September MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish, DirectorProblem D 3 (CCR3, JCreech, KenBerg)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q J 6 5
♥ K
♦ 10 ♣ K J 10 9 6 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♦ Double 2
♥*
?
*preemptive
What call do you make?
LHO has opened in one suit, partner doubled and RHO has preempted in a third suit. Now you have 7-4 in the other two suits with 10 HCPs. What do you emphasize? Your major, your length, or something else? Amongst the Panelists, the focus was on two responses, but for the solvers, there was much less concentration.
3 ♣ 100 BWP 41% BWS 37% IAC 23%
For those bidding length, there is an expectation that there will be a chance to show spades later.
Jeff Rubens is "Expecting to have another opportunity."
Joey Silver: "With a dearth of red cards, I do not expect the villains to let me languish in three clubs, so I plan to show my spades later. If there is no later, I will need to take comfort in the form of scoring.
Michael Becker believes that "To play in spades, I need partner with four and am not willing to go to the bank on that. If North has four hearts and three diamonds, it might continue all pass, but then there's no guarantee of a better spot.
JCreech "I have length, an uncertain
K, and partner may be 4-3 in the majors for the double. Let's show competitiveness, and if the opponents continue to bid hearts, I will now show spades to show four, but with longer clubs."
3 ♥ 80 BWP 29% BWS 7%
In BWS, when there are two cue bids available, the more expensive tends to show more strength. The Panelists, though, seem to think it guarantees spades.
Phillipe Cronier: "Guarantees four spades."
Michael Lawrence: "Should find spades opposite four. Otherwise, we will finish in three notrump or five clubs."
Sami Kehela: "The bridge bid is five clubs, but since this is matchpoints, I must try for spades." However, some are just scrambling.
Phillip Alder say "Where are all the diamonds? Could partner really have a big double? Did East forget his agreement and make a fit-jump? Should I go for the potentially-iffy spade fit or the much better club fit, despite its being matchpoints? Too many questions." Then again,
George Jacobs doesn't want to see the auction die prematurely: "I want to bid clubs then spades, but three clubs could end the auction. After three heartsL over three spades, there will be an easy raise to game; over three notrump, pulling to four clubs is a safety play. Five clubs can succeed opposite a minimum."
3 ♦ 70 BWP 11% BWS 14% IAC 31%
The less expensive cue bid allows for the partnership to escape below game, but again the Panel has other ideas.
Zia: "This allows partner to bid three hearts, after which I could bid four clubs and then four spades, to emphasize the black-suit imbalance."
Jeff Meckstroth: "Want to make sure that partner has four spades."
Harry Steiner: "Willing to play in four spades if partnr can introduce the suit; otherwise in five clubs, which may or may not be too high." In IAC,
Hoki tries "3♦ – but at the table I’d probably bid an impulsive 5♣" And
WackoJack feels the hand is "Just a bit too strong to bid 2♠. So lets try 3
♦. If partner has a min take-out double like: ♠ Kxxx,
♥ Axxx,
♦ KQx, ♣xx and bids 3♠ I will pass."
4 ♣ 70 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 8% IAC 1 solver
Perhaps 3
wasn't high enough.
Danny Kleiman bids "Four clubs. What the hand is worth. We may belong in four spadesmm and I intend to fid four spades if four of either red suit comes around to me. Must first suggest clubs as a safe harbor." Similarly,
Masse24 says "Lots of clubs, so I show them. 3
also intrigues me, but I will shy away from it this time since it accomplishes little other than to force. By the way—WHERE ARE THE
? I think LHO has a mittful of
. So while I think 3
now is the sexy choice, it wll be immediately swallowed up by some level of red suit rebid by the opps. However, 4
now followed by 4
(if room permits) over their 4 red should draw a good picture of my hand. If partner doubles 4 red, I leave it."
3 ♠ 60 BWP 7% BWS 7% IAC 15%
Now for the spades.
Kit Woolsey thinks "The club suit must be left on the shelf, as our most-likely game is four spades."
BluBayou is a half-full sort of guy: "No safety-net; pard will come through with the goods and the K may not be trash" And
Chris Willenken thinks "The two-heart bid increase the chance of partner's holding four spades, so at matchpoints I'll play in the major and go low (but no supper-low). Two spades seems pointless because the opponents are so likely to compete to three diamonds. I don't expect a lot of company for this unsophisticated value bid."
Problem E 3 (Hoki, MarilynLi)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A J 10 8 6 5
♥ —
♦ 6 4 3 ♣ K Q J 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
The moderator viewed this hand differently than I did. "There is not a panelist among us who would not open the South hand in any position. Yet, only three of 27 were willing to force to game when partner opened/ We have encountered several similar problems recently, with the panel consistently voting for a conservative approach." While, for me, when staring at a misfit, it is best to either bail early, to not compound the up and coming disaster, or to show your flexibility by offering another place to play. The question becomes, which way do you go.
The Panel reverted to spades. Eighty-eight percent were split evenly between the invitational jump and the non-forcing simple rebid.
2 ♠ 90 BWP 44% BWS 38% IAC 15%
Let's start with the group that initially saw promise, and now want to avoid disaster.
Jeff Rubens appears to have even considered passing: "Rates to play at least as well as two hearts on average, and game in spades is a mild possibility." Ditto for
Billy Eisenberg, who writes "Too much hand to pass."
