Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kit Woolsey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike –

West can be as cute as he wants. But competing to the 2-level in a 7-card fit when you are outgunned in high cards is a good recipe for getting a minus score, possibly a big minus score.

Suppose you have some weakish hand with a fair but not solid 6-card spade suit. If RHO opens a strong club you will probably bid 2. There is risk involved, but you judge that the preemptive value of the call compensates for the risk. Partner could have a singleton spade, but most of the time he will have more than 1 spade and you will be okay.

Now, suppose you have a wire on the board that partner does, in fact, have a singleton spade. Would you still bid 2? Of course not. The danger of going for a number has increased enormously.

When East overcalls 1 West assumes a 5-card suit, since with a 6-bagger East might have bid 2. By raising on a doubleton, West is putting his head on the chopping block with only a 7-card fit. Either opponent might have a spade stack, or the hand might just be a misfit where nobody can make much. There isn't even the same advantage as the immediate preempt, since the opponents have had a chance to exchange some valuable information. It can't be a winning action.

March 27, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Okay, here are a bunch of possibilities. I do not necessarily agree with all of these or play them in my regular partnerships, and any of these could easily be switched depending on preference.

If a bid could be natural, that is the interpretation.
If a bid could be non-forcing, it is non-forcing.
If a double could be penalties, it is.
Any redouble of a penalty double is not business unless no other possible place to play.
3NT is always natural.
3NT is always a possible contract.
2NT in competition is never natural.
There are no slam tries below 3NT.
There are no choice of game Q-bids above 3NT.
If there is any question, a force does not exist.
4 of a minor is always forcing.
A new suit at the 3-level is always forcing.
4NT is always RKC if that is a possible interpretation.
If in a game force, a jump to game is always the weakest.
If opponents double an artificial call, pass is always weakest action.

I could go on and on, but I think these are sufficient to illustrate the concept. Once again, I do not necessarily agree with these rules. They are just examples of the types of rules all partnerships should have to avoid disasters.
March 26, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike and Jeff – In my partnerships, the general principle is that the cheapest available (i.e. not needed as natural) call above 4T is the RKC call, with 4NT swapping the normal meaning of that bid. Thus, if diamonds are trump and 4 is not needed as natural, 4 is RKC. If 4 is needed as natural but 4 is not, then 4 is RKC. If both 4 and 4 are needed as natural, then 4NT is RKC.

The big question, of course, is when is a bid needed as natural. We have several detailed rules which to the best of my knowledge cover any possible auction. One of them is as follows:

4 of a previously bid major is never RKC for a minor unless it is absolutely impossible for us to have a 7-card fit in the major.

Thus, on the auction Levin-Weinstein had which started 1-2;3-3, for us 4 would be an offer to play. Even though 3 might be concentration rather than a suit, it is still a natural call. Opener might have something like Axxxx KQx KQx xx, which would belong in 4 opposite, say, Qx AJ10x AJ10xx Jx. 4 would also be needed as natural by our rules, since spades have been previously bid. So, for us, 4NT would be the RKC call. Maybe not perfect, but we would be on firm ground as to what the bids mean.

Of course there are other possible rules. The key is to have unambiguous rules so there are no mixups.
March 25, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy – In my book, it is a Q-bid for diamonds with good spades. The 3 call is not control showing – period.
March 24, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The choice of games vs. slam try issue is a common one which any partnership needs to resolve. It was the main cause of the disaster.

The rules in my partnerships are as follows:

1) Unless we have an established 9-card major-suit fit, 3NT is always in the picture. Any call below 3NT is assumed to be a probe for the best game.

2) There are no choice of games Q-bids above 3NT unless slam is logically impossible. Any Q-bid is a slam try.

Other rules are fine, of course. The key is to have clearly defined rules.

Thus, for me Steve's 3 call, while perhaps best, is assumed to be concentration and a try to get to 3NT if Bobby has clubs stopped. Similarly, if Bobby had bid 3 that would show interest in playing in 4. It would not show a spade control, nor does his 4 call deny a spade control.

It appears from Bobby's response to RKC showing the queen of trumps that the 2 response promises a 5-card suit. Given that, a good case could be made for Bobby bidding RKC immediately. He has the controls and the source of tricks to be able to place the contract, and he won't be settling for 3NT anyway. The main argument against this is that Steve might have 3-card spade support. If so they could belong in 4, or if Steve has extras 6 to protect the king of hearts. Certainly Bobby should have bid RKC over 3. His failure to do so was based on fear of a mixup as to what the RKC bid is, illustrating the importance of firm agreement about RKC.

