Some problems from the Hawaii Nationals: Answers

Today's Panelists: Barry Rigal, David Caprera, Mike Shuster, Chris Willenken, David Milton, Roberto Scaramuzzi, Ed Davis, Len Vishnevsky, Kent Hartman, David Weiss, and Web Ewell.

All problems in a strong NT, 2/1 context.

MPs, none vul, you hold
AQ 10xxx AKJ109x Q

You Partner

1 1NT

3 4

?

BARRY
Well I would have bid 3NT over 1NT and avoided that problem. I think this is a cuebid for diamonds; with long clubs partner passes 3. 4 seems enough for the time being.
DAVIDC
I am probably going to be in the minority on this one but I believe that, amazing as it sounds, 4 shows clubs and if I wanted to raise s I would have bid s. Stiff Q is not a great holding as Club support and 4 by me would say that my holding is better than it is so I am just going to bide my time with a 4 bid.
MIKE
4. 4 showed a good raise to 4, but slam isn't really in the picture. I've waffled on this one a few times. I really want to play 4NT. 4 is forcing here, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish other than making a future 4NT bid blackwood. 4 puts too much emphasis on hearts, where I merely need Jx and not enough on spades where I might need Jxx or better with the lead coming through. 5, showing good trumps, is forward going. I wish 4 were RKCB so I could bid 4NT myself (although I suppose that would be a heart cuebid). [I like to play 4NT natural there if 4H is key card. --Jeff] I guess I bid 4. Hopefully partner can bid 4NT, otherwise I'll bid 5. I haven't been able to construct a hand that makes slam that would bid this way (perhaps Kxx x Qxx Axxxxx — and we still haven't made it).
By the way, 3 is alright. 2NT has merit too. I think that decision is close.
CHRIS
I would have bid 3NT over 1NT. Is partner supposed to bid it himself with no stopper in either major? [I can live with 3NT. 3 seems reasonable to me, though; sometimes partner has a balanced hand with nothing in clubs. 3NT seems better at IMPs. --Jeff]
Now, does 4 show a diamond misfit such as Kxx xx x KJ10xxxx, in which case we should pass, or does it show a diamond raise with club values? I like to have the default agreement "natural and nonforcing if possible" which would make this an easy pass, but I'd bid 4 with a random partner. [With some partners, I play that rule; with others, I play "ASBAF," "All Strange Bids are Forcing." --Jeff]
DAVIDM
I can't imagine this' being anything other than a cue bid in support of diamonds. (Well actually, I can imagine it being other things, but then I can't imagine ever playing with this partner again.) So, give partner something like xxx Ax xxxx Axxx and slam is basically on a spade finesse and not Qxx of diamonds offside. And it could be even better than that. [Sounds like David bids 6. Why not bid 3 with the given hand, then pull 3NT to 4? Not only is one's intention then clear, the sequence is more efficient and allows for a natural 4NT which one might consider passing. --Jeff]
ROBERTO
4 should be a cue-bid in support of diamonds, showing stuff, not many clubs in a weak hand. I would 4 followed by 5 because I don't see a hand that makes a slam better than a finesse (5 directly should be slammish, showing good trumps). Partner pretty much needs heart shortness to give us a chance and he can't have 4 spades, so he has at least 9 cards in the minors. With 4 diamonds and the strength I need from him he would have started with a limit raise in diamonds. With 6 good clubs and 3 diamonds he would have made a one-suited invite in clubs.
I guess it's barely possible he has something like Kxx x Qxx Axxxxx, but a) he likely would have bid 3 over 3 with that hand, and b) I still don't like my chances on a trump lead.
ED
4. Nothing extra, playable opp x, only modest support. May already be too high.
LEN
4. Pard can pass with xx xx xx KQxxxxx. He should have, at least, something like xx Ax xxxx Axxxx. [Wouldn't he bid 3 with that? --Jeff]
KENT
4. 4 says we're playing at least game in diamonds. I wanna hear 4. If I do, we're playing 6. If not, we're playing 5.
DAVIDW
I would not have bid 3; 3NT was my guess. Now I feel stuck, as 6 seems virtually impossible opposite a 1NT response. I'll have to hope that 3NT fails and 5 is best, rather a narrow target. Maybe partner has xxx AQx xxxx Axx or xxx KQx xxxx AJx and the cards lie badly. So 5 it is, but I don't like my odds.
WEB
I bid 5. It really looks like we're going to lose a trump and 2 hearts, but I'm not sure enough of that to pass. (I'm also not sure if 4 is forcing, although it should be at least invitational — partner could have just passed 3 with 6 bad clubs and a weak hand).
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass.
WINNING ACTION
None, but 4 was best. The 3NT bidders found the real winning action. Partner had xx Jxx Qxx AJxxx. 3NT is an easy make, but 4 isn't. Partner thought that 4 was an invitation to game in diamonds with club cards.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 1

