District 8 Solvers Forum -- from the April, 2000, issue of the District 8 Advocate

1.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as  South holding: S-KJ106432  H-J105 D-J72  C-Void ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
4S	100	7	6
2S	80	4	55
2H	70	3	12
DBL	60	0	12
4H	50	1	6
3C	40	0	3

If you have any latent Hideous Hog tendencies, this is the hand that will bring them out. The porcine majority is betting the farm that spades is the right trump suit — and they’re ready to endure partner’s squealing if it isn’t. Most panelists thought those spades were just too long to ignore:

FEILER:  “2S. I can’t not bid this suit (sorry for the double negative). We could have a grand  in spades and double game swings are easy to imagine. Still, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed that we don’t get too high.”

MYERS: “2S. Not many high-cards, but the potential for a terrific playing hand if partner has a spade fit. I can always raise hearts later.”

But do you really want to? If you make a new-suit freebid and then show support later, partner’s going to think you have a big hand — and probably better spade honors. Hearts should be pretty much out of the picture unless partner can rebid them.

Most 2S bidders were planning to bid that suit as many times as they had to. But if you’re going to insist on spades, why not get it over with early?

WARD:  “4S. Call me a hog, but 4H with only three trumps isn’t going to work. I should have a play opposite almost any 2-5-3-3 hand.”

SPEAR: “4S. My experience is that this is a transfer to 5C by LHO. I hope we win the guessing game after this.”

This is the stratosphere, but at least you’re not telling too big a lie about strength. A few Solvers tried the compromise 3S as a weak jump shift. Sorry, but even if you have WJS on your card, 3S is a splinter for hearts.

DODD: “2H. Disgusting, but if the auction escalates — as suggested by my club void — a forcing 2S will mislead partner about your strength. Hands like this show the flaws of using new suits forcing after overcalls.”

This hand is a good ad for negative freebids (one of my favorite conventions), but without that tool in BWS, I’m going slow. I can be as big a hand hog as the next guy, but when in doubt — and you have to have some doubt about the kamikaze 4S — it has to be reasonable to support with support and limit your hand. The simple raise gives up on playing in spades, but it puts us in a sure 8+-card fit and keeps us low. It also covers me in the post-mortem — a not-unimportant consideration here. If spades was the right trump suit, partner will forgive me for opting to raise his suit instead. But if I bid spades and partner is 0-6-4-3 or similar, I expect to hear: “So would you have supported me with four trumps? Five?”

2.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

What is your call as  South holding:  S-Q10    H-109864  D-A63   C-Q85 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2D	100	5	20
1NT	90	4	50
2NT	80	2	9
2H	70	1	3
2S	70	1	12
3D	60	1	0
Pass	60	1	6

The wide range of choices here — everything from a pass to a forcing cuebid — suggests we aren’t all on the same page of the book on balancing auctions. Or maybe we’re evaluating this hand differently. The plurality thought the hand was worth a force:

POPKIN: “2D. I have a maximum, so I owe partner a cuebid. Put the decision back in his lap, I always say .”

WARD: “2D. Since partner is balancing, I could have more for this (not all 10-counts are worth a jump). Nonetheless, I have a good hand and I don’t want to rule out 3NT by raising spades. I have to admit that I’m hanging him to the tune of game.”

Most 2D bidders thought this was the best way to search for the correct strain. The trouble is that the cuebid will probably convince partner that you’ve already found it. A few feared partner might take 2D as natural (a treatment that has some merit). If he doesn’t, then he’s surely going to think it shows spade support. Won’t he logically assume that your hand has gone up in value because of a fit? What else would bring you to life after your weak advance of his double?

The more conservative faction offered several alternatives:

PEER: “Pass. Partner would bid more than 1S with enough for game. 1S is as good as anything, and there’s no reason to beat them to 1NT.”

KESSLER: “2S. I’d have bid 2H the first time to avoid this problem. However, you owe your partner a bid.”

DODD: “1NT. About right on values, but potentially anti-positional. I wouldn’t fault a matchpoint pass, but I’m not ready to give up just yet.”

That Ace-deuce-deuce doesn’t exactly scream notrump, but it is a stopper, and everything else about this hand is right for it. The only time it will be critical to play notrump from partner’s side is when he has Qx or Jxx of diamonds. If that’s his holding, there’s no way you’re going to get him to bid notrump anyway, so you might as well forego the wishful thinking — and the torturous cuebid auction. If partner passes 1NT, we’re high enough. If we have a game in hearts, spades or notrump, he’ll bid again.

So what does partner have? Here’s a pretty good explanation:

FEILER: “2NT. What partner didn’t do is significant here: 1-He could have balanced with 2S to show a good 6-card suit and opening strength; 2-He could have doubled and jumped to 2S to show the long suit and a stronger hand; 3-He could have bid 1S showing a 4+-card suit and around 6-14 pts. So I think he’s left with a 5-card suit and opening 1NT points.”

