District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2008

    by Scott Merritt, Gaborone, Botswana

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4NT	100	4	13
3C	80	5	31
DBL	80	4	17
3D	70	2	10
3S	60	0	6
Pass	50	1	12
4S	50	0	4
3NT	40	0	8
4D	40	0	2

1.  IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
		Pass	Pass
1S	DBL	2NT*	???

         * (limit raise in spades)

What is your call as South holding:  Void   Q74   87642   A10972 ?

Hello to everyone from sunny Gaborone, Botswana. It’s the capital city of the world’s fastest growing economy, if you define “world’s fastest growing economy” in terms of greatest percent increase in per capita GDP since 1966. I am beginning a three-year tour down here and am really looking forward to getting involved in the bridge scene here and seeing what it is like to be immersed in the ACOL bidding system. For my next column, I promise to get some of these crazy Batswana (a person from Botswana) bridge players to inject some four-card major hijinks into the column.

As for now, I have jumped out of the gate and used the power of the pen to override this column's only scoring “rule”: granting the top score to the most popular call among the panel. I just unfairly adjudicated the score for 3C on this problem. Here’s what those bidders said in their defense.

Kniest:  “3C. R vs R. Hope I get to bid again. Raise 3H to 4H. If 3S-P-P to me, then 3NT to bring diamonds into the picture. If pard bids 3D, then Q 3S and correct 3NT to 4D.”

I couldn’t understand the shorthand, or the logic. You will certainly get a chance to bid again. It is just not going to be with help from partner, as the opponents will have bid 3S or 4S, and it will be back on you without any of that alphabet soup coming to pass.

Lambert:  “3C.  East-West apparently have a massive spade fit, and partner has a balanced opener (2-4-4-3 or similar). I intend to bid 4NT for the minors if EW bid the likely 4S, but I'm hoping they settle in 3S.”

I'm not a fan of this approach, either. If you bid 3C now and then later make a takeout 4NT bid, there will be no way for partner to play you as 5-5. While it may not hurt that partner doesn’t know your shape, I am hard pressed to understand how the lead-directing value of 3C overcomes the much more natural choices of Double and 4NT.

Emmes:  “Double. Should convey message that I don't have 4 hearts and can support other suits.”

Walker:  “Double. This should talk partner into bidding a minor, as I would have bid hearts if I held 4.”

I wanted to give double full points, as that was my choice upon first looking at this problem. After reading all the comments, though, it became clear that double doesn’t answer the question of what to do next. It has neither the lead-directing advantage of 3C nor the “stick-it-to-em”ness of 4NT. And while you have technically shown your hand, what will you do if any number of spades comes back to you? Could you resist describing your hand yet again?  If you choose to bid again over their 4S, then why not simply get your hand off your chest the first time?

Spear:  “4NT. I hope someone on their side misjudges, and hope someone on our side hasn't already misjudged.”

Feiler:  “4NT. I like to create situations where everything is hanging by a thread and no one knows what to do. It's always fun and often profitable.”

Strite:  “4NT. Partner's next chance to bid will be at the five level anyway, and I'll willing to push to 5minor as a two-way bet at IMPs, so no need to dally.”

Maybe I like to hear myself bid at high levels too much, but to me, these panelists seem to be expressing the right sentiment. I know that this would be a hand where I would take out some insurance at the 5-level against a spade game, so why not do it now?  Finally, there were the people who neither showed both minors nor made the lead-directing 3C call.

Kessler:  “3D.  The plan is to bid 5C over 3S or 4S, unless partner introduces hearts, in which case we’ll support hearts.”

Bridge Baron:  “3D.  Bridge Baron bids the higher-ranking five-card suit in an attempt to take up the opponents' bidding space, despite the difference in suit quality. With  Void, Q74, 87642, QT972, Baron would just pass.”

