Some Problems from the Burlingame Regional 2/10: Answers

1. IMPs, none vul, you hold

    109 AQ1098 xx xxxx

   LHO	CHO	RHO	You
   1	2	3	Pass
   4	Pass	4	Dbl
   4	Pass	5	Pass
   6	All pass

   What do you lead? Yeah, you might have bid 3 over 3, but you didn't.

   ---

   DAVIDW

   Spade 10. First, I think partner has the spade king; With no high honor, he should have made a lead-forbidding double of 4. If folks don't play that, they should. I think dummy would not have bid 6 without the spade ace.

   Second, I think declarer's 4 cue is based on the king. So leading a heart means I think the only chance is a heart ruff. I don't think that; our spade might cash slowly if I just don't blow anything.

   BOB

   I lead the ace of hearts. Why did RHO bid four hearts? He doesn't have the ace — perhaps he was bidding his second suit. Partner had a chance to double four spades and didn't, so either he has bad spades or he wants some other lead.

   KENNETH

   Well, I'd first ask what all of this meant for the opponents. Was anything RKCB? What style of cues? Or, pattern bidding? Anything an asking bid? Denial cues, perhaps? [Nothing abnormal. --Jeff]

   Generally speaking, a spade lead for partner seems logical, but I'm just not sure what is going on yet.

   MIKE

   I'm waffling. LHO didn't bid 3NT but has spade control. This means that either he was bullish enough about slam to know to bypass or he has spade shortness. I'm tempted to think that means LHO is 4-6 in the minors. Perhaps he is 0346 and we can get a heart ruff. What I'm having the most trouble with is that if we are getting a heart ruff, the opponents will have 7 hearts and 5 spades, presumably 9 diamonds, therefore only 5 clubs. That would make RHO 4-4-5-0 or 3-4-6-0. I guess that is possible, but perhaps it is a better shot to play RHO to have heart shortness and good controls to drive past 3NT, but I'm having a VERY hard time coming up with consistent hands for the opponents, especially one where the HA lead sets up a useful spade pitch (RHO needs to be 2-1-4-6 and LHO 3-4-5-1 and then they will presumably make anyway unless they finesse against the K).

   A.

   Perhaps the opponents aren't as solid citizens as some and won't have what I'd expect, but I guess the best shot is the A. We aren't playing lead averting doubles are we? [I wish. --Jeff]

   LEN

   10.

   WEB

   10. Gambling that it's more likely that the K would be the twelfth trick than that partner has a stiff heart. (RHO might have doubled with 4; will pay off to LHO's being 0445.)

   DAVIDC

   10.

   FRED

   First nitpick: is not Snapdragon virtually standard US practice, so that had you doubled 3 it would have shown with tolerance? [It is. But it's also standard practice in the US to overcall 2 with a hand that is not safe having this hand raise it. --Jeff]

   Second nitpick: I would like to know a little bit about their style of bidding, as it appears to me that the double of 4 might be poor unless they headed into 6NT — given that was always declared by RHO. What was 4 (presumably not Kickback or you might have told us) — but style of cue/shape/try is relevant. [Everything standard. They aren't an experienced partnership either. Doubling 4 is to beat 5. Spade to partner, heart through. Otherwise, he might try to give me a spade ruff. --Jeff]

   Third nitpick: what inference am I to draw from partner's failure to double 4, the suit he bid at the 2-level? We play reverse doubles of long suits, so that given that partner normally leads your bid suit, a double should say DON'T lead my suit...is there any agreement standard applicable here? [Standard in the US is that double means lead the suit. Lead averting doubles are popular, but hardly standard. --Jeff]

   Fourth nitpick: is there any inference from the failure to redouble about the absence or presence of control by LHO? [I do not vouch for my opponents' bidding, and you can take whatever inference you like from the failure to redouble. --Jeff]

   Assuming there is no meaningful information from any of the above, it comes down to whether you lead a or as you assume your expert LHO has considerable reserves of strength for his bidding: probably solid , and your holding suggests that the will run. Query if partner held a void whether he would double 6 as Lightner? [Of course, assuming he thinks he can beat 6NT. If he can't beat 6NT, he has no choice but to hope you find the ruff. --Jeff]

   If I assume that he would not do so, and that his failure to double 4 in standard suggests no particular value or desire for that, the lead of the A looking for a ruff is reasonably attractive, and I MIGHT still be able to find the putative ruff if that is what is required. My difficulty is that for the lead to be right, partner needs either K or a singleton (or an outside trick/ void). For the to be singleton, the opponents have to hold seven hearts between them — and although their proclivities are not clear, that seems to me unlikely unless RHO holds four hearts (and failed to make a negative double) and LHO three hearts — in which case LHO holds something akin to  A xxx AJx AKQxxx and only got interested when RHO cued .

