Two part bidding logic quiz
Your partner opens 2♣, strong and artificial. Playing controls responses, you bid 2♠, artificial and promising an ace and a king. IMP scoring.
Now your partner bids 7♦!
Two questions: What do you bid? What hand would you construct for partner?
What do you bid? Oh, I forgot to show you your hand. Does it matter? Clue: your partner just skipped a zillion levels of bidding; it does not sound as though he is asking you for an opinion. Conclusion: Just pass. Shrug of shoulders, optional; thinking about what to do, waste of time.
What hand would you construct for partner? If you fully trust partner, I think you can construct some possible hands for partner, by piecing together a number of logical clues.
Clue: Partner should be able to identify exactly which ace and which king you hold. Conclusion: Partner holds the other three aces and three kings.
Clue: Partner did not ask about the quality of your diamond holding. Conclusion: Partner has some length and great intermediates in the diamond suit.
Clue: Partner did not bid 7NT. Conclusion: Partner is likely to have some slow potential loser, with hopes that such loser, if not covered by a secondary card in your hand (in which case 7NT makes, and is actually safer than 7♦), can be ruffed in your hand.
Combining these clues, you can construct possible hands for partner, such as the following (non-diamond suits interchangeable):
Opener can hardly hope to learn about responder’s possession of the ♠J, ♥Q, or ♣Q. So, he hopes you have one of those cards. And just in case you have none of them, he hopes for a ruff, in a layout something like this one:
As a side comment, note that keeping the big hand as declarer makes the hand harder to defend. Even if responder has no secondary honor or ruffing potential to cover opener’s potential slow side suit loser, the defenders might have difficulty divining the side suit in which declarer has a slow loser … provided the big hand is not disclosed as dummy.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Unless you have a certain side source of tricks I think you must pass 7D. That way if it is wrong it is partners fault not your. My philosophy is take the action where you will win the post-mortem argument.
Steve’s caveat about “certain side source of tricks” is important. If responder can assume the type of hand for opener that I have suggested in my sample constructions, then responder holding a side suit of, let’s say, QJxx, is substantial enough to convert to 7NT, thus eliminating the chances for a defensive ruff. There should be no concern about transportation issues, because responder, by working definition, has two entries, and opener has multiple entries. (Unlikely exception to above could occur if opposing hands were something like AKQx, AK, KQJT98, A (where the missing king is not relevant to 7D) opposite xxx, QJxxxxxxx, A, K and a diamond lead. Ouch! (But then 7D would not be cold either, if a spade were ruffed in.)
I now have a headache.
Addendum: Now that I see my comment in print, I realize that if opener heard a 2S control response and held the hand with stiff CA, he would surely bid 7NT himself, thinking that the fourth spade is taken care of by the CK in responder’s hand.
I’m not a fan of showing controls over 2C, but it worked out handsomely here. Wouldn’t think of bidding over 7D, especially since we’re ahead of the crowd because I was able to show my hand.