All News

Into the stratosphere?

When your part-score contract is defeated by four tricks and you were cold for an overtrick in game in a different suit, something must have gone wrong in the bidding. Was it bad luck, wrong judgment or the opposition’s pre-empt which was to blame?

 

So, what would you bid?

The club player who faced this problem should have called on our Panel  before deciding because the table choice of 3 proved remarkably unsuccessful on the night. This is what they had to say. Firstly, a great prediction:

Nigel Kearney “4: Nice to get the hand off your chest immediately. 3 may be high enough but I think bidding only 3 is more likely to lead to us either missing a game or playing in the wrong suit.”

Indeed, we did miss a game and played in the wrong suit! Let’s be clear. 4 shows a 2-suited hand, in this case usually played as both majors. Both suits must be of at least 5 cards though the hand itself need not be hugely strong in high-card points. The above hand is minimum for this action.

Michael Cornell “4:  level could be wrong but we will play the right suit.”

Slam may even be possible say…

Matt Brown “4: pretty standard: Partner will know to evaluate their aces well if we still somehow have slam, but otherwise game should be fine. I guess you could double just in case partner passes...”

That last statement will be reechoed by Kris Wooles below.

Bruce Anderson “4: showing both majors: while the hand does not have many high cards, it has great playing strength if we have a fit. Even a slam may be possible if partner has a fit and high card strength in the majors. With that hand and A, for example, they could use RKC to reach a slam. Partner is marked with values; even a partial fit in one of the majors will give a play for game.”

Accepting the risks with some apprehension is:

Peter Newell “4: I’m certainly very much minimum for this, and it does carry risks of being too high either in game, or when partner tries for slam (partner could have a reasonable hand with a 4-card major shortish in the other).  

However, I prefer these risks to the alternatives. Clearly too strong playing strength to pass, so that leaves 3 and 3.  Both have flaws.  I would prefer 3 which keeps the bidding lower, but doesn’t really open up spades as partner is very unlikely to bid 3 with a 4-card spade suit as will likely want to bid 3NT which is not where you want to play. Bidding 3 intending to rebid 4 is flawed too because of the likelihood of preference back to spades.  My experience is that the hand often will not play well in spades even when partner has 3 due to the likelihood of being forced off before hearts are set up.  So, 4, with nervousness…”

However, we do have one dissenter who would still have reached the best contract this time but who smelt blood:

Kris Wooles “Double: A few years ago, I was in a similar position after a 3 vulnerable pre-empt and I held  xx  - and 5/6 in the minors and doubled to find that while the pre-emptor was solid enough, partner had 6 cards in their suit and they went for 1400. At the table, it just felt right to do that.

So, while it is very tempting to bid 4, I’m inclined to double at this vulnerability despite the singleton club and take the chance to catch West out for a penalty.”

and mentioning similar comments but with a different bid:

Stephen Blackstock "4Boring, and flawed because of the radically differing heart and spade preparedness – but 3 doesn’t look better as it so often loses spades altogether. The interesting call is double, which may hit a home run if partner has diamond values or even if 3  simply fails by a trick and we have no game. Alas, I am not brave enough with such poor defence, although admittedly a balancing NV double doesn’t promise much. And I cringe at the thought of laying down this dummy when partner bounces to 5!

There was a penalty available though not 1400 this time and not enough to compensate for the spade game even at this vulnerability:

 

3x looks like just one down. Most declarers should manage 10 or 11 tricks by ruffing in both hands in their 4 contract.

At the table?

Meanwhile, South overcalled 3 giving North a “will I, wont I” problem. If they bid 3, their partner might just bid 4 while if they passed…well, alas, partner turned up with a 5-card spade suit.

3 was that bad a spot that even West managed a ruff after an initial spade lead…down 4. Perhaps, despite Peter Newell’s comments above, North could have tried 3. There was also the possibility that South’s second suit was clubs.

Who’s to blame?

So, can we blame that slightly off-beat pre-empt? It certainly created the situation which produced a terrible result for their opponents.

North could/ should (you choose which word) have saved the day but the problem was really caused by South’s somewhat unlucky 3 bid. As Michael Cornell said, if you find the right suit at what even seems like the wrong level, you may well be better off.

 

Still in that stratosphere…

Partner gave you preference with an almighty leap…can you repay their confidence in your bidding and play (oh, you have already aided partner in no small way by holding the A!) and make all 13 tricks?

 

West led 6 (see what I mean about the importance of the A!) with 9 in dummy winning the first trick. You lay down A at trick 2. All your worries would be over if neither the Q nor the J appeared. You would then play K and cheer or concede down 1!

Alas, East played Q on the first round. Decisions…..would you like to see the East-West hands? You will, tomorrow.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items