Problems from the Louisville Nationals 3/11: Answers

Today's panelists: Kenneth Rexford, David Weiss, Barry Rigal, Len Vishnevsky, Chris Willenken, John Swanson, David Caprera, Fred Curtis, Mike Shuster, Mark Bartusek, Bobby Bodenheimer, Robb Gordon

MPs, none vul, you hold
x 10xxx KJx K10xxx

LHO CHO RHO You

1 Dbl 1 ?

KENNETH
2 for me, but this is an interesting problem that created some debate and discussion a few months ago. One view was to show hearts and then later in competition show clubs, with the implication being that clubs are longer. IMO, bidding clubs here (when the opponents have boss trumps) is better, because I want that lead (if that ever matters) and because I do not whip out undiscussed canape on partner. If I later bid 2NT in comp (e.g., 1-X-1-2; 2-P-P-2NT) I think THAT shows five clubs and four hearts.
DAVIDW
I bid 2, enough with the diamonds of dubious value. If it comes back to me at 3 or less, I will bid 4. Partner will assume I have only four hearts, with the clubs at least as long. He should know I would insist on hearts with five of them. If partner doubles anything before my next turn, I will pass.
BARRY
2. My plan is to bid clubs over 2 but not over 3 if they get there voluntartily, and partner stays silent. If he competes to the three-level, I'll go to 4.
LEN
1NT
CHRIS
2. Completely routine, unless double were takeout (which I don't think is best). 3 over their expected 2 will show a canape with about this strength. If they leave us in 2 and partner is 4-3-2-4, the hand may play well on a dummy reversal.
JOHN
2. I suppose 2 is necessary at matchpoints. At IMPs, I would bid 3.
DAVIDC
2. I will bid 3 over 2.
FRED
[2] This depends comletely on style, as with some there is an agreement that bid 2 and later (if there is a later) bid clubs, while others bid clubs now and then spades/NT later to show suit and disparity.
Notwithstanding the singleton spade, this is not a jump or transfer bid for me...and my preferred style is clubs first and then hearts (or NT over a spade bid).
MIKE
2. I'm on lead vs. a spade contract, so I'm not worried about misleading the defense. I can always bid 3 later—it's not like I'd do that with either five hearts or a balanced hand, so partner will get the picture. I'm not willing to compete solo to the 4-level with so much wasted in diamonds.
MARK
2. I don't see why this is a problem when the most likely game is 4 and majors pay more than minors at matchpoints. Isn't it fairly standard to bid 2 now and back in with 3 over the opponents' 2? Sure, club bids could be right in some auctions (especially if partner has only three hearts), but 2 seems percentage.
BOBBY
I think bidding is right here. Double is not an option. 2 seems the most likely bid that will result in a plus position.
ROBB
[2.] If pard is on lead, you don't want a heart lead. On the other hand, if you bid clubs (a) you are likely to be on lead, and (b) if the bidding comes back to you at 3 or higher you are screwed. So I just bid 2. A stiff spade opp partner's double suggests some wasted values.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
2. I really wanted a club lead against diamonds or notrump, and I can get hearts back in if they bid 2 via 2NT.
WINNING ACTION
2. No matter what you bid, it goes all pass. 2 scores 140. 2 scores a 20% board.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

1NT 1

2 4

2 8

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
It never occurred to me that my bid would end the auction, but upon reflection, it might, and I need to bid the higher-scoring contract right now.
Are methods relevant? That is, should 2 followed by 2NT differ somehow from 2 followed by 3? I don't know, but methods absolutely must cater to the possibility that the first bid ends the auction, so 2 must be allowed systemically.
IMPs, none vul, you hold
AK Jxx Ax AKQxxx

You Partner

2 2 (waiting)

3 3 (natural)

3NT 5NT

?

