District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2007

    by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ

1. IMPs, none vulnerable

West	North	East	South
Pass	1H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  A102   AK10   8654   AQ5 ?

In case you're wondering about the photo, for my 50th birthday, I told my wife I wanted to appear on Bill Maher's show, but Bill was booked up that week so I had to settle for my fellow Hoosier. 

Only in Solvers Forum can you score the maximum for starting what promises to be a tortuous auction (North might say torturous by the time it's over) in a quest to find the right (or any) slam.  I love most of the comments in support of introducing a 3-bagger and raising the level.

MERRITT: "2C.  Diamond-in-with-my-clubs kinda response. It saves room and is surely more representative of my hand than 2D."

KESSLER: "2C. An attempt to find out more about partners hand. Bidding 2D will make it impossible for partner to evaluate his hand later. If you bid notrump, you deserve a stiff diamond in dummy."

BERNHARD: "2C. Oh boy, another chance to get serious abuse. No heart raise fits, so make a waiting-type bid."

Only if you made a bid like this as my partner would you get (well-deserved) abuse!

BARNES: "2C. I would prefer 2NT (Jacoby), but most partners demand 4-card trump support. In my heart, I know that 2NT is the right bid. However, 2C locates my values well enough to be an acceptable alternative. I don't want to end in a high-level diamond contract unless it's partner's suit that I am supporting, and I don't want partner to think too highly of his diamond Qx."

I almost bought into this last comment, until I remembered the basic lesson about using 2NT as an artificial raise. When one uses this avenue of approach, or any approach in which partner is relegated to an answering role, the 2NT bidder is assuming the captaincy of the hand. Bridge is about using your judgment, and an artificial raise such as 2NT is not a call to be flung about as a whim just because one has game-going values and 4-card support. You must have at least an inkling about what to do next after partner's inevitable "forced" response. Otherwise, you might as well punt -- bid your x-high 4-card suit or your best 3-bagger and hope North can take over the auction (just hope he doesn't presume some big double fitter when this happens).

WALKER: "2NT. I almost never do this with three trumps, but this looks like the perfect hand for it. If partner can show a spade or diamond singleton, the rest of the auction should be fairly easy. These 'almost-slam-strength' hands are difficult to show after starting with a 2-over-1, especially when you have to distort your suit length or strength by bidding one of these minors."

Of course, we 2NT raisers are hoping for a diamond response showing shortness. Not only will that almost guarantee we're going to play at least a small slam, it will greatly simplify the subsequent auction. And even if we don't hear that magical 3D response, the subsequent bidding will be relatively painless and informative.  In other words, you have a plan, unlike the rest of the panel and solvers who even admitted they were "temporizing" with their first call. 

FELDHEIM: "2NT. I'd love to hold a 4th trump but... This is really a problem of agreement. If 3S shows an unknown singleton, 4D would show a slam-try with no ruffing values. As it is, without that agreement, any other bid than 2NT is even more of a distortion. If North bids anything but 4H, South should press for a slam."

Opposite a 4H "signoff", South has a clear pass. I think a 3C reply would slow me down a little, and even 3H or 3NT would require caution with this 6½-loser hand. Even then, starting with 2NT feels much more comfortable than anything else.

Even Bridge Baron (with comments by developer Stephen Smith) took the temporizing view, which was surprising, since software is supposed to simplify things (most of the time anyway).

BARON: "2D.  Temporizing; awaiting developments."

FEILER: "2D. BWS isn't really a system, it's a hodgepodge of conventions, and as far as I can see, there's no bid at all for this hand. So I'll try another idea and go for a lead-misdirector in our eventual contract. I suppose this could be considered a psych, but I am bidding my longest suit!"

The main issue I have with not using a Jacoby 2NT here is that no other sequence is going to take as much of the guesswork out of the later auction. If North must later make a decision as to whether the hands fit well enough to make a slam viable, he will be guessing at best -- or, worse, be basing the decision on a misconception of your hand. Try a few sample auctions on a hand simulator if you don't believe that an original 2-of-a-minor response won't cause massive headaches with most "normal" North hands.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	8	26
4D	90	1	12
3NT	80	3	26
3S	80	5	12
4C	70	1	8
Other	60	0	16

2. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                               

West	North	East	South
--	1D	Pass	1H
Pass	3D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  104   A10942   A2   Q763 ?

Unlike problem 1, I like the temporizing bid here. It's forcing, keeps 3NT in the picture, and doesn't lie about the location of your strength (in case North decides that 3NT looks like a viable spot to play this hand).

