Not Those Clubs Again...

1. Both red

    x KQ9xx J109xx xx

   Partner	You
   1	1NT
   2	?

   ---

   CHRIS

   2. This one seems easy, as hearts is better for both partscore and game purposes.

   MIKE

   Most people on this panel play some form of Bart (I know you don't think it is called Bart, but Stayman didn't invent that convention...and Les Bart did take credit for Bart when last I played him). If not playing Bart, I bid 2, where the upside is greater. If I am, then 2.

   [Oh, I know it IS called "Bart," but I'm not convinced that it OUGHT to be called "Bart." I did a little research on the convention once. The earliest written note of it I could find was in the 60s. It was then attributed to Bobby Lipsitz. I'm pretty confident, however, that Les Bart is responsible for the idea that if one is playing 2 artificial here that it might be profitable to rebid 2 on 5332 in order to use the gadget. In any case, there are several versions of the convention, and all are called Bart these days. I call the 2 bid without the effect on 2 "the 2 gadget" so that there is no presumption that 2 can be based on a doubleton without further discussion. There is danger that some will assume that otherwise. --Jeff]

   LEN

   2. If we belong in a partscore, I have to guess a red suit. If we belong in game it will be in hearts, most likely. With  Axxxx AJx x AKxx he might pass 2 but raise 2.

   FLOYD

   2

   DAVIDC

   2. I'm not a fan of Bart anyway.

   BARRY

   2 (or 2 if playing Bart). Might as well try to get to a better spot than a 3-2 club fit.

   DAVIDW

   2. My partner has  Axxxx Axx x AKxx. Even if he's dumb enough to have  Axxxx x Axx AKxx, I can make 2. Dare he have less?

   JOSH

   2. The version of Bart that I prefer deals with this hand well. I reverse the normal conventional meanings of 2 and 2 essentially, so 2 begins absolute signoffs in hearts as well as the non-heart hand types, whereas 2 shows 5 (or 6 bad) hearts with another place to play, nominally 25 in the majors, but could be x5x4 or x55x. Bidding 2 in that sense with an eye on running to 3 if partner doesn't pass seems ideal, not perfect I admit (he could be a weak 6115 or something) but I like the odds, and you get somewhere reasonable when he is on everyday 5(13)4 hands. In any case, vul at IMPs, there is surely no bid but 2. There aren't many hands that make game opposite this, but the ones that do are in hearts, not diamonds. 2 also leaves room to bid 3 if partner continues 2NT, though it's debatable whether or not you should. I would.

   JJ

   2 assuming Bart, It looks as though my choices are pass, 2, 2, 2 and all of them might work out on a given hand. However, if 2 is Bart, it looks as though I might well be able to bid 2 and pass the response and land on my feet a fair amount of time. I'll try 2 if that's what it means, otherwise I'll try 2.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   2

   WINNING ACTION

   2. Partner held  K109xx — Kxx KQ109x. Over my 2, partner bid 3 (?), and, luckily for us, no one doubled.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes 2 Bart 3 2 6 2 Reverse Bart 1

   I'd've bid 2 if it were artificial, too, so this is more or less a 50/50 vote despite this' being the worst problem of the set.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   At first, I thought this was going to be a bad problem; I was expecting folks to talk about their 2 gadget methods and whether they were willing to bid 3 somehow, and it turned out that they didn't do that.

   After getting a bunch of answers, though, I see that about half would use some version of Bart, and half would bid 2.

   Partner thought bidding 2 natural was the right choice. I think that's wrong, but not for the same reason as most of the panel. They mostly think about the upside of 2, reaching game. That's wildly optimistic. If we had  x KQ10xx KJ10xx xx, then it makes plenty of sense to think about game, but this is a six-count. If we can make game, partner will definitely bid again no matter what we do. Much more likely is that we are in deep doo-doo and our goal is to get the smallest minus possible. The reason I like 2 is that I have a stopper. My plan is to try to score my low trumps by ruffing; in 2, the bad guys will be able to draw three rounds of trump. In 2, they'll be able to draw fewer, possibly none without giving me a trick. Imagine that partner has either  AKxxx x xx Axxxx or  Axxxx xx x AKxxx and I pick the "wrong" red suit. 2 rates to survive; 2 is getting mutilated.

   ---

2. favorable

    AKJ Axxx Axxx Qx

   RHO	You	LHO	CHO
   Pass	1	1	5
   6!	?

   If you double, 6x becomes the final contract. Find a lead.

   ---

   CHRIS

   A. Looks like I may be able to give partner a few ruffs. Who knows? Declarer could be double void with this the only lead to go plus. Or, I may be able to shift to a spade and find out for sure if partner is ruffing the second round of hearts.

