♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- September 2023

            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 call.

1. Matchpoints,  both vulnerable                  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J10842   ♥107   ♦42   ♣K1043 ?    

Your choice here depends on how you interpret partner's redouble. Here's the standard meaning:

SPEAR: Double. Partner likely holds a big single-suited heart hand with club shortness. I will describe my surprising defensive strength and await the outcome.

Jack's description is what others sometimes refer to as "Good hand, good suit". With just the "good suit" part (a lot of playing strength), partner can rebid his hearts. The redouble promises the good suit and good high-card strength outside. That prompted the majority of the panel to look for a vulnerable penalty.

HEINS: Double. Maximum pass with no good fit for partner and up to two trump tricks. Partner's red cards are behind takeout doubler. What more could I want?

WARD: Double. If this isn't enough to double, nothing is.

GORDON: Double. I might have bid over 1H. I’m not going quietly now.

Partner's card-showing redouble set up a penalty situation, which means a subsequent double by either of you is clearly for penalty. Even so, other panelists and the vast majority of the Solvers weren't confident that partner was showing enough defense to make a double right with this hand. Some thought they had enough to compete to 2H, expecting a good 6-2 fit, but most chose this:  

BAKER: Pass. The only suit in which I have significant strength just got shown by both opponents, which makes my prospects of providing much help for partner poor.

STACK: Pass. I don't believe I am entitled to a bid here. Redouble does not imply tolerance for spades, so pass seems correct.

First time I've ever seen Don worry about having permission to bid. Partner's redouble invited us to participate, so most panelists felt justified in sharing their opinion. It's possible, though, that 2C doubled won't be the final contract, as pointed out by: 

HINCKLEY: Double. Penalty. The tougher decision will be when 2D is passed back to me.

If the opponents bid 2D after I've doubled 2C, at least partner will know what type of hand I have. Maybe he can double 2D or maybe he'll decide his hearts are strong enough to compete to 2H. If neither, then that may be a quiz for another day.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A4   ♥K   ♦AQJ532   ♣QJ108 ?  

When this problem was posed in the Forum more than 20 years ago, several panelists insisted this auction had created a forcing-pass situation, where they could pass and partner would have to tell them more about his hand.

The problem is that the forcing meaning of a pass is "on" only when your side has shown game values. That isn't the case here. Even if you play a 2-over-1 forcing-to-game system, partner's bid in competition doesn't promise anything more than 8 or 9 points and a long suit. If you pass, he'll assume you have a minimum opener and that he's free to pass, too.

This time, all the panelists and the vast majority of Solvers got it right and took action. Here's one strategy: 

HINCKLEY: 4NT. Showing 6-4 in the minors, which is the Bridge World meaning assuming this is an "undiscussed competitive 4NT bid."

WARD: 4NT. This should show 6-4. I want to bid more, but I can't see bidding 5NT with just stiff King in partner's suit.

This would be a convenient way to show your distribution if partner can read it. These panelists were skeptical:

BAKER: Double. 4NT would be nice if you're sure partner will read it as "minors but a clear preference for diamonds", but without discussion, I'd be afraid partner would answer key cards in hearts.

GORDON: 5C. I would love for 4NT to mean something else, but I’m sure it’s Blackwood here.

The meaning of 4NT in this auction can be whatever you and partner decide. If you haven't talked about it in advance, though, I think partner will most likely take it as keycard Blackwood for his heart suit, which is arguably the more practical, valuable meaning. After you've opened and partner has shown a long suit, how often will you want to look for a new trump suit at the 5-level? Compare that to how often you might have a big supporting hand for partner's suit and want to check on keycards.

The majority of the panel and plurality of the Solvers weren't positive that they had a playable contract at the 5-level, so they chose:  

KNIEST: Double. This can't be a trump stack; just values without a heart fit.

STACK: Double. Nothing stands out except double. This hand must bid and cannot pass.

SPEAR: Double. Passing is not an option, and bidding a minor seems over-committal.

Kimmel Jones didn't provide a comment with his vote for Double, but he did when he was on the 2003 panel. I'm including it here because it matches my thinking then and now: 

JONES (2003): Double. This shows a good hand without a good fit for partner. He should know I "live" in the minors, but neither suit warrants bidding it myself at the 5-level.

I think the double here covers all bases. Partner has strong clues that you're short in hearts and spades and he can see the vulnerability. If he has the hand you need for your "sure" game, he'll probably bid. If not, you'll probably collect +300 or +500.

