District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2006

     by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable  

* Responsive (minors)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q   ♥AK10982   ♦A2   ♣AK42 ?  

Our Bridge World Standard expert, Tom Dodd, issued a mild objection about a responsive double  suggesting the minors. He says that in BWS, a responsive double is not limited to the minors, even though it's played this way by many good partnerships. 

In practice, responsive doubles at lower levels show the minors but suggest moderate length in the unbid major. At higher levels, this double might be less "pure", sending more of an "I've-got-some-strength-but-no-clear-bid" type of message. So here we are at a higher level, with not a lot of room to figure out if partner is loaded in the minors (a 2-1-5-5 hand, for example) or just searching for a landing spot with a more balanced hand.

DODD: "4H. South's original double was questionable. I prefer a direct 4H at matchpoints because of the suit quality, and even 3H isn't that huge an underbid with this five-loser hand. Objections duly noted counselor. As for what to do now, I'll take a shot at a likely game, but I do salute anyone who jerks this into a club slam. May your partners never hold hands like  ♠Jxx  ♥x  ♦KQxxx  ♣Jxxx , as mine always seem to hold."

That's a pretty aggressive stable of partners you have. Most panelists assumed the partner in our problem had a bit more to force the auction to the four-level, and they therefore set their sights on a slam. A minority, however, were worried about missing a potential heart fit at matchpoints, and they were willing to give up on slam to play in the higher-scoring game.

KESSLER:  "4H. This is really a crapshoot as whether to play 4H or 6C. Assuming partner doesn't have the spade ace, he needs the diamond king and good enough clubs that we have no loser, and we may need good splits. There are just too many things that can go wrong with 6C."

Although a few 4H bidders expressed faint hope that partner would bid again, they conceded that 4H will probably end the auction. The rest of the panel wasn't willing to risk missing a slam. Most considered the possibility that partner might not have a "classic" minor-suit hand for his double, but they ultimately decided to play him for what he advertised. 

FEILER:  "6C. We certainly don't need much for slam, but it has to be the right 'not much'. If it's not, we're probably better off in hearts, but I'll guess that pard has the right stuff this time."

FELDHEIM:  "6C. My first reaction was to bid 4S, but that's a mistake because partner may play you for a void and devalue his spade ace. 6C may be totally unmakeable, but one scenario is that it might buy a phantom save in 6S."

I don't think a vulnerable save is in our future, but Harold is right about the problem with a 4S cuebid. Another argument against it is that it wastes a round of bidding -- it tells partner you have a strong hand, but nothing about your suit lengths or what contracts you're considering.  He'll probably guess that you're fishing for his better minor. He's never going to bid 5H over 4S, and he won't have any idea of what to do if your next bid is 5H. He may think xx is decent support and raise to 6H. 

If your heart is set on a slam -- and I don't think you have to be all that optimistic to take that view -- you just have to accept that there isn't a clear way to show this heart suit on the way. I think these two panelists sum up the futility of anything more scientific than the bash to 6C: 

KLEMIC: "6C. This looks suspiciously like the board in the Worldwide Pairs where our opponents gave us a 5-percent score by guessing to play 6H. But despite that knowledge, I think I am left with a 6C call. I don't have a bid that says, 'I want to be in 6H only if your hearts are Qx, and otherwise 6C'."

MERRITT:  "6C. Bid what you think that you can make without torturing partner with bids of dubious meaning. We need three cover cards to make slam realistic, and partner has willingly pushed us, vulnerable, to at least four of a minor. If we don't lose a club, the red suits should take care of themselves one way or the other."

6C may not be the perfect contract, but it rates to a reasonable one, and getting to it quickly comes with the bonus that there will be no possibility for a bidding misunderstanding. Partners like that. 

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:   ♠10   ♥AJ63   ♦AQ1032   ♣AJ7 ?

The plurality of the panel opted for the catchall, maybe-the-auction-won't-end-here 2C bid. Partner hasn't shown clubs (his negative double promised only a four-card spade suit), so this isn't a supporting bid. It does have a wider point range than most of the alternatives, and the panel was hoping the vagaries of the bid would induce partner to keep the auction alive. 

FEILER: "2C. Partner would take 2NT for 18-19 (maybe it shouldn't be). If I get another chance to bid, I'll be in good shape. 2C could be the right spot as well. Yeah, right!"

NELSON: "2C. This seems like an underbid, but if partner can speak again, I will, of course, do more."

STRITE:  "2C.  I'm cautious, since my 16 points don't look overly wonderful. If partner can bid again, I'm in a reasonable position to look for game, or even slam if I catch long clubs."

FELDHEIM:  "2C. A pox on all you notrump bidders. My hand is only good with a fit, so if partner passes, we're okay, while if partner peeps, I'll  bid 2NT."

