Problems from the Downey Sectional 1/03: Answers

1. None vul, IMPs, 10-board matches

    K10x AQ Q109 J1076x

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

   ---

   BARRY

   Pass. LOTT suggests eight (9) spades for them, and 8 (9) clubs for you. The only issue is if they will make 3* and 4 is a save. I say no. We have the balance and our HCP in short suits; defend... [Whether 3 will make is a major issue! --Jeff]

   CHRIS

   Pass. A random problem in that they could easily make it or be down two (three if they're lunatics or very unlucky). However, three notrump is a gigantic underdog due to my weak clubs. Where will eight fast tricks come from after a spade lead? So, the only viable alternative to passing is 4, and my feeling is that 4 is virtually certain to drive us minus; when we can make four, partner will bid five. Thus, I pass and hope to go plus. [If they can "easily make it," isn't passing maniacal? Perhaps "easy" was an overbid. --Jeff]

   DAVIDC

   I can't imagine not passing. And if it makes 3NT, I don't care.

   MICHAEL

   4. They might make 3x. It's too risky to pass.

   DAVIDW

   The choice is between 3NT and Pass. Neither option is appealing, since we have no assurance of a set and no guarantee that I can take nine tricks. However, since I must do something, I will try 3NT. Hamman's rule is easy to justify. If I go down, it will be in 50s. If they make 3 doubled, the match may be in severe jeopardy.

   ED

   Pass. Not much of a problem in my opinion. Partner's double shows high cards with no long suit. With sufficient values, partner will double with two spades but will sometimes bid a suit with only one spade. I have reasonable defense including a possible trump trick (probable if we don't have to lead trumps). 3NT seems against the odds with only one stopper and a poor 5-card suit.

   JOEL

   Pass—automatic.

   BINKLEY

   3NT. I trust that partner has something nice over there. Does pass collect a telephone number? This is the kind of hand that reflects poorly on my rustiness.

   MIKE

   Pass. I have surprisingly good trumps given partner's double. They are probably in a 5-2 fit. I suppose if you think partner might have a stiff trump, 3NT is possible, but so long as RHO has an intermediate spade honor, I'll need 9 fast tricks. Good here.

   BOB

   Pass. Yes, I know that -530 is a bad result; so is -500. What few assets I have are mostly defensive. Partner's second double is still for takeout, but he will not be surprised when I leave it in.

   BOBBY

   3x and 3NT don't look to be happy places. I think I have a definite preference to play the hand, so I bid 4.

   MARK

   Pass...seems clear-cut to collect +300 instead of attempting a shaky game. I can't see where 9 tricks are coming from, and I probably won't be able to shut out LHO's spades before knocking out a stopper in RHO's hand.

   FLOYD

   Pass is tempting, but if the opponents have their bids we might need the right lead to beat 3. I bid 3NT.

   MARSHALL

   I agree with your pass.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   Pass. 3NT looks far away and a suit contract is shooting in the dark.

   VOTES

   Action Votes Pass 10 3NT 3 4 1 4 1

   WINNING ACTION

   Pass. Partner has  x xxxx AKxxx A9x. 4 will make, but 3NT is down. In any case, they are set 500.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   I don't see how the Law of Total Tricks applies here. The questions are:

   • is 3x going down? and
   • are we making 3NT?

   LTT doesn't answer those questions or even give us a good hint about them. My guesses are 3 is going down > 90% of the time. 3NT is making some of the time. I have no idea how often. In this case, it took a bad break in diamonds to beat 3NT. (One can make it, of course, but it's a little double-dummy.) On the auction, some bad breaks seem likely.

   I thought pass was pretty obvious, but the first few folks I gave this problem bid, so ...

   ---

2. None vul, IMPs, 10-board matches

    AKJxx J Qxxx QJx

   You	CHO
   1	2
   2	3
   ?

   ---

   BARRY

   3NT. Some case for 3—but if I do that would not partner raise hearts with six bad hearts not look for spades with  Qx Kxxxxx AKx Kx? I'd like to have a different sort of club stop to bypass it. But if 3NT were right you would not set the problem. [No fair trying out outguess the problem setter! --Jeff] The real advantage of 3 is it lets partner bid 3. Then... 3NT by me anyway?

   CHRIS

   3. Where do we want to play opposite

    x KQxxxx AKxx xx?
    Qx AKxxx KJxx xx?
    x KQxxx AJxxx Kx?
    x AQxxx AKxxx xx?
   

   That's right: 4, 4, 3NT, and 5 respectively. 3 should get us to the right contract on each of these hands (partner bids 4, 3, 3NT, and 4 respectively). I don't expect much (any?) panel support, but I much prefer 3 to the unilateral 3NT or 4. When in doubt, make the cheapest bid.

   DAVIDC

   3NT. I take the low road. It just looks too soft to go high.

