District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2020

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

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, none vulnerable      

   * (Negative double)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K4   ♥A983   ♦AK104   ♣654 ?

Although our panel and Solvers came up with eight different solutions, two bids drew the vast majority of the votes.

To sort out your options here, you have to start with these three premises:
   1) Your negative double promised only hearts (at least four), not diamonds. That means partner's 3D is a "real" suit.
   2) With 14 points, you must show game-forcing strength. You can't allow partner to pass you in a partscore.
   3) After you make a negative double, your only forcing bids are a cuebid of the opponent's suit and Blackwood. Your bid of a new suit is not forcing. 3H shows a hand with long hearts and not enough high-card strength for a 2H freebid at your first  turn.

Six panelists and a good number of Solvers and Bridgewinners voters chose to force with a 4C cuebid.

SPEAR: 4C. Slam try agreeing diamonds.

POPKIN:  4C. Difficult hand. There could be a diamond slam or we could make 3NT, maybe even 4S. A penalty might not cover our game. I’ll give up on 3NT and hope we find right strain and level,

HINCKLEY: 4C. No promise of a club control. We might belong in spades or diamonds, perhaps in slam opposite as little as  ♠AQJxx  ♥Kxx  ♦Qxxx  ♣x,

LEWIS: 4C. I have a strong hand for a spade or diamond contract if partner is short in clubs. I would double with some strength in clubs.

You might get to 4S after this, but for now, partner will take 4C as just diamond support, with or without a club control. If you have a diamond slam, this will be the clearest way to start investigating.

The panel vote was a tie between 4C and Double. The heavy Bridgewinners vote for Double gives it the scoring edge.

KESSLER: Double. Not for penalty. It's a do-something double -- good hand, no clear bid. 4S is my second choice,

WARD: Double. Trying to solicit some help from partner. 4C passes up 3NT, which is still barely possible.

BAKER: Double. 4C has two downsides: it goes past 3NT on the off chance partner has a stopper, and it might suggest a control there. Double conveys a similar message (extra values, no clear direction) and leaves more options open -- including 3C doubled, which could be a big number.

BISSON: Double. Our best score may come from setting 3C several tricks. Partner may be 6-4 or 5-5 in the pointed suits, allowing a game our way.

Although partner could pass the double, it's unlikely. As the panel points out, though, if partner happens to have a hand that's right for a pass, the penalty could well be more than our game,

Another reasonable strategy is a practical jump to game in spades or diamonds:

KAPLAN: 5D. Game might not make, but with my good values in partner's first and second  suits – and three small in East's suit -- less than game seems wimpy,

This is probably where most of the other panelists will end up, although it will take them a bit longer to get there,

I like Double because it leaves more room to investigate all strains and, more important, it asks rather than tells. I think we'll do better if I can get information about partner's hand instead of giving him information about mine. We may belong in 5D or 6D if he has a fifth diamond, and double is the best way to drag that news out of him,

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable           

What is your call as South holding:  ♠64   ♥J75   ♦AQJ972   ♣A3 ?

The first decision to make is whether you have enough to accept partner's game try. Although this is only 12 high-card points, the strong suit and 2.5 quick tricks make it worth at least a slight upgrade. Then again, it's only 12 high-card points, which means you'd be pushing to a pretty thin game opposite partner's 10 or 11 points.

The panel majority liked this hand enough to carry on to game. The minority, though, had some strong arguments for taking a conservative view:

BAKER: Pass. Nothing extra here. If partner has help in diamonds with outside stoppers, he would have upgraded already knowing this is the sort of hand I'm likely to have,

WARD: Pass, I'd bid 3H at imps, but at matchpoints I just want to go plus. Yes, partner likely isn't making exactly eight tricks, but this is the wrong form of scoring for that to push us to be more aggressive,

KAPLAN: Pass. Close between pass and 3H. Gut told me the odds are too great that game is just not makeable,

