1. IMPs, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  63   J73   975   A6432 ?

Not much to say here -- I know, unusual for a lawyer, but I’ve spent a good portion of the past few months in Europe and my grammar is getting rusty. A majority of the panel simply shrugged their shoulders and took the preference. As do I. The only “positive” thing I can say for raising the bidding level was echoed by:

BERNHARD: “5D. At matchpoints, this would be a tougher problem. Bad enough at IMPS.”

KESSLER: “5D. I believe either 4H or 5C shows better diamond support than I have."

Funny I didn’t give much thought to raising diamonds. I suppose North could be 6-6 with AK in both suits, but then how can EW (particularly West) be showing any strength?  Unless EW are lunatics, I expect they hold 4 to 6 controls, and I would expect North to hold something like AQxxxx, A, AKQxxx, Void -- perhaps with decent spots. So does:

FEILER: “4S. Sounds like partner has a 6-6 hand, but is it a very strong hand, or a pre-empt? Dunno. The auction may not be over; maybe we'll find out.”

Nope, I doubt the auction is over. Hence the 4S call, which in my view is tactical. If West or East makes a firm, confident double, we may want to reassess our chances and up the level to play 5D. Or maybe I’m just hallucinating. Wouldn’t be the first time.

WALKER: “4S. Partner has to be at least 6-5 for this auction, so 4S seems obvious.”

ATHY: “4S. Partner got himself to 4 level. Club ace should be enough to make the false preference.”

MAYNE: “4S. I can't imagine anything else. Yes, the club ace is a nice card, but we're not in slam and 5D is misguided.”

SPEAR: “4S. I always give a preference to first suit here, since 4D isn't game. Later in the bar, I can't be blamed for a bad result.”

Some were even optimistic about our chances here:

PAOLO: “4S. I envisaged to pass, as +130 could have been our best score; but I give false preference, because it is possible -- if not likely -- that partner wins 4S.”

Finally, if you can’t bring yourself to take a preference or raise, toss it back to North. I have a sneaking admiration for this call, since it might even trick East-West into doubling us in a double-game situation:

VISHNEVSKY: “4H. 4H is choice of games, in case he has something like KJT9xx, Void, AKQJxx, x and gets a 4-1 spade break but can still make 5D.”

2. IMPs, both vulnerable                                 

* (Weak two-bid).

What is your call as South holding:  AJ7642   A63   A93   A ?

This one looks to be straight out of an old Goren book (at least once they started incorporating weak 2-bids). The general Bridge World Standard rule is that a reopening double at the 1 or 2-level, followed by a new suit bid, shows a normal/good overcall -- even at IMPs. A large majority yawned and made the obvious choice as well:

VISHNEVSKY: “2S. 2S shows a strong, flexible hand. Game is excellent opposite K10x, Kxxx, xx, xxxx.”

RABIDEAU: “2S. It's not certain we have the values for game, so let's investigate. I'll bid hearts over any non-spade rebid by partner, hopefully showing three pieces and this (approximate) strength.”

FEILER: “2S. Not much choice. I have to get this suit into the game.” 

STRITE: “2S. 2S is plenty for now, shows about my hand strength."

What's going on with opener's redouble? It should probably show "good hand, good suit", but here are some other ideas:

FELDHEIM: 2S. We have a six-loser hand, so we need a peep from partner. Everything is tough. With anything resembling values, pard should bid again if he holds five hearts and one spade. West's
redouble is totally bogus."

SPEAR: “2S. So what if pard has longer hearts than spades?  Two spades may not be enough for this collection. Hope someone bids again. Too bad Lefty's fishy redouble didn't help us more.”

I started to think to ask East about that redouble, but then remembered we were not at a table, but seated in front of our computers ... Rats! I suspect Feldheim and Spear (and others) are correct and this was just West’s way of telling East to please lead diamonds.

The redouble also brings up the issue of your agreements about exactly what partner is showing with his 2H bid.

