Slam bidding.
In my recent investigations of our performances both in the NTL and in the County matches, I have come to realise that slam bidding is one area that we definitely need to improve on. The deals in this article are meant to make you think about your bidding system and see if it can be improved. It is only by continually analysing our performances in particular areas that we can hope to improve our performance. The deals below give some ideas that might be of interest but the intention is just to make you think and see how you might make useful changes.
Take this deal from our recent match against Norfolk :-
Board 5 North
N/S vul.
Dealer North ª AQ5
© K7653
¨ AK10
§ K10
West East
ª J3 ª 109
© AQJ10 © 984
¨ 97654 ¨ QJ2
§ 75 § QJ642
South
ª K87642
© 2
¨ 83
§ A983
It proved to be very difficult to bid this slam and yet it is cold when played properly. Such deals win matches. At one table, the bidding was simple and quick. North opened the bidding with 1©, South responded 1ª and North showed his 19 points by bidding 3NT which South passed. Personally, I would have taken 3NT out into 4ª but that would not have got us to 6ª. This is one of the reasons why I prefer a strong club system. I would have bid the hand like this :-
North South
1§ 16+ points 1© 3+ controls, 5+ spades.
1ª relay 1NT 4 clubs
2§ relay 2¨ 6 spades and 4 clubs.
2© relay 2ª 6124 distribution
2NT control ask 3§ 3 controls
6ª
North knows that South’s distribution is 6124 and that he has 3 controls, i.e. an ace is 2 controls and a king is 1. He cannot have the singleton king of hearts because singleton kings are not counted as controls and so he has the king of spades and either the ace of hearts or the ace of clubs. Due to South’s transfer responses, North’s king of clubs is protected from the lead. This still does not mean that the slam is a certainty, but it does mean that it stands a good chance of success and, as he holds the ace of clubs, the slam is cold. Sometimes, even the best systems do not quite get you there, but the odds are good.
However, how do we get even that close using a more natural system than mine? The problem is that North has to find a way to both show his strength and get another bid out of South. The jump to 3NT, as was actually bid in the match as described above, is not going to do that unless South is strong enough to invite slam.
One of the tactics that the experts will use in positions like this is to ‘invent’ a forcing bid that might force partner to give you the information that you need. A rebid by North of 2© has more faults than probably any other bid and should be reserved for a minimum hand with 6 hearts. An expert might well rebid 2¨. This has much to commend it. With AKx, even if partner raises the suit, it would not be the end of the world and, as it is a new suit, it is forcing. South would then rebid his spades to show that he has 6. This makes North’s hand a little better and proves that 4ª is an easy contract, but how do we now investigate to see if a slam is possible? Blackwood is not going to do any good because the heart singleton is vital.
However, if I was playing a ‘natural’ system, I would have an agreement with my partner that a new suit at the 4-level is a cue bid showing a top control in the suit bid and agrees the last suit bid as trumps. Putting this altogether, we might have an auction like this :-
North South
1© 1ª
2¨ 2ª
4§ 4©
6ª
Such a jump to the 4-level, i.e. 4§, is often used as a splinter bid but I would only play it that way when the trump suit had already been agreed. If, as in this case, no suit has been agreed, the jump to the 4-level shows a top control and agrees the last suit bid as trumps. This has to be fairly flexible and so it could show an ace, a king, a void or a singleton. But, over the 4§ bid, South still has a problem. He only has 7 high card points and he might be very tempted to just sign off. However, the 6th spade and the heart singleton makes his hand much stronger than the point-count suggests and North is obviously interested in slam. So, as he can cue bid in hearts below the level of 4ª, he should do so. It might be just what opener wants to hear. Also, the fact that North has decided to cue bid in clubs which is a suit that South holds the ace, North must have good all round controls and is, therefore, seeking to fill a gap. It would seem strange to cue bid a singleton in partner’s main suit, but he did not rebid it, and his strength could easily be outside of the main suit.
This is a very difficult slam to bid with any certainty, but I have used it so that you can discuss some of the methods described here with your favourite partner. I am not an expert on natural systems and some of these ideas may well go against the structure of your system, but I have known experts who play this way, or similar, and so I hope that you will consider them and at least know how you and your partner would bid a hand like this in the future.
