District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2009

    by Scott Merritt, Gaborone, Botswana

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                           

What is your call as South holding:  QJ63  Void   KQJ65   AKQ10 ?

You have a rock crusher of a hand here. Doubling and then bidding diamonds would not overstate the values of this hand. Of course, the worry about the takeout double, pointed out by several panelists, is that partner may fall in love with his heart suit and force you to show those diamonds at a very high level. That didn't concern the one panelist who chose this call: 

Paulo: "Double. If partner bids 2H, 3H or 4H, my next call will be 3D, 3NT or Pass, respectively."

Some panelists decided the best alternative was a slightly off-shape unusual 2NT.

Feiler: "2NT. Starting with double could produce a horrible, painful auction . . . not that this one will be a lot better."

Walsh: "2NT. Seems like the best one-shot description of my hand. Plus, it might help east play trumps wrong if they buy it in spades."

I am not convinced. The rest of the panel seemed to agree, in part because the 2NT overcall removes the very possible notrump game from the picture.

If all actions have a flaw, I suggest that the best option is the call that offers the easiest follow-up bids. What do continuations look like in this auction? The rest of the panel was fairly certain that they could handle all possibilities by starting with a simple 2D overcall: 

Zalar: "2D. An underbid, but it creates the greatest flexibility in rebids should partner enter the auction."

Kaplan: "2D. I have some sympathy for passing -- and hoping that I can double a heart rebid. But I'm simply too much of a chicken. Hoping for hearts being bid by the opponents even with my overcall -- and then I can double that for takeout."

Walker: "2D. Pass has some appeal at matchpoints, but it's the first board of the session, so I don't see any reason to spurn the normal 2D."

Dodd: "2D. Even though North may be dying to bid hearts over anything I do, I simply can't force myself to pass here."

Matheny: "2D. This hand is just too big to pass. It has possible misfit written all over it, but a pass could miss game or slam."

I do not understand all the talk about passing with this hand, but as four panelists mentioned the possibility, there must be something there. Passing strikes me as an opportunity to really throw partner off the scent, if this is indeed your hand, and from the looks of it, it is.

Feldheim: "2D. An underbid, hoping the auction doesn't die. With the heart void, 'double' or '1nt' are impossible while 2nt is a distortion."

Strite: "2D. Not too strong for a vulnerable 2-level overcall."

Kniest: "2D. Will it go all pass? I doubt it."

Spear: "2D. Hope I get another chance to bid on this hand -- possibly a takeout double of 2H by opener."

Bainter: "2D. Lots of points, but need lots of room."

These guys seem to be on the same wavelength that I am. There will almost certainly be another chance to bid (hello, hearts…), and when you move aggressively and vulnerable, partner will know that you have something. As someone smart once said, there is nothing wrong with having a maximum every now and then. 

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                           

What is your call as South holding:  864   AJ72   754   AQ8 ?

I have to question how many of the panelists knew the bidding system. Those who knew that Bridge World Standard plays 2D as merely a one-round force (not fourth-suit forcing to game) all seemed to choose that call. I do not know whether or not the other bidders knew that was an option, or even if they would have chosen 2D if they had known. The inability to bid this exact hand is one of the main reasons for the creation of fourth-suit forcing for one round only (just like New Minor Forcing). Otherwise, we will start off with those who looked at this hand and said that the glass is half-full:

Nelson: "2NT. I know I don't have a diamond stopper, it is not a perfect world. I doubt one could only bid 2C or jump to 3C with only three pieces."

Strite: "2NT. Flat shape, right values. Wish I'd psyched 1D..."

I have to say that I like the idea of being able to roll back the auction if things don’t work out well for you, but that is a different game. I have sympathy for the line of thinking that says not to overthink a hand. The values are right, the shape is right, so K.I.S.S. In the land of the more esoteric:

Bainter: "3C. Seems obvious."

Bob is the only panelist who had this opinion, but many experts of a generation ago would have agreed with him. 3C was actually the choice of The Bridge World panel when a similar problem was posed in their bidding forum 25+ years ago. Times change.

Feldheim: "2S. This is another underbid, but despite 11 high-card points, it's not good enough for 2D. This is a 9-loser hand and needs another bid from partner for game." 

These guys just seem to value stoppers more than I do. This flat hand looks like a notrump hand to me and these panelists:

Kaplan: "1NT. So I have a jack extra for 1NT. Not perfect, but all other calls seem worse."

Mayne: "1NT. Can I bid '3NT by North'? Can I sign up on this hand for a weak notrump system?"

Spear: "1NT. An underbid, but 2NT has little appeal, and other actions even less appeal. A balanced minimum is partner's most likely hand."

Dodd: "1NT. Matchpoint bid, 100%. Particularly with some of my old partners, this may be the last safe contract for a plus score."

