September MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Eric Kokish, DirectorProblem F Double (KenBerg)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q J
♥ K 7
♦ K Q 7 6 4 3 ♣ 8 5 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ 2
♥ ?
What call do you make?
This hand essentially feels like an underbid or an overbid, and very little that feels just right. But even when values are right, the quality of the spade holding is such that you feel that you have stretched
2 NT 70 BWP 7% BWS 10% IAC 10%
The bid that is closest in values is 2 NT; you have the invitational 11 HCPs, a possible source of tricks with KQ-sixth, and a well-placed stopper with the Kx behind the heart bidder.
BluBayou says it "seems a binary choice between 3D and 2NT. 3D risks getting lost in complications, while 2NT is EXACTLY right on HCP and spade tolerance."
Joey Silver thinks "Maybe not quite the value bid in shape, but certainly it is in high cards. I am stuck, and this come closest."
Phillip Alder: "How I hope that partner has the diamond ace." The way my luck runs, partner does have the
A, singleton, or doubleton with the suit breaking 4-1 and the QJ in spades is a slow entry.
2 ♠ 80 BWP 25% BWS 6% IAC No solvers
One of the underbids was the simple raise of opener's spades. With doubleton QJ as support, I would be hesitant to bid more strongly initally; even the free simple raise promises three, but I can see the argument that QJ is better than xxx most of the time. No solvers chose this action, so we are left to the Panel for their thoughts.
Michael Lawrence argues "No bid shows this hand. Two spades (or a stronger raise) are closest to the truth. Double, then three diamonds over three clubs, is possible. With neither vulnerable, I go conservative, at 30 points a trick."
David Berkowitz "Feels about right on values, and everything else feels so wrong."
Robert Wolff says, "Not even a distortion worth mentioning."
Michael Becker want to bid more strongly: "The hand is almost worth an opening bid with perfect honors in partner's suit and a promoted heart king. But as it has only two 2-1-points, I am unwilling to force to game with three diamonds. Even a stronger raise would be better than two notrump." And
Barry Rigal is a bit embarrassed: "Hide my answer! It's only a nonvulnerable game; a different vulnerability might make this harder. Two spades is an underbid only by the spade jack."
3 ♦ 90 BWP 32% BWS 65% IAC 80%
The solvers generally went with the overbid; though it is an overbid primarily due to the quality of the points held (e.g., if the QJ had been Kx there would have been very few with qualms).
Jeff Meckstroth may have said it best: "Hope we can make game. This is the way to find the best one."
Masse24 says "An overbid, but descriptive."
JCreech: "Show my suit and values and hope partner's rebid will provide clarity."
John Stewart is "Overbidding for strain choice, as usual."
Bart Bramley thinks "Bid out when it's close. Several ways to win. Nothing else appeals."
YleeXotee feels it "could be an overbid, but going with it." A couple of comments focused on the negative double as an alternative.
WackoJack "Initially choes double. Reconsidering: better to show with 3
rather than ask with a double." While
Richard Colker wrote "I dislike one-suited negative doubles. If three notrump is right, partner can probe with three hearts or bid it himself; there's no need to suppress my diamonds or bid notrump. I'll raise three spades to four or try four spades over four of a minor." More pragmatically,
Janice Seamon Molson is "Upgrading. In the days of computer bridge, just say misclick if it turns out wrong."
Double 100 BWP 36% BWS 18% IAC 10%
The negative double actually ended up being the Panel's top choice.
Chris Willenken says "I can comfortably raise spades, uncomfortably raise notrump (hey, it's only 50 per trick), or convert three clubs to three diamonds. Two notrump feels wrong. With these red suits, it would be unlikely for our side to take exactly eight tricks in notrump. Two spades would probably be best at matchpoints."
Billy Eisenberg feels it "Will leave me well-placed."
Pepsi thinks it "Offers the most options."
Mats Nilsland plans to "Then raise two spades to three or bid three diamonds over three clubs."
