10xx 
KJxx 
9x 
AQxx
| LHO | CHO | RHO | You |
| | Pass | ? |
- DAVIDC
- Double — responsive. Then you have to correct your
[I thought of that, perfect other than the one flaw
--Jeff]
call of course. If partner were not barred, I might correct
to 3 . That would get all suits in play. But that plan does have an obvious complication and raises ethical issues as well, so I think I would start with2 , too good to pass, a raise or2 too likely to land in the wrong spot. It will be easy to pass partner's rebid of3 or 3NT; other rebids are not so easy to judge. I will raise3 (my partners never find such helpful bids), pass either 2NT or3 . - CHRIS
-
2 . Clear. - MARSHALL
-
3 . Too strong to pass, not strong enough to cue bid and strongly suggest partner bid 3NT with heart stopper. - DAVIDW
- Pass, smoothly. I realize we could be missing something big, but
the risk of going minus looms large. Perhaps I respect 5 or 6 IMP swings
too much. My only viable alternative is a gentle raise to
3 , which will get us to4 when it is right, or to 3NT when is it right or wrong. - MIKE
- Pass. I hate it, but if I were to bid, I think 2NT is
superior to
3 , since there is some chance that it is correct positionally, and when both are wrong3 is more likely to be doubled. (That is one hell of a sentence!) Strange, but for most people this would be a run-of-the-mill responsive double had RHO raised. By the way, you have RHO and LHO reversed up top. [Whoops. --Jeff] - JJ
- I make a responsive double; it's perfect on high cards and shape. If
partner thinks that doubling him is for penalties and passes he'll
probably make it!
If I limit myself to legal calls,
3 and2 are wrong on shape but fine on strength. Pass is wrong on strength (too strong).2 is wrong on shape and is agressive to boot. 2NT, the closest bid to correct strength and shape, is wrong on card location. I think it's close between pass and3 as to which would work out the most often. I favor pass at matchpoints, but this being vulnerable and IMPs, I'll try3 .2 is my 3rd choice; I don't like 2NT,2 or3 at all. All right Marshall, how would we bid this hand if playing transfer advances? - JOEL
- Although I'm tempted to pass, since it's IMPs, I'm going to take a bid.
I think that bidding
2 is the best choice, since if partner bids clubs, hearts, or notrump, it leaves me well placed. I pass at matchpoints, BTW. - JEFF AT THE TABLE
-
2 . I thought that was a bizarre choice, but it was duplicated at the other table, so I wanted to check if anyone else would perpetrate it. - VOTES
-
Action Votes Pass 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 - WINNING ACTION
- Anything but
2 or an overbid. Partner has2 heard ...2 ,3 , all pass. Wold found a super defense to beat it at my table; less inspired defense let it make at the other table.3 is easy. - JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- I've never seen more votes
for doubling your partner for any problem ever.
And it is not even penalty! ...reminds me of a story.
I was playing with a difficult partner in Schenectady
many years ago. Partner was flirting with one of our
opponents. He was slow at the best of times; with the
distraction, we were falling way behind. The bidding
had reached him. He went into the tank. One minute
passed. Two minutes passed. "Carl, we really need
to finish the hand." Three minutes passed. Four minutes
passed. "Carl, please bid." Five minutes passed. Finally
he doubled me.
My original wonderment is upheld; no one seriously considered bidding
2 . It's not a good bid. Given that several wanted to pass and several chose to cue,3 must be the consensus call, despite not having a plurality.Is it a good call, though? If partner bids 3NT, will he make it? Probably so...I have some entries and some tricks. If he has diamonds which will run after a finesse, a spade stop, and either the
3 with that, but bid 3NT over2 . Or 2NT. I don't think I can pass that, so we'll get to 3NT. That's a perfect minimum, though...and it still needs diamonds breaking onside. The5 . If they don't manage a trump promotion... he'll need the2 looks best to me.
8xxx 10xxx AQ9x x
| CHO | RHO | You | LHO |
| | | |
| | ? | |
| Pass | Pass | ? | |
What do you do at your last two turns?
