District 8 Solvers Forum

October, 2010

by Scott Merritt, Gaborone, Botswana


Hello all. This was a surprisingly good set of hands this month. I had intentions of continuing the theme of crazy places where I may live next year, but we currently have no idea where that will be. That means that this month, I'm back to my usual snarky ramblings. I also wanted to mention that I think I have now been writing this column for 10 years. I can't believe that there are any readers remaining. With 40+ different bids from the panel on the six problems, I have never been given so many calls that I have to shoot down.


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
2C 100 9 25
3D 80 2 6
2D 70 6 39
1NT 60 0 7
3NT 50 0 1

1. IMPs, Nobody Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  --   --   --   1D
  Pass   1S   Pass   ?

You, South, hold 10   AQ   AK10976   J1042

What's your call?

This does seem like there is a good case for three possible bids. I would argue that this hand has a lot more to do with partnership expectation than what is actually "correct". The most votes were for bringing in the club suit and hoping to keep the auction alive.

Nelson:   2C. So how many will bid 2C and how many will bid 3D? Probably a split decision here. Marty Bergen says that with a minimum 6-4 hand, rebid your long suit. With a better 6-4 hand, rebid the lower-ranking suit, then rebid the higher-ranking suit. 2C has NOT limited my hand YET.

Hudson:   2C. 2D limits my hand more than does 2C. Since I have a pretty good hand and don't want to sound discouraging, I choose 2C.

Dodd:  2C. My hand is too strong for a simple diamond rebid, despite the disparate suit quality.

Paulo:  2C. This rebid will be particularly helpful when partner -- with a weak hand -- is very short in diamonds and has some length in clubs.

Rabideau:  2C. The hand is too good for a 2D rebid, in spite of partner's response. We hope to make a better-informed decision on the next round... if there is one.

Feldheim:  2C, planning to rebid diamonds at my third turn. This seems most flexible since the hand is too good for 2D. Bidding notrump, although it might work, is too weird for me.

Spear:  2C, then rebid diamonds to show a better 6-4 than 2D followed by clubs. A 2D rebid is OK, and will often be the winner when all pass. 1NT is not OK.

This does seem about right to me, but the panelists who jump seem to gain by exposing less information.

Walker:  3D. Pretty close to a textbook 3D bid. With 3.5 quick tricks and a suit this strong, there's no need to mislead partner about suit quality by rebidding 2C, then more diamonds.

Kniest:  3D. 3D is closer to reality than 2C.

I definitely see this logic as well. The hand lives in diamonds, so why not just bid them? With a vast majority of the panel moving forward, 2D seems rather timid to me.

Feiler:  2D. My theory is that 2D bids never get passed out, and if partner or an opponent bids, I should have an easier time on the next round.

Babin:  2D.  I could bid either 2D or 2C, but the diamonds are much better, so I'm rebidding them first.

Kaplan:  2D. Very close between 2D and 2C. But, I break the tie with 2D because my diamonds are so superior to the clubs, and with a stiff spade, I do not judge the hand good enough to bid 2C and then follow again with 3D. If my majors were reversed, then I might vote for 2C!

Bridge Baron:  2D. Bridge Baron rebids six-card diamond suits in preference to showing four clubs. The diamonds say think about 3D or 3NT, but the spade singleton says misfit and so Bridge Baron goes low.

I worry that the "safe, I can catch up later" 2D call may very well end the auction. This is a super max for the 1D-1S-2D sequence, and my philosophy has always been to avoid having a super-max for any bid.


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
5D 100 8 24
3S 90 5 22
Pass 80 2 21
3NT 70 2 3
3C 30 0 5
3D 20 0 3

2. IMPs, North-South Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  Pass   2NT*   Pass   ?

*20-21

You, South, hold  942   Void   10976543   J52

What's your call?

How far should we jump into the abyss? We have a few panelists who have closed their eyes and are all in.

Walker:  3NT. Partner either has the right diamond holding or he doesn't. If it's the latter, 5D probably won't make either, and it might get doubled.

