Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think that David has now confirmed that the bid is legal.
Whether you choose to open 2♠ depends a lot on partnership expectations as well as on vulnerability and seat at the table. We tend to preempt a little aggressively in my partnership and this would be a 3♠ opening at most vulnerabilities for us. But if we were vulnerable, I might be choose to open 2♠ with the hand. I might choose to pass in second seat, as I am just as likely to be creating a problem for partner as for our opponents.
John, you should copy the question to David and he can confirm that it is legal and should be announced as “Weak”.
What was the vulnerability? And which seat were you in (who was dealer)?
Interesting hand Sean. What was the full deal?
Also, what was the vulnerability? I wondered whether North should maybe pass the double?
Gordon, You probably ought to copy this question also to David Stevenson, to answer on the legality.
My instinct was that North is close to 2S after the take-out double, holding 7 HCPs and a five card suit. Would that be a reasonable alternative Julian?
If my logic above is correct, the chances of West having started with four spades are:
6/10 X 5/9 = 30/90 =33.33%
I shouldn’t have needed the calculator to do that!
But another ind8cator occurs. East would tend not to lead a singleton when only holding one trump.
The odds of a 4-1 break will be effected by the heart preempt, but also by the lead. When our opponents pre-empt, then lead another suit, it is often a singleton. The lead of a jack would seem to be a doubleton at most. Let’s place East with eight cards in hearts/clubs and West with five. We have had one round of spades and West has followed to the second spade at the decision point. If my logic is correct, West has six vacant spaces and East has four. I think that the odds still favour a 3-2 break.
The lead is interesting. Why not lead the ace of hearts if East holds the ace and king? We expect West to hold a singleton heart and I suspect that West has either a singleton ace or king and a singleton ace blocks the suit!
If you take a successful finesse, you lose a heart and two diamonds. But if it loses, you can go down, when East plays the ace of hearts, a heart ruff and the ace of diamonds.
A better alternative is to play a spade to the ace and draw trumps if East follows suit, losing two diamonds and a heart. If East shows out, play the queen of diamonds. Whoever wins, the defence can take one top heart and either a heart ruff or the fourth trump.
Isn’t it correct to start with the king even if there had been no opposition bidding? You can’t pick up the jack and ten with East, but you could with West if East showed out.
What happened on the first two tricks? I would expect a heart to the king and a small heart, ruffed by West – which obviously changes our decision on how to play trumps.
Hi Kelvin, in Bernard’s methods and for most modern Acol players, 1S promises a five-card spade suit or longer, whereas double promises precisely four spades.
This is of course a matter for partnership agreement and it would be perfectly possible to agree to ignore the interference and respond 1S with four or more spades.
Yes, Andrew does seem to be suggesting this. But the article does state that you are lying about your heart length. All 4441 shapes are awkward and can lead to misleading partner in some way, the objective is to lie as little as possible. Personally, I choose not to lie about my holding in the majors.
Most authorities (including the EBU and Bernard, I believe), advise opening 1D.
I don’t think that your pick-up partner was playing Acol.
As Mark says, you should always open your longest suit. The idea that you open 1H with four heart and five diamonds is simply not Acol.
The modern style with 1444 is to open 1D. The reopening double doesn”t promise four hearts but, I think that three hearts is the minimum holding and four hearts will be common. You will be very strong for this reopening double since you know that partner can have at most five points.
I have also watched the seminar again. Bernard says that a cue bid by responder says “I am strong and excited”. He doesn’t explicitly say that it shows support, but that is the clear inference from the example hand.
It is also unclear whether the cue bid is invitational or forcing to game in his methods. It is invitational for me and a sequence such as 1S-(2D)-3D-(Pass)-3S can be passed.
There are quite a few questions here!
MINORS: Yes, good competitive bidding judgement is just as vital in the minors as in the majors. Many competitive bidding decisions take place in the part-score zone – particularly at Pairs scoring. Bernard values the -50 and -100 scores and penalties for going one or two off are exactly the same in a minor as in a major. Consider a typical part-score deal where the points are split roughly 20-20 and each side has an eight-card fit. Bernard argues that it always correct to compete to the three level and that will usually be to a minor suit (you might compete to 3H over 3S also). But there are also some differences: Everyone plays that the auction (1H)-1S-Pass-2H should show a good (Invitational+) raise in spades. But (1C)-1D-2C is played by some as just suggesting strength with no clear direction – often looking for 3NT. Others (including me) would play that (1C)-1D-2C promises diamond support, but even when that is the agreement 3NT might be the final destination.
ACTIONS BY RESPONDER: As stated above, everyone plays that the auction (1H)-1S-Pass-2H should show a good (Invitational+) raise in spades. You can play the same type of structure as responder, so that 1S-(2H)-3H shows a good raise in spades (this is my method and I think that that is what Bernard was recommending). But it is possible to simply ignore the over-call and bid 3S with invitational values – the argument is that a preemptive 3S is needed less once partner has opened. If playing this method, the cue bid would be a general force, probably looking for a stop for no trumps.
IS THERE A GAP? I would play the following structure after the auction starts (say) 1S-(2H):
- 2S – About 9 losers. Often a three-card suit. Sometimes a four-card suit but the hand will often be quite balanced if a four-card suit.
- 3S – About 8 losers, but fewer than invitational values (in terms of high Cards). Always at least a four-card suit.
- 3H – 8 or fewer losers. Always at least a four-card support, Invitational or stronger (say) 11+ points. With game values you will bid 4S (or cue bid) if partner tries to sign off in 3S.
If you are very aggressive, the 3S bid can be a wide range of High-card Points (o-10). Some also use 2NT as showing support and now it is possible to have 3S as a purely preemptive raise (say 0-6 HCPs) and use 2NT to show a raise with about 7-10 HCPs – sometimes called a Mixed Raise. This type of structure seems to be popular in the US and probably works better in a five-card major system, but I am not a fan, as I think it important to have 2NT available as a natural bid and showing a stop in the opponent’s suit.
