DISTRICT 8 SOLVERS FORUM -- bridge bidding problems

I am beginning to feel like the District 8 roving reporter. We have just received our papers and Heather and I are off to the land of Octoberfest, kraut and schnitzel. I promise to write my next column from my wireless laptop, with a stein full of Becks, from the base of the Brandenburg Gate. For this column, though, I will rejoice in all things American before my foot leaves red, white and blue soil.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	9	52
4D	80	3	25
2NT	70	2	0
3H	70	1	8
1S	70	1	15

1. IMPs, none vulnerable

I have not disagreed with a panel so seriously for quite some time. I will start out by noting that not one person made the “system bid” of 3NT, which in Bridge World Standard is defined as similar to the 1H-4H triple raise, but “showing some defensive strength.”

I didn’t make that bid because I thought this hand had too much playing strength. The panel probably chose not to bid 3NT because they feared their partner wouldn't know what it was, and not many of us stay up nights studying Bridge World Standard. If you were the 1H opener and heard partner respond 3NT, would you have passed for an absolute disaster? It all points to the importance of knowing what you play.

That brings us back to a choice between underbidding (the jump to 4H), overbidding (Jacoby 2NT or a 4D splinter) and probing (just about everything else). The 4H bidders got the top score. See if you're convinced by their arguments:

Dodd: “4H. This is close to a 4D splinter, but can't bring myself to do it, even in a bidding contest. Maybe West will try a save and give me a second chance?”

Paulo: “4H. 1S and 4D are fine trials to a possible slam, but game looks our best prospect. I bid it directly, so that opponents can't easily find a good save.”

Hudson: “4H. Bidding 4H may cause us to miss a slam, but I don't like making delicate descriptive bids (such as a splinter) with so few high-card-points and so many trumps. I don't want to help the opponents find a good sacrifice.”

Walker: “4H. I suppose this is a test of how far you’ll stretch to make a splinter bid, but this one is too light for me. Partner will expect a lot more than one quick trick and no other useful cards (the heart queen is essentially a wasted value).”

Several of the panel suggested that a Bergen raise followed by a boost to game would be a good way to show non-forcing high-card values but forcing playing strength. I agree, but this hand must qualify as a limit raise of the Bergen variety, so you lose the bonus sympathy points if you were going to start with the Bergen constructive raise.

Seng: “4H. Sure, there is some possibility of a slam, but is something esoteric like 1S going to place you in better position on the next round? Unlikely. Support with support; the only problem is how to support. Surely there won't be souls so aggressive as to splinter with a 7-count.”

Strite: “4D. Good enough to splinter, and splinter is a limited bid. An alternative is a BWS 3NT, which is a preemptive raise with some defense, but this hand feels even a little too good for that action.”

Kniest: “4D. Everything is a lie. 4D is closest to the point -- I have tremendous trick-taking potential opposite length in either or both minors, good trump support and the spade control. What we need is a bid to show a raise to 4H with long trumps and a control outside. Some people play 3NT for that, giving up on a relatively rare use for that bid.”

I wanted to give the splinter a higher score, but unfortunately, this bid puts quite a bit of pressure on your partner with no bidding room to explore. That’s why I like the simple 2NT forcing raise. Just about everyone is willing to bid game, so why not show a force along the way? In old-fashioned dummy points, you have 13, depending on how much you value Qxxxxx. Partner may very well expect a bit more from your hand, but if you follow with a gentle braking action, and partner still pushes, how can you be beyond a level of safety? If partner can tell you about possible black-suit shortness, it will vastly improve your hand. Not informing partner of your trick-taking potential seems like partner-less bridge in my book.

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

There is obviously a lot to say on this hand, as the sheer number of responses to this question displays. We have extra values, a positional heart card, a nice spade suit and oh, by the way, wonderful support for a suit partner has declared holding.

Hudson: “4C. Very tough. It is more important to raise clubs than to rebid spades. We may still be able to play in spades, if we belong there. Notrump might be right, but I can't find out. If partner passes my 4C bid, I will be unhappy, but I am not strong enough to force to game. Maybe I should bid only 3C to give us maximum room -- but that's such an underbid!"

Guthrie: “4C. A cuebid runs the risk of wrong-siding the contract. 3NT may be the wrong contract and anyway is a bit wimpy. Over 4C, with a weak hand and a doubleton spade, partner can attempt to bail out into 4S."

