AK109x 1098x Kxx x

(1NT)-? (15-17)

You play Woolsey. (2 is for the majors.) If you pass, would you act at a different vulnerability?

DAVIDG

Pass. Bid majors nvul. too awful if partner is 1-3 in majors.

BARRY

I bid at all vuls.

DAVIDC

2 at any colors.

MIKE

2. There are a lot of IMPs at stake on competitive decisions like this. Every once in a while, bidding here gets our side to a making red game, but that isn't the reason to bid here; making 110 when they are making 120 is a common good result. Getting nailed for a number happens infrequently (although painfully...) At any rate, 5431 is a suit shape and the methods will let us find spades opposite 3-3 (and possibly diamonds if LHO doubles 2)

FRED

2 wth some trepidation at this vul given the suit disparity (clearer at other vul).

CHRIS

Bidding is percentage. Weak oops won’t often double you, and strong opps will have some flaky notrumps where you have an easy 4M. Also, I wouldn’t enjoy leading against 1NT.

DAVIDW

2. I would show majors at any vulnerability. Yes, I see my spades are great and my hearts aren't. But occasionally partner is dealt 1=5 in the majors, and hearts is much, much better.

ED

2. The excellent spot cards and ability to reach the right major (partner will bid 2 with no preference) are enough to sway me to bid, but it is not unreasonable to pass.

BOBBY

I pass. I'm willing to defend 1NT at IMPs, and the hand's not good enough to have me act. I would act at W vs. W or better.

JEFF AT THE TABLE

2. It worked out OK; we were about to go down a bazillion in 2 (partner had xxx), but opener bid 3 and went down. If I had to bid 2 for the majors, I'd pass.

WINNING ACTION

Bid. We aren't beating 1NT, but we were able to beat 3. If they let us play 2, bidding was a big losing action, but they didn't.

CONSENSUS

Action Votes 2 8 Pass 2

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

I think this is just about the borderline hand. Remove some of those spots and I'd pass. I expected a much closer vote.

 AJ98xx xxxx Q10x —

You	LHO	CHO	RHO
2	Pass	2NT	Pass
?

2NT is Ogust. Do you have good rules for what constitutes good suits or good hands? (If you play that 3NT shows four hearts, feel free to mention it, but that's not available this time.)

DAVIDG

All Ogust modifcations I've run into can show 4oM (usually with 3NT). On reflection, I think I would show bad/bad then kick in 3 under the constraints, but not playing with Ellen because she’d bid it slowly. Show good suit bad hand with her.

BARRY

: NV it’s a good suit; vul it isn’t. I treat it as good suit/bad hand notwithstanding that, because I can't go low with 3.

DAVIDC

Good suit is 2 of top 3. We play 3 is 4 of the other major. This is a min hand at these colors.

MIKE

GH/BS, what ever that bid is. At unfavorable, my suit isn't anything special and my hand is average. Ogust doesn't have a "middle of the road" option, nor does it allow me to show my excellent shape. That is one reason I prefer feature or relay. I'd just show good hand bad suit and hope it is close enough. By the way, this hand has too many flaws for the 2 opener:

1. four hearts
2. side void
3. 3 playable strains
4. ace-high suit with extra defense.

All those are recipes for missed slams, games and large numbers on partscore deals. This could be the poster-child hand for when not to open a weak two.

FRED

Hate Ogust but this should be minimum (particularly at vul). Would have thought barest requirement for decent suit is 2 of top 3 Honors…

CHRIS

Opening 2 is a joke. But surely bad suit bad hand.

DAVIDW

3. As you may recall, I published (TBW, Dec 2017) a response system that is much better than Ogust, in my not-very humble opinion. One of its tenets is that, in this age of variegated weak-twos, finding fits overshadows suit quality.

If I am forced to play Ogust on this deal, I would evaluate my hand as average suit, average hand. As I recall, there is no bid for that. So I guess to show bad suit, bad hand.

ED

This is bad-bad since I am at my minimum both in quality of the spade suit and high card strength. If partner has spades, my hand might or might not be good depending on how partner fits my red suits. Ogust is not a good method for this hand but then the only good method for this hand is one that allows shortness to be shown over 2NT.

BOBBY

This is a bad suit. A good suit is 2 of top 3.

JEFF AT THE TABLE

3, bad suit, bad hand. For an unfavorable preempt, this is a piece of crap.

