District 8 Solvers Forum -- February  2012

     by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

1. IMPs, Nobody Vulnerable

What's your call as South holding ♠1092   ♥K4   ♦J763  ♣10863 ? 

The majority sums up their feelings with:

HUDSON:  Pass. At this low level, I'm not showing a desire to play in 1H redoubled, just a lack of preference among the other suits.

SOPER:  Pass. I don't have a five-card suit and I'm fine with whatever partner bids. Pass is not to play.

The majority usually rules in the Forum, but an exception is made when that choice is destined to get you a score of minus 920 or thereabouts (that's 1H redoubled making 3). It would certainly be handy if Pass meant "no opinion", but it doesn't. Your Forum partner, who is defined as an expert, will read it as "I want to play 1H redoubled."

Note that this is not the same auction as 1H-DBL-RDBL-Pass, where your Pass would be non-committal. In the current problem, the double is in the passout seat and you're sitting over, not under, the bidder. Unless you've discussed an alternate meaning in advance, a pass of a redouble in this position is for penalty.

If you need more convincing, see problem 3 in the "It's Your Call" column of the February issue of the ACBL Bulletin. It's the same auction as above, but presented from the doubler's point of view after his partner passes the redouble. Holding  ♠A853  ♥7  ♦J6532  ♣A42, 14 of the 18 experts passed out 1H redoubled. They were adamant that partner's pass was for penalty.

The rest of our panel agreed with the Bulletin experts. The most popular choice for an escape was:

SPEAR:  2C. I can't pass, as it is for play, so I'll just make a cheap bid and then see how high they are going in their heart fit.

RABIDEAU: 2C. Keeping the level low with a 1S bid always seems to get partner more excited than he should be.

Not to mention the possibility that you'll be playing a silly 3-3 fit.

KAPLAN:  2C. Perhaps 1NT says "pick a minor", but I think that's wishful thinking, so I pick one myself. 2C is my choice because partner can bid 2D over that.

That's the best argument for the simple 2C. If partner has a slightly off-shape takeout double -- say, 4-2-5-2 distribution -- a 2C bid allows him to make the "equal-level conversion" to 2D without showing anything extra.

One panelist decided that 1NT could show the minors, as long as you had a partner who would pick up on your "obvious" follow-up: 

KNIEST: 1NT. I'll pull 1NT doubled to 2C. Should be obvious to partner that I have clubs and diamonds.

Some panelists insisted that the real meaning of their pass was a matter of partnership agreement: 

MATHENY: Pass. The problem is probably asking whether passing is penalty oriented, showing a heart stack. I don't think this is a good idea. I think Pass should show this hand -- support for anything doubler would like to bid and keeping a 1S contract available. The lower, the better.

You may share Larry's preference, and if so, you should discuss it with your partner. Even some of the Bulletin panelists mentioned that this auction was subject to partnership agreement, but most  asserted that without one, the "expert standard" meaning of this Pass is to play.

2. IMPs, Both Vulnerable

What's your call as South holding  ♠Void   ♥KQ   ♦KQ10843  ♣AJ753 ?

Unbid suits are usually good choices for balancing bids. Three panelists and about a quarter of the Solvers deemed that their best strategy here.

SOPER: 2C. I'd like to get partner to pick a minor, but don't have a clear way to do so. 1NT and even 2D would be subject to misinterpretation and double would elicit a 2H bid or a pass from partner.

The 2D bidders thought the meaning of their bid was clear, although they showed varying levels of enthusiasm:

KESSLER:  2D. This is certainly natural. Partner likely has at least 9 major-suit cards, so let's not get aggressive for fear of a large minus.

KAPLAN:  2D. I thought about 2NT for the minors. Yet, I'm not sure if this strange sequence would really show that. I'm hoping that because I hold only two cards in the majors, this hand is a misfit, yet I cannot bring myself to pass, so I bid my best suit!

FOGEL:  2D. We probably don't have a game, and I don't see that clubs will play better to make it worth distorting my hand at IMPs.

KNIEST: 2D. Hope I get another chance to bid. As Al Roth used to say: "Who makes up these hands?"

