From: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Subject: PSP #20.1
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date:  9 Sep 92 21:15:25 GMT

The answers to PSP #20...  I'll post one or two a day for a couple of 
weeks.  New problems around October 1 (assuming I can collect a good
set by then).  Submissions are welcome.  I'm also going to post the
names at the beginning of this post, but at the end of the rest of
'em (for reference).

The players:
(AH)	ahaas@ecn.purdue.edu (Alan Haas)
(BB)	Brett Barksdale <brett@porky.oce.orst.edu>
(CC1)	Chun Chang <chunchan@aludra.usc.edu>
(CC2)	chris.chambers@rose.com
(DESJ)	desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
(DAG)	dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com (David Gibbs)
(DK)	Dennis Kibler <kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU>
(DM1)	mytelka@enzyme.Berkeley.Edu (Daniel Mytelka)
(DM2)	davidm@Rational.COM
(EDT)	taylor@tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
(EKP)	Edward Pavelchek <ekp@mcnc.org>
(IL)	Ingvar Lagerstedt <LAGERSTEDT@oc.chalmers.se>
(IM)	Ilene Morgan <morgan@math.psu.edu>
(JLD)	jld1@ihlpm.att.com
(JOHN)	<john@picks.almanac.bc.ca>
(KP)	hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
(MARC)	marc@wrs.com (Marc Shepard)
(MOJO)	mojo@caere.com (Morris Jones)
(MSB)	msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
(NAIR)	nair@astro.ufl.edu
(PBHYF)	pbhyf!skataba@ns.PacBell.COM
(PRM)	Paul Markowitz <PRM@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
(PW)	Per Westling <c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se>
(PYNQ)	"George Jetson" <pynq@midway.uchicago.edu>
(RB)	rainbow@ihlpf.att.com
(RLG)	Raymond L. Gilbert <pi@wam.umd.edu>
(SGM)	Myerson <sgm@ssd.ray.com>
(WU)	Warren Usui <aardvark@snap.la.locus.com>


Problem 1.
Board-A-Match
Vulnerability Unknown
Dealer South

You, South, hold, S-7632 H-9874 D-72 C-K93

South  West   North  East
Pass   1D     3C     Dbl(1)
?

(1) Negative

What call do you make?



The bids:
(AH) 3NT.  When the inevitable X comes, bid 4c.

(PW) 4C.  Covers one of partner's losers.

(MARC) 4C.  I expect them to find their slam no matter what I bid, but a 7C 
sacrafice is a bit to high.

(EKP) 4C. Hope to make the next bid a shut out looking game bid.

(DESJ) 4C.  I'm not really an expert on bidding at "unknown vulnerability,"
but this seems reasonable to me at equal vul.  At unfavorable I would
pass.  3NT could conceivably muddy the waters, but more likely would
just make it easier for them to show strength.

(DK) 4c.   5c if favorable vulnerability.

(WU) 5C.  My hearts and spade will be worthless as trump.  Partner's
        probable shortnesses in these suits are worth a lot.  Besides,
	I'm tired of being called a wimp.

(RB) 5C.  We probably have about six losers in clubs while the
opponents rate to have a slam somewhere. Vulnerability plays
an important factor here. If favorable, I'd bid 6C. If
unfavorable, I'd bid 4C. The idea is to apply maximum 
pressure with safety.

(CC1) 5C    You know they are in slam range but don't tell them by bidding 6C.

(CC2) 5C.  Up the ante as they likely have slam somewhere.  I would like to
        know the vulnerability, 6C white vs red.

(MOJO) 5C. They must have a powerhouse.  Skips past 4NT too.

(BB) 5C. At all except unfavorable vulnerability. 4C at unfavorable. I would 
     much rather hold this hand when pard pre-empts in 1st or 2nd seat so I 
     would know that we have clubs and *nothing* else and be able to bid much 
     more sure of the situation. In 3rd seat, pard could have an outside 
     defensive trick. I'm deliberately staying 'low' in my bid so as not to 
     push them into a making slam.

(IL) 5C.  This is dependent on partners preemting style, if partner preempts
        very light 6C is probably better. Vulnerability is also of interest
        here...

(JOHN) 6 Clubs

(RLG) Pass.  At favorable vulnerability, I might be tempted to push on to 4C,
but since the vul isn't known, I'm willing to be conservative with this
worthless stack.

(PRM) Pass.  I don't have much defense but I don't have much offense
either.  Maybe my 4-4 in the majors means they have no fit.  Partner
did our job by preempting.

(PYNQ) P.	"Vulnerability unknown" ?  I'd say it could make all the
	difference in the world, but, assuming equal vul, I'd say we are
	clearly outgunned, and I'm not looking for a sacrifice.

(EDT) pass. I might push them to slam if I bid.

(PBHYF) Pass. Don't push them into a probably makeable slam.

(MSB) Pass. Natural.  :-)

(DM1) Pass. Impossible to determine sackage without knowing vulnerability. If 
      red, partner probably has something outside to compensate for missing KC, 
      so slam might fail. If white, opponents almost certainly have slam, but 
      it could be in  a minor.

(IM) Pass.  I'm tempted to raise clubs, but I'm afraid that (1) a high club
contract will get pounded; (2) the opponents are on their way to a poor spot
unless I take them off the hook; or (3) the opponents will get to a 4-3 slam
and make it (look at my majors), but will not bid it if I pass.

(DM2) Pass. The opponents auction is off to a poor start and they may not
         have a slam anyway. I certainly do not want to sac against a game.

(JLD) Pass.  The only way this is close to being a problem is if
they are vulnerable and we are not.

(DAG) Pass.  I might bid 5C at favourable vulnerability.

(KP) P.  Starting off with honesty, this is the bid I would make at the table,
although 4C, hoping for 4Maj-P-P-P has its attractions.  Pass, on the
other hand, lets it go 3NT-P-P-P, an auction I have no problems with either.

(NAIR) Pass.  Am I expected to get cute here?  There is a fair
possibility that they might find a 4-3 fit in a major & partner can
lead clubs, the hand could go out of control.

(SGM) Redouble. I want a club lead against whatever contract West will play.

The totals:
3NT	1
4C	5
5C	7
6C	1
PASS	13
XX	1

Answer:
  This problem came from Alan Le Bendig's Monthly column on Tournament
Appeals.  The complete hand & auction...

          KJ5
          Q
          53
Q94       QJ76542   AT8
A53                 KJT62
AKQ984              JT6
A         7632      T8
          9874 
          72 
          K93

South  West   North  East
Pass   1D     3C     Dbl
Pass   4C     Pass   4H
Pass   4NT    Pass   5H
Pass   6D     All Pass

Le Bendig says,  

  [At the table] the double of 3C was not Alerted.  South maintained 
  later that had he been Alerted to the negative double he might have 
  bid 5C, making it difficult to bid their slam.

  First of all, the committee dealt with the failure to Alert by reminding
  East-West of their obligation to Alert and cautioning them to comply in
  the future.

  The committee felt that South was experienced enough to know that this 
  was probably a negative double.  In a nationally rated event very few 
  (if indeed any) pairs end their negative doubles below the three level.
  South made no effort to check the opponents' card (which was properly
  marked) or ask any questions.

  Furthermore, the committee felt it preposterous to claim that 5C was
  "routine".

[ This hand was an experiment.  I was somewhat curious to see how routine 
  5C might be.  7 out of 27 doesn't seem to be "routine" to me.   Of course 
  there were a couple of other panelists who might have bid 5C at favorable 
  vulnerability, but LeBendig didn't give the vul.  ]
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge