By John Swanson
Mission Viejo, Calif.
Our
September panelists are just as “august” as our August panelists were:
Ifti Baqai and Rick Roeder, recent District 22 GNT winners; Jill Meyers,
perennial District 23 GNT winner (plus who knows how many National
titles and a half dozen or so International women's team and pair
titles); Mike Lawrence, three time Bermuda Bowl champion and arguably
the leading bridge author and teacher in the U.S.; and Marshall Miles,
who was a leading player and author when I started playing in 1957, and
has barely slacked off. He has written some of the best material to
appear in
The Bridge
World
in the past couple of years. Marshall is on leave of absence as
moderator, but he has agreed to hang around as a panelist.
Problem 1.
None vul,
IMP scoring
As
South,
you hold
♠J ♥A43
♦AK8532 ♣AJ5
South
West
North East
1♦
Pass
1♠
Pass
?
BAQAI:
Choices are 3♦, 2♣, and 2NT: I take 3♦ as the best descriptive bid,
though I would prefer a bit more robust diamond suit.
JS: If you held a robust diamond suit in addition to a bunch of aces and
kings, 3♦
would be a significant underbid. Another possible call is 2♥,
advocated by Ed Davis. This bid announces a strong playing hand and
allows more bidding space than 3♦
to investigate multiple strains, but has the drawback of dangerously
overstating your heart length.
ROEDER:
3♦. Was this problem submitted by Eric Kokish or one of his acolytes?
This 3♦ rebid is so middle-of-the-road that only disciples of fancy 2♣
rebids would think otherwise.
LAWRENCE:
2♣. Would bid 2NT with the ten of hearts. Hate bidding 3♦ with this good
a hand ... but with this poor a suit.
JS: I don't believe Mike is anyone's acolyte and don't think of him as a
fancy bidder either, just someone looking for the best call. At the
table I bid 2♣,
hoping partner could scrounge up a notrump bid. It seemed likely there
would be an advantage having the lead up to her hand. But now I am
leaning towards 2NT, even without the heart ten. It has the simplicity
that Rick is striving for and announced stoppers in the unbid suits.
MILES:
2NT. Most players would bid 3♦, but I have stoppers in the unbid suits
and the rough equivalent of 18-19 balanced points. If I bid 3♦, what is
partner supposed to bid with ♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xxx, or ♠Qxxxx ♥xx ♦Qx
♣xxx?
MEYERS:
2♦. If one of my jacks were a diamond I would bid 3♦, but my suit is not
good enough to bid 3♦, and my hand is diminished in value by having only
one spade. I would not argue with bidding 2♣ with the intention of
raising a 2♦ preference to 3♦, but I would be sick if partner passed.
JS: 2♦
must be classified as “middle-of-the-low-road.”
Problem 2.
Vul vs.
not, IMP scoring
As
South,
you hold
♠ — ♥AQ5
♦A432 ♣A107543
North
East
South West
1♣
2♠ 3♠
4♠
Dbl
Pass ?
LAWRENCE:
Please, John, tell me that 3♠ was a game forcing club raise.
JS: That reminds me of a line from
“A Few Good
Men:” “Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a phone
bill.”
I didn't think I had to say that 3♠
is a strong club raise.
MILES:
5♠. If partner had passed I would have gambled on 7♣, since I don’t see
any way to find out what I need to know, and I think the odds are that
partner will have enough to fill in the gaps. The double suggests that
partner has wasted values in spades. But I still have enough to try for
seven. I won’t cue bid a red ace since partner will worry about the one
I don't cue bid. When I have two (or more) things to show, I cue bid
neither (the same as when I have none).
ROEDER:
5♠. Pard would double 4♠ with a dog like: ♠Kxxx ♥Kxx ♦Kx ♣Kxxx. When
this
dog yields 2140, you need to bid more – or pard will bark at you. While
5♠ is the technically correct bid, there is merit to settling with a
direct 6♣ call. Not only is it less likely that the opponents will save
against a direct 6♣ than when you make a grand slam try, but pard is
often going to have a very hard time bidding seven when it’s right to do
so, when one considers all your controls and six trumps.
JS: I consider 5♠
as wildly optimistic. Partner heard your 3♠
call and is looking at the vulnerability, yet believes it is better to
defend at the four level. I'll toss out a possible hand for partner:
♠AK10,
♥xxx,
xxx, ♣KQJx
(which is very close to what she actually held). But back in the realm
of reality:
BAQAI: 5♣.
