February Solutions: Jeff Rubens was the director.
A handful of the panel's comments:
PROBLEM A: 3
. A majority. Although there was a handful of both 2
and 3
bidders (with the more aggressive 3
the more popular choice), the descriptive 3
was the clear winner. Several who chose something other than 3
mentioned the three small in the opponent’s suit as a negative:
• Curtis Cheek: “Double. Those diamonds scare me.”
• Ira Chorush: “Double. Obviously I would rather have the red suits reversed.”
• Jill Meyers: “2
. As holding three low diamonds is a huge drawback, I will stay at the two level.”
• Kleinman: “2
. The death holding in diamonds deters me . . . .
•
BluBayou: “2
. Not stretching to jump with diamond xxx.”
Rubens nailed it with, “It is true that South is frustrated because he would like to bid both spades and clubs.” Yup.
Choosing the more aggressive path:
• Phillip Alder: “3
. Vulnerable at IMPs, I am pushing for game, despite the obvious diamond danger.”
•
MarilynLi: “3
. It shows my shape and strength.”
• Fleisher & Friesner: “3
. Keeps both suits in the picture. Two spades would be too conservative with this much playing strength.”
PROBLEM B: 3
. The game-force. A plurality choice (not quite gaining a majority), as MSC problems often are. That’s why they are good problems! Shockingly, not one of our participants chose 3
.
Kamil & Sherman nailed it with: “3
. Just too strong for 3
, which would be somewhat misdirected with the outside controls. Bidding two spades might lead to fighting off partner’s spade continuations forever. A jump in notrump would be way out. The imperfect phony jump-shift is the least of evils.”
Kleinman not unexpectedly took a contrary view with, “Three diamonds. Three clubs might produce a tangled web.”
Michael Rosenberg (who also chose 3
) was the lone voice in the wilderness who mentioned 1
stating, “I have some positive feeling about one spade.” So I guess
Jim, Ken and I were not completely lost!
PROBLEM C: (a3) 1
| 2
. Another majority, so this was apparently not as difficult as it might be. This was also reflected in the unanimity of our IAC participants, who all voted for this choice.
• Kitty & Steve Cooper: “We hate distorting our distribution.”
• Bart Bramley: “Color me old-fashioned. A reverse shows four hearts, longer clubs, and extra values. No, I don’t like having clubs this weak when I reverse, but all other plans misdescribe much worse.”
Similarly . . .
•
JCreech: “I will not distort my shape.”
•
GG_Bridge: “Partner could still have 4 hearts, and 1NT understates my hand, 2NT overstates.”
•
DickHy: “Seems slightly less bad than the others.”
PROBLEM D: 2
. Wow, another majority! Rubens begins with some of his thoughts: “The majority’s choice, two club, risks preempting hearts, but it also preempts spades. The latter might be good if it is partner preempted, but what if it is the opponents?
Opting not to pass . . .
•
DickHy: “2
. Bidding 2C makes N’s life easier defending.”
•
MarilynLi: “2
. I feel this is the only option if choose to make a bid.”
•
JCreech: “2
. Can’t double, don’t want to treat this as a trap pass, and too strong to ignore.”
• Boye Brogeland: “2
. I am not a big believer in overcalling in a four-card suit with a good hand, and I prefer pass, hoping to be able to make a takeout double of spades, to overcalling one heart.
Of the 2NT bidders, Kleinman chooses to slide the jack of diamonds into his heart suit, thereby completing the 5-5 shape he is promising.
PROBLEM E: 2
. Another majority. This boiled down to a binary choice. Either bid the moth-eaten heart suit, a card short of expected length, or pass and hope partner’s diamond suit is not xxx.
Among the 2
bidders:
•
MarilynLi: “2
. I don't want to pass risking partner having 3 cards D and I feel with 9 hcp I owe my partner a bid here.”
• John Strauch: “2
. Opener will hold three hearts 41 percent of the time, two hearts 32 percent, one heart 25 percent, no hearts 2 percent.” [I’ll take your word for it, John!] Least of evils.”
• Kamil and Sherman: “2
. Ugh!
In discussing Roger Lee’s dismissal of passing the 2
rebid, there was an interesting point made by Jeff Rubens: “Opener makes that [2
] rebid on 5=3=3=2 only with a hand too weak to open one notrump and too strong to pass the one-notrump response—a very narrow band of strength.” True, since in BWS the “forcing notrump” is only semi-forcing.
PROBLEM F: 2
. Well done
BabsG and
BluBayou!
Not a majority. And both Pass and 2NT garnered several votes, with several other choices scoring, but with little support.
• The Coopers: “2
. We bid our spade stopper, show a good hand, and invite partner to do something intelligent. What could go wrong?”
•
BabsG, not known for her brevity, explained her winning choice of 2
with, " ".
•
DickHy, on his way to choosing 2
asked, “Just how strong is North’s hand?” This was parroted by Jeff Rubens in explaining the range of Notrump bids, from 3NT to 1NT. Rubens pointed out that, “When there are votes for natural bids of one, two, and three notrump, we can deduce that there is uncertainty about the strength shown by partner . . . . How strong is ‘strong’?”
Jim, too, queried, “I’m not sure what BWS considers to be “a strong hand” on this auction, so I will just invite.”
PROBLEM G: Double! Another majority!
•
JCreech: “Dbl Another bid I am not happy with, but I do have the requisite
shortness. If partner does not have a penalty pass, perhaps there will be a cue bid and I will show my spade stop, or enough diamonds that I will not be displeased that I passed. Double is more flexible than rebidding my clubs, or cue bidding hearts; let’s bring partner into the discussion.”
That sums it up nicely. This was chosen by very few of our IAC participants, with only
DrAculea and
BluBayou joining Jim. Pretty much echoing those thoughts were:
• The Coopers: “Double. We hope partner has a heart stack, but if he doesn’t we have plenty of extras. Pard knows we prefer clubs to diamonds, so he shouldn’t go wrong.
• Fleisher & Friesner: “Double. Strong hand, short in hearts. Partner will not go out of his way to bid diamonds without a lot of them.” (A sentiment offered by sever others.)
PROBLEM H:
7. Like most lead problems this one had many answers. Several could work. The
9 socred 90, outpacing the
T since, in combination with the
7 there were 13 who chose a heart lead, while only 8 chose a spade. This is logical and I agree with the scoring.
• Boye Brogeland, who also chose the
7 stated, “When the opponents (apparently) have bid comfortably to a slam, and the suits seem to be breaking well for them, I like to lead aggressively.”
• Kit Woolsey: “Spade Ten. Any lead could cost; this looks safest.”
• David Berkowitz: “Spade Ten. Looking for safety. At least the spade ten won’t kill partner’s jack-low-low-low.”
My thinking was in line with both Kit and David, so I’ll settle for that.
That’s all folks. Still time to opine----or complain about the MSC panel’s opinions. We welcome the conversation!
Show Posts
There were some interesting problems, solutions, and choices by our members.