All News

 LAST!

Last but not Least.

Bidding would be somewhat easier if the Dealer was always the player with the strongest hand. You could open 2C or the like and the bidding would proceed from there. That, of course, is not the situation..and nor should it be…as we all like to do a bit of pre-empting when the time is right.

Sometimes, the bidding can reach annoyingly high levels before you have the chance to say anything. For example:

 

2 is a Weak 2 in a major or strong balanced. 3 is pass or correct, traditionally with 3 spades and 4 or more hearts and is not a strong bid (the textbook says 4-7 hcp). You double to announce you do have a hand of some merit which draws a retreat from South to their 6 card heart suit.

Did you agree with our double a round earlier? What now?

The Panel are split over whether they liked the original double.

Bruce Anderson “ I agree with double. I can’t see a sensible alternative; surely I am showing strong defensive values as with both minors and a strong hand, I would bid an immediate 4NT for take-out. Or with a lesser hand and both minors pass, and then after 4 from South, bid 4NT. And with a solid minor and a hold in both majors, I might bid 3NT, or just simply bid my suit over 3.

 

What though did our original double show other than a good hand?

 

Peter Newell “No - I think double is take-out of spades and makes the subsequent auction more difficult. I would probably choose to pass knowing that it was very likely that South would bid 4 and I would double then (for take-out).  There are risks obviously that partner will bid 5...the other options I would strongly consider are 4 intending to bid 4 over a 4 bid, or 3NT.”

Stephen Blackstock “No, I don't agree with double. What was it supposed to mean? If take-out, was it take-out of spades or take out of the major South is presumably about to show? There is far too much ambiguity, plus if West thinks that East tolerates diamonds, we have a potential disaster. I can understand wanting to keep spades in the picture but there is no clear way to do that over North's 3.”

I can see the sense in making a take-out double of opener’s presumed suit rather than the one they probably do not hold. Other Panellists seemed happier with our initial action:

Nigel Kearney “I agree with double. It's ugly, but their suit is probably not spades and I don't really want to play 3NT on a heart lead.”

Andy Braithwaite “I agree with double. What else could I bid? Hopefully this double shows spades.”

Kris Wooles “I would have bid 4 initially and not double.”

We will not always be in a position to know which suit opener holds. However, with both suits held, we would bid 3NT. It would be good to have a precise understanding to the double and take-out of the suit bid does seem to be a good option.

However, we did double 3. What now?

 Kris Wooles “5:  a little reluctantly hoping partner doesn’t think I have diamonds. I’m strongly  tempted to double for penalties but even with partner not having very much, we could make 6. If I had initially bid 4 and 4 was passed back to me, I would double for penalties.”

though if 4 was passed out, we might not be in the best contract. 

Stephen Blackstock “5: At least it's a suit of consequence. 4 is worth thinking about. It should show spades and a minor allowing West to bid 5 pass/correct (I can double with a 3-suiter or bid 4NT with both minors), but as West may expect a real 2-suiter with longer spades than this, I would rather not risk it especially as West would have a right to be puzzled about the meaning of the sequence.”

Stephen does suggest that a double of 4 is still take-out. “Murky” says our next Panellist, which further fuels the argument that double of 3 was not the right option:

Peter Newell “4: Now that we have doubled 3, we are in an even more difficult position with double being somewhat murky. Generally after 3 pass/correct and a 4 bid, we are likely to have a spade fit but when we start with a  double, I think I would bid 4.

It seems the most likely game and could easily make on a 4-3 fit if partner has the Q. Bidding 5 needs quite a bit from partner - on a heart lead. It seems probable we will have a heart loser (if partner has a singleton, this will be good for a spade contract anyway) and  probably the A. So we need no losers in the black suits  in which case we may as well have bid 4."

With a somewhat more optimistic view about club contracts is:

Nigel Kearney “5: We could have a spade fit as North need not have more than three, but that is a lesser consideration as I expect 5 to have good play. So, my main concern is getting to 6 when it is right. Partner is quite likely to have a singleton heart and as little as xxx x xxxxx xxxx makes 6 pretty good. Double followed by 5 is a strong action but with a timid partner I might even blast 6.”

and even more optimistic:

Leon Meier “Double: The bidding seems to heavily suggest they've a 10 card heart fit, giving partner a singleton. This means opposite nothing with 4 clubs, we'd be a little less than even money to make 6. This just tempts me to blast 6 out of the blue but first I want to check for a spade fit. So, I double and plan to bid 6 over 5/ and over 4, I'll try 6 instead.”

It looks like Leon thinks a double would be for take-out. Maybe Andy's West opted to pass it out:

Andy Braithwaite “Double:  to show a good hand and hope to score 800 or 500 if partner passes( and also hope partner does not bid 5 in which case I will have to risk 6. After all, partner should have a singleton heart so all is not lost). If partner bids 4 I will key card and over 4NT bid 6." 

 

     but penalties for:

Bruce Anderson “Double: Now that South has bid 4, I double again which in my view is penalties given that I chose to double initially rather than take any other action. Unless North is unhinged, they must have a strong diamond suit and some kind of fit for both majors. Game our way in clubs may be possible but I am preferring to play for a worthwhile penalty.”

South did double again and North left it in….and much of what the Panel said came to pass. Fortunately for North, they were “not unhinged” though they would have been disappointed with their partner’s spade holding.

 

West had almost nothing (Q saved a losing finesse) but otherwise, 6 was makeable on very little from East. So, of course, would 6 though 2 rounds of diamonds would have meant the declarer would hope that the other black suit was trumps.

So, some certainty over the first double as we would not want to bid 5 only to find a 4-4 or better spade fit. 4 x yielded +800 for the defence, fine if one’s opponents were just recording a game though a poor comparison for -1370 at the other table. 6 pairs out of 17 bid to 6 and 8 more played in game. They were not all subjected to the above pre-emption. Maybe other Easts opened 2 out of turn?!

Richard Solomon  
and something easier for our JIN Club players tomorrow. 

Go Back View All News Items