2023 MARCH MSC

[Masse24]

PROBLEM E:

Like Jim, I am loath to open 2 with two suiters. Most of the time. This hand, however, demands it.

It seems partner has some values and some hearts, though not a suit good enough to respond 2 (maybe KTxxx or similar?). So WHAT IS 4 ? Surely it cannot be an offer of strain. Can it? We have shown a two-suited hand. To offer a new suit at the four level is nuts. So what is it?

I think it's a good club raise (flag bid). It does NOT necessarily show a control (there is not enough room to pack all of that into the bid). Could it include the A? Yes.

How to find out . . .

Has anyone ever made an Exclusion KCB bid in partner's suit?

AKQ654 - -void  - K - AKJ932

Someone posted this MSC hand to Gavin Wolpert's website today in the 2 opening area. One question asked was, if choosing between 5NT and 6 , what would Gavin's continuation be?

Gavin chose 6 . Quote: "4 from partner should be a good hand for clubs in your auction. There is no reason for partner to introduce diamonds at this point in the auction."

I replied with, "Like you Gavin, I argued that 4 was a "good club raise" since there was no need to offer it as a possible strain. I even went so far as to suggest the possibility of a leap to 5 in the hopes partner would take it as Exclusion for Clubs. But I didn't have the guts to do it in "partner's suit," so went with the "practical" 6 ."

He agreed, stating, " Yes exactly. I would have bid exclusion if I could trust my partner's 4 bid for a club fit."

I know there were no panel votes for it, and even I went for the bid I thought would score. But I was glad to see someone else agreed with my interpretation of 4 and the possibility of 5 .

Now we wait for the panel's thoughts. 

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem 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.

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem D  1 NT (VeredK, VeeRee, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K Q 10 7   ♥ A Q   ♦ 4 3 2   ♣ A K 9 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       1 ♥        Pass      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

I'm sorry, I only see two possible answers to this problem.  You have a balanced hand that is too large for opening 1 NT and not large enough for opening 2 NT, so you open your better minor, the opponents overcall 1 , and it is then passed back to you.  You have a potential double stopper in the opponent's suit, and it happens to be a doubleton (with at least three-card support in all the other suits).  Either you rebid 1 NT that describes your hand exactly, or you double, trying to get to something from the wrong side.  Is there any real reason to expect less than Masse24's "WTP? Unanimous by the panel?"

1 NT   100   BWP 89%   BWS 72%  IAC 100%
Not quite, Todd, but it is as close to unanimous as I have seen amongst the Panel members; however, IAC was unanimous.  Michael Lawrence sums up why make the bid: "Shows these values.  Rightsides notrump.  The main loss is that we can't defend against one heart doubled, but the South hand makes that unlikely."  WackoJack says "I just bid my hand."  Hoki "protecting the heart holding"  JCreech: "1 NT is right on points and shows the stopper, but the stopper is badly placed if West can find an entry to East early.  ... It certainly described my hand and protects the tenace."  BluBayou: "The heart AQ, along with the correct point-count cannot be denied.  If I reopened with a double and heard a spade response, i swear  I would convert to notrump even then."  CCR3: "another teaser. I don't think partner will have enough to use Stayman to find the spade contract."  Funny that Pat brings up spades in her comment because the number of spades held by partner is of utmost concern to many of the Panelists.  For example, Richard Colker "Partner's failure to double reduces the chance that we'd be better off in spades, and bidding spades here would suggest a more-shapely hand."  Robert Wolff: "Might as well gamble that we do not have a four-four spade fit.  I would like to become declarer."  John Stewart "As partner will have spades only if very weak, spades from his side may be no better than notrump from mine."  Philippe Cronier: "The best way to reach game.  Doubling could be embarrassing, for instance if partner bids two of a minor.  If North has four spades, he will have a weak hand."  While Bart Bramley focuses on the worst of times, as well as the best:  "Too bad if I'm down four when they run diamonds and lead a heart through.  On a better day partner will raise to three with:  ♠ Jxx   ♥ xxxx   ♦ Axxx   ♣ Qx, the lead will be a heart, and I will claim."

1 ♠   60   BWP 11%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
So what is the alternative enamored some of the Panel?  Spades.  Jeff Rubens says he "Can't expect North to bid the suit on three."  Danny Kleinman thinks "Responder's failure to bid one spade or to show four spades by doubling should not preclude playing in spades, but North may have passed from weakness.  One spade will rightside a spade contract, and not bidding notrump may fetchh a favorable heart lead."  While Sami Kehela tells us how close the decision is for him:  "Today.  Next time, I'll try one notrump."

