|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your call as South holding:
S-Q3
H-4 D-AK865432 C-A6 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can’t help but chuckle at this problem, and the supposed violation of the oft-quoted “Never put down an 8-card suit in dummy.”
I suspect this would have been a bit more difficult, or at least drawn a more divided panel, had the scoring been IMPs. The chances of a vulnerable slam are decent enough to warrant a venture to the 5-level, at least in my opinion. But then I’ve always played with VERY tolerant teammates.
BOSWELL: “5C. This is a cuebid with hearts agreed. I expect a solid heart suit. Since I skipped over spades, it pinpoints the problem.”
Unfortunately, the call also pinpoints the problem for the opponents, which is my main reason for passing (plus the form of scoring). If we direct the lead for EW and North doesn’t have a spade control, 5 may easily be too high. And that’s the matchpoint rule: don’t go fishing for a slam unless the 5-level is certain to be safe.
KNIEST: “Pass. You don’t investigate at the 5-level when it’s your hand, unless there’s safety. There isn’t here. 5C could get a double and they score a club, a heart and a spade. Partner could have Kx, AKxxxxxx, x, xx (or more), but you’ve been preempted. In a 2-over-1 auction, I don’t think it’s right to jump to game with a solid suit and an outside control, so I’m not playing partner for that hand.”
MYERS: “Pass. I read partner’s bid as a semi-solid suit and no interest in anything more than game. I don’t have enough to insist on my own.”
KESSLER: “Pass. Partner probably has solid hearts and only one outside card. This might be enough but probably not. Besides, plus scores at matchpoints are generally good.”
I love that; three different versions of North’s probable holding, yet all come up with the same answer. Ergo, it MUST be right to pass!
ROTTER: “Pass. Slam is possible, but we could have two fast spade losers. Playing 2/1, partner isn’t showing slam interest.”
BIEVENUE: “4NT. The issue is how bad can partner’s hand be. If I consider hands he might have for a 4H call, I can construct one that puts 5H in jeopardy, but I can construct a lot more where 6H is cold or on a finesse.”
The real mystery here is not whether to bid on, but the meaning of North’s jump to game. In the old days, this would have shown considerable playing strength and a near solid (or solid) suit). Not anymore. KNIEST’s example hand is very similar to what you’ll find in most modern books as the standard for a double leap following a 2-over-1 game-forcing response. A non-solid suit, but lots of playing tricks and outside defense, which rules out an opening preempt. Just another case of bids that should be discussed in a practiced partnership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your call as South holding:
S-QJ5 H-A52 D-3 C-AK9863
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This hand is really iffy for a single raise, what with the lack of a 4th trump and the maximum values. I was mildly surprised we didn’t get more protests as to the conditions.
That said, the panel divided along two basic lines. For simplicity, we’ll call them the investigators (3H, 4C) and the bashers (3NT, 4S). 3C is just too much of an underbid here, and risks a pass (South would bid that way if the Ace of Hearts were the Jack).
Spokesman for the investigators:
WALKER: “There’s an inference here that partner has only 3 diamonds, or 4 very weak ones, since with 4-4 and a decent hand, he would have started with 1D. At first, I thought this was close between 3NT and 4S, and probably depended on partner’s diamond strength. After thinking about it for 3 weeks (The director will have a field day with this ruling! TJD), I decided 3H was the best way to pinpoint the diamond weakness and help partner make a more accurate decision. I’ll pass 3NT and raise 3S to 4.”
KESSLER: “3H. Pinpointing shortness in diamonds with a good hand.”
BOSWELL: “4C. Says it all. Shows willingness to play game, but only in a suit contract, shows only 3 spades and suggests an alternative strain.
This is IMP scoring, folks, so this call isn’t as dangerous as bypassing 3NT at matchpoints might be. North has advertised red cards and a game TRY, so it is unlikely he holds a club filler, practically a must to have any chance for 3NT. But I wouldn’t give up on 3NT this readily, since it may be the only making game (if there is one!).