FELDHEIM: "3S. Again, a question of agreement. This is the best chance to reach either 4H or 3NT. Alternately, 4D, probing for slam looks too rich for matchpoints."

NELSON: "3S. Get partner to bid 3NT."

One of my dad's favorite sayings (usually directed at slowpoke drivers on the highway) is: "Do something, anything, even if it's wrong!" The only good thing I can say for 3S is that it's better than this:

KESSLER: "3NT. More often than not, 3NT is right at matchpoints. I do not play that 3S asks for a stopper. Partner did jump to 3D without the ace, so I'll hope his compensating values are in spades."

BRIDGE BARON: "3NT. A 'stoppers-are-for-children' auction for Bridge Baron."

GUTHRIE: "3NT. Does 3S show a stopper or ask for one? You are about to find out."

At least no one brought out the oft-overused Hamman Rule (If 3NT is a possible bid ...). What puzzles me most is that both of these avenues have serious flaws, and they're recipes for disaster when North holds inadequate spade cards. Although some might draw the negative inference of EW not introducing spades as meaning the suit is not dangerous, the anti-positional nature of a direct 3NT struck me as particularly reckless. EW have at least 8 spade cards between them, probably at least 9, and they are going to lead them.

Okay, North did make a value-showing jump rebid without either red ace, but does this make him a favorite to hold spade guard(s) that can stand up to a frontal assault? Wouldn't you as North trot out a jump rebid with  x  Kx  KQJ10xx  AKx ? Wouldn't you also then pass 3NT, assuming that your partner had the spade suit taken care of? I didn't think so. The voices of reason:

KNIEST: "3H. Forcing (I could have passed 3D) and will get pard's natural response. I hope that's 3NT, but maybe 4H is the best contract, and this is the only way to get there. 3NT comes under 'wishing and hoping' and 3S is insane playing Standard American."

HUDSON: "3H. It's reasonable to rebid the decent 5-card heart suit. Maybe a bid of 3S here should show weakness in spades rather than strength, but I don't think we have that agreement."

VONGSVIVUT: "3H. Shows at least five hearts, implies no spade stopper and invites to 4H or 3NT."

STRITE: "3H. Economical, forcing, and perhaps partner's next call makes life easy."

I must be getting old when this bid seems so obvious. Are the others worried that 3H shows a better suit or that North will blindly raise with xx of hearts instead of trotting out 3NT with a control-rich hand?

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	8	32
3NT	80	6	28
4C	70	3	8
5C	60	1	16
Other	50	0	16

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable 

West	North	East	South
--	1NT (15-17)	Pass	2S*
Pass	3C**	Pass	???

  * (Transfer to clubs)
** (Qxx or better in clubs) 

What is your call as South holding:  A3   Q62   3   10975432 ?

For the record, I don't think Bridge World Standard plays this sequence. It does use 4-suit transfers after an opening 1NT, but the one-step response usually means a "super-acceptance" (the same as in bidding past the transfer suit after a 2D or 2H transfer). Simply accepting the transfer, as here, does not show a maximum (or any quality of trump support).

That's all irrelevant, since we're given the meaning of partner's rebid. Once again, though, I have no idea why a sizable minority of supposedly sane panelists (and solvers) decided that this trash had suddenly morphed into a game-going hand. At least most acknowledged that 3NT was an attempt to create a swing.

KESSLER: "3NT. If I bid 3NT enough times, we'll make one of them. This has as much chance at being correct as any other guess, and with greater rewards."

At least he's consistent.

MERRITT: "3NT. I made the transfer to find out what partner had to say. He said it was 'go' time. You think that I am now supposed to pass?"

BERNHARD: "3NT. If partner has 3 to an honor in clubs, I like our chances and this is matchpoints. Pass is a close second choice."

Even red at IMPs, this one is borderline at best as far as chances go. I was motivated to run a calculation on this one. Since North is known to have Qxx and up in clubs, and we can pretty much guarantee that 3NT is going down if the club suit doesn't run, I ran the probabilities through a software program to see how risky this call is. What spit out was that the clubs would be good for 7 tricks about 41% of the time and that 3NT would make about 32% of the time. Not exactly the odds most would like for an anti-field bid like this one. Even Bridge Baron agreed that the odds are way against 3NT being a decent contract.

BRIDGE BARON: "Pass. Bridge Baron is not even particularly close to being tempted."

Passing seemed like a conservative move, until one remembers that was our original intent: To get to a playable contract, one likely to attain the all-important plus score at matchpoints. Since most of the field will be in 3C (either via a weak jump or a transfer sequence, or through some other means if 1NT is not opened), we rate to score at least average-plus when we inevitably score up the extra trick by our superior playing abilities.