Rabideau:  3NT. At notrump, these hands typically produce 6 tricks (often) or 10 (sometimes). With a vulnerable game at stake, I'm willing to give up a couple of IMPs for the extra undertrick. At matchpoints, Bob & I would probably stop at 4D via a transfer.

Bidding 3NT with a 7-card suit and no entries seems like the wildest form of shooting to me. In my old days, I would have pulled out my simulator and seen how likely this was to make (my estimate is 14%), but now I am old and have real work to do. Some jumped to the game that we know won't go down a ton.

Bainter:  5D. Easier at IMPS than matchpoints. Throw caution to the wind and try 5D (certainly a shutout). I strongly dislike missing makeable games, even if luck is needed.

Hudson:  5D. I want to play in a diamond partscore, but our methods don't allow that. Bidding 3S wouldn't help. Passing his 2NT won't work unless the opponents balance (very unlikely). I hope partner respects my signoff.

Feiler:  5D. Too bad the program won't let me bid 2D on this hand too. Let's see, when we make the bid sufficient to 3D, is that Jacoby? And when partner bids 3H and we bid 4D, is that a cuebid, another transfer? Hmm...

Dodd:  5D. Hope North has a sense of humor. At least I won't have to table this garbage!

Kniest:  5D. At least I'll have transportation.

Feldheim:  5D. Certainly a wild overbid, but who knows? The vulnerability, plus it being IMPs, plus the possibility of a lucky "blind lead", is too tempting.

Spear:  5D. Last time I had this hand, I bid 5D. but my pard raised to 6, down one. The moral of the story is that even if you can make 5D, you still don't go plus. (But maybe this time, I will go down less in 5D than my counterpart in 2NT.)

Yes, you are at the 5-level, which opens up the opportunity to be doubled, but you also know that you will have hand entries. Plenty of the panel tried to ease into the water with 3S, with some thinking it was minor-suit Stayman and others intending it as a transfer:

Nelson:  3S. Choices are pass or 5D. Whoa, wait, I could bid 3S, partner bids 4C and I could bid 4D. I think that is best, but can partner pass? I will take the flyer.

Axelrod:  3S. It is difficult to tell whether partner has the right cards for 5D. After the transfer sequence of 3S-4C-4D, partner may try for 5D himself, holding the right hand.

Paulo:  3S. I intend to rebid diamonds over clubs at the 4-level ,and the 5-level if necessary.

Kaplan:  3S. Not sure what bidding system we are using. This is my way to sign off in 4D, which is the plan! Seems like 4D must be superior to 2NT.

This seems very sensible to me. We have too many losers to believe that we are a favorite to make game, but 4D is almost surely better than 2NT.

Babin:  Pass. I don't have enough points to bid 3NT. It would be nice to be able to play in 4D, but according to Bridge World Standard, a 3S bid here shows both minors.

Bridge Baron:  Pass and pray. Our convention card doesn't have a way to play in diamonds after partner opens 2NT, and inventing an escape sequence on the spot is not likely to work.

I would argue that passing is like refusing to try the water, even though you have many friends on the side insisting that the water is fine. I don't often argue for prudence, but this seems to be one of those rare cases. If you ask me about this in the future, I am sure that I will deny ever suggesting such a thing!


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
2NT 100 11 34
Pass 80 2 10
3NT 70 2 12
2S 70 0 1
1S 60 1 6
2D 60 1 1
1NT 60 0 9
3D 60 0 1
2H 50 0 4

3. IMPs, Both Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  --   --   --   1D
  1H   DBL*   Pass   ?

*Negative dbl

You, South, hold  A65   KJ102   AK742   Q

What's your call?

Most of the panel converged on this one.

Hudson:  2NT. I'll try to produce this bid promptly and confidently, though I hate it. Passing is worth considering, given the ugliness of my offensive alternatives. Other possibilities:  1NT (gross underbid), 2S (misbid, but it might well work).

Feiler:  2NT. When opponents bid, I think 2NT just shows more than a minimum NT, not 18-19 points.

Dodd:  2NT. Tempted to pass, and against certain opponents this would be an easy pass. In a vacuum, assuming a competent West, it's a close call, since we might not have a decent chance at game.

Matheny:  2NT. Nothing seems more descriptive.

