Posted 2008-July-20, 11:50
Thoughts?
1♥: A fairly good option. Unimpeachable.
X: Wow. I mean, I like ELC doubles and all, but this is a tad light. Right on the edge, though. I can live with it.
P: Not my game. I would have hoped for a Suit/Lead option, in which case I'd bid 2♣, intending this time to just show diamonds.
1♠: Clear call, even if using Herbert Negatives here. Had Responder used Suit/Lead and bid 2♣, the spade fit would remain a secret to North gfor a minute longer at least.
3♣: Makes sense, contextually. Four loser hands with a likely cover from partner if he has a 0 count should be bid, IMO. Same call after Suit/Lead and a pass from Advancer. BTW -- had Responder bid 2♣, and had Advancer bid 2♠ (crazy but happens), then I like Suit/Lead Support Doubles, where Opener could double with three-card support for the hypothetical diamond suit (not a guaranteed diamond suit), so long as he has extras to justify that level if Responder was more on the LEAD side of things. Not that this matters here, except in the negative inference.
3♠: Sure, bid this junk hand one more time. (Sarcasm.) I mean, I like raising with true spade support, when the spade bid is true, at the two-level, but this is a bit extreme for my tastes.
4♣: Grow some. This is a huge hand. 5♣ without any hesitation.
P: South has no cause to bid.
P: I know partner should bid 5♣ with good cause, but I cannot help myself. 5♣ for me.
P: Tee hee.
Summary:
West needs to bid more. Barely.
East has no excuse for not bidding more.
North is funny. In a good way, maybe.
South is sitting back oblivious to North's humor.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.