District 8 Solvers Forum -- October 2019

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K7643   ♥72   ♦Q1075   ♣Q2 ?

Just about everyone was headed for game, with a few exceptions. Several Solvers passed, which suggests there's some confusion about partner's 2NT bid. In this auction, partner isn't bidding 2NT to rescue you from 2S -- he's showing a balanced hand that was too strong to overcall 1NT (18-19 high-card points). 

What we don't yet know is whether or not we have an 8-card spade fit, since partner could have a doubleton spade. The 3D bidders hoped to get more information.

BAKER: 3D. If partner's too big for a 1NT overcall, the opponents are bidding on air, even by today's aggressive standards. I'll show my second suit. If partner has the monster hand, he knows we should be in game somewhere after my first freebid.

O’REILLY-POL: 3D. Keeps both 3NT and 4S in the picture.

WARD: 3D. More descriptive than 3H, and it might guide us to 5D or 6D if it's right.

The majority of the panel decided this hand was fine for notrump, even if partner holds three spades.

STACK: 3NT. I would feel better about this at IMPs. 3D is a nothing bid and this hand has decent values.

KESSLER: 3NT.  Two reasons not to bid 3D -- it often helps the defense get off to the best lead and I do not want to end in 4S opposite three bad spades (think ♠Jxx).

HINCKLEY:  3NT.  Partner has near 19 points. If I bid 3D, partner should expect 4-4 or 4-5 shape, not 5-4.

RABIDEAU: 3NT. I could probe for 3-card spade support (with 3D), but we're semi-balanced and, more importantly, we want East on lead.

A new-suit bid in this auction isn't the classic checkback for 3-card spade support. 3D should be forcing, but as Hinckley points out, partner may assume you're showing a 5-card suit, perhaps with a weaker hand that has reservations about 3NT.

If you want partner to make a good choice between 3NT and 4S, I think this bid sends a clearer message:

PAVLICEK: 3H. I'm willing to take my chances on game but want to allow a second opinion with a spade preference. Is partner really comfortable with his heart stopper, or is he concerned about having only three spades?

You might call this a combination of a Checkback Stopper-Ask with Checkback Stayman. If partner has three spades and a single heart stopper, he'll rebid 3S. With two spades -- or maybe even three weak spades and a double heart stopper -- he'll rebid 3NT. If he has only two spades and only one heart stopper, your two queens offer hope that he can run eight tricks in the minors.

2. IMPs, both vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠103   ♥104   ♦AJ9865   ♣A83 ?

The top vote-getter was the freebid of 3D, even though most panelists felt it was an underbid. The majority view is summed up by:

KAPLAN: 3D.  Is there another choice? Not enough for a game-force, and more than 3D might get us past a making 3NT.

WARD: 3D. Too much for this, but I don't have any good alternative. 3S buries partner for entering the auction.

O’REILLY-POL: 3D. This feels like a slight underbid, but what else is there? If partner can't act again, we're not missing anything. 4D would blow right past 3NT and cuebidding feels like waaay too big of a position.

It's true your hand is heavy for 3D, as most would make the same bid with much less (say, the ♦Q instead of the ♦A, or even ♣xxx instead of ♣Axx). There's always the hope, though, that partner has something extra and will bid again. If he can do that on this deal, you really don't want to bid past 3NT now nor excite him too much with an overbid of 3S. If he has minimum values, then maybe 3D is high enough.

Two panelists and a number of Solvers weren't willing to wait for partner to invite game:

BAKER: 4D. Highly invitational. With a decent six-card suit and an outside ace, this hand has a lot of potential if partner has a little extra.  ♠x  ♥KQxx  ♦Kxx  ♣KJxxx  gives you a play for 5D, and that's almost minimum.

HINCKLEY:  4D.  Passable, but highly invitational. And breaking the rule that four of a minor always scores poorly in a bidding forum.

The foray to the 4-level was outvoted 11 to 2 by the panel, but I agree 4D could work if partner has a little extra. At IMPs, you aren't too worried about playing 5D instead of 3NT if both make. What you want to avoid is playing 5D when it fails but 3NT makes.