Seng: “3C. I think my call is a little wimpy, but with the probably wasted Heart King in the slot, I'm going for a positive score at matchpoints. Hopefully, if partner has anything (a lot of his diamond cards may be wasted), he may take another call. Or maybe it will come back to me at 3H and I'll try 3S then."

Paulo: “3S. To make the club slam, partner must hold two aces and five clubs, and trumps should break even -- a big shot. On the other hand, if partner has as little as a low spade and the suit breaks 3-3 or 4-2 we win, on average, one trick fewer in spades than in clubs, but we score better -- a good bet at matchpoints."

Kniest: “3S. I have a suit that can play opposite a stiff, and often goes for only one loser with that support. I have a known secondary fit, the Heart King is protected on the lead, and 4S seems the most likely game.

Walker: “3S. You can’t show everything at this point, and at matchpoints, I’m not willing to give up on spades. A cuebid is an overbid that delays your decision and doesn’t rate to accomplish anything. Over 3H, partner will bid 4C (unless he has the unlikely heart stopper), and all you’ve learned is that a potential club contract will now be played from the wrong side."

All of these panelists make valid points, the strongest of which is the idea of going for the biggest plus, which is in spades. Through it all, though, I can’t find a really strong argument against the cuebid. See if these panelists can offer stronger cases for the cuebid:

Dodd: “3H. Process-of-elimination bid, once I make the decision to commit to game. 3NT is too unilateral and 4C bypasses what could be our best game while understating the spade possibilities. North's next decision may be uncomfortable, but by bidding this way, at least we rate to garner some useful information about his major-suit holdings."

Strite: “3H. Is it worth potentially wrong-siding clubs to give partner a chance to show xx in spades? In matchpoints, I think so, since I don't want to play clubs. I'll bid 4S over either 3NT or 4C from partner."

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

We are at a bit of a loss on this hand, as we don’t know how much hooch partner had before gametime. We also don’t know if we are having a poor game. Both are very real factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether or not to go for the jugular. The vampires of the bunch suggest:

Seng: “Pass. Partner is just balancing in an almost mandatory balancing situation. I think they're going for 200. The shortest route to a plus score is five tricks."

Johnson: “Pass. Partner can't have 5 hearts so he must have 4 clubs -- maybe 4-4-1-4 and 10 or 11 points. I can't see game anywhere and I've got defense. I'm passing and hoping we go plus."

Strite: “Pass. +200 may be enough to win this board, even if 3NT happens to make. +800 is possible if 3NT is making."

Paulo: “Pass. If LHO has the spade ace or the club queen -- which is likely, after partner's initial pass -- it will be hard to trot out nine tricks before the opponents can take five. Besides, I like to be known as one who plays for penalties."

I would argue that partner's balance, red vs. not, is nowhere near "almost mandatory"’. Is he always going to come charging in here with a hand like KJx Qxxx x Qxxxx? What we do know is that someone at the table has sub-minimum values for his bidding, and although we know partner is light, we hope he didn't stretch too much. I like the comment about being the one who incites fear at the table, and I suppose this is as good a hand as any to establish that reputation.

Hamman MAY have been right. I should dock the non-3NT bidders' scores another 10 points for even the slightest suggestion that His Highness may have erred!

Kniest: “3NT. The biggest upside is that I might have seven peelers with a diamond lead, and partner's few cards will be working over the opener. No guarantees, but a good shot. Pass is possible, but they are odds on the have a 9-card fit, and could have 10. I wouldn't expect a second club to cash on defense; therefore, pass is pretty risky."

This is a well-reasoned argument, but I worry that 3NT is an awfully small target. If 3NT makes, then +800 on defense may be in picture -- say, two spade tricks, a ruff, some high cards, maybe an uppercut. On the other hand, if 3NT isn’t making, I still don’t believe that they are a favorite to make 3D. Unfortunately for Tom, he appears to have been taken out by his partner on this hand. I am surprised there was only one fish who chose to listen to her partner and bid her suit:

Walker: “4C. I’m not going to hang partner for making a bold balance. With his most likely distribution being 4-4-0-5 (he couldn't make a one-level overcall), a pass with so many clubs and such a weak, onside diamond holding is unforgivable."

Okay, Karen, we are all unforgiven. My question is: Which two entries is dummy going to have to finesse us out of our diamonds? If it's club ruffs, I guess the passers are in big trouble.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable

Either you make the "book bid" on this hand, or you took the fact that this is a bidding quiz to heart and took a zero for the cause.

