Show Posts
511
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2020 January - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« on: December 21, 2019, 01:40:36 AM »
January solutions.
The Director for January was David Berkowitz
Snippets from the panel:
PROBLEM A: Double. The runaway majority choice.
Rodwell summarized his thinking with, “Double. I very much prefer minimum equal-level conversions only from clubs to diamonds. I’ll need to bid diamonds over clubs, overbidding a bit, but there is too much heart potential to be happy overcalling two diamonds. I almost prefer one notrump to two diamonds.”
And . . .
John Carruthers, “Double. Despite the footnote. Dangerous, agreed, but just a little length in a red suit opposite will offer some protection against disaster.”
A distant second was 2
.
Both Jack and I got this one, not a popular answer among the IAC gang.
PROBLEM B: 3NT. Not quite the majority I expected, although 3NT was the winning selection.
Kit Woolsey echoed my thinking with, “Three notrump. Driving this hand to game can’t be terrible, even at matchpoints. Since there is a bid that describes the hand-type perfectly, why not use it?”
I found myself nodding in agreement with Berkowitz’ warning following the 3NT bidders’ comments. He states, “The trouble with the three-notrump call is that it screams for a spade lead.” Good visualization!
The other game-force bids [3
is an underbid and underbids rarely win the cheese in a bidding contest] were a 3 
jump-shift and no-nonsense jump to game with 4 .
Regarding 4 Michael Rosenberg explained: “Four hearts. Short a heart, but long on values, so should be okay. I guess three clubs would also be okay if partner made allowance for this hand type. (I prefer it to guarantee at least four clubs.) Three notrump might be a better contract or not—no way to be sure—but bidding three notrump might induce a spade lead, exactly what I don’t want. Three hearts feels like a clear undercooking—could bid that without the heart queen, maybe without the heart king. Two notrump would be both undercooked and misdirected.” Although in the minority, Rosenberg’s detailed analysis is spot-on.
PROBLEM C: 3 . A majority.
Most of our participants also chose this, so I’ll not linger on the reasoning.
2 was the second place vote-getter. Bobby Wolff, who chose 2 , thought (at least initially) along the same lines that I did, but he went low anyway, while I chose 3 . Wolff: “Two hearts. Yes, I know that the opponents may now outbid us in a suit that figures to fit better than spades . . . .
Interestingly, there were a few mentions of Pass as an alternative, but only one panelist chose that route.
PROBLEM D: Redouble. A close call over 1NT.
I must admit to counting beans here, thinking the hand short of the values required for redouble (I chose 1NT). Several panelists even mentioned it was short of the values for redouble. But that is often what makes a good MSC problem: right on shape or some other aspect, short values or expected length.
I did like the flexibility of redouble, as did four of our participants. Kudos to our redoublers: Wackojack, Draculea, Curls77, and Toasterln.
PROBLEM E: 1 ; 2 . Another majority.
Larry Cohen summarized his thinking: “1 ; 2 . Not thrilled with having only three hearts, but showing strength with the red suits most closely describes the hand.”
Berkowitz added: “Holding only three heats is no problem, because we will always reach spades should partner raise hearts.”
PROBLEM F: 2 . Almost a majority. There were only three options chosen by the panel; 2 , Double, and 3 .
The “slow” 2 won the day.
• Woolsey: “Two hearts. Go slowly.”
• Cohen: “Two hearts. The fun has just begun.”
• Rodwell: “Two hearts. See what develops.”
Hoki and GG_Bridge were our only participants to nail this problem.
PROBLEM G: 2NT. This was close. 2 was only one vote back and Pass! close behind that.
Woolsey: “Two Notrump. The right value bid. Our most likely game is three notrump, and if partner is minimal and passes, two notrump is probably right.”
Zia: “Two notrump. I would like to bid two diamonds, but then I would need to bid three notrump over three clubs.”
PROBLEM H: A. The runway winner, garnering a majority. Why?
Michael Rosenberg summed it up best with: “Diamond Ace. A gamble on the diamond king’s being somewhere other than in declarer’s hand. I hope that the sight of dummy will help me know what to do next.”
And Cohen, only somewhat jokingly: “Diamond Ace. To see what I should have led.”
The
2 and Ace were next in receiving panel votes. And although the Ace was the majority choice, there were quite a few panelist who agreed with the pure guesswork involved with opening leads. So if you got this one right . . . GOOD GUESS!