The ideal solution would be to show diamonds and invite game without going past 3NT. If there's a way to do that, this might be it:

MAK:  Double, responsive. Shows values, and a new suit later will be forward-going.

PAVLICEK: Double. Ostensibly minors (never hearts for me), then a subsequent diamond bid over clubs should invite game. Seems the only sensible route to keep 3NT in the picture.

Makes sense. I wish I'd thought of it.

3. IMPs, NS vulnerable             

   * (Negative)

What is your call as South holding: ♠KJ4   ♥5   ♦KQJ106   ♣K763 ?

What's your opinion of South's negative double? The 4D bidders didn't care for it; they all wanted to bid diamonds at their previous turn. 

BAKER: 4D. I don't much like the double last round (though I'm not certain the alternatives are better). Partner's never going to believe I have a great diamond suit, good club support, and only three spades now. But this route did tell us partner's values probably aren't in hearts, which is good news.

KAPLAN: 4D.  I never would have made a negative double here, thus am in a position I would not have to face. Very close to me between 4C and 4D now. Finally decided I had to show the diamonds. I prefer 4D immediately, attempting to sort out what to do after that.

O’REILLY-POL: 4D. I'm not sure what my plan was with double. 3NT was the only hope. On a bad day, we're in a 3-3. If I was in North's chair with four spades, I'd have a hard time not thinking we had a spade fit. There's a slim chance 4D followed by 5C lets me make a case in the post-mortem.

The plan was for partner to have a heart stopper and bid 3NT. If that had been our only making game, starting with a negative double was a risky but necessary choice. One panelist suggested that was a matchpoint strategy:

RABIDEAU: 4S. It's IMPs. Why didn't I bid 4D?

If the other table is making +630 with our cards, 5D down one is an even worse score at IMPs than it would be at matchpoints.

Now that we know 3NT wasn't the right contract, we have to evaluate our remaining options. Here's one way to explore:

MAK: 4C. Lets partner know my negative double was based on three spades, extra values and a club fit.

A bid of either minor now should make it clear we have exactly three spades. You just have to decide whether it's better to show club support or the good diamond suit. The suit you bid will hide your holding in the other minor, but either one gives partner an extra choice.

The majority of the panel decided to take minors out of the mix and go directly to game in the 4-3 fit.

PAVLICEK: 4S. What, you have a better guess? Hopefully, partner has good spades, and my hand being able to take the heart tap will help with control . . . he wrote on his epitaph.

WARD: 4S. Preempts work. It would be great if we had any way to show this hand, but we don't, so I don't want to start an even bigger accident by cuebidding 4H. 5C just invites going for 800 when partner is 4-4-2-3.

HINCKLEY: 4S. Should I have bid 4NT earlier to get partner to pick a minor-suit game? Yes, if the spade Moysian is a disaster.

Maybe, if your system defines an immediate jump to 4NT as minors. Without that agreement, though, I think partner's next bid will be a keycard response.

Of course, there's always this possibility:

STACK: 4S. Hope we are playing a 4-3 fit.  If this is a 3-3 fit, it will not play well. In fact, the 4-3 fit may not play well.

Or maybe this:

KESSLER: 4H.  ♠AQxx  ♥xx   ♦Axx   Axxx = Slam. Certainly if partner has such a hand, he will know he has the right cards to bid more.

If that's partner's hand, Mark will have a 13-IMP lead on all of us.

4. IMPs, both vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K942   ♥QJ65   ♦5   ♣K853 ?

Nine points and 4-card support is usually considered a pretty nice hand opposite a strong jump-shift. Even so, the majority of the panel and half the Solvers chose to be conservative with this one.

STACK: 3NT.  All these major-suit cards may be worthless in a club contract. So let's try and put them to work at notrump.

PAVLICEK:  3NT. Certainly wrong-valued for a club raise, especially if partner's strength is in diamonds. Partner can peep again if he has freakish shape.

BAKER: 3NT.  I have the stopper, and I don't want my spades to be dead on opening lead. 5C might be better if it was right-sided, but it isn't.

RABIDEAU: 3NT. What's the problem?  (I'm sure the panel will have an answer to that.)  With freaky distribution, partner will bid again and we'll get to a club contract.

