District 8 Solvers Forum -- April 2018

        by Nate Ward, Champaign IL
 

1. Matchpoints, both vulnerable 

What is your call as South holding:  ♠QJ8765   ♥6   ♦K10843   ♣3 ?

We start out with a three-way split on the panel for the three obvious choices. We certainly have the length to bid, but not necessarily the strength to bid. We start with the more conservative bidders:

Baker: “Pass. Wish I could bid 2S non-forcing, but that isn’t the system here. Partner would expect more strength and less shape for a double.”

Hinckley: “Pass. Missing a spade fit is dangerous, but this time the singleton heart makes passing easier. After a negative double, a penalty pass could lead to minus 180.”

In the middle, we have the doublers, who do risk partner passing:

Seng: “Double. I’ll hold my breath that partner doesn’t leave it in.”

Spear: "Double. I can bid spades next round, but not this round."

Rabideau: “Double. Okay, I'll never be able to describe the hand but I gotta give it a shot, and this is probably my last chance.”

Finally, what about that 6-card suit we have?

Kaplan: “2S. Points, schmoints. With this distribution, no negative doubles and surely no passing! Often the spoils go to the bold; hope that is the case here.”

Kessler: “2S. Enough shape to make up for lack of high cards. I have no idea how to describe this hand after passing. Negative double is from a different planet.”

I’m not sure how well a negative double describes this hand. And if partner passes, it is almost always going to be really bad for us. Years ago, one of my favorite partners made a responsive double when she was 1-4-8-0 and heard the auction go all pass. After she regained consciousness, we collected a huge number, but that could be best described as an anomaly.

That said, I am with Mark. If you don’t bid your suit now, you are never going to be able to convince partner this is what you have.

2. IMPs, NS vulnerable           

   * (Feature ask)
 ** (No outside ace or king)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KQ103   ♥6   ♦43   ♣J98543 ?

This is a good auction to discuss with partner. The colors are ripe for the opponents to be fooling around here, but partner could have exposed them the last round by doubling. Based on our singleton heart, there may be some concern that he did not have the proper shape to act, with say a balanced 16-18.

Going for the throat are:

Baker: “Pass. This should be penalty. If partner had a takeout double, he could have made it over 2NT, and the auction plus my hand suggests partner has at least 3, maybe 4 hearts.”

Rabideau: “Pass. I believe our non-vulnerable opponents have been caught speeding.”

Walker: “Pass. Partner’s double is 100% penalty. There’s no such thing as a light balancing takeout double in this auction. If 2NT was a psychic and partner really has enough to try a 3- or 4-level contract, he would have doubled at his first turn.”

Others think, or at least hope, that partner wants us to bid:

Kessler: “4C. If this is a penalty double, I apologize. 4C seems like the best place to play, since in spades you get tapped at trick two.”

Kaplan: “3S. A bit unsure what partner is doing; why no double of 2NT with a normal takeout double? If partner had minors, 3NT I think would show this. And, IMHO if partner thinks he can beat 3H, he should just stay silent. Guessing and hoping I am correct with 3S!”

Spear: “3S. Assuming a double of 2NT was not takeout, then double of 3H is takeout.”

These seem to be the wrong colors to be guessing, to me. As many have pointed out, if partner had a takeout double, he would have made it the round before, not now.

3. IMPs, none vulnerable  

* (4th-suit force, may be artificial)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠10  ♥J10984   ♦K62   ♣AKQ8 ?

Finally an easy one, at least for the panel. A good number of Solvers, however, passed 3C, thinking that partner's auction was non-forcing. Note, though, that partner set up a force by bidding the fourth suit. This is the only way he has to show a strong hand with club support.

So partner has shown us slam interest with a club fit, and boy, do we have good clubs. All but one panelist showed interest in bidding past 3NT. Here's one approach:

Rabideau: "4C. Deny a first-round control outside the trump suit.Any further move by partner, who's looking at terrible clubs, will elicit a slam-force from me (5D?)."

The space-saving 3D won the show here:

Baker: “3D. Show my pattern and where my outside values are without going past 3NT.”

Hinckley: “3D. Strongly implying 1=5=3=4 shape with no interest in a 5-2 heart fit and warning of spade weakness. Bidding 3NT would be lazy.”

