Bidding Panel - Answers November 2008 - Marked by Peter Crouch

Introduced by Neil Rosen

A different approach this month with me joining the panel (rather unsuccessfully!) for the first time. I have handed over this month to a good friend and former partner of mine; Peter Crouch, known to you as a panellist over the last few years to set, mark and comment on this months problems. I hope you enjoy…and learn!

Marking: 5♣ = 10, Dbl=8,  4NT=6, 5♥ = 5, 6♣=3, Pass= 2

As with a number of the problems this came from the World Mind Games in Beijing which was very successful for English teams, let’s start with our World Champions view;

Anne Rosen: 5♣ taking a pessimistic view – 6♣ or 6♥ could well be cold here - but partner does not need to have AK of clubs and the Ace of hearts.

No I agree that in a competitive auction we should try and achieve a sensible result, not always the optimum result, we cannot bid slam and it is unlikely that partner will but that is life , agreeing are

Catherine Seale: 5♣ - The first of some really difficult problems. Anything could be right here but I think this is fairly pragmatic.

Steve Capal: 5♣ partner has made a vulnerable overcall and hopefully no more than one spade. I expect this to  make most days ( probably not today though)

Jill Feldman: 5♣   It's teams so I may as well go for the obvious game as opposed to gambling that hearts will be a better contract.

David Bakhshi:   5♣  should we commit the partnership to bidding at the five level, or should we try to involve partner in the decision?  While it is generally good to consult partner, the only possibility would be to double.  While this should show values without a clear bid, I think that holding something like x, Axx, Qxx, AQ10xxx partner is likely to pass.  This could be a huge disaster with 4♠ likely to make and 6♣ depending on a finesse through the opening bidder.  At IMPs where the size of gain is key, it seems to me that we have to bid.  While I would like to explore for slam I think it will be too tough to judge.  So I settle for 5♣ at this stage, knowing that it is possible that the opponents will bid on to 5♠ even when 5♣ is due to fail. 

When I first saw the problem I thought that double was the most sensible choice but then I generally play these doubles as expecting partner to bid but having read David’s well reasoned argument I am not so sure. I had support from Gail who unfortunately was unable to use her right hand so was unable to give us any insight into her reasoning and 

Jeremy Dhondy: Double   I think this indicates I don’t know what to do. Both 5♣ and 5♥ are too unilateral and partner should be involved in the decision.

Usually these sort of doubles are described as flexible and bid in the hope that partner will do the right thing and we all  know how likely that is… another possibility is 4NT but only if you know what it should mean, after reading Neill’s  answer I am not sure how he interprets 4NT, for me it should be take-out, in an ideal world 0562 shape or such but “on the way to 5♣” worries me and as for denying a nine card club fit how do you know how many clubs partner has  

Neill Harcus: 4NT partner's vulnerable overcall should be respected so Pass is out of the question.  Bidding 4NT on the way to 5♣ will, I hope, help partner if the tedious opponents bid 5♠.  Bidding 5♥ would deny the 9-card fit in clubs.

Putting faith in their long suit and hoping not to find an unsuitable hand opposite are our guest panellist and he who must be obeyed

Geoff Dennett: 5♥ Well, both sides may be able to make game.  If I bid 5♣, I think they will bid and may make 5♠.  So I bid 5♥ as this may help partner with subsequent bidding and  a heart looks like the best lead defending a spade contract

Neil Rosen: 5♥       4NT, 5♣ and 5♥ are all options here as well as the more mundane choices of pass and double. I will put my faith in my quality heart suit…..famous last words – minus 800!!!

Well that may be normal for you Neil when you make these decisions but on the actual hand you might even find yourself in slam

Partner had

♠ 3

♥ A952

♦ J5

♣ AQ9874

with ♣ K106 onside, 4♠ was cold as was 5♣ or 5♥,  slam was on if you could pick up the clubs.

