District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2018

        by Kimmel Jones, Euless TX
 

Our first hand out of the box this month illustrates why so many of us play the 2/1 game-forcing system. Until we are sure of the final contract, we keep the bidding low to explore options.

Kniest: 2S. We're in a game force and need more information from pard, so 2S for the moment.

Hudson: 2S. My suit isn't good enough for 3S. I'll probably raise hearts next round, and hope I can show extras below the level of game.

Pavlicek: 2S. Seems clear-cut now, with a problem to be named later. Surely it's premature to raise hearts or insist on spades (I assume 3S would set trumps).

Yes, we play that an unnecessary jump rebid of our suit in a forcing auction does set trumps.

Baker: 2S. 3H loses when partner has  Qx  AQJxx  xxx  KJx and we miss a good 6S. 3S loses when partner has x  AKQJx  Qxx  xxxx  and we miss a good 6H. 2S followed by a delayed raise to 3H over 2NT or a minor gives us a better chance of finding the right spot.

Just one panelist gave a different opinion from the majority:

Hinckley: 3H. AKQxx of hearts alone makes a heart slam very good. Since 6S might make with 6H down on a trump loser, I'll try later to keep 6S as an option, possibly using 5NT (pick a slam).

Our Solvers who selected other actions fall into four categories. Those bidding 4NT or 4C are trying for slam, most likely in hearts, so we give them the most credit. Those rebidding 3S are giving up on landing in their known 8-card heart fit. Those leaping straight to game are especially limiting their options. And the few Solvers choosing 3D perhaps don't understand that in the 2/1 game-force system, there's no need for opener to make an artificial force. Opener’s bid of a new suit in this auction shows a legitimate second suit.

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J   ♥A4   ♦KJ1085   ♣J10654 ?

At first glance, this appears to be a no-brainer, particularly non-vul at matchpoints. Get in there and compete!

Pavlicek: 2NT. This could cost me on Santa's naughty or nice list, but it seems pretty soft to give the opponents a free run. The stiff jack is nice, too, as shape info from my bid is unlikely to matter (per restricted choice).

Who thinks of Santa this time of year? We just had a 2- or 3-week streak of 100+-degree days here in Texas. Richard’s last point is that is if you end up defending, declarer will likely play you for the stiff jack of spades (when it appears) whether you bid or not.

Rabideau: 2NT. A little weaker than I'd like, but those tens are seductive.

Ward: 2NT. This seems normal. 2D for the lead could be right, but only if they play 3NT, which, looking at my spade shortness, is unlikely to be the game they play.

Kessler: 2D. Partner could end up on lead against hearts or notrump, and I want a diamond  lead. If LHO bids 2S back to me, I'll bid 2NT unusual.

Even though just this one panelist chose 2D, we score it higher than passing because the majority view is to take action. One of the best arguments for not bidding here comes from someone who still bid 2NT anyway.

Walker: 2NT. Very close between this and Pass. Arguments against 2NT are it's pointless because we're going to be outbid (unlikely we have a good white-vs-white save) and may well help declarer. Still, my suits aren't awful, 2NT uses up space and it could give them a problem, so bidding wins by a hair.

And this just in, the news from El Paso:

Grande: Pass. Both suits are not good enough. The ace of hearts and even the J of spades are potentially good defensive values. It is much better to have most values in the long suits so partner is well placed to make subsequent decisions. In addition, you may not want to encourage a club lead.

Baker: Pass My suits aren't great, I have enough defense that I don't want to encourage a sacrifice over 4S, and I don't really want to make it that easy for East to read the hand.

As for the couple of Solvers who want to cuebid 2S or make a takeout double, those calls both advertise a substantial heart holding that you simply do not have.

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠104   ♥Q8753   ♦A   ♣AKQJ8  ?

I always wonder why many of these hands are selected, don’t you? For this problem, I have a theory. South had recently started playing the convention known as Leaping Michaels that is now standard for most of us. Over an opponent’s opening weak 2-bid of a major, you need to use the direct cuebid for other purposes such as asking for a stopper. With Leaping Michaels, you show a big two-suiter (major-minor) by leaping to 4 of your minor. My theory is that the holder of this hand wanted to use the new convention when she heard the 2S bid, but then was in a quandary when it was raised to 3S. She couldn’t very well leap to 5C without passing the chance to reach 4H.

Most us reluctantly doubled, with the secret hope that partner won’t bury us in diamonds.

Baker: Double. I'll pull 4D to 4H to show the other suits (at this level, a real one-suiter would just bid hearts rather than doubling first). Not ideal, but nothing ever is over a preempt.

