DISTRICT 8 SOLVERS FORUM

Greetings from the fifth largest democracy in the world, and one that is about to have its first-ever transition from one elected leader to a different one. If all goes according to plan, insha'Allah, the Nigerian president's hand-picked successor, will win the election-like event and your price of gasoline will not go further through the roof. But who cares about oil and our second child, when there is bridge to be played? So let's jump in to this month's bumper crop.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2H	100	7	35
Pass	90	6	14
2S	70	3	39
DBL	60	1	2
2C	60	0	2
1NT	60	1	4
3H	50	0	4

I play a simple game where you support with support, and going after the opponents white at the one-level doesn't usually pay off unless you have a mountain of trumps. Listen to how sensible the arguments are from the panelists who choose to raise their partner:

Walker: "2H. This is plenty with this hand, especially at matchpoints. Even the most aggressive counters can't value it to more than 10 support points, and that's not enough for an invitational-or-better 2S bid. Passing for penalties looks like +100 at best."

Strite: "2H. Heavy, but it's easy to take the low road at matchpoints with only three trumps, devalued spades and a stiff king."

Kessler: "2H. I'm not sure I understand the problem. It seems automatic to bid 2H."

Nelson: "2H. I doubt the bidding will end here. Lefty will probably bid 3D, or partner for that matter. At this point, I'm not treating my diamond king as full value."

All of these bidders seem to take the support-with-support concept as so central to their partnership bidding, that they barely mention any other action. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had over whether or not it's an overbid to make an invitational raise with a cuebid. I like 2S, as it gives partner the entire 3 level to make a game try. Another option is the "compromise raise" of a negative double, which was offered by one panelist:

Kniest: "Double. 2S is too rich with these values and just three trumps, so I'll double and convert partner's response to hearts to show a 3-card limit-raise. I hope his next bid isn't 5D."

That's one way to show support, and although it results in a longer (and possibly more error-prone) auction, its advantage is that it suggests a gentler raise than the 2S cuebid.

In the not-so-gentle department, most of the non-raisers on the panel chose to go for the throat:

Feiler: "Pass. I like to double when I have an invitational point range. Okay, the truth is that I just like to double, but invitational point ranges provide more ways to win."

Feldheim: "Pass. If North reopens with a double, pass for penalties. If he bids a suit, move towards game in hearts. Who knows? West may enter and increase the E-W troubles."

Dodd: "Pass. Close between this and double. No heart raise fits and the hand pattern and controls argues against a NT call."

Hudson: "Pass. 2H, 1NT, 2NT and Double are also reasonable. Even 2S might work. I'm going to pass and convert a double. I know that could be very wrong, but I think it will be right more often."

Klemic: "Pass. The spade 9 makes going for the penalty a bit more attractive. If we have game, they may be going for 500. Hoping partner doesn't have 3 spades and pass it out."

Several panelists mentioned that if partner is short in spades, the spade ace-king might not be all that valuable in a heart contract. One panelist decided that the spades could be put to better use in a a different strain:

Francis-Wright: "1NT. This is supposed to be 7-10 balanced with a stopper in the overcalled suit. I have some sympathy for 2H, but I think my spades will not hold up as well in a suit contract."

Breaking rocks in the hot sun… I am shocked that no one invoked the Law here. I am shocked that the panel has become so bloodthirsty at the one-level. I am shocked that people don't make the bids their partner most wants to hear. At matchpoints, this seems like a good opportunity to just bid your hand. If supporting partner doesn't work this time, partner owes you a hug on me.

I don't think one of our problems has ever generated ten different answers. There were several different strategies suggested here, but the panel majority seemed to be heading for the same contract. What kind of hand could partner have where he would make a red-on-white advance to the three-level, yet you have all the controls? If you decide that slam is possible or inevitable, the two top-scoring approaches are both clear advances.

Spear: "4H. Good problem. Don't want to go down in 3NT when partner is void in hearts and 6C is making."

