October Master Solvers Panel

By John Swanson

Mission Viejo, Calif.

This month's problems are from “Famous Bidding Decisions,” a collection of bidding situations culled from top-level play. The authors, Terence Reese and David Bird, offered five possible calls for each hand, then presented their analysis and awarded a point score of 1 to 5 for each of these calls. There are 60 hands in the book, but because bidding has improved so much over the years and the auctions given are littered with previous bad bids, it was not easy to find five problems for our panel. Many of the deals are from international play, so I decided that we should have an international panel. At the recent National tournament in Washington, D.C. I imposed on the following bridge stars to shed light on these problems.

Tim Bourke is one of the best players in Australia. You may not recognize the name because due to an injury he retired from active play a few years back. His bridge activity has been primarily devoted to forming the world's greatest collection of bridge writing: books, magazine, pamphlets - and he's read them all. He has authored or co-authored several bridge books. He wasn't in D.C. to play, he was researching bridge publications at the Library of Congress. Tim also collects and composes bridge problems. As an ironic note, considering the source of these problems, Tim has supplied many of the hands for David Bird's 'Abbot' bridge books.

Adam Zmudzinski (together with partner Cezary Balicki) form the best of the many outstanding bridge pairs from Poland. They travel across the globe to play bridge - not occasionally, but seemingly each week. I saw Adam at the Monterey Regional last year - he had been in Moscow the week before playing the World Golash Bridge Championship ... winning, of course. Adam's system of choice is the Polish Club, but he is attuned to some of the difficulties bidding with Standard American.

Huub Bertens (with partner Ton Bakkeren) are one of a group of five or six pairs in the Netherlands who are paid (yes, paid) by Dutch bridge and government organizations to practice their partnerships against each other every Friday. Their national team is selected each year from this group. Their most recent big win was the Yeh Bros Cup held in Australia, garnering the $70,000 prize. Their system is similar to our five-card majors, but they have many useful adjuncts.

John Mohan's bridge achievements include winning five Vanderbilts, a Spingold, Blue Ribbon Pairs, LM Pairs, and about a dozen other National events. Internationally, John has won national events in Japan and South Africa, and Gold for the Senior Bowl and Transnational Mixed teams. He has an additional qualification for this international panel: he and his wife Magy live in Mexico City.

Given the talent and experience of this panel, I will take added pleasure from criticizing any call with which I disagree.

Problem 1.

N/S vulnerable, IMP scoring

As South, you hold

♠A5432  ♥J43  ♦53  ♣A65

East     South     West     North

5♣       Pass         Pass     Dbl

Pass ?

JS: This hand is from an international par contest. Reese and Bird gave my choice, pass, a zero. I regard their proposed call, 6♣, as lunacy. May I have some support from the panel, please?

Bourke: Pass. 5♠ seems too much of a guess to warrant trying it. Also, we should defeat 5♣ in comfort.

Mohan: Pass. I assume that this is an opening lead problem: I will try ace of trump, because I hate to lose aces! (Seriously, I should be able to extract maximum after seeing dummy.) The expected result is +500 or +800 when you are making, and +300 or +500 when you are in jeopardy at 5♠.

Bertens: Pass. We have a firm agreement about this one, since we play pure penalty doubles if opponents open at the 5 level. It's more often you have a 5-4-3-1 or something like that with a couple of aces than a pure takeout double. I have no clue if we can make anything at all, but I am very sure we can beat 5♣. Another advantage of playing double as we do is that if you bid partner does not have to be afraid that it is because he doubled, but because you really have something to tell. So bidding at the 5 level is for us almost like invitational for a slam. This hand doesn't come even close, but there could be a good slam.

JS: Yes, partner could have enough to make slam a good bet. That is why 5♠ has to be considered.

Zmudzinski: 5♠. Should mean something. Partner can raise. Double is passable with moderate values or a flat hand.

JS: To me 5♠ would be much more attractive if I held good spades spots, and would be my choice if the other ace was in a red suit, where it would support partner's secondary honors.

In the contest, opening bidder was 0-0-4-9 (!) and partner held: ♠KQ1076, ♥AKQ, ♦AKQ2, ♣3. Wasn't that a useful holding opposite a 6♣ call? Even so, 7♠ fails from partner's side after a club ruff, and to make 7NT you must finesse the spade ten on the first round of the suit to successfully execute a squeeze.

Problem 2.

None vul, IMP scoring

As South, you hold

♠762  ♥A108  ♦A10853  ♣106

East     South     West     North

Pass     Pass     1♥         Dbl

Pass     2♦         2♥         3♦

3♥ ?

JS: You have at least an ace more than partner might expect for a simple 2♦ response to the takeout double. But in view of the opponents' limited calls partner is going to infer some high cards in your hand and is entitled to raise with not much more than his original values, assuming it includes four diamonds and a singleton heart. On the flip side, he could hold significant extra values. Is there a way to know?

