August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, DirectorProblem A 4 (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 2
♥ 4 3 2
♦ K Q 10 ♣ 6 5 4 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 2
♦ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Partner has opened a major, and then bid and rebid his minor; it sounds like he has a 5=5, perhaps with a bit extra in HCPs. Your values are concentrated in partner's suits, with only a doubleton ace in the major, and three honors in the minor.
4 ♦ 90 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 26% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 41% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 38%
Do you go low, thinking the limit for the partnership may only be 10 tricks, but risking the Coyote's rule to find game or possibly more? Moreover, is 4
forcing or not? Even the Panel was less than certain. As the moderator,
Jeff Rubens, writes: "The diamond bidders did not agree on whether four diamonds would be forcing. Bridge World Standard (BWS) cold not reasonably cover every bid late in an auction, so it must rely of general principles to handle leftover possibilities. Unfortunately, the BWS voters were unable to resolve that issue and selected 'treat as forcing or noforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer' for undefined noncompetitive situations."
Will Beall thinks it "Must be forcing. I want to show diamond support without foreclosing four spades. I have great admiration for a four-heart Bluhmer, but will partner field it?"
WackoJack is in sync: "What could partner have in the light of our double fit and the opponents remaining silent: I bid 4
♦ as a natural force and leave it to partner to choose between 4♠ and 5
♦. The trouble is that I there are few hands where 5
♦ is better than 4♠. One such could be ♠ Jxxxx,
♥ AK;
♦AJ98x ♣x where 2 losing ♠s can be ruffed in dummy and the 5th spade established to make 5
♦."
DickHy seems less certain: "Presumably 3
shows 55 in
, so we're heading for a diamond contract. 5
is too weak for this hand -- all my HCP are glistening with gold and I am max for the 1N response, so a stronger response looks better." The most aggressive view was taken by
David Berkowitz: "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since: ♠ Kxxxxx
♥ -
♦ AJxxx ♣ AK is a playable grand slam. I must make a slam-positive bed. In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal. If I thought otherwise, I would bid five diamonds." I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite. Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.
Kit Woolsey believes "This gives partner a chance to bid four spades if he ahs a good suit. Otherwise, he will pass or bid five diamonds, as he sees fit."
Billy Eisenberg says "This is easy, but the next round will be bery awkward."
5 ♦ 90 BWP 15% BWS 17% IAC 31%
If you fear that 4
is not forcing, do you bid game in the minor to show a maximum for your previous bidding, and a clear preference for the minor? As the moderator points out, "The meaning of four diamonds affect the meaning of five diamond. If four diamonds is nonforcing, five diamonds is a selection of contract; if four diamonds is forcing, five diamonds is a picture bid."
BluBayou is in the nonforcing camp: "the single raise to 4 Diamonds is gaining some charm to me. I DO NOT BUY THAT FOUR DIAMONDS IS FORCING, but you guys are making me think the panel is against me 4D lets us segue to 4 spades, which MIGHT gain 2 imps, or, seldom, 11 of 'em. But the fun comes when partner bids 4 HEARTS and we bid 4 spades--leading to six diamonds. I am sticking to my plan-A '5!D' but appreciating the beauty of staying at the 4-level for now...sigh."
Fleisher and Friesner "... wish we could offer a choice of games but can't think of a way. Five clubs might be a Bluhmer, but it is not clear that this is our agreement."
Robert Wolff admits the bid "Could be a weakness sequence, but probably should not be used as such, since partner, even with five low spades, should understand the probability of a misunderstanding. Therefore, I need to holler to partner that I have these types of values, especially since all other bids (even a jump in an unbid suit) could create a disaster."
Bart Bramley thinks "Four diamonds ought to be forcing, so five sends a strong message about trumps. With six-five, partner might be able to bid slam."
4 ♠ 100 BWP 30% BWS 29% IAC 31%
Do you try showing a preference for the major, hoping for the perfect storm - not enough for slam, but a combined holding in spades to bring home the game (one level lower), knowing full well that partner will take you for something like: ♠ xxx
♥ Qx
♦ KQx ♣ xxxxx, with a play for game and probably not much more?
JCreech found "The ten-trick game is what finally tipped the decision. I'm not sure that we don't have three losers, but I have no delusion that I am showing Ax in spades with terrific diamonds. I still only promise two spades and less than 10 HCPs; I just think that 4
is better place to play than 5
or 3 NT. There is reasonable play opposite ♠ KQxxx ♥ xx ♦Axxxx ♣ x, and that is still short of what I expect from partner given his bidding."
Joey Silver says "With every high card working, I expect the 9 HCP superfit to compensate for the dearth of spades."
Kamil and Sherman noted that in their reconstruction of the North hand: "Most North hands that will produce five diamonds will also make four spades."
