District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2004

by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

1. IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
2H	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  J4   963   AQJ5   AKQ10?

Our panel offered six different choices here and the Solvers, believe it or not, offered three additional alternatives. Not a single one is even slightly attractive, which is why this is called a bidding problem. The ultra-conservative choice is to do nothing, following the “get fixed/stay fixed” philosophy:

FEILER: “Pass. The only bid I’m tempted to make is 2NT, but the heart stopper seems ... tenuous. I’ve found partners aren’t very understanding when bids like this don’t work out.”

The majority of the panel thought partner -- and team-mates -- might be even more upset if we missed a vulnerable game. The plurality thought the least-of-evils solution was:

STRITE: “2NT. For the record, I don’t think my Heart 9 is a third round stopper, but every possible bid carries at least this much risk.”

PAULO: “2NT, showing strong notrump values. This bid looks like the least evil, when considering a 3-of-a-minor overcall (which four-card suit to bid?), double (what to do after a spade response?) and pass (runs the serious risk of missing a vulnerable game).”

Paulo’s last comment explains the panel’s heavy vote for doing something other than passing. At matchpoints, I would guess that more of us would pass and hope for a small plus score. If that decision is wrong, it surely won’t be a top-to-bottom matchpoint swing, and it’s only one board out of 26 in the session. Passing seems way too dangerous at IMPs, though, where a missed game can cost the whole match.

Partner needs very little for us to make a game here, and the optimists’ view is to just assume he has it:

HAAG: “3H. Vulnerable at IMPs, it’s too risky to pass. Although bidding 3H would usually show tricks in a long running minor, here is a good reason why this isn't always the case. Partner should not bid a 4-card spade suit here in response.”

Does partner know he’s not supposed to bid 3S? I agree that the direct cuebid is usually made with a long suit, but there’s no reason your suit has to be a minor – or that you can’t have a big two-suiter. This depends somewhat on the rest of your system (whether or not you’re playing Leaping Michaels, for example). When partner doesn’t have the stopper, the auction will usually be easier if he makes a natural, low-level bid. This gives you room to show your suit at a lower level, which allows partner to make the final decision on whether or not to raise to game.

SOPER: “3H to ask for a stopper. If partner has that and the rest of the seven HCPs he’s supposed to have, then we’re good enough to be in a vulnerable game at IMPs. If partner doesn’t have a stopper, we’ll play in everyone’s favorite contract: 4 of a minor.”

KNIEST: “3H. Partner’s first duty is to show a stopper. Without one, he responds as to a takeout double, but without jumping, since you might be on a one-suiter.”

The problem with the cuebid is that it works well only when partner has a heart card. If he doesn't have a stopper and bids 4C or 4D, you’ll have no idea of how high to place the contract, as he’d bid this way with zero or 10 points. If he bids the more likely 3S and you run to 4C, partner will play you for the one-suiter. Even if you don’t think the cuebid guarantees a mountain, it certainly promises more playing strength than a balanced 17-count, and partner may well raise you to game in your 4-2 fit.

Three panelists and a plurality of the Solvers chose the risky takeout double. This could work well if partner has a minor and/or a heart stopper, but you have to be willing to pass and pray after his likely 2S response. The double is slightly more attractive if you play Lebensohl responses, where partner’s 3-level bid would promise some values (at least a good 7-8 points). This was explained by:

DODD:  “Double. If partner bids an invitational 3C or 3D, I’ll cuebid 3H, trying for that elusive 3NT, or even landing in 5 of a minor when he has the right sort of hand. If partner responds 2S, then we may be truly stuck, perhaps in a lousy 4-2 fit. But if he bids anything but 2S, we’re much better placed to at least use our judgment and arrive at a decent contract.”

HUDSON, another doubler, said he would respect a Lebensohl signoff and try 3NT (nervously) over an invitational 3-bid. But if you’re going to endplay yourself into bidding notrump later, why not just do it now, at a level that gives partner the choice of whether or not to bid game? A 2NT overcall has the obvious problem, but it could work out even when you don’t have a stopper. There are a lot of opponents out there who think this auction calls for them to be brilliant and lead an off suit, and maybe they're at my table.

