♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- June 2022

            by Nate Ward, Champaign IL
 

Before we start this month, let us remember long-time panelist Mark Kessler, who passed away on April 24. This column has his last contribution to the Forum.

Mark was a great guy and will be deeply missed. I always admired his straightforward approach to bridge and the problems here.
 

Participants from the web site Bridgewinners.com are our "virtual panelist". More than 50 readers -- the majority of whom are experienced players -- voted on each problem, and the plurality's choice is included as a panel vote. Each vote grid shows the percentage of Bridgewinners voters who chose each bid.

1. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable               

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K75   ♥3   ♦K4   ♣K1087653 ?  

We begin with a problem where the temptation to blast and leave the opponents in the dark is high.

WALKER: 3NT. 2D feels like the technically correct but strategically inferior bid. Although going slow with 2D makes sense in a bidding forum, it gives the opponents so much room that I don’t think I'd make that bid at the table.

MOSES: 3NT. This is a total guess. It is unlikely that you can make 5C but not 3NT. Therefore I bid 3NT and make the opponents guess.

While 3NT may bury the opponents' heart fit, it may also lead to us wrong-siding 3NT. Others also chose notrump, but set their sights lower:

HOLES: 1NT. Bidding 2D to show a limit raise or better is also tempting. But it's matchpoints.

Almost a quarter of the Solvers chose below-game club raises. In competition, the jumps to 3C and 4C are preemptive, suggesting lots of clubs and playing strength, but with little or no defense. With two kings in outside suits, this hand is too strong for a preempt.

The majority of the panel also wanted to raise clubs, but go more slowly.

ROBINSON: 2D. Limit raise or better in clubs. I don't see any alternative.

RABIDEAU: 2D. At any other vulnerability, a defense-heavy preempt would be my choice. Going slow will probably allow them to find hearts.

HEINS: 2D. I will make my proper bid of 2D even though part of me wants to shoot 3NT. That type of masterminding tends to have you go down in silly contracts when slam is cold.

SPEAR: 2D. Must start with 2D on this big hand for clubs to initiate a descriptive bidding sequence for the partnership.

BAKER: 2D. I'm somewhat tempted to just jump to 5C and be done with it, but that might miss a decent slam when partner has aces-and-spaces.

Summing up my thoughts, and those of the majority of the panel:

KESSLER: 2D. Good hand with clubs. That's what I have.

2. IMPs, EW vulnerable         

What is your call as South holding:  ♠QJ8   ♥AQ83   ♦J754   ♣J2 ?

After a relatively easy start, we are now faced with the choice of game in three strains. As some point out, we have already defined our hand rather well:

ROBINSON: 4D. I have a sub-minimum hand based on the bidding. Partner should know that I have 11 points and only one spade stopper with some wasted values in spades.

WALKER: 4D. Partner accepted the game try, so I can’t pass. 4D feels like enough. Even with the fourth diamond, my hand isn’t worth any more than what I've already shown.

HEINS: 4D. I am tempted to bid 5D since I have both minor jacks, but it will take an awful lot from partner to make 5D and he should bid it if he has it. I have already expressed my strength with 2NT and I don't really have extras.

The rest of the panel made their own decision here. Relying on our sole spade stopper were:

STACK: 3NT. With a solid spade stopper, we will proceed to 3NT, which is probably on a finesse.

KNIEST: 3NT. Endplayed. Pard has a good hand, so let's hope diamonds are favorable and bid the cheapest game.

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Opposite a good 1=3=5=4 hand, 3NT, 4H, and 5D all are possibilities. With this spade holding, I'll choose 3NT.

I'm not a fan of 3NT, since even if the diamonds come in for five tricks, we still need to find two more tricks without letting the opponents in. What about our 9-card fit?

KESSLER: 5D. Rates to be better than hearts. 3NT with just one spade stop is too rich for me.

KEARNEY: 5D. Eleven tricks in diamonds looks easier than trying to run nine in notrump without losing the lead.

SPEAR: 5D. Some hands will make 5D when 3NT fails, while most hands that make 3NT will also make 5D.

Or maybe try for 10 tricks in our 4-3 fit?

BAKER: 4H. Partner has a singleton spade. Unless it's a high honor, 3NT needs nine runners when we get in, while the heart ruffs are coming on the right side of the Moysian.

HOLES: 4H. Taking the tap in the short hand, I slightly prefer the Moysian.

