District 8 Solvers Forum

October, 2011

by Scott Merritt, Falls Church VA

This month’s problems seem to revolve around some fairly subtle inferences in the bidding, most of which I usually get wrong! This is even more problematic for me, as I am currently a full-time student learning Portuguese, and my current level of comprehension means that I miss every possible inference. Whatever the case, “Muito obrigado” for submitting answers this month, and a very sincere “Desculpe” to Manuel Paulo, our Portuguese panelist, for having to hear me brutalize his very beautiful language.

1. Matchpoints, Both Vulnerable

You, South, hold  K972   J984   AQ   965
What's your call?

We are thrown into the fire again for the first problem this month, and the choice of bids seems to hinge on a relatively small inference around how you interpret partner’s 4S call. While a vast majority of the panel pushed for slam, there were a few panelists who were less adventurous.

Rabideau: 5H. Since it's unlikely partner would bid 4S with a diamond suit headed by the KJ, his minor "has to be" clubs. Thus, my hand adds up to 4 trumps, a side ace, and a poor fit for partner's second suit.

Kessler: 5H. This should show hearts and a minor. At matchpoints I attempt to take a plus score. The preempt worked perfectly -- when you are fixed, stay fixed.

Nelson: 5H. I see no other option, but 5H. I have two nice cards BUT.....

Bridge Baron: 5H. Partner seems to be looking for a suit; we've got one.

These panelists are practical, and judging from the bids the Solvers chose, signing off at the 5-level won’t cost any matchpoints. While I believe that this is overly timid, there will be better chances in a round to pick up matchpoints than guessing wildly at the 5-level. In this case, though, I have to completely disagree with Mr. Rabideau. A strong, potential double fit and a side-suit ace seem huge when you could have so much less. Partner had several options to show less strength, like doubling or simply bidding at the 4-level.

The rest of the panel pushed forward for slam. Some of the panel started with the “forward-moving” 4NT.

Matheny: 4NT. Natural and constructive. Let's see what kind of big hand partner has.

Kniest: 4NT. Pard could be in the auction because of shape, not a moose. So I'll ask for his minor and then correct to hearts. I think this implies more than just bidding 5H.

Ward:  4NT. And then 5H. Presumably this shows more than 5H directly.

Kaplan: 4NT. Not sure if this is any two suiter - or - hearts and a minor. If partner bids 5C over 4NT, I'll pass. Not putting a lot of weight into the spade king. If partner bids 5D, I'm calling 5H.

Walker: 4NT. I'm not confident that partner has hearts and a minor, but I think a slow auction might clear it up. Second choice is 6C (pass or correct).

4NT in this auction strikes me like the Tea Party and statements like “Government wastes resources.” There is some truth to the statement, but there doesn’t seem to be any offer of a solution. It is clear to partner that he is jamming the auction when he makes his cuebid and bypasses the most likely games. By marking time back at him, what solution have you really offered? While Kniest and Kaplan suggest a plan, getting to 5H the slow way, which does seem superior to the straight 5H bid, I don’t think that this helps partner with the guess that you have been put to. I prefer to simply make the guess, and be finished.

The problem is that to make a guess implies some sort of understanding of the distinctions between the available takeout bids: double, 4S and 4NT. While we all understand that a double of a preempt is purely takeout, that a cuebid over a weak-two is looking for a stopper for notrump, and a cuebid over a 3C, 3D or 3H preempt is a strong takeout with the possibility of being two-suited.

New questions arise when the cuebid bypasses the usual game possibilities. Partner should hold something like one of these three hands: 
  Void   AKQx   KJ10xx   AKQx
  Void   AKQxx   J   AK10xxx
  A   Void   KJ109xxx   AKQJx

Over 3S, what would you do with each of those three hands, given the three available options? Another question is would you cuebid 4S with Void  KQxxxx  x   KQxxxx? That seems to be the minimum hand that would justify stopping in 5H. With the third hand above, would  you always choose 4NT with the plan of raising partner’s response to 6, which would eliminate one possible hand?