   DAVIDW

   Again there are two choices, one of which is 3NT. Although I hate to suppress 4-card support for partner, I have only a queen and a probably irrelevant jack in his suits. So Hamman and I are in 3NT again.

   ED

   3NT. This is a toss-up. 3NT has a slight advantage over 4 in that we can still get to a diamond game or slam if partner is quite distributional or very strong whereas 4 would keep us from reaching the most reasonable game opposite something along the lines of  x AKxxx AJxx xxx.

   JOEL

   4—partner wants me to raise with diamonds; well, I have diamonds. Could easily be the only way to get to slam when partner has something like  x KQxxxx AKJx Ax. If he has  x AQxxxx AKxx xx, I think 3 is a better bid. And if he has  x AQxxx AKxxx xx, maybe we'll make 5, also. But if he has  x AKQxx Axxxx xx, better luck next time.

   BINKLEY

   4. I was going to write about a clever 3 bid revealing club duplication if partner rebids 3NT over it, and me bidding in diamonds otherwise, but the direct bid appeals to me. And 4 is the best way to reach 6. It would be nice to be able to play 4NT after my raise, but I don't know how to accomplish that without one of us wondering if we just passed an ace-asking bid.

   MIKE

   3NT. Almost all my strength is in the black suits. If partner moves over this I'll cooperate.

   MICHAEL

   4. What's the problem?

   BOB

   3NT. I am not giving up on slam, but I have just enough misgivings not to raise to the four-level. The diamonds aren't very good and the hands don't seem to fit well. If partner bids again, I am very well placed.

   BOBBY

   3NT seems like a reasonable game. It's also a minimal and uncooperative bid. That's what I want to be on this hand. 4 seems too much of an overbid.

   MARK

   3NT...You should have stated the system being used because 3NT is more attractive when playing Standard American. 2/1 GF practically guarantees 4+ diamonds while SA doesn't. [Not true. See the examples above. --Jeff] I would probably still bid 3NT playing 2/1 because of the slowness of the club stoppers and the quick tricks in spades. Admittedly a 4 raise could be right playing 2/1 GF (perhaps even a 3 preference).

   [For what it's worth, the standard here is to assume playing any reasonably common modern system of your preference. Old Standard American where 2 isn't forcing, however, isn't one of those options. Panelists should feel free to comment on system issues which apply, but simple plumping for, say, a big club system, is generally not particularly interesting, so please don't. Comments like, "I play 3 here as a relay so my 3 bid guarantees four. The consequences of that are..." are quite welcome. Often, I'll ask for more details, though, so be ready to supply them! --Jeff]

   FLOYD

   3NT. Too weak and junky for 4. Partner has some clubs; if not he has spades and would have bid them, or is mostly red and will bid out.

   MARSHALL

   I don't have any opinion as to whether 3NT or 4 is right (theoretically). Your 4 bid certainly worked out well. Maybe if you bid 3NT, I would bid 4NT, and if so, you would jump to 6.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   4.

   VOTES

   Action Votes 3 1 3NT 9 4 4

   WINNING ACTION

   4. Partner is about to drive to slam with an 18-count:  10x A10xxx AK10x AK. Diamonds makes, but notrump doesn't, a trifle unluckily.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   Raising what could be a stopper is a very risky choice, of course, but partner is either worried about clubs for 3NT, in which case I am too and want to play a major-suit game, or he has real diamonds, in which case, I am willing to play diamonds, particularly if he is short in clubs. 4 is a little more constructive than 3NT, which isn't good on my misfitting dogmeat. On the other hand, I'm really not all that excited about 3NT. I have one club stopper and no source of tricks. But bidding 4 now buries NT below the slam level and I do have a crappy hand. I think it's a toss-up. Still. What's worse, two of my favorite rules conflict:

   1. when in doubt, raise partner.
   2. when in doubt, bid 3NT.

   Too bad partner didn't bid notrump.

   3 is interesting, but knowing that I'd bid 4 over 3 a lot and be totally shocked by dummy, I can't accept it as right. I'm just not into 5-1 fits. Yeah, this one might even be right. Too bad.

   Over 4, 4 and 4 are offers to play, and 5 is an artificial slam try, being that it is the only cooperative slam try we have available. That means we can play game in either major. I'd really like to play this in 4 vs. a doubleton, so I can live with this choice.

   ---

3. Both vul, IMPs, 10-board matches

    10xxx K9xx Axxx 10

   Partner opens 1NT, 15-17. What's your plan?
   What would be your plan at matchpoints?

   ---

   BARRY

   Stayman and bid 2 over 2 at each form of scoring and raise 2M to 4M at teams (who knows whether partner's minimum with Axx is better than the max with KQx? At pairs I think I'd do the same though I can see excellent cases for passing 2 or raising to 3—the latter being the middle course and probably the right one on reflection.

   CHRIS

   2, planning to pass 2 or raise a major. I'd raise 2 to three at matchpoints; the rest of the time I'd raise to game.

