DISTRICT 8 SOLVERS FORUM

It’s always nice to have an “easy” problem to start each forum. It's sort of like golf -- if you start with a relatively easy hole, your attitude is usually positively shaped for the round . . . unless you double cross yourself, make a double bogey and really RUIN your attitude for the round!

Actually, we seem to have gotten lucky on the auction. After “wasting” a level of bidding by using Michaels (many panelists, and solvers, too, said they would have preferred a balancing double for South’s first action), you’ve at least obtained some information about North’s hand. It's time now to send more information his way and hopefully land on our feet.

WALKER: “Redouble. This seems the best way to start showing a big hand. If this drags a 2S bid out of partner, I'll bid 3C and hope partner is moved to continue.”

FEILER: “Redouble. I'm trying to figure out a way to get diamonds into the picture if partner has a fist full of red cards. I dunno if this will do the trick, but the rest of the auction should be entertaining anyway!”

Just about everyone noticed the glitch on the web form that did not allow a redouble when this problem was first posted. As a note, anyone who wrote in their comments (solvers especially!) and stated an intent to redouble was given full points for this problem.

STRITE: “2S. Passing doesn't seem right (heh heh), so I'll get the fifth spade off my chest. I could have about a king less for my cuebid, but my suit quality doesn't merit more.”

KESSLER: “3C. The suit I want led against 3H doubled, which I would pass. If there is no double, I would pass 3H, as further bidding would likely result in -200 minimum.”

Given North’s actual hand (I’m told it was KQ, QJxxx, xxx, xxx), just about anything should work out to land us in an ironclad 3NT or even a decent 4S game. But what happens when North isn’t quite so strong, say the same hand save the spade king? Yuck!

MERRITT: “Redouble. Partner has shown no interest in moving. I will try and make him, or hope to lose 4 hearts and a diamond. I am sure that this led to the disaster that caused this problem, but I fall right back into the trap.”

Given the actual hand, you will likely make 8 tricks in hearts. I got a big kick out of this answer:

SPEAR: “Redouble. My computer won't let me make my redouble call. Reminds me of when my pard took all the redouble cards from my bidding box, and my opponent Harry Ross had to lend me one, then wrote an article about it for Bridge World. (Anyone can have a bad day with business redoubles.)”

[ For a summary of the Redouble Incident -- and some follow-ups on the offending hands -- see The Missing Redouble Cards. ]

2. IMPs, EW vulnerable

I love these sorts of problems. It makes my job a lot easier when a majority of the panel is in agreement, so long as I am a member of that majority. The “fake” reverse here seems the best way to go, especially given that North’s 1S response is forcing in Bridge World Standard, but does not guarantee five or more spades.

KESSLER: “2H. An attempt to find out more about partners hand -- like how many spades he holds.”

SPEAR: “2H. Smoking out a spade rebid from pard, or I will bid spades myself next, leaving the rest of the mistakes to pard.”

PAOLO: “2H. Opener's reverse after a one-level suit response is forcing and promises a rebid below game.”

LAMBERT: “2H. I will bid spades next, to show club shortness, shape and overall strength. “

I think the reverse already showed the strength. As for shape, I’m not sure North will read you for a 3-3-6-1 pattern if you next call 3S over a Lebensohl 2NT response. Not that I object to the reverse at this turn, as anything else really puts North in a pickle.

NELSON: “2H, forcing. In my bidding agreements after a reverse, responder must rebid any five-card major. This is what I want to hear if partner has five . . . or a 2NT bid is artificial and asks me to return to my first suit which would be 3D.”

While BWS is slightly different -- North is not obligated to rebid any five-card major, and 2NT simply shows weakness -- West’s double makes it more likely that North has a real spade suit and some values, not some forced response on something like Jxxx, xxx, xx, KQxx.

SMITH: “3D. Players hate to rebid 3D with hands like this (3-card spade support), but it's the best I can do. A phony 2H reverse may work out, but not my style.”

WALKER: “3D. The phony reverse to 2H will probably be a popular choice, but there's no reason to distort your hand when you have a bid that shows exactly what you have -- long, strong diamonds and invitational values. If you bid 2H and partner bids 2NT Lebensohl, this hand isn't strong enough to bid 3S (which is forcing to game, since you refused the relay), so you'll be back at 3D anyway.”

It’s difficult to disagree with that last sentence, but I don’t think your 3S would be a game force, given that West’s initial takeout double has subtly altered the auction. However, and this is a big IF, these are the sorts of situations where practiced partnerships typically have greater success, since they will 1) have discussed these sorts of subtleties; and/or 2) have experienced auctions like this and come to agreements on how to handle them.

