|
MABC Bidding Forum To views the bidding system used click here. To see a chart of the panel and how they answered - Please click here
Editor’s Note Very sorry about the long delay in getting these answers up, but when I “lost” my computer hard drive in January I lost most of the panel’s answers and had to request a second set of answers from many of the members. ª-S-8 ©-AJ94 ¨-75 §-AQT972 Two-part problem.
This hand was taken from a three way match in a sectional Swiss and I HOPE
that I am not prejudiced by the outcomes at the table. No one answering this problem thought about the fact that there might be
competition, and there was at all three tables where this hand came up. At one table E/W made 4ª doubled (it could have been beaten one), at another table N/S found their
4-4 heart fit and went down because the trumps were weak and they broke
badly while at the third table N/S bid and made 5§ (South’s low Hearts were discard on North’s Diamonds. So, I am with the solvers on this one – the game is IMPs – that is a SIX
card club suit and there are still good ways to find a 4-4 heart fit if
you start with 2ª. Afdahl: “(a) 2 §. First look for major fit. If partner bids two Hearts, I will splinter with three Spades. If partner bids anything else, I will bid three Clubs, forcing and a mild slam try in Clubs.” If you bid 2§ and the bidding is a 4ª when it gets back to you – now what? Double with a big club fit, try 5§ when partner is short or weak there. The immediate 2ª call shows Clubs and allows opener to show a fit over a 2ª call by West. All these panelist play that 2§ followed by 3§ shows a good hand, but why should it when there are other methods to show
a long minor and a four card major. Gault: ”2§ followed by 3§ over 2ª- this is a good hand for slam if pard cue bids.” Hook: “(a)2 Clubs; (b), No. Three Clubs over any response by opener, forcing to game. Correct subsequent response to Hearts when appropriate, pass 3 NT at MP,
bid 5 Clubs at IMPS. P.S. over major suit response to 2§ a 4§ bid is Key Card Gerber.” Not everyone agrees with this – there are several expert partnerships around
who would play a 4§ bid in the above sequence to show shortness. Kovacich: “At IMP, 2§ - over 2¨ or 2ª, rebid 3§ as minor suit slam try; Over 2© rebid 3ª as slam try with shortness somewhere. (b) No.” Popkin: “2 Clubs. If partner bids 2 Hearts, then bid 4 NT. If partner bids 2 Diamonds or 2 Spades, bid 4 Clubs, Gerber, and try for
a Club slam with a 2 Ace response from partner. I like the shape at Imps or MP for the same auction.” Lazarus: “2§ - if partner bids 2¨ or 2ª, I bid 3§ - shows 5-4 or 6-4 and a slam try. !NT'er assumes that the 4 card suit is the other major.” Murphy: “(a). 2§ Stayman - - Our bidding has to appreciate the scoring structure; therefore I always
use Stayman when holding a four card major with distribution. I make the same bid at Matchpoints as I make at IMPs unless we're in the
slam zone.” Parker: “2§ - followed by 3§ over © or ¨, forcing showing a major-minor 2 suiter. I use a response to this sequence
that shows controls in support of the minor. First step = 3 (4 aces and the K, Q of trump are controls), next step is
4, etc. A sign off is 3NT or 4 level support that denies 3 or more controls.
