61
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« on: January 28, 2020, 12:06:11 PM »
I'll proffer a contribution here, though I may be an uninvited guest.
I don't have much bridge literature to hand, but years ago a teacher explained a Unassuming Cue Bid (UCB) was necessary because partner's overcall could be quite wide-ranging, say from 6/7 to about 14/15 HCP. Clearly, advancer with 9/10+ HCP and support uses a UCB because game might be on. A weak jump overcall, in contrast, is limited in range (6-9 probably) so my teacher considered a UCB much less useful: advancer could decide what level was reasonable. That seemed a sensible view.
Turning to this hand, as Ken points out, various hands can be constructed to produce a decent 5 contract. At the table, however, I would probably diagnose this as a 20-20 hand, where a part-score was the limit. We should make 8 tricks (2S, and 6D) even if overcaller has AQxxxx in D and nothing else and, in that case, we can make 9 if overcaller has 3 cards in C (overcaller might easily be 3262 however). A 9th trick might also come if overcaller has SQ or CK.
In other words, if overcaller is min 3 looks to be the limit (-100 or making with a club ruff) and 4 looks dangerous (potentially the dreaded -200). If overcaller is max then 4 looks safe (-100 at worst). So, despite what my teacher said, this looks a good example of advancer opposite a WJO using a UCB to say "we can play two levels up if you are max and if we're pushed to that, otherwise one level up is the limit."
Of course after bidding 3 we may then have to suck our teeth wondering if we can defeat 3 . We probably won't if overcaller is min (2S, S ruff, D), but then the alternative to -140 will be -200 in 4 .
I don't have much bridge literature to hand, but years ago a teacher explained a Unassuming Cue Bid (UCB) was necessary because partner's overcall could be quite wide-ranging, say from 6/7 to about 14/15 HCP. Clearly, advancer with 9/10+ HCP and support uses a UCB because game might be on. A weak jump overcall, in contrast, is limited in range (6-9 probably) so my teacher considered a UCB much less useful: advancer could decide what level was reasonable. That seemed a sensible view.
Turning to this hand, as Ken points out, various hands can be constructed to produce a decent 5 contract. At the table, however, I would probably diagnose this as a 20-20 hand, where a part-score was the limit. We should make 8 tricks (2S, and 6D) even if overcaller has AQxxxx in D and nothing else and, in that case, we can make 9 if overcaller has 3 cards in C (overcaller might easily be 3262 however). A 9th trick might also come if overcaller has SQ or CK.
In other words, if overcaller is min 3 looks to be the limit (-100 or making with a club ruff) and 4 looks dangerous (potentially the dreaded -200). If overcaller is max then 4 looks safe (-100 at worst). So, despite what my teacher said, this looks a good example of advancer opposite a WJO using a UCB to say "we can play two levels up if you are max and if we're pushed to that, otherwise one level up is the limit."
Of course after bidding 3 we may then have to suck our teeth wondering if we can defeat 3 . We probably won't if overcaller is min (2S, S ruff, D), but then the alternative to -140 will be -200 in 4 .