District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2008

    by Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2NT	100	6	5
5NT	90	2	0
4NT	80	3	21
3S	80	2	16
3C	80	1	10
6H	80	0	5
4H	70	2	35
5H	60	0	5
Other	50	0	4

1. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

     * (Weak two-bid)

What is your call as South holding  A5   K104   A5   AQJ974 ?

First off, I would like to congratulate Bev Nelson as the first Solvers Forum panelist in my experience to make a serious case for bidding only at the three-level. All six of her answers were for a cozy nine tricks. We'll see how that works out for her at the end of the column, but for now, I applaud her consistency! On to the problem at hand, where I have to start by talking about my least favorite choice, a straight jump to game.

Bridge Baron (analysis by Steve Smith): “4H. In this situation, Bridge Baron's thought processes are simple: it can't make slam, but it can probably make game, so it bids game."

I'm not sure what is in the box’s brain, but this strikes me as nuts. Even at favorable vulnerability, can’t someone open 2H on xx  AQxxxxx  xxx   Kx? That hand makes a grand almost 100 per cent (give partner the heart nine and club 10 and you're laydown for 7NT). While that is the perfect hand, there are plenty of hands where the club finesse is all that matters, which makes you 50-50 for a slam, small or grand. Since there is free room to explore, why not use it? The question about this hand is what is the most appropriate question?

Dodd: "3C. This is forcing in BWS and the best way to discover a potential perfecto that would allow us to reach a laydown grand. The vulnerability makes it more likely we may actually be allowed to proceed without interference, and we should be safe at the 5-level regardless."

I don’t really understand the purpose of this bid, since we know that hearts is our suit. I am always one for including partner, but I don’t know what this does for him. If this is a play to get to 6H, are you planning on Double Keycard Blackwood (when two suits have been shown to have fits, this asks for aces and the kings in both suits)? Things are getting a bit deep for me. I would rather set trumps and move forward and not dissuade partner if he has a singleton club. As for the other three slam inquiry options, the panel was slightly in favor of the ask-for-a-feature 2NT advance.

Vongsvivut: “2NT. Forcing, asking for feature and planning for Keycard Blackwood for hearts, either small or grand-slam zone."

Spear: “2NT. I can bid slam opposite a good suit, playing for the king of clubs onside. I will get pard to switch to the Ogust convention after this hand. Playing Bridge World Standard, I will risk a small slam opposite any feature bid with the ace of hearts, or a grand slam opposite a club feature with the AQ of hearts. I am not going to the five-level opposite a minimum weak-two at this vulnerability."

Paulo: “2NT. If partner, with a maximum, shows a club feature, then 7NT is likely, which I'll check via Keycard Blackwood. Else, with the club finesse, we should make 6H."

Strite: “2NT. Whatever asking bid we play, I want to make it opposite this second-seat favorable weak two. Let's deal with the 4-or-7 problem later, hopefully with a better knowledge of how serious partner's weak two is."

I like 2NT here. It will be a bad day when you hear more from the opponents at these colors with the hand you have. 2NT gives you the chance to make a slam try below game, and still stop at 4H if partner is completely uninterested, which gives it the edge for me. On the other hand, one could simplify the auction by Blackwooding straight away and leaving partner along for the ride.

Feiler: “4NT. I like the looks of the club finesse on this auction, which means that a hand as bad as:  xx  AQxxxx  xxx  xx  may well take the first 14 tricks. If partner turns up with the heart ace, I'm sure I have something in my bag of tricks to ask about the queen."

Klemic: “4NT. I think most roads lead to 6H, though I'm willing to shoot out 7H if I can find out about club king as well."

The Blackwooders don’t answer a key question for me: If partner shows no key cards, what will they do next? Would you raise partner to the small slam knowing that you were off the heart ace? I think that partner is more likely to hold a hand that cannot make slam (xx  QJxxxx Kxx  xx) than one that can. This again seems a reason why starting with 2NT would be preferable, as 4NT will always be in your hip pocket. The third route to try and include partner is to cuebid.

