Subject: Problems |These problems are all from the Israel International Bridge Festival. |Partner is capable, but you do not have a strong partnership. The |opponents are often extremely random; the events are all Flight C |events with a sprinkling of Flight A players. All IMP events are |short matches (VPs) unless expressly specified. Panellists today are: Dave Milton Roberto Scaramuzzi Ed Davis Rolf Kuehn Steve Altus Mike Shuster Marcia Masterson Jeff Rawlings (Partial) David Weiss (Partial) |1) MPs, none vul, you hold | | Axxxx Qxxx A2 KQ | | YOU LHO CHO RHO | --- --- --- --- | 1S Pass Pass 2D | Pass 3D 3H 5D | ? | | If you pass or double, what do you lead? Dave: CK. [Figures that it's so obvious that something else must be right. --J] Roberto: Double and lead CK Ed: Double. CK is best chance for plus score. 2nd choice of SA could run into something like QJT AK Qxx xxxxx opposite Kx x KJTxxxx Axx (partner holds xxx JT9xxxx x JTx). [Nice construction. --Jeff] [Upon prompting from me...] I certainly feel that passing 1S then bidding 3H is more indicative of some safety in the form of a spade fit than what could be a big misfit with zero or one spades. JeffR: Double. Lead the CK Rolf: pass, what do I know? I would lead a small H. Steve: Double, CK. i'd almost say wtp... Mike: pass. Lead the CK without much thought. Marcia: double and lead the SA. I'm not going to lead the CK; the DA was dealt to me for a reason. Jeff at the table: Pass (wimp) and lead CK Jeff upon reflection: double and lead CK Winning Action: Double and lead spades. Partner had --- J10xxxx x J10xxxx. Votes: Double: 6, Pass: 3 CK: 7, Hx: 1, SA: 1 Consensus (plus, I, of course, get the last word :)): The panel thinks that leading the CK and doubling are too obvious actions for words. My failure to double was an error, but an irrelevant one, since +50 and +100 were pretty much the same score, as one might expect. |2) IMPs, unfavorable | | K1098x xx x K1098x | | RHO YOU LHO CHO | --- --- --- --- | 1S Pass 1NT* Pass *not forcing | Pass ? Dave: I pass, it is just too risky to try 2C. Partner is sure to bid 2D and the opponents are not going to let me defend 2S. I cannot believe that we are missing a game on this crap if partner canot bid. Roberto: pass; too weak to balance on a misfit auction Ed: 2C JeffR: Pass Rolf: pass -- WTP? [He's afraid partner will double 2D or 2H. --Jeff] Steve: partner is known to be short in spades and didn't double or overcall. something fishy is going on; i think i'll pass. at matchpoints unfavorable i would NEVER pass, btw. [Me, either. --Jeff] Mike: Pass. Do I look like I want to go for 1100? Marcia: Pass Jeff at the table: 2C. Jeff upon reflection: 2C still seems right, but I can be talked out of it now. But partner ought not pull very often; he should realize that *I* see the vulnerability and I'm not balancing into a crappy suit. That Dave predicted that partner would bid 2D and go for a number really makes me wonder that bidding is wrong, because that's exactly what happened. The upside is only +5-6 IMPs, but the downside is -13 and a big blast to partnership morale. In the long run, it seems to be worth bidding, but the short run disasters can be a little discouraging. Winning Action: Pass. Partner had QJ AKJ 108xxxx Jx and ran (!) from 2Cx (which is probably but not surely going down) to 2Dx, which went for sticks and wheels. I am quite impressed by Dave's ability to predict the actual outcome. Votes: Pass: 7, 2C: 2 Consensus: pass. The upside gain vs. the downside risk ratio seems to convince the panel not to balance here. I think it's closer than that myself. The real losses ought to come when they find a red suit contract and make when 1NT was going down, but partner is not going to lead anything helpful, so I bet 1NT is making, and therefore those losses will be small. On the other hand, I think 2C will make more often than not, and 1NT will, too, so I think the upside will be realized a fair bit of the time. At