District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2017

    by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

1. IMPs, both vulnerable                            
 

West	North	East	South
			1C
DBL	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding: AK102   A54   J8   Q954 ?

The entire match may be riding on your decision in one of the simplest -- and scariest -- auctions in bridge. Even at the one-level, you could be going for a four-digit minus score. That prospect prompted the majority of the panel to go looking for a better spot:

HINCKLEY: Redouble for rescue. If this partner often responds with 3 to 4 high-card points and short clubs, I have even more reason to run. I will later sit for 1H doubled (otherwise, I would have rebid 1S).

BAKER: Redouble. At the one-level, East is quite likely to have six clubs to pass the double, which means we probably have a better spot. Whether to sit for 1D doubled or redouble again to find a major is the next problem.

WARD: 1S. It doesn't seem right to sit, and Redouble may force me into a 3-3 heart fit.

A few panelists foresaw the possibility of navigating through the entire one-level to find a home:

SPEAR: Redouble.  I will redouble 1D next if we get there, and may retreat to 1S later.

KESSLER: Redouble. I will remove 1D to 1H, and if that gets doubled, then 1S. Most chances to escape.

Redouble wins the tiebreaker for top score since the majority of the panel chose to run, but I think the passers have a better chance of avoiding a total disaster:

GUTHRIE: Pass. Prospects are fair for five tricks in 1C doubled. Other doubled contracts might fare worse.

HUDSON: Pass. There's no reason to think there's a better spot (spades are probably behind me, with the doubler). At least I have four clubs.

I'm passing and expecting (hoping) to scrape up five tricks, even if partner is totally broke. With the club stack on your right, you rate to score the club queen and perhaps a ruff -- or even two natural club tricks if partner has a singleton jack or 10 -- plus the three outside quick tricks. Running from 1C might find a fit where you have more combined trumps, but you won't score any club tricks in those contracts. That was the deciding factor for me.

2. IMPs, East-West vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  KJ1042   4   K9764   Q3 ?

It appears that we have our choice of likely 6-card trump fits. There's at least a 7-card fit somewhere, but it may be in diamonds -- the one suit that can't be bid naturally at this point.

Early in our bridge careers, most of us were taught to follow two "rules" to handle situations like this one:
   (1)  Get out low on misfits.
   (2)  If partner shows a two-suited hand, don't expect him to have any help in your suit.

Five panelists played by both rules:

KESSLER: Pass. No double, not vulnerable, all is good. If doubled, then 2D.

BAKER: Pass. Horrible misfit, so bail early. Even if this is a 4-2 fit, there's a fair chance of sneaking a heart ruff. Decent chance that diamonds is our best fit (opposite 1=5=3=4), but there's no getting there now.

The rest of the panel chose to be scofflaws, but they had their reasons. Advocating a violation of Rule #1 were:

HINCKLEY: 2NT. Admittedly light, but may be as good as 2C. Especially at IMPs I don't want to miss 4S opposite a good 3=5=1=4 hand.

HUDSON: 2NT. An overbid (2D is a much grosser overbid) . The best alternative bid is 2S, but partner probably has a singleton.

There's no question that 2NT is pushy, but at least it has an upper limit. Not so for the fourth-suit-forcing 2D chosen by several Solvers. As BAKER points out, making diamonds your trump suit is a "you can't get there from here" proposition. Partner will take 2D as an artificial force, and even if you can convince him later that you have a real suit, he'll also think you have real game-force values. 

The spade bidders were influenced by the quality of their suit and the possibility that partner, who could have up to 17 points for his 2C rebid, might make another move:

KNIEST: 2S. It might be a playable a spot and gives partner a chance to bid 3C or 3D.

WARD: 2S. I want to keep the auction open for partner.

KAPLAN: 2S. Systemically, I play that 3D is natural and invitational, at least 5/5. A little short on points, though, even if you are playing this. My spade spots are pretty good, so 2S it is.

Although it might appear that they're ignoring Rule #2, they weren't really harboring any unrealistic expectations about partner's potential fit. If partner has a couple of spades, they'll be happy, but even a singleton in dummy won't be a total disappointment. To the spade bidders, this looks like a deal where a 5-1 fit will play well. I agree.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  AK10   Q   KQJ   A98765 ?

It's a good bet that you've never heard this auction before. It's so unusual that it short-circuited Bridge Baron's neurons:

BRIDGE BARON:  Pass. Sorry ... hole in the databases for this particular situation. Bridge Baron would never make partner's 4H bid, and it cannot be dissuaded from passing what it is mistakenly convinced is "partner's sign off in game".

Our Forum partner is a presumed expert, so partner's 4H bid must have a legitimate meaning. The panel was virtually unanimous in heading toward a club contract, but they had varying ideas of what type of support they would find in partner's hand:

KAPLAN: 4S.What a strange hand! Partner obviously doesn't have hearts. And one would think partner doesn't have spades, given no negative double originally. All that I can think is that it actually is a good hand for clubs, but not quite good enough to bid 3C originally. I try 4S (cuebid). If partner passes, hope it is not the end of the world!

