District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2014

    by Jack Spear, Kansas City MO

What is your call as South holding  QJ75   Void   A6  AQ86543 ?

We start with a good problem where the opponents have remained silent with 10 hearts, while our side has 10 clubs, a few more high cards and a heart void.

2C is the most conservative action, but this is just inviting the opponents to balance in hearts, and they will likely compete further once in the bidding. Scott recognizes this danger:

MERRITT: "2C. Does the chance of scaring them out of their heart fit justify mischaracterizing my hand? This may propel me to compete in 5C over 4H, but so be it."

Peg believes 2C is the obvious choice:

KAPLAN: "2C. I must admit -- another call escapes me!"

3NT is the most aggressive action, but seems like quite a gamble considering our heart void:

KESSLER: "3NT. Total crap shoot and notrump pays more."

PAULO: "3NT. I'm the great pretender!"

2S has some good prospects, as 5C will be playable opposite the black kings:

KLEMIC: "2S. This is not so much an offer to play, but we need help from partner in what the best spot is."

DIEBEL: "2S. Suggests unbalanced aspect of hand, and hopefully best chance to land in right strain."

The majority choice of 3C gives some chance of stopping in a successful partscore, inviting game while keeping the hearts out of the auction. Bridge Baron may have summarized this choice best:

BRIDGE BARON: "3C. Just barely too weak to reverse into 2S. Just barely too strong for a simple 2C rebid."

What is your call as South holding  AQJ104   K82   J1043   Q ?

Problem 2 offers three choices: Pass, double or 3D. Pass is the most conservative action, and was the second choice of the panelists. Karen makes a good case for the Pass.

WALKER: "Pass. Partner hasn't promised diamonds and I have nothing extra and no reason to think we have a real fit anywhere. If he wants to hear about this hand, he'll stretch to reopen. I'm not going to make the unilateral decision that 'we' don't want to defend 3C."

KESSLER: "3D. I sure don't want to defend 3C, and we can play any other suit. This rates to be a very good hand for partner."

Richard believes the majority choice of 3D is easy.

PAVLICEK: "3D. Straightforward. The temptation to try 3H is dismissed by the strong spades, since I would welcome a 3S preference, which would rarely happen over hearts. Passing makes sense, too, with minus 200 looming, but I'm an optimist."

BRIDGE BARON: "3D. Show the support. Even in the context of the club overcall and raise, partner could still have a very strong distributional hand."

PAULO: "3D. Weak as it is, I show my second suit."

Only a couple of panelists chose double.

HINCKLEY: "Double. Takeout, strongly implying 3-card heart support. Admittedly a slight overbid, but can't be helped. Bidding 3D deserves to find partner with 2=5=3=3 shape."

DIEBEL: "Double. Keeps all options open, while intimating I don't have four hearts."

  * (Forcing to game)

What is your call as South holding  AKQ87  AKJ82   107   9 ?

Problem 3 is a very nice hand, and partner has responded two-over-one, putting slam clearly in the picture. The majority vote of the panel was indeed for 4NT, a straightforward route to slam,  although not everyone seems thrilled with this choice:

KAPLAN: "4NT. Horrible problem. We could be laydown for 7; we could be down in 5. I do think, however, I have just too much to not try for slam when I have shown nothing extra. I would like to make a try other than 4NT; just not at all sure what new bids mean."

RABIDEAU: "4NT. But I won't bid the slam unless pard has both missing keys because we have a likely spade loser."

Others seem to like 4NT just fine:

PAVLICEK: "4NT. I'm certainly not stopping below six, and 4NT followed by 5NT (if two aces) is the practical way to invite seven. If partner shows a king, I'll bid 6H, which should inspire him to bid seven with the Q."

DIEBEL: "4NT. What else do I need to hear?"

Some panelists bid 4C as a control bid. Others bid 4D naturally, looking for a 6-2 fit.

PAULO: "4C. I don't impose slam, but I do suggest it."

KNIEST: "4D. Pard's going slow for a reason - maybe not much of a fit, but great diamonds and no club stopper."

WALKER: "4D. It's sounding like partner has Jx of spades and either extra values or a minimum that's not loaded with club stoppers. I have an extra ace I haven't shown yet, so I have to do something more than bid 3NT, 4H or 4S."

Indeed, panelists who chose 3NT, 4H or 4S here may have ended the auction. All other choices were more forward-going.

NIEUWENHUIS: "3NT. Partner is either 22-54 or worse. Hope the clubs stand up to the lead. This kind of misfit is hard. At least I bring 5 tricks."

HINCKLEY: "4H. Since a sub-minimum of  Jx  AQx  AKxxx  xxxx  will produce a slam, bidding 3NT or 4S feels wrong. I'd prefer to have Ax or Kx to bid 4D with a doubleton. With a weaker hand and more distribution, I'd bid 4H over 2NT."

MERRITT: "4S. I should be able to get a heart blow in dummy to make this play a little bit kinder for me. If partner was 100% sure that she had club cover, she could have chosen 3NT herself."

What is your call as South holding  AJ75   Void   AJ102   J10843  ?

Problem 4 offers multiple choices for further preemption or strategic bids. The vulnerability is unfavorable, which may temper preemption, but opposite the right distribution, 11 or 12 tricks in diamonds are possible. On the down side, perhaps only one trick can be scored on defense.

The big majority chose the 5D bid, hoping for the right combination of preemption/chances to make.