KENNETH
6. Partner did not bid 3 positive the first time.
DAVIDW
[6] I take 5NT as choice of slams. I rule out diamonds as a possibility because in my style, he has denied a good enough suit for that with his first and third calls. So the choice is clubs or NT; unfortunately, perhaps, I will be declarer in either strain. I can't see how NT would be more likely to make, and I can envision some hands on which clubs would be better. So 6 it is.
BARRY
[6] I would not have this luxury since 3 would be artificial for me. Will I buy xxxx Kxx KQJ10x x? It depends on what 2-3 is as to how good that diamond suit could be. If I bid 6 might I be facing xxx Ax KJxxxx Jx when 6 or 7 is much better?
I don't know — it is all about methods here. If my partner can't have semi-solid diamonds, I bid 6. If he can, I bid 6 to protect the K.
LEN
[6] Was 2 game forcing and 2 would have been double negative? [No. 2 was "waiting." --Jeff] Or have I already promised nine winners and forced to game opposite a yarborough by bidding 3? Do you have any agreements about 5NT giving choice of slams? [No. --Jeff] Has partner denied KQxxx by not bidding 3 over 2? [I don't know. --Jeff]
I'll assume 2 forced game, I have extras, 5NT was pick a slam, and pard denied KQxxx. 6.
CHRIS
[6] Great problem. First of all, is 5NT choice of slams or just a very strong invitation? I prefer the latter agreement (partner can always bid 4m, then follow with 5NT for choice hands), but I'd assume that 5NT is forcing in a casual partnership.
Second question is whether I should choose a minor. Clubs could easily be best; opposite e.g. Jxx Axx KQxxx xx we will survive a 4-1 club break with diamonds 4-2 and no heart lead. Diamonds could also be right if pard has e.g. Qxxx Kxx KQJxx x. I'm not sure if partner would make a positive response with that hand or not. Hopefully, if he has that much overall strength, he'll reason that clubs are unlikely to be superior to notrump even if my clubs are playable opposite a singleton. So, I'll choose clubs and hope that partner offers 6 on the way to 6NT with the second hand. If partner had a strong invite instead of a choice hand, e.g. Qxxx KQx KJxxx x, I'll need to get lucky in clubs.
JOHN
6NT. There are hands on which 6 is better than 6NT, but I believe that they are much less likely than those on which partner's mediocre diamond suit provides enough tricks when clubs do not behave (e.g. Qx KQx KJxxxx xx).
DAVIDC
6
FRED
[6] And you wonder why I hate this style? Have I shown a hand no better than 4 losers? Is that what partner is counting on for his bid of pick-a-slam as I understand it (having "promised" at least five diamonds and nothing else...are there any positives that have been eliminated?) Hate the style, hate the system but to avoid an horrendous (putative) guess at trick 1, bid 6 (and hope that his play is better than his bidding system).
Seriously there is an argument that his 5NT should suggest J singleton or a small doubleton so 6 may be the best slam — albeit risk of heart guess at T1 while NT may allow you to combine chances but does not allow ruff out of suits...so it is a guess.
MIKE
6. Partner's diamonds aren't good enough to be trump if he couldn't start with a positive, but if they don't lead a heart, I might be able to take an extra trick by ruffing them good if clubs are trump. Thinking xxx Axx KQxxx xx and hoping for the 10.
MARK
6. Seems normal to choose clubs after partner said to pick a slam. Partner could have emphasized diamonds more strongly via 4. (He would often rebid diamonds with 6+ before offering me a choice.) Admittedly ??? ??? KQJ10x xx could be better in diamonds, but they don't have to be that good for partner to bid 3. I expect a doubleton club from partner.
BOBBY
I think 5NT is invitational to 7NT. To some extent it depends on partnership methods over 2, and what kind of response would jar partner out of a 2 with a diamond suit, but I don't see my hand as the grand type, so I settle for 6NT.
ROBB
5NT for pick a slam is popular these days but can this mean that? Couldn't partner bid 4 to show the 6th diamond first if he was going there? I think this is an old fashioned 6 or 7 invite, and since I consider myself subminimum for a strong 2 in clubs (the club jack would give me a full minimum), I can do no more than bid 6NT.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
6. I visualized a diamond suit which needed a ruff to be set up, and even if we have a trump loser, 6 might therefore be the best spot.
WINNING ACTION
None. Partner had Jxx AK108 QJ98x x. 6NT is marginally the best slam, but clubs were 5-1, diamonds were 4-2, and the Q was off, so nothing makes and at 50 a pop, who cares?
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

