District 8 Solvers Forum -- December 2006

   by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ

1. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable            

West	North	East	South
--	Pass	Pass	1S
2D	DBL	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  A9764   KQ  A943   K5 ?

In case you're wondering, yes, that's me in the photo, taken last week, shortly after our campus here went smoke-free. But enough whining about smoke-free workplaces. Plenty of meaty problems this month -- with the bonus of analysis from expert Richard Pavlicek -- so let's dive in:

MERRITT: "2NT. Maybe I am a bit strong, but A9xx and KQ tight in partner's suit make me cautious."

SOPER: "2NT. This seems to describe my hand well. If I want a swing, I pass and hope partner has a couple diamonds without enough points for game."

STRITE: "2NT. I see the points, but not the tricks. Matchpoints makes 2NT more palatable since I don't need to push to a thin game."

MILLER: "3NT. Seems easy. As a passed hand, partner also had the freedom to bid two hearts if he held something like Q AJxxx xxx QJxx."

FELDHEIM: "2NT. Surely no one is passing 2D doubled and if not, what's the alternative? 3NT is an overbid."

RABIDEAU: "3NT. An overbid but the nine of diamonds made me do it."

That same nine is what influenced my decision to pass. Go figure.

WALKER: "Pass. 3NT is an overbid and 2NT is an underbid, so I'll avoid that guess and take our 'sure' plus. I might have opened this hand 1NT, but this auction may work out fine for us. Knowing the kind of softball overcalls many players make here, this could be a bigger number than we expect."

Several other panelists (and a few solvers) also felt this problem could have been avoided by opening 1NT. While I've been known to open plenty of off-shape hands with a strong NT, including one with a so-so 5-card major, I can't say this would be one of them, even in third seat. Perhaps if the hand had more quacks or the spade suit was 9xxxx. This hand simply looks better for suit play to bypass the major, and the KQ is a further warning signal. Perhaps we could have scored a decent penalty against 2D if we'd opened 1NT, but who's to say?

FEILER: "Pass. Remind me: why didn't I open 1NT? What auction was I hoping for? Anyway, if we don't have a game pass should work. If we do have a game, I'll have to hope partner can extrude a doubleton diamond honor from somewhere so we can smack 2D pretty hard!"

PAVLICEK: "Pass. I would have opened 1NT due to the lopsided nature. Now it seems best to hope for plus 300 versus no game our way. Any plus score may be good, as this hand will often go sour as declarer."

Seems to be a recurring theme. Those who would have opened an off-shape 1NT were unanimous in playing for the penalty. Unfortunately, the lack of tricks that influenced the decision to defend also cuts the same way on defense. Your 3 ½ defensive tricks are a plus, but North is, after all, a passed hand, is likely short in diamonds, and the pass is so final. Still, it's better than anything we've got going.

Last word:

PAOLO: "2NT. First, West (with, e.g., xx xx KQTxxx AQx) can win seven tricks. Second, partner (with, e.g., KJ AJxxx x Jxxxx) is not good enough for game."

I truly hope those aren't the West/North hands (and North would likely bid a constructive passed hand 2H with five good ones and a partial spade fit). One slip on defense gives us a juicy minus, and we can make 9 or 10 tricks easy in either major. Bur make the heart jack the diamond jack, and it gets interesting.

2. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
1S	100	7	54
2C	90	5	36
2S	70	2	4
3S	60	2	2
4S	60	1	4
Pass	60	1	0

West	North	East	South
--	--	1C	???

What is your call as South holding:  AQJ842   109642  Q   J ?

Silly me. I had thought this would be close to unanimous in favor of Michaels. Suit quality aside, the hand just struck me as not worth a spade overcall planning to follow with a heart rebid if available. On the other side, I really would rather induce a spade lead if North were to end up on lead against, say, 3NT. Okay, it's a close decision, and the panel's split bore this out.

PAVLICEK: "1S. Too lopsided for Michaels, especially since partner will prefer hearts with equal length. The vulnerability makes it comfortable to bid again later up to 4H if necessary."

STRITE: "2C. We rate to declare, either to make or sacrifice, so I won't blast some number of spades and lose hearts in the process. I could live with 1S, too, but with little defense, I'll forego overcalling then bidding hearts."

PAOLO: "1S. Against the Michaels cue-bid, hearts are shorter and weaker than spades. On the other hand, if LHO declares notrump or diamonds, I want to suggest a spade lead. Besides, the vulnerability allows me to introduce hearts, later on, if it looks convenient."

