District 8 Solvers Forum -- from the December, 1999 issue of the District 8 Advocate

By Tom Kniest, Clayton MO

1.  IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-K4  H-KQ10876  D-A103  C-K6 ?
 

Action	Votes	Score	% Solvers
4NT	7	100	21
Pass	7	100	61
4H	0	80	6
Others	0	80	12

It was hard to get a bad score on this one. Apparently there’s no agreement on exactly what to expect for partner’s 3NT bid. Nor is there any agreement on what 4NT means. 4C can’t really be Gerber here, so maybe 4NT is the only way to ask for aces. Still, most of the panelists who chose 4NT considered it to be quantitative, as did I.

Since this is IMPs, bidding 4H is probably a poor choice. You might be down off the top with ace and a spade ruff followed by a club entry and another ruff. I would expect 3NT (and 4NT) to be claimers. The panel was unanimous in opting for some number of notrump:

KESSLER: “Pass if 3NT is 13-15. I’d bid 4NT if 3NT is 15-17.”

HUDSON: “4NT. I have enough to invite slam.”

WARD: “4NT. My hand is worth a strong notrump with the good 6-card suit and working 10 of diamonds.”

Nate was the only one to comment on the impact of that huge card in your hand – great observation Nate!

DODD: “Pass. It’s tempting to make an invitational raise but it takes a perfect fitter from North to justify slam that is short of the 33 required HCP. Take the sure plus.”

WALKER: “4NT, which has to be key-card Blackwood for hearts. A little pushy, but the heart 10 talks me into it. A quantitative 4NT should be off anytime the NT bidder can have more than a 3-point range. Here, partner could have anything from a great 11 to an ugly 16.”

They certainly pay attention to their 10’s in Champaign. Karen points out that opener needs to have an ace-asking bid available here, and she may have a good point — unless 4C is available as Gerber, which I don’t think it is. From her soulmates:

BIEVENUE: “4NT. It looks like we could have a play for 6H or 6NT, so I just need to know about the aces.”

MATHIS: “4NT. I want to make sure we’re not off two aces.”

There you have it. Nothing was made clear by this discussion, so share this with your partner and at least have your own agreement. My personal suggestion, is to use 4NT as a quantitative raise, 4C as a natural suit, and 4 of the opponents’ suit as key-card Blackwood for opener’s suit.

2.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-AK98743   H-AKJ6  D-K7  C-Void ?
 

Action	Votes	Score	% Solvers
3H	5	100	42
3C	5	100	27
4S	3	70	3
3S	0	60	12
5C	1	50	0
Others	0	50	16

Another tie! There are good arguments to be made for each of the two top vote getters. One thing our panel did agree on is that this was a tough hand to show. And most of our panelists and Solvers were of the mind that this hand was way too strong for a spade rebid. One of the dissenters:

MATHENY: “4S. You must put yourself in the best position if LHO next bids 5C. Alternate bids may leave you at the five level with partner unaware of your long spades.”

But Larry, you’re looking at ‘em yourself! The alternate bids — 3C and 3H — are forcing to game, so you won’t have to worry about the subsequent auction being passed out.  The cuebidders thought they could keep all options open, including diamonds:

HUDSON: “3C. Forcing to game; eliciting a further description from partner.”

KESSLER: “3C. Game force that allows us to find slams in hearts, spades or diamonds. If partner has AQJxxx of diamonds, let’s encourage him to bid them, even over lots of clubs.”

WARD: “3C. On the way to describing a good hand with spades unless partner comes up with 3H, in which case I’ll probably bid too much. This hand is too good for 4S.”

Note that this hand didn’t have a 10 to call attention to. One of the drawbacks of 3C is that partner will almost surely bid 3NT with a stopper as his first duty — and you still won’t know about hearts. Over 3NT, you’ll have to guess which major to bid; whichever one you choose, partner will never guess you’re 7-4.  Our 3H bidders wanted to show a two-suited hand, and some thought they could show extra spades later:

FEILER: “3H. I feel a 5C bid coming on my left, after which I’ll bid 5S if partner doubles, 6S if he passes, and 6C if he bids a red suit. I’d like to rebid spades first, but 3S isn’t forcing.”

