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.

  1. Favorable, you hold

     S:KJ94 H:7 D:Q32 C:K9876

    YouPartner
    Pass1H:
    1S:*?2D:
    ?

    1S: showed five+ spades. Do you?

    Mike
    No. This hand is too good for 1S:. Id've opted for the 1NT forcing 2NT route. [I do not understand this. --J]
    Jeff
    Yea, verily. After 1H:-1NT; 2D:, I have no good option. After 1H:-1S:; 1NT, I have an easy pass. After 1H:-1S:; 2D:, at least I get a choice.
    2D: 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 2D: 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.  S:Qx H:AKJ10x D:J10xx C: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 1S:. I think it was a good bid, even though it was technically a lie. It had a way to lose; if partner jumped to 4S: 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."

  2. Unfavorable, you hold

     S:K652 H:A7 D:KJ75 C:J93

    CHORHOYOULHO
    Pass1D:Pass1S:
    Pass2S:PassPass
    DblPass?

    Ed
    2N if takeout; o.w., 3C:. Even if I defeat 2S:X, I may make 3C: or they may compete to 3S:.
    Mike
    This is ugly. Checking it out with NV opponents will never win. I bid 2NT. If we're beating 2S:, we're very likely to have 120 available here. 3C: 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 3H: 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
    3C: -- I don't like passing 2S: -- 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. 2S: makes vs.  S:x H:K10xxx D:Q9x C: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 2S:x. 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 2S: could be right. I hate to do it, though, because I don't like my results when they get to play 2S: on these auctions. I don't like it when we play 3C:x, either...

  3. None vul, you hold

     S:8 H:Q973 D:A963 C:QJ62

    CHORHOYOULHO
    1D:Pass1H:1S:
    Dbl12S:?

    1 Dbl = 15+ balanced (not a support Dbl)

    Ed
    3D:. 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 3D:, I will ensure that we reach game.
    Mike
    I guess we shuold be going to game. How to let partner now. 3D: isn't forcing. 3C: is a misdescription. I bid 3S:. 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 5D:.
    David
    3D:. 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
    3D:. Not a problem.
    Rolf
    3D: - I show partner where our fit is.
    Curt
    Assuming double isnt this hand, 3C:, see what partners rebid is. Cannot tell yet whether diamonds or NT, or even hearts is the right strain.
    Jeff at the Table
    3C:
    Consensus
    3D:, not forcing
    The Winning Action
    3C:. 6D: is easy vs.  S:AQx H:A D:QJ108B C:AKxx. Yes, partner psyched his double. This wouldn't be much of a problem if he'd bid 3C:. 3D: will probably lead to 3NT.
    Jeff upon Reflection
    3D: 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 5D:, even opposite most(?) minimums. (e.g.  S:Qxx H:Kx D:AKxx C: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 4D: if partner has a hand like that; I also expect 5D: to go down fewer than 3NT if both fail. 3C: is a definite overbid and a bit of a misbid, though. 3D: 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.

  4. Both vul, you hold

     S:73 H:10982 D:QJ97 C:972

    CHORHOYOULHO
    1D:1H:Pass3H:1
    3S:Pass?

    1 Limit raise

    Ed
    5D:. 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  S:Axxxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:x We are going down, but they are taking a zillion tricks. More likely partner has  S:AKxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:Kx or something similar, in which case you are on a club hook. Overall, I think this hand is worth 5D:. Barely
    David
    5D:. Partner should be at a minimum something like  S:AKxxx H:? D:AKxxxx C:? 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
    5D:, I guess. I have a little something.
    Rolf
    5D: -- I have no slaminterest.
    Curt
    4D:.
    Jeff at the Table
    4D:
    Consensus
    5D:.
    The Winning Action
    Doesn't matter; partner bids on over 4D: and 5D: is a lucky make. He probably oughtn't, and 5D: 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 4D:." I think that's a little short-sighted. Look at the example hands given. Can partner have  S:AKxxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:x? What would you bid with that? I'd bid 4S:. It'll make vs. the right 4333 yarborough, and that's not being too optimistic. Another hand was  S:AKxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:Kx. I'd double, not bid 3S:. If partner bids 4C:, I'd correct to 4D: 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  S:Axxxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:x. I think I'd open 1S: with that, not 1D:. I figure partner is somewhere in between; he probably has either  S:AJ10xx H:--- D:AKxxxx C:xx or  S:AQ10xx H:x D:AKxxxx C:x. In each of these cases, 5D: isn't cold, and isn't even a favorite. He might have a slightly weaker 5-7 hand:  S:Axxxx H:--- D:Axxxxxx C:x. 5D: isn't cold on that construction. I had a hard time coming up with a hand consistent with this bidding that makes 5D: better than a finesse, so I think 4D: is the right choice. But 5D: 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 5D: that was not mentioned is that on my constructions, they are often making 4H: or even more. Jumping now might get us to play 5D: undoubled, whereas a 4D: call, then a push to 5D: is an obvious save. Mike talks about that a little, and I'm convinced that it is the best reason to bid 5D:.

  5. Unfavorable, you hold

     S:KJ2 H:8 D:Q87 C:AK9842

    CHORHOYOULHO
    1D:1H:2C:3H:1
    Pass24H:5C:?Pass
    Pass5H:?

    1 Preemptive
    2 Unbalanced hand
    ? Do You?

    Ed
    Double. I am not interested in playing 6C: opposite  S:AQxx H:xx D:AKxxx C:xx [I want to play 6S: opposite that hand. Or 6D:. --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 4H: (pick a minor). I guess I'll pass now (forcing).
    Rolf
    (I would have prefered 5D:) X -- I have bid this hand already twice. This is not enough for a FP. I don't like 5C: as it doesn't show my hand: neither my distribution nor my values in D: and S:.
    Curt
    5NT. Catering to getting to 6D: 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 5H: enough to compensate for +600, so you're already looking at a bad score. [Good point. He's right; 5H:x-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 ( S:Axxx H:x D:AJxxx C:QJ10) (Ed disagrees) and will pass if you double. Only one bid on unilaterally.
    Jeff upon Reflection
    4NT would have been much better than 5C:. 5C: 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 6S:, 6D:, or 6C: could be cold vs. hands on which partner would pass the double without thought. I really wish I'd bid 4NT.

  6. Favorable, you hold

     S:QJ8 H:986 D:1097 C:J1054

    LHOCHORHOYOU
    2H:1Dbl3D:2Pass
    3H:DblPass?
    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. 4C:.
    David
    Partner does not have 5 spades. If he had a good hand with 5 spades he would bid spades. if 3D: 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 4C:.
    Roberto
    Yuck. 4C: 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 4C:, they are going for a number. If they can make 3H:, we are going for a number.
    Consensus
    none
    The Winning Action
    Pass. Partner was a little strange; he had  S:AKxxx H:Ax D:Axx C: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