District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2004

by Tom Kniest, University City MO

Spring is here again in St. Louis. Kurt Warner is gone and multimillionaire Albert Pujols is hitting 50 points below his lifetime average, but life goes on. I’m writing this on the eve of the Champaign IL Regional, where all bridge problems will be submerged in the free-flowing wine and beer provided in the hospitality suite at the end of each evening’s play.  This is a regional not to be missed.

I’d like to give a special welcome to guest panelist Richard Pavlicek – one of the all-time great players, and creator of possibly the best bridge web-site extant:  www.rpbridge.net  If you think these problems are hard, get on the email list for his problem quizzes. They are fun, and diabolical.

1. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable  

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2H	100	11	40
2NT	80	2	10
DBL	70	3	50

West	North	East	South
--	--	2D *	???

   * Weak 2-bid

What is your call as South holding:  S-QJ4   H-AK863   D-KJ   C-K102

The panel produced a clear majority on this hand, with which I concur. However, the relative strength and shape of the hand, coupled with the anemic heart spots, make 2NT tempting. If Puppet Stayman were available, I think I’d go that route. Double, presumably followed by hearts, seems less descriptive than 2NT.

PAVLICEK: “2H. I don’t like 2NT because a notrump contract will often fail when East  ducks the opening lead with AQxxxx. Double is also reasonable, but I prefer to suggest hearts with a two-card differential in the majors.”

PAULO: "2H. My hand is fine, but not very strong. The two-card difference in the majors isn't proper to double, and the precarious diamond stopper precludes notrump. At the tables where East doesn't preempt, South will open 1H, and I wish to follow those auctions as much as possible."

LAMBERT: “2H. 2NT would only be right if playing Puppet Stayman.”

FEILER: “2NT. This is a least-of-evils bid. It’s too strong for 2H, and if I doubled, I wouldn’t know what to do over 2S by partner.”

DODD: “Double. With spread-out values, this seems to be the most likely of the three calls to reach the best spot.”

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
6S	100	6	6
6D	90	5	33
5NT	80	1	2
6H	80	2	25
Pass	60	2	25
5S	60	0	9

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1H
Pass	1S	2D	4D *
5D	5H	Pass	???

 * Splinter (spade raise, diamond shortness)    

What is your call as South holding:  S-K1092    H-AKQJ64   D-Void  C-K63 ?

Here’s a meaty one, with most of the panel choosing the direct 6S or the look-for-a-grand cuebid of 6D.

PAVLICEK: “6S. Who knows?  It seems partner is just competing, but I’m willing to take the shot (maybe they’ll bid 7D anyway). If partner has  S-QJxx  H-xxxx  D-xx  C-Axx, it’s necessary to play in spades to have any chance.”

WALKER: “6S. I may be hanging partner, but it’s hard to imagine a hand worth a 5-level bid that doesn’t give us a decent chance for at least 12 tricks. It’s tempting to go with the suit where I know we don’t have any trump-quality problems, but partner must have 5 spades on this auction (with 4-4 in the majors, he surely would have made a heart raise rather than bid 1S). A 6D bid might get us to an unlikely grand, but it will also talk them out of a diamond lead.”

FEILER: "6S. Peculiar 5H bid. At first I thought it was his only slam try, but it's not, as he had a forcing pass available. It must be natural and non-forcing, maybe with five spades and three hearts? If we have a slam, it must be in spades and AQxxx and out might be enough. I don't want to cuebid 6D because that's the suit I want them to lead."

PAULO: “6S. For a grand slam, partner must have the spade AQ and the club ace, but with all those key cards, he wouldn’t have bid a mere 5H.”

I much prefer 6S to 6D for the reasons Paulo offers: if partner has a hand consistent with his bidding, we don't want to invite him to bid 7S. The other good argument against 6D was cited by Feiler and Walker. You'd like a diamond lead here, but an astute opening leader may make another choice if you advertise the first-round diamond control. He may lead a heart and then rise with the spade ace on the first trump lead to give his partner a heart ruff. Yes, there’s no danger of a heart ruff in 6H, but you might need that long suit to discard some club losers from the other hand.