BAKER: 5C. I'm picturing something just short of a negative double of 2H (6-8 points, four spades, club tolerance). Anything more and the pass makes no sense. Anything less and 4H makes no sense. 4S is likely to be tough when you have to ruff hearts with such high trumps.

HINCKLEY: 5C. Not risking a Moysian 4S. If partner had five spades, he should have bid them. Frequently he'll have 4=2=4=3 or 4=2=5=2 shape.

GUTHRIE: 5C  If partner held four spades, he could have doubled 2H, so his shape is likely to be 3=1=6=3 or 3=1=5=4.

RABIDEAU: 6C. What does partner have for his game force? I believe this sequence shows club support and longer diamonds. I'd say xx  xx Axxxx Kxxx is the minimum.

Yet another interpretation:

HUDSON: 4S.  I am surprised at partner's passing and then expressing wild enthusiasm. Might he have  xxxxx  xx Axxxxx Void ? I bid 4S because it takes up the least room.

I think partner's show of life has to be based on a real club fit, not just tolerance. Since he didn't have enough to make a negative double or 3C freebid, his high-card points are limited. Even if he has the club king and a red ace, we may have a spade loser, so I'm giving up on 6C.

4.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable             
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	6	40
Pass	80	4	16
3NT	70	3	16
4D	70	1	24
3H	40	0	4

West	North	East	South
		3D	???

What is your call as South holding:  A875   AKQ8   A532   8 ?

The panel's overall reaction was summarized by:

KAPLAN: Double. UGH! What an awful guess! I'm guessing double. If partner bids clubs, I bid hearts and hope that partner figures out I have the majors. Anything could be correct -- from bidding 3NT to passing.

They all had to choose a bid, though, and some decided that the least of evils was a notrump overcall:

SPEAR: 3NT.  Too much to pass, too risky to double (but double would often win).

BAKER: 3NT. They never lead clubs, right?

WARD: 3NT. I wouldn't argue with 3H.

The plurality went for a takeout double, even though most were predicting that partner would bid clubs:

HINCKLEY: Double. Not happy about this call, but Pass and 3NT are worse. Partner may bid 5C, but if he bids 4C, I can bid 4H showing two places to play (because I would have bid an immediate 4H to show a very strong one-suiter).

GUTHRIE: Double. If partner replies 4C, then you can try 4H, which might even make on a 4-2 fit.

HUDSON: Double, and hope partner doesn't bury me in clubs. If he bids 4C, I'll have another decision to make, but you didn't ask about that! (If he bids 5C -- though you didn't ask me that, either -- I'll pass.)

RABIDEAU: Double. Three hearts and 3NT are in a distant tie for second. We'll probably try 4H over 4C, but we'll probably be in trouble.

If you don't like the prospect of dealing with a club bid from partner, how about:

KNIEST: 4D, pick a major. Partner is short in diamonds and we want to play a major.

You'd like to have more playing strength for this force, but it was my second choice and might be my bid at IMPs. At matchpoints, though, desperate gropes for game aren't as important as just getting a plus score, and I don't like our chances. Even if 4D finds a lucky fit, the hand doesn't rate to play well for us. With the expected bad breaks and wasted club values in partner's hand, 3NT is not attractive, either. I'm going with the wisdom of the man who won more than 100 masterpoints at the Illini Regional in Champaign:

KESSLER: Pass. I really want to bid something else, but nothing makes sense. Suits rate to split badly. Sometimes patience pays off.

5.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable  

   * Two suits

What is your call as South holding:  K63   J84   Q92   AJ83 ?

Your choice here depends on your best guesses about these two questions:
   1 - How many will we go down if we declare?
   2 - How many tricks will we take if they declare?

Larry provides the answer to #1:

RABIDEAU: 5S. For those using the rule of 2, 3 & 4, partner rates to be down two in 5S.

The answer to #2 may depend on which contract the opponents land in. You don't yet know what that will be. Your RHO has bid the cheapest suit he's willing to play in, so he will tend to have shorter clubs. If your LHO has the minors, he'll pass 5D. If his two suits are clubs and hearts, he'll correct 5D to 5H, and will probably do the same if his two suits are diamonds and hearts. The issues are summed up by:

HINCKLEY: Pass. If West has minors, I have good defense. If West has red suits, they likely belong in the higher-scoring 5H contract at matchpoints. At IMPs, I'd have more reason to bid 5S.

Some 5S bidders were pessimistic about their defense against any red suit and saw this as a toss-up.

KAPLAN: 5S. Just feels as if I cannot have enough defense to defeat 5D or 5H, depending upon LHO's suits. If I'm wrong, mea culpa.

