Some problems from the Riverside Sectional Swiss

Today's panelists: Ed Davis, Floyd McWilliams, Barry Rigal, Marshall Miles, Mike Shuster, Bobby Bodenheimer, Curt Hastings, Joel Wooldridge, David Caprera, Andy Lewis
  1. Both vulnerable, you hold

     S:QJx H:Jxxx D:x C:QJ10xx

    CHO RHO You LHO
    1C: 1D: ?

    a. How do you rank these three choices:

    1. 1H:
    2. 2C: (not inverted)
    3. 3C: (preemptive) (Or would you choose another call?)
      [I'm going to call double #4. --Jeff]
      ED
      123. Finding hearts rather than clubs when the opponents are bidding diamonds is very important. It will be too difficult to reach hearts if partner has four of them unless I bid 1H: now. This bid has less downside when playing support doubles as I will know when partner has four hearts if he competes over a raise to 2D:. I like 2C: better than 3C: mostly because I can introduce 2H: if they raise to 2D: and it gets passed back to me (although I would expect partner to play me for a 3=3=2=5 pattern instead of my actual hand).
      FLOYD
      312. Would rather jack it up. If partner has four good hearts and enough hand to make game, I'll hear about it. If you're going to bid clubs, bid to the correct level. You have many trumps, some shape, and a terrible hand. That's a preempt.
      BARRY
      213. 2C: not inverted seems fine. My idea of a 3C: bid is one where partner will not move with 18+ balanced. 1H: is also OK. But I never get to show the main feature of my hand. If it is our hand I want to show C: before H:. If it is their hand it won't matter that I don't show my H:. 3C: — not right with so much in the majors.
      MARSHALL
      [34] It is close, but I think I would bid 3C:. Second choice is double, not 1H: or 2C:. I think interfering with the opponents is slightly more likely to pay than trying for a major fit. If partner has four hearts along with his club suit, he is probably short in spades, and preemption in more important than looking for a major fit our way — plus the fact that I hate to bid bad 4 card suits if there is an alternative. That's why I prefer a negative double to 1H: since the bidding may go 1C:-1D:-1H:-3D:; 3H: by partner with 3 card support. If he has  S:AKxx H:Kxx D:xx C:Axxx (not playing weak notrumps), I'd rather we'd be in a 4-3 spade fit than a 4-3 heart fit. [As should be obvious, I hate the negative double. I want to raise clubs ASAP. --Jeff]
      MIKE
      2341 2C: is obvious, but I think the other choices need a little discussion. 3C: makes it impossible to get to hearts while 1H: may make partners life miserable after an enemy 3D:  S:Ax H:Axx D:xx C:Axxxxx perhaps catapulting our side into a bad 4-3 fit. And 3C: won't stop the opponents from bidding 3D: either, so I don't think it is correct.

      This hand will make a fine dummy for clubs and will provide a source of tricks if partner is balanced with 18-19 and wants to bid NT. If partner is unbalanced and can hearts or spades over an enemy diamond call, we are doing fine. Pass is too conservative and a negative double is wrong but not terrible. It is a little light and a spade short, but this hand could do OK in a 4-3 spade fit with the tap coming into the short hand.

      BOBBY
      123. For me it's close between 2C: and 1H:, but I prefer 1H: even with the relatively weak suit because it's (a) a major and (b) gives partner more room to maneuver.
      CURT
      321. 1H: is misdirected. 2C: I think is a more flexible call. It's not a bad call, but 3C: is a better description. Negative defense, interior stuff in our/my suit, shape. This is really a problem of how to get the message across, not of what's safe to bid. We know 3C: rates to be okay for us. It's more a question of how to best convey this hand to partner, within the parameters that 3C: is preferable to 2C: on preemptive grounds. I think that vulnerable, 3C: shows something — I'm not worried about missing a game with this hand — but I suppose others might see it differently. [I would be, but only in clubs. --Jeff]
      JOEL
      123. I consider it a mistake to bid 2C: with these cards.
      DAVID
      132.
      ANDY
      213.
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      231. I like supporting partner when I have a one-bid hand and primary support. Given how crappy my preempts are, this is a 2C:, not a 3C: bid, I think.
      CONSENSUS
      1233
      1321
      2132
      2311
      3121
      3211
      341
      23411
      First Choices:
      1H:4
      2C:4
      3C:3
      There is no consensus at all. Every possible ordering of the three choices was chosen, plus a couple others thought the negative double should be in the mix. Even the top choice is pretty much split evenly.
      WINNING ACTION
      not 1H:. Bidding 1H: will likely get you to spades. Definitely not double; that certainly gets you to spades. The goal on the actual hand is to get to clubs.
      JEFF UPON REFLECTION
      Only Ed's argument makes me reconsider. Yes, finding a heart fit in order to outbid their diamonds seems very valuable. On the other hand, we know we have a club fit. We might have a heart fit. Letting partner know about the known fit seems to be of paramount importance to me. So, I'm sticking with the club bids. Which? My preempts tend to be light with little outside, so while I think it's very close, I'll pick 2C:. Also, if I bid 3C:, I expect LHO to bid 3D:; if I bid 2C:, I expect him to bid 2D:. I think walking the dog has to be better for our side tactically. Most likely, I'd like to win the bid at 3C:, which I don't expect to be able to do if I bid it immediately. (That is, if partner has a weak NT, I expect there to be 17-19 trumps and an equal split of high cards. So getting to play 3C: is a reasonable goal.)

