1. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable            

  * Responsive double (hearts & clubs)              

What is your call as South holding:  QJ103   92   AKQJ742   Void ?

Greetings from sunny Gaborone Botswana, where I am not letting Global Economic Armageddon put a damper on my spirits. Instead, my goal is merely to score more Forum Solver points than the current value of my retirement account!  I have invited my teammates for the upcoming Bridge Congress in South Africa to join as panelists this month. While I love them to death, the caveman bidding that they know and love must be shelved, and bringing them to this forum is surely a good start.

Unfortunately, I didn’t think that this first problem set the tone for a good set. Had this problem been elsewhere in the set, all of the panelists would have been complaining about this being a “100-percenter” or they would have said something about “not understanding the problem”. So what that both opponents are bidding? You have an easy call and you should make it.

Walker: "3NT. It's easy to over-think problems like this, but when a hand is screaming 3NT this loudly, you might as well listen.

Dodd: "3NT. Yeah, they may run the first five (or eight!) tricks, but then again, they may not. Anything else here is crazy. Passing is as likely as not to score minus 670, 3D is for sissies, and aiming for an 11-trick diamond game is like playing Russian Roulette with two extra bullets in the gun."

Nelson: "3NT. Perhaps I am playing in a novice game and can get away with 3NT. Then again, I know I am not, but quite certain lefty will lead a spade."

Feiler: "3NT. You need a good reason not to bid 3NT, and I don't think I have one."

Spear: "3NT. 5D may be the better game on many hands, but may have little chance. 3NT may be difficult to defend, and could make when 5D appears to be the better game. I can't bring myself to settle for a partscore."

I agree with the panel, 3N may not be right, but it certainly could be totally lay down or the opponents could misdefend. On the knowledge that you have, why not aim for the place that scores the highest?  The timid members of our panel had something to say, it was just wrong.

Paulo: "3D. 3NT is tempting, especially at matchpoints, but to win this contract, I need a strong dummy or some miracle."

Bridge Baron: "3D. Bridge Baron doesn't want to put down AKQJxxx in dummy, much less defend with it; it would need a half-stopper in both clubs and hearts to bid 2NT. So diamonds it is."

Rabideau: "3D. I'm going to trust my vulnerable opponents and assume that partner is bidding mostly on distribution. And that usually means diamond tolerance (thereby diminishing our defensive possibilities) or a place to run."

Mr. Paulo seems to have taken his bashful pills this morning, Bridge Baron thinks you need stoppers for notrump and Mr. Rabideau trusts his opponents over his partner. I am unconvinced about playing a partscore in diamonds, but playing for game doesn’t seem much better.

Baker: "4D. Rule of 9 (trump + trump honors + level) suggests leaving it in, but wild distribution suggests offense. If partner has any extras, 5D should make."

Klemic: "5D. Figuring the worst I would find is 1-5-2-5 shape. Pard should have tolerance, and bidding suggests I might even get 3-card support."

In most scenarios, at least someone would try and construct some sort of hand that is meant to show how partner could have a perfect hand and 5D is laydown and 3NT goes down. I am just not seeing it. With the soft values in spades over the opener and the seven diamond tricks, there just aren’t many hands where diamonds will play better than notrump.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  3   AK3   A87642   K64 ?

The panel was wildly split on this one, which again I thought was a no-brainer. There were a couple of bids that seem to be from the moon to me, starting with the one from Team Botswana:

Diniar & Nancy Minwalla: "4H. If partner has the ideal minimum of a seven-card club suit headed by the ace, a singleton diamond and nothing else, we might have a slam in clubs. Our lowest cuebid here is 4H, which shows club support, a heart control and slam interest."

I guess I play too many systems, but first, I would play this bid as a splinter. Second, pushing gently towards slam after both you and your partner made minimum non-forcing calls strikes me a bit odd. On the other hand, members of the panel thought inviting slam was too gentle on this sequence.

Walker: "4NT. Partner has seven clubs (or six very good ones), and if he has one ace, 6C should be a virtual claimer. No way I'm settling for less than 5C nor playing 3NT. 3H or 4S would show extra strength, but rate to be a wasted effort, as I can't imagine that partner will be able to bid anything other than 5C over either of those bids."

Spear: "4NT. By bidding 3C over 2D, pard rates to hold no more than one diamond. I have the perfect hand for a club slam. If I bid 4S, pard may not bid slam fearing a heart attack. He would expect me to just Blackwood with the AK of hearts. Spade lead?"

Call me a skeptic, but I just can't understand why a descriptive major-suit bid wouldn’t work out just fine here. While I understand that slam may make, I would be more than happy to capitulate if partner told me that he wasn’t interested. I do have to contest Mr. Spear’s contention about not wanting to splinter.

