Grand National Pairs '96 Problems/Answers

All at matchpoint scoring on a 5 top

Many thought that this implied that the field was very weak. They used evidence from the play (and the lead out of turn) to corroborate this inference. Not so! It was the finals of the district grand national pairs (A). Only one weak pair (other than we) was in the field; they were the ones who nailed us by the lead out of turn.

Today's panelists: Alan LeBendig, Steve Altus, Curt Hastings, Ed Davis, Roberto Scaramuzzi, Rolf Kühn, Web Ewell, and me.

  1. favorable, you hold

     S:AJ9xx H:Kxx D:AJxxx C:---

    RHO opens 3C:. What's your plan?

    While I've never seen anyone play this, perhaps it'd be nice to have the following methods:
    4D: = diamonds and a major, 4C: = majors.
    What do you think?

    Alan
    I'll bid 3S: and await developements. Everyone has the same problem, I hope. I strongly prefer this to double.
    Steve
    I guess I'm a 3S: bidder, just too many flaws to double.
    Web, Curt
    3S:
    Ed
    3S:. I do play that but I am not good enough for it.
    Roberto
    [Double] This may be a good agreement (although it forces you to double or bid 5D: with a good hand with diamonds). However, even if I had it, I don't think the hand is good enough for the 4-level. I'll just double, and pass whatever partner bids. 3S: is also reasonable.
    Rolf
    4C:
    Jeff at the Table
    Double
    Winning Action
    4C:. Partner has  S:10xx H:Axxx D:Kxx C:Kxx, and everything sits well, except that RHO has eight clubs. We can make 4S: and they can make 3C:. Partner will (at least did) pass a double.
    Consensus
    3S:
    Jeff, upon reflection
    3S: is best, I guess. I like showing two suits if I can, but it's too much on this minimum. I would like double much better with 5341 shape; doubling with voids when partner is likely to leave it in just seems to work out very poorly; his LTT evaluation is off.

  2. none vul, you hold

     S:K9xx H:Jxx D:K C:K109xx

    CHORHOYOULHO
    1D:1S:1NT?2S:
    PassPassDbl?Pass
    3C:Pass?
    a) would you have bid 1NT?

    Jeff, Web, Rolf, Roberto, Ed, Curt, Alan
    Yes.
    Consensus
    Nonproblem
    b) would you have doubled?
    Jeff, Web, Rolf, Curt, Alan
    Yes.
    Ed
    I would have bid 3C:.
    Roberto
    Borderline but OK with diamond shortness
    Consensus
    Yes
    c) what do you do now?
    Alan
    4C:. Partner does not have great hand but I think I'm big enough.
    Steve
    What is my minor opening style? at MP, pass might well be the winner.
    Web, Rolf, Curt
    Pass
    Ed
    Pass. Partner's pull of 2S:X is poor bridge. If he is willing to defend 2S: undoubled after I have bid 1NT, why does he now run when I say I want to defend it doubled? If he has a pull of 2S:X, he should have competed directly over the 2S: bid. Or is he afraid that I will keep on bidding (the same values) if he bids immediately? Incidently, my preference is for good-bad not to apply when we bid 1NT over their suit overcall... the hands are too well-defined to make it advantgeous for good-bad. I prefer 2NT by opener here to be competitive with expectations of making 2NT, e.g.,  S:xx H:xxx D:AQJxx C:AQx.
    Roberto
    4C:. Seems clear. I have a pretty good hand on the bidding.
    Jeff at the table
    5C:???
    Winning Action
    Pass
    Consensus
    Pass
    Jeff upon Reflection
    Ed has convinced me somewhat---I agree with his reasoning, but not his conclusion. I am now convinced that 3C: reveals a psyche. I agree that there's no real hand that'd open 1D: and pass the 2nd time that should pull now, so he has to have a hand that isn't an opening bid. In practice, partner had  S:J H:Axxx D:10xxx C:AQJx. I'd call that a semi-psyche 1D: opening, or if not intended as such, as a blunder. Interestingly enough, K&R disagrees, calling it 13.00, a mandatory opening.
    d) if partner had passed the double, what would you have led?
    Alan
    Tough choice. I believe I would choose D:K or risk having winners blocked.
    Steve
    Against 2S: doubled I'd lead a club.
    Rolf, Roberto, Ed, Curt
    D:K
    Jeff at the table
    D:K
    Winning Action
    Club
    Consensus
    D:K
    Jeff upon Reflection
    This is a story. I doubled out of tempo; it isn't clear to me that doubling is right, and the panel's comments agree that it's close. Partner pulled and they called the director, of course. If I passed 3C:, the director would roll back the hand to 2S:x on a diamond lead for a zero. Once I bid, we were booked for a zero anyway, because everyone managed plus with our cards and we were the last to play it. Oh, well.