All of these choices taint what you should now bid, and how best to cater for the most options. Most players took the direct route:

Spear: 6H. 4S shows two suits, but not both minors (4NT). If I thought a try for 7H would be understood, I might bid 5NT, then 6H over the expected 6 of a minor. Not many will reach a making 7H in any case.

Klemic: 6H. This problem looks familiar?  For pard to force to the 5 level, can he have any less playing strength than  x  AKQxx  AKQxx  xx?  This makes slam on an odds-on finesse. It may take a bit of faith to bid the grand on better hands, but there are some wasted values potentially.

Paulo: 6H. Slam looks a good bet. We win it or they take insurance (may be a phantom save).

Dodd: 6H. Torn between the safe plus and the heroic. The inference that North had a 4H call available with a lesser two-suiter tips the scales despite the wasted spade king.

Feldheim: 6H. With four decent hearts and a super diamond holding, anything less would disrespect partner's bid. North must hold hearts since 4NT would be minors.

While 6H seems to be the value bid, I just have to question whether a better option at the table would be a jump to 6C. It gives up on the few extra points tht come from finding a major-suit slam, but it caters to the minor two-suiter that partner was afraid to show with an unusual notrump.

All of this is too complex for me and a nameless partner; I would rather simply accept that this is a guess and bid 6H, which surely has the highest expected value given the data that we currently have. In a more seasoned partnership, this hand would be worth discussing to make sure that some of these broader general assumptions are better understand by both sides.

2. Matchpoints, East-West Vulnerable

   * Constructive -- 3+ clubs,  8+ pts

You, South, hold   72   AK   AKJ10   AQ864
What's your call?

In this hand, you now have an interesting dilemma regarding whether or not to look for 3NT, and if so, how. It also has to be noted, and was by several panelists, that opening 2N, or 2C/2N depending on how you choose to value this hand with the 5th club and diamond 10, on this hand would have avoided the current situation, but may have steered you toward a worse contract.

For those interested in searching for 3NT, what would the bids at the 3-level mean, and then which would be the most appropriate?

Kniest:  3D. Waiting for the spade cue and not going past 3NT.

Feldheim:  3D. Of course, This would be a cue bid. I'd like to bid 4S, asking for second round spade control but without discussion, it could be exclusion B/W.

The 3D bidders are certain that this is a cuebid and not patterning out, and I am not sure that they are right, but this again would involve a deeper understanding with partner about the meanings of 3H and 3S. If, as the panel assumes, 3H would be a fragment and 3S would be asking, why would 3D certainly be a cuebid? Whatever the case, this bid does seem to keep the auction moving forward and shouldn’t hurt in the long run.

Paulo:  3H. If partner can control spades or bid notrump that is fine.Otherwise, we trot out game in the rounded suits.

Kessler:  3H. My intentions are to play in clubs, but if partner has QJxxx of hearts and the king of spades, hearts might be a fine contract. This keeps the bidding low and makes it easy for partner to cuebid the ace of spades, or bid notrump with KQ10 of spades and a bad hand.

Dodd:  3H. Anything I say here will be either somewhat misleading or courting a horrid result. This call seems the least bad as it keeps all contracts in play without bypassing 3NT.

Kaplan:  3H. Not at all sure I would have begun with 1C on this hand - but - here I am. Whatever I bid now will be a distortion of one sort or another. With xx, I cannot bid spades and my clubs are not good enough to investigate slam on my own. I'll let partner think I had a 3-card raise and hope for the best.

Of all the 3-level calls, this is my least favorite, which seems an odd statement to make when you have AK in partner’s suit and are limited to only having 3-card support max. I am even more troubled that the rules decreed that it should get the highest score. Unfortunately, this distortion seems too hard to overcome later, when partner expects some real support and a singleton spade. Maybe I am making too much of partner’s decision not to jump to 3H on his own, but you are not excited about your ruffing prospects on this hand and partner clearly doesn’t have an extra chunky heart suit. All told, this bid seems to be shooting at a very small target, when there are other options that would seem to work for me.

