District 8 Solvers Forum

         December 2012

             by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ
 

Apologies to all for the delays in getting this month’s Solvers Forum in print. Technical difficulties first with regard to our software program and later with coordinating the move to new software (not to mention, this writer’s difficulties in coping with the changes!) have made the past few months seem an eternity. On to business:

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  K87643   97   4   QJ102

Our first exercise seems to offer a three-way choice of games.  Not really, says the majority of the panel, if you consider the standard meaning of partner’s 3NT rebid. Here's a good explanation:

HINCKLEY: "4H.  2NT would have shown 18-19 balanced. 3NT shows six solid hearts with a very good hand -- and a stiff spade wouldn’t be a surprise.  At IMPs, 3NT might make more often than 4H, but 4H will make +620 often enough compared to +600 to bid 4H at matchpoints."

WALKER: “4H. Partner is showing long, solid hearts and offering a choice of games. I can't imagine passing 3NT when I have a ruffing value in the opponents' 9+-card fit. We may not even have a diamond stopper if partner has Qxx.”

KESSLER: “4H. Partner should have 6 or 7 solid hearts, so a stiff diamond must be better for hearts than notrump.”

As expected, there were a few dissenting voices:

MATHENY: “Pass. I would have bid 4S after a 2NT rebid, but a singleton spade is possible (likely) after the 3NT rebid.”

KNIEST: “Pass. I expect a running heart suit and stoppers in the others; maybe a stiff spade.”

All well and good, but unless partner can scare up nine tricks out of his own hand, 3NT looks like a loser, especially at this form of scoring. Almost every conceivable North hand that would score more tricks in notrump than a heart contract would have been a reasonable 2C opening -- x, AKQJxx, Kxx, AKx or the like might score more in notrump.

FELDHEIM: “4H. Attempts to play in a black suit are way too convoluted and 4H gains at least one trick (ruffing a diamond) plus potential timing.”

VONGSVIVUT: “4H. North is short in spades, so will get more tricks in a suit contract by ruffing diamonds or setting up the club suit.”

MERRITT: “Pass. Partner chose a 1H opening instead of 2NT for a reason. Either it was long hearts or short spades. In either case, 4H rates to score more. As a side note, I have always played this bid as systemic, like a gambling 3NT but with a major instead of a minor, but nothing is noted here, which seems odd.”

2.  IMPs, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  J102   KQ9   J9763   A2 ?

I chose 1S, then made the mistake of looking up its meaning after punching the “Send Answers” button. Bad move. Unlike the first problem, this one is clearly identified in Bridge World Standard, which states that 1S here is a natural bid. A jump to 2S is artificial and is the way to gin up a fourth-suit-forcing auction.

Given the level increase, it would be very difficult to stop short of game if one chose 2S. Still, there were a few panelists who thought it worthwhile to take the plunge:

HINCKLEY: “2S, artificial game force. Ever heard of the 'Scrabble' principle? You get double-letter scores for honors in partner’s suits! Those 9 high-card-points in hearts and clubs are numerically worth much more than 9.”

VONGSVIVUT: “2S, if playing fourth-suit-forcing for just one round. Otherwise, 2NT as an invitation.”

PAULO:  "2S. To rebid 2NT is alluring, but I use this artificial fourth-suit bid to ask partner to clarify his shape and strength. It's possible that we belong in some suit."

True, 2S isn’t identified as a game force here, but stopping short will be a tough nut unless North’s next call is 2NT. I simply don’t see how you can pass any 3-level rebid after a jump fourth-suit call and maintain partnership trust, no matter what the result. Having your primary values in partner’s announced suits is a plus, but I don’t see this hand as anything more than an invitational type, unless North is known not to open liberally in first position.

One panelist angled towards the 4-3 fit:

FELDHEIM: “2H. This is a choice of evils. 1NT is an underbid, while 2NT is an overbid with a shaky spade stopper. My choice of 2H is missing a trump, but is made up for by extra values. Thus 2H seems more dynamic.”