      b. Let's say you choose 2C:.

      CHO RHO You LHO
      1C: 1D: 2C: 2D:
      Dbl Pass?

      ED
      I assume this shows a strong balanced hand with good defense. [Beats me. Seems like an 18-count with a couple of diamond tricks to me, too, but partners have their own ideas. --Jeff] However, even if partner intends this as penalty, we will have nine clubs between us and that is too many to defend 2D: when they have eight of them and I have so little for defense. I think 2H: stands out as the best bid.
      FLOYD
      3C:. It seems clear to pull with no aces, no kings, extra trump. If I had started with 3C: I could pass a double of 3D:. [You'd just barely beat it. --Jeff]
      BARRY
      2H:. This suggests 4-5 and I have no other description of the hand to make.
      MARSHALL
      I suppose I'd bid 2H: now.
      MIKE
      2H:. Parnter's double implied a balanced 18-19 point hand. I am not defending but we could yet belong in hearts. Partner won't play me for a very good hand or for good hearts due to my careful 2C: bid last round. The auction has developed well for me. If partner continues 2NT I will pass despite the IMP scoring, as he will have good diamonds and a fair idea about what I have.
      BOBBY
      I play this as "I have values, do something intelligent" double, rather than a pure penalty double (since CHO is under the bidder). I now bid 2H:. I don't particularly mind playing in 3C: and partner should now be able to place the contract appropriately.
      CURT
      2H: would be a nice call here, but it rates to get us too high. So I'll retreat to 3C:.
      JOEL
      3D:. I'm hoping that dbl was t/o or point or something useful. 2nd choice is 3H:, but I'm afraid of what partner may think of that. I suppose if it's acceptable for me to have a 4 card heart suit, I could venture 3H: instead. 2H: and 3C: are too wimpy. If partner bids 3NT over 3D:, I'll pull to 4C:.
      DAVID
      2H:.
      ANDY
      2H:. I don't think this double of a bid-and-raised suit at the 2 level can be penalty. Partner's most likely hand is a 1.5 NT hand, maybe without a diamond stopper. In any case, this has worked out well, as I get to show my major after all.
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      3C:. Seems like 3C: shows a dog and anything else should have something. I definitely have a dog.
      CONSENSUS
      2H:.
      WINNING ACTION
      Partner held  S:AKxx H:AK D:Jxx C:Kxxx. 5C: makes, but 4S: does not, nor, of course, does 3NT. Joel gets to 5C:. The 2H: bidders get to 4S:, I think (...2H:; 2S:-3S:; 4S:.) The 3C: bidders get to 3C:.
      JEFF UPON REFLECTION
      Only the 3C: bidders and Joel discussed whether or not 2H: shows more values than 3C: vs. simply a different hand. The upside of bidding 2H: is finding a 4-4 heart fit to play in game. Will we find it? I don't know if partner will ever play us for four hearts, but it's worth trying. Now that I know he has 18-19 balanced, I wish I'd bid 1H:. Still, I think even opposite most such hands, game isn't making, so I want to stop in the right partscore, which I think is likely to be 3C:. I like 3C:. What if partner's majors were switched, and he had  S:AK H:AKxx D:Jxx C:Kxxx? To beat 4H:, they'll have to find their club ruff(s). Or have hearts 4-1. That's a perfect fit, nothing wasted in diamonds. I'm willing to miss that game.

