Adventures in the Swiss: Answers

All probs at IMPs, short matches.

Today's Panelists: Robb Gordon, David Caprera, Kenneth Rexford, David Weiss, Barry Rigal, Len Vishnevsky, Mike Shuster, Fred Curtis, Mike Shuman, David Milton, Jeff Aker

both vul, you hold
xxxx x K1087xx Ax

LHO CHO RHO You

1 2 2 Pass

Pass 2NT Pass ?

a) what does partner have?

ROBB
A good hand with solidish clubs and a spade stopper.
DAVIDC
Clubs and a red suit, presumably 6-4 and not good enough to double.
KENNETH
Something resembling six clubs and four diamonds.
DAVIDW
He is supposed to have 6 clubs and 4 diamonds, but that is only a prototype. He is allowed to have an awkward hand with 4 hearts rather than 4 diamonds, if he feels he is strong enough to control the auction.
BARRY
I'd expect partner to be 4/5-6 in the minors but the absence of hearts is very worrying. I'll settle for 3 and correct 3 to 4.
LEN
I never know that. He shows clubs, a secondary red suit, a pretty good hand, but not so good he can't stand to play in 2. With 6-5, he could bid out at the three level. With 6-4-3-0 or 5-4-3-1, he could double 2. I'd guess 1=4=2=6.
MIKE
Ostensibly the minors. Had it been 1 (1) P (2); 2NT - I think that could be natural depending on partnership agreements. My general meta-agreement is that 2NT is never natural in a competitive auction.
It is not possible for partner to have the minors and a good hand when I have this... how could the opponents have 10+ hearts and stop in 2 on a massive double fitter? Someone would have to have enough shape to have bid more. So I guess partner has bid this way with 1-4-2-6 shape. I imagine that if his diamonds were better than Jx, he'd've doubled instead. So he has something like x AKxx xx KQJxxx.
FRED
Generally this should be a good 6+ & 4 red (usually as with you double for the unbid suit and can convert if need be...). I am somewhat sceptical that he has because of my 6 carder and shortage in — a suit to which nobody is owning despite the presence of 12 outstanding cards.
SHU
Typically 4-6 in the minors, but where are the hearts? Maybe RHO has 3 spades and 6 hearts?
DAVIDM
I suspect that partner is either 1435, 1345, 0436 or 0346 with a decent hand that wasn't good enough to correct 2 to 3 if he doubled initially. On reflection, he is more likely to have a spade void, since he would be more willing to defend if a double were passed out with a trump to lead.
JEFFA
MY partner has secondary diamonds.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
I assumed partner had clubs with secondary diamonds.
CONSENSUS

Handtype Votes

Clubs with secondary diamonds 6

Clubs with a secondary red suit 4

Natural 1

Takeout of spades 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Looks like this used to be clubs plus secondary diamonds, but folks are starting to play it as clubs and a red. I wouldn't try it with hearts without discussion.

b) what do you do now?

ROBB
3NT
DAVIDC
3
KENNETH
[3] Wow. Do I trust partner? If I do, then I need to go bonkers in diamonds. With no discussion of any special agreements, I would assume that any strange action is expected to be a default of establishing diamond agreement. Therefore, I think I would start with 3, ostensibly diamond support and asking about spades. When I later prove that 3 was actually a slam probe, the call will operate as a denial cue. I anticipate a likely sequence of 3 and then a cue of 4 or 5.
Ideally, I would have preferred better agreements, such as 3 being a flag for clubs and 3 a flag for diamonds. In that event, I would flag 3 as a diamond agreement and then make further slam moves.
Strangely, both work out the same in the end, except that a club cue after a flag is more clearly a cue and not fit-showing.
DAVIDW
I would bid 3, planning to Blackwood over the expected 4.
LEN
[4] Opposite something like x Axxx Ax KQJTxx, we probably don't want to be in 5, since they'll lead a spade and shift to trump. Throw in the heart king or queen and I'd want to be there. 4 is the value bid. Even if pard has AQ, spade taps might set a diamond contract.
I think 4NT asks pard to pick a minor suit game, and 3 (pass or correct) then 3NT over 3 is a hand with diamonds and a club preference, too strong for a 4 correction over 3. I like the 3/3NT path, but I don't want to spring it on pard undiscussed.
MIKE
3. Part C tempted me, as I don't think this would actually have occurred to me at the table. The main alternative, 4, is an underbid if partner really has the minors, as I would bid that way with xxx xxx Kxxxx Ax (since it wouldn't occur to me that partner might not have the minors) and expect partner to pass with three major suit losers. I can buy 3, I suppose. It caters to all sorts of random hands from partner, like a natural 2NT (could the opponents have only 7 spades?!?) and the minors.
FRED
[3] If he really has , my hand is huge but my suspicion is that the K is wasted opposite x ??xx x KQxxxx(x) <-- hand has 42 cards. , so I might be underbidding (A LOT).
SHU
5 feels about right, or 3 may be better. (I said that before looking at C.)
DAVIDM
I have a pretty huge hand, but, I don't think it is quite good enough to bid 3 (see c). I think I would bid 4 but think about bidding 5.
JEFFA
I would bid 4, not 3...my strongest possible diamond raise. If he has secondary hearts we won't do so well. In any case it's not natural.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
3
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

