Bidding Panel - Answers October 2006 - Marked by Neil Rosen

We start by welcoming our guest panellists this time around – Giles Ridger & Phil Jones.

Our first hand comes from a Gold Cup match where a good slam was missed. I felt at the time that West’s jump to 4♠ did not really do the hand justice. I personally was torn between 3♣ and 3♠ and wondered what our panel would feel.

Marking:  4♠ =10, 3♣ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 2NT = 5

A large majority went for ‘the obvious’.

Anne Rosen: 4♠ – Can’t see any reason to introduce my clubs here. Partner should have at least 5 spades, so spades seems like the best strain, therefore I will bid 4♠ fast arrival so partner knows I have a bad hand.

Jill Feldman: 4♠ - Fast arrival. Think I should show spade support with not much else.

Catherine Seale: 4♠ - Think this is a weaker bid than 3♠ and my hand isn't worth much at all.

Peter Kaufmann: 4♠ – 2♣ is game forcing so with minimum values l will bid 4♠ and hope partner does not hold AKx in ♣.

Jeremy Dhondy: 4♠ - I have a weak hand with some support. This is too good to make a second negative.

Gail Hoffman: 4♠ - since I have 3 spades and no further interest not having any controls.

Uriah Jacobson: 4♠ - I’d love to show the clubs, but I can’t ( my system ), so  I show spade support with less than 2 controls.  I suppose one could show a second negative, but what do you bid, even over 3♣?    

Giles Ridger: 4♠ - The club suit doesn't seem to add much so I'll sign off in 4♠.

Even more pessimistic and showing poor judgement of slam potential in my opinion…..

Phil Jones: 2NT - Presumably still viewed as a second negative. Although I have support and a few values, they are soft and I doubt if they will be good enough to make a slam opposite even a good game going hand. I can support next time over to show 3 trumps over any non spade re-bid by opener.

Steve Capal: 2NT - If a double negative is still accepted in this day and age, then it is my choice on the way to 4♠.

One of my own personal views is that a second negative is a little needed tool. I much prefer simply to use 2NT as non-committal / waiting. Sharing this view:

Peter Crouch: 3♣ - if one of my low clubs was a spade I would bid 4♠, for me that would be a very weak hand but guarantee 4♠. I don’t play second negatives and you only have to imagine a hand such as

AKxxx

A

KQx

AKxx

to understand why 6♣ could easily be the best spot.

Showing good appreciation of this hand’s  slam potential…

Neill Harcus: 3♠ - I reckon 4♠ is the right bid at pairs. At IMPs, a second negative bid of 2NT would allow partner to show a club suit though that is somewhat unlikely.  I can scrape up a positive bid of 3♠ on the grounds of the club suit though I think partner might be disappointed with my motley collection of no controls.

This was a hand given to me by top Ladies International; Nevena Senior. Unfortunately  I did not annotate the double of 2♦ as either take-out or penalties. This is really a matter for partnership agreement. I really wanted to test partnership understandings deeply with this problem.

Marking: 3♠ = 10, Pass = 7, 2♠ = 5

The majority bid 3♠ without any major qualms. It appears that they are all assuming double to be take-out – a pretty weird presumption looking at the actual West hand – since it was a classic take-out double type hand itself.

Anne Rosen: 3♠ – It sounds like opponents have located a minor suit fit, therefore pass is not an option, and the last double from partner should be for take out. If we have no wasted diamond values we might still be able to make a game. 3♠ gives us a chance of getting there.

Jill Feldman: 3♠ - Partner wants me to bid, so I should show my spades and extra values.

Peter Kaufmann: 3♠ - Double is for take out.

Peter Crouch: 3♠ - well, my pass must have been forcing otherwise I should have bid over 2♦, in my regular partnerships I play double in direct seats as penalties and in protective seat as suggesting penalties, usually a balanced hand. I would bid 3♠ warts and all.

Neill Harcus: .  3♠ - I doubt we’ll get rich against 2♦ doubled.  Double is take-out though partner is likely to have some length in the suit and has too good a hand to let it be passed out.  The chunky clubs are sufficient justification to force to game.  Partner hasn’t got 5 hearts (or he’d be bidding them).  It’s possible that South’s other suit is spades, in which case I expect partner to bid 3NT.

Steve Capal: 3♠ - Assuming we play double of 2♦ showing shortage can easily have a spade game on here.

Giles Ridger: 3♠ - If partner has anything more than the 15hcp promised by his double we must be close to game so I'll invite.

Making the more logical assumption that Pass was for penalties and deciding therefore to take the money…

Gail Hoffman: Pass - feels like a penalty double to me.