The main reason for not liking a 3D rebid is to look at the effect on North of a 3D rebid (or a spade raise, for that matter).

MERRITT: “3D. This may box partner in with no convenient rebid, but I do not see a sensible alternative.”

Thirty years ago, 3D would have garnered a clear majority, since BWS did not play many conventions, certainly nothing as fancy as Lebensohl. 2H may well lead us to a bad spot, but so might any other call here. Several panelists went so far as to say that the 3-card reverse was the most “partner-friendly” bid available. How times have changed since I took this game up in the mid-70s.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable

Another interesting problem that, due the lack of support doubles, would not have occurred until the late 1980s or thereabouts. Our first call was an obvious one to smoke out a probable psychic bid, which was confirmed when East runs back to the safety of 2D. Our second call is apparently not so obvious. The panel split into three camps:

MERRITT: “3D. Partner has doubled on a hand where I have a takeout double. This should expose the expected game that east is playing, but also allow me the opportunity to raise hearts if partner thinks that they are the more appropriate strain.”

It never occurred to me that South’s 9-point hand would merit a takeout double over a 1D opener, but perhaps I am too old-fashioned. Most of the panel was willing to soft-pedal their soft values, choosing an invitational sequence, hence the scoring vagaries. Almost half the panel chose to show their x-high heart suit, figuring they’d already shown the spades with the first double.

STRITE: “2H. The psychic (or 15+ spade deck) is already exposed. Now, complete my pattern. If partner prefers spades, I'm worth an invite to 3S.”

PAOLO: “2H. Partner knows if East psyched or not, and so can choose our best strain.”

KNIEST: “2H. Real, but soft values. No reason to jump as I've already shown the values to defend at the one level.”

BRIDGE BARON: “2H. Bridge Baron can bid a four-card suit at the two-level, and it has a hand it considers easily strong enough to do so. Change KJ9 of clubs to Q92 of clubs and it would still make the same bid.”

The spade bidders really, really want to expose a East's psychic bid, the only question being how high can we go.

RABIDEAU: “3S. It seems this is the way to expose the psych, but I'm guessing (not much experience with these auctions).”

MATHENY: “3S. It seems East doesn't hold many spades and all of my high cards should be working.”

I don’t see the point of this call. It has to be invitational, but then why waste a whole extra level of space and eliminate the heart suit? North cannot pass 2H, and after all, hearts could still be our best fit and never get mentioned! My own choice, a simple spade bid (natural of course), runs that risk, but at least North might get a chance to try 3D or 3H this way. And if not, who says we’re a favorite to make game anyway? There are plenty of legitimate takeout doubles North could hold where even 9 tricks are problematic.

If your primary goal is to thoroughly expose the psych, then why not go all the way?

SENG: “4S. Question is how best to expose psych. I think this makes it most obvious. Imps, so bid what I think (hope) I can make.”

SPEAR: “4S. My kind of game try . . . bid it and try to make it. Do these guys think I just fell off the turnip truck?”

Who knows? If you slam down the 4S card hard enough, East might even be convinced to take a phantom save. I guess the issue here is style. If you like to play fast and loose, 3S or even 4S is right up your alley.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Another majority on a hand that is rendered much tougher than in earlier versions of BWS (where the initial cuebid would have been a game force). The toughest part of this hand is the obvious small doubleton in the opponents’ suit and how to deal with the possibility that we’re off the first two tricks. The majority wasn’t too worried about this trifle.

SMITH: “5C. I hate to do this with two low spades, but we could have a slam, so I have to bid once more.”

STRITE: “5C. Partners always seem to forget we have a limit raise or better, don't they? Let's assume this partner didn't, so we shouldn't be facing an abundance of shape or extras, but we could still have slam. I can't see us making fewer than 11 tricks, so let's make a slam try on the way to 5H.”

FEILER: “5C. I'd like to pass, but I wouldn't bet my last loonie that it's forcing.”

Given that the Canadian dollar is worth more these days than the US dollar, that says a mouthful.

LAMBERT: “Pass. Forcing. I'm looking for slam if pard has a spade control, and 'pass and pull' shows more strength than an immediate 5C (which could be lead-directing rather than slam invitational). After partner doubles, my 'pull' will be 5C, and if pard rebids 5H, I'll give up the ghost. If partner doesn't double and goes to 5H, I'm passing, too.”

