First guesses:PROBLEM A: 3
. I’ll start out by stating the obvious, 4333 hands are ugly. And my
honors do not carry the full weight of their HCP. But I have a big fit. Control rich. WTP? I would like to make some slam noise; 3
accomplishes this.
PROBLEM B: 4
. If 3
is a splinter (is it?) then 4
is a void, yes? And what about the other splinter--4
? Or is this far too optimistic with everyone bidding? If I did splinter it would be 4
since it allows partner to show a
control. Partner's own
length will announce my
shortness (void?). But maybe 4
is best? And take the push(es). This is a very, very close call.
If I were brave I’d be very tempted to walk the dog with 2
or 3
(I'll bet one or two panelists try this) in an attempt to let them push us to game. But if I’m passed in a part-score, I’ll look like an idiot. Today I’m the Cowardly Lion, so I
get there fast with 4
in an attempt to prevent the opps from exchanging information. This is admittedly a safe choice.
ADDED: So close to trying 4 here, but stayed with my first instinct of 4 . Partner's failure to bid 2 (a fit jump) reduces the possibility of his having any support.
BWS defines a jump by advancer thusly: "Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump."
Partner only needs A and K for slam to make, but the failure to jump to 2 reduces that possibility.PROBLEM C: 2
. Close. Very close.
Yes, it’s an overbid, so is flawed. But 2
has a lot going for it. Keeps the auction low, giving us room to find our best fit. It allows partner to show support. Remember, partner’s 2
rebid is wide-ranging; I’m allowed to be an optimist! If we end in a major suit Moysian, it would not be the first time. Change the
Jack to the Queen and I think we all bid a game-force 2
. I will not quibble long over one measly HCP.
Alternatively, a non-forcing 2NT is flawed but is right on values. My guess is this will be the plurality choice of solvers. And a non-forcing rebid of the
suit (3
is right on values but shows six) is also flawed. The solidity of the spade suit sorta looks like a six-card suit, which entices me to make this call—but not today. Not only am I short a
for this call, it consumes a full level (and then some) of bidding space, which is too much to give up for such a flawed call.
PROBLEM D: 2
. We know we have at least game, but surely this is worth a slam try? Initially, 2
will be interpreted as a game-try. If partner signs off in 3
, I will continue with 4
, attempting to extract a diamond cue. I wonder though about bidding 3
rather than 2
. While forcing only one round, it squeezes partner’s rebid choices below a 3
sign-off to 3
, which is what I want to hear. My subsequent
bid—showing a control--would then then be an unequivocal slam move.
I may be overthinking this.
ADDED: I ended up going with 4 . The "perfect fit" slam--at Matchpoints--is tempting, but I'll settle for the "get there fast lack of specificity" jump to game.PROBLEM E: 6
. What does partner have to
freely bid 5
? Values in
?
AK would be outstanding! Surely partner with
xx knows, or strongly suspects, I have a
void. If I bid 6
and partner has this perfecto of
AK, he will suspect what I am up to and will be better informed to bid the grand over the probable 6
. My thinking here is admittedly a stretch.
Also, is pass forcing? I’d like it to be, showing a better than minimum, trying to elicit a (first-round)
control from partner. But we must remember that, while freely bid, partner’s response was made
under pressure. For this reason I am not convinced that it is forcing. To quote Zia, “In principle, anytime both sides may logically be able to make what they bid, it’s non-forcing.” And Larry Cohen, “Other than where stated in our notes, pass is forcing only if the janitor of the building would know it is forcing.” When asked, our janitor gave me a blank stare.
Finally, I think 6
will be the plurality choice here. While it shows a first-round control, I’m not sure it helps partner find the grand, if it is there. It does have the added benefit of giving partner a clear lead versus 6
x, if that’s where we land.
ADDED: Stayed with 6 . This is a bit of a "Zia bid." I am hoping this can help partner decide on bidding the grand--if it's right. PROBLEM F: 2NT. Flawed, as is often the case. That
Jack is a long stopper, so 2NT is only a mild overbid. But Pass (my second choice) carries with it additional problems in subsequent bidding. Both 3
and 3
are, in my opinion, horribly wrong. So while flawed, 2NT is the best of bad choices.
PROBLEM G: 3
. I could go in many directions here. Redouble is also attractive—as is 4
. With East advertising four
, I’ll go low.
ADDED: Changed my mind. Went high with 4 .PROBLEM H: J. To avoid getting squeezed like a grape appears to be the goal here. But my initial thought was to lead the safe
J. Opener must have some crazy length in
for that leap to 6
lacking the
JT. So something like
AKQ9xxx(x)? Although the
Q or
J lead may be required to break up the squeeze, I’ll stick with safe and let declarer find the right line.
A new day may bring changes. Nothing yet set in stone.