The Bridge World Sampler
MASTER SOLVERS' CLUB
The World's Most Popular Bridge Feature
On the surface, the Master Solvers' Club is a monthly and yearly bidding contest. On eight problems each month, you are shown a hand and an auction and are challenged to decide your action. Solvers have been facing this challenge every month since October, 1929. High scorers for the month and year are listed; the top two high scorers for the year win the right to participate in a Bridge World department. Anyone who names the eight highest-scoring actions in a month (that may not sound very difficult, but it is) is invited to the expert panel.
The impact of the Club is much greater. The emphasis is on discussion. The expert panelists explain their reasoning. The directors, who organize the discussion, present and evaluate different points of view, sometimes promulgating one particular approach or attacking another. The current directors, who serve alternately in a four-month cycle, are David Berkowitz & Larry Cohen, Jeff Rubens, Eric O. Kokish and Kit Woolsey. For increasing our understanding of the game and developing judgment, the comments are more important than the answers. As one many-time world champion told us, "I learned to bid by reading and rereading the Master Solvers' Club." Many other top players would say the same.
To provide a framework for Master Solvers' Club problems, the North-South players are assumed to use Bridge World Standard (BWS), a consensus system determined by the panel's (in some cases the Solvers') preferences. BWS determines the meanings of the North-South actions. Of course, in any given situation there will be those who disagree with the majority's preference. So, although the panelists must vote in accordance with BWS, they, and the directors, are free to attack (or defend) it in their comments.
The Master Solvers' Club format has been copied by bridge publications all over the world. A similar column appears widely, from international magazines to local publications. Each is stamped with the personality of its current director. Below, we present samples from each of our current directorships.
January, 1995, Problem F
Directed by David Berkowitz & Larry Cohen
IMPs, none vul.
You, South, hold:
K
J 8 6 5
K 9 8 3
Q J 4 2
SOUTH | WEST | NORTH | EAST |
-- | -- | -- | 1 NT* | |
Pass | 2 ** | 2  | 3  | |
Pass | Pass | Double | Pass | |
? |
*13 to 15 |
**natural |
What call do you make?
Action | Score | Votes | Solvers |
4  | 100 | 16 | 60 |
Pass | 80 | 6 | 23 |
4  | 40 | 2 | 8 |
3  | 20 | 1 | 6 |
4  | 20 | 1 | 3 |
4  | 20 | 1 | 0 |
What have we here? Ten unexpected high-card points, with
lots of defense and offense. Is this a pinochle deck? Where do we
get these problems? This actually comes from a real-life New Jersey
knockout event. (Yes, our warped minds consider New Jersey to be real
life.)
The first thing we wonder is what it would have meant if
we had doubled three hearts in direct seat. Would that be responsive,
"cards," or penalty? Fortunately, we don't have to answer.
Partner, bless him, has kept the bidding alive, and we now
have a decision. He's got five or six spades, zero or one heart, and
probably three-four in the minors. Let's start out with the real pessimists:
ROTH: "Three spades. Give up on game, but take
no chances that three hearts might be cold."
HUDECEK: "Four clubs. North is bidding my values."
VON ELSNER: "Four diamonds. Funny
business. East has 13 points and three-four hearts. I've got 10. My
partner bids at the two-level and then doubles prepared for a response
at the four level; and he's sitting in front of a notrump bidder and
across from a guy who's passed twice. He ain't doing this on used
tram tickets, folks."
Then why are you "jumping" all the way to four diamonds?
No, it must be right to do something more than trying for
plus 130 or plus 140 with our surprise collection of assets.
We think the majority of the panel was seduced by the beauty
of the four-heart cue-bid. It gets across our strength, allows us
to play in four spades if it is right, gets us to five of either minor,
or maybe even six. Perfect! What could be better? We'll tell you after
we hear from the four-heart squad.
BETHE: "Four hearts. Partner could be 6=0=4=3
or 5=0=4=4 and with all these working high cards I will offer a choice
of games. This should imply the sort of hand I have."
