|
MABC Bidding Forum
June Answers
Several members of the panel ask for clarification of a bids meaning within MABC Standard. These clarifications will be answered as we go
along and noted on both the MABC Standard page and convention card. Also, if anything is added, that will noted also. To views
the bidding system used click here.
To see a chart of the panel and how they answered - Please click here
Go to problem# One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine
In the modern expert game there are very few "pure" penalty doubles. Almost all low level doubles
are either for takeout or "card showing" and even doubles of high level openings and high level preemptive jumps must have
"convertible values". In general, these doubles are highly effective, but they sometimes pose problems...
In fact, one panelist commented "All action oriented hands - No time to be timid." Another said "Bidding always puts the
pressure on the opponents to do the right thing and these hands need to apply the pressure."
One other comment, not all panelist make comments about their calls and some only make a few comments. Remember, there are no exactly right
or wrong answers and the players put a lot of thought into their answers. We should all really appreciate that.
Problem 1: Match-points; None Vul
ª -6 ©-K5 ¨-Q754 §-AKQ972
| Bid |
Votes* |
Score |
| 3¨ |
11 |
100 |
| 3ª |
9 |
90 |
| 3§ |
3 |
50 |
|
* One insufficient bid |
Good hand, possible tricks for NT or a...
Hook:"3§, go slowly with this potential misfit..."
Pettit: "3ª, denies hearts and looking for no-trump. If partners subsequently bids 4©, will pass.
What would partner bid over 3ª with say, ª-xxx ©-AQJ9 ¨-KTxx §-xx,
or is that not good
enough for a negative double of 2ª?
Stenger: "3ª asking North bid 3NT with spade stopper. West's preemptive bid and silence from
East
indicates that partner has some length in spades, possibly a stopper, and some strength in other suits."
No doubt about some strength in side suits, but there is nothing to say he has any length in spades
and if he holds a typical hand such as ª-Jxx ©-AQxx
¨-KJxxx §-x we easily have a game. Here,
the big question is would what you would bid over 4¨ if partner did not have the spade
stopper.
Cohen: "3ª, hoping to bid 4¨ as
'minorwood' at my next turn to call. Will pass 3NT if partner bids it and will correct 4©
to 5¨"
Turoff: ":3ª - I like my hand as source of tricks for no trump if partner can oblige."
A very strong opinion by; Gaults: "3ª- shoot pard if he bids 4©." Unless he has a six bagger and it works.
Shatz: "3ª- looking for 3NT. Why not?" Indeed, why not?
Robinson: "3ª --- Try to get to three no-trump. Slight overbid but I can't think of any other
bid which closely
describes this hand. Second choice is a conservative 3§."
Very deep analysis by
Sukoneck-Cody: " The auction indicates that partner has something of value. Without the 2ª
interference, we
would have jumped to 3§. With the limited bidding by the opponents, the likelihood that partner has
the right
stuff has improved, Since partner would pass 3§ (or 3¨)
with many hands where 3NT would be cold, we think a
slight overbid of 3ª is the best shot at describing our hand. 3ª."
Think this player misread the problem;
Gandenburger: "2 diamonds is better than two clubs the other alternative that is tempting."
But maybe he was thinking like:
Lazarus: "3¨ - allows partner to rebid a 5 card heart suit, and to bid 3NT with
a spade stopper. Also shows
distribution and a stronger than minimum hand."
D. Afdahl: "3¨; Partners negative double only promises 4(+) hearts, but he
should have at least ten points to force
the bidding to the three level. I have a better than average hand with a good club suit. Three diamonds may allow
us to get to three no-trump. I would bid three clubs with a minimum hand (no king of hearts)."
K. Afdahl: "3¨ - May be what partner needs to hear to bid 3NT. Partner will
know I rate to have a resting spot
in clubs (longer clubs than diamonds) if he was merely inquiring about a heart fit."