6 9

6 1

6NT 3

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I think I simply didn't have enough information to make a decision better than a guess. Partner's hand is so undefined that his expecting me to pick the right contract is pretty optimistic.
That said, 6 seems right, because partner may be trying to give me a choice between 6 and 6NT, not just clubs and another possibility. If partner corrects to 6, it's probably best we play there.
MPs, none vul, you hold
Kxx 98xxx J QJxx

CHO RHO You LHO

1NT 3 ?

KENNETH
Double, barely.
DAVIDW
[Double] A difficult problem at any form of scoring, compounded by the likelihood that the auction was not the same at other tables. If my partner likes to open 1NT with a 5-card major, I have even more to worry about. My resolution is that I would not have driven to game unimpeded, so I will pass now and hope for a small plus while my counterparts go minus. My guess is that 3 is our best spot, but if I bid that partner cannot pass. However, if we have discussed that doubles at the 3-level are negative (which is what I usually play but you didn't specify), that would be an appealing option and I would try it, passing whatever partner does.
BARRY
Dbl. take-out; it may not work but what else can I do?
LEN
[Dbl] I don't understand. Did partner deal? [Some got this problem a little scrambled. --Jeff] I'll assume yes and make a negative double.
CHRIS
Double. Might make something, might find a good save against 3. Clear to bid something equal white at pairs, as -110 is a real possibility.
JOHN
Dbl/Pass, agreeing with DavidW.
DAVIDC
Pass, double close second
FRED
[Dbl] Isn't double over 3-level intervention standard t/o [Yes. --Jeff] — only issue is as to sufficient strength...and assuming it is a 15-17 NT when I have a shortage I should strive to bid...so I double and damn the torpedoes (Farragut as a I recall). [Correct as usual. --Jeff]
MIKE
Pass. We're unlikely to have a game, so any call is likely to lead to a minus score. Doubling here with a stiff is OK, but not without better defense. An argument to play transfers starting with a double?
MARK
Pass. Tough problem. Not enough to force to game, and I'm scared to make a negative double.
BOBBY
I would bid 3 at the table. Least bad option. [We have a winner! --Jeff]
ROBB
This one is just awful. Pass, Double, and 3 all have disaster potential. Since pard isn't going to reopen here most of the time, I have to do something, so I double. That way I can blame partner for guessing wrong.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass. I think it's very close between pass and double, but if I double, what are the likely results? Partner could pass. I expect them to make or maybe go down one. He could bid 3. That'd be good. He could bid 3. That looks bad unless he has five of them. He could bid 3NT. That will go down, possibly a lot. So one of the four likely results is good for me. Any of the others could work out, but probably not.
WINNING ACTION
none. Double is better than pass, but only by a trivial number of matchpoints. Partner had xxx AQJ10x Ax Axx. That's not my idea of a 1NT opener, but these days most folks are bidding 1NT with any hand. Double leads to +170 (not surprisingly, the A is onside), but that's still a zero. Partner's 1NT wasn't the sole reason we missed game; RHO bid 3 with Axx — Q8xxxx 1098x. If he passes (my choice) or bids at the 2-level, I'll show hearts, hear a superaccept, and bid game. Is the current style of opening 1NT even with very suit-oriented hands and a five-card major allowing this sort of bid to be percentage? Or was RHO just gunning for us?
CONCENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 3

Double 9

3 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I think it's incredibly close. I don't want to sell to 3 with a stiff, but I even less want to play 3 doubled. If partner bids 3 over my double, I'm sure I did the right thing. If he does anything else, I shall wish I had passed.
Some suggested in followups that partner might bid 4 over my double. I think that's not possible. If he did, he'd buy Kxxx x Kxx KQxxx. I think the opening 1NT is allowed to bid anything up to and through 4, but that's it.
Does a double at the 3-level promise invitational values? Given that this hand doesn't have them and there was a big majority vote for doubling, I think we must conclude that it does not. If it did, then opener could drive to game with a max and 4-4 in the majors. If it doesn't promise much in the way of values, he cannot.
IMPs, both vul, you hold
Axx KJx K8xxx xx
Partner opens 2NT (20-21). Your methods are not particularly extensive; 3 is ordinary Stayman, and 3 is a relay to 3NT to show one or both minors. Continuations in either case are undiscussed.
What's your plan?