FREEMAN: "Four hearts. Willing to play four
spades or five of whichever minor partner bids."
WOLFF: "Four hearts. Penalties? No thank you,
but game yes, I hope."
EISENBERG: "Four hearts. With slam a possibility,
four hearts seems easy."
RUBIN: "Four hearts. It certainly looks like
a minor game. Ought to be laydown so let partner pick appropriate
minor (probably four-three). By the way I wouldn't be surprised if
slam is odds-on."
Yes, Billy and Ira, slam is remotely possible, but we're
never going to get there. Partner will never jump to six, and unless
we drive there ourselves, plus 920 is not in our future.
KANTAR: "Four hearts. I hate these problems."
Is that an objection to A-H in this set, or to problems where
a cue-bid avoids the best solution? Here are some clues in the direction
of the "right" answer:
ZINKLE: "Four hearts. The opponents have nine-card
protection for the three level. I don't know what protection I have
under the Law but I just think it's right to play this hand in whatever
game partner chooses. If he doesn't lose control, slam is not unlikely
(although I don't expect to bid it)."
KOKISH: "Four hearts. . . . Although we have
four trumps and lots of defense, they seem to have nine trumps and
have reached their proper Law level. Although we may have some handling
charges in five clubs or five diamonds, we have enough cards to take
a shot at game on the four-four fit. The fallback position is that
North may rebid four spades, which ought to be okay with all our cards
working."
Only one year as Directors and now everyone refers to the
Law. Our brainwashing is working well.
GERARD: "Four spades. The air is pretty thin
at the five level, even if we have a four-four fit. For example, opposite,
A Q J x x x
x
A x x x
A x,
we can make five spades but may be down at five diamonds. Since
you're not bidding a slam, why bother to cue-bid? If I'm supposed
to pass based on legal theory, when do I sue for the 14 imps when
the deal turns out as . . . ?"
Ouch! A shot at the Law from a lawyer. His construction is
too ridiculous to print. He gives responder a pure 3-6-0-4 (yes, a
six-card heart suit) opposite a super-prime 14 count. If declarer
plays double-dummy he might indeed score plus 530, and of course,
four spades is the only game that makes our way.
What about that Law of Total Tricks? Kokish was on the right
track, but why should we assume the opponents have nine trumps? First
of all, as we stated in problem C, we a-void takeout doubles
with voids. There are many many Easts who would raise with only three
trumps. Sure, it's risky to bid to the three-level with only eight
trumps, but if he had a pure enough hand, and not much in spades,
he'd be tempted to do so--especially at IMPs, where he's very unlikely
to get doubled. Wouldn't you want to raise to three hearts with,
x x x
A K x
A x x x
K x x?
Also, West could easily have a four-card heart suit. We know
that he is broke, and that increases the likelihood that he's escaping
into a four-card suit. Wouldn't you run from one notrump (before it
gets doubled) with,
x x x
10 9 x x
J x
x x x x?
Okay, we promised you the right answer.
ROSENBERG: "Pass. . . . Maybe East (wrongly)
raised with three hearts, or maybe we'll get lucky and catch West
speeding with four hearts! . . . "
HARDY's: "Pass. Sure we would like better trumps,
but this choice could easily reap a bonanza."
MARTEL: "Pass. . . . I'm unhappy that the auction
suggests that partner might have a heart void, but still, with little
assurance of finding our eight-card fit much less making a contract,
I will go for my most likely plus."
MILES: "Pass. . . . And West might have bid
two hearts with a four-card suit! Although we undoubtedly have an
eight-card fit in a minor, that means 17 total tricks and at most
18 with adjustments. That doesn't suggest bidding five of a minor."
Ah, our brainwashing at work. Here's the way we'd figure
the trumps and tricks. Let's assume that half the time partner has
a heart void--that gives them 8-1/2 trumps. Our side might end
up in a six-one spade fit, but more likely is a four-four (or, on
a good day, a five-four) minor-suit fit. The average of all this is
that we rate to have eight trumps. That makes a total of 16-1/2 trumps.
