District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2004

by Tom Dodd, Boerne TX

1. IMPs, none vulnerable                             

West	North	East	South
--	1H	2C	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-AQJ764   H-AKJ3   D-5  C-43

We start off this month with a simple little exercise, or so I thought when I first saw this problem. The panel split into two basic camps; let’s call them the immediate heart supporters, and the slow-goers. While I’m usually a proponent of supporting opener’s suit at the earliest possible time, there seems to be little urgency in the current problem. South can always take control of the auction next time around and we might learn something useful in the process.

WERTHEIMER: “2S. Why crowd the bidding? Give partner the opportunity to bid 2NT or something at the 3-level to better describe his hand. I might end up bidding 5H asking about clubs.”

One panelist didn’t waste any time on that last idea:

KNIEST: “5H. Impossible problem, but I assume partner has an opening bid, so I just ask him for second-round control of clubs. Yes, we may have a grand, but if RKC finds us missing an ace, then how can you bid the small slam with two small clubs?”

That would be fine if my only concern were club controls, but in BWS or any other system, possession of an ace is not a requirement to open the bidding. Do you really want to put this dummy down after North carries on to slam with something like  Kx  Q10xxx  KQxx  Kx  or dozens of other aceless opening bids like this? 

WALKER: “4D. Splinter, then try to focus on the need for a club control. If partner bids the expected 4H, I’ll cue 4S and hope to hear 5C. The problem with 2S is that it should never be your trump suit (lead going through partner’s possible club king) and you’ll never be able to convince partner you have such good hearts.”

MERRITT: “4D. I want partner to keep anything he might have in clubs protected. Showing my spades would make me declarer. I support with 100 honor support."

A kinder director would change your call to 2S, since you don’t have 100 honors. The main reason I don’t like this approach is that it puts all your eggs in the proverbial one basket. While a spade contract is likely not preferred for the reasons stated above, we may easily be better off in notrump, especially if North has spade support and x-high hearts, which is not beyond the realm of probability here.

Further, concealing the true nature of your hand to “position” the hand for North when you could have involved him in the bidding process is not exactly the best way to promote partnership harmony. It's likely as not to draw a comment like one I’ve heard many times over the years (mainly from opponents, thankfully!): “Why can’t you just bid the cards you were dealt?”

PAULO: “3C. This cuebid sets the trump suit and the auction will become easy; I hope it gives partner some enthusiasm, as with a poor suit in a hand like Kx Qxxxx Axx Axx, it’s hard to conceive that we can make 7NT.”

The cuebid at least keeps the bidding low, and is not nearly as dangerous as it seems, since it does not promise a club control.  But never mentioning that spade suit at a low level practically guarantees that North will never envision the trick-taking potential of the combined hands.

BOHACEK: “2S. Showing strength and suit, will have time to support hearts.”

ATHY: “2S. Seems a bit overly cautious to concern myself with a bid that guarantees a trump fit at equal vulnerability, but I could be wrong. Introducing the good suit first will tell partner where I live when I show the fit.”

How true indeed. North may even realize that his spade king and minor suit controls are golden, even with the lousy heart quality. Since you have little to go on this early in the auction, shouldn’t North be allowed the opportunity to describe his hand at least once more before South wrests control of the auction?  In closing:

KESSLER (and similarly HUDSON): “2S. I assume a unanimous vote.”

2.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	11	63
5C	80	5	27
4S	80	2	10

West	North	East	South
--	1H	Pass	2H
Pass	2S	Pass	3H
Pass	4D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-J654   H-J53   D-J106   C-A85 ?

What is North doing here?  No 2C opener and now a slam try after I eked out a raise and then refused a game try? A majority of the panel didn’t think much of the club ace, despite all the warning signals:

PAULO: “4H. I must be consistent with my (bad) bidding. I would have bid 3S as partner may hold  AKQx  AKQxxx  x  xx. Then we have a spade slam, but not a heart one.”

MERRITT: “4H. Partner has asked me a question, so I do the honest thing and lie! I just can’t picture a hand that didn’t open 2C that would make slam a good bet here.”

Other 4H chickens, er, bidders, actually thought North was showing a club void for his auction!

STRITE: “4H. My ace of clubs looks worse with each round of bidding. If partner has big majors he should bid 3S, not 4D, to allow me a cheap cuebid. Can’t imagine slam opposite a more balanced hand that can’t open 2C.”

MARSHALL (and similarly KESSLER): “4H. So he has a very good hand, but if he hasn’t a void in clubs why is he telling me he has? If what I have in the other suits is enough for him, he wouldn’t have invited me to share the decision.”

