|
Bidding Quiz August 23rd, 2006
Board 1 Dealer North None Vul
Would you open that East hand with a Weak 2♦? It does have the defect of the 4-card major but nowadays that seems to be less of an objection that it used to be. Anyway, it’s not a particularly strong 4-card major, and the Diamond suit has good fillers, so, for us at least, it’s a 2♦ bid. Yes, even though we are in second seat, the least desirable position for preempting.
Board 1 Dealer North None Vul
What sort of creature is North? A Mouse? If that is the case, she will squeak out 3♠, a colossal underbid. A Human? Most humans who are experienced players will see the offensive potential of this hand and bid 4♠. A Tigress? This magnificent creature bids 4♦ which says to Partner “We are going to 4♠, which I expect us to make. We are now in a Forcing Pass situation if the opponents bid over 4♠”.
It’s probably fair to say that the Mice just counted up their HCPs, and with only 8 points figured that 3♠ would be plenty. Not so, Minnie! South’s overcall is at the two-level, so we can reasonably expect her to have at least the equivalent of an opening bid. Opposite that opening bid we have the equivalent of 4 “cover cards” … A♥, K♣, and two Diamond ruffs … and that is usually enough for game.
The Humans who bid 4♠ were on the right track. But perhaps 4♠ was not the most descriptive route to game … we would bid 4♠ on a hand such as ♠ A9763, ♥ 543, ♦ 4, ♣ J843, in other words a more preemptive type of hand, one with little defense. If you will bid 4♠ with this, then 4♠ is a misdescription holding North’s actual hand. However, by bidding 4♦ (instead of 4♠) we are showing some defense, and creating a Forcing Pass situation if the opponents step back into the auction.
Suppose that West had not bid 3♦ but had passed instead. What would be your choice of bid now? Yes, a 4♦ Splinter bid … enough for game, and Diamond shortness … perfect!
Board 2 Dealer East N-S Vul
If you are not playing Bergen Raises, then this look like a simple 2♠ bid to us. Now, suppose that you are playing Bergen raises. Is this a 3♠ preemptive raise? Or is it a constructive 3♣ raise (or, constructive 3♦ if you play Bergen that way). Yes, indeed, it’s a constructive raise, too good for preemption. There are many 6-counts which are just fine for a preemptive 3♠, but the 5-4 shape and those 2 valuable high cards make this hand too strong.
Board 3 Dealer South E-W Vul
The question is … “Should North take some kind of balancing action?” Yes, we think so. North was extremely close on the previous round of bidding to making a stronger call, her hand is within a whisker of qualifying for a limit raise bid of 3♣ over their 2♣ (some would say that it does qualify). Does this mean that North should balance here with a 3♠ bid? No, we’d prefer a Double, which basically says “I don’t have an extra (fourth) trump for you, but I do have a good hand, make an intelligent decision, please”.
Board 5 Dealer North N-S Vul
West doesn’t have much in the way of high cards but he does have a yummy 6-5 distribution, and is White versus Red. Such hands cry out for vigorous preemption, and the best way into the auction here is with a bid of 2NT, the Unusual No Trump, showing the two lower unbid suits (in this case, the only two unbid suits). The objective of this bid is twofold … first, it crowds the opponents’ constructive auction (and maybe Partner can crowd it further) … and, second, it gives the partnership a chance to find a profitable sacrifice, if they have one.
Board 5 Dealer North N-S Vul
Partner’s Unusual 2NT showed Spades and Diamonds. We are in preemptive mode here, and, as we are also White vs Red, we should feel encouraged to bid a lot! Do you bid 3♦? Or 4♦? Or 5♦?
We don’t have much defense, one trick at the most, so it’s reasonable to assume that they have game (or slam) in No Trump or Clubs. Given the vulnerability, we can afford to go down three tricks doubled, for a good -500 save against their 600+. How many tricks might we make in Diamonds? It’s something of a guess, of course, but it is surely reasonable to budget for a minimum of one Club trick, 4 natural Diamond tricks, and a Spade ruff in our hand. That’s six tricks, and if that is all we can manage then we can afford to bid only up to 3♦. But surely we can do better than that … maybe Partner has a Spade trick, and also maybe we can get two ruffs in our hand. That would take our comfort level up to 4♦ or 5♦.