    The lead is interesting. Even with the additional information that partner has clubs, almost no one led one. I said that I'd've led the D:K at the table, and that seems obvious, but I'm not sure that's right. The way we are likely to beat 2S:x is to tap declarer, not to get ruffs, so leading my long and strong suit is probably right. Leading diamonds could easily be right, but I'm convinced that clubs is the winner in the long run.

    Does it matter that partner had a (Good/)Bad 2NT available at his previous turn?
    Alan
    I wondered about that. If it was available, I should probably pass 3C:.
    Roberto
    I thought about that before answering. I guess this means he has a really crappy hand, since with 0-4-5-4 or 1-4-4-4 he might have doubled 2S: for takeout.
    Jeff
    Not really. Partner would have forgotten anyway.

  3. favorable, you hold, playing 12-14 1NT

     S:Kx H:Kx D:AJ109xx C:Kxx

    YOUPartner
    1D:?1H:
    1NT?2NT!
    3NT?Pass

    2NT! = fewer than 4 diamonds, invitational values, balanced, at most 3 spades, at most 4 hearts. (usually)

    RHO leads the S:Q out of turn.

    a) would you have bid 1D:?

    Jeff, Web, Rolf, Roberto, Ed, Steve, Alan
    Yes.
    Curt
    No [he opens 1NT]
    Consensus
    1D:
    b) would you have bid 1NT?
    Jeff, Web, Rolf, Roberto, Ed, Alan
    Yes.
    Steve
    1NT is ok, not necessarily best but not clearly wrong.
    Curt
    No
    Consensus
    Yes
    c) would you have bid 3NT?
    Alan
    That's sick. Unless you assume that the field you're in opened 1NT (15-17) and has already been placed in game.
    Steve
    3NT is questionable at matchpoints.
    Curt
    No
    Rolf, Roberto, Ed
    Yes
    Web
    I don't know if I'd bid 3NT or not.
    Jeff at the table
    Yes
    Winning action
    No
    Consensus
    4-3 with a hedge. No consensus.
    Jeff upon reflection
    Bid 3NT. K&R calls this a 16.50 count, which seems about right to me. It matches two of my rules, too: (1) if you open a strong NT with 14 HCP, accept a game try, and (2) 2NT is forcing on all hands with six-card suits because if the suit is running, you are making 3, and if it's not, you aren't making 2NT.
    d) you have five choices after the lead. They are:
    1. accept the lead, put down the dummy, and let partner play the hand
    2. accept the lead, partner puts down the dummy, life continues
    3. bar a spade lead
    4. require a spade lead from the correct hand
    5. make the S:Q a penalty card.
    Which do you choose?
    Web, Curt, Alan
    (4) If partner doesn't have S:A I'm hoping this is my 9th trick.
    Rolf, Roberto, Steve
    (3)
    Ed
    (3) if RHO has the S:A; otherwise (4) [nice hedge --Jeff]
    Jeff at the table
    (3)
    Winning action
    (4)
    Consensus
    None.
    Jeff upon Reflection
    Partner had  S:108x H:Qxxx D:xxx C:AQJ. Most of the field was in 3NT +400 or +430. Two were -50. I think the lead out of turn nailed us; the penalty was just inadequate. I'd like to see a sixth option: no penalty other than the information from the lead out of turn is unauthorized. That'd allow 3NT to make as normally happened. With face-down opening leads, there's no excuse for leads out of turn, either, unless everyone is confused; this lady led face-up very fast. The same thing has happened to me before (recently, and with the same partner) and that time the lead out of turn was strongly to the offending side's best interest, too. Maybe the rule ought to be "if the lead was face down, then the normal rules apply, but if it was face-up, or faced very quickly, then the declarer has the same choices, and moreover, the lead is unauthorized information."