   MIKE

   Sounds like RHO was walking the dog with some sort of gangsploid hand. Can he be void in spades? Partner could certainly be 5-7 in the pointies, but even then LHO would have to have a five card spade suit. I really don't know what is going on, but I think I'd double and lead a high spade. Pass isn't forcing, so what else is there?

   LEN

   Double. K.

   FLOYD

   I double and lead ... a trump. The only explanation I can think of for RHO's bid is that he has diamond length and is visualizing ruffs in dummy — something like  — Kx xxx Axxxxxxx? Hmm, maybe I shouldn't double.

   DAVIDC

   How can I not double? K

   BARRY

   Dbl — and hope to beat it. Small club — how can this be wrong — I'll find out! (Declarer is 5-7 and dummy has 1 spade?)

   DAVIDW

   After checking the backs, I would double. I lead my low club.

   JOSH

   Abstain, I know the hand. Besides, now I want to go back and open 1 However, though I answered hastily as we were leaving the tournament, the double and club lead are totally clear after any sort of thought about the hand (where are your tricks going?) The only question is which club to lead, and I think the Q is more likely to be right than wrong, assuming it matters at all.

   JJ

   Double and lead K I'll bite. Who is the joker that bid 6? I'd like to be there at the table for this one. If this is being given as a problem, doubling and leading the K may not have worked out well. It's probably the most normal action though. What a sequence!?!?!?

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   wasn't there. Partner doubled and led a high spade. I was so surprised that partner didn't lead a trump, I had to yank back my wrist, as I pulled out my trump without noticing for a second that he had not led one.

   CONSENSUS

   Everyone doubles, of course.

   Action Votes A 1 x 4 K 4

   WINNING ACTION

   double and lead trump. (Isn't it always? Long ago, in a Spingold match against Mark Jacobus, at our table, the winning action on a huge number of hands was to double and lead trump. (Maybe we bid too much. Nah!) Mark found these actions consistently. Since then, I've called doubling and leading trump "The Jacobus Convention.")

   The whole hand was

   	x KQJ109xx Qx Kxx
   AKJ Axxx Axxx Qx		10xx xx KJ10xxx x
   	Qxxxxx — — AJ10xxxx

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   This isn't a judgment problem, but a puzzle problem. The trump lead is clear cut once you think of it, but most players won't. The reasoning is straightforward. RHO has announced a freak hand. We don't know what kind of freak (either a black two-suiter or long clubs with side spades seems most likely, but we can't be sure) but against freaks, it's usually right to lead trump. Also, our tricks are aces. Where are they going? If they don't get ruffed, we'll take them eventually. So lead a trump, reducing the chance that our aces will be ruffed in dummy.

   An interesting question is "which trump?" If the clubs are 2038 around the table with partner's having Jxx or K10x, leading the Q is right. If they are 2227 and partner has Jx, leading low may generate a trump trick out of nowhere. Neither of those seem real likely. It is possible that partner has stiff king (also unlikely), so leading low has two ways to win. All in all, I think the small trump is a big favorite over the queen, so that's my choice.

   ---

3. Both vul (Maybe YOU are Bulcon?)

    K9xx J10xxx AJ10x —

   CHO	RHO	You	LHO
   1	2	Dbl	2
   Pass	2	3	5
   Pass	Pass	Pass

   What do you lead?

   ---

   CHRIS

   Low heart. Unwilling to underlead in diamonds for a trump play, but the diamond ace might burn our transportation or set up a trick for declarer. It seems unlikely that we need to cash the diamond ace; dummy is overwhelmingly likely to have short diamonds, so a diamond lead is probably only necessary if declarer holds 4-1-2-6 with partner holding the ace of spades, no high heart honor, and no high club.

   MIKE

   I don't get any awards for agressive bidding here. Partner couldn't double 5, so I'll let them lead instead. I bid 5. (I'd've bid 4 last time). This could go horribly wrong, but at least I won't blow a trick on opening lead. [I'm surprised that Mike was the only one to suggest that 3 was a tad pusillanimous. --Jeff]

   LEN

   A. I might try J at the table, if I felt lucky.

   FLOYD

   Not a trump. I want to lead a diamond but either the jack or the ace could blow a trick. I start with a low heart, which is unlikely to lose a trick double dummy though partner may not get it right.

   DAVIDC

   The auction screams for a trump lead. I am so tempted to underlead my A so that partner can put trump on the table but I don't have the guts so I am going to lead the pedestrian A. No, scratch that. I am leading the 2. Am I a man or a mouse?

   BARRY

   A. I'm a sucker.

   DAVIDW

   I lead a low spade, which can't blow more than a tempo. The alternative, the diamond ace, could conceivably blow both a trick and a tempo. Since partner opened, I expect to beat this if I do no more than one bad thing with my lead.

