Some Problems From Bridge Week 2000: Answers

Today's panelists: Andy Lewis, Curt Hastings, Ed Davis, JoAnna Stansby, Joel Wooldridge, Lynn Johanneson, Mike Shuster, David Milton, Richard Lesko, Rolf Kühn, and Walter Hamilton.
  1. IMPs, short matches

     S:KJ10 H:Axx D:KQx C:AJ10x

    You Partner
    1C: 1S:
    2NT (18-19) 4NT
    ?

    ANDY
    6NT. It would probably take a simulation to really figure out what is right, but I like the tens with my jacks, and the fact that partner didn't check back for hearts slightly reduces the chance of wasted lower honors in hearts.
    CURT
    Pass. I'm having an awful time trying to come up with a hand where slam isn't better than a finesse. Let's say partner has S:AQxx, the C:K, and the D:A, and some scattered stuff (H:Q, or H:J, or D:J, or some combination). That's still on a hook. If he has the H:QJ and the S:AQ and the C:Q and the D:J we are still going to need a finesse. If he has no S:Q I'll probably still need a finesse against that card. While partner might have a hidden 5-card suit, in that case I would say that he misbid.
    ED
    5NT. Choice of slams. Forcing.
    JOANNA
    6NT (assuming partner would have done something other than 4NT with 4 card club support).
    JOEL
    5NT. I have extras, but I'm not sure if my pattern is great, pard.
    LYNN
    [Pass] I think the good news (two 10s, reasonably good honor combinations) approximately balances the bad (average controls, flat shape), so this is a guess. Playing with a conservative partner, I'd bid on. Playing with an aggressive one, I'd pass. The latter are more common--so mark me as passing.
    MIKE
    Pass. Are you kidding me? If this is really a problem, I guess I'll state the obvious. You are 3-3-3-4. You have a minimum. Thinking is an overbid. The only good thing I can say about this hand is that both your jacks are supported by a ten and a higher honor.
    DAVID
    [Pass.] On the one hand, I have good cards in partners suit. On the other hand, he didn't seem to want to know about three-card support. On yet another hand (been reading stories about giant squids lately so I have a few to spare yet ), I have minimal strength (what does K&R say?) [18.10 --Jeff] and lousy distribution. I can envision a hand where there is lots of duplicated values---for example, 10HCP to take 3 tricks in diamonds. So I use a remaining hand to put out a green card. Pass.
    RIKO
    5H:. 2 Aces. Willing to move forward. Your decision pard.
    ROLF
    Not bad but still 18 with 4333 - pass.
    WALTER
    5S:. Slam may play better from partner's side if CHO's hearts are Qx.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    Pass
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    5NT, you decide. I've decided that, at the table, I had underbid; those black tens are huge. It's still too much to commit to slam, so a pass-the-buck choice seems right. With the vote 50/50, I am certain that 5NT is the right choice, unless you are playing it "choice of slams" as Ed does. I don't think it's needed as such, because you have 8 other bids below 6NT and all express uncertainty about strain.
    WINNING ACTION
    bid. Partner has  S:A9xx H:Kxx D:Axx C:K9x. 6NT is about 80-85%. Mike thinks 4NT is an underbid. K&R (14.10) doesn't. Being conservative with 4333 hands doesn't bother me at all, but this time both are 4333 and conservatism is bad. The other table bid 6NT with partner's hand.
    CONSENSUS
    None
    VOTES
    Pass6
    Bid6
      5H:1
      5S:1
      5NT2
      6NT2
  2. MPs, none vul

     S:KJ6 H:K8 D:A96 C:AK1072

    CHO RHO YOU LHO
    PassPass1C: 1D:
    2H:* Pass?

    2H: = hearts and clubs, roughly limit raise values.

    What's your plan?

    ANDY
    3D:, followed by 3NT if partner bids 3M. Hopefully, this shows a good hand with some doubt about strain, which is what I have. (At IMPs, I would aim for the right level in clubs instead).
    CURT
    I will start with 3D:. My general plan is to find out if partner has a diamond control [how? --Jeff], if so I will try to get to 6C: via 4C:. Otherwise I will try 4H: since it is matchpoints. It's hard to see NT making as many tricks as hearts on these cards. [With 28 HCP? --Jeff]
    ED
    2S:. If partner does not bid 3C:, I'll play a slam.
    JOANNA
    If my agreement is that we are forced to 3C:, then I bid 2NT expecting partner to complete his pattern with a 3-card fragment. If partner bids:
    3C: then I will bid 3D:, showing a good hand flexible as to final strain.
    3D: then I bid 3NT
    3H: then I raise to 4H:
    3S: then I bid 4D: investigating a club slam
    3NT I pass.
    JOEL
    I'll try 2S:, then cue bid diamonds later. I figure he'll get the idea if I go in that order that I'm looking for a slam. This is a fantastic hand for partner's bid, BTW.
    LYNN
    I'd start with 2NT (which must be forcing), and see how partner reacts. Over 3C:, I'll bid 3S: (suggesting I need help from partner in diamonds to play 3NT). If he bids 4C:, I'll raise to 5. Over 3NT, I'll bid 4C:, showing a balanced 18+, a five-card club suit, serious slam interest. If partner signs off, I'll respect that. (My partner can bid 4NT, nonforcing.) Over 3H: (which suggests 6 hearts, 4+ clubs, and the best hand partner can pass), I'll bid a slam in clubs (I don't think the whole field will reach this one, and I can't figure out any way to choose sensibly between hearts and clubs without leaving open the chance of playing in 5C:, clearly a matchpoint loser).

    I usually play weak NTs, which makes it certain that 2NT is forcing. Still, it should be forcing in theory in everyone's methods.