GUTHRIE: "Pass. In my opinion, 3C denies a maximum. Be grateful for silent opponents and accept your plus score. 5C is a long way away and 3NT is unlikely to be better than 50%. At teams, it would be different."

HUDSON: "Pass. Pass. Playing in 3C gives us a sure plus. Game is against the odds. If I had to pick one, I'd prefer 5C to 3NT. I suppose a bid of 4C here would be invitational, but I'm not quite worth it."

Inviting is a close call, but again, it rates to be anti-field (except with this panel, where more than half bid on). I didn't run a simulation on 5C, but I suspect that it's likely a worse bet than 3NT because of the side-suit loser count. You need specific side controls or a finesse or some luck to make 11 tricks, even if the clubs do come in without loss.

NELSON: "4C. Roll the dice on this one. It could be right to pass 3C, but with the right cards, 5C could be cold."

KNIEST: "4C. Invitational -- should show long, weak clubs and a flaw for NT. Of course, 3NT will roll on those days where clubs come in and they can't set you off the top. My bid is the middle of the road., and keeps them from balancing."

PAOLO also commented on the possibility of a balance here, but I don't see it. Jumping in at the 3-level when one opponent is known to be strong is not seen often, even in today's looser arena. And I can always let EW push me to the 4-level, which is what I figure to make anyway.

Throwing caution to the winds:

WALKER: "5C. A bit pushy, but it seems about right on values and playing strength. 3NT is matchpoint mania gone too far."

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3D	100	5	32
Pass	90	4	36
2S	80	2	16
3S	80	3	8
4S	70	3	0
3H	70	1	8

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                 

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

What is your call as South holding:  J8732    10   AJ103   652 ?

Yet another system adventure. Since there was no special meaning given to North's second double, we must assume that BWS 2001 applies, and that system does not specify any special meaning for the double. Not so, say:

WALKER: "4S. Partner's second double shows extra values (at least a strong 16-17+) with 3-card support for my suit. I wouldn't argue with a highly encouraging 3S, but with the stiff heart and the strong side suit, I think my hand is heavy for it."

HUDSON: "3S. To bid diamonds would deny five spades. 2S would be too wimpy, even at matchpoints. Partner is showing something like AKx   KQ9x   KQxxx   x."

BARNES: "2S. I expect partner to hold 3-card spade support and a little extra above the minimum double for his first action. He sounds like 3=4=4=2 shape. The only question is, am I worth 3S?"

VONGSVIVUT: "4S. North's second double should show at least 18 HCP with 3-card spade support and a desire for the bidding to continue. My hand is worth at least 8 support points."

NELSON: "3S. If I remember correctly, this bid shows 3-card support with about 18. I believe I have my bid inviting game."

My editor swears this interpretation is so widely agreed that it's become standard. Perhaps North's second double is some sort of "super" support double, but it's not BWS, which does play support doubles through 2C, but not in this type of auction. Typically, support doubles occur after our side has opened the bidding, i.e., 1C-Pass-1H-1S, double would show 3-card support for hearts and perhaps some extra values.

So what does the double here mean? With no special treatments available, it must show extra values, a desire to penalize in hearts (and my holding in that suit would seem to confirm this), and really says nothing about spade support. So then, what to do? Answers were all over the map here, indicating the intriguing nature of this problem:

KESSLER: "Pass. I have no reason to believe we have a game, nor any reason to believe we will not beat 2H. Any bid other than pass could easily result in us going minus instead of the opponents."

STRITE: "Pass. 2S should go plus, but I like my 10 of hearts enough to lead it."

FEILER: "3H. A maximum nothing!"

PAOLO: "3D. I don't want to let the opponents play at the two-level with eight trumps. On the other hand, if partner is strong enough, we can win 4S."

BERNHARD: "3D. Does double show 3 spades? Is it penalty? Or does it show the other suits? I have already shown 5 spades and they are bad, and I believe they are making 2H."

Some would argue (correctly) that your 1S bid did not necessarily show a 5-card suit (as it would have if North had opened 1C and East overcalled 1H). What tipped the scales for me on 3D (as opposed to 2S) was the suit quality, as well as my judgment that this hand had better potential than a simple spade rebid would advertise. If your plan is to advance the auction -- and a solid majority believed South's hand merited at least a game invite -- why not at least bid where your true strength lies?

My favorite comment of the month:

MERRITT: "2S. In the World Series of Poker I would pass and shoot it out, but with a fifth spade, this is breaking rocks in the hot sun. This is a partner litmus test. If he hates you for pulling with a defensive trick, accept that this partner is a jerk and move on. Bidding may not always be right, but it is certainly a reasonable alternative."

