♠ District 8 Solvers Forum -- March 2023

            by Karen Walker, Champaign IL
 

In Memory -- Tom Dodd (1957-2020)

We just learned of the passing of Tom Dodd, who died unexpectedly at age 63 on December 16, 2020. He was a long-time moderator of this column and well known to many members of District 8.   

Originally from South Bend IN, Tom moved to Branchburg NJ in 2004 and worked as a patent attorney for Johnson & Johnson. In recent years, he had retired from bridge and from writing this column.

In the late 1980s, Tom and Chris Habegger of Elkhart IN outbid some of the top pairs in the world in the Challenge the Champs bidding contest in The Bridge World magazine. They set a record by winning ten contests in a row.

Besides bridge, Tom loved golf, rock-and-roll music and his Laborador retrievers. We miss the incisive, witty analysis he brought to this column. Belated condolences to his family and many friends. 

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, NS vulnerable   

    * Negative double

What is your call as South holding:  ♠K975   ♥KQ102   ♦J954   ♣A ?

After a 9-month layoff, we're back with new problems and a semi-regular publication schedule. This first problem drew a clear majority to one solution, but the minority made some good points about their choice.

A fifth of the Solvers thought this hand was worth a jump to 4S. Partner has promised good values for a negative double at this level and you do have a bit more than a dead-minimum opener. The panel, however, saw too many liabilities. For most, this came down to a choice between a partscore and a penalty.   

The 3S bidders had reservations about the location of their heart honors:

MOSES: 3S. Ron Smith says never double underneath the long suit. The more I play, the more I realize this to be true. 3NT might work better if partner has two hearts, but let's give partner a chance to evaluate his hand.

Another issue with passing is how the defense will go:

ROBINSON: 3S. Partner showed me spades so I'm bidding them. If I pass the double, partner could lead a diamond, which could cost lots of tricks.

Then there's the vulnerability:

BAKER: 3S. Any other colors, I'd pass, and I'm still tempted here because the heart values aren't playing for much on offense.

FOGEL:  3S. Go low. Wasted heart values and danger of enemy ruffs rule out 4S. No apparent source of tricks for 3NT. Might not beat 3H doubled (and if pard has extras. then going +300 or +500 isn't going to beat your game).

But that +300 (or more) is going to beat a partscore, which is likely to be the final contract if you bid 3S. Some of the 3S bidders were hoping partner could boost to 4S, but he's not going to push too hard after you've made the weakest bid possible. If partner does happen to have enough extra strength to raise to game, 3H doubled could be going down 800.

The passers weren't optimistic about taking ten tricks even if partner could bid 4S over 3S. 

HEINS:  Pass, I am not going to bid game with this hand at matchpoints, so it comes down to pass or 3S. I can see 4 tricks on defense pretty easily. Pass is sort of unilateral, but I think it's the bet to make.

SPEAR: Pass. 4S may run into bad breaks and my hearts are devalued under their ♥AJ. Defensive values in hearts are promising in contrast.

If you're worried about your hearts pulling full weight, there's another game where they rate to be more valuable. Only one panelist, Eisenberger, bid 3NT, but for me, it was a very close second choice. I voted for pass mainly because it seems the best shot at a better-than-140 plus score -- and, like these panelists, I thought it could possibly be very big.   

PAVLICEK:  Pass. Spades rates to play poorly, so I'll take the odds that we don't have a game. Plus scores are the key, and the way some desperadoes preempt, we might get 800.

RABIDEAU: Pass. My hand isn't worth much on offense. And this vulnerability brings out the worst in some opponents. A recent 2H overcaller of my 1D opening held ♥76432.

If nothing else, consider the pass an investment in your future dealings with these opponents:

WARD: Pass. Certainly the wrong colors for this, but 4S is no lock and maybe my opponents will learn some respect.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AKJ94   ♥Q1086   ♦Void  ♣A1052 ?    

Everyone had slam aspirations with this hand, but different ideas about the best way to investigate. Four panelists and a fifth of the Solvers chose to go slow:  

HEINS: 1S. I need more information to decide what slam I'm going to bid. We could be cold for a grand opposite a minimum opening bid. I think there is an argument to be made for 2C, but bidding 1S will allow partner to evaluate his hand properly, and a 1NT or 2D rebid by him will be very illuminating.

