District 8 Solvers Forum -- from the February, 2000 issue of the District 8 Advocate

By Tom Dodd, Boerne TX

1. IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-1082    H-QJ      D-Q8    C-AJ7643 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
2C	100	9	63
1NT	70	4	13
RDBL	50	1	10
3C	40	1	7
Pass	30	0	3

Nice to see an oldie but goodie as our first problem. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

FEILER: “Redouble. 2C is non- forcing and not even  invitational. I’m happy with this anyway. If partner doubles 1H, I’ll sit. If not,  I’ll bid 2C.”

A similar hand was dealt in a long-ago World Championship. At one table, South counted his points, redoubled and lost 4 IMPs when  forced into a Hobson’s choice at the 4-level. The panel and solvers rejected a redouble, splitting into 2 camps. The minority:

WALKER: “1NT. Too soft for redouble and too good for 2C, which could be a 5-count. This is the only bid that shows moderate values. If partner has anything close to a game  try, we want to encourage him to bid on."

But with so many losers, isn’t the real issue whether North fits clubs? Without a fit, how can we possibly hope to score up a game?  Not as concerned about game, but in competing:

KESSLER:  “1NT. When in doubt, bid NT (if I followed that advice, I’d bid NT every chance I got!- TJD). If we play here, that’s fine.  If not we should be well placed for further bids.”

This call may allow us to compete later in clubs, but again,the loser count and probable misfit point to getting the clubs off your chest now, rather than  at the 3-level (or higher).

1NT is OK on values, but everything else about it is “wrong”— no stoppers, a weak suit opposite likely shortness, and anti-positional to boot. Why do I want the opening lead coming through North? The majority sensibly chose the where-you-live call:

MILLER: “2C. The only good thing here is the 6^th club. With weak majors, I don’t see a point in redouble. If NT is possible, North should declare.”

SPEAR: “2C. This hand is not so hot without a fit, but I’ll double 2H or 2S and hope pard can do something.”

I expected a near-unanimous vote for this simple, safe bid. Even old- fashioned Goren taught us to subtract points for unprotected honors. We hear so much these days about “the Law” that at times we forget about Losing Trick Count. This hand is near maximum (8.5 losers), suggesting caution. Should we even compete to 3C if EW try 2H or 2S? I have a feeling this theme has only just begun.

2.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:      S-KQ654     H-6    D-K7    C-AQJ96 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
3D	100	6	15
3C	90	5	50
Pass	70	4	32

If nothing else, the forcing 1NT has given us a wealth of bidding-forum problems. Some might even call it job security. The problems are more challenging than before, when opener’s 2C or 2D rebid  showed a real suit. The ambiguity of this “modern” approach has advantages, but it’s nots perfect.

The pass was demoted here since the majority chose to move forward. For the milquetoasts ... er, the plus-
scores-at-matchpoints crowd:

SPEAR: “Pass. Bidding an ambitious 3D will probably lead to an over-ambitious 3NT.”

WETZEL: “Pass. Partner likely has a stiff spade, so my KQ aren’t looking too good. I don’t think the chances of game are high enough to warrant the 3-level. 3C deserves to get you into your 5-2 fit instead of your 6-2.”

Rebidding the clubs does have the drawback of playing in our second- best suit. But I share the view of the majority: this South hand is too good to go quietly. Now if North had rebid 2H, advertising a bad misfit, a pass would have a lot more going for it.

MYERS: “3C. Completing the description of my shape. If partner rebids 3D, I’ll pass.”

BOSWELL: “3C. Partner needs a club fit for game. This seems to be the most flexible bid without overstressing the diamond fit.”

I agree with the last statement. If my red suits were reversed, passing 2D would be fine. The raisers believe 3C does not imply diamond support:

POPKIN: “3D. With 5 diamonds and 2 spades, partner would have bid 2S, so he most likely has a 6-card suit. Since I have a huge card in the diamond king and extra values, I want to give partner a chance to get to 3NT.”

3NT is a lively possibility opposite decent diamonds and a heart guard.

SIEVERS: “3D. This is a 4-loser hand — good enough to think about a diamond game if partner doesn’t have a bust. The stiff heart will control that suit until clubs can be set up. The least I can do is make it harder for the opponents to balance in hearts.”

The panel split here emphasizes there can be two reasonable views. Lesson to be learned?  Discuss these sequences with partner; they come up more often than you may believe.

3.  IMPs, NS vulnerable

 What is your call as South holding:     S-63     H-Q1042     D-5     C-Q109876 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
Pass	100	11	80
4H	60	4	17
4C	30	0	3

Don’t you love these 50-50 choices? A lot easier to answer on paper than at the table, where a wrong choice used to risk having an ashtray hurled your way. In these non-smoking days, at least that risk is gone.

