1. IMPs, nobody vulnerable                           

What is your call as South holding:   KQJ8  754   Q5   Q876 ?

Hello again all. I have accepted the challenge of creating a themed forum, as Kent and Tom have been shaming me. So for this month’s forum, there will be 20 bonus points for anyone who can get all six questions right without the use of internet search or external assistance. The theme of this column is “places where Scott and his family may be assigned by the next time you read a post from me.”  I will give either the capital or country, and your job is to name the other one. I will throw in some helpful hints, and maybe a pretty picture of two, if that will help.

So we start with #1 (photo at left), and my current top choice. The capital is Malabo. This is a tiny Spanish-speaking African country with significant oil reserves. It's believed by some to have the most corrupt and brutal dictator in the world. Anybody guessing Nigeria will be docked a point, as they speak English and don’t hold a candle to the corruption found here.

But speaking of corruption, this vote appears to be rigged!  The panel only found twp calls to make on this problem. For those who used the heuristic of “support with support”, you simply can’t go too wrong:

Feiler:  "2H. I'm hoping that the auction will continue and I'll either be able to double something or bid 3-no-tickets."

Dodd:  "2H. This raise is 'moderately' constructive in Bridge World Standard. The alternative 1S is filled with flaws no matter what partner rebids. No way is this control-weak pile of junk worth an invitational limit raise."

Walker:  "2H. With a limited hand; it's important to show 3-card support for opener's major right away. This hand is too soft for a 3-card limit raise (1NT, then 3H)."

Nelson:  "2H. How much should one value lonely queens? If it were one ace, I would bid 1S; since it is not, I raise partner and give them a chance to revalue their hand."

Maybe I have missed something, and while I certainly agree that this hand is nothing to write home about, I can’t help but count this as a limit raise. The diamond queen is a soft value, but the doubleton adds enough to counteract this. I just think that 1S is normal, and the panel supported me, with the box being the most direct and to the point.

Bridge Baron:  "1S. Just barely too strong to make a simple raise of 2H. Plan to jump to 3H next round."

Paulo:  "1S. If I raise to 2H, partner -- with; for example,  Ax  AQxxx  xxx  Kxx -- wins the contract, which would have been great! However, West -- holding xxx  Jx  AKJxxx  xx -- overcalls 3D. To set this partscore, partner must lead spades (or clubs), but not hearts."

Matheny:  "1S, followed by an invitational heart raise."

Feldheim:  "1S. What's the problem? This hand is too good for 2H and 1NT, planning 3H is too unilateral."

Kniest:  "1S. Where I live and set the defense if they now come in. To bid 1NT followed by 3H on this is sick. "

This just seems too simple to me. You can show partner where you live and plan to show a 10-12 point heart raise by starting with 1S. I still don’t see what could be wrong about that. 

And while I don’t usually insert my own comments into the column, I simply make them when the column comes out to remind myself of what I was thinking, I think that I hit this nail square on the head.

Merritt:  "1S. This hand simply isn't soft enough to only try 2H. I am sure that the 1S call at the table turned out poorly and this is the ultimate attempt to try and win the post mortem; but I am not buying."

Predicting the future was:

McNitt: "2H. This is a 9-loser hand. Show the heart support before the opponents bid 3D."

He may be on to something, as another panelist, who held this hand and prefers to remain anonymous, offered this up along with his other comments:

Deep Throat:  "2H. After 1S on this hand (letting the opponents in cheaply with 2D), it went support double by partner, then 4D preemptive by RHO. The actual hand that was dealt doesn't mean any action is right or wrong, but it shows that after the 1S bid, active opponents can create an unwelcome problem."

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                           

What is your call as South holding:   AKQ765   753   4   AJ7 ?

 The second town in the second unnamed country is Maseru. It's one of a few land-locked nations that only border one other country.

You are a bit land-locked in this bidding problem, too. The opponents have made this a challenge, and the problem managed to elicit six different votes from the panel. Unfortunately, we are stuck on the first and most important question of this hand, namely: Would pass be forcing or not?

Dodd:  "Pass. Forcing -- duh! Tempting to just try 5NT (pick a slam) but the possibility of this being misread would lead to a disaster. I'll let partner torture me with a 5H call, then bid slam and hope we're not off two aces."

Walker:  "5H. This is not a forcing pass situation (North might have stretched to bid 2H in competition); so you have to do something. With two likely fits and a singleton diamond, double can't be right. Very close decision between 5H and 5S."

