♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2022

            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              

    * Weak two-bid

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK3   ♥62   ♦KJ83   ♣10943 ?

Partner could be stretching in the balancing seat, so there's some concern that 2S may already be high enough. A good number of Solvers passed, but the panel was in unanimous agreement that we owed partner some sort of advance. The majority was split between two ways to raise spades, with this choice taking the top score:

KESSLER: 3S. I want to pass at matchpoints, but the opponents’ high cards rate to be positioned well for us.

KAPLAN: 3S. Feel I ought to bid 3S. I passed originally so shouldn't have a lot. But with diamonds behind East, game might be decent.

The other option is the invitational-or-better cuebid:

STACK: 3D. Giving partner some room, just in case he's already playing me for this much.

HARVEY: 3D. Cuebid the opponent's suit to show at least 3-card support and at least 10 points.

SPEAR: 3D. Must show the good value for playing in spades.

Both 3S and 3D show an invite to 4S, the only difference being that 3D might also include the stronger, "or better" hand. This isn't it, as this panelist points out:

HINCKLEY: 3S. Partner is limited to 15-16 points, thus no 3D cuebid. I'd bid 2NT with weaker spades and stronger hearts. I won't be surprised if Pass was the winner at the table.

If you want to send the clearest message about this strength, I think 3S is the better advance. The 3D cuebid should show game values, or at least a stronger, accept-unless-you're-absolutely-rockbottom hand.

Two panelists chose not to raise spades:

BAKER: 3NT. Diamonds are favorably positioned, we can almost certainly run the spade suit, and partner has to have something in the others with at most 3 points in his own suit. Worried about diamond ruff(s) taking away my tricks if I raise spades.

KNIEST: 2NT. Pard must be 6-3 in spades and hearts. 3NT might roll with a diamond lead, although the courtesy raise to 3S is safer.

The advantage of a notrump contract is that your diamond holding rates to be of more value than it will be in 3S or 4S, but then there's this:

WARD: 3D. 2NT could work out, but will look pretty dumb when we don't have a heart stopper.

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable          

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AJ10   ♥10963   ♦3   ♣AKQ97 ?

Your decision here depends on your interpretation of partner's double. There's no explanation provided with the problem, so you have to treat it as "standard" -- more specifically, "expert standard", since you're supposed to assume your Forum partner is an expert.

Almost half the panel thought the most widely accepted meaning for the double was takeout for the two unbid suits:

MOSES: 3C. Partner’s double should be responsive. I'll show partner where I live and that I have better than a minimum. Hopefully, partner can bid 3NT or raise clubs with a suitable hand. The 4-3 spade fit scares me because we will be ruffing diamonds with honor cards.

KESSLER: 3C. Too much to pass and put partner in a tough spot. With a really good club suit, it is not likely to be doubled.

HARVEY: 3C. I would have raised partner's major if he had bid one.

You and partner can agree to play this double as responsive, but that's not the common nor most valuable usage. Absent a discussion about a conventional meaning. the "right" answer is:

BAKER: 2H. Confirming a heart fit. North's double shows four hearts -- too easy to lose your 4-4 fits here even if West's 1H is legitimate, let alone if they decide to throw a monkey wrench in.

SPEAR: 2H. I want to show my 4-card heart suit, but I'm not sure my trumps are good enough for 3H here.

HINCKLEY: 2H. Natural, to play, after partner's double, which showed hearts. This should be (nearly) unanimous on the panel vote.

In other auctions, responsive doubles are defined as "over raise only", meaning the opponents have to bid and raise the same suit for the takeout meaning to apply. This one is no exception. One reason is that if you don't have a penalty double available, your LHO has a risk-free opportunity to psych his response. Another is that even when LHO really has hearts, that may be your best fit and you need methods that allow you to bid the suit naturally.

A third reason is that the penalty double gives you more accurate ways to define your high-card strength. As commonly played, the double shows 4+ hearts and "this-is-our-hand" values (a decent 9 points or more). With fewer points and more hearts -- a hand such as  ♠K4  ♥QJ875   ♦654   ♣862 -- you can make a competitive bid of 2H.

A few of the 3C bidders hinted that they planned to support hearts later, but the heart bidders thought it best to show support now. The question is how many hearts is this hand worth? This is my choice:

KNIEST: 3H. I assume the double was penalty, not responsive.

Like SPEAR, I have some reservations about the topless hearts, but I'd bid 2H with less and the ♥109 could be important cards. My hand is worth at least 16 points in support of hearts. With partner's 9+ points, a game contract should have a play, so maybe this is the better raise:

WARD: 4H. Partner cannot have enough where slam is good and he didn't bid just 2H instead of doubling.

3. IMPs, both vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A4   ♥K5   ♦AK1083   ♣AK65 ?

Based mainly on pessimism about my heart support, my first instinct was to take the sure plus score.