3 2

3 4

3NT 1

4 1

4 1

4 1

5 1

JEFF UPON REFLECTION
3 seems clearcut. If 2NT is ambiguous, you want to force and find out what he has. If 2NT is diamonds, then we want to elicit a heart cue.

c) if you bid 3, partner bids 4. What then?

ROBB
Puke, then bid 5.
DAVIDC
[4NT] I think 3 is too big a bid. A clever 4NT, if you think that you can catch a 6-2 fit that will play better than the presumed 6-2 fit.
KENNETH
[4NT] Good start. I assume that 4 is not RKCB, or that would have been mentioned. So, he is cuebidding. (If 4 was intended as natural, I'm heading to the partnership desk.) [See ya! --Jeff]
What next depends on style. If 3 agreed diamonds, 4 bypassed 4, meaning that he lacks two of the top three clubs the way I cuebid. But, he must have the King to be cuebidding. So, maybe KJ10xxx? That works. He also has a heart control, and contextually this is likely the Ace. So, I bid whatever is RKCB to check on voids in spades and on diamond control. (Assuming, that is, that 4 is not a cue — which it should not be in this situation but rather simply minimum.)
BTW — I know that I am looking at a stiff heart. But, partner does not have clubs and hearts unless he is insane. He either doubles or bids 3 himself with that hand. So, he likely has 0-3-4-6 pattern for this bidding. I'm not looking for a small slam — I expect a possible grand.
DAVIDW
[5] Now he has revealed the awkward hand, something like x AKxx Qx KQxxxx. This example is at the minimum end of that sequence. He should not be cue-bidding with the presumption that diamonds are agreed; after my cue-bid, he should bid either 4 or 4 to let me clarify. Over 4, I bid 5. He will now know I had a good hand for diamonds. With a better hand than my example (say — AKxx Qx KQJxxxx), he can bid 6 knowing I have either the AK or the A and a high diamond — what else would justify my cuebid? I do expect the smaller hand; two vulnerable opponents are bidding.
LEN
5. Yuck. I doubt pard has a very good picture of my hand right now.
MIKE
5. Too easy. Even if partner has two diamonds, they won't be good given his failure to double 2.
FRED
Yuk — but now I guess I bid 5 and hope that my strong sequence will dissuade a double.
SHU
That must be a cue bid: Pard has: x Ax AQxx KQ10xxx. Now 6 feels laydown.
DAVIDM
5. (I wouldn't have bid 3.)
JEFF AT THE TABLE
6
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

4NT 2

5 5

5 1

6 2

WINNING ACTION
5. Partner had — KQxx A9x QJ9xxx. 5 is easy (diamonds 2-2, clubs friendly), but 5 has no play at all.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
This is simple enough: If 2NT promises diamonds, you drive to slam. If it does not, you bail in 5. The real question was part (a).
Which should it be?
both vul, you hold
QJx A9xxx AKJ Ax
Let's say you open 2NT. (Don't ask.)

You CHO

2NT 3

3 3 (artificial slam try confirming hearts)

?