Marking: Pass = 10, 3NT = 8, 4♥ = 5, 3♥ = 2,

I suspect that even ten years ago pass would not have been the majority action but experienced players have learnt to fight back against more active opponents by passing in situations like this, even so I was surprised to see so many adherents, lets hear from them;

Neill Harcus: Pass.  What else?

Ugh, we still managed a “what else”

Anne Rosen:  Pass   partner is a passed hand so we are not necessarily making a game here. Hopefully I have enough we will be getting a plus score from 3♦, especially as my heart and club cards may be well positioned over any honours dummy has 

Jeremy Dhondy:  Pass   we may have game on but it is far from certain and I think 3♦ is going down. If we take 300 against a non vulnerable game then it is only 3 imps away but more often we will get a penalty when game is not on and if the pre-emptor is unsound we might get a bigger penalty.

Catherine Seale: Pass - unlikely to make 3NT or 4♥ opposite a passed hand. Playing imps, even if we get 300 won't be a disaster and would hope to get more.

Neil Rosen: Pass   this or 3NT for me. No desire to play in hearts with potential bad breaks around. Let’s try for a sure plus. The penalty does not have to be large if 3♦ is 2-suited with spades as a side-suit – but it seems clear to take the money regardless.

I think Neil sums up the position well, Gail was the only 4♥ bidder but I suspect she might have more support from the competitors, also

Jill Feldman: Pass - I might have overcalled 3NT immediately. As I didn't and partner has now protected I think I will now take the money with the vulnerability the way it is.

Steve Capal: Pass   I may have bid 3NT immediately but now partner has protected.. I fancy a few imps on a penalty here!!

Well I think bidding 3NT immediately is a real shot, partner is still there and opposite the wrong hand it could be a disaster, I have a lot of sympathy with the followin 

Geoff Dennett: 3NT   my partner shows very little.  However it is IMPS (throughout I note) and I am very suitable for no trumps.  I go for the possible game.

David Bakhshi: 3NT this feels like a close call between 4♥, 3NT and pass.  Pass is my third choice, as we cannot actually be sure that 3♦ will be defeated.  Partner could have something like Jxxx, KQxx, x, KJxx with South holding a 3271 or 3172 with A109xxxx.  3♦ doubled would now make with 3N/4H making our way.  While there is a risk that 3NT will be short of tricks, I think there is a greater risk in bidding 4♥, as there may be a bad trump break to deal with even if partner has four hearts 

Well reasoned again David, the location of the queen of diamonds could make all the difference, Qx in the dummy make defending 3♦ a lot less attractive

Partner had

♠ KJ862

♥ KQ43

♦ 74

♣ 106

Marking: Pass = 10, 4♣ = 7, 4♦ = 6, 4♥ = 3

I thought this was a lot closer than most of the panellists thought , lets here from the dissenters first;

David Bakhshi: 4♣ the first decision is whether to bid or pass 3NT.  It seems to me that while 3NT could be the last making contract we have too much to pass, as partner will bid 3NT with a wide range of hands, some of which even give us play for a Grand Slam, e.g. Axxx, x, KJxxx, Axx.  Once we decide to bid, should we repeat our hearts, bid 4♦, or try my choice of 4♣.  Bidding 4♥ risks a 6-1 fit, while 4♦ may give partner a problem with Hxx and diamond support.  Also neither 4♦ nor 4♥ makes it clear that we have slam potential.  However, bidding 4♣ should tell partner that we have slam interest with short clubs thereby allowing him to take the initiative with a suitable hand.       

Geoff Dennett: 4♣   Gosh, I am a bit good for 3♥, am I not?  Now I am going to be imaginative and bid 4♣.  I cannot have spades as I did not double originally, and this can only show that I was strong for my first bid and invites partner to show diamonds or heart support.  3NT may have a weakness on a (quite likely) spade lead.

Whether or not you could have the same hand with the diamonds and spades switched is perhaps a matter of style Geoff, the following consider this a non problem;

Jeremy Dhondy: Pass  I don’t think there is anything exceptional about my hand that means I should over rule partners decision

Catherine Seale: Pass   partner is likely to have placed you with 6 hearts and hopefully will have something in spades and clubs given the bidding.