  4. unfavorable, you hold

     S:AKQ10x H:Q9xx D:A C:AJ9

    Dealer. What's your plan?

    Jeff, Web, Rolf, Roberto, Ed, Curt, Steve, Alan
    1S:
    Consensus
    Nonproblem
    Jeff upon reflection
    It never occured to me at the table to open this 2C:, but partner refused to make a slam move with  S:xx H:AK8x D:Kxxxx C:10x and I wondered about that after I scored up 13 tricks. Conclusion: partner was having a bad day.

  5. S: AQ10xx
    H: Jx
    D: 9xxx
    C: Ax
    S: 6xx
    H: Axx
    D: AJ
    C: J7xxx
    DummyDeclarer
    1S:1NT (nf)
    Pass
    T1: C:x-x-8-Q
    T2: S:J-x-x-x
    T3: S:x-x-Q-K
    T4: C:10-x-x-A
    T5: H:x-x-10-?
    What's your plan?
    Alan
    It feels right to win A and return S:. I think declarer will be squeezed.
    Steve
    A most confusing problem. I have no idea what to do. [I concur. --Jeff]
    Curt
    Duck the heart
    Ed
    Win the H:A and return a C:.
    Rolf
    Declarer is marked with C:KQ, S:J, H:Q or H:K (partner surely would have split from KQ). Declarer also seems to have three spades and is therefore balanced. I take H:A and play D:A and take a look at partner's peter. Do I get any length information?
    Web
    I couldn't reconcile the play and the given hands for this one. Is it garbled?
    Jeff at the table
    Win and play diamonds
    Winning Action
    Win and continue hearts.
    Consensus
    None. This problem is too hard. I just noticed: Alan wins and returns a spade. The winning action is to win and return a heart. Rolf and I win and return diamonds. Ed wins and returns a club. Curt ducks the heart. Two had no idea. Wow...this must be the best defensive dilemma I've seen in awhile!
    Jeff upon Reflection
    Declarer had  S:Jxx H:Q1032 D:Qxx C:KQx. The only way to beat the hand is to win the H:A and play another heart to partner's King, win the diamond return, cash the other diamond, and exit spade, forcing declarer to abandon winners in one hand or the other. Is it possible to find this defense? At IMPs, maybe it is; I don't see any other way to beat the hand except for partner's having D:KQ10, and he'd've probably played diamonds if he had that. If declarer is given a diamond card, then he has to have S:J, H:Q, D:Q, C:KQ for his ten points. In that case, winning and continuing hearts is the only chance, and seems right to me. I didn't find it at the table (no kidding) and am not abashed; it was way too hard for reality. Note that it's not good enough for partner to fly H:K, since the heart spots are now compromised; declarer can win the spade in hand and has three winners to cash.

    Anyone have any further analysis? It's a great problem if one really can figure out to play hearts.

    A new thought: most of the room is going to be in 2S: or 3S:. (This is not a limit raise, so the normal auction is probably 1S:-2S:.) Since 2S: is not making, we need to go plus to get a good score. What if partner balances over 2S: (he will)? They'll probably double. 3C: looks to be down one or making. We are not beating the 3C: making folks, so we are competing against 3C: down 1 for -50 or -100 and 2S: +50. -90 will beat those in 3C:x -100. It won't beat those in 3C: -50 or those in 2S: +50. On balance, therefore, I think it's best to try to beat the hand, but it's hard to say.

Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov, Jan. 31, 1996