All News

Which way?

SPLIT DECISIONS.

“Four trumps” for Bidding: “Four Trumps” for Defending.
You may have only a very average weak no-trump hand though you have suddenly been thrust into the limelight, perhaps by partner’s decision to bid straight to game. You have four card support for your partner’s major but also a pretty good four card holding in the opponent’s suit. Which should take precedence? It’s your decision right now:

 

Presumably, at this vulnerability, partner bid 4 with some hope of making? What action should you take now?

Should bid on hoping to make 11 tricks, as there cannot be many if any heart tricks for you in defending their not-vulnerable spade contract?

Bruce Anderson “5:  the temptation is to double but partner has probably bid an immediate 4, rather than transfer, because he has no little or no defence to spades. If West is void in hearts, and E/W have a diamond fit with the ace over my king, 4 could well be a make, notwithstanding my spade holding. And if partner is void in spades and fits clubs, 5 could be a make. As they say, when in doubt about who is making what, bid one more.

I thought there might be more support for this view. However, others viewed our spade holding as being more significant.

Peter Newell “Double. Generally, 4 is pre-emptive and so is not necessarily sound. Therefore 5 is very much uncertain. While it’s always nice to have a 4- card suit given partner has 6+ and often 7 hearts 4 card support and the queen are a bit wasted as are the spade values. So, I’ll take the money on offer. 4 may go close even occasionally make if West has a good hand or if my K has the ace sitting over it, but at times it will result in a reasonable penalty given West will stretch to bid 4 at this vulnerability in particular.”

Matt Brown “Double. I can't imagine ever bidding on when partner is so wide ranging and I have so much wastage in spades for partner. I have a clear heart lead to force declarer to ruff and long/strong enough trumps to tap him even if he has 6 (sometimes even with 7) spades. If partner pulls my double, we'll probably make but I see no reason to unilaterally decide the 5 level is where we belong.”

Kris Wooles “Double but I’m not all that sure. It is Teams and I can envisage hands where 5 can make and 4 X is not that much of a success. What has partner got? 2- suited with ’s and a minor, maybe a spade void?  This might mean that the West hand is also 2- suited with spades and a minor and maybe a heart void. Of course, partner can still bid again.

Nigel Kearney “Double: We have good defence and partner may not be able to do anything if we pass. Give partner an offensively oriented hand such as-  AKJxxx xxx Qxxx and there is a small chance that bidding will get us 650 instead of 300 but a greater chance of -100 instead of +100/300.

There seem varying degrees of optimism, or maybe pessimism, about the penalty double. While a very freakish South might pull the double, generally, I would expect your decision to be final.

At this vulnerability, I cannot see that partner is merely pre-empting. Our next Panellist considers that possibility:

Michael Ware “Pass: 4 can be pre-emptive. So, it seems clear to pass now. It’s going to get harder when it goes pass, pass and partner doubles.”

I have much more sympathy with a forcing pass concept raised by:

Stephen Blackstock “Double/Pass: Pass if forcing for this pair, double if it’s not or they don’t know. This is quite a good hand for hearts, but too many gaps for a unilateral five level excursion. Normally, I would expect vul vs not to have a forcing pass available, and a consultative action is ideal here.”

However, dreaming just a little, I think is:

Michael Cornell “5: Partner has bid 4 to make at this vulnerability. I could have had  xx and a soft hand but I have prime cards A and K and Qxxx. So, potentially providing 3 tricks for partner. So, I expect to make.

If my partner has a spade void, they may well go onto to 5 which I can crack for at least 200, probably 300 more than cracking 4.”

Take the money, even if

there was not much to take.

5 was bid at the table. Your partner did have a spade void but there was no 5 bid and neither 5 nor 4 were making contracts. However, 4 would have been a close contest:

It required consistent heart leads from the North hand for the defence to take 4 tricks with North finally able to score three trump tricks and the A. Declarer has had to ruff twice after playing A and another leaving North with two trumps, one of which is a winner. Declarer has two but cannot draw North's final trump and has to run diamond winners with a trump outstaning.

Meanwhile, the defence should not be challenged to take three tricks off 5 while an initial diamond lead or switch after A lead will give them their full entitlement of four. It’s probably all too tight for East to double though if they did, Michael Cornell’s 500 could be going in the other direction!

And 4? A little aggressive but a reasonable shot on a good day and it got everyone guessing what to do next. Did you guess right? Oh, you can only claim the credits if you led a heart to 4x. Otherwise, it is -590

Time for a peek?

 

A Weak Jump Overcall, one of which you are not ashamed. Yet, the opposition bid on to game. And your lead is?

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items