Two Problems from the Marina del Rey Swiss: Answers

IMPs, short matches.

1. White vs. red, you hold
    xx Q10x xxx J9xxx

   RHO	You	LHO	CHO
   1	Pass	3	4
   4	?

   3 was a limit raise. 4 was a left-handed Texas Transfer.

   ---

   LEN

   Pass. I would bid 5 with  xxx QTx xx J9xxx.

   DAVIDC

   I lead a small heart as instructed. Maybe partner stole just enough room to keep them from bidding a good 6. Bidding 5 could be sticks and wheels. I don't think 5 has much upside.

   KENT

   Pass. (Shocking from me, I know.) Balanced hands defend. 2335 is balanced. Partner may have been taking advantage of the vulnerability to insert a lead director, (any bid by him is a left-handed transfer to spades at these colors) and I will not punish him for doing that.

   MIKE

   5. I expect to beat 4 roughly 1% of the time, and I expect to be down 500 here most of the time. I do it for the 3 IMPs, but it could be more if partner has very long hearts or if it is a double fitter. Could this be 800 or more? Of course, but I don't think it very likely.

   DAVIDW

   Pass. I have no real clue about what is right. My answer is based on the fact that my hand is unlikely to contribute much to the offense. If I do catch partner with a hand that makes lots of hearts, then the opponents will make even more spades, probably doubled. For example, if he has  x AKxxxxx x AKxx, we might well give up 850 if I bid.

   BARRY

   Pass. No need to overbid here. Partner might double — in which case I'll try 5. [Wow...Barry and I are totally opposite here. I don't think 5 is making, and I don't think it'll make even if partner doubles, so if he doubles, I want to defend; partner will have enough to beat 4. On the other hand, if partner does not double, I want to bid 5, since if he can't double 4, I think it'll make. --Jeff]

   ROBB

   [Pass.] I think this is extremely close. On one hand, partner bid into a live auction, and I have good hearts. Clearly we are not beating 4, and it is unlikely that we will go for more than 800. On the other hand, 800 is 4-5 IMPs, and we really don't bring anything to the game. We have no ruffing value, our clubs are of dubious utility, and there are times when our heart holding doesn't even prevent a loser (e.g. AKJxxxx) since no loser was likely. Also, what are the chances that we will go for less than 500, no great victory? Pass, we figure it is about twice as good as bidding.

   SYLVIA

   Pass. I don't think that I have enough shape to bid at the 5-level. In these auction CHO has already bid my hand.

   FRED

   [5.] I have no particular ODR but my heart length decreases the likelihood of the number of defensive tricks in that suit (probably dependent upon CHO's holding the A). Although it is possible that 4 will fail, it virtually requires four defensive tricks in partner's hand — and in all probability no more than one of those tricks being in hearts. I assume that good opponents will not have a slam on here, although that is barely possible.

   Aside from provoking a putative erroneous 5 bid (i.e. where we can take 3 defensive tricks to defeat the contract), 5 must not fail by four (or more) tricks if we are to show a profit at favourable vul. At a guess, most hands where CHO holds 7(+) hearts will fulfil the criteria, and most which hold six hearts will not unless our club suit provides some assistance. There is no great science to this, and the worse the opponents, the more I would be concerned about their having slam, but all things being equal, I will give them a chance to go wrong by bidding 5 (notwithstanding the near death holding in spades).

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   5. I was hoping LHO would bid 5 as a follow-along bid, and more or less, I agree with Mike's evaluation.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes Pass 7 5 3

   Pretty strong consensus.

   WINNING ACTION

   Pass. Partner held  A A98xxx xxx AKx. Partner's four winners cashed, so they were down 100 in 4. Nothing good happened in 5, so we were -500.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   Several said they thought this was close, but no one mentioned the conditions. I think 5 is the long-run value bid; I guess that it will gain 3-4 IMPs about 80-90% of the time, lose 4, 5, or 12 once in a while, and gain 13 (when they bid 5 and go down) once in a long while. On a straight guess, I'd say bidding produces a net positive expectation of about an IMP in the long run. I don't know how to factor in that they are more likely to butcher the defense in 5 than accidentally to go down in 4, because in the latter case, they know their target.

