District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2004

by Scott Merritt, Arlington VA

1. IMPs, EW vulnerable                                 

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	???

What is your opening bid holding: S-Q943 H-AQ98762  D-108  C-Void?      

My mother has just finished reading Bridge For Dummies in an attempt to share in my crazy obsession with this game. She has never played a competitive hand in her life, but she was foolish enough to drag me out to a Club Series class ten years ago, and that's where I got my start in playing. After the classes, she decided that bridge might not be for her; "Too many rules and things to count". One class ten years ago  and one book at Christmas, and she is raring to go. So, logically, I chose her as my guest panelist for this issue.

Mom: "3H. This was Chapter 4. I hope they're all this easy."

Sorry, Mom, but I had to give 3H the lowest score. It may have been in retaliation for some long-repressed childhood trauma. Let's see what the other 3H bidder has to say in your defense.

Nelson: "3H. I don't buy into not preempting when holding a 4-card major, or the other four card major. Make it difficult!"

Feiler: "2H.  Process of elimination: way too good for 3H in my style; I want to preempt my vul opponents, so not 1H or pass; and I don't want to entirely lock out the spade suit like 4H would. On a lot of auctions, I'll commit the bridge heresy of taking another bid all by myself."

At first, I thought that 2H and 3H should receive the same score, but Kent has really swayed me. If ever there is a hand for the heresy that is a rebiddable preempt, maybe this is it, and 3H bars that option. The 3H bidders, on the other hand, seem to have the weakest argument. 3H is shooting at a very small target -- a hand in which you either make exactly 140 or 4H goes down too many. All of the other bidding strains seem to have bigger upsides than just starting with 3H.

So now, the logical options are narrowed down to Pass, 1H and 4H. I will discuss each in order of sanity (I'm sure there is a better word, but I am still reeling from the death wish shown by the 1H openers).

Miller: "1H. If partner has spades, I will hear about it. Otherwise, I have an easy rebid."

Dodd: "1H. Too good to preempt at this vulnerability and I HATE passing hands like this.  More often than not, you end up trying to play catch-up, with North never believing you have this type of hand."

If you were playing a big club system, I feel that a 1H opener would be a heavy favorite on this problem, but then the real world of 2.5 Quick Tricks hits us in the nose. Even if we are devout believers in the Rule of Twenty (open if your high-card points plus the length in your two longest suits is greater than or equal to 20), this hand doesn't add up.  Unless you have had a lengthy discussion with your partner about what constitutes an opening bid, you are looking to create discord and destroy trust by opening this hand at the 1-level.

Finally, let's hear from the passers and the 4H preempters.

Strite: "Pass. I expect to be in minority, even though vulnerability, our potential spade fit, my offensive and defensive values all speak against a unilateral preempt."

Paulo: "Pass. I don't open, despite counting only five losers, because my hand has no defensive strength. I don't preempt, because I have two first-round controls and a side major suit. I pass, but the auction is not yet over, and I hope to get a chance to bid later on."

Vongsvivut: "Pass first, with a side 4-card major. I'll plan to come in the level of 3H or 4H next turn, if partner shows no sign of spade length. This hand still has a chance for game if partner show some value. It is too good to open a preempt with only 5 losers."

Kniest: "4H. This is usually a transfer to 4S by the opponents."

Walker: "4H. This vulnerability screams for a preemptive move with this hand, and I have way too much for 3H. Some will argue that the 4-card spade suit makes this hand unsuitable for a preempt, but I don't think that should be a deterrent when all the other conditions are right."

Rabideau: "4H. Some bridge books warn us against preempting when holding a 4-card major on the side. These books are wrong."

4H was the choice of world champion Jeff Meckstroth when he held this hand. Maybe 4H counts as the best "at-the-table" bid, but Pass just seems to cater to all the other options. You have spades moderately under control. Your suit lacks the body of a typical 4-level preempt. And finally, you only have an 8-count in first seat; this hand won't pass out, and the bidding won't (you hope) be at the 5 level when the auction gets back to you.

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable  

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

What is your call as South holding:  S-109   H-A106   D-J63   C-A9865 ?

This problem easily wins the award for most possible solutions this month. The other three people at the table are bidding, and here we have this beautiful hand. There is a fudger in our midst, and unfortunately, we are playing matchpoints, meaning any or all of them could be the guilty parties.

