District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2014

Welcome to new Forum moderator Kimmel (K.C.) Jones, who will be writing the column for the August and February issues. Kimmel is a former District 8 member who now lives near Dallas TX. He started his bridge writing career by serving as moderator for the "Junior Master Solvers" column in the Central Illinois Unit newsletter back in the 1970s. 

 * Clubs & hearts   ** Values (10+ points)

What is your call as South holding: 10432  J102  765  A63 ?

We begin this month with a classical competitive bidding problem where we must consider several factors. Whose hand is it? What’s the vulnerability? How good is our fit or fits? Who rates to be the opening leader, and if it's our partner, should we influence him?

The panel came up with seven calls including a redouble (which wasn’t explained). Let’s begin with the lowest:

PAULO: "Pass. Let partner choose our poison."

And let him also choose which suit to lead, as we are not competing at this table. The case for 3C:

BAINTER: "3C. Bidding 3C gets partner off to a club lead for a heart switch, if he is on lead."

One 3H bidder made a comment:

BRIDGE BARON: "3H. After partner's two-suited bid, always show an eight-card fit if you can do so below 3NT, and prefer a major to a minor. Partner could legitimately want to play 4H; alternatively, knowing about the support might help partner sacrifice."

I can’t say I’ve heard of the necessity to stay below 3NT or preferring a major all that much to a minor when the hand obviously belongs to the opponents. As the boss says:

WALKER: "3C. We aren't going to buy this contract, so make this bid count and get partner off to the right lead."

Thinking defensively, the issue really is whether or not to preempt to hinder the opponents. If not, 3C stands out for the lead. But what about preempting? Give partner x  KQxxx  xx  KQxxx and the opponents make at least 4S, while we take nine tricks on offense at favorable vulnerability!

WARD: "4H. I'm losing the lead director, but I'll jam them. May make it hard for them to find spades."

RABIDEAU: "Granted that I would prefer a club lead if we defend, but it seems more important to get them to the 4S or 5D level right away."

How would you feel about bidding hearts instead of clubs if they reach 6D, for example?

PAVLICEK" "4C. With values only in partner's suits, it feels right to extend the preempt, and since we're probably not making anything, I might as well direct the lead."

ETTELSON: "5C. The opponents have points enough for game. We are white on red, plus have a double fit. Bidding 4H is likely insufficiently preemptive, so I will bid 5C."

For scoring purposes, it seems most important to bid clubs for the lead, and secondarily to preempt, considering the double fit and vulnerability.

What is your call as South holding: AK64  A1043  83  972 ?

Here we have essentially a constructive auction after a very pesky preempt. It’s been my experience to do your best to get to 3NT in these situations whenever you can.

World champion Bob Hamman actually has a rule about this ("If you have a choice of reasonable bids and one of them is 3NT, then bid it."). In that regard, I choose to bid 3S as it’s the strongest holding I have below 3NT, so that partner with a club stopper (and maybe a heart card, not that we need it) will bid 3NT. If I instead choose 3H, pard may get worried about spades as he’s less likely to have values there, and we may miss out. Who supports me?

GAGNON: "3S. I want pard to bid 3NT."

BAINTER: "3S. Without a standout bid available, I opt for the stronger major. I'm prepared to play 4-3 fit, but there is also greater likelihood that pard has a heart card if he also has a club card for 3NT."

Yes. At the one-level, we always bid hearts ahead of spades with 4-4 over partner’s opening 1D so we can delicately find a 4-4 fit in either suit. But here, we get just one shot before bounding beyond 3NT, so give it your best.

Let’s see who bids the weaker major:

PAVLICEK: "3H. Least of evils. It's forcing (at least by my rules), keeps 3NT in the picture, and allows partner an easy spade bid. If partner raises to 4H, the H10 might be just enough to roll it.

KNIEST: "3H. Bid them up the line; afraid 4C would be (rightfully) construed as a diamond raise."

ETTELSON: "3H. I will bid a major, hoping partner will support hearts or bid spades. Failing that, I can tolerate 4D."

3H is golden when partner happens to have four hearts, but otherwise it could lead to a poor 4H contract and/or fog up your ability to reach 3NT. But at least, as Richard says, 3NT is possible.

Going past 3NT didn't concern those who opted for a diamond raise:

WARD:  "4D. 3NT is a fantasy, because even if we avoid or stop a club lead, nothing says we have nine toppers."

We have three panelists who buy into that fantasy. They agree with Hamman so much that they simply bid 3NT directly!

WALKER: "3NT. Very annoying that we can't play responsive doubles over a pass! Decent chance that partner has a stopper, but even if he doesn't, I'd rather play in 3NT than a 4-2 major fit."

KAPLAN: "3NT. Too many values to pass -- and -- what else? Hey; bidding 3NT with no stopper works for others. Why not me, too?"

BRIDGE BARON: "3NT. A very rule-based computer bid that I can explain (three of a major requires a five-card suit, no diamond support, and too strong to pass) without enthusiastically endorsing. Maybe West can't run clubs, even though the preempt was vulnerable and partner didn't bid 3NT?"

