All News

“Hotting up” the action. 

So, do you like most hands to be 4333 shape or do you like some of them to be a little “spicier”? Today’s deal has a touch of both types about it, eventually! First up, we seem to have a near-impossible bidding problem.

In case you wonder, this was a real deal, dealt at a club by machine. How could a human dream up the following?

 

Our first question is whether you agree with our 2. Our double was of the negative variety (in case you wondered!)? Then, what next?

When in doubt, to whom do we turn? The Panel, of course, who are by no means of one mind. A couple of panellists did not like our double:

Matt Brown “Agree with 2: I'm not sure why I didn't trap pass 1 to start proceedings but having started with X, the only bid you can make now is 2. So, I guess I agree with that.”

Stephen Blackstock “I have no idea what to do over 2 on this auction, because I cannot at all understand the double. Did we really want to offer South a choice between our three card hearts and doubleton club? Double is a major error from which I can see no recovery. 4 will likely have a play but could be decidedly awkward when the long trumps get tapped at trick one or two. The big problem is that South may bid far too much, expecting more than three trumps opposite.

Probably the best action in an admittedly unusual situation is to pass over 1. There is no chance at all that this will end the auction; South has short spades and will reopen, in a way that will give you crucial information. In the likely event that South doubles, you can if you wish bid 2 now, which would show

(a) a strong hand and therefore spade length as the reason for not acting earlier

 (b) at that point an inability to bid NT

(c) reluctance to pass 1x despite the length. In other words, quite a fair description of the hand North is looking at. I could easily be persuaded to pass 1x, even though it looks silly on this trump holding. There must be every chance for +500, and if we have a making game, it’s not obvious we will find it."

That sounds like an abstention. We will return to Stephen’s prediction of the outcomes later.

Two other objectors to 2:

Bruce Anderson “Disagree. It seems to me partner has already described their hand by the bid of 2. So, it is difficult to see what 2 will achieve. My negative double would usually show a hand in the 7-10 point range with 4 hearts. On that basis partner wants to play 2, and after my cue bid still wants to play a part score. I expect they have a minimum opener with 4 hearts and longer diamonds.

 Notwithstanding I only have 3 hearts, I am bidding 4. That contract is likely to play well on a cross ruff."

Nigel Kearney “Disagree with 2.  I would just bid 4 over 2.”

The rest accepted 2 with varying degrees of enthusiasm:

Michael Ware “Agree with 2. In fact, I can’t think of any alternative.”

Peter Newell “Agree with 2.  I don’t see it as “asking” more a forcing bid as not too sure where we are going. It will be pretty rare that partner has a spade stopper.”

Kris Wooles and Michael Cornell “Agree with 2. On the auction 2 seems fine...what else!”

So, 2 was kind of fine in the meantime but partner replied just 3. Again, a mixture of enthusiasm:

Nigel Kearney “4: as per one round earlier. Partner has shown a minimum hand in response to my supposed game try. it looks right to just bid 4 and try to make on a dummy reversal. 5 or even 6 could be better if partner is 4-6 but we cannot intelligently investigate that now we've set hearts. 3NT could also work but with our bad spade spots will need plenty of luck, e.g. LHO not having a spade to lead.”

Nigel was the only one to suggest 3NT, a choice that was not to be a good option on this day.

With a rather different view of what 3 showed and hence a more aggressive approach now is”

Matt Brown “4: I think 2 should be game forcing and opener can shape out more over that... 2NT natural, 3 1453, 3 4-6, 3 5-6 and 3 could be balanced no stopper with nothing else to say... I guess this all presumes 2 is game forcing.

I really have no idea what partner is showing... 3 should show no less than 6-5 but to bid only 2 over the X with that makes no sense. I guess I bid 4 because I really can't imagine partner not being 6-5 but I don't like this.

I cannot even agree 2 forces to game. Although you do not have 4 hearts, your double was negative showing 4 hearts… and you have now made a game try, as Nigel indicated. We do, at least, agree on your last 4 words, Matt!

I can accept and understand the following treatment of 4:

Michael Cornell “4: cue for hearts and over 4 will continue with 5.  – It’s just possible partner does not have a spade control (overcaller might have say AKQx?)”

Kris Wooles “4: We may have big things on in ’s and 4 cue is a logical first step.”

Michael Ware “4:  It’s pretty easy to envisage slam if not grand. 4 is clearly a cue bid agreeing hearts. We would have bid 2 instead of double if we had clubs, and to slam try in diamonds we would bid 4.”

Sounds good to me, though Peter is just heading to game, for now:

Peter Newell “4:  I am tempted make a slam try (4). It feels to be likely partner has a singleton spade and good diamonds but that probably will not be quite enough as there look to be bad breaks around. I think partner probably needs a spade void for slam to be really good, and he might move over 4 with a void.”

The cue-bidders might also have added that their own 4 bid probably denied first round control, or first and second round control in spades. However, they were right in that slam could be made in hearts, this time. Let’s see partner’s hand:

 

There are a few ifs and buts like the diamond finesse failing or the heart break being less friendly. On the lead of two high spades, declarer ruffs, plays a trump to dummy and takes the diamond finesse. To make 12 tricks, you have to play for everything favourable by ruffing a club. Indeed, you can make 12 tricks but getting to and making game would be just fine, while as Nigel Kearney indicated, you could play a form of dummy reversal which should bring you 10 tricks at least.

You can only make 11 tricks in diamonds as you cannot ruff a club and take two trump finesses. Meanwhile, as long as East remembers which suit their partner overcalled, 3NT would meet a very quick death.

Meanwhile, Stephen Blackstock would have got his reopening double of 1 and would have collected +500 as predicted. That would be a small loss at Teams compared with a making Game though would have saved the heartache that probably took place in most auctions where North did not await partner’s double.

A weird deal but didn’t the red suits break nicely! Just like hand-dealt boards!

Doubled in game

No need to panic, just yet! Dummy is not too bad. You might even make this contract:

 

You did not compete initially as game was not really on your mind after partner’s 12-14 1NT opener. East’s 2NT was both minors, usually 5-5 + in shape. However, you were not going to let the bidding die in 3… and a couple of bids later, you were in game, and then doubled!

West led the 6. Plan the play. East followed with 2. What do you play at trick 2?

You are playing Pairs…not that it matters as at either form of the game, +790 is heaps better than -200.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items