First, lest there be any doubt, partner's 2H bid shows hearts. He's probably 5-5, but could be 6-5 or 5-6. Who would blame him for bidding twice holding KJxxx, QJxxxx, x, x? Well, we are vulnerable, so perhaps he has something like  AQxxxx, KJxxx, --, Qx.

The biggest vote -- and the highest score -- went to a simple correction to 2S, but boy, that doesn't do this hand any justice! And since partner is surely holding 5 hearts (and could hold 6), why do we want to play in our 5-2 fit when we have a 5-3 or 6-3 fit available?

Dodd: "2S. I'm a little strong for this, but seduced by the form of scoring -- even if it does go all pass, +170 may not be too bad."

Strite: "2S. If I had to bid last round, why didn't I just jam the auction with 2S so I could shut up now? Two spears and a doubleton fit didn't merit a cuebid, so I pray that partner passes now."

It appears that some of us may not be convinced partner has hearts. The greatest value that I see in 2S is that the auction isn't over, and maybe we'll get a chance to balance back in with 3H. Partner might not play us for quite this much, but we will play in the right strain at least, maybe just a level too low. Sure 2S is a unilateral action, but lots of the panel voted for opening 1H in the first problem. Hopefully, we have an understanding partner.

Along the same lines as 2S is:

Hudson: "3H, I'm tempted to just blast into game; but partner's hand will be forced right away in diamonds, and he's getting a bad break in trumps, so I'll cut him some slack."

Mom: "3H. Do I have to say something witty with every one of my answers?"

I like the idea of the heart raise, but you're playing a level higher in a suit that you know isn't breaking. The arguments for blasting into game while not cuebidding seem flimsy, too.

Kniest: "4H. Partner is showing no fear opposite a passed hand. If they lead a trump, there's time to develop spades, which aren't breaking bad. If they go for the tap, it's better in hearts because we'll get to ruff spades in dummy. Even though hearts aren't breaking, partner has a lot of information on how to play the hand."

Miller: "4H. Partner did this at unfavorable vulnerability. I fully expect my 2 bullets and spade 10 to be golden."

Rabideau: "4S. Partner can't have a bunch of points, so he must have significant distribution (say 6-6) to be sticking out his vulnerable neck like this. Since diamond pumps are coming, let's play in the suit that rates to break better than hearts."

The fact that LHO has 4 hearts didn't worry the heart bidders all that much. If partner is 5-5 in the majors, it's likely that LHO also has 4 spades, and you have only 7 of those. 

It all comes down to the fact that we really don't know what cards partner has; all we know is what cards we have. If we're going to advance, let's cuebid and try to get partner in on the decision about the correct strain and level.

Walker: "3D. I have a great hand for hearts, and 3D is the only obvious cuebid to show the strong raise. Partner would (and should) interpret 3C as natural here."

Feiler: "3D. Hearts should be a real suit, but I still don't know where to play it. So, time to wheel out the all-purpose, ubiquitous, multi-meaning cuebid."

The cuebid can't have too many meanings here; it has to be for hearts, as this is the only bid that could have brought you to life after passing the last round. If you are going to advance, I certainly feel like a cuebid must be the best choice. Unfortunately, none of the cuebidders said how they would advance after partner's next call. Does partner now have to jump to game with a good hand? Maybe re-cuebid? Could you really pass if he bid something like 3S? In the end, I feel there is no correct matchpoint bid, so the points go to those who end up plus.             

3.  IMPs, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-J42   H-K   D-AK9765  C-A93 ?

When I was given the task of writing this column, this seemed like the easiest problem of the set. I have a hand that sure seems like it is worth a game bid. The most likely game is 3 NT,  but I'm stuck with only half of a spade stopper. There are really only two choices -- try for game with 3S, or just bid it yourself with 3 NT. At first glance, I thought 3Ss must be the correct call, but now I am not so sure.

Walker: "3S. This hand is worth a move. 3S is forward-going and shows doubt about no trump. Unfortunately, since I don't have room to show or ask about stoppers in both unbid suits, partner won't know if I have a club problem or a spade problem. The inference, though, is that it's a spade problem, as it's the only suit we've denied holding and therefore the obvious lead. Switch the clubs and spades and I'd just bid 3NT."

