|
We welcome readers' queries and in
this new column I will try to answer as satisfactorily as possible those
which we judge to be of interest to a wider audience. So if you would
like to contribute your problems, we would be delighted to receive them.
It is your choice whether you are named or remain anonymous.
A reader from Scotland asks about this
hand which he held recently in a Pairs event:
Right-hand-opponent opened 1
at Love all and he wondered how best to show his hand. His eventual choice
was to double and, when partner responded 1 ,
and RHO passed, to jump to 3 .
Partner held:
|
J 9 5 2 |
|
10 6 3 |
|
8 7 5 2 |
 |
K 8 6 |
and
passed, so that a choice of cold games was missed.
Firstly, I believe that partner should
have bid 3
over 3.
Consider that to double then bid 2
over 1
shows a hand too good to overcall 2
immediately. You will have your different styles, but let's put the lower
limit for that sequence at around a 16-count. The next three- or four-point
range up to about 19 will be covered by the sequence double followed by
2.
To double then jump to 3
must be even stronger than that; 20+ or the equivalent.
I would suggest that our sequence is not
quite forcing - double followed by a cuebid followed by 3
would be a force - but that partner should be straining to keep the bidding
open at any excuse. His actual hand includes both diamond support and
a king, and either 5
or 3NT might be possible. He should bid 3
over 3
to ask for a heart stopper for 3NT. If our reason for not having already
bid 3NT instead of 3
is that we are short and weak in one of the black suits, that is fine
as partner has stops in both black suits. In practice, 3
leads to 3NT and ten tricks.
So should the blame all be put on partner's
shoulders? I think not. We had four plausible routes over the 1
opening. We could have jumped to 3NT straightaway, or doubled and then
bid 2NT, 3
or 3NT. Assuming a non-diamond lead, we will have eight tricks after trick
one in either a no trump or diamond contract. That suggests that double
followed by 2NT is superior to double followed by 3,
as 2NT is not only at least as constructive as 3
but 2NT is actually more likely to make than 3
if partner has nothing. But my choice would be to try 3NT. If I have eight
sure tricks, I need only one from partner - the K
or a major-suit ace, for example - to have nine, while as little
as a diamond entry to dummy will leave me needing the club finesse. Since
I am not sure whether I have eight tricks or nine, and some of the hands
which will make nine tricks will see partner passing a 2NT rebid, why
not guess to bid something which gives a big upside (the game bonus) if
I am correct?
Having decided that the hand is worth
a 3NT bid, the remaining question is whether to double first or bid it
immediately. We could bid an immediate 3NT with a bit less in high cards:
|
3 2 |
|
K 2 |
|
A K Q J
7 6 3 |
|
A 4 |
for example. However, the only real downside
to an immediate 3NT overcall is the possibility of missing a slam. Against
some opponents, that might be a consideration, but against sound bidders
it is quite unlikely and I would be happy to settle for the most likely
game.
Suppose it begins: 1
- Dble - 3.
When that gets back to us we have to bid 3NT. Is there not a danger that
partner will think that the reason we did not overcall 3NT in the first
place is that we have some spade support? After all, we would no doubt
bid this way with a balanced 22-count with a heart stopper. There is at
least some danger of his 'correcting' to 4
on an inappropriate hand (I use the term 'correcting' loosely here,
you understand)?
Next, suppose that RHO raises pre-emptively
to 4
instead of just three. When that comes round to us, what do we propose
to do? 4NT is both too high and slightly murky, while a double is also
what we would choose with a 4-1-4-4 18-count. Not trivial for partner
to know when to pass and when to bid 4.
Contrast this with the situation after
a simple 3NT overcall. If LHO now bids 4
we can double. Now we have shown a long minor, a heart stopper,
and extra values via the double. Partner may still misjudge because that
is the nature of partners, but he is much less likely to do so.
If you have a question for Brian, please
contact anna@msoworld.com
|
