District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2004

by Scott Merritt, Arlington VA

I am highly caffienated, and living with some very amusing sunburn lines, but here comes my column anyways. I just spent the last few weeks involved in the presidential campaign and we are in the midst of the national conventions, so I was certain that I could spin out a theme from that. Unfortunately, all attempts at bringing light and witty banter to my little corner of the bridge world fell flat. So here we are -- just you, me and seven intriguing bridge hands. Most of you bid only six of them, but with the bidding on one problem hand, I swear that there must have been two different hands, as the panel appeared to be looking at a totally different problem than the solvers. But we'll get there later.

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                              

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3S	100	10	29
1NT	90	3	10
2NT	80	1	6
2S	80	1	18
3NT	70	0	2
Pass	70	0	2
2D	60	0	2
2H	60	0	16
4S	50	1	14
3H	40	0	2

West	North	East	South
--	1C	1H	DBL *
Pass	1S	Pass	???

   * Negative

What is your call as South holding:  QJ54   AQ86   J932   9  ?

Judging from the ten (!) different responses that the Solvers put forth, I would have thought this problem would have given our panel more pause. Yet, this was the most unanimous panel of the set. Let the “obvious” bidders speak:

Nelson: "3S. With possible duplication in the club suit, I only bid 3S. However, the queen of hearts is upgraded. Slow points I tend to devalue."

Kessler:  "3S, If it wasn't matchpoints, I'd bid 4S. I don't think you can bid less then 3S at matchpoints because the field will bid at least that much. If you need to 'shoot' for a good result this is an ideal hand to bid only 2S."

Hartsman:  "3S. At imps, I might be a little more aggressive and bid game since we're red, but here, this is a perfect invite."

Heins:  "3S. While it looks like game might be probable, I don't like the singleton club as much as I would like a single diamond."

I have to admit that I like what these panelists are saying a lot more than I thought I would. They make good points, but they don’t discuss the key issue on this deal, which is partner’s choice of exactly 1S. What is he showing with this minimum bid? With as little as a moderate 14 count and 4 spades, he would likely have jumped to 2S over the double. Thus, his choice of only 1S seems to make him a favorite for either a really drecky hand, or only 3 spades.

Even if partner’s cheap 1S doesn’t deny a hand good enough to make game opposite this hand, only one panelist discussed the option of trying “only" 2S”. Am I just old fashioned, or wouldn't this be a freebid that shows some values? There clearly could be a case for using the 2S bid here as “just noise,” but without a discussion about this, I would imagine that an off-the-shelf partner would treat 2S as a mild invite.

It's true that you do have 10 HCPs, a singleton and a well-placed heart queen of hearts, but this is only 10 points opposite a clearly minimal partner. Also, you have only one card higher than a queen, your singleton is in partner's suit, and the heart length -- added to the lack of noise from lefty -- mean you may even have a heart loser to deal with. I really said a mouthful there; my apologies. Let’s see if the swing voters agree with me.

FEILER:  "2NT. Since I have all the outstanding heart honors, I'm a little worried that partner doesn't have four  spades. If he corrects back to 3S, I'll go on to four."

Our other notrump bidders were thinking along the same lines, but they judged that 1NT was enough:

Engel: "1NT. I've already shown my four spades, and partner may very well have been stuck for a bid with something like  S-KTx  H-xxx  D-KQx C-KJxx. I bid only 1NT rather than 2NT because of the misfit."

Walker:  "1NT. Give partner a choice of contracts. I'm guaranteeing four spades, so if partner has four (and he might not), he'll go back to 2S. There's no reason to catapult the auction to 2NT or 3S, as my rebid here already implies I have more than a minimum (else I would have passed 1S). Plus, if partner had enough for a spade game opposite this soft stuff, he would have jumped to 2S on the last round."

Woohoo! A man and a woman after my own heart. I am just a little envious that they stated what I stated a lot less vocabulariously (eloquently). And from our self-admitted madman:

Dodd:  "4S, Losing trick count says this should be a lock. My only worry is that partner has only three spades (which he could easily hold)."

