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

1. IMPs, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   S-AK743    H-QJ82    D-Void    C-A1063 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
1S	100	5	24
2NT	90	3	21
4D	80	3	36
2S	80	2	15
5D	50	1	0
3NT	40	1	0
5NT	40	1	0

Thirty years ago, this hand was easy because we didn't have conventions for it. I admit my own convention card is nearly unreadable, the print is so small to make room for all the gadgets. But gadgets aren't a cureall. Half the panel and an equal percentage of solvers thought it wise to use conventions here.

CURTIS: "4D. Seems pretty clear cut."

FOGEL: "2NT. I'd like nothing better than to hear 3C. With some partners, I play a direct jump to 5D is exclusion Blackwood, but it's not standard, although I guess it's pretty ambitious."

WARD: "4D. I don't like 1S. I'll follow with 5D, and likely raise 5H to 6."

The problem with an artificial raise here is that you have no idea how your hands fit. North could have anything from a perfect 11-count (xx, AKxxxx, Jxx, Kx) which produces a grand, to an ill-fitting pile of junk like Jxx, Axxxx, AQx, Qx, which might not make 5H.

Splintering eats up so much bidding space, and here there are a number of features you need to know about before barging into slam. With potential losers in clubs and spades, not to mention trump quality concerns, finding out about diamond wastage doesn't begin to fulfill your quest for information.

A forcing 2NT similarly takes control, but doesn't eat up so much space. Partner may cooperate by showing club shortness. Then again, the next sound you hear may be 4H, which puts you in the same boat as the splinter crowd.

While the gadgets may work out, a natural sequence leads to a better auction. That was the idea of the 1S bidders, who wanted to conserve space.

KESSLER: "1S. it's important for partner to know his spade holding is key. With all these controls, I can cuebid enough that partner will get the idea."

MATHENY: "1S. Show the spade suit first and the diamond shortness later."

The problem with bidding only 1S is that it will be hard to show your power  later. Over any non-jump rebid, your next call can't be a heart raise --even a jump raise would be only  invitational. Here's an idea that solves that problem:

WALKER: "2S. In many cases, partner's rebid will tell us if this suit is solid; otherwise he'll show the suit where he has concentrated values. The alternatives --Jacoby 2NT, or a splinter followed by exclusion Blackwood --won't help me make a grand-slam decision."

Old fashioned? Yup. Sometimes simple is still best. A jump shift alleviates the problem of how to show heart support in a forcing situation, yet keeps North in the ball game.

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   S-A3    H-AQ32    D-Q63     C-AK74 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	4	21
3NT	90	3	24
4S	80	2	18
5S	70	4	6
4D	50	3	21
4NT	40	0	9

Preempts were invented to cause headaches. And while this one could be worse, South's rebid is certain to generate some interesting post-mortems. While I don't normally advocate exposing the actual North hand, here it is:

FEILER: "4D. What I actually bid. It shows spade support and partner may take it as the diamond ace (that is what a direct cue shows here-TJD). The only other bid I could think of was 4H and that sounded like 5-6. It seemed lying about one spade was better than lying about two clubs and a heart. Partner held KQ10xx, Kxx, void, Qxxxx and you can make 7C, 7H, 6S -- or 1NT."

I agree that 4H sounds like a club-heart two suiter, but 4D lies about a diamond control. I hate missing slams, but it's unwise to blindly cuebid without the advertised goods. Given the actual North hand, 5S would get the job done nicely, and with a lot less risk of reaching a slam off two cashers.

MARSHALL: "5S. North should pass with 2 diamonds, bid 6S with one, or cuebid a King if he's void. Anyway, I expect to outscore all the wimps who bid 3NT. "

Color me a wimp. While the 3NT call is a tad heavy, North doesn't have to pass. Realizing the high level and extreme pressure we're under here, North may even make the right decision. Conditions of this forum presume North to be an expert, so why are so many folks continually taking control of an auction, and presume North to be a moron?

Best intentions aside, I simply don't see what the 4H bidders are hoping for. Even in casual partnerships, 4H can't possibly mean a balanced 18-count. North's failure to negative double suggests short hearts, or at least a 2-card disparity between the majors. 4H gets the top score, but smart money says they ain't getting the matchpoints.

KNIEST: "4H.  3NT may be right, but it's a guess, as that will end the auction. By bidding 4H, you might hear a natural 4S rebid, whereupon I'd try 5S. I don't think partner can pass 4H with only 3-card support, and if he had 4, he would have made a negative double. "

All fine, but why can't he pass 4H? Won't North properly presume you have 10+ cards in the round suits and poor spades? On the actual hand, you're likely to hear that forbidden pass.

