All News

An Awkward Two-Suiter.

I thought life was easier when one holds spades, the “master-suit”. Not so. We have three suits between our two hands and yet the opposition are making it awkward to find our best fit.

 

We know that 4 can be bid on very little but a pile of hearts. Yet, just as we were about to show our second suit, opener joins in the action again at the 5-level. Two questions for you. Do you agree with your 4 bid? Then, whether or not you do, what now?

I have to say I was surprised by the Panel’s rejection of 4. It does not, I accept, get across that we hold a 6-card diamond suit on the side but it does say we have at least 5 of the master-suit. We do not even mind hearing 5 from partner. However, let’s hear from the Panel who are generally in favour of a negative- style double:

Kris Wooles “Double: No, definitely not. Would have made a responsive double.” 

Andy Braithwaite “Double: I would have doubled 4 for take-out.”

Pam Livingston “Double: although 4 is understandable. It is the boss suit after all.  But any denomination of making game (or slam) is good in Teams.  Double is for take-out and you actually have 3 places you are interested in playing spades, diamonds or clubs.  Bidding 4 is aiming for the target of partner having exactly 3 spades.  With four they will respond 4 to the double and with 2 you will have a better place to play.  It makes the decision over 5 a more informed one.  If partner heard you double the first time and took no action over 5 then that is different information to what we have with this auction.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: I don’t agree with 4, which sounds like a single- suited hand. I would double giving our side the chance to find a fit outside clubs. Doubling also gives partner the option of passing if they have a trump trick outside a club suit that was worth bidding; if so, 4 is almost sure to go down. The double would be an ‘action double’ if the partnership agreement is negative doubles are not played beyond 3. Game in clubs is not out of the question if partner has 7 clubs, given that I have a void and two aces.”

Wayne Burrows “Double: I think I prefer double last round. Partner won't have four spades very often and so we risk getting forced off quickly in a 4 contact if partner has two or three spades and they could even have only one.”

While partner might expect us to have a better trump suit for 4, I am sure they will not imagine we have anything like 5-6 in the unbid suits for the double. We do have  support for 4:

Michael Cornell “4: Tough problem. ( both of them! ) 4  I think is reasonable.”

Peter Newell “4/Double: Yes, I would probably bid 4. It does depend on what double of 4 would be. If it is truly take-out (rather than just showing cards, i.e., not penalties but values without a good known fit) then double clearly is appealing.  Of course, partner will not expect such extreme shape, and will normally be expecting 4 spades not 5.

However, we could belong in spades, clubs or diamonds and double gives us some chance of finding that out (with clubs and say 4 diamonds, possibly 3, partner may bid 4NT). Partner will find it hard to bid over 4 as he will be expecting a better/longer suit.  Bidding 4 is rather fraught unless partner has 4- card support. It may get rather uncomfortable in 4 after hearts get led tapping the 5 card suit. So, I would lean towards double if it is strongly take-out and otherwise bid 4 and if you get doubled run to 5 or 4NT (showing club tolerance and diamonds).”

Finally, another approach:

Nigel Kearney “4NT/5: I don't like 4. We need a better or longer suit for that. It won't play well on heart leads, especially if partner has fewer than three spades. I might bid 4NT if partner understands that as pick a minor, otherwise I would probably guess 5 ahead of 5, though it is close.”

I am still nervous about double. One advantage maybe that West may now stay quiet in case it becomes the final contract. I fear that might be the case on the actual deal, though more of that shortly.

We asked the Panel what they would do given the auction to 5 and the main view was that they should take a plus from 5x.

Nigel Kearney “Double: After bidding 4, we can't do anything except double. We are not in a force so partner's pass over 5 is not particularly encouraging. To bid on would be wildly speculative given we don't even have a trump fit.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: I was forced to bid 4 and now have to find a bid over 5. I am doubling; that contract should go down as partner must be short in spades; pass would be timid in the extreme. I see no rational alternative.”

Certainly, after bidding 4, it does seem strange that partner would not bid 5 with three spades, though a look below at their ace-less hand, might suggest that 5 may be too tough to make.

Andy Braithwaite “Double: Now I am guessing what to do so double hoping for a compensating plus.”
Peter Newell “Double: What do I bid now? Double, I think, with 4 card support, partner will bid 5 quite often so with my 2 aces and only a doubleton club, I will defend.”

Wayne Burrows “Double: Having bid 4 and survived I double now. I have two aces and not enough to underwrite slam although it could be cold. Two aces and a partner who bid is enough to expect that 5 will fail.”

Kris Wooles “Double: After this rather ugly auction, I’m unhappily making a penalty double concealing my 6 card diamond suit with unknown potential.”

and finally, a lone voice for bidding on:

Michael Cornell “5NT: My first instinct was to double but partner did not want to and it seems unlikely he has great spade support. So, I will bid a bullish 5NT in an attempt to get the diamonds into play but if partner has very good clubs, 6 should also be OK.

If partner does not have the K, it is a hot favourite to be offside but I have gone down in slams before and I  can certainly find hands where slam is cold.

Kx x Kxxx AKxxxx is a cast iron grand.”

I think I need a good lawyer. Having forced the Panel to bid 4 against their will, they now take the plus. Alas, there is to be no plus and the Panel will claim had they doubled a round earlier, this disaster would not have happened. I am not so sure.

 

Against 5x, there would be a very quick claim. At our table, South chose to bid 6 which had to fail. So, too, would 6 even if East does not get their immediate club ruff. A high level spade contract would not make either though the score should be less than the -650 from 5x. Roughly half the tables saw West declarer in 4 or 5 often doubled. East-West were failing in 5 or higher contracts at the others.

Michael Cornell may not have been adding this to his large number of making slams but the sacrifice against the making heart game would be worthwhile.
He is correct in saying both problems above are tough for South. An intriguing discussion particularly over South’s best action over 4.

 

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items