At least he's one of the few panelists who recognized that partner might have just three spades! As for the Losing Trick Count, it's usually based on trump fits of 8 or 9 cards, not on 7-card trump misfits. And I won't even remind you that partner could have the 8-loser dog that his bidding suggests.

2. IMPs, none vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	12	65
Pass	80	3	8
3S	70	1	16
3H	60	0	12

West	North	East	South
--	1D	DBL	1H
3C	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:   A1063   AQ1054   3   754  ?

Here was another place where I had a “really great” political joke. Unfortunately, I was busy watching the monologue on The Tonight Show, and I realized that there aren’t any “really great” political jokes. So, I yanked it, realizing that it wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture to throw in a dumb joke for cheap laughs.

Now on to the actual meat of this problem. For those who have read this far, and paid any attention at all to what I am saying, the thought, “Hey! He said that problem #1 was the most unanimous problem with 10 panelists choosing the ‘obvious’ 3S call” should be flitting in and out of your conscience. I will defend myself by saying that the panel is clearly more ambivalent about this choice than they were about their 3S call earlier.

Kessler:  "Double. I do not know what else to bid [See! Ambivalence! -- Ed.]. Double gives partner all the room he needs to describe his hand further. If your partner opens light and rebids 3D, you have a chance to get out."

Hartsman:  "Double. If partner passes, that's great. If he bids 3D, I guess ... [See! Ellipses are oozing with ambivalence. -- Ed.] that's where we're playing. But, I'm not selling to 3C with all that I have."

Heins:  "Double. The takeout double makes it less likely [If I commented here, I would be gloating. -- Ed.] we are being jobbed out of a spade fit. I think this hand is a misfit, and we have the balance of the high cards."

Paulo:  "Double. There is no obvious game for our side, as partner holds a weak opening and we have no known fit."

I think they pretty much sum up the doubling position. We have values, they have values, it is only three lousy clubs, and we must have a resting spot somewhere, as it is outside the realm of possibility that 3C is indeed par. So really, this is a question of how risk-averse a bidder you are. I will get to the risk-averse after this slight digression:

Dodd:  "Double. My original thought was to abstain as this is a "book" redouble. Now I'm in a real mess, but this action wouldn't be any easier had I made that 'book' call."

Strite:  "Double. So pard, how do we play a redouble of 1D-Dbl? I guess I gotta double now."

We received several other similar comments, and to be honest, I don’t know what I think. I will take a quite a sailor to navigate his swift boat through these murky waters. Had we redoubled, the whole tenor of the auction would be different. Now 3C would be preemptive. Partner would be more likely to bid 3D if he had a suitable hand. And we would be basically endplayed into bidding 3H here. Problem solved?  I have a feeling that those of you who complained about not redoubling on the first round have evoked the ire of our editor, and we will all see her wrath come next set of problems. Okay, back from my digression and onto those of weak stomachs:

Walker:  "Pass. I'd make a speculative double at matchpoints, but I'm too chicken at IMPs, so I guess I'll just let them run right over me. Raspberries to those who complain that the problem would have been 'solved' by redoubling instead of bidding 1H. You'd be in the same boat you're in now, but without the knowledge that partner lacks a good heart fit." 

See what I mean about that ire? Is game out of the picture on this hand?  Partner’s lack of a call over 3C seems awfully dubious to me, but in the end, I guess this is a bidders' game. No one ever got rich at 50 a trick.

3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4C	100	10	18
5NT	80	1	0
4S	80	1	0
4NT	80	2	14
6NT	70	0	6
4H	60	0	8
6C	60	2	0
P	40	0	55

West	North	East	South
Pass	1C	1S	DBL *
Pass	2S	Pass	3D
Pass	3NT	Pass	???

  * Negative

What is your call as South holding: Q   AK74   KQ983   1054  ?

