All News

Science and Guesswork: guessing game.

Yes, we have a piece of both in today’s problem, a problem caused by one of those perennial problem pre-empts. One day, the pre-empt will back-fire on the pre-emptor but as is so often the case, the pre-empt seems to cause more problems for the opponents:

 

Our problem today is to choose the right level or the right suit or indeed not to guess at all!

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: Certainly, an awkward problem. The most straightforward action is 4NT, choice of minors initially. However, with equal length, West will choose clubs and my suit is very weak - and with no spade raise I have to wonder if we have two spade losers also.

I prefer 4 to 4NT. Yes it's an underbid but with the strong hand needed for game, West may well bid again. Then I can choose to rebid 5 and reach our better minor game. As I see it, pass is best of all, even if they have a ten-card fit we might limit them to just seven trump tricks and +500 will surely be a top. Only +200 could be excellent too. We may not have a making game, and if we do, it isn't clear that after this start that we are going to find it. In the unlikely event that 3x makes - well, it's only Pairs!

Bruce Anderson “Pass: the alternative is 4NT, which must say to partner pick a minor. But making 11 tricks is not certain so I am trying for a worthwhile penalty. Partner is on lead and must have a strong hand to force me to bid at the 4 level. If he/she holds AK, the defence will off to a good start. So, pass it is.”

Not only do we need partner to have the right minor cards but two spades in partner’s hand could see a quick end to any game aspirations we might have. For once, the vulnerability is in our favour for passing giving the possibility of a clear top. Nevertheless, the majority of the Panel are heading to the 5-level:

Nigel Kearney “ 4NT. We are worth at least four and a half of a minor, and the advantage of finding the right suit makes 4NT an easy choice.”

Kris Wooles “4NT. minors at least 5/5 which adequately describes my hand. Partner can best judge then what to bid next.”

 

Michael Cornell “4NT. which is what the whole panel will bid (I am doing a Michael Ware!).

Could easily be too high but there is no room to invite. There is no reason why partner has not got x Axxx Qxxx AKxx and 6 is odds on."

 

Our next Panellist will explain why the “obvious” 4NT bid is not necessarily the right action. It was certainly not “unanimous” either. 

 

Peter Newell “4NT: minors - looks fairly obvious with 5/5 and a reasonable hand.  However, while obvious I’m not that happy with it.  The doubleton spade means there is a reasonable likelihood of 2 spade losers which means that partner will likely need very good clubs to make 5 of a minor.  

There is also the possibility that partner has a strong hand with hearts, too good for a 4 bid, and does not have much length in the minors, and will bid 5 over 4NT.

 At the vulnerability, pass could easily be right, maybe a wee bit of a gamble, but 2 off will beat games, and 1 off will be good enough to beat any pairs not making game/slam.  So, while I think 4NT is obvious, I would consider pass if looking for a top board or against a player who pre-empts aggressively.”

There is another reason why 4NT may not be the right reason. We have here a choice of two forcing bids, 4 and 4NT. After reading the next two answers, are you clear of the difference?

Andy Braithwaite “4: This all depends on your agreement in this situation. 4 should be pick a minor and 4NT key card on hearts but without such agreement, this hand is very tricky.

Without discussion, 4 must be the safer option!"

I am sure 4 will provide West with a piece of head-scratching! Perhaps Andy would like a game with Leon?

Leon Meier “4NT: I can either bid 4 or 4NT to ask partner to pick a minor. 4 is stronger interest for slam. Hence I will bid 4NT.”

So, you can choose how you treat 4. Despite Andy’s comment, I would have thought 4NT was the clearer option, certainly where the difference had not been discussed. At the table, 4NT was chosen and East-West lived to record an above-average result.

 

West had just enough to make game and with no K or 10 little enough to make slam a very poor option. Bidding to the 5-level was no guarantee of success as West’s hearts could easily have been headed by KQ. Also, there was no reason why West had to have a singleton spade. North had seen the vulnerability too. They did not have this time to bid to the 4-level and of course, could easily have had one spade less.

For the Panel, it was a time for optimism. They chose to play in the right trump suit which could easily have been one level too high. Defending 3x could easily have produced the best East-West score. Not so this time where after a diamond lead, East must get a ruff to defeat the contract by one trick.

So, optimism this time, the right guesswork, provided the best result but 4NT was by no means the “obvious” way to a top score.

Tomorrow, we have a special birthday to celebrate. See you then.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items