Ozdal: “3S. I want to inform partner that we are ready to play 4H and looking for more. If he has the spade king, he should bid 3NT. If he doesn't bid 3NT, I will go for 4NT. 6H is very possible with many distributions."

Nelson: “3S. I want to relay to partner I have a great hand to show the heart fit. After a 4S bid, which I expect, I plan on bidding 5C. Partner will get the message I have a slam interest."

I don't understand the value of this advance, either. It's unlikely that partner will be able to shed any light on the situation after a cuebid, and you'll be forced to Blackwood next anyway. I'm a strong believer in only bidding once if only one bid is called for. A cuebid-then-Blackwood versus an immediate Blackwood bid seems like nothing more than a Practice Cuebid. Finally, to remove all the work involved in any further analysis or guessing, you could try the Grand Slam Force to ask if partner has two of the top three trump honors:

Kessler: “5NT. Looks like a 4 or 7 hand. I tend to be aggressive when if we need a hook, it rates to be right."

Walker: “5NT. Somewhat of a gamble, since even the small slam could go down if partner doesn't have the heart ace and East finds the right lead. If partner has AQ of trumps, though, the grand is a good bet, requiring little more than setting up the club suit for five tricks (a 'should-win' finesse through the overcaller and one ruff)."

My only problem with this choice is similar to that of starting with Blackwood. If partner is without both high trumps, what level do you want to be at? If he holds AJ of hearts and some king, would you really not want to be in the grand? Or if he holds QJ of hearts, are you sure you want to try a small slam? My ideal auction on this hand is to start with 2NT and then try 4C over partner’s expected 3H response. If partner retreats again, I give up and feel safe at the four-level. If partner makes any bids other than 3H and 4H in this auction, I'll try 4NT next. At other vulnerabilities, this plan may run into trouble from the opponents, but this doesn’t seem like an issue here.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	7	23
DBL	80	3	24
4H	80	4	11
Pass	60	2	39
3S	50	0	2
3D	50	0	2

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable                      

The panel was very much in favor of bidding, and I certainly agree. Partner’s auction has suggested that he has too much to make a simple red-vs.-not overcall at the two-level, which must be a lot. Why would anyone choose to pass in this situation? Here are some ideas:

Dodd: “Pass. Timid perhaps, but no other choices are even remotely palatable. I am averse to bringing back minus 470s. I find I keep more teammates this way.”

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3NT	100	7	15
3S	90	3	17
3D	80	2	33
DBL	80	1	3
4D	70	1	8
3H	60	1	16
5D	60	1	5
2NT	50	0	3

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                 

What is your call as South holding  AK6   5   AKQ1074   K73  ?

Strite: “Double. The reason to play the Good/Bad 2NT rears its head again. My diamonds aren't solid enough to run without an entry against a likely bad break, or I'd shoot 3NT. I'll trot out an ambiguous double and see what happens next.”

All of these new-fangled conventions that the scientists like to use do solve some real-life problems. This is a prime situation where you need to have discussed with your partner what a freebid in this situation means. There will be plenty of times when you’ll want to bid with a 7-card diamond suit and the same minimum hand you started with. The problem is when partner holds some scattered 6-8 points. You'd want him to pass if you opened a 12-count, but you'd want him to bid again if you're holding the hand in this problem.

Some people use either double or 2NT to separate the good, game invitational hand from the competitive, a-real-suit-but-little-else hand. Alas, I do not think that this is in our bag of tricks, but the ambiguous double still has merit. Other panelists chose a more direct description:

Vongsvivut: “3NT. I don’t need much from North to make 3NT -- J10xx of hearts and Qxx of clubs, with diamonds expected to run.”

Feiler: “3NT. It sounds as though partner has a heart stopper, but even if he doesn't, they bid spades, so maybe they'll lead them.”

Spear: “3NT. Just can't bid any less. Perhaps I played too much rubber bridge to ever be any good at matchpoints.”

Nelson: “3NT. Partner has some heart values. All I need from partner is the club queen and, of course, some realistic diamond split.”

Dodd: “3NT. Plenty of ways this could work out...or not. If not, then it's Kent and me in the consolation!”

Paulo: “3D. East may have several diamonds, which precludes 3NT.”

