Problems from the Culver City Sectional '95: Answers
All at matchpoints, playing 12-14 NTs, Flannery,
generally standard methods otherwise.
I need to apologize to someone who will never know it,
but several of these problems were partner's. Sorry, pard.
Today's panelists: Ed Davis,
Mike Shuster,
David Milton,
Roberto Scaramuzzi,
Rolf Kühn,
Curt Hastings,
me.
- Favorable, you hold
KJ94 7 Q32 K9876
1 showed five+ spades. Do you?
- Mike
- No. This hand is too good for 1.
Id've opted for the 1NT forcing 2NT route.
[I do not understand this. --J]
- Jeff
- Yea, verily. After 1-1NT; 2, I have
no good option. After 1-1; 1NT, I have
an easy pass. After 1-1; 2, at least
I get a choice.
2 was what you were trying to avoid...
Now what?
- Ed
- Slight preference for 2N over pass
- Mike
- 2NT is clear cut. There is no second choice
- David
- I pass. If I had bid a forcing NT, than I would not have liked
to make a decision over 2 since partner could have only 3.
Partner has a suit this time. Besides, if I pass the opponents
might balance and I will have a pretty good idea what to do.
At least one of my kings may be facing a stiff. This hand is
not good enough to invite with.
- Roberto
- pass. At least I know he has 4 diamonds.
Yes, I know we may be cold for game.
- Rolf
- Pass -- I don't see the problem.
- Curt
- Shrug, 2N, and pass 3 of a minor, if thats what you get.
- Jeff at the table
- 2NT
- Consensus
- none.
- The Winning Action
- 2NT. 3NT makes vs. Qx AKJ10x J10xx A10
- Jeff upon Reflection
-
Take away those nice club spots and pass looks better.
I'm unhappy that only Mike thought about the choice
of 1. I think it was a good bid, even though it
was technically a lie. It had a way to lose; if
partner jumped to 4 with 3 and that was wrong, it's
bad.
As far as the 2nd choice goes, it's an old chestnut
and there is no good answer. I'll answer for Fout,
"playing my club system, this wouldn't be a problem."
- Unfavorable, you hold
K652 A7 KJ75 J93
CHO | RHO | YOU | LHO |
Pass | 1 | Pass | 1 |
Pass | 2 | Pass | Pass |
Dbl | Pass | ? | |
- Ed
- 2N if takeout; o.w., 3. Even if I defeat 2X,
I may make 3 or they may compete to 3.
- Mike
- This is ugly. Checking it out with NV opponents will never win.
I bid 2NT. If we're beating 2, we're very likely to have 120 available
here. 3 is not an option. [Mike is sure 2NT is natural. --J]
- David
- If partner had a sandwich NT available, I am certainly
going to pass and expect that I may be getting +300. In
any event, it sounds like only one Spade stopper, and
besides for that, I am not sure that partner will take
2NT as natural and to play. I certainly don't want to hear
him bid 3 thinking I am asking him to choose. I am going
to guess that partner has around a 10 count with 2434 or
1435 distribution.
- Roberto
- gross. I'll bid 2N. This should be scrambling, but if
partner leaves it in I may make it...
- Rolf
- 3 -- I don't like passing 2 -- even if it's
down one it might not be a good score.
- Curt
- 2N again. Problem with pass is +100 might not beat a
partial by your side. [2nt is natural.]
- Jeff
- 2NT scrambling.
- Consensus
- Bid.
- The Winning Action
- bid. 2 makes vs. x K10xxx Q9x K10xx
- Jeff upon Reflection
- This is again, two problems. (1) to bid or
not to bid. Most bid. I concur. They
have 8 spades and half the deck. We are not going to
win by letting them play 2x. As some note, even beating
them won't necessarily be good, and I agree. If we beat
them, they can make only 7 tricks with 8 trumps. If we
have an 8-card fit (and can find it) we'll be able to make
nine tricks, so bidding wins. I don't think there's any
chance we are getting them two. (2) What to bid? This
is the same as "what does 2NT mean?" There was no consensus
on that; Ed and Dave aren't sure, Roberto and Mike are,
but in opposite camps. Rolf didn't comment; Curt thinks
2NT is natural. I think it's scrambling. I have a rule
(as he adds it to his rule file!) that in balancing
situations, 2NT is almost never natural. That doesn't
mean it's forcing.
Ought partner balance with that hand? David thinks
it's not close, but he also thinks that partner ought
to Sandwich on the first round. I disagree, but agree
that passing 2 could be right. I hate to do it, though,
because I don't like my results when they get to play 2
on these auctions. I don't like it when we play 3x, either...
