All News

The Uncooperative Partner!

A nice hand, an extremely nice hand, especially when you find a fit. You have three suits, a void and over 20 hcp. Can you risk opening such a hand at the 1 level or is it right to use what for most pairs these days is their only strong bid at the 2 level for unbalanced hands, 2?

 

 

Do you agree with South’s opening bid? Whether or not you do, what would you bid next? Just to put a frazzle on your face, 2 shows 0-5 hcp and 6+ spades.

Our Panel are united in respect to the first question, much less so in how they would proceed the above sequence. There are no 2-level openers among our Panellists. The most powerful arguments are put forward by:

Pam Livingston “1: Gives plenty of room for the auction and is very unlikely to be passed out when I am void in spades.”

Stephen Blackstock “1: I can’t imagine what the alternative opening might be. The values for 2 aren’t close to being there – and when you have a 3-suiter to describe, you need all the space you can get.”

In other words, why start high when you have three suits to show? Meanwhile, surely someone will find a reason to bid spades. Hopefully, it is not our partner.

Peter Newell “1: strong 3 suiters are very difficult to bid if you start with 2.  I guess the auction would have gone 2 – 2, 3 - 3 and you would then be forced to bid 3NT when partner could easily have a second suit as may only have a 5-card spade suit.  Partner will strain to bid over 1 generally, so the chance of being passed out is fairly low and then it will likely be fine unless partner has 4+ hearts.”

A slight reservation but in conclusion, Bruce agrees with the rest of the Panel:

Bruce Anderson “1: but with reservations; partner may have a weak hand with both majors and I could find myself playing in 1 with 4 cold. That said, my spade void means it is unlikely 1 will be passed out. The hand is not good enough for 2, game force, so 1 it is.”

Pretty good, though, should you find a fit. Matt Brown and Michael Cornell also see no merit in a 2 opener while the hand is just not that strong for:

Nigel Kearney “1: We need space to find the best strain and 2 pre-empts our side. With a three suiter, or any hand playable in more than two strains, I'd only open 2 if the hand was so strong that getting passed out at the one level would be disastrous.”

So, we can investigate better if we open low while someone will bid spades. Promise! The only pity was that it was our partner who used up some of the space we have so carefully saved!

Not just 1 but 2! Very few high card points (5 at most, 5 less some days!), almost certainly no second suit, very descriptive and very frustrating! For those who elect to pass 2 out, a little comment from you that your dummy was not that strong as the aces and kings continued to hit the deck!

Bruce Anderson “Pass: I suspect I will not be alone in saying this: a convention that means I have no idea whether partner’s suit is Jxxxxx or AJ10xxx is stupid. The bid should show 6-10 points and a good six card suit in my view. If the 2 bid is a garbage hand, it is time to find another partner. 2NT could be considered but risks partner rebidding their suit, not imagining that I have a void. And it is usually right to stop bidding as soon as possible with a misfit.

While your last comment is definitely true, we can surely investigate which of the above 2 suits partner holds. 2NT is definitely available for investigation. There are some suggestions in this feature what is its best use. My preference is a game try, forcing to 3 so we can get some idea of partner’s holding. 3 from South after 2 would be pre-emptive. Oh, it’s OK, Bruce and I are not bridge partners. No divorce needed!

Pam Livingston “Pass: take a plus score.  3NT is not on my radar. 4 is possible if the spade suit can be held to 3 losers (low frequency) but I don't really have a way of asking about that.  (Maybe that’s what 2NT should mean). 

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: presuming that 2 has a sensible definition, i.e., most or all of the values in that suit. 3NT needs a very specific dummy and layout; 2 should make and at Pairs, it looks wrong to jeopardize a plus score. 4 could make if North’s spades are internally solid but there no way to investigate that.

Of course, pass could look silly if North thinks that  Qxxxxx and a side king makes a sensible 2 bid. This convention is playable only if tightly defined: decent spades and nothing else. If partner thinks otherwise, then opener can only guess and will often be a passenger in a train smash.”

Words of warning for those who play very weak jumps here. Ignoring Stephen’s warning about train smashes are:

Michael Cornell “3NT:  we should have a spade stop!  Not sure whether we have 9 tricks but I cannot find out about the J or 10, either of which would be very useful.

I do have 2NT as an inquiry here and if I found out partner had a short  (I can do this), I would try 5.

Nice idea. So why not bid 2NT?!

Nigel Kearney “3NT: No idea really. It could be cold or it could be hopeless. I might pass in a very strong field but otherwise most people in my seat will be lurching into 3NT so I'd rather try to win match-points in the play.”

Peter Newell “3NT: Partner is unlikely to have a second suit (but I’m suspicious that this time there is one as it is being used as a problem) and if I try and confirm this by bidding 3, we may end up missing 3NT or get it played from the wrong side as well as given the opposition more information.  Partner doesn’t need much to give 3NT a chance, and it is often hard for the opposition to defend and lead a spade at trick 1.”

And with a bit of creativity:

Matt Brown: 3. I think 3 is probably right regardless of how likely partner is to have 4 hearts; if partner is unhappy with them, they can 'wiggle' with 3 and we can bid 3NT. If partner has 4 hearts or thinks a moysian will play well, then I am happy in 4. They shouldn't play me for 6-5 just yet; they could bid 3 and I could bid 4 over that to show such a shape.

It’s time to see partner’s hand. Hopefully, the spade suit is one of which Stephen Blackstock would approve:

 

except that East approved of a 4 contract as well! A useful J if you ventured 3NT and a nice short diamond if Michael Cornell had used his convention. He would have reached 5, a very sound contract.

3NT looks down on a diamond or even a club or major suit lead though after an initial diamond lead to the king and ace, the defence must be careful not to set up a second diamond trick for South. Also, West must cling on to all four hearts on the run of the clubs. A case of one needing to be in 3NT for it to have a chance of making.

Optimism often brings a reward! Not so easy for the defence with several South players prospering in this contract. Matt Brown will have bought himself a tough but makeable 4 contract. I am sure there are days when North’s spade suit and South’s high-card strength will combine to see 4 making. So, get to game, some game, even at Pairs.

Trick 3: Tricky!

 

3 shows 10-11 hcp, flattish hand and 3 card spade support (not necessarily a heart suit). South's opening bid promised at least a five card spade suit.

Despite never getting to mention your diamond suit, you partner leads 10 against South’s 4 contract. Declarer plays 4 from dummy on trick 1 and J from hand. On trick 2, you cash A, 3 from declarer and 9 from your partner. And so to trick 3? Your play?   

Richard Solomon

 

 

 

 

Go Back View All News Items