   KENT

   10. If it's right to lead a spade and I don't, partner will not be happy. Nothing else stands out. LHO could have a relatively flat hand.

   BARRY

   10. Partner does not have to double 4 to get me to lead the suit. The heart losers don't figure to go away unless the issue is 6/7, not 5/6.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   10. Fish.

   CONSENSUS

   Lead Votes 10 8 A 3

   WINNING ACTION

   Heart. Dummy had  Ax xxx Ax AKQ10xx, and declarer had  QJx Jx KQJ10xxx J. Yes, declarer psyched the 4 cue bid.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   The A is a huge standout. Declarer cue bid 4 and then gave up over 4, which was presumably what he wanted to hear. Why is that? Probably because he is afraid that the AK is on lead. Failing to lead a heart is a fish play. I am totally amazed that not a single panelist doped out the psych. Upon reflection, it is completely and utterly obvious.

   What would a double by partner mean? I think it should strongly suggest the K. It's possible that partner has a club void, but then he can discourage hearts and get his ruff. If he has the K, he can encourage hearts, and we beat them. Fred's question whether partner will double with a club void brings up the issue that they will run to 6NT if they know a club ruff is happening, but there's nowhere they can go if they are off the AK, so the odds are in favor of the double's being the K. Since the A lead caters to both (if the A isn't cashing, they were making anyway), it is clear-cut.

   ---

2. IMPs, both vul, you hold

    x Kxx AKQx AKxxx

   RHO opens 1. What's your plan?

   ---

   DAVIDW

   2. With all of my high cards, I do not particularly fear them blasting into 4 of a major. I plan to show my pattern, and hopefully my strength as well. With twelve spades out, the auction will not die in 2. On most of the auctions that might ensue, my next call will be double.

   BOB

   I bid 2NT followed by 3NT. The only thing I'm really lacking for this bid is the fifth diamond, and doubling with this shape is fraught with danger. I'm willing to make a simple overcall on some very good hands, but this is too much.

   KENNETH

   2. This is easier for me, because I don't overcall light any more. When I overcall 2 or 2 at IMP scoring, I show sound values. Granted, this is a super-sound holding, but I'm not underbidding as much as others.

   MIKE

   2. I'll bid diamonds next in most auctions that I get the chance. The Kokish style has caught on enough I expect this to be a very popular answer.

   LEN

   Pass.

   WEB

   Overcall 2 and hope to get another chance — ideally 3NT over partner's 2 advance. [Yeah, right. --Jeff] If I bid 1NT or double, it could be very hard to talk partner out of playing in spades, and I think DBL followed by 2/3 would show a better suit.

   DAVIDC

   Dbl. Over spades bid clubs.

   FRED

   [1NT] I have too much to pass, so given my shortness in , and lacking a self-sufficient suit, my options are between 1NT and 2. The former understates my strength slightly, but given partner is favourite to hold length and/or whatever strength he holds, is ok for playing in . The latter overstates my suit, and works best opposite a fit or where opponents hold length and I get to make a t/o double of 2.

   I confess that I think the % choice is to bid 1NT, but it is a reasonable problem — and the presence of the 10 would be sufficient to sway me to 2. I will not double with this shape unless MUCH stronger again as it invites embarrassment when partner bids at almost any level.

   KENT

   Lovely. I'm bidding 2NT—I have length and strength in the minors. Even if I'm a card short in diamonds, that's where I live. Over a preference or 3, I'll bid 3NT. If partner bids 4, I'm passing.

   BARRY

   Pass and double spades or bid unusual no-trumps if they bid and raise hearts; might act again if partner does not produce an unhelpful noise. If partner balances with 1, I'll drive to game slowly heading for 3NT but giving partner maximum rope to hang himself.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   Pass. I was hoping it would go 1-pass-2 and I'd have a clear double and raise.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes Pass 3 Dbl 1 1NT 1 2 4 2NT 2

   I gave this problem around during the tournament and got a sixth answer, 4! The player polled thought that showed a very good hand with the minors, since that is what it would be if they had opened 2. When we have 2NT followed by a cue bid available, a direct 4 isn't needed as minors. But it is a creative answer.