4 6

4 1

4 1

5 1

5 1

6 1

Wow—7 different choices. I'm surprised. I was starting to think this was a lame problem.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Most felt that 4 was a slam try in diamonds. That means one must have (a) no card in the majors, and (b) no stiff in the majors, something like xx xx Qxxx AKxxx. I suppose that's possible, but...isn't that some sort of immediate diamond raise? Anyway, neither partner nor I thought that; I played him for xxx Qx x KJ109xxx. On that layout, 4 is on a hook, and 3 is down a bunch.
I'll go with the majority and judge it to be a slam try, though I suspect that the number of diamond slam tries with no card or stiff in the majors is pretty small. Then again, the number of hands which want to play 4 on this sequence is pretty small, too. It can't be a game try (as partner thought) with club cards, because 4 means that. He'd never bid 4 with a major suit stopper, so therefore, 4 means his cards are in clubs.
Ought I have bid 3NT the first time? Yes, I think so, because that partnership plays 1-2 as natural, so the 1NTer is extremely likely to have clubs. Playing inverted minors, where he could have Kxx Ax Qxxx xxxx or Kxx Qxx Qxxx xxx, 3 looks a lot better than 3NT.
IMPs, short matches, favorable, you hold
KQJ Jxx Qx K10987

You LHO CHO RHO

1 Pass 1 Dbl

Rdbl 2 2 3

Pass Pass Dbl Pass

?

Redouble was support

BARRY
3. Enormously unsuitable for defence; I'll apologize later when I'm wrong.
DAVIDC
Not that it would have solved my problem, but I am not a fan of the redouble. At first I thought that 2 by partner should show a 5th spade, but what would he do with a 4-3-3-3 10 count? [Pass? --Jeff] I have to believe that bidding 3 is a sure minus. I may have to sweat this one out to trick 12 but I am going to play for a plus and hope my little pieces help us to take 5 tricks. That and "the law". (Someone had to say that.) I am happy with either a spade or a club lead, likely on the auction.
MIKE
Pass. Surely partner's double of 3 makes it less likely that 3 is right than it was the previous round. Not that I think we're beating this unless it is a 4-3 fit — but what else? 3 would be a partnership violation. Was this a committee hand? [No. --Jeff]
CHRIS
This is a matter of agreements and partnership philosophy. My personal philosophy at IMPs is to use virtually all doubles of this type to show hands which are good for both offense and defense. So, I might have 109xxx Axxx x Axx for the double, a hand which probably wants to bid 3 or double 3 but isn't sure which. With a balanced hand that wasn't good enough to invite game, I'd just pass 3. Playing this style, I have an easy 3 bid here.
Note that in addition to the technical merits of this style (i.e. not turning a plus into a minus by erroneously competing), there is also the advantage that doubler's partner rarely has a tough decision to make.
DAVIDM
Well, considering that I would not have opened this piece of crap unless playing weak NT, which of course I am not, I cannot imagine making a game after partner's non-forcing 2 call, with about the best spade support I could have given the auction, I am going to bid 3. Passing is not an option, even at this vulnerability.
ROBERTO
3 is clear. Partner is making an action double and I have less than average defense (less than average offense too, actually — I might have passed that hand in first seat).
ED
Pass. No reason to overrule partner.
LEN
Pass. It doesn't make any sense, at IMPs, to double for takeout here, so it's somewhere between penalty and cooperative. Either way I have a clear pass. Why play our seven card fit?
KENT
3. Help! [Seems more like, 3. "Sorry!" --Jeff]
DAVIDW
Partner's 2 bid was voluntary, so he must have 5 spades. I interpret his double as meaning he has the top for his 2 call, something like xxxxx AQx KJx xx. He can hardly have more than that. The 3 contract might lose 1, 2, 2, and a club. Our possible 3 contract might lose 1 spade, 1 heart, 1 diamond, and 2 clubs. I would say pass is the right call, as we have a lot to gain if we're right. The clincher is that the 2 bid might have been made on a short suit if LHO was stuck.
WEB
3. I don't want to lose the match on this board, and my holding in the reds makes it look like they're making. Hopefully I hold the damage to down 1 doubled.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Buck, buck, buck, ba-caww!!! I chickened out and bid 3.
WINNING ACTION
Pass. Partner has Axxxx xxxx Jxx A. Dummy is 5422 and you beat it one. +200. 3 was down one.
CONSENSUS

