District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2005

by Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable                          

What is your call as South holding:   953   K95  764   AK96 ?

Competing over preempts is a recurring theme in this forum and others, annoying little problems all mainly because the “correct” answer at the table is often different because of the human element. Like in a high-stakes poker game, if your West is loose, it will be more profitable in the long run to take what should be a big penalty, even though you may be cold for a slam. When West is tighter with his preempts, passing may be best for the sole sake of scoring a small plus when game is problematic and you can’t even guess a strain to play in. Long and short, anyone who sounds confident with his or her answer here is kidding themselves.

GIACAMAN: “5C. Partner should have a good 15-16 points for this action, which means that we belong in game. North is also likely short in spades, so 3NT and Pass are probably wrong. 4H may be the best spot, but the preempt makes it impossible to find out. I'll tell partner what I think we can make opposite a good double (and where my values are). If there is a slam it will be up to partner to bid it.”

KNIEST: “4C. Need to go plus at matchpoints. My admiration goes to those who pass, and further admiration to those who passed and went plus.”

STRITE: “4C. Given my trump holding, the opponents rate to have seven spade tricks, limiting the upside of a penalty pass. I'm okay with the heavy 4C because of the high loser count, uncertain support, the impending spade tap and likely bad breaks.”

KESSLER: “4S. Preempts are supposed to cause bidding problems, and this one certainly has. I think this shows values as opposed to guaranteeing 4 hearts. If partner is 4-4-4-1, he will bid clubs, and if he bids a red suit, he rates to have five. Bidding 4C is off the charts, as you may play there with 20 opposite 10 and cold for a slam. This isn't perfect, but as close as you can get.” 

At least there are people in all camps who realize the tenuous nature of any call here (except for Kessler, and in all the years I’ve known him, he has never second-guessed a call until after the session!).

Out of all the calls, 4C is my least favorite. It understates the hand strength, making game less likely, while giving up on a penalty (it is highly unlikely that even a conservative West will make 3S given the bidding, and BWS has always been a system that advocates “light, aggressive preempts”).  And when the penalty comes, it may well be more than the score you will perhaps struggle to score up. The real question that nags me is whether we will get enough at 200 or 500 to make up for a potentially lost game. In other words, who is sitting on my left, and how likely is it that other Wests will insert the preempt. It’s a judgment call that must be made at the table if there is to be any confidence behind it.

For the majority:

NELSON: “Pass. Certainly with a balanced hand and only a f4-card club suit, it is right to pass, with the preempt, suits will split unfavorably. I don't want to bid any number of clubs.”

FELDHEIM:  "Pass, to go for +200 and try to avoid a minus score. If partner started with QJxxx in clubs, the post-mortem may be painful."

WALKER: “Pass. With no long suit and all this defense, I can't see being bullied to the 4-level into what could be a specious fit. I have three potential tricks and partner surely ought to have two or three, so I'll take the plus score.”

HUDSON: “Pass. We probably have enough to beat them, and +800 is not out of the question. We may have a game (or slam), but would we find it if I bid 4C (which would be my choice, rather than 3NT or 4H)?  With no clear route to success, I won't go adventuring with a flat hand.”

MERRITT: “Pass. At matchpoints, I pass, see what happens and move on to the next board. This is much thornier at IMPs.”

KLEMIC: “Pass, only because the scoring is vulnerable at matchpoints. We rate to be able to find five tricks somewhere. We might have a game, but who knows if we'll be able to figure out which game it is? Two random cards may be enough to beat 3S, and North should have much better than just two random cards.”

Seems I’m always holding two random cards these days, except when I’m playing Omaha.

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   65   A9   Q765   Q9765 ?

The only excuse I could muster for bidding game on this piece of garbage is one I used to hear a lot from some old teammates: “We don’t play making partscores red at IMPs.”  Seemingly sharing this philosophy-

PAOLO: “4S. Partner, though vulnerable, reaches the 3-level after my initial pass, so he must have a very good hand. At IMPs, with one sure value, I bid game.”

MERRITT: “4S. I bid game, but don't feel real confident that this will have any chance. Partner could have doubled with a really nice hand, so I might be hanging him with no fit. Still, my Ace and 'kinda in the way' queens might give him a fighting chance.”

A fighting chance at what?  Did I miss something here about those queens? Since when did we start counting purely defensive values when evaluating trick-taking potential?

HUDSON: “4D. Since we're vulnerable at IMPs, I'll take a shot, letting partner choose in case he's 5-6. At matchpoints, or playing with my regular partner (who loves to compete and rarely has extras), I'd bid 3S. I expect partner to read my bid as asking him to choose the game, rather than as suggesting slam (!) in hearts. He'll remember that I didn't make a negative double."