Steve Capal: Pass  these aces and queens are not looking good plus a def double heart stop and this king of spades doesn't look attractive either

Neill Harcus: Pass   It looks like Pass or look for a diamond fit. I'm not expecting a slam on these cards

Anne Rosen: Pass   I am very likely to have six hearts and I have already bid them. I see no reason to overturn partner's decision

Jill Feldman: Pass   I'm a bit worried about the spades, but I should trust my partner. If partner only has one heart for his bid then most of the hearts will be sitting over me, so 4♥ will not be very pretty. I'll take the chance that 9 tricks in No Trumps will be easier than 10 tricks in hearts.

Closer to my view is Neil who although seeing the possible upside of bidding on settles for his plus

Neil Rosen: Pass -   yes a slam might well be on but how to proceed safely? I guess with the modern age of Leaping and non-leaping Michaels defences to pre-empts then we could have shown 5-5 in the reds directly so there is a good case for 4♦ here suggesting 6-4 type. I’m still sticking with trying for a boring plus score by passing though!

Partner had

♠ AJ1053

♥ 5

♦ KJ74

♣ KQ8

At the table one of our open silver medallists surprised me by passing when he had the hand, let’s see what the panel think;

David Bakhshi: 4♣  This would be particularly tough in my most regular partnerships, as we play that bidding 4♣ or 4♦ shows a good hand with at least five cards in that suit and five plus spades.  However, without that agreement, then it is a choice between pass, double and 4♣.  Double caters to playing in spades or diamonds, or possibly 3NT.  However, given that partner did not make a 1♠ overcall, there is a danger of playing a 4-3 fit which could be very bad if partner’s spades are weak, while 3NT will need us to have fast winners if partner has only one heart stopper.  Though there is some danger in bidding 4♣, it is not safe to pass either, as we could easily make 5♣ opposite Axx, xxx, QJ10x, Qxx.

This non leaping Michaels that David refers to showing the suit and five of the other Major is becoming more common in expert circles but can handicap you when you want the bid to be natural

Jeremy Dhondy: 4♣ I might Double I suppose but partner is unlikely to have 5♠ otherwise he would have overcalled and my hand is not good enough to insist on game. They have made our life difficult so I want to try to come out of this with a plus score.

Jill Feldman: 4♣   partner is either very weak or hasn't got five spades as he didn't overcall 1♠ over 1♥ so I can't see any point in doubling for a spade fit. Both my kings are sitting under the opening bidder, so my hand may not be as good as it looks. I'll therefore go for what I think is the most practical.

Geoff Dennett: 4♣  I have a sound 3♣ after 1♥-2♥ by the opposition and so I bid 4♣ here to show this and seek to defend any heart contract on the same club lead as in the other room

Neill Harcus: 4♣   It is a nice club suit after all.  If the clubs were weaker I'd be inclined to double.  At the vulnerability Pass is an option.

Note the good point made by David, Jeremy and Jill that partner is unlikely to have five spades unless he have a weak hand but still QJ10xx xx Qxx xxx is not an overcall. However the main reason to double may be to get to 3NT when partner has the right hand

Anne Rosen: Double  take out, keeping 3♠ and 4♠ in the game

Catherine Seale: Double   Intending to pass whatever partner says. Probably the best way of finding a spade fit and worst case is likely to be 4/3 but with shortage in hand with 3 should be OK.

Gail Hoffman: 4♣

Neil Rosen: Double   I always play that the hand with the shortage should strain to act. This is a most useful maxim for all aspiring partnerships out there. 4♣ seems just too committal to me, though could easily be the winning action I concede.

Finally we have a panellist who claims he would pass, I just have a feeling that at the table Steve would not be such a pussycat and plenty of partners have the scars to prove it.

Steve Capal: Pass!!  me pass 3 in a row??  Wow, only 3 spades is not sexy here plus 4♥ could even be on.. a quiet but uneasy pass for me.

Partner had

♠ A95

♥ AJ4

♦ J8543

♣ J4