Courage Panelists

Chickens 7

Non-chickens 5

Chris doesn't really fall in either camp, as his double was a Looby double, but I lumped him in with us other chickens anyway.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I agree that this hand isn't an opening bid, but sometimes white on red one takes some liberties against opponents one judges to be meek.
I don't agree with Chris that the double can be shortness in diamonds, essentially saying, "I want to bid 3, but in case you wanted to double 3, I'm giving you the chance." (We call these "Looby Doubles," after a player who plays just about all doubles have that meaning. I remember a match where we decided in advance vastly to overbid in competitive auctions because we knew we would never get doubled by this pair due to their Looby Doubles. It worked, too.) Note that one has to play these in pass-out seat if one plays them in direct seat, so that at least some penalty doubles can get converted. I think this double should have the opposite meaning, "I think we can beat this, but if you don't, we can probably make 3." Partner had a straight penalty double, with which I'd just pass and take my plus score, but that's playable, too. Or actually, he thought he had one, Axxxx xxxx Jxx A. If dummy had been 5-5, not unlikely, we couldn't have beaten 3, so what he really had was a happy pass, but a reasonable matchpoint double. Of course, everyone would have passed at matchpoints, hoping for the magic +200. Regardless of his hand, my problem was interesting.
IMPs, short matches, both vul, you hold
Q10 AK10x xxx Q10xx

Partner You

1 1

1NT ?

BARRY
2NT. My heart tells me to pass but this form of scoring suggests I duplicate the other table's action and hope partner plays them better, and my black 10s are potentially valuable. [My heart tells me to bid 3NT and hope partner plays them better! --Jeff]
DAVIDC
2NT looks kind of normal. If you are playing some form of XYZ, you would be able to show s as a possible alternative spot.
MIKE
3NT. Me like 10's. Let them defend.
CHRIS
3NT. WTP?
DAVIDM
On HCPs this is a 2NT invite, however, with the addition of the 3 working 10s and the vulnerability, I am going to give partner a chance to prove that his declarer play isn't all that bad and just bid 3NT.
ROBERTO
2NT. If you're opening hands like the previous problem, you can't force to game with this one.
ED
2NT. I might have jumped to 3NT if partner had rebid 1 but I'm not as optimistic with my QT doubleton facing a two-card or three-card suit.
LEN
Pass. The tens are cute but I'm not going to overbid. If pard opened a weak NT, I might Stayman and invite, with the vig of finding an eight card heart fit, but here I don't have that extra chance.
KENT
Depends on style opening vul. If partner would open the equivalent of the hand in question 2 with both vul, I bid 2NT. [He was white on red on that hand. --Jeff] If not, I'm bidding 3NT.
DAVIDW
The down-the-middle call is 2NT, but 3 working tens persuade me to overbid with 3NT. ["Working" is right! All three took tricks. --Jeff]
WEB
This is really close. At matchpoints I think it's a clear pass. Here I'd probably pass as well.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
2NT.
WINNING ACTION
3NT. At each table, this hand bid 2NT and went +180.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 2

2NT 5

3NT 5

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
3NT. You don't invite vul games at IMPs, you invite partner to make them. That's why when you are -140 and your opponents are red, you just pencil in lose 6.
DavidC mentions that playing Two-Way Checkback, one has two ways to get to 2NT. I normally play that 2-2-2NT shows a fit for opener's minor, allowing us to get out in three of that suit if opener judges his hand unsuitable for NT vs. an invite with concentration in two suits. At matchpoints, that makes lots of sense, but if one isn't going to be inviting much at IMPs anyway, perhaps one sequence should show worry about the other major. Here, where we could easily have a 2-2 spade fit, that's a real concern.
MPs, none vul, you hold
xx Kxxx Jxx 109xx

LHO CHO RHO You

2 3 Pass 3NT

Pass 4 Pass ?

3 asked for a stopper.

