|
|
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 - May/Jun 2006
Moderator: Steve Robinson
Congratulations to who David Rodney and Dean Pokorny who tied for first with a score of 480. They win a free entry to the Unit Game and will be invited to be on a future panel. Tied for third were Jerry Pruzan, Chuck Yaple and Michael Frosch with a score of 450. Sixth was Richard Riseberg with a score of 430. Tied for seventh were Rossi Lindstrom, William Zane, Sam Gumbert, Prahalad Rajkumar, Manuel Paulo, Tom Musso, Lyle Poe and Wes Goldberg with a score of 420. Fifteenth was Pete Whipple with a score of 410. The average score of the 125 solvers was 348. The average score of the experts was 420
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: Both |
South dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How do you describe a hand with four spades, five diamonds and three clubs? Easy! You open 1
, bid spades and then support clubs. I don’t see any other choice. If you raise clubs directly, partner will not know that you have a singleton heart and might assume you have four clubs. If you bid 3
and partner bids 3NT, do you pass 3NT and find partner with Qxx of hearts or worse, or do you pull and find partner with AKQ of hearts. You
can’t jump to 3
showing short hearts because that promises four-card support.
Four experts agree with me and bid 2
. Bidding 2 suggests five diamonds. After 2, partner’s most likely bid will be 2NT. Now you can bid 3 and partner will know that you have short hearts and only three clubs. If opener has a balanced hand, opener should rebid either 2 or 2NT depending upon stoppers in the majors.
I think 2 should be opener’s default. Opener should rebid 2 whenever 2NT, two-of-a-major or 3 are not good descriptions of the hand Holding xxxxxxAKQxAxx, opener should rebid 2 which will allow
responder to play notrump.
Landen: ”2---I will follow up by supporting clubs. I'm not sure what partner's original 2NT would have been in Washington Standard. If GF, then it's almost a certainty that partner has five+ clubs. I'd be more likely to splinter then, but I'd still like to have a fourth trump.”
Hopkins: ”2---I plan to support next and suggest the pattern of my hand.”
Rogall: "2---Whether 2 shows at least five clubs when all of responder's notrump ranges are covered by other bids or at least four clubs otherwise, I don't want to splinter or raise directly because that would show four-card support. With my slam going values, I'm happy to pattern out with club support at my next opportunity. There's also no reason to temporize with a waiting 2-rebid, when I've got a very descriptive and natural call to make at a low level."
Woolsey: ”2---My understandings are that this promises at least 5-4 in the pointed suits, but does not show extra strength. Over partner's expected 2NT call I can bid 3, completing a perfect description of my hand. If he bids something else we won't belong in notrump, and I can afford to support clubs at the four-level.”
Four experts raise clubs immediately. There’s a big difference between three-card support and four-card support. Suppose partner held KQJxxxKQxKQxx. He would respond 2 and would be sadly disappointed to play in 6 opposite three-card support. Two experts splinter. Splinter
show four-card support.
Cappelletti: ”3---Splinter - you would like to coax partner into bidding Blackwood.”
Parker: ”3---Splinter. Always set trumps as soon as possible. I have great controls and a singleton so we are going slamming. Give partner KxxAxxKxKQxxx and we have a lay down grand.”
If you held A1095AJ1054A65x, 7 would be a decent contract. Opposite only three clubs, 7 is poor contract, one that needs a diamond finesse and a 3-2 club break.
Two experts bid 3. I should have made them tell me what they would do if partner bids 3NT.
Adams: ”3---2 rates to be a heavy favorite among solvers, but is not the right bid playing Robinson style Washington Standard. Robinson style, 1 - 2 bid rarely has a four-card major, if ever, and the club bid shows at least five clubs. Since I already know where our fit lies, it's best to tell partner. No splinter, as that shows at
least four trumps.”
Roman: ”3---Supporting partner is the best bid in bridge. 3 is a splinter, but shows four trumps.”
One expert will take a long time to describe his hand. I would think that bidding 2 would not only show four spades, it would also show five diamonds.
King: ”2---Leave partner as much room as possible to describe his hand while showing the fifth diamond of mine.”
