District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2013

What is your call as South holding   5   J643   KQJ73   A82 ?

Happy summer to everyone. Our first exercise originally seemed (to me, at least) a non-problem. Opponents vulnerable, partner opens in our short suit, decent defense, etc. etc. etc. All that leads to:

KESSLER:  “Pass. At any form of scoring I'll give 2H doubled a shot if partner can reopen with a double. This should be unanimous.”

SPEAR:  “Pass, hoping to defend 2H doubled, although it could be right to play in diamonds...”

WALKER:  “Pass and hope to defend 2H doubled, but I'm not all that confident about that choice. Partner doesn't always reopen with a double, and if he doesn't have the spade ace, we probably aren't getting rich defending at the two-level.”

I suspect the voting was split based on the form of scoring, but I was surprised at all the votes for the alternatives. Most of the votes for 2NT and double did not include comments. The ones who did:

KNIEST:  “2NT, and pass 3S.”

MATHENY:  “Double. I want to show some values. Passing now will create a problem on the next round.”

SOKOL:  “Double. Not enough for a free 3D. I still have a chance show the stopper later.”

How about bidding our long suit?

HINCKLEY:  “3D. An overbid, as 3D is game forcing. It could be right to try for 2H doubled at this vulnerability holding a stiff spade, but I need better or longer hearts. If I held  x  Q108x  KQxxx  Axx, I would pass, looking to defend 2H doubled.”

WARD:  “3D. At matchpoints, I might make a negative double, but at IMPs, I can't afford to be so passive.”

Could this strategy work out wrong?  Yup, and it won’t be the first time I’ve had to make ready my rationale before comparing scores with teammates!
 

2.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable
 

West	North	East	South
	1C	2D *	DBL
Pass	2S	Pass	???

   * (Preemptive)

What is your call as South holding   K108   QJ64   A854   J9 ?

This problem was a little tougher -- and I have to admit I was swayed by the scoring conditions. A lot swayed. As BWS doesn’t require four cards in both unbid majors here, it’s safe to say we aren’t in a 3-3 fit at least. I actually thought long and hard about not passing, but wasn’t sure where all the tricks were going to come from.

KESSLER:  “Pass quickly and you rate to go plus, and on a good day maybe they will balance.”

RABIDEAU:  “Pass. Cluck, cluck…”

WALKER:  “Pass. Going for the plus score at matchpoints. Ace-empty isn't a great stopper for notrump.”

I don’t like the Axxx either, but it was a close call for me because East’s call was a preemptive 2D, not 1D. A majority of the panel was swayed by the extra values and the diamond ace:

BRIDGE BARON:  “3S. Apparently, we decided to treat K108 as a four-card suit last round. Consistently with that evaluation, we'll show invitational strength.”

That 3-card spade suit may make you a bit nervous, but partner knows you may have that holding (or worse). A negative double in this auction doesn't promise both majors.

HINCKLEY:  "2NT. The ‘book bid’. Admittedly, my gut is telling me I should probably be passing 2S, despite the diamond ruffs being taken in the long trump hand, since scrambling eight tricks in 2S will often be easier than eight tricks in notrump.”

MATHENY:  “2NT. I wish I had better diamond spots.”

MILLER:  “2NT. Was it so tough to see this coming that I couldn't pass 2D? Now I get to choose between an invite that may compromise partner's Qx diamond holding or blasting off to game. I'll choose the former.”

SPEAR:  “2NT seems like a clear choice here.”

SENG:  “2NT. The value bid?”

Do any of these folks sound at all happy with their choice here? Okay, so I’m not all that happy with my call either, but isn’t that what makes the Forum a “fun” exercise?  Only one of the 2NT bidders I could find with any confidence was:

   * (Hearts & diamonds)

What is your call as South holding  3   Q6   942   J1086543  ?

The first of two problems this month that does not follow Bridge World Standard is nevertheless a straightforward bid or pass exercise. The problem would have played out the same way if North’s original call had been a BWS Michaels cuebid (unless there’s something I’m missing about hand strength with the convention used here).

Make no mistake, this is not a trivial decision at this level. A  “wrong” decision at this vulnerability is costly. So I bid 5D confidently at the table, at least outwardly. It might make, or even convince EW to take a cheap “save.”