Walker: "1NT. It's 2.5 quick tricks, but the hand has nothing else going for it. This is not the right hand for a 4-3 fit. 2D, even if you play it as just a one-round force, puts you in an uncomfortable spot if partner's rebid is 2H."

How much damage can you really get into at matchpoints, on a very typical auction, by going for the plus score? There is just that part of me that still craves the adventure of being a level too high. I guess that is why the Gods of Bridge have disassociated the play of the hand from the scoring. If we were quickly punished for our act of daring, maybe we would stop quicker, but psychologically, we are just not wired to learn from mistakes when the punishment comes so much later. (Hello out there to all you smokers…)

3. IMPs, both vulnerable            

* (Michaels cuebid -- hearts & spades)

What is your call as South holding:  AQ106432   KJ863   Void   Q ?

How many extra extras does this hand have? How does one go about explaining to partner the amount and type of those extras? This hand ties in nicely with hand 1, as the continuations after a 2-suited overcall are rather murky, people try to avoid getting into these situation in the first place. We will start with the conscientious objectors that wanted to avoid this very problem.

Feiler: "2S. I'd have started with a 1S overcall. Although this hand looks great, partner could easily be 1-2 in the majors."

Dodd: "2S. For the record I don't use Michaels with mid-stregth hands or with 7-5s. That said, how can I do anything else here? North could easily hold Kx and Qx in the majors and we have an easy game, which we must bid at this form of scoring."

Kaplan: "2S. Ugh; anyone else mention how ugly 2D is? I hope that once having way misdescribed my hand, partner will realize that: a) I have extras, and b) more spades than hearts. Here's hoping!"

Bridge Baron: "Pass, Bridge Baron does not bid Michaels with hands of intermediate strength. It would simply have overcalled 1S. Partner has shown no strength, just a preference for hearts, so Bridge Baron goes quietly."

When I saw that there was a passer, I was a bit shocked, but this is surely a pass in the same vein as problem 2. What are the odds that if the auction dies out that you missed a game? Partner could have tried 3H if he had a hand that seems to fit well (spade honors, heart honors, heart length, aces). And I do think that they have a point that starting with 1S would have made this next call easier, against the small risk of having 1S passed out when 4H was on.

Strite: "2S. Partner won't drop me here unless he's got total junk. I think 3S shows a better hand of this distribution type."

Bainter: "2S. This has to show extra spade length to go with the 5 promised hearts, so this must be an invitational hand, despite pard's minimal response."

Kniest: "2S. Forward going, showing longer spades. Pard could be very short in both majors, and now he'll have a better picture of my hand. Jumping is suicide."

Here are the comments from those whom Mr. Kniest believes have very little value for their own existence.

Mayne: "3S. Isn't this what this sequence shows? A 4S bid would be stronger, and I'm not entirely convinced that a 2S bid is forcing."

Feldheim: "3S. 7-5 shapes are anyone's guess, but this seems most descriptive."

Walker: "3S. 2S would show extra values with longer spades, but not this much playing strength. Partner should take the jump as a very strong, bid-game-with-any-excuse invitation."

It is rare that Madam Editor and I agree so completely, and even more rare that I disagree so completely with Mr. Strite and the panel. I think that this is an interesting scenario where there are four sequences from here to show 5 hearts and longer spades (2S, 3S, 4S, 3D then spades ... and, as one panelist suggested, just a blast to 4S). I don’t know how often there are so many choices, but upon review 3S must be this sort of hand. 2S needs to be open for a hand with more high-card values and 3D for a hand with much more playing strength. Would partner get all of this subtlety at the table? While I have my doubts, I do not have a doubt as to the best call in this situation.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable                         

What is your call as South holding:  AQJ10   AJ107   Void   AQJ75 ?

I don’t often question the selection of a hand into the set, but this one seems so 100% to me, I am unsure as to how 9 people got to the wrong answer. They are very bright people after all…  Let’s first talk about those who made the wrong strength call.

Mayne: "1H. Jump, and we lose a suit. The issue is between 1H and 1S. The strength permits me to rebid spades next, and that should avoid getting passed next round. This round? Could happen, but I'll take that chance."

Spear: "1H. I have to bid 1H to find out if pard has 4S...A jump shift may not allow us to find a major-suit fit. I will be very unhappy if my pard doesn't find a bid over 1H."

Kaplan: "1H. I'm afraid if I jump (which I think I ought to do in my heart), I'll never be able to show all of my hand. So I'll pull an 'Al Roth',hoping that if I can get past this round of bidding, I can somehow describe this to partner. Also unclear that, despite all these points, that we really can make a lot of something."

Strite: "1H. Partner won't bend over backwards to respond 1D on cheese, so I think I'll get through this round without a jump shift."