POPKIN: 3D. If they knock out my ♣A on the go and pard doesn’t have the ♦K, notrump might get ugly. It’s matchpoints and the emphasis is not getting to game, it's going plus, and diamonds is the better chance. If pard is looking at the ♦K, he gets another shot at bidding game,

If you decide to take a shot at game, you have two contracts to consider. The panel plurality took this route:

SPEAR: 3H. Accepting the game invitation in notrump or hearts,

BISSON: 3H. Now is the time to give a delayed raise to partner's heart suit. I have 14 dummy points in support of hearts. If partner has five hearts and 10 high-card points, 4H may be our best game. If partner doesn't have five hearts, a single spade stopper should get us to nine tricks in notrump,

LEWIS: 3H. We may be able to make 4H in the 5-3 fit, or use the source of tricks in diamonds for 3NT. 2NT is not likely to be best,

3H in this auction is absolutely forcing, showing 3-card support on the way to 3NT or 4H. Technically, it's the superior bid here because it allows partner to evaluate his hand for two possible contracts. Still, I like this better:

KESSLER: 3NT. Matchpoints means bid notrump, where good things seem to happen,

KNIEST: 3NT. I have a good suit and an outside entry and the lead is coming up to the right hand,

With the balanced pattern and such weak hearts, my hand looks better for notrump than hearts, even if we have a 5-3 fit. I wish 3H meant "Bid 4H if you have five good hearts. Otherwise, my hand is fine for 3NT", but it doesn't. Since partner is advertising black-suit honors, I'm guessing his hearts are not robust. If that's the case, we may have a decent chance of finding nine tricks in the other three suits.

3. Matchpoints, both vulnerable  

* (Artificial game force, denies 4 spades)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A102   ♥AK64   ♦3   ♣Q10543 ?

Partner's auction shows a strong hand for clubs, probably with spade shortness. He's making at least a mild slam try, and all but one panelist was happy to cooperate,

There are several ways to start a slam search. Half the panel chose this one:

HINCKLEY: 3S. At matchpoints, partner should have club slam interest. Does 3S show shape, stopper or control? This time, I've got all three!

KNIEST: 3S. Pattern out. Pard can bid 3NT,

WARD: 3S, I did my best to not show my shape last round, so let me try again,

I don't fully understand the comments about showing your shape. Partner's 2S wasn't a slam try, yet. He'll often have a fairly balanced hand without a spade stopper --  ♠Jx  ♥Qxx  ♦AQxxx  ♣KJ3 . With that, he needs to know if you have a stopper, which is why it was important for you to bid 2NT at your previous turn.

If partner has a different type of hand, he'll follow with something other than a raise to 3NT. He did that with 3C, but I think any suit bid you make here has to be just showing a control, not shape. You might have spade length for your 3S bid, but it could also be ♠Ax,

If you're hoping 3S suggests a fragment and therefore diamond shortness, why not just show it directly with a splinter bid of 4D? No panelist chose that bid, but if you don't mind going past 3NT, it could work better than any control bid.

If you're a 3S bidder, this panelist describes how you might proceed:

KESSLER: 3S. Likely the most helpful cuebid for partner. Will bid 4H over 3NT. Partner can bid 4NT over 4H to play.

That might work, if you're sure partner will know 4H is the ♥A and not the ♥K, but why keep him in suspense about your heart control? If you've decided to show a control, this seems clearer:

SPEAR: 3H. Controls up-the-line, accepting clubs as trump. (I cannot bid diamond shortness as a control in partner's suit.) 

Jack explains why a control bid of 3D sends the wrong message -- in partner's suit, this should show a high honor, not a singleton. There's really no reason, though, to skip over hearts to show a spade control. You've already bid 2NT, so partner won't take 3H as extra heart length. 

Maybe it's not necessary to show shape or controls at all. I like the simplicity of this approach: 

BISSON: 4NT. Partner must be looking for 6C to support clubs rather than bid 3NT. I can handle any response to my keycard ask. On a good day, I hear 5D, keeping a grand in the picture,

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK   ♥Q3   ♦AKQ9   ♣Q7532 ?

