Misc. Problems Fall 2002

Misc. Problems, Fall 2002

Today's panelists: Kent Hartman, Barry Rigal, Chris Willenken, Joel Wooldridge, Mike Shuster, David Milton, Alan LeBendig, David Caprera, Bobby Bodenheimer, David Weiss, Floyd McWilliams, John Jones, Rolf Kühn, Adam Wildavsky, Marshall Miles

Good turnout for the first problem set in months.

IMPs, short matches, favorable, you hold
A Axxx AJxxx Axx

CHO RHO You LHO

1 2 Pass Pass

2 Pass ?

What's your bidding plan?

KENT
I'd like to bid 3 to set hearts, ask for key cards, and ask for other kings. In practice, 5NT and bid 6 or 7 hearts depending on the answer. If partner is looking at Jxxxxx QJxxx — KQ, that's too bad. I suppose the worst case is KQJxxx xxxxx — KQ. Shrug—maybe hearts are 2-2. [I open pretty light, but I wouldn't open either of those hands 1. I'd pass the first one and open 4 at favorable on the other. It's nice to have some defense for an opening bid. --Jeff]
BARRY
4 to set hearts then over the guaranteed 4 call (over anything else bid 7) 4NT KC for . Hope to hear 5=1, then ask for Q and if partner shows it and the K (it would be nice if he could bid 6 to show both black kings or the K) with 5 then make a GS try. [1430 would be convenient this time, I must say. --Jeff]
CHRIS
7. I strongly object to pass of 2 for two reasons:
1) What is happening here? Sounds like both partner and RHO have distributional hands since I have all the aces. The odds of partner's reopening with a double are quite small, and partner might be tempted to pass it out with a minimum, likely diamond void, and no aces for defense. [He'd better not. He sees the vulnerability, too, and knows I might be trapping. --Jeff] If partner reopens with a suit, I am in a horrible situation. [Why? Most of the time, partner will reopen with either a double or 2. Double is easy—sit back and get 1100/1400. 2 is easy—Bid 4. --Jeff] Better to double 2 and search for our best strain.
2) If partner does somehow double back in, 2x may be +500 against a gin slam or grand slam. [500? Are you assuming RHO has 8 diamonds? --Jeff]
Having passed over 2, I do not think that 3 is a cuebid on the next round. How would you bid with x x QJTxxxx KQJx? You bid a delayed 3. Maybe 4 should be a cuebid, but I'm not risking it. [I think 4 should be stronger, say A Ax KQJ109xx xxx. 4 is forcing, but 3 isn't. This doesn't really matter very often, but when you play against overcall structure pairs, you get problems like this with some regularity, not that the opponents were playing OS this time. --Jeff]
JOEL
4NT. then if he shows 1 and queen, I'll invite 7. [How? --Jeff] One more thing. It just occured to me that 4NT could be misconstrued as quantitative. If that's possible with the partner I'm playing with, I'll just bid 6. [Good point, but I'd judge that unlikely, as key card in a new suit seems useful and partner's range is very limited. --Jeff]
MIKE
You gave me this hand a while back. 4NT. I agree with the initial plan of punishing 2. Although you may have an easy slam or grand, the penalty at favorable ought to be plenty compensation - I see no reason to believe they can take more than 3 or 4 tricks.
At this point, we know partner is likely 5-5-0-3 or (6-5-0-2). Normally partner's auction implies a lack of defensive controls when holding the first pattern, but we already knew that from our hand. If partner has KQxxx and at least 5 more random schmoints outside of hearts, the grand is probably reasonable and it seems like Blackwood can be used cooperatively here to give us both the best shot at getting to 7 when its right. After partner's 5 1 answer, 5 asks about the Q and partner, the clever player he is, knowing that I know he has no diamonds, might bid 6 (not 7) holding KJxxx KQxxx — Qxx or any 5-6 holding that can't bid the grand on its own (over which I will sign off in 6). If partner proceeds 5NT, I again sign off, not having real grand interest opposite hands that couldn't bid it themselves (i.e. KQxxx in both majors). The lack of a 10th trump will usually mean too much work for seven, but if partner answers 6, I think I'll shoot it out knowing all the minor cards are covered and he just needs to make the spades good.
As a side question, it is of some interest how the partnership should proceed over 5NT showing no K outside of spades. Should 6 be artificial asking about the K? Should it ask for 3rd round control? I'm not sure—perhaps another reason the 6 level cuebid ought to show an unshowable king rather than the typically less key king of the opponent's suit. Then over 5NT new suits can ask for 3rd round control—or the king in the opponent's suit. Obviously this is far more detail than the average partnership should even consider considering.
DAVIDM
I am going to start with 3 [and end with 3. --Jeff] and if partner implies extra heart length (5), I am eventually going to try the GSF to reach a grand.
ALAN
RKC. If partner has KQ and K, I'll likely bid grand.
DAVIDC
4 but I am not stopping short of 6. I don't believe 3 is forcing.
BOBBY
Partner will not be encouraging in any drive to slam since he has no aces, but Kxxxx KQxx x xxx is enough and he has more than that.
What I would like to do is agree hearts and start cue-bidding or blackwooding. If I start with 3, then I will be ecstatic if partner responds 3, but I will have a damaged auction on my hands if partner responds 3, unless we have a clear understanding of what 4NT would be in this sequence. One could argue that it might imply hearts since if I were interested in a spade slam I would probably not have been waiting around for a penalty double, but I don't have that agreement with any partners.
I kind of like blackwooding immediately. I can't figure out if he's got a fifth heart, but I think I can find out enough to know if we should be in 6 or not.
DAVIDW
5NT (GSF)
FLOYD
3, then 4NT. If partner shows the heart king, I bid 6. This is crude but I don't think partner will cooperate with a slam try. (I originally said an immediate 4NT, but that might be taken as quantitative.)
ROLF
4: 6 seems already a good bet. It's difficult to examine the GS. If I continue with 3 and Partner bids 3, it will be difficult to establish the heart fit. I like 4. As it is clearly not a splinter it seems to be a cue, but whatever it is, it confirms hearts. I can still get into the relay chain after 4NT but something good can happen in the meantime, e.g. Partner may be persuaded to ask for aces.
JJ
Two sequences seem reasonable. One of those is simply bidding 5NT (Grand Slam Force). The other is bidding 4NT, followed by asking for the Q if one is playing 1430. The sequence becomes:

CHO You

1 (2) P

2 4NT

5 5

(Queen ask)

and the answers would be: 5 (no queen), 5 (Q & K is lowest K), 5NT (Q, w/o any K), 6 (Q, no K, K). If I went that route I would bid the grand only if I got a 5 call. As a practical matter, pard will try to show the potential void fairly often, [Good point. --Jeff] thus maybe the straightforward 5NT call is best.
ADAM
My plan is to bid 5NT and pass when partner bids 7.
MARSHALL
I would bid 5NT. It is hard to imagine that 7 won't have a good play opposite two high honors. I would not have risked a pass over 2 since I don't consider reopening compulsory [with diamond shortness]. On second thought, with favorable vulnerability I probably would risk a pass. Three trick set quite likely, so at worst we'll get +300 vs. a non-vulnerable game.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
5NT.
WINNING ACTION
Don't bid a grand or even a small: Partner has QJxxx KQJ10x — Qxx. (I thought he was 6-4, but he was 5-5.) Spades are 5-2 offside.
VOTES

Action Votes

3 2

4 3

4NT 4

5NT 6

7 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Let's consider the "cue bids" first. What do you do with x x QJ109xxx xxxx? You have to bid 3 nonforcing, so 3 isn't a cue. Add two aces to that hand and you need to make a forcing diamond bid, so 4 isn't a cue, it's a natural force. Such non-cues happen much more often when trapping over a 1-level overcall, but the bid definition still needs to stay the same. When playing against an overcall structure pair, these come up a lot, although trapping is very dangerous against them, as partner may not have shortness with which to reopen. Still, in a trap pass auction, bidding their suit is natural, so we can't do it.
Not much else is forcing, so that leaves the choice between Blackwood and the GSF. I don't see how the former is going to help much. Partner will show one with 5, then your 5 will ask for the Q. He can show a minor suit king or the Q and maybe or maybe not the K with 5NT. Not bidding the grand when he denies the K means you miss slam when he has KQxxx KQxxx — xxx. I don't think he'd bid seven after 5 with such a hand. He would with KQJ10xx KQJxx — xx, I think, so this is a pretty narrow target to reach. And the grand isn't cold. So upon reflection, I like 4NT then 5 and no grand blast without the K better than my original GSF choice. Partner's actual hand is a bit of a surprise.
Is there a way to find out about the K and mantain a general rule about these auctions? I don't see one. It's not good enough to have a rule that says you don't care about their suit because partner is known to be short in their suit. You know it this time, but why couldn't he have 5521 shape and bid the same way? Over 5NT, normally we play 6-bids ask for 3rd-round control, since kings are already known. To change one to asking about the K looks like it may run across our intentions in other auctions. Kantar's 1st edition of RKCB says that the answer is that responder should bid 6 with the K and the Q. Perhaps that's as it should be. In that case, 5NT would deny any side king and make it pretty easy for us to stop in 6. Most I know play that one does not go above 6 of our suit to show side kings. This time, I think it'd be OK; I'd be willing to play seven vs. the Q and K. Maybe that's generally true.
IMPs, short matches, Both vul, you hold
AJ9xx x 9876 Axx