SPEAR:  2D. I'll start with a natural 2D (forcing on lefty with his spade length), then bid clubs next, then probably double something if anyone but me is still bidding. Hope pard enjoys the ride, and we stick the landing!

A few panelists wanted to bid earlier:

FELDMAN:  2D. I dug myself a hole by not overcalling 2C.

BRIDGE BARON:  2C. This certainly qualifies for a balance, but doesn't have enough hearts for a takeout double. If we wanted to show a stronger hand, we should have bid over 1D. While Bridge Baron would indeed have passed 1D, that should probably be considered a bug.

MERRITT:  2D. I wouldn't have passed the first time around, but it looks like it worked out. Now I can try 2D and continue with 3C over the expected 2S competition.

This club suit isn't anyone's idea of a vulnerable overcall, but it does have some appeal on this particular hand. If you overcall 2C and hear the dreaded Pass-Pass-Double, you have a handy "pre-escape" available by rebidding 2D.

Several panelists mentioned my choice, but the only one who recorded a vote for it was:

HUDSON:  2NT. Partner will have no trouble reading this as unusual for the minors. Ditto if I bid just 1NT, but I have such a good hand I'll go up the extra level. I can't double with short hearts, and to bid 2C or 2D would be needlessly unilateral.

I'm not so sure that partner would take 1NT as a minor takeout, but I agree that this hand is worth more than a 2D balance. You would have bid 2D without the spade void and the club ace.

2NT shows both suits immediately and it gets partner's attention. He'll expect something more than a mundane 5-5 hand, and he may pick up on the inference that your diamonds are better and/or longer than your clubs (else you would have overcalled 2C at your last turn). And unless you would have allowed the opponents to play 2S, the jump doesn't get you any higher than the 2C or 2D bids.

3. IMPs, North-South Vulnerable

     * Invitational

What's your call as South holding  ♠KQ10   ♥63   ♦A64   ♣KJ982 ?

The first question to ponder is whether you should accept partner's invitation. These panelists make a good case for passing:

PAULO:  Pass. I see three reasons against bidding: Heart spots which don't help partner's suit, only one diamond stopper and only three honors outside the club suit.

KAPLAN:  Pass. You need a lot to make five of a minor, and I'm not sure we can make 3NT. Perhaps I'm wimping out here, but I take my plus.

So why did more than 80 percent of the panel and Solvers bid on?

KESSLER:  3NT. I would pass at any other form of scoring and vulnerability -- but not red at IMPs.

SPEAR:  3NT. Looks like a classic game acceptance. I'll make the first 2012 prediction for a unanimous panel vote.

DODD:  3NT. To quote some former teammates (with whom we won plenty of team events!), "We don't play making partscores vulnerable at IMPs."

At team scoring, you'll come out ahead in the long run if you bid vulnerable games that have at least a 40-percent chance of success. Even though this hand is "only" 13 points, the panel thought the big club fit and the prime values provided enough of an excuse to go for the game bonus. Their thinking went like this:

FOGEL: 3NT. Sure, I'd like the heart jack to make it a perfect maximum, but I expect to take two spades, a heart, a diamond and four clubs for sure, with lots of places to find one more trick.

NELSON: 3NT. Hopefully I will pick up the club suit and have double stoppers in spades.

Still, some panelists admitted that their success could well depend on the opening lead:

KNIEST: 3NT. They always lead the other major. That should buy time.

FELDMAN: 3NT. Hope I get a spade lead, in which case I like my chances. That seems enough to bid it vulnerable.

This panelist decided that there was no hurry to bid an iffy 3NT when he had an easy way to collect more information.

MATHENY:  3S. Partner must be short in one of the pointed suits. It might be diamonds, making a club contract best.

Exactly. Even with good club support, partner surely would have raised notrump if he had a semi-balanced hand. When he invites with 3C instead of 2NT, he almost always has a singleton. If it's in diamonds, you aren't getting the friendly spade lead.

The 3S rebid shows a concentration of values and doubt about the other suit. If partner is short in spades and has a diamond stopper, he'll bid 3NT. If he's short in diamonds, he'll bid 4C or 5C.

