|
|
ACBL Unit 147 |
|
Washington Bridge League |
||
| Dick Wegman, President |
||
|
Don Berman, Web Master |
Washington Bridge League Solver's Club - Sep/Oct 2005
Moderator: Steve Robinson
Congratulations to Mark Steele and John Miller who tied for first with a score of 490. They win a free entry to the Unit Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Tied for third were Richard Ferrin, Steve Bunning, Elliot Grant, Tom Musso, Noble Shore, Larry Kahn, Robert Stone, Brad Theurer, Ashok Dhareshwar and Ken Kaufman with a score of 480. Tied for thirteenth were Wes Goldberg and Don Berman with a score of 470. Fifteenth was John Lawrence and with a score of 460. Tied for sixteenth were Natalie Aronsohn, Lloyd Rawley, Ben Stauss and Jean Franke with a score of 450. Tied for twentieth were Elliot Itkin, Bruce Kretchmer, Pete Hughes, Clyde Kruskal, David Chechelashvali, Marshall Kuschner and Fred Steinberg with a score of 440. Tied for twenty-seventh were Zbych Bednarek, Steve Carton, Fred Wagner, Walter Kerns, Ellen Cherniavski, Mike Berard and Jim Murphy with a score of 430. The average score of the 184 solvers was 368. The average score of the experts was 424.
Addenda--Zbych Bednarek 430 on my last contest.
All readers are encouraged to send answers and/or new problems to Steve Robinson, 2891 S. Abingdon St. #A2 Arlington, VA, 22206-1329. 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, I 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. You can also see and answer the problems at the WBL web site. WBL Solvers Club uses Washington Standard as published July 1996.
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: NS |
South dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LHO preempted and you have to find a bid over partner’s forcing 3
-bid. Two obvious choices are to rebid your solid five-card diamond suit or bid your good four-card heart
suit. Then there’s the old standby. There is a saying that 3NT is the bid which
works most often when an opponent preempts. Do we bid what we have or do we bid
3NT?
One expert agrees with
me and bids 3NT. I admit that 10xx is not a club stopper but sometimes the 3NT
bid becomes the stopper. West is on lead holding AQJ10xx of clubs. He knows
that the king of clubs is on his right so he leads another suit hoping partner
has an entry in order to lead thru your king.
Parker:”3NT---I have five tricks, partner can help with the other
four. He can also bid 4
with long spades. No other bid
makes any sense. Anything can happen with the club suit, partner has a stopper,
they block or don't get led.”
Ten experts bypass 3NT.
Hope they will find a resting place.
Eight experts bid 4
. What will partner do over4
holding
KQxxxx
AJx
xx
Kx?
Landen:”4
---What else? Partner may think I have five, but he won't pass with fewer than three and this hand should play well in a Moysian fit. I rate
to have five diamonds as I would raise spades with a decent doubleton and bid
notrump with a club stopper.”
---Seems like a decent description of myhand. At the
table I might try 3NT, because defenders frequently go wrong over
3NT (bidding or leading). Opponents always get these right in solvers panels
though.”
---I believe this should be natural and partner
can pass perhaps with something like
AQxxxx
AJx
xx
Qx, if partner has only threehearts. Spade raises should either be a direct 4
call, a 4
cuebid, or
Blackwood. Bidding 4
implicitly shows a Diamond suit, so partner can choose between
4
, 4
, or 5
with minimum hands.”
Schwartz:”4
---My good suits make up for slight lack of HCPs for showingreverse strength. 4
in a 4-3 fit might be our best spot once 3NT is bypassed if
partner is light in HCPs.”
At
this level, there are no reverses. Partner’s 3
-call promises another bid over a non-gamebid. This means that 4
is forcing in theory.
---Natural and can play the 4-3.”
King:”4
---We are in a game forcing auction, so why not show my hand?”
Woolsey:”4
---If my handweren't this strong I might just bid 3NT and gamble on the club situation. But
my hand is strong enough that even if we get to the wrong strain we might make
on sheer power, and we could have a slam. So I'll just bid out my shape as best
as possible and hope partner gets it right.”
Mallory:”4
---Pass is tempting, but impossible - partners bid forcing. 3NT, 4
and 4
seem
mis-descriptive or mad. Lets tell him what I have.”
Two
experts bid 4
. You won’t have any chance of getting to 4
if partner is
6313.
Cappelletti: ”4
---Clearly the safest bid (inview of spade misfit) and might get us to best game or slam. Partner
should “follow through” with 6-4 distribution (else he would have made
negative double).”
Roman:”4
---While 4
would be a choice-of-games
choice of games cuebid here, it should show a doubleton spade. Partner will bid
hearts if he has them, so emphasize the diamond suit and wait to see what
happens.”
Major-suit game bids are non-forcing unless they’re
conventional. 4
is
natural and non-forcing in this auction and even non-forcing after 1
-
3
(overcall) - 3
(spade raise) - Pass - 4
(maybe hearts will play better than spades).
|
Problem 2 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
East dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We
have overcalled with 15 HCPs in a position where we could have only eight.
Further action is warranted and the obvious choices are to jump to game, make a
game try or just compete. Since there is only one bid between 3
and 3
that bid, 3
, must be anartificial game try. 3
says that I don’t card how good your 2
-bid was, I justwant to play in 3
.
