Coelacanth

A common bridge puzzle is "what's the fewest HCP required to make a cold grand slam?" or the like. Of course the deals are always contrived. Or are they...? This showed up in the hand records last night. [hv=pc=n&s=sak84h8d952cak985&w=sqjhq5dq743c76432&n=s75hat742dakt86cq&e=st9632hkj963djcjt]399|300[/hv] NS have 14 HCP opposite 13, and with a successful diamond guess are cold for 7NT on any lead. Of course, if they guess wrong they are going down a lot if the opening lead was a heart, but who would lead away from Qx against 7NT? Not that any of the other suits look particularly attractive... As an aside, how would you bid the hands (South is dealer)?

The first two replies are interesting. I was sure that my partner's bid was either a cuebid in support of hearts, or natural and to play. Unfortunately, I didn't know which. If you think that partner's bid is natural and NF, you have a clear pass, I think. If you think that partner has made a cuebid supporting your hearts, what call do you make? 6♣ seems normal if you deem this hand slam-worthy after partner's sequence, but do you? If not, you retreat to 5♥, I suppose. If you don't know what partner is doing, what's the best bid to cater to all possibilities? Or, to rephrase that question, what's the best bid to avoid a disaster? I figured that if partner was cuebidding and I bid 5♥, he would either pass or raise. If he didn't have hearts and wanted to play in diamonds, I figured he'd take me back to 6♦. Of course, when I rebid hearts, he thinks I have a ton of hearts. Partner's actual hand was ♠x, ♥Ax, ♦AKQJxxx, ♣Kxx. He passed when I bid 5♥; this contract was not a success. 6♦ will make if clubs are 3-3; I'm not sure if they were.

IMPS, short matches [hv=pc=n&e=sqt84hjt72d8caq73&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2sd3s4hp5dp]133|200|[/hv] Some questions about this sequence: Would you have bid 4♥? Any consideration of Dbl, 3NT, or anything else? What hand type does partner have for his 5♦ bid? Is 5♦ forcing? What call do you make?

A general question inspired by a specific situation that happened in the club last night. Law 42 defines dummy's rights, and 42B1 specifically prohibits dummy from enqiring about a defender's possible revoke. Law 81 define's the Director's role, and 81C3 specifically empowers him to "rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner". South played in a ♥ partscore. At trick 11, he led a ♣ from hand and trumped it in dummy. East overtrumped. I was North, the dummy on this hand. I was pretty sure from the earlier play that East still had a ♣ in her hand. (She did, as it happens). The other three players, including the revoker, were oblivious to this fact. I was also the (playing, obviously) director. When East overtrumped, I was "aware of an irregularity". Is there a general rule of thumb to cover this kind of situation? Would you do anything differently if this happened at trick 3 instead of trick 11?

Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion. It's possible I've mis-remembered the hand and that the south hand didn't have the ♣Q. The reason I think this is that nobody who we showed the hand to thought it was a 2♣ opener. The auction at my table (I was East) was 1♥-1♠, 4♥-P. Making 5 on a club lead when hearts were 3-3 and diamonds 2-2. At the other table, my teammates bid 1♥-1♠, 3♥-4♦, 4NT-5♦, 5♥-P, making 5 for a push. Opener thought 4♦ was some kind of cuebid supporting hearts, but after finding zero keycards managed to stop in time. They apologized for not finding 6♦. I'm not sure 6♦ played by North is cold. East will lead the ♠Q and West has the ♠A.

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqt9764da2cakq5&n=skt983hdkjt9643c4]133|200[/hv] East deals, all vul at IMPS. NS will have the auction to themselves. What contract would you like to reach? What auction can get you there? Do you think you would actually find that auction at the table? If not, what contract will you reach?

The guy in front of me in line to register was not even on the prequalification list. He was a late addition to the field after someone else from his district presumably decided not to come. What I do think is interesting is that they qualify the exact same number of teams for Day 2 regardless of how large the field is on Day 1.

