NOVEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, DirectorA handful of the panel's comments:
Problem A: 2NT For the BW Panelists, the choices split nearly in two, with 10 choosing 2NT, 9 choosing 2
, and 9 making other selections. This decision was far more clear cut for the IAC solvers as 75% of IAC went with 2NT and the rest with 2
. The big question is what type of hand is partner showing. Everyone agreed that partner is showing a big hand, but
Bart Bramley, the moderator, clearly sided with those saying the hand is flexible. "With a one-directional hand partner would have acted differently, either earlier or now."
Building on this flexibility is the top score of 2NT.
David Berkowtiz wrote "Two notrump. A club stop and some value. Why not show them?"
Mike Passell: "Two notrump. With a max, a club stopper, and a key jack of hearts, an easy bid." Some in IAC took more care to build their arguments. For example,
KenBerg constructed hands for the entire auction, but at the end said "Now back to the South hand to choose a rebid over the 2
. I opt for 2NT."
Masse24 took a similar approach, "I think partner has. Something 22+ or so. Likely only five hearts. And east has nothing. Zero HCP. I can't envision 10 tricks, but 9 in notrump is possible. If I do not bid 2NT now, I doubt we can end in 3NT." While
JCreech was more transactional "2NT - Partner has forced me twice and then bid a suit. Clearly one thing partner wants to know is - am I alive? With 5 HCPs, I am alive; with a queen and 3 jacks, I am probably on life support. But what is 2
? Is it a real suit, or a cue bid in support of diamonds? I don't know, so I think the best move I can make is to try 2NT. That will show my club stop, says I am alive, but not much since I did not try NT before this. If nothing else, I am largely out of the way for partner to clarify their bidding." Similar to Jim, BW Panelist
Don Stack wrote: "Two notrump. Partner has asked three times if my hand contains anything of value; after two denials, I must make a small move forward. It would be cowardly to pass." In one of his rare pessimistic moods, IAC solver
YleeXotee says "2nt - Considering pass also. spade and a club stopper, hopefully p isn't counting on my diamond stopper too much."
A close second choice for the BW Panelists, 2
was much more distant for IAC.
DickHy argues "2S. The HCP seem to be something like W 12 and E 3, so partner has 20. From his perspective I could have 2 (W 14 and E 4) to 8 (W 12 and E 0); hence his forcing 2C (my 2D looks a bit wimpish in that context). P is not balanced, however: as Ken said he would have bid 2N not 2H. So, he could have good H (4540 or 4630) or he could have D and is exploring NT (4450 or 4441) by showing stops in H. I don’t fancy bidding 2N because if E has Qxx or Kxx in clubs, which is entirely possible, they can reel off the first 5 tricks in 3N. If partner bids 3H over 2S, I can raise to 4H otherwise it looks as though we’re destined for 5D – at least I won’t have to put my tram tickets on the table for all to see. 5D looks ok although I’d like another entry to play across N twice (once in D and once in S). I will have to ruff the third H and play a D across him – conceding a S."
BluBayou said "Two hearts is the closest bid to forcing that I can imagine that might not BE forcing. I have given my obligatory nothing-rebid (2 diamonds) and now what i have left is about the best possible spade holding I can have, so that is my re-re-bid. Don't ask me where I will go when I hear 2NT or 3 Diamonds, but it MIGHT start with "H"."From the BW Panel:
Justin Lall: "Two spades. Strangely. I am not sure what this bid shows, but it seems as if I have it. I have denied four spades and have good spades and flexible hand; furthermore, it is the cheapest bid. I dream of partner's bidding three diamonds, so I can bid three hearts, leaving North room to bid three spades, and then I could finally bid three notrump."
Bob Boudreau: "Two spades. Want to show where my strength lies, then can support hearts next."
Danny Kleinman: "Two spades. Probably the best landing spot if partner has exhausted his struts of strength. I have a good holding in spades as he could expect in light of the two feeble advances he has twisted from me."
Zia "Two spades. This is clean, like my love life."
Problem B: 3 On Problem B, the moderator comments early "North has it in for South again. Where did this partner come from?"
Ten IAC solvers went with the top choice of the BW Panel: 3
.
