District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2005

by Tom Kniest, University City MO

It’s the long, hot summer in St. Louis and the Cardinals are once again in their rightful place as the cream of the National League. The Rams are tuning up for another playoff run. The new Billiken recruits are hooping it up at West Pine and St. Louis University  will field a back court this year that will remind you of the young Illini of a few years ago.

On to bridge: This month’s hands are diabolical and frustrating. Often, we accept guidance from certain basic principles, but today, we’re just guessing on some of these hands. Every hand had a clear majority from the panel, but I could tell from the comments that the panelists were struggling. I’ve also added “Bridge Baron” software as a guest panelist so you can see if you can outbid a computer. Sadly, many did not. Clearly, the Baron's answers were always the most simplistic, so maybe there’s a lesson there.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3D	100	8	31
2S	80	7	27
3S	70	2	4
3C	50	1	10
4C	50	0	15
DBL	40	0	8
Other	50	0	5

1.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                          

West	North	East	South
			1C
2D *	Pass	Pass	???

* (preemptive)

What is your call as South holding:  AQ97   5  6   AKQJ1065 ?

First of all, I’m glad no one reopened with a double. What a ridiculous result that could obtain. Among the other choices, balancing with a mere 2S might end the auction, and 3S misrepresents the relative length of your suits (I'd be 6-5 for the jump). Bridge Baron was the only "panelist" to try the egregious underbid of 3C (don't double this guy). I think it’s clear to cuebid, as did:

DODD: “3D. I’ll worry about my rebid next round. For now, I can handle anything North cares to do.”

FELDHEIM: “3D. If partner bids 3NT, then 4C. Three-loser hands are hard to come by. With no negative double, 2S stinks.”

Harold Feldheim, who calls himself the Rowdy Rabbi, is a great player. Even after an overcall on his left, he expects to play AQ97 for just one loser.

STRITE: “3D. I can’t stand to have a reopening double passed out, so this is my preferred route to 4S or 3NT.”

Right. If I cuebid and partner bids 3H, now I can bid 3S. If partner bids 3NT, I can raise a level to suggest a source of tricks, not a high-card powerhouse. Obviously, if I was big and balanced, I would have reopened with a double.

There were lots of 2S bidders, so let’s hear from them:

MERRITT:  "2S. Partner may hate me, but sorry, this hand just isn't a defender."

KESSLER: “2S. This may be the last time we can bid spades naturally. Partner’s hand is unlimited if he has a trap in diamonds. This starts describing our hand, and does not preclude getting to 3NT when it is correct.”

PAULO: “2S. A natural, strong – albeit not forcing – and descriptive bid.”

SENG: “2S. There is more bidding to come. I want partner to know I have the master suit. I’ll bid more clubs next time. Partner should know I have long clubs here since I didn’t balance with a double.”

WALKER: “2S and hope partner can bid again. I’d like to bid more, but I really think 3S here ought to show a 6-5 hand.”

Here’s the guy with the original problem – and how he solved it.

FEILER: “3S, which is what I bid when I held this hand. Partner assumed I had 5 spades. I’m not sure why; maybe the panel will tell me.”

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3D	100	10	48
3H	90	3	8
4D	70	3	12
4NT	60	2	1
4H	50	0	16
4C	50	0	10
Other	50	0	5

2.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

West	North	East	South
			1H
2D	3C	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  K85   AKQ1095   3   A65 ?

The first thing you are told about this hand is that it’s matchpoints. That being said, you can’t give up on hearts right away to try for a club slam. All of the panel envisioned bigger things than game on this hand, hence the low score for the solvers who chose 4H, which figures to end the auction.

I have a lot of sympathy for an immediate 3H bid, which was chosen by Bridge Baron and two other panelists. I think, though, that Bridge Baron was just rebidding his long suit, and one of the other panelists was noncommittal about going past game. This one, however, wasn’t:

WALKER: “3H. A club raise or 3D cuebid will bury the heart suit, which could be matchpoint death. If partner can’t raise to 4H, I can show the club support next and head for slam.”

The second issue on this hand is that I sure want my spade king being led up to rather than through in a slam, so I don’t want to settle on clubs right away. A 3D cuebid will allow you to hear about belated heart support, a diamond stopper, a possible spade suit, or longer and better clubs in the absence of any of the former.

