Some Problems from the Pomona Sectional: Answers

A good set of problems this time...most of the panelists are unsure what to do; there are almost no consensus answers, and most of the votes are split 50-50.

They are: Brian Oxley, Ed Davis, Mike Shuster, Roberto Scaramuzzi, Barry Rigal, Curt Hastings, Joel Wooldridge, Kent Hartman, Dan Molochko, Rolf Kühn.

Thanks to the whole panel for interesting comments.

All at IMPs, 8-board matches

  1. favorable, you hold

     S:Qxx H:K108x D:x C:97654

    LHO CHO RHO You
    Pass1D: Pass1H:
    2H: 2S: Pass?

    2H: was natural. What's your plan?


    BINKLEY
    I'm forced to bid, so I'll just raise to 3S:. My hand sure has gotten crappy with that 2H: bid.
    ED
    Pass. Yes, 2S: is forcing and I might be missing a non-vulnerable game by passing. However, I doubt I am missing anything and 2S: might be the best contract we can reach at this point. If I did bid I'd bid 2NT but I feel pass is clearly the right action.

    I play Lebensohl here.

    MIKE
    It is very unusual that LHO bid a natural 2H: as a passed hand and partner then acted in front of me. He must be very short in hearts to not give me a crack at it.

    2S: is forcing, so no matter how much I don't want to honor that force, I must take another call - partner may even be 5071.

    2NT would be Lebensohl without interference and should probably be now too, although it would be simple to convince me otherwise. In either case I don't have a problem* (with alerts or not alerts) since I have both a Lebensohl and non-Lebensohl 2NT bid. Over partner's 3x bid, bid 3S:. Over 3S:, bid 4S:.

    [* Oh, yes, you do. If you think your methods are that 2NT is Lebensohl, and partner fails to alert, you are in some trouble. In fact, that's an amazing prediction. Partner did fail to alert 2NT. I alerted (as required) 3C: and had another vicious problem. I think that the unauthorized information suggests bidding over passing (partner is no longer denying a huge hand as he would be if he knew 2NT were Lebensohl, so bidding caters to the huge hand). Therefore, I think it's ethically right to pass 3C:, but I have no idea if passing is a logical alternative; if it's not, then passing is not required. In fact, the bidding problem after 2NT-3C: is so hard that I have no idea what the logical alternatives are. My best guess was that pass is not suggested, so I did that. --Jeff]

    ROBERTO
    Pass. If I had known my H:K was TP I would have passed 1D:. As is, I have apparently improved the contract (partner is not forging a spade suit since he has no heart support).
    BARRY
    Pass, what else? Yes it might be intended as forcing, but why should this two-count produce eight tricks let alone ten?
    CURT
    Interesting problem. I'll start with 2NT. I assume the same methods apply as if LHO had not interfered, i.e. 2NT is an artificial slowdown. Accordingly, I have no choice on this round. The problem will come on the next round. If partner bids, I will raise 3S: to 4 or bid 3NT over any other next call (I think my H: stopper is a little better than average for this auction). I realize I might be overbidding a little, but I think partner can pass 2NT (I know, I might have made this bid with H:xxxx, given my comments above, but I think I rate to have some sort of stopper almost all of the time).
    JOEL
    I'll bid 2NT , if partner bids 3D:, I'll pass. If he bids 3NT, I'll throw up, and pass. If he bids 3S:, I'll bid 4S:. If he bids 3C:, I'll bid 4C:. If he bids 3H:, I'll bid 3S:. I don't like pass, since if partner has  S:AKxxx H:x D:AKxxxx C:x, we're going to make 4S: on the average, and partner doesn't expect me to pass.
    KENT
    Pass. I have a poor hand that hasn't improved. With a monster pointed two- suiter, partner should bid 3S: here, [Even with Joel's hand above? --Jeff] as raises of hearts no longer exist. Two hearts natural is quite a bid to enter a live auction at unfavorable with a hand not suited to a weak two.
    DAN
    2NT now. If partner bids 3m or 3H: I bid 3S:, if 3S: I raise, if 3NT I Pass. 2S: is forcing here, and partner knows that my hand may look like this. And yes, I bid 3S: even if partner bids 3C: over my 2NT (I'm a little tempted to Pass 3C: but partner certainly won't expect it) because spades will play a trick or two better than clubs.
    ROLF
    Pass. I don't think that my hand is worth another bid. It might produce game if partner has a 5-6 distribution. But 2 working HCP and a singleton in partner's suit and only 3-card trump support will not be enough in most cases. I am not going for game especially not in white.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    2NT (Lebensohl) and passed partner's 3C:.
    WINNING ACTION
    Nothing. Don't bid too much, but only Joel does. Really, the actual result has nothing to do with the problem, as partner psyched 3 times with  S:Axx H:A D:AKxxxxx C:AQ. (Firstly, he should open 2C:, not 1D:. Secondly, he should bid 3NT or 3H:, not 2S:. Thirdly, after 2NT Lebensohl, making a non-forcing bid is madness. And if 2NT wasn't Lebensohl, bidding 3C: is plain goofy.) 3NT and 5D: are reasonable contracts, but as the cards lay, nothing at all makes. Joel got high enough for the 3145 hand sitting over the big hand to double. The rest of us just went minus, sometimes in silly contracts. The real winning action is to double off 2H:. Dummy has no entries, so we can take four aces and at least two more trump tricks. I don't think we can manage to get our second spade trick.
    CONSENSUS
    None.
    Pass 5
    2NT 5
    3S:1
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    Pass is probably the best chance for a good score on this hand, but in the long run, I want my partners to know that I don't pass forcing bids, so I won't do it. I hope to win more IMPs as a result than I lose on disasters like this one.