Strite: "4H. Pard has at least 10 cards in the minors (no support double, plus the opponents' bidding). We are cold for 5C and have good prospects for 6C opposite two pointed kings and a beefy club suit. 4H, while not a space saver, is the cheapest call which shows slam interest on my way to 5C. It seems like we get a bidding problem each month which is made tougher by not having a Good/Bad 2NT agreement."

Hudson: "4H. Partner has Kx Void Kxxx AJ10xxxx or the like. He doesn't have three spades (no support double) and he should be void in hearts (trusting the opponents' bidding). Still, I can't quite drive to slam. I'll just cuebid on the way to 5C."

Feiler: "6C. Partner may have a heart void, so I want to bid something that won't cause him to overheat his circuits and bid 7C."

Walker: "6C. With partner's extreme heart shortness, this has to have a play, and if it's on a finesse, it's through the stronger hand. I could torture partner with Practice Blackwood or obscure cuebids (4H? 4D?), but since partner has no aces of his own to cuebid, those bids seem to be a waste of my time and his energy."

Kessler: "6C. There is no good bid to investigate a slam. I really hate 4H with this hand. 3NT is the obvious other choice. They may save if we bid it like we have our bid. When this bid doesn't work, you can expect to hear 'Just stay fixed'."

Feldheim: "6C. According to the bidding, North shouldn't have more than one heart, and with first-round control in all of the other suits, 6C is easy. The only worry is missing a grand slam."

I like what the people who just ram into slam have to say. There really will not be any subtlety in a cuebidding sequence that starts with 4H unless partner can now Blackwood. Here's a different approach that may also get you to slam, but seems to suggest less enthusiasm than 4H or 6C:

Klemic: "4D. My initial thought, and second thought, was 3NT, but as I look at it more, even relatively ordinary 3C bids give us a play for slam. If partner holds Kx x Kxxx AQJxxx, we need only a 3-3 spade break without clubs 5-0, and partner isn't limited to holding just 6 clubs, nor a heart. 4H would be an unambiguous slam action, but it seems like 4D should be also. 4C and 3S are not forcing, so clearly the wrong actions."

Vongsvivut: "4D. The cuebid should imply club support, but a second suit by responder is still forcing. Partner should make at least 5C and with the right cards, 6C."

Lambert: "4D. My hand has turned into a powerhouse opposite a likely 6+ club suit and a heart void. 4H shows slam interest, but 4D is better since it almost fully describes my hand. I'll pass 5C, and push over any other bid."

The 4D cuebid may be a good strategy if partner reads it as a cuebid for clubs and if you're really convinced you should give up on slam if he bids 5C. We already know that unless he has a heart void, he has nothing to cuebid, and most of the panel didn't see the lack of a heart control as a deal breaker for slam. If partner can cuebid 4H, there's no clear way to get to 7C, so I'm not sure what the cuebid accomplishes, other than to add a round of bidding that gives the opponents more information.

Any of these approaches could work out, but anything more timid is not for me. Only three panelists chose bids that gave up on slam:

Kniest: "5C. I'm vul and game is the biggest reward, unless they bid 5H. I have a prime hand but am missing a trump, so I don't worry about 6C. If pard passes or bids more, he won't be disappointed with my prime hand. Imps, right? No 3NT for me."

Our panel was pretty clear that they wouldn't give a lot of thought to playing 3NT at matchpoints, either.

Francis-Wright: "4C. Partner has pretty much denied a spade fit and is marked for zero or one heart, so my choice comes down to Double or 4C. Double could well be right, but if we make game, we need to take 3H down 4. I think 5C is making and 6C is very possible (Kx x Kxx AQ10xxxx).

I agree about the problems with a penalty double, but 4C doesn't rate to get you to slam or even game. 4C here is not forcing. It just shows the values for a competitive raise, and partner -- who is known to be short on aces and trump honors -- is very unlikely to do anything but pass and score up +170.

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	1C	Pass	1D
Pass	1S	Pass	???

