All News

Not just one but….

Handling a double void.

When today’s deal occurred, my right-hand opponent sitting in the South seat, turned to me saying he wished he could ask me what he should bid. So, it sounded like a problem….and it was!

 

It sounded like a problem for our Panel. We also asked the Panel whether they agreed with South’s first 1 bid.

That proved no problem because all agreed that an initial 1 bid (“keep it low” until you know where you are going) was definitely a good start. This summarised the Panel’s view:

Stephen Blackstock “Completely agree with 1. This isn't a hand South can describe, so a normal consultative auction isn't possible. At the end of the day South will have to guess the right level and the best approach now is to stay low and hope that actions by partner and the opponents will help to draw a picture of the layout.” or

Michael Cornell “ Of course, it’s forcing, isn’t it!”

However, it became harder after West had raised to 3.

The choice seemed to be between a forcing cue-bid and a “shut your eyes” jump to the 6-level:

Michael Cornell “6: If I had been able to, I would have jumped to 3 as game forcing but I cannot now do that. So, I shut my eyes and bid 6.

We could make anywhere between 3 and 7 but I cannot see a sensible way to investigate.”

though in the middle we have:

Kris Wooles “4: There is no easy answer as to what to bid now. On a bad day I could go down in 4. Getting the Q lead and partner hits with something like  x Kxx Kxx AKxxx with A off- side and, even worse, one of the opponents having Qxx . I could bid 4 and get excited over a 4 response but if partner can’t bid 4, then we would be at the 5 level at least. So, on balance I’m bidding 4.”

The majority try to find out some more information:

Peter Newell “4: Now I'll try 4. Let's see if partner bids 4 or 4 rather than 5. Over 4/4 I'll bid 6, and over 5, I'll bid 5.”

Nigel Kearney “4: I expect slam to be good most of the time but a lot obviously depends on where partner's high cards are. Over 4, I will bid 6. Over 5, I will bid 5 and  hope partner gets the message that heart honours are important. Even opposite a poorly fitting minimum like x xxx AJx AQxxxx, there's a good chance they find the wrong lead and 5 makes.”

Andy Braithwaite “4: I bid 4 hopefully showing a shortage and a self- sufficient spade suit- hoping partner bids 4 to induce me to slam.” 

Stephen Blackstock “4: hoping to hear 4 from North. South must be showing a hand too strong to bid a non-forcing 4 (3/4 would both be natural and forcing), so 4 from North should be cards, not an offer to play. Over any other continuation, I will have to sign off.”

Bruce Anderson “4: hoping partner reads that as saying I have a strong hand with at least five clubs, as well as a spade suit (if I was trying to find out if partner has 4 hearts, I would have made a negative double). Should partner have something like Q  Axxx  Jxx AQxxx I will hear 4.

 

Then, I will bid 6 without the concern we are off AK, which is possible if partner’s opening was based on a strong club suit and little else. If I hear 5 in response I will sign off in 5. Partner should not bid again as I must be showing a self-sufficient suit.”

 

And with just the convention we need but do not have!

Wayne Burrows “4: Double exclusion Blackwood either hasn't been invented or if it has, then it is not in common use and we might be missing the AK anyway. Usually, I would double with ongoing hands where I need more information, like a diamond stopper or a heart suit or secondary spade support, but I do not want to risk having partner pass 3x. That would be almost certainly wrong even if quite infrequent.

If double is the normal ongoing bid then for me 4 should be a very strong spade hand (or possibly a hand with club support but that would be excluded in my partnership as we would have made a fit jump over 1 1 on the first round). And by very strong I mean at least serious slam invitation. So 4 I bid.”

 

Whether we are showing clubs and spades or just spades, it does seem right to make one more effort to see if our partner has the cards we need for slam. Nothing is certain in bridge. When you see the actual hands below, it may seem strange that North did not bid 4 when they had the chance (with no spades and a modest if solid opening suit, they may not have wanted to venture to the 5-level. Also, 4 would tend to deny a heart suit.) but also that the winning action by South was not indeed of bidding 4 or any number of spades:

 

 

Some Panellists referred to the number of tricks available in spades varying between 9 and 13. On a diamond lead, it is definitely at the lower end of that scale with a spade and three hearts to lose.

Not so if you found your 4-4 heart fit where the declaring side can scramble their way to 10 tricks with just three trump losers. All the Panel agreed that 4 from North after our 4 cue would have shown the ace or maybe the king rather than a heart suit. Thus, the winning bid this time after West’s 3, would have been 3 (like Wayne, I could not bear the thought of partner passing our negative double of 3) although that might sound like 5-5 to North, the raise being then on just a three-card suit. Normally, an almost solid 9-card suit seems better as the trump suit. There was nothing “normal” about this deal.

A few pairs made 4 but the majority went two or three down at a higher level or even just one down in 4. The heart suit just never got a look-in. It was thus not just my opponents who got into trouble on this board.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items