I had a cute line here about how the responders to this problem must live in John Edwards' “Two Americas”, but in the end, I decided that I couldn’t plug those guys in this highly valuable space for free. So again, I yanked the line and maintained a small sphere of the universe that truly is apolitical.

But in case you remember all the way back to my intro, which I clearly doubt you do, this was the one problem that somehow must have changed between when 55 percent of the Solvers chose to Pass, and when all of the panel headed off to at least a small slam. Since none of the panel passed, I don’t have anyone to lecture to, so I'll just have to explain why Pass must be the wrong call.

There are two principles that are fundamental to all bidding systems everywhere: they are “slow/fast arrival” and the “small box” principle. Both come into play on this hand. First, slow arrival appeared when partner cuebid 2S and then bid 3NT. He had the option of bidding a direct (fast) 3NT over your negative double, but he chose the slower way. Slow/fast arrival says that when you're already in a game-forcing auction (or manufacturing one yourself, as your partner did here), the less you got, the more you bid. In this case, partner is showing that he has more than a 3NT bid, or else he would have gotten to 3NT faster.

More frequently, the slow/fast-arrival principle applies to high-card strength, but in this case, partner is trying to show a distributional asset (most likely long clubs and diamond shortness). In other cases, it can also apply to hand purity -- for example, you would "go slow" to show extra values when you hold good quick tricks and high cards in your long suits.

The key reason why you cannot pass here is where the small-box principle comes in. It states that on every round of bidding, you need to compare the hand that you hold to the ever-shrinking set of hands (the box) that you could possibly have for this bidding. You then bid strongly if you have a maximum for the box you're in; you bid weakly if you have a minimum for the box you're in.

In this auction, you haven't yet limited your strength, so your box of possible hands is quite large (from 6 points up), and you're way past the bottom of it. You have an absolute monster for your bidding so far. You started out with a negative double that could show as little as S-xx  H-KJxx  D-Qxxxx  C-xx (a hand that would be at the minimum end of the box). Partner then cuebid to force you to bid again, and for all he knows so far, you could still have that same 6-point hand.

This is why you must bid at this point, and all of the panelists understand this. Mission accomplished. Now that you've learned all of our secrets, I expect to see all of you passers on the panel in the near future.

Now, on with the discussion. Since we know that we cannot Pass, what should we do?  I'll start with the 4C bidders, and will hint to all that this bid is not Gerber. 

Kessler:  "4C. Partner has described a very good hand, probably with solid clubs. Up to this point, we have shown only the minimum for a negative double, and we have lots more -- diamond and heart controls, a working singleton and a club fit. If partner has AKQxxx of clubs and two aces, we are virtually cold for a grand."

Paulo:  "4C. While making a mild slam trial, I describe my distribution: the first call shows four hearts, and the last bid is like a canape. Now, this raise points out the spade singleton. With a solid club suit and aces, partner may trot along slam. For instance, 7C is cold opposite S-Ax  H-xxx  D-Ax C-AKQxxx."

Walker:  "4C. Partner cuebid and forced to game, and I have at least 6 pts. more than I've promised, so I have to do something. Partner should have a mountain with a big club suit and a spade stopper or two (with a big balanced hand, he wouldn't have cuebid before bidding 3NT). It's tempting to just bid 6NT, but we could have a grand, so maybe the 'slow' show of support will allow partner to Blackwood and bid it."

Strite: "4C, forcing, which patterns me out. I expect at least 6C to be cold, but if partner cuebids 4D, we may reach a grand opposite solid clubs and the pointy aces."

Marshall:  "4C. Partner, without the Spade Queen, is prepared to charge on to 3NT, with likely three heart cards and a singleton diamond. Surely his clubs are solid."

Nelson:  "4S. I think opposite a cuebid we have a possible club slam or more notrumps. My 3D bid could be weak, so I must show I have more values. A bid of 4C could be misinterpreted, so a cuebid should show this hand. If partner bids 4NT, I pass."

