District 8 Solvers Forum

April, 2011

by Scott Merritt, Gabarone, Botswana
 

This month, I will be working on the theme of my next post. And while the entire District 8 Solvers Forum community may be gutted to hear that I will be leaving beautiful Botswana, have faith that I will be moving to an equally glorious African post. There is a hint with each problem below, and after reading them all, I am sure that each and every one of you will be booking your tickets to come visit me when we arrive in the middle of 2012.

1. Matchpoints, Nobody Vulnerable

You, South, hold  ♠Void   ♥A876432   ♦AJ103   ♣K4

The first hint about where we will be going is that it has the title of “Most Expensive City in the World”. From what we hear, it puts the cost of living in Tokyo, the second most expensive city, to shame. And for those of you who are wondering where the US comes in these surveys, New York comes in a paltry 27th! A recent report stated that a head of broccoli or cauliflower will run in the neighborhood of $38 in our new country, and rental of a typical apartment will near $9000 per month, payable a year or two in advance.

For problem 1, expense doesn’t really come into play, unless you are Mr. Spear:

Spear:  "Double. I always double with this hand, and preach this gospel to anyone who will listen. The biggest penalties come with the worst trump breaks. Is anyone listening?"

Unfortunately, I am not listening. You almost have a negative defensive hand, and something worthwhile to say, so say it. If partner has seven spades, what are the odds that East will have nowhere to run? I am simple, so I bid hearts when I have them.

Guthrie:  "2H. Doubling with a void is dangerous and 3H exaggerates the suit quality."

Matheny:  "2H. Too many hearts to double and then possibly defend. A jump to 3H is the value bid but the suit is weak."

I have to agree with the 2H bidders, even though the panel has me outnumbered. 3H leaves us poorly placed on our next bid. If we start with 2H. I would feel comfortable jumping to 4H over a 2NT freebid by partner, or I would feel comfortable passing a jump to 3NT. If we start with 3H, we have stolen space from ourselves. And while it is rare, I do sometimes have a maximum for my bid.

Feiler:  "3H. I think this shows a 6+ card suit and an opening hand. If the opponents bid 3S. I might even bid 4D, or not."

Paulo:  "3H. Classically, a jump in the balancing position shows a good opening with a fine suit; my hand doesn't fit in with these requirements, but some (or fair) support from partner may be enough to win 3 H (or 4 H. respectively), and I want to prevent some competition in the black suits."

Ring:  "3H. I'd like better spots for this, but there are too many hands partner can have that will make game and might raise here, but pass a simple 2H."

Kniest:  "3H is right on strength. I'll correct to 4H over 3NT, which would confirm a trap pass by pard."

Walker:  "3H. This is way too good for 2H, and although the suit quality isn't ideal for the jump, the 7th heart makes up for it. Starting with a double could work, but not if partner passes. A trump void and a 7-card suit are not good defensive assets."

Kessler:  "3H. This is a perfect intermediate 3H bid in passout seat. The hearts may not be good enough, but the extra one makes up for the quality."

Nelson:  "3H. Think I will just leap....not interested in further bidding by them. This shows my hand."

Bridge Baron:  "3H. Too strong for 2H in balancing position, but too weak to force to game or bid game outright."

The problem with the simple 2H call is that it does run the risk of playing of there when game is making. At matchpoints, this seems a smaller problem than at IMPs, where I would be more inclined to show my values.

2. Matchpoints, North-South Vulnerable

You, South, hold   ♠KJ   ♥98432   ♦A73   ♣Q93

The second clue about our destination is that it is one of the most heavily landmined countries on the planet. More than 30 years after the use of landmines was declared a war crime, they still litter this country, following its brutal civil war (which will be discussed later). There aren’t many landmines in the bidding on this hand, either. The board was basically split between two very normal calls. But then there was the Kojak contingent:

Feiler:  "2S. This way I can bid 3H over 3D. If I start with 2H, I wouldn't be happy about bidding 3S over 3D."

Kessler:  "2S. A typical matchpoint bid. This leaves you placed for the remainder of the auction. If partner cannot bid over 2S, you probably haven't missed anything."

I can’t say that I understand this bid. There are very normal options presented by the heart suit, and your hand does not offer any ruffing potential to suggest it to be a suitable dummy.

Feinstein:  "2H. Your mama says you must show your five-card suits, even if they are pure YUK!"

Spear:  "2H. I will happily pass any non-forcing bid (2S, 2N, 3H) and will not miss any 8-card heart fits. Now if we can only make what we bid."

Paulo:  "2H. The suit is anemic; nevertheless, if partner holds three cards we have found our best strain, or else I can stand any of partner's rebids."

