NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/games/bridge/7600

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 8.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!maillist
From: [e-mail] (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: PSP #22.3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 224
Nntp-Posting-Host: lynn.cs.ucla.edu

Problem 3.
IMPs, None vul.
You, South, hold:
S-Q97   H-AKJT5   D-84   C-AK2

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
 1H       pass       1S       pass
  ?

What call do you make?


As usual, first Mark Starr's comments:
  This hand is meant as a lesson that, at least at IMPS, it shouldn't
  hurt to take an underbid once in a while.  Partner will always bend
  over backwards to give you another call.

The bids:

Caravelli: When in doubt, select the most flexible call.  3C is out as
that would force to game.  3S might be fine, but a 4-3 trump fit might
give us fits.  3H is right on values, but lack of a sixth heart might
prove fatal.  So that leaves 2C which, unless followed by three passes,
should allow me to follow it up pretty accurately.

Feiler: 2C.  If this hand is passed out, we probably haven't missed a
game, and if there is further bidding, we should be able to find the right
spot.

(KTL) 2C.  The smaller lie than 3S.  I hope.  I might try 3C at the table, but
        I always have been a wild bidder.  I'll probably end up in 2C making
        overtricks when everyone else is in 6S making.

(DV) 2C.  Really.  Playing K-S (with weak NT) it's systemic.  Partner
        seldom if ever passes.  Playing standard I think the best
        you can do is try to pull off the same thing.

(GL) 2C .  If I am playing a system where 1S promises
a five card suit I bid 3S.

(DK) 2 clubs. I hate this. In my opinion the hearts are good
enough to jump to 3 hearts, but I don't want to shut out the spade
suit. If my spades/diamonds were reversed I'd bid 3 hearts. Now
I leave room.

(PW) 2C.  Lots of alternatives.  3H removes to much space.  3S is my
second choice.  I would have prefered something in D to bid 2D.

(JTW) 2C.

(JLD)  2C.  Partner will not pass unless he has such drek that we will
never make game anyway.  I play this bid as 99% forcing.  The advantage
is that we can now probe for game or slam at a low level.  I'll also
bet there are at least 10 responses that say "I would have opened this
hand 1NT."  Not me.

[ well, maybe not 10, but... ]

(PV) 2C. I cannot describe this hand with any spade raise or NT bid so
I have to temporize with 2C and support spades later (unless I'm left
to rot in 2C).  I disagree completely with the 1H opening; this hand
is a 1NT opening (15-17 balanced is stated in the system and I have a
balanced 17 count.  If the original holder decided to upgrade the hand
because of the hearts he should have looked at the unsupported queen.
If the 1H opening was systemic, you are going to have this kind of rebid
problems very often.  I generally play that 1NT denies a 5 card major,
but only in a limited openings environment, so I have a rebid to
show a balanced hand in the NT range.  Playing unlimited openings the
task to show a hand once excluded is quite hard and leads to distortions.
I really hate to bid three suits with a balanced hand!)

(JH) 2C.  Even though we don't play K-S.  The value bid is 2NT, but
the diamonds just don't make it.

(EKP) 2C.

(RB) 2C. Everything else is a distortion, this is
the most flexible bid. If partner takes another
call, I can then make a more descriptive bid.
If partner passes, I think game is unlikely.

(TMW) 2C.  No bid is quite right.  2S is too weak, 3S promises 4 spades,
and 1NT and 2NT misdescribe the hand.  [Finally a good hand for
Flannery, because 1S would promise 5 spades?]

(IDC) 2C.    Unless my partner is so bad a declarer player that I want to
    hog it with 2NT.

(XH)  2C.  I'd rather pretend I have 4 clubs than pretend I have 6 hearts or
4 spades.

(SM) 2C. Any bid is a lie. This is the least lie.

(SA)  2C.      I do this by agreement with my regular partners, and
             would do it without prior discussion if necessary.

(JOHN) 2 Clubs.

(IM)  2C.  If I survive this round I should be OK.  With my regular partner I
play Flannery and 1H-1S promises 5 by an unpassed hand, so I would be able
to bid 3S with a clear conscience.

(ING) 2C.  Is there an alternative in SA?

(NS) 2C. I would hope this is unanimous.

[ is anything? ]

(MS) 2D. Actually, I would open the hand 1NT and not put myself in
       this situation in the first place. 2S or 2H is too weak,
       3S or 3H would show a better suit. I'll support spades
       at my next chance.

Starr says:
  2NT seems to me the worst kind of lie possible on this hand...

