All News

Michael Miles: original show compere.

“Open the Box”..or “Take the Money”.

Am I showing my age in quoting from a very old English television game show called “Take Your Pick” where contestants were given the choice of a certain sum of money or else to open a box which could contain a star prize, a decent prize or a booby prize?

Today’s deal has similar options.

The “money” is in the form of accepting a penalty from the opposition’s contract which you surely can defeat.

Inside ”the box” , in this case the prospect of bidding on to game are the prospects of:

“the star prize”     bidding and making slam

“the good prize”   making game for greater reward than defending part-score

“the booby prize” failing to make game and recording a minus score

 

2 showed 5+ hearts and 5+ of a black suit, less than an opener. You are playing Teams. What should you bid?

23 hcp and a decent holding in their trump suit. The opponents alone are vulnerable. “Come on, partner, where were you with a take-out double!” Then, an opponent brought you back to reality to remind you it was your bid! “Just checking. Only dreaming. Partner had wimpishly passed!”

Only Michael Cornell was “prepared to take the money”.

Michael Cornell “Pass: happy to play for 100 an undertrick. I reckon it's 2 off if partner has nothing. If partner has enough for 3NT, we will be getting more. It could easily be 4 or 5 off.

A diamond lead should be marked and we can organise the defence from there. I do not think declarer will get anything from his 2^nd black suit whichever it is.”

Good predictions and recording a slightly better result than the bidders. Michael was certainly not interested in seeking “the star prize”.

Others were more concerned about finding the right game:

Stephen Blackstock “ Double: If nothing interesting happens, I can bid 3NT next. This invites North to correct to, say, 4 where appropriate; a direct 3NT could be based on a hand much less suitable for alternative contracts.

Same at Pairs. Yes, we should get 200+ defending 2, but it’s too likely we have game on. I am more likely to pass at Teams (less to lose), but that is too pessimistic."

Although the conditions were Teams, I asked the Panel what they would have done at Pairs scoring. There was little difference. Going maybe for that “star prize” was:

Bruce Anderson “ Double: Partner will be short in hearts and could hold length in spades or diamonds with the strength to make a jump response. I then wheel out RCK and if partner holds at least two kings bid a small slam. (a grand risks a heart loser that is not going away). Over a minimum response, I am bidding 3NT.

Bidding 3NT directly will not see partner do anything other than transfer with five or six spades, or pass if they have length in diamonds; it will be impossible to judge their 8/10 points is sufficient for at least a small slam. I bid the same way at Pairs."

Which brings out one advantage and disadvantage of double. The advantage,  playing Lebensohl, is if partner was to bid 3, showing value, you can head “slam-wards”. The disadvantage, again involving Lebensohl is highlighted in this answer:

Peter Newell “ Double: at Teams or Pairs.  There is too much chance of making 3NT or 4 if partner has spades to pass them out in 2.  Given partner has almost certainly 2 or less hearts, he will quite often have 5 spades which even with bad breaks would give 4 a chance.  On average, one would expect partner to have 4-5 hcp which is likely to give 3NT a pretty good chance when partner doesn’t have 5 spades.  Double is less appealing if playing Lebensohl as partner will usually bid 2NT over double. So, if playing Lebensohl, I would often bid a direct 3NT rather than double."

Matt Brown “Double: Arguably you could just leap to 3NT but that makes it nearly impossible for partner to know to do the right thing. Partner could have a long minor. Double seems best to involve partner; we could have slam in one of his suits.”

Nigel Kearney “ Double: Compared to a direct 3NT, double then 3NT suggests a more flexible hand like this one. Making the strong hand dummy if partner bids 2NT Lebensohl is not ideal, but the upside is RHO may not know which minor to lead. No difference at Pairs.”

and one with a different approach at Pairs and Teams:

Kris Wooles " Double (Teams), 3NT (Pairs).

 It is a somewhat difficult to promote a constructive auction after one of the many two bids in  QJ  and king to some number of diamonds and a singleton heart. So, if I start life with a double,partner might be able to bid 4 (for example) after which we won’t stop short of slam. After anything else, I’m not sure how I will convey the strength of my hand with all the controls and we might end up in 3NT.

So in summary I think I would double in Teams and over a non-jump response bid 3NT.  At Pairs I might content myself with a simple 3NT."

the money was the winner!

So, only one for “the money” though on this occasion, the money was indeed worth more than the 3NT prize as at the table, the money was taken and was worth +500, 100 more than the making game:

 

No “star prize” despite a minor fit and partner having a 7 count. Two trumps and a spade was all the declarer could make against 2. We are not sure what the lead was in 3NT at the other table though with both major kings well placed for declarer to reach the dummy, 10 tricks looks more likely than a number less than 9… but on the day, +3 imps for passing out 2. When was the last time you never bid with a 23 count?

Troublesome Minors

 

Some aggressive bidding around the table, especially by the player who has just tabled dummy,  saw you, South, owning up to a club hold and finishing in 3NT.

West leads the K and you cannot yet count to 9 tricks. Plan the play. East contributes 9 at trick one (low encourage) See you Tuesday.

Richard Solomon

 

 

 

 

 

Go Back View All News Items