We run the gamut from “Forcing -- duh!” to the emphatic “not” forcing. While I tend to think that arguing with the editor is never a wise choice, I do not think that this is a forcing pass scenario for exactly the reasons that Karen suggests.

Bridge Baron:  "Pass. Bridge Baron can't bring itself to double with no hope of a trump trick, but secretly hopes for partner to double, planning to pass it out and collect at least 500 on average against a 5H game that seems about 33% to make."

Kessler:  "Pass. This should show interest in bidding on-with no interest we would double. Interesting that partner and I have the same problem--bad trumps with a desire to support."

Spear:  "Pass. A choice between an immediate 5H and a pass-and-pull slam invitational 5H. Both choices imply the singleton diamond to bid at the five-level. This is somewhat easier at matchpoints, where 5D doubled rates to be a bad score."

I am simply stuck for what to say here. Even if this is a pass-and-pull situation, would this hand qualify?  You are on a control-rich, six-loser hand with a source of tricks, but how much would you need to make a freebid at the 5-level anyway?  Given that this is a borderline pass and pull, and it is very unclear if this is a forcing pass, I had to score it down a bit. Other guesses included:

Feldheim:  "6D. Pick a slam. A big bid, but you've been preempted. Everything is clouded and even if slam is not makeable, the opponents might well take the 7D 'phantom save'."

Feiler:  "5NT. This means I want to bid a slam but I don't know which one. At least that's what it means in the Forum; I dunno about with real live people."

I can’t argue with any of the statements here, and I always like trying to push the opponents into a phantom save, but are any of these bids right? I have no idea. The "normal" bid won out again. Here is what they said:

Grande: "5H. It is likely that partner has a good if not exceptional heart suit. With the long side suit, it's clear we would rather play the hand than defend. 5H emphasizes the singleton diamond and partner may be able to bid six with a non-loser heart suit."

Strite:  "5H. 5H seems about exactly what my hand is worth. If East doubles, I'll run to spades."

Kniest:  "5H. I won't be pushed to six, but pard might have another bid if he can 'see' the stiff diamond."

Nelson:  "5H. Partner would have to have almost solid hearts for a bid of six to be right. I'll bid 5H and if partner does have solid hearts, I am out of luck on this hand."

3. IMPs, both vulnerable            

* (Negative)

What is your call as South holding:   Q8   Q102   AQ97   KQ42 ?

City 3 is Bandar Seri Begwan, or BSB for short. It's home to one of the historically richest men in the world.

In this hand, we have several very poor looking choices. Just like in the last hand, the opponents have been active and we now have a nasty guess. The majority of the panel took the low road and retreated to 4C.

Walker:  "4C. Tempting to bid 4H, but that could be a 3-3 fit. Partner's double doesn't promise four cards in every suit."

Strite:  "4C. Most flexible bid I can make. Partner will take out to 4D if he/she has the reds."

Paulo:  "4C. To bid looks trivial. As for the clubs, if partner has overwhelming shape in the red suits, he can bid diamonds."

Matheny:  "4C. An ugly problem. It could be right to pass, bid 4H. or start up the line with 4C. The first two choices are so 'final' that I'm going with the most flexible."

I like this option, as we are in a bad way and this bid seems to have the least downside. The other options that were suggested have very clear risks. The most aggressive are the possibilities of passing and trying a “gutsy” 3NT.

Spear:  "Pass. I don't like it, but nothing to be done."

McNitt: "Pass ... and take my plus score. It could be big."

Bridge Baron:  "Pass. Bridge Baron makes a penalty pass without even simulating here, as it considers the alternatives 'obviously' worse: 3NT with no spade stopper, 4H on a possible Moysian fit, or four of a minor leading, at best, to a struggle to a minor-suit game."

Feldheim:  "Pass. Pass seems like the best chances for a plus score."

Nelson:  "Pass. A plus is a plus is a PLUS."

Feiler:  "3NT. Our opening 1NT was Crap-O-Rama and if the spade queen is junk, too, I don't like our chances at any game."

Kniest:  "3NT. I'll make a game try. Can't pass at IMPs."

This seems like such a gamble that I just can’t justify it as an answer to the problem. While it make work at the table, if you come back -400 or worse, you can’t say that you weren’t warned. I would just think that if you wanted to take a shot, and I have already suggested that this may not be the right hand for it, the best shot is 4H.

Dodd:  "4H. Endplayed, so I may as well aim high. Partner could easily have five middling hearts on this auction, and I can't remember the last time I declared 4-of-a-minor and was anywhere near pleased with the result. Ditto for passing 3S, which is a likely plus 200, but a just as likely a minus 730."