Mike Passell, from the BW Panel, was particularly poignant: "Three hearts. A disgusting choice, but at matchpoints I go for the gusto. I can't figure out anything else to do." In a similar vein,
YleeXotee said "3H- this is trying to avoid too much of a disaster" While
DickHy analyzed: "3H. I’d expect partner to have 8+ HCP to make a negative double at the 2-level. I’ve got to lie with this response and 3H seems the less culpable than 3m: any missing H honour is most likely with E. I’m not strong enough to bid 3S asking for 3N if p has a S stop. A 2N rebid is intriguing (show a stop in the bidding and you don’t need one in the play – isn’t that a famous quote?), but EW are vulnerable and so opp’s S suit is likely to be pretty sound: AKJxxx." Meanwhile, there was talk of the 4-3 fit.
Masse24 "3
. I hate Moysians, but the MSC doesn’t."
JCreech "3 Hearts - in my assessment, this hand is not well suited for a Moysian, but Todd is right, MSC loves one" And from the Panel
Danny Kleinman: "Three hearts. If I could rely on partner for at least three diamonds, I'd bid three diamonds, being more willing to play in a Moysian fit in a suit where I could take a ruff in the short hand. Alas, I've seen too many doubles on 2=4=2=5, even 3=4=1=5, to risk playing in a sub-Moysian at the three level."
No IAC solver discussed their reasons for any other bid, but on the BW Panel there was a second tier of four choices. Lets take a quick look at some of those reasons:
Sartaj Hans: "Two notrump. When every action is flawed, I prefer to lie about a stopper rather than about shape. Partner' junky holding in spades might help us in notrump."
Steve Beatty: "Three clubs. At this vulnerability, LHO may have running spades. Since I must make a misdescriptive bid, I want to make the bid least likely to be raised to a hopeless game." Talk about taking the principle of least lie to a new level of discourse. Continuing up the line,
Augie Boehm: "Three diamonds. Looks peculiar, maybe pessimistic, but it we play in hearts or clubs, the tap comes in the wrong hand. Also, if we're in trouble, my sturdy diamonds will provide some protection against being doubled. I'll leave pass and two notrump for the geniuses." Then the distinction between genius and insanity is very narrow, and the actual play will clarify that for the passers.
Phillip Alder: "Pass. To pass or not to pass, in particular given the vulnerability, that is the question."
Ross Grabel: "Pass. With no good call, if I'm going to toss the ball up, I might as well play for plus 200. I certainly won't be surprised if the opponents score it up. We may take a spade trick we are not entitled to."
Problem C: 3 Five IAC solvers chose 3
, the top BW Panel choice, while six went with the Panel second choice of 2
.
Describing their reason for selecting 3
: From the BW Panel,
Robert Wolff: "Three clubs. Far from perfect, but whenever faced with a close choice, I usually show support, even opposite a one-club opening." Showing his skills at prognostication, IAC solver
BluBayou says "I am staying with 3 clubs which is non-forcing hence not going to get a lot of vote-support. 3 diamonds also non-forcing is in the same boat. I am against game-forcing (ie: cue-bid) and especially "co-operative/takeout double"! Co-operative means to me "might be left in" which cannot be seriously offered with only one trump." And Panelist
Eric Kokish: "Three clubs. Perhaps a mild underbid, but this hand may not be so great opposite a stiff diamond." Summing up nicely,
Don Stack writes "Three clubs. Vulnerable at imps, we want to bid game aggressively, but here we will go low and hope that partner will bid three notrump with the right hand or steer toward five clubs if indicated."
Speaking for the game forcers. IAC's
YleeXotee "2S- I just need something forcing, and I don't mind if this is interpreted as club support. I will likely end up bidding m diamonds again but we basically a Game going hand, possibly in a 5-4 club fit."
DickHy "2S. If partner has S we’re playing in 3N otherwise 5m, but partner needs to know we’re heading for game somewhere and 2S seems to be the best bid now. If he doesn’t bid 2N (say he bids 3H) I can bid 4C."
