April MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, DirectorProblem A -- Pass (Masse24, KenBerg, MarilynLi, CCR3, Peuco)
Board-a-match
Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 8 6
♥ Q 7 4
♦ K Q J 9 ♣ A 9 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♦ 3 ♣ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
Board-a-Match, like matchpoints is a brutal form of scoring. Your sole goal is to come back with a better result than your counterparts at the other table. You have a minimum balanced opener, there is nothing to gain from a vulnerability difference, and partner has made a negative double, showing length in your three-card majors. What should you do? If you have game, you will need to set them three tricks. If you have a part score, you will still need to set them two tricks. Yet, if you bid, you still have to establish the appropriate strain. Is a single stop enough for 3NT? At the 3-level, partner should have at least invitational values, but will it be enough for game? Or will it be enough to set the opponents two or more tricks? These are the sort of questions that mark a good problem hand.
Pass (100). 56% of the Bridge World panelists decided to take their chances in 3
X and passed. They were joined by 27% of the IAC solvers and 37% of the BW solvers.
KenBerg: “I expected to be close to a lone wolf on 1 bypassing but no, many others agree. It seems to me that the club A and four tricks in the side suits are the best path for a plus, and if we cannot do that we also are very unlikely to make 3NT. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we can make 8 tricks in NT and they can make 8 tricks in clubs.”
Peuco thinka that ” Pass going for a plus better than a partial” Masse24 says it is a “Crapshoot. I see three perfectly viable choices. I am usually a strong advocate for Hamman's Rule, so this Pass is extremely uncomfortable.” From the Panel,
Karen McCallum believes “If partner’s hand will produce nine tricks at notrump, it will probably produce seven tricks against three clubs doubled. It is much more likely that three notrump will fail and that three clubs doubled is our last plus score.” The moderator (
Kit Woolsey) agrees “…that defending against three clubs might be the last achievable plus score, but it won’t be a large plus score. … West will almost surely find at least one more trick, so the penalty won’t compensate for a game. And, if West can find two more tricks, the penalty won’t compensate for a partscore.” Why did Pass get the top score then? Too many experts believing as
Jeff Rubens does “The default (three-level) action with three trumps and nothing descriptive to bid.” Indeed,
Zia “… tried to write three notrump, but it came out pass. Must be a sign.” And
Eric Kokish gets on his soap box “If BWS switches to weak notrumps, we will never again need to see this type of problem. Is that not worth the price of admission?” Perhaps expressing the wish and a prayer approach to this problem is
CCR3: “Close but hope to cash in for the reward.” She may not have reaped the reward at the table, but in the MSC contest, she certainly did!
3 NT. (80) 26% of the panelists, 67% of the IAC solvers and 43% of the BW solvers tried their luck at the NT game. Echoing the moderator from above,
DickHy: argues for 3NT “Partner should have 10/11 (+) HCP for a negative double at the 3-level, and they all figure to be outside clubs. What are the chances of us making 3N? We have to hope the pre-emptor doesn’t have the diamond ace. Perhaps that’s reasonable given the vulnerability? We will need 5 major suit tricks if partner does not have the diamond ace. In that case his HCP will be split between the majors; AQxx(x) and AJxx(x) say. But if partner has that minimum we could well lose 5 tricks (2 major suit kings, two clubs and the diamond ace). With that same minimum hand can we take 5 tricks against 3Cx? We’re unlikely to get two tricks in both majors alongside the trump ace (unless West is 3316, and partner is exactly 44 in the majors). I might be bidding 3N to avoid the risk of 3Cx making when partner is minimum, knowing that if he is not, I’ll be scoring 400 against 300.” The moderator seems to endorse this choice, writing, “Some panelists went for the biggest plus, a reasonable move when one doesn’t know what trump suit to pick.”
WackoJack thinks “Bidding a major would be wrong. 3NT? Assuming, East has no more than 3 clubs west has no outside entry then we are likely to make 9 tricks in no trumps. Pass the double is an alternative but 3♣x-1 with 3NT= looks quite possible. So, I go for 3N.”
JCreech writes “I checked BWS understandings, and found that negative doubles are through 3
, so I felt an increased responsibility to pull the takeout double. Since nothing else seemed better, I decided that I would show my stopper and hope for the best.”