A typical hand for partner consistent with the bidding could be: ♠KQxx,
♥xxx, ♦Kx, ♣KQxx, and slam seems reasonable, but partner can hold
4-3-3-3 distribution with about the same HCP and slam would not look
good. I consider 6♣ a close second choice.
JS: Why is everyone guessing partner holds four spades? It would be nice
for your hand because it means partner will have fewer red cards. But
when my opponents bid like this they have ten spades.
LAWRENCE:
Pass. Can easily see 800, and the double warns that clubs may not be as
good a spot as I had hoped for.
North
did not have to double. There are a lot of 4-3-3-3 hands he can have
that make sitting for this a huge plus. For the record, 4NT would be a
slam try and would be the bid I would choose if I did not pass.
JS: Jill declined to answer because she knew the hand. That has never
prevented me from dogmatically expressing my view. I like Mike's second
choice, 4NT, expressing slam interest in spite of partner's double while
allowing a screeching halt in 5♣.
I was hoping for an objection to the initial 3♠
bid. I think 4♠
is better - showing a void and immediately expressing slam interest. The
reason for 3♠
is to allow partner to bid 3NT, but your hand has too much potential for
play in clubs to pass that call anyway.
For the record double would net 500, a small loss against the 600
available at 5♣,
but substantially better than minus 100 in 6♣
when the heart finesse lost, as expected.
Problem 3.
Vul vs.
not, matchpoints
As
South,
you hold
♠AQJ764
♥K106 ♦Q8 ♣AJ
North
East
South West
Pass
Pass
1♠ Pass
2♦
Pass ?
LAWRENCE:
3NT. A sane descriptive guess. Perhaps it should be defined as showing
six spades. Is this possible? No. I think not.
MEYERS:
3NT. Love my diamond queen, want lead coming to me.
MILES:
3NT. With my tenaces, I’d like to be declarer. Almost surely we will be
able to establish enough tricks in either diamonds or spades.
BAQAI: It
would help to know if partner had 2♦ available as a weak 2 opening or
not. With my regular partners, I like to play 2NT here as forcing to
enable more nuanced bidding. Otherwise I’ll settle for 3NT.
ROEDER:
2NT (if forcing, as it should be); 3NT otherwise. This is the catalyst
for a discussion of which of opener’s rebids are forcing over 2♦. My
thinking: 2♥ and 2♠ non-forcing; 2NT game force; 3♣ one-round force (can
pass 3♦ rebid); 3♦ non-forcing.
The
argument for 2NT forcing is that there are many more hands that need
bidding room than hands which make exactly 2NT but not two of a suit. If
you have a minimum with two or more diamonds, you can pass 2♦. With a
minimum and diamond shortness you rebid spades or try a second suit. On
this hand, 2NT forcing is invaluable since the best game could be
spades, diamonds or notrump from your side.
JS: Not much controversy here. It's good to see the Baqai-Roeder
partnership in agreement. I like 2NT forcing also, but don't see the
necessity of making it a game force. If responder rebids 3♦
opener should be able to pass. The primary reason for this problem was
to determine what kind of hand is suitable for a passed hand
two-over-one response. Does it still show about 10 HCP, or can it be
made on a hand on which you don't want to passed in 1NT – something like
♠x,
♥Qxxx,
♦KJ9xxx,
♣xx?
Rick went on to note:
ROEDER
(continued): A consideration is what an initial 2♦ bid by the passer
would have meant. If it would have been artificial, then it is possible
for the 2♦ bidder to have a good weak two or even a hand like: ♠x ♥Axxx
♦AJ10xxx ♣xx that was unsuitable for a 2♦ opening bid. A bulky 3♠ rebid
can keep you from getting to the best game of 5♦. This is why 2NT
forcing is best.
Problem 4.
Both, IMP
scoring
As
South,
you hold
♠Q4 ♥A4 ♦J75
♣AKQJ73
East
South West
North
1♥
2♣
Pass Pass
Dbl
?
BAQAI:
Redouble, to show a max overcall with good suit. I would have preferred
to double initially and follow with a notrump rebid at the cheapest
level to get my playing strength across to partner.
JS: If partner has length in either pointed suit you could easily lose
control of the auction after a takeout double. Your excellent club suit
with scattered side values may be of little use in spades or diamonds.
