District 8 Solvers Forum -- December 2005

 by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ

1. IMPs, none vulnerable  

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2D	100	10	42
2S	90	7	49
3D	70	1	2
3H	70	0	7

West	North	East	South
	1S	Pass	1NT*
Pass	2C	Pass	???

* Forcing notrump

What is your call as South holding:  Q5   A9765   K109542   Void ?

I read a pair of articles in last Sunday’s New York Times that speculated on the probability of bridge and chess becoming as popular as poker with the American public. Yeah, sure. I can just envision Joe Blow leaning back in his Barcalounger, taking a big slug of his Bud Light, screaming out, “How can you possibly bid 2S on this hand when ya got 11 cards in them thar red suits! Idiot -- cantcha see yer pardner had a diamond fit and ya just missed a dadbum easy game? Geez Louise, where’s the clicker? I’m switchin' back to poker.”

On the other hand, it would be nice to watch pocket cam and see what North was holding. It’d make bidding hands like this one a whole lot easier. For those of you who think I’m going to state what I believe to be the “correct” answer here ... sorry, there isn’t one. Both 2D and 2S could be right in BWS. A lot depends on the tendencies of your partnership. If North tends to be aggressive, 2D will probably work better here. If your North tends to be a bit cautious -- if he might dump you in 2D fearing a big misfit -- then 2S will probably work best. My partners tend to be aggressive, hence I prefer 2D … at least on days that don’t begin with a “T”.

BERNHARD: “3D. All two-bids greatly understate the hand’s value. I need to make an invitational bid and 3D is less of a lie than 2NT or 3H, and much safer.”

I told you my partners tend toward the aggressive style.

KNIEST: “2D. Many ways to land on your feet here. Partner might raise diamonds (over which I’d bid a game), or he might bid 2H with a 5-3-1-4 pattern and extras (bid a game), or rebid 2NT (bid 3H), or rebid 2S (raise to 3S). A simple preference is a gross underbid here.”

MERRITT: “2D. Simple, and it gives partner a chance to bid again. If partner would have opened 1C with 5-5 in the blacks with a minimum hand, I certainly want to get more information out of him.”

FEILER: “2D. In the best of all possible worlds, partner will now introduce his three-card heart suit and we’ll get to game.”

Another way to approach this problem is that the 2D bidders tended to be optimistic, while the 2S crowd was by and large pessimistic:

HUDSON: “2S. Let’s not get ambitious; this is probably a misfit. We might yet end up in a red suit if partner takes another call.”

DELL: “2S. If partner has a good hand, he can bid again.”

GUTHRIE: “2S. In spite of the apparent misfit, it is possible that you have game in diamonds or NT. It is barely conceivable that you have game in hearts (How about spades? You KNOW we have at least a decent fit there. --TJD); but the overwhelmingly most likely result of further investigation is that you get too high or languish in a stupid contract.”

I didn’t realize 2D was such a constructive call. Okay, it is a bit more hopeful sounding than a drop-dead 2S, which is a call you’d make here with a piece of trash like xx, QJxx, Kxxx, xxx. But this hand would be a good one to show on a TV finals if bridge were to become popular like poker. It has all the right elements -- exciting distribution, the potential for action and drama, and if North-South do end up in an idiotic contract, the potential for a, shall we say, “spirited” post mortem.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5D	100	16	58
Pass	70	2	32
4H	70	0	6
Other	50	0	4

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

* Non-constructive raise (5-7 pts.)

What is your call as South holding:  J42   A104  J93   J865 ?

I wasn’t sure why this problem snuck its way into an otherwise interesting set. Then I read MERRITT’s comments, and realized it was a trick question. If anyone’s interested in the actual hand, please email Scott, not me, cuz I’m not telling. Suffice it to say that in the actual hand, North had nothing resembling the hand he had advertised, and you’re hosed here no matter what call you make.

