Washington Bridge League Solver's Club  -  Nov/Dec 2005

Moderator: Steve Robinson     

Congratulations to Mike Deverin and Brad Theurer 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 Fred Wagner and Kathy Rabenstein with a score of 480. Tied for fifth were Wes Goldberg, Joana Silva, Dolores Daringer, John Sommer, Jerry Joyce, Atam Lalchandani, JW McCardy and Don Berman with a score of 470. Tied for thirteenth were Marshall Kramer, Bill Fountain, Mark Shimshak, Kieran Dyke, Ellen Cherniavsky, Jay Weinstein, Leo Cardillo, Bridge Baron, Neal McKinney and Mohamed Abdullah with a score of 460. Tied for twenty-third were Marvin Elster, Mark Shaw, Rick McDaniel, Victor Cohen, Neal Walters, Robert Stone, Donia Steele, Zoran Santek and Ken Kaufman with a score of 450. Tied for thirty-second were Hal Hindman, Richard Ferrin, Gloria Halstead Mark McEnearney, Lee Bauer, Nancy Bauer, Donna Rogall, Michael Pearlman, Alice Miller, Mark Chen, Art Hayes and Ted Wilkinson with a score of 440. The average score of the 222 solvers was 386. The average score of the experts was 416.

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 $29.05 that includes $4.05 for priority mail.

This problem brings up two points. First point. What does the double of 4 show? I said negative so you wouldn’t think it was a penalty double. Partner opens 1, RHO bids 4 and you have KxxKQxxKxxxxx, KxQxxxxKxKJxx, AQxxKxxxxJxxx or AQxKQxxxxxKJx. In other words, a balanced opening bid. If you pass it could go all pass. What choice do you have? You must double. High-level doubles show strength and don’t promise any specific distribution. If you have a balanced opening bid, your only choice is to double. Second point. What does various bids by opener mean after the double of 4?  If you have a four-card major with 11 – 15 HCPs you bid four-of-your major. Suppose you have a better hand for instance AJxxAxxxAQJxx. You open 1, LHO jumps to 4 and partner says “I double and I have four spades with at least ten HCPs” (Obviously this table-talk could never happen). Since you have a fit, a jump to 5 shows more than 15 points. You jump to 5 asking partner to bid a slam if he has extra values. Some players think that 5 asks for a diamond control. There are very few hands that you could hold where the only possibly  thing you need for slam is a diamond control? In order for the five-spade bidder to know that slam would be safe opposite a diamond control, he would have to have AKQxAKxxAKQxx. On the problem hand, you can’t guarantee that you can make 5 opposite a minimum card-showing double such as KxxxAQxKxJxxx.

Plus score is the name of the game at IMPs. If I get +300 against 4 doubled with no one vulnerable, I am a happy bridge player. One expert agrees with me and takes a plus score. While Jxx of diamonds is not a trump stack, you have three diamonds that the opponents don’t have.

Landen: ”Pass---And hope we're not cold for slam in spades. I don't fancy making a slam try and stopping at the five level when partner can't cooperate. 4 doubled should yield about the same as game making. If I bid 5 asking for diamond control and partner accepted with K9xxKJxxxxKxx I wouldn't be all that happy in 6 and partner would have a nice dummy from his point of view.”

Three experts attempt to take a plus score in spades. When LHO has seven or eight diamonds, the black suits are not going to split well. The Jxx of diamonds is a yellow flag saying caution. It pays to be conservative since partner does not promise four spades.

Hopkins: ”4---I am going to go quietly. Any time partner has a minimum KxxxKQJxxJxxx, I want to settle for game. Even with a slightly better hand say KxxxKQJxxKxxx, slam is not assured since I will have to guess what to do on a Diamond lead and continuation and will probably need Spades to split 3-2. I need to be able to ask two questions: Do you have extras with Spades as trumps? By the way, are we off the first two diamond tricks?  This is hard to do. Vulnerable (i.e., more reward for my risk), I might consider a 5-cuebid followed by a conversion to 5 and hope partner gets the right message.”

Wooldridge: ”4---Unless a catch a void in diamonds or a stiff diamond with five clubs and a spade fit, 6 is likely to prove difficult due to uppercutting possibilities on two rounds of diamonds, and likely bad breaks in the blacks. I might need as much as KTxxKQ--xKJ--. If partner corrects to 5 over 4, I can think about bidding 6, since the nine-card club fit makes slam prospects much greater.”

Adams: ”4---I usually play this double as card showing rather than negative, but I still bet partner has four spades. We probably have the cards for slam, but bad splits could be a real problem...harder to get ruffs when you have to pull four rounds of trump and dummy can be overruffed (partner and LHO both short in diamonds). Pass is my second choice, again preferring the sure plus to some slam adventure based on perfect cards.”

One expert bids 5 asking partner to bid a slam with extras. Why does partner have to have four spades?

