July Master Solvers Panel

By Marshall Miles, San Bernardino, Calif.

(Editor’s Note: Marshall Miles has retired from writing this column, which he produced for many years for both the ALACBU Southern California Bridge News and The Contract Bridge Forum. We hope to persuade him to return occasionally to act as a panelist himself in monthly problem sets produced by John Swanson of Mission Viejo, Calif.

By coincidence, John is one of Marshall’s District 22 panelists in this “last hurrah” from the Sage of San Bernardino. John is joined by Ross Grabel, also of District 22, together with JoAnna Stansby and Kit Woolsey of District 21, and Paul Ivaska and Jerry Gaer of District 17. Our guest panelist is Ed Davis, of District 23.

Problem 1.

Both vul, IMPs

You, South, hold

ªAQ97 ©10762 ¨A §AJ106

North East South West
1¨ Pass ?

What call do you make?

STANSBY: 2§. This makes the auction smoother on hands where partner is planning to rebid 2¨. We still have plenty of room to discover a major-suit fit, and it also gives partner room to bid 3© (splinter) with ªKxx ©x ¨KQxxx §KQxx.

M.M.: This is an interesting idea, and certainly works well on JoAnna’s example.

SWANSON: 1ª. Responding in a very weak four-card suit in a good hand is a losing proposition. It risks reaching a game or slam when you can be defeated with tricks in your own suit. It also makes it difficult for partner to evaluate his hand effectively.

DAVIS: 1ª. We are more likely to reach the best contract if I initially treat my hearts as a 3-card suit, which is more what they look like. Slam is a consideration any time partner has a decent minimum with shortness in hearts, and bidding hearts makes it more difficult to discover how well the hands fit. We will still be able to reach a 4-4 heart fit if we have one.

GRABEL: I’ll be honest and admit that I would bid 1© with this hand. I strongly suspect that our esteemed moderator is looking for a 1ª response, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a popular choice. In matchpoints, I believe that if there is a 4-4 fit in hearts and not one in spades, the hand will play for more tricks in hearts.

In IMPs however, that may not be much of a consideration as this hand is strong enough to make a game in notrump on power alone, and the importance of playing in spades when partner is 4-4 in the majors may be crucial if partner has a good hand and slam is in the picture. Then, I might be able to pitch hearts on partner’s diamonds or pitch his on my clubs. Although I seem to be making a case for a 1ª bid, sometimes partner has great hearts and lousy spades, and it could be right to play hearts.

I think I’ll just be unimaginative on this one and let the chips fall where they may.

IVASKA: 1©. It’s a bit surprising to find such a problem in a 2009 bidding forum. I hope it doesn’t cause abstentions or resignations en masse from the panel. I would have thought that this issue had been resolved by the late sixties at the latest. Younger readers (if there are any) may not remember the four-card major roots of the Esteemed Moderator (EM). In those antediluvian days, a 1¨ opening would tend to deny a good 4-card heart suit, so responder could reasonably suppress a weak heart 4-bagger. This hand may be difficult to bid, obviously, but we could well belong in hearts in spite of my weak holding, so I don’t propose to distort my distribution by responding 1ª, which I imagine is EM’s choice. (Divining EM’s selections is a very hazardous enterprise, to say the least.) 1ª would be more attractive if our team was a decided underdog or trailing badly at this stage. I assume that’s not the case, as EM has occasionally specified such conditions. In general, I don’t like to deviate from what’s likely to happen at the other table early in the auction.

However, I’m willing to concede that 1ª could well be the winning bid either by avoiding a 4-4 heart game that goes down in favor of 3NT (which should make by dint of sheer power), or by simplifying the subsequent auction.

M.M.: It’s true you risk losing an IMP when 3NT makes three and 4© makes four.

WOOLSEY: 1©. A 1ª response involves either completely giving up on a 4-4 heart fit or lying about spade length. It isn’t worth making that concession just to bid the stronger major first. If partner rebids 1NT (which can have four spades), I have 2-way checkback available to find that out. If partner is more distributional with four spades, he will always rebid 1ª.

GAER: 1©. Anything else will start to distort my pattern and I see no reason for that at this time. This is a good hand, but I’ll get ample opportunity to show it later.

Is there something I'm overlooking about this problem?

M.M.: You don’t want to get to 6© opposite ªKx ©AJxx ¨KQJ10x §Kx, or to 4© opposite ªKxxx ©Qxxx ¨KQx §Kx. Also harder to get to 6ª opposite ªKJxx ©x ¨KQJxx §KQx. Admittedly, opposite some holdings, 4© is best.

Problem 2.

Neither vul, matchpoints

You, South, hold

ªJ543 ©K9 ¨6 §QJ10763

West North East South
1¨ Dbl Pass ?