BIEVENUE: “3H. I need a forcing bid that doesn’t deny extra spades.”

WALKER: “3H. If this is our fit, someone has to bid the suit, and it probably won’t be partner.”

3H is straightforward. It names your second biddable suit and it doesn’t suggest a real tolerance for diamonds. Partner’s  problem will be what to bid with 1-3 in the majors. If he doesn’t have a club stopper, he’ll probably make a slow raise to 4H. Was he thinking about bidding more, or was he raising with 3 cards and hoping you had 5-carder? Will you now correct to 4S, or do you think you ethically can?

3.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   S-8   H-KQ108   D-AQ743   C-K92 ?
 

Action	Votes	Score	% Solvers
1NT	10	100	55
2D	2	70	24
2C	2	70	3
2H	0	50	12
Others	0	50	6

This problem was pretty much of a consensus. Singleton spade or not, the panel and most Solvers think a 1NT rebid is right on strength. Still, some thought this little lie was too risky:

HUDSON: “2C. This lies about a club and 1NT lies about a spade and 2H lies about points. Lying about majors or hand strength is worse than lying about minors.”

WARD: “2D. A question of style, really. I don’t like rebidding 1NT with a stiff and I see no reason to bid 2C on a 3-card suit. I would have opened this 1H, but I know I am alone there.”

FOGEL: “2D. I’m not sure I see the problem here. It’s wrong to call 1NT with a singleton spade.”

Of course, when we learned this game, we were taught that a 1NT rebid promised a balanced hand with 2-3 cards in partner’s suit. In the real world, though, this isn’t always practical, and this hand is a good example.

A few Solvers chose the immediate reverse to 2H, but this hand just isn’t strong enough. In fact, partner’s 1S response might portend a misfit, so there’s no reason to be aggressive for the moment.
Our 1NT bidders didn’t seem too worried about their choice:

SPEAR: “1NT. Highest scoring and likely correct spot if pard passes. I don’t see the logic of requiring a doubleton spade to rebid 1NT.”

KESSLER: “1NT. Least of evils. You should be able to open these hands 1H to avoid this problem. However, I know Ed Schultz and I are the only ones who would do this.”

Short of playing 4-card majors à la Mark and Ed and Nate, we’re  going to have to resign ourselves to having rebid problems with this common hand type. 1NT has a lot going for it since it keeps all strains in play. The key to the success of the 1NT rebid, though, is on the other side of the table. Partner has to be aware that you’ll have rebid problems with this hand type, and he should be hesitant to rebid a 5-card spade suit in this auction. This panelist puts it best:

FEILER: “1NT. After the verbiage about this kind of hand finally dies down, what it comes down to is that 1NT may well be the right contract and you can’t afford to pass it up.”

4.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-A8754    H-643    D-KJ9   C-J10 ?
 

Action	Votes	Score	% Solvers
Double	10	100	24
2S	2	80	70
Pass	1	60	6
3NT	1	50	0

Here’s another hand that the panel generally agreed on – go for the 200 or more at matchpoints. They mostly agreed on what partner should have.

FOGEL: “Double. I have 3 defensive tricks and partner has something. Why not take a shot? I was going to leave in 1NT doubled also.”

MATHENY: “Double. Partner should have a good hand with hearts.”

WARD: “Double. It’s matchpoints, they’re red, and it’s a strange world if partner has fewer than four hearts.”

BIEVENUE: “Double. Partner’s double shows values and I’m betting on +200 to beat +110 or +140.”

DODD: “Double. Like all good sharks, I smell blood in the water. East’s runout confirms that partner was trapping 1H, and with three defensive tricks, I expect at least 500; more if we have a game. Anyone protecting partner’s ‘balancing’ double by passing or bidding spades needs a refresher course in basic bidding.”