   I could be convinced that raising 2 to three at pairs is too conservative, but I imagine that I will be ahead of four groups by doing so:

   1. Idiots who pass 1NT. Yes, there are some. In fact, one player with whom I finished in the top ten of a national matchpoint event did so playing with me.
   2. Idiots who pass 2. I'm sure there will be some of those with "only seven points."
   3. Weak notrumpers who bury the spades after 1-1-1NT (not denying spades)
   4. People who choose the same plan and don't take as many tricks as I do.

   So, game needs to be far greater than 50% opposite a minimum notrump to be worth bidding, and I would guess that it's right around the 50% mark (lower with perfect defense, but who ever gets perfect defense?).

   [Excellent reasoning. Bizarre conclusion. That's a very forceful argument for passing 2! --Jeff]

   DAVIDC

   Ok, you talked me into it, but only vul at IMPs. 2, raise a major or rebid 2NT. At matchpoints, I pass 1NT.

   DAVIDW

   Since I will raise a major to game, I had better bid 2. If he bids 2, I have to guess whether to pass (my choice) or bid 2. I will not inflict 2NT on partner. I would follow the same plan at matchpoints, although there is some temptation to simply pass 1NT.

   ED

   [IMPs:] Stayman and pass 2 and raise 2 or 2.
   [MPs: ] Stayman and pass partner's response. But bid 2 over 2 if 2 [can be] a weak 4-4.

   JOEL

   [IMPs:] 2, then raise partner's 2M bid to 3. Otherwise, pass 2.
   [MPs: ] 2, then pass partner's 2M bid. Otherwise, pass 2.

   BINKLEY

   Pass. Pass.

   MIKE

   2 at either form of scoring. At MPs, I correct 2 to 2, at IMPs I pass 2. If partner bids a major, I'd pass at MPs and raise at IMPs (to 3 opposite spades and to 4 opposite hearts). Strange that I'd just bid game at IMPs and quietly pass at MPs. I must be weird. [Yes, but I think you got this one exactly right. --Jeff]

   MICHEAL

   2, then 2 over 2 at MP but pass at IMPs. Over 2 or 2, I'd raise.

   BOB

   I plan to pass when it's my turn. I don't think it's a very interesting question at IMPs. At matchpoints I would also pass, but it's a tossup. I have a decent hand with pretty good spots. Why should I risk making partner play a 2-4 fit? Sure, sometimes it'll make 140 in a major. On some of those hands, the defense will allow my partner to make 150 in 1NT.

   BOBBY

   Stayman, and invite if partner has a 4-card major, pass if partner bids 2. I think my strategy would be the same at matchpoints.

   MARK

   2...I intend to pass partner's 2 or 2 response. I will raise a 2 response to 3 to avoid missing a game at all conditions of contest because I can upgrade my heart holding.

   FLOYD

   [IMPs:] Stayman, then pass 2. Raise 2 or 2 to game.
   [MPs:] The same, except I raise 2 to 3.

   MARSHALL

   Stayman, intending, either at IMPs or matchpoints, to pass 2 or 2, and to raise 2 to 3.

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   2, then raised 2 to 3. If partner had bid anything else, I would have passed. At matchpoints, I would bid 2, then if partner bid 2, try 2. If partner bid a major, I would pass.

   VOTES

   Action IMPs MPs Pass 2 3 2, then over 2 Pass 11 7 2 1 5 2NT 1 0 2, then over 2 Pass 0 4 3 8 5 4 5 3 2, then over 2 Pass 3 6 3 6 5 4 4 1

   WINNING ACTION

   2, and raise 2. Or even bid more than that. Partner made six on two finesses and no trump lead with  AQ AQ10x QJ Qxxxx.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   The overbidders have talked me into it. At IMPs, I like raising 2 to game, not to three. And I'm now convinced that raising 2 to 3 is right, too. At MPs, I'm certain that the right plan is to bid 2 and pass a major. You get poor odds by raising. Chris' arguments for bidding 3 vs. 4 are wonderful arguments for passing 2. Since we know there'll be folks in 1NT, we are starting with a 65% or 70% board by having found hearts and having a strong declarer play it. Game isn't going to be 70%, so bidding reduces our expectation on the board.

   I've become convinced that at MPs, I should bid 2 over 2. The same reasoning applies as to passing 2. 2 is going to lose to those in 1NT. 2 might or might not be better than 2. But it might also be better than 1NT. So bidding 2 is the percentage bid, I think. At MPs. At IMPs, 2 rates to be safer. So, upon reflection, I like:

   IMPs: 2, then over:
   

   2: pass
   2: 4
   2: 3
   

   MPs: 2, then over:

   2: 2
   2: pass
   2: pass
   

   This was a more interesting problem than I thought it would be. It didn't occur to me at the table to raise all the way to game.

   ---