District 8 Solvers Forum -- from the February, 2001 issue of the District 8 Advocate

by Nate Ward & Scott Merritt, Champaign IL

1. IMPs, EW vulnerable

 West       North      East    South 
  Pass         2NT         3S         ?

What is your call as South holding:    S-102    H-109763    D-J10972   C-10 ?

We start off with a decision that could have huge IMP consequences. If partner has a lot in the red suits we could be turning a lot of tricks on offense. Then again, LHO may be just as eager for us to bid.

KNIEST: “Pass. I have no sure 9- card fit nor a sure game, but I have some defense and hope to beat them. If it now goes 4S by LHO-Pass-Pass, 4NT becomes attractive.”

Tom was the only panelist to mention saving after they bid game. Better hope partner has a sense of humor when you put down the dummy!

Only two of our panelists chose to bid, although both had concerns.

DOROSHOW: “4H. Very close, with my only other choice being double. However, I don’t think East is messing around red at IMPs. It’s unlikely he has solid spades or he may have passed in hopes of defending 3NT, or bid 4S with a solid suit and good hand. Thus I think there’s a lot of distribution out there and I should be bidding.”

WALKER: “4H. Partner rates to have at least moderate length in both red suits, so I might as well bid the contract that offers the greatest reward if it makes. Double is insane, as East surely has a rock, and even with my ‘surprise’  singleton club, we’re probably not beating 3S. My main fear is I might push them into a cold 4S.”

The passers made a simple case:

KESSLER: “Pass. If we miss a game, so be it. I have no reason to bid with one HCP, or know what suit to bid it in. Besides, I don’t like the lead coming through the strong hand.”

RABIDEAU: “Diamond jack. I assume this is an opening lead problem.”

DODD: “Pass. EW are assumed to be experts, thus not likely to stick their vulnerable necks on the chopping block in this situation.”

FEILER: “Pass. I can’t dbl. because they might make,  and I can’t bid because they might not make. And I have no idea what bid shows this hand.”

I was surprised there wasn’t more comment on East’s shape. It’s pretty likely that he’s two-suited and, looking at our hand, we have a pretty good guess about his second suit. That was enough to sway me from bidding, since the red suits don’t rate to break well.

2.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

  * (invitational) 

What is your call as South holding:   S-KQ10    H-A94   D-103   C-KJ974 ?

A close matchpoint decision. The panel split into three groups on this one. First the passers:

KNIEST: “Pass. Partner had a flaw that kept him from bidding 2NT,  so I’ll respect his opinion and not guess he has side values in hearts."

BENSON: “Pass. Take my plus.”

POPKIN: “Pass. Except for my fifth club, what reason do I have to bid more at matchpoints?”

That fifth club looks nice, but could very well be mirrored in partner’s hand. And if partner has AQxxx of clubs, that is a lot of wastage. Next we have the scientists.

WALKER: “3S. I have barely enough to accept, but it’s not clear that 3NT is the right game. Partner almost always has a singleton for this auction (else he would have raised to 2NT). 3S shows my concentration of values and should get partner to choose the right strain — if he has a stiff spade, he’ll bid 3NT; with a stiff heart, he’ll bid something else and we’ll play in clubs.”

This could work out, but I hope you aren’t going to hang him by raising 4C. Finally the bashers, led by a good, albeit brash, argument against 3S.

DOROSHOW: “3NT. Got to bid, that much is clear. To all who want to pass, trust me, you’re wrong, even if you’re right on this hand. I could bid 3S in case 5C is right, but why draw them a roadmap?”

Rabideau, Kessler and Feiler were enticed by that working spade ten and tried 3NT. What finally swayed me was the opponents’ silence. They passed up two chances to get in cheap at the one-level. So even if they do lead hearts, we could catch the suit 4-4.

One final passer, this time backing up his decision with a simulation:

DODD: “Pass. I hate minor-suit partials at matchpoints, but I hate minus scores in unmakeable 3NT contracts even more  My hand simulator rates 3NT about 42% on this auction.”

That 42% makes me want to bid 3NT even more.

3.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-A    H-Q1063   D-85    C-AK10864 ?

I thought this was the hardest problem of the set, and the panel backed me up with five different choices. Wild Bill flew solo, showing his rubber-bridge tendencies:

DOROSHOW: “3NT. Sure, I can construct hands where they lead a spade and that finishes 3NT  when 5C was a maker, but you might as well not get up in the morning if you’re that wracked with fear. To those who pass or make a non-forcing bid, see #2.”

The majority chose 2C, which all but squashes game chances.

KNIEST: “2C. Lefty may have an easy balance in spades if I pass 1NT, so I bid and set the stage for competition or a free raise by partner if he fits. Silly to pass and then get barred when partner squirms over the 2S balance, wondering if he can go to the 3 level with his 3 good or 4 anything clubs.”

ATHY: “2C. A funny 5-loser hand. When my partners bid 1D and then 1NT here, they’ve got nothing.”

