District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2020

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A87642   ♥3   ♦AJ   ♣KJ104 ?

For this set, we've added a "Virtual Panelist" from the website Bridgewinners.com . From 50 to 75 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 will also show the percentage of Bridgewinners voters who chose each bid.

On this problem, the first question to answer is what is the meaning of partner's redouble? Here's one view about two possibilities:

KNIEST: Double. I assume partner's redouble was three-card support, so I'll go for the number, one way or another. If it was a Rosenkrantz redouble showing ♠Kx, then I just rebid 2S.

The problem didn't specify either of these agreements, so we have to assume "standard". One of the Bridgewinners voters pointed out that expert pairs have adopted so many conventional meanings for this redouble -- support, a spade honor, even a transfer to clubs -- that he couldn't even guess what the default meaning would be if it was undiscussed.

This panelist has the answer:

HINCKLEY: 2C. The redouble "shows strength" as specified in Bridge World Standard. 2C is highly unlikely to be passed out. Both opponents are likely very minimum and my later calls will show strength and spades (hopefully conveniently). 

Most of the panel either agreed with this rather vague definition or didn't care what it was. Whether partner was showing high-card points or spades or both, they smelled blood: 

WARD: Double. Sounds like the opponents could be in big trouble.

BAKER: Double. Somebody at this table is lying about their points, and the colors are right for hammering the opponents if it's not partner.

JONES: Double. Let's start off by letting partner know we have a serious overcall.

KESSLER: Double. Lead a heart and go for the gusto. It is matchpoints, and they are red. Partner has more then just hearts; he could have passed with just hearts and no cards.

The non-doublers seemed to accept that partner had a good hand, but they liked their chances on offense. A big contingent of Solvers chose to rebid spades. All the bidders on the panel introduced their second suit:

HARVEY: 2C. Somebody is bidding on distribution and not strictly high-card points. I like both with my hand. My spades aren't great so I will show my other suit.

STACK: 2C. Looks like a pinochle deck. Opponents may be in trouble, but I am bidding on and setting up a possible suit to compete in. If partner actually has spades, we may have game!

This could work. If you double 1NT and the auction goes 2D-Pass-Pass back to you, you may wish you had shown the clubs when you had the chance to do it cheaply. Then again, partner could be something like 1-5-4-3 and be able to profitably double any contract the opponents land in, as long as he has some encouragement from you. That seems a very likely possibility here.

2.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable    

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A4   ♥Void   ♦A109864   ♣A9743 ?

Several panelists thought there had to be a way to show this hand. The best arguments were offered by:

KESSLER: 2NT. Must be minors. With clubs and hearts, we could double now or could have bid 2NT directly over 1D.

SPEAR: 2NT. Clubs and Diamonds. 2NT at my last turn would have been clubs & hearts.

BAKER: 2NT. I don't know that partner will read this as minors (my argument will be that with hearts and clubs, I'd have bid 2NT the first time), but I do know that letting the opponents play 2 of a major is a bad plan at matchpoints.

That requires some process-of-elimination thinking from partner, but I think it's good reasoning at this vulnerability. White vs. red with clubs and hearts, it's very likely you would have acted at your first turn -- if not 2NT, at least a 1H overcall.

The 3D bidders agreed that 2NT should show both minors, but were concerned that it suggested a different distribution of the two suits. Some were also ready to bid again if necessary.

WARD: 3D. Not done bidding, either. I would think 2NT would be more like 6-4 than 6-5.

JONES: 3D. If I was 5-6 instead of 6-5 in the minors, I'd try 2NT. When the longer suit is higher ranking, though, I bid the longest one first and the other later if needed.

This panelist explains why bidding RHO's suit may be safer than it first appears:

KNIEST: 3D. It looks like RHO might have three diamonds and be 4-4 in the majors. This is the last chance to bid the suit naturally.

The other possibility is a straightforward bid of 3C. The suit is anemic, but the panel expected some help in dummy.

HARVEY: 3C. If allowed to play in clubs, I see a cross ruff. I bet they can make 2S.