NELSON: "2C. I can't describe a better spade suit then bid hearts, my hand doesn't warrant, I would rather block more bidding space and describe at least 9 or 10 cards in the majors...turns out I have eleven...what a bonus."

TAJFORD: "1S. I'd much rather have a spade lead, so I'll forgo the hearts, at least for now."

MERRITT: "2C. I have time to rebid my spades and show my hand. We have the vulnerability in our favor and yes, 10xxxx is a biddable suit. I am sure that there is a message in this hand that will severely punish the people that Michaels, but I'm doing it anyway."

Getting cynical at your age? Welcome to the club, Scott! I figure the stiff honors were going to punish us by "giving away" the distribution and allow East to pull off a miraculous slam. I wonder if this was a real or made-up deal. Hmmm. Bottom line for me though, is that bidding twice shows more than I have. What's North to put me in if it goes something like  (1C) - 1S - (3C) - Pass - (3D)  and I chime in with 3H?

Preempting is okay if you follow the "modern" school, but I never like to leave potential big fits out in the cold. Of course, one panelist thought you really could have it both ways:

BERNHARD: "2S. Okay, not the book bid, but I need to show difference between suits. I'll bid hearts next up to 4, which should show this hand."

This is one of the reasons why we had some truly exciting sessions as partners. I sometimes long for the good old days!

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	15	58
2H	70	2	16
2C	60	1	6
Other	60	0	20

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1D
Pass	1H	Pass	1S
Pass	1NT	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  AK102   AQ4   KJ654   3 ?

Finally an easy one -- straight out of a beginning primer (almost).

FELDHEIM: "3H. This seems like the classic way to describe this 4-3-1-5 hand."

BERNHARD: "3H. Should show this hand, almost a picture bid. Can not imagine anything else."

MILLER: "3H. Why did we rebid one spade instead of 2S (very modest stretch)? Now I am left with the options of missing game if I underbid or playing in 3H hearts opposite  Jx  10xxx  xx  KQ10xx? 'I reject your reality and substitute my own.' "

VONGSVIVUT: "3H. I assume 3H should be forcing, and try to show distribution to force to 3NT or 4 H."

WALKER: "3H. A rebid of 2H here should show some extra values, but this 17-count is much more than partner would expect. I wish 3H were just invitational, but it isn't, so I'll have my apologies ready if I've forced partner into a no-play game."

3H had better be invitational or we're all in trouble. You make a bid partner could have passed (1S) and after a further limiting bid by North, a jump now is highly invitational, but hardly forcing. No apologies necessary if North has a totally unsuitable hand (see MILLER's example). Ah well, it's only matchpoints and you'll at least be on par with all those who thought the hand worth a jump shift rebid anyway.

NELSON: "2H. 2C is NOT forcing, therefore I believe this is one way to invite, or I might make a daring bid of 2H which shows extra values and of course club shortness. I say daring as many people don't realize it shows extra."

PAVLICEK: "3H. With a borderline jump-shift my last turn, I won't soft-pedal any more. If this endplays partner into 3NT, so be it. A belated raise to 2H would show a little extra but not this much."

4. IMPs, both vulnerable                             

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
1NT	100	10	42
2NT	80	3	20
3NT	80	2	4
2D	70	1	16
Pass	70	1	16
3D	50	1	2

West	North	East	South
1D	1S	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  8    J84   AQJ9743   A9 ?

A common nightmare problem, more often encountered when playing against proponents of forcing club systems. No direct diamond bid here will convey diamond length and strength, so we must compromise. Or must we?

PAVLICEK: "2D. Followed by 3D (natural invitation). I've had this agreement with partners for years (Modern Bridge Conventions, pg. 152). If your system won't let you show a real diamond suit here, it may be time to rethink the system."

I have the same agreement with many casual partners, but BWS is unclear as to how to show this hand type. And yes, I agree, BWS is about due for another overhaul.

The majority chose the tongue-in-cheek notrump call, at various levels. Personally, I like the underbid because the auction is unlikely to die here, and it gives us more room to maneuver in case North has a second suit or really good spades. Especially at IMPs, it's important not just to bid those red games, but to try, if at all possible, to end up in the right game.

MATHENY: "1NT. 2NT is the value bid but I'm worried about entries to the diamonds. If partner rebids spades I can bid diamonds naturally."

RABIDEAU: "1NT. Seems extremely conservative but we have misfits in at least two suits and the diamonds are not well located. If the auction isn't over, I'll get to bid my real suit."

