All News

“Stay Low, Joe”

We all love bidding…and making!... tight games at Teams, especially vulnerable. We can smell the 10-imp pick-up as we put the cards back into the pocket. Yet, what about the 5 imps or more lost by overbidding boards where the “Stay Low, Joe” maxim was the one to observe? Presumably, you have to have a few of the latter to partially balance out the tight making games. Is therefore the slightly aggressive bidding that occurred just an everyday part of bridge life or could it have been avoided?

 

Our pre-conditions said “Teams. Partner’s opening promised at least 5 hearts and that should we wished to bid it, 2NT would be natural rather than any form of heart agreement, the latter a relatively popular style these days.”

With such a generous offer, some just could not resist using that bid:

Michael Cornell “2NT: As I am allowed to, I do bid 2NT (but in real life it is Jacoby GF) This is a perfect description of a very useful hand. It is far too good for 1NT and if I could not bid 2NT natural, I would actually bid 3NT.

I have a double spade stop, a very useful Kx and very useful minor holdings. I have almost convinced myself to bid 3NT here but these days one does have to cater for weak openings. So, I do not want to hang partner if this is what he has.

We are playing imps and I would expect partner to bid a 3^rd with any non-minimum with a respectable suit.”

Partner would decline your invite this time. Disagreeing with this being a “2 and a half no trump bid” is:

 

Stephen Blackstock “2NT: Natural and invitational. Barely worth it, aceless with no great fit or source of tricks, but 1NT is more of an underbid than 2NT is an overbid. The 9 is a good card which encourages me to be optimistic. But if partner is one who likes to open ordinary eleven counts!"

Is the controllish 11-count in the North hand below “an ordinary 11-count”? I think many would agree that it is worth opening.

 

"I don’t like 2NT as a strong raise, a cue bid does that job and leaves 2NT free to describe balanced shapes. And if you must play 2NT as a raise, surely invitational plus, not GF, allows better invitational sequences without losing anything with stronger hands?”

 

and from the same page:

Pam Livingston “2NT:  Sometimes you just want to bid 2nt!  You have 2 as a good raise in hearts.

Kris Wooles “2NT: natural 11/12 and therefore descriptive to a point. I know it is a little bit of a gamble as we may not make a game and could set the opponents say 300 in 1 doubled but the temptation for a vulnerable game is too much to ignore.”

And with their eye on just that kind of money…sorry penalty are:

Nigel Kearney “Pass: I intend to pass a reopening double from partner. We will probably get 300 or 500, so a three or seven IMP loss if our game (probably 3NT) makes and a nine or 12 IMP gain if it fails. I expect we can make game more than half the time but not enough to show a profit compared to doubling them. At any other vulnerability, pass would be easier, and at match-point scoring looking for our own game would probably be wisest.”

Bruce Anderson “Pass: partner’s reopening double is obligatory and I intend to pass again and lead the K if West does not bid. There is the obvious risk we can make game and we do not obtain a compensating penalty. But my hand does not guarantee our side can make game, particularly since bad breaks are likely.

If partner is strong, surely our penalty will come close to scoring a vulnerable game, but when we cannot make game, the penalty gained is likely to be a useful swing.”

 

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: and await partner’s rebid- if a repeat in hearts I then raise and if double I pass and have a simple K lead hoping to tap declarer off. The vulnerability is against me defending but game looks a long way off with only a tatty 11 count.”

“Tatty.” This is the same hand as Michael Cornell’s “very useful hand”. What then would be the fate of 1x?We will find out very soon..but first:

There is a third option and was the one used at the table when 2NT was not available as a natural raise:

 

Peter Newell “Double: I suspect a minority choice, but for me it’s a choice between Pass and Double.  I reject 2NT as I believe it is normal for it to show some kind of heart raise. 

It is “normal” to pass on these types of hands with length in the opponent’s suit, game no more than a maybe, particularly if partner can’t take any further action. 

In favour of double, is that I have fair heart support, and do have support for other suits, and can rebid 2NT to show strength/stoppers and some support for partners suit(s). 

 It also helps simplify the auction. If the opponents were vulnerable, I would pass.  In favour of pass is that when I bid next round (assuming there is one) this will show this type of hand.  Partner shouldn’t pretty much ever pass this out with spade shortage, so if partner passes, one would expect 2+ spades, and not a strong hand.  In which case the opponents are likely have a spade ruff and bad breaks are likely.

So not the worst thing to be defending but at only 50 per undertrick not so attractive. With shortage partner will double then I’ll pass which may not be great compensation against a vulnerable 3NT.   The other consideration is that sometimes these auctions can get a bit ugly by passing. LHO may feel like introducing a minor suit non vul. Partner may pass because of the vulnerability; RHO may raise and now suddenly I have a decision to make at the 3 level…and they know what suit to lead.  So, I’ll double, but don’t expect I’ll have much company.

 

Maybe a lonely furrow on the Panel but other than being able to defend 1 X, I cannot see a real down-side to this bid. You can always bid 2NT later if you want to and are able.

So, to 1 x or 2NT. Let’s see all four hands:

 

 

Well, even if the double did not happen, defending 1, even undoubled would be a wonderful option after three rounds of hearts, two rounds of clubs and a fourth heart. The defence would take a minimum three spade tricks including ruffs, two hearts and two club tricks…at least down one.

Contrast that with 2NT on the lead of the Q. Normal play will see 5 top losers (4 diamonds and A but there are no real chances for more than 7 tricks for South unless West can be encouraged to lead away from their club holding.)

Most who tried 2NT or the no-trump game recorded negative scores.

 

Is best!

So, maybe there was no loss from not having 2NT available. Any North-South plus score would prove to be a very good one.

 

 

Little to go on for Jan’s Day

 

 

Well, you do know “a little”. You know that South has 5 spades, 4+ clubs and is minimum for their initial 6-10 hcp range. “I don’t care” thought North as they powered directly to the spade game. It’s your lead?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items