All News

Awkward Choices (Part 1)

Today and tomorrow, we will look at a couple of problems which arise when one plays reopening doubles. A reopening double keeps the bidding open with the possible intention of one’s partner being able to penalise the opponents, since they themselves cannot make a penalty double. As such, the double may not promise though may have four cards in an unbid major.

One such situation arises in today’s auction following an opponent’s jump overcall:

 

It seemed quite a straightforward auction until South popped up with their weak- jump overcall. Now, you have to decide on your next bid. West’s double is not for penalties while their 1 promised at least three. You are playing Teams.

There is some criticism of East’s 1 bid from the restrained:

Kris Wooles “Ok I guess but I’d probably prefer 1NT.”  and

Nigel Kearney “The 1 response is fine though 1NT looks a better description if permitted by system.”

Michael Cornell “1NT would have been a much better initial response, very descriptive and a hand with tenaces too.”

To the blunt:

Matt Brown “I don't really understand the 1 response as opposed to 1NT; one might prefer partner’s heart stopper not being in dummy but our majors are good enough that we will still have a stopper if that were to happen.”

To the much blunter:

Stephen Blackstock “Re 1 – the politest thing I can call it is crazy. Perhaps East thought the hand insufficiently balanced for 1NT!”

Especially for those who play a short club, a 1NT response from partner tends to show a four- card club suit (and no major), though I see nothing wrong in suppressing this uninspiring diamond suit and calling 1NT here.

In reality, it seems a similar problem will arise if the bidding went:

West              North            East                South

1                   Pass                1NT                2

X                      Pass                ?

though were East now to bid 2, West would know it was not a four-card suit.

So, back to the issue with the original sequence given. What should East bid? The Panel are almost united:

Kris Wooles “3”: hoping partner has 4+ clubs.  Tempted to bid 2.”

With more certainty about the length of partner’s club suit is:

Peter Newell “3: I would have bid 1NT rather than 1. However, it seems unlikely partner has only 3 clubs. While 4333 is possible, it seems unlikely. Partner will almost always have 4-5 clubs, and with a shape like 4144 should convert 3 to 3. So, 3 will work out most of the time….1NT would have been better first time around.” (not much support for 1!)

And even greater certainty from:

Stephen Blackstock “3: West is known to have genuine clubs now. Are we playing Lebensohl, and if not, why not?”

Using Lebensohl, 3 from East would be natural and more constructive than bidding a forcing 2NT first. There are a couple of other interpretations as to what 2NT might mean:

Matt Brown “3: I don't want to bid 2NT scrambling and have partner choose diamonds since he could not bid 3 rather than X. If he corrects 3 to 3 showing a decent hand, we can re-evaluate.”

and one who does go for that bid:

Michael Cornell “2NT:  I play as pick a minor. If partner has five clubs and three diamonds, I want to play in clubs.”

However, majority rules:

Bruce Anderson “3: don’t like it but can see no alternative after bidding 1. What partner would have done after the more sensible 1NT, I do not know. Partner is likely to be short in hearts and therefore should have at least 4 clubs.

I am not passing for penalties, and I am not bidding a 3- card spade suit. So, 3 it is.”

Tough choice!

 

Well, we did not define what partner’s double meant and neither did the Panel! It is not normal to play “support doubles” after responder has bid 1..but 3 is hardly a first-choice option here with East’s diamond holding. Did Double promise or deny a four-card spade suit?

It is inconceivable that you would want to penalise 2 as you have certainly no more than three cards in that suit. With an unbalanced hand and 4 spades, partner could bid 2. So, it looks like our partner wishes to compete and is not sure which is our better trump fit. So, it’s time to tell them.

That is what East did at the table and 3 ended the bidding:

 

 

North led two top hearts and then a high diamond. West guessed correctly to lay down A followed by a trump finesse and K and then K followed by J. Had South covered, declarer would have been uncomfortably trapped in dummy but there was no cover. Thus, declarer had 4 trump tricks, 3 spades and A before the last spade was played, making 9 tricks.

The same blockage issues arise in 3NT but who would want to be in that contract? J85 was not a stop but would this time delay more than two heart tricks being taken.

Another weak jump, another double, another problem:

 

If the game was Pairs, you might be prepared to pass this one out hoping your partner really have a decent hand, or decent enough hand for +200. Yet, it’s Teams and you might want to run, but where?

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items