All News

Self - Inflicted?

Did one poor bid today give a player an impossible decision next time round?
You be the judge.

 

We are playing Pairs and did not want to have to bid too high with our ace-less moderate hand. So, as South, we got our major in quickly though partner’s second bid gave us a rather no-win choice. 3NT and pray we will not be exposed in hearts or support partner and go past 3NT?

Our Panel put the problem back on our first bid:

Nigel Kearney “5: I don't like 1 at all playing Acol. Even if playing 2/1 after a 1/ opening, I'd prefer that 2 over 1 is not game forcing. I have a good enough hand to make two bids and show my shape naturally.. All sorts of silly things could happen after a 1 response especially if they compete in hearts.

As the auction has gone, I would just bid 5. I don't have slam interest and it looks like we can probably make 5. I think 4 is a slam try but even if it is an invite, we have enough to bid game ourselves. Maybe we can make 3NT as well but there's not much I can do about that now.”  

Kris Wooles “I would bid 2 initially then 3 over 3. I don’t like to distort the hand shape which the described auction has certainly brought about. I would bid the same way in both Pairs and Teams.”

We asked the Panel whether they would bid any differently if playing Teams but there was little difference shown.

 

Bruce Anderson “Abstain: disagree that South’s first bid should be 1; the hand is strong enough to make a second bid, no matter what partner rebids. 2 here, if we are playing a natural system, should not deny a four-card major.

Two of a minor in response to an opening bid at the one level should be at least a good 10/11 points.

Therefore, responder has the strength to introduce a 4- card major over opener’s minimum rebid. With  the given hand the auction would not progress beyond 2NT or suit agreement.

.

The problem with South bidding 1 on this hand, and so distorting their distribution, becomes obvious when opener now bids 3. South now has no good bid: 3NT could be off the heart suit and 4 goes past 3NT, which could well be the right game contract. I am abstaining from the question of what now?

 

After bidding 2 and hearing 3, I would bid 3 and the auction would progress from there.”

 

It is not a perfect world, certainly not a bidding world. There are hands with 6 clubs and 4 spades and 6-9 hcp where your first response has to be 1.. with a 9-count, South might face the problem we have here.
The issue seems to be how forcing the sequence 1-2-2-2 is. Responder must have 10+ hcp to bid 2 but according to our Panellists can pass a 2NT,3 or 3 bid by opener.
If that is the case, then 2 seems fine as our first bid.

 

If you are playing 2 over 1 Game Forcing, then without agreement, 2 either is or is not game-forcing. There are days, maybe weeks, when as South you do not want to be in game. Let’s hear more:

Pam Livingston “ I'm bidding 2 in response to 1.  I'm an old- fashioned ACOL girl.”
"old"-fashioned in “New” Plymouth and in Auckland too:

Julie Atkinson “I firmly believe in shape, so will bid 2 and then 3 in this auction.”

I can accept the first part of the next argument though for most a bid of 3 or 3 would be showing rather than asking for a hold:

Michael Ware “3:  Playing Acol, South's first bid is a clear 2. Playing 2/1 then 1 is clear.
Now, after bidding 1, we bid 3 - asking for stopper if that is our agreement (a good one)
or 3NT if not.
Peter offers other solutions here:

Peter Newell “It depends a bit on methods. If I can bid 2 followed by 2 over 2 and it's not a game force that would be my preference...

On the auction given, I'm not prepared to gamble on 3NT from the wrong side even at Pairs as even with a heart stopper with the lead coming through partner may not be enough to make 3NT, and even if it's enough if we make only 9 tricks we are likely to be at least as well off in diamonds. We could make 6 on occasions too if partner is short in clubs. If 4 was forcing I would bid that otherwise 5.”

Andy Braithwaite “4: splinter for diamonds. I cannot see 3NT as a logical bid so will hope to be in 6 but otherwise 5. May be OK especially at Teams.”

And finally we have fans of 2 over 1 and Acol:

Michael Cornell “ 4: I think with KJ, I am happy to Game Force with 2 but it is close.

It would certainly avoid the problem I now have!

The only bid I can see over 3 is 4 splinter, another slight overbid, but if this suits partner, slam should have good play. He must have some good cards outside with a maximum 6 hcp in diamonds. No difference whether playing Teams or Pairs. Slams and right games score OK at Pairs too!”

Stephen Blackstock “ No, I don't agree that South's first bid "has to be" 1, as you put it. That is a weird distortion that will appeal only to those who think that 2/1 GF and its ugly sister the semi-forcing 1NT comprise desirable methods.

Over 1 I bid 2; over North's 2 or 3 I bid spades at the lowest available level. Not at all difficult if you bid your longest suit first, is it?

 

It does all depend on your agreement when you bid spades after an initial 2. There’s no problem when you bid 3 over 3 but you should be sure of your agreements when your bid is 2 over 2. Can you then stop short of game?

 

At the table, South chose to bid 5, a safe enough contract as this was the lay-out:

 

 

Fortunately, for North, there was no defence to this contract with the K placed perfectly for declarer even if the A was not cashed first. Alas, there was no defence to 5NT after a major suit lead, even more tricks for a declarer who got to play clubs when both aces were not cashed.

Despite some comments above, Pairs does reward those in 3NT as compared with 5 of a minor. Sound agreements here might have seen North-South in that contract this time.

 

conundrum solved?

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items