District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2007 

 by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ

1. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable            

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	???

What is your call as South holding:  AK   A73   A   KJ87542 ?

Hands like this always remind me why I still play 1C-forcing systems with regular partners. When I first saw the problem it felt like a flashback to my days as a Bridge World "Challenge The Champs" competitor. In other words, playing a "Standard" system, all roads lead to 3NT, which usually received an awful score in CTC.

Back to the present. A couple of staff members decided to avoid the potential rebid problems after a 1C opening by starting out with a somewhat unorthodox call.

MERRITT: "2NT. Surely not the panel decision, but it gets my strength out of the way without the worry of what to bid in the second round."

WALKER: "2NT. 1C looks like the 'easy' first choice, but you have no good rebid over a 1D, 1H or 1S response. The hand is very heavy, at least in playing strength, for a jump to 2NT, and a 3NT rebid sends the wrong message about your 'solid' club suit. With four losers, the hand doesn't have enough tricks for an opening 2C then 3C."

I must confess a sneaking admiration for this approach, but don't think I could ever bring myself to actually spring it on a partner and teammates I wanted to hang onto. Truly this could prove to be a nightmare hand later in the auction regardless of the choice of opening bid. But your counterpart will face the same issues, and is unlikely to start with an off-shape under strength opening.

Most of the 1C bidders didn't see much at issue here:

PESTIEN: "1C. Too moth-eaten a club suit for 2C."

PAOLO: "1C. I need club support, so I bid the suit as soon as possible."

KLEMIC: "1C. I don't think the first bid is hard, though the second might be tricky. This does not feel like a 2NT opening type lie, and certainly not a 2C opener."

HUDSON: "1C. What's the problem? With only 19 HCP and lots of shape, I don't expect to hear *all pass*. True, my next bid may have to be a phony reverse or jump-shift. (I guess I should be playing a strong club system.)"

Why not open a strong artificial 2C instead? See if any of these reasons sway you.

VONGSVIVUT: "2C. Plan to stop at 4C, if partner responds with 2H as double negative. And plan for at least game in 5C, if partner responds with 2D showing a king or better."

Unfortunately BWS doesn't allow for an immediate double negative. Too bad, as that or a control-showing response (also voted down in the last BWS poll) would come in handy.

RABIDEAU: "2C. Don't like it but things will (probably) get real messy if I start with 1C."

MATHENY: "2C. You will have serious rebid problems after 1C."

BERNHARD: "2C. Very close with 1C. Need very little from partner to make game or slam, and what would I do after I open one club and partner bids 1D or 1S?"

Thinking ahead was:

FEILER: "1C. Bidding 2C vulnerable-vs.-nonvul. at matchpoints with an unbalanced hand is asking the opponents to preempt. It's true that 1C has a teensy little flaw: impossible rebids. After 1C, I want the opponents to bid something so I'll have a cuebid available. If they don't, I guess I'll bid 2H over partner's 1D or 1S and 2D over 1H."

Parting shot, and the worst prediction for 2007:

SPEAR: "1C. Predicting a 100% vote."

For those who scoff, we've actually had one unanimous vote in this forum in my 22 years of directing.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	Pass
1H	1NT	Pass	2H*
3C	DBL	3H	???

* (Transfer to spades)

What is your call as South holding:  J10842   4   K972   KJ3 ?

I really thought this vote would be closer. We have to show some values, and the form of scoring may have influenced the majority's choice of an "action" double.

KNIEST: "Double. It's matchpoints and we've been presented with a chance for a top. Lefty might be 6-5 to come in freely, but pard's heart holding probably assisted in his decision to double since he couldn't see my KJx. I expect pard to have a 2-4-3-4 pattern. Hopefully, he'll lay down an ace to see dummy and his continuation should be easy. If I had a great game going already, I'd bid 3NT."

BERNHARD: "Double. I have more than expected, no clear bid, I believe double gets this message across. If partner passes, plus 200 would be a great score at matchpoints. Much tougher problem if this was imps!"

