District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2005

by Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria

Welcome to the Nigerian Independence Day (October 1) version of the District 8 Solvers Forum. I am here in sunny, warm Abuja, in the Federal Capital Territories, right smack dab in the center of Nigeria. I know it is a path that few District 8ers have managed to tread, but hopefully I am representing us well. I would also just like to note that some of you may be confused as to when Nigerian Independence day is, and why Abuja is now the capital (or even what the old capital was), and what kind of bad luck must I have had to land in a foreign country on Thursday and break my ankle on Saturday. I will say that there are good answers to those questions, and they will come in due time. In the meantime, suffused as I am with Nigerian political issues, forgive me if I occasionally lapse into "Embassy-speak". 

1. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
1NT	100	14	66
2D	70	2	30
2C	50	0	4

West	North	East	South
			1D
Pass	1H	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  864   AQ   AQ652   1043 ?

Just like getting off the plane and trying to start a new life in Nigeria and promptly breaking your ankle playing soccer, I was equally disappointed in the responses to this first problem. We understand that the scoring system would severely penalize any attempt to get creative with a 1S or 2C call, but on the other hand, there were people who  really bid 2D with this hand. I am sure that no one could sell me on a 2D call, but I'll let them have their say and see if I'm convinced. 

Bernhard: "2D. Bid notrump with two unstopped suits or lie about my distribution. I choose to lie about one little diamond. 1NT will be the highest-scoring answer, but I wouldn't bid it at the table."

Guthrie: “2D. An attempt to avoid wrong-siding notrump. If partner passes, then 2D may be the wrong bid. But the opponents' silence increases the likelihood that partner will bid again.”

Okay, I was right; I still don’t buy it. Guthrie makes a good point about the advantages of a 2D rebid if partner can muster up another call, but that's a big gamble. Not only does 2D force you to take an extra trick with a flat hand, but you'll be playing against the whole room. Every other South will be rebidding 1NT with this hand, so even if you can get partner to declare 2NT or 3NT, you're going against the field. 

Paulo:  “1NT. This shows a balanced minimum opening bid, which is exactly what I have. Wrong-siding the contract may be awful, but any other bid is a distortion.”

Walker:  “1NT. A 1NT rebid never guarantees stoppers in all unbid suits (or in this case, any unbid suit). 1NT isn't ideal, but it's a much better description than rebidding 2D with only 5 cards (and anemic ones, at that) or an eccentric 2C.”

Hudson:  “1NT. What's the problem? Stoppers? Pshaw!”

Nelson:  “1NT. You opened this hand; now you must rebid it, and with this pattern, it should be 1NT. I certainly think it would distort the hand to rebid 2D. You still have the same losers.”

Strite:  “1NT. 2D shows six. Not with these anemic spots. How many people do we know who bid 1S on this hand?”

Kessler:  “1NT. Nothing else makes much sense. Whatever problems there are with 1NT, I believe there are more problems with any other bid.”

I kept reading the comments for 1NT and each one makes more sense than the last. It is interesting that all of these comments can be spot on, and yet they're all different. For anyone who thought about rebidding 2D with this hand, reread those answers from quality players, and then decide again if you really want to rebid 2D with a 5-card suit. If so, go back and read the answers a third time.

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3S	100	8	50
3C, 3D	90	2	6
Pass	80	6	25
4S	50	0	16

West	North	East	South
	Pass	1H	1NT
2H	2S	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  AKJ6   Q92   87   AK84 ?

Seeing as how it's Nigerian Independence Day as I am writing this, I just wanted to remind everyone that there are roughly 100 million Nigerians living on less than 1 U.S. dollar a day. That is something too staggering for me to really comprehend, and I am here on the ground, so I prefer to divert myself with ideas like bridge. 

Big "ups" to the Solvers, who showed a strong preference for the advance to the 3-level. First up are the arguments for the try for game:  

Strite:  “3S. Not quite a 4S bid. Even if partner has a stiff heart, we could easily have three minor-suit losers. Pass the baton to pard."

Bernhard: "3S. Five losers outside trumps, and I really don't think partner will cover two of them, so I'll go slow. I would have made a takeout double instead of bidding 1NT."

Jonquet: "3S. I'm not unilaterally hanging partner for competing, but he should have something. He could have both black queens, but he could also have four quick losers in the red suits."