  2. no one vul, you hold

     S:10xxx H:9x D:Qx C:K10xxx

    LHO CHO RHO You
    1D: 1H: 1NT Pass
    3NT*All pass

    (*After some thought)

    What's your opening lead?


    BINKLEY
    A pedantic low club.
    ED
    If 3NT is based on a long good diamond suit, I'd better hope we can beat them in clubs. If it is balanced, hearts is probably better. The long thought before seems to be something other than 18 balanced so I'd lead a club.
    MIKE
    A club could blow a trick or beat it outright. With long running diamonds, I don't think LHO would have a problem. I think his diamonds are broken, so with RHO's expected filler that leaves partner with one probable diamond trick. A club doesn't help if they can hold up long enough, but I don't think we'll get the hearts going fast enough, so I'll be a hero and lead a club. Of course dummy will have Qx and declarer Ax and I'll give 'em their ninth trick. Such is life.
    ROBERTO
    C:x; I hate to believe the opponents instead of partner, but it sounds like they have hearts stopped. The diamond position is ominous, so I'll hope we can run 5 quick club tricks.

    I will apologize if this is wrong.

    BARRY
    H:9. I cannot get too involved in this one. There is no good reason to lead clubs as opposed to hearts (or indeed spades), and when partner makes a non-space consuming overall he tends to have a reason. Keep the idiot happy, I say. Here neither of my suits is close to setting up -- and I do not have an entry. I could find partner with C:QJx and it might still be wrong to lead them.
    CURT
    H:9, mildly agricultural. By the way, I've never had much success inferring anything from the tempo. LHO could have been thinking about trying for slam or he might have been stretching to bid game, maybe with long semisolid D:. OTOH, I've had a lot of success leading partner's suit when he has our sides values. He should be able to read the 9, and will frequently shift when it's needed.
    JOEL
    Fourth best club. I'm afraid dummy's going to hit with a long strong diamond suit, and on a heart lead, they'll take 9 tricks quickly, while we can run clubs (or set them up quick enough).
    KENT
    H:9. If RHO thought H:10xxx was a stopper, partner is going to be mighty pissed if I don't lead one. Partner overcalled and I don't have anything clearcut as an alternative.
    DAN
    H:9. No reason that this shouldn't be the killing lead; after all, she did bid the suit. Club lead is only for Chicken Little: "the diamonds are running, the diamonds are running!"
    ROLF
    A lot of diamond tricks seems to be waiting in dummy. I am going for fast tricks and lead a small club.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    H:9
    CONSENSUS
    Club: 6, Heart: 5
    WINNING ACTION
    Club. The layout was
    S: AQJx
    H: xx
    D: AKJ10xx
    C: x
    S: 10xxx
    H: 9x
    D: Qx
    C: K10xxx
    S: xx
    H: KQJx
    D: xxx
    C: AQxx
    S: Kxx
    H: A10xxx
    D: xx
    C: Jxx
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    The club leaders' arguments seem a little better than the heart leaders'. Perhaps partner should not have bid 1H: (although I think I would have). Next time, I'll probably lead a club. And be wrong again.

  3. S: KJ10xx
    H: x
    D: KQ8x
    C: A8x
    S: Ax
    H: A10xx
    D: AJ102
    C: J10x

    Dummy Declarer
    1S: 2D:
    3H: 4NT
    5S: 5NT
    6D: Pass

    a) What do you think of the bidding?


    BINKLEY
    Suspicious--it is generally taboo to leap off to Blackwood with a suit (clubs) wide open. But what do I know? I think cuebidding might have kept these hands at a safer level, but perhaps not after declarer hears dummy bid 4C:.
    ED
    The critical choice is what to bid over 3H:. Since 3NT, 4S: or 6D: could be right, I think 3S: is best as long as partner does not insist that you must have three spades (you could always jump to 4S: with a minimum hand and three spades). Over 3S:, I would bid 4C: and 6D: would then be reached. It is certainly a good contract.