The overall reaction to our possible rebids was summed up by:

WARD: 2H. Yuck,

Most panelists weren't as concise, but several expressed uncertainty about just how strong this hand actually is. There were a few outliers:

HINCKLEY: 2H. Second choice a mildly conservative 3C.

KNIEST: 2NT. 3NT will end the auction and there's no sense in that.

While some panelists were back-pedaling, they were considering three-level rebids (and calling them conservative). No one else thought this hand was worth forcing the auction so high, but a few had hopes that partner could show something helpful.

Tied for second in the voting was a natural 2C rebid, which is not forcing but highly encouraging.

BISSON: 2C. My intention all along was to show a hand with a five-card suit that was too strong for a simple overcall. Nothing has changed. If partner is at the top half of his 0-8 HCP range and can show a heart stopper now, we may have nine tricks in notrump,

KESSLER: 2C. What I would have bid the first time. This hand is likely not as good as it looks without a club fit,

POPKIN: 2C. Process of elimination: Can't pass, can't raise, can't bid notrump, and a cuebid would be a spade raise. I’ll try 2C and we will see what waits for me,

The panel's top choice was the 2H cuebid to force partner to bid again.

LEWIS: 2H. I hope to get to 3NT opposite a heart stopper. If partner bids 2S after the cuebid, I will pass,

BAKER: 2H. Big hand, poor support for partner's chosen suit, can't bid notrump because I lack a stopper. Seems to fit the hand best. 2D is a distortion on suit length, but 2C is as well with a suit that awful,

The panel had differing ideas about exactly what the 2H cuebid shows. It doesn't deny spade support, but it's not a raise, either. It should show a very powerful hand with 3-card support.

For now, 2H may be no more misleading than the other choices, but it's just a temporary dodge. Partner almost always rebids 2S over this, which will force you to make your misleading bid at a higher level.

If you don't like that prospect and you just can't bring yourself to rebid 2C with this suit (I can't), here's another possibility:

SPEAR: 1NT. Showing a hand too strong to overcall 1NT, and hoping partner knows what to do. 1NT is flawed, but my second choice of 2C is also flawed,

You're off by half a stopper, but this isn't really a misrepresentation of your strength. A practical range for this 1NT rebid is a good 18 to a bad 20 points. Even if you prefer to call it 18-19, the specious stopper and lack of tricks in its long suit make this 20-count a candidate for a downgrade.

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable                         

  * (Minor-suit Stayman)
  * (4+ clubs)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK4   ♥1054   ♦AQ6   ♣Q1063 ?

This may seem like an odd auction. The question, of course, is why would partner ask about your minor-suit length, get the answer he was ostensibly looking for and then say "not interested" with his 3NT rebid?

The panel was unanimous in rejecting my choice of 4S -- and any other call that wasn't a pass. Some dismissed this as no problem at all:

WARD: Pass. I'm missing whatever inference I am supposed to be getting here to do something other than pass,

POPKIN: Pass. Who am I playing with and what the hell is he/she doing? Whoever it is, we need to discuss system.

KESSLER: Pass, Bidding on with this hand is frightening! Remember, notrump is king at matchpoints,

So are plus scores. The issue is whether 3NT will be one of them.

These passers put some thought into it and considered other options:

BAKER: Pass. I assume partner is likely 2-2-5-4. If opponents find a heart lead and they aren't 4-4, 5C is better. If they don't, or if partner has a stopper, 3NT likely makes overtricks and outscores 5C. At IMPs, I bid 5C,

KNIEST: Pass. I have a great hand opposite heart shortness, but it's matchpoints and we might have nine peelers opposite a heart stopper. I'm sure 3NT is a field bid because not many play Minor-suit Stayman over 1NT. If it guarantees at least 5-5, then I'm 4S bidder,

BISSON: Pass. After using Minor-suit Stayman, partner would bid a major to show shortness and warn against notrump. Here, partner has no such problem with notrump,

As Bisson points out, partner had other ways to show slam-try values, so it sounds like he has just minimum game strength -- around 9-11 points (maybe 8 with two good suits). With this strength and a stopper in one of the majors, I think he would just try 3NT at his first turn, especially if he has only nine cards in the minors. With a slam invite that's 2-2 in the majors, he might have raised 3C to 4C, or even responded 4NT at his first turn, counting on you to bid four-card suits up the line if you accepted.