Feiler: "4S. I think partner's 3C shows a bunch of clubs (6+) but not a good enough hand to bid 2C over 1D. All of which turns my hand into a gigantasaurous."

After looking at the panel’s comments, barring that reference to a here-to-date undiscovered reptile, this would really seem to describe your hand and include partner at the same time. You wouldn’t make this call without a heart control; it simply isn’t possible. Others thought that starting with 3H might get you to a different contract:

Strite: "3H. 3NT is still in play."

Nelson: "3H. Do we have a 5C contract, or 6C or just 3NT? The sure way to find out is make a bid that sounds impossible. My bid should certainly show club support and an attempt to figure out how many clubs to bid. Partner doesn't need much for 6C."

Paulo: "3H. If partner has good clubs and a spade stopper, he should bid 3NT. If he is not strong enough, he can try 5C or give up with 4C."

This was how I saw the problem playing out, with 2/3s or more of the panel bidding 3H. After seeing the variety of calls, I still gave this one top marks, because it leaves open the possibility of investigating slam, while a straight 5C call does not.

Matheny: "5C. I like 1D-3C as natural and invitational to help solve this type of problem."

Walsh: "5C. My hand just got a lot better. I can cover five (!) of partner's losers, so I think it's worth a shot."

Baker: "5C. Figuring partner for good long clubs and not much else, 5C should be safe. Give partner AQxxxxx of clubs and three small spades (neither opponent has bid them) and 6C is a favorite."

Mayne: "5C. As a solver, I'd bid 3H to match the expected field, but as a panelist, I don't see a slam and I can't stop short of game."

I do not disagree with any of that analysis, and even more give plaudits to Mr. Mayne for honesty, but no one answers well why this is a better call than 3H, which leaves open the possibility of 3NT. You only want to take 3NT out of the picture if you have a strong reason to believe that slam is likely. Unfortunately, it takes a staff member to point out, that slam just seemed to get a lot more likely, due to that blasted system that we play.

Dodd: "Pass. 3C is not forward-going in this auction, as Bridge World Standard and most 2-over-1 systems play 1D-2C as a one-round only force. About the best hand I can hope for from North is something like Kxx  Qx  xx  AJxxxx, which is about 50-50 to make 3NT or 5C. Anything less and the odds go down considerably."

With less strength, wouldn't partner just pass 2D? Those silly system notes do say: “[Over a 1D opener] With 3-6 in the minors and invitational strength, responder’s normal plan is 2C followed by 3C”, but that doesn't preclude partner from holding a hand that will make game or slam here. I'm told that when this hand was played in "real life", partner held something like  854  Q6  3  A987532. This 6-count surely doesn't qualify for an invitational 2C-then-3C, yet it makes 6C virtually laydown. Change the club ace to the queen -- a 4-count -- and you want to be in 5C. 

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  AJ754   6   AKJ63   K5 ?

This is the first of our two challenging "profits from preempts" hands. For all of those times when you jam the auction and the opponents roll through you like you weren’t even there, remember this month’s Forum and how the whole world suggested that you should rip them off vulnerable at the 3-level with your 18 count and they still scored up 670. All of the panel can’t be wrong, can they?

Nelson: "Double. Our partnership doesn't have a game. Certainly I can defend 3C doubled with not a lot from partners hand."

Dodd: "Double. This one seems well worth the gamble to score up the magic 200. Who knows? East may have stepped in it here, in which case we could get even more."

Matheny: "Double. I hate doubling with short trumps, but where are his tricks?"

Feiler: "Double. Is +200 too much to ask? It doesn't look like we have a game and I wouldn't know how to get to it if we did."

Strite: "Double. I like my chances for +200."

Spear: "Double. It is matchpoints, and I think the vulnerable opponents may have bid too much. It will be a nightmare if they make it, but a worse nightmare would be to pass and defend 3NT making."

Walker: "Double. I expected to make 2H. I can't let them play 3C undisturbed at matchpoints when I have this much."

Mayne: "Double. Yes, it's a pretty sick call and it gives up the vig of further action by West, but we're likely to beat it and it's our hand."

Some Solvers hoped this was a negative double, but it's pure penalty. After partner has shown a weak one-suited hand, there's no point in looking for a 4-4 fit in another suit.

I really do think that covers it. I am sure that you would rather that your minors were reversed, but they aren’t. So cowboy up and double, and if this gets wrapped around your neck, suck on it and accept that it was only one board.

4. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable          

What is your call as South holding:  A76   94   AK8765   82 ?

