All News

 

Bidding beyond the No-Trump Game.

Our bidding so far has been fairly mainstream, or so we think, though rather strangely, it has now taken us beyond a routine 3NT. What is partner up to and what do we bid next?

 

What does the Panel think of our bidding so far? They seem rather less enthusiastic than we might have thought.

Michael Ware “ No. 3 is a massive underbid that seems to have worked well as we have not pre-empted our own auction.”

So what’s the alternative? 3NT?

Leon Meier “ Certainly don't agree with the bidding so far. I would have rebid 3NT given I have 8 tricks.”

Andy Braithwaite “ I would have bid 3NT, not 3,  to show solid diamonds and an outside stop.”

Wayne Burrows “I would not rebid 3. I have an extra diamond and therefore an extra trick over a 3 rebid. The standardish alternatives are 3NT, which is a little problematic with a short club or some play a 3 rebid to show this hand. I would bid 3NT without the 3 agreement. Since we have a 2NT rebid showing 18-19, partner should know this is something different. I made the 3NT rebid last night without an explicit agreement with 17hcp and a seven card minor but this time with a singleton in partner's major which is a little more comfortable.”

How about a 2 Reverse?

Nigel Kearney “ I do not agree with 3. No alternative is perfect, but 3 is too much of an underbid. As little as AK10xx  opposite makes 6 a favourite. 3NT is possible and I would do that if the black suits were reversed, but we would be wrong-siding any club stopper (if partner has one at all), and ruling out possibly better spots in spades, diamonds, or even hearts. I would go scientific with 2. My preference is for this to be completely artificial and used to handle various strong hand types including hearts, three card spade support, or single suited diamonds. But even if partner is treating the reverse as natural, I would still do it.”

Stephen Blackstock “The East hand looks too good for 3. I would have been very nervous waiting to see if West passed. I would choose 2. A raise beyond 3 doesn't exist for a regular partnership as West knows that 2 may be an artificial force and not a 4-card suit.

 Of course, a raise would only increase my interest in a diamond slam. I am happy this is Teams, as stopping in 5 after a slam investigation is no issue and not the lousy result it would be at Pairs if West has the sniff of a club stopper.”

3 does have some support, or at least understanding:

Peter Newell “ I do not mind East’s bidding too much.  1 is clear, and East has a difficult rebid over 1.  3 is flawed in that partner needs very little to make 3NT and we will end up playing 3 from time to time.  However, alternatives do not look great.  3NT is possible but likely wrong- sides this contract and a club lead looks worrisome.  4 is possible too, and partner may not bid 4 over a 3NT bid when it is right.  I lean towards a 2 bid as it looks right to force to game and gives partner a chance to bid NT with a club stopper or rebid spades.”

Bruce Anderson “The East hand is very good for 3 but I would not bid anything else at Teams.

I would have a lot of explaining to do if I bid 3NT and was off the club suit and we can make game, or even a slam, in diamonds.” Anthony Ker also agrees with the 3 bid. 

A 3NT bid after 1 should show a solid diamond suit. It could be a hand slightly stronger than a Gambling 3NT opener. If so, it will have something in the way of outside stops which the “Gambling Opener” need not. It can be treated as a stronger hand, like this one, 8 playing tricks in a minor.

Alternatively, with clubs a worry, there is the Reverse, 2. A third option with a single-suited hand too strong for a jump bid to 3 is to include it in one’s Multi 2 opening. All seem preferable to our 16-17, maybe 15, jump to 3. Sure, that is the point count we have but it does not show a solid 7-card suit.

Where then from here? Our Panel does not like the 3 rebid but, as Michael Ware said, the auction is still alive.

Andy Braithwaite “4 : Partner’s 4 should be a control so cue 4 now.”

Nigel Kearney “4: we can cue bid 4. If partner is willing to go past 3NT with no known fit, we almost certainly have a slam and I plan to keep bidding up to 6.”

There is some support for 4 just being a second suit. Even if it is, we might need to confirm our own good suit:

Stephen Blackstock “4: confirming a very powerful suit and setting trumps. Let's see whether West can make a try, although I fear he will not envisage a hand as strong as East's after the non-forcing 3 bid.”

Leon Meier “4: Given the 3 bid, I'd bid 4.”

Michael Ware “4: (we are in Game Force) and over partner's likely 4 rebid, will bid 4NT RKCB in diamonds (obviously).”

It would seem more useful if we could Key Card in spades, finding out about the K as well.

Bruce Anderson “4: which must show a solid suit. I am not sure what partner is up to with 4, but I will find out when he/she responds to 4.”

Wayne Burrows “4: Assuming 4 is natural, I rebid 4 showing lack of support for partner's suits. I think partner could have bid 3 with most hands with six spades so I don't need to show spade preference.”

 

Anthony Ker “I would bid 4 now.”

and following the path found at the table:

Peter Newell “4: important to show some support and it is very unlikely I have 3 spades after rebidding 3.”

Well, 4 did end the bidding…and the job was not done:

 

There were 12 tricks on top, 13 when a heart was led. There were, of course, 12 in diamonds as well.

There seemed some division as to the meaning of 4. Here, it was certainly intended as natural and East was on the same wave-length with their 4 preference. However, it silenced West, unsure of going higher without top honours in hearts or clubs.

Yet, after a strength showing 3 bid, it may have more use as a cue-bid. Either way, it seems East might have done more with an excellent solid suit of their own and control in both hearts and clubs. That Q is and was potentially good too. Had they taken a shot at 6 and it had failed, I think they would have been a little unlucky. Alternatively, bid 4 and follow up with key card. 

At the table, only 2 out of 16 pairs bid to slam, one of those to 6NT. North led A but could not read the 8 as an encouraging low card from South….and switched.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items