District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2014

What is your call as South holding:  A107   A6  K   AKJ10865 ?  

Most of the panel thought they had showed enough speed with this hand and were willing to leave slam decisions up to partner. They also had some fears that anything other than a heart raise might talk partner out of playing in hearts.

WARD: "4H. Anything could be right, but if I don't raise hearts now, the suit may be lost forever."

MERRITT: " 4H. Show the support now. This isn't a common sequence, so getting cute could end badly. If this makes us miss slam because partner has KQxxxx and the Q, then so be it."

HINCKLEY: "4H. Admittedly conservative. Only other choices to seriously consider are 3NT with a stiff king in the unbid suit or 4C."

BRIDGE BARON: "4H. If partner's 3H bid is more trustworthy than my 2S bid, we should have an eight-card fit (partner bypassed a fourth-suit 3D)."

SPEAR: "4H. I am not bidding 3NT, which can fail when other games make. 4C may lead to 5C down one, with 4H making. (I wish I had risked only 3C last round, downgrading the diamond king.)"

Some panelists thought the club suit deserved more emphasis. They had hopes of suggesting slam, then steering partner back into hearts:   

FELDHEIM: "4C. The most descriptive bid. If partner bids 4S, then I'll bid 5H. If partner bids 4H, then I'll use Roman Keycard."

KESSLER: "4C. Forcing and shows my jump shift was based on long clubs. Next bid could be much tougher."

PAVLICEK: "4C. I would have bid 3NT over 1H (long clubs, outside stoppers) -- not perfect, but how perfect was 2S? Now that I have to play along, it seems mandatory to show the long clubs with slam still a possibility."

A few panelists liked this hand so much that they were ready to head for slam right now:

KAPLAN: "4NT, which I think should be keycard for hearts. This is such a powerful hand; I might have opened 2C."

KNIEST: " 4NT. Pard has lots of hearts; let's see how good they are."

This may be the only way to get to 6H if partner has a weak but perfect hand (good hearts and a suitable club holding). Then again, it could be the only way to get a minus score if he has something like  984   KQ10954  J65   2, where even 4H isn't a sure thing. A computer simulation could tell you which is more likely, but at the table, you just have to decide if you want to go for the big score or play it down the middle. 

2.  IMPs, both vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  K7653   KQJ10983   Q   Void ?

BRIDGE BARON: "3S. What I was always planning to do when I opened 1H."

There won't be many times that bidding spades won't be in your plan when you hold opening-bid values and five spades. According to the panel, though, this deal should be one of them. Here's their strategy:

SPEAR: "3H. My plan is to bid these hearts again and again. This is not the hand to declare 4S in a 5-3 fit. Bidding 3S now sounds like a better, more flexible hand. Bidding 4H now would show a better playing hand."

RABIDEAU: "3H. A fast-arrival 4H is tempting but I hate to give up on a spade slam."

It's going to be hard to get to 6S if no one bids the suit. It probably won't be partner, as he's already denied four spades (no negative double).

WARD: "3H. Even if partner has three spades, I still want to be playing this in hearts."

STRITE: "3H. Planning to rebid 4H my next turn. An immediate 4H or 3S would overstate this hand, which has lost value on the auction."

They're all assuming they'll get another turn to bid, but is that a sure thing? These panelists suggest some doubt:

NIEUWENHUIS: "3H. Misfit hands make me cautious. Partner is probably game-forcing and he'll come up with something more."

HINCKLEY: "4H. With better quality spades, I'd be inclined to bid 3S. Plus, I'd like to deny West a 4D bid. And I'm not 100% certain partner would consider 3H to be a forcing bid (although he should, since he bid a new suit at the 3-level, which should establish a game force)."

The words "probably" and "should" are signs that there's a possibility for a misunderstanding here. This panelist made an even stronger argument against bidding just 3H:     

PAVLICEK: "4H. Opening 4H would have been a wiser choice in my view, but better late than never. Showing spades rates to be useless, and might lead to a hopeless slam. Even 1H then 4H could tempt North into over-reaching, but I don't want to be left in 3H (non-forcing in competition)."

That's why I'm with:

FELDHEIM: "4H. Perhaps not bidding 3S is chicken. Due to the auction, this superb hand has lost value. I need a move from partner."

KNIEST: "4H. Expecting pard to correct with his 9 clubs."

SIGLER: "4H. My suit is solid an I expect some value in spades since partner entered the auction at the 3-level."

