June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Danny Kleinman, DirectorProblem D (a) 2 ♦ then 4 ♣ [BWS: autosplinter] (BabsG, Yleexotee, Hoki, MarilynLi, Blubayou, Masse24)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 7 6
♥ Q J 10 9 6 3 2
♦ A J 2
♣ A
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 NT Pass
?
Among these plans, which do you prefer?
(a) 2
♦ then 4 ♣ [BWS: autosplinter];
(b) 4
♦ then 4 NT [BWS: key-card-ask for hearts];
(c) 2
♦ then 4
♥ [BWS: slam-try].
This problem gets at the strategy taken with a potentially slam-going hand after partner has opened a strong NT. The three strategies delineated are flawed, but no one proposed a better mousetrap. Option A involved a splinter into a singleton ace suit; a general situation frowned upon for splintering. Option B involved a four-level transfer, followed by RKC; this commits to the five-level, which may be risky without knowing more about opener's hand. And Option C is the old fashioned transfer at the two-level and raise to game.
YleeXotee spent some time analyzing why that option is not useful: “I have yet to see anyone show good criteria for how to proceed when you get that 2 level transfer and then a raise to 4. how do I know that I should accept or go forward towards slam. My hand is well defined with the 1nt bid, do I only go if I have ace or King in the other suits, do I go only if I have the max 17 pts, do I only go if I have more than 2 hearts, do I only go if I have an honor in hearts plus some of the previous criteria. that slam try seems like a real shot in the dark for the 1nt opener. What if I have two small spades, a couple of heart honors and the max, seems like I should go, but after asking for aces and finding that we have the Q and are only off 1 key card, slam is hopeless but I have already bid it.”
b 4 ♦ then 4 NT [BWS: key-card-ask for hearts] (70) BWP 21%; BWS 24%; IAC 20%. This bidding plan is the most aggressive approach because you cannot stop short of the five-level.
WackoJack thinks “4♣ is not helpful to partner. I choose b because that is the most uninformative for the opps. If we are off ♠AK then still a chance ♠not led.”
Peuco “b. only way to get to slam and can still stop at game“
Marty Bergen's assessment is that “We have a play for slam opposite the right minimum. As six hearts may hinge on the opening lead, there is no reason to give the opponents a chance to learn anything specific about our hands or theirs.”
Billy Eisenberg feels that this is “The wrong hand for telling the opponents what not to lead.”
Paul Ivaska believes “This holding is so strong that I will drive to slam unless we're off two keys. I gave some thought to grand-slam possibilities, which aren't good; but if North shows three keys, I'll ask for specific kings and bid seven hearts if he shows the king of diamonds.”
a 2 ♦ then 4 ♣ [BWS: autosplinter] (100) BWP 39%; BWS 23%; IAC 40%. The other two responses received the same number of votes from the Panel; the moderator claimed that the ties was broken based on Ted Williams was often known as the “Splendid Splinter.” I suspect the reason was more that there is a way to probe gently after the splinter, but that the rebid in game leaves you with only blunt instruments to move forward.
Barnet Shenkin thinks all the choices are flawed: “No key-car-ask with uncontrolled spades, so I'll follow with a five-diamond control-bid over partner's retreat to four hearts.” Doesn't that still leave the problem of uncontrolled spades at the five-level?
Robb Gordon says “I hate to splinter with a singleton ace, but this offers the best chance for a reasonably intelligent auction.”
Kit Woolsey adds “While singleton ace isn't ideal for a splinter, here the splinter is the most-accurate description of the hand. Fortunately, partner will have a Last-Train four diamonds available, so if he discourages with four hearts, he'll have a poor hand for slam, and we can stop there.”
Hoki thinks “(a) - arguably the most descriptive option”
Masse24 “My conservative nature tells me to transfer at the 2-level then bid 4
(mild slam-try). The reasons against doing otherwise are plain: 1) Splintering a stiff Ace is undesirable. How can partner properly assess the value of
KQx? I know some do it, but I do not—unless my hand is strong enough to bid on. 2) Texas followed by RKC with two fast spade losers breaks a basic RKC rule. However, the “mild slam-try” approach with this hand seems far too timid. Which means the panel will choose one of the other choices. I think this falls into the “better than a mild slam try” category. Which means we should probably be safe at the five-level. Only a very unfortunate minimum holding by partner (off the three missing keycards) makes the five-level too high. Texas then RKC could result in partner bidding 5
with the
AK and off a
control. Oops! Or partner bidding 5
with two Aces off the trump K and, small slam is very safe with even 13 tricks possible. So RKC off two quick losers is frowned on for a reason. The splinter seems most flexible. If partner cooperates with 4
, I’m bidding 5
. If partner dislikes my splinter and bids 4
, I’m also bidding 5
. Hopefully this should highlight my lack of a
control. But does it oversell my hand? Maybe.”
YleeXotee “A, I'm taking the middle road.”
