♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2021

            by Nate Ward, 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, NS vulnerable                 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A92   ♥AQ107   ♦8   ♣KQ754 ?

We start off with a typical matchpoint problem, with an added twist. Do we go low and try to preserve our plus score, or do we try for game? 

We start with the former camp first:

KNIEST: Pass. Any further bid could open a can of worms.

HOLES:  Pass. Partner would need a perfecto for game. My partners never have it. It’s matchpoints, so I am happy to take the plus and count on partner’s declarer skills.

And now with the twist:

WALKER:  2C. A little extra here, but notrump might not play well if we have only one stopper in spades or diamonds. I’m settling for a partscore at matchpoints, and I think clubs will play two tricks better than notrump.

If we are going to try for game, what is the best approach here?  Do we make a general try and attempt to conceal information from the opponents, as these two panelists chose?

KESSLER:  2NT. About as good a hand as 15 points gets -- tricks and a source of tricks. At IMPs I would bid 3NT. Reversing to 2H gives the opponents too much information.

HINCKLEY: 2NT, This jack-less 15 high-card points is worth at least 17, so even at matchpoints, I'm inviting. 2H is reasonable, but that would give opponents help with their opening lead.

Or do we try to better inform partner?

MOSES:  2H. Partner would skip diamonds unless they were good. 3NT is probably okay if partner has right hand.

ATHY:  2H. Hate this action. Too much info for defense.

I think this would be a much easier problem at IMPs, where going low isn’t really an option, especially at these colors. I do think the panel has forgotten about the vulnerability, as our opponents may jump in here.

2. Matchpoints, both vulnerable          

What is your call as South holding:  ♠87542   ♥Void   ♦QJ62   ♣K843 ?

For this next problem we know what suit we are bidding, the question is how high? Starting in the stratosphere, we have:

KESSLER: 4S. The fact that I did not bid 3H should indicate shape, but not points. Perfect.

HOLES: 4S. Partner should appreciate this dummy!

And staying as low as possible:

WALKER:  2S. Do I really need to preempt? I have no reason to believe that the opponents -- a passed hand and a minimum third-seat opener -- can make a game or that they’ll even bid it (unless I push them into it).

STACK: 2S. Walking this hand and will compete to 3S if pushed. Will not bid 4S and go minus for no reason.

BAKER: 2S. Partner's a passed hand and the opponents have already had sufficient room to exchange information, so 4S only makes sense if you think it makes or if you can goad the opponents - one of whom is a passed hand and the other just made a minimum rebid - into bidding at the 5 level.

Lastly, picking the middle route:

ATHY: 3S. This rates to be plenty. Opponents are getting a poor trump break if they advance.

HINCKLEY: 3S. 4S if West were not a passed hand.

KNIEST: 3S. Let them figure it out.

I like the middle on this one. If the opponents bid 4H, I am happy to defend. And if they let us play 3S, I expect that to be a good score. 4S on this hand is just asking to go minus 200 or 500 against a partscore or game down on a bad trump break.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KQ102   ♥4   ♦A97   ♣KQJ83 ?

This hand starts with a potential misunderstanding about our auction so far.

HINCKLEY: Why 1S with a non-minimum? 

BAKER: I'm not sure I should have bid over 1H in the first place. Doesn't that suggest a minimum?

They're referring to a common agreement that after their runout, bidding immediately (our 1S bid) advertises an unbalanced minimum. With a balanced hand or extra values, we would pass and show our strength later. So is our hand too strong for the 1S rebid -- or does it help us describe this hand? Here's an answer:

WALKER:  I have no objection to the 1S bid on the last round. I think bidding here shows a high offense-to-defense ratio, not always minimum high-card strength.

I agree with Karen’s analysis of what 1S can show, although I am not sure it is a mainstream view. However, since it's possible that we may have confused partner, what is the best course of action now?

KESSLER: Double. I must be missing something as this seems automatic. By looking at his hearts, partner will know I am short.

KNIEST: Double. Shortness and extras.

MOSES: Double. I think double is more flexible and should be game-forcing.

Tod is relying on the overused F-word here. I don’t think double is flexible at all -- after the redouble, it is defined as 100-percent penalty -- and the shortness was already implied when we bid in front of partner last round. Partner is going to pass 2H doubled on virtually any balanced hand, which is not really what we want here.

Given that, what do we do? The Bridgewinners voters, half the Solvers and this panelist decided to focus on the strong clubs:

KAPLAN: 3C.  I want to show how good my clubs are. Maybe 3C isn't enough, but I'm not expecting three passes. Want to see what happens.

I’m with the last group here, opting to complete my pattern and let partner know I have extras.

STACK: 3D. Since partner did not double 2H, I won't either. I have a great hand so I will bid a game-forcing 3D and rely on partner to get us to the correct game.

WALKER:  3D. 3C sounds like a weak hand and double is penalty. Partner’s pass of 2H said he was willing to sit a double, so it's guaranteed that he will pass if we double. 

HINCKLEY: 3D. Showing my shape and 100% (game) forcing.

4. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable    
 

   * (May be a 5-card suit)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠753   ♥KQJ10972   ♦KQ   ♣J ?

Never put down an eight-card suit in dummy, so they say. On this hand, our seven hearts might as well be eight.

MOSES: 4H. Pretty much shows your hand.

BAKER: 4H. If partner doesn't have the ace of hearts, these long hearts may not be much use in spades.

STACK: 4H. Even if we possessed four spades for partner, 4H is the correct bid.

Giving partner some room are:

HINCKLEY: 3H. Sorry partner, my suit will play better than your suit, so we do not show spade support.

HOLES: 3H. We’re playing in hearts, but there is no hurry.

The biggest problem I have with 3H is that partner will never expect our hearts to be this good when we can’t make a move later. Three little spades is pretty much the worst possible holding here.

And finally, the odd man out:

ATHY: 3S. This is a hand with multiple poor choices.

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK65   ♥A985   ♦73   ♣1042 ?

They say preempts work, and the opponents are looking to make that maxim true on this hand. I have deep admiration for the lone panelist who solves the problem for our side in one bid. I do think she would have more company if the form of scoring was matchpoints.

WALKER:  3NT. I think the better stab is probably 3H, which almost guarantees you’ll find either 4-4 major-suit fit if you have one. At the table, though, I’m pretty sure I’d bid 3NT, so that’s the box I clicked here.

If we aren’t going to try to be a hero, what is our best move? Some opted for just raising and letting partner decide.

STACK: 4D. Cannot bid a major without a 5-card suit so I will offer a simple raise. This is a slight underbid but we lack a third trump.

ATHY: 4D. Awkward.

KESSLER: 4C. Partner has diamonds, I have controls, and partner is likely short in clubs.

Others tried to find a 4-4 fit earlier:

HOLES: 3H. We may have a major fit. This gives us the chance to find it.

KAPLAN: 3H. Don't want to give the impression that my spades are longer than my hearts. So 3H and see what partner does.

KNIEST: 3H. Hate to give up on a vulnerable game.

BAKER: 3S. Least of evils. Too strong to pass, no stopper for 3NT, insufficient support for 4D.

HINCKLEY: 3S. It's IMPs and partner overcalls vulnerable, so I can't possibly pass.

This is a classic bidding problem, as every choice comes with a lot of baggage. 3H will let you find either 4-4 major suit fit, but also runs the risk of playing a potentially ugly 4-3 fit. 3S lets you find 4-4 spades, but likely shuts hearts out of the picture. 4C and 4D remove the risk of playing in a 4-3 major-suit fit, but take you past 3NT, which is possibly our only making game.

6. IMPs, both vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AJ10   ♥KQJ1087   ♦Void   ♣KQJ8 ?

For our last problem, our opponent has opened the bidding in our very strong 6-card suit. Describing our hand now is going to be a daunting task, to say the least.

Taking the simple approach:

STACK: 4H. Bidding what it looks like we can make. Can't imagine that this will confuse partner.

KESSLER: 4H. This is the one time I can bid hearts and actually have hearts. I hope dummy has 1 heart so I can finesse the 9 of hearts. No idea how to find out if partner has the Axxxx of clubs for 6C.

WALKER:  4H. I’ll never be able to convince partner I have this hand if I start with a low-level cuebid (2H or 3D). 4H is the one game-going bid that partner cannot misinterpret.

BAKER: 4H. Double shows a trap pass, but it also suggests I'm willing to sit for 2D doubled, and I am absolutely not. 4H here has to be natural.

If we aren’t going to blast game, how do we show this hand?

HINCKLEY: 2H. This hand is so good, it's got to be a 2H or 3D cuebid. If 2H should be natural and weak and it's passed out, I'll apologize later.

KAPLAN: 3H. My hearts are so good, I feel compelled to bid 3H. Hope I'm right!

HOLES: 3H. Really powerful hearts. I think this shows this “better than a trap pass” hand.

I think these panelists are going to be disappointed when they are turning overtricks in a partscore.

What else can we do?  If we don’t bid hearts now, partner is never going to believe we have them, but that did not deter one panelist, who got to use our favorite F-word again:

MOSES: 3D. I like the cuebid, although it is tempting to pass. I have learned that low-level doubles are rarely good underneath the bidder. If partner bids 3NT, it will certainly be best. Partner could have lots of different hands, so a cuebid seems the most flexible.

It will be best if partner bids 3NT or 4C, because over anything else, we are pretty stuck.

And, lastly, we have one mad doubler for the set:

KNIEST: Double. Confirms a trap pass in hearts. This could be a telephone number.

I think you're going to end up with just an area code.

If you got this far, thanks for reading and participating in this set. It has been almost two years now, but I’m still hoping to see you all at the table in the near future.
  

Thanks to all who sent in answers to this low-scoring set. Congratulations to James Sweatt of Metropolis IN, who led all Solvers with a 550. Runners-up with 520 were Lars Erik Bergerud of Oslo, Norway; Bob Wheeler of Florissant MO; and John Welte of Ballwin MO. All four are invited to join the February panel.

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

The next issue will be February 2022 (no December issue). 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!