District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2018

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AJ72    ♥A1043   ♦KJ   ♣1082 ?

Are we in the slam zone? Most thought it was a possibility, but the plurality of the Solvers and the panel backed off. The 3NT bidders made some good points about slam prospects:

SENG: 3NT. Taking the low road. A lot of high-card points, but this is an 8-loser hand. Give partner a 5-loser hand and we have only 11 tricks (8+5=13, 24-13=11).

ENGEL:  3NT. I don't think I can cover quite enough of partner's losers for 6C.

KESSLER:  3NT. A big underbid, but I do not have to explain to teammates. I really like 3D or 3S, but then notrump is played from the wrong side. Going low can be good.

HINCKLEY:  3NT. Mildly conservative, and at IMPs, I'd bid 4C (forcing). Give partner two major-suit kings and six solid clubs and 12 tricks are not clear.

With solid clubs and 16+ points, partner might have rebid 3NT instead of 3C. That increases the likelihood of a club loser, which gives you another reason to be cautious.

Six panelists decided to head for slam, with some taking it slow to uncover information that might help them find 6NT:

JONES:  3S. We are likely headed to 6C, but we may score more matchpoints in a higher strain.

RABIDEAU:  3S. Lots of possibilities here, but nothing stands out. If pard can now bid 3NT, I'll try 6C, knowing that he has a diamond honor (and hopefully length).

This Solver explains another follow-up strategy if you start with 3S.

FOGEL: 3S. Partner will know this was an advance cuebid when you pull his 3NT to 4C. If pard has the diamond ace and a major-suit king, 6C looks like the place to be.

That hand doesn't add up to a sure 12 tricks, even if partner has ♦Axx and can score an extra trick with a ruff in dummy. Slam may depend on partner holding a major-suit KQ or playing the clubs for six tricks. Those aren't unreasonable expectations, so if you're optimistic about slam chances, this auction seems a good way to let partner in on your intentions.

The 4NT bidders took a more direct route to 6C, and one had even higher hopes:

SPEAR: 4NT. Roman Keycard. Expecting 5D=3 keycards, then my 5H will ask for trump queen plus any side king. Then probably one more grand-slam try before settling in 6NT, hoping partner can bid the grand slam when it makes.  Using 4C or 4D as Keycard works better, but we are stuck with Bridge World Standard.

The real problem here is you have no good way to invite slam. A raise to 4C (forcing) is a gentler move, but you'll still be guessing later. If partner makes a control bid of 4D and you bid 4H, what will you bid when he retreats to 5C? That contract rates to be an awful score at matchpoints, and with your not-yet-disclosed spade control, you'll feel compelled to bid 6C and hope partner has the right hand or can take a winning finesse or two.

Bids of 3D and 3S will lead to the same problem. Unless partner rebids 3NT or you're willing to stop in the matchpoint basement of 5C, these bids are essentially committals to slam, not tries. That makes this a choice between 3NT and a 6-level contract, and you pretty much have to make that decision now.

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable   

What is your call as South holding: ♠QJ1074   ♥K109   ♦J5   ♣Q93 ?

At IMPs, most would just close their eyes and bid 3NT. Matchpoints makes this what Solver Nigel Guthrie called a "trilemma" with three potential solutions. The passers wanted to take their surest shot at the plus column, all choosing the same adjective to describe their hand:

KESSLER: Pass. My values are soft and the heart king is badly placed. Plus scores at matchpoints.

RABIDEAU: Pass. With such soft values, 3NT isn't likely to succeed.

ENGEL: Pass. Even if my heart king is working, the rest is just too soft.

The rest of the panel decided to try game and almost all chose 3NT instead of looking for 4S. The most obvious reason:

JONES: 3NT. Because I'm the guy on our side with a heart stopper.

A 3S bid could work if you catch partner with support, but his failure to make a takeout double reduces that chance somewhat. The panel explained why they gave up on spades:

BAKER: 3NT. 3S makes it awfully difficult to get to 3NT when it’s right. I wouldn’t argue with pass (at least at matchpoints) with so many quacks, but the spots tempt me.

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Too much chance that 3NT is the only making game. If I bid 3S, often partner will be retreating back to 4D.

WARD:  3NT. It is either this or pass, and I have a lot of respect for 3-level overcalls here, so I’ll take the push. 3S is only going to be right when I hit partner with club shortness.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠52   ♥J10   ♦942   ♣AKQ987  ?