Double   40   BWP No Panelists   BWS 19%  IAC No solvers
Neither the Panel nor IAC went with double, but nearly one in five Bridge World solvers did.  Why?  JCreech pointed out that "The hand has the right shape for the double, but if partner chooses diamonds, the support is very anemic.  I would be pleasantly surprised to hear a pass from partner if I double, but with me holding the AQ, I don't expect that to happen even with a stack."


Problem E  6   (YleeXotee, Masse24, CCR3)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K Q 6 5 4   ♥ —   ♦ K   ♣ A K J 9 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      Pass      Pass
  2 ♣       Pass      2 ♦        Pass
  2 ♠       Pass      3 ♥*      Pass
  4 ♣       Pass      4 ♦        Pass
   ?         
*BWS: denies double-negative

What call do you make?

What a distributional monster, and of course, partner is bidding the other two suits; two excellent six-card suits and the diamond king as your singleton offsuit.  The primary question, of course, is what do you bid?  But there is an another question that could affect that choice - what does 4 mean?  Is it a cue-bid, a suit, or something else.  Not only that, but there is also a distracting debate regarding the phisophical style of opening two clubs vs. opening one in black suit with massive two-suiters.  These are all themes that reappear throughout the discussion.

4 ♠   70   BWP 25%   BWS 22%  IAC 50%
Michael Becker "At the start, I had a play for slam opposite a 4-3-3-3 yarborough.  The hand has become worse as the auction has progressed.  Partner has a lot of red cards.  There is no hope of identifying whether North has the diamond ace, and even if he has it, we may not have 12 tricks."  WackoJack makes the "Cheapest bid with likely misfit."  David Berkowitz thinks "Something fishy is going on; leave the next move to partner."  John Stewart: "Call me cowardly, but I have a peaceful uneasy feeling."  Michael Lawrence is "Going slow.  Facing a red five-five, slam won't be cold even if North has the ace of diamonds, and he has not yet shown it."  Jeff Rubens: "Once a chicken ..."  Carl Hudecek concludes that the contract "Should make opposite any 13 cards."  George Jacobs grouses that "Two-suited hands should not be opened two clubs.  Yes, occasionally we will play in one spade with six clubs cold, but there are 25 red cards missing.  To this point, South might have bid on five-five or six-five; let's show six spades.  Partner should be able to take it from here."  Echoing, JCreech says "I hate opening 2 with a two-suiter, but having done so, I will rebid my spades and hope partner can figure out what to do next."

5 ♣   70   BWP 11%   BWS 22%  IAC 20%
Danny Kleinman thinks "Until now, I've depicted only five spades and four clubs.  Five clubs comes closest to showing the freakish shape on what I fear is a serious misfit.  I object  to the problem, because (a) with equal length and strength in the blacks, I would bid clubs ahead of spades, and (b) because of the rigid BWS requirements for a natural positive two-heart response.  Given the straitjacket, I would have risked a one-club opening."  BluBayou feels that "Five Clubs may help partner bid slam holding the measly black suit help we need;  Four Spades will not.  That is enough for me to stop worrying about hitting a completely worthless dummy which would means the four level  is out last chance of a plus ( two black singletons might might bring home 5 clubs after all)"  Chris Willenken: "Four diamonds shows nothing in particular.  Partner could be offering a choice of games or temporizing with a hand too strng for any game bid.  Opposite 1=5=4=3, six clubs has decent play even if North has no useful high cards."  Hoki: "still possible to stop in game but not giving up on slam"  Nonetheless, I agree with Phillip Alder's play on The Charge of the Light Brigade "Into the Valley of Death rode the one bridge player, dragging his partner behind him."