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	9	38
6S	80	3	14
4NT	70	2	26
5D	60	1	0
DBL	50	1	0
4S	50	0	20

West	North	East	South
--	Pass	Pass	1S
2D	3D*	4D	???

* Spade raise, 11+ support pts.

What is your call as South holding:  AQ8654   A6   5   AJ52 ? 

The panel was in unanimous agreement that this hand called for some sort of slam try. The majority tried a 4H cuebid, with some commenting that their choice was “easy” or “obvious”. The ease of this choice depends on what you think 4H means here, and your plans for the subsequent auction.

Most thought 4H showed a control and at least slam-invitational values, but they had different ideas about how to proceed after partner bids the expected 4S.

LAMBERT:  “4H. This has the added advantage of letting pard take control if he has stuff. Over his minimum response, I will still drive to 6S.”

FEILER (and NELSON similarly): “4H. Key-Card Blackwood isn’t a good idea here since we need more than controls for slam. If partner signs off in 4S, I’ll give him one more chance by bidding 5C.”

KNIEST: “4H. I’ve more than a minimum and partner is unlimited, so I have to make a try. I’ll respect partner’s signoff. Blackwood is hopeless as there is no safety at the 5-level. Does this hand qualify for partner’s 3D cuebid:  J10xx  KQx  Kx  Qxxx ?"

Yes, but so does Kxxx  Kxxxx   xx   Kx . With either hand, your aceless partner is going to have to sign off at 4S over your 4H cuebid. Other panelists thought there might be a more complex interpretation for 4H, so they tried alternatives:

HAAG: “Double. Is 4H here an alternative place to play or Last Train? I certainly have extras with controls in all the unbid suits and two of the top three spade honors. I believe double here is a slam try and I’m going to bid that.”

You could have a heart suit for the 4H bid, but it’s definitely not passable. The double-as-slam-try meaning would depend on a special partnership agreement, as in standard, the double here is a warning that you have wasted diamond values.

HUDSON: “5D. An immediate bid of 6S might work, but is too likely to result in -50. A slam try, getting partner’s opinion is just right, and the 5-level is probably safe. A timid alternative would be a Last Train 4H, except that I don’t think Last Train applies here.”

HAAG’s and HUDSON’s mentions of “Last Train” refer to an agreement that when there’s only one call available below game level to indicate slam interest, a bid of that suit is a slam try, but not necessarily a control-showing cuebid. It’s a handy agreement when you want to try for slam, but don’t want to commit to the 5-level. Whether or not it applies here is a matter for partnership discussion.

Your decision comes down to how you evaluate this hand and your guess of where partner’s values are. With the opponents bidding so high on limited values, my guess is that all of partner’s high cards are outside diamonds. The exact location of those honors is a mystery that no cuebid is going to solve, so I’m with:

KESSLER: “6S. I don’t think you are ever going to bid 7S -- or find out for sure if 6S is right – so I bid what I hope I can make. Partner is always going to hate his hand.”

6S is a bit of a gamble, but it will have a decent play opposite so many dead-minimum dummies, that I think it's a good shot. The final word:

STRITE: “4H is obvious, but partner will bid 4S. What to do then should be a follow-up problem next issue. I’ll need the two months to figure out my answer.”

I can hear the director call now:
     Opponents:  “He hesitated for 60 days before he bid 5C!”
     Strite:  “It wasn’t nearly that long!”

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3D	100	7	44
4C	90	6	14
2S	70	2	26
4D	70	1	8

3. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

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

What is your call as South holding:  KQ92   K10874   AJ95   Void ?

How serious is your interest in a notrump contract? That double-plus spade stopper and the fitting diamond cards have to be important assets for 3NT. But there’s that side void – in an unbid suit, yet – that could be a problem.

Seven panelists wanted to leave the notrump possibility open, so they tried the simple raise:

STRITE: “3D. I can't splinter, as 3NT could be right or the defense could have a fast spade ruff, and somehow my four-card support looks like it might be one too few. 3D isn't that much of an underbid. It places us well if partner finds another call, while if 3D floats, we've bid the limit when pard has a modest 10 points."

BIEVENUE: “3D. A splinter might be tempting, but if partner's values are in clubs (which is likely on this auction), you’ve bypassed 3NT – and may not be able to take 11 tricks in diamonds.”