When partner makes a Cappelletti overcall, he expects you to bid 2D, which allows him to now show his suit. The panel saw no reason to take any detours here, especially since they didn't like their fit for partner's most likely suits (diamonds or hearts). The man who submitted the problem, however, sees other issues:

Feiler: "I bid 2D at the table and partner passed. He had a fairly normal hand -- J3 A74 AQJ975 32. Of course, the diamond finesse was on and 3NT had nine easy tricks. Should partner bid 3D over 2D? Am I supposed to bid 2NT with the hand I had? I don't think I understand this convention."

2NT here would say "whatever your suit is, I have a great hand", but I don't think your hand is worth that strong a move, and you'd both be guessing from there anyway. Partner has about what he's advertised for a vulnerable 2-level overcall. Darn those preemptive 1NT openers! So I guess it's just one of those magically fitting hands that cannot possibly be bid correctly to the top spot ... unless maybe you're in a "Challenge the Champs" bidding contest and suspect that heroism is called for.

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

First, I have to congratulate the Solvers. This is four problems out of five where they've been right on target. Either our panel is slacking, or all the knowledge we're sharing is sticking. I prefer the latter and choose to take all of the credit.

On this hand, our panel was pretty evenly split, but I gave the top score to the doublers because of the 2 other panelists that chose to make the forward going 2NT call. And while everyone should have learned by now, the way that I assign points to scores is arbitrary and capricious, but hey, get over it. On this hand, our shape stinks, our high cards are crappy, and yet the panel says to bid. Can they make a good argument?

Hudson: “Double. Bad hearts and extra HCP with sterile distribution and stuff in their suit. What's the problem?"

Guthrie: “Double (your flexible friend), and blame partner if he takes the wrong view."

Walker: “Double. Might be only +100, but it could be more, and it’s better than being bullied into a minus score at the 3-level."

Maybe jumping on them right now is right. It will certainly serve to advance our reputation as a hair-trigger doubler, which we began establishing in Problem #3. Going for -470 every now and then can be a good investment if it talks your opponents out of balancing in the future.

I just don’t feel as sure about potential penalties here as I did in Problem 3. A 3H bid, however, is even more unilateral, as partner might have raised with only 3-card support. That leaves us with the choice of Pass, which is cowardly, but does allow us to find out whether or not partner wants to balance.

Dodd: “Pass. North still has a chance to bid. Why turn down a probable plus for an iffy one at best. I trust my partners to do the right thing in situations like this, especially after I've passed out their reopening doubles a few hands earlier!"

Kniest: “Pass. LHO couldn't double over 1H, so his hand contains a flaw, which suggests we shouldn't be going to the 3-level on this square hand. They've found their 'Law' fit at the right level. We have to obey the Law and not bid again. Double is shooting craps, and seems like an angry reaction to being outbid."

Paulo: “Pass. Several quacks in a flat hand don't enthuse me to go ahead of their higher suit. After all, the auction doesn't end with my call."

Seng: “Pass. If partner can't balance against 2S, where are we going? I think the real problem is on the next round after partner balances with a Double. If we're going to defend 2S doubled, I want a chance to win the post mortem when it makes."

I believe that partner will know what to do if I can show my hand. There really are quite a few negatives here -- flat distribution, soft honors, only one quick trick -- but all those high-card-points seem to make people want to bid. It's a shame that no one else chose my “save-a-level” 2NT call, or else I would be able to prop that up as clearly the correct action.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

Unfortunately, the panel seems to be a bit lacking on insight as to why they lead what they lead. I have processed their verbal diarrhea, and here is what I have:

Dodd: “Club King, because it's a lead problem. Why else would it be here?"

That is pretty much the sum total of the logic for the top vote getter. The panelists who chose it didn't exactly overwhelm me with their analysis. I guess I just don’t understand this absolute, go-for-the-throat lead strategy in the real world.

Declarer rates to be short in clubs, too, so even if partner has the Club Ace or Queen, you may not gain a trick with this lead. When partner has no club honors, you'll often cost yourself a club trick and give declarer a quick pitch for a spade loser. Whether or not the clubs cash and/or you get a ruff, you've probably accelerated the establishment of dummy’s suit. I think the hyper-aggressive club lead is playing up to the quiz format.

Trump Leaders: “Heart x, because we want to cut down the ruffing power in dummy."