The value of the conservative 3D is that it provides the most likely plus score; the problem is that score isn’t very big. The value in 3NT is that it provides the biggest score; the problem is that it isn’t very likely.

Several Solvers bid 3H, with some mentioning that they were asking for a heart stopper. When the opponents have two suits, though, a cuebid of one of their suits should show a stopper and ask partner for a stopper in the other suit. That's what these panelists were doing: 

Ozdal: “3S. Partner would double 2D if he had a penalty hand for one of the major suits. 3NT doesn't look possible at the moment, but I will still give a try and show my values/stoppers in spades. If partner bids 3NT, I will pass. If he bids 4C, I will correct to 4D."

Klemic: “3S. Should show spade stop with interest in 3NT. Partner probably has heart length, but it doesn't do any good if they start with the top four hearts and club ace.”

Walker: “3S. This shows a spade stopper and asks for a heart stopper. There's no reason to bid notrump yourself and pray for a heart stopper when you have a perfectly good way to ask partner for one.”

I think that Karen asks the question that all the 3 Notrumpers should ask themselves. Do you really think you can convince your LHO to lead a spade in this auction? Wouldn't his logic go something like: "This Kamikaze fool (that would be you) isn't jumping to 3NT without a spade stopper. He's got diamond tricks ready to run, so we'd better not give him the lead he's expecting (or wanting)."

Baron: "5D. Bridge Baron is sad that you made it open 1D and not 2C. Anyway, in this situation, it simulates and expects to earn slightly more matchpoints in 5D than in 3D, so it bids 5D. (It doesn't consider 6D.)  Bridge Baron would find the decision even clearer at IMPs.”

I would be fascinated to learn how The Baron comes up with this analysis. Partner would need to produce two tricks and not have a heart stopper (else 3NT would be a better contract). I don’t know many duplicate games that score many matchpoints or IMPs for incurring vulnerable undertricks.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable       

      * (Forcing 1NT)

What is your call as South holding  AQJ873   KQ43   A4   2 ?

This hand would be a lot simpler if you interchanged the majors (a reverse would be easy) or interchanged the red suits (3S, or maybe 2D followed by 3S to show extras would be easier). As it is, with extras and exactly 6-4 in spades and hearts, we are in a bind.

Nelson: “3H. Checking to be sure we don't have a heart fit first. If partner bids 3NT, I pass. If partner bids 3S, I bid 4S.”

While I don’t like the idea of missing a heart fit, a 3H bid is pretty aggressive here, and it makes it very hard for partner to know what to do if he holds two small spades. Those who chose to rebid spades make a strong case.

Walker: “3S. Too much strength for a 2H rebid and not nearly enough for a forcing-to-game 3H, so I'll compromise by making a bid that is not misleading at all. 3S buries hearts, but at least I have the right suit quality and hand strength for this bid."

Kniest:  "3S. Accurate as to length and hand strength. If partner has hearts, that will solidify my secondary source of tricks."

Bridge Baron: “3S. With a six-card major, Bridge Baron always rebids the major in this situation. Its rules are pretty straightforward: 3S with 17-19 total points, 4S with 20 or more. It sees 19 total points, so it bids 3S."

Kessler: “3S. At matchpoints, I might bid 2H, but at IMPs, we cannot afford to miss a red game. There are some relay systems over a forcing NT -- which I do not play -- but which would be very helpful in these situations."

There is no lie in bidding 3S on this hand. We have the values and the extra spade, and that description may be all partner needs to bid game. Those are all heavy pros for the bid, but the rest of the panel seemed to agree that showing your pattern now will increase the likelihood of getting to the proper level and strain down the road. Most saw only a minor risk of missing a reasonable game.

Spear: “2H. I admire those who bid more, but my alternative would be 3H, not the value bid of 3S. Bidding 3H or 3S at rubber bridge would be better than 2H, and would often be the winner at IMPs, too.”

Ozdal: “2H. I would rather bid hearts than rebid the spades. I believe this is more constructive. If partner bids again, I can still rebid my spades later."