Incidentally, at the other table the player holding Bobby's hand did bid an immediate RKC. However, his partner bid 5NT, showing 2 keycards and a void. North couldn't believe that a void in the opening suit would have been shown, so he asked for the queen of trumps and the grand was reached. Once again, firmer agreements were needed.

It is interesting that two top pairs had the disaster of bidding a grand slam off the ace of trumps after using RKC on a deal which one would expect any competent pair to reach 6 or 6NT with no difficulty. It illustrates the importance of having clear agreements when employing high-powered tools.
March 24, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael – In the actual situation, with the evidence of your asking about the 2 call, if I had been on a committee I would have concluded that the reason you had done so was because you didn't see the 1 call correctly. Hence, I would not allow your 4 call since it would appear that you had received helpful UI. That's what the cards say in my mind.

This ruling would not be inconsistent with the ACBL interpretation. The evidence of the 1 opening bid is still authorized information. It is the alert and the explanation which might not be.

I agree with you that when in doubt in this sort of situation, rule against the potential offenders.

If such evidence was not there, I would not draw that conclusion, and I would allow the 4 call. I would think it far more likely that you had pulled the wrong bid out of the bidding box. That is just my judgment. Others may well disagree.

My point is that in neither case should your potentially self-serving statement of what you were thinking make a difference.

March 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael – In Utopia I agree that it should be treated as UI. The alert and explanation did awaken you to the fact that something was wrong, so given that you should not be permitted to bid 4.

The problem is that only you know the reason you bid 3NT. If I knew nothing about what had happened except the bidding and your hand, I would have no clue why you bid 3NT. Obviously the call has no relationship to reality, but the explanation for it would not be clear.

If the reason for your 3NT call had been that you meant to bid something else and accidentally pulled out 3NT, then surely you should be permitted to bid 4. Without any other information, that looks to me as perhaps the most logical explanation of your call.

It is my belief that directors and committees should avoid listening to potential self-serving statements by the players. I don't think the honest players who say what was in their mind should be punished, while other players who are quick-witted enough to come up with a self-serving statement about what they were thinking should be rewarded. Of course players may need to clarify their bidding methods to a director or committee. Also, a player may point out a bridge inference which the committee might not have thought of. But as far as what the player was actually thinking, I believe it should be “cards speak” as much as possible when making rulings.

Note the difference between your actual hand and my example of Axx xx QJxxx AQx. If you had held that hand, the cards would have spoken that you had meant your 3NT call as natural, thus the alert and explanation did give you the UI that partner interpreted your 3NT call other than what was intended.

On the actual hand, the cards speak to say that, for whatever reason, you didn't mean to bid 3NT. Partner's alert and explanation that your hand doesn't fit what she is expecting doesn't give you any new information that isn't available from looking at your hand and the previous bidding. It is quite obvious that you didn't mean your 3NT bid as what partner is expecting.

The actual example is further complicated by the fact that you asked about the 2 call. That is evidence of what actually happened in your mind, since if you had known partner had opened 1 you wouldn't have asked anything. Therefore, there is concrete evidence that you hadn't seen the opening bid properly, in which case a committee might well decide that this (rather than pulling the wrong bid out of the box) was the reason you had bid 3NT. If so, then the alert and explanation is UI for you, since it did give you helpful information. That is what the cards would speak.

The reason I conclude that the ACBL interpretation is correct is that it avoids having to figure out what a player was thinking and dealing with potential self-serving statements. Let the cards speak. If the director or committee judges from what happened that the alert and explanation were of some value to you, then your action must be constrained. However, the fact of the opening 1 bid has to be authorized information, so by itself partner's alert and explanation are also authorized information.

March 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Andy – I fully agree that if you bid 4 intending it as a Q-bid and partner is asked and explains it as RKC, then your actions are constrained. Of course a player may cheat and follow through as if he had bid RKC, and if his hand resembles an RKC call it would be impossible for anybody to know what had happened.