That said, the real problem here is whether you think your one trick (plus the filler Diamond Jack) is worth a raise to an 11-trick game. Personally, playing with one of my former favorite partners (I’ve played only money games for the past 12 years), I would not hesitate to bid game. If partner was pushing, well hey, at least I don’t have to declare!

NELSON: “5D. No doubt in my mind -- I have two tricks for sure. The Club Jack may also be of help. Partner didn’t bid 3S, so I certainly am not bidding 4H.”

KESSLER: “5D. Even at matchpoints, you cannot defend a pass. Partner has bid to the 4-level red and you have a fit, an ace, and possibly a working jack. If I thought I could say ‘I cue-bid 4H’, I would.”

FEILER: “5D. Partner must have a whopper. I’m more worried about missing slam than getting too high.”

BERNHARD: “5D. More worried about missing slam than going down in 5, or partner is a bidding fool.”

STRITE: “5D. Close, but I feel I have just enough. Those two minor-suit jacks and the heart 10 tip the balance. Easy raise at IMPs.”

DELL: “Pass. 5D may be too high and it’s matchpoints.”

And the last word goes to the submitter of this problem:

MERRITT: “5D. When I played this hand, it took my opponent (North) more than a minute to bid 4D. His partner holding the South cards then passed, and I shot through the roof. I couldn’t get anyone to agree with me that Pass is from Mars!”

I still cannot get excited about this problem, the actual result notwithstanding, but at least Scott gets his vindication, albeit ex post facto. Scotty, feel free to show this column to the director next time you see him.

3. Board-a-match, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4H	100	15	58
3S	80	2	13
4D	70	1	8
Other	60	0	21

West	North	East	South
	1C	Pass	1S
3D	Pass	Pass	DBL
Pass	3H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  AK854   QJ4   65   QJ10 ?

I doubt most folks would agree with me, but Board-A-Match is easily the best form of scoring that the bridge Gods ever invented. If bridge is to challenge poker as a TV phenomenon, I predict this will be the scoring format to succeed. You win, lose or tie the board -- no silly IMP formulas to confuse the audience, who are left wondering why their team lost the match even though they played better on 6 out of 8 boards.

So much for the B-A-M plug. The panel and Solvers pretty much called this a non-problem, opting for the Moysian fit without much further ado.

NELSON: “4H. Ruffing from the right hand, a nice club fit -- should be the right contract.”

KESSLER: “4H. Best shot at game. Hearts may break badly and we may still make. Partner can still have a good hand.”

MERRITT: “4H. This may not make, but my hand is too pure not to take the push. I feel that as long as partner doesn't have the wasted Diamond Queen, we’ll have enough fillers to make this seem reasonable. Even as little as  Qx  A10xx  xxx  AKxx  gives us reasonable play.”

FELDHEIM: “4H. This looks like an ideal Moysian fit; short diamonds with a 3-card heart suit.”

STRITE: “4H. All the hallmarks of a fine Moysian game.”

Some of the 4H bidders actually took time to analyze the problem a little deeper, which is often necessary at B-A-M (and probably why this format isn’t used much anymore!).

WALKER: “4H.  At Board-a-Match, there's also the option of taking a view and passing 3H, but I'm not all that pessimistic about this hand. Even if partner has a dead minimum, the 4-3 fit should play well here.”

At least Karen recognizes that all may not be as rosy as we’d like it to be here. I really hate to rain on peoples’ parades (OK, I actually love to play devils’ advocate!), but did anyone consider this possibility?

FEILER: “4H. I'm a little worried that this is a 3-3 fit. Oh well, it'll be a good hand to talk about in the bar after the game.”

Exactly!  How else is partner supposed to bid something like Qx  AKx  Jxx  Axxxx ?  Rebid those moth-eaten clubs at the 4-level? 3NT without a full stopper? Pass and try for a plus score and hope we don’t have a decent game?

