District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2014

* Forcing to game

What is your call as South holding   A54   K2   AK976543   Void ?

We start with a horrible problem I faced at the table. Only two choices on this one, either supporting partner or rebidding your 8 card suit. Really, the problems are only going to get worse on the next round, as expressed by Jack:

SPEAR: “3S: Game-forcing 2D followed by showing primary spade support with 3S. Seems like the problem will come next round.”

This is certainly true. Over 3S, what do you do over partner’s likely 4S? What about when he rebids 3NT over 3D? Your choices after either of these auctions are going to be much harder than they are this round. One panelist at least has a plan:

PAVLICEK: “3S: This seems more likely to lead to an intelligent auction than 3D. If partner does not bid 4H, I plan to bid 6D next; then if he has the heart queen he can correct to 6S.”

That said, the majority of the panel voted for raising partner. They have some fears, as expressed here:

ENGEL: “3S: Won’t convince partner I have primary support otherwise.”

BAINTER:  "3S. No rebid by your hand adequately describes, so why not give pard a chance to give a clearer picture of his hand?"

PAULO: “3S: This rebid defines the trump suit.”

That trump suit may be lacking when you face a 5-card suit headed by one honor -- or even two honors -- when partner holds winners in the round suits. That, along with protecting the heart king, led some of our panelists to rebid their 8-card suit.

WALKER: “3D. I can’t not bid this suit twice. Spades will have to wait, perhaps until next deal.”

GUTHRIE: “3D. What do you call an 8-card suit?”

KESSLER: “3D. I’m a firm believer in rebidding excellent 8-card suits.”

Me too, Mark.

KNIEST: “3D: Rebid these first in case it’s right to protect the heart king.”

Another good thing about not raising spades directly, which potentially reduces the value of our hand.

All said, I can’t understand not bidding this diamond suit again. The fears of partner not knowing we have 3-card support are outweighed by both protecting the heart king and letting partner know we have a bushel-full of diamonds.

* Artificial double negative  (less than 2 queens)

What is your call as South holding   4   J8743   J742   1063 .

This problem resulted in almost a unanimous panel vote. Only one person voted to simply raise partner's clubs:

PAULO: “4C: With my ruffing value, I’d rather raise than introduce a poor suit.”

I might have a small amount of sympathy for this action at IMPs, but at matchpoints, I don’t understand it at all.

A good number of Solvers chickened out and passed 3C. A strong 2C auction should be forcing to at least three of a major, so you must bid again over 3C, even with a very weak hand. This hand isn't even that poor, as explained by:

KAPLAN: "3H. This is not a bad 'double negative' at all.  With a stiff, three decent clubs and a halfway decent heart suit, I'll show my hearts then support clubs."

Peg and the rest of the panel and almost half of the Solvers joyfully bid their 5-card suit.

KESSLER: “3H. Hearts could easily be the right spot. If partner bids 3NT, I’m passing.”

HINCKLEY: “3H. I would expect this to be nearly unanimous. What other choice, especially at matchpoints, could one select?”

I pretty much have to agree.

What is your call as South holding  AK   QJ8  J102   AKJ108 ?  

One realist on our panel helps allay our fears about diamond stoppers:

WALKER: “3NT. Who opens a non-vulnerable 3D with AKQxxxx? 3NT is right if partner has a diamond honor or the suit blocks or LHO decides to lead his own suit.”

I have to agree; who would open 3D with that? Perhaps some of the doublers on our panel?

SPEAR: “Double. Nothing seems right here, but I will double and hope for the best.”

GUTHRIE: “Double. An immediate 3NT seems a bit macho.”

KAPLAN: “Double. I hate it, but, the only other choices are 3NT with JTx, which may WELL be enough, or pass. I’m going with the least bad choice.”

I was surprised at the number of doublers, but I guess they could have Karen’s example suit. The rest decided to go for the gold, at least here where there are no consequences.

RABIDEAU: “3NT. Never had the balls to do it at the IMP table, but I’ll try it on paper.”

BAINTER:  "3NT. My least favorite kind of hand. After asking what kind of 3D bid is understood -- and if the honest answer is "could be anything, 6 or 7 pieces" -- I take a shot
at 3NT. Maybe West is void in diamonds, maybe pard delivers a king or queen. In any event, I don't want to just 'stay fixed'."