This allows you to decide if you want to go beyond 3NT while still at the
3 level. I would bid the same at any scoring.” Unless the busy old opponents get in the auction. Robinson: "2 Clubs (at any form of scoring)---Washington Standard
plays 2 Clubs followed by 3 Clubs shows a four-card major, a club suit
and a slam try while two Spades directly denies a four-card major. If partner responds 2 Hearts, I would splinter.” This panelists looks to his long strong Clubs and suggest a follow up in
Hearts. Guarneri: “(a) 2ª as a transfer to 3§, then follow with 3©. (b) Yes, Stayman followed by 3NT. Let them guess the lead. " Wish I knew if he meant 3NT over any call – even 2©. No wonder this guys wins so much. Joyces: “(a) 2 Spades; (b). No - Follow up the transfer with 3 Hearts. We feel that
there is too much slam potential to not fully investigate the hand. In Robinson’s methods the 2ª response denies a four card major, but that does not seem to be the case
in the Carolinas...some would say the 3© bid after 2ª would be shortness. The two can come together by adopting a very simple rule – if the no-trump
opener super accepts the transfer, responders next bid is a cue bid (or shortness – either partnership agreement
would work), but if there is no super acceptance a major suit bid would
be natural and show a four card suit. That way, you can have the best of both worlds. Hugh Brown: “2§ then 3§(forcing).” It is a bit strange that members of this panel, probably among some of the more aggressive bidders around, never mentioned the fact that there might be competition. They might have guessed that if we had a big Club fit the opponents just might have a big fit in one of the pointed suits. I thought it also interesting that many more of the solvers said they would use a different response if the game was matchpoints.
ª-85 ©-AJ72 ¨-KQ54 §-AQ5
The panel and solvers were pretty well divided on this one. Many panelists took an aggressive view because of the vulnerability, but others were a bit more cautious. After all, most would start running with 2§ and a hand like ª-xxx ©-xxxx ¨-Axxxxx §-x or the like. Afdahl, D: “Pass. If partner has a good hand, he can double with Spades and/or cards. If not we may still be able to find our heart fit. If partner has a weak hand, we don’t belong any higher.“ Parker: “Pass - no need to bid in front of pard. He can double with 4 Spades or
bid something else which will show 4©.” One of our husband-wife panelists had a little disagreement: Gault: “Greg - pass, I don't bid Pard's hand and Spades may be Pard's suit and is itching to double - we can get to ©'s later if necessary; Analee- 3©- thinks G is nuts and assumes heart fit-- G thinks wife is nuts!!” The (almost) sure that partner has either Hearts or a good hand; Kovacich: “3© - I generally play 1NT denies a 5 card major; 3© would not promise five. Pass is a close second choice." This is another thing for partnerships that open 1NT frequently with a
five card major to discuss...if they do, should this always show five? Murphy: “3© Partner’s Stayman bid was probably based on four Hearts, I have a maximum and four Hearts, and the bidding
should be easy for partner from here. " Especially if he has a really bad hand without four Hearts and four little Spades. Popkin: “3 © - Give partner room to bid 3 NT if Spades are partner's major, or four Hearts if that is his/her major." Robinson: "3 Spades---How can this not show a maximum hand with four
Hearts? I was hoping that someone might have a device to handle situations like
this. If responder has Spades and a fair to middlin’ hand you might have gotten
two Spades enough to win the match on a single hand by not bidding. On the other hand, partner might be reluctant to introduce a four card
heart suit if you pass for fear of getting past a makeable spot. I have come across a couple of pretty good partnerships that use a double here to show four Hearts and spade shortness (sort of negative double to Stayman). That would seem to cater to hand similar to this one allowing responder to pass with Spades and balanced hand or choose a suit bid with a weaker hand KNOWING that he would find a fit opposite a run-out hand.
ª-Q2 ©-QT7 ¨-AQ85 §-KQ64
*=MABC Standard uses negative doubles after three level overcalls
The first panelist makes a cogent point! The next panelist has an escape plan...Joyces: “4 Hearts - Go for the game bonus at IMP's. If partner has a five-card Heart suit this is certainly right and even if he only has 4 we like the fact that we can take a 3rd round spade tap in our hand. If RHO doubles we will rescue ourselves with 4NT, pick a minor. " But I doubt good opponents would double the only game contract they figure to beat. Popkin: “4 Hearts. I'll play the 4-3 fit and trump in the short hand. Afdahl, D: Tough hand. I would bid four Hearts. Values too soft to be looking for a minor suit game. At matchpoints, I would bid a confident three no-trump. But at IMPs, it is hard to return to partners with minus 730. This player doesn't seem to worry about that; Shatz: “Pass and lets hope lefty doesn’t have a 9 bagger.” or did Swanson who passed without comment. Giving their partners maximum room, but are they bidding enough? Their vulnerable partner has suggested values for playing at the four level
(at least) and they have excellent values – an opening hand outside of
spade values. It could be a lot worse for a minor suit contract. Guarneri: “4§ – if I can I will bid 4© later.” Parker: “4 Clubs - no guts to pass or bid 3NT. Sometimes they just get
you. Bid confidently and hope they do not double Another “man with a plan”; Planning on showing both minors (probably unless responder can show five
Hearts).