I'm not confident partner has a spade honor -- as KESSLER pointed out, he would bid 3C with  xxx  x  xxx  AKQxxx -- but I agree that the solid hearts make the spades ignorable. There's really no point in bidding 3S unless you're planning to bid out your pattern with 4S at your next turn, and your lack of aces make that unsafe.

The panel speculated about the differences between a 3H and 4H bid here, but there was no consensus. Whatever shades of meaning you believe each bid should communicate -- and however adamant you are that 3H should be forcing -- do you really want to take the chance that partner has a different view? If you want to be in 4H, it looks right to make it easy on partner and bid it now. 

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable    

* (4th-suit-force; May be artificial)

What is your call as South holding:  J   AQ764   AQ53   754 ?

The panel's heavy vote for Pass was quite a surprise. I didn't expect that anyone would take partner's redouble as "business", but 13 panelists proved me wrong. Here's their reasoning:

FELDHEIM: "Pass. If partner's 3C were a 'prepared' bid, he'd have either rebid spades or supported one of the red suits. Therefore, his redouble seems to be business-suggestive (like 1NT-2C-DBL-RDBL), With 754 and a singleton spade, I'm happy to declare 3C redoubled."

HINCKLEY: "Pass. 3C is not just forcing, it's game-forcing, since the fourth suit is being bid at the 3-level. Partner should have good clubs and be suggesting 3C redoubled as a possible contract. If I didn't pass, what would I bid? 3NT? No thanks!"

KAPLAN: "Pass. Lucky it's only matchpoints; just one board if I am wrong. But - how can I be wrong? Partner heard me bid two suits. If he has one, he could support over the double. We ARE in a game-force and I DO have 3 clubs!"

NIEUWENHUIS: "Pass. Risky, but worth it at matchpoints. The downside is, of course, the minus 200 if East has 5+ club tricks and partner is creating a slam force with a singleton or void in clubs.  Possible benefit: they might run and we'll double."

KNIEST: "Pass. Pard's offering to play here. I have the right hand. Hope they don't pull trump."

SIGLER: "Pass. Why question partner's judgment since there is no interest in the red suits?"

KESSLER: "Pass. I play redouble shows decent clubs and a willingness to declare. SOS makes no sense, as partner could have bid diamonds, hearts, spades or NT."

PAVLICEK: "Pass. I don't see a problem. I described my red-suit shape, and pass indicated a club preference. If partner's redouble is anything but natural, he can explain to me afterward how it asks for the spade jack on Mars."

Just when I thought I was all alone, my former and current moderators chimed in.

DODD:  "3H."

MERRITT: "3H. I am pretty sure that this is the most timid bid that I can make. I really have nothing to say."

SPEAR: "3H. Strange auction, but if partner thought he could make 3C doubled, he would have passed. (He knows I do not have three spades or five diamonds or six hearts.) My 3H now denies two spades and denies a club stop."

Jack makes a good point that wasn't mentioned by the passers. Partner knows you have at least a few clubs, and if he believes he can make 3C, why would a redouble be necessary? Would he really be thinking he needs more than +470 for a top?

For the record, I don't think partner's redouble is a vague SOS nor an ask for any jack on any planet. Instead, I took it as showing a partial stopper for notrump (Jxx, Qx or K) and asking you to bid 3NT if you have a partial stopper. It's how partner would bid a hand such as  AKQ43  52  KJ4  J43. If you happened to hold  52  AJ943  AQ53  Q2, this sequence takes full advantage of the opponent's double and gets you to 3NT.

This is such a valuable meaning for this redouble -- and, I thought, so widely played -- that I expected most of the panel would opt for the retreat to 3H. It also seemed logical that even those who weren't familiar with this treatment would suspect that partner was trying to communicate something other than "Let's play 3C!".

Keep in mind that we're supposed to assume our opponents are experts. I'm having a hard time imagining how an expert RHO can have clubs that are strong enough for a double and how partner can have clubs strong enough for a "business" redouble, especially when he knows the rest of the suit is offside. A few of the passers hinted at misgivings: 

STRITE: "Pass. This should do very well with my red-suit controls, stiff spade and ruffing potential. It will play well or we'll go -1600 ... depending what partner means by his redouble!"

That bit of doubt and the strangeness of this auction would have me rethinking the idea that redouble is to play. As with Problem #2, it's always a good idea to consider all the ways partner might interpret an undiscussed sequence and give him some rope. If I pull the redouble and I'm wrong, I've given up the chance to collect +640 and a top, but I'm fairly certain we won't get a zero. I can't say that about the alternative.       