Parker: "3¨ - tough problem because the instinctive answer is to bid 3ª assuming pard will bid 3NT with a
stopper in spades. If he doesn't interpret this correctly and bids 4© assuming you
are showing a heart fit or you will
soar into the stratosphere if he doesn't have a stopper and bids 4©, you will be
forced to 5 clubs when diamonds
might well be your best fit. Thus, over 3¨ he can bid 3NT, and he bids 3© and now you can q bid."
Problem 2: Match-points; N/S Vul
ª -753 ©-AQ ¨-KQ9 §-AK952
MABC Standard Uses Support Doubles
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| 3ª |
12 |
100 |
| 3¨ |
7 |
85 |
| D'ble |
1 |
70 |
| 3§ |
2 |
70 |
| Pass |
2 |
50 |
What would a double show here? Several panelists made comments about a double in this situation
and one went into great detail.
Cohen: "3¨ (a reverse denying 3 or more hearts since I did not cue spades or
make support double), leaving
all options open including playing clubs." Al thinks the double is support.
Hook: "3¨ (support doubles are off), planning to pass 3NT, 4© over 3© and pass over anything else -
Get
your 'sorry partner' ready."
Gandenburger: "3¨ is my call although I was tempted sorely to make the support
double. The five two fit will only
be good if the suit breaks, but it does not rate to."
Kurt seems to think they apply here
Joyces: "3 Diamonds We consider this to be the unbiddable problem of the year. We hope that partner has gotten
the previous hand out of his mind."
Lazarus: "3¨ - 3ª would tend to
show heart support. On this hand it is unnecessary to have this ambiguity. Partner
will rebid 3© with 5 hearts. And probably no-trump with a spade stop. Simple can
be effective.
One panel member looks for the most likely game and if doesn't work, will look for a playable
spot later: Stenger: "3ª, this hand is too strong for a "short" support double
and 3NT is likely to be the better
spot if North lacks strength for slam." Also thinks a double is support.
Pettit: "3ª, would have liked to bid 3§ if
playing "good/bad 2NT", but you can’t have everything."
Turoff: "3ª, aggressive, but the most viable bid available"
Shatz: "3ª- same as #1. Why not again?" Indeed, why not again?
Real detailed reasoning and a little side info from: D. Afdahl: " 3ª, Support doubles
and redoubles are
normally used when we can bid our suit at the two level. (However, I know of one American expert (former
world champion) who uses support doubles/redoubles through three spades. This may be a good idea.) Back
to the problem. You have too good of a hand to make a minimum bid. But, you don’t have four hearts, you
don’t have a second suit, and you don’t have a spade stopper. That only leaves the cue bid, asking partner
to further describe his hand."
Robinson: "3ª --- Choice of games. Try to get to three no-trump.: Steve doesn't say so, but
if it is choice
of game it is likely that he will pass 4©...could easily be the winner.
A "free" rebid showing a little extra
K. Afdahl: "3§ - This hand would have been difficult to bid with or without the interference. I
don’t consider
this a support double situation since the raise would have to be made at the 3-level. We won’t get rich defending
2ª and even if partner is dead minimum we should be able to make a part score in clubs or hearts. My free bid
shows some extra values and may encourage partner to try for a game."
Parker: "3§ - too good to pass, although pard should reopen with short spades. But will he with
x/Kxxxx/Axx/xxx?
and if he does what will you bid to make up for this good a hand. I would not disagree with those that chose a
support double with only 2."
The fact that spades may get raised by your LHO is another good reason to show long, strong clubs!
And this pair wants to double:
Sukoneck-Cody: " Before this problem and the next problem can be solved, the double of 2ª must
be defined.
The definition should include the most useful way to use the double. We would define the double of 2ª
as "a balanced
hand with 18-19 HCP, with or without a spade stopper, not promising length and indicating no clear-cut action. It is
not a penalty double, it is a descriptive double. Partner should bid no trump with a stopper or cue bid to game force
without a stopper. Double."
Pretty convincing case for "card showing" or "descriptive" doubles.