Grande: "4H. Partner likely has four hearts. South has three fairly good hearts that can stop the force in spades, and there is a strong possibility that one or both minors will fit with partner."

Kessler:  "4H. 4-3 fits build character."

4. IMPs, both vulnerable                         

* (Forcing NT)

What is your call as South holding:  10   Q82   KJ1097   QJ106 ?

This one may be a bit of a giveaway, but city #4 is Belize City. The subtractor comes out if you get that one wrong.

Which is also the case on this problem. You have two options, and again, unlike the normal me, I take the low road.

Spear:  "Pass. I don't like it, but nothing to be done."

Walker:  "Pass. All those high spot cards make this look like a notrump hand, but with no fits, no aces and no sure entries to my hand, this 9-count isn't worth a 2NT stretch."

Nelson:  "Pass. I am NOT a 2NT bidder with this nine count. I pass and wait for a better hand."

Matheny:  "Pass. The soft values in the minors make it unlikely we will miss game."

Paulo:  "Pass. My spots are nice, but game seems unlikely, so I stop as soon as possible."

Bridge Baron:  "Pass. Pure simulation:  +51.75 average score in 2H. -43.00 average score in 2S. Bridge Baron won't bid 2NT or three of a minor without being about a king stronger."

This really seems logical to me. There is surely a big bonus for getting to the red game at IMPs, but this soft no-fitter again argues for discretion. Those who charge on suggest otherwise, and to remove suspicion, I will start with the player who held the hand in real life.

Seng:  "2NT. What I bid at the table. Partner held  Q98xx  AKxx   xxx  K. She passed and the opponents kept trying to find out which minor they should be attacking. Made 11 tricks!!"

Kessler:  "2NT. Red at IMP's, let's give it a shot. Not close."

Feiler:  "2NT. Gets my full-bodied minor suits into the game."

Strite:  "2NT. Chunky enough it feels right to stretch."

Dodd:  "2NT. Another call influenced by the form of scoring. Despite the alarm bells in my head about not playing misfits in notrump, the spot cards sway me. Maybe East-West will defend like putzes [ed. Note:  "They did!!]. Maybe my counterparts are just as greedy. Maybe I should just move on to #5."

Kniest:  "2NT. Look at all that body! Best description of my hand, and pard can still bid again -- particularly with a 5th heart."

Feldheim:  "2NT. At IMP scoring, 2NT seems clear. I know this hand is a point light, but the possibility of game is too good to miss."

If you're really worried about missing a game, another possible advance is a raise to 3H. This panelist explains why the rest of the panel rejected that option:

Grande: "2NT.  If partner has a better-than-minimum hand, passing would be a bad option, especially at IMPS. I don't like a heart contract because my minor suits serve as a source of tricks for notrump."

This is a close one, and a bit more challenging than Belize City.

5. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                       

* (Jacoby forcing raise)        ** (Shortness)

What is your call as South holding:   AK104   A  Q10    1098654 ?

Our most intriguing option is to move to Praia, an island in the Atlantic almost exactly halfway between my current home and District 8. This is also one of the three middle-income countries in Africa, along with Botswana and Mauritius.

While Praia is our most intriguing option, this problem didn’t do much to intrigue the panel. Partner has shown a void or singleton ace in clubs, so it sounds like game-on. Some of the panel just took the bull by the horns and jumped straight to Blackwood.

Spear:  "4NT. Pard has to have a diamond control, so I must get to 7S when she has the AK of diamonds and the spade queen. I will be showing the AK of spades via Roman Keycard Blackwood, so pard has some chance to bid the grand without the diamond king (a 6-5-2-0 hand)."

I must admit that this logic thoroughly loses me. Why must pard have a diamond card?  While the odds are slim that his hand is  QJxxxx  KQxx  Jx  A, would you fault his bidding so far?  Other calls don’t end the auction, so I simply don’t see why this is worth the risk. The other call chosen by a minority was:

Walker:  "5S. Asks for a diamond control. There's no point in continuing to cuebid when you have such an obvious way to locate the cards you need."

Feldheim:  "5S. This is a question of partnership agreement. With cuebids in clubs and hearts, this should ask for second-round diamond control. If opener bids 6D (to show first-round control). then continue with 6H."

