All News

exploration time.

The Route to Game.

A direct route or an exploratory one? If you know where you are going and have no slam aspirations, then why not go there? Is that the situation here?

If not, what further information do we need and how will we find that out?

 

Our opponents are playing a 2+ 1 opening, a strong no-trump based system. We have shown our heart suit and that has drawn no support from our partner. They have announced a club hold. So, we have holds in every suit and a good fit in diamonds. Where do we go next? We are playing Teams.

It would seem the only reason to be unsure about 3NT is our club singleton. Yet, our partner must have a hold in that suit to bid 1NT. They should also have an opening hand, or close to it or else they would have bid 2 not 1NT. So, to the direct approach:

Kris Wooles “3NT: I believe partner has a decent opening hand with a solid club stop and probably the K and I know this is the bid I would make at the table with my regular partners. Even with clubs only stopped once, we may then have a diamond finesse for 9 tricks.”

Bruce Anderson “3NT: I would like to bid 2 as a cue bid but unless there is an agreement to the contrary that bid might be read as natural given opener can be very short. The hand is too good for 3, so taking the view that partner has semi-balanced 12-14 point hand, I will take a chance that he/she has the clubs well stopped, or we have 9 tricks any way after a club lead. There is an inference that opener does not have a long strong suit as they might have bid 2 over my 1. So, 3NT it is.”

Julie is not sure we have game values:

Julie Atkinson “2NT: As partner has a minimum overcall, I still need them to be better than absolute minimum to have game.”

If the opening bid had been a suit in which we know they have 4+ cards, then the bid of that suit now would say “are you really sure about your hold for no-trumps” but the possible shortness of 1 casts doubt on this. Nevertheless, there seems no doubt that 2 would be forcing in some quarters:

Andy Braithwaite “2: asking partner to clarify their hand. Do they have two club stops or secondary heart support or just good diamonds with a flimsy club stop in which case 4 or even 5may be better options than the likely 3NT game?

He has no doubts as does:

Michael Ware “2: 4 would be splinter agreeing hearts. So, I will create a game force, then agree diamonds, before looking for slam. If over my 2 partner bids 2, I will bid 4 at imps. At matchpoints it is trickier as bypassing 3NT probably commits us to 6.”

Certainly, the diamond slam has more appeal than in playing 2! There is no question that 2 directly over 1 is a force but is that still the case?

Peter Newell “2: It obviously depends on agreements, but I'm a believer in that cue bidding the opponent’s opening bid is an artificial force even if the suit isn't natural. 1NT indicates a sound overcall so I'm wanting to bid game, and possibly even slam in diamonds if partner has something like Axx, and at least AQ. After the 1NT rebid though it's not clear whether we belong in diamonds, NT, or hearts. So, I'll start by showing strength and see what more information I can get from partner.  If 3 were a splinter (I don't think it is) that would have been useful.”

I wonder how many pairs have agreements about 2 in this auction. Another option already mentioned and dismissed is 3. I agree with the following two panellists who think that bid is not forcing and therefore not appropriate here:

Nigel Kearney “2: The hand is too strong for 3 and, without agreements, 2 seems like the best way to make a forcing bid so we can keep investigating strain and level.”

Michael Cornell “3NT: I think partner should be non- minimum to rebid 1NT here so we should have enough. My 2^nd choice was 3 but I think am a tad good for that. Partner could easily pass with 11-12 HCP when I want be in a vul game.

“Not so” says Stephen re 3:

Stephen Blackstock “3: For me, forcing, but if East doesn't think so and passes, it doesn't have to be a tragedy. If we are hunting for the Q in 5 with a nine-card fit, the game is certainly worth bidding vul at IMPs but would be far from cold. 3NT might be playable but it would be silly to go there immediately with no investigation.

East doesn't need great clubs in this auction, especially over a 2+ club opening: could he not hold KxxxAKxxx10xxx? Even 10xx would not be unreasonable. West should not go straight to 3NT with short or weak clubs. Consider also that absent nine running tricks, 3NT needs a double stop to be desirable. Otherwise 3NT risks -300 whereas 5 is likely no worse than -100 when it fails.

2/3 are tempting as a cue bid/splinter, but it's not obvious that, over a 2+ opening, club bids can't be natural. Can those who declaim confidently that 2/3 mean this or that be equally confident that partner is on the same page? 2 would be safe enough (East won't have four) but in effect marks time without telling East about the prime diamond fit.”

So, the initial question we want to know is how good is that club hold? If not great, then which red suit game should we play? In the absence of firm agreements, I prefer what would be a natural 2 though as long as partner understands our 2, both that and 3, if forcing, are more meaningful.

Our partner’s clubs were not what those in 3NT wanted:

 

After three rounds of clubs, the third round taken by the ace, we had 5 rounds of diamonds with North able to throw a heart and two spades. East had to play hearts and North took the A and 2 more club tricks to defeat the contract. K and A took the last two tricks: 1 down.

Meanwhile, 5 was secure even on a spade lead from South. The diamond slam could be made on any lead had West been declarer but East’s overcall had scuppered that option. We must be confident of the right game before we investigate slam. A 4-2 trump break made 4 too tough on a club lead, though a good contract if North chose a spade. 

3NT was played 8 times with 3 declarers successful. 4 made once out of three attempts. 4 declarers made 5 and 1 East escaped the spade lead to make their  diamond slam. Two auctions finished in a diamond part-score.

So, what would 2 or 3 have meant to you and your partner? 2 had the positive of being forcing. 3NT avoided pitfalls though earnt us a minus score this time.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items