|
|
ACBL Unit 147 |
|
Washington Bridge League |
||
| Dick Wegman, President |
||
|
Don Berman, Web Master |
|
|
ACBL Unit 147 |
|
Washington Bridge League |
||
| Dick Wegman, President |
||
|
Don Berman, Web Master |
Washington Bridge League Solver's Club - Mar/Apr 2006
Congratulations to Donna Rogall who came in first with a score of 480. She wins a free entry to the Unit Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Second was Rusty Krauss with a score of 460. Tied for third were John Klayman and Dan Koch with a score of 430. Fifth was Marshall Kuschner with a score of 420. Tied for sixth were Tom Fukawa, Arnold Kling and Mel Yudkin with a score of 410. Tied for ninth were Alan Kravatz, Bob Boorman and Sam Keiter with a score of 400 Tied for twelfth were Josh Dunn, John Horst, Earl Brown, Sam Gumbert, Sam Westgate and Barbara Israel with a score of 390. Tied for eighteenth were JJ Wang, Mark Shimshak, Joana Silva, Michael Polunin, Lloyd Rawley and Marvin Elster with a score of 380. The average score of the 144 solvers was 285. The average score of the experts was 386.
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.
|
Problem 1 |
Imps |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Partner can have a wide range of strength for his reopening takeout double. Opener is supposed to reopen when he’s short in spades no matter what his strength is. The way you penalize them with a spade stack when you’re playing negative doubles is to pass and have opener reopen with a double. Holding 
KJ10xx
Axx
AQx
xx, you pass 2 and then pass opener's reopening double. For his double, opener can have anywhere from xxAJxxQxxKQxx where you can make nothing to xAKJKQxKQxxxx where 6 is cold. If opener is strong, he’ll reopen with anything. The question is does opener have a good hand or a minimum opener? I don’t know but I’m going for the plus score. My thoughts are that opener can bid again with a good hand but a cuebid will get us too high if he has a minimum opener. Even if opener has a very good hand such as xxKQJKQ10KQJ10x or xxAKQxKxxKQJ10 you might not have a game.
Eight experts cuebid. Logically 3 shows what you have, a good hand with no clear direction. So what is opener supposed to do over 3 with xxAJxxQxxKQxx? I don’t think you have to worry about opener holding xKQxKQxKQxxxx since he would bid again over 3. Opener is about 50-50 to hold more than one spade since East did not raise.
Woolsey: ”3---I must have a good hand for this call of course. I can't have a spade stack or I would have passed. I can't have a spade stopper, or I would have bid notrump. I can't have four hearts or I would have made a negative double. I can't have four-card club support or I would have bid 3 at my last turn. I can't have a long diamond suit or I would be bidding it. The only hand I can have is this exact hand, and partner will know it and be able to place the contract. I risk getting overboard in 4, if he has a minimum, but the upside makes this risk worthwhile -- a laydown game or even a slam. Would a hand such as xAKxKQxKQxxxx be such a surprise for partner to hold? And if he holds something like this he will have no difficulty placing the key aces in my hand and bidding game or slam.”
Lublin: ”3---To show a good hand that has no bid and denies four hearts.”
Parker: ”3---I can't have four hearts or I would have made a negative double to start with. I must have club support and at least four diamonds, so partner should have a good idea what my hand is. He can bid 3NT with a spade stopper. Pass is too risky even though they figure to go down at least one.”
Roman: ”3---Values, but no suit to bid.”
Landen: ”3---I don't know what else to do. When faced with choosing between underbidding and overbidding I typically overbid playing IMPs. I'm hoping partner can bid 3NT.”
Cappelletti: ”3---I either have to overbid or underbid. Partner could have passed with a bad hand. So with ten HCPs I am too good to make a bid like three-of-a-minor, which could have no points at all. Since partner might well be short in spades, 2NT could easily be down one off the top. And if partner happens to have ace of spades, notrump must be played from his side.”
Schwartz: ”3--- I have to show some values at this point having passed before. The odds are against us being able to make exactly three-of-a-minor. At least partner knows I can't have four hearts.”
