♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2021

            by Nate Ward, Champaign IL
 

Participants from the web site Bridgewinners.com are our "virtual panelist". More than 50 readers -- the majority of whom are experienced players -- voted on each problem, and the plurality's choice is included as a panel vote. Each vote grid shows the percentage of Bridgewinners voters who chose each bid.

1.  IMPs, NS vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q9753   ♥A8   ♦A3   ♣AQ92 ?

We start off this set with a problem that offers us four choices. If we knew partner would always reopen, I might agree more with the trap passers. The pass has been demoted in the scoring because the panel voted 2:1 to start looking for a good contract on offense.

BARNES: Pass. Playing for partner to reopen with a double.

KESSLER: Pass. 3C doubled should go at least 500 or more. There is no guarantee we have a slam, suits are not going to break.

GRANDE: Pass. Without the 3C bid, I would look for slam. However, the anemic spade suit is particularly vulnerable to bad breaks. Pass and collect a probable 800.

If we aren’t going to go after them, do we offer partner a choice? Most of the Bridge Winners voters and one panelist didn’t want to involve partner:

HINCKLEY: 3NT. If I bid 3S and we don't belong in spades, it will be very difficult to play notrump below slam.

If we're going to involve partner, do we show our anemic spade suit? Two of our panelists had high hopes already:

KNIEST: 3S. Pard has nothing in clubs so get this suit in now. If he rebids hearts, then ask for keycards.

MOSES: 3S. If partner rebids 4H, we will play in hearts. If partner raises, I will investigate further. More likely you have a slam than not.

The rest of the panel was content to take a wait-and-see approach and give partner more room to describe their hand:

ROBINSON: Double. Double is flexible and will allow us to find our 6-2 heart fit, our 5-4 spade fit and slam if partner jumps in a red suit.

WALKER: Double. There's plenty of room to get more information and bid 3NT later, if it comes to that. I don't want to emphasize such a weak spade suit now, but I'd like to know if partner has a hand worth jumping to 4H or 4S over my negative double.

SPEAR: Double. 3S may give partner a headache, and an 8-card fit in spades may well be the wrong spot anyway, considering our weak suit and triple club stopper.

FOGEL: Double. 3S is forcing but gives up on playing 3NT unless by some miracle pard has ♣Kx. 3NT gives up on major suits.

As Robinson points out, this double is flexible -- an overused adjective to describe answers in bidding contests, although here I think it is rather apropos.

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KJ1082   ♥AKJ8   ♦3   ♣KJ6 ?

We have a rather good hand with support for partner’s twice-bid suit. Do we want to try for 9 tricks or 11? Aiming high we have:

BAKER: 5C. I imagine partner would do something a little more aggressive than 3C after my cuebid if he had  ♠Ax  ♥xx  ♦xxx  ♣AQ10xxx, which is about what I need for a good slam.

KESSLER: 5C. I do not think partner has either pointed ace, so 5C is what I think we can make.

ROBINSON: 5C. Five clubs has play opposite ♠xx  ♥xx  ♦xxx  ♣AQxxxx  and partner could easily have more.

SPEAR: 5C. Partner's 3C probably denies a diamond stopper and a major-suit fit. The 11-trick game should be a good one.

If we want to keep 3NT in the picture, what is the best way to do this? Bidding out their shape, but hesitant about their game prospects, were:

MOSES: 3H. 3NT is still possible if partner can stop diamonds. If he bids 4C, I will raise to 5C and hope.

KNIEST: 3H. I've already confirmed a club fit as I could have bid or jumped in hearts naturally before without a club fit. Still hard to stop if pard just bids 4C, but I would.

And, finally, a vote for the most direct way to get to 3NT:

WALKER: 3D. Partner hasn't denied a diamond stopper. If I can get him to show one now, I think 3NT will be easier than 5C.

While I agree in principle, I’d be afraid partner might think he could have shown a full stopper the round before, and now try 3NT on ♦Qx, trying to right-side the contract opposite the ace.

