October MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, DirectorThis month, the IAC solver comments may be a bit thin. Although we only lost two or three sets of comments with the crash of the September and October forums, I think others were a bit reluctant to put out their comments only to see them disappear into oblivion. Please contribute again, but you might want to be cautious as well. Save the text in a separate file, so all you lose is the formatting. When it is a huge formatting task like this one, you might copy the formatted text into that file before saving. Let us not be afraid, but also, let us not continually recreate because **it happens.
Problem A 2 (Masse24, JCreech, KenBerg, BabsG, MarilynLi, YleeXotee, CCR3)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 10 8 6 5 2
♥ 6 2
♦ Q J 10 4 ♣ A
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2 ♣ Pass
?*
*BWS: 2 ♦ game-force
What call do you make?
This first problem might be based on the story of the three bears. We can overbid, underbid, or try to find the middle ground. We have been here before, and it seems like the bar keeps shifting. Last month, we held two better suits, but a void in partner's suit; the panel tied between inviting or going low. The high score was given to the invitational bid based on strength of the spades (AJT865). The strong choice was third. Based on last month, I would expect the invitational bid to lose a few votes to the low ball, but let's see what actually happened.
3 ♠ 60 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 11% Bridge World Solvers (BWS) 15% Intermediate-Advanced Club solvers (IAC) 15%
The invitational bid did, indeed, lose votes. Those still pushing the choice, recognize the pitfalls.
Phillip Alder is of two minds, "Courageous or foolhardy, depending on partner's hand, but less so than two spades."
Mark Cohen summarizes the hand nicely: "Wrong on suit quality, right on strength. I won't force to game at matchpoints, and other bids are too conservative."
Daniel Korbel: "I know, the suit quality sucks for this. But I just can't bring myself to bid only two spades, and I really hate two notrump." Nonetheless,
WackoJack is "Going out on a limb here but this bid is more descriptive than the lazy 3
4th suit ask."
2 NT 60 BWP 11% BWS 20% IAC 23%
Personally, I felt the hand was too distributional for 2NT, but this was an alternative approach to an invite.
BluBayou takes us on a trip through memory lane: "Last month, on the INFAMOUS problem E, there was a 6-4 hand of 11 points BETTER organized than these eleven. HALF the panel rebid a lousy 2 spades with it, and the votes for 4th suit forcing got a very generous 70 with only 3 voters. There is an avalanche of 4SF bids, by us this month and that can only mean that several of us mean to weasel out of the 'game force' supposedly created. I give kudos to Peuco for thinking of 2NT which I didn't think of on my own, and that will be my vote."
Robert Wolff wants "...to give partner a chance to help choose a game contract (most likely notrump or spades, but possibly hearts). I will live with his pass, which has a 20-percent likelihood of producing the best contract. The ten of diamonds was the deciding factor in picking notrump."
John Carruthers thinks the hand is "Not quite strong enough for two diamonds and too strong for two of a major. I want to invite game but the spades are not strong enough for three spades, not the hearts for three hearts. When one has eliminated the impossible, ..."
Eric Kokish says, "One of the main hopes is that North has another bid and that it might be three of a major."
2 ♠ 80 BWP 30% BWS 16% IAC 1 solver
So did the Panel take the low road? No, but not for the want of trying from these Panelists.
John Diamond thinks "Staying low has many ways to win."
Jeff Rubens elaborates: "Go low on potential misfits. With diamonds that are likely to be worth tricks if there is an entry, spades rates to play as well as hearts. Two spades is more encouraging for game chances than two hearts." At matchpoints, these panelists prefer to protect their plus position, and reserve more aggressive moves to imps.
Fred Stewart "Can't bear to force to game at matchpoints. The low spades represent tricks, so I'll shoot for the maximum plus in a partial. At imps, I'd bid two diamonds."
Zack Grossack: "At imps, I'd need at least to invite game; here, the scoring isn't as conducive to bidding aggressively to game."
Bart Bramley: "Trying to go plus. Any more-aggressive move jeopardizes that. Two diamonds at imps."
2 ♦ 100 BWP 48% BWS 47% IAC 54%
The top score, then, went to the unexpectedly aggressive 2
; garnering just less than half of the BW voters (both Panel and Solvers), and pushing above 50% among the IAC.
Brian Glubok considers this bid to be "Practically mandatory. Then raise two notrump or move towards game in a major, probably four spades unless partner indicates extra heart length."
Masse24 thinks this is "The only way to explore game intelligently, so the overbid is justified."
Nik Demirev thinks "If we belong in a partial, it will be hard to guess the right one. It is more important to find the right strain, even at a higher level."
Carl Hudecek is "Following the probably-obsolete theory that an opening bid opposite an opening bid will produce game. I will leave room for exploration."
