|
Bidding Quiz 20th September , 2006
Board 3 Dealer South E-W Vul
How do you like the North hand for slam purposes? We like it a lot, we like the high card structure, and those nice Tens. But, it’s not worth charging into some kind of Blackwood auction, that won’t tell us anything, no doubt we have enough controls to make slam. No, the way to go on this hand is to invite Partner’s opinion. We’re all familiar with the 1NT 4NT auction which does precisely that, namely “Do you like your hand? If so, bid six” But, do you and your Partner have a method for inviting that opinion after a Stayman auction?
Consider these 3 suggestions: 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 4NT Quantitative (no Heart fit, presumably 4 Spades)
1NT 2♣ 2♥ 4♣ Roman Key Card in Hearts
1NT 2♣ 2♥ 4♦ Agrees Hearts, general slam invitation.
Using the above methods, we’d bid 4♦, saying to Partner “We have a Heart fit, bid six if you like your hand”.
Board 5 Dealer North N-S Vul
After the 1♠ opening, South is always going to game in Spades, and she has various ways of getting there: 4♠ Directly? Not a good choice, this bid is generally reserved for preemptive hands with 5-card support. Jacoby 2NT? No, Partner will expect us to have 4 trumps for this bid. 2♣ then Support Spades? Most players would go this route, not unreasonably. 2♦ then Support Spades? The same plan as before, but showing Diamonds along the way, instead of the Clubs.
We like the 2♦ bid, it gives Partner a better chance to evaluate her hand. For example, on the actual Deal, Partner had a singleton K♣ … opposite a hand that is bidding Clubs, this looks like a useful card, whereas, in reality, it is quite useless. Opposite a hand that is bidding Diamonds, that K♣ won’t look so good.
Board 6 Dealer East E-W Vul
If Partner had taken action (such as a Negative Double, for example), then our 1NT rebid shows 12-14, and a jump to 2NT shows 18-19. But, opposite a silent Partner, our 1NT rebid shows the 18-19 hand … with our good Spade holding, that is clearly our bid.
Board 7 Dealer South Both Vul
North is not good enough to bid 2♥, just not enough HCPs … the danger with bidding 2♥ is that Partner might start doubling them in a competitive auction, expecting more defense from us. Well, if she can’t bid 2♥, then it’ll have to be a weak jump shift of 3♥. This is not a perfect description of the hand, with those weak Hearts and the outside Ace, but it sure beats passing!
Board 11 Dealer South None Vul
Our preempts are intended to inconvenience the opponents, but sometimes they inconvenience the wrong side. Partner’s 2♥ has given us quite a problem with our non-fitting 15-count. Game in 5 of a minor is a possibility, but we don’t know of any method to allow us to investigate this safely. Game in Hearts is possible (especially if Partner has really good fillers in the suit), but it’s also possible that 2♥ is plenty high enough. And 3NT is not out of the question if Partner has some magic cards for us (such as minor suit Queens).
It’s not a good idea to play your Partners for having the perfect cards, because, if they are anything like our Partners, they never do. So, difficult as it may be, we’d suggest a Pass here.
Board 12 Dealer West N-S Vul
Of course, if we have a 4-4-3-2 yarborough, we’d be most likely to look for a better contract because we don’t like the one we are currently in. The obvious method would be to use “Garbage Stayman”. Suppose that Opener did not have a 4-card major, what then? The auction 1NT 2♣, 2♦ 2♥ simply says “I’m trying to play in your better major, so pass or bid 2♠, please”. The possible outcomes of a Garbage Stayman adventure are as follows: - you will find a 4-4 major fit, and surely that will play better than 1NT - there is no 4-4 major fit, but Garbage Stayman gets you to a 4-3 major fit … with 15 points opposite a very weak hand, this will usually be a better spot - there is no 4-4 major fit, but Partner, alas, opened 1NT with a 2-2-4-5 or 2-2-5-4 hand, and the resulting contract is a 4-2 major fit.
That’s fine when Responder is very weak and when 1NT looks like a poor contract. But here we have 7 HCPs, not quite enough to invite to game, but enough to believe that Partner will do quite well playing in 1NT. However, when we have a lesser hand, and both majors, there is a school of thought which says that we should try for the 4-4 major fit anyway, even though we are not trying to escape from 1NT with a weak hand, and even though we have no intention of bidding game or trying for game. The theory is that the odds favor us being able to improve the contract in 2♥ or 2♠.