6 ♣   100   BWP 43%   BWS 48%  IAC 30%
Andrew Robson "... would have opened one spade.  Are we super-confident partner is control-bidding and agreeing clubs  I'm not.  In a way, six clubs can't be right - either partner is showing the diamond ace, agreeing clubs, in which case we are making eight clubs, or partner has some weak red two-suiter and we make nothing."  Bart Bramley "Settling for game would be too conservative.  I don't see a way to investigate seven intelligently.  With:  ♠ x   ♥ Axxxx   ♦ Axxxx   ♣ Qx, North should raise."  YleeXotee is "glad to see others have made this choice too. now I don't think I'm going out on a limb"  Joey  Silver "... would have opened spade.  Two clubs tempts the villains to interfere and to prevent me from describing this hand fully.  Since partner has the diamond ace, the chance of a misfit is high, so I will go low and give up on looking for a grand."  CCR3 thinks the bid "Gives partner a choice. But what's 4D? I think it implies he prefers clubs. Slam is somewhere, but how high?"  Robert Wolff: "Unilateral, but this auction might demand that someone act that way.  Much more likely to make six than to be set, but to entertain a grand slam would be too much."  Masse24 "I would like to get fancy with a bold 5 , but I'm worried it could be misunderstood. I believe Kantar wrote about an exclusion bid in his partner's first suit but had never had the guts to try it. Me too."  Barry Rigal: "Auctions like this would go so much more smoothly if we could start two clubs - two hearts - two spades.  If four diamonds is a control-bid agreeing clubs, we will miss a grand slam; if it is natural we will go down at the six-level.  Not only can we not win them all, we can't win any of them."  Sami Kehela identifies the bid as "A shot, not in the dark - let's say in the penumbra."  Janice Seamon Molson is "Ever the optimist.  Anything could be right."  Billy Eisenberg considers the bid to be at "The right level to allow partner to make an intelligent choice."  While Jeff Meckstroth feels it is "A total guess.  Could be a misfit, but I have a shot at six clubs opposite as little as a stiff spade and two low clubs."  Zia is succinct with his "Too tuff."

4 NT   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
One Panelist pulled out the old, when in doubt, ask for aces.  Kit Woolsey "Partner's four-diamond call is not natural; one doesn't introduce the fourth suit at the four-level.  He is showing a good hand for clubs, but he need not hold the ace of diamonds.  If he has an ace, I'll take a shot at seven clubs, unless RHO doubles the five-diamond reply."

4 ♥   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Dan Gerstman bids 4 because it "Gives North room to indicate which black suit he likes.  He's not bidding a queen-high suit, and four diamonds isn't an attempt to make diamonds trumps.  I will bid seven over five clubs.  Over four spades, I'll try five clubs."  I would be too afraid that the auction would end there in partner's suit.

7 ♣   60   BWP 14%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
While Mats Nilsland jams the hand into the stratosphere: "Hoping four diamonds was a control-bid."



This concludes Part 2.  I will return when I have time to brng the concluding Part 3.  Until then, please participate in next month's MSC problem set.

[blubayou]

Wow.  There WERE panel comments disliking the 2   opening on AKQxxx, ---, K, AKJTxx!.  I wonder if that means there will be almost zero votes for 2    in the next month's companion deal --April problem F.

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 3a)– Eric Kokish, Director


Problem F  4   (CCR3, VeeRee, VeredK, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ —   ♥ A J 10 7 4 2   ♦ A 5 3   ♣ A J 9 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♣        1 ♠
  2 ♥       3 ♠       4 ♥        Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Partner opened your second longest suit, then supported your longest suit at the four-level, and the opponents are both bidding my void suit. And let's go back to partner's 4 bid, when you bid 2 , partner was forced to bid, but when West bid 3 , his heart support was now freely given, implying extras.  A slam move seems right, but which one?  Part of the problem is that you have all of the first-round controls, and partner may be reluctant to show a second-round control at the five-level.

5 ♣   90   BWP 11%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
To bring partner into the picture about a double fit, you could bid clubs.  Michael Becker describes the situation well:  "I have so much to say and so little room to say it.  A grand slam in clubs is in the picture.  I don't expect partner to cooperate immediately, but when I bid five spades next round (and I hope six diamonds later), North will get the idea that level and strain are issues."  Michael Lawrence thinks the bid is "Forcing.  Will follow with five spades."  Bart Bramley: "We don't need much to make seven, especially in clubs.  Partner, with no aces, may be uncooperative, but when I drive to slam, he may get the picture.  Five spades would be an exclusion-ask, which wouldn't tell me what I need to know."