Kessler and Paulo both believe that partner is likely to have exactly the same hand. I think that I agree with the simple 4C call. The problem does arise though, about what the ensuing auction will mean. If partner comes back with 4D, what would our 4NT mean? I would have liked Bev's “throw-it-back-to-partner cuebid” approach a lot better if she hadn't said she would then pass 4NT. In my role as capricious ruler of District 8 Bridge Column-dom, I've gotta conclude that 4NT would be Blackwood here.

There is clearly confusion, but the bid-what-you-think-you-can-make crowd isn’t really chiming my bells on this hand: 

Hartsman:  "5NT. I think this should be pick a slam (out of the three possible strains)?  Hopefully, this isn’t just diamonds or hearts. I clearly have a slam hand, though, with partner game-forcing over my negative double." 

Feiler:  "6C. I don't see any way to use Blackwood here. If I bid 4C, the ensuing auctions are likely to be pretty murky. This way partner will have a very exact picture of my distribution and HCPs. I just have to keep my fingers crossed about the controls."

Williams:  "6C. So far, I've bid this hand like I have a 6-count. I bid what I think we can make. I have a huge hand and partner should have no idea I'm this good. 3NT must be based on a long and good club suit."

I don’t like these choices for two reasons: they're taking a grand slam out of the picture, and they're taking notrump  out of the picture. That just reeks of fuzzy math to me. If we lose track of the auction after 4C, 6C or 6NT will always be an option later. Finally, we have the quantitative notrumpers. Or pansies if you prefer the technical term:

Dodd:  "4NT. Again, the book call is a firm 6NT, but I prefer to give North some leeway, as he may have a 'light' game-force opposite my (hardly standard) negative double. (I would have chosen 2D first time around and followed with 3H over any minimum rebid)."

I’m beginning to think that Mr. Dodd should stick with his “book” instead of making these bids of mass destruction. Anyone who believes that partner has less than something  like AJx, Qxx, x, AKQxxx is deluding themselves.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                     

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	8	24
4C	80	2	16
4D	80	4	53
4H	70	0	2
4NT	70	0	2
4S	70	1	2
5D	60	0	2
3NT	50	1	0

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

* Preemptive  ** Responsive (clubs & diam.)

What is your call as South holding:  83  AQJ85  AQ4  1092  ?

All of you readers following my political non-theme will clearly expect me to throw in a Law quip here, but I have to say that I only follow the Law according to Mr. Cohen. This hand is clearly one of those Law hands. I will put the panelists out there, and for those of you following along, let’s see how many of them come  up with some version of "According to The Law ... " or "preempts work".

The good news is that at least these are the best two of the four most popular bidding-problem clichés. They're much more enjoyable than the other two, which are the way overused “most flexible bid” and the even worse “Hamman’s Rule”. Were Mr. Hamman dead, I am sure he would roll over in his grave at the abominations that are perpetrated in his name. As an aside, does anyone know the still-breathing equivalent of rolling over in one’s grave?

I will start with those who go for the throat:

Heins:  "Pass. Lead a trump. Where are their tricks coming from?"

Hartsman:  "Pass. It's matchpoints and they have no tricks. Time to sit this one out."

Walker:  "Pass. There's no reason to jump to the pessimistic (and Law-obsessive) conclusion that they're in the perfect spot just because they have 9, or even 10, trumps. It's matchpoints, they're trying to play at the 3-level, we have at least half the deck, I have great defense (3 quick tricks) and I have doubts that we can make 10 tricks in our 8-trick minor-suit fit (there's the Law again for you). All of that makes the penalty proposition look pretty good. If these are the same opponents who pushed me around on Problem #2, maybe I'll get some revenge here :)"

Paulo:  "Pass. The opponents should have a 9-card spade fit, and we have an 8-card one, in diamonds and/or clubs; according to the Law, there should be 17 total tricks. Considering that my honors seem well placed, I bet that we win more tricks than East/West."