matchpoints one would have to worry about their reaching 2H making three instead of 1NT making one or two, but at IMPs, that's not relevant. I'd much rather see them get pushed into 2S; that'd be a nice gain for us. So, all in all, I'm unrepentant. I would bid 2C again. |3) MPs, none vul | | KJxx KQ7x Ax K108 | | YOU LHO CHO RHO | --- --- --- --- | 1C 1NT 2D Pass | Pass 2H Pass Pass | ? Dave: I double. Dummy is almost guaranteed to be an entryless void and probably balanced Roberto: hmm.. weird auction. I guess I'll double, but I really am not sure what's up. The auction does not sound like 1N was comic. Ed: Pass JeffR: Double Rolf: pass -- no alternative. Steve: light it up! wtp? Mike: More Passing. We don't have a fit. Why rock the boat? Marcia: Pass. How nice of partner to balance them into something for which I have some defense. Jeff at the table: Pass Jeff upon reflection: now that I know how Israelis bid, ***DOUBLE***. Winning Action: Double. LHO was out of his mind and had only four hearts. Life in Israel was like this all the time. Votes: Double: 4, Pass: 5 Consensus: None. I guess this is a table feel situation. Helpful hint---if you are in Israel, double. |4) IMPs, unfavorable | | AQxx AJ10x K10x xx | | YOU LHO CHO RHO | --- --- --- --- | 1D Pass 1S Pass | 2S Pass Pass 3C | Pass Pass 3H Pass | 3S? 4C Pass Pass ?Do you? (I wouldn't, but did. Guess why.) | ? Dave: I would have passed 3H, but, now I am going to bid 4H. I was almost max for my raise to 2S the first time and after all down 200 against a Vul game is a reasonable risk. I cannot imagine going down more than 1. Roberto: I think 3S was right. Guess I'll bid 4H now. If partner wanted me to shut up over 4C she would have just bid 3S; 4H brings me back into the picture, I think. Ed: I would bid 4S... everything considered I think partner is likely to be 5-5-2-1 (why else a NF 3H bid if not to cater to three spads and four hearts in my hand). I like my chances to make 4S opposite that distribution. JeffR: I take the chance and bid 4H. Rolf: pass -- I gave my chance away to describe my hand more accurately by passing 3H so partner cannot act accordingly. 4H/S can easily go for 200-500, 4CX for even more Steve: i'm bidding one more for the road here. btw, why didn't you open 1NT? [good point. This is a strong notrump, I agree. --Jeff] Mike: Looks like a pretty obvious pass to me. Marcia: double and lead trumps [If this were right, wouldn't partner have doubled 4C? --Jeff] Jeff at the table: 4H Jeff upon reflection: bidding game is clear to me. But see the side topic for complications. Winning Action: double. They go for 300. Partner had KJxxx 9xxx A xxx. (3H?) 4S happens to be a pretty decent contract, but fails when hearts are 4-1 offside without a stiff honor. Worse still, RHO doubled and partner went down 500 trying to make it on a small heart lead. Side topic: No one worked this out. I think 4H (or 4S) over 3H is right, not 3S, but partner hesitated before passing 2S, so I thought that I was pretty much barred from bidding 4H there. Once the opponents, however, have told me that they have 9+ clubs, I know my DK is a cover card (or pard is 5-5) and thus I just have too much to pass or double 4C this time around. Votes: 4H: 5, 4S: 1, Pass: 2, Double: 1 Consensus: bid game. Further word: RHO didn't have his double. It took me awhile to work out that I could ethically bid game; partner claimed that RHO doubled because of the slow bid. I think otherwise. I think he doubled because he knew about the hesitation, too. If game happened to make, he'd call the director and try to get the score rolled back to 4C. A side note---I won an appeal in Israel. I'm 2 for 2 outside the ACBL and 0 for life inside it now. |5) IMP Pairs, none vul | | AKQxxx K9 Ax Jxx | | RHO opens 2H, weak. What's your plan? Dave: I am going to bid 3S. If partner can supply the trick or so that I would need for 3NT to be the correct call (?) 