Those who chose not to sign off (which would have been the correct call with a better HCP hand like Jxx Jxx Kxx KQxx) appreciated the potential of the ace of clubs, but perhaps more importantly, the value of partnership bidding.

WILLIAMS:  “5C. I told partner once I had a bad hand. He didn’t seem to care. In the interests of partnership harmony, I show my ace.”

FEILER:  “5C. Why are you looking at me that way? I already showed a bad single raise, and I’ve got an ace and a couple of jacks that might be good.”

HUDSON:  “4S. Why didn’t North open 2C?  He must be very distributional without the high cards for a 2C opening, something like AKQx AKxxxxx void xx. By bidding beyond 4H, I imply a club control. I want to suggest playing spades, which might be worth a trick.”

As KNIEST suggested, I don’t think we’ll ever play this hand in spades after not raising immediately. My original thought as to a likely North hand was something like  KQ109x  AKQxxx  Void  Kx . With Hudson’s example hand, if I forgot to open 2C (and with a 2-loser hand and 6 controls, I wouldn’t chance a 1H opener), my call over 2H would be an old-fashioned 5C asking for club control.

WERTHEIMER: “5C. I already indicated I have garbage, and partner is asking about the club ace. If 4D is natural rather than a cuebid, I guess I can order a third (or would it be the fourth?) drink.”

Point me to the bar and I’ll join you.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5D	100	6	9
5S	90	3	16
4NT	90	2	4
4S	80	4	54
5NT	80	1	2
6S	70	2	7
Other	50	0	7

3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable   

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1C
4D	DBL *	Pass	???

 * Competitive (values for a negative double, but does not promise 4-4 in unbid suits) 

What is your call as South holding: S-KJ1054   H-Void   D-AQ  C-KQ10943 ?    

Preempts were designed to cause headaches, and this baby is a full-blown migraine. We could be on for a grand (Axxx  Jxxx  xx  Axx) or need breaks to make game (Qx  KQxxx  Kxx  xxx) and a lot in between, and we have to make the decision right now. I therefore discounted any comments that sounded at all confident about prospects.

NELSON:  “5D. Cuebidding first to show the powerhouse hand then over 5H I am bidding 5S to show clubs and spades. Partner should read I have a two-suiter.”

RABIDEAU:  “5D. I originally wanted to bid 5S but that could easily endplay a partner holding good cards but with two small diamonds. Now we can bid 5S over partner’s probably 5H bid. I’m hoping he’s more thoughtful than I and will ask himself why I stopped off to cuebid if I have a two-suiter.”

Thoughtful indeed, since North would have to assume your later 5S was an effort to introduce a new suit at the 5-level, particularly spades. If you want partner focusing on black-suit values, why not take the bull by the horns?

BOHACEK: “5S. Hopefully partner will bid a slam with some useful cards in my suits.”

WALKER: “5S. Since partner didn’t promise 4 spades, he should figure that I’m probably 6-5. This is forcing to 6C or 6S (5S can’t be passed since I was ready to play 6C if partner didn’t have spade support).”

Or if you’re supremely confident, why not just sneak up behind the bull and kick him in the (oh, I can’t say that word here).

FEILER: “6S. I can’t think of an auction that would tell me whether we belong in 4S or 7S or somewhere in-between. Perhaps this auction will draw a 7D bid.”

STRITE: “5NT. I don’t find any level spade bid acceptable. 5NT pick-a-slam keeps both suits alive and insures I declare (not if North bids 6S -- TJD). If I can correct 6H to 6S, partner may even find a raise with aces in both my suits. The downside is having to pass pard’s 6C with a high probability the higher-scoring 6S is on.”

And I thought my glasses had rosy tints!  Toby’s partners must always hold aces and no “wasted” values when making competitive doubles. Mine always seem to hold the “wrong” ace when I lack three of them.

WILLIAMS:  4NT. Does partner have AQ of spades and A of clubs or does he have worthless heart cards? That is the question. I don’t know the answer, so I bid what I think I can make.”

For those of you wondering out there, 4NT should be natural in this sequence, though I wouldn’t consider bidding it, at least not with a good 5-bagger in spades to suggest as a possible trump suit. I downgraded 4S because of the panel majority’s decision to go forward, but I have a sneaking suspicion it will be the winning bid here. Partner doesn’t have to pass, and if he bids on, I can at least bid a slam with some confidence that it has a chance.

PAULO: “4S. My hand is strong, for certain, but three key cards are lacking. If partner holds lost values in the heart suit, then we have just found our best contract. Else, with black values, partner should go on.”