Strite:  3S. Let's see if partner can bid 3NT

Matheny:  3S. Asking for a stopper. I will raise 3NT to 4NT.

Rabideau:  3S. Over a 3NT rebid, I'll try 4NT, knowing that partner will appreciate the difference between QJx and Kx in spades(?). A 4S rebid will trigger Blackwood and 4C will get a raise to 5C.

Klemic: 3S. 3S is a try for 3NT here, which you should be satisfied with if partner goes that route. Just because partner made a positive move doesn't mean he has a monster response. A 3H bid here would suggest shorter spades, which is a bad idea as pard may push to 6H with two quick losers

This choice seems the logical path to get to 3NT, but I have to question the aims of moving toward 3NT when partner chose to support clubs and not bid notrump himself. While you may have the values to force 9 tricks, partner has made an earlier suggestion that his spades are not robust. At matchpoints there is some justification for pursuing this route, but I have learned from my time in Africa not to completely fear the minors.

Ward:  4C. It's easier to bid 4C at IMPs, but every other call is flawed. 3H shows three cards and 3S and 3S does not show two little.

Nelson:  4C. I hate hands with worthless doubletons. However, Minorwood works with this one. Another possibility is 3H to give room for responder to bid 3NT, but think less of that because they could have bid 3S themselves.

Walker:  4C. 3S would find a stopper, but then what? Head to slam (or go down in 3NT) opposite a possible Qxx?  If partner has a "real" spade control, 4C will drag it out of him. I'm playing 5C or 6C with this hand, not 3NT.

Spear:  4NT. Actually, I like a lower-level keycard ask, but the point is that pard almost certainly holds a spade card, and the grand slam is unlikely to be reached without finding the spade ace-king and club king via ace-asking. (I am so glad I didn't open my normal choice of 2NT.)

Bridge Baron:  5C. Does the 2=2=4=5 shape really scare us out of opening 2NT? As is, partner presumably lacks a spade stopper, so Bridge Baron isn't optimistic about slam prospects.

I prefer the choice of 4C to the other options of the club bidders, even though I am worried that nothing seems in common in these four responses. 4NT seems extremely aggressive, but this may be warranted by the bold decision to ignore 3NT. 5C seems a little meek, when 4C seems available to me, but at least it seems to be in the best strain, either giving options for overtricks or minimizing damage when we go down. So, I prefer 4C, but now just have to sort out whether or not this is a Minorwood auction.

Action	Score	Panel	% Solvers
3NT	100	7	67
3D	90	6	18
3H	80	1	3
4C	80	2	8
3S	60	0	2
4H	40	0	2

3. Matchpoints, North-South Vulnerable

   *15-17     ** Forcing -- 5+ clubs

You, South, hold  J965   AK3   AJ10   Q84
What's your call?

What is the panel thinking on this hand? With how many hands would partner make the effort to show a forcing hand with clubs after you open 1NT? All of your non-jack points are working and you have full support for his suit. I think 3NT on this hand is a total cop-out.

Strite:  3NT. Not sure if 3D is forcing, so I have to give up on a slam if partner has a perfecto with a singleton spade. Partner may have another bid yet.

Spear:  3NT. Missing a slam opposite spade shortness and other hands, but maybe pard can try again with 4NT. I do admire a red-suit cuebid here, but I will "go low" this time and try to stay with the field.

Paulo:  3NT. Matchpoints, minimal values and bad shape suggest this bid.

Kessler:  3NT. I have a minimum balanced hand, with no desire to cue bid my way to slam, unless partner moves beyond 3NT.

Dodd:  3NT. Minimum with no ruffing value- if North doesn't bid again, this is very likely to be best.