KESSLER:  “5D. This could easily be cold, and I have no interest in defending 4S doubled. If partner has them beat in his hand he should pass and take a plus, knowing his partner can’t possibly pass a double.”

PAOLO:  “5D. Without any defensive trick I can't pass, and 5C doesn't look a good bet.”

WALKER:  “5D. Partner's double shows defensive tricks, but not four of them, especially when his high cards are in long suits. I wouldn't be surprised if 4S was making an overtrick.”

KNIEST:  “5D. Should have some play.”

MILLER:  “5D. Partner's bidding shows offense, so I'll trust him.”

Pass, however also makes some sense.

SENG:  “Pass. If partner wanted to insist on playing the hand at the 5-level wouldn't he just bid 5D? Or even 4NT? Four tricks in spades or 11 tricks in diamonds?”

MATHENY:  “Pass. This double should be for penalties. If partner wanted me to bid a red suit, he would have rebid 4NT. At least that's the way I'm going to explain the -590 to my teammates.”

Why not pass?  After this sort of auction, I’d expect something like AKJ and AKQ in the red suits and (hopefully) the ace or king in one of the black suits. With less defense -- say, x, AKJ1xxxx, KQJ10xx, void -- North might have tried 4NT here. For this auction, I would expect North to hold values suitable for both offense or defense.

Finally, though I don’t often set forth the actual hand:

SPEAR:  “5D. I would bid 5D, afraid that 4S was making, and playing partner for a lot of offense in the red suits. The actual hand should not be relevant, but both contracts made.”

What is your call as South holding  AKJ62   J86   QJ104   K ?

Half the panel and about 40% of the Solvers opted for the temporizing bid here, not willing to give up on the 9-trick game.

HINCKLEY:  “3S. No real club stopper and a spade suit that can play opposite a small doubleton. I'm sure there will be some bidding 3NT, looking for that club lead away from ace!”

MATHENY:  “3S. I know I'm supposed to bid 3NT but...”

WARD:  “3S. Still willing to hear 3NT or play a 5-2 spade fit.”

SPEAR:  “3S. Bidding 3S may still allow us to reach 3NT -- otherwise we can play in diamonds. I think 4H should suggest better hearts, but don't feel strongly about it.”

A couple panelists ignored the lack of a club stop and barged headlong into 3NT:

PAOLO:  “3NT. There are several layouts -- e.g. North:  xx, A9x, AKxxx, Jxx   East:  Tx, KTxx, xxx, ATxx -- in which South wins 3NT but North loses 5D.”

RABIDEAU:  “3NT. The Hamman Rule…”

Angling to find the best game, but bypassing the 9-trick one:

SOKOL:  “4D. Temporizing because partner could still be bidding out his hand pattern.”

WALKER:  “4C. Partner is probably searching for notrump and may have a stopper problem in hearts, but even if it's clubs, I don't have what he's looking for. I do have a good hand, though, so I'll show a helpful holding in clubs on the way to 5D or 6D. 3S is a stall that doesn't tell him much of anything and might suggest that my suit is stronger than this.”

MILLER:  “4C. Could this be the other side of problem #6 last time?”

It might well be. Directors of the Forum have been known to occasionally slip in a problem that makes last issue’s top answer look silly. I’ve been known to do this in the past! Finally, we have:

KESSLER:  “4H. If partner has four hearts, this could easily be our best game. If not, he can bid 5D.”

I’d be okay with this call if I hadn’t been dumped in 3-3 games in the past. And there are other calls available that are less likely to result in disaster here.

5. IMPs, both vulnerable

* (Leaping Michaels - Hearts & clubs)

What is your call as South holding  AJ54   J82   AK53   102 ?

Our second non-BWS hand for this issue, though one must admit it does make the hand easier to bid. Or does it? A majority was not content to go quietly into the night with those three side suit controls:

SOKOL:  “4D. Must be forcing when partner shows a big rounded-suit hand. Showing the spade control next.”

PAOLO:  “4S. With no side losers, I suggest slam.”

BRIDGE BARON:  “4S. Slam interest, heart fit.”

WALKER:  “4S. Not really that great a hand, as all these quick tricks in spades and diamonds are overkill, but I'll make this one show of enthusiasm and hope partner has strong suits that talk him into raising my next bid (5H) to slam. 4D might be better than 4S, but I'm not sure it's forcing. Take away the heart jack and I'd be signing off at 4H.”