What call do you make?

GAER: 3§. A good bad hand. I wouldn’t jump in that bad a spade suit, and I am too good to just bid 1ª. The bidding is not likely to be over, so I should get a chance to introduce spades later.

WOOLSEY: 2§. There will almost certainly be more bidding by somebody, and I can get my spades in later. I’m certainly not worth a jump, and bidding spades first is a needless distortion.

STANSBY: 2§. Either partner or opener has a strong hand and will bid again. I plan to bid spades on my next turn.
DAVIS: 2§. This hand belongs in clubs unless partner has four spades. This is a slight underbid, but partner either has a very strong hand or the opponents can be expected to do a lot more bidding with at least nine and more likely 10 diamonds between them. In either case, somebody will be bidding again and we need room to describe this hand. It is important to mention clubs before spades so that we don’t end up playing a 4-3 spade fit. I can afford to be aggressive after having shown my best suit first and limiting my hand.

M.M.: If the opponents don’t have nine or ten diamonds between them, partner probably has a balanced hand too strong to overcall 1NT. In either case SOMEONE should bid, which will give you a chance to bid spades later.

GRABEL: 2§, but I expect to do a lot of bidding on this hand if the auction doesn’t die there. I remember once when partner made a takeout double of one diamond with only three spades. There is no reason to bid spades just yet. When I subsequently bid spades, partner will know that my club suit is somewhat longer, and be better positioned at his next opportunity.

IVASKA: 1ª. 2§ would tend to deny a 4-card major and might land us in a poor matchpoint spot, since partner will sometimes have only a doubleton. Even though I have a potentially good playing hand, a cue bid would not only be an overbid but premature as well, as I have no idea of the degree of fit.

SWANSON: 2§. I suppress the four card major temporarily in order to reach a making partscore. This hand has sufficient playing strength that I am willing to bid spades later, even at the three-level if necessary. Playing IMP scoring there is a stronger reason to bid spades immediately, looking for the most likely game.

M.M.: With a hand worth only one bid (like ªJxxx ©xx ¨xx §Kxxxx) all the panelists would, I believe, respond 1ª.

Problem 3.

North/South vul, matchpoints

You, South, hold

ªAJ972 ©AKJ10 ¨4 §A32

West North East South
Pass Pass 1§ ?

What call would you make?

STANSBY: 1ª. There is no guarantee that partner has any 4-card major, so I start naming my suits and catch up on the strength later. Double followed by bidding spades grossly overstates the spade quality.

DAVIS: 1ª. With a weak primary suit, this hand is not quite strong enough to double and then correct diamonds to spades. I will usually be better placed by bidding spades and then competing in hearts than by doubling and then competing in spades.

I would double if I had ÍAKJ10x and ÌAJ9x.

GAER: 1ª. Both this bid and double are flawed, but the double can lead to real problems when I get the expected diamond advance. To then bid spades would show a better suit and de-emphasize the hearts. This way I should get a chance to get both suits introduced.

Since I did not make a Michael’s cuebid ... but still showed strength ... partner will know I am not 5-5.

GRABEL: Double. Seems obvious.

IVASKA: Double. I find myself in the not unfamiliar position of being mystified by the problem. Yes, 17 HCP is right on the boundary between a takeout double and an overcall, but the hand is worth much more because of the excellent high card structure and positional advantage. An overcall is especially dangerous if partner might pass with seven or eight HCP and short spades (which I don’t recommend, by the way).

WOOLSEY: Double. A 1ª overcall runs a big risk of losing a heart fit. First order of business is to find a major-suit fit, and this is the way to start. I can bid spades later if necessary.

SWANSON: 1ª. The advantage of the overcall versus double is that partner knows immediately that I hold five spades and it does not encourage him to bid diamonds [or hearts! M. M. ]. There is a good chance I can introduce hearts later. If the major suits were reversed I would double, risking the diamond response from partner.

M.M.: I think there is, at most, a fair chance, not a good chance, that you will be able to bid hearts later. If opener has 13 points and you have 17 points, that doesn’t leave many points for the other two hands. Nor will RHO reopen the bidding with a minimum opening with ªKxx or even ªKx. And if partner responds 1© to the double, we probably have a game in hearts.

Partner actually held: ªQx ©Qxxxx ¨Axxx §Qx, and we got to 6©, making seven (with ªKxx in opener’s hand), which we definitely would not have reached over a 1ª overcall. Admittedly slam was unlikely, but why expect a jump in diamonds by partner? And is 1ª really a big overbid if he bids 1¨? Or 2ª if he bids 2¨?