What happened to the Toby Strite whom I have never played with, but who always manages to get max points when I moderate? These panelists seem to be finding the negatives in a monster hand with first-round control in every suit and supporting spot cards -- plus, it just looks “pretty”. I do not understand the argument about losing a suit, but I do understand the argument about what bad news it would be if partner passed. So why not simply preclude that option? Now we look at the panelists that get the shape totally wrong.

Walsh: "2S. I can finish the picture by bidding hearts next time, if appropriate."

Nelson: "2S. Guess a jump shift will have to do. I am just too big to only bid 1S and hear a pass from partner. I don't need much for 3NT."

Dodd: "2S. What's the problem? This one is straight out of Goren, and highlights why the old Blue Team used to use a 2D call to sort through these sorts of hands."

Kniest: "2S. Jump shift in spades and plan to bid hearts next."

Feldheim: "2S. Is there any other bid? Presuming that 2NT is a weakness bid, 3H completes a description."

All I can ask is: Did their screen mix a heart in with their diamonds? For the entire history of the bridge universe, we've bid 4-card majors up the line, and not just at the l-level. Why did the laws of bridge physics stop functioning on this hand? Bidding spades first and then hearts will suggest a heart fragment, not a 4-card suit headed by the AJT. Just to give props to those who remained sane or didn’t have a screen malfunction, here they are:

Feiler: "2H. I don't think 1H is forcing [It isn’t! -- Ed.]. 2H also shows a 5+ card club suit."

Matheny: "2H.  I'll rebid 3S if partner is rude enough to rebid 3D. Will rebid 3S if partner is kind enough to support clubs or raise hearts."

Bainter: "2H. A tidy hand to get info in cheaply -- a reverse in hearts -- while keeping the spade suit open at the 2-level."

Bridge Baron: "2H. Bridge Baron counts zero points for the diamond void, yet still has 19 HCP: enough to make a reverse."

Walker: "2H. Way too strong to bid a passable 1H. 2H gives partner room to show a 4-card spade suit. The problem with 2S is that a later bid of 3H won't promise a 4-card suit -- partner will take it as a 'picture bid' (3 cards) or a search for a stopper."

Bridge can be an easy game, if people allow themselves to play that way.

5. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                       

* (May be artificial)

What is your call as South holding:  AJ53   A4  Q92    AK85 ?

I am a huge fan of the “Small Box” principle when it comes to bidding. This principle states that you can only compare the hand that you have to the all of the other possible hands that you could have for the bidding sequence up to now; so each preceding bid puts your hand into a smaller “box” of possible options to compare it to. In this case you got to jump to 2NT, which puts your hand in a pretty small box, and partner has now made a slam try. How does your hand look in terms of all hands that have 18-19 HCPs, only 2 hearts (no 3H over 3D) and partner has made a slam try focusing on the red suits? Some panelists were not optimistic.

Dodd: "4H. Assuming now that North has a red two-suiter, I like my hand a little better, but not enough to do anything more aggressive- 4NT would say I hate my hand, and 5D is too iffy at this form of scoring."

Nelson: "4H. I need to give a delayed heart raise...I have skated over hearts previously so I must be showing a strong doubleton."

Bainter: "4H. Surely this must show high-honor doubleton in hearts at this juncture, and a solidly shown pattern of 4-2-3-4. Let pard make the next move, if any."

I really think that if partner was looking for a doubleton heart, he would have bid 4H at some point. Partner is trying to get you to move, and you seem to be refusing. The rest of the panel pushed on for some sort of slam, but it is clear from the comments that the next call is very unclear.

Walsh: "5NT. I smell a grand in diamonds if we have the top honors. It should only need the heart king with partner or righty, which is pretty good odds."

Mayne: "5NT. I've limited my hand with 2NT. so this should be 'I have everything. Pick a slam.' If partner's on another wavelength, how bad can it be? Second choice is 6D. Anyone who bids 4H doesn't deserve good hands."

I would have to agree with Mr. Mayne in this case, as pulling out the grand slam force in an unagreed suit by a limited hand at this point seems like a stretch. On the other hand, the opener is clearly not the captain in this auction, so that would tend to make his ability to ask questions at this point also limited. Due to this ambiguity, I do think that I like 4S as the best choice of the forward-going bids, but read the comments for yourself to see the ambiguity in that call.

Feiler: "4S. 4NT would be natural and non-forcing, and with this perfect hand, even 6D would be an underbid."

Strite: "4S. Cuebid in support of diamonds. I've got a great hand."

Spear: "4S. We need some kind of kickback agreement here to accurately bid to 6D or 7D. Without that, we will probably not stop short of 6D, or maybe pard can bid 6NT with the right hand. 4S is a cuebid for diamonds, to be followed by more cuebids, giving us some chance to reach 7D."