    If partner raises 3S: to 4S:, I don't need to recover as I will be facing a minimum with good spades or extra length in spades and I expect 4S: will be the right contract. [For example, the actual hand? --Jeff] The idea behind bidding 3S: is that partner gets to offer more information with his next bid, e.g., partner would bid 4S: with  S:KJxxxx H:x D:KQxx C:Qx [I'd bid 2S: with that, not 3H:. The value of this hand depends mostly on whether or not partner fits spades. But 3H: could be right. --Jeff] or  S:KQTxx H:x D:Kxxx C:Axx, 4D: with  S:Qxxxx H:x D:KQxx C:KQx [I'd bid either 3D: or 2S: with this garbage. --Jeff] or 3NT with  S:Kxxxx H:Q D:Qxxx C:AKx. With the actual hand he held, we would reach 6D:. That contract becomes a favorite even with the C: lead if his spades are KQT rather than KJT. I think the 5-2 or 4-3 major suit fit needs to be explored as a possible contract whenever 3NT is determined to be undesirable.

    MIKE
    4NT was a little bit wrong. 3S: would show three of them and 4C: would be a lie. You could try 4D: setting trumps hoping partner would come back 4H: so you could bid 4S: forcing, but that seems dangerous and a long shot to me. South knows that slam is in the picture, but wants partner to bid key card (especially looking at low clubs). I'd try 4D: instead of 4NT and try to find out scientifically about the club control. Really partner has to have some sort of club control (is  S:KQJxx H:-- D:KQJxx C:Qxx a possibility? I say no, partner should bid 3D: with that) [4D:? 4H:? --Jeff] and so no one did anything really terrible.
    ROBERTO
    A little abrupt.
    BARRY
    South took control (perhaps because of his aces) when he might have achieved the same result and earned more style points. But I have seen far less elegant (and more unsuccessful) auctions in my time.
    CURT
    Everything was okay. The final contract isn't great, but if N had the S:Q as well grand would be almost laydown, and if the D:Q were the S:Q it would be significantly better (needing D:Q doubleton or shorter or 3rd with at least 3 spades). So if the byproduct of being able to find those slams is getting to this one, thats acceptable. Given that N can hardly have no aces, the Blackwood call seems the most direct and best method of exploration available to Declarer.
    JOEL
    The 4NT bid was hungry. I think he was bidding a lot to go straight to Blackwood. The 3H: bid was a great bid.
    KENT
    Bidding seems fine.
    DAN
    Since I don't play two-over-one I'm not sure whether North is light for the Splinter or not. My guess is no, as four working cards should probably be enough. Thus South was quite precipitate in applying the Black. South really needs another card (S:Q, C:K) to have a decent play for the slam, and should therefore have bid 4D: over 3H: to see if North wanted to offer more encouragement. Btw, 5NT seems insane. Granding when you're about to float in six looks pretty bad.
    ROLF
    Three hearts seems insane even if 2D: was FG. The slam does not seem too bad though.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    I was declarer (South).
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    The first non-obvious bid is 4NT. I'm very much anti-Blackwood, but I just can't think of anything better. 3S: promises three spades, I think, and I don't want partner thinking we are maybe playing spades. 3NT doesn't seem right. 4C:, a fake cue, might be a good thing; LHO might double, and partner can redouble to tell me we really have the suit stopped. 4D: seems like the normal other choice, but I just don't see how it will help. If partner bids 5C:, the auction will continue 5H:-6D: and we'll've not addressed any problems other than that we don't have two quick club losers. 4H: is reasonable, but it almost demands a 5C: cue if partner has control there. The question that would arise from that, however, is "will 4S: now be a lack of club control, suggesting a 5-2 (6-2?) fit, or is it promising a club control and something extra in spades?" It seems more useful to play it as natural, but I don't know if partner agrees. We could end up playing in a cue bid. 4S: is surely wrong; that must show a big double fit (or a minimum with 3 spades if playing fast arrival. I'd play it to show 4S:+5D:). That leaves Blackwood. Partner is extremely likely to have two with---if so, we can bid 5NT and tell partner about everything in our hand except the Jacks. This might let partner bid a grand and claim before the lead. As this is the only good thing I can see happening as a result of my choice, and no one has convinced me that their choice will do any better at all, I'm sticking with 4NT. My second choice is to psych 4C:. And I really don't think that there's much of a chance that we don't have a club control. Partner could maybe have  S:KQJxx H:x D:KQxx C:Qxx. Or one more likely, one more club and one fewer heart. That's about the only hand that makes 6D: down off the top. And they haven't led a club yet. Or cashed the second one. Having three small is a lot safer than having two small.

    In later conversation with Ed, I realized that by my rules, if I bid 3S:, key card will never be in diamonds afterwards. ("If we agree two suits, the key suit is the higher one.") That's enough reason not to do it.