YleeXotee pulls out the wish and prayer technique for a different purpose, “hoping those half stops in my hand will lead to some good finesse of whatever other honor west has”
Larry Robbins, for the panel, has one of the best discussions: "I can hold off in clubs and hope that the preemptor is entryless. Sometimes pard will hold the queen of clubs or jack-low (and there will be a stiff honor on my right). Three notrump would not be as attractive with only ace-low of clubs. Passing is an option, but three notrump will often make opposite a random 10-count. Searching for a five-three major-suit fit would be reasonable, but every possible bid is moderately flawed.”
3 (70). 15% the panelists, 5% from IAC and 10% of the BW solvers tried rebidding their four-card suit.
Hoki explained his reasoning as follows: “Partner’s most likely hand imvho has five cards in one of the majors and ten points – so I rejected my first choice of a very aggressive 3NT and went low. Plus 100 from 3♣ doubled is going to lose against plus 140 in three of a major and that’s what we need to win the board.” Panelist
John Carruthers argues, “If we must play in a four-three fit, the three will be in the hand that takes the tap.”
Danny Kleinman waxes philosophical: “Maybe standard negative doubles don’t work so well at the three-level. Maybe Marty Bergen is right to prefer thrump doubles. Maybe the author of the American Contract Bridge League’s Yellow Card was right to suggest negative doubles only through two spades. But in our agreed methods, I’m willing to rebid diamonds on four in a pinch. I’m thankful to have a beefy four-bagger, but I’m not thankful to have opened this wretched, flat hand. Where are the 3 honor tricks?”
Problem B -- 4 (Hoki, BabsG, DickHy, Yleexotee, Msphola, VeeRee, KenBerg, CCR3, Peuco, Anonymous)
Matchpoints
Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q
♥ 10 6 5 2
♦ K 9 3 ♣ K Q J 10 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1
♥ 1 ♠ 2 ♠* 3 ♠
?
*BWS: general game-force
What call do you make?
In Problem B, partner has made a general game-forcing bid, and the opponents have made a bid that allows you a choice between passing the bid back to partner, so the cue bid can be clarified or making a bid yourself. The argument for bidding is that you have not shown the full value of your hand yet as the responder; the argument for not bidding is that partner seems to have an idea where this auction is going, and may need room to show you as well. If you bid, do you continue to bid out your shape, or tell partner about the fitting diamonds right away? Let’s start with the simpler choice.
Pass (90) One-third of the BW Panel, 22% of the IAC solvers and 18% of the BW solvers wait patiently for partner to share.
JCreech described his thinking: “Partner put on the game force, and my primary responsibility was to keep the auction open. Should I bid the clubs? Maybe, but partner needs to clarify the cue. If he wants to take a piece of 3
, I will pass; otherwise I listen.”
Fred Stewart says “Let’s not get in partner’s way. With four hearts, he would have raised. Why should I take us beyond three notrump, which may be our most-likely game?”
Billy Eisenberg believes that “A bid should be descriptive; a new suit would be a slam try.” While
Howard Weinstein thinks that “Pass seems the best way to discover his hand-type. North will likely double with the strong, balanced hand, bid three notrump with shape and a stopper, or bid a new suit with shape and no stopper.”
4 (100) 37% of the BW Panel, 56% of the IAC and 66% of the BW solvers continued to bid out their shape. The moderator seems to favor this selection, writing “West may be about to ram it into four spades, after which we will be flying blind, so if South has something to say, it may be vital to say it now.”
Leonard Helfgott argues that “A minor figures to be the best trump suit. Now or never for four clubs.”
Peuco agrees: “A good suit worth showing it now.”
CCR3: “Partner has no idea I have anything more than 6 pts. Didn’t finish describing my hand.”
Hoki: “Yes, 4♣ initially and didn’t change it since partner can always retreat to diamonds.”
YleeXotee: “I would like to let partner know I have a good side suit besides hearts” Similarly,
John Diamond says “Might as well tell partner I have something and where.”
Carl Hudecek points out that it is “What I have, awaiting clarification. Freely bid, this implies a good suit.” Though
Danny Klienman thinks this is “The last train to perhaps the best strain.”
4 (80) 22% of the panelists, 17% of the IAC solvers and 6% of the BW solvers chose to show their support for opener’s suit.
