All News

Daily Bridge in New Zealand

Getting Better and Better and even Better Still!

You started with a good hand, 18 hcp. It got better when your partner opened the bidding at the 1-level. The news got better still when you discovered a 4-4 fit (maybe partner has more than a 4-card suit) along with a 5-3 fit in opener’s first bid suit.

How though to progress the bidding? Slam must be a strong possibility.

Bridge in NZ.pngnz map.jpg

 

K Q 10

A K 5 2

Q 10 9 5

A 5

 

West

North

East

South

 

 

Pass

1 ♠

Pass

2 

Pass

2 

Pass

3 ♣

Pass

3 NT

Pass

?

 

 

We used 3Club-small, 4th suit forcing and partner responded with a hold in the unbid suit. What now?

We asked the Panel if they agreed with our 3Club-small bid, what if anything else they would prefer and what they would bid next. There were differing views:

Nigel Kearney “5Heart-small: I agree with 3Club-small. Unless playing 2/1 there is no real alternative. Now I will just invite with 5Heart-small and let partner bid six if he likes his hand. Spades could be a better trump suit but there's no obvious way to find out.”

The assumption made was that we are not playing “2 over 1 Game Force.” The argument will continue long and hard about the merits of this system, where a change of suit by responder (2Diamond-small above) commits the partnership to a minimum of game level.

One great advantage of this approach is that here 3Heart-small by responder is a slam try and stronger than a raise to 4Heart-small. All our problems would be solved here…well, at least we have a convenient suit forcing bid which agrees hearts as trumps.

A devotee of this approach is:

Michael Cornell “Yes I have no other choice here but if I was playing a sensible system, 3Heart-small would be forcing (as we are in GF) and slam investigation would be very easy.

IMHO any serious bridge players using a natural system which does not incorporate 2/1 GF should visit a psychiatrist. Hands like the above would drive me mad. What do I bid if partner bids either 3NT or 3Spade-small over my 3Club-small?

 

No actual suggestion for what we should do here other than tear up our existing system! So, maybe this deal could become an advert for 2 over 1? I play that approach but I do think there is an alternative way here. (watch this space)

 More wishes for 2 Over 1 but at least we have a practical suggestion if we are using a natural approach:

Peter Newell “6Heart-small: 3Heart-small if forcing would certainly be preferable as sets suit and stops all the confusion.

 I'm assuming 3Club-small is the only forcing bid below 3NT in which case the option seems to be key card which is flawed (it will not help us establish whether partner has a diamond shortage) and is a little early, or 3Club-small which is also serious flawed - would partner believe that we have more major suit length and considerably more strength having bid both minors?

 On the assumption that there was no appropriate forcing bid below 3NT, I prefer 3Club-small to 4NT and it has elicited some useful info as partner’s 3NT bid suggests 5/4 in majors and a club stopper and therefore quite probably diamond shortage.

Over 3NT we are pretty fixed as there is no convenient way to set the trump suit, confirm diamond shortage etc. At this point I would just jump to 6Heart-small as I cannot see any sensible approach - 6Heart-small could be wrong, as we could be better in spades, but 6Heart-small feels right and hopefully we do not have 2 diamond losers or partner has enough to make 7.”

So, can we find out if partner has a control in diamonds? Well, we could have done had we bid 4Club-small over 2Heart-small. I know this should be a splinter but the bid sets hearts as trumps and a 4Diamond-small cue next from partner would be excellent news: no 4Diamond-small bid too would be revealing!

Another who does not like 4th suit 3Club-small is:

Bruce Anderson “don’t agree with 3Club-small as over a possible 3NT response, which partner has now bid, we have no suit agreed and so now 4NT from me is ambiguous; is it an Ace ask or quantitative? This hand is another excellent example of how natural bidders struggle with a strong hand with a fit when responding to an opening bid.

A small slam is likely to be good but it is possible, albeit unlikely, our side is off two diamond tricks, or more likely, an ace and a trump trick, if partner does not hold the Heart-smallQ.

 

I would have bid 4NT RKC over 2Heart-small, then bid the small slam if partner showed at least one ace and the trump queen.”

Agreed at least over 3Club-small but there seem to be holes in using Key Card over 2Heart-small as well.

Andy Braithwaite: “4Club-small: Always a problem for Acol players when 2Diamond-small does not create a near game force. The bid to solve this problem is 3Heart-small which should be stronger than 4Heart-small and not an invite- so suit agreement creates a game force. So, I don’t agree with 3Club-small when 3Heart-small should be strong by agreement.

 

As for what now I guess 4Club-small?”  or maybe a round earlier?

 

Kris Wooles “4NT quantitative. 3Club-small is 4th suit forcing (which I’m happy with assuming I’m not playing 2/1 GF). Partner will have a club stop on this auction and is relying on me to cover diamonds. He could have Spade-smallAJxxx, Heart-smallQJxx, Diamond-smallJx, Club-smallKx in which case 6 of anything will fail.

 So, while I have 18 points, and clearly have enough to want to explore a slam I can either now bid 4Heart-small (much understating my hand) or 4NT which I hope is read as quantitative as we haven’t agreed any suit. While I’m a little worried that partner might bid 3NT with a singleton Diamond-small with 14/15 points I would expect partner to bid 6NT, otherwise pass.

 I would comment playing 2/1 GF I could simply bid 3Heart-small establishing a heart fit at a lower level whereas the stated auction does tend to squash the bidding space somewhat.”

To give some balance, 2 over 1 does have drawbacks with hands less than game forcing but it would have worked well as a system here. I alone think that 4Club-small over 2Heart-small is the answer and it would have enabled us to stay out of the doomed slam here:

East Deals
None Vul

K Q 10

A K 5 2

Q 10 9 5

A 5

9 6 4

7

A K J 7 3

10 6 4 3

 

N

W

 

E

S

 

8 7

J 8 6 3

6 4

J 9 8 7 2

 

A J 5 3 2

Q 10 9 4

8 2

K Q

 

West

North

East

South

 

 

Pass

1 ♠

Pass

2 

Pass

2 

Pass

3 ♣

Pass

3 NT

Pass

?

 

 

disappointment 3.jpg

Disappointment, as Diamond-small8 from South on the opening lead did not put West off taking the first 2 tricks. (East knew how to give count and West how to interpret it!)

West held the top two diamonds though even if they had not, the 4-1 trump break would have put an end to the slam. Nigel Kearney’s 5Heart-small may have ended his auction and Kris Wooles should have been able to pull up in 4NT.

On some days, slam will make but the odds are not that good. A forcing 3Heart-small? Yes, please but if not maybe this time, 4th suit may not have been the best approach… or that’s the story I am sticking to!

 

Something a little more straightforward tomorrow as it is Friyay 2.png   day, for our less experienced players.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items

Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • tourismbop.jpeg
  • TECT.jpg
  • NZB Foundation