WALKER: "2S. This depends on your agreements about what partner's pass of 2D redoubled would have meant. If it would be non-committal, then a heart raise is attractive, as partner's 2H suggests a "real" suit. If his pass would have been penalty (which, without a prior discussion, is what I would assume for a 2-level redouble), his 2H bid may be a weak or even a non-suit, so it's best to keep looking for trumps by bidding my own suit."

Lonely voices:

NELSON: “3D. One chance to announce I am huge. If partner tries to slow me down, I will listen.”

NELSON does have a point here, in that North could have passed the idiot redouble to show a really bad hand, ergo North must have a little something. But I have a real problem getting the spade suit out of my mouth for the first time at the 3-level. Call it having mercy on partner. I can only imagine North’s heartburn when, after he retreats to 3H, he hears 3S from me. Or are you really planning to pass 3H, perhaps playing a 4-3 part score as opposed to a 6-3 game?

BERNHARD: “3S. Close between this and 2S . . .”

The rest of that comment appears to have been cutoff. Bummer. I agree the decision is fairly close. In my youth (or with a timid partner) I would jump, especially at IMPs.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  3   KQ1092   3   AK10874 ?

Finally a dilemma: to Michaels or not to Michaels?  All but two panelists chose what -- to me, at least -- is anything but an obvious call considering the suit length disparity and the intermediate nature of the hand, forcing partner to say something at the 3-level when you yourself have no idea what his call means. Many of the majority bemoaned the potential loss of the heart suit (a very real possibility), but if EW do own the spade suit, this is not nearly as awful as say, taking a phantom save when both 4H and 4S are going down. It’s not as if you have a poor defensive hand, is it?

BERNHARD: “2S. What's the problem?  Michaels is best with a weak or very strong hand and this sure fits.”

RABIDEAU: “2S. A little heavy for this bid, but since they have the spades, I'd better get in my two-suited shape quickly. If the suit lengths were reversed, I would gladly start with 2H (as would I- TJD).”

WALKER: “2S. This hand might not technically qualify as a Michaels call for those who play the strong-or-weak version of the convention. If you're a slave to that definition, though, you'll often be at a disadvantage on deals where you have hearts. If you overcall 2C, your next chance to show hearts will probably be at the 5-level.”

But would the situation be worse if you held the spades? Sure, you could have introduced that suit at the one-level, concealing the clubs and hoping you got the chance to show them at a reasonable level, but opponents never seem to be that considerate, and in any event my partners always seem to be short in the major suit when I try these disparate suit-length major/minor Michaels calls. Some thought chances were good for this hand belonging to our side, which it may indeed.

STRITE: “2S. Good enough for a strong Michaels -- two aces and a fit makes slam. Should play better from partner's side.”

FEILER: “2S. If they're in 4S when it gets back to me, I'll try 5C.”

MAYNE: “2S. I plan to (over?)bid 5C if the auction is at 4S when it comes back at me. Starting with 2C will leave me poorly placed in that event, while starting with 2H is just sick.”

LAMBERT: “2S. Getting it all off my chest with one bid. Now over the likely 3S or 4S from the opponents, I can bid my minor. Bidding 2C risks missing hearts over 4S by EW.”

If you got it off your chest, why are you going to bid the clubs later, presumably even after it goes 4S-Pass-Pass-? Ah well, it’s only matchpoints, so at least you can’t lose the match on this hand.

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                 

What is your call as South holding:  A2   874   AK73   J865 ?

I truly hate these little problems that don’t fit into any convenient bucket simply because of the bidding system foisted upon us. BWS requires possession of 4 hearts to make a negative double here -- a system quirk to be sure, but there you have it. Once you decide you just can’t violate system requirements (some panel members and solvers obviously didn’t worry about a little thing like this), which of the other calls is the least misdescriptive?  Predictably the panel was splintered into any number of actions:

VISHNEVSKY: “2NT. If I pass, pard will pass it out whenever 3NT is right. If I double, 4H gets doubled. 2NT is awkward, but the best I can do.”

