Some problems from the Santa Clara regional: Answers

All at IMPs.

Today's Panelists: Kenneth Rexford, Mike Shuster, David Caprera, Ed Davis, Mark Bartusek, David Weiss, Len Vishnevsky, Barry Rigal, Fred Curtis, John Jones, Kent Hartman

White vs. Red, you hold
Ax AQJxxx x KJxx

CHO You

2 3

3NT ?

2 is frequently a 5-card suit by agreement, but is a decent one, and the hand won't be awful.

KENNETH
[4] As a relevant aside, I am more and more convinced of the merits of transfers in response to weak twos. In this situation, responder could bid 3 to show hearts with a weak hand or with values. If opener bids 3 as demanded, responder could bid 3 to show hearts with semi-support of spades. As a second aside, another treatment that would help here is Leaping Michaels by responder. (Yes—I said that correctly and do play this.) Thus, 2-P-4 would show clubs and hearts and GF values. That would help to have responder able to bid 4 now as a natural game choice call. In the actual auction, however, opener's 3NT rebid is ambiguous. Your agreement calls for 5-card openings, which is non-standard, and yet this sequence is mentioned without explanation of what 3NT shows. [Most don't even have an explicit description of when a weak two can be 5 cards. 3NT was natural and non-forcing. --Jeff] I also do not know responder's options at this point. Without agreements to handle this better, I suppose I bid 4 and hope to stumble-bunny to the right contract. Fortunately I have 2-6-1-4 shape and can bid 4, as this allows opener to retort with 4 as a choice back (general) with perhaps five spades and two hearts, or five spades and four clubs.
MIKE
4. I play 3NT here shows exactly two hearts—with 1, partner bids 3. 4 of a minor would be a massive 2-suiter, so it isn't safe. (Partner can raise!) So getting partner involved in choice of games isn't happening, it is up to me to choose and I choose hearts because of the word "frequently."
DAVIDC
4
ED
4. Not much of a decision in my opinion.
MARK
4. a guess, but partner did not rebid his spades. A 6-1 heart fit rates to be better than a 5-2 spade fit. I see difficulty getting 10 tricks playing the 5-2 spade fit. Hopefully it's not a 6-0 fit, but even that might be OK with a 4-3 break.
DAVIDW
4. This seems like a pure guess. I expect partner to have a card in both minors ( KQxxx x Qxxx Qxx seems typical given the description.) They will attack in diamonds, since they have lots of them, and 3NT seems far away. We will need only good luck to make 4. Incidentally, I don't like the method. Not that I have anything against 5-card weak twos (I was a long-time adherent of Baileys), but without rigid definition, the main achievement of this style is to wrong-side the hand when responder has a strong NT. [I agree, but I often play my partner's preferences. --Jeff]
LEN
I have no reason to think 3NT is making, but I have no reason to think any higher contract is better. Pard chose not to raise hearts. I pass.
BARRY
4. I hate to pass and think one of the three possible trump suits will be better.
FRED
On a non-spade lead we should have some prospects in both minors (obviously the singleton diamond provides initial response to an attack there) and even the Q gives some hope in 4, so I try 4 without any great feeling of confidence.
JJ
4. Seems better than either 4 or 4. 3NT is way too speculative.
KENT
[4.] I went back and forth on this—pass, 4, and 4 all seem reasonable. Even 4 might be right, catching partner with QTxx, the A, and the K. I'll bid 4 based on the stiff diamond. Give me 2-6-2-3, and I pass 3NT.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass. Yeah, 3NT is probably not the best spot. But you never know—he might make nine tricks, and nothing else looks at all clear-cut.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 2

4 2

4 3

4 5

WINNING ACTION
4. 4 will get you to 4. Partner has KQ10xx xx K9xx Qx. 4 makes. 4 and 3NT do not.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Does he have KQ10xx x K109x Qxx? If so, 3NT looks best. Or does he have KQJxx x K9xx Qxx? 4 looks pretty good. Or KJ10xx 10x Axx Qxx? We need to play 4. Beats me. If 4 can't get raised (it can and likely will, though not on the actual hand), then it'd cater to two possible contracts, and I'd pick that. But it'll get us to 5 way way too often, so upon reflection, I need to guess now. And I have no idea what to guess. The panel mostly agrees that they are guessing.
Maybe partner should just raise to 4 and save me this problem, but 3NT looks OK.
None vul, you hold
xx 6xx AQJxx AJ10

You CHO

1 1

?

