♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- August 2021

            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, NS vulnerable                 

What is your call as South holding:   ♠10   ♥AJ72   ♦AQ1073   ♣AJ3 ?

The majority of our panel focused on three main strategies for this rebid: Underbid, Overbid or Equivocate.

There was also a fourth possibility -- Penalize. It was considered by some panelists, but chosen by only one:

WARD: "Pass. Seems like the best way to go plus. While I'm close on values to bid 2NT, that's banking on partner having the diamond king and some length.

The rest of the panel thought they could get a better score by declaring. The Underbidders knew they had more than they were promising, but the matchpoint scoring convinced them to take what appears to be the sure thing:

DIEBEL: 1NT. Misfit + losing finesses = conservative.

STACK: 1NT. Not sure what I would do at IMPs, but at matchpoints, the low road seeking a plus score seems best. Maybe we can nail them if they bid again.

The Equivocators wanted to at least hint at the possibility they had extras and give partner a chance to bid again.

KESSLER: 2C. This should elicit more info for our next call. 1NT denies extra values, 2C does not.

RABIDEAU: 2C. As some deceased expert liked to say in the Bridge World Master Solvers Club, "If I can just get past this [questionable] bid, maybe I'll know what to do."

WETZEL: 2C. If partner can make a positive noise, we can try 3NT. If he can't, then how high do we really want to be? Thought about passing, but even if it's down one, that won't be much of a score.

BAKER: 2C. Least of evils. 1NT and 2D are underbids, 2H and 2NT are overbids, 3D overstates the suit, and this isn't close to a 1-level penalty pass under the bidder.

HINCKLEY: 2C. The same call I’d make with no interference if partner had responded 1S. Other options (1NT, 2D, 2NT, 3D) have too many flaws.

The "short" 2C rebid would probably have been a popular choice after 1D-Pass-1S-Pass, but there are a few differences here. One is that although partner doesn't need much for a one-level negative double, he probably doesn't have an ugly 6-count. Another is that after the overcall, your heart strength is an important feature of your hand. By describing a minor two-suiter, you may talk partner out of any hope that you have even one stopper.

The Overbidders found a bit more to like about this hand:

MOSES: 2NT. A slight overbid. If partner bids 3NT, we have a good chance to make it. If he passes, we probably won't make 2. It is too likely to miss a game if you go low with this hand.

POPKIN: 2NT. Any bid is flawed. This is an overbid, but the good diamond spots may make this okay.

BERGER: 2NT. If partner has anything, he should go to 3NT.

SPEAR: 2NT. Slight overbid instead of a big underbid. (Sometimes I open an 11-count.) Those tens are a plus.

They're all apologizing, but is 2NT really that much of a stretch? You can get an expert-level assessment of any hand's strength with the Kaplan-Rubens (KnR) Hand Evaluator, a highly regarded tool developed by Edgar Kaplan and Jeff Rubens. It's based on complex math, but is easy to use with this web interface .

According to KnR, this 16-point hand evaluates to 18.8 points. Even if you play sound openers, that's 6 points stronger than a minimum, which makes the 1NT rebid look more like a psychic than just an underbid.

2. Matchpoints, none vulnerable           

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K8   ♥K93    ♦Q10   ♣KJ8754 ?

Before we discuss what to do next, a word about what we've already done:
    Some voiced objections to the redouble, claiming they would have bid 2C (natural and forcing one round) at their first turn. Your partnership can agree to adopt that meaning, but it is not part of Bridge World Standard or any other standard system.
    Absent a special agreement, a 2-level response of a new suit over an opponent's takeout double is not forcing. It shows a 6+-card suit and around 5-9 points. If you can't bid your suit at the one-level, the only way to show a stronger hand is to redouble first, then bid your suit.

So given that we were "stuck" with the redouble, what the best move forward now? The panel voted heavily for showing the long suit:

BAKER: 3C. Presumably this was the plan all along.

KAPLAN: 3C. I think I have to show my nice clubs!

SPEAR: 3C. This suit must be bid to describe this hand.