ª-J5 ©-AJ953 ¨-K82 §-QT5
*=MABC Standard uses support doubles
How good is this hand for Diamonds? The great majority of the panel thought it was pretty good and gave a jump preference with three card support to what COULD be a four card suit. A couple even made a modern “don’t know exactly what to do” cue bid. Afdahl, D: “3 ¨. Invitational. I would like to have the fourth diamond, but this bid most describes my
hand. Don’t want to suggest no-trump, unless partner has two spade stoppers. Hook: “3 ¨. Might be magic hand. This bid is a one round force. Will Q bid Hearts over 4§. Pass 3NT or 4 Diamonds.” Joyces: “3 Diamonds - Go for the plus score. Partner can always bid again with a
really good hand.” This player would like to know more about his partner; Guarneri: “3¨, but 2ª if partner doesn’t open too light.” But doesn't everyone these days? Robinson: "2 Diamonds---Don't have enough strength to invite 5 Diamonds, which
needs more than four-of-a-major might need. If partner has extras he can continue." Our ‘Bridge Doctor’ thought the hand worth a cue bid, but did not indicate any follow up action over
a minimum rebid by opener: Popkin: “2 Spades. There is a pony somewhere. I can "smell" it. In case you are interested opener’s hand was S-xx H-Kx D-AQJx C-A9xxx. Figure out where you want to be, and opener was an esteemed member of this panel.
ª-AJ9 ©-52 ¨-984 §-KQT82
With almost all of the panel voting for the same call you might not think this is much of a problem. The problem with the non-forcing 2NT is that partner will pass with some hands that make game almost a laydown because you seem to have more tricks than your ten count would normally produce. After all, you would probably make the same call with ª-K10x ©-Qxx ¨-AJxxx §-Jx or the like – hand with more high cards, but possibly not nearly as many likely tricks. The good-bad 2NTers might handle this problem a little better, but one on the panel made mention
of this convention. At least they have several types of sequences to handle hands such as these. Afdahl: “2 NT. Two stoppers, balanced 10-11 HCP, what else do I need. With all the points in Clubs, partner can certainly stop the red suits." Here is a real truthful answer. Joyces: “2NT. As Al Roth was want to say, What's the problem?” But isn’t partner more likely have length in Clubs if he is a little light? And they still give a bonus for game regardless of the vulnerability. Parker: “2NT - natural good values. No need to do anything else - Pard is unlimited so don't get in his way until he can show his hand. Even
though 3NT feels right partner needs to know your values.” Thinking about the form of the game; Guarneri: “2NT, but 3§ very close second at MP.” Robinson: “"3Clubs---Shows values. Slight underbid but no-trump seems bad with bare red suits. If partner has extras he can continue. " Yes, with LHO showing weakness there is nothing in writing that you are going
to get a spade lead. Shatz: “3§ is enough if you are playing Lebensohl. Again, that gives pard room to
move to 3NT if he wishes.” But will opener try for 3NT with something like ª-xx ©-KJ9x ¨-AJT §C-Axxx when you could have something like ª-xx ©Axx ¨Kx §Qxxxx? Our lone game bidder; Popkin: “3NT” Apparently either you make it or you don’t. In the actual pair game 3NT made (even on a non spade lead) and opener wasn’t much above minimum, so the panel would have gotten at least an average board as only two pairs bid game and several played in Clubs.