- None vul, you hold
8 Q973 A963 QJ62
CHO | RHO | YOU | LHO |
1 | Pass | 1 | 1 |
Dbl1 | 2 | ? | |
1 Dbl = 15+ balanced (not a support Dbl)
- Ed
- 3. I would prefer this to be the good part of
good-bad 2N but would bid it even if playing standard.
I don't like my hand enough to force partner to bid
3N with a spade stopper. This hand would be better
if my secondary cards were in diamonds. Obviously,
if partner bids again over 3, I will ensure that we
reach game.
- Mike
- I guess we shuold be going to game. How to let partner now.
3 isn't forcing. 3 is a misdescription.
I bid 3. If partner can't bid 3NT, then we don't have a lot of wastage
in the spade suit and ought to have play for 5.
- David
- 3. My points are not good ones and I was not forced to bid.
If RHO had passed, I would have made the same bid.
- Roberto
- 3. Not a problem.
- Rolf
- 3 - I show partner where our fit is.
- Curt
- Assuming double isnt this hand, 3, see what partners rebid
is. Cannot tell yet whether diamonds or NT, or even hearts
is the right strain.
- Jeff at the Table
- 3
- Consensus
- 3, not forcing
- The Winning Action
- 3. 6 is easy vs.
AQx A QJ108B AKxx. Yes, partner psyched his
double. This wouldn't be much of a problem
if he'd bid 3. 3 will probably lead to 3NT.
- Jeff upon Reflection
- 3 is probably a mild underbid, but
is reasonable. One might well invite game vs.
a strong notrump with this hand, but I think
it's worth being more agressive than that now
because we expect the bulk of the opponents'
strength is in our singleton. If we have a
real diamond fit, I expect to have play for 5,
even opposite most(?) minimums. (e.g. Qxx Kx AKxx A10xx)
I also expect much of the field to be in 3NT, since
many would not invite, but would either force game
after Stayman or show a game forcing 4441 hand.
I'm willing to stop in 4 if partner has a hand like
that; I also expect 5 to go down fewer than 3NT
if both fail. 3 is a definite overbid and a bit
of a misbid, though. 3 at least sets trumps, and
is technically the value bid. I hate it when I
like the misbid better :) It is a good point that
if our minors suits had been reversed, this would
be a much better hand.
Is 2NT good/bad? Beats me. I have been convinced
that it ought to be in theory. We don't often want
to wrongside the notrumps, and with invitational
hands, we can just double with a stop in their suit.
It'd probably help. Tell the weak NTers that it
is "lebensohl," not "good/bad" and they'd probably
say, "of course." It never occurred to me at the
table, but the partnership doesn't play it, so it
wasn't an issue.
- Both vul, you hold
73 10982 QJ97 972
CHO | RHO | YOU | LHO |
1 | 1 | Pass | 31 |
3 | Pass | ? | |
1 Limit raise
- Ed
- 5. Sounds like 5-6 to me
- Mike
- No wastage in hearts, a ruffing value in spades and a cover in trumps...
still I'd like to invite, but there's no room. If partner is
Axxxx x AKxxxx x We are going down, but they are taking a
zillion tricks. More likely partner has
AKxx x AKxxxx Kx or something similar, in which case you are
on a club hook. Overall, I think this hand is worth 5. Barely
- David
- 5. Partner should be at a minimum something
like AKxxx ? AKxxxx ? to bid like this in a strong opposing
auction vulnerable. It looks like 11 tricks are possible. He is
most likely 02 in hearts and clubs. Finally, I get to make
an agressive bid.
- Roberto
- 5, I guess. I have a little something.
- Rolf
- 5 -- I have no slaminterest.
- Curt
- 4.
- Jeff at the Table
- 4
- Consensus
- 5.
- The Winning Action
- Doesn't matter; partner bids on over 4
and 5 is a lucky make. He probably oughtn't, and 5
isn't a great contract, but he did and it made.
- Jeff upon Reflection
- I think everyone pretty much said,
"partner is 6-5 and we have two covers, so we
can't bid a regressive 4." I think that's a
little short-sighted. Look at the example
hands given. Can partner have AKxxx x AKxxxx x?
What would you bid with that? I'd bid 4. It'll
make vs. the right 4333 yarborough, and that's not
being too optimistic. Another hand was AKxx x AKxxxx Kx.
I'd double, not bid 3. If partner bids 4, I'd correct
to 4 and partner would have a good clue what I have.
We might be too high, but at least he can judge well now.
Mike also came up with Axxxx x AKxxxx x. I think I'd
open 1 with that, not 1. I figure partner is somewhere
in between; he probably has either AJ10xx --- AKxxxx xx
or AQ10xx x AKxxxx x. In each of these cases, 5 isn't
cold, and isn't even a favorite. He might have a
slightly weaker 5-7 hand: Axxxx --- Axxxxxx x.
