District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2015

    by K. C. Jones, Euless TX

What is your call as South holding   9865   3   A   AKQJ1075 ?

Our first problem of 2015 follows the same pattern as the first hand from the previous issue in that we initially had high hopes for our side until partner passed our opening bid, and righty has reopened with a double. This time, however, the opponents are extremely likely to have a game. With eight playing tricks at equal vulnerability, the "book bid" here is to make a delayed preempt of 5C.

We reach around the world to Solver Sid Ismail of South Africa to present the best case for this call: “They can guess now ... at the 5-level!”

And Solver Jim Heller of Springfield, who simply says, “Going there anyway.”

Our panel assumes there is no game for the opponents, or they won’t bid it -- or if they do, we can then guess ourselves whether to bid 5C. It’s clear that many, if not all the panelists, didn’t even think of going to 5C immediately.

HINCKLEY: 3C. Even 4C is tempting. Let's make it harder for the opponents to find their heart fit and whether they belong in a heart game.

SPEAR: 3C. Can't think of anything else to do, unless partner wakes up.

WARD: 3C. Might as well jam them. I can guess to bid more later, I suppose.

Why just a little jam, Nate, when you can pile it on now with peanut butter?

The 4C bidders had their strategies:

RABIDEAU: 4C. Admittedly, I don't know how many tricks they can take, but I can't stand selling out to three of a major.

ENGEL: 4C. I only want to defend 4H if partner does.

And one panelist mentioned the possibility of competing in spades:

KESSLER: 3C: We can always balance with 3S or 4S.

And to the folks who bid 3NT, don’t you think it’s the same effect as 4C, except you give the opponents an extra chance or two to evaluate where they might belong?

2.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

* (Constructive, not forcing)

What is your call as South holding  J8   A976   AQJ96   K7 ?

While the auction here is only on the one-level, it is a somewhat unfamiliar sequence for many of us. Had partner’s response not been doubled, we’d be stuck with rebidding 1NT, knowing our hand is much too good to pass 1S. After all, with 15 points, a good 5-card suit and a club stopper, why didn’t we simply just overcall 1NT in the first place?

If we bid 1NT now, a partner with about 10 points is going to pass and we miss game. But the opening bidder’s double of 1S gives us more options -- with Redouble seeming ideal -- to suggest a pretty good hand where we can explore game as the situation develops.

This panelist is out for blood!

HINCKLEY: Redouble. This shows partner we have the balance of power and sets a forcing pass. If 2C is not a good escape for the opponents, this could be bloody. Especially at this vulnerability, this should be nearly unanimous.

I’m with you, Bud, but our fellow redoubler explains why it wasn’t unanimous.

KAPLAN: Redouble. If not playing dreaded support redoubles, then Redouble is my choice. If Redouble shows 3S, then I bid 1NT.

We didn't open the bidding, so this isn’t a support-double or redouble situation. Partners don’t respond to overcalls on bad 4-card suits. You don’t need them. But at least a couple of panelists do.

BRIDGE BARON: 1NT. Shows club stopper, heart stopper and two-card spade support. Would have overcalled 1NT last round, though.

Which is why you should not be bidding 1NT now. And why this panelist actually passed!

KESSLER: Pass. Lets partner know we do not have three spades. I would have overcalled 1NT and avoided this.

So even though he’s our only panelist to pass, Mark and several passing Solvers get full credit for understanding the drawback to rebidding 1NT. You get 100 for redouble, unless you play support redoubles after an overcall, in which case you get 100 for passing, realizing you’ll get to bid again or defend 2C doubled when partner has a surprise in that suit.

3. IMPs, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  KQJ   7643   9743   AQ ?

There are two issues to discuss with Problem 3. First and foremost, do you insist upon game? And if so, how do you go about it? In Bridge World Standard, the Lebensohl convention is played here. Quoting from their website (http://www.bridgeworld.com), in response to a takeout double of a weak two-bid:
    ”Direct non-jump three-level new-suit advances show moderate values”.

