Action |
Score |
Votes |
% Solvers |
4C |
100 |
5 |
9 |
6C |
90 |
5 |
13 |
4NT |
70 |
3 |
22 |
4D |
70 |
1 |
21 |
4S, 5S |
50 |
1 |
13 |
Other |
30 |
0 |
22 |
West | North | East | South |
-- | 1C | Pass | 1S |
Pass | 3NT | Pass | ??? |
What
is your call as South holding:
S-AK76532 H-6 D-A82 C-97
?
Bridge World Standard 2001 (and its predecessors from 1984 and 1968 as well) explained North’s sequence as “Opener’s double jump to 3NT shows a long, usually strong suit.” Theoretically, North could have a not-so-strong suit for this jump, but in reality, how many of your partners would choose this course with a suit worse than, say, AQJxxxx or AK10xxxx? However, this does not mean that North shows a solid club suit, as fantasized by several panelists:
KESSLER: “4NT. If partner shows two aces, I bid 7C, his solid suit. If I knew how to find out about the spade queen, we might be able to improve our contract. But I've always gotten good results at matchpoints for any making grand slam.”
ATHY: “6C. Nothing is perfect, but Pass, 4S and 6NT are all at least as unilateral. 3NT shows solid clubs and a thank-you-very-much-for-the-spade-stopper kind of hand. Avoiding spades here will be worth some of the matchpoints.”
HARTSMAN: “6C. I believe this typically shows a solid minor with outside stoppers. With my singleton heart, even if partner's stopper is weak, he should be able to ruff or pitch on my spades.”
I don’t like leaping to slams at any form of scoring based upon what North "typically" holds -- at least not when there are ways to find out more. And by no means have I ever been accused of being a conservative bidder (no laughter please!). Do we have enough room to find out more about North’s hand before committing to a final contract? Note that 4NT, if read as Keycard Blackwood (and that’s one big IF), commits us to no less than a small slam, since with one key card, North’s reply will be 5D. It's unlikely that North will choose the double-jump sequence with no side aces and a non-solid suit, but do we really want to take that chance when we do indeed have some room left for North to clarify his hand?
WALKER: “4C. Set the suit and hope partner can collect enough information from me to make a potential grand-slam decision. Blackwood would be okay, but it's not going to give me enough info to bid 7C.”
FEILER: “4C. 3NT shows long solid-ish clubs, so we're playing at least 6C. If I get a 4H cuebid, we're on our way to 7C.”
PAOLO: “4C. Six clubs should be safe, but I wish to look for the grand slam. Partner may have x, Ax, Kxx, AKQxxxx. 4C, forcing, sets up the suit. On the other hand, 4NT (Blackwood? quantitative?) is misleading, but 4D would be fine if read as Kickback Blackwood.”
Not sure about the kickback meaning. It’s been my experience that 4 of the other minor here should be Keycard Gerber, but I wouldn’t try this unless it had been discussed. At least here, if North reads 4D as a cuebid, you have the advertised control. But if you don’t know how North took your 4D call, how will you know what his reply means? If North now bids 4H, is it showing 3 key cards, or is it a return cuebid showing the heart ace? This is why I like the slow 4C approach. If North cuebids the heart ace, the next call out of my mouth is 5NT. Told you I wasn’t conservative.
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% Solvers |
Pass |
100 |
7 |
42 |
4H |
90 |
7 |
24 |
Double |
70 |
0 |
24 |
3NT |
60 |
1 |
6 |
Other |
30 |
0 |
4 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
3S |
Pass |
Pass |
??? |
What
is your call as South holding:
S-Q63 H-KQ1087 D-KQJ10 C-J
?
When I first saw this problem, I wondered if we might have a unanimous vote for pass. At teams, the pass is easy, however painful it may be. But even at pairs, I have no aces, no long suit, a dangerous tripleton spade, the vulnerability ominous, telephone numbers dancing in the mind of East, almost willing me to pull out anything but the Pass card. But there are those who found a reason to bid:
FEILER: “3NT. I don't want to play in a suit with this spade holding, and passing this good a hand makes me break out in a rash, so what's left? I've gone down 5 before.”