KENNETH
Hate the methods. 4NT.
DAVIDW
[3NT] Sure, if I catch him with Kx Axxx AQxx AKx, I want to be in slam. But what if he has Qxx Axxx AJx AKQ? Finding a diamond fit is not enough to make slam worthwhile. And even 4NT might be in mild jeopardy ( KQJx Axxx AJx AJ). I settle for 3NT.
BARRY
3-3NT-4. Over a sign-off in 4NT, I pass. Otherwise, I offer a choice of slams with 5NT and pass 6M. If partner bids 6 over 5NT, I bid 6NT, I think.
LEN
3NT
CHRIS
[3...4] Anything could work, but I'll try Stayman followed by 4. If partner has only one major, this will be accurate for diamonds (five medium cards and slam try values), and it might get us to slam in a 5-3 major suit fit. If partner shows both majors (presumably 3-3-4-4), I'll pass 4. Who knows, maybe partner will have KQxx AQxx AQx Qx, and notrump fails.
JOHN
3. The possibility of finding a diamond fit outweighs the worry than 4NT is in danger. You must allow for the possibility that a diamond slam is cold. If we get there when it is on a finesse so be it. We will not arrive in a no-play contract. 6NT is on with something opposite such as KQx AQx QJ9 AKxx. 3NT scores about 50.
DAVIDC
With such sophisticated methods, 4NT.
FRED
On that basis 4NT quantitative promoting for my 5-card suit and honour dispersion, assuming that he will bid a 5-card suit if accepting...primitive methods but superior to showing a single-suiter which should be 6+ cards in length
MIKE
3 then 5NT. I'd prefer KK 4 [A stronger version of 4NT where we can only stop short if partner has a 4333 minimum. 4 also strongly suggests interest in a suit contract. --Jeff] here, but I'll settle for telling partner to pick a minor slam. If he picks clubs, I'll correct to diamonds — this should clarify that the choice was between diamonds and NT. Not a direct 5NT which might be interpreted as inviting 7.
MARK
3 followed by 4. BTW, I would treat partner's 3M followed by 4M as showing 5 which would solve my problem (would others?). [Of course. --Jeff] I will let partner out in 4NT. An important question is whether over an invitational 4NT by me, 5M by partner would clearly show five? [No. Jump to 6M to show five. --Jeff]
BOBBY
Without good methods, it seems quite difficult to try to find a diamond slam. I could try 4 and "see what happens" but I'm not sure I would know how to interpret partner's responses. It seems like the most sensible thing to do is bid 4NT and see if partner likes his hand.
ROBB
4NT. When you don't have extensive methods, choose the simplest thing.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
4NT.
WINNING ACTION
drive to slam or find diamonds on the way. Partner has QJ AQxx A10xx AKx and won't consider any invitation unless it's about diamonds. With the K on and diamonds coming in, 13 tricks are available. Slam is a good bet, of course.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

3...4 2

3NT 2

3...4 2

3...5NT 1

4NT 6

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I do not like starting with 3. I think a minor after that start should be a six-card suit; partner should think AQ tight is a great holding. Starting with Stayman and bidding diamonds makes sense; at least it doesn't overstate the diamonds.
Everyone hates the methods, but when you have an hour to discuss all your methods, slam auctions after 2NT don't get a lot of time. And if any of us sat down with an unfamiliar partner, they'd be playing something like this, so that's just the way it goes.
IMPs, both vul, you hold
Qxxxx Jxxx K K10x

RHO You LHO CHO

Pass Pass 3 3

Pass 4 Pass 5

Pass 5 Pass 5

Pass ?