Walker:  “3S. There's a good case for passing, since partner didn't open a non-vul 2S, but I think this hand is worth a courtesy raise. Still, I have a feeling I'm hanging him."

Feldheim:  “3D. Worth a game try, but this is a question of language. My interpretation of 3D is that it shows a useful doubleton; others show side-suit concentration and bid 3C. 3S is a 'nothing' bid."

I like the combination of what these panelists are saying, more than the exact tenor of any particular comment. STRITE has the general thrust  and FELDHEIM wisely points out that 3S surely doesn’t get enough of the point across. The key is that a good partnership will need to discuss what an advance in these sequences would usually mean. In some partnerships, a new suit bid would be treated like any other game try (i.e. what would 1S-2S-3D mean?), while other pairs would treat this like a super-accept hand in a transfer sequence  (1N-2H*-3D). Making sure that you and partner are on the same wavelength is crucial in these situations. The good news with 3D on this hand is that whatever partner believes it to be (outside of a 6-card diamond suit), that should be okay. 

The passers take a reasoned approach.

Kessler:  “Pass. Matchpoints means take your plus. Just as many hands will go down in three as will make four. Do not hang partner.

Nelson:  “Pass. I won't penalize partner for finding a bid on his cards. He doesn't have much, and my heart queen I wouldn't count. Allow partner the ability to bid."

Rabideau:  “Pass. Partner could have invited via Lebensohl but instead is asking us to pass. This is just an average hand after discounting the heart queen and spade jack." 

I like the concept of going plus at matchpoints, but I feel that this is counteracted by the fact that we know we're going to bid 3S if they compete to 3H. Since we're probably on the way to 3S anyway, it seems as though we should invite partner, just in case he really does have the magic fitter. I simply feel that the risk of going down in 3S is less than the risk of us missing a game, after taking into consideration all the hands where we'll have to bid 3S anyway. There is also the small vigorish that we receive when partner was completely busted and they can make 4H.

3. IMPs, EW vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2D	100	7	50
3D	80	4	12
2NT	70	2	20
Pass	60	3	16

West	North	East	South
	1C	Pass	1D
Pass	2C	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  J85   KQ6   KJ9862   5 ?

Transparency International ranks Nigeria as one of the three most corrupt societies in the world, and while the U.S isn’t a global leader on the anti-corruption front (ranked in the 40s), Nigeria has only one way to go. Corruption thrives because there is no free flow of information, and while bad in regards to governments, it is certainly what makes bridge the game that we know and love. 

On this hand, you certainly have something to communicate, and partner certainly has something, but where should we go with these two unknown quantities? "Meckwell" has gotten away with stealing contracts, very much like Nigeria, on these very hands for years. If we had full information on this hand -- Is partner on a maximum? Does he have a fitting diamond card? -- I could then give up writing this column and lots of people would have access to clean drinking water and anti-malarial bed netting. That isn’t the case, so here are the comments from those who choose to maintain the status quo.

Nelson:  “Pass. Without a fit, I have nothing more to say. I am not bidding 2NT just because I have a 10 count."

Jonquet: "Pass. At IMPs, stop bidding before the doubling starts."

Feldheim:  “Pass. Get out with a misfit as soon as possible. 2NT without a fit is idiotic."

I don’t buy it. The status quo is broke. We clearly have the assets to aid a partner in need. We have commodities (10 high-card points) and a shape feature that may help. I feel that leaving partner to fix his own problems is neither just nor prudent. Can we instead shove partner to where we want to go -- the promised land of equal rights, a living wage and medicine for all? Is game all that it is cracked up to be?

Rabideau:  “3D. Ugly, but I gotta make a try at IMPs. Thank you for the 98 of diamonds."

Kniest: "3D.  About right on values, and this suit can play opposite a stiff.  2NT is also right on values, but maybe it needs to be played from partner's side.  It's IMPs, so pass is not in the ballpark."

Well, it's non-vul at IMPs, so stretching to an iffy game doesn't offer that great a reward. Still, the limit jump to 3D is one ham-handed attempt to get partner to bid game. If we aren’t careful, we can push too hard in ineffective ways, and then partner can blame us for overstating our position, and not offering enough aid in either quality or quantity cards. In the end, a sustained, nurturing relationship is clearly the best way to reach everyone’s long-term goals of a Vanderbilt win.