In constructive auctions, it’s important that partner knows how many trumps you have when you support.
|
Problem 2 |
Matchpoints |
Vul: None |
West dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is your bid? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Partner has to have a balanced hand when you have six HCPs and 1NT gets passed to you. If partner has an unbalanced hand, he would have bid something. Partner has to have at least two clubs and clubs rates to be a playable spot. In your dreams, you would bid 2 and buy the contract but the opponents are out there and probably will be able to bid a higher suit at the two-level. The right call on this hand is 3.This makes it difficult
for the opponents to will very likely will buy the contract. Over 2, responder can easily bid a four-card suit.
Two experts agree with me and bid their long suit. Assuming the opponents have at least one eight-card fit, 3 in your eight-card fit has to be a Law follower.
Rogall: "3--- The system I'm playing is Robinson. (Aren't we all?) That means I've got two ways to show clubs. I can double to show either a four-card major and a longer minor, or just a long minor, or some huge hand. I can also jump to 3. I'm not passing because you always want to take them out of a non-vulnerable 1NT at matchpoints when you've got a six-card suit or nine cards in two suits. Additionally,
there's some extra safety in this case. We're also non-vulnerable and partner didn't bid, so this guarantees that partner is balanced with at least two-card club support. Double is tempting because there's some chance we could get to play at the two-level. There's not much chance partner will ask for my major, since with 5-4 or better and many 4-4's, he would have already bid, but in that case, I might even pretend to have four hearts. However, it's much easier for the opponents to find their fit in these cases,
so I'd rather take my chances with an immediate preempt."
Woolsey: ”3---I'm assuming a strong notrump opening. Against this I play that double shows a four-card major (usually) and a longer minor, 2 shows both majors, 2 shows one major, two-of-of-a-major shows five of that major and a minor. Partner clearly has some values, yet he didn't double or bid 2. The conclusion is that he must have
at least a doubleton club, since if he has a singleton club he would definitely have had the shape to find some call. I could double and hope that partner bids 2 pass or correct, but that gives the opponents room to find an eight-card major suit fit. 3 puts it to them, and is probably safe enough.”
Next we’ll hear from the six wimps.
Cappelletti: ”Pass---Partner has fewer than 15 points - and will probably lead a major.”
True. Partner will probably lead a major but how many tricks are you going to set up in partner’s four-card major?
Adams: ”Pass---Washington Standard is to play "Robinson." Playing Robinson, I could double hoping partner bids 2, or I could bid 3. I do not think partner will expect a weak hand for 3 in pass out position. Double is just wrong. If we do have a fit, and stop at 2, then the opponents have a fit, and we are letting them
find it. If we do not have a fit, we end up in 3 and we can be in trouble. Strange, fit can stop at 2; no fit must get to 3.... I pass, and hope to win matchpoints by having the opponents play a lower scoring part score.”
Parker: ”Pass---Sometimes they get to play a contract. I play Robinson.”
Landen: ”Pass---I usually play Cappelletti, so I'd pass; I'm unwilling to bid to the three-level. If I could double (where showing a single suited club hand is one of the options) or bid 2 natural, I would.”
Hopkins: ”Pass---I expect partner to lead his longer/better major and I am well prepared for this. My system is 2 natural; 2 Multi; two-of-a-major is single-suiter and good; double is majors, minors or diamonds and 2NT is a big two-suiter. I could bid 2 to play but 1) this might help them get to a previously unreachable 4-4 major suit fit and 2) RHO is reasonable likely
to have a minor-orientated hand and we might be out gunned to boot.”
Roman: ”Pass---Whatever convention I was playing. This is a really tough problem, because ordinarily I am willing to take serious risk to not allow my opponents to play 1NT when they are non-vulnerable. Here however, my suit is weak, it is likely that I'll end up playing it at the three-level, I have a honor in whichever major partner leads, and the opponents may back into a major suit fit that responder wasn't strong enough to look for the first time. When I add all this up, I decide to go quietly.”
One expert follows the slow road. Bidding at the two-level allows the opponents to easily get into the auction.
King: ”Double---Playing Woolsey where double shows a four-card major and a longer minor or just a long minor. Seldom right to let them play in 1NT when you have a distributional hand.”
When faced with the choice between bidding and passing, bidding is usually right. It best to show a long minor over 1NT by jumping to the three-level.
|
Problem 3 |
Imps |
Vul: NS |
North dealt |
|
South Holds
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