GUTHRIE: 5S. If in doubt, then bid one more :)

HUDSON: 5S. A guess. I have pretty good defense, but also a pretty good fit for partner. I'm going to guess that they have some play for slam -- maybe they have a double fit in the red suits -- and that 5S won't be too expensive (maybe partner has some help in clubs).

A few panelists justified their 5S bid by calling it "insurance". The concept of insurance -- taking a relatively cheap sacrifice, just in case they can make their contract -- is over-rated, especially at matchpoints and at this vulnerability. Essentially, it's a decision to limit your potential losses (by taking a "sure" -300 instead of a possible -400 or -450), but it gives up on the possibility of a gain (+50 defending 5D or 5H).

The majority of the panel decided they weren't buying that policy.

SPEAR: Pass. Best chance to go plus is beating 5D. Nothing else is tempting.

BAKER: Pass. Partner made the opponents guess. Let's hope they've guessed wrong. I don't expect to make 5S, and it could easily be a phantom.

KESSLER: Pass. To quote Gunther Polak, "Only Jesus saves". I vote for Gunther.

WARD: Pass. Bidding could be right, and we could also have three tricks defending. I'd rather they were guessing than me at this point.

When in doubt -- and most panelists admitted they were -- go for the plus score at matchpoints. And if you need another excuse, there's always the oft-quoted advice of the late Grant Baze: "The five-level belongs to the opponents."

6.  IMPs, NS vulnerable    

Action	Score   nbsp;	Votes	% Solvers
2NT	100	6	18
Pass	90	5	22
3D	60	3	52
3C	50	0	8

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

What is your call as South holding:  A43   J   AQ102   AK863 ?

Bidding would be so much easier if the opponents always overcalled in suits where we had length or shortness. If LHO had bid 2D or 2H -- or if we had been dealt a 13-count -- this wouldn't be a problem.

The majority of the panel couldn't stomach passing with a quick-trick-heavy 18 points. Their first choice was:

KESSLER: 2NT. Time to use a little imagination. Short of passing, which I find unreasonable, this is the best you can do.

BAKER:  2NT. I don't like this, but I like my other options less. 3C on this suit doesn't appeal, 3D (potentially forcing 4C) is not much better. And if you double, you'd better have a plan for after partner bids 4H.

WARD: 2NT. It's either this or pass. Double is going to get us 3H or 4H, which we can't recover from.

A few 2NT bidders entertained the faint hope that partner would figure out they had length in both minors:

HUDSON: 2NT. Obviously, I can't double. Pass could easily be the winner, but vulnerable at IMPs, that seems too pessimistic. Partner could easily have seven or eight points, and even if he doesn't, we may be able to land in a safe partscore. I hope partner will take my bid as unusual, indicating four diamonds and longer clubs (which, of course, does not preclude his passing).

RABIDEAU: 2NT. Maybe my failure to reopen with a double will get partner to realize that I'm short in hearts and therefore long in the minors . . . which may get us to a better contract!

Some Solvers went even further, commenting that 2NT "clearly" asks partner to pick a minor. It doesn't. After opening a one-bid, backing in with 2NT shows a hand that has good trick-taking strength, but wasn't right for a 2NT opener. It usually has a sure source of tricks -- a hand such as  K72  6  AJ2   AKQ1063.

Three panelists and more than half the Solvers didn't share the 2NT bidders' pessimism. They fell in love with this hand and headed toward even higher-level contracts:

KNIEST: 3D. No negative double from partner, so he could still have a big diamond fit or maybe a trap pass of 2S, which would give RHO a void. If partner bids 3NT, I'll be content, even with the heart lead directed on the auction.  Interesting thought: Since 3NT from partner would be for play, should 3S be Lebensohl here, with 4C showing values?

HINCKLEY: 3D. Although passing could be correct, partner also may make 10 or 11 tricks with Kxxxx and little else. Too bad 2NT isn't clearly showing the minors, as 3C might be our last making contract.

Or 1C could be your last making contract. I don't understand committing to the stratosphere just to cater to the chance that partner has long diamonds or, more unlikely, a spade stopper or trap pass. He probably has long hearts and at least a couple of spades (based on RHO's failure to raise at this vulnerability), so I'm not expecting great support in either minor. If partner does have diamond length -- and enough to scrape up nine tricks -- he'll surely raise. If not, he may have to retreat to 4C.

I hate passing this out vulnerable at IMPs, and I think the 2NT bidders offered good arguments for their choice. All that aside, though, I'm with:

SPEAR: Pass. Maybe too much to pass, but I'm going to do it anyway. 
 

           ♠ June scores               ♠ New problems for August  

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments for this interesting and long-delayed set. Special thanks go to our master coder Milt Zlatic of St. Louis, who miraculously repaired all the files and returned the Forum to full operation.

Leading all Solvers this month were Jeff Eisenberger of St. Louis with 570 and Sandy Barnes of Wildomar CA with 560. Both are invited to join the August 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 August problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by July 31 on the web form.

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