That’s about 8-11 points or so. Stronger bidding forces game. With less than moderate values, you would bid 2NT first to get out.

Those who took the low road were afraid to land in spades.

WARD: 3D. Tough choice. I am a little heavy for this, but if partner passes, hopefully we have found a landing spot, whereas my other choice of 3H may push us to a ridiculous spot.

SPEAR: 3D. Maybe I have too much for this action, but 3H may get us too high, unless partner can bid 3NT.

HINCKLEY: 3D. A Moysian (4-3 fit) spade game has little appeal when the heart ruffs are taken in the wrong hand.

When the trump fit is KQJ opposite xxxx, which hand do you want to be ruffing with? The high cards that are drawing trumps, or the small cards opposite that? Also, a tap-out doesn't work when the tapper (in this case, the weak two-bidder) has no entries. If your partner has a typical minimum -- xxxx  x  AKQx  Kxxx, -- you'll probably lose just lose two trump tricks and a heart, even when trumps are 4-2. You can ruff two hearts in partner's hand, not caring if the hand with A109x of spades over-ruffs with a trump trick. You discard your fourth heart on the club king. Moyse would be proud to see this dummy reversal.

Even if your partner has two losing hearts, you still make if he has  10xxx  xx  AKQx  Kxx  and you catch a 3-3 trump break.

The panelists who had game aspirations simply cuebid 3H.

ENGEL: 3H. One stopper will likely be enough, but I don't mind 4S instead.

PAULO: 3H. With some strength and not certain of the final contract, I cuebid.

Indeed, but one blasted himself into 3NT on an interesting premise:

KESSLER: 3NT. Frequently the heart suit will be blocked. If this is doubled, I'll re-evaluate.

FOGEL: Bridge World Standard includes Lebensohl after doubles of weak two-bids; fast arrival denies stopper. Partner now knows that I am game going, with at most three spades and no heart stop.

Actually, Micah, the part of Lebensohl that concerns fast arrival doesn’t apply after doubles of weak two bids (it's a feature of Lebensohl after partner opens 1NT). Again, quoting from the BWS website: “A direct natural 3NT advance strongly suggests that strain (bidding 2NT first is more tentative about notrump).”

Unlike the other Lebensohl situation, the “probable” stronger hand hasn’t bid notrump yet. Maybe it’s better to keep his hand (with the possible stopper) concealed. Play it as you like in your regular partnerships. It’s a good thing to discuss!

4. IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  AJ   AK10743   A6   Q54 ?

This looks like a straight binary choice between 3H and 2NT. 3H shows the 6-card suit, while 2NT shows the balanced nature and spread values of the hand. At least all the humans on the panel saw it that way. The exception:

BRIDGE BARON: 4H. 20+ points, 6+ hearts. Looks like my hand.

Hmmm ... could the rest of us be missing something? Well, we have five losers, except that  Q54 is more like 2.75 losers if pard has no help there. With a 6-count such as Kxxx  Qx  xxx  Jxxx, partner may pass 3H and miss game (unless he promotes his heart queen). But even with that hand, you need to be in 3NT, not 4H. And move the  Q to another suit -- for example, KQxx  xx  Jxx  xxxx -- and 4H becomes quite a poor choice.  It gets worse when dummy has a singleton heart.

Oh wait, I meant to say almost all the humans.

WARD: 3C. Too good for 3H or 2NT. I might have tried 3NT at matchpoints.

No telling where you’ll land opposite the various 6-counts described above. 5C perhaps?

It does seem that if we are going to force game, a simple direct shot at 3NT seems best, as three of our Solvers including my lawyer, John Maloney of Champaign, opined.

So what’s better, 2NT or 3H? I seem to quote Bud a lot who mentioned the two previous calls in his response:

HINCKLEY: 3H. I would choose 3C if responder doesn't aggressively accept invitations at IMPs. So often we see players get away with a 4H bid here, but this heart suit is not good/long enough and makes it harder to reach 4S when it is right.

4H makes it even harder to reach 3NT when it is right!

