[AL78]

The novices at my club have taken on board the workshop advice of bidding to the level of the fit, making slam very hard to find for NS on this board.

---

There were only three tables, the scores were 4♠EX-3, 5♠E-4, and 5♣N=. Here are two of the auctions:

N E S W
. . . P
P 2♠ X 4♠
5♣ P 5♦ 5♠
P P P

N E S W
. . . P
P 2♠ X 4♠
5♣ P P P

NS have a slam on in three suits, although the club slam requires declarer to play to the jack, losing to the queen, then the king comes down under the ace. I couldn't think of a way for NS to get to any slam with the EW barrage. What do you think?

[AL78]

The novices at my club have taken on board the workshop advice of bidding to the level of the fit, making slam very hard to find for NS on this board.

---

There were only three tables, the scores were 4♠EX-3, 5♠E-4, and 5♣N=. Here are two of the auctions:

---

---

NS have a slam on in three suits, although the club slam requires declarer to play to the jack, losing to the queen, then the king comes down under the ace. I couldn't think of a way for NS to get to any slam with the EW barrage. What do you think?

I did suggest to the first pair that one of them really should have whacked the 5♠.

[helene_t]

For novices they didn't do badly. On both boards, South started with a good double, and North followed up with a good 5♣ bid. Now 5♦ from South is better than pass, but even passing the 5♣ bid is acceptable for a novice.

But on the first board, South obviously doesn't want to defend 5♠ undoubled, especially after his partner has shown some life with the voluntary 5♣ bid. So he needs to double or bid something. Pass is not an option. I don't think you need to introduce the concept of forcing pass here: it is enough to point out that from South's point of view, defending 5♠ undoubled can't be right. He needs to double - it's not so much that he has a strong preference for 5♠X, but rather that he already told his story with the 5♦ bid. Maybe a novice could be forgiven for bidding 6♥ now, but probably you can explain to them that double is more practical than 6♥, even though 6♥ happens to make on this hand.

In the other copy of this thread, you said that you suggested that one of NS should have wacked 5♠. I think it's important to stress that South has to wack 5♠. For two reasons:
- North has a void in spades. He doesn't have any preference for 5♠X. The fact that he knows that EW don't have the points to make 5♠ is not a reason to double - his 5♣ bid already said this.
- South is in the passout seat. So while North could pass to leave the decision to his partner, South now needs to act.

For an advanced course it should be clear that North then pulls the double to 6♦ (or bids 6♦ directly over 5♠), but at a novice course, 5♠X is acceptable.

You might also want to point out that West's 5♠ bid is not good: his 4♠ bid already made the opponents make the last guess, now is the time to let NS play their (hopefully) suboptimal 5♦ contract. But maybe this goes beyond the novice level. 5♠ with 11 trumps is "lawful", after all.

[apollo1201]

The bidding started well but...

Hard indeed. Maybe S who sees N bidding 5C whereas they could have so much less when Xing can take a shot at 6D and see what comes from that? Or N with a void, a side A and the probably helpful HQ can bid 6 in the sequence where S mentions his D?

You can also suggest W to avoid making another bid especially w/ a flat hand, as it gives a lot of opportunities to opponents (pass, X, bid 6 something, etc.) although it went « free » that day. And although 11 trumps = 5-level per law🤣

Nice instructive deal anyway!!

[Cyberyeti]

While I sympathise with 5♣, 4N(2 places to play) may work out better as partner has a better chance of holding hearts than clubs.

[nekthen]

Maybe not for the novices and I am sure purist will disagree, but 4♦, leaping michaels, gets this off your chest. Sure you are a heart short but playing strength is right

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2020-February-03, 21:02, said:

You might also want to point out that West's 5♠ bid is not good: his 4♠ bid already made the opponents make the last guess, now is the time to let NS play their (hopefully) suboptimal 5♦ contract. But maybe this goes beyond the novice level. 5♠ with 11 trumps is "lawful", after all.

I would take the chance to point out that adherence to the "Law" should be tempered by common sense and awareness of how the room bids. There are indeed 19 total tricks here and a sacrifice of -800 is better than -960 on paper, but in practice it's going to be a lousy score more often than not.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-04, 05:23, said:

While I sympathise with 5♣, 4N(2 places to play) may work out better as partner has a better chance of holding hearts than clubs.

Agreed. Looking at the auction and my spades void I would figure partner is most likely 3442 or 3433 here.

[FelicityR]

helene_t, on 2020-February-03, 21:02, said:

You might also want to point out that West's 5♠ bid is not good: his 4♠ bid already made the opponents make the last guess, now is the time to let NS play their (hopefully) suboptimal 5♦ contract. But maybe this goes beyond the novice level. 5♠ with 11 trumps is "lawful", after all.

I agree. There's 'lawful and 'awful'. Most good players would say never to bid your hand twice, and, The Law of Total Tricks rarely works according to its formula at the five level.

[nige1]

AL78 "The novices at my club have taken on board the workshop advice of bidding to the level of the fit, making slam very hard to find for NS on this board. There were only three tables, the scores were 4♠EX-3, 5♠E-4, and 5♣N=. One of the auctions. NS have a slam on in three suits, although the club slam requires declarer to play to the jack, losing to the queen, then the king comes down under the ace. I couldn't think of a way for NS to get to any slam with the EW barrage. What do you think? I did suggest to the first pair that one of them really should have whacked the 5♠."
++++++++++++++++
EW made it hard for NS to reach any slam. IMO ...

