May

May Master Solvers Panel

By Marshall Miles
San Bernardino, Calif.

This month’s District 21 panelists consist of Rose Meltzer (bidding with Alan Sontag) and Gary Soules; District 17 panelists are Bobby Wolff and Steve Bruno; District 22 is represented by Mark Itabashi and Jon Wittes.

Problem 1.

Both vulnerable, IMPs

You, South, hold:

ªJ87543 ©6 ¨AQ96 §73

North    East    South    West
1NT*    Dbl     3ª        4©
Pass      Pass    ?
(*12-14)

What call do you make?

WOLFF: Pass. When one decides on the 3ª bid, he should be passing the captaincy to partner to make the next decision. Since it is difficult for partner to double, even if his hand may suggest it, to me it’s a violation of important partnership discipline to bid 4ª, and to double violates possible doubled overtricks to accrue.

ITABASHI: Pass. With defense in diamonds and no clear action, I’ll pass and hope to beat it. Partner could have bid 4ª and didn’t, and double could be right but is speculative: an action if you need a board.

KANTAR: Pass. I think I’ve shot my wad.

BRUNO: 4ª. Without knowing the strength I’ve shown with my 3ª bid, it’s difficult to judge whether or not I have another bid coming. However, no matter what the meaning of 3ª, I have no reason to believe that 4©isn’t going to make, especially with a spade lead. I sacrifice. 4ª should be down one or two. Partner didn’t warn me off sacrificing.

WITTES: 4ª. The notrump range was not stated, so I am assuming it is 15-17.

[I sent out a correction stating the range was 12-14, but apparently Jon did not get it or notice it; perhaps I should put him with the passers or the doublers – M.M.].

Also there is no asterisk next to the double, so I assume it is penalty. Partner should not have a big fit, since he didn’t bid 4ª. But he was also unable to double 4©. I assume West must be extremely distributional to bid 4© freely. This could conceivably be a double game swing. I’m not crazy about the texture of my suit, but 4ª seems like the prudent bid.

SOULES: Double. Clarifying bad spades and defense outside. If partner has no values in spades we should beat this hand. With good spades partner should save ... and it’s possible that with good trumps 4ª is a make.

ROSE-SONTY: Double. We won’t bid 4ª opposite a hand which doubled a weak NT, but we must do something. The double puts partner back in the game.

M.M.: I held the opposite hand, which was ªQx ©KQ9x ¨10xx §AJ10x. Naturally I “bravely” passed the double. I had failed to double 4© myself for two reasons: I thought that declarer would play the hand better by at least one trick if she were warned of bad breaks by a double, and I wasn’t sure whether partner’s 3ª bid was invitational or preemptive. Unlike many other players, I don’t play that a double by me gives partner a chance to change his mind after he has preempted or invited game. In addition to the good reasons stated by the last two panelists for doubling, North’s diamond holding, including the nine, should be worth two tricks more often than not; declarer was not getting a good trump break; any trump honors our side had were going to be well-placed. And most players double a weak notrump with 14 or more points. West, with ªAKx ©Jxx ¨KJxx §Qxx, had barely enough to double, and East, withªxx ©A10xxx ¨xx §Kxxx, had barely enough to bid 4© since her partner could have had a stronger hand. I don’t agree with the philosophy that if North couldn’t double, South couldn’t either. This hand might be a logical exception, but I seldom double the opponent’s contract after opening 1NT (whether strong or weak) since I have already described my hand within narrow limits. I feel it is partner who (if anyone!) should be doubling.

Problem 2.

East/West vul, IMPs

You, South, hold:

ªA8754 ©K7 ¨3 §AJ864

North East South West
1ª Pass ?

What call would you make?

BRUNO: 2NT. I’m not a big fan of bidding Jacoby 2NT with unbalanced hands. But if pard has a singleton club, he needs only 7 HCP (ªK, ©A) to easily make a slam. This is a great hand to avoid his bidding 4ª with a minimum over 2NT.

Modified 2NT systems that use 3§ to describe all minimums work better here – and everywhere.

ROSE-SONTY: Jacoby 2NT ... or whatever you and partner use for a major suit raise (we actually would bid 3§, forcing game raise for spades). This is not the right hand for a splinter, as it takes too much room. If partner has a singleton club, ªK and ©A, you surely have slam.

WOLFF: 3§. Too strong for a 4¨ splinter, although it is a possible action if we intend to bid again over a sign-off. I prefer the jump shift, and then vigorous spade support which may take us past 4ª. I hope to later show my diamond control or possibly just take off toward slam over partner’s rebid. Let’s wait and see what he responds.