WALKER: “2C. With no side-suit fits and the duplicated values (the stiff ace opposite partner’s presumed honors), this isn’t the right hand for heroic overbids, especially at matchpoints. Partner could have the perfect hand for 3NT or even 5C, but I’m not optimistic enough about that to jeopardize my ‘sure’ plus score in 2C.”

One panelist thought 2C still left partner an option:

RABIDEAU: “2C. Those who ask ‘what’s the problem?’ usually find themselves in the minority, so I’ll desist. If partner has a 9- or 10-count she likes, I’ll accept any invitation."

This will work out until she is raising to 3C on little more than the hope of shutting out the impending balance. The other half of the panel thought a move towards game was warranted, and wanted to hear from partner.

KESSLER: “3C. Not forcing, but lets partner out with a piece of dung. We could easily belong in 3C, 5C or 3NT. Let-s tell partner we’re 6-4 and let him make an intelligent decision.”

2NT was slightly demoted in the scoring since it tells partner less about your hand. And if he passes, you’re going to wish you were back in clubs.

POPKIN: “2NT. Now I have a reason to bid more! With 2 extra clubs and help in spades, I need to give partner a chance to bid game. The fifth and sixth club are like an additional AK. On the other hand, 3NT is too much. I want partner in on the decision.”

FEILER: “2NT. Clubs? Why should I bid clubs? Isn’t this matchpoints? But we might need a fairly good 1NT bid to make game.”

4.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-KQ10863   H-KJ6  D-J  C-A103 ?

It is clear that every Solvers Forum in the history of Man has had a competitive auction to the upper reaches of the 4 or 5 level, and no one ever knows. Here’s another case in point. 4S could be a roller, 4H could be a roller, or one or both could get punished. Who knows?

A few panelists took the low road,  banking that neither 4H nor 4S was making, but hedging their bets in case 4H actually comes home:

MATHENY: “Pass. It’s tempting to double with three likely defensive tricks. However, partner’s raise certainly doesn’t promise much. The difference in matchpoints for 100 and 50 may not be worth the risk of -590.”

But as this is a Solvers Forum and an overwhelming majority of the panel wanted to take an action, this action just seems wrong. Not only do you have an extra spade, you also have full values for your call, which almost translates into extras on this auction!

Now, assuming that taking a firm action is correct, where do we go from here? As more solvers chose to bid, we will look at the merits of doubling:

KNIEST: “DBL. I would like to be at the table and KNOW my opponents on this one, but we are probably not making 4S and they are probably not making 4H. I know —  there are plenty of layouts where either or both contracts make, but RHO probably wasn’t conceding two trump tricks when he jumped to game.”

There is much uncertainty in Tom’s statement, but the heart holding does suggest doubling. The reason that double didn’t score more was that the bidders were just so much more convincing, not to mention that they have “The Law” on their side!

FEILER: “4S. There’s a good chance this will make, and the auction isn’t over yet.”

Wouldn’t the doublers feel like goats if the rest of the room was defending 5H doubled?

RABIDEAU: “4S. Sure, I have 3+ defensive tricks but let’s think about East’s hand: That heart suit must be VERY long, given its quality. I fear a holding like 0-7-4-2 or 0-8-4-1, or maybe he’s jobbing me!”

Come on, nobody wants to get jobbed! And the comment about the heart quality really seems pertinent. Righty’s brain didn’t fall from his skull; he almost surely has a secondary diamond fit and spade shortness. The defensive potential of this hand is dropping. It seems to me that someone is “jobbing” us (thanks Larry, I’m really enjoying this), and 4S covers the most bases. If it’s partner who fibbed a little on his raise, we’ve taken a good dive. And if it’s either opponent who’s stretching, we’re odds on to make. Only in the unbelievable circumstance that everyone has his bid is double correct, and we all know how likely that is in today’s game!

5.  IMPs, both vulnerable

  * (forcing to game)

What is your call as South holding:  S-Q8   H-A982   D-K103  C-AJ96 ?

POPKIN: “4NT. I smell a slam. I have a spade honor, a diamond honor, and two aces — in all, four aces for partner. Partner cannot have as little as AKxxxx, xx, AQxx, x because he would have bid 2S over 2C. Therefore, I can play him for another card or another diamond = making six.”

So Nancy has caught us up to where we are now, but what do we do from here? All of the panel members made some sort of forward-going move, so all the Solvers who merely bid 4S should pay special attention to this section.

The 4H cuebid drew the most votes:

KESSLER: “4H. Partner has not limited his hand. I’m afraid 4C would not be interpreted as spade support with a club control, but if we had that agreement,  I would bid 4C.”

RABIDEAU: “4H. Wow, has my hand grown up: 13 of my 14 HCP are beautiful! The cheaper cuebid, 4C, may be misinterpreted by partner.”

None of the panelists explained why 4H is the better choice. So what do the 4C bidders have to say for themselves?