I have no idea why more than half of a presumably sane panel would want to unilaterally take the plunge here. You have exactly one trick in hand, with virtually no hope that you’ll help beyond that. I can only surmise that the 8 panelists who chose to jump without a parachute here were seduced by the vulnerability, or perhaps they felt they were behind in the match and forgot that North still has a bid coming after you take your simple preference?  Speaking for sanity:

KNIEST: “3S. Let partner bid the game; he may have been under pressure and my hand is so-so.”

NELSON: “3S. I have one working card and a bunch of junk, and I doubt that is enough for game. Partner could have doubled 3D, but his hand is very distributional.”

And if it IS enough, North is still there with the opportunity to bid it.

GIACAMAN: “4S. Partner has a strong two-suiter. My Ace and doubleton are worth gold, so I'm giving partner the good news.”

Cover your ears when North sees the “good news”. Even FOX News Channel couldn’t spin this pile of garbage into a good hand.

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   J8   A754   654   10932 ?

Another hand that has me in a quandary (I’ve learned a lot of fun new words since moving to the East Coast). This tickler has at least a justification for bidding because of the form of scoring. I would expect East-West to make 4H most of the time, so is it worth the gamble to try for a smaller minus? A sampling of views-

MERRITT: “5D. While we are shooting at a pretty small target, partner sure seems to be suggesting that I bid on. I could fathom this as a maker on a heart lead if partner holds something like S-Kxxx H-Void  D-AKxxxxx  C-Ax, but I know that is a bit optimistic.”

KNIEST: “ Pass. My Heart Ace doesn't figure to be an offensive asset and, while I may have some annoyance in the black suits for the opponents, my hand doesn't suggest they're going down. All partner need for his bids is great diamonds and a card and a half on the side. That's not nearly enough to chance a double. I'll look for a better opportunity.”

PAOLO: “5D. I assume that the opponents bid 4H to make, we can't set their contract, our sacrifice is profitable, and they may be pushed.”

KESSLER: “Pass. I'll go with Gunther Polak's advice: 'Only Jesus saves'. My gut feeling is 5D is going down, as is 4H. I would have bid 3D over 2H and hopefully avoided this problem.”

STRITE: “Pass and lead diamonds sounds like a plan to me. I could see doubling to rattle my grandmother sitting East, but never a sacrifice when both opponents made limited bids and trumps aren't breaking.”

GUTHRIE: “Pass. Partner may not be far off aiming for 5D but 11 tricks are a lot. Persistent diamond forces are more likely to break the opponent's heart, but double seems overconfident.”

I really don’t feel strongly about this problem. My gut tells me they’re one too high, and that we can make 4D but not 5. These are the kinds of decisions that win pair events (or stick you in the consolation), which is probably why I’ve always preferred teams!

With the panel fairly evenly split and one panelist still to answer, I had hoped for a clear resolution. Alas, it was not to be:

WALKER: “Double. Partner is showing decent defensive strength (else he could have made a heavy vulnerable preempt opposite my passed hand). He probably has spade cards and he's shown no fear of pushing them into game. With those inferences, I think I ought to cooperate. This could be a huge number if declarer loses trump control. Since he didn't open 2H, he's likely to have only a 5-card suit, and we'll have plenty of opportunities to shorten his trump length.”

While I agree that North should have some defense, I don’t share the wide-eyed optimism of a big penalty here, unless East-West are a couple of crazies. They can supposedly see the red colors on their side of the board, and West’s raise was not forced.

4. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable              

What is your call as South holding:   1032   64   AKQ103   943 ?

Double or bid on was the question here. Since an opening 4S at this vulnerability in any position is not a weak bid, we are faced with a similar decision as Problem 3, with a slightly different hand. Yes, we will probably beat 5C a trick or two, but will it be enough to compensate for the almost certain game? 

PAOLO: “5S. I expect to win this contract. I don't bid 5D, though this call might allow partner to better judge our combined strength, because I'm afraid of West gliding a lead directing 5H, and I'm on lead against 6C (doubled).”

KLEMIC: “5S. Partner need not have a weak hand for 3rd seat 4S call, especially at this vulnerability. If I weren't on lead I'd bid 5D on the way, but if I choose 5D now, that lets in a 5H call, showing the same kind of hand my 5D call would have been here. Since I don't want to let that call happen, I choose 5S. The only benefit to 5D is that if they bid 6C, partner will better decide to pull or not. I think this is a rather small target.”

MERRITT: “Double. Partner has applied the heat. I think that I need to try and scare them, but again, I have been wrong before. We do only need three tricks on defense vs 11 on offense.”