Our jack of trumps could be a trick on defense, but not on offense.
We wouldn't be surprised to see only 16 tricks--but to make our
argument let's be generous and assume 17 tricks.
With 17 tricks, why should we cue-bid four hearts? If we
were to bid and make a minor-suit game (eleven tricks) we would have
gotten get plus 500 (six tricks) by passing three-hearts doubled.
What if we were to take only ten tricks? Then we've traded in plus
300 for minus 50!
In real life, a four-heart cue-bid would have led to plus
400 in five clubs. And a pass--plus 800 against three hearts doubled.
Even without the actual deal to back us up, it seems clear that this
an easy pass. There simply are not enough trumps to go venturing off
to a high level, when you've got a total-tricks road map telling you
to defend.
February, 1996, Problem B
Directed by Jeff Rubens
IMPs, both vul.
You, South, hold:
10 3
Q 10 7 5 4
K 6 5
8 4 3
SOUTH | WEST | NORTH | EAST |
-- | 1  | Double | Pass | |
1  | Pass | 1  | Pass | |
? |
What call do you make?
Action | Score | Votes | Solvers |
2  | 100 | 14 | 46 |
2  | 80 | 9 | 30 |
3  | 60 | 4 | 18 |
2  | 50 | 1 | 0 |
2  | 40 | 1 | 1 |
Pass | 30 | 1 | 5 |
On this sequence, South should rebid two hearts with hands
like,
(a)
x
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x,
because the partnership probably cannot make one spade but
will make two hearts part of the time. In other words, two hearts,
a correction of a limited, nonforcing action, is a selection of contract.
It does not suggest values or game chances. Indeed, it is not needed
for such a purpose because South has a wide variety of strength-showing
devices available: direct raises, notrump bids, jumps, and cue-bids
(all plural).
Surprisingly, half the panel believes that two hearts here
discharges South's obligations even though he holds a hand bristling
with high cards (when partner shows 19 points and someone else opened,
a king and a queen is far above expectation), a long and strong major
suit, and even a bit of a fit (think of North's spades as king-queen-jack-fifth
or the like). This is the panel's worst selection of the month.
SHUMAN: "Two hearts. Just in case partner has,
(b)
A K x x x
A K x
A x x
x x."
A good example. (Thanks!) Why should North, with hand (b),
bid over two hearts? If South has hand (a), two hearts is the ideal
contract; even three hearts is in significant jeopardy. And if you
think South should not be bidding two hearts with (a), then how can
North-South get out of one spade, which they can't make, into two
hearts, which they can make, when North has this entirely normal one-spade
rebid?
HUDECEK: "Two hearts. Just enough to inkle.
North could (should) have, at worst, a strong 5=3=4=1, e.g.,
(c)
A J x x x
A K x
Q J x x
x."
A good example, if a little skimpy. (Thanks!) Why should
North, with hand (c), . . . (continue as before).
HAMILTON: "Two hearts. We may still have a game.
If partner lacks three-card heart support, the spade suit should be
rebiddable. Pass is slightly conservative."
SILVER: "Two hearts. Inferentially, I must be
showing some values because with a bust I might well have passed one
spade."
With a bust and some spades. Silver's view is quite
popular. Roth, Rubin, Swanson, Wolff and Woolsey all supported it,
albeit implicitly. Another "nothing" action:
BERKOWITZ: "Two diamonds. Roth would say that
this is the best action if I get by this round, but, really, what
can pard do to me? Any other bid overstates a different part of your
hand--hearts are weak, you have only two spades. Pass is not from
this planet."
But two diamonds shows no extra values. What would you do
with a hand similar to (a) but with 1=5=5=2 shape? The same arguments
apply.
The other half of the panel recognizes the need to show game
potential. Is the most straightforward action the most appropriate?