With ªQx ©Qxxx ¨Axxxx §xx I would raise a 1ª overcall to 2ª, but many players would pass. Which is more likely? That a double will get us too high in spades and cause you to lose a part-score, or that a spade overcall will cause us to miss a game in hearts?

Problem 4.

Neither vul, matchpoints

You, South, hold

ª76 ©KQ8543 ¨93 §876

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

What call would you make?

DAVIS: 3©. Pass or double are not acceptable and 4©, in spite of partner’s well-placed cards, is an overbid. 3© is the right value bid and will surely be the consensus choice. If the opponents compete to 3ª, I will bid 3NT, which partner should not pass without an appropriate hand with a fitting heart honor. (I was willing to play 3©, so I can’t have much more than a good six-card suit).

GRABEL: 3©. Too much offense and not enough defense to double. I would always compete to 3© after a notrump opener by partner. This hasn’t changed anything.

IVASKA: 3©. I would have invited with 3© if East hadn’t bid, since partner’s cards figure to be well placed. As it is, it looks like I have to make a unilateral decision, not for the first or last time. I’ll take a conservative, matchpoint-oriented decision, because of my flat distribution, lack of intermediates, and the fact RHO might hold an important card after all. If West competes with 3ª and partner passes, I may think again, as Reese used to say.

WOOLSEY: 3©. Obviously I won’t defend 2ª. 2NT might work out better, but if the hearts don’t run then notrump won’t be happy.

Yes, JoAnna, it’s unanimous ... but at least Kit and John mentioned the bid that was my choice at the table. I gambled that partner had the ace of hearts and I bid 2NT. We played there and got a top, since it made nine tricks at either hearts or notrump. And the 2NT bid would be more likely than 3© to discourage further competition in spades. But this was a risky bid. If partner had held two small hearts, this would have been a terrible contract, and he wouldn’t have known to correct to hearts. So now I like Ed’s suggestion: To bid 3©, followed by 3NT if the opponents bid 3ª. Now partner would know by inference when to pass and when to correct to hearts. He would need the ace or king of hearts for the suit to run.

Problem 5.

Both vul, IMPs

You, South, hold

(*15-17;**hearts and a minor)

What call would you make?

DAVIS: Pass. If partner’s minor is diamonds, both sides may be able to make game, but we probably can’t if partner’s minor is clubs. Regardless of partner’s minor, they may have a good play for game in spades.

I will be happy if they stop in 2ª, and I don’t want to do anything to discourage that.

GRABEL: 2NT. While I suspect that we should have a play for game on certain layouts that would require nothing more than normal splits, I will try to give partner an out by checking for his minor and bidding 3©, which is invitational, if it is clubs.

At this vulnerability, I’m only allowing partner a little leeway. At non-vul, I would bid 3© as partner needn’t have as much.

IVASKA: 3©. I’m a bit mystified for the third time in this set. (By the way, this is by no means a record.) It’s hard to evaluate my hand. I don’t have a singleton, and my diamonds may be utterly valueless, since partner figures to have clubs, so 4© is much too much. On the other hand, I almost never suppress 4-card support, particularly since North almost surely has five in these circumstances, so It’d be hard to summon words of sufficient contempt for a pass. Perhaps if 3¨ implied hearts I could try that, but I don’t see how it can, especially since I’m not a passed hand.

GAER: 3©. The diamonds aren’t worth much, so my fit is mediocre. But if spades get raised partner will be in a better position to know what to do.

WOOLSEY: 3©. It might make a difference whether the 2© call guarantees a 5-card suit, but even if it doesn’t, bidding 3© seems clear. What else?

STANSBY: 3©. It just isn’t practical to try and discover partner’s minor. If I bid 2NT asking and opener bids 3ª, then partner won’t know I have hearts.
SWANSON: 3©. A 4© bid punishes our side when partner may have done well to enter the auction. This competition might be enough to keep the opponents from reaching a good 4ª game.

Also, partner is likely to be able to bid game himself after my call -- if we belong there.

M.M.: I don’t agree that the competition will make it harder for the opponents to reach a good 4ª game. I don’t remember the exact hand, but with a hand similar to this, I raised to 3©, and opener, with three small hearts, realized that his partner probably had a singleton or void in hearts, and he bid 3ª. His partner then bid 4ª with a hand something like ¨KQxxx ©x ¨xxx §Jxxx, which was cold. The strength is probably evenly divided between your side and the opponents, but you know they have a great fit and the higher ranking suit.

Most of the time opener will pass the 2ª bid unless you show a heart fit. If you do bid, I think 2NT is better, since you might have wanted to play in partner’s minor if you have a good fit for it, and if you bid 3© later, it might just mean that you didn’t fit partner’s minor and reluctantly returned to hearts, perhaps with a doubleton.

But my preference is to pass, just as Ed did.