Problems from the Burbank Sectional 10/2000: Answers

All at IMPs, short matches

1. Both vulnerable, you hold

    Ax A AQ9xx K109xx

   LHO	CHO	RHO	YOU
   Pass	Pass	2	?

   Methods:

   3 asks for a stopper

   4m = m + hearts

   4 = minors, very strong

   4NT = minors, not as strong as 4

   ---

   ALAN

   Not delighted with the choice, I bid 4NT. No guarantees there will be another call if I overcall. While that could be right, I am willing to take this risk.

   BARRY

   4 will do me -- yes it is not perfect but what is? 3 is my second choice but I'll feel like I am being pushed around and my testosterone is high today...

   DAN

   4NT. I don't see that I can involve partner in a meaningful way if I start with 3. I won't know to play hearts or NT, and I won't get (much) help as to level, so I might as well shoot for game.

   ED

   3. Defense to offense ratio is too good for 4 or 4NT. I will bid 4 over 3-P-P and hope partner has enough to bid game (or make 4m).

   JOANNA

   If I bid 3 asking for a stopper and partner doesn't have one, then I will be unable to show both suits. Just bidding 3NT is plausible at matchpoints (trying for a top), but I prefer to show a moderate hand with both minors because 5minor will make most of the time that 3NT makes and some of the time when it doesn't. Also, if partner has K and AQ partner may consider bidding 6minor, but would routinely pass 3NT.

   ROBB

   All this is very nice, but I just bid 3. This hand ain't so hot without a fit, and I would like to have a chance below the 5 level.

   ROBERTO

   4NT seems reasonable.

   MIKE

   Obviously it is bad to give up on 3NT, but I see no alternative. 3 is a huge underbid. Being that I have the agreement that 4 is good minors, it seems indicated (although very close to bidding 4NT directly. Does RHO's being in 3rd seat weigh in? YES! If he were in 1st seat, 4NT might be bid on  x x KQxxx KJxxxx or the like. Here I'm marked with values and so 4NT shows a decent hand, so I think this is marginal, but I would still go with 4). Would partner's 4NT response be a "serious" 4NT, natural or pick a minor? I suspect the last, but perhaps natural wouldn't be so bad, eh? [Mike is Canadian. --Jeff] Perhaps a direct 4NT would have been better (pass, says he!) after all, but I'll stick to my guns and bid 4.

   ANDY

   4NT. 3 will work well if partner has the magic Qxx. Other actions (bidding NT, doubling, or passing and hoping partner reopens with a double) seem really sick. All in all, 4NT seems most likely to get us to a making game, which is the idea here.

   BOBBY

   I think 4NT is for hands that are slightly stronger than this. That is, I don't feel this hand is quite strong enough to force to the 5 level. So, I start out with 3. I don't think they can make 4, so I'll double it if comes back around to me. Over 3, I'll bid 4.

   JEFFB

   I gotta admit, as nice as all of these methods seem, I'm a simple 3 bidder here. If it goes all pass, so be it. If either lefty or pard competes further, I can bid 4 to finish descibing my hand. Partner should get the gist that I'm in between a 4 and a 4NT bid and hopefully act accordingly. My second choice I guess is 4NT. [I don't see why 3...4 should be a tweener. It just denies the offense to bid either of them. --Jeff]

   RIKO

   4

   ROLF

   X - I don't want to skip 3NT. As almost everybody plays Lebensohl here, nothing can go wrong. If partner can pass it RHO might have had only 5 (as it has become fashionable) and then welcome to the party. [Something very serious could go wrong. LHO could bid 3 and partner could then bid 4. That's what happened at the other table. I don't see how you can be sure to avoid a 5-card fit now. In practice, the guy in the position passed and went -600. --Jeff]

   CURT

   3. This is a flexible hand. Also, this is a hand that is very good if partner has some cards, but not very good if he has no cards/fit. I will take a small chance of landing in 3 when 5/6 is a good spot to hear some natural bids from partner.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   I wasn't there, but when partner asked me what I'd've done, I said I wasn't sure, but probably would have bid 2NT. Upon very little reflection, I changed my mind to 3.

   VOTES

   4NT	5
   4	3
   3	5
   2NT	1
   Dbl	1

   CONSENSUS

   None. High road over low road by a little, 8-7.

