May 2005 - 30

The Bidding Box

being asked about. He responded
5 therefore to show two key cards
(the A and the K) with the Q.
Seidler thought this showed both
black aces and the Q, however, so
he bid 6.
Scores: 4 12; 4NT, 5, 6 8;
5 6; 6 5; 6NT 3; partscores 1.
O'Rourke-Jacobus 11, Seidler-
Wilson 15
Problem 3
South deals. E-W vulnerable.
West
East
7642
A Q
 J 10 7 3
5
7
 A K Q 10 8 3
K862
A Q J 4
O'Rourke
Pass
1
Pass

Jacobus
1
3

Seidler
Pass
2
3NT
5
6

Wilson
2
3
4
5
Pass

After a pass by O'Rourke,
Jacobus opened the East monster
with a simple 1. Why not 2
(their strong bid)? Very strong hands
with primary diamonds are tough
to bid using 2. Partner frequently
responds 2, thus increasing the
chance that the "wrong" side plays
it, and opener must then rebid 3,
meaning that the partnership is
already uncomfortably high before
responder has had a chance to say
anything meaningful. So good
players will sometimes take a risk
that their one-level opening will get
passed out in exchange for the
possibility that responder will reveal
something early on that will make
the contract easier to place.
O'Rourke, aware of this treatment,
stretched to respond with her
meager values. After Jacobus jump
shifted into clubs, however,
O'Rourke decided she had done
enough by improving the contract
from diamonds to clubs, so she passed.
30

Wilson began with 2, which
shows either 20-21 HCP or 24-plus
if balanced. Otherwise, it shows
a strong one-suiter. Seidler's 2
response showed sufficient values
for game opposite the 20-21
balanced hand, but denied a fivecard major or a six-card minor.
3 was natural, as was 3NT. 4
showed a second suit and concern
about playing in notrump, so Seidler
raised to 5. Driving to slam,
Wilson cuebid spades (5), but
gave up on "grander" ambitions
when Seidler made the weakest
noise possible (6).
Scores: 6 12; 5 9; 5 8;
3NT 6; 4NT, 6 3; 4, 4 1.
O'Rourke-Jacobus 12, Seidler-
Wilson 27
Problem 4
West deals. Both vulnerable.
West
East
 A 10 6 5 4
K9
96
A J 7 4 2
A J 8 2
Q653
K8
 10 4
O'Rourke
1
2
Pass

Jacobus
1NT
2

Seidler
1
2
Pass

Wilson
1NT
3

O'Rourke and Jacobus play that
the 2 rebid could be made on a
three-card suit (for example, with a
hand that has a 5=3=3=2 pattern),
so Jacobus took the preference to
spades to guarantee a 5-2 fit in the
higher-scoring suit, avoiding a
possible 4-3 fit in the lower-scoring
one.
Seidler and Wilson, however, play
that a 2 rebid guarantees four.
(The downside: their 2 rebid can
be made with as few as two.) This
made it easy for Wilson to ignore
spades and offer a diamond raise
instead.
Scores: 3 12; 2 9; 2 8; 4
6; 1NT 5; 3, 3 3; 2NT 2; 4,
4 1.

O'Rourke-Jacobus 21, Seidler-
Wilson 39
Problem 5
North deals. E-W vulnerable.
North opens 3. South bids 4
if possible.
West
East
 K Q 10 3
84
Q94
A K 7 2
 A K 10 8 6
J9432
3
A 4
O'Rourke North
(3)
Dbl
(Pass)
5
(Pass)

Jacobus
Pass
5
6

South
(4)
(Pass)
All Pass

Seidler North
(3)
Dbl
(Pass)
Pass
(Pass)

Wilson
Pass
4

South
(4)
(Pass)

Both West players took a mild
risk by entering the auction with a
takeout double at the four level. The
deciding factor: club shortness.
Jacobus liked his hand so much
- it has excellent controls (aces
and kings) and two decent suits -
that he cuebid clubs to let O'Rourke
know about it, also. She bid her
long suit (5) which pleased
Jacobus: he raised to slam.
Wilson gave Seidler a little leeway
in the auction, since West could
have been under some pressure to
double initially. Wilson settled for
the somewhat conservative 4.
Scores: 6 12; 5 8; 4 7; 6
6; 4 (N) doubled 5; 3NT 2; 4
(N), 4 1.
O'Rourke-Jacobus 33, Seidler-
Wilson 46
Problem 6
East deals. No one vulnerable.
West
East
A 6 3
KQ92
94
 10 8 2
A Q J 8 3
K7
K62
 A Q 10 3
O'Rourke
1
3NT

Jacobus
1
1
Pass
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2005
