Bidding Panel - Answers, June 2005 - Marked by Neil Rosen

Marking: 4©=10, 3©=7, 3¨=6, 3ª=3, X=1

This first problem was dealt to me at this year’s Spring Foursomes. I bid 4© at the table which seemed normal to me, but several people suggested 3¨ was a better bid – though these comments were based on a fairly free-wheeling negative double style. I just thought I would see what our panel make of this hand.

Anne Rosen: 4©. Can't bid any less than 4© now the auction has become competitive. This may make, but it may not be the final contract depending how many spades partner has. I may have to make another decision next round.
Neill Harcus: 4©. Willing to compete at the 5-level or go beyond if partner shows interest. 5© is a contender but I'm not convinced the opponents will go 4ª. 3ª and 4ª overstate or don't get the hand across.
Jill Feldman: 4©. Toss-up between that and 3ª. Unfortunately I can't show the void although partner will realise I can't have many!
David Bakhshi: 4©. Not an easy hand to judge, with plenty of distributional potential. However, partner is quite likely to be relatively short in diamonds, which will make slam unlikely unless he has a handful of Aces. Don’t believe that 3ª shows a hand with support for hearts, but is instead consistent with a hand looking to play 3NT if partner can take care of spades. Think we may face a tougher decision if 4ª is passed back to us.
Steve Capal: 4©. I need very little from partner who can still move if he has extras.
Simon Mostyn: 4©. Somewhat unscientific but practical. The main alternative approaches would seem to be either 3© (probably the value bid) or to double, intending to bid 3¨ over partner’s likely 3§ response to show (something approaching) the shape. This latter approach has two drawbacks though: first, it potentially wrong-sides a heart contract (lead through my § Kx) and secondly, I will not be well placed if East raises spades. The value bid is probably 3© but I’ll choose to bid what I think I can make (a likely hand for partner is something like ª xxxx © Axxx ¨ Ax § xxx) and maybe put East under some pressure. (If East bids 4ª, I will probably bid 5¨ next).
David Grigg: 4© South’s double shows about 7 points and four hearts. 3© seems about right at first glance, but with no defence against 4ª I would go straight to 4©.

Looking at the problem quite deeply ...

Peter Crouch: 3©, because if the next hand bids 4ª I can then pass partner’s double. The problem with 4© (the popular choice?) is that when the next hand bids 4ª  and partner doubles I will have no idea what to do with this non-defensive hand. After 3© I will bid diamonds next unless partner doubles 4ª. Am I worried that 3© will end the auction and we will miss a game? Not in the slightest, either partner or the opponents will bid.

Not so deeply (3©is most certainly not forcing, Gail) ...

Gail Hoffman: 3©. Eventually I decided on 3© since partner should have at least 9 points and 4 hearts so 3© is forcing and I am not sure how far we are going.
Uriah Jacobson: 3¨. I don’t think pard has 5©s so I’m rebidding my 7-card suit.

Rather overdoing their aceless 11-counts:

Jeremy Dhondy: 3ª. I am a bit good to bid 4©.
Catherine Seale: 3ª - allows partner to make a decision over 4ª from opponents. Not sure if this necessarily shows a void but partner should be able to work it out.

Marking: X=10, 4¨=8, 4ª=7, Pass=6

I thought this was the trickiest problem of the set. Whether to bid at all is the first question; we of course have a panel of tigers! Following on from the previous problem I believe that at higher levels it makes sense to play ELC (equal level conversion) thus we could double with this hand and if as expected partner bids 4© then we can correct to 4ª. Guessing which suit to bid otherwise is a bit unilateral not to mention fraught with danger.