SPEAR: Pass. 4S would show better hearts and 5D would show better diamonds. Partner wouldn't need much more than ♥AQxxx to bid 4H. His hearts may be weaker, so I will go low.

KNIEST: Pass. I implied better hearts than I have but slam could still be on. BUT...I'll take the money.

But my thinking finally came around to this:

HINCKLEY: 4S. I admire the passers citing "best result possible" versus "best possible result", taking their +650 or +680, and avoiding a potential disaster. But with 21 prime high-card points, I can't do it.

The panel majority chose to make a move toward slam. Some panelists were concerned that they hadn't yet found the right trump suit.

MOSES: 4S. I cuebid to see what partner can do. Slam is likely if we can find the right strain. I would love to hear Blackwood. If partner has enough hearts, 7 is not out of the question.

There's no sure way to determine how many hearts partner has, so I think you just have to assume that he holds plenty of them. What else could he possibly have? We're playing the Lebensohl 2NT convention, so he could have bid 3H to show constructive values (around 8-10 points). With at most a few queens outside, his hearts have to be long and decently strong to justify the jump to game.

BAKER: 4NT. There are several reasonable meanings for 4NT here, all of which describe our hand pretty accurately. I hope we manage to guess which way partner interpreted it.

KAPLAN: 5D. With a jump from pard to 4H, I have some hand! Yet hard to know what choice is best. Will try 5D; pard must know I'm looking for more if pard has it.

STACK: 4S. Tempted to pass, but with two aces more than I could have, I will push on. I am bidding a slam after I torture partner for one round.

These panelists had even higher aspirations:

KESSLER: 4NT. Wanted to bid 4S, but partner is going to have no idea what to do over that. If I find the Ace and Queen of hearts, I will bid 6D, a grand slam try. Bid a lot, live a little.

WARD: 4S. Hoping to bid 5NT over partner's expected 5H rebid.

The 5NT bid may come in handy even earlier in the auction:

HARVEY: 5NT. 1 hour before the deadline and I just changed my call to 5NT pick a slam. My previous choice was 5D.

That's my bid, too, but I think (hope) it should be grand slam force, asking partner to bid 7H with two of the top three trump honors. The pick-a-slam meaning applies mainly in auctions that have identified other possible strains, and at least from partner's point of view, we're talking about only one here. Maybe WARD's suggested auction -- 4S cuebid, then 5NT -- would make it clearer that we're asking about hearts, but that message could change if partner bids anything other than 5H.

4. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Void   ♥AKQ   ♦K108   ♣QJ108764 ?

Three decent choices here, and the panel and Solvers were split fairly evenly. The only top-heavy vote was among the Bridgewinners posters, with almost half agreeing with:

WARD: Pass. I'd rather not guess what partner's spade holding is by bidding in front of him. I considered double, but I don't think this hand has enough defense outside of hearts to do that.

STACK: Pass. Tempted to do something. If bidding, I'd be more inclined to bid 4C rather than double.

The doublers were motivated by some matchpoint math:

BAKER: Double. There is a fair chance we make 4C if I bid it. But that won't outscore 200 on defense, and partner is probably salivating.

HINCKLEY: Double. At matchpoints, going for +200 if partner passes for penalty opposite my 4-loser hand. I hope partner doesn't bid a four-card red suit. ♠xxxx   ♥xxxx   ♦Qxxx  ♣K plays well in clubs.

SPEAR: Double. We likely had 110, so plus 100 will be a bad score. Partner wouldn't need much to beat them with a bad trump break, and he may even bid 4C when it is right.

MOSES: Double. Partner probably has 4 spades and I have some defense. If partner passes, maybe we get 500. I'm hoping this bid conveys long clubs and few losers. Partner should be able to pinpoint a spade void and be able to make the right decision.

You have the extra values and right red-suit holdings for a takeout double, but it's a gamble that partner has strong-enough spades to be happy about going for the penalty. If he doesn't -- or if he runs to 4D or 4H -- you may be wishing you had bid 4C. The 4C bidders wanted to put more emphasis on their strong clubs and had other possibilities in mind:

KAPLAN: 4C. If I double, they may make. Great hand, but 5C might fail. Hoping pard will know what to do over 4C.

KNIEST: 4C. East could be walking the dog, but I need little from pard to make this and he might now find a raise.

KESSLER: 4C. They did not blast to game, spades are not splitting well, and I am willing to defend 4S if partner wants – doubled or not. Partner, with bad spades, may decide to bid 5C, which would be okay.

All of these panelists mentioned one of the best reasons to bid 4C. It will convince partner that you not only have a good hand, but that your clubs are strong enough that you don't need much (or any) support from him. If he has a few valuable cards for you, he may find a raise to a making 5C.