    MIKE
    2S:. If partner can bid 2NT (or 3D:), I'll bid 3NT. If partner bids 3C:, I pass. Over 3H:, 4H:. If he bids 3S: I vomit, then bid 5C:.
    DAVID
    Well with most of my partners I play that a jump to 4C: would be RKC in clubs so, I would do that if available. If partner admits to having at least two of the missing keycards and C:Q, I will try 6C:. If I cannot start with an immediate KC ask, I will begin with 3D: (suit ambiguity), continue with 4C: (remove ambiguity) and listen to what partner has to say at the four level. The basic plan is that I am going to look for a Club slam. [If you are taking that tack, why not bid a direct 4C:? --Jeff]
    RIKO
    I will play game or slam in clubs, 1st I bid 3D:, and hope to use 4D: for kickback.
    ROLF
    It pretty much depends on partners D: holding and if he offers his H: again. I will start with 3D:. If pard bid 3NT fine, if he bids 3H: we'll play 4, over 4C: I will try five - chances are too good for a doubleton. I will bid 3NT over 3S: - he might have D:K singleton.
    WALTER
    6C: is cold opposite  S:xx H:AQJxx D:xx C:Qxxx and nearly so without the H:J. It is also reasonable opposite  S:Ax(x) H:AQxxx D:x(x) C:xxxx. If 4C: by me is Keycard I'll bid that. If partner turns up with the one ace and the club queen I'll bid 5H: in case partner has H:AQJxx.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    3NT
    WINNING ACTION
    get to slam; partner has  S:10x H:AQJxx D:x C:Q9xx. The S:AQ are offside, so 3NT makes 5, 4H: makes 5, and 6C: scores +920.
    CONSENSUS
    none
    VOTES
    2S:3
    2NT2
    3D:5
    3NT1
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    I still have no idea what to do. If 2NT were forcing as Lynn and JoAnna seem to think, it'd be worth a shot. I don't think it is, at least playing strong NTs; if you have  S:KJx H:Jx D:AQJx C:Jxxx, there's nothing else to bid. Knowing that no one else in the room is going to have any shot at slam, perhaps bidding 3NT right away isn't so bad, since we can now win the board in the play or take our average otherwise. But it'd be nice to take advantage of a system win.

    One thing that's interesting is that nearly everyone either committed to slam or chose to stop in game. Given that we are at the two-level, one might hope to gain some further information about how to make that choice, but only Ed suggests a way; he thinks that with all minimums, partner would bid 3C: over 2S:. Is partner's hand a minimum? Beats me. Looks like exactly what to expect, which means we should be bidding slam. Setting trumps with a direct 4C: seems right if so. Then again, could partner have  S:Qxx H:AQJxx D:x C:xxxx? Maybe, but I think he'd tend to bid 1H: with clubs that bad. With the diamond stiff, he might want to admit to clubs in case they bid 3D: immediately. Maybe. Upon lots of further reflection, I'm a 4C: bidder. Natural. Setting trumps. That's a good thing to do in a slam auction. I'd much rather have it as natural than as Key Card, too.

  3. MPs, both vul

     S:A10863 H:AQJ D:106 C:1085

    LHO CHO RHO YOU
    PassPass2C:* Pass?
    3C:* PassPass?

    2C: is Precision, either 6+C: or 5+C: + 4M.
    3C: is preemptive/blocking.

    a) Do you pass the first time?
    b) How about now?

    ANDY
    a) yes b) I'll guess to double, correcting diamonds to spades. Unfortunately the field is not faced with this problem.
    CURT
    a) yes b) yes Anything could be right, but red vs. red the odds are with defending. Partner could have prebalanced with a reasonable hand and a stiff club (I passed smoothly enough the first time that he isn't barred). Since I have only 11 myself, it's likely that he either doesn't have a stiff club, or he's weak (they're making, but we'll get killed). I lead trump.
    ED
    a) yes b) I probably would bid. If they make 3C:, I'll get below average.
    JOANNA
    a) emphatically b) 3S:
    JOEL
    a) no b) No, 3S:. I'm a real man. [Joel must be playing with Canadians these days. --Jeff]
    LYNN
    a) No. Even without an inference of short clubs, I can make a game opposite hands on which partner might not balance, so I'd act. I actually think this is a clear overcall, though it comes with no warranties against -1100.

    b) They suckered me---I'll bid 3S:, assuming partner is good enough to raise to 4S: on at least some of the right hands. If partner is a chair, you have blown the hand already and might as well pass.

    MIKE
    a) Yes. Tougher since it is matchpoints - at imps it would be clear-cut. [No kidding. This is a matchpoints problem. --Jeff] Still, opposite a passed hand, the upside potential of bidding is mitigated by the probability of getting overboard. Say I bid 2S: (double is sick) and the auction continues with LHO's bidding 3C:. Now partner is going to have to jump to 4S: too often, when I suspect that the only time we'll take that many tricks is when he has a better hand for spades than I do, in which case I'll hear about it later. [In the post-mortem? --Jeff] They won't have to double: +200 will be fine for them.

    b) 3C: is not forward going - are you sure it is "preemtive"? [They actually said, "invitational," but it's "blocking" or "preemptive" in real life, as we all know. It could be a zero-count or a ten-count. --Jeff] This is another guess. At least it seems that partner has some club shortness. Matchpoints is a pretty sick game, and I think now I could justify taking a chance on that stiff club sitting across from me and bid 3S:, but I won't.

    The downside is that I'd go for a number plenty; particularly if LHO is jobbing me with his raise or if RHO is 4-5 in the blacks, but if partner has spade help their club partscore looks like a winner for them. I can see it now, LHO is 2353 and RHO is 4315, and bidding goes for sticks and wheels. If partner really has that stiff club, he might have doubled. Or bid. Or something. The upside is limited by the vulnerability - where if either side goes down 2 it is right to pass. I'll take a chance at getting a plus score here and lead a trump.