One panelist thought so little of this hand that he offered this idea:

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Sorely tempted to pass 3C and probably would at matchpoints.

I think Bud is kidding, but several Solvers were of the same mind, so maybe passing a strong jump-shift is now a "thing". If so, it's still not recommended if you want to keep this partner.

A few panelists were concerned about making 3NT with just one spade stopper and no diamond fit.

MAK: 3S. West is a passed hand. Partner might have a partial spade stopper for 3NT, before 5C.

I think partner will assume he needs a full spade stopper to bid 3NT, but we really don't need a partial stop. With West being a passed hand, it's unlikely he has all the spade honors and the ♦A. If partner has any holding with the ♠10 or ♠J, that should be enough.

Speaking for the club raisers:

KESSLER: 4C. Less unilateral than 3NT. 3NT could be right (Hamman rule), but 5C or even 6C might be making.

O’REILLY-POL: 4C. Too good to sign off in 5C, but I'm not making any further positive move.

One panelist and a number of Solvers chose a jump to 5C. This jump typically suggests lots of clubs and not much else (no outside aces or kings). It can be argued that with the vulnerable spade overcall on your left, the ♠K might as well be the deuce, so maybe this description isn't that far off.

One other issue: Can you be certain you have a real club fit? Partner doesn't have a rebid that shows forcing-to-game values with long diamonds, so his 3C is sometimes a "bogus" jump-shift into a 3-card suit. Something to think about.

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q98   ♥K1082   ♦Q862   ♣QJ ?

How much strength is partner showing with this auction? Some believed he had full values for a game invitation:

BAKER: 4H.  This sequence usually shows a good 4=3=1=5 from partner, invitational values. I have enough to accept, and my diamond stopper is flimsy enough that 4H (with the ruffs coming in the short hand) may be better than 3NT opposite shortness.

Others took it as a good opener, but not a "serious" game invite:

HINCKLEY: Pass. At IMPs, I'd think more about bidding opposite partner's 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=2=4 hand with likely 14 to 15 high-card points.

And some play it as just a preference for playing in hearts instead of notrump, showing diamond shortness but not promising anything extra:

PAVLICEK: Pass. To me, 2H is more corrective than constructive, and nothing about this hand suggests pushing. The Moysian should be fine, and likely better than notrump with the weak diamond spots.

Those small distinctions could be important, so it's a good topic to discuss with your partner. Most panelists believed partner had the middle-strength hand -- something extra (at least a good 14 points), but not much more. With one exception, all of them also expect a singleton diamond. With a 4-3-2-4 pattern, partner would pass 1NT with 14 points and would have opened 1NT with more.

Whatever their guess about partner's strength, the majority of the panel was about as enthusiastic about this 10 points as they were about the 9-point hand in Problem 4.

KAPLAN: Pass. I go for the plus. Non-minimum values, but they are so soft. Don't like my chances for game.

KESSLER: Pass.  I know partner has a good hand, but we have a pile of trash. Take the plus and accept the blame.

STACK: Pass  I know this sequence shows a good hand, but I will not worry about missing game. The diamond ruff will be taken with the short trumps and I will get an excellent score.

O’REILLY-POL: Pass. This junky hand (Kaplan-Reubens hand evaluator puts this at 7.5 points) isn't worth anything close to an invite. A heart contract has to be better than spades (do I need to explain that partner is 4=3=1=5 or possibly 4=3=0=6?). If only they'd let me bid 1NT again.

If you like your hand more than the passers do, there are a couple of ways to issue a gentle invitation. One is a raise to 3H. Here's another:

RABIDEAU: 2S. Admittedly a punt, but it does describe my major-suit distribution. Holding four fitting honors, albeit quacky, makes me somewhat bullish.

WARD: 2S.  Just in case partner wants to bid again.

The 2S bidders are hoping partner bids again for the reason Stack mentioned above. If partner passes 2S and has to ruff a diamond, he'll be down to a 3-3 trump fit.

Even if you hate declaring 4-3 fits, a heart contract rates to play better than spades -- and much better than notrump. Partner has already warned you about the diamond weakness, so at best, you have only one stopper (possibly none) and a likely minus score coming in 2NT.

