All News

“Silence” is not Golden.

“What more could I say” commented one partner after a poor result had been achieved on one board. “My hand was so flat and I only had 5 high card points” said the other. The result of such lack of action meant that the opposition had been allowed to play in 2 scoring 110 while our pair’s side could have scored 170, maybe 620 if only their side had been declarer.

Such results only come when someone bids some more. Let’s see who:

 

It’s Pairs and South ended up as declarer in 2 and making 8 tricks. While it seems 2 could be beaten by one trick, it is hard for the defence to score more than 5 tricks. Some managed less!

Yet, 10 tricks were available in hearts with only average luck. What caused East-West to be defending 2 and not at least pushing on to 3?

Blame is cast in both directions:

Andy Braithwaite “West’s 2: West should have doubled 1 rather than bidding 2. Then, East could have competed to 3 knowing that West is short in spades and that East’s minor suit honours are useful.”

Pam Livingston “East’s final Pass: If I couldn't find a 2 bid on the first round with East's cards, I would certainly be bidding 3 on the second round.

West has made another bid vulnerable against not and therefore has a good hand. They would pass with just a minimum (even a good minimum).   This means that when West does rebid, partner knows they have the goods.  With a heart fit and an honour in partner's second suit and another king, it seems fairly clear for East to bid 3h.”

So, they must agree to disagree! Mostly, there was no criticism of the 2 bid, Andy apart, but East’s inaction worried many:

Peter Newell “East could certainly have done more. While I agree with East’s first pass, I think East is worth 3 over 2.  East has limited their hand, has 3 card heart support, a useful queen in partner’s second suit, and in the auction with North showing strength, means that the K looks like will be behind the ace.

 So, the auction has improved the hand and East does not have wasted values in spades. It is true West could have a worse hand but even with the hand, it is not enough to beat 2. So, even on days where 3 was one down undoubled, it would be worthwhile and East has maximum pass values plus useful bits and pieces.”

Bruce Anderson “East should have bid of 3 after North’s 2. His/her partner has bid twice, vulnerable against not with a passing partner. They must have a strong hand with at least 9 cards in hearts and diamonds.

With 3 hearts, 3 to an honour in partner’s second suit, and a king that is almost certain to be well placed, supporting partner is clear cut. Opener will remember the first- round pass and only bid game with a very strong hand. This poor result was not bad luck.”

The first mention of the third member of the partnership, “bad luck”. Sometimes it is no-one’s fault and there again, it can be everyone’s!

Stephen Blackstock “West could reasonably have bid again in the pass-out position – double (T/O) is not perfect but would have been my choice.

However, most of the blame must lie with East. I can understand the initial pass, but it looks wrong. Better to raise immediately when it is cheap, than have to guess later at a higher level. After West bids again, red vs green, East’s hand must be upgraded. Three hearts, the Q is gold now, and the K is likely to be over the ace. No invitational bid is available so I would much rather bid 4 than pass.”

 

East is not shouldering all the blame:

Michael Ware “I would double 2 by West for take-out. Your suits are good enough to not fear being doubled at the three level, and on a really good day, partner passes 2x.”

So, that’s two really good things that could have happened, 4 or 2x, not that the latter would have happened this time.

However, it’s back to that pass by East:

Nigel Kearney “I agree with East's first pass but not the second one. Opener needs a good hand or extra shape to bid again opposite a passed responder. The Q is a useful card and the K probably is too. So, I would bid 3 over 2 as East. West should probably double 2 for take-out at the end as well as they have a bit to spare and you don't want to let them play in their suit at the two level at Pairs. But East's action is more clear-cut. I don't think you want to be in game, though. 

And with more emphasis:

Michael Cornell “I blame East entirely. Depending on partnership methods but if a raise to 2 over the X is weak, as most do play it, an immediate 2 is clear.

However, when West bids 2 which cannot be frivolous, 3 in competition over 2 should be automatic from East.  East has potentially 2 tricks for partner plus 3 trumps and surely would be disappointed not to make.”

Indeed, with average luck, there were 10 tricks available in hearts while, trying to score 6 in defence to 2 proved too hard at the table:

 

The A was where the Panel expected as probably was the Q but there was a 4-1 heart break to contend with as well as the diamond loser. Yet, timed well, a West could score 5 heart tricks, 3 in diamonds and 2 black suit winners.

Even scoring 9 tricks in hearts would have earnt many more match-points than defending.

So, could West not afford to pass 2 with such a good hand or did East really have more than a flat five-count? It seems one if not both of those is the case and that the third member of the partnership this time was blameless! 

 

How High?

 

 

It’s the boss suit and you have it well under control. It’s Pairs and the vulnerability is not in your favour.

Your bid?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items