District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2019

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A4   ♥96   ♦AKQ84   ♣AJ93 ?

Most panelists and Solvers saw this as a choice between a heavy 2C rebid and a somewhat pushy jump-shift to 3C. Those who went with the more aggressive bid offered good reasoning, even though most thought it was a close decision:

BAKER:  3C. Over 1H, I'd happily rebid 2NT, but with the suit the opponents are most likely to lead wide open, hardly any tenaces to protect, and being slightly off-shape, I don't think it's the best call here. If we have 3NT, it's probably better from partner's side.

JONES:  3C. Right at the border of insisting on game. I picture partner holding just the two major-suit kings, and thus having a reasonable play for 3NT..

KAPLAN:  3C. A little on the light side - but - too much for me to bid only 2C.

Other 3C bidders were more confident.

WARD: 3C. Don't see a second choice here.

POPKIN: 3C. I know it's matchpoints, but this is a good hand. Anyone who bids only 2C probably hasn't ever gone down.

The 2C bidders -- many of whom have some experience with undertricks -- made some good arguments, too.

HOLES:  2C. 2NT with a vacant doubleton opposite 1S is unappealing. This looks like a battle between the go-low 2C and go-high 3C. If the suits were majors, I would be more inclined to jump-shift. It’s very close.

KKESSLER:  2C. If partner cannot bid over 2C, any other bid would probably get us too high. Opposite something like  ♠Kxxxx  ♥Qxxx  ♦x   ♣Qxx, do you really want to be higher?

SPEAR: 2C. Then the plan is to bid hearts (asking for notrump) over partner's 2D or 3C. Over 2S, I can raise to 3S.

Both club rebids have merit and the vote is tied, so everyone gets 100. At IMPs, where it's important to push to games, it's likely that more -- perhaps all -- panelists would have voted for 3C. At matchpoints, though, I lean toward 2C, partly because a jump-shift tends to give partner a picture of a more distributional hand -- and partly because my partners always seem to be dealt hands like Kessler's example.

This panelist voted for 2C, but mentions the third possibility:

HINCKLEY:  2C.  If I held ♠xx and ♥Kx, 2NT would have been tempting.

A jump to 2NT is an accurate description of your point-count and semi-balanced pattern and it's the easiest way to get to 3NT when it makes. I would give it serious thought at the table, even with the heart flaw. Change the hearts to ♥10x and 2NT would be my bid.

RABIDEAU:  3C. Close, but my minimum stopper is 963.

Any hand that is just a ten or a trey away from a notrump rebid deserves at least 70 points' worth of respect.

2. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable           

What is your call as South holding:  ♠963  ♥K8762   ♦Q7  ♣J53 ?

Who would have guessed that our panel would stay silent -- at least for now -- with a 12-card fit at favorable vulnerability? They have good reasons:

BAKER: Pass. I suspect 4H is a good save against 3NT (though it could be a phantom if partner opened 3H favorable in third with AJT-sixth and East decided to gamble 3NT with Qx). But the opponents are reasonably likely to have a slam, and West may find it easier to kick over 4H than over his partner's 3NT.

HOLES: Pass. Lots going on here. Partner's 3H (on ♥QJTxxxx) may be hiding an outside honor. If I bid some level of hearts, I identify my heart length, possibly driving them to slam. I'm content to let them make 3NT, if they can.

JONES: Pass. We know the opponents have a slam, but there's a strong chance they don't know it. Why clue them in? If they somehow do find a slam, we can take a dive then.

RABIDEAU: Pass. Any action by me will just encourage them to bid their slam.  I'll sacrifice if they bid one, but until then, let West think partner's hearts are wasted opposite her void.

I agree with the idea that bidding is likely to help them find their slam, but not with the intent to sacrifice later -- or even now. Two panelists mentioned the danger of bidding just one level higher:

KESSLER: Pass. I figure -800 is worse than the minus for letting them play their vulnerable game. Also, they might find a slam, which is cold.

SPEAR: Pass.  My partner's 3H bid may have kept them out of slam here, unless I reveal our big fit. 4H doubled may go for 800 even if we get to play it there.

At this vulnerability, the Rule of 2, 3 & 4 advises that it's "safe" to preempt to a level that's four tricks higher than your playing strength. That means partner may well have just a 5-trick hand -- ♠xxx  ♥QJ109xxx  ♦xx  ♣x -- and even a gentle raise to 4H will be down four. If they bid up to 6C or 6D, your 6H sacrifice will be -1400 vs. their +1390 (ouch) -- or it may stampede them into a grand slam.

Three panelists believed a mildly obstructive 4H could be effective. Their bid will be safe if partner has at least three diamonds, giving him a ruff in dummy for a sixth trick.

KAPLAN: 4H. I think I had this hand in Real Life! I bid 4H then; why not again? :)  

WARD: 4H. Anything could be right here, but I need to at least take away LHO's probable next bid. Anything higher and I am likely to push them to slam.