Let's suppose that Michael's hand were Axx xx QJxxx AQx. If he held that hand it would be clear that he thought his 3NT call was natural opposite a 1 opening. Debbie's alert and explanation would make him aware that he had made a systemic error, so that would be unauthorized information and his actions would be constrained.

The actual situation is quite different. His hand of Kxxxx 10xx Ax Qxx clearly has no relationship to any kind of 3NT bid. There might have any number of reasons why he had this accident. Perhaps, as he says, (and I certainly believe him) he thought Debbie had opened 1NT. Perhaps he pulled the wrong bid out of the bidding box. Perhaps he thought he had an extra ace.

It doesn't matter. Debbie's alert and explanation, a proper explanation of their agreements, does not give him the information that he has misbid. He has that information by looking at his hand and the auction properly. The information about what he holds in his hand and what the auction has been is authorized information. Hence, he should not be constrained.

The reason Michael felt he had an ethical problem was that his misbid was based on not seeing the 1 opening correctly. The explanation happened to wake him up to the fact that the opening bid was 1, not 1NT. Had his reason for the 3NT call been something else, such as pulling the wrong bid out of the box, I don't think he would have felt he had any ethical problems bidding 4.

March 9, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My first reaction was the same as Michael's – that the ACBL interpretation of the rules was wrong, and that he should not be permitted to bid 4. What he ethically should do was as unclear to me as it was to him at the table.

First of all, suppose they were playing with screens. Then Micheal would not have gotten any UI, so he could do whatever he thought best. He would initially think that partner's 4 call was an impossible bid, since he assumed that the auction was over when he bid 3NT. What would have happened? As I see it, there are 3 possibilities:

1) The 4 call might have awakened him to the fact that he erred with his 3NT bid. He would think that Debbie had some hand with no club stopper and 4+ diamonds. What would he bid? Seems like he would bid 4 or 4NT, probably 4, trying to get to a better strain. Passing 4 on his actual hand would make no sense.

2) His partner had psyched the 1NT opening. If he came to that conclusion, he would pass 4. The chances of that happening would depend on his partner. I have never played with Debbie as a partner so I couldn't say for certain, but if I had to make a guess I would judge that the chances of her psyching a 1NT opening at unfavorable vulnerability are zero.

3) The unusual combination of circumstances – the explanation of the 2 call which differed from what was on the convention card, partner's unexpected 4 bid – might have caused him to wake up and take another look at the auction. Obviously if he realized the opening bid had been 1 he would bid 4.

My conclusion is that Michael would never have passed 4, so he shouldn't be ethically required to do so. At the table all this is extremely difficult to work out, so I can sympathize with what he actually did.

Now, a couple of non-screen scenarios:

Suppose Michael knew Debbie had opened 1, and he had intended to bid something else – maybe 3 limit raise, maybe 2NT meaning whatever it means in their methods, and had accidentally pulled out the 3NT card. Would he then be barred from making the obvious 4 call? That doesn't seem at all right. But only Michael knows the reason he bid 3NT. We can't read his mind. So, should his required action be dependent upon what he had been thinking when he bid 3NT? That isn't fair at all.

Suppose Michael did bid 3NT thinking Debbie had opened 1NT, but just as he put the 3NT card on the tray he realized what he had done. Then Debbie's alert and explanation wouldn't be any new information to him. But how would we know that was what happened? We can't read his mind. Only he could know what he had actually been thinking.

My conclusion, admittedly with much reservations, is that the ACBL interpretation is the correct one. At least it spells out definitively what is and is not unauthorized information. It avoids putting players in difficult ethical dilemmas such as Michael found himself in. And it avoids the problem of directors and committees having to guess what a player was actually thinking.

There can be no question that the ACBL interpretation may on occasion result in a pair making a recovery from a disaster because of the alert procedure in the case where somebody pulled the wrong bid from the bidding box or mis-saw their partner's call. But I think this is a lesser evil than the alternative, which involves ethical dilemmas and subjective judgments by directors and committees. In this sort of situation the director and committee should examine very carefully what happened, and if there is any conceivable UI that will go against the offending pair. But the actual auction must be considered authorized information, and the assumption must be that the players know what the auction is, so alerts and explanations which correspond to the actual auction cannot be considered UI.
March 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve – It is a little different in Standard, since not only might you have opened 1 with a king less, you also might have opened 1 with an ace more. Therefore, it is less likely that responder will want to bid the third and final spade, and it might not be final. Playing Precision, the 3 call really is the third and final spade if non-forcing.

