All News

The 2NT bidder, Ashley Bach. 

Minors galore!

Today’s deal features a fun hand to hold at any level of bridge. When you hold it near the end of the final of the National Open Teams in Canberra, you want to have more than fun. You want to find the best contract for your side!

 

The two who held this hand were Ashley Bach and the Australian player, Shane Harrison. However, first of all, we asked our Panel, back after the Christmas break, a couple of questions about the bidding so far:

Do you agree with South’s 2NT bid? If not, what would you prefer?

What would you bid after partner’s natural 3 call?

We have a mixed bag of responses regarding 2NT.

Andy Braithwaite, Kris Wooles and Nigel Kearney all approved of 2NT, with a pro and a con comment:

Andy Braithwaite: “ I agree with 2NT as you want to get preference from partner- clubs would be the preferred trump suit as it can handle a 4-1 break.”

Nigel Kearney “2NT over 1 is OK but there is a small risk of partner passing it so maybe 4NT is better.”

Three other Panellists agreed that 2NT was not high enough:

Stephen Blackstock “4NT might be better than 2NT, and raise partner's choice to 6 of a minor. That may avoid the possible complication of a save in either major. It will be easy for North to bid the grand if looking at the A.

And even higher:

Michael Cornell “5NT: No- the main reason is it gives room to opponents. I know we are almost certain to be able to make a minor slam but they could have a very cheap dive.

There is also the chance partner could get in the way!

I would have bid 5NT forcing partner to choose a minor and if partner has the A and some semblance of a fit, I would expect a 7 level preference.”

Peter Newell “5NT: Looks likely to be 12 tricks in my hand, so why not tell partner? And if partner has the A surely they must bid 7? 

As we saw, it was not the opponents who got in the way but our partner who felt they should mention their spade suit. Meanwhile, going low was:

Bruce Anderson “2: Not that happy with 2NT as it is almost inevitable that partner will bid spades and now my trying to show a 7/6 one loser hand starting at 3 or 4 is going to be problematic.

For that reason I am bidding 2 and then I will bid and rebid clubs; it is inconceivable that 2 will be passed out. If we can establish a partial or better fit ,I can bid the small slam in our fit.”

I agree that 2 will not end the bidding but surely slowly slowly after that is dangerous and could be passed. Quite apart from letting opponents in cheaply, I would think your second bid would surely be  6.

Whether it is to avoid playing an unpleasant 2NT, TO keep the opponents out (or try to!), to prevent partner from introducing spades, or just to tell partner very quickly about our wonderful hand, I do prefer a higher no-trump leap, 5NT if we can absolutely guarantee partner takes that as the minors. Only in your worst nightmare will partner hold 9 average spades and 3 hearts and we have bid 5NT!

What though do we do after partner’s 3 bid?

We have a straightforward approach from:

Andy Braithwaite “6: giving partner the choice of minor slam contracts.”

Michael Cornell “6: and expect partner to give preference with more diamonds than clubs.”

Stephen Blackstock “6: Definitely not 6,as clubs will play as well, and might be better if we can ruff a diamond in dummy when North has a singleton or void there, and we can neutralise a bad break in diamonds. Of course if North has real diamond preference, we will end in that suit, and again get to a grand opposite the A.”

Seems good to me. Doing the same with one added dimension:

Nigel Kearney “5NT: Typically in this kind of situation, I would bid clubs (here 6) if the clubs are longer and NT again with longer diamonds.”

I share the same concern as the next panellist about 4NT being misinterpreted as Key Card.

Bruce Anderson “6: 3NT sounds natural and if I bid 4NT partner might think I have a 3055 hand and I have agreed spades. While blasting 6, I can bid no less which might be wrong if partner has partial or better fit in clubs. All of that is why I prefer to bid 2 initially.     

If in doubt, or do not have Nigel Kearney’s agreements, you could still bid 6 to let partner choose.

That 3 bid has thrown up a little doubt about a minor suit slam:

Kris Wooles: 4: I don’t just want to leap to 6 in case 6 (or even 7?) is better. Partner could be 0-2 in diamonds and clubs for example. If partner bids 4, I’d bid 5 to squeeze out a minor response???? and yes I know on a bad day even 6 of a minor could fail.”

Peter Newell: 4NT: 3 is certainly off putting - apart from 6+ spades and likely 7+ unless 6 good ones, there seem to be a lot of hearts missing and no doubt partner has quite a few - so little or maybe even no room for minor suit cards...my diamonds are unlikely to run and opponents will likely lead a trump. so a diamond ruff is not likely either.  I am now going to bid 4NT  as the 5 level looks high enough. - Of course, there will be times when partner has the A but a diamond ruff looks unlikely if clubs are trumps and the opponents are likely to lead trumps.”

Peter, therefore, is not worried about the spade implications of 4NT.

Most of the Panel, though, are still heading to slam. At the table, Ashley Bach was faced with the 3 bid and solved his problems by jumping to 6. His partner had an easy conversion to 6.

 

                      

At the other table, Shane Harrison bid a direct 5NT over 1 and his partner had a comfortable time in the same 6 contract. East was on lead at each table and chose an ace over a trump.

 No swing on this board and an interesting difference in bidding styles to reach the same 6-level contract.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items