District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2006

 by Tom Kniest, St. Louis MO

1. IMPs, NS  vulnerable                                 

West	North	East	South
--	1D	3C	???

What is your call as South holding:  K84   AQ10932   106    96 ?

It's been a pretty much snow-less winter in St. Louis, but still chilly. I’m inching towards full retirement, and a trip to sunny Puerto Vallarta in January prepared my hide somewhat for my February cruise in the Caribbean. Prior to that, I’m going to check out the bridge in Hilton Head. 

We welcome guest panelists Richard Pavlicek and Harold Feldheim, who bring their name recognition and vast tournament experience to our humble forum. Bridge Baron has also graced our presence with the super logic that only software can produce. Lastly, we acknowledge the relocation of long-time panelist, Larry Matheny, to the cheerful environs of Loveland CO.

This first problem is pretty straightforward, so we won’t waste much time on it. The lone voice of dissent came from: 

DODD:  "Pass. Why, oh why, don't we play non-forcing freebids in this system? 3H is begging for trouble opposite an aggressive North and negative double deserves to hear a 4S rebid opposite."

A handful of Solvers opted for the negative double, but the panel saw the same problems with that action as DODD mentions. I'd like to hear Marty Bergen's choice for this one. His theory of negative doubles at the three-level is that they always invite 3NT. How would you like that contract here if partner has a heart fit and a soft club stopper?

The rest of the panel came to the conclusion that no matter what your reservations about your strength, bidding 3H here is “just bridge”. 

MATHENY: “3H. Damn, it’s cold out here.”

LINDEMANN: "3H. I hate to sell out to a preempt when we could have a game."

BRIDGE BARON: “3H. Using the irrefutable logic of ones and zeros, this is the only possible bid.”

MERRITT: “3H. I’m no pansy.”

Really? A good number of Solvers actually bid 4H!

2. IMPs, both vulnerable 

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1D
Pass	1H	Pass	2C
Pass	2S*	DBL	???

* Fourth-suit force, may be artificial

What is your call as South holding:  Void    942   A9543   AKQ87 ?

Here’s a problem with many angles. Using the theory of game before slam, it makes sense to show the known heart fit now, without creating a complicated auction that caters to finding the best slam. A jump to 4H would show extra values, and several panelists decided that's what this hand was worth. Speaking for them: 

PAVLICEK: “4H. Seems right to show that I’m proud of the preference (even if 3H is forcing) in case partner has slam aspirations. It is arguable that 3S shows this hand (0-3-5-5), but I’d rather make a practical bid than win the postmortem.”

The majority, though, had reservations about using up so much space in the auction:

WALKER: “3H. There’s no guarantee partner has a five-card heart suit, so I don’t think I can safely make a true ‘value bid’ (4H) here. If partner has a strong hand and/or support for one of my minors, the jump uses up a lot of his bidding room, and may convince partner my hearts are a lot better than 9xx.”

FEILER: “3H. Bridge World Standard says the fourth suit is forcing one round, unless it’s a reverse, in which case it’s forcing to game. I’ll start by showing my three-card support and take another bid later.”

Some of the Solvers who chose 4H said they were afraid partner might pass 3H, but as FEILER points out, partner's 2S bid was indeed a reverse, so it's forcing to game. The fourth-suit auction is the only way he has to check back for three-card heart support or show you a forcing raise in one of your minors. I suspect partner has "real" hearts and spades on this auction, but it's also possible he has good support for one of your minors, with or without five hearts, and if so, you could have a game or slam in the minor. Your hand is also suitable for 3NT if partner has spade values. 

These panelists wanted to cater to the minor-suit possibilities by giving partner a full picture of their distribution:  

FOGEL: “3C. Finish bidding your shape. Your next call will be a heart raise.”

PAULO: “3C. As the fourth suit is a reverse, I assume it’s game forcing, so I can show my fifth club before raising hearts.”

STRITE: “3C. I’d probably bid 3C on 0-3-5-5 regardless of how my high cards are distributed, but xxx in support of partner against the opportunity to emphasize my fine clubs makes this problem easier. I’ll support hearts next, unless partner raises clubs."

So many choices. And now, here come the opponents. Are they helping or hindering you with the double? One thing I know for sure: you don’t redouble here unless you’ve discussed it with partner…and he has a good memory. The mild interference had some panelists worrying about spade preemption, maybe to the 4 level, by LHO: 

KESSLER: “3H. I think I need to show three hearts before this auction gets out of hand. There is a good chance LHO will raise spades. If so, at least partner will know we are short in spades, and this should help with his next call.”

