Wacko's Master Solver's Club

[wackojack]

Problem A

You are dealt at game all:
  K1076
  76
  AK7
  AKJ6
RHO opens 1 ; you double; LHO passes and partner bids 2 ; RHO passes
1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 )
Pass -(?)
What does partners double tell me?
What should I bid?

Problem B

You are dealt at love all:
  -
  K5
  KQJ98
  QJ10985

Partner opens 1   (at least 3 cards);  LHO overcalls 2 (Michaels 5-5+majors);   your bid?
1 -(2 ) -(?)
I decided to up the ante and raise to 5 .  All agree?
LHO then bids 5 ; partner passes

1 -(2 ) -5 -(5 )
pass -(pass) -?
What is my bid now?

Case for pass:
I have already pre-empted to 5 and one should not later add to a pre-empt.  Although partner has passed 5 a bid of 6 could easily be a phantom sac. We do not have an agreement that partners pass of 5 is forcing where I would have to either double or bid 6 .

Case for 6 :

(i) Partner might think that his pass is forcing.  If so I have to bid 6 with such little defence.
(ii) I doubt that partner did mean his pass to be forcing however look at the risks and rewards of each bid bearing in mind that this is an imps match.
Our club fit will be at least 10 cards and likely 11
Their spade fit will be 10 or 11 cards
So total tricks will be 20-22.
5 making scenario
If total tricks = 20: 5 makes and 6 is 3 off .  Bidding 6 loses 2 imps
If total tricks = 21  5 makes and 6 is 2 off .  Bidding 6 gains 4 imps
If total tricks = 22  5 makes and 6 is 1 off .  Bidding 6 gains 8 imp

5 1 off scenario
If total tricks = 20: 5 is 1 off and 6 is 2 off.  Bidding 6 loses 8 imps
If total tricks = 21  5 is 1 off and 6 is 1 off . Bidding 6 loses  4 imps
If total tricks = 22  5 is 1 off and 6 makes.  Bidding 6 gains 13 imps

This suggests that the potential gain in bidding 6 ! outweighs the potential losses. However, it is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the assessment of total trumps.   

[kenberg]

A:
What does 2 mean? Good question. But we could ask this: Does partner have any game forcing bid other than 2 (and other than just bidding some game)? Probably the answer is no. If he had bid 2 over the double that would be strong but passable.
 
So if he has four cards in the spade suit, why doesn't he just bid 4 ? Well, I suppose he could be allowing for me to have a strong hand without four spades. I have an 18 count with four spades, but surely if I had an 18 count with three spades I would also double.

Based on this, I think that I cannot be sure about partner's spade holding. Maybe he has four and is just allowing for the possibility that I don't, or maybe he does not have four and wants to see where we should play this.

How about if I bid 3 ? What's that? Whatever it is, my guess is that I will now get a better understanding of what partner has in mind.

B:
After  1 -(2 ) -5 -(5 ), I would not think a pass is forcing. I suppose it depends somewhat on agreements, but if I wanted to create a forcing situation I think I would bid 2S or maybe 3S (if 2 showed good values and diamonds, I might want to do that with 2 or I might want to just bid 3 , presumably a fit  and short spades) over 1 -(2 ). The actual auction 1 -(2 ) -5 presents them with a guess, they guessed 5 , I now hope that they guessed wrong and I pass.
As to who has what, who knows? But pard could be 2=4=3=4.  If so, I probably get a heart trick. Maybe we get two tricks in the minors, maybe not.   I suppose I could have been really clever (clever if it works!) and bid  2 over 2 . A lead of the A, if partner has it, might improve our chances of beating 5 . I try not to be that clever.

[Masse24]

Addressing only part A for now.

I think the question you meant to ask is what does 2 mean?
It means you can go slow. I like to play it as a game-force, but I know that is not universal.

Anyway . . . I simply rebid 2 for now. Forcing. Partner's cuebid promises another bid (and as mentioned earlier, for me a GF).

[wackojack]

Problem A
1 - (x) - ?

My approach is to look at all responses that partner could make and perhaps by a process of elimination guess what 2  means:

1     3 card  suit no  stop  0-9HCP
          3 card  suit  stop      0-5HCP
          4 card    suit                  0-6 HCP  (or fewer with 5 card  suit)
2     4 card  suit                   7-9 HCP
3     4 card  suit                  10-11HCP (of fewer with 5 card  suit)
4     4? or 5 card  suit          12+HCP

So all that remains are:
4 card  suit  game force (questionable)
3 card  suit no  stop 10+HCP

My hand is
  K1076
  76
  AK7
  AKJ6
 and so with 18HCP and opener 12+ there is only room for 10HCP with partner.  So it has to be 10HCP with no  stop.