KENNETH
[1NT] This is a style question, IMO, and not a judgment one. People have strong opinions in this sequence, and many are legitimate. That said, for me 1NT. If I had a slightly different set of honors, I might consider 1...2...2. Maybe xx Q10x AQJxx A10x. [I think that sequence shows about an ace more. --Jeff]
MIKE
1NT. Given the opponents' silence, I expect to hear again from partner or to find spades 4-4. The alternatives (2, 2, 2?) aren't particularly attractive. This gets the general nature of my hand across. I have no problem raising hearts with this shape, but I do require a heart honor.
DAVIDC
1NT
ED
1NT. Not much of a decision in my opinion.
MARK
2. I don't like 1NT with two small spades. 2 will probably be safer.
DAVIDW
2. Using 2NT as an artificial inquiry after this raise makes it more comfortable. We will find the best game, and might still play 3 if he has only three hearts. If 1NT or 2 is our best spot, I have lost my gamble, but raising is often the shortest route to a good game. I cannot bring myself to bid 1NT with that spade holding.
LEN
2
BARRY
2. My style if I can show by bidding 3 a hand with three trump and five good diamonds. If I can't, I should be able to. [I assume that means in response to 2NT. I don't usually play 2NT as asking, but regardless, after 2NT, 3 is a suggestion to play there. --Jeff]
FRED
Automatic raise to 2 unless playing dark ages 4-card raises: both opponents have had an opportunity to bid spades, so they are likely either 4-4 or partner holds 4...presumably he has all sorts of means to avoid the Moysian if it poor or to discover it. [But not at the 2-level! --Jeff] Playing IMPs, I am happy if he is declarer with this spade holding.
JJ
2. Cute problem. 1NT, 2, 2 and 2 are all best on some layouts. Of those four, I like 1NT the least (likely wrong sides NT); I think it's close between the other three depending on style. With just a little more, I'd try 2, but I'll try 2 on the actual hand. Matchpoints would tip the scale in favor of 2.
KENT
[1NT] Playing Crane's card with Bettie, 2 is automatic, even if the fifth diamond is a small spade! I am bidding 1NT. I would have opened a weak NT with usual victims; have also agreed with them not to raise with this shape.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Wasn't there. RHO bid 3 in front of me. I was waffling between 1NT, 2, and 2 (2 was out, because partner and I had the agreement that 2 guaranteed six) and never had to decide. I was leaning towards 2 when pass became obvious.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

1NT 5

2 1

2 6

WINNING ACTION
This never happened. RHO bid 3 in front of me, so I, of course, passed. Partner doubled and played 4 making.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Shrug. Probably it's a good idea to ask your partner what he thinks. If he has a strong feeling about it, do that when playing with him.
One point no one mentioned in favor of 1NT is that if I bid 2, they are far more likely to balance into 2 than if I bid 1NT. After that, nothing good is likely to happen. I'm changing my mind: 1NT, just to reduce the chance that they will bid 2. But I think the right choice is to do what partner expects.
What I like about this problem is that it's a very ordinary hand, and four rebids are reasonable. This is not one of those Bridge World problems where all options are awful, either; all four rebids are OK!
Red vs. White, you hold
xx KQxx AQx J9xx

RHO You LHO CHO

3 Pass 4 Dbl

Pass ?

Do you pass the first time?

KENNETH
[No] I double the first time, but I'm sick and not particularly proud of my double.
MIKE
[Yes] Meh. It is close, but pass is probably right. I bet the equity difference between pass and double is negligible.
DAVIDC
No
ED
Yes, pass the first time.
MARK
Yes, I pass the first time.
DAVIDW
I do pass the first time.
LEN
Yes.
BARRY
Anything but an initial pass is manic.
FRED
Yes I pass the first time. I do not believe I had a reason to provoke partner to bid at the 4-level with my minimum weak NT.
JJ
Yes
KENT
Yes, I pass the first time. My partners expect about a king more for a double of 3 at these colors with this shape.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
I passed. I agree with Mike that the right answer is probably "doesn't matter."
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 10

Double 2

WINNING ACTION
Double, big time.