    DAVID
    a) yes b) Partner has at most 2 clubs, so I think I will try 3S: now. Partner will know that I didn't bid 2S: earlier so he won't be likely to get too excited unless he has solid values (4 card support and a stiff club with a decent 9+ HCP).
    RIKO
    a) No, I bid 2S: b) Yes, I pass but unhappy and not too critical of those who do bid.
    ROLF
    a) yes. b) 3S: - it's pairs.
    WALTER
    a) yes b) pass. Double won't get me to 3S:, so I'll take my average minus
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    (a) yes, (b) 3S:.
    CONSENSUS
    a) Pass, b) 3S:
    VOTES
    a)Pass 9
    Other3
    b)Pass 4
    Other8
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    shrug. Typical matchpoint guess. The panel mostly did what I did, but it didn't work out.
    WINNING ACTION
    pass throughout; they are down 1 in 3C: and you can't make anything. Although...if you lead a club, they might make. The whole hand is
    S: Qx
    H: 1098xx
    D: KQ98x
    C: K
    S: J9xx
    H: x
    D: Jxxx
    C: Axxx    		 S: Kx
    H: Kxxx
    D: Ax
    C: QJ9xx
    S: A108xx
    H: AQJ
    D: 10x
    C: 10xx
    If you lead a trump, RHO is going to fly Ace; no one underleads K10x and Kxx is far less likely than 10xx. That works OK. He then plays a heart and ducks. You get to play another trump, and he may or may not get the rest of the hand right to make. So, in general, 3C: is probably down as is 3S:.

    The play in 3S: was odd. LHO led the C:A and continued clubs. I ruffed, took a heart hook, ruffed the last club, and hooked hearts again. LHO ruffed and played another club. I continued with the S:10. LHO PLAYED THE S:9 HOLDING S:J9 TIGHT.

  4. MPs, both vul

     S:2 H:K76532 D:73 C:J1032

    CHO RHO YOU LHO
    1H: 1S: 4H: 4S:
    PassPass?

    ANDY
    5H:. It seems fairly likely that the opponents can take 10 or 11 tricks and we can take 9. This is also the only way I can be sure of not making a bad opening lead.
    CURT
    5H:. They are very likely to make and 4S: rates to be a normal field action.
    ED
    5H:. Not even close. I would not consider passing 4S:.
    JOANNA
    [5H:] If partner couldn't double them, its very likely they are making. How many tricks can we take in H:? I think we are a favorite for 9, so I bid 5H:.
    JOEL
    5H:. I'm not done preempting
    LYNN
    [5H:] Anticipating this problem, I might not have bid 4H: last time. [What else? --Jeff] I'd like to know whether they think they can make 4S: before I make my decision.

    In theory, I am barred. [Not true. In fact, bidding 4H: here says, "I think I know what to do if they bid 4S: unless you have an exceptional hand, partner." You can make any number of fit bids or cue 2S: to let partner in on the decision. --Jeff] In practice, I might go for it if my table presence tells me that LHO was confident. Partner can't anticipate quite this offense to defense ratio for my 4H: bid. If they were certainly going down, I think he'd double. (Again, playing with a wimp, I might maintain discipline. The wimp might not double with four tricks outside of hearts. Even then, though, we might easily MAKE 5H:, so...).

    MIKE
    [5H:] I wouldn't have bid 4H:. Why transfer LHO to 4S: when that is just what you don't want to hear? I'd've probably tried 1NT in an effort to slow down the auction. Partner says "I don't think we can make 5H: or beat 4S:" with his pass. [More accurately, "I don't have a good reason to think we can ... " --Jeff] We are most definately not beating 4S:, or probably 5S: or 6S:. It wouldn't surprise me to go for too many at the five level and at IMPs, pass would be obvious. I'll bid here, although many things can go wrong.

    They could (very rarely) get to a slam. Partner could decide to double 5S: [when it is making]. We could go for 800. If partner doubles, when all my auction has said is "your heart ace isn't taking a trick" he'd better have them beaten in his hand. 800 is possible, but unlikely. They don't have enough trumps to make club ruffs a big threat, and unless they have 11 spades, the 6-4 shape should provide safety. If they have 11 trumps they're bidding, so its kind of irrelevant anyway. They still don't have room to bid slam, since they aren't in a force---I'll feel well and truly ravaged if they do, but its only a board. I'm aiming at a small target: 5S:-1, but it is possible.

    DAVID
    [Pass] Partner presumably knows that I don't have a good preemptive raise to 4 (we are playing that aren't we?) [No. It's not the best use of 4D: in my opinion. --Jeff], so even though I have an extra trump, I am going to respect partner's decision, (presumably he has made one). He could easily have four spades on this auction and maybe repeated heart leads will cause declarer to lose control. [The tap doesn't tend to work so well when your long suit is 1-1. --Jeff]
    RIKO
    Pass. No defense. It could be wrong.
    ROLF
    5H:. Why did I need 2 rounds to get there?
    WALTER
    5H:
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    5H:
    CONSENUS
    5H:
    VOTES
    5H:10
    Pass2
    WINNING ACTION
    pass or double. 5H: is down 1; 4S: is down 1. partner has  S:A8 H:AQJ84 D:KJ54 C:Q5. Clubs are 4-3, hearts are 1-1, and the D:Q109 are in the slot with no useful pitch coming. -200 in 5H:x is worth one matchpoint.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    5H: still seems right. It's unlikely that they can't make 4S: single dummy. When we bid 4H: the first time, we were presumably planning to bid 5H: over 4S:. Which brings us to, should we really have bid 4H: the first time? Rolf wanted to bid 5H:. I don't like that; we are never going to get to play 4H: undoubled after that start, which might be the normal result. Certainly the field will not be bidding 5H: immediately. Some play a direct 5H: as asking for spade control for slam. Does your partnership? Mike wanted to psych 1NT. That might work out. Might not. Hard to say. It'd go double, redouble, pass. If he had the guts to stick it out, he'd have a fine result at +760. I wouldn't. Lynn wouldn't have bid 4H:, either, but doesn't say what else.

    All in all, it looks like 5H: is the normal action. LHO perhaps, then was the culprit, bidding 4S: on a marginal hand. And RHO's double was tenuous at best. Perhaps she thought 4S: was bid to make, when it's really "I have no idea who can make what, so I'll just bid 4S: and see."