BluBayou “Heaven help me--I'm going with Joe on problem D ( the self-splinter option). As we both seem to recall, the mild slam-try ALWAYS gets left at game except when 1NT opener can super-accept. We can hardly expect, nor need, 4 trumps plus a good hand with our 7-bagger, so showing a slammy hand with 1 club is what's left.” People always seem to remember that it is bad to splinter with an singleton ace, but not much why it is bad. The problem is values in the splinter suit are mentally discounted, when they shouldn't; a QJx being viewed as two losers in NT or KJ-tight having potentially no value. For that reason,
Zia's position strikes a chord: “(a) But I'd rather splinter in spades, as the opening lead may be crucial, and I want to deter a spade lead.”
c 2 ♦ then 4 ♥ [BWS: slam-try] (90) BWP 39%; BWS 54%; IAC 40%.
Jcreech summarized his thoughts: “I don't like splintering into a stiff A. Definitely slammish, but I don't want to commit to the 5-level without a willing partner. Transfer and then bid 4
might not be pushy enough; I don't like my other options yet and it is a move in the right direction ... partner knows I am slamish. If I was interested in any suit below spades, I probably would have tried a different route, but if partner does not have a spade control, I have no further interest.”
KenBerg decided to “... go with c. There are a lot of ways to lose two ricks. I suppose we might well miss a laydown slam.” CCR3 “C: I'm sticking with 2d. With three major suit top honors outstanding, bidding slam is risky unless partner has interest.”
Nick L'Ecuyer thinks there is “Enough strength to try for slam, and I don't want partner to downgrade the king of clubs. The good slams are those that make, and I want partner to use judgment. We might bid a slam off two top spades and make it if partner has: ♠ Qxx
♥ AKx
♦ KQxx ♣ Kxx, so why give the opponents any specific information?”
Leonard Helfgott says “I don't splinter with a stiff ace if I have any alternative. I slightly prefer to invite slam than virtually to force to slam opposite two or three keys via a key-card-ask.”
Brian Platnick feels the hand is “Not strong enough to ask for keys. Splintering with a singleton ace might cause partner to misevaluate. That leaves only a general slam-try.”
The moderator likes “... none of the plans offered. (a) will induce North to devalue the king of clubs when it can provide a useful discard. (b) may land us in a slam off two fast spade tricks opposite a hand as strong as: ♠ QJ10
♥ AK874
♦ KQ ♣ KQJ (yes, we'd open two notrump with that hand). (c) destroys the bidding space below game that we could otherwise use for control-bidding after anchoring hearts, but it's the least of the given evils, as it lets partner move toward slam with many appropriate hands.”
Problem E 3 (MarilynLi, CCR3, Jcreech, BabsG, WackoJack, Peuco)
Imps North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 9 5
♥ A K Q 2
♦ A 9 8 2
♣ J 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ Pass
1
♥ Pass 2 ♣ Pass
2
♦ Pass 2
♥ Pass
2 ♠ Double Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
The choices receiving good scores were essentially between showing the club support, or giving partner a chance to do something intelligent with the more flexible redouble. To tell the truth, I did not even consider redouble as an option because I was staring at Jxx, partner had essentially denied four spades when rebidding clubs, and I had recently been burned in a Burns 1st Law violation – you need to have more trump than the opponents. So let's start there.
Rdbl (80) BWP 32%; BWS 19%; IAC 27%.
KenBerg “I decided on XX. I have some thoughts on that. On the previous round, and that's the third round, I bid 2S. It seems to me that if I had four spades partner would have heard about it before the third round. So forget about me having four spades. So what is XX? "How about: I have this good hand, you, my partner, opened the bidding, so we should have something somewhere but I am not sure where, What are your thoughts, pard?" I am not really thinking of playing 2S XX. Partner could possibly decide to pass, but I am more thinking that with Qx in spades he might decide that, having failed to bid NT on the previous round, he has denied Ax or Kx and so this might be a good time to show Qx by bidding 2NT. At any rate, I think XX asks pard for any further thoughts he might have. Passing my XX would be a surprising further thought. I expect us to be playing in NT or hearts or clubs or, I suppose just possibly, diamonds. Partner could have a 1=3=4=5 shape and bid the way he has, since he might view his xxx in hearts as not being right for immediately raising 1H to 2H.” Nice analysis, Ken, but why not think about 2
XX as the final contract.
Phillip Alder thinks “Might we go plus 840 or 1240 in a three-three fit?”
Kit Woolsey: “West didn't overcall at favorable vulnerability, so his spades can't be too long and strong. If partner sits, I'm betting we will make an overtrick.”
Billy Eisenberg: “Redouble. Unusual, but clear to me.”
3 (100) BWP 46%; BWS 39%; IAC 40%. It is hard to envision game on a 3-3, so the top spot was for the bidders.
CCR3 bids “3c. Since partner implied having 6 clubs, I'm giving him a chance to pass or bid 3nt. I've bid my hand to the fullest. He could easily have values in spades.”
Leonard Helfgott said “Two spades created a virtual game-force, so showing a doubleton opposite partner's likely six-card suit is the best description.”