   * (Strong heart raise)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K54   ♥AQ843   ♦KJ10   ♣95 ?

Partner has shown at least mild interest in a higher contract and this is a better hand than you might have for a simple 1H overcall. Even so, there are reasons to be pessimistic about game chances. Thirteen high-card points isn't all that much extra for a vulnerable overcall, and with the balanced shape and weak trump spots, your hand is short on playing strength. The auction suggests there could be problems with a bad trump break or a trump promotion if you're forced to ruff clubs.

That doesn't mean it's right to let them play 3C. If you want to compete, here's one way:

KNIEST: 3H. Not a game try.

BAKER: 3H. I don't like our chances for game opposite a passed hand, but I have a better-than-minimum overcall and 3H should be decent.

So what's the difference between Pass and 3H? My preference is to play that both deny game values, but that 3H shows extra heart length or playing strength. Many pairs prefer the opposite meanings -- three of your suit is the weakest action and Pass shows a little more than a minimum. Either approach works as long as you and partner are clear on the meanings, so it's a good topic for discussion.

For other panelists, the vulnerable game bonus is the red cape in the plaza de toros.

STACK: 4H. No game tries on this hand. Enough hand to bid a vulnerable game at IMPs.

HINCKLEY: 4H. Red at imps means we are not stopping in a partscore. Hopefully, partner holds the club ace or nothing at all in clubs.

The majority didn't think they had enough to insist on game, but they didn't want to totally give up on it, either. Hence, a compromise: 

HEINS: 3D. That's my available game try, so I make it. My pointed kings behind the opener have to be enough to make a try.

SPEAR: 3D. Passing is not an option and 3H is only competitive.

WARD: 3D. Close with this flat shape whether I should try for game or not.

This might seem as if you're "inviting the inviter", which is often seen as a needless equivocation. Partner's 2C cuebid wasn't really a classic game invitation, though. It just described a good raise, so your 3D try isn't dodging the decision, just seeking more help in making it.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A  ♥K43  ♦Q975   ♣AKQ105 ?

McALLISTER: 3D. Is 3D enough?

That was the question that just about everyone started with. A 3D raise gives a pretty good picture of your distribution, but at the expense of showing your full high-card strength. The panel plurality decided they were willing to risk making that distortion:  

STACK: 3D. This shows a hand that I could have reversed into diamonds, so this seems quite descriptive. I also think 3S splinter is possible or a jump shift to 2H followed by showing diamond support. Liking 3D the best.

WARD: 3D. I don't want to splinter on stiff A and miss 3NT, so I'll underbid instead.

GORDON: 3D. Is 3D a slight underbid? Maybe. But it’s my best road to 3NT when that is right, although I’m sure a 20-year-old me would have rebid 2NT.

As good as this hand is for playing in diamonds, no one wanted to rule out 3NT. Three panelists -- CUTHBERTSON, RABIDEAU and VERMEERSCH -- chose to emphasize that contract by rebidding 2NT but didn't offer any comments.

Other panelists wanted to make a stronger diamond raise, even if it caused them to miss 3NT. This is one approach:

KNIEST: 3S. Clearly a diamond raise with shortness.

HEINS: 3S. I'd like to be weaker in the majors, but if partner doesn't have major-suit bolsters, I'm not sure I want to be in 3NT. Meanwhile, it doesn't take much beyond ♦Kxxxxx and the ♥A to make slam odds on. A lot of matchpoints are won with minor-suit slams!

HINCKLEY: 3S. Hardest problem of the set. 2H, 2NT, 3D, or 3S? I hate splintering with a stiff ace, but ♦KJxxx from partner could score 11 or even 12 tricks on a non-heart lead, so 3D is out. Same for 2H. My second choice, 2NT, at least protects my heart holding.

The ideal splinter raise is ♠x with all of your high cards outside. A stiff ♠K is perhaps the worst holding, but stiff ♠A isn't far behind. That flaw was a dealbreaker for these panelists:

BAKER: 2H. Put the second ace anywhere but spades and I'd bid 3S as a splinter, but I hate splintering with a singleton ace. The hand is too good for 3D, so it's either a fake jump shift or 2NT. I slightly prefer the former so partner will know spade cards are wasted.

SPEAR: 2H. 3D is not forcing, and partner is aware that 2H may be a 3-card suit. (I like the agreement that 4D over 3H denies 4-card heart length.)