DOROSHOW: “4C. Who knows how high this hand is going? Anyone who thinks this is anything but a try for slam in spades forgot they bid 2NT, which already showed a tolerance.”

It seems to betray partnership trust to randomly decide which suit to cue, but the panel seems to favor the “sure” 4H cuebid, as opposed to the one that would make partner think about the auction. This seems unwise, as the auction flows so smoothly after 4C. After partner’s expected 4D cue, you can bid 4H and get your whole hand out. After the 4H call, partner might very well be stuck with 2 baby clubs. From the 4H bidders’ comments, their only defensible stand is that 4C might give partner the wrong impression about the body of your clubs. He might be expecting a more Clubocentric hand than AJxx with 3 wonderful fillers on the outside. Karen hints at this:

WALKER: “4H, which has to be a cuebid for spades, and will be the best way to get to a grand if it talks partner into Blackwooding. If partner doesn’t take my Blackwood bait, I’ll bid 6S.”

Karen added that she thought Bridge World Standard defines 1S-2C-2D-3C as passable. If so, South couldn’t rebid clubs on the last round, so 2NT doesn’t necessarily promise spade tolerance. I went to the source and came up dry. The definitive BWS site states: “1NT response forcing; 2-over-1 promises rebid.” Therefore, the 2NT call is clearly forcing, but it’s unclear whether 3C would have been forcing. But one would think partner could have made a strong jump shift if he really had the big club hand. It seems the panel got this one wrong.

6.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-K   H-4   D-KQJ5  C-A1098743 ?

It appears as though you have found a playable spot in 4S after partner’s freebid. This hand is done, right? Most of the panel would agree:

DOROSHOW: “4S. I’d like to do something slightly more encouraging but I think partner will come again on most hands we have a play for slam.”

WALKER: “4S. I’m settling for a reasonable contract instead of looking for the perfect one. If I could find a suitable club holding in partner’s hand, 6C will be better, but it’s risky to go looking. 4C is dangerous, as partner could pass, and 4D or 4H might propel us to the 5-level, which may be too high if we end up in spades.”

KESSLER: “4S. Take my plus. 4D should show a 5th card, and if we bid 4C and partner bids anything but 4H (which the opponents may bid first), we won’t know any more than before.”

Everyone seems to be talking about the perfecta, but they’re worried that there isn’t enough science to find it. Something clearly seems lacking from the 4S  bids, but is 4 of a minor the answer? Nobody bid 4C, but Karen did at least mention it. The problem with 4C is that it doesn’t show the nature of our hand. In the 7- and 4-card-suit departments, neither of these two seem to fit;  the diamonds are overachieving while the clubs are underachieving. Some panelists did like the 4D bid:

KNIEST: “4D. We haven’t established trumps yet and this bid should not embarrass partner; he can rebid spades, raise, or preference. I know stiff  K is a lot better than stiff deuce or void, but I see no reason to give up. Pard can certainly rebid a chunky or long suit again if he’s strapped.”

Well, Tom, I’m sure partner already feels like he’s bid his spades, and that missing King will surely nag him. On the other hand:

RABIDEAU: “4D. I worked on this problem the longest (that probably means I get 40 points) but after an initial negative viewpoint, I found it hard to come up with North hands that wouldn’t produce AT LEAST 11 tricks. I’ll be raising spades next, unless, of course, partner bids the slam.”

I couldn’t agree more, but then again, I’m a fish! With partner’s quality spades, and your quality diamonds and major-suit holdings, 11 tricks should be easy on this hand. The question for the 4D bidders is what do they plan to do after partner raises to 5D? If there were a clear answer, 4D would score much higher.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set — we received solutions from players all over the world, including many new participants from District 8. Congratulations to Mason Myers, who just finished a successful year as 2000 guest, and Bob Wheeler, who outscored all Solvers and are invited to join the April panel. Thanks to our other 2000 guest panelists Lisa Sievers and Adam Miller for a job well done, and welcome to Norm Athy, Jim Hudson and Don Wertheimer, who won the Solvers contest and will be guest panelists for 2001.

You can enter the 2001 Solvers contest by trying the new problems . Please send answers as soon as possible (by Feb. 23) on the web form --  or send mail or email to:
        Tom Dodd,     43265 IH 10W,   Boerne TX  78006        Email:  fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

 HOW THE PANEL VOTED  (Panel/Staff average:  540)

HOW THE STAFF VOTED

Solvers Honor Roll   (Solvers’ average:   501)

Mason Myers, St. Louis 600
Bob Wheeler,  Florissant MO 570
Midge Beiger, Champaign IL 560
Asher Kach, Chillicothe IL 560
Bob Carteaux, Ft. Wayne IN 550
Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL 540
Tony Curtis, Chicago IL 540
Rich Peer, St. Louis 540
Steve Babin, Normal IL 530
Mark Satterthwaite, Champaign IL 530