Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes I agree Bernard. Actually the best line is to play the ace then lead the nine towards the king. This is the best theoretical line for five tricks and will only fail in the event that the suit breaks 4-1 with both honours offside.
Yes, that other one was tricky. It took me a while to work it out. It felt like a dummy reversal, but I couldn’t get the entries to work and I abandoned that thinking and eventually found Bernard’s line.
“One needs to take a philosophical approach and accept that one cannot bid every good slam without bidding too many poor ones.”
Very wise 🙂
How would you play 3â™ in this auction David? We certainly haven’t discussed this specific auction, but we have a general principle that a jump in the opponents’ suit tends to show a void or at least a hand with no losers in the suit (e.g. singleton ace). I can certainly see an argument for having a natural 3â™ here, but we don’t have that agreement and I feel that few would have such an agreement (I may be wrong?).
So if partner bid 3â™ I would not interpret it as natural and even if it is natural, I feel that it should be forcing.
How close is North to a 2NT response in your methods? most will respond with an 11-count and a five-card suit, particularly as partner will know that North can’t have a 12-count. But I concede that there are flaws (isolated honours etc.).
Opener’s hand is consistent with a natural club and a 15-16 rebid. It is also consistent perhaps with a strong club system. To be honest, I have no idea! The only reason that I was questioning is that responder’s 3NT bid (without looking for a spade fit) looks strange opposite this hand-type.
Yes, it does sound a very strange system. I wonder whether there were some other missing alerts. I suspect that either or both of 1♣ or 1NT might also be artificial?
The first thing to say is that it is rare to look for a slam after the auction starts 1H-2H. But 1H-2H-4C must be one of those rare hands since you cannot now stop short of game. You could play this as a cue-bid, showing a club control and denying a cheaper control (spades). If intending a jump to be a cue-bid, I think that a 3S bid must be right. 3S also has the advantage that you happen to have a singleton!
Note that there is another possible sequence: 1H-2H-2S-4H-5C. This tactic of bidding 2S (initially taken as a trial bid) then following up with a cue-bid in clubs is sometimes called an Advance Cue Bid. You are now showing controls in spades as well as clubs.
So for me a jump in a new suit after 1H-2H is a splinter and making a trial bid then continuing to cue bid is control showing.
There is a final possibility. Andrew Robson seems to advocate that 1H-3H-4C and 1H-2H-4C should be a natural slam tries showing a second suit. It isn’t my style and I mention it only for completeness.
I’m rather indifferent. I definitely pass it out at teams, but think it a close decision at pairs and I probably open 1H, planning to pass any response. I would feel very uncomfortable after a 2D response, but I would still pass – we bid four-card suits up the line so 2D would most likely be a five-card suit.
This scheme will likely work ok if partner raises hearts, bids spades or bids no trump’s so I think that it will work more often than it fails.
The cards are sitting well for East / West. North has tried to develop club ruffs, but declare can play two top diamonds, discarding a heart and South will struggle to get the lead to give any ruffs. Maybe a better plan might have been to play a forcing defence aiming to make declarer lose trump control. I would probably lead a diamond, aiming to attack in our long suit and force declarer to ruff. It won’t quite work on this occasion.
How did it actually go? No idea!
- North’s 1S bid was the only bid that I would make.
- East should pass instead of double.
- South might redouble instead of 1NT.
- West should bid 2C instead of the bizarre 3S.
- North should double (penalties) at their second turn.
- East has already over-bid, but since partner made a forcing bid, East should bid 4H.
- South should double anything for penalties.
It is normal these days for 2♦ to be weak. I think that a Weak Jump Overcall would be automatic for most pairs if non-vulnerable. It is an interesting question whether this hand is good enough vulnerable against non-vulnerable and will depend partly on the partnership’s attitude to risk. On this occasion South would find a suitable dummy and 2♦ doubled would only concede -200.
Hi Christine,
Bernard discussed Fourth Suit Forcing in one of his Friday presentations:Â http://blog.bernardmageebridge.com/live-show/friday-live-007/
He suggested that, in the absence of any specific discussion, you should assume that 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠is natural and 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♠is Fourth Suit Forcing.
But a significant number of players (including me), agree to play that 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠is Fourth Suit Forcing and opener will raise with four spades (i.e. 4-4-1-4 shape or maybe 4-4-0-5 shape). In this case you can agree the meaning of 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♠to be whatever you want (we play it as also Fourth Suit Forcing, but forcing to game).
I will be interested to hear what Julian plays.
That will be interesting Bernard. You will have to construct suitable East/West hands they were played on Real Bridge and I can’t get back to the histories.
Thinking about the title of your post, whilst the default rule is that a new suit at the three level is forcing, but there are exceptions such as:
1â™ -1NT
2♠-3♦
With long diamonds and 9+ points you would respond 2♦ over the 1â™ opening, so responder has a hand that is too weak for a two-over-one response. The auction suggests that responder has very short spades, long diamonds and and about 6-8 points and responder’s bids are non-forcing.
