|
Bidding Problem #8, November 2005: This month's hand was submitted by Jason Fuhrman and comes from a local club matchpoint game.
Assume normal 2/1 partnership agreements (new suit by advancer is 1 round force). Both sides non-vul, in fourth seat you pick up:
 9653
 AKQJ
 AKQ8
 3
Much to your surprise, LHO opens the bidding 1 and partner overcalls 2. After RHO passes it is now your call.
Voting:
2: 6 votes
2: 3 votes
2: 3 votes
3NT: 1 vote
A lot of diverse opinions on what to call here and some very nice insights. Cliff Nebel calls this a "pinocchle deck," but the message is clear: RHO should have a yarborough. This is about as close as you get to figuring out the whole hand in the auction. since we are only missing 21 HCP, LHO rates to have 11-12 and partner 9-10. Do we think their suits are solid? Pat Callahan, Rich Laufer, Nancy Widman and Cliff do not think so. The clue is in the fact that LHO did not pre-empt, so Nancy expects something like AQJxxx,xx,xx,Kxx or AKJxxx,xx,xx,Kxx (or 1-3 in the reds) for LHO's opening bid. That leaves pard with Kx,xxx,xx,AQJxxx (with Qx,x,xxxx,AQJxxx pard might have pre-empted to 3). Of course pard could have even longer clubs and 6 may have play with the doubleton K coming down, but as Nancy points out, unless pard has a stiff spade (unlikely without the pre-empt) we are probably off the A and a spade ruff at the get go. Using that reasoning also, Cliff is our lone 3NT bidder and he thinks 460 is probable.
Our 2 bidders (Nancy Widman, Carlos Munoz, Pat Callahan, Rick Goldstein, Rich Laufer and Gene Fisher (welcome from Maryland!) want to Q immediately and at a low enough level to keep 3NT and slams in 3 possible suits still open possibilities. Considering the limits mentioned above, Nancy will only bid 3NT over 2NT, but will bid 3 over 3 and follow with 4 over 4, a sequence which may well lead to an inferior 5 when pard does not possess the requisite first round spade control or second round spade control and solid clubs required for slam. Pat will also raise 2NT to 3NT, but intends to pass 3 and raise a red suit bid to game.
The 2 bidders are led by Bruce Rogoff who thinks the solid suit justifies bidding a 4-bagger, especially since partner's hand will be taking the tap. He also brings up another issue: Q-bidding without support for partner's suit, which he doesn't like. Rick Goldstein and Carlos Munoz also touched upon this issue, both mentioning that their agreements do not guarantee support with the Q-bid, while Nancy Molesworth mentions a nice auction below where a delayed Q-bid denies support since she didn't Q-bid earlier in the auction. Bruce also has another reason for choosing 2 over the spade Q-bid: allowing LHO to rebid his spade suit, confirming his suspicion that LHO is light and shapely. Bruce expects that he can bring home 6 opposite as little as x,Txx,xxx,AKJTxx. The other 2 bidders were our problem submitter, Jason Fuhrman and Joan Gerard. Both are ready to play in 4 if partner can find a raise to 3.
The 2 bidders (Peter Kalat, Laura Brill and Nancy Molesworth) hope partner can continue with 2 or 2NT with a spade control. Nancy says that if partner continues with 3 she will now Q-bid 3 which should deny a really good hand with club support since she would have Q-bid earlier with good clubs.
Jason reports, not withstanding the above discussions, that on this hand, on this day, the winning action was 2, leading to a final contract of 4 making 5, while 3 notrump makes on the nose.
Editor's note: For informational purposes only, we have included the actual hand partner had for the 2 club bid. Not to detract from the analyses of our panelists, we have noted that this hand is probably not worthy of a 2 club bid and it is understood that our panelists expected a much better club suit. This was the actual dummy:
A
8xx
Jxxx
KQxxx
Happy Holidays to all and keep those submissions coming in!-Ed Z.
Ed Z |
