May MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Bart Bramley, Director Problem D 2 (DrAculea, BluBayou, JCreech, Hoki, VeredK)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 7 5 2
♥ Q 10 8 4
♦ A J 8 ♣ Q J 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Problem D is a valuation question. You have four pieces in your partner's opening major, 10 HCPs, but you also have a 3=4=3=3 shape. Essentially, how much do you upgrade for the fourth trump, and how much do you downgrade for the lack of a ruffing value.
3 ♥ 90 BWP 38% BWS 42% IAC 58%
A large proportion (often enough to be the plurality winner) of the Panel voted to make the direct limit raise; essentially saying that the upgrade and downgrade cancel each other out. A solid percentage of the BW solvers, as well as nearly 60% of the IAC solvers made this choice too.
Don Stack asks "Simple raise or jump-raise? The queen-jack of clubs together boost the hand to the higher category." According to
Sartaj Hans, "The fourth trump is too precious an asset to withhold."
Masse24 "Feels like a 2 ¾ bid. Maybe steering the auction a bit with a forcing notrump then jump to 3
is a happy medium? But I’m afraid too few panelists would try that “in-between” bid."
JoAnna Stansby echos: "Really two and three-quarters. One notrump followed by three hearts might be better, bu there is an advantage to describing the hand in one bid in case fourth hand has something to say."
YleeXotee also thinks about the two-step approach: "I'm trusting that this is within system, and the 1nt then 3h bid isn't better."
Kit Woolsey says "This hand looks t touch too strong for a simple raise."
KenBerg agrees: "I realize it is 4 triple 3 but it's still a good holding."
Phillip Alder says "I am a big advocate of the Losing Trick Count, which advises bidding only two hearts, but ... If one notrump were forcing, I would make that response and rebid three hearts."
2 ♥ 100 BWP 58% BWS 47% IAC 42%
However, nearly 60% of the Panel only made a simple raise; they were joined by more than 40% of the solvers. If you are an adherent of KnR evaluation, the simple raise would be no surprise. The calculated KnR is 7.9, which suggests to me that partner would need to make a help-suit game try in a minor or a short-suit try in spades to spark any game interest from this hand.
Eric Kokish points to "Lots of losers, as with most marginal 4=3=3=3's. Not ashamed to reject a stronger raise."
JCreech: "I have four-card support and 10 HCPs, but I also have 3-4-3-3 shape. I will go low to start based on shape and vulnerability, but will accept game tries."
Danny Kleinman: "Flat shape and a cornucopia of quacks do not tempt me. With three more tens, I'd have a problem."
Steve Beatty thinks "A constructive raise is enough with 9 losers and 10 HCP."
Roy Welland considers his bid "A rare underbid."
David Berkowitz say he "May be pushed to three, but not worrying about the opponents yet; too many losers to bid three hearts."
Jeff Rubens considers the hand to be "Too quacky to drive higher."
Zia thinks the hand "So close to three hearts that I will be happy to stand corrected. I feel it's slightly random." While a couple of writers are looking for different bids than offered in BWS:
BluBayou: "Single-raise [duhh] Change this to Bergen 3
, if they forgot a 'hint'."
Joe Grue: "I would make a mixed raise, but I can't find one in BWS." The final word is given to
Augie Boehm: "Goren advised deducting a point for this distribution. Goren has to be right sometimes."
1 NT 60 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 8% IAC No solvers
There was one Panelist and only a smattering of BW solvers that tried to find the middle ground, to show a poor limit raise. The actual sequence is intended to show a 3-card limit raise, but many like to use the forcing NT as a way to send a warning message to partner to tread softly regardless of the responder's rebid, and there were Panelists and IAC solvers that toyed with the idea of making the delayed limit raise. The one Panelist explicitly supporting the bid was
Allan Graves: "If partner passes, one notrump will be safer than three hearts. I don't mind a single raise and then a redouble."
Problem E Pass (VeredK, JCreech, DrAculea)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 8 2
♥ J 9 5 2
♦ K 9 3 ♣ J 7 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 2
♦ Double 3
♦ ?
What call do you make?
The opponents have preempted and furthered the preempt after partner made a takeout double. You have 9 HCPs, 3-4 in the majors and 3-3 otherwise, so you have options. One is to bid the anemic heart suit. A second is to make a responsive double and hope that if partner bids spades, he has five. You do have a diamond stopper, so you could ask yourself if you feel lucky enough to take nine tricks with a 3 NT bid. Or you could decide that you do not have a clear enough direction to take, and pass; after all, partner has another chance to bid.