Karen does a great job of summing up what a 3S call should be in this auction. It surely can't ask definitely about spades (otherwise we would have given you the same hand with the spades and clubs reversed). The thing is, even if partner doesn't have a spade card, do you want to play 4 or more diamonds? And even worse, what if partner has QTx, Axxxx, Qxxx, x, and figures that he doesn't have what you need?

3NT must be the right call here. Here are some comments that explain why 3NT is better than 3S. (I excluded all those who offered up the Hamman Rule!)

Feiler: "3NT.  Maybe we have a spade stopper."

Kniest: "3NT. Since the opponents are silent, they probably aren't loaded in the master suit. Diamonds are running, and partner has a little extra. Odds are to bid 35% vulnerable games. Do we really think it's worse than that?"

Paulo: "3NT. Partner may have a hand like Qx, Axxxx, Qxx, xx and I trot out nine tricks. When we have no spade stopper, it may happen that the opponents can cash only four tricks, or that LHO chooses to lead another suit. I evaluate the probability of the set of these several cases as greater than 37.5%; so, I bid game."

Hudson: "3NT. Easy. With a stopper in spades and none in clubs, I'd bid 3S; with the reverse I'll just take my shot. After all, they didn't bid spades."

Others mentioned the opponent's failure to bid spades, but is this really so surprising? This is IMPs, they're vul. vs. not, and they don't have many high cards outside the spade suit.

In the end, I agree that while 3S should neither show nor deny a spade stopper, 3NT is where you want to play, so just bid it and pray. My mom chose to pass here, and while she is a doll, I didn't want to subject her to undue criticism. As an aside, I would think that 3S must show some sort of hand where there's doubt about which game to play, maybe something along the lines of A, Kx, KQJTxxx, Qxx.

4. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  S-Void  H-AQ102   D-KJ953  C-A843  ?

I hard a hard time explaining to my mom why we didn't overcall 2D on the first round of bidding. We are favorable at IMPs. Yeah, our suit could be better, but by passing, we have a bigger problem than if we had merely bid 2D in the first place. Surprisingly, only one panelist commented on the lack of an initial move. Do we all really believe that we can trap them at the 1-level? Would you be disappointed if you get doubled after overcalling with this hand?

In the end, I had to tell my mom that we were an emergency fill-in for a player who had just had cardiac arrest after seeing our 1H opening bid on Problem #1. So here we are. What comes next?

I will first lend the microphone to the most voluminous response:

Hudson: "2H. I've dug a hole for myself by not making a 2D overcall. I plan to follow 2H with 3D over partner's expected 2S, looking for slam. I hope my sequence will be taken as forcing, even by a passed hand. I hope the opponents' quiescence indicates that partner has more than a minimum for his balancing overcall. I won't rush to bid notrump with a void, which would mislead partner about my spade holding."

I like the fact that he was the lone commenter on how we have dug ourselves this hole. However, if we cuebid with this hand, I just don't think partner will ever piece together that we do not have spades. We had our opportunity to speak, we spurned it, and now we want to force our balancing partner to game? In Jim's defense, he then adds:

Hudson: (continued) "Suppose I do, indeed, bid 2H, and partner repeats his spades. If I now bid 2NT, is that forcing? I say 'yes', since I cuebid first. I could have bid 2NT immediately, without cuebidding, if I had wanted to make it invitational. But I would be a little worried whether partner was on the same wavelength. If he were, 2NT (after cuebidding 2H) would let partner further describe his hand. If he rebid 3C over my 2NT, I would return to 3NT; if he rebid 3D, I would be torn. A diamond slam would be possible, but perhaps too improbable to look for. If so, all roads would lead to 3NT (or 4S if partner really insisted). But I want to get there is such a way that partner will know I am very short in spades."

Slam? A passed hand cuebidding with a void in partner's suit? The only part that I buy in most of this is that 2NT  might be a good bid. Let's hear from those who chose it:

Feiler: "2NT. I've never really known what all the bids mean in these situations. Perhaps the panel will enlighten me."

Rabideau: "2NT. We all hate to do this with a void anywhere, let alone in partner's suit, but knowing where most of the defenders' cards are sitting is some consolation. 2D could be right, but would we like to then hear (silent opponents) 2S-2NT-3S? I think it's better to try preempting partner right away."

Nelson: "2NT. A real problem hand.  I can't bid only 2D or 3D, which should be highly invitational. 3NT shouldn't be bid because it penalizes partner for balancing."