DODD: “3D. Keeping the bidding low for now allows us to explore all options as far as strain and level.”

FELDHEIM: “3D. This is the most flexible, giving partner a chance to bid hearts. If 3NT, then 4C next.”

HUDSON: “3D, postponing the awful minute when I will actually have to make a decision.”

NELSON: “3D, implying a fit for partner or a self-sufficient suit of my own…or maybe both. I will bid 4H over 3NT, implying the club fit as well.”

The only problem with this approach is that your auction won’t show that you have only one diamond loser.

PAULO: “3D. After any bid at the 3-level, I raise partner in a forcing situation.”

This is the beauty of the  cuebid. If partner bids hearts, you can bid clubs and possibly  get to use Keycard Blackwood for that suit. You can then convert to hearts or notrump, played from your side.

Some of the panelists got splinters from sitting too long:

FEILER: “4D. Forget matchpoints. Club slams count for more than heart games.”

KESSLER: “3H. Tell partner I have a 6+ card suit that’s biddable at the 3 level. If partner raises to 4, we can ask for aces. If partner bids 3NT, we can bid 4C or pass, knowing he has wasted values in diamonds and no heart fit.”

Some panelists would have liked to bid 4C as ace asking, but instructed me to change their bid to 3D if that was unavailable. They and the Blackwooders suffer from the same flaw – the lead coming through the spade king.

GUTHRIE: “4NT. If 4C or 4D is Roman Keycard for clubs, I would try that. Lacking that understanding, I trust that 4NT is Roman Keycard.”

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5D	100	10	82
5H	90	3	2
6S	90	4	12
5NT	90	1	2
5S	50	0	2

3.  IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
			1S
Pass	2NT *	Pass	4S **
Pass	5C	Pass	???

  * (Forcing spade raise)
** (Minimum opener; no singleton or void)

What is your call as South holding:   87654   AK7   A64   Q8 ?

It  was hard to get a bad score on this deal. A few lonely Solvers gave up on slam, but everyone else cooperated with partner’s move. Yes, that spade suit is ugly, but partner, who could have Blackwooded, told us the 5-level was safe. So what’s the best way to advance the auction? The majority opted for the “obvious” cheaper cuebid:

FEILER: “5D. I would have opened 1D with this hand, but having failed to do so, I’ll bid them now. Better late than never.”

GUTHRIE: “5D. Presumably partner is wide open in a red suit – probably hearts, so I have to cooperate, although my spades could be better. If partner bids 5S, I’m going to bid on anyway.”

HUDSON: “5D. Since partner is still interested, I plan to drive to slam. On the way, I’ll control bid both red suits, on the off chance pard would like to bid a grand. I have a tip-top maximum for my signoff.”

NELSON: “5D. I assume partner will go back to 5S; then I will bid 6H…but first I would like to tell them of the diamond ace Often I have cuebid the higher ranking ace first, then gone back and verified the lower control, but I think I’ll get more points in the Forum for bidding 5D.”

What a refreshing confession of intellectual dishonesty. Her score is more important than staking a claim to the bid she would make at the table. A well-earned extra 10 points, Bev ... and as a bonus, you have the distinction of choosing the same bid as Bridge Baron.

I once played in a partnership where, after a cuebid sequence was started, subsequent notrump bids were “DI”, like a pause in the auction to reset the next round of cues. One of the basic principles of that style was the cuebidding of the higher of touching controls. This usually saved a full level for the next round.

Whether you formally play “DI” or not, I think it’s clear to bid 5H, your higher control. Once you bid the first red control, you then have to bid the other if partner leaves room, so if 5H elicits 5S from partner, I intend to bid 6D.

On the right track, although she doesn’t accept the theory of bidding the higher of touching controls here:

WALKER: “5H. If you want to encourage partner at all, you have to cuebid the suit where you know he has the problem. His Jacoby 2NT is usually a semi-balanced hand, so he needs to hear about a heart control. A 5D cuebid just delays your decision, as partner will be forced to retreat to 5S and you’ll have to decide whether to pass or bid 6S. Unless you want to make a grand slam try and cuebid 6H.”

I wonder if all the 5D bidders are prepared to bid 6H over 5S. It’s possible that partner has a red void and long side clubs, in which case my club queen is big. Or maybe he has a club void and five good trumps and is missing red controls. Or he has a red side suit that needs help. How would you bid this hand as partner: AKxxx QJ10xxx  void  Ax? 