HUDSON: “Double. I ardently wish pass were forcing -- and, in favor of that interpretation, we did voluntarily bid a vulnerable game -- but I suspect partner wouldn't take it that way. In the battle of slogans, 'The five level belongs to the opponents' overrides 'Support with support'.  What tips the scale in favor of doubling over bidding 5S is that I suspect partner has heart length, therefore diamond shortness. Therefore, our hands don't fit well, while my diamonds will probably stand up on defense.”

To me, a double here is a give-up, and given the panel vote will produce a big matchpoint swing. Opposite most reasonable red-vs.-not 4S openers, you will be virtually laydown for 5S unless North has a diamond void, made unlikely by East’s little foray to the 5-level. I had originally dismissed 5D as silly, since you will be on lead against 6C should E-W save, but the comments for this call made me think twice.

STRITE: “5D. Who is sitting North? Certain undisciplined third-seat 4S bids produce slam. Wouldn't you open 4S with seven solid spades, the heart ace and a stiff club here?(I might open a Bridge World Standard NAMYATS 4D with that hand. -- TJD)  I'd double at IMPs, but I don't think double will yield many matchpoints. Goren proscribed 8 tricks for an unfavorable 4S, so the 5-level rates to be safe or cheap, and the clever 5D call still gets us to slam on the super-fitter.”

KNIEST: “5D. There may be more bidding, so I'll let partner make the decision at the 6 level. It's nuts to bid 5S and have both of us guessing later.”

It's rather optimistic to think we can make a slam here, but I suppose there’s no harm in trying. You can’t possibly  want to play this hand in diamonds, but showing the suit is a two-edged sword, giving the favorable-vulnerability opponents information they may need to decide what to do next.

5. IMPs, none vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  KQ   63   AJ92   AQJ86 ?

This is truly an ugly hand, and the panel came through in a difficult situation. I nearly always open these midrange 2-2-4-5 hands 1NT because of the insoluble follow-up bidding nightmares. Anything you try at this point is either an overbid (2NT) or an underbid (1NT, 2C) or misstates your hand (2D). I was gratefully surprised that nobody tried a spade raise.

NELSON: “2NT. Close my eyes and bid 2NT. Hopefully, partner has hearts or they won't lead them. I am way too big to bid 2C, not long enough to bid 3C, and I certainly can't cuebid with only two spades.”

PAOLO: “2NT. At most, partner has five points in spades; so, he has some heart values or the club king. In this case, I hope that hearts break well or West doesn't find the lead.”

GIACAMAN: “2D. That's what you get for not opening 1NT in the first place. No bid is suitable! 2NT is an overbid and 1 NT is a gross underbid. 2D is not natural, but maybe the best temporizing bid, followed by a NT bid if partner bids hearts or a spade raise if partner rebids the suit. It also could get us too high.”

Amen to that last comment!  Whatever happens, this should be a fun comparison with your teammates.

KNIEST. “2NT. I didn't open 1NT because with 17 points and a strong 5-card suit, the hand is too good. Now's the time to let partner know that. This is right on everything but the heart stopper, but you can't have everything.”

WALKER: “2NT. LHO's overcall took away my 2D reverse, but I wasn't going to make one anyway, as this looked like a notrump hand to me before and after the overcall.”

KESSLER: “2NT. The most descriptive bid I can make. Nothing else comes to mind.”

I wouldn’t reverse with this garbage either, but what sort of notrump rebid would be accurate had E-W remained silent?  2NT? With no heart stop AND at least a pip-and-a-half shy in strength? If that’s the plan, why not open 1NT, and at least advertise the correct hand strength? Evidently, that wouldn't work for KNIEST and other panelists who noted that they evaluate this hand as too good for a 15-17 1NT opener. They say they typically treat this hand type (17 high-card points and a good 5-card suit) as an 18-count.

FEILER: “2D. I should be able to torture partner with a couple of cuebids and find out whether he has 6 spades and/or a heart stopper.”

A couple of cuebids?  We have got to play sometime, Kent, so long as I start drinking early, like maybe two hours before game time?  

6. IMPs, none vulnerable        

What is your call as South holding:   KQ654   1042  K73   K4 ?

Sorry, but I searched and searched and Bridge World Standard doesn’t mention anything about fourth-seat weak two-bid requirements being any different from those in first or second seat. I believe that 3H should show this sort of responding hand. It's invitational if North has extras or some distribution (something like Ax KQJxxx Qxxx x  or  xxx AKQxxx Void Qxxx  would be nice), but it gives him an out if he holds a more “normal” looking hand.