   Problem is, losing 12 is more than four times worse than winning 3 is good in a short match, since that often swings the match and therefore more VPs, whereas 3-4 IMPs really only means a lot when the match is close. So I think it's right to bid 5 in a long match, but not in a short match.

   Some suggested that partner inserted a lead-direct. At any other vulnerability, sure, but white on red is all about saving, so partner has to have tricks. Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to bid 4 on  x AKQx Jxxx xxxx, but on frequency, focusing on saving is more important. And doesn't come with the risk of a double when they were not bidding game. That I have the Q also suggests that this is not what he's doing. Upon reflection, if he's doing that, it might work well to bid 5, because each opponent will figure his partner is short in hearts and with the perfect mesh (surely partner has AKJ), they'll think 5 is an easy make!

   ---

2. Both vul, you hold
    Qxx J AKJxxx Kxx

   You	Partner
   1	1
   2*	2
   3	4
   ?

   Some might have rebid 2. Fine. 2 is hardly unreasonable. 2 was natural and forcing.

   ---

   LEN

   4NT RKC. [When partner answers 0 or 3 for spades,] I bid 6.

   DAVIDC

   4NT, key card in diamonds. (By the way, what does partner bid to create a force when he doesn't have four hearts? E.g.,  AKxxx KQx Qxx xx.) Cheering for something like  AKxxx Axxx Qxx x. Probably catching  Jxxxx KJxxx xxx —. ("Sorry partner, but I didn't want to miss the vulnerable heart game.")

   KENT

   I'll borrow an idea from Rhoda Walsh and bid 4—make the cheapest possible bid and let partner (try to) extricate us from confusion. 4 is forcing and unclear. It could be a diamond cue in support of spades or 2 could have been forcing to prepare a forcing diamond raise. I do have second round heart control, so 4 isn't a complete misdescription.

   MIKE

   4. Partner already expects me to have diamonds at least this good from this sequence. (I wouldn't have chosen it here, so my partners could expect 100 honors or 7 length.) I showed enthusiasm for spades with 3, too, and I must have shortness somewhere for this sequence. I guess what this is getting at is whether you'd bid the same way with  Qxx J AKJxxx Qxx or with  Qxx Jx AKJxxx Kx. Personally, I'd bid 2 on all of those over 1, so I don't have a lot of experience here, but my gut feeling is that the Qxx hand would bid just 2 over 2.

   [Mike's main focus is on how good his hand is in comparison to what he's already shown. That's usually good bidding technique, but I think partner's diamond cue changes the nature of this hand considerably; in a sense, once we know partner has Qx, our hand is way out of range for our previous bidding. --Jeff]

   DAVIDW

   [4NT, key card for spades.] I rather like "my" bidding so far. Good diamonds, good three-card spade support. What I would like now is to bid RKC in spades but to play in diamonds. I think spades are the agreed suit at this point, so Blackwood it is. If he shows 2, I will have to play 5. If he shows 0 or 3, I will bid 6 and fold my cards. If he shows 1 or 4, I will infer that he has 4 (I can't make up a strong enough hand for him with only one key card), and I will play 7. Can we be off the diamond queen? I don't see how unless he has four diamonds — why would he bother with 4? Diamonds will be a better trump suit than spades on most hands, and will produce additional tricks on several types.

   BARRY

   4. I'll discover if this could be interpreted as natural. I don't think so, but we'll find out!

   ROBB

   [4.] What does partner expect from us? What does 4 show (we think it is a diamond fit)? We think we have bid the full extent of our values for spades but our robust diamonds suggest greater possibilities in that strain. We don't have enough to launch into key card, but we are certainly worth a Last Trainish 4, and that is my choice. (Linda bids 5.)

