All News

Where is your vote?

Pre-emptive Problems.

Today’s deal caused grief to a number of players in three seats at the table. Indeed, one could say at all four seats though normally a player who pre-empts can just sit back and watch the others try to unravel the best contract. However, let’s see the problem some West players created for their North opponent.

 

4 is, of course, not an invitation to game but a value bid with the player not expecting to be far off making this contract but generally having some defence against an opponent’s game. North, here, has an interesting choice of actions.

The Panel voting was 4 all between double and 4. Which side is more convincing?

Leon Meier “4: if we double, then we risk partner bidding 4 with 3-4 or 4-4 in the majors, only really gaining when partner is 2-5 or more skewed.”

Kris Wooles “4: at this vulnerability, East’s pre-empt could easily be on a 6 card suit and the raise on a 3 card suit so we would have 2 quick losers for a start. Double sounds like take out to me and what then if partner bids 4 on say Qxxx and with three spades on the side? Essentially I’m bidding what I’m looking at.”

It seems the length of our partner’s major suits is more important that the length of the opponent’s pre-empt. We know we have 5 spades if we bid the suit but will not know how many hearts partner has if they choose that suit as trumps.

Nigel Kearney “Double: Of course partner might have three spades and four hearts and we do better to bid 4, but the odds are that our best spot will be in partner's longest suit and the take-out double will get us there.”

and finding the bid with the most options is:

Peter Newell “Double: a choice between 4 and double. I prefer double as our hand is playable in 3 suits opposite a 5+ suit and if partner is weak and flattish, defending 4 doubled may be best for us or not terrible at least. 4 is very much putting all one’s eggs in 1 basket.”

Andy Braithwaite “4: double could get us into a 4-3 heart fit which may result in partner being tapped off at trick 2. I won’t know what to do over 4 so take the lead and make the decision myself.”

Bruce Anderson “4: could be wrong; I would like a sixth spade but I am not doubling as partner is very unlikely to be able to convert to penalties if that is right. Should partner bid hearts after a double it could be wrong to pass, particularly if he/she is 4/4 in the majors. If partner bids 5 over my double, we could be past the right game if we have a 5/3 spade fit. 

This is not perfect, but 4 it is. The hand seems to be a good example of why pre-empting sensibly is a good idea.”

These next  two Panellists made the same choice but were heading in different directions afterwards. They share the general uncertainty of the best outcome.

Stephen Blackstock “Double: Nothing is completely satisfactory; obviously 4 is a live possibility but partner will expect a longer suit and we may be stranded there when he has limited tolerance. I intend to bid 4 over 4, showing a hand of quality but not great length in spades. South could reasonably expect longer clubs for that sequence but double keeps most options open and is the closest description I can give with so little space available. 

I don't expect a penalty pass as South appears to be short in diamonds, but if South chose that, lacking attractive options, it might well be our best spot.

Lysandra Zheng “Double: and pass partner's bid (presumably 4?). Won't pretend to be happy with that choice, though.”

The tie could be split by Stephen Blackstock’s decision to bid 4 over 4 which might even suggest a hand too strong to bid 4 in the first place, or as Stephen says, the black suits. Thus, if 4 wins the “tie-breaker”, then you can guess which was the winning action at the table:

 

 

4 was unmakeable. In 4,  an initial spade lead by West and diamond to West after East takes A, puts South under a lot of pressure on South after they incur a spade ruff. That defence is unlikely with West not looking at A. South should make 4 after the more normal 2 rounds of diamonds start.

However, the bidding did not always go as above. South has a choice of actions when West did not bid:

 

3 is showing a strong hand but again the problem is how many spades? Passing and raising spades are options though the winning action, not found at all tables, was for South to continue bidding out their shape (4) enabling 4 to be the final contract.

At some tables, West bid to 5, doubled and down 2, a good sacrifice over a making 4 but less good if East bid this over a non-making 4 (my lips are sealed!).

As Bruce Anderson reflected, pre-empts do make it awkward for the pre-emptor’s opponents. There is no one correct answer over the excellent 4 bid by West nor perhaps over East’s 3 in the second auction above. Only two South players out of 16 played and made 4 with many more failing in the spade game.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items