Complimentary Issue of Better Bridge Magazine March / April 2020 | Page 9

Vul: None
Dlr: South
Vul: Both
Dlr: North
DOUBLE
n
2♠
w
e
4♠
PASS
n
e
PASS PASS
2♣ 3♣
s
―
K Q 9 7 5 3
K 10 6 5
A Q 8
1♥
1♦ DBL DBL
n
w
s
♠
♥
♦
♣
Vul: N-S
Dlr: North
3♦
1♠
?
♠
♥
♦
♣
s
K
8 3
K Q 10 8 5
A K 8 6 5
2♦
e DBL PASS PASS
w
?
♠
♥
♦
♣
9 7 6
10 9 8 3
10 4
A 7 6 5
PASS 2♥
?
Double – This is a crapshoot. My double
is not for penalty. It simply shows a
good hand. This is a minimum for this
action, but partner did force me to the
three level with the negative double and
should have something decent. With a
balanced hand, partner will pass, which
is probably just as well. Hopefully,
partner will bid 5♦! 4♣ – This problem is why partner’s 3♦
should show more than a minimum
opening. I’m going to play along and
make a 4♣ control-showing bid. Pass – I rate to have 1½ club tricks plus
whatever partner has - having bid three
times opposite a passing partner. With
diamond length, I would pull. Partner's
hand is likely 4=3=5=1. Without much
of a fit, partner’s high cards will be taking
tricks on defense. Passing provides a
chance for a plus score but bidding
doesn’t rate to produce one.
4NT – This is a takeout bid, not
Blackwood. I’m prepared to remove
partner’s 5♣ to 5♦ to imply 6-4
shape – six hearts and four diamonds.
An immediate 5♦ would imply 5-5
distribution. 4♣ – A ‘naturalish’ second-suit bid,
giving up on 3NT because of the hearts.
If partner now makes an ace-showing
control bid of 4♥, I can bid 4NT,
Blackwood. Pass – Partner is implying a big 4=3=5=1
shape, or perhaps 4=3=6=0. I’m not mad
about passing but bidding 3♦ feels like
being overly timid.
5♦ – While I could bid 4NT as takeout,
I won’t confuse the issue since I can bid
where I know we have a fit. Double is
also a possibility as it isn’t for penalty –
it just shows a good hand – but I don’t
think I should have a void when I have
only 14 high-card points for a double. 4♣ – Sounds like we might have a
slam, so I will make the lowest control-
showing bid I can, 4♣. 3♠ would set
spades as trumps, so I can’t do that. Pass – Partner is likely to have 4=3=5=1
shape with a very strong hand. My ace
along with four trumps should be more
than enough help to defeat the contract.
4NT – For takeout, showing two places
to play. A five-level contract might make
or might be a good sacrifice over the
opponents’ 4♠ contract. 4♣ – I think partner should have four-
card diamond support to raise. So, I’m
willing to go past 3NT and make a 4♣
control-showing bid. Pass – Partner should be 4=3=5=1 with
a monster. I’m willing to defend with a
likely 1½ or 2 tricks in my hand.
The opponents have taken away a lot of the
bidding room, and this hand has only 14
high-card points plus 2 length points for
the six-card heart suit. Yet all the panelists
are willing to take the partnership to the
five level, given partner’s willingness to
compete at the three level. However, there
isn’t unanimous agreement the best way to
compete further. No disagreement here. Once partner
shows diamond support, all the experts
are willing to go past 3NT and look for
a potential slam by showing something in
clubs, hoping partner will cooperate by
showing a control in hearts. Again the panel is unanimous. All agree
partner is showing a very strong hand with
club shortness and only three-card support
for hearts. They also agree it should be
easier to take five tricks on defense rather
than nine or more on offense.
B etter B ridge . com
7