KENNETH
5. I don't have a heart control, and partner is asking for a heart control.
DAVIDW
[5] How much protection does my passed hand status render? I think 4 is a mild overbid, and I would have bid a heavy 4 instead. Choosing the optimistic route is not terrible though, and I can live with it. What can partner have? AKxxxx x Qxx AQx? Sure, he thinks I have the A (which I should have had). Even the hand I gave him is pretty heavy for 3. He could have less in high cards, and a heart void is not guaranteed. I bid 5 (and wish I had bid 4).
BARRY
[5] I guess I would bid 4 though I might just have raised to 4. 5 now seems more than enough. No aces or trump king = zero keycards; expect 5 to go down more often than 6 makes if partner passes now.
LEN
[5] AKxxxx x Axx Axx is pretty, pretty, pretty good for a 3 bid, but that's what I need to make slam. If I trust partner, I'll bid 5 and he'll bid slam with four key cards and control of every suit after I cue bid and then control bid. 6 is bidding partner's cards. 6 is suicidal.
CHRIS
6. Partner didn't bid Blackwood, so I'll hope for e.g. AKxxx x Axx AJxx, lots of key cards with lots of losers. Close.
JOHN
5. Not close. I agree with David (Weiss).
DAVIDC
5. I have done my all.
FRED
[6] Not clear why CHO eschewed KCB unless he held a void e.g. AKxxxxx — Axx Axx, which is pretty cold for a grand but presumably would be worth a direct 4 over 3. Note AKxxxx x Axx Axx is still cold for a small slam.
I know that Qxxxx is overkill but I am a passed hand, and unless there is something you have not told me about our cue-bidding methods, I still think I am good enough to continue with something other than 5: presumably I can bid 6 now (I am scared of 5NT in case his spade holding lacks both the A and K).
MIKE
5. I'd've bid less at every previous turn as well. What is it about the 5th trump that makes one overlook the complete lack of aces and 3 HCP duplicating a stiff?
MARK
5. You've bid very aggressively so far; thus, I'm done bidding.
BOBBY
Partner has a very good hand, 6 — not sure what the problem is?
ROBB
I don't know whether I am good or bad for my bidding, but I am an optimist, and I will bid 6. Give partner AKJxx — Axx AQxxx and he might bid only 3 here, particularly if 4 direct is a one-suiter.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
5.
WINNING ACTION
6. Partner had almost exactly what Chris mentioned just with the minors reversed: AKxxx x AJxx Axx. Spades were 2-1, so 12 tricks rolled.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

5 9

6 3

6 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Firstly, many thought 4 too much. I don't agree at all. I like 4 a lot. Having four hearts means partner is short, so each of my cards is working. Five trumps is really big, too. I wouldn't bid 4 if I weren't a passed hand, but I'd want to.
Now, just about everyone says, "bid slam with zero key cards? Are you nuts?" Well, if partner wanted to know about key cards, he could have asked about them. Presumbly, he doesn't care. It doesn't sound as if he is missing control in any suit; he's cue bid two of them and he didn't bid slam upon hearing about my diamond control. So he's not really interested in key cards. Does that mean he is missing the high trump honors with something like J10xxxx — AQx AQxx? Could be. Could he just be inviting on power? Could be, though he might bid 5 as a straight invite with heart control. (In contrast, a straight invite without = 5.) If he bid 5 over 4, I think it's pretty clear to go on. If that is true, then what does this sequence look for? Diamond control plus a max? A trump card?
This hand came up in first-time partnership. I think that in that context, getting to slam was just too hard.
MPs, none vul, you hold
xxx Qx xxx A10xxx

CHO RHO You LHO

1 Pass 1NT 2

Dbl 3 Pass Pass

Dbl Pass ?

Partner's doubles are takeout. 1NT is semi-forcing.

