ACBL Unit 147 |
||
Washington Bridge League |
||
| Dick Wegman, President |
||
|
Don Berman, Web Master |
Washington Bridge League Solver's Club - Jul/Aug 2003
Moderator: Steve Robinson
Congratulations to Darwin Afdahl who came in first with a score of
490. He wins a free entry to the Unit
Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Tied for second were Gareth Birdsall, Yi
Zhong and Kathy Paramore with a score of 480.
Tied for fifth were Jeff Watson, Elliot Grant and Dario Filjar with a
score of 450. Tied for eighth were
Fletcher Smoak, Fred Wagner, Millard Nachtwey, Rick Bingham, John P Glynn, Fred
Steinberg and Mark Rosen with a score of 440.
Tied for fifteenth were Matthew Haag, Craig Olson, Elliot Itkin, Natalie
Aronsohn, Joe Lentz, Rob Graves, Ted Wilkinson and Mel Welles with a score of
430. Tied for twenty-second were Rich
Ferrin, Lee Bauer, Rick Eissenstat, Georgianna Whipple, Jim Allen, George
Lewis, Ravi Arulnandhy, Don Berman, Kieran Dyke, Nikola Tcholakov and Ajmal
Abbass with a score of 420. The average
score of the 254 solvers was 347. The
average score of the experts was 415.
All readers are encouraged to send answers and/or new problems to Steve
Robinson,
|
Problem 1 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
RHO (East) dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Partner has made a takeout double and the
experts have voted for two choices. Pass
the takeout double and play for penalties or bid game. If you pass, lead a spade and hope you beat
them. If you can make game, hope to
beat them more then the value of your game.
Playing for game is more difficult.
If partner has
KQJx
Axx
xx
KJxx,
3NT is the only game that makes. If
partner has
xxxx
AKJx
xx
KJx,
you belong in 4
and if partner has
xxxx
AQJ
x
KJxxx,
5
is the only game that makes. If there
were only one game in the picture, the choice would be easy but with three
possible games, passing for penalties becomes clear. If you beat them at least one trick, you beat
all the pairs who get to the wrong game and go minus.
do I think we have a better spot. Will
take likely plus.”
could suffer if there is a 4-1 split.”
|
Problem 2 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: EW |
LHO (West)dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3
,
asking partner to bid 3NT with a spade stopper, is a perfect answer to this
problem. But you’re playing 3
as Michaels. A Michaels hand occurs more
often than the solid suit hand. Wouldn’t
you like to play in 3NT if partner holds
QJ10x
xx
KQJx
Qx
opposite a typical Michaels hand such as
x
KQ1032
xx
AKJxx? You can’t play 3NT if you have to bid 4
. A jump to 4
showing
a better hand than 3
would also be a good answer. But, you’re playing 4
as ‘Leaping Michaels’. A jump to
four-of-a-minor over a weak-two shows that minor and the unbid major but with
extreme distribution. 4
shows
-
KQJxxx
x
AKxxxx
where 3NT is not a likely contract.
,
they might not lead spades, they might duck to preserve communication when
dummy has just a doubleton spade, noting the value of my spade deuce in
concealing opening leader's three-card spade holding. Best of all, this might be a good save
against spades.”
.”
.
Are you going to be in a better position?
.
.
---3NT
seems right if you feel the vibes from East that he may not have his bid. On
the other hand it would be silly to lose the first six tricks when you can just
claim 5
if partner has any diamond or heart cards
and an entry. Sometimes you just go plus
and move on.”
,
you should be OK. If 3
ends the auction, it could be right.
---Due
to the poor methods, I am fixed. I can’t bid 5
off two
likely spade losers. With them
vulnerable, I can’t play for their
spades not to run. Maybe someone will find another bid.”
|
Problem 3 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: NS |
RHO (East) dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You
are in balancing position since the opponents are going to stop in 3
. This is different from 1
- 2
where opener is unlimited. Do you act
over 3
?
When in doubt, compete when short in the opponent’s suit and pass when
long. Short is two or fewer. With Qx, you could treat as long. You are definitely short so it’s right to
act. Partner won’t count on you for much
since you’re a passed hand. Six experts
take action. Three of them agreeing with
me hoping partner has good diamonds. If
partner doesn’t have diamonds, he could have
KQxx
QJxx
xxx
Qx
and with good breaks you can make four spades or
x
Axx
xxxx
AQxxx
and with good breaks you can make 5
.
. Assuming partner has at most eight red cards,
we are guaranteed a fit. I'd pass at
IMPs.”
over 3
, of course.”
giving up possible penalties. If the opponents end up in 4
,
partner could lead a disastrous spade. 3
works when partner is 3-3-4-3 but holds bad diamonds.
---Can't
hope for partner to bid. Glad I’m a
passed hand. Partner has a lot of
inferences available and should land us in the right spot.”
