All News

It ain’t easy!

When the opposition race off to the 5-level in just two bids, it rarely is. What follows are some interesting comments on hand valuation and where we might be heading. Firstly, though, the problem:

 

We are playing Teams.

For Leon, it is quite straightforward:

Leon Meier “5: what else?”

Well, plenty, really. Giving partner the most options including defending is:

Stephen Blackstock “Double: Not ideal, but better than the alternatives. 5NT would show the red suits but if North has little of value, the 6-level will be too high. Double allows North to pass and defend if very weak. 5 or 5 are even worse: they suggest a single suiter (and my suits are not great) and force us to declare a high level contract whether North is happy or not.

In short, double gives us the most options. South cannot tell whether East has bid to make, or has little more than a huge fit and thinks that at Teams -800 won't cost much but could lead to a big gain if N/S misguess over a high pre-empt.  I have no idea what North may hold but North will know I have a hand of quality and often a club void. I will still face an awkward guess if North does not pass, but for now he is better placed to decide how to proceed.”

5 would not be an ideal response to this double while it would be very hard for partner to imagine the true nature of our hand. Another worry is that if partner were very weak (neither red ace) and passed for penalties, we might find it hard to find three defensive tricks. Indeed, most of the Panel are going to take a rosier view of our hand.

Presuming, hoping that partner can produce one red ace, they bid on…but how to find our best fit?

Andy Braithwaite “6: I am not keen on double with only one defensive trick so I would now bid 6 as partner is likely to hold some values on this bidding outside clubs and I have to hope there is a red ace to give me a shot at slam (probably still on a finesse but 67% to work based on vacant spaces (6 on my left and 9 on my right).

There is a reasonable presumption that the pre-emptor will not be holding the K. So, if our partner is not looking at it, then the finesse will work. Oh,for slam, they had better be looking at an ace, too.

Yet, what does 6 mean? If Stephen Blackstock would not appreciate hearing his partner bid 5, then what would Andy think of a 6 response?

Anthony Ker “5NT: Unusual. Shows 2 lowest unbid suits. Doesn't everyone play it this way? ????

Double risks a pass or an accident in spades. 6risks a 6 reply from a partner who thinks you have majors. 5 or 5 risk a missed slam and could end up in the wrong suit. 5NT is the perfect bid. I'm playing partner for an ace, not so unlikely on the bidding. If she does not have one, who knows - may be a save against 5.”

 

Well, he seems happier with his bid than some of the other Panellists. Almost agreeing re 5NT is:

 

Nigel Kearney “5NT: This should be two places to play. I hope partner has an ace. Of course 11 tricks (or less) may be the limit but I think the odds favour taking a shot at slam and hoping it either makes or they sacrifice in 7.”

And almost agreeing with that is:

 

Peter Newell “5NT: 2/3 suits including diamonds - with both majors would bid 6. So asks partner to pick a red suit at least in the first instance. While 5NT is punting on partner having a red ace and some length in one of the red suits and not having a spade loser, I think it's a reasonable shot and is likely to get us to the best fit. My second choice would be 5 but that could easily work out badly if partner fits hearts well and not diamonds. Another advantage of 5NT is that they are more likely to sacrifice over it. Over 5 they will be a little reluctant to bid 6 unless they have diamond length.”

A few levels lower, a common Michaels treatment after the opponents open 1 is for 2 to show both majors and 2NT the lower two unbid suits. For ease of memory, it seems wise to adopt the same principle here. In the same camp, presumably, is:

Michael Ware “5NT: In for a penny...”

and finding the same bid but with a different view of it is:

Wayne Burrows “5NT: Three or maybe only two and a half losers is close to right for the six level as partner will often have a useful ace, a fit, and either a second ace, the K, or the spade finesse works. The choices are between 5, which might not even be the right denomination especially at match-points, and some two suited bid that forces to the six-level. I suppose at match-points one might also consider 5, but if I am only bidding one suit that is likely to end the auction, then I prefer to bid my better suit. 

How do I show a two-suiter? I think 5NT should be two suits here - sort of pick a slam. It does not have to be hearts and diamonds.

East did not try 3NT which would be a likely favourite with a couple of aces, a club fit, and some spade length so that points towards partner having something use. Therefore I try 5NT.”

 

Finally, a reason other than “hope” that partner has a red ace (East’s immediate leap to 5). I like the reason and the 5NT bid though life might be more straightforward if 5NT did show the red suits, or a three- suiter, but certainly the way to bring diamonds into the picture. That would leave 6 to show both majors. The same logic can be applied if the opponents have pre-empted in diamonds.

 

No worries this time whichever red suit North chose. With 11 diamonds between the N/S hands, choosing that suit as trumps would be safer though match-point kings would choose hearts if that was the game. The spade finesse had to be taken in either red suit contract and K was where it should be.

7 x costs 1100, worth a few imps over a making slam. However, it would have been a phantom sacrifice had the Q been in the North hand.

 

A time for optimism? Wayne gave us a possible reason why we should be that way and this time, the optimists would be duly rewarded.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items