KENNETH
4. Choice of games between hearts and clubs.
DAVIDW
[4] I think partner's first double showed extras (say around 15), and his second shows more extras. The subtle option for me is 4, which suggests not enough hearts to insist on that suit, and enough strength for game - thereby implying clubs (I can't have spades for 1NT). I think that is the best call. If I thought the ox too dense to grasp my brilliancy, I would guess 4.
LEN
3
CHRIS
4, to be followed by 5. I have a huge hand; AKx AKxxx x KQxx is not outside the realm of possibility for partner, to say nothing of hands with diamond voids. If partner has six hearts and only three clubs where we belong in hearts (e.g. AKx AKxxxx x Kxx), I'd expect him to bid 3 after doubling the first time.
JOHN
4. 4 comes under strong consideration and is possibly the better choice at IMPs. At matchpoints, there is too much chance that 4 will outscore 5. 4 would be the call with: xxx Jx xxx AQ10xx.
DAVIDC
4. Pass 4, bid 5 over 4.
FRED
[4] Tough at this vul as the issue is whether we can go positive at all and void if so in hearts or clubs will probably be superior to beating 3 by one trick (I don't see our getting rich when they have at least a 6-3 fit). Pass seems too tight a target for me. Long suit (clubs) wins when hands: 4-5-1-3 or 4-5-0-4 are likely, but very strongly in favour of bidding but 4-6-0-3 makes 3 a winner, 3-6-1-3 similarly. When all else is splitting hairs, the basic rule of bidding the long suit is a good one: 4 without strong feelings (-50 could be good but who knows).
MIKE
4. We might be making 6, but this is MP so I don't feel guilty about going for 420 instead.
MARK
4. Seems like I have a great hand now. This will allow partner to choose 4 instead of unilaterally getting to 5.
BOBBY
[4] So, with Qxx xx xxx A10xxx, I would bid 3, it must be right to bid 4 here. At IMPs, I guess the game bonus makes that clear; closer at MPs, perhaps?
ROBB
Toss-up between 4 and 4 (5 is just too big). 4 is where the pot of gold might be hiding so that is my choice. Tap me not.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
3.
WINNING ACTION
Pass. Partner had AKQx J9xxx A Kxx. Yeah, he was overbidding a little; if he passes, we get +100, which should be a good score. On the other hand, they misdefended, and we were +140 for a very good score. Going for 300 is simply too greedy.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

3 2

4 1

4 5

4 4

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I took the low road. I think I should have bid more, and it looks as if 4 is the right solution. I'm lucky partner didn't have AKQ K10xxx x AQJx.
MPs, none vul

xx
Ax
K9xxxx
xxx Axxx
KQ10x
AJ10x
x

North East South West

3 Dbl 4 4

All Pass

Assess the blame for playing a good slam in a part score.

KENNETH
The opponents.
DAVIDW
The first double is impeccable. West's 4 is ultra-conservative; I would have bid 5. Can I give East any blame? Given the 4 call, does East have enough to raise? What would be a minimum for a voluntary 4 call? Something like Qxx xx KQxxx xxx would certainly be enough. That would make 5 playable — just — so East could have raised; give West a little more and 5 is cold. So as one might expect when a slam is played in a partial, both were wrong. West's underbid is far more egregious, in my view, so I assign the blame 75-25.
BARRY
West 90%; 5 over 4 looks normal to me; neither player can get close to slam here—can they? [No, of course not, but game ought to be reached. --Jeff]
LEN
West might have jumped to 5, and East would have raised to 5 at IMPs but might have anyway. All actions look reasonable, though, so 50% each.
CHRIS
West 90%. Is partner going to raise to 5 on e.g. AKxx Kxxx Qxxx x? I don't mind East's conservative pass, but raising is possible, so he gets 10%.
JOHN
If South had passed rather than bidding 4, a 4 bid by West would be routine. The raise has made it much more likely that partner holds a singleton club but he is the one looking at his hand. I would have bid 4 with the West cards (on the actual auction), knowing that I hold a good hand for the bid. A raise to 5 should be routine with the East cards. (Give West as little as: Kxx Jxx Kxxxx xx.) The blame: East 10, West 90. (I was going to give East only 5% but David's arguments have convinced to double his charge.)
DAVIDC
60% west, 80% east. Slam is too tough but I would bid game with either hand. East has the easier bid. [I'll normalize the 140% to 43-57. --Jeff]
FRED
Never getting to this perfecto slam but again as West when I hold a decent (fitting for a t/o double) 6-card suit and an outside ace with no wastage I do not subside in a partscore. I would bid 4 without the sixth diamond but regard it as de rigeur to bid 5 with the 6th diamond (and major ace) albeit no guarantees.
Similarly, given that CHO would bid 4 with virtually any 5-card suit and scattered values, I am a shade too light to raise to 5 on the East cards. Accordingly 80% West, 5% East and 15% luck. [Again, normalizing out the luck, we get 94-6. --Jeff]
MIKE
West 30 / East 70. Each partner was a little timid, but I think East had better reason to be aggressive, with ideal shape and pure, extra values.
MARK
West 40% East 60% Tough hand. I think East should just bid it due to holding prime honors, but West has a lot of information too (although a little riskier for him just to bid 5).
BOBBY
100% East — every card in his hand is working and he can't take another bid to reach game?
ROBB
Most of it goes to N/S. But I think that while West could have bid 5 (unless partner is prone to doubling without diamond support), East probably should have. I give it West 30, East 70.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
I was East.
CONSENSUS