   WINNING ACTION

   Low road. Partner has  xx xxxx K10xx xxx. Clubs are wedged: AQJx over the strong hand. 4NT or 4 will get you doubled and down 500. Any slow road action will probably work out OK.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   When I initially considered the problem, 3 didn't occur to me immediately. I still like 2NT a fair bit. Ax doesn't wrongside notrump as badly as other holdings; J109 is actually improved in partner's hand. 2NT will get us to game more often than 3 will. I'm not sure we'll make all those games, but we'll make some of them. If a small minor suit card were a heart, nearly everyone would bid 2NT, so it's really not as far off as it would seem. If partner transfers to hearts, that might not be so bad; if he has KQJxx and out, we want to play in hearts. It's not as if my hand won't take any tricks in hearts. This time, however, it doesn't work out so well. Over 3, we have nowhere to go, so we probably go -140. (RHO was 6421.) All in all, I think 3 is the normal low road choice, but 2NT is an interesting twisted choice and probably will work out about as well as 3 in the long run.

   ---

2. Unfavorable, you hold

    Kx KJ10xx xxx A10x

   Partner	You
   1	1NT (forcing)
   2	?

   If you would bid 1NT with a slightly stronger hand, what if you held it? If you would not bid 1NT with this hand, weaken it appropriately.

   ---

   ALAN

   I will bid 4. I recognize [I am] heavy for the call but [I] rarely find partner with the magic hand. I have no good way of investigating but I do like Ed's gimmick of 4.

   BARRY

   4 cuebid for hearts. I can believe that fit jumps work here but I do not play them - luckily. I would bid 2 with this hand and drive to game, so sue me, but as it works out I am glad I did what I was asked to do.

   DAN

   4. I don't play enough forcing NT to know what this means, but (to my mind) it ought to be a slammy heart raise with club control. Even if partner thinks it's a splinter, she'll evaluate pretty well.

   ED

   4. The way I play this shows a hand worth more than a raise to 4 with the A. I think it is theoretically correct to use 3N, 4 and 4 all as artificial raises to 4 where 3NT shows a high spade honor with good trumps and 4 and 4 show short spades with good / very good hands for slam (e.g., good =  J KJxxx Axxxx xx, very good =  x KQxxxx Axxx xx).

   JOANNA

   4. Clearly not natural, so ostensibly a splinter in support of hearts. However, partner will realize that I have to bid 4minor with a very good hand for so 4 just shows a club control, may or may not be shortness.

   ROBB

   1NT is fine. I now bid 4, strong fit and club feature. (My 1NT is not 100% forcing.)

   ROBERTO

   I'll bid 4, since I don't have methods for this one. Maybe 4 or 4 should be a cue-bid or a bluhmer but I think partner is going to take it as a splinter (I think a bluhmer is more likely to be useful than a splinter in this situation, but I don't have this agreement with anyone and in fact have never thought of having this agreement with anyone).

   MIKE

   Why did I bid 1NT with this hand? [Because you are playing 2/1s 100% forcing to game. --Jeff] Even if playing 2/1 and lightish openers, I would bid 2 on this hand. With the K being better than an ace, this is worth a game force. [Then, as stipulated, make it the maximum hand with which you'd respond 1NT with this or similar shapes, perhaps  Kx Kxxxx xxx Axx. --Jeff]

   Am I playing 2/1? [Obviously. --Jeff] If not, I'd bid 2 on quite a bit less.  Qx QJTxx xxx A10x would be on the borderline, but a 1NT response, so let's say that's what I hold. With that hand, I'd bid 4 now. There is virtually no chance of slam when partner bids only 2.

   ANDY

   4. What else can you do? (Maybe 3NT should be artificial here?) I prefer to play a style where I can make a 2/1 with this hand. BTW, this isn't really a case where you can change the hand a bit and have the "same problem" regardless of your 2/1 style: if your 1NT is limited to weaker hands than this, then the only hands worth a jump to game are going to be more distributional (maybe a 9 count with 6 hearts), but here you can have a wider variety of hands. [Why not? You can have  x KQxxxx Kxxx xx playing SAYC. You still need to worry about  Axxxx Axxxx Ax x. --Jeff]

   BOBBY

   This is a maximum hand that I would use a forcing NT on. The hand is too strong for a direct 4, so 4 seems right. [Whatever it means! --Jeff]