Hudson: Double. "Most flexible" (that's what they always say in bidding forums about takeout doubles). If it goes:  (Pass)-4D-(Pass)-4H, I hope partner will realize I'm not showing a big one-suited heart hand.

Walker: Double and hope partner can bid 3NT. If not, maybe we'll find a heart fit after partner bids the inevitable 4D. As awkward as that auction might be, I just can't pass and let them steal it for 3S.

Ward: Double. Only way to get to 3NT. 4H on that suit is too rich for my blood, and as far as I know, 4C is natural.

Hey, I doubled too, but 3NT seems unlikely. Suppose partner has as much as Ax  KJx  KQxxx  xxx  and contents herself with only bidding 3NT. The diamonds are blocked on the expected spade lead. Still, we double and hope for three top tricks and a heart or club entry if we reach 3NT.

Grande: 4C. I’d like to take a stab at hearts, either by doubling or bidding 4H. However, if hearts or bidding at all is wrong, it may be more difficult for the opponents to double 4C.

True, Chris, but there’s a game bonus available in your other long suit.

Kessler: 4H. Bid what I hope we can make. All we need is Axx of hearts to have a play.

That is true. Even with that weak a hand from partner, 4H will fly if you can play trumps for just one loser! You could take 4 heart tricks, 1 diamond, and 5 clubs. Compared to 3NT or 5C, where you’ll likely will lose 2 spades and a heart, 4H seems best.

Pavlicek: 4H. Anything could be right, but the upside of 4H seems best. Non-leaping Michaels would be great here, but who plays it? Not me for sure.

Richard, I sure am glad you asked that question. Actually, an ever-growing number of players in my circle down here in District 16 (Texas) are playing Non-Leaping Michaels, meaning when they enter the auction by bidding 4 of a minor over the opponents’ 3 of a major, they are showing a two-suited hand that includes the other major. This hand would be ideal for 4C as if responder had passed the 2S opening bid. I play it now with just a couple of my partners and I can’t say it's come up yet in battle. Stay tuned.

4. IMPs, EW vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:: ♠6542   ♥10543   ♦842   ♣75 ?

Kessler: Pass. I cannot imagine bidding.

Me neither, Mark. With our 4-card spade length, maybe LHO won’t have many spades and will let 4S go, Why wake the giant?

Grande: Pass. Odd hand in that even with four trumps, your hand may not help partner at all. Fairly certain that the opponents can make 6S. The question is, will it make it easier for the opponents to bid slam if you pass or bid?

Walker: Pass. This is more of a psychology and strategy exercise than a "Law" hand. I know they have a slam but West may not. The 4S bid is often a stretch in this auction, so West may decide to pass with a pretty good hand. That won't happen if I come in and goad him (or East) into showing a little extra.

Yes, any action gives them both a chance to bid on. And if one does, it could encourage the other to bid on as well. But alas, my little band of passers are outnumbered.

Kniest: 5H. Going with the law ... and the vulnerability here.

Karen and I don’t see this as a “Law” Hand. But yes, we could have 11 hearts, and they must have an 8-card fit somewhere. So I suppose bidding 5 over 4 is lawful. But just like in government, the law gets fuzzy at high levels.

Rabideau: 5H. Let's take their chance to Blackwood off the table and see what happens. I’ll probably sacrifice at 7H if they get to 6S.

Hinckley:  5H. 6H is also tempting. 5H blocks several important bids, including Blackwood and a 5S bid asking for a heart control.

The ultimate blocking bid was found by one brave soul.

Baker: 7H. Passing leaves them far too much room to explore. 5H makes life a little harder but not much. 6H might as well be a transfer to 6S (which might be right if they can make 7). 7H should be a good save over 6 of anything (worst case 1400 and a near push), as long as it doesn't push them into a making 7S.

That’s a strong argument, and now for the best!

Pavlicek: 5D. This won't score much, but it's what I would bid. Have to take away their 4NT, and this may dim their outlook, whereas 5H would propel them.

Umm, it was this bid by this man that inspired me to recall the short story at the top of this article.

5D is so brilliant -- much more imaginative than 5H. It’s bound to create a little confusion or misplaced evaluation as they each look at their diamond holding and wonder. You can always pensively retreat to hearts later to keep the damages under 2000. I assign 100 points to everyone who found 5D.

5. IMPs, none vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding: ♠K7   ♥AQ86   ♦J10984   ♣103 ?

What do you do when no bid seems quite right? I mean besides make it a District 8 Solvers Hand.

