Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bidding by the partner of the over-caller (sometimes called the Advancer) is not always discussed much by partnerships with unfortunate consequences. Bernard touched on this in one of his Friday Live presentation on forcing bids (here). Bernard’s methods suggest that:
- A change of suit at the same level is constructive but non-forcing.
- A change of suit at a higher level is forcing.
Other methods are playable and it important that you discuss this with your regular partner.
There is a greater reason for a non-forcing bid to show genuine length in the suit bid since it is being proposed as a final contract. On the other hand, if you choose to play a bid as forcing there is less reason for the bid to show length. So playing Bernard’s methods, 1♣-1♥-Pass-1♠ is constructive and non-forcing and I would expect the bid to show 5+ good spades. If instead you are playing the bid 1♠ as forcing, then I think it reasonable that it only promises a four-card suit. I suspect that Anthony’s partner was playing the 1♠ bid as forcing “keeping the bidding going”, whereas Anthony maybe believes that it is non-forcing?
If we think about a two-level call such as: 1♥-1♠-Pass-2♦, then this is forcing under Bernard’s methods, but I still think that it needs a five-card diamond suit because the bid is a the two level.
I certainly agree with David, that it is difficult to construct a sequence when you see all four hands. And I agree that rebidding 3NT after the jump to 3H is certainly a possibility. But although the West hand has a small doubleton support, it is otherwise highly suitable for slam with a maximum 1NT opening all in aces and kings. I like that West hand and want to show excitement.
In answer to “how would you bid the hand?”, I can most definitely say: “The bidding would certainly start 1NT-3♥”.
But standard Acol is for 1NT-3♥ be a natural slam invitation and I am not convinced that a splinter is particularly useful opposite a (weak) no trump opening. Texas transfers are not part of standard Acol, although I have played them on occasions. If I were playing four-level transfers, I prefer “two-up” transfers with clubs a transfer to hearts and diamonds a transfer to spades.
The bidding would certainly start 1NT-3♥. This jump bid sets the trump suit and invites slam. Although West only has a small doubleton the hand is otherwise very suitable for a slam with two aces and two kings. West might now bid 3♠ – showing a spade control. The full auction might be:
1NT-3♥
3♠-4♦
4NT-5♣ (RKCB – with five clubs showing 0 or 3 key cards)
5NT-7♥ (5NT confirms all of the key cards, which is enough to encourage East to bid the grand)
Thanks Julian, that is interesting.
As a corollary, the 2NT bid must presumably show a five-card heart suit since it will be unbalanced (in a weak NT) context?
On the other hand, a jump to 3NT will show a good 14+, but may or may not have a fifth heart?
IMPs is easy – Defend.
You do not have any eight-card fit. The opponent’s have an eight card fit, so applying the Law of Total Tricks, there are 15 total trump’s and if this implies that if they are making 2S, we will go two off (-200) in our best fit (diamonds I suppose). If we are going one off, they might also be going off and if we are making, they might be two-off (+200). And 2NT on a combined 21 count with iffy spades doesn’t look attractive.
Of course the Law of Total Tricks is sometimes out by a trick (or two). But this is IMPs and a part-score deal, so don’t worry.
I am not rigid about it David. The trouble comes if I hold KQx opposite a singleton. Opposite a small singleton they are likely to be completely wasted, whereas opposite a singleton ace they might provide two useful discards.
Of course the two discards might not be useful or they might be too slow and you would still rather the king and queen were helping support partner’s long suits.
To be honest singleton aces are not a great feature. You can’t hold them up and whilst it is one certain trick, it is unusual for the ace to be helping to develop other tricks. Aces are usually worth a bit more than the 4 assigned by the Milton Work count, but singleton aces a bit less I would suggest.
I have played these very weak jump shifts for a couple of years at the request of a partner. They can work well when they come up, but to be honest they are less useful than a strong jump shift and come up even less often. We have now changed to a 5-8 range for 1D-2S. This allows 1D-1S-2C-2S to be 9-11 and constructive and 1D-1S-2C-3S as 12+ and forcing. This latter sequence is always a bit awkward in standard Acol as it is non-forcing.
Hi Joan, I would add that there is no need for Lebensohl (Light) whenever responder has already passed. So I would expect natural continuations after a 2H over-call in this sequence too: P-P-1NT-2H. Good to discuss and agree these with your regular partner.
Nice hand and bold bidding!
There are some interesting points:
- We don’t like splintering with a singleton ace – although sometimes this is the most practical solution. Similarly, showing a singleton ace in response to Jacoby is not ideal. I’m sure that this will be something that Bernard will discuss and I will be interested in his view.
- The jump to the grand slam was bold and it paid off because the king of clubs is well placed. I think that I would have taken things slower, but you can’t argue with the result.
I think you summed it up well Brian when you said that there was a lack of attractive leads. As Julian says “I had to lead something”.
Thank you Julian. For those interested the full hand was:
Tony and Julian took the 4S contract one off after Julian led the two of clubs and declarer played the Jack from dummy. At other tables there was a mixture of 4S making, 4S going one off and 3S making. Wales gained 10 IMPs on the board, as their team mates were in 3NT making!