ROBINSON: "Three hearts. Too good simply to
rebid two hearts. Partner could hold, for example,
A K x x x
K J x
A Q x x
x,
and pass two hearts. Two hearts promises nothing. It might be
bid on,
x
10 9 x x x
x x x
Q x x x."
KANTAR: "Three hearts. Extras with five hearts."
BRAMLEY: "Three hearts. Extra length and extra
strength. Partner promises heart tolerance, usually three."
KOKISH: "Three hearts. . . . Honest enough,
and doesn't preclude four spades or even three notrump. Why cue-bid
when you don't have to?"
Well, maybe you do have to. It's all very well to say that
partner's typical hand has five spades and three hearts, or, with
Bramley, that partner "promises" heart tolerence. But might
not partner be forced into the sequence he used with, say, twenty
points, five spades and two hearts? (What alternatives did
he have?) So, we have to consider the cue-bid, a more flexible, though
admittedly more complicated, approach to showing strength. First,
what should a cue-bid show?
MUNSON: "Two spades. Give me a touch more and
I would cue-bid.''
ROSENBERG: "This is not strong enough for two
clubs (the same hand with the spade queen)."
I disagree. With the spade queen in addition, South would
have a game force. (That can be computed at least two ways: (i) 19
plus 7 with no misfit; (ii) with about 9 points, South would have
shown strength, so, with about 7-8 he has as much as he can have,
plus no misfit.) Using the cue-bid as a game-force is too inflexible.
Other defensive-bidding cue-bids in BWS don't have, and should not
have, that exalted status. Anyway, two clubs is so far away from game
that we can allow it a four-point range, say 5-8. Indeed, it is almost
essential to do this, lest advancer have no way to show a moderate
to strong directionless hand with nothing in clubs.
KATZ: "Two clubs. Only a one-round force. Over
two diamonds, two spades; over two hearts, four hearts; over two spades,
three spades."
Eisenberg was in accord. "Only two hearts will excite
me," he said. It is a typical advantage that the cue-bidder can
decide how much strength to show after getting a further distributional
clue about partner's hand. When North doesn't have three hearts,
this is a minimum two-club bid, so South soft-pedals thereafter.
CHORUSH: "Two clubs. . . . limited by my one-heart
advance, is just right, expressing some values but uncertainty about
strain."
HALL: "Two clubs. Values for three hearts, but
I can still help spades."
BAZE: "Two clubs. The I-don't-know-where-to-go-but-I-have-too-much-to-pass
cue-bid. Suggests safety at two spades but not the right stuff for
a direct two spades, any red-suit rebid, or one notrump."
L. COHEN: "Two clubs. I have too much to bid
only two hearts, and a jump to three hearts is too heart-oriented.
Two clubs brings spades more into focus and retains maneuvering space
to investigate strain."
Disagreeing with the plan of the mainstream cue-bidders:
GRANOVETTER's: "Two clubs. Tell partner we have
some values, and, if necessary, rebid hearts next."
I think you'll be better off supporting spades, showing a
doubleton, if North denies three hearts. Write out some typical North
hands and you'll agree.
Pessimist of the month:
M. COHEN: "Pass. If we can make a game, I'd
be amazed."
You shouldn't be. In Bridge World Standard, hand (b), above,
is close to a minimum for one spade. That bid has a range that, coming
at the low level it does, can safely be four points wide (perhaps
even a bit more).
March, 1995, Problem A
Directed by Directed by Eric O. Kokish
Matchpts., none vul.
You, South, hold:
K 4
7 5
A 6
A J 8 6 5 4 2
SOUTH | WEST | NORTH | EAST |
-- | -- | 1  | 1  | |
2  | 2  | Pass | 3  |
? |
What call do you make?
Action | Score | Votes | Solvers |
3  | 100 | 10 | 23 |
4  | 80 | 8 | 27 |
Double | 60 | 5 | 17 |
5  | 50 | 0 | 5 |
Pass | 40 | 7 | 24 |
4  | 30 | 0 | 3 |
3 NT | 20 | 0 | 1 |
South started life with a promising hand, facing a first-seat
BWS opening bid. It's gotten worse, however, as the auction developed.