Can you now see why it pays to start with hearts? If partner has the diamond void and cuebids 6D over your 5H, you now get to show your heart king. He already knows you don’t have a singleton.

Here’s FEILER’s soul mate. They should play sometime:

RABIDEAU: “5H. What an ugly problem. Should we be opening 1D with these hands?”

Then there are the gunslingers who get right to the point, even if they don’t know what it is:

DODD: “6S. No guts, no glory. Seriously, partner must have big trumps to make a move above game with no first-round control in either red suit.”

FELDHEIM: “6S. With no red-suit controls, partner must have super spades. 6S should show both red aces.”

MERRITT:  "5NT. After the signoff, partner must be looking at AKQx of spades and the AKxxxx of clubs. I'd like to just bid 7S, but I'm sure that won't get the Forum's approval. At matchpoints, I'd bid 7NT."

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2S	100	10	44
1S	90	6	29
3S	70	2	19
4S	50	0	4
Pass	50	0	4

4.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable              

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  QJ76543   4   KQJ   Q3 ?

I love this problem. It’s more evidence that two-thirds of the world marches to a different drummer. I agree that it’s perfectly acceptable to get to the 2-level with this hand and suit, and most of our panelists got there right away:

FELDHEIM: “2S. This should be a good hand since a pass-out was possible.”

STRITE: “2S. This is about what I play a fourth-seater to show. If I held a heart suit instead of spades, I’d pass the hand out for fear of what the opponents can make.”

HUDSON: “2S. An extra trump, but junky high cards. I hope this is enough to shut them out, if they have a fit of their own.”

KESSLER: “2S. I’ve never met a 7-card spade suit I didn’t like. It seems to me that passing with 7 spades is quite a view, although it could be right.“

KRETCHMER: “2S. It’s matchpoints and everyone will bid. I’ll try to steal 110, but since I can’t defend against 3H, I’ll probably end up playing 3S, which doesn’t look good.”

Are we really afraid of the heart suit? Enough so that we goad the vulnerable opponents into the auction by advertising a limited hand?

We don’t have to guess on this hand. We have a minimum opening bid under most criteria and we have the master suit. We might have a game, so we’d surely like to hear partner’s normal response. We play Drury. It’s matchpoints, and we’d like to go plus. Yada yada, yada. Yet, we preempt. What’s wrong with a normal one-bid?

DODD: “1S. No need to preempt with six losers and the master suit. We’ve got Drury to get partner to slam on the brakes.”

FEILER: “1S. We still can have a game. No need to put a damper on the proceedings with 2S.”

NELSON: “1S. I believe a 2S bid in fourth chair is a much better hand than this.”

I think that’s a minority view. I think most of us would open in fourth seat with a "classic" weak 2S, which is why the majority action befuddles me. Partner is NOT expecting this hand.

Those who open three and four are really rolling the dice … like it would go all pass if they opened 1S or the opponents would jump in and bid at the 3-level. Here are the daring young humans on the flying trapeze:

WALKER: “3S. 2S should show a goodish weak 2 with less than full opening-bid strength, and that’s really quite an underbid for this six-loser hand. Even a sound weak 2 usually has seven or eight losers. 3S shows my playing strength and tells partner not to worry too much about the trump suit. It would be nice to have some higher spade spots, but it’s not that big an issue.”

PAOLO: “3S. I have the master suit, 11 HCPs and seven playing tricks, but only one defensive trick. Every passed hand has 7-11 HCPs and covers two losers; hence, I hope to win nine tricks in spades. On the other hand, it’s possible for East-West to win ten tricks in hearts. To get the score I envisage -- and to make it hard for each opponent to enter the auction -- I preempt (in last position) as often as possible.”

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4C	100	11	55
5C	80	5	31
3NT	70	1	6
3S	50	1	4

5.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
	1C	Pass	1H
Pass	2D	Pass	2H
Pass	3D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  J862   QJ8632   Void   Q106 ?

Another cute hand. Although no panelist tried 3H, I think this hand might be worth one more heart bid. It can play opposite a stiff honor, and 4H might be the easiest game if partner also has the spade ace. Still, nobody tried it, so let’s deal with what they did.

