All News

Any Action?

With today’s hand, the above comment could apply equally to the opening bidder and to their opponents. We focused in our question as to what might happen after the bidding started with a 3H pre-empt but should there have been a pre-empt at all?

 

 

Any action?

That was the question we posed and, at more than one table when faced with this problem, North did take action and paid a heavy price for doing so. We will come back to what happened but had our Panel held the West hand, there would not have been a pre-empt. This was the West hand:

 

Matt Brown “Open 1: The Mikey Ware rule! (Never pre-empt with two aces).”

A popular view:

Stephen Blackstock “1: Too strong, too many aces for a pre-empt – and the spade tolerance is a worry, too. Partner will never play you for such good values. It’s an easy 1 opening.”

Michael Cornell “1: No pre-empt for me with the outside ace. I would open 1. We open flat 11s. This is better than that.”

Nigel Kearney “1: I like to pre-empt but this has too much wrong with it: too strong, poor suit, and the two aces and the third spade mean the ratio of defence to offence is high so when we don't make, often they will not be making either.”

Bruce Anderson “1: 3 must be unsound given the risk that if partner has a five or six card spade suit, they do not need much outside strength to make game. And a hand like KJxxxx  x AQx  Jxx would see a play for 6 played in 3. I open 1.”

Kris Wooles: “1: No pre-empt for me. Either open 1 or pass. Likely bid 1. Don’t like pre-empting in this seat with two aces and fractured suit.  

There are hands which are not suitable for a pre-empt and which really one should pass. However, this one offers too much potential to pass and has the wrong values to offer oneself at the 3-level. The only comment remotely in favour of pre-emption came from Peter Newell..and it was not really justifying the bid:

Peter Newell “usually not….depends on who I am playing, how we are going etc… It is flawed, too strong in some ways, don’t like 2 aces, quite a few high card points, and bad suit – not a typical pre-empt…but I would sometimes as it can make it hard for the opponents as it would on this hand”.

One reason why we pre-empt is to make it hard for the opponents to find the right game or slam. Since we hold two aces, they would normally be glad they stay out of slam. The Panel also highlight the fact we could easily be pre-empting ourselves out of a making game.  

However, when West did open 3, Peter Newell’s final comment above did come true. Remember North’s hand:

 

Nigel Kearney “Pass. Not close at all. There's nothing we can bid here even if we wanted to.”

Matt Brown “Pass: I think you have to pass after they open 3. Sure you want to bid, but you can’t bid anything.”

Bruce Anderson “Pass: double must be wrong with a doubleton spade and soft values in hearts, and bidding 4 can’t be right.  Partner is still there.”

Peter Newell “Pass: could easily be wrong, particularly if partner has something like Kxx. Very likely to miss 3NT as partner is unlikely to find a bid with a balanced 12. However, more often than not the heart honours are worthless, and the doubleton spade suggests double will not be a success when partner bids spades (partner will be expecting more spades and unless partner miraculously has a singleton heart, you may run into hearts ruffs and your hand will be rather a disappointment). I am certainly not advancing 4 on a 5-card suit with a flattish 15 count.

 Stephen Blackstock “Pass: Nothing fits. 3NT is a shot in the dark playing partner for A, K or 10xx, or perhaps a defensive blockage. Double risks a potentially silly spade contract. If partner has long spades, he will balance, so we won’t miss a worthwhile spade contract. It’s more tempting to try 3NT at IMPs, but non-vul with limited values and no source of tricks, it’s not tempting enough. At Pairs any plus may well be good enough, with down three our way a disaster. So, I think pass is straightforward at match-points.

Our other panellists agree. Indeed, most of the predictions of our Panel came true when more than one North did double. Their partner was fully entitled to jump to the disastrous 4:

 

The defence had a “field day” with heart ruffs, club ruff and an end result of down 4! Three down in 3 would barely be better. Even 3NT would be doomed to failure on 10 lead (2 diamonds, K and two aces) despite North finding their partner with a good heart holding. Meanwhile on a routine K lead, 3 should drift one down.

Of course, North would face an awkward problem had West opened 1 where, once more, double would not have been a great option. Maybe 2. Even if East were to pass this, South might try 2 and North would still be uncertain of the worth of their hand. If they chose 2NT, then they might achieve a plus score though South might convert to a non-making 3... or East might compete, successfully in 3. Now, your partner cannot get to play in 3if you open 3, can they?

Certainly, a difficult hand which highlights what a pre-empt and a take-out double to it should not look like.  

Just Another Shaky 3NT

 

Some slightly conservative bidding with South just bidding 1NT. North invited with South very happy to accept the invitation. They were less happy to receive a small heart lead from West. East contributed J when you played low from dummy at trick 1.

Plan the play, including which diamond you will play when you lead towards dummy for your ninth trick (and West plays low).

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items