OCTOBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, DirectorA handful of the panel's comments:
Problem A: 4 Masse24 got the top score on Problem A when he spurned the famous advice to not bypass 3NT if at all possible. “4 Clubs Hamman? Who’s he? If partner is doubling at this level, we belong in game. Not sure where. This may help us find the right spot. It should certainly show a complete max for my overcall.” Joining Todd, with a bit more confidence are several Panelists. Billy Eisenberg: “Four clubs. If partner bids four diamonds, five clubs will suggest slam; if he bids four hearts, I will pass.” Zach Grossack: “Four clubs. With four aces and a vulnerable partner entering the auction, I must commit to game at imps. I’m angling for five diamonds. If partner has a black-suit singleton and five diamonds, that should play very well. If he bids four of a major, I will pass. If he bids four diamonds, 1 will raise to five.” Geoff Hampson: “Four clubs. We are close to slam. I will bid six diamonds over four diamonds or pass four hearts.”
Among IAC solvers, Thornbury was the only one to select the second choice 4
. The Bridge World Panelists had much to say though. Phillip Alder: “Four diamonds. I expect that four clubs will get votes, but what will those bidders then do after partner bids four hearts?” Bob Boudreau: “Four diamonds. Shows no interest in hearts and a better-than-average hand.” Mark Cohen: “Four diamonds. The value bid.” Carl Hudecek: “Four diamonds. I must express my strength more forcefully than by a mere three diamonds. Four aces aren’t chicken feed.”
The third choice was Pass, which no IAC solver selected. However, Zia did “Pass. What fun if partner has a stiff spade. With no clear game available, the conditions give me a little solace; I’m glad it’s not matchpoints.” Fred Stewart also likes " Pass. With no guarantee of a game, I’ll take my plus. (Second choice: three notrump.)”
IAC solvers were mostly further down the list. At 3
, Hoki wrote “3 Diamonds Not 3NT where partner needs five running tricks (outside of our aces) for us to be successful.” And YleeXoTee said “3D - I don't usually go low, but I don't favor my chances of finding partner with 5 straight tricks to make 3nt.” Among the Panelists, Brian Glubok wrote “Three diamonds. A proverbial pinochle deck; probably, the others are all near their respective minimums (12, 4, and 8 HCP).”
The same points were available for 5
, where BluBayou waffled between 5
, 3NT and pass before finally settling in with 5
. “We have to bid game -- there is no point inviting when pard has zero aces --and I think either 5 diamonds or 3NT is on. especially when my dream of a running 5-4 diamond fit comes true.” While KenBerg dreamed of the top spot but settled for the clearer “5
I would dearly like to bid 4
, with the understanding that when partner responds 4
and then I bid 4
, this would mean that I want to play in spades if partner has 3 and in 5D if he does not. But I am far from sure that would be understood.” Jeff Rubens has loftier thoughts - “Five diamonds. Hoping that partner will be able to bid six.”
And several gambled on the nine-trick game. WackoJack argued for “3NT. I reckon there is better than a 40% chance of 8 top tricks outside clubs. Say
KQ and
KQ.” Though Jcreech bemoaned “Where do I go from here? The opponents have preempted, partner made a responsive double, I have 16 HCPs all in aces, we are unfavorable vulnerability and nothing seems good. Partner has to have values to make a responsive double at that level, so I am thinking 3
if I take the low road, 3NT, 4
and 4
if I take a high road. Aces and spaces really make this difficult. If I pass, I start with two rounds of hearts and try to find partner for a ruff. The advantage to 3
is that is stays below 3NT, but what if partner has 9 or more. 3NT would be better with a third club so I could duck two rounds. Nothing feels right yet, but at least 3NT puts us in a game.” From the Panel, Eric Kokish argues “Three notrump. Give North an unexceptional hand with five de¬cent diamonds and the heart king or queen¬jack; three notrump will be very good. If we could count on five diamonds, we could aim for five or six diamonds, but as the double covers a lot of ground, there might be too much handling in five diamonds on a four- four fit, and four of a minor would take us past three notrump.”