CHO You

1 1 (promises 5/Flannery)

2 ?
KENT
This is the usual impossible problem with this shape. Partner can have anything from a minimum 5-4 in the round suits to a hand just short of a jump shift. I need to keep the bidding open—I do have two aces. I'll put a diamond in with my clubs and bid 3.
BARRY
Pass. Though I hate Flannery I now know that the best reason for bidding on in cognate auctions (4 might make) is invalid. So I can pass 2 and only lose out to 3NT making. Note that the odds re game at Teams are not quite true where as here 3NT might go down a lot.
CHRIS
3. Disgusting, but there it is. Pass at pairs.
JOEL
Pass
MIKE
Pass. Like everyone else, I'm guessing here (but I will admit it!). 2 is almost a sure thing and anything I do endangers the plus, so there is a lot to be said for passing. I have good controls but a poor fit and the diamonds don't really thrill me for NT, so to me the choice is between pass and 3. I think the odds favor protecting the plus score in a short match. I'm glad you didn't ask me what I'd do in the Vanderbilt—you might not care for the answer I'd give: "Toss a mental coin and bid."
DAVIDM
Since I play that 3rd suit is almost 100% forcing and I am far from minimum, I am going to bid 3, the only real option.
ALAN
Not very happy about it, but I think a pass places me in the best position here given the available choices. I play 2 here forces to game. On this hand I wish I didn't (I think)
DAVIDC
Good here. 2NT possible but too much for my taste.
BOBBY
I don't think there's a clear call here: pass or 2NT could be right. 3NT looks marginal at best. I guess to pass, being swayed by the Aces and the stiff.
DAVIDW
3. I cannot afford to give up on game chances. Partner can have 3-5-1-4 with extras, or a strong no trump with spade shortness. Playing my preferred methods ("Major Problems", Bridge World 1996), in which partner's responses over 1 are transfers, I could bid a risky 2 over his 1NT bid. It is risky, because opener might have only 3 (2-5-3-3). But the 3-3 might scramble eight tricks. At least I don't have to get to the three-level when partner has a minimum with four or more clubs.
FLOYD
3. Ugly, but what else can I do? 2 has a wide range and I have two aces.
JJ
Pass It's close, but no bid appeals. 3 is best if you bid. You are vulnerable at IMPs so there is some temptation. However, there are 2 ways to be wrong if you bid: 3 could go down, or game by pard might fail. Its my feeling that discretion is the better part of valor on hands like this with a soso fit. I'll pay off to having a combined 27 HCP occasionally. Possibly I'm influenced by my opening bid style here.
ROLF
Pass. I am a chicken. Awful decision to be made. [I think passing is the bold view, not the chicken one! --Jeff]
ADAM
3
MARSHALL
Pass. (I don't think 1 should promise 5, only imply 5. [I've never understood the use of this commonplace semantic error. "Imply" and "promise" differ not in the strength of the assertion, but in how the assertion is made. To promise is to assert explicitly; to imply is to assert indirectly. Neither is stronger than the other. If one wants a graded scale of how frequently, for example, 1 shows five cards, perhaps one might use guarantee/promise/suggest. "Suggest" is clearly weaker than promise or guarantee. --Jeff] I would respond 1 with KQ10x x Qxxxx xxx, for example.) My close 2nd choice is 3 but if my hearts were singleton queen, maybe even singleton jack, I might take a false preference to 2 to keep the bidding alive in case partner has a very strong hand.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
3. I'd pass at pairs and apologize between the opening lead and my placing down the dummy, just in case. At IMPs, I'm not willing to miss a game.
WINNING ACTION
Pass. 8 tricks are available at clubs. I don't remember partner's hand, but I remember hating the problem!
VOTES

Action Votes

Pass 9

3 7

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
The panel discussed the issues pretty well. The bottom line is to judge whether the 5-IMP loss risked by bidding 3 is common enough to risk the 11-IMP loss risked by passing. I'm sure game is far less than 50%, but going down in 3 isn't 100%. What the heck, let's do the math:
```
    Probability of Missing Game = PMG
    Probability of 3 going down and 2 making = P3CD
    Probability of 3 going down and 2 going down = P2CD
  E[x] for passing - E[x] for bidding = 
    PMG * -11 + P3CD * 5 + P2CD * 3
  Let's say game is 30%, 3 goes down 50%, and 2 goes down 10%.
    .3 * -11 + .5 * 5 + .1 * 3 = -.5 IMP
  
```
If those are the right guesses, the choice is about half an IMP in favor of bidding. This, of course, is a simplification; bidding might lead to a game going down or to getting doubled in something and going for a number. Those seem like unlikely ocurrances, probably less than half an IMP's worth. It doesn't take lowering the game odds much to make passing a favorite. All told, I'd guess this is just about a break-even choice, with either action having about the same expectation.
At matchpoints, passing is clear cut, I think. The chance of going minus by bidding is substantially larger than of missing game by passing. I don't see improving the strain's happening while staying in a part score, so that's the major tradeoff. That choice is easy. It's only IMPs where there is a problem.
IMPs, short matches, no one vul, you hold
9xxxx xx AKx Qxx

CHO RHO You LHO

1 1 1* 2

2* 3 ?

1 promised 5 trumps. 2 promised 4.
a) what do you think of those methods?
b) what now?

KENT
1 promising 5 is fine. 2 promising 4—ok, nice on this. I'll bid 3 which I'd think is mildly constructive. [I'd think it was just competitive. Double is the game try. --Jeff] I'm about a king heavier than I needed to be for 1, and since we're on a known nine-card fit, passing would indicate less.
BARRY
Methods are fine. My first thought was to double maximum. Sue persuaded me that 3 was enough so I'll just do that. Partner's failure to jump to 3 (which he would do with 14-15 and shape) means she is probably right.
CHRIS
Double as a game try. Slightly aggressive, but I like the diamond fit. Second choice, 3.
JOEL
a) I think that 2 should show 3, and double should show 2.
b) double—maximal. If not available, 3.
MIKE
ZZ) Where are the 5 trumps I promised?
A) Methods are alright. I don't think you need to play support X's in a Neg X or Flannery influenced auction, and X would probably better be used to show a good hand with no clear direction (often 18-19).
B) Pass. I like the AKx, but the rest of my hand is junk. I'd like partner to be able to count on me for some heart wastage to X and my shape is unimpressive. I don't have much more than I promised with 1 and certainly this is the worst possible trump holding for the auction. I pass. Partner will usually get this right. I'll pass whatever he does (except 3NT).
DAVIDM
a) I like those methods, however, since they parallel mine, I might be prejudiced
b) I am going to make a game try double.

