All News

Or is it too late?

 Bidding or Leading?

That is frequently the question when you are in the “pass out” position, whether it be in the part-score or game zones. Would you do better by keeping the auction open, by

• pushing the opponents up one level and hopefully record a plus score
• bidding to a making contract
• incurring a minus score which is a smaller minus than had you let them play the board

The last of these is so important especially at Pairs.

So, to our problem:

We are in the world of the part-score. We are playing Pairs. 1 is natural, 4+ and 3 a standard value raise, 10-11. Are you bidding or leading?

In many of these balancing issues, the vulnerability seems to be against us. We are vulnerable and there is a risk of going -200 or if the opponents wield the axe an even worse fate when you are wrong….and all to prevent the opponents making +110 or similar. “Silence” would be so golden. Yet, here? We can go one down, even doubled, concede 100 and be comfortably ahead against the 110 the opponents were about to get. So says:

Kris Wooles “Double:  looks like both sides have close to 20 hcps. 3 of a major may not make but -50 or -100 may be a good score.”

Bruce Anderson "Double: it isn’t possible to do well at Pairs (or Teams) by passing in this position. The opponents have a fit and  there is a very good chance we have a major suit fit. Even two down , so long as we are not doubled, could well be a good result.

There are some criticisms that if we were going to bid, we should have doubled a round earlier. Our shape was right for a double of 1 though we were a little short of hcp. There is also some doubt of the hcps partner should have:

Michael Cornell “2:  If we are feeling aggressive, we should have doubled in 2nd seat. To double now, we have to have decent expectations of making when partner should be in the 6-8 point range. We would need to find him with a 5 card major just to have a sniff.”

Some panellists not only said they would pass but like Michael above told us what they would lead. Another Michael and more criticism of our previous pass:

Michael Ware “Pass: This is of course is why we should have doubled 1 in the first place. Bidding could easily be right but -300 too likely as well. Small spade lead. Prefer leading from kings to queens.” And again:

Matt Brown “Pass: wish I hadn't passed the first time, though.”

Differentiating between the action one might take at different levels of the game is:

Peter Newell “Pass: I think it unlikely we can make anything at the 3 level. Partner is a passed hand so likely has a balanced hand with a 4- card major. However, occasionally partner will have 3334 or a 5- card club suit and that won’t be pretty. We may beat 3 and if so, we will be worse off.

At Pairs against weak opponents, I would be tempted to double and back my partner to make 3 of a major which would be better than the opponents going 1 down.

Several Panellists pass but indicate that doubling could be right:

Nigel Kearney “Pass: I can't bring myself to come in at the three level with a balanced hand, though I wouldn't be surprised if it is right.

I would lead the 2. An attacking lead could work but could also cost a trick, plus I would have to choose the right suit.”

And finally

Stephen Blackstock “Pass and a trump lead stands out to me; I will regret it if North/South can draw trumps and run clubs, but that is pure speculation. It doesn’t seem best to come in now if you weren’t prepared to do so at the one level. Surely that was the safest time. Now, if you double you may find him with nowhere playable to go. If you double 1, partner will only compete at the three level if he holds genuine values and some shape.

High level balancing actions may go unscathed in weak fields, but competent opponents won’t hesitate to double without a trump stack if they have the balance of power and there is no strong suggestion of compensating distribution.”

So, the overall verdict is that we had our chance to enter the auction one round earlier and that it is now too late, too dangerous. Perhaps, therefore, the actual deal is the exception. Partner did have a five-card major and the 8-count that Michael Cornell predicted.

Not just that but there was no stopping 3, nor even 4 after a trump lead.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had South not opened the bidding. At some tables, the board was passed in.

Only an unlikely heart lead away from the ace and spade switch genuinely holds 3 to 9 tricks. At the table, Michael Ware’s low spade lead was saved from disaster by South’s 10. They misguessed at trick 1 (surely it is more attractive to lead away from Kxxx than Jxxx?) but 9 tricks were still there.

Meanwhile, that 10 meant that a declarer would play a spade to the  K on the first round of the suit in 3 and thanks to the heart finesse, would come to 9 tricks. Oh, if we had only doubled earlier! Would you?

“Thank you, partner” as though you mean it!

It was not a lovely dummy. Plenty of heart losers and hardly a running club suit! Let’s hope for a nice trump break. Come on. Thank partner like you mean it and plan for 10 tricks…and wish very strongly for a 3-2 trump break…and your wish is granted! West held S J95.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items