District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2015

    by Nate Ward, Champaign IL

What is your call as South holding  J84   KQ932   KJ4   74 ?

We start with a strain decision at matchpoints. The Bridge World Standard (BWS) system uses 2C here as potentially only a one-round force, but is this hand good enough for that?  Some of the 2C bidders were afraid maybe they would push themselves too high by going this route.

SPEAR: “2C. I might pass at the matchpoint table because we may well get too high using 4^th suit here.”

HINCKLEY: “2C. A slight overbid, but it’s important to reach the correct strain.”

If not 2C, is it a pure guess then?

HEINS: “1NT. With my strength, this could easily be the right strain.”

DIEBEL: “1NT. I have extras and notrump rates to produce a better matchpoint score than 2D.”

RABIDEAU:  "1NT. It's matchpoints! If we were playing bridge, I'd try 2D."

We can hope that after running the first five club tricks, the opponents may not have much left to take. If not notrump, where else do we go?

KESSLER: “2S. Seems like a good matchpoint contract.”

FELDHEIM: “2S. The healthy point-count makes up for the missing 4^th spade. If opener bids on, my ruffing value in clubs rates to be useful.”

I agree with the first part, but if opener does bid on and your club value is useful (partner has 3+ clubs), that implies that your hearts will not be useful, facing shortness.

Lastly, what about partner’s first bid suit?

WALKER: “2D. Going for a plus at matchpoints. Most partners will take 2C as forcing to game, regardless of what BWS says.”

KAPLAN: “2D. With an old fashioned system, I’m able to bid 2D to play. Can’t see bidding 2H when partner can have a singleton there, or 1NT with xx in the unbid suit.”

This is a tough problem, and I think any bid could be a winner here. While 2C can get us to the right strain, as pointed out by those bidders and other comments, we rate to get too high. Given that, I like 2D, since we know at least we will have a decent fit. Partner rates to be 4-4 or 4-5 in spades and diamonds on this auction, after all.

What is your call as South holding  8653   Q53   AKJ8   J2 ?

Another tough problem, although I think in this case, the majority overvalued their hand when they jumped to game.

HEINS: “4S. Right suit, right level.”

PAULO: “4S. As anemic as it is, I bid this suit at game level.”

DIEBEL: “4S. Sometimes preempts work. I’m not risking 3NT opposite a stiff.”

Maybe a little lower?

SPEAR: “3S. Taking the low road at matchpoints. Bad breaks may scuttle a good 4-4 spade game anyway.”

KNIEST: “3S. Partner is in the balancing seat, so I’ll go quietly with 3S. Matchpoints rewards the plus.”

It does, but matchpoints offers a bigger reward for the bigger plus. If a spade game does not rate to be the best spot, what about going after the opponents?

FELDHEIM: “Pass. I’m going for the plus score. Game seems tenuous.”

WALKER; “Pass. Expecting +800 if partner has full values, +200 or +500 if he is stretching -- in which case we probably don't have enough power for game.”

KAPLAN: “Pass. Hoping that what I earn for passing is superior to guessing what I should do.”

I like Pass also. 3NT with one stopper seems unlikely to work, and if it does, the penalty from 3H may be better anyway. And 4S with four little is just asking for a 4-1 (or 5-1) break to ruin our day.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  AQ985   10   K1094   K53 ?

Only two choices from the panel on this one, and a few other suggestions from the Solvers. Starting with the panel minority:

KNIEST: “5C. Partner has distribution, so I’ll just raise clubs.”

KAPLAN: “5C. Very close between 4NT and 5C. Partner may have passed 3NT on less distributional hands.”

BRIDGE BARON: "5C. My diamond king is of dubious value, but I have to bid something, so I show support."

Our hand is rather putrid for partner, especially if the opponents lead a trump. Not that the majority choice -- the signoff in 4NT -- is going to be a walk in the park either.

KESSLER: “4NT. This cannot be Blackwood after 3NT the first time. Unlikely 5C is right with this diamond holding.”

WALKER:  "4NT. Partner should take this as a notrump retreat, not Blackwood, but I still  have the feeling that we've gone past  the last making contract."

DIEBEL: “4NT. Could I be less interested?”

RABIDEAU: “4NT. This collection will make a lousy dummy unless partner has a really weird hand -- say, 2-6-0-5”.