---Partner
will not be able to balance since he will be long in diamonds. My distribution asks me to play, not
defend. Double is silly since I have no
defense and partner is a passed hand. If
they double loudly I will run to clubs.”
by him would be penalties). Otherwise
it's a guess, but flying in blind at the three-level without any particular
reason to expect a fit is pretty scary.”
.”
KQx
QJxx
xxx
Qxx,
he knows that you are short in diamonds but didn’t take any action. That points to you having extreme
weakness. Letting the opponents play in
3
is not going to be a good score.
with
close to an opening bid and its their hand.”
, you can bid 3
and show spades and clubs.
|
Problem 4 |
Imps |
Vul: None |
Parter (North) dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2
shows a weak diamond-spade distributional hand.
Fewer than 13 HCPs. If you have a
good diamond-spade hand, pass the redouble and bid diamonds at your next
opportunity. Since partner has a weak
hand with at least 5-5 in spades and diamonds, there leaves little room for
hearts. This is a semi misfit hand. Passing 2
is the
best way to get a plus score. West
balanced with 3
and we have four of them. Remember, West did not bid clubs directly
over the double so he shouldn’t have more then four. Partner can’t be void in clubs, since he
would surely bid again. The opponents
are at best in an eight-card club fit and could be in a seven-card club
fit. I know that they could make 3
doubled, but the odds are they will go down.
You have hearts behind the takeout doubler and a void in partner’s
first-bid suit.
Five
experts agree with me. Make them
pay.
bid?
I would certainly double now.”
Elster:”Double---I'd
have bid 2
after partner's 2
bid and now could double 3
to show my hand and let partner judge
whether to pass or bid on. I guess I
double, but feel a bad result coming my way.”
Wallen:"Double---Having
failed to bid hearts on the previous round, I'm not going to introduce them
now. Where are their tricks? This auction may even induce a trump lead
from partner!”
Cappelletti:”Double---But
why did I not bid 2
over 2
?”
Parker:”Double---Partner
can bid 3
with great distribution and long
diamonds. This is a misfit for everyone,
so I will double and start hearts. BTW I
would never redouble with a six-card suit.
How can I ever show it unless I start with 2
?”
Three
experts are wimps.
Woolsey:”Pass---We
don't have a game (at least so I decided when I passed out 2
). We can probably defeat 3
,
but the odds on doubling are very wrong.
The fate of 3
is uncertain. Thus, pass is the percentage action.”
Roman:”Pass---Did
I really bid this way to this point? I
would've bid 2
, but partner has a bad hand, so I'm not
willing to wheel out the heart suit at the three-level.”
Schwartz:”Pass---Looks
like both sides have eight trumps, so no need to compete.”
Three
experts let West off the hook.
---Partner
shows a minimum distributional two-suiter (such as
KQxxxx
x
AJxxx
x). I could conceivably get +300 against 3
doubled, but most likely is +100 or -470.
I expect to have a good play for 3
and I am
going to give them one more chance to compete.”
King:”3
---I
owe partner a bid and I can't pass up a suit this good.”
Adams:”3
---Who
knows? I have a good suit, and a fit for
Diamonds. That should protect me. LHO is probably long in Spades and short in
Diamonds. 3
might have trouble finding tricks on a trump lead, but on a non-trump lead we
will be hard pressed to defeat it. Not
even sure partner has a club to lead.”
After
passing 2
, partner is going to think you are
crazy. Is partner supposed to pass 3
with a singleton?
|
Problem 5 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
Partner (North) dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This
is an easy problem. First you want to
find out if partner has three spades. If
partner does not have three spades, you want to show diamond support. If partner has heart strength you want to
play in 3NT, otherwise you want to play in diamonds. So what is the best way to elicit the most
information from partner? 2
! 2
in this
situation is forcing and asks partner to describe his hand. Usually the cheapest bid is the most
efficient way to ask partner to describe his hand. You would bid 2
as
fourth suit forcing if the auction went
-1
-2
. Why not bid 2
here? Over 2
,
opener can bid 2
to show three spades, bid 2NT to show
stoppers in clubs and hearts, bid 3
to show
a 6-4 diamond-club hand, bid 3
to show extra diamonds or raise hearts
with four. Over 2
,
you can try for a spade slam by splintering and you start at a lower
level. Over 2NT and 3
,
you can bid 3
setting up a diamond slam auction and you
start at a lower level. Using 3
as the artificial force is very awkward.
You won’t be able to show your diamond support below 3NT. Partner will bid 3NT over 3
with a smattering of strength in clubs and hearts assuming he does not have
three-card spade support. Suppose you
hold a game-forcing semi-solid six-card spade suit such as
KJ10xxx
xx![]()
![]()
over 2
is invitational, you have to create a
force first. If you bid 2
as the artificial force, you will be able to show your six spades and get
possible two-card support below 3NT.