ROBB
4, followed by 5, so partner can possibly evaluate the Q. On the actual hand we reached 6 after opening 1 (I really don't like 2NT) and an artificial response and they led a club! Making 7.
[2NT was a "state of the event" bid. We needed a blitz in the last match to reach 2nd place. First was out of reach. Yeah, 2NT isn't a good bid; 1 is better, but it's the sort of bad bid which gives up very little equity in exchange for variance. --Jeff]
DAVIDC
[4] My hand is now good if I can catch a spade control, the requisite heart holding, and something in clubs. (Yes, I know the hand all too well.) But I am certainly going to start with 4 (even if 3NT is non-serious). If partner's 4 is last train, I will bid 5. If partner quits over 4, so will I. And if partner bids KCB over 4, I will answer honestly.
KENNETH
I'd cue 4.
DAVIDW
Although my hand is minimum in high cards, it is excellent for slam and I will signal that. In my preferred methods, I would use an unserious 3NT to say just that. Playing less specific methods, I would cuebid 4, planning to follow 4 of either major with 5. I plan to drive to the 5-level whatever my methods.
BARRY
The fifth trump makes this hand a maximum. key-card aces slam.
LEN
3NT should be a spade control bid, so 4 is a club control bid denying spade control.
MIKE
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! An overbid and a misbid. I feel completely comfortable with 1 - 1NT; 2NT.
3NT, if frivolous. Otherwise 4, where I live. When you open 2NT, your first cuebid needs to show your stuff — partner knows you can bypass an ace or two. Even Axxx KQxx Qx xxx makes for a poor slam, so I won't be making a move past game myself.
FRED
[3NT] I think it is a style issue as to cue with concentration of strength, general multicues or other (obviously this hand is far too good to signoff at 4). Style issue agreement is crucial as the inferences to a competent partner are too potent eg if playing mmulticues failure to bid a skipped suit means that he should only cue in response if he controls that suit etc...with this hand you could do worse than bid 3NT which shows your trump holding and conserves space (assuming that it should never be natural when a major is agreed with slam inference).
DAVIDM
I would just jump to 6 accepting.
JEFFA
[5] Although I wouldn't have opened 2NT, I now like my hand. 3NT should be a slam try, even undiscussed, but there's a case for playing it as showing a spade control. I don't think I'd risk it undiscussed (as opposed to problem one). It's hard to see what cue bidding is going to accomplish. If I bid 4, it's highly likely that he'll bid 4, since he's missing the AK. Then 5 will focus on spades, but that's not the only issue. I prefer 5 here as a general try. Yes, I might get to 6 with no play, or miss a cold 7, but nothing really appeals.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
4, and I passed 4.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

3NT 1

4 3

4 4 (2 bid again; 2 pass 4)

4NT 1

5 1

6 1

WINNING ACTION
get to 6 without encouraging a spade lead. Partner had Axx KJxx x QJ9xx.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I'm with Mike on this one. I think that after we bid 2NT and partner makes a slam try, the 2NTer shows where he lives below game. There's normally plenty of time to find out about controls, and opener shouldn't be the one to start control bidding anyway. But since he's the balanced hand, the location of his strength is very important to the unbalanced hand. On this hand, give partner something like Axxx Qxxxx x Kxx, and we want to stop in 4. If he has Axxx Kxxxx Qxx x, partner now can bid Blackwood, since he knows the mesh is good. I don't know how often this approach is on; it's also true after 1M-3M (limit raise). Anyone have good rules for that?
The majority, however, think that we are cue bidding here. Partner did, too, and signed off after I bid 4.
both vul, you hold
Q — J98x KJ109xxxx
Let's say you open 4, natural.
Partner bids 4. And you?