   JEFFB

   Oy. What a hand! Give partner a stiff diamond and the major-suit aces and we have a great shot at slam, yet nothing seems appropriate. Obviously, three of a suit is not an option. It appears that our choices are 4, which suddenly seems like a huge underbid, a fake splinter (assuming that's what 4m would be and not some invitational hand with that minor) and 4NT, which seems preposterous. I think I would try 4, psyching the splinter. If I can get a 4 cuebid from pard, I'll check for aces. Otherwise I'll settle for 4. I realize this is a strange answer, but I have no idea what else to do and being Canadian 4 just seems like too much of an underbid to me. If 4 and 4 were some sort of heart raise that would be an excellent choice obviously.

   RIKO

   4

   ROLF

   3NT should show this hand. 4m would be a splinter.

   CURT

   I agree with 1NT. I will bid 4 now. Even if partner thinks that this is a splinter (it should be a raise with values), we will probably survive.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   4. 4 was defined as a splinter, and I seriously considered it. In reality, the hand was  Kx Kxxxx xxx A10x.

   VOTES

   4	8
   4	6
   3NT	1

   CONSENSUS

   None. Half the panel bid 4. The meaning of 4 was all over the map.

   WINNING ACTION

   Anything. Partner had a minimum with four hearts and was happy enough to make game.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I agree that 3NT, 4, and 4 should be artificial heart raises. Most seem to play that 4m shows cards there. If so, then 3NT shows cards in spades. Those who play 4m as splinters should use 3NT to show any super 4 raise without a minor stiff. I could be talked into playing either. I think Ed's strength distinction between 4 and 4 is probably not as valuable as defining either shape or location of high cards, so I prefer the way he actually plays to his artificial proposal. Note that we can do a little better. If 3NT relayed to 4, we can show two hands there. That gives us four hands total to describe. It's probably not worth the memory burden.

   I was expecting some number of fake splinters. No one splintered in diamonds. Isn't that the book "Zia" bid? If we are going to splinter, it's not clear to me in which suit we ought to do it. Everyone who splintered picked clubs. Do we want to discourage partner when he has KQx? Would a splinter vs. his stiff diamond bother him as much as one vs. his club fillers? Hard to say.

   The panelists who think this is nowhere near a forcing notrump are being overly dogmatic. Firstly, they are stipulated to be playing 2/1GF. While that might not be everyone's choice, it's a pretty popular system, particuarly in California. Secondly, it's not hard to change the hand a little to be a forcing NT even in SAYC:  x KJxxxx Axxx xx or so is surely not a 2/1 in any standard method and has to worry about missing a slam vs. 5-5 acey minimums. Therefore, the issue of "what do your bids mean" (what this problem is all about) arises even in their methods. It'd arise even if they had a big club available.

   ---

3. Both vulnerable, you hold

    x K10x AQx AQ7xxx

   YOU	LHO	CHO	RHO
   1	Pass	1	1
   3?	3	4	Pass
   ?

   Would you have bid 3? A support double was available.

   ---

   ALAN

   Not a fan of support doubles; I still think I would have chosen one.

   BARRY

   No I would have doubled expecting to bid 3 on the next round and show this hand. [It wouldn't. Not only would 3 have been insufficient, it wouldn't be a jump, so you won't be showing extra values. --Jeff]

   DAN

   No, I would have doubled. This hand could easily play better in diamonds, and now I've misled partner in the minors. Clubs then diamonds then clubs should have been my plan.

   ED

   I would have made a support double since I am can bid clubs later and I am willing to play in diamonds if partner has a long suit.

   JOANNA

   I would have made [a support double] since the texture of my suit is so anemic and my hand is such a minimum for 3.

   ROBB

   I would have doubled.

   ROBERTO

   I would have made a support double, although this seems to have worked out better.

   MIKE

   I like 3. LHO is certain to raise spades, so getting my strength off my chest now seems imperative.

