|
Bidding Quiz 20th June, 2007
Click here for print-formatted version of the Bidding Quiz
Board 1 Dealer North None Vul
How did this one get into the Bidding Quiz? Yes, it’s a clear-cut 4♠ preempt. Once in a while it will be down three for -500, but more often it will be a good save. And if the opponents have a slam (quite likely looking at our hand) then 4♠ should make that harder to bid.
Board 3 Dealer South E-W Vul
After South's Transfer bid, anyone for a Double here? We don’t think so! We don’t particularly want to insist on a Heart lead here, especially if the opponents end up in Spades, the suit is just not good enough. Partner will not be amused if he lays down the unsupported K♥ or A♥ on opening lead only to find that our ill-advised Double has caused him to blow a trick.
Board 6 Dealer East E-W Vul
Let’s suppose that we are playing Inverted Minors, whereby 2♣ shows at least a limit raise. That gives us three possible responses to Partner’s 1♣ opening bid: - A Splinter of 3♥? Yes, we are assuming that 3♥ is indeed a Splinter (some partnerships play this as natural and preemptive, are you and your Partner on the same wavelength?). If our fit were in a major, we would have no qualms about a Splinter response, especially considering that we have a 10-card fit. But our fit is in a minor and that raises three objections to the Splinter. Firstly, while we might be happy to commit to 10 tricks with this hand, committing to 11 tricks might be a bit much opposite a minimum hand. Secondly, Partner might have only 3 or 4 Clubs, so our fit may be less than spectacular. Thirdly, Partner might well bid 3NT after our Splinter, which would make us somewhat nervous given our relative shortage of HCP’s. All in all, we don’t much care for that Splinter. - How about 1♦? That keeps things low, and our plan would be to give an invitational raise in Clubs on the next round of bidding. But wouldn’t that feel like an underbid? We think so. - Inverted Raise of 2♣? That would be our choice, planning to rebid 3♣ (showing a minimum) if Partner rebids a minimum 2NT, and not quite sure what to do if Partner rebids a minimum 3♣. Perhaps in the latter case we should try 4♣ (natural and invitational, not Minorwood).
Board 6 Dealer East E-W Vul
Partner made an “inverted” raise, denying a 4-card major and showing at least game-invitational values. Then we splintered with 3♦, showing shortness and sufficient extra values for game. Now, what do we do over Partner’s 4♣? This is something of a trick question, it all depends on your Roman Key Card methods in minor suit auctions. Here are some possibilities: - If you play Minorwood, then this situation surely qualifies (game-forcing auction, Clubs agreed), and 4♣ is therefore Roman Key Card. - If you play Redwood, then 4♦ over 3♦ would be Roman Key Card. So what is 4♣ here? No doubt Partner is unable to cue-bid a major, and is merely maring time. He may well have the Diamond Ace, but be prevented from showing it by the Redwood agreement. - If you play Bothwood, then you use 4♣ as Roman Key when it is available, otherwise you use Redwood. Here, 4♣ by North would have qualified as Minorwood, so it takes precedence over Redwood. - Some partnerships use 4NT as the only Roman Key Card method. It’s not very efficient, but then again neither are mishaps particularly efficient, and mishaps do seem to occur not infrequently with Minorwood and Redwood, particularly in multi-suit auctions. Handle with care, in other words!
Board 8 Dealer West None Vul
West’s 2NT was “Unusual”, showing the minors. This bid leaves North with two cue-bids, one of which is generally used to show a fit with Partner, and the other which may be used to show the other major. This is the so-called “Unusual vs Unusual” treatment, but it doesn’t help us in this situation. So, we’d suggest Double, showing a good hand and no other convenient bid. If we were an unpassed hand, it would be customary to play this Double as creating a force (they cannot play undoubled), but here we are a passed hand, so Double simply shows a good passed hand without support for Partner.
Board 10 Dealer East Both Vul
How much do you like this hand? Enough to rebid 3♠ here, showing game-invitational values? It’s certainly tempting, considering that 7-card suit, but perhaps caution is advisable, we do have some deficiencies: - We are slightly under-strength in terms of HCP’s - We have no fit with either of Partner’s suits, nor do we have any high-card strength in those suits - We have an alarming shortage of Aces (but that T♠ is certainly a big card)
We wouldn’t argue with 3♠ here, but perhaps we were influenced by seeing the whole hand, we choose 2♠, at least playing matchpoints.