Dan Gerstman: "I hope to be able to bid a nonforcing three spades, so partner will know that I don't have three."
Philippe Cronier: "Not strong enough for three diamonds. What would I do after opener's three hearts?"
Kit Woolsey feels "Partner's next call may be helpful. I'll probably bid three spades next round. Showing the diamond still doesn't look important."
Andrew Robson was highly optimistic: "Most economical. Spades, diamonds, perhaps even notrump are all nicely in the game I expect a big majority here." But as a prognosticator, his answer only drew a slight plurality.
Problem G Pass (BluBayou, Masse24, WackoJack)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K Q 9 8 7
♥ Q J 10 9 3 2
♦ 2 ♣ 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
For me, in the first two seats, this hand is not really a problem. I have only the spade quick-trick, the spades are longer than the hearts, and partner still has an opportunity to open; this is a 5=6, only two cover cards away from a game, that I am willing to pass smoothly. In third seat, however, I feel as though I have a problem. The features of the hand have not changed, but neither partner nor RHO found the wherewithal to open. The chance for game is pushing against the likelihood that LHO will open because my gut says we have at least a partscore at the same time I fear the hand will be passed out.
Pass 100 BWP 46% BWS 20% IAC 30%
A plurality of the Panel and IAC take the principled route; they pass and hope LHO will open in the fourth seat. They don't distort their values, shape or defensive potential.
Michael Lawrence is certain "The deal won't be passed out. My next call will imply my shape. For instance, pass - (pass) - pass - (one club) - pass - (one diamond) - two notrump would show this kind of hand."
Jeff Rubens feels the hand "Spectacularly deficient in defense for a one-bid, and if I must guess, I'd rather do so after obtaining more information. A passout would probably be bad for our side but that seems unlikely when I have 8 HCP and a lot of shape."
Bart Bramley will "Wait and hope to show both suits at once without overstating the defense. Opening any number of either major would be awkward, but I might open one spade with suits reversed."
Michael Becker: "An annoying hand to open at any level. When I hold so few HCP, the deal is unlikely to be passed out and I will have a better chance to describe the shape later. Still, I can't remember the last time I passed six-five shape with some values."
Masse24 "Extremely close between this and 1
."
WackoJack says "I will come in if conditions favourable"
Janice Seamon Molson has faith in the opponents: "Like a terminator, 'I'll be back.'" Ditto for
Joey Silver: "Rather not put all my eggs in one basket with a heart bid. No hurry with the boss suits. Ain't my faith in the opponents touching?"
George Jacobs: "If I were to open, it would be close between one and two hearts. Maybe one spade will get a bunch of votes also, but more likely I will have an opportunity to show both black suits. I hate to open with possibly zero defensive tricks."
Danny Kleinman: "A one-bid would misrepresent the high-card strength grossly. To preempt in hearts may miss spades." One of the flaws of this hand is the higher-ranking suit is also shorter; I like the understanding described by
Phillip Alder: "John Lowenthal and I had the agreement that if we passed, then showed a big two-suiter on the next round, the lower-ranking suit was longer than the higher-ranking."
1 ♠ 50 BWP 7% BWS 26% IAC 20%
Nearly a plurality of the BW solvers focused on opening spades first, so both majors could be bid naturally.
Richard Colker actually dreams of different solution: "Where's Bill Flannery when we need him? I plan to rebid hearts - the Devil be damned - as game requires little more than finding partner with the king of hearts, an ace, and a fit for a major."
YleeXotee "I decided to do what I think I would really do at the table, which is to make a bid in third seat that can be light. I see now that lots of others chose hearts, and that makes sense too. but I decided If p doesn't have 4 spades, they will be lost completely if I start with 1h since I will never be bidding 2s at some later time. meanwhile if p bids 1nt, I am going to take another bid at 2h and suffer the consequences non-vulnerable. I doubt if we are winning this contract, and I want to get in the way with a low 1s preemptive bid."
