District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2015

    by Nate Ward, Champaign IL

In Memory

We are saddened by the passing of Kent Feiler, who died in May in Woodstock IL. Kent was a gifted player who made many contributions to our District 8 newsletter, including serving as moderator of the Solvers Forum feature for many years. He was also a bidding theorist and developed two bidding systems -- Colonial Acol and LISA (Low-Information Standard American).

Originally from Chicago, Kent lived in Harvard IL and owned his own web-programming company. His wife, Carolyn, preceded him in death. Our condolences go out to Kent's family and friends.
 

What is your call as South holding  ♠J52  ♥942  ♦A53  ♣AK63 ?

We start this set out with a balancing problem. Usually we don’t want to let the opponents play at the one level, but one panelist is willing:

ENGEL: Pass. If partner is short in spades, we probably can’t outbid them. Maybe they will make more in hearts?

Maybe, but I think this is a pessimistic view, especially considering what people open the bidding and respond on these days. Given that, how do we proceed?

HINCKLEY: Double. Not enough for 1NT.

HUDSON: Having bad spades argues for double, having bad hearts and flat shape for 1NT. The decisive factor: 1NT limits my hand, double doesn't.

WALKER: 1NT. I’m not very confident about this choice, as partner may well expect a little more for a 1NT balance over 1S. There are strong arguments for passing.

SPEAR: 1NT. Right point count, right distribution, almost the right spade stop.

GUTHRIE: 1NT. Double or pass might work better, but 1NT is the middle-of-the-road action.

PAULO: 1NT. To quote Bridge World Standard, “In reopening-position, a 1NT overcall shows 10-14 points.”

KESSLER: 1NT. Expect this to be unanimous.

We have a rather wide range of opinions here on how strong we have to be for a balancing 1NT. The flat distribution, as pointed out by Spear, sways me to bid 1NT.

* Forcing   **3+ diamonds

What is your call as South holding  ♠94  ♥A4  ♦Q10862  ♣J1032 ?

This hands represents what I hate most about matchpoints. As pointed out by many panelists, this would be a much easier problem at IMPs, making either a preference to 2H or a raise to 3D pretty much automatic, as the risk of losing our plus score is worth it in case partner has a decent 6-4 hand that can bid again. At this form of scoring, however:

KESSLER: Pass. Plus score at matchpoints. Hearts could easily go down when diamonds make.

SPEAR: Pass. Just glad to be here.

WALKER: Pass. Not nearly strong enough for 3D. I’d bid again at IMPs, but I don’t think this hand is worth taking that chance at matchpoints.

ENGEL: Pass. I’d raise at IMPs, but only vulnerable.

Is this a fair evaluation? Others couldn’t stand to pass.

HINCKLEY: 2H. With the strong doubleton, I’ll hope this scores well, compared to diamonds.

KAPLAN: 3D. My partner can have a pretty good hand for 2D. If he doesn’t, then perhaps I can stop the opponents from entering the auction.

I think it is close, but as I tell my buddy Tod, give me +110 on every board and I like our chances. So I pass.

  * Forcing    ** 3+ Clubs

What is your call as South holding  ♠KQ2  ♥32  ♦KQ2  ♣98762 ?

The opponents have stepped into the middle of our auction. Do we go after them, or do we try to tell partner more about our hand?

GUTHRIE: Redouble. Showing strength, you hope.

RABIDEAU: Redouble. East should hold a three-suiter without clubs, so most of our cards are well located.

The problem I have with redouble is, what do you do when partner goes after their next bid? Are you really going to try to get +100 against 2S doubled at IMPs?

If not redouble, maybe we can just tell partner we have a good hand for clubs?

SPEAR: 2S. When all else fails, describe your hand.

I generally agree with this, but 2S almost certainly boxes partner. You know he doesn’t have stoppers in the other two suits, since that is where all your and RHO’s stuff is. Given that, why not just tell partner where you think we belong:

WALKER: 2NT. The hand has the right values and trump support for an "impossible negative" 2S, but that could talk partner out of notrump, as he'll never believe I have double stoppers in both their suits.

HUDSON: 2NT. Not even an overbid, since I'm hoping East has the pointed aces and West has whatever club honors we're missing.