The king of spades may be worthless; and if North has the king, queen,
or king-jack of hearts, that value has also decreased. North has not
indicated any sort of club fit or a long diamond suit (with a sound
hand). It is quite possible that North-South can no longer go plus
on offense, and they might not have a plus on defense either. How
depressing! So perhaps this is the answer . . .
RUBIN: "Pass. It looks like all the cards are
right for the enemy so, do you want to bid and go set or hope for
a small plus? Even your club suit offers not so much safety."
WOOLSEY: "Pass. I don't have anything intelligent
to do; maybe partner does. Even if he passes three hearts out that
may be okay, since it looks unlikely we would have a game."
FRIEND: "Pass. Tempting to bid the seven-card
suit again but to do so would eschew three notrump. Double does leave
three notrump as an option but I believe partner would expect a different
type of hand."
BERKOWITZ: "Pass. I know this isn't forcing,
but anything I try can be a lot worse. If I bid four clubs and it
goes double, I can return my cards to the board, especially the way
we open the bidding."
So, who's forcing you to open that cheese, big guy? Here
in the MSC, we can shade our opening bids with some shape and an easy
rebid, but balanced hands are supposed to be something akin to full
value. It still might be right to pass and hope for the smallest possible
minus, but is there enough hard evidence to merit such a deep position?
Haberman, Rosenberg, and Robinson (who is not sure, and asks
that his bid be changed to three spades if it is nonforcing) believe
that their pass to three hearts is forcing. It is not. The two-over-one
in competition may be based on a long suit and a bit more strength
than a weak jump shift. That sort of hand would wish to commit to
(here) three clubs, but would not wish to establish a force beyond
that level. Some, perhaps even many, would volunteer two clubs on
a ten-count and a decent five-card suit. Those players would not promise
a rebid, and would certainly not wish to establish a force at any
level. Although everyone has different rules about promising a rebid,
BWS has not yet dealt with this important question, but it is apparent
that very few partnerships would define this particular sequence as
forcing.
Well, if five panelists are willing to sell out to three
hearts, undoubled, then perhaps a nonforcing bid of four clubs is
not so unreasonable . . .
ALDER: "Four clubs. Did this hand come from
Pietro Forquet? It has all the hallmarks of one of his sadistic questions:
everyone bidding like they've got two-club openings, and here we are,
looking at more than our fair share of the coconuts. However, if partner
has, say, king-doubleton of hearts, and the major-suit aces are where
they appear, we will have trouble stopping their winning vast numbers
of tricks. But I can hardly pass. And four clubs looks like a logical
move."
PAULSEN: "Four clubs. Middle-of-the-road approach.
Three notrump may make or go down four. If I bid three spades and
partner did not respond three notrump, we would get overboard."
ZIA: "Four clubs. Something smells; there's
too much bidding going on. Four clubs, one down, a possible result,
may just be better than minus 530."
B: "Four clubs. A very simple, nonsophisticated,
competitive bid. To double is shooting craps. Would you wager plus
100 or 300 against minus 530? Bid what you think you can make . .
."
RUBENS: "Four clubs. East probably likes spades,
so I must put partner in the distributional picture before ending
with a double. Three notrump is probably irrelevant."
Well, three notrump is not at all irrelevant to a plurality
of the panel, although they don't sound too enthusiastic about their
vehicle for getting there.
MILES: "Three spades. I don't like the lead
going through the spade king if partner, with a heart stopper, bids
three notrump. However, there are only so many cards out, so it is
unlikely that partner has nothing in spades (and if so, East might
have the ace)."
ZINKLE: "Three spades. With seven clubs I don't
particularly want to defend. Not willing to forego three notrump,
and much more worried about hearts through partner than spades through
me."