4S should have a shot and he should bid it. Roberto: I'll double , then bid 3S; this should suggest notrump interest, as opposed to a direct 3S bid. A jump to 3N over 2H has merit. Ed: Double, followed by 3NT. JeffR: Double Rolf: Difficult hand! I think I choose X followed by 3NT depending on partner's response Steve: this looks like ALMOST a 3S bid. but not quite. i guess i'll double and bid spades. i like to have a seventh spade and only 1 card outside for 3S. i wouldn't quibble with either action, though. Mike: 3S. Seems really clear.... the only problem is we might miss 3NT when it's right, but then if partner has QTx of hearts, he might try it anyway. Marcia: 3NT Jeff at the table: 3S Jeff upon reflection: I now prefer doubling followed by 3S. This hand is flexible enough to allow for alternative strains, and 3S ought really have a better suit. Give me the S10 and 3S (or 3NT) looks better. Winning action: probably pass; we can't make anything (spades are 5-2 and diamonds 4-1) but that's unreasonable. Partner claims he'd pass 2Hx with --- AJxx Kxxxxx xxx, but that's a bit hard to believe. I just realized that partner will bid 3D constructive over a double. That would make 3S then forcing (right?) which will definitely get us to 3NT or higher. That's not good. That means 3S, which ought to end the auction, should have been better than double in real life. Votes: Double...3S: 2, Double...3NT: 2, 3S: 3, Double+?: 1, 3NT: 1 Consensus: None. |6) Unfavorable, IMPs | | xx xx AQx KQ10xxx | | CHO RHO YOU LHO | --- --- --- --- | 1S Dbl ? | | a) what is your plan with your favorite methods Dave: 2C forcing Roberto: 1NT, transfer to clubs, then 3C Marcia: Redouble, then cue hearts if they bid them, 3NT otherwise. | b) what is your plan if everything is natural | and 2C is constructive but not forcing? Roberto, Dave: Redouble, followed by a club bid Ed: 2C | c) what is your plan with no agreements? Dave: 2C and hope to survive Roberto: Redouble, followed by a club bid Ed: Redouble, followed by a club bid. Rolf: XX, followed by 3C and hope that it will be enough for game [He plays that nonforcing with 2NT artificial and forcing to game. --J] Steve: XX then bid, to show good 1-suiter Mike: 2C Marcia: XX, then cue hearts Jeff at the table: 2C, with agreements in question. Jeff upon reflection: I have no clue. Get some agreements, and CAP/1Mx looks really happy on this hand. Winning action: force to 3NT, which is making vs. Axxxx Axx 109x Ax. Votes: Redouble: 5, 2C: 3 Consensus: we all hate our methods here. It's time to start playing CAP/1Mx. Most redoubled and forced to game. That makes sense under the conditions. |7) Unfavorable, IMPs | | --- J98 xx AKQxxxxx | | LHO CHO RHO YOU | --- --- --- --- | 1H Pass 1S 4C? ? Do you? | 4H Pass 4NT Pass | 5C Dbl* 5H ? * suggests no club honor/lead averting Dave: OK, so I double for a spade lead (first bid suit by dummy) and hope that partner has the AD for a reentry. Roberto: pass; what do you want me to do? The time to bid 5S was over 4N. Weiss: Double. The IMP odds are too good not to do this. [He sticks out the redouble.] 4C, however, is unthinkable. I would bid 3NT, 3S, or 2C. [ Really? --Jeff] Ed: Assume opener might continue on... will double if they bid 6H. [He thinks LHO might have three or four keys and be bidding on. --Jeff] Rolf: X for NO C--lead. As two aces are missing I neither expect a XX nor overtricks, it's IMPs and a good chance to beat the contract. Steve: double Mike: I think I can double. Marcia: Pass. I don't see the problem. Jeff at the table: double Jeff upon reflection: I still like the double, but when LHO redoubles, maybe I ought to chicken out. I'll feel idiotic if partner has the DA, though. Winning action: 6C. Partner has Kxxxx x xxxx xxx. Votes: Double: 6, Pass: 3 Consensus: double. Nothing is crazy, I think. No one considered bidding 6C, but it's not as silly as it sounds. You have 8 clubs, two heart ruffs, and if they can't make a slam, a side trick. That's -200 vs. a white game. In practice, they