BOSWELL: "3NT. The preempt has done its job. Without a known fit, and the diamond Q, I'll settle for some or most of the matchpoints rather than shoot for all or none of them in a slam."

POPKIN: "5S. Asking for a second-round diamond control. If partner lacks the heart king, it should be onside. Here's hoping he has good spades, too."

FOGEL: "4S. I'm being pretty wimpy here. I have a nasty feeling it's going to go ace and a ruff in diamonds, plus we'll have a 4-1 trump split to contend with."

WARD: "3NT. Everything else is a bigger distortion."

Amen, brother.

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-A104   H-KQ92    D-87   C-AJ96 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	10	84
Pass	60	4	6
4S	50	1	3
3D	30	1	0
3NT	30	0	9

Nice to have a simple problem, and this one is about as clearcut as they come. Despite the minority vote for Pass, North's 3C  is forcing in BWS --and every other system I'm aware of. All calls after a raise of North's first suit are either invitational or 100% forcing. They are not attempts to better the contract. We've found a fit, and it's matchpoints, to boot. Why would North bail out of spades and into a minor unless he has a strong desire to play in the consolation?

FOGEL: "Pass. Why didn't I rebid 1NT at my second turn? "

KESSLER: "Pass. Easiest problem of the set. 3C is not forcing, I don't have a great hand and it's matchpoints."

Imagine North's surprise when he gets dumped in his game try (or slam try!). At least he won't have to play it.

The panel majority chose the obvious 3H. It doesn't necessarily show a suit or deny 4 spades, but it does show concentration of values. KNIEST, the only 4S bidder, didn't want to give clues to the defense. A nice idea, but it bypasses what may be our only making game and takes partner out of the picture.

MATHENY: "3H. 3NT may be right if North has only four spades."

FEILER: "3H.  North's 3C is initially a HSGT in spades, but it could later mutate into a slam try, a search for 3NT, or even 5C. 3H keeps the options open."

POPKIN: "3H. If partner is looking for NT or slam, I'm eager to cooperate. No one actually thought of passing this absolutely forcing rebid, did they?"

They not only thought about it, some actually got up the gumption to do it.

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-AQJ    H-6    D-A98    C-AQJ764 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2S	100	9	21
3C	80	1	48
1S	60	3	6
3H	50	3	21

This was a classic 3C rebid 30 years ago, but no more. Most didn't even flinch at jump-shifting into a 3-card suit.

SENG: "2S. I refuse to make a non-forcing bid when I have a shot at game opposite as little as xxx, xxx, KQxx, xxx."

WARD: "2S. Too good for 3C, impossible to show this hand if I bid only 1S now. A diamond short for 3H."

CURTIS: "2S. Only 2-4 losers,  so a reverse isn't terrible. The worst that can happen is winding up in 4 of a minor."

A minority were willing to risk being dumped at the 1-level to conserve space.

WALKER: "1S. Too strong for 3C, and 2S uses up too much space and invites disaster. Partner can often figure it out when you reverse in a 3-card suit or jump-shift in a 3-card minor, but it will be the 6-level before you convince him you jump in a 3-card major. If he raises spades, he'll take all your subsequent corrections' as spade slam tries."

I think that's a little pessimistic, wouldn't you say? BWS has always provided for jump shifts into non-suits when there are reasonable follow-up sequences, plus this is a pretty darn good "non-suit". And while we're on the subject, how about the confusion sowed by a 1S bid, which is both ultra heavy and lies about spade length?

KNIEST: "2S. My first follow-up will be a diamond raise. Partner should expect a stiff heart with 3-card support and a big hand. With a big hand and 4 diamonds, I could have splintered."

A lone voice for old-fashioned Goren:

FOGEL: "3C. I might try a 3H splinter with a partner I trust. But if North is weak, there's no need to get too high."

Trouble is, 3C is pretty high, and partner may pass with any number of hands that play better someplace else.

5. IMPs, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-4     H-AKJ54     D-K103   C-A1092 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3C	100	10	57
3D	80	2	21
3S	60	4	15
Dbl	40	0	6

Since BWS employs a version of 2/1 forcing-to-game, both Pass and 3D would be forcing here. Given that, I was a bit surprised not to hear many votes for the direct raise or pass. South's hand isn't exactly chock full of extras, but the good 3-card support and stiff spade convinced me that more aggressive action was warranted. Held true for a majority as well. The most aggressive:

KESSLER: "3C. If partner bids 3D or 3H, we bid 4S. If  3NT or 4C, we bid 4D. Basically, whatever partner bids, we have a descriptive response for it."