   ANDY

   3 is fine, as long as it isn't actually denying 3 diamonds, as some play. [Not many. Most don't deny 3-card support when opting against a support double in a minor. I think 3 ought not deny 3-card support for a major, either; my rule is, "denies 3-card support unless you have something important to say." So, with,  Qxx xxx x AKQ10xx, I'd rebid 2 instead of a support double after 1-1-(1). --Jeff]

   BOBBY

   If I had a support double available I would have used it because showing diamonds later on in a competitive auction will be hard but I don't feel bad about rebidding clubs at a high level. [I do. If the bidding had gone Dbl-(4)-Pass-(Pass), I would not feel even slightly good about bidding 5 now. In fact, I'd double. --Jeff]

   JEFFB

   I agree with 3. The diamonds and the stiff spade have increased in value. The sixth club could be crucial for slam and the K seems well placed. I think 3 was a lot more descriptive than a nebulous support double. While, the duble would have conveyed diamond support, I don't think it would have done justice to our playing strength.

   ROLF

   3 is horror. This seems like a skinhead club problem. ["Horrorshow?" My club doesn't have any skinheads (other than the >60 types), so I'm not familiar with the problem, but it sounds serious. --Jeff]

   CURT

   First, I do not like support doubles for diamonds. Actually, I don't like support doubles generally. But here double should show 4 hearts. Under the circumstances, 3 seems most accurate on values but all bids are misdescriptions.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   3

   VOTES

   Double	9
   3	5

   CONSENSUS

   Double, by a little bit.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I think 3 is much better than a double. If we belong in 3NT (or 4NT), I need to tell partner about my source of tricks and the extreme value of the K. If they are about to bid 4, I really want to tell partner that I think it's our hand and that the most likely strain is clubs. Ruffing spades with these diamonds doesn't look right, so if partner's minors are Kxxxx Kx, I want to play clubs, not diamonds. I'd like to have some club fillers, but I can't help it. As I see it:

   Pros for 3:

   • shows extra strength
   • shows club tricks for notrump
   • shows club suit to play clubs
   • denies a weak notrump

   Pros for Dbl:

   • shows our diamond fit
   • 3 mildly overstates the club suit

   While supporting partner is very important in competitive auctions, the benefits of 3 seem to outweigh doing so this time. The last "pro" point is more important than it looks. If we make a support double, partner is going to assume we have a weak NT until further notice, which we are likely not going to be able to provide. I don't look forward to the decision he makes if I start with a double and the auction skies.

   ---

   What now? Blackwood is 0314.

   ---

   ALAN

   I like 5NT here - pick a minor suit slam.

   BARRY

   Over 4, I guess I try 5NT pick a slam -- diamonds could easily be right though partner may not be able to bid it even if it is!

   DAN

   5. I want partner to pick a minor slam, but I'm not sure if 5NT sends that message. (I would think if 4NT is RKCB that 5NT would be Josephine, but what do I know about ace-asking? I would rather 4NT weren't Grapewood, because that's what I really want to do: cooperate and listen to more from partner. (I would still drive to slam.)

   ED

   Over 4, the spade singleton is a big plus but I've already stated (maybe overstated) my good playing strength by jumping to 3 so I think 5 should be enough. This hand might very well belong in diamonds (e.g.,  Axx Ax KJxxxx xx).

   JOANNA

   I just bid 5 because my hand is dead minimum. Partner would happily bid 4 on the following hand types:  Axx QJx KJxx Jxx I'm unprepared for the 5 response. I think the vul overcaller is more likely to have the A rather than the slotted K  x AQxx JTxxx Kxx slam needs the finesse and a trump split. Because there are so many spades missing, the 1 overcaller doesn't need to have the K.

   ROBB

   I don't know what the heck to do now. I guess 5NT, pick a slam is OK. No way to know whether partner is excited because of unexpected club values or general strength, but he didn't bid 4, which I would expect to be a cuebid here.

   ROBERTO

   I am committing to slam. Partner is still unlimited, so I'll cue-bid 5, then reject any other tries.

   MIKE

   Now I bid Blackwood. Over minors, 2210 (2-without, 2-with, 1 or 4, 0 or 3) is an excellent agreement, by the way, since a 2-without response is often a disaster (not on this hand though). [I assume he passes a 5 response. --Jeff]

   ANDY

   Now 5N, pick a slam, implying better diamonds and worse clubs than previously shown. I don't see how partner can bid 4 with an aceless hand, so I'm willing to take a shot at a small slam, and diamonds could play better than clubs. The chances of partner's having all you need for a grand (A, A, KJxx or Kxxxx, and Kxx or KJ) are rather slim, and if he does have all that, he might bid the grand himself, as you have already bid strongly.