What now?

KENNETH
4NT as two places to play. If partner picks 5, that's our contract. If 5, we play hearts.
MIKE
5. The best solution is actually to go back to 3 and double. This is a choice of slams with hearts as a choice, I hope my guy is well-read and loves the minutiae of MSC opinions. 4NT is OK, but I'd have to correct clubs to hearts as a slam try, potentially winding up in 5 down 2 opposite x Axx Kxxx AKxxx instead of 6 down 1 or making.
DAVIDC
4NT
ED
4NT (takeout) and correct to 5. This is a slam try in hearts as I would bid 5 directly if I wanted to bid hearts without slam interest. I'd be happier if I had a fifth heart, but I think this is good enough.
MARK
Pass again and lead a trump.
DAVIDW
4NT, ostensibly for minors but will next bid 5 over his 5 of a minor, which will now be read as a slam try. If, instead, partner jumps to 6, I will pass. If he jumps to 6, I bid 6.
LEN
Pass, though 4NT now is quite reasonable.
BARRY
5—by agreement more of a slam try than 4NT then 5 (which over 5 would not be a clear slam-try anyway). [Yes, this is an improvement, but it comes up rarely enough that it will not be easy to remember. --Jeff]
FRED
The big risk of the 4NT and pull is it sounds like two suits—so partner has room to go wrong and it may propel us to 6 although AQx will not disappoint him. Really it is my poor clubs, but my gut is to try to show the full values so I will utilise the 4NT sequence (and apologise later regardless of result)...preempts work!
JJ
4NT. This is initially for the minors [any two suits, of course --Jeff] but becomes a slam try in hearts when I correct to 5. [If and only if partner bids 5. --Jeff]
KENT
Pass and lead a trump. I'll assume we'll beat this 300 or 500 and lose some IMPs.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 4

4NT 6

5 1

5 1

Strategy Votes

Penalties 4

Game 1

Invite Slam 6

Drive to Slam 1

WINNING ACTION
Invite or drive to slam. Partner had — AJ10xx Kxx AQ10xx. The club hook was off, but we got only 300 in 4x.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
My style here is generally to take the money unless I have a five-card suit, but upon reflection, I don't like it on this hand. I think they rate to have seven spade tricks and one or two side cards. That means we are getting 300 or 100. Normally, we are losing one spade trick and those side cards, so we are either making at the five-level or going down one. That's win 8 or lose 5 vs. passing. I don't think they are 8-to-5 to have three tricks, so the IMP odds say bid. If we have only a 4-4 fit, however, a bad break could beat us; it would not surprise me unduly to go down on a ruff. I'd be a lot more confident of making if I had two aces. But 8-5 leaves some room for ruffs, and partner sometimes has a spade void.
Ought we invite slam? Inviting slam means we have to play hearts. That increases our chances of going down in exchange for some chance of reaching slam. That tradeoff is 13 IMPs either way. Do I think we are more than 50% to have a slam? Yes, if partner has a spade void, no if he does not. He rates to have one spade, so I think inviting slam is too dangerous. I think I'd rather make sure I avoid a 4-3 fit, which is very likely to go down, perhaps a lot. A small edge to inviting slam is that hearts pays two more IMPs than clubs. Given how close this choice is, that might be enough to swing the expected value of the actions.
Mike's slam drive at least avoids a 4-3 fit, but I think that slam rates to go down way too often to compensate. Upon reflection, I rate the strategies: game, penalties, invite slam, drive to slam. The panel rates them: invite slam, penalties, game, drive, although no one expert did so, of course.
Which brings us to partner's double—I think it is clearly wrong. He should bid 4NT to show two suits. I don't think I'd drive to slam over that, though it is close, as now partner's chance of having a spade void is much higher than it is for a double.
None vul, you hold
Kxxx Kxxxx — AJ8x

CHO RHO You LHO

Pass 1 Dbl 3 (preemptive)