Hudson:  “2D. Conservative, but I'm pulling in a notch because of my ratty suit and lack of fit for partner. 2NT, 2H and 3D are overbids. 2NT lacks a spade stopper and 2H is short a heart."

Kessler:  “2D. This doesn't rate to be worse than 2C, and now partner may be able to compete to 3D over the expected balance. This is very  important."

Walker:  “2D. It's close between 2D and 2NT, and at IMPs, I'd normally resolve that dilemma in favor of the game try. There's a lot to be pessimistic about with this hand, though -- no club help, no spade stopper, no aces and few (if any) entries to my picket fence of a suit. Plus, we're non-vul., which makes a stretch to game less attractive."

Guthrie:  "2D. Keeps the bidding open for welcome competition from the opponents. Any other bid is an overbid. Pass is worth consideration, but overly pessimistic." 

I like GUTHRIE's idea of trying to suck in the mad balancers. In my book, the advantage of a simple 2D response is that it lets partner know we're still there (we did not pass) and that he still has time to speak. We need to continue to build our partnership. If partner knows we won't be over-aggressive with lousy pushes to game, and that we trust him to bid again if game may be a good bet, there will be a sustained partnership growth that will be good for all involved in due course.

4. Matchpoints, both vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	8	58
3NT	90	6	24
Pass	70	1	15
3D	60	1	3

West	North	East	South
			1D
Pass	1H	Pass	2D
Pass	2NT	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  A7   J103   AQJ974   102 ?

The Solvers surprised me on this one. I would have been fairly certain that they would be split about 2 to 1 between 3NT and Pass. When I looked at this hand, I guessed that it was a slightly jumbled up companion hand to the last one (interchange the clubs and the diamonds and make partner bid diamonds instead of hearts). On that hand, people were as timid as they could be, but on this hand, they charge off to game. I guess perspective is reality. Let's start with two panelists who applied the breaks:

Feldheim:  “3D. Passing 2NT is too much like threading a needle. 3D is most descriptive."

Nelson:  “Pass. This hand could be right to accept the invite and bid 3NT, but most of my partners would just bid 3NT if they had a fit."

I think both of these arguments are much sounder than the scores that I expect at the table, but I must admit that I am starting to get a bit rusty. I do like my aces, my real suit and the fact that most of the field chose to bid on, which is why I awarded the lower scores to the retreats and passes. Do the arguments for bidding merit my scoring?  First the direct route to the notrump game, with the caveat that I'm sure to deduct points from any imbecile that repeats Hamman’s Rule.

Hudson:  “3NT. My good suit and fit with partner make up for a lack of high cards. 3H is a reasonable alternative, but it's unlikely this should play in hearts. Nine tricks is probably the limit."

Kessler:  “3NT. Very anti-percentage to pass, as the field will bid with these cards. Pass is only acceptable if you need a good board and are willing to gamble against the field."

Strite:  “3NT. Could be laydown, and it won't often be worse than 50 percent."

Kniest:  "3NT, but Pass is certainly in the ballpark at matchpoints. This could go down two or make an overtrick. I can feel that spade lead coming from RHO's hand right now. They play king and another spade, then hold up the diamond king and we're down two or three!" 

Whoo! We escaped Hamman’s Rule this time. Again, these are solid arguments. Are the minority’s arguments better?

Walker:  “3H. This is absolutely forcing and gives partner a choice of games. Partner will bid 2NT with lots of hands that have 5-card heart suits (and weak spade stoppers). If that's what he has, the two doubletons make my hand more suitable for the trump contract."

Guthrie: "3H. I would have raised to 2H immediately."

Paulo:  “3H. On the way to game, I show 3-card support."

Rabideau:  “3H. I want to be in game with this hand, so let's give partner a choice."

While “support with support” is one of the fundamental tenets of good bridge, I really can’t see the argument for it here. Your hand looks like 9 tricks in notrump, so that's where you want to play. Partner has suggested the notrump game, you don’t have a singleton and your hearts are three dead. I think a 3H bid here should show something along the lines of  x AQx KQJ10xx xxx .

