Bidding Panel - Answers October 2007 - Marked by Neil Rosen

Welcome back everybody! It has been a year since our last outing but my intention is now to run this feature twice yearly.

I would like to thank one of our panellists; Peter Crouch for selecting this set of hands – all chosen from the first weekend of the English Trials. The team leading the trials after one weekend contained both Peter and myself. Let’s see if you can all do as well!

Welcome to our guest panellist this time around - Mike Christie.

Quite a recurring theme I have found is hands that contain a big fit for partner as well as a side suit when the auction is competitive. To support partner, either via a direct raise or a fit showing jump at some level, or simply to introduce the well structured side-suit appears to be a common theme. Let’s see what our panel thinks?.....

Marking: 2♥ = 10, 3♥ = 8, 4♣ = 7, 5♦ = 6, 3♣ = 4, 4♦ = 2

Rather to my surprise not one panellist chose the 1♥ bid that I had felt might be the nap selection. We appear to have quite an enlightened panel who favour fit-showing jumps as a preferred method. Some choose to play fit-showing jumps at various levels, whereas I tend to favour having one fit jump with higher bids being splinters. Hence I am with the majority here…………….

Anne Rosen: 2♥ - Fit jump. Whether or not South has hearts for his double I would want to compete to at least 3♦ and 2♥ will give partner a better picture of my hand.

Catherine Seale: 2♥ - I think this can only be fit showing and we are too good just to bid some number of diamonds. Might also be making 4♥.

Jeremy Dhondy: 2♥ - I make a fit bid to help partner judge later in the auction

Steve Capal: 2♥ – The 5th diamond is a bonus.

With Ace of Clubs standard methods therefore a 3♥ bid would in fact be a splinter and not a fit-jump. I do have much sympathy with the following however, as on values I think they are spot on - if 3♥ was construed to be a fit jump it would be perfect.

Peter Crouch: 3♥ - Fit bid, would bid 5♦ with my red suits switched around. Looks about a perfect description at this vulnerability, I might bid 4♥ as a passed hand if I was favourable.

Uriah Jacobson: 3♥ - Seems ideal for a fit jump: the question is… to what level?

The alternative approach with these hands is to combine description with pre-emption via a splinter. The 4♣ bid chosen makes life much harder for NS.

David Bakhshi: 4♣ - With five card support I am inclined to aim high, and am thus choosing between a fit jump in hearts, or a splinter in clubs.  While there are potential benefits in terms of lead-directing information through a fit jump, I think that knowing of short clubs may be more useful to partner when it comes to judging the level we should bid to.  Assuming that South’s double suggests both majors, then I think partner is unlikely to have a heart holding that will be affected by a fit jump while he may still have club holdings that will be influenced by a splinter.

Gail Hoffman: 4♣ - After a lot of thought I have decided to splinter since I think my heart holding is well placed

The agricultural approach – which could lead to disaster if a) the partnership is too high or b) 4♥ was a better contract…

Neill Harcus: 5♦ - there's a good chance it will make with the hearts sitting favourably.  If we go off doubled then it's odds on that NS had a spade game on.  I assume 3♥ is still a fit jump despite South having shown it but I think this would help the opponents more than our side.  A 4♣ splinter is tempting followed by a double of the hoped-for 5♣. 4♦ is a bit feeble and is unlikely to prevent 4♠.

Mike Christie: 5♦ - If partner has no winners in clubs or spades, then probably they’ll make 4♠. If partner has one winner, we’ll probably make 5♦, so I’ll bid 5♦ immediately to pressure North. I’ll risk missing 6♦ 

On her own………..

Jill Feldman: 3♣ – splinter bid agreeing diamonds. Giving up on a heart fit after South’s double presumably showing the majors. Nobody else considered this bid – which I find quite surprising. If a splinter it certainly has some merit.

Pre-emptive theory certainly differs when you look at the different echelons of the game. When considering opening a weak-two many people learn / are taught that you should not have a side four-card major or five-card minor.

