Washington Bridge League Solver's Club  -  May/Jun 2004

Moderator: Steve Robinson

      Congratulations to Jim Creech and Razvan Spiridones who tied for first with a score of 480. They win a free entry to the Unit Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Tied for third were Charity Sack, Pete Whipple, Chuck Yaple, Jeff Pastaner, Curtis Bare and Don McCarthy with a score of 470. Tied for ninth were Yi Zhong, Dave Smith and Joe Lentz with a score of 460. Tied for twelfth were Walter Beckerman, Donna Rogall, Rick Eissenstat, Ellen Cherniavsky and Don Berman with a score of 450. Tied for seventeenth were Alan Kravetz, Brad Theurer, Barry Bragin, Rob Graves, Helen Solomon, Rich Uhrig, Enid Asherman and David Walker with a score of 440. Tied for twenty-fifth were Al Duncker, Nikola Tcholakov, Mike Zane, David Chechelashvili, Randy Thompson, Marvin Elster and Sonney Taragin with a score of 430. Tied for thirty-second were Tim Wright, Linda Gaylor, Monique Smith, Robert Cohen, Steven Ivins, Jean Franke, Barbara Israel, Barbara Summers, Leon Letwin, Lyle Poe and Jeff Kosnett with a score of 420. The average score of the 265 solvers was 353. The average score of the experts was 412.

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.

     The opponents have at least nine hearts since partner did not make a negative double. If your partner bids 1NT in this situation when holding four hearts, it gives a distorted view of his hand. Give the 1NT bidder a normal eight-point hand such as KJxJxxQxxxJxx. 1NT makes only eight tricks for +120 if hearts are evenly divided 5-4 but diamonds will usually make ten tricks for +130. Change the jack of clubs to the queen and 5 will be on a finesse and on good breaks. Bids in competition do not have to be as strong as constructive bids since it’s important to be able to compete. You have to be able to follow the Law which means that you shouldn’t let the opponents play at a low level. Partner should take competitive free bids, even reverses, with a grain of salt. Also, partner can’t do too much since his hand is limited to ten HCPs.

     Six experts agree with me and show their second suit.

Woolsey: ”2---We aren't playing in notrump with a stiff heart after partner doesn't make a negative double. I have great playing value for either minor if we have a good fit, and partner will know whether or not we have a good fit when I describe my hand.”

Adams: ”2---Unless partner has five spades, we have a minor suit fit. The opponents have hearts, and I have a good hand, so I must find a way to compete. With my extras, I might worry about what to do later, but this bid seems clear. I dislike 2. It shows values, but nothing about my hand.”

Stone: ”2---I have a slight complaint about this problem insofar as an opening bid of 1 would seem far superior to 1. Having opened 1, however, I’m really locked into reversing with 2♦, a slight overbid, but otherwise reasonably accurate. Partner should be able to make an intelligent response based on his holding, particularly in hearts, and should not play this reverse as necessarily game forcing. But we might be able to bid and make game in notrump opposite QxxKQxQxxxxxx or in diamonds opposite Kxxxxx♦QxxxxKx or in clubs opposite Kxxxxx♦QJxKxxx. 2 is an inferior bid insofar as it doesn’t get diamonds into play and eliminates notrump even when it’s right to play notrump. The only reasonable alternative, I think, is pass, but pass is an unnecessary crapshoot and is likely to lose in the play (I know that the opponents have at least a nine-card heart fit and that East will be leading one) and may lose in the bidding if the opponents compete in hearts.”

There is something to be said about opening 1 but if you think this hand is worth a reverse, you should open 1.

Parker: ”2---Partner does not have four hearts so the opponents should lead them. I will bid out my shape and let partner decide on the best level and fit. My hand qualifies for a reverse with all the primes. If he bids 3, do I promise a rebid? I think not and will pass.”

Schwartz: ”2---I guess this person thought the hand was worth a reverse, that’s why it was opened with 1. I would open 1, so I have to follow through. I hope to play in three-of-a-minor. Only if partner bids 3NT am I in trouble and maybe hearts are 6-3 with no entry then.”