Danny Kleiman thinks "This problem can serve as a commercial for the style in which responder's low-level fourth-suit rebid forces for only one round. Too many experts abandoned it, not for technical reasons but for ease of use by clients." And the last word goes to
Zia: "I reserve the right sneakily to pass in a forcing auction later. In my style, partner normally would continue with two spades on a doubleton unless holding the likes of ace-queen-doubleton in the unbid suit."
KenBerg says "I think there are more ways for this to go right than to go wrong." While
JCreech goes with the least-lie theory: "Feels like it is too much for matchpoints and a misfit, but 3
leaves no room to explore, 2
is too wimpy, 3
misstates the fit, 2NT misstates the shape, so what else am I left with?"
Problem B 3 (None)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 6 5 2
♥ A 7
♦ Q 9 8 5 4 ♣ K Q 9
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ Pass
1 NT Pass 2 ♣ Pass
?
What call do you make?
It is not often that the IAC is shut out the highest-scoring pick, but it happened this time. The choice, this time, was largely between multiple ways to invite, or to go low. By-and-large, this hand came down to which flavor of invitation do you take.
2 NT 80 BWP 26% BWS 39% IAC 53%
IAC chose 2NT. This option is flawed by the fact that both North and South essentially deny length in the suit, and you, as South are staring at three small. But then as Jeff Meckstroth likes to say - who needs a stopper to bid NT. Or as
Masse24 says, "Yuck!"
Fred Stewart comes right to the point: "Right on values. Two hearts would be far too little."
John Diamond agrees: "Right on values and shape. No spade stopper, but partner could be 4=5=1=3." True, John, partner could have been stuck with a reverse-shaped hand, but without the values to make the bid.
Susan Panter also says "The right strength, and raising hearts would be inappropriate." If I were to make the bid,
Daniel Korbel's reasoning strikes me best: "Don't want to lie about an extra card in hearts or clubs. I hope for a spade stopper or wriggling out of notrump." While
Danny Kleiman gives the best reason to not go another route: "Two spades would be worse, as partner would expect a fourth club."
2 ♠ 70 BWP 15% BWS 10% IAC 38%
Most of the rest of IAC went with the impossible 2
.
WackoJack asks interesting questions: "Is this a better bid than 2N? Does 2
promise a stop, partial guard, or is it an ask in spades because you could have bid 2N with a stop? I will go for that as the least of evils." While, as Danny points out, partner would expect a fourth club, is the impossible spade really that bad of a bid? You clearly have a concentration of values in the suit; nearly half of your 11 HCPs are bound in your KQx. And unless partner has a highly distributional hand, the partnership is likely headed toward NT.
Carl Hudecek says "A club short of the definition, but it's the best lie."
JCreech feels "The impossible 2
, even with only three clubs, feels like the right bid. If I am lucky, I get partner to bid the NT, if not, I will do so my next turn."
David Berkowitz will continue, "Then three hearts, hoping partner will read it." And
Howard Weinstein regards the sequence as "reasonably descriptive." But the moderator is clearly in the camp that thinks 2
will show five or more clubs, and that is an image that can never be erased from partner's brain until dummy comes down.
3 ♥ 100 BWP 41% BWS 12% IAC None
The Panel's plurality went with 3
.
Zia is the most explicit in identifying this as a least-lie bid: "I like to use this to show honor-low in hearts and a club fit. Even though it shows three hearts in BWS, I will still bid it."
Steve Robinson argues that "With most of my strength in partner's suits, I will support. I'm a strong believer in using a direct invitational raise with good three-card support; in that context, an indirect three hearts suggests a weaker hand." A pair of Dallas Aces make the same bid, but with much different perspectives about it.
Bobby Wolff describes it as "Awkward, but better than a too-wimpy two hearts." While
Billy Eisenberg thinks the bid as being "Most practical."
2 ♥ 60 BWP 15% BWS 24% IAC None
Now for the "wimps" as Bobby put it (and not an IAC solver to be found).
Nik Demirev puts it best: "Heavy, but it is hard to imagine a good game unless partner bids. A spade lead against notrump will come out very quickly. Facing ♠ xxx
♥ KQJxx
♦ A ♣ Axxx, we deserve to lose 6 imps." Similarly,
Karen McCallum thinks she is "Underbidding slightly, but it doesn't seem dangerous. It's worrisome that the opponents aren't bidding spades suggesting that North has the wrong hand for game. Partner can bid again with a bit extra, which he'll need to make four hearts or five clubs. Maybe." Aslo showing spade concern,
Mark Cohen writes, Nonvulnerable, I'll be conservative. Two notrump is the value bid, but I fear that the spade six won't stand up on the third round." As does
Zack Grossack, who contradicts himself from Problem A: Okay, so I'll go low at imps, too. (Here, because of the three tiny spades.) Tempted to bid two spades, as I have good fitting cards opposite partner's known lengths."