King: ”3---We may not get to the right level, but at least we should get to the right strain!”
Two experts agree with me and go conservative. One of the reasons to go conservative is that there is no guarantee of a fit.
Adams: ”3---We should probably play better minor Lebensohl here. Then 3 would show a little something good. As it is, 3 or 3 could be right.”
Cherniavsky: ”3---Your hand plays well opposite a singleton spade, but West has not raised, making it more likely that North has a doubleton spade. In that case, with a spade stopper, even Qx, North could have bid 2NT with 18-19 balanced, but has not done so. Opposite the likely 12-14 balanced with a small doubleton spade, 3 is high enough."
One expert makes a bid that can have two meanings. Natural is one meaning showing fewer than nine HCPs with a spade stopper. Not enough spade to pass for penalties. Another possible meaning is asking opener to choose a minor.
Hopkins: ”2NT---Well, I think this gets my pattern and values about right. I dearly hope partner has a Spade honor.”
Without a known fit, make the conservative call.
|
Problem 2 |
Imps |
Vul: Both |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some play 1 - 2 - 2 could be a five-card heart suit. Others play that it shows six hearts. This problem is for those who play 2 shows six hearts. The same can be said for 1-two-any-2. Some play it could be five spades, others play that it shows six spades. Give opener QxxJxxxxxAxAK. 5 is a bad contract since you are very likely to have three trump losers. Even if opener has Axxxxx of hearts, 6 is a bad contract. If he knows that you have only two hearts, he will be conservative when he holds bad hearts. However, if he knows you have three hearts he can be more aggressive. Your two small clubs strongly suggests that you belong in hearts. However, it’s important to tell opener exactly how many hearts you have. A direct 3 MUST guarantee three hearts. If you have only two hearts, and a hand that you know belongs in hearts, make a noise and then support hearts. That way your partner knows how many hearts you have. I suggest that the noise be 2NT. Bidding 2NT and then supporting hearts tells opener that you have only two hearts. Therefore 2NT shows two types of hands, a hand with two hearts or a three-suited hand with good stoppers in the other three suits. If opener raises 2NT to 3NT, you can correct to 4 on a hand where you want to play in hearts. Now opener knows that you have exactly two hearts, a minimum hand but a hand that you think belongs in 4. Supposed you have a better hand with exactly two hearts. AKJxAxAKJxxxx. After 1 - 2 - 2 - 2NT – 3NT, you bid 4, which tells opener that you have exactly two hearts with extra values. He will know that you don’t have a club control since you didn’t bid 4. There are very good reasons why raising hearts directly must show three hearts. Suppose partner has seven hearts. With ten hearts between you, the Queen of trumps is present. AJxxxx or A109xxx opposite Kxx is a reasonable gamble to pick up the entire suit. A109xxx opposite Kx is a very likely one-loser suit. AQxxxx opposite Jxx could have no losers. AQxxxx opposite Jx always has at least one loser. You don’t want to be in slam with Kxxxxx opposite Qx but you do with Kxxxxx opposite Qxx. You probably don’t want to be in seven with AKxxxx opposite Qx but you do with AKxxxx opposite Qxx.
One other expert knows how many hearts 3 shows.
Hopkins: ”2NT---2 is too risky as you might catch partner with a 4-6 hand. 3 shows one more trump. 2NT keeps the biding low and allows partner to further describe his hand. The only time I might be faced with a guess (to correct or not) is if partner bids a prompt 3NT.”
Ten experts violate the primary rule of constructive bidding. Misstating the number of trumps you have.
Woolsey: ”3---First rule of slam bidding is to set trumps as soon as possible. Bidding 2 may be cheaper, but it doesn't tell partner what is going on. He will think your subsequent heart raise is looking for the best strain, not a slam try.”
I’m sorry. First rule of slam bidding is to tell partner how many trumps you have. That’s why splinters and Jacoby promise four-card support. That’s why a negative double shows four cards in the other major. That why raising a second bid suit shows four-card support.
That’s why some play 1minor – 1major – 2major shows four. There’s a huge difference between a 6-2 fit and a 6-3 fit.
