Bidding Panel - Answers April 2008- Marked by Neil Rosen

We start by welcoming our guest panellist this time around – Denise Miller

Marking: 2♦ = 10, 2♥ = 6, 3NT = 5, 3♠  = 2, 3♦ = 1

An old chestnut where at the club everyone bids 3♠ with a what’s the problem shrug?! The problem is that however much you want it to be forcing (indeed in the days before bidding boxes there was no problem – simply bellow out the 3♠ bid! Only joking of course… (not! Lol) 3♠ is NON-FORCING. Only Mrs Rosen falls into my cunningly laid trap (hello Dear! J)

Anne Rosen: 3♠ - I would have liked to be playing 5 Card Majors and bid 3♠ clearly defined as forcing. However given that 2♠ would be constructive here, I think 3♠ should be forcing even in Acol style.

The majority all plump for bidding a 2-card suit – really as the  lesser of all evils. Some play a degree of artificiality here where over a rebid suit by opener the next step is an artificial game-force with other bids becoming non-forcing. This method has been popularised as the “Bourke Relay” and is indeed used by one of Britain’s top pairs; Tom Townsend and David Gold….

Jill Feldman: 2♦ - want to force here and 2♦ is less likely to get me into trouble than 2H!

David Bakhshi: 2♦ - though it is never desirable to introduce a two card suit, we have a series of unappealing options.  Bidding 3NT directly is fine in terms of values, but gives up on finding a spade fit, while a 4♠ bid could lead to a minus score with 3NT the best spot (we are too strong to bid 3♠, which shows invitational values).  This leaves us having to bid a red suit at the two level.  While we have more cards in hearts, there is still a possibility that partner has four cards in either red suit.  It therefore seems more dangerous bidding hearts, as partner is more likely to lock us into hearts than if he has support for diamonds.  If he gives preference to spades, I will bid 4♠.  Over any other call, I will bid 3♠, which should now be forcing to game.

Catherine Seale: 2♦ - I think this is forcing and whilst not ideal leaves space to find best contract.

Jeremy Dhondy: 2♦ - in my book 3♠ is not forcing in traditional methods and 3NT or 4♠ far too unilateral. If I played 1♣ - 2♠ as weak then I think 3♠ in this sequence would now be forcing and thus my choice, preferring to bid a 6 card suit to a two card suit.

Peter Crouch: 2♦ - no other choice given the methods. This and many other low level constructive auctions benefit from artificial continuations but require a certain warped mind. (You certainly have one Peter!)

Neill Harcus:  2♦ - believing this to be forcing for one round. 2♥ might be effective in deterring an opening lead but if partner has four cards then it will be hard to find out about the spade fit I am looking for.

Gail Hoffman:  2♦ - after a lot of deliberation I decided that 2♦ would be forcing showing a 5th spade and half way to finding a heart stop for 3NT

Steve Capal: 2♦ - I will lie here and bid 2♦ and see what happens next as 3♠ is non-forcing, then show my 6th spade later on.

Denise seems not to realise that in modern Acol (or indeed any other system) 2♦ is forcing here, so no need to play 3♦ as “even more forcing!”. I would personally advocate 3♦ to be a splinter agreeing clubs as I am sure would most of our panel if asked.

Denise Miller:  3♦ - not sure which game or even slam I want to be in yet I am rich in controls will force with 3♦ and wait developments.

Making a pragmatic “at the table” bid… well there’s a first time for everything!

Uriah Jacobson: 3NT - I want to keep all options open as I think game is on - but how? 2♦/ 3♣/3♠,  or 2♥-ugh! can be passed , 3♦, 3♥ misconstrued ?  A case for the Bourke Relay.  I choose 3NT in preference to 4♠.

Marking: 5♦ = 10, 5♣ = 8, 5♠ = 6, 4NT = 4, 4♠ = 2, P = 1

A problem that Jill set from a League match. She has just won the league DESPITE her poor effort on this board – so well done! The main thing to resolve/clarify for everyone is that you should NOT use Blackwood with a void, as the response will almost NEVER leave you well placed!

Peter Crouch: 5♦ - for me 4♦ would be a void here, I guess most don’t distinguish. 5♦ must now be a void and partner should find it easy to bid a slam with 2 aces. If you care 4♥ is last train here not a cue bid for me, if you passed 4♥ the director is hovering.

The “Last train” reference is not main-stream but is a system coming more and more into vogue where in a cue-bidding auction if there is just one bid left below the trump suit a player may bid it as a positive noise, WITHOUT guaranteeing necessarily a control in this suit, to effectively make a positive noise towards a slam WITHOUT raising the bidding to the next (usually 5) –level.

Anne Rosen: 5♦ - I would like to be able to bid something exclusion(ish) but 5♦ confirming a diamond void seems like the next best thing to do. Can't think of a scientific way to find out if 7 is good or not.