Problem C Double (MsPhola, Hoki, YleeXotee, Masse24)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 9 3
♥ 10 3
♦ A K ♣ K J 7 5 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 2
♥ Double 3
♥ ?
What call do you make?
With the Panel, this was one of the most devisive problems I've seen posed. The plurality was only 30%, while the fourth choice still had 19%; the votes were 8-7-6-5 for the first four choices. To me, the bid what you think you can make is what makes sense to me. The next question is how many losers do you think are in the heart suit?
5 ♣ 80 BWP 22% BWS 41% IAC 54%
To some, there was concern about the hearts, and so they only bid to 5
.
Bart Bramley says "I believe the opponents, so there's too great a chance that we're off the first two hearts. Besides slam might be terrible even if partner has a heart control, e.g.: ♠ Kxxx
♥ Ax
♦ Jxxx ♣ AQx. The problem would be just as hard if East has passed."
JCreech did "... not feel comfortable with the double, noticed there was a lot of support for 5
as the choice, it made sense as the best description. After all, I do have enough HCPs to jump and enough clubs that I can survive partner having less than ideal takeout shape. With the right hand, maybe partner will take a shot at slam, but I am never going to know scientifically." Similarly,
Danny Kleiman exclaims: "Thank heaven for the Lawyers of Total Tricks and the High Priests and Priestesses who preach, 'Always bid to the level of fit!' else I might read partner for a singleton heart and bid six, crediting him with the missing ace, king and queens in the other three suits."
KenBerg believes "It should make. Pard might, probably won't but he might, be bidding 6C." And
WackoJack says, "A responsive double is out for me as partner is likely to bid a number of
s and that gets you nowhere. So I just bid what I think we can make if partner has a normal take-out double."
6 ♣ 90 BWP 26% BWS 3% IAC None
The moderator says "While I have endorsed the philosophy that leaping to slam is always wrong, there doesn't seem to be any sensible way to handle this hand. No club bid is forcing, so we can't set trumps. Even if we could enlist partner's help, how would he know what to do? The right 9-count, ♠ Kxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxxx ♣ Axxx, makes slam great, while the wrong 17-count, ♠ KQJx
♥ Qx
♦ QJxx ♣ AQx puts it down off the top."
Zia agrees: "I see no way to invite slam in clubs. Double then clubs would suggest diamonds. Partner will never accept a slam invitation if (unlikely) he has a low doubleton heart - and they haven't led the suit yet."
Daniel Korbel thinks, "Too much hand not to take a chance on the heart situation, and I don't knw how to explore for seven."
Brian Glubok: "A sound gamble. If seven is cold, we will almost certainly languish at the six-level, but ..."
Sami Kehela adds that "Needs must when the devil drives." And
Jeff Rubens identifies it as a "High percentage guess."
4 ♥ 70 BWP 19% BWS 14% IAC None
What about a cue-bid?
Mark Cohen tries "Four hearts. Then clubs, probably six. as partner won't be able to cooperative missing all these controls. Maybe six clubs directly?"
Robert Wolff bids "Four hearts. Then five clubs and let partner guess - an attempted cure-all, which we all know is dealing with the impossible."
Zack Grossack does the same adding that "Partner may not continue even with a stiff heart, but it's the best I can do." While
John Carruthers follows suit, but recognizes the pitfall: "I'll pull four spades to five clubs and hope that North does not think I have diamonds as well and will bid again if he has a heart control in a hand too strong or too flexible for a spade overcall." The two-suit interpretation is why
Eric Kokish and
Steve Robinson opted for 5
, and
Karen McCallum bid 5
because she thought the cue and pull "... should suggest heart control." These differences of opinion can cause a lot of trouble if partner's are not on the same page.
Double 100 BWP 30% BWS 34% IAC 31%
The moderator,
Kit Woolsey, has clear disdain for the plurality choice, the flexible double. When
John Diamond doubled hoping to "... see if partner can bid three notrump."
Kit asks "Will you pass when there may be a laydown slam?" When
David Berkowitz said "Never know when partner will pass."
Kit replied, "If partner has something like ♠ KQxx ♥ Ax ♦ Jxx ♣ Axxx, he probably will pass, and the penalty won't compensate for slam." But these were cries in the wind.
Fred Stewart considers the call "Most practical. If a club were a diamond, it would be perfect."
Susan Panter thinks it "A flexible approach. Five clubs would be too unilateral."
Masse24 thinks it is "Too strong for 5
. So start off with double then (likely) introduce clubs later."
The moderator concludes that "Careful slam exploration is usually better than bashing - provided that the information from the exploration will improved the chance of reaching the right contract. However, sometimes the hand and auction are such that exploration won't help. This is one of those times."
And this concludes the first part. Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 as I get the time to pull them together. Until then, enjoy what is offered.