    T1: C:5-x-Q-x (3rd + lowest leads)
    T2: D:7-A-x-x
    T3: S:A-x-x-x
    T4: S:x-x-K-x
    T5: S:x-x-D:J-H:x
    T6: D:2-x-K-x
    T7: S:x-Q-D:10-C:2
    T8: C:J-K-A-D:9
    Claim down 1.

    b) What do you think of the play?


    BINKLEY
    Unlucky. Losing to stiff Q and the later ruff really bites. Oddly, cuebidding would have had a dark horse payoff over blasting: there was the offhand chance of an enemy double of a cuebid to tip you off in the play (although with these particular hands, the clubs were turned about the wrong way for that).
    MIKE
    Unlucky. Maybe I'm missing something, but declarer's line seems pretty good to me.
    ROBERTO
    Not unreasonable, but I haven't really thought about it. I may get back to you later about this.
    JOEL
    The play was very reasonable. I put full blame on south for his egregious 4NT bid.
    KENT
    I never know. Looks ok to me--I couldn't come up with a successful line that did not involve taking the spade finesse the right way early.
    DAN
    I wouldn't expect better (see 3A) Seems reasonable to me.
    ROLF
    The play seems ok. It covers S: 3-3 or C: not worse than 5-2. A little bit unlucky though.
    BARRY
    I might have done the same here too! Playing spades before trumps did not require much; but it did need the second club honor right (unless S:Q is doubleton) So the line of winning the trump and drawing trumps then taking the club finesse (or playing S:K, S:A then club finesse) and then guessing spades, works -- but that does not make it right. My instinct is that there might be something better and I am missing it (but I did come back from the UK yesterday --blame the jetlag).
    CURT
    Very unlucky. A small improvement might be to win T2 in dummy and ruff a H: immediately, makes it easier to avoid the C: hook if S: break 3-3 (if S:Q dub, everything works), e.g.

    T2 - win in dummy.
    T3 - H:A
    T4 - H: ruff
    T5-7- S:A, K, S: ruff high.
    T8 - ruff H:
    T9 - overtake trump...

    Although this goes down if trump are not 3-2, unless I divine to run the C:J and crossruff (requiring 4-3 C: and 3-3 S:, yeah right). Which of these is better depends on your assessment of the opponents and the table action. The trump return was killing on the actual layout, but with 4-1 trump they might have returned a club to drive out a dummy entry (anticpating ruffout of spade (if your spades are AQ, it's laydown), and you can't use H ruffs to reenter without setting up a long trump for the defense).

    ED
    I intend to ruff two hearts, draw trumps and play on spades finessing if D: were 4-1 and guessing which way to play spades (S:K and S: ruff is best (53% - yes, I know you knew that) [54%, but who's counting? (If the S:Q drops stiff, you won't play another before drawing trumps, obviously.) --Jeff] given 4-2 or 3-3 spades) if diamonds were 3-2. One thing that is clear is that it is not a good contract with a C: lead; it would have, however, been good with any other lead since you can ruff two hearts, draw trumps and, assuming 3-2 D:, use the JTx of spades to shake the H: and two clubs to make 6D:. It seems to me that the ruffing two hearts line is about 9% better than playing for the D: split, C:K on and C: split or no C: ruff. I make your line .67 (C:K on) * .68 (D: break) * ~.75 (4-3 C: or no ruff) = .33. The C:K is more likely to be off since there was no C: return but the diamonds are more likely to be 3-2 since there was a D: return - I think the D: return is more indicative that D: are 3-2 than it is that the C:K is off so I'll raise your probability of success to .37. My line is .53 (S:Q falling) * .68 (D: break) + ( .26 (S:Qx or S:Qxx on) * .32 (non 3-2 D:) ) = .44 and I'll raise my probability to .46 due to the more likely 3-2 diamonds (3-2 diamonds means more to you than to me).
    JEFF IN REPLY TO ED
    This is a pretty tough one to compute. The inference from the failure to double hearts and the failure to lead them matters, too. It's not unlikely that LHO would lead his highest club when the club hook's off. Some of the time when the club hook's off, RHO is going to think (and sometimes be right) his partner has led a stiff and will return them. I think the club hook is closer to 80-90%. Then there's the issue of the club spot lead. I was certain that clubs couldn't be 6-1 if it was a true card, but I wasn't convinced that it was. LHO was a known tricky man. (In fact, it was a 5th best lead.)

    I can recover a 4-1 diamond break if spades come home. (Win D:A, two/three rounds of spades, draw trumps, cross to H:A and take a club hook.) If the S:Q comes down doubleton, I have a claim without the club finesse on 3-2 trumps. On 4-1 trumps, I can also make if the shortness is with shortness (Win D:A, two spades, diamond to the jack (oops), diamond over, spade pitching a club, C:A, club ruff high, draw trumps and claim.) Those are chances that you've included in your line, but not mine. That is, I get to change tacks once I find out how spades lie. Your line relies on their being good. On the other hand, when they are good, I'm not home yet.

    So, let's see...