Cue bidding can be quite difficult but the thing to remember is that you need a good reason to make a cue bid other than just to show a top honour. A cue bid has to show not only a top control in the suit bid but should show that you have extra values above what you had already shown and that you are interested in going toward a slam. It is also worth remembering that a cue bid below game is not as strong as one above game level. But, as in this example, responder does not necessarily need extra values to cue bid if he has a good reason, as described above, and can cue bid below game.
The next slam is taken from NTL match 10. This was a grand slam but many of us were unable to bid the grand and some could not even find the small slam :-
Board 5 North
N/S vul.
Dealer North ª 96
© 974
¨ KJ8652
§ 85
West East
ª Q10 ª AKJ743
© AKQJ5 © 1082
¨ A94 ¨ 10
§ 1096 § AK4
South
ª 852
© 63
¨ Q73
§ QJ732
Ralph and I had yet another bidding misunderstanding and played in game. We should have bid it like this :-
West East
1ª 10-15 points, 5+ spades
1NT artificial and forcing 2ª 6+ spades & a shortage
2NT game forcing relay 3ª 6313 distribution
4§ control ask 4NT 6 controls
7©/7ª/7NT
The 1NT response can be made on 1 of 3 different hand types, i.e. (a) a value raise in spades, (b) a weak hand with a long suit, or (c) a game forcing relay. In this case, responder has a strong hand and is trying to get a full picture of opener’s hand. The 2ª bid shows a 1-suited hand with at least 6 spades and either a singleton or a void. 3ª shows precisely 6313 distribution. 4§ asks for controls and the controls are shown in steps but step 1 shows 0-3 controls when the opening bid shows 10-15 points. Therefore, 4NT is 4 steps which equates to 6 controls. It is possible to ask for queens as well so long as the answer to the control ask is below 4NT. That was not possible here, but it was not necessary. Responder can count 5 heart tricks, 6 spade tricks if the suit does not split badly, 2 club tricks and a diamond. That is 14 tricks, a pity you cannot bank the extra tricks for use when you really need them.
7© is the safest grand slam because it can cater for a poor split in spades. West does not know that East holds the jack of spades and there is no way of finding that out. West, therefore, can see that 7© can deal with a 4-1 spade split even if East does not hold the jack. However, I would bid 7NT at pairs and 7© at teams.
But how do we bid hands like this using a more natural system? One of our pairs had a very simple auction, East opened with 1ª, West responded with 2© and East jumped to 4© which West passed. The real issues were not addressed. At the other table, the opponents had a much more effective auction :-
West East
1ª
2© natural and game forcing 3© 3+card support
4¨ cue bid 4NT RKCB
5§ 0 or 3 key cards 5¨ control ask
6© heart queen 7©
I have seen systems where the 2© response in a sequence such as this one is game forcing, but I have only played such systems on very rare occasions and then, I have to admit, that I did not have the time to prepare properly and so, I am not the best person to judge. However, it was certainly effective in this case. It avoids the problem that occurred at the other table, i.e. West was unable to show his hearts and to create a game forcing situation. In the good old days, this would have been done by responding with 3©, instead of 2©. This ‘jump shift’ had it’s moments but it does take up a lot of bidding space that could be put to better use.
I like the idea that 2© is game forcing in this sequence. Unfortunately, that leaves me wondering how such a system would cope with this hand :-
ª Q10 © KQJxx ¨ Kxx § xxx
This hand certainly cannot force to game but what better bid is there than 2©? How does a system that plays 2© here as forcing to game, manage to deal with this hand? Game will often be reached, but it cannot be guaranteed at the time of responder’s first bid. The answer seems to be that 2 over 1 systems use a forcing 1NT response to an opening bid of 1 of a major similar to that used in standard Precision Club. Therefore, a hand like the one above would respond 1NT, opener would rebid his 6-card spade suit and then responder would raise to 3ª. Game would be reached but there would be no interest in going beyond game.
Obviously, there is rather more to it than that but 2 over 1 is well covered on-line, just search for Bridge bidding systems, 2 over 1, and there is plenty of information on the subject. So, if you aspire to play at a higher level than currently, then this may be worth consideration. It might well improve your slam bidding.
