[Jinksy]

(Individual, IMP scoring)

1)

---

Do you protect?

2)

---

What do you lead?

(this isn't meant to be a trick question - 8 months ago I would have reached for a ♥ without thinking, but Bird and Anthis's book left me really uncertain on this kind of hand)

3)

---

Do you X? Would you have Xed when the bidding first reached you?

4)

---

Right place, but I suspect not the most sensible route. Starting from the top down, which bids would you change, and to what?

5)

---

How would you rank X, 4C, 5C, other?

[PhantomSac]

1) Absolutely balance with 6 hearts and a decent hand.

2) Unread the book A heart is so automatic here, your best chance to beat 1N is to start setting up your 5 card suits. I am sure a simulation would agree. It is with bad holdings in 4 card suits that you should look to lead elsewhere/passively, that has always been true. Of course on this hand you don't even have a good alternative lead.

3) I don't see how you could double. Whether or not to make a neg X is w/e, I'm sure passing is fine (I actually chose to make a neg X, could not resist the perfect shape, but I wouldn't be surprised if partner overbid after that.)

5) X=10, everything else = negative infinity.

[whereagles]

1. Not gonna open a can of worms. PASS

2. Heart. Probably a Bird/Anthias type sim would rate this as best. If you had a tenace like AQJxx, then you might try and get a lead from pard. Actually, the big question here is ace or small

3. Dbl. They're not making an overtrick and could easily go a lot down. Your kings sit over the strong hand after all.

4. 3H seems strange. If North bids 3NT instead, maybe South can invite with 4NT.

5. Dbl = normal. 3D = "all eggs in 1 basket" syndrome. 4C, 5C = not in 2014.

[Zelandakh]

1. Yes 2♥
2. ♥x
3. X over 2♦.
4. Change 6NT to 4NT; 3♠ to 4♣; 3♥ to 3NT; 3♦ to 2NT
5. X is clear.

[foobar]

1) 2♥
2) ♠8
3) X. Would have made a negative X first time around
4) Would have bid 3N with ♣ stopper
5) Clear X (unless desperate to win result based argument )

[hrothgar]

I screwed up both the slam hands.

On the first, we had the following auction

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♦
3N - 4N
P

Holding a 13 count and a wide open spade suit, I chose to pass the quantitative invite.
4N + 2 scored very poorly when no one found the spade lead.

On the second, the auction proceeded as follows

(1♣) - X - (1N) - 2♥
(P) - 5♥ - all pass

I intended 5♥ to ask about trump quality, however, it was undiscussed and partner didn't read it the same way.

[Siegmund]

1) I might have opened it 2H but no way am I sticking my nose in again now.

2) I stick with the standard heart.

3) Double first time is reasonable. Pass now.

4) North might bid 3NT rather than 3H but I see why he's nervous.

5) Unanimous.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 no, 2H direct is ok, but I am not going in now
#2 heart
#3 I am passing now, making a neg X is ok, I was afraid someone would have doubled my 3S bid, it was based
on Qx, had no other sensible idea at this point in time
#4 3H should show 55, what is wrong with 3NT, and why dont I show 3 card support?
Also how about making an inv. raise of 3NT? At which point in time opener showes add. values?
The 6th diamond is nice, but if opener is 55, a single in diamond is at least a possibility.
#5 X, what else?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ccnmnm]

1) Yes you need to bid 2♥. Even if they have 23 HCP between the two of them, your side has 17 (partner has 9). You should be able to make 2♥ or just -1 with the worst case of 9 points with partner. They will not dbl you with imp scoring, and also they might get pushed too high in ♦.

2) Have not read that book, so it would be a standard ♥ lead for me (the 3 of ♥, or 4th best for me vs NT).

3) I would dbl 5♦ in matchpoints for sure, since I have 2 potential defensive tricks sitting behind the stronger opponent, and partner better have something as well for bidding 3♥ on his own.

It is a tougher call in IMPs because partner could just be bidding to 3♥ with a long suit, so they might only go 1 down. In this case, the extra 50 points might not be worth taking the risk of them making it with a freak hand (♥ void somewhere and an ace covering one or both of your kings for example). Knowing what my partner could have to bid up to 3!h makes me shy away from dbling 5♦ in IMPs.

Also, I would not dbl 2!d. I think you need a bit more points to dbl, maybe another Q in a long suit would be nice. That keeps your partner from getting too excited. Do you really want partner to jump to 3N or 4♥ with 16 points and an unbalanced shape shape? Also, p will not bid his/her 3 card ♠ on your dbl, so it is unlikely you will find the ♠ part score if partner is also weak.

4) The bidding should at least go 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3NT: I think 3♥ must show 5. You don't want partner going into an ace call after 3♥ and then landing up in 6♥ counting on getting some ruffing tricks.

Now it is important to see that an ace call will not help you! Suppose partner shows 2 aces (the best), but no ♦Q. Ex: If you play 4♣ (Gerber) - 4♠ (2 without ♦Q), then you are a little stuck.