You’ll notice that we’ve used the terms “theory” and “school of thought” in the above narrative. That’s because there does not seem to be any right or wrong here, by all accounts, the probabilities are rather evenly balanced … some players go the Garbage Stayman route with these hands, and some don’t. Choose for yourself, but first be sure that you and your Partner are on the same wavelength on the meaning of the auction 1NT 2♣, 2♦ 2♥.
On the actual hand, going the Garbage Stayman route hits pay-dirt when Opener obligingly responds 2♥. It turns out that 2♥ makes 9 or 10 tricks (depends how Declarer guesses the trump suit), whereas 1NT makes but 7 or 8 tricks.
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
When Partner bid 3♦, he was presumably fishing around for the best game contract. Our Hearts were not good enough to support him so 3NT was eminently reasonable. Now, he has gone back to our Club suit. Clearly, he was never planning to play this one in 3NT, so what’s going on?
First of all, we can assume that his 4♣ is forcing. If he wanted to invite 5♣ he could simply have bid 4♣ over 3♣. What kind of hand does he have? Maybe slammish values in Clubs? It’s possible that he does have such a hand, but, if that is the case, he’ll have to tell us that later. For the time being we are still in game-finding mode, and the two choices are 4♥ and 5♣.
How do we like our Hearts, are they worth finally showing support with? Our 3♣ bid probably denied 3 Hearts (especially if we are play Support Doubles), and then we failed to bid 3♥ over 3♦. So, Partner should not expect too much from us in the Heart department. With that in mind, we’d bid 4♥ here, showing tolerance for Partner’s Hearts.
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
Partner no doubt has 6 Clubs, and probably does not have 3 Hearts (if we are playing Support Doubles we can be sure of that).
We’d like to emphasize our magnificent Hearts somehow, it looks as if the 5-2 Heart might be the best game, if only we could get Partner to raise us with a doubleton. But 3♥ is not forcing so we must be more oblique. We’d also like Partner know that we have good Club support.
How about 3NT? That could be right if Partner has ♣AQ and a Diamond stopper. Then again, if Partner has that hand, 4♥ might play well too. It could be wrong, but our guess here is to give up on 3NT (fearing a single Diamond stopper and non-running Clubs) and give Partner the choice between 4♥ and 5♣. What is the best way to do this? If we bid 4♥, he’ll never know about our good Club support … if we bid 4♣, he won’t realize just how good are our Hearts.
Our suggestion here is to bid 3♦. If Partner bids 3♥, we play in 4♥ … if Partner bids 4♣, we play in 5♣. But what if Partner bids 3NT? Then we’ll bid 4♣, giving Partner one more chance to support Hearts.
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
It would have been too risky to jump in with 2♠ directly over 2♦, the opponents are still unlimited. And, anyway, why stick our neck out at this point in the proceedings? If North has values we don’t want to get involved, if she doesn’t have values we’ll get a second chance.
It turns out that North did not have values, so, yes, of course, we are going to stick in a 2♠ bid here.
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
Partner might well have a 5-card Heart suit and a Yarborough, so there is no safety whatsoever in bidding 3♥. Even so, we have some good reasons to chance our arm … worthless Spades, good Hearts, and non-vulnerability to name but three.
It turns out that 3♥ can be beaten by two tricks. Does that mean it was the losing bid? No, because 3♥ won’t be doubled, and the defense will likely only manage 5 tricks on normal play.
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
When Partner balances we should be most wary about taking another call ourselves, but here it is surely justified. Consider the Total Trick analysis: - We have 9 trumps, presumably - Opener no doubt has 3 (she bid 3♥ but did not super-accept), North has at least 5, so that’s a minimum of 8 - 17 total trumps, so 17 total tricks - If they can make 9 tricks in Hearts, then 3♠ is down only one, and is a good save, doubled or not - If they can make only 8 tricks in Hearts, then 3♠ makes and needs to be bid.
How did the analysis work out in actual life? Not perfectly, but well enough. 3♠ does indeed make, so does that mean that 3♥ was going down just one? Actually, it can be beaten two tricks, but we’ll guess that most of the time it will, indeed, be down one.
Board 15 Dealer South N-S Vul
It would be great if 3♣ were invitational but it’s game-forcing. Our hand is a border-line invitation, but we don’t have a convenient way of inviting … not 2NT with that singleton, not 3♥ with only 5 of them (and poor ones at that). If we were a tad stronger, we’d stretch it into a game force, but, as it is, our guess (and that largely what it is) is to simply pass 2♥. Of course, if Partner had been good enough to super-accept our transfer, our hand would go up in value enormously and we would have bid game.