With freaky 6 – 5 distributions expert theory tends to suggest either passing (to take the constructive route) or opening at a higher level than two (for maximum pre-emptive effect). The chosen hand would I am sure be opened at the two-level most of the time at club level.

Marking: 3♠ = 10, 2♠ = 8, P = 7

The following panellists would be with me for sure. I personally would really much favour Pass to 2♠ if pushed, but NV feel quite happy with opening 3♠.

Jeremy Dhondy: 3♠ - Put the pressure on.

Peter Crouch: 3♠ - 2♠ makes me feel ill non- vulnerable, 6-5 come alive and all that! If you pass first you may well survive if the opponents are silent but otherwise you are likely to have to guess very well, imagine Pass –(1♣) -1♥-(3♣)-? . 2♠ may pre-empt partner as well but there are two opponents and one partner or in my case there are often three opponents. (Too true! NR)

Mike Christie: 3♠ - Don’t fancy bidding at the 3- level next time if I pass, so better pre-empt now.  What about 3♠ rather than 2♠? Perhaps I can count the fifth diamond as a spade.  4♠ has chances opposite as little as Jxx, xxxx, Axx, Axx, so let’s encourage partner to raise rather than double 4♥. 

Anne Rosen: 3♠ - I have a void heart so passing is not really an option, I might have just opened 2♠ if I was vulnerable.

Not really appreciating the extreme nature of this hand and actually not appearing to recognise 3♠ even as a possibility….

Steve Capal: 2♠ - here is more of 'do we open or not?' Hoping to come in later may work too.

Gail Hoffman: 2♠ - a nice hand but not worth a one opener

Uriah Jacobson: 2♠ - According to your system we play weak 2 Majors, although my preference is for 2-suited calls.

Clearly looking more deeply…..

David Bakhshi: 2♠ - Never easy to know whether it is best to pass and try to show both our suits later, or start with a pre-emptive bid now.  However, holding extremely short hearts and with only half our values in our long suits, it feels better to make the first strike.  Also, the fact that neither side is vulnerable suggests that sacrificing decisions will not be as crucial as an effort to disrupt the opponents early.  With a stronger suit, I would be inclined to open 3♠, but Q10xxxx feels like more of a weak two suit to me. 

Technically correct but lacking in nuisance value!......

Jill Feldman: Pass – I think this hand has got too much potential to open pre-emptively.  I appreciate it could get difficult later to try and describe this hand to partner, but with spades it’s unlikely that I will be shut out of the auction altogether.

Catherine Seale: Pass - I would never put this type of hand through a weak two bid. In all my partnerships 2♠ would be a 2- suiter (spades and another) but we  shouldn't use this with a respectable 6 card major.

Neill Harcus: Pass - Would open 2♠ in third seat but in first seat it's not a good description of my hand.

A truly hideous problem the like of which we all face from time to time (thank-you Peter!).

Marking: 4♣ = 10, 3♠ = 9, 3NT = 5, 5♣ = 1

I really thought that this question would receive only two answers. I am quite amazed in fact that we managed to split the panel 4 ways! The real choice for me appears to be to rebid a forcing 3♠ with the intention of passing 3NT or bidding where we lie by introducing our robust club suit. 

Our majority favour exploring beyond 3NT, a decision that appears completely sensible to me.

Jeremy Dhondy: 4♣ - 3NT may be the right place but I don't see how I can get there so I'll just bid naturally.

Peter Crouch: 4♣ - Can see an argument for 3♠ at pairs in that I can pass 3NT. Slam however is quite possible and 4♣ at least is where I live. You might well make 6♦ on this hand if partner has strong ♦ intermediates.

Jill Feldman: 4♣ – bypassing 3NT, but there could be a slam here, so Iet’s try and find the best spot.

Gail Hoffman: 4♣ - Lots of thought we should have the values for a slam so 4♣.

