District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2003
by Scott Merritt, Arlington VA

1.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1C
Pass	1D	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-A   H-K43   D-K965   C-AKQ107 ?

Now that I have made it back to the United States after my sojourn in Zimbabwe, I am ready to tackle the Solvers Forum in a whole new light. I'm unsure of what the light will be, but perhaps my game will now improve, since there are no bars in the bridge clubs here. Sobriety should help my judgment, shouldn’t it?

On this hand, judgment tells me that the right action may depend on whether or not we strictly adhere to up-the-line bidding. In this day and age, wouldn’t partner bid 1NT with a flat, boring minimum?   Today's players would almost rather have a root canal than bid 1D when they hold a major. The fact that partner did respond 1D suggests that he has extra diamond length or, if also has a 4-card major, a hand that's strong enough to invite.

The panel was split into two camps, with this lone dissenter:

Popkin: "2NT. I like to bid the points first, then the shape.”

You are sitting on 19 straight HCPs, but I really feel that the AKQTx must be worth more than the prescribed 9. Nancy may be downgrading the “Acelton”, but 2NT has a simplicity about it that I tend to like.

The mastermind 3NT could also work out, although your hand doesn't come close to what partner will expect for this bid (which is 6 or 7 running clubs and not quite this many high-card points). What won't work well are the Solvers' choices of 3C or 3D, which are not forcing.

Now for the real fireworks, where the rest of the panel split between the bogus jump-shift (2H) and the problematic splinter raise of diamonds (3S). As I am columnist and I think the jump-shift is inferior, I'll start with it.

Williams:  "2H. We can't get into too much trouble jump-shifting into hearts and later supporting diamonds.”

Walker:  "2H. and hope I can communicate some enthusiasm for diamonds later. This hand is way too good for 2NT or even 3NT. A 3S splinter on a stiff ace would be okay if our trump suit were a major, but over a minor, it will talk partner out of bidding 3NT when it's right.”

Lambert: "2H. The splinter misses 3NT on hands like Jxxx, xxx, AQxx, xxx. But I'd bid this only if I thought pard could handle the rest of the convoluted bidding mess. 2NT seems to give up on finding a close slam.”

Kniest:  "2H. Both 4NT (Roman key-card) and 3S are tempting, but both exhibit wishful thinking about partner's hand rather than trying to find out, or let him know what you have. The jump shift is best, followed up by the diamond raise, which implies the stiff spade and promises the strength you hold. If partner bids 2NT over your jump shift, and then 3NT over 3D, you'll know you've reached the right spot. Other rebids by responder leave all slam avenues open.” 

I know that 2H sounds like the “expert standard” bid, but even after all the arguments are made, I still don’t understand what it does. Are we really that excited about our Kxx of hearts? Is it really that much better than our stiff ace of spades?  Yes, 2H certainly leaves 3NT in the picture, but on what hands would we want that? Perchance the 3S bidders will make a better argument:

Kessler: "3S. I know splintering with a stiff ace is taboo, but the alternative of 2H leaves you badly placed to find out more about the diamond suit.”

Nelson: "3S. Tough problem between a 2H rebid or a splinter. The question is: Does this hand want to ask or tell? 2H would be more asking and of course is game-forcing. 3S tells immediately about the diamond support. At one time I would never splinter with a singleton ace, but over the years, I've learned it works just fine. It doesn't take much from partner for 6D.”

Wetzel: "3S. I hate splintering into stiff aces or kings, but everything else is just too wimpy. We've got a decent slam opposite S-xxx  H-xxx  D-AQTx  C-xxx, and once in a while, partner might have a better hand. If partner has spade junk, he can bid 3NT. Second choice: a really sexy 2H call.”

Will the splinter really cause us to miss 3NT? If partner has a weak hand and a spade stopper, he'll probably retreat to notrump whether you bid 2H or 3S. If you bid 3S and he doesn't have a heart stopper, that won't keep him from bidding notrump, either. Just because the 2H bid is “sexy”, to quote Mr. Wetzel (a proud new dad, by the way), I still question its effectiveness and think the support bids rate to work out better. Maybe being sober while I play won’t help after all.

2.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable  

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2D	100	11	40
2H	80	2	32
Pass	80	3	14
2NT	60	0	10

West	North	East	South
--	1D	2C	DBL
RDBL*	Pass	Pass	???

   * (Club raise with 1 of the top 3 honors)

What is your call as South holding:  S-K763   H-Q874   D-53   C-K74 ? 