ALAN
a) I like everything but 2 promising 4. On this hand it works well.
b) 3. Since partner also knows how many trumps we have and could make the LAW bid, a pass by me should suggest that we are getting into a dangerous area if we bid 3. I don't accept that I must get to 3. Without the K and Q, I still would have bid 1 (I think).
DAVIDC
Methods fine. I am going to be a pig and bid a game. Second choice max double if available.
BOBBY
Methods are fine. I compete to three spades.
DAVIDW
a) Methods are OK, though not my preference. But fine for this hand.
b) Dbl., defined as a game try. Partner knows the key feature of my hand and will make a good decision, though we might simply get too high.
FLOYD
a) Fine with me.
b) If double is maximal I do that. If not, I bid game.
JJ
I like the methods. They make competition easier. [But more effective? --Jeff] On this hand 4 is unlikely given that pard only bid 2. Passing is possible, but in this particular auction we should probably be defending only when both hands significantly want to defend. Do I really want to defend? My spade suit is poor, having 2 small s is neither particularly good nor bad — there's nothing wasted, but having 2 doesn't thrill me, my s say that we are better off on offense than defense, the Q is somewhat better on defense. The fit is very important though, pard might have something like AQxx Jxx QJxx Kx, and he won't compete even though we belong in 3, not defending 3. [On that example, I'd guess the expectation of bidding vs. passing is about even. Once in awhile, they'll make 3 and we'll make 3. Once in a longer while, we'll get whacked in 3 and go for a number. Neither is particularly likely, and while the former is more so, it is less costly than the latter. Overall, there's probably a small net plus for bidding, but it's not enough to worry about. --Jeff]
ROLF
Double: invitational for game. The methods made us aware that we have a 9-card fit, which is nice. So I have enough to double. The hand is too strong for 3 and its ODR [Offense-to-Defense Ratio --Jeff] is too low for 4.
ADAM
a) Not much. A double of 2 is better played to show 2 spades here.
b) Pass seems fine. Partner knows how many trump we have.
MARSHALL
a) Don't like them. 1 should imply, not promise 5. I would bid 1 with KQ10x xxxx xx Jxx or AQJx xxxxx xx xx since I wouldn't mind playing 2 opposite 3-card support and shortage in hearts. Besides, my negative doubles do not just show a specific major length, but flexible hands, and I wouldn't want to encourage partner to compete in either minor. [This was how Al Roth originally intended negative doubles to be played. Marshall is one of the few who still uses this approach. --Jeff]
b) 3. It is close, but I'd prefer double if it were maximal. But sitting behind the overcaller, I'm not sure it is. On second thought, maybe I would double. Partner should have 2 or 3 spades and will know I didn't intend it for penalty.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
wasn't there. I would have passed. Then again, I would have made a negative double of 1, as I think this is a 4-card spade suit. I think bidding on here is bidding partner's cards for him. He knows about the 9-card fit, too. It's not as if you have any substantial extra offense, and your defense-to-offense ratio is huge.
WINNING ACTION
pass. Partner (and the opponents!) had stepped out a little and was dying to whack 3. The maximal double works just fine, too, of course.
VOTES

Action Votes

Pass 3

Double 7

3 5

4 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I'm stunned that the panel thinks this is so close to a game invitation. The heart anti-fit is at least as bad as the AK is good. Partner already knows we have five spades and we've bid all but a king of our values. I thought the question was between bidding 3 and passing. If that is so, I do not see why passing isn't best. We have crappy trumps and sterile shape. Our hand is just as good for defense as offense, so why shouldn't we let partner make the decision whether to compete to 3? He's still there. Why won't he make a better decision than we can?
Despite the panel's near-unanimity towards bidding, I remain unconvinced. I think my partner should have passed then, and I still think it now. The chance of my passing out 3 when it is wrong seems very small. After all, I also know about the 9-card spade fit.
IMPs, short matches, E/W NV, N/S Vul

KJxx
10xxx
KQ87x
—

x
x
A10xx
KQ109xxx Q10xxx
Qxx
9x
Jxx

Axx
AKJxx
Jx
Axx

West North East South

4! Pass 4! Pass

5! Pass Pass Dbl

All Pass

Not surprisingly, 4 was alerted and explained as Namyats, a good 4 opening. 4 was not alerted, but was expected to ask partner to bid 4. 5 was alerted as "I guess he forgot."
The director was summoned after the 5 bid. How do you rule?

BARRY
Asssuming that South would pass 4 if properly informed— he can't bid 4 since partner will not read it... Over 4 West will make a slam try for without t6he alert — the 4 bid does not tip West off.
So let's say West bids 'only' 5. Now East bids 5 and South will double. I don't see E/W sorting it out below 7*. But 6* is possible. On a heart lead and a shift to A and another club declarer will go down six.
CHRIS
7x down six. Very reasonable for West to take a shot at 6 over 4, over whch -1700 is the best possible E/W result.
JOEL
I would inquire as to what 4 means over a 4 preempt. If it's RKC, and 5 showed 2 with the queen, then I'll ask why the 4 bidder didn't alert 4 (since it's the 1st round of the auction). Also, if 4 was RKC, I would ask when the explanations to the alerts were given. All of this informations may be important for me to determine the likely state of mind of the pair while they're bidding. At the very least, I'm going to give a procedural penalty to the pair for not alerting 4 as RKC. [It'd not be alertable if RKC—no ace-asks are. --Jeff] However, if 4 is natural, then there's going to be a much bigger adjustment given. Assuming that 4 is natural, I expect the 4 opener to bid 4NT RKC for diamonds (if available). Then I would inquire as to their methods of responses. If they have a bid that shows 0 or 3, then I'll make them do that, and then I'll have the opening bidder bid 6. Once doubled, I'd make them play there, down 10. If they don't play RKC, then after 4NT, I'll allow the 4 opener to retreat to 5 over the 5 bid showing 0 or 4 aces. Once that's doubled, I'll make them play there....down 9.
BTW, my mom agrees with the 4-4; 4NT-5; 6-(x)-6; (x)-all pass auction when I gave her the 4 opening bidder's hand. She also thinks that she would've responded 5 to 4NT RKC from the person responding to Namyats hand. My mom is a good player, BTW...that's why I included her opinion (to give it some validation).
MIKE
This is pretty complex. I'm not sure what 4 is supposed to mean over a 4 opening bid, but many pairs would play that as preempt keycard gerber. If this pair is playing that, then West made a normal 5 bid (2 with) and East is allowed to pass that bid unless there was some other kind of UI, say nervous twitching, looking around the room, thumbing the bid card, etc. (the 5 bid is pretty weird if 4 isn't necessarily slammish, East is allowed to wake up in that case anyway.) If 4 isn't PKCG, then West is in a strange position. He can probably tell that either the wheels have come off or partner is operating, since he is looking at the A (4 can't be natural). In either case, 5 is the normal advance when partner is doing something weird, so I think 5 is allowed.
Based on the information I have available, I would allow the table result to stand. If I'd gone the other way, disallowing the E/W 5 bid, I would still stick N/S with the table result, as the pass of 5X severs the link.
DAVIDM
It would depend on what their agreement actually is, if they are playing Namyats, and he did forget, he took advantage of unauthorized information and I think that castration or neutering should be fair punishment If they weren't playing Namyats and East forgot, then 4 should be forcing over a 4 preempt and West should be made to bid 5. But, then, I don't do this for a living — or anything else for that matter right now.
ALAN
Clear case of UI on both sides. I would rule that W raises to 5 (that's what would happen in a "bridge" auction if there had been no alert and explanation (which W is not entitled to "hear"). E would now assume that to be a heart slam try and he would likely decline. W would take 5 as some sort of slam try in and sign off in 6 I guess. If I were to judge that N doubles 5 (East is still unaware of what has gone wrong), I would allow W to wake up after S doubles 5. If it seems reasonable that N would not double 5 (I guess he may not if he were a screenmate of E). I might now judge that after E "corrects" to 5 and S doubles, W has nothing further to say in this "slam try" auction that E has created. I would now use 12C2 to assign a score in 5 doubled. I would never rule avg +/- since it is possible to determine a result using the parameters set down by 12C2.
I realize that 6 is cold, but I see no way that I could "blame" N-S for their inability to get to the slam. They would certainly receive ample compensation if I ruled that 5 doubled is the final contract.
DAVIDC
I rule the 5 bid as ridiculous if their partnership agreement is Namyats and a bad underbid if 4 was natural. Either way, N-S are entitled to redress. More interesting would have been if W, awakened by the alert, actually bid 4 — now N-S are really screwed but maybe no adjustment.
DAVIDW
I hate these, because it is hard to see how deeply we must bury the guy who forgot. I think West is obligated to bid 5, and then East will bid 5. South will double, and then West is permitted to bid 6. So the result should be that for 6 doubled, which looks like down five (heart to ace, A and another to the jack. Diamond to the 10, spade to the ace and a third trump. This is optimal defense, which we must allow N-S to attain.) [Not exactly. The best defense likely, which is the same this time. --Jeff]
FLOYD
The offenders get the worst result at all probable. Say West bids 4NT in response to 4 natural, which isn't the worst bid in the world. East bids 5, 0/3 and West bids 6. East thinks this is a grand try and bids 6, which South doubles. West has nothing to say and passes.
There are a lot of different ways the defense can go. Down 11 is the best and down 8 is the reasonable worst (give west a trump, don't untangle the diamonds, one club ruff.) One defensive error seems likely so rule it as down 10, N-S +2900.
The non-offenders get the best probable result. West's most likely bid is 4, his cheapest control. East will pass, South doubles, and West has something to think about! He will probably bid 5, and now N-S have an easier road to their slam. N-S +1430.
There will also be a procedural penalty if I think West should know better.
JJ
Gracious, 5 redoubled might well be the contract if West didn't take advantage of the Alert Procedure (4, P, 4, P, 5, P, 5, dbl, redbl, P, P, P). In fact, I gave the hand to a few people (w/o telling them 4 was Namyats) and everyone bid 5, 4NT (RKCB), 6 or 5NT (pick a minor slam) over the 4 bid. When I forced them to accept 5, everyone of them redoubled 5. Thus, I award E/W with minus 6400 (5 redoubled down 11), plus a procedural penalty if they are good enough to know better. [They weren't. --Jeff] Since the criterion for giving N/S an award is somewhat more conservative, I think a split ruling of only plus 3200 (no redouble) might be right.
ROLF
I am no TD, but West used the UI to bid 5. As 4 was natural to him he should bid something like 6. West would correct to 6, corrected to 7. I guess the result might be something like 7x.
ADAM
Was there UI? Yes.
Were NS damaged? Yes.
Were there logical alternatives to 5? Yes.
Did the UI suggest 5 over the alternatives? Yes.
First we assess a procedural penalty against EW for West's taking blatant advantage of the UI. 3 IMPs or 1VP should do it, not to accrue to NS.
Second we adjust the score using 12C2. For the non-offenders I judge the most favorable result that was likely to be 7 X, taking the same number of tricks as they took in 5 X.
For the offenders the most unfavorable result that was at all probable is 7 doubled or something like that, EW -2900. One possible auction (EW using 0314 RKCB) is