WETZEL: 3C Seems straightforward. It seems a bit early to grab the notrump.

WARD: 3C. The fitting spade honor is nice, but our values and singular heart stopper make 2NT unattractive.

They're following the popular and often wise bridge advice, "Bid what's in front of you". Few mentioned what might happen after 3C, but it appears they were hoping partner had something like ♥Qxx and could bid 3NT. This panelist explains why so many were reluctant to bid notrump themselves:

RABIDEAU: 3C. If we belong in 3NT, it may be critical that partner declares (if he has, say, ♥Qx), but we may not be able to get there. Good hand for "Eastern Cuebids".

Larry is referring to an old agreement where a cuebid of the opponent's suit showed a stopper, as opposed to the more familiar Western Cuebid that asks for a stopper. The Eastern Cuebid is still used when the opponents have shown two suits. After a Michaels or Unusual 2NT overcall, for example, your bid of one of their suits shows a stopper and asks partner for a stopper in the other one.

In a modern variation, some pairs agree to use the Eastern Cuebid after a single-suited overcall. After 1C by partner, 1H by RHO, your jump to 3H would say, "I have a stopper. You bid 3NT." This caters to the hand Larry mentions, where partner has a positional or partial stopper. However, even if you have this agreement, the cuebid usually has to be a jump. In our auction, 3H isn't a jump, so it would be asking for a stopper.

3C looks like an easy bid for now, but is it forcing? And do you want it to be? A few panelists mentioned the possibility that partner might pass:

KNIEST: 3C. I love all these minor suits at matchpoints. Let's see if pard has a bid.

DIEBEL: 3C. 2S a close second, but that should promise a third spade. If the auction doesn't end here, I expect we'll get to the best spot.

Redouble followed by 2S is the standard way to show limit-raise values with three trumps, but a few panelists who were also in notrump-avoidance mode tried it anyway. 

POPKIN: 2S. Matchpoints, aceless, partner knows I have cards. If he passes, we may be okay.

KESSLER: 2S. I easily could have had a club mixed in with my spades.

And here's yet another notrump dodge that no one else chose, but has some appeal:

STACK: Double. Let me see if we can flush partner out of the wood pile with this bid. My alternate bid would be 3NT. Partner does not have to pass with a hand unsuitable for defense.

This a penalty double, but it could work. Partner would have bid over 2H if he had a distributional minimum, so his pass shows either a balanced hand or some extra values. If he has the former and you can't make 3NT, defending 2H doubled could be a top. If he has more than minimum strength, the penalty could net you +500 or more.

I'm with the minority on this one, joined by:

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Double is penalty, so that’s out. Even if 3C should be forcing, will partner know that? Too much chance of running clubs for nine tricks to bid a non-forcing 2S or 2NT.

MOSES: 3NT. If Ron Smith opened 1S, I would expect to make this 90% of the time. 3NT shows well-placed cards and almost certainly a doubleton spade. If partner has a more shapely hand with 6 spades, he will correct.

As Tod points out, maybe your choice depends on partner's bidding style. If you can count on him for a relatively sound opener, you want to be in a game, and it's not 5C. With two possible suits to run -- plus some potentially helpful red spot cards -- I'm not giving partner the chance to drop me in a minor partscore. To invoke another bridge maxim, this is a case where, for me, "Good things happen when you bid 3NT" trumps "Bid what's in front of you".

3. IMPs, both vulnerable  

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KQ987   ♥A1096   ♦A   ♣KQ5 ?

We have another top-heavy vote, but there's not as much agreement here as it appears. We needed a multiple-choice problem that asked:
    4NT in this auction is:
       (A)  Key-card Blackwood for diamonds
       (B)  Natural invite
       (C)  Asking for a cuebid
       (D)  Some other arcane meaning

Those were all mentioned as possible interpretations of 4NT. The uncertainty prompted some panelists to just reject 4NT and look for alternate routes to slam:

SPEAR: 4C. I would like to ask key cards for diamonds, but uncertain whether 4NT here would be a natural invite. Next round, 4NT should enable us to check for the ♦KQ and the black aces.

