District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2018

        by Jack Spear, Kansas City MO
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KJ6  ♥72   ♦AKQ1097   ♣AQ ?

The first problem is a simple choice of opening bid, The three candidates are 1D, 2NT and 2C. The panel was evenly split between 1D and 2NT and offered strong arguments for both openings, so all those bidders get 100.

The 1D bidders thought their choice was clearcut:

KAPLAN:  1D. Forgive me for this comment - but - difficult for me to understand another choice than 1D. 2NT with that diamond suit and xx in hearts holds no appeal for me.

PAVLICEK: 1D. Is this a sobriety test? If partner bids 1H, 3NT describes it well. If he bids 1S, I'll bid 3C to guide us into the right strain.

WALKER:  1D. I’m fine with opening 2NT with a 6-card minor, but this doesn’t look like the right hand for it – too much in diamonds, nothing in hearts, more playing strength than a typical 2NT bid, no compelling evidence that I need to play notrump from my side (partner's heart holding may need protection more than my clubs).

I liked some of the comments of the 2NT bidders, and I agree with this choice because it shows the hand strength immediately:

BAKER:  2NT. The sixth diamond makes up for being short a point. The other realistic option is 1D followed by 3NT if partner bids 1H (off-shape, no heart stop, great diamonds), but this isn’t quite the classic hand for it, and any other bid by partner makes life harder than starting with 2NT.

BAINTER:   2NT. The advantages to opening 2NT are: The club holding is protected; If pard transfers to hearts, there is comfort; And the spades are both protected and if pard transfers to spades, bonanza!

WARD: 2NT. Have to stay with this field, although this will keep us out of 6D when it is right, The colors are almost enough for me to open 1D, since the opponents are not going to be stepping out that much.

There was only one panelist selecting 2C, but he makes a valid point that this hand is stronger in the trick-taking department than most 2NT openings.

POPKIN:  2C. Too good for 2NT. I won’t ever catch up if I open 1D and would not be happy if I open 1D and partner responds 1NT because we have wrong sided this hand all by ourselves. Over partner’s expected 2D response to 2C, I will bid 2NT .

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KQJ1064   ♥Void   ♦J1093   ♣AQJ  ?

We have a big hand and a big guess what to do over an opponent’s 4H overcall, Including my vote for 6S, the panel votes are tied between 4S and 6S. The votes for 5H are a vote for bidding towards slam rather than the likely final bid of 4S, so 6S gets the 100 points.

Let’s first hear what the conservative 4S bidders have to say:

BAKER:  4S. Maybe an underbid, but I don’t see a better way to get the suit into play. If West bids 5H and it comes back around to me, I’ll bid 5NT pick-a-slam. Not sure how partner would interpret 5S, nor that we’re safe at that level.

WALKER:  4S. Going low because I don’t have enough to be sure of 12 tricks and there’s no way to involve partner in the decision. 5S asks for a heart control and 5H suggests you’re looking for a club slam (and enjoy torturing partner).

WARD: 4S. Preempts work, We may be able to make something higher, but I don't have much room to figure that out. Partner is not going to know I have spades if I cuebid 5H, and 5S asks the wrong question, I'll try to go plus.

PAVLICEK:  4S. Tempting to bid more, but it's a blind guess what partner has, and bad breaks are likely. Preempts work sometimes.

Now the comments from the aggressive 6S bidders:

HINCKLEY:  6S. Protecting the plus score by bidding 4S is just too conservative when 6S is nearly cold opposite Ax xxxx AQx Kxxx. 5S will make it sound like I need a heart control.

RABIDEAU:  6S. The vulnerability makes it more likely that partner's high cards are non-hearts, so I'll bid what I think/hope we can make.

WETZEL:  6S. I don't expect many points for this, but I really don't care how many spades partner has. I expect slam to have play, and we're in a spot where we have to guess at a high level.

KNIEST:  6S. I've been preempted; might as well preempt pard, too.

The 5H cuebid received a couple of votes:

POPKIN:  5H. This is why opponents should be barred from 4-level preempts, Who knows? Can’t chance a negative double. I will bid 6S over whatever partner bids and hope we don’t have two diamond losers and also invite seven if partner has the right stuff.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J7   ♥AK1097   ♦86   ♣QJ54  ?