HINCKLEY: 3C. I'm bidding this because partner likely has some clubs. But another big reason is to avoid partner's disastrous white-vs.-red balance of 3H!

Some of the Bridgewinners posters postulated that 3C should show clubs with longer diamonds. There are some logical reasons for this and it would be a handy agreement, but how many pairs have discussed that?

STACK: 3C. I would have bid 2C the first time. I don't believe that 2NT now shows the minors ... at least, I'm not willing to take that chance.

Yeah, it's easy to bid 2NT in a bidding forum where you know you won't have to deal with partner misreading it. In real life, perhaps some of the 2NT bidders would have feared that possibility and chosen a 3C or 3D bid.

The one thing that almost all of our panelists agreed on was that it was important to to bid something now. Whether it's 2NT, 3C or 3D, it rates to be better than  passing and letting them play 2S or, worse, allowing partner to balance with his long heart suit.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q75   ♥KJ6   ♦AJ84   ♣K103 ?

With a full 14-count and a nice filler for partner's suit, you were feeling pretty good about your chances in 1NT. Now, those annoying opponents have forced you to make another decision. Do you wrest the declarer play back from the interloper, punish him or go quietly?

The bidders didn't really expect that East could make 2H, but they thought they could get a better score on offense.

BAATZ: 2S. The hearts are positioned well behind the overcaller. Doubled, down 1, only scores 100. A 4-3 spade fit should make more tricks than defending 2H.

STACK: 2S. I believe they may compete to 3H, which I'll double for penalties. If not, then maybe we can make a couple of spades.

If you don't want to settle for +50 or +100 on defense and you think you can make something, why is it 2S instead of 2NT? With a double heart stopper and no ruffing value, notrump rates to make the same number of tricks as spades, so why not try for +120 instead of +110? If you're determined to bid instead of pass, 2NT makes more sense to me than 2S, but only one panelist (LEMLEY) chose that bid.

KNIEST: 2S. Insane to pass.

Over here in the asylum, seven inmates and 80 percent of the Bridgewinners voters thought it best to go passive and let partner decide.

WARD: Pass. I've already defined my hand with my 1NT rebid. If partner can’t act, I am content to defend.

KESSLER: Pass. Trying to declare 2S opposite ♠Jxxx may well turn a plus into a minus. We do NOT have an offensive hand. If partner wants to compete, he can take action.

SPEAR: Pass. I am liking our chances on defense. Partner is still there, and we are hoping he will take action when it is right.

All the passers on the panel emphasized -- and perhaps even hoped -- that partner could bid on. In practice, though, he probably won't. He doesn't, after all, know you have 14 points instead of 12, or spade help instead of ♠xx, or heart honors that are valuable or wasted opposite his holding.

The doublers also wanted to bring partner in on the decision, but thought they should show their defensive strength.

HARVEY: Double. I will let partner decide between Pass, 2S, 2NT, 3C or 3D. My second choice is 2S.

BAKER: Double. I'm maximum, things aren't sitting well for the opponents, and I'm comfortable if partner dislikes their hand for defense and pulls to 2S.

The double will clear up any mystery about your heart values and relative high-card strength, but it misleads partner about your spade holding. You're more likely to have spade shortness than support for this double, so if partner wasn't moved to rebid a 5-card spade suit over 1NT, he's not going to bid it now opposite a presumed doubleton (perhaps even a singleton).

Whether you pass or double, partner is going to pass on most deals, so it's pretty much up to you whether to declare, defend quietly or defend doubled. The panel plurality chose the middle ground and I agree.

4. IMPs, none vulnerable                         

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK   ♥AKQJ864   ♦74   ♣65 ?

The majority of our panel rejected any heart overcall as too big of an underbid.

JONES: Double. Too strong to bid any number of hearts.

KESSLER: Double. Too good for 4H. If they bid 4S back to me, I bid 5H.

Two panelists did try 4H. This one had hopes that he could show some speed later:

HINCKLEY: 4H. Double, 3NT and 4H all have appeal. 3NT won't be great if they bid 4S. Slam isn't very likely, and 4H at least allows a strength-showing double if they bid 4S.

The panel majority, though, decided to start with the "big double" and show the hearts later.

