All News

for all eventualities?

A “hand for all seasons.”

That seems one way to describe the hand we hold today. We have some heart support to help our partner make game were they to hold longish hearts. We have enough high cards, too. We have 4 cards in the unbid major. We have 4 cards in the opponent’s suit, too.

All of that creates the problem we face now. Can we have the best of all worlds? Let’s see:

 

We are playing Pairs and only our side is vulnerable. Our system includes a 15-17 1NT and 5-card majors. 3 is a weak jump overcall. What then should we do?

We also asked the Panel that if we made a negative double and partner bid 3, what should we do next?

The Panel are divided on our initial approach. For the doublers:

Stephen Blackstock “Double: This is fairly clear. My hand is playable in hearts, spades, no trumps and perhaps even clubs, so it seems wrong to take a stab at a strain (presumably 3NT) and discourage partner from looking elsewhere.”

Nigel Kearney agrees with Stephen while Wayne Burrows sounds as though he might as there is no mention of passing:

Wayne Burrows “I think bidding or doubling is effectively forcing to game. Partner with a minimum with a diamond stopper and no distributional feature to show is forced to bid 3NT over a double. So if we choose to double I think it is best treated as game forcing. 

The problem rebid is 3 which might be made on a hand with no other suitable call, say a 3=5=2=3 hand without a diamond stopper. At least I am not sure what partner is expected to do with that hand.”

 

My choice now is to show my poor diamond stopper and hope for nine tricks or raise to 4 and hope partner has six hearts or at least five good ones. I don't think partner is supposed to bid 4 with a mediocre six card heart suit so I think 3 should have six hearts reasonably often.” I am not confident but I will raise to 4."

We return to the subsequent action after 3.

Peter Newell “Double:  It’s a good problem, with double, pass and 3NT all reasonable actions. I will rank a direct 3NT last of the three. While I like it for its simplicity, it is very final and it is hard for partner to bid over. 

 Passing first has the advantage of hearing from partner. Over a re-opening double of a weak 3D bid, I would bid 3NT.If partner doubles one is again faced with an imperfect choice in 3NT, although the fact that I have not bid it the first time at least conveys uncertainty and/or weakness. 

 

However, 3 could get passed out if partner had an unappealing diamond holding such as Qx or Kx, both of which are helpful for no-trumps. So, that leaves double, which brings the majors into the picture.

These Panellists do not want to bid initially:

Bruce Anderson “Pass: partner is almost certain to reopen with a double given they must be very short in diamonds. Then I will pass for penalties notwithstanding the vulnerability. There is the possibility partner will have 4 spades but I am prepared to take that risk; the possible spade game is not guaranteed unless partner is strong given the poor quality of my spades.”

 

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: Shortage doubles for take-out and unless partner is a rank minimum they will balance for me with double and I will pass.”

Anthony Ker “Pass: I think South has overstepped the safety line. I will pass and pass again if partner reopens with a double.”

Certainly, we cannot underwrite game if partner has 4 spades though were partner to be 4-6 in the majors, we should be making game and then are unlikely to get enough reward from 3x. 

However, here is one other approach:

Michael Cornell “3NT: a slight overbid. I don’t like double. Even if partner has four spades, it won’t always be better. There are no ruffs in no trumps!
prophetic words, indeed!

 

The only time that 3NT will be bad is when partner has an absolute minimum.”

What say we did double 3 negatively and partner bid 3? Wayne Burrows thought our action was forcing to game. Not so:

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: Difficult after partner rebids 3. At IMPs it looks right to continue with 3NT even though that game (any game) could be terrible. This is a guess so try for the largest pay-off. Arguably this sequence shows tolerance for other plausible strains, so East may pull to 4 when that is best.
Pairs is a different game, the size of any plus score is important but it is even more important to be plus and not minus. As we may be high enough or too high already, at Pairs I am inclined to pass 3. Even if we have a game, we may choose the wrong one.”

Bruce Anderson  “Pass: If I was forced to double 3 instead of passing, and partner bid 3, I pass.”

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: If I double and partner bids 3, I will pass as I don’t know what to do for the best now.”

And with “one for the road”:

Nigel Kearney “4: It's pushy at match-points but partner will often have diamond shortage so the hands fit well. Game is decent opposite Kx KQxxxx x Qxxx and that is only a bit better than a maximum weak two at this vulnerability.

Peter Newell "3NT" 

and bidding on after passing 3 but where partner volunteers 3 is:

Anthony Ker “Pass:” If partner reopens with 3, I will try 3NT.”

 The other possibility if West does pass 3 is that East also passes….and if that were to happen, then it is probably not too bad for East-West:

 

East held roughly the hand suggested by Nigel Kearney but with the addition of K, not a welcome addition. At the table, West did make a negative double and then passed the 3 response. These combined actions were not right on the day.

The top result for East-West was to reach 3NT, a somewhat fortunate make with West taking 4 tricks in hearts, 3 in clubs, a spade and a diamond (or 2 spade tricks). 

If West had passed 3, there would be no further bidding and South would quietly go two down, -100. Those East players who played in a heart contract would not enjoy the experience as the defence would score A, A, 2 spade ruffs and a diamond ruff before East could win the lead. With A as well, that meant -200 or -300 depending on the level. Michael Cornell can afford a small smile!

It would seem that we might not get as big a plus from defending 3x (on another day) as making game but with no clear direction indicated from the West hand, then electing to defend 3, whether or not doubled, will get a reasonable return unless East does bid (not double) again voluntarily.

Our “hand for all seasons” was not that suitable for all.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items