Woolsey: ”5---If I bid 4, there is a danger of missing a laydown slam when partner has a good hand but not good enough to make a move on his own. If I bid 5, there is a danger of being to high if partner has a minimal negative double and we get some bad splits. The cost of each of these is the same. I believe that the danger of missing a good slam is greater than the danger of being too high at the five-level. There are no special inferences involved with this 5-call -- it simply asks partner to bid a slam if he thinks we can make it.”  

One expert forces to slam. Gambling that the opponents can’t take the first two diamond tricks.

Roman: ”5NT---If there was a way for me to command partner to bid a slam with a diamond control I'd choose that. Since there isn't, (5, for example, just shows extra values...more than a 4 bid) and looking at three aces means I can't expect partner to cooperate with me if I just invite, I make my best guess, which is that we have a slam, and ask partner to pick one. I will pass 6 and bid 6 over 6 or 6.”

    Seven experts bid 5 asking for second round diamond control. There are some five-level bids, which ask for second-round control. This is not one of them. Direct jumps to five-of-a-major show extra strength. Bidding 5 asking for a diamond control deserves only 50 points.

Cappelletti: ”5---Yes I know - you only put this in as a test to see if you could attain unanimity on any bidding problem. And this is clearly a textbook example.”

Miller: ”5♠---What else? You have to try for slam. Sure, partner may have been under pressure and doubled with KKQxxxxxKJxxx, or he may have ten fourth of spades with diamonds 8311 around the table and the second round will be overruffed. But the vast majority of hands he will hold will produce a slam. This try does three things: 1) keeps us out opposite two small diamonds, 2) allows us to get to clubs when that is right, 3) allows partner to cue 6♦ with a void and full double, getting us to an easy grand.”

King: ”5---Partner must have at least three Kings to double at this level. The only question is if we have at least second round control of Diamonds.”

Schwartz: ”5---Too good for 4 as slam is likely opposite an opening bid and a stiff diamond. Second choice is pass.”

Steele: ”5---I considered Pass, but for what? Plus 100? Plus 300? If partner doesn't have two quick losers in diamonds, does have some shape or extras, and shares my optimism, 6 or more spades should be a fine spot.”

Parker: ”5---I know that things may break badly and the five-level belongs to the opponents, but in today's preemptive world you can't be let them steal. 5 asks for second round diamond control. We should make a slam opposite three Kings, KxxxKxxxxKxxx. Any spare Queens will make it laydown. 6NT may be the best spot if he has a Diamond Ace or King and a good hand”.

Lublin: ”5---Asks for a diamond control.”

Jumping to five-of-a-major is quantitative unless you’ve had a chance to cuebid. Be conservative in preemptive auctions.

You have been dealt a hand that you would open. But is it strong enough to insist on game opposite partner’s opening bid? If partner does not have strong hearts, you will need extra values to make game. Give partner AJxJxQJxxxKJx, you can’t make 2NT and on bad days could go down in three-of-either-minor. The crux of this hand is – do you want to force to game. If yes, then respond 2. If no, then don’t force to game.  

Half of the experts do not force to game. Five experts bid 2, which is forcing to only 3. Give opener AxxAxxQJxxQJx, which is a 14-count and 3 or 2NT is the limit of the hand.  

Woolsey: ”2---Only short one diamond, and that isn't likely to matter.  If partner bids 2 we could still get to a 4-3 spade fit, and I want the notrump played from his side. This is the only sensible way I have to construct an invitational sequence.”

Miller: ”2---I do not want to force to game, nor do I want to be declarer at 3NT. I wouldn’t bid 2♣ with a four-card suit, so why should I with this one? If partner rebids 3 I will pass; this could be the kind of hand where we have nine tricks in notrump after the opponents take the first five or six. If we were vulnerable I would have a tougher decision.”

Schwartz: ”2---Partner will never be able to evaluate if I bid 2.”

Wooldridge: ”2---2 game forcing isn't much of a stretch, and isn't a bad choice. I'm choosing 2 instead despite no assurance of a diamond fit so that it'll be easier to stop in a partscore if partner can't stop hearts. This hand is a good fitter, but not a hand that wants to play in five-of-a-minor if 3NT proves unbiddable. Also, my clubs are headed to the six which will be difficult for partner to envision if I start with 2.”

Seven experts force to game. Lowest they can stop is four-of-a-minor.

Cappelletti: ”2---My honors are grouped together - a plus.  Might even make a game opposite the right eleven.”

You will make game if partner has eleven with club shortness. He won’t know that club shortness is good opposite a club two-of-one.

Landen: ”2---A slight overbid (what's new) justified because it facilitates bidding the right game contract.”

Steele: ”2---My club suit is too cruddy, but my bid lets the auction develop in all kinds of constructive ways: I'm prepared to rebid opposite partner's 2 (3), 2 (2), 2 (3). We're most likely heading for 3NT, which should play from his side, to protect his round suits. Or we could be heading for a minor suit slam. Let's hear another call from partner and hope he hasn't opened really light.”

Parker: ”2---With such a good Diamond fit I am willing to force to game. Partner should be the first to bid notrump with a heart stopper. If he bids 2 I will bid 2 to have him bid notrump first.”