KAPLAN: 4H. Seems like North is lacking in spades -- and not clear we will be successful at the 5 level. Thus I select 4H and hope this is our best spot.

Two panelists and a fairly large contingent of Solvers passed, but as several panelists pointed out, 3H should be forcing in this auction. If partner didn't want to accept your game-try, he had three ways to show a weaker hand -- Pass, 3C or 3D. He's bidding 3H to show his full pattern on the way to whatever game you deem best.

I like 4D here. If partner has a maximum for the auction, they will make another move. About the only thing they don't know about our hand at this point is that we have a fourth diamond.

3. IMPs, NS vulnerable  

  * Forcing 1NT     ** 3+ clubs

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Void  ♥AQ964   ♦54   ♣QJ9653 ?

We have great support for partner after this start, as well as a 5-card heart suit we may never get to show. Bridge World Standard plays BART here, something mentioned by only one panelist:

HINCKLEY: 2D, which is the Bart convention -- an artificial 2D bid showing five hearts and/or an invitational-(plus) club raise. It is part of Bridge World Standard.

From Bud's comment, I presume he would bid 3C next, which will still bury hearts, but allow us to show a 3.5 club raise. The rest of the panel had to make a more standard choice here.

BAKER: 3C. I hate losing the potential heart fit, but partner is more likely to be 5=2=3=3 than 5=3=2=3. With the void in partner's suit, 3C feels like enough, but I'm a bit tempted to push harder.

ROBINSON: 3C. I can't bid 3H because that would show six hearts and 11 points. How much you can make depends on what spade values partner has.

SPEAR: 3C. Specific cards are needed to make 5C, which will be more likely to occur when partner can bid again over 3C.

STACK: 3C. Perhaps a slight underbid with this hand, but I don't see a better choice. Do I want to jump to 4C or 5C ? I don't think so.

Going higher:

KNIEST: 4C. As Al Roth used to say in the Master Solvers, "Who makes up these impossible hands?" Let's get rid of spades, notrump and the possibility of a heart contract and show that pard has struck a nerve.

WALKER: 4C. Just too much playing strength for 3C. Game in hearts or notrump seems far-fetched.

HOLES: 4C. I hate to lose the heart suit, but I'm too strong for 2H, and a heart short for 3H. The jump in clubs makes some game-interest noise.

MOSES: 4C. At IMPs, I look for game.

And all the way to game:

KAPLAN: 5C. Despite being vul against not, it seems like my best shot is to leap to 5C.

KESSLER: 5C. There's no "correct bid". The best bid on these hands is the bid that works. This is my best guess.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A654   ♥J4   ♦J92   ♣A1093 ?

Partner has overcalled at the two-level, and we have a decent hand for them. If we had a third trump, the choice would be between 2S or 3H. But without that third trump, the panel is split on how to proceed.

We start with the very pessimistic choice:

BAKER: Pass. Depends on how aggressive partner's overcalls are, but with no suit to bid and marginal values for 2NT (I'd like a second stopper), I'm going to go low.

SPEAR: Pass. Wrong hand for 2NT or 3H.

While I'm always for going low at matchpoints to try to preserve the plus score, I can't see it here, as we have two aces and a doubleton heart honor. So given that, what call is a better description?

ROBINSON: 2NT. Ten points and a spade stopper. Good description of my hand.

HOLES: 2NT. Keeping alive our game prospects.

HEINS: 2NT. Natural. If partner has the right hand, they can bid 4H.

HINCKLEY: 2NT. This hand looks suit-oriented, so 3H is tempting.

Bud's point is well taken by some of the other panelists. One was liked his hand enough for a heart contract that he started with a cuebid:

KEARNEY: 2S. If partner is minimum, he is likely have six hearts and I would rather play 3H than 2NT opposite that. I can still try 3NT later if partner does something more encouraging.

Others opted for the gentler raise:

STACK: 3H. This hand is worth a bid and my choice is a simple raise showing less than a limit raise but constructive. With a third trump, then I would offer a limit raise.

WALKER: 3H. I dislike the doubleton raise, but not as much as I dislike 2NT with this spade stopper. The winning call could well be a pass, but with 10 points and two aces, I think I need to give partner some type of boost.

KESSLER: 3H. We owe partner a bid, and this seems to be best of the lot.

I was taught that overcalls at the two-level show a good suit and at least a moderate hand. While 3NT could be the right contract, 3H does not preclude partner giving us a chance to get there with 3S.

5. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:   ♠AKQ   ♥AJ102   ♦AJ643   ♣5 ?

We have a great hand, but partner disappointed us by passing our opening bid. All is not lost, however, as the opponents have backed into the auction, giving us a second chance. What is our best move now?

Pass was the choice of only one panelist (Hendricks) and 15 percent of the Bridgewinners experts, but it's worth considering at this vulnerability. If partner doesn't have a decent fit for one of your suits, you have a shot at picking up +200 defending 1S, but even +100 will be fine if you can't make anything.

The rest of the panel, however, liked their chances for a good plus score on offense. A few decided to treat our hand as balanced:

RABIDEAU: 1NT. Doubling and converting a club bid to diamonds will work better on some hands but I prefer 1NT at matchpoints. Although game is unlikely, it pinpoints my overall strength thus allowing partner to make informed decisions.

STACK: 1NT. Cannot sell out with this moose. Double is a good alternative since we could have a 4H hand.

KEARNEY: 1NT. This could easily be our best spot and we won't get there unless I bid it now. 2H could push us to the 3-level with possibly no fit.

Others decided to bid what was in front of their eyes, often a good approach:

SPEAR: 2H. Best description for further competition by our side.

KESSLER: 2H. Partner could still have a bad hand with 5 hearts where game is virtually laydown.

MOSES: 2H. I will show a strong hand and see if partner can raise either suit.

And, lastly, what about eliciting more information from partner?

ROBINSON: Double. I want to keep hearts in the picture. If partner bids clubs, I'll correct to diamonds, which should show this hand.

WALKER: Double. Hoping to find a red-suit fit without getting past the 2-level. Pass or 1NT could work, too, but both give up on a possible heart contract.

BAKER: Double. If partner responds in clubs, I'll correct back to diamonds, but I'd prefer not to force partner's preference to be on the 3-level.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠84   ♥K653   ♦7   ♣AKQJ75 ?

Finally, we are faced with a typical matchpoint problem. Do we invite game, or not push and accept our plus score?

We start with those protecting their plus score:

KESSLER: Pass. Playing notrump at matchpoints generally yields a good result. Bidding seems a stretch over a passed hand.

HOLES: Pass. A matchpoint guess. I can compete in clubs if west bids again.

BAKER: Pass. I do not like our chances of having nine runners, but eight is a possibility and we'd need ten in clubs to beat that.

KEARNEY: Pass. Looking for game is too speculative, especially at matchpoints.

KAPLAN: 2C. With partner passing originally, 2C seems sufficient for my 2nd bid.

If we are going to look for game, do we treat this as a balanced hand? Making the argument to do so:

HEINS: 2NT. I have six tricks, but I need more than a minimum from pard for us to find three more.

SPEAR: 2NT. A double spade stopper will likely result in 3NT making, and also other maximums, so we must invite.

WALKER: 2NT. Unlikely we’ll take exactly 8 tricks if partner passes, but I just can’t bring myself to bid 3NT with this 12-count. Although 3C is the safer invite, I don't think partner will ever play me for a solid suit for that bid.

While we certainly have the playing strength for 3C, as Karen points out, we know that partner is going to be discouraged no matter what their club holding is. Despite that flaw, 3C is still a descriptive bid, as pointed out by:

ROBINSON: 3C. Should show good clubs and some extra values. I think this should be weaker than a 3C jump not in competition.

KNIEST: 3C. Bid where you live and let pard make the decision.

And, lastly, my good friend and pseudo-father, Larry, brings up a good point. How else do we get to 5C opposite the possible perfecta of   ♠Axx  ♥QJx   ♦xxx  ♣xxxx  ?

RABIDEAU: 2H. At the risk of chasing us out of the higher-paying contract (1NT vs 3C?), we'll try for the notrump game. Is this an IMP bid, son?

Thank you all for reading and participating in this edition, and I hope to see you at the table in the near future.

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this set. Congratulations to Mark Jones of Birmingham AL, who led all Solvers with a 580. Runners-up were Jeff Eisenberger of St. Louis MO, Micah Fogel of Aurora IL and Len Helfgott of Teaneck NJ. All are invited to join the panel for the next issue.

Because of budget constraints, publication of the newsletter has been put on hold for several months. The next issue will be March 2023. If you'd like to be notified when new problems are posted, click here to add your email to the mailing list or send a request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

New problems for March 2023 are below. Please submit your solutions by February 28 on the web form . Thanks for participating!