Parker: ”3---Set trumps as soon as possible. If partner bids 4 I will pass, but if he bids anything else I will look for a slam. He can now decide if his Diamonds work or not.”
Roman: ”3---Set trumps and see what happens.”
Landen: ”3---I assume 4 would be some sort of picture bid or fast arrival. I like my hand, but not enough to bid 2 and then follow up by raising hearts. I could have a decent good play for 7 xxAKxxxxAxAxx, so I must show some encouragement.”
Four hearts shows a very bad two-over-one with three bad hearts. You shouldn’t have two trump honors.
Adams: ”3---With a few partners, this shows three trumps, but that is not standard. Inventing a 2 response, then supporting Hearts might lead partner to wonder if I have a stiff club. Set trumps for an easy auction.”
Cappelletti: ”3---Help partner by setting trumps. If you bid 3 first and then support hearts, partner might play you for a small doubleton. Do not even think about bidding 2, which accomplishes nothing."
You should not bid 2. If you bid 2 and then later support hearts you might have a singleton when you are weak in clubs.
Schwartz: ”3---Why not show support when I have mild slam interest. Bidding 2 will only confuse matters.”
King: ”3---Set trump.”
Lublin: ”3---Set trump. Will Blackwood over 4.”
Cherniavsky: ”3---This sets trump and makes it easier to find out if the partnership is off a touching AK. On simulation, Qx turns out to be a remarkably good trump holding opposite a six-card suit, and partner often has either the ace or queen of diamonds.”
Qx might be good opposite some six-card suits but three-card support is good opposite more six-card suits.
After 1 - two-of-either-minor - 2, which shows six, bidding 3 shows three-card support. 2NT followed by heart support shows two-card support. Same after 1 - two-of-any-suit - 2, which shows six, bidding 3 shows three-card support. 2NT followed by spade support shows two-card support.
|
Problem 3 |
Imps |
Vul: Both |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Be aggressive when short in the opponent’s suit. Be conservative when long. With four small hearts, it’s time to be conservative. You can’t make a negative double since you don’t have four spades. You can’t support diamonds with only two and 2 leads to some awkward rebid problems. What’s left? Pass. I know pass is a four-letter word but sometimes it’s the best call available.
Woolsey: ”Pass---If partner passes he will have at least three hearts and a weak notrump, so defending 1 will be fine. If he makes a takeout double I can then bid 2, just as in problem #1. If he does anything else, I should have an easy action. A negative double shows four spades, so is a no-no. All other bids are needlessly distorted.”
Actually partner could have four hearts if East overcalled a four-card suit.
Roman: ”Pass---Bidding 1NT could certainly be right (partner has a weak NT, we make 1NT, they make 1), the problem is if we belong in 3NT by partner.”
Landen: ”Pass---Consistent with my actions on board one! I don't even have three of partner's minor (I would raise if I did) and I won't make a negative double with only three spades.”
Adams: ”Pass---Do not see the issue. I have no bid. I have length in Hearts and I've no stopper. I pass.”
Three experts make a negative double. If you play in spades and the opponents lead hearts, partner will find himself quickly shortened. And what if partner holds AxxxxAJxxxKxx? Partner could be playing spades in the 3-3 fit.
Cappelletti: ”Double---Hopefully your ten HCPs will make up for having only three spades.”
Lublin: ”Double---Although I don’t have four spades I have values.”
Hopkins: ”Double---I hope partner doesn't mind dummy-reversing a 4-3 fit, which is probably what will happen (whether partner wants to or not!) if we end up in Spades. Even so, we would probably be OK as long as the Spade length is not with the Heart overcaller. I am well-prepared for most other continuations.”
Two experts bid 2. What are they going to bid at their next turn? 2 promises a rebid except if partner rebids 2NT.
Schwartz: ”2---Shows my values and with interference I can easily have a hand this weak. If I pass the next round will be even more difficult.”
King: ”2---This comes closest to describing my hand. Partner will expect another club, but no more than this number of points.”
Two experts bid 1NT. I can just see opener with K2 o