The Director for January was David Berkowitz
Snippets from the panel:
PROBLEM A: Double. The runaway majority choice.
Rodwell summarized his thinking with, “Double. I very much prefer minimum equal-level conversions only from clubs to diamonds. I’ll need to bid diamonds over clubs, overbidding a bit, but there is too much heart potential to be happy overcalling two diamonds. I almost prefer one notrump to two diamonds.”
And . . .
John Carruthers, “Double. Despite the footnote. Dangerous, agreed, but just a little length in a red suit opposite will offer some protection against disaster.”
A distant second was 2
. Both Jack and I got this one, not a popular answer among the IAC gang.
PROBLEM B: 3NT. Not quite the majority I expected, although 3NT was the winning selection.
Kit Woolsey echoed my thinking with, “Three notrump. Driving this hand to game can’t be terrible, even at matchpoints. Since there is a bid that describes the hand-type perfectly, why not use it?”
I found myself nodding in agreement with Berkowitz’ warning following the 3NT bidders’ comments. He states, “The trouble with the three-notrump call is that it screams for a spade lead.” Good visualization!
The other game-force bids [3
is an underbid and underbids rarely win the cheese in a bidding contest] were a 3 jump-shift and no-nonsense jump to game with 4 . Regarding 4
Michael Rosenberg explained: “Four hearts. Short a heart, but long on values, so should be okay. I guess three clubs would also be okay if partner made allowance for this hand type. (I prefer it to guarantee at least four clubs.) Three notrump might be a better contract or not—no way to be sure—but bidding three notrump might induce a spade lead, exactly what I don’t want. Three hearts feels like a clear undercooking—could bid that without the heart queen, maybe without the heart king. Two notrump would be both undercooked and misdirected.” Although in the minority, Rosenberg’s detailed analysis is spot-on.PROBLEM C: 3
. A majority. Most of our participants also chose this, so I’ll not linger on the reasoning.
2
was the second place vote-getter. Bobby Wolff, who chose 2 , thought (at least initially) along the same lines that I did, but he went low anyway, while I chose 3 . Wolff: “Two hearts. Yes, I know that the opponents may now outbid us in a suit that figures to fit better than spades . . . . Interestingly, there were a few mentions of Pass as an alternative, but only one panelist chose that route.
PROBLEM D: Redouble. A close call over 1NT.
I must admit to counting beans here, thinking the hand short of the values required for redouble (I chose 1NT). Several panelists even mentioned it was short of the values for redouble. But that is often what makes a good MSC problem: right on shape or some other aspect, short values or expected length.
I did like the flexibility of redouble, as did four of our participants. Kudos to our redoublers: Wackojack, Draculea, Curls77, and Toasterln.
PROBLEM E: 1
; 2 . Another majority.Larry Cohen summarized his thinking: “1
; 2 . Not thrilled with having only three hearts, but showing strength with the red suits most closely describes the hand.”Berkowitz added: “Holding only three heats is no problem, because we will always reach spades should partner raise hearts.”
PROBLEM F: 2
. Almost a majority. There were only three options chosen by the panel; 2 , Double, and 3 . The “slow” 2
won the day. • Woolsey: “Two hearts. Go slowly.”
• Cohen: “Two hearts. The fun has just begun.”
• Rodwell: “Two hearts. See what develops.”
Hoki and GG_Bridge were our only participants to nail this problem.
PROBLEM G: 2NT. This was close. 2
was only one vote back and Pass! close behind that. Woolsey: “Two Notrump. The right value bid. Our most likely game is three notrump, and if partner is minimal and passes, two notrump is probably right.”
Zia: “Two notrump. I would like to bid two diamonds, but then I would need to bid three notrump over three clubs.”
PROBLEM H:
A. The runway winner, garnering a majority. Why? Michael Rosenberg summed it up best with: “Diamond Ace. A gamble on the diamond king’s being somewhere other than in declarer’s hand. I hope that the sight of dummy will help me know what to do next.”
And Cohen, only somewhat jokingly: “Diamond Ace. To see what I should have led.”
The
2 and Ace were next in receiving panel votes. And although the Ace was the majority choice, there were quite a few panelist who agreed with the pure guesswork involved with opening leads. So if you got this one right . . . GOOD GUESS! 
We'll need to wait until the magazine arrives to find out who the director was, but in the past the most brutal scorer has been Kleinman.