Masse24 thinks “Partner has all sorts of ways to support hearts. Attempting to do so with 2
would be rare. I think the popular solver choice will be the “bid what you have” 4
. But in an attempt to “see” into partner’s hand--I’m thinking he has a one-suiter in diamonds. So although a pass allows him more room to tell me that, and 4
is certainly “showing” my suit, 4
is telling partner that indeed I do have support.”
WackoJack believes “Partner should be telling and not asking with his first re-bid. Nevertheless, I have to trust partner is doing the right thing. So, what have I got to tell partner? Pass is out because I have 11HCP, 6 more than I might have. Partner wants me to describe my hand and so passing now to catch up later could lead to misunderstandings and reproach. … So, the choice is between 4♣ and 4♦. I think it is more important to show that I have ♦ support rather than long clubs as at least 4♣s implied.”
MarilynLi is just thinking of partner: “I hope partner likes to hear about diamonds rather than my clubs.”
Bart Bramley summarizes nicely: “Practical. Should be our best strain. Ambiguities still exist if partner bids four hearts. Four clubs by me would muddy the waters.” Ultimately, the moderator comes down on the side of 4
, “Four clubs certainly shows clubs, but it sounds like a two-suiter. If North bids four spades, the diamond support will be left on the shelf. Perhaps that is the most important feture of South’s hand.”
Problem C -- Pass (DickHy, VeeRee, CCR3, Peuco, WackoJack, Masse24, BabsG, MarilynLi, Jcreech, Thornbury, Blubayou)
Matchpoints
Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 9 4 2
♥ K 7 6
♦ 9 7 ♣ A 10 6 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 3 ♣ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
Preempts are meant to make things difficult for the opponents, and this one is no different. Partner should have a decent hand for the direct seat double, but do you have enough for game? Also, partner is marked with shortness, so there was added pressure to act, and may not have ideal shape for the double. Do you want to play in a 4-3 fit when there may be a 5-3 available? You also have a stopper in clubs, in fact, with a bit of luck, you may have a double stop. Should you bid 3NT? Should you pass, hoping to get better than your game or partscore?
Pass (100) 63% of the BW Panel passed, along with 50% of the BW solvers and 44% of the IAC solvers. We start here because it is the option that will not lead to other considerations.
Zach Grossack gives this a lot of thought: “Pass. At imps, I would just slam down four spades; at matchpoints, it’s a tricky expected-value problem, because I don’t know how many spades to bid. If I bid three, we will miss game a lot of the time when we have one, but, with imminent bad breaks, four spades would be an overbid – RHO overruffing in clubs, and , more importantly, there is no guarantee of an eight-card fit. … I expect to defeat three clubs, usually beating those who stopped in a partscore when our side has a game, and winning big when our side has no game. Sometimes we will catch the opponents speeding and collect a large number.”
JCreech has similar thoughts: “This should beat the partscore contracts, and may lose to game contracts (which may not always make). I will go for the plus results.”
Masse24: “Difficult problem, but Pass will be popular.”
CCR3: “Hope to pick up the marbles. No where to go.”
DickHy: “I would expect both majors from partner … One problem with 3N is that the missing high cards are likely to be over partner. One problem with 3S is that partner may pass (?) and leave us with a measly 140. Maybe it’s time for the axe for 200.” Daniel Korbel thinks “We could make game, but it’s not a certainty, and I wouldn’t know which game to bid.”
John Diamond is particularly succinct: “Take the money when game and fit are questionable.”
3 (80) 22% of the panel guessed at 3
, joined by 13% of the BW solvers and two of our IAC solvers. Neither from IAC discussed their reason, so we are left with the expert opinions.
Mark Cohen bids “Three spades. Conservative, yes, but I’m not passing, don’t play top-or-bottom matchpoints, and am not convinced that we are a big favorite to beat three clubs.”
Steve Robinson: “Partner made a takeout double, so I’m taking it out. I very rarely pass partner’s takeout double.”
Brian Glubok: “A stick-out, because often best when right and only rarely worst when wrong. Partner will raise with four spades and 16-17 HCP, so there are few hands with which North will pass and miss game. If South jumped to four spades, North might get rambunctious …”
3 NT (70) 25% of the BW solvers tried 3NT, but it was less popular for the BW Panel (15%) and IAC solvers (12%).
Hoki: “since I do have two stoppers in clubs. Many advocate passing but plus 200, even plus 500, is not as good as plus 600. And partner’s double is in the direct seat, not the balancing seat.”