3 NT 10 BWP No Panelists BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Apparently, this is too rich for nearly everyone. Only two percent of the BW solvers trotted out this bid, and I only included it above because there was a stop and nearly enough HCPs to jump. Although the bid was only mentioned by one of the Panelists on the way to bidding something else, it was clear that 3NT was in the running for the final contract as several Panelists were concerned about the positional value of the diamond king. For those making this unlikely choice, the scoring was appropriately dismal.
Double 60 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 16% IAC 25%
I was a bit surprised that the responsive double was not a more popular. Holding 3-4-3 in the unbid suits, you have support for any suit partner has five. The problem comes when partner does not have five in any suit and perhaps made the double more on values than shape; now the partnership could be in a bad 4-3 or even an ambitious 3-3. The good news is that if partner doubled with poor shape, he will lose the post-mortem.
YleeXotee "maybe putting too much pressure on Pard, but it seems right to say I have some points, and not much preference. (this will surely land me in 4 clubs!?)" While
Sami Kehela is certain about the call, though not the meaning: "Cooperative-takeout, whatever that means."
3 ♥ 90 BWP 42% BWS 62% IAC 50%
The solver's choice is to bid the four-card heart suit. At least if it is a 4-3 fit, the short hand should be taking the tap, and maybe you will get lucky and find partner with four as well. Roy Welland says "Not perfect, but in the ballpark."
Mark Laken thinks "While both double and three notrump are possible, this seems like the down-the-middle action."
BluBayou "views the problem as a "Sort of [!!] deja-vue from a couple recent months, where defending (doubled or not) got votes along with 3H, 4H, & 3NT. THIS time, I expect the game bids will be off the table. And if I end up defending, it will be for the big money"
Masse24 is "Tempted to double instead." Similarly,
Phillip Alder says "My immediate reaction was to doublel but by bidding, assuming that I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."
Carl Hudecek says "I prefer bidding my suit and rightsiding our likely heart contract."
Phillip Alder agrees: "My immediate reaction was to double but by bidding assuming I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."
Zia also makes rightsiding point: "Positional over(mis) bid."
KenBerg: "An optimistic call. So sue me!"
Pass 100 BWP 54% BWS 19% IAC 25%
The Panel's choice was to pass. When the choices are this ugly, sometimes the best course to take steer clear of choices. The hand really is not good for offense, and may be nice for the defense. Furthermore, the KnR indicates that the hand is less than a sum of its parts (7.3).
JCreech feels it is "An unsavory choice between showing my four-card heart suit or my stopper. My stopper is well-placed for a diamond lead, but not if RHO has an entry to lead through my holding. The 3-4-3-3 shape says defense, the shape, the jacks and the placement of the
K all suggest downgrades for the hand, so I go for the third option and go quietly for now. I don't know if we have a plus position on this hand, but I do fear the 200 that might go against me if I chime in now."
Mike Passell "Can't see getting involved with this defensive hand."
JoAnna Stansby thinks "Partner will double again if it's our deal for three hearts."
Ross Grabel: "I don't care for one-suit responsive doubles, and I don't care for a freely bid three hearts on at best marginal values."
Pratap Rajadhyaska say "This time we have a 10-loser hand. Bidding would be a Law violation, assuming 17 total trumps, which is not guaranteed. Pard will act again when he has more than a minimum; if not, I am okay with defending."
Steve Beatty: "Both the shape and the diamond king suggest defending. This is why I never win at matchpoints."
Problem F 2 NT (CCR3, Duffer66, JCreech, Hoki)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 8 3 2
♥ J 9
♦ K ♣ A K 10 9 6 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2 ♠ Pass
?*
*BWS: 2 NT invitational
What call do you make?
This problem starts with an argument about how the auction should have been the round before. Some think the first response should have been 2
.
Arthur Robinson asks "Why didn't I respond two clubs? Is one spade modern bidding?"
Kit Woolsey is trying to "... reach the right strain intelligently. Maybe this is an indicator that we should have responded two clubs."
Sami Kehela: "I should have bid two clubs. Not BWS? Too bad." This might have been the better problem, asking how you approach this hand one round earlier. Two clubs seems a bit of a stretch with dubious values in the stiff diamond king and doubleton jack of hearts. Others are suggesting a weak jump shift.
