All News

Where did we go Wrong? For Less Experienced Players and others.

Today’s deal was sent in by a reader who was part of a bad sequence of bids. It was possible to make all 13 tricks in one suit though bidding and making small slam would have still been an excellent achievement. Even getting to game would have better than what actually happened. Where did it all go so wrong?

 

The above is the actual bidding sequence which occurred. West, playing a system where 1 showed just 2+ cards in the suit, had no support for clubs and knew East almost certainly had no heart hold for no-trumps or four card spade suit.East-West were playing a 1NT opening as 12-14.

Do you agree with East’s first bid? What was West’s best action over 2 and what could West have bid over 3in the actual auction?

These are the questions we put to our Panel. East’s 2 received some heavy criticism:

Michael Ware “If East's 2 bid is non-forcing, then I violently disagree.”

Nigel Kearney “East failed to recognise the value of their hand. Rules such as a raise showing 6-9 HCP assume a relatively balanced hand such as xxx xx Qxxx AKxx. This hand is much better than that with a void, fifth trump, and a five- card side suit. There are various methods such as adding points for shortages when supporting partner, Losing Trick Count, or just picturing a typical hand for partner. All point to East doing a lot more. Remember that opener has either 15+ or an unbalanced hand with clubs.”

Michael Cornell “why not 2 (1 round force ) and follow with 3 or 4 in a competitive auction?”

Stephen Blackstock “2 is a significant underbid. Facing an opening showing “clubs”, this hand is on the high end of an invitational sequence or, if you prefer, on the very skinny end of a game force. I appreciate that not knowing whether West holds only two clubs makes it difficult for East; consequently I would bid 2 (over 1) to show invitational with clubs, and hope to survive. Even experienced players find many problems with 2+ club methods. So, it isn’t surprising that less experienced ones have even more difficulties.”

Bruce Anderson “I do not like the 2 bid, preferring a negative double, so long as that is possible; some play that a negative double after a 1 overcall shows 4 spades, and a bid of 1 shows 5, which I also dislike.”

 So, not 2 but I am not sure I agree with Bruce’s alternative to 2:

 

Bruce Anderson “The negative double should show the kind of hand East holds, or a hand with a 6/7 card minor, but lacking the high card strength to bid the suit directly. After a negative double, I would bid 2 over the opposition 2. East should then invite game with 3; the excellent spade game on a 4/3 fit will then be reached.”

 I prefer this approach:

 Nigel Kearney “East can start with 2 then support clubs. That works well here. But if supporting clubs immediately, either 2 showing a good club raise or a 3 splinter is better. Even a 3 limit raise is not enough.”

As with Stephen Blackstock, a direct raise to 2 by East shows club support though the forcing 2 has a lot going for it.

However, the Panel were not as critical of West’s pass of 2 in the above auction. With a 17 count, I would just have to find some bid, even if I hated clubs. Not so:

Michael Cornell “I cannot see anything other than pass after 2. I cannot bid partner’s shortage for him.”  Nigel Kearney was also happy enough with West’s pass. For me, these seem better alternatives:

Stephen Blackstock “I would double, take-out. East presumably lacks four spades, so is marked with length in one or both minors.”

Bruce Anderson “After East’s misguided 2 bid, I would have bid 2 over 2, which should also lead to game in spades.”

You have a hand worthy of a reverse. Passing hardly indicates that. Yet, it was the final pass, that of the somewhat off-beat 3 (these minors have surely been bid in the wrong order) which contributed largely to the disaster:

Michael Cornell “The pass of 3 is a contender for the worst bid of the year. I can only assume 3 is natural with 5+ and not minimum for the 2 bid. So, I am too good for 5. It looks like a 30- point deck for diamonds and so will bid 3 first.”

Nigel Kearney “I would not pass 3. I expect a weaker hand for partner,  e.g, xxx Q10xxxx Kxxx but his 3 has improved my hand and 5 now looks possible.”

Stephen Blackstock “Over 3 I would bid 3 forcing, and continue with 4 over 4 and 5 over 4. East must have at least 10 cards in the minors now since he doesn’t know what West has wasted in hearts. I don’t want to push too hard since even 5 will be marginal at best if East lacks either K or A.

It’s not easy to get to 6, but if West encourages then East should take the push to slam, looking at a super-maximum for 2 and the heart void.”

 

Michael Ware “I'm not happy with West's pass of 3. They do have 17 HCP after all. Wouldn't hurt to bid 3 instead of pass.”

 

Bruce Anderson “After partner has distorted their hand by way of a non-existent reverse, we are out of control; I have great cards. So, it is all too likely we will play the inferior club slam, rather than the superior slam in diamonds.”

The fact that 3 could now be a 4-card suit (with longer clubs) does tend to take the auction away from diamonds. However, West just does have to bid, now, though it does seem entirely appropriate for West to have bid over 2. Here, then, were the four hands and a bidding sequence more in keeping with the East-West cards:

 

 

Double is an alternative to 2. The auction has momentum thanks to East starting with 2. 4, 4 and 5 were all cue-bids leaving West to bid the slam on the basis of excellent trumps.

Perfection!

East can ruff the heart lead and play 3 rounds of clubs, ruffing high on the third round, and then drawing trumps to concede eventually just one spade. So much better than playing in part-score.

Tough Board

 

2NT showed the minors with your partner’s 3 showing a good hand with spades. You do not like your minor holdings and elect to double and then lead a high heart which wins the first trick.Your partner plays Q. What now?

 

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items