If blocking the opponents from the valuable bidding real estate is top priority – with lead-direction not on the list -- it seems the box is playing on a higher level than I am.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2H	100	8	31
4H	90	4	12
1H	80	4	54
Pass	70	0	2
3H	50	0	2

2.  IMPs, both vulnerable                                  

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  Void   AK10852   A3   J9762 ?

Whatever happened to Pearson Points (the "rule" that you open in fourth seat only if your high-card points and number of spades total at least 15)?  We couldn’t get a single panelist to pass this hand, even though we only have 12 points and no spades. Half of the panel went with the fourth-seat preempt.

Bridge Baron:  “2H. A textbook fourth-seat weak two, although with just enough suit quality and just weak enough of a hand -- with  Void, AK9852, A3, J9762 or  Void, AKT852, A3, Q9762,  Bridge Baron would open 1H instead.”

Again, the box is on a different level than me. While I notice the difference between the heart 9 and 10  (same with queen vs. jack of clubs), I am surely not sophisticated enough to let that one pip affect my call on a 6-5 playing hand.

Lambert:  “2H.  I'm hoping this bid will shut out the opponents' likely spades. Even not, I can bid clubs later to suggest my hand type and strength. Or maybe I will regret bidding in the first place.”

Feiler:  “2H.  This is about right for a fourth-seat weak-two. It's unlikely to be passed out. I'll bid clubs next.”

I think these two guys got it spot on. If we open, we are surely bringing in the risk of the opponents going positive in spades, but you simply can’t pass this hand. On the other hand, 2H limits your hand and expresses your shape nicely, after bidding clubs on the next go-around.

The 1H bidders thought that normal opening methods should suffice.

Spear:  “1H.  Straight down the middle bidding for me. Way behind in the match, I would try 4H.”

Paulo:  “1H.  With only five losers, my hand is strong enough to open -- despite the fact that it doesn't respect the rule of Pearson -- and looks too good for any preemptive maneuver.”

Strite:  “1H.  Too good for a weak two-bid.”

I don’t doubt that this hand is good enough to open at the one level. I simply feel that 2H is more descriptive, and more likely to leave partner in the best spot to make a decision as to how to proceed, whenever he is called upon to take the last action. At the other end of the spectrum from the plain old normal bidders, are the gamblers.

Emmes:  “4H.  I’m going to put pressure on opponents to find the spades on the 4-level, and I have a nice playing hand.”

Walker:  “4H. I'd like to open 1H and have an intelligent exchange of information, but I just don't see that happening. 4H should silence the opponents, has a good chance to make and is unlikely to be doubled if it's wrong. No matter what your agreements about having 'good' preempts in fourth seat, partner will never expect a five-loser hand -- especially one with three quick tricks -- for a fourth-seat 2H or 3H.”

Kniest:  “4H.  I don't want to hear spades from anyone. Difficult hand to bid and the spade void suggests the auction won't be slow and easy.”

I’m just not buying what these guys are selling. I'm all for applying maximum pressure, but this just doesn’t seem the hand for me. I don’t know what the BWS position on fourth-seat two-bids, but I would call this a prototypical example of an intermediate two-bid. I have never seen fourth-seat two-bids as preempts, but instead as useful descriptive bids, when the natural meaning doesn’t make much sense.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2H	100	8	38
DBL	80	8	52
3H	60	0	2
3D	50	0	8
4D	40	0	2

3.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable          

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

      * (intermediate jump overcall)

What is your call as South holding:  Q8653   AQ8652   3   4 ?

The panel is split right down the middle on this one and, again, I had to use my awesome power to separate the perfect score from something else. This time, my deciding factor was that 2H leaves you in a better position for a rebid, which was along the same lines as in problem 2. The panel came up with other thoughts.

Kniest:  “Double. Suggests both suits; then bid 3H over anything but a major.”

Spear:  “Double. I will bid three hearts over three clubs or two notrump by pard or over 3 diamonds by opps--My pards never bid a major.”

Lambert:  “Double. I don't like this bid one single bit, but I also don't like giving up on spades with a 2H overcall. I'll bid hearts at my next turn and hope for the best.”