Bertens: Double. We play 2NT as good-bad here, so the 3♦ bid shows a (very) strong hand. I have the wrong holding for 3NT; I would bid that with the ♥K, or ♥QJ. The ace makes my hand too strong. But giving up on 3NT is too difficult for me. If partner bids 3♠ I will bid 3NT and on any other bid from him I will cue bid my heart ace before calling 5♦.

JS: Good-bad 2NT is the use of 2NT as artificial in many competitive auctions to indicate a hand with limited values. Thus, an immediate suit bid is a very good hand. This is same concept as the Lebensohl convention used when opponents interfere with your 1NT opening bid. (In fact, I would like to get rid of the 'good-bad' designation and always call an artificial, competitive 2NT Lebensohl.)

Mohan: Double. The only sensible game try; otherwise just bid 5♦ and see if you can make it. Partner would have to hold a very specific hand to make 3NT and not 5♦.

JS: Some kind of game try is in order regardless of the strength of partner's 3♦ call. Double is certainly the most flexible. Partner should not guess that you hold ♥QJ109 and an ace (with such a hand you would have responded 1NT initially). If you are not comfortable with double, then 3♠ or 4♣ should announce game interest.

Zmdzinski: 3NT. My 2♦ didn't promise any values. I think 3NT is not a final verdict. With a hand suitable for a suit contract (eg. 4-1-4-4 or 4-3-1-5 distributions) partner can bid 4♦. Partner should know that I do not have six diamonds and two aces, otherwise I would bid 3♦ immediately.

Bourke: 5♦. I was about to pass, but then I saw that I had two red aces opposite a partner who should be short in hearts with most of his values well placed.

JS: Reese and Bird awarded 5♦ the top score, even though it would have been defeated with a thoughtful spade lead. 3NT has no play, but partner would remove it to 4♦ with his 3-1-4-5 minimum.

Problem 3.

None vul, IMP scoring

As South, you hold

♠87643  ♥K7  ♦AQ965  ♣6

West     North     East     South

2♠        3♥             4♠        ?

Mohan: 4NT. I've never seen this hand: what do we have here, long running clubs and a doubleton spade honor on my right (we might make slam against that hand), or a five-card weak two bid and some similar holding on the right? How about 4NT, then 5♦ if partner (unexpectedly) bids 5♣? Hope I'm not wrong, or this could be gruesome!

JS: I have seen this hand - I did see this hand - at the table, but not as a competitor. I was kibitzing the finals of the 1969 Spingold at the Ambassador Hotel. Bob Hamman had this problem after his partner, Mike Lawrence, overcalled a weak two bid. Reese and Bird made an important observation, missed by Hamman and evidently by our panel. North has jumped to game at equal vulnerability with a doubleton; he is planning to make, and the five little spades are unlikely to be a deterrent.

Bourke: Double. This is more of a 'where are we going' bid as opposed to a penalty double. Partner has a void in spades and is likely to bid on.

Bertens: Pass. Horror, double will be take-out (points). What do I know? We play that partner could bid 3♠ as mini-Michels, not game forcing. So it sounds like partner has a single suited hand. (maybe 0634, or something like that). I would like to bid 4NT and correct 5♣ to 5♦, but we play this as a not-too-strong 5♦ bid. (Wish we would play it as exactly this hand.) I give up, I pass. Say partner has something like: ♠Void ♥AQxxxxx ♦xx ♣Kxxx. Then he has a normal 3♥ overcall and we will not make anything. But, with that hand we maybe should save. Aargh, help! My vote still will be for passing, but I think double and even 5♥ will be not too bad either.

Zmudzinski: 5♠. I hope they didn't psyche. Tough hand. Double wouldn't be 100% for penalty. Partner could have: ♠Void ♥AQJxxx ♦xxx ♣KQxx. Now five-level contracts are in big trouble. I cannot pass and wait for balancing by partner because 4♠ will probably be passed out. So I'll take an optimistic view. If the auction continues 6♣-6♦, I hope to be in a good position with the heart fit. If partner holds: ♠Void ♥AQJxxx ♦Kxxx ♣Axx, grand slam is cold.

JS: Make a note that Lawrence and Zmudzinski should not be partnered. Mike held: ♠Void ♥J109532 ♦72 ♣AQ543. At the time I was horrified that he would enter with such poor defense and a weak suit. Forty years later I merely regard it as an overbid. Hamman doubled in 1969 and declarer, Ira Rubin, made an overtrick. At the other table Stayman passed 2♠ with Lawrence's hand but then felt compelled to compete with 4NT over 4♠. This could have been set 900 (old scoring) with a logical trump lead, but was down only 500. I go along with the Reese-Bird evaluation here: the difficult pass gets 5; double 2; with just 1 for the other calls.

