November MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, DirectorProblem A 2 NT (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, CCR3, Peuco)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q J 8 6
♥ Q 10
♦ A Q 2 ♣ 8 6 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ Pass
1 ♠ 2
♥ Double* Pass
?
*BWS: three spades
What call do you make?
There are three value bids, all with flaws. You can choose to rebid spades, knowing it a Moysian fit, and downgrading your Q10-tight in hearts; in order to make game, the position you are taking indicates that partner will need to have enough strength to make one more try. Is that unreasonable? Not really, but you are also purposefully choosing a contract where you are taking the tap in the wrong hand; in a 4-3 fit, you want to be ruffing in the short hand, not the long one. You can choose to raise partner's clubs. Here, there is still the distinct possibility of hitting partner with only a three-card fit. Is that likely? I don't think so, because if partner is 3-4-3-3, they could have bid 1NT or passed (looking for a reopening double) instead of making the support double. I think partner has a bit of shape, including at least a fourth club. Again, you have downgraded a bit, counting on partner to make another move if game is in the cards. The problem with both raises is that the range is still pretty wide and no way to help partner understand that your hand is closer to an invite than a simple compete. The only pure invite is 2NT, but leaves you potentially wide-open in the opponent's suit - hearts. The fourth option has a different flaw. You can cue-bid, to ask for heart help, but then you overstate your values, and risk getting the partnership too high.
2 NT 100 Bridge world Panel (BWP) 39% Bridge World solver (BWS) 27% Intermdeiate-Advanced CLub solver (IAC) 42%
Providing a strong argument for 2 NT is
JoAnna Stansby: "Two spades or three clubs would be a serious underbid. If three notrump is our game, it needs to be played from my side."
Peuco says "... the only good invitation and Q10 is good for receiving a H lead.... except when it is bad"
Masse24 thinks 2NT is "The value bid. QT is a stopper if I squint a bit."
JCreech waffled more but also came around to the invitational values: "I just felt like 3
was not giving enough weight to the hand, so I will bid the full invitational 2NT and hope the
QT helps if we end up in 3NT."
Roy Welland thinks it is "A little risky if the opponents can run hearts, but since there was no raise or redouble, I'll gamble on giving the best description."
BluBayou has similar concerns: "The worry that opp will run hearts on us , plus a setting trick or two-- has bothered me for 3 weeks. But this is balanced by the possible ugliness of putting pard in three Clubs, if he is indeed balanced. With this excuse, I do make the ONLY inviting call that exists-->"2NT". Devil take the hindmost!" And
Eric Kokish and
David Berkowitz both pointed to the lack of a heart raise as strengthening their decisions to bid 2NT. Meanwhile,
CCR3 treated the problem as a process of elimination: "I decided if I bid the spades the wrong hand is ruffing. I ruled out raising clubs because partner could have 3 clubs. Partner could have a heart card so:2nt." And Joe Grue says "I;m too chicken to pass."
3 ♣ 90 BWP 32% BWS 51% IAC 25%
For many, the argument for 3
is well-stated by
Mark Feldman: "Forward-going, not correctional. With a weaker hand, one is compelled to rebid two spades." One of my problems with the bid is, how does partner tell the difference?
Don Stack is "Tempted to take the low road with two spades, but we do have 11 HCP and we are playing imps, so I will make a game=try that can be passed."
Sami Kehela thinks this is "All I can do, since partner's range is indeterminate."
Phillip Alder points out that "If the heart queen is useless, this is what the hand is worth." While
Carl Hudecek is bidding defensively: "At this vulnerability, I would not be surprised if East-West can make two hearts, so I'm not passing at imps."
2 ♠ 80 BWP 29% BWS 17% IAC None
Pratap Rajadhyaksha states the rationale for 2
well: "Going low with this 8.5-9 loser hand. Three clubs may play better, but it's a level higher. In this age of lighter opening bidsm it may not even be our deal despite the combined HCPs. Partner will bid again with extra values."
Danny Kleinman takes CCR3's approach, but to a different conclusion: "The clubs are too weak for three clubs, the hearts too short for two notrump, so the Moysian fit appears to be the least of evils. As I view support doubles, they show three-card raises, not just three-card support, so I expect partner to have a hand that would have raised to two spades even without the two-heart overcall, not a flat hand with three-card support." Finally,
Justin Lall puts slightly different spin on 2
: "I will go low nonvulnerable; if vulnerable, I would try two notrump. Opening bids white against red are getting lighter these days, and there is a good chance that the red-against-white two-level has a good suit."
The moderator,
Bart Bramley, feels that "Two notrump is unambiguously natural and invitational. Two spades is unambiguously a signoff. Three clubs means different things to different people." The Panelists who bid 2
, obviously did not agree that the bid was a signoff, but they also recognized that partner would need extras to move again. I think the same can be said for 3
; partner needs something extra to make another move. Although the plurality says the hand is worth an invite, the majority says that it needs more than just the top of minimum bidding to bid on.
Problem B 4 (Peuco, DickHy, BabsG)
Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 3
♥ K Q 4
♦ A 9 6 2 ♣ 10 6 4 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 3 ♣ Pass
?