WackoJack thinks “3 looks least bad”
Jcreech writes that “This is one of those auctions where it seems to get worse the more it goes on. Partner advertised real clubs and I've shown my values, now I will show my doubleton club honor (hopefully he has six instead of the five I always have to rebid).”
Peuco thinks “3C gives pd the option of bidding 3S asking for half stopper”
Joel Wooldridge: “Three clubs. Forcing. If partner bids three spades, I'll bid three notrump. Over three diamonds or three hearts, I'll aim at four hearts.”
Frank Stewart wanted to bid clubs on the previous round: “Three clubs. I might have bid this last turn. I'm not sure why I bid two spades. Are we focused on three notrump when as little as: ♠ AQx
♥ 10xx
♦ x ♣ AQ108xx opposite makes six clubs reasonable?”
It is not often that we get the back story of one of the problems, but this is one of those times. The moderator held this hand 55 years ago and set the stage: “Real life at the time was the rubber-bridge club that Bob Hamman called “The Office,” where he spent 40-hour weeks during the mid=1060's. … Bob and I were among those who came to the club weekday nights, cut for teams and played eight-board matches. … On the actual deal, I passed. A redouble might have worked if partner judged to pass, but I didn't want to risk it at a 1966 dollar per imp.” So why did you give a 30 to your actual action? If 2
XX is such a great contract, it will outperform any other action (getting the game bonus) including those that lead to a game, and gains against the redoubler when partner runs.
Problem F Double (Masse24, MarilynLi, BabsG)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 3
♥ A J 10 6 4 2
♦ A Q 6 3
♣ 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♥ 2
♥* Pass 3 ♣†
?
*spades and a minor
†pass-or-correct
What call do you make?
What is the sensible action here? You have a sixth heart, you have a second suit (which may be LHO's as well), and the
K looks to be badly placed. If the opponent's fit is in clubs, then you probably want to be a bidder, but if it is diamonds, then maybe you want to defend. Meanwhile, you don't know which minor until lefty lets you know, then it may be too late unless partner acts.
Dbl (100) BWP 43%; BWS 10%; IAC 20%.
Masse24 waffles, but settles in with “Double. First stab was Pass, then I changed to 3
. I want to show extras and bring partner into the conversation. However, I hate the location of my
K. Considered 3
, but partner can still (although unlikely) chime in with something or even pass whatever comes round to him.” He is not alone.
Paul Ivaska says “I don't want to pass, double is the most flexible and least dangerous way to reenter the auction. The heart intermediates are very weak, three diamonds would usually deliver five, and double preserves the chance of a penalty.”
Barnet Shenkin sees penalty: “Partner has spades. I hope he has clubs or will pull my double.” While
Robb Gordon only sees takeout: “Is double not takeout? Am I forced to bid three diamonds and distort my shape?”
Other actions were less popular. For example,
3 (50) BWP 14%; BWS 24%; IAC 13%, has a large proportion of the Panel agreeing that it shows equal length with the hearts. Nonetheless,
Bobby Wolff said “Three diamonds. Aggressive, but I'll die with my boots on.” And
Marty Bergen says “I am unwilling to sell out. I'd like to double three clubs for takeout, but as three clubs is artificial, a double would show clubs. Though the hearts are two cards longer than the diamonds, being in doubt I choose the cheapest reasonable bid. If viciously doubled, I'll reconsider.” Also
3 (30) BWP 4%; BWS 24%; IAC 20%, was not pushed by other members of the Panel due to the weakness of the intermediates. But
Billy Eisenberg made the selection more because the diamonds were too short: “A little light for a double, and three diamonds would be appropriate with a red five-five.”
Hoki “3 Hearts - an overbid but hard to pass”
CCR3 “3H. If West has long clubs along with spades, he can make 2 spades. There's always the chance my partner has diamonds with me.”
Pass (90) BWP 39%; BWS 42%; IAC 47% The most popular choice for solvers, and only one vote shy of a tie for first among Panelists was Pass.
Jcreech “Pass I may change my mind, but my hand has gotten worse, and it is far from certain that the undisclosed minor is clubs. Partner was silent, if he has something, then let him keep the auction alive.”
Carl Hudecek agrees in part: “Partner still has a turn.” As does Joel Wooldridge, but for a different reason: “An ill-placed doubleton king of spades dissuades me from further action.”
YleeXotee thinks partner is broke: “Pass. there better be some Unusual v unusual expectations in BWS because I have those expectations therefore p has zippo.” While
Peuco chooses inaction because he can't decide which action: “Pass If west has the S A the pass is clear if not, what to bid, H or D”
Phillip Alder passes because “It seems dangerous to bid, because the deal has the aura of a misfit.” And if there were any doubts,
Zia clarifies his pass: “These auctions are land mines. Suits figure to break painfully badly.” To which the moderator adds his own “Yes indeed!”
Here ends the second installment. The last two problems will be posted as soon as they are ready and include the infamous lead problem. Until then, please enjoy.