    1. S:Q doubleton + 3-2 trumps
         or
    3. spades 3-3 + 3-2 trumps + club hook
         or
    4. spades 3-3 + 4-1 trumps + club hook
         or
    5. spades 4-2 + 3-2 trumps + club hook + no ruff

    1. .16 * .68 = .1088
    2. .16 * .28 * ? = about .04
    3. .355 * .68 * (.67+?) = .162 + ?
    4. .355 * .28 * (.67+?) = .0666
    6. .32 * .68 * (.67+?) * ? = .1458 * ?

    .1088 + .04 + .162 + .0666 = .377 + .1458*(no club ruff) (That's clubs 4-3 or the stiff with only 2 trumps. If we just figure clubs 4-3 as 62% and leave it at that, we get about 47%. There is some vig in this calculation, so it's probably closer to 55%. But I'm guessing. And have probably forgotten something.

    If diamonds really rate to be 3-2, say 80% of the time, then I get a little more. Hmmm...I've forgotten to calculate in the fact that we know that diamonds are not 5-0. That's worth an additional percent or two.

    Tough hand. I guess I should've given it as a play problem.

    ED AGAIN
    I shortchanged you but you are high with "the vig" (since feel less optimistic about about the C:K's being onsides) and, since we are calculating the percent of the time you make and not the percent of the time you make when diamonds are not 5-0, you don't get "an additional percent or two". I figure I owe you about .035 from 2. and the .0666 from 4. and an extra 2% from other considerations. I also shortchanged myself since I can play spades more advantageously based on the heart and diamond lengths that I find out about. So I'll put the two lines at being just about equal at around 50%. What an unsatisfactory conclusion outcome from this analysis!
    JEFF MUCH LATER
    I forgot about stiff S:Q. That's about 2.5%, but the contract isn't cold yet. Then again, I may end up losing some play when LHO drops the S:Q from a doubleton. (Nice play!)
    CONSENSUS
    Other lines might be better. Or might not. Hard to say.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    Good. If I had made 6D:, we'd've won the event. Because I went down, we ended up 4th. Stopping in game would lead to a 3rd-place finish, so bidding it is clearly best and the play was good enough if no one can show that another line was better without a lot of effort.

  4. As dealer, both white, which, if any, of these hands would you open a 10-12 NT?

    a)  S:Q32 H:K43 D:K972 C:Q32
    b)  S:A742 H:AKQ D:7642 C:32
    c)  S:AJ92 H:975 D:QJ2 C:AJ10


    K&R
    a. 8.55
    b. 13.30
    c. 12.15
    BINKLEY
    a. No -- too weak unless you have a partnership agreement for such junky honors, structure and shape
    b. Isn't this a 13-count? And a super one at that?
    c. Another 13-count, and pretty good too? What, are you baiting us now?

    I take it you ask this question to humiliate the culprit behind these hands? <gaffaws> [Nope. In fact, two choices ended up as pushes and the other was a big gain. --Jeff]

    ED
    c.
    MIKE
    Just A. A 10-12 denies the values for an opening bid. I would happily open 1C: with C. B is very close, since 1D: doesn't thrill me and I don't play 4 card majors so I can't open 1H: A is close the other way, but I prefer a 9-11 type scheme when allowed (ACBL restrictions suck) which would make all 3 non-problems. I bet K&R says to open only B a 10-12. (I'll make that bet without checking, too!!!!) [Nope. But, yes, changing the range of 1NT would make them all non-problems as they are all borderline 9-10 or 12-13, of course. --Jeff]
    ROBERTO
    None
    BARRY
    a. Yes of course.
    b. No of course (blimey what do you take me for?)
    c. Maybe depending on our partnership agreements about the same hand with the C:A as the S:3 -- if we do open good nine-counts then we should not open good 12-counts. [Not in the ACBL. Opening 9-counts is illegal. --Jeff]
    CURT
    only A. B has too much potential as a dummy for either pointed suit, and too much defense. C also has too much defense, and the honor texture more than compensates for the lack of shape...both the protection of the jacks and the presence of a high spot in my 2 best suits.
    JOEL
    Neither of the first 2 hands, I think the last one is borderline, but I'd still not do it--too much potential to miss a game. The first one, it's a good way to go for 1400. The 2nd one, it's too concentrated, and we don't even want to play it from our side. The last one is good, since nt is what we want to convey to our partner, and our side is probably best.
    KENT
    None of them. Second choice, A only Gad those are bad spots! B and C are too strong.
    DAN
    Only A because the other two hands have 13 HCP. That may sound flip, but it's the real reason. I believe that one should not often adjust the 10-12 hands up or down. The best way to think of it is that while one point is only about 6% of a strong 1NT, it's 10% of a 10-12, so the adjustment is more significant. 9+ to 13- is an unplayably large range, whereas 14+ to 18- is not.
    ROLF
    a) No, too weak.
    b) No, too strong, but close.
    c) No much too strong.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    I held the latter two and opened them each 1NT. I would not open the first one; it's not good enough, and I've opened some real dogs 1NT.
    WINNING ACTION
    Opening the first one will get you too high. Depending on the later auction, you may be able to salvage a plus score by passing originally. Partner has  S:Kxx H:AQJxx D:Qxx C:Kx. He'll probably open 1H: (but at the other table, the auction went pass-1NT; 3NT). You can bid 2-only-hearts and partner has a marginal game try. If he passes, RHO will balance with 2S:, which you can double. And maybe can beat. Given that partner has opened in 3rd seat, come to think of it, perhaps you shouldn't double. +50 would be a fine result anyway. Partner might double. Joy.

