Daily Bridge

Revenge!

We love to make the bidding as awkward as we can for our opponents by preempting to as high a level as possible. Sometimes, though, they seek revenge by preempting our side! We cannot complain but just have to deal with such preemption as best we can:

What would you bid? We are playing Teams.

We also asked our Panel what they would do if South had started a level lower, with 4♣️.

There are two conflicting arguments here. Partner is a passed hand and may thus have very little in high card strength. Meanwhile, we need so little from partner to make slam, perhaps just spade shortage and a three card diamond suit.

Let’s start with the doublers:

Bruce Anderson “Double: shows a strong hand with a lot of defence; guessing what suit to bid at the 5 level is too dangerous in my view. Partner should be aware I am not guaranteeing heart support and would only bid 5♥️ with a long suit.”

As Stephen says, double is very likely to end the auction, for better or worse:

Stephen Blackstock “Double: Perhaps it looks odd with this shape, but I have found that double tends to work out as well as anything in these high level situations, maybe because it keeps more options in play. The alternatives aren't great. 5NT would presumably be red suits, and 6♣️ majors. In those sequences, I could then bid 6♠️ over 6♥️ from East, but that is alarmingly high with no known fit and there is room for confusion about what my auction shows. 5♦️ now loses spades and doesn't suggest slam interest; I would rather bid 6♦️ than 5♦️, at least it has some potential upside.

The likely outcome will be 5♣️x, not a great score but perhaps the best we can do in practice. There is no obvious sequence that will get us to the right game or slam (if there is either), so for now I'm satisfied to announce a strong hand and see if partner has any more to say.”

Stephen is guarded as far as what might be achieved by bidding here as opposed to the values rather than take-out double of 5♣️. Certainly, bidding either 5♦️ or 5♠️ might leave us at the wrong level and in the wrong suit. Other panelists are more optimistic about a touch of aggression and have the tool to back up that agreement.

Leon Meier “5NT: Bidding either suit at the 5 level may be a horrendous guess as we may go down in 5 or one and make 6 of the other and even bidding 5 we can miss slam opposite as little as ♠️xx ♥️xxxxx ♦️xxxx ♣️xx. As for double, well we can't even be sure of beating it if they have something like 1408 but what we do know is we are unlikely to get very rich against 5 here.”

Leon is unclear as to whether this shows specific suits or is just looking for a 6-level fit. In the latter camp is:

Nigel Kearney “5NT: Asks partner to pick a slam. There is no guarantee we can make slam but I think it is fairly likely and we have to guess.”

Others are specific which seems to be a good way to be:

Peter Newell “5NT: ♦️+♥️ or ♦️+♠️.

My hand is too strong and too distributional to double which nearly always partner will pass having no certainty over your suit lengths.

As the hand is a genuine 2- suiter, I would like to get them both into the picture. My hand is strong enough to wish to go for a slam.  The only ways of showing 2- suiters at this level are the cue of 6♣️ which should be both majors, and 5NT which must be 2 suits but not both majors.  So clear 5NT bid from my perspective.”

Michael Ware “5NT: ♦️ and a major.”

Michael Cornell “5NT: Very big hand. 5NT which should be ♦️+ major ( would bid 6♣️ with both majors.) Does not need much from partner.”

Well, if you have such agreements, this does seem to be the time to bid 5NT. Most of the Panel seem fairly upbeat about the chances of making a slam, as long as we choose the right suit as trumps…and we really need 5NT as the way of finding our best fit.

Normally, such problems have favourable vulnerability for the preempting side which makes doubling them even less attractive for their opponents. Here, playing Teams, and at equal nil vul, there is more case for taking as big a plus as one can and therefore starting with a double.

Before we see all four hands, I was curious how the Panel would have handled a 4♣️ opening as that really was what South held. O those who offered a view, Michael Ware’s 5NT would have been unchanged.

Nigel Kearney “ 4NT: Over a 4♣️ opening, I would bid 4NT, then raise 5♦️ to 6 or bid 5♠️ over 5♥️.”

Similarly:

Stephen Blackstock “4NT: then 5♠️ over 5♥️ from East. I hope that will show my two suits and will not take it as a grand slam try for hearts.”

Meanwhile:

Bruce Anderson “Double: if I hear 4♥️. I bid 4♠️ which I think should show spades and diamonds. With a strong single suited spade hand I would be bidding 4♠️ directly, and with a very strong spade hand I might have bid 4NT or cue bid 5♣️ with a club control. Doubtless not all will agree with this summation.”

Again, it would seem a good idea to show two suits via 4NT. It would seem very pessimistic to give partner the chance of stopping at the 4 level in either our suits.

Back though to the reality of the 5♣️ opening. The next problem for East- West would be how to bid the grand slam in diamonds with any certainty. The only suggestion East could make would be 6♣️ over 5NT.

If that shows ♣️A, a very likely scenario, then West might be prepared to risk the 7 level even though they could not be sure at that point of the trump suit. They could try 7♦️ to show extra length or 7♣️ to ask partner to choose. Either way, the diamond grand slam, requiring North not to hold all the missing diamonds would be reached. 1440 would be a great result.

Meanwhile, doubling 5♣️ would have produced a rather fortunate +800 for East-West, fortunate in that North offered no tricks opposite what really is a 4♣️ opener.

So, not a serious loss this time if you doubled 5♣️ though you would be rather regretful if your opponents had recorded a diamond grand-slam even after such awkward high-level preemption. If that was the case, put those 5NT and 6-level cue-bids in your armoury for the next time the opponents preempt your side to the maximum.

Well bid, Heini and Alan

Only one of the 24 East- West pairs bid to grand (well done, Alan Dick and Heini Lux) and only 4 more made it to small slam.

Richard Solomon