A pox upon me, then, as I think notrump has to be the right strain here. If we'd known that partner had exactly four spades -- just enough to be a stopper, but not enough to insist on them as trumps -- we'd have been happy to open 1NT. Now that we know partner has that hand, why risk playing in a minor? Get the notrump idea out there now, while you still have a sure opportunity.

The problem, of course, is that there isn't a 1.5 notrump bid available. The more aggressive notrump bidders decided to round up: 

PAULO: "2NT. This is the right strain, for sure. If partner has not a minimum he'll bid game."

TAFJORD: "2NT. Partner has showed spades and some values, so I take 2NT to be safe and invitational to 3NT."

The 2NT bidders seem to suggest that after a negative double, a jump to 2NT is only a mild invitation (around 16 to 17 high-card points). FEILER and most other panelists thought it should promise 18 or 19. Treating it as a 16-17 points might be workable if partner follows Alvin Roth's original guideline that a negative double promises constructive values (usually 8-9+ points). That's a pretty old-fashioned view these days (as is Roth's contention that a double should also show the unbid minor). If your partners make negative doubles with lighter hands -- and if you don't like the idea of playing 2NT with 16 opposite 6 -- the higher point range is more practical.

That leaves us with the alternative of "rounding down" and making a heavy 1NT rebid. But how heavy is it? We have two heart stoppers, but not two heart tricks, and nothing about this auction has convinced me the other values are pulling full weight. 

KNIEST:  "1NT. The hearts (and probably other key cards) are behind me, I don't fit spades and the hand is light for 2NT. If you tell me I'll make 3NT, you won't surprise me."

This is matchpoints, where just getting a notrump plus score will probably be a decent result, even if you happen to miss a making game. Plenty of other pairs will have just as much trouble with finding game as you did, and some of them will be playing in minor-suit partscores. Maybe even their 3-3 club fit. 

3.  IMPs, NS vulnerable

What is your call as South holding:  ♠A762   ♥A1097   ♦KQ65   ♣8 ?

The panel voted strongly for the double, but with varying intentions and expectations about the outcome. Some saw their double as unconditionally penalty, and they expected partner to pass: 

KLEMIC: "Double. The only question is what do I lead? Partner shows a little extra here. Even if all he has is ♣AKQJxx and a side queen, we may be pounding this for quite a bit. I choose to lead the stiff club, though a small trump may be right."

KESSLER:  "Double. I'm not sure what game we can make, and I'm not sure what tricks the opponents are going to take. By the way, lead a spade here -- partner's clubs are good enough that we won't need ruffs. If partner's clubs were solid, he could have bid 3S instead of 3C."

PAULO:  "Double. Consider a North hand like  ♠x  ♥Jxx  ♦Axx  ♣ AKJxxx . If we can make 3NT, then 3S will be set four tricks."

Others believed the double should be more cooperative: 

DODD:  "Double. North should be well-equipped to decide the proper course forward. I seriously doubt he has a solid club suit (why not a cuebid with ♣AKQxxxx, a red control and spade shortness?), so 3NT here is insane. It's tempting to just jump to 5C, but that's a little rich with the stiff 8 and all these primary defensive values. A prediction: the director will be called to my table after I've taken this much time to agonize over my call."

I'm in the latter camp. I don't want to give up on our vulnerable game, so I'm hoping partner takes this as a gun-to-my-head/gotta-bid-something double, not a spade stack, and that he'll bid again with the right playing strength. A thoughtful partner should recognize that there are several types of hands I can have that can't be described any other way, and that he's free to bid on, but only if I can make the double in tempo. DODD had a problem with that, and so did I. More about that later. 

More than a third of the Solvers chose 3NT, but only three panelists. Here's one who appears to have hurt himself coming up with his choice: 

MERRITT:  "3NT. I was set on double until I wrote out my response. Then I started thinking that this is sort of a 'Law' hand for notrump. If the clubs break, we take lots of tricks in both notrump and 3S doubled. If they do not, we take a lot fewer tricks on offense or defense. With this being the case, 3NT seems to be the insurance bid on both sides of that equation. This is a funny hand -- 3NT will surely get all of the votes with little or no thought, but I believe this is the deepest problem of the set."

That analysis is pretty deep, and if I read it a few more times, I'm sure I'll understand it. I don't see how 3NT can be an insurance bid, though, when 3S doubled is an (almost) sure plus score and 3NT is a heavy favorite to go down unless partner has seven solid clubs (or six solid and a red ace or king). As several panelists pointed out, partner would surely have found a stronger action than 3C with that hand.

Here are two other approaches:  

FELDHEIM: "4S. The choice is between double and 4S. 3NT is out of the question. The Axxx is very compelling. I should have enough for game opposite a one-loser club suit and the diamond ace."