Phillipe Cronier admits "I could pass, but showing the two suits at next turn could be at a very-high level. One spade is not perfect, but
c'est la vie!2 ♥ 80 BWP 7% BWS 15% IAC No solvers
Another option is to preempt. It could work well if you have a general understanding like
Zia: "No strong feeling. In my style, I can open two hearts and bid three spades later. I certainly expect to need to bid later; either you believe in those pips or you don't." But the real purpose of preempting on this hand is expressed by
Dan Gerstman: "I want to enter the bidding and establish lack of defense. I hope that the opponents leave me room to bid three spades, or that RHO converts a minor-suit overcall to three notrump, so I can cue-bid the minor."
3 ♥ 80 BWP 18% BWS 6% IAC No solvers
If a weak-two is good, then with this much distribution 3
could be better. According to
Kit Woolsey "The suit is good enough for a three-level preempt, and this seems to be the right level to give the opponents headaches. Spades isn't likely to play any better."
Robert Wolff considers the bid "Dangerous only when the partnership is loathe to open close hands at the one-level." while
John Stewart says "I may regret this if partner has a couple of aces, but why should he?"
David Berkowitz has a different regret: "Not so easy for East-West to act when I have the spades. Gutless of me not to open four hearts, but I've alway been a little bit of a wimp."
4 ♥ 60 BWP 7% BWS 4% IAC No solvers
A couple of Panelists are not gutless.
Andrew Robson thinks "If one needed to guess, it would be that West is keen to declare in three notrump. He may be stymied with a strong, balanced hand. In four hearts (doubled, perhaps), the defense won't read my shape and my not pursue a forcing defense when that would be best." But
Pepsi just goes for the gusto: "It's too big a temptation no to go for it."
1 ♥ 70 BWP 11% BWS 28% IAC 50%
Half of IAC and a plurality of the BW solvers decided to open 1
.
Jeff Meckstroth's reason was "Certainly won't preempt when not sure what suit to play in."
JCreech points out "... I only need two cover cards from partner, so I will start with 1
and hope I hear a raise or 1
from partner."
Chris Willenken: "If partner has ace-third of spades and a singleton heart, the deal could play better in hearts, so I won't distort the shape. Could open four hearts if needing a swing; what are the odds that LHO will have enough spades to double?"
CCR3 "Thought about this one a long time. I recall this hand not too long ago. Lost the board because I passed in first seat."
Billy Eisenberg's conclusion was "No better way to go."
Problem H 4/6/7 (Masse24, KenBerg)
Imps North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 7 6 4
♥ 8 3
♦ K 5 ♣ A Q J 10 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♣* Pass 1
♦ Pass 1
♥ Pass 1 ♠
Pass 2 ♠ Pass 4 ♠
Pass Pass Pass
*East-West use Bridge World Standard
What is your opening lead?
Essentially, with this problem, there are three perspectives. One is to lead trump and reduce the coming crossruff. A second is to play a forcing game, trying to get declarer to lose control of the trump suit, and thereby lose control of the hand. The third is to attack the transportation between declarer and dummy, hoping that whether this is crossruff hand or an establish the side tricks hand, there will not be enough of something to pull the trump and enjoy the non-trump tricks.
♠ 4/6/7 100 BWP 46% BWS 21% IAC 20%
The Panel plurality went with reducing the crossruff.
Bart Bramley thinks "Dummy has at most one diamond. A successful crossruff looms. I hope to hold declarer to six trump tricks and three side winners. I need partner to have a red winner and a late diamond control. I considered the club queen, which will usually work as well as or better than the ace and might shorten declarer's trumps when his diamonds are very strong."
Pepsi feels certain that "Declarer has 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=4=5, so I'll try to stop a crossruff."
Jeff Rubens: "The auction suggests a trump lead, and nothing about the South hand suggests otherwise."
Masse24 says "They will be cross ruffing. This will slow them down. ... I hate lead problems."