David Bakhshi: X. Tricky decision, especially as partner is a passed hand. While it could easily be right to pass, it’s not my style to go silent with distributional hands. Can’t quite bring myself to put all my eggs in one basket and bid 4ª straight away though, so start with a double intending to bid 4ª over 4© to offer a choice of ª and ¨.
Anne Rosen: X - choice between X and 4ª here. I'm going to X and pull 4© to 4ª, hopefully showing ª and ¨.
Neill Harcus: X. If partner bids 4© then I'm hoping that 4ª is a correction - why must I have a perfect hand for a t/o double?
Jeremy Dhondy: X. The answer to this depends on our agreements. If we had an auction at a low level where we doubled 1§ and over partner's 1© response bid 1ª or 2¨ that would show a good hand unless we played equal level conversion. At the four level where we have less room we may need an agreement where we can double and then remove the likely 4© response to 4ª without showing a very good hand. If I can't do this I would bid 4ª.
Gail Hoffman: X. Not the best double in the world but I am going for it anyway.
Uriah Jacobson: X

Let’s meet some of the mice on our panel (they may well be right at the table of course)…

Catherine Seale: Pass (in tempo). Suits not strong enough to bid. Partner might do something wise.
Steve Capal: Pass!!!??? Yuk! Two passed hands, so who has the values we need? If partner can protect then I bid 4ª. However if I was bidding directly over 4§ I would have bid 4ª but different here opposite a passed partner.
Simon Mostyn: Pass. That’s why pre-empts were invented! Bidding seems unattractive vulnerable with broken suits and facing a passed partner. Having said that, 4ª may well be the winning bid at the table but on a bad day could easily land us in -1100 territory. If I were forced to make a “positive” bid, I would opt for 4ª in preference to double: the trouble with the latter is that I will be forced to make a further guess if partner responds 4© – to pass or pull to 4ª? Probably the latter as partner is unlikely to have 6©s due to his/her failure to open a weak 2©/Multi.

The following bid at least has a decent upside though could prove to be very expensive.

Jill Feldman: 4ª. Although my partner is a passed hand I'm not going quietly (yes, I know that makes a change lol). Would like to bid 4¨ - diamonds and a major - but don't think that it exists here. Or does it?? If it does, change my bid!!!
David Grigg: 4ª. The choice appears to be between double and 4ª. With two top honours, I will go for 4ª.

More super-science from my regular partner. I whole-heartedly agree with the following sentiments though for non-expert or even irregular partnerships having such complex arrangements can often come unstuck!

Peter Crouch: 4¨ - diamonds and a major, if you can’t bid this then you should think about changing your methods. Second choice 4ª but not even close if 4¨ available, as for double (ugh) or pass (even more ugh) I prefer to go for a big penalty than be regarded as a wimp. Partners of mine have often taken the opposite view.

Marking: 4ª=10, X=8, Pass=6, 5¨=6

How good is a 2-level overcall facing a passed partner at unfavourable vulnerability? For me – pretty good, thus making it definitely percentage action to bid here. If so I believe the following to be the clear-cut winning action.

Peter Crouch: 4ª. In my style this promises a diamond fit, if you have decided at the vulnerability that you could not open a weak two bid, you cannot then have a hand that justifies a 4ª bid without a diamond fit. Easier for those whose pre-empts are less disciplined. Second choice double but what would partner bid with Axx, xxx, AQxxxx, x or such?
Jill Feldman: 4ª Could be the right spot, otherwise partner can remove to 5¨. I must have diamond support for this bid.
Steve Capal: 4ª and run to 5¨ if I get doubled.
Catherine Seale: 4ª - passed hand and as no weak two - think I show 5-card suit and must have diamond support.
Neill Harcus: 4ª (hoping it implies a fit with partner), 5¨ otherwise. X is values/penalty-oriented not take-out and I don't want to do nothing.
David Grigg: 4ª - and if doubled, I will then retreat to 5¨.

Wanting to de-stress the spades but at least getting into the fray ...

David Bahkshi: X. Another hand where it could easily be right to go silent, but reluctant to pass with a potential double fit. Would prefer stronger spades to bid 4ª, which would presumably show a diamond fit too by a passed hand, so make the more flexible take-out double. Would only pass if we play double for penalties.
Jeremy Dhondy: X. I am not going quietly. At red it could be wrong to bid 4ª although as I haven't opened a weak two partner will know I only have 5 and some diamond tolerance but X also allows him to try for a penalty and I prefer the most flexible call.

