District 8 Solvers Forum

-- from the April, 1999, edition of the District 8 Advocate

by Mike Jones, Champaign IL

---

1.  Matchpoints, none vulnerable

West	North	East	South
1C	DBl	1H	?

What is your call as South holding:     S-Q84     H-K    D-Q9853   C-K1062 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	Solvers
1NT	100	6	14
2D	90	4	48
3D	80	3	15
2NT	60	1	0
Pass	50	0	8
DBL	30	0	14

A majority of the panel and Solvers bid diamonds in this competitive matchpoint situation, but I wonder if they thought about it long enough.

FOGEL: "2D. If partner can be trusted to have 3 diamonds, I'd call 3D and let them guess if they can make 3H (I doubt it). But partner could have a 4-4-2-3 14-count this time, and 3D won't be fun. The real problem comes when lefty bids 2H and it's passed back to me."

WARD: "2D. Very close between this and 1NT, but I don't like the stiff heart. This will be harder after they bid 2H."

Several panelists thought this hand rated a jump to 3D, as an 11-count normally would here. Arguing against this, however, is the weight to be given to the heart king in suit play and the fact that a simple freebid of 2D would show some values. And as FOGEL mentioned, there's also the outside chance that partner won't have 3 diamonds, since many players will risk a takeout double here with a 4-4-2-3 hand.

The more you look at this hand, the less suited it  looks for a trump contract, which brings us to the matchpoint call:

DODD:  "1NT. Tempting to bid this even at teams. It limits the hand strength and avoids problems when North is short in diamonds."

KESSLER: "1NT. I hate to be pushy at matchpoints. This should beat diamond contracts, which will be more frequent than 3NT if partner can't bid again. The other positive is that if they compete, you'll get a large number."

Yet another plus for 1NT, as it may talk partner into a penalty double when it's right. Several Solvers tried a double over 1H, hoping it was responsive. But unless you have a special agreement, a double is penalty here; it's only responsive if they bid and raise the same suit.

One panelist thought this hand was good enough to jump in notrump:

FEILER: "2NT. At IMPs, I'd bid 3D, but at matchpoints, that passes up a NT partscore, which could be the right spot. Maybe 1NT is enough. It's very close."

1NT in a live auction shows values, and if there's more bidding, it will leave you in a good position to bid diamonds or double later. If it goes all pass, you're probably in a good matchpoint spot.
 

2.  IMPs, both vulnerable

West	North	East	South
--	--	Pass	1D
DBL	1S	Pass	?

What is your call as South holding:    S-Q65    H-3    D-AKQ876   C-K104 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
2D	100	4	30
2S	90	4	32
3D	80	3	22
3S	70	3	15

What strain? What level? To answer those questions, it would be helpful to know what 1S promises these days. Two of our editors disagree:

WALKER: "2D. Almost no one still plays 1S as promising 5. Raising spades is okay here, but 2D is better if you think about the rest of the auction. If there's more bidding, I can bid spades later and show this hand perfectly. If 2D is passed out, there's no way we've missed a game, and we rate to be in the safest partscore, which is our goal at IMPs."

DODD:  "3S. With North promising at least a decent 5-bagger and probably  an ace, I take aggressive action at IMPs."

Since West will double with 4-3 or even 3-3 in the majors, the modern trend seems to be Mike Lawrence's "ignore the double" theory. That means partner can make a freebid of almost any 4-card suit here. Some like to require a "good" 4+, and others, like DODD, want to promise 5+. It's probably a good idea to find out what your partner prefers.

Most of the panel chose diamond rebids. They offered stronger arguments than the spade bidders, so the diamond calls got a slight edge in the scoring.

FEILER: "2D. I can't see this getting passed out; somebody's going to choke out a 2H bid. If it's partner, I'll give him 3S. If it's an opponent, I'll make it 2S."

These two are faithful Bulletin readers:

PASERO:  "2D. When this problem appeared in the Bulletin's 'It's Your Call' column, Mike Lawrence said that he raises about half the time with three trumps. This hand is in the other half."

FOGEL: "2S, and accept any game try. This is what you'd bid if LHO hadn't doubled (see Lawrence's comment in the Bulletin). The lack of a 4th trump makes 3S way too optimistic, 2D is too weak, and 3D is likely to kill off spades."

They seem to have different ideas of what Mike would do with this hand. Your decision comes down to (a) whether you think you should support spades immediately, and (b) whether you fear the bidding will die at the 2-level. This answer won me over:

ATHY:  "3D. Seems the call for this loser-count, and I may have the opportunity to sneak in a 3S bid later."

3.  Matchpoints, EW vulnerable
 

West	North	East	South
1H	1S	Pass	Pass
2H	3C	Pass	?