    4. Favorable, you hold

       S:J H:AJxx D:AQJxx C:109x

      CHO RHO You LHO
      2H: Pass3D: Dbl
      5D: 5S: PassPass
      Dbl Pass?

      3D: was natural and forcing; 4D: was undefined, which is why it was not chosen.

      a. What would you have done at your previous turn? (Over 5S:)

      ED
      The 5D: bid sounds like six hearts and four diamonds. I think 6D: is right (maybe LHO will try for a ruff by leading a stiff heart against 6D: ). [Yup, he will. And will get a ruff for 300, too. --Jeff]
      FLOYD
      What would I beat 5S: with? [You have two aces to start with in your hand. --Jeff] I assume partner has the H:KQ and D:K so what else could he have? I bid 6D: and accept my -100 or -300 rather than try to cash three red tricks.
      BARRY
      Pass. Partner did not bid 5C: or 4S: to emphasize shortage so I can't see 6D: making and I will take my chances on defence.
      MARSHALL
      I would have passed since I have shown my hand (at the cost of letting the opponents in the bidding).
      MIKE
      6D:. What was 3D: all about? Was I looking for slam? I would have bid 4H: to try to buy it and bid 5D: if LHO balanced with 4S:, but 5H: if RHO did. [Sensible. --Jeff] I don't like the cutesy approach because it lets the vulnerable opponents in too cheaply. You must make them take a more substantial risk to enter the hand and that means putting in the full raise, not limping to the 3-level.
      BOBBY
      At the table, I would have passed. However, sitting here looking at the problem, it's not clear that's the right answer (which is why you've given it as a problem). Partner probably has a 64 or 65 for his first two bids. I wonder what the difference between the above auction would be and the auction

      2H: P 3D: X
      XX 4S: P P
      5D: ...

      would be. Given that I'm 54 in the reds, we need as little as  S:xxx H:Kxxxxx D:Kxxx C:— to make slam. But I don't know that, so I still think the right thing to do is pass. Also, with that hand, partner would not double 5S:. A more likely hand is probably  S:Ax H:KQxxxx D:xxxx C:x. But I don't know the difference between that and  S:x H:KQxxxx D:xxxx C:Ax, with which partner would also double.

      One thing is clear. Given this auction, I don't believe they're making 5S:.

      CURT
      Doubled. People overbid in these auctions, a lot. +200 and +100 is 7, +200 and +300 is 11. Short matches, so we might absorb a huge loss...I'll chance it.
      ANDY
      Pass.
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      Pass
      CONSENSUS
      6H:0
      6D:3
      Pass5
      Dbl1
      WINNING ACTION
      Pass, so that partner can double. See below.

      b. What now? If you pass, what do you lead?

