|
|
ACBL Unit 147 |
|
Washington Bridge League |
||
| Dick Wegman, President |
||
|
Don Berman, Web Master |
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
|
Problem 1 |
Imps |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
---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.
---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.
|
Problem 2 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
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
-
AQxxx
AKxx 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.”
![]()
![]()
Cappelletti: ”4
---Partner should have better than minimum hand
to bid over 1NT and my hand has great working values.”
---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
-
AQxxx
Qxxx? 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
-
Axxxx
KQxx
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.”
---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.
|
Problem 3 |
Imps |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You want to play in spades only if partner
has four spades. If partner does not have four spades, you want to play in
clubs. How do you accomplish this? There are two ways. One is to cuebid.
Cuebids generally mean that you’re not sure which strain you belong in. Over 3
, if partner has four spades
he will bid them. If he doesn’t bid spades, you can bid clubs. However, cuebids
show strength. If West bids, partner might not bid spades with a bad hand. The
second is to bid 3
and then
follow with 4
. Since
you bid clubs, a minor, first, your clubs must be much longer than your spades.
What you can’t do is bid spades first. If you bid spades first and the
opponents compete, you won’t have any idea how many spades partner has. This is
one time when you can violate the rule about bidding majors before minors when
partner makes a takeout double. When 3
is forcing, you’ll get a
chance to bid spades later. I don’t mean that 3
is a forcing bid, I can’t
see any layout of the cards where 3
would end the auction.
Five experts agree with me and bid 3
.
Cappelletti: ”3
---Then back in with spades over three or four of
red suit.”
Landen: ”3
---I must bid with this and maybe should bid 4
, but if, after
bidding 3
partner supports me I can now decide whether to introduce spades
over their red suit bids.”
Woolsey: ”3
---There will be
more bidding, and I will have a chance to bid spades on my next turn.”
---I want to get my long suit in and later I will try Spades
probably at the four-level.”
---I expect I will get to bid spades next at
the four or five-level. In the rare chance the opponents pass, they get me. 4
I might
actually play. 5
will get me to 5
, and I'd rather buy this for 4
if possible.
Partner has to be really strong for slam to make, and he will get the chance to
show strength if I keep bidding low.”
Two
experts bid 3
. 3
shows strength. You don’t want partner to double the opponents
based upon your non-existent defensive strength. If you bid 3
and partner
doubles the opponents, he’s doubling on his defensive strength.
Parker: ”3
---This allows
partner to bid a four-card spade suit if he has one. If not we will play in
clubs. No sense in bidding spades now since I can put partner back in the
picture with a cuebid.”
Schwartz: ”3
---Partner
should figure I can't have HCPs and it seems imperative to get partner to play
the hand if he has spades. With partner having some club length he should be
able to handle the dummy being tapped.”
There’s
no reason why you couldn’t have the best hand at the table. Ten for opener, ten
for partner, eight for
Chip
King: ”4
---Partner has 11 or 12 points and most likely four
spades. If the opponent bids 4
, I am prepared to try 4
.”
Roman: ”4
---If I get the chance I will certainly bid 4
, but if the
opponents are about to bid 5
, I'd better show the nature of my hand now.”
I
don’t see the need to jump in clubs other than to preempt. While partner often
has clubs, he’s allowed to make an offshape takeout double holding both majors.
Wingfield: ”5
---Jump quickly
to 5
where you have an 11-card fit. Yes, you have eight spades
between you but if you bid 4
, they might bid 5
or 5
and you miss your 5
-bid. Bidding
5
first, however gives you more favorable options.”
Long suits give the opponents
distributional points. Therefore, you can bid a long suit at a low level
knowing that you’ll get another chance.
|
Problem 4 |
Imps |
Vul: NS |
East dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What do various spade
bids mean? 3
says
that you would like to have bid 2
but that ### opponent
opened 3
. That’s
why preempts work. 4
says
that you think you can make 4
opposite
a hand that would pass a 3
-overcall.
5
says
that you can probably make 4
but will
have play for six if partner has his share of the missing strength. There are
16 missing minor suit HCPs and if partner club values, slam will make. 5
does not ask partner to bid
a slam with second round heart control. 5
shows a ten or eleven trick
hand and asks partner to bid six of he has something. 5
is quantitative. If partner
has KJxx of clubs and a few spades, you should easily make 6
. If he has a fifth club,
you could make seven. However, if his KQJ of a minor is in diamonds, you might
not make 4
but
could make 6
if LHO
leads his ace of diamonds.
I
think bidding 6
is much better then bidding a wimpy 4
.
Parker: ”6
---Once
again why torture partner when there is no practical way to find out what he
has. When there is no easy way to describe a hand, just bid what you think you
can make.”
Four experts jump to 4
.
Wouldn’t you jump to 4
if
your hearts were two little? A direct 4
shows good spades and guarantees
that you will play in spades.
---Too strong for this bid, but eliminates
strain issues. Doubling then bidding 4
ought to show tolerance for partner to
correct. I'd try 5
, but partner can't really know which cards are good. 6
is tempting,
but random.”