Someone once suggested that Kent and I should have a game and sell tickets. The post-mortem on this hand might be worth the price of admission.
KESSLER: “4H. I just do not think you will get many matchpoints defending 3S. 4H could easily make opposite many hands which partner would never bid with over 3S. If we get doubled and go for 200, I do not think there will be a big matchpoint difference to defending 3S.”
KNIEST: “4H. Big guess; pass and 3NT could also be winners. It's somewhat ominous that RHO didn't raise. Now I know pard doesn't have a good hand with shortness in spades. Still, I bid it quick and confidently. Maybe that will prevent a double or induce a sacrifice.”
WALKER: “4H. Maybe this will make, maybe they'll be stampeded into a sacrifice, maybe I'll go down one undoubled vs. their +140 ... or maybe I'll go -800. But at least I won't have to explain to partner why I let the opponents intimidate me into a wimpy pass with a 5-loser hand. 3NT might be the best bid here, but they probably won't sacrifice over that. And if 3NT is going down, it will probably be a lot, even undoubled.”
ATHY: “4H. No aces and no certain spade stopper makes notrump too scary. Decent heart texture and no interest in the 5-level, where too many losers require covers. Besides, what's the most this can fail? Only about 1700. It's matchpoints, not money bridge.”
Interestingly enough, I might think about chirping 4H for money. Most of the folks I’ve played rubber bridge with over the years wouldn’t double unless they had an ace on lead against 7NT, and there is the (remote) possibility that North could hold a couple of aces and some heart fillers.
I also don’t buy into the arguments advanced by my fellow staff members that perhaps they’ll goad E-W into a phantom save either. KNIEST’s entry this month was postmarked Mars, so I can only guess that Martian bridge players do dumb things like rebidding the same preempt or forgetting to raise until pushed one level higher. Better straighten out their thinking, Tom, if they expect an entry in next year’s World Championships.
WILLIAMS: “Pass. When you're fixed, stay fixed. I'm hoping the 3S bid was not made by someone like me!”
Or by someone like me, or by many of our former and current partners. Plus 250 never seems to rake in the matchpoints, and besides, it looks really weird on the scorecard.
PAOLO: “Pass. To make any other call a good bet, partner must have aces and several red cards. I don't want to take the risk of changing an average score into a bottom.”
MATHENY: “Pass. Bidding is likely to turn a plus into a minus.”
HARTSMAN: “Pass. Partner couldn't come into the auction, and while I don't have many losers in the red suits, I don't see a reason to try to go minus. I think odds are high that 3S will go down, and I'd rather take the plus than venture into a negative arena.”
To be honest, if I were going to make any call here (and if I needed a swing, I would bid) it would be a takeout double. Some would say I'd get what I deserved when North bids clubs, but that’s what preempts do: they force you to abandon “precision” bidding and take chances you would not otherwise take.
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% Solvers |
4C |
100 |
5 |
28 |
3H |
90 |
4 |
7 |
5C |
90 |
3 |
7 |
3C |
70 |
3 |
38 |
Pass, 2H |
60 |
0 |
20 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
-- |
1S |
Pass |
1NT * |
Pass |
2C ** |
Pass |
??? |
* (forcing NT) ** (3+ clubs)
What
is your call as South holding:
S-Void H-AQ974 D-54 C-QJ9653
?
I love this type of hand. It can tell you much about a player’s approach to bidding. I’ve separated the groups into pessimists, optimists, bashers and scientists. For the glass-is-half-empty crowd:
WILLIAMS: “3C. Worth one bid, but hard to get too excited with a void in partner’s suit.”
KNIEST: “3C. By showing the fit, partner will be comfortable bidding his fragment, if he has one, to allow us to get to the right spot. Thus, hearts are still in the picture. If he's not going to bid again, I'm high enough with my void opposite his presumed strength.”
True, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that the limit on this hand is 9 tricks. Even a control-rich opener like AKxxx, Kx, xxx, Kxx won’t produce 11 tricks. For the glass-half-full crowd:
VONGSVIVUT: “4C. This hand is much better than a 3C response. 4C should show a highly distributional hand that's invitational but not forcing.”
