District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2020

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J942   ♥92   ♦KJ932   ♣K9 ?

The most accurate advance with this hand would be a bid of 1½S or 2½D. Since those aren't available, you have to decide if your hand is worth a stretch and, probably more important, how you expect the rest of the auction to develop. Many panelists thought it likely that they would get two chances to describe this hand.

JONES: 1S. Assuming this doesn't end the auction (or partner raises spades), I can aggressively compete in diamonds later and partner will know my diamonds are longer. Otherwise, I'd just be bidding more spades and forgetting about the diamonds.

RABIDEAU: 1S. Can't bring myself to jump with this moth-eaten suit. At least it's a little more forward-going than 2D.

SOKOL: 1S. On the cusp between a minimum and better, 1S now will let you compete further later without getting the level too high. Partner rates to have four spades . . . most of the time anyway.

It's certainly possible that partner has only three spades, which is an argument for being cautious at this turn. The 2S bidders, though, thought it was important to show constructive values now.

KESSLER: 2S. Most likely game and best description available -- short of having a 5th spade.

GUTHRIE: 2S. Showing a sound raise to 2S.

WARD:  2S. Tough problem, I’d really like to bid 2D and bid spades later, but I think my hand is too good to do that. This runs the risk of playing 4S down a few when 3NT has 9 off the top. Lack of a raise on my right implies partner may be looking at 18+ balanced.

The other approach is to bid your longer, better suit now and save the major for later. The 2D bidders also expected to have a second chance:

BAKER: 2D. I'm arguably too strong for this, but the hope is that if partner has a normal double, the opponents (with a 9+ card fit) won't sell out and I'll get a chance to bid 2S next.

HINCKLEY: 2D.  I'll bid spades next and show a 4-5 hand close to invitational values. At this vulnerability, it will be rare for 2D to be passed out.

When partner makes a takeout double and you're short in opener's suit, a pass by your RHO is a clue that partner may have the "big double" -- a balanced hand that was too strong to overcall 1NT. He may or may not have classic takeout-double shape. If partner doesn't have this hand (he has a normal, minimum takeout double), then the opponents have at least 9 hearts and close to half the deck. In either of these cases, someone is going to bid again, which is why most panelists weren't too worried about the auction ending.

If partner has the big double, it probably doesn't matter what you bid now -- he will bid on to show extra strength and you'll get to a game. Your choice now is more critical when partner has the normal takeout double and your opponents bid more hearts. If you bid 2D first and your LHO bids 2H, you can show your second suit at a lower level and give partner a good description of your suit lengths. I think this auction is as close as you can come to showing a hand that's worth 1½S and 2½D.

2. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:   ♠KJ1086   ♥AK7   ♦KJ103   ♣J ?

Do you settle for a sure plus score or go for something better? It's another tie at the top, with the panel majority split on whether to collect a penalty or score up a possible game bonus.

For the defenders:

HINCKLEY: Pass. An easier decision at this vulnerability.

SOKOL: Pass. It looks to me like we have 6+ probable tricks on defense if partner has a card or two. Can we make game? Don't know, but +200 shouldn't score badly.

The rest of the panel thought they could do better by declaring:

RABIDEAU: 3S. While that diamond holding would be worth three tricks on defense, it dwindles to 1+ on offense. A ruff (and overruff?)  at trick two is likely, but that should be the last time East gains the lead.

GUTHRIE: 3S. Unhappy because 3NT might turn out better.

Declaring will be better than defending only if you get to a making game. The problem with 3S is that even if spades is the right strain, it will be a poor score if partner can't raise to 4S. If he passes, you'll be struggling to make +140 (or perhaps -50) when you could have had an easy +200 or better by passing.

If you choose to declare, I think it's better to be sure you play in a contract that has the potential to be a bigger score than you'd collect on defense.

KAPLAN: 3NT. 3S and pass (yes pass!) are both viable actions. With 3D from a vulnerable first-hand bidder, it’s impossible to know what West and North have and what might work best. Hoping I guessed right.

JONES: 3NT.  In jammed-up auctions such as this, the partner who has the opponent's suit stopped has to be the one to bid notrump.

KESSLER: 3NT. Old habits die hard -- it is matchpoints and this looks like a notrump hand, much more than a 3S bid.

WARD:  3NT. Matchpoints makes us do strange things. I wouldn’t mind a heavy 3S, but I’m not sure what I am going to do with all of these diamonds when partner raises me to 4S on honor third.

Pass, 3NT or 3S -- or maybe even a takeout double, if partner happens to have long hearts -- could be right or very wrong. Instead of guessing, I lean toward passing, but that's not necessarily settling for just a small plus, as this panelist points out:

BAKER: Pass. If 3NT is right, the only way to get there is to bid it now. But it's probably only right if partner has a middling hand. If he's any weaker, we can't make 3NT. If he's stronger, he'll reopen with a double and we'll pick up an easy 800.