Feiler:  “Double. With 6-5 instead of 5-6 I'd bid 2S.”

Strite:  “Double. I'm mighty glad to hear about those near-solid diamonds on my right. Partner's tickets are working, so let's start figuring out which major to play.”

The problem with doubling is that doubling and bidding hearts shows exactly hearts, not both majors or as much playing strength as you have. To get partner to understand that you have 2 suits, you need to bid a suit.

Emmes:  “2H.  A negative double just doesn't do this hand justice.”

Bridge Baron:  “2H.  Bridge Baron did notice that it finally had some spades in its hand, but it bids its longer suit here. It's planning to bid spades next round, then, if partner bids no trump, it will rebid hearts.”

Walker:  “2H.  Partner may expect a bit more for this freebid, but I can't bring myself to make a negative double with this distribution. In close cases, it's usually right to show your long suit.”

Kessler:  “2H.  I'm a believer in bidding out my shape as partner rates to fit one of my suits. Those who make a negative double deserve to have it left in.”

Mr. Kessler makes a good point, and I'm told that this is exactly what happened when this hand was played in "real life".  South made a negative double, North passed, and the only ones who liked either call were East-West. While partner may expect more for 2H, this is all he’s getting. Come to think of it, he'll probably be dummy, so his job is to shut up and pull cards. With two suits and something resembling a freebid, you just need to start bidding.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4C	100	8	25
DBL	90	4	19
5D	80	1	19
4D	60	0	17
4NT	70	3	4
3D	60	0	17

4.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable                            

West	North	East	South
2C*	DBL	3C	???

         * (6+ clubs, 6-10 pts.)

What is your call as South holding:  K94   K86   AK9854   3 ?

I am beginning to think that in my old age, I have forgotten what the meaning of a responsive double is. Maybe I am naïve or old fashioned, but I thought that it said that I had the values to compete, but not a major to bid after your takeout double. I am looking at this hand, and trying to figure out why that is not the 100% bid, except for some of those really, really old people who would just slam into 5D. Here are the normal bidder’s comments:

Bridge Baron:  “5D.  Bridge Baron makes what it sees as a practical bid playing against a system with defenses that it treats as ‘undiscussed’.”

Strite:  “Double. We're fixed by this non-standard weak two-bid. I'm prepared to settle for 3NT or 4 of a major at matchpoints with no flexible way to introduce a strong diamond hand.”

Lambert:  “Double. I'll raise any suit partner bids next to game (except clubs, over which I'll bid 5D).”

Feiler:  “Double. I'll go for the major suit game, even if it's a 4-3.”

All of the “normal” bidders had me until Mr. Feiler spoke up and mentioned the Moysian major-suit game. The whole point of doubling is to express doubt about a major. If partner then bids one anyway, your raise to game is simple.

All of the “normal” bidders had me until Mr. Feiler spoke up and mentioned the Moysian major-suit game. The whole point of doubling is to express doubt about a major. If partner then bids one anyway, your raise to game is simple.

Now we get to the other bidders, who seem to be split between investigating slam, pushing all the way to a slam and dropping partner in a major-suit game. While I feel that any of these could be right, I am missing the subtlety of why they did not choose a responsive double.

Walker:  “4C.  Matchpoint madness. I have a great dummy for playing in a 4-3 fit, and the cuebid should land us in our stronger major.”

I agree that this is a bit of madness, and while I understand the reasoning, I don’t understand why 4C is superior to starting with a double. I would have no problem leaving partner in 3NT if he bids it. Other 4C bidders had a different follow-up strategy in mind:

Kniest:  “4C, then correct 4H or 4S to 5D. This has to be a lot stronger than an initial leap to 5D.”

Kessler:  “4C.  I play 5D over 4 of a major or 5C as a slam try and stronger than an initial 4D bid.”