There was only token support for 3NT. This contract might have a play – particularly with mis-defense -- but I consider that a fringe effort. As for the 3S bidders … what do you think partner will expect from you for this auction? It’s probably undiscussed, and rightfully will remain so.

The majority chose the simple preference to 4C. This will work out well if partner can show a doubleton heart, but no one was holding out much hope of that:

DODD: “4C. Tempting to try 3NT at this form of scoring, but I’ll soft-pedal and hope for a plus. If North has a real monster, he can bid game.”

MERRITT: "4C. This cannot be a fast-arrival scenario, as my 2H bid was non-forcing."

FELDHEIM: “4C. 3NT is out of the question.”

PAULO: “4C. At matchpoints, 3NT is tempting but could be disastrous.”

SENG: “4C. If this isn’t enough, at least it’s matchpoints. I expect a trump lead on this auction, and there goes one of my ruffs.”

STRITE: “4C. This diamond void isn’t all that fine a feature with only three trumps.  Often a singleton or doubleton would play opposite partner’s second suit.”

Bridge Baron also bid 4C, but I doubt that his reasoning was as deep as the panel's. I think he just doesn't like to jump. The other alternative, 5C, will at least end this tortuous auction, and there should be some play.

FEILER: “5C. Isn’t this a fast arrival auction? I have no idea. If partner doesn’t know either, he’ll probably pass.”

GUTHRIE: “5C. Time to catch up. Partner is 6-5 at least, with a good hand.”

WALKER: “5C. I’m not interested in playing 3NT opposite any 6-5 hand. 4C sounds like a ultra-weak, gun-to-your-head preference with a doubleton, so you have to show that you have something better than that.”

KRETCHMER: “5C. North’s 6-5 doesn’t require more than AK, AK, but it could be bigger. My first two bids promised a weak hand, but a 4C preference could be made with a singleton. By comparison, Q106 looks huge.”

I think the jump to game here shows a strong preference, and the panel discussion supports that. So does Eric Kokish, who provided the analysis for this hand  from the Saturday, June 6 session of the World Simultaneous Pairs. His analysis is here: 
   http://www.simpairs.com/freq.asp?Board=22&ClubId=&session=005564

Off in his own world:

HUDSON: “3S. I don’t want to commit my self just yet. 3NT, 5C, 6C, 4H and 6H are all possible contracts. Maybe I’ll know what to do next round.”

And partner’s next bid will eliminate all but one of those contracts. Maybe if you can interpret partner’s action of what he thinks he should do over 3S. I see long huddles and a director call in your future. In fact, I suspect a long huddle before you bid 3S.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3S	100	9	42
4H	80	3	22
4NT	70	4	20
4S	60	1	7
4D	60	1	9

6.  IMPs, none vulnerable                       

West	North	East	South
	1C	Pass	1S
Pass	2C	Pass	2H
Pass	3H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  KQ98742   AK103  7   8 ?

Another headache. You want to emphasize your spades and propose them as an alternative playing spot, but how can you really do that? If you bid 3S now, it’s only when partner holds the ace that he’ll understand that you have great length there. Do you think he’ll raise with xx?  Your suit quality is so good you could play opposite a void, so maybe you should have bid 4S at your last turn, but now it’s too late.

I think we’re all playing hearts on this hand, like it or not. Still, I’m a 3S bidder. My hand has tremendous trick-taking ability opposite controls. As long as they can’t tap me out, or partner has a secondary spade fit, we have an excellent shot at 6H or 7H … or notrump.

DODD: “3S. Giving North a choice of games; hopefully he’ll know to raise with something like Ax Jxxx x AKxxxx or take a stab at 4H with the pointed suits reversed.”

GUTHRIE: “3S. This is forcing in theory, but I’ll cross my fingers while partner ponders. Even opposite a void and 4 card heart support, 4S may play better than 4H.”

KESSLER: “3S. 4S could make opposite a singleton when 4H opposite Jxxx goes down. This is IMPs, so overtricks are not important, and 4S rates to be safer – even opposite a singleton, which could be an honor.”

KRETCHMER: “3S. I fear this hand will play badly in hearts with the expected bad distribution. Perhaps partner could come up with one or two spades in his unknown three cards. I’ll try 3S and hope partner doesn’t take this as the spade control.”