I’m hopeful too, but not overly so. Hands like these are ones where I’m usually happy to land on two feet and let the field go crazy. Unless Don and I are partnering and we’ve both had that fourth drink.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2S	100	8	17
2C	90	1	2
2D	70	2	12
1NT, 2NT	70	1	17
Double	50	6	43

4. IMPs, both vulnerable    

West	North	East	South
Pass	1C	1S	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-J54   H-AK2   D-10862   C-KJ10 ?

This sort of hand still appears regularly in The Bridge World Master Solvers Club (MSC). After that forum adopted negative doubles in 1984, the system required a “firm” holding of at least 4 cards in the unbid major. I remember one prime example where South held 4-3-3-3 distribution with 7xxx of spades and a 13 count and had to find a call after 1C-1S-?

In the MSC, panelists who decided to violate the system were dealt with harshly, on many occasions receiving the minimum 10-point score even on these type hands. Perhaps it was the principle of the thing that so infuriated MSC directors. After all, if the system you’re playing says you must have 4+ hearts to make a negative double of 1S, then you CANNOT negative double with only 3. Period.

Especially here where you have a good hand. Opposite a decent opening bid, there rates to be a vulnerable game on for North-South. Do you really want to take -200 for 4H (hearts never split 3-3 when you bid this way, believe me I’ve seen it!) back to your teammates when you were on for 3NT or 5C (or even had a play for 6C opposite  x  Qxxx  AK  Axxxxx)? 

Negative doubling here to show 4 hearts (which you do not hold) is akin to bidding 2D in response to Stayman because you don’t like your 8-high 4-card heart suit, or bidding 5C in response to Blackwood when you hold an ace. True, this is a difficult hand to bid, but then we don’t get too many gimmees in this forum, do we?

Do any of these comments inspire confidence?  More like a wing and a prayer:

STRITE:  “Double. Do something to make me look intelligent, pard.”

MERRITT:  “Double. I must bid and double seems a better shot than 2NT.”

ATHY:  “Double. I’m not particularly happy about it, but if any hand ever calls for it, this is it. Prior to negative doubles, playing 3-3 fits in the majors was uncommon.”

The majority gritted their teeth and eschewed the negative double, hoping to land on their feet, but at the same time knowing they hadn’t done something to pull the wool over North’s eyes.

KNIEST: “2S. Begging partner to bid NT.”

MARSHALL “ 2C. There is no guarantee we have enough for 3NT even if we do have a stop. This is certainly not an initial overbid, so I can take part in the future auction with no concerns ... if there is a future auction!”

FEILER: “2S. OK so I’m short a club, but that’s better than being short a heart or short a stopper.”

NELSON: “2D. Making a forcing bid allows partner to describe his hand. I will follow with a cuebid over 3C; over 2NT I bid 3NT. The main thing is to deny 4 hearts.”

But what is your plan if partner raises? Especially if you get a spade raise on your left?  Another blow to the negative doublers, if it goes 2S-Pass-Pass back to South, what’s next?  At least the cuebid, which is a one-round and not a game force, takes away West’s opportunity to make a nuisance raise.

WALKER: “2S. Ugly distribution, but with 2.5 quick tricks and 3 honors in partner’s suit, I really can’t justify an  underbid, especially at IMPs. The cuebid implies 4-card support, but it seems the best of a bad lot of alternatives. Negative double or 2D (yikes!) will lead to awkward auctions, and NT bids may get the contract played from the wrong side (Opposite Ax)."

It’s a little early in the game to worry about “right-siding” 3NT. Maybe next time around, after North says something useful (after a pained silence perhaps, since the auction figures to be a tough one for both of us!), we’ll be able to place the contract. Or perhaps EW will bid some more and get into trouble.

I secretly admired this call, but couldn’t bring myself to bid it (maybe after a 5th drink?)

WILLIAMS: “2NT. Shows 8-11 in competition (actually BWS says 11-12. -- TJD) and a spade stopper. Well, one out of two isn’t bad. Negative double can easily lead to disaster. A good partner will have some sort of spade help for me.”

I love it how “good” partners always hold the right cards when I take a flyer.

5. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4C	100	7	7
3NT	90	7	67
5D	80	3	5
4D	70	1	19

West	North	East	South
--	1D	Pass	1H
Pass	2D	Pass	3D
Pass	3S	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-5   H-A982   D-J104   C-K10843 ?

This hand looks suspiciously like the converse to problem 3 from the last issue. In that problem, partner held S-Jxx  H-K  D-AKxxxx  C-Axx.