KESSLER: “4C. Let's not hang partner for opening the bidding. Pard should know any spade values beyond the ace are probably wasted, and that diamond and club honors are good. Let's see what he does. 4C could easily be the max on this hand.”
If you don’t want to hang partner, why make him guess which red king is actually worth its weight in gold? To these folks, the glass is overflowing:
HUDSON: “5C. A freak hand calls for a freak bid. I can't afford to look for the improbable heart fit; clubs will have to do. Of course, 5C can go down. I could just invite with 4C, but 5C makes on too many hands where partner would reject the invitation.”
HARTSMAN: “5C. '6-5, come alive' comes to mind with this hand. I have a 5-loser hand and it doesn't seem too unreasonable to get 2 covers out of partner's hand. This reduces it to a finesse at worst. He can even have a better hand than that and it'll just be cold.”
He could also hold what my partners are apt to hold and you’ll be lucky to make 3 or 4. Of course we’re usually in the consolation by then.
WALKER: “5C. Pretty much a straight value bid. 3H virtually guarantees 6+ hearts, and if partner bids 4H, am I really going to leave it there knowing he'd raise with xx (or perhaps less)?”
This sort of hand comes up more than you might think, so it's a good idea to discuss what the jump to 3H would be here. I’ve never seen it played as anything other than fit-showing, guaranteeing big support for opener’s (potentially 3-card) minor and values (and often some length) in the jump suit. Others, however, tell me that the more "standard" meaning of this delayed jump is a single-suited hand that wasn't strong enough to make a 2-over-1 (forcing-to-game) response -- perhaps a hand like x, KQ10xxxx, xxx, Kx.
The scientists are trying to leave the most options open:
PAOLO: “3H. At matchpoints, I want to check a heart fit before raising clubs. This bid is often read as a strong raise of opener's second suit, with length/values in the suit bid. If BART was available, this hand would be a splendid example because you could bid 2D to suggest five hearts.”
CURTIS: “3H. This should be forcing and indicate some tolerance for clubs (since it denies spade support). Partner could have a 5-3-2-3 or 5-3-1-4 hand.”
I like this approach best since it gives us the most chances to land in a decent contract. Opposite the earlier example hand (AKxxx, Kx, xxx, Kxx), 4H is the only game with a chance to make -- not a great chance, but at least it isn’t down off the top. And North’s values could be even more suitable for hearts (or clubs). By making this descriptive bid, we’ve given him the most information to (hopefully) make the correct decision ... assuming we’re not too high already.
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% Solvers |
3H |
100 |
8 |
55 |
2NT |
80 |
1 |
11 |
Pass |
80 |
4 |
18 |
2S |
70 |
2 |
11 |
4H |
50 |
0 |
5 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
1S |
2H |
Pass |
??? |
What
is your call as South holding:
S-KJ73 H-7532 D-A7 C-J63
?
Another hand where I first thought, what’s this doing in a problem set? Doesn't it look like something from a beginning book on defensive bidding at duplicate? With the opening lead coming through my hand, almost half my strength is wasted from the get-go, which leaves me with an ace and a potential ruffing value. Red at IMPs, I’d venture a raise. At pairs, I’ll take my plus, thank you very much.
CURTIS: “Pass. North didn't double to show a big heart hand, and the broken spades in front of the spade bidder reduce my hand value. If they reopen, I can always bid 3H later.”
FEILER: “Pass. Underbidding isn't my style, but this hand has 'Lord of the Rings' dark forebodings written all over it. I'll probably get another chance to bid after opener re-opens with a double, and maybe I'll change my mind later.”
If we are going to venture forth, do we: A) Ignore the positioning problem and raise; B) Ignore the 4th trump and shortness of tricks and high cards and bid 2NT; or C) Ignore both, like:
WILLIAMS: “2S. Kind of a minimum for a cuebid, but I do have 3 controls and 4 trumps. 3H does not do the hand justice.”
