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.