My guess is that if you posed this as a problem for North after the reopening double, there would be votes for all of these, with maybe a couple of “UGH 3S” preferences thrown in. That’s one reason B-A-M is such a tough game. Every board counts the same as the next one. Even if 4H is a decent Moysian game, 4S might score a trick better when suits break evenly -- and they had better be breaking well for you to score this one up.

Maybe 5C is the only making game opposite something like my example hand. The real question that I’m surprised nobody asked is: Wwho are my opponents and what is their likely result on this hand? Are my teammates active sorts who will shove in the preempt, or will N-S get a free run at the other table?  These are all questions that need answering in any BAM game. It’s enough to drive you crazy.

An alternative view, and much more to my liking at BAM:

KNIEST: “3S. Seems like this should show this shape. Maybe I'm a tad heavy, but we haven't found trumps yet, so I'm still looking. I'll convert 4C to 4H, and hope we have a chunky 4-3 and they don't go out 5-1. At IMPs, I'd bid the club game after 4C; BAM scoring edges me back to the 4-3. I agree that 3S is not forcing, but I won't give up the suit without an effort.”

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3C	100	9	55
DBL	80	3	10
3H	70	5	15
2NT	60	1	0
Other	50	0	20

West	North	East	South
			1C
1H	Pass	2H	???

What is your call as South holding:  AK   A4   K6   AJ108543 ?

Finally a true multiple-choice problem!  At least the panel thought so:

KNIEST: “3H. Don’t let them steal. If partner can bid 3NT, then that’s where I want to be. If he bids 4C, I’m out. I don’t know if he can bid anything else, but if he bids 3S, it must be a long suit with few points, since he couldn’t find a 1S bid. Over 3S, I’ll retreat to 4C myself.”

GUTHRIE: “3H. Game is possible opposite as little as xxx xxx Axxx xxx, so 3C is a severe underbid. 3H keeps 3NT in the picture but allows us to reach the more likely 5C game. We just hope that 4C does not go one down.”

One of the reasons I decided to devalue the cuebid was the likelihood that 3H might just be the only way (besides passing, which thankfully nobody even considered) to score a minus on this hand. In more ways than just the immediate: another argument for not cuebidding is that E-W may not be finished bidding yet.

As a longer range plan, rebidding the clubs can’t hurt you if West comes in with another heart bid, because you can now double without fear that North will misinterpret your action. But if it goes 3H by you, then 4H-Pass-Pass-DBL, now poor North may think you can support spades or (gasp!) diamonds.

The majority knew they were underbidding, but really saw no viable alternative.

KESSLER: “3C. Very tough hand. Color me yellow, going for the plus.”

HUDSON: “3C. We should be playing Good-Bad 2NT. Failing that, I'll trust the opponents' bidding, which indicates that partner, who very likely has at least 4 spades, is very weak. So I'll settle for a partscore without inviting game. If pard has Jxxx  xxx  xxxx KQ, I will suffer for my timidity.”

WALKER: “3C. An underbid, but a takeout double with 2-2 in the unbid suits is too eccentric, and this hand is wrong for 2NT. A suit that needs this much help will need more than Ax as a stopper for a notrump contract.”

Spokesperson for the alternative double:

STRITE: “Double. You can make a case that 2NT natural shows this hand type, but will partner not read me for minors? Double brings Lebensohl into play, permitting me to bid aggressively if partner shows any sign of life. There’s little chance that pard will bid an embarrassing level of spades, given his initial pass.”

This would be a good thought, except Bridge World Standard plays Lebensohl only after an opening weak two-bid or an overcall of our 1NT opening. Last word goes to our man in Africa:

MERRITT: “2NT. I had a long response written out about how to deal with my next bid after I double, and then I realized it was all junk. While double seems right, I just can't fathom how it will work out – unless partner responds 2S, where you will only have to guess between 2NT and 3C. So I just bid what seemed most likely with 2NT. Question: Since partner has already all but denied spades by not bidding the first round, is my double followed by 3C (over partner's 2S) more likely to be minors or good clubs?”

