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 call.
1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
|
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% BWinners |
% Solvers |
| Double | 100 | 9 | 51 | 36 |
| Pass | 80 | 4 | 48 | 48 |
| 2H | 60 | 1 | 2 | 16 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 1D | 1H | 1S | Pass |
| 1NT | Pass | Pass | ??? |
What is your call as South holding: ♠KJ865 ♥106 ♦753 ♣AQ9 ?
Some panelists said they would have bid 1NT at their first turn. Most, however, were pretty happy with how the auction developed after their pass.
HOLES: Double. It's matchpoints. I wanted to play 1NT. Instead, I'll defend it doubled.
WARD: Double. I would have bid the last round, but, barring that, even if partner shaded some, I definitely like our chances on a spade lead.
This panelist even claimed that this was his plan all along:
SPEAR: Double. I passed 1S instead of bidding 1NT hoping for this continuation, and now I am hoping a spade lead will get us +200.
The passers weren't as optimistic about their chances on defense:
MAYNE: Pass. I really waffled on this one. Partner leading their stiff spade might be right or wrong; probably on the net, it gains, making the double more attractive. But partner's unlikely to be able to lead a second spade when in. I'm ready to put on my chicken suit and take my 55% board.
BAKER: Pass. Tempting to double for a spade lead, but I don't know that we're going to set it, and if partner's hearts are good enough that they want to lead them despite me not supporting them, they may be right.
HINCKLEY: Pass. Very close to a penalty double implying a strong spade holding behind dummy. If a top is needed near the end of an event, doubling for a spade lead makes sense.
The one point that everyone agreed on is that the double is for penalty. No matter how many types of low-level doubles you define as "takeout-ish" or "Do Something Intelligent", this isn't one of them. You can't possibly have a hand that would pass at your first turn but have the strength and distribution to suggest declaring now. The only logical explanation for coming to life with this belated double is that you have decent strength and well-positioned cards for defense. That means you have spade honors.
JONES: Double. For his vulnerable overall, pard has a good hand or at least a good suit. Things lay poorly for declarer. The double might inspire a spade lead, too.
Most of the doublers believed that their call virtually demanded a spade lead.
KNIEST: Double. I think it's clear what this means.
ROBINSON: Double. Our best chance to defeat 1NT is for partner to lead a spade and for me to lead hearts through declarer.
It's the old "up and back" defense. Even if you don't win an early spade trick, your double will keep partner from leading into declarer's heart tenace. Your clubs give you other chances to get on lead and push hearts through declarer.
2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable
|
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% BWinners |
% Solvers |
| 2S | 100 | 10 | 37 | 26 |
| Pass | 60 | 2 | 35 | 34 |
| 1S | 60 | 1 | 18 | 30 |
| 4S | 60 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 3S | 40 | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| ??? |
What is your call as South holding: ♠A109654 ♥4 ♦K97642 ♣Void ?
Of all the possible ways to violate partnership trust, the second-worst is probably the rebiddable preempt -- or so we're all told. (See Problem 6 for the #1 bridge sin.)
The widely accepted guideline for preempts is that we should "get in and get out" by bidding the full limit of the hand, then staying out of the auction unless partner forces you to bid. It's sound advice, so you might be surprised to see how many experts were willing to break that rule.
BAKER: 2S. And I'll bid some number of diamonds later. But getting the first shot in seems important.
HINCKLEY: 2S. Planning on a diamond bid next to show 6-5 shape.
HOLES: 2S. And I’ll bid the diamonds later. I have admiration for those who open 1S, but I think the preempt followed by another call will better describe my hand.
STACK: 2S. What a freak! I believe this hand must be opened and 1S has little appeal. Our next bid will be diamonds at whatever level.
They all have pretty much the same plan -- start with an eccentric weak two-bid, then charge back into the auction to show the weak diamond suit. It sounds a bit reckless, but are the alternatives any saner or better?
Two panelists and more than a third of the Solvers and Bridgewinners voters chose to wait and see:
JONES: Pass. Lay in the weeds. We have all sorts of conventions for showing a two-suiter later.
MAYNE: Pass. This is an easy pass in second seat, and an easy 3S bid in third; in first it's a puzzle. It's not my style to bid 2S on hands this strong, but all the other numbers of spades seem reasonable. Still, I'll try to see if we can get it right without getting the first punch in.
