♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- February 2021

        by Karen Walker, Champaign IL

We're back after a short break (no December issue). Joining our panel this month is three-time world champion Steve Robinson of Arlington VA. Steve, who has also won 24 national titles, was inducted into the ACBL Hall of Fame in 2003.

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. IMPs, NS vulnerable  
 

What is your call as South holding  ♠102   ♥AKJ53   ♦Q875   ♣Q4 ?

More than half the panel passed smoothly with expectations of collecting a big score on defense:

ROBINSON: Pass. Why not go for the throat? I hope partner reopens with a double.

WARD: Pass. I love to go after them, even at these colors.

There would have been more passers if we could trade in that ♥53 for spots that were just a bit higher -- and surely a unanimous vote if the opponents were vulnerable. For the rest of the panel, those two issues dampened their enthusiasm for defending.

HINCKLEY:  3NT. Vulnerability, lack of a good heart spot card and the (small) chance of partner passing it out stops me from looking for the big penalty.

KESSLER: 3NT. If the opponents were vulnerable, I would pass and wait for the reopening double. The ♣Q is the difference between 2NT and 3NT.

BAKER: 3NT. These are the wrong colors to be trapping. We'd have to set them at least 3 for defending to not be a disaster if we can make game (and even at down 3, it's a loss of 3 IMPs) .

It's those numbers that talked me into bidding. If you think you can make 3NT, you'll have to set 1H doubled four tricks (+800) to beat your +600. Even if partner reopens with a double (not a guarantee), all the 1H overcaller needs is ♥Q10976 and two outside tricks to get out for down 3 and -500.

STACK:  3NT. Don't feel good about defending 1H doubled if that is possible, so I will bid what I think I can make. Is 2NT a better alternative? I think not.

Which brings us to:

SPEAR: 2NT. Game invitation, vul vs. non-vul. A good partner will provide a spade stopper.

This might be all you can make if you play light openers, but do we really want to settle for +120 on this deal? If you have doubts about making 3NT, then it's surely better to try to defend 1H doubled. At worst, that should be +300 and could be more.

2. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable      
 

   * (Transfer to spades)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ762    ♥K43   ♦Q874   ♣7 ?

Your decision here depends on what you believe partner is showing with his pass. Most panelists expected diamond tolerance (three cards) but not a strong 4-card holding (no redouble). Some assumed partner was denying spade support. Others thought he might have three spades, but wanted to show some diamond help in case you want to play 4D doubled.

That contract was the choice of three panelists. They liked their chances of taking ten tricks, even in a 4-3 fit:

KNIEST: Pass. Looks like a top coming. Maybe a bottom, but I don't think so.

WARD: Pass. Maybe taking a position here, but I expect us to have seven diamonds (or a weak 4-4 fit.)

The redoublers were even more confident:

STACK:  Redouble. Glad it is matchpoints and we have no partners to answer to. It will be interesting to see what partner does. If partner passes, what a story we have to tell at the cocktail hour.

HARVEY: Redouble. I suspect partner has only two spades. Maybe 4D redoubled is our best contract. If not, partner can still pull it.

You and partner have essentially agreed that you have a diamond fit, so I don't see how redouble can be optional here. It says that you believe 4D doubled is not only our best contract, but such a sure thing that you want to up the ante. I don't think partner can pull unless he made a mistake by passing at his previous turn.

Half the panel had enough doubts that they went looking for a safer spot.

ROBINSON: 4NT. Partner could have redoubled if he had good diamonds since 4D shows at least four diamonds.

SPEAR: 4NT. I think our side can make 4NT, but may not be able to make 4D doubled.

KESSLER: 4S. If all partner can do is pass, I'll just settle for a plus at matchpoints.

I'm also leery of playing 4D doubled. Maybe we've all been playing too much online bridge, where a careless opponent might double with ♦KJxxx or maybe just the ♦A. In the Forum, though, we're to assume that our partner and opponents are experts. Your LHO knows you have a real diamond suit and that opener has some help, so he should have a very strong holding. He probably doesn't have six diamonds (no white vs. red weak two-bid), but all he needs is ♦KJ10xx or ♦KJ109 and an outside trick to beat 4D doubled.

BAKER: 4H. Finish patterning out. If redouble by partner would have shown a diamond control (first or second round), I should bail out at 4S, but if 4D was showing a suit. that might not be what redouble means.

HINCKLEY: 4H. At matchpoints, 4D shows slam interest. I'll bid out my shape. Partner can bid 4NT to play next or 4S with ♠Kx. I risk 4H being passed -- then I learn later if I should have bid 5H.

I don't know if partner will take this as a pure pattern bid, but since we can't possibly hold four hearts on this auction, he should know it's some type of punt. It gives him room to bid 4S if he has three cards or a good doubleton, or to choose 4NT with other holdings. We won't have a +710 or +920 story to share in the bar, but we won't be telling a -400 sob story, either.