   BOBBY

   5 now.

   JEFFB

   As for what I would do now, that is a wee bit more difficult. Since 6 could be cold while 6 has no play, this is a delicate matter. In fact, perhaps the support double has more going for it than I initially gave it credit for. Nah. 3 still feels right. Screw it, I would whip out Blackwood and if partner admits to an ace I would bid 6. My guess is that pard has something like  Axx xx Kxxxxx Kx. If one of the minor-suit kings is the A then 6 could be better, but I don't really see how I can get partner involved so I will simply bash and apologize later if I'm wrong. I seem to do that a lot....

   ROLF

   If I have the guts to bid 3 then I should have the guts to bid BW and then 6.

   CURT

   There's no point in bidding key card here - partner can't really have only 1 key card to bid this way. [I don't see why not. --Jeff] I'll just bid 6.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   5.

   VOTES

   5NT	5
   5	4
   4NT	3
   5	1
   5	1
   6	1

   CONSENSUS

   The high road, 11-4.

   WINNING ACTION

   Slam. Partner has  Q AJ9x K10xxx Kxx. Ed says that partner should have bid Blackwood and put us in 6 without giving me this problem. I agree. That stiff spade is big. The K is huge (which is why I bid 3 in the first place.)

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I really don't know. I think I already bid my hand with 3; it seems that I should leave any further agressive action to partner. My stiff spade is glorious, but my clubs are not. But the real issue is "what is partner's 4 bid?" Is it club support and a slam try or just a grope? I don't know the answer to that (and neither does the panel). If it's a grope, to bid slam seems crazy. If it's a slam try for clubs, I'm willing to go---this is exactly the sort of hand that is grossly improved by hearing support. But partner knows that, too, so if slam were cold, he should probably have been able to bid it...unless he didn't have a spade control.

   Upon reflection, I'm adamant that 3 is better than a a support double. On the actual hand, if I had made a support double and LHO had bid 3, we'd be seriously stuck. Partner can bid 4 (natural), but what the heck do I do? Ed would bid 6, but I think that's an overbid. I don't like this hand for diamonds nearly as much as I do for clubs.

   Yes, partner probably should have driven to slam. He has the key (he thinks) stiff spade and beautiful clubs. Ed suggests key card instead of 4. Seems reasonable to me, particularly since I think that 4 shouldn't be club support, but a grope for the best strain at the game level.

   ---

4. Favorable, you hold

    AK10xx AKxx — AQxx

   You	Partner
   1	2
   2	2 (2/1 style: 3 trumps + game forcing values)
   ?

   What's your plan?

   ---

   ALAN

   As you know [Alan held this hand, too. --Jeff], I think 3 is right for a variety of reasons. I will get a reaction from partner based on what he may think is a game try. I would never consider Exclusion. There is too much information I need.

   BARRY

   3 -- hoping to get partner to head to 3NT -- over a red suit from him I'll try 3, again looking for 3NT. If I do not get a club cuebid I'll go through the motions and play 6.

   DAN

   3, followed by cue bidding. Then after I make the overtrick in slam, I'll ask the person who opened 1 whether they thought they needed five first-round controls in order to open 2.

   ED

   Bid what I've got rather than set up an exclusion sequence (via 3, then 5). By having a bidding dialogue I hope to exchange enough information to bid the grand if it is there. If I bid exclusion or blackwood, I'll need partner to jump to 7 if it makes as I can't find out what I need to know via this route... and it will be difficult for partner to do this with me holding the K and Q.

   [Given that start we get:

   Opener	Responder
   1	2
   2	2
   3	3
   3	4
   4	4
   ?]

   Partner's bidding shows the A, K, either a minimum with good cards or something extra with wasted cards and a likely pattern of 3-2-5-3 or 3-3-5-2. This is clearly a choice between 6 and 7. If partner has the Q, I'll have a play for 7 somewhere between soft ( Qxx Jxx AQJxx Kx) and very good ( QJx xxx AKxxx Kx).

   I could bid 6 over ... 4-4, 4N-5, 5-6 and I think partner would go with third round control and probably also with the  QJx xxx AKxxx Kx. That seems about right to me... RKC and then 6 over 6 (assuming partner has the Q) and abiding by partner's decision. If partner bids 6NT over 6, which would be a big surprise given no 3NT bid, I will bid 7NT playing partner for  Qxx xxx AKQx Kxx.

