March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric Kokish, DirectorProblem A Pass (Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, WackoJack, BluBayou, Hoki, VeeRee)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q J 9 8
♥ J 9 4 2
♦ K J 10 7 ♣ 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♦ 2 ♣ 2
♦*
Pass Pass Double Pass
?
*under invitational strength
What call do you make?
The vulnerability is tempting to pass the double; you have a stiff in partner's suit, and great cards in the opponent's suit. However, you also have four-card support in both majors; if you bid, you risk choosing the wrong major. Inaction or action, and if action, which action? What can we expect opener's hand to look like? Normally, I would expect at least four diamonds, and so the opponents would have an 8 or 9-card fit. With partner overcalling in clubs, I think the chances of opener having 4=4 in the majors increase, as well as the chance for him to have a 3-card diamond suit. Does that affect the calculus of our Panelists and solvers?
Pass 100 Bridge World Panelists (BWP) 68% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 60% Intermediate-Advanced CLub solvers (IAC) 70%
Inaction won out in terms of how the voting went; nearly 70% of the Panel and better than 60% of the solvers went for the penalty.
Bart Bramley thinks "We're at least two-to-one to beat this, pretty good odds for a top-or-bottom decisison. I have about three tricks (maybe four) and can expect at least that many from partner. Matchpoints rewards high-volatility actions that are with the odds."
Richard Colker points out that "Pass has the highest upside and could be the winner even if a partscore makes (and we choose the right one), but it also comes with the biggest downside. The choice here might depend heavily on our place in the even; after all, you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em."
JCreech: "Getting the side right on this hand is a toss-up. Both opponents have roughly equal length, and I might be in fat city or screwed, depending on lady luck." A couple of players at least partly base their decision on rules.
Kit Woolsey used the LAW: "If partner were four-three in the majors, he would have started with a double; he is presumably 3=3=1=6. With neither side having an eight-card fit, the trump total is 14, so bidding would be a trick-total violation, and the hand is very defensively oriented." While
Hoki says the hand "fulfills the rule of nine" (Mel Colchamiro). Most of the solvers just cannot quite see the opponents making their bid:
WackoJack: "We need 6 tricks if I pass for penalties. Give partner only 11 points say ♠Kxx,
♥Axx
♦x ♣Axxxxx and I can see 3 tricks in
♦s (2+ruff) + 2 likely ♠+ 1
♥ +1♣ and we get +200. I think we would have to be very unlucky for 2
♦ to make."
BluBayou: "Why are they making, when partner says he has....Kxx, KQx, x, AQ?xxx ??"
Masse24: "Partner is likely 34 or 43 in the majors. In which major does he have four? I choose to sidestep the problem and pass." While the Panel focus more on the difference between 200 for the set compared to a partscore making:
Jeff Rubens: "Seems roughly as like a plus as two spades and pays more."
Philippe Cronier: "Probably the easiest way to get a good score. Partner not a favorite to hold a four-card major."
Jeff Meckstroth: "Partner is probably something like 3=3=1=6; and the opponents are vulnerable, so a one-trick set looks tasty."
Sami Kehela: ""Take my chances here rather than struggle in a likely four-three fit."
Pepsi: "I don't want to punish my partner for an aggressive reopening, but 200 is so tempting."
Phillip Alder: "At the scoring and colors, I will gamble." And
Danny Kleinman seems to be playing a different game: "Pass. Go and collect 200 points. Maybe more. That'll teach our opponents not to open three-card diamond suits."
2 ♠ 70 BWP 18% BWS 13% IAC No solvers
Taking a cue from Edgar Kaplan that takeout doubles are meant to be taken out and spades is the stronger major.
Robert Wolff intends to continue bidding if there is further competition: "Then three hearts over most continuations. Not strong enough for three diamonds, and pass is not my cup of tea."
Michael Lawrence is just trying to ensure a plus: "Because the spades are stronger than the hearts; I expect a plus. Passing works when North has two diamonds." While others are looking forward to doubling diamonds at a higher level:
Andrew Robson: "I have only one sure defensive trick, so I bid the stronger major, better for a Moysian fit, and I may get to defend against three diamonds (which I will not double!)."
Chris Willenken: "Partner should reopen on almost every 3=3=1=6. Not clear where we belong opposite a typical: ♠ Kxx
♥ Kxx
♦ x ♣ AQ10xxx. I hope to double three diamonds."
2 ♥ 60 BWP 11% BWS 12% IAC No solvers
Others takeout the double by bidding up the line.
Dan Gerstman: "Takeout doubles are for takeout. Give dummy four trumps and a trick (any hight card is a sinner with my hand) or five trumps and shortness, and there's a clear road to eight tricks in two diamonds. Meanwhile, I an see scrambling eight tricks our way. Easy to see 16 trumps and 16 tricks. I bid two hearts in case partner has 4=2=1=6 and tries two spades."