BAKER: Double. I wish East had opened 2S so I could bid a strong 4H and get this hand across in one shot. Over 1S, I'll take the big-double route and hope the auction isn't at 4S when it comes back around.

BAATZ: Double. 3NT is tempting, but dangerous if a spade is not led. Double, then bid, showing a big hand. RHO likely has 9+ points in the minors where you have no strength.

SPEAR: Double. 4H is a preempt. They might try leading their minor vs 3NT. I can't overcall 2H with game-in-hand (almost). At my next turn I will have a better idea what is best.

RABIDEAU: Double. And the alternative is ... ?

It seems that the alternative isn't obvious until you hear someone else mention it. When this problem was posted on Bridgewinners, all the early votes came in for double and 4H. Then one poster commented that he might try 3NT at matchpoints, but not at teams. After that suggestion, the trend changed and the votes began rolling in for 3NT. Here's why:

HARVEY: 3NT. I have nine fast tricks. I am glad West is on lead as he might lead a spade. If someone doubles, I may run to 4H.

The only concern would be a double from West, which is unlikely. If East doubles, which says "lead my suit", I'd have to resist the temptation to redouble.

WARD: 3NT. Tough choice. Three calls -- this, 4H and double -- could be right. I’m prepared to look stupid when they take the first 5 or 6 tricks in a minor and 4H is laydown opposite partner’s stiff.

STACK: 3NT. They will lead a spade, so why not bid the sure game? I don't think the form of scoring matters -- at Swiss, KO, matchpoints, this is the right bid. I hope.

Whether it's IMPs or matchpoints, you want to bid the game that makes. Partner rates to have around 5-6 points with honors in one or both minors. Opposite most of his possible dummies, I think 3NT will make more often than 4H.

On the hands where 3NT can be beaten, West has to not only decide to forgo leading his partner's suit, but he probably has to choose the right minor. The 3NT bidders are betting against that brilliancy.

5. IMPs, NS vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J964   ♥74   ♦K82   ♣K1052 ?

Our 2S bid showed around 0-8 points and ostensibly 4+ spades, although that's not guaranteed. Opposite those limited values, partner wants to be in game and even believes a slam is possible. Still, five panelists and 42 percent of the Solvers retreated:

KNIEST: 4S. I'll accept pard's game try and bid 4S.

BAATZ: 4S. Not much more to show. Let partner decide the next step, be it Blackwood or something else.

KESSLER: 4S. Partner needs to make one more move before I go any farther. If his spades are wonderful, he knows I would have a difficult time moving forward with bad spades.

RABIDEAU: 4S. I have only a little above average strength for this auction. But if partner bids again, I'll come alive.

An average hand would be around 4 points. This is 7 points, and it's not just any 7 -- it's two kings, a trump honor and the potentially helpful ♣10. I can't imagine a hand for partner that's missing these cards but is still strong enough to make a second slam try after we've rejected the first one.

4S was demoted in the scoring because the rest of the panel made strong moves toward slam. Here are two ways to accept partner's invitation:

WARD: 5C. Whatever partner is looking for, I probably have it.

STACK: 5S. The minor-suit kings are aces and make this hand too good to sign off in 4S opposite heart shortness and a huge hand. My 2S bid doesn't even promise a four-card suit.

Some panelists were suspicious about the opponents' lack of enthusiasm for their heart fit:

HARVEY: 5C. Partner has a big hand for the double and jump. It's probably not a splinter bid or East would have raised hearts. I will show my other suit since I am at the top of my bid.

HINCKLEY: 5C. Can partner hold  ♠AKQx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣AQxx  and make a slam try opposite a possible Yarborough? Yes, and I'm not far from a maximum 2S bid. But why at this vulnerability did East not raise hearts?

Probably because he didn't want to push you into slam. North has already started a constructive auction for our side. If you're East and looking at four or five hearts and a virtual Yarborough, you know you aren't going to talk the opponents out of game. Your best hope is that they stay out of slam, so you don't want to give South an opportunity to show some values with a freebid.

