All News

Fast Arrival….or Take it Slow?

Below is the bidding sequence and hand we gave you yesterday. We asked you what action you would take at this point of the auction. We asked that of our Panel too but we also asked the Panel whether they would have jumped to 4 first time or have taken some other action:

 

 

There was no consensus as to what action to take after the 1 opening:

Matt Brown “4: probably our best shot at involving partner. If we overcall 1, they could pre-empt massively in either minor and now partner is stuck.

Whereas:

Michael Cornell “1: Absolutely not 4. I can be cold for slam opposite nothing. I would have been tempted to overcall 1, 2nd choice X.

Gentlemen, please step outside! In Matt’s corner are:

Nigel Kearney “4: Sometimes they will let us play there. When they don't, the problem on the next round is foreseeable but starting with 1 won't necessarily help.”    and:

Peter Newell “4: sure, it makes it hard to determine whether partner has spade cards but the alternatives are not great. At this vulnerability, this shows a good hand, though usually not as good as this, and makes it harder for the opponents to judge. As you have such a good hand, I don’t mind a 1 bid either to see whether this helps get more information about partner’s hand but at this vulnerability the opponents often pre-empt anyway….and if you bid only 1 and then they bid 5, you will want to bid 5 as I don’t think partner will be expecting 4/8 shape for a double…I don’t like doubling on this hand.”

but they do not like 4 in Christchurch:

Kris Wooles “Double: We may have a big spade fit which will never be found after 4. With  Kxxxxx and a void in hearts, partner will never introduce their suit and we may have 6 on.”

Bruce Anderson “Double: I want know if partner has anything useful and can only find that out if I start with a double. I do not know North is intending to bid 5. If partner had the chance, perhaps, I would have heard a jump response in spades.. or even a bid of 5 over 5 had I started with a double, intending to bid 4 over a minimum response.”

So, along with Michael Cornell, they have slam in mind though I do feel too much emphasis has been put on a spade fit. Realistically, surely, hearts will be trumps and therefore a little 1 start might be a better start than double. I do not think I would be very happy to hear my take-out double passed out if partner had a stack of diamonds.

Dare I say that a slam would be a little more likely if our singleton was in clubs not the opposition’s suit? If only for that reason, a leap to game in hearts seems quite practical.

So, they did compete in diamonds and we have to decide how to handle our hand now. As you would have expected from his above comment, Michael Cornell is far from happy to be in this position:

Michael Cornell “Double: no other choice but to double to show a serious 4 bid but I would NEVER have got into this position.

I do not know whether the opposition are diving or bidding to make. All I know is partner does not want to x it but he could still have a myriad of different hands that fit that category.”

Peter Newell “Double: good hand with some defence. 5 much looks like we have one diamond loser and unless partner has spade honours, some spade(s) to lose… “

I am nervous about this double. Where your hand is stronger than it might have been vulnerable is in the heart length. Perhaps we should have asked the Panel what they would have bid with the East hand below after the double. Is 5 obvious?

Others bid 5:

Matt Brown “5: It's not that hard to imagine we could be making it, or it could be a sacrifice over their making 5.”

    or both!

Bruce Anderson “5: It could be right to defend but if partner does have strength in spades with a singleton heart, how can he judge to remove my double and bid 5? And even in that case, 5 could still be a make. So, I am not doubling or passing."

Prophetic words..

Kris Wooles “5: I have made a rod for myself with 4 and while encouraged by my 8/4 shape, I am making my bid while still being a little uneasy about it and double may prove to be correct. Partner’s silence in response to my vulnerable 4 bid may or may not be meaningful given he/she would hardly know what is going to be useful (i.e. something in ’s).”

Nigel Kearney “5: Maybe I should double, suggesting stronger than just a pre-empt and giving partner the option of passing or bidding. But I think I have too much shape for that.” 

Me, too, Nigel. Double puts a lot of pressure on East to make the correct decision here.

So, what actually happened?

 

Everyone was kind of right though 4 would not have stopped the 5 bid coming either, hence the problem we gave the Panel. However, the take-out double did not encourage East to either bid over 5 or to correct 5x to 5.

Yes, 6 or 6 make but would you like to be in either slam? South might have been a little suspicious of the 5 bid and their partner’s own pre-emptive diamond raise. In reality, how many tricks could they count on? Surely no more than two? A quiet pass would have saved a little, but not much as this happened at the other table:

            West              North            East                South

                                                                                   1   (strong, artificial)

            4                   X                    4                   5

            All Pass

That’s right, it was West who bid 4, a very high- level version of Suction, showing either single-suited hearts or both black suits. This enabled North to double, penalty style. 4 was pass or correct. South had no doubt who had the diamonds and the auction ended quietly.

West could have saved a couple of imps with a brave 2 lead with either black suit switch being good enough to beat the contract by one trick but after a high heart, it was -400 along with – 1050 and 16 imps in or out depending on your perspective.

I wonder where the initial doublers or 1 overcallers would have finished. Anyone for 6x on a diamond lead and club switch? Not I!

Thanks to Shirley Newton for submitting this deal.

Another piece of “make-believe” for tomorrow:

 

Maybe you should: maybe you should not but you did!

You bid 1 hoping to bail out in perhaps 1NT or 2NT, a better spot than say a 3-3 club fit. “Bailing out” occurred at the game level! West led 7 and you won in hand (East playing J) to run 7 to East’s ace. Back came 7 and you play 8 to West’s ace. Plan the play. West will exit 4.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items