Maybe being back at a bridge club in the U.S. has made me cocky. The entire overseas crowd was just so humble it made me sick at times. Now that I'm free to re-assume my American pride and arrogance, I'll state unequivocally that it shames me that I have to award 100 points to the 2D call. Read the arguments for yourself and see if they don’t puzzle you as well.

Feiler: "2D. Well, he doesn't have spades, hearts or clubs, so I guess he has diamonds. Most likely something like 3-3-5-2.”

Popkin: "2D. Obviously, partner has long diamonds since he couldn't bid hearts or spades.”

Athy: "2D. I guess Pass would work if 2C fails. But, I've made too many 1D opening bids that wouldn't beat 3C. Partner can still correct to 2 of a major."

Kessler: "2D. We have got to start somewhere; partner can bid if necessary."

Wetzel: "2D. I started to do a lengthy calculation based on the 'Law of Total Tricks', then I realized that the 'Law of Fewer Than 6 Tricks on Defense' made this moot. I think 2H or 2S here should show 5, so this is what's left."

If partner held a major, he would bid it. If he had a 6-card diamond suit (or even a decent 5-carder), he would bid it. If partner is 3-3-5-2, which is surely a favorite (but by no means a certainty), the 4-3 major fit just has to be better than the 5-2 diamond fit. Several panelists suggest that partner can bid over 2D if it's right, but how in the heck will he know?  Couldn’t you hold  S-AKxx  H-xx  D-Kxxx  C-xxx  or S-Kxxx  H-Qxxx  D-Kxx  C-xx?  Two more views before I rant some more:

Vongsvivut: "Pass. Partner denied a 4-card major, so we have no fit. So we'll defend. Hopefully, West will have the club queen instead of the ace."

Hudson: "Pass. A great problem. Partner must be 3-3-5-2 or 33-4-3 to leave me in this spot. I take the pass to suggest defending ('pass to play')."

Walker: "2H, only because if I bid this confidently enough, they might let us out of this mess and compete to 3C. I have to admit, though, that I have greater admiration for the pass-and-pray strategy. I've seen these redouble raises on honor doubleton before, so it's not impossible that partner has three clubs. If partner had 5 strong diamonds, I think he would (should) have bid them over the redouble to take me out of my misery.”

Karen is absolutely correct; this redouble is often times made on honor doubleton. So if the choice is between playing in a 5-2 (or 4-2!) minor fit with the ruffs in the long hand or a 4-3 major fit with ruffs coming in the short hand, how could anyone choose the former? Boy, I’ve been back in the States for barely a month and look how opinionated I've become!

3.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable                   

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	10	50
4D	80	4	12
4S	70	2	36

West	North	East	South
--	--	2H *	Pass
2NT **	3NT	Pass	???

   * (Weak 2-bid)
   * (Ogust; asks for hand & suit quality)

What is your call as South holding:  S-KQ10752  H-64   D-1063   C-72 ?

This is the type of problem where, after the hand, one partner says to the other, "Hey remember that hand 3 and a half years ago where we agreed beyond a shadow of a doubt that some auction like this would mean something?" Then the other partner says "Uh, no," in which case he loses the argument.  Or he says, “Yeah, but that was only in situations where we were playing against LOLs”, or some equally asinine retort. You then have this same discussion five years from now when this auction comes up again.

The point is: who knows what 3NT means here? It all depends on what you and your partner think it should mean -- and, of course, on both of you agreeing on that in advance. For that reason, I wanted to give everyone 100 points and go onto the next problem, but my editor swears there are some interesting points to be made about the various interpretations. So here's a sampling from the panel:

Feiler: "Pass. These out-of-the-blue 3NT bids tend to be gambling, showing a long, solid minor and a stopper. We don't want to play 'slow' contracts like 4S."

Nelson: "4S. 3NT was to play, not takeout, so my 4S bid seems clear-cut."

Strite: "4D. Showing my preference, as requested. Perhaps there will be a debate about what 3NT shows, but I'm at a loss to imagine how anyone could think it was anything but for the minors." 

With three such diverse opinions, it's surprising how many panelists commented that their bids were  "automatic" or "obvious". 

Let's start by focusing on what partner's bids would mean in the direct seat over their weak 2-bid. If he had a really big hand, he would probably start with a double. For the 3NT overcall, most of us would assume he had a hand like Feiler describes above -- a heart stopper, a running suit and perhaps another value or two (or a prayer that you have them) to give him a play for 9 tricks. In that case, correcting to 4S with your hand would be wrong, as partner may have only one (or no) spades and just be playing "chicken" with the opponents.

