ALL

April Master Solvers Panel

By Marshall Miles
San Bernardino, Calif.

Our April panelists are Mark Itabashi and Jon Wittes, District 22; Ron Smith and Bob Etter, District 21; Marinesa Letizia and Mike & Nancy Passell, District 17. Guest panelists are Eddie Kantar and Mike Lawrence.

Problem 1.

Both vul, IMPs

You, South, hold

ª5 ©654 ¨AKJ97652 §A

North         East        South        West
1©    1        ª           2¨            3ª
4©             Pass       4NT          Pass
5ª*            pass       6©            Dbl
Pass               Pass           ?

* shows two controls + ©Q

What call do you make?

PASSELLS: Pass. Hopefully partner is alive and would have bid 6NT with Kx of spades. We are at a loss here for any action we can take from our side.

MARINESA: I’m a passer. I’ve made my bed, so I’ll lie in it. If we’re supposed to run, maybe partner will with bad hearts, since partner doesn’t know I have three. Even if partner has the ªA, I still might not make 6NT with my stiff §A.

LAWRENCE: Pass. Never seen this one before. Assuming a good (but not deceitfully great) West player, the defenders are going to get a diamond ruff and an ace and perhaps another diamond ruff, so 6© doubled will go down unless North has A, AQ and can handle the heart suit for no losers after the diamond ruff. You might take out insurance against down two (500) by bidding 7¨, a contract that might actually make. But I think the correct bid is unfathomable (IMP odds, etc.), so I ride it out.

ITABASHI: Pass. Even if redouble says don’t worry about diamonds and expresses concern about the impending ruff, it may give partner no good option. If partner has the spade king he could have bid 6NT over the double himself. Redouble may just result in –1000 if partner passes.

ETTER: Pass and hope. I suppose the double shows a diamond void, but partner may suspect that as well. With the spade king, partner might have run to 6NT, so it’s hard to imagine my running to a better contract. The doubler may be just crazy, or trying to get us to run. Surely I am not supposed to redouble: what would that mean?

KANTAR: Pass. Let them get their diamond ruff. Partner probably has a singleton, so I am going down one. I can’t see doing any better by running to 7¨.

SMITH: Pass. Looks like a diamond ruff is coming and we're off an ace, but partner knows that too, and with the ªK should bid 6NT. I could run and hope to pick the diamonds up and run the clubs, but that is bidding both hands of the partnership.

WITTES: Pass ... take my medicine. I will be down two, assuming a diamond lead, ruff, spade, diamond ruff. However, 7¨ in the best case scenario will be one better, and in the worst case scenario, one worse. Partner probably has seven hearts, possibly only six, and rates to be short in diamonds. (one or possibly zero). Unless partner has two diamonds including the ten, we will be off two in 7¨ doubled, anyway. And if East is void in hearts, 7¨ is down three!

M.M.: The panel was unanimous in passing, which would have been the winning table decision. In real life, I was at the other table, where we were plus 300 with a diamond ruff, a spade to the ace, and another diamond ruff, when the opponents were cold for 6¨. Naturally we hoped to pick up quite a few IMPs, but lost 11 instead when our teammates bid 6NT and played it, doubled, down four. Instead of 6NT, they might have run to 7¨, doubled. That would have gained 5 IMPs.

Problem 2.

Both vul, matchpoints

You, South, hold

ªA75 ©8763 ¨A10653 §Q

West North East South
1© 2§ 2© ?

What call do you make?

ITABASHI: 3¨. Safest bid by a bit over a responsive double. The problem with double is you are tapping the long hand if partner has spades, or may end up in a 3-3 fit.

PASSELLS: 3¨. A very difficult problem. We won’t double responsively, since 3-3 fits don’t usually play well! So we are stuck with bidding diamonds, which may be the wrong strain ... but also may get us to a great game or slam.