You have to trust partner, not the opponents. If partner didn't have heart shortness, he could have forced with 3H, so his jump to 4H has to be a spade raise showing a singleton, with or without the ♥A, or a void.

The plurality of the panel liked their hand enough to go straight to Keycard Blackwood:

JONES: 4NT. These two kings ought to make slam a good bet.

BAKER: 4NT. I'm max and partner splintered in the only side suit where I lack control. I don't like doing this with no key cards, but a cue of 5C means partner can't ask either.

SPEAR: 4NT. Partner is forcing to game and inviting slam opposite the right hand. I have it. With controls in both minors, I just need to ask keycards. Easy-peasy.

I agree this is the right hand.  If partner was hoping for more than this, he probably shouldn't have been asking.

6. IMPs, both vulnerable      

  * 4th-suit force, may be artificial

What is your call as South holding:  ♠10986   ♥K54   ♦3   ♣AKQ85 ?

To clarify some issues for the Solvers who voted for pass, 3NT, 4H or 5C:
   Partner's fourth-suit bid (2D) did not promise a stopper in that suit. A 3NT bid by you guarantees that you have a diamond stopper.
   If partner just wanted to invite in clubs, he could have jumped to 3C over your 1S rebid. When he uses fourth-suit-forcing (2D) first and then supports your minor, he's showing game-forcing strength.
   Since you're already forced to game, jumping to 4H or 5C is unnecessary. It uses up valuable room that partner might need to search for a slam. 

We know partner has a good hand with clubs and probably just four hearts, since he doesn't seem interested in our show of support. It's looking like we hold a near-perfect 12 points for him, but we can't show everything at this turn. Do you emphasize your hand's value for playing in hearts or in clubs?

The panel split fairly evenly on that question. One bid, though, drew half the votes and gets the top score. The bidders made a good case for their choice:

WARD: 3H. I didn’t guarantee 3-card support when I bid 2H, and the 10-trick game might play better than the 11-trick game anyway.

BAKER: 3H. Show my outside values. Partner should already expect shortness in diamonds from me having bid three suits. If he has have shortness in spades, a very thin slam is possible.

KNIEST: 3H. I still don't know much about pard's hand, but a chunky heart suit should bring home the Moysian.

KESSLER: 3H. Do not want to go past 3NT. Perhaps we can make an intelligent decision after partners next call.

HINCKLEY: 3H. 3C is game-forcing. I can't directly tell partner I'm 4=3=1=5 and not 4=3=2=4, but 3H hinting at a Moysian should deny three small hearts and save some bidding space.

Most of the 3H bidders seem willing to settle for 4H if partner bids it. The other half of the panel had hopes for slam and wanted to make it clear that they were taking partner up on his offer to play in clubs. Here's the most straightforward way to do that:

HARVEY: 4C. Most experts play 4th suit forcing to game. I want to tell partner that I have a real club suit. No big difference in IMPs if both 3NT and 5C make. We may get to 6C.

Here's another:

JONES: 3D. Cuebidding and cooperating for clubs.

SPEAR: 3D. Clubs are agreed, so cuebid 1st and 2nd-round controls up-the-line. (Bidding 3H would deny a diamond control). We love our hand opposite partner's game-forcing club raise. The hand with good trumps usually should bid the slam. That's us.

As one Bridgewinners poster pointed out, will partner know 3D is a control bid for clubs? From his point of view, you could hold some unremarkable 4-3-2-4 hand that's just searching for a diamond stopper for 3NT. You might be able to clarify your intentions on the next round, but why not send that message now? 

This is my choice:

RABIDEAU: 4D. This is a game-forcing raise of clubs and I'm glad to suggest slam. By the way, partner's 2D bid is artificial.

STACK: 4D. I would have jumped to 3H over the fourth-suit-force of 2D to show diamond shortness. So now I will show my splinter by jumping to 4D.

When partner makes a game-forcing bid in a suit where I could hold xxx, I think I owe him an immediate confirmation when that suit is actually AKQxx. If no slam makes, the 3H bidders may get to a higher-scoring contract than the club raisers. If a club slam is in the cards, though, they'll have a harder time getting there.
  

    ©  Karen Walker