Right. Partner is not making a light takeout double in this non-fitting auction. He’s showing a good hand, and the strong suggestion is that he has at least moderate heart length.

2S was the clear choice of the Solvers, and it got a fairly high score because it figures to make. There’s even a chance it will push them to 3D. However, partner’s double does not promise spades, so there is some risk.

MATHIS: “2S. Partner may have the best hand at the table – good hearts and 3 spades. I doubt we can beat anything two tricks if I double. ”

Don, check the vulnerability again. Even down 1 (+200) should be enough.

MYERS: “2S Partner is just balancing, so a voluntary 2S describes my hand. I don’t think double is right since they didn’t have a heart fit and may be better off in diamonds.”

Finally, we have this middle-of-the-road choice:

SPEAR: “Pass. I’m looking for a plus opposite pard holding 3+ hearts.”

The annoying thing about this pusillanimous bid is that Jack will still probably beat the spade bidders when he sets the opponents two tricks. However, he gets a low score because we like to discourage chickens.

5.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-Q1043    H-A5    D-A3     C-AJ742 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
1NT	100	6	36
2C	80	4	30
Double	60	2	21
Pass	60	1	9
1S	50	1	0
2NT	50	0	0

We have a wide range of options with this awkward hand. It doesn’t fit into any convenient category, so we’re looking for the least of evil choices. This is one for the truly fearless:

DODD: “Double. So it’s a little off shape. Color me blue,as in Blue Team. 1NT is also off shape with mediocre stops and no good source of tricks.”

WARD: “Double, and hope I can survive partner’s response. I won’t be ashamed to put this down if he jumps to 4H, and 2C on that suit deserves to hear Pass-Pass-Double-All pass.”

Four panelists and almost a third of the Solvers opted for the 2C overcall:

BIEVENUE: “2C. Double is not an option with only two hearts. 2C is pseudo-lead directing, takes up space, and shows my values. I’d like the suit to be better, but I do have a 15-count to make up for that shortcoming.”

MYERS: “2C. I think you have to overcall because of the  points. It doesn’t seem right to let yourself be shut out of the bidding. You may get a shot later at suggesting spades.”

SPEAR: “2C. Second choice is pass, hopefully followed by descriptive takeout double for the blacks.”

This panelist was also thinking along those lines:

KESSLER: “Pass. This is an awful 1NT, 2C or 1S overcall. Hopefully I’ll have good enough judgment to know what to do next round.”

Mark, you didn’t point out that it would be an awful double, too. Try and make your future answers as complete as possible.

Double lies about the club 2 being the heart 2. 2C is a one-dimensional bid for a hand that can play in spades and even hearts if partner has length, but a poor hand that precludes him from bidding them over the overcall. Then there’s that lovely spade suit:

HUDSON: “1S. All plausible alternatives have drawbacks.”

MATHIS: “1NT. I’d really bid 1S, but I doubt it would score well here.”

Question for Don’s future partners: When he bids, does he really mean it?

Those spades are ugly, but at least you’re misleading partner at a lower level. So what’s left? Most of the rest of the panel thought 1NT was the least-ugly entrance into the auction:

FOGEL: “1NT. A little off shape, but it gets the strength and stoppers right. I’d also open this hand 1NT.

WALKER: “1NT. I normally don’t object to a lightish 2C over 1D, but this suit is just too ugly, my hand is too good,  and it may take spades out of the auction.”

I like 1NT because it describes the general shape and value of your hand, and most partnerships have pretty well defined auctions over a 1NT overcall. When nothing fits the bill, it all kind of comes down to this:

FEILER: “1NT. Same answer as problem 3.”