What call do you make?
So do ya feel lucky? Either you make a move toward slam or you give up, or is there middle ground. 3NT is the give up call; it basically says your values are generally not working with partners, so let's see if we can make the nine-trick game. So what are some of the other options? 3
is clearly forcing as a new suit, it can be considered a cue-bid in support of clubs, and does not bypass 3NT, but will partner take those inferences to heart? In my more expert partnerships, we would because a new suit after a game-forcing bid showing a second suit tends to agree to the second suit, while a raise of the first suit below game is a stronger action in support for that suit. Not everyone has those agreements, but after a forcing NT, it might be interpreted as showing a weak hand and a long suit. Raises are not so clearly a forcing action. 3
, given the forcing NT, might be from weakness, particularly if early simple raise might be more constructive, but it might be temporizing.
3 NT 90 BWP 29% BWS 55% IAC 42%
3NT was a popular choice. A majority of the BW solvers, a plurality of the IAC solvers, and nearly a third of the Panelists made this selection. One bid reason is espoused by
Billy Eisenberg: "Can't afford to miss three notrump in matchpoints."
Don Stack is "Bidding what is right under my nose, stoppers in the red suits. Could there be a better game or even slam? Certainly, but partner may make a further move with six-five or six-four."
Susan Panter agrees: "Partner has made a strong bid, and I have stoppers in the other suits, so I will describe that and let partner determine where to go."
Danny Kleinman thinks his "Strength is in the wrong places to seek a club slam." Similarly,
JCreech says "My values are in the wrong suits and I am square. Bid the 3NT to discourage partner from pushing too high with a minimum jump shift."
Hoki bids "3NT, without a fit (3♣ might be a fragment) I'm not interested in slam, but if I had to make a second choice it would be 3♠, not 3♦"
Jeff Rubens feels there is "Not enough strength in partner's suits to suggest a high-level club contract."
4 ♣ 100 BWP 39% BWS 12% IAC 25%
The plurality for the Panelist's went to 4
. As
Sartaj Hans put it so eloquently: "Support with support. Partner was aware of the scoring when he decided to introduce the suit." The moderator took advantage of his bully pulpit to explain further: "I have argued forever that after opener's jump-shift, responder should usually raise with four-card support, even without a high honor. A corollary is that a jump-shift should be based on a real two-suiter." Continuing the theme,
Kit Woolsey says "I'm not going to let a little thing like matchpoint scoring talk me out of the correct call. They still pay that slam bonus at matchpoints, even in a minor suit. Partner knows the form of scoring."
Peuco "my computer program never supports the minor in this sequence and i am tired of losing slams"
Joanna Stansby feels that "Sailing past three notrump shows a positive hand. Partner can offer four spades to play or make a slam move with real clubs."
Augie Boehm is also concerned that partner manufactured the jump-shift, but cooperates nonetheless: "Very tough. If partner is fabricating a jump-shift holding terrific spades, we'll find out right away. Not a bad hand for a club slam if it comes to that, especially if North has ace-low of hearts. Three notrump seems like a sick matchpoint bid, although it could win."
3 ♠ 80 BWP 25% BWS 15% IAC 1 solver
The moderator described 3
as "Hedging their bets:"
Roy Welland expresses this hedge perfectly: "Not perfect, since I might have a good hand for clubs, but I'm unsure how much value to give my heart cards, so I'll wait a little and home for more info."
Masse24 tries the bid saying it is "Not necessarily promising a fit. I think 3
and 3NT will be the popular solver choices."
Mike Passell "... can't imagine any other bid."
Joe Grue "... almost always support partner with two-card support." While
David Berkowitz answers the naturally following question about clubs by saying "Clubs can come later. It's against my religion to raise partner's second suit on four low."
3 ♦ 60 BWP 7% BWS 12% IAC 25%
A significant portion of IAC tried 3
, but without comment. One Panelist did weigh in.
Sami Kehela: "Three diamonds. Stalling for now. (No Kokishian three spades for me.)" Little did he know that Eric Kokish bid 4
, not 3
.
Problem C 3 (MarilynLi)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 7
♥ J 8 7 2
♦ A 7 6 4 ♣ J 8 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ Pass
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 3 ♣ Pass
?
What call do you make?
The moderator describes this problem as "Partner's last call improved the hand dramatically, enough to put the partnership in the slam range. Our problem is twofold: First, how do we give partner the good news? Second, how do we get partner to bid slam with the right hands, specifically, those with a heart control and sufficient coverage elsewhere?"
Although I agree, the hand has improved, I am less convinced of the power of partner's hand; after all, there was no immediate jump-shift to put me on notice. The Panel clearly was with the moderator, as their majority cue-bid in diamonds, while the plurality of solvers made far less aggressive moves. Perhaps, that is why I am still a solver!
3 ♦ 100 BWP 57% BWS 27% IAC 1 solver
Let's start with the choice of the Panel. Only one IAC solver joined them, but was not among those discussing her reason.
