What portion of the blame for this disaster
do you assign to East? To West? What was
the single worst call? Were any bids above
reproach? 
What would you call as dealer to the first
hand of Barbú with the West hand. What would you lead?
- CURT
-
I blame East 100%.
Although I do not like opening light without
3 controls, all white at matchpoints screams out
for bidding, and 1
is the only acceptable bid
on the Wast cards. Besides, change the
West hand to 
J9 KJT987 
AQ 
JT8 and it's a real
opener, and you are still down 2.
East bid (way) too much. He needed to catch partner
with 2 of the AK and A, and a useful spade holding,
and there was no need for 5. By bidding 2 he might
be able to listen for a diamond raise from his LHO and
judge the situation better. [But possibly at the five-
or six-level. --Jeff]
Seems like an obvious jack fantan claimer to me.
when I'm dealt a fantan claimer I burn my fantan
even at game one. [I'm usually sitting in 4th
chair and hear "Ravage City." "I double the table."
"Redouble, double, double." --Jeff]
- DAVID
-
East 85% West 15%
The worst call was the 5 exclusion bid.
I would have preferred a 3 fit showing jump.
In my book, West does not have a 1 opener.
I would open 2 or pass (probably the latter).
East's bid is indefensible. Presumably to have
the agreement that they are playing exclusion, this is
a practiced partnership, and therefore would be aware
that partner opens crap like the West hand.
I can give 3 keycard hands that would have no
play xxx ATxxx Ax AJx.
Barbú: Fantan, and I would lead the 10.
But then, as I said, I don't play much and have
no idea what is right. I can play a lot of hearts
while waiting for the other suits to open up.
- LOHMAN
-
dominoes from the jack seems fairly straightforward.
I would start with a heart...if unavailable I guess
trumps hearts...all this is irrelevant as I would never
hold this hand as dealer...when I hold this hand it goes
ravage table table to me...[Yeah, me, too. Or Last Two.
For some reason, it hurts more to be Ravaged for 24 or 36 points
than to take the last 2 for 30. Dunno why. --Jeff]
Wow. The opening bid, while light, did not put the partnership in an
unrecoverable position. The 5 bid did, so I assign East 100% of the
blame. Where did East think their tricks were coming from even if partner
had the controls? 3 would have been a much better choice IMO. The 5
bid, assuming it was intended to show 1 keycard looks perfect and the 6
bid is just making the best of a bad situation.
- ED
-
I feel 2 would be a better description
than 1 but it is not really a big deal.
This hand does make one thing clear: East
never passed the driving test for Exclusion Keycard.
5 is truly a sick bid. It gets E/W too high
much of the time and even when there are no KCs
missing, East still doesn't know if they can make 7.
I would not recommend that West lie about KC since
partner might have made a different bid if he were
concerned about too much diamond wastage, e.g., East
could have a real 5 bid such as AKQxxx Axxx - KQx.
There usually is not much of a future to a partnership
when one player decides that responses to RKC are judgment calls.
I like 4 since it shows a game force with short .
3 doesn't show the GF or
the stiff so it is less informative. I agree with you about setting the
trump suit immediately in a possible preemptive auction. I would not choose 3
even if available since my hand is great opposite a
- 2-suiter and 4 keeps
that in the picture. In addition, I don't want to discourage partner if he has
a stiff spade.
- SHUSTER
-
If this is a problem, it must matter. It looks like the
choices are between the 9, T, J and K.
I think the T is
the right card... but it is really close.
West 0% East 100%
What was the 5 bid all about? That's nuts!! Start
with 3 fitted. Once partner signs off over that
without cuebidding, then you can pass (albeit a
little uncomfortably). If 3 isn't fitted, then
start with 3. Over 3, bid 3. Over 4, pass.
How can East take control of the auction???? Doesn't
he need to know about the spade fit before making a
judgment about what level the hand belongs?
Sure, West could open 2 or Pass, neither of which I like.
My only regret is only having 100% of blame to assess to East.
- KENT
-
Above reproach? West appears to have answered exclusion correctly...
I won't criticize the 1 opening, though I wouldn't be unhappy with partner
for opening this soft slop with 2. 5 is a gruesome call. East needs three
of the following for slam: two trump covers, second round control of spades,
and first round control of clubs. Lots of better hands would still have
responded 5 and been too high. I'd have more sympathy if East had a seventh
spade. I'm giving 100% to East, assuming that the West hand is a legitimate
1 bid in their methods.
- LYNN
-
Jeff lost Lynn's answers. (sorry) She seriously considered lying
about key cards, but rejected it. She gave East 100% of
the blame.
- JEFF AT THE TABLE
-
I was West. I committed the 1 and 5 bids.
I think 1 is close. I wouldn't object to partner's opening
1 or 2 on this hand, although it somewhat depends on style.
If you open AQ109x xx xxx xxx 2 in first chair equal white,
I don't think you should open this hand 2, too. I won't
pass, but with a very staid partner, I might next time.
5 was nuts, I agree. I didn't say anything about it at
the table until partner started yelling at me for not
having an opening bid. I was busy trying to find a way
out for down only 1. That might have mattered.
No one noticed that this was likely not such a disaster.
The opponents have play for 5. There's no way we'd
let them play it, so we got some matchpoints for tying
5x-1. There wasn't a way to hold it to -50, too bad.
What to do instead of 5? I'd bid 3, but Ed points
out that vs. say, x AKJxx xx AJxxx, we have a laydown
grand, and 3 isn't going to perk that hand up at all.
On the other hand, 3 allows room for a Frivolous 3NT,
and I like that. Partner's mild club two-suiter might
be up for a Frivolous cue.
I'm not as sure that lying about key cards is as crazy
as it sounds. This hand started light and evaporated
rapidly. I almost lied just because this partner lied
to me about key cards the last time I used exclusion.
I wimped out... OK, it is crazy to lie about key cards,
but Zia does it and gets away with it.
Perhaps one ought to play 1430 exclusion.
While Mike says that East could quit if partner bid
4 over 3, I'd be doubtful that this would happen in
real life. I probably would push to the five-level
with the East hand regardless and take a minus score.
The 1 opening, in my opinion, made it very difficult
for E/W to go plus. Should East quit? Isn't there some
rule that if we have an odds-on slam vs. opener's
semi-balanced perfect 7-count, we should make a
slam try past game? (OK, I just made that up.)
Barbú: Fantan. It's a tossup between the 10 and the K.
I think I'd lead the K. The chances of the Q's not
appearing on the first two rounds seem slender, particularly
since there's roughly a 2/3 chance that the person who holds
it has low heart(s) and wants to see it played. There are
only four other cards they can play before I have to relinquish
something. I'd feel very unlucky if the person who held the
Q also held the KQ10 and K. It's possible, but it's a bad
bet. I'd guess that on the K lead, 2/3 of the time,
my last play can be the Q, if I want it to be. N.B. I'm
assuming Aces are low. I don't know what rules the others are playing.
- ADAM
-
[Fantan, lead a heart, either the K, J, or 10.]
The downside of Kings is that my Q could be forced out
before the Q has been played, Things could go badly then!
The downside of Jacks (and Tens) is that I'm conceding control of the
diamond suit. I can live with that! After the first round in Jacks I'll
have eight players and I'll still have both black suits bottled up. It
would take quite a parlay for the 6 to be missing after nine rounds!
The downside of Tens as compared to Jacks is that I'm dependent on two
cards being forced out, the 6 and the J. It would be quite unlucky to
fail on account of the J, but I see no reason to take the chance.
I'll call Fantan Jacks and lead the J.
Recapping:
