Getting to 2 suited slams, forcing passes and all that
I have noticed that one of the types of slams that is often missed, even by good players, is a slam based on a double fit. Here is an example from a Norway Regional Championship I was watching.
 KQJ86  Q9652  A9  9 |
This is your hand in third chair white on red. Partner opens 1 which is passed to you. What do you do? If you play as they did at one table fit jumps than you have an easy bid of 2. Even if they are not game forcing you likely be well positioned after this bid. Suppose you do not play this than what are you other choices?
a) splinter in clubs b) game forcing raise of hearts, say 2NT c) 1
At the table I was watching Olsen bid 2NT, a heart raise. East bid 3 and his partner bid 4 which showed a minimum. In the normal course of things this might have been passed back to him. What would you do now? If partner has the AK and the A then 6 will normally make. Your vulnerable opponent sounds like he has very good clubs so partner probably doesn’t have club cards. What does partner have? There are eighteen points missing outside the club suit. If you give East the A then you could be off two key cards at worst say something
| xx AJxxx KQJx xx |
I am going to bid again, probably keycard. If we have the three I need I am bidding the slam. However my vulnerable opponent inserts 5. Since I am playing against good opposition I have to assume that besides club support he has something else. He might have a heart void but I don’t think that is enough. He just has to have a source of tricks and a lot of shape. The only possibility I can think of is he has diamonds. This makes slam our way even more likely because if the opposition has diamond high cards partner has to have major cards. I am not sure if this is enough to be slam though. How do I get partner to bid slam on the right hand?
Is it clear in your system that a pass is forcing here? I usually have a simple rule if we bid a power game than a pass of a bid over it is forcing regardless of vulnerability. So the 2NT bid put that in play. I am not sure this is the best rule but it is a simple one.
Suppose you play that a pass is forcing here. Should I pass? First what are your rules. Do you play that pass and pull is stronger than just bidding? What is the difference between a direct cuebid and pulling partner’s double to a cuebid?
Now we get into the terribly complex world of forcing passes. I am going to suppose that I play the following:
a) pass and pull is stronger than a direct bid
b) there is a difference between a direct cuebid and pulling to a cuebid. I think that a direct cuebid should suggest that partner bid slam with a good hand for the auction and passing and pulling to a cuebid should suggest that there is some specific problem. I really am not sure about this at all.
In general I think the direct cuebid should be the strongest possible bid and that is the bid I would make here: 5.
On this particular hand even without all of these understandings partner has the perfect hand to bid 6.
| A1043 AKJ873 62 Q |
At my table R Olsen bid 5 and that is where they played it. Perhaps South, T Olsen should have bid on anyway. After all partner has to have something for his bid after you showed a minimum. I would have I think.
In the other room the fit jump was raised after the overcall but West made it easy by passing and North was able to ask for keycards. Still I think after North knew about the double fit if he had to he would have bid the slam without Blackwood.
So what is the lesson that I learned from this? First if you can prevent the opponents from bidding Blackwood it can work quite well. Second, this forcing pass stuff needs a lot of discussion. Third, there is a lot of merit in fit jumps but I wonder if it is better if they are invitational or forcing. They were played as forcing in the room that reached slam. Here is the whole deal
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Linda,
Your interesting blog, exploring double fits, can and often does take on twists (a tantalizing word which, in high-level bridge lingo, means surprises).
Upon further examination the twist on the subject hand, even with being white vs. red, must deal with the vulnerable opponents, in spite of holding only 14 high card points, only losing 3 tricks at either a club or diamond contract. It could be only 2 losers instead of 3 if both hearts were held in one hand. As an example, sometimes it may be better to miss a vulnerable slam and go plus 680 rather than bid it, have the opponents sacrifice and your side wind up plus only 500.
A question may be asked, “What does this particular twist mean”? To me, it brings out in cinemascope the need for the power holders (26 HCP’s plus an enabling fit to boot) to not let it be known to the opponents that a small slam the power holders way will be cold. Sometimes the strategy works by accident, since the power holders themselves do not know the exact distributions or even the specific high cards, therefore rendering the strategy non-existent.
The always very important psychology necessary to win at all levels, is to:
1. Respect the opponents, particularly their high level judgment.
2. Vary your strategy and method.
3. Learn how to play poker while playing bridge.
4. Do not become stereotyped by always being aggressive or always being conservative.
I’ll close with what some may think is a very rash statement. If the opponents always, or almost always do the right thing and consistently show great judgment against your partnership, it matters not just how well your side plays technically, you will lose way too many matches to achieve whatever your goal is. Ignoring high-level bridge psychology is a sure fire method of losing. ATTENTION: I am talking about legal and ethical bridge deception during the bidding, not voice, bidding box, or deliberate misleading tempo.
At least to me, when someone may pose an oft asked question, “Who is the best player or partnership you have ever played against”, any response I may make will have more to do with the bridge psychology of that player or partnership rather than any other factor, since at the highest level (at least that I have achieved) bridge techniques are usually too close to call.