- DAVIDC
- I would have smashed
4 and if partner still passes4 , I smash that too (lead my3 (because I am vulnerable) on my first round. - CHRIS
- Double and double. I realize that partner likely has
a spade void, but I have zero points in his suits, and
my club misfit counterbalances my undisclosed fourth
heart. I think that my double of
4 denies a clearcut penalty double of4 , with which I would just pass4 and double4 later, so partner can bid over4 himself with the right hand.[I'd play the opposite. Double and double is really penalty. Pass and double is less clear. But see below. --Jeff]
So passing then doubling
4 is optional? That sounds like unilateral penalty to me. One of the two sequences has to depict an optional penalty double.[I wouldn't call it "optional," but different. If partner's O-to-D ratio is really high, he can pull. That won't ever happen; he bid
4 to encourage me to make the decision over4 . He won't overrule me unless he has a slam try. --Jeff] - MARSHALL
- Double
4 , pass4 . Admit defense looks good when partner's side strength is in clubs, but too close to double. Might be influenced by knowing the hand. - DAVIDW
- I bid 4NT at my second turn. With my fourth trump and with the
diamond finesse marked, my hand is tremendous. Partner is more likely than
not to be void in spades, and if he has as little as
5 x --Jeff]
- MIKE
- Double. I would like partner to know that he shouldn't get in my way... because... Double. Opposite club stuff I want to defend. This could easily be sticks and wheels [So Mike (as I do) plays the pair of doubles to demand partner to pass. --Jeff]
- JJ
- On the first turn I've got a number of plausible but less than perfect
calls in my bid box:
2 ,3 ,4 ,2 (limit raise) and4 (fitted jump). [Huh?2 isn't flawed at all. The others are.3 is an underbid if you are seriously considering a limit raise.2 is an overbid by the same reasoning.4 is too much, clearly.4 is a total misbid. Fitted jumps are good hands, not bad hands. --Jeff] I wouldn't pass or make a negative double. My choice would have been4 . I can certainly live with2 though. Given that auction, I would double4 to let partner know where my values lie, and to imply that I don't have a club fit. Given that I doubled (or even if I didn't) I double4 . No, I don't have a trump trick, but my cards rate to create a headache for declarer, plus pard probably a has a cashing club trick or two. I lead a heart, not a club. I'm looking to tap declarer. I'm guessing neither side is making4 or higher. - JOEL
- I bid
4 over4 . When4 comes around to me, I lay down da hamma! - JEFF AT THE TABLE
- Double, double, boil and bubble.
We have those Poles now! Good
4 bid, Marshall! - VOTES
-
1st ? Votes Double 6 4 1 4NT 1 2nd ? Votes Double 6 Pass 1 N/A 1 - WINNING ACTION
- Save. Dummy was horrifying:
Partner held
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- A few panelists think this
hand has more potential than I do. It's a semi-balanced
six-count.
4 the first time, or a slam try now seems wild to me. I have a little in hand for2 , but that isn't so bad. I don't have to have a minimum everytime.Doubling
4 is obvious. Whether or not to double4 is less obvious to me. Chris' point that he thinks double followed by double is optional has more merit upon reflection than I thought. Normally, when the opponents are in a force multiple doubles show stronger opinion about doubling, but this must be an exception, because when I double4 , partner might bid5 immediately just by knowing I have stuff in diamonds. In fact, he might have on the given hand. I think I would have. Does that mean we ought to double4 or not? I'm not sure...probably so, and we should hope that partner pulls with his actual hand, because we rate to make5 . Not this time, but it turns out to be a good save.Just as a clarification, "optional" is the wrong word. Doubling
4 says you have diamond high cards and some length. Doubling4 says you have club shortness or (rarely) spade high cards. A single raise won't often have high cards in both their suits, so usually the double is club shortness, which increases partner's defensive potential. So, neither pair of actions is "optional" or "mandatory." Passing and doubling, however, is just about never getting pulled, because partner can never know to pull. But doubling and doubling can get pulled when the information so transmitted can tell partner to do the right thing. Curious.
| South | North |
| |
| Pass |
| Kxx 10xxx Jxx Kxx | ||
 |
x AJxx A8xx 108xx | |
T1: Q
T2: J
T3: x
What's your plan? Include your first two discards and whether you will win or duck when/if red suits are led from dummy.