We’d take the middle road here and bid 4♦. It conveys our comfort level quite well, and Partner is still allowed to contribute further to the opponents’ misery if he has the right hand.
Board 10 Dealer East Both Vul
That 2♠ bid was Fourth Suit Forcing … usually, this convention does not require a jump in the 4th suit, but this particular sequence is the exception. As played by most partnerships, over 1♥, a bid of 1♠ would be natural (and, as it’s a new suit by Responder, it’s forcing, though not necessarily to game) … and the featured 2♠ bid is artificial and forcing, typically to game.
Some partnerships further agree that the 2♠ bid categorically denies a 4-card Spade suit, but, either way, we see no purpose in bidding 3♠ over 2♠, such a bid runs the risk of sabotaging the auction (for example, Partner might have used Fourth Suit Forcing as her way of showing a slammish hand with Heart support).
Yes, we’d bid 2NT here, it’s both descriptive and economical.
Board 10 Dealer East Both Vul
Our 2♠ was Fourth Suit Forcing, the rest of the auction is natural. What next? We have 19 HCP’s opposite an opening bid … enough for slam? Not quite … if Partner is balanced, she’s presumably in the 12-14 range (no 1NT opening bid), so we would rate this hand as “invitational to slam”. In other words, we would bid 4NT, inviting Partner to bid slam if she has some extras.
Could 4NT here possibly be Blackwood? No, we are in a game-forcing but non-fit auction, if we want to use Blackwood we must agree a suit at the three-level first.
Board 11 Dealer South None Vul
What does Redouble here show? Here are some possibilities: (a) We could use it just to show Partner’s suit, but that is not a particularly effective treatment, with such a hand we’d be better off raising (in this case) Hearts and preempting the auction; (b) Some partnerships play that the Redouble of a Negative Double as showing the Ace or King or Queen of Partner’s suit, the so-called Rosenkrantz convention. The purpose of the convention is to help Partner get off to the right lead … if we had Hearts but no high honors in the suit we would simply raise the suit (and Partner, if on opening lead, would be able to avoid a disastrous opening Heart lead from, say, KJTxx, because the 2♥ raise would deny any high Hearts); (c) The alternative treatment is for the Redouble simply to show a good hand (say 11 HCPs or more), and presumably less than 3 Hearts … with a good hand and 3 or more Hearts we would be cue-bidding the opponents’ suit.
Anyway, whether you play Redouble here as Rosenkrantz or as value-showing, that is clearly your bid here.
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
An awkward hand for West … 15 HCPs but no convenient way into the auction. If you don’t care for Pass (neither do we!) it comes down to a choice between Double and 2♣. We don’t like 2♣ because the suit is not very good and because it runs the very real risk of losing our Heart fit.
How about Double? That certainly keeps Hearts in the picture but runs the risk that Partner’s shape is something like 3-3-4-3, in which case we’ll be in a 4-2 Diamond fit. Nonetheless, we would make a takeout Double anyway, primarily to keep Hearts in the picture. Having said that, 2♣ would hardly be wrong, and will no doubt work out better on some hands.
It’s a no-no to make a take-out Double with only 2 cards in an unbid major (unless the hand is really strong, say 18+), but it’s merely undesirable (but sometimes we do it anyway) with only 2 cards in an unbid minor.
Board 15 Dealer South N-S Vul
As on Board 13, where we also had 2 cards in an unbid minor, we recommend a Take-out Double. But here the Double is more comfortable, because of our extra strength and a little device known as Equal Level Conversion.
Let’s back up a moment. When we make a Take-out Double, and then bid a new suit we are showing a very good hand, typically 18+, a hand which was too good merely to make a simple overcall. However, there is an exception to be made in a couple of specific auctions, one of which is: South West North East Pass 1♥ Dbl Pass 2♣ Pass 2♦ Playing Equal Level Conversion, that 2♦ bid does not show a huge hand … please see the Link for more on this.