PAOLO: “2NT. With a balanced hand and what looks like a club stopper, I make a limit bid in notrump. With a similar hand but a 2-4-4-3 distribution, I would have doubled.”

LAMBERT: “Pass. This hand screams defense in my opinion. Little spade support, 4 clubs, and nice controls. If partner can't re-open, I'm not stuck (yet).”

KESSLER: “Pass. If partner reopens with a double, we will defend. We have no guarantee of a game at this point.”

SPEAR: “2D. 2D is fine, not game forcing. I can bid 2S over 2H showing a doubleton, not forcing, 2NT over 2S, 3NT over 3D. Of course we may not go plus, and the underbidders get more matchpoints again.”

FELDHEIM:  "2D. I'm sure this is a minority bid, but what's right? 2NT? 3nt? I'd rather not be unilateral and give pard a chance to clarify his shape. If notrump is right, we'll get there."

RABIDEAU: “2D. Two problems with notrump, at least for the moment: the obviously weak 'stopper" and sending the wrong message to partner. She'll devalue her club shortness and good slams will often be missed.”

Many panelists shied away from freebidding a 4-card suit, but here it is less dangerous than it seems. We are playing matchpoints, after all, so minor suits tend to be pariahs when it comes down to it. And 2D does use up the least amount of bidding space.

WALKER: “3NT. Only two decent choices here -- bid the notrump game or go for the penalty. The fitting card in partner's long suit pushes me toward declaring. 2D is pointless -- when you bid notrump later, partner will think you have longer diamonds and/or doubt about your club stopper. The other possibility, 2NT, risks playing in a partscore, in which case you'll wish you had passed and defended 2C doubled.”

A well-reasoned analysis. Again, in my youth I may have been tempted to go for the gusto here. However, having seen way too many raunchy “opening bids” (which I myself have been known to perpetrate as well!), I would just as soon get my moderate values on the table and hope we can exchange enough information on fit and strength to finally place the contract in the “right” spot.

5. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                        

What is your call as South holding:  AKJ92   KJ63   A4   72 ?

I was sure this was a misprint when I first looked at the problem. North, a passed hand, has come to life, red at the 3-level, so must have something worthwhile. Okay, this call isn’t forcing (but is almost never passed), but how can you simply go quietly into 4H without even an attempt at something higher? 

SPEAR: “4H. Playing with myself, I would be more confident 4H is enough. Not opening the bidding with a 6-card suit is very limiting -- Roth-Stoners need not apply.”

No fair!  If I were playing opposite a clone of me in the North seat, I would say the same thing!  But I wonder how many of our younger readers even know what Roth-Stone is? 

STRITE: “4H. I'll settle opposite a passed-hand partner who couldn't open a vulnerable weak two. There is a lot of work to do if pard has only five hearts.”

MAYNE: “4H. 4D shows, sadly enough, diamonds. This is a close call between the safe 4H and the gutsy/suicidal 5H. I think the bad breaks foretold by the 3C bid push me to cowardice.”

The majority voted to at least make a try, just in case. I don’t like the 5H call, since there is no guarantee we are safe at the 5-level, and it is matchpoints -- and why rush when you have a perfectly legitimate call available without jacking the level?

NELSON: “5H. This bid is standard asking for shortness or the club ace.”

WALKER: “5H. Easy bid of 5H to ask for second-round club control. If partner has it, I can't imagine a hand that won't give us a decent play for 6H. Cuebidding will muddy the auction and get you nowhere. Over 4C -- or 4D, if you think that's a cuebid for hearts (I don't) -- partner will be forced to bid 4H, and if you bid 5H over that, it will ask for good trumps.”

What’s wrong with 4D as a cuebid?  I agree you need to make a move here, but North should be involved in the action as well. 5H is in essence a command to bid slam with second-round club control. I think here that if there is partnership trust, the simple 4D cuebid will tell North essentially the same thing as 5H but at a much safer level:

PAOLO: “4D. An advance cuebid; it shows fit and first-round control, emphasizing club losers. If partner sees this forcing bid as a two-suiter, I'll clarify the situation by bidding 5H.”

