[Brian Davies]

It depends on partnership agreement of course. But the problem with using (3C)-4NT to show two suits is that you are then committed to the five level and it would be a shame to go down in 5H (say), when 4H could make. So it is more efficient to use (3C)-4C as any two-suited hand, with double showing three suits (although double tends to be particularly focussed on the majors).

If the opening Bid was 3S, you will be committed to the five level anyway and you can use both 4S and 4NT as showing two suits. Now it makes sense for 4NT to show both minors and 4S to show hearts + a minor.

[Brian Davies]

When I commented about the 1C-(1D)-Dbl sequence I was aware that some play the double as only one four-card major but I must confess that I am a little surprised at David’s poll findings that it is as many as 21%.

Bernard has commented that he plays 1C-(1D)-Dbl as 4-4 in the majors. I came across this charity seminar discussion (towards the end of the video): http://blog.bernardmageebridge.com/bmb-youtube-video-archive/covid-19-charity-seminar10-losing-trick-count-1/

But he acknowledged that some agree to it showing at least one four-card major and he didn’t mention any advantage either way, except to observe that the auction had been quite revealing in the play of the hand.

[Brian Davies]

Hi Julian,

A 2C overcall over a 1D opening is particularly difficult to handle. It is normal to play that a new suit is five cards which means that a double cannot be 4-4 because there is no way to show a hand with only one four-card suit. But after a 1C opening and a 1D overcall, it is usual to play that a double is 4-4 and a new suit is four cards. Are you aware of anyone who plays a new suit after the 2C overcall as only four cards?

I guess that North cannot pass, because N/S would be poorly placed if East were to raise? What is the minimum strength for a double?

Also, what should be the response structure after the double – in particular, what should be the meaning of a cue bid? Is it a general game force? Or might it be a minimum 4-4-5-0, trying to find the 4-4 fit? (Or even a minimum 4-4-4-1 hand if you would open 1D?)

Sorry, that’s quite a few questions!

[Brian Davies]

I didn’t watch yesterday, because I was playing in a match (a good win, thanks for asking!). But I have just caught up and agree with Stephen that it was a little frustrating not being able to see the number of tricks  during the play and that is worth fixing next time.

Bernard was worried that the pace was too quick and didn’t allow enough time for commentary, but I found that the pace worked ok for me – particularly as there couldn’t be any interaction through the chat with those watching.

[Brian Davies]

On reflection, it is overstating it a bit to say 7S is a great contract. I am influenced because several have made 13 tricks. 🙂

[Brian Davies]

The full hand was:

My 3H rebid did not help the auction. 7S would be a great contract, but 6S would be a joint top and the 6NT that we stumbled into (don’t ask!) only scores 12 tricks.

Thanks all for your thoughts.

[Brian Davies]

Partner will cue bid in clubs – 4C ((Italian style cue bids).

If you bid 4NT now, partner will show two key cards and the queen of spades.

Do you have higher ambitions?

[Brian Davies]

The hand shown is not West’s actual hand. It was to illustrate that a minimum hand might miss game: 1H-1S-2H-Pass. Although maybe West would raise to 3H?

[Brian Davies]

I wanted to bid 2½♥.  I think that you are all probably right to stay low although the good intermediates in hearts and Kxx in partner’s suit makes it very tempting to bid three. It is certainly possible to construct hands where you might miss game (say):

But keeping it low certainly makes partner’s life easier on the actual hand (not the one above!). The bidding would continue 1♥-1♠; 2♥-3♦, where three diamonds is natural and forcing to game.

What now? (If the answer is 3♠, how many spades does this promise?)

[Brian Davies]

Reg, 20-22 HCP hands occur with a frequency of 1.23%, but nobody would argue that you shouldn’t pay too much attention to the 2NT opening and responses. Good players do not have a magic formula to make them good. Instead they get small advantages by making slightly better choices in many of the decisions that are made on each hand (rather than relying on “ups and downs”). Each advantage is minor, but they add up to a significant long-run advantage.

I do agree that 4441 hands are a type which can be difficult in Acol, but that is a reason to make sure that our methods are effective, rather than trusting in the ups and downs. There is a significant problem in opening 1H with 4-4-4-1 because you are suggesting a five-card heart suit when you rebid another suit. Any perceived problems with opening 1D are minor in comparison.

David asks: “How often do you ask for kings for a grand slam?” By a strange coincidence, we did tonight and as a result we were one of two pairs reaching a grand slam with 13 tricks lay down after the opening lead. These small advantages do add up.

 

[Brian Davies]

Hi Julian,

I believe that you are describing the standard responses: 6C=0, 6D=1, 6H=2, 6S=3 and is probably safest for players who are new to the concept. Bernard has mentioned that he prefers to show specific kings up the line, so 6C would show the king of clubs, 6D would show the king of diamonds and deny the king of clubs etc. A bid of six of the agreed trump suit would deny a king which is lower ranking than the trump suit.

The queen of trumps is not shown in his key-card Blackwood (but is in Roman Key-card Blackwood obviously).

[Brian Davies]

The thing to appreciate Ian, is that if your longest suits are two four-card suits then you will also have a three-card and a two-card suit and your shape will be 4432, which is a balanced type. Your priority with a balanced hand should be to tell your partner that you are balanced, rather than telling partner about your second suit. If you are 12-14, you should open 1NT, but with stronger hands you will bid one of your suits (a major if you have one) and bid no trump’s next.

If instead, you choose to open one suit and rebid a second suit you are denying that the hand is balanced. This will usually show at least five cards in the first suit and this is useful for partner to know because they can now support you with three cards. There is only one unbalanced hand-type which does not have a five-card suit: the 4441 hands. You cannot rebid no trumps and must bid a second suit, which will “tell a lie” because partner will expect five cards in the first suit. We prefer not to tell any lies about our holdings in the majors and would generally prefer to open a minor suit if possible (my preference is to always open a minor).

[Brian Davies]

Ian, the general principle is that you divide hand types between balanced hands (you either open no trump’s or rebid no trump’s) and unbalanced hands (you open a suit and either rebid the suit to show a singled-suited hand or rebid a second suit to show a two-suited hand, which will be at least 5-4).

There are of course a few hands which makes this difficult. 4441 shape hands do not fit into this pattern – but they only represent about 3% of all bridge hands and it would be counterproductive to abandon this fundamental principle. There are other exceptions (hands which are not strong enough to reverse). But overall the principle is good and important.

[Brian Davies]

Yes, I’m agreeing with David here, in that most Bridge decisions are too complicated to calculate the statistics and there are other factors as well. In deciding on a particular bid you need to judge not only the chances that the bid will be objectively better, but also the message that it will transmit to partner to help partner make decisions. This is a complicated interaction which cannot be reduced to probabilities.

The message that when you open a major and then rebid a minor you promise an unbalanced hand with at least five cards in the first suit is an absolutely fundamental part of that communication message in modern Acol. This is why it is not a good idea to open 1H with a 1-4-4-4 distribution. (Or 4-4-4-1 in my opinion).

[Brian Davies]

Thanks

[Author]

Posts