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2NT	100	10	48
1NT	70	3	30
3D	60	1	2
3NT	60	1	8
2D	60	1	4
Pass	60	0	8

West	North	East	South
			1D
1S	DBL	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  KQ97   Q10   AKQ64   43 ?

This hand gets the Nigerian Independence Day Special Award. There were as many answers to this problem as there are Nigerian Independence Days, and like those holidays, only a few of the answers  have any staying power. To explain the reference, Nigeria has gone from colonial rule to military rule to civilian rule, back and forth at least five times in the last 50 years. And with every transition, a new National Day is declared. Unfortunately, for those who like the old way, or who bid poorly, there can only be one winner, and the panel has spoken.

Tafjord:  “2NT. I'd have opened 1NT."

Paulo:  “2NT. Partner shows heart and club values. With good stoppers, heart honors and a fine suit, I think this is not an overbid. As a matter of fact, at IMPs, I would bid 3NT."

Walker:  “2NT. I suppose this is another opportunity to rebid a 5-card diamond suit, which is a strategy I'll continue rejecting. With such good spade stoppers, diamonds and fillers for partner's hearts, this hand looks more like 18 pts. than 16 (or 11, which is what you might have for a 1NT or 2D rebid)."

Hudson:  “2NT. A slight stretch, hoping partner has me covered in clubs."

Nelson:  “2NT. I wish I had opened 1NT; do I underbid with 1NT now?  I don't think so. I up the value of the heart queen, and I love my fifth diamond. I hope my revaluation of this hand is correct."

If people look at my choices, I chose the option that Karen rejected and bid 3D, as I would felt that the lie that was calling AKQxx a 6 card suit was smaller than calling your hand an 18 count, on the other hand, eking out a 3D contract for 110 when notrump scores up 120 or 150 won’t look so good either. Whatever the case, I will again use my rights as a columnist to say that all these votes stink. 

Unfortunately, the remaining options don’t seem so peachy either. We had no takers on the panel for the penalty pass of 1S, but here are two other ideas:

Feiler: "2D. The choices are underbidding or overbidding. I decided on the low road to give everyone more room to bid."

Kessler:  “1NT. Again, at matchpoints, go for the plus. This is punishment for not opening 1NT. I really do not want to bid 2D -- which just as much an underbid as 1NT -- when notrump pays more."

Yuck. I guess we need to rule out all calls on this hand, until someone can come up with a decent answer. I really don’t think that opening 1NT would be the ultimate answer either. If you had opened 1NT, your LHO might have passed, as would partner if he held an 8-count. Lots of those 8-counts would give you a good play for 3NT -- especially with a spade lead -- so maybe your 1D "underbid" the first time around was a master stroke -- as long as you're willing to bid 2NT now. 

6. IMPs, EW vulnerable

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3S	100	9	24
4S	80	2	16
1S	70	1	22
Pass	60	3	32
2S	40	1	6

West	North	East	South
1C	DBL	1D	???

What is your call as South holding:  1098762   952   962   7 ?

We have come to the end, and while we don’t have very much, we are still asked to do our part, because one person can change the world. Here we start with a smattering of spades, and not much else. But at least there is potential. Partner has made promises to us, so what shall we do?  First, we have the psychic 2S call:

Rabideau:  “2S. Bridge World Standard doesn't appear to cover this situation, so I'll try 2S and hope partner has a good sense of humor if it turns out badly."

If I was your partner, it doesn’t seem likely. Since the jump should show around 9-11 playing points, 2S is clearly a psychic call. But if you're going to psych, why not go whole hog and cuebid, or get really cheeky with 1NT or 2H? Partner will then at least understand that this was a real psychic when dummy comes down.

Better strategies -- but only slightly -- are proposed by the completely meek and the almost completely meek:

Strite:  “Pass now, bid later."

Kessler:  “1S. Get the lead director in early."

If there weren't so much talent offering those last two answers, I would really skewer this choice as well. Instead, I will show the respect they are due and chalk this up to their playing experience, with only silent thoughts that they are crazy. I have long been of the mind that I should bid the full limit of my hand when I get the chance, accepting that earlier responses fall into a larger data set (i.e., if you are going to bid, do it sooner rather than later, even if sooner isn’t perfect). Now for the preempters:

Feldheim:  “3S. Preempting to the max seems correct. Anything less is super-chicken."