I refuse to identify the heart leaders, as I believe they've been sniffing even more high-powered glue than the club leaders. While the heart lead seems highly unlikely to cost a trick, it will surely cost a tempo and is highly unlikely to eliminate ruffs in the dummy. Dummy cannot have three trumps on this auction, and 2-card support is even fairly unlikely.

So the choice comes down to a spade or a diamond. We won’t discuss which diamond to lead from xxx; you and your partner already should have an agreement about this. Here are the main arguments for and against each suit:

Kniest: “Diamond x. The Spade Ace is unattractive since there figures to be some spade length on your right. The immediate lead of a trump gives the timing and control to declarer. It's hard to see how a diamond can hurt unless they provide declarer with a fast pitch. I'll pay off to that."

Walker: “Spade Ace. It’s silly to lead a trump into the one-suiter, and either minor is attacking declarer’s source of outside tricks. The club king could work, but in the long run, I've found that shooting for a top on opening lead is poor strategy."

I can't decide which I hate more: leading aces or leading from xxx. I can avoid both by leading a small spade. Put everyone to the guess at trick one while still maintaining control. Yes, this might be classified as my previously disavowed all-or-nothing, "shoot-for-a-top" lead, and it might make me look like a real goat. But it just might get partner in for a quick club return, and I'll get the best of both worlds.

Mike Giacaman, St. Louis	580	Jim Diebel, Chicago IL	550
George Klemic, Bensenville IL	580	Paul Soper, Sierra Vista AZ	550
Gary Dell, Champaign IL	570	Martin Daoust, Montreal PQ	540
Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL	570	Mike Halvorsen, Champaign IL	540
Bill Rotter, Granite City IL	560	Dr. S. M. Sivakumar,	540
Frank Brunner, Park Forest IL	550	Bob Wheeler, Florissant MO	540
Tied with 530: Gareth Birdsall, Basingstoke UK; Leroy Boser, Elkhart IN; Mark Bumgardner, Carrollton TX; Eric Gettleman, Bloomington IL; Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL; Bruce Kretchmer, Boynton Beach FL; Verne Smith, Boscawen NH

Solvers Forum -- June 2005 Problems

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West

North

   East

South

3S DBL Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
953 K95 764 AK96 ?

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable

West

North

East

South

1S 2D Pass

3D

3H

Pass

???

What is your call as South holding:
65 A9 Q765 Q9765 ?

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West

North

East

South

Pass

Pass

1S 2D 2H Pass

3H

4D

4H

???

What is your call as South holding:
J8 A754 654 10932 ?

4. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

West

North

East

South

Pass

Pass

4S

5C

???

What is your call as South holding:
1032 64 AKQ103 943 ?

5. IMPs, none vulnerable

West

North

East

South

1C

1D

1S

Pass

???

What is your call as South holding:
KQ 63 AJ92 AQJ86 ?

6. IMPs, none vulnerable

West

North

   East

South

Pass Pass

Pass 2H Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
KQ654 1042 K73 K4 ?

West	North	East	South
1D	Pass	3D *	Pass
Pass	DBL	Pass	???

How the Panel voted (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 536):
	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Norman Athy, St. Louis	1S	4C	3NT	2D	2NT	Diamond x	490
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	4H	4C	3NT	2D	DBL	Club K	560
Sam Gumbert, McLean VA	2NT	3S	3NT	2D	DBL	Heart x	510
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	4H	4C	3NT	2D	DBL	Club K	550
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	4H	3S	Pass	2D	DBL	Club K	600
William Johnson, Farmington MO	4D	5C	Pass	2D	Pass	Club K	550
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	3H	3S	Pass	2D	DBL	Spade Ace	550
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	4H	3S	Pass	2D	Pass	Heart x	550
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	4H	4C	Pass	2D	DBL	Diamond x	560
John Seng, Champaign IL	4H	3C	Pass	2D	Pass	Spade Ace	530
Toby Strite, Mysiadlo, Poland	4D	3H	Pass	2D	DBL	Club K	570
Mike Tomlianovich, Bloomington IL	4H	4C	3NT	3C	Pass	Diamond x	410
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ	4H	3H	Pass	2D	Pass	Club K	570
Tom Kniest, University City MO	4D	3S	3NT	2D	Pass	Diamond x	510
Scott Merritt, Arlington VA	2NT	3H	Pass	2D	2NT	Spade x	520
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	4H	3S	4C	2D	DBL	Spade Ace	560