KESSLER: 2NT. Best chance for game, and shows what we have.

Amen, Mark.

  * Limit-or-better raise of hearts

What is your call as South holding  ♠K102  ♥K976542  ♦10  ♣AK ?

The panel was pretty split on this one. Try for slam, or just bid our game? Once partner has shown heart support, our potential trick count has skyrocketed with this hand. But how worthwhile is our spade king now? Going low:

KESSLER: 4H. I’m getting old, I really like 3NT. It makes more sense at matchpoints.

PAULO: 4H. Slam is possible, but I think it is unlikely.

HINCKLEY: 4H. No splinter, due to no spade raise and the overcall behind me. I would need an unlikely super maximum from partner for slam.

Super maximum? Peg has a super minimum for you:

KAPLAN: 3C. I’m not giving up on slam. Partner could have as little as  ♠Qx ♥Axxx  ♦Axxx ♣xxx  and I like our chances!

WALKER: 4D. Even with the dubious spade king, this is a big hand for its 13 points. Odds are we’ll stop in 4H, but slam is worth a try.

SPEAR: 4D. My initial reaction of 4H was a bigger underbid than 4D is an overbid, so the choice is clear.

I’ll admit I was a little surprised that this wasn’t nearly unanimous for making a slam try. What are the 4H bidders going to tell partner when they make seven opposite three bare aces? “Sorry, I thought I had more diamonds”?

  * Michaels (both majors)

What is your call as South holding  ♠A  ♥1043  ♦AKJ107542  ♣9 ?

An old rule I learned at bridge was, don’t put 8-card suits down in dummy. While we aren’t going to be dummy on this hand, does that rule still apply?

GUTHRIE: 5D. A problem is that, without detailed agreements, it’s hard to explore other levels and strains. 5D might play better than 4H.

ENGEL: 5D. 4H could play better, but I don’t know how to give him a choice of these two contracts.

Maybe, maybe at IMPs. Sadly, this is our favorite form of scoring, matchpoints, instead. Eschewing that 8-card suit is:

KESSLER: 3H. Let’s not hang partner for competing at this vulnerability. The diamond bidders should not play matchpoints.

PAULO: 4H. What else? Diamonds, at matchpoints?

KNIEST: 4H. This is what I want to play. Of course I’ll bid 5D if they compete to 5C.

WALKER: 4H. A bit pushy at this vulnerability, but partner will pass 3H with lots of minimum hands that would make game.

   * Negative double

What is your call as South holding  ♠8743  ♥K7  ♦9654  ♣AK5 ?

And now a continuation from a problem from the previous issue, which had us choosing what to do after 1H – (1S) to us. The panel's choice then was a negative double. So now the auction is one level higher and we have at least twice as many choices as we had last time. My compliments to anyone who could choose a bid at the table in tempo on this one.

First, going for blood:

ENGEL: Redouble. I’ll double 2S, given the chance.

HINCKLEY: Redouble. Telling partner it’s our hand. I expect us to lead a trump against 2S or 3C doubled, and I’ll be happy with +300.

Wouldn’t we all? I like to go after them as much as anyone, but I think that is a little much on this hand. Going in the opposite direction:

SPEAR: Pass. This looks like a good hand to go low, with red suits likely breaking badly. I may defend 2S or compete to 3D over 3C.

And going to the stratosphere:

KNIEST: 4D. Invite.

I could never bid this much, as that takes +110 out of the picture. Taking the middle road:

WALKER: 2H. There’s no point in stretching to invite. Partner would have bid 3D if he had enough to make game opposite this collection.

KESSLER: 2H. I may be doing exactly what my opponents want me to do. It would help to be at the table.

HUDSON: 3D. I’m not looking to penalize the opponents if they bid 2S or 3C, so I may as well show my nice diamond raise.

I’m not sure there is a right answer here, which the wide array of panel votes seems to back up, so 80s for everyone.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this low-scoring set. Topping all Solvers with 560 were Dan Baker of Austin TX and Bob Bernhard of New Smyrna Beach FL, with Dean Pokorny of Opatija, Croatia close behind at 550. All three are invited to join 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.

October moderator:  Jack Spear    jack5spear@gmail.com