WINNING ACTION

Not 3. Partner had a normal 4 response. 3 allowed us to miss a game. It shouldn't have mattered at all.

CONSENSUS

I'm assuming standard Ogust, where 3 = bad suit+bad hand, 3 = good suit+ bad hand, etc.

Action Votes 3 8 3 1 3 1

I guess 3 is obvious, because this is a sub-minimum unfavorable weak two. Some say below sub-minimum. I don't agree; I think it's a good hand for spades. Just not for notrump.

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

I agree that Ogust is terrible. What are we doing with this information? A simple modification would make this easier. Instead of good suit/bad suit and good hand/bad hand, how about good for spades/bad for spades and good for notrump/bad for notrump? This hand is now easy: good for spades, bad for notrump.

A few object to the 2 opening. I think it is normal to open 2 in today's style. Yeah, there are reasons not to, but you have limited values and they are mostly concentrated in your suit. Opponents are good enough that given free reign, they'll get it right most of the time, so putting on pressure whenever you can is necessary. If I had the 10, I'd think opening 2 was automatic, and I'd consider 3 at favorable.

 KQ7432 KQ AKx AK

RHO	You	LHO	CHO
2	?

(2 was Flannery)

a) What's your plan? (Yes, just the 24-count.)

DAVIDG

Double then bid. May settle for 3 if LHO shows life and partner doesn't.

BARRY

Double then bid spades is my plan.

DAVIDC

I would start with double.

MIKE

Double. Then bid spades. I can't drive to game on my own.

CHRIS

Double, then after (2)-P-(P), go low with 2.

DAVIDW

I agree that 2 is weird. I play double shows diamonds, not strong enough for 3. I would in fact pass.

BOBBY

With a partner I have played with before I double as a takeout double of hearts (2 would be michaels). This is nice because later I will change the suit to spades and partner will know I have a big hand and we can maybe end up in the right place even facing bad breaks. But I'm not going into this auction believing that RHO has 10-15 points, 5 hearts and 4 spades. Looking at my hand I think he has 6 diamonds and few points ( x Jxx QJTxxx xxx). I am thinking that I'll get a positive response out of partner, he'll figure out what's going on also, and we can end up in the right place, treating this as a weak two diamond bid. If partner does show extreme disinterest in this hand then maybe 2 was for real, but I still intend to play the hand because 24 points!

JEFF AT THE TABLE

wasn't there. An opponent bid 2.

WINNING ACTION

pass or 2.

CONSENSUS

Action Votes Double 6 Pass 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

Standard methods against Flannery have nearly all big hands start with a double. 24 HCP seems to fit that bill. I expected this vote to be unanimous, but I'm experienced enough to know that usually won't happen.

b) The gentleman in the brown suit you were kibitzing overcalled 2. He then collapsed and was taken away in an ambulance. (He'll be fine and surely will reappear in a bridge problem someday.) His partner asks you to fill in. The auction has gone:

RHO	You	LHO	CHO
2	2	Pass	3
Pass	?

What's your plan?

DAVIDG

3. That's about the only way you'll get people to start with 2.

BARRY

3. Then raise 3 to 4, raise 4 to 5 and over 4…a slow 4.

DAVIDC

But if the guy in the brown suit (don't get the reference) [There isn't one. --Jeff] collapsed, I would "cuebid 3" and drive the hand to 5.

MIKE

What kind of key card do we use? If 0314, then 4NT. Otherwise 5.

FRED

OK. Bizarre that it is not passed out, but since CHO managed a natural 3, really I am looking for keys, and 4 Kickback is my preferred continuation, driving to at least 5 (and 6 if he owns a Major A, albeit too hard to find out which one and length for potential 6NT to guard against ruff but that could go awry if his entry is short and knocked out on opening lead, e.g. A singleton.)

I am guessing that RHO actually held a weak two. In terms of story but my rule of thumb, is take the information at face value. [Yeah, I post a lot of problems from appeals cases, so that's a reasonable guess. There is an appeal, but 2 really was Flannery. As far as the rule of thumb, it's just bridge logic. If you are misinformed and go wrong, you might get redress. If you assume you are misinformed and you aren't, and then go wrong, you are out of luck. --Jeff]

CHRIS

4NT if RKC. It almost has to be a Flannery forget [I wondered how many would guess that, given that lots of my problems are appeals cases! --Jeff], as even  x Ax xxx QJT9xxx (a questionable 3 bid) gives opener 9 HCP. Looking for seven.

