Washington Bridge League Solver's Club  -  May/Jun 2005

Moderator: Steve Robinson

Congratulations to Steve Bunning 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 Nikola Tcholakov, Gail Zamboni, Rex Settle, John Montgomery and Kieran Dyke who tied for second with a score of 480.  Tied for seventh were Josh Sher, Gerald Lerner, Ravi Arulnandhy and Ivan Feit with a score of 460.  Tied for eleventh were John Ferman and Rick Bingham with a score of 450.  Tied for thirteenth were Robert Bencker, Arnold Kling, Peter Lo, Walter Beckerman, Bogdan Mitran, Arnie Frankel and John Lawrence with a score of 440.  Tied for twentieth were Chuck Yaple, Jason Rosenfeld, Robert Boorman, Victor Cohen, Donia Steele, Lee Bauer, Catalin Doras and Randy Thompson with a score of 430.  Tied for twenty-eighth were Ben Stauss, Barbara Pohl, Nourggie Bauer and Peter Whipple with a score of 420.  Tied for thirty-second were Barry Bragin, Hal Hindman, Ram Sarangen, Rick Uhrig, Leon Letwin, Jose Cortina and David Chechelashvili with a score of 410.  The average score of the 262 solvers was 294. The average score of the experts was 409.

I personally score all the problems. If a majority of the solvers vote for an answer, and the answer is reasonable I will give that answer 100 points. I will not give 100 points to an answer that I consider bad no matter how many experts vote for it. There are times when I want to make a point. I will give that answer 100 points and will therefore give the majority answer 90 points. For the other answers I consider how good the answer is and how many experts vote for it for its score. If you submitted an answer that got 20 points, that bid would get a bad score at the table. A good exercise would be to figure out why I gave your answer 20 points. You might have misread the problem.

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, at tournaments or can send him a check for $28.85 that includes $3.85 for priority mail

This could have been a two-part problem. What do you do now and what do you do when the opponents bid 5? East’s 2-bid showed a limit raise or better with diamond support. The opponents might not have many HCPs, but they probably have distributional points which means they are not going to let you play in four-of-a-major. You want to make a bid now, which will make your five-level decision easier. Even though you have three-card heart support, this hand will not play well in hearts unless partner has at least six hearts. The key to the hand is the spade suit but if you play in hearts you may not be able to get to dummy and all the spades will go down the drain. You want to strongly suggest that spades be trump. With spades as trump, most of your spades will score. You want to tell partner that spades should be trump unless he has extra hearts? 2 won’t do the trick. 2 can be bid with a weak five-card suit. You should bid at least 3. 3 or even 4 suggests at least six spades and if you then support hearts, partner will know that you have long spades and minimum heart support.

I like 3. 3 shows at least six spades, probably seven. 3 does not promise a heart fit but most hands would have one. 3 is better than 4 because it allows West to describe his hand at the four-level and more important, it allows partner to possibly show or deny spade support and show or deny good hearts at the four-level.  

    One expert agrees with me and bids 3.

Chip King: ”3---Partner has nine points at most. Only a perfect placement of cards would enable 4 to make. I want to close out the bidding space before opponents find both minors. Partner always has the opportunity to bid 4 if his hand has that potential, and he will push for game if at all possible.”

    Three experts jump to 4. Over 4 the next bid will probably be 5. They plan on bidding five over five, which is usually a losing action. At least partner knows that you have lots of spades.

Cappelletti: ”4---Planning to bid 5 over five-of-a-minor.  If partner has only five hearts, he may take no spade tricks in my hand with hearts as trumps.”

Parker: ”4---Not that I expect it to go all pass, but this way I can bid 5 over 5 or pass if partner doubles. These types of hands play terrible in hearts if partner has two spades, but will play great in Spades.”

Schwartz: ”4---In most hands, spades will play at least as well as hearts and I won't have the room to explore anyway.”

Three experts bid 2.

Woolsey: ”2---I think it is best to take this hand slowly. If I do something like bid 4 and one of the opponents bids 5, I won't have the slightest idea what to do. With my approach I find out what the opponents think they can make, and maybe I'll get some more input from partner like a raise or a heart rebid. This information will help me with my future decision.”

Woolsey has a good point. You’ll need help later in the auction, but you want to make it easier for partner to support spades. 3 is more likely to get partner’s help.

Hopkins: ”2---I am going to bid what I have followed by a Heart raise later.”