  5. MPs, favorable

     S:KJ H:85 D:QJ9543 C:J83

    YOU LHO CHO RHO
    PassPass1C: 1H:
    Dbl*Pass1S: 2H:
    PassPass2S: Pass
    ?

    Dbl promised some values, but denied as many as four spades.

    ANDY
    Pass. It sounds like partner has a minimal 5-6 in the black suits (what would this partner open with 5-5? [1S:. --Jeff]), and opposite such a hand 2S: should make, while no game seems appealing (especially NV at MPs).
    CURT
    Pass. I would not have doubled, but I was not invited to bid here. [I think Curt misunderstood the auction, so I'll treat it as an abstention. --Jeff]
    ED
    [3C:] I don't think partner has to have 5 spades, and I'm going to bid 3C:. I think he could have  S:AQ10x H:xx D:xx C:AK109x. I wouldn't allow 3C: after UI.
    JOANNA
    [3C:] I think partner's best hand for the bidding might be:  S:Axxxx H:--- D: xx C: AKxxxx. With a black Q or the D:K, I think the 1S: rebid is a serious mis-evaluation of the hand's playing potential. This makes both 4S: and 5C: underdogs, so the question is which black suit will produce the the biggest partscore. Although you will make 140 when clubs are 2-2 and spades 4-2 partner's worst hand might be:  S:xxxxx H: A D: K C: KQxxxx in which case spades is hopeless. So I just bid 3C:.
    JOEL
    2NT- pick a minor. I don't play 2NT to play in competitive auctions. [I like this one. If partner has D:Kx, 3D: is the place to be. --Jeff]
    LYNN
    [3C:] What does partner open with 5-5 in the blacks? [1S: --Jeff] I like plus scores at matchpoints, so I'll correct to 3C:. 3D: might play better, but it might not.
    MIKE
    [3C:] So partner forgot we are playing negative doubles. [Yup. --Jeff] Do I have system notes where I can show that we open 5-5's in the blacks 1S:? [Yup. --Jeff] If he didn't alert and I can't document system I pretty much have to pass. Maybe the 4-2 is the right spot. [Nope. --Jeff] If we do have system notes, then I'll bid 3C:. In reality, what I'm supposed to hear is partner saying "I've got a good hand, probably 4-3-1-5 or possibly 4-3-0-6 with roughly the values of a strong NT." Diamonds are out. My hand is garbage. Time to sign off.
    DAVID
    [3C:] Partner appears to have around 10 cards in the blacks. He might just have a nice 6-4 hand and be looking for a 4-3 fit at the two level. I am going to bid 3C: and worry about what to do if 3H: comes around to me later.
    RIKO
    Pass. We may have a game.
    ROLF
    [Pass] Partner is 5-5 in blacks with a weak hand. How good are his intermediates in S: Well he could have Xed with a bad suit - I pass. But if partner guarantees 6C: then 3C: is your bid.
    WALTER
    3S:
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    3C:, after a protracted huddle for reasons that are not too surprising.
    CONSENSUS
    3C:
    VOTES
    Pass2.5
    3C:6.5
    2NT1
    3S:1
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    3C: is surely right, but...
    WINNING ACTION
    none
    THE STORY
    Of course, CHO forgot that double denied four spades and was 4315. The real issue is, "is passing 2S: a logical alternative to bidding 3C:." I think the answer is "not if you think about it, but off-the-cuff it probably is."

    Two good players, asked what they would do without UI at the tournament said they'd pass. One changed his mind after thinking about it, which I think hits the nail on the head.

    What does that mean? With UI that suggests 3C: over passing, one may only choose 3C: if 2S: is not a logical alternative (LA). It would have been one if I hadn't been forced to think long and hard about the decision. Given the vote above, it's right near the borderline, even with the current definition of LA. Once I was forced to think about it, however, it seems to me that bidding is clear-cut. Trying for the higher-scoring partial just is against the odds; you need too much good stuff to happen even if partner has the right hand. If he doesn't have the S:A, it is almost certainly awful to play spades. If he does, you'll need 3-3 spades a lot. And since I think he could have four spades, playing a possible 4-2 can't be right. Upon lots of further reflection, I think it's in my best interest to pass 2S:. It's very close as to whether 3C: would be allowed with the UI. So, if I bid 3C, I have two ways to lose. It could be an awful spot; we might be in a 3-3 fit, or I could lose my tolerable result in committee. If I pass 2S:, they might bid 3H:. (They won't. They might well double. Then I'll be allowed to run as I know we are in at most a 5-2 fit breaking badly.)

    In practice, 2S: was down 4 (partner held  S:108xx H:Kxx D:x C:AQxxx) but 3C: was only down 3. Since they were making 4 or 5H:, but not bidding game, the difference was large. Yes, I know partner doesn't have an opening bid nor a 2S: bid. (Take the win on the board---it's surely their hand, and they might have well missed a game.) Still, I was the one with the brutal problem.

  6. MPs, none vul

     S:J873 H:Q4 D:A765 C:J83

    Partner You
    1C: 1S:
    2H: ?

    What's your plan?