Problem 3: IMPs; None Vul
ª -AQ96 ©-KJ7 ¨-A9875 §-4
MABC Standard Uses Support Doubles
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| D'ble |
15 |
100 |
| Pass |
7 |
80 |
| 3© |
2 |
40 |
Again, do support double apply here? Surely not, and partner will sit for a penalty double with almost
any hand that has two spades. But when good opponents make a preemptive jump overcall between
two bidding opponents missing the Ace-Queen they MAY know what they are doing.
Pettit: "Double...spade spots make this an easy call. Second choice is 3©
and if partner pulls double next decision
should be easier. Even if he makes a minimum call such as 3¨?
Cohen; "Tough problem, but double is best since pass may (?) result in them playing 2ª
undoubled against our
making anywhere from 2-4 hearts opposite as little as four or five hearts to Ace in a bid hand." Then playing it
undoubled may not be bad!"
Hook: "Double (again support doubles are off), describes you hand as best you can."
Stenger: "Double, and if partner bids clubs bid 3NT."
Joyces: " Double We may have a juicy penalty, but the Heart game looks appealing also. We'll hold down our
end of the table and not try to guess all the other hands."
Shatz: " Double - I assume this would be business and not support."
It appears this player does play a double here as support; Parker: "Double - must show support when
you have it. Find your fit and then worry about level and strain.."
This panelist thinks his partner should help make the decision:
Kovacich: " Pass; will pass reopening double, raise it if partner bids 3©."
As do Smiths: " Pass Again, support doubles are out."
D. Afdahl: " I might double at matchpoints, but there is too great a chance the opponents can make two spades. I
f partner has cards, he should reopen with a double and then I can pass. Second choice would be to bid two no-trump
hoping for partner to have a club stopper."
Yes, he is giving the opponents some respect - it would not be surprising for the bidder to have some sort
of black two suitter and then you may not have enough tricks to beat 2ª."
K. Afdahl: "Pass, Not a tough problem at MP’s. Double (for penalties) is pretty automatic. But discretion is best at
IMPS where doubled part scores make teammates roll their eyes." Yes, I think we have all been there
S. Robinson: " Pass---Wait for reopening double. If partner passes 2ª, we probably won't have a
game."
Good point - and if he does pass there is a good chance they will make 2ª or only go down one.
And completing their case for descriptive doubles; Sukoneck-Cody:" Since double would be a strong
balanced hand, we must pass and wait for partner to reopen with double. Double by partner would just be a
balancing double.
Of course, we would pass partner's balancing double. Pass."
What would it take for partner to reopen with a double? Would something like ª-xx ©-9763 ¨-K6 §-A9762
or ª-xx ©-Q9632 ¨-Kx §-Jxx do or does he need more. That puny looking 6 count gives some play
for
game and almost surely enough to beat 2ª.
Problem 4: Match-points; N/S Vul
ª -AJ95 ©-72 ¨-K97 §-Q642
MABC Standard Uses Support Doubles
|
N |
E |
S |
W |
|
P |
P |
P |
|
1 ¨ |
P |
1 ª |
2 © |
|
D’ble |
P |
? |
|
| Bid |
Vote |
Score |
| 2ª |
17 |
100 |
| 3§ |
4 |
70 |
| 3¨ |
2 |
70 |
| 3© |
1 |
30 |
Among the 2ª bidders; Pettit: "If partner can’t move again over this, game is remote"
Should partner move, wouldn’t you rebid 2ª with ª-Qxxxx ©-xx ¨-Axx §-xxx?
Cohen: "Where there is no sure 4-4 fit anywhere it is right to try for any plus score. Therefore 2ª
is least dangerous
call should produce a plus and it keeps the level down."
Gandenburger: " I would settle for two spades since we don't yet have a real fit."
Joyces: "2ª- Keep it low and go for a plus score. Pard doesn't have to have 5 Diamonds or an
exceptionally good hand."