      ED
      I wouldn't pass, and I'd lead the D:A if I did.
      FLOYD
      We are not in a force, so double should be extra offense. (Actually I don't think double exists. Partner isn't even allowed to jump to 5D:.) I imagine a strongish 5-5 or 6-5. I pull to 6D:.
      BARRY
      I pass and lead the D:A.
      MARSHALL
      I suppose I'd pass now, but I don't like it. I would have bid 4H: immediately, which may shut out the spades. I would probably lead the ace of hearts. It's tempting to do something spectacular like leding a low heart so that partner can return a diamond through the king, and with myself as a partner I might well do that, but the way you play I'm not that confident partner has the H:K. He should have a club trick or a trump trick for his double.
      MIKE
      6D:. I choose diamonds, not hearts to conceal the second fit (they probably know about it anyway). There is some chance the opponents might try to cash to spades allowing me to get out for down 1 by pitching two clubs from hand. Of course, partner is 2-5-5-1, so the pitches are irrelevant . Passing is nullo. Partner doubled because he was afraid you were in a force after the forcing 3D: call and the game bid. It just means there isn't a stiff spade across the table. If you never made a strong noise (say 2H:-P-4H:-(X)-P-(4S:)-5H-(5S:)-X) that would be Lightner and I would lead the D:A and hopefully have time to shift to a club for the ruff, but I suspect there is a red suit void lurking and they'd make. This double isn't Lightner; it is a result of your 3D: bid.
      BOBBY
      I'll take my plus score and pass here, rather than gamble on a slam. I lead the H:A.
      CURT
      How can partner double? I don't think pass is forcing. But it might have worked out very well. Partner is very unlikely to have either ace, or a trump trick. He's probably 3640. [Bingo! --Jeff] I'll bid on. They're more likely to have a heart void on the premise of 10H:, 9D:, but the auction sounds like they have a diamond void (LHO really was taking out of hearts, since 3D: could have been some sort of ruse). I'll try 6D:. This has the added advantage of not revealing the size of the double fit.
      JOEL
      I think partner has a club void most likely, or a singleton club with S:Ax or S:Kxx. I'm hoping that partner has a club void, so I'm going to venture 6H:. There's no compelling reason for me to play this in diamonds that I can think of. I'm hoping that the D:K is onside, or that there's a freak distribution between the opponents hands, and 5S: makes. I don't expect to go down more than 1, but it's possible if partner has  S:Kxx H:KQxxxx D:xxx C:x. I don't think partner is allowed to have  S:Kxx H:KQxxx D:xxxx C:x, so I'm going to discount that possiblity.
      DAVID
      My pass was not forcing. At first I thought this was a lead problem, but after convincing myself that partner's double called for a club ruff, I decided that I should bid my good 6H: contract instead!
      ANDY
      6H:. Partner is simply showing a maximum, in case 3D: was something other than merely lead-directing. Even if he has a black ace or a trump trick, 5S: could easily be making (though I think down 1 is most likely).
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      Pass, lead H:A, a clear error, I think.
      CONSENSUS
      Bid7
      Pass4
      Lead:
      H:A3
      D:A3
      C:0!
      WINNING ACTION
      Pass. Lead the C:10. Partner has  S:xxx H:KQxxxx D:10xxx C:—. +800.
      JEFF UPON REFLECTION
      Partner was right. This is not a forcing auction. Therefore, the rule that a preemptor's double is Lightner applies. We get confirmation of that by knowing that if he has some spades (which he ought given the double), he can't have many clubs, since he has at least ten red cards. Therefore, any lead but a club is a clear error.

      Why bid slam instead of passing? Slam may be cold, but it is probably on a hook for a red king; it might go down on a first-round ruff in the other red suit. If both red aces are cashing, we get 800, just about as good as 920. If one is not, the bad break might beat the slam. And, as we see, perhaps slam might go down even when we get 800. Since we don't expect the other table to reach slam with about 20 HCP, 800 should be plenty even if we are wrong.

    5. Both vulnerable, you hold

       S:AK H:KJxx D:QJx C:KQ109

      CHO RHO You LHO
      Pass3S: ?

      a. What is your call?

      ED
      3NT. I don't like double since I will end up playing in a suit contract not making game on many hands where 3NT rates to make.
      FLOYD
      3NT
      BARRY
      Double.
      MARSHALL
      [Double] I think this is a very tough problem. If I don't bid notrump, how will be get there when partner has the right stuff? But I'm not at all sure he has the right stuff and think the odds are against it so I would double. And pass 4D:. Despite the points I don't particularly like this hand (too much strength in spades). Partner's fair share of the missing high cards is 6-7 HCP. If the only problem were whether to bid game or stop in a partscore, I suppose I'd bid game (3NT), since there is more to gain if game makes, but double doesn't give up on game. Partner may bid 4H: or five of a minor with a good hand, so we only lose on the marginal hands.
      MIKE
      3NT. X precludes 3NT, whereas 3NT doesn't preclude hearts. To me this is a non-problem. Double wouldn't even occur to me as an option. [Obviously, it did! --Jeff]
      BOBBY
      If I double, I'm giving up on 3NT as a contract. If I bid 3NT, I give up on 4H: as a contract. I think I'm more likely to go positive after doubling than after 3NT, so I double.
      CURT
      I would have bid 3NT. This is a very dangerous bidding position. 3NT might fail several hundred when it fails. OTOH, 4H: is more likely to get doubled (missing offsuit aces, some trumps). So downside risk is very tough to gauge and I'll disregard it (since I'm not passing). Upside is higher in 3NT, I think. It's basically on partner's having 2 spades and my guessing RHO's ace, or 3 spades and RHO's having not 2 entries. Or partner's having C:A and one of the H:Q, D:K.
      JOEL
      I would bid 3NT. I don't think much of double when holding a double spade stopper. It's not even clear that 4H: is going to play any better than 3NT.
      DAVID
      3NT.
      ANDY
      Double. Alternative is 3NT. The double stopper is nice, but with no ability to hold up, no side aces, and no source of tricks shooting the NT game seems antipercentage.
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      Double. Maybe partner will pass with a balanced hand. That's probably better than playing 3NT. Maybe I'm dreaming. Seriously, where are our tricks on offense?
      CONSENSUS
      3NT6
      Dbl5
      WINNING ACTION
      3NT. It makes.
      JEFF UPON REFLECTION
      I'm convinced, particularly from phone conversations with some panelists, that which choice is better depends on partner! If partner will pass the double with most balanced hands (as would Marshall), then we want to double. If partner will bid nearly always (as would Mike), then we want to bid 3NT. Mike claims that Marshall's style is really "optional doubles," but he's incorrect. High-level takeout doubles get passed once in awhile. Some like to pass them often, some never (e.g. Edgar Kaplan). This doesn't affect what kind of hands double very much, but Kaplanites' partners will be less prone to doubled with good balanced hands. That doesn't happen much; everyone still doubles with normal takeout doubles. Note that some of the 3NTers feel very strongly about the choice; most of the doublers think it is close. This seems to corroborate my idea. Maybe.