4. Matchpoints, East-West Vulnerable

   * Negative

What's your call as South holding  ♠A9  ♥AQ8   ♦6  ♣AQJ10983 ?

FOGEL:  6C. Unless West and North are both insane, pard should have no wastage in spades and about opening values. Slam should be on.

KNIEST:  6C. Partner said we could play at the 4-level, so I think we can play at the 6-level.

That was the general sentiment of the majority of panelists and Solvers. The decision was mainly a matter of how to get there.

The 5C bidders were hoping their jump would induce partner to bid the slam.

KAPLAN:  5C. I'd like to be able to cuebid and then show my clubs. If I take this route, however, I may find myself in 6C with no play (4S - 5H - 6C). Thus, I bid 5C. It might easily make six, but it's matchpoints and going plus is good.

MERRITT:  5C. We are under pressure and this seems like the most likely call to get partner excited if we should be in slam.

DODD: 5C. Perhaps a little conservative, but partner is supposed to be an expert and can take the plunge with the right sort of fit and controls. Cuebidding here looks suspiciously like a Bridge World "You Be The Judge" problem.

The trouble is that you have almost all of the controls and a suit that doesn't need a fit. Even the most aggressive expert isn't going to be turned on looking at just one ace and a small singleton or doubleton club, no matter what other high cards he holds. 

With one exception, the rest of the panel wasn't willing to settle for anything less than 6C. One approach was the cuebid in support of ... what? The panel thought they could clarify that later.

KESSLER: 4S, My intentions are to bid 6C, but we could be cold for several grands as partner is not a passed hand. 4S lets partner know I have more interest than playing just 6C. The club king rates to be onside, which is good if partner has a couple of clubs.

SOPER: 4S. I'll bid 6C later and if partner corrects to 6H, dummy shouldn't be a disappointment.

PAULO: 4S. Game is sure and slam looks likely, as just  ♠xx  ♥Kxxx ♦Axxx  ♣xxx may be enough.

And that's far less than partner will have for this auction. His negative double forced you to 3NT or the four-level, so he should have at least another king. 

The 4NT bidders were double checking on keycards and hoping to find enough to bid a grand slam.

NELSON: 4NT. This is a tough one. However, with partner's double, probably the best contract is 6C. 4H is a strong possibility, but hearts may not split in our favor.

HUDSON:  4NT. I will assume that 4NT asks for keycards for clubs (with 5C the zero response). If partner has two keycards, I'll bid a grand. Would anybody bid 3NT?

Even at matchpoints, none of the panelists gave serious consideration to 3NT or 4H. As Nelson pointed out, even if partner has five hearts, 6C rates to be safer. And if 6C goes down, I'll bet 3NT was going down more.

Only one panelist missed the slam boat:

BRIDGE BARON:  4C. No known major fit. No diamond stopper for notrump. But we have a textbook 4C bid: 19-20 total points and a seven-card suit.

The Baron seems to have caught the winter bug that is going around, or maybe he didn't "see" the negative double.

So what's the best route to slam? The 4S cuebid strikes me as temporary torture for partner, and 4NT is often misinterpreted. Since your suit is clubs, there's not enough room to find the cards you need for a sure grand slam, so I'm with:

FELDMAN: 6C. Not sure how I can find out what I need to know. Going slowly might confuse the issues. This seems like a reasonable shot.

5. Matchpoints, Nobody Vulnerable

What's your call as South holding  ♠Q1053  ♥73  ♦AK10873  ♣A ?

At IMPs, the vote would probably be unanimous for rebidding diamonds. At matchpoints, though, the lure of the extra trick score in notrump was a deciding factor for almost half the panel.

SOPER:  Pass. With two club stoppers between us and only one likely diamond loser, I'll go for the better matchpoint score if an overtrick is available.

SPEAR: Pass. I've never scored any matchpoints bidding diamonds here, so I'm sticking with the pass again this year.

KESSLER:  Pass. Notrump pays more than diamonds, and we may not make even 2D opposite  ♠xxx  ♥QJxx  ♦xx  ♣KQxx .

RABIDEAU: Pass. As we all know, matchpoints and bridge are two significantly different games.

Most of the 2D bidders said they considered passing, but they weren't as sure that notrump would be a better plus score -- or any plus score at all. 