FEILER: “3D. I think partner would take 2S as asking for a spade stopper, not anything like this hand. The only other forcing bid I have is 4C, which is a bit of an overbid and makes it difficult to reach 3NT.”

ATHY: “3D. A delicate underbid that doesn't rule out reaching 3NT when it's right. A 4C splinter could work, but partner would need an awful lot of diamonds to make it right.”

The rest of the panel agreed that 3D was an underbid, and they all chose stronger moves. Yes, you have just 13 points – and only one ace -- but this hand still looks like a powerhouse, even if partner has bare-minimum values for his competitive 2D call. Most of the 4C bidders admitted they were being a bit pushy, but few were worried about missing 3NT:

SOPER:  “4C. Partner doesn't rate to have many cards in the majors, and if he held both minors, he would have made a negative double, so the diamonds should be ‘real’ and long. I hate to go past 3NT at matchpoints, but the splinter could get us to a making slam, or 3NT could fail on a club lead.”

LAMBERT:  “4C. Following the adage of not inviting notrump with a side void.”

KNIEST:  “4C -- most descriptive, even with the void. This hand cries out for a suit contract, so even those great spade spots don't tempt me to bid notrump with the void. If you rocket past 3NT now, you can no longer get to that contract, which figures to be hideous.”

Maybe some of this optimism comes from our surprise (relief?) that partner didn’t bid 2C, but it seems justified. I also agree with the decision to go past 3NT, but I think a splinter really ought to promise more high-card strength. Some would argue that splintering with a void is not ideal, either. Add a red queen to my hand, though – or even trade the heart king for the ace – and I’d be a 4C bidder, too.

With the hand I actually have, my (lonely) choice is the straight value bid of 4D. It’s highly invitational, showing great playing strength without overstating the hand’s high-card values. In practice, partner will bid at least 5D with any excuse, but since he might have bid 2D with just 9 or 10 points, it also gives him the option of passing. Partners seem to like it when you allow them to evaluate their hands, too.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	11	40
2S	70	3	24
2NT	70	2	3
Pass	50	0	3
2H	50	0	26
3D	50	0	3

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	1C
Pass	1D	1S	???

What is your call as South holding:  J73   A965   AQ4   AK10 ?

This was the easiest problem of the set for the panel and most of the Solvers, thanks to a toy in the bidding system:

FEILER: “Double. If I’m reading the Bridge World Standard write-up correctly, this shows four hearts. Hey, for once, a convention that fits my hand!”

PAULO: “Double to show four hearts. If partner holds a weak hand, he has 1NT and several two-level bids to choose from.”

HAAG:  “Double. This seems the simplest way to show my four hearts and keep the auction low. I can then follow up by showing my 3-card diamond support or, if partner asks for a half stop in spades, I’m able to show this as well.”

RABIDEAU: "Double. Everyone in this great country of ours should be thankful that our Bridge World voters had the foresight to adopt the Sandwich Double."

Most of the doublers didn’t need to look up BW Standard to figure out that double showed four hearts here. Some commented that they considered it “virtually standard”. Even if you play support doubles in this “sandwich" position (to show 3-card support for partner’s suit), most pairs limit that usage only to major-suit responses. Without the sandwich double, your alternatives are:

ATHY: “2S. It seems that 3NT is the most likely spot, and 2S here helps to right-side the offense.”

BIEVENUE: “2NT. I’m not afraid of East's spade bid, as he didn’t open in third seat. 2NT perfectly shows my shape and strength. 2S would work if I know I am going to game and just looking for the strain, but partner's hand is limited and could be as few as 6 flat points.”

The Solvers turned in a relatively heavy vote for the reverse to 2H. This shows your high-card strength, but it's a giant distortion of your distribution. The reverse should guarantee at least 5-4 in your two suits.

If the double weren’t available to show four hearts, I’d be comfortable with the 2NT rebid. As BIEVENUE notes, East’s failure to open 1S or 2S in third seat suggests he has a pretty ragged suit, and notrump could be right even if we have a 4-4 heart fit.

DODD commented that your real problem may come on the next round. If partner can rebid 1NT or 2H, you can raise to invite game (or maybe just haul off and bid game, if you're convinced he has 5 diamonds). Over partner's rebid of 2C or 2D, though, it may be difficult to show your almost-game-forcing strength.

