All News

Stuck in a corner..of our own making?

We are about to see some severe criticism of a bid made at the table, a bid which seemed to land us in a spot of bother. Is there a way forward?

 

1 is 3+ clubs and you are playing Pairs. Do you agree with the 2 bid above? What now?

Our Panel are critical of North’s 2 bid which ultimately created a difficult problem one round later.

Michael Cornell “Absolutely not 2. This would show an unbalanced hand, usually 5+ clubs, 4 hearts. This is a clear 2 (obviously diamond support and too strong for 3) which over say 3 or 3 I will bid 3S and expect partner to bid 3NT with as little as Qx.

I refuse to answer the final question as I would have never been in this position- nor would any other normal human!  3-4-3-3 is not a distributional hand!”

In fact, unwittingly, Michael has answered the second question but we will return to that later.

Nigel Kearney “I prefer 2 to 2. Rebidding a second suit suggests real clubs. A cue bid followed by bidding diamonds unambiguously communicates that I have a strong hand with diamond support so we can find a slam, e.g. Ax x QJxxxxx Kxx.”

Peter Newell “prefer 2 to 2.  I don’t like bidding 2 on a 4333 hand. 2 sounds like I’m describing an unbalanced hand and I don’t think it is likely we will miss a heart fit.  On many hands with four hearts, partner would start with a take-out double, and on those that partner didn’t, I would expect partner to bid 3 to show a 4/5 or more likely 4/6 type hand. 2 after 2 implies extra values and likely some diamond support and probably no spade stopper.”

Not only are the Panel concerned that we are showing an unbalanced hand but also correctly point out that it is unlikely that we have a heart fit. So also say:

Julie Atkinson “Surely partner would have made a negative double with 4 hearts. I would be bidding 2 rather than 2.”

Bruce Anderson “I don’t agree with 2. I would have bid 2, showing a strong hand looking for 3NT. With long diamonds and four hearts, partner can show that hand by bidding 3 over 2 and the fit will not be missed.”

Stephen Blackstock “I don’t agree with 2. It shows four hearts and five plus clubs, definitely not balanced with only three clubs. 2 seems the obvious move, not 2.”

So, unanimous disapproval of the bid which might just have scooped all the match-points this time! Watch this space. We have the wrong shape and have a clear alternative in 2 while we are very unlikely to have a heart fit and could unearth one still had we bid 2. Interestingly, no-one mentioned whether 2 was a reverse. With a distributional minimum hand, I suspect we would all bid our heart suit to show long clubs. Remember, our partner has 10+ hcp. We are almost certainly heading to game.

However, what now that we have bid 2? Michael Cornell gave us no hope. Stephen says we need divine help:

Stephen Blackstock “Now? Apart from prayer, there is no way to rescue this auction from the 2 misbid. I suppose you have to bid 3 now, but don’t blame me when partner reasonably expects to be opposite short spades.  3 might avoid that trap but finds another by concealing the extra values and excellent fit for diamonds.”

While accepting the Panel do not like the auction to date, 3 may well suggest half a hold allowing us to show our half by bidding 3NT.

A slight acknowledgement that somewhere we have shown extra value came from:

Julie Atkinson “3: I can comfortably bid 3 now, having reversed. Partner will have no idea of my shape since this bidding says 1435 or 0436 shape.”

Andy Braithwaite (who also would have bid 2 earlier) “3: to show secondary support and allow partner to choose game.”

Nigel Kearney “3: We need to support diamonds as 5/6 are the likely alternatives to 3NT. Unfortunately, partner won't expect a hand like this but there's not much we can do about that now.”

Alternatives to 3 came from:

Bruce Anderson “4: forcing (a raise to four of a minor is always forcing) and showing a strong hand that would have bid 3NT with a spade stop and is too good for a single raise. Partner will have at least 9 points and is likely to have long diamonds headed by KQ to bid in this way. If they have a singleton spade, slam is possible.”

Peter Newell “3 or 3: I think 3 would normally be an unbalanced hand. 3 would be likely to show diamond support but interest in NT….and values.”

and a bid!

It seems unlikely we would reach slam with that 3 bid though if both partners had length in spades, as suggested by Peter’s 3 bid, then we would not want to be that high. Showing half a hold in a game-going auction seems a good idea and would equally have applied with a similar raise from partner had we bid 2 instead of 2 first up, as these were the four hands:

 

Surely had North bid 2 first up, South’s 3 would show half a hold too, a variation on the point Michael Cornell made first up. At the table, North jumped all the way to 5, a contract that met immediate failure.

Reaching 3NT with confidence would indicate a good sequence. “Punting” it would be fine this time. However, on a spade lead, 9 tricks would be the limit with just one diamond trick. Meanwhile, if only we could get to 4 where there is no defence to North scoring 620. It’s a little hard to reach that spot if North never gets to bid that suit.

I am not disagreeing with the Panel in their criticism of the 2 bid. Maybe that aspect of the deal is a triumph for 4-card major openings.

All's good. We have the “Master” suit.

 

Is it? It is your bid. What now? 3 was pre-emptive. You are playing Pairs. Any different if Teams is the game?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items