District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2014

What is your call as South holding:  10754   J863   4   A984 ?

We start with a pretty simple problem. Which major do we bid here? The hearts are a little better, but that might leave us stuck if we want to bid later.

PAVLICEK: “1S. Either major is as good a guess as the other, and this prepares for the likely event of further bidding.”

KESSLER: “1S. I'm positioned to bid hearts next. I would love to bid 2D to show both majors, but this hand isn't strong enough.”

SPEAR: “1S. Must allow for the possibility of bidding hearts next.”

Or do we bid hearts first? The suit is better, after all.

PAULO: “1H. With this shape in a weak hand, I bid up the line.”

That is a pretty dim view of the hand, especially considering our diamond shortness. Sounds like partner might very well have a big balanced hand. Taking a less pessimistic view, and explaining why we should bid 1S first is:

WALKER: “1S. 1H is better only if you plan to sell out after the opponents back in with 2D. This hand is good enough to show the other major in that auction, and 1S leaves room to do that.”

I have to admit I would bid 1S without much thought. This is rather standard, whether you think your hand is good or not. After all, it might be partner who bids 2D, not the opponents, and this lets you describe your hand without forcing partner to make an unknown strength preference back to the 3-level.

What is your call as South holding:  Q1042    AJ8  875   A75 ?

This problem was originally posted with North opening 3D, which accounts for the 4D bids. I’m not sure what those three voters would have bid after the typo was corrected, so I gave them the same score as Pass. The Solvers who bid 5D were scored as if they had bid 5C.

First, the bidders:

MERRITT: “5C. Aims at the biggest target at these colors.”

KESSLER: “5C. Are you really going to sit for 4H? 5C rates to be cheap insurance.”

Then, the doublers:

HINCKLEY: “DBL. A 5C sacrifice isn't much of a consideration at IMPs when they often will go down in a major-suit game. I want to ensure a club lead to force dummy as soon as possible.”

PAVLICEK: “DBL. Hopefully, partner will just interpret this as lead-directing. Passing seems more dangerous, since he may otherwise punt with a diamond.”

And, finally, the passers:

SPEAR: “Pass. The vulnerability is right for bidding, but they may well go down in game. They may be about to bid 4S.”

ENGEL: "Pass. They can probably make a game, but I don't suspect 5C would save much opposite a 'modern' preempt."

WALKER: “Pass. Not considering a sacrifice with such good defense against 4H or 4S, especially when 5C could easily go -800 opposite a typical white-vs-red preempt.”

I think this one was close. While defending could easily be right, any time they have nine hearts, I don’t want to take that bet. And if we choose not to sacrifice but to double for the lead, not only do we discourage partner from leading a singleton, but there is a decent chance that he won’t be on lead, as 4th hand can now pass with equal length.

What is your call as South holding: 6   A32   AK94   KQ765 ?

One more heart and this would be a lot easier. Since this was a balancing double, our hand is much stronger in context than if we had made a direct double. Given that, if we are going to proceed, how do we do that?

HINCKLEY: “2S. I plan on bidding 3H (passable) next round.”

PAVLICEK: “3C. This shows a hand too strong to balance with 2C but is tentative toward strain. (With a club one-suiter of the same range I would bid 3C immediately.)”

KNIEST: “3C. Have to show some speed here. Pard knows I had a 3C bid available on the last round so he should get my shape right.”

The majority of the panel opted to just try to go plus:

KAPLAN: “Pass. Since I cannot find a good follow up to my double, I'll pass and hope game is not in the cards!”

BRIDGE BARON: "Pass. A simulation suggests +72.33 in 2H and +29.00 in 3C.

SPEAR: “Pass. This is classic for going low at matchpoints. Bidding will frequently get us too high, and it sounds like partner has spade length.”

KESSLER: “Pass. I am a pessimist. Plus scores at matchpoints are usually good. This could easily be the max on this hand.”

I couldn’t agree more. As I tell one of my partners, my goal at matchpoints is +110 on every hand. Short of backdooring into 3C, Pass may well be our last chance for a plus on this hand.

What is your call as South holding: 632   854  Q75   AKQ4 ?

Just like the last problem, this hand would be easier with an extra card in one of our suits. But given the rest of our hand, I don’t think we should lament the fact we don't have a fifth club.

