All News

Direct or Descriptive?

A “pre-empting the opposition” type situation for today. The vulnerability is in our favour today and we have 11, at worst 10 trumps, between us. The only downside is that our suit is clubs, easy to bid over. We are playing Pairs.

 

The above heading refers to whether we bid directly to where we are going or whether we show partner a little extra along the way. That extra is spades. We know we have a good club fit. Could we have a 5-3 spade fit as well? If so, could spades be an alternative lower level sacrifice place after the opponents continue their red suit bidding as they surely will.

We asked the Panel what they would bid next and whether they would bid any more when the red suit bid from North (5) came next. There was support for both 3 and the otherwise 5 actions:

Andy Braithwaite “3: just in case partner can raise.”
Michael Ware and Michael Cornell  likewise.

Wayne Burrows “3: We might feel there's need to bid 5 to keep out a reasonably likely 4. Against that, since we have only two hearts, it is very likely they have a heart fit and partner will be on lead against a heart contract. Therefore, a lead directing 3 has some merit followed by 5 over the anticipated 4. I will choose that route and bid 3.”

And then the 5 clubbers:

Pam Livingston “5: It looks like N/S have a vulnerable game on or even possibly a slam if there is a void in clubs in one of the hands.  It is tempting to offer spades by bidding 3 but that just gives the opponents the opportunity to find a heart fit.”

Bruce Anderson “5: possibly our opponents can make a slam if we don’t have a club trick; bidding 5 takes up bidding space, making it difficult for North to show strong diamond support and a club void, for example. 

 

Stephen Blackstock “5: Getting there fast to limit the space N/S has to exchange information. looking for a spade fit wouldn't achieve that, and in any event if we have an 8-card spade fit N/S have so many red cards we won't keep them out.” 

Peter Newell “5: not sure what they can make, but keen to take the 4 level away as North will quite often bid 4, and one would expect that it would usually make. Bidding 5 means it is rather less likely they will settle in hearts as North is more likely to support diamonds over 5, an important point at Pairs.  The 5 level may be too high for the opponents. Given we have a 10+ card club fit, it is important to bid the maximum quickly and make it hard for the opponents to evaluate.”

Contrary to normal thinking, I would have thought it could be to our benefit to let North bid on to 4. We are on lead to a diamond contract while to have a partner lead a spade to a heart game may indeed be the best way to defeat their high-level contract. Nigel agrees but…

Nigel Kearney “5: There's a good chance they will play in hearts by LHO and a spade lead from partner could be important. That suggests bidding 3. However, I don't want to give them room to find hearts easily so I need to bid 5 straight away.”

and considering slam directly is:

Kris Wooles “5: While instinctively I would like to bid 6 now given the vulnerability and club fit, I’m concerned it may push the opponents into a making vulnerable slam or I could be doubled for minus 800."  

Pre-empting suits for the young have reduced in length over the years as Leon ruefully reflects:

Leon Meier “4: It depends on our partnership pre-emption style. Some of my partners might not have much better than 432 432  32 65432 

but assuming that the 3 pre-empt is "textbook", I like to imagine a common hand partner could have xxx   xx  x KQJxxxx where we either have 4 or 5 losers playing in clubs, and almost certainly no more than 2 defensive tricks.

However, partner could have 6 clubs at this vulnerability by all but the most conservative players which means that we will often lose 5 tricks in clubs, maybe 6 on a really bad day. I'm definitely raising clubs though in this case I'll bid 4 hoping they then stop in 4.”

Well, there are a few rather wild pre-emptors around these days but let's stick to the mainstream. So, different ideas about what to do but only one panellist was prepared to go higher when North moved directly to 5: 

Stephen Blackstock “6: Not entirely comfortable with making N/S guess and then bidding again, but it looks right here. 6x is probably -500 at most, and the chances of defeating 5 seem poor. That would need no N/S club void, and usually the K with South and insufficient discards of spade losers. Each of those is not unlikely, but all together is much longer odds. Giving East a spade ruff is possible, but will be hard to diagnose.” 

Otherwise, the Panel defend:

Andy Braithwaite “Pass and hope to get a positive score or maybe a reasonable score if hearts play better for my opposition.”

Michael Cornell “Pass. I am not diving in 6 which could be cheap. On a good day we can beat 5. On a bad day it could easily make 6. If partner has found a really weak pre-empt, we could still be getting a fair score because they have not found their heart fit.”

Leon Meier “Pass. No way am I bidding 6, even though it is theoretically possible it is a good save.”

Pam Livingston “Pass: I'm not moving over 5.  I made them guess at a level they did not want to: so, my work here is done.”

Bruce Anderson “Pass: hoping we have three defensive tricks, rather than risk taking what may be a phantom dive in 6, or pushing our opponents into a making slam.

Nigel Kearney “Pass: I am reasonably happy to pass. I hope that it goes down and/or hearts scores better for them, and opposite a favourable 3 opening it's not even certain that 6 doubled will be cheaper than their game. Maybe in the 1960s, partner would often have xx xxx x KQJxxxx and 6 would be the percentage action but not anymore. It's an interesting lead problem though.”

We have some advice on that too:

Michael Ware “Pass. Lead 7 for a spade switch.”

Wayne Burrows “Pass: Partner pre-empted at favourable. Two aces is good defence but not enough to double. The A rates to cash - either 1-1 or partner has only six - and we might have two spade tricks or partner a deep red suit winner. 

The real problem might be at trick one as to whether it is necessary to lead a low club to partner's king to get a spade switch through declarer's possible king. I think it's close.”

Kris Wooles was another passer, feeling that not bidding on might be wrong. So mixed feelings as to whether our 6-level sacrifice would be a good one but that’s a level no-one was prepared to go.

On this occasion, they would have been correct on two grounds:

 

 

There was nothing “modern” about that pre-empt but with clubs breaking badly for the defence against a red suit contract, and the K in the wrong hand anyway for the defence, a red suit slam could be made.

 

Also, sensible defence against 6x should have got 800 for the defence with East 2227 shape. Either North can play Q under South’s high heart lead to enable South to lead low to the J for a diamond switch or even a spade at trick 3 works for the defence. Any slip like cashing A at trick 3 and North/South would have a terrible result. 

So, if you are going to stop at the 5-level, you may as well just bid 5 directly and maybe under-lead your A to get a spade switch. Only on a horror day would North or South have the singleton K..not today!

 

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items