If you want to throw a wrench into the opponents' auction, the Solvers offered up a few creative ideas. A 4C or 4D bid is a curve ball that might confuse the opponents and probably won't hurt your side, unless it talks partner into leading from his queen or jack in the suit. A safer psychic is the classic Stripe-Tailed Ape double (so named because your plan is to run "like a stripe-tailed ape" back to your suit when the opponents redouble).

3. IMPs, both vulnerable    

  * 15-17    **Transfer to spades

What is your call as South holding:  ♠3   ♥9654   ♦842   ♣AKJ106 ?

This looks like a relatively simple problem, but our panel offered up six solutions. Your level of enthusiasm may depend on what you expect partner to have for his double. These panelists thought that partner should have very good playing strength.

HOLES: 3H. Bidding some level of hearts is mandatory. My partners do not double the transfer without values and a decent suit. So give partner around 10 high-card points and 5+ hearts. We have close to half the values. If they go to 3S, I will not bid on.

POPKIN: 4H. Over 4S, my action may depend on table action.

RABIDEAU: 3S. I want to be in game, especially if North declares. Even down one doubled won't cost much against minus 110 or 140 defending a spade contract.

Check that vulnerability again, Larry.

Those who bid past 3H seem to be counting on partner to have more than I would expect. A double in this auction doesn't necessarily say "I would have bid this suit at the two-level" or "Let's compete for the contract". It merely suggests that you lead that suit, which means it could be a hand with ♥AQ109x and nothing else. If you require more than this for a lead-directing double, you're eliminating many opportunities to help your partner.

Partner could, of course, have more, within limits (he's a passed hand and couldn't make a vulnerable weak two-bid). That prompted the plurality of the panel to try to declare a partscore.

HINCKLEY: 3H. Tempted to look for game by bidding 3C, showing good clubs with hearts, but even a perfecto like  ♠xxx  ♥AQJxx  ♦xx  ♣Qxx won't make 4H.

BAKER: 3H. For a moment I wanted to make a lead-directing 3C bid (which should also show heart support since I wasn't willing to show the clubs the first time), but then I remembered I would be on lead against both notrump and spades.

So what does a club bid mean here? Even without discussion, I think most partners would work out what these panelists are trying to show:

KAPLAN: 3C. I like to play that this promises support for hearts with good clubs. Hoping partner can better judge what to do with this information.

KESSLER: 3C. I know I'm on lead, but this may help partner when deciding how high or if to save. If he has a stiff club for instance, they may well go down.

WARD: 4C. I want to let partner make the decision as to whether to save or not.

All this talk about vulnerable sacrifices has me wondering if there was a typo in the original problem.

With the opponents holding the master suit, it may not matter whether we bid or not, as long as we don't get too high. This panelist has a practical view of the situation and sees other opportunities for a good score:

SPEAR: Pass. Partner's passed-hand status makes it unlikely that bidding any number of hearts will be successful at this vulnerability. They may miss a game if we are silent.

4. IMPs, NS vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A102    ♥KQ76   ♦A10873   ♣Q ?

We have four reasonable actions, each with a downside. The Solvers' choice was a takeout double -- off-shape but relatively safe for the reasons explained by this panelist:

SPEAR: Double.  Assuming we are playing "Equal-Level Conversion", I can convert my partner's 3C bid to diamonds to describe this distribution without showing extra values.

The "ELQ" treatment gives you a way to handle a club bid from partner, but that's not the only advance that might give you a problem.

WARD. 2NT. With better diamonds, I'd think about doubling first, but I have no answer if partner bids 2NT Lebensohl with his hand.

BAKER: 3D. Choice is between 3D and 2NT (double ends very badly if partner has a weak club hand; you aren't strong enough to break the relay if he makes a 2NT Lebensohl response). I don't think there's any hurry to grab the notrump here; if partner has the hand you're looking for he can cue 3S to ask.

Most panelists rejected the 3D overcall because of the suit quality and the difficulty in finding a potential heart fit. So if you aren't comfortable with Double or 3D, here's another approach that could be right.

HOLES: Pass. Not the right shape for double. Diamond suit not robust enough to introduce at the 3-level. Partner has a chance to bid. Let’s take a wait-and-see approach.

KAPLAN: Pass. If partner can't bid, perhaps we're better off defending.

Vulnerable at IMPs, most panelists felt compelled to do something. The plurality settled on 2NT as the least risky of the four possibilities. Their view was summed up by:

KESSLER: 2NT. I have gone down before. Pass could put lots of pressure on partner. I'll be the fall guy.

It's time to hear from our Stopper Guru from Problem #1:

RABIDEAU: 2NT. A stiff queen is much better than 963!

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠5   ♥AKQ83    ♦J8   ♣109765  ?

Half the panel liked this hand enough to make a direct move toward slam. The rest thought it was worth a game bid, but not all were certain that 5D was the best one. Some had hopes of finding a higher-scoring game at a lower level.