Feldheim:  3NT. The problem with 3D is that partner may think I'm denying a heart stopper and go skittering past 3NT. Since this is a problem, partner may hold x  QJxx  Kxx AKJxx, in which case 6C is good and 3NT is not, but I need another move by North for slam.

Bridge Baron: 3NT. Suits stopped, source of tricks in clubs, we might have discouraged a spade lead... what's not to like?

I don’t understand the trepidation and requirement that partner hold a singleton spade. Why is AQx  x  xxx AKxxxx out of the picture? And while this is less than a 50/50 slam, I would consider such a hand a minimum for this bidding sequence, as I suspect that most people simply raise 1NT to 3NT with that hand and accept the easy make. I think that forward movement must be made on this hand.

Matheny:  3D. Although minimum, I will cooperate.

Rabideau:  3D. In spite of the nice high cards, I still have a minimum with horrible distribution. After this encouraging start on my part, I'll be signing off in notrump at my first opportunity.

Klemic:  3D. I find this the hardest decision of the set. Minimum values and 4-3-3-3 suggest bidding 3NT, but with aces in the side suits and Qxx clubs, this could easily make 6C when 3NT is going down. Over 3S, I'll bid 4H. Over 3H, I'll bid 3NT.

Kniest:  3D. Fit plus controls, and pard might be short in spades on this auction. Over to him...

Kaplan:  3D. If partner has long clubs and shortness in spades - I like my hand. We'll see where he goes from here.

Ward:  3D. It seems clear to bid my lowest ace or concentration of values. Tough problem if partner bids 3NT next.

This panelist is ready for that:

Walker:  3H. Three quick tricks and Qxx of trumps is a moose, not a minimum. The best way to show everything is to start with a cuebid in the suit where partner is most likely to have a problem, hoping he can Blackwood. If he instead bids 3NT, I'll bid 4D.

And here's yet another way to show slam interest:

Nelson:  4C. I have fast cards. Looks like a slam to me from my side of the table.

I like all of these comments, but the distinctions are subtle. I don’t know which will work out the best, but there is clearly forward movement. 4C is simple enough, as I do not plan on stopping short of 6C on this hand. The choice of 3H seems a little odd, when 3D and 4C are available, but the plan seems well thought out. Finally, 3D seems straightforward and gives you an option of signing off at 3NT, should you so wish. I am just not interested in that option as I have no plans of accepting the sign-off.

4. IMPs, East-West Vulnerable

You, South, hold  742   AKQ42   J3   1053
What's your call?

Finally, a simple auction without excessive subtlety. Is this hand worthy of an invite or is the risk of getting a level higher, with these meager values, not worth the risk?

Duas de trios paneilaçoes dizem um pequeno mais. Anyone who knows Portuguese, please ignore that last sentence, but for the rest of you, it either says, “Your green dog jumps towards the kitchen” or “Two-thirds of the panelists say a bit more.”

Strite: 3D. Keeps the auction alive and hearts and notrump in play.

Matheny:  3D. A little too good to pass.

Klemic:  3D. This looks like the best try for game. Whether partner accepts or declines, you should be in the right strain and right-sided.

Kessler: 3D. This hand could easily make 3NT, probably with a diamond hook on. But raising also stops the 2S balance. IMP's is for animals -- even non-vulnerable.

Nelson:  3D. Continue the preempting. I dislike rebidding 2H and certainly dislike notrump from my side of the table.

Ward:  3D.  Maybe partner can bid 3NT over this, which I'd prefer to playing 4H with his black suits exposed.

Feldheim:  3D. Probably an unpopular bid, but it takes a lot of pressure off partner. With three hearts, partner will support. With black suits stopped, he'll bid 3NT. And with none of the above, he'll pass.

Walker:  3D. Game is enough of a possibility that I think I have to give partner another chance. I'd pass at matchpoints.

No one seems happy to push forward, but everyone acknowledges chances to make game. The most interesting additional point is contributed by Mr. Kessler --  that the aggressive option limits balancing chances for the opponents, who may still have a productive opportunity to balance in and push you higher anyways.

