All News

Ugly and Uglier?

That was the title we left you with yesterday. You never had much of a hand but it did not get any better when partner opened in your singleton suit. You had an easy bid, first up, when you could call the other major at the one level.

It was a small reprieve because partner’s next offering was your doubleton suit at the two level….and your choices were rather limited:

 

The Problem

Apart from blaming the card dealer, the problem was that you could hardly rebid a 5- card suit headed by the jack. Meanwhile, the Achilles Heel of the excellent 4^th Suit Forcing convention is that a bid of 2here is at least a one-round, if not for many a game-forcing asking for more information bid and could take you way higher than you want to go. So, opposite a hand limited in high-card strength, what options do you have?

There are only 2, “Pass” or 2.

Kris Wooles “Pass: 2 showing a minimum hand. North’s choices now are 2 on an awful suit, 2 which is 4th suit forcing and too strong for this hand or pass which to me is the most logical bid albeit with an unsatisfactory flavour about it.”

Kris has one supporter to whom we will refer later but Kris does not mention the return to opener’s opening suit, a “false preference” bid. Here are some good reasons for keeping the auction alive.

Matt Brown “2: I would correct to 2. Partner could be 3514 and follow up with 2 which could play much better. I usually correct in case they are 6/4.”

Stephen Blackstock “2: North has no reasonable alternative to 2. Sure, it’s unattractive, but you don’t have nearly enough for 2, and 2 would show six (and might then be raised on a doubleton). Even if 2 is non-forcing, 2 is correct on the North cards. South will most often be 5-4, and the 5-1 fit will play better than a 4-2.”

Bruce Anderson “2: I would rather partner played a 5-1 fit than a likely 4-2 fit if I pass. And on a lucky day partner will have 6 hearts.”

Welcome to a new member of our Panel. He should be well known to you all. He has overcome successfully plenty of such awkward situations at the table.

Michael Ware “2:  false preference. 5-1s play better than 4-2s.

Peter Newell “2: “preference” as I don’t want to rebid 2 and don’t want to risk passing 2 when it’s a stupid contract…”

Nigel Kearney “2: False preference, the same as I would bid with two hearts and three clubs. I have a decent hand, would like to keep the auction going in case partner is strong, and don't prefer a 2 contract to a 2 contract.”

It is interesting that we seem to presume that partner is a minimum 2524 12- count. Yet, all 2 says as opposed to a jump to 3 is that opener has less than a good 17 high-card points, since the jump is usually played as forcing to game.

Many valid reasons have been put forward as to why 2 is better than passing and the only right time to pass is when partner has a minimum 5-5 hand. It is true that 2 can be passed unless you have a specific agreement otherwise. Yet, despite the heart holding, the above is not really the hand to give up in what might be a terrible contract.

What happened?

At the table, had North given false preference, they would have cringed inside at their partner’s next bid which would have been 4! While not cold, 4 would have been a much better contract than 2, which drifted one down. When you see the South hand below, you may wonder whether they should have bid 2 or some number of hearts. It was a question we asked our Panel.

 

With a spade and potentially three club losers, the success of 4 depended on a successful diamond finesse and a 3-2 trump break. You would not mind if you were in game (when it makes!) or at least in a heart rather than a club part-score.

So, what about that 2 bid? It had little support among the Panel.

Matt Brown “3: I think 2 is a poor bid and prefer 3/4, I don’t mind either way between those.

3 traditionally shows more high-card points (15-17) while 4 is more hearts, less points.

We did not specify if we were playing Pairs or Teams. Our next panellist offered two options but both were in hearts not clubs:

Bruce Anderson “2 at Pairs and 3 at Teams. I do not like 2 as partner has given that sequence too wide a range. If partner has 6-9 points, a singleton heart, and soft values, 3 could be too high. On the other hand, if partner is in the 6-9 range with an ace, 2 or 3 hearts, and a partial fit or shortage in clubs, game will be very good. But how is partner to judge they must invite game with only a partial fit and so few points? They are much more likely to pass 2.”

Nigel Kearney “3: Depends on style somewhat, but I like to respond light and raise the 3 bid more aggressively. 4 is ok too, but 2 is more likely to lead to something bad than something good.”

Yet, there was some  muted support for club bids, though not always the one chosen:

Stephen Blackstock “2: If 2 is forcing, as it appears to be for this pair, then it is fine. Telling North about secondary clubs will help evaluation later in the auction. A jump to 4 would be weaker, and in in any constructive sense unhelpful.”

It seems the pair did not have that agreement, or one of them did not!

Peter Newell “3: I don’t want to be passed in 2, and my hearts are “soooo” much better than my clubs. It is rather misleading to bid clubs. I am rather tempted to not even mention clubs and just bid 3/4, but when we are in the slam zone, bidding clubs will certainly help him evaluate his club honours.  I don’t need much from partner for game.”

Michael Ware “It depends on whether 2 is forcing. If so, 2 is good because although you want to emphasise hearts, you don't know how many. If 2 is non-forcing, then I guess 3. I expect partner to raise with two tricks.”

I am with these panellists:

Kris Wooles “4: the most descriptive bid.”

Michael Cornell “4: I have a 4- loser hand. Even if we have a club fit, more often than not, we will make as  many tricks in hearts. Good hand for Gazzilli  maybe or change of suit forcing, which I reserve for silly Aussies. ( Now, Michael, since it is a style I enjoy, I will stand up for our Australian cousins...and we will leave Gazilli for another day)

Michael was scathing about the 2 response and made his partner pay for it. I have a feeling Ashley Bach would not have bid 2 on the South hand!

Michael Cornell “Pass and blame partner for his stupid rebid!  What are the alternatives-give preference to a singleton or rebid Jxxxx? Either gives partner the opportunity to bid some more on a horrible misfit.”

 

So, not much support for the 2 rebid (and only any if you have an agreement that the bid is forcing) or indeed the pass of that bid. North should be thankful that they did not have a 5062 6 count. False preference then with a void?!

Let’s not go there! North should not have had the problem above but having been given it, the majority think that 2 was the right action… and here, it would have led to a making heart game.

What now?

 

A typical spade/heart battle. What now? It’s Pairs.

Richard Solomon

 

 

Go Back View All News Items