After getting eight suggested calls on each of the first three problems, it was nice to have a problem with only three possible calls, each of which got substantial attention. In this "bidders' game", why did such a good number of our panel float this one out?

Walker: "Pass. No tricks, no majors, no negative double from partner, nothing to gain by walking back into this auction. There's no obligation to 'protect' partner by doubling or bidding on air, especially at this vulnerability."

Paulo: "Pass. Partner can have a penalty pass, but, if I double or rebid diamonds, the opponents will find some fit in a major suit."

Baker: "Pass. Partner might be sitting there with a stack begging for me to double, but if he's not and bids hearts, we're in trouble. With a holey suit, minimum values, and red v. white, go quietly."

Dodd: "Pass. If a negative double by North would require both majors, I might double to prevent us from being shut out of a hand that belonged to us. But in BWS, a negative double by North does not promise both majors, hence it is much more likely that we are the ones in deep doo-doo after a reopening double."

Klemic: "Pass. West wins. Pard might have a penalty double of 2C, but West could just as easily have a heavy 2C call. They could easily have a major-suit fit here."

I think that the editor and Mr. Klemic certainly have this 100-percent spot on. In the current bridge landscape, people will bid on anything. That means that the opponents are almost certainly not in a fit (there was no raise and you have such paltry high cards that East must have some), and your partner isn’t that HCP heavy (he didn’t bid at unfavorable vulnerability, which he would with a game going hand). I think that bidding can only get you into trouble, but the majority opinion is to not let this hand die out, so I ranked double higher than Pass.

Diniar & Nancy Minwalla: "Double. Partner may want to make a penalty double here so we must re-open with a double."

Nelson: "Double. Coming thru with the other half of the negative double....the re-opening double. Partner does have some stuff to defend on this auction."

Spear: "Double. I used to bid 2D with this, waiting for the perfect hand to double. Now I avoid seeing pard's look of disgust as they bid 3N over my 2D." 

Rabideau: "Double. If partner isn't trap-passing, we may get too high (in 3 diamonds)."

While double certainly caters to partner trapping, what hand would he have where you would really get them? In the ideal scenario -- you reopen and partner executes his trap by passing --  when would East ever sit the double? It seems as though you have only managed to push them into a better contract. And to follow up on Mr. Rabideau’s comments, I am a lot more worried about the opponents getting too high, like say their major suit game, than I am about us getting too high.

Another option is reopening with 2D, which doesn’t even have the upside of the hypothetical trap pass.

Mayne: "2D. I'm not doubling with this, and I'm not passing with two small. Is there another option?"

Strite: "2D. Unfavorable, partner will bid 3NT on many trap pass hands, but I still don't feel I can sell out to 2C."

Feiler: "2D. Yeah, I know, I should reopen with a double, but that looks like it's going to be trouble about ten times for every time it works."

Bridge Baron: "2D. Pure simulation: -48.50 for Pass, -474.00 for Double, 92.50 for 2D."

At least the computer gives me some data; I just wonder if it has any second level thinking to it. This looks like an analysis of what would happen to 2C, 2Cx and 2D, assuming that the bidding would stop with my call. Unfortunately, I like going quietly the best on this hand, because I don’t expect the bidding to end after any call we make at the 2 level.

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable        

What is your call as South holding:  Q109843   KQ973   Void   A10 ?

The solvers really didn’t have a problem with this one, it was just the know-it-all panel that couldn’t all agree on the obvious bid. This is installment #2 in the "profits from preempts" section of our column. The 4D call by West has deprived us of all the required bidding space that it would take to get our fairly decent two-suiter off our chest. Does the safe 4H call make sense?

Rabideau: "4H. And the other choice is...?  I know, I know: I'm about to find out."

Mayne: "4H. How is this a problem? Partner's double is a suggestion, not a mandate."

Strite: "4H. Nice preempt, opponents."

Dodd: "4H. How can I not show this distribution even in the face of a warning about wasted diamond strength?  Anything higher is unwarranted (at this point) for the same reason."

Matheny: "4H. Pass could easily be right."

Feiler: "4H. I think this double is a strong suggestion that we not bid any higher, but I'm going to have to overrule partner with this hand."

Baker: "4H. We may have slam (I'd have bid 4H without the encouraging red double from partner), but without confirming a fit first, I'm not going to go leaping about just yet."

No one seems particularly happy with the choice, and pass or slam could easily be right, but I simply don’t find the arguments for a jump very convincing.

Walker: "5H. Value bid showing lots of major-suit cards and slam interest. Partner's double absolutely promises extra values, so you can't bid a meek 4H with this much playing strength."

