February MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, DirectorProblem A 2 (BabsG, YleeXotee, KenBerg, JCreech)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K Q 9 5 3 2
♥ A Q 6
♦ J 6 4 ♣ A
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2 ♣* Pass
?
*BWS: invitational-plus raise
What call do you make?
You have opened in fourth seat with a hand that it only takes a nudge to convince you that game is there. The response you get is all that you could ask - an invitational-plus raise! Now if partner has the perfect holding, a slam is possible. Do you feel lucky?
4 ♠ 80 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 33% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 49% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 36%
The 4
bidders must see the glass as half empty.
Fleisher and Friessner, for example, think "Slam seems out of reach (no construction makes it better than a finesse) and intelligently reaching three notrump does not seem possible." Similarly,
WackoJack writes, "Too many holes to think of slam. No dilly-dallying with 2♦ or giving info to opps with 4♣. I want to play in 4♠ and that is it."
Paul Boudreau feels "Slam is remote, and any scientific probe might prove costly."
Carl Hudecek "It would take a perfecto opposite, and probably a finesse, to make slam, so the hand is not promising enough for four clubs." Some of the Panel use the opportunity to complain about
BWS 2017. For example,
John Swanson asks "Can we confidently bid a worthwhile slam, or will the investigation give the defense useful information? Slam will require fitting cards, and the system agreements do not inspire confidence. Also, the singleton ace is a difficult resource to evaluate. All in all, the path to slam is too rocky."
Kit Woolsey adds "Slam is unlikely with passed partner not having splintered, and the system offers little help." And
Danny Kleinman says "Easy to visualize North hands for slam and that put four spades in jeopardy. With appropriate partnership agreements, I'd try for slam, but here any try would be too confusion-prone."
Masse24 comments: "I would like for 3
to be forcing, but the methods are unclear." While
Robert Wolff just gives up: "Not close." An interesting anomaly appeared with this problem. Usually the plurality rules, and gets the top score. This month, the moderator decided that most of the Panel was not giving up on slam; they just had different ways of trying to elicit the information needed to make a final decision. So, despite having the plurality vote with 33%, 4
only received an 80, while the top score went elsewhere.
2 ♥ 80 BWP 13% BWS 19% IAC No solvers
One option was to try 2
. This call is a double-edged sword; although you are correctly moving partner's attention to the suits other than diamonds for fit purposes, you are also risking that partner will think you are serious about hearts as an alternative place to play. At least you have the boss suit to overrule that misperception.
Ira Chorush says, "Most North hands that produce a slam have shortness in diamonds, although there are a few perfectos that do not. Four clubs has superficial appeal, but the club king could provide a useful pitch. ... Two hearts might elicit a four-diamond splinter from partner, who now believes that hearts will be trumps." While
Oren Kriegel simply avoids a less desirable choice: "A splinter would be an imperfect description and would chew up room."
4 ♣ 80 BWP 13% BWS 8% IAC 18%
Another option is to splinter, but splintering into a singleton ace is problematic because partner now feels that the king and possible other touching honors may be useless, or at least nearly so. Not to be dissuaded,
Phillip Alder thinks the bid "A reasonable description of my hand and intentions."
BluBayou: "Splinter, looking for
Axxx, Kx, Axx, xxxx dummy, since we can easily end in 4
if it's not 'Christmas'" While
Kamil and Sherman are hopeful that partner has the appropriate hand: "A bit of an overbid, but slam is in the picture if partner has, say: ♠ Jxxx
♥ Kx
♦ AKx ♣ xxxx or a hand with short diamonds. At matchpoints, we might give up on slam and offer no information to the opponents."
Hoki: "I'll go along with 4♣ as a splinter bid since it doesn't cost and we can still come to roost in 4♠."
2 ♦ 100 BWP 25% BWS 8% IAC 36%
The alternative that proved to be the most popular slam try was 2
. Here the problem is misstating where your values are located, but on the other hand, you have maximized the room to explore.
David Berkowtiz writes "With no particularly good bid to describe the hand (I don't like four clubs), I will save room and perhaps partner will have something helpful to show."
JCreech writes: "Since partner bid 2
, showing an invitational plus sort of hand, I think I should allow partner to tell me more. Anything else may get partner to distort their hand, and I want to collect more information before I decide where we are headed."
Billy Eisenberg throws in another bone for the choice: "Saving room, maybe stopping the lead. Some careful try is needed. Not the right hand for a splinter, as many North hands with strong clubs produce slam." This lead inhibition idea is also central to
YleeXotee's thinking: "I also like it because even though its somewhat artificial asking partner to bid on, it will psychologically keep the ops from leading diamonds I hope! ... 4S was calling to me because, really, where else are we going to land, then I thought p could have two aces, and I don't need much else to make slam."
