January MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– David Berkowitz, DirectorProblem D 2 (Masse24)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 4
♥ A 3
♦ 8 7 5 4 2 ♣ Q 5 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass Pass 1 ♣ 1
♦ ?
What call do you make?
Another problem with little IAC support for the top answer. This time, with 10 HCPs and only three-card support for a 1
opening, the top answer was to raise in a competitive auction. Support with support is always a good, but many hesitate to raise with only three when the suit is a minor. A key piece of information is that there is a diamond overcall while your hand is also holding five; that often ensures that opener has a real club suit.
Pass 60 BWP 16% BWS 23% IAC 17%
Let's start with those who choose to leave well enough alone.
Carl Hudecek thinks "It would be suicidal to bid one notrump. Let's see what develops." Similarly,
Paul Boudreau feels there is "No choice for the time being."
Eric Rodwell: "I don't fancy a club raise on three or one notrump with eight-high diamonds, and I can't double. If partner passes, that rates to be okay at this vulnerability and suggests that the overcall might have been based on a strong four-card suit. I will have a problem over a reopening double - it will be close between pass and two diamonds." Though
Zia appears to have been frightened off by a spectre of partner from Christmans past: "As I was about to bid, I saw Michael R. shaking his head with a Scottish accent."
1 NT 80 BWP 28% BWS 55% IAC 75%
A plurality of solvers chose 1 NT as their solution.
Larry Cohen sees a pattern "
Deja vu from Problem A. If I pass, I will have trouble recovering later."
John Carruthers says "What else, pray tell."
Robert Wolff emphasizes "Value over distortion."
BluBayou waxes philosophical: " For us Glass Half Empty guys, We will put our
KJx, Ax, 87234, Q52 across from......
QTxx, Kxxx, Jx, AKx. Why not? That puts my knee-jerk 'compromise' bid of single raise in clubs in a terrible light. the value-bid of 1NT surely will make on the nose opposite that, but possibly not two of ANYthing! On the other hand, if partner has a decent DISTRIBUTIONAL hand, a free 1NT will put us at cross purposes if I make that bid. On the third hand <lol> I don't know how I can catch up if I just sit on these goodies for a round, either.
It is stupid to just lurk with clearly values for a free bid AND THEN take pard's reopening to 1NT, so catering to pard's having someting like the above, I will jump in directly:"
YleeXotee is pragmatic: "1nt (but considering a less feisty 2D) this one is iffy, pseudo diamond stopped" While
Phillip Alder follows suit "With luck, I will have a diamond stopper. If not, maybe I can take seven of the last eight tricks."
JCreech writes "I'm a bit heavy for the bid, but if partner has a boatload of clubs, they can be bid again. Nothing available in the majors, so it is either pass or bid 1NT for me."
2 ♣ 100 BWP 48% BWS 11% IAC 8%
Most players are hesitant to raise a minor with only three, but this hand seems to be an exception. With partner bidding clubs, RHO bidding diamonds and our hand holding five diamonds as well, makes the likelihood that partner is short in clubs much less likely.
Jeff Rubens argues "In view of the vulnerable overcall, it would be distinctly unlucky to catch a partner with only three clubs."
Chip Martel agrees and tries to avert future problems: "In this situation, partner usually has clubs, and pass would force us to three clubs after North's reopening double. This way, we can show some values without getting too high. I might try one notrump, but not with this holding."
Alan Sontag also thinks the raise will help for the future: "If there is further bidding, I will be well-placed."
Billy Eisenberg is "Betting on partner's having four-plus clubs."
Steve Garner "Automatic for me. Raising partner's clubs on three-card support isn't everybody's cup of tea, but I've had pretty good luck with the bid."
Danny Kleinman tries to out-Blu Blu: "The best call to keep partner in the picture. I hope he's read my revolutionary treatise on statistics, where I employ Aesopian logic to prove that the median number of clubs held by a one-club opener is six. Wrong time to hog the notrump when partner has king-six of diamonds." While
Masse24 focuses on his stopper before remembering he has support: "I know, I know . . . 8xxxx is a stopper. But if that's true, then Qxx is support!" However, I like
Sami Kehla's remembering the lessons that come from the risk: "Managing a three-three fit is a useful exercise in trump control."
2 ♦ 70 BWP 8% BWS 5% IAC None
Finally, there are those who pull out the cue-bid to show their strength.
Adam Grossack says "As a passed hand, I'll overbid a little bit to steer us to the correct game. We could be driving a bit too high, but at least we won't land in the wrong strain." And
Kit Woolsey feels "I have the values for an invitation, and the diamond holding indicates that partner is likely to have a real club suit. Nothing else make much sense." I like to make the cue-bid when there is a sense of direction - a clear choice of a trump suit or good multiple stoppers for notrump - but you have neither with this hand. All you have is the 10 points and three-card support for a minor.