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:  ♠106   ♥AQ   ♦KQ63   ♣AKJ42 ?

Our partner is going to make this one hard on us, having rudely responded in our reverse suit. This would be much easier if we had a 4-card major instead of 4-5 in the minors.

Some of our panelists felt it best to manufacture a jump-shift to elicit some help from partner:

BAKER: 2H. These "partner stole my reverse" auctions are always awkward. Here's hoping I don't have to spend the rest of the auction correcting hearts back to diamonds.

GRANDE: 2H. I have not bid a two-card suit in this context in at least a year.

SPEAR: 2H. When I raise diamonds next, partner will get it. I do not promise a 4-card heart suit.

While Jack feels confident this will work out, I have my doubts. If we aren’t going to jump-shift, is raising partner sufficient, or do we just rebid 2NT? Our panelists seem to have varying thoughts about the value of our hand vs. these two choices.

HINCKLEY: 3D. A slight underbid.

ROBINSON: 3D. The only bid that comes close to describing my hand.

KESSLER: 2NT. Most descriptive bid.

WALKER: 2NT. Way too strong and too balanced for 3D, which suggests a major-suit singleton.

Some Solvers thought this hand was so strong that they jumped to 3NT, but this is the wrong hand for that bid. Opener's 3NT rebid shows a lot of playing tricks, not high-card points. It's typically a long running minor and moderate extra values, but not necessarily 18+ points. 

In the hindsight category, I think on most days this next panelist has it right, although today, we may be missing 6D with this choice:

LINDFORS: 2NT. Prefer to open 2NT. I would like to make a fragment jump shift to 2H, but Americans are wont to misinterpret this. Hence the fudged underbid of 2NT.

 4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable  
 

Action	Score	Votes	% BWinners	% Solvers
2H	100	7	38	55
4H	80	3	4	8
2S	80	2	17	15
3H	80	2	42	16

West	North	East	South
1S	2D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  ♠102   ♥AKJ743  ♦Void  ♣AQ1082 ?

LHO opens, partner makes a vulnerable overcall at the two-level, and we have what is probably the best hand at the table, but no good way to start showing it. In our bidding system (Bridge World Standard), a new-suit bid here is constructive but not forcing. Do we risk a simple 2H bid and hope we get another chance?

FOGEL: 2H. If pard bids again, we can get excited and try to find the right game. If not, we're in the right spot.

KESSLER: 2H. Take the low road with a misfit. My guess is this will not be the final bid.

SPEAR: 2H. There is certainly a risk of playing here on our game hand, but cuebidding first may not lead to an accurate description either. This certainly could be a misfit.

KNIEST: 2H. Yes, non-forcing, but you can't describe this hand in one bid, so let's see what happens.

A few panelists disagreed. Here's one approach:

MOSES: 3H. After 2H, it’s likely to go all pass.

Hoping to keep clubs in the picture? Two panelists decided to cuebid first, before forcing in hearts:

BAKER: 2S. I don't like using my first turn to show nothing about my shape with this hand, but 2H wouldn't be forcing, and just about any of the hands partner would pass with belong in game.

HINCKLEY: 2S. Both 2H (constructive) and 3H (invitational) are non-forcing. Bidding hearts next will be forcing.

I’m in the minority on this one, but I can’t see stopping short of game on this hand, so I’m with these two blasters:

WALKER: 4H. Most pairs (and BWS) play 2H as constructive but passable. I'm not willing to risk that or even an invitational 3H. Starting with a 2S cuebid seems pointless as I can't imagine an auction where I won't be bidding 4H eventually.

ROBINSON: 4H. If 2H is not clearly forcing, I'd bid 4H.

5. IMPs, both vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K102   ♥Q54   ♦AKQ763   ♣4 ?

So just how good is our hand here? And do we raise partner or rebid our nice six-card suit?

By himself, although Robinson also gives mention to the choice, is Mark:

KESSLER: 3H. Do not like the king of spades, but hate to miss a game opposite ♥AKxxx red at IMPs. Had a diamond mixed in with my hearts.