When you picked up this hand, it was hard to imagine that you wouldn't be bidding that club suit at least once. The plan wasn't to have to do it at the 4-level, but several panelists decided the suit was still worth showing:

WARD: 4C.  No good choice here. Double will likely lead to a disaster unless partner bids 3NT, and pass leaves me unable to describe this hand ever, although it may work out if partner cannot reopen.

BAKER: 4C. Suits like this are made for bidding. It’s very likely we have 10-11 tricks if the opponents can’t or don’t cash out immediately.

That possibility moved a few to go for the 9-trick game:

JONES: 3NT. Because I'm the guy on our team with a diamond stopper. Well, I am if partner has ♦Kxx or ♦QJx, for example. Other bids pretty much make it difficult or impossible to reach our favorite spot.

ENGEL: 3NT. In print, even! But neither raising spades nor a negative double is palatable, either.

It's true that good things can happen when you bid 3NT. Maybe if you bid it confidently enough, you'll talk LHO out of leading diamonds? A good partner, of course, will have the ♦A and you'll have nine running tricks. Then again, he could have the hand this panelist fears:

HINCKLEY: 4C.  I am tempted to double, hoping partner can bid 3NT. I am NOT tempted to bid 3NT and see ♦Kx come down in dummy!

A number of Solvers tried the negative double, but as WARD pointed out, that rates to create an unsolvable problem unless partner has a diamond stopper and three or fewer hearts. The plurality of the panel didn't want to take that gamble. The passers, although reluctant, thought that if this was really our hand, they might have another chance to bid.

RABIDEAU: Pass. Ugly. If pard re-opens with a double, I'll have another ugly decision.

SPEAR: Pass. Trusting partner to reopen with diamond shortness, then 4D over partner's 3S or double, 4C over 3H, cry over pass.

KESSLER: Pass. If this is our hand for a contract higher than 3D, partner rates to have a bid. Let's see what it is. Going low again!

What is your call as South holding:  ♠6    ♥AQ10765   ♦K984   ♣AQ ?

With a bit less, 4H would probably be the best choice here. In this type of crowded auction, though, it's often a gun-to-the-head bid, and the panel thought this hand was too strong for it. Their preference was to double to show a better hand and see what partner had to say.

BAKER: Double. I have extras and can tolerate anything partner bids. Over 4C, I’ll offer 4H as a choice of games, but bidding 4H now should show a stronger preference. If partner passes my double, at least I have quick tricks.

JONES: Double. This shows values and is most flexible in getting us to where we belong.

WARD: Double. I have to show extras. 4D on this bad suit could work out poorly, and 4H will vastly understate the hand I have.

A similar strategy is to pass and wait for partner's next bid. Partner's 3C showed a good hand and he owes you at least one more bid, so pass should be forcing here.

ENGEL: Pass. I will pass 3NT, bid 4H if partner doubles, and bid 4S if partner bids either minor.

SPEAR: Pass. Forcing.  (I prefer the method that double is extra values with no convenient bid.)

I think Jack's preferred method is close to universal among experts, but if you aren't sure if your partner would interpret a double this way, it's a good topic for discussion. If you can use a double to show general strength, it seems better to communicate that now than to try to catch up later.

Another approach is to bid a suit to give partner more specific information about your hand. If you accept that you have too much for a 4H rebid, do you choose clubs or diamonds?

RABIDEAU: 4D. Hope to hear something helpful from partner.

SENG: 4D. Surely this is forcing at this level and it leaves all three suits in play, while rebidding hearts or raising clubs may not.

With such strong holdings in hearts and clubs, do you really want to bring this diamond suit into the picture? If partner happens to have four diamonds with you, he surely has at least six good clubs.

Your club honors are two of the reasons that your hand is too good for a simple 4H rebid. I and two other panelists decided to give partner that news now.

KESSLER: 4C. You could bid 4H with a worse hand and more hearts. Partner probably does not have four diamonds (no negative double). 4C is the most flexible bid..

HINCKLEY: 4C. Forcing, especially at IMPs, after partner's game-forcing 3C bid. ♣AQ looks like three-card support!

What is your call as South holding:  ♠10985   ♥A1062   ♦K64   ♣J3 ?

When partner has made a vulnerable takeout double at the three-level, you're usually happy to hold an 8-point hand with both majors and good spot cards. This one, however, has a flaw, explained most concisely by:

SENG: 3H. With the diamond king in the slot, this is not much of a hand.

