District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2015

    by Kimmel Jones, Euless TX

What is your call as South holding  ♠8743   ♥K7   ♦9654   ♣AK5 ?      

This month’s first lesson is most distinctly put this way:

CUTHBERTSON: Double. 10 HCPs. Must act.

If you pass over 1S, you will have a really rough time recovering. Suppose partner reopens with a takeout double. Are you really prepared to pass for penalties? Anything you then bid could easily be too high or too low. Or if advancer bids, your partner won’t know to compete when he should and neither will you on your next turn. It’s much better to initially show partner that you have values.

Back in the days before negative doubles were invented (and no, I’m not quite that old ... well, maybe), you’d get comments like these:

HINCKLEY: 2H. Between the options of 1NT and 2H, the prime values and strong heart doubleton sway me to the raise.

BRIDGE BARON: 1NT. Far too strong to pass, but too weak to bid a minor suit. Can't raise, so we're stuck bidding notrump without a stopper in the opponent's suit.

Time to get that program updated. None of the doublers on our panel even considered 1NT as a possibility. 3NT may be our spot, but not if we bid 1NT here. Give partner ♠Kx or ♠QTx and plenty of tricks in the other suits and it becomes clear we’d want our hand to be the dummy. ♠87xx just doesn’t cut it as even a partial stopper while ♠Jxx, ♠10xxx or even ♠9xxx might save the day.

So the real choice seems to be between doubling (to show minors) or raising hearts, with the preponderance of sentiment for:

WARD:  Double. I wouldn't argue with 2H, as that will be a lot more encouraging than bidding it next round over 2C.

PAULO:  Double. It looks like a classic negative double: some strength without the length to bid a suit of my own.

KESSLER: Double. Your second bid rates to be tougher than the first one.

Yes, Mark. And look for that problem in a future issue!

What is your call as South holding  ♠AQ765   ♥1085   ♦A   ♣KJ109 ?

Here’s a classic debate mostly between signing off and making some sort of move towards slam, but first, our most optimistic panelist and fellow editor:

SPEAR:  6NT. Too strong to invite, so I will go for the matchpoints at 6NT. If I were sure that 4NT was Roman Keycard, I would bid that along the way.

Good point, Jack, but for us to be off two aces, pard would have to have something like  K  KQJx  KQTxxx  Qx, which is so crummy, she shouldn’t have reversed in the first place. Unless you were fishing for the grand, I suppose. Okay.

I’m not sure the hand is too good to invite, but is it really too weak to invite? Really?

MERRITT:  3NT. Let me try to win my matchpoints elsewhere and just respond normally.

KNIEST: 3NT. Matchpoints -- anything beyond 3NT is speculative unless you have the understanding that 4NT is quantitative.

WILLIAMS: 3NT. I know  we have a lot of points, but my hand has gotten worse with each bid. Sounds like partner has 0 or 1 spade. We should make 3NT on sheer power, but I don't see the source of tricks we need for slam. If partner can move over 3NT, then we may have something.

Is partner going to move with  x  Axxx  KQJxxx  AQ? August’s second lesson is something I learned back when negative doubles got invented: When contemplating whether to invite to slam (or game for that matter), try to envision a perfect minimum partner could have consistent with his prior bids that makes the slam, and if it exists, go ahead and make the try. Don’t give him any extra high cards or unusual extra length. And sometimes partner will actually have the perfect minimum and decline your invitation (in which case we all prove Jack was right), but in the long run you’ll come out ahead by just inviting.

KESSLER:  3H. I hate this bid with no heart honor, but want to hear what partner bids. I really want to bid 3NT -- it is matchpoints, but we do have a diamond fit, and too many points not to try for a slam.

FELDHEIM:  3H. Partner is showing 4-6 shape and while I'm not sure where this hand is going, it's too good for 3NT. North should know I'm 4-3-1-5 with some aspirations. If 3NT,

Other panelists were split between inviting and committing to slam.

WARD: 4NT:  I don't see how this can be Blackwood. I have too much soft stuff in the black suits to insist on slam, as well as about the worst red-suit holding.

CUTHBERTSON: 4D. Game forcing, so I'll show secondary support for partner's prime suit before committing to slam.

What is your call as South holding  ♠KQ86   ♥Void   ♦AKQJ10   ♣K543 ? 

One nuance of the Master Solvers format is that we all have to agree to play the same system. This problem would be well suited for the Challenge the Champs format where instead you would bid this hand with your favorite partner using your well-discussed system. With half of my favorite partners, we have the agreement that the auction 1C-1D-1H-1S is a game force. Therefore:

PAULO:  3C. Now, I must raise; later on, I'll ask about the spade ace and the club ace and queen.

