♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 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              

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q72   ♥QJ   ♦104   ♣AJ7532 ?

If there's a "book" call for this hand, it's probably this:

HINCKLEY: Redouble. Neither a non-forcing 2C (which should have better clubs and worse diamonds) nor 1NT seem like better options.

KNIEST: Redouble. Trying to establish ownership of strength so to buy the hand.

The standard meaning of Redouble is 10+ high-card points. After the minor-suit opening, it suggests one of two types of hands:
   1) A penalty-oriented hand, usually with shortness in partner's suit and length in at least two of the unbid suits.
   2) A long suit that you can't show at the one-level.

This hand has the 10 points and could be called a one-suiter, but finishing the description may be awkward if the opponents start bidding their majors. If you can keep them out of your way, though, redouble does save some space:

MOSES: Redouble. I have 10 sort-of-balanced points. If partner can rebid 1NT, I like it. If I bid 2C, we can't bid 1NT anymore.

There's an obvious solution to that problem:

BAKER: 1NT. Despite the 10 high-card points, this doesn't really feel strong enough for a redouble. With points in the majors, I prefer 1NT to 2C, but I could see either working out.

KESSLER: 1NT. Matchpoints and the Hamman theory: If notrump is an option, bid it.

I think the original quote was about 3NT, but it's not much of a stretch to apply that matchpoint logic at this level, too. I like 1NT because it shows your strength and general pattern in one bid and +120 beats +110. I think it's a very close decision, though. On a different day, I might choose this bid instead:

KAPLAN: 2C. Using caution.

WARD: 2C. I think it is more important to get my suit in now than redouble to show 10 points. While we may end up missing a good 3NT opposite a perfecta from partner, it will make any other auction much easier to handle.

SPEAR: 2C.  Hoping this works better than redouble, which may not prove so descriptive on different continuations. Over redouble, West could preempt a long major, and/or the opponents could be in 2 of a major when I get my next chance to continue describing this collection.

If we're still consulting "the book", the standard meaning of 2C here is weak, showing a long suit and around 5-9 points. The panel wasn't too worried about being a point heavy, especially since this 10-count is so soft that it looks like 9, or maybe 8.

One panelist thought the outside cards were so worthless that he demoted the hand to a preempt:

RABIDEAU: 3C. The quacks lead me to devalue the hand. Let's make it hard on the opponents.

2. IMPs, EW vulnerable          

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q107   ♥AQ986  ♦J54   ♣J3 ?

Some of the most awkward auctions in Standard American systems are those where opener makes a jump-rebid in his minor. Even if you have clear agreements about continuations, responder won't be able to describe every type of hand. Here's one rebid that I thought was fairly standard:

BAKER: 3H. Forcing. This is a hand where methods that show 3-card support immediately would be nice (folding the 18-19 balanced into a different sequence would free up 2NT for that purpose, for instance).

Evidently, this meaning -- 5+ cards, forcing values -- is not as widely accepted as it once was, as Dan and I were outvoted. There was one other panelist who agreed on the meaning of 3H, but pointed out another problem:

HINCKLEY:  3NT. 3H is forcing with a 5-bagger, but responder might be stuck raising to 4H on Jx and no spade stopper.

You'd like to be able to figure out if opener has heart support and/or black-suit stoppers, but space is limited. The 3S bidders thought they had the solution:

KESSLER: 3S. Showing a stopper. I hate to blast 3NT when partner has ♠AK and ♦AKQ and 5C is cold.

KNIEST: 3S. Most flexible to suggest five hearts and not go past 3NT. Certainly willing to play 5D, but I'm not giving up on a lower contract.

RABIDEAU: 3S. I'd like to have a better spade stopper but it's kinda handy to be able to check on 3-card heart support and a club stopper with one bid.  I'll gladly raise 4D to game, knowing there should be little wastage in clubs.

Some panelists believe 3S operates like New Minor Forcing -- a checkback for 3-card heart support. Others maintain that 3S just shows a spade stopper and asks for a club stopper. Still others think it sends all three messages. That would certainly be a convenient agreement with this particular hand, but will partner logically figure it out? What would you bid if your black suits were switched and you wanted to ask for a spade stopper?