Paulo: "5D. Slam is possible in several strains. Even if game is our limit, the penalty (non-vul versus vulnerable) should not compensate."

Spear: "6H. The 5D cuebid may score well in the Master Solvers Club, but doesn't show the 5-card heart suit. 5H is not enough, and who knows what it shows?"

Klemic: "5H. Apologize later if pard has five diamonds with three winners, but odds are more likely that he just has extra values and no clear-cut action. A 5D cuebid would suggest either spades or spades and clubs, so I need to show the significant heart suit."

We have been preempted and I feel that these calls are trying to make up ground on a hand that we are in a losing position on. 6H seems to be shooting for a perfecta from partner and 5D is a completely nebulous cuebid, which will leave partner totally lost as to how to respond. 5H is something that may get your hand values and shape mostly right, but partner will still have a very uncertain bid in front of him and that is only if he can decipher what 5H is. I just don’t believe that this is a situation where you can feel positive that slam is the 50-50 bet that you need to make the IMP scoring work out for you. You are guessing and have been warned against bidding.

Finally, Bridge Baron seems to have a problem in choosing which calls to consider on this one (which I think was a similar theme to problem 4):

Bridge Baron: "Pass. Spades are too weak to rebid 4S. Bridge Baron perhaps should be thinking about 4H, but isn't. Double is presumably 'card-showing', so let's see if this distribution is ordinary enough that partner has sufficient length in the suit doubled to sustain a penalty pass."

6. IMPs, Both vulnerable           

What is your call as South holding:   AQ73   AQ54   K754   6 ?

The second balancing problem of the set. You have an inconvenient unbalanced hand with just enough values to question if you will need to make a second call. The panel was pretty unanimous in support of a straightforward takeout double.

Spear: "Double. Best way to get to the right major, where there is the best chance for game. This hand is good enough to justify the risk of playing a hopeless club partial. (That is my story for defending this double in the bar.)"

Walsh: "Double. At worst, I pull 2C to 2NT."

Baker: "Double. Double, pray for a major to raise, bid 2NT over 2C (and hope partner didn't have xxxx) when you aren't that lucky. Too big for balancing 1NT, even if you have a spade in with the clubs."

Strite: "Double. I'd rather take the good shot of finding our major than jam 1NT."

Klemic: "Double. If you see the ugly auction Pass-2C-Pass, I'll bid 2NT suggesting a strong notrump and hope for the best. Almost any other auction I will be happy with."

Nelson: "Double. I have way too much to bid a meek 1S or 1H or even 1NT, so for starters I will double. Over partners clubs, I will bid notrump. If partner bids a major, YAY!"

Dodd: "Double. My education as a young bridge player included the lesson that one is not supposed to bid clubs when one's partner reopens with a double of 1D. I've not forgotten it to this day!"

Walker: "Double. Double and bid an ugly 2NT if partner is uncooperative enough to bid 2C. This hand is a little too heavy for a balancing 1NT over a minor. Pass would be a reasonable choice at matchpoints."

As we have just that slight bit of extra values, I think the worry of a 2C response can be adequately covered by bidding 2NT, as many of the panelists suggest. These other panelists seem to create more of a problem with their first bid than the future problem that they would have if they just started with a double.

Feiler: "1S. One or more of the other three players will probably bid clubs. If it's partner, I can try 2H and not be too far off the mark."

Mayne: "1NT. We can still find the major, and unlike the doublers, I don't have to figure out what to do over partner's 2C bid. I'll tell pard I had the HQ in with my clubs."

Rabideau: "1NT. If my double produces a club bid from partner, I have nowhere to go, although I'm sure some will then Q-bid and pray. That, plus the lack of intermediates, causes me to downgrade a smidgen. I'm hoping we play system-on here. "

  Panel and Solver Scores  (updated on 4/30/09)

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set of problems and especially to our guest panelists for this issue. Scores and bids for panelists and for all Solvers who topped 400 are here. Sorry for the delay. Kent Feiler has developed new software for computing these scores (thanks!), but I had an unexpectedly steep learning curve (complicated by two toddlers with the flu). Scoring will be easier and more comprehensive in the future, so this should be the last snafu.

Congratulations to Arbha Vongsvivut, who led all Solvers with 590. Close behind, tied at 580, were Steve Babin, Jim Munday and Jim Hudson. All four are invited to join the June panel.  

The six new problems for June are below. There's still time to enter the 2009 Solvers Contest, as your yearly score is based on your best three submissions, so I hope you'll all give them a try.

Please submit your solutions by May 25 on the web form.
   June moderator:   Tom Dodd  fieldtrialer@yahoo.com