District 8 Solvers Forum

   December 2017

      by Jack Spear, Kansas City MO
 


1.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable     

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

3H

100

3 10
4H

90

1 12
2S

80

5 56
3D

60

1 10
3C 30 0 8
  West      North      East     South  
      1C
Pass 1D 1S ???

What is your call as South holding  ♠A4  Void   AKQ3  ♣QJ97652 ?

In the first problem, we have to choose the best rebid for a freakish 2-0-4-6 hand with incredible AKQx support for partnerís diamond response. Surprisingly, no one has bid hearts yet.

The majority thought that showing the heart shortness was the best description. Since our 2H bid would now be a forcing reverse, 3H should show shortness with 4-card diamond support. (I agree with this choice.):

HINCKLEY: 3H. 3H is a splinter and 4H Exclusion Blackwood. 2S also a good choice. Would partner think 4NT showed diamonds and long clubs?

WALKER:  3H. Splinter raise of diamonds (4H should be Exclusion Blackwood). I'm wondering where all the hearts are on this deal.

The second most popular choice was cuebidding 2S, expressing the hand strength and implying diamond support:

BAKER: 2S. Don't you just hate it when partner steals your reverse? 3H as a splinter is one option, but I'd rather force while leaving partner room to tell me something useful.

SENG:  2S. How can you do less than cuebid with a 3-loser hand and that kind of diamond support? A possibly bigger problem may come on the next round.

HEINS: 2S. Iíd like to splinter in hearts, but the lack of a club control stops me. It's too easy to be down in a slam with a spade lead.

KESSLER:  2S. Not perfect -- could lead to lots of spades by opponents -- but there's no good bid. 3C is just too much of an underbid.

Another action was chosen by one panelist:

STACK:  3D. Showing 4 trumps and extra values.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable   

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

DBL

100

7 76
Pass

80

1 6
2H

50

1 12
2NT

50

1 6
  West      North      East     South  
Pass Pass 1H DBL
2D Pass Pass ???

What is your call as South holding ♠QJ97   AQJ2   A   ♣KQ102 ?

The second problem we have a very nice hand, and have made an off-shape takeout double on the first round. The opponents have bid our short suit next, giving us an unusual problem now. A second takeout double might work well, but our first takeout double implied some diamond length so partner may interpret this as a penalty double. The majority went with the double (I reluctantly agree), hoping that partner would take it out, while realizing partner might pass:

RABIDEAU:  Double. It's true that partner may convert to penalty, thinking that I have more than a singleton diamond. But 1) That's somewhat rare; 2) It might be our best spot; and 3) I have compensating values.

SENG:  Double. Iíd rather not guess which suit to bid. I may eat this if part leaves it in or maybe +200 is good. Hope for preference bid. Second choice is to cuebid diamonds, but that forces us to the 3-level.

STACK:  Double. Again takeout, but thrilled if partner passes.

One panelist was not surprised by the majority vote for double:

HINCKLEY:  Double. In Problem 2 of June 2015, 8 of 14 panelists chose double holding QJ97 KQ52 AQJ4 A in the same auction except 1D and 2C were the suits bid.

Two panelists refused to make a ďpenaltyĒ double with a singleton, but offered different ways to solve that problem:

BAKER: 2H. Double should be penalty-oriented on this auction, as I've supposedly showed diamonds with the first double. That leaves the cuebid. I don't think 2NT is wise, as partner's likely to have garbage and I'll be endplayed repeatedly.

WALKER:  Pass. It's penalty if you double a bid of a suit you've previously shown with a takeout double. I may have enough outside to penalize 2D, but West will have a very good suit at this vulnerability. With partner having a Yarborough and me being endplayed at every turn, -90 is likely, which beats the -100 or -200 Iím expecting if I bid.

3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable 

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

3C

100

4 14
RDBL

80

4 74
2NT

60

2 10
  West      North      East     South  
      2C
DBL * Pass Pass ???

   *  Clubs

What is your call as South holding  ♠AKJ6   KJ52   AKQ   ♣Q7 ?

Problem 3 we have another big hand with another big problem. The opponents have doubled our 2C opening to show biddable clubs, and we have the doubleton queen with 23 high-card points. The majority choice is to cuebid 3C to solve the problem:

WALKER:  3C. I think redouble is "business" here. Or maybe partner will assume it shows a balanced hand? If so, does it suggest or deny a club stopper? With all these questions, I'm not willing to pressure partner into figuring out how I answered them, so I'll go with the bid that seems least ambiguous.

HINCKLEY:  3C. Very tempted to redouble because in BWS2017, after an overcall, a re-opening double shows a balanced hand, but there's no official agreement after a double of 2C.

RABIDEAU:  3C. I assume a redouble would be penalty-orientated and promise (much) better clubs.

BAKER:  3C. No suit to bid, and the stopper's iffy for notrump. Logically, this should be takeout, as if I have clubs, 2C redoubled would be a monster score.

The second most popular choice was to redouble, in the belief that this was not to play:

KESSLER:  Redouble. Cannot be to play with opponentsí double of 2C being penalty.

The answer I liked best was 2NT, which is descriptive of the point count, and may prevent an opening club lead, while allowing partner to use Stayman when we have a major fit:

STACK:  2NT. The most descriptive bid, except I donít have a sure stopper.

4. IMPs,  none vulnerable 

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

2NTt

100

8 58
2D

70

1 26
2S

60

0 8
1NT

50

1 6
  West      North      East     South  
  1C Pass 1H
Pass 1S Pass ???