(Partner's spades are up-the-line.)
- DAVIDC
- (I don't quite understand the "two discard" question.
Are you saying that trick 4 is another
It looks like I can spare a club, and then I am guessing to pitch a diamond. I will duck a diamond but fly with the
- CHRIS
- I'll pitch a club on the first spade. If declarer leads a diamond, I'll duck; if he leads a heart, I'll win. If declarer continues to draw trump at trick four, I'll pitch a heart.
- MARSHALL
- Can't form a plan. Discard club and diamond. Would duck if diamond led, play ace if heart led.
- DAVIDW
- Firstly, I encourage in clubs. I hope to win two diamonds, one heart, and one club, although other permutations are possible. My two discards will be a club and a heart. I will grab the first heart led from dummy (to play a club). If instead declarer leads a diamond from dummy I will duck.
- MIKE
- I don't think partner is giving me a clever signal with
his spade spots. [He isn't. He has Axxx, so he's following
normally. --Jeff] We likely agreed that a trump echo would
indicate an impending ruff and switching back and forth to
suit preference based on what comes down in dummy would be
a fairly tangled web. [It's usually easy enough
to give suit preference in trumps when you know declarer
is pulling all your trumps. That works well against 5-4
fits, in particular. --Jeff] My instinct is to grab the heart ace
and duck the diamond ace. If dummy lacked the
1 ,2 and1 - JJ
- I assume that I played an encouraging club at trick one. I'll discard
a club here (on some variations I can't afford a tricky discouraging
diamond (trying to get declarer with
- JOEL
- I'm going to pitch 1 discouraging diamond and 1 discouraging heart. I'm
definitely ducking diamonds if those come off. If he has stiff K, so be
it. However, the heart off is more interesting. If I duck, I'm
protecting against something like
4 cold on those cards? You're saving an overtrick only. --Jeff] That's a pretty normal4 bid. If I play the A, I'm protecting against something like4 is cold. --Jeff] That's a reasonable4 bid, but also aggressive. Playing the Ace would also be right against4 bid. Since declarer maybe would've bid 3NT on the first hand, I'm going to fly ace on a heart off the table. [Hmmm...give partner the4 . --Jeff] - JEFF AT THE TABLE
- same as everyone else. I let go a club early and that was that.
- WINNING ACTION
- All the questions are mostly a smoke screen
except for the discard problem. The key issue on the hand is
that you cannot afford to discard a club. Declarer has
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- Only Joel held his clubs. He didn't
mention that he was doing it to guard against declarer's
having a 5-card trump suit. He was doing it to conceal
his red aces. It didn't occur to me at the table that
partner might have four trumps; no one here thought of it,
either. I feel a little better.
Everyone flew
No one came up with a construction where their play was needed to beat the contract. No one. Wow. This is a pretty good group of panelists. If they are defending on instinct, this hand is too hard to get right at the table. Not surprisingly, it was a push.
4 made at each table.
Qxx Jxxxxxx — AJ9
| LHO | CHO | RHO | You |
| 1NT | Pass | 3NT | ? |
- DAVIDC
- No bid.
- CHRIS
-
4 . A guess. Could be a good save, could be a make. Could be -800 against air. [Dunno about air, but it could be against +100. I'd not expect them down more than one in 3NT, particularly with Balicki playing it and partner stroking a diamond. --Jeff] - MARSHALL
- Pass. Don't know enough about the hand to do anything different,
bidding is gambling on finding at least a mild heart fit.
[I think bidding is gambling that 3NT is making and nothing
else. It's real unlikely you are going down four in
4 , and down three is a win if they are +600. --Jeff] - DAVIDW
- I'm too old to bid in this random situation. I pass easily.
- MIKE
- [
4 ] Truly nasty. We could easily be beating this even on a diamond lead while4 rates to go down 2 or 3. But I'm a bidder nonetheless, as this satisfies Woolsey's rule on saving at imps. There is a real chance that this will be a very good save. - JJ
- I've been given this problem already. I know that it was wrong to bid
4 on the actual hand, but I'm stubborn and would bid anyway. Too often its right to bid at the table with hands like this. CHO always leads my short suit, and even if the contract could have been beaten, I write down -630 or -660 on my scoresheet. Normally they make, while I can make at least 7 tricks in hearts. Against a weak declarer maybe I'd pass, but frequently this type of hand plays itself. - JOEL
- Pass. I'm no hero.
