All News

A Lesson for both sides.

Today’s deal might seem rather mundane and uninteresting and indeed would have been had most who held it followed our Panel’s advice. However, the statistics indicate that most of the 94 East players who held it did not do so. So, firstly, it’s your bid, playing Pairs with the following hand:

 

An opening hand and a five-card major. What action would you take?

Summing up succinctly is:

Michael Cornell “Pass: Vulnerable, this is the easiest pass I have ever seen.

Not vul, I would possibly entertain bidding ( I could either be feeling frisky or just bored! ) but I would not. It is the same lousy hand and the likelihood of making anything is slim. If we can make something, partner will almost certainly take us too high.”

 

I asked the Panel whether they might entertain bidding were East/West not vulnerable but there was little interest even then.

Bruce Anderson “Pass: I am passing over the opening bid regardless of the vulnerability. The hand is mostly soft values and the heart suit is weak and for good measure there is undisclosed strength behind me, so I would not consider taking a bid.”

Peter Newell “Pass: at all vulnerabilities. This is a poor hand worse than most 11 hcp hands, lots of queens and jacks, which often are worth little in opponents’ suits.  Partner is a passed hand, so it is very unlikely to be our hand.  My suit is fairly weak, and I have honours in other suits which may be a better lead for partner if he is on lead.  Bidding risks a penalty, either directly or when partner bids expecting a better hand and we get too high, and helps the opponents by giving them information on where the points are and distributional clues as well.”

Wayne Burrows “Pass: Typically, I do not bid at the two level with hands that would qualify for a weak no trump unless there is some mitigating feature like a great suit or an absolute maximum with sharp high cards. I make some exceptions when the suit is hearts because 4 is closer than 5 of a minor. This hand however, is balanced rubbish - one control (king) and two queen doubletons, one of which is in the opponent's suit. I pass.”

There was a little talk of taking action:

Stephen Blackstock “Double: At the table I would double. Clearly double is not a completely sound action, but the Pairs context is crucial. The result may be poor if partner presses too hard, but if not then (a) his action may help me to find the best lead, or at least a lead that does not cost; and (b) declarer may play me for short spades, and lose a trick to the Q. Minor issues at Teams, but can swing a lot of match points. And finally, allowing the opponents to have an undisturbed auction with space to find their best contract is not the way to win at Pairs. It's necessary to compete aggressively, even at some risk.”
and only if not-vulnerable:
Michael Ware “Pass: Yes vulnerability makes a huge difference at matchpoints. I would double 1 not-vulnerable and Pass if vulnerable.”

However, the general feeling of the Panel was that they would Pass with this East hand, none putting it clearer than:

Leon Meier “Pass: To overcall 2 would be lunacy at any vulnerability. Nothing more to be said.”

Kris Wooles “Pass: in both cases with my ace- less hand and poor suit quality.”

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: For me an easy pass at any vulnerability and any form of the game.”

Nigel Kearney “Pass: East cannot do anything. A suit of KJxxx in a soft, balanced, hand is very far from a two level overall at any vulnerability. Double is less hideous than 2 but is still a clear overbid and likely to do more harm than good, especially opposite a passed partner.”

So, do you still feel like bidding? It does look like most did as 1 was passed out at only 26 of the 94 tables in play. However, the pendulum swings to the North hand as surely many North players were given a decision as what to bid when 2 was passed back to them in the following sequence:

 

A lesson here for many on what to do with this powerful hand. With 2 being the final contract 40 times and 3 a further 17 times, it looks like most failed to find a re-opening double. That does run a slight risk of getting too high if 2 is the limit and partner bids 3 of a minor but can otherwise bring in a huge reward:

 

South does not have very much but defending 2x seemed a good option..and indeed was…to the tune of +1100! While East-West would have been better off in 3..+500 without too much effort from the defence, West had reasonable enough hearts while East passed the re-opening double trusting South would bid. Only 2 North-Souths picked up this penalty while one North bid and made the difficult but makeable 4 game. That and the fact that 3NT can also be a rather lucky make must be added reasons not to disturb 1.

Note Stephen Blackstock's comment about Qx. Would you play trumps correctly in 4 after a take-out double from East? However, after an initial heart lead, North may choose to take the double diamond finesse (the second time after ruffing a club in dummy) and then can afford a spade loser. 

Nigel Kearney was aware of the full deal and added this further comment:

Nigel Kearney “ The full deal is a good example of why overcalling is wrong. Partner actually has a very useful hand in support, some would say too good to pass 2. But you will be lucky to escape for less than 800, instead of a probable -170 by passing. Then you have to worry about all the future hands where you have a real overcall and your side could actually outbid them, but partner doesn't raise because they are worried you will have junk like this.”

Enough said.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items