(AB) 2NT. Seems to be the best description of my hand despite my diamond
holding.  We could still find a 5-3 spade fit.  Getting to 4S on a 4-3
fit could be right, but it could be wrong if partner has poor spades
and some values in diamonds.

(TR) 2NT

(LA) 2N. Correct on values, will get us to any 53+ major fit.

(DXM) 2NT. I'm sure a lot of good players would bid 3S, but I wouldn't.

(SDR) 2N.    This hand is not worth a jump shift.

(LTF) 2NT;        A very recultant 2NT; There is really no good bid - but
               at least 2NT will show the strength of my hand.

Rabin: 3C.  You must force on this hand.

(MK) 3c. Forcing, bid 3s over any response.

(JR) 3C . A slight overbid and a club less, but much better than 3H/S or 2NT

(RD) 3C.   Plans:4S over 3S, pass over 3H, 3S over 3D, 4S over 4C, pass
         over 3NT (tough this)

Allen: 3S, but would have avoided this mess by opening 1NT.

Phillips: 3S.  Game could make opposite as little as KTJx [sic] xx xxx Qxxx and
3S is more descriptive than 3H, less of an overbid than 3C and less foolish than
2C.

To which, Starr reponded:
  So is playing in 4 spades opposite as little as Kxxx Qx QJx Qxxx

(BB) 3S. I have a fine dummy for spades and for a suit-contract in general.
And if we end up in a 4-3 spade fit, well, there are much worse places to be.

(PMC) 3S. Without conviction that this is right.  If partner has AKxx of spades,
we're probably on for 4S; if partner has Kxxx of spades and K<any> of diamonds
than we're probably not safe above the 2 level.  Nice (nasty) problem.

(FB) 3S.

(PRM) 3S.  Gotta lie somewhere.

(MSB) 3S. Anything else is worse -- in particular, I will not go to NT at
   this point without a stopper in each unbid suit -- and anyway, the
   situation may not be hopeless even if partner does have only 4 spades.

(DS) 3S. bidding clubs is too cute for my taste.

(JSM) 3s. PLAY FLANNERY  Now 1s shows 5+  and you avoid this dilema
This is one of 2 reasons to play flannery (Although the other is related
to the forcing NT)

The totals:
Bid     Net  "Experts"  CM Score
2C    20      3         100
2D    1       0
2NT    6       1          20
3C    3       1          70
3S    7       2          80

The players:
(??)    Mystery Guests
(AB)    Adam Beneschan <[e-mail]>
(BB)    Brett Barksdale <[e-mail]>
(DK)    Dennis Kibler <[e-mail]>
(DS)    [e-mail] (Danil Suits)
(DV)    [e-mail]
(DXM)    [e-mail] ( Daniel Mytelka )
(EKP)    Edward Pavelchek <[e-mail]>
(FB)    [e-mail]
(GL)    [e-mail] (Greg Lawler)
(IDC)    Ian Crorie <[e-mail]>
(IM)    Ilene Morgan <[e-mail]>
(ING)    [e-mail]
(JH)    [e-mail] (John Hoffman)
(JLD)    [e-mail]
(JOHN)    <[e-mail]>
(JR)    [e-mail] (Jakob Roejel)
(JSM)    James S Morgan <[e-mail]>
(JTW)    "Jaroslaw Tomasz Wroblewski" <[e-mail]>
(KTL)    "Kevin T. Likes" <[e-mail]>
(LA)    [e-mail] (Lars Andersson)
(LTF)    [e-mail] (Lynn T. Finley)
(MK)    Mordechai Katzman <[e-mail]>
(MS)    Marc Shepard <[e-mail]>
(MSB)    [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
(NS)    [e-mail] (Nick Straguzzi)
(PMC)    "Paul McMullin" <[e-mail]>
(PRM)    [e-mail] (Paul Markowitz)
(PV)    [e-mail] (Pekka Viitasalo /Carelcomp)
(PW)    Per Westling <[e-mail]>
(RB)    [e-mail]
(RD)    [e-mail]
(SA)    [e-mail] (Steve Albin)
(SDR)    [e-mail]
(SM)    Steve Myerson <[e-mail]>
(TMW)    [e-mail] (timothy m wright)
(TR)    [e-mail] (Thomas Ruschak)
(XH)    UUCP <hatch!lcc![e-mail]>
--

Matthew Merzbacher    ARPA:    [e-mail]
Moo - Moo Moo          UUCP:    ...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
                       This time, *with* the oys