Lublin: ”2---I bid 2 and get partner to bid notrump first to protect the hearts.”

King: ”2---2NT would wrong side the contract.”

Adams: ”2---A mild overbid playing with Robinson (who only needs 11 HCP to open), but I would rather be dummy in a notrump contract. 2 promises four, and I would rather lie about one point than about a trump for partner. Note that 2 showing a three-way bid might work if you play it (see Robinson's chapter on advanced bidding in the "Blue" version of his book). I dislike 2 this time as they might get in a lead director, or if not, I might still end up as declarer if partner relays.”

One expert shows his point count but probably gets notrump played from the wrong side.

Hopkins: ”2NT---I am balanced with fitting cards in my partner's opening suit. With an unbalanced hand, partner should now feel free to show another suit(s) to suggest alternative games."

One expert makes an interesting bid. If partner has four spades, 4 will probably be a good contract. Its will be very difficult to defend 4 when they don’t know that you have only three spades.

Roman: ”1---I don't bid many three-card suits, but this sure looks like the time for one. I'll raise 1NT to 2NT, bid 3 over 2, 3 over 2, and 2 (4th suit) over 2.”

If your longest suit is very weak, you should devalue some of your strength. 

How do you show a balanced hand with 18-19 HCPs? You open one-of-a-suit and jump to 2NT. If you made your diamonds AK107, giving you 17 HCPs, you would open 1NT. If you made the spades KQ6 giving you 20 HCPs, you would open 2NT. Two little hearts would not stop you from opening either 1NT or 2NT. The only way to show this hand is to jump to 2NT. Heart stopper? Not as if hearts have to be led. Sometimes it’s RHO who has the hearts. Sometimes hearts are 4-4.

Six experts agree with me and show the balanced 18-19.      

Roman: ”2NT---It was wise of us that during system design we set aside a bid for opener to show 18-19 balanced with fewer than four of responder's major. Very shrewd indeed.”

Landen: ”2NT---I wish I had a heart stopper but any other bid opens up a can of worms. At least 2NT conveys a good description of my hand: balanced 18-19.”

Steele: ”2NT---Too strong for 2, and I can't bid 3 with only three pieces, even nice ones. 2NT is right on values; the heart holding is worrisome, but I've got to bid something. Bidding 2 is tempting, but the hand is too balanced. 2 should suggest 5-4 in the minors, and even if the bid let partner protect a heart holding, why shout at the opponents to lead a heart? “

Hopkins: ”2NT---18/19 balanced and hope partner uses whatever mechanism to show a five-card Spade suit otherwise our Heart stopper is at most partner's honors in a three-card suit.”

King: ”2NT---The most descriptive bid for this hand, even if it might wrong side the contract.”

Adams: ”2NT---I would psych 2 if partner were a passed hand, as that rates to improve game chances. Unfortunately, slam is possible still, so I need to describe hand accurately. It is tempting to distort shape to play 4-3 spade fit, but partner will be playing it.”

Seven experts show an unbalanced hand. One expert bids a non-forcing 2. When you open 1 and rebid 2, you show at least nine cards in the minors. You could have four diamonds and five clubs.   

Woolsey: ”2---Wish it were Cole, but I have to make do with what I am playing. I don't like bidding 2NT with a worthless doubleton heart, since if partner has four spades that means he has fewer than four hearts. If partner passes 2 maybe we don't have a game, and if he bids anything I can then support spades showing extras since I didn't raise immediately.”

Four experts jump to 3. Not only is it important for you to tell partner your point count, you have to describe your distribution. Opening 1 and jumping to 3 shows at least nine cards in the minors. This bidding sequence guarantees at least five diamonds. If partner has an opening bid with three-card diamond support, he will head towards 6.  Similar, opening 1 and then reversing into 2shows at least five clubs, at least 15 HCPs and says that your clubs are longer than your diamonds. You can’t open 1 and bid 2 with 4-4 in the minors.    

Playing Cole you can show a three-card strong raise.     

Cappelletti: ”3---Then support spades. Too good for a mere 3-jump.”

Parker: ”3---Too risky to bid 2 with so many primes and hear it go all pass. If he bids 3NT I pass, if he bids 3 I have an easy 3 bid. I would open 1 so I can reverse with this hand and still be at the two level, then there are no rebidding problems.”

Lublin: ”3---Bid 3 and support spades unless partner bids 3NT.”

Miller: ”3---As in problem two, I would rather not be declarer at 3NT, and when I follow up with 3♠ over 3♦ (or 4♠ over 4♣), partner should have enough information to know what to do. I’m not particularly concerned about telegraphing the defense; LHO always finds a heart lead against 3NT when I rebid 2NT initially, and on this choice I will be the dummy 90% of the time. Edgar Kaplan would be smiling as he bids 2♣ forcing.”

Two experts jump in spades. Jumping to 3 shows four spades. Partner will not look for another strain when you bid 3. Give partner