6.  IMPs, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-AQ862    H-K93    D-Q854    C-7 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	8	19
4NT	80	5	12
4S	70	0	24
RDBL	60	1	24
Pass	50	0	12
Others	50	0	9

Now here’s a problem with some meat. Look at all the choices above; the “Others" included jumps to 5S and 6S! Because it’s IMPs, I don’t like a redouble here. If you’re lucky enough to make, you’ll gain 6 imps over the sane people playing 3NT or a major-suit game. If you go down 1, you lose 13! Those are not good odds. Only one panelist decided to go for the gusto:

FEILER: “Redouble. Partner should have three diamonds and two spades. Unless the doubler has four trump tricks, we should be able to scare up ten tricks somehow. Slam is beginning to sound doubtful.”

The most precise word in this answer is “scare”. From an IMP odds standpoint, though, redouble is better than passing. If you play 4D doubled in your lousy 4-3 fit, you’re risking 13 IMPs to try to gain 3. If you make, your maximum gain is 3 IMPs when you score 710 against 620, but you’ll lose the same 13 if you go down. And as DODD points out, making 4D doubled or redoubled loses lots of IMPs if you have a making slam elsewhere.

The rest of the panel was pretty sure that West did have those four trump tricks, and they thought it wise to run. Since partner’s pass denied 3-card spade support, one logical choice is to retreat to notrump:

MATHIS: “4NT. What does partner’s pass mean? Was the double lead directing for a ruff and West has a long club suit to run to? If he thinks he could really beat 4D redoubled, he must have six good ones.”

SPEAR: “4NT. Natural. Not often good to play in LHO’s five or six card suit to KJ1098 or AKJ109. This is not matchpoints, and RHO may have long spades with his short diamonds.”

KESSLER: “4NT. This should be to play. Partner didn’t redouble or bid 4S, so I have no slam interest. 4NT can’t be Blackwood on this auction.”

The key  at IMPs is safety. West has (unwisely, perhaps) tipped you off to a bad diamond break, which might suggest other bad breaks. Look for a better spot! Here’s another approach:

MATHENY: “4H. Show the fragment and let partner decide.”

WARD: “4H. Thank you, Mr. West, for doubling. I’d mail it back at matchpoints, but then I’d only have to explain to one violent person why I opted to play A32 opposite Qxxx blued at the four level instead of our 5-3 heart fit. I’ll pass 4S or 4NT.”

WALKER: “4H. Pass and redouble are options only for those with non-homicidal teammates. A redouble is not cooperative; we know partner has three diamonds, so he’s going to pass and you’re always going down with the 5-1 or 6-0 break.”

MYERS: “4H. North’s pass is forcing and implies only two spades. This should imply at most one club and allow partner to choose the contract.”

FOGEL: “4H. Partner knows you don’t have four hearts because you didn’t Stayman.”

HUDSON: “4H. Getting discouraged about slam with partner showing no sign of life and the opponents getting in a potentially fatal lead director. But I might as well bid out my shape on the way to 4S or 4NT.”

Or even play 4H and put LHO on lead. I like 4H here. It completes your pattern — as FOGEL noted, it’s clear this  isn’t a 4-card suit — and it makes partner’s next call easy. If 4S or 4NT is the best spot, you’ll get there, and you might even find a slam. Give partner  S-Kx  H-AQ10xx  D-Axx  C-AKx. That’s a plausible, prime hand on this auction, and you can make 6 on less; exchange the club king for the spade jack and give me a 3-2 trump break with no worse than 4-2 spades.

Thanks to all who sent in solutions to this interesting set. Congratulations to Adam Miller and Dave Wetzel, who topped all Solvers and are invited to join the February panel. Winners of the 1999 Solvers contest will be announced in the next issue. February starts a new year and a new contest, so I hope even more of you will try the new problems.
Avoid the holiday rush; please send your February solutions as soon as possible (by December 22, please) to:
            Tom Dodd,  43265 IH 10W,  Boerne TX   78006      Email:    fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

---

How the Panel Voted   (Panel/Staff Average:  544)

 How the Staff Voted

Solvers Honor Roll   (Solvers’ Average:  474)