|
Bidding Quiz 21st February, 2007
Click here for print-formatted version of the Bidding Quiz
Board 2 Dealer East N-S Vul
Our 2NT was the Jacoby 2NT, showing game-forcing values and support for Partner’s major. Partner’s 3♣ showed shortness. What next? We have a pretty good hand, with excellent controls, but that Club shortness has just diminished our hand considerably. Shortness opposite strength is generally a bad thing, those high Clubs would work so much better if they were in other suits. So, we would just jump to game, discouraging any further pursuit of slam.
Board 3 Dealer South E-W Vul
When the bidding gets around to East he has no good options. Even if his methods allow a natural 2NT here (some partnerships play this as artificial and forcing) he does not have the values for such a bid, and he has nothing but three-baggers in the unbid suits. In the circumstances, East might as well pass, hoping for one of these three good things to happen: - Either, E-W can make game and somehow manage to beat 2♠ by a whopping 4 tricks (unlikely). - Or, E-W can make only a part-score and will get more than adequate compensation by beating 2♠ by two tricks. - Or, nobody can make anything, and just going plus is a decent board.
Board 5 Dealer North N-S Vul
After the 1NT opening, with that game-going hand with 5-4 in the majors, the most common approach is to use Stayman. If Opener bids a major then South bids game, otherwise she jumps to the 3-level to show the 5-card major, offering a choice to Opener.
There is a small down-side on this deal if the auction commences 1NT 2♣, 2♦ 3♠, namely that, if Opener opts for 4♠, then the contract will be played by the weak hand. For this reason, many tournament players use Smolen with these 5-4 major hands … after Opener denies a major with 2♦, Responder jumps to 3 of the 4-card major, so that now, if the final contract is (in this case) 4♠ it will be “right-sided”.
Board 8 Dealer West None Vul
It’s possible to construct opening hands for North where slam does not make, but surely most of the time either 6♣ or 6♠ will have a good play. Does that mean that we should make a Negative Double, announcing the unbid suits? That will work fine if Partner bids 3♠ or 4♣, but suppose that she bids 3NT. Now we have no sensible way forward. A better solution is to start with 3♠. Partner will expect better or longer Spades than Q8653 and may well raise us on honor doubleton, but we don’t mind that, our next bid will be 6♣ offering Partner a choice between the black suits.
Suppose now that our hand were weaker, let’s say without the A♣. In other words, we have enough to go to game but nothing extra. Is this still a 3♠ bid? Definitely not, the suit is not good enough and we would have to pass Partner’s 4♠ bid. With this weaker hand we should make a Negative Double, the bid that gives us the best chance to find the right game.
Board 8 Dealer West None Vul
How high do you play your Negative Doubles? For the purposes of this problem, let’s assume that they are being played through 4♥. Do you pass or bid? It doesn’t look as if we’ll get rich defending 4♥ doubled, it seems quite likely that the penalty will be less than the value of making game in a minor. Then again, there’s no guarantee that we can make game in a minor, and even if we can it’s not obvious which minor game it should be … our Diamonds are good but they need help … and bidding 5♣ would overstate those ratty Clubs.
What would 4NT mean here? In auctions where we have been preempted to the 4-level before we’ve found a fit, it’s useful to play 4NT as a fit-finding device. If we were sure that Partner was on the same wavelength, 4NT would be our bid, saying “I have two places to play, make your choice”. In this case, the two places are the minors, of course, but, had the opponents preempted in Spades, there is no reason why one of the suits could not be Hearts. Anyway, that’s our preferred use of 4NT in this situation, it certainly seems more useful than a natural or Ace-asking interpretation.
For the record, on the actual hand, if we pass 4♥ doubled, we will score +300 or +500, and it will probably be the latter, in which case we’ll outscore our N-S counterparts who bid game. However, if we bid 4NT for the minors then Partner will jump to 6♣, a contract which is cold.
Board 10 Dealer East Both Vul
If Partner has KQJxxx of Spades and an outside Ace, then 3NT will be a fine contract, but that would be giving Partner a perfect maximum for his Weak Two. Far more frequently Partner’s hand will not be maximum, nor will it be perfect, in which case we are in danger of getting too high if we try for game. Better to take our plus, don’t you think?
Post Script On the actual deal, our Pass will be followed by a Double which is passed out for down one! So much for “taking our plus”!
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
South’s 2♣ was game-forcing, then she raised Diamonds, and belatedly supported Hearts. Her most likely distribution is 2-2-4-5, and, as she is prepared to rest in 4♥, she can hardly have much in the way of extra values. Should we try for slam? Actually, no! Merely trying for slam is not enough with this 5-loser hand, we should be bidding slam.
The real question is which slam should we bid? 6♥ will score better, of course (if it makes), but 6♦ may well be a better contract. Let’s give Partner these two hands: Hand A: ♠ 93 ♥ Q6 ♦ Q653 ♣ AKQ53 Hand B: ♠ 93 ♥ 86 ♦ KQ96 ♣ AK753 Opposite Hand A, we want to be in 6♥, that contract has chances to make without bringing in the Diamonds for one loser. But, opposite Hand B, 6♦ is a better spot.