ETTER: Pass. It’s attractive to make a responsive double, but partner is likely to bid 2ª holding a 3-card suit, and even if partner has four spades, the ruffs are in the wrong hand. If I pass and LHO passes, partner will have a chance to describe her hand. Over a double, I will jump to 4¨ and over 3§ I can bid 4§ or pass. I will have a problem over partner’s 2ª, but no bigger than the one I'd create by doubling now.

KANTAR: Pass. Partner will probably reopen with a singleton heart at matchpoints. This is not the hand partner will expect if I double or raise to 3§.

SMITH: Pass. At least we’ll be in a known 6-1. Partner could have three spades and I’ll look silly if I try a double.

LAWRENCE: Pass. This looks a little weird, since I have a good hand. But the best bid is unclear. Double, showing spades and diamonds, risks our playing in a 3-3 spade fit. If you pass, the odds are that a vulnerable overcaller will have the values and or shape to bid again when 2© gets back to him, and I will be better placed. Terence Reese would write a page or two on why you should bid 3§ with this hand, but that is not for me. This is partner’s decision, not mine, and I won’t mastermind.

WITTES: 3§. Partner surely has six or seven clubs (By the way, I normally play good-bad 2NT, so this should be forward-going). If partner had only five clubs, he would surely have a takeout double of 1© rather than a 2§ overcall, since he has at most a singleton heart.

M.M.: Maybe Jon (and that Reese fellow) had the right idea. Partner’s hand was ªKx ©x ¨Jxxx §AKJxxx, so 5§ was cold.

MARINESA: Double: (Responsive). Not perfect, but I’ve got too much “boom boom” to pass at the two-level.

SMITH: Double. This could be a disaster, but I can’t just pass and hope. Matchpoint players tend to make overcalls that us mere mortals would never try. I caution my partners if they’re light ... at least have a long suit.

Problem 3.

Neither vul, matchpoints

You, South, hold

ªAK1096 ©3 ¨75 §KJ842

North    East    South    West
1©       Pass    1ª       Pass
2©       Pass     ?

What call do you make?

MARINESA: 2ª. If I get doubled, I can run to 3§.

PASSELLS: 2NT. Couldn’t you please get some easier problems?! There are lots of choices here, from the aggressive 3§ to the passive pass. We will opt for the bid we would have made with one less in either black suit and one more diamond. We can still get to other spots (except 2©, which admittedly could have been our last plus!) ITABASHI: 3§. A little bit of an overbid, but seems the best of bad choices. My second choice would be 2NT, which at least is the value bid. This hand will play best if you can catch a black suit fit.

KANTAR: 3§. Not because I think it is such a great bid, because it isn’t, (the first inclination is to pass) but I think most everyone else is going to bid 3§, so I am happy to stay with the field, even though I am making a very marginal bid.

ETTER: Pass. The other choice is 3§. Since this is MPs, my decision should be based on frequency of correctness, not amount. Many opponents can’t stand to let us play 2© anyway; who knows, they may balance with 2ª or 3§, and then I will have to make another matchpoint decision, but one with a bigger upside.

LAWRENCE: Pass – but Reese is with us again, since 3© could be the winner. Partner often has a stiff spade for this sequence, meaning his expected shape is 1-6-3-3 or 1-6-4-2. His having four clubs is nice to wish for, but hard to imagine. Bidding 3§ will force us to game, something that these cards are not worth.

WITTES: Pass. I adhere to the theory of going for the underbid on misfit hands. Partner could have a perfecta, and we could make game, but it is matchpoints, and in the long run, staying low gives us the best chance for a plus score.

Problem 4.

Both vul, IMPs

West                East
ªJ97654         ªAK32
©A7               ©Q5
¨Q5               ¨1087
§KQ6            §10753

South    West    North    East
1©        1ª      2©        3ª
4©        Pass    Pass      Dbl
Pass        Pass       Pass

East-West were a bit unlucky. South had 0-6-5-2 distribution and made an overtrick. (4ª would have been down 800).

Apportion the fault for this bad result.

