(丙) IMPs. Both vul. S:A97 H:106 D:Q10964 C:Q103 1C-(1H)-?
要先思考過再往下翻喔~~
(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