We could just bid 6♥, anyway, going for the better scoring contract, but our choice would be 6♦, saying “pick a slam, Partner”. It turns out that Partner’s hand is: ♠ 93 ♥ 86 ♦ K965 ♣ AKQ75 Looking at this hand, it seems normal for Partner to pass 6♦, she cannot have a worse Heart holding. As it happens, both slams make, so that delicate N-S bidding was for naught, North would have done better to close her eyes and gamble with 6♥.
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
We would not invite to game with that East hand, it’s a pretty miserable 8-count, not much in the way of useful fillers, and that square shape is another cause for pessimism. To be honest, we would not rate this as even close to an invitation.
Board 17 Dealer North None Vul
We have been fishing around unsuccessfully for a fit, and we have now reached a key point in the auction. We are too good to bid just 3NT and not good enough to insist on slam. We would love to bid 4NT here if only it were invitational to slam, but for most partnerships this would be Roman Key Card for Diamonds.
What’s the solution? Professor Oddbid came up with a nifty idea here. He suggests 3♠, bidding it in the hope that Partner’s next bid is 3NT. After 3NT, he will bid 4NT, getting in his slam try by a circuitous route. True, East might think that we are angling for a 4-3 Spade fit, but even if he does it’s unlikely he’ll raise Spades given his modest suit.
System Note Do you play Minorwood? If so, would 4♦ here be Minorwood? Or is it necessary for the suit to be explicitly agreed first? That’s a matter for partnership agreement, please see our link for more on this. Of course, you may be wondering why we ask the question, it’s not as if Minorwood is going to help us on this hand. Correct, but if 4♦ is Minorwood, then that frees up 4NT for a general slam try, and we won’t have to resort to the Professor’s more oblique method.
How about Redwood? If you play that 4♥ here would be Roman Key Card in Diamonds, then again you have 4NT available as the general slam try.
Board 17 Dealer North None Vul
What does 4NT mean? Surely, it’s inviting a slam. We are in a non-fit auction, and the previous bid was 3NT, so it hardly seems appropriate for 4NT to be Ace-asking. So the question becomes “How much do we like our hand?” We like it a lot, we have tricks galore. So, is it a 6NT bid? No, let’s offer 6♦ as an alternative, this is a contract which should play well even opposite a void. Yes, our bid is 6♦, which turns out to be the only making slam, even opposite Partner’s void.
Play of the Hand Note We shouldn’t underestimate the power of those Diamond spots! If we have AK65432 opposite a void, then holding the Diamond losers to one depends on a 3-3 break, just a 36% chance, not a slam we want to be in. But fortify the suit with those lovely T98 fillers, and it goes all the way up to 69%, definitely a worthwhile slam.
Board 19 Dealer South E-W Vul
We have some defense here, with that A♠ and Q♥, but we are White vs Red, no need to get overly delicate, we’d preempt with 3♠.
Board 22 Dealer East E-W Vul
Anyone for 2♠ here? Some will decry the presence of a 4-card major (only a small drawback, in our opinion), others will shudder at the absence of seriously high Spades, and then there is the fact that we are in second seat, not the ideal position for flightiness. But all of that goes out of the window, at least for us, when we see that we are White vs Red. Yes, of course we open 2♠!
Board 23 Dealer South Both Vul
West’s 2NT showed the minors, giving us two different cue-bids with which to show a good hand. There are various methods in use in this situation, we don’t advocate any one in particular, we merely recommend that your partnership is clear on the meaning of 3♣ and 3♦ here. Follow our link to one schema of “Unusual vs Unusual”, as it is called. But, if you already have a method in place, one which your Partner can remember on a regular basis, then by all means stick with it.
Anyway, to answer the original question, our bid here is whichever of 3♣ and 3♦ shows Spade support and some values. We can always make a slam move later on, for now the first order of business has to be to set the trump suit.
Board 23 Dealer South Both Vul
OK, what’s happened so far? Let’s recap the events to date: - West showed a minor two-suiter, usually a weak hand - Partner’s 3♦ was conventional, a cue-bid of one their suits, in this case showing Spade support and at least invitational values - That pesky East has further preempted our auction with his 4♣ bid - Over 4♣, our side was not obliged to bid again, Partner’s 3♦ promised no more than invitational values, though she could also be considerably stronger. Needless to say, with our extra shape and values (even though those minor suit Kings look suspect) we bid the Spade game. - Then North invited slam with 5♠.
Does that 5♠ bid have any particular meaning, other than it is trying for slam? No such special meaning makes much sense to us, but what does make sense is that we should consider a slam try that Partner did not make. She did not cue-bid 5 of a minor, and that suggests that she does not have two fast losers in either one of the minors. After all, suppose that she had two Club losers, would she not have cue-bid 5♦, pinpointing the Club concern? Yes, we think so, in which case we should assume that Partner has both minor suit Aces, or else an Ace in one minor and a singleton in the other. So at least one of our minor suit Kings is working, and we think that is enough for us to take a shot at slam.