3.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable                   

  * Two or fewer spades

What is your call as South holding:  AK1043  KJ973   2   ♣Q4 ?

Have you and partner talked about what calls are forcing in this auction? One panelist and more than a quarter of the Solvers thought this was:

WARD:  2H, forcing. 3H would show my shape, but takes up too much space. Couldn’t partner have  xx  AQxx  xxx  ♣AKxx ?

One of the first bidding rules we all learn is that new suits by responder are forcing. In this auction, though, a balancing 2H bid is widely played as just competitive. It shows a weaker hand that wants to compete, but has more distribution and fewer defensive tricks than a reopening double, which partner can pass.

There are good reasons to play 2H as passable here. You already have three ways to force -- double, cuebid of the opponent's suit and a jump in a new suit -- so you really don't need a fourth option. If you can't get back into the auction with a non-forcing 2H bid, how do you show a hand such as  KJ10xx  QJ10xx  x  ♣xx ?

Other panelists mentioned that they, too, assumed 2H would be forcing, but chose 3H because they thought it was a better description of the 5-5 pattern.

SOKOL: 3H. 2H should be forcing, so 3H ought to show this hand.

RABIDEAU: 3H. Hope the jump convinces partner I have five of them. Bidding 2H or 3D will surely beget notrump from partner, then what? Your other option for showing game-forcing values is to start with a double. This temporarily hides your fifth heart, but it offers the chance for a bigger score than your potential game.

These panelists had that in mind when they chose to reopen with:

HINCKLEY: Double.  Playing support doubles, this double is takeout and at this vulnerability, a penalty pass won't hurt our feelings! Even if partner is 1=3=4=5 and 4H makes 420, we should be scoring at least 500.

BAKER: Double. Close between this and 3H, but if I can cater to a potential trap pass (especially at this vulnerability) without badly distorting my hand in the process, I may as well.

KESSLER: Double. Just in case we need to defend, they are red. Hearts will get in the auction if it continues.

If you double and partner retreats to 2S on his doubleton, will your next bid of 3H be forcing? Maybe it should be, but since a reopening double doesn't promise game-forcing values, partner may see it differently. That makes it yet another topic for partnership discussion.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A10   ♥KQJ74   ♦A73   ♣KJ5 ?

There are three decent choices for describing this hand. Here's one:

KESSLER: 1NT. One level lower than 2H. Again, just looks like a notrump hand.

Several panelists considered a 1NT overcall but found reasons to reject it.

WARD:  2H. Always nice to have extra, and on this hand, it can offset the flat shape and lack of a sixth heart. Finding hearts is too important or I would just overcall 1NT.

BAKER: 2H. Unless the opponents are joking, partner has an awful hand, which means 1NT ends badly.

KAPLAN: Double. Too good a hand for 2H. Don't like a 1NT call with only A10 in spades.

This hand is definitely heavy for a 2H overcall. That extra strength prompted several panelists to start with a double, planning to bid hearts later.

HINCKLEY: Double.  My initial reaction was to overcall, but these days opponents might have 10 high-card points opposite 5!

RABIDEAU: Double. Not many high-card points left for partner, but we might be able to push them up a level, especially if partner has ♣Qxxxx or longer and can get into the auction (after, say, redouble by West). On the other hand, finding a heart fit might just help them get to a skinny game.

The plurality of the panel wasn't as concerned with showing their extra high-card strength. They opted for the simple overcall and just hoped to make it.

SOKOL: 2H. Partner doesn't have much, so whatever you bid might be the final contract. 1NT might be okay, but 2H may play, too. I'm bidding 2H because if partner ends up making the opening lead, I want a heart led.

GUTHRIE: 2H. Into the valley of death.

BAKER: 2H. Although the hand's stronger than expected for an overcall, do I really want to double and hear (2S) - Pass - (Pass)  and have to bid 3H?

To solve problems like this, I tend to follow the old advice of when in doubt, get your suit into the auction, especially if it's a major. As Baker points out, the alternative of the "big double" auction is often awkward and can bury your suit, especially when the opponents have a higher-ranking suit. If a 2H overcall is, as Guthrie describes it, a foray into a potential "valley of death", imagine the prospect of introducing your hearts at the 3-level.

5.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A76   ♥A973   ♦AK4   ♣A84 ?

"If you can bid their suit, so can I." That was the panel's approach with this hand, and they offered some good analysis.