Another consideration, important for many pairs, is responder's expected distribution in the red suits. If your partnership style is to bypass diamonds when you have a minimum response and a four-card major, there’s a strong inference that your passed-hand partner doesn’t have four hearts. Maybe this a good example of a hand that would be simpler to bid without the sandwich double -- or that shouldn't employ the convention, even if it's available.

All of that is making that 2NT rebid look better and better.

5. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5D	100	9	56
Pass	80	7	24
5C	60	0	9
4S	40	0	9

West	North	East	South
--	--	2H	Pass
Pass	3H*	Pass	3S
Pass	4D	Pass	???

* Asks for stopper

What is your call as South holding:  Q1032   65   J92   KQ106 ?

Anyone experiencing some déjà vu? A rethinking of your bid from Problem #1?

DODD: “Pass. Not much to do except pass or (gasp!) raise to game. Change around a couple of cards, and this could be North’s hand from problem #1. Coincidence, perhaps?”

Yes, it’s a coincidence, but an interesting one. All of the panelists who cuebid 3H on Problem #1 chose to pass here. Maybe they were influenced by their cuebid with that six-loser hand and feared their partner was retaliating with an overbid of his own.

The 5D bidders had a different picture of partner’s hand:

LAMBERT: “5D. I’ve got the 2:1 odds for a vulnerable game, so why not take the shot?  Partner is describing 8+ winners with long diamonds, hopefully a hand like  Ax  x  AKQxxxx  Jxx .”

ATHY: “5D. Partner has us at 4D when I could have nothing. With no raise by West, I’m afraid of the heart suit, but I feel I can’t pass with a few reasonable cards.”

PAULO: “5D. North should have nine quick tricks outside of hearts, and I add two (the club marriage), so I have to hope the opponents can’t cash three tricks.”

Some of the passers had the same idea about partner’s hand, but took a dimmer view of their own cards:

BIEVENUE: “Pass. If partner had two quick heart losers with the Spade AK, Diamond AKQ and Club A, he might have tried 5D on his own. North is more likely to hold a long diamond suit and was just hoping for 3NT if I had a heart stopper.”

STRITE: “Pass. Pard has solid diamonds and a card or two outside. I have about what partner would expect. With two fast heart losers and the black losers still to cover, let’s hope this makes.”

I think three potentially valuable cover cards – plus three-card support to an honor (which may be valuable as an entry) – is a little more than partner might expect. I’m also not convinced that partner has to have two quick heart losers. At this vulnerability, it’s hardly automatic for a broke, balanced West to raise hearts, even with four-card support.

As DODD pointed out, the real problem is that partner’s cuebid is so vaguely defined. There are several different hands he could hold -- a gambling-type one-suiter, a more powerful one-suiter, a minor two-suiter with longer diamonds, a balanced powerhouse with no stopper. Some think he could also have clubs, but so far, our best guess is that he has a one-suiter and enough high-card and/or playing strength to justify forcing to the four-level.

At matchpoints, I might still be thinking, trying to break Strite’s hesitation record from Problem #2. At IMPs, though, when the decision is this close – and when partner’s exact strength is unclear -- I think I owe him a courtesy raise. If I bid 5D and we go –100, I expect a push or, at worst, a 6-IMP loss. If I pass and we score +150, the cost can be 10 IMPs … and the whole match.

6. IMPs, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	8	60
1D	90	4	17
2D	80	3	17
3D	70	1	6

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  874   Q975   AK10976  Void ?

Last hand of the match. Do you open, hoping you can outbid your opponents and score a small (or large) plus? Or do you end the match early so you can be first in line for the free pizza after the session?

This problem was originally posed back in 1984 in the “Junior Master Solvers” column in the Central Illinois Unit newsletter. Back then, not one of the 16 panelists chose a diamond preempt. Ten panelists opened 1D and the other six passed.

It appears that times have changed. The 2004 panel is evenly divided between the passers and bidders, but the bidders split on whether to open a 1-bid or a preempt. Some of the bidders had larceny in mind:

FEILER: “2D. If I were short in either major, I'd pass. Since my short suit is clubs, I'll see if I can't steal a partscore.”

LAMBERT: “3D. Looking to steal some IMPs.”