West East

4 4

4NT 5 (Dbl)

5 6 (Dbl)

7 P (Dbl)

Here's another:

West East

4 4

4NT 5 (Dbl)

6 6 (Dbl)

7 P (Dbl)

Perhaps West should judge to try 7 on the way to 7, but I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
An adjustment like this is by no means going overboard. It's the best way to make sure that West will learn and follow his ethical obligations.
[Nicely done. --Jeff]
MARSHALL
Assuming the opponents are playing Namyats (as indicated on their convention card), no adjustment — score stands. 4 has to be forcing, and West's holding is enough to alert him to a misunderstanding. (Why isn't someone bidding hearts?) [Because partner has a 23-count? --Jeff] I suppose "I guess he forgot," was improper, but harmless — intended to help opponents, not hurt them.
JEFF
The director at the table ruled, "we are playing win/loss, so if it doesn't matter, I don't have to think about it." Good call. It didn't.
VOTES

E/W Ruling N/S Ruling Votes

5x Same 2

5x Same 1

5x Same 1

5xx 5x 1

6x Same 2

6x 6 1

7x Same 3

7x 7 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I forgot to mention that Namyats was the actual agreement, so the panel had to say, "if 4 was actually natural, ...". Given the amount of confusion, I think I'll set up the ruling problem to get to the crux of the matter if I can in the future. Here, I should have noted everything but, "what do you think are the plausible results we ought to consider."
Just for completeness, here's how to set up the problem:
Question 1: was there Unauthorized Information (UI)?

Yes. West received UI from the explanation of 4. East received UI from the failure to alert 4.
Question 2: did any player choose from among Logical Alternatives (LA), one demonstrably suggested by the UI?

Yes. 5 and the pass thereof were each infractions.
Question 3: did the infraction damage the Non-Offending Side (NOS)?

Yes. It's hard to see how E/W can stop as low as 5x without misusing UI.
With "Yes" answers to 1, 2, and 3, we must award an adjusted score. Which score that is, in the ACBL, is determined as follows:
For the NOS: award the most favorable result that was likely.
For the OS: award the most unfavorable result that was at all probable.
These two scores need not match.
To the crux of the problem...what are the likely and at all probable results? That's real hard; the above is just the way the rules work. The next chunk is just my opinion.
What are West's real options over 4? I see several: 5, 6, 4NT, and 5. I would bid 5, as I don't think this is a slam auction necessarily; partner is supposed to judge that, not us. All in all, I don't think anything but 5 is particularly likely, but certainly such calls are possible alternatives. Will North double 5? He knows what's going on from E/W's table action; he also knows that 5 is probably forcing. Maybe. I think he's likely not to double, but if they were really having a Namyats auction, he would likely double to get a diamond lead. Given that he said he wouldn't and he did know what was going on, let's give him the benefit of that one. What should East do over 5 bereft of UI? That depends. Is it possible that opener has some huge one-suiter in hearts and is making a slam try here? It's possible, but I doubt there's any chance that this particular West could be; he should know his partner would never read it. Personally, I've never heard of such a thing, either, and I'd never perpetrate it. I think East is now allowed to wake up and realize partner has done something wrong. In a top-flight event, perhaps East has to keep playing as if West had hearts, but even there, the argument "if he has a single-suiter in hearts too strong to stop in game, and he chose to bid it this way, it's his problem if we get a stupid result, and maybe he'll learn not to trot out such strange bids in the future as a result" would sway me to let East do what he wants over 5. (Unless his partner were Marshall Miles ... Sorry Marshall!) After that point, therefore, pretty much all roads lead to 6x -1400 for both sides.
Is this fair to N/S? After all, par for them is +1430. Yes, it's fair. After the 4 opening, there's no chance they'd ever get to 6 reasonably, so they were not disabled by the infraction from getting there, but by the 4 bid. Bidding 4 is legal, not an infraction, so they get no further redress.
The panel did a pretty good job, all in all, pretty much all working at the core of the matter. And just about all got different results. This stuff isn't so easy. Sometimes there isn't a "right" answer.

IMPs, none vul

K10xxxx
Q10x
Kxx
A

Q
KJ9xx
AQJxx
Kx

North South

1 2

3 4

5 6

6 Pass

Assess the blame for reaching a slam off two aces. OK, maybe the "credit." +980 was scored.

KENT

I don't like 5

, but I dislike 6

more. South is putting a lot of cards in North's hand with that bid. The auction took almost the maximum room at every step, which made things tough. [Good point. The auction went 1-2-3-4-5-6 in consecutive bids. --Jeff] North 40%, South 60%.

CHRIS

looks like way too much. 5

instead should get partner to bid a slam when it's right.

BARRY

-2

-3

- [I play] 3NT [as a] non-serious slam-try, so 4

-4

-4NT-5

-5

South's 4 is wrong. I'd bid 5 with the North cards. North might have bid 2 not 3, but I give South 95% blame. Over 5 South might not have driven to slam anyway.

Who ducked the A??

JOEL

First, I want to know if this pair is playing serious 3NT. [Nope. --Jeff] If not, I'd want to know methods (2/1 is what I'm assuming). In 2/1, the 3

bid shows a non-minimum, [Yup. --Jeff] and the 4

bid could be a bit shaded with decent values. For that reason (no 4

bid on the previous round), I'd call the 5

bid an overbid. So, I'd give the larger portion of blame to North. On the actual auction, however, South should clearly have signed off in 5

over 5

. So, I'd make the blame 55-North; 45-South.

MIKE

The only bid that is clearly wrong is 6

. How can it be right to try for 7 missing the

A? 6

was a small underbid, but North must have been worried about trump quality (isn't the auction much more consistent with

Kxxxxx

Axx

Kxx — planning on cuebidding 4

over the 4

signoff — the direct 3

over 3

would create doubt about strain). North would also have started that way holding

AKxxxx

Axx

xx — but not continued 6

without both the

A and a club control (and therefore weakish hearts, since no Blackwood).

I think the partnership ran into some trouble when neither partner found a convenient time to limit his hand. South's bids constantly improved the North hand and the spade wastage was hard to identify. I think that it was South's responsibility to reel it in over 5 and at most continue 5 (although I think 5 is probably better knowing you're off the A). In either case, North with a minimum to date might sign off despite his great minor controls.

I see nothing wrong with North's auction (unless your partnership strictly cuebids up the line, in which case North should bid 5 not 5, showing by inference the A but irrelevent this time since South unilaterally bid slam over 5 anyway) so I guess South gets all the blame.