Axx
KQxxxx
xx
xx for example. Holding six hearts, there are only about 5% of hands where it wouldn’t be right to bid 3
. Over 3
there are two ways to make a game try,
double and 3
. Over the double, which shows some club values, partner passes with minor suit cards or pulls with major suit cards. He pulls if he has a
singleton or void in clubs. If he pulls, he bids 3
with a minimum
or 4
with a maximum.
Nine
experts agree with me and double. As long as partner knows that this is a pull
if right double then doubling should work out. One of the reasons why doubling
might not work is you don’t have a clear opening lead.
Parker:”Double---Shows a good hand with no good bid and a game try.
Partner can pass or correct. I put it at 90% that west bids 3
and then we have a new problem. Partner will pass 3
with a bad hand and do something with a good hand.”
Landen:”Double---Close decision, it would be nice to know the
characters involved. I'll try for 300 here. I don't think this hand will make 4
and it might
even go down in three. If partner pulls to 3
I will pass. With a very offensive hand
partner should bid 3
. Over that, I'd bid 4
.”
Cappelletti: ”Double---Turn the cube and see what partner does.”
Roman:”Double---Second
choice is pass, but when partner asks me about our -470 on this board, I'll use
a phrase like "trying to protect our equity of 110 or 140 in the
hand" which will impress him sufficiently that he will forget that I
doubled with Kxx of trumps. Game try 3
is out, 3
is out.”
Schwartz:”Double---The LAW and my poor Heart spots strongly
argue for defending.”
King: ”Double---I don't know that we have nine trumps and I do hope partner can contribute at least one trick.”
Woolsey:”Double---I
have plenty of extras, and the distribution says to defend. The problem is that
if East isn't kidding we might take only my four winners against 3
. By doubling Isend the message to partner that I think this is our hand, and give him maximum
encouragement to double 3
. If he doesn't do so -- well, I admit I haven't made up my mindabout that yet.”
Mallory:”Double---3
is against The
LAW, and my hearts are horrible. I should have four tricks, and all I
need for 300 is a K in partner's hand. If he has one, I should be
able to find it.”
One
lone wolf. Doesn’t double say the same thing? Do something intelligent.
---Game try. Tells partner to do theintelligent thing.”
|
Problem 3 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: NS |
East dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A jump to 4
would be the
perfect bid for this problem. Why is 4
not a legal bid in this contest? A lot of
players, including myself, play that jumping to 4
shows five or more diamonds plus a five-card
or longer major. Leaping Michaels. Over 4
, advancer bids 4
if he wants to
play in the major. Leaping Michaels comes more often then a good hand with just
diamonds. You give up playing in 2
over partner’s 1NT-opener and you give up
the natural 4
-jump over 3
. Since 4
shows diamonds and a major, you have to find another way of
describing this hand.
Three experts join me
in bidding diamonds. The four take-out doublers are bidding diamonds also.
Seems reasonable to bid diamonds when you have diamonds. One expert agrees with
me and jumps to 5
. Jumps to game over opening bids are preempts. On the otherhand, jumps to game over preempts are strong.
Partner won’t be
confused about what suit the 5
-bidder has.
Parker: ”5
---Why torture partner with any other bid. I hate partners that double with this type of hand and then expect you to figure out they do not have a major. Once again no other bid makes sense.”
Two
experts bid 3
. You have so much strength thatit could go all pass. This is different from overcalling at the one-level. At
the one-level, the opening bidder will probably reopen. Here, the 3
-bidder will pass automatically.
---Seems
automatic. I can try 3NT if partner bids a major and partner will suspect
I need a little something since I didn't just up and bid 3NT originally.”
Mallory:”3
---With intentof bidding 4
on next round (if I get a chance). Don't think auction is
going to die -- a lot of major cards in the unbid hands. 5
is unilateral
and may be silly. If I double, partner will not understand when I put down
three major suit cards in five or six of a major.”
Four
experts double. Doubling 3
with 1-2 in the majors is
against my religion.
Landen:”Double---Intending to rebid 4
showing a hand
stronger than a direct jump to 4
.”
Cappelletti: ”Double---Plan to bid 3NT over three-of-a-major.”
Double followed by 3NT says that you’re not
sure that you belong in 3NT. It says - partner you can rebid your five-card
major.
to make sense. We can have a slam opposite a hand that would
pass a 3
overcall.”
So
when you double and bid 4
and then bid 5
, is that any difference from an immediate 5
?
Roman:”Double---The
normal response to a preempt is to bid 3NT, but it really feels like we belong
in diamonds, so I'll double and bid diamonds until partner gets the idea. 5
is reasonable,
and shows a powerful hand, but is partner really going to play us to have THIS
much?”
Four experts bid the old standby 3NT. Not
only is 3NT an underbid it could go down a lot if partner doesn’t have the king
of diamonds. Give partner
KJxxxx
xxx
xxx
x. 5
makes at least six, 3NT goes down bunches. Or give partner
xxxx
Kxxx
Kxxx
x.7
makes.
Schwartz:”3NT---With the likely-hood of a six-card preempt the odds don’t favor a stiff club in partner’s hand.”
True.
If partner has
xxx
xxxx
Kxx
xxx, 3NT is the only game that makes.
King: ”3NT---I think this is our
most likely game, so I will bid it now.”
Woolsey:”3NT---A
reasonable guess. Anything else would be a ridiculous guess.”
|
Problem 4 |
Imps |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||