Hopkins: ”2---I am going to give partner a picture of my hand and hope we can work out a reasonable strain and level. Partner could have anything from KJxxxxQxxxxKx where 6 has a play to Q10xxKQ10JxxJxx where even 2NT is in jeopardy.”

Three experts pass. They are dreaming if 1NT gets passed out. If West bids 2 and East raises, diamonds will never be brought into the picture.

Cappelletti: ”Pass---Game is possible but unlikely, unless partner has great minor fit. Note that a 2 reverse would probably result in having three opponents at the table instead of two. And 1NT might well produce a better matchpoint score than playing in a minor, 120 to 110. But, in view of partner's not making a negative double, I expect West to reopen, probably with 2, which if passed around to me, I would then bid 2NT which should give us best chance to get to the right spot. If opponents compete to 3, I must certainly double which might help partner's heart holding.”

Roman: ”Pass---When they bid 2, I'll balance with 2NT, showing clubs and diamonds. I would've opened 1.”

Lerner: ”Pass---2 is ugly especially if partner is 3352 and will get RHO to bid the six-card heart suit. 1NT making one or two seems the best place for a good matchpoint score.”

One expert shows a singleton heart I hope but it does show a game forcing hand. It also allows West to show his hearts by doubling. 

Lublin: ”3---Partner should get message and place final contract.”

The following bid could be a good save and will probably shut out the heart suit.

King: ”2NT:---I’m mostly concerned with making it as difficult as possible for West to introduce the heart suit where they seem to have at least a nine-card.”

Again the opponents have at least nine hearts and the question is how many hearts can they make. The best matchpoint strategy is to jump directly to 5. This will very likely shut out the heart suit since the opponents have to introduce them at the five-level. If 5 is going down, jumping directly to 5 could allow you to buy the contract undoubled. After all, neither West nor East will know whose hand it is.

Four experts agree with me and make the practical bid.

Adams: ”5---Hard to imagine passing over 4, so must give opponents a guess. Might make also.”

Stone: ”5---This problem bears a resemblance to the previous one in that the opponents apparently have an undisclosed nine+ card heart fit. But that is not a certainty here, since partner might have chosen to preempt at this vulnerability with something like xQxxxxJxxxxxx. The problem is that I can’t play for that, and even if that were the case, I may have no defense against 4 if West has six spades. Whether 5 will make depends on what partner holds in clubs, so it might be tempting to temporize with 4. But if partner has nothing in clubs, what confident defense do I have against my opponent’s game? And 4 would make it much easier for West to get in with double or 4. No, it must be right to follow my (and probably everyone else’s) first instinct and blast to 5.”

Roman: ”5---This might not make, but I'll bid it now instead of over 4.”

Lublin: ”5---Two-way action. May make or they make 4.”

Four experts make game tries. The problem is that it allows West to introduce hearts at the four-level.

Cappelletti: ”4---Game try.”

Parker: ”4---We have ten diamonds and need to be at the four-level at least. Once again the opponents have nine or more hearts and have not yet bid them. No sense in letting them in at the three-level. Partner may have xxxxxxxxxAJxx and we should make 5 which he will bid. If he has values in hearts we will settle in 4.”

Hopkins: ”4---Partner needs as little as xxxx10xxxxKxxx to give me essentially a 50% shot at game. I mean 4 as a game try and will hope partner reads it and reacts accordingly.”

Schwartz: ”3---Club king and stiff spade is enough for decent game, but more likely will get to 4 and should shut out hearts.”

King: ”4---Again I want to make it more difficult for West to introduce hearts.”

Two experts pass. Just like the previous hand, you’re in a dream world if you think that hearts are not going to be bid.

Woolsey: ”Pass---Weak means weak. The bad guys probably have a heart fit, but that doesn't mean they will find it.  I'll bet we steal the pot right here.”

Lerner: ”Pass---A stiff spade, club honor and five trumps is too much to expect. Take the plus.”

When you know the opponents have a good fit, make it difficult for them to find it. They will find it eight times out of ten if you put your head in the sand.