Hand 1:
Red against White, mps, partner deals and opens 4
.
Pass no your right.
You hold:
T9
K7
J873
AKQJ3
This requires some thought, or at least I though so. If I had bid 5
(I din't) partner would have bid 5
. Alternatively, if I had bid 4NT (I didn't), partner would have bid 5
, showing three keys. I could bid 5
over that, and partner, holding the
Q but no side K, would presumably bid 6
. After some thought, I passed. The opening lead was the
K, I tabled the dummy remarking that partner probably had 14 tricks if they did not have two first.
Our luck was in. My RHO held four
to the j and the
A. Against 6
she cashes her
A and waits for her
trick. Even with the
lead, partner cannot ditch all of his red cards before she ruffs in and cashes one.
Partner's hand:
AKQ8752
T96
A2
7
I probably would open that 1
but I don't feel strongly about it.
With my hand, it seemed as if there were too many possibilities of things going wrong. Maybe they cast the first two diamonds, maybe the lead is the
Q with the A on my left, maybe a lot of things. Anyway, I passed and it turned out right, but it could have been wrong.
The next had, as noted in the title, presented an entirely different problem.
Everyone vul, still mps, your RHO deals and passes, you hold
T83
AT8
K42
AKQ7
You open a 15-17 1NT , your LHO doubles, not alerted but leave that be for the moment, your partner bids 2
which is Stayman no matter what the X was, your RHO passes and you, of course, bid 2
denying holding four cards in either major.
So far so good. Now LHO bids 2
and partner bids 3
.
Ok, whatsit?
In an uncontested auction 1NT-2 !c -2
-3
is game forcing as I play it. But is this still the case? And is Lebensohl still on? If my 1NT had been immediately overcalled by 2
a call of 3
by partner would be game forcing. Or, assuming he has four hearts, he could bid Stayman without a stopper with 3
or Stayman with a stopper by 2NT relaying to 3
and then 3
.
But this is different, the question is how different? There is something to be said for having Lebensohl on here. That way, the 3
would be game forcing, 2NT over 2
would be a Leb relay to 3
, after which 3
is to play.
Not discussed. I am pleased to say that partner bid in tempo, so at least this wasn't an issue.
I passed. This turned out to be right, +130 for an ok board. Only okk because some pairs ended up playing 4 !h in a 4-3 fit and their luck was in.
Here is how I compare the problems on the two boars.
First board: I had to place a bet, I guessed right. You can discuss agreements until the solar eclipse comes and goes, you still have to place a bet.
Second hand: On this we should have an agreement. Is Leb on or off? Is 3
forcing or invitational or what?
Partner's hand:
9
QJ53
AQ876
T94
Before the lead I explained that the 2
was Stayman and that I did not think it was alertable. I also asked RHO if the X showed a one suited hand and she confirmed that it did. I had no serious doubt about that. In NT she runs the first six tricks.
I think that it is important to distinguish between problems caused by judgment gone wrong and problems caused by the lack of agreements. My judgment is as good/bad as it is. Study will help, honestly reviewing bad results will help, but ultimately we are stuck with the fact that we will sometimes judge wrong. Agreements are another matter. If you take the time to discuss agreements with partner, then you have agreements. If you don't take the time, then you don't have agreements.