    Opening the 2nd one will prevent you from getting to a no-play 25 HCP game and will get a plus score. In practice, however, if you open 1D:, LHO will bid 2NT and go for 300. If you open 1NT, he'll bid hearts and clubs to the 3-level and go for 300 for a push.

    Opening the 3rd one 1NT was a massive win. LHO overcalled 2C: for the majors with  S:6432 H:KJ108x D:Ax C:xx (very sick). Partner cracked it and RHO bid 2S: (also an error, I think) with  S:Q10x H:xx D:xxxx C:Qxxx. They are entitled to the diamond Ace. 1700. I play that passing 2C: doubled means that I want to play 2C: doubled, so I'd bid 2D: with advancer's hand. While it's normal to show your preference, when you are getting the crap kicked out of you, a 5-2 fit plays much better than a 4-3, so I'd start with 2D:. I might end up in 2S: anyway (after testing the waters in 2D: and 2H:), but at least I might survive. And I might find out that we belong in hearts. If 2D: is doubled and partner bids 2H:, I should pass, figuring that partner is 4-5 in the majors. That choice would save a lot of undertricks; they can take four tricks in hearts.

    CONSENSUS
    None of them.
    Yes No Maybe
    a. 4 7 0
    b. 0 10 1
    c. 2 8 1
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    Obviously, there is a question of partnership style involved, but given that one plays "10-12," not "9-11" or "11-13," I think that means we should (if we could) open great 9s and rotten 13s. It's illegal to open 9-counts in the ACBL, but I'd still reject crappy 10s and include bad 13s. I think one should be conservative with 4333 hands, and I tend to downgrade them a point. I agree with the K&R assessments of (a) and (c), which make (a) too weak and (c) at the top of the range, an option. The Kleinman variation on K&R puts the 2nd hand in the 10-12 range, too (12.725). It discounts values in suits that have no low cards, such as the heart suit on this hand. That's exactly why the 25 HCP don't add up to 9 tricks. So I stand by my original assessment: (a) is too weak, should be passed. (b) is an option; if you feel like doing something a little strange, it's OK. (c) is a clear cut 1NT opener.

    Dan's argument that a point increases the range of the 10-12 range is interesting, and accurate in a way, but his calculations are off (it's not the case that strength of hands is linear in point count, nor is frequency of hands) but more importantly, his assumption is flawed. If one plays 9+-13-, one removes some 10s and some 12s. One assumes one's evaluation skills are such that one can tighten the range, rather than enlarge it. In the ACBL, since good nines cannot open 1NT legally, using judgment on each end should shrink the range.


  5. both vul, you hold

     S:108xxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:x

    Partner opens a 15-17 NT. What's your plan?


    BINKLEY
    IMPs, right? Invite game, suitable to my pattern, if possible. If not... hmmm... here are my plans:

    1NT - 2C:; 2M - 4M
    1NT - 2C:; 2D: - 2S:*; 3S: - 4S:
    1NT - 2C:; 2D: - 2S:; 2NT - P

    * = If not a weak sequence

    ED
    2C:. Raise 2H: to 3H:, raise 2S: to 4S:, pass 2D:.
    MIKE
    2C: - 2D: - 2S: = distributional invite with 5 spades. Fits this hand to a T. Can't imagine anything else. If partner bids 2H:, then raise to 4.
    ROBERTO
    2C:; raise 2S: to 4, raise 2H: to 3, bid 2S: over 2D: (invite).
    BARRY
    Stayman then 2S: over 2D: shows invitatiuonal unbalanced with 5S:. 2NT asks etc... If you do not play that then I can't help you. guess well.

    (Stayman then 2NT invites, non-specific re spades, and partner responds 2S: to Stayman with both M max, 2H: with both M min.)