KNIEST: "5C. We may have a slam, but at the very least, we have a red game. The auction suggests a nine-card fit for the opponents, so a double will not compensate you for your game."

I'm with these guys in the view that I'd rather be bidding our vulnerable game than defending. What isn't obvious is that the red suits aren't totally out of the picture yet, but you'll never find them if you bid 4S or 5C. I will admit, though, that 5C is the bid I made at the table. In my defense, I thought so long over 3S that I had killed the "cooperative" aspect of a possible double, so I felt pressured to come up with a bid that would get us to our game. 5C wasn't a bad contract -- it  went down one when the clubs broke 5-1-- but as it turns out, 5D was better, as partner held   ♠Void  ♥32  ♦A8432  ♣AQ10976 . If I had doubled, he certainly would have found a 4D bid.

4. Matchpoints, none vulnerable            

What is your call as South holding:   ♠K10876   ♥A  ♦J742   ♣KJ5 ?

This is an ugly spot, but most of the panel felt endplayed into accepting it. One of the exceptions was:  

FELDHEIM: "2NT. Though I really don't like bidding notrump, I'm presuming 2H is absolutely forcing and I've no other logical bid. The double stopper in clubs mitigates this lousy bid."

Even if you normally play that new suits are forcing after an overcall, partner is a passed hand here, so you're free to pass ... not that anyone was all that happy with that choice.   

MATHENY:  "Pass. Partner's failure to open 2H suggests only a five-card suit, but I'm concerned about tricks in notrump."

DODD: "Pass. With this minimum overcall and bad suit, am I supposed to bid notrump out of fear? Or perhaps introduce that lovely diamond suit? Or rebid spades?"

FEILER:  "Pass. I think partner must have a bad six-card suit. I would have opened anything with a good suit (even a five-carder) in first seat."

MERRITT: "Pass. When in a hole, stop digging. A singleton ace plays much better in a trump suit than as a side suit."

Most of the panel believed that 2NT would be forward-going (invitational to 3NT) and that his hand is too weak for that action, so they went quietly. As MERRITT mentioned, a singleton ace in partner's suit is not a great asset, especially in a notrump contract, so there's no reason to stretch these values. 

KLEMIC:  "2NT. Partner will usually have spade tolerance, but not true support on this auction. I can hardly expect a passed-hand partner to have all that good of a suit. If on the off chance he has spade support, his hand will be good, and I should have play for 3S. Otherwise, 2NT is a reasonable place to play."

That's assuming that partner passes 2NT.  If he has the extra values you need to scramble eight tricks in notrump, he'll surely raise, as this Solver points out:

WETZEL:  "Pass. I suppose STOP plus 2NT isn't a viable option? The problem with bidding 2NT is that partner is liable to take you seriously. I love playing 3NT with 23 points and a misfit."

Partner actually held  ♠J9  ♥KQJ97 ♦Q63  ♣Q97. FEILER suggests that he would have opened that hand, but most of us would pass and bid 2H over partner's 1S. Or would you have found a 1NT call?  

I'm somewhat surprised that no one rebid 2S. There was once a fairly widespread belief that a change of suit here should promise tolerance (two-card support) for partner's suit. Maybe that's an old-fashioned idea now, but it seems like a good approach for these passed-hand auctions. Since it's likely partner has only a five-card suit (no weak two-bid), a two-places-to-play agreement would be handy.   

If I were sure partner had only five hearts and some spade tolerance, it would be easy to run back to 2S. With no discussion about that, though, I think I just have to hope his hearts are good enough for us to scramble 8 tricks. 

5. IMPs, both vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:   ♠KQ987   ♥A1096   ♦A    ♣KQ7 ?

Another singleton ace in partner's suit. That wasn't a particularly attractive holding in the previous problem. How good is it here? Three panelists and a quarter of the Solvers were discouraged by their diamond fit and put on the brakes: 

MERRITT:  "3NT. Partner seems to be showing a distinct lack of interest in moving forward. I don't think that slam is a long shot by any stretch of the imagination (♠xx  ♥xx  ♦KQJxxxxx  ♣A)  but I think 3NT will again take all of the points."

Scott keeps trying to guess how to score 100 on the quiz and getting it wrong. 3NT may not even be a making contract. If partner has his example hand, the contract will probably be down at least two after a club lead. The rest of the panel put away most of their worries about diamonds after partner bid them the third time, and they went slamming. 

KESSLER: 4NT. Anything else just confuses the auction. Even if you were brave enough to bid 4D, what if partner bid 5D? I think the final bid may be a tougher decision than this bid."

Even worse, what if partner passes 4D? Is 4D even forcing?