Paulo:  2NT. Both strength and shape are not adequate, but 3NT should be our best game, and partner can't propose it.

Walker:  2NT. If we can beat 1H doubled, we're heavy favorites to make 3NT. I'd pass if we were white, but there's too big an IMP difference between +200 and +600 to go for it at this vulnerability.

Kniest:  2NT. Counting heavily on that long diamond suit.

Kaplan:  2NT. Ugh. If I pass, declarer might be able to scramble 7 tricks. If I bid some number of notrump, they may run a bunch of clubs. Nevertheless, I'm going to hope that 1H does have 7 tricks and try for either +120 or more, depending upon how much partner has.

Rabideau:  2NT. Looks like 18 points to me.

I am really shocked that the panel came down so solidly on this one. Here again, 2NT seems like a normal bid, but I am just too enamored with the insurance that comes from passing.

Nelson:  Pass. Umm ... wonder if I can get this for 800 or more? Sure hope so! At matchpoints, I would have bid 3NT.

If we can make game, I have to beat the snot out of this contract, but that seems fairly likely to me. If I can only make a partscore, then passing again seems attractive. And finally, if we can't make anything, then passing doesn't seem much worse than 2NT. This seems like low-level insurance to me.

Two panelists took a pessimistic view:

Feldheim:  1S. Despite 17 high-card points, nothing else appeals. If partner passes, we probably haven't missed much, while if he bids again, a notrump game looks rosy.

Bridge Baron:  2D. Bridge Baron prefers rebidding a five-card suit at the two-level to showing three-card spade support.

And two more went for the whole hog:

Axelrod:  3NT. Partner's values lie probably in the black suits. Most of our values are in the red suits, and my hand is decent enough to justify a direct 3NT bid.

Spear:  3NT. They never lead hearts, but I must bid a game anyway. Too much for 2NT.

None of these options appeal to me more than the first two.


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
5H 100 4 8
4NT 80 4 21
5NT 80 4 9
5C 80 3 12
4S 60 1 19
5D 60 0 1
6C 60 1 4
6S 30 0 1
6NT 30 0 2
Pass 10 0 1

4. Matchpoints, North-South Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  --   --   Pass   2NT
  3H   4H   Pass   ?

You, South, hold  AJ   A52   A1073   AK73 What's your call?

We are in undiscussed territory and the panel is confused. Would a double of 3H have been takeout or penalty? If double is not business, 4H must be some sort of good hand. If double is for penalty, then the 4H bid is takeout, but with what kind of strength? Some panelists chose to bid what they felt was their best suit:

Babin:  6C. Partner should have a good hand with both minors and wants me to choose. We can probably make 6 of either minor, but my clubs are a little better. I could bid 5H & let partner choose, but the hand might play better from my side if spades are led.

Feiler:  5C. I'd like to bid 4NT meaning pick a suit, but I think 4NT over a 4-level bid is to play.

Bridge Baron:  5C, Texas transfers are off over intervention, so it seems that partner is just making a forcing cuebid. Bridge Baron has to bid something; it would consider 4NT to be Blackwood, so it scrambles to 5C.

More confusion from the team. By bidding 5C, you haven't punished partner, and this bid is the least likely to be misunderstood. The only problem that I see with 5C is the potential director call after partner raises to 6C following all the time it took us to guess what partner's bid actually meant.

The majority of the panel decided on one of three ways to punt -- 4NT, 5H or 5NT. For the 4NT bidders:

Nelson:  4NT. I might be the only sane one on the panel ... haha. I am bidding 4NT, bypassing spades since I only have two. This should show I am full of minors. I am sure of that.

Dodd:  4NT. With a minimum and only two spades, why would I try anything else? Even if we do have a fit in one of the minors, West's call advertises bad breaks, so pushing this hand into a slam is a recipe for disaster.

Kaplan:  4NT. Not sure where partner is going here. If partner bids a minor, I will cuebid 5H. If partner bids 5S. I will raise to six.

With the confusion, I like taking a restrained position. This allows partner to show what he has. But with that being the case, 4NT seems more logical than 4S as it answers all possibilities other than transfer. Here's another way to pass the buck:

Paulo:  5H. Slam in a minor suit or notrump should be likely; I suggest that partner choose the strain.

