All News

All's good. We have the “boss” suit.

Competitive high- level battles are quite common and are often really hard to judge and evaluate correctly. It would seem as long as we take the mainstream action, we should not get too bad a result because other tables in the Pairs and the other table in the Teams environment should have the same decision to make…and if you end up doing the wrong thing for the right reason, then so should others.

That’s one way to explain -10 imps…or worse!

 

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

We do have the “boss” suit. It should be an advantage having a spade fit. My interpretation of what to do goes along with the following:

Peter Newell “5 at Pairs.  It would seem likely to make as I would expect partner to have the A or K much of the time as there is not much else for him to have apart from the K.  At Pairs I don’t think we are going to get enough from 5x to cover our game. So, I’ll push on even though 5 will go down not infrequently and 5 is unlikely to make.

At Teams I prefer to double.  I don’t expect 5 to make that often and 5 will go down sometimes.  So, I’ll take the penalty and be embarrassed occasionally when 5 makes…or when partner has the perfect hand and we make 6.”

I thought the aim in Pairs was to get the best plus score we can whereas in Teams we want to ensure we get a plus score. Contrast the above, though, with:

Bruce Anderson “Pass at Pairs: the five level is for the opponents when no one can be certain about what is going on.

A positive score could well be a good result if both sides are going down. That said, I am not confident enough to double; if we don’t have a spade trick, doubling a contract that makes will be a shared bottom at Pairs.

 

At Teams I would bid 5, which must be a cheap save if 5 is a make. I am taking “insurance” against our opponents making a game that our team mates have failed to bid.”

Kris Wooles “Pass at Pairs (sometimes I’d expect to get a positive). 5 at Teams ….insurance. At Teams scoring, I don’t mind so much if it is a phantom. I mind much more at Pairs. 

How much or how little can we expect from our partner’s not vulnerable 1 level overcall? Our own leap to game comes under fire:

Pam Livingston “5.  A bit hard to answer though because I wouldn't have bid 4.  Instead, I would bid 4 to tell partner I have a good raise.  This is to distinguish between this and a law raise hand - five trumps and weak.  Partner then has better information with which to judge what to do when it is their turn to bid.”

Andy Braithwaite “Wish I had bid 4 in the first place to assist in this difficult decision. I bid 5 at Teams and the same at Pairs but with more uncertainty.”

Which side, if either, is sacrificing? Surely, we can make 5? The problem was given initially in the Pairs environment. Hence, our next two panellists would be focusing there:

Stephen Blackstock “5. Bidding on seems clear. We are very much odds on for at least 11 tricks (East surely can’t have less than K and a high club). The likely outcome against 5x is no more than down two (one spade, two hearts and a club) and the spade trick is hardly nailed on, so defending will probably have a disappointing result.

It would be good if 5 is a slam try. There is no reason why East cannot hold the K, Q and A. Alas after the perplexing jump to 4, a bid that could be made with a distributional eight-count rather than the rock-crusher I actually hold, partner will think I am simply wanting a heart lead against 6x. True, but……!"

Nigel Kearney “5. A tragic situation. My prayers are with the 4 bidder and I hope the paramedics do eventually find a pulse. Condolences to the family if not. Having taken over in the West seat, I will try 5 to help partner with the lead if they continue to 6. Slam looks against the odds and we can't involve partner now.”

We certainly do have a mighty good jump to 4 but only in the major suits. I have seen many worse bids at the bridge table than 4 but I am sure West will appreciate Nigel’s concern!

Back to where we started with what I think is the right philosophy in both forms of the game:

Michael Cornell “5- try to get 450. I assume they are diving but I am guessing. I would have bid either 3 or 4 to give partner some clue and we may been better placed now.

We only need partner to have the black kings for good play for 11 tricks but he might have 3 or 4 low hearts which is why I would double at Teams.

If partner has short hearts, we are almost certainly making 5 but we should usually get about 300 so little damage.”

 

If we got criticism for our jump to 4, then I wonder if our partner will suffer the same for their 1-level overcall below. Had our opponents been vulnerable, then I would call it mandatory. Yet, even at equal nil vul, and especially at Pairs, there’s the issue of getting a spade lead etc. Take cover, East!

 

At Pairs, you were booked for a minus score, or should be, if you had bid on to 5. After a diamond lead, North has only one sensible and correct switch. Note that whichever decision you made over 5, you are losing out to those who were left unmolested in 4.Certainly, if West had told their partner that they had a good raise to 4 by bidding 4, East could have earned their side more match-points with a nervous but firm "please do not bid on" double of 5.

Meanwhile, Mike Cornell’s +300 in the Teams environment will be the result from doubling 5. That’s a loss of 4 imps had 4 been the contract at the other table though bidding on would have resulted in a 9-imp loss.

Those two different scenarios depending on the type of game we are playing seem fine to me…even if you plead you would never have overcalled 1 as East. “Never” say “never”!

It seems like for once it was easier to be holding the diamond than the "boss" suit.

 

Who says “sorry” the louder?

 

Game, an absolutely cold game, was missed. We are told not to overbid at Pairs but when there’s at least 10 tricks there in 4, it is a shame only to be in part-score. Who was more to blame? Or do we give credit to our opponents for not pushing us there?

1NT was 12-14 (yes, we can count!) and 2 a single suited overcall, any suit.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items