POKORNY: “6D. Showing a void and interest for a grand. Partner with two aces will get the message.”

If that’s all he has, you’re odds on for a spade loser, but he’ll impute the KQ of spades to you, and there you are. The 6D cuebid will get us to a good grand only if partner has misbid earlier. To give us a play for 13 tricks, partner needs something like S-AQxxx  H-xxxx  D-xx  C-Ax, and he surely wouldn't have made the underbid of 5H with that on the last round.

The passers and 5S bidders seem to think partner found a 5-level call with S-QJxx  H-xxxx  D-Qx  C-QJx or similar trash. Here are two other views:

KESSLER: “6H. Partner bid 5H thinking I have a stiff diamond when I am void, and he also has very bad trumps. He must have some good cards, and almost any will make 6H a good contract.”

DODD: “5NT. Of all the calls available, that 5H bid has me perplexed, so I give North the old pick-a-slam to retaliate.”

The pick-a-slam bid is a useful tool – especially in the post-mortem when you can blame partner for having made the wrong choice. On this hand, however, you know far more than partner. Inviting him to make a decision on this hand is ludicrous, and could even be dangerous if he misinterprets your intentions. Still, it will be fun for you to watch the perplexed stewing he goes through, and you will have had your revenge.

NELSON: “Pass. Partner heard my splinter. I think I’ve bid my values other than having a void rather than a singleton. I’m voting for the chicken bid of a pass.”

She said it, not I.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2S	100	12	85
3S	80	4	0
3H	60	0	13

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1S
Pass	2H *	Pass	???

   * Forcing to game

What is your call as South holding:  S-AQJ1063   H-654   D-AK   C-102 ?  

The vast majority of the panel and the solvers saw no need to increase the level of the auction with a jump in spades or an immediate heart raise. It’s easy to envision some hands where the spade jump makes the subsequent auction easier, but there are too many other slam hands that might be better played in hearts or notrump from partner’s side.

PAVLICEK: “2S. Routine. On potential slam auctions, it’s criminal to raise immediately with three low trumps.”

STRITE: “2S. A nice hand for the 2-over-21 system. No hurry to raise on deuce third or jam with 3S.”

FEILER: “2S. Okay, here’s my master plan: first we invade Austria … wait, wrong master plan. First we show extra spades, then we raise hearts, and finally cuebid diamonds.”

RABIDEAU: “3S. I like 3S to show this hand, but doesn’t it depend on partnership agreements?”

Your three small hearts muddy the waters. If hearts is the right contract, you won't have room to show your support if you bid 3S now. Make one of your hearts a small diamond or club, and I think you’d have more company.

DODD: “3S. Better to emphasize the spade quality than the meager support for partner.”

VISHNEVSKY: “3S. I’ll show partner my winners and a touch of extras with 3S. If he has  S-Kx  H-Axxxx  D-QJxx C-Ax, I do not want to play hearts.”

Several other panelists provided example hands where slam was laydown only if you avoided playing hearts. Virtually all of these hands contained the QJxx of diamonds and the Ace-empty of hearts. Nobody offered an imagined hand that was cold only if hearts were trumps, but I assume some exist.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	8	38
4H	90	5	2
DBL	70	2	13
3D	70	0	10
Pass	60	1	35
3S	60	0	2

West	North	East	South
1S	2S *	2NT	???

* Michaels (hearts & a minor)

What is your call as South holding:  S-K82   H-K65   D-A10983   C-64 ?

Here’s a nice problem with five different actions getting some support. Many of the comments suggest that the bidders aren’t expecting much from their vulnerable partner. I really don’t get that. I bid game, assuming I’m going to have a play for it. This is IMPs, my friends. I don’t expect to go for a number because partner also saw the vulnerability. In fact, he might have a really good hand.