One of the better bridge teachers that I have had used to always urge me to "bid where you live", and two spade honors would surely help out partner on this hand. Do the spade bidders make the best case?

Dodd: "2S. Best of a lot of evils. 2D is too timid, 3D too bold and 2H or any notrump bid is just plain crazy."

Hudson: "2S. An underbid on high-card points, an overbid on trump length. I'm guessing partner is 4-3-1-5, in which case we want to play in spades, not diamonds. One likely result is +170. I can live with that. If partner tries for game I'll accept."

Kessler: "2S. I think at matchpoints this is clear-cut. If partner cannot bid again, play in the suit that scores the most. I can tell you over the years this works very well."

Lambert: 2S. A tough choice. 1NT is a huge lie, 2D is a big underbid, 2S is likely a 4-3 fit, and 3D wastes a lot of bidding space on bad-fitting hands. Making 2S or 3D scores 110, but opposite a hand like Kxxx Axx

KQxx, only 2S looks to go plus."

Spear: "2S. I don't like the bidding, but I hope to like the matchpoint score."

If partner passes 2S, this may very well be the best matchpoint contract. If he bids on though, I'll wish I had bid:

Kniest: "3D, invitational. It's still easy to get to 4S if pard is 5-5 or better. I have good diamond spots and spade entries, so 3NT by pard is welcome."

Nelson: "3D. I practice what I preach: I don't raise the second suit without four pieces."

Francis-Wright: "3D. Because 2H is a game-forcing reverse, so 2NT and 3-level bids are invitational here. Over 3D, partner will go on to 3NT with a diamond card and the right heart holding. The only problem here is if partner has, say, a 4-3-1-5 pattern with fair to middling spades. In that case, 9 tricks are easy in spades with a normal diamond break and no trump lead, even if the heart and club honors are wrong."

I am so keen to get partner to bid again, that I push as fully as I can with this hand. Over 3D, I feel comfortable with any response partner may make. We may score less than if I bid 2S, but I'm sure the temporary angst I would feel putting down the dummy if I made a call other than 3D will more than make up for the poor score.

Strite: "2D. Pard is likely to have a red-suit singleton. I don't see Moysian magic and I don't fit clubs. If partner can bid again, I'll be happy to drive to game, or even sniff at slam opposite a diamond raise."

Walker: "2D. 2S is a close second, but when in doubt, I go with the 'normal', most natural rebid. If partner can bid again, we'll be much better placed to get to the right game. I'll be able to give an even better description if the opponents balance (not entirely unlikely), as I can bid 2S then. The hand is short both in values and trumps for 3D (poor suit quality) and 3S (which makes it impossible to get to 3NT, which could well be the only making game)."

The more aggressive panelists didn't let trumps nor high-card points persuade them to give up on the highest-scoring game:

Feldheim: "3S. Purists need 4 spades, but with ruffing values in the short suit, the Moysian should be a pleasure to play."

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	1S	DBL
2S	Pass	3C*	???

I wasn't sure about the best bid with this hand, but I feel pretty strongly that 3S is not it. Unfortunately, too many members of the panel disagreed with me, so I had to bite my tongue just a little bit.

Feiler: "3S. Brilliantly preempting the opponents out of their sign-off bid! Hmm, maybe that is brilliant!"

Klemic: "3S. I don't have a problem pushing this hand to four-level. Partner needs only some useful distribution for this to be making. Double here looks more like clubs than a general second takeout, and besides, my hand is pretty good."

Feldheim: "3S. Partner may treat Double as lead-directing. 3S is a huge bid, but powerhouse red suits like this must be shown. This could be a disaster either way, especially if partner has a useful defensive spade holding."

The panel majority went with a second takeout double, giving partner the option to get out at the three-level:

Spear: "Double. Charmed to double again for the red suits. Is there any life across the table?"

Walker: "Double. There's a good argument for passing, but I'll try one more takeout double. A 3D bid is misguided because it takes hearts out of the picture, as partner would rightly play me for a big one-suiter."

