District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2016

    by Nate Ward, Champaign IL

1. Matchpoints, East-West vulnerable

   * Splinter – diamond shortness

What is your call as South holding  ♠Q98743  ♥AJ  ♦AQJT4  ♣Void ?

We start off with a big hand. Partner’s splinter makes our hand look pretty good, despite us holding 100 honors in diamonds. So how do we find out if partner has what we need to make a slam? The majority of the panel started cuebidding:

PAULO: “4H. Control bid, as a slam try.”

KAPLAN: “4H. My first thought was to sign off; so much in diamonds! But, ultimately, my controls and 6^th trump convinced me to make one try.”

The problem I have with 4H is this: If partner’s next bid is not Blackwood, what do we do? If instead partner bids 4S or 5C, we have lost the ability to ask about trumps without forcing to the 7-level opposite ♠AK. One panelist, however, was willing to go that high:

KESSLER: “5NT. My last chance to find out about trumps. Partner rates to have either  ♥K or ♣A. Given he has those, I like our chances of handling diamonds.”

A little optimistic, perhaps. Another way to find out about trumps:

WALKER: “5S. Simple request for trump quality.”

BARNES: "5S. Should be a trump-ask. Pass=0, 5NT=2."

SPEAR: “5S. Slam try showing controls in both clubs and hearts. This will always get our side to slam opposite the top honors in spades, and possibly on other hands with one top honor with good play.”

I like 5S better, since it focuses on the main problem we have -- namely, how good are partner’s trumps? The only problem is, will partner think that ♠K652 is what we are looking for?  On the flip side, if partner does have both high spades, he may very well cuebid the king of hearts on the way for us, enabling us to try for 7S.

2. Matchpoints, North-South vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  ♠Void   ♥K6   ♦AQ108542  ♣QJ96 ?

This is the typical hand my partner has when I bid a suit a few times, but I guess the shoe is on the other foot now.

First off, hearing the call of Bob Hamman:

RABIDEAU: “3NT. Why bid a wimpy 4D when we can go down in 3NT?  I hope partner’s spades are good enough to save me.”

Me, too, because I don’t think you are going to be happy unless he puts down 150 honors. Now if partner’s spades are just nearly solid, maybe we should play game there?

PAULO: “4S. Partner should have good spades and some club honor.”

Perhaps. Or maybe he just has a decent hand with a modest 7-card suit? If we aren’t going to raise, how do we go about describing our hand?

SPEAR: “4C. Success in 3NT seems too big of a parlay, so hoping 4S, 5C or 5D will make. Or at least escape the double.”

This could work if partner is perhaps 6-2-1-4. But what happens when he raises to 5C with only three clubs? Now they won’t have to double because our contract will be so ridiculous. The rest of the panel decided to bid those diamonds one more time. Why not? We do have seven of them!

KESSLER: “4D. Without the 7^th diamond, I would bid 4C.”

WALKER: “4D. This hand’s slim values and big disparity in suit length and quality argue against a 4C rebid.”

HELLER: “4D. I hate this problem. I really don’t know what to bid, but I’m not sure about pass.”

BERNHARD: “4D. I know, pass with misfits, but if we have a game or even a plus, it is likely to be only in diamonds.”

I have to agree. Even if partner has a stiff diamond, 5D can still have a decent play. Also, if partner does have rock-solid spades, I think we will be hearing 4S soon enough.

3. IMPs, North-South vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  ♠A103  ♥KQJ  ♦Q1084  ♣A102 ?

The opponents are not making life easy for us, are they? Our first question should be, is partner’s pass forcing?

WALKER: “6S. Relying on the assumption that partner has no club honors, I think this should have a play.”

I’d tend to agree, as I’d expect partner to have something along the lines of  ♠??xxx  ♥Axxx  ♦?xx  ♣x . The big problem is, what are those ?'s in diamonds and spades?