WALKER: "3C. Playing 2/1, a raise without competition should suggest extra values, but with the overcall, 3D is a pretty weak description. Since there's no guarantee partner has 5 diamonds, you may as well take advantage of the opportunity to show your full pattern."

Not to differ just for its own sake, but wouldn't the raise in competition show some extras? After all, with a minimum you can always pass (forcing).

KNIEST: "3C. Similar to problem 4. I'll next raise diamonds, and if partner bids 4H, I'll subside. Bidding 3S immediately will beget 3NT whenever North has a spade stopper, and possibly a 2-card heart preference without one. This is IMPs, so playing 5D is fine, and you may get to six when that's right."

SENG: "3C. Sort of a temporizing bid to elicit more information. This hand could belong in a lot of different places. Since clubs is a possibility if partner has both minors, I'll show them now, and then raise diamonds, hopefully showing my spade stiff by inference."

POPKIN: "3D. Maybe partner will raise hearts."

Or bid 3NT or go slamming. Lots can still happen yet, most of it good.

Very few words were spoken by the 3S bidders. WARD though the hand too good for a mere 3D, apparently willing to ignore the club suit. CURTIS considered only a double as an alternative to 3S. Once again, putting yourself in North's position lends assistance. How would you like to hear a 3S cuebid holding something like Qxx, xx, AQJxx, KQx, then have to endure the inescapable postmortem with your teammates as to why you played your cold diamond slam in 3NT? Didn't think so.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:    S-Q  H-J654    D-AKQ9763    C-Q ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4D	100	8	15
2H	80	3	6
3D	60	1	9
3H	60	1	30
4H	40	2	21
3S	30	1	12

Do you or don't you? At first glance, this baby looks like a classic unusual double jump to show a strong heart raise with primary diamonds. At second glance, too. Funny, here we are with all our new-fangled gadget-oriented system, and this particular bid has been lurking around for over 50 years. Seems a perfect place to employ it. Gets the whole hand off your chest in one swoop.

SENG: "4D. Shy of aces and very weak trumps, but I'm taking my best shot at describing the trick-taking strength."

Bingo! The primary function of what is still lovingly called The-Convention-With-No-Name is to describe a hand with a long solid minor, 4-card support for partner's major and an unnamed singleton. Splintering here is a complete shot in the dark as you have no idea which suit to show. Likewise, no other call describes the diamond solidity and the 4-card heart support. Yes, we may be too high already, but it happens.

FEILER:  "4D. This is the only game- level heart raise that doesn't imply a lot of HCP and keeps alive the possibility of ending up in diamonds."

Exactly. Showing solid diamonds will help North evaluate his hand for slam. And, if you do raise hearts, to what level? The rest of the panel offered shots at raises to all levels below and at game.

WALKER: "2H. No matter how you count it, this hand isn't worth the 16 pts.  3H would show, and a raise to game is way over the top. I'm a firm believer in the theory that you should first limit your values with these freak, minimum HCP hands and hope you can show your playing strength later. If partner makes a try over 2H, you can  bid the spots off these cards without having him expect a high-card mountain."

KNIEST: "2H. The opponents' silence suggests North has spades or a big hand. True, all he needs for 4H is good trumps, but if that's all he has, why aren't the opponents bidding?"

It seems silly to base our bidding on what EW might hold. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the other three players hold balanced 9-counts, and a single raise will then get what it deserves. At least +170 or +200 will beat those who stop in diamond partscores:

KESSLER: "3D. I just pretend I didn't see the 4th heart. With such bad hearts, the emphasis should be on getting to 3NT as opposed to 4H. Bad heart breaks will sink 4H, and those Q's point to NT."

Not beyond the realm of possibility. But when North needs so little for game and only 3 cards for slam (BOSWELL said AKxxxx of hearts and an ace), suppressing hearts seems a bit extreme even for a non-conformist like me.

Let's finish up this interesting set with our colleague from the UK:

MARSHALL: "4D. I'd like to have a higher honor in hearts, as if partner is weak with a stiff diamond, the hand may go out of control, but so what? If you have methods, use them, even if only to help partner judge his hand when you don't use them. Only question is are you using or misusing the methods on this hand?"

The $64,000 question. Guess 8 out of 16 ain't too bad. See y'awl in August.

HOW THE PANEL VOTED    (Panel/Staff Average: 488)

HOW THE STAFF VOTED

SOLVERS HONOR ROLL    (Solvers' Average: 443)

Back to Karen's Bridge Library