District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2003

by Tom Dodd, Boerne TX

1. IMPs, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:
S-A52   H-AKQJ6   D-5   C-A964 ?

Nothing like starting off a set with an easy one. Once again, I actually expected a unanimous vote for the obvious takeout double, and but for our editor-in-chief, would have entertained thoughts of my clairvoyant abilities.

WALKER: “3H. An underbid, but at IMPs, partner will play me for a good hand for a red, 3-level overcall and he'll tend to stretch to game. Double rates to get you 3S, and then what? If you bid 4H over that, you might as well have overcalled 4H. If you choose to pass 3S, you'll be wishing you had just bid a direct 3H.”

I can’t understand the pessimistic nature of this call, or the reluctance to make a takeout double simply because I possess “only” a 3-card spade suit. With all the controls and playing strength South possesses here, especially red at IMPs, this sort of action begs to dump about 10 IMPs if North (who is a passed hand!) gets cold feet with minimal values and no heart fit -- something like Kxxx, x, xxx, KQxxx. The panel spoke out eloquently on this one:

KNIEST: “Double. Most flexible -- might get us to 3NT, or a big penalty, or spade or club contracts  when they are right. 3H is a possibility, but one dimensional.”

KESSLER:  “Double. Automatic; you could be cold for 4S, 6S, 5C, or 6C and have no play for 4H or 6H. Bidding hearts makes it much tougher to find the right contract. Flexibility is usually the winner.”

WILLIAMS:  “Double. Give partner KQ in both black suits and we look like a favorite for 6 of something.”

PAOLO:  “Double. There are several strains and levels to play in, so it seems right to ask partner's opinion.”

HINCKLEY:  “Double, and then 4H over partner's 3S or West's 4D. This shows a flexible hand and likely a 5-card heart suit because I didn't jump to 4H over 3D.”

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:
S-J1083   H-K10   D-KJ83   C-AK6 ?

My very first thought when I viewed this problem was “Why did I put myself in this position with that knee-jerk 3NT rebid?” Okay, the actual thought was more colorfully worded, but this is, after all, a PG-rated column and had to be toned down for the censors.

Seriously, there were few complaints about the auction. Why would I eschew an easy fourth-suit-forcing call for an unimaginative jump when 2/3 of my strength lies in partner’s two known suits? Luckily, we’ve been bailed out. Question is, now how do we get across to North that we have this much help for him, and at this level? Or do we simply pass and pray that the rest of the Souths in our section perpetrate the same unimaginative auction?

KESSLER:  “Pass. Lack of controls is the problem. If the KJ of diamonds were the ace, I would bid. That is a huge difference.”

MERRITT:  “Pass. This is going to be an easy maker for pard, but what else are we supposed to try? My diamonds and spades are so soft that there can't be any future on this hand. I like to play that 3NT here is a suggestion, while using fourth-suit-forcing would make my 3NT a command.”

Unfortunately, our fast-arrival auction suggests that we really want to play 3NT. It implies minimal values as well as significant cards in diamonds and spades. Most of the 4NT bidders offered no indication of what they intended their call to mean, except:

HUDSON: “4NT. A style issue. If partner’s sequence doesn’t guarantee extra values, I must pass; partner’s hand could be something like Ax, AJ9xxx, x, QJ10x. But I'm assuming he does guarantee extras, and so he has something more like Ax, AQJxxx, x, QJ10x -- or perhaps slightly better. Using Blackwood will allow me to bail out at 5H if I get a response worse than the expected.”

Presumably, he means that if North doesn’t have the heart queen, he’ll be allowed to pass 5H (two keycards without the heart queen, for those of you scoring at home). But the 4NT bidders assume that  North will read this as Key-Card Blackwood for hearts. BWS would probably define 4NT as natural, since there's no agreed suit and there's been no slam interest shown by either partner. Many partnerships, though, agree this is Key-Card Blackwood for the last suit bid if the bid showed extra length. It's a good area for discussion with your regular partner.

FEILER:  “5H. I'm not sure what this means, but it's at least forward-going. My other bids, 4NT and 5C,  might be taken as natural.”

Maybe North will figure this out and maybe he won’t, but what’s better, given that I’ve already botched this auction? Or maybe we should just take the bull by its horns:

STRITE:  “6H. Six must be on as partner chose a delayed-reverse sequence. 4NT might get us to grand opposite a spade void and two keycards, but it might also get us to 4NT. I think 4NT is Roman Keycard Blackwood opposite partner's delayed reverse, but I won't strain the partnership.”