3. Matchpoints, none vulnerable           
 

What is your call as South holding: ♠AKJ954    ♥AK74   ♦Q108   ♣Void ?

This hand has a lot to communicate -- 5+ spades, 4+ hearts, diamond support, extra spades, club void, extra values. In the auction so far, we've managed to show the first three. How much more can we -- or should we -- try to describe? And what's the best way to do it?

The panel and Solvers came up with nine ways to proceed. Some were understandably discouraged by partner's notrump bids:

ROBINSON: Pass. Partner has shown very good clubs so 3NT should be a good contract. I have no way to show partner my six good spades or show him my extra high-card points, so I'll hope that others get too high.

Most of the panel, though, decided to head for a suit game or slam. The plurality chose to show their extra spade length:

SPEAR: 4S. We want to show our 6-card suit to complete our description, and hope partner is able to make the right decision. His club values may not be working well opposite our void, and partner may have a singleton spade.

BAKER: 4S. Despite partner's apparent wasted values in clubs, some good minimum hands (♠xx  ♥xx  ♦AKxxx  ♣KQxx)  produce an easy small slam and some play for a grand. I kind of wish I had bid 3S last round so I could bid 4D (more clearly forcing) now, but partner is unlikely to pass 4S.

This shows the extra spade and therefore your 6-4-3-1 pattern, but partner still doesn't know you have anything more than a minimum opener. Here's a stronger way to show the club void:

KNIEST: 5C. Hopefully, he'll take this as Exclusion Blackwood. I'll pass 5D. Pard must be loaded in clubs.

MAYNE: 5C. I don't think this will score well, but I think it's right.

WARD: 5C. I know partner has five diamonds, as with 2-3-4-4 he would have started with 2C, so I am willing to commit to at least a small slam opposite one keycard. While this focuses on level, we lose out on strain, but I don't think partner can have Qx of spades and have rebid 3NT.

The jump to 5C is Exclusion Blackwood, which shows a void in the bid suit and asks for the number keycards in the other three suits. Here, they're confirming that diamonds are trumps. Other panelists had the same contract in mind but decided to get there faster:

KESSLER: 6D. I think if you try 5C, the auction just gets tangled up.

RABIDEAU: 6D. Looks like partner is 1-3-5-4 or 1-3-6-3, but his slow-arrival 2NT promised a decent hand.

Here are three other approaches that could work:

HARVEY: 4C. I will bid 4C to get more information from partner. I would have bid 3S over 2NT and then 4D over 3NT.

HINCKLEY: 4D. Forcing.  ♠Q  ♥xxx  ♦AKJxx  ♣K109x is enough for a grand. I'm planning on bidding at least 6D, but perhaps we'll learn if 6S (or 7D or 7S) is better.

STACK: 5NT. Pick a slam. I would have bid 5NT (grand slam force) after the 2D bid. But since we have chosen this route, I don't think 6NT is one of the slam options.

None of our panelists or Solvers voted for 5S, which is my choice. It's similar to 5NT in that it's forcing and asks partner to pick a slam, but it also shows the sixth spade. Even opposite wasted club honors, I think I have enough for slam and this keeps the higher-scoring spade contract in the mix. Partner should be able to figure out that he needs a spade filler to choose 6S (with a solid suit, I surely wouldn't have waited this long to bid it again), so we'll probably end up in 6D.

4. IMPs, NS vulnerable
 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠4   ♥KJ10965   ♦94   ♣AQJ10 ?

The standard advice in this situation is that opener should stretch to reopen with a takeout double if he's short in overcaller's suit. This is supposed to cater to the possibility that partner has a spade stack and wants to penalize the overcall, even though he won't hold that hand all that often. Even when he has other hand types, getting back into the auction may help you find a playable partscore.

Shortness in their suit, however, does not make a double "automatic". It's also important to have a hand that offers a good landing spot if partner pulls the double and will provide defensive tricks if he passes. Does this hand qualify? It's not a classic for a reopening double, but the panel majority thought it was close enough:

ROBINSON: Double. It's clear not to pass since partner could have a penalty double of 2S. At least my hearts are good enough to play in if partner pulls.

SPEAR: Double. Partner is likely to pass for penalties, and failure to double might deprive us of our best score.

STACK:  Double. Tempted to pass but if this is a disaster then I hope we can make it up. If partner bids 3D, then I will bid 3H and hope for the best. Seems like a lot of my bidding is based on hope.

With a passed hand on your right and a preempt on your left, it sounds like partner has some strength and, since he's not bidding, strong enough spades to be planning to pass your reopening double. The panel minority had reservations about giving him the opportunity to do that:

BAKER: 3C. Partner almost has to be trapping (where are the points otherwise?), but my hand is poor defensively and the colors are wrong for defending.

KESSLER: 3H. I cannot imagine doubling and having partner pass. This seems automatic.