Depending on how the auction goes, passing and bidding later could be a successful strategy. You'll have more information on which to base your decision, but so will the opponents, so you've lessened the preemptive value of your action.
There were also a number of votes for a 1S opener. As some Solvers pointed out, a one-bid can sometimes be as obstructive as a preempt. The danger is that you'll mislead partner more than you do the opponents, as this hand doesn't even qualify as a Rule of 20 opener.
Here's another approach that puts maximum pressure on the opponents and may be a big score if partner has a fit:
ROBINSON: 4S. I don't want to pass and no other spade bid describes this hand.
There is seldom a clear-cut "right" call when you hold a freak hand, so almost anything could work. In general, though, the panel's view was that when you hold a weak hand with a long major, it's best to get into the auction early, even if your bid isn't a perfect description.
Here, 1S, 2S and 4S are all decent possibilities. 4S offers a potentially big reward if partner has spades; if he doesn't, 1S and 2S leave you room to find a diamond fit. 3S is the only spade opening that doesn't seem to have a clear upside, as it uses up a lot of space and is wrong on suit length and strength.
3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable
|
Action |
Score |
Votes |
% BWinners |
% Solvers |
| 3NT | 100 | 10 | 61 | 46 |
| 4H | 70 | 4 | 25 | 32 |
| 4C | 50 | 0 | 9 | 6 |
| 4D | 50 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 5D | 30 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 5NT | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 4NT | 20 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 5H | 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 1D | |||
| Pass | 1H | Pass | 3D |
| Pass | 3S | Pass | ??? |
What is your call as South holding: ♠8
♥J74 ♦AQJ10862
♣AK ?
This panelist zeros in on one of the main issues: MAYNE: 3NT. This is really a question about 3S. Could
this be ♠Axx
♥K9xx ♦Kxxx ♣xx ? Or does partner have to have real hearts? The panel made several assumptions and guesses about the 3S bid. Some thought
it was a type of checkback, showing five hearts and asking for 3-card support. KNIEST: 4H. Match points. Go plus. STACK: 4H. Support with support, although 3NT is tempting. We may have only
one spade stopper. The issue here is that if partner really has five hearts, he could have bid
3H (forcing in this auction) instead of 3S. Does his 3S bid deny five hearts -- or
is he trying to show a 4-card spade suit, too? And if so, why? As these panelists point out,
maybe it doesn't matter. ROBINSON: 3NT. Partner's 3S bid could be ♠KQxx
♥KQxx ♦xx ♣xxx
. Even if partner has five hearts, 4H would not be easy to declare. WARD: 3NT. Partner does not guarantee nine major-suit cards, and even if they
do have that many, 3NT still looks better. Or could partner have slam-going values and intend his 3S as an advance
control bid? HINCKLEY: 3NT. Easier at matchpoints. There are many
good responder hands with 10 to 11 high-card points where slam has no chance (e.g., ♠AQxx
♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx). Other panelists thought 3S was a search for notrump, showing values in spades
but not clubs. BAKER: 3NT. I've got clubs stopped. When you're looking for 3NT and there are two potentially unstopped suits,
it's standard to bid the suit where you have a stopper. This asks partner for a
stopper in the other suit. This panelist explains
why that doesn't work here: SPEAR: 4H. With the bidding at 3D or 3H, bidding stoppers in spades and clubs
fails because 4C goes past 3NT. (One possible solution would be to play
3NT shows a spade stopper while 3S asks for one.) If you had opened 1C and rebid 3C, there's room below 3NT for partner to bid either of
the unbid suits (3D or 3S) to show a stopper and ask you for a stopper
in the other suit. When your last bid is 3D, though, you can't assume that
partner's 3S shows a stopper because he has no way to tell you he doesn't have
one. All
you can deduce about 3S is that partner probably doesn't have stoppers in both
unbid suits (if he did, he would have bid 3NT). I like Spear's suggestion for notrump searches in this and similar auctions.
When you don't have room at the 3-level to show and ask about stoppers in both
unbid suits, agree to focus just on the unbid major (here, partner's 3S would
ask for a stopper). This solves only half your problem, but that's better than
no agreement at all. The rest of the panel seemed to assume that partner had something in spades.