LIPSITZ, and WOLFF: "Three spades.
If partner can bid three notrump, it should be a viable spot; else
I will settle for four of a minor (third round of hearts will beat
five clubs)."
So, you're going to pass four diamonds if poor North can't
think of a better bid. You may not like it, but I think that three
spades establishes a game force. To pass four diamonds is an exquisite
double cross, bad for the partnership in the long term. Of course,
it might be the winning action.
LAWRENCE: "Three spades. The only game that
has a chance is three notrump from partner's side. Three spades gives
us a chance to get there. Passing is not possible. It isn't forcing
and there is no reason to expect North to bid again. I refuse to believe
double will win this one, Kokish notwithstanding, and four clubs is
an exercise in doing nothing."
All right, you've flushed me out. I thought you'd never ask.
I have some wise spokesmen this time . . .
MECKSTROTH: "Double. I think it's pretty standard
among experts to play that responder's second action of double is
card-showing; that is, do something intelligent. No reason partner
can't be four-four-four-one or four-three-five-one, in which case
three hearts doubled is where we belong. Any other action seems unilateral
to me."
How can you argue with that, really? Where a pass would not
be forcing, you need to double to keep the bidding alive with all
the hands that have no clear direction. It's odd, in a way, that a
good hand with a seven-card suit should have no clear direction, but
isn't that the case here?
KANTAR: "Double. This is a very good problem.
The crux is: After a two-level response in competition, are there
forcing passes, and if so, at what levels? For my money they create
a force at the two- and four-levels. If so, I can't make a forcing
pass here, so my double is action-oriented."
You don't have to agree with Edwin B's rules, but you've
got to admit that establishing rules is the right way to approach
competitive bidding.
BECKER: "Double. In my partnerships, a pass
here is nonforcing, which makes this a tough problem. A real close
choice between double, trying for 300, or five clubs, trying for 400.
They've bid enough to talk me out of playing game, so I must double."
I am worried a bit by this comment, since there is a hint
that the double is closer to penalties than to "action," which
gives us all reason to express our agreements as accurately as possible
in our system notes and on our convention cards. I am pleased to double
in the Kantar-Meckstroth mode because I believe it's the right action.
I'm not sure my old friend Joe is on the same page, however . . .
SILVER: "Double. The modern style: when you
don't know what to do, double, and transfer the problem to partner."
If this is a little shop of horrors, perhaps we can close
with an almost satisfied customer . . .
ROTH: "Three spades. How come we never get a
problem like this in real life? Any Tom, Dick or Harry can send in
a problem and drive the Master Solvers crazy! Where do all the bids
come from? Anyway, three spades is the only bid."
April, 1995, Problem D
Directed by Directed by Kit Woolsey
Matchpts., both vul.
You, South, hold:
Q 8 7 3
A 9 6 5 4
A Q
A 2
What is your plan? (a) one notrump; (b) one heart, then,
after a one-notrump response, rebid (b1) two notrump, (b2)
two spades, (b3) two clubs, (b4) other; (c) other.
Action | Score | Votes | Solvers |
b3 | 100 | 10 | 19 |
a | 90 | 8 | 37 |
b1 | 80 | 7 | 31 |
b2 | 60 | 3 | 13 |
I have never been a fan of forcing notrump, and I have been
playing Flannery for years. Thus, I will admit that my two-spade rebid
was pretty much a reflex response consistent with the methods I am
used to playing, where partner could easily bypass a four-card spade
suit. Under BWS structure it probably isn't best, although at least
it does give some description of the hand. However, this hand really
fits into no-man's land. There is no approach that doesn't have some
serious flaw. Some are so afraid of the rebid problem that they dodge
it completely.
KEHELA: "(a) One notrump. Mainly because I cannot
stomach the continuations after a one-notrump response."
SUGAR: "(a) One notrump. A nasty opening bid,
dictated by the system. Besides, notrump probably plays better from
my hand, and this is the only way to play at the one level. Opening
one heart and then rebidding either two spades or two notrump is madness
on this 16-point hand lacking intermediates."
