All News

Do not forget me!

The “Boss” Suit is?

Michaels bids often cause problems for one side. Today it is for the side which opened the bidding. The problem is further complicated by the fact that we are playing Pairs where if you have a choice between playing in spades or clubs, we all know which we would choose. So, how do you feel with the following hand, modest in high card points for an opening bid but with rather good shape?

 

2 is hearts and a minor, either weak or strong and with at least 5 cards in both. 3 is natural.

There are some system agreements useful to have here, like how forcing 3 is. Is it forcing to say, 3, or maybe to game? The answer may well affect our bid.

Stephen Blackstock “3: North's 3 is game-forcing, so it's hard to imagine bidding anything else. 4 wouldn't show extra strength. It shows a less slam suitable hand. It also takes away space we need to explore slam prospects.”

Wayne Burrows “3: I think this should show six spades. Partner's 3 is game forcing. I am forced to bid 3NT had I a minimum with stoppers. Both 4 and 4 are too committal. We could easily be making 6 and struggling in 4 or making 4 and getting a poor matchpoint score in 5. So I need to show both my extra spade length and my club support. 

My plan is to pull 3NT by partner to 4."

Anthony Ker “3: to show the extra length. If partner rebids 3NT, I’ll follow up with 4, while if she repeats the clubs I’ll raise to 5. I will pass 4.”

 

Peter Newell “3: I believe 3 is game forcing and that partner likely has some red cards given East couldn't bid 3 or 3. (perhaps more likely North has hearts as West is known to have that suit whereas, despite the 3 bid, it may not be clear to East which minor their partner holds.)   As it is Pairs and clubs may not play that well if partner has only 5 clubs, I want to emphasise my spades first.  I expect partner will probably bid 3NT in which case I'll bid 4...”

That seems like a good plan as long as 3 forces to game…but:

Bruce Anderson “4: I have a 7- card suit headed by AK and with partner making a strong bid, this game will be unlucky to go down, albeit a bad break is possible after West’s bid. Possibly we can make a club slam but finding out is problematical and given that it is Pairs, I want to be in the strain that scores best. And partner is still there; if he/she is very strong and has spade support (Qx or xxx) they can make a move with RKCB.”

while Nigel takes a different route to game force:

Nigel Kearney “3: I have enough for game and strain is in doubt. The way to express that is to cue bid 3 and follow with 4. This will effectively communicate my hand type and partner can take it from there.”

I worry that that action shows your reasonable club holding. This seems clearer:

Andy Braithwaite and Michael Ware “4: splinter agreeing clubs looks about right to me.”

That’s fine when we are heading to clubs…and indeed the sky is the limit if West’s bid was a weak Michaels. It does not prevent North bidding 4 which would have to be to play.

Also, if 3 is game-forcing, then South could have bid 4 but 4 shows the support and the singleton at the same time.

On this day, Andy and the Panel were heading in the right direction. The lure of Pairs encouraged some to play in spades but surprisingly not even 4 could be made while the small slam in clubs was unbeatable:

 

In 6, 2 hearts can be ruffed while 2 more are discarded on high spades. Had West one spade and two clubs, declarer could ruff 3 hearts in dummy.  A forcing 3 seems a very good move but one needs to know that 3 creates a game force.

As you can see, West had a very decent hand themselves and bidding on to 5 as happened at some tables could prove expensive as declarer must lose two heart tricks (one to a ruff) as well as 3 black suit tricks. However, -500, even -800 would be a good result for East-West if the field had bid 6 but they did not.

So, even playing Pairs, the trick was to avoid playing spades at all costs and play in the unlikely “boss” suit, clubs!

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items