5 isn't cold on that construction. I had a hard
time coming up with a hand consistent with this bidding
that makes 5 better than a finesse, so I think 4 is
the right choice. But 5 does seem obvious; we have
two probable cover cards and partner doesn't care
about our weakness in the rounded suits. One reason
to jump to 5 that was not mentioned is that on my
constructions, they are often making 4 or even more.
Jumping now might get us to play 5 undoubled, whereas
a 4 call, then a push to 5 is an obvious save. Mike
talks about that a little, and I'm convinced that it is
the best reason to bid 5.
- Unfavorable, you hold
KJ2 8 Q87 AK9842
CHO | RHO | YOU | LHO |
1 | 1 | 2 | 31 |
Pass2 | 4 | 5? | Pass |
Pass | 5 | ? | |
1 Preemptive
2 Unbalanced hand
? Do You?
- Ed
- Double. I am not interested in playing 6 opposite AQxx xx AKxxx xx
[I want to play 6 opposite that hand. Or 6. --J]
- Mike
- Time to double. Last thing I want to hear is partner bidding
at the 6 level.
- David
- No. I might have bid 4NT (not Blackwood, minors
showing secondary diamonds)
I guess I will double, however, I won't be surprised to be -650.
- Roberto
- I would bid 4N over 4 (pick a minor). I guess I'll pass now (forcing).
- Rolf
- (I would have prefered 5) X -- I have bid this hand
already twice. This is not enough for a FP. I don't
like 5 as it doesn't show my hand: neither my distribution
nor my values in and .
- Curt
- 5NT. Catering to getting to 6 opposite a 3352 or somesuch shape.
Sometimes we will be down in the 6-level. Actually, a lot of the time.
But if you cant make 6 of a minor you probably cant beat 5 enough
to compensate for +600, so you're already looking at a bad score.
[Good point. He's right; 5x-2 is a lousy score, but it's the
best remaining possible score available. --J]
- Jeff at the table
- Pass
- Consensus
- double
- The Winning Action
- doesn't matter; partner has a clear
double if you pass ( Axxx x AJxxx QJ10) (Ed disagrees) and will pass
if you double. Only one bid on unilaterally.
- Jeff upon Reflection
- 4NT would have been much better than 5.
5 was a blunder. (I was playing with a partner who
is not very scientific and was afraid 4NT'd perpetrate
a severe misunderstanding, which is why I didn't do it.)
At this point, I'm inclined to agree with the panel and
double. If, however, we had bid 4NT the last time, I
like pass much better, since 6, 6, or 6 could be
cold vs. hands on which partner would pass the double
without thought. I really wish I'd bid 4NT.
- Favorable, you hold
QJ8 986 1097 J1054
LHO | CHO | RHO | YOU |
21 | Dbl | 32 | Pass |
3 | Dbl | Pass | ? |
1 Weak 2
2 Natural
- Ed
- Pass
- Mike
- Favorable we need a 1 trick set. I'm still not passing...
looks like things may be wedged against us. 4.
- David
- Partner does not have 5 spades. If he had a good hand with
5 spades he would bid spades. if 3 did not imply heart tolerance
why is LHO bidding again? I think my Club length decreases partners
defensive prospects. I want to pass, however, I am bidding 4.
- Roberto
- Yuck. 4 seems the least of evils.
- Rolf
- Pass - why pull? Partner has a strong (more or less) balanced
hand and I see no good alternative.
- Curt
- pass. If we can make something, they probably go down here.
- Jeff
- Pass. Clearcut. If they are making this, I'll
be surprised. If we can make anything, I'll really
be surprised, and then they'll go for a big number.
I expect there to be about 16-7 trumps. If we can
make 4, they are going for a number. If they can
make 3, we are going for a number.
- Consensus
- none
- The Winning Action
- Pass. Partner was a little strange;
he had AKxxx Ax Axx Axx. Idiosyncratically, I love
his choice. Look at all that defense. In a sterile
shape, why not hope to defend?
- Jeff upon Reflection
- I'm surprised this was close. I expected
everyone to pass with a few LTT comments. Funny, no
one mentioned LTT during the whole set except me.
How soon they forget...passing could be a terrible
result, but so could bidding. If you have to take
an awful risk, why not take the one that wins the
board if it's right?
Overall: except for #1, I think these are hard problems,
and #1 is unanswerable. It's an oldie, though. A couple
seemed easy at first glance, in particular 3 and 4. After
more thought that is probably appropriate, I'm not sure
I agree with the majority on those. Fortunately, I get
to be imperious about the last word.
Jeff Goldsmith,
jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov,
Feb. 16, 1996