All News

Declare or Defend?

We seem to have too much support for our partner’s suit to allow our opponents to play in their major suit game but too much defence to want to sacrifice. Do we bid on and sacrifice or trust our defence will prevail? Dilemma!

 

PAIRS. 3 is a Weak Jump Overcall. Are you bidding now? If you pass and East raises to 4 , are you bidding then?
If you defend, what is your lead?

(Firstly, an apology in that yesterday's quiz introducing this problem did not state the vulnerability which is equal Nil VUL.)

Let’s hear first from those who bid to the maximum:

Peter Newell “5: It depends a bit on the opposition. I think they are likely to be able to bid and make a major suit Game, I think we are likely 2 or 3 down in 5. So, I will bid 5 more often than not and pass the rest of the time. 5 may be a good sacrifice, and if I’m ever going to bid 5 now is the time, not later.  While I lean towards 5, I would take into account the expected strength of the 3 bid (depends on partner, how we and the opponents if known are going – at times I will not want to risk a bottom by bidding 5, and the opponents) and whether the opponents were more likely to be pushed to the 5 level."

Kris Wooles “5:  I like to pre -empt aggressively and immediately. While I would be happier NV vs Vul to do this, the opponents still have to double and get 500 and they may guess wrong, misdefend or we may only go for 300 vs 420. They are almost certain to have at least an 8-card spade fit."

Bruce Anderson “5: it is hard to imagine we have 4 defensive tricks against a 4 contract, but possibly we can beat a five- level contract if the opponents ‘take the push’. Obviously, we may be going 3 down doubled but chances have to be taken at Pairs.  
Certainly, our partner’s Weak Jump could be a 7-card suit which does reduce our defensive possibilities. Bruce is certain 4 will only produce 4 and the problem then of whether we should bid once more.

However, taking the slow road are:

Stephen Blackstock “4: At this point all I want to do is invite South to sacrifice with extra length and/or shape that suggests we can make at least 9 tricks.”

Michael Ware “4: Lets partner dive 5 if he/she wants with a suitable hand.”

Nigel Kearney “4: I want partner to pre-empt aggressively and I won't punish him for that by risking 500 when he has a load of old boots. We can't buy it in 4 so my bid suggests partner sacrifice if suitable.”

Michael Cornell “4: This figures to be close, probably -1.”

These answers intrigue me. Especially at this vulnerability, I would expect a respectable weak jump from partner who has said it all in one bid. It is then up to their partner to decide whether to bid on and how high.

With a little support above from Peter Newell comes our lone passer:

Pam Livingston "Pass:They are almost certainly going to be in 4.  While it doesn't appear that our side has four defensive tricks against 4, bidding 5 could be too expensive especially if partner has a 6 card suit.  On a good day we could defeat 4.

So, what would the 4 bidders do when the expected 4 comes and their partner passes:

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: I will not bid higher myself because 5x will be too expensive if South is say some 6322 shape. Also, 4 may not be making if South has some defensive values such as Q or Qx (very likely to score on this auction). Even the J may be enough to build four defensive tricks so a save looks dubious from my side. It’s now up to South to make that judgment.”

Michael Cornell “Pass: as I have a lot of defence e.g. Partner only needs the J for us to often have 2 tricks there and there must also be a chance of a deep diamond trick.

Unless partner has something special, he will also pass at love all, but if he has something unusual, my bid gives him the chance to dive and it won’t be expensive.”

Nigel Kearney: “Pass: If I had passed initially, I would not bid 5 unilaterally unless partner is a very conservative pre-emptor.”

Michael Ware: “Pass:  Too flat to dive unilaterally.”

Pam Livingston "Pass:I don't really have any more information about the hand when 4 is bid. So, if I couldn't bid 5 over 3, then there's no reason to do it now."

I am not sure whether I am Nigel Kearney’s “conservative pre-emptor”. I believe in pre-empting according to the vulnerability and would thus already have described my hand here. The above, though, leave it to their partner to decide. 4 should show some defence to 4 or else why bid it? It would be interesting to know, therefore, whether any of the above would have bid 5 over 4 with the South hand below. It would have been wrong to do so.

What, then, would those defending have led to 4?

Michael Ware “K: so I can switch to a diamond or heart from my side depending.”

Nigel Kearney “a trump: It might be necessary to remove dummy's trumps and I hope my red suits are good enough that they can't get a club loser away.”

Peter Newell "K: to look at dummy if it holds the trick"

Michael Cornell “K”

Pam Livingston "K:This allows a look at dummy and if it holds I am better placed to know what to continue.  Even though I have not supported partner, it is unlikely harm will come from this lead as we have so many clubs.

Stephen Blackstock “K: the obvious lead. In the likely event I hold the trick, I can decide how to proceed and whether perhaps to underlead the A (which would be an interesting if risky shot at trick one). The other advantage of leading the K is that declarer may be less sure of the layout and less able to place missing cards.”

Kris Wooles also suggested a trump lead. The “trump leaders” will survive as long as their second choice (they will soon be back on lead) is a little more successful. The K would have got a clear 2 suit preference signal from their partner and one which needed to be obeyed as these were the four hands:

 

There are two diamond ruffs going. Only one is necessary to beat 4 as long as North switches to a low diamond. That seems unlikely as Q would be right if South held A while it also requests a heart return if, as is the case, South is void in diamonds.

It looks like those who bid an immediate 5 will concede 300 as neither opponent is good or distributional enough to bid any higher. Would our 4 bidders have raised to 5 on the South hand? I suspect they might.

All of which brings us back to whose decision bidding on really is. The concept of letting the Weak Jump Overcaller decide, unless they really have something special, seems foreign to me. Had South held a singleton diamond and one less heart, 5 would have conceded 500, a terrible result even if 4 was making. The argument seems to be that South would pass 4 with that 3316 shape.

 

 Defend!

“Call me conservative” but normally I have already described my hand with my jump. I had and we quietly beat 4 after partner had passed throughout.

Bidding according to vulnerability..weak jumps included.

A Nice Problem

 2 is a standard Weak 2 in diamonds.

What bid would you make as West? You are playing Teams.

If you bid 3 and partner bids 3, what would you bid now?

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items