Kniest:  5H. Since I didn't bid spades, 5H suggests both minors. Let pard pick one, or notrump. If he bids 5S, I'll bid 5NT -- no fit.

Rabideau:  5H. I don't know what partner has in mind, but I sure like my hand. We'd like 4NT to show the minors. Some might call it Blackwood, but I'm afraid it's natural.

Feldheim:  5H. With all the controls plus an ace opposite likely shortness, this is the best minimum known to man! After partner's expected 5S, I'll bid 5NT. Hopefully, partner will know that I'm trying for a minor-suit slam and that my values are useful.

While the re-cuebid always scores big in Solvers Forums, I am totally against it! You have already made a limited opening and are now back to doing the opponents' work for them by preempting partner. You do have a nice hand if partner is looking for slam, but he may also just have a three-suited hand and he has requested you to bid. This seems like a big position to take. These panelists made an even stronger move:

Hudson:  5NT. Though partner may primarily be looking for a 4-4 spade fit (his 4H is not a transfer!), he must be prepared to go beyond game if we don't have such a fit, yet he can hardly bid slam unilaterally when I have all the aces. So I am compelled to drive to slam. To bid 4NT would sound merely regressive.

Matheny:  5NT. Bid your minor. Partner should have a good hand (with less, he could start with 3S or 4 of a minor). 5H might sound like spade support, so 5NT should show this hand.

Walker:  5NT, pick a slam. 4H has to be a minor two-suiter, maybe a big one-suiter. It's definitely not a Texas transfer to spades, which requires a jump to the transfer bid (if partner has spades, he just bids 3S here, which is forcing). My hand is so big in support of either minor that bidding 5C or 5D isn't enough.

Spear:  5NT. No transfers to the other major without a jump. 3S would be natural and forcing, and could not be misunderstood. 5NT is pick-a-slam and would imply one or both minors. This is an excellent hand with no wasted heart values and lots of aces.

This is taking the bull by the horns, but even after reading the panel responses, I am confused as to why. It is all very subtle, but I would assume that 4NT is both waiting and stronger than picking a suit. That would seem to cater to partner having a good hand, where he could then jump, and partner having a weaker hand, where he can sign off at 5 of a minor. Bidding above 5H removes the weaker option from your partner, and thus seems less effective to me.


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
4H 100 7 21
3H 80 4 5
3D 70 2 24
4S 70 1 8
4D 70 1 3
4C 70 0 1
3S 70 0 10
2S 50 2 4
2H 50 1 0
DBL 40 0 1
3C 20 0 1

5. Matchpoints, Nobody Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  --   --   --   1H
  Pass   1S   2D   ?

You, South, hold  J652   KQJ10872   A   K

What's your call?

A major suit fit with partner, a self-sufficient major suit of your own, an "acelton", a "kingleton" and only one call to make right now. Which information is most important to the partnership?

Hudson:  2H. The straightforward bid is 4H, but instead, I'm going to walk this dog, trying to make them less eager to bid 5D. Bidding 2S might make it less likely that the deal will be passed out here than my choice of 2H, but I really do want to play in hearts and so want not to confuse the issue of strain.

I would argue that this isn't walking the dog, but is instead killing the dog. Next!

Dodd:  2S. With so much to say, I prefer to keep the auction low at this point. The chance of this getting passed out is negligible, so why use up all the effective bidding space with some silly jump?

Bainter:  2S. My free bid shows more than minimum or I would have waited on pard's next call. 2S gives that flexibility and bidding room to hopefully arrive at the maximum contract. Anything else might court disaster.

We have both majors -- one of them a monster -- and extra values. I don't see a potential disaster, and I'm not expecting the opponents and/or partner to overbid their values and save me. No soup for you, one year!

Feldheim:  3D. I'm not sure where we're going, but this seems the best bid to keep partner in the loop. Another practical possibility is 4H, but this is making a decision with inadequate information.

Bingo! I wouldn't feel comfortable stopping below game on this hand, so why not start the force now and hear what partner says?