   JOANNA

   I'm bidding at least 6, so the question for me is how to construct the auction to sensibly investigate a grand slam in either spades or even clubs since partner may have:  Jxx x AKxxx KJxx This makes it pretty clear for me to start with 3. This doesn't show 4 clubs by me; for now it is just club values looking for the best game but it does give partner a chance to raise clubs with a hand like the one above as a descriptive method for showing heart shortness.

   Over 3, if partner bids an uncooperative 3NT I bid 4 and then 4NT RKC over partner's response so that I can ask for the Q. If partner doesn't have it I just bid 6. If partner does have it and denies the club king, I sign off in 6. If partner shows the Q and K, then I investigate further with either 6 (if partner has the A) or 6.

   Over 3, if partner bids anything other than 3NT, I continue cue-bidding as long as possible, hoping I can get partner to bid RKC. If he doesn't then I will proceed generally as above.

   [Following that lead, we get:

   Opener	Responder
   1	2
   2	2
   3	3
   3	4
   4	4
   4N	5
   5	6
   6	6
   ?

   Now you have a problem on the 9th round of the auction!]

   On this auction, I would bid 6 rather than 6. I believe I have shown both A & K already by bidding 3 then 4. Therefore, my 6 bid must be looking for Q rather than K. Even if partner has it though, the grand isn't cold, so on the given auction I just bid 6. Partner may have  QJx Qx AQxxx Kxx. I'm assuming that partner would bid 7 himself if small doubleton heart and AK.

   ROBB

   I plan to flail around, or I could bid 5, EKCB, and play it there. Without firm understanding, I will bid 3 and see what happens.

   ROBERTO

   This is tricky. I'm committing to at least a slam, obviously, but spades are not necessarily the best denomination (notrump or even 6 (if he has weak spades, one-loser diamonds and just one outside entry) may be best - I don't think 7 is likely in the absence of a strong JS - but maybe that was not available) and a grand is also possible.

   I'll bid 2NT right now and see how partner reacts. If he raises NT or rebids diamonds, I'll head for NT. If he returns to spades, I'll stick to spades as the final denomination. I'm not sure what to do as far as level, but I think I'll cue-bid hearts and clubs repeatedly to get him to appreciate his spade and diamond fillers, if any.

   MIKE

   Obviously I'm driving to at least 6. I'll start with continuing to bid out my shape with 3 - partner will be able to key in on diamond shortness and hopefully be able to help in the final decision. For all I know, we're going to land in NT or 7. (Imagine that partner holds  Jxx x AQJxx KJxx - I'd sure like to be in 7 - how about you?)

   By the way, 3 doesn't necessarily promise significant length there; it might just be a probing bid. With the above hand, partner would raise to 4 though, and then I'd bid RKCB in spades, find out we are missing the Q and bid 7 (since partner would be marked with a singleton heart on the auction).

   ANDY

   Do some cuebidding, starting with 3, and hope to figure out what to do. If partner shows the K I'll take a shot at slam. Actually, an immediate RKC followed by the queen ask might be the best way to get the information I want, but I can't bring myself to do that.

   BOBBY

   Start cue bidding with 3. I'm anxious to see what partner does after 3-3; 3 - ?. I want to show partner that I have the K, and find out about the K from him, as quickly as possible. I can't visualize a hand that goes 3-4 without partner's having the K, so I'd move again after that. After 3-3NT, I'll move to 4 and only subside if partner bids 4.

   JEFFB

   I will bid 3 now, which I assume partner will take as me completing my shape. If partner bids anything other than 4 now, I will be very pleased and will aggressively go for the grand via cue-bidding ad nauseum. Seeing as I have the top trumps, AK and Q it will be difficult for partner to take control. Hopefully at some pint I will be able to use 5NT as "do you want to play six or seven?" If he does make the nasty signoff over 3, I will probably just jump to 6, because I don't think science will help me out in my crusade for 7.

   RIKO

   3...hoping for cue bid. If 4 by pard, Pass. If not, then another cue in hearts. Tough...

   ROLF

   3 - describing my hand. The problems come later. One the one hand I get more information, on the other partner cannot misunderstand 5-exclusion later on.