Ring:  "2H. The high road bid. Anyone for the offbeat 2S call on Kojak?"

Walker:  "2H. Had to count twice, but there are 5 hearts and 10 points, which is just what this bid promises."

Bridge Baron:  "2H. We still need to bid this, despite the ugly suit."

I am a simpleton who sees 10 high-card points and a 5-card major, so I listen to Mr. Feinstein’s mama. I ended up giving a higher score to double over 2H because of the two panel members who chose the very quiet spade raise.

Guthrie:  "Double. No obvious alternative."

Kniest:  "Double. Bidding 2H is ridiculous with this suit and wrong sides the contract. I'll raise 2S or 2NT to 3 of whichever, but will raise to 4H if pard can bid them. If he jumps to 4H, I'll check for controls."

Nelson:  "Double. Clear cut to give a negative double."

I guess that I am too used to seeing this double made either one fewer heart, or more hearts and less values. If I have book values for a bid, I usually make it. The post mortem comes from Mr. Ring, who tells us: “I declared 3H, buying ATxxxx, Kxx, Jx, Kx and even with the heart ace onside, I couldn't maneuver to avoid down one. The doublers presumably get to 3S, which is on a queen guess.”

3. IMPs, East-West Vulnerable

You, South, hold   ♠A65   ♥K843   ♦A954   ♣62

Another clue is that the country that we are going to is called Lusophone. I am not sure where these linguistic cultural-naming conventions come from, but Anglophone and Francophone sound a little more logical to me. The bidding on this hand also seemed to stump me.

Feiler:  "3H. A maximum pass, hoping partner has four hearts."

Spear:  "3H. Bidding what is in front of my face. Vulnerable at IMPs, pard will raise me with a normal double and 4-card support. Or I may be too high already opposite many of the so-called takeout doubles I see placed on the table."

Paulo:  "3H. IMPs and aces suggest an invitational jump. Sure enough, if partner has only 3-card support we are badly placed, but the risk looks acceptable."

Walker:  "3H. Straight value bid, bypassing the vague 2D cuebid. Partner shouldn't have a trashy double at IMPs."

Kessler:  "3H. This is what happens when you pass an opening bid. 2S is natural in any system. If 2D is a cuebid, I would do that. However, the bid that cannot be misunderstood is 3H."

Isn’t this bid just textbook? I am stumped as to why we have so many other choices.

Guthrie:  "2D. In my opinion, you should cuebid the suit you hold better. This also has advantage of leaving room for partner to bid hearts, conveniently."

Our hand hasn’t changed that much in value since our initial pass. I don’t see what value the cuebid does now, other than offer the opponents space to bid that they don’t have after a 3H call.

Nelson:  "4H. I see no reason for waiting around. Time to get there now. Aces are worth more than their weight in gold."

Jumping all the way to game on this balanced 11-count also seems to deny partner any chance to weigh in on the decision. If game is a good proposition, partner will bid it after your jump.

Feinstein:  "2H. What's goin' on? Is the answer to everything gonna be bid hearts?"

Kniest:  "2H. Pard can be soft with his double as I'm a passed hand. I'll bid 2H now and accept any game try. If it goes 2S-Pass-Pass to me, confirming a less-than-robust double, I'll now compete to 3D."

Bridge Baron:  "2H. Without a 5-card suit, Bridge Baron won't jump over the intervention. Partner may have just 3-card support for our mediocre suit."

These timid responses seem to be the opposite of the jump to 4H. We have three levels to bid and a pass available; the middle bid must show this hand.

Ring:  "Double. The problem isn't just this round, but what to do if/when they run back to 2D. The vulnerability and the 9 of diamonds jointly talk me into defending."

This is just a message to the problem creator that we shouldn’t deal Mr. Ring the 9 of diamonds, ever again!

4. Matchpoints, Nobody Vulnerable

You, South, hold  ♠AKQ   ♥AJ9632   ♦754   ♣K

While all of the previous hints about our new home have been negative, the next hint will be that this country has the fastest-growing economy in the world since 1992 as measured by percent of per-capita GDP growth. The downside of this statistic is that to grow that fast, you must have been really poor in 1992, which they were, as they were just coming out of the terrible civil war. Despite this phenomenal growth, they are still nowhere near becoming a middle-income country. Growth is growth and high cards are high cards, but the progress in this country is of as dubious a value as the club kingleton in this problem.

Spear:  "2D. If I can just get by this round of bidding . . . I can bid 3H over 2H, 3S over 2S, 2NT, 3C or 3D. I know I deserve to play 2D for a zero, but doesn't someone always bid?"