D. Afdahl: "2ª - Matchpoints and the major pays more than the minor. Even knowing partner has
only three spades,
I like my spade spots. It would only be right to bid three diamonds, if partner has 5(+) diamonds and you can make four diamonds versus two
spades, or three diamonds makes and two spades goes down."
Making another good point is Robinson: "2ª---If partner has a weak no-trump with three
spades, 2ª will as good
as any. If partner has extras he will bid again. Since we are forced to bid something, 2ª does not
promise five spades."
Another side heard from;
Hook: "3¨ - can't stand pump with spades trump. Partner will pass or bid
3NT".
Why, wouldn't you bid 3¨ with something like ª-Axxx
©-xx ¨-Qxxxx §-Jx? No, you can be sure that a
3¨ call will end the auction for your side."
Shatz: "3¨ Pard with only 3 spades and short hearts rates to have good diamonds
and then the heart tap comes in
the short trump hand. Pard may have enough for another call. so game is still possible."
Again, why does partner rate to have long diamonds? Couldn't he be 3-2-4-4 or even 3-3-4-3? Hearts were
not raised so why should partner be really short? You do give up something (especially the pass) when you
agree to play support doubles.
This panel member suggest another course of action,
Stenger: "3§ as this hand is strong enough to suspect game if North has any extra values.
Bidding 3§ provides that
info and suggest South's spades are only four long."
Are you sure your partner will take that as forcing or maybe a weak 4-6 in the blacks?"
The same bid, but with more questions.
Turoff: "3§ which I really don't like, but nothing seems right. Partner probably has a good
hand (But could be minimum). This MAY be more constructive that 3¨.
Mike is more sure; Kovacich: "3§, constructive but NF
Problem 5: IMPs; Both Vul
ª -97 ©-AJ965 ¨-KQ87 §-87
|
N |
E |
S |
W |
|
1 ¨ |
1 ª |
D’ble |
P |
|
2 § |
P |
? |
|
a. Do you agree with negative double?
b. What call do make now?
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| Problem 5a |
| No |
16 |
100 |
| Yes |
8 |
75 |
| Problem 5b |
| 3¨ |
19 |
100 |
| 2© |
2 |
80 |
| 2¨ |
2 |
50 |
| Abstain |
1 |
0 |
Along with other things in this problem is can the hand commit to the four level but bidding 3©
over
1ª (a "fit showing" jump shift) with these values. Surpassingly there were few comments about a 3©
call instead of a 2© bid or the negative double that was made at the table.
Pettit: "Yes – 3¨, partner doesn't have three hearts – the opponents
would be speaking louder, and if partner
does have three hearts, they can be bid after my invitational jump (example: ª-xx ©-KQx ¨-ATxx §-A9xx).
Another "yes" takes a different approach .
Wisdom: "Yes - 2©, I assume partner won't play me for having made a one suitted
negative double."
Excellent point; if you had a one suitter not worth a forcing bid you would wait for the reopening double,
if you had only a four card heart suit with diamonds you would just correct 2§ back to 2¨, alas, you must
have a five card heart suit and values to play at 3¨ if opener does not have 3©."
Joyces: "Yes, 3¨- As Al Roth has said on occasion, What's the Problem? Also,
this must be the most 3 Diamond
answers ever recorded."
Again, lots of good points from; D Afdahl: "Yes, If I had better heart intermediate spot cards or a singleton in
one of the black suits, I would favor a two heart call. Now, I would jump to three diamonds to show good diamonds
and an invitational hand."
Parker: "Yes and now 3¨ - good fit, prime cards. Pard can always bid 3© to show three and a god hand, at this
point just in case you have a 5 card heart suit."
Now a word from the NO WAY bidders
Cohen: "Would never double with this hand. Would have bid 2© and then support
diamonds. Problem is now a
guessing game, but 3¨ is best guess."
Hook: "No, would bid 2© and pass next time unless forced. Would now bid a
non-forcing 3¨. Having missdiscribed
my hand, I take the position we belong in 3NT or even 5¨. Partner MAY check for
hearts with a three card holding,
but I doubt it."