Hoki is "offering game in our 5-2 fit in the hope that pard's extra points include a more robust suit than K-x-x-x-x." Though the moderator points out "... that should North hold weak spades (unlikely but possible), he can retreat to five diamonds."
Jill Meyers writes: "If I could make some kind of general force, merely saying that I love my hand, I would do that. But without advance agreement, it is best to bid four spades, hoping that partner will figure out what I have." Which
Masse24 thinks: "Surely this must show Ax in spades and excellent diamonds."
Or do you take a stab at possibly something more? As a rule, the solvers did not, but nearly a third of the Panel did. What did they see in the hand?
4 ♥ 70 BWP 9% BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Oren Kreigel sees a Bluhmer: "My first opportunity to use a Bluhmer, and there are two to choose from. Four hearts keeps four spades in the picture facing, e.g.: ♠ KQJ10x
♥ x
♦ AJxxx ♣ KQ where partner will know to offer four spades."
John Swanson thinks the bid is more general: "Partner might be confused for a moment but will quickly realize this is a choice of both strain and level."
5 ♣ 70 BWP 1 Panelist 0% BWS IAC No solvers
This is the other Bluhmer choice that Oren mentioned.
Zia stands alone making this bid: "Sounds like a huge diamond raise. I would bid four hearts if Bluhmers were systemic - that might let us out in four spades. However, clubs is the suit where partner will not be worried about a control. As five diamonds is unlikely to be in danger, and: ♠ KQxxx
♥ AK
♦ AJxxx ♣ x produces six, all I need is partner to know what I intend."
4 NT 70 BWP 9% BWS 0% IAC No solvers
Surely there will be concensus among the 4 NTers.
Ralph Katz is clear in his thoughts: "Cannot be Blackwood; it's a very good five-diamond bid." While
Cal Hudecek is clearly of a different opinion: "How about this! A responder who mumbled minimally twice is now using a key-card-ask. Partner may be shapely but not overly strong (is this a mixed team game?): ♠ KQJ10x
♥ x
♦ AJxxxx ♣ x is a minimum HCP hand that is cold for game. Add a side ace, and slam is cold. I expect to be a majority of one." How are the mere mortals supposed to fair then?
4 ♣ 70 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 1% IAC No solvers
Another Panelist willing to stand alone is
Eric Kokish who says "The ideal bid would be four hearts, but it's just barely possible for South to be 2=1=4=6. If I were sure that we could make five diamonds but not four spades, I would bid four notrump, but here the idea is to keep both suits in the picture while forcing to game. As four clubs can't be natural or a splinter, it's the best we can do to show this huge hand."
Problem B 4 (WackoJack, YleeXotee, Masse24)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K Q 6 2
♥ 10 4
♦ 9 5 ♣ Q 6 5 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ 1
♦ 1 ♠ Pass 2
♥ 3
♦ ?*
*BWS: double = cooperative-takeout
What call do you make?
A competitive auction with RHO bidding and rebidding diamonds, you showing your nice spade suit, but partner shows the other two suits, first by opening clubs, then by reversing into hearts. There are questions about both strain and level that need to be explored, but with RHO rebidding diamonds at the three-level, the room to explore is disappearing fast. Do you support clubs directly now, and if so, is 4
forcing or not, because that can affect the interpretation of 5
? Are you wanting to encourage thoughts of slam, or do you have concerns about whether the partnership can even make game? And are there thoughts of trying to steer the partnership into the lower-trick, higher-scoring games, such as NT or spades?
Double 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
When the problem includes a hint, it is often worthwhile to at least consider the action. Clearly, the action sucked in the BW solvers, as the cooperative-takeout double became their second choice, and was joined by Panelist
Jill Meyers. She thinks "A great hand. The best way to communicate this is to double and then bid five clubs (or four clubs, if partner bids three spades or three notrump)." However, the moderator was "... a bit mystified. I don't see what a double might accomplish ..." I agree with the moderator; is the double trying to encourage a penalty pass, based on misfitting hands, solicit a reluctant spade response, or clarify elements in opener's hand, such as a diamond stopper or the relative lengths in the round suits? You have the club fit, so you really do not want to risk having the double left in at too low of a level.
3 ♠ 40 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 14% IAC 23%
If you are trying to play in spades or NT, there is a more straight-forward approach, and nearly a fourth of the IAC solvers selected that route. As
Carl Hudecek put it "If I can't rebid an ace-king-queen-fifth suit, we are playing the wrong system."
Hoki, in apparent agreement made a classic understatement: "the suit could be worse."