Right. Partner isn’t showing the world’s fair here. He could have as little as a good 14-count, and he may or may not have 3 hearts. In my balancing book, that’s just not enough for me to be the one to propel us into a game.

3.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as  South holding: S-AJ9   H-6   D-AQ8 C-KQ7652 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	5	9
3C	90	2	55
3S	80	2	9
2S	80	2	9
3H	70	2	12
4S	60	1	3
2NT	50	1	0

Clubs or spades?  Maybe diamonds or notrump? Or could it be right to defend? You’re in the hot seat here, with too much to pass and no accurate way to advance the auction.

The majority of the Solvers opted for the straightforward club rebid, which suggests better clubs and doesn’t really promise this much high-card strength. Some chose the giant overbid of a forcing-to-game 3H, and others tried three different levels of spades. As expected, no one was too happy with any of these choices.

A convention to the rescue:

KNIEST: “Double, responsive in BW Standard, and it’s perfect for this hand. Sometimes partner has 5+ diamonds. 3C bidders might run into a buzz saw with those lousy spots.”

SIEVERS: “Double. This ought to show extra values and willingness to compete to at least 2S on a 4-3 fit. Your hand isn’t good enough for a game-forcing 3H, and 3C is way too unilateral. Partner might even want to leave the double in.”

The word “flexibility” comes up a lot in bidding forums, and that’s the big attribute of this double. It’s a type of responsive double used by opener, and it’s so handy — and its use is so widespread — that it’s become “expert standard” in even casual partnerships. It shows extra values, shortness in the opponents’ suit (with no stopper) and usually 3-card support for the suit partner has shown.

I promoted 3C in the scoring because the panelists who bid it said they preferred a double, but didn’t think it was in our system. It may or may not be part of  BWS. I admit I didn’t even check, because the double is so “right” here that I was going to bid it whether BWS sanctioned it or not.

4.  IMPs, NS vulnerable

* (forcing NT)

What is your call as  South holding: S-AQJ96   H-K   D-A102 C-KJ74 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
2NT	100	7	12
2C	80	4	35
3C	70	2	47
3NT	70	2	6

A group of our local players has an email exchange every time I publish a new set of problems. Our “moderator”, Scott Merritt, sends his answers and comments to everyone on the list and a lively electronic discussion ensues, sometimes lasting for weeks. For this problem, the follow-up messages centered on the merits of 2C vs. 3C and the value of that problematic stiff king. More than 80 percent of the Solvers and several panelists wrestled with the same dilemma:

MYERS: “3C. I have to make a forcing response with this much stuff.”

MILLER: “3C. Not exactly the suit I’d like, and there’s that stiff king, but what can you do?”

PEER: “2C. I can conveniently bid over partner’s next bid. If he passes 2C, I don’t want to be in game, and my heart king is likely over-valued.”

SPEAR: “2C. Least of evils, hoping someone bids again. Having seen so many evils before, this bid is not a problem.”

There’s really no reason to agonize over how many clubs to bid when there’s a perfectly good alternative that accurately shows your values.

DODD: “2NT. A mite strong for 2C, not enough to force with 3C. The stiff king doesn’t sway me one way or the other. This is a value bid in search of a red game at IMPs.”

FEILER: “3NT. I’ve never been a big fan of ‘bidding around your problems’ — i.e., bidding clubs because you have a heart problem, and hoping that somehow your partner will know you don’t really want to play in clubs. This hand is flat, it has secondary honors, there’s a chicken in every pot. That means notrump.”

Most  panelists thought 3NT was a bit pushy with this soft-ish 18, but Kent’s argument about the merits of notrump hits the mark. If you’re really worried about the stiff king, then choose the contract where it’s most likely to pull some weight. 2NT here shows 17-18 semi-balanced, and that’s exactly what you have.

When the discussion was over in our local email forum, all the men had recorded votes for clubs and the two women had chosen 2NT. In a later message, one of our male members wrote: “I just can’t seem to get myself to bid 2NT with this shape. I do admire your giblets for this call, though.” Maybe he meant that you have to be a real turkey to risk 2NT with this hand, but I think the girls — and their giblets — will get the IMPs.

5.  IMPs, both vulnerable

  * (constructive:  8+ pts.)

What is your call as  South holding: S-K6    H-KQ85   D-AJ   C-AQ985 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4D	100	7	12
3S	80	3	9
4C	70	2	15
3NT	70	2	32
4NT	60	1	12
4H	60	0	21

How good is this hand?  You have a nice 19 and you’ve found a fit, but your long suit is mediocre and you’re fairly flat. DODD and some Solvers said they would have preferred 2NT instead of 2H on the last round. It’s a close decision between the reverse and a 2NT rebid — 2NT narrows your point count and gives partner a better idea of your hand’s suitability for notrump, but it makes it very difficult to find a possible club slam. With more than half your points in the two long suits and the secondary spade fit, I think there’s a good argument for the more aggressive reverse.