    ANDY
    Start with 3C:. In theory, we have the values for game, though finding one that makes is non-trivial. Over 3D:, I'll try 3H:; over 3H:, 4D:; over 3S:, 3NT. (Not really happy with any of these)
    CURT
    3C: natural and GF. Bid hearts cheaply next. Non-problem.
    ED
    3C:, force to game. I have a marginal game acceptance. I think this is very close at matchpoints.
    JOANNA
    3C: for now, showing not a negative.
    If partner rebids 3D: or 3S:, I just bid 4C:.
    If partner rebids 3H:, then I bid 4D:.
    If partner bids 3NT, then I pass.
    JOEL
    I'll bid 3C:, forcing. I play 2NT relay to 3C: for weak hands. If partner bids 3S: over that, I'll bid 4C:. If partner bids 3D:, I'll bid 4C:; if partner bids 3H:, I'll bid 3NT (since I play 3H: is either 5 hearts or a cue bid).
    LYNN
    I'll bid 3C:, then bid 3NT over partner's next call. That seems to me to suggest the right degree of reluctance to bid NT. Is this really a problem?
    MIKE
    3C:. I'll bid 3NT next. Lebensohl then 3NT is possible, but with three cover cards for clubs, I'd rather raise that suit on the way to game.
    DAVID
    I think the best plan is to bid 3C: (I am dead minimum for this action) and if partner asks, admit to having a diamond stopper later. It will probably turn out that I have a monster hand with partner's  S:x H: AKxx D: Kx C: AK10xxx or similar.
    RIKO
    2NT would be a weak hand, so I bid 3C: and raise 3D: to 4. Over 3S: I bid 4C:, and over 3NT I pass.
    ROLF
    What are my options? Playing 2NT as a sign-off, I bid 3C: natural and forcing.
    WALTER
    3C:. If partner shows spade support, I don't want to play in 3NT. Over 3D:, 3NT. Over 3H:, 4H:.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    2NT and passed 3C:.
    CONSENSUS
    3C:
    VOTES
    3C:11
    2NT1
    WINNING ACTION
    get to 3NT; it's cold vs.  S:10xx H:AJ10x D:K C:AKQxx.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    I'm a wimp. 3C:, then 3NT. I still think it's closer than the panel's result shows. Plus scores at matchpoints are valuable. Not this one. +130 was a zero.
  7. MPs, both vul

    S: Q532
    H: 104
    D: AK98542
    C: ----
    S: A
    H: AKQJ8753
    D: ---
    C: 9852

    North East South West
    1D: Pass 2H: Pass
    3D: Pass 3H: Pass
    4H: Pass 4S: Pass
    5C: Dbl Pass Pass
    5D: Pass 5S: Pass
    6D: Pass 7NT Dbl
    All Pass

    Clubs broke: -1400.

    Apportion the blame between North and South for this debacle of more than fleeting magnitude.

    ANDY
    100% to south. It might help to know their cuebidding style (i.e. is it normal to cuebid the club void), but the key point is that even if north has the club ace that south is assuming, there are only 12 tricks in NT.
    CURT
    As usual, this is a tale of 2 auctions: part I) 1D:-2H:; 3D:-3H:; 4H:-4S: - Nothing wrong here. Not opening at MPs, or preempting, would be silly. Over 2H:, North cannot bid spades (the usual rule is something like 2 of the top 5 with 1 of the top 2 to bid a new suit). Over 3H:, North can see that his diamonds may be difficult to establish and enjoy since he probably lacks a side suit entry.

    part II) 5C:-x-p-p-5D: - okay, now we have a problem. Why didn't North redouble showing first round control? 5D: must imply tolerance for slam opposite no club control, so North's control must be shortness, or the ace. That said, South's 5S: seems reasonable. But for North to bid 6D: is above and beyond. North doesn't have a huge number of tricks for South, so a grand slam invitation does not seem justified. On the other hand, this indiscretion was heavily punished by partner. 7NT assumed that the club control was the ace (seems ambitious) and also that the dummy would have 4 tricks (D:AKQ or D:AK and S:QK with an unblock play). The latter assumption is odds on in light of the 6D: call but doesn't seem to be certain. Also, 7NT assumed that 7H: making would not get most of the matchpoints, which I think is a worse error than assuming that partner would have 4 tricks. South also might work out that with a club void and solid diamonds and a spade card, North could take over the auction.

    On the whole, I would assess 2 blame points to north for 6D: and 1 for the non-xx of 5C:. I would assess 4 blame points for 7NT to south since it is an error in so many ways. Thus, south gets 4/7ths of the blame - 57%.

    ED
    I would probably have passed the north hand. This hand was perfectly fine until South bid 7NT. I think that South should have bid 7H:. Hmmm...I see why South bid 7NT.
    JOANNA
    99% South. 1% North (for choosing to play with South). South was rather presumptive in thinking North had shown the Ace of clubs when North had the opportunity to bid KC over 4S: but chose not too. Not always, but often the sign of a void.
    JOEL
    North- .5%, South- 99.5% I would have personally made all of north's calls, the only call in question at all was 4H:..maybe 5C: or 4C: instead...now let's move over to South's calls...auction was fine up until 5D:...now the right bid is 5NT, not 5S:. 5NT would say that South has extras, but no convenient way of showing them (i.e., extras in hearts); over that 6D: would be a good bid. Next, 6H: should be bid because South has no diamond support and only extras in hearts. Over that North should pass. 7H: goes down on a trump lead, so I'm assuming this is satisfactory to everyone involved.
    LYNN
    I have an agreement that we always bid high card controls before shortness controls, so North has to take a lot of the blame--maybe 40%. Still, South was awfully greedy. Exactly which 13 tricks could he count in NT? It's not as if the whole field is bound to bid 7H:. He gets at least 60% of the blame.
    MIKE
    Interesting. If I was playing with Jeff Goldsmith or JoAnna Stansby, I'd say 100% South. North denied the club ace or king with 3D: [Nope. The Jeff-Mike agreement is actually KQx or better for anything other than the first step. Note that this applies to 3D:, too, and was in force on the actual hand. --Jeff], therefore 5C: was a void. I don't see 13 tricks in hearts on a trump lead, and against people with a pulse, there isn't even a good pseudosqueeze. Playing with people who don't understand jump shifts (98% of the bridge population) I'd have to readjust the blame percentages.