The meanings would be clearer if partner's suit were clubs. Now both unbid suits would be available at the 3-level and you could bid the one where you have a stopper. After 3D, though, you can't do both. With only one unbid suit available below 3NT, you need an agreement about what it means. It might be a sort of "last-train" bid that says you have a stopper in only one of the unbid suits, or you can agree that it always asks for a stopper in the unbid major (my preference).

Or maybe the easier, more practical solution is:

MOSES: 3NT. My partner has to have something over there.  If he can stop clubs, 3NT should be cold. It's a guess, but 3NT will probably work the majority of the time.

Not perfect and far from scientific, but it's amazing how often the let-them-find-the-right-lead strategy is the winner.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable       

  * Forcing 1NT

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KQ864   ♥10   ♦K7   ♣AQJ108  ?

The panel majority thought they had to make at least one move toward game. The dilemma was how to make the try. The plurality opted to show their fifth club.

KAPLAN: 3C. Must try for game!

BAKER: 3C. Too good not to make one more try. Partner might not guess the extent of my diamond tolerance, but 3D might overstate it.

HINCKLEY: 3C.  Invitational but non-forcing with a black two-suiter. Second choice:  3D.

MOSES: 3C. I complete my pattern and wait to see if my partner can bid again. If partner bids 3D, I will pass.  If he can raise clubs, I'll try 5C because it is IMPS.

If you want your partner to bid again, the best way to encourage that is to show that you fit his long suit.

KESSLER: 3D. Should show more than a minimum with a fit. With a third diamond and one fewer club, I would bid 3H.

KNIEST: 3D. Partner hasn't shown anything except long diamonds, but I have a good hand for him no matter what he does.

WARD: 3D. I have to make some kind of move, since as little as ♠x  ♥xxx  ♦AQJxxx  ♣xxx makes 5D a pretty good contract at IMPs.

Although your fit is only a doubleton, it's a good one and you're counting on at least a 6-2 fit. It's possible, of course, that partner is close to broke and the 3-level will be too high, and that was the concern of the passers. Speaking for them:

SPEAR: Pass. My hand is quite good for playing in diamonds, but I must be prepared to pass 3NT if I raise to 3D.  Eleven tricks are quite possible opposite the right hand. but partner could be also be quite weak.

4. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQJ3   ♥9754   ♦8   ♣Q753 ?

Curious hand: Some of us are wondering if we have enough for slam while others are hoping we aren't already too high. And although the panel offered some good guesses, no one is really certain of the exact type of hand partner is trying to show.

The passers thought that whatever partner held, they didn't have enough to consider any higher contract. 

RABIDEAU: Pass. I don't know what 3D means -- opening high-card points and lotsa diamonds? -- but I don't have anything to say.

KESSLER: Pass. Even if partner has seven solid diamonds, we still have no tricks.

SPEAR: Pass. Not sure that our side can take nine tricks before their side takes five tricks. I believe if I bid 3S, partner should play me for stoppers in both black suits, but I would not risk that even in a bidding contest.

The rest of the panel believed partner had not just a lot of tricks, but also some extra strength.

HINCKLEY:  3NT. 3D is highly invitational with a likely solid suit.

BAKER: 3NT. Partner has a very good hand. With a club stopper and some useful cards, I think I have to take a shot at everyone's favorite contract.

WARD: 3NT. Second choice would be 3S, but partner is never going to bid 3NT without a club stopper over that. If they run the first five tricks, so be it.

MOSES: 3NT. Why did partner go out of his way to bid 3D when 1D and 2D were available? He must have 7 or 8 tricks in his hand. I have some stuff, so 3NT. Partner doesn't care that I don't have a diamond fit.

If we had the answers to Tod's question, we'd all know what to bid. Partner could have balanced with 2D to show a good hand and long suit, so the double jump must be something quite unusual. My best guess is that he has at least eight diamonds, some high cards outside and a club void, which is why he didn't start with a takeout double. I also suspect that his diamonds aren't solid, which is why he didn't balance with 3C to ask for a club stopper. If that idea is anything close to what he actually holds, here's another advance that could work better than 3NT:

KAPLAN: 3S. Must make a try with good spades and West silent.