I have a slight problem with this interpretation of the pass, and here is yet another instance of where practiced partnerships tend to do a little better. BWS is unclear as to whether a pass here would be forcing, given that your first response was invitational or better and not an absolute game force. I don’t think North will pass 4S, but if you pass-then-pull to 5C in this situation, will he really interpret this sequence as showing this much strength? Probably, but I like my hand so much I’m willing to “ignore” the small doubleton with an immediate cuebid at the 5-level, figuring a return to 5H after a 5D cue will show the spade doubleton. And I can’t for the life of me conceive of a North hand where we’re in danger of losing three tricks given that North chose to jump to game after my initial limit-plus cuebid.

MERRITT: “5C. While we may miss a good slam if partner has a spade control and no diamond control, I cannot get myself to make a forcing pass.”

Though this is a danger, again, it is highly unlikely given the auction and the lack of missing controls that North has a hand where we’ll miss a good slam. And if North holds something like Ax, KQJxxx, Qxx, xx, we may be happy to have missed it!

KESSLER: “Double. If 2S is unlimited, partner cannot jump to game with a control in the opponents suit. Given that scenario, double is automatic. Without agreements, these situations become total crap shoots.”

Just another reason to talk these sorts of auctions through before sitting down.

BRIDGE BARON: “6H. After simulating 180 deals, 6H, even though it only makes a little more than half the time, seems to be better than defending against 4S doubled on more than half the deals.”

BERNHARD: “5H. Those two little spades scare me, but I have a lot more than I promised, so why not let partner know where my points are. This bid cannot hurt and might actually help partner make the right decision. I've never been accused of not being imaginative, even if my partners often wish I wasn't.”

In simpler times, 5H would have shown this sort of hand and pinpointed the danger. Nowadays, bridge is not so simple.

5. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

The panel split this one almost right down the center. Nine chose a mild, progressive action (2D and 2NT) and eight took the conservative route (2H and 2S). Again, this seems a matter of style, so I’ll shut up and let the panel do the talking. The conservatives:

STRITE: “2H. If partner withheld a spade raise, he's planning to pattern out with 2S now, so I can play it close to the vest. I'll drive to game with confidence opposite any further action.”

LAMBERT: “2H, so I can be dummy, and quietly check my cell phone for text messages. “

RABIDEAU: “2H. I wouldn't argue too much with 3C, but we don't fit very well and it is matchpoints.”

SPEAR: “2H. At least it's matchpoints, where not so many people to complain about my hopeless underbidding.”

KESSLER: “2S. This is wrong only when partner has a stiff spade. Besides I like to declare.”

KNIEST: “2D. Unless this would be 4th-suit-forcing to game. I think this auction is just new minor forcing and you can still stop at 2H, 2NT, 3C and 3S. I'm out if pard rebids 2NT or 2H or 3C. I'll raise to 3S over 2S with the implied diamond shortness in dummy. If 2D is game forcing, then I'm a 2H bidder.”

WALKER: “2D. When the fourth suit happens to be the unbid minor, bidding it at the two-level should be played as new minor forcing one round, not fourth suit forcing to game. If you play that all 4th-suit bids are absolutely forcing to game, you have no way to invite with hands like this. My distant second choice is 2NT.”

BRIDGE BARON: “2D. Just strong enough for Bridge Baron to bid fourth-suit forcing for one round, and Bridge Baron wants to find out about secondary spade support.”

BERNHARD: “2D. I sure hope this is only a one round force. Every other bid is a bigger lie or position. I've never been accused of knowing what I am doing or what bids are supposed to mean.”

Just for the record, a non-reverse 4th suit bid is NOT a game force in BWS- it does not even promise a rebid according to the 2001 version of BWS unless opener shows interest by jumping or raising the 4th suit. Which is why I do not understand this-

FEILER: “2NT. This looks like an example hand for why 4th-suit invitational is better than 4th-suit-game-force. Oh well, my diamond stopper is pretty solid.”

MERRITT: “2NT. If partner wants to advance and has three spades, he can bid them. If the diamond suit is wide open, we will have chances in other suits to take eight or nine tricks.”

Again, it is a matter of style. I have a sneaking admiration for 2H, since it appears safest of the bunch and most likely to garner a plus score, but since I haven’t yet tortured North with too many esoteric cuebids or fancy calls this month (the fake reverse on #1 doesn’t count), I figured it was time. Besides, isn’t it just possible looking at South’s hand that any contract would be better played by North?

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

I was wondering whether East-West would ever preempt this month. Much as I hate it when my opponents jack the bidding, it makes for lively discussions. A plurality of the panel was content to pass, no doubt influenced by the form of scoring.

