A couple of "experimental" bids. Not totally nuts, but possibly will receive a 20. One of them--my reverse into a three card major, I've never done at the table. But this is the MSC.
PROBLEM A: 3
.
I think the system note to be a bit of a red herring. Although the 2
rebid does not promise six, in this auction, it frequently does show six. This is because of the availability to opener of both red suits—and also 2NT—after partner’s 2
response. No 2!D or 2!H rebid = No four-card red suit. Additionally, in checking the BWS system, it does not state that a 2NT rebid by opener must have stoppers in the unbid suits (ala Lawrence 2/1 method). But why else would the system specify that a rebid does not promise six? Based on the preceding, if I did rebid spades it would not be to “show six.” Instead, it would be to better communicate my suit quality—which I want to emphasize. Once I convey my spade strength, partner can more readily hop on the spade train with a stiff Ace.
Since I did not rebid 2
, partner’s 3
is unlikely to be a grope for possible
strain. Instead, partner is looking for a fit for either clubs or, more likely . . . notrump. Significantly, partner failed to rebid 2NT. With some sort of 1=3=4=5, with both red suits stopped, he will usually do so. So I am not much enamored with the 3
bid since it partially be a grope for something partner has denied. But who knows, maybe partner has
Kx?
I think 3
(seemingly a two-way shot) focuses partner’s attention more on 3NT, whereas 3
gives partner permission to support with the very specific holding of
A.
I flipped on this at the last minute.
A very difficult choice between 3
and 3
.
PROBLEM B: Pass.
I went back and forth on this on several times. My nature is to be conservative, so pass was my first choice. Then I changed my mind to 2NT. Today, I’m back to pass.
It’s really a coin flip for me. One of the final factors that pushed me toward the pass is that half my HCP are in a short suit. A suit they probably own. A suit where, if they do possess the ace, it is almost certainly on my left.
A “cute” alternative would be 2
. If I happen to hit partner, we’re fine. If not, and he tries 2
, then I am forced to the 3-level (where I did not want to be) with 3
.
But I just can’t force myself to bid. Today.
PROBLEM C: 4
.
The negative double, showing four spades is staring us in the face. I believe it will be the majority solver choice. But we will not lose the spade fit if one exists. Bidding clubs first should better convey my hand shape.
PROBLEM D: Pass.
Play or defend? The opps have a fit, so we do too. Partner will not bid unless I double. Not doing that.
Although Jock’s proposed 3
intrigues me, it would not be my choice. If I bid, it would be to risk the double.
But I’ll take what I consider to be the sure thing—they’re going down!
I’m
leading trump.
PROBLEM E: 4
.
Partner should have both majors. Probably has at least four hearts. But it’s not guaranteed. Partner could be 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2, or even 5=4=4=0. So I hesitate to bid 4
on this collection of garbage; the jump implies a fifth heart (or at least I would like it to). 3
is too timid as it does not show my values. 4
shows my values, and allows partner to bid a major---so this is certainly a possible bid (my second choice).
But I choose 4
. Hopefully partner can bid hearts now. Yes, it does risk partner choosing his “better” major, or longer major if 5=4, so I hope he is aware of my possible hand shape. If instead he bids 4
, I go to 5
.
PROBLEM F: 1
.
On a fact-finding mission. My stiff spade and diamond void make it almost impossible that this will end the auction. My goal is to find out what partner has. This has the best chance of doing so.
My first thought was to overcall 2NT, intending a subsequent jump in diamonds if possible. I’m pretty sure 2NT will be the runaway solver choice. Plenty of panel votes, too. It’s certainly safe.
After my initial gut feeling on what to overcall, I changed my thinking to a “cross-my-fingers-hope-this-makes-but-also-preemptive” 6
. It gives up on grand, but slams the door shut on any low-level contract exploration by the opps.
I think most of the panel will lean toward finding out as much as possible from partner. Keeping the bidding low, at least initially, may be the best way to accomplish this.
But this is such a bizarre hand . . . anything could be right.
PROBLEM G: 2
.
I think this is too strong for 3
, but some panelists will choose it anyway (Kleinman? Becker?), being right on shape, but “an underbid,” which they will mention. 2NT is also possible, and I strongly considered it. But the black suit aces, one naked, the other unsupported, are not good notrump features.
But it’s a bidder’s game.
This leaves two choices. A reverse to 2
, not attractive with only a three-card major, though it has the advantage of leaving the most room for partner to continue the description of his hand. Alternatively, a GF value bid of 3
, a jump-shift. Is it strong enough? I’ll choose the completely non-standard reverse. I’ve done this several times with a three card minor: 1
– 1M – 2
to force, but never with a three-card major.
This is waaaaaaay out there and will either score a 20 or hit big. Purists will hate this. (I can hear Hoki shaking his head disapprovingly from here.)
I’ll add that I have never done this (reverse into a 3-card major) at the table.
PROBLEM H: Ace.
Hoping a peek at dummy will guide my trick two choice.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 1 Heart
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace