I assume this was a failed attempt to snow Meckstroth, but anyone know what was going on in the USA1-USA2 Bd 1?
Robinson opened with 10x-KJ108x-KQ-KQxx.
Boyd responded 2NT with Qx-AQ9xx-AJ10-AJx. Not my style. I'd respond 2C, hear 3C, correct to 3H, hear anything except 3S, and sign off. But, 2NT was their course, and fine.
Robinson bid 3C. Not sure what this showed. Maybe natural. Maybe artificial with no shortness. Maybe range.
Boyd bid 3D, Robinson 3H, and Boyd 4C. I do not know what all of this meant, but Robinson's next call, 4S, seems really strange.
The end result was a slam off the cashing top two spades. Any lead but a spade and the contract makes, so maybe someone got silly and hoped to turn off the spade lead.
I hope so.
Maybe 4S was kickback?
I mean, sure. Could be. Everything after that fits with Kickback. But what happened between 2NT and 4S to not isolate a spade problem?
"But what happened between 2NT and 4S to not isolate a spade problem?"
I think this hand belongs in the lackofcuebiddingatbridge blog. As the commentator said at the time "hard to know what went wrong there without knowing a bit more about their structure". My guesses: 2NT Jacoby GF raise, 3C any min, 3D re-ask, 3H min and no singleton/void, 4C cuebid slam try, 4S keycard ask in hearts even without a spade control, and that North (Steve Robinson) thought that this sequence would imply a spade control to East (Jeff Meckstroth) since South had not cuebid 3S, and he might steal a swing from Meckwell on the first board of round 3 by getting East to lead anything but a spade.
Call me silly, but it seems like there are three legitimate ways to bid slams. Constructively (not this) or zooming (not this either) are two common ones. This seems like a third -- the bluff. However, this seems like a poor bluff. Maybe the result is tainting my view, though.
Post a Comment