(丙) IMPs. Both vul. S:A97 H:106 D:Q10964 C:Q103 1C-(1H)-? 叫品 得分 專家 讀者 Dbl 100 13 40% Pass 80 9 24% 2C 70 8 32% 2D 20 0 3% 1S 10 0 1% Director: Jeff Rubens Grant Baze La Jolla, CA Dbl David Berkowitz NJ Dbl Bart Bramley Chicago Dbl Ira Chorush Houston, TX Pass Larry Cohen NJ Dbl Mark Cohen Glen Ridge, NJ Pass Billy Eisenberg Florida Pass Brian Glubok New York City Dbl The Granovetters Israel Dbl Jim Hall Minneapolis 2c Fred Hamilton Fresno, CA Pass Carl Hudecek Perrysburg, OH Pass Edwin Kantar California 2C Edgar Kaplan NYC Pass Ralph Katz Burr Ridge, IL Dbl Sami R. Kehela Toronto Pass Eric Kokish Montreal 2C Marshall Miles California Dbl Arthur Robinson Villanova, PA Pass Michael Rosenberg NYC 2C Al Roth Boca Raton, FL 2C Jeff Rubens Scarsdale, NY 2C Ira Rubin Paramus, NJ Pass Mike Shuman California Dbl Joey Silver Montreal 2C John Swanson California Dbl Robert Wolff Dallas Dbl Kit Woolsey Kensington, CA Dbl Fumio Yagi Redmond, WA Dbl Mahmood Zia NYC 2C It seems to me that all three plausible choices are seriously flawed. The problem is that there is no decent way to take into account both that partner might have clubs and that he might have a weak notrump, with or without club length. I have never understood how strong notrumpers coped with these situations. Let's start with the most popular action, a negative double. Quick summary: plus side--only rational way to get to one notrump; minus side--shows four spades. BAZE: "Double. My fear of a lost part-score swing is greater than my fear of a high-level disaster." WOLFF: "Double. Pass is too cautious." SHUMAN: "Double. I may have to put a club in with my spades." WOOLSEY: "Double. Might as well show my four-card spade holding now. Nothing else makes any sense at all." KATZ: "Double. ... Close between double and two clubs. Double will probably work better unless partner bids a three-card spade suit or has four weak spades." GRANOVETTER's: "Double. ... The choice is between two clubs and double. Playing five-card majors you gotta go with double, 'cause the three-three fit is a bad place to be." BRAMLEY: "Double. I don't like pass because it's usually hard to show these values later. Two clubs is possible, but double keeps more strains in play (right or wrong) and lets us get to one notrump. This hand should make an adequate dummy in spades." BERKOWITZ: "Double. Seems routine with an understanding partner. But playing against Larry I would bid two clubs, because I so enjoy watching him miscount everyone's trumps." L. COHEN: "Double. I like to get in early and show some values. Maybe we'll be able to bump them up to three hearts if the auction gets competitive." SWANSON: "Double. Pass not only puts pressure on partner to reopen but also gives me an impossible choice when he does. I am a spade short [at least--J.R.] for one spade. My double is unlikely to cost because we will not end in a three-three fit. If partner rebids one spade, which could be only three, I will retreat to two diamonds." Diamonds? How do we get to clubs? Besides, avoiding a three-three fit is only an extreme form of the trouble-dodging you may have to do after doubling. Suppose West bids some hearts and North bids that many spades. Your side will be arrested by the Total Trick Police. MILES: "Double. If we get to a low four-three spade contract, partner can ruff hearts in my hand. This problem is easy for those who play that a double of one heart denies four spades." Kokish suggested that BWS would be well advised to use that interpre- tation. Of course, E.O.K. is a true believer (i.e., weak notrumper), so why should he know any more about coping with the strong notrump than I do? In fact, each possible interpretation of the negative double of one heart wins some and loses some. The BWS approach (double shows four spades) helps distinguish between four spades and five; the Walsh approach (double denies four spades) helps distinguish between three spades and four. I think the three-spade double loses on balance. It is far less often necessary or helpful, because when responder has only three spades he will more often have enough diamonds or clubs to be able to do something else. I am not impressed by the arguments for doubling. The proponents blithely assume a four-three spade fit will be acceptable. None of them seems to have noticed the notrump orientation of the South hand-- low honors spread out, diamond potential with likely entries, combining value of the heart ten. None of them mentions that partner will bid spades when he has four spades and five (@ior six@n) clubs. Yes, double might get us to one notrump, attractive at matchpoints. But this happens only when partner lacks four spades, in which case we might be able to make two clubs. Mike Shuman mentions that passing followed by doubling two hearts would be for takeout. Is that what the passers have in mind? EISENBERG: "Pass. I hope my double of two hearts is read as takeout. Of course, I could balance with two notrump." M. COHEN: "Pass. All other calls are misrepresentations." CHORUSH: "Pass. Too dangerous to show four spades with a double. I will double a raise to two hearts." HAMILTON: "Pass. If playing four-card majors, I might raise to two clubs. But in BWS I am not going to distort my distribution with a double. The auction is not over yet." Ira Rubin, who put the best case for passing, agreed with Hamilton's comment, and also straightened out Eisenberg's reopening dilemma by noting that two notrump would show this shape with high cards. Nonetheless, passing strikes me as ostrich-like. All the signs are wrong. The time to pass with values is when you are defensive--length in their suit, shortness in partner's. This hand is short in their suit and long in partner's, both suggesting not passing. If South passes, North will be unable to act with either a weak notrump or a minimum club hand. Depending on the opponents to give you another chance is a frail reed. And are you so well off after a raise to two hearts? Double two hearts for takeout? In what system? HUDECEK: "Pass. I am not enthralled with the modern practice of bidding every time it's your turn." How about the ancient practice of raising partner with a decent hand and decent support for his suit? KOKISH: "Two clubs. This hand is not strong enough to make up for the missing spade if we double. And North might be tempted to bid spades himself with three-two in the majors." SILVER: "Two clubs. If I pass now, I have no appropriate way to catch up later over partner's reopening double, so, despite my slightly flawed raise of partner's clubs, I have at least gotten this hand off my chest." ROSENBERG: "Two clubs. In deference to Zia, I'll bid two clubs without thought--he'll think it is automatic. 'Don't pass with fewer than three hearts unless compelled to.'" ZIA: "Two clubs. Anti-establishment." Somewhat. Kantar predicted that two clubs would be "a minority view." HALL: "Two clubs. I still raise partner with two trump honors and no other attractive alternative. Is it illegal?" ROTH: "Two clubs. I am not worried about playing in a three-three fit." I am. It's presumptuous to think any action here avoids all dangers when, in fact, none even comes close to that ideal. In closing, let me point out that an immediate three-card raise on this sort of troublesome hand provides by far the best basis for competition when South feels he is too strong to pass out a raise to two hearts. When he has inadequate clubs to raise directly again, he can expand the field of inquiry with double to show good defense (and short clubs), two spades to show three, or two notrump to show long diamonds. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw) ◆ From: ms10.hinet.net