Feldheim: "4S. Cuebid in support of whatever. North could easily be 5-5 or, depending on style, even 4-5."

I agree with Mr. Feldheim that 4S is a “cuebid in support of whatever”. The problem is when you are nebulously cuebidding, the auction quickly becomes very confusing. And in a more practical sense, when you have all the controls, practically what is partner supposed to respond to your call? That leaves the blasters.

Kniest: "6D. Partner didn't pass 2NT nor did he bid 3NT over 3S, so his 4D is slammish. I opt to play in a suit, as a heart ruff might be the key to the hand. Nothing stops partner from bidding 6NT with a suitable hand."

Walker: "6D. Maybe 4NT should be Blackwood, but it sounds like a notrump retreat, and with this perfect hand, I don't want to risk missing slam. Second choice is 4S, hoping to get partner to Blackwood, but with no aces outside his suit, he'll be reluctant. A 4H 'cuebid' is too dangerous, as partner may (should) take it as my choice for the final contract."

With all of these practical considerations, I like the 6D call. At least we know it won’t be a zero. 

6. Board-a-match teams, NS vulnerable         

* (Positive -- two queens or better)

What is your call as South holding:  J93   KJ1072   9873   A ?

We like to throw in a board-a-match hand every now and then, just to make things seem different. This hand would be hard to bid at any form of scoring. This follows with the significant amount of writing that has gone into explaining how poor of a system the big 2C convention is. The theme is basically that the entire two- level is often destroyed on these very big hands, and you are left guessing later, which usually leads to lower average scores on these hands. Here is a case where things are even worse, as the auction has been preempted, and the big hand has yet to say anything. So how do we go about making lemonade?

Nelson: "4H. This bid is forward going. Can't be sure it is still forcing, think it should be."

Bainter: "4H. Would be nice to know if pard's pass has specificity regarding his hand. Without this info from a firmly established partnership approach to such an auction as this, I will merely introduce my decent 5-bagger in hearts."

While I can’t complain about choosing to bid a suit you actually hold, how forward-going this call is raises a big question. It's what you would bid with a pile of queens. Being that you have at least two more aces and kings than you've promised, this minimal call seems a little on the timid side.

Mayne: "5H. Invite to six, probably shows a sixth heart. Too bad; this hand is too good, and 5C is going to muck up the strain. Double ought to be a penalty suggestion, and I don't want to suggest that."

My worry about this call is that partner may be looking at club losers, and have no idea how to assess his hand. In this auction, would jumping to five of your suit ask for control in their suit? Partner may think it does, so some panelists got even more feisty.

Walker: "6H. Partner should have a balanced hand for his pass, so 6H is a reasonable guess. 5C seems pointless, as that will make it sound like I want partner to choose the final contract."

Spear: "6H. Pard's pass probably shows 22-24 balanced, doubleton club, and if there is no club duplication, we probably have slam. I will just bid it myself to avoid confusion with a 5C or 5H bid, and also avoid any chance of a long hesitation by pard."

This seemed the most logical call to me. While you give up on getting to a grand slam in either red suit, confident bidding may push the opponents into an unwise favorable vulnerability save at the 7 level. The rest of the panel chose to make sure that all 4 players at the table had bid clubs and only clubs.

Dodd: "5C. Ridiculous treatment that set up this nightmare. Any heart bid now, short of 6, is misguided, and might prompt EW to take the save. Since I can't imagine playing this hand short of 6, I might as well try the strongest bid available and sort things out next time around. Glad this is a forum and not a real game."

Zalar: " 5C. Their pre-emption has worked, but I have support for all the unbids and excellent values. We could be missing a good heart fit, assuming partner is semi-balanced, but bidding 6H seems too unilateral. 5C puts the ball back in his court and lets him know I have values."

Kniest: "5C. I have way more than a positive response, but not enough to force to slam. Maybe this will spur pard to a final contract, or a bid of 6C with a 4-4-4-1 powerhouse, although most people don't start those hands with 2C. I will raise 5H to 6H, but not any other suit."

Strite: "5C. What makes this hand tricky is avoiding a 4-4 diamond fit when the higher scoring heart fit is right. 5C allows me to bid 5H over 5D, and I still get a chance to offer 6D. 5NT doesn't afford that flexibility."

Feldheim: "5C. My hand just became a monster! A cuebid followed by bidding hearts should draw a purty good picture."

I am surprised that more panelists didn't mention what they thought partner had for his pass of 4C. Here's one who did:

Kaplan: "6H. Where I come from, partner should have a 2NT rebid. I don't want to miss slam, even though I am well aware we may be missing a grand. Bid what I think we can make."

There must be a distinction between pass and double, and like Peggy, I think double should be takeout and pass should show a big notrump hand. If partner does indeed have a 22-24 point balanced hand without too much club wastage, slam seems like it should be a good shot.