Danny Kleinman says "To avoid nasty problems like this, I respond three clubs with such holdings. Any attempt to extricate myself now is apt to sink me deeper into th miry clay ... or is it the Big Muddy?"
David Berkowitz thinks it "Might have been better to start with three clubs ..." Of course, the problem with the WJS is the probable loss of the spade suit. But enough with the coulda/shoulda's, and on with the problem, presented as is.
3 ♣ 90 BWP 31% BWS 51% IAC 58%
The 3
bidders are trying to get to the right strain. It may be that they are afraid of the Moysian, with the long hand being a 10-high suit, or that they fear having suppressed such a long-strong suit as AK-sixth.
YleeXotee laments, "The bad pard about this is it is the second hint that I am not taking, but surely 3clubs is a better description than 2nt."
Carl Hudecek thinks "A suit this good should be bid at some point."
Billy Eisenberg feels this "A good hand if pard has four good spades." I can almost hear Jock saying at this point, "Aye, there's the rub. Does partner have four GOOD spades."
Masse24 is bidding clubs partly for that reason. "IMPs. Vul. I’m giving full value to the
K. Partner could be rebidding on three card support." As is
Kit Woolsey: "Usually, one is rooting to be raised. Here, I hated to hear a raise, which suggests having made the wrong bid."
Augie Boehm thinks "If pard raised on three, we might back into a terrific three notrump. Of course, I may be trading a plus score for a minus, but the conditions are tempting." More optimistically,
Mark Laken asks (and channeling Al Roth) "What's the problem? Follow-ups may be harder. Pard should be the declarer at notrump."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha is most pragmatic: "BWS does not use two notrump as a relay here, so I will make a natural game-try and hope for the best. It's tempting to blast four spades with this seven-loser hand, but weak trumps and the wrong doubleton suggest caution. Also, pard might be able to bid three notrump with ♠ Jxxx
♥ AQx
♦ Axxx ♣ Qx, or a similar holding, which would be delightful."
2 NT 100 BWP 50% BWS 16% IAC 33%
Half of the Panel went with 2 NT, as did a third of IAC (the BW solvers were the laggards here, having nearly gone all-in with 3
).
Zia describes the situation well: "More or less about the fourth spade. With three, partner is likely to have shorter clubs than hearts. If he bids three spade, I will raise. If he bids three no trump, I may slip it past the defenders."
JCreech "... will take the hint. With partner opening diamonds, I have hopes that the
K is pulling its full weight, and the clubs are a source of tricks."
Hoki also "will take the hint for a change (the hand is nowhere near strong enough to force to game with 2C initially)"
Roy Welland says "Maybe partner will raise and I can chance a pass."
Mike Passell will "Try for game."
Joe Grue says "Let's see what's happening."
JoAnna Stansby thinks the hand has "Too much strength to pass. Three clubs would leave poor choices if opener continued with three diamonds."
Jeff Rubens considers the bid to be "The safest invitational action. With weak spades and a possible misfit, pass is a sensible alternative."
Mark Feldman also thinks "Passing could be the winning action, but it seems a bit too conservative. The hand is more skewed than opener will expect, but not dramatically so; partner will be aware that I hold four spades, at most three hearts, and invitational values."
3 NT 70 BWP 12% BWS 2% IAC No solvers
The moderator,
Bart Bramley, makes a nice case for jumping to 3 NT. "If partner passes three notrump, he will usually be 4=3=3=3 or only have three spades. One flaw is that partner's three-trump raises will probably have one or two low clubs, else he would have rebid one notrump. However, the defense seeing those clubs in dummy, may err by setting up the suit for declarer. If partner bids four spades, he will have four. I like the blast better than two notrump, since ... this may be a 'game or bust' deal."
Phillip Alder says "I would hate to bid two notrump and be left there. If this is passed out, I will feel optimistic. If partner removes to four spade, maybe it will make. We are vulnerable at imps."
Allan Graves asks "Why not? The defenders will be in the dark in the early going, and game will often have some play. Partner might pass with 4=3=3=3. Two spades may be the last plus, so why not bid game now? Slow auctions to four spades may end in four spades doubled."
Pass 50 BWP 8% BWS 3% IAC No solvers
Other than the spade fit, which may or may not include reasonable strength in the trump suit, the hand feels like a misfit, so I can understand the desire to quit low, even with invitational HCP.
Ross Grabel "Just guessing, but I see no intelligent way to get partner involved."
This ends Part 2, and the final part will come as I have time. Don't forget to check out the June MSC, look over the problems and submit your own entry.