Neill Harcus: 5♦ - showing the void and 2^nd round club control.  Partner needs to take control to bid 6 (or find 7).

Catherine Seale: 5♦ - 4♥ should be a cue bid and (a la Mr Rosen) shortage should never be shown opposite partners known length in a suit so this promises the Ace. A 5 level contract should be safe and with either the spade or club ace partner will bid the slam.

Gail Hoffman: 5♦ - denying first round control in clubs and showing the diamond void.

Uriah Jacobson: 5♦ - Partner would not bid spades instead of Hearts with heart support, so 4♥ is a cue bid ( ? last train ) as 4♦ was clearly a splinter agreeing spades.  Unless playing 4NT as 'Rolling' I bid 5♦.

Showing a ♣ control, presumably on the basis that 5♦ would deny one….

David Bakhshi: 5♣ - while it is good news that partner has ♥A and slam interest, it is dangerous to bid 4NT, as we will be guessing whether we can bid 7S opposite three key cards.  However, that leaves us with no perfect way to continue, as 5♠ will sound like we need a club control, while 5♦ may leave partner feeling that he has no room to manoeuvre.  My plan is to bid 5♣, and then settle for a small slam over 5♦ (♦A being a wasted value) or 5♠, but to bid 7♠ if partner can bid 6♣.

Jeremy Dhondy:   5♣ - the downside of this hand is no Ace. I could bid 5♦ but then partner with both major suit Aces might think I lacked a club control.

Trying hard not to win the league! ... (sorry Jill!)

Jill Feldman: 4NT - WRONG! I had this hand and was sure partner had the Ace of hearts. Keycard told me two aces so I bid the slam.  Off  two aces. Small consolation that they got it wrong in the other room so it was a flat board L.

Taking a very dim view of what to me is a quite amazing hand. Surely we should be investigating whether a small or EVEN a grand slam may be on following partner’s 4♥ bid….Denise this is NOT A SITUATION where you should be able to pass! Your 4♦ bid UNAMBIGUOUSLY agreed ♠. Partner must be able to make a slam try without fear that the auction will end!

Denise Miller: Pass - although I have a nice hand I have no Aces so will not investigate a slam.

Really cautious once partner has co-operated with 4♥. Make no mistake -partner’s 4♥ bid is NOT an attempt to play there, it is an encouraging noise in case a slam may be on. Traditional methodology would have it as a cue-bid, showing control in hearts, whilst some of the more modern and scientific members of the panel are now playing it as “last train”.

Steve Capal: 4♠ - sounds like partner has too many values in diamonds and couldn't bid 5♣ and partner is still there!

Marking: 2♥ = 10, 2♣ = 6, 2♠ =  5, 2♦ = 1

A very tough little problem. I will leave David to put the case for the top scoring bid here…

David Bakhshi: 2♥ - following partner’s double, we have two things to consider – which is our best strain, and which zone we are in?  Bidding NT would be more attractive with a better spade holding, and partner is likely to have at least five hearts given our values and the fact that both opponents are bidding.  If she does hold five hearts, we are not likely to have many losers, but may struggle to win 10 tricks.  In the unlikely event that partner can try for game, I will of course accept.

Catherine Seale: 2♥ - can't rebid diamonds and without a spade stopper I think this is the only option.

Peter Crouch: 2♥ -heart short but a good hand, 2♣ would be natural for me unless agreed otherwise.

Neill Harcus: 2♥ - nowhere else to go and the quality of the heart suit makes up for there being only 3.  Partner is showing hearts here.

Denise Miller: 2♥ - partner has 4 hearts, maybe 5 but not much more than 5/7 hcps as both opponents are bidding.

Steve Capal: 2♥ - for me, 4-3 fit is cool.

Uriah Jacobson: 2♥ - I am good for that bid, but not good enough for 2♠.

Showing a good hand but with the final denomination as yet unknown…

Jeremy Dhondy: 2♣ -   partner will have at least 4 hearts for this. If he has 5 I am a bit good to bid a simple 2♥. And if he doesn’t Jeremy?

Anne Rosen: 2♣ - UCB for something and waiting to see what partner bids.

Showing strength in a different fashion. When choosing to bid one of two opponent’s suits as a strength showing bid the question is often asked…which suit should I bid? My answer is generally the one in which you have more values – making 2♣ a better effort than 2♠ on this occasion. 2♣ is also more economical.

Jill Feldman: 2♠ - I don't know?! We could have game in hearts or No Trumps. Hope to hear something encouraging from partner.

Let’s try to hide this next answer from all our readers out there (both of them J). Gail - overcalling on Q10xxx is not exactly gilt-edged but to REBID them! You’ve got to be kidding me….

Gail Hoffman: 2♦ - don't like 2♥, not strong enough for 2♠, so back to 2♦

Anne Rosen: 4♥ - I am not making a Mrs Rosen X again! J