I never knew there was such a thing as a "delayed reverse", but he's referring to the fact that partner chose to show the clubs instead of immediately rebidding his 6-card heart suit. Many pairs play this sequence (hearts-clubs-hearts) shows some extra values. This panelist is one of them:

KNIEST:  “6H. Partner has shown a good 6-4, and I have 3 aces for him.”

I think he means key cards, but you all get the picture by now. Partner's actual hand was A, AQJ643, 2,  Q9754. Next time we’ll all use the fourth-suit bid and avoid this headache.

3.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:
S-J10763  H-107   D-43   C-K1072 ?

A straightforward, if somewhat quizzical problem. Certainly, I’ll be the first to admit the vulnerability and form of scoring affected my choice of double here. Plus 200 rates a 9 out of 10 on the matchpoint seduction scale.

K. C. JONES:  “Double. This is a great hand for the auction.”

BERNHARD:  “Double. I have a monster for passing (why did I pass?).  They could be in big trouble.  At least 500, I hope.”

WILLIAMS:  “Double. Partner has some juice and I have 4 trumps. The only contract I have no defense against is 2D. I will take my chances.”

ATHY:  “Double. PURE PENALTY. On partner's redouble, this should cost them a fortune.”

WALKER:  “Double. Partner's redouble shows good suit and good hand. We have at least half the deck, I've got good clubs and we have a tap suit.”

PAOLO:  “Double. Having passed the first time, South has boxed the hand as a bad one; under the actual circumstances, it is a maximum. Double proposes to get the magical score (+200), when any game is unlikely.”

I’ll settle for +200 (more would be overkill), unless this auction gets duplicated at a bunch of other tables. Pass might even garner a two-trick set for a high score, and also carries less risk of a runout to diamonds, which explains the scoring elevation. The minority views:

MERRITT:  “2S. I need to make a noise, and I have spades. I will feel comfortable after partner clarifies his hand. I am surely too light to bid more, and pass is cowardly.”

KESSLER:  “2S. If we had bid 1S the first time, we wouldn't have this problem. We do have a control, a 5-card major, and some shape.”

STRITE:  “2H. Shouldn't land us in trouble. Could easily land the opponents in trouble.”

KNIEST:  “2H. I understand the redouble to be competitive in hearts, and I think my hand might be of some use to him. Further, I'd rather defend at the 3-level.”

Rose-colored glasses are not my style. If I thought for a moment that EW would actually consider the 3-level here, I might try 2S just to give them that nudge. But 2H, with virtually zero tricks to contribute, looks to convert a decent shot at a good score to a near zero in the hopes the opponents are nuts. And many of them are, which is why my +200 might end up as an average minus ... sure.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable

* (weak jump overcall)

What is your call as South holding:
S-KJ5   H-Q862   D-AKQJ94   C-Void  ? 

Three schools of thought exist here; the scientists, the bashers and the chickens ... er, cautious. Actually there was a fourth school (a closet basher, really), and I have to confess a great deal of admiration for being sneaky here:

WALKER:  “4NT. If there was ever a hand that screamed for psychic Blackwood, this is it. We have to have at least 12 or 13 tricks once we get the lead, and this is the best way to convince the opponents you have 'balanced' values and keep East from choosing the brilliant heart lead. If you bid anything else that might pinpoint your club void or heart weakness -- cuebid, splinter bid, 2NT feature-ask, jump to 6S -- East won't have to be brilliant to find the heart lead.”

Admiration, however, does not equate to actually choosing to be sneaky. Perhaps at pairs I might like this approach, but when you have to explain to teammates why you lost a match because you thought you could steal a hand, things get a little dicey and your former pals might think you’d be better off spending next weekend at the golf course.

For the bashers, the idea was the same -- to not suggest a lead. It might even work:

BERNHARD:  “6S. Let them find the heart lead.”

STRITE:  “6S. A five or seven hand depending on the lead, so I bid six. LHO would double a grand for an  unusual lead, making a heart start more likely. The off chance that pard has a heart stiff or the king makes six my choice.”

That last sentence almost got me to change the scores, but not quite. I actually prefer an even slower approach than the splinter, knowing full well that if I do get to slam, they can lead anything and we’ll still make the contract. But then, I’ve always been relatively conservative where slam bidding is concerned, especially at teams.