Over East's 2♠, I rank ...
1. Double = T/O. Reasonable. If you play same-level conversion then, over partner's 5♣ bid, the 5♦ bid shows the red-suits.
2. 3N = NAT. Practical bid.
3. 3♦ = NAT. Risky underbid.
4. 4♦ = ART. Leaping Michaels. Red-suits 5+5+. Bypasses 3N and exaggerates ♥s.

Over West's 4♠, I rank ...
1. 4N = ART. Brave. 2 or more places to play.
2. 5♣ = NAT. Brave and unilateral.
3. Pass = NAT. Close decision,
4. Double = ART. "Action"/"Cards"/"Responsive" but emphasis on penalty, at this level

Over West's 5♠, South should double.

---

[AL78]

FelicityR, on 2020-February-04, 08:57, said:

I agree. There's 'lawful and 'awful'. Most good players would say never to bid your hand twice, and, The Law of Total Tricks rarely works according to its formula at the five level.

One of them called me over for advice with the West hand when 5♣ came round to them. I said that whilst they have no defence, and 5♠ might work, it has one way to win and two ways to lose (they go for more than the NS game or NS punt slam and make because of lack of defence), that was enough to convince them to pass it out in 5♣.

[AL78]

A couple have suggested leaping Michaels or 4NT two places to play. The players here have never heard of anything like this, so they are not an option. The novices have learnt Acol, weak NT, three weak twos, and some fundamental conventions like Stayman, Blackwood, and Transfers. Many of them haven't grasped the different situations where takeout doubles are an option, unassuming cue bids, or fourth suit forcing (this is why a couple of us hold workshops every three weeks to bring in some of this slightly beyond the basics stuff).

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2020-February-04, 13:32, said:

A couple have suggested leaping Michaels or 4NT two places to play. The players here have never heard of anything like this, so they are not an option. The novices have learnt Acol, weak NT, three weak twos, and some fundamental conventions like Stayman, Blackwood, and Transfers. Many of them haven't grasped the different situations where takeout doubles are an option, unassuming cue bids, or fourth suit forcing (this is why a couple of us hold workshops every three weeks to bring in some of this slightly beyond the basics stuff).

What do they think 2♠-X-4♠-4N or 2♠-X-4♠-P-P-X-P-4N mean ?

[helene_t]

FelicityR, on 2020-February-04, 08:57, said:

I agree. There's 'lawful and 'awful'. Most good players would say never to bid your hand twice, and, The Law of Total Tricks rarely works according to its formula at the five level.

Indeed. Even Cohen's "To bit and not to bid" recommends the rule that "the 5-level belongs to the opponents".

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-04, 05:23, said:

While I sympathise with 5♣, 4N(2 places to play) may work out better as partner has a better chance of holding hearts than clubs.

Nah, you don't want S to bid 5♦ on a 3343, which is totally possible given your own spade void. Even opposite 1453 you'd rather play clubs. Even if South is 3442, clubs is often better as 4-4 fits are not that great when opps' preempt increased the risk that the trump suit is 4-4.

5♣ is absolutely clear IMHO, novice or non-novice.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2020-February-04, 14:28, said:

Nah, you don't want S to bid 5♦ on a 3343, which is totally possible given your own spade void. Even opposite 1453 you'd rather play clubs. Even if South is 3442, clubs is often better as 4-4 fits are not that great when opps' preempt increased the risk that the trump suit is 4-4.

5♣ is absolutely clear IMHO, novice or non-novice.

3343 bids 2N or 3N, it doesn't double normally

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-04, 15:24, said:

3343 bids 2N or 3N, it doesn't double normally

OK, 2443 then

But xxx-AKx-AKxx-Kxx is obviously a double (at least in the mainstream style we would teach novices).

[AL78]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-04, 14:13, said:

What do they think 2♠-X-4♠-4N or 2♠-X-4♠-P-P-X-P-4N mean ?

If I asked any of them, I would get a look of total confusion and stunned silence.

They have not developed the ability to logically deduce what bids mean in situations that have not been covered in their lessons. I reckon there are some intermediate players at my club that wouldn't have a clue what 4NT meant in those situations. I know what it means because I came across it years and years ago (not in a table situation), and it has stuck in my mind.

Many of the novices are barely able to apply fundamental bidding concepts, several of them use crib sheets and they try to remember what to do by remembering rules. Hence, when I get asked for help/guidance, I try to work with them through it in logical steps, steps small enough they can grasp each one, and then when we get to the answer it dawns on them for at least a moment. If I can, I leave them with a pointer or two as to how to work these things out when partner or opponents bid in a way that makes their next move not immediately obvious.

For teaching of any concept, it takes repetition, and repetition, and repetition, and repetition, and repetition, and even then, they don't always get it because some of them only turn up to the novice evening once a week and play 15 hands, they can't practice application of theory and grasp it with such little time playing (which I think is why many of them historically stay novices forever).

I do love them, even if teaching them something new can take a long time.

[ahydra]

I like the 5D bid. Passing 5C is a classic case of "what have you shown already"... partner has suggested to play 5C opposite what could be a semibalanced 14, but you have 21 with a huge source of tricks and SAx opposite partner's likely singleton. There is little risk of a misfit as, if opps have 10 spades, North must be at least one card better (not in spades) than 2326. South has mountains of extras and 5D is a good forward-going move without unilaterally committing to slam.

After 5D-(5S) I would be very tempted to raise to 6D as North, South's sequence implying a good hand with either D or D+H. (A minimum 2452 is surely passing 5C.)

In regards to telling W not to bid a "lawful" 5S: one might teach it as, with such a weak hand 4S was bid as a pre-empt, not to make, and as you (hopefully) know, "once one has pre-empted, do not bid again".

ahydra