Not sure I understand this question. When the dealing machine dealt Board 37, it used the same hand records as for Board 5. Likewise for Boards 6 and 38. I'm not sure who operates the dealing machines; the TD seemed to think that he had failed to properly supervise the process of producing these unusual boards. (The boards had a plain white sticker over the usual sticker which contains the board number, and the 37 and 38 were just written in with a pen.)

Just thought I'd share this story. The NAOP (Flight B) had 37 tables, resulting in sections of 18 and 19 tables. During the second qualifying session I was in the larger section and for the first time in my life sat down to play Board 37. I made a truly horrible bid (overcalling 2♦ at unfavorable with something like ♠xx ♥Jxx ♦KQJxxx ♣Qx) and my partner ended up in 3NT for -300 when the opponents can't make anything. A nice cold zero. As we are taking out the cards for Board 38 (another first for me!) a TD who'd been hovering nearby swoops in and grabs the North cards from Board 37. He looked at the hand, consulted briefly with a colleague, said something like "that's not it" and replaced the cards. All of this without a word to any of us at the table. We proceeded with Board 38 and I started the auction with a Pass. The TD returned and told us to stop play and directed me to return my pass card to the bidding box. He then picked up Board 37 and directed us to shuffle and deal the cards from Board 38. "Trust me, go ahead and shuffle them". He then explained that during pre-duplication, Boards 37-38 were dealt with the same cards as Boards 5-6. Evidently someone playing board 5 at another table noticed this and called the TD. He explained that we should deal and play Board 38 and would be matchpointed against the pairs who would play the re-dealt cards subsequently. He also noted that we'd recognize the hands when we came to play Board 6, but since there had been almost no auction on Board 38 we could play that normally. He then told us that both pairs would receive Average Plus on Board 37. Great news for my partner and I, of course, but our opponents were not pleased with this news. We duly commiserated with them. Do you think this was the correct resolution? The TD seemed to be ruling Directors' Error under Law 82C, and adjusting the score under Law 12C2(a), but did not say so explicitly. Would any other Laws cover this situation? But wait, there's more! On the recap sheet at the end of play, for Board 37 instead of AVE+ it showed -300 and 12- matchpoints. (This was exactly average on a 25 top). No TD ever told us that we were to receive AVE instead of AVE+. This seemed to be an assigned adjusted score (assigned in matchpoints) rather than an artificial adjusted score. Any comments on this resolution?

A story from the NABC which may illustrate that not quite everyone has the hang of this "reserving of rights" deal. The auction proceeded 1♣ by S, 1♥ by N, 2NT by S, 3♦ by N, alerted by South. I, sitting East, probably should just have passed quietly (I had no interest in bidding) but I'd discovered that people in this event were playing some weird things, so I was routinely asking about just about every Alert. I received the explanation from South (New Minor Forcing, for those scoring at home) and promptly passed. At this point North turned to me and asked "can we all agree that there's been a break in tempo here?" I acknowledged having asked a question but denied a BIT, and suggested he call the director. The TD (Matt Smith) arrived and North duly explained what had happened. The TD then explained that asking a question in response to an Alert was a normal and expected thing and suggested we continue the auction. North slammed his cards back into the board and crossed his arms defiantly across his chest, refusing to continue. Only some deft diplomacy from the TD defused the situation.

In a pick-up partnership, both players reasonably experienced but not necessarily experts (in ACBL-speak, Flight B players) This is matchpoints, I don't remember the vulnerability. You hold ♠void ♥Q ♦KTxxxxx ♣AKxxx Partner opens 1♠ in first chair. Opponents silent throughout. You respond 2♦. (Or do you? remember you are playing "standard" and not 2/1) Partner now bids 3♠. I'm just trying to decide if my understanding of "standard American" is different than everyone else's here. What kind of hand should partner have for 3♠? What call do you make? What other calls are possible? Describe your interpretation of whatever call you choose (is it forcing, encouraging, non-forcing, drop-dead, or what?)