DAVIDM

They both should be shot

South's cue bid shows slam interest and implies some extra values. North, with a questionable minimum shouldn't move beyond game. South should realize that they are missing the

A since North didn't bid 4

and should bid 5

over 5

. All in all, I give North 60% for slamming on his minimal crap and 40% to South for not thinking. On the other hand, didn't South ever learn about Blackwood? This seems like a perfect hand for it, doesn't it? So I guess I give North 60% and South 80% (Yogi would've been proud of me)

ALAN

98% E. W gets 2% for his choice of partners. 4

is worst bid. 6

is pretty bad. However, I'm not sure we can assign blame when a good result is achieved.

DAVIDC

This is the best and the worst problem of the set. It really all revolves around partnership agreement. What is the partnership priority of cuebids? Was there a "last train" or "serious 3NT" available to clarify the situation? Will the partnership cuebid a control in length (4

) before one in shortness (4

) or vice versa? Second round before first? My partnership auction would have gone 1

-2

-3

(I agree with the raise)-4

would have been natural and we don't distinguish between length or shortness, 3NT would have been "courtesy" so that 4

shows a real slam try -saves space as will soon be apparent)-4

-4NT (Keycard and the bid that was missing from the actual auction) - 5

(1430 and not enough) -5

. Apparently, this partnership had no such agreements, particularly as to whether opener was supposed to go past 4

with a minimum, so I score it 50-50.

BOBBY

North 100%. The auction is fine up until 5

. At this point in the auction North knows that the partnership is missing the spade Ace. Without a first or second round control in trumps, his attention should be there. 5

is not going to allow a good trump investigation. Also, he should not be encouraged by his stiff ace - it's a flaw in the hand, really. North has shown his values and should communicate that he doesn't have much encouraging to say at this point with a 4

bid.

How did you avoid losing two tricks? Did they revoke?

DAVIDW

North 100%. I would have bid only 4

over 4

, but even if one wishes to issue an immediate slam try, it is hard to see how 4NT can be worse than 5

. East made a poor play ducking the spade led from dummy, because if South has a spade void, the setting tricks can only come from the red suits.

FLOYD

I think North has to bid 5

. If South has two losing clubs it will be too hard for him to bid over 4

. North's hand could be the perfect minimum that South is hoping for.

6 by South was way out of line; it must promise first-round spade control as North has denied it. South should bid 5 over 5. 5 would say "oops, no spade ace, sorry", so 5 should express interest opposite good trumps. An immediate 4NT bid with the South hand wouldn't be ridiculous either. South gets the "blame"; you could argue that 4 was below game and 5 was too much, but 6 was clearly wrong.

Did someone revoke?

JJ

Nobody did anything silly. Frivolous 3NT or Italian Style Cuebids (up the line as opposed to As before Ks) would both be helpful on this hand. 5

on a minimum by North is agressive, but it would be right if South held

AKJxx

Axxx

xxx. I'll give 20% to North (for 5

) and 80% to the methods, which were unlucky for this deal.

ROLF

I do not like the method, strongly dislike the 3

bid and hate the 5

bid. Therefore I give North 90%, South 10% (for choosing this cue-bid system).

ADAM

North, 100%. He could have signed off in 4

or tried Blackwood.

MARSHALL

South deserves full blame (or credit). He has enough to bid 4

, of course, but not enough to continue with a second (grand slam?) try. He could bid 5

but should give up if opener only bids 5

. Why should he assume opener has

AQ and little or nothing in spades or

A and enough to solidify the hand for one loser? This is a "one try" hand. Opener has a marginal hand but very good for a red 2-suiter. Suppose responder had held

AKxxx

AQJxx

xx. If opener doesn't cue bid 5

, responder cannot safely bid beyond the game level. Opener could hold

KJxxx

Q10x

AQxx or

AKQxx

Qxx

QJx, for example. [Being that Marshall was North, he doesn't get to add his vote to the final tally, just as I don't. --Jeff]

JEFF AT THE TABLE

I was South. With very little reflection, I hate my 6

call. But I thought North was the major contributor to the debacle. I'm a little less sure now; I think luck (the auction levels started 1-2-3-4-5 causing a very cramped auction) had something to do with it.

VOTES

Panelist	North %	South %
Kent	40	60
Chris	10	90 (?)
Barry	5	95
Joel	55	45
Mike	0	100
DavidM	43	57
Alan	2	98
DavidC	50	50
Bobby	100	0
DavidW	100	0
Floyd	0	100
JJ	20	0
Rolf	90	10
Adam	100	0
Marshall	0	100
Average	46.6	53.4

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

Few have much to say about the first three bids; they seem normal. Some play that 3

was an overbid (it would be if partner responded in a minor, but I raise hearts unless I have something else important to say). I think the 4

bid is clear. One's first slam try should be in a suit where you want help; choosing 4

allows partner to upgrade the

K, which is just what you want. Even if we were playing a Frivolous 3NT slam try here, 4

would be a serious one. We weren't, though, and that matters. I think North's 5

bid is wrong in that context. He has a minimum for his bidding, and no one has had the chance to limit his hand yet. When that happens, I think an unlimited hand has to have extra values to try for slam above game. He doesn't have them, so despite his nice

K, he should bid 4

. That would end the auction. If South had tried for slam with 4

, North would have enough for a Last Train 4

, I think, but given the cramped auction, he has to stop in game with a minimum. It is not as if he has tons of key cards or a great spade suit as a source of tricks, either. To make slam, partner will need a huge hand, either with a partial spade fit (Ax, say) or a source of tricks of his own. He'll probably bid again with those hands. It's possible that we might miss a slam when partner has a marginal slam try without a club control, say

AJ9xxx

xxx, where partner is chicken about the 5-level with the three small clubs. That's life. You miss some slams when no one has extra values and the great fit isn't diagnosed early.

6 was goofy. I think South has enough to force slam once his partner shows extras. He knows that we are off the A, though, so he should just bid 6. Once in awhile, we'll have 16 opposite 16 and be off two aces. I don't see what he can do about that, having not chosen blackwood (an overbid) last time.

Upon reflection, some system description would have helped. It's been awhile.

IMPs, both vul, you hold
AQJxxxx Qx x xxx

CHO RHO You LHO

1 2NT 3 Pass*

3NT 4 4 5

Pass Pass ?

* LHO's first pass was pregnant

KENT
5. Why didn't I bid 4 the first time? If it's fit-showing, isn't 3 the bid with this, forcing with spades?
BARRY
I'll assume 3 is non-forcing and if so partner's pass is non-forcing. That being so I'll sit for 5 and hope to beat it.
[With the actual hand,] partner should save in front of you.
CHRIS
Pass. Was 3 forcing? If so, this may be a forcing auction, but I don't care too much.
JOEL
Double!!! not close. I have 1 and 1/2 tricks against 5, and partner's shown heart and diamond stoppers and an opening hand. I'm definitely not bidding on, unless I want to let them double me.
MIKE
I hate it, but I'll double and lead my stiff. -1050?
DAVIDM
I am going to double and lead a diamond.
ALAN
Pass. Partner's pass was not forcing, IMO.
DAVIDC
I would double. I would have bid 4 in the previous round (was 3 forcing? I play it as not). I might also call the police to protect for the slow pass and the 4 bid.
BOBBY
Double. 5 could be right but it seems safer to go for the plus score at this point.
DAVIDW
If the pair plays that 3 is non-forcing (foolish in general but harmless when partner's opening is a minor), then this problem is legitimate, and my guess is double. Partner's 3NT bid makes it our hand, and his pass is forcing.
FLOYD
Not the five level with this hand. Double.
JJ
I'd call the director (because of the hesy), but double seems right at this point.
ROLF
Pass. They have good chances to make it. X would be a double-shot.
ADAM
I have an extra spade for offense. I have an ace and a trump trick for defense. Suppose they have 10 trump. That gives partner something like
xx A KTx AKQTxxx
We should take two black tricks, the ace of trump, and a ruff. Would he have doubled with that? He might not have been confident of beating them.
Could he hold three trump and both red kings? That would be piggy of him. Say he holds Kxx Kx KTx AKTxx. Now we're beating them only one, but we might not make 5. He really ought not to bid 3NT with that hand, though.
I'm going to double and lead a diamond.
MARSHALL
Pass. I think they will make it, but I'm not confident enough to sacrifice.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
double
WINNING ACTION
Save in 5. They are making 5. Partner had xx x Kxxx AKJ10xx. He was taking a wild shot at 3NT. That's not unreasonable, but since partner can't possibly know it, he should not have allowed me to decide what to do at the five-level. To run to 5 with his hand seems necessary.
VOTES

Action Votes

5 1

Pass 4

Double 10

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Seems to me that we are in a force, so we can't pass 5 undoubled. We just bid two games to make, probably on power, so we can't let them play 5 undoubled. Upon reflection and hearing the panel's comments, I opine that partner's pass of 5x was a serious error.
IMPs, none vul, you hold
Jxx 1098765 A xxx

LHO CHO RHO You

1NT Dbl Pass ?

