All News

Scoring a positive.

North-South reached a poor contract today as a result of a couple of decisions made in the bidding. Could they/ should they have been avoided?

 

What should South bid?

Stephen Blackstock “3: Seems normal. 3NT is fleetingly possible, but with a misfit for diamonds, where are the tricks coming from?”

Well, it seemed normal to me, too but then we have:

Michael Cornell “ 3NT: a slight overbid. “Hamman’s  rule – if 3NT is a possible contract, bid it. You only need 9 tricks and no one can get a ruff, a distinct possibility here.

My close second choice is to pass and almost certainly go plus if partner is not short in hearts.”

And here’s another take, with neither option particularly occurring to me at the time:

Michael Ware “ Pass/Double: I think the strength of our opening 1NT is relevant. Playing strong NT, I would pass due to my singleton diamond. Playing Acol, I will make a take-out double.”

And another “Hamman supporter”:

Nigel Kearney “ 3NT: I prefer 3NT to 3S. There is limited space and we cannot do everything, but Kxx (even more so K9x) is such a good holding for 3NT because we can hold up, and rather bad for a suit contract, because very often either partner has a singleton and the king is wasted or LHO has a singleton and gets a ruff. (or in this case, both!) Of course, I have the benefit of knowing partner cannot support spades but you will have to take my word that I would have chosen 3NT anyway.”

So, 3 has become rather less obvious though it had other supporters:

Andy Braithwaite “3: Yes I bid 3 over 3.

Bruce Anderson “3: I would bid 3, albeit reluctantly, given that I have a singleton in partner's suit and if he is single suited and not all that strong, 4 may already be too high. But it is Pairs and it would be a disaster if partner fitted my strong spade suit.”

Well, at least if we passed and partner held 4 spades, we would likely hear a take-out double.

Needless to say, the table bid was 3 and that partly contributed to the poor result. Over that, North raised to 4, also a debatable action. Let’s see all four hands:

 

After the heart lead, declarer could not cope with the 5-1 trump break even with the favourably placed K.

Clubs..indeed…no-one mentioned them. North imagined a 6-card spade opposite and playing Pairs, who wants to play in clubs anyway? Well, if one cannot make overtricks in 3NT, then 5 seems a good place to be.

Should North have called 4 over 3? Would that be a natural bid or indeed an advanced cue-bid?

At least, the Panel clarified that. They all raised 4 by North to the club game:

Bruce Anderson “ 5: Over 4,  I am bidding 5, not with great confidence, but I can't pass. Partner may be quite strong and would not contemplate that I can pass his/her bid of 4 given that I have shown a strong hand with my bid of 3.”

Nigel Kearney “5: Over 4, I would raise to 5. It doesn't feel good and could easily be too high but in this kind of auction where we are searching for the best strain, partner is not going to jump around often, even with a good hand. My 3 may not be defined as game forcing, but to bid 3 then drop partner in 4, is not something I would generally do. Pass could easily turn out to be right though.”

Andy Braithwaite “5: This may not be a Pairs success but I don’t really see a logical alternative.”

The others all agreed. Maybe, playing Teams, North would have bid 4 instead of 4 though that is all irrelevant had South chosen 3NT in the first place. Let’s give some credit to East. Other East players chose 4, a decision they rather regretted.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items