All News

                            Pull the trigger?

Sayings in bridge are useful, to an extent. One issue is when they appear to overlap, or do they? High level decisions are tricky. That is not a saying but a statement of fact. Name me a bridge player who has not doubled a 4 or 5 level contract where they concede one or two overtricks. It happens!

It’s always hard when the opponents have bid to 4 and we have to decide whether to bid on, double them or go passive.

 

Do you double, pass or bid on? You have a decent number of high card points and partner has bid to game. 2 was a Weak Jump and 4? Who knows?

We are playing Pairs.

Here’s one guideline to follow:

Michael Ware “Double: Normally we don’t pre-empt over their pre-empt, but we have 3 cue raise available so what is what. Assuming 3 would be a slam try and not just a value raise to 4, then we are in a forcing pass situation and I pass.

If 4 is just to play and 3 just shows an opening hand, then this is not a forcing pass situation, and I double - just because it is Pairs and I think it is going down.”

 

Michael raises two issues, the difference between bidding 3 and then 4 and a direct 4 and the saying about never “pre-empting a pre-empt”. 2 is a pre-empt and it is useful to know in this situation that our partner is bidding 4 to make. Our side has value. That is different from when partner raises to 4 after a simple overcall or take-out double where our partner can be very weak.

Thus, the saying about “the one in your partnership who bids game knows what to do next” does not apply.

Matt is self-confessed “trigger happy”!

Matt Brown “Double: I know myself and that I usually just 'take the money' perhaps more often than I should so for me this wasn't that close. With decent defence in every suit, bad hearts and unknown fit sizes, I think it is too much to unilaterally bid on. Bidding 5 would imply a) we expect to make it, and b) 4 is not -3 for +500, and I don't think either of these are anywhere near certain with our hand.”

Michael Ware mentioned that his pass of 4 may be forcing. This view is supported by:

Peter Newell “Pass: close between pass and double.  I’m passing on the assumption that it is forcing as we have bid game freely. So, partner will double or bid. If I was in much doubt, I would double, as we may not make 5, and 4 doubled will be good for us most of the time.”

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: Anything else is presumptuous or worse. Maybe they can make; maybe they cannot. I have enough defence to question that but not enough to be sure. Perhaps a club lead is necessary; if so, partner is unlikely to find it. Double would be speculative.

My hand doesn’t look as if 11 tricks are likely.  If partner has very wild shape, he may guess what to do. We may have a paying save in 5x, then again, we may go for -500. Again, let partner decide. However, in general, it is foolish to push opponents into a contract and then save against it: perhaps East may have been content with 3 if given that option.

North should have shape rather than high cards (else 3), but my values are not such that I have a clear action it would be right to take ahead of him.”

Moving higher without much shape and without good trumps seems to be dangerous. It would be better had our A been in a different suit and we had a small singleton spade. Also, we are not vulnerable and need only beat 4 by three tricks doubled even if we can make 5. However, we have movers:

Pam Livingston “4NT: RKCB.   If partner has a game raise based on high card points, I would expect her to cue raise to help me with decision making.  She can also splinter with 4 or 4 to show a singleton. So often in these auctions 4 is followed by 4 and opener needs to know what kind of hand 4 is.  A jump to 4 tends to be longer trumps, fewer high card points.  I am going to go to 5 but will check for key cards along the way. If two are shown, I will bid slam but with one only, I'm worried about a diamond loser and so will stop in 5."

Nigel Kearney “5: I expect partner has something like a limit raise of hearts, e.g. xx AQxx xxx Axxx. Slam needs too much when he could not bid 3. We are not in a force so can't pass and let partner decide. We probably get 300 from 4 and at Teams I would double, but at Pairs I'd rather try for 11 tricks.”

Michael Cornell “5: Very good problem-toughest for a while. The Dutch play a great system here. Double shows interest in going on – perfect for hands like this.

In the absence of that, I am bidding 5, hoping to hear 5 (partner is limited but should have approx.9- 10 points- no 3 bid: so not much better.)

Unless partner has xx, slam cannot be good without a diamond control but must be odds on with one."

Bruce Anderson “5: shows slam interest with a club control. This is a good hand with slam potential that should be explored, even if we are playing Pairs. Partner may reply in kind by cue bidding the K or a singleton diamond.                

   It is hard to imagine partner co-operating without good trumps and/or A. So, a slam could be reached in this way. If partner can only bid 5, that is where we play. Doubling 4 could be considered, but risks E/W going two down only for a bad result.”

 Are we assured of making even 11 tricks in hearts? Our hand has medium values and poor intermediates. Put me in the camp of “trigger happy” Matt and..

Kris Wooles “Double: I’ve got reasonable defence which I’d like to disclose and partner can still decide to bid on with an appropriate hand.”

If our hand had more extreme shape, then I would be happy to bid on, maybe even explore for slam. As it is, our side and even trump suits are not wonderful and partner has not shown a good raise to game by bidding 3.

Is our pass forcing? Where we are vulnerable and the opponents are not, it should be though at this vulnerability, I cannot see it has to be.

However, we have a suggestion that double can show interest in bidding on and that, therefore, pass is forcing.Food for thought.

This does presume that the opposition are pre-empting the auction. The situation must be different from where 4 can be very weak: i.e. without the weak jump overcall.

Doubling 4 would provide 300 (500 is possible), not as good as a making game but making 5 was not straightforward:

 

4x is no simple two down if the defence goes passive and declarer has to GUESS to play diamonds correctly for -300. However, 5 is tough on any lead.

On a spade lead, it is not clear what South should discard on the K. It depends on the location of A. So, play K and a heart to dummy and then play a club won by K. Return to dummy with a third trump and on the basis West did not win A, discard a diamond on K before playing a second club. East will win and exit a club to South’s queen.    

Now, A and a second diamond. West is known to have 6 spades, 3 hearts and 2 clubs. Hence, the diamond position is clear to South…and when East cannot overtake, West has to present declarer with a ruff and discard and South’s last diamond is discarded, a very fortunate 11 tricks, fully justifying the decision to take whatever North-South could get from 4x.

Playing the inferior contract

 Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items