Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Charles, the link that you give only describes Check-back over a 1NT rebid. I play a form of Check-back after our 1NT rebid. But this doesn’t readily translate into a like-for-like convention over the 2NT rebid.
- After the 1NT rebid, there is room to stop below game in 2M or 2NT, if we don’t have the values for game. There is no space to be sure to stop below game after a 2NT rebid – if no major suit is found you will be in 3NT.
- In any case, most modern players play that the 2NT rebid is forcing to game. You say that the huge benefit of Check-back is that responser with 7-9 can inquire about range as well as fits, but as you can see this won’t be of use in deciding between part-score and game which is a core reason for Check back after the 1NT rebid.
- Of course the range might help judge slam bidding. But if our objective is to judge slams, it seems perverse that partner can’t show a natural club suit. Maybe you have some artificial way of showing slam?
- I also struggle with idea that the check-back bid is looking for 5/3 and 4/4 fits. Surely you find the 4/4 fit directly if playing 4-card majors (partner won’t respond 2C). And you can readily find the 5/3 fit by simply bidding 3S over 2NT (what does this 3S bid mean for you?).
I’m sure that an artificial 3C inquiry might be useful, but I don’t think that it can operate in the same way as a check-back 2C over 1NT.
It depends on what you are after. Books on card play never age. The great books include:
- Card Play Technique – Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo
- The Expert Game – Terrence Reese
- Killing Defence at Bridge – High Kelsey
- Defence in Depth – Martin Hoffman
- Simple Squeezes – High Kelsey (and the others that he wrote on squeezes)
More modern, excellent books on card play include:
- The Rodwell Files – Eric Rodwell
- Winning Suit Contract Leads – David Bird & Taf Anthias
- Winning No Trump Leads – David Bird & Taf Anthias
Books on bidding are much more difficult if you play Acol. I don’t think that there is a single decent book on modern Acol – a gap in the market that Bernard really ought to fill! There are some good books on aspects of bidding – e.g:
- Balancing in Contract Bridge – Mike Lawrence (any Mike Lawrence book is likely to be good).
Books on hand evaluation include:
- The Modern Losing Trick Count – Ron Klinger
- Hand Evaluation in Bridge – Brian Senior
- To Bid Or Not To Bid: The Law of Total Tricks – Larry Cohen
For humour, any of the Menagerie series by Victor Mollo or the Abbot series and Rabbi series by David Bird are great. I also like:
- The Kings’ Tales – Phillip and Robert King
- The Principle of Restricted Talent – Danny Kleinman & Nick Straguzzi
That should do for this Christmas …
Stewart – hand 3 is a good example of why you would prefer to play in spades. On a heart lead, you only have eight top tricks.
Charles – I know that some play 3C as Check-back. But I am not convinced. What do you do with a six card club suit which might be suitable for slam? If you bid 4C, you have already passed 3NT, which might be the optimum contract if partner is unsuitable for a club slam.
In general, as an order of preference you should look for:
- Four of a major – if you have an eight-card fit.
- 3NT if you have (semi-)balanced hands (and often even if they are not balanced).
- Five of a minor as a last resort.
Partner has shown a balanced 15-17 and you have a balanced 11. You might raise directly to 3NT, but it is possible that partner has five spades, so you give partner the choice of games by bidding 3S.
You don’t need to check that every suit is stopped – you wouldn’t check that every suit is stopped when you bid 1NT-3NT. When you bid 3D in this auction, you are suggesting that clubs or diamonds might be a better contract. I would expect that the auction 1S-2C-2NT-3D would show at least 10 cards in the minors.
You might bid 1NT (or even 2NT) with the third hand as an alternative to 3C. But you have to do something constructive, 2C doesn’t begin to describe the hand.
It is a subject for partnership discussion and agreement.
But for us:
- If there is only one unbid major: double shows four cards in that unbid major, bidding the suit shows five or more.
- In the specific sequence 1♣-(1♦), a bid of one heart or one spade promises a four-card suit. A double shows at least four cards in each major or a lot of extra strength.
- In the sequences 1♥-(1♠) or 1♠-(2♥), a double shows at least four cards in each minor OR the ability to cope with any response. Bidding either minor at the two-level (or three-level) promises a five-card suit.
- The most difficult is 1♦-(2♣): a bid of two hearts or two spades promises a five-card suit. A double shows at least four cards in each major. Partner should stretch to reopen.
I’m not sure that there is any expert consensus on this.
North should certainly be doing something. Bidding 5C is bidding to the level of fit, but the North hand is a balanced 10-loser hand. I would probably raise to 4C, but I agree that 5C would work really well on this deal.
Hi Graham, I’m not keen on East initiating a Blackwwod inquiry with a void. A response showing one key card will not be useful – East won’t know if it is the ace of hearts or the ace of clubs. East knows enough to bid 6S without Blackwood (or cue bid the void if interested in a Grand Slam- probably not here).
My thoughts:
Having a void in Partner’s suit is a major plus for the hand. The 1D opening is normal, so is the 2C over-call. West has a choice between double and 3S. It is marginal and if West judges the hand is only worth one bid, then maybe double is better (it tells East about 8 cards, 2S only tells East about 5 cards).
But 2S works well on this hand. With a fit and a void in the opponent’s suit we are playing with a 30-point deck and can ignore any points in the club suit. East should bid 4C (a splinter). West has a difficult judgement whether to sign off or cue-bid the hearts. But even if West signs off, East us strong enough to cue bid 5C, confirming the cue bud was a void, not a singleton and West can bid 6S.
Fabulous if you do bid this 24-point slam!
Yes, when I saw the warnings at the beginning, I was expecting something a bit more than “Oh my gawd”!
Michael, 3D would be a splinter in my main partnership. I do know of one good player who prefers it to be a natural strong jump shift rebid. If you have agreed this, then it is forcing to game and the 4D bid is agreeing diamonds and inviting cue bids (or maybe Minorwood).
I think that Julian will need the hands and auction:
In the auction above, Bernard suggested that West could bid a Scrambling 2NT rather than 3D.
As observed 1S-2D-3D is an awkward auction. Here are some thoughts:
- With 4-4 In spades and diamonds, prefer to rebid 2NT.
- Or some play that a 3NT rebid, promises 4-card support for partner.
- A 2NT rebid is also possible with 5242 shape – look at the texture of your hand.
- This implies that the 3D raise often includes a singleton.
- If you are playing IMPs (teams), 5D might be a sensible alternative.
- 3D isn’t forcing, but it is encouraging. I would rarely pass 3D at IMPs but passing can be more attractive at pairs.
- 3H over 3D shows heart values and suggests worry in clubs.
- At pairs, 3NT will show a club stop, but might be a bit flaky in hearts.
Hi Ian, if you try to ruff a club, you cannot draw trumps first (or you will have nothing to ruff with), so you would have to hope that clubs are 3-3 to avoid opponents ruffing first. But if clubs are 3-3 you will not need to ruff because your last club will be the thirteenth card and a winner.
Playing for clubs to be 3-3 will be your fall-back if the diamonds are 5-2 or worse.