Nelson:  “3S. Get it over with. I play this is totally preemptive, with no values except length in my suit. I plan on buying the contract with my bid."

Kniest: "3S. This is a textbook Law-of-Total-Tricks bid, non-vul and with at least a 9-card fit. If partner raises, my hand won't be a disappointment, and I may have paved the way for a possible sacrifice. I don't have enough to bid 4S on my own (100-300-500-800 now, remember?). "

Walker:  “3S. A double-jump is a preempt, and partner shouldn't raise unless he has the world's fair. I'd like to have a queen somewhere, but I have pretty much the textbook distribution for this bid."

Feiler: "3S. I might bid more if I had a high-card point." 

Karen would like to have a queen for her 3S bid; Kent would require only a jack to bid on to 4S. High standards. Still, both think this hand qualifies for the 3-level preempt. That brings us to the super-preempters:

Hudson:  “4S. If partner has a normal takeout double, the opponents have a lot of clubs. An advance sacrifice is indicated. If partner has a square 19-count, I've done wrong, but that is less likely."

Guthrie: "4S. This should give the opponents the last guess. I hope partner understands this. With the boss suit and a good hand, I would start by cuebidding one of their suits. Otherwise, I may have given partner the dreaded last guess."

While either 3S or 4S could be right at the table, I feel the pros outweigh the cons for 3S. For one, we won't miss a game. As our panel points out, 3S is the "standard" or "book" bid with this hand, so partner will know what you have, and if 4S is right, he'll bid it. You also have a second way to win, in that 3S may steal the contract one level lower, before they've found their best fit. The "con" for 3S -- that giving the opponents an  extra level may allow them just enough room to support at the 4-level -- is certainly a risk not to be taken lightly.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and to our guest panelists, Doug Jonquet, Bob Bernhard and Oyvind Tafjord. Congratulations to Gary Dell and Eric Kaye, who led all Solvers. They're invited to join the December panel. 

The six new problems are below. Please submit your solutions by November 22 on the web form or by email to our December moderator: 

    Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com
  

How the Panel voted   (Panel/Staff Avg. -- 534):	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Bob Bernhard, New Smyrna Beach FL	2D	3S	2NT	3H	2NT	3S	540
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	1NT	3S	2NT	3H	2D	3S	530
Harold Feldheim, Hamden CT	1NT	3D	Pass	3D	2NT	3S	510
Nigel Guthrie, Reading UK	2D	3S	2D	3H	3NT	4S	510
Jim Hudson, DeKalb IL	1NT	Pass	2D	3NT	2NT	4S	510
Doug Jonquet, Decatur IL	1NT	3S	Pass	3H	1NT	Pass	490
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	1NT	Pass	2D	3NT	1NT	1S	510
Larry Matheny, Loveland CO	1NT	Pass	2D	3H	2NT	Pass	560
Bev Nelson, Fort Myers FL	1NT	Pass	Pass	Pass	2NT	3S	510
Manuel Paulo, Lisbon, Portugal	1NT	3S	2D	3H	2NT	3S	600
Larry Rabideau, St. Anne IL	1NT	Pass	3D	3H	2NT	2S	500
Oyvind Tafjord, Eugene OR	1NT	3S	3D	3NT	2NT	3S	570
Toby Strite, San Jose CA	1NT	3S	2D	3NT	2NT	Pass	550
How the Staff voted
Tom Kniest, University City MO	1NT	3S	3D	3NT	1NT	3S	540
Scott Merritt, Abuja, Nigeria	1NT	Pass	3D	3NT	3D	3S	510
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	1NT	3S	2D	3H	2NT	3S	600

    Solvers Honor Roll  (Average Solver score: 505)

Gary Dell, Champaign IL	580	Steve Babin, Normal IL	540
Eric Kaye, Sarasota FL	570	Mike Giacaman, St. Louis MO	540
Greg Berry, Sleepy Hollow IL	560	Dave Wetzel, Rantoul IL	540
Bud Hinckley, South Bend IN	560	Zoran Bohacek, Zagreb, Croatia	530
Jim Feinstein, South Bend IN	550	Jody Castillo, Warsaw IN	530
Arbha Vongsvivut, Godfrey IL	550	Terry Goodykoontz, Champaign IL	530

Solvers Forum -- December 2005 Problems