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable             

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
Pass	100	13	61
5H	80	3	19
5D	70	1	4
5S	60	1	0
6C	50	0	16

West	North	East	South
			1D
Pass	1H	3S	Pass
4S	5C	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  A4   K8   KJ9653   J62 ?

I was convinced after seeing the votes that the panel had lost its collective mind. After reading the comments, I am even more convinced.

FELDHEIM: “Pass. I stay preempted. Slam may be there, but partner might be under pressure. The Ace of Spades rates to be a duplication. If he holds a good hand,, e.g. x  AJxxx  x  AKxxxx, slam is still tenuous.”

FEILER: “Pass. I have a couple of good cards but nothing to write home about. Partner is probably 6-5 but who knows whether he's slam going or game hopeful.”

KESSLER: “Pass. Guaranteed to be at least an 8-card fit. At IMPs, which game we play is not important. If partner is 1-5-2-5, 5H could be disappointing.”

NELSON: “Pass. I am not sure I see the problem. I guess I could correct to 5H, but I think a Pass is in order with my ruffing power in clubs.”

PAULO: “Pass. I don't take preference because over 4S, our best contract may be 5C. That is the case with a layout like North holding  x   A10xxxx  x   AQ10xx."

And so went most of the rest of the comments for Pass. Let me see if I got this right: An unlimited partner has just freely introduced a brand new suit at the 5-level, advertising a monster playing hand, as well as big distribution, and I’m going to pass because I have a minimum opener and 3-card support?

I guess we could always say that our glasses got fogged over and we dropped the ace of spades and forgot we ever possessed it. Or we could shrug and tell poor North that our other partner would bid this way with FELDHEIM’s or PAULO’s example hand. If you’re thinking, “Geez,  Tom, aren’t you giving North a more powerful hand than he might hold? After all, he was under pressure?” … Horsefeathers! 

Just take a brief look at the auction. West passed originally over your opener, so how much strength can he hold?  East tossed in a nonvulnerable preempt, practically shouting that he holds garbage outside spades. What is North supposed to do here with a real monster two-suiter? Jump to slam and pray you can guess the right suit?  Or make some amorphous 4NT bid (which should show something like 0-5-4-4 or 1-5-3-4 and a huge playing hand that doesn’t want to take a paltry penalty against 4S hammered) and hope you can guess that he really holds the big two-suiter?

Those who nudged forward at least gave themselves a chance to save face with their teammates:

HUDSON: “5H. My diamonds are probably worthless, but everything else looks good. Therefore, I'm not quite pessimistic enough to pass. I'll give partner another chance to bid slam. Maybe he holds  x AQxxxx –  KQ10xxx and will bid on after my ‘cheerful’ preference.”

I wouldn’t be that excited about slam opposite this hand, given the very real possibility of bad breaks in both hearts and clubs. But I have to believe North’s hand is stronger given the bidding to this point. Another possibility:

KNIEST: “5D. I have a minimum hand that doesn't seem to be a great fitter. I've been preempted, and don't have any reason to make a SWAG at 6 of anything. Yes, pass is a possibility, but it takes away another chance to hear North speak. I can also stand a heart rebid, so I want to give him that chance. I don't think I'm overstating my diamond strength since I passed over 3S. Give partner a hand like  x  AJxxx  Ax  AKxxx  and 6D looks pretty good.”

At least Tom realizes that North is likely to hold this sort of playing strength. Add a round suit ten to the mix and I like my chances of making slam. However, I must confess a reluctance to rebid my cheesy diamond suit at this level, despite the negative inference of not having bid it freely over 3S.

Finally, our wild-eyed optimist from the dark continent:

MERRITT: “5S. Tell partner that I am in. I hate only having one stick, but my hand really isn't awful. We may be playing a little poker at the 7-level, but this may induce them into the dive at 7S that would make me feel the most comfortable.”

Remind me of this if we ever sit at the poker table, Scott. It might induce me to call your all-in on a marginal hand.

6. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
6NT	100	9	53
6D	90	1	12
6C	80	7	14
6S	70	0	7
Pass	50	1	12
7D	50	0	2

West	North	East	South
		Pass	1NT
Pass	2C	Pass	2S
Pass	3D *	Pass	3NT
Pass	5NT	Pass	???

* Forcing, 5+-card suit

What is your call as South holding:  KJ72   K6   K10   AJ973 ?

At least the majority got it right this time!  Let’s see what we have: North makes an out-of-the blue jump to 5NT after taking the time to tell us he has a 5-card diamond suit. Had he simply bid 5NT without the diamond waystop, we would assume he had a balanced 20+ or 21 highs. Old 1940s Standard bidding tells us this sequence is a force to 6NT and an invite to a grand slam if we have a maximum. What could be easier?

So why do seven expert player suddenly decide that since it was OK for North to stop off and tell us about his suit, it must be OK for us to now introduce our long suit at the six-level! Are they hoping to go exploring for a grand this way?  Perhaps they are angling for a “safer” slam?  Perhaps they think 5NT is the infamous “pick a slam” call we hear so much of in this forum?  Let’s find out:

KNIEST: “6C. Partner's forcing to slam. Here's a last chance to find clubs. I'll correct 6D to 6NT to get the lead up to me.”

WALKER: “6C. If partner wanted to make a quantitative grand-slam try -- with or without a 4-card major -- he wouldn't have shown the diamond suit. 5NT here is ‘pick a slam’ and 6C is just a suggestion, not a final decision. Since diamonds is the only contract where I really have a ruffing value, 6D would be a better suggestion, but only if partner would take it as a good doubleton. Here, though, I think he'd assume 6D showed 3-card support.”

HUDSON: “6C. 5NT means ‘pick a slam’, rather than ‘choose between a small slam and a grand slam’ (which is what it would mean if no suit had been mentioned) or Grand Slam Force (if we had unambiguous suit agreement). But I'm not sure which slam to pick. The hand might play better in diamonds, allowing him to ruff a heart in my hand (Ax  Axxx  AQJxxx   x). Probably it belongs in 6NT, but I don't have to commit us; I'll let partner bear the onus. Unfortunately, partner will never guess my distribution, and he won't imagine I have doubletons in both his suits. That's my fault, for opening 1NT.”

I can’t see how North could ever mean 5NT here as pick-a-slam. Even assuming somehow that BWS doesn’t define this sequence (it doesn’t because it’s as basic as if partner’s last call had been an invitational 4NT!), we haven’t tortured each other with several rounds of bidding, introducing three or all four suits, perhaps giving a cheap preference to one or two of them, and there is now some doubt as to which suit will play best. North showed a suit; we showed a suit; neither was supported. Conclusion- he’s making a good old-fashioned quantitative raise. Why complicate simple auctions?  For the record, I also wouldn’t open 1NT here because of the easy rebid, but I would start with 1NT if the spade and heart (or spade and diamond) holdings were reversed.

DELL: “6C. I have no idea what 5NT means. Grand Slam Force in diamonds? I wouldn't even know what 4NT would be. Does this auction mean that partner doesn't have four spades? When you're lost, don't mess things up. 6C preserves flexibility; I even have the ace and five of them.”

Nope. If North had transferred (via 2NT in Bridge World Standard) and then bid 5NT, then 5NT here would be the Grand Slam Force in diamonds. That’s why notrump openers have so few rebid problems. With the notrump opener’s hand well-defined and limited, more exact meanings can be attached to various auctions. The real question for me here is whether North could hold 2-4-5-2 or some such, since he didn’t use the immediate diamond transfer. Not that it would matter much, since I’d guess all roads will eventually lead to 6NT, except perhaps this one:

FELDHEIM: “6D. This is interesting. I'm going to presume that this is a GSF in diamonds and North may have started life with a black suit void. Though a bit IMPish, 6D should have a much better play than 6NT. Yeah, I know, matchpoints, but without a void, North can convert to notrump.”