What is your call as South holding:      S-A9    H-7653   D-Q4   C-Q10852 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	8	10
4C	70	3	54
5C	60	2	15
4S	60	1	8
Pass	50	0	13

Our first reaction may be to blast off in clubs, but let's stop and think about the bids partner didn't make:

KNIEST: "3H. Partner didn't use Michaels, so it's possible he's 6-4, and 4S might be the best spot. This will give him room to rebid spades."

BOSWELL:  "3H. This must be based on a great club fit. I'll correct 3NT to 4C. This should show tolerance for spades, since merely raising to 4C would have shown a great club fit."

FEILER:  "3H. This should tell partner he hit the jackpot in clubs. 3H is better than a club raise since we may still want to play in spades, and even 6C isn't out of the question."

These panelists are all sending a message about clubs, but keeping spades in the picture. A handful of Solvers and one panelists wanted to be a lot less subtle about the spade possibilities:

ATHY:  "4S. Seems pretty automatic. Maybe I'm missing something."

Here's a possible scenario:

WALKER:  "3H. This hand isn't a powerhouse, but it's a little too good for a raise to 4C. 4S may be a disaster - partner will be tapped in hearts, and if both black suits aren't solid, even 3S could be down when 5C is cold."

That was indeed the case, as partner held  S-KQJ87 H-2  D-A8  C-KJ973 and spades were 4-2. The rest of the panel also decided to raise clubs, and most of those who didn't try the cuebid chose:

KESSLER:  "4C. I think the key here is that partner didn't Michaels, so he must have intermediate values. He needs to look at his controls to make a decision."

PASERO:  "4C. Partner should be 5-5, if not 6-5, for his 3C bid. Unfortunately, his values are probably in the mid-range - between "weak" and "quite strong", in BWS lingo - so it's unclear if 5C is making. As is the custom in bidding panels, I'll leave the decision to him."

If you're going to make a direct raise of clubs, I think 4 is the right level. In fact, the only reason to blast off to 5C is:

FOGEL:  "5C. Don't let anyone accuse me of being a wimp. Crazy? Yes."

4.  Matchpoints, NS vulnerable
 
 

West	North	East	South
--	1H	3C	?

What is your call as South holding:    S-Q9753    H-A8   D-A6   C-AQ74 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3NT	100	6	38
3S	80	4	28
DBL	80	4	15
Pass	60	0	11
4C	40	0	8

I think you're just endplayed into bidding 3NT here. A 4C cuebid is out, as that suggests 3+ hearts. 3S is forcing, but the suit is weak and partner is unlikely to have 4-card support. The dilemma, of course, is that bidding 3NT with a 16-count and three aces feels inadequate.

PASERO: "3NT. It would be nice to find a spade fit, but 3S has too big drawbacks: my suit is anemic, and if partner can't support, we'll be bypassing a good 3NT to grope blindly at the 4-level."

That makes sense to me, but not to:

BOSWELL: "3S. This hand is too good to bid just 3NT. How else will we find 5-3 spades if I don't bid them now?"

If 3NT is too pedestrian and 3S isn't justified on this suit, what about this?

DODD: "Double. I refuse to introduce this moth-eaten suit at this level. Partner's rebid should clarify his hand and make our choice of games easier, where-as an immediate 3S will put quite a strain on the auction."

KESSLER: "Double. If partner can show 4 spades or jump in hearts, I'd like to know.  Second choice is 3NT, not 3S on that lovely suit."

MARSHALL: "Double. I don't have the methods to find a 5-3 spade fit and still leave open the possibility of 3NT."

You're in good company. There may be a pair somewhere who has a way to show this hand, but none of us does. As with many problems, we have to evaluate our hand, weigh the odds and make our best guess. Sooner or later, though, these decisions all seem to come back to:

WARD: "3NT. Matchpoints makes you do this."

5.  IMPs, none vulnerable
 

West	North	East	South
--	1D	Pass	1S
Pass	2C	Pass	2NT
Pass	3S	Pass	?

What is your call as South holding:    S-AQ84    H-QJ7   D-J753   C-J2 ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
4S	100	7	26
4D	80	5	22
5D	70	1	9
Pass	60	1	14
3NT	50	0	29

This has been a good auction. Partner has been able to show his pattern - 3-1-5-4, or perhaps even 3-0-5-5 - and some moderate extra values. So we should know exactly what to do, right?

One thing that the panel knew not to do was to bid more notrump. Partner isn't insisting on suit play, but he's told you that you need a particularly strong heart holding for notrump, and this certainly isn't it. The panel and Solvers found five other choices:

FOGEL: "4S. So we're in the Moysian. The heart ruffs will be in the right hand, this is more likely to make than 5D, and 4D is just a sissy contract. Teammates seem to be more forgiving about going down in games than missing them."

KESSLER: "4S. Best shot for game, and QJx of hearts could be key - low heart out to an honor, and now we have control of the suit."

KNIEST: "4S. Partner has shown a good hand with heart shortness, so this seems like the right hand for the 4-3. My heart holding should protect me from the tap."

