All News

Getting Better and Better and even Better Still!

You started with a good hand, 18 hcp. It got better when your partner opened the bidding at the 1-level. The news got better still when you discovered a 4-4 fit (maybe partner has more than a 4-card suit) along with a 5-3 fit in opener’s first bid suit.

How though to progress the bidding? Slam must be a strong possibility.

 

We used 3, 4^th suit forcing and partner responded with a hold in the unbid suit. What now?

We asked the Panel if they agreed with our 3 bid, what if anything else they would prefer and what they would bid next. There were differing views:

Nigel Kearney “5: I agree with 3. Unless playing 2/1 there is no real alternative. Now I will just invite with 5 and let partner bid six if he likes his hand. Spades could be a better trump suit but there's no obvious way to find out.”

The assumption made was that we are not playing “2 over 1 Game Force.” The argument will continue long and hard about the merits of this system, where a change of suit by responder (2 above) commits the partnership to a minimum of game level.

One great advantage of this approach is that here 3 by responder is a slam try and stronger than a raise to 4. All our problems would be solved here…well, at least we have a convenient suit forcing bid which agrees hearts as trumps.

A devotee of this approach is:

Michael Cornell “Yes I have no other choice here but if I was playing a sensible system, 3 would be forcing (as we are in GF) and slam investigation would be very easy.

IMHO any serious bridge players using a natural system which does not incorporate 2/1 GF should visit a psychiatrist. Hands like the above would drive me mad. What do I bid if partner bids either 3NT or 3 over my 3?

 

No actual suggestion for what we should do here other than tear up our existing system! So, maybe this deal could become an advert for 2 over 1? I play that approach but I do think there is an alternative way here. (watch this space)

 More wishes for 2 Over 1 but at least we have a practical suggestion if we are using a natural approach:

Peter Newell “6: 3 if forcing would certainly be preferable as sets suit and stops all the confusion.

 I'm assuming 3 is the only forcing bid below 3NT in which case the option seems to be key card which is flawed (it will not help us establish whether partner has a diamond shortage) and is a little early, or 3 which is also serious flawed - would partner believe that we have more major suit length and considerably more strength having bid both minors?

 On the assumption that there was no appropriate forcing bid below 3NT, I prefer 3 to 4NT and it has elicited some useful info as partner’s 3NT bid suggests 5/4 in majors and a club stopper and therefore quite probably diamond shortage.

Over 3NT we are pretty fixed as there is no convenient way to set the trump suit, confirm diamond shortage etc. At this point I would just jump to 6 as I cannot see any sensible approach - 6 could be wrong, as we could be better in spades, but 6 feels right and hopefully we do not have 2 diamond losers or partner has enough to make 7.”

So, can we find out if partner has a control in diamonds? Well, we could have done had we bid 4 over 2. I know this should be a splinter but the bid sets hearts as trumps and a 4 cue next from partner would be excellent news: no 4 bid too would be revealing!

Another who does not like 4^th suit 3 is:

Bruce Anderson “don’t agree with 3 as over a possible 3NT response, which partner has now bid, we have no suit agreed and so now 4NT from me is ambiguous; is it an Ace ask or quantitative? This hand is another excellent example of how natural bidders struggle with a strong hand with a fit when responding to an opening bid.

A small slam is likely to be good but it is possible, albeit unlikely, our side is off two diamond tricks, or more likely, an ace and a trump trick, if partner does not hold the Q.

 

I would have bid 4NT RKC over 2, then bid the small slam if partner showed at least one ace and the trump queen.”

Agreed at least over 3 but there seem to be holes in using Key Card over 2 as well.

Andy Braithwaite: “4: Always a problem for Acol players when 2 does not create a near game force. The bid to solve this problem is 3 which should be stronger than 4 and not an invite- so suit agreement creates a game force. So, I don’t agree with 3 when 3 should be strong by agreement.

 

As for what now I guess 4?”  or maybe a round earlier?

 

Kris Wooles “4NT quantitative. 3 is 4th suit forcing (which I’m happy with assuming I’m not playing 2/1 GF). Partner will have a club stop on this auction and is relying on me to cover diamonds. He could have AJxxx, QJxx, Jx, Kx in which case 6 of anything will fail.

 So, while I have 18 points, and clearly have enough to want to explore a slam I can either now bid 4 (much understating my hand) or 4NT which I hope is read as quantitative as we haven’t agreed any suit. While I’m a little worried that partner might bid 3NT with a singleton with 14/15 points I would expect partner to bid 6NT, otherwise pass.

 I would comment playing 2/1 GF I could simply bid 3 establishing a heart fit at a lower level whereas the stated auction does tend to squash the bidding space somewhat.”

To give some balance, 2 over 1 does have drawbacks with hands less than game forcing but it would have worked well as a system here. I alone think that 4 over 2 is the answer and it would have enabled us to stay out of the doomed slam here:

 

Disappointment, as 8 from South on the opening lead did not put West off taking the first 2 tricks. (East knew how to give count and West how to interpret it!)

West held the top two diamonds though even if they had not, the 4-1 trump break would have put an end to the slam. Nigel Kearney’s 5 may have ended his auction and Kris Wooles should have been able to pull up in 4NT.

On some days, slam will make but the odds are not that good. A forcing 3? Yes, please but if not maybe this time, 4^th suit may not have been the best approach… or that’s the story I am sticking to!

 

Something a little more straightforward tomorrow as it is Fri   day, for our less experienced players.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items