Dbl = 4-card major and a longer minor.
Responses are:
2 = pass or correct; then over 2, 2 is pass or correct
2 = what's your major?
2, = to play

What's your plan?

KENT
Bid 2. Maybe partner has clubs, and if he does, that's likely to be our best spot. If partner bids 2, if it isn't doubled, pass! I can now run to 2 to play by bidding it, whereas I can ask for a choice of majors by redoubling. If we play 2 undoubled down six or so, I expect to win three or four imps on the board.
BARRY
2. Just in case he has clubs. I do not feel strongly about this at all — a pure guess as far as I can see as to whether to play 2 in the [possible] 6-1, 2 in the 6-1 or 2 in the 4-3.
CHRIS
2. Simple bids for simple players (maybe I'm simple-minded?)
JOEL
2
MIKE
2. Partner might have 4 and be able to bid game over this and, while 2 might be superior to 2 opposite the black suits, they'll just bid 2 over that anyway. If I bid 2 and partner corrects, we either play the 4-3 spade fit opposite spades — or worse, only 2 opposite 4. The simple, natural advance is the best approach here. If you don't use it with this hand, you might as well assign some other meaning to the bid.
DAVIDM
I am going to bid 2 and if I get doubled, I am going to jog over to 2
ALAN
I would not find 2 unreasonable but I would choose 2.
DAVIDC
I am betting that partner has Spades (where are the opponents with such a big double fit?). I am going to go the 2, then 2-2 route. I just want to get plus and we may have a club fit. If I can escape a penalty double by bidding 2 (or 2), too bad.
BOBBY
I bid 2 to play. If they double, I'll sit.
DAVIDW
2. If partner passes, fine. If he bids 2, I bid 2. I will pass the expected 2. These methods seem remarkably well suitted to this deal.
FLOYD
2, then ask for the major and pass 2.
JJ
I'll bid 2 (it's not close). If I try for the possible 5-3 fit, I'll likely wind up in the 4-3 fit. No thanks. At least I have solid s (hehe).
ROLF
2. I don't believe partner has clubs and it seems to me that I belong in .
ADAM
I plan on bidding 2 and sitting if doubled.
MARSHALL
Bid 2, and if partner bids 2, pass. The 6-1 fit is far safer than the 4-3. And partner should have a 6-card minor unless a very strong 5-card minor and a good hand (unlikely). [If partner is Marshall, perhaps. --Jeff] Partner can't have 4 hearts since RHO, with a bunch of spades and a singleton or void in hearts would have bid (or transferred to) spades.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
2, then 2
WINNING ACTION
stop in 2. Partner has Q10xx Q KJ98xx Ax. 2 is down 1, 2 is down 2, and 2 is down three, mercifully undoubled.
VOTES

Plan Votes

2 then 2 4

2 then Pass 2

2 then ? 1

2 9

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I bid 2, then 2 in order to be sure of finding at least a 7-card fit; that's the only route that guarantees we'll have at least half the trumps. Is that right? I have no idea. The panel likes 2. They are probably right.
IMPs, none vul, you hold
KJ10x Kxx Axxx xx

RHO You LHO CHO

1 Dbl Pass 1

2 ?

If you pass, what's the minimum improvement to the hand you'd need to bid 2?

KENT
Pass. Minimum improvement: an ace and a jack. I play 2 is constructive, with game in mind opposite the high end of a forced 1 response. I don't even think of bidding with the given hand. I'm about as light as I allow for the original double. Partner is allowed and expected to rebid 2 with a good 4-7 HCP and four spades.
BARRY
I'll pass. I normally bid 2 with four unless sub-minimum. Here I am sub-minimum. My partner expects a shape suitable opening bid from me and will compete to 2x with any 4-4 and 6+ or with five spades. [I'd bid 2] if I had AJ9x.
CHRIS
Easy pass. Partner will bid again if we are making anything. With a balanced hand, I would wait for another ace to bid. I'd also bid with a sound takeout double (maybe 13 HCP) and a stiff club.
JOEL
I'm bidding 2. Pass would show fewer than 4 on this auction.
MIKE
KJ10x Kxxx Axxx x.
DAVIDM
I don't know if I would have doubled directly on that minimum, however, I would probably have been more likely to done so with the hearts and spades switched. On the actual hand I could probably survive if I pass and get a chance to balance with 2, however, given that I did double, and partner picked my best suit, I would bid 2 at these colors.
BOBBY
I'm a bidder: 2. It's close, though. Make the J the Q and it becomes pretty clear.
DAVIDW
P. I would need a red queen to tempt me.
FLOYD
I do pass. I would want just a little more, say KJx or KQTx. (But only in competition.)
ADAM
I pass, but don't object to 2. I think it's a tactical decision.
ALAN
Pass. I need another A for 2. I expect partner to compete to 2 on a 4 or 5 count even with only 4 spades.
DAVIDC
I pass. I need another Ace or so.
JJ
2 is correct. If the Bridge God wanted me to pass, why did he deal me a T/O dbl? Once pard bids 1, pass by me in this postion would pretty much deny having 4. To quote Steve Robinson (Washington Standard, Page 201) "After making a takeout double, if overcaller (he means the doubler - JJ) does not support advancer directly, OVERCALLER DENIES FOUR-CARD SUPPORT." (Caps are his - JJ).
ROLF
Pass
MARSHALL
Pass. Usually have 16+, counting points for distribution, to raise in non-competitive auction. In competition lower requirements by approximately one point. Do not agree with Woolsey, Cohen, etc. There is some danger at the 2-level, but the main problem is that partner won't know when to compete further if a raise with four trumps is automatic.
JEFF
2. I'm not embarrassed by this takeout double, so I show my support. I want partner to be able to bid 3 if need be. I think it's marginal, though, and wouldn't object to a pass. My rule is "if I have four decent trumps and I'm not embarrassed by the takeout double, I raise in competition."
VOTES

Action Votes

2 5

  Clear 3

  Close 2

Pass 11

  Might bid 2 1

  4441 shape 1

  Need another Jack 2

  Need another Queen 1

  Need another Ace 4

  Need another AJ 1

BTW, what is your range for an initial response of 2 to a takeout double of 1?
KENT
A decent 7 HCP with five spades, decent 8 HCP with four spades. Range is good 7-11.
BARRY
2 response IS 9-...11- With a prime eight and 5 I bid 2.
JOEL
My initial range (which isn't standard) is 8 hcps for a 2 bid in response to the t/o x (but usually would have 5 spades or good looking hand, maybe 4-2-5-2 or something like that).
MIKE
Partner can bid 2 with about 8 or so, possibly less with good shape.
DAVIDM
I play that a decent 5 card suit and a 7 count is enought to bid 2 or 8+ with a four card suit to at least one honor. I don't like to jump on bad four card suits without extra values
ALAN
Our takeout doubles are serious oposite an unpassed hand. 2 by partner would have shown 9+ - 11.
DAVIDC
A real good 7 and a five bagger, or most 8's to about 11. I am a relatively light doubler.
BOBBY
2 is invitational, so 9 to 12.
DAVIDW
My range for 2 is a great 8 to a poor 11.
FLOYD
9-11, as God intended?
ROLF
Partner should leap with 8-11.
ADAM
9-11 or so.
JEFF
About 8-11. I added a few books' opinions:
KAPLAN
Edgar Kaplan in his 1965 book on competitive bidding calls the range 9-11.
GRANT
Audrey Grant, in the club series, says 10-12.
VOTES
Everyone who stated a max said 11 (except for Audrey Grant), so I'll just collect the minimum values:

Range Votes

8-11 8

9-11 6 (including Edgar)

10-12 1 (Audrey Grant)

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
The first question is a surprise. I expected three camps:
1. those who bid 2 automatically
2. those who bid 2 unless they are embarrassed about their hand; this group would likely be split this time
3. those who think 2 shows a 16-count or so.
That's not what happened! There's more or less a continuum of opinion from 1) to 3). The result is conclusive: there is no standard meaning of 2. Discuss it with partner.
The second vote was pretty straightforward. Looks like current-day standard for jump responses to takeout doubles is roughly 8-11. There's some variation, but that's the nominal range, at least according to this panel.