2H actually seems more of an underbid to me, less likely to wring out another bid from partner than the plurality choice, which was:

WARD: "2NT. Seems right on values, although I hate having almost all my points in partner's two suits. If I had just a little bit less, I'd consider 2H."

SPEAR: “2NT. Right on values and shape, although not the classic spade holding. Playing XYZ, I like 1S here to show an invitational hand with no spade stopper.”

KNIEST: “2NT. Going for the game bonus, and possibly right-siding the contract since pard can have four spades.”

MERRITT: “2NT. I can't downgrade this hand enough to not make the natural call.”

WALKER: “2NT. Too much for 1NT and not enough for 2S (artificial game force that denies four spades), so I'll have to call J10x a stopper. An eccentric 1S rates to create a worse problem than the one I already have.”

3. IMPs, none vulnerable

  * (Negative double)

What is your call as South holding:  AJ964   AJ1053   Q7   10 ?

So how many hearts is “correct” in this auction?

BRIDGE BARON: “2H. Make an encouraging noise and head to game if partner makes an encouraging noise back.”

WARD: “3H. If partner passes this, I am likely not missing anything. I don't like 4H because it overstates my hand, and could get us in trouble whether the opponents keep bidding or not.”

SPEAR: “4H. May make game opposite many hands. I hope no one bids again.”

A case can be made for each one of these calls, particularly since it is highly unlikely the bidding will end regardless of what you do. A simple 2H “free bid” gets it out there that you have support for partner’s announced four-card suit, but it may also conceal the nature of your two-suiter to your detriment if the auction is at the 4-level or higher before you get your next chance to speak. An invitational jump may seem right on values and fit, but may send the wrong message in the same instance. And a quantum leap to game certainly shows a massive fit and a willingness to play game, but once again leaves you in a quandary if the opponents bid to the 5-level.

I like the leap to 4H, though. East-West have not yet announced their big club fit, and why should I make it easy for them to do so at the 3-level or 4-level?

KESSLER: “4H. What I think I can make.”

HINCKLEY: “2H. This seems routine, although it is easy to visualize Kxxxx of hearts and the king of either spades or diamonds making game very desirable. I expect I will have decisions to make later in this auction when both sides possibly learn of their double fits.”

They may have trouble finding that fit if you jump to 4H now.

KNIEST: “3H. This is not a jump shift. It's showing great values for a heart contract, and invitational. With a big high-card-point hand, you have a diamond cuebid available.”

WALKER: “3H. A big overbid, as it's looking like I have only about 9 working high-card points, but worth it to take the 3-level away from LHO.”

FELDHEIM: "3H. Although the point values are sub-minimum, the fifth trump improves the hand to invitational values. 2H would be an underbid while 4H would be an overbid."

MERRITT: “2H. I want to compete up to 4H, but jumping there puts partner under pressure if they bid on. First, I will limit my hand, and then keep going later if it seems prudent.”

I don’t see how a 4H bid puts pressure on partner. West is unlikely to have a diamond fit on the auction and will likely pass, along with North. The pressure is squarely on East now; he knows about the club fit, but has to be wondering if announcing it at the 5-level is prudent. For all he knows, we might be off in 4H, making 5C now look like a phantom sacrifice.

4.  IMPs, NS vulnerable

  * (6-10 pts., at least 5-5 in clubs & diamonds)

What is your call as South holding:  AK3   J9   108632   J63 ?

For those who aren't used to dealing with opening bids like East’s (2NT to show both minors), a good rule of thumb is to treat it the same as you would treat an unusual 2NT overcall. A large majority of the panel felt that North’s 3D call showed a strong major two-suiter, and acted accordingly.

SPEAR: "4S. At least 5-5 in hearts and spades trumps at least 5-5 in clubs and diamonds."

KESSLER: “4S. Red at IMPs, I cannot defend bidding less. Partner entered at the 3-level red and I have three working cards. If spades go out 4-1, at least they are in front of the long spades. If they go 5-0, we'll get on to the next hand.”

HINCKLEY: “4S. 3D and 4C from partner would have shown the majors, with 4C showing the better hand. But since as little as QJ10xx  AKxxx x   xx  will make a spade game reasonable, especially vulnerable at IMPs, I can’t bid just 3S with this hand.”