Not caring and going for the plus are:

KESSLER: “Double. Going for a plus score. Things do not rate to split well, although we could still have a slam.”

HINCKLEY: “Double. For each 4-imp loss, I’ll gain more when bad breaks doom 5S.”

SIEVERS: “Double. Bidding five-over-five usually works out poorly. If I lose 4 IMPs on this hand, oh well.”

This mention of losing only 4 IMPs seems a little optimistic to me. What if your LHO is a solid citizen and holds nine clubs? That’s eight tricks plus a potential diamond trick from his partner, which means you're collecting +300 instead of +650, which is 8 IMPs. Or LHO could just be 0-4-1-8 and take a ninth trick when he finds hearts 3-3, with your side cold for +1430 or +2210.

That potential of 8 vs 4 IMPs is what made me side with the majority:

BERNHARD: “5S. Any other vulnerablility and I would double.”

KAPLAN: “5S. Very close between this and double. Vulnerability swayed me in this direction.”

There's an explanation behind that one strange vote for passing 5C:

BRIDGE BARON: "Pass. A simulation shows we can expect a score of more than 750 for doubling 5C, but a bug in the program makes us pass instead."

4. Matchpoints, Both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  ♠J65  ♥AK954  ♦A732  ♣5 ?

I thought this one would be unanimous, but, alas, they never are. One thing is for certain, my "Dad" still has jokes:

RABIDEAU: “4H. I’d prefer 3NT, but the software won’t allow it.”

Summing up the rest of the panel’s feelings:

SIEVERS: “4H. I hate this bid, but I hate it less than anything else I can think of.”

KESSLER: "4H. Partner knows I'm in a box, so he must have something in mind."

WALKER: “4H. It’s either this or tip over my drink and call for a new deck.”

Out on his own, hoping (?) partner went past City Hall with solid clubs:

SPEAR: “5C. 4NT here is not natural in my understanding, so our choices are limited.”

5. Matchpoints, None vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  ♠A4  ♥Q9  ♦AKQ53  ♣K1042 ?

Not much to say here. A jump shift to 3C seems a slight stretch, and has the potential to wrong-side 3NT. And taking it slow with 2C is going to lead to far too many missed games.

SIEVERS: “2NT. If partner has ♥Axx or ♥Kxx, I want the lead coming around to me.”

KAPLAN: "2NT. 2C is just too conservative. Not enough shape to bid 3C. Ergo, 2NT!"

WALKER: “2NT. This looks like a notrump hand, not a two-suiter. 3C gives partner a picture of an unbalanced hand and may get 3NT played from the wrong side.”

KESSLER: “2NT. When in doubt, bid notrump. Makes it much tougher if we have slam, but it is matchpoints, and this makes it tougher to defend.”

Indeed.

6. IMPs, North-South vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  ♠Void  ♥J1097  ♦KQ87  ♣AKQJ7 ?

We finish with a tough choice. Do we go low, hoping partner has spades and not much else, or do we reverse and hope partner is 2 suited AND we guess his second suit?

Going low, but leaving the door open to back in:

KESSLER: “2C. I take the low road and hope opponents bid.”

RABIDEAU: “2C. I have to devalue my hand on this auction.”

HINCKLEY: “2C. The 2D reverse overbid could be the winning bid, but I think my hand has devalued enough to not try that.”

SPEAR: “2C. No need to do any more yet, and the auction is not encouraging so far.”

At least trying:

HELLER: "2D. Torn, but at least 2D shows my stoppers. Don't know what I'll do when partner rebids 2S."

KAPLAN: “2D. Prefer to bid the chunky diamonds rather than the weak hearts. Spade void is a negative, but I still do have extras, so I show them.”

WALKER: “2D. Tempting to underbid with 2C, but vulnerable at IMPs, I don’t want to talk partner out of a game. Since I’m stretching to reverse, it seems better to bid the suit where I have real values.”

I think it is close, but vulnerable at IMPs, this hand is worth a try.