ETTER: Well, let’s see. West made a 1-level overcall that 100% of us would have made, and then didn’t take the minus 800 bid over 4©: how can West be blamed at all? I am sure some Wests would have bid 4ª directly over 4©; then apportioning blame would be a real problem. If 3ª shows a limit raise, it’s an overbid – with the heart queen likely little or no value, and no distribution. The double – with only the AK of our own 9+ card fit – is really out there, so I blame East 175%! (75% is for the 3ª bid, and 100% is for the double).

PASSELLS: East 100%: what did West do wrong? He made a 1ª overcall on a decent hand with a bad suit, but what was East thinking? He doubled 4© when he couldn’t be certain of beating 7©, with no sure tricks! Plus he even gave away any chance he had to score his trump queen, on different layouts. West should have been delighted, with his great defensive hand.

ITABASHI: 100% East. West is an innocent bystander. East’s double is probably meant as co-op, but is a bit too optimistic.

SMITH: It seems East’s 3ª bid was heavy, but where did he find a double? Can’t take a trick. Neither side can double. 100% East.

WITTES: East 98%. If 3ª is preemptive, East is too good, and East has half a defensive trick, so I couldn’t imagine ever doubling 4© with that hand. West might briefly consider taking the dive with a six-card suit opposite four card support, but there’s no guarantee that 4ª will be close to making, and with partner’s double, they should be going down, since even though a minimum, West does have some defense in the other suits.

KANTAR: I don’t get the double at all. Was 3ª preemptive? If so, did East think it was safe to double because he was known to be weak with four spades? There are some hands that are clear-cut passes and East has one of them. Even though West knows there is a ten-card spade fit, West has a good defensive hand and their making an overtrick should be the last thought in his mind.

LAWRENCE: East’s bidding was awful. He should have bid 3©, showing a mixed raise which describes this hand nicely. His actual bid was (I assume) preemptive, and East had way too much for that. His double must have been an effort to show a maximum preempt, but he had the wrong kind of values for that bid. West might have bid 4ª on the theory that there are no East hands that would bid 3ª that can now double 4©. But this is a thin line. Blaming West for not pulling the double does not feel right, since his minor holdings were the sort that are better for defense than offense. Since East made nothing but bad bids, I make the charges 95% - 5%.

M.M.: When the hand was over East said to West, “How could you possibly leave the double in with a six card suit?” West said, “How could you possibly make a preemptive raise, followed by a penalty double?” The six card length should not matter since East cannot count any spade honor, other than the ace, as a likely defensive trick.

Problem 5

IMPs, neither vul.

West    North    East    South
1ª        2¨       3¨*    5¨
5ª       Pass      6ª      7¨
Pass     Pass     7ª      Pass
Pass     Pass

*limit raise or better

Apportion blame for getting to this poor grand slam.

SMITH: East 100%. He promised limit or better, and he’s between limit and

game force. West didn’t make a slam try over 5¨, so it’s all on East’s shoulders.

LAWRENCE: Both East and West are playing a lousy method. The either/or cue bid of 3¨ is just awful. Here, West had no idea what he was facing and he bid 5ª. He might have bid more if he knew what East was up to. East’s 6ª was something of a shot. Can’t really see much justification for it other than that East felt he had a lot more than a minimum raise. And I do not care for the 7ª bid. East is making some fanciful wishes with this choice. Of some interest is ... if East has a hand that will make 7ª facing what West has, perhaps he should have made a stronger bid than 6ª. This issue is part of the problems with that unspecified cue bid that started this mess. Make it 90% East, 10% West.

PASSELLS: East 80%, West 20%. Perhaps West should have doubled 7¨, but East should have realized partner couldn’t have enough for seven when he bid only 5ª over 5¨. Our gut is to give East as much of the blame as possible, but feel West should have helped out by doubling 7¨, since partner could have bid 6© instead of 6ª if he were interested in a grand slam opposite this hand. Constructing a hand cold for seven is difficult for East, so we feel 80 -20 is very generous.