Three
experts bid 3
.
But does partner have
x
Qxx
AQxxxx
KJx
where 6
is cold and 3NT might go down? Does he have
x
AKQ
QJxxxx
Jxx
where 3NT is where you belong? Partner
will bid 3NT over 3
holding both hands.
---And
over 3NT bid 4
and drive it into slam. More than likely into diamond slam although
we could have grand.”
Wallen:"3
---I'll
bid 4
over a 3NT call from partner. Partner
should get a good picture of my hand.”
When
I show partner diamond support at the three-level and he bids 3NT, maybe you
don’t belong higher.
All
partner will know is that you have a good hand with diamond support.
Roman:”3
---An
excellent example of why I like to play 3
here as
forcing.”
Six
experts bid 3
.
If it were clear what 3
meant, 3
would be
a good bid. Even the experts are not
100% sure on whether it’s a splinter or natural. It’s not very good to make a bid that partner
might not understand in a constructive auction.
3
should be a splinter. Jumps when the lower bid is forcing are
splinters, showing shortness, trump support and interest in slam. But doesn’t 3
leads to
3NT when partner has
Kxx
KQ10
Axxxxx
x?
Cappelletti:”3
---Splinter.”
Parker:”3
---Splinter. If 3
shows
5-5 in the majors I just forgot another convention. I assume 4
is RKC
for Diamonds. I need to show my fit and
a good hand. If 3
is 5-5 I would bid 3
and hate it.”
Elster:”3
---Which
I believe is a splinter. If not I bid 3
. This hand will produce slam opposite lots of
minimums - so let's explore.”
Suppose
partner is on the wrong wavelength and thinks that 3
is natural and raises to 4
.
You must assume that 4
is some sort of diamond cuebid or diamond
RKC and bid accordingly.
Woolsey:”3
---Looks
like a model splinter to me. Of course 2
should be forcing, so 3
is a splinter.”
King:”3
---A
splinter. We could easily have a slam in
Diamonds and I need to show my shape to partner to get that message across.”
Schwartz:”3
---When
partner shows six trumps, my splinter should guarantee only three, but anyway
it’s the best way to investigate slam or the right game.”
4NT
as RKC Blackwood? If you want to be a
serious bridge player, you should learn to play Kickback where
one-over-the-trump-suit at the four-level asks for keycards. If spades are trumps, 4NT works
perfectly. If diamonds are trumps, 4
gives you the same room as 4NT does over 4
when
spades are trumps and you don’t get to slam off two keycards because partner’s
answer was too high. In this situation,
if partner has one keycard, he’ll respond 5
to 4NT
and you won’t be able to ask partner if he has the queen.
I
like the following bid. You’ll get to 6
if partner has at least two of the three missing keys and you’ll play in 5
if you’re off a keycard and the queen.
---RKC
for Diamonds. Second choice is 2
,
forcing, but most partners do not really get this bid so I avoid it without a
little something in Hearts. Wishing I
had a way to splinter, but I do not, so just take the practical approach. 2
also
risks getting raised to 3
, leaving me an ugly followup, including
losing kickback. 3
I really hate, because 3NT will be next and I will have no clue what to
do. 4
is
reasonable, but assumes Partner would make a better captain. 6
rates to
have a play.”
The point I want to make here is that 2
should be the artificial force here.
Over 2
,
responder can get a more natural response from opener while staying lower. If you can bid 2
as fourth suit forcing to game holding
AQJxx
x
Axx
Axxx
after 1
-1
-2
to find three-card spade support, then you can bid 2
as an artificial ask in this auction.

|
Expert / Problem |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Score |
John Adams
|
Pass
|
3NT
|
3 |
3 |
4 |
360
|
Mike Cappelletti
|
Pass
|
3NT
|
Pass
|
Dbl |
3 |
480 |
Marvin Elster
|
Pass
|
3NT
|
Pass
|
Dbl |
3 |
480 |
Robbie Hopkins
|
3NT
|
3NT
|
Pass
|
3 |
4NT |
370 |
Fred King
|
3NT
|
Dbl |
Pass
|
3 |
3 |
360 |
|
Glenn Lublin |
Pass
|
3NT
|
Pass |
Dbl |
3 |
440 |
Steve Parker
|
3NT
|
5 |
3 |
Dbl |
3 |
390 |
Steve Robinson
|
Pass
|
3 |
Dbl |
Dbl |
2 |
470
|
Jeff Roman
|
Pass
|
3NT
|
Dbl |
Pass
|
3 |
400 |
Alan Schwartz
|
3NT
|
3 |
Pass
|
Pass
|
3 |
420 |
Tim Wallen
|
3NT
|
Dbl |
Dbl |
Dbl |
3 |
370 |
|
Kit Woolsey |
3NT
|
3NT
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
3 |
440 |