Phil Jones: Pass - Deep joy! Another double I have to interpret. This depends on partnership agreement about whether the double is take out or penalty. But if we were playing take out doubles surely I would have doubled 2♦ with shortage and the values to think we own the hand. So partner is making a penalty double, quite possibly holding 5 or 6 diamonds, so I pass and get my diamond lead on the deck.

Catherine Seale: Pass - All passes leading up to the last one are forcing. The opponents cannot be left to play undoubled here. With Neil I play up to and including 2♦ but with others play a pass as forcing up to and inc. 2♠.  I think this last double is penalty though and even if partner means it as takeout we are likely to have the fire power in the other 3 suits to defeat this.

Jeremy Dhondy: Pass - A hard question ( but would be harder at pairs) because who knows what our agreements or theirs are. I assume I would have pulled the redouble whatever it mean with long spades and a bad hand and that partner's double invites us to take a penalty so that is what I will do because I am by no means sure of game (mind you I am not 100% sure this will go down)!

On his own (as usual!) but making some interesting points. However Uriah it appears to me that partner would now play you potentially for the weak variant.

that Advancer passes to show either (i) values, i.e. 7+ hcps as after a 2m T/O by South  or (ii) weak with no (5+) suit to bid. As Intervener’s pass over 2♣ denied 18+ hcps, we are not assured of game.  Not easy; I am not good enough to bid 2NT - 2 places to play - so 2♠ it is, reluctantly.

On the actual hand partner had a 4-3-4-2 17-count. You could not really go wrong as 4♠ was making, but 300 was available on a sensible defence.

A hand from this year’s English Open Trials. As both Leaping and Non Leaping Michaels become more main-stream the frequency of use is increasing accordingly. As a result the hand types choosing to make such bids are not now as powerful as previously was the case. The key to this hand was a) to avoid slam and b) if possible to negotiate for West to be declarer to prevent the killing club lead which actually defeats even 5♥ if played by East. At the table I bid 5♣ and then passed partner’s 5♥ which fortunately made on the wrong lead. It was suggested that 5♥ from me might have been better prepared - only one of our panel appears to agree!

Marking: 5♣ = 10, 4NT = 7, 5♥ = 6, 6♥= 3, 4♥ = 2, 4♦= 1

Clearly the best technical bid in my opinion, though potentially losing at the table as described above…

Anne Rosen: 5♣ – Marking time for the moment and seeing if partner can bid 5♦. These non leaping Michaels are typically on quite good hands, so even a grand isn’t out of the question. Alternatively we could have two losing diamonds.

Catherine Seale: 5♣ - As partner can't know what you are up to here I think he is compelled to cue with a diamond control or simply bid hearts regardless of length in his major suits.

Jeremy Dhondy: 5♣ trying to get 5♦ from partner. I think 5♥  is a general try here [too good for 4♥ not good enough for 6♥] but a) partner may not and b) it is too vague when I have a clear alternative which  may well solicite the response I need.

Giles Ridger: 5♣ -  It seems likely we can make at least 5♥ so I'll show my club control and see what happens.
Phil Jones:  5♣ - Getting to the right strain may have encouraged partner to act on anything from a broken suited 5-5 to a chunky slam certainty opposite this lovely hand. AQJxx, KQxxx, KJx, None, means slam is poor, but AKxxx, K10xxx, Ax, x makes 6♥ certain. Try 5♣ and if I get 5♦ out of partner bid 6♥.

Taking a rosier view of the hand and ignoring the lack of a diamond control…

Peter Crouch: 4NT - if Blackwood, otherwise 6♥. If he shows 2 aces I will bid 5NT and hopefully partner will then bid a grand (7♣) if that is the right thing to do.

Jill Feldman: 4NT -  Looks like 6♥ could be on, but I've got too many losers to punt it. If I bid 5♣, what do I do over 5♠ from partner? Why on earth would partner bid 5♠ Jill?

Caustic as ever, but spot on at the table…

Neill Harcus: 5♥ - I could punt 6, I suppose, and blame partner when it goes off (or take the credit if it makes), 4NT and 5♣ being other options but I think I should get my suit in first. 5♥ is an obvious slam try.

Overbidding though clearly more expecting a huge 2-suiter, slightly out of line with the rest of our panel’s more modern thinking.

Peter Kaufmann: 6♥ – stab in the dark.

Steve Capal: 6♥ - sure there is some science here to get to 7♥ will look out for the answer on this one!!

Gail Hoffman: 6♥ my hand is too good for 4.

Surely there are bids in-between Gail!

Once again own his own and trying to make a clever bid. At least seeing the possibility of the need to be declarer but showing a diamond control if he intends to bid on to the 5-level. I believe 4♦ is perfectly playable as pick-a-major here provided you then pass partner’s 4 of a major.