Board 11 Dealer South None Vul
Partner’s 2♥ was game-forcing, then Partner confirmed at least 6 cards in her suit. What next? It looks like we belong in a Heart slam, maybe even a grand. How do we head slamwards in Hearts? Not by bidding 3♠ or 4♣, Partner will think we are showing extra length in our own suits. The options are: - 4NT: No, we don’t think so, not with two losers in the unbid Diamond suit. - 5♥: Perhaps this will be interpreted as saying “I have two Diamond losers …”, but if so it should also be saying “… and the rest of the hand is solid”. This is far from the case here. - 6♥: A wild stab in the dark, giving up on 7 and still with two potential Diamond losers. - 4♦: This would be our choice, but only if Partner is on the same wavelength. This particular wavelength comes with the exotic name of “Last Train to Clarksville”. It’s usually abbreviated to Last Train, and can be used whenever there is just one below-game cue-bid available. Here, 4♦ can hardly be a new suit. Sure, it could be a cue-bid in support of Hearts, and that would be a common treatment. But consider also the Last Train treatment, a neat way of making a below-game slam try while at the same time setting the trump suit.
Board 13 Dealer North Both Vul
East’s Double was takeout-oriented. What next? For the auction so far, we have a pretty good hand, we were not that far off from bidding 2♣ on the previous round of bidding. Partner has opened, and shown extras. Can we make game? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely to be in No Trump, unless Partner has a singleton honor they’ll run 5 Spades before we get started. 5♣ is conceivable, but we do have a lot of losers to take care of.
We’d say that trying for a penalty here is a reasonable gamble, all the more so as bidding just 3♣ would be a serious underbid, and that there is no other appealing bid available. As we seem likely to have trouble finding our own best spot, and as game is not a sure thing anyway, let’s see how much damage we can do to 2♠.
And just how much damage do we inflict on 2♠ doubled? If we start out with a low trump, the number will be 800, anything else and it will be just 500.
Board 15 Dealer South N-S Vul
Surely that West hand is of game-invitational strength. Only 9 HCP’s, but a 4th trump and that shortage in the enemy suit provide plenty of compensation. In competitive situations, we usually cue-bid to show values and a fit, and so 2♣ would be our bid here.
Now, let’s fast forward the auction and look at things from the East side of the table: ♠ A2 ♥ A98752 ♦ Q876 ♣ 7
South West North East Pass Pass 1♣ 1♥ 1NT 2♣ 3♣ ??
Partner has shown that fit with game-invitational values. Do we pass? Or do we compete with 3♥? Or do leap majestically to game? Well, let’s eliminate the Pass immediately, we may not have a surfeit of HCP’s, but we do have a 6th Heart and shortage in their suit, so Pass would be unthinkable.
At first glance, a bid of 4♥ here might seem a bit much, but there is a lot to like in this hand. We are short in their suit, we have a 6th trump, and we have two Aces. Also, we have that lovely shape, and being firm believers in the “six-four, bid more” school, we’d try 4♥ here. This bid has two ways to win … it might make or it might be a good save against 4♣.
Board 18 Dealer East N-S Vul
Partner’s 2♥ positive response shows some values and a decent suit, and her 4♥ bid showed the inability to cue-bid something along the way. What this “inability” precisely means depends on your agreements, speaking for ourselves we’d expect Partner to be denying a side-suit King or Ace or shortness. Notwithstanding that, we pressed on with Roman Key Card, and discovered that Partner had two Key Cards but no Q♥.
What next? We might as well push on to the slam, it will probably be on a Heart finesse if the opponents find a Spade lead, but perhaps they won’t. But which slam? Here are the choices: - Anyone for 6♥? The trouble with 6♥ is that Partner will have to play it. No disrespect to her card-playing abilities, of course, it’s just that it would be nice to protect the AQ♦ from the opening lead. - Anyone for 6NT? Yes, that would be our choice, going for the higher-scoring contract and protecting the Diamond tenace. What’s the down-side? Well, if they lead a Spade and then the Heart finesse fails, we may be down three or 4 tricks! And, there will be hands where 6♥ has some extra chances … for example, imagine North with 6 Hearts, they lead a Spade, the Q♥ does not fall in two rounds, but Dummy’s Spades get spirited away in time on the Clubs.
Board 19 Dealer South E-W Vul
Partner’s Double was Responsive, showing both the unbid suits and enough in values to compete to the 4-level. Something very close to opening values, in other words. Now, the opponents have bid game in Hearts. What next?
We don’t have much in the way of HCP’s, but we do have that luscious void in their suit. This looks like a hand for declaring not defending, so we’d bid again. Which minor should we pick? Well, our minors are the same length, but the Diamonds are better, so should we bid 5♦? That would probably work fine, but our own choice would be 4NT. This can hardly be natural, nor can it be Blackwood, a more obvious interpretation would be “pick-a-minor”. The rationale for offering Partner the choice is in case he is 5-4 in the minors, we’d rather play in the 9-card fit.