PAVLICEK: “4H. I’d like to bid 3 ½, but opposite a vulnerable bid, I’ll go long. It might be helpful to find partner’s minor by bidding 3NT, but chances are West will mess up the works with 4S; then partner may bid 5C, thinking I have both. I’ll just go with the odds and assume partner has clubs.”

DODD: “4H. No reason to pussyfoot or get cute here. I’d like to have another trump, but more things can go right than wrong with a direct game bid here.”

KESSLER: "4H. Red at IMPs, I bid a game we might make. Partner is red, so we're certainly not going to go for a number.”

I’m a little suspicious of the 2NT bid. Normally, if the opponents have a fit in the master suit and it’s their hand, your auction is brushed aside. Maybe RHO has a spade fit and little else, and is afraid you can make more. So, he leaves room for your competitive bid, and then tries to play a belated, undoubled 4S. My spade king is safe on the opening lead, so there’s no immediate tap against the dummy. I’m going to show my cards, and then double 4S if they bid it.

The panel majority opted for the heart freebid, showing no aspiration for game:

POKORNY: “3H, showing at least the right lead against 4S. We're too weak for double, and pass would be defeatist.”

PAULO: “3H. Partner may have a weakish hand. If he has a very strong one, he goes ahead after my freebid.”

STRITE: "3H. Notrump looks to play well for the opponents, so let's take a modest risk and give ourselves some chances. 3D is an interesting second choice to collect our ruff if they bid 4S."

WALKER: “3H. If the opponents are to be believed, partner can’t have many high card points, so at this vulnerability, he’s probably 6-5. A 4H bid here may convince partner I have an all-offense/no-defense hand, and I don’t really want to hear 5H over their 4S.”

MERRITT: “3H. Are Pass and 4H really going to get any votes?”

I can hear all the 3H bidders’ partners now: “Wasn’t the red in the board slots bright enough?” Finally, here are two panelists who had little interest at all in hearts:

LAMBERT: “Double. I think I win the post-mortem if pard doesn’t see this as asking for a minor. The downside here is reaching 3H doubled, down too many.”

VISHNEVSKY: “Double. Asks partner for his minor, so we play in a 10-card fit instead of 8.”

It’s a shame 130 doesn’t outscore 620 … but it’s certainly safer.

5. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	6	23
3S	90	5	10
4D	80	2	0
4NT	70	3	0
6C	70	0	2
3NT	60	0	37
Other	60	0	19

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1C
Pass	1D	Pass	1H
Pass	2S *	Pass	2NT
Pass	3C	Pass	???

* Artificial game-force, denies 4 spades 

What is your call as South holding:   S-A108   H-AK92   D-4   C-Q10973 ?

Here’s the problem with the most meat – two actions by the panel that the Solvers didn’t mention, and three actions by the Solvers that the panel didn’t mention.

Many Solvers appeared to be unfamiliar with this auction. Partner would bid a forcing 1S with a real suit; his jump to 2S shows a forcing-to-game hand without four spades and asks opener to continue describing his hand. When partner follows with 3C, we know he's showing a slam-try in clubs. We'd like to cooperate, as we have "real" clubs, plus a wealth of controls. Yet many Solvers bid 3NT, which will end the auction, or they bid some number of clubs.

The panel was unanimous in searching for a slam, and the majority chose the 3H cuebid. I hate to award 100 to 3H, because it effectively destroys the auction, but the masses have spoken.

NELSON: “3H. I am encouraged and want to investigate slam. I would like to hear a 3S cuebid from partner showing the king or a stiff. I do believe in cuebidding below our game with kings as well as aces. Good possibility of a grand here.”

POKORNY: “3H. Concentration of values in hearts, good offensive hand. The 3-4-1-5 pattern is much better than 3-4-2-4 and 4-3-3-3."