MERRITT: 3H. If I am dumped here, did we really miss anything?

RABIDEAU: 2NT. Seems too strong for 3H. We might still find a 6-2 heart fit if partner uses "new minor".

SPEAR: 2NT. 3H is not enough, and any other bid seems off the mark.

Yes. We think of both bids as being “invitational” but the actual point requirements for 2NT are a bit higher, so making that bid on 18 high-card points feels less like an underbid. Partner will be inclined to move more with a decent hand in the 7-point range.

5. IMPs, EW vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  A932   KQ32   K2   K92 ?

My first thought on problem 5 was that our side has a 10-card fit. Therefore, I need to make the "lawful" bid of 4S, and back in the immediate times following the popularization of "The LAW" by Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen, I would quickly just bid 4S and move on.

But in the couple of decades since then, I’ve learned that when it comes to the boss suit, spades, I can often get away with shading that a level. Actually, making 4S here is unlikely. The opponents are going to have real problems if they try 4H. So I can cheat the Law a trick this time and try 3S. The panel overwhelmingly agrees.

RABIDEAU: 3S. The problems aren't getting easier! I'll violate The Law and give a space-consuming raise.

KESSLER: 3S. I am willing to defend 4H.

ENGEL: 3S. They probably can't make four of anything, but we certainly can't.

WALKER: 3S. This could be too high, but it keeps them out of 3C or 3D. This deal may be a good example of the perils of following The Law too blindly.

Justice is blind. The dissenters went in both directions:

PAULO: Pass. Wait and see. There is no hurry in entering the auction.

Ah, Manual wants them to find a heart fit. KAPLAN made the out-of-the-box call of 3NT, unfortunately without comment.

WARD: 4S. Here's hoping partner has something useful outside of spades.

MERRITT: 4S. I can't imagine giving up at 3S, so I guess that I just have to start with 4S.

Well I can’t give up either. We have one more problem!!

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding  K102   A3   AKQ10954   2

Problem 6 here is most similar to a problem we had the last time I edited the column in August -- a long minor with extra values and 3-card support for partner’s major. I mentioned then that I had a systemic treatment for such a hand, and clearly I need it now because (like on problem #1), I managed to make a call that no one else on the panel agrees with.

I raised to 3S, perhaps because I like 4-3 fits so much (see problem #3), but mostly because I just didn’t think of reversing into a 2-card major -- a move that many panelists embraced, figuring they can keep the boat on a steady course.

HINCKLEY: 2H. The classic hand to reverse with only a doubleton heart, because we hold three spades and always can go back to spades if partner raises hearts with 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors.

ENGEL: 2H. This seems like the perfect hand for the fake reverse. If partner raises hearts, we know we have an 8-card spade. If he suggests notrump voluntarily, excellent.

SPEAR: 2H. This has worked well before, so I will keep trying it.

Glad to hear it, Jack. For the conservatives:

MERRITT: 3D. This seems less bad than reversing into A3 or jump shifting into a singleton 2 of clubs.

FOGEL: 3D. Yes, partner can pass this, but if he does, it might just be right. The 4C splinter just takes up too much room and I don't want to distort my hand so much by creating a 2H reverse.

Well at least I didn’t splinter, but I did consider rebidding 4D, which shows spade support and a very long diamond suit.

And lastly, the liberals (Karen loves being called that!):

WALKER: 3NT. 2H is the best way to get to 4S when partner has 5+ spades -- and the worst way to get to 3NT when he has only 4 spades. The latter holding is more likely, so it seems best to get to 3NT now, without telling the opponents what to lead. The bonus benefit of 3NT is that it's the best description of this diamond suit, which could get us to a diamond slam.

Or, as her frequent partner, Nate, puts it:

WARD: 3NT. Greedy!

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Topping all Solvers were Mike Heins of Cocoa Beach FL with a score of 590 and Jim Diebel of Wood Dale IL with a 580. Both are invited to join the April 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 April problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by March 31 on the web form. 

December moderator:  Nate Ward    nate.ward@dsvolition.com