Paulo: “2H. While a misfit is possible, I bid slowly. If this is not the case, partner can take preference or raise."

Klemic: “2H. This is a textbook hand for playing 1S-1NT-2H-2NT-3S shows extras. Partner might complicate things with a 3C or 3D bid, but it seems normal with 6-4 (and both suits of fine quality) to show the hearts now.”

Dodd: “2H. Take the small risk of a pass when game is on. North can see the vulnerability as well as you can.”

Feiler: “2H. I'll go with the underbid rather than the overbid. If partner can choke out another bid, I should be in good shape. If not, it wouldn't be the first +170 I've ever had.”

Strite: “2H. Not the end of the world if partner passes. If pard bids, 3S completes the picture nicely.”

They're all counting on partner to bid again so they can show their exact distribution. There's a risk that partner will pass, but I favor the 2H rebid because in practice, partners just can't seem to resist raising when they find a fit in this type of auction. They've been given the chance to revalue their hand, and that is usually enough to drag out a raise or a jump to game. When you go down after partner has raised on rubbish, there's always the argument that it was a pre-balance and you merely overbid your hand.

5. IMPs, none vulnerable                             

What is your call as South holding  Q92   AKJ97  K98   A3 ?  

I didn’t think that this was a very challenging problem, but then I saw eight different calls from the panel -- plus three or four more from the Solvers -- and I realized that maybe I was missing something. What were all of the panelists thinking?

Nelson: “3D. I will try another cuebid, and if partner bids 4C, I’ll bid 6S. I believe we have a darn good shot at slam.”

Feiler: “3D. With clubs and spades, there's a good chance that partner is 5-5 instead of 5-6. I don't think we're forced to game yet, so I'll torture partner with another cuebid, but I have my doubts about whether it's going to do any good.”

I agree completely with Mr. Feiler that another cuebid will simply torture partner and almost certainly not get a meaningful response. If partner truly is very black, what would another black-suit bid mean? Maybe he would retorture with a cuebid right back at you, and what then? I am all for doubling or cuebidding to ask partner to do something intelligent, but here you've already said that you have hearts and want to hear more. What can partner possibly add?

Dodd: “3NT. Tempting to try for a spade slam, but the red cards feel all wrong. It would take another perfecto to make a viable slam and even then there may be issues.”

Walker: “3NT. Very tough, as 3D is pointless and it's not clear if 2NT or 3C or even 3S would be forcing here (I think 3S should be forcing, but partner might not interpret it that way). At this point, I don't even think we can be positive that partner has five spades. What's he supposed to bid over 2D with something like AKJx   xx  xxx  KJxx? Or would he always bid 3C with that hand? Anyway, with all of partner's cards in the black suits, I'm just about certain I have nine tricks in 3NT and that slam is too pushy, so I'm opting for the safe landing spot.”

This is the anti-cuebid -- you think you can make nine tricks in no trump, so let’s end this auction. And while I love my dear editor to death, I really can’t agree with her on this hand, other than the fact that 3D is pointless (see above). 2NT, 3C, 3S and 3H must all be forcing after the cuebid, or constructive bidding becomes impossible. If you could make these bids directly, then cuebidding first must create a forcing auction. There's an argument that you needed the cuebid to check on hearts first, but I still think these follow-ups should be forcing.

While there are hands that you could construct where you would not want this to be the case, it certainly is. And even more, if partner had the hand you described above with only eight black-suit cards, he could surely find a better call than 2S over 2D (I would choose 3D). If partner happens to have more than eight black cards, I would think spades would usually be a better strain than no trump, with only a single stopper in their suit.

Bridge Baron: “4S. Bridge Baron thinks partner has shown six clubs, five spades and a bare minimum. (Bridge Baron also thinks partner has made an anti-system opening bid of 1C with a five-card major.)  Facing that holding, Bridge Baron considers its hand just barely too weak to search for slam, so it signs off in 4S."

I like this choice better than 3NT, but there are plenty of hands with five-card majors that should be opened something other than that major. Partner could be holding one of them here. With six clubs and five spades, he would/should always open 1C. 

Klemic: “4NT. Seems like 6S would have a play opposite two key cards."

