SEPTEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish DirectorProblem E: 4 As moderator,
Eric Kokish wrote "This problem is about choosing the right red suit at the right level (perhaps by overbidding slightly with a cue-bid to assist in the strain choice), but its most interesting aspect is North's duty in reacting to the cue-bid."
Almost half of the BW panel and 3 of the IAC solvers chose the cue-bid, 4
, for the top score.
•
Jcreech described the bid simply – “4C To show strength and at least two places to play. Partner could have a 3-card major, so I want to cater to that instead of jumping to game in my Jxxx.”
•
Paul Boudreau: "Four clubs. Two places to play. No sense in bidding four hearts, since partner will bid that with four. Will correct four spades to five diamonds and hope that we are not too high."
•
Andrew Robson: "Four clubs. Classic strain-over-level choice, made in the hope that partner will have the wit to bid four hearts with five spades and four hearts. I like to play that three diamonds, rarely used in the natural sense, is a form of lebensohl, which allows more hand descriptions."
• However,
Masse24 thinks about the hand differently: “Partner should have both majors. Probably has at least four hearts. But it’s not guaranteed. Partner could be 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2, or even 5=4=4=0. So I hesitate to bid 4
on this collection of garbage; the jump implies a fifth heart (or at least I would like it to). 3
is too timid as it does not show my values. 4
shows my values, and allows partner to bid a major---so this is certainly a possible bid (my second choice). But I choose 4
. Hopefully partner can bid hearts now. Yes, it does risk partner choosing his “better” major, or longer major if 5=4, so I hope he is aware of my possible hand shape. If instead he bids 4
, I go to 5
.”
Most of the rest of the IAC solvers bid hearts. Among the 4
bidders,
•
Hoki describes the situation simply, “too many possibilities, but maybe 4
♥ is the simplest (considered 4♣ and 4
♦).”
• Similarly,
YleeXotee writes: “4H - I had a hard time with this one. I first wanted 3h, but I can't imagine bidding that with 10 pts when I would bid it with zero. 3d, same issue. I'll take my chances.”
•
Michael Lawrence: "Four hearts. The hand is too strong to overlook bidding four hearts. lfl bid any number of diamonds, the heart suit could get lost."
• While
BluBayou argues (mainly with himself for a quieter response: “We are about a queen heavy for a non-jump reply, so does that mean we must bid 4 hearts? I am chicken and bid only 3 HEARTS. Jumping in DIAMONDS may win the day but good luck with that. IF somebody bids something and i can say 4 diamonds, I hope it means pard has 4 pieces when he goes back to hearts!”
•
Michael Becker: "Three hearts. Must bid some number of hearts and hope for the best. If the heart honor were the queen, the hand would be an easy game-force; make it the ten, and I'd be comfortable bidding three hearts (or perhaps three diamonds). I'd force to game at imps, but I'll go low at matchpoints. Too much can go wrong after a cue-bid: Partner could bid four spades with five=four or four=three majors; over four clubs, four diamonds would not say 'pick a major."'
Making the case for diamonds,
•
WackoJack said “My hearts are too weak to bid 4♥ and I prefer 3♦ to 3♥. Partner with 18+ can still bid 3NT.
•
Danny Kleinman: "Four diamonds. We may belong in four hearts, but partner can bid a five-card major on the way if he's willing to reach five diamonds. I'm not sure I'd want to play in four hearts if we have only a four-four fit."
Problem F: 2NTNearly all of the BW panelists and solvers went with the footnoted 2NT to show the two specific suits. That was also true for the IAC solvers.
•
Curls77 may have been echoing the thoughts of most of the IAC solvers when she wrote “2N by bws, but never heard of this treatment.”
• From
YleeXotee, “2nt - I'll take the BWS hint given - but honestly, where else am I going to land but 6H, so....”
•
Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. BWS does not discuss four diamonds. I'll start by getting both suits in and see what happens next. My expectation is that the opponents will bid spades or diamonds, and hilarity will ensue."