Here's an interesting thought:

FEILER: "Pass. I hope West reopens. If he doesn't, I hope partner has good spades. If not, I hope a giant, flaming comet strikes the bridge table in mid-hand."

In my dreams, West always reopens and we get to bid our suit naturally. But what if 1S gets passed out? Even if you do get another chance, how will you ever convince North that you hold this much strength? I'm more concerned with explaining to my teammates why I missed an easy game at this form of scoring.

FELDHEIM: "3NT. Who knows what's right? Sure, the heart suit is open, but there was no negative double. The diamonds won't break, but partner may have a 10-spot. This is aggressive, but anything else seems insufficient. Banzai!"

TAJFORD: "3NT. A gamble, but hey, it's IMPs."

That rationale works well with some former teammates of mine from Northern Indiana (names withheld upon request) with whom I've won many a team event. They claim never to have bid a making partscore at IMPs -- they either score big making thin games or go down in flames. Yes, they scored the occasional +110, but almost always by accident. For the in betweeners:

BERNHARD: "2NT. Close between this and 1NT. Lefty may have three diamond tricks, so the hand is not as good as it appears."

MERRITT: "1NT. I must advance, and bidding A9 seems like a stretch. Anything more seems rich with my dreadful holding in support of partner."

C'mon Scott, go for the gusto! A9 may be a stretch, but that Jxx makes it mighty tempting to shoot for a heart game! (No, Scott was not a member of our Non-Making Partscore Team. That group hasn't played together since I left Indiana for Texas -- and now the East Coast -- in 1993.)

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable                                 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4D	100	5	44
5D	90	3	20
4H	80	3	10
4S	70	2	12
4NT	70	1	8
6D	60	2	4
3NT	60	2	2

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

What is your call as South holding:  J72   Q  AQ96    AKJ108 ?

Question one: Is 4D forcing? It had better be or we could get dumped here. I contend that it is. BWS treats other high-level cuebids as game forces, though it is silent as to majors and minors. Many so-called "game forcing" bids are qualified as being forcing through 3NT or 4 of a minor. Here, however, I can't see North passing, especially at this form of scoring (3H was not some ubiquitous Western cue-bid, but a bona fide force in support of diamonds).

The fact that partner probably doesn't have a heart guard is more encouraging than not. Some took this inference to the extreme:

RABIDEAU: "6D. A two-over-one followed by a cuebid has to be forcing to game...doesn't it? Rather than risk it, I'll bid what I think we can make. Partner sounds rather minimal and probably lacks the heart ace (no cue or NT rebid) so that seven is unlikely."

I admire the courage to make that bid. Iit was my second choice, once I'd convinced myself that North couldn't possible pass 4D.

PAOLO: "4D. Forcing. Partner's rebid shows that there are no lost values in hearts; so, a minimal opening like AQxx xxx KJxx  Qx  produces slam."

If only our partners could always produce perfect dummies like that one, bidding would so much easier. But even the example hand requires a break or two to make slam because of the transportation issues. Still, I've played and made worse contracts, as have we all. One of the 4H bidders was concerned that she hadn't yet supported diamonds:

WALKER: "4H. I don't think I've shown a diamond fit yet, as 3H could have been just a stopper-search with a 13-count. 4H, however, should make it clear that I have a diamond slam-try. With partner holding no honors in hearts, it's hard to imagine an opening bid that doesn't give us a good play for a minor-suit game or slam. If partner can't cuebid the spade ace, I'll settle for 5D."

While I agree that 4H now affirms support for diamonds, I'm afraid North will read the second cuebid as showing a first-round control. I've been down that road before (as have most of us, I'd wager). Since we've all agreed that 4D is forcing here, then it stands to reason that 4H should show the ace or a void.

I really don't understand this:

MILLER: "4S. Ruffs will be in the correct hand, and how bad can partners spades be? He refuses to bid NT and there are only 15 non-heart points out there for his opener! On the other hand, if patner has AKQ10 xxx Kxxxx  xx  and the slam rolls, am I supposed to cue 4H instead? Imps: leap into game, crawl to slam."

I can foresee some leaping when your teammates return and ask why you went for -100, or even a solid +620, in a secondary 4-3 spade fit when your counterparts scored an easy 1370. Finally, we have the invocation of the Exotic Convention:

FELDHEIM: "4D. If this is Minorwood, that's real good. If not, I'm sure this is maximum descriptive. I hope those who think 4D is passable are an endangered species  :-) "

No, that's not a new bridge word. Minorwood is an agreement where, when you're in a "power auction", your bid of four of partner's minor (or your minor) is ace-asking. It would be real handy here if BWS and/or your regular partner played it -- and if you could agree on exactly what constitutes a "power auction". 