HINCKLEY: 4C. 4D is non-forcing, 4H deserves to find partner with a small singleton, and 4S unfortunately goes past 4H.

HOLES: DBL. Double is flexible, allowing partner to bid 3NT if it is right.

I think most partners would assume double is penalty here. Even if partner bids 3NT, that's a risky contract unless he has solid diamonds, which isn't likely. If partner had long running diamonds and a spade stopper, he probably would have rebid 3NT instead of 3D.

The plurality had higher hopes.

KESSLER: 4S. I do not like 5D with a spade control.

SPEAR: 4S. Cuebidding the spade control for a possible diamond slam. I will bid the slam myself if partner cuebids 5C.  (Maybe they will save if we cannot make it.)

WARD: 4S. Just in case partner has a perfecta.

POPKIN: 4S. If partner bids 6D, we should be on .

KAPLAN: 4S. Ugh. Very close between 5D and the cuebid. Since I can think of a number of hands where slam makes, I go for the overbid.

I thought it was close, too. I finally settled on 5D because with just doubleton support, I wasn't sure my ruffing value was pulling full weight. It's also possible that cuebidding could drive us to a slam off two aces. I think now I might have been too conservative, but these panelists were of the same mind:

BAKER: 5D. Partner didn't make a support double, so 4H isn't likely to be better. That makes 4D less attractive; the risk of missing game isn't worth trying to cater to partner offering the 5-2 major fit.

JONES: 5D. I started to bid 4C, but that's the last suit we want led should we be outbid. So just bid 5D directly, as that's likely our best spot. We are playing support doubles, so let's forget playing in hearts.

Almost a quarter of the Solvers chose 4C. It's better than a non-forcing raise to 4D, but at best, it complicates the auction. Whatever you think 4C means, you ought to have something in the suit.

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ105    ♥A6   ♦7   ♣KQJ973 ?

On a memorable deal from years ago, I held a hand virtually identical to this one. My RHO, the late Ed Schultz, opened 1C. The standard advice in this situation is to pass and await developments, so that's what I did. More about that later.

Two-thirds of the panel and almost half the Solvers went with the same strategy on this problem. Not everyone was thrilled with their choice . . .

HINCKLEY: Pass. Very distasteful at this vulnerability. 1S is a possibility, but Axxxxx would be a much better club holding for that.

But almost all were expecting an opportunity to bid later.

BAKER: Pass. You'll never be able to show these clubs naturally if you do anything besides pass now. Distant second choice is 1S, but you're likely to have a chance to find that later and you won't have the chance to find clubs later if you bid the spades now.

KAPLAN: Pass. I shall show my hand later! I am not expecting it to go all pass.

KESSLER: Pass. If you overcall 1S, whenever you bid clubs in the future, it will be a cuebid. There's too much distribution here for everyone to pass, and I'll be much better placed at our next opportunity.

HOLES: Pass. Unanimous?

Not quite. With fewer high-card points, I would be more confident that I'd have another chance to show this hand. Here, though, you and opener have around 3/4 of the strength. Give 3 or 4 of the missing points to LHO and 7 or 8 to partner and the final contract rates to be 1C. Even if LHO scrapes up a response and you bid your clubs later, partner will never guess your hand is this strong. You'd make this type of delayed overcall with this suit and a 10-count.

Our plus score for defending 1C would be fine if this is a partscore deal. Vulnerable at IMPs, though, four panelists were more worried about this possibility:

SPEAR: 1NT. We may miss our 4S or 3NT game if I pass.

Or even a slam? On the hand I played against my friend Ed, his 1C opening was passed out and we scored +300 when he went down six tricks (!). It was not a psychic bid -- Ed had a full 14-count with ♣Axx, but it was still our hand for 6C. There's no way we could have actually bid to the slam, but we could also make 3NT or 4S. If I had bid -- as my opponent did at the other table -- we would have gotten to one of those contracts and wouldn't have lost 8 IMPs.

With a big stack in opener's major, it's probably still right to pass. Over a minor opening, though, I look for reasons to get into the auction when I have extra high-card strength, especially at IMPs.

The panelist who submitted this problem was one of the non-passers. Knowing his stringent requirements for notrump bids from problems #1 and #4, I expected he might have joined me and Jack in overcalling 1NT, but he tried this:

RABIDEAU: 1S. I don't see how waiting to bid clubs later will help.

That works, too. We'll add KQJxxx to Larry's list of flawed stoppers for notrump.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this interesting set. Congratulations to Scott Lewis of Murray KY, who led all Solvers with a score of 570. Runners-up were Ig Nieuwenhuis of Utrecht, Netherlands and Micah Fogel of Aurora IL. All three are invited to join the June panel.

To receive an email notice when new problems are posted, 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 .

Help wanted:  If you'd like to serve as a Forum moderator and write up the column (twice a year), contact Karen at kwbridge@comcast.net.