(甲) IMPs. N-S vul. S:9832 H:A73 D:K102 C:K64 1D-(1S)-? 叫品 得分 專家 讀者 2D 100 13 40% Dbl 90 11 38% Pass 80 4 10% 1N 70 2 5% 2C 40 0 2% 2N 30 0 0% 3D 30 0 3% 2S 30 0 2% Director: Eric O. Kokish Michael Becker New York City Dbl David Berah New York City Dbl Larry Cohen Little Falls, NJ Dbl Billy Eisenberg Manhattan Beach, CA 2D Lt. Col. Robert Friend Irvine,CA 2D Sam Fry New York City 2D Allan Graves Santa Monica, CA Dbl Gail Greenberg New York City Pass Bob Hamman Dallas 2D Tom Hammond Redmond, WA 2D Carl Hudecek Toledo 2D Marc Jacobus Las Vegas 1NT Edwin Kantar Los Angeles 2D Edgar Kaplan New York City Pass Sami R. Kehela Toronto Pass Eric Kokish Montreal 1NT Bob Lipsitz Annandale, VA Dbl John Lowenthal New York City Dbl Marshall Miles San Bernadino, CA Dbl Josh Parker New York City 2D Erik Paulsen Culver City, CA Dbl Peter Pender Forestville, CA Dbl Arthur Robinson Villanova, PA 2D Al Roth New York City 2D Jeff Rubens Scarsdale, NY 2D Ira Rubin Paramus, NJ 2D Tom & Carol Sanders Nashville Dbl Joseph Silver Montreal 2D Robert Wolff Dallas Dbl Kit Woolsey Kensington, CA Pass Let's try to put this problem in perspective ... LOWENTHAL: "Double. Some people get very excited about this kind of choice. Not me. Pass, one notrump, two notrump, two diamonds, and two spades are all reasonable. I plan to bid two spades over any two-level rebid." Color him laid back. RUBIN: "No single bid stands out, as all can work out, e.g., negative double, (limited) Western Cue, two diamonds. However, I consider this an automatic two-diamond call, and deem no other action reasonable." One man's ennui is another man's Alamo. The Martian infiltrators will have a field day reporting this one to their superiors: "These earthlings are curious creatures--they have so many different reactions to the same set of conditions. They are not even-tempered, dispassionate, and logical like us." A free bid of one notrump was treated harshly by the panel. Too harshly, I believe. One of its champions (I am the other): JACOBUS: "One notrump. Right shape and good spot cards." The "combining" possibilities in the spade suit are excellent, but if one notrump is going to be a poor contract, perhaps the modern, nonvulnerable West will raise spades and give us a good shot at finding a suitable minor-suit contract. One notrump is right on value, I think, even with the spade flaw staring us in the face. Perhaps the best way to describe this peculiar hand is to do nothing at all ... WOOLSEY: "Pass. If partner reopens with a double, a two-spade bid describes this hand perfectly. And if partner reopens with two clubs or two diamonds, three diamonds does it justice. Furthermore, if one spade is passed out partner has a minimum with some spade length, so it might be our best shot at a plus score." KEHELA: "Pass. One notrump is vile, but might work out. Best, though, is pass--clearly forcing, in case I have ace-queen-ten-nine-fifth in spades with two outside aces." I will admit to being titillated by the arguments touting the pass, but titillation need not lead to a serious sin. LIPSITZ: "Double. Best description of this hand would result by passing and then cue-bidding over partner's reopening double. However, this scenario might not come about, and I must show some values. If I pass and partner has a decent hand with spade length, we have missed game." COHEN: "Double. The least distorted action. Passing and then cue- bidding will lead to a complicated auction. After doubling, I can safely pass all of partner's minimum actions. The only time I'll be awkwardly placed after doubling is if partner jumps in hearts." PENDER: "Double ... many possible answers to this too often repeated MSC chestnut ... pass, then cue-bid: floundering at the three level is more exciting than at the two level, but it's counterproductive ... double: right on strength, wrong (but not always) when partner has four hearts ... I merely promise four hearts for a negative double ..." WOLFF: "Double. Prefer to lie about the deuce of hearts rather than the jack of spades." BECKER: "Double. Other bids have more flaws." I have always disliked the solve-everything, undisciplined negative double in a strong-notrump context. Unlike Cohen, I don't believe that I can "safely" pass all partner's minimum rebids (the wrong part-score may well fail, and we may indeed miss a fair game). Were we playing weak notrumps, I'd double with fewer misgivings, expecting partner to rebid one strong notrump (and not two hearts) with most balanced hands, and expecting to have a good minor-suit contract opposite a shapely hand (he couldn't have a minimum balanced hand for his one- diamond opening). I'd rather bid a horrible two clubs than double one spade, but I can understand the fascination the flawed double holds for BWS players. The popular choice, two diamonds, is a fairly honest bid, which figures to lead to a sensible contract. ROTH: "Two diamonds. I have no choice. That I lack the fourth diamond, or that I have a solid 10 points does not stop me. Partner should always be aware that I could have such a hand, and should bid again when we might make game." SILVER: "Two diamonds. The negative double with long spades and only three cards in both hearts and clubs makes little sense, while solving no problems. My slight underbid in high cards is compensated by the trump-length deficiency. And two diamonds has the advantage of leaving us well placed for the rest of the auction (if there is a rest of the auction)." EISENBERG: "Two diamonds. Slight underbid, but negative double and pass are both too dangerous." RUBENS: "Two diamonds. Choice is between two and three diamonds-- a double would be useful only to get to notrump, and risks a short, unsuitable heart fit." HUDECEK: "Two diamonds. The fact that North did not open one notrump is significant." PARKER: "Two diamonds ... lies by one diamond, keeps you low, and enables you to handle any subsequent auction (if partner bids, cue- bid two spades; if the opponents bid, double). By the way, I am sure this will be the action of only a small minority." It never ceases to amaze me that good bridge players, sensible people, persist in these futile pre-evaluations of their colleagues' tastes. Which, I guess, puts the problem squarely in perspective, allowing us to leave by the same door through which we entered this chamber of horrors. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.twbbs.org) ◆ From: ms10.hinet.net