Problem E 3 /4 (4
♦ KenBerg; 3
♥ YleeXotee, MarilynLi, Peuco, WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 10 6
♥ A J
♦ A K 5 ♣ 8 7 6 5 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 NT Pass 2 ♣ Pass
2
♦ Pass 3
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Wow! Double 100's; the moderator is feeling generous this month. Let's start with some of the misses.
3 NT 50 BWP 16% BWS 44% IAC 33%
Applying Hamman's rule, Hamman's long-time partner,
Robert Wolff says "To me, to bypass three notrump becomes a masterminding, but since the hand is minimum, I'll risk missing a diamond slam or playing in the wrong game." Our own Hamman's rule advocate,
Masse24, makes the bid but quibbles in the process: "Coin flip. Not sold on this. I really liked 3
--- keeping the Moysian in play."
Steve Garner writes "Yes, I may have a wonderful hand for partner, but likely it would be suicidal to bypass three notrump if partner were to hold some ♠ xx
♥ KQxx
♦ QJxxx ♣ Ax. A three-of-a-major bid usually suggests weakness in the other major, correct?" That was my thinking (about the major) too, but became convinced that pulling 3 NT to 4
converts the major-suit concern into a cue-bid, looking for more in diamonds. Nonethelessm
Sami Kehela has a strong point: "Matchpoints is matchpoints."
5 ♣ 70 BWP One Panelist BWS 0% IAC None
This bid came out of the blue for me (pun intended). As
BluBayou points out, it "looks nice and normal on the scoreboard.... BUT WAIT! There's a single vote for FIVE CLUBS that got a respectable 70! SOMEBODY sold the moderator that this is a Bluhmer??-- and how can it be? I wait with bated breath for sure." And our answer is -
Danny Kleinman argues that he holds "A golden minimum! Better a Bluhmer than a blunder. If North thinks this is a splinter, please remind him that I opened one notrump." Nice catch Blu, though I do believe it is a Bluhmer for the reason given by Danny.
3 ♠ 80 BWP 20% BWS 11% IAC 8%
So what is three of a major by opener in this sequence? Guess what? It is not defined. Common expert practice treats the major as showing concern about the other major in the notrump game, I haven't heard much discussion of what it means when responder now bid 3 NT and opener pulls to the minor. Here we are only bidding the three-of-a-major, but it is still all in planning the auction. Since it is not likely to have been discussed in many partnerships,
Kerri and Steve Sanborn make an apt warning: "We may be guessing on every round hereafter, but at matchpoints we expect partner to be very distributional or somewhat slammish (given our diamond holding). North saw it was matchpoints."
Paul Boudreau takes the chance: "Could easily have a slam if partner is short in clubs. I hope this does not sound like a heart problem. Prefer bidding the fragment." While
BluBayou gives it more thought: "Would this hand bid Stayman, followed by3D ? :
Q, KQxx, Qxxxxx, Qx ? If so, then I better show my spade feature, and accept this hand's 3NT re-re-bid, and HOPE to make it. Near the other extreme, when center opp has:
AQxx, KQx, Qxxxxx, -- , 3 Spades will cause him to either "raise" spades or cue the club void, after which a couple rounds of bidding may well get us to the grand, but at least small. Not a hand to give the 'get lost' 3NT rebid on despite having "only fifteen".. show a notrump feature and let partner tell if he want's to let it end (3NT) or if we are off to the races."
3 ♥ 100 BWP 28% BWS 33% IAC 50%
If three-of-a-major followed by pulling 3 NT is a cue-bid, then 3
should score better than 3
because it shows the first control; this is a control-showing situation, not a fragment-showing situation. Most making this bid, though, seem to be willing to let the auction die in 3 NT.
YleeXotee says "This is theoretically a cue bid in support of diamonds, can still land in 3nt"
John Carruthers doesn't seem to want to follow through: "I do like diamonds, but I also like notrump. I will have a chance to express that opinion if partner bids three spades. Seems to be a problem set where five to the eight is a stopper."
Gary Cohler thinks "I have a great hand for diamonds, especially if North has four hearts. But I have minimum values and want to leave room to play in three notrump."
WackoJack argues that "If partner has a singleton small club then 3N likely just makes. OTOH there may be a play for 12 tricks in
so I will cue 3
"
Peuco is more clear about his prospects "cue bid with those Ds" And late to the party,
JCreech says "I never thought of this cue-bid, and it makes sense as being flexible."