Dan Gerstman: "At matchpoints, I'd lead a heart, but to beat the contract I need partner to have strength, so I'll reduce ruffs. Ideally, declarer will win the lead in dummy and play its diamond; partner will duck the ace so I can win and lead another trump."
Robert Wolff thinks this "Probably will lose only when East has an excellent diamond suit and can draw trumps."
David Berkowitz: "Maybe declarer needs to ruff something or will not get the spades right now or would have played them effectively anyway."
Carl Hudecek feels "A trump lead is in order. Leading clubs to try to shorten declare seems hopeless, since West almost certainly holds the club king."
Joey Silver thinks it is "Not the time to try to set up winners; rather, it is one for patience and passively."
Mats Nilsland is "Just following my bridge instincts."
♣ Q 80 BWP 21% BWS 3% IAC No solvers
With the forcing defense, most of the Panel chose to lead the queen, frequently citing Zia as the teacher or inspiration for the lead.
Philippe Cronier describes the rationale well: "With controls in diamonds and spades, I'm probably a favorite to be able to shorten declarer. Which club? East is short in clubs, so the king is likely with West. The queen-lead may induce declarer to duck twice." J
eff Meckstroth says "Can't resist. Zia taught me this lead. I expect he will lead it as well."
Andrew Robson: "I know I'll have support from Zia, and doubtless others. We must try the forcing defense. The chance that the king of clubs is in dummy is pretty good."
Barry Rigal points out that "One gets only gets one chance to appear a fool (and for it not to cost real imps)." One thing that struck me is that if everyone is going to lead the queen, wouldn't the expert field be expecting the deceptive lead?
♣ A 70 BWP 7% BWS 39% IAC 40%
But where was Zia? Having recently been a victim of his own brilliance,
Zia complains that "They never fall for that club-queen play against me. I have put it away for 2021."
YleeXotee "... Ace and setting up some more clubs for them to have to ruff seems right to me." Agreeing,
JCreech "I will try to turn this into a forcing game by leading clubs every time I get the chance; it only sets up one trick, and may cause declarer to lose control. My second choice is dummy's second suit. I am not thrilled with my choices, but those are my active and passive choices."
CCR3 simply says "I like the forcing game."
Danny Kleinman, however, is "Breaking my vow never to lead unsupported aces in suits partner has not bid. No lead is safe, but clubs offers the best hope of wresting trump control from declarer."
♥ 8 70 BWP 21% BWS 37% IAC 40%
Most of those leading a heart chose the eight.
George Jacobs argues that "What little treasures partner owns are in hearts, so we need to cash a heart before it goes on dummy's club king."
Kit Woolsey says "Holding this much strength, I see no reason to lead away from an honor."
WackoJack: "Looks like west is 4414 and East maybe 4252. I don’t like leading a doubleton ♥ but this looks least likely to give away a trick"
John Stewart thinks "This might save us a pitch on dummy's club king. A trump doesn't feel right against declarer's diamond length, and a tap doesn't look effective with the lousy trump spots."
Michael Lawrence considers the lead "Semi-default. The four of spades might be better."
Chris Willenken: "Club queen could be very right, but why do something dramatic when suits appear to be breaking poorly for declarer? Similarly, a trump lead could win, but maybe declarer has strong enough diamonds to draw trumps."
♥ 3 80 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 0% IAC No solvers
However, the deceptive three, with virtually no votes on any front, save
Michael Becker was granted a slightly better score than the more popular eight. His thoughts were "A low-heart lead may induce declarer to misjudge the play; there is little risk of fooling partner, who has few high cards. If declarer is 4=2=5=2, not knowing that the club ace is onside, he may try to cash hearts to pitch a club. Another possibility is that declarer will plan a crossruff and think it's safer to return to the East hand with a heart than with a club. A heart also attacks declarer's transportation. A trump lead might work better, but declarer may have 10 tricks (four spades, one ruff, the club king, and four red-suit tricks)."
A so ends another month, including the Todd complaint about hating lead problems while taking the top score on the problem.