are likely to lead a heart or a spade (they *can't* lead trumps) and you will get out for -200, a big win. |8) Matchpoints, none vul | | 10x Axx 87654 Kxx | | LHO CHO RHO YOU | --- --- --- --- | 3C Pass 3NT All pass | | What's your lead? Dave: HA. I expect that 9 tricks will not be available without the Club suit and that I will be getting in again. I think if I lead the AH it will not be fatal and it will give me three chances to hit the right suit. I should be able to tell whether or not to continue hearts, or switch to the TS or the 8D. Roberto: a middle diamond. no imagination Ed: Anything but the CK Rolf: I lead HA and take a look on dummy and partner's signals. If it's bad I take all the blame. [I don't think you deserve any. --Jeff] Steve: i'm going passive... diamond. Mike: Hx Marcia: HA. You have to lead agressively on these auctions. Jeff at the table: HA Jeff upon reflection: I think the HA is unequivocally right. The folks who lead something else do not seem very convinced. I think it's right to lead ultra-agressively against preempt->3NT auctions. Winning action: anything but a heart (including the CK) Votes: Passive/Diamond: 3, HA: 4, Hx: 1 Consensus: none. |9) Vulnerable, IMPs | | Qx Q 10987 K8xxxx | | Partner opens 1NT 15-17. What's your plan? Marcia, Dave, Roberto: sign off in clubs Mike, Rolf, Ed: invite in clubs Steve: let's play 3C Jeff at the table: invite in clubs Jeff upon reflection: I have no clue. It was a guess at the table and it's one now. Winning Action: sign off in clubs Votes: signoff: 4, invite: 4 Consensus: none |10) both white, IMPs | | KJ x Qxxxx Jxxxx | | LHO CHO RHO YOU | --- --- --- --- | 2D* Dbl* 3H* Pass | 3S* Dbl* Pass ? | | 2D was multi. | Dbl = 16+ balanced or some very good difficult hands | 3H was both majors, preemptive (multi) | 3S was a weak 2 in spades | 2nd Dbl = 19+ balanced, almost always Dave: Pass Roberto: 3NT Ed: 3NT Rolf: Pass. I wanna get a plus score. [Sorry. --J] Steve: i think i'm going to bid 4S, which must be pick-a-minor. Mike: My first thought is 4NT. On second thought 3NT might work. But then 3NT might also work very poorly. Hearts figure to be wedged and even if a minor runs I don't see 9 tricks. In fact I don't see 11 in a minor either. I think I'd've bid 4D over 3H. Now I'm gonna bid 4NT and try to get to a making minor game. Who knows what's right? Marcia: 4D Jeff at the table: 5C Jeff upon reflection: If I could figure out a way to get partner to choose a minor, then let me play the hand so that my SKJ didn't get led through, that'd be my choice. Failing that, I decided to guess a minor. That's probably silly all in all; 3NT is probably going to make often enough that I ought just bid it. Winning Action: 4S, 4NT, 5C or 5D. Partner held x A10xx AKxx AQ109 and decided that this hand was too good for a 2H, takeout of spades, bid. That's not unreasonable. In practice, 3S makes, as does 5 of either minor from either side. Not 3NT, though. Votes: 3NT: 2, Pass: 2, 4NT: 1, 5C: 1, 4S: 1, 4D: 1 Consensus: None. A lucky choice by me won a bunch of IMPs. |11) IMPs, none vul | | Qxx 9xxx --- KQxxxx | | RHO YOU LHO CHO | --- --- --- --- | Pass Pass 1H 2D | 2S Pass Pass 3C | Pass ? Dave: 4C, second choice pass Roberto: I'll bid 5C. I don't think I'm making this, but since I'm going to have to bid it anyway over 4 of a major, I'll just go ahead and do it now, so I won't get doubled (hopefully) Ed: 4C Rolf: At IMPs it's a clear cut 5C bid. It makes or not -- who knows. At MP I favor 4C but this is more to be able to blame partner in the postmortem :) Steve: how about a gentle 4C? Mike: I think I'll bid just 4C and put down dummy kinda sheepishly. Marcia: 4C. Sort of an insurance policy. Jeff at the table: 5C Jeff upon reflection: 5C. Partner bid 3C this time; he didn't bid 2NT either the first time or the second. Why not? If he were 5-4 with good high card, he'd've doubled the second time. With 5-4 balancing strength, he'd either pass initially or bid 2NT the