BARRY
I know this hand (did you tell me? [Yes. --Jeff]) and got it wrong the first time. I think I bid 4NT didn't I? [Yes. If you hadn't, it wouldn't have been here! --Jeff]
DAVIDC
(I saw this auction recently. Nick Nickell had a big hand, solid spades, something like 6-4 in the blacks. But I don't remember that this was responder's hand.) [It wasn't. --Jeff] Anyway, with this hand, I would pass.
MIKE
Ugh! 4NT. I have a real stopper. Partner could have jumped to 4 or X'd and bid 4 if he was all spades. Perhaps this shows 4-7 in spades and a minor? All I know is I have a real heart stopper and no spade fit - if he wanted to play spades opposite that holding, there were alternate approaches that would get me to pass 4. [Odd. Of all the players here, I'd've expected Mike to pass...I've seen him use this sequence before with solid spades and a very offensive hand. --Jeff]
CHRIS
Pass. Without any special agreements, partner has solid spades and a slam try, perhaps AKQJxxx x AKx Ax. [Close! --Jeff]
DAVIDM
Am I supposed to now believe that partner is supposed to be showing a single suited hand that is too good for either 3 or 4 directly (both showing good hands)? Even if partner is asking me now to do something intelligent based on the information, there is not a single intelligent action I can conceive of other than pass.
ROBERTO
I think partner has a huge hand with spades. Still, I have 0 cover cards. I'm passing.
ED
Pass. Partner should have a hand too good for a jump to 4. AQJ10xxx x AKx AQ looks about right.
LEN
Pass. Pard has a huge hand. With spades.
KENT
Pass. See Page 9 in the December 2006 Bridge World. Nickell, the 4 bidder, had AKQJ9xx A x K10xx. Freeman, holding x J10xx KQxx Axxx, jumped to 6. This hand isn't making 6 opposite that. [It's not making 4 opposite that! --Jeff]
DAVIDW
Pass. Was I invited to this party?
WEB
??!? I hope you're going to tell me this is a torture bid. I certainly don't know what it means. I'll pass. If it wasn't natural, partner won't do it again.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
wasn't there. I perpetrated this sequence.
WINNING ACTION
Pass. Partner had 8 solid and an outside ace and a little shape. (OK, I was overbidding.)
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 10

4NT 2

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
The Bridge World to which Kent (and others) refer arrived shortly after I'd posted this problem. I guess it wasn't much of a problem, but having given it to Barry and heard him bid 4NT (and having partner at the table not pass), I thought it might be interesting. Nickell ruined it!
IMPs, short matches, none vul

AK9x
—
KJx
Q8xxxx 87x
QJ10x
A10xx
KJ

West North East South

1 1 2NT Pass

3 All Pass

Making five.
3 was to play
Assign the blame for missing a pretty good game. ...for that matter, either of two pretty good games.

