Partnership Bidding

 

The theme of these examples is getting Partner involved in the final decision, rather than making that ourselves with insufficient information of our side's combined holding.  Co-operation is the key.

 

 

28th February, 2007         Board 24      Dealer West       None Vul

 

 

North’s 2♥ showed Spades and a minor, and our 2♠ showed at least an invitational raise in Hearts.  We don’t know whether 4♦ is a slam try, Partner could just be telling us that this is our hand, creating a Forcing Pass situation and paving the way for a co-operative auction if the opponents bid on to 4♠.

 

It was very kind of North to double 4♦, she has now presented us with a couple of extra options, namely Pass and Redouble.  What are your partnership agreements in this situation?  The first thing to decide is the relative meanings of Pass and 4♠, and different interpretations are in use:

-         One school of thought is that Pass is always the weakest bid in these situations, and we have to say that this has an intuitive ring to it.  Incidentally, this is the treatment that is defined in SAYC.

-         The other school of thought is that bidding 4♠ here is the weak action, and strangely enough this also seems intuitive, at least if you follow the Principle of Fast Arrival, whereby going straight to game shows weakness.  This is the treatment favored in Bridge World Standard (a “consensus” system based on a poll of a couple of hundred experts)

 

There you have it, something to agree with Partner, take your pick.  How about a Redouble?  This is surely encouraging for the purposes of slam, and a reasonable interpretation is that it shows a control in Diamonds.

 

With the above in mind, back to the problem at hand.  What is our bid?  We would make the bid that is encouraging, and by our failure to redouble, it’s reasonable for Partner to assume that we have at least two Diamond losers.

 

 

3rd May, 2006                   Board 27       Dealer South        None Vul

 

 

As East, when South’s preemptive 3♦ bid gets passed around, what would be your choice?  Pass is not an option, it’s between 3♥ and Double.  We think that Double is the way to go here, but it's a close decision.  On the one hand we would like Partner's opinion (arguing for a Double), on the other hand we do have a rather nice 6-card suit (arguing for 3♥).  The main point here is that 3♥ is unilateral and really has only one way to win, namely if our side actually belongs in Hearts.  But, Double has several ways to win ... penalty Pass by Partner, or 5-3 Spade fit, a Heart contract anyway, maybe even 4♣.  At least the Double draws Partner into the auction, and that's usually a good thing.  Two minds are better than one.

 

 

8th Novemebr, 2006         Board 24      Dealer West       None Vul

 

 

The ideal 4♥ bid would be KQJTxxxx and out, but we are a passed hand so who knows what horror might have been committed by Partner, he has a certain amount of latitude in this situation.  Nonetheless, we should feel free to take a call with this hand, it looks like 4♠ is going to make and 5♥ will likely be a good sacrifice. 

 

Does that mean that we should bid 5♥?  No, we don’t think so!  Whether or not we should bid to the 5-level is not really the issue here, it seems pretty clear that we should.  The real question is “Should we bid 6♥ over 5♠?”.  We don’t know the answer to that question, and they have not bid 5♠ yet, anyway.  But, if they do, maybe we can help Partner make the correct decision.  We suggest a bid of 5♦ here.  This says “I have good Diamonds and a 5♥ bid”.  It’s a bid that invites Partner’s cooperation if the opponents bid again.  We are showing values in the red suits and giving Partner the green light to push on to 6♥ if it looks right.

 

Suppose that we were not a passed hand.  Would 5♦ have the same meaning?  Absolutely!  Perhaps once every decade or so we’ll have a hand that wants to play in 5♦, but the rest of the time we’d be better advised to use the bid as a “5♥ with Diamonds” bid.

 

 

11th July, 2007                 Board 31      Dealer South       N-S Vul

 

 

Anyone for Exclusion Key Card Blackwood here?  Devotees of this convention would say that 5♦ here is Roman Key Card, but with a difference … it asks that the A♦ be excluded from the response.  We like Exclusion on the rare occasions that it is called for, but this is not such a hand, it would not help us to resolve the Spade situation.  By the same token, with that void it is also not a good hand for regular 4NT Roman Key Card.  So we would just cue-bid 4♣ and see what happens.

 

Next, let’s say that Partner comes back with a 4♦ cue-bid.  We still don’t want to use Blackwood, we are way too good to settle for 4♥, and if we just charge into 6♥ we run the risk of missing a grand slam (Partner is still unlimited at this point).  So, we’d hedge our bets with another cue-bid, this time 4♠, again hoping that Partner can take charge.

 

 

© BES, Inc

All Rights Reserved