•
George Jacobs: "Two notrump. My kind of hand; l can bid far into the night. If I were feeling lucky Punk (Well, am I?), I could bid six hearts. Probably partner has enough spades to stop a high-level sacrifice. I will start by showing both suits, then will l bid hearts, except over four clubs where I will Exclude with five diamonds. If LHO bids three diamonds and partner passes, I will bid four diamonds. If partner bids five clubs, I will have more options, including five hearts, as I will have laid it bare. If the bad guys persist with four diamonds, I will leap to five hearts, pleading with partner to look at his hand. Did I mention that I love this hand?"
• And
Jcreech – “2NT I want to be in slam opposite the least encouragement. I will start by showing both suits, then listen to what happens next. … my initial thought was to jump to 6H as suggested by Todd and now echoed (at least in consideration) by Hoki. If the HJ were the Q, I would be more inclined to do exactly that. At the table, I particularly like the bid because it leaves the clubs undisclosed so that on a run of the hearts, it becomes easy to pitch a club from Jxxx or Txxx in order to save something in spades. I once held a 5-8-0-0, with the 8 bagger headed by AKQJT and the spades by AKQ; I bid 7H on the same general theory. But there is a difference between having an absolutely solid holding and a broken holding where you need enough luck for the Q to be in partner's hand, falling doubleton, or an entry to partner and find the Q can be finessed. 6H may be the panel view, but I think it may be more of a table action than a panel action.”
Having introduced the elephant in the room, 6
was the second choice of the BW panel.
• From IAC,
WackoJack defends his choice: “Double just gets you into trouble. 2NT tells partner what you have but you need to know what partner has. If partner makes the expected response of 3♣? Would 5♥ now encourage partner to bid 6♥ with nothing except ♥Qx? That is asking a lot. Alternative is to bid 6♥ immediately and hope partner can give me the Q♥ or at lest 3 card ♣ support. I will go for 6♥.”
•
Dan Gerstman: "Six hearts. I guessed. Let the opponents guess too. Makes it hard for them to find spades, or to decide whether or not to save."
•
Joey Silver: "Six hearts. Sure, it's a gamble, but it is not more of a gamble than bidding this hand
scientiflque and not pre-emptively, while letting the villains get together in the pointed suits."
Garnering fewer votes from the panel, yet receiving the same score, 1
was chosen by one of the IAC solvers.
•
Masse24 discussed his thought process: “1
. On a fact-finding mission. My stiff spade and diamond void make it almost impossible that this will end the auction. My goal is to find out what partner has. This has the best chance of doing so. But this is such a bizarre hand . . . anything could be right.”
•
Jeff Rubens: "One heart. I hope to hear some natural bids before I guess, and l want to give East-West a chance to bid out. Lacking my four honor-tricks, they aren't likely to bid a great deal unless provoked."
•
Michael Lawrence: "One heart. Likely following up with six clubs. This sequence, should it occur, will imply my shape. With six-six, I'd start with two notrump."
Problem G: 2NTOnly two IAC solvers got the top BW choice right on this hand.
•
WackoJack approached the hand from the least lie perspective: “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.”
• While
YleeXotee stuck with his theme perspective – “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.”
•
Billy Eisenberg: "Two notrump. A matter of agreement, but practical."
•
Jeff Rubens: "Two notrump. When an overtrick may be valuable, distorting declarer's shape will often be advantageous if three notrump is the normal contract."
•
Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. We are not being graded on style as opposed to efficiency. Three diamonds might well end the auction, and I doubt J would be happy when dummy came down."
Solvers, though, preferred 3
. 12 of the IAC solvers and roughly 60% of the BW solvers took this route.
•
Jcreech had this to say of his choice: “3D Never been a fan of manufactured reverses, and outside of diamonds, the hand does not revalue upwards. If the diamonds were AKQTxx, I probably would have rebid 3NT. They are not, so I will make the normal value bid.”
• This was simplified by
Blubayou – “No fake reverses this month ! poster-child for plain old jump-rebid. THREE DIAMONDS.”
•
Bart Bramley: "Three diamonds. Tried and true. Good suit, good hand. Okay to have a maximum occasionally. Experiments like two clubs are still not my cup of tea, and two hearts would be asking for trouble. And I don't see how either of those choices would make my problem easier on the next round."