5 ♠   70   BWP 18%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Several Panelists try exclusion.  Richard Colker "I'm hoping this is the Exclusion Zone.  After a one-key reply, I'll ask for the trump queen, enabling partner to bid seven on long clubs and or both minor-suit kings."  The problem is, as pointed out by Eric Kokish, our moderator, "... although many would treat five spades as Bramley suggests, BWS does not."  The legitimate inference is raised by John Stewart:  "Best I can do.  Four spades wouldn't help partner, who holds no aces other than perhaps spades.  My failure to control-bid says I have both other side aces, and the jump in spades shows a void."  I like this thinking, but will partner understand?  It reminds me of a time when I held all the aces and kings and tried opening 2 , and over the 2 waiting response, lept to 6 NT, hoping to convey that I didn't care about aces or kings, if you have queens, bid seven; with two queens and a jack, partner passed.  I fear that this is another time when the high-level inferences are over partner's head.

4 ♠   100   BWP 43%   BWS 71%  IAC 70%
Janice Seamon Molson points out that "Exclusing would be lovely, but five would take us into the stratosphere with no useful information.  Therefore, the nebulous cue-bid is always a favorite.  George Jacobs considers it to be the "Strongest possible move with the hope that partner can take control.  Will bid six after any forward-going move."  CCR3: "Ideal slam try."  Pepsi: "First-round controls in all suits warrant a slam-try."  Masse24: "Worth a slam move."  Jeff Rubens says "Don't know how we will make a high-level competitive decision later or reach seven clubs on our own, but I fear that if I bid anything else investigatory here, North will assume that I lack first-round spade control."  BluBayou wants the ace-ask to come from the right side:  "Still hoping to be showing 3 aces+ to pard's blackwood", but will partner take the 6 response (odd number of keycards plus a void in a suit above hearts) to show all three aces, or worry about missing two?  As Joey Silver puts it, "The problem will come later.  I will drive to at least six, but at this point I can see no way to reach to a grand with assurance."  Mats Nilsland: "Worth another bid, perhaps even five spades to show the void."  Dan Gerstman: "Might as well get some use for it before LHO save in four spades.  Not to hard to see slam opposite king-queens of our suits, and seven with a sixth club or the king of diamonds."  Jeff Meckstroth: "Give partner a chance but get out if he bids five hearts; otherwise, I will bid six."  David Berkowitz: "Start here; can we end in clubs?  I am not giving up on seven."  I just remember the law of unintended consequences and bridge; one time I had a partner that made a bid that caused me to try to place the contract, because he did not trust me, he took another bid - when we compared at the other table, he described my bid as "... then I lost control of the auction."

6 ♣   80   BWP 14%   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Then there are the blasters.  Philippe Cronier points out that "North was not obliged to bid four hearts with a poor hand and a lot of HCP in spades.  Slam could be much better in clubs.  For instance, opposite:  ♠ Kxx, ♥ Qxx, ♦ Kxx, ♣ KQxx, six hearts depends on the heart finesse, while six clubs is more or less on ice."  Barry Rigal: "Bid what you think you or your partner can make.  I've been wrong before."  Kit Woolsey says "I will drive to slam and don't see any intelligent approach to determine if partner has the perfect hand for a gran.  I'll suggest playing in clubs, which might be a trick better than hearts, particularly with no diamond lead."  Sami Kehela is "Not stopping short of slam.  (Picture 2=4=3=4 shape opposite.)  A grand slam is possible, but I can't find out everything."  Certainly, bidding clubs at the six-level shows the double fit and may be the best chance of getting to a grand, but I fear partner passing when it is wrong.

6 ♥   50   BWP 14%   BWS 11%  IAC 30%
The other blast is into hearts.  Danny Kleinman feels there are "Too many goodies to show individually, so I'll bid what I think I can make.  That will give the opponents the last guess, perhaps forestalling a profitable six-spade save, and perhaps facilitating a forcing pass and a possible grand slam if the opponents do bid six spades."  Carl Hudecek thinks "Six hearts (or six clubs) is less of an overbid than four spades at this point; with a spade void, four spades can only complicate things.  Partner would probably view it as showing the ace, and who knows where we would end up."  WackoJack argues "Since I have a void in spades, I imagine that partner likely has a balanced 12-14 with 3 hearts.  Say ♠Axxx, ♥Qxx, ♦ KJxx, ♣ Kx where 6 looks good.  Shall I try 5 or 6 ? OK lets go the whole hog and bid 6 ."  Other than I think Jack may have his minor suits reversed, the reconstruction seems sound.  JCreech: "Partner opened and supported my six-suit at the four-level.  I have first-round control of all suits, and the opponents are showing a lot of length in my void."  Billy Eisenberg: "I'm too old to get involved in looking for seven."  Hoki: "science fails me"  Robert Wolff: "Fie on science.  Partner has somewhat limited his hand, so I give up on a grand."