Two ladies and a freaking robot have more, uh, courage, than the rest of us. Next case.

What is your call as South holding: KJ102  3  Q85  AKJ73 ?

Now this is the first classic type hand of the set where a seasoned Solver pencils in the obvious choice for 100 points, not knowing if it will achieve the best result (-470 rarely is), but fairly confident that most of the other lemmings are going over the same cliff.

PAULO: "Double. I must compete, and double is the most flexible call."

PAVLICEK: "Perfect. I showed heart shortness or extreme shape when I bid over 1H (I would always pass with a balanced hand). A double now clarifies that I don't have the extreme-shape hand and brings diamonds into the picture as well."

KESSLER: "Double. This should be looking for the best place to play. I play 3C would show six."

KNIEST: "Double. I certainly have a little extra and pard will know this is shortness. He should know my exact shape, as I would open 1D with a 4-1-4-4 pattern."

Good points. Some folks might be a little scared to double with a singleton heart. Partner couldn’t double 2H himself directly, and now you may think his Pass is asking if you can double for penalty. And in a sense he is. But as several panelists have noted, you aren’t just showing strength in hearts. You're showing that you have about 14 or more points, and this exact distribution. Bingo! If partner passes and you don’t beat it, it’ll likely be because of mis-defense -- or partner not knowing what your bids mean.

What about bidding 3C?

RABIDEAU: "3C. A little timid. Hope partner can find another call."

WALKER: "3C. Best guess is partner is balanced with weak hearts (maybe 3-3-4-3). No need for me to bid 3H to ask for a stopper, as he'll bid 3NT if it's right (and probably would have doubled or bid notrump at his last turn if he had decent stoppers). Better to show the good clubs and doubt about notrump."

GAGNON: "3C. Is this the right bid? If I've opened 1D with this hand, I'm bidding 3C now."

Several of the Solvers acted as if they had opened 1D. That would indicate that maybe the problem was originally published with an error that has been corrected since then. It also indicates that the Solvers do the hands a lot earlier than most panel members.

Interestingly enough, if you were playing a big club system, you just might have to open 1D on such a hand, and the auction would make sense. If that is what you thought we were doing, give yourself 100 points, and be on the lookout for my upcoming system (the Happy Fun Big Club) book. I’ll put it out later in the century.

What is your call as South holding:  AQJ   Q942  AKJ   QJ7  ?

This hand reminds me of when I played with my brother in our college days. He opened 1H. I had 4-card support and some sort of stoppers in most of the other suits, so it was easy to make a notrump value bid to get the stronger brother at the helm.

HINCKLEY: "1NT. Wouldn't be a surprise for nine tricks to be the limit in both 3NT and 4H, and we are playing IMPs. I'll show my 19-20 points and balanced hand rather than jump to 3H."

KAPLAN: "1NT. Despite having a ton of high-card points and four hearts, it looks like a notrump hand to me. 1NT should be about 19-20 balanced with stoppers; what I have! Hearts might be better, but it doesn't feel like it to me".

PAVLICEK: "1NT. Shows the strength (18-20 as I play) and avoids getting overboard when partner is completely broke. Certainly there's no compelling urge to play in hearts, lest we forget that partner could have xxx  Jxx  xxxx xxx (or without the J)."

And no compelling reason to play higher than the 1-level.

KESSLER "2NT. Easier to take nine tricks than ten. Partner can still bid 3C, 3D or 3H if unbalanced and looking to play a suit."

And easier to take seven tricks than eight.

RABIDEAU: "2NT. Knowing I'll have an entry or two in dummy's heart suit makes me bullish, but not enough to bid more. Partner knows we're vulnerable at IMPs."

This is really a bad 20 points. No tens. Flat distribution. Probably not a second 4-card suit in either hand to build a long trick in. And entry problems. 20 across from 5 is a lot shakier than, say, 15 facing 10. Shouldn’t 1NT be plenty? Partner knows we are vulnerable at IMPs. He’ll invite or go with the values we need.

But notrump bidders on the panel out-numbered others by only 9 to 8. I believe the next best bid to 1NT is a simple 2H. After all, we have six losers, and to make game in hearts, we are hoping partner can cover three of those losers. Isn’t a single raise enough to see if he has anything? No one on the panel bid 2H, but a few opted for:

BRIDGE BARON: "3H. Partner can go to game with a maximum. The diamond queen should be well placed. Notrump wouldn't work so well if they set up and run their clubs."

Without any interference over partner’s forced 1H, a leap to 3H should show you are about one trick away from game. Remember that partner's 1H showed 0-8 points. Over 3H, he should go with anything in the upper half of the range.

And finally, you can always score a few points by kicking the can down the road with the ambiguous cuebid, a Forum favorite.

BAINTER: "2D. Pard doesn't need but a smattering of the rest of the points for game, but I will tell him I am very good first. 3NT might make while 4H might fail. Let's see what his next bid is."

PAULO: "2D. I'm wondering if partner has a Yarborough or something better."

What is your call as South holding:  106542  AQJ   763   J7 ?