The bashers believe they know where the hand should be played:
MARSHALL: “3NT. This is a matter of style really. I just don’t raise responses with 3 cards. 2NT is strongly forward going, suggesting weak spades. Even if North is 5332 he may have a club holding that will be useful. If he hasn’t, 4S seems doomed. If he is 4333, then NT is the strain.”
WARD: “4S. Assuming North is bidding them up the line, you know he has only 3 diamonds. In fact you know he’s 4-3-3-3. Given that, I think that most hands you construct for partner give 4S a better play than 3NT.”
I’d say this auction typically requests South to evaluate his hand and place the contract. However, South’s hand is hardly the typical one North expects for a single raise. Without some inclination as to North’s distribution of red-suit values, doesn’t it make more sense to investigate here? Just a thought, but then you’ve got three other folks to explain yourself to if your 50/50 guess (that’s what my hand simulator says!) goes awry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your call as South holding:
S-A3 H-Q1074 D-82
C-AQ1054 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another value auction and a choice of do you or don’t you. As predicted, our aggressive panel tended to drive to game, which seems reasonable given the likelihood of a big double fitter.
In BWS, a negative double of 1S requires that doubler hold 4 or more hearts, which explains the downgrade to the pass. The passers who commented emphasized North’s auction as showing fewer than 4 hearts. Sorry, folks, but North is presumed to be an expert who knows the system. BWS requires 4 (or 5 or 6!) hearts for a negative double of 1S, ergo 3C is a game try, not an announcement that North mistook a diamond for a heart or violated a basic system tenet.
The division came about because the 3S bidders wanted to keep even higher aspirations in sight. Amazing, isn’t it? Five panelists can’t wait to put on the brakes, and five are thinking about slam! I love problems like this one.
BIEVENUE: “3S. I’m excited about the double fit and don’t anticipate more than game, but want to let partner know about my spade control just in case she was thinking about slam.”
POPKIN: “3S. If partner just had clubs, he would have bid 2S to show a limit raise or better. Thus, he must have hearts and clubs and is showing the double fit. I have a spade stopper and want to cooperate, so I choose 3S in case he wants to go on in hearts.”
MARSHALL: “4H. Two things are clear. Partner has 4 hearts and 3C is forcing. What is partner’s problem? You might have had only 3 heart cards. You don’t so tell him. You are also fairly minimal so get there fast.
ROTTER: “4H. A minimum, but my distribution, double fit, ace in their suit and the 10’s make me go for it.”
I have a difficult time envisioning a hand that follows North’s bidding to this point that has a decent play for slam. Something like xxx, AKxx, Ax, KJxx is a possible I suppose, but it seems we will have difficulty bidding a slam even if North does have the perfect fitter. No harm in trying, though. Perhaps I just want to get the auction over with and move on to the next problem. I guess I am getting old!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your call as South holding:
S-Q104
H-J84 D-107 C-AK753 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problems 4 and 5 struck me as a sort of sanity check. This hand is very different from the 3343 six-count we saw in February after 3D-X-P-? Here we have decent values and an actual suit.
WARD: “4C. I want partner to keep balancing, so pass and 5C are out.”
KNIEST: “4C. It’s matchpoints and I want to go plus. Partner isn’t barred from showing a long major if he started with a good hand. Sometimes preempts work. Partner shouldn’t play me for a bust on this auction.”
BIEVENUE: “4C. You have good values but partner could easily have a shaky balancing double. You have the dubious 5332 distribution and it’s not going to be easy to play in either a 4-3 major fit or at the five-level.”
But it is easy to play in a 4-3 major fit? Just listen:
MARSHALL: “4D. If partner is bidding on the strength of my pre- sumed7-count, my extra king suggests a play for a major-suit game. 4D is either equal length or a strong hand, but I’ve already passed, so unless I’ve had a transfusion mid-auction, I won’t have a good hand.”
North will be the one in need of a transfusion after he declares. Where is this overwhelming desire to play Moysian fits coming from this month?