MERRITT: “4C. Partner wants to know more about my hand, and I have clubs. 3S is still so nebulous as to be almost unfair. Partner has denied having spades with his 2D rebid, so maybe 5D might have a play. I am going to leave the last call of the auction up to partner.”

I’m not sure about 3S being nebulous here. It definitely does not show a previously unbid spade suit, but shouldn’t North hold spade values for this auction, and club weakness, in an effort to reach 3NT?

STRITE: “3NT. For now, pard is asking me to bid 3NT with a club stopper.”

HUDSON: “3NT. I’m taking 3S as showing strength in spades and concern about clubs. Partner’s hand: AJ10 Qx AKxxxx 9x.”

Are you absolutely sure about that spade 10? Even then, 3NT looks awfully risky white at IMPs. If you don’t get a 2-2 diamond break, you’re very likely going down, while 5D still has a decent chance even if you find out there's a diamond loser.

So what would partner bid if he held club strength and had concern about spades (the hand he actually held)? The auction didn't give him enough room below 3NT to pinpoint his exact weakness, so all we know is that he has a problem for notrump.

WERTHEIMER suggested that a 4C call here by South should infer spade shortness. I agree, but then again, I was one of the panel majority last month who bashed 3NT with opener's hand after 1D-1H-2D-3D-? Now I wonder if I’d have pulled 3NT with this South hand as the counterpart. So perhaps this is a second chance for us to redeem ourselves. From a fellow basher from last month:

KNIEST: “5D. Sorry, I know the hand. (If only we could know this at the table, eh. -- TJD)  Regardless of the meaning of 3S, I have an acceptance of the game try. Pard’s hand is limited by his 2D bid, so my choice is dictated by shape. Without the stiff spade, I don’t really have an invitational hand, so I go with my best features -- shape and fit.”

This would be a (hypothetically?) easier problem at matchpoints, where you could simply evoke Hamman’s Rule and trot out 3NT, but at IMPs, the proposition is to reach the safest game, assuming there is one. I do not share the pessimism of:

MARSHALL: “4D. I bid 3D just to make life hard for the opponents. Partner has bid on assuming I had bid constructively. Well, I didn’t, so let’s not make too many undertricks at 3NT. Maybe 4D will go off, but it shouldn’t go down more than one trick, which is more than I can forecast for 3NT."

I don’t know about you, but my 3D was constructive, especially in BWS where partner tends to have 6+ diamonds for the minor-suit rebid. Game contracts at white vulnerability are statistically “sound” if they are about 50% to make. Perhaps here’s the best reason not to trot out an “automatic” 3NT:

FEILER: “4C. I can come up with hands that make 3NT and go down in 5D, and ones that make 5D and go down in 3NT. The only difference is that the ones that go down in 3NT usually go down a bunch, and the ones that go down in 5D, make 4D.”

Now I know I need a fourth drink, because that is actually beginning to make sense.

6. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	11	62
DBL	90	6	36
3C, 3H	90	1	2

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

What is your call as South holding:  S-10543   H-AK82   D-K  C-AKQJ ?

I've never liked revisiting hands from the previous issue (this beauty was #6 from the last column). Seeing the same problem a round later looks too much like sour grapes for someone who got a low score and wants to get back at the panel. But I figured, what the heck, this auction was uncomfortable last month, so what’s a little more discomfort.

Let the critics of South’s first pass (which scored 100 last month) think they’ve been vindicated. I’ll just point out that last month, the conditions of contest were matchpoints, both red, which would make South’s current predicament a little easier. The conditions were supposed to be the same for this month's version, but the web form designated IMPs, not matchpoints, so most of us probably thought this was team scoring. Going for a telephone number when North holds a Yarborough and long diamonds isn’t nearly as painful at matchpoints.

STRITE: “Double. I doubled 1NT in the last Solvers Forum and scored 80 opposite the passers. Now I want a positive score adjustment since I sure wish I’d doubled.”

I’ll speak to the Upgrade Department, but don’t hold your breath. If the conditions of contest were the same, maybe ...

Let’s hear from a couple of panelists who didn’t have prior knowledge of last month's problem:

MARSHALL: “Double. Intending to bid 3NT if partner bids 3D. If he doesn’t know now that I have 4 heart cards, he will after I bid 3NT, for why else would I have doubled first?”

But would you have passed on the first go-around?

WERTHEIMER: “Pass. I would rather defend with an expected +100 than for example, double or bid something else where I would be looking at a minus zip code.”

I guess we could start calling 4-figure penalties zip codes these days, what the “new” nine-digit numbers.

