Washington Bridge League Solver's Club  -  Nov/Dec 2004

Moderator: Steve Robinson    

Congratulations to Mark Chen and Elliot Itkin who tied for first with a score of 470. They win a free entry to the Unit Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Tied for third were David Rodney, Todd Zimnoch and Marvin Elster with a score of 460. Sixth was Lloyd Rawley and with a score of 450. Tied for seventh were Nikola Tcholakov, Joana Silva, Jay Latham, Fred Steinberg, Rick McDaniel, Sheryl McEwan, Larry Kahn and Larry Harding with a score of 440. Tied for fifteenth were Mike Deverin, Pat Klaus, Sonney Taragin, Tom Musso and Millard Nachtwey with a score of 430. Tied for twentieth were Tom Regan, Richard Wimberley, Yi Zhong, Kevin Barnes, Suzane Abrams, Irish Grandfield, Ken Kaufman, Jason Rosenfeld, Bill Bingham, Kent Goulding, Kathy Paramore, Rossi Lindstrom, Kenn Pendleton and Edith Black with a score of 420. The average score of the 173 solvers was 370. The average score of the experts was 421.

All readers are encouraged to send answers and/or new problems to Steve Robinson, 2891 S. Abingdon St. #A2 Arlington 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.

Parker: ”3---I have defense and don't want to arbitrarily save over 5or want partner to. If I bid 4, that does not show any defense. If partner has a good hand we can make 5 so I can bid 3 and let him decide the correct action. 3 is too weak a bid since I will not know what to do over 3to me.”

Schwartz:”3---Can't see bidding 3 with five-card support, and 4 with an ace and a king. Partner should be aware that I could have distribution for my bid.”

     Two experts make a simple raise. I like 3 much better than 4. You could then bid 4 if one of the opponents competed to 3. 3 shows some defense.

King:”3---My spade holding is a big minus. I will bid on to 4, but I expect both 5 and 4 to be down one.” 

            Cappelletti:”3---Since I have no singletons, I am not in a hurry to bid 5 and probably go minus. I'll listen and decide what to do later. I do have some defense.”

     Four experts preempt.

Chansky:”4---Bid what you think you can make. If I had a singleton I'd bid 5.”

Adams:”4---I would double, except I would then have to decide what to do over 4. This way I can give partner a voice. Should not play me for a terrible hand vulnerable.”

But he might play you for some more distribution.

Roman:”4---Then double if they bid 4. The problem with responsive double is that while it gets hearts into the game, a) partner will get the wrong idea about the nature of my hand and I commit myself to bidding 5 over 4 and b) if we do have a double club/heart fit, we'll never outbid them.”

Woolsey:”4---We have at least ten clubs and they have at least eight spades, so this is the right level to compete according to the law of total tricks. If they bid 4, partner can take over the decision making.”

But is partner going to know that you have an outside Ace and a King?

The next bid makes sense to me. Brings hearts in the picture just in case partner has four of them and ten tricks are easier to take than eleven tricks. If they bid 4 and partner wants to bid, he should bid 4NT rather then five-of-a-red suit.

Hopkins:”Double---I am going to make a Responsive Double in an attempt to play in Hearts. If we don't find a Heart fit, I hope to raise Clubs at my next turn in the auction.”

     Partner has shown a good heart raise and a diamond control. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that partner’s diamond control is shortness, probably a void. So what is AKx opposite shortness? Wasted values and defense. Parker suggests that partner could have AKxxxxQxxxxAx. With that hand he would have bid Keycard over 3. If partner has AKxxxxQxxx-KQx, he could bid 5 Exclusion Roman Keycard Blackwood (ERKB). ERKB, is a jump above RKC and it asks partner how many keycards he has outside of that suit. ERKB is a dangerous bid but works well when used correctly. If partner has AKxxxxQxxx-Axx, he could bid 5NT, the Grand Slam force asking you to bid seven if you have the AK of hearts or he could bid ERKB. Partner, therefore, has a hand that needs help in the black suits. He has a hand where Keycard, ERKC or the Grand Slam Force won’t help such as AQxxxQxxx-QJxx or AQxxxQxxx-KJxx. He has holes in the black suits. With the wasted AK of diamonds, you want to slow the auction down and doubling is the best way to accomplish that.

     Four experts make a forcing pass. This is supposed to let partner make the next decision. But partner doesn’t know that you don’t have any black Aces or black Kings. He also doesn’t know that the opponents cannot make 5. Would he double 5 holding QJ10xxQxxx-KQJx?

Hopkins: ”Pass---I am uncertain as to whether we should play or defend, so I remain neutral and let my partner contribute. We have a fair play for a grand opposite as little as AKxxxxxxx-Axxx and would be better off defending if partner has something like AKQJxQJxx-QJ9x.”