While I really like the sentiment, what is wrong with a 4D call?  If you cuebid and partner bids a major, are you certain that partner will take your 5D as natural? You did, after all, start the cuebidding yourself, so why wouldn't partner take 5D as a cuebid for the major he just chose? If you have visions of slam, the least-confusing bid is probably:

Spear:  “4NT. I play 4NT as Blackwood here. If it isn't, then I'll bid 6D directly. This hand is too strong to invite. If I bid 4C first, pard will bid 4 of a major, and our trump suit may not be clear.”

Emmes:  “4NT. If I bid 4C and partner bids a major, where am I going? I will find out the number of aces while I have a chance.”

The problem with this strategy is that I am really not that excited about this hand. While you are certainly forced to guess, only in the best of scenarios will you be playing on a 34-point deck (no worries about the KQJ of clubs). I don’t know if this hand is good enough to rate that serious of a push.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
5C	100	6	31
Pass	80	6	62
DBL	70	3	10
4NT	50	1	0

5.  IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
1H	2C	Pass	2S
3D	4C	4H	???

What is your call as South holding:  KJ954   742   A73   85 ?

We’ll start with the lone psychic bid of the group:

Baron:  “4NT. Bridge Baron is planning to sacrifice in 6C,  but is intentionally muddying the waters on the way there by bidding Blackwood.”

Who would have thought that bridge software could be programmed to try to job its opponents? How far we've come.

Maybe I don’t understand what a sacrifice is, but if my partner makes a freebid at the 4-level, after I have made a freebid at the 2-level -- not to mention the fact that both of these were vulnerable calls -- I am not thinking about sacrificing at the 6-level! 

On the one hand, I am impressed by the creativity of the box. On the other hand, I can’t agree with any part of the Baron’s logic. You blow by 5C (the odds of partner having just one keycard seem slim) in the hopes of confusing the opponents (who probably don’t intend to bid at the 5-level anyway) into not doubling you, even though you are monstrously too high. While psyching is turning the aggression level up to 11, pulling out the wood is merely an 8.

Kniest:  “Double.  East didn't raise hearts weakly or preemptively, but now he can bid a game, so he must have a diamond fit and his pattern suggests West has a black-suit void. Still, partner didn’t preempt, and I have a trick and a half in suits that he doesn't fit, so I'll double. I have a hard time visualizing a hand that can make 5C on this auction, although there are some that would be a good sacrifice.”

Lambert:  “Double. I'm thinking 4H has around a 25% chance here, but since I stretched for that 2S bid, partner might take a bad action if I pass 4H. 5C is obviously down if he has something decent like Qx, xx, Kx, AKQxxxx, where 4H also goes down (maybe 2). Double looks to be the odds-on bid.”

I worry that double here is shooting at a small target. For double to be correct, no game must be on, and looking at your cards and the bidding, I think that is a big proposition. I think that Mr. Kniest is reading the bidding appropriately, but I just can’t end up where he did. The good news is that he had the strength of his convictions to pull out the hammer. The softies who went quietly by passing could use a shot of adrenaline.

Feiler:  “Pass.  No one's shy at this table. Since partner still has a bid, I can hope he has some idea what to do, but probably not.”

Spear:  “Pass.  I don't have a bid coming here, although I am afraid they may be making 4H with 5C either a make or good save. Maybe pard will do something if I pass smoothly.”

Strite:  “Pass.  East's bidding is odd -- maybe a weak hand with 3-card heart support that improved opposite 3D. I have about what partner should expect, so your call, pard.”

All three of these guys are better players than I am, but they all bring up partner’s ability to act, as if it means something. Maybe I missed the bidding, but it looks to me like partner came into a non-fitting, live auction at the 4-level. He's pretty much shown everything he has, so if you want him to do something else, I am curious what that something else would be. I can’t help but think that partner has suggested that you do something, if at all possible, and with your hand, 5C is certainly possible. You have two itty-bitty clubs and good-looking honor structure, even if it is a bit paltry. I think that you have to bid.