The error Lawrence made on this hand was not in the bidding, it was on lead - the ♥J, using coded leads where the jack is top. There is no reason to lead high on this hand and give away your holding to declarer. If the queen is in dummy it will be played on the lead of a low heart. If Rubin had finessed in hearts on opening lead (dummy held AQxx) he would have lost the first four tricks.

The Lawrence-Hamman partnership did not last another year (this hand was not the cause: the Aces won the 1969 Spingold by over 100 IMPs). Mike told me recently that not nurturing his partnership with Bob was a big mistake in his bridge career.

Problem 4.

East-West vulnerable, IMP scoring

As South, you hold

♠J105  ♥J  ♦K7542  ♣9762

West     North     East     South

1♠          3♦*         3♥**     ?

* red suits

** invitational or better in spades

What is your plan as South?

JS: Without any specific information it is safe to assume that North doesn't hold a lot of high cards. But just a smattering could be enough to stop slam. The heart ace alone would be enough. Your defensive worth is difficult to evaluate.

Mohan: 4♥. How do we bid diamonds and show the stiff heart so partner can judge the defense? Maybe I can get doubled at 4♥, then run to 5♦, then double 6♠ to show no defense. My brilliant partner would know he can lead the heart ace (if he has it) and give me a ruff, so his judgment will be, as usual, impeccable.

JS: This bit of fantasy is, no doubt, the result of living in the thin air of Mexico City. Even if we get by the part about partner's impeccable judgment, there is the matter of the opponents cooperating in the auction.

Bertens: 5♦. No plan. If eventually my right-hand opponent bids 6♠, then I will double, suggesting in our partnership that I want to save. If they stop in 5♠ I will let them play there.

Zmudzinski: 5♦. Maybe I can double 3♥ for a lead, then bid 5♦, but I am missing my time for a cigarette.

JS: This reasoning does not usually appear in a bidding forum.

Bourke: 4♦. It’s close between this and passing until E/W reveal where they are headed. 5♦ will likely drive them into a slam, and then I won’t know what to do.

JS: We don't know what to do now and won't later, so simply bid 5♦ (or 4♦) to preempt a round or two from the auction and hope the opponents don't know what to do either. They have yet to resolve if the responding hand is better than a limit raise. The action at the table was most amusing. South tried the effect of 3NT which, of course, has no effect at all. West, holding: ♠AQ9874 ♥A1094 ♦Void, ♣K83 made possibly the worst call in the auction by bidding 4♠ rather than cue bidding 4♦. But South came to the rescue and bid 5♦. West promoted his void and continued on with 5♠. When this came back to South he knew a good save when he saw one and bid 6♦. West's diamond void evidently was getting better and better so he bid 6♠ (yes, the same player who had bid only 4♠ over 3NT). South, recognizing that he had pushed the opponents into an all too likely making slam, saved at 7♦. West passed this around to East, who applied the coup de grâce by bidding the cold grand in spades.

Reese-Bird gave this as a problem after 5♠ Pass Pass, and justifiably awarded the actual 6♦ a zero. They didn't say anything about the previous 3NT call, which also deserved a zero.

Problem 5.

None vul, IMP scoring

As South, you hold

♠AK4 ♥KQ7 ♦K87532 ♣4

South West North East

1♦ Pass 1♥ Pass

?

Mohan: 2♥. Hoping for responder's inquiry relay (2♠) so I can show a three-card raise with extras (3♦). Over the next relay asking for shortness (3♥), I will bid (3NT) Romex, showing a stiff club. If partner bids cooperative KCB (4♣) I will be pleased to show two with queen of trump. Of course, in real life partners always pass 2♥.

JS: Romex responses to short suit inquiries (developed by George Rosenkranz) are: 1st step, no shortness; 2nd step, clubs, etc.

Bertens: 2 Dearts. If not allowed, then 2 Hiamonds. [JS: Not surprisingly, I can't find the Reese-Bird awards for 2 Dearts or 2 Hiamonds]. Bertens (cont.): OK then, change my vote to 2♥. If partner bids then I have few problems describing my hands. (2♠ Relay, 2NT=3♥, 3♣ Relay, 3♦=singleton club etcetera.) I don't mind 2♦, but I don't like overbidding 3♦ with a bad suit.

Zmudzinski: 2♥. In Poland this shows one trump more and three high card points fewer. In Standard American I think this is an unsolvable problem.

Bourke: 2♥. A slight underbid, but then everything else is either too weird (1♠), too wacky (3♥) or too wrong (2♦).

JS: The 1♠ bid would have been much more popular a few years back when we hadn't developed the tools necessary to distinguish among the various kinds of hands which should begin with a single raise of partner's response. Reese-Bird gave the old, weird 1♠ call the top award, 2♥ or 3♥ second best with 3 points and diamond bids 2 points.