3 Pass ?

KENNETH
4. I may be overbidding, but I want the game bonus.
MIKE
4. Hard to see bidding less. Or more.
DAVIDC
Pass
ED
4. The potentially missing A and/or K rate to be onside and a fifth spade in partner's hand is a possibility. I would not be surprised to go down in 4, but if my LHO does not have any shortness, I like my chances in 4.
MARK
Pass. I've said my all, and partner can probably work out my diamond shortness by looking at his hand. [He couldn't with his doubleton. --Jeff]
DAVIDW
4. I don't know whether it will make, but am going high because I expect any rounded suit finesses to succeed.
LEN
4. Pard might make game with AT98x xx xxx xxx. [This partner is nowhere near lucky enough for that. On a good day, he'd go down two. --Jeff]
BARRY
4. Sue me; the void impels me to do this and they never double...do they?
FRED
Pass n/v but it is close enough that the IMP odds would push me to bid 4 if vul. I guess I am used to partner's opening anything that looks like a hand that I tend to assume minimum type hands for his bid, but the improvement of at least the 9 would be significant!
JJ
Pass. Partner is under pressure and knows I will remember he is a passed hand.
KENT
4. My hand got a trick better on the auction. I'm playing partner for something like five bad spades and about an eight count in the round suits. From board 1 commentary, he can't have five good spades.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 5

4 7

WINNING ACTION
Bid. Partner had A109xx AJxx xx xx and made 5.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
Bid game. Maybe it'll make. Bidding does seem a bit like hanging partner, but we rate to have a nine-card fit. 5440s play OK in nine-card fits, not so well in eight-card fits. I figured that partner was counting on my knowing that he probably didn't have five spades, because he didn't open a white weak two bid. This time, the reason was that he also had four hearts. I figured if he had nine major suit cards, he might just bid game on his own if his hand was any good. He pulled in a little, because he had two diamonds. That's a little unlucky. Make one of his clubs a diamond and he would bid game himself. Maybe he might have anyway. Some of the panelists think so. I'd either bid game or double and correct hearts to spades if that's a strong invite (and not clubs and spades).
Both vul, you hold
xxx AKx x AK108xx

You CHO

1 1

2 2NT

?

KENNETH
3
MIKE
3. Too much to pass. This is really staring me right in the face. Maybe just bidding 3NT will get a heart lead more often, but at the table that doesn't seem to match my experience.
DAVIDC
3
ED
3
MARK
3. 5 may be a better contract.
DAVIDW
3. This is forcing, choice of games. My second choice is 3 to avoid 3NT if his diamonds are weak, but that is risky as partner could be 5-4-3-1, in which case he would raise. [But then you can play the 5-3 spade fit. --Jeff] 3 lets him choose and perhaps he will guess well.
LEN
3NT. Pard didn't ask for spade support. If he had responded 1, I would bid 3 now. [If he'd responded 1, I'd've bid 2 last time and be worried that it was an underbid. --Jeff]
BARRY
3 to show a stiff would be nice. If I can't do that then 3 announcing where I live would be fine. 3 is OK.
FRED
I think 3 where I live and accepting the invitation is best (and if he raises to 4 playing me for 4-6) I have a very easy 4. 2nd choice is 3 which could easily be right but how can he know that my stops are in hearts rather than diamonds. You know, playing old-fashioned K/S you would regard this as a minimum reverse and reversion to spades with the control structure and good 6-card suit. I think it is too good for a simple 2 rebid after the 1 response. [K&R agrees: 18.70! --Jeff]
JJ
3. I'll bid 4 over 4 and hope the train isn't derailed.
KENT
3. Anything other than 3 is forcing here. If partner raises with an eleven count and 5422, I'll convert to 4. I'll pass 3NT, raise 3 to four, and raise 4 to five.
JEFF AT THE TABLE
3
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