second time, I think. I think that suggests that partner has 5-5 with the intermediate hand that won't bid 2NT the first time: something like x Kx AQxxx AJxxx. If so, 5C ought to make. Will partner bid game if I bid 4C with this hand? I don't know, but maybe not. On the other hand, such a subtle inference seems way out of line in an inexperienced partnership, so while I think 5C is right in theory, it's wrong in practice. Winning action: pass. Partner had xx Kx AJxxx AJxx. Hearts were 6-1. As a result, they make 4S, but they'll never bid it after this start. Votes: 4C: 5, 5C: 3 Consensus: 4C. We still go minus, but so it goes. |12) Both white, IMPS | | x A10xx KJxx Jxxx | | LHO CHO RHO YOU | --- --- --- --- | 1H* 1S 1NT Pass | 2C 2S 3H Pass | Pass 3S Pass ? | | * opponents are playing blue team club; 1H is canape and 11-14. Dave: Ok, partner has a stiff heart and not more than 2 clubs. If he has something like AQJxxxx of spades and the diamond A or Q game should be about 50%. Not an unreasonable expectation. I will bid 4 spades. Roberto: I'm still passing. Weiss: Pass. Partner had several stronger ways to get to 3S. This way is strictly competitive; I'm not expected to bid here. Ed: Pass [I asked for a construction:] How 'bout AKQxxxx x xxx Qx? Rolf: 4S -- I trust my partner. HA is ok (but not great), DKJxx are great, CJxxx might help. S are solid anyway. Steve: i would have acted over 3H. i would have doubled, i guess. not having done that, i don't know what to do. the heart ace could be totally useless. if pard needed this hand, they could have bid 3S over 2C. i think i'll go quietly; maybe they'll bid again. Mike: Abstain/knew the hand. Marcia: Pass. Jeff at the table: Pass Jeff upon reflection: Pass. Partner is playing me for this much. He had several chances to bid more strongly. I'm allowed to put down decent dummies once in awhile :) Winning action: 4S, but that hasn't anything to do with the problem; partner was sandbagging with AKQJ10xxx x Qxx x. Votes: Pass: 6, 4S: 2 Consensus: pass. |13) both white, IMPs | | K9x Qx Axxx Q10xx | | LHO CHO RHO YOU | --- --- --- --- | Pass 1C 4H Dbl? ? Negative. Do you? | Pass 4S 5D ? | | OK, this is a thinly disguised theory problem. | Do negative doubles at the four-level create | forcing pass auctions? If of 4S, I think the | answer is clearly, "yes." If below 4S, I have | no clue. Dave: I don't know either. I double. Roberto: I'm cracking 5D, then 5H, whether a pass is forcing or not (I think it should be). Ed: I think they should [create forces]. I would pass expecting my LHO to bid 5H. Partner has already shown some distribution along with at least 4 spades by his 4S bid. If partner wants to bid over 5H I am not going to discourage him by doubling 5D. Rolf: X - I have minimum and don't wanna go further as my offense to defense ratio is really bad. Pass would be forcing. Steve: i don't care whether they do or not. i'm doubling. [He thinks double does create a force, though. --Jeff] Mike: This is a forcing auction. Double. The first double was sick. Marica: Double to warn partner off and because I don't have a fourth spade. We are in a force. The first double was right. Jeff at the table: pass Jeff upon reflection: unclear. Make an agreement about this situation. Winning action: shouldn't matter Votes: Double: 6, Pass: 2 Consensus: Pass is forcing. I think it ought not, myself, but I understand that this is an idiosyncratic view. I think that a negative double of 4H begins a 4S/4H exploration, which means that there ought be no forcing passes in my style. Same goes for if I were to have bid 4S; even red on white, I strongly believe that it ought not create a force. Let's assume, though, that pass is forcing. In that case, what ought to be done? The doublers look at their minimum with only three spades and double to discourage partner from bidding. I think that's shortsighted. If partner has only four spades, he will double. He'll only bid when he's 6-5. If that's the