DODD and MILLER chose 3NT to suggest the balanced pattern. The rest made overt moves toward slam — BENSON blasted to Blackwood, and others tried three different cuebids:

KNIEST:  “3S. The useful space principle, used by the Italians for years. You bid the first suit where you have a first- or second-round control, according to convenience.”

FEILER: “4C. I’m going to make two tries. If partner bids 4H, I’ll try 4S. 3S instead of 4C at first sounds better, but over 4H, you’d then have to bid 5C and be at a higher level.”

KESSLER:  “4D. I don’t want to cuebid 4C and have partner think I’m 6-4 with bad hearts. If he has two aces, he should make a move toward slam. Over 4H, I’ll bid 4S, which should show the king. If he has the heart ace and club king, this should talk him into slam.”

All these have merit. As KESSLER noted, though, the problem  with cue bidding an  “old” suit — especially spades — is that partner may think you’re still bidding naturally. I think 3S here should show 3-card support and pinpoint a stiff diamond. Haven’t you ever made a bogus reverse into a 3-card heart suit with a 3-3-1-6 hand? Partner has probably seen that one before, too, so it’s important  to convince him you really have hearts. An unbid-suit cuebid  seems the clearest way to send that message.

SIEVERS: “4D. Presumably, both 4C and 4D would work as cuebids, but 4D eliminates any confusion about whether you’re cuebidding for slam or still showing your shape. And, of course, it elicits the same information from partner.”

6.  IMPs, both vulnerable

What is your call as  South holding: S-AJ932  H-765  D-95  C-KJ7 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5C	100	6	15
4C	80	3	20
3S	80	3	9
3H	70	2	10
Pass	50	1	46

The panel obviously liked this hand a lot more than the Solvers, or perhaps they interpreted the auction differently. Partner is doing more than just showing distribution here.  3C is a game try, showing a 5-5 hand and extra values (probably 15-17 HCP). Using that picture, most panelists evaluated this hand as an acceptance:

FEILER: “5C. I suppose 3H is an alternative, but I don’t want to play 3NT. There’s also the danger that partner will take me for Axxxx, J10xxx, xx, x — since with that, I wouldn’t have been able to bid 2H on the previous round.”

SIEVERS: “5C. I seldom agree with my husband, but I’ll quote him here: ‘How could my hand be any better? Three baby hearts is good opposite partner’s shortness, as well as the spade ace. I can’t believe partner can have a hand that will go down.’”

DODD: “5C. It’s tempting to bid an invitational 4C, but how is North supposed to know you have a ruffing value in diamonds?”

4C seems pretty wishy-washy. It shows some interest, but essentially tells partner that you refuse to make the decision. Partner has given you a clear description of his hand and asked you a simple question — game or partscore? This has to be the time to give him a clear, simple answer.

A few panelists went searching for other contracts:

PEER: “3H. This has to be asking since I would bid 3NT with hearts stopped. Second choice is pass.”

MILLER:  “3S. This is certainly a cuebid with clubs as trump. You can’t be showing spade length, because you would have bid 2S last round. Therefore, this has to show the spade ace, looking for a heart control for 6C .”

Keep in mind that partner is probably suspicious this hand is a misfit, and if you do anything other than bid clubs now, he’ll probably keep thinking that. Maybe he’ll convince himself that you’re trying to show a 6-card suit that was too weak to insist on the last round, or that you’re making some exotic try for notrump. No matter how obvious it is to you that 3S is a cuebid, why throw him a red herring? There’s no slam here; partner needs something like Kx, x, AKQxx, AQxxx to make 6C, and with that, he would have jump-shifted on the last round.

In this type of auction — where you’ve both limited your hands and exchanged complete information — “advance cuebids” aren’t in the mix. Partner is counting on you to place the contract. It’s been a long, difficult set where 100’s were hard to come by, so make it easy on the poor guy and bid what you think you can make.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this tough set. Almost every problem had lots of alternatives, which made the scores unusually low. Congratulations to John Burgener, president of District 8, who outscored all Solvers and is invited to join the June panel.

Mike Jones, who usually writes the April Forum, was running (successfully!) for a judgeship in the March primary and had too many rubber-chicken dinners on his schedule to write the column.  I enjoyed substituting, but I’m happy to turn this back over to our regulars. This is a lot of work!

I hope you’ll all try the new problems for the June issue. Please include your name and city on all correspondence and send your answers as soon as possible (by April 24, please) to Tom Kniest  -- kniest@mo.net.

Solvers Honor Roll   (Solvers’ Average:  423)

John Burgener,  Noble IL -- 520

Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL -- 510

Don Wertheimer, South Bend IN -- 510

Tony Curtis, Chicago -- 500

Paul Rezabek, Hazelwood MO -- 490

Bob Sievers, Champaign IL -- 490

Warren Bosch, Elgin IL -- 480

Spencer Pasero, Batavia IL -- 480

John Seng, Champaign IL -- 480

Bob Wheeler, Florissant MO -- 480