ALL

February Master Solvers Panel

In keeping with our normal February tradition, our panelists are six mixed pairs. District 21 is represented by Rose Meltzer bidding with Alan Sontag, and Rita Shugart bidding in a troika with internationalists Andrew Robson and Boye Brogeland. District 22 is represented by Chris & Kay Larsen, and John & Bette Strauch. District 17 is represented by Bobby & Judy Wolff, and Steven & Kitty Cooper.

Problem 1.

Neither vul, IMPs

As South, you hold

ªAJ6543 ©10 ¨Q92 §KQ9

West North East South
1© Pass 4© ?

What call do you make?

LARSENs: Both Kay and Chris bid 4Í. Yes, it’s an overbid; yes, it could go wrong; no, we don’t apologize for this position.

ROSE-SONTY: 4Í. Right or wrong, this seems the only thing to do. If LHO throws the double card down with venom, their heart game is undoubtedly cold, and we try not to go down more than three!
WOLFFs: 4Í. We both agree that it’s more risky not to bid than it is to bid, and this hand reminds Bobby of the days of the Dallas Aces some forty years ago: “Post- game sessions featured objectively critiquing and rating our bids and plays. I have no doubt that anything other than 4Í would have earned a dreaded “Black Charge.” Judy chips in with the comment that the whole world hates a coward!

RITA-ANDREW-BOYE: 4Í. Normal to bid here, despite the ace-empty nature of the spades (KQ109xx would be stronger offensively and weaker defensively, making a bid far more attractive).

STRAUCHs: 4Í. You do what you gotta do. Sure, it could work out badly, but in the long run we both think you have to bid.

COOPERs: Pass. There is no safety bidding with such poor spades. Partner will usually have two hearts and could not find a bid over 1Ì, so the probability of game our way is too low to outweigh the risk. Double is too misdescriptive ... and we do not necessarily have them beat ... but it is a better risk than 4Í.

M.M.: I am in the minority camp with the Coopers on this one, even though West had ªQ ©AJxxx ¨10xxx §A10x; North had ª109xxx ©KQJ ¨Kx §Jxx, and East had ªK ©xxxx ¨AJxx §Kxxx, so 4ª would make(!) (losing only to the three aces), and 4© was down three. However, if partner had one fewer spade (or if spades had broken 2-0) you would have no play for 4ª, and the opponents are probably still down two or three; exchange the North and East hands and you would probably be down three doubled in 4ª, and East would have as good (or bad) a hand for his 4© bid. Also you would lose a few IMPs if West had an real opening bid (like with the ¨K instead of the ten). Your bad spade spots increase the danger of being doubled in 4ª (Give West ªQ10x or ªQ98x, not to mention ªKQx). I really believe that bidding 4ª is against the odds on a single-dummy basis, even considering that you might gain a lot of IMPs if you were right. And admittedly, the possibility of driving the opponents to the five level or escaping undoubled may be enough to change the odds.

Problem 2.

North-South vulnerable

As South, you hold

ªAQ1082 ©93 ¨87 §KJ93

What call would you make as dealer?

COOPERs: 1Í. This is an automatic (albeit minimum) opener for Steve. Kitty opens because of the good texture in her suits. We can open any 7-loser hand with two defensive tricks, and this barely meets that. Besides, 1Í is very preemptive.

RITA-ANDREW-BOYE: 1Í. We confess we would open, even vulnerable, with all those honours in the long suits. Zia will scoff, but we like our side to be the opening partnership, which puts us in the driver’s seat unless proven otherwise.

WOLFFs: Bobby elects pass ... but if holding three hearts and a singleton diamond instead of two doubletons, he could be talked into opening. Judy opens 1Í. She likes her winners more than a 4-triple-3 pattern with three bare aces for offense, and plays some Kaplan-Sheinwold escape mechanisms to avoid being forced too high on the problem hand.

LARSENs: Kay opens 1Í; Chris passes, thinking it’s too light to open - even by today’s aggressive bidding environment.

ROSE-SONTY: Pass. Opening these hands doesn’t gain much, and tends to get you to a lot of games with no play when partner has 11-12 HCP. Sonty points out: “If you want to open hands like this, start playing a club system!”