The problem that I have with this option is that the responses seem unclear to me. While 5S certainly pinpoints the need for diamond control, it also is a rare convention that could be handled just as well by continuing to cuebid. I would think that getting to a grand if partner holds QJxxx  Qxx  AKxx  A is much harder after a 5S call than it is after the simpler 4H continuation. I just don’t understand the advantage of this call over what the rest of the panel chose.

Bridge Baron:  "4H. Showing additional heart control and pinpointing the diamond weakness. Partner should be able to take control. (3H was a bit rich for Bridge Baron's blood, though, it would have settled for 4S last round.)."

Paulo:  "4H. On the way to slam, another cuebid showing that I miss a diamond control .Partner may hold  QJxxxx  KQx  Jxx  A."

Matheny:  "4H. Still have slam interest but no diamond control."

Nelson:  "4H. This bid should clarify I am looking for MUCH more....waiting to hear a 6D bid in order to bid 7S; otherwise, I will settle for 6S."

Dodd:  "4H. One more try, then I quit. Appearances can be deceiving. Despite the 'perfect' fit, I have exactly five winners to contribute, and once we pinpoint the diamond situation, even a dimwit East will know enough to lead a trump and blow up the crossruff."

Strite:  "4H. Highlighting the diamond problem, though partner must have a card there."

Feiler:  "4H. Well, that should zero partner in on the diamond suit."

Kessler:  "4H. Partner's hand is still unlimited -- other than not opening 2C -- so let's continue to describe our hand. Certainly partner will not bid more than 4S without a diamond control."

Kniest:  "4H. Still below game and I'm still interested, but no diamond control. What's not to like about this bid?"

Mr. Kniest summed up in 18 words what it took me a whole page to say.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable         

What is your call as South holding:   Q9863   4   AKQ87   K10 ?

The final city in the tour of places people have never heard of is Georgetown, but unfortunately, the education isn’t quite as rich as the namesake that you all know. Going to Georgetown would be as crazy as . . . well, jumping in at the 4-level on Qxxxx. Oh wait…

Kessler:  "4S. Matchpoints make people do crazy things. I've gone down before. In order to show two suits, you also need to raise the level."

Feiler:  "4S. 4H, of course, is a transfer!"

Strite:  "4S. Partner never makes the right lead anyway."

Dodd:  "4S. This is a lot easier call to make in a forum where you don't have to deal with the aftermath. The real problem will occur when it goes Pass-Pass-Double and it's my turn again. Gulp."

Walker:  "4S. Standard gamble. Partner has never put down the hoped-for trump support when I've made this bid in the past; but I'll keep trying it until he does."

Kniest:  "4S. Can't pass; they may be cold. And I may go for a number, but it's matchpoints."

Feldheim:  "4S Wow! Anything could work, but I'm choosing to believe that if East's 4H is preemptive, partner should hold some spades. If not, well, on to the next board."

Paulo:  "4S. If I double, we risk bypassing 4S when it is our only game contract, as in the following layout. West:  xx  AKQxxx  x  xxxx;  North:  Kxx  x  xxxx  Axxxx."

Bridge Baron software was the only panelist who passed. The other possible calls -- 4NT (to show a two-suiter) and Double (three-suiter?) -- could work, but overall, our panel was nervous about going to the 5-level. The argument for the takeout double was offered by:

Grande: "Double. Partner will strive to bid spades if at all possible. If he doesn't, diamonds or clubs may very well be a better spot. I'll pass a 5C bid by partner."

Okay, so the panel seemed to hit on all the reasons for not making the 4S call, other than Mr. Dodd’s suggestion that we bid this way for the Forum. Now, we get to the more sane among us. Oh wait, there weren’t any!  So next time you make an absolutely daft bid, send your partner back to this forum and explain that you are 100% sure that this is what the panel would have done after reading about this problem.

And for all of you who didn’t manage to get any of the capital cities correct, stop reading about bridge and go pick up a Conde Nast. Come October when I write again, I will inform you where we are probably going and quiz you about six other capitals that figured they would be better off without me. 

  Panel and Solver Scores                   

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this interesting set. Leading all Solvers with perfect 600's were Wally Hendricks of Champaign IL and Don Mathis of Bland MO. 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 2010 Solvers Contest. Your annual score is based on your best three submissions, so there's still time to join in. Please send your solutions on the web form by May 31.

Note: The web form comments box has a length limit, so if the form rejects your bids, you may need to condense your comments before you resend your answers. Please post your bids through the web form so they're included in our automated scoring. It's also helpful if you use the same email address for every submission during the year.

    June moderator:  Tom Dodd     fieldtrialer@yahoo.com