Since we have vulnerable opponents who both eschewed one-level overcalls, I’d cheerfully honor partner’s penalty double of any sacrifices they offer now.

FELDHEIM: “3S. I love to win postmortems!  A super opportunity supplied by East!  My hand is great for anything partner is thinking and I can show that in one bid!”

Calm down, Harold.

3. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                             

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

What is your call as South holding:  AQ74   KQ86   AJ84   K ?

The argument here seems to boil down to a "do-you-or-don't-you" decision about making a splinter raise with a singleton king. The majority passed on that opportunity with this hand

FEILER: “4H. Auctions that show a singleton are a bad choice with a singleton king, and 2NT isn’t 100% forcing, so I’ll stick with the strong balanced raise.”

PAVLICEK: “4H. I’d rather convey a balanced raise than show a dubious splinter. The ‘aces and eights’ could be an omen to only bid 3H, as I’m sure partner will end up a dead man.”

FOGEL: “4H. Goren says a 20-count with 4 trumps is a raise to 4. This is close enough.”

TAFJORD: “4H. With five losers, a jump to 3H might be enough, but there should be a play for four opposite most hands, even though the value of the Club King is unclear.”

WALKER: “4H. I don’t have any objections to splintering with a stiff king if the rest of the hand is right for it, but I don’t think this one has enough strength in the other suits to send that message. It may be closer to a 3H call.”

MERRITT: “4H. Am I getting old and boring?"

I'm with the old-and-boring majority here. I’m showing a lot of strength with the jump to 4H. If partner has length and strength in clubs and is interested in slam, I have a suitable holding for him, so I don't want to him to evaluate his club strength as wastage. Against that, someday, he might be loaded everywhere except clubs, but I haven’t denied a club control, so slam is still possible. 

Still, those who chose the splinter raise offered some good arguments:

DODD: “4C. Not exactly best with the king, but it just feels right with the 4-4-4-1 distribution, the controls and the trump quality.”

FELDHEIM: “4C. I hate singleton kings, but in a sense, it reduces the general power to where a splinter makes sense. With a singleton small club and a king in one of the other suits, the hand is too good for a splinter.”

MATHENY: “4C. I thought chains for tires were a thing of the past.”

NELSON: “4C. In my younger years, I wouldn’t have splintered with a stiff ace or king.  However, about 7-8 years ago, I had a conversation with Bobby Goldman, who told me that when the Aces studied together, analyzing many hands, they decided that singleton honors shouldn’t deter them from showing their shape.”

There was some support for showing the spades and constructing another "picture-bid" auction. 

LINDEMANN: "1S. This is forcing and will give me a chance to hear more about North's hand. I can always jump to 4H if I don't hear something I like."

This could work, but it's risky, as we've all passed this bid before. If partner stretched to respond (which he might do with something like 3-5-1-4 and a 5-count), he'll be happy to get out the green card . The stronger version of this approach was advocated by: 

PAULO: “2S. Natural and forcing. Afterwards, I will raise hearts, showing my shape and good values.”

And then there's the weaker version:

KESSLER: “3H. My partners need to play the dummy well to accommodate my aggressiveness, even at matchpoints. I just think that with a control in all suits and passing opponents, this is the best action.”

This is what happens when you try to answer a question while driving, smoking and talking on a cell phone. 

4. IMPs, none vulnerable                             

West	North	East	South
--	--	--	1H
2D	2S	3D	???

What is your call as South holding:  A53   AJ98654   Void   A82 ?

Here’s another hand where it would be interesting to get Marty Bergen's or Larry Cohen's views.  Look at that heart suit. It’s good enough to play opposite a void, and based on the distribution of the remaining ones, you figure to have a nine-card fit on average, and at least eight most of the time. Yet, here’s the panel giving little thought to rebidding hearts. 

PAVLICEK: “4D. Bidding 4H could easily miss a slam, and 3H isn’t forcing, so I’ll show my spade fit, diamond control, and extras."

DODD: “4D. We could be gin for a grand or struggling to make 5 or 6."

FEILER: “4D. What I’m hoping for is a 5D bid from the opponents, after which I’ll try 5H. That may actually show my hand."