MATHENY: 4S. “I expect a big major two-suiter from partner.”

FELDHEIM: “4S. The problem is discerning the difference between partner's calls of 3D and Double. Since both should contain enough high cards for the 3-level, the 3D cuebid shows excellent distribution. Holding AK of trumps, a jump to game seems clear.”

WALKER: “4S. The 3D cuebid should guarantee at least 5-5 in the majors. With 5-4 or 4-4, partner would have doubled 3C for takeout.”

PAULO: "4S. Partner has a powerful two-suiter. Nevertheless, I don't know how to bid scientifically to suggest slam, which is possible opposite something like  QJ10xx  AKQxx x  Ax."

WARD: “4S. I might be hanging partner, but I think that is much less likely than missing a red game. Also, I'm not afraid of missing a slam, since partner could have bid 4C.”

There seems to be some disagreement as to the meaning of the 3D bid, but most everyone felt that North “had to have” a major two-suiter to make that call. Most likely, that is the case, and I’ve played enough team games to know how bad it is to miss vulnerable games. But I can’t convince myself that a blind leap of faith here is the best course of action, even if partner has 10 cards in the majors (he obviously has a nice-looking hand, otherwise why stick your nose in red at the 3-level?).

A handful of Solvers turned in votes for Pass and 4D. The passers obviously misread the problem, and perhaps the 4D bidders did, too. I suppose 4C or 4D here would mean pick a major, so the 4D bidders will land on their feet, as partner will surely bid 4H. The Bridge Baron software also chose 4D, which the developer explained: 

BRIDGE BARON: "4D. A bit of a two-way shot. If partner intended 3D as natural, 4D is a raise. More likely, 4D is a cuebid response to a cuebid, saying 'tell me more'." 

Evidently, computers have as many problems with these strange opening bids as we humans do.

I have to confess that on hands like this, it is much easier to sit here behind a computer and analyze the possibilities. At the table, with real opponents -- and with real teammates likely to ask, “How the **** could you miss that game?” -- it’s much tougher, and I’m more likely to just throw caution to the wind and blast a game bid. But here in my warm office, I have to continue to ask the $64 million question: With a big probability that both majors are breaking badly, where are the tricks coming from? A lone voice stood with me:

MERRITT: “3S. There is a subtle difference between double and 3D from partner, but as I am not sure what it is, I pick my better major. With AKxx of spades and xx in clubs, I would try 4S at these colors.”

5.  IMPs, NS vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  AK87652   A1092  Void   A2 ?

Two camps (predictably so) on this one.

WARD: “4D. This is difficult because partner is going to be turned off by so many hands because of partial diamond waste or holding no aces. I'd find it hard to pass over 4S. My partner took a different approach, bidding 3C and then 5H over my 4S, which made it pretty clear what he was looking for.”

MERRITT: “4D. I will show my shortness and see if partner can get excited. Losing trick count really likes this hand, but I need a lot of covers from a minimal response to make slam.”

HINCKLEY: “3H. A 3H help-suit game try and a 4D splinter are the only calls to consider. At first, 4D appears best, but opposite three small hearts, you don’t want to be in slam. So if partner rejects a 3H 'game-try', then slam won’t be that good a bet.”

SPEAR: “3H. Hoping partner accepts game try in hearts so slam can be bid with confidence. Jumping to 4D is another possibility, but good hearts are a lot better than good clubs.”

I like HINCKLEY’s and SPEAR’s thoughts on how to proceed. For one thing, it saves a level of bidding. Even if partner retreats to 3S, you can always trot out 4C (or 5C if you feel so inclined). You cannot do this below the 5-level if you take the level-eating splinter bid, and nobody ever wants to play five of a major when the opponents have been silent. Imagine those teammates again. And since you hold all the first-round controls, how likely is it that partner is going to give you something positive over the jump? From the comments, it sounds like the splinter crowd is just using that call as a way-station on the road to a 5C slam try.

KNIEST: “4D. Shortness and a slam try. Hopefully, all is clear to pard.”

