All News

Rubbish!

13 Cards.

That is one way of describing a hand of dubious worth. You must have held such a hand like  765   865  9762   543 and hope that your partner does not make you bid too many times. Only very recently, I saw a player hold something close to the above pass their game forcing partner out at the 2-level only to find they did not get a good result, partner indeed having game in their own hand.

Yet, is the above what the partner of the hand we gave you on Friday held when they were faced with a problem bid? They were 27 high but thanks to an opponent’s weak opening were not allowed to start the bidding.

 

2 is weak (you might guess that!), a 5-card suit with 4+ of a minor suit. Your first action is reasonable but what now? Oh, 2NT was Lebensohl asking you to bid 3. Partner will normally have a hand in the 0-6 range and without ambition. Have you?

Has partner really a hand like the one at the start of this article or have they a smattering of high card points and a bit of shape, enough for slam?

We are playing Teams but whatever the form of scoring, we want to be in game. We are not going to bid 3 and watch partner pass. Some of our Panel are going to end it all, as that is surely what 3NT will do:

Stephen Blackstock “3NT: I’m not wildly optimistic this will make but I can hardly do less. At least we have likely right-sided it, by sheer accident.

The only real alternative is 3, but that will simply muddy the waters without helping. What should a semi-balanced East with no heart stopper do? This way East knows I have a heart stop but preferred to look for alternatives rather than bid 3NT one round earlier. That is a fair description of my hand.”

“Right-siding” if East holds, say Qxx, even maybe  Jxx. Bidding 3NT now does mean that West’s heart hold is a good one, like the ace, not one which needs protection by being declarer.

Pam Livingston “3NT: If partner has Qs or K, then I have 9 tricks.  There are also other chances such as partner having 3 or more hearts and cutting communication to North.  It could be right to look for a minor fit but I am going to try for 9 tricks rather than 11.”

Our next Panellist must be a good card holder from his last comment below:

Nigel Kearney “3NT. Tough one. Partner can easily have the right cards for slam in clubs or NT, e.g., Qxx xxx xxx Kxxx or xxx xxx xx Kxxxx. But a quantitative 4NT could be too high if partner really has nothing and some 5/6 HCP hands will not make 6NT. Usually it's right to just assume partner has an honour or two, because Yarboroughs are rare, but that doesn't apply so much when we are this strong.”

Peter Newell “3NT: yes, dry and boring.  However, looking at the most likely hands partner will have it feels right to me even at Teams.  I expect North would raise hearts on many hands with 3+ hearts, – so partner has 3+ hearts.  Partner is unlikely to have 4 spades otherwise they would have bid them and as North didn’t pre-empt spades means partner likely has 2-3 spades. 

That leaves partner likely with 8 often 7 cards in the minors.  Partner could even have 3433 shape. So, while I have a big hand and would like to find out partner’s suit, we may not have much of a fit, with suits not breaking well, the Q is more likely to be offside if partner doesn’t have it.”

Back to Peter shortly but others were a little more optimistic:

Matt Brown “4NT: It’s difficult to tell what is right and we could obviously go -1 on a bad day but we can have slam opposite as little as Kxxx, and I don’t think there is any real other way to show our strength and get partner to evaluate their 0-7 properly.”

There is another way, at least in Christchurch:

Kris Wooles “3: I guess 2NT could be a 4333 Yarborough and 3 can be passed. I’m bidding 3 which makes sure the auction stays alive. I’m not sure how things will proceed from there as it is hard to discern cards in the weak hand when West is as strong as it is. An element of guesswork will likely follow!”

Bruce Anderson “3: I have to admit to not being familiar with Lebensohl when it is used in this way. My more learned co-panellists will doubtless enlighten me. I am presuming partner will bid 3NT with a stop and if he has a spade suit, we will play 4. If he has a long minor then we will play either 5 or 5.”

It is back to the self-acknowledged “dry” Peter Newell who does address alternatives.

Peter Newell “The alternative to 3NT is 3 to try and find some more info, but it will not necessarily tell us what we need to know and we will likely go past 3NT unless partner bids 3NT (which I think is logical with a flat shape, but doesn’t say much about values).  In that auction, one could try 4NT quantitative, but that may be too high but will get us to a good slam from time to time.  If partner responds 4 of a minor to 3, it is not easy to evaluate slam prospects and no longer practical to stop in no trumps.  So 3NT from me, very dry but the most likely game, and 3 a clear second choice and daylight the rest.”

Pre-emption does work and that is why we all engage in openings like 2. Had South passed on the hand below, it would still be hard for East-West to reach slam though quite possible if West can show they have more than, say, 23-24 balanced.

Most of the Panel will be “fixed” this time. At least, if 2 was opened at the other table, it might indeed be a flat board in 3NT making…

 

4 overtricks!

6 is the place to be with chances to make when diamonds break 4-1 and a heart is led. I would suggest that few East players would be really that keen to try this contract even after the quantitative jump suggested by Matt Brown or Peter Newell’s suggested sequence to 4NT.

So, East did have more than "13 cards" this time. As Nigel Kearney said: “Tough hand.”

A Jan’s Day Quiz

Imagination!

Here are the 4 hands. All you have to do is to tell me the final contract and result. Do email me if you have any ideas. The email address is rksolomon@xtra.co.nz   Jan Cormack is, of course, ineligible while we will even allow an entry from John Evitt who might just have a long enough memory.

 

If you get the correct answer, you will either have been playing bridge a very long time or else have too vivid an imagination!

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items