FELDHEIM: “4D. Another cuebid!  This is an easy one. if partner signs off, I’ll make one more try with 5C."

NELSON: “4D. Cuebid to show the spade fit. I love all my controls."

MERRITT: “4D. Four first round controls!  Woohoo, happy days!"

There's some enthusiasm for you. I have to get some of whatever he's imbibing while he answers these problems.

PAULO: “4D. With all first-round controls and spade support, I must bid with enthusiasm." 

You could try a partnership with MERRITT and learn to bid with enthusiasm regardless of what you hold :) 

At least the 4D bidders have kept hearts open as a possible trump suit. Partner may come up with a heart cuebid (or is it natural?), in which case you might well decide to play your game or slam in hearts (opting for the easier handling offered the longer trump suit). On the other hand, many hands where partner has a stiff heart and strong spades will result in taking all 13 tricks without a club lead. 

FOGEL: “4S. I don’t think this call will win the contest, but will win the most IMPs in the long run. Partner has 5+ spades, so we have a confirmed fit. If he has heart fillers, we have a second suit. If not, spades is a better contract, so I bid the most likely game. This hand is much harder at matchpoints. I’d probably cuebid and then have to guess at my next turn."

WALKER: “4S. I'm already showing a pretty big hand with a two-level overcall and a jump to game. I'd like to have more strength, or at least more trumps, for a 4D cuebid. With just three trumps, the void isn’t going to be a trick-taking bonanza, and with just one outside entry to my heart suit, it may take some luck to turn it into a source of tricks."

MATHENY: “4S. The only thing that keeps me warm up here is thinking about the cheerleaders in nearby Boulder."

TAFJORD: “4S. Six losers and a two-level overcall behind me, I’m tempted to just bid 3S. On a diamond lead, I hope to set up the heart suit with a club entry, or maybe we have running hearts, so I shoot for 4S. A creative double might work as an invitation here."

It boggles my mind to see all of those 4S bidders looking at those controls when partner is unlimited. Some even described this hand as invitational. Do they think partner will have a hand that can bid over 4S? If you’ve ever read the Bridge World's columns on “Assess the Blame” features, you know you’d be shown no mercy if you’d passively bid 4S with this hand.

There are also some three-level bids available, chosen by:

WILLIAMS: “3S. Describes the hand perfectly, well as close to perfect as you can get. 4S is likely to get us too high and 4D should have a fourth trump."

KESSLER: “3H. Seven-card suits are meant to be rebid. This hand could easily play better in hearts than spades, and this is the last time to let partner know our hearts are long and good. Once we bid 3S, it will be very hard to convince partner we have seven good hearts. The real problem is what to bid over 5D doubled by partner."

RABIDEAU: “3H. I can’t stand to pass up rebidding a decent seven-card suit unless there’s no other option. If partner has any kind of fit, this type of hand usually plays better in the long suit. We can raise spades on the next round, if that seems appropriate, even though partner may worry that we only have a doubleton."

STRITE: “3H. Forcing and descriptive. If partner supports or rebids spades, it becomes a question of six or seven. I can probably risk the Grand Slam Force in hearts, but would settle for 6S."

5. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable                             

What is your call as South holding:  K854   K103   A65   AJ6 ?

Lots of choices on this one. Ed Schultz sent this as a quiz to a number of top players, and they couldn't agree on the best action. What they did agree on was that they you need to have agreements with your regular partner about this situation. 

The majority of the panel either wanted -- or felt compelled -- to cooperate with partner's slam aspirations:

KESSLER: “5C. Partner knows I have diamond support from my opening bid. When partner cuebids, I tend to cuebid back when I have a control that is convenient to show."

FOGEL: “5C. Partner says he has a big diamond hand and is making a cuebid. You can cuebid back cheaply, so do so. I don’t know what kind of hand partner rates to have, but he’s captain, so I do what I’m told."

STRITE: “5C. Whatever partner needs for 6D, I probably have it, so start cuebidding. Passing to allow partner to redouble lets a 5S interference call by the opponents ruin the fun. If partner signs off in 5D, I can raise to 6D based on the Heart King.”

WALKER: “5C. With three-card support and three prime cards, I think this hand is worth some encouragement. A redouble, to show second round control, probably isn’t what partner wants to hear, as his cuebid suggests he’s void in spades. With a singleton spade, he could have extracted a cuebid from me with a simple 4D rather than using up the entire four level.”