      OK, Mike was very adamant about how superior 3NT was. He claims 8-1 odds. Too bad I didn't take that bet, but did a simulation and told him the results. The bottom line appears to be that, more or less, it doesn't matter if you bid 3NT or double at IMPs. At matchpoints, 3NT is a big winner, as +660 tends to beat +650 and +620. At IMPs, I didn't deal a hand that mattered more than 3 IMPs. And this was without making any non-trivial decision as advancer. So it looks as if 3NT is better, but not substantially.

      b. If you double and partner bids 4D:, what then?

      ED
      Pass.
      FLOYD
      Certainly a difficult problem. 4NT can make off three toppers which 5D: cannot. If 5D: makes, you are off two toppers, so 4NT does NOT make only on spade- loser-spade-loser-spade. (Could 4NT go down when cut off from diamonds? Maybe, but not when partner has the ace to make 5D:.)

      4NT is right because it will make more often, but ... 4NT could be really bloody if the preemptor has an entry to go with his QJ-seventh. 5D: may be harder to make but will go for 100 rather than 300 or 400. Also partner may think double-then-4NT shows a bigger hand. [It certainly must show a pretty big hand, since you'd bid 3NT on this rock. --Jeff]

      Pass is out because partner could have the right junky six-count for the red game. I bid 4NT.

      BARRY
      Pass 4D:. Not a triumph but I hope not a complete disaster. Maybe I'll beat the others in 3NT or 5D: down a number.
      MARSHALL
      Pass
      MIKE
      that's too bad. I wonder if 4NT would be natural? I think you have to pass.
      CURT
      I can't see bidding on over 4D:. No reason to believe we can make 5D:. If I wanted to shoot 4H: out, I would have been better served just bidding it....4NT isn't natural here, I think. [Why not? --Jeff]
      BOBBY
      Now I pass. My hand is not good enough to push further.
      JOEL
      I would pass 4D: over double. To bid is suicide. I'm just hoping I don't get doubled here.
      DAVID
      Bid 3NT and correct the insufficiency to 4NT. Seriously, you screwed yourself by doubling. I guess I bid game in diamonds.
      ANDY
      Pass. With two of the missing four cards (H:A, D:AK, C:A) and a five-card suit, partner might have chosen a stronger call.
      JEFF AT THE TABLE
      Pass
      CONSENSUS
      Pass.
      WINNING ACTION
      3NT the first time or 5D: the second. Partner has  S:xx H:Ax D:K109xxx C:Jxx. Barry thinks partner should obviously bid 5D:, not 4D:. I think it's closer than that...the spade holding is really ugly. But, upon reflection, 5D: is better than 4D:. They won't double, you have the spots, you rate to have a 10-card fit, and there's major vigorish in bidding game.
      JEFF UPON REFLECTION
      Barry's right. Partner should have bid 5D:. If I have a prime subminimum:  S:x H:Kxxx D:Axxx C:Axxx, we'll make 5D: a lot. (There's a trump squeeze after a spade lead if the preemptor is 7312 unless they find a heart shift, in which case, if RHO has the C:KQ, he'll be endplayed.)

      Jeff Goldsmith, jeff@gg.caltech.edu, Oct. 21, 2001