So now the gist of the quiz is, does the intervening 2NT change the meaning of partner's 3NT overcall? Feiler and the majority of the panel say no, that 3NT still shows a semi-gambling, distributional hand such as S-x  H-Kx  D-Axx C-AKQxxxx. 

Nelson and the other 4S bidders seem to think 3NT was strong and more balanced, promising a few cards in every suit.

Finally, Strite and his disciples contend that with any hand that has enough high-card points to make 3NT, partner would always double 2NT first. Therefore, 3NT can't be natural, so it should be the minors. So what do they do with the running-minor hand?

Kessler: "4D. 3NT is clearly unusual. With two red aces and seven solid clubs, partner could bid 3C (this surely won't be passed out) and then 3NT." 

The argument for 3NT being unusual seems the strongest to me. These days, it's important to have a way to clarify your strength, just in case you have to smoke out one of those near-psychic 2NT bids that are made on a fit and little else.

In the heat of battle, though, I'd never want to try this on partner without a discussion. I know exactly what would happen: I bid 3NT for the minors with my beautiful 6-6 and get doubled. Still not knowing which suit is better, I redouble to wake partner up, but he's still confused and we go for 2800 when we're cold for +920.

4. IMPs, NS vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3C	100	11	49
4C	70	2	8
3NT	70	1	0
1S	60	2	8
2C	60	0	15
Redouble	50	0	10
Pass	40	0	10

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1C
Pass	Pass	DBL	???

What is your call as South holding:  S-9854   H-6   D-A   C-AKQJ754 ?

Our bridge club in Zimbabwe had a full staff to pre-deal the hands, organize the movement, sharpen pencils, make hand records and bring snacks and drinks to the table. As a result, I became accustomed to doing nothing at a bridge game but think about the cards. Now that I'm back to U.S. bridge, I'm finding that all these chores can be quite a distraction -- and I think I'm wasting a lot of brain cells thinking about such things.

This is a situation where I need those brain cells ... and a gin and tonic from the waiter. Knowing your opponents would be very helpful here. This is a true poker hand, for all of you who watched the World Series of Poker that just completed. I and two other panelists were the only real gamblers, playing the semi-bluff: 

Vongsvivut: "4C. The opponents can probably make game in diamonds or hearts, so bid for obstruction. At this vulnerability, 5C might be too high."

That's my choice, too, but here's another route:

Walker:  "3NT. Stoppers, schmoppers. If we don't have enough of them, then let them find the right lead. If nothing else, this should make it a little harder for them to find their 4H game." 

How is that for gumption! When she finally gets the lead, she can take 8 tricks, or perhaps 4 or 5. If 3NT gets doubled, Karen must pull to 4C, so the three of us are probably getting the same result. 

The panel and solvers came up with five other choices at lower levels. These approaches might work if the opponents allow us to declare, but what are the chances of that? I'm pretty sure they're making a game, and this looks like a situation where it's important to use up as much bidding space as you think is safe. 4C (or 3NT, then 4C) allows partner to sacrifice if he thinks he has the right hand. If we happen to go for 500 against their 420, it's only 3 IMPs, and I won't sweat the small stuff.

The other gain from maximum preemption is testing LHO. He may be pushed into bidding something his partner doesn't want to hear. With the initial passes from LHO and partner, it's possible that RHO has a big-double  hand with hearts; if his partner bids 4S in front of him, he'll be the one with the problem. It's an outside shot, but surely worth considering. 

Other panelists decided to forgo the preemption and bring their "second suit" into the picture. I know I always wake up in a cold sweat the night after I bypass a 3 1/3 card major! 

Kniest: "1S. Let's get the boss suit into the auction. If partner has length, or his only strength there, we have a game. I will compete again in clubs if partner can't raise spades."

Popkin: "1S. Just because RHO has made a takeout double does not preclude the possibility that my partner may have 4 or more spades. No number of clubs is going to shut out LHO's hearts, so why not try to find a fit with partner?"

Nancy and Tom make good points. The problem with this strategy is that you are in no way suggesting a sacrifice, and you might not get the opportunity to do so. Or, partner might lead to your spade "suit" on opening lead. On the other hand, if you happen to catch partner with 5+ spades, 4S could be the better sacrifice.

The vast majority of the panelists chose the middling action:

Wetzel: “3C. Hopefully this will gum up the works a little bit for the opponents, who have game in hearts (probably). More seems excessive, and redoubling asks partner to compete, which is just what I don't want."

