Principle of Fast Arrival

 

Suppose that we are in a game-forcing auction, and we have a choice between, for the sake of example:

(a) Jumping to game with a bid of 4♠, and,

(b) Making a forcing 3♠ bid.

In this situation, the slow route to game is generally stronger that the "Fast Arrival" route of jumping directly to game. 

 

 

26th April, 2006                 Board 4       Dealer West         Both Vul

 

 

Our 2♦ was Fourth Suit Forcing, in other words a purely artificial bid the purpose of which is to establish a forcing sequence … for the sake of simplicity, we suggest that you play it as game-forcing.

 

After West’s 2♠, he is likely to be 3-5-1-4, which is not particularly good news for us … our K♦ does not look especially useful, being opposite a likely singleton … so, we jump directly to 4♠ here.  This is the so-called Principle of Fast Arrival … we are in a game-forcing auction, we have agreed the trump suit, we don’t like our hand much … so we leap directly to game.  If we liked our hand more we would bid just 3♠ (stronger than 4♠), or make a cue-bid.

 

13th December, 2006        Board 11      Dealer South       None Vul

 

 

First, let’s look at this uncontested auction:

            East     West

            1♠        2♥

            2♠        4♠

If West’s 2♥ is game-forcing, then most partnerships play West’s 4♠ as discouraging (for slam), the so-called Principle of Fast Arrival … E-W have forced to game so leaping to game is weaker that bidding more slowly (3♠ here, for example).  The same principle applies to the Problem auction.

 

Partner’s 3♣ bid shows game-invitational values with Spade support.  What is the difference now between 3♠ and Pass?  West’s 3♣ essentially committed us to 3♠, so using the same Fast Arrival principle our own preference is as follows:

-         3♠ shows a bad hand and is South’s most discouraging action

-         Pass is encouraging, showing decent values.

-         Other bids show better hands

 

© BES, Inc

All Rights Reserved