BARRY
East's KJ solidify the suit; 3 over 3 gets 3 to 3NT. East takes most of the blame though West might bid 3 over 2NT I suppose. And maybe East might bid 3NT over 1; this is no ordinary 11-count. The hearts play like AKxx. Overall, I give East 85% of the blame.
DAVIDC
Not easy. Game on 13 opposite 11 and a bit of a misfit. East bid reasonably. (I dislike it when partner makes a limited bid like 2NT and then bids again. Yes, 3 made his hand better, but, for partnership, I think it is right for East to pass at his second turn.) West didn't bid horribly, but I think that 3 was a better rebid. A sixty-four hand is a player and 3 didn't convey that. Score it something like West 80 and East 20
MIKE
I think East's cowardly 2NT is more to play than West's cowardly 3 (which was facing a known misfit). East's pass is alright and no one did anything terrible. I'd've bid 3NT over 1, so I'll give 2NT more play. 25 W / 75 E
CHRIS
Bidding 3 could miss a game opposite e.g. xx KJxx AQxx Jxx, but it could certainly work out well opposite a tripleton spade and some heart wastage. In fact, opposite xxx AQxx Qxxx Kx, even 3 is in mild jeopardy. Nonvulnerable, bidding 3 seems quite reasonable.
Passing 3 is quite poor. Opposite AKx x Kxx QT9xxx, game is laydown. The combination of the side quick trick, fitting club honors, and only three HCP providing two heart stoppers is just huge. I might have bid 3NT the first time.
So, I'd blame East 100%, since West did something at least reasonable (and possibly correct) which shouldn't have cost on the actual deal.
DAVIDM
Neither person is completely innocent, however, I think most of the blame should go to West. While he should be concerned about wasted heart values in partners hand, since partner didn't make a negative double, they should be short in spades. The fact that even with a nine card heart fit (if partner had 5 hearts and the invitational values he is showing he might have passed to wait for a reopening double at both green) I think rebidding 3 was a pretty wimpy, and a 3 bit is probably indicated. However, given that partner is showing 6+ clubs, East's KJ is a great holding and he should try 3 with hearts doubly stopped to see if partner has spades under control.
I think that blame for this is probably about 65% West 35% East — but I could go 60-40.
ROBERTO
100% East. He might bid 3NT at his first turn and definitely at his second turn, now that he knows partner has long clubs. J and to a lesser extent 10 are HUGE cards.
ED
East 100%. West's bidding is fine. It should have given East enough information to make the right decision. With KJ and two stops to boot, East's pass was not winning bridge.
LEN
3NT looks good. What's the other good game (along with your line a percentage of success)? [5. I'd guess it's about 60%. Most would lead a high heart from AK, so we are down to 3-2 clubs and a little racing luck. --Jeff]
The worst opener should have for 3 (assuming 2NT isn't forcing) is QJx xx KJ Axxxxx (I don't think I'd open that), and 3NT isn't very good. But, make it KJx xx Kx AQxxxx and game's quite good. That's a 3NT bid, though. So, the hands in the middle are the likely 3 bids, with the actual hand a relative max. I suppose responder should make one more try for 3NT, but neither 3NT (doesn't suggest 5) nor 3 (suggests 5 too strongly) is right. I think he should try 3.
So:
West, 40% for not bidding 3 or 3NT over 2NT. East, 60% for passing 3.
KENT
100% to West. Once upon a time I read that if you have a six-card minor and are in an invitational auction, you bid game. [I read that if you have a six-card suit, you don't pass 2NT, but what you do is up to you. --Jeff] Give East QJx Kxx AQxx xxx and with a heart lead there are nine tricks outside of clubs. Give East 10xx QJ10x Qxx KJx (looks like a 1NT bid to me!) and even I might make 3NT.
DAVIDW
Tough hand. I certainly would have bid 2NT, so East must be blameless. As West, I would have bid 3 somewhat guiltily. Therefore, West is at fault, although I do not think his call was bad. It just worked out badly this time. It's so often the case that the aggressive choice turns out to be the lucky one at IMPs, that I'm surprised people still keep trying to cut hands fine.
WEB
This is a hard hand — I'm not sure I'd want to assign a full 100%. East seems to have exactly what he said with 2NT, and 3 is a slight underbid, so maybe 50% West, 50% bridge gods. I'm not sure there's a call I like better than 3 with the West cards.
CONSENSUS

Panelist % West % East

Barry 15 85

DavidC 80 20

Mike 25 75

Chris 0 100

DavidM 65 35

Roberto 0 100

Ed 0 100

Len 40 60

Kent 100 0

DavidW 100 0

Web 50 0

Average 45 55

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
The only reason I can see for East's passing 3 is that partner expects him to pass, and bidding 3NT feels like an anti-partnership action. (Or maybe a mixed pairs action ) He knows that 3NT rates to be pretty good, so passing is just poor. On the other hand, 3 is really pretty wimpy. Opposite many hands with which partner will pass, 5 is pretty good. I think West shouldn't be too concerned about missing 3NT, but having heard no negative double, 5 should very much be in the picture. If East has 2443, a common shape here, it doesn't take much to make 5. One of my teammates suggested that West bid 3, suggesting a void, but that focusses too much on 3NT. I wonder...does 3 here show a sixth club? For such a simple auction, I have heard nearly zero discussion about the meanings of bids here...perhaps that is a reason for West not to branch out into the unknown.
The bottom line is that you just don't bid 2NT at IMPs. Even when it's right, sometimes partner makes an overtrick, or the defense errs, or 2NT was down anyway, or... There's something to the theory that a competitive 2NT is always forcing at IMPs.

Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@gg.caltech.edu, Dec 24, 2006

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

You	Partner
1	1NT
3	4
?

Partner	You
1	1
1NT	?


AK9x — KJx Q8xxxx		87x QJ10x A10xx KJ

West	North	East	South
1	1	2NT	Pass
3	All Pass