    1D:, agressive, but correct.
    2H: - 3D: - 3H: -all normal.
    4H: - I have a bad raise to 4H: (partner set hearts trump, so other suits are now cuebids. It could be argued that 3S: is looking for NT, but that isn't very practical)
    4S: - I'm looking for a club control. The five level is probably safe. Probably.
    5C: - good news, partner: I can control clubs
    (X) - Pass "I can't control the second round"
    5D: - "I do have the diamond ace and I'm still interested in slam" (xx would show second round club control, but 5D: doesn't deny it, since you are approaching the safety level (5H:) fast) [I disagree. If partner bids 5H: over 5C:xx, he's looking for the diamond control, so you can safely bid on. --Jeff]
    5S: - "I have the king of spades, too. Does that help for seven?"
    6D: - "I don't know, but I have the king of diamonds, too"
    7NT - "With you holding the D:AK and the club Ace, I can count 13 tricks"
    HUH?? It still looks like South 100%
    If partner really held heart support [If you define "support" as "at least a void, which is all North has shown in hearts. --Jeff] and the D:AK and club Ace, there is no way he would have bid only 4H:. He'd have bid 4C: on the way for sure. Besides, even if North holds those cards, there are only 12 tricks in notrump. South needs to realize that partner didn't bid 4H: holding AK-A without cuebiding first. The club void is an inescapable conclusion. Getting to 7H: would be bad, but not a disaster at MPs [It'd be worth .5 MP. --Jeff], and perhaps not so unreasonable after the opening bid.

    "Young man, did you just bid 7NT?"
       Yes, ma'am.
    "Am I on lead?"
       Yes, ma'am.
    "Then I double!"

    DAVID
    I give North at least 90% of the blame. I am not sure about the opening, not my usual style, however, I have this sort of unwritten rule (but, always discussed and I may even have it written somewhere) that the first cuebid by each side in a slam auction should be a card and not shortness, and that if the first cuebid is below game, it can be the A or K, but above game, it should always be the A.
    RIKO
    I believe neither 6D: nor 7NT should be bid, partners must know a cue bid may be a void.
    ROLF
    Hard to say - the last bid that made sense was 5C: to my mind. I don't understand 5D: - do you really want to play seven with that crap? At MPs? 6H: is your bid. 7NT is the worst bid btw. Completely insane. Blame: 30-70
    WALTER
    South 100%. 7NT won't make even if North had the D:AK and C:A. North wouldn't bid 4H: with both minor suit AKs and would have redoubled with the C:AK. South can't even count 13 tricks in 7H: and has no chance of a squeeze given the transportation problem.
    JEFF
    I have no idea, but at the table, I thought it was roughly 80% North, 20% South. Several issues were missed.
    • Once North has gone out of his way to emphasize diamonds (3D:), should two cue bids show only the AK? Given that North has already promised KQ or better (in the methods being played and mine in general), it's not clear to me that he should not have AKQ for 6D:.
    • North's failure to redouble 5C: guarantees the ace, not a void. Mike's claim about the 5H: safety level is wrong; North will be expected to bid again (6D:?) if partner signs off thinking he's off a diamond control. Look at it from another perspective: if 4S: is bid to find out about minor suit controls, North has first- and second-round control in each, so the safety level should be 6H:.
    • North's choice of 4H: does not admit to heart support. He could have a void. 3H: set trumps. 3NT could be bid on a stiff, but not a void, so a void is a real possibility. (In some auctions like this, North is able to bid 5NT, GSF, simply if partner's hearts are solid against a void.)
    • 7NT isn't as crazy as it seems. If North really has four tricks, 7NT is far better than 7H:. Imagine D:AKQ C:A. 7NT is laydown. 7H: is a distinct underdog. Once South decides to bid seven, I think 7NT is clearcut.
    VOTES
    NorthSouth
    Andy0%100%
    Curt4357
    JoAnna199
    Joel0.599.5
    Lynn40 60
    Mike0100
    David9010
    Rolf3070
    Walter0100
    Jeff8020
    Total2476
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    On the other hand, 4H: denied a great hand for hearts. With four tops (or S:KQ, D:AK, C:A), North would probably not have bid that. I think South should have bid 6NT at his last opportunity. If North has the stiff C:A and two hearts, he can consider bidding 7H: with his surprise trick. (He shouldn't, again, due to the failure to redouble.) With D:AKQ, he'll pretty much know to bid 7. So, South's 7NT is a clear error. But 6NT's maximum upside is half a matchpoint, assuming a trump lead against 7H: (likely in this case, as the opening leader has the C:A and therefore knows about the void). If they double 7H: (doubtful) or North passes 6NT, the partnership can get at most a zero.

    I'm going to stick with 80/20. There's no reason for South to guess that North has a club void. He denied it in the bidding and appears otherwise to have about a 10-count tops. Since North could have bid 2S: over 2H: to start slowing down the auction, but didn't, who would ever guess that partner has that hand? That he bid 4H: rather than cue bid could be partially based on heart shortness. After all, we know he has at least two clubs, so why should he have hearts? Normally, I think that the 6D: cue is almost forced (assuming he's not already shown diamonds this good) but when you open a 9-count, it's generally wrong to cooperate with grand-slam tries. Getting to the small slam is usually enough to win the board; you are in a position the field (or opponents) are not in. It was: +1430 was a near top. In fact, given that last argument, I think that North's 6D: was actually the worst call, although there are strong reasons to excoriate 7NT and 5D:. South might still bid 6NT, but probably won't, figuring that dummy might show up with a doubleton club.

    Of course, I was South. Oh, well.

  8. MPs, unfavorable

    S: J1063
    H: K9642
    D: ---
    C: K1064
    S: Q97
    H: J
    D: Q987652
    C: J9

    PartnerDeclarerYou Dummy
    1S: 2H: 2S: 4H:
    All Pass

    You lead the S:Q-3-4-5.
    Signals are standard.
    Over to you.