Matheny:  3H. These hands generally play better in the long suit.

Walker:  3H. I can't not bid this suit twice. In spades, a diamond lead and a later tap might remove all the entries to my hand.

Bridge Baron:  3H. Bridge Baron refuses to put down KQJTxxx in dummy. It invites game in its self-sufficient suit.

Spear:  3H. The last two times I had a similar hand, 4H made and 4S went down. A slow learner, I will rebid 4H over 3S. 4S over 3S would show more value, not the weaker hand with long hearts. (My reputation as a hand-hog will be with me for life.)

As stated before, do people really fee comfortable stopping short of game with this hand that is clearly a player? I judge 3H to be hitting the target, but nowhere near the money.

Nelson:  4D. I am in favor of just splintering, since 4H would not be this hand. Maybe over partner's 4S rebid, I might consider 4NT, but for now I will splinter. Maybe I will get some table feel.

For those who liked 3D. why not try 4D? There is even a surprise singleton to boot. My worry is that this takes 4H out of play, so only scores a solid single.

Paulo:  4H. I quote Marijke van der Pas' Bols tip:  Don't put your seven-carder down in dummy.

Axelrod:  4H. In spite of the known spade fit, I think it is better to prefer my self-supported suit, and partner may well recall that 4H was not my opening bid.

Babin:  4H.  I think the hearts are long and strong enough to make game if partner has spades. It should be safer in hearts than spades , unless partner is void in hearts.

Kniest:  4H. I can play opposite a void, and partner's bid didn't hurt me, so I bid game. Hearts is trumps.

Kaplan:  4H. I hate missing aces and hate missing a game with all this shape. Can't bring myself to support spades with this heart suit!

Rabideau:  4H, I'm delighted to hear that partner has some spades but I'll do everything I can to prevent this heart suit from hitting the table.

I agree that this hand must be played in game, and 4H fits the bill as bidding what you think you can make. 4H down one is imminently more defensible in the post-mortem than 3H making four. Domino!

Feiler:  4S. I think the next bid we hear is going to be 5D by West, after which I'll try 5H, after which who knows?

Again, bidding game sure seems right to me on this hand, but jumping to 4S really precludes playing in your imposing heart suit. To mix in my final metaphor, while this is no slam dunk, it is a comfortable 15-footer that rolls in.


 Action    Score    Panel   Solvers
3S 100 7 26
4D 90 6 7
4H 70 3 33
3NT 70 1 11
Pass 20 0 1

6. Matchpoints, East-West Vulnerable
 
  West   North   East   South
  --   --   --   1H   
  Pass   2D*   Pass   2H**
  Pass   3H     Pass   ?

* Forcing to game           ** Does not guarantee 6 cards

You, South, hold K43   AKJ63   K6   654

What's your call?

We have a flat hand in a game-forcing auction with what could be a dubious fit. How many references to Hamman's rule are about to come?

Kaplan:  3NT. I would have bid 2NT the first time. Really hate 2H with this shape. And, had I bid 2NT, I would then know if partner had a 3H rebid, or something else. Now I am guessing; hope I have guessed right! Partner can always go back to hearts over 3NT; he can't go to 3NT over 4H.

Wow! We survived with no Hamman references. I am shocked, but of course, there's that little problem of no club stopper. I agree totally with Peg -- I would have bid 2NT the first time -- but now that we didn't, I don't think that we can now bid notrump out of protest when there is a perfectly simple call available.

Nelson:  3S. Not sure if our system allows first and/or second-round controls, but that would be my bid. With the king of diamonds, I really like my hand, and partner is suggesting more.

Hudson:  3S. A good-enough hand that I owe partner a control bid. He may be interested in slam since he bid 3H, not 4H. I wish we were playing Serious (or Non-Serious) 3NT, so I could indicate that my interest is slight. If partner rebids 4C over 3S, I'll have to say 4D, though I'm not that enthusiastic.

Matheny:  3S. Start the cuebidding.

Paulo:  3S. I announce the spade control, allowing partner to try for slam with  Qxx  Qxx  AQJxx  Ax  and to stop at game with  Axx  Qxx  AQJxx  Qx, for instance.