The problem as I see it with double is that partner will never be able to introduce a three-card spade suit.

In the minority ...

Simon Mostyn: Pass. Good problem to which there seem to be 4 plausible alternative answers: pass, double (take-out), 4ª (must show ¨ tolerance as I am a passed hand) and 5¨. Taking action will be right whenever (i) we are making game or (ii) 4© is making their way and we have a profitable sacrifice. I consider both possibilities to be unlikely: at this vulnerability, the margins are too tight to save; we need to escape for one down. Second choice double - this may lead to a missed 4ª game on a 5-3 fit but I am not exactly in love with the quality of my longest suit - to leave open the possibility of defending, 4ª and 5¨. However, seeing as I can’t work out which action to take, I pass and hope for a small plus. I may yet get a second bite at the cherry: stranger things have happened than partner deciding to reopen with a double.
Gail Hoffman: Pass. Wrong vul. to compete.
Uriah Jacobson: Pass. I’m the one with short ©s so I should be making the next move; I might just consider this N.V. vs VUL but not here.
Anne Rosen: Pass.

The problem with passing is essentially for us to be playing for both sides' contracts to be failing. The bidders make a stronger case for me: a) by introducing a possible alternate trump suit i.e spades b) at this vulnerability they may induce EW to sacrifice in 5© c) 5¨ may well be lay-down.

Marking: 2©=10, 3§=9, 2NT=6, 3NT=4

I expected a large majority for 3§ here, but was sadly disappointed. I should point out that as with all bidding panels I give top marks to the plurality vote. I would personally like to give 2© about 5 out of 10! The problem with using fourth-suit-forcing is that if the hand (as will frequently be the case) belongs in the part-score region we will no longer be able to play in clubs.

Neill Harcus: 2©. 4SF, intending to reach 3NT unless there's a good reason not to.
Jill Feldman: 2© I think I want to know more about partner's hand. He could easily be 6/5 in the blacks so we could have a double fit. I think I am a bit too strong for a 3§ bid.
Catherine Seale: 2©. If partner has ©Qxx want them to play NT. Without a stopper from partner there is room to look for best contract and I think we could still stop short of game.
David Grigg: 2©. No Trumps looks likely, so 2© to ask for a heart stop to augment my ©A.
Jeremy Dhondy: 2©. Worth a forward-going move but not sure about where to play yet.
Uriah Jacobson: 2©. Seems like the usual Mr Flexible.

Mr Inflexible more like, Uriah! How do you propose to stop in 3§ facing partner's typical 5431 11 count?

Spot-on in my opinion and with some good collective analysis ...

Anne Rosen: 3§. Can't see anything wrong with making a limit type raise here, if partner bids again I will bid 3NT. Not that keen on jumping to 2NT here as would suggest better hearts.
David Bakhshi: 3§. Tough choice at Pairs, and very tempted to make the underbid of 1NT in the hope of scoring +120 against the field’s +110 if it’s just a part-score hand. Partner rates to be 4315, so depends whether he has any help in hearts, and also how quick his cards are in the black suits. 3§ is the bid which is most likely to get us to game though, and partner can still bid 3© if it’s better played from our side.
Simon Mostyn: 3§. The value bid which leaves open the possibility of reaching a good 3NT contract whilst allowing partner to bid out shape if partner is, say, 5-6 in the black suits. The main alternatives seem to be 2© and 2NT. Playing Rosenised Acol, partner will have 4+ spades and 5+ clubs (with 5:5 in the blacks, the majority of players open 1ª) unless 4144 (if partner has a singleton ©, NT is unlikely to be our best spot) or 4414. 2© seems to create more problems than it solves, e.g. if partner rebids 2NT (which is presumably the response I am hoping for), do I pass or raise? 2NT is suspect with Ax although understandable at this form of scoring.
Peter Crouch: 3§, easier at IMPs. Could sell me 2NT or even a heavy 2ª at this form of scoring. Not enough for 2© as partner will not be expecting you to pass his rebid.
Steve Capal: 3§. I guess I will be alone here because I always make what looks to me, the obvious bid. I did toy with 2© but if partner wants to make a try with 3©, he still can - expecting my usual high score on this one!! LOL.