I doubt the WSOP is going to include a bridge event this year, but it would sure be fun to watch. Can I partner with Mike "The Mouth" Matusow?

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2C	100	12	56
5C	90	6	4
1NT	70	0	10
4H	60	0	10
2H, 3H, 6C	60	0	16
Other	50	0	4

5. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                        

West	North	East	South
--	1H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  3   642   Void   AK9765432 ?

Most of the comments from the majority could charitably be called understatements, but why quibble.

KESSLER: “2C. Certainly this is enough for a 2-over-1, and clubs is very likely to be the suit you want to play in. My second choice would be a strong jump shift to 3C. If partner were to rebid 2D, I would rebid clubs as opposed to showing heart support.”

BERNHARD: “2C. Nice and easy, let's listen to the auction before deciding where to play this.”

Plenty of bidding ahead.”

BARNES: “2C. A nine-card suit needs to be bid at least once, perhaps more than once. Partner needs a terrific suit for me to want to play in hearts. I'm worth at least 8 tricks in clubs, 4 tricks at most in hearts.”

VONGSVIVUT: “2C.Start with a 2-over-1 game force. After that, I plan to force to 5C or 6C, unless North show 6-card heart suit, in which case I might play in hearts.”

Are there hands where the big jump could backfire? Sure! But what’re the odds? If you’re a realist and said "thin", then why would you ever want to play this hand in hearts? Granted, if North has a club and a solid heart suit and the opponents' clubs are situated such that they won’t lead them and if West suddenly jams the auction with a big spade or diamond preempt, you might be able to glean enough information from a slow auction to judge just where and how high to play this hand. That’s a lot of big IFs. For my money, er, matchpoints, why not just make a descriptive jump yourself? Maybe you’ll even cause West some serious heartburn if he picks up a big spade diamond two-suiter and has to make his first decision at the 5-level.

GUTHRIE: “5C. Heed the wisdom of the old riddle. 'What do you call a nine card suit?' 'Trumps!' "

KNIEST: “5C. That rule about not laying 8-card suits down in dummy also applies to 9-card suits. The opponents are in a tough spot because they don't know about my heart length, nor do I want them to. I'm trying to buy the pot. There are lots of hands where we can make more, but lots of hands where they can, too.”

And as others noted, North can always bid on with a suitable hand.

HUDSON: “5C.This will usually make, and with some hands that will make 6C partner will raise. I’m not playing this in hearts!”

WALKER: “5C. I'm not necessarily trying to preempt the opponents, although this jump should be effective if it happens to be their hand. If it's our hand, clubs rates to play better than hearts, as I'll have entries to partner's heart suit if I declare, but he may not have any entries to my club suit if he declares. There's also the possibility that this description will induce partner to bid 6C.”

Last words:

RABIDEAU: “2C and more clubs. I'll show my heart support later, but my hand isn't all that great in hearts.”

Then why plan to show support at all?  Unless I hear Pass - 3 (or 4) Hearts- Pass, I’m bidding clubs, clubs, clubs.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4D	100	8	16
4S	90	5	24
4C	90	2	24
3S	80	3	34
4NT	50	0	2

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable                                 

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

What is your call as South holding:  AK83   93   AK8643   K ?

Once again, I find myself comfortably in the minority. The majority decided this hand was worth a game force. I wonder if they'd have made the same call with a singleton deuce of clubs? Judging from most of the comments and examples, their partners always hold 5 spades for this sequence. I'm here to tell you that wishing it doesn't often make it so.

A lone voice out of the wilderness (MATHENY did not comment) agreed with the invite:

FELDHEIM: "3S. A straight losing-trick-count hand. The diamonds are not solid enough for 4D."

Actually, I took not only the scoring form and vulnerability into account, but the fact that North is aware of the conditions as well. Not many of my partners through the years would pass my double raise, red at IMPs, with any sort of excuse. About the only hand any of them (and they know who they are!) would even consider passing a 3S raise here would be a hand with lousy spades and lousy controls -- something like Jxxx  Qxx  xxx  Kxx -- which, according to my old charts, is about 12% to make game (about 24% if the diamonds are xx). Note that adding "values" like the heart jack or club queen, or even a diamond honor, do little to change the poor chances we have to make 10 tricks.

The panel majority thought this hand worth at least game, then promptly split into three camps. The minority from this group didn't care that the singleton was a king:

BRIDGE BARON: "4C. Splinter, revaluing this hand more highly after simulation."