Kniest: "2NT. I have values and position, but no sure source of tricks. 2NT gets across this message, but not the spade void. So 2NT it is, and I hope partner clarifies his hand with something other than 3S.".

Walker: "2NT, Not ideal, but nothing else shows these values. A 2H cuebid will just lead to more spade bids, and partner will pass 2D with many hands that will make game. I'm probably a bit heavy point-wise for 2NT, but the void is a definite liability."

To Karen, I say, "There is a way to show these values; overcall 2D the first time!" And to Bev, I say, "You sure can't bid diamonds now, CAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE BID THEM THE FIRST TIME!" I think the community should now understand my position on this hand :)

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable   

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1NT *
Pass	2S **	Pass	3C
Pass	3NT	Pass	???
* (15-17)      ** Minor-suit Stayman

What is your call as South holding:  S-AQ3   H-1092   D-AK5   C-Q982 ?

Scoring this problem is a bit challenging. We've been given the conditions that 2S was Minor-Suit Stayman, asking for a 4-card minor. Doing a Google search for "Minor Suit Stayman" brings up several pages, but none seem to discuss a default set of agreements for responder after opener actually shows a minor.

So, it all comes down to how you think these auctions should be played. I'll continue with the assumption that after my 3C rebid, partner could have bid 3H or 3S to show a slam try with shortness in that suit. His 3D could have been a signoff in diamonds (a popular treatment used by many who play this convention). Or 3D could have been showing more diamonds than clubs, or it could have been merely a cuebid, but since he didn't bid it, we don't have to worry about it.

The one thing we do know is that partner has both minors. Some panelists and solvers seemed to think that since he didn't get excited by our 3C bid, he must have just diamonds and not clubs. However, with a one-suited hand, he would never use Minor Suit Stayman -- in Standard American, he would bid 2C Stayman followed by 3D.

The other thing we know is that he has enough high-card strength for game. What we don't know is whether or not he has slam-try strength. It appears that most of the panel thinks we have a 2-2-4-5 or 2-2-5-4 partner who is making a slam try.

Moving on from there, we have a control rich hand, which is usually very good for slam, balanced by the fact that we are totally flat.  The heart suit is wide open, and partner will be dummy with the lead going through him. Most of the panel chooses to sit still.  Let's hear from those who don't:

Vongsvivut: "4S. Partner's 3NT should show 2-2-4-5 or 2-2-5-4 distribution and mild interest in slam. So I will cuebid 4S as a first-round control. If North has a heart control, we should have a play for 6C."

Feiler: "4D. Partner is making a slam try, and with all those great minor-suit cards, I think I should cooperate."

Hudson: "4D. Trying to drag a heart cuebid out of partner. Despite my minimum, I'm optimistic about a club slam."

I certainly feel that this is the correct sentiment, but if we are advancing, why don't we start with the simple 4C to set the trump suit? I worry that 4D looks like a  4-card diamond suit, and this might cause trouble down the line. When trumps are in doubt, Rule #2 of slam bidding must be to set the trump suit as soon as possible. (For those in doubt, Rule #1 is 'Game before Slam').

The passers' logic was summed up by:

Paulo: "Pass. Partner has put on the captain's hat. I answered (3C) his question (2S); now, his 3NT looks definitive. If I understood the ideas behind partner's bids, I would be more bent to go on bidding with a hand like Axx, Axx, KQx,  Qxxx."

Two of our bidders had clear ideas about what partner was trying to show. They differ in their ideas of his exact distribution, but they're both sure that it's time to get out of notrump -- and they leave no doubt about what the trump suit is:

Kniest: "5C. Partner's auction is the traditional way to show 5422 with very weak majors. I may have 11 tricks with no finesse, so I just bid what I think I can make. Play partner for something like xx, xx, QJxxx, AKxx."

Walker: "6C. Partner's has both minors and, since he had clear alternatives to show a slam try, his 3NT shows minimum values for game (probably around 9-11 pts.). He chose this auction to show extreme weakness (no stoppers) in the majors and tell me to get out of notrump if I have a stopperless major. That gives me a pretty clear picture of a 5-5 hand with all the high cards in the minors -- with 5422, he would just gamble 3NT. If he has a singleton heart, 6C is probably laydown, but there's no way to drag that information out of him. Since he's already warned me about notrump, 4C might be interpreted as a weak retreat and he might take 4D as showing 4-4 in the minors. 4S would be a strong, forward-going bid, but all that does is tell them what to lead. It's not going to induce him to bid 6C with xx, x, QJxxx, AKxxx. So it must be right to forgo the tortured, informative auction and just blast off to 6C. If he has a stiff spade and a doubleton heart, let them find the right lead."