We have a trap-pass over RHO’s 1H overcall, but after our partner’s reopening double, RHO bids 1S!  This is a very unusual situation, and there are five different votes by the panel, The majority choice is to double 1S, which shows a penalty pass of 1H. I agree with the majority choice here, which describes our hand to partner:

HINCKLEY:  Double. This shows a penalty double of the heart overcall. My concern is our club fit. Even if partner has four spades, a 4=1=3=5 shape limits our defensive tricks.

KNIEST:  Double. Confirms a trap pass of 1H. It does not say I have spades stacked, too.

WALKER: Double. Standard way to show I was planning a penalty pass of partner's reopening double. This double promises decent high-card strength and at least a doubleton in the bidder’s second suit. Partner is free to pull if he has only three spades.

WETZEL:  Double. I encountered this problem online and bid some notrump, Double is better, though. You can't have a penalty double of spades because you passed last round. Double here means you have the trap pass of hearts.  Sometimes, they've just stepped into a toll-free number.

The 3C and 2H call each received two votes:

RABIDEAU:  3C. I believe a double here would be a "transfer penalty double" (of hearts)  but I question our ability to do well defending 1S. To re-open the bidding, partner must have full values so I'll try for game. (My jump only makes sense if I have a penalty double of 1H) .

BAINTER:  2H. I didn't bid 1NT over 1H. and now I bid 2H. I must have had a stack awaiting a possible reopening double, which would have been savory. If they then try 1S, pard has a clear idea of my holding. Also, 2H tells pard he can safely land in 3C if that is all there is.

The panelists who were the only ones to vote for these choices can speak for themselves:

KAPLAN:  2S. A toughie; many choices. I am going to try 2S and hope that somehow partner recognizes that my silence before shows a penalty pass of hearts with club support. (Yes, I may be in Lala Land!)

PAVLICEK:  3NT. Prospects of a big set against 1S are dimmed by the club fit, so I'll bid what I expect to make.

* Constructive, not forcing

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q7   ♥AKQJ6   ♦863   ♣A108 ?

Problem 4 attracted six different votes by the panel. Forums in bridge magazines and web sites love bidding problems with lots of possible answers, so this must be the best problem of the set.

The top vote-getter, by a small margin, was the cuebid of the opponent's suit:

HINCKLEY:  3D. Fortunately, this hand with no good option is strong enough for the cuebid.

BAKER:  3D. Good hand, no clear bid. It’s likely we should be in game somewhere.

WARD: 3D.  I don't like it with three little diamonds, but I have to do something. Qx is not the worst spade holding if partner rebids 3S.

Others on the panel thought their hand wasn't quite strong enough for 3D, so they offered three other approaches -- raising partner's suit, inventing a new suit and rebidding their own suit.

WALKER:  2S. I’d like to do more, but 3C is misleading and 3D is a vague overbid that will propel us … where? 3NT with one diamond stopper? At matchpoints, I’ll settle for a freebid in the suit that’s most likely to encourage partner to make another move.

KAPLAN:  2S. Like my xxx in diamonds and high-card points. Wish I had a third spade - but - feel I have too much to pass. Ergo, 2S as least of all evils.

POPKIN:  3C. Looking for game and prepared to sign off if partner can’t bid it.

BAINTER:  3C. He’s constructive and I am on 16. This tells partner I can stand to be in three of either major, with fingers crossed if pard doesn’t have a diamond stopper.

I suspect Bob meant to bid 3D. If so, we owe him 20 points.

PAVLICEK:  3H. The sensible way to suggest game without forcing it. Cuebidding 3D is a clear overbid, and 2H is too conservative.

WETZEL: 3H. This depends on just how "constructive" your constructive responses are. Opposite me, inviting game is enough, and doing so in my solid suit feels like a reasonable lie. If 3D isn't game-forcing, it's a nice bid, but I'm pretty sure it is. Three little diamonds is a warning sign.

KNIEST:  2H. I’m worth another bid, and pard might have the hand to bid notrump or jump rebid spades.

I'm the lone voter for double, which should show a good hand with no clear bid. I think this should be the default definition in auctions like this one unless specifically defined otherwise.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ7   ♥A   ♦K10943   ♣AJ92 ?

We have another tie for top score here, which is a simple rebid problem after we open 1D and partner responds 1H, our singleton ace. With our 18 high-card points, we could bid an off-shape 2NT, a heavy 2C or a jump-shift 3C. Most of the panel rejected the jump shift and were split evenly their preference for the other two choices.