WARD:  “4S. Gets the point across. I'd be a little afraid 4D might confuse partner, and when I cuebid diamonds and force to the 6 level, I think he'll figure out I have first round of both suits.”

SENG:  “4S, Unanimous panel? We have a possible grand opposite  x, AKQxx, xx, AKxxx.”

Some dispensed with the cuebid and got straight to it:

MILLER:  “6H. 4S is only appealing until you realize you aren't going to learn anything useful.”

RABIDEAU:  “6H. It appears that partner's high cards are in his suits, e.g., x, AKQxx, x, AQJxxx. If he's better than that, maybe he can bid the grand.”

Normally I’m not a chicken (like here), and I’ll be the first to admit signing off in 4H is not heroic. With me on that:

SPEAR:  “4H. I would bid 5H if it were a general slam try, or 4NT if it were RKC for hearts, but without any agreement, I will guess to go low with 4H.”

KNIEST:  “4H. No quick losers, but a good chance of not having 12 winners.”

That was my issue as well. Leaping Michaels might sort out North’s hand pattern, but I’m unsure at this point of hand strength to be investigating at this level. If I did, I would opt for SOKOL’s 4D as it doesn’t take us past 4H.

Could a minimum look something like  x  KQ9xx  xx  AJ9xx ? Even with a higher minimum, I’m with KNIEST and SPEAR. Distributions are unlikely on the auction to be favorable in clubs/hearts, so 12 tricks could be highly problematic. Or maybe I’ve just grown cautious with age. I can hear the cluckers now!

What is your call as South holding  A105   KQJ   Q1075   A102 ?

A couple of panelists bemoaned the lack of a 3NT initial call by South. I was one of them until I looked it up. It seems that Bridge World Standard no longer provides for a 3NT response to a major opening to show a balanced 16-17 high-card points. UGH! Hence, thanks to the nasty preempt by West, we are left to guess.

North’s pass is, of course, forcing, but other than that, it doesn’t tell us much.

KESSLER:  “Double. What is 3NT over 1S? We would certainly be better placed had I been able to make that call.”

Mark, I’m with you here. I’m not sure when BWS went to 3NT being a “some defensive strength” preemptive raise over one-of-a-major opening bids. It makes no sense to me, but it’s there in black and white.

HINCKLEY:  “5S. Too bad we aren't playing the Swiss convention (3NT response), as I would already have shown my hand. Then I would double at this point. Now I bid 5S and hope 11 tricks and +650 are available to outscore the +300 or +500 in 5C doubled. This would be very clear at matchpoints and a close decision at IMPs.”

WALKER:  “5S. Feels like enough, especially with the wild distributions out there.”

PAOLO:  “5S. After West's preempt, slam is dubious, so I'll be satisfied with game.”

SOKOL:  “5S. Partner can't have more than a stiff club and didn't bid 5D. Just no way to know if slam is there, so bid to most probable positive result.”

MATHENY:  “Double. Partner should make 5S, but just in case ... ”

MILLER:  “Double. This may not end the auction.”

BRIDGE BARON:  “Pass. Bridge Baron simulates double as being a huge winner, but decides its trump suit is not good enough for a penalty double -- probably foolishly conservative.”

Stephen, that sounds like a glitch in the software that needs to be corrected. North’s pass here is 100% forcing.

KNIEST: "Double. With such a control-rich hand, I would have responded a Jacoby 2NT. It's always worked for me."

WARD:  “Double. I'll take my chance at a plus instead of guessing.”

C’mon, Nate, anything at this point is a guess…

SENG:  “6S. Looks like a pretty blind guess to me. It may come down to a diamond hook.”

Once more, the actual result:

SPEAR:  “6S. Difficult guess to make on this hand. I would go high with 6S, using the logic that partner should have doubled with a minimum. The actual hand should not be relevant, but partner's Jxx of diamonds was a big disappointment at the table.”

Enjoy your summer everyone. See you at Christmastime.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this set. Topping all Solvers with a perfect 600 was John Samsel of Chesterfield MO, followed by Jonathan Campbell of Ottawa ON. They beat all the panelists and are invited to try it again by joining the panel for the August issue.

There's still time to enter the annual Solvers Forum contest, so I hope you'll give the August problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by July 31 on the web form. 

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