3 9

3 2

3NT 1

WINNING ACTION
Get to 3NT, but if you bid 3 and partner bids 3, you are going to bid 4, I assume. (Except Mike.) So 3/3NT are winning actions. Partner had Axxx Q10x KJxx xx. 3NT made, but 5 didn't. Over my 3, he bid 3, and I raised. He ran to 5. Too high.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
I'm convinced 3 is right, not 3. 3, at first glance, seems superior, because we can get to a 5-3 spade fit or we can avoid 3NT when partner's diamonds are weak. There's no problem with partner's raising, since if he has four hearts, he has five spades, so we can correct to the 5-3 spade fit. I think the diamond issue, however, is moot. We already know partner has weak hearts (assuming he doesn't have five spades). If he has weak diamonds as well and only four spades, he probably would have bid 3, not 2NT. It's very hard to construct a hand for partner without four decent diamonds if he does not have five spades. (Perhaps AKQx Qxx xxxx xx? 3 will get us to 4, though 5 looks better.) So I think we should simply be looking to play the 5-3 spade fit or 3NT. 3 does that.
Partner clearly should bid 3NT over 3, though. He has no interest in any contract other than 3NT. Yes, his spades are a weakness vs. a stiff, but there's no way his hand is good enough to let us make 5. Maybe they won't lead spades. And most think 3 promises five; Mike is in the minority that it is Last Train to 3NT. That's one of my favorite conventions, and even I think 3 is natural here.
Red vs. White, TWO-BOARD PLAYOFF, you hold
6543 Kxx Jxx Kxx

RHO You LHO CHO

3 Pass Pass 3

Pass ?

Note the conditions.

KENNETH
3NT. I'm all in.
MIKE
Pass. I'd pass even at normal conditions.
DAVIDC
Pass
ED
A red 40% game at IMPs should be bid. However, I'd pass in a one- or two-board match.
MARK
Pass. Seems like the winning action in the long run.
DAVIDW
Pass. You are warning me to treat this more as a board-a-match problem than as an ordinary IMP evaluation, but I confess I would pass at any form of scoring. I will be wrong some of the time ( AQJxxx Ax xx QJx), but expect to be right considerably more often.
LEN
Pass
BARRY
Pass. It's pairs isn't it?
FRED
I understand the conditions of contest, but it still looks like a raise to 4 to me (sorry). [No apologies needed when you bid and make a red game! --Jeff]
JJ
Pass. Forget that this is IMPs and we need to bid 38% games. A two-board playoff is much closer to matchpoints, so I want to take the maximum chance to be right, not the maximum expected value (as I would in a long match). Partner balanced NV and the J is likely of little use. I think 4 will be an underdog more often than not.
KENT
Pass. Duh. Conditions noted—yes, this is likely to be the swing board. I'll let my teammates be heroes—that's never my role!
JEFF AT THE TABLE
Pass. I'd bid in a full match, but I think game is in the 35-40% range, which is not enough to bid in a 2-board match.
CONSENSUS

Action Votes

Pass 11

3NT 1

4 1

WINNING ACTION
Bid. Partner had AKQxx Qx K AJ10xx. Game was cold. Even 3NT makes, because the opening bidder had Jx2 Ax AQ10xxxx x and will drive diamonds rather than ducking the first trick, because he has a surprise entry. Not surprisingly, my teammate opened 1, and the opponents found 4 without any trouble.
This happened in a playoff in a 3-way KO match. We lost one match by 1 IMP and tied the other. The third team won both halves, so the Conditions of Contest call for a playoff between the tied teams. This is reasonable; there's no reason why the scores in the matches against the third team should break the tie between the other two teams. It is also the first time I've ever been knocked out of a 3-way with an IMP total of -1.
JEFF UPON REFLECTION
This one fell flat. Most would bid the red game under normal conditions, but nearly everyone said something like, "it's under 50%, and a two-board match is BAM scoring."
Several excoriated partner's underbid, but I don't think it's so bad. He is playing BAM, too. But I'd double anyway. When he hears me bid 3, he'll bid game, and as they didn't make 5 at the other table, we'd win the playoff by 1 IMP.

Jeff Goldsmith, Feb. 27, 2012

CHO	You
2	3
3NT	?

You	CHO
1	1
?

RHO	You	LHO	CHO
3	Pass	4	Dbl
Pass	?

CHO	RHO	You	LHO
Pass	1	Dbl	3 (preemptive)
3	Pass	?