Kniest:  "2D, and listen to my heart while waiting for pard to possibly pass that. If we get by this round, I'll have better feel."

Walker:  "2D. Yuk to everything. The hearts aren't strong enough for a 3H rebid, and this isn't a good dummy for a 4-3 spade fit."

As nothing seems exciting, this seems like an effective temporizing choice. The worry is that if it goes poorly, it could look very silly to have not bid your 75 honors in partner’s suit, or your own decent 6-card major.

Guthrie:  "2H. Poor bid ,but 2S and 3H are worse."

Kessler:  "2H. Taking the low road. If the club king is a working card, we may have underbid -- but it is matchpoints. At IMPs I bid 3H."

There seems to be less potential to go down if we make a simple 2H rebid, but this relegates our club king to the useless camp, before we know too much about what partner has. I don’t mind underbidding every once in a while, but this seems to be shutting down the auction before we have managed to get our hand off our chest.

Nelson:  "2S. I remember reading years ago that Mike Lawrence says you can have up to 17 points with only three trump and support. I am one of his fans."

Feiler:  "3S. Okay, so I'm missing a spade. Life is full of little disappointments."

Matheny:  "3S. An old problem. The hearts are not good enough to jump and the spades are not long enough. Pick your poison."

Partner will almost certainly enjoy our spades, but this seems the wrong hand to raise spades. If we ruff any clubs, we will be doing it with top trumps, and we will also have the communication problems that come with the blocked trump suit. This doesn’t seem like the hand to raise spades.

Feinstein:  "3H. Aren't those spades wonderful? No matter. Your mama says to eat your spinach and bid your 6-card suits."

Paulo:  "3H. I don't know the value of my singleton king, but as partner has, at most, one high-card point in spades, game is likely whenever partner can raise hearts or rebid spades."

Ring:  "3H. A good argument for the treatment that responder's 3S rebid in this auction is forcing with potentially only five spades."

Bridge Baron:  "3H. Bridge Baron really prefers rebidding its 6-card suits to 3-card raises, even AKQ. Just short of forcing to game."

By default, we are left with the value jump. That can’t turn out too horribly wrong, or can it?

5. IMPs, Both Vulnerable

You, South, hold  ♠AQJ   ♥874   ♦KJ7643   ♣J

Another positive about where we will be going is the climate. In the coldest of winter, the temperature will drop to the mid 50s, and yet in the hottest of summer, the temperature will reach a balmy 80! I am terrible about picking out a wardrobe, but only having one season will do my closet a serious favor. The moderate climate matches very well with the moderate values that you have on this hand, where most people just gave in.

Feinstein:  "Pass. It's IMPS. The only sane thing that justifies any other action is that you are looking to get rid of the three other idiots on your team."

Spear:  "Pass. Give them a chance to score 90. Not the hand to compete further by yourself! Bidding is more likely to rescue the opponents than gain significantly for your side."

Guthrie:  "Pass. Partner has passed twice. Perhaps he is showing a good example."

Matheny:  "Pass. Partner didn't raise or double so I give."

Paulo:  "Pass. Any other call involves a risk that this score (- 1?0) doesn't justify."

Ring:  "Pass. It's not a great hand, my suit is poor, and partner couldn't find a raise, responsive double or major-suit advance. I'll go quietly to avoid the risk of coughing up a double-digit IMP swing on a partscore hand."

Walker:  "Pass. I have nothing extra for my vulnerable overcall, and with partner unable to scrape up a bid, I'll go quietly. We might lose a few IMPs for -90, but we won't lose a bundle for -500."

Kessler:  "Pass. Battling over a partscore red at IMPs is not good strategy. The gain usually does not offset the losses. This is a good time to wave the white flag."

I simply can’t get behind these panelists, even though I can’t find a flaw in what they are saying. I am all about bidding your hand, and saving partner the trouble of having to stretch to make a call. The whole concept of balancing is to not give up when your side has some values and a fit somewhere. That must be the case in this scenario.

Nelson:  "3C. I guess I would like to say 2.5 diamonds, but this is not a 3D bid. Umm, maybe 3C could work also."

Bridge Baron:  "2D. Pure simulation. Expecting, on average, +16.50 for 2D and -103 for defending 2C."

With all that I said previously about balancing, I didn’t mean to bid a suit, even though it is nice to see that the box is on my side.

Feiler:  "Double. Maybe this is one of those 'Do something intelligent doubles' that give my partners so much trouble, but on this one, whatever they do looks like it'll be okay."