Our Forum partner is ostensibly an expert, so although his hand will remain a mystery, we have to assume that he had a good reason for his unusual action. Any of the panel's guesses could be right, so maybe everyone deserves 100. 

5. Matchpoints, both vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AK6   ♥5   ♦QJ96   ♣AQ1097 ?

With a nice 16 points and a partner who's shown decent values, the panel had no reservations about bidding game. The only possible issue is that there could be a better or safer game than 4S, especially if partner has only a 4-card suit. Several panelists wanted to investigate:

HINCKLEY: 3C. 100% game-forcing. Planning on showing the spade support next. Slam is possible opposite  ♠QJxx   ♥xxx   ♦AKx   ♣Jxx. although it might be tough to bid it with confidence.

SWEATT: 3C. I'm bidding 4S next time unless partner comes up with 3NT here.

WARD: 3H. Seems normal. I'll obviously pass 3NT and this still leaves the door open for 5 (or 6) of a minor over a tenuous Moysian 4S.

The majority of the panel made a faster decision.

KESSLER: 4S. Shooting it out, even at matchpoints. Just too good.

KNIEST: 4S. If it's a Moysian, so be it.

KAPLAN: 4S. Could miss slam; but want to go plus!

MOSES: 4S. No guarantee that partner has 5 or more spades, but if he does, 4S should have a good shot. I can stop hearts once and any club honors rate to be onside. Even with only four spades, partner may be able to take 10 or 11 tricks.

Jack Spear offers a good explanation of why the majority had few concerns about the possibility of a 4-3 fit:

SPEAR: 4S. Playing in spades rates to be right even opposite a 4-card suit. 3S might be passed when 4S is quite good. Bidding 3C could easily lead us to the wrong contract. Passing is not under consideration.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠QJ74   ♥A4   ♦A3   ♣KJ753 ?

More than half the panel felt they had to bid something with this 15-point hand. If you're of the same mind, this seems best:

BAKER: 1NT. I suspect notrump is better from partner's side, but I don't know of a way to bid "1NT as dummy". Other options (Pass, 1S, 2C)  all seem worse.

MOSES: 1NT. Not exactly the right shape, but modern bidding says you don't need to have the minor stopped at all to bid 1NT. If you pass or bid 2C, you will probably lose the spade suit.

Almost a third of the Solvers preferred a 2C overcall. You'd like to have longer or at least stronger clubs for this bid, but it's more reasonable than rolling the dice with a takeout double with this pattern. Double was chosen by four panelists, who called it "flexible" and were hoping partner would bid notrump. None of the 1NT bidders were happy about having just ♦A3 for a stopper, but the likely possibility of playing in a 4-2 heart fit has to be worse.

The plurality of the panel decided to wait for a better opportunity: 

HINCKLEY: Pass. A 1NT overcall should have 3-plus diamonds and it wrong-sides notrump. A spade fit might be lost by overcalling 2C. I'd feel better about passing if both sides were vulnerable.

KESSLER: Pass. Hopefully the opponents will introduce hearts and we can double our way back into the auction. Bidding 2C is looking for trouble.

SPEAR: Pass. With any luck, their side will bid hearts, and our takeout double will get us to the right spot. Overcalling 1NT is possible, but overcalling 2C can easily go wrong.

RABIDEAU: Pass. 1NT is the only sensible alternative, but this spotless, quacky, single-stopper hand screams caution. I'm hoping it will go 1D - Pass - 1H - Pass - (1NT, 2D or 2H) back to me.

WARD: Pass. 2C well deserves a trap pass on my left.  When 1H-Pass-2H comes back to me, I have an easy double now.

Passing now allows you to make a more informed decision later. If either opponent responds or rebids spades or clubs, you'll know it was probably wise to stay out of the auction.

If LHO responds 1H, though, you have an easy re-entry into the auction over any low-level rebid by opener. Passing and then doubling at your second turn is not a "light" takeout double. It promises a good hand that didn't have the right distribution for a first-round double, but does now because your LHO responded your short suit. That's as close to a perfect description as you can hope for in a bidding forum problem. 
 

    ©  Karen Walker