    CURT
    Stayman, 4S:/2S:, 3H:/2H:, 2H: pick over 2D:, if partner corrects to spades, I'll raise him to 3.
    JOEL
    If I have a way to show an invitational 5-4, I'll do it. Otherwise, stayman followed by 2S:. If partner bids 2M in response to stayman, I'll raise 2H: to 3H:, and 2S: to 4S:.
    KENT
    Stayman. Invite over a major, bid 2S: over 2D:.
    DAN
    Stayman. I'll bid 2S: over 2D:, 3H: over 2H:, and 4S: over 2S:. This seems obvious. [I guess it is. --Jeff]
    ROLF
    Bid via stayman and get to game if partner shows up with 4S:. I will pass 2H:. If we have a double fit I hope that opps will bid or double clubs.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    1NT-2C:; 2S:-4S:. I was planning to raise 2H: to 3H: unless 2C: got doubled, in which case, I was bidding game. I hadn't decided what to do over 2D:. I think I'd bid 2S: (unbalanced invitational) but it might be right to pass. If I did and partner raised to 3S:, I would leave him there, not bid game.
    WINNING ACTION
    4S: was cold opposite a nondescript 15-count. Win 10.
    CONSENSUS
    Stayman. Bid game over 2S:, and 3H: over 2H:. Generally bid 2S: over 2D: (but one passes and one bids 2H:). No one else (except Rolf) considered that they may double 2C:.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    I thought many more would simply transfer to spades or at most invite game, missing it. They did at the other table.

  6. unfavorable, you hold

     S:x H:Jx D:KQxxx C:QJ9xx

    You LHO CHO RHO
    Pass1S: PassPass
    ?


    BINKLEY
    Pass. Where are the hearts? We could try and axe 1S:, but my RHO would just bail out to 2H:. I suppose we could then try to scramble into 3m, but being red, I'd be concerned about my LHO's axing that. I'd like to hear, though, that I am being a coward--it is more fun to bid with this hand than to pass.
    ED
    2NT. I can describe my hand accurately and make it dangerous for LHO to bid again all with one bid. Partner will be well-placed to judge what to do over 2NT. The other choices, 2D: and pass, are poor alternatives in that they make life too easy for the opponents and fail to accuretely compete when game is possible our way.
    MIKE
    Where are all the hearts? I dunno. I think 1NT in this auction should be takeout for the minors [It's not; it's 10-12-- balanced with spades stopped. --Jeff] and the vulnerability speaks for bidding (if they recover a game, it isn't red - and probably won't make since partner is markeed with spades). OTOH, 1NT is dangerous, since partner and I might not be on the same wavelength - given that, the risk of that call is too great. 2NT is too much. Double is wrong. That leaves 2D: and pass. I think 2D: is aiming at too small a target (if partner has a good hand we can recover 2NT, but he may be forced to pass too often). So I pass. Without strong conviction.
    ROBERTO
    Pass. It is very unlikely we have a game, and the opponents may be cold for 4H:. This would be even clearer if lefty had opened 1H:.
    BARRY
    Pass. who knows? not my style generally but this leads to less tears I find.
    CURT
    Pass is clear. Problems with bidding include moving them to a superior partial (H:), and allowing them to reach a game in either major or NT. While bidding might gain by forcing a plus in a partscore battle (we make 3C: or 3D:, they make at most 2 of a major) thats a fairly specific target, and if partner has defense to both majors and a fit for one minor, he will be short in the other minor...given that neither minor will establish quickly its unlikely that we can then make much of anything with a trump lead or switch. The big win for bidding is that we can make a game. However, its difficult to imagine a hand that couldnt bid on this round, yet makes 5 of a minor - I need at least 3 aces and a working king or specifically H:K C:K and 2 aces. As for making 3NT, the same problems about establishing my suits apply, and they might be able to make 4H: anyway.
    JOEL
    I'll bid 2D:, but I'm a secret admirer of pass. I think 2NT is bidding too much, and x isn't right, since if partner sits, we don't have adequate defense.
    KENT
    Pass. First inclination was 1NT, but I think the downside is too great. Yes, my stuff is in my suits and I can bid at the one level. I would make that call at matchpoints. However, partner needs to have at least strong NT values for him to pass and for us to make a nonvulnerable game. Assume that partner has spade length and a fit with me somewhere. Then opener is either on top of one of my suits which should stop our minor suit game, or has hearts, which is probably a better strain for them than spades. I am more concerned with the opponents being frigid for four hearts or for us going for a large number.
    DAN
    2D:, and then 3C: over partner's 2M. We have many more games than they do, so bidding is clearcut. I would prefer more body in the suits to bid 2NT.
    ROLF
    Pass. WTP?
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    wasn't there. I'd bid 2NT if I were.
    CONSENSUS
    Pass
    Pass 7
    2NT 2
    2D:2
    WINNING ACTION
    bid. Partner has  S:Q109xx H:A10x D:Axx C:K10. (Lovely 10s.) 2NT will catch a raise. 2D: will get 2NT. After 3C:, you'll stop in 3D:, I think, as partner will infer that you were too weak to bid 2NT immediately. +130 is a little better than the +50 available in 1S:. +600 in 3NT (probably 630 unless they cash) is better still.
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    I'd bid 2NT. It preempts hearts (if LHO has a huge 5-5, too bad, but he really is sticking his neck out if he bids 3H:, as partner may have a nasty axe for him) and shows my hand. Partner sometimes will be able to make a good decision. It's close, though; as it is, game depends on some spots and is a perfecto. There'd be no problem if my hand didn't have the H:10, right?

