|
Bidding Quiz 30th August , 2006
Board 1 Dealer North None Vul
South’s Double was Negative, of course, showing at least one of the majors … note the difference between this and the auction 1♣ (1♦) Dbl, which is generally played as showing both majors.
What does North’s Double show? With the opponents bidding and raising Diamonds, this is definitely take-out, probably with 4-4 or 4-3 in the majors.
At this point in the proceedings, South has three choices … Pass or 3♥ or 4♥. First, let’s arbitrate between 3♥ and 4♥. South has 11 HCP’s opposite an opening bid which took an extra call … but, in reality, South has a working 8-count, that K♦ is likely to be opposite a singleton and therefore of dubious value … we don’t think this hand is worth going to game with.
So, that leaves a choice between Pass and 3♥. These 3-level competitive situations lend themselves to Total Tricks analysis. E-W probably have 9 Diamonds (though it’s no sure thing), and N-S have 7 or 8 Hearts, so the chances are that there are 16 or 17 total trumps, and, according to “The Law”, 16 or 17 total tricks.
Case 1: If there are 17 trumps, we want to bid 3♥ when we can score 8 tricks (-50 versus -470), or 9 tricks (+140 versus +100), and we want to pass when we can make 10 tricks (+300 versus +170). Case 2: If there are 16 trumps, we want to pass regardless! You can do the math yourself for 8 tricks, 9 tricks, and 10 tricks, and you’ll find that everything says “Pass!”
The Total Tricks guideline for this hand (at this vulnerability) is as follows: If there are 17 total trumps, it’s usually right to bid 3 over 3 If there are 16 total trumps, it’s rarely right to bid 3 over 3
Based on this guideline, and on the assumption that there are 17 total trumps on the hand (the more likely case, we would think), then it seems right to bid 3♥.
Is it time for the next problem yet? Actually, no! The Law of Total Tricks is far from infallible, and sometimes “adjustments” are appropriate. There is one feature in the South hand which cries out for a downward adjustment in the expectation of Total Tricks (in other words, fewer tricks than trumps), and that is the Kxx of Diamonds … it’s likely to be opposite shortness, and is a probable trick on defense, but maybe not on offense. We’d say that this is enough to lean towards passing 3♦ doubled. So, we’d pass 3♦ doubled (it won’t always be right but it works on the actual deal), but bidding 3♥ is a close second.
OK, now we are ready for the next problem.
Board 2 Dealer East N-S Vul
Over South’s 2♦, West’s No Trump options are: 2NT: 15-18, maybe even a crummy 19. Dbl then 2NT: 19-20 Dbl then 3NT: 21+
How about a direct 3NT over 2♦? It’s suggested that you reserve this for trick-oriented hands, such as ♠ A6, ♥ T95, ♦ A3, ♣ AKQJ97. With this hand we are not bidding 3NT on sheer high-card power, we’re hoping that our running Clubs, and a little help from Partner, will be enough for 9 tricks.
Anyway, back to the actual hand … 3NT seems to be called for … it won’t always work, but, when the opponents preempt, we are allowed to hope for a little help from Partner.
Expert Bidding Agreement: One problem with bidding 3NT on the above hand is that, for all West knows, Spades might be a better contract. After 3NT, East will certainly not bid 4♠ holding just a 5-card suit … the solution is to have the agreement that a cue-bid of 3♦ in this situation shows precisely 3-card support. On the actual hand, this does not help find a better contract, because East holds: ♠ KJ97 ♥ K53 ♦ 984 ♣ 853 But take away West’s J♦, and give East a 5th Spade, and 4♠ is very much the place to be.
Board 3 Dealer South E-W Vul
We’ve discussed Super-Accepts of 1NT Jacoby transfers in earlier Wednesday Games, and our suggested approach to this is to use 2NT for all good Super-Accepts, the rationale being that this method does not volunteer information to the opponents unnecessarily. There does not seem to be any good reason not to use the same method after a 2NT opening, so our suggestion in the above auction would be 3NT.
But, be aware that, without prior discussion, this is a dangerous bid. Partner may place you with a “source of tricks” hand and a poor Spade holding … so, unless you have explicitly discussed this sequence with Partner (Who has? Not many, we would guess), it’s surely best just to jump to 4♠.
Board 6 Dealer East E-W Vul
Do you think that the North hand is good enough to force to game? Or is it invitational only? Seems like a close call to us, so you choose. Now, having made your choice, what are your methods?