STRAUCHs: 2Í. This one is easy for us, since we play Evan Bailey’s treatment of weak two-bids, which has been around for about 50 years: (5-6 spades, 2-3 hearts, 8-11 HCP, no more than 9 cards in 2 suits.)

M.M.: Yes, Evan’s narrow-range weak twos are an accurate description of this type of hand.

Problem 3.

Neither vul, IMPs

West            East
ªQ92         ªJ74
©Q1093     ©A
¨Q10        ¨7643
§AQ98      §K10843

West       North    East    South
1NT*     2§**    Dbl      (2©)
Dbl        Pass      Pass    Pass
  *(12-14 HCP); (** majors)

North-South made eight tricks; (Deep Finesse analysis said nine tricks were possible.) East-West can take nine tricks in clubs. Apportion the East-West fault.

LARSENs: It would be helpful to know what discussion of the meaning of East’s double had been for the partnership, since they were cross-threaded in how they handled it. Normally it would be Stayman except when 2Ê shows major suits. If the double just showed a club suit, we both think West is at fault doubling 2Ì, and should bid 3Ê instead. We assign 60% blame to West, 40 % to East.

STRAUCHs: East 70%. Evidently this partnership was not on the same page on what their partner’s bids meant, so they are both at fault here. For East to defend a known 8-card fit with about half the deck in high cards is not good IMP strategy.

Maybe West thought the double showed at least one major – he certainly shouldn’t have doubled if he thought East had club length.

COOPERs: 90% East, 10% West. Obviously East and West had different ideas about what the double of 2Ê meant. Without prior discussion, we think that it means “it’s our hand and I can double at least one major.” It looks like East thought that it showed clubs, so that gets the blame. West gets a little blame for not having an agreement. Incidentally, in our style we would have bid 2Í initially with East‘s hand to show a competitive hand with minors.

RITA-ANDREW-BOYE: East 100%, West 0%. East’s double of 2Ê said he was interested in penalizing, so what could West do but double 2Ì with four trumps, especially with such good intermediates?

ROSE-SONTY: East gets all of the blame here, unless there was an unannounced agreement about his double that his partner forgot. Once East doubles over 2 (majors), West has an automatic double over 2Ì. East should pass initially and balance with either double or 2NT over South‘s major suit bid. Seems like East gets 100% fault.

WOLFFs: East 100%, West 0%. Perhaps East thought his double showed clubs and not too much else, but that is an unusual treatment, and the normal meaning probably should be similar to an auction which begins with a bid, double and redouble (showing a balanced hand with 9+ HCP). In that case, West must double holding four good defensive hearts, or else what is the sense of having a partnership? East still had a chance to save it by taking out to 3Ê, but stubbornly maintained his position.

Judy is a veteran weak notrumper, but she believes that the only possible blame which could be attached to West was to open with such a marginal hand in the first place.

M.M.: There is no doubt that East is at fault for leaving the double in when the opponents are known to have eight trumps and approximately half the high cards. But I used the hand to argue against the “standard meaning” of the double of 2§ when playing a weak notrump. Many players play that a double of 2§ is Stayman unless the double shows the majors, in which case the general rule that a double of an artificial bids shows the suit might apply. When playing a strong notrump, responder’s share of the high cards is 8 (40-16 divided by 3), for a total of 23-25 points, and a successful penalty double is fairly likely. Opposite a weak notrump (12-14), responder’s share is 9, for a total of 21-23, making a successful penalty double for a two trick set at imps much less likely. A double, showing clubs, may enable the partnership to compete to the 3 level with a fit , and based on frequency, I think that is the more useful treatment. However, that is no excuse for passing the double of 2© ... for two reasons. It is a violation of the Law of Total Tricks, and there is a strong likelihood that partner has not interpreted the double of 2§ as the doubler intended.

Problem 4.

East-West vul, IMPs

West                East
ªQ98752        ª3
©—-               ©Q3
¨KQ84           ¨107653
§AJ5             §K10843

North-South made two overtricks. East-West could make 5Ë on a club guess. Apportion the blame.