6. Matchpoints, none vulnerable    

* (Solid suit - no outside stoppers)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ   ♥AJ109   ♦9   ♣AQJ832 ?

PAVLICEK: 6NT. If this problem were first, I would have quit for such a stupid convention, but you trapped me. I'm certainly not speculating on any grands at matchpoints, but will aim for the higher score.

Granted, the Gambling 3NT is not everyone's favorite convention. It worked pretty well here, though, as it told you many tricks partner has in each suit. The challenge is figuring out how many tricks your hand offers and how to take them.

The plurality of the panel and Solvers liked their chances for 12 tricks in notrump, and they were fairly confident about where to find those tricks:

WARD: 6NT.  I can count 12 tricks on a non-diamond lead, but have a hard time finding the 13th.

KAPLAN: 6NT. I'm thinking that RHO did not bid 4S with ♠KJ10xxxx and out, so hoping that RHO also has the ♣K. If so, I can collect seven diamonds, the ♠AQ, ♥A and ♣AQ for 12 tricks.

BAKER: 6NT. Wish we could get to 6NT from my side. But even from partner's side, chances are good enough -- a heart lead with at least one honor offside plus a losing finesse elsewhere is the only obvious threat -- to risk it at matchpoints over the right-sided 6D.

Their expectations seem to be based on three assumptions:
   1)  Partner has seven diamond tricks.
   2)  The 4S overcaller is likely to have the missing honors in the other suits.
   3)  You'll get one "free" finesse from the opening lead.

All three are reasonable, but far from guaranteed. If your RHO has seven or eight spades, he doesn't need any club or heart honors to bid at this vulnerability. He's going to be tempted to overcall, especially if he has a singleton or void in diamonds. If that's the case, partner's diamonds may not be running.

You really can't count on a helpful opening lead, either. Your RHO knows all the side-suit honors are in your hand and he'll try to find a passive lead if possible. With only one entry to your hand to take a club or spade finesse, you may be one trick short.

All those possibilities convinced some panelists that 6D was enough.

KESSLER: 6D. I think bidding more is a guess. Nice to be playing from my side.

HINCKLEY: 6D. Would my partner know 5NT asks for trump quality (bid bid 7D if you have the ♦J or an eighth diamond)?

I think partner would figure it out. Two panelists took the chance partner had super-solid trumps and went right to the grand slam.

MAK: 7D. Assuming partner has eight runners, a favorable lead will be a walk-off grand slam on this last hand. On a red-suit lead, we will just have to find the ♣K or a squeeze.

RABIDEAU: 7D.  Given a trump lead, pard should still be good for 13 tricks: After drawing trumps, finesse in clubs first and ruff the third round (?) to take the spade finesse. With North's 7-card suit, most distributions of his other three suits will give us good-to-great odds.

They're making some hopeful assumptions, too, but 7D may be a better contract than 6NT. At least in diamonds, you have more than one entry to partner's hand to take finesses and set up your clubs. 

About a third of the Solvers were pessimistic about slam. They opted for signing off in 5D or 4NT (this is not keycard Blackwood in this auction) or making a penalty double. One panelist joined them:

O’REILLY-POL: Double. Going for blood. The choice seems to be between double and 6D. 7D seems far too speculative. Would partner do this with AKQ seventh? Then we may not make 6. Sometimes when we make 6, going for blood is still better. Two tricks in each suit doesn't seem totally preposterous.

You'll need to score +1100 (down 5) to beat the slams if they make, but it will be difficult to take eight tricks. Declarer has one heart trick and five or six spade tricks, and you'll surely be endplayed at some point and have to give him another. If the slams don't make, though, none of that will matter.

Anything could be right, and it's a very close decision between 6D and 6NT. For me, the deciding factor was that it's often difficult to bid slams when the big hand doesn't have support for his partner's long suit and has to guess how strong it is. Not all pairs will be playing a gambling 3NT (if Mr. Pavlicek is in my section, that's at least one), so just getting to any slam may be a good score. If so, I want to be in the safer one.
 

    ©  Karen Walker