HINCKLEY: 4C. I really want to bid 4D and that should be forcing, especially at IMPs. I’ll bid 5D next to imply mild slam interest.

WETZEL: 4D. Gives partner room to make a slam try. ♠A  ♥x  ♦KQJ10xxx  ♣xxxx  would not play well in 3NT on a spade lead (or a club lead and spade switch). 4D has to be forcing, right? Right?

Unfortunately, 4D also gives partner room to chicken out, as explained by:

WARD:  4NT. 4D risks missing the chance to Blackwood . . . especially if partner decides to pass.

Forcing-to-game auctions are widely -- and wisely -- played as forcing only to 3NT, 4H or 4S. There are many situations where you want to search for 3NT, but don't have enough to commit to a 5-level game when you're unsuccessful in finding stoppers. This auction sounds like one of those deals.

Note that this is different than a sequence where partner has already bid 3NT. If you freely advance to four of a minor in that situation, it would be forcing.

The one thing most panelists agreed on was that partner had to have a seventh diamond. A few speculated that he might hold something like  ♠A ♥xxx  ♦KQJ10xx  ♣Axx, but with that, he surely would have bid 2NT over your 2H.

With that rough idea of partner's hand and given the auction so far, what is the correct (or best) meaning for 4NT? I think these panelists got it right:

KESSLER: 4NT. Heading to 6D with proper number of controls.

POPKIN: 4NT. Partner should have 7 or more diamonds and likely one or more aces. We will see we see with his response. Too bad we can't use Minorwood.

MOSES: 4NT. If partner has two key cards, we ought to have a chance to make 6. Partner should have ♦KQJ10xxx and a black ace. A lot depends on what partner’s 1-level openers tend to look like.

I'll concede that Blackwood is often abused and over-used and generally out of favor among experienced players. Many experts would rather be caught playing the stolen-bid convention than using 4NT as ace-asking. However, if you don't play this 4NT as Keycard Blackwood, you might as well permanently remove it from your system. Trying to apply another meaning to it is Blackwood snobbery run amok.

Those who chose (A) above for their 4NT bids get the full 100 points. Those who chose (B), (C) or (D) still get 100 in the scoring, but it's tainted.

With all of this confusion about 4NT, maybe these panelists have the right idea:

DIEBEL: 6D. Is 4NT forcing? I'm not going to find out what I need, so I'll bid what I think I can make.

KAPLAN: 6D. Betting on lots of diamonds, a side ace and another card or two.

4. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable     

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J3   ♥9865   ♦543   ♣KQ93 ?

Almost a quarter of the Solvers doubled, intending it as showing clubs and hearts. That gets a mercy score of 20 for this reason:

HINCKLEY: Double is not “responsive”. It shows spades in Bridge World Standard.

And just about every other bidding system. Double is penalty -- it shows four or more spades and invites partner to compete in spades if the opponents don't stay there. Many pairs agree that it also suggests "this is our hand" values -- around 9+ points. With fewer points but more spades, you can bid a natural 2S.

Responsive doubles are typically used only when the opponents bid and raise the same suit. The reason it's played as penalty here is that partner showed spades and you need a way to show support. Without it, your RHO is free to psych his 1S response with no consequences. Even when RHO has a "real" 4-card spade suit, that could still be your best fit and you need to be able to find it.

That leaves us with three choices: 2C, 2H or the circumspect Pass.

RABIDEAU: Pass; Unless partner can take further action or the auction dies at a low level, I'm out.

STACK: Pass. Don't believe that I am entitled to a bid at the 2-level. Don't think this is a good responsive double. If the hearts and clubs were reversed, then I would bid 2H. The auction is not over, so we still may be able to bid.

At least Don did better than if he had chosen the "responsive" double.

For the bidders, the major edged out the minor. Most of the 2H bidders thought it was an obvious choice:

HEINS: 2H. What be the problem? I certainly have enough to compete, and I'm not bidding a 4-card minor over a 4-card major.