Dave is right about the redouble. It should show "good suit, good hand, good defensive values", and you're only one-for-three. 

Feiler: "3C. Who knows, we could easily make 3NT and they could easily make 4H (possibly both). 3C is reasonably pre-emptive and gives a partner a reasonable description of my hand, so maybe it will allow him to make a good decision later in the auction."

Nelson:  "3C. Bidding only 2C would allow the enemy to find their heart fit. I bid 3C to block, knowing I will go down one at most. Partner is not likely to have spades with RHO's double. If partner has something like QJ10xxx of spades, oh well, I've had bad results before."

Kessler:  "3C. Shows about what I've got red at IMP's opposite a passing partner.”

The problem here is that 3C doesn’t suggest a sacrifice, either. Unfortunately, the colors also make it hard to get this message to partner, so I think you have to do something more dramatic to get his attention. While 3C is clearly a very sensible approach, I guess I’m just not in a sensible mood.

 5.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable   

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3NT	100	5	6
3H	90	2	25
4D/4H	80	4	30
2H	80	5	28
Double	50	0	10

West	North	East	South
--	1NT	2D *	???
* Natural

Note:  Assume standard methods, without the Lebensohl convention (2NT to begin a heart invitation and/or show or deny stoppers).

What is your call as South holding:   S-93   H-KQ9852   D-Q102   C-J4 ?

One of the joys of being back in the States is that if you insult the President, all that happens is that you lose some record sales. In some other countries, you lose your tongue if you're lucky, your life if today isn’t your day.

Here, I'm hoping the 2H bidders can show some of this good-old-American magnanimity and forgive me for not giving their bid the top score. They tied for the plurality, but I demoted 2H in the scoring because the majority of the panel chose to press onto game with this hand.

In real life, almost anything could be right. Even the best bridge players in bridge regularly get this hand wrong, but let's hear what our panel has to say anyways. I'll start with the pessimists:  

Nelson: "2H. I am de-valuing the diamond queen and taking a passive call. If that queen  were in spades or clubs, I would have bid 3H." 

Athy: "2H. It's close. Getting to 3H playing Lebensohl is risky. Admittedly, you have a 7-loser 8-count, but with 3 possible diamond losers, game is no better than marginal. It's matchpoints, and 2H goes PLUS." 

Kessler: "2H. Exactly why you should have a way to invite. At matchpoints, underbidding has more to gain. Red at IMP's I'm a 3H bidder."

I agree with Mark. The value of playing the Lebensohl 2NT convention comes through loud and clear on this hand. I agree that taking the sure plus score is often the best matchpoint strategy, but I know my field, and my field is bidding game on this hand. They probably have a way to invite, but since we don't, how should we proceed?  

The most direct route is the jump to 4H (or the 4D Texas transfer to hearts). You'd certainly prefer the transfer to put the bidder on lead, but some panelists thought that since we weren’t playing Lebensohl 2NT, we might not be playing Texas transfers, either.

Williams:  "4H. I have 8 HCP and a good 6-card suit. I take my chances. A 2H bid is cowardly." 

Wetzel:  "4D. Could it go AK of diamonds and a ruff?  Sure. I'm guessing it probably won't, though."

I wish I could argue with those guys, but since they are both stronger and meaner than me, I won't. It could also be that they are right. But if you're worried about diamond ruffs -- or the dubious value of that diamond queen -- maybe this approach is better: 

Kniest:  "3NT. Not close. If I have no methods, then I must guess, and I guess to put RHO on lead. Since he is vulnerable, I assume he has diamond values, so my partner probably has the heart ace."

Walker:  "3NT. Here's one time I'm actually glad that we don't have an invitational convention, which would prevent me from making the bid I know must be right. I can construct a lot of hands where 3NT is laydown and 4H is down one or two (on diamond ruffs), but not many where 4H makes but 3NT doesn't."

I believe this is the first time all of the staff members have chosen the same bid -- and that includes some of the past almost-unanimous votes. Even so, this certainly must be the correct bid. Or at least I would hope so; isn’t that why we get the big bucks?  Unfortunately, in the real world, I think this answer may be right:

Strite: "3H. Have I lived long enough to remember what standard methods are without Lebensohl? My Grandma wouldn't pass 3H, so I'm hoping it's forcing. If partner can bid 3NT, it's probably right."

Popkin:  "3H. Choice of games.”

