All News

I hate the concept. Life is worth far more than a chance. So, why did I employ it at the bridge table? At least, in my bridge version, I did have a 50% chance of survival, maybe 51!

 

So, you need all suits held when you bid 3NT?

 If you answer “yes”, then what would you prefer initially?

What now? Double?

What does "double" mean?

Is your partner still at the table? They have been very silent up to this point.

What is the best result your side can achieve? 

An ace, an ace king, an ace king queen. You would normally be very happy with those holdings in three suits. I looked for 9 tricks initially but suddenly found myself wondering just how many tricks I possessed when my left-hand opponent bid the suit I did not control while I held just one trick in opener’s suit. However, to coin a very bad pun, “we are jumping the gun!”

Would the Panel have got themselves in this position? Would they have bid 3NT in the first place? Let’s hear from them.

I received some support:

Kris Wooles “Ok with 3NT.”

Pam Livingston “Agree with 3NT.”

Bruce Anderson “Agree with 3NT. Too good for 2NT and it seems to me double should be essentially for take- out, usually showing four hearts. Alternatively, double could be the first move on very big single suited hand; too good for an overcall, or even a jump overcall.”

Stephen Blackstock “3NT is reasonable, but double might have been more helpful and left more options open. I can always bid 3NT next time. Because 3NT can be bid on a wide range of hands, it will usually dissuade partner from bidding 4 when it is right.”

Michael Ware “I don't mind 3NT if we have agreement this is what shows. With no agreement, I prefer double.”

There are one or two reservations and I am not sure about Michael’s comment about showing “this”. I would have thought a strong, very strong hand, with a spade hold is what I am showing. I am either “gambling” with a long-running minor or am just plain 20+ strong. I was a bit of both, not actually promising a hold in every other suit. After all, decent opponents lead their partner’s suit!

I shall keep the above on my Christmas Card list. However, there are others with another view:

Michael Cornell “I strongly disagree with 3NT. This is normally with a strong suit (usually a minor) with a spade stop that is too good for either 2NT or 3 of a minor. I would X, and bid 3NT next unless partner bids 3 (8+ as we play Lebensohl).”

Matt Brown “I don't agree with 3NT. I prefer X first followed by 3NT to show some flexibility with hearts; if partner has QJTxx and nothing else, I want them to be able to correct to 4 rather than play a doomed 3NT which they could/should pass, playing me for a long strong minor.”

Nigel Kearney “Prefer double on the first round. An immediate 3NT suggests a running suit while a delayed 3NT suggests a more flexible hand like this one. Having partner declare after bidding Lebensohl 2NT could also help us as we have no tenaces to protect and the 2 bidder is less likely to attack our diamond weakness.”

Peter Newell “No, I wouldn’t have bid 3NT.  Double is clearly better.  We may belong in hearts. Partner is not going to correct 3NT to 4 with a 5-card heart suit and may not with a 6-card suit either. There may be advantage in partner playing NT too if they hold the Q. If playing Lebensohl, partner will often end up bidding 2NT – looks like that wouldn’t have happened this time.  We can always bid rebid 3NT so there is absolutely no hurry to jump to 3NT and I would expect a different hand (long minor, or short hearts).”

Well, two suits did worry me in bidding 3NT, holding too many hearts and too few diamonds.

I am persuaded by the chance of 4 being the right contract and by the “tenace” argument. However, as Peter Newell indicated, double or 3NT would likely have produced the same effect above…or would East have satisfied themselves with a more manageable 3?

So, there you are, or I and at least half the Panel was, facing what to do over 4. Did I know what double would mean? I feared it might be for penalties and were East to possess a heap of diamonds and a modicum of spade support, I might not be cashing many of my aces and kings! Several of the Panel agreed:

Bruce Anderson “Pass: it is possible to construct E/W hands where 4 is making; say they have 7/3, or even a 7/4 fit, and the necessary distribution. East is unlikely to hold solid diamonds as they would have passed 3NT.  But they may have something like AQJxxxx, with West holding Kxx (x). Some will suggest this is paranoia on my part, but if 4 is doubled and makes that is a disaster at teams. And why is East bidding at the four level after their partner opened a weak two and I bid 3NT?  I am taking the view that he/she is not a lunatic.