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AKQ3   ♥1086   ♦764   ♣Q73 ?

Like Problem #1, you have a major-suit fit, good stoppers in the opponents' suit and the overall strength to invite game. In #1, the panel majority chose to raise partner's major instead of suggesting notrump. A third of the panel and a plurality of Solvers and Bridgewinners voters opted for the same strategy this time.

HARVEY: 2S. Cue bid the opponent's suit to show at least 3-card support and at least 10 points. Same as problem 1.

SPEAR: 2S. 10+ high-card points and 3+ hearts.

That's the standard way to show this strength and support, but almost half the panel thought this was a better description:

BAKER: 2NT. No ruffing value, and a real risk of getting ruffed if we play in hearts.

KESSLER: 2NT. Shape, stoppers, and points -- it is what I have.

STACK: 2NT. Perfect value bid.

WARD: 2NT. Too good for 1NT. With 4333 and all my values in spades, I don't think this hand will be a good dummy for hearts.

What's the difference between this decision and the one in Problem #1? For one, you have weaker trump support (♥1086 instead of ♠AK3) and no ruffing value. You also have a better idea of partner's strength (a real opening bid instead of a possibly light balancing bid), so 2NT is, as STACK points out, an accurate value bid. The only real problem that might arise is this:

MOSES: 2NT. I can convey a lot with one bid. If partner passes 2NT or bids 3NT, we're probably in the right spot. If partner instead bids a minor, I can support hearts at my next turn.

If partner bids 3C or 3D over your 2NT, you can't show "real" heart support at your next turn because partner will think you're taking a preference with a doubleton (unless he's seen you hog the notrump so many times that he expects 3-card support). Even so, you may still be in a better spot than if you had raised hearts right away.

Several Solvers chose 3H to invite game. In Bridge World Standard and most other modern systems, this is a weak, preemptive raise that promises 4+ trumps. The cuebid of their suit (2S) is the way to show 3+ hearts and at least limit-raise strength.

Another view is that maybe this hand isn't worth an invite at all. There are warning signs that made these panelists pessimistic:

KNIEST: 1NT. Maybe pard will enlighten me with a rebid. A heart raise seems ridiculous.

HINCKLEY: 1NT. I think 2NT is an overbid more than 1NT is an underbid. A 2H raise is also acceptable. This hand is 8 1/2 losers, thus no 2S cuebid.

KAPLAN: 2H. With so much in spades and little elsewhere, despite a decent hand, it's unclear game will make. I try 2H. Not clear we can make 4H; non vulnerable, prefer to be plus.

As Peg mentions, your spade stoppers here may actually be too strong. East will have fairly good strength outside to justify an overcall with such weak spades, which means the cards are not placed well for us. I'd like 2NT better if the spades were ♠AQ103 (probably the same three tricks as ♠AKQ3) and I had a king in another suit.

My vote was for the limit-or-better 2S cuebid because it's "normal" and makes it easy for partner to evaluate his hand. Rethinking it, though, I like all the other choices better.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A   ♥AQ4   ♦AK943   ♣10973 ?

All but one panelist, plus a big majority of Solvers and Bridgewinner voters, chose to show their extra high-card values, either by bidding game or making a strong invitation. Here's one approach:

HINCKLEY: Double. Clearly takeout after the 3S raise. A little too good to just bid 4D. Another possible (near) unanimous panel vote?

Bud keeps making these predictions and we keep disappointing him. The panel came up with five other choices, with some trying for slam:

KAPLAN: 4S. I go for the gusto with 4S. Pard can sign off without much -- or look for more with the right hand.

STACK: 4S. If partner bids 5C, then I will bid a slam.

HARVEY: 4C. I hope partner bids 5D with extras and 4D otherwise. 3NT will probably need a spade stopper from partner.

WARD: 4C. ♠xxx  ♥x  ♦Qxxx  ♣AJxxx is not outside the realm of possibilities here.

You'd like to have better clubs to focus partner on that suit, but it describes your suit lengths and, as Nate points out, could even get you to a better spot than 5D.

The panel plurality went with straightforward game bids.

SPEAR: 3NT. Nine tricks in notrump seems more likely than eleven in diamonds.

BAKER: 5D. Do we have nine runners in NT? I'm gambling that the answer is no, or that we have only nine in notrump and 11 (or 12) in diamonds.

KESSLER: 5D. Easily could make, and puts pressure on the opponents.

MOSES: 5D. If my partner is stretching to compete, they might make 4S or at least 3S. If partner has a decent raise, 5D will have some play -- or they might compete to 5S. In any case, it will be hard for the opponents to double. If they do double and beat you two tricks, there's always the next hand.

And a new set of problems for June. Six more chances to beat the other couples.

    ©  Karen Walker