All News

Which Way Ahead?

We have a hand which in view of partner’s bidding may be best to bid to 3NT but also might be good for a diamond slam, what with all our aces. How to tread the middle line keeping both options open? That is the question. We are playing Teams and so finishing in a making 5 instead of 3NT may cost us an imp or 2 but would not be critical. So..

 

We asked the Panel what they thought of our bidding so far and where they would go next?

Every deal is more suited to some systems than others and a situation like the above is certainly better handled by a 2 over 1 system where 3 by North after 2 would be 100% forcing to game. For the many who do not adopt this approach, another bid has to be found: hence 2. So, what did the Panel think of our approach so far..and where to next?

Michael Ware “4: Happy with bidding so far. It's looking like partner has short clubs, my hand is awesome. "Unanimous surely?"

I am happy with the above comment but will the last piece be proven correct?

Nigel Kearney “3NT: (oops, sorry, Michael!) It's an awkward hand. The 2 response looks normal but I don't really like it. When we move towards slam in diamonds, partner will misevaluate, thinking a singleton club is bad and something like Qx or KJx is good. I would have preferred a response that shows a good diamond raise (e.g., 2 or 2NT) even if that normally contains four diamonds.

 Having responded 2, 2 next is fine. The cheapest forcing bid is often used to mark time, and partner will understand that. Now I am just going to bid 3NT. Even 5 could be too much opposite a junky 2452 and, since I didn't bid 3NT directly over 2, partner has the option of continuing with a suitable hand. The alternative is 4 as we need to set the trump suit.”

Stephen Blackstock “3NT: Easy and straightforward. I'm certainly not wandering off to the four level opposite a hand that might still be a poor minimum. Of course, if South holds Kxx KJxx KQxxx x we belong in slam, but he won't be excited by that even if I stretch to 4 now.

A forcing 3 over 2 (if available) will leave us in much the same position. In the good old days, I could bid 2NT over 1 to show a strong no trump. It seldom came up but was a godsend when it did: describing a strong no trump opposite an opening bid is otherwise nigh on impossible given the space constraints.”

Bruce Anderson “3NT:  I don’t like the bidding so far. Instead of reversing into a non- existent suit, I would have bid 3NT over partner’s rebid of 2. We could then miss a diamond slam but partner will need gold; a strong diamond suit and both major suit kings, and a singleton club; it is very unlikely they have suppressed strong club support.

Now, if I bid 4, partner might well think this slam interest in hearts, rather than strong support for his/her suit. And if partner has 4 hearts, which is likely, he/she may well keep “correcting’ to hearts when I bid diamonds. 3NT must send the message I don’t have 4 hearts and should be passed, although as previously said a diamond slam could missed. The hand is an excellent example of how natural systems like Acol struggle to deal with an average opening bid opposite a strong responding hand. The moral: play 2/1!
Yet, Michael does have some support and it looks like once we have forced with 2, then 4 now is definitely a slam try…and hopefully in diamonds.

Kris Wooles “4: suit agreement and forcing. Could easily make a slam in diamonds. Things are a little blurry of course after my 2 bid where none of my values lie.”

Michael Cornell “4: Not playing 2/1 I cannot see what else one could do up to this point. If 4 is forcing ( I am not familiar with these antediluvian methods ! ),  I would bid that, otherwise I will bid 5 and probably make 6.”

Leon Meier “4D: Interesting hand. Partner’s most likely hand shape is  

3451 but could be 2461 or 2452. Do we play that 3 is forcing or non- forcing?  and non- forcing if 2 was forcing. (for most, not playing 2 over 1, 2 simply shows a weak hand) so presuming that 2 was non forcing and we could have bid a forcing 3, I would have bid that instead of 2. But now we have bid 2, I hope partner can be convinced we don't actually have hearts. Give partner:

Kxx

Kxxx

KQxxx

x

and we are cold for slam; that's an 11 count. I'm definitely making a slam try here and bidding 4. Let's hope partner thinks that's a slam try agreeing diamonds. If they bid 4, I'd be too worried they think we are in hearts and I'll just bid 6. If they bid 4, I'll key-card.

 

Andy seems happy:

Andy Braithwaite “3: My bidding is fine for now as 2 is game forcing and does not necessarily show 4 hearts. So, 3 shows 9 or 10 cards in the reds.

I would now bid 3 to find out if partner holds K. If I get 3NT, I continue with 4 to set that suit but deny a club control. Partner should work out whether to play 6 or 5 from there.

 

If I don’t get 3NT, I have to give up in 5 unless partner bids 4 on the way.”

 

Wayne Burrows “3: Short of having an immediate response like 2NT to show a game forcing balanced hand, there does not seem to be any sensible alternative to 2 on the first round. Nevertheless, some old fashioned Terence Reese advice was to not bid bad suits on good hands. So, it would be good to have some alternative. Not sure I would do it at the table but if I have a forcing diamond raise, that might be better than 2.
1 2 2 2NT forcing (to game) would be my preferred agreement after 2 with this hand. On the second round, I am not a fan of bidding three card suits, especially majors, when partner might have four card support.

I really need to know the partnership style from this point to make a sensible call here. I seem hamstrung by our methods earlier in the auction. New suit bids sound like cue-bids but I will try 3 and hope to survive and suggest diamonds later.
Over 3, I anticipate problems if partner has the hoped for club shortage which might be necessary for slam as many play that partner cannot cue a shortage in partner's long suit. That highlights the problems with the initial response of 2 with this hand.”

So, sign off in 3NT or bid on a little optimistically. However, there was an additional problem for those in 3NT…and the problem was not now that of the declaring side:

 

 

Even bidding to 5 might have been a big winner on this board. Those in 6 did even better. Those in 3NT had to hold their breath as the defence tried to untangle 5 club tricks. That’s easy with a low club at trick 1 and after North’s club call, there are grounds for doing so. If East starts high, West should throw J and trust their partner plays them for 10: if not, then a rather ugly 3NT will make. 3NT made 32 times and failed on 8 occasions.
The two pairs in 5 and two more in 6 deserved a better result.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items