JCreech, though, is trying to find a legitimate make-time bid: "I wish I could bid a stopper asking 3
, but RHO beat me to it. Without a stop myself, I cannot bid 3 NT, but I do have two bids before I get that high. Hearts are out with only doubleton support, but 3
might be the impetus for partner to show a stop. I really hate lead problems - oops, too soon for that phrase. Well, vul at imps, I really need to try to get to game, and I am not yet convinced that 5
is our spot." Meanwhile, I may have led others down a primrose lane -
DickHy "on second thought, Jim's idea is much better: my spades are pretty spanking, so 3
"
4 ♦ 50 BWP 13% BWS 3% IAC No solvers
If 3
is an underbid, I think that 4
is an overbid. It suggests a big fit with one of partner's suits, which is true, but it also is suggestive of a diamond control, since it drives the contract past 3 NT without clarifying which suit provides the fit.
Eric Kokish's rationale is that "A double would not hint at a club fit of this quality, and I want to force to game while keeping clubs and spades alive. This seems less complicated than the red-herring double." A reluctant
Ralph Katz argues that "Partner can have as little as: ♠ xx
♥ AKxx
♦ x ♣ AKJxxx. The South is too strong for a jump to five clubs. I do not like four diamonds, but it is the only bid to get partner involved." It certainly would force partner to contribute to the auction again, but I fear that that it takes too much room away from finding the correct contract. However,
Billy Eisenberg may be right, that it is the level not the strain that is at issue: "Not perfect, but slam is too likely to give up."
Now we are to the debate of whether 4
is forcing or not. The distinction is important, in part, because it also helps to define what the 5
bid means as well. If 4
is forcing, then 5
can become a picture bid.
4 ♣ 100 BWP 52% BWS 41% IAC 23%
About half of the Panel chose to bid 4
, as did a plurality of the BW solvers, and about a fourth of the IAC solvers.
Will Beall thinks "If four clubs is forcing, it's clearly best, since it keeps the ball rolling and shows the nice support without bypassing spades."
Ira Chorush says "I have no idea is this is forcing; I can only hope so. If partner can muster a diamond control-bid, we will reach slam. If partner passes, I will apologize."
John Hurd argues "I'm not going to be seduced by the footnote into risking minus 670. Four clubs is forcing; partner reversed and I raised him to the four-level." Others are ready to trade in their partners if they pass. For example,
Kamil and Sherman says "If partner thinks this nonforcing, we're headed to the partnership desk. We will move on to at least a small slam if partner shows a diamond control." While
David Berkowitz's decision is more conditional: "Slam-positive hand, but I need to hear four diamonds from partner. If we play in four of a minor two deals in a row, I am heading for the partnership desk."
Masse24 insists it is "Forcing. Partner can continue to describe." While
WackoJack debated between 4
and double, concluding: "I reckon the tell bid is better. 4♣ a natural game force with possible slam interest."
Zia agrees "I'm sure this is forcing. The hand is too strong for five clubs."
Robert Wolff asks "What else? Five clubs would rule out a possible four-spade preference, which could be a superior game contract. Perhaps partner will hold: ♠ xx
♥ AKxx
♦ x ♣ AKJxxx or two low diamonds and a singleton spade." While
Danny Kleinman says "I'd bid four clubs without the queen of spades, but it can't hurt to have just a little in reerve; if partner tries for slam, I'll cooperate."
Phillip Alder, though, says it simply: "Tell partner about our fit. How wrong can that be?"
5 ♣ 70 BWP 26% BWS 13% IAC 46%
About a quarter of the Panel along with nearly half of the IAC solvers, because they did not want to see the hand played below game.
Oren Kriegel makes the bid despite an analysis that concludes that "There are three strikes against five clubs: (1)I am not sure whether this is a picture bid, as four clubs might be nonforcing. (2) Perhaps the hand is a touch heavy, but the spade queen will probably be wasted much of the time. (Picture North with 2=4=1=6 and the rounded-suit ace-kings.) (3) There is probably a more scientific way to bid this hand. However, I am a football fan, and I am banking on a fourth-down conversion. I fear that the auction will become murky if I do not make a clear statement about strain now."
Bart Bramley writes "Similar to Problem A, but it is unclear that four clubs would be forcing. Jumping still emphasizes trumps. Failure to bid four diamonds should deny control there."
BluBayou "4-5 in his suits with AK, AK can claim, and picking daisies won't make SLAM easier to bid than this picture-bid would. ... Is partner allowed to stretch to reverse when I have made a free bid, and expect me to pull in a notch. I say YES, though it hast cost me two nice placings in msc recently. Sticking to my guns, I consider jump-raising his clubs is enough -- no need to make one of their ridiculous cuebids instead."
The first two problems are different, but they share certain themes - a high-level decision, and the uncertainty of whether a four-level raise is forcing.
This ends part 1. The second part will be out as quickly as I have time. Until then, please consider the September problems, and any thoughts that can accompany your selections are greatly appreciated; as for expressing your thoughts, you may write on as many or few problems as you like. All are welcome.