POPKIN: 2H. Pard asked for a major. I got one.

BAKER: 2H. If I could be sure West's next bid would be 2D, I'd be happy to bid 2C here and then 2H next. If it's 2S, I'll be much happier to bid 2H now and 3C next than I would be if I bid 2C now.

HINCKLEY: 2H. I'll bid 3C next if they try to stop in 2S. LHO surely is about to show spade support.

SPEAR: 2H. Partner is more likely to have 4-card support for the major than for the minor. I might even bid 3C next over 2S.

MOSES: 2H. The double almost certainly guarantees 4 hearts. If you pass or bid 2C, your partner will never know you have a heart fit.

Partner may have four hearts, but it's not guaranteed unless you require 4-4 in the majors for a 1-level takeout double. If you have that rare (and very impractical) agreement, there would be no worries about the opponents having a spade fit. Assuming that partner has a "normal" takeout double -- short diamonds and 3-4 cards in each of the other three suits -- East-West have 8, 9 or 10 diamonds and 7 or 8 spades, so a diamond fit is more likely.

Whatever the opponents' trump fit, their two suits outrank our two suits, so they will probably outbid us. The 2C bidders were prepared for that outcome:

DIEBEL: 2C. Auction won't end here, and I'd prefer a club lead.

KAPLAN: 2C. With not a lot of values and good clubs, despite that this is matchpoints, I show my club suit.

KESSLER: 2C, This may be my last chance to make a lead director.

KNIEST: 2C. Goody -- I get to bid another minor. If we defend, I definitely want a club lead.

The panel has offered a big range of strategies here, with some passing and others willing to bid twice, even if they have to go to the 3-level. I'm in the middle. I think this hand might be worth two bids, but only if I can get both in at the two-level. This comes closest to my thinking:

WARD: 2C. Have to get the lead director in. If 2D comes back to me, I can back in with 2H. If it goes 2D-Pass-2S, I find it hard to believe we’re missing a profitable 3H now.

5. IMPs, both vulnerable             

  * (Constructive, not forcing)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AKJ843   ♥KJ10   ♦4   ♣A84 ?

There are lots of possible contracts to consider here, and the panel and Solvers came up with numerous ways to proceed. The major wins again, barely, with the panel plurality choosing to focus on their long suit.

KAPLAN: 3S. Gotta show my good spade suit and values. Having a club fit can't be bad, too.

HEINS: 3S. Spades still seems like the most likely game.

KESSLER: 3S. I want partner to know we have 6+ spades and a good hand. This should be forcing opposite a constructive 2C bid.

One panelist and several Solvers liked their spade prospects so much that they saved a round of bidding and went directly to game:

DIEBEL: 4S. There's a danger of a heart ruff in either spades or clubs and I'm not risking being off the whole diamond suit. Once again, bid what I think I can make.

Here's a good explanation of why the spade bidders aren't too worried about missing a better spot in clubs:

SPEAR: 3S. I like the strong invite to the 10-trick game. Partner may not be able to use my spades playing in clubs like I can use his clubs playing in spades.

The 3H bidders wanted to send a message about the club fit, but were hoping to explore other contracts, too, including 4S.

STACK: 3H. The plan is to suggest a good hand and club support with the cuebid, then bid 4S. This hand could easily make 4S opposite a spade void. Tempted to just jump to 4S, but I want to suggest club support and I can foresee no disasters by cuebidding.

KNIEST: 3H. Maybe I'll hear 3S. It's hard to stay out of some game.

BAKER: 3H, This hand got big in a hurry. An immediate 4D splinter would be tempting with one more club and one fewer spade.

HINCKLEY: 3H. Too much chance of 4S or 5C making, and must keep those options and 3NT open.

MOSES: 3H. Game forcing. Partner should now show a doubleton spade if he has it. If not, we can shoot out 5C.

WARD:  3H. Let’s find out if partner has anything else to tell us. IMPs saves us from worrying too much about 3NT here. Would be nice if I could double to show extras and keep 3NT open, but I don’t think that’s part of BW Standard.