KANTAR: 3©. Strong unknown singleton with slam implications. (3ª asks for the singleton). Partner will not expect a side five card suit, but the rest is pretty close.. Mike Lawrence taught me this bid many, many years ago and it never came up.

Finally, in a National Men’s Pairs in Houston, Mike opened 1ª with ªAKQ10x ©10xx ¨xxx §QJ and I responded 3© holding ª— ©AKJ9xxxx ¨AKx §xx. (At that time I was used to playing strong jump shifts). Mike alerted the 3© bid announcing I had spade support with some short suit (he was right about that “short suit” part.) Anyway, he hated his hand and didn’t bother asking me where my shortness was and bid 4ª. I bid 5© and he alerted that, telling the opponents I had a heart void! Close again, except it was a spade void. Mike then bid 6ª! I bid 7© and he alerted that. When asked he said: “Cancel all other alerts,” and passed. They led a diamond and I made it! We had many kibitzers before this hand and they all left after the hand. Every last kibitzer!

ITABASHI: 2§. I like 2§ and a raise better than a direct splinter, mainly because there are many hands where partner would sign off over a splinter that would still give us a play for slam.

SOULES: 2§. I like to show a possible source of tricks and game force before raising spades.

WITTES: 2§. With the fifth trump and such great controls, I’m a little too good for 4¨. There are a lot of minimum hands that partner could have, that we would still be cold for a slam. I can always splinter at my next opportunity, showing a better hand with a club suit.

M.M.: As a whole, I think modern bidding is a great improvement over the bidding 50 or 60 years ago. But a strong jump shift to 3§, followed by 4¨ next round to show a singleton diamond and primary spade support, still looks good to me. Perhaps the 4¨ bid to show a singleton only goes back 30 or 40 years ago - the concept was introduced by Paul Soloway. The panelists all agree that the hand is too strong to splinter in diamonds immediately and pass if partner just bids 4ª. And if you splintered and bid again, your bid would show a control, not a suit. But I don’t like a 2NT response for two reasons. First, I play that a Jacoby 2NT response denies a singleton or void (unless responder intends to bid Blackwood next round and was just setting the suit for the responses). It denies shortage since there is no way to show shortage on later rounds. Also, it puts most of your eggs in one basket. Partner does not need to be short in clubs to have a good play for slam and he doesn’t even need the ªQ. As Jon pointed out, you may get a chance to show your club suit AND the splinter.

Problem 3.

Vulnerability immaterial, IMPs

You, South, hold:

ªAK9 ©J96 ¨6 §AK10873

South West North East
1§ Pass 1© Pass

What call would you make?

BRUNO: 3§. If my red suits were reversed I would bid only 2§ . But, with the heart fragment, I have enough distributional values to make this hand worth a jump. Pard can easily check back for heart support with a 3¨bid.

A 1ª bid is tempting, but it’s too likely pard has four spades and won’t let me loose.

ITABASHI: 3§. Sorry, Marshall, but I’m not bidding 2§ with this hand. I’ll make the value bid, which still does not preclude playing hearts if partner has a good enough hand to bid again.

M.M.: But what if he rebids 3NT with something like ªQ10x ©KQxxx ¨Kxx §xx or ªQJx ©KQ10x ¨Axxx §xx, when 4© would be a greatly superior contract? With stoppers in the unbid suits, partner is unlikely to look for a heart fit, not realizing that your club suit is rather weak for a 3§ bid.

WOLFF: 3§. I certainly do not like a 1ª rebid; there’s no need for it. Nor, of course, for any heart raise (2 or 3). Please, I hope no one dares rebid only 2§ with this powerful hand!

KANTAR: 1ª. Hoping to show a good hand with diamond shortness. Yes, I happen to have one more club and one less spade than I’m supposed to have, but they never deal exactly what I am supposed to have, particularly in bidding panel problems.

SOULES: 1ª. With passing opponents I might be able to temporize. If partner jumps in spades I might conceivably make four!

ROSE-SONTY: 2§. We would like to bid 2 1/2§, if only they allowed fractionally graded rebids!

WITTES: 3©. Certainly not the book bid. 2§, 3§, 2© would probably all receive more votes. However, if partner has a minimum with five hearts, 4© is probably our most likely game, and with such a hand, partner would probably be passing over any of those other bids. Of course, in the worst case scenario, partner will have a bad four card heart suit, a diamond card, and the §Q, and 3NT will be cold.