Now think about what hands partner has to make 6NT a good contract:
First of all, you need a 5422 hand, 5431 is very unlikely given the NT bid, but 5413 is quite likely which is bad for you.
KQ♥, and 5422,
KT♥, and 5422,
K♠, K♥, 5422
K♠, QT♥, 5422
K♠, KQ♥, 5422
QJ♠, KQ♥, 5422

Then think about what hands partner could have to make 6NT a bad contract:
Qs in majors, 5422
QJ ♠, Qx♥, with or without J♣, 5422
QJ♠, J♣, 5422
K♠, J♣
almost all 5413 hands: partner could have a singleton♦, with Axx in ♣ to bid 3NT.

There are a lot more losing options here where 6 goes down. If your system is 4♣ gerber, then I might bid 4NT (quant) at this point. With 4 quick tricks, 2 cards in partner's long suit when there could have been 1, you can go for 6♦ (safer than 6NT in IMPS) or 6NT.

Now if you play 4♣ as cuebid, then you are golden: 4♣ (showing ♣K) - 4♥ (skipping ♦, denying a shortness in that suit) - 4♠ - 5♥ - 6♦ - (potential correction to 6NT)

Conclusion:
If you play 4♣ gerber: 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3NT - 4NT - 6♦ - (6NT)
If you play 4♣ cuebid: 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3NT - 4♣ - 4♥ - 4♠ - 5♥ - 6♦ - (6NT)

5) double. If partner bids a suit at the 3 level, I will bid 4♣, showing support, strong hand, and ♣control. I could go down with 0-2 points with partner, but that is very unlikely compared to the utility of being able to reach slam. If my partner jump bids 4 of a major (showing at least a good 9 points), I will ace call and try to find the trump Q and A if needed for slam.

[MrAce]

1-yes 2h
2-small h
3-I don't dbl 5d
4-I have no answer
5-double!

[Jinksy]

Given the above responses, the hands I'm uncertain of or surprised by the responses to are 4 and 5.

On 5), I didn't anticipate the X doing much good. It feels like there's a decent risk P will pass and we'll take them for 3-800 with 6-2200 available our way. If we had some decent system after the X it would gain more, since we'd have space to explore, but in an individual tournament I doubt we'll be able to confidently use the space. To me, 5♣ was a workman's bid, probably showing a void, and asking P to bid something sensible (which I planned to respect).

I defer to the consensus, but would like to hear more about why double on a void is so popular here. Would anyone's answer be different at different vul, where P would be more likely to pass?

On 4), I was N, and was really stuck for a bid after 3♦.

I agree with everyone that 5♥ should show 5-5, but it seemed like a lesser evil than bidding 3N, which could easily have no play on the obvious ♣ lead, and feels unlikely to be a good game if P doesn't have some extras for her GF and/or a club fragment too. Disregarding slam auctions for a moment, if P has 3♥s and nothing in ♣s, I expect the Moyesian to play as well or better (give P something like her actual hand without the K♦. With something in ♣s and a ♠ fragment, P might well bid a nebulous 3♠, after which I can bid 3N better (I think) expressing unease about my own ♣ stop. Or, with a really good ♦ suit, she might occasionally pass my direct 3N when my controls might make 5♦ a better game.

For slam purposes I'm more worried about overemphasising my Hs, but I might be able to suggest Ds or pull to NT further down the line.

[JonnyQuest]

Jinksy, on 2014-August-10, 14:41, said:

4)

---

Right place, but I suspect not the most sensible route. Starting from the top down, which bids would you change, and to what?

As others have stated, I agree with 3NT rather than the 3♥ call. But I am also curious why your partner chose the delayed 2 card ♠ preference rather than supporting your five card ♥ suit.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2014-August-11, 09:13, said:

On 4), I was N, and was really stuck for a bid after 3♦.

This is one reason I prefer 2NT (probably followed by 4♦ rather than 3♦ (probably followed at some stage by 4NT). Not only have you got more space but you also give partner the maximum chance of making a useful response. Of course I do not play 2/1 but it seems to me that the immediate 3♦ makes sense with this shape on a hand that is unwilling to move past 3NT but here is a little short-sighted.

As for the arguments against 3NT, sorry but I think it is the wrong thinking. Most of the time either partner will have something in clubs (even ♣xxx works if they split 4-4) or they will have enough quick values for us to grab 9 tricks or both games are going down.

[rogerclee]

1) Would have overcalled 2H, at this point definitely 2H.
2) 4th best heart, not a problem. Don't need to re-hash all the criticisms for why leading a dry ace is better double dummy than single dummy, but I would guess that a low heart is the best lead even double dummy.
3) Would have doubled the first time, now I pass.
4) 3N instead of 3H for sure (AT of clubs seems like a completely fine stopper). South is actually not too far from passing 3N, but anyway I would invite 4N which seems pretty descriptive (I have long diamonds and a balanced invite), and over that North can bid 6D. I don't really see anything too wrong with 6N, seems like they will seldom lead a spade, though 6D is better.
5) X is the only option.