ROBB
With no agreement, I assume this is natural, although it could well be setting up a force since 4 and 4 would be to play. I dont think it can be RKC without an explicit agreement. I guess I bid 4NT to express (I hope) enthusiasm.
DAVIDC
[4] With my good partner, this is baby KCB. We don't have a void show so I would show 1 without. Without discussion, I would treat it as a forward going bid in support of clubs. (We aren't fighting about which minor to play in.) I am not embarrassed with my hand and would bid 4.
KENNETH
[Abstain] Well, again, this depends on what 4 means.
If 4 is a call that asks me to pick a major, I pick spades.
If 4 asks me to cue a control if I have one (or shortness), I cue 4. If partner makes another move, I will agree with his idea and "accept."
[Since the point of the problem is what to do without detailed agreements, I'm calling this an abstention. --Jeff]
DAVIDW
[6] Taking partner's bid at face value (always dangerous with CHO, but that is his problem), I will raise to 6. I give up on exploring for a grand, because it is more likely that this is a lead problem for the opponents against 6. [Close! --Jeff]
BARRY
5. I do not know if 4 is KCB over 4 as it would be over 3. I say no but we'll find out the hard way!
LEN
4 here should be a splinter. I guess I could bid 4, instead...
MIKE
4. I hope partner isn't playing Namyats. 4 isn't necessarily natural, but you have to cuebid your void, whatever partner is doing.
FRED
[5] If I open at the 4-level or higher I play simple bids as agreeing my bid suit, so this is either Kickback for (if playing that variant), or a denial cue in . I concede that my arrangements MAY not represent mainstream thought (and are probably regarded as either apostasy or heresy — or just plain weird in US).
If 4 was "natural", my next bid would be 5!! as my hand is fantastic opposite real long ...
SHU
4...what's the problem? I have a great hand for if his bid is natural. I'll pass 5 of a minor by pard, because my vul 4 is an overbid.
DAVIDM
4. Normally, I play that the first cuebid in an auction is always a card, as opposed to shortness, but, after a 4-level preempt, in another suit, with enough support to cuebid, partner will have to consider it is a shortness control. On the other hand, with Stan, we play Redwood after minor preempts, so if this is a keycard sequence (which if it was, you would have mentioned it so I assume it isn't) I would bid 6.
JEFFA
4—Too good a hand for diamonds not to do something. Once I open 4, this isn't natural. Only our two suits are in play.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
5
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

4 6

4NT 1

5 1

5 2

6 1

WINNING ACTION
Get to 5 or 6 without bidding hearts. Partner had K10x AKQ8x Qxx Ax. He thought 4 was key card. When I bid 5, he signed off in 6, and RHO doubled in a voice of thunder. LHO lead a heart and with hearts 4-4 and clubs 2-1, we were +1540.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
This again is all about "what does partner's bid mean without express discussion?" If you play Preempt Key Card Gerber, does it include this one? Normally, it covers 2/2/3/3/3-4 and 3-4, but it is reasonable for 4-4 to be in the mix. Who thinks that's the default?
unfavorable, you hold
xx AQ9x AJ107 Jxx

CHO RHO You LHO

2* Dbl Pass 3**

Pass Pass ?

* 9-11, six-card suit
** no lebensohl

ROBB
Pass and hope to beat it?
DAVIDC
I can't imagine taking a call. [OK, we're still waiting for that pass! --Jeff]
KENNETH
Pass?
DAVIDW
[Pass] If I were playing pairs, which I am not, or I were significantly behind in the match, which surely I am not, I would hit this. But I am scarcely confident of crucifying 3, although I might be doing so, and there is always the risk that CHO has a twist hand with spades and diamonds. So I pass, expecting down one or two. The key to this conservatism is that my equity on this board is minimal. I was not bidding a game, so any plus is OK.
BARRY
Dbl. make them pay (or partner as the case may be)
LEN
Sigh, I suppose I'm supposed to point out it's not my lead. I pass.
MIKE
3NT. Where the money is. They didn't bid clubs, so I probably don't have to worry about that suit. I'd've redoubled 2 to let partner in on the hand, too.
Second choice: double. Pass isn't on the radar... I would be shocked if 3x makes. I think, however, that 3NT is a better chance at 500 or more.
FRED
Double — mildly aggressive but that is why you are playing these twos (and presumably because the definition it adds to a rebid of 2M).
SHU
Dbl...no guarantee to make 4, and they're going for a (likely) number.
DAVIDM
Double. I think game is probably less than 50% and I think I have a good shot at down 2 or 3.
JEFFA
Pass. Not even tempted a little. Did someone hesitate before bidding 3?
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Wasn't there—explanation later, but I think double is clear cut, so I'll count myself as a doubler.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 6