If you think the North hand is invitational: The most common method with this so-called invitational hand is to transfer to Hearts and then bid 2♠, showing 4-5 in the majors. And, if we are 5-4 in the majors? Then the prescribed method is to use Stayman, and then over 2♦ to bid 2♠.
If you think the North hand is game-forcing: Now, we use Stayman, and if Partner bids 2♦, we jump to 3 of a major. There is a little wrinkle available, namely Smolen … playing this gadget, we jump to three of the 4-card major, instead of to three of the 5-card major … this way we get the strong hand as Declarer if we end up playing in game in the 5-3 major fit. Without Smolen, the auction will be 1NT 2♣, 2♦ 3♥, 4♥ Pass, resulting in North being the Declarer.
Board 7 Dealer South Both Vul
Partner’s 3♥ bid is not forcing, but it does show extras and at least a 6-card Heart suit. What are our options here? 4♥? No, altogether too feeble, slam is more than likely on this hand. 6♥? Usually, 6♥ will make, but we have 2 Club losers, let’s not be too hasty! 4NT? Again, we have 2 Club losers, so not a good bid.
Surely the proper bid here is 4♦, and, even more surely, this has to agree Hearts! When we are bidding the majors, in a strong auction, bidding a new minor at the 4-level can hardly be an attempt to find a minor suit fit. East’s 4♦ here would simply show a good hand, a Heart fit, something in Diamonds, but not in Clubs.
Board 7 Dealer South Both Vul
Partner showed Heart support with that 4♦ bid, playing it as natural in this auction can hardly be right. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that Partner does not have the A♣, otherwise, of course, he would have bid 4♣. After our Roman Key Card ask, his 5♥ showed 2 Key Cards without the Queen of trumps. So, it’s fair to say that Partner holds the A♠ and K♥, in which case we can surely have a play for 6♥.
That’s all well and good, but how about 6NT? That’s the ticket! Relying on the A♠ and K♥ we can count 10 top tricks. Of course, Partner has more than just that for his 4♦ bid, and it won’t take much more to make 12 tricks in No Trump … just the Q♣ … or the QJ♠ … or the Q♦ and the Q♠ … or various lesser holdings which may also require a Club guess (or a Club lead). Yes, we certainly like 6NT here!
On the actual hand, Partner has ♠ AQJ43, which is plenty good enough for 12 tricks (and good for 13 tricks if the defense fails to cash that A♣ pronto).
Board 8 Dealer West None Vul
It’s tempting to jump to 3♦ with that lovely hand … it’s only 16 HCPs, but there’s that great distribution and the fitting honors with Partner’s Spades. We prefer 2♦, though, we need to find a fit if this hand is to meet its full potential. The major problem with bidding 3♦ is that it might put Partner in a bind if he has 5 Spades and a Club stop, maybe something like: ♠ A9865, ♥ 73, ♦ 87, ♣ A987. If the auction starts 1♥ 1♠, 3♦, it would surely seem right to bid 3NT here … not a good choice opposite East’s actual hand!
Board 8 Dealer West None Vul
This is an easy one! Or, at least it’s easy as soon as we figure out the meaning of Partner’s sequence. Partner no doubt has 3-card Spade support with Club shortness, that much is clear. How about his hand strength? Well, surely, with a minimum opening bid, Partner would have raised our Spades on the previous round of bidding … the ruffing value in Clubs would have been enough to justify the 3-card raise. Therefore, Partner has 3 Spades and extras! We have something extra, also, and are worth a game bid … it’s something of a guess whether to bid 3NT or 4♠, but on the actual lie of the cards either will work. However, the more we think about it, and the more we look at the lovely 98 of Spades, the more we wonder if maybe 4♠ isn’t the way to go.
Board 9 Dealer North E-W Vul
After Partner’s 1NT response, we no doubt thought of rebidding 3♥ but didn’t much care for our mediocre suit … and a jump shift in Clubs was also possible, except that it would have distorted our shape. So, when we rebid 2♣, we had quite a lot in reserve, to put it mildly. Partner’s sequence shows a weak hand with long Diamonds … if she had invitational values she would have rebid 3♦.
With that in mind, what next? Another bid is certainly required, and we would suggest 2♥. Yes, 2♥ shows our distribution, but does it do justice to our values? It certainly shows extras, with a crummy 6-4 hand we would have rebid 2♥ right away … maybe we have a tad more than “extras” but 2♥ is close enough for us.
Note the parallels between East’s sequence on Board 8 and North’s sequence on Board 9.
