All News

Pre-emptive Problems.

I am not the first person to say that pre-empts do work and certainly will not be the last! This one caught East with a good hand and some difficult decisions to make.

 

We are playing Swiss Pairs and for once, the pre-empting side does not have the vulnerability in their favour. That does not stop them from bidding very quickly to the game level.

We asked the Panel whether they agreed with our initial double and what they would do now in the pass-out seat?

There is general acceptance of the initial double though muted acceptance from:

Nigel Kearney “4:  On the first round, double is ok but I prefer 4. They are likely to bid 4 and then I can double and have a good chance of getting us to the right suit.”

That approach does partly save the problem of our not holding 4 spades. We will return to that. Elsewhere, there is acceptance of our initial double:

Wayne Burrows “ Yes. There does not seem to be a good second choice. The hand is too flexible for a single-suited club overcall. The value club bid would be 5 but we can easily imagine 5 or 4 being better if partner has length in one of those suits.”

Peter Newell “ I agree with Double.  It leaves open options such as 3 and 3NT and if partner was able and chose to bid 3, I would then bid 4.  No other bid appeals.  I do not wish to bid 4NT for the minors with 4/6 shape in the minors, and 4 assuming available and not Non -Leaping Michaels does not get across that we may belong in spades, diamonds, 3NT or 3x”.

 Andy Braithwaite, Michael Cornell and Leon Meier also agree with double but without further comment.

 We would not be too unhappy to hear 4 from partner with our reasonable 3-card suit. Much of the time, they will provide at least a five-card suit.

However, it is our opponents who have bid to game. We still have a pretty good hand of our own. All our Panel are continuing the auction though with different approaches:

Andy Braithwaite (and Leon Meier) “ Double, again, for take-out”

and one with a sense of impending disaster:

Michael Cornell " Double... Take-out which partner will probably leave in for - 790!

 

And when partner bids 4?

Nigel Kearney “ 5 : On the second round we are a bit stuck. If we double again, partner will bid 4 with a bad four card suit which we don't want. Or he might pass, hoping for a more defensively oriented hand from me. Since one opponent is likely short in clubs, our hand is quite weak defensively compared to a typical hand that would double twice. But if we bid 5 and he happens to have five little spades and the Q, we might have got home in 4 but 5 will be too high. On balance, 5 looks better.”

How penalty oriented is our double?

Peter Newell “Double: I will double again, not with much enthusiasm and worrying about -790 when we are probably going -500 in 5, but partner may have a trump trick and passes and we beat 4 or may have a weak hand with a 5 card suit that they can volunteer.

 I think pass and 5 are options that could easily work out. Partner is a passed hand and did not bid over 4 green against red. However, I'll stick with double and while it will make at times, I think there are reasonable prospects of beating it 1 trick, and partner will sometimes rip the double.  If partner rips the double to 4 and it gets doubled, I will squirm and may choose to bid 5.”

It is comforting to know that I am not the only player who “squirms”!

Another doubler:

Wayne Burrows “Double: I like to play double and bid is flexible over a pre-empt but we can hardly bid 5 now as it is hard to get back to 4 when that was right. So although it will not always be right, I am happy to keep all denominations in play with a double. For example, we have good play for 4 with as little as the Q and five small spades.”

Well, we can bid 5 and Stephen does:

Stephen Blackstock “ 5: Of course, this could work poorly and expensively, N/S have bid a vulnerable game presumably expecting to make it, so missing honours will be mainly on my left. For exactly that reason, I doubt if we are defeating 4, so will not double again because if partner passes with a bust, we could be -990. 

Why 5? This I hope shows minors with better/longer clubs (double with three suited or spades and a minor, 4NT with minors and better diamonds). Imagine West with Qxxxx and nothing else of value, we may even make 5 without a spade lead, and  10xx in spades would make 5 hard to defeat on any lead. In addition, the auction isn't over, and now N/S may push on to 5 on a make or save basis, where our defensive chances must at least be better.”

It is interesting that a bid of 5 now implies shorter diamonds. Might it not just be a strong club single-suiter?  In the situation where South raised to 4, we might have been better off initially by calling 4 and following up with 4NT to show a second shorter suit, which has to be diamonds.

That would have worked a treat with the actual hands:

 

A second double might well have caused West to bid 4 which is better than passing out 4x but not where one wants to be. Had West held 10 instead of 9, 5 would have made but on the actual deal, 5 is a certain make.

At the table, East chose to bid 5 second time after an initial double. South sat this out and the contract went quietly one down. In defending 5, the defence will always prevail as long as East does not cash their A “on thin air” i.e. only when North plays Q should this card be played. 5 did make at some tables, even doubled.

It would seem really hard to reach the top East-West spot unless Stephen Blackstock’s 5 second time round does indeed promise 4 diamonds. No pair played in 5. Pre-empts certainly do work.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items