Kniest:  "Double. Pard had a responsive double available and didn't use it, so he has a club trap or crap. Double is best because of the big upside, but 2D is a close second. If you don't compete on part scores, you'll lose a lot of IMPs."

Double shouldn't be difficult for partner, as it is a fairly simple takeout. If you want to think of it as a "do-something-intelligent" double, I believe 100% in the power of those. Whatever you call it, this seems like a prime place to trot it out. I also find it interesting to see many people jumping in Problem #1, but passing on this hand. The two scenarios seem rather similar, yet people are putting on the accelerator in the first hand, and the brakes on this hand.

6. IMPs, Both Vulnerable

*negative double

You, South, hold  ♠Q1042   ♥AQ753   ♦1053   ♣6

The final clue about where I am going is that it has had either one large civil war, spanning from 1975-2002, or if you are the optimist, three smaller civil wars between the same players with a few years of cease-fire to allow the teams time to regroup. And while this country is deep in the heart of Africa, the civil war was fueled by the traditional Cold War powers that saw winning this country as a key tipping point in the overall balance of power due to its diamond and oil wealth.

This hand has nothing as epic as a civil war in it, but there are issues that could bring partners to minor fisticuffs.

Feinstein:  "3H. Isn't this why you made the negative double to begin with? Bid has some risk, but game possibilities are still there."

Spear:  "3H. I want to tell about my 5th heart. Pard can bid 3S if he wants to hear about my spade stop."

Matheny:  "3H. Pass might be best but I'm hoping partner is 1-3-4-5."

Kniest:  "3H. Yuk. Pard could be 1-2-4-6, but I'm hoping for 1-3-4-5. If he has a good hand, the big upside is the heart game bonus. The downside is a big penalty."

Walker:  "3H. The negative double promised only hearts, not diamonds, so partner's 3D guarantees extra values. Close between 3H and 3NT, but we know partner has a singleton or void in spades, so there's a good chance he holds three hearts. He has room to ask for a spade stopper if he doesn't."

The majority of the panel chose to show the additional heart length, but as in Problem #2, I simply don’t see a 5-card suit when partner makes a negative double and then bids the suit. I would be interested to hear what expert opinion is on this matter. Even more, this bidding would sound like you would like partner to bid 4H with Kx of hearts and a stiff spade, but with that hand, 3NT would almost certainly be a safer contract.

Feiler:  "Pass. Time to bail out before the auction gets any higher. Partner may have some hearts, but probably no more than two."

Guthrie:  "Pass. Sufficient unto the day."

Paulo:  "Pass. If I wanted to show my heart three, I would have bid 2H. On the other hand, with a singleton club, 3NT looks a poor bet."

Nelson:  "Pass. Tough hand, but I will choose the pass. I think I have SOME wasted values with the Q of spades."

While I have my doubts about the 3H call, I can’t at all understand passing. In my world, this is a forcing call, as my double shows nothing about diamonds. That would mean that opener is both making a freebid at the 3-level and reversing, after I made a bid that virtually sent us to the 2-level. I cannot even imagine a hand that would lead me to pass.

Ring:  "3NT. Could be wrong if partner is 1-3-4-5, but if he really has the 3D bid, I expect 3NT to have good play. Probably right if partner is 1-2-4-6 (especially if he or she interprets a 3H bid as six and raises on two babies!)."

Kessler:  "3NT. There is a bonus for red games at IMPs and this is the most likely one at this point. If partner is 6-5, certainly 5D may be a reasonable contract. If we proceed in diamonds and find out partner has a good 6-4, we cannot go back to 3NT."

Bridge Baron:  "3NT. A delicate 3H could work if partner has heart support -- but if not, then what? That's why Bridge Baron prefers 3NT when it has a spade stopper. Bridge Baron doesn't want to raise on Txx opposite partner's likely 4-card diamond suit."

This seems like the call that is most likely to get the most points, even though it is probably wrong double dummy.

      ♠  April Panel and Solver Scores             ♠ June problems

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this interesting and rather low-scoring set. Four Solvers beat all of our panelists -- Paul Soper with 590 and Jim Diebel, Chris Grande and Paul Holmes with 580. All four are invited to join the June panel and put us all to shame again.

The six new problems for June are below. This is the third of the six sets in the 2011 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: Please post your bids through the web form and try to use the same email address for all submissions. After posting, scroll down the resulting page and look for a green "all answers posted okay" message. If there's a red error message instead, you can correct the problems (a missing bid or too-long comment) and resend.

    June moderator:  Tom Dodd     fieldtrialer@yahoo.com 

Back to the Advocate Home Page