DAVE HUGGETT ANSWERS BRIDGE QUESTIONS

Awkward Bid

Huw Jones asks how the following hands should be bid by East-West playing Acol, and tells us what happened at the table:

Dealer: North. N/S Vul.   8 7 5 4   J 5 3   5 3   K 9 8 3   A Q   Q 4   K J 7 4   A Q 7 5 4

The actual bidding was:

West	North	East	South
	Pass	1	1
Pass	Pass	2	Pass
2	End

This is clearly an inelegant result and stems mainly from East's 2 rebid. If this was intended to show a powerhouse, then the hand is clearly not up to scratch and the decision to pass 2 seems to denote a change of heart. So what should East rebid, then? One bid I think we can definitely rule out is 2. Sure, this would show a good hand but is much too unilateral when the right contract might be 1NT, or 2.

The bid that initially held most appeal to me was 'double', as this would be for take-out and would not preclude West bidding 1NT on a weak hand, albeit with a heart stop. The problem arises when partner responds 1 because you can hardly leave that and a return to 2 would not necessarily show a diamond suit. (As far as West is concerned, partner might be doubling in case there is a juicy penalty in hearts and East could easily hold a 2-2-3-6 shape.) I think on the actual hand West should ignore the rather pawky spades and just bid 2 over a double, especially if East is showing at least five clubs; although that would lead to a sensible contract, it might be deemed a bit lucky.

So, is there anything else? Well it might seem like being wise after the event but I cannot see much wrong in bidding 1NT. East has the right sort of values and while his heart stop is tenuous, partner often has a habit of providing something useful - say, something like 10-x-x-x! And if no-trumps is the right strain, then it is best if it is played by East.

If I had to give marks to the most plausible bids, I would award:

1NT Double 2

10 8 3