What is your call as South holding  ♠KQ6    K10854   Q54   ♣J7 ?

Problem 4 is a more normal hand, but still has multiple choices for the rebid. The majority liked the straightforward 2NT, showing an invitational hand with 10-12 high-card points. This seems right to me:

WALKER: 2NT. Too soft to force to game with a 4th-suit-forcing 2D, and I'm not worried about missing a heart fit. If partner has three hearts and a game acceptance, he'll bid 3H on the way to 3NT.

RABIDEAU: 2NT. If partner accepts the invitation, I expect her to show 3-card heart support along the way.

HINCKLEY:  2NT. 1NT is too conservative red at imps and a fourth suit 2D is game-forcing.

HEINS: 2NT. I would bid 2C XYZ if that were available, but this is the value bid. I like the fitting honors in partner's suit.

There was one panelist going low:

STACK:  1NT. Going low.

There was one panelist going high:

KESSLER:  2D. I am forcing to game red at IMPs.

5. IMPs,  EW vulnerable 

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

4H

100

5 29
4C

80

2 12
4S

60

3 46
4NT 40 0 7
  West      North      East     South  
Pass Pass Pass 1S
2H 3H Pass ???

What is your call as South holding  ♠A987543   Void   KQ8  ♣KJ6 ?

On Problem 5, we open 1S in fourth seat with a 7-card suit and a heart void. The opponents overcall 2H and partner cuebids 3H, showing a limit raise for spades. Cuebidding toward a possible slam now is the majority choice, with 4H the popular choice:

RABIDEAU:  4H. This hand is worth at least one slam try.

STACK: 4H. Going for at least a small slam.

HEINS: 4H. Seems straightforward. I donít need much from partner for slam. I hope that with decent trumps and an ace, he might go.

HINCKLEY:  4H. Too good to bid 4S. I'd choose 3NT as a mild slam invitation, but it doesn't apply if a game force is not yet established in BWS2017.

Another cuebid toward slam is 4C. This is the bid I like best, leaving room for partnerís 4D cuebid, which leaves room for our 4H cuebid:

WALKER:  4C. I'm not very hopeful about partner having perfect cards, but this hand is worth one try. Seems best to show the cheapest king, which leaves room to show the heart control if partner can bid 4D.

Other panelists were even less hopeful about finding partner with the perfect cards:

KESSLER:  4S. Certainly could have a slam if partner has no cards in hearts, but playing for specific cards is a losing proposition in the long run.

SENG:  4S. Don't like the 1S bid. Would have bid 2S. What would we have done if the 3H bid had come out of East instead of pard?

  6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

 Action  

  Score   

 Votes  

  % Solvers  

3C

100

9 70
3H

60

1 20
4C

50

0 4
2NT 40 0 4
  West      North      East     South  
  1D Pass 1H
1S 2C 2S ???

What is your call as South holding  ♠K9   AJ8642   10   ♣Q964  ?

The last problem we have a 6-card heart suit, but also 4-card support for partnerís clubs. The opponents have bid and raised spades, so we must decide what to do over their 2S bid. This time bidding 3C was the favorite, and I agree:

SENG:  3C. Since we're vulnerable, I'm glad itís matchpoints.

STACK:  3C. Hoping for more bidding.

KESSLER:  3C. Not enough to bid 3H, so go for the plus. It also puts partner in a better situation knowing that you bid clubs on your own rather than sounding like you are taking a preference.

WALKER: 3C. Feels like enough, as it's probably only a 4-4 fit and the king may be worthless. 3H is tempting to temporarily protect the spade king, but it's a big gamble. Assuming we're playing support doubles, partner has at best a doubleton heart, and if it doesn't have an honor, 3C may play better anyway.

HINCKLEY:  3C. I'm tempted to make the "terrible matchpoint bid" of 3H, hoping partner doesn't hold a small heart singleton, to protect the spade king and perhaps toss an early spade loser on partner's diamonds.

And the final comment for this set of problems:

RABIDEAU:  3H. The suit's rather sickly, but I like the idea of West being on lead -- and I have a place to run if doubled ("into the fire"?).


           ♠ December scores                ♠ New problems for February 

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments for this challenging set of problems. Leading all Solvers with 590 were Bruce Sokol of St. Joseph MI and Chris Grande of Mishawaka IN. Pete Ashbrook of Champaign IL was close behind with 580. All three are invited to join the February 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 February problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by January 31 on the web form.

    February moderator:  Kimmel Jones   kimmel.jones@gmail.com

Solvers Forum -- February 2018 Problems


1.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable     

  West      North      East     South  
      1S
DBL RDBL 2C ???

What is your call as South holding:
♠AK98753  54  A1043  ♣Void?

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable    

  West      North      East     South  
      1H
Pass 1NT * Pass ???

* (Forcing NT)

What is your call as South holding:
♠Q987   AKQ106   K10   ♣74 ?

3. Matchpoints,  both vulnerable 

  West      North      East     South  
Pass Pass 2D Pass
Pass DBL Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
♠J764    KQ   54   ♣AJ1062 ?

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

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

What is your call as South holding:
♠Void   J10976   AQ63   ♣K1065 ?

5. IMPs,  none vulnerable 

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

What is your call as South holding:
♠32   K432   AKJ9  ♣AK2 ?

6. IMPs, EW vulnerable      

  West      North      East     South  
  1D Pass 1S
Pass 1NT Pass 3H
Pass 3NT Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
♠AKQ74   AQ1074   Q9   ♣4  ?

Thanks to Jack Spear for Problem 5.