Problem B: 4 YleeXoTee simplifies the top choice by saying “4H - Moysian and staying away from 5 level games.” While BluBayou thinks it through carefully. “Ignoring the 'pick a minor' debate because I believe we have three 'holes'. … I give partner ALL the missing points in our suits (!h jack??) and 9 or 10 of them.. ( opening points + 2 FOUR card suits is really swinging from the trees at the colours). But I can't see another king over there , so unless he has 10 cards, we are stuck with the equivalent of 3 losers in their suits. That lets 5 clubs out for me, but i am betting the ranch on hearts coming home, partly hoping for !HAKxxx and partly that he has he jack as well as the AK. --4 HEARTS” The Bridge World Panelists were confident. Eric Kokish: “Four hearts. No spade raise hints at North’s holding two, and we’d need a very good mesh to make five clubs with two fast spade losers. A craven four clubs could well be our limit, but with these working cards, reaching game at imps is much more reasonable, and four hearts might be okay with only seven trumps. A considerate North will deliver a fifth heart.” David Berkowitz: “Four hearts. Four diamonds would be natural. I can take the tap in the short hand (I hope). Five clubs seems like a stretch.” Robert Wolff: “Four hearts. Likely the best effort available.”
4NT drew as many Panelist votes as 4
, but less than half of the Bridge World solver votes, and found itself in second place. KenBerg makes his argument: “4NT (trusting that it asks pard to choose a minor) Pard is forcing me to the 4 level, so maybe my hand is good enough for the 5 level. I suppose they are playing some big club system and I suppose that their 1NT would be maybe 13-15 or 12-14 or some such. If we end up declaring it's important to know which. If indeed the opener has only two
then it is very likely that they do not have the point count to open 1N. Knowing their NT range could guide us in the play. At any rate, for the bidding, I think I want to go to game and I imagine opener can have two diamonds and four clubs just as easily as he can have two clubs and four diamonds. Yes, I know, maybe 4
is the winning contract. We can't have everything.” From the Panel: John Carruthers: “Four notrump. A bit of an overbid, but I’m hoping it will take us to the correct strain. Four clubs or four hearts would be pusillanimous and cowboy¬like, respectively.” Jeff Rubens: “Four notrump. Even with only four-four, the high cards are enough above expectation to raise the level.” Daniel Korbel: “Four notrump. Let partner pick the minor. We should treat the opening bid as though it could have been a natural bid in either minor. Four hearts is possible, but partner hasn’t guaranteed four.”
The third choice was the BW solver leader, 4
. Hoki likes it because it “Keeps more options open than the alternatives.” WackoJack views it as “One chance to land on the head of a pin.” And Masse24 cops out with 4
when his “… first instinct was 4NT. But it’s a bit rich for me.” The Panelists seem to view 4
as a compromise. Steve Robinson: “Four clubs. Since three spades could end the auction, partner is balancing and might not have an opening bid.” Geoff Hampson: “Four clubs. Partner will need an especially strong hand to produce 11 tricks.” Mark Cohen: “Four clubs. Very conservative, but I don’t know what else to do. Maybe another bathroom break?”
Problem C: 2 Jcreech succinctly described the choices. “Again, what to do? The best description is 3
showing invitational values and six clubs; but what a lousy suit, it has way too many honor gaps at the top. For similar reasons, I am not keen on bidding 2
and forcing to game with this hand. At least with 2
I have the right values and a concentration in the suit, but a potentially 3-3 fit is not at all appealing (though I really expect to see at least 4 in partner's hand). The good thing about 2
is that partner is highly motivated to show the heart stop, and perhaps move us toward 3NT. Speaking of NT, I am more inclined to bid 1NT than 2NT. In both, the stiff heart makes me reluctant. The values are more right for 2NT, but the stiff makes me more inclined to bid a heavy 1NT. One last thought ia 1
(borrowing a club to be my fourth spade). If partner fails to bid 1NT or raise spades, I will begin to picture a shape something like 3-4-5-1. Nonetheless, I will have more information about partner's hand.”
Those going with the top choice recognize that it is an overbid. KenBerg: “2
Oh I suppose I am a bit light. Ok. But bidding 3
could leave us in a stupid 3
contract when we belong in
, and bidding an inverted 2
might get us to a stupid
contract when we belong in
. At least by bidding 2
this will steer us to
when we belong in
and we can still find
when we belong in
.” YleeXoTee “2C - Its technically a GF hand and I should take the hint of 3C invitational, but I'm not going to pretend I didn't see that Intermediate jump shifts are on.” And Masse24 “2 Clubs 2
–big overbid. 3
– should show a much better suit. These invitational type bids—with a long suit—seem to consistently promise a very good suit. I do not have that, so I squint a bit and choose the overbid. It allows us to let partner describe his hand further. I also liked 2
.” Those Panelists choosing 2
feel that any other bid would be a distortion. Howard Weinstein: “Two clubs. Not an overbid, and anything else would be a huge distortion—bidding out of fear, not a good approach vulnerable at imps.” John Diamond: “TWO clubs. A three-club response could see us down in three clubs when three notrump makes.” Zia: “TWO clubs. This is a better opening hand than some we see. No reason to down-grade unless we are using a sick opening-bid style.”