FOGEL: 1S. You're in no hurry, so start by showing your nice suit. You will be able to show your great support later. You have a forcing bid available at every turn, so there's no need to crowd the bidding now.

PAVLICEK: 1S. Too simple for me, as I play weak jump shifts and second-round jumps game forcing. Showing the spade suit might help a later slam (grand) decision. I suppose a direct 5NT (Grand Slam Force) has some merit, but to assume 13 tricks opposite ♥AK is too optimistic, let alone that partner could have ♥Jxxxx.

The problem with 1S is that it may be difficult, perhaps impossible, to show "great" support later. Over most of partner's possible rebids, you won't have a way to force in hearts at your second turn. What's your follow-up if partner rebids 2D over your 1S? As Pavlicek explains, it's easy for him because he plays a jump to 3H is forcing. However, in Bridge World Standard and for most other pairs, 3H would be an invite, so you'd have to bid the fourth suit (3C) to force. When you eventually get around to bidding hearts, partner is never going to guess your hearts are this strong.

One way to avoid this problem is to just ignore the spade suit and set up an immediate force:

ROBINSON: 2C. Bidding 1S, especially with a void in diamonds, will lead to a bad auction. I'll start with a 2-over-1 and support hearts next.

The rest of the panel wanted to show their good heart support much earlier. The plurality started with a Jacoby 2NT forcing raise:

BAKER: 2NT. Too strong for a 4D splinter bid. If partner can show me club shortness, off to the races. I'm tempted to start 1S because finding that queen could be key to a grand, but partner will never expect this much heart support.

HINCKLEY: 2NT. I don't like splintering with fewer than 7 losers and 5D Exclusion doesn't seem right.

Bridge World Standard defines a jump to 5D here as Exclusion Blackwood ("Voidwood", showing heart support and asking for keycards outside diamonds). Since all you're looking for is the ♥AK, 5NT (Grand Slam Force) would uncover the same information. Either jump seems precipitous, though, as you really need more information before committing.

The 4D bidders wanted to establish trumps and hear partner's response to their diamond shortness. They planned to keep bidding, though, even if partner gave a discouraging answer (4H).  

RABIDEAU: 4D, then 4S over 4H. Knowing where partner's high-card-points are is often more important than the number of them.

WARD: 4D. I plan on bidding past game. I don’t know if BWS treats 4NT next as Exclusion Blackwood.

SPEAR: 4D. Big hand for hearts, and describing the diamond shortage is a good start. 4NT next would be Exclusion in Bridge World Standard. I have too much to accept partner's likely effort to sign off over 4D.

This panelist went with the plurality's choice, but suggests yet another approach:

JONES: 2NT. Establishing the fit early simplifies the auction. Good hand for a strong jump shift.

The modern and most popular way to play strong jump shifts is to use them to describe four types of hands. Called "Soloway" jump shifts, a summary of the agreements is here. One type of hand is this one -- a good fit for partner's suit and a good 5+-card side suit. To describe it, you respond 2S, then show heart support by either bidding hearts or bidding a new suit, which also pinpoints shortness. In just two bids, you can give partner a close-to-perfect description of three important features of your hand.

Eisenberger and I were the only panelists who chose 2S. My guess is that it would have drawn more votes if the panel had been sure that Bridge World Standard plays strong jump shifts (it does).

What is your call as South holding:  ♠AQ    ♥K10984   ♦AQ97   ♣53 ?

PAVLICEK: 3S. I clearly have extras, and nothing else makes any sense. This should be unanimous.

Close, but not quite. The majority did bid 3S and seemed pretty confident about their choice.

HELFGOTT:  3S. Forcing and shouldn’t promise 3 spades.

WARD: 3S. Might have boxed myself into a corner by not opening 1NT. However, we might get to a magic 4S now on a 4-2 fit opposite ♠KJ10x of spades and some red picture cards.

MOSES: 3S. I would start with 3S hoping that my partner can bid 3NT with a suitable hand. If not, he can either raise to 4S or bid 4D. 5D might be tough with any honors we have in clubs coming down on dummy.