Carl Hudecek: "Partner has a singleton or void in diamonds. I won't pass when we have at least one, and perhaps two, four-four fits in the majors. If the opponents compete further, I will have a less-risky penalty double."
3 ♦ 20 BWP No Panelists BWS 5% IAC 1 solver
Although no Panelist took this route, if there is at least one 4=4 fit, 3
is the way to avoid guessing.
CCR3 "Really debated on this one. Hard to visualize winning 6 tricks leaving the double in. Yet 3d is a bit to high. Finally 3d because my partner's cards are behind the opener."
2 NT 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 10% IAC 20%
Avoiding the guess, but still making certain that those diamond cards will be useful,
YleeXotee "finally chickened out on the standing for the double."
Problem B 3 (VeeRee, Hoki, BluBayou, WackoJack)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 9 6 3 2
♥ 4
♦ A Q 9 5 3 ♣ 9 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass Pass Pass 1 ♣
1 ♠ Double 2 ♣ 2
♥ ?*
*By agreement, 2 ♠ = weakest action.
What call do you make?
Both partner and I are passed hands. I have a nice distributional hand, and partner has cue-bid suggesting support for my spades and good values for a passed hand. A hint reminds us that 2
is the weakest action. Should we regard our 5-5 nine-count as a minimum, or has it grown with probable support from partner and opener bidding our two short suits?
4 ♠ 60 BWP 1 Panelists BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Blasting into game,
Billy Eisenberg thinks "The more I look at the hand, the less three diamonds seems necessary." And he could be right. If partner has some fitting values in our two suits, game could come rolling home. But perhaps we should be looking for a way to include partner in the decision.
2 ♠ 60 BWP 7% BWS 23% IAC 30%
If 4
could be reasonable, then 2
may be a bit pusillanimous. As the weakest action, it essentially says to partner to go away.
Pepsi has the best reason: "At matchpoints, I don't like to overbid; partner didn't bid two notrump, very likely has only three spades. Game is possible, but a score on our side is always good."
Andrew Robson recognizes the hand's potential, "Clearly, the hand is strong enough to pass; but, with four decent hearts, partner might take a shot at defense and pass out two hearts. If the opponents bid three hearts, I will make an action double." But is unwilling to accept the risk of what he considers to be the best alternative, pass.
CCR3 thinks "Must bid something to show some value but not enough to bid 3d."
Pass 80 BWP 25% BWS 5% IAC 30%
Dan Gerstman describes pass as "The slightest possible encouragement. Not three diamonds, as queen-third of spades, king of diamonds, and an ace would not be enough - it's too likely to get us overboard, the last thing you want to do at matchpoints."
Chris Willenken argues that "At matchpoints, partner would cue without game interest to help me double at the three-level, so I'm not willing to get past two spades. We should reach game when it is right; we are both passed hands, so I must have bid distribution."
Masse24 thinks it is "Stronger than 2
, but not quite as pushy as 3
(which may be best as it is very informative). Tough problem."
JCreech: "I like the weak call, but this is more flexible without bidding the diamonds immediately."
Michael Lawrence: "North rates to have a 10-count with three spades."
Zia: "Seems to show interest, which I have."
Danny Kleinman: "The spades are not quite strong enough for the weakest action, so I'll choose the weakest inaction."
3 ♦ 100 BWP 64% BWS 56% IAC 40%
Although both members of the partnership are passed hands, game is possible with the right fit.
Phillip Alder points out that "Game is possible if we have a double fit. Even though one doesn't usually push for thin games at matchpoints, this will help partner judge what to do should the opponents unexpectedly contest higher."
George Jacobs says "I solicit partner's worldly advice. Many North hands make game very playable and some, such as: ♠ AQxx
♥ Jxx
♦ Kxx ♣ xxx, make it a laydown."
Janice Seamon Molson "Could be right to bid four spades, but partner should get a vote at the four-level." Blubayou says "As a "5th-seat overcall", this is no way in the minimal range"
Hoki feels the bid is "limited by being a passed hand"
WackoJack: "Give partner ♠ Axx,
♥ 10xxx,
♦ Kxx, ♣QJx, then game in ♠ is likely. So if our agreement is that 2♠ is the weakest action, then we must find an alternative. So lets try 3♦ and see if partner can help us there."
Bart Bramley: "At imps, I might bid game, since the hand could hardly be better; but at matchpoints, I'll pull in a motch. Partner's red-suit holdings are key."
Carl Hudecek: "Trying to make up for the initial pass. Two spades would be a gross underbid."
Kit Woolsey: "Partner won't play me for more than this. I might as well show him where I live, in case the deal is a big double fit."
David Berkowitz: "Maybe partner can steer us in the right direction."
Mats Nilsland: "Not much extra but worth more than a pass or two spades."
Barry Rigal: "Possibly an overbid, but if I pass I might face an ugly problme the next time around."