Engel:  "Pass. This one's easy. I can't believe we're making 5 of a minor, and this will usually get 300."

Feiler: "Pass. I'm leading a trump. I have high hopes -- well, some hopes anyway -- of achieving a plus score."

I also chose to pass. This is matchpoints, and being wrong isn’t the end of the world. If Engel and Feiler could get together, maybe that cowardice would be mixed with an appropriate amount of trepidation. Could those who pull the double offer a better argument?

Nelson:  "4D. I am bidding where my values are in case they bid 4S."

Kessler:  "4C. The only other option is to pass -- too rich for me. Also, partner is an unpassed hand and we could be cold for a game while 3S is also cold."

Lambert: "4D. Can we get +300 if I pass? Could +130 or +150 be a good score? Do we have game in a minor (which one)?  Is 4H the miracle spot?  My guess is that +300 is too optimistic, and bidding 4D keeps the other options open. I don't think +100 will get us many matchpoints on this deal."

Plus 100 doesn't sound like a gold mine, but it sure beats minus 50. Were I playing across from myself, I'm sure the 4C and 4D bidders would be making the right choice, although minus 150 surely won’t be that wonderful of a score either. I guess this just comes down to your faith in the long arm of the Law. The passers have the faith, but interestingly enough, our lawyers (DODD and WILLIAMS) don’t!

I also want to commend the panel for a surprisingly paltry smattering of clichés in their analyses. Another big props to you panel!

5. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	8	35
2NT	90	1	18
3C	80	5	33
2D	60	1	6
3NT	50	1	2
2H	40	0	6

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

What is your call as South holding:  A5   KJ972   J9   8763  ?

I felt like this was a nothing problem, but I have been told that I need to blather on about it for a couple column inches. That sure seems apropos with my political themelessness. We have a normal hand. We have a normal auction. Here is the normal blah blah blahs.

Walker:  "2NT. Partner is guaranteeing 4-0-5-4, but doesn't promise any extra values (else I'd bid 3NT). He knocked himself out trying to find our 8-card fit, and although I'm sure 2C is a fine contract, this hand is so perfect for notrump that I'm going to be a matchpoint hog and overrule him."

Dodd:  "Pass. Did anyone really think of raising with this load of junk?  Do you really think we can make game or a higher score in notrump?  I'll settle for the plus 110 or 130 and beat all the advancers who try game or 2NT and go set. If North has anything but a 4-0-5-4 (or maybe 4-0-4-5) mini, I'll be heading to the partnership desk."

Nelson:  "3C. Clearcut rebid in my opinion, since a pass would show less."

Williams: "3C. I have close to a maximum 1NT response, but I'm still not quite sure what partner's count is. 3C gives him a chance to bid 3NT with something extra."

Paulo: "3C. Partner’s distribution is 4-0-5-4 or 4-1-4-4, and his opening is not quite bare. I am not afraid of putting our side down, as partner, with, for example S-QJxx  H-x  D-KQTx  C-AJxx, should pass 1NT. On the other hand, I hope that partner, with extra values, can bid game."

Kessler:  "Pass. It sounds like half of my hand is wasted, and plus scores are usually good at matchpoints.  Points are right for 3C, but the KJ of hearts are probably useless."

Heins:  "Pass. Let the opponents balance."

Engel:  "Pass. Opposite some matchpoint Rule-of-20 openers, this may be high enough."

Strite:  "Pass. Not a real good hand in the context. I'd expect partner to have bid 3C with the extra king we need for game."

As usual, a lot of words, very little substance. I leave this problem in a discussion lockbox; I just won’t touch it. If my opinion is worth anything, which I would never suggest, I think that Strite and Engel are on the right track here. Real problem, no real solution, not even a suggestion of a solution, but lots of words. Maybe this is a political column after all.

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3C	100	8	82
2NT	80	4	10
3NT	70	1	4
4C	60	1	2
3H	60	1	0
5C	50	1	0
2H	40	0	2

West	North	East	South
--	1S	Pass	1NT *
Pass	2C	Pass	???