Chip
King: ”4
---Odds strongly favor making, if partner has any values at all,
and it closes out the bidding space.”
---I'm heavy for
this action, but I really would rather play in my seven-card suit as opposed to
something like a 4-4 Club fit. It is very hard to correctly navigate
towards slam in the face of an opposing preempt, so I'm not going to try and
risk misunderstandings.”
Schwartz: ”4
---An underbid
with all those controls, but no other bid appeals. 5
should ask for
something in particular as partner doesn't know what cards would be fitting. I
might bid 4
with an understanding partner.”
Wingfield: ”3
---Overcall 3
, you have 17
HCP, nice distribution. Invite partner to bid four with some values.”
Four
experts double. The problem with doubling and bidding spades, assuming it
doesn’t go all pass, is that partner will not play you for seven almost solid
spades. I expect that sequence to show five spades or six bad spades. Change
your hand to
AKQxx
Ax
Axx
Kxx and you want partner to run from 4
if he has short
spades and a long minor.
Cappelletti: ”Double---Then bid spades – this hand is too good for mere
jump to 4
.”
Jumping
to 5
shows a hand that is too good for a mere jump to 4
.
Landen: ”Double---And later bid 4
unless partner
shows strength. This hand is too strong to simply jump to 4
.”
Woolsey: ”Double---This
probably won't help, but maybe I'll find out something of value. It can't be
worse than guessing how many spades to bid outright. Who knows -- on a good
day, partner will respond 5
.”
On
a bad day partner has
xxx
Q10xx
xxx
Kxx and passes your takeout double.
Roman: ”Double---Jumping to 4
shows a good hand, but it's not enough with
this moose.”
Jumping
to 5
shows this moose.
When
you hold a long solid major, make a quantitative bid.
|
Problem 5 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three choices. A natural 2NT, a natural 3
or pass for penalties. If
the opponents were vulnerable, it would make more sense to pass for penalties
but if they take seven tricks then +100 could be a bad score. If LHO has six
spades, he could easily take all of six spades plus whatever tricks dummy has.
Dummy’s club and heart honors will be onsides for declarer. I like 3
, which is where I live.
They might even compete to 3
.
Four
experts agree with me and bid their suit.
Parker: ”3
---My spades are
not strong enough to pass and I have a good four-card suit so why not bid it?
Same bid I would make playing Lebensohl. Maybe they’ll bid on and then I can
double.”
Landen: ”3
---My guess but pass may well be the winner. It would help
to know LHO's weak-two style.”
---I think this is more than enough. The Spade position is
not friendly for suit play, I don't have five+ trumps, and I have no singletons
so I am being conservative for now. If partner shows a good hand, I will
cooperate.”
Schwartz: ”3
---Tempting to
pass but if partner doesn't have a Spade honor they should have six spade
tricks (an easy coup) so +300 might be hard to attain particularly if partner
doesn’t have a clear lead.”
Two experts bid 2NT. You have a tenuous
spade stopper, and other than two diamond tricks you have no source of tricks
and no help for partner’s clubs and or hearts. A natural 2NT should show around
ten points.
Cappelletti: ”2NT---Shows some values and partner might have stiff
spade honor. Passing 2
doubled could result in a one-trick set or even a make.”
Chip
King: ”2NT---West isn't solid in spades, or he would be too strong for a 2
opener. I
want to compete, and 2NT suggests a spade stopper and opens the
possibility of a 3NT contract.”
Four
experts pass for penalties. If I held
x
KJxx
QJxx
KJxx, I would double 2
and they might
take ten tricks in 2
doubled. Partner’s club and heart honors are onsides for
declarer. There are other problems with passing even assuming partner does not
have five diamonds. Partner has to lead and unless he leads a diamond, he could
blow a trick. If you pass with this hand, partner might be hesitant about
making light takeout doubles.
Woolsey: ”Pass---If
I had any reason to think that 3
would lead to the right contract I would bid
that, but that might turn out badly. If partner has a stiff spade honor he is
likely to score it when declarer takes a losing finesse, and we could take a
lot of tricks here.”
Roman: ”Pass---I'm not sure what pass means when not playing Lebensohl, but
I'm going to try it here.”
Wingfield: ”Pass---Convert
partner's double to penalties.”
If
it’s close between doubling the opponents and bidding a suit, think about the
opening lead problem.
John Adams 4
4
3
4
Pass 420
Mike Cappelletti 4
4
3
Dbl 2NT 400
Robbie Hopkins 2
4
3
4
3
460
Chip King 3
5
4
4
2NT
390
Steve Landen 3
4
3
Dbl 3
430
Steve Parker 4
6
3
6
3
400
Steve Robinson 3
3
3
5
3
480
Jeff Roman 2
4
4
Dbl Pass 380
Alan
Schwartz 4
2
3
4
3
430
Patti Wingfield 4
5
5
3
Pass
290
Kit Woolsey 2
5
3
Dbl Pass
420