Strite: "Double. If partner has a suit, I'd like to hear it, even at the four-level on a Yarborough, so how can double be wrong? I don't mind a penalty double of 3S on a trump stack if partner doesn't fit any of my suits, and my second double doesn't hinder that action."

Hudson: "Double. Partner seems to have length in spades and very few points."

Some may be concerned that a double here isn't precisely for takeout, but what else can it be? The opponents aren't going to play in 3C, so it's pointless playing it as purely for penalty. You're on lead to a spade contract, so a lead-directing meaning doesn't fit, either. What scares me more is the red 3S bid. I gave double the nod, as the call that remains the most flexible, despite my severe loathing for using that word.

Kessler: "3D. This is matchpoints, and if partner does know we have at least 5 diamonds, he cannot compete over 3S. I understand there is risk involved, but at matchpoints it is almost always right to be aggressive."

Kniest: "3D. How can this hurt? I have more, and definitely want to let pard know I have a good hand to encourage him to double 4S with a minor trump stack. Silly to pass and then bid over 3S in the passout seat."

I agree about the need to be aggressive here, but 3D isn't a "can't-hurt" action, as whichever side declares may be getting a minus score. It also focuses on just one suit instead of two, so if your best contract is hearts, you've talked partner out of competing in that suit. It just seems there must be a better way to show these values than to give up on one suit, pick the other and then wait for the tap to come. Maybe the best course is to go quietly:

Dodd: "Pass. Bidding anything here only gives the opponents a free roll. Three-suiters are way over-rated for trick-taking potential and it's been a while since I dialed up a telephone number voluntarily."

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	1D	???

Is this another "bid where you live" hand? Or is it one where it's important to be able to show your full power? Both choices from the panel produce the possibility of disaster, either by partner making an aggressive jump to 4H after a double, or by missing a laydown game after overcalling 2C and hearing Pass-Pass-Pass. The panel expresses this dilemma well.

Feldheim: "2C. A quiet bid, but it feels like the auction isn't going to die. Given a chance, bid spades. Partner should know that clubs are much longer."

Nelson: "2C. There sure will be lots of bidding at this table, so start with the logical bid of 2C. Over some heart bids, I will double to showing spades, but I need to clarify long clubs first."

Kessler: "2C. I'm not sure I understand the problem. I'm kind of a slow learner. It seems to me that bidding 2C now gives us our best chance to show spades later by either being able to double (if they bid hearts) or by bidding spades ourselves. Anything else is pure speculation."

Feiler: "2C. Yeah, I know, I might end up in 2C making six, but the other available bids aren't that wonderful either."

Paulo: "2C. I would double if I was not afraid of partner jumping in hearts. After that, he might read my club bid as a control."

Walker: "2C. This hand is a good advertisement for playing sound 2-level overcalls. If you don't, you have to make a very flawed takeout double and then wing it after partner makes the inevitable advance in hearts. On most hands, 2C won't end the auction, and I can get spades into the picture without misleading partner about my heart and club length."

Kniest: "2C. How can this be wrong? I doubt it will be passed out with 13 hearts missing. Two-level overcalls are virtually unlimited these days, and I'll have more information the next time around. Clubs, spades and notrump are still in the picture. Of course, I've heard pard bid 4H when I've held this type of hand. You feel much better about that development if you haven't doubled first."

Mr. Strite is simple and to the point. If the bidding does end at 2C, just explain that in your bridge universe, 2C was meant to be forcing.

Klemic: "Double. My holdings make this unlikely to be passed around, so I may as well get what useful information I can out of the auction. I am prepared to bid 5C over 4H by any of the three opponents. After partner's 1H response, 3C shows my values, and if partner has the stuff to jump to 2H, then 3C is forcing one round."

Francis-Wright: "Double. It would be great if 3D asked for a stopper here, but BWS defines it as natural. I double, expecting partner to jump in hearts. I'll then bid clubs and find that her honor-third in diamonds meant that 3 (or more) NT was making, if only I had the guts to bid 3NT."