Roman: ”2---In my favorite methods 3 would be fit-showing and I would bid that, but if memory serves our moderator would call 3 a preempt.”

Actually I play that 3 is natural and shows a very good but non-forcing hand.

Three experts ignore their seven-card spade suit. One expert splinters. Splinters show four-card support and this hand will usually play badly in hearts.

Adams: ”4---If I thought 3 were fit showing, I would bid that. With some partners it is, but in Washington Standard it is natural and highly invitational but weak if we are opening side. Expect opponents to bid 5, and need to have shown support.”

Wingfield: ”4---Since you have a heart fit, you probably have game if partner has at least ten HCPs. You are not vulnerable, get to game quickly.”

Landen: ”3---I don't expect this hand to play very well thus I will take the low road. Suits are breaking badly and partner may not be able to use the spades effectively.”

When you have a seven-card suit, make a strong attempt to make that suit trump.

Your hand increased in value ten-fold. If partner holds KQxx-AQxxxAxxx, 6 will make more often than not. How do you tell partner that he has struck gold? I like the bid invented by Lou Bluhm called the Bluhmer. A Bluhmer is a jump in a suit that you have bid once and later made a bid that denies length in that suit. In this case, bidding 1NT denies a good heart suit. The Bluhmer, a jump to 3, shows that you have nothing wasted hearts. You have four or five little hearts. Since partner’s bidding shows shortness in hearts, a jump in hearts can’t possibly be natural and therefore must show club support, along with four or five little hearts. A Bluhmer doesn’t have to be made opposite shortness.      

One expert agrees with me and makes a super Bluhmer. 3 is enough. Over 3, you can still force to 5. 3 allows partner to bid 4 to show a minimum, bid 4 to show a heart void, bid 3, the Last Train, or ask for keycards by either bidding 4, Kickback, or 4NT RKC.

Landen:”4---A Bluhmer. As I can't want to play 4 after rebidding 1NT, this bid says I have nothing in hearts opposite partner's shortness and a huge hand in support of clubs. Envision Qxxx-AQxxxAKxx and slam is virtually cold. If playing with someone that might not understand a 4 bid I would settle for at least 4.”

One expert invents a bid. I wouldn’t figure out what 2 meant. Couldn’t 2 show Axxx?

Schwartz: ”2---A negative cue bid. An expert partner should be able to work this out, but I wouldn't chance it in a casual partnership.”

The rest of the experts make natural club raises, ranging from three to six.

Three experts jump to 4. 4, while showing strength, is non-forcing. 

Cappelletti: ”4---Partner should have better than minimum hand to bid over 1NT and my hand has great working values.”

Adams: ”4---Corollary to last months 4x1. Hand definitely gets better. Still prefer passing 1NT with 4144. 3 is just a courtesy raise, 4 shows a super maximum and lets partner take next step to game or slam.”

Roman: ”4---The correct bid is actually 3, but I wouldn't bid it unless I was playing with an expert. Impossible bids like this say "my hand just turned to gold", and this hand certainly just did. Meanwhile, 4 must show five since partner might have three, and I've bid beyond 3NT so partner might intuit that my strength likely isn't in hearts.”

Roman mentions the Bluhmer.

One expert tries slam. Can’t opener have KQJx-AQxxxQxxx? Try making slam off AK of trumps.

Parker: ”6---I could not have better working cards, so why torture partner by bidding some lower number of clubs. I first wanted to bid 4 then 5, but partner must be 4054. All he needs is Kxxx-AxxxxKQxx and we have a great play for a slam. Give him the diamond Queen and we are laydown.”

Three experts bid game. I expect to make 5 or at least have good play.

Woolsey: ”5---My hand just got huge. I think we are more likely to have a slam than go down in game, but I'm nervous about any slow approach with all suits having been bid naturally. Partner will know I have to have something like this to bid only 1NT and then jump to 5, so with the right hand he might be able to bid slam himself.”

Hopkins: ”5---Well, for once my Heart suit is perfect for the auction. Partner knows my HCP range and should guess I have two critical cards for him. There might even be slam if partner has a good 4144 or 4054 instead of a minimum. I wonder if 4 should be Kickback in a situation such as this?”

Chip King: ”5---Partner invites game after I showed limited values. Since I'm at the top of my bid, and partner can have no more than one heart, I accept his game try.”

One expert makes a wimpy bid.

Wingfield: ”3---Partner probably has the 4441 hand, and clubs is your only fit. Partner can pass or bid on with extra values.”

Add the Bluhmer to your bidding tools.