To pull or not to pull? The 4H bidders emphasize the advantages of playing 2-suiters in a suit contract:

BOSWELL: “4H. Hard to believe NT will be better than clubs or hearts. Biggest weakness is that the wrong hand will be declarer.”

KESSLER: “4H. If partner has  just long diamonds without 4 hearts, why double? At IMPs, I’m trying to get to the best game. This is wrong when only 3NT makes. I like the odds.”

I’d agree with the pullers if North had made a direct double of 1S. You  could then draw the inference that North didn’t have a 1NT overcall. In the actual case, though, he may have a strong balanced hand. West certainly can’t have much, and East has shown a minimum. Would anyone be really shocked if North tabled KJx, AKx, K10xx, Axx as a dummy in 4H?

KNIEST: “Pass. Close, but 3NT may be better because of the positional value of the opening lead. Further, if partner has long diamonds, my J may pull a lot of weight. If he just has a big hand with 4 hearts, then I’ve guessed wrong, not for the first time.”

MILLER: “Pass. Any advantage of hearts has to be negated by being a  level higher and having the opening lead go through North’s spade cards.”

MARSHALL: “Pass. When in doubt, apply the maxim: no ace, no king, no bid.”

Even if North has hearts, there’s no guarantee we’ll make game, and the same holds for 3NT. Most examples offered by the pullers showed exactly 8 tricks in NT, while those sent by the passers showed 9+, with or without a heart fit. The actual North hand will be a surprise to most of us:

WARD: “Pass. You’re 2-1 in the wrong suits to pull, which risks a lead through North’s spades. Unfortunate, since partner has AKx, AKJx, xxx, Axx, but right in the long run I think.”

I like a player who sticks with the “correct” action, despite the result. But then, I’ve had a few ashtrays hurled at my noggin in the past.

4.  Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:      S-1093     H-K94      D-K532      C-1065 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
Pass	100	9	50
3H	80	4	27
3NT	50	2	23

Problems like this are what brought white hairs to my scalp. And many of my partners as well. The majority vote for pass says a lot about modern preempts. Years ago, I’d wager the plurality would pull. After all, are you willing to risk that North has 4 tricks on defense for his balancing double?

Today, folks make vul. preempts on garbage, and odds are better that pass won’t net -670. And we’ve learned more about the Law since then.

KNIEST: “Pass. The Law requires it. If North is just protecting, 3D may make, but  –670 isn’t as bad as –800.”

BOSWELL: “Pass. Any other bid violates the Law by more two levels..”

WETZEL: “Pass. I don’t expect to make 3NT, and if we do, we’re killing 3D. Bidding a 3-card major is just putrid, and not exactly LAW-justified.”

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I sometimes tire of hearing about the “Law”. This isn’t an auction where you can assess each side’s trump length, nor is it likely to be important. If North has no diamonds, doesn’t the Law teach us that 3D will likely make?  The pass is just so…final. Are we really that confident we’ll set this?

WARD: “3H. Pass could certainly be right, but I’d like partner to keep balancing light.”

MILLER: “3H. A bizarre 3NT is the only other bid that tempts me. If partner has the moose, this could be our last chance to get to get to what may be our only makeable game.”

I’m not sure how light I want partner to balance, red at the 3-level, so I always make these calls with apologies ready, fully realizing we may go for a number whatever I do. However, even an apology for holding lousy cards won’t be enough if you chose:

WALKER: “3NT.  If partner is light, this contract is the least likely to get doubled. But if partner is strong, we need to show the stopper and get to our best contract. My vul. opponent should have a rock-solid suit, and  3D could make. I don’t expect more than +200, and if that’s available, +600 may  be, too.”

Partner will need a lot of strength, since you’ll have few chances to lead toward his hand. Doesn’t 3NT show more than a pair of kings?

I normally don’t reveal the actual result, but I can’t resist  here, mainly because of my distaste at watching my opponents make doubled partscores. From the horse’s mouth:

FEILER: “3H. My okbridge partner bid 3NT, got doubled and went for a number best described with logarithms. If you pass (which I think is reasonable) they make. 3H goes down as well, but it’s hard for them to double. North held  Jxxxx, A10xx, x, AJx.”

5. IMPs, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:     S-AKJ753     H-KJ10     D-4     C-A86 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
3NT	100	5	23
3H	90	5	17
3S	80	1	23
Double	70	2	7
2NT	60	1	7
3C	60	1	10
4C	40	0	7
2S	40	0	7

I knew this would be a toughie. Extra values, a fit, stoppers, two  sources of tricks. Too much to show and not enough room. The Solvers found 11 (!) calls, which could be a record. The panel majority went the simple route:

WETZEL: “3NT. Nobody’s led a diamond yet. 3H just muddies the waters. My only concern is that we’re missing some super-fitting slam, but opposite a simple 2C, I doubt it.”

