All News

will come..

Plenty of nothing.

Today, we have one hand with an abundance of strength and another with just about nothing at all. So, you can guess which of these hands, which are partners, should be taking an active role in the bidding. I, for one, was in for quite a surprise.

 

I included this problem as I thought I was, to put it nicely, rather a wimp when I did not take any action with this hand after the above simple bidding sequence. The game was Pairs and the vulnerability was not in our favour. After some thought, I passed and full expected to be told off by the Panel. I was in for a surprise:

Michael Cornell “Pass: Only possible bid is pass which does not have to end the auction.”
Andy Braithwaite “Pass: if I double, partner will surely bid hearts and then I am in trouble. Partner could not bid over 2 even though they hold a singleton club so probably hold less than 6 points and without both majors- a 3631 shape looks highly likely and that could end up as the dreaded pairs score of -200.”

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: There is no appropriate action Double is take-out, and even if penalties would be presumptuous with no guarantee of defeating 3.

In any event, there is no reason to bid in front of partner. All I know is that he is weak and has some length in hearts, but he knows much more about my hand. If West passes 3 then I must be strong with length in both minors but diamonds not suitable to rebid. Short hearts will be likely opposite his length, so he will picture 3154 shape or within a card of that. Based on his strength, distribution, and the solidity of his hearts, he is much better placed to decide whether to bid or defend than I am.”

 

It appears now that we are more likely to go plus defending 3 than any other way; and on marginal hands going plus is usually a fair score. Even if 3 makes -110 is better than -200 as declarer.”

 

Nigel Kearney “Pass: Is this from one of the David Bird books where partner has taken a vow of silence? If so then I should definitely bid spades now. Otherwise I will let partner bid his own hand. I expect he will either double or bid hearts unless he is completely broke.”

Bruce Anderson “Pass: there is no rational alternative. Double is for take-out, so that bid is not possible. Partner is still there and if he/she cannot bid defensive prospects are quite good.”
agreeing with North’s initial pass but suggesting that they might have bid first time is:

Wayne Burrows “Pass: Sure North might want to bid but what bid makes any sense? Double by South seems fraught with danger when partner is almost surely well fixed in hearts and we only have four-card suits to offer. 3 or worse 4 are a long way up without a fit and without partner having much in the way of values. Bidding 3 also gives the impression that we have longer diamonds. And where do we want partner to go with say 3=6=3=1?
I like a style where I can fairly freely double of the 2 overcall with many if not most hands with 6-9 hcp with one or both majors (and somewhere to go if partner bids the wrong major).”

Steph Jacob “Pass: but I have seen people double with that kind of hand (North) and follow up with a spade bid, has great shape and diamond support.”

Peter Newell “Pass: if anyone should bid it should be North over 3 (too weak over 2).  I cannot see any satisfactory action on the part of South. One could double and rip partner’s heart bid to spades but partner will expect more than 4 diamonds for this bid...one could bid 3 but partner does not have to have 4 spades. Partner could be 3631. Opposite that shape we will likely end up in a 4-3 fit at the 4 level: ugh.
and so on, the Panel united in that South’s pass of 3 was the right, indeed only action. I was thus further intrigued because at the table, 3 became the final contract, a triumph for the opposition as our side was cold for 10, maybe 11 tricks in spades. So, I asked the Panel how we should reach 4 when these were the 4 hands:

 

East’s failure to bid 2 had not helped our cause though 3 was reasonable. East could reason if their side had a heart fit then so might their opponents in the “boss” major.
What then of North’s second pass?

Peter Newell “Double: If anyone should bid it should be North. South will have 5+ diamonds quite often, and a major suit fit is quite possible though I would say 2344 15-17 would be most likely hand type...doubling the second time around is a bit uncomfortable with no defensive tricks and partner likely to have 4 and occasionally 5 clubs, but if you could not bid over 2 with short clubs, you must be pretty weak, and to be prepared to double back in over 3 must imply pretty good shape...but yes not too sure what will partner will do with 2344...or 3244..... No, a double in the pass out seat is not penalties...South could have doubled 3 for take-out clearly, so North must still be take-out but weaker.”

The prospect of South passing a take-out double of 3 would have filled me with dread had I held the North hand. In similar vein,
Kris Wooles “3: South passing seems logical given North has not made a negative double and the singleton heart precludes a double. However, equally North can have very little in HCP  but still make a spade game provided North has length in spades. So I thought the choice was either pass or 3. Given my tendency to gamble I would likely bid 3.”

Steph Jacob “3: South should know what we have got now, long weak spades but with some diamond support on the side, likely with heart tolerance. South  can tell this by their club holding. Yes, we are sticking our neck out but a nice reward will follow.”

Anthony Ker “3: North reopens with 3 in the pass- out seat. That feels like a weak distributional hand ( no 2 over 2) and South can either pass or, as here, raise to 4.”
and were South to bid 3NT, North could follow up with 4. Accepting the difficulty and doubling is:

Stephen Blackstock “Double: This is a very difficult hand for N/S. North's decision not to make a negative double initially is understandable, in the likely event that South were to bid NT (3NT?) that will go very poorly, and on a bad day, a retreat to 4 will be slaughtered.

I agree that most of the time a double by North at his second turn would be penalties, showing the hand that intended to pass a reopening double of 2. However, here North can reasonably expect South to think and not bid like a robot. It will be clear to South that North is very weak, and South will have enough clubs to know that North is not stacked there. Hence, a penalty double at North's second turn is impossible on the information that North knows is available to South. At the table I would therefore risk a take-out double of 3 - and as Reese famously said in another context, if partner gets this wrong, I won't take all the blame!”

I was concerned that having had a chance to make a take-out double of 2 that a double of 3 would be construed as for penalties. Stephen, and maybe Terence, have allayed such fears... and

Wayne Burrows   "Having seen the companion hand, my first observation is that six hearts is much more likely than the actual hand with six spades.

 

With both majors and diamond tolerance and considerable distribution, I don't think North's 6=4=3=0 hand is a million miles away from a take-out double on the first round. Failing that coming in a round later when the opponents have found a fit and rested in a part-score is also possible. Bottom line is that North and not South has the better distribution for entering this auction descriptively.”

So, rigid point-counters, it is the hand with a 2-count and not the one with 17 which should act over 3!

Michael Cornell “Double: North should double when 3 comes back to them. It is obvious they have extreme distribution with very few points.

Partner needs 5 tricks in their own hand to defend 3x.
 Nigel Kearney “ Double: it is extremely risky for North to pass 3. Partner has club cards and has already bid once so it is always going to be difficult for them to act over 3. Your side being cold for game in a major should not be surprising at all.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: My approach with weak shapely hands is to pass originally and then back into the auction. Partner should work out I am bidding with shape only. I think that should have happened here with North making what must be a negative double when 3 is passed back to him/her. When South bids 3, it will not be difficult to raise to game.”

Andy Braithwaite “Double: North should have doubled in balancing seat for take-out as North now knows partner has a reasonable hand but has clubs and is therefore unable to bid themselves.

North could not double 2 as East was undefined at that stage but when 3 weak was the bid it made it clear that partner had values but could not act- hence the take-out double now.
I believe that when opponents have bid and supported, double is never penalties but shows shortage and it is partner who passes for penalties (5 level bids excepted from this rule).”

 

So, North is safe/ indeed must take action over 3. If the wait over what partner will do if you double is too agonising, then just bid your 6-card suit. Only 2 HCP  but the right time and the right player to act.
Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items