Thought all 5 of these were absolutely clearcut except that making a negative double on hand 3 is a bit questionable.

[Wackojack]

Belated reflections on this deal in which I was declarer and let down my partner to the tune of 9 imps.

---

South led 7♠ to north's King, followed by the ace, South following with the 6. North then made the pressure play of the 3♣. 2 lines of play suggest themselves:

1. Play North for the king on the basis of the bidding. If it loses you are down, if it wins you will make.

2. Take with the ace and play ♥ KQ. If they break 2-2 then you make with an overtrick. If 3-1 and 3 with North then you make if A♦ is with South. Otherwise you are down.

The a priori odds without the indications from the bidding narrowly favour line 2 I believe. With the bidding it is virtually impossible for South to have both the A♦and the K♣so the odds on success with line 2 becomes 40 odd percent.

The lesson to me is that North's club play at trick 3 forcing me to an immediate decision shows quality and "sorted me out good and proper." Cockney expression

Comments:

[Wackojack]

Just realised that making the contract by finessing the club at trick 3 is not straightforward. If trumps break 3-1 I need to ruff out the K♣ on the 3rd round thus getting 2 diamond discards. If North has ♣Kxxx, then I cannot get a 2nd diamond discard on the clubs then I have to hope that hearts are 2-2.

So line 1 just gives you that extra chance when hearts break 3-1.

[gogo2711]

i have a couple of questions, i assume the lead is from doubleton? (not sure of the marking). if so, why didn´t N continue with spades killing your high spade(s) (he knows you hold QJ of spades from your nt bid)? if you only have one spade discard for the diamonds then you have to play for the club finesse (more likely than the diamond finesse) and from his point of view you make. also, if S holds K of clubs, why didn he just return club at trick two? what can he gain by playing A of spades? i mean, if S led from singleton he has to play low spade at trick two in order to bring declarer down, playing the ace has no benefits.

if you do take the club finesse and it holds, 3-1 trumps doesn´t bother you, 4-0 does. you have one ♦ discard on the A♣ and then you can play Q♠, if south ruffs, overruff and enter the hand with trump. if north has a trump you´re fine, if he shows out, there is still a chance for a diamond expas.

if you decide to not take the club finesse you should at least try to ruff out some clubs, maybe the king drops (although unlikely)

anyway, the first thing is what would sway me towards taking the club finesse.

[Wackojack]

gogo2711, on 2014-August-12, 05:51, said:

i have a couple of questions, i assume the lead is from doubleton? (not sure of the marking). if so, why didn´t N continue with spades killing your high spade(s) (he knows you hold QJ of spades from your nt bid)? if you only have one spade discard for the diamonds then you have to play for the club finesse (more likely than the diamond finesse) and from his point of view you make.

Because then there is no alternative but to take the club finesse so he drives you to the right line.

"if S holds K of clubs, why didn he just return club at trick two? what can he gain by playing A of spades? i mean, if S led from singleton he has to play low spade at trick two in order to bring declarer down, playing the ace has no benefits."

Yes I see that is even better.

"if you do take the club finesse and it holds, 3-1 trumps doesn´t bother you"

Yes I should have spotted that

"if you decide to not take the club finesse you should at least try to ruff out some clubs, maybe the king drops (although unlikely)"

The king does drop in 3 but when trumps are 3-1 it does me no good.

[gogo2711]

Wackojack, on 2014-August-12, 06:25, said:

Because then there is no alternative but to take the club finesse so he drives you to the right line.

that´s exactly my point. if he as a way of defeating the contract, he will do it. if he doesn´t he has to resort to mind games and let you make a mistake

[helene_t]

Jinksy, on 2014-August-11, 09:13, said:

On 5), I didn't anticipate the X doing much good. It feels like there's a decent risk P will pass and we'll take them for 3-800 with 6-2200 available our way. If we had some decent system after the X it would gain more, since we'd have space to explore, but in an individual tournament I doubt we'll be able to confidently use the space. To me, 5♣ was a workman's bid, probably showing a void, and asking P to bid something sensible (which I planned to respect).

IMHO, when not having any agreements, it is better to dbl and then follow up with 5♣, which hardly can be misunderstood. I thought that 5♣ probably showed some very strong one-suited hand, analogous to (1banana)-3bananas. But assuming that 4♣ would show the majors and 4NT would be natural, 5♣ could also be one major plus diamonds. So I passed the 6♣ bid in order to give you room to show long diamonds if that was what you had. Once you doubled I thought you probably would have bid your suit (encouraged by my forcing pass) if you had a one-suited hand. So I bid 6♥. You might have had diamonds+spades but in that case you would probably correct to 6♠ which I would be ok with. Without the intervening 6♣ bid I could have bid 5NT and you could bid 6♣ then, not sure if we would have found that.

I am not sure if we would have reached slam if you start with a double. Your LHO would bid either 5♣ or 6♣ which you presumably would double again, I don't think I would have bid slam in that case.

But yes I agree that dbl with a void is a bit scary when you honour structure is not particularily defensive.