KAPLAN: 4S. Partner doesn't have four or more hearts, likely not diamonds nor many spades, ergo invitational+ with clubs. Hope this bid gets across that I have a fine hand. Perhaps pard can do something sensible!

BAKER: 4S. If partner liked their hand enough to cuebid without an ace, 6C seems in reach and I'm tempted to just blast it. With no double and a probable singleton spade, partner almost has to have five clubs, which makes the trump suit less of a concern.

KESSLER: 4S, Most likely headed to a club slam. Partner must have very good clubs and not four hearts.

RABIDEAU: 4S. There must be a more intelligent/useful call!

I agree, Larry. How about the direct-contract-attainment strategy?

HINCKLEY: 6C. A hand such as  ♠x  ♥Kxx  ♦Qxxx  ♣KQxxx  makes slam reasonable. We're committed to slam once we avoid 3NT, since 620 loses to 630 or 660. Perhaps they'll sacrifice in 6S?

I'm not a fan of the "re-cuebid" reply to a cuebid because it's often just a stall. If we start with 4S here, we all know that our next bid will be 6C, so all we've done is put a little more wear on the bidding cards and partner's brain cells. This panelist said it best:

JONES: 6C. I could torture partner with 4S, but let's be nice.

Here's a solution that I like even more:

WARD: 4NT. 4S would let partner know we have a lot, but what hand can they have that will bid anything other than 5C when we're looking at all of the aces?

Keycard Blackwood is a little better than blasting to 6C because it gives us the chance to find a possible grand slam. If partner shows one keycard, we can bid 5NT to affirm we have all five keycards and invite 7C.

Almost half the Solvers stopped in 3NT, some with comments along the lines of "Matchpoint madness" and "Who plays in minors these days?". A quarter of the panel tried 3NT, too, but it was demoted in the scoring because the rest of the panel clearly favored getting to a slam. It's hard to construct a hand consistent with this bidding that makes 3NT but not 6C, but it's possible to come up with one that this panelist fears:

GUTHRIE: 3NT, with misgivings. 3NT is an underbid and might fail when a club slam makes.

Give partner  ♠x  ♥KQx  ♦Qxx  ♣QJxxxx and the "sure" +460 you were counting on turns out to be a minus score.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable  

   * (Preemptive)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Void   ♥Q2   ♦AK92  ♣AKJ5432?

This decision is similar to the one in Problem 5. Do we blast to slam, settle for game or do something in between to get more input from partner? The main difference here is that we don't yet have confirmation of what the best trump suit is. The panel plurality chose to introduce another suit and see what partner does next.

SOKOL: 4D, followed by 5C on the next round should give partner the picture. 4S may get partner thinking I have hearts.

HINCKLEY: 4D. 4S is tempting, but will sound like I hold heart support. And a takeout double with a void will deserve having partner make a penalty pass. I'm likely bidding the club slam next.

GUTHRIE: 4D. A freebid, a reverse and a new suit at the four-level, so should be forcing.

It's important to remember that partner's negative double showed just hearts and said nothing about diamonds. That makes 4D a strong reverse rebid, so it should certainly be forcing. Most of the panel, though, chose to bid some number of clubs.

RABIDEAU: 5C. These spade-rich opponents are getting annoying! A cuebid sounds like heart support and 4D misrepresents my 4-7 distribution. Partner can probably surmise my spade shortage and get us to a slam, if appropriate.

This panelist has a plan for communicating the relative lengths of his two suits:

WARD: 4C. Probably alone on this one, but we know 4S is coming soon from either opponent. This will let me bid 4NT and clue partner in to my shape. If I bid 4D first and then 4NT, partner will never play me to be 4-7.

This strategy could work well, assuming the opponents cooperate. My preference is to keep a stronger focus on clubs because 4D sounds too much like a hand with 5-6 in the minors instead of 4-7. The real question is how many clubs? I like this choice:

KESSLER: 6C. What I think I can make. We could be spread for 7C, but there's no way to find out. A 4S cuebid may imply hearts and then it really gets confusing.

KAPLAN: 6C. With partner not bidding notrump and the preempt on my right, I’m hoping his cards are such that clubs is the right spot. Can't find a way to force otherwise and be more scientific. Lots of guessing in this set; hope I got a number of them right!
  

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set, which comes after a four-month break (there was no December issue last year). We're back on a regular schedule now, with the next issue coming out the first week of April.

Congratulations to Liz Swanson of Athens GA, who led all Solvers with 590. Runners-up were Jim Diebel of Wood Dale IL, Bob Bainter of Appleton WI, Sandy Barnes of Wildomar CA and Don Mathis of Pleasant Prairie WI. All five are invited to join the April panel.

To receive an email notice when new problems are posted, 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, 2020 on the web form . Thanks for participating!