   JOSH

   A. I considered the low diamond so we can get a trump on the table pronto, but think I have no reason to be confident enough in this contract making to justify such a risk. A heart takes too big of a chance of our diamond(s) going away.

   JJ

   I admit that I would have avoided leading by biding 5. That must be way off on the actual layout because it wasn't given as a choice, but it looks what I would do. Given that I pass, I think the best lead is probably the 10. It looks as though pard will need to lead trumps and underleading the A may be the best way to get him in. I think the 10 will get pard to go right more often than the J will.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   wasn't there. Partner led his small heart. I'd've led the 10. I'm with Mike on the bidding; I'd've bid 4, not 3. Having done so, I'd pass 5. Here, I have no idea whether to bid 5 or pass 5.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes A 3 Lower 3 x 2 x 1 Bid 5 2

   WINNING ACTION

   Very likely the J, probably a smaller diamond, possibly the A, no chance anything else. The whole layout:

   	x AKQxx xxx QJ108
   K9xx J10xxx AJ10x —		A10x xx KQxxx Kxx
   	QJ8xx x x A97xxx

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I think the right lead is the 10, more or less for JJ's reasons. I want partner to overtake and play trumps. He might not overtake the J, but he'll have no choice if I lead the 10.

   The low diamond lead works on this hand for a strange reason. Partner wins and probably plays another diamond (all that work for nothing!) Declarer crosses to the A and plays a spade. Partner ducks (I was ready) and the Q loses to the K. We exit with something and declarer ruffs a spade in dummy. When my 10 falls, declarer has a guess whether I have 109x or A10x. I've "shown up" with AKQ and the K by now, so if I had the A, I'd have 16 HCP balanced and would have opened 1NT. That opening leader didn't lead a spade isn't a big clue; after all, declarer bid them. Leading our suit is normal. If declarer misguesses spades, he'll go down one. Some might think that it's awfully ingenuous for declarer to believe that RHO is showing him the AKQ for free, but without any plan, not everyone would lie to partner to fool declarer. And even tricky players don't always falsecard. I'm not Papa!

   The reason a middle diamond is more likely to work than the small one is that on a couple rounds of trumps or diamonds at some point we are going to have to discard a diamond or two. If we lead the small diamond and discard or play the jack and ten, declarer might wonder. If we lead the jack and play or discard the 10 and the small one, everything looks normal. Even the 10 lead followed by the other two small ones makes sense when we show out of trumps, though there's more of presumption that once I've done something odd, maybe I have underled an ace. Fortunately, I don't play jack denies leads!

   ---

4. unfavorable (wrong void this time)

    KQJ98xx AKxxx — x

   RHO	You	LHO	CHO
   1	2	Dbl	2
   3	4	6	Pass
   Pass	?

   2 showed the majors. They have no idea what Dbl meant.

   a) do you agree with your bidding so far?
   

   ---

   CHRIS

   Auction looks fine to this point.

   MIKE

   Bidding is fine.

   LEN

   Sure.

   FLOYD

   No. What's the point of showing majors if I'm going to shut out hearts on the next round? I should have overcalled 1, or bid 2 then 3. [Floyd thinks 3 here is forcing. I'm not convinced. It'd be nice if it were. If it had been a jump (say if RHO hadn't bid 3), then it would be. Which would have been perfect. --Jeff]

   DAVIDC

   No. Catch partner with x, xx in the majors and you sure don't want to play hearts. You have spades. [Overcall 1.]

   BARRY

   Bidding OK.

   DAVIDW

   I don't much like my bidding. I would have started with 1, hoping to hear something voluntary from partner along the road.

   JOSH

   The bidding is OK, though the auction has been a bit unlucky. If the opponents had been just a little less pesky you would have had easy continuations to bid this hand scientifically.

   JJ

   No, I prefer 1 to 2, I like the knowledge I get from starting hands like this slowly. (Yes, once I have heard it go all pass when I tried a minimum overcall on a hand like this, but once over 30 years isn't much). [I like the knowledge that partner gets when I describe my hand and involve him in the final decision better than just listening. --Jeff]

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   That's how I bid it, and I like it.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes 1 4 2 6

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I think this one is clear cut, too, though the 1 bidders feel more strongly than the 2 bidders. The issue on the hand is one of showing vs. listening. Since I think I can show my hand pretty well via 2 followed by 4, getting partner involved is a good thing. I was really hoping that I could jump to 3 after a 2 preference; I think that's forcing. (Partner'd pass anyway with  xx xx xxxx xxxxx I suspect.) On this hand, my route should have been a winner; partner should have doubled 6. I'd then lead the K and we'd have four easy tricks.