COOPERs: West 80%, East 20%. West does not have the values for double, since partner will almost always sit with a bad hand. Just because there is a chance for game on these hands (and we don’t think 5Ë is all that good, since you have to ruff two hearts in dummy, so it needs diamonds 2-2 or a stiff J) does not excuse West. We have sympathy for aggressive bids that work, since that is our own policy, but we probably would have sat with the East hand as well.

LARSENs: West’s reopening double was aggressive, but should have worked out successfully. Now East has an obvious bid of 4NT. Kay gives 40% blame to West, 60% to East. Chris is harsher: 10% West, 90% East.

STRAUCHs: East 80%. West has made a takeout double, so East, with his distributional hand, should take out to 4NT for partner to choose a minor. Once again, it sounds like they may not be on the same page as to what double means.

ROSE-SONTY: Again, East gets the blame. East does not have a penalty pass. After West makes a takeout double of 4Ì, East should bid 4NT for the minors. Since it’s not so clear West should make this double, we score the blame 30% West, 70% East.

WOLFFs: (Bobby) West 15% (for perhaps being slightly too aggressive), but East still 100% (not 85%) for being totally naive and not bidding 4NT, which get the partnership to 5Ë. Judy is more like 25% West, with the lion’s share going to East for not bidding 4NT.

RITA-ANDREW-BOYE: East 100%. West did very well to reopen with a (takeout) double. What was East thinking of when he failed to run to 4NT?

Problem 5.

East-West vul, IMPs

West North East South
Pass Pass 2ª (all Pass)

Apportion blame for not getting to 3NT.

COOPERs: East 150%. We would open 1Í without the ÌQ, so we think it’s very wrong to preempt with a solid suit, even in 3rd chair vul. In Audrey Grant standard, 12 high card points plus a 6-card suit = 14, so even a beginner would know to open it at the one level. There are way too many passed hands that will produce game opposite six running tricks.

ROSE-SONTY: East goes 0-for-3 for opening a mastermind 2Í in third chair. He should open 1Í on this good hand; then 2NT by West will get them where they belong.

LARSENs: We both think the 2Í bid in third seat with this hand is very poor. (Chris wouldn’t like it even in fourth seat because of the solidity of the suit.) West 0%, East 100% for both of us.

RITA-ANDREW-BOYE: East 85%,West 15%. Obviously, East is much too strong for a 2Í opener – even in third chair. Game possibilities are far too great, and what does he have to fear? He should open 1Í. West is not completely blameless though, since his hand perhaps warrants a 1Ê opener: J10xxx is more than one point and he has “tops” outside.

STRAUCHs: East 85%. He chose a tactical 2Í bid in third seat, they didn’t get to game, and so he should get the blame. Once again, it sounds like the partnership may not be on the same page – this time as to what constitutes a third seat weak two bid.

WOLFFs: Bobby scores it 50%-50%, for showing what he considers decent judgment, but having it not work. Judy believes West was the major culprit here and charges him 60% for not having the imagination to credit his partner with a pretty good hand on the vulnerability. If West offers a 2NT game try, East wouldn’t be able to raise to 3NT fast enough!

M.M.: I realize that many players play a 2NT rebid as artificial (some showing both minors), but if Drury shows a spade fit, I can’t see why anyone would willingly give up a natural 2NT response. Why not play 2NT is natural and 3§ shows a good (passed) hand with a long club suit? Nor can I understand the reluctance to bid 2NT by a passed hand. Should the partner of a third hand opener assume that his partner is opening an extremely light hand? And should the range of a 1NT response be 5-12 points? Nor can I understand why many players treat a weak two bid in fourth position as somewhat invitational to game. If there are three passes and fourth hand holds ªKQ98xx ©Ax ¨Jxx §xx, or ªQJ10xxx ©x ¨AJxx §Qx, shouldn’t he open 2ª? The strength is probably evenly divided, but he has a six card suit, while probably no one else does, and he hopes to buy the bid. Some players say it shows an intermediate hand (stronger than a minimum 1ª bid), but I don’t see why. I think a weak two bid opposite a passed hand should show no interest in game, just a desire to play at the two level. And a one bid followed by a rebid of the same suit should be more encouraging. The weaker the hand (defensively) the more reason there is for a preempt.