|
Bidding Problem #1, April 2005:
This months' problem came up during the Midnight KO's at the Pittsburgh NABC's and was the 6th board in a 6 board match. On the previous 5 boards your opponents bid and made 4 game contracts which seemed reasonable but 2 were mild stretches which led you to believe that going into this board your team is at best even.
Vul against Non-vul you pick up in second seat with RHO passing:
 Void
 xxx
 AJx
 AJ98xxx
The problem is two-fold, because firstly I am going to impose a pass upon you.
1) Do you agree with pass here?
2) The bidding has proceeded as follows:
(RHO)Pass-(You)Pass-(LHO)4 spades-(Pard)Double
(RHO)Pass-(You) ?
What call would you make now?
This months' panel (Cliff Nebel, Peter Kalat, Carlos Munoz, Jason Fuhrman, Robin Brown, Joan Gerard, Pat Callahan, Jeff Allen, Rich Laufer & Ed Zuckerberg) voted as follows:
Part 1)
1 Club: 6 votes
Pass: 3 votes
3 Clubs: 1 vote
Part 2)
6 clubs: 7 votes
Pass: 3 votes
Most of the panel did not want to pass this hand and sited several valuation methods (rule of 20, rule of 22, etc.) although it's clearly going to be hard to paint the picture of this hand to partner. Robin Brown was afraid to open 1 club because she felt she would then be stuck in a rut for rebidding 2 clubs, then 3 clubs and if pard bids 3 no trump without good clubs, you may not be able to set up the clubs. Rich Laufer thought that many would open this 3 clubs (only Peter Kalat did), but the void and 2 aces made it too good so he passed also. At the table I passed figuring I would not get shut out of the auction and that partner would not get carried away when I came into the auction, even at a game or slam level, based on my original pass.
The second part of the problem brought out the slam bidders with Cliff Nebel, Peter Kalat and Pat Callahan dissenting by leaving in the double, expecting to collect 500 or 800 against our non-vulnerable opps. Most of the 6 club bidders agreed there was no scientific way to find the right level, and there was more concern about missing 7 clubs opposite a possible
xx
AKxx
KQxx
Kxx
than overbidding. Jeff Allen felt the double was more likely to be based upon values outside the spade suit rather than a trump stack (when it would be right to leave the double in) so he took a shot at 6 clubs also. Jason Fuhrman also painted the possible dummy above minus the heart King as being cold for 6 clubs and that's only a 12 count in the dummy. Pat Callahan felt that partner would bid 4 no trump for takeout with the above dummy and he expects partner to have at least KJ9x or better in spades for the double, so he leaves it in. Joan Gerard felt strongly about opening this hand 1 club, but now feels that partner should not have too much wastage in spades and expects the minor suit finesses to be onside. Carlos Munoz wanted to open this hand 1 club, but on the given auction he also leaps to 6 clubs.
I guess part 3 which was never posed to the panel would be hypothetical since it did not occur at the table, but presumably if I did open this hand 1 club and LHO followed with 4 spades which partner doubled, I think I would now be inclined to pass having already portrayed my supposed values to my partner, but I would still feel uneasy about missing 1370. At the table I bid 6 clubs on the given auction and this was the actual dummy I was faced with:
Kx
AKxxx
Qxxx
Kx
The opening lead was the diamond ten won by my jack. I crossed to the club king and finessed the jack of clubs on the way back, then played the club ace picking up RHO's Qxx. A heart was now ducked and when they broke 3-2 the hearts now provided the needed diamond pitch. At the other table, our opps were in 5 clubs doubled, down 1(declarer played for 2-2 clubs, then failed to duck a heart to set up the hearts so he had to lose a diamond also) for a 17 imp swing and a match win of a mere 7 imps.
-Ed Zuckerberg
|