    1NT is not minors, and if it were, I'd not do it. It's the same as it would be by an unpassed hand, 10-12- balanced, some semblance of a spade stop. (It'd be a little stronger by an unpassed hand, perhaps as big as 15 or 16, depending on agreement.) Many play that 2NT is natural and strong, but, of course, by a passed hand, it has to be minors.

    And yes, Roberto, if LHO had opened 1H:, anything but a pass is suicidal.


  7. both vul, you hold

     S:A9742 H:xx D:--- C:K108xxx

    You LHO CHO RHO
    Pass2S: Dbl Pass
    ?


    BINKLEY
    Pass--whee! <clears throat> Um, sorry about that. Actually, I'll bid 4C: and see what partner wants to do. It would be fun to pass, but 200/500 is little compensation for our game or slam. My LHO is in 2nd seat, red: his preempt ought to be quite sound, say good spades and a side high honor.
    ED
    Playing Lebensohl, it is close between 3C: and 4C:... I'll give the edge to 3C:. Not playing Lebensohl, 4C:.
    MIKE
    If I wasn't a passed hand, 4C: would be forcing, since we play Lebenoshl. If I start with three spades the auction could develop very poorly (...4H: - 5C:... perhaps partner thinks I'm bidding this way with  S:Axxxx H:xxxxxx D:x C:A ??). I'll make the Molochko bid, not open to any misinterpretations and still offering a good chance of getting to slam. 5C:.
    ROBERTO
    3C:, constructive (I assume we are playing Lebensohl).

    This hand will not play so well in clubs with righty overruffing spades, and I am not sure we can set 2S:. [I'm not sure we can set spades 1100, but I'm sure we can set it. --Jeff]

    BARRY
    3C:. Giving up on the money --for someone, but its too much to expect partner to be balanced- - he may well have GF with a red suit and may be quite skewed.
    CURT
    Problem with pass is that it precludes a slam and might be a disaster if partner has a lightish hand with a spade void. Additionally, Assuming the opponents have some type of McCabe methods available, RHO doesnt rate to be void in spades frequently; consequently partner probably doesnt have any holding that will produce more than one defensive trump trick for us, in addition to any diamond ruffs. Partner will lead whichever suit he doesnt have the ace, which will bad for us. A club might not be much better, since every time we tap declarer he will win the trick. All told, defending rates to bring in 2-500. So skip 5C: seems like a decent risk. Unless there is an intelligent way to force in clubs at a lower level, I'll settle for reaching slams only when partner is able to raise on the basis of having a generally good dummy for clubs.
    JOEL
    PASS!!. Maybe we're making a grand slam in clubs, or maybe we're making a small slam in 2S: x'd. Either way, I'm taking the plus right here.
    KENT
    4C:. More than a minimum, but stuff is not in the right places. If partner has more than a min with a fit, he'll bid 5. I want to leave the possibility open that he has a red two suiter I don't like my heart holding with the 2S: on my left.
    DAN
    4C:, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to go down. If partner doesn't have four clubs, game is surely out of the question. I'm not at all sure that we're going to make the right decision after I bid 4C:, and at the table I might just be content with 3C:. Pass makes me ill, but of course could be a big winner. I'd expect to be able to read righty's reaction some of the time and know when it's right (state-of-the-match and all that to Pass.
    ROLF
    3C: especially if 2NT is Lebensohl. Pass seems the big loser if partner has a normal t/o double (incl. clubs) and the big winner if partner has a strong hand.
    JEFF AT THE TABLE
    Pass
    WINNING ACTION
    Lots of clubs. You can make 13 tricks, and will if there. The small slam is cold vs.  S:--- H:Axxx D:AKxxx C:AJxx. They go for 800 in 2S:x.
    CONSENSUS
    None:
    5C:2
    4C:3
    3C:4
    Pass 2
    JEFF UPON REFLECTION
    I like 5C:. I'm not worried about partner's having a big red two-suiter; we play 4D: shows that hand and is almost completely forcing. (On anything but zero covers and a misfit.) It prevents the disaster of missing game. It gets us to a slam fairly often. (Although not always only when it's making.) Second choice is to pass. I expect either 500 or 800. If we start clubs, we may win with the tap. If we start diamonds, we may get a bunch of ruffs. If we start hearts, it might not be a disaster. I expect to hold them to five trump tricks and maybe an ace. (If their ace is diamonds, I may get to ruff it away. Or they may not have one.) If I'd've thought of 5C: at the table, I'd've done it, but I didn't. I couldn't come up with a club bid that had a higher expectation than +500, so I took the money. I wonder why bidding game myself didn't occur to me?


Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov, Jan. 28, 1999