4 ♦ 100 BWP 28% BWS 6% IAC 8%
A more straightforward slam try is to bid 4
.
Eric Rodwell argues "With three strong diamonds and filler(s) in his major, I don't see a viable alternative."
Eric Kokish "With North at least five-four, we might have a notrump problem in either clubs or hearts, but even if we're okay in three notrump, this is a good hand for slam and the clearest message is to raise partner's minor rather than to show something in spades and pass a three-notrump continuation. Below three notrump, major suit bids are about the best game. Three hearts or three spades would not be an advance control-bid for diamonds." (A clear expert view that three-of-a-major is not a route toward slam.)
Phillip Alder asks "Does partner have a club control?" And
Chip Martel view this as "An excellent hand for diamonds, so I will make a clear statement rather than muddying the waters with three of a major. This should deny the club ace (else I would bid four clubs)."
JCreech, however, sounds a cautionary note (though this does not reflect his final answer): "At the risk of violating THE rule, I am bidding 4
. Partner sounds worried about a short suit, and despite having five in that probable suit, I am worried too. 4 + something else still adds to down one in 3NT."
Problem F 2 (Masse24, JCreech, WackoJack, YleeXotee, Hoki, CCR3)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 3
♥ K J 10 7 6 5
♦ J 3 ♣ Q 9
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Let's begin with the elephant in the room. It is seldom that a problem has only two answers selected; even when the experts are largely in agreement, there are still stragglers that stretch things out into three or more answers. Not this time. Everything went either high or low; no middle ground.
BluBayou "I don't know what to do with problem F now, or maybe ever, but i am more convinced than ever that the Bridge World is trying hard to get
XYZ (NT) voted into the next version of BW Standard. Piece of cake, with that gadget agreed. ( They used to do these little "campaigns" , back in the day.) Some of the old farts like myself have groused loudly that
NSGF, when that bid is 2C or 2D, is abominable, ie: that there should be some invitational continuations. We expect to hear from one or two of them in a month. For now Invite-Jump in my own suit seems to be ok, but at least one more call is in the running...."
WackoJack describes the auction "... if playing 2-way xyz I would bid 2
. Then partner bids 2
and I make the
invite at the 2 level."
Adam Grossack thinks "XYZ clearly solves this issue. I'll play the percentages (or what I perceive to be the percentages) at matchpoints and go low on what could be a misfit." And
Paul Boudreau clearly supports the addition: "Excellent candidate fo XYZ, which will surely be part of the next BWS. Not enough for two clubs, so with so many losers I'm taking the conseervative call at matchpoints."
3 ♥ 80 BWP 48% BWS 57% IAC 42%
The solver favorite was to be aggressive, and invite.
Eric Rodwell considers it to be "The straightforward bid. At matchpoints, it might be right to bid two hearts, but with the heart ten I need to bid three. Nothing else remotely appeals."
Bart Bramley agrees: "Down the middle. Even stiff eight of hearts opposite will improve chances. Not inviting game would be too timit; forcing to game would be too bold."
Chip Martel considers the
10 critical for the upgrade: "With the heart ten this seems normal. Without it, maybe only two hearts." While
Phillip Alder regards inviting to be the conservative choice: "This is a slight underbid, but it is matchpoints." And
Peuco: "hope not 8 tricks is the maximum."
2 ♥ 100 BWP 52% BWS 31% IAC 58%
YleeXotee felt he "could not bring myself to go higher with those orphaned Jx and Qx holdings" Similarly,
Hoki says "okay my diamond jack is worth a point, but I look askance at my lone queen." And
BluBayou agrees: "you are so right that the Club Queen seems complete rubbish ( unless pard, having club length totally misfits hearts, which is another pile or rubbish news), So, as Pat whispered to me, this may be the
Return of the Hideous Underbid"
Bruce Rogoff "Easy with mostly soft cards, and the scoring makes it unnecessary to stretch. The club queen is likely wasted if partner has a heart fragment, and if he doesn't then two hearts will surely be high enough opposite any hand in the minimum range." The Panelists emphasize the form of contest.
Gary Cohler argues that "At matchpoints, I will go low, as the minor-suit values could be worthless. Partner will raise when we have a sure game, but we might miss close games or we might gain on close games."
Sami Kehela says "Craven, eh? But matchpoints is matchpoints." Jeff Rubens thinks that "With no aces, this is at worst a mild underbid." And
Steve Garner sums the hand up well: "What a pile of junk. As Gerald used to say (whenever we were overboard), 'Mr. Garner, the value of all your random queens and jacks is simply dubious at best!" This hand says go low."
This ends part two. I apologize for getting this out a bit slow, but I hope you will find it interesting and thought provoking. At least until the next segment is ready.