Mike Passell thinks "We could easily be cold for six clubs. I plan to continue with four clubs over three notrump."
Steve Beatty says "Compared to Problem B, partner has promised less, but our HCPs are working much better, and at imps strain no longer matters. This hand is marginally worth a slam-try, so I will raise clubs next. This should warn partner about my lack of a heart control."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha is excited: "Wow! This hand just became gold. I'll pull three notrump to four clubs (forcing) or bid five clubs over anything else. The hand is limited by the one-notrump bid, so if partner bids slam, it should be okay."
Barbara Haberman thinks "The perfect hand yields an easy club slam. Bidding three notrump with jack-fourth opposite a singleton is no good. Maybe a partner can decide what to do. 'Bridge is a partnership game.'"
3 NT 0 BWP None BWS 33% IAC 25%
The plurality choice of the BW solvers, and a large segment of the IAC solvers, was 3NT. There were not Panelists making this selection, so we have none of their comments, but we do have have a few from IAC.
Hoki says "3NT, why not with a balanced minimum?" And
YleeXotee "wanted to pass, but that never scores well" Well, Joe, this time they score the same.
4 ♣ 90 BWP 14% BWS 12% IAC 42%
4
is the IAC plurality pick.
Kit Woolsey says the "First order of business is to set the trump suit."
CCR3 "We might have game in clubs but not enough strength to go directly. I'm afraid if we stayed in NT the opponents can defeat us with their run in hearts." Pat doesn't seem to think of 4
as forcing; doesn't she understand the rule of the coyote?
Eric Kokish does: "Forcing, as it is not desirable to invite an inviter. One red suit or the other will too often be a problem in three notrump to keep that game in the picture. With stronger diamonds, I could jump to four diamonds, which gives you an idea of how much I like this hand for clubs, thanks to that magnificent spade holding."
Roy Welland thinks that "We may need to sort out the heart-control situation, so since I'm not considering three notrump, this should ensure that we are able to avoid that possible accident (four clubs - four diamonds - four spades, denying a heart control)."
JCreech "... there was no immediate jump shift as there was in the previous problem. I will raise, and if partner is interested in more, there will be a cue-bid."
DickHy says "I’m with Jock in his interpretation of BWS. The idea that 4
is a control bid showing club support, as we didn’t support spades is cunning but will these MSC blighters who tend to ignore BWS when it suits them be as clever as Jock? Where does that leave 3
?"
4 ♥ 90 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 2% IAC 1 solver
Masse24 thinks "With a perfecto, we may have slam. This is how I tell partner my hearts are crap." Although he did not identify it until later, Todd employed a Bluhmer. The moderator explains: "A Bluhmer is named after the late Lou Bluhm, is a bid suit in which partner is known to be short but which is not a viable strain, implying a perfect fitter with zero values in the bid suit and all working cards outside." Three Panelists identified their bids as Bluhmers, but the moderator disagreed with two; the one he agreed with was
Allen Graves: "Four hearts. A little light for this Bluhmer, but the scarcity is enticing." Congratulations, Todd on selecting this bid (which probably would be passed by nearly all of IAC).
5 ♣ 80 BWP 14% BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
Another form of give-up is 5
. The moderator describes it as being "... more concerned about reaching the right game than a magical slam."
Peuco puts it well, "i do not think slam is on with this sequence so no waste of time"
Jeff Rubens says "Some minimum North hands make thjis better than a finesse, so inviting is not enough. One red suit or the other will be a risk at three notrump; hard to evaluate the overall prospects."
Susan Panter thinks "Given the shaky heart holding, three notrump is too risky at imps."
4 ♦ 70 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 2 IAC 1 solver
The moderator identifies 4
as "... not a pure Bluhmer but should be understood correctly as a slam-try in clubs with the diamond ace." The reason for this is that
Phillip Alder selected the bid, writing "I believe partner can read this as a Bluhmer. The hand is almost as good as it could be.
BluBayou has a more correct take on the bid: "THE RESEARCH THAT FAILED TO SOLVE PROBLEM B, ABOVE, HAS NOT BEEN IN VAIN! jumping to 4 diamonds is indeed 'a suit lower than opener's second suit"! And the "agrees partner's 2nd suit" clause is rendered impossible, as we bid 1NTover it last round, so we MUST be loving clubs. I choose to ignore the little detail that pard's 3rd-round jump to 3 Clubs is not exactly a jump-shift."
This ends the first segment. More to come as time permits.
P.S. This is meant as an apology to Pat. I mentioned above that she didn't understand the rule of the coyote, which is Joe saying you don't bid four of a minor to play. I only made the reference to poke Joe a bit; how wrong can it be to make the bid Pat made if the result is a 90? Joe's rule only applies to the extent that you allow it to affect your decisions. Pat clearly makes good decisions and 4 of a minor is can be either forcing or non-forcing depending on the auction and on your agreements. I am sorry if my comment was truly taken as criticism, but in Problem E, there are two Panelists that bid 4 of a minor, not intending the bid to be forcing, and I raise a similar point with them - and believe me when I say, they are highly unlikely to have ever heard of this rule.