If you can’t stomach bidding your longest suit or cuebidding into a 4-3 game, how about this?
MATHENY: “Pass. Hope for a plus.”
I’m just hoping this is a nonsmoking event so partner won’t hurl the ashtray at me. It seems every time I pass one of these takeout doubles, North shows up with something like AKxx, AQxx, A, Qxxx, and we collect a measly penalty that doesn’t even compensate for the game we missed, much less the cold slam. Or worse, West shows up with a couple of aces and we take a zero for minus 470, and partner refuses to balance in the consolation ... assuming he’s still speaking to me.
FEILER: “3H. Yuk, what a hand! I can either underbid by a lot or overbid by a lot. But thinking about the hands partner could have for his balancing double, a fairly solid citizen like KJxx, KQxx, Ax, xxx. doesn’t give much of a play for game, and he could have less.”
You pays your money and you takes your choice. I’m with Kniest; sometimes preempts work, and at pairs it’s usually a good idea to go with the field, at least in the bidding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is your call as South holding:
S-KQ954 H-K10 D-Q973
C-86 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the pass was downgraded because it was against the general action of the panel, which, right or wrong, was to bid something. Frankly, the only excuse I can find for bidding here is that IF East/West are playing support doubles, it may be tough for them to lower the boom on an injudicious overcall. Of course, even if the bidding does follow with 2NT-P-3NT, North might be convinced to lead a spade from xx rather than a diamond from K10xxx. But why quibble? The panel thinks it’s okay to enter into an unlimited auction when the best you can hope for is a partscore.
Most 1S bidders were actually rather glib about their choice.
MATHENY: “1S. Some danger, but there is no reason to believe this hand doesn’t belong to us in a partscore.”
WARD: “1S. Automatic.”
FEILER: “1S. I’m missing the point here. What else would I do?”
How about this?
ROTTER: “Double. I’m a passed hand, partner won’t get excited.”
At least not until your teammates return and he tells them why he wasn’t responsible for the -1100 on your card.
BOSWELL: “Pass. Teammates hate it when you go for 800-1100. Not worth the risk at this point of competing or for the lead. The auction may develop so you can, but maybe not.”
KNIEST: “1S. If this hand is a problem, somebody probably went for his life in 1S doubled. Too bad; passing is not bridge, and the passers are losers in the long run.”
I’m a believer in playing the odds, and the odds here (according to my hand simulator), are too close to call.
I swear I didn’t submit this hand, but a very similar one helped us win the knockouts in Chicago a few years back. At our table in the finals, partner passed on a hand and auction like this one and EW scored up 430. And we picked up 13 IMPs, which was more than our final margin of victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* (splinter for clubs, diamond shortness)
What is your call as South holding:
S-Void
H-AKJ92 D-J65 C-QJ974 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the counterpart to June #1, where South held QJxxxx, Qxx, void, AKxx and had to find a call after 1H-1S-2C. The majority then chose the ubiquitous 4th-suit 2D, despite its drawbacks, while a vociferous minority (including yours truly) plumped for the obvious splinter. So what do we do now after the “obvious” rebid?
Not surprisingly, the majority went with the sensible jump to slam, trusting North to decide if a grand was justified. Holding the example hand, I’d expect North to look at his void, heart queen and club honors and take the plunge. Whoever said scientific bidding replaces judgment didn’t have this sort of hand in mind!
FEILER: “6C. Yes, we may be off both minor aces, but we’re too high to determine that so I’ll worry about making a grand instead of being one down in a small. I think 6C should show a spade void (by inference, since South might Blackwood if his spade control was the ace-TJD) and deny the diamond ace.”
MILLER: “6C. I don’t think I have the tools to look for the grand (with the spade void) since I didn’t see exclusion Blackwood in the BWS system.”
WALKER: “6C. Many pairs (mine included) play that a bid of 4 of a major, in an auction where the suit has previously been bid naturally, is an offer to play there (except in ”obvious" situations, such as when you’ve shown a big fit in the other major). I think 6C gets it all out there — it implies extra club length, a spade void (since you didn’t Blackwood), little diamond wastage and therefore good hearts."