RABIDEAU: “5C. My first thought was ‘only 11-12 working points.’ But what can partner have for this sequence? Surely no less than Void  Qxx  KQxxxxx  KQx. And lots of holdings are cold for 6D or 7D.”

PAULO: “5C. My weak 1NT opening became weaker, but it didn’t vanish. With support, I can’t reject the club cuebid. Partner may have, for example,  Void  AQxx  KQxxxxx  xx ." 

The panel did a pretty good job of guessing partner's hand. Partner actually held Paulo's example hand, but with Qx.

MERRITT: “5C. Positive without going over the edge. Wasted king, but Ace-Ace-King and the third diamond excite me enough to move forward." 

I’d like to watch him play poker (or play against him). 

Even though no panel member voted for 6D, I raised that score because now your Spade King is pulling full weight. You know RHO is going to lead the Spade Ace against the slam, which will give partner a tempo and a discard on his King. 

The rest of the panel was more pessimistic about their values for a diamond contract, and some were still hoping to steer the hand back into notrump:

FELDHEIM: “4NT. Hmmm ... finally a puzzlement. My tendency would be to devalue this hand since, despite two aces, this is a minimum with a useless Spade King. So, depending on agreements, pass or 4NT (my choice) is appropriate. I need another move from partner for slam."

FEILER: “Pass. I don’t think I should bid 4NT myself with only one stopper. If it’s right, maybe pard will get an attack of brilliance and bid it himself. If he redoubles to show a void, I’ll bid 5C."

DODD: “Pass. By most systems, this should show second-round control when East tosses in a double like this (Redouble would show the ace.)  4NT might work when 6D goes down, but I’d want a second high spade to sign off so hard. I’m hopeful to get to the right spot this way. My hand hasn’t gotten any better, and North can still bid 4NT if he so chooses.”

DODD brings up an interesting point about how to interpret a Redouble here. Redouble would show the ace if partner’s 4S was a general force and not a control cuebid. Most of our panel, though, thinks partner is definitely showing a first-round control in spades. In that case, your redouble would show second-round control.

PAVLICEK: “Pass. Failure to bid 4NT rules out extreme spade wastage, but the hand is hardly worth further encouragement. Passing also allows us to play 4NT if partner has, say, x  Axx  KQ10xxx  Kxx.”

I can't figure out why partner would bid past 3NT with that 12-count. The panel had plenty of pessimists, though, who seemed to be expecting Pavlicek's example hand: 

WILLIAMS: “Redouble. I’m showing partner I have second-round spade control. This should warn him off a slam if he’s worried about spade wastage. 4NT by partner should be to play.”

MATHENY: “5D. Chopping my own wood for my pot-bellied stove has really reduced my utility payments…and my waistline.”

NELSON: “5D. I don’t really like my bid, but my hand went down the drain on this auction. Wish it were partner who was bidding spades.”

Of all these alternative choices, I think Pass makes some sense, as it allows partner to redouble. The problem comes when your partner finds the blue card too heavy to lift and just bids 5D, back to you. Now don’t you wish you had taken the opportunity to bid 5C on the way? 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4S	100	12	38
5H	90	5	6
Pass	50	1	52
Other	50	0	4

6. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

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

What is your call as South holding:  K43   Q1086   54   KJ83 ?

This is the kind of at-the-table problem that requires experience and some expert-level logic to arrive at the "right" answer. It's also a good example of a situation you should discuss with your regular partner.  

More than half the Solvers thought partner's 4H was just offering a choice of games, and they were happy to pass. As the panel emphasizes, though, just wishing it doesn't make it so:

FEILER: “4S. 4H is a cuebid; not a second suit."

DODD: “4S. Anyone who passes here is playing with fire. Even if 4H is an offer to play there, the (possible) 4-4 fit is unlikely to score up more tricks. I would like to bid more strongly, but the doubleton diamond and no aces is not a good sign."

MATHENY: “4S. I thought when I left the chilling steppes of central IL, I’d never have to wear long underwear again."

FOGEL: “4S. I don’t have much extra, and with no aces, I don’t want to risk anything higher. I’m not sure that maybe my first call should have been a negative double, then preferencing to spades to show this hand."

FOGEL was the only panelist who mentioned that he would have considered a negative double with this hand, as I would. The problem forced the 3S bid on us. When we’re preempted, we often stretch to show a fit, but since we have sufficient values to play at the three-level and three possible places to play, I think the negative double possibility is worthy of discussion. 