MERRITT:  2D. I'll finish patterning out. This may put us on the wrong side of a notrump partscore swing, but these diamonds seem like they must be repeated.

PAULO: 2D. At matchpoints, notrump is appealing, but diamonds can score better if partner holds something like  ♠Kxx  ♥KJxx  ♦xx  ♣Jxxx  and diamonds don't split.

KNIEST:  2D. Paints a picture, and you might survive a bad diamond break that would beat 1NT with a club lead or a timely club shift.

KAPLAN: 2D. Yes, I know it's matchpoints, but better to go plus in 2D than down in 1NT!

Both sides offer good arguments. If partner has a club stopper and the diamonds set up for at least five tricks, the passers will probably get the better score. If not, the 2D bidders will take more of the matchpoints.

The tie is broken by the Solvers, who voted almost 2:1 for the 2D rebid. I think they have the better case. Partner, who didn't promise a club stopper, could have anything from ♣KQxxx to ♣xxx, and if it's closer to the latter, 1NT may have no chance. You won't get a zero for playing the practical 2D, but you might for the anti-field 1NT.

6. Matchpoints, Both Vulnerable

What's your call as South holding ♠AQ43   ♥A82   ♦J   ♣AK654 ?

A few panelists and almost half the Solvers put on the brakes because they hadn't found a decent fit. 

FOGEL:  Pass. Slam is close on points, but where are the tricks? We have no fitting long suit and I don't see us taking 12 tricks on power. There's nothing wrong with +660, anyway.

The rest of the panel felt they had too many undisclosed values to settle for 3NT. The most optimistic panelists just blasted to slam.

KAPLAN: 6NT. Am I ever going to show I have more than a 12 count? I don't even want to invite slam with this hand; partner should have at least a good opener with this auction.

Most other panelists chose to investigate but not insist on slam.

HUDSON:  4C. I must make a slam try, and I haven't previously shown my fifth club. After bidding 4C, I will contentedly let partner place the contract. 

RABIDEAU:  4C. This should pin down my distribution -- no more than one diamond. Partner can bail at 4NT.

This will sound like a sixth club to partner, as he already knows you have five clubs. You've shown at most seven cards in the majors, and your 3H "picture bid" pinpointed your diamond shortness. If you had a 4-3-2-4 pattern with a heart card, you would have bid notrump.

The most popular solution was a direct 4NT, which all agreed was an invitation to 6NT (not Blackwood).

MATHENY: 4NT. This is a bit pushy since we haven't found a fit, but I've never shown my extra values.

KESSLER:  4NT. This is certainly not ace-asking. This should show exactly what we have (how unusual): Diamond shortness with 18-19 points.

DODD: 4NT. Quantitative. I could have considerably less for my actions thus far. Hands and auctions like this are what make forcing-club systems so popular.

These fourth-suit-forcing auctions are often awkward because it's hard to discern exactly why partner made the artificial bid. His 2H, which is the only forcing call available to him, could have been a search for a heart stopper for 3NT. Or maybe he has some extra values and was hoping to hear about diamond support. It sounds like he took your 3H as showing some heart values, but is it possible that he thought you were asking for a stopper? 

With all of these unknowns, the punt of 4NT seems a good way to let partner clarify his strength. Still, some panelists had the nagging feeling it wasn't enough:   

SPEAR:  4NT. One more bid for the road. Now I can claim it is not my fault for missing the slam, even though I think 5NT (choice of slams) may be a better bid. Perhaps pard can make one more try, and save me from my underbid.

Thanks for the plug for 5NT, Jack. I think 4NT is an underbid, too, and somewhat problematic because it puts so much emphasis on notrump. If partner was looking for a heart stopper, then I don't have the right hand for 6NT (or maybe even 4NT). 6C rates to be better if partner has support, and the pick-a-slam 5NT gets that contract into the picture. Even 6D may be better if partner has the hand with long diamonds. 

Note: The web form had a temporary error that made it appear that East-West were doing all the bidding on this problem. That caused several Solvers to vote for Double, which is not a legal call in the real (corrected) auction. All the doubles were scored as 100.
 

    ©  Karen Walker