Since we’ve established what North should have on this auction (and that 5NT can’t be the GSF), this could turn ugly. Or it could end up in clover opposite AQ Axxx AQJxx Kx, when North decides the hands fit perfectly and bids the cold grand.

Most of those who bid the obvious 6NT were lackadaisical:

JONES: “6NT. In my book that’s a quantitative try for seven, which I reject and have to sign off in six.”

PAULO: “6NT. Without any known fit, 5NT is a quantitative trial for seven. I must reject it.”

MERRITT: “6NT. I can't imagine any other choice. The odds of 6D being right on a heart ruff seem minute, compared to the fact that it scores so much less. If partner had spades, he could choose 6S over 3NT. If partner was asking for which level to be in -- 6 or 7 -- he could continue with 4 of a minor. I just don't get it.”

Me neither, Scott. The time for exploration is over. We’ve been asked to value our hand as minimum or maximum for 6NT or 7NT. I wouldn’t even consider 6D at matchpoints. This should have been the gimme problem of the set.

Well, you’ve all been spared more of my ranting for another six months!  A happy and safe holiday season to each and every one of you, and we’ll catch you all in 2006!

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this high-scoring set and especially to our guest panelist, Gary Dell. Congratulations to Oyvind Tafjord of Eugene OR, who scored a perfect 600 to lead all Solvers. Close behind with 590 were Micah Fogel of Aurora IL and Bill Lindemann of Champaign IL. All three are invited to join the February panel.

As always, we appreciate your participation and your comments, which are often very helpful in our analysis. We're especially thankful when we receive good ideas for new problems, so please keep a lookout and send along anything you think might be interesting. The best problems are those that have at least three possible (and reasonable) solutions.

The six new problems are below. Please submit your solutions by January 21 on the web form or by email to our February moderator: 

    Tom Kniest -- kniest@swbell.net
  

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 561):	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL	3D	5D	4H	3H	Pass	6NT	540
Gary Dell, Champaign IL	2S	Pass	4H	3C	Pass	6C	550
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	2D	5D	4H	3H	Pass	6NT	570
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT	2D	5D	4H	3H	Pass	6D	560
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	2S	5D	4H	3H	Pass	6C	540
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	2S	5D	4D	3C	5H	6C	520
Kimmel Jones, Euless TX	2D	5D	4H	3C	Pass	6NT	600
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	2D	5D	4H	3C	Pass	Pass	550
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	2S	Pass	4H	3C	Pass	6NT	560
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	2S	5D	4H	3C	Pass	6C	570
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	2D	5D	4H	3C	Pass	6NT	600
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	2S	5D	4H	DBL	Pass	6NT	570
Toby Strite, San Jose CA	2D	5D	4H	DBL	Pass	6C	560
Hugh Williams, Carbondale IL	2S	5D	4H	DBL	5H	6NT	570

How the Staff voted

Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ	2D	5D	3S	3C	5H	6NT	560
Tom Kniest, University City, MO	2D	5D	3S	3H	5D	6C	520
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria	2D	5D	4H	2NT	5S	6NT	520
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	2D	5D	4H	3C	Pass	6C	580

   Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 515)

Oyvind Tafjord, Eugene OR	600	Bill Rotter, Granite City IL	570
Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	590	Larry Wilcox, Springfield IL	570
Bill Lindemann, Champaign IL	590	Bob Carteaux, Fort Wayne IN	560
Bob Shair, Champaign IL	580	Judy Eaton, Carbondale IL	560
Kevin Jones, Crestwood KY	570	Uður Taþ, Istanbul, Turkey	560
Tied with 550:  Steve Babin, Normal IL;  Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL;  Rich Peer, St. Louis MO;  Glenn Smith, Chesterfield MO;  Richard Troth, Columbia MO;  David Wetzel, Rantoul IL.

   Thanks for the problems above to Mark Leonard (#2), Sheldon Margulis (#3) and Ed Schultz (#5).