BAKER: 3S. This might be the only way to find our 4-2 fit, but 3H over-emphasizes a suit that needs more help than partner is likely to have and anything else gives up on 3NT.

Vulnerable at IMPs, it feels like you have to do something here. I'm a 3S bidder, too, although I'm not as comfortable with it as other panelists are. Some thought it routine to treat 3S as a doubleton, but in real life, I think partner will assume you have 3-card support. 

I'm also less optimistic about the chances of getting to 3NT. With the vast majority of hands that have club stoppers, partner would have rebid 2NT instead of raising diamonds. I have a hard time coming up with a hand that would raise to 3D, but then bid 3NT over my 3S rebid -- and make the contract. 

There are flaws with all the other possibilities, too. Any of these three outliers, though, could have chosen the winning call: 

HINCKLEY: 3H. Game forcing. I initially answered 3S referencing the great board we'd get in a 4-2 fit opposite KJTx  Ax  Kxxx  xxx ! But that's a perfect hand and opposite Ax of hearts, 4H will play fine and 3NT is still in play.

RABIDEAU: Pass. Pard probably has a club stopper (not a lot of HCPs elsewhere) but didn't bid 2NT, suggesting distribution (stiff heart?), hence a misfit. That analysis makes 5D remote, too.

SPEAR: 3NT. With spades and a minor as the unbid suits here at the 3-level, 3NT should show a spade stopper, and 3S should ask for one. (I like opening 1NT better.)

   * Forcing NT

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Void   ♥AQ974  ♦54   ♣QJ9653 ?

This was the editor's error in transferring text, as it's a repeat of Problem 3 in the previous issue (the column is here). Bud Hinckley was the only one to bring that to my attention. Everyone else either didn't remember it -- the last issue was a long time ago (June 2022) -- or just decided to be good sports and answer it again.  

The only difference is that it was an IMP problem in the previous issue and matchpoints in this one. The vote distribution was almost identical in both issues, though. The top bid was 4C with 3C a close runner-up.

The comments this time brought up some interesting agreements that aren't Bridge World Standard, but might be worth considering in case this type of problem ever comes up at the table. 

JONES: 4C. This is a good hand for a pet bid I like. 3NT says I have a 4C bid with short spades. It’s non-forcing.

HELFGOTT:  3H. Hoping this is taken as big hand with hearts and clubs.

PAVLICEK: 4C. In my methods, a jump shift after 1NT forcing shows a fit (forcing) with length or strength in the suit bid. I assume that wouldn't apply, so 4C seems best. If partner has a decent hand he might cue 4D, leading to a good slam (or a bad one that makes is okay too).

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q74   ♥KQ1087   ♦KQJ10   ♣J ?

Just over half the panel and Solvers -- and a big 86 percent of Bridgewinners voters -- went quietly:

PAVLICEK: Pass. I'd guess the chance of catching a 4H make is 30-40 percent, so I'll take the odds. No doubt this will be in the minority with the "Bid now, pay later" trend spurred by online bridge.

ROBINSON: Pass. Partner is short in spades and passed so I don't think he has a good hand.

FOGEL: Pass. Your black honor cards are pretty valueless, and you have no aces. If you were making a four-level contract, pard would probably already have said something. At least one red suit is probably breaking badly, so this won't be fun to play.

JONES: Pass. Anything could work. Just trying to go plus. Would not be my first zero..

Although passing is probably the sanest or most "normal" choice, it comes with that nagging feeling that you're being swindled. The rest of the panel decided to go for the big score or go down swinging: 

HINCKLEY: 3NT. Toughest of the set. Every time I bid 4H, dummy has a doubleton spade and it starts with three spades and an over-ruff of dummy. Kudos to those with the guts to pass.

SPEAR: 3NT. No spade raise, and the alternatives are also flawed. (I do not expect this to be a popular choice.)

HEINS: 4H. I can't let them steal this. Double is a trap, so 4H it is.

RABIDEAU: 4H. Thank you for the chunky hearts and diamond 10.

BAKER: 4H. I don't need much to make this. Partner may have had a singleton spade but not enough to come in at the 4-level. Or I might be walking right into a buzzsaw.