   One problem with 1 is that it is really just burying hearts. You do get to hear partner's enthusiasm for spades (imagine that he held dummy's hand, for example. See below.) which is a plus. The problem is that you'll pretty much never be able to bid hearts naturally and make it forcing. To jump to 4 overstates how much you are willing to play hearts, and there isn't a 3-bid sequence you can follow without seriously risking missing game. (You can cue bid, but that won't really help very often.) If we need to play hearts, 1 is not the way to get there. If we need partner to be involved in a high- level auction, 1 pretty much buries him, too.

   Folks who like bidding 1 I think are planning to make the decisions for their side. If partner can be trusted, getting him involved is a big plus on a hand like this. The "standard" Michaels abuse is the way to do it. It's not close.

   ---

   b) what now?
   

   ---

   CHRIS

   I can't really bid now as partner has a much better idea of my hand than I do of his. [...which is why we took this route in the first place! --Jeff]

   MIKE

   I'd pass.

   LEN

   Double.

   FLOYD

   Double, so that I can ...

   DAVIDC

   Double to alert partner.

   BARRY

   I pass.

   DAVIDW

   Now I don't know what to do. I could try to be a hero, passing and leading a low heart. Or I could try a down-the-middle lead, either a high heart or high spade. The safest thing is probably to bid 6H and make the problem someone else's. That would be my choice. I've probably described the 2-card disparity fairly well; my concern is that LHO's early double and RHO's distribution might imply we'll get bruised (if partner has something like  xx xxx Jxxxxx xx). I'm pretty confident that LHO has the A; I don't know how good partner's hearts are. The current problem is directly traceable to the Michaels bid, which left me guessing.

   JOSH

   Scary. It's tempting to take out slam insurance, but this is the wrong vulnerability for it, even if it's right I could still be going for 800 which is too small of an upside. Double is clearly out, this auction isn't forcing and I haven't the slightest reason to believe they are going down. I have shown essentially what I hold already, so there is no reason to do anything.

   JJ

   abstain — I really need to be at the table for this one. I might defend, and I might bid. My batting average at the table in these types of auctions is much, much higher than guesses without being there. I'd be much more likely to bid, but I might defend also. Having bid 1, I might get a much better feel for how confident the opps are.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   Pass

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes Pass 5 Double 3 6 1

   WINNING ACTION

   Double

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   Passing still seems right. I've shown my hand. To double is to accuse either partner or LHO of losing contact with the auction. This time it was both, but there's no reason to expect that.

   ---

   c) if you pass or double, what do you lead?

   ---

   CHRIS

   I won't gamble with an underlead in a preempted auction against opponents who may be having an accident. K.

   MIKE

   I lead the K. Spades can't really be 2-2-2 around the table. A low heart is silly.

   LEN

   K.

   FLOYD

   lead a non-systemic low heart, just like in the movies.

   DAVIDC

   Having underled once already, I need to know if it worked. If it did, then I will do it again. If it didn't then I am leading the K. [We don't know for sure, but suspect it'd work. --Jeff]

   BARRY

   A. More ways for a spade to be wrong... I think. And a low heart is for superheroes.

   JOSH

   Heart king, asking for count. I don't try the low heart lead on these any more unless I'm sure it's the only chance. To find out why, http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2002summer/db9.pdf, page 4 "Whistles and Bells Started Ringing". I know we have all been there, but we haven't all had articles written about it.

   JJ

   The mundane K.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   small heart

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes honor 7 Small 3

   WINNING ACTION

   K. The whole hand was

   	A10xx Qxxx 10 AJ10x
   KQJ98xx AKxxx — x		— J10xx Qxxxxx Kxx
   	xx — AKJxxx Q98xx

   I don't know the dispostion of the diamond spots. In practice, declarer went down three on my small heart lead. It didn't occur to declarer to put up the Q. Partner put in the ten (bastard! Norman Kay would play the jack so that I'd know my underlead didn't blow a trick that much earlier), but declarer ruffed it. She didn't judge her way well after that.

   The K lead leads to four obvious tricks.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   OK, the K it is. The opponents haven't had an intelligent auction to 6. In particular, it's likely that dummy does not have heart control, so we might well be cashing two hearts. The underlead is unnecessarily aggressive. That the high heart gets ruffed is a big surprise; partner won't have four hearts very often and bid only 2.

   The actual result has nothing to do with the problem. Partner's 2 bid was quite strange, and his failure to double 6 was absurd. So that the winning lead and the likely best lead aren't the same is not surprising.

   I wasn't really considering that anyone would lead the K. I was wondering how many would underlead the AK. I almost never underlead aces, and here are two hands in one day on which I'd seriously consider it. On the third lead problem, I'd lead a low trump from Qx! Maybe I'm trying to be too clever as I get older!

   ---