I don't think that changes the non-forcing interpretation of 3. It simple means that Standard players are on less firm ground on this sequence since opener isn't as limited.
March 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg – For some pairs perhaps 4 of a minor would not be forcing here. In my partnerships, virtually all non-competitive 4 of a minor bids are forcing. I believe that improved slam bidding from having 4 of a minor be forcing exceeds the value of being able to stop on a dime at 4 of a minor in a constructive auction.
March 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg – Failure to bid 3 the first time does not rule out a weak hand with long spades. Suppose you were dealt QJ109xx Kxx xx xx. This isn't close to an immediate 3 call. Yet, on the actual auction you would certainly want to be able to bid the third and final spade.

Whether 3 is better played forcing or non-forcing is not clear. Sometimes forcing will work better, sometimes non-forcing will work better.

My philosophy is that when the captain (with Precision, responder is always captain opposite a non 1 opening since opener is limited) might know exactly where the contract belongs he should be able to place the contract there. If responder has the strong hand with the 6-card spade suit, he will always have a decent chance to get to the right contract by bidding 3 even though he would prefer to have a forcing 3 call available. But when responder has the hand where he knows the right contract is 3, if he can't bid a non-forcing 3 he has no chance to get to the right contract.

Incidentally, if responder has a good hand with club or diamond support which he is willing to drive past 3NT, he doesn't have to bid 3. He simply bids 4 or 4 (yes, these calls are forcing – no invitational 4 of a minor calls).
March 8, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Adam – My definition of 3S opposite the Precision 1 opening is: To play. Opener is expected to pass most of the time, but if happens to really like his hand he can take a shot at game if he feels like it. So yes, it can be weaker than the actual hand.

Berkowitz-Cohen play 14-16 1NT opening bid. Thus the Precision 1 is assumed to be 11-13 balanced until proven otherwise.

Suppose you were playing 11-13 1NT opening bids. If your partner opened 1NT, would you drive this hand to game? I don't think so. Would you even invite game? Maybe, but even that has to be doubtful. Try a simulation where partner has 12-13 points and a balanced hand opposite this hand, and see how 4 does on balance. I'll bet it will be an underdog most of the time. Keep in mind that partner isn't barred. If he has something nice like KJx xx Axxx Axxx he will be bidding 4 over 3. Thus, you will be getting to game sometimes when game is good.

It is possible that partner has more than 13 points if he is distributional, such as the actual hand. But if he is distributional, any bets where his shortness is? And if his shortness is other than in spades, he'll surely raise to game.

Sure, you could be weaker for the 3 call, but not too much weaker. Sure, bidding 3 might result in a missed vulnerable game. But if you start with 1, you'll be guessing anyway. So why not make the descriptive bid?

I will agree that if there were only 2 players at the table 1 would be the better bid. But there are the opponents to consider. They probably hold at least half the deck, and it is quite likely that LHO has an overcall or takeout double if you bid 1. How would you feel if you bid 1, and the auction continued 2-P-3NT to you? Wouldn't you wish you had put it to them with a 3 call? The preempt puts LHO under a lot of pressure if he has a good hand.
March 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1 opening is probably right. The bidding figures to flow more smoothly opening 1 rather than a strong 1.

I would respond 3. I think it is right on target. Cohen wants to be in game opposite a decent fit and maximal values, and that is exactly what Berkowitz will be bidding game with. If East has an overcall, the 3 call will make things a lot more difficult for him. As for getting to 4, forget it. A 4-4 fit figures to play awfully. Also how will a heart fit ever be found, since Cohen will be rebidding spades whatever Berkowitz bids.

The 3 call is completely automatic. Anything else is an absurd position.

The big question is whether 3 is forcing. In my partnerships it is not. What is North supposed to do if he can't fit either minor? However, had South's rebid been 3 then we play 3 is forcing, since we don't make 3-level corrections over a rebid suit. We just pass.

If 3 is not forcing, clearly Berkowitz should have passed. If 3 is forcing, Berkowitz has no choice but to bid 4. However, if 3 is forcing I think Cohen made a bad call. He should have bid 4. Since he knows he is going to bid 4 whatever Berkowitz does, why not go there directly. Failure to do so was very costly on this hand, since the 4 call gave Weinstein a chance to show something as well as Berkowitz denying a spade fit, thus making Stewart's double easy. Had Cohen properly bid 4, I believe he would have escaped unscathed.