Not exactly agreeing with:
White: 3¨. If partner is willing to accept, he should bid 3© with 3 card support." or Lazarus: " No. With the diamond
fit 2© is more descriptive., but now 3¨.
North will bid 3© with a three card Heart suit and extra values."
Not even guessing if partner will show a three card heart suit are . Afdahl: "No, It gives up on locating your
8-card fit in hearts which I believe is the most likely chance for game. I bid 3¨ now only because I’m
Vul at IMPs.
Chances of finding partner with precisely the right hand for game are slim, but worth some encouragement on my part.
Would bid 2¨ NV."
Robinson: " No---2 hearts followed by the cheapest diamond call describes this hand. Now, 3¨
shows invitational hand
with diamonds."
The question of fit-showing jumps was brought up by: Sukoneck-Cody:" No - Making a negative double is a
terrible bid. If fit showing jumps were not part of our bidding arsenal, we would bid 2©
the first time. Once forced
into this abomination of an auction, we will lose the heart suit and bid 2¨."
Is the hand good enough for 3© (fit showing) over the 1ª
overcall? I think so and am a little surprised
that other panelist did not bring up this bid.
Stenger (also Richard Brown): "No, this hand has the strength and length to bid 2©..."
This panel member goes into greater detail:
Gandenburger: " That is a 2 © call in my book...interference should do away
with 2 over 1 and allow for spot bids
to locate fits. You can't negative double and bid 2© because that usually show a
weaker hand with better hearts. The
answer now is 2¨." 2¨
seems somewhat timid on a hand that would have pushed to the three level if you
had not been straddled with the negative double. This is especially true now you know your partner has
real diamond length.
Smiths: " No, we do not agree with the negative double. Too easy for heart suit to get lost, particularly if they
jump raise spades. However, if we had made a negative double, the next call would be 3¨."
Problem 6: Match-points; None Vul
ª -8 ©-AQJ963 ¨-K83 §-J75
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| 2H |
18 |
100 |
| 1NT |
5 |
50 |
| 3H |
1 |
20 |
The question here is if this hand is worth 2© followed by a non-forcing 3© over any minimum rebid
by opener. Some though yes – some thought no and some hedged. Remember this system plays that
2© followed by 3© is only
invitational.
Pettit: "2©, did I misread the problem? Playing three level (invitational)
jump shifts would have shown this hand.
Second choice is 1NT followed by 3© over any bid below 2NT by partner."
In the same vane; Gaults: "2© (a joke??)"
This player made the top call, but possibly for the wrong reasons.
Hook: "2©, forcing to game. Will accept 3NT from partner now or after I rebid
Hearts. Field will be in game."
This hand came from a fairly strong pair game and 3© was the usual contract - 4© could be made,
and 3NT was cold.
Likewise; Sukoneck-Cody:" 2©. We will game force and hope for the best. If
we were in first seat we would
have opened 1©. Why would we devalue this hand as responder?"
Stenger: "2© - should be the obvious bid. Shows length and strength and a rebid
of 3© at the next bid will limit the hand."
Kovacich:"2 hearts; may be misfit, but still a good hand."
Shatz: "2© What else?"
K Afdahl: "2© - I won’t be afraid to rebid 3© non-forcing over 2ª . If partner has a strong hand, he might be
compelled to make an unnatural forcing bid over a 1NT response. Since I am playing a system which allows me to
bid at the two-level without forcing to game, I do it. Natural bidding is usually best."
Especially if your LHO decides to get into the action!
Parker: "2© - with the 6th heart and good spots I will decide this is an
opening bid. Too hard to catch up if you
start with a forcing NT."
Robinson; "2© --- Followed by 3©
shows an invitational hand."
One panelist makes a case for his methods - Cohen: "I play 3© (6 card
suit, 10-12 points with no more than
two spades) in my system handles this hand. However, if playing 2/1 GF I bid 1NT and follow with 3©
unless
partner rebids 2ª - then I have a real problem."