Partner’s actual hand was: ♠ KQT832 ♥ 2 ♦ A95 ♣ A93 Yes, indeed, cue-bidding or Roman Key Card would not have helped Partner very much. She had a little bit of everything, with no obvious weakness, she was just interested in our opinion. Nice 5♠ bid, Partner!
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
Let’s digress for a moment and consider this auction: West North East South Pass 1♣ 1♦ ?? Nowadays, it’s common practice for this sequence to show both majors, with just one of them we would bid that major naturally at the one-level. And let’s also make the point that bidding 1♥ or 1♠ here does not necessarily show much in the way of values, really no more than would be necessary to make a response to an opening bid after a Pass by South.
Back to the Problem auction. Does Double here show both majors? No, that’s really not a playable method, for these reasons: - Bidding a new suit at the 2-level would show a 5-card suit - Bidding a new suit at the 2-level would also show at least invitational values
Bear with us, we are gradually getting there! Yes, on the problem hand we must Double. It’s Negative, of course, doesn’t guarantee both majors, and could be made on a hand with a five-card major but insufficient values to bid 2♥ directly.
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
If Partner has done something (he did, he made a Negative Double), and if the opponents have bid and raised a suit to the 2- or 3-level (they did), and if our side has not been bidding No Trump, nor preempting (we haven’t), then it is safe to assume that the Double is takeout-oriented. And that would be our choice here, it’s called a Responsive Double.
Board 29 Dealer North Both Vul
This one depends on your partnership style. Some believe in active “pre-balancing” in this situation, by which we mean getting into the auction aggressively when the opponents have bid and raised to the two-level. In effect, West is taking a balancing type of action even though he is in the direct seat, emboldened by the fact that the opponents have a fit and that Responder has made the weakest of raises. So, if you are a member of the pre-balancing fraternity, then you will bid 2♠ here (it’s not entirely risk-free, of course), and Partner will cut you some slack, he won’t expect you to have a really good hand. But, if Partner will expect more, then obviously it’s better to pass.
Board 32 Dealer West E-W Vul
We may have only an 11-count, but our hand has considerable slam potential, don’t you think? Yes, indeed, and the question is how to express that slam interest. Here are some options: - 3♥: No, this is not an option, with standard agreements this bid is non-forcing, let’s remember that Partner’s 2/1 was in competition. - 4♥: This shows enough for game, of course, but does not do justice to our slam potential. - 4NT: Roman Key Card won’t help much on this hand, Partner is virtually certain to have at least one of the two missing Key Cards, and finding out that he really does will leave us none the wiser as to whether his hand is slam suitable. For example, give him ♠ 62 ♥ AQJT9 ♦ KJ96 ♣ 75 and he would be good value for his 2♥ bid, and would have one of the requested Key Cards, but would not have a slam suitable hand by any means. - 3♣: “If in doubt, then cue-bid” is a common refrain when faced with a difficult bidding problem, but here it may not help us. For example, suppose that after our 3♣, Partner bids 3♦. Now we can try a forcing 3♥, but Partner won’t know whether we have serious Heart support, or whether we are still fishing for the best game. He’ll assume the latter until proven otherwise, so will next show us a 5th Diamond or doubleton Spade support, or even bid 3NT, none of which help us much in our slam search. - 4♣: Splintering with a singleton Ace? Generally, this is a no-no but here it figures to work rather well! Partner will be in no doubt about our Heart support and slam interest, so things will be less fuzzy than in the aforementioned cue-bidding sequence.
Yes, we rather like the unorthodox Splinter bid, it seems the most likely way to get Partner’s cooperation and opinion in our slam hunt. As it breaks with the conventional wisdom about not splintering with an Ace, perhaps we should analyze why it might be a good idea on this particular occasion: - We are not in a game-forcing auction - We have no way (other than the Splinter) of agreeing Hearts below game while also establishing a force - We are less worried than we might sometimes be about misleading Partner in Clubs, because the enemy has bid that suit … so the chances of Partner discounting the “useless” K♣ (but really useful, it would provide a Diamond pitch) are greatly reduced, he probably doesn’t have that card.
Post Script We are great fans of Roman Key Card Blackwood, a most valuable slam bidding tool indeed. But it’s also one which is used excessively by some players. Well, perhaps this set of hands will give those players pause for thought. We had a total of 6 biddable slams this week, and RKCB was not required for any of them! Here’s why some people’s favorite convention was shunned for the entire set: - On Boards 8 and 13 we preferred to offer a choice of slam at the 6-level - On Board 17 we had no fit so made a general slam try - On Boards 23 and 32 we decided that cue-bidding and opinion-seeking would be more effective - On Board 31, we had a void and RKCB was not going to help us.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Hand Analyses Bidding Quizzes Play Problems System Library | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