KAPLAN:  2NT. I normally hate 2NT with this sort of shape. Yet my diamonds aren't too wonderful and I have lots of values outside of my two suits. So the only other choice I see, 3C. seems inferior in this particular case.

POPKIN:  2NT. I know it adds up to 18. Grudgingly, I will bid 2NT. It’s right on points and wrong on all the other parameters. Like tricks.

WALKER:  2NT. Looks like a notrump hand to me, This 18-count isn’t strong enough for a jump shift to 3C, which would put a lot of emphasis on these two mediocre suits.

PAVLICEK:  2NT. Best description. A blank high honor will usually suffice if partner insists on 4H with six, in which case 3NT would often be doomed by the lack of heart communication.

A good number of Solvers thought the hand was strong enough for a jump to 3NT, but that's not what this rebid shows. Partner will expect a hand with long, running diamonds and not necessarily this many high-card points.

My choice is the 2C rebid, for reasons explained by these panelists:

WETZEL:  2C. Low road for now, planning a notrump bid the next time, If there isn’t a next time, I don’t think we’re missing much.

RABIDEAU:  2C. Not good enough to jump shift and the wrong shape for 2NT.

WARD: 2C. I may be alone on this, but if partner passes, I am not missing anything, Two mediocre suits and a stiff ace are not making me like my chances in 3NT if partner raises 2NT with a minimum.

There was one panel vote for the jump-shift to 3C:

HINCKLEY:  3C. The minor-suit spot cards talk me into the jump shift, I’m expecting a much larger percentage of Solvers will rebid 2NT than the panelists.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠1076   ♥AQ84   ♦AK5   ♣QJ4 ?

For the last problem, we have a 16-point balanced hand with no stopper in RHO's spade suit. Because we have a 4-card heart suit, we make an off-shape takeout double instead of passing. Partner cues 2S, but RHO rebids 3S in front of us, creating a problem, What does double mean, and what does 4H show? Double is the most popular choice and scores 100, with some claims that partner now knows what to do.

PAVLICEK:  Double. Surely this shows extra values (not spades) and suggests defending unless partner is short in spades. If a pass were forcing (which I doubt it should be opposite a passed hand), it might be a better choice to imply four hearts.

KAPLAN:  Double. Ugh. I feel I cannot pass after the cue by partner. Pass could indicate a light takeout. And I am surely not going to bid 4H here when I don't even know if partner has four hearts! Hoping that partner reads double as extra values and not penalty!

BAKER:  Double. By a passed hand, I’d guess North’s cuebid means both minors. If that’s correct, my hand is more defensive in value than offensive. If partner has extreme shape, he can pull, but I have extras and am willing to take a crack at +300.

WALKER:  Double. Shows values and no clear action – a somewhat redundant message, since partner knows I have no idea why he’s cuebidding, Minors? Looking for a stopper? I don’t think I can take a stab at 4H, as that sounds like I had a big double with long hearts, Second choice is pass, but only if partner remembers that he promises another bid after a cuebid. I’m not willing to gamble that he will think that applies to a passed hand.

There was one vote for pass, which would not be forcing opposite a passed hand, and it would normally show a minimum. The rest of the panel chose a 4H bid, trying to hit partner’s likely 4-card length. 4H is my choice, too. Everyone would double if it described this hand, but double doesn’t show three small spades with a 4-card heart suit and extra values.

WETZEL:  4H. An overbid, probably (three small spades is really bad; see problem 4), but the alternative to show extras is to double again -- and I'm not fond of partner thinking, shrugging and scoring up minus 530.

WARD:  4H. Tough problem, but I don't want to give partner a problem when he cuebid on a distributional hand, which is more likely than normal since he did pass originally. Give partner  x KJxx QJxxx Kxx,  and we are going +100 (or -530) in 3S doubled when we are likely cold for game.

KNIEST:  4H. Enuf with a passing partner.

And that’s enuf for me . . . 

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set. Congratulations to Jim Hudson of Evanston IL, who led all Solvers with an impressive 590. Close behind were Nigel Guthrie of Glasgow, Scotland and Chris Grande of Mishawaka IN. All three are invited to join the August panel.

If you'd like to receive an email notice when new problems are posted, please send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

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

Help wanted: I've enjoyed serving as Forum moderator the past few years, but have decided to retire. I will still participate as a panelist. The Forum is in need of another moderator, so if you're interested in writing the column (twice a year), please contact Karen at kwalker2@comcast.net.