Don’t give up your day job Steve.

Gail Hoffman: 2NT. Nothing feels right, 2© could be taken as either 4th suit or UCB so will plump for 2NT.

Eh?! UCBs apply in competition Gail, not in uncontested auctions!

Marking: 4¨=10, 3ª=8, 4©=6, X=5

Another innovation this month, as well as the introduction of Exclusion Key Card Blackwood, is the introduction of non-leaping Michaels. This concept is something I have taught to many of my students and is reflected in the high vote for 4¨. The idea is that over a pre-empt we can bid at the 4-level in a minor to show a two-suiter. Thus here 4¨ shows at least 5/5 in spades and diamonds. Debates have often raged about reaching the correct strain even occasionally at the expense of the correct level. Having the ability to show two suits makes it far less risky to bid at such high levels without holding great hands.

Peter Crouch: 4¨, probably just worth it although it is close between this and overcalling 3ª and then removing 3NT to 4¨. Too cute to pass 3NT in the latter auction in my view. If you don’t play 4¨ as spades and diamonds give it some thought.
Jill Feldman: 4¨ Non-leaping Michaels, showing diamonds and spades. I wish they were all that easy!!
Simon Mostyn: 4¨. Non-leaping Michaels, showing 5+ spades and 5+ diamonds. As this bid is virtually game-forcing, (no it isn’t Simon, you are muddling it with the strength required for leaping Michaels i.e. after they have opened at the two-level. NR) I consider this to be an overbid but only a slight one due to the heart void. Let’s maximise the chance of finding the right strain even if we end up at the wrong level. I predict 4¨ will be a popular choice amongst this electorate. If not playing this convention, I would bid 3ª. Double looks wrong although it could work if partner has a trump stack.
Anne Rosen: 4¨. Non-leaping Michaels showing diamonds and spades. Part of the panel system I'm sure.
Uriah Jacobson: 4¨. I don’t want to double and have that left in. I assume that 4¨ is Non-leaping Michaels.

Without Non-leaping Michaels available I believe the following to be the best action ...

Jeremy Dhondy: 3ª. The bid most likely to get us to a making game (4ª or 3NT). It maybe that partner would be about to pass a double but equally West might raise and make it difficult which is why I prefer to indicate a decent spade suit.
Steve Capal: 3ª. This took me longer than all the other 7 answers, would be lovely to use Leaping Michaels on this hand.
Neill Harcus: 3ª. Anything else seems too aggressive.

Looking quite deeply at the problem, so much so that I am amending your answer David to 4¨ to score a deserved 10 marks.

David Bakhshi: 4©. While it’s becoming increasingly common to play bids of 4§ and 4¨ as showing two-suited hands (the bid minor plus the unbid major) after the opponents’ open 3©/3ª, I’m assuming that this is not yet part of ‘Ace of Clubs’ Standard, so bid 4© (Michaels). While it may be right to just bid 3ª as it may easily be a part-score hand, prefer to offer a choice of suits even though it means forcing to game, as it’s usually better to play the right strain at the wrong level than the wrong strain at the right level.

Looking less deeply ... A disappointing answer from one of my regular partners a) we play Non-leaping Michaels, b) assuming that we do then 4© shows a much bigger two-suiter than the hand we actually hold, c) both Catherine’s written and verbal comments to me suggested she thought this the easiest problem of the set!

Catherine Seale: 4©. What else?

This answer is quite understandable as David does not play Non-leaping Michaels ...

David Grigg: 4©. After a pre-emptive 3©, North is too strong for an overcall and so 4©.

The big down-side to double is that we will often lose the 5-3 spade fit.

Gail Hoffman: X. Partner could have zilch and a Michaels cue bid would commit us to the 4 or 5 level.

I would like to congratulate our leading panellist this quarter, Jill Feldman.

Our leading club competitor, winning the right to appear on our next bidding panel, is Danny Roth, with a score of 63 marks.