The Panel (and Solvers too) majority felt it necessary to offer the single raise. Let’s see why:
KNIEST: “3H. I leave immediate notrump bids to the speculators. Partner can still invite 3NT with a 3S bid if his hand is suitable. Passing is too timid for me, and anti-partnership, in my opinion.”
VONGSVIVUT: “3H. Use the law of total tricks to compete to the 3-level. However, it might not make, due to bad position of the spade KJ.”
PAOLO: “3H. My spade honors, in front of West, should have low offensive value. Nevertheless, I want to preempt, and the Law of Total Tricks bestows some security to this contract.”
HUDSON: “3H. This is a terrible hand --wasted spade values, bad trumps. But I'll probably have to take the push to the 3-level eventually. I may as well do it now. And if it turns out we can make 4H (unlikely), partner will howl if I passed. There's no way to protect my spade honors; a notrump bid would be silly.”
I would agree with this line of reasoning if a raise here were merely competitive, but it isn’t. Since East passed, a direct raise in this situation is invitational, and while we possess the raw values to eke out a raise, North doesn’t know about the worthless spade values, and he'll go on to game on many unsuitable hands.
Action |
Score |
Votes |
%Solvers |
3S |
100 |
10 |
45 |
4D |
90 |
2 |
7 |
Pass |
70 |
2 |
20 |
Other |
50 |
1 |
28 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
-- |
-- |
-- |
1H |
Pass |
1S |
Pass |
2D |
Pass |
3D |
Pass |
??? |
What
is your call as South holding:
S-AQ H-K9765 D-AQ94 C-104
?
This hand brings back the memory of a pair of teammates from my prior life (my Midwestern days). This pair once said, “In team games, don’t ever expect us to play in a making partscore.” Needless to say, we won our share of Sunday team games as well as consolations.
This hand has conflicting values, which could point us in either direction. The pluses are the fitting spade honors, a king more than a minimum opening, and good diamonds now that the suit has been raised. These are offset by the plethora of losers, coupled with the 11-trick minimum we face. Sure, we could be on for 3NT, but given the bidding, it would take a perfect fitter from North to make that contract a good one, i.e., KJxx xx KJxx Kxx or the like. And with that sort of hand, wouldn’t North have tried a 2NT invite instead of 3D?
WALKER: “4D. The hated ‘re-invitation’ -- too much to pass and not quite enough to blast to 5D, so I'll leave it up to partner. 3S would show 3-card support and pinpoint a club singleton, a distortion that will prevent partner from properly evaluating his hand. There's no point in looking for 3NT, as partner almost never has a club stopper on this auction (else he would have bid 2NT).”
I agree with abandoning a 3NT quest, but why not at least leave open the possibility of a spade game? 3S here doesn’t guarantee 3-card support, and I trust partner enough not to go bouncing into 4S without at least a decent 5-bagger.
HARTSMAN: “3S. This conveys my lack of club stopper and spades that are decent enough to play opposite his 5 card suit (Assuming he has 5, which is a big assumption here. - TJD). While I have one more club and one fewer spade than I'm showing, partner knows that I can be stuck for a bid when I don't have a club stopper. It gives partner the best shot of being able to evaluate his cards properly.”
ATHY: “3S. Okay, so partner will expect 3 pieces -- AND a club singleton -- but there's no reason to rule out other strains. There may be a 3NT game lurking about and 4S may even be right.”
I have to admit that if I were tempted to bid (and I was!), 3S would be my choice, simply because it leaves more options open.
WILLIAMS: “Pass. I know we have some points, but what is our source of tricks? Partner doesn't have a club stopper (failure to bid 2NT) and could only bid 3D over 2D.”
Sorry if I keep coming back to the club-stopper issue, but the majority of the Panel and Solvers seemingly follow the adage of my old teammates, throwing caution to the proverbial wind to reach the hallowed ground of the vulnerable game.
HUDSON: “3S. Easiest problem of the set. I must make a further game try (vulnerable at IMPs, though I'm enough of a pig to do it even non-vul. at matchpoints). The hearts are not rebiddable, I have no club stopper, and I do have two very nice spades. Partner may expect three (and a singleton club), but this is probably inconsequential.”