Patience was definitely a virtue when this deal was played in a knockout match, as slow bidding won the battle. At one table, the player holding this hand doubled and the auction moved quickly -- partner barreled into 4H and was finally talked out of his 7-card suit at the 6-level, down one. The player at the other table overcalled 2C, then got to show his spade suit in between heart bids from partner and diamond bids from the opponents. They landed in 5C and scored +600.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	1D	Pass
1H	Pass	2NT	Pass
3NT	*All Pass*

This is a most difficult lead, but we've all seen worse, and it's not impossible to apply some logic to your decision. The most problematic issue is that this is matchpoints, where holding down the overtricks may be critical.

Few of our panelists had great hopes of beating this contract, but they were split on the best way to get off lead. The unbid suits are always an option, and the plurality of the panel chose their longer one:

Feiler: "Club 10, I'm definitely not leading spades ... or hearts ... or diamonds. This is an attempt at a passive lead. It'll probably blow about three tricks."

Feldheim: "Club 10. The best chance. Neither red suit looks attractive and a spade lead is ugly with a singleton. Even if it 'hits' partner's spade holding, communications would be a serious (probably insurmountable) problem."

Francis-Wright: "Club 10. I expect that partner has 9 cards in the black suits, so a club it is. I may need the spade ace as an entry to lead another club through."

Lambert: "Club 10. After running through some possible holdings for pard (maximum of 2 hearts, maybe 2 diamonds), I still have no clue what is right. Maybe if I sit here thinking long enough, pard will lead out of turn."

It's interesting that some of the club leaders chose it as a passive lead and others thought it was attacking. Maybe it's actually passive-aggressive, as it's essentially gambling that partner has zero or three honors (and/or high spot cards) in the suit. If partner has only one or two low honors, you've probably picked up the whole suit for declarer.

Only a handful of Solvers went for the greater gusto by leading their stronger unbid suit. As Feldheim suggests, the spade ace rates to work out only when partner has two or three spade honors and two entries to set up and run his suit.

The panel's second choice was the tried-and-true fourth-best from longest and strongest, although they had qualms about the strength issue. Turn one of the low diamonds into the 10 and a diamond lead would probably have been the unanimous choice.

Hudson: "Diamond 3. We are leading fourth-best, aren't we? I don't like leading hearts with at least four behind me. Diamonds with four (or more) in front of me is better. I wish I had better diamond spots, but that's why it's a problem!"

Klemic: "Diamond 3. This is unlikely to blow any natural tricks, where a heart lead could pick up partner's honor unnecessarily (say Qx, when declarer has K10). It's not impossible to find partner with three diamond cards and some useful spots."

Kniest: "Diamond 3 looks most appealing. Hopefully, declarer won't be attacking spades right away. A heart hook into pard with a diamond return looks like our best shot. Other leads are hero leads. It's hard to see how breaking hearts can help us here."

The heart leaders didn't exactly have visions of glory. They were focused on not helping declarer, hoping to hang onto a few extra matchpoints for limiting the overtricks. They were more interested in the issue of which heart to lead:

Spear: "Heart 3. A diamond lead rates to give up a trick, and a black-suit lead would be worse. A high heart lead would only help declarer."

Strite: "Heart 4. Any lead could help declarer; I hope this is safest. The 4 seems like the best use of my spots while hiding my length from declarer."

Dodd: "Heart 2. The only logical choice. A diamond or spade is hopeless and a club gives declarer an entry-less finesse. Why not attack the probable entry suit while declarer still has choices to make?"

Walker: "Heart 3. The diamond spots aren't strong enough to offer any hope, and a club rates to be little more than a free finesse into the strong hand. A heart at least makes declarer take his own finesses. It's important to lead a low heart, as an attitude lead (a second-highest 7) will give away the layout. If it misleads partner, it will be only for about two seconds, as he'll know after the first trick that I have nothing in this suit."