   CURT

   3, then 3 over the expected 3 call.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   3, cue bidding to the 5-level, then guessing at 6.

   VOTES/CONSENSUS

   None. This turned out to be a bad problem because the plan is too complicated due to partner's host of options. Almost everyone bid 3, so I probably ought to have included the extra round of bidding, but I didn't want to bias the panelists' plans. Oh, well.

   WINNING ACTION

   get to 7. Partner has  QJx x AQxxxx KJ10.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   This is harder than it looks. It depends on Key Card agreements. I like this start: 1 - 2; 2 - 2; 3 - 3; 3 - 4. Now we can use key card. 4NT - 5; 5 - 6. (4 might have been shortness.) 6 now is an asking bid. The question, however, is, "what does it ask for?" It seems to me in theory that it should ask for 2nd-round heart control, but Kantar's book says it asks for third because it was delayed through the queen ask. The problem here is that we need to find out about the trump queen before we go anywhere in grand territory. If it asks for 3rd, we are home free; partner will bid 7 (or 6NT?) as he has shortness, not the card. That'd be a reasonably confident auction to the grand. Not playing any key card methods like that, I had to guess. So did Alan. He guessed right. Playing Kantar's Key Kard Kreation, I agree that the delayed ask should be for third round control if partner denies the trump queen. If he shows the trump queen, I don't see why it ought not be 2nd-round control. Anyone else know? ...in which case, I don't see a way to bid this hand confidently to the grand. When push comes to shove, without the J, it's only going to be a so-so grand anyway, so it'd take some great bidding to get there.

   ---

5. Unfavorable

    K9 Q QJ9x AQxxxx

   You	LHO	CHO	RHO
   1	4	Dbl	Pass
   ?

   Dbl is negative/value showing.

   ---

   ALAN AT THE TABLE

   4NT

   BARRY

   4NT -- minors. again testosterone level high -- but passing could lead to 100 against 1370 or -590 against 600 or -100, so who knows? I tend to ignore the defensive potential in the majors --and frequently it comes back to bite me.

   DAN

   Pass. Can't stand to guess the wrong minor to bid.

   ED

   No strong preference. Probably pass but I would bid 4NT if the K was in a minor (i.e.,  xx Q KQJx AQxxxx or  xx Q QJxx AKQxxx).

   JOANNA

   Do I know what 4NT by partner would have meant? [Yes. It would have been "Hyper-lebensohl," not to be confused with "Ultra-lebensohl!" --Jeff] If partner had 4NT available as some sort of takeout bid, then pass is clear. If 4NT would have been blackwood then I would still pass (even if I knew my 4NT was for the minors).

   ROBB

   Pass. Too many losers.

   ROBERTO

   I'll bid 4NT assuming that's minors. (If not I'll just bid 5.)

   MIKE

   Pass. Obviously this could work poorly, but with no clear cut way to proceed, it seems best to try for a plus score here and hope the field/opponents misjudge worse. A natural 4NT, if available, would be my second choice.

   ANDY

   4N. I was all set to say Pass, since I don't like to trade a plus score for a minus score, but I am seduced by the vulnerability. Hm, I either bid, or suggested the possibility of, an artificial NT bid on all five hands. [! --Jeff]

   BOBBY

   Pass, leave it in. I can't possibly see taking another action with this mishmash.

   RIKO

   Pass

   ROLF

   Pass - ODR [Offense/Defense Ratio] is bad. Let's play it there.

   CURT

   Pass.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   Pass

   VOTES

   4NT	4
   Pass	10

   CONSENSUS

   Pass

   WINNING ACTION

   Pass. You get 300 or 500 (depending on your defense). Bidding causes a catastrophe. 4NT begets 5 from partner, which is doubled. (Trumps are 5-0.) It goes down about 500 or so. The opponents ran to 5x, then 5NTx and went for 1700 (on misdefense; they could have had 2000, but declarer could have held it to 500 if he'd played more carefully). It turns out that if we bid, partner's best shot is to pass 4NT. It's really only down one if played right. See http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/html/lots.html for details.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I think this isn't really close; pass is a standout call. If I could bid 4NT and still play the hand if partner chooses diamonds, I'm be more prone to bidding, but as he'd play 5, there's no way he's going to make it after losing the first two spade tricks, so 4NT is out. That leaves 5 and pass, and that decision isn't real close.

   ---