If the partnership did not have a firm agreement about whether or not 3 is forcing, they didn't do their homework. Any established partnership should be on firm ground here. Whether forcing or non-forcing is better could be debated – sometimes forcing will work better, sometimes (as here) non-forcing works better. What is important is to have the agreement.
March 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree Michael. Great discarding by the defenders may cause declarer to misread the position.

In addition to your suggested misleading discards, it might be possible for the defenders to never pitch a diamond when the diamonds are 4-2. This will leave declarer thinking the diamonds were 3-3 all along, which might lead to getting the ending wrong. I haven't analyzed the details.

This hand is quite interesting in that both defenders can place their partner with the necessary honors. They can see that declarer has 9 top tricks, so if declarer has as much as another king or minor-suit queen he can set up the tenth trick brute force. It is declarer's distribution which they can't be sure of. Also, the defenders don't know about the queen of hearts and the jack of diamonds.

When running the spades, I think declarer should leave 4 clubs in dummy as long as possible. This will leave the threat of ducking a club and then ruffing out a club in the defenders mind (if declarer's shape is 7-1-3-2), forcing a defender to hold onto his clubs too long and perhaps reveal something about his distribution.

The defense has a lot of problems. The danger in coming down to 2-2 in clubs is that declarer might not have the jack of diamonds, in which case setting up clubs would be his only hope. The danger in somebody discarding a diamond when the diamonds are 3-3 is that declarer might not have the queen of hearts, in which case the end-play can be avoided so the diamond discard may give declarer his only chance.

Can it be worked out? Possibly. Both defenders should discourage in hearts, denying the queen, while if a defender had the queen of hearts he should encourage. If one of the defenders has KJx or QJx of diamonds he should come down to a singleton club, making it clear to his partner to hang onto clubs and pitch a diamond. When neither defender does either of these things, the need for a deceptive discard at the end may become apparent.

I believe the best practical play, as well as the best theoretical play, is to run off 6 trumps. Declarer will still have the option of playing the diamonds either way if that would work. The defense will be down to 14 cards. Ideally they would like to keep 4 hearts, 6 diamonds, and 5 clubs, but that is 15 cards. So:

If the defense comes down to 5 diamonds, declarer plays the defender who discarded a diamond for the initial 4-card holding.

If the defense comes down to 4 clubs (very unlikely), declarer will have an interesting guess. Probably he should decide the clubs are 3-1, figure out from the discarding which way, and thus play the diamonds to initially be 4-2 the other way, since it is very unlikely that a defender would come down to Axx or Kxx of hearts.

If the defense comes down to 3 hearts, play as I suggested. This pretty much has to work.

I would judge that against all but the the greatest defenders this approach will make almost all the time, and that even against the greatest defenders it will succeed more often than not.

March 7, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve – Quite likely he didn't work out exactly why I had done what I did. However:

1) Whatever I am doing, whether I made the lie intentionally, thought 4C meant something else, or pulled the wrong card out of the bidding box, it has to be clear that I have a long and strong club suit.

2) There could be no doubt about the meaning of his 4NT call. We always use the cheapest artificial call above 4 of the trump suit for our RKC call. Furthermore, we have an overriding agreement that 4NT is never keycard for clubs. It is always a slam try, usually of the last train variety. That is clearly how he intended 4NT, and there could be no doubt that I would interpret it that way.

3) There can be no question that my pass of 5 is a forcing pass.

Given the above, I don't think it should matter whether or not he works out the exact reason I bid 4. He simply has to make a judgment call about the best bid, with the knowledge that RHO has a ton of red cards and that I showed interest in bidding on opposite his invite. He simply judged wrongly.
March 6, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve – As you have probably figured out, I was the East who pitched the curve ball. In regard to your points:

1) I had worked out that since I held the king of spades, there was no hand partner could have where he would do something disastrous immediately when he doesn't hold the ace of clubs. If he is bidding or moving towards a slam, he would surely:

a) With no control in one of the red suits, Q-bid the other red suit. However, unless he actually held the ace of clubs how could he be worth this? He doesn't have the king of spades, so he is looking at a potential spade loser. Maybe he could have AQJxx, xx, AKQ, xxx, but that's no problem since he would bid 4NT (diamond Q-bid) and I would sign off. He really can't have no diamond control and no ace of clubs considering the 2 overcall – he wouldn't even have the values for the 1 opening. Thus, if he is missing a red-suit control he isn't going to do something disastrous immediately.