MERRITT:  “4C. Let's hear what partner has to say. He'll cuebid if he has a heart picture.”

Even if he doesn’t, I’ll try once more over a 4S rebid. It's highly doubtful we’ll go set at the 5-level.

HINCKLEY:  “4C. Splinter, catering to something like AQTxxx,  x,  xx,  Jxxx. Is there a way to learn if partner has two quick heart losers? Not easily.”

In the “olden days”, a jump to 5H on this auction was an asking bid. With no first- or second-round control, North would bid 5S. With second round control, he bids a small slam, and with first-round control, a grand. Funny how the simple approach would work well here, except, of course, that the 5-level asking bids did pinpoint the most effective opening lead (assuming there was one) for the opponents. An interesting slow approach is this one:

KNIEST:  “3C. If we have a slam here, it's because partner can self splinter in hearts after the cuebid. I don't know another intelligent way to get to slam. Blasting can work, but I don't know enough about the match to know if shooting is my best strategy.”

The only problem with this approach is that the likeliest splinter you’ll hear from North is in the other red suit. For the conservative folks:

WILLIAMS:  “4S. Hope we make it. Of course, if partner has AQxxxx, x, xxx, xxx we have some play for 6. If partner's hand was that good, he might have overcalled 1S. Essentially, we need good spades and a 2nd-round heart control, and given the fact he overcalled 2S, he must have a stiff heart, as he shouldn’t bid 2S with outside kings.”

Well, most of us assume partner has something constructive for his red 2-level overcall at IMPs. However, having many fond memories of competing against Hugh and Kimmel (and the brothers Kessler) in many tournaments, I couldn’t help but chuckle at this. It sounds like Hugh is still evaluating his hand with their old EHAA system (Every Hand An Adventure, where North could hold Qxxx of spades and out for this call). Those really were the good old days.

5.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:
S-Q108   H-AKJ75   D-J2   C-974 ?

Problems that generate a number of different answers are always fun to deal with, though not always pleasant to score. As a rule of thumb, the calls are categorized according to intention (conservative, invitational, forcing to game, etc.) and then scores assigned depending on number of total votes in each group, as well as the veracity of the comments.

To the small plurality who chose 2C claiming it to be fourth-suit-forcing (they shall remain nameless unless it happens again!), note that Bridge World Standard states, plainly: “When responder is a passed hand, a third-suit or fourth-suit bid is not forcing unless it is a reverse.” Of course, as a passed hand, this can only be New Minor Forcing (one round). It's clear that our panelists and solvers don't like the BWS treatment, so all the New-Minor-Forcing votes get the hundred.

That said, several points of view exist here, any of which could be right. It is matchpoints, so a plus score is preferable:

KESSLER:  “2S. Once again, open your good 5-card major and you will come out ahead more often than not. I think 2S at least shows you have some interest because you did not pass. There is no reason to jump around when partner does not need to have a good hand.”

For what it’s worth, I would have opened this hand as well. It's not everyone’s cup of tea, but at matchpoints, first to bid often has the edge, so long as partners are on the same page of the playbook.

PAOLO:  “1NT. Partner's third hand opening bid may be very weak, and 2C is not a (BWS) forcing bid, so North can pass with something like Axxx, x, Axxxx, Axx. Bet on the usual matchpoints' strain, fearing that the 2-level might be too high.”

HINCKLEY:  “2NT. Yuck!  BWS says 2C isn't forcing here, so that's not an option (although I expect it will collect the top score due to this part of BWS not being well known).”

Even so, a jump here is too anti-positional, even if it is about right on values. One panelist was willing to risk a 3-3 fit:

ATHY:  2C. Fourth suit forcing (which it isn't, because of the initial Pass). It should show some stuff nonetheless. When partner is weak, he should open 1S if he can't pass 1H. Yes, that's one of the advantages of 4-card majors in 3rd and 4th seat. Even when this action gets me to the ever-popular 3-3 club fit, it may work out okay, with or without club leads. Hopefully, partner has a good hand and it will work out well (he did open 1D and rebid 1S).”

Hope springs eternal. I really pity all the 2C bidders if North raises.

FEILER:  “2D. Playing 4th suit as a game-force is a bad convention. I have my choice of over-bidding, bidding notrump without a stopper in the unbid suit, or raising with 3-card support. I'll choose over-bidding; we may get too high but we should end up in the right denomination.”