That's why the panel was unanimous in downgrading these values and giving up on game. With the exception of one voter who decided to try for +300, the panel diverged on which major was the better retreat. The majority thought it was important to show their better suit.

ENGEL: 3H. At a lower level, I would bid spades first, but that precaution seems less necessary here.

BAKER: 3H. With the ♦K in bad position, this isn’t worth a cuebid, not even red at IMPs. If opener had bid 1D, I’d bid 1S now so I’m in a position to compete with 2H if West bids again, but he won’t here, so I’ll just bid my best suit.

The 3S bidders weren't expecting the opponents to bid again, but they thought that partner might. If that happened, they wanted to be ready with a good rebid.

SPEAR: 3S. The optimist preparing for another bid..

WARD: 3S. Best chance to get to 4 of a major, which is our most likely game. 3NT is hoping partner has extra, which we may hear about over 3S, but also means we have a likely 4-4 major suit fit.

HINCKLEY: 3S. Partner is assuming I have a working 7 high-card points and I clearly don't exceed that, so I must choose between 3H and 3S. I'm passing if RHO bids 4D in the balance. Because partner might be 4-6 in a major plus clubs, I'll bid 3S now, followed by 4H after his hypothetical 4C bid.

One way to solve the 3H/3S dilemma is to let partner choose. More than a quarter of the Solvers did that by bidding 4D to show both majors. This takes the contract a level higher, but does offer the advantage of assuring that you'll find your better fit. So why did the panel reject the cuebid? This panelist explains:

JONES: 3S. With both majors across from a takeout double, even I won't bid 3NT this time. Normally, you cuebid 4D to make partner pick a major, but I want to declare the hand and protect the ♦K. And 3S may be our best spot. I'll bid 4H if given a second chance to bid.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:  ♠103   ♥AK1092   ♦K5   ♣10843 ?

We have several reasonable rebids available and a pretty good picture of partner's hand -- five spades (probably not six), at least four clubs (often five), two or fewer hearts and extra values. With all that information, this should be an easy choice, but the panel came up with five solutions.

This being matchpoints and your hand having a stopper in the unbid suit, the natural impulse is to go for everyone's favorite contract:

JONES: 3NT. Because I'm the guy on our side who has the diamond stopper.

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Typical matchpoint avoidance of supporting partner's minor! It does keep the diamond king from being immediately attacked in a club contract.

SPEAR: 3NT. This is a matchpoint bid. I hope we can find a team for tomorrow.

3NT is the contract where your red-suit honors will have the most value, but the rest of the panel expressed concern about the presumed diamond shortness in partner's hand. Some didn't want to commit to 3NT now, but neither did they want to rule it out, so they tried:

BAKER: 3D. 3NT now with a single stopper vulnerable on the lead is too committal. I can offer 3NT over 3H or 3S (going through 4th suit should show doubt).

KESSLER: 3D. Trying for 3NT. Opening 1H perhaps would have been easier (as Gary Cohler said, sometimes I don't count so well).

WARD: 3D. I want to give partner a chance to bid 3S.

The artificial fourth-suit bid is often a good punt when you aren't sure of the right strain for the final contract. These bids could work, too:

ENGEL: 3H. Making 4H in a 5-2 fit seems more likely than 5C in a 4-4.

SENG: 3S. As a passed hand, I cannot hold three spades for this bid. If we have game, it's most likely 4S.

The top vote-getter was 4C, but only one panelist offered a comment to support his choice.

RABIDEAU: 4C. If partner has good/great spades, he'll rebid them and we'll play there.

I bid 4C, too, because I had serious doubts about notrump. It seemed best to tell partner I had a good hand for clubs now rather than bid them later, when it might sound like a tepid preference. The 3D bidders, however, have convinced me that their approach is better.

Going back a decade or four, the director at our campus bridge club -- who was my old friend and Forum panelist and moderator Kimmel Jones -- used to break into song when a pair had an auction like this one. Singing to the tune of the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", Kimmel would serenade the 4C or 4D bidder with:
   "Everyone smiles as we bid past 3NT . . . and get so in-CRED-ibly high".

No one ever wanted to hear that song because it usually meant you were heading for a poor matchpoint score. Perhaps those memories should have steered me toward the better 3D bid when I cast my vote for this problem.

    ©  Karen Walker