Another plea for a jump to the three level being invitational:
Cappelletti Jr/Liscomb:" 1st choice 3 © (if invitational) if not, 2 hearts,
followed by 3 hearts."
This panel member has other ideas;
Gandenburger: " I prefer one NT to making a crappy two/one. My next bid will be three hearts to show a good hand
and suit."
Another case for 1NT; Joyces: "1NT A matter of style. We play our 2 over 1's as good hands. This hand fits with
1NT and a jump to 3 ©. A good question to pose to first time partners is if pard
will play you for this hand over 1NT."
The problem is that you might not have a chance to jump - partner could rebid 2ª or your LHO
could
get in the auction and bidding could be at 3 of a minor when it gets back to you. Now, would 3©
do justice
to your hand?
Problem 7: IMPs; E/W Vul
ª -KQ9 ©-AJ6 ¨-KQ642 §-AT
MABC Standard Uses Support Doubles
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| D'ble |
13 |
100 |
| 2NT |
9 |
90 |
| 2S |
1 |
70 |
| 2H |
1 |
50 |
| There were three corrections made in problem7 (Gault, Robinson, White) after the initial posting. Gault
was originally put up as 3NT ( a typo error in answering-meant to be 2NT), Robinson as 2© (my error-should have been 2ª) and
White as 4© (misread the problem - changed to
Double).
All are corrected in the bidding chart and in the comments below |
Support double or value bid first? Most play that any call other the double denies three card support for
responder’s suit, but responder can always "check-back" for three card support over a strong rebid by
opener. You pays your money and you takes your choice -–both methods are quite playable, the main question:
which is best?
Pettit: "Double followed by 3NT unless partner makes a strong bid"
Would 4© be a strong call or just a long suit?
Cohen: "Double followed by 3NT...perfect description of my hand"
Hook: "Double and 4© over 2©
and 3NT over any other call."
Shatz: " Double, temporizing. will show this monster later."
Another reason for the double; K. Afdahl: " Although the auction might be awkward from here on, to maintain
partnership trust, I must show 3-card support now. "
This pair didn't think it was even a problem; Sukoneck-Cody:" A non-problem. We make a support double,
then invite in no trump. We describe our hand to partner. If partner jumps to game, we will move towards slam.
This player goes for the value bid; Stenger: "2NT showing strong hand with Spade stoppers, and if partner rebids
hearts can raise to game..."
and so does;
Turoff: "2NT - bypassing the support double with two spade stops seem prudent."
Joyces: "2NT Go with the value bid."
Kovacich: "2NT; if partner has spade length, NT is probably better. I bid NT with good spades even if holding 3
hearts when I have extra."
D. Afdahl: "2NT, Show you values first. Partner can always check back if he wants to know if you have three hearts."
How true, the 2NT rebid does not preclude a heart contract, but partner maybe reluctant to let you
play NT if you make a support double and bid NT over a minimum rebid.
And yet another value bid; Robinson: "2ª---Cue bid. If I then later bid three no-trump,
it will mean that I have
other strains in mind. If I really wanted to play three no-trump, I would bid it directly. " But will partner deduce
from the lack of a support double that one of the choices is hearts?
Still another value bid with a very valid comment:
Gaults: "2NT NEVER, NEVER use a gadget when there is a straight forward bid to describe your hand!"
Problem 8: IMPs; Both Vul
8. ª-76 ©-AK92 ¨-K108 §-AQT5
*Stronger than 4 ¨
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| D'ble |
17 |
100 |
| 4NT |
1 |
90 |
| Pass |
6 |
80 |
Some also though this was a good time to suggest a trump lead if they doubled or passed. I cannot see
why - there is not indication that there will be any spades in dummy (at least 9 or more are accounted for)
and partner would not appreciate a spade lead with something like honor third.
Pettit: "Pass...seen too many –990s on these, but there are merits to double and 4NT"
Hook: "Pass - and lead a spade"
Shatz: "Pass - even I pass on occasion."
Saying it very well; Parker: " Pass - sometimes you are just fixed. Double would be penalty oriented and there is
no guarantee you can beat them."