Board 9 Dealer North E-W Vul
If you have read the previous segment, it’ll be clear that Partner’s 2♥ shows extra values. How about our own hand? Yes, we have extras, too … our bidding to date has shown a weak hand with Diamonds … we were very close to rebidding 3♦ (invitational) on the previous round of bidding, so definitely some extras. The very least we can do in the circumstances is to bid 4♥.
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
Last week (Board 25) South held this hand, opposite a 1♠ opening bid: ♠ AK642 ♥ J ♦ A6542 ♣ 64 We assigned a Jacoby 2NT response to this hand, without explaining why we chose not to bid 2♦ or make a Splinter bid (actually, we thought that all three would have been quite reasonable on that particular hand). Well, here’s a similar situation … what would be your choice on this week’s hand?
4♣? This would be a Splinter, of course, showing a fit and shortness in the bid suit … hardly seems a good idea to crowd the auction like that with our magnificent but undisclosed 6-card side-suit, to say nothing of those Spade losers. Having said that, a Splinter works rather well on the actual hand … after 1♥ 4♣, Opener is singularly unimpressed and bids 4♥. 2NT? Some players prefer that a Jacoby 2NT denies shortness (because of the failure to Splinter), but we beg to differ. When we use Jacoby 2NT we are doing so either because we have no good alternative, or because we want to ask rather than tell. Using standard methods, the one auction we would hate to hear is 1♥ 2NT, 4♥, which will leave us none the wiser about Spades, and that’s the main reason we’d prefer not to use the Jacoby 2NT on this hand. 2♦? This would be our choice … our hope would be to agree Hearts at the 3-level and elicit a Spade cue- bid from Partner below game. We wouldn’t bid 2♦ with a view to playing in Diamonds, we are definitely playing this in Hearts … 2♦ is merely a cheap, forcing and descriptive bid, and seems like the best way to start (especially playing 2/1 game-forcing).
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
With this hand we are going to game and most of the time we would expect it to make. If we feel that way about our hand, what’s wrong with just bidding 4♠ directly? Actually, very little, but we prefer 4♥, just our way of telling Partner that we expect to make 4♠, that we are not just taking a shot, and that we have some defense … in other words, if in the unlikely event that they bid 5♥, we’ll be in a Forcing Pass situation … we’ll have to bid 5♠ or double them.
Board 16 Dealer West E-W Vul
Our Redouble here on the previous round of bidding showed extra values, as opposed to extra Clubs … with a big Club fit and a moderate hand we would simply have thrown in an obstructive 3♣ bid.
With that in mind, is it enough merely to bid 3♣ here? We think so … we doubled, then we showed extras ... perhaps we have an extra Queen and an extra Club for the bidding so far … but Partner has shown nothing, she could have a Yarborough, so no reason to get carried away here. However, if they compete to 3♦, we’d take one more call, based on our extra Club length, more than our extra strength.
Board 19 Dealer South E-W Vul
There’s a school of thought which says that, when you are dealt a 6-card major of sufficient strength, that you always take action, either with one of a suit or with a Weak Two. Here’s a hand which tests that hypothesis … South clearly is not good enough for a 1♠ opening, but is the hand suitable for a Weak 2♠?
There are two minus factors in the South hand … the void in Diamonds, and the 4-card Heart suit. On the other hand, there is the favorable vulnerability, which is highly friendly to preempting. We know that we would preempt gladly on this hand, and we know many that wouldn’t, it’s in the eye of the beholder. Out of curiosity, we did a simulation of 50 deals, giving South his actual hand, and randomly distributing the other 39 cards. We categorized the deals into these 4 groups: - There were 3 boards where opening 2♠ backfired because it would have resulted in a costly penalty - There were 3 boards where opening 2♠ kept us out of a better Heart contract … another 3 bad boards for the preemptors - There were 20 boards where we belonged in Spades (or, at any rate, where Spades was as good as Hearts) … we’d say that, on these boards, it can hardly be bad to get our side’s best suit into the auction right away to avoid giving the opponents an easy entry into our auction - There were 24 boards where the deal belonged to the opponents … how nice that the preempt forces them to start mentioning suits at the 3-level instead of the one-level!
Interesting stuff! On 6 boards (when 2♠ got penalized, or when we belonged in Hearts), opening 2♠ gets a bad board immediately. On the other 44 boards, the 2♠ preempt got the auction off to a good start, and, hopefully for the preemptors enough good will come from those 44 boards to nullify the 6 disasters.