JCreech "I am torn between making invitational bids such as 3
/
or forcing with 2
. If I could swap a diamond for a spade, I would be more inclined to try the cooperative double. ... 2 Spades - I knew in my gut that I would upgrade to a game force"
Masse24 "2
. Automatic. Yes, it’s a mild overbid. But I need to find something forcing in the hopes of finding out more." The BW Panel had similar comments:
JoAnna Stansby: "Two spades. Sets up our game-force and also lets pard know I have a lot of offense (typically a stiff in the opponent's suit when I don't double)."
Jeff Rubens: "Two spades. Over two notrump by partner, three clubs can't be far off what I have. Worth game opposite my opening style."
Kit Woolsey: "Two spades. I'm willing to force to game and this figures to maximize our chances ... I'm unwilling to defend against one spade doubled."
Problem D: 5 Half of the IAC solvers went with the top choice of 5
. IAC's
DickHy describes his thoughts: "5S. How many S – 4 or 6? “Too strong for a double negative” suggests 4 HCP with partner, which on bad days will be KJx in clubs and on red-letter days SK and DJ. I’d like very much to bid 5S (just so everyone is clear, Humpty Dumpty explains that this means “bid 6S if some of your HCP is in S”). Can I make 5S if p has x in S and a useless KJx in clubs? – yeah, of course I can." BW Panelist's have similar thoughts, from
Robert Wolff's "Five spades. Just a millimeter away from blasting six spades." To
Zia's "Five spades. I'll murder North if he passes with stiff jack of spades and the diamond jack. This suggests I am not worried about other suits. I have no quarrel with six spades; I might have done that myself if you weren't looking, but partner's bidding implies a singleton spade." And a more middle-of-road
Kit Woolsey: "Five spades. With almost slam in my own hand, I can't bid only four spades. Partner will like any spade honor, even a singleton. In addition, he might have four diamonds."
Three IAC solvers take the leap of faith to bid 6
and claim second choice points.
YleeXotee "6S-This is a problem hand as I feel I need some agreement or system help to really explore. I'm not giving up this 1 loser hand for less than slam when p is showing something more than a minimum."
Bob Boudreau, from the BW Panel, echoes with "Six spades. What I hope to make." And
Billy Eisenberg also bemoans the lack of tools "Six spades. I might have bid five spades, but who knows what that means." Having grand slam aspirations,
Carl Hudecek says "Six spades. I am playing partner or an opponent for jack-low of spades, or partner to have the diamond jack or at least four diamonds. ... Also partner should appreciate the value of the spade king and raise to seven if he has it."
One IAC solver picked up the third place points with 5NT.
Masse24 "5NT. I looked at this over and over and over. 5
was the simple bid that always came to mind. I believe it will be the runaway solver choice. Presumably, hearing 5
, partner would bid the slam if he had even a stiff honor. So we would play in either 5
or 6
. But this feels awfully unilateral. So instead I’ll go with the always popular
punt to partner bid of 5NT." Todd was joined by Panelist
Sami Kehela: "Five notrump. Too disciplined perhaps. A straightforward six spades may well be more rewarding."
Two IAC solvers wimped out, and they knew it.
JCreech "4
- If things go completely rotten for you on this hand, you can go down two in game; badly, but moderately normal breaks, you will make with nothing useful from partner. Partner says that they have some values, but are they useful in any fashion? Three small diamonds and the stiff SK could be enough for the grand to come home, while the CA and nothing else will be completely worthless unless the opponents lead the suit. I will bid what I think we can make because there is no way for me to find out what I need to know."
BluBayou "4S ... DO you dare offer to be dropped in game with 10 guaranteed tricks-- when partner has promised "something, somewhere"? Do you shoot the works, hoping pard's "somethings" WILL NOT be totally locked away from you? Sounds like the story of the three bears" However, I cannot feel too bad when
Mike Passell, number two in ACBL masterpoints agrees: "Four spades. Partner has at most one spade, and even five spades may be in jeopardy. Five spades would not tell partner that two low spades and the jack of diamonds is what is needed."
David Berkowitz: Four spades. Partner will be aware that the spade jack is a very good card. I cannot underwrite the five-level." And summing up nicely,
Sartaj Hans writes "Four spades, Over five spades, partner will never raise with hands that make slam great. The problem with six spades is that it is too unilateral and will often have very little play."
The second half of this recap will be out ASAP. Hopefully, this will satiate while we start to fret about the next set.