It intrigues me that some panelists avoid 4H out of fear, while others say it’s a cuebid, but choose the jump to slam, trusting partner to work out the details. I play 4H as a cue here because of the firm agreement of clubs as trumps. Even so, I still plump for the descriptive jump to slam, since a cuebidding auction here is likely to become muddled. It usually does when both partners hold so many key values, yet also a lot of danger flags.
A few minority views:
SPEAR: “4NT. 4H is non-forcing, so I’m essentially playing pard for enough for 6C, but giving us a chance for 7 opposite 3 key cards and a void. By the way, how would he show that?”
In standard RKCB, the jump to 6 of the void suit (or the trump suit if the void is higher ranked, as here), shows 1 or 3 keys plus the void. North’s reply here is 5NT, 2 or 4 keys and a void.
MARSHALL: “4H. This auction has suddenly improved my hand. I have now not only got my points, such as they are, in the right places, but I have an ace. If 4D isn’t a mandatory instruction to show your lowest ace, given no waste paper, what is it?”
Normally, that’s how splinter bids work. You either sign off in game or cuebid to investigate slam. This hand is hardly normal, though. POPKIN bid 4H as an offer to play, saying that partner would have Blackwooded if he were interested in slam. That seems a bit extreme at his second turn, and impossible with a diamond void.
MATHENY: “5C. It seems a guess whether to bid 5C or 6C. Does partner hold x, AKxx(x) or x, K10xx(x) in the minors? Since it usually isn’t good to push for close slams at matchpoints, the state of my scorecard would probably dictate my action at the table.”
If you’re that pessimistic, why not bid 4H at matchpoints, and gamble out a possible 5-2 fit? Another rule of matchpoints is that it is not good to play minor-suit games if another contract is at all viable. The last word:
WARD: “6C. At least the form of scoring
makes the bid easier.”
Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Thanks to guest Bill Rotter, and congratulations to Mike Tomlianovich and Midge Beiger, who led all Solvers. They’re both invited to join the October panel.
IOctober. Send your answers as soon as possible (by August 25, please) to:
- How the Panel Voted (Panel/Staff average: 510)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lisa Bievenue, Champaign IL | 4NT | 3NT | 3S | 4C | 1S | 6C | 530 |
| Mark Boswell, Rockford IL | 5C | 4C | Pass | 4C | Pass | 5D | 410 |
| Kent Feiler, Harvard IL | Pass | 3H | 3NT | 3H | 1S | 6C | 530 |
| Mark Kessler, Springfield IL | Pass | 3H | Pass | 4D | 1S | 6C | 500 |
| Finlay Marshall, Edinburgh UK | Pass | 3NT | 4H | 4D | Pass | 4H | 490 |
| Larry Matheny, Bloomington IL | 5C | 3NT | 4H | Pass | 1S | 5C | 470 |
| Mason Myers, St. Louis | Pass | 3H | Pass | Pass | Pass | 6C | 450 |
| Adam Miller, Champaign IL | 6H | 3C | 3H | 4D | DBL | 6C | 430 |
| Nancy Popkin, St. Louis | 5C | 3NT | 3S | 4C | 1S | 4H | 520 |
| Bill Rotter, Granite City IL | Pass | 3C | 4H | 4C | DBL | 5C | 500 |
| Jack Spear, Kansas City MO | Pass | 3H | Pass | 4C | 1S | 4NT | 510 |
| Nate Ward, Champaign IL | Pass | 4S | 3S | 4C | 1S | 6C | 570 |
|
|
|||||||
| Tom Dodd, Boerne TX | Pass | 3H | 4H | 4C | Pass | 6C | 570 |
| Tom Kniest, Clayton MO | Pass | 3NT | 4H | 4C | 1S | 6C | 580 |
| Karen Walker, Champaign IL | Pass | 3H | 3S | 4C | 1S | 6C | 590 |