PAULO: “Pass. This second pass, with 20 HCPs, may be a Guinness record. Nevertheless, partner should have a Yarborough, and I don’t intend to change a score from -110 (to -170) into -200.”

At IMPs though, -200 isn’t that big a deal unless EW weren’t making 2S. I’ve a feeling that many thought the conditions were the same as last issue’s for this problem. And to be completely honest, if last month’s #6 had been at IMPs, I would have doubled at South’s first call for two reasons. First, from a defensive side, it’s harder for the opponents to double at the two-level should we be in trouble here. And at the 3-level, you can bet if you have to pull 3D doubled, then 3H will get whacked as well. And second, missing a red game isn’t something I often do, at least not on purpose. An initial double will at least alert North to the fact that I have something should the hands fit reasonably well.

NELSON: “Double. Who has the diamonds? Partner or RHO?  I cannot be afraid of the dark; I am a bidder. I double,  and if partner bids diamonds, I bid 3H. I think we can handle this one (I HOPE).” 

It might be difficult for the opponents to double missing so many controls, but if your body language at the table mirrors your hesitant answer, perhaps a table-feel issue would come up here. When making a call like this, do it confidently, and maybe EW won’t double even if they do have you fixed in the gun sights.

Parting shots:

WALKER: “Pass. Get fixed, stay fixed. Yes, partner could have a stiff spade and 5 or 6 hearts. More likely, he could be 2-3-5-3 and we'll have nowhere to go.”

ATHY: “Double. I’m just not going to pass. Partner may not bid 3D and if all he can find to do over 3H is bid 4D, he should have 6 (And I doubt he’ll try 4D after East has hammered 3D. -- TJD). It’s comforting to know that the result is never worse than 50 points in this game -- the score at the table could be much worse.”

WILLIAMS: “Pass and take my plus 200 or 300. Any other bid invites disaster. People who bid on this auction are violating a rule told to me many years ago by Paul Soloway: Never let your opponents go set when you can.”

A rule to live by if ever there was one. See you next time around. 

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Congratulations to the winners of the April Solvers contest -- Dean Pokorny and Len Vishnevsky. They're invited to join the panel for June.

Congratulations to Manuel Paulo of Portugal and Robert Lambert of Warsaw IN, who won the 2003 Solvers Contest and are joining the panel for 2004. A list of the top runners-up is here.

The 2004 contest is underway, so I hope you'll all join in and try the six new problems for June (see below). We have four problem sets left for 2004 and your final score is based on your best three scores, so there's still plenty of time to enter the annual contest. Please submit your answers by May 15 on the web form or by email to our June moderator:

 Tom Kniest -- kniest@swbell.net

How the Panel voted   (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 532):

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Norm Athy, St. Louis	2S	4H	5D	Double	5D	Double	520
Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb, Croatia	2S	4H	5S	2S	3NT	Pass	580
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	3C	5C	6S	2S	4C	Pass	520
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	2S	4S	6S	2S	3NT	Pass	540
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN	4D	4H	4NT	Double	4C	Pass	520
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	2S	4H	4S	Double	3NT	Double	510
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	2S	4H	5D	2S	3NT	Pass	590
Finlay Marshall, Edinburgh, Scotland	3S	4H	5S	2C	4D	Double	500
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	2S	4H	5D	2D	3NT	Double	550
Manuel Paolo, Lisbon Portugal	3C	4H	4S	Double	4C	Pass	530
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne Ontario	4D	4H	5D	2D	4C	3C	540
Toby Strite, Warsaw, Poland	4D	4H	5NT	Double	3NT	Double	490
Don Wertheimer, South Bend IN	2S	5C	5D	2S	4C	Pass	580
Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	3C	5C	4NT	2NT	3NT	Pass	500

How the Staff voted:

Tom Dodd, Boerne TX	2S	5C	4S	2S	4C	Pass	550
Tom Kniest, University City MO	5H	5C	4S	2S	5D	Double	500
Scott Merritt, Arlington VA	4D	4H	5D	Double	4C	Pass	530
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	4D	4S	5S	2S	5D	Pass	530

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 499)

Dean Pokorny, Zagreb, Croatia	580	Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL	550
Len Vishnevsky, San Francisco	570	Glenn Smith, Creve Coeuer MO	550
Mike Giacaman, St.  Louis	560	Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL	540
Wally Hendricks, Champaign IL	550	Steve Babin, Normal IL	540
Tied with 530:  Leroy Boser, Elkhart IN; Chick Fyffe, St. Louis; David Melin, LaCrosse WI;        Oyvind Tafjord, Champaign IL; Steve White, Broomall PA

Solvers Forum -- June 2004 Problems