All News

A Sacrificial Offering? …for less experienced players and others.

It seems too good to be true. Your partner has a game force hand while you have an opening hand…and an opponent is vulnerable and bidding away at the 4-level. It seems like it could be time to reach for the “double” card…or is it?

You are playing Pairs. 2 is a normal Game Force opening. Over to you?

Despite the vulnerability, our Panel has no thoughts of penalising. Indeed, they are looking at the best way to develop their constructive auction.

However, firstly, we asked them whether they were happy with our 2NT bid. The only objection came from:

Michael Cornell “Not particularly. What does it achieve apart from removing room? We play double here as a second negative and so Pass denies that.”

Seems an OK treatment as long as the passer controls the auction since the opener is unlikely to expect their partner to be so strong.

Back then to our action over 4 and it was not as clear-cut as this Michael expected:

Michael Ware “4NT: RKCB on spades - unanimous surely? Planning to bid 7NT.”

Kris Wooles “4NT: I am thinking of 7NT. South’s bidding (if sane) suggests a very big 2 suiter (6/6 at least). Partner should have all the high cards in the black suits if his/her bidding is how I would use a 2 opener. I think I will now bid 4NT RCKB to make sure we have all the aces. As usual with a bidding challenge with a “stranger” partner, it is best not to assume anything!

With the same intent and a more direct way of getting there is:

Bruce Anderson “7NT: on the basis that if partner has a genuine game force, not an Acol style strong two, then he/she must hold long solid spades and  AKQ, and/or K. If partner has only 6 spades, surely they hold AKQx, or AK and  KQ, notwithstanding South’s bidding, who probably has a weak 6/6 in the reds.

All very logical but is there any reason not to make sure the remaining aces are with partner first? The rest of the panel decide to cue in hearts:

Nigel Kearney “4: It is too soon to double as we must be close to making 6 and 7 is possible. Blackwood is obviously not going to help. I will just cue bid for now and continue with 5 over 4 from partner.”

Peter Newell “4: It’s hard for me to evaluate whether we belong in 6 or 7 as cards like the Q may be critical. So, I’ll start with a cue bid and let partner take control as he can find out about the aces and K.”

and of a very different mind to Michael Ware, certainly by his final comment below is:

Stephen Blackstock “4: Forward going with spades. East is the captain in this auction, and West’s main features will quickly be uncovered with Blackwood.  So, this allows East to do that. Of course, I will try again with 5 if East can do no more than 4, likely because of a diamond problem.  If there is any real alternative to 4, I can’t see it!”

There is certainly much less for partner to discover about our hand than the other way round. So, the concept of 4followed by partner’s 4NT seems a good approach. On the cue-bid trail, maybe, is:

Michael Cornell “4: hopefully partner can Keycard. If he bids 4, I will cue 5 and if I have the chance my next bid is 6.

And agreeing with 4 and explaining why aiming to penalise is not such a good idea is:

Matt Brown “4: I have no strong feelings about 2NT, but this should at least be a good raise in spades (if partner doesn't key-card I will).
Trying to penalise here seems very bad with such prime cards for partner. We have to have at least a slam which means the opponents need to go many off!”

For “many”, substitute “six” as that will be what is required to beat a small slam (1700 v 1440 or 1430). Of course, if we can make grand, we need a couple more tricks in defence and unless South is a true gambler, they will have some expectation of a few tricks.

At the table, West did decide to start penalising. They doubled 4 and after North (who as you will see below was not enjoying this auction) gave preference back to hearts, West doubled again. The under-tricks kept coming but there were only five of them and 1400 did not stack up very well against making spade and no-trump slams:

 

Our Panel would have been fine in a small or grand slam as South had surely pinpointed which way to take the diamond finesse.

insufficient!

Meanwhile, the defence needed +1700 against 4x and the two red singletons meant that the defence would need to play a round of trumps or else South would score a diamond ruff. Either way South 5 comfortable trump tricks and -1400. That gave South a just over 60% board for their endeavours as most but not all bid to slam with a couple of players rather sloppily finding two losers.

The “real man” award would go to the South who bid to 6 and conceded 2000.  “A clear top” they were heard to say perhaps to console their poor partner. Alas, only one East-West pair was there for them in bidding and making all 13 tricks.

At least, it was Pairs. Onto the next board!

The same but different!

 

It’s Teams and 2 is 5 spades and 4+ of a minor suit, less than an opening hand. East is persistent. What now?

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items