M.M.: I agree with Eddie and Gary on this one. 2© is an underbid; 3© is an overbid and may get us to 4© when we belong in 3NT. 2§ gives us more room to find a heart fit, but is fairly likely to be passed. A 1ª rebid is very unlikely to be passed, and it gives us more room to investigate alternate contracts. Also, partner’s rebid will be more revealing. He actually had ©AKQxxx and §Jx, which was just enough to jump to 3©, making it easy to get to 6©, while a 3© rebid over 3§ might be made with a much weaker hand. The biggest risk in bidding 1ª is that partner will raise with four card support and stubbornly insist upon playing in spades no matter what you do. However, if you rebid clubs over a spade raise, he may not insist upon a spade contract. He might bid hearts, notrump or more clubs. And if he has a good four card spade suit ... as Gary noted, 4ª might be your best contract.

Problem 4.

Neither vulnerable, IMPs

West                      East
ª76                      ªAKQJ
©9                        ©A754
¨K8                     ¨963
§AKQ10753         §62

West    North    East    South
1§      2¨        Dbl     Pass
3NT    Pass     4NT    (allPass)

Apportion the blame for not getting to 6NT

ITABASHI: 100% East. West’s 3NT bid should show either a strong balanced hand such as an 18-19 HCP hand or a hand with a long running minor for a source of tricks. In either case Eastshould be able to visualize enough tricks for slam.

ROSE-SONTY: 99% blame goes to East. After partner jumps to 3NT showing a long club suit, East should just bid the slam.

BRUNO: West 10%, East 90%. Sure, West could have a flawed (singleton) 15 to 18-point hand without more than five clubs. But then East can count at least eleven tricks. It’s more likely Westhas the hand he has. East should bid 5NT over 3NT to find out if West’s diamond stopper is the A, K, or the Q. West will pass with the queen, bid on with the ace or king by bidding 6§ with long clubs, 6NT with a flatter hand and more diamond stoppers.

West could have bid 6§ over 4NT, but East didn’t ask him a specific question, so bidding on would be just guessing.

KANTAR: I think it was mainly East’s fault. 70%. West figures to have solid clubs with a diamond stopper and East has five quick tricks. West, gets 30% blame, since presumably he has shown solid clubs, and might bid 5NT to show oodles of tricks with only one ace (my idea). This would also lead to East bidding 6NT.

WITTES: I would have to place the majority of the blame with East. Looking at that hand, partner rates to have a long solid club suit and a diamond card, so it seems right to just bid the slam with five tricks in hand.

SOULES: West bid his hand quite well showing running clubs and a diamond stopper. However, if I were sitting East, I would have been concerned that partner had just the ¨Q, and would have bid 5NT. Over 4NT West should realize partner could not have a hand that does make a slam. So 50-50 in the blame game.

WOLFF: West and East each 50%: West for not bidding more strongly toward slam with his seven club tricks and ¨K, and East for not immediately chancing 6NT instead of 4NT. I think neither did anything really wrong, and the difficulty of judgment in bridge just won out. I guess we learn how important the seventh club is, and how important five immediate taking tricks are, instead of having to set at least one of them up.

Problem 5.

East/West vulnerable, IMPs

You, South, hold:

What call do you make?

SOULES: Pass. Declarer might only have eight tricks ... and we are certainly going down!

ITABASHI: Pass. This should be partner’s decision, not mine. I don’t have anything special for my bidding.

KANTAR: Pass. This can’t be right if it’s in here, but that’s what I would do.

ROSE-SONTY: Pass happily, waiting for a heart lead.

WITTES: Pass. I have my 3© bid with nothing additional in the way of distribution or trick taking potential. 4© will probably go for 300, possibly 500, or if very lucky, maybe only 100. 3NT is no guarantee to make. Declarer may have made a speculative bid with something like eitht tricks in hand He might even have something like ¨AKJxxxx and two outside aces, and partner might even have ¨Qxx. If they are making, 4© rates to be a decent save, but since there is no guarantee of 3NT making, let’s pass and take our chances defending.

WOLFF: Pass. In spite of the vulnerability, it is totally unilateral to bid again. We’ve suggested the suit we want led and again, as in Problem 1, it is partner’s decision to make.

BRUNO: Pass. Didn’t I bid these cards once? Pard’s pass is certainly not forcing. What planet are we on?

M.M.: The panel is unanimous in passing, and I’m sure I would do the same. But at the table, a double (to ensure a heart lead) was spectacularly successful ... plus 800! Since we hold the ©Q, it is unlikely that declarer has a double stopper. So he would need to cash eight fast winners without losing the lead.