District 8 Solvers Forum -- December 2014

    by Jack Spear, Overland Park KS

What is your call as South holding: AK984   Void   AQ75  A1063 ?

The first problem is a nice 5-0-4-4 hand which should take three bids to describe, except that partner passes our 1S opening. The opponent's fourth-chair takeout double gives us another bidding opportunity if we want, but I agree with the majority that Pass seems best here. After passing, if the bidding comes back to us at 2H, I like double for takeout to get in both of our other suits.

Larry also intends to bid again after passing:

RABIDEAU:  Pass. Hope to describe this hand later with an "unusual NT" or double, depending on the auction.

Bud points out that bidding a new suit here should show 5-card length:

HINCKLEY: Pass. For now. 2C or 2D tend to show 5-5 shape and redouble might find West passing for penalty.

There was some support for the redouble:

WARD: Redouble. I don’t want to guess which suit partner fits me. This lets me double again when some level of hearts comes back around.

Karen passes, and doesn’t like the choice of redouble:

WALKER:  Pass. Redouble would show about this strength, but should suggest better spades ("good hand/good suit" is a common agreement). No need to make an arbitrary choice of a minor with iffy 4-card suits.

There were a few votes for those iffy 4-card suits:

JONES: 2D. Bidding out my pattern when I have a strong hand with a good 4+-card second suit.

KNIEST:  2C. If that’s hit, I’ll bid 2D.

What is your call as South holding: AK65   654   K3   K975 ?

Problem 2 forces us to make an awkward rebid. I agree with the majority who bid 2S, and I also believe partner should allow for a hand like we hold -- one without a heart stopper, without support to raise diamonds, and without rebiddable clubs. Then our hand may contain minimum values here, although partner is still not allowed to pass a new suit in this sequence.

Even if this sequence has not been discussed in the partnership, both partners may find the above solution at the table as a “Meta-agreement” -- the agreement which would have been logically reached in an expert partnership discussion if it had taken place.

Some comments from those who agree with the 2S rebid:

HINCKLEY:  2S. Presumably a one-round force and the only reasonable option other than a non-forcing 3D 2-card raise, which I would have seriously considered with weaker spades and a stronger doubleton.

PAULO:  2S. This is a situation like 1C-1D-1S; partner's strength allows me to bid my second suit.

JONES: 2S. Tells partner I probably have stoppers in spades and clubs, but not hearts. I see no good alternative.

BARON:  2S. Forced to bid something, but a 2NT bid would convey a heart stopper, so just mention my four-card spade suit.

Others may believe that using such a “meta-agreement” should not be allowed (equivalent to opening Pandora’s box). So if no agreement has previously been reached, the opener must choose between bidding 2S showing extra values, bidding 2NT without a heart stopper, or raising diamonds without 3-card support:

WALKER:  3D. Depends on agreements, but I think 2H and 2S should show extra values. If 3NT is right, partner will bid it.

WARD: 3D. The least lie. Under-strength for 2S, and I am not rebidding clubs.

KESSLER: 3D. Lesser of evils, and most flexible.

KAPLAN: 2NT. No raise from RHO makes the odds decent that partner has some hearts. Nothing stronger than 2NT from me, however, as partner may have been on the edge to enter the auction.

Speaking of opening Pandora’s box, one person’s meta-agreement may not be the same as another’s:

KNIEST:  2H. Western Q of course.

* Weak two-bid

What is your call as South holding:  963   AKJ10973   7   52 ?

Problem 3 is rather straightforward -- you overcall 2H or Pass. Although the heart suit is good enough, bidding over a preempt usually shows more than 8 high-card points. Bidding 3H is considered even stronger than 2H, but still non-forcing compared with 4H. So the 2H-bidders are overbidding here, but willfully choosing that action. I am in the overbidding group, apology ready, but at least I will not be missing a 4H game when it exists. My partner may have a difficult time staying low, but will not face a decision whether to act or pass following a “disciplined” Pass by me with so many tricks.