STRITE: “4S. I’m good, but not great, for my bidding. I’ll take the average minus for missing a close slam unless partner can muster one more try."

TAFJORD: “4S. Whether this is a cuebid or a second suit, I’m pretty much a minimum with no controls to show, so I’ll correct to 4S to be on the safe side.”

KESSLER: “4S. I play 4H as forward-going, but not necessarily a heart suit or control. It’s partner’s only slam try below 4S."

KESSLER is referring to what's called a "Last Train" cuebid, which shows mild slam interest but doesn't necessarily promise a control in the suit. That's one of the possible interpretations of partner's bid; he could also be showing a "real" control, or a strong 5-4 or 5-5 hand. Several 4S bidders mentioned that since they didn't know for sure what partner had, they were choosing 4S as the "safe" or "covering all bases" bid.

WILLIAMS: “4S. Nothing left in the tank. I’m not quite sure why this hand is in a bidding contest. Are you really supposed to bid 5H with a dead minimum and no ace or king of hearts?”

It sounds like he could use an injection of MERRITT's optimism. So why is this a problem? Here are the answers of four panelists who figured out what they needed to do and weren't afraid to go with the courage of their convictions. This minority has such fine credentials that I’ve promoted  their choice in the scoring.

FELDHEIM: “5H. We’ve been preempted, so just in case, I’m showing a useful hand, no aces and two diamond losers. This may go set a trick, but Pass is just too chicken."

PAULO: “5H. I take partner’s rebid as natural, inviting slam. I cooperate, showing support and implying lack of aces and diamond control."

PAVLICEK: “5H. As I play, 4H is a slam try, so I make the obvious raise, implying no diamond control. Even those who play 4H as shape-descriptive for competitive purposes would surely agree it is forcing, so pass seems unfathomable."

WALKER: “5H. There may be a good argument for playing 4H as non-forcing, but without a special agreement to that effect, I have to bid.  Partner could have lots of different hands for his 4H bid, but they're all strong. That means the five-level should be safe, so it looks right to tell partner which suit you prefer.”

Right. If partner has a great hand with the majors and a diamond control, I have what he needs. Ironically, if you had made a negative double and partner had bid 4H over 4D, you couldn't justify taking another bid, so your heavy raise to 3S put you in a position to bid a difficult slam.

For another view of this problem, see the "Bidding Matters" column in the January 2005 issue of the Bulletin. As pointed out there, there are two almost-universal agreements you can apply to a when-in-doubt situation like this one:
    (1)  If it could be forcing, it is.
    (2)  If it could be natural, it is.  
I think most of us could design our entire bidding systems around those two ideas and get by nicely.

Thanks again to Richard Pavlicek (try his bidding and play quizzes on www.rpbridge.net) and Harold Feldheim for sharing their wisdom with the panelists and solvers. Thanks, too, to all who sent in answers and comments.

Congratulations to Doug Jonquet, who scored up a perfect 600 for this set, and, Rick Beye, ACBL Director Extraordinaire, who was close behind with a 590. Yes, some directors really do know something about bidding. They're both invited to join the April panel. 

Special congratulations to Oyvind Tafjord, who won the 2005 Solvers Contest by averaging more than 586 for his best three submissions. He'll be joining the panel for 2005. Oyvind, who's originally from Norway, is a former District 8 member who's now living in Oregon. See Solvers Honor Roll in this issue for a list of the top runners-up in the 2005 contest.

The six new problems for April are below. This is the second of the six sets in the 2006 Solvers Contest, so there's still plenty of time to join in. Please submit your solutions by March 20 on the web form or by email to our April moderator:

     Scott Merritt -- merritt604@gmail.com

   Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 509)

Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL	600	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL	570
Rick Beye,  Memphis TN	590	Bob Wheeler, Florissant MO	570
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	570	Gary Dell, Champaign IL	560
Bob Shair, Champaign IL	570	Judy Eaton, Carbondale IL	560
Glenn Smith, Creve Couer MO	570	Glafkos Galanos, Carbondale IL	560
		Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	560
Tied with 550:  Karen Coe, Ewing IL;  Mike Giacaman, St. Louis; Bruce Kretchmer, Boynton Beach FL; Rich Pestien, Peoria IL;  Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL.