if opponents were vulnerable ( I think 1 off is likely with 2 off possible).

On further reflection I think 2-4 -0 -7 is not unlikely so 2 making is easily possible.”

and an even more extreme shape:

Bruce Anderson “2: this auction makes little sense. Partner cannot have length in spades with a good suit as they would have bid 1 over West’s bid of 1 and there seem to be a lot of points in this deck.

I am playing opener to be very weak and partner have a void in clubs with a 4450 shape.    Pass for penalties is the alternative but E/W could well be in a 5/4 or 6/3 fit and my club spots are terrible. So, 2 it is.”

Well done, Bruce. Spot on as to shape. With such a double late in the auction, surely North can stand whichever suit you choose to bid and not just spades. Let’s see:

 

When one balances, one does not need to be that strong as one is bidding on the basis of one’s partner’s presumed high card points too. Had South better clubs, they would certainly pass 2x. K653 was as Nigel Kearney pointed out not that good a holding.

West’s bidding was questionable in that they may have chosen to bid 1 rather than 1 (in order to bid the major suit in case partner's rebid was 1NT) which would have made North-South’s bidding easier. Also, after 1, West might have called 1.

At the table, South decided to defend 2x. All would have been well but the lack of any diamond trick for the defence meant the declarer secured 8 tricks. Meanwhile 2 would have made comfortably and even 2 and 2NT were makeable contracts for North-South.

The concept of bidding opponents’ suits to play is awkward for many pairs. Thus, it is interesting that most of the Panel chose, wisely, to bid 2.

Tomorrow, we will have a bidding decision 4 levels higher than today’s.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items