MPs, E/W vul

AJ973
K6
J873
K8

KQ1064
J743
Q105
2 2
AQ109
96
AJ10964

85
852
AK42
Q753

North East South West

1 Dbl 1NT* Pass

2 Pass Pass Dbl

All Pass

* forcing (!)

T1: 9-A-5-3
T2: 8-K-A-2
T3: 7-6-K-10
T4: 5-Q-3-6
T5: Q-8-4-2
T6: 3-6-9-2
T7: A-3-2-8
T8: J...

E/W -180

a) Assign the blame between East and West.
b) What was the worst action?

KENT

I assume that EW are playing equal level conversion. I'd would have bid 2

on the East hand. Given the auction, I think West has a clear 2

bid, and that's the worst action. In the play, I'd give the worst action to West's play of the heart three—he isn't getting in again, so lead the jack to cater to one honor in North's hand. East hasn't shown up with squat so far, probably doesn't have

AK or

AK given the trump lead, so put the heart jack on the table hoping for the actual position.

West made a poor pass and a questionable defensive play. East made a very questionable play. East made an odd double that whould have worked out, given West's hand. East 20%, West 80%. If West knows that East makes takeout doubles of a spade on any four hearts and any 11hcp, I really dislike the double of 2.

BARRY

See my comments about take-out doubles. East's double of 1

is absolutely ridiculous—what the hell arte you supposed to do over a 2

response? West's double of 2

as opposed to bidding hearts at some point is poor but as nothing compared to the initial double. I won't get into the play — once N/S are in 2

* E/W deserve a bottom. [I don't know why. +100 was about 70% of the matchpoints. --Jeff]

CHRIS

Worst action is double. 2

is normal bridge; in the quarterfinals of the Spingold, I'd expect it to be the universal choice (unless someone has a gadget for four hearts and a minor). [Mike and I do. --Jeff] Virtually all of the blame to that action, since 2

would likely have led to a peaceful +90 or +110.

JOEL

a) West-80; East-20. Hard to pull a penalty double, when you know your partner has 5 spades and at least 3 diamonds with the East cards, but possible. East is getting some of the blame for not pulling 2

(which is not clear at all), and for not coming up big, and returning hearts after winning the

9. West gets the lion's share of the blame for not bidding 2

over 1NT or over 2

, and for not returning the

J at trick 6 after winning the

J is clearly the proper play.
b) pass over 1NT. West should've bid 2

MIKE

West 50, East 50. For the play, it is 50/50. West should shift to the

J, not the

3. East should continue the

A after winning the

9 since the

3 was attitude.

As for the auction,The final double is a bit aggressive, but I would think anyone who plays 1NT forcing over a takeout double has trouble taking 8 tricks with only half the deck and only 7 trumps. I consider East's X of 1 an error. While I use a specialized bid to show this difficult hand type, if you don't play those methods, starting with a takeout double when 4-6 in unbid suits is an inferior plan to bidding your long suit, especially when it is strong as is the case here. Once you've made the twisted takeout double and partner doesn't double 1NT but doubles your surpise short suit, I think East should pull to 3, which would get the partnership to 3.

That being said, I think 2 is pretty obvious over 1NT and even more so over 2. The opponents are NV, so why play for 2m X'd?

No, this hand was bid with equal hoplessness by both East and West. And they thought N/S's convention was bad!!

DAVIDM

I think I give most of the blame to East because the double is atrocious (maybe even ill advised) with an 11 count and a doubleton diamond 2

is an acceptable call. Also, cashing the

A was awful. I guess he meant to play the

A. On the other hand, what is West's objection to bidding his 4 card heart suit in the balancing position. I give West some blame for that because even if you beat two diamonds, it is only 100.

ALAN

a) 60% West. Another hand with 150% of the blame available.

b) How many choices do I get? The double of 2 is the worst, IMO. The original TOD is bad, IMO. The pass of the dbl of 2 is pretty bad given that partner did not dbl 1NT.

DAVIDC

You are kidding, right? They make a take out double with a 6-4, nobody bids their suits, they double the opponents at a lowly 2

level when they have 8 trump and half the deck, with the opponents nonvul at MP's to get the 100 which is still a bad result, they set up two

tricks when declarer still has the entries, can't possibly find the tap in

because nobody bid the suit and you want us to say "who goofed?" Gee, maybe nobody did. Ok, E goofed about 60%, W 40%. On the last mistake theory, I'll say

BOBBY

East 95% for (a) not doubling 2

and (b) cashing the

A at trick 7. West 5% for not realizing his partner can't defend and bidding 2

Seriously, I think double is a reasonable bid, so I don't assign blame for making perhaps the non-optimal bid. I guess the worst action has to be cashing the club ace. I don't understand what theory East was operating on to do that, it seems pretty clear to continue hearts.

DAVIDW

West misbid and misdefended. He should have bid 2

rather than trying the hungry double; the match-point game makes pigs of us all. He was lucky that the cards were so well placed for defense, with both diamond honors in dummy. At trick 6, when he knew his partner's distribution, he should have shifted to the heart jack rather than the three. Partner would then have easy plays in hearts.

FLOYD

East 100%. [Worst action was] When East went nuts? How could ace and a club be right? Even if the ace of hearts gives up a trick, what was better?

JJ

The worst action is the strange T/O dbl. Does 2

deny having 4 hearts??? Toughest problem of the set. The defense had gone well up to trick 5. At that point West pretty much knows what East has done with the bizarre T/O double. East doesn't have such a good count on the hand. West can assume that declarer has the

K (either round ace makes him cold). West must lead a heart because of the possibility of declarer having

Kx. The question is which heart? Does 3rd & 5th leads (in the middle of the defense) solve this problem? No If West leads the 4, then North might have K63 or K6. Only if the partnership religiously plays 3rd/5th and and the lead is the 3 does the problem get solved. Does leading the J solve the problem? Not if North covers K. East doesn't know the difference between

KTx

K versus

Kx or

Kx. Further, the one clue that East has to the round suit distribution (that West didn't bid 2

) leads him down the wrong path. Should leading the J promise 3 hearts and a low heart promise 4 hearts (or vise versa)? I thought so originally but I think either way fails the bridge logic test. Since no play is 100% to give East the information to know for certain how to set the hand, maybe West should lead the J because 75% of the time this will clear up the issue for East (who is 3 to 1 to hold the

10 — maybe a little more if the presence of

10 induced this unusual T/O double). Since I'm not sure the defensive problem is absolutely 100% solveable, I'll assess the blame based on the auction. Thus 90% to East for the weird double and 10% to West for not ordering the Paul Richard oversized knuckleball mitt and finding the 2

call (which is not unreasonable, although I prefer the double of 2

) for a probable lucky +140.

ROLF

Double is awful with the East hand. How about playing Polish NT? [My methods are just as good... --Jeff] West should play

J as 4-card

is very likely to be with East. I would say 50%:50%
Worst Action: Difficult. Double with the East hand, I guess.

ADAM

a) 100% East. The double was bizarre, as was the

A. Perhaps East thought that the

2 showed an odd number, but West would have shifted to the

J holding

Jxx.

b) [First] Double — it had the most to lose.

MARSHALL

100% West, although I might have done the same thing. I don't think that West should split his spade honors. No strong clue that he has such a good spade holding. West should draw an inference from the bidding that East has four hearts and six clubs (not 5-5). So nothing to lose by leading

J. Also, if leading 3rd and 5th, he should, at least, lead the

4. However, I heard about the hand from East and I don't always think logically at the table — only afterwards when it is too late.

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

Several panelists hate the double of 2

, suggesting instead a 2

call, generally quoting the law of total tricks. While I don't disagree that 2

might be a good choice, the reason doesn't wash. Partner has 3 or 4 hearts, so we have 7 or 8. Let's assume 8; that's probably true 80% of the time. The opponents have at most 7 diamonds. Sometimes they'll have only six. Let's assume 7. That's 15 total tricks. I have three lower honors in their suits (including spades, as it's going to be a source of tricks for them) and only a jack in hearts. That should be a one trick negative adjustment. Call it 14 total tricks. If they make 2

, we are going down two in 2

. If we make 2

, they are going for 300. At least by that measure, I think bidding 2

is wrong. This time it's not, because partner has only 2 diamonds and is very very prime. Of course, we can't assume partner has some twisted bid, but it's his off-shape double that makes the LTT analysis wrong.