I may as well post the whole hand. [hv=pc=n&s=skqj85hjt65dkjt4c&w=shkq3da8653cjt975&n=sat64h8742dq97ca2&e=s9732ha9d2ckq8643&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s2n4s5c5spp6cppdppp]399|300[/hv] Edited to add: I just looked up the results for this board. It was played 26 times and EW went plus at every single table. 1090 (6♣X= ) x4 650 (5♣X +1) x16 500 x1 300 x1 200 x3 100 x1 With a cold slam their way, none of the EW pairs who sold out scored as many as 3 undertricks (unless that 500 is someone down 5 undoubled). At least 4 EW pairs failed to double. My opponents at the table earned their shared top, at least against this field.

This was my thought at the table and is why I chose to double. Appreciate the thoughts on the auction. Not sure why I upgraded to a 4♠ bid instead of making a limit raise. Had I bid 3♦, LHO would likely have bid 5♣ and partner would still bid 5♠. On the actual hand, doubling 6♣ leads to -1090. Partner has a reasonably sound (in the context of a 3rd-seat opener) but aceless 5440 hand. The opponents are 4216 opposite 0355 so you make only the trump ace. 6♠ would get doubled and go for at least 1700. This was the very first board of the session. -1090 scored 1.5 matchpoints on a 25 top. Lovely.

You're right, the first one was the ♦4. I'll edit the OP.

Matchpoints with your side vulnerable against not you encounter [hv=pc=n&n=sat64h8742dq97ca2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s2n4s5c5spp6cpp]133|200[/hv] Feel free to comment on the previous bidding. Would you have opened this balanced 10-count in first chair? What do you think of the 4♠ call; if you don't choose that, what instead? Anyway, now you're in the passout seat after LHO has bid 5♣ and then 6♣ in response to RHO's unusual NT. What's your call? Was partner's pass of 6♣ forcing?

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62h63d93ck96532&w=sa953hk9872da62cq&n=shaqt54dkqt87ct87&e=skjt874hjdj54caj4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1h2d2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] East declares 4♠. The play proceeds as follows: ♦9-♦A-♦8-♦4 ♣Q-♣-♣4-♣K ♦3-♦2-♦K-♦5 ♦Q-♦J-♥6-♦6 ♥A-♥J-♥3-♥2 Feel free to comment on the auction or the play to this point. With North to lead and declarer having lost four of the first five tricks, East spreads his hand and claims down one, with no clarifying statement. South immediately objects to the claim and summons the TD. East immediately clarifies, stating that he will cross to dummy (presumably by ruffing a ♣) and play a trump towards his hand. If N shows out, he will win the King and take the marked finesse through South. At this point the TD arrives and South acquiesces, agreeing one off. The TD is only at the table long enough to see that the players have seemingly agreed the result. As the TD leaves, North points out that if he continues a second heart, South's ♠Q will be promoted unless declarer trumps with the King and takes a first-round finesse against South's putative Queen-third. With due consideration to Law 70E(1), do you rule one or two down?

The original definition of a responsive double (to which few people still seem to adhere) is limited to the auction (1X) - Dbl - (2X) - Dbl Note that the opponents have bid and raised a suit (not bid two different suits) and that partner has made a takeout double, not an overcall. Current common usage would call a double after (1X) - 1Y - (2X) responsive. Whether you call it responsive, negative, or whatever, it's obviously for takeout. It would not occur to me that any double would be "responsive" after the opponents have bid notrump, but I agree the auctions are analogous.

This double is neither responsive nor negative (based upon my understanding of the definitions of those terms). I would expect the "standard" meaning of this double to be penalties (from my North American point of view; no idea what would pass for standard Down Under).

Was there misinformation? Yes, West's failure to alert East's bid constitutes MI. Was South damaged? That depends. I think it's clear that South is more likely to bid over 3♥ with the correct information, but how much more likely is not evident. It's certainly not the case that he would never bid on the given auction but would always bid with an alert. Some form of weighted adjustment seems in order. So you assign some % of 4♥ making however many tricks it made, and some % of the result you project assuming South bids. We would need to see West's and North's hands to know what that result would be. (It may also be a contract of 4♥ in the West, in which case obviously no damage and no adjustment.)