Spear:  Pass. Non-vul, it's not so tempting to bid a quirky 3D. I will take my little plus score and go on to the next hand.

Paulo:  Pass. Game looks unlikely; at IMPs I don't try to better a partial score.

Kaplan:  Pass. Sorry, but my black-suit holdings are leaving me cold. Pass and hope I didn't miss anything exciting.

Bridge Baron:  Pass. Slightly conservative, but there's some reason for pessimism about a heart fit.

Dodd:  Pass. Different vulnerability or different scoring might change my call. Unless your team's motto is "We don't play making partials," to press forward with this many losers is just plain dumb.

I am curious about how Mr. Dodd knows the system that my partners and I all play. I have always found making partials anti-climactic and at the same time, I very much enjoy being dumb.

5. IMPs, Nobody Vulnerable

   * Forcing NT

You, South, hold  AKQ1043   42   Q53   AK
What's your call?

The panel was split between spades and notrump. The majority decision of opening 1S and then jumping to 3NT seems like it should be conventional, but the panel thinks that this is a natural call.

Strite:  3NT. May be the only game which makes or the opponents may not lead their running red suit.

Spear:  3NT. This doesn't always work, but is better than the alternatives.

Kniest:  3NT. This might lay down for nine peelers while a red suit lead beats 4S ... or any lead, for that matter.

Kaplan:  3NT. Hoping that partner can run nine!  After 1NT, slam seems less likely.

Walker:  3NT. Automatic bid with this shape and a solid suit.

Paulo:  3NT. This jump raise shows good values and indicates that my major is a solid six-card suit, the rest of the hand being balanced.

While this is certainly the practical choice, there seems to be some disagreement about the exact type of hand it shows. This comes back to the theme of subtle inferences. If a 2NT raise in this auction would promise 17-18 and a 2NT opener would promise 20-21, the jump to 3NT could just be a balanced 19-count. Or it could be this hand -- a solid suit, with maybe even a couple fewer high-card points. This is a more common strategy with a long minor, but it can fit here, too. The alternative for this strength is …

Rabideau:  3C. Hope I can outbid partner (at a reasonable level), if necessary.

While many panelists mentioned the anti-lead directing jump shift of 3D, only one panelist followed the courage of their convictions and actually made the call. And while I would prefer to bid my longer diamond suit, nobody seemed bothered about bidding AK tight in problem 2. If partner raises, you can retreat to 4S and things should be just fine, unless partner really doesn’t fit, in which case 3NT doesn’t look like a rosy contract, either.

The rest of the panel just bit their lips and chose how many spades to bid.

Klemic:  3S. It looks like we should be in game, but partner needs to be able to provide two tricks. Pard sometimes will find a light response when spades doesn't look like a good strain, and if that's the case, you might have multiple spade losers, on top of the red suits.

Kessler:  3S. This bid shows what I have. At matchpoints, I may have bid 3NT and shot it out.

Dodd:  3S. I might venture 3NT with truly solid spades, or if desperate for a swing.

I like having every ounce of my bid every once in a while, and I can imagine plenty of hands where partner would pass and game would not be a good bet. On the other hand, there are plenty of those hands where game is also a heavy favorite. That was the thinking shared by the rest of the panel.

Nelson:  4S. My bid is between 3S and 4S. Why allow partner to pass when there is a solid chance for the spade game? Perhaps another possibility is 3D which allows partner to bid 3NT.

Feldheim:  4S. The practical choice and too good for 3S. There's a case for 3D but partner's hand would have to be too specific for slam to work.

Bridge Baron:  4S. 20 points, 6-card major: What it says on the tin.

Just ask the box. If only everyone had the same ideas, this game would be so easy!

6. Matchpoints, North-South Vulnerable

   * Weak two-bid

You, South, hold AQJ   J5   A73   AQ854
What's your call?

