Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bernard suggested a psychic 4H cue bid.
I welcome the fact that Bernard has introduced this hand. Psyching is a legitimate part of the game, but is very rare these days – particularly at club level. Players should be aware of the possibility, even if they don’t plan to psych themselves, because their opponents might psych.
Responder will only be 3=3=4=3 with a strong hand, so you don’t need it as a sign-off, but you do want to confirm the diamond support.
That isn’t a silly method David. 20 point hands occur more frequently than 21 and 22 point hands combined. I do something similar when I play with my wife (2NT is the 20 and 2C-2D-2NT is the 21-22 hand). I think that it is easier to describe the North hand as 20 than 20-22. The three point range is already a bit wide, so including hands that are worth less than 20 is pushing it a bit. For what it’s worth, the Kaplan & Rubens evaluator put the North hand as 19.20 points.
On this occasion I was playing with my regular bridge partner and 1D-1H-2NT is 19-20 in our system, so I used this route. We treat the 2NT bid as nearly forcing – meaning that it is forcing if partner has her bid, but she is allowed to pass if the 1H was an attempt to improve the contract on a four-count, say. Partner passed on this occasion.
Yes, I prefer inverted minors too.
But even playing inverted minors, I don’t think that there is any merit in playing 1D-2C-3C-3D as non-forcing. The 2C response will never be fewer than four cards if you play inverted minors and there should be no reason to look for an alternate strain with a weak hand. 3C is non-forcing in a minimum hand and can be passed. For me, the 3D bid should tell partner that there is a double fit and be searching for higher things.
I haven’t played much Precision, but the 1D opening will often be short I think (2+ ?) and limited to 15 points. I’m not sure that this will transfer easily into Acol?
Thanks Brian.
We were the only pair who stopped in 2NT, when 3NT made of course. I was looking to gauge whether it a 3NT we ought to want to be in and you are confirming that it is.
Hi Julian,
I agree that 1NT-3♦-4NT is not needed as an ace-ask, because you can agree diamonds first and ask at the next turn. But I wouldn’t want to try it undiscussed.
I know that North only holds doubleton support, but it seems to me that ♦Kx is a good holding opposite the expected good quality six-card suit and the North hand couldn’t be more suitable for a slam with all of those aces and kings. I am sure that I would have rebid 3♥, (which is surely a cue bid rather than a no-trump probe?).
My understanding is that: 1NT-3♦-3NT is the only sign-off sequence, denying slam interest. Is that correct?
Thanks
Kenneth, you asked whether Bernard had covered this.
Bernard discussed this situation in his series on forcing bids in the Friday Live presentations in July / August. In particular, I think that the 30th July broadcast discussed bidding in response to partner’s overcall. In summary, I think that Bernard’s methods are:
- A change of suit at the same level is constructive, but non-forcing. e.g. (1C)-1H-(Pass)-1S or (1S)-2C-(Pass)-2H.
- A change of suit and level is forcing. e.g. (1H)-1S-(Pass) -2C
I think that there are different approaches and no universally agreed method. Personally I play all changes of suit as forcing, but I have played other methods in the past (including transfers in response to an overcall). This is something that you need to discuss and agree with your partner. Like Julian, I play a jump in a new suit as fit-showing.
Bernard’s advice not to sell out if the opponent’s have a fit at the two level is primarily intended as advice at pairs. The tactics at teams (IMPs) is a little different. At pairs, you can turn bottoms into tops by aggressively competing for a part score. At teams, the potential gain for a part-score contract is small, but two-off doubled and vulnerable is a disaster!
Of course it is possible that you might still have game your way, but the important point is that you are not in the pass-out seat and partner can still protect. I think that Brian’s advice to pass is probably very wise, but a pass is difficult to find with an 18-count! Would I pass? In tempo?!
What did partner have? Presumably very short in clubs as there was no rescue? And length in the majors?
Thanks Brian. I do appreciate your contributions – always helpful in clarifying my thoughts.
David Gold gives a strong argument and leading a singleton would certainly work here – I can’t argue with success! 🙂
Interesting! It feels a risky strategy at pairs, but none of the other suits appeals.
She did confirm that she would have led my suit.
The actual hand was not what I had expected:
West had made a delayed game raise and surprisingly had a four-card heart suit, East was 6-4 in the reds and partner only held three hearts (not the five that I had predicted!).
Five hearts can be defeated on a diamond lead (one pair found the diamond lead, but diamonds had not been mentioned in the bidding at that table). On any other lead, five hearts is cold. Four spades should make, but there are three top losers and five spades has no chance – but still a save if five hearts is making.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that people who play Smith Peters are deliberately varying their tempo. But sometimes it is simply difficult to know what message you want to send. David’s advice that ethical players take time to think, whether there is a problem or not, is correct of course. This doesn’t always come naturally to players in the real world.
As I said, I don’t have experience of playing Smith Peters. I do have experience of playing various discarding methods and for what it’s worth I did find it more difficult to play Italian Discards smoothly than natural (or reverse) discards – even when the partnership had been going for a couple of years and I was familiar with the method.
Hi Brian, I understand your point, about making the last guess, but I’m not sure that I agree about the 4S bid!
RHO has opened, LHO has made a two-over-one response and you know that your partner can’t have a lot and will not help much. I think it safe that 4S is a wide-range bid because you are not misleading partner. The vulnerability is in our favour and I bid 4S to give the opponent’s the last guess.
So yes, I think that pass is right as well, but not for the reason suggested by John. I pass because:
- They have taken the last guess
- There are three likely tricks: two diamonds + a trump. The opponent’s have a double fit but there is no reason to think that they have more than an eight card heart fit. Trump’s could easily be 5-0 and partner might easily have a five-card heart suit. Even a 4-0 split might be awkward for declarer.
Things were different at the table of course. I bid 4S intending it to be my one and only bid, then changed my mind at the last moment. I think that if I judge to bid 4S, I simply have to pass. I got lucky when 5S turned out to be a good save.
