All News

                                              or 

Science or Fingers Crossed.

There are times we play in 3NT without a hold in a suit or with a flimsy hold and just hope the opposition do not lead that suit. There are times we “get away with it” with the opponent with the danger suit not on lead, but not always. We can either not draw attention to that weakness and hope or we can tell partner of our concern and bring them into the decision- making.

What about this?

 

1NT is 12-14. We have plenty of high card points to be in game but if as seems likely, that game is 3NT, then we cross fingers that either partner has spades held or that the suit is not led.

Simple Stayman or even a system to find out if partner has a 5-card major (3 major suit enquiry over 1NT is a common use these days) do not necessarily help. After a 2 response to Stayman, do you jump to a 4-3 4 contract when partner holds AJT and 4 tiny hearts as you cannot bid 3NT in case partner is 4-4 in the majors?

There are, though, ways of bringing partner into the decision-making. This is one:

 

2 was a range-finder, which is why North bid 2NT (3 with any maximum) but can have other uses like a weak transfer to a minor suit or as above being forcing to game with a major suit shortage. 3 says that. To stop the opponents doubling 3 as lead-directional, you can reverse the major suit bids so that 3 shows a spade shortage, and vice versa.

It is then up to the opener to decide which game to play, 3NT if they are comfortable there or will look elsewhere. Responder is typically 1453 (no 5-card major for sure as then they would transfer) and may or may not have 4 cards in the other major.

With the above hands, North would offer 4 as a place to play and that would suit South.

The same problem might arise when North opens the above hand 1. Many play inverted minor raises where this sequence could arise:

2 is game-forcing (or maybe just for 1 round) denying a 4-card major. Thus, subsequent bidding shows holds. 2 may only be a 3-card suit but 3 is certainly three-carded and implies that there is a possible weakness elsewhere (spades or diamonds) making 3NT possibly difficult. With 4 good hearts, it would be relatively easy for North to raise to the heart game.

Without inverted minors, it is a little harder.

where 2 is 4^th suit forcing. North could consider QT9 as a hold. If North’s second bid is 1NT, South can check for majors but staying out of 3NT is not easy:

At this point, North would be more concerned about diamonds than spades and the partnership may drift into 3NT. One way to highlight the problem would be for South to bid 3 splinter directly over 1. That may lead here to 5 rather than 4

The actual 4 hands did not totally reward scientific bidding.

If you made it to 4, you would be well rewarded. Even when the J was not so well-positioned for declarer, a second round of spades could be ruffed in dummy. This contract could even have survived a 4-2 trump break as long as the club break was favorable. The latter suit did not break well but trumps did. A diamond lead would be the most challenging for North. North would need to duck one round forcing West to exit in a major suit. North would need to ruff a spade in dummy if clubs only produced 4 tricks. Here, the spade suit itself may produce declarer’s 10^th trick.  

The “crossed fingers” approach worked well this time. Against 3NT, East would lead a low spade with North feeling initially rather uncomfortable. However, the appearance of J at trick 2 would be a big relief. Contract made, this time!

The unlucky declarers were those who reached 5. This contract can be made if you know about the 4-1 trump break and the fortunate spade position (end-playing West in diamonds) but in reality, all declarers who tried this contract failed.

The “scientific approach” was to unearth the moysian heart fit. Once there, 5-1 or 6-0 breaks are not that common. The “crossed fingers” approach will not always be so lucky as above.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items