The trouble with the 3H cuebid is that the auction can get awkward. It may go: 3H by me, 4D by partner, 4S by me, and then? Partner won’t know if I have the heart king or diamond king, and it’s too high to find out.

Some panelists suggested that a failure to bid 3H here would deny a heart control. That’s not true if your partner understands that it’s right to start with the higher cuebid when you have touching controls, thus saving a level of bidding. The higher cuebid of 3S was the second most popular choice, as explained by:

PAULO: “3S. Partner invites slam, and I’m happy to investigate. I go slow, showing first-round control of the critical suit.”

PAVLICEK: “3S. I expect to reach 6C with this great hand, but I can’t rule out seven. Blackwood is too clumsy, so I’m obliged to go slow – unless 4D were Keycard Blackwood for clubs."

The 4D bid he mentions is called “Kickback” Blackwood. It starts the ace-ask at a lower level and uses the same steps, but different suits, to show aces and the trump king. The convention doesn’t have much of a following here in the Midwest, but I don’t know why more of us don’t play it.

The auction can go much more smoothly if we start with the higher cuebid (3S), which would guarantee a first-round control. After 3S, it may go 4D by partner, 4H by me, 4S by partner (if he has the spade king). Now I can use Keycard Blackwood to find out trump quality and possibly bid a grand. Or, partner could have taken over after 4H if he had great clubs and solid diamonds.

Another reasonable solution is to go directly to Keycard Blackwood:

STRITE: “4NT. And pursue a grand slam opposite three key cards.”

WALKER:  "4NT. It’s hard to see how a cuebid auction will lead to a good grand-slam decision, especially since it will leave one of both of us unsure about trump honors. It seems better to keep it simple, ask for keycards and hope I can follow with 5NT. If partner knows we have solid trumps and all the keycards, he’ll be in a better position to evaluate chances for 7C."

FEILER: “4NT. I think I should take the bull by the horns, although that usually produces a disgusting, bloody mess.”

If you go straight to Blackwood over 3C, and you then bid 5NT with all the controls, partner may have a difficult time evaluating his hand. What should he bid over 5NT with S-Kx   H-xx  D-Axxxx  C-AKJx? Or with S-Jx  H-xx D-AKxxx  C-AKJx? The second hand is death, but who wouldn’t bid 6D with it?

Two panelists offered an interesting bid that, with a thoughtful partner, should always pinpoint your type of hand:

MERRITT: “4D. I am sure this is undiscussed with partner, but I really need to pass on information about the suitability of my hand. I don’t believe this could be natural, so hopefully, partner will read it as a stiff and can push us to the right spot."

KESSLER: “4D. Must be a splinter, as I didn’t bid 3D over 2S or over 3C when either would have been forcing. It takes little to make slam with our wonderful controls. It is tempting to bid 3S so partner knows we have values  rather than just distribution, but he still wouldn't be sure of which suit we were supporting."

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	5	46
2NT	90	4	10
3NT	80	2	4
Pass	70	3	36
4H	60	1	0
2S	60	1	4

West	North	East	South
1S	DBL	Pass	2C
Pass	2H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-K10   H-642   D-1093   C-K10832 ?

3H has been the top score on the last three hands, and, amazingly, I didn’t choose it a single time. Perhaps I should consult a psychologist about this mental blockage.

Partner has doubled and then bid a suit, which shows a good hand. You have some values, and certainly are in the game zone – but what game? The panel majority chose to head for hearts with a gentle raise of partner’s suit:

PAULO: “3H. I raise so partner can evaluate our potential, inviting 3NT opposite quick tricks and running hearts.”

This hand does offer a fit for hearts, but if partner declares, your spade holding doesn’t rate to be much of an asset. The doubleton spade gives you a 3rd-round control, but partner might already have that covered. Here’s another alternative:

PAVLICEK: “3NT. I should have the values for game, and 3NT stands out at matchpoints. Partner is likely to have three spades with the lack of competition (Qxx would be nice).”

FEILER: “3NT. Seduced by the siren song…again!”