Nancy didn’t even deem this problem to be worth more of a comment than that. This allows partner in on the decision, and if he can't bid 4H or 3NT, he can try 3S. A 3NT rebid by me should show this type of hand.

6.  IMPs, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	8	50
4C	90	6	12
4D	80	2	2
3NT	60	0	22
Pass	20	0	14

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1NT
Pass	2D *	Pass	2H
Pass	3C	Pass	3D**
Pass	3H	Pass	???

  * Transfer to hearts
** Denies 3+ hearts; shows club fit & diamond values

What is your call as South holding:   S-Q65   H-A7   D-AJ65  C-KQ95 ?

My final joy about being in the United States is that I am free to be an idiot with my opinion and write a column that poor suckers everywhere can read if they want to, or totally ignore as the will strikes them. My final opinion is that this auction should be a lot easier than most of the panel is making it.

Partner has shown slam interest with hearts and clubs. I have slam interest with clubs and a good heart holding. Why don’t I tell partner this much with a 4C bid? I have nothing else compelling to say, but I do want to communicate that I'm listening and still interested. I realize I'm just an idiot with a computer, but see if anyone makes any points that sway me from this perch.

Kessler: "4H. Opposite a chunky 5-card heart suit, or any 6-card heart suit, this seems right. If partner can muster a 4S call, we'll bid a slam."

This is the best argument that I could think of, but what if partner thinks he has already made his try? Isn’t this bid a negative when you actually have a positive?

Hudson: "4H. Is partner showing a sixth heart or just keeping the bidding low so I can cuebid a spade control? Assuming I've already shown the diamond ace, I'll now try to show the heart ace. My bid shouldn't be taken as a signoff (although partner may pass). A reasonable alternative is to mark time with 4C."

Rabideau: "4H. I wouldn't argue much with 4C to try reassuring partner about my great support, but couldn't that bid be interpreted as simply ‘waiting’?  So I'll assume partner has good hearts and, knowing about my heart ace, can get us to slam with some appropriate hand, e.g., S-x  H-KQJxx D-Kxx C-Axxx.”

Even the 4H bidders seem to lean toward 4C. Now for the right bid:

Kniest:  "4C. When this came up at the table, I really thought the right call was 4H, showing the heart ace and denying a spade control. I assumed we had agreed on clubs, but partner thought 4H was an offer to play there and passed with  S-Ax  H-KJxxxx  D-x  C-AJxx. Thus, I needed to reiterate my interest in a club slam to assure partner we had a strong trump suit. When I gave this hand to a national expert, he said 4C was right, and it costs nothing. I am nothing if I can't learn, so now I bid 4C."

Walker: "4C, which should communicate that I'm still interested in a club slam but don't have a handy or safe cuebid. A 4H 'cuebid' is not safe, as partner may -- and probably should -- take that as a choice of final contracts. From partner's point of view, we were still looking for the best game on the last round of the bidding, so his 3H should be taken as a natural, length-showing bid, not a cuebid."

Wetzel: "4C. I think it's partner's turn to make a move here."

Upon further review, the 4C bidders really do make the strongest arguments. 4C is certainly free, and now if partner bids 4H, you know it must be right to pass as the spades are a problem. On the other hand, maybe I really am just a jackass with a keyboard and some bandwidth.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. A record number of four Solvers -- David Davies, Steve Hakanson, Bud Hinckley and Manuel Paulo -- tied for the top score with 570, and they're all invited to join the panel for October.

Thanks to our guest panelists for this issue: Robert Lambert and Dave Wetzel. Extra congratulations to Dave and his wife, Michelle, who had their first child, Anya Leigh, on July 24.

I hope you'll all try the six new problems for October (see below). Please submit your answers by September 20 on the web form or by email to our October moderator:

Tom Dodd  -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

 How the panel voted:

How the staff voted:

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 479)

David Davies, Bracknell UK	570	Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL	550
Steve Hakanson, St. Louis	570	Gareth Birdsall, Cambridge UK	540
Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN	570	Tom McGuire, Oakland	540
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	570	Mason Myers,  St. Louis	540
William Harris, Georgetown KY	560	Bob Carteaux, Fort Wayne IN	530
Glenn Smith, Creve Coeur MO	550
Tied with 520:  Will Engel, Urbana IL; Mike Giacaman, St. Louis; Susan Perez, St. Louis; Bill Rotter, Granite City IL; Allan Shephard,  St. Louis; Jim D., Rolling Meadows IL.

Solvers Forum -- October Problems