The play: You hold 2 AQ96 96 AJ10962. Same everything until partner gets in with the Q and cashes the Q. Partner leads the J-K-A. Now what? Not so easy, eh? Let's imagine, however, that partner played the 3. Do you know what to do? Of course. Partner either has four hearts or the K for his attitude lead. In either case, cashing the A is successful. QED.

No one mentioned this, but why on Earth did East signal encouragement in clubs when he desperately wanted a heart shift? It wasn't relevant, as West ignored him anyway, but isn't it an error? Unless he knew the entire hand, that is—if West shifts to his club instead of any heart, the hand is over. East inserts the 9 and nothing else matters.

Tough call. 70% of the bame is due to the defense. There were three key plays:

East's signal
West's shift
East's A

As we see, East's signal is actually right, but from his later defense, we can tell he doesn't know that. It is a mistake, despite the actual hand, and has some effect of leading to the wrong result, but not much. West's shift gave East a problem. A club shift would not have, but it's probably wrong to shift to clubs despite the actual hand and the signal. I think East should have solved the problem, so I give the shift only a little blame. The last error has to get a fair bit, since it wasn't drawn offside. Of the 70%, I'll allocate it 10-60, feeling a little harsh to East.

I refused to assign blame until after hearing the panel's reaction. I think doubling 2 is a close call, but with the odds. As it was, normal defense gets a 70% score. Bidding 2 gets a 90% score. Of that 20%, some goes to West and some goes to luck. I think doubling is the odds-on bid, but the panel does not. I'll attribute West 20% for this choice and feel as if I've been harsh. The defense is less clear. No one really analyzed it well, so I'm going with my judgment. Leading the J is the obvious play at the key moment, but it's not clearly right. I think the low heart should let partner know, from simple logic, that declarer has at most two hearts. West knows the heart count—by playing a low heart, he tells his partner that there is no need for him to hold the lead. Therefore, declarer's K is doubleton and the right defense follows. It may be true that the J shift will also never let partner go wrong, but I wouldn't want partner to do that and make my guess who has the 10.

Anyway, my blame sums to 30-60, or 33-67, pretty close to what the panel thinks.

It's interesting that the panel is extremely polarized. Two give West 80+% of the blame; seven give East 80+% of the blame. Seems to me that there were enough errors that the blame should be closer to 50-50 than that.

VOTES

Panelist	West %	East %	Worst Action
Kent	20	80	Pass
Barry	0	100	1st Dbl
Chris	5	95	1st Dbl
Joel	80	20	Pass
Mike	50	50	—
DavidM	35	65	—
Alan	60	40	2nd Dbl
DavidC	40	60	A
Bobby	5	95	A
DavidW	100	0	—
Floyd	0	100	A
JJ	10	90	1st Dbl
Rolf	50	50	1st Dbl
Adam	0	100	1st Dbl
Marshall	100	0	—
Average	37	63	1st Dbl

MPs, Unfav, you hold
AJ9542 72 A632 5

LHO CHO RHO You

1 2 2 2*

3 3 Pass 4

Dbl Pass Pass ?

* 3 would not have shown anything like this
a) Would you have bid 4?
b) What now?

KENT
a. Absolutely yes. I'd have bid 4 fit-showing over 2. It would be nice to have my hearts and clubs reversed, but this is what I was dealt. b. Pass. We're a level below 5. I suspect that we have the same losers here unless diamonds are getting ruffed fast. Hmm. At equal vulnerability, what do you do with this hand over 5 by either LHO or RHO?
BARRY
* And why not??
a) yes
b) pass

CHRIS
Pass. Who knows what LHO is doing? Anyway, he may have KQx with partner having xxx, in which case 5x is just one level higher.
JOEL
a) I like 4 instead of 4, in case the opps bid again over 4, I want to let partner know what our hand is like.
b) pass! xx is foolhardy.
MIKE
I would most definately have bid the game at my last turn. It's not good enough to look for slam, so you must think it is too bad to bid game. Passing 3 is not an option. [Nope. I think the option is 4. --Jeff]
I don't think my defence is good enough to turn the cube. An overtrick is more likely than an undertrick, but I have negative defence in diamonds, so they likely have a cheap save. I'll take my 790 and get on with the game.
DAVIDM
Too bad, because my 3 would have shown something exactly like that. a) Yes, I would bid 4. b) I guess I am going to now try to make 790 or 990.
ALAN
a) Yes.
b) Pass. Can't redouble and 5 is ludicrous.
DAVIDC
Don't you love those fools who predict unanimous panels. Yes, and pass. (If 3 was fitting, that would have been nice, but I don't play it that way. Once I bid 2 and catch a free raise, I don't see how I can do less than bid 4 (I assume that 2 was not forcing). And why should I tell them about diamonds and let them off the hook. If the question was "do I send it back", I don't think I need to.)
BOBBY
Absolutely I would have bid 4. I'm pretty confident on this auction that I'm going to make it. As they could run to someplace if I redouble, I'm going to sit. 4X making should be all the matchpoints anyway.
DAVIDW
a) No, I would have bid 4. But I strongly prefer to play fit-showing jumps in these auctions, so that I would have bid 3 the first time. On the actual auction, after partner raised spades, my 4 bid would have been forcing, so I'm not quite in an equivalent position. "My" judgment was poor when I bid 4, since if I'm going to overbid I might as well let partner know my hand type.
b) I would pass 4 doubled, feeling guilty that I forced partner to guess what to do but hoping that he guessed correctly and LHO guessed wrongly. If 4 fails, I think 5 would also fail. This hand is a strong advertisement for fit-showing jumps. I cannot imagine a better use for 3. Surely a random preempt in spades at this point is too risky, and I play a 2 bid as forcing after a two-level overcall. Reserving 3 for a splinter means you'll never get to use it (how often will you be short in spades when the other three players have failed to show that suit?)
FLOYD
Yes. [I'd bid 4.] I'm not rewinding and I'm not pulling to the same losers one level higher. What's left? Oh, yeah. Pass.
JJ
When first given this problem, I corrected 4 to 5. However, I had the advantage of knowing that it occured in a club game where a player of declarer's skill level would only be doubled if his LHO really thought the contract was doomed. I once recieved an absolute zero in that club for being plus 680 on an unstoppable line of play where every other declarer made exactly 10 tricks but got doubled. My LHO exclaimed "I thought you were going down, but didn't want to double you". Under normal circumstances I think I would sit 4 out.
ROLF
a) Yes.
b) Pass. I expect this to be a close game.
ADAM
a) Yes.
b) It depends what they lead.
MARSHALL
a) Yes.
b) Pass. If partner has three spades, would expect to lose the same tricks in spades or diamonds. If partner has a doubleton honor in spades, we are at least one level lower in spades than in diamonds.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
pass.
WINNING ACTION
run to 5. Partner has xx KQ KQJxx A109x. Spades are 4-1 and diamonds are 2-2.
VOTES
Everyone passed. Only Joel and David W. bid 4 last time.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Not much of a problem. The given spot was unanimous. Most answered part a) with "what's the problem?" but I don't think they were considering 4. Is 4 a good call? I don't know. At the table I rejected it because I was afraid partner would choose 5 over 4 far too often, including, for example, on the given hand. It didn't occur to me that there'd be further bidding.
Yes, partner was out in left field. I have no idea why he bid 3. If he had passed, I would have bid 4 (or 5?) and he could then either bid 4 or 4 to suggest a choice of games. Given that 4 is a better contract (before the double), perhaps the stronger suggestion for spades (4) is right. I'd try 4, personally, if I hadn't seen both hands.
Frankly, I was pretty sure that passing in b) was 100% (and the unanimous panel agreed) but the bid on the previous round is very interesting. Not many commented. Oh, well.

Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@gg.caltech.edu, October 22, 2002

	KJxx 10xxx KQ87x —
x x A10xx KQ109xxx		Q10xxx Qxx 9x Jxx
	Axx AKJxx Jx Axx

West	North	East	South
4!	Pass	4!	Pass
5!	Pass	Pass	Dbl
All Pass

	AJ973 K6 J873 K8
KQ1064 J743 Q105 2		2 AQ109 96 AJ10964
	85 852 AK42 Q753

CHO	RHO	You	LHO
1	2	Pass	Pass
2	Pass	?

CHO	You
1 (2)	P
2	4NT
5	5
(Queen ask)

CHO	You
1	1 (promises 5/Flannery)
2	?

CHO	RHO	You	LHO
1	1	1*	2
2*	3	?