BERNHARD:  3C.  Let's set trumps and show short hearts. We could be on our way to 7.

WARD:  3C. I'd love to bid 5H exclusion, but I think I'll set trumps first instead of giving partner an opportunity to play his 4-0 fit.

HINCKLEY: 5H. Exclusion Blackwood. 3C should be game forcing and 4H should be artificial, but I'm not risking partner grabbing a green card out of his bidding box.

That's at least four panelists who believe that 3C should be forcing (because you responded 1D instead of an immediate 1S). But in Bridge World Standard, which you can easily find at their website, I quote, “one club — one diamond — one heart — one spade shows spades and is similar to a one-over-one response”.

So, guys I’m with you, uh, half the time. 3C would give us the most room to explore, but in BWS, partner’s 2C rebid wasn’t forcing and neither is your raise to 3C. So how do we force with clubs?

WALKER:  6C, by default. I've been through the whole bidding box, and the only forcing bids I can find are 5NT and 4NT (and I'm not even sure about 4NT) . Maybe 4C should be forcing, but I'm not willing to gamble that partner agrees.

WILLIAMS: 4C. I really wished we had played strong jump shifts. I would hope 4C would be forcing. Shows my shape perfectly. 3C could be bid on a much weaker hand.

FELDHEIM:  4C. Setting the trump suit and encouraging a cuebid sequence. If North cues spades, I can try 5NT. If permitted, an alternate would be 5H (Exclusion Blackwood)  but I'm not sure it's on our card.

Not only do you want to discover the black aces that you could via Exclusion Blackwood ("Voidwood"), you shouldn’t deny yourself knowledge of the ace of hearts! 

KESSLER: 4C. Over 4H, I bid 5D. If partner bids 5S, I bid 7NT. If partner bids 4S over 4C, I bid 7C.

Then again, Mark, might your partner be bidding this way with Ax  AKJx x QJTxxx ?

SPEAR:  4C. This should put us on track for some kind of a club slam. I will Roman Keycard for clubs myself over a 4-of-a-major cuebid.

Perfecto!

  * (5+-card suit, at least 2 of top 3 honors)

What is your call as South holding   ♠A52   ♥AK973   ♦A   ♣AKQ10?

We start out this problem with the panelists who know where to go.

MERRITT: 7D. Not sure how to be intelligent about this, but there must be enough communication to move from probably 12 to 13 tricks.

WILLIAMS: 7D. There are too many hands that we are cold for 7D and 7NT has no play.

Another who went somewhere, but wasn’t quite as confident:

FELDHEIM: 6D. This might not be enough, but any other bid is passable. A direct 7D is possible if North holds ♦KQxxxx, it's only a 36% slam. Is 5NT (asking for extra length)  possible?

And normally I’m the guy who tells you all where to go. Shouldn’t we investigate a bit to see which slam to bid?  My choice is 4NT, but Harold seems to imply that I might get zipped out. My supporters:

SPEAR: 4NT. Roman Keycard for diamonds, then 7D or 7NT if partner shows the spade king.

CUTHBERTSON: 4NT. Then 5NT to show all the key cards and hope partner can bid 7D.

Yes, this is how I figured out how you can ask for better diamonds, and as Jack suggests, you can go for broke in 7NT if partner surprises you instead by showing the ♠K. Could partner really misread and pass 4NT?  I don’t think so. Even if he’s unsure of its meaning, he can simply rebid 5D anyway.

KESSLER:  5NT. This cannot be an ask for two of the top three honors, as we already know that, so it must be for extra length or the jack of diamonds. I do not know how to find out if partner has seven diamonds to bid 7NT.

HINCKLEY:  5NT. Asking for the diamond jack or a seven-card suit and repeating my choice on Problem 2 of June 2012 (very similar auction where you held AK7643  A4  A  AKQ5)  which was scored as 80 points then.

Ok, Bud, I’ll give you at least 80 this time. And a cookie.

WALKER: 5NT. Grand Slam Force for diamonds. Partner already promised the ♦KQ, so this has to ask for ♦KQJ or a 7th diamond. My partner, who had about 100 masterpoints at the time, had no problem reading that meaning, and was even thoughtful enough to bid 6S to show his king so we could bid 7NT.

So 5NT is slightly better than 4NT for two reasons. Partner conceivably could pass 4NT, and when partner has the ♠K but just ♦KQxxxx, Jack I and I will be in a 36% 7NT, while y’all are snug in 6D.

BRIDGE BARON: 5D. We give up.

Can’t do that. Two problems to go. 