The panel was pretty serious that it didn’t like the 4D cuebid, but I am a bit unsure about what the other option would be. Most of the panel assumed that the plan was to cuebid and then bid 6C, suggesting interest in more than a small slam. So they chose to execute the plan that was started with the 4D bid.

Rabideau:  6C. I'm looking forward to some enlightenment from the panel!

Klemic:  6C. 5C should be forcing here, but just to make it clear to partner. You absolutely must bid some number of clubs at this point, as so far you've suggested to partner to pick a major. 4D then 6C suggests being interested in other contracts (whether major or 7C or 7NT)

Paulo:  6C. 14 high-card points and 4=5=1=3 or similar look good enough for slam.

Ward:  6C. Tough one, you could be cold for 7C, but there is really no good way to explore.

Kessler:  6C. If I'm fixed, so be it. I bid what I think I can make. There is no good way to investigate this hand. If you bid 5D, and then over 5S bid 6C, your partner is not going to know you have this hand.

Nelson:  6C. Not sure I would have bid 4D at the table as I believe this bid should have both majors. Now we are certain partner has a singleton diamond. 

Kniest:  6C. The 4D bid certainly implied a major fit, and rocketed us past 3NT, so 6C stands out, and guarantees that the cuebid was really showing a control.

Dodd:  6C. I brought this quandary on us by making that hopeless 4D call.

Kaplan:  6C. Hard to use science here. I try 6C and hope I have guessed well - or - if not, that partner pulls with length in both majors.

Walker:  6C. I showed everything I could (4D followed by 6C should guarantee a diamond control), but I still have a guess. I think 6C is a pretty good one.

There are many interesting assumptions made by the panelists in coming to the same call. Unfortunately, I am unable to unpack all of them, but I will discuss a few. The first is the suggestion that 4D promises majors, proposed by both Nelson and Kniest. I do not know if I agree with this, as a cuebid in response to a takeout double at a lower level has always either been pick a major or a good hand. I don’t see why this situation is any different.

The other interesting question is whether or not 5C would be forcing, as suggested by Klemic. I think it's passable, and Strite agrees:

Strite. 6C. I'd have bid 4NT quantitative rather than endplaying myself with 4D. As it is, 5C is a slam try, so about right on values, but I could go set opposite xxx support when other games or even a slam is making.

Spear:  5C. Our 4D bid has created this problem, where a responsive double of 3D followed by a forcing 4C bid would give us another round of bidding to investigate a possible slam in clubs. (Can't bid slam myself. Last time my pard's takeout double was a "good" 10-count 4-4-2-3.)

I agree with these guys, that 6C is no guarantee, but even opposite Spear’s partner’s last takeout double, how can slam not be a good prospect? These guys also bring up interesting alternatives of using a responsive double and a quantitative NT instead of the dreaded earlier cuebid. These may have merit as well, but the analysis is up to the readers as they are probably quite thoroughly sick of my deeper assessments of these auctions by now.

Feldheim:  5D. This should be "pick another suit". I'm not giving up on a grand slam in a black suit. (If partner bids 5H, I'll bid 6C). A misunderstanding seems unlikely since, if partner bids 5S, it must be natural since I hold the ace. Good problem!

Matheny: 5NT. Pick a slam. I would expect partner to bid clubs with 4-4-1-4 or similar shape.

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron would treat 4NT as Blackwood here, and doesn't consider 4H to be forcing.

The last three panelists had other plans, with the computer again finding an unexpected call to play in a 6- or 7-card fit, as opposed to the 8-card fit that may score less well. I also don’t like 5NT, as I would interpret this as a Grand Slam Force in hearts, which is not the call that I would like to make on this hand. Even if you think partner will interpret it as pick-a-slam, he'll believe that one of the options is 6H -- and perhaps that the other is 6S. 

Finally, while most of the panel objected to the first cuebid, Mr. Feldheim chose to double down and trot out a second cuebid to really stick it to partner. I have to say that I am impressed with the moxie!

Thanks everyone for another fun column. Obrigado e ate logo.