Problem G  2   (None)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A   ♥ A J 8 6 4 3   ♦ 9 4 3   ♣ A K Q

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
   ——      ——      Pass      Pass
  1 ♥       Pass      2 ♣*      Pass
   ?         
*BWS: invitational-plus heart raise

What call do you make?

You open 1 in third seat and partner bids 2 promising an invitational (plus) heart raise.  You have 18 HCP, a six-card heart suit and losers only in the red suits.  If your partner's values are in the right locations, this could easily become a good slam.  How do you go about finding out about where partner's values lay?

2 NT   80   BWP 7%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
A few Panelist's bid 2 NT.  Janice Seamon Molson describes it as a "Forcing slam-try."  While Mats Nilsland is winging it a bit more: "We could have a slam, but how to find it?  Over four diamonds, I will bid a slam."  The idea has merit, but it is not a systemic response in BWS; in fact other than the simple rebid of hearts as a weak bid, there are no systemic agreements in BWS.

3 ♦   80   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Bart Bramley tried jumping into diamonds:  "Best I can do.  I like this as a natural slam-try.  Here, it also has obfuscatory elements, since I would much prefer a black-suit lead.  I'll give up on slam over three hearts but probably ask for keys over a sign of life, though, that risks that a five-diamond reply will be doubled."  I truly dislike this bid.  In my own past, pretending to have length in a suit frequently leads to bad other choices.  I would much prefer a fake splinter into diamonds, than a fake jump shift.

3 ♣   90   BWP 25%   BWS 30%  IAC 40%
Many tried the slightly more natural 3 ; half of the hand's HCP are in the suit, and while it is only three cards in length, the quality makes it feel almost like it has an extra card.  I think Jeff Rubens describes the best reason to make the bid: "To avoid encouragement from partner based on honors in my second suit or an isolated quack in another side suit."  Though most were looking for a cue-bid in diamonds.  WackoJack asks "How can I know if partner has useless high spades or very useful high diamonds? Best try 3♣ and see if partner bids 3♦.  If so then we are slamming."  Billy Eisenberg "Over three diamonds, I'll as for key cards."  Jeff Meckstroth describes the continuation: "Then three spades to clarify slam interest."  Dan Gerstman: "Over three diamonds, I'll keep trying; otherwise I'll settle for four hearts."  John Stewart: "See if partner can come in diamonds.  Not a fan of splintering with a stiff ace."  Michael Becker is more interested in finding shortness:  "Our best change of finding slam is when partner can splinter in diamonds.  I don't know how to reach six hearts when partner has king-fourth/ace-doubleton in the red suits, but bidding three clubs does not rule it out."  And I think CCR3 is only telling part of her reasoning: "Only because of the footnote. Showing shape. Fingers crossed."  I think that Pat's choice was also about showing where her values were, otherwise she might have bid 2 , her cheaper-to-bid three-card suit.  Nonetheless, BluBayou mentions what is in the back of everyone's mind:  "Wish we had discussed what new suit replies to old fashioned Drury were about" 

3 ♠   70   BWP 14%   BWS 16%  IAC 20%
Kit Woolsey describes 3 as "A model splinter.  If partner doesn't have much spade wastage, we want to be in slam, and he will cooperate with four diamonds."  I am more in tune with Masse24's thoughts "I never, ever splinter with a stiff ace. But I will here. I would like to bid a forcing 3 . And it should be forcing. But in a search through BWS I did not find that it was so this is my next best "slam move" option."  Similarly, Chris Willenken writes, "Not perfect, but the best I can do in BWS.  I will not make any further moves, as I need a great North hand for slam."  Joey Silver: "Not sure the reward is worth the risk of getting too high, as partner needs a perfect hand to make slam.  Should North bid four diamonds, I will bid four spades."  Barry Rigal: "Just worth it.  The right minimum hand:  ♠ xx   ♥ KQx   ♦ Axx   ♣ Jxxxx provides decent play for 13 tricks and a fun play in six hearts on a diamond lead."