I agree wholeheartedly. At IMPs, despite the dearth of cashable tricks at notrump, I'd be sorely tempted by that 500-point bonus to forego a speculative double. The rewards are just too great. Of course, at IMPs, most people don't stick out their necks the way they seem to at pairs scoring. A few or our panelists did just that:

STRITE: "3NT. I expect partner to be at the top of his bid, and my clubs and diamonds should be good cards."

BRIDGE BARON: "3NT. Bridge Baron simulates and expects to make 3NT about 25% of the time, for an average score of +79.4. That seems better to BB than any other action, so it bids 3NT."

I normally don't have issues with statistics, but making 25% doesn't even qualify as a sound vulnerable game bid at IMPs, much less matchpoints. I'd be interested to see the stats for the other calls (double and pass). Unless West is super conservative (and given my club holding and North's first double before he even knew I had anything (!), it doesn't appear so), I can't see them making 3H very often, even with a potentially favorable opening lead. Where, after all, are the tricks coming from? Speaking of conservative:

SPEAR: "Pass. No imagination. Pard can tell me later what I should have done."

MATHENY: "Pass. Points but little defense."

For the majority of the panel, their score will depend heavily on the tendencies of the West at their table. If most Wests don't venture into the unknown, North-South will probably play 2NT or 3NT or perhaps 3S or 4S. They will get some awful suit splits, making 25% for any game seem highly optimistic. The doublers are much more justified in their optimism, and North always has the option to pull.

PESTIEN: "Double. This should tell partner that I have cards, and game our way without a spade fit doesn't seem too likely. Plus 200 or 500 should be pretty good here."

RAMANADHAM: "Double. Partner overcalled NT and doubled (for penalty ??) not knowing my values. I will trust partner and double to show that I have values. If pd bids 3S, I will bid 4."

KLEMIC: "Double. You have marginal values for game, but reasonable expectations of beating this hand. Hopefully partner will work out to start with a trump. It's actually not 100% clear we will be defending, since dbl isn't 100% penalty here (should just suggest your bid wasn't a runout), but he is likely to leave it in."

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                                 

West	North	East	South
--	Pass	Pass	Pass
2S	DBL	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  Q1098   KQ4   Q3    9765 ?

I'm a lot less comfortable with my leave-in on this problem. But anything else nauseates me even more. If 2NT were natural, I'd be on that bandwagon in a heartbeat, but playing BWS (or most modern systems) we can't play 2NT when the opponents open with a weak two. Grrrrrrr. Of course, my old regular partners would probably have opened North's hand, allowing me to respond 1S, giving West a migraine, at the very least postponing this decision a round or two.

Enough of my whining. The majority of the panel wasn't very excited either, but let's see what they chose.

WALKER: "3C. It's way too greedy to sit this double opposite a 10-count that's probably void in spades. The opponents have an 8- or 9-card fit, and I can see declarer taking eight easy tricks before we even get the lead. I wonder how many people won't notice that partner is a passed hand? Lebensohl 2NT should be 'off' when we're both passed hands."

STRITE: "2NT. I can't see defeating a 4th-seat weak two opposite a passed pard, so I'll dump this out into 3C and hope to improve our score to average-minus."

PAOLO: "3C. I trust West; he is bidding to make."

PESTIEN: "2NT. Since BWS doesn't include Lebensohl -- and since we don't have 4 hearts -- 2NT describes the hand pretty well."

KLEMIC: "3C. Based on seat, partner must be distributional. Sure, you might squeak two spade tricks on a good day, but it will be a tough call whether or not we score six tricks, and 3C rates to be at worst down one for -200. Lebensohl 2NT doesn't apply here (two passed hands), but you don't want to suggest notrump as a strain with a perfectly natural alternative."

Are you sure 2NT in this sequence isn't Lebensohl?