All roads led to: JONES: 3NT. Sounds like 3NT has a good chance if partner
passes. Or if partner bids on, we can reassess. RABIDEAU: 3NT. Good problem. I'll employ the Hamman
Rule. HOLES: 3NT. What else is there to say? Will this be
unanimous? I'm a 3NT bidder, although I'm not as confident about it as others. There's
some reason partner didn't bid 3NT, but without an agreement about 3S, we don't
know what the problem is. We'll soon find out.
4. IMPs, NS vulnerable
Action
Score
Votes
%
Solvers What is your call as South holding:
♠AJ9 ♥J103
♦954 ♣A642
?
Vulnerable at IMPs, the majority of the panel couldn't bear to pass and miss
a possible game. This is a pretty good 10-count opposite a red takeout double,
especially since the auction tells you partner surely has a singleton or void in
clubs. The problem is you're also fairly certain that you don't have an 8-card fit. The
panel didn't let that stop them: HOLES: Double. Too many values to pass. ROBINSON: Double. I don't want to pass, so I'll let partner play in a 4-3
major suit fit. On good days, he has five hearts. I don't think 2NT will play
well. Two of a major making two scores better than beating 2C two tricks if I
can. STACK: Double. We want to compete, so making a responsive double to compete
in a 4-3 fit is an option that is probably viable. HINCKLEY: Double. The tougher problem might be what to on the
next call. 2NT looks like a recipe for minus 200, losing four clubs and three
others. Here's another reason to compete: JONES: Double. We want pard to bid his best suit, probably
just to push East-West to the 3-level. These comments bring up another question: Are you competing just to find a
partscore or because you don't want to miss a red game? If it's the latter, then you
probably need to bid again over partner's reply to your double -- or you need to
make a clear invitation now: WARD: 2NT. Have to show values, especially at these colors. The rest of the panel, including me, took the low road. Although you might
make 2H or 2S on power, with no ruffing value, they thought this was the wrong
hand for playing in a 7-card trump fit. SPEAR: Pass. Double may lead to an undesirable 4-3 fit
for our side, and we have only a single club stop for notrump. MAYNE: Pass. This just isn't strong enough to bid
notrump, and fishing for our 4-3 fit doesn't sound like fun. If partner takes
any action, we'll be further up than we are now, and if not, we don't have to be
wrong here. BAKER: Pass. None of my options feel great. In notrump, we
probably have to run nine off the top to make game since I have no prayer of a
second club stopper. Doubling is likely to land in a Moysian with the ruffs on
the wrong side. But if we do have a game, passing will be a disaster.
5. IMPs, NS vulnerable
Action
Score
Votes
%
Solvers What is your call as South holding:
♠AJ94 ♥Q
♦AKJ843 ♣62
?
This is another dilemma where the vulnerability may well affect your choice.
Five panelists and clear majorities of the Solvers and Bridgewinners experts
turned in votes for: KNIEST: 3S. Back to pard. BAKER: 3S. Seems obvious, with extra values and a
four-card major to bid. What am I missing? You're showing something extra with the freebid of 3S, but is that enough?
The scent of a red game drew the plurality of the panel to the 4-level: HOLES: 4S. Only slightly pushy. Vulnerable at IMPs, give
partner the choice of games. STACK: 4S. Bidding what may be a pushy game at IMPs.
This hand has great playing strength. MAYNE: 4S. I decline to bid 4C with the small doubleton
and 3S is woefully insufficient. It's always hazardous to predict bidding
contest results, but I think you'll have a full majority for this. SPEAR: 4C. Vulnerable at IMPs I want to bid more than a
non-forcing 3S. HINCKLEY: Double. Another responsive-type double. Responder does not promise both majors. As Hinckley points out, partner may have only one 4-card major for a 2-level
negative double. If he has hearts but not spades, your 4S bid will force him to
retreat to 5D. That's an argument for the cautious 3S, as the small doubleton is
the worst possible holding in clubs and does not bode well for a 5-level
contract. These panelists, however, were not overly concerned about that possibility: ROBINSON: 4S. 4S has play opposite ♠Kxxx
and out -- and partner should have more. If partner has hearts and clubs, I'll
play in 5D. JONES: 4S. We pretty much need just a couple cover cards
in partner's hand to have a shot at 4S. If he somehow doesn't have four spades, we
can bail into 5D. WARD: 4S. Not enough to cuebid, way too much to bid only 3S. If partner corrects to 5D, it is not the end of the world.