PAOLO: “Pass. We may have slam in clubs, diamonds or notrump, but my partner would also bid 3NT with something like xxx Kx AKQJxxx x.”

FEILER: “Pass. The thing about 3NT is that even when it's wrong it turns out right sometimes, whereas when 6C contracts are wrong they're just way wrong.”

WALKER: “Pass. Reluctantly, but it's matchpoints, and I want to keep my plus score. Partner probably has long diamonds (could be a 2-3-7-1 hand). There's no guarantee he has any clubs, so looking for 6C is a gamble.”

Therein lies the main thrust of this problem. Because of the high bidding level, North’s hand is too wide-ranging for South to act with a strong sense of confidence. North could have anything from a strong balanced hand right up to the gambling distributional hands suggested by PAOLO and WALKER.

I was actually tempted to downgrade the Pass, since the majority of the panel favored a forward move. In the fiery days of my youth, I’d have done this and not flinched when the fur started flying. BWS is (not surprisingly) silent on the meaning of both the 3NT overcall, and the meaning of the available 4-level bids after a direct 3NT overcall of a preempt.

If we apply the “transfer-based” approach that BWS uses over the same sequence at the 2-level, then 4C would be Stayman, 4H a transfer to spades, and 4D and 4S would be transfers to clubs and diamonds respectively. At the 4-level however, this (in my opinion) is not very practical given the lack of room to maneuver.

As we have noted above, the practiced partnership will have an advantage here. In casual partnerships, with little discussion, its best to keep it simple at this level -- 4 of a minor is natural and forcing, 4S is a suggestion (but forward-going), 4H is strong, 4NT semi-quantitative.

Even those on the panel who chose to move gave different interpretations for their calls:

BERNHARD: “4C. Should be forcing, and I feel I owe partner one slam try. Partner probably has long diamonds and we have a bad fit and I should have gone quietly into the good night. But I have never been accused of doing that.”

STRITE: “4C. Pard could have a stiff club, and he certainly rates to be unbalanced. I'm tempted take my average minus and compliment the opponents on their preempt if we missed a club slam, but I think we should be able to survive a forcing 4C gesture.”

KNIEST: “4C. BWS probably plays this as Stayman, so that will work on this hand, although you might well wind up in a horrible spot. It's nice to know what partner's overcall is based on, and here is what I play with Don Stack: 4C asks and if opener rebids opener's suit (4H in this problem), he holds a balanced rock crusher. If opener bids 4 of a new suit, his overcall was based on that long suit as a source of tricks. If opener rebids 4NT, he shows a balanced stretch. Baron is on over 4NT or the cuebid. While you will still be guessing because of the high level, your guesses will be more informed.”

NELSON: “4C. I am employing Gerber. There is a great chance we have a six bid available in spades or clubs, so I'm going to give it a try.”

Scary, eh? Four expert panelists (and I can vouch for all of them as expert!), and three vastly different meanings for a “simple” single-step advance response of 4C to a “simple” 3NT overcall of an opening preempt. For the record, I like KNIEST’s concept, even though this auction is probably a once-or-twice a decade occurrence.

KESSLER: “4H. Pass could easily be right. However, we have a shot at four possible slams, 6S, 6C, 6NT (not my choice) and yes 6D, so I think we have to make an attempt even at matchpoints. If my club spots were better, I would Blackwood and bid 6C. Even if we have a 4-4 spade fit, clubs could be right as spades rate to break badly. I better quit before I talk myself into passing.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself (except I don’t like 4NT as Blackwood). My first thought here was the “obvious” cuebid, and the more I thought about it, the more I liked Pass and 4C.

LAMBERT: “4NT. Blackwood according to BWS ("unless it can be clearly interpreted as quantitative"). I'm putting pard on no less than Qx, Ax, AKQxxxx, Qx. If he has three aces, I bid 7D. If 2 aces, 6D. If 1 ace, I'll pass 5D, and ask pard how he expected to make 3NT in the first place. Play of the hand will have West with a stiff trump, and we sail home on a trump coup. :-)”

BRIDGE BARON: “4NT. Bridge Baron plays this as stone age Blackwood in this situation. It's thinking about 6C.”

Notice the variation these last two assign to North’s hand! LAMBERT is certain North has long diamonds (imagine North’s chagrin if he has a balanced or semi-balanced monster). Bridge Baron is exactly opposite -- it's sure North’s hand is balanced. Aren’t preempts fun? Last and certainly not least:

MERRITT: “6C. What is wrong with swinging on 1 board in 26? Partner is under pressure, which suggests passing, but you are also under pressure, and bidding closer to last gives you some extra sway.”