Philippe Cronier: "We probably won't succeed in buying the contract at the two-level, so I bid my hand, letting North decide what to do later."
Robert Wolff: "Why not, since I passed originally?"
John Stewart: "Why not, when game is possible? Minus one in three spades is a risk I shall run."
Jeff Meckstroth: "We certainly could have a game. This describes the hand perfectly."
Problem C 3 (WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, YleeXotee, Hoki, CCR3)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 10 8 4 3
♥ A 6 3
♦ — ♣ A J 7 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ Pass 2
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
The start of a basic 2/1 auction. You have opened 1
and partner has responded 2
. Your hand has a lot of possible stories to tell. You could rebid the spades; they are certainly a suit that could play reasonably well opposite a singleton. You could bid out your shape by rebidding clubs. You also have three hearts, so you can raise partner's response.
2 ♠ 90 BWP 36% BWS 18% IAC 1 solver
In some ways,
Barry Rigal describes the best reason for going with spades: "Raising hearts feels wrong when a six-one spade fit might play better than a five-three heart fit. With so many messages to send, I should give partner enough rope to hang us both." Similarly,
Carl Hudecek "Leaves bidding room to get the most information out of partner."
Philippe Cronier says "I've so many things to tell that I prefer to listen to North's ambitions." In short,
Billy Eisenberg thinks it "Looks like the best start." Several, like
Michael Lawrence are concerned because "Other bids put hearts in front of spades. I should have more room to show other things later."
Jeff Rubens: "Worth an effort to try to avoid a weak five-three heart fit. If I bid enough hearts later, my major suits and overall high-level prospects will come into reasonable focus."
Danny Kleinman "As partner may have three spades and five hearts, spades may be our best strain, and I'll play there if partner raises."
Sami Kehela: "Can turn back to hearts if partner is unenthusiastic. A decent six-two spade fit is preferable to a moderate five-three. Forget clubs for now; can't do everything."
Dan Gerstman: "I can raise hearts later. Maybe I'll even have a chance to show both minor controls. But this is the one chance at showing six good spades."
John Stewart "Looking to have my cake and eat it too. Maybe partner will do something convenient."
3 ♣ 60 BWP 14% BWS 15% IAC 1 solver
Michael Becker has the most convincing argument for me to bid clubs next: "I usually prefer to show a fit for partner a.s.a.p., but a raise would block me from describing my shape, and a splinter would suggest four trumps and take up too much space. I will try to pattern out."
Bart Bramley points out that there are "Too many flaws for four diamonds. In BWS two spades would be a nothing bid. Clubs now and hearts next will get across most of the essential features, particularly three-card support and short diamonds."
BluBayou suspects a "Long, long auction just beginning?" While
Robert Wolff simply his next bid: "The four hearts next, if able."
4 ♦ 60 BWP 7% BWS 14% IAC 1 solver
As
Joey Silver writes, "Despite only three-card support. This has the virtue of simplicity." While
Mats Nilslander sounds like he has transferred captaincy to partner: "Not inclined to go higher on my own." What is wrong with the splinter?
Chris Willenken comes up with three without breathing hard (as he chooses bidding 3
): "A four diamond splinter has too many flaws (only three trumps, diamond void, playability in other strains)."
3 ♥ 100 BWP 43% BWS 51% IAC 70%
As
Pepsi puts it: "Old-fashioned bridge: support your partner."
David Berkowitz continues: "Support with support. Fabulous hand for hearts."
Kit Woolsey says "Establishing a playable trump fit quickly has the highest priority. I don't have any problems splintering with three-card support when we have a definite eight-card fit, but here I don't want to shut out a three-spade call from partner." Or as
Hoki writes: "uninspired", or should we just admit, sometimes you just need to revert to the basics.
WackoJack, ticks through the ways that he could raise hearts: "I must show support immediately. So a forcing 3♥? 4♦ splinter? Or even 5♦ splinter? I think the most economical bid allowing partner to express her hand more."
Andrew Robson "If I'm in doubt, I support. The ten of spades is steering me toward two spades, but why mastermind so early in the auction."
Jeff Meckstroth: "Best to show the heart fit first."
Richard Colker: "Raise with support. There will be room to find spades..."
Masse24 "Support with support. Making the best use of space, if I could rebid 2
and promise six I would. But that is not BWS. If I did rebid 2
then support hearts later, it might be construed as Hx."
JCreech: "Partner should have five, so I may as well raise and let him know of the fit. Tempting as it may be, I don't want to reverse into clubs for a delayed support (implying diamond shortness)."
CCR3: "Hope to set up spades, the longer suit for pitches. Plenty of entries in dummy."
George Jacobs: "I prefer four trumps to splinter. I will respect a signoff."
This concludes the first segment. More will come as time permits. Next month's contest has already started, please consider joining in and let us know how you would bid these problem hands.