Also, it is difficult to imagine we can make anything; partner had the opportunity to bid over 4 but did not do so.”

Michael Ware “Pass. If I have shown this hand and partner can't act, neither can I. Prefer double if we don't have agreement.”

Stephen Blackstock “Pass. We are not getting rich from vulnerable opponents who must have shape to bid like this, not just long diamonds and a bunch of losers on the side. Would 2470 or similar be such a surprise? (xx,QJxx,AKQJxxx,void.) 3NT may have been several down in theory, but West may not guess to lead a diamond and may not even have one to lead!).”

I think it fair to add that Stephen assumes South got to be declarer rather than in the actual sequence above.

Interestingly, the passers all agreed or tolerated the 3NT call. However, others just had to double, which appears mainly to be for penalties. Still rather pithy is:

Michael Cornell “Double. Having made the silly 3NT bid, I am now stuck and if the 4 bid is sane, we are not getting rich but I guess I have to double.

It will not be good when partner has nothing but Jxxxxx but we will still beat it with a heart ruff! (one has to be an optimist!)”

With more sympathy is:

Pam Livingston “Double: While normally a double is for take-out, in this case it is more penalty orientated - both opponents bidding with distributional hands to the 4 level with both sides vulnerable. Partner heard me say I had a very strong balanced hand and could have doubled for take-out or bid their own long suit if they had one.”

 Matt Brown “Double: I don't think we can pass with such strong values, and we could still easily have 4/5 on since bids like 4 usually have spade support which would make partner semi-short. I think we would be in a better position if we had started with double.”

Nigel Kearney “Double: I'm not that optimistic as East probably wouldn't bother bidding unless he had decent chances of being down only one and my hand has no real surprises, but there are some lunatics out there and I have more defence than partner will expect. It won't be my first or last -710 if it goes wrong.”

I would have loved to agree with Peter about the meaning of double:

Peter Newell “Double: I think double is still take-out by either player so that has some appeal. However, risky in that partner may pass and it makes, or partner may venture 4 on a 4-card suit which will not play well.  While clearer at Pairs to double, I’ll still double as partner may be weakish with a 5-card heart suit, or we may get a penalty, but I’m not happy about it, and non vul, I would be very close to passing.”

Kris Wooles “Double: I’m not sure what else I could do. Can hardly pass and 5 too speculative. 4 may well be on for us if partner has lots of hearts. I’m expecting East to have 8 tricks and can imagine hands where 4 will make which perhaps is the reason the problem has been posed.”

Surely, our partner would have bid “with lots of hearts”? Why, though, was the problem posed? Because it was a problem! The doublers are not that confident of success and that -710 score appeared actually or by inference in a number of the answers.

However, only two panellists ventured to describe East’s hand. I was surprised at the suggestion East could have a long running diamond suit headed by AKQ as I would have thought they would have passed 3NT…and now several days later, would still be cashing diamond winners! I am and indeed did believe East did not have solid diamonds. That left me with an interesting thought.

Who held the missing diamond honour? Firstly, I checked my own hand to see if the A had changed shape..but no, that was not the case!

So, it had to be South or West….and that brought us back to where we came in. Feeling no happier about doubling 4 for penalties than the rest of the Panel, I decided to take my chances. I had bid 3NT without a diamond hold. So, out came 4NT. Our “silent partner” would surely oblige with the missing honour.

They did not…but the bidder survived to tell the tale!

 

There was a long pause after the initial K lead was overtaken by West (North had thanked their partner for dummy, especially for their diamond cards!)and a very quick claim for 10 tricks when the switch came. 4 did seem a reasonable action, down one on this day on top tricks but down 3 (800) if the defence found spade ruffs for South. 4x would not be attractive for the defence unless they forced declarer to ruff a card in the East hand early or at least held off the trump ace if West tried drawing trumps.

However, the best comment came at the end of the play from South who had been very quiet during the proceedings. They pointed out that slam, 6, had been missed. 1370, optimum result! Now, is there anyone, anywhere, who would even contemplate that contract?!

Good game: good result?

That’s what you want. How to achieve it?

 

Playing 5-card majors, you reach a pretty fair 4 contract, though the trump suit is “fairly average”! West leads A and a second spade with East contributing 4 and then, much to your relief, J. Plan the play.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items