Hi Bobby,Two troublesome hands from pairs. North held 1075 K963 962 J53,W/All. W pass N pass E 3H S X~W pass N ?Pard bids 3S and I raise to 4,minus 3.Pard thought pass not right cos the balanced shape..which I did not wholly agree..Should I have bid 4C,as 3S could be three carder?No game makes only 3HX-1 best res for NS.E xx A10xxxxx QJ Q10,S AKJ8 void K83 AK8762,W Q963 QJ A10xxx xx. Second hand,W/- W pass N pass E 2S(wk),S X,W 3S N 4H pass out,minus 2.E AK10xxx xx Qxx xx,S Jx Q1084 AJx Axxx,W Qxx AKxx xxxx Jx N 9x Jxx K10x KQ10xx.I was ‘wrong’ to double with the South’s hand for t/out,should North bid 4H or 4C?He bids 4H cos he thinks I could have 5H?!Regards~Patrick.

Hi Bobby

Regarding “Running to Daylight”, without a GF hand.
Say partner holds a weak hand, say:
95432
QJ98x
xx
x
would you prefer a transfer to H or S?

Hi Patrick,

It is always pleasant to hear from you since your queries usually involve themselves with “real life hands”, without individual agendas, and only seeking some other person’s view as to practical application. In no way am I suggesting that other questions received from others do not match the above, but rather just wanting to express positivity for “down the middle” advice and discussion.

Hand #1:

Let me proceed by generally summing up what I think should be the expected mindset from the side dealing with an opponent’s preempt, and thus what I think are the issues involved while dealing (rather I should say the choices of bidding) with them.

1. Obviously I cannot and would not seek any magical defenses, since IMO there are none available, only the necessity of using good judgment, assuming winning is the goal.

2. With choosing suits to respond, the normal caveats apply, but when trouble in “River City” arises, what should one do?

3. IMO, bidding, in the long run, is far better than steadfastly holding down the fort and passing for penalties, possibly muttering under one’s breath, “I’ll gamble it out, rather than fly to others who I know not of”.

4. If one’s next question is “why?” and it should be, here are my reasons.

A. Pass is very final, to me (but not necessarily to others) unilateral, and is done hopefully as making a crucial decision with as little information available as possible. Obviously it is not anyone’s fault, but here we are, in a war zone, but by the opponent’s making so, what to do?

B. By bidding something, yes, the battle becomes joined, but what happens next will usually be as random as random can be, with, again IMO hope for our partnership to do something intelligent. BTW, that something intelligent can range anywhere from a 4 digit penalty to a making game, or a much lesser down amount against a -730 (or even -930) by opting for what some may think is a conservative view, but, if so, I beg (or somewhat stronger) to differ.

C. Meanwhile back at the table (this particular hand), while 3 spades, a possible majority choice of those who consider the above advice assuming bidding something (other than pass) is agreed upon is one consideration.

D. However, so should be the running for daylight move of 3NT, at least recognizing the one card which keeps this hand from being referred to as a complete Yarborough.

E. Yes 3NT would be my choice, since my complexion is somewhat sallow by nature, so opponents will not (should not) be aware of my anxiety.

F. On the above bidding, partner does figure to be stronger than usual (pure percentages based on my weakness and my two opponent’s choices). At any rate 3NT is less misleading than is bidding a 3 card suit (albeit the suit partner usually wants me to choose). Not so much for my having only 3 of them, but rather for the horror of my entire hand. I need to mention here, that my experience with these types of harrowing moments (see above) is that partner unfortunately, figures to not meekly pass 3 spades. If true, then the most important reason for chirping 3 spades has vanished with the morning milk deliveries causing us to creating greater dangers than possibly already imagined.

G. Nothing more, nothing less, but we would all be kidding ourselves if we thought that these types of situations should not be discussed among aspiring partnerships, if and when, with some consistent strategy agreed upon, in order to expect to move up the bridge ladder as our real experience grows.

5. As a final summary of above, with something similar to this advice privy to partners, neither will have to worry about frivolous penalty passes of take out doubles, therefore enabling both partners to be able to use that catch-all bid (if that is what one wants to call it) more often and not worry about one’s bloodthirsty partner who unknown to you wants to show all opponents who is boss, but too often for his partnership’s good soon finds out.

Regarding your second question, I promise to not be so long winded.

1. South’s double is not recommended by me opposite a passed partner. However if it then goes 3 spades by partner P, P, then I will accept a pass, but prefer double now, which is still TO but is more in keeping with the strength held.

2. If it would go P, P by back to partner, I do think he should now bid 3 clubs which then would be passed back to West who would probably venture 3 spades which should be followed by three passes, yes, denying the best hand at this table never bidding (while the other three did) but what else is new, with our supposedly very logical game.

I will do everyone a favor and now sign off, for fear of already putting everyone to sleep.

Thanks for writing. Our site is much better because of you and I, for one, do appreciate whatever you thrust upon us.

Hi again Patrick,

Errata, with 1 above on the 2nd hand 2nd line partner should be West. Then on 2. above, also on the 2nd hand it should be after I pass and then West also passes, partner should reopen with 3 clubs and my tired advice then continued to be confusing by using denying instead of just not using that word in the description.