* (5+ spades; One-round force)

What is your call as South holding:  KJ3    AQ72   AK543   7 ?

The majority voted for a splinter bid to show a 3-card raise and pinpoint the club shortness:

HINCKLEY: "4C. Even opposite a hand as weak as AQxxx  xx  xxx   xxx, there is a good play for game. Add either the diamond queen or heart king, and a spade slam has decent play."

KAPLAN: "4C Splinter. Another super hand for pard."

NIEUWENHUIS: "4C. Aggressive with a minimum reverse, but it tells partner exactly what I have."

STRITE: "4C. Splinter is a perfect picture bid."

WARD: "4C. Seems automatic."

They're pretty confident about their choice, but over a third of the panel chose to bid spades. Here's one rationale:

KNIEST: "3S. I've shown a good hand and my shape. If pard passes, he must have a sorry hand and it will probably be right. In the meantime, I haven't preempted him out of a club cuebid."

You are near the minimum point-count for a reverse, and if partner stretched to respond with something like 10xxxx  xx  xxx   KQx, he'll be happy you let him off the hook. However, most of the spade bidders liked their hand a lot more: 

FELDHEIM: "4S. Completing the picture. My hand is too good to risk 3S being passed."

RABIDEAU: "4S. Splintering would show a better hand."

That was my view. Since both 3S and 4C suggest the same suit distribution, 4C should be a stronger raise, promising more high-card points or maybe a club void. These panelists, though, made a good argument for using the direct raise (3S or 4S) to deny club shortness: 

PAVLICEK: "4C. Slam is certainly in range (AQxxxx  Kx  xx   xxx) so it must be right to show the pattern. Raising to 4S should deny a club splinter (maybe KJx  AQx  AKJxx   xx) unless slam would be ruled out from partner's limit."

SPEAR: "4C. 3S may be the highest-scoring bid here, but I like 3S to deny a singleton club, while 4C shows this classic distribution."

KESSLER: "4C. This hand could be huge, all primes plus the club stiff. If I held the same hand with KJ doubleton of spades and two small clubs, I would bid 3S, so 3S does not necessarily guarantee a stiff club."

The hands with two small clubs won't be all that common on this auction, as some 2-4-5-2 hands can be better described by opening 1NT or rebidding 2NT. Still, it can be helpful to distinguish between the 3S, 4S and 4C rebids, so this may be a good topic for partnership discussion.

5. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  K54   A2   A987543   A  ?

This is a very tough decision, as evidenced by the dead tie between double and pass for the top spot. The tie is broken in favor of the double because over half the panel and 2/3 of the Solvers voted for action.

For the cautious: 

MERRITT: "Pass. I'm not jumping in unfavorable vulnerability against an unpassed West. Maybe I am weak."

NIEUWENHUIS: "Pass. If partner can bid in fourth seat I'm probably happy. This hand could then return on the next forum as a second problem. 5D is too unilateral for me. If partner cannot bid, I'll take the probable plus."

KAPLAN: "Pass. Oh, I HATE this one; it is so hard! 5D could go for the moon; passing could miss all kinds of good things. But -- I'm going to wait and see if partner does something. My diamonds are so bad; I hate to bid them at the 5-level. Yes, even at matchpoints...."

SIGLER: "Pass. Opponents never make life easy. If partner doubles, I would consider 5D or pass for penalty."

STRITE: "Pass. Staying fixed. I'll leave any heroics to partner."

WARD: "Pass. This would be a tougher problem at IMPs, where being wrong will cost more."

They bring up some good justifications for passing, but I don't think the "maybe partner will bid" scenario is one of them. It's not going to happen.  

The rest of the panel felt compelled to bid something, and three panelists chose their long suit: 

PAULO: "5D. I am ready to apologize if partner has five or more spades."

KNIEST: "5D. I'll go for the vulnerable game and bid where I live. Double might win ... or lose."

SPEAR: "5D. Brave at matchpoints. At IMPs, I can never forget the time KQJ10x were behind me."

Everyone else charged in with what they admitted was a risky double:

FELDHEIM: "Double. Planning to pass 4S and bid 5D over 5C. The vulnerability is definitely scary and Pass may be the winning bid, but the 7-card suit is just too tempting. This could range anywhere between -1100 and +1370; either lucky or bloody. A direct 5D is unilateral."

