Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Ian, are you referring to this week’s hand of the week (033)? The simple answer is that it is a take-out double. But maybe you are referring to something different?
Thanks Bernard.
The disadvantage in passing, then competing if the opponents subside in 3♣/♦, is that the opponents have found their fit and we are making the last guess in a competitive auction. If we can bid 3♥ directly the opponents will be forced to take the last guess whether to show support, pass or double. Would you play 1♠-(2NT)-3♣ and 1♠-(2NT)-3♦ as natural bids in your style? Or maybe showing stoppers for no trumps?
I have sympathy with your play – it is all too easy to fail to fully focus on the play after a bidding misunderstanding. Yes the spade play is probably best – anything really, except playing trumps!
Mark, the intervening double has taken away the obligation to bid. Opener can pass because responder has a chance to make a further bid. Like John, I would play that opener promises at least three card support to complete the transfer. A redouble suggests length in diamonds and (usually) only a doubleton heart.
Other schemes are possible and in the past I played that redouble showed a doubleton heart, pass showed three hearts and we completed the transfer with a four-card fit. The double gives you some extra options!
Andrew, 2D is an artificial bid of course and the opponent’s aren’t proposing to play in diamonds, so in a way a penalty double is redundant in this auction. But Bernard was playing that the double is similar to a penalty double in that it shows strength in diamonds. The bid is primarily intended to indicate a lead, but it can help partner to compete in diamonds with a suitable holding.
Stephen,
Bernard was South and intended the bid as forcing, which is fair enough and follows the general principle that a new suit at the three level is forcing. North clearly did not take it as forcing!
It wouldn’t be forcing for me, but I wouldn’t be sure playing with an experienced partner for the first time.
Stewart, I don’t think that Bernard can be faulted for not being able to see through the backs of the cards!
At the table, I think I would have simply ruffed a diamond at trick three, given that the objective was nine tricks. The heart finesse is rather committal.
Hi Charles, your method looks rather similar to ours. I think that you are able to show a competitive raise, an invitational raise and a game forcing raise but you don’t have any method of making a forcing bid in the other major?
I meant to type:
But that wasn’t the claim statement Stewart. If declarer thinks the hand is high why wouldn’t declarer continue with a diamond?
But that wasn’t the claim statement Stewart. If declarer thinks the hand is high why would declarer continue with a diamond?
For Julian’s benefit, West led the ♦3 against a six spade contract on this hand:
My thinking is that you need two tricks to defeat a small slam, not one. Good players will usually not bid a slam with two fast losers in a suit or two missing aces, so you are probably not going to win the first two tricks and there are a number of reasons why leading an ace might be harmful to the defence:
- Declarer might have the king and you would like your ace to be played on declarer’s king.
- The ace might be a vital entry later – once you have established a second trick.
- Playing an ace early might allow declarer to set up a suit.
Of course, not leading an ace also carries risks: declarer might be able to discard in the suit and declarer might make an expensive over-trick (at pairs). But my default choice is to not lead an ace against a suit small slam, unless I have a positive reason: maybe the auction indicated distributional hands and it might disappear if I don’t cash it, or maybe the opponents were unable to use Blackwood.
I don’t think it should make any difference on this hand, as long as West doesn’t make life easy for declarer by leading a heart.
Hi Ian, the first thing to understand us that responder would prefer to show a major suit rather than raise a minor, so the auction 1C-3C will tend to deny a four-card major. So there is little need to bid 3H or 3S to look for a major suit game. It is much better to use a new suit to look for a game in no trumps. Most play that a new suit shows at least three cards and a stop for no trumps (it is also possible to play that a new suit asks for a stop, but that is not part of standard Acol).
I disagree a little with John, in that I would not be stopping short of game on this particular hand.
Charles, they are different boards – the board number is on the Left! I was also taken in for a while.
I think that 3H by North only works if they have agreed it as forcing.
I play the same method as Julian – which is what Bernard described as his Simple Wriggle. But I was interested in you question Charles, because it came up in the dialogue in the Friday presentation a couple of weeks ago and Bernard made a reply about the idea of reversing the redouble and the suit bids: “You can play that, but it is not as sound and I’ll show you why later”. I don’t think that I ever saw the later, but I imagine that any theoretical difference would be marginal. I presume that in response to a redouble under your method, opener will bid 2C unless holding a doubleton club?
Incidentally, on nomenclature, I have always described Bernard’s Simple Wriggle as Halmic. Combining this with a redouble to show a 4333 shape seems an unhelpful add-on.