So I imagine partner having 3=2=4=4 shape with 10HCP, no top honour in  ,  and so the 2 cue is like a reponsive double.  If this analysis is good, (or not good) what is my best bid?

[Masse24]

I think partner could very well have four spades but just wants to hear what we have to say. Cuebid being invitational plus? Yes, I think that is expert standard (though I have often played it as GF).

The good news: Partner promises another bid.

I do not think that 2 now promises five.

Ken's 3 absolutely forces to game, but expresses doubt as to strain, putting the onus back on partner. So maybe that's best? It surely would deny five spades.

I would be fine with either of those choices.

[wackojack]

1 - (x) -2 -p
?
I think 2 is definitely wrong because it shows a minimum take-out double and I have 18HCP.
Also I think that 3 is looking for a  stop for 3NT.  Partner at best can have  !HQxx and is looking for me to have  Jx.  I do not have  !HJx so a notrump contract is out of the question.  I can also see that in a suit  contract we have 2  losers off the top.  So it comes down to playing in 5 and losing no further tricks or playing in a Moysian 4 where I am allowed to lose 1 more trick.  Since in 5 we still have to play out the spades for no losers it must be that the Moysian 4 is more attractive than 5 . 

Does that make sense?  So I took the plunge and bid 4 .  I will leave that hanging for more discussion before I tell you how 4 went.
 

[kenberg]

1 - (x) -2 -p
?
I think 2 is definitely wrong because it shows a minimum take-out double and I have 18HCP.
Also I think that 3 is looking for a  stop for 3NT.  Partner at best can have  !HQxx and is looking for me to have  Jx.  I do not have  !HJx so a notrump contract is out of the question.  I can also see that in a suit  contract we have 2  losers off the top.  So it comes down to playing in 5 and losing no further tricks or playing in a Moysian 4 where I am allowed to lose 1 more trick.  Since in 5 we still have to play out the spades for no losers it must be that the Moysian 4 is more attractive than 5 . 

Does that make sense?  So I took the plunge and bid 4 .  I will leave that hanging for more discussion before I tell you how 4 went.

Wait. We have a typo somewhere.
It was, in the initial post:
 
1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 )
Pass -(?)

now it is

1 - (x) -2 -p
?

I am assuming the original post was intended, the second one is a typo.

So I stick with
1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 )
Pass -(?)

I don't think 2 shows a minimum.  Let's start with the question: Why didn't partner just bid some number of spades?
One possible reason is that he doesn't have four spades. Another possible reason is that he has four spades and a good hand, so he figures that before he jumps in spades he wants to make sure I have four.
At any rate, I have a great hand and we will play this at least in game. I don't think 2 is passable after he bid 2 .
Most likely, we will soon learn we have a spade fit and bid that game. The opponents have something to open the bidding with, so slam is still a bit remote, although it's possible if pard has A, or the Kx as long as he is the declarer.
But we start by finding the right strain, later we can see, perhaps, if slam is possible. 2 gives us room  and maybe it is best. If pard, over 2 , bids 2NT I probably just raise to 3NT. He should have no difficulty making it. If he raises 2 to 4 I could bid 5 . That presumably says that if he has the A we should have a shot at 6 . I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

I'm no longer so fond of my 3 call. This is a once in a decade situation where Rho opens 1 , I have an 18 count, and pard has enough values to bid 2 . in such situations, it's good to keep it simple. 2 confirms I have four spades, we will see where we go from here.

[wackojack]

Sorry about the typo Ken.  Quite right the problem was:
1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 )
Pass -(?)

You ask the question:
 "Why didn't partner just bid some number of spades?
One possible reason is that he doesn't have four spades."

That was something I thought too and came up with "3 card  suit no  stop 10+HCP"
Thus if partner has 3 spades and 10-12HCP  and 2 is bid it should not be forcing to game opposite a minimum take out double.  That is why I think a bid of 2 by me would show a minimum take-out double.

[Masse24]

But if you begin with the premise that advancer's cuebid promises another bid, then jumping with extras seems counterproductive. Partner is asking for a description of my hand, so I do so at the lowest level possible since it's forcing. We also want to allow partner the space to tell us why he cuebid.

[Masse24]

Problem B:

I prefer an immediate 4 response, rather than 5 . Bring partner—at least a little bit—into the conversation.