ROEDER:
Redouble. Al Roth’s introduction of negative doubles was deemed the best
development since sunshine in December in Detroit. While generally true,
there are times that one corollary of negative doubles can feel like
sunshine in July in Needles. Opener is obligated to reopen with any hand
with shortness in overcaller’s suit just in case pard holds a penalty
double. After you let your powerhouse 2♣ overcall be known, pard is free
to make a penalty double with club shortness and a smattering of values
if the opponents run. If 2NT was natural, there might be merit in
considering the auction but this auction should be reserved for good
overcalls with secondary diamonds.
JS: The partnership is in tune, but I don't like the redouble any more
than an original takeout double. Where are your defensive winners? For
your cards to have full value you must play in clubs or notrump. There
are many auctions on which a notrump rebid after a suit bid implies the
suit you bid plus a secondary suit. I don't think this is one of them.
2NT would be natural here in my opinion. With clubs and diamonds you
should pass, then bid 2NT later if you wish to compete.
LAWRENCE:
3♣. Dangerous? Probably. The problem is that if I pass, I will wonder if
I should bid again later. By bidding 3♣ now, I give them a chance to
make the wrong three level guess.
JS: You wouldn't have to guess whether or not to bid later. Your left
hand opponent is going to pass 2♣
doubled.
MILES:
3♣. Theoretically this is risky since we could be doubled and held to
seven tricks (or even worse if the clubs don’t break). But it is
unlikely that we will be doubled with high cards and no trump tricks. I
think the most likely result is down one, undoubled, but it is possible
that the opponents will misjudge their hands and bid to a level that we
can set.
JS:
If you believe that this hand has too much offense to defend at the two
level (which, as noted above, is a dangerous but reasonable view) the
bid here should be 2♥,
getting partner to declare notrump if feasible.
MEYERS:
Pass. I don't have much more than I said I had when I made a vulnerable
two level overcall.
JS: The only good part about passing here is that accurate defense will
only set you 500 instead of the 800 possible in 3♣
doubled. Partner holds the singleton
♣10,
but the defense can cash all their side winners and then uppercut you
out of a club trick. Ugly, isn't it? However, the redoublers do have
something going for them. Many partnerships do not have an agreement
about when the pass of a redouble is for penalties, so opener may panic
and run. I think the rule should state that a pass BEHIND a redoubler is
a penalty pass.
Problem 5.
Vul vs
not, IMP scoring
As
South,
you hold
♠K74 ♥K ♦J8753
♣J1074
North
East
South West
1♥
Pass
1NT* Pass
2♣
Pass ?
(*)=forcing
BAQAI:
Pass. I am not sure I can improve the contract so I’ll settle for a
pass.
Miles:
Pass. I realize that we could be cold for game in clubs or notrump, but
it is unlikely. There is an additional danger (in raising to 3♣) because
partner may have been forced to rebid a three card suit.
ROEDER:
Pass. Your best remaining spot may well be 2NT, but I see no way to get
there as a 2NT rebid by you would show 10-12 HCP. If pard had a 4-5-2-2
Flannery hand and “had” to rebid 2♣, the bridge gods have punished him
by making him declare the hand. Advocates of false preferences should be
ashamed of even thinking of bidding 2♥. In this age of massive
acceptance of plastic surgery, let’s please, please keep a few things
real.
JS: If I didn't know better I would think Rick was the victim of a bad
nose job. Something that's real in my world is the ten IMPs awarded for
bidding and making a vulnerable game. Unlikely on this deal, yes. But by
bidding 2♥
you give partner, who could be holding a difficult to bid 17 HCP hand,
another chance to bid (which you will welcome).
LAWRENCE:
Pass. Seems clear. Will read up on the news when I get the answers.
MEYERS:
2♥. Partner could be 4-5-2-2; even if partner had three clubs, my ♥K
looks awfully nice.
JS: The unlikely 2♣
rebid by partner holding a doubleton club is not a strong reason for
bidding 2♥.
(Although it is possible to lay out hands for partner holding three
clubs where 2♥
has a better chance of making than 2♣.)
I agree with the panel that, in general, 2♣
will be a better contract than 2♥.
The point is that it is worthwhile to give up this small, nebulous
advantage for the times partner holds, say:
♠AJ
♥Axxxx,
♦x
♣AQxxx
and you roll into the cold club game (after 1♥
- 1NT; 2♣
- 2♥;
3 ♣
- 3♠;
4♦
- 5♣).