Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am sure that I won’t convince you David, nor do I seek to.
But this is not an idea that I have invented. Larry Cohen’s book on the Law of Total Tricks: To Bid Or Not To Bid, has this:
“After 1♥-P-2♥, we’d gladly bid in direct seat with as little as ♠KQJ9x ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx”
And yes, this does mean that partner needs to be aware that you might be limited. Larry Cohen later states:
“Partner won’t punish us. He knows that we are playing OBAR BIDS. We’re not trying to get to game when they open and raise. Yes there are exceptions – but at least 90% of the time, when they open and raise, we don’t have to worry about our side bidding and making game. Besides, partner couldn’t act over one heart – what’s he going to do all of a sudden? Bid a game just because of our simple overcall? He shouldn’t play us for high-cards and do something silly – like doubling if they bid on. He knows that we are just ‘balancing’.”
There are swings and roundabouts on all of these:
Michaels / Unusual No Trump:
- After (1Maj)-2Maj, you don’t know which minor partner holds, so you can’t make a pre-emptive jump in a minor.
- If the opponents open a minor, you can’t show a two-suiter with spades and the other minor.
CRO:
- (1min)-2NT is a potentially risky way to show both majors because you are committed to the three-level. You can be more aggressive with Michaels because partner can respond at the two-level. Maybe a better method is to play CRO over a major and RCO over a minor, but that is additional memory strain
Ghestem
- (1min)-3C shows both majors in traditional Ghestem – like CRO, this also means that you need to commit to the three-level if holding 5-5 in the majors.
Julian’s method: Michaels / Unusual No Trump + a jump cue-bid to show spades and the other minor:
- I like the idea of this because it solves one of the difficulties of the the standard Michaels/UNT approach.
- But the sequence (1D)-3D to show spades and clubs does mean that we get to the four-level if partner has a club fit and is mis-fitting with spades.
For me, 2H is forcing. If you want a non-forcing bid to show hearts, then that is 1H. Having said that, if partner looks at her Yarborough, uses her judgement and chooses to pass a theoretically forcing bid, it would not damage the partnership. But that would be a very rare action and I would be expecting partner to respond.
2NT is a second negative, but quite a rare action if she has support.
I don’t think that partner should be trying for game based on high cards, there simply not enough high cards in the pack. Competing should be based on distribution.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating bidding with Bernard’s hand, it is an ugly bid at this vulnerability – particularly at IMPs. But if non-vulnerable at pairs, I would certainly be bidding.
Marty Bergen discussed this pre-protecting position and came up with the acronym:
OBAR-BIDS = Opponent’s Bid And Raise – Balance In Direct Seat
The point being that they have found a fit, so we are very likely to have a fit and should be competing to nudge them out of a potential two-level comfortable part-score. Since both sides seem to have a 4-4 fit there is some protection from the Law of Total Tricks. David’s auction (1H)-P-(1NT)-P-(2H) seems safer in that both opponent’s are limited, but there is no guarantee that they have a fit and no LOTT protection.
Of course, if you accept Bergen’s premise that you can stretch to enter the auction in this position, then partner needs to allow for this possibility.
My thoughts are:
(a) Yes. 3S shows a single-suited hand and 5332 (say) would be balanced, not single suited.
(b) 3D shows a two-suited hand. It might be 5-5, but 6-4 is certainly possible. There is no rule that says it can’t be 5-4 but that would be unusual, partly because 5-4 hands don’t tend to have as much playing strength and opening at the one level is often reasonable. There are two cases: 5422 shapes are semi-balanced and you might even open 2NT or bid a sequence such as 2C-2D-2NT – particularly if there are values in the doubletons. The other possibility is 5431, where the third suit might be playable if partner has values in that suit. Now you might choose to open at the one level to allow space to find the best strain.
Hi Stephen,
Can I just check, are you asking about a sequence such as 2C-2D-2S-2NT?
If responder has a misfit for spades then 2NT is usually used a a “negative” – denying an ace and a king (or equivalent). This doesn’t say “game is not on” it just denies positive values for slam purposes (that is why there is more of an emphasis on aces and kings). It is important to realise that opener promises another bid after 2NT.
Unless you agree otherwise, 1H-(1S)-3H retains the same meaning as in an uncontested auction and 1H-(1S)-2S is a general force, showing game values, but not showing heart support.
But an increasing number of players do play the 2S bid as an invitational or stronger Raise and the 3H bid as pre-emptive. This is one more thing that you should agree with your partner.
They are under the help menu: https://help.fourmstaging.duqakibfdx.cloudpages.xyz/bridge-play-guides/bidding-system-help
I’m not sure why they are there – the BMB Bridge Hub menu (maybe the Library section?) would seem more appropriate.
It is a very unlucky hand. Apart from the misfit:
- The spade finesse fails.
- The heart finesse succeeds, but the suit is breaking 5-1.
- The ace of diamonds is on the wrong side.
- Whichever club finesse you choose to take will fail.
Bidding to game and going down will be normal.
It might work less well if partner had a misfit and the auction were to start 2C-2D-3C-3S …
Imagine partner with a 5530 distribution.
Leading the ♠5 does not command partner to return a spade and I agree that a diamond switch might work. But on balance, East would usually be wise to return partner’s suit and it would be successful if partner held any of:
- ♠Q10854 ♥J74 ♦Q3 ♣K82
- ♠QJ854 ♥75 ♦A3 ♣Q1082
- ♠J8754 ♥75 ♦AK ♣Q1082
- ♠J8754 ♥J7 ♦742 ♣AK8
Hi Charles,
This is an interesting question and partly depends upon partnership style. There are two, slightly different styles: (1) we give an attitude signal, so that a low card suggests the suit be returned and a high card suggests a switch; or (2) we describe a feature, so that a low card tells partner that we hold an honour in the suit and a high card tells partner that we don’t hold an honour in the suit.
At the second or later trick, it would be usual for the emphasis to be on the first approach, giving an attitude signal. We can see our hand and dummy and have seen the earlier tricks, so we are in a good position to plan the defence. We might lead a low card without an honour to dissuade partner from making the obvious switch away from their honour holding. Similarly, we might lead a high card, even when holding an honour, because we want partner to make the obvious switch.
When we are on opening lead, at trick 1, the situation is a little different. We can only see the 13 cards in our own hand and are not in the best position to plan the defence. Most would adopt the second approach for the opening lead and give partner information, so that you can both plan the defence once you have seen dummy.
In the actual Prize Quiz hand, I am not sure that we want to say “return my suit” and it will not always be right for partner to return a spade. Imagine that the holdings are:
On the ♠8 lead, partner will look at the diamond weakness in dummy and switch to the ♦J, defeating the contract by two tricks.
But, on the ♠5 lead, partner will expect an honour card in the West hand and return the ♠2. Declarer will cross in hearts and take the club finesse. It loses, but West cannot attack diamonds and the contract will come home.
