Balancing Decision

I played with Kathy Harper (from California) on May 26 in the NYC Regional Open Pairs.  I had never played with Kathy before, and I was happy when she called Honors Bridge Club explaining that she wanted a pro partner for that date, and that we were able to make arrangements.

I was South and held the following hand, Not-Vulnerable vs. Vulnerable:  ª843  ©K3  ¨A9752  §963.  After 3 passes Kathy opened 1©, I responded 1NT and she rebid 2©.  This was passed around to West, who balanced with 2ª.  It went pass-pass, back to me.  It is your decision now.  Think about it, as this decision is what this month's hand is all about.

I immediately considered 3 different possible actions:  Double, Pass, or 3©. 

I felt that West was being impertinent - not able to open in 3rd seat yet balancing at the 2-level at unfavorable vulnerability.  I wanted to double, since 3 small spades was a good spade holding, considering that I had already denied holding 4 spades.  But as I looked at my hand, I could not see where the defense would win 6 tricks.  I had about 1 1/2 or 2 tricks, and I did not see where I could count on partner to have 3 1/2 or 4 tricks.  I think doubling would be too reckless - it might be successful 10-20% of the time, but would more often lead to a bottom score.  I decided not to risk doubling.

Pass is certainly possible.  It is a shame probably go -110 on a hand where I expected to have a good chance to go +110.  I certainly would prefer to do something else if I can think of something appealing.

How successful would a 3© bid be?  If partner has a good 6-card heart suit and 2 side tricks, it can make.  That is not unreasonable to hope for - it certainly seems better than doubling 2ª.   The problem is that 3© might not make.  Partner's hearts might not be so good, or the suit might break badly, or partner might only have 1 side-suit trick.  Still, down one is better than letting the opponent's make 2ª.

Well, I might bid 3©.  Before bidding 3©, are there any other bids to consider?

Yes, I did think of one other bid.  That was 2NT.  If partner has as little as 6 good hearts and the §A, then I can see 8 tricks in Notrump.  And partner certainly is better than that.  She has a 6-card heart suit and did not open a weak 2 bid in 4th position.  (In 4th seat I expect a weak 2 to be between 9-12HCP).  My ©K and ¨A would fill in her gaps perfectly.  Partner would not even need to have a spade stopper, as the opponent certainly doesn't have more than 5 spades (since he didn't open a preempt in 3rd position).  And if partner holds 3 spades, then playing in Notrump could be vital to prevent an opposing spade ruff.

The more I thought about it, the more I liked bidding 2NT.  It certainly should not be a hand with a spade stopper and 9HCP - I would probably double 2ª with a hand like that.  No, it should be a hand like the one that I held - a key heart honor that looks like it might help run the suit, and a side quick trick. 

So, I bid 2NT, and played there, and made it, with a club opening lead.  This was the entire hand:

We got all the matchpoints for +120.  The spade ruff beats 3©.  Apparently the ruff was found at all tables that reached 3©.  It is a little surprising that every table found the ruff, but is expected at most tables where West bid spades.

Incidently, if I held the West hand I would have opened the bidding 1ª.  In my partnership with Gail Greenberg we have lots of ways to bid Drury in interference, so we don't have to get to the 3-level.  And the 1ª bid serves 2 good functions:  1) it takes away lots of bidding space from the opponents making it tougher for them to find the best contract, and 2) it serves as a lead-directing bid.  It can happen that the opponents find a penalty double when we have no place to run to, but that is exceedingly rare.  I think the gain, especially in matchpoints, is well worth the risk.