WALKER: “4D, then 5C if partner rebids 4S. Showing what I don't need seems the best way to get partner to focus on helpful cards in the other two suits. Any other auction (3H, then 5C or 5D) will make it sound like a need a control in the unbid suit.”

But if North has heart values and accepts the game try, don’t you then have an “easy” 6S call? Granted, slam might be somewhat iffy, but I can’t imagine North is going anywhere over a 4D call (you do hold all the first-round controls, remember?) -- unless you actually expect North to cuebid a hypothetical heart king with x-high diamonds. But then, wouldn’t North bid 4S over 3H with that card? Then again, that 109 takes on new meaning even if North shows up with a pile of garbage like  QJx  Jxx  Axxx  xxx  (and yes, I realize we will in all likelihood not be in slam opposite that).

FELDHEIM: “3H. No reason to rush. If partner jumps to game, bid 5C and press on to at least the 6-level. Even if responder 'signs off' at 3S, this hand is worth another try with 4C.”

I like this approach best. Nothing is perfect here, but I guess that’s what makes this game so interesting. I’m more inclined to put on the brakes if 3H elicits a retreat to 3S primarily because of the ‘fear’ of unnecessarily hitting the 5-level opposite unsuitable values.

Last word:

KESSLER: “6S. Let the defense guess my hand and what to lead. I really hate to start describing my hand so they know how to defend. Also, if we start cuebidding minors, they can double and maybe find a good save -- which they must have.”

6.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  QJ54   10   AK643   A109 ?

I was surprised that a majority of the panel pushed into game at pairs scoring. Only a few were willing to give up "on the cusp":

FELDHEIM: “Pass. This is 'on the cusp'. If we were vulnerable, I'd chance 4H. Not vulnerable, I'll take the chicken view and go for the plus score.”

BRIDGE BARON: Pass. The heart ten doesn't give us a fit, and Bridge Baron simulates 3NT as -140.00.”

MATHENY: “Pass. This might be my last chance for a plus score.”

PAULO:  "Pass. At matchpoints I envisaged 3NT, but I rejected it after considering several possible North hands where we could make only 3H or 2NT."

Yup. I think red at teams, this might have been a unanimous panel vote. I don’t even remember why I clicked on the 4H button here (it’s been a while since I did!), so I’ll let the panel's 4H bidders finish off for me.

KNIEST: “4H. Pard has a pure game try with a good suit and I have a great card for him plus other assets. Playing in hearts will provide transportation; notrump might be very difficult.”

VONGSVIVUT: “4H. I should have enough for 10 tricks opposite a good 6-card heart suit and about 10 high-card points.”

SPEAR: “4H. This is a good hand if spades are working, and may also make on some other hands.”

KESSLER:  "4H. Even at matchpoints, Ace-King, Ace and the heart 10 are too much to pass. My partners need to play the dummy well."

WALKER: "4H. This is plenty for accepting the invitation, but the only game under consideration is 4H. Unless I hold significant extra values and a heart fit, 3NT is seldom a good contract after this auction."

WARD: “4H. 3NT could be right, but it is likely wrong. I can't see passing here at matchpoints. Give partner KQJxxx and a black king and 4H seems odds on.”

That’s all for now folks. Wishing everyone a very happy and very safe holiday season and we’ll see you again in 2013.

      ♠   February problems

Thanks to all for your patience while we set up a new server for the Forum submissions. A big thank you to Pete Petillo of Lawrence KS for hosting the files and for all his work in reprogramming the software!

All functions with the web form are now working. Panelists' and Solvers' scores for this issue are saved, but not yet available in HTML format. They will be posted later. 

The six new problems for February are below. This is the first of the six sets in the 2013 Solvers Contest. Your annual score is based on your best three submissions, so there's still time to join in. Please send your solutions on the web form by January 31.

Note: After posting, scroll down the resulting page and look for a green "All answers posted okay" message. If there's a red error message instead, you can correct the problem (a missing bid or too-long comment) and resend.

February moderator:  Nate Ward -- Nate.Ward@volition-inc.com