Cohen: "Double (Penalty in my system) and lead a trump. Not enough distribution of 4NT takeout."
Dar sounds a little worried; D Afdahl: "Double, Primarily penalty. If East has a spade-diamond two suitter, he
could be making this doubled contract. However, there is too good a chance that he is going down or that we can
make a vulnerable contract."
What does partner need to pull a "Primarily penalty double?
K Afdahl: "Double, Even if it makes, I don’t envision over-tricks. At IMPs its no disaster and the payoff is worth it.
If partner can’t stand the double, maybe we should be bidding. Mine is probably the only flat hand at the table.
If we don’t have two spade losers, I have a great offensive hand."
Sukoneck-Cody:" Double - penalty. The double doesn't show a trump stack, it just says we think their going down. The
only alternative is to pass. If we pass, how can partner make an intelligent decision with no assistance from second seat?"
Turoff: "Double - 4ª maybe makeable, but bidding 4NT with this hand is not an option."
Others see it different:
Lazarus: "4NT. East, Vul, probably has a solid 7 (or longer) card suit and a side card. The 4NT takeout bid will
probably be more successful more of the time than other alternatives (Pass or Double).
These makes sense to me;
Kovacich: "Double; showing values; Partner can pass or bid with the right hand.."
Smiths: " Double. Partner should remove the double with a long suit or shape; if he has to pass, they may well make it."
and YEA Robinson: " Double---Takeout. Shows a good hand. " And partner is not barred from passing!!!
I am sure you can tell that I am very much in favor of a takeout double of 4ª. I've been playing at
this
game off and on for almost thirty years and there have been very few times I could beat 4ª on this
auction
based on tricks in this auction. The type of hand is far more likely. In real life you have a great save
in 5§ (-200, if they double vs. -620 or at least -790 if you double and lead a trump.).
Problem 9: Match Points; None Vul
9. ª-KT8 ©-652 D-K7 §-AQJ52
MABC Standard Uses Support doubles
| Bid |
Votes |
Score |
| D'ble |
20 |
100 |
| 2ª |
3 |
60 |
| 3© |
1 |
50 |
In most partnerships the 1ª response shows at least a five card suit, so there is a known eight card
fit.
Some play a support double here shows extra values and a raise just shows a minimum with three or
more trumps. I (and quite a few panel members) just think that it is too important for partner to know
how many trumps we have in order to value his hand correctly – he will be the one taking an early heart
ruff and the 5-3 quickly becomes a 4-3. This might not matter much at the two level, but could be critical
if responder has a hand with invitational values.
Pettit: "Double, looks like a support double to me. Second choice 2ª, because the hand is a
problem if partner
bids 2ª over the support double – the hand is worth 2-1/2ª."
Note that Randy rebid a four card suit as
responder in an earlier problem with what some would say were invitational values.
D. Afdahl: "Double, A classic support double, even though partner should have five (+) spades. You have three
trump and a real opening bid. This is not a penalty double!
Cohen: "Double - better for partner to evaluate a possible three level decision...knows trump situation if he
bids 3ª over competition."
The true answer? Joyces: " Double - Isn't this the hand that support doubles were invented for?"
Here we have a player who doesn't think that you need support doubles when partner has promised a
five card suit with his 1ª bid.
Hook: "2ª - we have a 5-3 (or better) fit and a minimum opening hand. Show it now."
And a wife who doesn't see eye to eye with her hubby (see above); K Afdahl: 2ª - Partner has
shown 5 spades.
He would have made a negative double with only four. Therefore, Double is not "support". 2ª shows a
minimum
with at least three trump."
And a player who thinks the hand is good enough for
Stenger: "3©, despite the lack of extra high card values, cards seem well
placed with partner's holdings in
side suits. ...3ª should not be in trouble if partner has a minimum."
Does that mean you will cue bid and then pass if partner only bids 3ª when he might be expecting a
cue bid toward slam?
Top of page |