Dubious Logic

Constructing Partner's Hand

I remember reading a very good bridge tip and I'm sure the credit goes to Bridge Today co-editor Pamela Granovetter. It was that before you make any bid that might end the auction, picture a hand for your partner and check it makes sense to declare the contract you are about to suggest.

Of course there is a little leeway; when you're just going to raise your partner's no-trump opener to game, there's no need for imaginative construction – you should just go ahead and do it. But in more involved auctions, there will be a point where one must switch over, from bidding on general principles, to accounting for particular cards. Two hands from the Suffolk Club Teams of Four form a case in point.

This was one auction related to me. I'm not sure I go along with that one heart response (prefer 2♣) but I like the next action of pass much less and a good slam was missed. Now it is quite reasonable to be worried about having a void in partner's suit but they did rebid two no-trump showing 17 HCP or more – those high cards have to be somewhere.

Here it is easier to frame partner's holding by the cards they may not hold. You have 14 HCP so together at least 31 – you are missing a maximum of nine, what could they be? As important as ace of clubs and king-queen of hearts? Even then partner will have KQJ of spades and AKQJ diamonds – more than enough discards for your hearts in a club contract. If, for fear of misunderstanding, you think you dare not bid 4♣, anything less than a jump to 6♣ is parsimonious. In the seven matches, this was flat or a small swing (6NT v 6♣) twice, a grand slam swing once (well bid!) and four times one team gained because their opponents played in game opposite ♠KJ86 ♥K9 ♦KQJ6 ♣A85.

Curiously, exactly the same pattern of scores was repeated here:

In the strong two-over-one style partner's jump to 3♠ didn't have to be a great hand but it did promise an excellent suit. Of course a suit good enough for game is one thing but attempting to take all the tricks another. If we were going to be satisfied with a small slam then no-trumps figured to be safest but if partner's spades were self-supporting then there would be an advantage in having them as trumps. I made one last try with a six diamond call – "have you got anything else partner?" Peter Gemmell thought ♠AKQJ109 ♥5 ♦109 ♣QJ53 worth upping the level to seven spades. With the chance of finding the heart queen on the short side as well as the club finesse, it was just with the odds (we had done nothing to suggest a club lead).

Published Saturday 25.Feb.2006