As it happens, North does have a very good hand, one which might consider jumping to 3♦ opposite Partner’s 2♣ bid.
Board 16 Dealer West E-W Vul
We encountered this situation in the Wednesday Game a few weeks ago … after the Forcing NT, when North has the values for a jump shift she has a gadget at her disposal, the so-called Power Relay. Using that method, 2NT here is artificial, asking Partner to relay to 3♣ … then Opener’s 3♥ showed a four-card suit (the more direct 1♠ 1NT, 3♥ would show 5-5) and, of course, a very good hand.
Most partnerships nowadays play a range of 5-10 or 6-10 HCPs for their Weak Twos. In terms of HCPs, this hand fits right in, but it has other intangibles which make it too good for a mere Weak Two … two Aces, great trump fillers, lovely 6-4 distribution. For us, this is a clear-cut 1♥ opening bid.
Board 21 Dealer North N-S Vul
Clearly, after East’s 1♥ opening, West is taking this to game. However, after the 2♠ bid, we wouldn’t bid 4♥, we’d reserve that for more distributional hands with less defense. By bidding 3♠ along the way we create a force, creating more options for partnership co-operation if the opponents compete further (more specifically, a Forcing Pass situation is created).
Two schools of thought concerning that 3♠ cue-bid: - It always shows a fit with Partner’s suit; - It doesn’t necessarily show a fit, could just be a good hand without direction, or one that is trying for 3NT.
Both methods are playable, we happen to prefer that the cue-bid guarantees a fit. Playing the other way seems more likely to create a confused auction and/or a rebid problem for Opener. OK, suppose that the cue-bid does guarantee a fit … what is Partner supposed to do with a good hand and no fit? The options are to bid a new suit, or make a Negative Double, or bid some number of No Trump. It seems to us that this should be enough non-fit bidding options to allow the cue-bid to guarantee a fit. End of commercial.
Board 22 Dealer East E-W Vul
Here we have the same Fourth Suit Forcing start as Board 10. Does West’s 3♥ set the trump suit? No, we don’t think so, at this point Hearts may be no more than a polite suggestion … West might well have 3-card Heart support and be wondering whether the 4-3 Heart fit will play better than 3NT. After 3♥, East should bid 3NT which says “Yes, my Spades really are quite adequate for a No Trump adventure”.
As it happens, after 3NT, West will push on to 4♥, a bid which says “I was always planning to play it in Hearts and I have a pretty good hand, otherwise I would have bid 4♥ some time ago”.
System Note: In game-forcing auctions, when a major suit has been agreed, some partnerships play that 3NT is not a suggestion as a place to play, instead it’s used conventionally as part of the cue-bidding process. The two major styles are: Serious 3NT: This says “I have a good hand, let’s start cue-bidding” Frivolous 3NT: This says “I’m not good enough to make a slam try myself, but, just in case you are, I’m marking time with a 3NT bid”
Whether you are Serious or Frivolous, it’s essential to know when it applies. We would say “Surely not in the above auction”, where we have yet to establish for sure that we even belong in Hearts, and where 3NT remains a potential contract. But others would disagree.
How about when we have a known 5-4 fit, such as after a Jacoby 2NT sequence, or a Super Accept of a Jacoby Transfer? Yes, surely, if we are to play the Serious/Frivolous 3NT it should be on in this situation.
Suppose that we have a 4-4 or 5-3 fit. Here, you will get differing opinions. Some like to keep 3NT available as a possible contract, notwithstanding the major fit, others (the majority) prefer to use 3NT as a way of enhancing their slam bidding. Take your choice, our only recommendation is that you and your partner play it the same way!
Board 23 Dealer South Both Vul
South certainly has a difficult rebid after 1♥, and might guess to bid: - 2♥ A slight underbid, perhaps, but a Heart part-score might well be the perfect spot, given that robust Heart support and Spade ruffing value. - 1NT Another slight underbid, and also misdirected with that small doubleton in the unbid suit - 2NT Definitely not! - 3♣ Far from perfect, too … a slight overbid, and the Clubs are not so great either! Added to which, Partner might be 4-4-2-3, which would truly be a quite revolting development.