KESSLER: “3S. 4S could easily be the right spot, and this is our most flexible call. We are vulnerable at IMPs, so we need to find the best game.”
Finally, believing that one can eat the cake:
FEILER: “4D. Hopefully, pard wouldn't have put me in this position with good club stoppers. 3D should show around 8-11 points; over 4D we may get the majors back in the game.”
I'm not sure how the majors are ever coming back into this auction, since the 4-level isn’t exactly the place to go fishing for a fit. I told you our post-mortems would be lively.
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% Solvers |
Double |
100 |
7 |
31 |
3NT |
80 |
6 |
38 |
3D |
70 |
2 |
6 |
3H |
60 |
0 |
25 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
-- |
-- |
-- |
1H |
Pass |
1S |
3C |
??? |
What
is your call as South holding:
S-A H-AQ8642 D-AQ5 C-K102
?
A truly ticklish situation, thanks to yet another preempt -- lots of extra values, yet no one call stands out. The panel rejected a heart rebid, as the suit is a little short of the quality required for a rebid. We have no support for partner, no second suit to bid and a dubious trump holding for a double, especially at the given vulnerability. A Hobson’s Choice to be sure, but then our rebid would have been interesting had East passed, would it not? 2NT? A jump shift into a 3-card minor?
On with the issue at hand. Four calls were advanced, three by the panel, so let’s take a look at each.
ATHY: “3D. I'd make this bid at any form of scoring. This is another hand that begs for additional possible strains. Let's see if pard can squeak out 3H (instead of Pass). We'll know what to do next if that happens. And if it goes 5C-5D, maybe we've found the best spot.”
Of all the advancing calls, I dislike this one least. As ATHY implies, it’s flexible, and if North raises diamonds to the 4-level, we can always try 4H hoping for a small doubleton opposite. If North rebids spades, we can try 3NT.
The 3NT bidders seem to be bidding based on the vulnerability:
WALKER: “3NT. The club 10 could be a second stopper if partner has as little as stiff jack, but it's really the third club that talks me into it, since that allows a holdup. We aren't likely to get rich defending 3C doubled.”
KNIEST: “3NT. The preemptor got me again! 3D for the scientists, and a slow 3H for those who like committees. Double, if it's not a support double, is interesting, but I think this hand is more offensive in nature ... until dummy hits.”
I actually had to look up the support-double angle, because I’ve played them at various levels myself. In the newest version of BWS, support doubles extend only to overcalls that don’t exceed 2 of responder’s suit. For those who haven’t played support doubles, they’re very handy in differentiating between 3- and 4-card support for partner’s major-suit response. Of course, you lose virtually all opportunities to swing the axe at indiscreet overcalls, but how often does that happen compared to the raise?
HUDSON: “Double. 3D and 3H aren't forcing; 4C is a strong spade raise; 4H is foolish. I won't bid 3NT with just a single stopper, broken suits, and possibly no entry to my dummy. That leaves the cooperative double, giving partner some input (and perhaps a share of the eventual blame). Maybe we can't make game, in which case down two will be satisfactory.”
Despite comments to the contrary by some of my fellow doublers, a double here is for penalty. Perhaps there is some small degree of “co-operative” in this call, but this is not a balancing “action” double that has been in vogue since before even I started playing bridge. And my "action double" will be even less cooperative if it takes me more than a few seconds to pull the red card from the box. Yes, Tom, I’ve seen my share of committees; trying week-long cases in Federal Court was less stressful for me! Yet who can bid quickly on a hand like this?
FEILER: “3NT. The only negative with 3NT (other than going down 5 again) is missing a 6-2 heart fit. But that might not be too bad if hearts don't break or the opponents have club ruffs available.”
That sounds more like a making a case for the double. If hearts don’t break, where are we getting the tricks for NT? And if EW have club ruffs to boot, then my hand looks a lot better for defense than offense. This is a hand where a crystal ball would be nice, since if we knew that North held the heart king, we wouldn’t hesitate to bid 4H. And if he doesn’t have it, then the odds favor doubling and taking whatever plus score we can manage. Who knows, maybe we’ll be the ones garnering the ruffs.