Panelist West % East %

DavidW 75 25

Barry 90 10

Len 50 50

Chris 90 10

John 90 10

DavidC 43 57

Fred 94 6

Mike 30 70

Mark 40 60

Bobby 0 100

Robb 30 70

Average 57 43

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
At MPs, I think West should bid game, and East should pass 4. Partner is not supposed to have the choice of defending 4 or playing 5. There has to be a middle ground, and East's hand isn't good enough to prevent the partnership's being able to play 4. In fact, I don't think this is at all close. After hearing the arguments, I'm even more convinced: 100% West. One of the arguments is that East has perfect shape. West, however, also knows that. He's looking at three small clubs and the opponents have at least nine and possibly ten clubs. So West knows that partner is short in clubs and that the hands mesh very well. What if partner has only three diamonds? Give him Axxx Kxxxx Axx x. That's about as bad as it can get, and 5 is decent. He's almost always going to buy better than that, so I think 4 is an underbid.
MPs, none vul

xxx
Kxxx
xxx
AQx

xxx
J
AKxx
K10xxx

Declarer Dummy

2 2

2 3

4 4NT

5 5 (Dbl)

6 Pass

You lead the K. Partner plays a middle spot, playing upside-down carding. What's your play at trick 2?

KENNETH
[A] Weird, but I might not be reading this right. Diamond Ace?
DAVIDW
[J] This all seems weird. Dummy bids Blackwood with 3 small diamonds, and partner doubles when I have the AK. Real-life bridge in the trenches is sometimes quite different from the game I exalt. One thing that seems certain is that declarer has a diamond control, which I hope is a singleton rather than a void. He has shown the AK and the A. It's hard to come up with enough high cards for him to hold to justify the 2 opener. I hope partner would not be so thoughtless as to double diamonds with a club void, so that leaves AKQJxxx Ax x Jxx or AKQJxx AQx x Jxx as the only hands on which there is any hope. (Both are marginal 2 openers in my opinion, but that doesn't matter.) I shift to the J, which won't do any harm and might mess with the late entries.
BARRY
[Barry knows the hand. --Jeff] Very very hard; partner made your life impossible; had he followed with the 9 you might have shifted to the club that sets the hand (errors and omissions excepting). But even so I believe you might find the play.
LEN
[Club] Am I playing with Marshall? I'd cash another diamond and give him a ruff. Otherwise...I guess a club. If declarer has AKQJxxx AQxx x J he won't know to finesse.
CHRIS
Club. Perhaps declarer needs to choose between a club finesse and a heart break/squeeze. Nothing else rates to matter unless declarer jumped to slam off two cashing diamonds after partner doubled for that lead. I'm hoping for AKQJxxx AQx x Jx.
JOHN
[Diamond] Responder asked about aces and about the trump queen without diamond control. Declarer thought that passing 5 would complicate the auction and bid what he intended before the double. He holds: AKQJxxx AQJ Jx J. Partner doubled 5 because he couldn't stand any other lead. Playing for a third round winner is obscure.
DAVIDC
[Diamond] My king asks count. Was 5 3? I can't imagine not playing the A.
FRED
[Diamond] Wonderful fatuous doubles on no better than QJTxx : wouldn't that have been clever if opener held Kx?
OK you tell me "middle spot" from partner, but what does declarer play? Typically, that dummy opposite a 2 opener with the K onside should be enough — so what is he doing? Surely if he held a club void, he would not have doubled 5 (particularly with the poor holding which might require a lead from his side)?