Kessler:  “5C.  This could easily be a double game swing. Taking out insurance at IMPs has always served me well.”

Emmes:  “5C.  I’m going to stick with partner. He has bid his club suit on the 4-level when he had a chance to pass.”

Walker:  “5C.  Partner should have a big playing hand for this auction, especially at this vulnerability. I don't think 4H is making, but it can't possibly be going down more than our game is worth.”

In these hands, I like to trust everyone at the table to be sane. Partner has bid at the 4-level and the opponents have bid a game. Either side may be wrong, but they almost certainly have a reason for the actions they took. I think that bidding anything other than 5C on this hand is playing somebody for a fool, and I don’t see why we have any reason to believe that.

My editor tells me that partner held  A2  63  2  AQJ97643. 4H was going down one or two (depending on whether you score one or two diamond ruffs), but 5C makes with the club king onside.

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
DBL	100	6	33
5H	80	5	37
5S	80	4	31
Pass	60	1	2

6. Board-a-match, none vulnerable

West	North	East	South
	4S	Pass	Pass
5C	Pass	Pass	???

What is your call as South holding:  K10   AQJ10862   10   K97 ?

Every time we have a Board-a-Match problem, the editor sneaks it in at the end, so that everyone has free reign to lose his mind and double anything that moves. For all of you solvers out there, this means that any future hand that is BAM scoring, you are a heavy favorite to get all the points if you ignore everything else and double. While the “flexible” double usually scores high regardless of the hand, following  the typical BAM thinking -- “it’s moving, so I’ll bring down the hammer” – will score at least 13.2456 points better on average than any other call. I’ll get the comments for double out of the way first.

Walker:  “Double. You have to have plus scores at BAM scoring, and I can't imagine getting one in 5H or 5S. It feels like 10 tricks is the limit for both sides, so I might as well try to score +100 instead of +50.”

At least the editor understands the nature of the column. While she offered some other mumbo-jumbo about why a pass could be right, she knows the double is automatic, so do not be fooled the next time. Other people gave her cover, but I do not buy their lines, either.

Feiler:  “Double. I'll assume that partner's preempt has done its job.”

Bridge Baron: ”Double. Bridge Baron doesn't expect either 5C or 5S to make.”

Spear:  “Double, the only choice at board-a-match. 5S doesn’t really rate to make, and neither does 5C. I have to give our teammates the chance to successfully bid 5C over 4S, and get our team a push.”

Strite:  “Double. I need a perfecto to make five or either major, so I'll take the likely plus. Nice bid, LHO.”

Somebody didn’t get the BAM message:

Kessler:  “Pass. I'm trying for a plus. Anything could be right on this hand.”

Nothing seems to be a favorite here to make, but some felt that eleven tricks in a major wasn't out of the realm of possibility.

Emmes:  “5H. Protects the club king on opening lead.”

Kniest:  “5H. Play the freaks; if pard has to correct to 5S, your hand won't disappoint. I don't want the opening lead coming thru my hand, or having my hand exposed.”

The logic of protecting the club king makes some sense, but ultimately, it seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul. What are the odds of now getting away without a trump loser? And where are those little clubs going to go anyways? This hand all boils down to West having forced us into a guess. I am not sure what to do, either. That's why it's called a bidding problem.

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments to this challenging set of problems. Thanks to our guest panelists for this issue --Judy Eaton of Carbondale IL and Harold & Carol Emme of Plainfield IL --  for sharing their wisdom and to Steve Smith and Bridge Baron, who gave us an interesting glimpse into the "brain" of a bridge software program.

Topping all Solvers were Len Vishnevsky of San Francisco CA with 590 and John R. Mayne of Riverton CA with 580. They're both invited to join the December panel.

The six new problems for December are below. Please submit your solutions and comments by November 24 on the web form. Kent Feiler has made some improvements to the web interface, so please give it a try and let us know how it's working. You can also send your solutions by email to our December moderator:

   Tom Dodd -- fieldtrialer@yahoo.com