Uriah Jacobson: 4♣ - I can’t say that I like it. If my second suit had been hearts this would be an easy bid of 3♥, initially  only guaranteeing a stop - we show, rather than ask here when there are TWO unbid suits. With 5 cards in hearts I could then rebid 4♥. 

Presenting good detailed arguments….

David Bakhshi: 3♠ - Very awkward problem, as it is not clear which strain we should be playing or the level we should be aiming for.  However, on a potential misfit, it seems prudent to stay low for now.  My plan is to bid 3♠ and then pass if partner bids 3NT or raises to 4♠.  With stronger intermediate cards I would bid 4♣ over 3NT, but a slam rates to be no better than a finesse unless partner can make a slam interested bid over 3♠.

Neill Harcus: 3♠ - hope this is forcing here,(Yes! NR) whereas it wouldn’t be if partner had rebid 2♦.  3♠ leaves the door open for 3NT (I want partner to play the hand with a heart stop).  The hand is not good enough to bid 4♣ (Really? Very close in my opinion). Might get away with 3♥ as there's no danger of partner raising to game.

Not such a good argument… as Catherine appears to be putting the case for the hand types required for RESPONDER not opener to make a jump bid!

Catherine Seale: 3♠ - When I started playing bridge I was taught that after opener has jumped that they could have two types of hands. Good suit of their own or support for partner. I believe this is forcing and partner can show their hand type on the next round. 4♣ sounds like a cue to me and not natural.

More poor analysis, as 4♣ is most certainly natural (initially at least) unless followed by later diamond support.

Steve Capal: 3♠ – 4♣ is a cue and 3♠ is forcing.

This could easily turn out to be the winning bid at the table but just seems too great a gamble to me. It is pairs however so I do have some sympathy…

I have to confess 5♣ would not even have occurred to me. The bid should be void-showing NOT natural and in fact by many modern players would be construed to be Exclusion Keycard Blackwood

Mike Christie: 5♣ - I was going to bid 4♣, but couldn’t see how to explore a slam afterwards. Let partner decide. I’ll pass 5♠  which I assume would make. Let’s hope partner can bid 6NT for a top, holding A♦ and all four Ks. (Ever the optimist!)

A  test of both judgement and methods here. Firstly we should consider our responses to overcalls. I believe that Ace of Clubs standard is to play a new suit as constructive but non-forcing except at the three-level when it would be forcing. Many partnerships choose to vary this by arrangement.

A large majority go for the straight- forward simple raise. I think they are right. These type of hands have a habit of falling apart hence caution is suggested.

Uriah Jacobson: 3♥ - I would like to bid 3♦, but not without at least 3 hearts.  Partner should have at least 5 hearts.

Even more cautious…………….

Mike Christie: Pass - Seems like North has 5 spades and I bet he has a diamond void. On a diamond lead, 6 heart tricks and two club ruffs looks like our lot.  Better not to encourage partner to bid.  I hope if they reach 5♣ they aren’t making it, at least my diamond honours won’t be ruffed out.

Jeremy Dhondy: Pass - I've done enough

Jill Feldman: Pass – too many  values in diamonds. Not quite brave enough to bid 3♥ (which is probably the right answer) even though the K♥ is a big card.

Not everyone agrees on such extreme caution. The only panellist to mention double is Catherine – for me this would clearly be for penalties… perhaps not ideal!

Catherine Seale: 4♥ - This is a really difficult hand with lots of options. This might be a bit OTT but 3♦ gives them space to find a fit and sacrifice in clubs, 3♥ seems an under bid, not sure if double would be penalty...

On his own (not for the first time!) and completely out of step with the rest of the panel who feel this hand only worth an invitation Steve believes this hand to be worth a slam try. The only explanation for this would be that he believes 2♥ to be forcing – even then surely still an overbid.

Steve Capal: 4♣ - as partner is not a passed hand Kx is a good holding.