KNIEST: "Pass. Who says the spade jack can't be in dummy? Who has discussed what 2NT is here?"

BWS is notably silent as to what 2NT means in this sequence. Yes, it would be nice if we could bid 2NT natural here, but absent agreement, this sort of action begs for trouble -- and BWS is famous for defining actions by a passed hand when those actions differ from the unpassed meaning. Unless you've discussed a particular sequence with your partner, be cautious when you haul it out at the table. If I thought for a moment that North would read my 2NT as natural, I would have no hesitation in trying it here. It might even be our last chance to find a playable contract. But absent agreement, 2NT here is a Lebensohl puppet to 3C, and even though clubs happens to be my longest suit, I don't much fancy our chances. Neither do these panelists:

NELSON: "Pass. And the problem is???"

BERNHARD: "Pass. No clear game, no long suit, let's defend."

HUDSON: "Pass. Swinging for the fences. I have no attractive bid, so I'll try for +200, even if it's a slight underdog."

With lots of luck ,the 3C bidders will make (or East will bid 3S?!?!) when 2S was also making. Most of the time, though, I'll put my money on both contracts going one off, but I've made bad bets before.

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                             

West	North	East	South
--	--	1D	1S
DBL *	Pass	1NT	???

* (Negative double)

What is your call as South holding:  KQJ743   Void   107   A10752 ?

My initial reaction here was similar to:

MERRITT: "2C. Huh? Takes up the least amount of bidding real estate and shows my secondary suit. I will have another opportunity to bid if it seems right to do so."

PAOLO: "2C. This deal looks like a misfit. Nevertheless, with five losers, I show my shape."

VONGSVIVUT: "2C. Show the second suit with only five losers, and encourage partner to compete to 2S or 3C."

RAMANADHAM: "2C. With a void, this hand is definitely worth another bid. 2C or 2S? I think partner has a spade or two but also a bunch of hearts and was waiting to wield the double card. I am going to bid 2C to let partner know I am two-suited and give him a chance to take me back to 2S."

How about a (hyper) aggressive jump?

HUDSON: "3C. I suspect that LHO has long hearts without enough strength to bid two-over-one. I don't want to make the bidding too easy for him. Partner should be able to tell that I'm bidding on shape rather than high cards."

I might be inclined to jump if the spot cards were a little better, or if we were playing teams and North was a known conservative. It's also highly possible that North is the one holding long hearts, and if that's the case, we're better off keeping the auction low -- for now.

WALKER: "2S. All available clues are screaming to slow down. The simple rebid of your long spades seems best, as 2C risks losing the major (and the matchpoints). It also gives LHO room to get in a cheap heart or diamond bid."

SPEAR: "2S. I hope 2S gives them a problem on the 3-level -- and hope we don't have a big club fit. I'd bid 2C at IMPs, where it pays to be a solid citizen."

I would vote for 2S at the table if I knew in my heart of hearts that West was going to bid something red, but lacking that feeling (kind of hard to imply table presence in a vacuum), why abandon the decent second suit? At least it tells North where we live, and that could be important in deciding whether to compete at the 3-level or even bid a game. Neither East nor West has shown much as yet. North could have some non-descript garbage with a little something in spades and clubs and realize the potential. Or with values in the "wrong" places, or a total misfit, he'll realize we're better off defending if East-West get too high, which some feel they may already be:

PESTIEN: "Pass. I'd prefer to defend 1NT and probably get plus 100 or 200 with a spade king lead. If they find their diamond fit, I can get back into the auction."

Assuming it does not go all pass, you'll get another chance -- but at the loss of perhaps your best suit. By never bidding your A10-fifth suit, North will never know how well (if at all) the hands fit. I know, I've heard the arguments: Don't let East-West back into a red suit, clubs doesn't score as much as spades . . . But passing 1NT with a big black two-suiter is definitely anti-field, so you'd better hope hard for that magic +200 score. Final thoughts:

FEILER: "2C. A famous bridge player said, 'With 6-5 hands, just keep bidding until somebody doubles something.' Wise advice, no doubt, but the person who doubles something on this hand may well be West, and partner could have a 6-5 hand of his own."

