|
Bidding Quiz 21st March, 2007
Click here for print-formatted version of the Bidding Quiz
Boards 1 and 3 and 4 This week, we had six Boards (1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 19) where the auction would vary depending upon whether Walsh-style bidding was in effect. We have collected these Boards together in one comparative study, please go to Board 19 for an analysis of all six.
Board 7 Dealer South Both Vul
What is your plan on this hand? We can think of 3 possibilities: - Open 2♣, planning to rebid 3♣. This is our least favorite, those minor suit auctions after a 2♣ opening are notoriously awkward. - Open 1♣, planning to reverse with a 2♦ bid … we much prefer this to the previous plan, and the subsequent auction will likely go better if we start bidding our suits right away … that is, if there actually is a subsequent auction, because opening 1♣ does run the slight risk of getting passed out (see below). - Open 2♣, planning to rebid 2NT, showing 22-23 or 22-24 (ranges vary). There is that singleton K♠ defect, of course, but otherwise the hand is perfect for this treatment.
How big is the risk that 1♣ will get passed out? Less than one might think, perhaps. Back on 30th August, 2006, The Wednesday Game did a simulation on this even stronger 24-point hand: ♠ AJ ♥ K ♦ AKQ43 ♣ AK873 On this particular hand there was not the option of opening 2♣ and rebidding No Trump, so we measured the risk of opening 1♦ and getting passed out. We repeat the results here, based on a sample of 50 hands: - On 41 boards, 1♦ would not (in our estimation) have been passed out - On only 2 boards would 1♦ have been passed out when we can make game - On 7 boards, 1♦ would have been passed out, but we would have been unable to make game (allowing us to go plus in a part-score, instead of down in a game contract). So, in other words, it’s safer than one might think to open surprisingly strong hands with one of a minor. It will rarely get passed out, and if you survive the first round of bidding you will find yourself in a more economical auction.
Board 7 Dealer South Both Vul
Opposite a 2♣ opener, North has quite a hand, clearly this one is a six or seven deal. North’s 2♠ was a positive and natural response showing a decent suit, we’d say that AJTxxx is quite good enough, especially considering all of the side-suit values. After 3NT, North is in an awkward situation. She would like to pursue a grand slam in Spades, but does not have a Roman Key Card bid available, most partnerships would play 4NT here a natural and invitational. Making things worse is the fact that 4♣ here is likely to be interpreted as Gerber, which is not particularly helpful to us … the Q♠ will be an essential ingredient to any safe Grand Slam, and Roman Key Card is the way to find out about that card.
How about 4♥ here? Yes, that would be our choice. It’s surely not natural, it’s a cue-bid with Spades as trumps. The purpose is to establish trumps prior to a Key Card expedition.
Board 8 This week, we had six Boards (1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 19) where the auction would vary depending upon whether Walsh-style bidding was in effect. We have collected these Boards together in one comparative study, please go to Board 19 for an analysis of all six.
Board 11 Dealer South None Vul
We like to preempt as much as the next fellow (probably more so), but we don’t think that this is a suitable hand for a 3♣ adventure. Preempts are supposed to have lots of offense and not much defense, but this hand is quite the reverse: - poor offense (look at that empty suit) - good defense (two likely tricks) Also, Partner is an unpassed hand, not the ideal situation for a flaky preempt.
How about a 2♣ overcall instead? Certainly better than a preemptive 3♣, but a bit lightweight, at least by our standards.
Board 14 Dealer East None Vul
Over 1♦, would you try the Unusual Two No Trump, showing Hearts and Clubs in this case? We certainly would. Our high cards are in our long suits, 2NT gets both of our suits into the auction, and bidding 2NT may disrupt their auction. 2NT is usually a preemptive maneuver and the downside is that we do have some defense. But Partner is a passed hand and is supposed to give us some latitude in these situations.
Board 15 Dealer South N-S Vul
Various choices here, none of them especially appetizing: - Pass: We hate to say absolutely nothing, holding 9 HCP’s opposite an opening bid - 1NT: How about a stopperless 1NT? Far from ideal, but this could work out well, especially if we end up playing it there. But maybe less successful if Partner puts us in 3NT and they cash the first five or six Spades. - Dbl: The common style nowadays, when there is one unbid major, is for the Negative Double to guarantee at least 4 cards in that major. - 2♣: This would be our choice. We are a Club short, of course, but at least the bid does convey our general values without distorting our hand too much, and without wrong-siding the contract (if we belong in No Trump, it would be better to put the Spade bidder on lead).
Board 16 This week, we had six Boards (1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 19) where the auction would vary depending upon whether Walsh-style bidding was in effect. We have collected these Boards together in one comparative study, please go to Board 19 for an analysis of all six.
Board 17 Dealer North None Vul
West’s 2♥ was Michaels, showing Spades and a minor. What next with the North hand? Even opposite a third-hand opening bid, we are taking this one to at least 4♥. Does that mean that we should just bid 4♥, and then guess later whether to bid again if the opponents compete? No, 4♥ would be preemptive, we would suggest one of these two constructive bids: - 2♠: West’s Michaels bid showed Spades, so 2♠ here shows a limit raise or better in Hearts. - 4♣: This would be our choice … a maximum passed hand, at least 4-card support for Hearts, and shortness in Clubs. Now, if the opponents bid on, we can leave things up to Partner, he’ll have a good idea what to expect from us.