NELSON: “3S. This might sound like a cuebid, but I prefer to try to play in a 7-2 fit on this hand as I could be tapped out with two singletons. Over partner’s 4H bid, I will pass.”

PAULO: “3S. In hearts, I am afraid of getting tapped in diamonds. I follow the Bols tip of Marijke van der Pas and try to profit by the playing strength of my long suit.”

WALKER: “3S. My 2H could have been artificial, so I don’t think we’ve agreed on hearts as trumps yet. Since we’re still searching for the right game, 3S here should be natural and forcing, showing 6+ spades.”

Amazing! All these 3S bidders are getting the top score when I’m the only one who intends it as control showing. If you want to play spades, then there’s:

STRITE: “4S. I don’t want to play hearts. Even if partner has a spade void, I could still catch 10x, Jx, or a 3-3 break to pick up the suit for two losers. This picture bid should enable partner to move towards slam on a perfect hand like A QJxx  xx  Axxxxx.”

Here’s how the submitter of this problem handled it:

FEILER: “4D. This is what I bid when I had this hand. 2H doesn’t necessarily show hearts; it can just be a third-suit bid, and Blackwood could result in a silly 5H off three aces.”

Whereas 4D has now cleared up everything and partner will know exactly what to do. We had some panelists thinking big things:

MERRITT: "4NT. Blackwood seems the way to go, even if it may be a little pushy on a day where the splits go bad."

FELDHEIM: “4NT. If not Blackwood now, then when?“

Nobody else has even agreed on a suit yet. Are you really suggesting that a suit bid and raised sets the suit? How old-fashioned. Seng and Rabideau joined Feldheim and Merritt in asking for aces. Finally, some panelists are content to lie in the bed they’ve made:

HUDSON: “4H. Is 3H forcing?  I think not, in which case I’ll be satisfied with bidding game. Partner could have bid 4H with any slam suitable hand. If 3H was forcing, I should make a slam try of 3S.”

Here’s a guy who understands that 3S is a slam try…and eschews it.

BRIDGE BARON: "4H. No comment."

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this interesting set, and especially to our guest panelists, John Seng and Bruce Kretchmer. Congratulations to Doug Jonquet, who scored a perfect 600 on this month's problems, and to runners-up Bob Bernhard and Oyvind Tafjord, who were right behind with 590. They're all invited to join the October panel. 

The six new problems are below. Please submit your solutions by September 25 on the web form or by email to our October moderator, who is moving to Nigeria this month: 

    Scott Merritt -- merritt604@gmail.com
  

How the Panel voted   (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 538):	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bridge Baron	3C	3H	5D	1S	4C	4H	520
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	3S	4D	5D	1S	5C	4D	470
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT	3D	3D	6S	2S	4C	4NT	560
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	3D	4NT	5D	2S	5C	3S	540
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	2S	3D	5D	2S	3S	4H	510
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	2S	3H	5D	2S	3NT	3S	540
Bruce Kretchmer, Boynton Beach FL	3S	4D	6S	2S	5C	3S	510
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	3D	4D	6S	2S	4C	3S	560
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	3D	3D	5D	1S	5C	3S	570
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	2S	3D	5D	3S	4C	3S	550
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	3D	3D	5H	2S	4C	4NT	560
John Seng, Champaign IL	2S	3D	5D	2S	4C	4NT	550
Jack Spear, Kansas City MO	2S	4NT	5D	2S	4C	4H	520
Toby Strite, San Jose CA	3S	4D	5D	1S	5C	4D	560
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ	3D	3D	6S	1S	4C	3S	580
Tom Kniest, University City MO	3D	3D	5H	1S	4C	3S	580
Scott Merritt, Arlington VA	2S	3D	5NT	1S	4C	4NT	530
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	2S	3H	5H	3S	5C	3S	510

    Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 501)

Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL	600	Greg Berry, Sleepy Hollow IL	550
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL	590	Frank Brunner, Park Forest IL	550
Oyvind Tafjord, Eugene OR	590	Gary Dell, Champaign IL	550
Kevin Jones, Crestwood KY	580	Fred Sandegren, Quincy IL	550
Don Mathis, Florissant MO	580	Len Vishnevsky, San Francisco CA	550
Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	560	Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	550
Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL	560	Dave Smith, Memphis TN	540

Solvers Forum -- October 2005 Problems