FEILER: 4NT. This is just like Problem # 1. If partner has the right minimum we're good for 6D -- with the wrong minimum, we want to play 3NT. The problem with Blackwood is that there's no way to get out at 5NT if partner doesn't have want we want. It'll probably take a singleton spade in partner's hand plus a heart lead to beat 6D, and maybe, for once . . ."

It will be disappointing if partner responds 5H (two keycards without the diamond queen), but I don't think it's impossible to get out at 5NT. If partner responds 5H to Blackwood and you retreat to 5S, can that possibly be a signoff in spades? You had plenty of chances to show a big spade suit earlier in this auction, so partner should take 5S now as a request to bid 5NT. Whether or not 5NT will be a good contract is another matter.

Five panelists tried 4C. Some intended it as a forcing bid; others thought it should be ace-asking. 

STRITE: "4C. The only forcing bid below 4NT, I think. We could have the top 13 tricks yet, but my next bid is probably 5D."

KNIEST:  "4C or 4D, whichever is ace-asking. This hand illustrates why Minorwood in some form, or at least Gerber, has to apply in these auctions. If I am stuck with only Roman Keycard, then I bid 4C forcing and 5D over any response."

So you refuse to check on aces just because you're "stuck" with Roman Keycard? Why not make the best of it and trot it out? This illustrates some of the problems with Minorwood (an agreement where 4 of the minor substitutes for Blackwood). If you play 4D asks for keycards, you have no way to invite in diamonds. If you play 4C is the keycard ask, you have no forcing bid that doesn't skew your hand or confirm diamonds as trump. And if you play either 4C or 4D as ace-asking, does 4NT become a quantitative notrump bid?    

Is Minorwood even part of Bridge World Standard? It doesn't appear to be, and according to our BWS expert, neither is Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction: 

DODD: 4C. In Bridge World Standard, 4NT is not Keycard Blackwood for diamonds, no matter how much we want it to be. It is old-fashioned ace-asking Blackwood since there are no agreed suits."

So how would a BWS disciple support diamonds in this auction? I don't see how that agreement can be playable. As far as our panel was concerned, three bids of the same suit make it agreed for purposes of Blackwood, no matter what BWS says, and I agree. Yes, system is system, but common practices (and common sense) trump BWS. 

6. IMPs, none vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q10763    ♥J54   ♦102   ♣A63 ?

This is one of those common hand-evaluation exercises that we go through just about every session. It should be fairly easy to figure out that you want to raise, then to count up your support points and make the system bid that shows that strength. Our panel and Solvers, though, came up with wildly different ideas of just how many support points this hand has, and they found five different approaches for showing it. 

The most liberal counters were the 3C bidders, who decided the hand was worth a game invitation (11-12 support points): 

KNIEST:  "3C. No singleton, but an ace and a fifth trump. Even if partner opened junk in third seat, we aren't in trouble. 2S just doesn't do the hand justice."

FELDHEIM: "3C. Is this a problem? It's too good for a preempt and too much for 2S. For those who bid 4S, what do you do after 5C-Pass-Pass?"

KESSLER:  "3C. Too good for 2S. This would be unanimous if we were red. On the good side, it's only 50 a trick, and we probably have too many trumps for them to double."

On the other end of the spectrum, some treated the hand as a preemptive raise:

PAULO: "4S. Following the Law, I show my support, and so we avoid taking the last guess."

FEILER: "3S. It's pretty junky looking for a 4S bid. Somehow their bidding 5C doesn't worry me."

Whether you cuebid or preempt, you catapult your side to at least the three-level. Given that partner may have opened light in third seat, anything higher than the two-level seemed dangerous to the panel majority:  

KLEMIC: "2S. I see no reason to punish partner if he has a minimum balanced opening. We own the boss suit, so we're not being outbid. Finally, we're non-vulnerable, so a 50-50 game just breaks even."

DODD: "2S. Am I supposed to jump preemptively to 3S with flat distribution just because I have five spades? North might have only a four-card suit for his third-seat opener."

MERRITT: "2S . . . 6-9 support points and 3+ card support. Bridge is not a tough game."

There's the clearest answer of all, although I'd argue that the single raise shows up to a soft 10 support points. It's amazing how often the old Goren point count will give you the "right" answer with hands like this. Yes, those extra trumps look valuable, and the ace, and the doubleton (but wouldn't the hand be a bit better if your minors were switched?). Still, no matter how liberally you count it, this hand isn't worth more than 9 or 10 playing points. Add in the fact that partner could have a sub-minimum opener, and any higher bid may just be knotting his noose. 

In fact, partner had five trumps and a full opening bid -- always a surprise, white in third seat -- and the limit of the hand was just seven tricks. Partner held  ♠AJxxx  ♥Kxx  ♦Axx  ♣xx  and managed to scrape up eight tricks only because the opponents led hearts for him.  
  

    ©  Karen Walker