b) If he has both red suits controlled, surely he would bid RKC. Even if he thought he wanted to be in slam and knew we had enough keycards (something like AQJxx, AQ, KQx, xxx) he wouldn't leap to slam. He would bid 4 (RKC), in case I had the ace of diamonds and the king of spades so we could get to a laydown grand. Once he bids RKC, my response will alert him to the missing ace of clubs if he isn't holding it.

Thus, when partner didn't have the ace of clubs I judged that there still wouldn't be an accident.

2) Considering the overcall, I felt it was far more likely than not that partner did hold the ace of clubs. If he does:

a) We have a very firm partnership understanding which is: We do not forget our methods. We always assume that partner remembers the methods, and never hedge to take into account the possibility that he has forgotten. Consequently, my partner will not think that I have forgotten what my 4 call means when he is looking at the ace of clubs. He will bid under the assumption that I knew what I was doing telling the intentional lie.

Even if it were possible that something might have been forgotten, it should be clear that I knew what 4 meant. If there were any doubt in my mind, I wouldn't have made the call when obviously I had a simple 3 rebid available. It is possible that the partner of the 4 bidder might forget the agreement, but the 4 bidder can't have forgotten or the bid would not have been made.

b) I was prepared to bid under the assumption that he had diagnosed the situation correctly. In reality I probably wasn't going to have to make any more decisions, since partner would likely take control, either by signing off in 4 or 5, bidding RKC, or with a red-suit Q-bid. Opposite the Q-bid my decision would be easy – sign off opposite a diamond Q-bid, but get to slam opposite a heart Q-bid.

c) He would certainly accept that I trusted him to figure out what was going on. If I weren't prepared to do that, I would never have made the call in the first place.

d) He still has to get it right. If he has the ace of clubs, I believe he has the information he needs to work out that I must have the king of spades (and of course a lot of clubs to the KQJ), since if I didn't have this hand I could not risk the lie. If he does work this out, it is 100% that he will get us to the right contract whatever his hand is.

I could have made the straightforward 3 rebid and nature would then take its course. At the table, I judged that bidding 4 would be a better description of my hand and would be more likely to get us to the right contract. You certainly may disagree with my judgment. But I assure you, I bid 4 with my eyes wide open.
March 6, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kitty – I do not agree that a forcing pass at the 5-level necessarily shows a control in their suit. It simply shows some interest in bidding on rather than defending. Control in their suit is not the end-all for a slam decision. You still need to be able to take 12 tricks.

I do agree that on this particular auction West can work out that the pass of 5 probably shows a diamond control, since without a diamond control how could East have anything extra offensively? Therefore, I do agree that your 5 call is quite reasonable.

If you read closely with what Henry wrote, you will see that you are not in agreement with him. He thinks the 5 call offers a choice between 5 and 6, depending on whether or not West has a diamond control. I am in your camp – I agree that 5 would show grand slam interest. So now you can feel better. You aren't in agreement with your ex.
March 6, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry – I believe I did say that I don't agree with the double. Obviously the opener failed to work out the curve ball.

Bidding 5 as you suggest is not likely to work. You know that you have a playable spade suit, but partner doesn't know that. He will think that clubs is set as trumps, and that you are interested in a grand. Thus, his choice of 5 or 6 won't be geared to his diamond holding.

It is nice to say that partner should work that out. But there is the curve ball again. One curve ball per auction is more than enough.
March 6, 2011
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bob – We play pass/double inversion is on when we have opened 1, we sre in a force, and the opponents are at the 4-level or higher. However, we play there is only one pass/double inversion per auction, which explains why the pass over 5 was just a normal forcing pass.

While p/d inversion is most valuable in strong club auctions where there may be more question of what the fit is, it can be used profitably for any forcing pass situation. If using it for all forcing pass situations, it is critical to be 100% sure that a forcing pass situation exists or there will be a big accident. That is why we choose to play it only with our 1 auctions, since it is easier to define when a forcing pass situation exists.
March 6, 2011

Bottom Home Top