Board 19
Prompted by the fact that Walsh-style situations arose this week on no fewer than 6 boards, we thought it was about time to explore this method of bidding.
First of all, what is Walsh-style bidding? It occurs after Partner has opened 1♣ and refers to the practice of Responder by-passing the Diamond suit in favor of showing a major suit, unless Responder has a good hand. Just how good is another matter, here we’ll be describing the version of Walsh where Responder needs opening values in order bid Diamonds when he has a 4-card major. To see the method in action, let’s look at the North-South hands from Board 19: Up-the-line Walsh-style North South North South North South ♠ AJ72 ♠ T964 1♣ 1♦ 1♣ 1♠ ♥ AK97 ♥ Q52 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ Pass ♦ T6 ♦ AQ52 2♠ Pass ♣ T87 ♣ 32
In standard “up-the-line” bidding, South responds 1♦, and eventually the Spade fit is found and 2♠ is reached. In Walsh-style, South cannot bid 1♦ holding a 4-card major unless she also has game-going values, so she by-passes the good 4-card Diamond suit and goes straight to the far from good Spades. The same contract is reached as before but will less information for the defenders. Think about it … you are West, on lead against 2♠ … would you rather figure out your opening lead against the informative first auction or the less revealing second auction. That’s the recurring theme in all 6 of this week’s Walsh auctions … the same contract is reached on each occasion, but the Walsh auction is also less revealing in each case, making it harder for the opening leader, and harder for the subsequent defense.
There is a corollary to the by-passing of the Diamond suit, here’s Board 1: Up-the-line Walsh-style West East West East West East ♠ AK43 ♠ J976 1♣ 1♣ ♥ 2 ♥ KQ74 1♦ 1♥ 1♦ 1NT ♦ AJ9653 ♦ 72 1♠ 2♠ 2♠ 4♠ ♣ Q8 ♣ AKT 4♠ Pass Pass
In the Walsh auction, West had a 4-card major, but was good enough to show the Diamonds first. Now, East was free to bypass both of those 4-card majors on the grounds that Partner could not hold a 4-card major unless he also had game values, in which case any 4-4 major fit would come to light later. And that’s what happened, West bid 2♠ and the Spade game was reached, though once again in a less revealing fashion than the up-the-line auction.
Nothing much changes when Responder is a passed hand, as per Board 16: Up-the-line Walsh-style North South North South North South ♠ T72 ♠ K65 Pass 1♣ Pass 1♣ ♥ QT9 ♥ K654 1♦ 1♥ 1♦ 1NT ♦ AT432 ♦ QJ 2NT 3NT 2NT 3NT ♣ A2 ♣ KQ85 Pass
In this Walsh auction, North responds 1♦, and as she is a passed hand this bid denies a 4-card major (she cannot be game-forcing). As before, Opener is free to conceal her major suit holdings with a 1NT rebid, and once again the final contract is reached with less information being revealed to the opponents.
We’ll leave it to the reader to figure out the other three Walsh auction in this week’s set (Boards 3, 4 and 8). What are the benefits of Walsh-style bidding? There are two obvious ones: - As already mentioned, a Walsh auction is less revealing, making it harder for the opening leader and for the subsequent defense. When the opponents have less information to work with, they are more likely to go wrong. - An auction which starts 1♣ 1♠ is more preemptive than one which starts 1♣ 1♦, it takes away those skinny lead-directing one-level overcalls, for example. Imagine yourself holding KQJ96 of either major and not much else … if the bidding starts 1♣ on your left, 1♦ on your right, then you’ll no doubt be comfortable throwing in a 1♥ or 1♠ bid for the lead … but, if the bidding starts 1♣ 1♠, they have either bid your suit in front of you, or else you must venture to the two-level to make your lead-director.
And the downside of Walsh? The obvious one is the potential loss of the Diamond suit. If we by-pass the Diamond suit then it's only fair to say that we may miss the occasional Diamond fit, all the more so as Walsh players will by-pass not only 4-card Diamond suits, but also those with 5 or even 6. In our experience, this is not such a big disadvantage (who plays minor suit contracts these days?!), but it is a consideration. One useful method that allows the bypassed Diamonds to be discovered is "Two-Way Checkback", a superior alternative (at least in our view) to New Minor Forcing. We'll get to Two-Way Checkback on a later Wednesday.
Board 20 Dealer West Both Vul
As West, would you overcall 1♠ with 1NT? Or would you pass, waiting for the balancing Double, planning to make a Penalty Pass? Our choice would be to pass, and here are some of the contributing factors to that choice: - We don’t have a particularly good hand, so the chances of scoring just +200 or +500 when we have a vulnerable game are correspondingly reduced. - The opponents are vulnerable, and there is the lure of the +200 on a part-score hand. - Our values are defensive more than offensive, especially in the Spade suit. That K9873 will be good for at least two defensive tricks, maybe more if Partner has good Clubs (trump promotion possibilities) or a stray Ten or Jack of Spades. On offense this holding is worth one trick at best. Compare that Spade holding with AK432 which is worth two tricks on offense or defense. - We are short in Partner’s suit.