Kniest:  "4NT. I'm there if partner has two key cards."

Another planet heard from. I assume Mr. Kniest's "there" is 6S ... or maybe 6NT? Either way, I think Blackwood is overkill, unless you are of the same mind as Ms. Walker, with fear that 3S could possibly be passed. Since I am strongly of the belief that both 2NT and 3S are forcing, shouldn’t we allow partner the chance to try and slam on the brakes? If he accepts any push towards slam, we can try for keycards later and maybe even learn that a grand is possible.

Paulo: “3S. This bid defines the strain in a game-forcing auction."

Spear: “3S. We could easily have a slam in spades, although my red cards are not so valuable. I will reluctantly pass 4S, or likely bid to slam if my pard bids anything else."

Strite: “3S. Always good to set the trump suit in a strong auction. By the way, I prefer my partners to be 6-5 or a strong 5-5 for this sequence."

Mr. Strite brings up a good discussion to have, unless you are Bridge Baron which opens one of a major at every opportunity. I actually play the opposite of him, where I prefer my partners to be either 6-5 or a weak 5-5 for this auction. With a strong 5-5, I am free to bid my clubs at the 3 level, whereas with a weak 5-5, I would like to try and get both suits in at the 1 level. In terms of this hand, I don’t see what could be wrong with setting trumps and seeing what partner says, unfortunately Mr. Kessler brings up the final good point:

Kessler: “2NT. 100-percent forcing after the 2D cuebid. I believe partner is at least 5-5 or 5-6. If we choose 3S, partner is completely boxed, unless he is void in diamonds. I just think this sets a situation to obtain the most information at the lowest level."

While I agree that these auctions are forcing, the idea of boxing partner out would be interesting. This would be another place for one of those new-fangled bidding conventions such as Last Train. Over a forcing 3S, partner could bid 3NT with a generic something, 4S with total dreck and any other bid with interest in advancing and something worth showing. So ... this hand would be no problem at all -- assuming we had discussed whether this auction would be forcing, how to bid suits with lots of black cards, and what 3NT in a forcing auction with a proven fit means. Simple, right?

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding  10654   KQ   KQ982   Q6 ?

Usually I have what the Spanish call “bolas”, but passing on this hand seems a little too exciting. Something must clearly be wrong with me.

Walker: “Pass. Going for the gusto. Actually, Pass became my tiebreaker when I couldn't decide what number of notrump or spades would be right with this hand.”

Paulo: “Pass. I'm not sure of game or if it should be 3NT or 4S. The penalty should be from 200 to 800, according to our combined strength.”

Kessler: “Pass. No guarantee of game. I hope partner has a trump to lead.”

Klemic: “Pass. Winners are going to take a lot of tricks, and the spot trump cards seem right for defending.”

Feiler: “Pass. I can feel +200 reaching out to me, her two big round zeros calling to me. How can I not follow?”

The sweet seduction of round curves usually calls to me, too. Here, though, I see defensive cards, no shape and a suit so pathetic that even the moths don’t care. I also see a partner over there with nerves and a heart. Every time I leave one of these doubles in, my partner pops another Tums and starts convulsing. I always want partner to get in and bid with shapely hands, and I just worry that passing here dissuades him from opening his trap in the future.

Strite: “2NT. Good problem. I'll go the conservative route on this uninspiring 12-count and steer clear of spades. I expect a raise on a full-valued takeout double, since 3NT plays well whenever the opening bidder has both the lead and all the cards.”

Spear: “2NT. Just guessing that notrump will be better than spades, and this describes my values better than 2S, without risking a 4-3 fit.”

Vongsvivut: “2NT. I prefer 2NT to 2S with so many queens and a weak four-card suit.”

Dodd: “2NT. Seems the best way to invite game, given the soft values and weak spade suit. The alternative of 2D followed by 2NT over the expected 2H is forcing.”

This seems easier on the nerves and gives us the advantage of allowing partner to raise, if it's right, while putting opener on lead and giving us the advantage of hiding all our assets. It also doesn’t force partner to lead, which would surely be the subject of a vicious post mortem if they make 1D or even score overtricks. While it may not get the best score, I feel 2NT is the most partner-friendly bid.