They make a good point. With two strong suits and only one sure defensive trick, this hand has a very high offense-to-defense ratio. At this vulnerability, you'll have to take seven tricks on defense (+300) to beat the value of your partscore, nine tricks (+800) if you can make a game. If you double and partner passes, you'll have to hope he has a monster spade stack.

That could well be the case, but as we saw in Problem 1, our panel is pretty aggressive about converting these reopening doubles to penalty. If your style is to reopen with a double with this hand, this Bridgewinners.com panelist (and former District 8 player) offers some advice to your partner:

CRAIG ZASTERA: The very strong vote in favor of the reopening double -- even with this minimal and very offensively oriented hand -- suggests to me that responder should not be leaving in such doubles unless he has a true "trap-pass" hand type.

5. IMPs, EW vulnerable 
 

What is your call as South holding: ♠AJ9   ♥J75432   ♦A7   ♣J7 ?

There's a lot to like about this hand -- aces, good fillers in partner's suits, a stopper in the unbid suit -- but the one flaw is a big one. The ultra-weak 6-card suit convinced several panelists and Solvers to "go low".

SPEAR: 2H. An underbid chosen as the alternative to the overbid/mis-description of 3H. At least we are nonvul if this goes wrong.

HARVEY: 2H. My lousy hearts prevent me from bidding more.

BAKER: 2S. This hand is an advertisement for the "rebid 1NT even with 4 spades on a balanced hand" style. If partner could be 4-3-3-3, 3H might be right despite the horrid suit. If partner is known to have shortness somewhere (likely hearts), hearts and notrump are both likely to be disasters.

Most panelists thought they had to do more. I think it's a close decision between the invitational 2NT and a forcing 2D. I chose 2NT, thinking that hearts probably won't be the right contract unless partner has 3-card support. If he has enough to accept the invite, he has a chance to show heart support it on the way to 3NT. I think this strategy might be better, though:

ROBINSON: 2D. I'll force to game in order to find the right strain.

WARD: 2D. I'd rather get to the right strain than treat the hearts as a 5-card suit and bid 2NT.

STACK:  2D. Forcing with at least invitational values and full of hope that we reach a reasonable contract.

Some may play this as invitational, but most treat the fourth-suit bid as forcing to game. Although this hand may be a point or so short of a full game-force, it's pretty close if you play a mainstream (not ultra-light) opening-bid style. 2D leaves plenty of room to find out if hearts or notrump -- maybe even spades? -- is better. And if it happens to be notrump, this may help us get it played from partner's side.

This panelist mentions another bid that drew a few votes:

HINCKLEY: 2NT. Not 3H with this suit!

I didn't think 3H would even be under consideration, but there it is, the choice of two panelists and 18 percent of the Solvers. It gets a courtesy score of 50 points, but this suit is so much weaker than what partner will expect that it will be a lucky accident if he makes the right decision. Even with a full 14 points, he will rarely bid 3NT because he'll never guess that you have 10 high-card points outside hearts.

6. IMPs, both vulnerable   

    * (Preemptive raise)

What is your call as South holding: ♠KQ   ♥54   ♦A10532   ♣KQ102 ?

WARD: Pass. Same vote I made ~20 years ago when this last appeared. If three quick tricks is not enough to pass this, nothing is.

Is a good memory a requirement for being a good bridge player? Or does the game itself help us develop superior memory skills? Whichever it is, Nate has it. We did use this problem before, although I thought it was so long ago that Nate was probably in junior high. I checked, however, and it was October 2000.

Back then, the vote was a three-way tie between Pass, 3S and 4C. The retreats to black suits drew a few more votes this time around.

KNIEST: 4C. Pard had a chance to rebid 3S ... or 4.

KESSLER: 3S. I do not like defending doubled partscores when they have 9 or likely 10 trumps.

SPEAR: 3S. The ♠KQ looks as good as three little spades.

STACK:  3S. Am I tempted to pass? Yes, and possibly I would if I were on lead and could lead a spade. This should be a very playable spot.

HINCKLEY: 3S. Partner should know I'm not likely to pass with three spades last round, so a strong doubleton is likely. Hope we don't belong in a club game or slam.

I was also a passer back in 2000, but with a couple of decades to think about it, I've changed my mind. I like this better:

ROBINSON: 4H. Choice-of-games cuebid. It would be nice to know if you play support doubles and if so, how high. If we play support doubles this high, I'd jump to 4S.

Partner must have something very unusual to pass in first seat, but now be willing to play at the 4-level opposite a potentially light third-seat opener. Passing the double would probably get us +200, but I doubt it could be more, as our expert (and vulnerable) opponents surely have enough hearts and/or enough distribution to believe that the 3-level isn't insanely high. Whatever partner has -- lots of black cards, maybe even a heart void? -- I have way more than he might expect, so I'm not going to settle for less than game.

  ♠  Panelist votes & February scores  

 ©  Karen Walker