I’m not sure how a diamond preference is an overbid here, unless you meant to jump to 3D? Finally, we have the eternal optimist:

KNIEST:  “3H. I don't think 4th suit is forcing after a passed hand. However, partner bid again over my 1H, so he should have a real opener. 3H should get him to bid the best game ... if there is one.”

6.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:
S-K103   H-A10876   D-Void  C-KJ965 ?

Bridge World Standard plays the unusual 2NT overcall as "split-range" -- either a weak, preempt-type hand, or a very strong hand that can raise partner's preference. Many of our panelists like this approach, too, and that accounts in part for the heavy vote for 1H. The 2NT bidders prefer to use this bid with any hand strength, on the theory that it's often important to show both your suits early in the auction. That approach could well be the winner on this deal, but the split-range disciples win the vote.

I was actually torn between a takeout double and the simple 1H overcall. What swayed me toward 1H was that at least I’d get in one suit in case West ups the ante significantly in diamonds and I’m forced to try and figure this out at the 3-level or so.

KNIEST:  “1H. I don't think I want to consider this a 2-suited hand when it can play spades very well. I'd like to hear everyone's natural rebid instead of jacking up the auction in the dark.”

WILLIAMS:  “1H, the only option. Double loses the spade suit, 2NT (showing 2 lower unbid) should never be bid with this type of hand, and of course, 2C is off the charts -- bad hand and a bad suit for a 2-level overcall.”

And with the EHAA system, the suit is too good for a 3-level jump overcall. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

BERNHARD:  “1H. Tough, if I double and they jump in diamonds, then the heart suit is lost. I have good support for the other suits, which argues for the double, but I'm still bidding hearts. Hands like this help my reputation as a hand hog." [ Finally, he admits it!-TJD. ]

HUDSON: “1H. Easy. 2NT would eliminate the possibility of playing in spades, and double is bad with a void and a 2-card disparity in the majors.”

But you doubled with 5-3 in the majors on problem #1, so what’s the big deal about the void? I’d rather double at the one-level with a void, since there's less chance of partner riding it out than at the 3-level. I agree with 1H, but double is not all that off-base here. Its only real flaw is that the bidding is likely to go 2D (or 3D) to your left, Pass, Pass -- or worse, a spade jump by partner after a raise -- and now you’re really up against it.

MERRITT:  “Double. I am sure that this is the wrong bid, but it surely pulls all the suits into play.”

FEILER:  “Double. I'm not assuming that I'll get lots of time to describe my hand. I'll take the one-shot description in case the auction gets high before it gets back to me.”

At least the double might get us to clubs if that’s our suit. Finally:

ATHY:  “2NT. This was my action at the table when I held this hand, and I've fretted about the 1H  overcall and the takeout double ever since. If you want to know how it turned out, email me athynk@aol.com.”

Fret no more, Norm.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this set. Congratulations to Gareth Birdsall, Mary Lou Clegg, Micah Fogel and George Klemic, who topped all Solvers. They're invited to join the panel for December.

We use Bridge World Standard as our bidding system here, but note that it is only a guideline. You don't have to study it to answer the problems. This column is more interesting if we can discuss how auctions are popularly played -- what you think a bid should mean in "mainstream" play, rather than what BWS expressly dictates. You can consult BWS if you want to know if a specific convention is available, but many of our problems deal with how you "read" an auction, how you evaluate your hand, how you think a good partner would interpret your bid. In those cases, just answer as if you were playing with an experienced player and the specific situation is undiscussed.

I hope you'll all try the six new problems for the next issue (see below). Please submit your answers by November 15 on the web form or by email to our December moderator:

Tom Kniest  -- kniest@swbell.net

How the Panel voted (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 534):

How the Staff Voted:

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 510)

Gareth Birdsall, Cambridge UK	570	Martha Leary, Urbana IL	560
Mary Lou Clegg, Ft. Wayne IN	570	Mike Giacaman, St. Louis	550
Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	570	Tad Hofkin, Aurora IL	550
George Klemic, Bensenville IL	570	Bill Rotter, Granite City IL	550
Charles Blair, Urbana IL	560	Bill Walsh, Urbana IL	550
Wally Hendricks, Champaign IL	560	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL	550
Tied with 540:  Rowen Bell, Chicago;  Chick Fyffe, St. Louis;  Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN; Dave McNitt, Elkhart IN;  Fred Sandegren, Quincy IL;  Oyvind Tafjord, Champaign IL;  Mike Tomlianovich, Bloomington IL;  Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb

Solvers Forum -- December Problems