That possibility prompted a fair number of Solvers to try 4H with the stiff 10 for support. If you believe partner must be more distributional than 5-5 to go past 3NT -- and if he has six decent hearts -- the heart game could come home.

   * Forcing, may be artificial

What is your call as South holding  KJ1074   Q2   QJ3   KJ3 ?

Now we get to see these fourth-suit-forcing follow-ups that were alluded to in problem #1! The first decision is, are we worth forcing to game?  While our holdings in partner’s suits are great, the rest of this aceless 13-count looks like it may add up to 10. And partner just made a passable bid. Nonetheless . . .

PAULO: “4H. I am risking to play with seven trumps and four losers. 3NT should need nine quick tricks.”

Indeed it should, but that didn’t stop these 3NT bidders:

HINCKLEY: “3NT. 2H is non-forcing, so opener is minimum and often without extra heart length. After a diamond lead, I expect hearts will run and 3NT will be at worst on a black-suit finesse.”

DIEBEL: “3NT. I would have much preferred 2NT rather than 2D.”

If so, why not try 2NT now?

SPEAR: “2NT. If partner has six hearts, he can bid them again.”

KAPLAN: “2NT. My values are so soft, I try 2NT and hope to be better enlightened afterwards.”

WALKER: “2NT, to give partner room to show a sixth heart, but only if I’m sure he took 2D as forcing to game. Those who thought they could bid 2C and stop below game on Problem #1 will have to bid 3NT here.”

Honestly, if partner passes 2NT, I would not be upset. Like Jim Diebel, I would have preferred bidding 2NT the round before, but having chosen this path, we should at least give partner a chance to tell us more now ... or secretly hope he passes.

What is your call as South holding  AQ   Void   10865   J1097632 ?

Well, we know who doesn't have the majors on this hand. So the choice is which minor do we bid, and how high?

PAULO: “2D. After having raised partner’s suit, I can bid clubs if possible and convenient.”

KAPLAN: “2D. I don’t want to jump with only 10xxx in partner’s suit. Bidding clubs could be best, but then we might guess wrong at a high level whether to support partner or not.”

SPEAR: “3D. No good bid on this hand, and I certainly do not want to bid clubs without showing the diamonds.”

HINCKLEY: “3D. A 2D bid gives them too much room and 3C seems too misleading. At this vulnerability, my hand strength won’t be surprising to be this strong.”

I’m pretty sure partner is going to be surprised that you have 1½ quick tricks outside, a void, and a side 7-card suit.

So if we don’t raise partner, how about showing our own suit?

DIEBEL: “2C. The hard part will come later.”

FELDHEIM: “2C. Many players will preempt, but much depends on partner’s rebid.”

KESSLER: “3C. Planning on bidding 4NT over 4H or 4S – not necessarily as a save.”

KNIEST: “3C. Start with 3C and raise diamonds later. There's little chance of this going all pass.”

My feelings gravitate towards Mark's and Tom’s, although I am not committed to bidding again. Also, the best part about bidding 3C is that if partner has support, we will definitely know what to do next.

What is your call as South holding  A   KQ874  QJ96   872 ?

This last problem makes us all wish we had not opened the bidding, as we cannot possibly have anything outside of our lone ace that is going to be useful to partner. However, partner is forcing us at the 3-level.

KESSLER: “Pass. No one has doubled yet.”

Pass was also chosen by several Solvers, with some commenting that they assumed partner had less than game values. It's true that a redouble at his first turn would have promised 10+ points, but his failure to redouble doesn't deny this strength or change the forcing meaning of his fourth-suit bid.

While a Pass could work out, no one else was willing to take the risk.

HEINS: “3NT. I’d be interested in an alternative, but I don’t see what it is.”

Given that, by process of elimination, Jack has come up with the plurality choice:

SPEAR: “3H. Can’t bid 3NT, can’t raise spades, can’t rebid diamonds …”

KNIEST: “3H. Partner is torturing me. It would be an error to bid 3D here.”

FELDHEIM: “3H. This is a choice of evils. 3H is not my shape, but 3D is a bigger lie.”

Whatever happens next, here’s hoping that partner ends up being declarer.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Topping all Solvers were Ig Niewuenhuis of Amersfoort, Netherlands and Sandy Barnes of Wildomar CA. Both are invited to join the June 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 June problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by May 31 on the web form. 

December moderator:  Jack Spear    jspear@everestkc.net