All News

Greener Pastures?

We enjoy the concept of pre-empting to make life harder for our opponents. Yet, when they do the same to us, well, it should not be allowed! Yet, they do and it is! So, what say you with the hand below? Do we declare or seek greener pastures?

 

The Panel seem of one mind though some are more content than others:

Julie Atkinson “Pass: My Q must help partner, and I have nothing exciting to say.”

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: Happy to play 3NT with Q as my singleton- can’t see bidding diamonds now will necessarily improve my score!”

Pam Livingston “Pass: My hand is nothing partner would not expect.  I likely have good finesse positions in the red suits.”

Others are a little more reflective.

Nigel Kearney “Pass: We could have a slam or a better game than 3NT, but partner was under pressure when he bid 3NT and could have all sorts of hands. It is close but I would want a bit more before leaving behind the relative safety of 3NT in order to explore slam.”

We are playing Pairs which means it is a case of 3NT or suit slam but could we have the best of both worlds? Some interesting insights from:

Stephen Blackstock “Pass/5: A lot turns on whether North had a natural, invitational 4NT available (it would be for me in this sequence). If so, pass looks right. North may be stretching. Slam will be thin at best, and we have been warned of bad breaks.

Assuming that for this N/S 4NT would have been Blackwood, I bid 5. Not confidently, because I barely have enough and this auction would more usually deliver 6-5 in the red suits. However, 3NT is wide-ranging in this context, and it is encouraging that North appears not to have much wasted in spades. I trust that both North and South are clear that any succeeding 4NT calls are to play: otherwise, I must choose between playing 3NT or driving to slam, as game in any denomination other than no trumps is likely to score poorly.”

The key, then, for Stephen is if partner could have bid a natural 4NT, they would have if they were strongish. In that sense, therefore, 3NT is limited.

Back, though, to the passers, though Bruce is allowed to dream…

Bruce Anderson “Pass: that is the bid I would make at the table, rather than bidding 4. Yes, partner could have gold i.e. Kxx Kx Kxxx Axxx and we can make 6. But partner can have many hands where there are three losers, if we play in diamonds, perhaps on a club lead. Holding the Q could well mean we have a double stop in spades, and therefore the time to develop 9 tricks in no trumps. Or 3NT is an easy make anyway as partner has both red suit kings.”

I would feel more inclined to move on if my black suit queen was the Q and I had a singleton small spade. We seem more exposed in the club suit with just two small ones. Agreeing and second guessing our intention is:

Peter Newell “Pass: Of course, we could be easily cold for 6 and probably are given its being posed as a problem.  I pass because if cannot make slam, 3NT will likely score better than other games, and is very likely to make whereas suit contracts may not, and after a 3 pre-empt, bad breaks are quite likely. You have already shown 5 hearts, so by bidding on, you are hoping that partner fits diamonds, quite likely needing 4 unless partner has the K as otherwise they may be hard to set up. The Q may be pretty worthless so this doesn’t look much more than a 5/5 13 hcp, not enough to go hunting for me.”

Kris Wooles “Pass: Bidding on with 4 might work but it is a guess and I am not expecting the red suits to break all that well. At Pairs especially, it is seldom wrong to play in NT even with a minor suit game/slam possible. Bob Hamman mantra….3NT is the game you want to be in more often than not.” 

Peter Newell and Bruce Anderson were wrong about 6 being where you wanted to be. Take a look:

 

I jest, of course. I think your chances of making grand-slam are minute! However, had you chanced 4 and had Stephen Blackstock’s agreement that 4NT would be to play in response, you would, this time, be rewarded with a very nice 6 bid from partner…and the overtrick would be nice but fairly irrelevant. Note also that the Q was worthless in the slam zone, unnecessary if you were in 3NT, but priceless in 4NT where declarer can afford to lose one heart and just two spade tricks.

In reality, at the table, after 2 lead to 3NT, North took the obvious 9 tricks on offer and since that meant playing A (no finesse), they were rewarded with two overtricks!

So, keep on pre-empting, for they will surely carry on making your life tough by doing so!

 

Any ideas?

Well, you set the ball rolling with a bit of pre-emption of your own. It’s your lead…and the opposition have gone all the way, well nearly!

 

Your Lead?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items