   * Forcing 1NT    

What is your call as South holding:  64   AQ5   874   AJ763  ?

The general populace didn’t find this hand to be much of a problem. The majority's typical comment was along the lines of:

LAMBERT:  "3C. I can't think of an alternative here. What did I miss?"

You missed the fringe voters who understand the value of supporting third-party bids. Luckily, these panelists  understand the independent options that are often overlooked by the media and typical Solvers.

Half the panel refused to accept politics as usual and headed down a road less traveled, just like half of the voting population refuses to vote. I say, bring on the third-party bids. So in the spirit of upstarts, spoilers and egomaniacs just looking to have their bids heard, I intend to give all the third-party bidders a forum for sharing their platforms. We had five alternative candidates, the most popular being:

Walker:  "2NT. Second choice is a blast to 3NT. So I don't have a diamond stopper; that's a small flaw compared to the misrepresentations of the alternative bids. Two-and-a-half quick tricks and 5-card support is just way too much for a wimpy raise to 3C. 4C is about right on values, but that takes us past 3NT."

Strite:  "2NT. Didn't someone invent a system for this hand?"

Kessler:  "2NT. Too good for 3C and I do not know what else would be a great club raise."

Sure, there's a flaw with 2NT. The 874 of diamonds doesn’t usually stop the suit, but look back to Problem #5 and look at what people want to raise to 3C on. If you would raise on those soft values, then surely you must do more with this hand.

As an aside, had partner opened 1H and your majors were interchanged, how many of you would have bid 2S with this hand? This little-mentioned “impossible raise” would clearly be the correct choice in that case. I am sure that the impossible raise was brought to light by a third-party candidate. As we continue with the little appreciated bids, we come to the bid that Karen flirted with. I guess being all the way out on a limb is too scary for some.

Engel:  "3NT. I can't bid only 2NT with this much and the clubs."

Your hand is pretty darn good. He brings up a good point, and I'm glad his voice hasn’t been drowned out by the overwhelming majority of oppressive 3C bidders. For those who don’t believe in the system that overwhelmingly supports the rich Notrumpers over the poorer Minors, here is your champion:

Feiler:  "4C. I don't have a clue as to what to do with this one. I think we should play 3H as showing this kind of hand, but most partners would take it as a long suit and just under a 2-over-1. So, I'll bid my values and hope 3NT isn't the right spot."

Way to stand up and bid like a man, Kent! It is brash, unapologetic and probably irrationally past the best game, but hey, at least he was heard in the big debate. Freedom of speech, the ability to overstate your position and look like a madman is what makes these bidding quizzes so exhilarating. People should have the right to hear why you want to make the wrong bid in the great debates, and no one could make me believe differently. If you want even less tact, I give you one brash lawyer: 

Williams:  "5C. Once again, I box myself with a poor bid on the first round. I have 2 1/2 quick tricks and I bid 1NT forcing? Sheesh. 3C will not describe this hand. I don't have a diamond stopper, so 3NT is out of the question."

If 4C was an overshoot, I’m a bit stumped as to what to call the leap to 5C. Maybe there was a hanging chad and Hugh meant to pull out the 4C card? Since we didn’t overbid before, we must do it now? Since we don’t have every suit stopped, we can’t play 3NT? I don’t agree with your contentions, but in this democracy, you get to have your say. And since some people are more equal than you, I scored your brashness poorly. At least you were given the opportunity to be wrong inaon open society, instead of being sued off the ballot for your anti-system views by the boring 3C police.

Well, at least everyone has been on the right track so far. Now in the spirit of fairness, I will even present those who missed the boat. Mr. Dodd may have even fallen out of the boat and missed the water, but dammit, his opinion counts too.

Dodd:  "3H, which is the 'book' call in my partnerships. A jump here shows a super fit, a max 1NT and values in the bid suit (then again, my 1S-2H-2S-3H isn't forcing, so perhaps this isn't going to be 'book' ... Oh, well.)"

