All News

Battle of the emeralds.

I am sure you will enjoy listening in to a friendly disagreement between two of our Emerald Grand Masters, Grant Jarvis and Patrick Carter (pictured above). They are not regular partners but do play together quite often in tournaments in the Auckland area.
They are both vastly experienced but that does not mean that they always agree. The “disagreement” on the following deal cost them 1400. As this occurred in a Pairs event, one they went on to win, it was an annoying but not a “terminal” bottom board.

So, take your seats and see whose side you are on.

 

2 is a Weak 2. One of our Emerald GMs opened as such despite being one hcp short of prescribed opening strength and having 4 cards in the other major. We will, of course, reveal all before the end of the article. What is your next bid? The answer rather depends on what 4NT means.
What does our Panel think of 4NT in such a situation? When there is doubt, it’s lovely to have a bid to cover both options:

Peter Newell “5:  I think 4NT is either key card for spades or both minors. In the absence of specific agreements, 4NT should be considered key card. There are plenty of other situations where 4NT bids could be key card or a 2 suiter but is simpler for it to be key card in these types of auctions. Would those who believe it should be minors  say the same thing if partner had opened 3 and opponents overcalled 4? What if partner opened 4 and the opponents 4? As partner is showing a longer/better suit/hand, it becomes more useful to key card....

 

While I strongly believe 4NT should be key card in the auction, that is not to say it I think it is most useful. I think it would be more useful for 4NT to  show minors as it is reasonably likely that you have 1 key card on the auction and may have a poorish suit.

 

5 is easy as playing 1430 it is the correct response to RKCB and it is your better minor anyway....”

 

We saw yesterday a board where we opened 1 and our opponent bid 4. Our partner might easily have tried 4NT if it was key-card.

 How about this for covering both options: 
Michael Cornell “ 5 It depends on how I respond to key card. Even without partnership discussion surely key-card has greater frequency than pick a minor?

For what it is worth I think 5NT shows big minors  so if partner has the really big 6/6, they can bid that!”

That’s fine except where 5 of the minor..or less…is the limit. In the “minors” camp is:

 

Stephen Blackstock “5: An unanswerable question, without knowing the N/S agreement, and by inference this pair doesn't have one. That being the case they are reduced to guessing.

There are two possible approaches to this type of situation. I played against a top class Polish pair that produced 4NT in what to me was an ambiguous auction. I asked and was told "Blackwood". Perhaps I showed surprise because he then pulled a face and said "not best, but for us always, that way we know!" The other option is the Jeff Rubens approach: any undiscussed action is natural and non-forcing (so here, to play). That way both partners know what is meant, even if it may not be ideal. 

 

Here I doubt 4NT is to play, judging by my heart length. Even if North has A or Kx, he will rarely be dealt 10 running tricks. I also doubt that 4NT is Blackwood, given a vulnerable West's willingness to jump to the four level. Of course,West may have eight near-solid hearts and partner the rest of the high cards, but this is also a low percentage layout. My best guess is that North has both minors, so I will try 5 and see what happens. There is a small safety net in that I can reconsider slam prospects if North retreats to 5.”

Bruce Anderson “Key Card: 5: Obviously, partner could have both minors, but I have shown a single suited hand, at least that is what I should have, so it is unlikely we will have any kind of minor suit fit. More likely partner is strong and has a spade fit, then he/she will want to move forward with RCK. And if the bid show the minors, I have shown my better minor by 5!

Opener will not/ should not have 4 hearts. So, there could be a 5 or 6-4 minor fit or at worst a 5-3 fit. Unfortunately, that was not true on this day.

 Life might be easier if our Weak 2 always promised 2 of the top 3 honours.

Kris Wooles “ 4NT is either keycard ask (RKCB) or minors. If it occurred at the table and we had no agreement, I’d bid 5 quite happily as it shows one key card and is also my better minor. Partner’s next action will clarify. Nicer to have an agreement of course but I’m not advocating one or the other.  However, if the weak two promises values in the suit, it’s easier to justify the 4NT as being for the minors as with a spade fit, partner can better judge the auction if sure I have value/s in my bid suit.”

Alas, especially at favourable vulnerability, for many one might be lucky if partner’s opening Weak 2 contained even one card higher than a 9!

What is evident is you need a clear agreement. It is thus fortunate that Leon Meier and Nigel Kearney are not partners. The one thing they have in common is that their agreement is clear!

Nigel Kearney “Key Card:5  My preferred agreement is that 4NT by an unlimited hand is RKCB whenever partner has bid a suit.”

Leon Meier “Pick a minor: 5 While I am not in the school of never opening a weak 2 with a side 4 card major, in second seat the pre-emptive value is reduced and the chance partner has a good hand is increased. Therefore I prefer a pass to 2.

I would now think that 4NT is pick a minor as I have a rule where if a bid can either be trying to find best game or a slam try, that it is trying for the best game. Hence I'll bid 5.”

while reasonably happy with our opening bid is:

Wayne Burrows “Key Card “5: I don't mind 2 with a side heart suit as long as there are not too many other flaws. The biggest flaw here for me is that we are second seat where there is too much chance of disrupting partner so I would prefer a more textbook looking pre-empt but favourable vulnerability and being near minimum point towards pre-empting.

As for 4NT there are many ways to play that. In an unpractised partnership, I would treat it as Blackwood (RKCB) although I am not convinced that is best when we haven't established suit agreement and North has a wide range of hands including one or two suited minors that might need to be described. I am certainly not expecting partner to spring on me 4NT for take-out or some other esoteric agreement if we have not discussed that specific agreement.

So I show my one ace in whatever our agreed method of responding to RKCB is – 5 1430 or 5 3041. 

All agree we need an agreement! The majority favour Key Card though there is support for the concept of the both minors option, even from some who respond to Key Card!

It is time to reveal all..and at the table, Patrick opened a Multi 2 with his Weak 2 in spades, with the problem  the same since that was obviously what he had to have with the opponent’s jump to 4:

 

Patrick’s redouble was showing 1 or 4 key cards. Grant then showed his extra length in clubs and East ended close to running out of “double cards”! Grant did choose the better black suit contract though they were a few levels too high. Not a great save against the making4/ maybe 5.

Both Patrick and Grant separately gave me the problem. Their misfortune here will hopefully encourage others to get an agreement, known to both partners. Their best action, of course, on the above deal, was to pass 4.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items