PAVLICEK: “3NT. Best of a bad lot, offering what may be our best spot without ruling out other contracts. Double will too often lead to a revolting major fit.”

And I certainly can’t argue with this last statement:

KNIEST: “3NT. Often the practical solution to hands like this.”

Without a doubt. If they run diamonds, so be it. I find it hard to see what we were missing in that case, unless partner has an exceptional hand with one of the majors.

What is your call as South holding:  Q1062   K4   63   98743?  

Maybe it is the fear of a doubled partscore at IMPs, but I thought Charles Goren told us all what this auction meant.

WALKER: “Pass: Partner’s double is penalty. Cardinal Rule of Takeout Double Auctions: You can’t make a takeout of a suit you’ve promised with an earlier takeout double.”

I have to agree. That said, if you really believe partner’s second double is takeout, why make a minimum advance? The majority here are making a weak retreat to 3C that makes it sound like they hold a 3-3-2-5 zero-count. To that end:

KNIEST: “2NT. I have spades stopped and a useful card for an entry.”

PAVLICEK: “2S. I would have bid 2C last turn, and the situation faced here certainly supports that strategy. Now 3C is inadequate.”

Now for the disbelievers and underbidders:

GUTHRIE: “3C: You hope that partner’s double isn’t pure penalty.”

KAPLAN: “3C: This may be penalty, but with five clubs, I’m not sitting.”

PAULO: “3C: My suit is anemic, but I must take out partner’s takeout double.”

And, finally, the realists:

KESSLER: “Pass: Partner has a very good hand with diamonds.”

ENGEL: “Pass. I have the spades locked up, what else?”

If nothing else, I can’t see aggravating partner when he's sitting over there with 100 honors in diamonds.

What is your call as South holding  AKJ965   Void   763   A854 ?

Finally, some variety in our answers! Is 3C forcing? That is a question for most partnerships, but I think in these kinds of auctions it is right to be able to explore the best strain, as opposed to trying to get out.

Regardless, we certainly want to play in game, right? A couple of panelists thought this hand was not worth it, which seems rather skeptical to me.

PAULO: “3S. With six losers, game looks unlikely.”

Can’t say I really agree, matchpoints or not. Partner has shown about an opening hand, one can certainly hope he can fill in our black suits, even if they take the first three tricks leading through him.

Our miserable diamond holding led a few to make an odd choice:

KESSLER: “3NT. I do not want a diamond lead through dummy when spades are trump. Same reason I'm not bidding 3C.”

The rest were split between exploring with 3C or bashing with 4S.

WALKER: “4S. I have to accept the game invite with all this playing strength. As much as I’d like for partner to declare, it’s almost never right to play 3NT with a void in an unbid suit.”

PAVLICEK: “4S. While 3NT could be right, deciding those cases seems random, so I’ll just take the odds. I don’t like 3C with the lopsided strength of my suits.”

The rest chose to explore. The biggest drawback to this, as pointed out by Mark Kessler, is that bidding 3C still puts partner’s diamond holding at risk.

RABIDEAU: “3C. I’ll pass 3NT but otherwise get us to game in spades.”

HINCKLEY: “3C. What’s more likely, 4S defeated by a diamond lead through dummy? Or 3NT down off the heart suit?”

ENGEL: “3C. 5C could be much better than 3NT.”

While that’s true, I’m guessing 4S would be even better in those cases.

With different red-suit holdings, I’d like 3C a lot more, but I don’t see what it is buying us here.

* Two keycards plus the Q

What is your call as South holding  32   AQ432  32   A932 ?  

One last problem and one last choice. How good is our hand? An even better question is, does partner care how good it is at this point?

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this tough set. Topping all Solvers with an impressive 580 was Jim Diebel of Wood Dale IL, followed closely by George Klemic, Ig Nieuwenhuis and Liz Swanson, who each scored 570. All four are invited to join the June panel.

I hope you'll give the June problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by May 31 on the web form. 

     June moderator:  Jack Spear     jack5spear@gmail.com