S. ROBINSON: "(a) One notrump. Comes closest
to describing the hand pattern and pointcount. With such weak majors,
this hand is far from being strong enough to reverse. The only downside
is that we could miss a five-three heart fit; that is countered by
getting a major-suit lead if we do end up playing in notrump."
This is the only cost, assuming partner is strong enough to
respond. However, if partner has to pass, we could miss a four-four
spade fit or even a five-four heart fit. It is not clear that this
risk is worth the obvious potential gains from opening one notrump.
COHEN: "(b1) One heart, then two notrump. The
last time I opened one notrump with a hand like this everyone told
me I was crazy, so I've reformed my wicked ways."
RUBENS: "(b1) One heart, then two notrump. It's
bad enough having to rebid a doubleton with a minimum!"
ZINKLE: "(b1) One heart, then two notrump. This
will get us to the right denomination, which has enough merit to risk
getting too high."
WEINSTEIN: "(b1) One heart, then two notrump.
One notrump is very nice if you don't belong in a major, but it just
gives up too much. One heart followed by two spades gains nothing
except for the opening leader. After one heart followed by two clubs,
even if I get past playing a six-card fit I still won't know where
we belong after a two-heart preference. One heart followed by two
notrump may be a slight overbid, but it seems highly preferable to
the other courses of action."
Granted this is an overbid, but at least the auction is under
control and we are likely to arrive in the proper strain. This is
a lot more than can be said for the catch-all two-club rebid.
KOKISH: "(b3) One heart, then two clubs. This
is a suit-oriented hand and I can't quite bring myself to dabble with
an eccentric notrump. Especially in an Edgar magazine."
BERKOWITZ: "(b3) One heart, then two clubs.
Why doesn't partner ever do the right thing after I open one heart?
If I had the ten of diamonds, I would open one notrump."
MICHLMAYR: "(b3) One heart, then two clubs.
I do not like to open such a suit-oriented hand with one notrump (though
the trend seems to be to open all 15-17 HCP hands with one notrump).
I also hate to rebid in a two-card suit, but I think I can handle everything
except a pass by partner over two clubs. I can pass if he bids two
diamonds, rebid two notrump over two hearts, and rebid three notrump
over three clubs."
RUBIN: "(b3) One heart, then two clubs. Anybody
who opens one notrump is sick; however, this shape is clearly a problem
for five-card majorites and forcing notrump. After one heart-one notrump,
two notrump constitutes a distinct overbid whereas two clubs is supposed
to portray at least a three-card holding. No other actions seem possible.
Some 4=5=2=2 decent 16's might warrant two spades, but not these ragged
suits. Therefore, choose the least-evil bid."
TSCHEKALOFF: "(b3) One heart, then two clubs.
Since we're not playing Flannery, partner knows my two-club rebid
could be a doubleton, so there's no reason to panic and do something
unreasonable."
My main objection to the forcing notrump (other than the
obvious one, the inability to play one notrump when it might be the
best contract) is that the two-of-a-minor rebid loses a lot of its
value when partner has to take into account the possibility that it
might be a three-card suit. Now several panelists are telling us that
partner has to worry about the two-club rebid showing a doubleton
on this sequence. I just don't see it. How can partner ever make an
intelligent choice of strain when he probably has a limited hand and
your rebid could be anywhere from a two-card suit to a five-card suit?
Subscribe to The Bridge World
Click here to subscribe to The Bridge World, the magazine that no serious bridge player should be without.
Copyright © 1996-1998 Bridge World Magazine, Inc. Reprinting of contents without permission is prohibited. All Rights Reserved.
The Bridge World, 717 White Plains Rd. Suite 106, Scarsdale, NY 10583-5009 USA
Telephone: (914) 725-6712 Fax: (914) 725-6713 Internet: www.bridgeworld.com E-mail: mail@bridgeworld.com