Your regular partner might understand this, but for all the rest of us, 3H is hearts. Admittedly, it would be a strange call after your previous 1NT rebid, but we see a lot of those here. Since you're supposed to be playing with an unknown but expert player in these quizzes, I can't find it in my heart to give 3H a primo score, but you do get your say. That is, after all, what the column democracy is all about. And you'll get your chance at me in the October column :)

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Congratulations to the top scorers in this issue's Solvers contest -- Matthew Haag, Lisa Bievenue and Paul Soper. They're all invited to join the panel for October.

I hope you'll all try the six new problems for the next issue (see below). Please submit your answers by September 21 on the web form or by email to our October moderator:

 Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 537):

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Will Engel, Freeport IL	1NT	Pass	4C	Pass	Pass	3NT	540
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	2NT	DBL	6C	Pass	3NT	4C	450
Jenni Hartsman, Atlanta GA	3S	DBL	5NT	Pass	2D	3C	540
Mike Heins, Brookville IN	3S	DBL	4NT	Pass	Pass	3C	580
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	3S	DBL	4C	4C	Pass	2NT	560
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN	3S	DBL	4C	4D	3C	3C	560
Finlay Marshall, Edinburgh UK	2S	DBL	4C	4S	Pass	3C	540
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	3S	DBL	4C	4D	Pass	3C	580
Bev Nelson, Ft. Myers FL	3S	DBL	4S	4D	Pass	3C	570
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	3S	DBL	4C	Pass	3C	3C	580
Toby Strite, Warsaw, Poland	3S	DBL	4C	4D	Pass	2NT	560
Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	3S	DBL	6C	Pass	3C	5C	490

How the Staff voted

Tom Dodd, Boerne TX	4S	DBL	4NT	3NT	Pass	3H	440
Tom Kniest, University City MO	3S	3S	4C	4D	3C	3C	530
Scott Merritt, Arlington VA	1NT	Pass	4C	Pass	Pass	2NT	550
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	1NT	Pass	4C	Pass	2NT	2NT	540

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 483)

Matthew Haag, Coventry, England	590	Chris Grande, South Bend IN	540
Lisa Bievenue, Champaign IL	560	Len Vishnevsky,  San Francisco CA	540
Paul Soper, Sierra Vista AZ	560	Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL	540
George Klemic, Bensenville IL	550	Milt Zlatic, St. Louis MO	530
Mike Giacaman, St. Louis MO	540	Glenn Smith, Creve Coeur MO	530
		Michael Spurgeon, Muncie IN	530
Tied with 520:  Warren Bosch, Elgin IL;  Fei Dong, Peoria IL;  Thomas Reece, Louisville KY;       Allan Sheppard, St. Louis;  Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL;  Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL

Solvers Forum -- October 2004 Problems

1. IMPs, both vulnerable                                 West   North     East     South  2H Pass Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: S-J4   H-963   D-AQJ5   C-AKQ10? 2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable    West    North     East     South  -- Pass Pass 1S   2D 3D* 4D ??? * Spade raise, 11+ support pts. What is your call as South holding: S-AQ8654   H-A6   D-5   C-AJ52 ?   3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable   West    North     East     South  -- -- -- 1H 1S 2D Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: S-KQ92   H-K10874   D-AJ95   C-Void ?

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                        West    North     East     South  Pass Pass Pass 1C Pass 1D 1S ??? What is your call as South holding: S-J73   H-A965   D-AQ4   C-AK10 ? 5. IMPs, both vulnerable   West     North    East     South   -- -- 2H Pass Pass 3H* Pass 3S Pass 4D Pass ??? * Asks for stopper What is your call as South holding: S-Q1032   H-65   D-J92   C-KQ106 ? 6. IMPs, both vulnerable  West   North     East     South   Pass Pass Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: S-874   H-Q975   D-AK10976  C-Void ?