All News

Strong hand!

Tarnished Gold!

Perhaps it is just my perception but we seem to be confronted with more strong-looking 6-6 shape hands than in the past. It could also be because I play too much bridge! Here then is one recent situation where one’s partner does not appear to like our bidding so far. Yet, how well have we described our hand?

 

We are playing Pairs. We have asked the Panel whether they are happy with the bidding so far and what they would do next? How do they view North’s leap to game as opposed to say bidding 3, which must be game-forcing, and then a follow-up 4?

Looking upwards is:

Leon Meier “6: Given this, 4 is weaker than 3 but we still don't need much for slam.

Either minor suit ace will likely do. I kind of just want to bid to slam as I don't think we can scientifically investigate and I don't think partner will raise 5 with either minor ace. The worry is partner having something like 1813 in which case 4 may be the limit but even then and A may well be enough.

I'd bid 6 and give partner the choice. I wouldn't bid 5NT (“pick a slam”) because partner may choose hearts.

 

Anthony Ker “5: I agree with 3. This is game forcing opposite a 2 response. 4 is weaker than 3 and suggests a 7+ heart suit and minimum point count. That's not brilliant news but I am going to press on with a bid of 5. I've described my hand well but are we too high?”

The Panel seem generally to agree that a slower approach from North would show a stronger hand. Therefore, leave them be now in 4.

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: I agree with 3 which has created a game force no matter what system you play. So, 3 would now be stronger than 4 and may indicate some degree of support in diamonds.

4 is shut-out and shows a long suit with no slam  interest in any suit. Pass therefore looks clear-cut to me.”

Michael Cornell “Pass: Of course agree with 3 – cannot see an alternative.

General principles would be that 4 is weaker than 3 but it should be very good hearts:  KQ1098xx at least- maybe KJxxxxxx.

Anyway ,pass now is clear-cut for me. Slam needs a one loser suit + a minor ace- too much to expect.”

Nigel Kearney “Pass: Partner did not need to jump to 4. 3 would have been forcing but would not have set hearts as trumps. Therefore, 4 is not fast arrival but is based on extra values and very good hearts. Of course, 6 or 6 is possible if partner has exactly the right cards, but more likely it will be a hand such as x AKJ10xxx xx KJx where we just hope 4 makes.”

and do you remember what a strong jump -shift response looked like?

Stephen Blackstock “Pass: 3 seems obvious and surely not open to criticism.

It is hard to know what to do next, given that we are not told whether 4 is regressive or still showing slam interest with a solid or semi-solid suit. If it is regressive, of course I pass; hearts will be a good trump suit and spades or diamonds perhaps less so.

 If 4 is encouraging, it is close I think, given the controls in my suits, but If North had a strong jump shift (remember what they were?) available over 1, then again pass now looks prudent.”

Unless one is playing a “2 over 1 game-forcing” system, 2 has not created a game-force. Only after a "2 over 1" 2 is Bruce happy with 3 :

Bruce Anderson “Pass: Not enthusiastic over bidding 3 given I have void in partner’s suit, but if 2  created a game force, it must be right to try and get my highly distributional hand across by bidding and then rebidding diamonds at my next turn.”

 I would treat partner’s sequence as showing a long and very strong suit when he/she shows no interest in supporting either of my suits or bidding no trumps.

Does anyone use jump shifts anymore? (not really, Bruce, though I would expect if responder was 15+ hcp, a good old-fashioned jump shift, they would take a slower route than just jumping to 4)  If 3 over 1 is a strong jump shift, there would have to be a partnership understanding as to the difference between the two sequences. As for what to do over partner’s 4 bid, I am passing rather than risk that this hand is a complete misfit.”

and moving side-ways is:

Peter Newell “4: I would have bid 4 instead of 3 to show a big 2 suiter.  Bidding 3 pretty much loses the diamond suit as it could be 4 and occasionally 3 if we are trying to probe for the best major or 3NT.  4 is fine as long as it is not taken as a cue-bid or splinter agreeing hearts.

Now that we are up to 4, the hand most likely is a misfit and playing Pairs I'll bid 4.  To me 4 is weaker than 3 since 3 is game forcing. While I have a much better playing strength than I have shown, partner’s 4 bid, more often than not, is not fitting diamonds and/or not having the A.  Being Pairs, a conservative 4 with my good suit is a clear choice for me.”  

Of course, a good fit for diamonds might only be three-card support. We have hardly done justice to our diamond suit as yet. Partner has now pre-empted us out of showing long diamonds unless we take Leon Meier’s approach.

On this occasion, that approach nearly worked. South finished in 6 and briefly thought they had a making slam. Disappointment was soon to follow, however.

 

Perhaps, North had said it all with their 4 bid. Superficially, looking at just the North-South cards, 6 had a chance. West led J and East pounced on the diamond led next from dummy. The heart switch saw the defence score a trump trick (West would of course always score one.)

A couple of South players stopped in 5 and did make 11 tricks. However, there is no rush for East to take their A and were they not aware of the full heart lay-out, they should not. If they duck, South has no winning line even in 5.

If East does duck, South can play K and ruff a diamond though they now lose A and 2 trumps. Alternatively, they can and probably should insert 10 from hand and will now lose 2 diamonds and 1 trump trick.

Having at least 3, maybe 4 trump losers, in 4 is more than a little unlucky. Their heart suit is superficially better than South’s spade suit. Yet, South knew of their void. Their partner might have and did have better support for spades.

So, the North hand is about right for 4. On the day, as long as North then gave up, 4 won or should have won most of the match-points.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items