Bridge Baron: “2D. Without a four-card spade suit, Bridge Baron would make a penalty pass. But with the spade suit, Bridge Baron makes a game-forcing cuebid in the opponent's suit, hoping that the possibility of 4S or even 6S makes up for the fun of defending with KQ982 of trump."

Ozdal: “2S. Show the four spades and 9+ points and wait for partner to rebid.”

Nelson: “3NT. I want to make two bids, one of which is 2D checking for spades, but I prefer 3NT.”

The above three options seem flawed to me. I wouldn’t drive to game with this soft hand opposite an overcall. I wouldn’t demand notrump. And I wouldn’t confuse partner about the relative value of my spades versus my diamonds. Keeping partner’s Tums in his pocket always makes for a good round of bridge.

Thanks to all who made it this far. I bid you farewell and offer up a promise of a bonus 10 points in my next column for anyone who can tell me which country has the largest percent GDP growth per-capita since 1966. The answer happens to be where I’ll be when I write my next column. [ The Jeopardy theme has begun playing in the background.]

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to what I thought was a pretty tough set of problems. Thanks to our guest panelists for this issue, Tad Hofkin and Babur Ozdal, for sharing their wisdom and to Steve Smith and Bridge Baron, who gave us an interesting look into the "brain" of a bridge software program.

Topping all Solvers were ACBL Bridge Bulletin staffer Dave Smith of Memphis TN with an impressive 580 and John Seng of Champaign IL with 550. They're invited to join the June panel.

The six new problems for June are below. This is the third of the six sets in the 2008 Solvers competition, so there's still plenty of time to join in the annual contest, which is based on your best three scores for the year.

Please submit your solutions and comments by May 25 on the web form.  Note: The web form will sometimes crash if you type very long text into the comment boxes. If you have long comments, you can send your solutions by email to our June moderator:

   Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com  
 

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 519):		1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bridge Baron software		4H	Pass	5D	3S	4S	2D	400
Tad Hofkin, Aurora IL		4H	3H	4D	3H	6S	2S	440
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL		5NT	4H	3H	3S	2NT	Pass	500
George Klemic, Bensenville IL		4NT	3H	3S	2H	4NT	Pass	550
Tom Kniest, University City MO		4NT	3H	3NT	3S	4NT	Pass	540
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN		2NT	4H	3NT	2H	3S	Pass	580
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL		3S	3H	3NT	3H	3D	3NT	470
Babur Ozdal, Istanbul, Turkey		3S	DBL	3S	2H	4C	2S	490
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal		2NT	3H	3D	2H	3S	Pass	580
Jack Spear, Kansas City MO		2NT	DBL	3NT	2H	3S	2NT	570
Toby Strite, San Jose CA		2NT	3H	DBL	2H	3S	2NT	570
Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL		2NT	4H	3NT	2H	4NT	2NT	550
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ		3C	Pass	3NT	2H	3NT	2NT	490
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL		4NT	4H	3NT	2H	3D	Pass	520
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria		2NT	DBL	3D	2H	3S	2S	540
Karen Walker, Champaign IL		5NT	3H	3S	3S	3NT	Pass	520
Solvers Honor Roll  (Solver average: 468)
Dave Smith, Memphis TN		3S	3H	3NT	2H	3S	Pass	580
John Seng, Champaign IL		3C	3H	3S	2H	4NT	Pass	550
Alvin Bluthman, Brooklyn NY	540	Lisa Bievenue, Champaign IL						520
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	540	Jim Munday, Camarillo CA						520
Jeff  K., Chicago IL	530	Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL						520
Dan Baker, Urbana IL	520	Allan Sheppard, Creve Coeur MO						510
Rowen Bell, Chicago IL	520	Mike Halvorsen, Champaign IL						510
Tied with 500:  Steve Babin, Normal IL;  Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL;  Eunice Portnoy Garrison, St. Louis MO;  Georgia Heth, Morton IL;  Rich Peer, St. Louis MO;  Rich Pestien, Peoria IL.