Board 20 Dealer West Both Vul
Did any Norths open that hand 1♥? Yes, that would be our choice, notwithstanding that she is in second seat, and supposedly playing a 5-card major system. Somehow, it seems odd to us to open a suit of three small cards, when we have such a robust 4-card suit available … the danger of having Partner on opening lead and blowing a trick with a Club lead seems greater than the danger of cheating about that 5th Heart.
However, opening 1♥ will not be everybody’s choice, and Total Trick addicts will be particularly against the idea, they’ll say that lying about our Heart length will mess up Partner’s competitive decisions, and they certainly have a point!
Board 21 Dealer North N-S Vul
There have been a few hands in this set where we would be “bidding for the lead”. Is this another one, a hand where we should overcall our strong 4-card Spade suit? Perhaps not! If we end up defending, it’s most likely to be a Heart contract, and, of course, we shall be on lead for that. No, lead direction is not required here, better to double and give our side the best chance of competing effectively.
On the actual deal, the opponents will indeed be playing in Hearts, unless we Double, allowing Partner to compete effectively in Clubs.
Board 21 Dealer North N-S Vul
After East’s Double, South’s choices are: 2NT: This is generally played as showing a limit raise, the so-called Jordan convention. However, there are two flaws here … firstly, we have only 3-card support (Jordan normally shows 4) … and, secondly, that square 10-count hardly looks good enough to describe as a limit raise … our least favorite of the 4 choices. 1NT: Very much at the top of the range, and with unusually good Hearts for such a bid. Rdbl: We’d prefer less in Hearts, more defense in the other suits, for this bid. 2♥: Not unreasonable in terms of the playing strength in Hearts, although we do have an unusual amount of defense for such a bid … however, bidding 2♥ has some merit, especially if South’s plan is to double the opponents when their 2♠ or 3 of a minor comes back around … such a sequence would show this type of maximum 2♥ bid, and would give Partner the option of converting for penalty or else competing to 3♥.
Well, the winner is 1NT or 2♥, underbidding a tad and staying out of game … and the losers are Redouble (a reasonable, but unsuccessful, bid), and 2NT (just not a good bid) which are likely to propel N-S to game.
Board 22 Dealer East E-W Vul
Should South balance here, with that nondescript 8-count? Absolutely! It cannot be right to give the opponents such an easy ride, and the real question is not whether to balance but how to balance. We prefer 2♠ here … Partner should be aware to the probability that this is a 4-card suit, after all, if we had 5 of them we might have overcalled 1♠ earlier in the auction. Double here is likely to be made on a 3-card Spade suit. And, if South was balancing with only 2 Spades? … then presumably she has the minors, and can bid 2NT to offer a choice.
Board 23 Dealer South Both Vul
Here we go again! Yet another “lead-directing” opening bid! This one is clear-cut in our view. There’s a strong possibility that Partner will be on lead against a Spade contract, and, if that is the case, we most assuredly want a Heart lead from Partner … a Club lead from Partner’s Ax, Qxx or Kxx might be disastrous!
Board 23 Dealer South Both Vul
If South were not a passed hand, and if East had not chimed in with a 1♠ overcall, then 4♣ here would clearly be a Splinter bid. As it is, we have two questions: - Are Splinters on after their overcall? This is something to agree with your Partner as different people play this different ways … for what it’s worth, we believe that the majority preference is for Splinters still to be on (and also after their Take-out Double) - Are Splinters still on by a passed hand? Again, we would say “Yes”, though it probably won’t come up very often in real life.
Anyway, if your partnership answers “Yes” to both these questions, we’d say that the South hand is worth a 4♣ Splinter bid. True, Partner may have opened light in 3rd seat, but even with this in mind we are no doubt planning to bid up to 4♥ eventually … if that is the case, we might as well get there quickly and descriptively.
If the 4♣ Splinter is not an option in your methods, then a simple 2♠ cue-bid will suffice to tell Partner you have an unusually good hand (for a passed hand) in support of Hearts.
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
Partner has given us a simple raise, and we have a mere 13 HCPs. Does that mean that we just pass? No, we’d say that the hand is worth a game try. Notwithstanding our modest point count, we have a five-loser hand, so we really don’t need much from Partner. In the absence of any special game-try agreements we’d bid 3♥ here, simply bidding what we’ve got.
On the actual hand, making a game-try wins in an unexpected way. Partner declines and 3♠ limps home by the skin of its teeth … but the opponents are deterred from competing in Clubs, where they have a good save at the 4-level.
Board 26 Dealer East Both Vul
What | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