Given the lack of consistency of meaning we’ve seen with the other forward-going calls, this could work out. Or not. Judging from the Solver vote, you’ll at least have some company, so you’ll get to share the top-or bottom.

Don’t you just love preempts? Or did I already ask that? Have a great summer, and I’ll see you all in December.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this challenging set of problems. The quizzes brought up several interesting issues, and I hope you found good topics for discussion with your partners.

Thanks to our guest panelists for this issue, ACBL Bridge Bulletin staffer Dave Smith of Memphis TN and John Seng of Champaign IL. Topping all Solvers was David Davies of Dawlish UK with an impressive 570. Right behind with 560 were Sandy Barnes, Glafkos Galanos and Dean Pokorny. All four are invited to join our super-sized panel for August.

The six new problems for August are below. This is the fourth of the six sets in the 2008 Solvers competition, so there's still time to join in the annual contest, which is based on your best three scores for the year.

Please submit your August solutions and comments by July 25 on the web form. Note: The web form will sometimes crash if you type a lot of text into the comment boxes. If you have long comments, you can send your solutions by email to our August moderator:

Kent Feiler -- kent@kentfeiler.com

How the Panel voted (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 535):		1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bridge Baron software (Stephen Smith)		2S	3D	2H	6H	2D	4NT	460
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL		RDBL	3S	2H	5H	2D	4C	530
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL		3C	2H	2H	DBL	2S	4H	470
Tom Kniest, University City MO		RDBL	2H	2H	5C	2D	4C	580
Robert Lambert, Warsaw IN		RDBL	2H	2H	Pass	2H	4NT	540
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO		RDBL	2H	3S	Pass	2H	4NT	520
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL		RDBL	2H	3D	5C	2NT	4C	530
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal		RDBL	2H	2H	5C	2H	Pass	600
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL		RDBL	2H	3S	5C	2H	Pass	580
John Seng, Champaign IL		RDBL	3S	4S	5H	2D	Pass	510
Dave Smith, Memphis TN		RDBL	3D	3S	5C	2H	4C	550
Jack Spear, Kansas City MO		RDBL	2H	4S	5C	2H	Pass	570
Toby Strite, San Jose CA		2S	2H	2H	5C	2H	4C	550
How the Staff voted
Tom Dodd, Branchburg NJ		RDBL	2H	2S	5C	2D	4H	550
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL		RDBL	2H	4S	5C	2NT	Pass	540
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria		RDBL	3D	3D	5C	2NT	6C	480
Karen Walker, Champaign IL		RDBL	3D	2H	Pass	2D	Pass	540
Solvers Honor Roll (Solver average: 488)
David Davies, Dawlish UK		RDBL	2H	2S	5C	2D	Pass	570
Sandy Barnes, Wildomar CA		3C	2H	2H	5C	2H	4C	560
Glafkos Galanos, Carbondale IL		RDBL	2H	3S	5C	2D	4C	560
Dean Pokorny, Zagreb, Croatia		RDBL	2H	4S	5C	2H	4C	560
Judy Eaton, Carbondale IL	540	Len Vishnevsky, San Francisco CA						540
Micah Fogel, Aurora, IL	540	Tom Wynn, Paducah KY						540
John R. Mayne, Riverbank, CA	540	Bob Carteaux, Fort Wayne IN						530
Hugh Metzger, South Bend	540	Amiram Millett, Tel Aviv, Israel						530
Rich Peer, St. Louis	540	Nanik Shukla, Wheaton IL						530

Solvers Forum -- August 2008 Problems

1. IMPs, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
1D	DBL	3S *	Pass
4D	DBL	Pass	???

* (weak jump shift)

What is your call as South holding:
K1043 864 42 10983 ?

2. IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	2H	Pass
Pass	DBL	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:
A54 8762 754 AK6 ?

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

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

What is your call as South holding:
Q65 AK3 J3 AKJ64 ?

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

West	North	East	South
1D	2C	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:
AQ104 KQ102 10652 6 ?

5. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	1D	Pass
1S	Pass	1NT	Pass
Pass	DBL	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:
Q963 742 Q974 Q10 ?

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable

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

What is your call as South holding:
AJ10 Q4 AQ9765 95 ?

Thanks for these problems to Pete Petillo (1 & 2), Mark Kessler (3) & John Seng (4).

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
RDBL	100	14	37
3C	70	1	29
2S	60	2	11
2NT/3H	60	0	7
Other	50	0	16