All News

A Difficult Deal.

You have been dealt a strong hand and with your partner in the bidding, you know you are going to be in game. Indeed, on a different day, you might even have been thinking of slam. Yet, there’s a good philosophy that you should not be thinking of such high-level bidding until you have worked out in which denomination you should be playing. Choose the right game first and only then think higher, maybe.

Not today, though, as there is an opponent bidding strongly and oddly. Indeed, have we taken the right route so far in the bidding?

 

 

Do you agree with your 2 bid? If not, what do you prefer?

What now?

Our bidding comes in for some criticism right from the start:

Pam Livingston “Not sure why this hand was opened 1 instead of 1: normal to open the lower of two four card suits. It’s a distortion and partner will not expect me to have 4-4 in the minors.

Maybe not but it is easier to compete in both minors if you open 1 while a little “lie” about the diamond length is not nearly so critical as were it a major suit where game is bid at the 4 level. With a 5-3 minor fit, one veers towards 3NT.

Stephen Blackstock “I think 1 is an ill-judged opening. What was South going to rebid over the likely 1 response? 2NT is an underbid,3NT a different hand type (running diamonds). 3 is possible but partner won’t expect 4-4: you should have genuine length or spade support. 2 is or should be off the charts with 3-4 in the reds.

A 1 response is if anything more difficult still. You can only try a flawed 3, and may not get a chance to offer hearts as a contract over 3/3NT. Worst of all, if partner then tries 3NT, you have wrong-sided it, as would a 1NT response to 1.”

Stephen suggests an upgrade to a 2NT opening. However, after starting with 1, he, as was Pam, was sympathetic with our next bid:

Stephen Blackstock “2 is fine. It’s difficult to think of a viable alternative.”

Pam Livingston “I like the 2 bid. It says I have a good hand but nothing clear to bid naturally and certainly do not have four hearts.”

Also agreeing is:

Peter Newell “I’m ok with 2. It looks like a 2NT/3NT bid to me, but also looks like we may be better off in a suit and although we have a lot of points, this is probably a part-score hand as my K will not be much use particularly if partner is playing the hand. If I bid 3NT straight away, we are very likely to play there. So, going via 2 offers more chance to hear which suit partner wants to bid and shows uncertainty about NT.  Bidding 2 gives more chance of playing in a suit and doesn’t give up on 3NT.”

   and muted support from:

Bruce Anderson “I am not that happy with 2 which could lead to 3NT being played from the wrong side if partner holds Qxx.

But what else? 3 is a distortion. Partner may well hold only 4 hearts: so, I am not bidding 4. 3NT will require partner to provide heart tricks and A: there is no guarantee of that.

Also, that bid sounds like a spade stop and long strong diamonds. A positive for 2 is that partner may have length in hearts but lacked the strength to bid 2 over intervention. If that is so, we will play 4.”

Kind of OK with our choice is:

Michael Cornell “I do not greatly mind 2 (it is the second-best bid!) but surely 2 NT is the most descriptive bid? That is what I would have bid after 1 and 1 from partner: so why not?

There are those who really disapprove of 2S:

Matt Brown “I strongly dislike 2. Why didn't we just bid 2NT and show our hand?”

Nigel Kearney “I prefer 2NT, which limits our hand, right-sides 3NT (partner may have Qxx), and still leaves space to look for other strains. Our hand is not that great with slow cards in the minors and K of doubtful value. So, I don't think this is an underbid.”

I suspect 2 was preferred to 2NT as South felt their spade hold was not sufficient for 3NT. As strong as the hand might seem, it only contained one ace. Maybe South had a premonition of what was to come, West’s second bid. What are we going to bid now?

The choices seem to be 3NT, double or:

Nigel Kearney “4: 3NT has no trick source but we can't pass as we forced to game last round so partner is unlimited. Double for take-out is the obvious choice but is likely to wrong-side 3NT or 4. I will guess 4 because it protects the K, is probably where we were going to end up anyway, and may be down less than 3NT when nothing makes.”

Such pessimism! An interesting reflection that since we created a forcing auction, that partner could still be quite strong, although maybe not!

Raising an additional issue and thus going with what he thinks might be the majority view is:

Stephen Blackstock “3NT maybe: The problem now is the form of scoring. At IMPs double is obvious. Most times we will defend and collect +500 when West holds a likely AQ(J)xxxx and a side ace. (great prediction of West's hand, Stephen)

However, I expect a lot of the field to be in 3NT, and 500 will be poor if 3NT makes. For that reason, I sympathise with 3NT since it makes sense to stay with the field and avoid a top or bottom action in uncertain circumstances. However, here, 3NT is surely an underdog: North needs at least the Q plus a low honour or two in the minors (or else lucky layout) for us to have a chance for nine tricks before the spades run. That is sufficiently unlikely for me to choose double now. Double is not “hands off” penalty, but without extra length or shape I expect North to pass.”

So, if everyone bids 3NT, so will Stephen. Do they?

Peter Newell “3NT: This must show some reluctance otherwise I would have bid no trumps straight away.”

Michael Cornell “3NT: to describe my hand which is why I would have bid 2NT on the previous round. Partner may suspect only a single spade hold now and may be able to make an intelligent decision.

If partner cannot make any intelligent decision over 3, then I cannot see them moving away from the 9- trick game at this point.

Matt Brown “Double: Having failed to bid 2NT, we should probably double now. We want to compete and it is unlikely if we bid 3NT we will make it as West surely has an entry to go with their spades (we have no minor aces!).

Pam Livingston “Double: While double is for take-out normally, in this case partner will often leave it in. For this bidding, I won't have a spade stack and partner will expect a fairly balanced hand.  I would like to know who West is.  Are they putting their head on the block bidding 3 or have they actually got a good hand?  As I have a blindfold on, I will double and hope 3NT is not making.  Partner couldn't move over 3 and I only have one ace. So, nine tricks may not be there. 

Bruce Anderson “Double: This should be read as an action double (I cannot hold great strength in spades). With length in hearts, partner should bid 4, and with a modest flat(ish) hand, pass. If partner does hold the latter hand, it will right to defend, rather than try for a problematic game.”

It sounds like we should allow Stephen to change his bid to “double” with no clear direction from the Panel. Double is an “action double” showing a strong hand, a bid which will often be converted to penalties. That would have been the right action at the table as these were the four hands:

 

 

There would be no 500 this time as preventing the club ruff would cost the defence their trump trick. Thus, North-South would collect a nervy but ultimately very good +200 since all game contracts are doomed…or are they?

At the table, South elected to try 4. Patient defence will see the defence score a minimum of a heart, two spades and a club trick…but… West decided to go on the attack with A and a second spade. This had the effect of condensing the trump and second spade trick into one trick and with a very favourably placed J, South came to a somewhat fortunate 10 tricks with the dummy hand set up and the third spade ruffed in hand.

It may seem harsh though West seemed to get the poor result their actions deserved. If you are going to bid 3, why not do so first up and not when the opposition have announced a strong hand? After an immediate 3 and a pass from North, it is hard to see South making the right decision of passing with double wrong-siding 4 and 3NT doomed, even from the South seat.

      Fun leads!

Have you made the wrong lead against a slam recently? Well, here’s your chance to restore the balance and make a good one! Oh, not much at stake. The contract is 7NT!

 

 

5 shows 2 aces. South seems pretty confident. Can you give them cause for regret?

 

All will be revealed on “Jan’s Day.”

 

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items