The "somewhat standard" lead from a nothing suit like this one is second highest, which sends the message that you aren't dying to have this suit returned if partner has a better idea. As these panelists pointed out, though, declarer will probably benefit more from that message than partner, so a deceptive low heart is called for. A few Solvers chose the top-of-nothing 9, but that will often blow a trick if partner has a doubleton honor.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments this month. Topping all Solvers were Sandy Barnes with 580 and Nigel Guthrie with 550. They're invited to join the June panel.

The six new problems for June are below. This is the third of the six sets in the 2007 Solvers Contest, so there's still plenty of time to join in the annual contest, which is based on your best three scores for the year.

Please submit your solutions and comments by May 25 on the web form. Note: The web form will sometimes crash if you've typed very long text into the comment boxes. If you have long comments, you can send your solutions by email to our June moderator:

Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

How the Panel voted (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 528):		1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bridge Baron software		2S	4NT	2H	3D	2C	3	470
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT		Pass	6C	3S	3S	2C	10	530
Tim Francis-Wright, Medford MA		1NT	4C	3D	DBL	DBL	10	480
James Hudson, DeKalb IL		Pass	4H	2S	DBL	2C	3	580
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL		2H	6C	2S	3D	2C	3	570
George Klemic, Bensenville IL		Pass	4D	2D	3S	DBL	3	490
Tom Kniest, University City MO		DBL	5C	3D	3D	2C	3	490
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN		2H	4D	2S	DBL	2C	10	590
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO		2H	4H	2D	DBL	DBL	3	540
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL		2H	5C	3D	DBL	2C	10	560
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal		2H	4D	3D	3D	2C	10	560
Jack Spear, Kansas City MO		2S	4H	2S	DBL	2C	3	540
Toby Strite, San Jose CA		2H	4H	2D	DBL	2C	4	560
Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL		Pass	4D	2S	3D	DBL	10	530
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ		Pass	5C	2S	Pass	DBL	2	470
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL		Pass	6C	3S	3S	2C	10	530
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria		2S	4H	3D	3D	3D	3	490
Karen Walker, Champaign IL		2H	6C	2D	DBL	2C	3	560
Solvers Honor Roll (Solver average: 481)
Sandy Barnes, Wildomar CA		2H	4H	2S	3D	2C	10	580
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK		2H	3NT	2S	3D	2C	3	550
Ann Beye, St. Louis	540	Asher Axelrod, Jerusalem, Israel						520
Thomas Rossow, South Bend IN	540	Hugh Metzger, South Bend IN						520
Allan Sheppard, Creve Coeur MO	540	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL						520
David Warwick, Adrian MI	540	Jay Barron, Muncie IN						510
Sevgi Birol, Istanbul, Turkey	530	Mike Halvorsen, Champaign IL						510
Rich Pestien, Peoria IL	530	Len Vishnevsky, San Francisco CA						510

Solvers Forum -- June 2007 Problems

1. IMPs, none vulnerable

West

North

East

South

Pass 1H Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
A102 AK10 8654 AQ5 ?

2. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	1D	Pass	1H
Pass	3D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:
104 A10942 A2 Q763 ?

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West

North

East

South

-- 1NT (15-17) Pass 2S*

Pass 3C** Pass ???

* (Transfer to clubs)
** (Qxx or better in clubs)

What is your call as South holding:
A3 Q62 3 10975432 ?

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West

North

East

South

1C DBL 1H 1S

2H DBL Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
J8732 10 AJ103 652 ?

5. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West

North

East

South

-- 1H Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
3 642 Void AK9765432 ?

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable

West

North

East

South

1D

Pass 1S Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
AK83 93 AK8643 K ?

Thanks for the problems above to Mike Halvorsen
(2 & 5), John Seng (3) and Kent Feiler (6).

District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2007

by Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria

Lead	Score	Votes	% Solvers
10	100	7	14
3	90	6	24
2, 3 or 4	80	5	24
7	70	0	14
9	50	0	6
A	50	0	14