Fellow overbidders who included comments with their votes (comments always appreciated):

HINCKLEY: 2H. I can’t pass with this, and 3H and 4H are clearly wrong, requiring at least one high card on the side, if not two, since both show strong hands, especially 3H.

RABIDEAU:  2H. That 109 are irresistible.

KNIEST:  2H. Passing is ridiculous.

Think discipline:

KAPLAN:  Pass. Yes, I have a great heart suit - but - that's it. I'm old-fashioned and play that coming in immediately shows a better hand than I have.

BARON:  Pass. Would need either solid hearts or an outside Ace or King to overcall 2H (or to not be vulnerable).

WALKER:  Pass. Yeah, it's a nice suit, but bidding a red 2H with absolutely nothing outside is way too anxious -- and a good way to assure that partner will never trust your overcalls again. 2D probably won't be passed out, so I may have an "honest" way to show this hand later.

A belated entry into the auction was also mentioned by:

WARD: Pass. Tempting, but I am not preempting over a preempt. If it goes 2NT on my left and 3C or 3D on my right, I’ll come in.

"You can't preempt a preempt" is an old bridge maxim that explains the low score for 3H. Manuel reminds us of the meaning of a jump to 3H in this auction:

PAULO:  Pass. I must pass because a jump overcall shows a strong hand, not a preemptive hand.

What is your call as South holding:  Q754   J7654   A3   KJ ?

Problem 4 seems to be a choice between passing or investigating game possibilities opposite partner’s balanced opener. Most chose to bid on, so the passers are not awarded 100. Most of the bidders chose 2NT, with the remainder choosing 2C as New Minor Forcing. I find myself with the 2C bidders, the smallest group. 2C seems appealing since it can lead to a game or partscore in notrump or a suit.

Passing is appealing because it leaves us in the safest partscore of 1NT:

BARNES:  Pass. All values are in short suits, no playing strength.

HINCKLEY:  Pass. Assumes good opponents and a good  partner in a quality field. Long suits are too weak with no spot cards to invite at matchpoints opposite a balanced 12-14 high-card points. If partner makes nine tricks, it may still score well.

KAPLAN:  Pass. Dribs and drabs; no good fits. My guess is that most of the time, 120 is our best score. Don't want to endanger it by bidding again.

KNIEST:  Pass. Soft values in my long suits. Let's stay low.

WARD: Pass. The bad 5-card suit makes me not want to push, so I’ll go low and hope for a plus. Second choice would be 2NT.

The 2NT bidders stay in the higher-scoring notrump contract, while still inviting game:

WALKER:  2NT. Pass is a close second. 2C is a distant third, as playing in a 5-3 heart fit with this suit doesn't have a lot of appeal.

PAULO:  2NT. I don't wonder whether partner has three-card support for my poor suit.

RABIDEAU:  2NT. Yes, this hand is long in quacks and poor in spot cards, but the fifth heart will hopefully compensate. If partner didn't play them so well, I'd pass.

And speaking for the smallest group:

BARON:  2C. New Minor Forcing. We'd make the same bid playing XYZ or Checkback Stayman. Would like to know if partner has three-card heart support or if he bypassed a 4-4 spade fit.

What is your call as South holding:  A  A952   KQ9   K9753 ?

Problem 5 offers three choices of action in addition to the possible Pass. The large majority of panelists chose 2C, but 1NT and Double also had votes. 1NT does not rate to work well if partner chooses to play in spades, similar to the takeout double when partner bids spades as invited.

The Pass may work out well when our side cannot arrive at a contract that makes:

KNIEST:  Pass. Ominous that pard didn't overcall 1S nor RHO make a courtesy raise. I'm going for a plus -- probably 200. Pay off to a big club fit and heart shortness with pard.