Board 21 Dealer North N-S Vul
Now here is a thorny bidding problem, perhaps the most difficult of the day. Here are the choices: - 3♥ or 4♥? 4♥ would be a serious overbid, and although 3♥ is about right on values, we don’t like the bid at all. We did not guarantee 4 Hearts when we doubled 1♠, but nonetheless that is what Partner will expect. We want to make an encouraging call, but we don’t want to emphasize Hearts. - Double? What does this bid show? To us it looks very much like a Penalty Double, perhaps a hand that was too good to overcall 1NT originally, let’s say 19+ HCP’s with a very good Spade holding. If that is the case, then Double is clearly out. - 3♠? This is a gross overbid, here we are forcing to game on a hand which is just not good enough. But at least it has the advantage of soliciting Partner’s opinion, so, if we get too high, then at least we’ll be too high in the right strain! - 3♦? This would be our choice. The bid normally shows a 6-card suit, but our magnificent 5-bagger is close enough. 3♦ is not forcing so when we Double and then introduce a new suit we are showing a really good hand, typically 17+ or 18+, a hand that was just too good to overcall originally. When we bid 3♦ we are not so much hoping to play there, rather we are hoping that Partner can rebid Hearts or has a good enough Spade holding to bid 3NT.
Board 24 Dealer West None Vul
Oh, those pesky preempts! We could bid 4♠ here, but surely it’s better to bid 4♣, saying “I have a real 4♠ bid”. That way, Partner can count on some defense from us if the opponents should have the temerity to bid to the 5-level.
Board 26 Dealer East Both Vul
North’s 2♥ was Michaels, showing Spades and a minor. Now what? This is an easy one! We have game values (even though we are a passed hand), what better way to show that than to bid 3♠. Yes, even though the opponents have not explicitly bid this suit it is still very much their suit, and a jump into their suit shows a fit and shortness.
Board 27 Dealer South None Vul
After they open the bidding, our Takeout Double typically shows opening values and support for the unbid suits. But that’s in an ideal world, and in real life there is a trade-off between shape and values. For example, there’s nothing wrong with making a somewhat light Takeout Double when we have the perfect shape. Here, the perfect shape would be 4-1-4-4, shortage in their suit and support for all of the unbid suits, and with that shape we’d find it hard to resist doubling with as few as 10 HCP’s (or even less when non-vulnerable and feeling frisky!).
But, as the shape deteriorates to short of perfection we need compensating HCP values for our Takeout Double, and we would have to say that this 11-count is suffering from altogether too much of the aforementioned deterioration. The main defect is that we have only 3 cards in the unbid major … that and a mere 11-count is not enough for us to want to make a Takeout Double.
As luck would have it, the computer dealt East a similar hand on Board 17: ♠ KJ8 ♥ Q4 ♦ KT65 ♣ AJT7 Again, RHO opened 1♥, but this time we’d double. It’s the same imperfect shape, and the same 3 cards in the unbid major, but the extra beef of our 14-count makes it worth the Double.
Board 28 Dealer West N-S Vul
Did you bid 3♠ here? Perhaps you reckoned that there was safety at the 3-level, based on the 9-card fit. Well, minus 800 is not exactly our idea of safety, but that’s what happens to 3♠ doubled. Yes, really, it’s down four on a part-score hand! Let’s look beyond the lure of the non-vulnerable 9-card fit, and look at some reasons why we should hit the deck over 3♣: - We have a square shape … sure, it’s great to have a 9-card fit, but when the short hand has no ruffing values then it’s less of a bargain. - Our trumps are weak - Our Clubs look more promising on defense than they do on offense - The enemy high cards are concentrated in the North hand, and our unsupported K♦ bears an uncanny resemblance to a sitting duck.
Perhaps we are influenced by having seen all four hands, but we seriously question whether 3♠ is such a good idea!
Board 31 Dealer South N-S Vul
Do you play Maximal Doubles? If so, here is a classic situation. We are bidding Spades (Partner’s 2♥ showed support and values), they are bidding Hearts. In this situation, playing Maximal Doubles, we can compete with 3♠ (typically a weakish hand with an extra trump or some distribution), or we can Double. The message from that Double is “Can you bid game, Partner?” If those are our methods then we’d go for the Double, we don’t have much extra in terms of HCP’s but we do have a most attractive looking hand. And, if a Maximal Double is not part of our arsenal? Difficult question, we’d be seriously tempted to boot out 4♠.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Hand Analyses Bidding Quizzes Play Problems System Library | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