2 ♦   100   BWP 36%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
The Panel plurality went with the cheapest positive response to the Drury inquiry.  Danny Kleinman "The artificial two clubs rather than two diamonds provides an extra step.  The Useless Space Principle says 'Fill it!'; my suggestion ... is that two diamonds asks for further shape information."  George Jacobs describes his continuations:  "Over two hearts, show controls on the way to game; over two spades, I'll bid four hearts; over three diamonds, I will control-bid.  I prefer to go slowly.  Assuming some of North's strength is in hearts, for slam I need a diamond control, and even the king may not be enough."  While David Berkowitz only mentions when he would bail: "Making it easy for partner to like diamonds.  If all I get is two hearts, slam is out."  Michael Lawrence: "In my methods, this asks partner to describe the quality of his hand, including whether he has three or four hearts."  Andrew Robson: "Can't cost.  I think we'll end up in four hearts, but three notrump and six hearts are possible."  Pepsi feels it is the "Best way to explore."  Phillip Alder: "Maybe a fake splinter in diamonds is best.  Who is West?"  Zia: "I know it's on my own, but three notrump may be best, and partner could have:  ♠ KQxx   ♥ Kxxx   ♦ x   ♣ xxxx."  Sami Kehela: "Why should Zia get all the ink?"

4 ♣   70   BWP  1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
Of all the bids made by Panelists, 4 confuses me the most.  I agree with Richard Colker that it will "Focus partner on his red-suit honors rather than club weakness.  Some hands too weak for two clubs make six hearts cold, while better-looking hands give slam virtually no play.  Any other black-suit bid would be misleading."  But it wastes a lot of space and partner is bound to misconstrue the true shape of your hand.

2 ♠   0   BWP No Panelists   BWS 15%  IAC 20%
A couple of IAC solvers went this direction.  Personally, I bought into the idea, but on further reflection, I suspect it has the same problem as 4 - it misconstrues the true shape of your hand.  A reverse suggests length in spades that you simply do not have.  If Hoki is right, that it is "just a simple advance cue bid, leaving more room than 3S" then it is a great bid.  And JCreech has a point that "This may not initially be thought of as a cue-bid, but when I come back and cue the clubs, I think partner will catch on." However, as a manufactered reverse, you could be struggling to corral partner's flight to the stratosphere.  After all, no one has bid the suit, so partner may have been torn between bidding spades or raising hearts.

4 ♥   60   BWP 11%   BWS 20%  IAC 20%
The give-up action belongs to 4 .  Carl Hudecek thinks "With a dozen HCP missing.  I am not optimistic about slam.  In my younger days (65 years ago), probably I would have bid two diamonds."  Philippe Cronier believes "We can make a slam opposite a lot of specific North hands, but it is very difficult to know whether North has ace-low rather than ace-jack-low in diamonds.  An auction that revealed too much could tell the opponents what to lead, perhaps even how to beat four hearts with a diamond ruff."  Robert Wolff, however, seems to have rose-colored glasses: "Give up on science, although this is close to a fancy slam-try."  How Robert can view accepting a game-invitation as a slam-try is beyond me.


I ran out of space, so Part 3 continues in the next entry.

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 3b)– Eric Kokish, Director


Problem H  A  (None)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 6 2   ♥ J 10 4   ♦ A Q 3   ♣ J 8 6 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♣       Pass      1 ♥
  Pass      3 ♣      Pass      3 NT
  Pass      Pass     Pass
What is your opening lead?

The moderator, Eric Kokish, made an interesting statement early in his writeup of this problem:  "Backing judgment is part of the expert's arsenal, but at imps the question inevitably arises about going out to try to win imps vs. staying even and trying not to lose them."  The comment was aimed at making a non-standard lead from a particular holding, but applies equally to trying to decide between an active vs. passive lead.   
 
♥ 4   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
Although it is not clear whether Andrew Robson aiming for an active or passive lead, he thinks "It's clear not to lead a black suit.  If I lead a diamond, which one?  The queen may be brilliant or very foolish; the ace is unlikely to work unless the suit is cashing, in which case it can proably wait, as clubs aren't running ... Leading a low heart will work when dummy has a singleton honor, or plays high from honor-doubleton."