Speaking for the majority 2C bidders:

HINCKLEY:  2C. 1NT is the only other reasonable option, which I might have chosen with KJ102 instead of A952.

RABIDEAU:  2C. The extra ace compensates for the lousy suit. If partner peeps, I'll try 3NT.

BARON:  2C. Certainly strong enough to balance. About a trick and a half short of making a stronger move.

WALKER: 2C. Yuk. I'd pass at matchpoints, but I have just enough extra that we might have a game, so I'll give partner a chance to show something. A slightly heavy 1NT might also work. Double will lead to some scary auctions.

Some panelists considered a balancing 1NT, but only two chose that action:

WARD: 1NT. Double and then 2NT would be a bit much on this, even though I have 16.

Showing only a little fear about the rest of the auction were:

PAULO:  Double. With these values, it is obligatory to take out; partner should not presume that I have a normal type of double.

JONES: Double, then rebid notrump. The hand is too strong to pass or balance 1NT or 2C. It has the strength for a 3C balance, but the suit is much too weak. Partner didn't overcall spades, so he's somewhat less likely to bury you in that suit.

KAPLAN: Double. The toughest of the set. First inclined to pass, but partner could have moderate values and a minor and we could be cold for 5D or 5C -- conceivably even more! I'm worried about where the spade suit is. At the end of the day, however, keeping hope alive seems superior to attempting to collect 100 a trick.

  * Negative
** Club raise with one of top 3 honors

What is your call as South holding:  K832   Q764  52   K74 ?

Problem 6 is a surprising problem with a very normal hand that took an obvious action at the first turn. Now, our choices include passing 2C doubled for penalties, or running to 2D or 2H, where we may only have a 7-card fit. The majority chose 2D, and I am with them, just trying to go plus. Others chose to bid 2H, trying to offer a choice of majors, but I am unsure a 4-3 fit in a weak suit will play well here. Then there is the penalty pass, which will surely be a zero if our side fails to take 6+ tricks defending against their known fit.

Good luck to the players electing to defend:

KNIEST:  Pass. Pard must be 3-3-5-2 so we have no "Law" protection, although they do. Go for the one-trick set rather than the +90 in 2D.

KAPLAN: Pass. Thank goodness it's matchpoints! Partner didn't want to bid a major, didn't want to rebid diamonds ... where am I to go? If we beat it a trick, we should get a fine score. If we don't, it's only a board!

BARON: Pass. Partner's pass suggests a desire to defend. Should be exciting.

The 2H bidders are hoping for a successful 4-3 fit:

HINCKLEY:  2H. Partner is extremely likely to have 3=3=5=2 shape due to his second-round pass. To protect my club king from immediate attack, I’m bidding 2H and not 2D. Matchpoint scoring makes the decision easier to play in a major.

WALKER:  2H. A scramble. Partner's pass is non-committal -- he's probably 3-3-5-2 with weak diamonds (with 6 diamonds or 5 good ones, he would surely have bid). A speculative pass would be worth considering if I actually had some tricks, but this isn't enough (especially if LHO's club honor is the ace). If I wanted to gamble that 2C redoubled was going down (for +200), I'd wait for them to bid 3C (very likely at this vulnerability) and turn that into +300.

The majority 2D bidders make a simple case for our most likely makeable contract:

WARD: 2D. This seems strange. Partner can’t have a 4-card major, and I’d guess he would bid 2D with 5 most of the time. So maybe pass is right, playing partner to be 3343, but that is a pretty big guess to be taking. If they double, I am running. Otherwise, I hope -100 beats -110.

RABIDEAU:  2D. The odds of beating 2C are so low that I'll take my chances with a least  mis-descriptive (?) raise.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Topping all Solvers with 580 was Pete Ashbrook of Champaign IL. Close behind with 570 was Micah Fogel of Aurora IL. Both are invited to join the February 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 February problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by January 31 on the web form. 

December moderator:  Kimmel Jones  kimmel.jones@gmail.com