STRITE: “1D. Someone might take a lot of tricks, maybe even us. Switch my majors and 1D is clear-cut, but even the xxx in spades lessens the odds the opponents will outbid us.”

DODD:  “1D. Passing crossed my mind, especially since I could save some time on this round and go grab an early smoke, but I would never pass this hand at the table.”

ATHY:  “1D. I'm going to break my favorite IMP Rule. I think it's right to pass playing for money, but I’m opening 1D with virtually no defense. My second choice is a tie between the ‘obvious’ Pass and a somewhat wild, vulnerable 3D.”

Twenty years ago, the 1D bidders’ logic was that the only reason to open was to cater to the possibility of a heart game, so a 2D or 3D preempt was pointless. Like STRITE, some also said the moderate spade length slightly reduced the chances that the opponents had a fit there and would outbid us.

I think that makes some sense, but the chances of us having a 4H game – and being able to actually bid it even when we do -- seem pretty remote. The passers took a different view, motivated mainly by fear:

SOPER: “Pass. I can’t go minus-500 by passing.”

KESSLER: “Pass. I do not want to get in a bidding war vulnerable with a 9-count and a bunch of losers. We could have a game, but so might the opponents, and they probably own the spade suit.”

KNIEST:  “Pass. Years ago, in a partnership where we played fourth-seat preempts were invitational to 3NT, I opened 3D in fourth seat with  xx  Ax  AKQxxx  xx  and the opponents whipped into a vulnerable 4S, making five. At the other table, the national champion passed with my hand.” 

There’s nothing more annoying than opening in fourth seat and hearing two passed-hand opponents cruise into a game. It’s happened often enough to me – and probably the other passers -- that perhaps we experience some sort of post-traumatic stress reaction when confronted with a problem like this one.

Like the bidders, I have a nagging feeling that we could be missing something here, and I admire their bravado. But at the table, I have to admit that I’d take the chicken approach and pass this hand out. I think my opponent at the other table is going to pass, so I’m going for the push and the pizza.

Thanks to all who sent in answers for this interesting and difficult set. Thanks to this month's guest panelists -- Lisa Bievenue, Matthew Haag, Jim Hudson and Paul Soper -- for their analysis. 

Top scorers in this issue's Solvers contest were Leroy Boser, Nigel Guthrie and Bud Hinckley, who outscored the panel with impressive 590's. They're all invited to join the panel for December.

I hope you'll all try the six new problems for the next issue (see below). Please submit your answers by November 22 on the web form or by email to our December moderator:

 Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 492)

Leroy Boser, Elkhart IN	590	Phil Kline, Twin Waters, Queensland, Aus.	560
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	590	Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	560
Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN	590	Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb, Croatia	530
Darren Evetts, Coventry UK	580	Sasanka Ramanadham, Kirkwood MO	530
Eric Gettleman, Normal IL	570	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL	530
Tied with 520:  Jane Ettelson, St. Louis;  Tad Hofkin, Aurora IL;  Doug McQuaid, Lebanon IL;  K. Monroe, Newport OR;  John Seng, Champaign IL;  Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL

Solvers Forum -- December 2004 Problems

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                                 West    North      East     South  2H DBL RDBL 3C ??? What is your call as South holding: 74   KJ10983  A3   Q96 ? 2. IMPs, both vulnerable    West      North      East     South  1NT * DBL ** 2H *** ???    * (12-14 pts.)     ** (Penalty)  *** (Natural, signoff) What is your call as South holding: AJ63   5   Q10753   1042 ?   3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                        West     North      East     South  Pass 1H Pass 2C Pass 2S Pass 3D Pass 3S Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: 987   Void   AJ108   AK10765 ?

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable   West     North      East     South  -- 1C 1S 2D 4S DBL Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: Void   AK   KQJ9854   K743 ? 5. IMPs, none vulnerable   West     North     East     South   -- -- -- Pass 3D Pass Pass ??? What is your call as South holding: Q10732   Void   A   Q976543 ? 6. IMPs, NS vulnerable   West      North      East     South   1H 2C  DBL * Pass 2S ???    * (Negative dbl.) What is your call as South holding: 2   AJ   K1074   AK9873 ? Thanks for the problems above to Ned Horton (#3) and Norman Athy (#5).