   SYLVIA

   [4.] In order to make slam, I need partner to have good spades, a pointed ace, and the Q. Something like  AKxxx Axxx Qx xx. Partner's 4 bid is encouraging. I bid 4 in cooperation. [I'm not sure partner would even consider slam with that hand in the first place, and if he were imaginative enough to do so, I very much doubt he'd go if you just cooperated. I assume partner is better than that, though not necessarily that concentrated in perfect cards. --Jeff]

   FRED

   [4.] I have a great hand for my previous bidding (maximum, good controls etc) and desperately hope that "Partner" (as opposed to "CHO" in the previous problem) is not the sort of person who cuebids shortage in my suit at his first opportunity. It is noteworthy that he has chosen to bid 4 as either a cue or pattern, but I assume that we are missing the A. If he lacks a club singleton, position may be crucial. If that is correct, it may be necessary to protect my K in which case we want to play in diamonds.

   Further, the inference he should take from any move by me is not merely a slam-suitable hand but also a club control.

   Accordingly, with a feeling partner I bid 4NT which should not be keycard but DI [In the US, we use 4 Last Train instead of 4NT DI, so I've changed Fred's choice appropriately. --Jeff], so that I will pass 5 but offer 6 as a choice over a higher bid (and should he belatedly admit to the A, I will look for the grand). I realise that in the world where most key card at the drop of a hat this may not be popular — and would never consider this bid with anything but a sensitive expert partner (i.e. not a sponsor, and it must be someone with at least pretensions to bidding theory)!

   JEFF AT THE TABLE

   6. I assumed partner had the Q for 4, since we've agreed spades. We needed, therefore, to play the hand from my side unless partner had the Q, and I didn't want to cause any confusion about whether a later 6 bid was natural.

   CONSENSUS

   Action Votes 4 5 4 1 4NT 3 6 1

   I decided this was a good panel problem when I gave it to a group of three players and one signed off, one tried for slam, and one drove there. As usual, when that happens, the consensus is the middle road, though not by much this time; here, four drove, and five tried.

   WINNING ACTION

   Sign off. Partner has  AKJ109x A109xx — xx. He'll accept any slam invitation (or at least he said he would), and 4 sounds particularly attractive to him. But the A was offside, so slam goes down. Yes, I know partner does not have a 4 bid, so the result really doesn't have anything to do with the problem. And even then, slam is 50-50, so the result doesn't mean much.

   JEFF UPON REFLECTION

   If partner wanted to demand that I bid slam with a club control, he could have bid 5 (which would get us there, of course). I think it's close between that and just trying for slam with 4. I'd reject that, because the key feature of my hand is the strong diamond suit. Not surprisingly, with several close choices, slam ends up being around 50%.

   Be that as it may, this is an interesting problem. In my opinion, partner's 4 should be on Qx (or better). He knows I have length, so the cue should show a filler card so that I can evaluate the number of tricks we can take. Given that, I think diamonds has to be a better strain than spades. Maybe partner has  AJxxx AKQx Qx xx, in which case the spade loser goes away on the hearts. Or maybe he has  AKJxx Axxx Qx xx, in which case diamonds protects the K.

   There is potential confusion with 4NT. Some think it is key card for diamonds, and some think it is key card for spades. Since we have the K, but not the K, that portends a possible disaster, though I suppose we could find out which suit partner thinks is trumps by asking for the trump queen!

   Overall, I'm bullish—that Q is huge. I think we'll nearly always have at least a finesse for 12 tricks in diamonds, maybe also in spades, maybe not. There is a danger we are off two aces, but that seems unlikely, and I'm fine with playing 6 if we are off the K and another key card. Add in the possibility that 6 after key card might not be interpreted as natural, and I think it's time to bid the contract which appears to be making. So upon reflection, I'm sticking with my at-the-table choice.

   ---