This is not a "system" problem. It's a  logic exercise. Unless you think partner is just torturing you with "Practice" Minor-suit Stayman, he has to have a sane reason for bidding his hand this way.

I confess I was the perpetrator of this auction, many years ago. My partner, who happens to be one of the passers on our panel, held the hand in the problem.

We had no prior agreement about this sequence, but back then, he bid 5C over 3NT. He reasoned that I must be warning about extreme weakness in the majors. He was right, as I held  ♠53  ♥4  ♦KJ643  ♣AJ942 and we made 11 tricks when the club finesse lost. 3NT goes down, even if they lead the wrong major.

With the outside quick tricks and strong diamond holding, I think your hand is worth 5C (4C sounds like a weaker retreat). My choice is 4S to show an even stronger raise to 5C. That could help us get to a slam if partner has a stiff heart and bit more:  ♠53  ♥4  ♦K10643  ♣AK942.

This might be the sort of problem that's easier to work out at the table than in a bidding quiz. Or maybe I was throwing too fast of a curve ball, It appears the panel agrees with the latter, so I'll take my low score and move on to an easier problem.

6. Matchpoints, both vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠109   ♥A93   ♦J63   ♣A9642 ?

Well, maybe this one isn't so easy, as some Solvers and a panelist or two thought partner's 2H was an artificial force. With a hand that strong, though, he surely would have come up with something other than a simple 1S overcall at his first turn,

2H here has to be a natural suggestion of a trump suit, so partner is showing at least 5-5 in the majors. The passers knew he should have a pretty good suit for this bid, but they were worried about the bad break.

HINCKLEY: Pass. Protect the plus score at matchpoints. Even  ♠KQJxx  ♥KQJxx  ♦x  ♣xx  won't be good enough when partner gets tapped in diamonds,

LEWIS: Pass. I expect that partner has 5-5 in the majors and has bid to a good contract. Game will be hard to make with the 4-1 or 5-0 heart split,

KNIEST: Pass. Sounds like five hearts in partner's hand, but we can't stand a diamond tap if we bid higher,

The 2S bidders expressed similar concerns, but thought it was safer to play in partner's first suit:

SPEAR: 2S. Conservative bid at matchpoints, but West is known to hold 4+ hearts, so spades may play better.

BAKER: 2S. 2H should be natural. Wouldn't be surprised for West to have something like  ♠xxx  ♥Jxxx  ♦Axx  ♣Qxx  and partner holding  ♠AQJxx  ♥KQ10xx  ♦x  ♣xx. Tempted to pass for the known 8-card fit, but there's a real danger partner loses control if tapped in diamonds with the known bad split,

Half the panel, though, chose to raise hearts.

POPKIN: 3H. I need a different partner, but I will humor him/her,

I see I've destroyed Alan's trust after my auction in Problem 5, but I think he made a good choice. Here's another way to raise hearts:

WARD: 3D. I have a pretty big hand for partner,

KESSLER: 3D. I believe 2H was natural. Let's tell partner we have more then he would ever think. He'll know this is for hearts, as I'm showing a good hand but didn't support spades over their 2C,

A cuebid of 3C or 3D shows a little better raise than the bump to 3H, and this hand might be worth it. If we were white, I'd probably give partner some rope and pass. Here, though, partner has made two vulnerable bids in an auction where it isn't clear that either side has a great fit. I think I owe him some kind of raise with two aces and the three high spot cards in his two suits.

  ♠ Panelist votes & October scores      ♠ New problems for February 

To receive an email notice when new problems are posted, send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

The next Forum column will be published in February 2021 (no December issue), so you have four months to ponder the new set. I hope you'll give the February problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by January 31 on the web form . Thanks for participating!