NELSON: “2NT. Making a positional bid to protect the spade king. If partner is very good, my 6-count could be magic opposite some club values and good hearts.”

WALKER: “2NT. If I’m going to count the spade king as a value, I need to suggest a contract where it might actually be a trick. I’m close to a 3NT bid, but 2NT shows some values and gives partner room to express an opinion.”

DODD: “2NT. Obvious to do something opposite a strong hand, so I’ll show the stopper in an effort to give some value to my spade king. North should work out that I have a few hearts, else why would I bother to move?”

In notrump, your spade king is protected, and the 10 is a nice kicker. If LHO leads spades, it might be your 9th trick. Clubs might run, or hearts might run. So, my choice is 2NT and leave it up to partner to make the next move.

The odd men out included the young and the restless:

MERRITT: “4H. I don’t like the positional value of the spade king, but this hand must be worth a game bid.”

And the old and indolent:

KESSLER: “Pass. If partner doesn’t need more than the club king, he should have jumped. The spade king is a mirage. With one more spade and one fewer diamond, raising is not unreasonable.”

Passing would be unreasonable at IMPs, but at matchpoints, it has something going for it. It’s possible that even 3H may be too high.

VISHNEVSKY: “2S. This should say I have doubt about strain or level.”

We all have that doubt, but I don’t see how 2S helps partner evaluate his hand. Do we want notrump played from his side?

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Congratulations to the winners of the June Solvers contest -- Will Engel and Mike Heins. They're invited to join the panel for August. And thanks again to expert Richard Pavlicek, whose comments were instructional and succinct. We're happy to have his input.

With three issues left for the year, there's still time to enter the 2004 Solvers Contest, which is based on your best three scores. I hope you'll all try the six new problems for August (see below). Please submit your answers by July 20 on the web form or by email to our August moderator:

 Scott Merritt -- scottmerritt@verizon.net

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 538):

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	2NT	6S	2S	3H	4NT	3NT	530
K. C. Jones, Euless TX	DBL	6H	2S	3H	3H	3H	550
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN	2H	6D	2S	DBL	3S	3H	550
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	2H	6H	2S	4H	4D	Pass	520
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	2H	6S	2S	Pass	3H	3H	520
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	2NT	Pass	3S	3H	3H	2NT	510
Manuel Paolo, Lisbon Portugal	2H	6S	2S	3H	3S	3H	590
Richard Pavlicek, Ft. Lauderdale FL	2H	6S	2S	4H	3S	3NT	580
Dean Pokorny, Opatija, Croatia	2H	6D	2S	3H	3H	Pass	560
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	DBL	Pass	3S	4H	3H	Pass	470
Toby Strite, Warsaw, Poland	2H	6D	2S	3H	4NT	3H	560
Len Vishnevsky, San Franciso CA	2H	6D	3S	DBL	3S	2S	490

How the Staff voted

Tom Dodd, Boerne TX	DBL	5NT	3S	4H	3H	2NT	510
Tom Kniest, University City MO	2H	6S	2S	4H	3S	2NT	570
Scott Merritt, Arlington VA	2H	6S	2S	3H	4D	4H	540
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	2H	6S	2S	3H	4NT	2NT	560

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 477)

Will Engel, Freeport IL	580	Sumit Daftuar,  Pasadena CA	540
Mike Heins, Brookville IN	570	Chuck Ettelson, St. Louis MO	540
Warren Bosch, Elgin IL	560	Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL	540
Jim Hudson, Dekalb IL	550	Don Mathis, Florissant MO	540
George Klemic, Bensenville IL	550	Adam Miller, Chicago IL	540
Glenn Smith, Creve Coeur MO	550	Don Wertheimer, South Bend IN	540
Tied with 520:  Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL; Matthew Haag, Leamington Spa UK; Wally Hendricks, Champaign IL; Doug Ogozaly, Fenton MI; Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL

Solvers Forum -- June 2004 Problems