KESSLER: "4C. I play that diamonds need to be better for a 4D bid, and I do not like a splinter with a stiff king. However, it is IMPs and partner could have almost any hand with the heart ace and the spade queen and have a play for six. This is the best bid to let partner know his heart ace is a very important card."

The only thing I don't like about the splinter is that it hides the diamond length. Especially in a convention-filled system like BWS, splinters should generally be reserved for specific hands, primarily 4441 and 5431 patterns. There are other conventional raises to describe most everything else. For those who chose not to splinter, the vote was almost evenly split.

GUTHRIE: "4S. 3S is a bad underbid since a vulnerable game is likely opposite a balanced Yarborough e.g., xxxxx  xxx  xx  xxx . (Then why not open 2C?  -TJD)  4D would be fine if it showed this hand, but it is more likely to be taken as a splinter (Not unless your system slows you to open a singleton. - TJD). A 4C splinter misdescribes the hand type and is a doubtful ploy with a singleton king."

RABIDEAU: "4S. Can't splinter with a stiff K or Q, so...?"

Finally, we have the majority -- sensible in my view, and what I might bid with a conservative partner:

PAOLO: "4D. I show not only good diamonds but also a spade fit."

Old timers like me used to call this bid The-Convention-With-No-Name, because it dates from the earliest days of contract bridge, and nobody seems to be able to remember who invented it. I must admit that if the singleton club king had morphed into the doubleton heart king, then 4D would be a no-brainer call (and the problem wouldn't be here in the Forum!).

KNIEST: "4D. The right bid for this type of hand -- shows a 6-4 with playing strength and concentrated values. Partner has a good idea of the combined potential now."

WALKER: "4D. Tough choice between 3S, 4S and 4D. Technically, the hand evaluates to only 18 points at best, so an invitational 3S could be enough. This isn't the perfect hand for 4D (diamonds a bit weak, singleton too strong), but it's very near the right playing strength, so as usual, I'll round up."

Which brings us to this month's final rule:
    When a partner accuses you of overbidding, say that you always add at least a half-trick because you know how well he declares. Stops a potential heated argument right in its tracks, at least the first couple of times you use it! Everyone have a great summer!

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments this month. Topping all Solvers was Dave Smith of Memphis TN with 580. Close behind with 570 were Mark Leonard of Ypsilanti MI and John R. Mayne of Riverbank CA. They're all invited to join the August panel.

The six new problems for August are below. Please submit your solutions and comments by July 26 on the web form.  Note: The web form will sometimes crash if you've typed very long text into the comment boxes. If you have long comments, you can send your solutions by email to our August moderator:

   Kent Feiler -- kent@kentfeiler.com 
 

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 536):

1

2

3

4

5

6

Score

Sandy Barnes, Wildomar CA	2C	3S	Pass	2S	2C	4S	550
Bridge Baron software	2D	3NT	Pass	Pass	2C	4C	530
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL	2C	4D	3NT	3D	2C	4D	570
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT	2NT	3S	Pass	3D	2C	3S	540
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	2C	3NT	Pass	Pass	5C	4S	550
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	2C	3H	Pass	3S	5C	4D	570
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	2C	3NT	3NT	Pass	2C	4C	540
Tom Kniest, University City MO	2NT	3H	4C	4S	5C	4D	480
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	2C	3H	Pass	3D	2C	3S	580
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	2C	3S	4C	3S	2C	4D	530
Manuel Paulo, Lisboa PT	2C	3S	4C	3D	2C	4D	550
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne ON	2NT	4C	3NT	3S	2C	4S	510
Toby Strite, San Jose CA	2NT	3H	3NT	Pass	2C	4D	550
Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL	2C	3H	Pass	4S	2C	4D	570

How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ		2NT	3H	Pass	3D	5C	3S	550
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL		2D	3H	3NT	3H	5C	4S	500
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria		2C	3S	3NT	2S	2C	4S	530
Karen Walker, Champaign IL		2NT	3H	5C	4S	5C	4D	500
Solvers Honor Roll  (Solver average: 497)
Dave Smith, Memphis TN		2C	3H	Pass	3S	2C	4D	580
Mark Leonard, Ypsilanti MI		2C	3H	3NT	Pass	2C	4D	570
John R. Mayne, Riverbank CA		2C	3S	Pass	Pass	2C	4D	570
Asher Axelrod, Jerusalem, Israel	560	Len Vishnevsky, San Francisco CA						550
Bill Rotter, Granite City IL	560	Yigit Cecen, Ankara, Turkey						540
Jim Diebel, Wood Dale IL	550	Mike Halvorsen, Champaign IL						540
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN	550	Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL						540