6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
Action
Score
Votes
%
Solvers What is your call as South holding:
♠AJ42 ♥103
♦AQ654 ♣J6
?
% BWinners
DBL
100
8
60
56
Pass
80
4
32
22
2NT
60
2
9
20
West
North
East
South
1C
Double
2C
???
% BWinners
4S
100
7
27
40
3S
90
5
69
50
DBL
70
1
0
2
4C
70
1
2
2
3D
50
0
2
0
West
North
East
South
1D
2C
Double
3C
???
% BWinners
2S
100
10
95
74
3D
70
2
3
12
3H
60
1
0
2
Pass
50
1
0
12
2NT
40
0
2
0
West
North
East
South
1D
2C
2H
Pass
???
I and a small number of other panelists and readers obviously found this problem more challenging than everyone else. The panel seems to believe that 2S does not show extra values and, as suggested by some of the comments, that it doesn't even promise four spades.
BAKER: 2S. Process of elimination: can't pass, can't raise partner, can't rebid notrump, can't rebid my own suit, and don't have the strength to cue.
HINCKLEY: 2S. This seems too obvious. I wonder what I am missing.
SPEAR: 2S. This one is easy, although an 8-card spade fit is unlikely.
ROBINSON: 2S. Why not show my four spades? Later I'll support hearts and show two of them.
JONES: 2S. It's the cheapest bid and we actually hold the suit.
MAYNE: 2S. We're forced, this doesn't show extras, and we give partner a chance to help us out some more. At the end of a set with some very tough problems, this one seems to ease off a bit.
HOLES: 2S. Partner has forced me to bid. The cheapest call I can make is 2S. Conveniently, I have four of them. (*Checks calendar to see if it's April 1st.) WTP?
I play 2S here as a reverse rebid that shows extra values -- not necessarily as strong as it would be if my LHO had passed and partner had responded at the one-level (1D-1NT-2S, for example), but certainly more than a 12-count. From the panel's WTP (What's the Problem?) tone, one might think I was delusional, but I'm not alone.
WARD (and RABIDEAU): 3D. Kind of stuck. If my hearts and clubs were reversed, I'd probably raise to 3H.
I could be convinced that it's best to play that 2S here does not show more than a minimum opener. What I'm hesitant to accept is that this is so widely played that it's considered the standard meaning -- and that your fictional Forum partner will share that view. It's difficult to determine how Bridge World Standard plays opener's 2S bid in this auction, but I doubt that it defines the cheapest bid as saying nothing about overall strength or length in the suit.
In Problem 2, the panel was willing to break what I called the second-worst violation of partnership trust. You may have already guessed that the #1 Sin is passing a forcing bid. I suspect that more than one panelist actually considered that -- at least briefly, although maybe not really seriously -- with this hand. Only one actually did it:
KNIEST: Pass. Sins are more forgivable at matchpoints.
♠ New problems for June 2024 ♠ Panelist votes & March 2024 scores
Thanks to all of the panelists and readers who participated in this set of problems. Three readers led all Solvers with perfect 600s -- Doug Jonquet of Decatur IL, Mark Leonard of Long Beach CA and John McAllister of Charlottesville VA. All three are invited to join the panel for the next issue, which will be in June 2024.
Problems for the June issue are below. Please submit your solutions on the web form by May 31. The June issue will be online around June 8.
If you'd like to receive notices when new problems are posted, click here to join the Forum mailing list or send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .
Thanks for participating!
Solvers Forum -- June 2024 Problems | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Matchpoints, none vulnerable
What is your call as South holding: 2. IMPs, EW vulnerable
* (Forcing NT) What is
your call as South holding:
3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable What is your call as South holding: |
4. IMPs, NS vulnerable
What is your call as South holding: 5. IMPs, both vulnerable
What is your call as South holding: 6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable
* (Negative double. Does not What is your call as South holding: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||