Well, often we just invent a new convention (See Hand #3). In 1957, Al Roth solved the problem presented here by inventing the negative double. You double to show a decent hand with values in the unbid suits. But wait a second -- the program won’t let me double! What’s going on?

Kniest: 2D. The perfect description is a double here, but it's illegal. 2D to show some stuff -- not forcing, but constructive is standard here, I think.

Baker: 2D.The opponents never seem to cooperate and raise when I want to make a responsive double. If I'm passed in 2D, game shouldn't be there; if not, whatever partner does will tell me where we should be.

Pavlicek: 2D. This would be a tougher problem at matchpoints (2S may be wiser then), but if partner passes 2D, we surely have no game, and my suit texture should make a misfit playable.

Grande: 2D. Too much to pass. Partner will probably expect better diamonds, but the alternatives are deeply flawed.

And now for the deeply flawed. All of us matchpoint players, including me, raised partner.

Hinckley: 2S. I prefer 2S to 1NT with this disparity between spades and clubs. If I held 10xx of clubs, 1NT would look better.

Hudson: 2S.  2D is second best, but I'm a tad light and I don't want to encourage a diamond lead. Pass or 1NT won't work often enough. Will they let me get away with a negative double?

Walker: 2S. Kx is as good as xxx. If we were red, I'd bid 2C and hope partner had enough for 4S. I just can't make myself hide this spade holding to emphasize such an awful diamond suit.

Those of us who grew up in Champaign back in the day remember one of our very favorite characters named Art Webber. One of my very first childhood memories is coming in 4th in a large St. Louis regional pair game playing with Art. We even named memorial tournaments after him. Art began playing long before negative doubles were invented, so he was in the habit of raising on honor doubleton. He did it all the time. We dubbed this practice a Webber Raise.

Ward: 2C. Kx will have to do for support. 2D on this suit is not appetizing and may bury hearts.

Nate even believes the hand is too good for a Webber Raise. Then we go in the opposite direction.

Kessler: Pass. Any bid I make is awkward and if we miss a game, it is non-vulnerable. If I had to bid other then pass, I would bid 2S.

Our two panelists who choose 1NT offered no explanation. I can understand that.

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable             

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ964   ♥A53   ♦KJ   ♣A74 ?

We actually end on a deal that closely resembles the first one. In both cases, it seems most logical to keep many options open with a simple flexible call. Your real decision could come on the next round.

Hinckley: Double. If partner bids 2D, we'll have another tough decision to make.

Kniest: Double, showing a good hand and other places to play. What else?

Kessler: Double. Seems automatic. Cannot let opponents play at the 2-level. 2NT, while describing your point count, puts you in position to go for an unpleasant result.

Pavlicek: Double. If this isn't unanimous, there may be too much champagne in Champaign, or at least a reason to check pulses.

And now the pulseless minority:

Hudson: Pass.  The balanced hand makes me timid.  Partner probably doesn't have enough for us to make 3NT.

Ward: Pass. I may be in a minority here, but I don't want to go for -200 by rebidding 2NT opposite likely spade shortness and only one club stopper in hand.

Walker: Pass. Double puts you or partner in a 7-card fit with everything offside. 2NT could be brutal with just one club stopper and such a ragged spade suit as a source of tricks. Both feel like -200 at best.

Baker: Pass. Partner couldn't act, so it's not likely he has much of anything over there. 2NT opposite almost nothing goes for -200 on a good day and could be a lot worse. If he's trapping (very unlikely), this might be better for us undoubled than wherever the opponents would run to.

Dan lives in Austin where they may have a little too much Texas Tea. I suppose passing could win, but it seems to be quite a position to take with 18 points. It sure would be nice to hear what really happened on this deal. We may never know.

The rest of the Swiss Team story: As for that team event back in about 1978 where my friend and I filled in for Richard Pavlicek, we did manage to hang in there and win the final match, winning the event for them and making their team-mate a new Life Master. Now, Richard has a chance to thank me. I do thank him and all of our esteemed panelists with their many wise contributions this month.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set. Congratulations to Rick Armstrong of St. Louis, Linda Leinicke of St. Louis and Michael Clegg of Fort Wayne IN who turned in perfect scores. All three are invited to join the October panel.

If you'd like to receive an email notice when new problems are posted, please send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

I hope you'll give the October problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by September 30 on the web form.

Help wanted: If you'd like to serve as a Forum moderator and write up the column (twice a year), please contact Karen at kwalker2@comcast.net.