NIEUWENHUIS: "5D. Let them make the right decision. This should make opposite any reasonable preempt with short clubs."

MERRITT: "5D. Is someone suggesting that I should shoot straight to 6 to make them guess a level higher?"

KESSLER: "6D. Might make it if partner is 2-3-7-1 and they lead a heart. Next bid rates to be much tougher".

PAVLICEK: "5D. I prefer tactics to science. This might stampede a double, or over 5H I'll bid 6D not knowing which if any is making. Cuebidding 4H to seek club control is more likely to hurt us by inducing a spade lead or a cheap 6H save."

Others using deep strategy chose different actions. My personal preference was 4D, hoping for a 4H underbid by LHO, resulting in the opposition missing a good slam. (5D will surely incite a 5H bid, which may be raised to 6H.) 

Other tactical bids included 3S, 3NT and 4NT.

KLEMIC: "3S. All partner needs to have is three black cards and 5D rates to be cold. Unfortunately, 5H may also make. This looks like one instance where bidding slow may be the way to go. I am choosing 3S to give them more room to stop in game, and when we 'sacrifice' in 5D, they may not feel the need to continue."

RABIDEAU: "3NT. It could work!  I don't see us buying the contract at a profitable level, so let's help them mis-guess the heart suit."

DIEBEL: "4NT. What's the point of 4H? I can't keep them from saving in 5H, and they might even make it. If they let me play 5D -- haha -- so be it, but I'm bidding 6D over their sacrifice and letting them guess what to do."

What is your call as South holding   A103   Void   KQ32    A98432 ?

This is a really good problem hand from the Dallas nationals. The website forum bridgewinners.com discussed possible bidding sequences at length under the heading, “Assess The Blame.”  But let’s get to the panel’s votes without assessing any blame.

Double was the most popular choice, expressing values without focus on the 6-card clubs or 4-card diamonds. Three-card spade support is a likely component of this double, but the main idea is to reach a fit in clubs or diamonds. Partner will not expect the sixth club, and perhaps not the fourth diamond, depending on the meaning of 3D. One downside of the double is partner may guess to pass with his likely 4-card heart holding, seeing no place to go with a 4-4-3-2 pattern.

KESSLER: "Double. This cannot be for penalty or show 4 spades (we could have bid spades with that), so it is competitive telling partner to bid. If partner has 4 spades and J109xx or QJ109 and converts, all is well."

DIEBEL: "Double. When I know passing isn't right and it's not clear what is, I pull out the red card. This should strongly imply that I don't have 4 spades."

MERRITT: "Double. Isn't this a request for partner to do something intelligent?"

2S could be bid on our 3-card suit, but this is a mis-description and it shows a minimum opener. This may lead to missing game in either minor, or getting too high in spades. Still, it is matchpoints… 

PAVLICEK: "2S. Going for the higher score stands out at matchpoints (tougher problem at IMPs), and 2S seems adequate. Missing a close game is less important, since opting for spades should dictate my fate."

KLEMIC: "2S. This looks like the right hand to try a Moysian fit. Clubs may be safer, but no need to sweat the bid here."

3D is the big bid -- game-forcing, promising reverse values. Or could it be non-forcing, meaning 4D is required to force to game?

PAULO: "4D. Game looks likely."

KNIEST: "3D. Clearly offensive values for a reverse."

WALKER: "3D. Even if you think partner's negative double promises diamonds (it doesn't), 3D shows reversing values at this level. I'm a bit short on high cards, but not on playing strength. 3C doesn't come close to describing this hand."

One likely bid by partner over the 3D reverse is 3NT -- probably too high, but one can always hope. If we double, our side should reach any 8-card diamond fit. If partner bids 2NT over the double, we get the chance to bid 3C. Or 2H doubled may be the final contract when it is right.

What is your call as South holding   Q109543   J   K   KQ987 ?

Problem 6 is an easy one -- Pass or bid 3C, according to the panel, with 2S a possibility suggested by the Solvers. The big 6-5 distribution is a plus for bidding, but the lack of high cards is a big minus. Bidding 3C promises lots of playing tricks that this hand simply does not deliver. But it is a bidder’s game …

HINCKLEY: "3C. Despite the singleton red honors, the club and spade spot cards talk me into it."

KAPLAN: "3C. Could clubs have been bid naturally? With my partners, no. My bid could work out terribly. Yet, I feel I have too much distribution to remain silent."

Some of the voters for Pass do not consider this decision close at all.

KESSLER: "Pass. The downside -- going for a number -- is much greater than the upside if we choose to bid."

DIEBEL:  "Pass. Are you kidding me?"

KNIEST: "Pass. Who bids with this?"

PAVLICEK: "Pass. My Mighty Mouse cape is at the cleaners, so opening 1S precludes any further activity. I would have passed, expecting to show a two-suiter later, probably with Michaels."

WALKER: "Pass. I don't think Grant Baze intended his '6-5, come alive' advice for this hand, which is essentially a 7-count opposite a passing partner. Throwing in a 2S bid here is a big gamble. 3C is a death wish."

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this low-scoring set. Topping all Solvers with 570 was John Samsel of Chesterfield MO, followed by four who tied with 560 -- Chuck Ettelson, Cappy Gagnon, Tad Hofkin and Robert McDill.  All five are invited to join the August panel.

I hope you'll give the August problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by July 31 on the web form.