This next deal occurred more than 35 years ago in a Yorkshire league match and yes, my records do go that far back. We did not have a great team but, occasionally, we had some very good players who played for us when they could. One of those was Richard Winter who was a junior international at the time and his current team is somewhere near the top of the 1st division of the NTL. I played with my father-in-law at the time, and we were still experimenting with the Precision Club system. We were not using a full relay system as I do when I can now, but we had inserted relays into our system for when the opening bid was 1NT or when the opening bid was 1§ and responder had a positive response with an evenly distributed hand.
We believed that we were behind in the match at this point and needed a good score :-
West East
ª 104 ª AK63
© 1043 © A6
¨ AK109 ¨ QJ87
§ KQJ3 § A109
This was a teams of 8 match and, at the other 3 tables, the final contract was 6NT but the declarers soon found that there were only 11 top tricks and no play for a 12th. We bid this hand like this :-
1NT 2§ Stayman
2¨ no 4-card major 3§ relay
3© 2344 distribution 3ª control asking bid
4§ 4 controls 4NT queen asking bid
5NT club queen 7¨
7¨ was a bit of a gamble as responder could not be sure which 2 kings opener held. If he held the heart king and one other, then the grand slam would depend on a finesse. However, we needed something good to win the match and, as everything else seemed good and diamonds was going to be infinitely better than no trumps, we went for the grand. We could have won the match by bidding the small slam in diamonds as it happens but, what the heck, you cannot argue with success. The grand slam made by ruffing 2 spades before drawing trumps and then discarding the heart loser on the 4th round of clubs.
Earlier in the same match, we were able to get a few imps back on another hand so that we were still in contention when the deal above turned up. In that case, our relays discovered that we both had a doubleton in spades and so we bid game in hearts which was only a 4-3 fit but there were 10 tricks available as I could take the spade forces in the short trump hand. At the other tables, everyone had just bid 3NT after Stayman had discovered that there was no 4-4 major suit fit. They all went 2 down losing the first 5 tricks in spades and an outside ace.
I am not advocating that you all change to Precision Club, although I am sure that it would improve your bidding if you did, but issues such as these should be addressed. The Marx brothers, and I am not talking about Groucho and co., invented a convention that would have dealt effectively with the slam hand above. I am not totally familiar with it myself because I have never used it, and the Marx brothers have been dead a long time now but were still playing when I was learning the game.
Apparently if I remember correctly, when Stayman had revealed that there was no 4-4 major suit fit and that there was sufficient strength for slam to be a distinct possibility, a bid of 4 of a minor showed a 4-card suit and the values for slam. Anyone thinking of adopting something on these lines would have to give up on Gerber but creating, or improving, bidding systems often means making difficult choices. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
So, the auction for the last deal above might have been something like this :-
West East
1NT 2§
2¨ 4¨
4NT (RKCB) 5¨ 0 or 3 aces
5NT king ask 6¨ 1 king
7¨
This is not very convincing and, if I was trying to do something like this, I would play 3¨, instead of 4¨, to show slam interest and a 4-card suit. Then opener can support responder’s minor and responder can then us RKCB which should be more revealing. It is usually better that the stronger hand asks for aces. Or, responder could initiate a cue bidding sequence.
It is often too easy to plump straight for a no trump contract after no 4-4 major suit fit is found but usually, when a slam is a possibility, a 4-4 minor suit is preferable, particularly at teams.
So, what can we learn from this? Well, to begin with, it seems that it is vital to be able to discover, first of all, if the required strength to play at a level above game is there. Strong club systems get over that problem by starting the bidding low and then a positive response often guarantees game going values. We show strength first, then we show distribution, and finally, we can check on top controls and, very often, queens as well.
Natural systems do not have that luxury. The opening bids are very wide ranging and so opener often has to make a space wasting bid on his second turn to bid to show his strength when he holds a hand that is better than a minimum. In my opinion, it is the difficulty of going past game and risking the loss of the game bonus that causes so much trouble. I think that some of the elements of the 2 over 1 system can go some way to overcoming this and is worth considering. But of course, responder is just as likely to have extra strength and must consider how to keep the auction going on those occasions when he is strong. |