Board 16 Dealer West E-W Vul
It’s a pity that Double here does not demand a Spade lead, so, until that convention is invented, we’ll have come up with something else. 4♠ might work, we’ll need two tricks from Partner of course. How about 3♠? Is this preemptive? No, we think not, the opponents are not going to game, there’s no need to preempt. 3♠ should be a constructive bid here, giving Partner the green light to bid game if she has a little bit of something useful. With 9 tricks, South would surely just bid game and hope, so it seems reasonable that 3♠ should require two tricks from Partner.
Anyway, the winning choice is 4♠, because Partner has the ♥AJ, providing the two needed additional tricks. If South bids 3♠, she must hope that Partner can dredge up a 4♠ call, looks like a close decision to us, holding: ♠ 6, ♥ AJ85, ♦ J9653, ♣ Q82.
Board 17 Dealer North None Vul
Is the North hand worth forcing to game? We don’t think so, we’re not over-enamored of the QJ♣. We’d bid 2♥, and hope to get one more chance to bid … anyway, if Partner passes 2♥, it’s unlikely that we can make game.
If Partner bids 2♠, we’ll bid 2NT, and if Partner does anything else we’ll bid game.
Board 22 Dealer East E-W Vul
Let’s temporarily overlook our pitiful high-card strength, and look at some of the good things about our hand: - we have a fit in Hearts - we presumably also have a fit in Spades, and are well aware of the extra trick-taking potential of double-fit hands - we have shortness in Clubs - we have three small in the suit the opponents are bidding and raising, so it looks as if Partner is short in that suit. - we are non-vulnerable
By now, we should be starting to like our hand quite a lot! What are we planning to do about it? We’d suggest a bid of 4♥, no less! This should be preemptive, if we had a high-card raise to 4♥ we would make a 3♦ cue-bid along the way. It turns out that Partner has a minimum take-out Double, but it’s the right minimum (with a Diamond void) and 4♥ makes on the nose. Not that the opponents are likely to let us play it there with their combined 27 HCPs, but at least 4♥ will put them to the guess, and will allow Partner to bid again if she judges that 5♥ will be a good save against 5♦.
Board 24 Dealer West None Vul
One might make an argument for South to bid 1♠ or 2♠ or 3♠ here, all have their merits and defects. 1♠ simply shows Spades and less than invitational values. 2♠ shows a better hand, enough to invite game. With an even better hand we’ll go to game, of course, so that leaves 3♠ available as a preemptive bid, typically with 6 Spades.
We think that we are a tad too good to preempt, those red JT holdings might be worth something in the play (or defense), but we certainly wouldn’t condemn the bid out of hand. Then again, we don’t think that it’s quite worth an invitational 2♠, though it’s pretty close. That leaves 1♠, and our plan would be to later compete up to 3♠.
Board 26 Dealer East Both Vul
Normally, we open our longer suit first but East was right to make an exception here. He is just not strong enough to open 1♦ and then to reverse to 2♥, so he does better to treat the hand as a 5-5 and open the higher-ranking suit first. Should East take another call with that highly distributional hand? We’d say not. Partner probably has 3-card support, with 4 he would have likely bid a pre-emptive 3♥ or else cue-bid 3♣ to show a better hand. It’s easy to see how we might lose control here … we ruff their Club opening lead, we lose a Diamond, ruff another Club, and will now be in a most precarious situation. This hand would play so, so much better if only Partner had a 4th trump!
Board 28 Dealer West N-S Vul
The Rule of Twenty is not infallible, but it often gives us good advice. For example, it advises us against opening with a square 12-count, and we certainly agree with that sentiment. The proof of that particular pudding is in the West hand … oh, yuck, who would want to open that heap of junk?
However, having passed we must consider our hand to be quite maximum, and now we would rebid 2NT showing 11-12. Isn’t it risky making such a big bid opposite a potentially light 3rd seat opener? Maybe, but we cannot hide our 12 HCPs forever. And anyway, if Partner has an egregious opener we always have the presumed safety of 3♦.
Board 29 Dealer North Both Vul
Do you and your Partner have any agreements on a 4th suit bid of 3♦? The auction is already game-forcing, of course, so we don’t need to bid 3♦ for the purpose of creating a force … but we might want to bid 3♦ if we were not sure where the auction should be headed. And, so it is here … we have a Diamond stop (well, probably!), but do not want to suggest 3NT too strongly … we have a Club fit and (slight) slam potential but do not want to over-emphasize the Clubs and go beyond 3NT … we have a 5-card Spade suit, but not one which can bear re-bidding … so, in the absence of a good alternative, we suggest a 4th suit bid of 3♦.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Hand Analyses Bidding Quizzes Play Problems System Library | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