5. IMPs, both vulnerable

    * Spades and a minor
   ** Values (9+ points) 

What is your call as South holding   ♠K1064  ♥105   ♦AQ97   ♣Q94 ?

This problem had to be submitted for one of two reasons. Somebody couldn’t believe their partner forgot to act and they missed a good penalty (or game bonus) or, more likely:

WARD:  Double. I did this on a similar auction last year at the Dallas nationals, and LHO had an 8-card suit. Hopefully, they don't this time as well.

Hey Nate, it was good to see you in Dallas. I hope you are doing well at the Chicago nationals this week, as many District 8ers, including many of my friends on the panel, are toiling away in the Windy City.

KESSLER: Double. Most flexible and most dangerous. The trick is to do this in tempo so partner does not feel any ethical repercussions.

I know Mark is in Chi-town. I saw him last in New Orleans.

KNIEST:  Double. Expecting partner to lead trump. Presumably, I have diamonds behind RHO's diamonds and partner has hearts behind LHO's hearts.

FELDHEIM:  Double. There's no guarantee of game and a defense based on trump leads should yield a useful profit.

Or even more simply:

SPEAR:  Double. The plan is to defeat 3C doubled.

Those less confident chose to pass.

MERRITT:  Pass. This doesn't look like a winner for us, but I take the weakest lily-livered response.

PAULO:  Pass. At IMPs, I don't have the nerve to double.

And there was a third multi-panelist viewpoint:

CUTHBERTSON: 3NT. Bid the most likely game

BRIDGE BARON:  3NT. Simulation, expecting +98 points on average.

For those who may not know, what the Bridge Baron is referring to is simulation software that deals a very large number of hands where South always has this hand and the other three are random. Then they filter the results to include only the deals where North opens 1H, East bids 2H, West says 3C and it comes back to South. Then in this simulation run, they have South bid 3NT, the bidding finishes, the hand is played out, the score in saved, and so forth until they get bored. So the Baron is saying that all the plus and minus scores on those deals averaged +98.

If we assume the final contract was 3NT most of the time in the simulation, we can then infer that 3NT actually made about 1 in 3 times. I say that because the average of making once and going set two times is close to +98. For example,  (+600  -100  -200) / 3 =  +100.

I’d like to see the simulation run for doubling 3C and for passing it out. Then going forward, we can run simulations for all the problems, making the editor’s job much easier!

What is your call as South holding   ♠J  ♥102   ♦AKJ84   ♣AK652 ?

Problem 6 is the only one of this set where the panel was almost entirely in synch as to how to proceed. They didn’t see it as very tough.

KESSLER: 4C. Very tough problem. Certainly a cuebid followed by a jump must be forcing.

Okay, everyone but Mark. For the rest of the panel:

PAULO:  3D. After having shown club support, this rebid looks descriptive, and it is clearly forcing.

CUTHBERTSON:  3D. Probing for slam. Hope partner can cuebid 3S or 3H.

WILLIAMS: 3D. Partner overcalled on a bad suit, but has enough juice to bid 2NT. We are in the slam zone, so my hand is worth one try. I'll be passing 3NT and driving to slam otherwise.

KNIEST:  3D. Shirley this is forcing, surely.

"Don’t call me Shir...”– oh forget it.

WALKER   3D. The cuebid followed by a new suit is 100% forcing. I'm not sure if we can get to 6C, but this seems the best way to start looking.

Most solvers began by looking other ways. The 4NT bidders did it without knowing whether we have a heart control, and there was even a stray vote for 5NT. Those who bid 3H (and 4C)  made it harder for partner to show both major-suit controls if he has them.

Some solvers bid 3C, which might work out, but it seems much stronger to bid 3D to show where you have great strength and to let partner focus on showing major-suit controls. It also makes it easier for him to retreat to 3NT when he can’t cuebid a major and might fear being wide open in diamonds (a hand such as KQx  QJx  x  QJTxxx).

While the entire panel sees the strong likelihood of slam, many solvers simply raised 2NT to 3NT. As we discussed in Problem 2, when you can construct a perfect minimum for partner that will make a slam, you need to at least try. That what experts like Bud do here.

HINCKLEY: 3D. Forcing (expecting to support clubs next) , and if 3C was clearly forcing, I'd bid that. A sub-minimum overcall of  Axx  Kxx  xx  QJxxx will make a club slam, so I'll inquire if partner's heart stopper includes the ace or king.

My thanks to our esteemed panel whose many good comments have made us each just a little bit better as bidders.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Topping all Solvers with an impressive 590 were Nigel Guthrie of Glasgow, Scotland; Wally Hendricks, Winnetka IL; and Jim Hudson, Elmhurst IL. 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