I actually have several concerns, since we may belong in any of three different strains. Like pass in problem 4, a 3NT bid is so final. North isn’t likely to pull it, even when he should.

WALKER: “3NT. 6C might be there, but when in doubt, I go for the reasonable option of 3NT. I don’t think I’m getting a diamond lead, and if partner has KQxxxx of clubs and even a dubious diamond stopper, we’ll have a good play.”

KNIEST: “3H. My shape and controls argue for a suit contract, but the stoppers argue for NT. Since spades and clubs are playable, though, I’ll try the ambiguous cuebid.”

The cuebid eases concerns about reaching the right suit, but in effect gives up on 3NT. Unless East is a thrillseeker, he surely has AQ 6th or 7th of hearts. The threat of a heart ruff doesn’t scare me much, since it may be a natural trump trick, but I’m not so sure I want to give up on 3NT.

KESSLER: “3H. Most flexible, with a hand you’re going to drive to game. On a good day, pard will bid 3S.”

The 3-level preference is possible, but even if you get it, are you confident of picking the right contract?  What is poor North to bid over a  cuebid with  xx, xx, Kxx, KQJxxx?  My own proclivity is to make things easy on partner. I like the “good/bad” 2NT here, but even in BWS, where 2NT isn’t forcing, it’s unlikely partner will pass it. And if I do hear 3S, I’ll bid 4S with a bit more surety than if I’d dragged a preference out of him. Another reasonable alternative:

POPKIN: “Double. Take the sure plus at IMPs. If lefty has a singleton heart, we could go down in 5C. If we lean toward NT, they could have the whole diamond suit. I’m expecting 800, but I’ll settle for 200 rather than try to guess where to play game.”

The problem with double is that it isn’t a sure plus. My teammates usually understand if we play in the wrong game, but they never seem to forgive a 13-IMP loss because I stopped off to double a making partscore.
 

6.  IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:     S-Q105    H-AQ954     D-J76    C-J3 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	%Solvers
3NT	100	6	33
3S	90	4	33
3H	70	4	23
4D	70	1	10

At first glance, this teaser appears to be a question of style — the scientists who probe for the “correct” game vs. the bashers who just bid one. But ask yourself what you would bid if the black suits were reversed. Be honest!
It is IMPs,  so rushing into 3NT is not as fashionable as at matchpoints:

BOSWELL: “4D. Close between this and 3NT. Since this is IMPS, there’s less reason to worry about which game to bid. 4D may be our last chance for a plus and may be the only way to bid a slam in diamonds.”

POPKIN: “3S.  I can’t bid 3NT with Jx of clubs. Partner doesn’t have 4 spades, so there’s no threat of being raised. If partner can’t bid 3NT, he’ll bid 4H with 3-card support.”

WALKER: “3H. In in BWS and most other non-eccentric systems, this is forcing and shows only 5+ cards. The hand isn’t prime enough for a slam-encouraging 4D. 3S suggests a problem for NT, but partner won’t know what it is. It’s convenient here that you have a spade stop and no club stop, but partner may think it’s the other way around. What would you bid with xx, AQxx, Jxx, QJxx?”

Is 4D forcing? An old BW “Rate your Own Game” column defined 4D here as invitational, not a slam try.  3S was used to suggest NT with a spade stopper, 3H required a better suit, and 3NT required guards in both black suits. Seems the view has changed in the past couple of years.

MYERS: “3NT. A a shot in the dark, but partner has points and together we should have all suits covered.”

KESSLER: “3NT. If 3NT is one of the possibilities, bid it. I really don’t know what else I’d bid—the heart suit isn’t good enough.”

Much as I hate the thought of EW running off the first five tricks, the heart suit really isn’t good enough. How would you like to see partner table Jx, Kx, AKQxxx, Axx  as dummy in 4H? I guess I’m a basher at heart.

Congratulations to Rich Peer, who outscored all Solvers and is invited to join the April panel. Thanks to ‘99 guests Jim Hudson and Micah Fogel for a job well done and welcome to  Lisa Sievers, Adam Miller and Mason Meyers, who won the Solvers contest and will be 2000 guest panelists. You can enter the 2000 contest by trying the the new problems. Please include your name and city on all correspondence and send your answers as soon as possible (by February 24) to:

 How the Panel Voted (Panel/Staff Average: 534)

 How the Staff Voted

Solvers Honor Roll   (Solvers’ Average:  492)