ª-53 ©-KT5 ¨-AK952 §-AQ6
*=Card marked Spades
Again, all but two panel members choose the most popular call, and more
importantly, no one commented on the methods being used, or offered a better
way to compete after a natural overcall of a 1NT opening. Are we THAT satisfied with our competitive methods? Afdahl, D: “Pass. A double should be based on defensive tricks. With this hand I may take only two tricks, if West has long Spades and
a secondary suit. Partner should know what to do. With a long minor suit, he can pass. And if he was going to bid three no-trump, showing a spade stopper, he
will double. Gaults: “Pass-- pard will x with values and pass with nothing- no reason to think
we must beat them opposite bad hand- we did open a NT.” Joyces: “Pass - Maybe partner can act intelligently. Must we always hold
a doubleton spade?” Hands are from “real life” – it isn’t surprising that hands without Spades seem harder to bid. Murphy: “Pass - Have to leave partner the opportunity to clear up his 2N bid. Too unilateral to bid a suit on the 5 level or try to put cards or values
in partners hand. Let him bid his own cards.” This appears a little far out as far as the panel thinking; Shatz: “Double. We may be getting out bid but that's life in the fast lane.” But you have an “offensive” no-trump as opposed to defensive type of hand. Partner will pass with hands that might produce a slam – he will expect
defensive values. The lone suit bidder hopes partner will work out what to do; Popkin: “5 Clubs. The opponents may have done you a favor bidding Spades and kept you out of 3 NT. I expect partner to correct to his long suit if partner doesn't hold length in Clubs.” The problem with this bid is that partner might pass when he is 5-4 or even 6-4 in the minors, thinking you have a five card club suit. On partner’s actual hand, a working 6 count you were cold for 5¨, but (the actual) partner passed 4ª and your side collected a one trick set. Responder’s hand was ª-x ©-Qx ¨-QTxxxx §-Kxxx and it could have easily have been correct to sell out if more of opener’s stuff was in the majors. What was really needed was a way responder could show his suit at the three level without forcing to game if opener did not fit. Think about it.
ª-8742 ©-8 ¨-Kx §-AQ8752
MABC Standard uses “Fit” Drury / Jump Shift by passed hand is “fit showing”
We have a pretty good hand opposite partner’s third seat opening. If he has a “full” opening AND a five card suit we surely want to try for a vulnerable game. What is the best way to try? Our esteemed president chooses the Drury route (with an interesting twist); Richard (Marvin and Jerry) choose to bid game and show shortness at the
same time. The third (and most popular) choice – a fit showing jump. Gaults: “3§- slam not out of equation if pard cue bids-- bid 4ª over 3ª”. Giving their partners a little leeway – they also know the type of scoring
and the vulnerbility. Other good reasons for the fit showing jump; Murphy: “3§ I rarely use fit showing jumps but this appears to be a classic - lets
partner know whether to bid on based on a double fit if they bid on and
lets him know what to lead when we have to defend.” Another “fit-jumper”, but no indication of follow up; Robinson: “"3Clubs---If 3Clubs is a fit showing bid, this hand
is perfect." Everyone agrees that the hand is worth at least a game try and has some slam potential if partner doesn’t have a lot of heart values. The fit showing jump is good for the former (although D Afdahl makes a very good point for his methods) and the latter is good (if as Marvin says) if partner is loaded. The club bidders gain a bit if opener’s hand is shaded or if he is on a four card suit. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
ª-AKQJ9 ©-9643 ¨-AK §-Q5
*= MABC uses 1NT forcing over a major suit opening
A truly interesting hand – lots of high cards, a source of tricks and even
some slam potential opposite the right minimum response. The big question seems to be whether to jump shift into such a weak four
card suit or to raise in no-trump. There are several good suggestions for handling this type of hand, and
if you believe that you should almost never play a hand at 2NT there are
even more possibilities. Our first panelists makes the jump shift, then a suggestion for perhaps
something better; Another 2NT bidder, but not necessary for the same reason as above: Our newest 10,000+ masterpoint winner makes one bid, but seems to wish
he could make another. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
