Dear Mr Wolff:

I seem to recall that in a previous bidding problem, you endorsed Walsh responses to 1C. What is it about the intervening double that has you preferring 1D to 1S in this case?

Also, what minimum strength should opener expect from a hand that bids diamonds followed by spades?

Thanks.

Two comments actually:

Playing MPs or even BoM, this hand presents a dilemma not present in IMP scoring. If early in the session (no hint that you need a good board), would you take the hook at MPs?

Then, if declarer is making the safe play in diamonds, which needs a 3/2 split, should he not play a low one from both hands to guard against a stiff honor in 4/1 distribution?

Hi Michael,

Good questions both, especially so since perhaps others will also be interested in my attempted answers.

Yes, in unobstructed auctions it appears correct to “run to daylight” and bid a major suit first when the hand is limited, to cater to only making one positive bid, even if the bidder has more diamonds than the major, the reason being that major suit games are high on the priority list and when a hand is limited, the bidding may get up too high too fast (if and when the opponents now come in the bidding) for that hand to have the values to bid again.

However, the twist here is that RHO has barked setting up an altogether different priority, one in which redouble is used to show a good balanced hand (10+ HCPs) and mere suit calls then become according to one’s distribution. Here diamonds are longer and partner is now alerted to the new strategy. Also remember that righty may well have four cards in the subject major so it is not as likely that partner will have 4 supporting trumps for you, together with the probability that since LHO is likely to be weak, the odds are that you, the responder, will be faced with a slower developing auction.

The answer to your 2nd question depends on how high the bidding has reached, when next it is your turn to bid. For example if, after bidding 1 diamond LHO passes and your partner responds 1 heart then after RHO now passes, you should of course, respond 1 spade. Partner is now better placed to aim his response to the right trump suit (or NT) and at an appropriate level, since the whole table heard the entire bidding, including the TO double. However if the opponents intervene in hearts and partner remains silent I would not get too excited with your hand and certainly not compete in spades higher than the two level.

The conclusion, of course, is that a good partnership certainly recognizes the opponents competing and therefore gears it’s bidding toward a conservative bent, trying to find the right strain and, of course, the right level.

Nothing profound here, only bridge common sense.

Hi Bruce,

Sometimes I feel that we can exaggerate the difference between IMP’s and more demanding bridge scoring games such as matchpoints and B-A-M scoring. Delving further into your probing question, the only advice I can give you (others may dissect it more completely) is that if you reach what, at least looks to be the correct contract, do your best, within reason, to try and make it, even at the cost of sometimes losing an overtrick or two. In other words the worrying about some of what you mention may be paramount in the minds of mathematicians playing bridge, but the practicality of going plus is, at least to me, a greater god to please.

The above reflects my firm belief that the two other games mentioned, especially matchpoints, but even the great game of B-A-M, are bastardized versions of the real game we all love. Bridge is complicated enough without the impossible to calculate (keeping in mind the opponents bidding, reasoned opening lead, play up to then and even the tempo noticed before the opponents acted or did not) real percentages. Yes, the simple game of bridge is, IMHO far and away the greatest competitive mind game of all time, but trying to outguess the cards is just too difficult to do successfully.

Your further question concerning the possible 4-1 distribution only emphasizes the above. The answer is “NO, I would not cater to that possibility”. However your question may have caused me to reach a breaking point, beyond which my mind will not let me enter.

All in all and in retrospect, you are doing all would be excellent players a great service by bringing up these hand wringing questions and opening the door to what I think is going too far, but other experienced mentors may markedly differ with me.

Keep on truckin….