Please forgive my error prone explanations on the 2nd hand.

Hi Avi,

Yes, one could just transfer to one major suit or the other and pass, and if so I would choose spades because it seems somewhat superior to have one’s stronger suit trumps, but it is close.

Probably the best method would be to be playing trash Stayman as a convention, which would enable a 2 club bid by the weak responder and then pass a response of either major by partner or, instead if he bids 2 diamonds (denying a 4 card major) a 2 heart bid by you would require partner to pass unless he had 2 hearts and 3 spades wherein he is supposed to then bid 2 spades after denying 4 of them. That convention fits very well with your problem, but the principle and more frequent situation is when holding a 4-4-4-1 weak hand with both majors then 2 clubs and pass a major suit response, but if 2 diamonds is responded then a 2 heart bid would assure at least getting to the 7 card major suit instead of 6.

Pretty clever some of these little known conventions, but very worthwhile and should be played, otherwise a 4-4-4-1 hand with both majors should probably be passed because of the danger of playing a 6 card holding.

For those playing 2/1, always a question about whether Responder’s 1NT should be:
Forcing, so can never play in 1NT, or
Semi-forcing, making it awkward when Responder, holding the three-trump limit-raise strength hand, fears being passed out.
Any comment / advice on the trade-off, and deciding which to play?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

You definitely have hit a nerve with your current question.

Yes, although overall, the 2 over 1 GF with a forcing NT response to 1 of a major is not among my favorite devices, I do have a preference on how to make it more playable.

Play a 1NT response to 1 of a major semi-forcing, but allowing the opener to pass with a 12-13+ 5-3-3-2 opener. In order to smoothly handle this change, therefore the one necessary caveat to tweek is requiring a limit raise of a major with 3+ trumps and invitational values.

Advantages:

1. The 4th seat defender is then somewhat pressured into coming into the bidding with sub-minimum values for fear of it being passed out.

2. Allows the sometimes preferred contract of 1NT (Charles Goren’s famous quote comes to mind about 1NT is often the best resting spot to play an indifferent part score) to still be in the mix after a major suit opening, rather than practically impossible, especially after a 1 spade opening.

3. All experienced players know (or at least feel) that the 3 card minor rebid by the opener after opening with a 5 card major is not an advantage but rather a glitch to be overcome by the improved slam bidding evident by a GF immediate 2 over 1.

Disadvantages:

1. Not being able to bid a forcing NT and then jump in the major to show a 3 card fit, reserving an immediate limit raise to always be 4+ trumps.

2. The requirement to start with a 1NT response with wild distributions, but limited HCP’s certainly preferring even a minimum balanced partner to keep the bidding open so that the right suit contract can be obtained.

3. The inability to be able to respond 1NT to an opening major suit opening with unlimited balanced values.

However on frequency my preference is clearly in favor of only a semi-forcing NT response, but some like chocolate and others vanilla or even strawberry, making this decision clearly a partnership one and not just a unilateral judgment, unless one is blessed with a bridge partner to always let his or her partner choose.

And if you have a partner like that, as Ezio Pinza used to sing in “South Pacific”, “Never let her go”, especially if it happens on some enchanted evening.

As an extremely happy ‘convert’ from Forcing to ‘Intended Forcing’ NT, I have enjoyed more pleasing results. Of course, being partnered by Bobby, doesn’t hurt one’s score. However, I can tell you from first hand experience over a thirteen year period, moving on from KS to a more practical (and less rigid) method of bidding has helped to arrive at the right contract. We employ additional methods to accommodate third and fourth hand openings which enable us to stay low when the cards dictate!

From one who has been there/done that, my suggestion is: Try it, you’ll like it!

Hi Bobby,On the second hand,if pard (not a passed hand),would you x on that empty 12 count?On your comment as regards Question 2, point1,are you saying if the bidding went 2S X 3S pass, pass ?South should double again instead of pass with that 12 count?

Hi Patrick,

Heavens no. What I, at least, intended to say is that I would probably not double the first time, just not enough beef.

However if West would raise to 3 spades, followed by 2 passes, I would then double back in. And if West would pass his partner’s 2 spade bid then North should bid 3 clubs and only if West then bid 3 spades would I, when it got back around to me, would now raise to 4 clubs.

In either event I think that particular bidding, with all the what ifs, would be consistent with good bridge discipline.

Obviously if I would double the first time (I wouldn’t) partner is now going to have to take over for our side to get any higher.

What is then mentioned is basically the way high-level competitive bridge is played and because of that, I am hoping you agree with the logic involved.

Whether South doubles immediately or not is up for grabs. I definitely would not, but to do so, is not a violation of rigid discipline. To do what you feared was my intent, double and then upon having 3 spades passed back to me, double again is so gross it need not be discussed.

However if a South did so, coupled with a slow pass from partner after the 3 spade raise and back to me, any further action by South should draw a severe ethical penalty regardless of the result (good or bad).

Hi Bobby,My apologies for misreading what you said.Your comments are much appreciated and thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us.Very Best Regards~Patrick.