Two panelists rejected both black suits and went right for what they hoped was a better game:

RABIDEAU: 3NT. Partner has to have something in diamonds. And West, with something close to a Yarborough, will likely lead a heart rather than his weak diamond suit.

WETZEL: 3NT. Hoping that spades or clubs will run, and that diamonds won't. 3C is too weak, 3S is too unilateral and 3H will just make partner tank for a while. Second choice is a direct 4C.

I agree about what you can expect after a 3H cuebid. 3NT could be best game, but even if it isn't, you got there fast and saved some of partner's brain cells.

6. IMPs, NS vulnerable 

  * (Forcing NT)

What is your call as South holding:   ♠A   ♥K63   ♦KJ7654   ♣943 ?

With 11 points and a couple of quick tricks, your forcing 1NT was on the heavy side. Some said they would have upgraded this 11-count and responded a forcing-to-game 2D. Others would have chosen an invitational jump to 3D at their first turn. Although Bridge World Standard includes this agreement for a jump-shift response, this isn't the suit quality you normally want to promise.

Some panelists and more than 40 percent of the Solvers thought it best to show the diamonds now.

KAPLAN: 3D. I might have stretched and bid 2D originally. Afraid to try 3NT with those clubs; 3D seems best.

POPKIN: 3D. This is an underbid, but I endplayed myself when I bid 1NT.

Okay, okay. Next time, I'll edit the problem or change the hand so no one would call it enough for a 2-over-1. For now, your decision is not all that much different than if you had responded 2D. Partner will rebid 2H and you have the choice of over-emphasizing the diamonds with 3D, bidding 2NT without a club stopper or raising hearts with "short" support. The only option that wouldn't be available to you is this one:

SPEAR: Pass. 2H may be our best partial, although we have not described our values. Bidding the diamonds does not describe our values either, and may be partner's shortness.

That's a deep position to take vulnerable at IMPs, but all the other possibilities are pretty unappealing, too. Pass was upgraded a bit in the scoring because although Jack was the only panelist to choose this call, others -- including this panelist -- mentioned it as a reasonable choice:  

STACK: 3H. I believe I must bid vulnerable at IMPs, but torn between 2NT and 3H. I have sympathy for pass as the low road trying for a plus score. Don't believe it is winning percentage bridge to pass this hand. Might make 6D but cannot bid 3D which is non-forcing and non-invitational.

DIEBEL and BERGERUD also chose to invite in the possible 4-3 heart fit. This could get you to a making 4H, but as this panelist points out, there's a risk of losing trump control if the opponents force partner to ruff clubs:

HEINS: 2NT. Really hoping to hear a 3H bid over this. Hearts won't play well if partner has only four unless he also has clubs, so I may as well make the value bid.

Others considered raising hearts, but the majority finally settled on the right-on-values, wrong-on-stoppers 2NT rebid:

HINCKLEY: 2NT. When I did not bid 3D invitational initially, presumably due to poor suit quality, 2NT is practically forced. 3H is the only other choice.

WARD:  2NT. I put myself in this situation by not responding 2D. Maybe we have nine tricks after they run clubs. A raise to 3H is missing the vital fourth trump and could easily put us in a silly 4-3 fit when we’re cold for 3NT or 4S. Close second choice is Pass.

KESSLER: 2NT. Most descriptive call available. With one fewer diamond and one more club, it would be automatic.

MOSES: 2NT. I want to give partner a chance to bid out his pattern or raise to 3NT if he's on a maximum. 3D will get passed and you could have no play.

BAKER: 2NT. This risks landing in 3NT minus the entire club suit. 3D, on the other hand, risks landing in 3D cold for game. I know which risk I'd rather take vulnerable at IMPs.

SPEAR may well win the board with his Pass, but as BAKER explained, the words "vulnerable" and "IMPs" often talk us into pushing a bit harder than we would in a pairs game. 

  ♠ Panelist votes & August scores 

    ©  Karen Walker