Eric Kokish takes a little time to make up his grocery list: "With this club holding, I do not intend to show club shortness, as the king-queen(-jack) of clubs may be valuable. What we really crave for slam is spade ace, heart king, and a singleton diamond." And for
Ralph Katz, "A splinter would take us to slam opposite something like: ♠ xxx
♥ KJx
♦ AKx ♣ xxxx. We need to go slowly to see if partner has a good red-suit holding and length."
2 NT 90 BWP 16% BWS 2% IAC No solvers
This option caught me off guard. I understand that it is still a move toward game, but those choosing this direction all talk about if partner shows shortness.
BWS 2017 discusses the 2
response as a passed hand, but does not go into continuations. Without discussion, how is partner showing the diamond shortness? Nonetheless,
Jill Meyers says "If partner shows a stiff diamond, I will look for slam."
Bart Bramley wants to make "One grab for the brass knob. Opposite short diamonds (four diamonds), I'll drive to slam; opposite a diamond suit (three diamonds), I'll keep the ball rolling; otherwise, I'll give up." And
John Hurd is more concerned with keeping partner from going for an ill-advised slam: "Four clubs would be misdirected, as partner would surely drive to slam with: ♠ Axx
♥ Kxxx
♦ Kxx ♣ xxx or similar hands where slam is terrible."
Problem B 1 NT (CCR3, YleeXotee, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 10
♥ A K 10 7
♦ 7 3 ♣ Q 7 6 5 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♣ 1
♦ 1 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
It is hands like this that remind me why I prefer to play a weak NT system. You bid 1NT, then let partner be captain. When you don't open 1NT you either have the extra shape or the extra strength to overcome the problems. When you play strong NT and face this sort of auction, you have to make a list of bad options, and choose from among them. Here is
WackoJack making up his list:
"Every bid looks bad. Choices:
1NT: I cannot stand the thought of partner’s stare when I lose 5 diamond tricks even before I start.
Pass: I cannot stand the thought of partner’s stare when I pass.
2
♥: No way Josay! Reverse overbid by 4 points.
2♠: Would partner pretend to look delighted when he had this? ♠ Axxx,
♥xx,
♦ xxx, ♣ KJxx
Least of evils 2♣."
1 NT 100 BWP 79% BWS 43% IAC 55%
Those bidding 1 NT are essentially saying, the opponents stuck their noses into my auction, but that is no reason to abandon my plan.
David Berkowitz goes through the checklist: "Is this hand a club one-suiter? No. Does it include spade support? No. Is it a weak notrump? Uh, sure. Describe the general nature of the hand and hope that the diamonds take care of themselves." As does
YleeXotee: "I know, I know, no diamond stopper so its wrong. Then 2C...I know, I know its a lousy 5 card suit, and not the 6 promised at all. (2d? can't; 2h? can't; 2S? can't or more of a shouldn't??; ....2nt? I laugh, so back to 1nt)" But then, as
Kamil and Sherman point out, "Who needs stoppers? Anything else would be too far out of bounds."
Paul Boudreau: "Least of evils. Keeps HCP and shape in range. I hope that having no diamond stopper will be less harmful than rebidding this club suit."
Jill Meyers "Best choice among evils. The hand is too awful to bid anything else."
Sami Kehela: "Best of a bad lot."
Arthur Robinson "I hate it, but the club suit is best for fan-tan." (Arthur, I like it much better if you can call the start card - I think fan-tan eights is virtually a claimer.)
Joey Silver's summary is among the best: "A two-club rebid on this suit is truly repulsive, while a one-notrump rebid is only ugly." And to give you an idea of how ugly 1 NT is,
Masse24 regards the bid as "The only one I really feel any confidence about. Which means a 70." And
JCreech asks "may I have an undo please, we are playing weak NT, and that is what I want to open ..."
2 ♣ 40 BWP 16% BWS 37% IAC 36%
Generally speaking, the only alternative bid suggested was 2
on a cheesy five-bagger.
Danny Kleinman provides the new list: "Not two spades with fewer than three, nor a stopperless one notrump. I'd like to go back, open one heart, shut out West's diamonds, and rebid two clubs over North's one spade, but it's too late for that now. Two clubs at this point is the least of very, very bad evils."
Hoki agrees, "I prefer ... to play in a 5-1 fit than a 4-2 fit."
Kit Woolsey laments, "Too bad about the absence of a sixth club, but perhaps that won't matter. I won't bid one notrump with a worthless doubleton in the opponent's suit, and I don't see a Plan C."