We think it’s a close choice between 2♥ and 3♣. On the actual deal, if South chooses 3♣ then North will zip into 3NT pronto (making) … if South chooses 2♥, then hopefully North will eke out a 2NT bid, pronto or otherwise, which will be enough for South to bid the game.
Walsh Addendum: In a Walsh-style partnership, the auction 1♣ 1♦, 1♥ implies a distributional hand for Opener, so now that 3♣ rebid by Responder is more appealing, and will get N-S to 3NT in no time flat.
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
Our 2NT agreed Spades and was game-forcing, then Partner showed us Diamond shortness. What next? We don’t have much in the way of extras here, but our values are slammish, and things were improved by that Diamond shortness. Often, when Partner is short in our suit, that is a bad thing, but here, with such a big trump fit (at least 5-5), we’ll probably be able to look after those Diamond losers with 3 ruffs in Partner’s hand.
With that in mind, we are certainly too good just to bid 4♠ here, that would say “Not only do I have a minimum hand, but also my hand has deteriorated thanks to your Diamond shortage”. We could bid 3♥ here, showing a Heart control, but that might send the wrong message, Partner might expect the Ace, and take an extra liking to his KQx. As a general rule, we are against cue-bidding shortness, unless we really like our hand and plan to take control, or if the auction is running out of space … here our hand is not bad, but nothing great, and we have plenty of space.
So, our choice would be 3♠, keeping things low, and awaiting developments.
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
So far, Partner has shown a game-forcing raise in Spades, we showed our Diamond shortness, and then with her 3♠ bid it’s fair to assume that she does not have the A♥ but does have a hand with half-decent slam values (which does not necessarily mean extras).
Here we have a classic slam-bidding dilemma. Are we obliged to cue-bid here, regardless of strength? If so, there is the danger that the partnership will merrily cue-bid to slam on insufficient values. Would cue-bidding imply that we have extra values? If we are obliged to eschew cue-bidding and go to game on minimum hands, then we might frustrate our (strong) Partner’s intentions by wasting a whole round of bidding.
The solution to this dilemma is the Serious 3NT, or the reverse treatment, the Frivolous 3NT. Both of these methods use 3NT in this auction to resolve the aforementioned dilemma … please see the article in the Systems Library for more on the subject.
Board 28 Dealer West N-S Vul
South is stuck for a bid at her second turn, and, although we hate to raise Partner on a small doubleton, it seems to be the only bid which conveys our values and gives us a chance to reach 3NT when Partner has some extras.
Board 29 Dealer North Both Vul
What are your methods here? More specifically, how do you play 2♣ in this situation? There are two commonly used treatments: Michaels: Some partnerships play the balancing cue-bid in much the same way as a direct cue- bid, so, if your method of choice is Michaels, then 2♣ here would show the majors. Very Strong: Of course, some very strong hands are suitable for a Take-out Double, so the cue-bid would typically be reserved for hands with lots of playing strength, those which would not like to hear a Take-out Double being converted into a penalty Double … a two- suiter is quite likely in this treatment.
If you are playing Michaels, your treatment will come up more often, but on this hand you will be poorly placed. You’ll be forced to double, the subsequent auction might be cumbersome … Partner will bid our short suit, we’ll have to jump to keep the auction alive, and may never get to mention our second suit.
If you are playing the balancing cue-bid as strong and distributional it will come up rarely, but, when it does, the resulting auction will be relatively smooth … we’d recommend this agreement: After a balancing cue-bid showing a strong, distributional hand, the Partner is required to takes at least two calls. This agreement allows the strong hand to get both his suits into the auction. It also allows the auction to stop short of game, so the strong hand must jump or cue-bid again to create a game force.
For the casual partnership, we’d recommend sticking with Michaels … it comes up more often, and it’s less complicated!
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Hand Analyses Bidding Quizzes Play Problems System Library | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