- JEFF AT THE TABLE
-
4 . I had extra information, though. A wizard would be playing 3NT. Also, my teammates played K/S, so I couldn't hope for the same diamond lead against them; they rate to get to the game from the other side and/or after bidding lots of diamonds. Given that, I expect 3NT at our table to be even worse than it starts out. Therefore, if it is at all reasonable to save, I'm doing it; I can't expect a good result by passing. - VOTES
-
Action Votes Pass 4 4 4 - WINNING ACTION
- Pass. Partner has a disaster hand:
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- The panel describes this situation
as "random," "a guess," and "truly nasty." They are
split roughly 50/50 on what to do. I'd've thought that
bidding
4 was an unusual move, provoked in my case by factors beyond the scope of the problem. Not so. The panel mostly answered this as a matter of style or personality. Those who passed said, "I'm no hero," or "I'm too old." Those who bid say, "I'm a bidder," or "I'm stubborn." Note the use of the first person.
AJxx AQ Qxxxx AQ
| LHO | CHO | RHO | You |
|
| Pass | | ? |
- DAVIDC
- I bid 3NT the first time.
(By the way, if I had doubled, did partner have lebensohl
available to show values? [Yes. --Jeff] Should it be?
[I think so. In any case, it's prescribed in the ACBL defense. --Jeff]
In which case,
4 is really clubs and my hand is worth a4 call.) - CHRIS
- Double seems clear. I can always follow up with 3NT,
but this way is more flexible, allowing for
4 , slams, etc. I'd bid 3NT with a trick oriented hand, or one with less tolerance for the missing major.4 . I'm assuming lebensohl applies and3 would have shown a good hand, so4 should be highly distributional and strongly invitational. I could easily have a slam, so I'll make a try. - MARSHALL
- [Nothing about the first problem.]
5 - DAVIDW
- I would not have doubled, but would instead have bid 3NT. I might
miss a slam, but I won't have to do much guessing. Admittedly, double did
not have to work out so awkwardly; partner will usually bid at the
three-level. I was worried more about a Lebensohl response of 2NT, which
would wrong-side the 3NT I would have to bid. Given the present
auction, my guess is to bid
4 . - MIKE
- Double is obvious. There is a lot of room between here
and 3NT that I shouldn't have to shoot it out now. Partner
has crossed me with the
4 bid... he must hold something like3 and with3 . Its unlucky that we can't get to NT anymore and we've wrongsided clubs, but5 must have some play, and that's what I'll do. Second choice is pass. - JJ
- I know this one, too. I double, then barf while bidding
5 . [If5 makes you barf, it'll be a messy time in Palm Springs when you see the dummy on Problem 2! --Jeff] - JOEL
- I would double
2 . Over4 , I'm having a little trouble placing a4 bid w/o a 6th club (since partner could've bid3 instead w/o a largely distributional hand), so I'm going to cue bid4 over that. I think I've got a pretty good hand, and it's time to show it. - JEFF AT THE TABLE
- double, then
5 . The latter decision seems pretty easy. It's the first one that is tough. - VOTES
-
1st Action Votes Double 5 3NT 2 2nd Action Votes 4 1 4 3 5 4 - WINNING ACTION
- Get to
5 . Partner had5 probably makes. - JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- The panel is strongly in
favor of double vs. 3NT, which is what I thought
was the interesting problem on the hand. Bidding
after partner's
4 was just miserable, but I figured everyone would bid5 .Is this hand worth a slam try over
4 ? It's a 19-count, so we have extras, but I don't think it is worth a slam try. We have only two trumps for partner when he's entitled to expect three or four. They are, however, pretty good ones. Our5 seems sufficient.Yes, I know partner's
4 was a huge overbid.As to 3NT vs. double, the panel is heavily in favor of doubling. It looks awfully close to me.