Masse24 decides to "Go low. Some will bid 3
to force game and elicit more information from partner. It is, after all, a hand we would all open in first seat." Similarly,
Michael Becker says "A hand that I would have opened became worse when partner opened one heart and even again when he rebid two hearts. If North has wasted strength in hearts and short spades, we will usually have no play for game." Drawing on the value of going plus,
Pepsi says "In matchpoints, I like plus scores, so I much prefer to underbid in uncertain situations." And
Carl Hudecek is "Downgrading because of the heart void."
3 ♠ 100 BWP 44% BWS 23% IAC 15%
Kit Woolsey goes for the invitational bid, remarking that it is "The value bid, and we probably belong in spades." Similarly,
Jeff Meckstroth writes "The hand is too strong for anything else." While
Hoki simply states "... it’s where my hand lives and if it’s a misfit this is high enough" And Michael Lawrence thinks it is "The least-confusing bid I can offer. For once, there are good spade spots - this problem usually comes with the likes of king-jack-eight-seven-four-three of spades. I'll miss some games, even a slam if partner has clubs, but three clubs comes with warts."
3 ♣ 70 BWP 11% BWS 38% IAC 69%
The optimists are still seeing an opening hand opposite an opening hand.
JCreech feels "I need to make a forcing bid, and what better than to show a concentration of values. I think KQJx qualifies." Aware of the warts,
WackoJack still thinks the hand "Too strong to bid 2♠. Try 3♣. However, I dread 3♥ now."
Richard Colker thinks that "What the hand lacks in high cards it makes up in trick-taking potential. Three clubs rates to function as a de facto transfer to three notrump; if we are doomed to go down, who better to play it than MHO (middle-hand opponent)?"
Phillip Alder "... might settle for three spades, but only because it's matchpoints; even so, they pay a game bonus. I will hope that partner's hand isn't (nearly) useless." For the glass half-full group,
BluBayou has the last word: "
apparent winners and
the L.T.C. outvote the heart misfit. Go for it!"
Problem F 4 NT (MsPhola, CCR3, Peuco, Masse24, JCreech, MarilynLi, BabsG, YleeXotee)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 8
♥ A
♦ Q J 10 2 ♣ A 10 8 6 5 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass 1
♥ 1 ♠
2 ♣* 4 ♠ Pass Pass
?
*BWS: forcing to 2
♥What call do you make?
What are the inferences of this auction on you as the 2
bidder? According to the moderator, "As two clubs created a force only to two hearts, North-South are under no duty to bid or to double. The weaker that a free two clubs might be for a partnership, the less reason to have it create a high-level force. What do we know about two clubs? Only that South's hand is unsuitable for a preemptive three clubs; the line between a direct three clubs and two clubs intending to continue with a nonforcing three clubs can involve judgment or style ... If Nortth has enough strength to take further action but no clear direction, he must double to say so. Think transferable values rather than penalty."
Double 80 BWP 33% BWS 34% IAC one solver
Since North-South are free to pass out 4
, North must pass unless holding significant extras; they are unable to make the claim that hand belongs to North-South. Similarly, South must do something with the (near) maximum actually held. One option is clearly a double, which caters to North actually holding a penalty double, but without the known partnership values to make the double. Like
Arthur Robinson, "I am anxious to see how the cerebral panel describes this hand."
Joey Silver thinks "A personal trip to the five-level would be too unilateral, not to mention too dangerous. I am not sure if this double is pure penalty or shows two-way values, but I expect partner to figure it out (after all, he is a life master)."
Michael Becker also "Involves partner in the decision-making process. East-West may make four spades or North may bid five hearts with seven, but the other scenarios - they go down or we make a minor-suit game - outweigh these worries." Some do not expect a takeout. Barry Rigal "will lead the heart ace and hope to beat it. I don't expect partner to remove with a singleton spade, but it would be nice if he did."
Danny Kleinman says "I hate to double without a trump trick, but two-and-a-half honor tricks and no evidence of a fit add up to a double opposite partner's opening. Partner might have a red two-suiter, but he might not, and it's too late to hunt for a diamond fit now."
4 NT 100 BWP 56% BWS 26% IAC 62%
Trusting that it is not too late are the four notrumpers.
Chris Willenken thinks "Double could score minus 590 when we mske five or six of a minor, opposite e.g., ♠ xx
♥ Qxxxx
♦ AKxx ♣ Kx. Five clubs could be silly if partner has a singleton club."
JCreech says "I think this emphasizes the minors, and since I did not use a responsive double before, suggests that the clubs are at least 6." Masse24 thinks it shows "Both minors, presumably showing primary clubs."
Harry Steiner believes that "Partner won't prefer diamonds with a tripleton. We might not beat four spades doubled enough, if at all. If we go minus, it could turn out to be a good save."
David Berkowitz argues that "The clubs are too shaky to rebid at the five-level. Nothing to stop partner from having four or more diamonds."
5 ♣ 70 BWP 11% BWS 33% IAC 31%
The length is what inspires some to rebid the clubs.
Hoki bids 5♣ because "... the suit disparity speaks against 4NT"
BluBayou thinks "If this has no play, why didn't partner hit it (4 spades)?" Similarly,
Robert Wolff "Won't risk four notrump but could miss a big diamond fit. However, since partner did not double four spades, I'll take my chances with clubs."
WackoJack "Lets assume that opps made a LAW bid of 4♠. Then partner has a doubleton ♠. Maybe 6♥ and say 3♦ and 2♣s. I think that 5♣ looks better than double or 4NT." The worst reason, in my book, was voiced by
Sami Kehela: "I refuse to eschew a potential seven-card trump suit twice in one month."
This concludes the second part of the review. I will get to the rest as I am able. Thank you for your patience.