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3NT	100	8	53
4H	90	5	12
3D	80	2	14
3H	80	1	7
Pass	50	2	12

West	North	East	South
--	1D	1S	Pass
Pass	2NT	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  54    K97543   1032   Q5 ?

My commercial for the set here: While I'm not 100% sure that 3D is a transfer in this auction (if North had reopened 1NT, 2D would be a transfer to hearts), I'm convinced enough to trot it out. I'll follow up with 3NT, due to the balanced hand nature of the hand.  Otherwise, I'd be in (almost) full agreement with the 3NT crowd.

STRITE: 3NT. I imagine 3H shows this sort of hand, but Pard didn't reopen with a double, so I'm unenthused about hearts. Declaring from my side also rates to cost a trick or more. Partner could easily have a singleton heart with long diamonds."

RICHTER: "3NT. Partner may be holding even a singleton heart with good stop cards in spades and some 20-21 HCPs, or some 5-4-2-2 semi-balanced hand with stoppers in the spade suit. Either way, I do not like missing a vulnerable game, and with the club king and heart ace very likely in the East hand, 3NT then."

WALKER: "3NT. I have enough for game opposite what partner has shown (strong hand, long and strong diamonds, spade stopper). There's no way to investigate a heart game, as 3H would be a drop-dead bid here. Partner's spade stopper may be tenuous (Kx), so it's important to play the contract from his side."

Again, BWS is silent on this balancing 2NT. Too bad -- it's another agreement to check out with at least your regular partners. With my partners who don't play forcing club systems (there are still a few!), a balancing 2NT here says I would have rebid 2NT after a one-over-one suit response, nothing more. In this case, it's  18-20 HCP or so, with a guard in the overcalled suit. Long and strong diamonds maybe, but certainly not solid ones (that merits a 3NT reopener).

An accurate prediction from our guest panelist from sunny Arizona (yes, I'm jealous, its 31 here right now and supposed to snow tonight):

SOPER: "3H. This hand won't fit well with partner's, but we may still make game. I expect the votes to be fairly split on this one."

MERRITT: "3H. I would like to be in a heart game with partner declaring, but as the saying goes, you can't get there from here."

Sure you can Scott! If you're ever in the New York area and we have a game, 3D here is a transfer, don't forget!

NELSON: "4H. Would like to transfer, but want no misunderstandings....so I will bid 4H."

MATHENY: "4H. Would prefer the lead not come through partner's hand, but..."

I can see how 4D might be misinterpreted here, but I submit that a good partner will know it's a transfer to hearts. How could I possibly pass 1S and then suddenly find a hand worth a jump raise, bypassing 3NT and by inference, violating (gasp!) the Hamman Rule.

Last word goes to our expert friend in sunny Florida (and yes, I'm still jealous; the temperature has dropped another 3 degrees into the 20s, but no, I do not long for a return to Texas):

PAVLICEK: "3NT. This should be a sound game. 4H could be better, but with no way to find out or right-side it (I don't think I'd win the postmortem for 3D delayed Jacoby), I'll go with the odds. My diamond holding is more promising for 3NT than my heart suit is for 4H."

Richard, you'd win the post-mortem. I agree that 3D is a transfer. Trust me; I argue for a living.

Have a happy and safe holiday season everyone. Next time you see me I'll have passed half a century. Ouch.

Thanks to all who sent in answers, and especially to our expert guest, Richard Pavlicek, who offered sound analysis and some interesting ideas you may want to discuss with your regular partner. Thanks also to our guest panelists -- Arbha Vongsvivut, Boris Richter and Paul Soper.

Topping all Solvers for this set was Gary Collins of University Heights OH, who scored a perfect 600.  Close behind were Greg Berry of Sleepy Hollow IL and Bob Carteaux of Fort Wayne IN. They're all invited to join the February panel. 

Joining us as moderator for the February issue will be Kent Feiler, who is taking over for the retiring Tom Kniest in our every-six-month rotation. Kent is a successful player and a talented and creative analyst, so we're looking forward to an interesting discussion. February also begins our annual Solver contest, so I hope you'll all give the new problems a try. Winners of the 2006 Solvers contest will be announced in the next issue.

The six new problems are below. Please submit your solutions by January 22 on the web form or by email to: 
    Kent Feiler -- kent@kentfeiler.com 
  

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 514)

Thanks for the problems above to Mark Leonard (#1, #2 & #3) and Bev Nelson (#5).