|
Bidding Problem #17, June 08: In May we presented our panelists with a tweener problem. They thought they knew the strain they wanted to bid (some were more sure about the strain than others) but debated between 2 and 3 level responses. Obviously the strain was an issue too because we had 15 panelists split down the middle bidding 2 different strains, and then a couple of our resident experts bid a completely different strain!
Matchpoints, no one vulnerable:
As dealer, you open 1 and with opps passing, partner responds 1 . What do you rebid holding:
 Qxx
Kxx
AKQxxx
 x
Here's how the panelists voted:
3: 7 votes
2: 7 votes
1: 2 votes
2: 1 vote
The general consensus here was that this was a question of overbidding or underbidding, but clearly there is a strain issue also. Some of our panelists who wound up bidding some number of never even considered raising with only 3 card support, so for them it was only an issue of bidding 2 or 3 and our group showed themselves to be an aggressive lot, going for the slight overbid. Only Joan Gerard (and quite passionate was she about it) opted for 2 elegantly stating her case that this leaves her well placed for subsequent continuations in the auction and if there aren't any, she is probably in the right spot. Joan mentioned the other popular calls, 2 and 3 as worth considering and even mentioned a possibility of a 3NT call (needs the J) before settling on 2. Jason Fuhrman led the 3 bidders, believing this hand had enough extras that he needed to encourage partner now, rather than sit back and hope the auction survives an initial underbid. Jason reserved his diatribe against raising hearts with only 3 card support for a future panel problem. Susan Patricelli bids 3 and really hopes to hear more from partner. She is concerned partner will pass 3 and she will wind up +110 instead of +140 (sounds like a case for 2). Certainly, if anything is going to get a noise out of partner, 3 will do it, but that noise might result in a minus score instead of +110. Ros Elk is starting with 3 but plans on raising hearts if partner goes on (but what to do over 3NT? will pard bid 3 with a 5 bagger?). Carlos Munoz, Marshall Frank & Laura Brill also bid 3 and Nancy Molesworth snuck her 3 bid in just before this came out saying "I'm sorry this is so late. If it's not, I'll bid 3. If it is, I'll still bid 3 but no one will know (except me, Nancy)!
The tweeners were out, with Rick and Laura requesting to bid 2.5, but not being allowed Laura went for the overbid and Rick opted for 2. Rob Stayman was also a tweener, but a real hog at that- he wants to bid 2.5 diarts, but couldn't find the bid in his bid box ( I took it out just before this hand was sent out). What a novel idea: after an auction that goes 1 clade - 2.5 diarts - 3notrump, how the hell do you lead the unbid suit? Faced with bidding what was in his box, Rob bid 2, as did Marj Murstein, Jeff Allen, Pat Callahan, Brad Calcagni, Cliff Nebel and Mike McNamara. Mike admits that 2 is an underbid, but feels that the fact that he is a trump light compensates for his heavy values. If they do wind up in a 4-3 fit, the shortness is in the right hand and hopefully it will play better than NT or . Cliff Nebel is tantalized by the idea of bidding 1 here, but is terrified of playing it there in a 3-3 fit when partner holds xxx,Jxxx,x,KQxx and will have his pass card out before righty even reaches for his. Noting that 4 will make opposite an ideal minimum like xx,AQxxx,xx,xxxx and that 2 can go down opposite a poor minimum, he feels that matchpoint choices are between 2 and 2 and chooses 2 here, mostly because he is trying to influence me to raise him more often on 3 card support, because he likes to play the hands and that's what good partners are for......keeping their partners happy!
So now we get to Bruce Rogoff's 1 call. Rick Goldstein also voted for 1 but made no comments. Cliff as alluded to above, considered it and decided to leave this call to the experts. Of the available underbids, Bruce feels that 2 is a serious underbid, with 2 being a bit better, but likely to produce the third best matchpoint score. 3 is an improvement on both underbids as it is about right on values, but he will feel end-played in the auction if partner continues with 3NT, having a sinking feeling that 3NT may go down when 4 is cold. To this end, he feels that 1 has the best upside of all the nasty options available here. "Yes, things could get awkward if partner raises (I'll pass 2, which may not be too bad), but if he doesn't I'm extremely well placed. Over 1N or 2, I have an easy 2 bid, transmitting my strength nicely while showing partner 12 of my cards.....no other bidding plan accomplishes that. As a matter of fact, I'm planning to bid hearts next over anything other than 3N, which portrays club shortness and leaves partner well placed."
So I thought a lot about what Bruce said and it really represented nice, out of the box, thinking. A couple of nights later, I was playing with Cliff and picked up this hand:
Ax
Kxx
K
AKT9xxx
Not the same hand by any stretch of the imagination, but enough similarities that when the auction went 1-pass-1-pass-? I rolled out the 1 card! Partner, holding Kxx,QJTxx,xxx,xx, bid 2 and I jumped aggressively to the heart game, which rolled when clubs were 2-2 and the opps never attacked diamonds. Of note, one of the opponents was livid with my 1 call and asked Sylwia for a ruling at the table. Of course the bid was allowed since Cliff had no knowledge that I was bidding a 2 card suit and we had no agreements on this. Later that evening I bumped into Mike McNamara, with whom I had had an earlier discussion on this months bidding problem and had discussed Bruce's 1 call. Apparently Sylwia and Mike had discussed my bid and her subsequent ruling and Mike said to me: "I hear you are playing Rogoff over 1!
-Ed
|