YleeXotee: “Rule of 9 says to pass here, but even two down is a bad score in Matchpoints. … I have 2 club stoppers….but they are also club tricks. still I think the math here is to take our NT score, not the x for -2. can we get -3?? not sure enough.”
Billy Eisenberg agrees “Three notrump. Expect to make. 500 is the most we could expect on defense.”
Eric Kokish wished for the talents of BluBayou in MSC months of yore: “Three notrump. We desperately need a very good simulation to know the percentage action (and why). Then we could eliminate this family of problems.”
Problem D -- 2 (Blubayou, Jcreech, Yleexotee, MarilynLi, Masse24, Msphola, CCR3, BabsG)
Imps
Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 3
♥ 6
♦ K J 10 8 2 ♣ J 10 9 7 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♥ 1 ♠ Pass
?*
*BWS: simple new-suit advance nonforcing; jump new-suit advance invitational
What call do you make?
To advance, or not to advance, that is the question. You only have 7 HCPs and less than a three-card fit for partner – so perhaps, you should not take a bid until you are forced. On the other hand, you have two potential places to play and an excellent doubleton for partner, so if you chose to bid, you have several possibilities, particularly since a simple new suit is not forcing.
Pass (80) The easiest path to justify is to pass, which is what more than half (51%) of the BW solvers did, as did large segments of the panel (37%) and IAC solvers (32%).
DickHy: “I seem to be considering an awful lot of passes for an MSC bidding quiz! West figures to have a big hand and this feels a little like a trap. I can offer a trick – two on a non-trump led, with perhaps a club too.”
Peuco: “Pass maybe I can show minors later.” Similarly,
Larry Robbins writes, “I will bid later. Two diamonds would be reasonable, but, with East passing, it is very likely that partner has four hearts. If opener reopens with two hearts, passed around to me, I will bid two spades (rather than two notrump for the minors).”
Nik Demirev wants more information: “Pass. Heresy, but there isn’t game on every deal. Can we miss one? Sure. Is there a remotely-straightforward bid to develop an auction catering for spades or either minor that can’t backfire? No. If opener and partner bid one more time, I will be much-better placed.”
2 (100) Most (56%) of the panel, and large portions of both the 37% BW (37%) and IAC 32% solvers took the hint about the new suit not being forcing. Sharp in his prediction (not),
Zia says “Nobody else I know will do this; but when the final contract is in hearts, I will feel smug.” A bit worried,
CCR3 states that “If this is a trap, I fell for it hook, line and sinker. If it weren’t for the foot note I’d bid 2 S.”
BluBayou embraces the hint: “It’s nice to hear that both “2D” and “3D” are not forcing (how strange). Otherwise, we would be stuck with the choice between a single raise and passing. It almost always happens that when I raise an overcall on Qx, partner competes to 3 Spades, thinking he is following the LAW (or fudging by one length-card) and we go down instead of the opps doing so. So, I am pleased to call my lead, and come back with 2 Spades later, if the other players don’t blow on past that spot.”
JCreech: “Let’s go with the clue and bid one of my minors. 2
is a bit of a lead director, and I can always go back to support spades if it goes 2
back to me.”
Karen McCallum is cautiously optimistic: “A bit to strong to pass. This leaves plenty of room to esxplore, and there is safety with queen-low of spades.”
2 (60) The third highest score went to 2
, which received less than 10 % from the BW panel, as well as both solver groups.
WackoJack: “2♠ on a doubleton is not ideal but better than bidding a minor because West is very likely to rebid 2♥ over a minor whereas might be shut up if I raise to 2♠.”
Eric Kokish has “No strong feelings, but I don’t like passing opposite an overcaller whose style meshes with mine. Although both minors are chunky, I’d rather wait for a six-card suit before inviting North to pass with a misfitting near-minimum.” And
Carl Hudecek thinks that “Two spades, with honor-low, a stiff heart, nice diamonds, and club pushers can’t be
that wrong.”
And thus ends the part. I will return with the second when I have a chance. Until then, please enjoy.