Finally, we have the words of a couple of guys who’d love to have been defending lots of their own preempts over the past 25 years or so.
KESSLER: “Double. E-W could easily go for 800 in 3C. The only problem is if that is enough. The club 10 is a huge card in hoping to get more than our game.”
WILLIAMS: “Double. Who knows? I have a super hand and a stiff in partner's suit. If you bid 4C, partner will probably think you have some cigar with 3-card spade support. I hope we can beat it 800.”
Believe it or not, I can see 800 clear as day here. Just give North a singleton heart and the pointed-suit kings, and the play goes: spade ace, heart ace, heart ruffed by North, two top diamonds, spade king. That’s six tricks already and when North leads a third spade, that 10 of clubs becomes huge, setting up the eighth trick and the magic +800. Hey, I’m entitled to dream, too, aren’t I?
Everyone have yourself a great summer and pray that our young men and women all come home safe -- and soon.
Thanks to all who sent in answers for this interesting set. Congratulations to Tom Oppenheimer and Bud Hinckley, who were the top solvers for this issue. They're invited to join the panel for June.
I hope you'll all enter the monthly and yearly Solvers Contests by trying the six new problems for June (see below). Please submit your answers by May 15 on the web form or by mail or email to our June moderator:
Tom Kniest, 421 N.
Hanley Road, St. Louis MO 63130 USA
Email: kniest@swbell.net
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Score |
|
Norm Athy, St. Louis |
6C |
4H | 4C | 3H | 3S | 3D | 550 |
Tony Curtis, Chicago |
6C |
Pass | 3H | Pass | 3S | 3NT | 540 |
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL |
4C |
3NT | 3H | Pass | 4D | 3NT | 520 |
Jenni Hartsman, Lawrenceville GA |
6C |
Pass | 5C | 3H | 3S | 3NT | 560 |
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL |
4C |
Pass | 5C | 3H | 3S | DBL | 590 |
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL |
4NT |
4H | 4C | 2NT | 3S | DBL | 540 |
Larry Matheny, Bloomington IL |
6C |
Pass | 3C | 3H | 3S | DBL | 560 |
Manuel Paolo, Lisbon, Portugal |
4C |
Pass | 3H | 3H | 3S | DBL | 590 |
Nancy Popkin, St. Louis | 5S | 4H | 4C | 2S | 5D | 3D | 430 |
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL | 4NT | 4H | 4C | Pass | 3S | 3NT | 520 |
Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL | 4D | 4H | 4C | 3H | 3S | DBL | 560 |
Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL |
4NT |
Pass | 3C | 2S | Pass | DBL | 480 |
Tom Dodd, Boerne TX |
4C |
Pass |
3H |
Pass |
Pass |
DBL |
540 |
Tom Kniest, Clayton MO |
6C |
4H |
3C |
3H |
3S |
3NT |
520 |
Karen Walker, Champaign IL | 4C | 4H | 5C | 3H | 4D | 3NT | 550 |
Solvers Honor Roll (Average Solver score: 467)
Tom Oppenheimer, St. Louis | 590 | Bijoy Anand, Montreal PQ | 530 |
Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN | 580 | Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL | 530 |
Max Banan, Kokomo IN | 560 | Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL | 530 |
Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL | 560 | David Davies, Aberystwyth, Wales | 530 |
Gareth Birdsall, Cambridge UK |
550 |
Adam Miller, Chicago IL | 530 |
John Seng, Champaign IL | 550 | Mason Myers, St. Louis | 520 |
Rich Peer, St. Louis | 540 | Allan Sheppard, St. Louis | 520 |
Tied
with 510: Will Engel, Urbana IL; Don Mathis,
Florissant MO; |
1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
What is your
call as South holding: 2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable
What is your
call as South holding: 3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
What is your
call as South holding: |
4. IMPs, both vulnerable
What is your call as South
holding: 5. IMPs, both vulnerable
What is your
call as South holding: 6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
What is your
call as South holding: |