All News

Too aggressive?

Over and Under Bidding.

Today, we seem to feature a bit of both. Throw into the mix the need to record as high-scoring a game as possible because we are playing Pairs and we have both controversy and perhaps riskiness in the search for our best place to declare the board. 

 

3 is natural and Game Forcing. Where to from here?

I have to admit I was surprised at the Panel’s reaction to our 3 bid. Listen to these comments:

Nigel Kearney ”3NT: This is the most likely game and with so much in spades I need to bid it myself. There is no guarantee partner even has three diamonds. He could have 10xx Axxxx Jx Qxx or similar. 3 looks like an overbid to me. We would be better placed now if we had just rebid 2 then invited with 3 after a 2 preference.”

Stephen Blackstock “3NT: If this is the right game, it looks as if it will be better from my side. Close to abstain, as 3 is poorly judged – the values are marginal and my first suit is very weak. While it is just possible 2 will be passed and a game missed (opposite four clubs, a singleton diamond and a working card), more often 3 will get us too high, or, as here, pre-empts our auction when we badly need the room.”

Jump shifts by opener are certainly not space-savers. However, I would think sometimes we just have to make them to tell our partner how strong we are. If our singleton heart is not the best use of two hcp, it is in our partner’s suit and should be carrying some weight there. Meanwhile, our diamond suit may not be that strong but our club suit is much better. Even if we survive the risk of 2 being passed out, we would seem to have virtually lost the opportunity for our partner to drive to a slam.

Yet, 3 is not the only bid which was questioned. What does partner’s 3 mean? We saw Nigel Kearney above refer to the fact that it does not even guarantee three cards, let alone a possible four.

Bruce Anderson “3NT: I don’t want to be in a tight slam at Pairs and bidding 3NT could mean this game is played from the right side. Partnership understanding is required here; is 3 a strong responding hand, not wanting to take up bidding space unnecessarily, or is 3 a minimum responding hand with only 3 card support?

Partner can pass my bid of 3NT, or with strong diamond support and a slam going hand, bid 4, after which I will cue bid 4. If partner then bids a small slam that should be a make, and if partner has golden cards a grand might be bid.

More optimism here though questioning the meaning of 3 is fair. I questioned Stephen Blackstock a little further and he commented:

Stephen Blackstock “ 3 could be on xx. 3 does not improve your hand at all. And if you think the Panel should wander off into the never-never, with no fit and having overbid already, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. 3 from North would show something in spades, but uncertainty as to whether it is sufficient to base 3NT. Or it might turn out to be an advance cue. It is not a punt on the likes of xxx.”

As Bruce commented, some partnership agreement is needed here. Certainly, it should be over to our partner to advance beyond 3NT and they alone know why they bid 3. However, with a differing view of the 4^th suit forcing 3 is:

Andy Braithwaite “3: fourth suit forcing- need partner to hold a spade honour to play 3NT at Pairs.”

though we seem to have one and a half honours in the suit ourselves, or so says:

 Michael Cornell “3NT: I have more than bid my hand already – if we are going anywhere, it is over to partner. It is important for my hand to play any NTs as just eg. 10xx would give us two stops.”

and conscious that in Pairs, one does not always reach the safest game:

 

Peter Newell “3NT: Its Pairs, and I like the lead coming up to my AJ doubleton and we don’t have much room, so keep it simple.  It’s true that 5 or 4 could be better, but I figure North will often rebid 3 if his hearts were good enough for 4, and while 5 is likely better if partner has no  10,Q,K or length and has good diamond support, I favour what is practical and simple.”  

 

So, we are accused of over-bidding though there is also the maxim of playing with the field. Partner had a 10 count with (nearly) adequate diamonds. 3NT was the best scoring though not the safest game. 11 tricks were very safe in 5D… for a poorish match-point score!

In a mixed field of 32 tables, three pairs bid to 6 and 10 in the rock-solid 5 while another 10 tried their luck in 3NT. I did say “mixed” as there were a variety of other contracts, mainly part-score.

This time, fortune favoured the slammers and 3NT players. I am not sure whether Nigel Kearney and Stephen Blackstock would have been that much better placed after their 2 response. North would have produced a non-forcing 3 though 5 would be more and 3NT less likely then as North would have more cards in the red suits and thus less in one of the black suits.

In 6, after a spade lead, South could advance the Q to see if West would be kind enough to cover. When they do not, it is down to the position of the K and like those in 3NT, the South players would have breathed a huge sigh of relief at its quick appearance. Tough, perhaps for those in 5 but that’s Pairs for you.

 

 

Prove Partner right on Jan's Day?

 

It’s a tough choice deciding whether to play in 3NT or 4 of a major with a 5-3 major fit and two flattish hands. North chose 4 here. North-South were playing 5-card major openings. You are playing Pairs.

 

West led T which went round to your jack. Plan the play.

 

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items