Sounds like something I said, but I'm not that famous.

5. IMPs, none vulnerable                 

West	North	East	South
--	3NT *	Pass	???

* (Gambling -- solid suit, no outside ace or king)

What is your call as South holding:  KJ86542   AQJ    KQ10   Void ?

Welcome to my nightmare. Hey, wasn't that an Alice Cooper album? Some didn't think this hand a nightmare at all:

NELSON: "Pass. Hope this is right."

KNIEST: "5C. I bid this at the table, and it was absolutely cold while 3NT wasn't. Any lead helped you!"

MERRITT: "5C. How would I be able to get to partner's hand? And I would guess that this is a two-out-of-three finesses hand, which would make it worth the gamble, especially with my hand being led up to and closed."

Yes, the fortunate aspect is that you do get to declare any contract here (except 3NT of course), and may be helped (certainly you cannot be hurt!) by the opening lead. I gave pass a higher score than the simple pull to 4C because the large majority voted for a game bid of some sort. Perhaps at the table I would tend to bid the game if only to enjoy the shocked look at North's face when I showed out on the first trump lead.

Assuming you don't receive a gift opening lead or lose the first three tricks (spade ace, spade ruff, diamond ace is possible), this problem seems to have more value as a declarer play or even a defensive problem, depending on the exact distribution of North's side cards. How about that spade suit?

RAMANADHAM: "4S. Without an outside ace or king, North's hand is useless unless West leads a club! I think 4S has a better chance."

Not as far-fetched as it sounds, really, so long as North has a couple of spades and the cards lie well otherwise. But it's not near as good a chance as clubs.

HUDSON: "4C. I'm gambling that no game makes. If partner has the spade queen, or even really solid clubs, I probably lose. But *my* partner would have a singleton spade and AKQxxxx of clubs, so I should be aiming for the smallest minus score."

STRITE: "4C. I like playing this from my side. If pard's bid guaranteed the club jack, I'd shoot game, but with two losers guaranteed outside -- and work to do in 3 of 4 suits -- 4C has to be enough. I don't like my spades or communications well enough to shoot 4S for a measly nonvul game bonus."

WALKER: "4C. Lots of points, but this hand could have as many as five losers outside clubs -- maybe more if you insist on 4S. If partner has the highly unlikely 10x or Qx of spades, I may lose to the blind optimists who bid 4S, but their bid will be a disaster on most layouts. If a 4-level contract is going down, 4C rates to be cheaper, even when partner has some spade support, because it will be a lot easier for the opponents to double a game bid than a partscore."

I'm not quite that pessimistic. I'd guess four losers at most so long as the clubs are truly solid. HUDSON's AKQ8xxx is not the accepted norm in most partnerships (mine require AKQ10 in a 7-bagger). Even if East-West make the safe club lead, you'll make at least nine tricks, and attacking spades after drawing trumps leads to an easy endplay for the tenth, even if you misguess.

KLEMIC: "5C. Played from MY side, this has to be at worst on a finesse. Getting to 6C (if partner has a spade void) will still require some luck, so not worth gambling on. My methods can pinpoint a singleton spade but not a void. 4S could be right, but 5C is more likely to be. Passing 3NT is not an option with the void."

VONGSVIVUT: "5C. A little more than 50 % chance to make 5C."

Actually, my simulator (admittedly old and not up to Bridge Baron 2007 code!) has the percentages at roughly 38% -- and that assumes a solid 7-card club suit and no side voids. I guess the hand is not such a nightmare after all.

6. IMPs, EW vulnerable

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

What is your call as South holding:  QJ4   A   AKJ9   AJ852 ?

Don't you just hate it when partner steals your reverse?

