Washington Bridge League Solver's Club  -  Jan/Feb 2004

Moderator: Steve Robinson

     Congratulations to Peter Gray 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 Victor Cohen, Jennifer Lin, Todd Zimnoch, Bill Wade, David Wakefield, Mike Henderson, Richard Wimberley, Kenn Pendleton, Ruth Cohen, Irving Weinstein, Marc Umeno and Bill Martin with a score of 470. Tied for fourteenth were Stuart Sessions, Mike Kovacich and Robert Spencer with a score of 460. Tied for seventeenth were Mike Richey and Kieran Dyke with a score of 450. Tied for nineteenth were, Lloyd Rawley, Hailong Ao, Mike Zane, Ron Daringer, Natalie Aronsohn, Tony Graziano, Richard Allison, and Rick Bingham with a score of 440. Tied for twenty-seventh were Fred Steinberg, Jake Hudson, Ken Berg, Rick Eissenstat, Ravi Arulandhy and Forrest Swope with a score of 430. Tied for thirty-third were Michael Lutz, Gail Adams, Betsy Wilson, Mary Mudd, Chris Marks, Lynn Connelly, Eric Branfman, Patti Wingfield, Dennis Faber, Tom Fukawa, Terry Jones, Brian Childers and John Ferman with a score of 420. The average score of the 263 solvers was 345.  The average score of the experts was 426.

     All readers are encouraged to send answers and/or new problems to Steve Robinson, 2891 S. Abingdon St. #A2 Arlington, VA, 22206.  In addition to the winner receiving a free play at the WBL Unit Game, Steve will play with anyone who gets a perfect score or who exactly matches all five of his answers.  If you send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the above address along with your answers, Steve will send you a copy of the new problems to ensure that you can meet his next deadline.  You can pick up a copy of the problems at the WBL Unit Game in Maryland, and can send answers or requests for problems to robinswr@erols.com.  WBL Solvers Club uses Washington Standard as published July 1996.

     The book Washington Standard second edition is out.  If you are a serious bridge player, this book is a must.  You can purchase a copy from Steve for $25.00 at the Unit Game and at tournaments or can send him a check for $28.95 that includes $3.95 for priority mail.

     A jump to 3 shows 16 to 18 HCPs with at least six spades. But is this hand worth 3? Five experts say no. Change the King of clubs to the Jack of spades and I would bid 3.  Make the King of clubs the King of spades and I would bid 4. In this hand, the King of clubs might be worthless. This hand will not play well in spades if partner has fewer than two spades.

     Four experts agree with me and think this hand is not a 3-bid. If you’re not going to bid 3, what is the alternative? Two experts agree with me and bid 2. There are at least two advantages of bidding 2. Usually when partner holds two spades, he will take a preference to 2. The only time partner passes 2 is when he holds fewer than two spades. When partner holds fewer than two spades, 2 might play better than 3. Playing in spades could be a disaster if partner is void. Another advantage of bidding 2 is that 2 makes it easier for partner to bid hearts when he holds five or more. xKQJxxJxxQxxx for instance.       

     Let’s hear from the four experts agreeing with me that 3 is the wrong bid for this hand.

Roman: ”2---Going slow with a flexible hand, we could easily belong in hearts or diamonds. Those spades are too frail a basket to put all of our eggs in.”

Schwartz: ”2---Most flexible as it leaves room for investigating hearts. If I rebid 3 and partner passes, I rate to go minus opposite a stiff.”

     Another way of avoiding a bad spade fit is to bid 2NT. 2NT is my second choice on this hand. 

Parker: ”2NT---Shows the top of a strong notrump with five spades. Partner can bid a suit if he is weak or take a spade preference. Not good enough for 3NT and too much on the outside to bid 3.”

A strange way of avoiding a bad spade fit is to bid 2. Not going to be happy if partner passes 2.

Adams: ”2---Spades not good enough for direct 3, buy time with Bart 2. Technically 2 shows two or more, but what the heck. Hearts could easily be right.”

Four experts jump in spades.

Woolsey: ”3---This is about right on strength. I'd like a better suit, but it's an imperfect world. Partner is allowed to do the right thing knowing that I have six spades. Any other call is more of a distortion.”

Cappelletti: ”3---Book bid - and spades might play better than notrump.”

And spades might play worse.

Hopkins: ”3---About right on values. Partner can pay particular attention to his values (or lack thereof) in the Spade suit.”

     As a partner, I’d be more likely to look at my outside strength. I expect partner to have a good spade suit. 

Fred King: ”3---The suit quality is not great, but I think the hand is more suited for suit play than notrump and bidding 2NT with a singleton could be a real problem. 2 could work out well and might be the bid most likely to protect the plus score--key at matchpoints, but seems a large underbid.”