    JOEL (AND CURT SIMILARLY)
    Partner's S:4 is suit preference. I can assume with the C:AQ, he would have given me the 2, so he doesn't have that. I'll shift to the C:9 in case my partner has something resembling:  S:AK8xx H:A D:Kxx C:Q8xx. If I simply return any other suit, an ensuing black suit squeeze will operate. It's a guess as to whether partner has that or  S:AK8xx H:A D:Kxxx C:Qxx. But I'm guessing that he's more likely to have 4 clubs with 6 clubs between myself and dummy than 4 diamonds with 7 diamonds between myself and dummy.
    ED
    The S:Q lead was kind of a stroke of genius. [Thank you. Maybe next time, partner will play the C:2 and hold C:AQ. --Jeff]
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    Trump.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    A club seems best for the reasons above.
    WINNING ACTION
    club
    S: J1063
    H: K9642
    D: ---
    C: K1064
    S: Q97
    H: J
    D: Q987652
    C: J9    		 S: AK842
    H: 7
    D: K43
    C: Q873
    S: 5
    H: AQ10853
    D: AJ10
    C: A52
    On any other shift, declarer can ruff two diamonds and two spades and squeeze partner in the black suits. -480 was a zero. -450 was an average. Tough day.
  9. IMPs, short matches, each team needs a blitz to do anything, E/W vul:

    S: xx
    H: Jx
    D: K1098xx
    C: Q10x
    S: AJ10
    H: 9xx
    D: Jxx
    C: Jxxx    		 S: KQ9x
    H: AK10
    D: Qxx
    C: Kxx
    S: xxxx
    H: Qxxxx
    D: A
    C: Axx

    SouthWestNorthEast
    1NT Pass3D: Pass
    3H: All Pass

    1NT was 10-12 systemically, but not announced. If 1NT was strong, 3D: was natural invitational; if 1NT was weak, it was either shortness in hearts with a long suit and a strong hand, or desire to play 3H:. South is expected to bid 3NT with H:KQx (or so) and 3H: otherwise. Followups are: pass with hearts, 3NT with a stiff heart and a long minor (so that South can pass with something like the actual hand, although 3NT initially is reasonable anyway), or the suit in question with a void heart.

    1NT was not announced. 3D: was alerted. East asked; South explained the agreement as it would be over a 10-12 NT and also explained that it would be natural, invitational over a strong NT. 3H: wasn't alerted (it should have been). East called the director when North passed. East eventually passed. South immediately re-called the director and explained the announcement failure and the systemic agreements in each case.

    3H: was played out, down 3, -150 N/S.

    How do you rule? Be careful, this may be a little trickier than it looks.

    It's tough to edit the 500 lines of response, but I'll try to summarize.

    There are two issues: (1) Misinformation (MI), and (2) Unauthorized Information (UI).

    Misinformation turns out to be pretty much irrelevant. The system over weak NTs was as described; only the failure to announce 1NT's range was an error. I don't see how (a) East didn't know that after the pass of 3H, and (b) how it mattered otherwise, so we are left with the UI issues. They are not trivial.

    North has UI about his mistaking the vulnerability upon hearing the explanation of 3D:. He's in trouble now, but what exactly should happen thereafter? Let's do the rest of the auction.

    CURT
    Most expert panelists would probably say that 3M was an accept that offered an alternative contract. Since if even more than epsilon percent of panelists said such a thing (the criterion keeps changing, damnit) north cannot pass with this hand. I assume that south alerted 3D:, thereby "waking up" north. So north is constrained, and must bid 3NT.
    ED
    I would not allow the auction to stop at 3H:.
    LYNN
    If partner bids 3H: over an invitational bid in diamonds (pretty damn aggressive invitation, IMO--weak suit, no side entries) [I think you give it too much credit. --Jeff], isn't that forcing? Isn't North supposed to bid 3NT, or raise hearts, or retreat to 4D:?
    MIKE
    I could only understand 3H: to mean "I have a terrific hand for diamonds, something good in hearts, but not really appropriate for 3NT. Maybe we can make 5D: or 3NT - let me know, otherwise bid 4D:" North, holding mediocre diamonds and no spade control can picture something like  S:(k)x H: AKQx D: Axxxx C: (k)x with one of the black kings. That makes 3NT a bad bet - that neither black suit will run - but 4D: a pretty good bet, and that seems indicated.
    WALTER
    What would the 3H: bid have meant if 1NT was strong? Would it show a 5 card suit and express doubt about 3NT?
    JEFF
    I think 3H: should show an acceptance of the diamond invite, but a lack of a spade stop, say,  S:xxx H:AQx D:AQx C:KJxx. Mike's "terrific hand for diamonds" could be there, but I don't think we are forced past 4D:, unless someone has extras or spade shortness. Place the above hand opposite  S:xx H:Kxx D:KJ10xxx C:xx and 4D: is quite high enough.

    Clearly, there is no uniformity of opinion about 3H:. Some might even say that it is a strange enough bid that North can wake up and realize what's going on. I don't think so; I think that if there is a reasonable meaning, North has to take it as such and has to continue bidding "normally."

    Given that 3H: isn't an automatic wake-up (Call #1), North is faced with the presense of UI. He is not allowed to choose from among logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested over another by the UI. Great. What are his logical alternatives? I think that depends somewhat on what 3H: means. To some degree, the choices seem to be 3NT and 4D:. There's really not much else to do. One of those is reasonable depending on your understanding of 3H:. Curt assumes 3NT; Mike and Ed assume 4D:; Walter "bets" that a committee would force 4D:. Let's trace each of these.

    If North bids 3NT, East will double. South will happily pass and North will run to 4D:. North knows he has garbage; finding out that East has a diamond trick despite South's acceptance is not surprising. East will double or pass 4D: and that will end the auction. Hmmm...on further reflection, I'm not so sure that East will double 3NT. What if he passes? West will probably lead a club, 10, small. Looks to me like South will be held to very few tricks, possibly as few as five. That's -200. But I don't think North will often bid 3NT.

    If North bids 4D:, that shows a heart void, game forcing values, and diamonds the longest suit in the hand. It could be 4054. Ed says South should bid 4S:; North would bid 5D: and East will pass or double.

    I think 4D: is the more likely choice and it's less favorable to N/S, so we must choose it. When choosing an adjusted score, we are instructed (by Law 12C2) to choose for the offending side (OS) the least favorable result "at all probable", and for the non-offending side (NOS), the most favorable "probable" result. We surely deem 4D: at least probable, so we take that route and the auction becomes
    South North
    1NT 3D:
    3H: 4D:
    4S: 5D:
    (End of Call #2).