Although you refer to your 5 as preemptive, and it is, you also bid it to make. However, your partner did not know you were this strong. Since you had a limit+ raise available to you (2 for me), it will be viewed as preemptive to opener and his Pass should never be considered forcing.
 
As for what I would bid now? 6 .

[wackojack]

Sorry if this thread has gone a bit cold but I left replying until the official MSC had closed and dust settled.

  Todd wrote
"But if you begin with the premise that advancer's cuebid promises another bid, then jumping with extras seems counterproductive. Partner is asking for a description of my hand, so I do so at "the lowest level possible since it's forcing. We also want to allow partner the space to tell us why he cuebid."

This is certainly not a universal premis.  On example is 1 - (1 ) - 2 -(2 )  Advancer's cue bid of 2 certainly does not promise another bid if partner bids 2 .

I stick with the belief that in the original question  1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 );  Pass -(?)   that 2 would show a minimum.

At the table I decided that my best chances were in 4 so I bid it directly and partner passed.  The 2 hands were:

K1076;  76;  AK7;  AKJ6  and dummy had  AQ8;  Q3;  J1098;  7542  A little bit light I think for the 2 cue but shape and no  guard as expected.

LHO's 2 lead went to RHO's King who returned the 8 .  I decided I didnt need to try the finesse immediately and so took with my  Ace and then led 6  to my Q  both opps played low cards.  I then played 8  and RHO popped up with    Q and I took with my Ace.  I then played 7  to my ace in dummy and both opponents played small spades.  This is the position now:

  K10;  6;  K7;  KJ6....................  8;  Q;  J109;  754

How do you play this?  Hint this is a "Poco" type problem
 

[kenberg]

I'll give the play a shot in a bit, but first the bidding. For me, your pard's hand is not remotely close to a 2 bid. If the Q were the A then yes. I can see a possible reason for doing so if the agreements were as follows: First he bids 2 , then, after what will often be 2 by you (as far as he knows) then he will bid 3 , and the agreement this shows both minors.  Not a crazy agreement, but also not an agreement I have with anyone.

With your pard's hand I bid 2 . If the auction dies there I play 2 . If the auction goes on then next I bid 3 to show both minors and enough values to bid twice (or maybe I am forced to bid twice, as below).

So, if I am playing with my clone, after your double and their silence, it goes 2 , 2 (I am assuming you do this) and then 3 by me. Actually after the 2 I might  iD 4 . My 2 could have been on nothing so 4 says I have something. I would not call 5 a great contract but with at least most of the missing high cards with the opening bidder it's not the worst contract in the world. We need both minor suit queens onside.

At any rate, my first response speculated that the 2 might be because he was not sure the hand belonged in spades, and yes, that seems to be why he did it. I think he needs more values, but that seems to be his reason.


Now the play. I suppose I might check their cc to see about leads. It appears that they lead small from 3 or 4 to the J, but might as well check, maybe they lead third from Jxxx. I am inclined to place Rho with six hearts because of the non-bid of 3 on my left, but then again they are vul so maybe it's just sensible restraint on his part. I also might check to see if they are playing Flannery. If they are then Rho will not have four spades and five hearts.


What are we to make of the defense? Rho seems to not be worried that I might toss a on dummy's long !Ds.  But let's think about clubs. Could the club switch be on a stiff? Yes, it could. Maybe it is.

If spades are 3-3 I can take four spades and four diamonds, and in fact I can do that if Rho holds four spades if I choose to finesse. That's a little tricky since Lho does not have much but he could have the J. Although he will not have both the j and the Q.  So let's see. After the D !j is covered by the Q suppose I go back to the board in trump and lead a small trump. If Rho has played small so far, including this third round,  I play the T. If it holds I cash the last trump dropping his J and claim 4+0+4+2 tricks. If it loses to the J now I assume the Q is on my right. I am only taking three spade tricks, not four, but they can take their heart trick, I ruff then next heart with my last trump, take my , finesse the .

So I think I will be making this if Rho holds either 3 or 4 spades. If he holds 2, so Lho holds 4, this line might not work so well.

Not foolproof, but a reasonable line I think. Except it assumes that Rho made a mistake. No reason to come up with the Q. Stiff? Well, perhaps.

[wackojack]

Thanks Ken for the analysis.
Abpout the opps:  They play Acol 12-14 no trump standard carding 4th and 2nd highest fro no hon.  South is a very good player.  This was a local league match played on Realbridge.