As one who could certainly learn from the wisdom from Tom and Karen, I feel weird saying that I just totally disagree. If partner has the hand that Tom suggests, I think, as Karen suggests, that The World would just bid 3NT over 1NT. In today's game, 5-4-2-2 is nearly as balanced as 4-3-3-3. On the other hand, I feel like Karen may have ended up in the right spot, but the disagreement we have about the nature of partner's hand makes me want to deduct Thought Police points. Whatever partner has, 6C should be at least a reasonable spot.

Can the passers come up with better arguments?

Miller: "Pass. What was I just saying about 3NT possibly being right?"

Strite: "Pass. Presuming we have some illustrative 3H or 3S bids that partner chose not to use, I've got nothing more to say. Even without any MSS agreement, bidding on is a blind shot."

Everyone seems to agree that when in doubt, go plus. Whether or not a plus is available in 3NT is still unresolved. I would like to give everyone a 100 on this problem, but I am just too stubborn. So there!

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  S-10543  H-AK82   D-K  C-AKQJ ?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but we have the most wishy-washy, fence-sitting panel ever! On the first hand, everyone wanted to bid with their 5-loser 8-count. Now, we have a 5-loser 20-count, and Pass is the standout option? I don't understand this game.

Walker: "Pass. It's tempting to get into this auction, as we could have a laydown heart game if partner has the right Yarborough, but that's probably wishful thinking. If LHO rebids 2D, I'll be able to bid later. If he doesn't, then maybe we should be defending."

Dodd: "Pass. Why bid just yet? We may be in a better position by remaining silent. North is sure to have a near Yarborough, and with my luck he'll have 6+ diamonds and doubletons in the round suits and we'll go for a telephone number in 2H. Note that if my minors were reversed, double would stand out."

Hudson: "Pass. I have the wrong shape to take immediate action."

What a bunch of lily-livered cowards. Hasn't bridge always been a bidders' game? Get in there! Mix it up! Just ignore all the confusion that our panel is showing after the initial action..

Kniest: "Double. All partner needs is heart length (or club length) for a shot at game. True, you might pass and hope it goes 2D-Pass-Pass, but if RHO now bids 2S, you are up a level higher -- and that's much more dangerous."

Feiler: "2C. Yuk! Momma didn't raise no sissies. There's no way I can force myself to pass all those high-card points."

Nelson: "Double. Opponent's have made doubled contracts before against me....but think it is a good double....if partner bids 2D, I bid 2H."

Strite: "Double. What else?"

I am stuck on this hand, whether the notrump call was forcing or not, I think passing this hand is bound to cause misery and angst. I agree with the comment that this would be a better problem on the second round of bidding. Let's give it a go with Problem #6 for the next issue.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Thanks to this issue's guest panelist Robert Lambert, and congratulations to Zoran Bohacek, who topped all Solvers for this set. He's invited to join the panel for April.

Congratulations to Manuel Paulo of Portugal, who won the 2003 Solvers Contest and is invited to join the panel for 2004. The 2004 contest is underway, so I hope you'll all join in and try the new problems for April (see below).

Note that our bidding system is based loosely on Bridge World Standard. You can use it as a general guideline for conventions, but you don't have to study it to answer the problems. The problem descriptions will indicate if any special conventions are being used. Our focus in this column is on how auctions are popularly treated in mainstream play, not on what BWS dictates. When in doubt, just answer the problems as if you were playing with an experienced player and the specific situation is undiscussed.

The six new bidding problems are below. Please submit your April answers by March 15 on the web form or by email to our April moderator:

 Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

How the Panel voted (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 550):

How the Staff voted:

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 498)

Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb, Croatia	580	George Klemic, Bensenville IL	570
Steve Babin, Normal IL	570	David McNitt, Elkhart IN	560
Jim Feinstein, South Bend IN	570	Gary Dell, Champaign IL	550
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	570	Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	550
Mike Halvorsen, Champaign IL	570	Don Mathis,  Florissant MO	550

Solvers Forum -- April 2004 Problems