Saturday, September 16, 2006 7:56 PM
Hand
Evaluation -
Ambiguous Q Bids
PITBULLS:
Ambiguous
Q bids should be avoided if at all possible. In modern bidding
, we have been conditioned that Q
bids imply a fit
unless it is an obvious exception
determined by the context
of the auction. Instead of a Q bid ,
try the old fashioned throw back of “bidding
what you have”. I was guilty of trying to be scientific rather than bidding my own hand so it cost us
12 IMPs. Partner opened 1♠ , there was a 3♣
pre-empt. I held ♠x ♥AJ10x ♦KQJ1098x ♣x , I bid 3♦ to which partner
responded 3♠. Now what ?
I
have always suggested you paint a picture of your
hand to partner . In other words , bid what
you have.
Instead , I muddied the waters with an ambiguous Q bid so got what I deserved. Partner
interpreted the Q bid as showing a spade fit. This is a correct assumption as
why I am not just describing my hand in a crowded auction ?
He bid 4NT KCB for spades so I trapped
myself. I leapt to 6♦ as an out but the
opponents found the winning defense of cashing their 2 Aces.
OK
the ambiguous Q bid certainly did
not work , so what is a better bid ? You were dealt
essentially a one suited hand with 11 HCP. Certainly it is a nice hand but why
not describe it to partner by leaping to
5♦ after his 3♠ bid
? Its fast arrival but to a 11 trick game . You
have slam only if partner has the appropriate controls. Bidding 4♦ is slow arrival
where you are probably interested in more. This bid overstates your hand
somewhat. I think a leap to game is about right.
As an
aside , when partner did not ask you for a preference
, 6NT does not play better than a suit. Since I Q bid clubs ,
partner protecting the club king is not a good idea. What if I held ♠x ♥AJ10x ♦KQJ1098xx ♣ void ? 6♦ is cold where 6NT
could go down 6 vul. If
partner never Q bid clubs , 6NT to protect the club
king is most likely the correct bid.
Ambiguity
is to be avoided in any language.
Sometimes you get lazy & just Q bid to force. There is a danger in that approach . Paint a picture of your hand to partner instead.
Better results will follow.
The
Michaels Q bid is partially ambiguous as it is either weak or strong. When
the opponents have pre-empted or in the balancing spot ,
the Q bid should announce your attentions as a strong hand & turn on forcing passes. Why ?
because the opponents have a tactical advantage in
that they know the situation with they pre-empt or
after a balance. Throw out Michaels Q bids in these situations & use the
Q bid to show a strong
distributional two suiter. 2♥-3♥
is not Michaels but
asks partner to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. If partner bids over that , she is showing a strong one suiter.
A 3♦-4♦ Q bid is a strong
hand not a weak major hand but a strong distributional hand..
If you are strong in the HCP sense , a double is preferred
over a Q bid. Partner will clarify later
but forcing passes are turned on.
In
the Masters Solver’s club , panelist quite often Q bid
to force when they do not
know what to do. This is a dangerous practice quite often caused
by limiting a double to mean a trump stack. If you throw out that particular
connotation for a double , a double can replace a Q bid in many , many situations
to imply a good hand without
a fit. Partner can convert for penalty in misfit
auctions. It is difficult to convert an ambiguous Q bid for penalty
J. Also a natural bid
is quite often forcing for at least one round. Insecure players sometimes make
an ambiguous Q bid to force , thinking that their natural bid might be passed in an approach forcing
bidding system . No , no & no.
Try
to avoid ambiguous Q bids if you
can. The default for a Q bid
should be a fit of
“limit raise or better”. Defaults are
assumed until you are told otherwise.