Kessler: "3D. Hoping partner gets the idea I have bad hearts and a stiff spade. If partner has five clubs and a stiff heart, 3NT probably is not the best spot."

Kaplan: “3D. Partner has no values in clubs, yet failed to bid 3NT nor rebid spades nor show real diamonds. My fine clubs and diamond king may be just what partner wants.“

4. IMPs, EW vulnerable 

   * (Forcing NT)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠KJ963   ♥KQ43   ♦3   ♣AK10 ?

Thankfully, no panelist let the opponents off the hook by bidding 2H, but I am a little surprised there were votes for anything other than Redouble, which lets partner know the opponents are in big trouble.

Three panelists wanted to await developments and come back into the auction later:

Kessler: “Pass. Let’s see where they are headed. We can always get back in. Bidding probably stops collecting a vulnerable penalty.”

Rabideau: “Pass. Redouble is possible but I don't relish finding a call after somebody at the table bids diamonds.“

Spear: “Pass. The strategy is to double 2D next round to describe short diamonds and a good hand.”

In your worst dreams, you pass and it goes 2C on your left, 2D by partner, back to you.

The rest of the panel voted to redouble, letting partner know that things could get bloody.

Seng: “Redouble. Showing extras and hopefully fleshing out partner's length.”

Baker: "Redouble. At this vulnerability, getting 500 on defense should be likely if we have game somewhere. If they pull to diamonds and partner doesn’t double, I can bid hearts and make both shape and values clear to partner."

Walker: “Redouble. Seems simplest to show extra values now and set up a penalty situation, but it could backfire. Passing will work better if they run to 2D and partner can double on his own.”

Kaplan: “Redouble! They're vulnerable and we're not and they may not have a fit anywhere.”

5. Matchpoints, NS vulnerable      

What is your call as South holding:  ♠Q74   ♥J   ♦Q983   ♣AQJ102 ?

Another tough one. Our LHO won’t leave us alone, and, from the bidding at least, it sounds like he is rather shapely. That said, partner should have a good idea of what our shape is, as pointed out by Hinckley:

Hinckley: “Double. Partner likely is 3=4=4=2 (RHO 2=3=4=4) with weak spades and RHO didn't bid 3S over partner's double. Partner knows my likely shape because with four spades, I would have doubled 2S.”

And making a good guess as to what partner’s next problem is going to be:

Rabideau: “Double. Ugh. Partner's failure to raise clubs suggests 3-4-4-2 or similar and with suits not breaking well, I'll try for a plus. Hope partner can find an ethical choice after my 10-minute tank.”

Walker: “Double. Tough one. I don’t think I’m getting rich, even with the expected trump lead, but I’m not liking my chances in 3NT.”

Not wanting to go minus a big number:

Spear: “3NT. Descriptive, and I don't like making a penalty double here, which will surely end the auction.”

Kaplan: “4D. Don’t feel like I have enough to safely double 3S.”

I can agree with you both, but I’m not sure this is a 100% penalty situation. As pointed out previously, we had a chance to go after them last round, so partner should take that into consideration. And to help out partner even more, we should try to maintain tempo whatever our choice is.

6. Matchpoints, EW vulnerable      

* (4th-suit-force; fewer than 4 spades)

What is your call as South holding:  ♠J54   ♥AJ82   ♦K9   ♣KJ74  ?

And we end on an easy note. Partner has forced us to game, and also let us know that he does not have four spades. Save one panelist, we had a unanimous vote for our next call:

Kessler: “2NT. I know this shows a stopper, but nothing else makes any sense at all.”

Spear: “2NT. Notrump is somewhat descriptive, and may be the right place to play -- especially if they do not run the first five spade tricks!”

Rabideau:  "2NT. Give me the 654 of spades and I'd have to bid 3D, but J54 is s-o-o-o much better!"
 

Thanks to all who sent in answers and comments for this set. Leading all Solvers with an impressive 590 was Nigel Kearney of Wellington, New Zealand. Runners-up were Bob Bainter of Quanah TX and Dave Wetzel of Champaign IL. All three are invited to join the June panel.

If you'd like to receive an email notice when new problems are posted, please send your request to kwbridge@comcast.net .

I hope you'll give the April problems a try (see below). Please submit your solutions by March 31 on the web form.

    April moderator: Nate Ward    Nate.Ward@dsvolition.com