Kniest:  3S. Hearts are agreed, and I have a fit, so I show my control. I'll rebid 4D over 4C.

This panelist had a different intention for his 3S bid:

Bainter:  3S.  I have now shown five hearts rather than six, and 3NT needs to be played from his side to protect a possibly shaky club holding. West didn't overcall 1S, so a spade lead against 3NT from pard's side shouldn't be fatal.

I was sure that 3NT was merely marking time, not cuebidding. I guess it depends on style and how likely one is to rebid a 5-card suit. It's clear now that we have a real fit (partner's 3H guarantees 3+ cards), but I really don't like starting to cuebid here!

Feiler:  4D. 3H is probably a slam try, which means I should probably bid 4D.

Dodd:  4D. One try, given that North's second call shows mild slam interest.

Axelrod:  4D. Our hands seem to fit well, and I think partner needs to know about my King of Diamonds.

Walker:  4D. This is a bare minimum for offering a cuebid, but the diamond holding is a big plus. 4D is the cuebid partner most likely wants to hear, and it gets across the aceless holdings in the black suits.

Rabideau:  4D. We play that a cuebid in partner's side suit shows the ace or king, NOT a void or singleton. Is this standard?

Spear:  4D. I like to play Serious 3NT here, so that my 4D cuebid does not show extra. Pard is not raising hearts on xx in a game-forcing auction. If pard has the ace of clubs, 6H could be a favorite. If 4D denies extra values, pard should know what to do now.

Did I fall off the crazy train and totally misunderstand this auction, even after hearing all of these explanations? We are bypassing our most natural cuebid to give a false preference cuebid on our bare opener. This seems like a bid that would be made only if one could see through the backs of the cards.

Bridge Baron:  4H. Partner forced to game and we have a major-suit fit. Partner could have bid notrump, but didn't. We have a near-minimum opener, so there doesn't seem to be much alternative.

Babin:  4H. I am tempted to bid 3NT, since I have only five hearts, but it's a good suit and partner is probably short in at least one black suit.

Feldheim:  4H. Nothing to really cuebid and only 5H. I agree that the diamond king plus the good quality heart suit makes slam possible but partner would need to initiate the slam try with either Blackwood or a 5C cuebid. 4D is an overbid.

Hats off to these final "normal" bidders. While 4H isn't my first choice, it surely isn't a zero.


  Panel and Solver Scores            New problems for December 2010            

Thanks to all and see you next time when I have a theme better than this one (whoops! I forgot that I was just theme-less and snarky this month). Maybe completing my masters program and preparing to move to some exotic new locale will inspire me. Or maybe having watched another 3000 Batswana having died from HIV-related illnesses will inspire me to work on something in that vein. Any other brilliant suggestions from my two loyal readers?

Leading all Solvers were Chris Grande of Mishawaka IN, Peter Qvist of Denmark and Dave Smith of Memphis TN. They're all invited to join the December panel.  

The six new problems for December are below. Please post your bids and comments on the web form by November 30.

Note that after you click "Send bids" on the web form, the next page will give you a message confirming that your bids were posted OK (scroll down to the bottom). If there are errors (usually a missing bid or a comment that is too long), they'll be marked in red. 

October moderator:   Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com
 

Solvers Forum -- December 2010 Problems

1.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

  Pass Pass 1C
Pass 1D Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
J10   653   K75   AKQ94 ?

2.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

  1D Pass 1S
Pass 2D Pass 3C
Pass 3D Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
K6543   K   AJ   Q10963 ?

3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

1D Pass 1H ???

What is your call as South holding:
J642   5   KJ   AJ10943 ?

4.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

      Pass
Pass 1S DBL ???

What is your call as South holding:
4   Q65   KQJ94   Q542 ?

5.  IMPs, Both vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

      1S
Pass 2D Pass ???

What is your call as South holding:
AKQJ843  Void  A1043   52 ?

6.  Matchpoints, Both vulnerable                               

  West   

  North  

   East   

 South  

Pass 1H DBL RDBL
1S 2C 2D ???

What is your call as South holding:
AKQ94  Q86  1092   74 ?

Back to the Advocate Home Page