KESSLER: "Double. Not an exact science. I'll correct 5C to 5D. This is the only bid that makes sense to me. I could never bring myself to pass."

HINCKLEY: "Double. Especially at matchpoints, I don't want to overcall 5D and miss a 5-3 or 6-3 spade fit. Yes, partner might end up declaring the 4-3 Moysian. If partner bids 5C, I will correct to 5D. (At this level, doubling and correcting to 5D does not show extras.)"

I'm a doubler, too, but I'm not worried about landing in a 4-3 spade fit. Although the double is for takeout, partner won't count on you for perfect takeout distribution at this level, and he won't usually pull unless he has 5+ spades or a very long minor. On most deals, we'll defend 4H doubled and collect maybe 300 (although -590 is a possibility).

The strongest argument for the double comes from this panelist:

PAVLICEK: "Double. Any choice (Pass included) could be a disaster, but double (optional as I play) has several chances to be right, whereas Pass and 5D are unilateral."

Good advice. When in doubt, go with the action that offers the greatest number of possible outcomes and involves partner in the decision. Double keeps three contracts in the picture -- 4S, 5D and 4H doubled -- and although it could be wrong, no one will be using the word "unilateral" to describe it.

6. IMPs, none vulnerable

* (Natural -- Shows a club suit)

** (Support double - 3-card heart support)

What is your call as South holding:  AK82    A73   A   107654 ?

Support doubles are a very popular and often effective bidding tool, but they do have drawbacks. One is that they prevent opener from making a penalty double of his RHO's overcall. Another is that they can leave responder with no choice but to retreat to his suit, even when he knows it's a weak fit. As some of the passers pointed out, that is a real fear here.  

WARD: "Pass. Not sure what I am missing here. We might be in a 4-3 fit already."

STRITE: "Pass. No need to stretch for a non-vul game when I don't see an obvious source of tricks. Opponents may have a forcing defense available."

KAPLAN: "Pass. I am one of the few people left on the planet who doesn't play support doubles -- and this is one reason why. I have some extras, but just not enough to try more, I'm afraid. I'm not sure that not playing support doubles would have helped here; I just hate how they give away your shape and no other important info."

MERRITT: "Pass. 2D as a totally amorphous inquiry was there and partner didn't take it. I like my hand, just not quite that much."

PAULO: "Pass. It looks enough."

The 2C overcall -- and the lure of the vulnerable game at IMPs -- prompted three panelists to be more optimistic about the heart fit: 

KESSLER: "4H. Partner rates to have short clubs and therefore at least five hearts, so I can't imagine not bidding game -- even if this were matchpoints."

SIGLER: "4H. Partner will be short in clubs and I have several tricks available so I'm going right to it."

BRIDGE BARON: "3H. Inviting game."

Most of the panel was of the same mind about the potential for a game with these cards, but they weren't willing to commit to hearts:    

SPEAR: "2S. This may get us overboard, but I have a very good hand opposite four spades, and must bid again."

KNIEST: "2S. My double showed three hearts, but not a good hand. Knowing pard has little in clubs makes the game try imperative, and we may, in fact, find a better fit. Support doubles do not set trump suits."

FELDHEIM: "2S. This hand is worth a try. 2S is a shape completer plus extras based on the bidding. Partner can sign off or press on; it's not my decision."

RABIDEAU: "2S. Plusses: All top honors, nothing wasted in clubs, and we could have eight spades and only seven hearts. Minuses: Pard gets tapped out and/or we'll get too high."

PAVLICEK: "2S. I'm not a support-double fan, but it certainly works nicely on this hand. Partner could be 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors, and game has a good probability with all my points outside of clubs."

If you're going to make a move toward game, why not use the available auction space to investigate games other than hearts? 2S shows four spades and something extra and leaves the choice of trump suit and level to partner. As most of the 2S bidders admit, it's pushy, but worth the gamble if it finds a better fit.

If you catch partner with as little as  Q10xx  Kxxx  Jxxx  3, a 2S rebid will uncover your "real" trump fit and get you to a good 20-point game. If he instead holds something like Jxx  Qxxx KJxx  xx, all you can do is call yourself Joe Btfsplk and move on to the next board. 
 

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Congratulations to the leading Solvers -- Bob Bainter, who scored a perfect 600, and Nigel Guthrie, who scored 580. They're both invited to join the panel for the April issue.

I hope you'll give the April problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by March 30 on the web form.

April moderator:  Nate Ward     Nate.Ward@dsvolition.com