All News

Avoiding 3NT.

When one partner shows a flattish hand and there is no obvious major fit available, it can be difficult to avoid the no-trump game. “If in doubt, bid 3NT.” is a common enough saying when looking for a game contract. Yet, sometimes, it is the least successful of all realistic game contracts, on occasions when you can even make a slam elsewhere:

 

A 2-part question. You are playing an Acol based system and are not playing a Jacoby 2NT (If you are not sure what that is, do not worry as you are not playing it!).

1. Do you agree with 2NT? If not, what do you prefer?
2. What, if anything, do you bid now?

The Panel do not have strong objections to the initial 2NT bid though they do mainly see 2 as a better option:

Peter Newell “Reluctantly yes, it looks like NT would be better played from partner’s side than mine, but I don’t like 2 on this hand with a poor 4 card suit. 2NT at least gets the values and the balanced nature of the hand across.”

Michael Cornell “I do not violently disagree with 2NT but with this ‘sharpish’ hand, surely NTs are better played by partner? So, I would bid a 1 round force, 2 and I could raise partner's 2 to 3 also non-forcing.”

From a fan of 2 Over 1 Game-Force, that is a big admission of an advantage of 2 being just a one-round force. He will reveal his "true colours soon"!

Kris Wooles “I don’t mind the 2NT bid playing Acol as it is a descriptive bid showing balanced shape, denying 4 spades and with 11-12 HCP.”

Nigel Kearney “Prefer 2. If notrump is right, it's probably better from partner's side after some auction such as 1-2-2NT-3NT.”

So, other than it might be better for the lead to run round to partner’s tenaces, there were no violent objections to 2NT being a bid that pretty well sums up the shape and strength of the hand and avoids partner getting a false impression of one’s club suit which might come from an initial 2 call.

Partner did not just raise to 3NT or pass but introduced the diamond suit. Why? How forcing is this change of suit? We know that a rebid of the heart suit would be to play but a new suit at the 3-level?

4 Panellists and 3 different bids with the two who make the same bid seemingly having different intentions. Michael Cornell is fast running out of patience with Acol. He will have his minute in the sun shortly. Firstly, he sticks to the task in hand, just!

Michael Cornell “3: sounds like diamond support- and pass partner’s next bid, unless it is 4. I have no idea if 3 is forcing or not here, playing Stone- age Acol.”

Many do, Michael, quite successfully.

When in doubt, bid! Our other panellists found no problem in bidding:

Nigel Kearney “3: This should be a good diamond raise, analogous to 1-1NT-2-2. With aces in the black suits and secondary honours in partner's suits, we have an excellent hand for diamonds. If partner bids 3NT, I can continue with 4.”

Peter Newell “4: this is a great hand for partner, good support, queen in partner’s first suit and aces in partner’s short suits. Given I have bid 2NT, partner knows I have a doubleton heart and so can always bid 4, and I like 4 as forcing and showing a good raise.”

and picking up Peter’s point about hearts:

Kris Wooles “3: I prefer a semi constructive 3 liking the Q, 2 black aces as well as the diamond fit and thinking that     4 might be our most playable game contract opposite something like xx, AKxxx, AQxxx, x.”

Thus, if one’s partner is just bidding out their shape, then 3, the change of suit should be forcing for at least one round…and if partner is 5-5 or 5-4 in the reds, there is also a warning that the spade suit might be a problem. Indeed, it was…but before all is revealed, I also posed to the Panel how those who play “2 Over 1 Game Force” would handle the hand. I do have to keep my Panel happy which gives Michael Cornell his moment of glory.

The auction would have gone:

                        North             South

                                             1

                        1NT             2

                     ?

with 1NT being up to 11, even a bad 12, and a one-round force, generally.

Michael Cornell “2: (cannot be 4 spades) Obviously a  max 1NT bid with 4+ diamonds. Bridge is not that hard a game if you have a decent system!

Here endeth the commercial. The bid is similar to Nigel Kearney’s 3 above, in Acol. Another decent system!

Michael Cornell at the table, perhaps discussing
the merits of 2 over 1 Game Force?

Any system which avoids 3NT on this deal is decent. South was indeed issuing a warning..and did not want to be passed in 3, either:

 

The spade lead would have come against 3NT no matter whether North or South were declarer. The heart finesse worked but when East’s K did not fall in three rounds, 3NT failed miserably.

Meanwhile, 4 was a much more comfortable place to be with South being able to lose to the A and lose just two tricks whether a diamond ruff or to the outstanding K. Even better was 5 with an overtrick a possibility. The diamond slam requires rather more than a successful heart finesse and is not the place to be, especially if opponents did not avoid the 3NT trap.

Back to normality! 3NT and this time you are defending:

 

1NT shows 15-17 and 2  5 hearts.

You lead 9 against 3NT. This is ducked all round, your partner contributing 4 (encouraging). Declarer wins your 8 on the second round with dummy’s ace, 7 from your partner while declarer has played 2, then 6.

Declarer leads 2 from dummy to 3 and declarer’s K. Do you win and if so, which card do you play next?

Answers tomorrow.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items