How does the Pass followed by a further Pass of Partner’s reopening Double work out in practice? Just fine! Good Declarer play cannot come to more than 6 tricks and the end result is indeed +200 on a part-score hand.
Board 24 Dealer West None Vul
For the second time West gets the chance to penalize the opponents in a low-level Spade contract. Yes, Double would be our choice here, for some of the same reasons that we saw before: - We don’t have to worry about a missed game. - Our Spade suit is more valuable on defense than it is on offense. - We are short in Partner’s suit.
On the down-side, the opponents are not vulnerable, and it’s conceivable that we might labor mightily to beat it just one trick for +100 when we can make +140 in Hearts. Nonetheless we would double here, but, in the modern style, it is very much a co-operative Double, Partner is entitled to pull this one.
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
What are the chances that we can buy this one in 3♠? Zero per cent is the answer, surely the opponents are going to game on this one. And when they do bid 4♥ we’ll no doubt want to sacrifice in 4♠ at this favorable vulnerability. Therefore, let’s bid 4♠ right away and take away the opponents bidding room. To see this bid in action, let’s look at the West hand, in the light of two different auctions:
♠ 42 South West North East South West North East ♥ AKJ8653 Pass 1♦ Pass 1♦ ♦ K 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♥ ♣ T95 4♠ ?? 3♠ 4♥ Pass Pass 4♠ ??
Quite a difference! In the first auction, West has undisclosed strength and can see that 5♥ will be cold opposite as little as ♦AQ and ♣A. Given the vulnerability, it would be hard to fault West for trying 5♥ here. Now look at the second auction. Here South has voluntarily gone to game over 3♠, and consequently has shown her game-going values. She can now pass and leave the decision up to Partner.
On the actual deal, an immediate bid by South of 4♠ (over 3♥) is likely to push West overboard to 5♥, down one. Bidding 3♠ and then 4♠ will result in 4♠ doubled for down one … it’s still a good save against their game, but isn’t a plus score better?
Board 25 Dealer North E-W Vul
We have no idea who can make what on this deal, but at favorable vulnerability it can hardly be wrong to bid 4♠ here. We don’t expect it to make (though it might), but the chances are that 4♠ will be a good save against 4♥. Another way for 4♠ to win is that it might push the opponents overboard to 5♥. And the downside? It’s quite conceivable that nobody can make anything above the 3-level, in which case our 4♠ bid will convert a plus into a minus. Despite this risk, 4♠ looks like the percentage call to us.
Board 27 Dealer North E-W Vul
How would you rate a buccaneering 4♥ bid by East here? Absolutely terrible, in our ever so humble opinion! We love to preempt, even more so than most (or so some of our ex-Partners have told us), but here East has no reason to get over-dramatic. He has great offense, for sure, but he also has some defense, it would be nice if he could get Partner involved in the auction.
On the actual deal, if East does try to put the opponents on the spot with an (ill-advised) 4♥ bid, East will find that he is the one who must make the last guess when North bids 4♠. He can hardly double, nor can he bid 5♥, and is obliged to pass. Not a great success, considering that 4♥ makes 10 tricks and 4♠ is down two. Yes, instead of pressuring the opponents, by bidding 4♥ we end up pressuring ourselves!
Board 27 Dealer South None Vul
Bidding 4♠ over 4♥ is so often the right thing to do, and is the recommended bid here. There are no guarantees that it will work out here, but we do have a 6-card suit, and shortness in the opponents’ suit, and a fit in Partner’s suit … all the indications are that it is right to bid.
On the actual deal, Partner has a miserable collection of Queens and Jacks, and yet 4♠ is still the winning call. 4♠ is down two, and even doubled that is a good bargain against their making 4♥.
Board 31 Dealer South N-S Vul
Do you double? Or do you bid 2♦? Normally, when we double and then bid a new suit we are showing a very good hand … this hand is certainly rather fine, but not quite good enough for that. Having said that, some partnerships make an exception in these circumstances: - The opponents have opened one of a major. - We double. - Partner bids 2♣ - Then we bid 2♦ This is the so-called Equal Level Conversion (please see our link), and typically shows 4-cards in the unbid major, 5 (or 6) Diamonds, but not considerable extra strength.
So, playing Equal Level Conversion, we have an easy Double. If that is not part of our methods, we’d bid 2♦ instead.
Board 32 Dealer West E-W Vul
This may seem like a non-problem, South hardly has the values for a 3♣ bid here, the danger is that Partner might place us with 9 or 10 HCP’s and get us too high. But wait a minute! Do you play Lebensohl over their Weak Twos doubled? If so, you might wish to extend your usage of the convention to this situation. Playing Lebensohl here, we can bid 2NT, a relay to 3♣ and our method of competing to the 3-level. Of course we’ll pass 3♣.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Hand Analyses Bidding Quizzes Play Problems System Library | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
