Hi Bobby,

The ghost of Terence Reese will be saying “I told you so” here, as he was a great critic of weak two suited overcalls. To be fair, I agree with you that bridge is a bidders’ game and the nuisance value of such bids, and their ability to find cheap saves, exceeds their losses especially at pairs. Once in a while, though, they rebound horribly as here.

Regards,

Iain

Dear Mr Wolff,
I think the final contract in LWTA must be four of a major. Otherwise, South is about to lead out of turn against 3NT declared by West!

Hi Michael, Bobby,

On LWTA, imagine the quoted hand is North so now cards lie well for declarer. Presumably the attacking diamond lead is now even more tempting.

Iain

Hi Iain and Michael,

Yes Iain, you bring up an interesting bridge point which Terence Reese, during his dominance, often espoused against the use of weak defensive distributional hands claiming that they often allowed the declarer to score up his contracts because of the “tells” in the bidding.

In order to assess that complaint one must also realize that by interrupting the communications of the much stronger side, it sometimes either leads to good sacrifice bidding (and in rare occasions) even making a high-level contract, but even more likely to destroy a free ride by their opponents and preempting their bidding space, often causing them to miss judge their final resting spot.

No real concrete answer to who is right and who is wrong, but my vote again is cast in favor of being aggressive defensively, instead of wimpy, especially today when high-level partnerships, if left in an unobstructed auction, are much more likely to get to the best contract than they were 50 years ago.

On the other subject Michael, my significant gaffe of South, instead of North, being on opening lead now, similar to what Convention Disruption (either not knowing or forgetting the meaning of a bidding convention) does at the table, renders bridge to have stopped and no alternative solution for their opponents to be able to save the bridge on that hand, almost always resulting in what could be called a “train wreck”.

I apologize for committing such a thing and appreciate being informed as well as agreeing with Iain’s comment about the opening lead, assuming it was North, since now the hand looks like it is breaking well for declarer, so aggressive leading is usually the better choice for taking more defensive tricks.

At least, we can salvage some knowledge from my inexcusable mistake and my thanks to both of you.

Dear Mr. Wolff,

I would really appreciate your comments on how to bid this hand at teams, both red. North is the dealer. Opponents are silent except East doubles if North makes a control bid in clubs.

KT9
KQ8
AQ9x
A98

Axxx
AJTxxxx
Kx
–

Thanks,
Mircea Giurgeu
Kitchener, ON

Hi Mircea,

How about: North South
1 D 1 H
2 NT 3 H
4 C (Big Raise) 4 D (Cue)
4 S (Cue) 5 C (Cue)
5 D (Cue) 5 S (GS Cue)
5 NT (GS Try) 7 H (Accept)
Pass except at pairs, perhaps consider 7NT.

Many sequences would get there and not to would be a probable disaster against a good team. East’s double of North’s first cue bid in clubs makes it easier for the club void to bid 7 since it would tell him that there will not be much wastage in clubs.

Mircea’s bidding problem is an interesting one. It seems that, oddly, S might find himself in a better position that his partner to judge 7NT. Using Bobby’s bidding sequence, after 4C doubled by East, can South with his club void, take control with 4NT? Or would that have a different meaning in this sequence?

It seems that once South is in possession of the fascinating intelligence that his partner has not only the three missing key cards, but the QH as well, he need worry only about his three spade losers. One will go away on the AC, a second most likely on a black K as it seems hard to build a N hand that does not have at least one black K (and nothing says S can’t just ask on his next bid). That just leaves one loser that can go away in a variety of ways with little or no risk.

Maybe it is sheer fantasy, but what fun it would be to bid 7NT with a void!

Hi Jeff S,

Your letter proves beyond any doubt, that you are, indeed, a real bridge lover.

Actually North, by his 4 club advance (cue bid and a big raise) would show 3 hearts, probably the queen but at least Kxx which, barring Qxx offside (a very small percentage) would solidify trump. As you adequately discuss, that the 13th trick can come from many sources, especially since East wanted a club lead, partner will have his strength where it will likely be useful.

Never forget, as some sometimes do, that nothing in bridge is foolproof and though playing the game for well over 60 years, it still provides surprises not remotely expected, so all we can practically do is make percentage bids and plays (at least in our opinion).

I loved your last line about the “fun” it would be to bid and make 7NT easily. Finding a partner who thinks and feels about the game as you do, sometimes takes experimentation and, of course, time, but when it occurs, that bonding will last a long time and bring plenty of joy.

It is not usually an option to bid regular (or KC) BW while holding a void, but you might convince me that after the double of 4 clubs it becomes the right action, especially if playing matchpoints and therefore, NT becomes a consideration.

Your love of the game will allow the above to happen, if, and when, you are ready for it.

In the offered bidding sequence for Mircea’s hand, that 3H call troubles me. Is it even forcing?

As an alternative, what would 4C mean? I might bid it, expecting it to mean extra heart length and short clubs (self splinter facing 2 or 3 hearts in support). Thus:

1D – 1H
2N – 4C
4D – and off to GS

Hi Jim2,

When asked to bid a hand, I need to assume that the partnership is playing what I think are standard bidding procedures and, in this case, most experienced pairs (not playing Acol) have ways to sign off after a strong 2NT bid (often a jump as in the suggested sequence), and Wolff Sign-off, 3 clubs instead would demand a 3 diamond response and then a 3 heart continuation would require partner to pass. There are of course other ways to effect the same thing, but only in Acol would a partnership consider 3 hearts not to be forcing.

Then when the 2NT bidder does not either raise to 4 hearts or prefer 3NT (both standard type rebids, usually depending on whether opener has 2 or 3 hearts) when opener then bids 4 clubs it should (and is) regarded as a cue bid and a stronger bid than merely a simple raise to 4 hearts. Remember the 2NT rebid has denied a singleton somewhere and somewhere between 17+-19 HCP’s.

Your proposed start could also get the job done, but I tried to add more of the current type of bidding wherein the earlier bids are (at least supposedly) slightly better defined.

Slam bidding, a marked American weakness 40+ years ago, has since improved and science has entered the building which a top partnership must encompass or not expect to match up equally with the best world partnerships around.

Finally, I originally came from the same bridge school you learned from, but, at least around the world, slam bidding has improved and is worth delving into.

Mr. Wolff,

I apologize for not thanking you and your fellow commentators Jeff and Jim sooner for your help. All your comments and insights are very helpful and highly appreciated.

At the table we failed to bid the grand and consequently lost the match by a few IMPs (at the other table they also didn’t bid it but they had us for a few overtricks on the remaining boards).

Me and my partner are much smaller caliber players but eager to improve, so I’m not embarrassed to ask here where would I find the best resource for learning as much as possible about your Sing-off convention? I’ve doing a bit of google-ing around but couldn’t come up with anything satisfactory. Do you have a book or some other material that would explain it in greater detail? In my opinion they key bid in your sequence allowing 7H to be reached relatively easily is 4C (as well as West’s double)

Please let me know.