DAVIDW

5. What should I do now that you put 2 in my mouth? CHO has shown some values. Assuming opener has, say 10 HCP, partner can't have much more than the Q and long clubs headed by the QJ. I am confident partner is short in spades, so 6 is a possibility. However, there may be handling charges in a slam, particularly if they lead a trump, so I settle for 5.

ED

Pass. If the man in the brown suit had overcalled 2, I would have collapsed. However, over 3: Spades are not going to produce a bunch of tricks, RHO has the missing aces and is a favorite to have the jack of hearts, the opponents are likely to lead a heart against 3NT, I may have no entry to dummy's clubs, clubs may not be breaking well and there could be a spade ruff outstanding. 5 is a long shot to make (especially as partner might have thought my 2 bid was some type of takeout and might have Jxxx). But the fact that partner asked me to fill in is encouraging. If he had nothing he might have asked to skip the hand. [I never thought of that! --Jeff] On the other hand, he was playing with a man in a brown suit. I am not impressed—they may not have a finely-honed defense against Flannery. I am going for the plus score in 3 (but will run to 3 if LHO doubles 3). 24 HCP just doesn't look like enough for game. Although I could bid in case they made a mistake and it was really a weak two-bid in diamonds.

BOBBY

After 2-3 (i.e., with a partner I don't know, but I'll treat 2 as natural and same for 3), I'll bid 3 on the way to a slam. The risk as I see it is that partner will think I have a pointy two-suiter but I hope pard can clarify the black suit situation a little bit. I'd like to ask for key cards but I'd like to know if we're slamming in notrump, spades or clubs.

JEFF AT THE TABLE

also wasn't there. See the story for details. I'd bid 3 now.

WINNING ACTION

3. Partner will pass, and that may make. 3 is only down one. Partner has  10x x xxxxx 10xxxx. There's a story.

CONSENSUS

Action Votes Pass 1 3 1 3 4 (all drive to 4 or higher) 3 0 5 1 Key Card 3

It's definitely a good problem when there are votes for both pass and Blackwood!

THE STORY

We were playing in Mexico against a Mexican (OK, mostly Mexican) pair. My partner opened Flannery (yes, he had it), and after a little thought Miguel overcalled 2. I had my normal and passed, and LHO went into the tank. She pulled out the pass. She pulled out 3. She pulled out 3. She put them back. She shook her head. She thought for a while. She shrugged and flipped 3 on the table. Obviously, she had no idea what 2 meant, so she picked an action that would allow partner to clarify his intent, and she wouldn't be stuck in a stupid contract if 2 was artificial. Opener passed, and Miguel slammed 3 on the table. We called the director. He said, of course, "if you think you've been damaged, call me back at the end of the hand." All pass, A lead. Declarer had a 2-1-5-5 zero-count and went down one. Of course we were damaged. We called the director back. He was Guillermo. He looked left, looked right, and said, "we don't have any problem with a tiny hesitation, do we?" and walked away. We called for a real director. (Guillermo is retired. He only works this tournament, I think.) Matt Koltenow got the information and thought about the ruling. And thought about the ruling. 45 minutes later, the session was over, and no ruling was forthcoming. We called him over and asked about the ruling. We had lost the match by a few IMPs; a ruling on this hand would probably change the result. Matt said he'd have to rule before the start of the next session, because he didn't have time to poll some players. That put us in a quandary. If we lost, we might well not come back for the evening session, and we'd certainly have several margaritas with dinner. If we won, we'd want to play to get into the semis. No ruling. We went with the margaritas. At least we wouldn't lose the match and lose the margaritas. When we came back, no ruling. Eventually, Matt said, "I'm ruling result stands. I cannot find any one who would bid only 2, so I can't find any peers of that player to poll." (Me neither, hence The Gentleman in the Brown Suit.) Since we had to return in case we won the match, we ended up playing the losers' Swiss. No one fell off his chair this time (a few years ago, one guy was so drunk he literally fell off his chair three times in one match), but I have no idea what game was being played. I doubt half the players could focus on their cards. (Yeah, we won.) After the session, the captain of the Mexican team came up to me and said, "what Miguel did was inexcusable. You were robbed." I don't think I've ever seen that happen before.

JEFF UPON REFLECTION

Perhaps it is not a useful thing to call the director on a Mexican pair in Mexico.