Double 5

3NT 1

WINNING ACTION
Double. Partner held AJ109xx J 9x K109x. 4 goes down on a club ruff, but they are 3 down in 3x.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I'm with Fred. The reason to play supersound weak 2s is not to avoid going for numbers at this vulnerability. It's to pound the crap out of them when they interfere at the wrong time. I think doubling is clear-cut.
What really happened? There was no alert of 3. When it got passed back to me, I asked if they play lebensohl in this position. I got an enthusiastic "yes." I checked their convention card. Not marked, but the card wasn't particularly well filled-out. So I tried again, asking RHO, "does 3 promise values?" Another enthusiastic "yes." I shrugged and passed. Declarer showed up with KQ and out. I called the cops, claiming that if I had not been misinformed, I would have doubled. (The key reason that the two sequences are different is that the K is almost certain to be in dummy if no lebensohl, and likely to be in declarer's hand if 3 promises values. Also, the values rate to be a fifth heart, substantially increasing partner's chance of being void.) The directors heard my story and agreed. So we scored it as 3x. The other side appealed, of course, claiming that I had passed before asking all my questions, so the answer was moot. That would have got them an AWMW, but had they argued that doubling was extremely unlikely with the correct information, it might have been a real decision. I was curious what the correct answer was in that context. It looks close; not including me, 5 out of 11 doubled. That's just above the borderline of "likely to have been damaged," so it would have depended on who was on the AC. I say, "would have," because they were not close to qualifying and dropped the appeal. Sort of—they just left and never told anyone their intentions. So I had to wait around for 45 minutes to be sure they weren't coming back. Point of etiquette: if you drop an appeal, inform the directors as soon as possible.
favorable, you hold
K1032 1085 Q64 1054

LHO CHO RHO You

1 Pass 3* ?

* heart raise, shortness in some unknown suit

ROBB
Dbl. I really prefer a spade lead and the chance of their playing in spades is miniscule.
DAVIDC
Tee hee. I am forced to abstain. Two days later and I still don't know and can't be objective about it. Kit Woolsey thought double was "reasonable."
KENNETH
Pass??? What's with these last two?
DAVIDW
Double should be lead-directing. Under that condition, it is still a question whether I should take charge of the defense at this point. The double could be terrible if it helps LHO to more accurately determine what his hand is worth, and it could be great if it gets partner off to an unlikely but necessary lead. Given how hopelessly the CHOs with whom I am familiar lead, I would risk the double and apologize if it works out badly.
BARRY
Pass; not double — need far better spades and/or hand.
LEN
Pass
MIKE
Pass. I have a preference for a spade lead if that is not RHO's short suit, but I have an even stronger preference not to lay this hand down as dummy in some sacrifice.
FRED
Pass. partner could not find a bid over 1, and my flat 4333 is not the time to get active as he may actually believe I have long spades and commit hara kiri (or alternatively he is not going to believe me next time!). I consider double to be a Futile Willie bid ...sorry
SHU
Pass.....but "dbl" is the right answer, otherwise you wouldn't be making it a problem! (Our dbls here suggest a possible save at favorable.) Pard couldn't squeak over 1, so why would I bid with this 4-3-3-3? They make 1430 and we go for 1100?
DAVIDM
[Pass] If I had any distribution to protect against partner doing something silly, I would double for a lead, but with 4333 at favorable distribution, it is too likely that a lead directing doulbe could talk partner (with his stiff heart) into making a very expensive sacrifice which could be a phantom.
JEFFA
My notes say that in this position x invites partner to save if we're non-vul.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
wasn't there, and I have no idea.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 8

Double 2

WINNING ACTION
Double. This is hand #2 at the other table. 6 goes down on a spade lead and makes on any other.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
This problem fell flat. Most think that double suggests a save; it's hard to tell if they realized that 3 was not a spade splinter. Certainly, several thought that, so the problem didn't work. Oh, well.
There's a story here, too. My teammate was in this position, only he was told that 3 was a spade splinter. He couldn't double; that would have suggested a save, but if 3 was just an artificial raise, he could have doubled for a spade lead. He called the cops. They bought his story, too, and awarded down 1. They appealled. The AC upheld the director's ruling. I don't have a sure count because of the information issue, but it seems to me that doubling is closer to a 25% action than a 50% action. If so, then Law 12 says that the offending side (our opponents) get their score adjusted, but ours stays the same. In order for our score to adjusted, damage has to be likely. As an AC member, that's what I would have ruled, since I think it's reasonable to double, but definitely it is not clear to do so, and probably well under 50% of the players in that position would do it.

Jeff Goldsmith, Dec. 16, 2009

You	CHO
2NT	3
3	3 (artificial slam try confirming hearts)
?

LHO	CHO	RHO	You
1	2	2	Pass
Pass	2NT	Pass	?

CHO	RHO	You	LHO
2*	Dbl	Pass	3**
Pass	Pass	?

LHO	CHO	RHO	You
1	Pass	3*	?