KESSLER: “4D. This is a cuebid. You must have some way to tell the difference between a simple raise and a really good hand. This occurs much more frequently then a spade-diamond two suiter.”

In my regular partnerships (back in the days when I played quite a lot), 4D would have been a cuebid. But I imagine there are quite a few who would disagree, else why all the diversity here? Mayne and Walker went on the record with their interpretation of 4D as natural, and there are probably many others who concur. It's another good example of why it’s important to have a solid partnership understanding of these situations. Even if you haven’t discussed all possible sequences before hitting the table (and no one can!), when they do arise and something goes haywire, then set the understanding there and then instead of yelling back and forth. You won’t always face friendly opponents who may bail you out of these situations by asking what a particular bid means!

6. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

* (Preemptive)

What is your call as South holding:  943   AQ10   KJ7   A1062 ?

Pluses and minuses abound here -- mostly minuses (the wasted heart strength, ugly spades and the ultra-flat distribution, to name the two obvious ones). So why say anything encouraging?  Well, the hand does have its upside -- the diamond honors are secondary and the round-suit controls are aces, always valuable when partner has announced another distributional hand. The panel almost unanimously voted to progress towards slam despite the negative features. Some just bid it:

BERNHARD: “6S. North should be 6-5 or better, I have prime cards this should make easy, hope 7 is not making.”

KESSLER:  "6S. With nothing in hearts or clubs and no more then 6 points in diamonds, partner must have good spades. Hang 'em high."

WALKER:  6S. Another hand where cuebidding can't possibly uncover the information you need nor tell partner enough for him to make the decision. Even if you have room to show the club and heart aces, how will partner know you have such good diamonds?  It all boils down to whether partner has good spades. A 5S bid here should probably ask for good trumps, but since the meaning isn't crystal clear, I'll opt for a clear bid that gets us to a contract that will make on most deals."

LAMBERT: “6S. Partner is showing an opener with extreme distribution, and every card in my hand is working. I'm just going to go for it.”

Perhaps we’re just exhausted after the last couple of hangover problems. Believe it or not, there were NO pessimists on the panel. Nobody passed or bid a defensive 4NT (sorry Solvers, this isn't Keycard Blackwood in this auction). If you don’t want to go crashing into slam with 3-card, x-high trump support for North’s second suit, what else can you do?

ATHY: “5C. More keys here than I rate to have, so I'll let partner know. Spades rate to break poorly, but should at least be placed favorably, no matter what the final strain becomes.”

FELDHEIM:  "5C. If partner bids 5D, then I'll bid 5H. For all of the notrump hogs, I'd be a bit nervous about clubs, wouldn't you?"

FEILER: “5C. A cuebid in support of something or another. I'm hoping partner will bid 5D so I can continue with a nebulous 5H cuebid.”

I love muddy auctions.

MAYNE: “5C. This is a slam force; if partner has QJT84, 8, AQT964, 9, that's just too bad. If I end up playing in 5C, both of us will be at the partnership desk for the next session.”

I can’t see partner passing 5C (ever) here, but at least there’s a hand to argue not going past 5D (or for passing 4S!?!?!). Ouch.

NELSON: “5H. The ole cuebid showing a diamond fit. I would hope slam is cold.”

Fine enough, but doesn’t this at least suggest a club loser (and perhaps better trumps)?

VISHNEVSKY: “5NT, which is pick a slam. Matchpoints is not bridge.”

Amen to that last comment. The best analogy I ever heard about pairs scoring came at the Detroit Nationals in 1982, from a multiple national champ in that format: “The difference between teams and pairs is simple. In teams you have two teams of heavyweight fighters slugging it out until the bell rings to see who wins. In pairs, the same heavyweights line up against 13 or so drunks, and the one who punches out the most drunks wins.”

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and happy and safe holidays to everyone!  Hope to see you all in 2009 -- same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.