ITABASHI: 75% East. East’s pointed queens are wasted values, and he’s looking for magic when he bids a grand. Unless you can reasonably visualize the necessary tricks, it’s not advisable to bid blind grands. West gets a minor charge since he may have realized that partner did not make any forward-going cue bid over 5ª, making a grand unlikely. He might've doubled, even though he had first-round diamond control.

WITTES: East 70%, West 30%. East needs West to cover an awful lot of losers to make 7ª, and I have more sympathy for West’s bidding than East’s. After all, give partner one more diamond, and one less club or heart, with say the §K, and the grand looks like a pretty good proposition.

KANTAR: I’m not sure who is more to blame. West should have started with a forcing pass over 5¨. Once East bid 5ª, I can barely understand the 6ª bid. Couldn’t West have the same hand with one diamond and one less club? Once West didn’t make a forcing pass, I can understand West’s inconsistent pass to 7¨, barely, but I don’t think East has the right hand to bid 7ª given West not making a forcing pass earlier with the intention of pulling a double to show slam leanings. I put the finger on East.

MARINESA: Once West bids 5ª and East bids 6ª, I think West should be done, so he gets 60% of the blame here for the forcing pass. West has pushed to the 5-level freely with a great working 12 count. Even though it’s only a 30-point deck, if East held the working 16, he would have tried something over 5ª other than just 6ª. Therefore, I think West should double 7¨ with his void and not invite a grand. However, as it went I don’t think East has a 7ª bid, since his partner needed the hand he had shown plus the §K to have a play for all the tricks. East gets 40% blame for making the final mistake.

ETTER: Let me say first that I’ve been in much, much worse grand slams. We probably should go on the assumption that the contract at the other table is 6ª, making 6 or 7. At the table, I would expect 7¨ to go down three, for a 10 or 11 IMP loss. Down four would be a 5 IMP loss. We are making 7ª about 30% of the time (The §K will be offside far more than onside.) So if we play the hand 10 times, doubling will average minus 8 IMPs or so. Bidding 7ª will win 11 IMPs three times (maybe four) and lose 14 in the rest of the cases, for an average loss of 6 or 7 (maybe only four). Based on these assumptions, bidding 7ª is perhaps a correct bid. Thus I apportion no blame at all. Neither West nor East made an obviously bad bid, in my opinion.

M.M.: I have mixed feelings about this hand, and agree with many of Bob’s comments. Obviously East overbid. But suppose that East and West could see each others’ hands. What would they choose to do? In order to make 7ª (disregarding other remote chances), declarer needs to find South with the king of clubs, singleton, doubleton or tripleton, about a 25% chance. Usually a partnership needs well over a 50% chance to bid a grand slam at IMPs (unless it is behind in the match and needs a favorable swing). But that is when the choice is between bidding seven or stopping at six. Since the opponents bid 7¨ East-West don’t have that option. If they could see each others’ hands, they would know that 6ª is a laydown and their opponents are almost certain to bid it. Will their teammates sacrifice at the seven level with 14 points between them? Perhaps they will, perhaps not. If their opponents at the other table are allowed to play 6ª they will win 5 to 11 IMPs, depending on whether 7¨ was down three or four tricks (the most likely results). If you (East) bid 7ª and make it (roughly one time out of four) you will gain 11 IMPs when it makes instead of losing 5 to 11 IMPs. So it is not at all clear that it is a mistake to bid the grand. One more point: None of these panelists mentioned the pass- and-pull treatment, but players I have discussed the hand with felt West should have passed and pulled partner’s double (presumably intending to bid slam if East bids 5ª). I am not convinced that this is a pass-and-pull forcing situation, since both hands are distributional, and East has only invited GAME. But even if it were forcing, it suggests (to me) that West doesn’t know whether they should bid 5ª or defend 5¨. To make a slam try, why not bid 5©?