Other panelists felt that 4S would be a shaky proposition here:

DODD: "4D. North should have extra values, but I don't feel confident about a 4-3 spade game, since I have no high filler for partner's diamonds. By bypassing 3NT, I've shown not much wastage in hearts, so if North has a suitable hand, let him take the bull by the horns."

WALKER: "4D. This hand has gone downhill fast, but partner's 3S accepts our game try, so you have to bid. I give up on 3NT (no tricks) and 5D (my hand has become a working 8-count). Partner can bid 5D, even 4S, if he has enough."

4D should show about this pattern and these values, although partner might not expect your spades to be this chunky. We'll leave the last word to the poor guy who had this hand at the table:

WARD: "5D. What I bid at the table. Diamonds were 5-0, they doubled, and -500 was a push. 4S just requires partner to have the perfect hand, I think."

6.  IMPs, none vulnerable
 

West	North	East	South
--	1D	1H	1S
Pass	2C	2H	?

What is your call as South holding:     S-AK9754    H-A642     D-Void     C-J106  ?
 

Action	Score	Votes	% Solvers
3H	100	9	27
3S	70	3	37
DBL	60	1	9
2S	50	1	13
4S	40	0	13

Cuebidding is the opiate of the masses, to paraphrase somebody I was probably supposed to read in college. This hand gives us the perfect opportunity to relax and let partner sweat.

BOSWELL: "3H. The best of some sorry choices. 3NT may need to be declared by partner, or he may rebid clubs or show some spade support. All other bids are too weak."

WARD: "3H. I hate it, I hate it, but I have to give partner a chance to show me a fifth club, in which case 5C is probably going to play better than 4S."

Like Nate, most of the panel didn't like the cuebid, and they suspected that this hand wasn't as good as it looked. However, this is IMPs, where you just can't afford to miss game (even a bad one) when partner opens and you have this. Still, some decided to be conservative:

KESSLER: "3S. I'm not going to force to game on what appears to be a misfit."

PASERO: "3S.  I ran a computer simulation on this hand, and it shows North will hold 2-3 spades about 72% of the time. I admit 3S is a mild underbid, but partner will typically accept with support, especially at IMPs. And it caters to the 28% of hands when he's short."

Would this be harder  at matchpoints?

KNIEST: "3H. I know in my gut that double is right, but I have team-mates to answer to. So I'll bid, and avoid being the hero or the goat of this match."

WALKER: "2H. At matchpoints, I might go for the gusto and double 2H. But at teams, I have to propel myself into the same (possibly awful) game they'll bid at the other table."

MARSHALL: "Double. I trust partner will not take this as penalty. It should show added values and be a suggestion only. If he passes, well and good."

That meaning would be handy here, but absent a special agreement, this double is pure penalty and partner will pass with almost anything, although he may pull if he's void. Double could work, but it feels like an all-or-nothing action, something to avoid at IMPs. So in practice, most of today's players fall back on the safe, tried and true:

FEILER: "3H. The ubiquitous, omnipresent, catchall cuebid that means anything you want it to mean. In this case, I want to ask partner whether he has 5 clubs or secondary spade support."

How the Panel Voted   (Panel/Staff Average:  525)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Score
Norman Athy, St. Louis	2D	3D	4S	3NT	4S	3H	530
Mark Boswell, Belvidere IL	1NT	3S	3H	3S	4D	3H	530
Kent Feiler, Harvard IL	2NT	2D	3H	3S	4S	3H	530
Micah Fogel, Aurora IL	2D	2S	5C	DBL	4S	2S	480
Kimmel Jones, Euless TX	3D	2S	5C	3NT	4S	3S	510
Mark Kessler, Springfield IL	1NT	3D	4C	DBL	4S	3S	500
Finlay Marshall, Northern IN	1NT	3S	4C	DBL	4D	DBL	460
Spencer Pasero. St. Charles IL	3D	2D	4C	3NT	Pass	3S	470
Nancy Popkin, St. Louis	2D	2S	3H	3S	4S	3H	580
Nate Ward, Champaign IL	2D	2S	3H	3NT	5D	3H	550

How the Staff Voted

Tom Dodd, Boerne TX	1NT	3S	3H	DBL	4D	3H	530
Mike Jones, Champaign IL	1NT	3D	3H	3NT	4D	3H	560
Tom Kniest, Clayton MO	3D	2D	3H	3S	4S	3H	560
Karen Walker, Champaign IL	1NT	2D	3H	3NT	4D	3H	580

Solvers Honor Roll   (Solvers' Average:  434)
 

Hugh Williams, Normal IL	560	Alvan Bregman, Champaign IL	490
Bob Bainter, St. Louis	540	Tony Curtis, Champaign IL	490
Adam Miller, Champaign IL	530	Allan Sheppard, St. Louis	490
John Seng, Champaign IL	520	Dean Stow	490
Steve Babin, Normal IL	500	TonyVetter, St. Louis	490

New problems for the June issue