WALKER: "2S. Who would've thought partner would hijack your 'easy' reverse? All the other non-outrageous alternatives are passable, so I'll lie by just one little spade and hope to do something more intelligent at my next turn. I usually have few qualms about splintering with a stiff honor, but that's when we have a major-suit fit. When your fit is a minor, a splinter on stiff ace is too likely to talk partner out of bidding 3NT, which may be your best (perhaps only) game."

Nobody minds the theft of your reverse rebid if it's in a major because, of course, there are always easy calls available. We shouldn't mind here, either, although it does make the rebid rather awkward. The panel split almost evenly between two flawed options, the stiff ace splinter and the jump shift into a three-card suit. How about a good old-fashioned double raise?

SMITH: "3D. Bridge Baron has no particular way to show a diamond raise quite this strong, so it makes the strongest diamond raise it can and hopes not to be passed out."

Given the auction thus far, I cannot imagine North passing a double raise here. However, it does take up almost as much room as the splinter, and unless North is on the same wavelength, it doesn't give much helpful information to suggest how to continue. I actually prefer the jump-shift because of the space-saving features. Yes, North might gum up the works and raise, but …

MERRITT: "2S. As long as partner doesn't raise me, I should be okay. Assuming that I dodge that bullet, I would think that partner's next bid would clarify where we should end up."

BERNHARD: "2S. We need to find a forcing bid and find out if partner has a spade card. A 2S rebid might do both if partner supports spades, or it might stop a spade lead if we end up in a diamond contract. And who knows? Spades might play very well if partner keeps bidding them. Life and bridge are gambles, except bridge gives you a number of second chances."

That's a lot of maybes and mights, even for this forum. As a supporter of this action, I realize the danger if North raises spades immediately. We will then be faced with the Hobson's choice of abandoning 3NT (possibly the last playable contract) to show the diamond support, or bidding 3NT and probably closing the auction, since North will justifiably think you are short in diamonds for this sequence. It also surprised me that of all the noise the panel made about opening 2NT on problem #1 (two actually chose that opening bid way back when), nobody so much as peeped about South's not opening 2NT here.

Most all of the splinter bidders sounded matter-of-fact about their call:

MATHENY: "3H. I hate to splinter with an ace, but this seems the most descriptive bid."

FEILER: "3H. I don't like splintering with a singleton ace, but the other bids are worse. I wonder how partner would take 4D? Probably as a 5-6 in the minors hand."

HUDSON: "3H. I don't like splintering with a stiff ace, but the alternative -- a phony jump-shift to 2S -- is too badly misdirected. Unless partner's next bid is 3NT, I plan to drive to 5D, hoping he can bid 6D."

KNIEST: "3H. Shows shortness and reverse values at a minimum. Pard will know my shape within one card and will know not to play 3NT with weak hearts."

PAOLO: "3H. Despite the ace, I splinter and hope partner can cuebid spades."

These folks are just way too smug for me. Both the splinter and the jump shift involve risks of misleading partner. The jump shift risks an inopportune raise with a weak four-card suit, while the splinter uses up an extra level of bidding. Plus, in many cases, the 3H splinter forces North (the much weaker hand) to make a decision right now about whether this hand is playable at 3NT or if must go all the way to 5D. As a wise man once said, you pays your money and takes your chances.

Happy Holidays to all. See you in 2008.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set, which drew some record-high scores from the Solvers. Congratulations to Praveen Jayachandran of Champaign IL and Robert Lambert of Warsaw IN, who scored up perfect 600s, and to Dean Pokorny of Zagreb, Croatia for his impressive 590. All three are invited to join the February panel. 

February also starts the 2008 annual Solver contest, so I hope you'll all give the new problems a try. Winners of the 2007 Solvers contest will be announced in the next issue.

The six new problems for February are below. Please submit your solutions by January 23 on the web form or by email to our February moderator: 
     Kent Feiler -- kent@kentfeiler.com