Adams: ”Pass---Forcing due to partners 4 bid. My AK of diamonds are good for club pitches in slam if partner does not double. Opponents might well have double fit. Since I do not know if doubling or bidding is right, I pass. If my diamonds were secondary (KQJ) I would double.”

    Actually 2created a force.

Roman: ”Pass---Forcing since I showed game forcing values. I'm driving this hand to 6, and partner may be able to bid a grand with AK of spades, four hearts and the Ace of clubs.”

Schwartz: ”Pass---Should have a black card for 6.”

     Three experts try for the grand. Slight overbid when you might not be able to make 5. If you can make 7, partner would have asked for keycards over 3.

Parker:”6---This should show solid hearts and first round Diamond control. All he needs isAKxxxxQxxxxAx to make a grand. He should bid it with that hand. If he does not have hearts then he must have solid spades, but my partners have hearts for that bid.”

King:”6---Where are the points in this hand? At least one of my diamond honors is probably wasted and maybe partner has something like KQJxxQJxx-KQJx, so I should pass and pull to show slam interest, but that seems too extreme a position to take. I will show my Diamond control and let partner bid seven if he has the black suits under control.”

Woolsey:”6---It's pretty hard to imagine a hand partner can hold where we don't have a decent play for a small slam, so I'm willing to commit to that. Partner will know that I am trying for a grand yet I am presumably off both black aces since I bypassed them both, so I must have something like this. If he has both black aces and a sufficient source of tricks, he should be able to bid the grand.”

     If he had both black aces and a sufficient source of tricks, he would have bid keycard.

     Two experts jump to slam. Sometimes when you jump to slam, the opponents believe you and save.

Cappelletti:”6---Doubling 5 is even less appealing with partner on lead. And there is no way to check for a grand.”

---Partner has void in diamonds and must have some hearts. No way to tell if he has the right cards, but 6

You have bid your hand when you bid 2, which is game forcing. Don’t bid the same values again. AKx opposite shortness are wasted values, which is where I came in.

     Holding strong diamonds behind East, this hand has defense. Double of 2NT shows defense against at least one of the opponent’s suits. If you double 2NT and West bids 3 and partner, with four or more clubs doubles it, they should be in hot water. If somehow, they land in diamonds, there could be a four-figure number on our side. If partner has AxxxxxxxxAKxx, we could be getting 500 against 3 and might not be able to make 4, losing two hearts and two spades. If LHO bids 3 and partner passes, you can cuebid to show a good 4 bid.

     Three experts agree with me and go for the throat.

King:”Double---Showing I have good defense against at least one of their suits and letting partner double clubs if he has that suit. There is too good a chance for a big pick up to let them off the hook with a 3 bid now.”

Adams: ”Double---Suits are breaking badly. If partner has Clubs, opponents are in trouble, and 4 not 100%. If partner does not double clubs, I can cuebid.”

 

Roman:”Double---First order of business is to see if partner can double the club bid that's coming. If not, I will bid 4 (or double 5).”

Three experts splinter. The lack of a fourth trump can be disastrous especially when trumps don’t figure to split well. 4 IS a slam try and you have a hand where you might not even make game. The Splinter sets spades as trumps and does not allow for getting to hearts when partner has four or five of them. 

Parker:”4---I lack a fourth spade but have a great hand and I can show my hand in one bid, so why not? Odds are that partner has some hearts but it is too hard to find them.”

Cappelletti:”4---This hand best described by splinter.”

Woolsey:”4---As usual, a splinter figures to be the best bid to help partner evaluate. He needs as little as AK10xxAJxxxxxx for slam to have decent play. Since he has room to cuebid if he is only worth a try, the splinter is fairly safe -- obviously I'm done after this. The lack of a fourth spade shouldn't make much difference.”

Three experts set trumps by bidding 3. This is the Unusual over Unusual convention where bidding the higher of the opponent’s suits (&)shows a limit raise or better in the higher of our possible two suits (&). In this case, since we have bid spades, 3 shows at least limit raise values with at least three-card support. 3 would show hearts, limit or better and since hearts haven’t been bid, would show at least five. 3 shows spade support with less than limit raise values. 3 shows a weak-two in hearts. Since 3 could be a three-card limit raise, partner is less likely to go overboard.

Chansky:”3---More important to show partner what you have than to hope for a big plus by doubling.”

Hopkins:”3---I think the advice is to bid to the limit of your hands before thinking of doubling the opponents. We could have a play for slam if partner has a hand such as:AKxxxAJxxxxxx.”

Schwartz:”3---OK, Ill bite. 4 would show four-card support and can’t see hiding the spade support.”

When you have a stack in one of the opponent’s suits, and only minimal support for partner give partner a chance to double the other suit.

---

Problem 4

Imps

Vul: Both

West dealt

South Holds - ---- - Q103 - J95 - AJ97654

The Bidding Thus Far South West North East ---- 4 Pass Pass ?????

The Panel's Votes Action Score Expert's