[Brian Davies]

Hi Jan,

It is probably best to post this in the David Stevenson forum.

Essentially you alert bids which are not natural. You alert doubles of a suit bid unless they are for takeout. You alert doubles of no trump bids unless they are for penalties. You do not alert calls above 3NT unless they are on the first round of bidding.

Announcements are a very specific form of alert and only occur in very particular cases: a 1NT or 2NT opening and Stayman or red suit transfers over 1NT or 2NT openings.

But David can expand on this far better than I can.

[Brian Davies]

This was a strange one. We comfortably bid and made 6H and I showed my my lack of predictive skills when I said “should be a flat board”. Our methods in this partnership are very straight forward: our 2NT response showed a fit and 16+ points (we would bid 3NT with 15 or fewer and no shortage).

The field included some strong pairs. Most of them were playing a Jacoby 2NT, but as your comments show, this should still get you to the slam. Brian’s comment is spot on: “This isn’t a minimum hand at all”. But no one seemed to agree!

[Brian Davies]

I’m not sure what partner would do over 3C. But maybe 3H – which Bernard describes as “I don’t fit with your shortage, but I am non-minimum”.

What now?

[Brian Davies]

Yes, it has always been standard to lead the king from KQJx or KQ10x in no trumps, but I have noticed more players leading the king from KQxx. I wondered whether this was a result of reading the Bird and Anthias book on no trump leads?

[Brian Davies]

Hi John,

Fit-showing Jumps can be useful in various situations. For example the 2S bid would be a fit-showing bid in the uncontested auction:

Pass-(Pass)-1D-(Pass); 2S

In this auction, the opener passed and then jumped to 2S, so cannot have opening points and 9-11 seems about right. But you were asking about a jump response in a new suit after an intervening takeout double, maybe:

1D-(Dbl)-2S

Responder is not a passed hand and I would suggest “9 or more points” would be more accurate as there is no reason for an upper limit and I have never come across anyone who plays an upper limit to the range in this situation.

[Brian Davies]

Partner competed with five hearts. I speculated that she might have passed five clubs with the ace of clubs, but she argued that the pass was forcing. Like you, I was not convinced.

Five clubs was made at the other table and we can beat that score if I can scrape together nine tricks. But I guessed to finesse in clubs, reasoning that the heart king was most likely to sit with East after the pre-empt, so was down three for -500.

Of course the best result is to pass out three clubs!

[Brian Davies]

South actually led the two of hearts. I now had time to take the spade finesse and score all 13 tricks. It was only in the post mortem that North claimed that she would have led the king of hearts with South’s holding and I thought it was an interesting theoretical question which line to take.

It was a SIM pairs and 12% of the field nationally were bidding and making slam – you will never beat them. You would score 76% for +720, 52% for +690 and only 17% for +600. But as you correctly identify, South would usually hold KQ10 for the lead of the king, so the field are more likely to lead the two of hearts if they choose a heart.

I tend to agree with idea that it would be silly to go down in a cold contract and just making 9 will beat the pairs in a slam if the cards are lying badly. I was wondering about the idea of playing a club to the ace at trick two and immediately finessing in clubs. Would South always continue hearts?

Thanks for the thoughtful response Brian 🙂

[Brian Davies]

Intriguing tease Brian!

I agree with the idea that 2NT allows partner to show additional shape at a lower level and tend to feel that it should be the normal default since we are forced to game anyway. But this isn’t always compatible with the idea that 3NT shows extras, which also makes sense (I’m not convinced that the Principle of Fast Arrival should apply in NT).

[Brian Davies]

“clearly you may have passed with a bad 12”

I think that I passed with a 12-count once. Back in 1988 or 1989 I think … 🙂

 

[Brian Davies]

The usual range for 1NT in the pass-out seat is 11-14, some more aggressive players might even have 10-14 as the range. Once you have passed, the 1NT bid show 11 Points (or maybe 10). At this vulnerability the bid has a good chance of succeeding even if you can’t make seven tricks – either by being a cheap sacrifice or by pushing the opponent’s up a level.

Note that the 11-14 range is borrowing a little bit more than a king!

 

 

 

[Brian Davies]

This post is a little confusing, but I think that you are asking about the strength of a sequence such as 1H-1NT: 2NT? And you are using the strength of a sequence such as 1H-1S; 2NT as a guideline? Whilst It might be useful as a memory guide, I don’t think that these sequences are necessarily related.

For what it’s worth, I would play the following:

1H-1NT-Pass: balanced or semi-balanced with 16 or fewer points at pairs

1H-1NT-2NT: balanced or semi balanced 17 or 18 at pairs

1H-1NT-3NT: balanced or semi balanced 19 (maybe 20) at pairs

At teams, I will do the same thing if non-vulnerable, but if I am vulnerable I will often raise to 2NT with 16 and raise to 3NT with 18. (Note that all of these ranges are assessed after full evaluation adjustments).

 

[Brian Davies]

I wasn’t suggesting that if responder bids 2C then later bids 2NT it would be forcing. I was saying that the sequence 1S-2C; 2NT would be forcing and I’m less sanguine that 3NT or 5C would be comfortable opposite a typical balanced 15-count.

I agree that there are various possible auctions and many would respond 2C. But for me, the North hand would be an attractive dummy in either a spade or heart contract, with seven working points and a useful looking singleton.

[Brian Davies]

Hi John,

Yes, I agree with this. With a singleton in the suit opened and a doubleton in the second suit you would have no tolerance for opener’s suits. Then of course it would be right to raise the level of the bidding and bid your own suit. This might even be a six-card suit, maybe:

♠4 ♥74 ♦K965 ♣QJ9876

But I cannot construct a hand where I would bid 3♣, but then raise if opener rebids the spades. These actions seem to me to be inconsistent.

[Brian Davies]

There is something called the “Rule of 14” – you add the number of cards in the suit to the number of points and if the answer is 14 or more you can respond at the two level. To be honest, it is relatively new to me and when I first heard of it I was not keen. It goes against all of the trends in modern bidding.

The North hand would meet this test (7 clubs + 7 points), but you are very likely to create a problem for yourself if you respond 2C. Imagine a different South hand and the bidding starting 1S-2C; 2NT which is forcing to game in modern Acol. You might bid 3C now, but this is still forcing and your partner is likely to bid 3NT next. You have arrived in 3NT on perhaps a combined 22 HCPs and this will have little chance unless your partner can establish the clubs and has the entries to enjoy them. But maybe you rescue yourself again to 4C (still technically forcing) or 5C? Are you likely to make 11 tricks opposite a balanced 15 count?

[Brian Davies]

It isn’t my style at all Reg. But older Acol texts would recommend 2C then 3C and suggest that this sequence might be based on shape rather than high-card points.

The problem with 2C is that a 2NT rebid is forcing to game in the modern world.

[Author]

Posts