Even if you've discussed how you show a constructive hand after a reverse, here’s a hand where where the situation is different. The opponents have made a competing bid, so we have extra information. First question: Can we let 2H go?

PAULO: "Pass. At matchpoints, to play in this Moysian fit is tempting."

Perhaps, if you are playing a big club system or have agreed that 2H shows a minimum hand here. The vast majority of the panel and Solvers believe opener’s hand shows a hand worthy of a reverse --  say 17+ points -- so while tempted, most of the panel felt compelled to keep the bidding alive, with the cheapest bid being:

BRIDGE BARON: "2S. Partner might want to know about my fifth spade, even with this moth-eaten suit."

Perhaps the Baron does not play support doubles. The rest of us know that partner has fewer than three spades, so we certainly do not want to persist in spades.

RABIDEAU: "3C. I like Lebensohl (2NT being a conventional relay to 3C unless partner has extras) here. We can bail out in 3C if partner has a minimum."

2NT, as Larry laments, is dangerous here. We may conventionally play 2NT as Lebensohl without the interference, but in this auction, our partner may well take 2NT as showing a diamond stopper. At least some panelists implied that they thought Lebensohl is on. Others said it definitely wasn't.

WALKER: "3C. I'm not sure if Bridge World Standard plays Lebensohl in this auction, but if so, 3C is encouraging. Wish I had the promised third club, but Jx will have to do. With partner's hand being forced, a 4-3 heart fit doesn't look right."

KNIEST: "3C. Pard has some taps to take; he can rebid hearts if he's 6-5. No Lebensohl for me with the AQJ of hearts."

KESSLER: "3D. Playing hearts and getting tapped is not a pleasant thought. While hearts might work out, I'll try for more info. You have too much for 3C."

And the top vote getter:

WARD: "3H. Tough problem. If the auction 1C-1D-DBL could show five spades and four hearts, this seems clear, but I don't  think that is Bridge World Standard."

BAINTER: "3H. Since I am inclined to make negative doubles holding both majors, a raise in hearts should at least warn pard I may only have three. But I need to bid something."

HINCKLEY: "3H. Forcing, assuming a form of Ingberman/Lebensohl is used. This is an example of the 'Scrabble Principle' -- double letter scores for honors in partner's long suits! This '8-point hand' has therefore turned into a monster. Imagine partner with  x  Kxxx  Ax  AKQxxx."

Imagine getting tapped with a spade leads.

What is your call as South holding:  975  5  AJ  AKJ10976 ?

Our final hand brings a smile to my face. I have two different systems in which we can distinguish opener’s good hands with long minors and 3-card support for partner’s major (this hand) from those without 3-card support. One is the Happy Fun Big Club. The other involves the Mexican 2D. So how does the panel struggle with this common problem with Bridge World Standard methods?

Only a couple directly raised spades on 975.

ETTELSON: "2S. I am not happy supporting spades with only three, but if I repeat clubs at the two or three level, partner may feel jammed up."

The 3S bidder gave no comment. So the main debate is between 2C and 3C.

KAPLAN: "2C. How can I not bid this suit again? A hair short of a 3C bid."

WALKER: "2C. Close to 3C on playing strength, but that overstates my high cards. Partner doesn't promise great spades for his freebid, so I'm not raising spades now with xxx. I think I'll get a chance to show spade support later."

BAINTER: "2C. 3C takes up too much room to explore a 5-3 spade fit, and if pard doesn't have a diamond card, then he will wonder if I have one. So I will hope that 2C won't be passed out if game is there."

Yes, 2C gives you a better chance to support spades later, if you get the chance. While the 2C bidders considered 3C, the feeling was not mutual.

PAVLICEK: "3C Is this a sanity check? I'm betting 3C will be unanimous."

KESSLER: "3C. No other bid comes to mind -- certainly not raising spades."

PAULO: "3C. After West's double, clubs looks a better strain than spades."

WARD: "3C. Right on trick count. Makes it harder to get to spades when right."

KNIEST: "3C. Seems right on playing strength and is the quickest way to 3NT if pard can bid it. Yes, they could have nine hearts, but we could have nine peelers before they get the lead."

Okay, this one compared and contrasted.

HINCKLEY: "3C. Do I bid 3C invitational and semi-preemptive to shut out the red suits, but make it difficult to get to spades when it's right? Or rebid 2C and allow us to get to spades but with the danger of West bidding hearts? I think the opponents have a good 3H contract, so I'm making the tactical 3C bid."

So there you have it. I thank all the panelists for their penetrating analyses, and ask them not to take anything I say too seriously. See you all in the pasteboard jungle!!

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this interesting and low-scoring set. Topping all Solvers with 545 was Joan Adams of Sceptre, Saskatchewan, followed by Bill Johnson of Farmington MO and Larry O'Maley of Fort Wayne IN with 535. All three are invited to join the October panel.

If you'd like to receive an email notice when new problems are posted, please send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

I hope you'll give the October problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by September 30 on the web form. 

October moderator:  Nate Ward   Nate.Ward@dsvolition.com