Robert Wolfff: "A distortion, but so is each of the alternatives." Finally,
Zia took advantage of his time on this hand to find empathy: "This must be how big-club players feel after opening one diamond without being able to even stop the suit. If the winner here was to pass, I would nod sagely."
2 ♠ 30 BWP one Panelist BWS 12% IAC 1 solver
Surprisingly, there was a small minority of players who found the spade raise.
Carl Hudecek syas, "I will bid a spade for each spade honor I hold, even though partner might have only four spades."
BluBayou is a bit green as he "Raise spades; one of 4 truly sick rebids. I envy the kitchen-bridge folk who just pass 1
this time"
Problem C Double (Peuco, CCR3, Hoki, Masse24, JCreech, KenBerg, BabsG)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 5
♥ A 6 3 2
♦ A Q 7 6 4 ♣ A Q 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1 ♠
Double Pass Pass 2 ♣
?*
*BWS: pass nonforcing
What call do you make?
RHO opened, you had the shape and strength to make a takeout double, and partner made a penalty pass. Now RHO has bid a second suit and you have extra strength and a five-card suit of your own, where do you go from here?
2 ♦ 40 BWP one Panelist BWS 1% IAC 36%
The traditional way to show a strong hand and a good suit is to start with a double, then bid your suit over partner's response. Although this is an atypical sequence, some resorted to the stand-by methods.
YleeXotee argues that "p isn't sitting for 2Cx, so forces them to bid 2nt, why not tell p more about my hand strength and then they can make better decision"
Phillip Alder says "Two notrump would promise more strength. If partner would be on lead, I would double. As it is, North will know that I have extras."
Pass 70 BWP 29% BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Although no one in IAC thought of this, nearly 30% of the Panel passed. The best analogy I could come up with was they were regarding this as a discovery play; if partner is broke, then the hand will be passed out, but if not, then there will be a reopening and you will be better placed to make a good decision.
David Berkowitz reasons as follows: "Do I know where we belong? Absolutely not. Should partner pass, I won't be happy about not having shown my extra ace, but I cannot bring myself to double with only three clubs. Maybe partner will produce some good news."
Joey Silver thoughts are: "If partner's pass was based on more than just spades, he will act, so there is no need to get in his way with a hand that offers no clear direction (albeit one with more than minimum values)." While
Kit Woolsey says "I have implied holding at least three clubs, so there is no need to double. If we have a game, partner won't sell out. If partner passes, it will mean his earlier pass was a least-of-evils choice with more spades than high-card points, so defending against two clubs undoubled will be okay."
Double 100 BWP 67% BWS 60% IAC 64%
The majority of Panelists and solvers went with double, but is double takeout, penalty, or something else in this sequence? The Panel, by and large, view it as penaltyish.
Fleisher and Friessner point out, "We have four tricks and the hope that opener has a bunch of spade losers."
Danny Kleinman: "As I'd have doubled one spade if the ace of clubs had been the deuce, I dare not risk letting East off the hook with my sound, normal club holding."
Ira Chorush says "I hope that partner will not pass with a singleton and a four-card red suit. No game is particularly likely for us, especially in view of probable bad breaks."
Robert Wolff plans his opening lead: "If all pass. I will lead a low club."
Oren Kriegel: " I would like to have a fourth club, but the hand is strong enough that I'll risk it with three." Similarly,
Roger Lee says, "I'd love to have another club, but nonetheless East-West are probably in a lot of trouble here."
JCreech writes, "Partner was willing to defend 1
X, so now they are one level higher still seeking to find a home. I'm not sure where we belong, but I suspect it is defending something doubled. Pass is non-forcing, and my hand is too good for that when partner was willing to defend at the one-level."
WackoJack: "Partner passed for penalties. Double tells partner that my first double was a strong take-out double. Hoping for +800" Some Panelists are not as certain; not a takeout double, but more of a cooperative double.
Sami Kehela, for example says, "Not necessarily final; partner is permitted to use his discretion."
Kamil and Sherman think "The hand is worth another action, and two diamonds on a broken suit would be somewhat misdescriptive. The club queen now looks much more like the club king."
Masse24: "Worth another double. This is better than 2
."
Bart Bramley: "It's not game if they make it, and we might slaughter them. Partner will almost always sit - for all he knows my clubs resemble his spades. Two diamonds is possible; pass is not."
Zia, nonetheless, is "Hoping we have struck the opponents in the nether male regions. Luckily for them, ladies will never fully understand the force of this comment."
This concludes this back asswards approach to the most recent MSC set. I hope you found it entertaining. Good luck with the new set.