District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2020

        by Nate Ward, Champaign IL
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AKJ105   ♥Q983   ♦Void   ♣A1052 ?

We start this month with a fantastic hand in support of partner, so much so that it is hard to imagine stopping short of 6. With an eye on the 7-level, what is the best way to proceed?

Diebel: “2NT. If you don't show 4 heart pieces now, you don't have them.”

Walker: “2NT, just to set the trump suit. Hoping to then bid 5D Exclusion Blackwood if possible.”

Kniest:  “2NT. Jacoby & Exclusion Keycard Blackwood should provide good tools. If you bid spades, I can't see how to recover.”

While 2NT gives us some options, it does take up a lot of space. Wanting to take it a little slower and start lower, we have:

Kessler:  “1S. We need to find the ♥AK and ♠Q. I am trying to have an auction where partner realizes the value of the ♠Q.”

Kaplan:  “1S. Spade quality and uncertainty as to what suit might be best for us compels me to start with 1S. If I bid 2NT, then 4H could leave me totally guessing.”

Bainter:  “1S. Cannot imagine not giving partner maximum room to further identify his hand.”

And finally, some people just want to get it over with. I can’t really blame them, since after 1H-2NT-4H, they might be better off:

Mathis:  “5H. Grand slam force – if we have the AK of hearts it is probably no worse than a spade finesse.”

Barnes:  “5D. Should be Roman Keycard Blackwood, excluding diamonds.”

I must side with the 1S bidders. I don’t have a problem making a 2-over-1 on a similar hand when holding 4-card support for partner for the same reason, namely wanting to find out partner’s strength in that suit.

2.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q84   ♥K   ♦Q9853   ♣K1062 ?

Now for a much easier problem, which our panel split between two calls. The choice here seems to be between playing in a suit contract or notrump.

Barnes:  “2D. Not enough suit to try 3D, and notrump looks wrong.”

Hinckley: “2D. At matchpoints this is enough, looking at a poor 10 high-card points.”

Only one panelist liked this hand and this suit enough to jump:

Kniest: 3D. Shows some speed and keeps 3NT in the picture, If partner bids 3H here, it's showing a stopper and I have an easy 3NT bid.

The panel majority thought the best way to eventually get to any level of notrump was to bid notrump now:

Baker:  “1NT. Clubs well stopped, half-stop in hearts (but since partner showed the suit, that should be enough) and values. Values are a bit scattered for 3D, but 2D feels like an underbid, and in any case, +120 beats +110 at matchpoints.”

Diebel:  “1NT. Right on strength, if not shape. Best chance to get to game if we have one.“

Rabideau:  “1NT. Got to get to notrump first.”

I’m not sure if Larry is trying to get there before his partner or the opponents, but either way, I think this is the best call. Even with our scattered 10-count, our values are pretty soft and the opponents do not rate to have a fit.

Editor's note: Some readers noticed that this and Problem #6 were almost identical to Problems #2 and #4 in the It's Your Call column in the March 2020 issue of the Bridge Bulletin. The Bulletin often uses our problems, and because that magazine is published monthly instead of bimonthly, their results were published before ours.

In the Bulletin column, the majority of the expert panel bid 1NT with this hand, with 2D the runner-up. The only other bid that received votes was 2NT.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A3   ♥AQ53   ♦Q63   ♣AK74 ?

Next up is the age-old problem: Do we violate Hamman’s Rule ("If you have a choice of reasonable bids and one of them is 3NT, bid it.") or not?  Since the form of scoring is matchpoints, the panel majority decided to stay low:

Mathis:  “3NT. Good chance West has no entry if he has ♦AK. If East has one of them ... oops.”

Kessler:  “3NT. Seems normal, no ruffs or promotions in notrump. Could be cold for slam, but that is why preempts can be effective.”

Kniest:  “3NT. Endplayed.”

Bainter:  “3NT. With reservations, but these hands are usually a crap shoot.”

Walker:  “3NT. I have a feeling partner is stretching, probably because he has very long spades. If so, he can bid 4S. If not, I like where we are.”

The rest of our panel decided to go exploring, with the most common choices being:

Kaplan:  “5S. The toughest of the set. I overbid with 5S. I'm a spade short, my ♦Qxx is a minus, yet partner freely bid 3S. 4D could be mistaken for a diamond control, so fingers crossed we aren't too high in 5S, and if pard bids 6S we can make it.”

Hinckey:  “5S. Asking for a diamond control with sub-minimum trump support.”

Diebel:  “4D. Impossible. I'm punishing partner for making the best of a difficult situation, but I've got to do something. If partner can't contribute more than 4S, I'll surrender.”

Barnes:  “4D. If I sound confused, I am. Too good for less, but I have no idea where to play the final contract.”

And, finally, one panelist decided to go their own route:

Baker:  “4S. Hope the extra values make up for the poor support.”

The choice for me on this problem was easy, namely 3NT. I’m never ashamed to have extra values, and even if we are off the whole diamond suit, often West will lead something else because of the form of scoring. And, as Mark pointed out, sometimes preempts work.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q64   ♥3   ♦AKQ876   ♣K102 ?

We now move to a problem that offers us three choices. Do we raise partner, do we rebid our nice 6-card suit, or do we jump rebid our nice 6-card suit. Unlike our previous problem, the form of scoring this time is IMPs, so there is more of a focus on getting to game than getting a plus score.

