(甲) IMPs. N-S vul. S:9832 H:A73 D:K102 C:K64 1D-(1S)-?
請問你叫什麼...
請在仔細思考後再往下翻
(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