EISENBERGER: 4H. BWS does not use minimum equal-level conversions.

MOSES: Double. Allows us to get to our heart fit if we have one. Partner knows I’m under the gun and if he bids 4C and I correct to 4D, he should get the picture. It is too easy to miss a game if you pass (you might go for a number however).

The picture partner will get is a hand with 5 diamonds and 4 hearts. As Eisenberger notes, Bridge World Standard doesn't even use equal-level conversions (where you can double and pull partner's 4C advance to 4D without promising extra values). That's a curious omission, as it's a very popular agreement. Even if it is part of your system, though, this hand doesn't have the right distribution for it. The doubler's pull to diamonds always shows at least a 5-card suit.

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q   ♥J743   ♦AKQ9643   ♣7 ?

How do you evaluate this hand? You can try figuring losers or adding in points for shortness or length, but there's no counting method that will tell you how many points it's worth. As with many other freak hands, you have to rely on your judgment, experience and perhaps your "gut feeling".    

Let's hear first from two panelists whose bridge judgment has won multiple national championships:

PAVLICEK: 2D. Silent opposition suggests partner has a good hand, so the bidding is hardly over. Jumping to 4H next describes my hand well, and if slam is in the picture, I must stress diamonds now.

ROBINSON: 2H. My weak hearts slowed me down. Partner with  ♠AKxx  ♥Qxxx  ♦xx  ♣AKxx  could easily get us too high.

That's two votes for treating this as a minimum opener, for now.

In bridge slang, a hand with 7-4-1-1 distribution is called a "swan". Ely Culbertson, one of the greatest players and bidding theorists of all time, advised that swans should declare with the seven-card suit as trump even if you have a 4-4 fit in your second suit.

That was good advice for rubber bridge, but today's matchpoint players are more focused on finding the highest-scoring contracts than on landing in the safest ones. The rest of the panel made heart raises, with four panelists treating the hand as an invitation: 

FOGEL: 3H. Four-cards and 16-18 points (with distribution) in support of partner's suit? Sounds like a double-raise to me!

HEINS: 3H. I'm making the value bid. If partner cues, I am well positioned to use Keycard Blackwood and bid a grand if one is there. If partner passes with  ♠Kxxx  ♥Qxxx  ♦xx  ♣xxx , I am happy, too.

HELFGOTT:  3H. A guess? A 5-loser hand too good for 2H, but needs another card for 4D.

Opener's jump to four of his minor (4D in this auction) is a widely played convention that shows a strong raise of responder's major. Bridge World Standard defines it as a "game-forcing raise with strong four-card support and a long (typically six-card), strong suit." Several panelists agreed that their hand should be a bit better for 4D, but they bid it anyway.

SPEAR: 4D. The only shortcoming for this descriptive action is no high heart card. But if slam is in the cards, missing controls will be easy to identify.

BAKER: 4D. I'd like slightly better hearts than this. On a bad day, partner has  ♠Kxxx  ♥109xx  ♦xx  ♣KQx  and we're down two off the top. But I can describe my entire hand in one bid, so I'm going to.

RABIDEAU:4D. Is this part of our system? If not, change my bid to 4H and I'll hope partner doesn't get carried away, thinking I have lotsa points.

HINCKLEY: 4D. Shows 4-6 shape with hearts. Bridge World Standard says I'm supposed to have "strong" hearts (not Jxxx), but I like a 4C splinter less.

More bridge slang: A hand with two singletons is called a "gang splinter". Several Solvers chose a splinter raise of 3S or 4C to show shortness. The problem with this is that it essentially "hides" your other singleton and your main source of tricks. If you're going to call this a game-forcing hand, 4D is a much better description.

If you play this four-level rebid as a raise, you and partner can discuss how you want to define "game-forcing" and  "strong suit". Some pairs like to promise a solid minor (headed by AKQ) and something close to 18-19 support points, which means you'll typically have either a stronger honor holding in partner's suit or another high honor outside your suits.

Our panel obviously has a liberal view of what constitutes a game force. You may want to promise a little more, but in general, this convention will be most valuable if you don't impose too many restrictions. If your minor looks like a good source of tricks and your hand looks like a game force, then trust your judgment and give it a try.