   I can't believe two others passed. Or that neither of them was Kent.

   WINNING ACTION

   VERY hard to say. Pass worked pretty well. The auction continued 2-pass-4, and I passed in reasonable tempo (adjusting for the skip bid, of course). I cashed my three minor suit winners, being careful to let declarer see all 16 HCP. He then rejected the heart finesse, figuring that no one would pass throughout with 19 HCP. Otherwise, 4 is cold. We have, however, a good save in 5. A real good save...it can be made! In practice, however, no one will make it, even though LHO will double. Partner had  J108xxx — xxx J10xx.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I hate my pass now. I can't believe I even considered it. I think 2 is probably best. We need to catch some sort of fit to make game, and if we don't, having the auction end in 2 isn't so bad. The 2 bidders mostly talk about what will happen next, but we all know that the auction will usually continue pass, pass, pass. Playing 2 seems OK to me if that happens.

   ---

3. IMPs, both vul, you hold

    Kx AQx xx AKQJxx

   You	Partner
   2NT	3 (transfer)
   ?

   2NT is 20-21. Yeah, there are alternatives, but yours is an inexperienced partnership, so 2NT is reasonable. What now?

   ---

   DAVIDW

   I will merely accept the transfer.

   BOB

   3. What's the problem?

   KENNETH

   3. Not sure I understand the problem yet. If partner bids 4, I'm accepting.

   MIKE

   The main alternative to opening 2NT is 2 and rebidding 2NT; I think it is close.

   3NT. I hope partner understands that this is not a superaccept.

   LEN

   I've had partner bid 3NT with this hand, and it's certainly reasonable, but in an "inexperienced partnership," I wouldn't take the chance that pard would interpret it as a super-accept. I bid 3. [Very good point. --Jeff]

   WEB

   3. 3NT is begging for a diamond lead. (RHO didn't double 3; auction implies club tricks with declarer.)

   DAVIDC

   You're kidding? Anything othr than 3 is not bridge.

   FRED

   I know I have extra playing strength in NT, but having nominated the hand as 20-21 for NT, I do not doublecross partner. Besides, I play all bids higher than 3 (the transfer suit) as agreeing . To my knowledge, that is relatively standard (without declaring the explicit precise meaning of each of the said bids, about which more controversy is likely). This hand is not substantially better than indicated for a contract when he only promises a 5-bagger, so I am willing to be hoist with the petard of my first bid. Accordingly now I just bid 3. (But most rubber bridge players without "sophisticated" agreements would bid 3NT to play.)

   KENT

   Partner transferred. I accept. 3. Especially in an untested partnership, I don't want to try anything else, as this looks like a swing hand and I already chose an opening bid that may not be duplicated at the other table. I don't want to try to sort out the subsequent auction if I choose anything else for my second call.

   BARRY

   3. No clear options; will pass 3NT from partner.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   3. I really wanted to bid 3NT, but for Len's exact reason, I chickened out.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes 3 10 3NT 1

   WINNING ACTION

   When I saw the dummy,  J108xxx 109 Jxx xx, I thought I had done the right thing. Nope. LHO had led a heart from KJxxxx. The 10 held. Spade up. the K held. Now I really wished I'd bid 3NT. It was, in fact, duly bid and made at the other table (on a very different auction). 3 went down when spades were 4-1 (no useful stiff) and the long trumps held only two clubs.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   First off, bidding 3NT is not a superaccept for spades. You have four other superaccepts, and 3NT is needed as an anti-accept. We all open 2NT with a singleton honor once in a while (what else is there to do with something like  K AQxx AKJx KJ10x?), so 3NT is needed to warn partner away from spades. This is not the same after a 1NT opening. If one is prone to opening 1NT with a stiff honor, one simply can't afford to bid 2NT; just take your lumps. The hand won't often have the power to make 2NT opposite a hand which will pass 2, so you might as well try to make 2 with trumps giving you possible dummy entries. And the opponents will often know enough to double. But if we open 2NT, we might have a bunch of tricks in our hand and be able to bring home 3NT when 3 was hopeless.

   Given that, should we try it here? Upon reflection, no. Len's argument that we don't know that partner will read it correctly is a strong one. And even if he does, it's at best a crapshoot whether 3NT is better or worse than 3. On balance, I'd guess it will be worse a fair bit more often than better.

   All in all, this was a terrible problem. The other two were really good, though.

   ---