While those showing the values understand its flaws. Hoki: “3 Clubs Yes, it's a rotten suit but we have two good aces and it's less of a distortion than 1S.” And WackoJack: “3
. I am resisting the temptation of making the slight over bid of the game forcing 2
.” While the Bridge World Panelists making this choice feel it is the best description: John Carruthers: “Three clubs. This may be the worst suit I’ve ever held for the bid. Nevertheless, it is the most-descriptive bid available.” Brian Glubok: “Three clubs. The suit is bad, but the rest of the hand is perfect. I can’t find a one-card missort that makes two notrump reasonable.” Mark Cohen: “Three clubs. The value bid; nothing else makes sense.”
The one IAC solver selecting 2
was not reticent of their choice. Panelists, though, spent time justifying their decision: Steve Robinson: “TWO diamonds. 1 can decide later whether the strength is invitational or game-forcing. We’ll probably end up in three notrump, especially if partner bids two hearts.” Danny Kleinman: “Two diamonds. Then three clubs. Too weak a club suit for three clubs directly. This is a hand-type that two diamonds should be defined to include. The late Max Hardy, a meticulous expositor of strong two-over-ones, used the three-club follow-up as showing shortness, but it is far more useful to show a hand such as this.”
And finally 1
. BluBayou wrote “I checked BWS2017 and found "1D, 1S; 1NT, three clubs" is a natural, N.F. invite, so we are going that route. Of partner's other likely rebids, there is no problem except a single raise in spades. At the table, this dilemma would almost rule out the 1 spade response, since passing there at vulnerable imps is disgusting. but... --1 Spade.” Agreeing with Jock were Fred Stewart: “One spade. Least of evils. There are prime cards, ruffing values, and a potential source of tricks, particularly if we end in notrump.” And David Berkowitz: “One spade. No minor-suit or notrump bid seems appropriate.”
Problem D: (c) 3NT This hand is all about thinking about where you think the final contract should be. Most Panelists and Solvers voted for some sort of direct game choice.
Bidding 3NT directly (c) led to the top score. YleeXotee tries to keep partner from heading down the wrong path:“3nt against trying to keep us from going to 5D when 3nt is the right choice” While Hoki chooses 3NT because “Answer (b) tells us pard has a single-suited diamond hand (which we are not supposed to know), so have UI.” [Editor note: UI = Unauthorized Information.] While Curls77 selects (c) but wants to know “why cant I X?” [Editor note: You could have tried to double by passing - choice (a).] From the Bridge World Panel, Larry Robbins makes this analysis: “(c). I can hold off in hearts one round, which may shut out East’s hearts. With king-low of hearts, three notrump would not be as appealing. Three spades would be a distinct underbid. Four spades might work, but doubler might have only three spades.” Eric Kokish: “(c). Nothing awful about four hearts, which will take s to five of a minor when North lacks four spades, but on some of those deals we would miss an easier three notrump.” Or John Diamond’s more simple “(c). A bit of a guess.”
Bidding 4
directly (d) garnered the next largest block of votes from both Panelist and solvers. Masse24 expressed a longing for the top choice but chose otherwise: “(d) 4
. My first instinct was 3NT. I admire Oliver’s bravery, but I chose the safe route.” While WackoJack “4
. (d) I bid what I think we can make.” And Jcreech pontificated as he selects “d Planning an auction. The values are reasonable for passing, but trumps are not up to snuff. I will try 4
(d) because I am close to a jump response. My other thoughts include c (3NT) shows values and a stop, but not such a great stopper that I do not pass for penalty, and b3 (bidding 4NT, which should be natural showing the heart stop). Of these, d is more appealing to me. But I would rather just bid 3NT at my first turn than to back into it later over 4
.” From the Panel, Zach Grossack “(d). At most slightly aggressive. Three spades would be too timid – I won’t tolerate an accusation of timidity.” Daniel Korbel: “(d). This need not work, but the hand is too strong not to try it. Any other action would complicate things.” And Zia: “(d). I will be surprise if this is not a majority vote. (I didn’t say ‘unanimous.’”
Tying for the second place score was bidding 3
and passing if partner then pulls to 4
(b1). KenBerg chooses not to stretch because “b1 I have no serious reason to think we can make more than 9 tricks in spades.” John Carruthers, from the Panel, expresses concern: “(b1). Plus scores are the name of the game. Had I known that partner would bid over three spades, three notrump would have been more attractive – bidding it over the double would have relied on nine runners after a heart lead, needing considerable extra values with North. At imps, I’d have tried three notrump anyway.”
The second half of this recap will be out ASAP. Hopefully, this will satiate while we start to fret about the next set.