PAVLICEK: “2C. How bad can it be to bid my values? If there is any future, this should get us to the right spot, and from the right side if it isn't clubs.”

KNIEST: “2C. Easiest road to 3NT.”

HINCKLEY (and Paulo similarly): “2C. I am not wrong-siding a notrump contract.”

WALKER: “2C. I might be left in a 4-2 fit, but the opponent’s silence leaves me hope that partner has enough strength to bid again.”

That fear of the 4-2 may have persuaded Jack on his choice. Maybe the opponents will lead a club?

SPEAR: “2NT. Only vulnerable at IMPs.”

Only -100 a trick. I think 2C is a pretty easy choice on this hand. If notrump is right, we certainly don’t want the lead going through partner’s major-suit honors.

A few panelists and several Solvers seemed to have missed the first bid of the auction, which probably accounts for some of the 1NT and 2D bids. Some commented that 2D was an inverted raise (showing strength) and 2C was out because it was forcing to game. Neither applies by a passed hand, though.  

What is your call as South holding:  AQ875   865   J   A976 ?

This would be a harder problem at matchpoints. Since it is IMPs, we really can’t afford to pass and miss a vulnerable game. Given that, do we go high or low?

I have a lot of respect for the lone 3D bidder, as that gives us not only our best chance to get out, but also allows us to find 3NT intelligently:

HINCKLEY: “3D. Toughest problem of the set, and at matchpoints, I might make a conservative pass, but I cannot pass red at IMPs.”

If we aren’t going to raise with a singleton honor, what are our other choices? Force to game with 3C, or make a misdescriptive 2H call?

MERRITT: “3C. Something tells me that 3D is a better call, but red at IMPs, I just can't stop.”

WALKER: “3C. Overbids get more sympathy red at IMPs, and I may need some from partner on this one. If I'm going to stretch to find game, it's important to show where my cards are.”

PAVLICEK: “3C. I'd rather make a slight overbid than bid 2NT with an absurd holding in the suit most likely to be led.”

The 3C bidders let partner know where they live, whereas the 2H bidders are hoping that if partner follow up with 2NT, he actually has a good heart holding:

KESSLER: “2H. Red at IMPs, you must make a move. I don't think this what a 3C should look like, and 2H may inhibit a heart lead against notrump.”

PAULO: “2H. I am sure only that I should not pass.”

SPEAR: “2H. Only vulnerable at IMPs. Choice of evils: Pass, 2H, 2NT, 3D.”

Interesting that Jack didn't include the top vote-getter (3C) in his list of evils.

What is your call as South holding:  Q10   10872   KQJ62   J2 ?

One last problem and one last choice. How good is our hand? Do we go after them, and if not, what is the best description?

Going directly after them on defense is:

KNIEST: “Pass. Partner should get the opening lead right.”

Assuming he has a diamond to lead. Some panelists went for the gusto on offense:

MERRITT: “2H. I don’t know if I should be attacking or defending.”

PAULO: “2H. Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out.”

While true, I don’t think 2H is our best forward move. The majority of the panel made a more descriptive advance:

HINCKLEY: “1NT. With better quality hearts, bidding 1NT would be less clear. 1NT shows approximately this playing strength and seems a better description than a jump to 2H.”

WALKER: “1NT. Gives partner a better idea of this strength than 1H or 2H, and notrump rates to play better than hearts even if we have an 8-card fit.”

PAVLICEK: “1NT. Diamond spots are too weak to pass, and this shows my strength. Bidding hearts is misguided, as the secondary values in every other suit suggest that a 4-4 heart fit will not make 4H a superior contract to 3NT.”

And, finally, taking the low road:

KESSLER: “1H. I am not jumping or cuebidding with a bad 4-card suit and all my points in the opponents' suit. Second choice, 1NT.”

SPEAR: “1H. Even vulnerable at IMPs. Partner should be able to dredge up a 2H bid if this one makes game.”

Jack couldn't bring himself to bid notrump this time since they dealt him stoppers.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this low-scoring set. Topping all Solvers with 560 were David Forrest of Kirkwood MO and Terry Goodykoontz of Champaign IL. Runner-up was Sandy Barnes of Wildomar CA. All three are invited to join the December 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 December problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by November 30 on the web form. 

December moderator:  Jack Spear   jack5spear@gmail.com