Representing the three IAC solvers that went for the manufactured reverse,
•
Masse24 wrote: “I think this is too strong for 3
, but some panelists will choose it anyway (Kleinman? Becker?), being right on shape, but “an underbid,” which they will mention. 2NT is also possible, and I strongly considered it. But the black suit aces, one naked, the other unsupported, are not good notrump features. But it’s a bidder’s game. This leaves two choices. A reverse to 2
, not attractive with only a three-card major, though it has the advantage of leaving the most room for partner to continue the description of his hand. Alternatively, a GF value bid of 3
, a jump-shift. Is it strong enough? I’ll choose the completely non-standard reverse. I’ve done this several times with a three card minor: 1
– 1M – 2
to force, but never with a three-card major. This is waaaaaaay out there and will either score a 20 or hit big. Purists will hate this. (I can hear Hoki shaking his head disapprovingly from here.) I’ll add that I have never done this (reverse into a 3-card major) at the table.”
•
Sami Kehela: "Two hearts. Although I am generally disinclined to introduce a three-card suit in a natural sense, here it is more or less obligatory, for the hand is too strong for three diamonds."
•
Pepsi: "Two hearts. A little dangerous, but I would like to play notrump from partner's side. Between the alternatives, I like two notrump more than three diamonds."
Problem H: JBluBayou, I think, spoke for everyone when he said “spade jack, diamond ace, and the correct low club are still a 50-50-50% proposition for me.” As did
DickHy, when he wrote “This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G.”
Both the panel and solvers (BW and IAC) voted overwhelmingly for the
J.
WackoJack clearly indicated his ambivalence for his choice – “J♠ looks reasonable.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Many made their choice by eliminating the alternatives.
•
Jcreech chose the
J this way: “SJ I will not lay down the DA - too easy for it to set up something in dummy while having the ace be ruffed away. I also will not lead my trump, automatically pickling anything partner might have. A club is a possibility, but which one … ?” While
DickHy took different information to get to the same spot: “There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split? W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP. He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx. Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W. If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.”
•
George Jacobs: "Spade jack. Trying to lead through dummy's strength. l could even get a crazy ruff. Diamond lead is not allowed for too many reasons to list."
•
Michael Lawrence: "Spade jack. Least of evils. The other three suits have serious warts."
•
Bart Bramley: "Spade jack. Pusher and a ruffing value."
•
Pepsi: "Spade jack. At imps, the best chance to beat the contract."
Club leads held the number two and three spots, but clearly choosing the right spot card mattered.
• As
Jcreech pointed out, “A club is a possibility, but which one - the 10 to retain the lead if possible, the 6 2nd from nothing, or low to imply something in the suit?”
•
YleeXotee wants to suggest a poor suit: “Spades are out, I don't do doubleton leads with no trump control, although this is not likely to be the opps side suit, so maybe there is less danger here. 3h is out, likely to finesse p if she has any heart honors. I would hit my own hand with a ruler if I led from AQ, so....a club lead it is. I think BWS is 2nd best. so 6C.”
•
Danny Kleinman: "Club six. Second-highest from length and weakness. The ace of diamonds would be too likely to set up a trick for dummy, but it could do something even worse: wreck my chances of beating Eddie Kantar in our contest to see who can go to sleep with aces on defense most often, lifetime."
The BW panel preferred to be showing something, so the 3 got a bit better score than the 6. I think those players were hedging their bets so they could follow up with either the 6 or 2 depending on what came down in dummy.
•
Robert Wolff: "Club three. A horrible choice but the best one available."
•
Barry Rigal: "Club three. We don't need another hero. The only sensible alternative is the spade jack, and when three hearts gets passed out, my bet is that dummy has spades."
•
Joey Silver: "Club three. Partner could not bid spades, so I will play him for better values in clubs."
Second choice among the IAC solvers was the
A.
• Although most of the IAC solvers were silent on their reasoning,
Masse24 probably identified their reason – “
Ace. Hoping a peek at dummy will guide my trick two choice.”
•
Paul Boudreau: "Diamond ace. Hoping that the peek at dummy compensates for the possible loss in tempo."
•
Jeff Rubens: "Diamond ace. Maybe dummy will have one strong black suit and one weak black suit."
•
Phillip Adler: "Diamond ace. After seeing the dummy, maybe I will know that we should not be attacking spades."
Overall, a
great month for IAC solvers. A very high-scoring month! Well done!
Originally part of the previous post (Masse24), edited by jcreech to allow additional BW panelist comments.