FEILER: “2NT. Is there anything in BWS about fourth-seat Weak Twos? Personally, I think a fourth-seat 2D or 2H should be an opening hand, so I'll try 2NT and hope partner's on the same wavelength.”

WALKER: “2NT. Only because it's IMPs. My hand is (barely) worth a try for game, but it will be a feeble one, as I don't really have enough to insist on 4H even if partner shows an ace. Partner's fourth-seat 2H should be a "good" weak 2-bid, but it should deny the strength of a hand he would have opened with a one-bid in first or second seat. Otherwise, responder will always be guessing when he has a constructive hand like this one.”

But even this solicitation won’t make anyone feel comfortable bidding game if North shows an ace, will it?  Why not just bash:

KESSLER: “4H. This is an opening bid unless you are Al Roth. I don't like missing games at IMP's, so I'll just bid it. At worst it should be on a hook.”

FELDHEIM:  "4H. Partner must hold some sort of positive hand to open fourth seat at IMPs, so this better be enough. At matchpoints, I'd bid 2NT in case he was out stealing."

KLEMIC: “3NT. A fourth-seat 2H is a strong call. 3NT should be a natural offer to play with a moderate heart fit. I like protecting my kings.”

Although either 4H or 3NT could work out, imagine poor North next time he holds a marginal hand in fourth seat thinking, “Weeelll, I can either pass this out and grab a smoke, or get shoved into game and be late for the next round.” We do seem to owe him one nudge towards the Promised Land here, as most of the panel agreed:

PAOLO: “3H. I take this fourth-seat opening as to play and win the contract, but West can see through it and balance with a minor-suit bid. My hand is fine; moreover -- following the rule of Pearson -- partner has spades or values, and either my spade strength or some minor king is helpful.”

Might the raise give a nudge to E-W to come barreling into the auction, thinking they are being stolen from? Not likely, but you never know.

GUTHRIE: “3H. This makes it hard for opponents to stop in four of a minor. You are happy to take your chances against 4S or five of a minor.”

NELSON: “3H. This is, of course, blocking. Maybe they believe they are missing something and will trot out a double over my 3H. I think I am setting a trap.”

And all this goes to show what? That preempts cause headaches no matter who fires one? No wonder we see them so often, both at the table and in this Forum. Ciao everyone, have a great summer and we’ll see you again when the snow’s flying.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments and to this month's guest panelists, George Klemic and Mike Giacaman. Congratulations to Bruce Kretchmer, John Seng and Paul Soper, who led all Solvers for this set. They're all invited to join the August panel.

The 2005 Solvers Contest is based on your best three scores during calendar year 2005, so there's still time to join in. The six new problems are below. Please submit your solutions by July 25 on the web form or by email to our August moderator:

    Tom Kniest -- kniest@swbell.net
  

How the Panel voted  (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 551):
	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	4C	4S	5D	DBL	2D	2NT	500
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT	Pass	4S	Pass	5D	2NT	4H	580
Mike Giacaman, St. Louis	5C	4S	5D	Pass	2D	3H	550
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	Pass	4S	Pass	5D	2D	3H	570
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	Pass	4D	Pass	DBL	2NT	2NT	540
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	4S	4S	Pass	5S	2NT	4H	560
George Klemic, Bensenville IL	Pass	3NT	5D	5S	2NT	3NT	520
Larry Matheny, Loveland, CO	Pass	3S	Pass	5S	2NT	4H	560
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers, FL	Pass	3S	5D	5D	2NT	3H	580
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	Pass	4S	5D	5S	2NT	3H	580
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	5C	3NT	5D	5S	2NT	4H	530
Toby Strite, Mysiadlo, Poland	4C	3S	Pass	5D	2NT	Pass	550
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ	Pass	3S	Pass	5S	2NT	3H	580
Tom Kniest, University City MO	4C	3S	Pass	5D	2NT	3H	580
Scott Merritt, Alexandria VA	Pass	4S	5D	DBL	2NT	2NT	540
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	Pass	3S	DBL	DBL	2NT	2NT	500

Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 499)

Bruce Kretchmer, Boynton Beach FL	570	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL	550
John Seng, Champaign IL	560	Kevin Jones, Crestwood KY	540
Paul Soper, Sierra Vista AZ	560	Fred Sandegren, Quincy IL	540
Warren Bosch, Elgin IL	550	Arbha Vonsvivut, Godfrey IL	540
Bob Wheeler, Florissant MO	550	Steve White, Broomall PA	540
Tied with 530: Leroy Boser, Elkhart IN;  Anthony Lim, Durham NC;  Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN;  Judy Eaton, Carbondale IL

Solvers Forum -- August 2005 Problems