All News

Choices…..

Often, when the opposition open the bidding, we have one obvious bid to make. Sometimes, we may have a choice of two bids…and then there are the times when it is much harder…like here!

 

 

We are playing Pairs, though the problems that arise apply to any version of the game. Let’s hear from our Panel:

Stephen Blackstock “Double:  And then no trumps if partner bids diamonds. With the controls, the five card suit including the 10, and the 10 potentially helping to build a second stopper, I am very happy to treat this hand as stronger than a 1NT overcall. 2 may leave us stranded in a low scoring partial and 1 is a misdescription as well as leaving the extent of the fit unclear if partner raises. 

With a hand this strong, it would not surprise me if the Panel is near unanimous."

 

Stephen certainly sums up the difficulties of other options. There are, of course, potential problems with “double” too. What is certain is that his last comment is far from correct:

 

Nigel Kearney “2: Not perfect, but there is a good chance we belong in clubs so I want to bid those first. With decent strength and some hearts, they often will not leap around too much so I will be able to bid spades next at a reasonable level.

Double will be OK if partner bids spades, but if they bid diamonds, I will have to correct to clubs at the three level (or higher) and my club suit is not good enough to do that. 1 or 1NT are unnecessary distortions and would also likely lose the club suit.”

but there is the additional problem when your 2 bid ends the bidding and you belong in spades. Agreeing with Nigel are:

 

Bruce Anderson “2: I do not think this hand is quite good enough to double and then have to bid 3  after partner bids 2, or even worse I hear 3 from partner.” There is something even worse than 3, Bruce, and that is hearing the suit bid 2 levels higher than that, to be followed by “double” which is not for take-out!" It is possible 2 will be passed out and we have missed a spade fit, or even a spade game. It is more likely I will have the chance to bid again, and then I can show my spade suit.

A hand where double could be right but 2 is my choice.  It has never been said bidding is a straight forward exercise."

 

Andy Braithwaite “2: I cannot double as a diamond response would embarrass me. 1NT is not appealing with only a single heart stopper. So, 2 it is and I will hope to be able to double later to investigate spades."

Here’s hoping! Maybe we have 1 and a quarter stoppers in no trumps?:

Michael Cornell “1NT:   not perfect but nothing is. If the 7 was a small doubleton, we would have an automatic 1NT overcall.

By my calculations, partner should hold about 4.5 diamonds so no trumps will normally be OK. My 2^nd choice is 2 which of course risks losing a spade fit if I do not get to make another bid.

I do not actually mind 1 but the risk then is partner passing with shortage and we are playing in a bad spot. I would not even entertain double as I am not strong enough to bid either clubs or no trumps over partner’s probable diamond bids.

Plenty of references to this bid and finally one vote for it:

Peter Newell “1: at Pairs especially, keen to get my 4 card major into the auction early given that 2 and double have their flaws. The obvious risk in double is partner bidding diamonds.  

Not infrequently after a double, the opponents raise to 2/3 and if partner bids 3/4,  even if my hand is quite good, and if partner is short in hearts, they are likely has some sort of fit in clubs.  2 could work out fine if the opponents bid hearts though doubling back in with a singleton diamond risks trouble.

A 2 overcall could easily get passed out and at Pairs that may not give us a good score.  1 of course has its flaws with somewhat awkward rebid problems, but I like getting spades in quickly. It is quite likely a part score hand and a 4-3 spade fit may play quite well.  I suspect 1 may be a minority choice, but I'll stick with it.

Well, that last prediction is more accurate than Stephen Blackstock’s unanimous Panel. There is no perfect answer here but I like Michael Cornell’s argument for 1NT.

On the actual deal, it is not what actually worked but there was a “danger ahead” sign for those who did double.

 

In the above auction, West did well to double 4 after their partner had bid diamonds. West led A and declarer ruffed to try and dispose dummy’s clubs on their high diamonds. When that failed, South had to revert back to playing carefully for 1 down.

The big danger with the initial double in this situation was to hear partner bid 5 which did not lose any tricks outside trumps but 4 trump tricks had to be lost. The most common contract was 4, often doubled, which does not offer a conclusive view as to West's inital action. 

This board came from the final round of the South Island Pairs last weekend. No doubt, all 37 West players were faced with what to bid over the 1 opening. The votes went this way:

Double                 16

2                      13

1NT                      6

2                       2

1                       0

No doubt, the 2 bidders were trying to show spades and a minor. 5 of the doublers ended up seeing their partner toiling away in 5x. The 1NT bidders were mainly NZ internationals and I think that is a good “best of a bad bunch” bid.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items