I don’t think 3H is that far off, but I’d like a little more before I potentially bury partner. Meanwhile, opting for just the single raise are:

KNIEST: 2H. Pard didn't redouble so there may be no game, but his hand might bloom with a raise.

SPEAR: 2H. This encouraging raise doesn't promise four, and leaves us in a good position for further description.

I love to raise partner with support, but those diamonds are awfully good and our LHO has warned us that trumps may not be breaking that great. The question is just how high?

ROBINSON: 2D. When in doubt, protect your plus score. Since I'd bid 1H with  ♠AQxx  ♥Jxxx  ♦xx  ♣Qxx, I can't jump-raise hearts.

WALKER: 2D. Not really an underbid, as the takeout double hints at bad breaks and spade honors over my king. 2D is best if partner can bid again, as I can describe my hand perfectly at my third turn.

An even bigger underbid is the Pass chosen by some of the Solvers. It's possible that they assumed that partner would have redoubled if he had a good hand, but that is not a requirement. A redouble would show 10+ points and a defensive-oriented hand. A failure to redouble, though, does not deny 10 points. Unless partner is already a passed hand, his new-suit bid over a takeout double is always forcing for at least one round. 

A little higher:

FOGEL: 3D. We can expect a bad split in hearts and any necessary spade finesses to be wrong, so 3NT may not be our best spot.

GRANDE: 3D, and hope to get a 3H rebid from partner.

MOSES: 3D. A bit of an overbid, but game is still possible.

My biggest gripes about 3D are that it buries hearts almost all of the time, and 3NT is no big favorite opposite a hand that could not redouble last round.

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A103   ♥QJ85   ♦AJ963   ♣4 ?

Our last problem has a deep flaw in it, described rather well by Karen:

WALKER: 3H. I guess this is a test of how you interpret 3D. I thought it was standard to play it as at least invitational to 4S or 3NT, but based on the number of passers, it appears there's some controversy. One thing I'm sure of is that unless I had discussed the non-forcing meaning with partner, I would always bid again.

I agree 100% on not passing here. I have always played this auction the same -- forcing. But with everyone playing spiral game tries nowadays, maybe that has moved 3D to the category of passable.

For the uninitiated, spiral game tries are used by responder after opener raises his major. In the auction above, responder would bid 2NT to show at least an invite and ask opener about his trump length (three or four?) and point-count (minimum or maximum?).

Hedging also we have:

ROBINSON: 3H. This is a bad problem because we don't know if 3D is forcing. Since I don't know, I'll show my hearts and hope partner's next bid will tell me what partner's strength is. If 3D is non-forcing, I'd pass it.

I believe from the comments that this next set of panelists believe 3D is forcing and are tossing the ball back to partner:

MOSES: 3H. Show your pattern and let partner decide which game is better.

SPEAR: 3H. This shows heart value for 3NT with a likely 3-card raise.

GRANDE: 3H. South has made a minimum rebid and can thus pattern out without giving North the impression that he has a far better hand than he actually has. Hopefully, North will be in a reasonable position to place the contract.

HINCKLEY: 3H. With this double fit, I'm continuing to find the best game and we might as well show our shape.

Meanwhile, we have a few panelists who want to get out of the auction now. If 3D is passable, I can’t really blame them.

KESSLER: Pass. I like to be aggressive vulnerable at IMPs, but we may be at our best spot.

KNIEST: Pass. Again, spiral game tries might save the day here, but I don't even know if 3D is forcing in BWS.

It is. For everyone else's system, this is certainly a good auction to discuss with your partner. It may help you avoid going +170 on your +1370 hand.

Thanks for joining me for an exciting set of problems, where we had a wealth of choices on at least four of the six hands. Hopefully, we will see each other at the bridge table sooner rather than later.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set. Congratulations to Rich Ahrens of St. Louis MO, Dave Bigler of Hobart IN and Len Helfgott of Teaneck NJ, who scored 570 to lead all Solvers. All 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 . Thanks for participating!