Bridge: by the deadly deuces

With N-S vulnerable, at imp. scoring, what bid would you make as South in the situation below?

Here is what our expert panel has to say.

Charlie Cahn: 4 diamonds. Partner must have a good club suit of at least 5 cards, A J 10X or better in spades, and a singleton or void in diamonds. The problem now is whether we are worth a slam. 4 diamonds conveys this to partner well; he would not assume it a cue bid at this stage.

Simon Arnold: 4 spades. Game is a good bet at this scoring; partner's hand should be five-five or better, and on this bidding clubs and spades must be almost solid.

Chas. Flude: 2 diamonds. E-W will then tell you that this is an insufficient bid. S should then bid 4H to which his partner cannot reply. This will ensure the correct contract is found.

John Jowett: 4 diamonds. I want to play in game on this hand, probably in 5C but possible in 4S. I take partner for 4-2-16 or 5-2-1-5 or better. 4 diamonds gives him this message, and he can rebid 4S if this is best. With 4D I have shown my hand, and any slam try is over to him.

Ross Quayle: 4 spades. There is more risk in failing to bid a game that is there than in going down in one that isn't at this scoring. Although he may be bidding on my points a little, partner's spades should be strong enough to stand it.

One of the strong points of the Acol system is the use of an opening two club bid to describe a game going hand strong in honour tricks, keeping two-bids in the other three suits to describe a different sort of hand, strong in playing strength but weaker in honour tricks. This has in particular the advantage of making slam bidding much more accurate.

However, it does create a problem, that of bidding a hand of the second type whose best suit is clubs. Acol has had two methods for this awkward class of hand.

1)	To allow a two club opening followed by a three club rebid to be weaker in honour strength than a standard two club opener, and to allow responder to pass three clubs.
2)	To use a strong three club opening bid as highly invitational but not forcing.

My partner and I were using the second method, although not really happy about it, when I was dealt the following hand in a multiple teams tournament.

Now this was very tricky; our opponents, probably playing Goren as their team mates were, would have no problems in bidding this hand, opening two clubs and rebidding in spades, and so we were at a disadvantage. There were going to be a lot of imps at stake here. I paused to consider my opening bid.

I can't possibly risk opening three clubs and perhaps being left there when all my partner needs is O X X of spades to make a spade game. What about two clubs? I am strong enough to force to game but to tell my partner I have five quick tricks when I have only three and a half is odds on to get me into a slam with two losing hearts. That would be 17 imps down the drain Partner will be the one to decide whether to bid a slam, and I can't risk misleading him to that extent.

One club? Not very nice; it is unlikely to be passed out, certainly, but the bidding could well be at 4H or 5D before I get my second bid I could bid 4S over 4H but not over 50, and it could turn in to one of those nightmare hands where they make 5 hearts doubled to add to 5 or 6 clubs at the other table.

Two spades looks reasonable, with a rebid in clubs it will describe the hand quite well, although partner will expect spades to be my longer suit.

Anyway, having tapped my pencil and tugged my moustache for a while, probably arousing deep suspicion in my opponents, I opened two spades, and the following auction took place.

On a heart lead partner puts down his hand.

Ouch, that's exactly what I was afraid of 6 clubs is almost on ice, and 6 spades very dicey indeed. Queen of spades and then a small one, and only small ones from the opponents. Now what, then ten or the ace? I can remember seeing this one in 'The Play of the Hand' by Reece and Domer there was a little diagram two thirds of the way down the page, only he had A X on board. The deuce of it is, I can't remember what to do. When they're 4-3 you should play for the drop, but that's when there's only the jack left. A glance at R. H.O. if he had J X X X surely he would be a little nervous. No, he looks bored stiff. I can't say I blame him L.H.O. doesn't exactly look as though he has butterflies in his tummy at the thought of making a trick from J X X either. Both with consciously straight faces now, like two old presbyterians in church when the vicar makes a double entendre. Oh well, Sydney or the bush. And my ten is taken by the jack. One down. At least the trumps were 4-2. (As a matter of fact the odds favour playing for the drop. At the vital moment they are 53%, as against 41% for the finesse.) And to my relief the other deadly deuce rather spoilt things for our opposition at the other table, the bidding going:

So it wasn't all that bad.

I couldn't possibly blame my partner for putting me in the wrong slam, and when I explained my dilemma he didn't blame me, which was rather nice of him. We both blamed Acol. However, we put our heads together and came up with the following modification, which I try to cajole my regular partners into using.

An opening 3 club bid is strong and forcing for one round, with a negative 3 diamonds. Responder can then pass openers second bid if he wants to. The bidding on my awkward hand would go

We have never had occasion to use this modification since, although I have once or twice felt the need of it when playing with partners not using it.

Next week our expert panel will discuss the following situation.

The bidding, EWvul, at match point pairs goes