That's a handy agreement, but without it, the 2H-then-bid-diamonds plan will give partner a picture of a 1-4-3-5 hand -- and if he raises hearts, he may well take 4D as a control bid for a heart slam. If you're trying to show spade shortness with diamond support, the 3S splinter raise seems the more direct (and safer) way to do it.

For me, 3D is just too much of an underbid. Even if partner bids again, it will be impossible to show these values. Your choice among the other rebids amounts to a decision about which contract you're willing to miss. Rebids of 2H and  3S will hide your spade stopper and may talk partner out of 3NT. If you instead jump to 2NT, you're probably giving up on finding 6D. 

I think it's a close decision, but I'm a reluctant 2NT bidder. This isn't ideal -- it hides the diamond support and there's concern about the spade stopper -- but it shows your overall strength and will probably simplify the auction. Ask me tomorrow, though, and my vote might be for 3S. 

5. Matchpoints, none vulnerable   
 

Action	Score	Votes	% BWinners	% Solvers
DBL	100	8	40	20
Pass	80	4	35	23
3H	70	2	8	34
3S	70	1	17	23

West	North	East	South
			1S
2D	Pass	3D	???

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ9843   ♥A983   ♦4   ♣K5 ?

The majority of the panel and Solvers charged back into this auction, making what they thought was a good gamble that partner had a fit in one of the majors. To find it, their choice was:

GORDON: Double. I prefer 5-5 for a 3H bid. Partner is unlikely to bid clubs with any alternative.

HEINS: Double. A bit weak, to be sure, but game is possible and defensive prospects are uncertain. Pass would be timid, and 2H would be more of a two-suited hand.

STACK: Double. Take out double showing hearts and hoping to land on our feet.

HINCKLEY: Double. It's white vs. white at matchpoints and I'm the one with the stiff diamond, so it's 3H or double. I'll risk getting the possible 4C bid from partner.

RABIDEAU: Double. If partner holds the horror story 1-3-4-5 hand we'll hope the clubs are QJTxx.

The double will work best when partner has 5+ hearts. With almost any other hand that has a doubleton spade, though, this rates to be a more playable contract: 

KNIEST: 3S. This is enough since partner couldn’t make a negative double.

Partner's failure to raise spades or make a negative double suggests that your chances of finding a good landing spot may not be all that great. The risk is not just that partner has no fit for either of your suits, as this panelist explains:

BAKER: Pass. You might tempt me with the king moved into one of the majors. But if partner has a fit for either major, he can't have much for points.

Or, put another way:

SPEAR: Pass. Time to cool the jets.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q9743   ♥AQ   ♦K102   ♣A94 ?

Vulnerable saves are rare enough that you may not remember the last time you took one. Even more unusual is a red sacrifice in notrump, but that was the panel's choice here.

HINCKLEY: 4NT. To play. It could make and it could be a good sacrifice against a making 4H.

BAKER: 4NT. If partner has ♣KQJxxxx and out, we're not making anything beyond 3NT. But if partner's clubs are weaker but with something outside, 4NT will have reasonable play, and if not, 4NT might still be a good save against 4H.

STACK: 4NT. They might make 4H, so I will take the 4NT sack and possible make.

HEINS: 4NT. Far from certain to make, but I can't see beating 4H a trick being much of a score. We'll hope for the heart lead and a pointed suit honor from partner, or a strip squeeze at the end.

RABIDEAU: 4NT. At this level and vulnerability, West must be very distributional. I'll gamble that partner has a useful card (♠K or ♦Q) or that we have a profitable save.

That's a lot of speculation and gambling. Here are some more realistic predictions: 
   1)  West is not leading a heart to 4NT.
   2)  Partner does not have an ace or king outside clubs. If he did, 4H is probably going down.
   3)  Opposite any "normal" 3C opening, we are not making 4NT -- and might not have even made 3NT. 

I agree that they might make 4H or that it might be down one . . . or more. There's no reason, though, to assume that West has found the perfect contract for his side, that he'll get the dummy he's hoping for or even that he's bidding to make. With all of that uncertainty, there's a danger of becoming the "Last Buffoon" -- the player who makes the final, fatal mistake in a competitive auction. Here's how to avoid that:

SPEAR: Pass. I am not feeling positive about this result, but hoping for the same auction at other tables.

One of the first rules of the "Don't Be The Last Buffoon" strategy is to not sacrifice over their sacrifice. If the passers are wrong, they may not get the top score, but they won't be the buffoons in this auction.