♥ J   80   BWP 18%   BWS 10%  IAC No solvers
Jeff Rubens "Not clear whether to prefer active or passive, but it looks right to hope that partner will lead diamonds."  Michael Lawrence: "On this sequence, a heart lead is often best.  Since North did not bid, there's little reason to look elsewhere."  Chris Willenken feels that "Without the surprise club holding, I would lead the diamond ace, going for fast tricks.  Here, though, the heart lead might be constructive if partner has strong hearts, and it might be a winning passive lead if the bad club break defeats a normal game.  The main danger is that partner may erroneously return a heart later."  And Billy Eisenberg believes the lead "Least likely to promote an extra trick for declarer."  While David Berkowitz excludes the alternatives: "A diamond lead would be too unilateral, and partner didn't bid one spade."

♠ 2   60   BWP 14%   BWS 39%  IAC 90%
The solver plurality was to lead a spade.  Most Panelists avoided the lead because partner did not overcall the suit, but then partner could have overcalled at the one-level in two other suits and did not.  Come on, there must be a better reason not to lead a spade.  Dan Gerstman's point is well-taken: "Anything could be right - well, maybe not a club.  Partner, nonvulnerable, passed ober one club.  Seems like a deal where losing a trick on the lead could be declarer's ninth."  Masse24 thinks the lead "Should be the most popular choice by both the panel and solvers. Am I missing something?"  Todd, only half right this time, so perhaps you are missing something.  Hoki: "by elimination"  CCR3: "decided to go passive this time."  WackoJack: "Speculative 2 "  George Jacobs mentions a good point:  "I'll be on lead three times.  I hope we have more spades than the opponents.  If I were a European, I would lead the spade jack.  Maybe I should anyway; Zia will."  While JCreech says "I still like my original idea, but chickened out.  No good reason other than to follow the crowd."  You followed the wrong crowd for a good score, Jim.

♦ A   100   BWP 39%   BWS 19%  IAC No solvers
So what was Jim's first thought?  JCreech: "I suspect I need to produce a Deschapelles coup, so I will look at dummy to decide which suit I need to lead to attack dummy's entry."  Jim is the only one to mention Deschapelles, but why couldn't dummy be something like ♠ x   ♥ xx   ♦ Kxx   ♣ AKQxxxx, hoping the clubs run or the diamond is an entry.  If you wait to attack the diamond entry, it becomes too late.  Richard Colker identifies two other ways the ace could win: "Any suit but clubs is possible.  A major could catch partner with four including one of the top honors and at least one important intermediate (ten or nine), but the diamond ace has two ways to win; partner could hold the king or jack with length; or dummy and North's signal could clarify which major to attack."  Echoed by Philippe Cronier: "The best way to know which color to play at the second trick, diamonds frequently being the right one."  Carl Hudecek argues that "This would clearly be the correct lead if the club jack were the club three.  Since I can stop clubs, I will feign desperation to convince a shrewd declarer not to finesse in clubs."  John Stewart: "Spade unlikely to win, as partner didn't overcall."  Bart Bramley: "Not a spade, since partner didn't bid the suit, so I'll hope to hit his diamond length.  Not the queen, since I might spear the king with the ace-lead."  Mats Nilsland: "I must lead something."

♦ Q   90   BWP 25%   BWS 15%        .  IAC 1 solver
The Panelists going with the queen lead are largely hoping to find partner with Jxxxx in the suit.  Kit Woolsey: "If I catch the magic jack-fifth in partner's hand, declarer won't know to duck the king of diamonds."  Danny Kleinman "A quick guess:  attack dummy's diamond entry.  Won't it be nice to find partner with jack-nine-fifth?"  Janice Seamon Molson: "If declarer has king-third, he can comfortably duck after the ace-lead and continuation.  It seems unlikely that we can beat the contract in another suit.  Ace would have the advantage of letting me see dummy."  BluBayou seems to be looking to hit partner: "The mission here is to build four+ cashers asap, before jump-rebidder's club suit is established--not to be passive.  I believe the popular low spade is basically passive"  As is Michael Becker "I don't have a long suit to establish, but partner might.  I'll do all in and bet on diamonds.  I prefer the queen to the ace, because there are layouts where declarer wins with the king when ducking would work better.  Also, I might catch king-low-low in dummy and ten-low (-low-low) in declarer's hand.  The ace works better when dummy has stiff king or I can guess a major-suit shift that defeats the contract."  in the end, Robert Wolff's observation may be most apt: "I am trying to be either a thoroughly-modern moron or a genius."



This concludes the summary.  Hopefully, there will be something of either use or entertainment gleaned from the effort.  Please join in the discussion for next month's MSC (any form of participation is most welcome, though as the one summarizing, I look forward to the commentary to help shape discussion).    Until next month ...