One immediate conclusion must be that South's Q play must be a singleton.  It would be stupid I believe to play Q from Qx(x) seeing J1098 in dummy.  What to make of the 8 lead then?  If not from  Q108  then South to have 11HCP has to have  !HAKJ and  !SJ.  Also RHO cannot have 4 clubs because the 8 cannot be 4th highest but could be from !CQ108 or 983. So possible distributions can only be 3613 or 4513 if opps are carding according to their agreements. 

Does this give a clue on how to play the spades?

[kenberg]

I was wondering how good the opponents were. Now I assume they are good.
One thing this means is that the K at T1 could be from AKJxx(x). He is aware of his pard having very little and so could try to muddy the waters. The same applies to the switch to the 8. He doesn't know exactly what my issues are, but he might well decide to make me guess early about clubs. I would not assume that he is trying to clarify his club holding for his partner since that would also clarify it for me.

It would also be good to have an idea of where they draw the line between opening 1 and opening 2 , assuming Rho has six cards.

But I still like the idea that if, after the play goes JQKx, I assume that Lho cannot hold the J, the Q, and the Q. So I go back to the board with the Q and lead a third , playing the T if Rho play low. If Lho wins with the J, then are 3-3. The take a , I ruff a , I assume the Q is on my right.  Seems reasonable after Lho shows up with an inferred J and J. So I get 3+0+4+3 tricks with the finesse. If it's wrong, well I have been wrong before.

I guess I assume Rho would not open 1 on 5 or 6 to the AK and an outside stiff Q. With 8 cards in   it's a 2 opening, with five hearts I think it's a pass. So I plan to take 4+0+4+2 tricks if the T holds, and I plane to take 3+0+4+3 if the T loses to the J.

Added: I have changed my mind about how I would bid your pard's hand. Yes, I would start with 2 in response to the X, but if you then bid 2 I would bid 2 . That should show strong three card holding I think.

Also this hand makes a good case for why pard should not bid 2 over the double. Doubler has an 18 count and still both 5 and 4 are very iffy contracts. Even if the 2 isn't a game force it is strongly game encouraging  will get us to game whenever pard has an 18 count, and maybe when he has less. And that's optimistic. Maybe 4 makes here, but it's a bit iffy.

[Masse24]

I have no idea how I continue to play the hand.

  Todd wrote
"But if you begin with the premise that advancer's cuebid promises another bid, then jumping with extras seems counterproductive. Partner is asking for a description of my hand, so I do so at "the lowest level possible since it's forcing. We also want to allow partner the space to tell us why he cuebid."

This is certainly not a universal premise.  On example is 1 - (1 ) - 2 -(2 )  Advancer's cue bid of 2 certainly does not promise another bid if partner bids 2 .

I stick with the belief that in the original question  1 -(dbl)- pass- (2 );  Pass -(?)   that 2 would show a minimum.

Two completely different animals. One (the direct seat overcall of 1 ) shows a minimum of around 7 HCP. The second (direct seat takeout double) promises an opening hand or close to it with shortage in opener's suit.

Mike Lawrence, in his book, Complete Book on Takeout Doubles writes:
"A cuebid is not forcing to game.  It shows invitational points or more. A cuebid says you have one of two types of hands:
1.) You have a hand that is clearly worth a game force and you cuebid to see which game is best.  It is possible that you will reach a slam, although that is unlikely.
2.) You have an invitational hand with two suits you wish to investigate.
When you have such a hand you can’t afford to bid one of the suits because you may guess wrong.  Almost always, your two suits will be the majors after your partner doubles a minor.
Here is another way of interpreting this rule for cuebids:
If you cuebid and then bid a new suit or notrump, it is forcing to game. If you cuebid and then raise partner’s suit, it is invitational."

So:
(1 ) - X - (P) - 2
(Pass) - 2

The 2 bid is forcing. But if advancer now bids 3 (suit agreement), he is saying that all he had was the limit raise points. If opener had a minimal double then 3 may be passed. See below:
(1 ) -   X - (Pass) - 2
(Pass) - 2 - (Pass) - 3
(Pass) - Pass - (Pass)

Although Mike Lawrence goes on for over 300 pages in his Takeout Doubles book, a far shorter summary is linked. Audrey Grant's method. Only a half page about the cuebid by advancer, but pretty much states the same as above. Link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xClqikvOKKQDMX4W5I7HUHfmsm92AEG3/view?usp=sharing.

Also, as Ken mentioned, your partner's cuebid was just plain wrong. That is nowhere near a cuebid.