Bidding 2 is only a disaster when partner passes it, would have bid game over 3, and game is cold.

     When you open 1 or 1 and partner responds 1NT, consider how well your major will play opposite a singleton before jumping to three-of-your-major. If you have a weak major, consider bidding two-of-a-minor instead. Bidding two-of-a-minor will help you avoid playing bad 6-1 or 6-0 fits. 

     A jump to 3 shows 16-18 HCPs with at least six diamonds. However, 3 is non-forcing. What do you bid when you have a hand that is too strong to jump to 3?  Invent a forcing bid such as a jump shift or a reverse. If one is going to jump shift in a suit with fewer than four cards in it (called invent), one should jump shift in a suit that is lower than your real suit. 3 is safe because you can correct any club bid to diamonds and stay at the same level even at the seven-level. Reversing into suits with fewer than four cards has the same problem. If partner had responded 1, you could reverse into a three-card heart suit, when you hold three spades, since if partner has four hearts, he must have five spades. 3, is flexible enough to allow you to get to 4 when partner has five, get to a slam when partner has strength, or get to 3NT when partner has a average balanced hand. If partner has four clubs, he thinks about playing in clubs but his first thought is to play in 3NT. Bidding 3 could stop a damaging club lead against 3NT. If partner raises clubs, you can always go back to diamonds showing that your club bid might not be real.  

     Four experts jump in a red suit with one expert jumping in hearts. Jumping in hearts means that you will play in hearts no matter how bad or how good partner’s hearts are. Similar to bidding a three-card spade suit and finding partner with four spades. Aren’t you going to be sick if partner keycards over 3?   

Woolsey: ”3---Rebidding a three-card suit is not part of my vocabulary. The choice is between 3 and 3. Both have obvious flaws. 3 may miss a 5-3 heart fit, while 3 may get us to a 4-3 heart fit. At least a 4-3 heart fit might survive, while missing a 5-3 heart fit almost certainly won't survive.  This hand illustrates how important a convention such as Cole can be.”

But is jump raising in a three-card suit part of your vocabulary? I can see jump raising a five-card major with only three. 

Three experts jump in diamonds, a slight underbid. Jumping in diamonds will tend to bury the heart suit. Give partner Q10xKQxxxxxQxx and he’ll bid 3NT over 3. Give partner QxxKxxxxxxxxx and he’ll pass 3.

Hopkins: ”3---You hope for partner to bid three-of-a-major and pray for a Club stopper if he bids 3NT.”

Roman: ”3---See partner? I'm not ALWAYS minimum for my bidding. This hand is the poster-child for playing that 2NT here shows a big 3-rebid, possibly with three-card support for partner's major.”

     If 2NT shows a diamond rebid, what do you do with 18-19 balanced?

Adams: ”3---Unlucky that Washington Standard does not include Cole, or I could bid a singleton twice in a row.”

Cole is a convention where you can rebid 2, a forcing bid with a lot of options, and over partner’s 2 relay, you can bid 2 showing three hearts with at least 15 HCPs.

Four experts bid spades. Bidding spades will lead to a spade contract if partner has four spades. If partner holds JxxxKQxxxQJxx he will raise spades and continue supporting spades no matter what you bid next. There is no way that partner is going to allow you to play 3NT or 4 when he holds four spades. However, if partner doesn’t have four spades, you’ll probably get to the right strain assuming he bids again.    

Two experts guarantee that partner will bid again.

Schwartz: ”2---Opposite partner’s heart response this hand is worth a game force. Although I hate jump shifting into the higher ranking major, jump shifting into clubs is even worse. How can partner bid correctly after I show my hearts later? I can stomach an underbid of 3 if my hearts weren't so strong as 3 could cause us to miss a 5-3 fit. Rebidding 1 won't solve my problems as I will have to jump the next round to show my strength and still won't be able to show both my red suits adequately.”

Parker: ”2---I don't want to bid 3 and miss our possible heart fit. I don't want to raise hearts on three with this good a hand. If I bid 1 partner can pass and I can never show this good a hand over a 1NT bid by him. Over 2 I can handle any bid even a spade raise.”

     What are you going to do if partner jumps to 4?

Two experts make a non-forcing bid. But, what if he passes 1? Give partner KxxKxxxxxxxxx and you’ll play in 1.

Cappelletti: ”1---Let's hear more from partner. If he raises spades, I'll go back to hearts.”

And he’ll go back to spades since your heart bid will be a cue bid in support of spades.

Fred King: ”1---If I survive this bid I should be all right. There is no right answer to this old chestnut except 2--Cole or to be playing a forcing club system. 3