All News

From the Frying Pan to the…..

I do hate those movies where you start off with the ending and work your way back to it over the course of the next couple of hours. It kind of spoils the climax! Or does it? Why cannot we have a different title! Let’s see how clever North was in today’s auction.

 

Your system is that 1 promises at least two clubs. When North overcalls, you are strong enough to re-enter the auction at such a lowly level. Even if your partner is not particularly strong, they might be quite long in either minor suit, maybe even spades. You are not selling out to 1. Double seems the right way to re-enter this auction. Yet, it is North who responds first. So, what now?

Pam Livingston “2: While I'm not familiar with the subtleties and agreements of this system, my partner can't have much or they would have bid over 1.  Maybe x shows spades but I'm not prepared to defend at the one level.”

I did not think we needed much of a system here. We just need to understand what partner’s double means. Both minors?

Stephen Blackstock “3: What is going on here? It is very hard to know. East’s double should be penalties. We don’t double two different suits for take out in the same auction.

However, there are strong contrary indications: South has passed 1x and should have three spades (two even if desperate), not leaving many for East. And if North is strong why not redouble, and if weak why bid a four- card suit when West has shown a few spades already. Perhaps North is 5-6, but that makes a penalty double of 1 even more unlikely.

Where are the hearts? No rebid (yet), no raise or even preference from South so I expect East to have four minimum, more likely five or more. It looks as if he has a penalty pass of 1x; perhaps that is what double of 1 is trying to say, but everything is guesswork.

 

What now? I will with many reservations advance with 3. My clubs should be longer but I have aces in a hand of quality, and if East has the values I surmise, 2 is a significant underbid that may miss a vulnerable game. The only technically justifiable action is to pass the double of 1, but in such a murky situation, I will hope to survive by simply keeping the ball in play.”

 

Stephen introduces the problem and also the fact that with the shape he holds, he might even re-open with a double with a worse hand than he holds. Hence, 2 may not now get the job done. Yet, the mystery of the vanished heart-suit and the theoretical meaning of a second auction tend to suggest we should not be bidding at all. The mystery is that we have four spades of our own. So, is East really penalising 1?

 

Kris Wooles “Pass: Partner can make a trap pass intending to penalise then double for penalties thereafter. Partner has hearts and spades of sufficient strength to inflict a penalty although looking at my 4 spades, one has to be suspicious about that. However, do you trust partner or the opponents?

 

“in partner do we trust”, of course, though do we have to record -180 to prove it? Yet, is that the result of passing? Andy very kindly not only gives his answer but helps our partner with their opening lead!

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: partner must have hearts so where are the tricks coming from? Trump leads must kill this contract.”

Agreeing is:

Bruce Anderson “Pass: the evidence is very strong that partner has the kind of hand that would have passed for penalties if I had reopened with a double and North had passed. I am now playing partner for a good hand with a heart stack and values in spades. The reasons are that if North had an opening hand with both majors, it is very likely he/she would have doubled. Also, South has passed throughout indicating  a weak hand. All of that indicates partner has an opening hand, or close to it.

and having the best of two worlds….or two bids!

Peter Newell “Pass/2 “It depends rather on one’s interpretation of partner’s double. For me this shows spades…given partner couldn’t double 1 or bid 1, I would have expected that partner had a weak hand with 4 reasonable spades…..

While this is what I believe partner should have, I don’t believe it….unless I thought South was crazy….South cannot have more than 1 spade so it is inconceivable that South would pass 1x with a singleton when likely has some partial heart support, and/or quite a few diamonds.

 

South’s action suggests that our partner has about 5 hearts, so seems unlikely to have 4 spades, so maybe intended the double as “take-out” – so at the table if I didn’t trust that we had an agreement to the double, I would bid 2, as while South is likely to have clubs, at least I’m sitting over them.”

 

Yet, it is a lot clearer for Nigel:

Nigel Kearney “Pass: If we double a suit for take-out, subsequent doubles of a different suit are for penalty, or should be. Partner likely has a heart stack and three spades. Even if he has only two spades, it doesn't look like the hand will play well for them.”

 

We have had various predictions of how the spade suit was split around the table but Nigel’s initial prediction was correct….East had three and South had two cards in each major. Maybe on a different day, we should debate whether South should give preference to North’s first bid suit which could have/ should have been and indeed was longer. However, that meant going to the two level and South’s fervent wish that West did not pass the double was more likely to occur if they passed 1.

 

You might argue that South’s mistake was partnering North on this particular deal!

 

Thus, brace yourself to see all four hands. Will it be a story of what did happen or what should have happened?

 

This auction did occur but it occurred after an artificial strong Precision style 1. If North was prepared to bid as such when vulnerable, knowing West had a strong hand, then we can only presume they would have bid the same way when 1 could have been four hcp weaker.

 

Bidding vulnerable with two poor suits runs a risk. Bidding twice would seem riskier. North must have had a premise that when West’s double came that they were about to be penalised in 1. They were right. They were also right that bidding their second suit offered a way out of the hole they had dug. West did bid over East’s double and they subsided in 3NT making three overtricks. East-West did not have enough to bid slam but they had plenty to exact a penalty.

 

In 1x, North might scrape up a couple of club ruffs, even a spade trick..and then there is the chance of one trick in diamonds: perhaps -800 on many days. Yet, 1x on the lead of a high spade and a club switch (initially 5 then 7 on the second round) , followed by two more rounds of trumps… and a second club. +1100 or even more for the defence.

Seen the….

Do we mean North for bidding or West for not passing?

Was North wise to bid twice…or even once? Did you predict the ending? Stoke the embers from the fire. How East would have loved to!  

 

Ambitious?

 

How ambitious are you? You are playing Pairs. 3 was natural and game-forcing. So, what now? You cannot pass!

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items