[blml] bizarre?

[Herman De Wael]

Jeff Easterson wrote:

> Hand 2    West dealer, all vul.
> 
>              10742
>              J82
>              1064
>              J95
> KQJ63                  A985
> 7654                   AKQ3
> 9                      KQ87
> A43                    6
>              --
>              109
>              AJ532
>              KQ10872
> 
> Bidding       W
>                ps     ps     1di    ps          *splinter
>                1sp    ps     4cl*   dbl         ² first round control
>                redbl² ps     4sp³   ps          ³ after agreed hesitation
>                6sp   all pass
> 
> East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at 
> least 18 HCPs.  No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at 
> least a suspicion of a self-serving statement.  TD asked if 4sp. had a 
> conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits.  No!  No 
> further explanation of the 4sp. bid.
> NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red suits, 
> West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation.
> 
> Extraneous comments.  4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a 
> logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could 
> reasonably have opened 1sp.  But, of course, if she believes that first 
> round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little 
> reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to 
> understand.  (Would he have retreated  to a spade partial with a 
> negative response  -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!)
> 
> After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised 
> during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her 
> partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk).  Examining 
> the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think.  She bid 6sp. because 
> she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid.  Your opinions? 

It would indeed seem very strange to assume that East does not have a 
single control in the red suits, if he has at most the SA in the 
blacks, and a non-minimal hand (I don't believe the 18 HCP either, but 
East does not have 11, has he?).

I accept the explanation, "my partner has been drinking so I bid what 
I thought was the contract". After all, he need not have AK KQ, and 
then six is a bad bet. What was he thinking of? Maybe simply what the 
redouble meant. Score stands.

>   Ciao, JE
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html