|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Copyright © 1996-
2010 Bridge World
Magazine, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bridge World Extra! Newsletter
 |
|
|
|
NO PEEKING!
|
 |
Here's a bidding problem for you, but you must
promise not to peek at what comes later. Agreed? At IMPs, with
only the opponents vulnerable, you hold,
 7 5
4 3 2  6
 4
 10 8
7 5 3 2.
LHO opens a big club, 16 plus; partner doubles,
showing a sacrifice-oriented hand with either the red suits or
the black suits. RHO jumps to three diamonds, natural and
forcing to game, ostensibly a one-suited hand. You pass, LHO
bids three hearts, partner passes, and RHO surprises everyone
with a leap to five notrump. You pass; LHO bids seven hearts;
pass, pass, to you. Do you sacrifice at seven spades?
The result here won't prove much, but the situation did arise
in a Grand National match (and was reported to us by Josh
Parker, New York City). Decide what you would do--you have
very little to go on, but a lot of imps probably ride on your
decision--, and we'll show you the result later on.
One more quick one to fill up a little space, a
constructive sequence this time. You hold,
A Q
10 6 Q 8
7 A 10
9 6 2 A.
Partner opens one heart; you respond two diamonds;
he reverses with two spades (showing either 17 HCP and
appropriate shape, or a distributional fit for diamonds); you
bide your time with three spades, to let him clarify; he bids
four spades--real spades, so at least 17 HCP, but no extras.
You control-bid five clubs; he control-bids five diamonds; you
bid six diamonds; he bids six hearts. It's decision time.
What call do you make? (Results below.)
|
|
FROM THE CHALLENGE THE CHAMPS ARCHIVES
|
|
|
Challenge the Champs is a continuing bidding battle in which leading pairs compete, bidding deals from actual play (taken from old tournament reports or submitted by readers). Awards assigned to final contracts are estimates of the matchpoint expectancy on a 12 top in a strong pairs contest. An award encompasses all unscored lower contracts in the same strain (e.g., the award for three spades also applies to two spades if that is not separately marked).
Larry Cohen and Marty
Bergen
vs.
Michael
Hochzeit and Julian Frydrich
South dealer
East-West vulnerable
WEST
K 3
K 8 7 6 4 2
K Q J 6
K |
|
EAST
A J 10 9 7 4
--
9 7 3
Q J 10 6 |
Hochzeit
1
2
Pass |
|
Frydrich
1
2
|
Clearly we'd like to be in game with these
East-West cards, but it is not so clear who did anything wrong
in the bidding sequences shown.
Let's look at West's performance. The opening bid
is routine, and the two-diamond rebid leaves opener well
placed to show extra strength (for example, by bidding three
hearts if responder bids two notrump); at the same time, two
diamonds provides a good chance of reaching the best
part-score if responder is weak. Responder will probably bid
two hearts with a doubleton heart, and, if responder is
one-three in the reds, two diamonds, with a chunky four-card
holding, is likely to be acceptable or best. West's spade fit
is good after two spades, but some of the red-suit strength is
sure to be wasted. The pass seems quite reasonable.
What about East? His only alternative is three
spades instead of two, based on the chunky black-suit
holdings. That works fine here, but what if the deal were a
misfit?
Awards: 4
10; 3
6; 3
3; 2 NT 2; 3 NT 1
|
|
GREAT MOMENTS IN BRIDGE
|
|
|
MY FATHER'S SON, THE BRIDGE TEACHER
by Edwin B. Kantar
Early in life, I decided I would either have to
work for a living or enjoy myself. Observation showed that
very few people could combine both. I decided to enjoy myself.
I became a bridge teacher.
I teach my classes to open four-card majors, if the
hand calls for it. I also teach them to count for long suits
instead of short ones when originally evaluating their hands.
I would estimate conservatively that this has cost me close to
three years of my life in futile explanations. Some of my
ladies sneak Goren books [which recommend counting for short
suits] into class.
In all classes, I start out by giving a 20- to
40-minute lecture on the topic of the day and then call out
prepared deals for distribution at the tables. Each player
takes a suit, and I call off one suit at a time. Using this
method, I can teach any number of tables without
trouble--provided everyone distributes the cards
correctly.
In one of my "beginning" classes (which I had been
teaching for about five years) a truly memorable event
occurred. Having called out the hands, I noticed that one lady
wound up with 20 cards and her partner six. They stayed true
to their code of trusting me implicitly; it didn't seem to
faze either of them.
This was an older woman, who had counted for short
suits all her life, and she wasn't going to let a young
upstart change her bidding habits. Relying on her years of
experience, she realized that with her 0-1-3-2 distribution
she had a truly magnificent hand. Why, in short suits alone
she practically had an opening bid!
|
|
SOLUTION TO "NO PEEKING"
|
|
This was the deal in real life:
|
| NORTH
K J 9 8
A K 10 9 5
K 7
Q J |
WEST
7 5 4 3 2
6
4
10 8 7 5 3 2 |
|
EAST
--
J 4 3 2
Q J 8 5 3
K 9 6 4 |
|
SOUTH
A Q 10 6
Q 8 7
A 10 9 6 2
A |
In practice, one West was doubled in seven spades,
after he bid it in the first problem situation we gave you.
Dummy was not exactly as anticipated. At the other table,
North-South stopped at six spades in an uncontested auction.
We have one further question for you: Did you
bid seven spades in both rooms?
(We did too. Let's keep it quiet. Shh!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