    Call #3. Now we come to East's final choice. Does he double 5D: or pass? Given that North has announced a lot of diamonds (7 or 8 probably), a good hand and a heart void, if he is to take that bidding at face value, doubling is pretty wrong. If he has reason to believe (perhaps because he holds a 17-count?) that something is amiss, he may choose to double.

    ED
    I have no idea whether East should double.
    MIKE
    East, finally, gets into the act now.
    WALTER
    I vote for the a score based upon 5D: undoubled. If East couldn't double a 3H: preempt by North he/she wouldn't double a strong North with a heart void in 5D:.
    JEFF
    I think East will not double. He's not entitled to know about the misunderstanding, so he'd be doubling with zero defensive tricks and giving away his trump Queen, which may well jeopardize the beat. He may give enough information away to get himself squeezed if he doubles. There's no reason to believe they'll go down more than one, either, so doubling is pretty much betting on a bidding misunderstanding. It's important to note that he doesn't have that information available in most UI cases, so hypothetical auctions without MI do not necessarily give the NOS a bonanza, since they don't know that the wheels have come off. If they work it out at the table and use it effectively, they of course get to keep their good result, but we don't give them benefit of that knowledge when offering redress.

    This is probably the hardest call of all. I don't know the answer, and neither does the rest of the panel. I'm going to guess that East's double is "at all probable" but not "probable." In that case, we decide the final contract as 5D:x for N/S and 5D: for E/W

    Call #4. What's the final result? This isn't trivial, either. N/S will take somewhere between 7 and 9 tricks in diamonds. Mike is the only one to address this issue.

    MIKE
    the damage looks to be 800.
    Fortunately, we have some help here. We know the actual play. South guessed clubs late in the day and made 6 tricks at hearts, losing 4S:, 2H: and 1C:. We are not only allowed, but expected to use the table result when possible. Here, we can let N/S guess clubs. So, they will lose at least 2S:, 2H: and 1D:. The question remains, will West shift to a club early enough to let E/W get two club tricks? Given that E/W are a flight A pair, but not a good one, nor a regular partnership, and given that they have absolutely no (accurate) information about the closed hand, and that the false information they have suggests avoiding clubs, my guess is that it's very unlikely they will get this right. Normal defense should take five tricks. Is it at all probable that they will take six? This is a tough call; surely E/W get down 3, but do we give N/S down four? I'm not sure, but since we allowed East to double, I'd go the other way here and give them down only three. That mean the final result is
    N/S: 5D:x -3 -500
    E/W: 5D: -3 +150
    It would not be an error for the committee to award down four.

    Call #5. North blatantly took advantage of UI. That's not allowed. North was an experienced Flight A player. Those people need to be told they can't do that. What should we do?

    ED
    I have no idea what punishment to apply.
    LYNN
    So, I'd refer the matter to a conduct and ethics committee. I would also give North-South a "procedural penalty" for obviously taking advantage of the alert system. (And I believe in procedural penalties less than almost anyone. I think almost all people take advantage of UI subconsciously, and I think committees should not focus on punishing them, but on redressing damage. This one was too blatant for that, though.)
    DAVID
    I think that on top of whatever else happens, North/South should get a 3 IMP procedural penalty.

    Fortunately, I have some experience with this. Lynn's choice is far too severe. This sort of thing happens fairly often, and we just can't do C&E every time, even if we wanted to. And we don't want to. North's action was bad, but would we want even to consider suspending him for it? Of course not. But we want him to think about his responsibilities next time. So some sort of "punishment" is called for. Note that the score adjustment is designed to provide redress for the NOS and to maintain the correct score for the OS in a multiple-contestant event---that's not a punishment (although -800 on a partscore hand might feel like one). No matter what we rule, I think a small procedural penalty (PP) is due to N/S. How big is pretty much up to experience; in this case, I'd make it 1 VP. That's consistent with others I've seen; this isn't all that much more egregious than most of these cases.

    This was a tough ruling. The directors had no idea what to do. I suggested that on first glance a normal result was 4D:x-300 and tried to talk them into that. It was the last hand, however, and E/W didn't want to wait for a ruling, so East said, "I don't think I'd double and +150 is better, so I'm taking that and going home." Literally. He left to compare, the director shrugged, and so it was. The match was a blitz, so only one VP was at stake at most. But it's a hard enough ruling that I was curious.

    It also inspired three questions from the panel.

    LYNN
    Question: If people who play 10-12 NT are not allowed to open one with 9 HCP and a five-card suit, why are they allowed to bid it with 4-5-1-3 shape? As an opponent, I think the partner's advantage in knowing what odd shapes might be possible is much greater than the advantage of knowing he might be a point or so light.

    I agree with you. It doesn't make sense. But that's because the prohibition against opening 1NT with 9 HCP doesn't make sense. To the best of my understanding, the prohibition was a political coup that the ACBL jammed down the throats of the WBF Laws Commission. Personalities appear to be involved. Someday, the ACBL will no longer have to deal with the politics in question and the 9-point law will probably go away.

    Two asked in general: "North has UI. Sometimes the choices are not so clear. What should I, if I'm in the position North is, do?" The rules are express on this topic, so here are the steps:

    1. Figure out all logical alternatives (LAs). Those are actions that your peers would seriously consider. Nowadays, committees are not going overboard on this; just thinking about something briefly isn't "seriously considering" it. Some players would really have to do it or at least guess not to do it.
    2. Figure out which among those choices is suggested by the UI. The rules changed recently here; a choice really needs to be suggested over others, not just maybe might be better. There has to be a reason why, in this case for example, passing 3H: is likely to be more successful than bidding 4D:. This time, the reason is "to avoid reaching 5D:x."
    3. Pick one of the LAs not in the group suggested by UI.
    4. If you are considering a strange action, one not normally considered a logical alternative, you may not base your action in any way on the UI. If any reasonable connection can be found (for example, you see that all LAs are going to get you 800, so you might try a psych), you will not keep any resulting good result.

    Phew. This was long, even after editing down lots of input from the panel. --Jeff

    Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@gg.caltech.edu, July 13, 2000