Aiming towards a possible game:

Walker:  “3D. Closer to a 2 ½ diamond rebid. Vulnerable at IMPs, I’ll round up. At matchpoints, there's a good argument for 2D.”

Kaplan:  “3D. 2S isn’t enough, 3S is a not a choice with only three trumps, so I’ll compromise with 3D. If partner bids 3NT, I’ll pass and hope I guessed right.”

Hinckley:  “3D. Too good for 2S.”

Conversely, these panelists decided to keep the bidding low:

Kessler:  “2D. Not enough for 3D.”

Barnes:  “2S. I want to make it difficult for them to find hearts, and it never hurts to show a fit.”

Baker: "2S. I've seen gadgets for distinguishing between "3D, but I have 3-card support" and "3D and I don't have support", but without that available, raising seems more likely to get partner excited than a jump rebid of my minor."

We have a decent hand, and I need to let partner know that some random 9-count over there may very well produce game. Given that, 3D best describes our hand. While this mostly gives up on a spade contract, partner still has a chance to bid 3S (which is forcing) or 3H, allowing us to bid 3S and complete the picture of our hand.

5. IMPs, EW vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ73   ♥QJ10   ♦J753   ♣J2 ?

And now for a problem that I think boils down to a guess. If partner has the ♠K, we really want to be in game, but it is not clear where. If he has the three diamond tops, we can count 9 tricks in notrump; if not, 5D rates to be our best game. However, if partner does not have great spades, I don’t really like our prospects anywhere.

Most of the panel opted for 3NT:

Mathis:  “3NT. Rather try for this than 5D.”

Kaplan:  “3NT. Hope we can get 9 out of some combination of diamonds, spades and clubs to go with our one heart trick.”

Kessler:  “3NT. Hoping for 5 diamonds, 3 spades and 1 heart.”

Hinckley:  “3NT. Looks like 3NT has better chances than 4S or 5D.”

Trying to get out:

Rabideau:  “4D. Tough. The 10+ points I promised earlier are down to 8- when I throw my hearts on the floor, so I’ll take the low road. 4S could be right.”

Barnes:  “4D. Where are my nine fast tricks in 3NT?  The 4-3 fit looks like it will play well, but transportation will likely be difficult. If there is a game, it is probably 5D.”

Baker:  “4D. Partner is short in hearts, which means we must have eight runners in the other suits to make 3NT. That seems unlikely.”

And choosing to go on to game:

Kniest:  “4S. Partner has a good 3-1-5-4 and my heart holding will prevent the tap.”

Walker:  “5D. Partner has a decent 14+ to accept the game try, and even if you ignore the heart honors, the rest of my hand is perfect -- good spades, 4th diamond, club pusher and ruffing value. 4D sounds like minimum strength and three weak diamonds.”

Twenty percent of the Solvers passed, which is not one of the options partner was offering. In this auction,  partner is accepting your game try, so you cannot pass. He's bidding 3S on the way to game to give you a choice, since it's possible you have a 5-card spade suit in this auction.

I think your choice here is a coin flip, but that flip is between 3NT and 5D. As pointed out by Karen, partner cannot expect you to have this much trump support, as you never raised diamonds directly. Hoping partner can make the last mistake over 4D is a mistake, as it's likely he's going to pass.

Editor's note: When this problem was posed to the Bulletin panel, the experts' top choice was 5D, with 4D a close second. No panelist voted for 3NT.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A9    ♥7643   ♦Q2   ♣Q10852 ?

Finally, we have a decent hand for partner who has taken two calls opposite our silence. Our panel was mostly split between showing a lot of strength and some small signs of life.

Walker:  “3H. We could have a slam. It might be hard for partner to bid it opposite a hand that couldn’t move over 1S, but I think I have to do something stronger than just raise to 4C.”

Kaplan:  “3H. Thought about 5C immediately, but the hand seems too good for that.”

Kessler:  “3H. Let partner know he struck a nerve. My hand is starting to look like a strong two-bid.”

Kniest:  “3H. Have to show some speed here. This is a big fitter for the auction. Passing is too chicken, even at matchpoints.”

The "sign of life" raise was the top vote-getter:

Hinckey:  “4C. Passing seems silly, but I’m not hanging partner with a 5C bid.”

Baker:  “4C. We may well be off three quick tricks in the red suits, so I’ll give partner an out below game.”

Mathis:  “4C. Partner is at least 5-5, but I still do not see game. I will show some sign of life, just in case.”

I learned some of the finer points of this wonderful game from my good friend Bill Doroshow. One of those was to always cuebid on the way to game when you have a little extra, just in case partner has a good hand. I think 3H here is automatic.
  

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this tough and low-scoring set. Congratulations to Alan Lemley of Des Peres MO and Lee Baatz of Columbia City IN, who led all Solvers with 550. Runners-up were Steve Harvey of Decatur IN, Michael Clegg of Fort Wayne IN and Ig Nieuwenhuis of Utrecht, Netherlands.  All five are invited to join the June panel.

To receive an email notice when new problems are posted, send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

The next column will be published in early June. I hope you'll give the June problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by May 31 on the web form . Thanks for participating!