How much suit preference is he into? Either there is a club void (in which case his bidding is asinine), or two diamonds cash (in which case declarer is off his rocker) or this slam is going to make anyway. The only way I can blow a trick is deciding that I must switch to a club and that runs to declarer's J.
I am not risking that—the only other issue that crosses my mind is a squeeze on CHO in hearts and diamonds if I cash the A (presumably ruffed) and I do not hold a pip higher than dummy's [You have a high third diamond, no problem. --Jeff] if that were relevant you would have given me the pips.
I am a donkey and play the other top diamond Honour...unconvinced about beating this.
MIKE
[A] I'm not sure if some of this depends on how high dummys x's in diamonds are (is it possible that a high diamond will isolate the red suits in partners hand?) I'm not really seeing an operating squeeze here for declarer (but then, I stink at visualizing them). I might have led a low diamond, too, avoiding this problem. If I have a higher diamond spot than dummy, then the A. Otherwise a low diamond.
MARK
[Diamond] I assume partner's spot card shows an odd number (because attitude is irrelevant after the double). I don't see much value in switching, so I'll continue with a "small" Diamond. There is a chance this may cause declarer to play me for the Heart length instead of partner.
Note: I assume you forgot to say that 5 show 0/3 and 5 was Q ask? [That is the default, I assume. --Jeff]
BOBBY
[Diamond] I assume 4NT was RKCB. I have difficulty visualizing a hand for partner that is consistent with the bidding and play. It seems that declarer has one of three hands AKQJxx AQ QJTxx —, AKQJxx AQxxx x x, or AKQJxx AQ x Jxxx. None of these are really 2 openings. In the first and third cases, continuing a diamond looks correct, and in the second, the slam is cold. So I continue a diamond.
ROBB
[Diamond] Middle spot should either be odd, or if declarer has an "obvious" singleton, encouraging. I don't think anything is obvious here and I don't know why partner doubled 5, but I can't imagine doing anything but continuing with the ace.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Diamond.
WINNING ACTION
Club, probably. Declarer had AKQJxxx AQxx x x. That's not a 2 opener to me, but I don't vouch for the opponents.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Club 2

Diamond 9

Heart 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I think this is solvable. Declarer either has the hand he did or your action doesn't matter. No one is insane enough to bid a slam without control in the suit he knows is being led, so hoping a second diamond will cash is silly. Plus, partner's count signal suggests that he has five, so it won't.
Declarer is known to have at most 17 HCP, so he has to have a boatload of spades. If he has 8 of them and the A, he has 12 tricks. If he needs the club hook, he'll take it. If declarer has only 6 spades, he's got to be 6-5 in the majors, and your play doesn't matter. AKQJxx AQxx x Jx? That really is too bizarre to be believed. So the one case which matters is the actual one, and a club is necessary.
Will declarer hook the club because of partner's double? Probably not—he doesn't know that partner doesn't have AQJ, which would make his double reasonably normal. You'd surely lead the king from any holding containing it so that you can get count from partner.
With most of the panel's continuing diamonds, this is obviously a pretty hard problem. Too bad getting it wrong produced a zero.

Jeff Goldsmith, March 28, 2011

RHO	You	LHO	CHO
Pass	Pass	3	3
Pass	4	Pass	5
Pass	5	Pass	5
Pass	?

You	Partner
2	2 (waiting)
3	3 (natural)
3NT	5NT
?


xx Ax K9xxxx xxx		Axxx KQ10x AJ10x x

North	East	South	West
3	Dbl	4	4
All Pass

	xxx Kxxx xxx AQx
xxx J AKxx K10xxx