case, I have a great hand for him---the only wasted card is the HQ. If he bids 5S, I am worried about missing a slam, though with the expected bad breaks, maybe it won't make anyway. Why ought partner never bid with only four spades? Even if you don't believe the Law of Total Tricks, with 8 spades and probably 8, maybe 9 hearts, that's 16-17 trumps. If we make 11 tricks, they are getting obliterated. Even if the LTT is off by two tricks, and looking optimistically, let's claim 19 tricks available. They go for 500 if we make. So, the basic question here is "shall we discourage partner if he's 6-5?" The answer, I think, is clearly "no," so we ought not double, but pass. So, the consensus is to double, but I've convinced myself that this is wrong, that my reasoning at the table was correct. Funny hand. |14) Vul, IMP pairs | | Q10x Q10xx Axxx Qx | | Partner opens 1H. What's your plan? Dave: 2-only-hearts Roberto: 2H (If constructive) 110 (I imagine that was not available) 1N followed by 3H 100 3C (Bergen) 90 [*] 2H (random) 70 3H (limit) 30 [* Bergen plays 3C as 7-10 with 4 trumps, that is, a constructive single raise with four trumps. That has to be even better than any of the other choices were it available. Perhaps Roberto is used to playing 3C as non-constructive, 6-8+ish, as is pretty common, in which case his rankings seem sensible. --Jeff] Ed: Life is too tough in Israel if this is a problem. 10 HCP (with no jacks), four trumps and a doubleton with no huge flaws. Obvious limit raise. Rolf: limit raise Steve: well, with four trumps and the ten, i think i'm probably worth a limit raise. Mike: Limit Raise. Marcia: Limit raise. Close to 2H. Jeff at the table: limit raise Jeff upon reflection: limit raise...why did I really think this was a problem? Build a bunch of 5332 14-counts and see if 4H will make. I did. It did. This, therefore, has to be a limit raise. This was a rather roundabout way to convince myself of something that I thought was obvious at the table :) Is 1NT...3H better? The hand looks notrumpy, but my generated hands seemed strongly to suggest that 4H was better. Winning action: shouldn't matter; you won't get to the no play slam in any case, and you'll always get to game. Partner held x AKJxxxx x A10xx; Ed did a small simulation and found that that hand will make a slam vs. a limit raise about 22% of the time. Votes: 3H: 6, 1NT...3H: 1, 2H: 1 Consensus: limit raise Just for fun, I did some correlations. Numbers are how many answers agree (in principle) with each other; win is the actual winning action. Of course, these were selected as problems because I didn't get them right, so the correlations will be a little skewed, but what the heck. Prob DM Rob Ed Jeff Rolf SA MS MM Win ---- -- --- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- --- 1. CK CK CK CK Hx CK CK SA SA 2. p p 2C 2C p p p p p 3. X X p p p X p p X 4. 4H 4H 4S 4H p 4H p X X 5. 3S X-3S X-3N 3S X-3N X-3S 3S 3NT 3S 6. 2C xx xx 2C xx xx 2C xx xx 7. x p p x x x x p 6C 8. HA D (D) HA HA D Hx HA D 9. stop stop inv inv inv stop inv stop stop 10. p 3N 3N 5C p 4S 4N 4D 5C 11. 4C 5C 4C 5C 5C 4C 4C 4C p 12. 4S p p p 4S p Abs p 4S 13. x x p p x x x x x 14. 2H 1NT 3H 3H 3H 3H 3H 3H 2H DM Rob Ed Jeff Rolf SA MS MM Win -- --- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- --- DM x 6 3 6 6 8 7 5 7 Rob 6 x 6 4 4 10 3 6 6 Ed 3 6 x 7 5 7 5 6 2 Jeff 6 4 7 x 6 5 8 4 2 Rolf 6 4 5 6 x 4 7 6 4 Steve 8 10 7 5 4 x 6 7 7 Mike 7 3 5 8 7 6 x 5 4 Marcia 5 6 6 4 6 7 5 x 6 Winners for best partnership are Steve & Roberto, worst are Dave and Ed or Roberto and Mike. At first, I thought that many of these problems were too easy, that they were mostly just sanity checks, but I've been convinced otherwise by the range fo the responses. Only three problems had six or more agreements; two of them are Jeff & Ed solos. A couple seem to be pretty darn good problems. In particular, hand 10 had 6 different answers out of 8 respondants! Thanks all for the effort. --Jeff