I think it certainly should include these adjustments. I think that more experienced players will routinely do this kind of upgrading and downgrading and will be unlikley to be put out if their opponent does it. Newer players will tend to evaluate by HCP only and will be more likely to complain if a 15-17 NT turns out to have 18HCP. Does this mean that the level of competition determines the level of disclosure that's required?

The ACBL Alert Procedure explicitly states "A jump to 2NT to show the minors or the lower unbid suits is not Alertable." I take this to mean that a jump to 2NT to show some other combination of suits is alertable. In 20 years of playing in the ACBL I have never encountered the flavor of "Unusual 2NT" that the OP's opponents claim to be playing. I would definitely alert it if I were playing it myself, and I would definitely expect an alert if someone perpetrated it against me.

Yes to an initial pass, although this is the hand that Flannery was invented for if you are playing it. I need to know a little about my partner's style of 3rd-seat opener. If partner is me, for example, this hand is a game force. I start with 3♥ and look for a slam unless partner signs off in ♠. If partner is prone to some crazy 3rd-seat specials then 2♠ may be too high. But I think I'd still bid 3♥.

Say E leads a ♠. N wins the ♠A in dummy and continues a small ♠, ruffing W's king. North now exits with the ♦K or ♦J. E wins and shifts to a trump. N plays low from dummy and wins cheaply in hand and trumps a ♦. Now the ♠Q is led from dummy; if W discards N discards a ♦, and if W trumps south overtrumps and trumps a ♦ back to dummy. Now another spade is (over)trumped to hand and N runs all the ♣. In the 3 card ending N will hold ♥AQ ♦K and E must come down to either ♥KT ♦A or ♥K ♦AT. Either way East makes only one more trick. If, alternately, E leads a trump on opening lead (a red card gives away a trick directly) declarer can play a spade himself at trick 2.

I must admit I'm puzzled by this turn of phrase. It seems meaningless to talk about 25A or 25B taking precedence over one another, as they apply to separate situations entirely. 25A applies to a (n attempted) change of an unintended call. ("I meant to bid 1♥ but the 1♠ bid card stuck to the top of the pile without my realizing.") 25B applies to an attempted change of an intended call. ("I bid 1♠ with my 5=5=2=1 hand but then noticed that one of my spades was actually a club, so my proper bid is 1♥." Before applying either of these laws the TD determines whether the original call was intended or unintended, and decides which law to apply on that basis alone. In the present case, it seems the original 1♠ call was unintended. 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed after partner has called, so the attempted 1♥ correction is an insufficient call out of turn. See Laws 27, 29, and 31. Or am I missing something?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj63hq6dqj73cj4&w=s84hkt72dt952ckq3&n=sqt72hj4dak864ct7&e=s95ha9853dca98652&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1sp3s4c4s5cppp]399|300[/hv] No ATB or bidding problem here, just an interesting hand. NS have 24 HCP between them. They have two strong nine-card fits. North, at his first turn, considered forcing to game but contented himself with a heavy limit raise. In the passout seat, South thought a long time before passing. (The choice was between passing and doubling.) Both decisions are quite close. EW have 16 HCP. In order to get into the auction at all, East must bid at the 4 level with unfavorable vulnerability with 8 HCP. Against best defense (not that difficult to find) no game makes for NS. 4♠ is down 3 and 5♦ is down 2. Not that anyone would bid it, but 3NT is down 5. EW are cold for 11 tricks against any defense in either of two strains. The above was the auction at my table. Full credit to EW for their intrepid bidding. Needless to say, +600 EW was a cold top for them. There were a number of +420 for NS, so maybe best defense is harder to find than I thought. (Although not cashing your four top tricks is pretty close to "worst" defense). I'm sure many of you have seen many similar hands, where the side with the balance of the high cards can't make anything. Just thought I'd share this one.