March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric O. Kokish, DirectorProblem A 2 (No IAC solvers)
Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
♠ 7
♥ A 8 4 3
♦ A 10 9 6 4 3 2 ♣ 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♣ Double 1 ♠
?*
*BWS: 2 ♣ = one-round force; 2 ♠ = forcing to suit agreement or game
From the problem-setter,
Michael Becker writes: "Two spades. The 'high' cue-bid is unlimited, forcing to at least three notrump or four of a minor, and more economical than higher bids. Clearcut. A clinker." Nonetheless, 80% of the IAC solvers came to the table with the same answer - 2
- which was the most aggressive response in the two BW hints. All told, there was only three IAC responses; the other two were 3 and 5
.
Masse24, while selecting the majority answer, said "I think this is a difficult problem (more so than the IAC seems to think) and I expect to see many different answers." Although this prediction was correct for the BW solvers (they came up with 11 answers) it was less true for the BW Panel (5). Unfortunately, their plurality went for the other hint, so 2
picked up the top score.
The top score went to the "low" cue-bid of 2
(12 Panelists, 24% BW solvers). The moderator was quick to point out that "No two-club bidder who intends to stop short of game says so explicitly. The motivation for the cheaper cue-bid seems to be saving space."
Bart Bramley is "Content to go slow, which will help us gauge our fit and level while letting the bad guys get black-suit bidding out of their systems. If I get to make the first natural call for our side, a diamond bid should imply hearts as well."
Harry Steiner has aspirations: "A four-four heart fit should handle well, especially as partner has help in and might solidify the diamonds. If this fails to develop, I'll take a stab at five diamonds. I know that a perfecto might produce slam."
Barry Rigal expects "...to hear a spade raise and will bid diamonds at an appropriate moment. A simple diamond bid might work fine, since someone will bid spades and then I can jump in hearts. It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to."
The IAC solvers were looking hard at the hints provided, but chose the more aggressive approach (along with 8 Panelists and 40% of the BW solvers). As
YleeXotee wrote, "This is one where I'm going to play the game of MSC answers and take the hint of 2S. " A big reason for the view is discussed by
CCR3 "This could be a powerful playing hand with a double fit. I can see it making 6d, not as much slam in hearts. Need more information: 2S" While
JCreech echoes the sentiment, "What I lack in HCPs, I make up for in distribution and controls. How could partner expect more than two bullets and two stiffs when everyone is bidding?" Panelists going this direction wanted to set the game-force. As
Dan Gerstman said "Forcing to game: four hearts if partner has four, otherwise five diamonds; if the opponents compete, I'll bid diamonds at the lowest available level." While
Chris Willenken wants "To set the force in case LHO bids a lot. If I bid two clubs, even a three-club bid from LHO will cause huge problems, as three of a red suit would then be nonforcing. Bidding either red suit would be looking for trouble."
The other IAC choices were in diamonds. Two bid the game directly.
Peuco said "I’ve seen a lot of 4-4 contracts with a 7 card side suit go down" While
BluBayou justifies his bid with "Wackojack's 'perfecto' minimum for red suits scares me all the more to try to shut up the winning 5 Spade comp, and might make facing most less-than-handpicked support" Joey Silver will "... take the direct route to our most likely game, before the villains can get together." Similarly,
David Berkowitz says the hand is "Unlikely to play well in hearts with my hand tapped, so I will stab at the best contract without letting the opponents get together." While the one choosing 3
was silent, perhaps could be described with
YleeXotee's alternative thoughts, "However, I believe I would bid something like 3D showing my real suit and taking my chances." It was also not a Panelist choice, but discussed briefly by
Richard Colker: "Bidding three diamonds would increase the risk of losing the heart suit or missing game." And followed up by the moderator "I hadn't thought of three diamonds. Would that be deemed a different tactical underbid or just a remarkably-conservative unilateral invitation?"
Problem B 4 (KenBerg, BabsG, CCR3, VeeRee, Blubayou)
Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
♠ 9 8 3
♥ 7 6 2
♦ 10 7 5 3 ♣ K Q 10
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ 1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ 3 ♣ Pass
?
With Problem B, you have a weak hand that was of dubious value on your first opportunity to bid. Now that partner has jump rebid his own suit, it is time to reassess. Do you choose to tell partner that you have better than he deserves when you lay down a dummy with three honors in his suit? Do you bid game on the basis of those honors in either NT or clubs? Or do you find some game try as a middle approach?
Slightly more than a third of the IAC solvers and BW Panel voted for 4
, violating YleeXotee's law; do not voluntarily bid four of a minor when it may be passed to play.
BluBayou shrugs (virtually), "I don't know what this will accomplish, but if partner has jump-raised himself, ALONE, at RED VUL, then i have one for the road here. I hope to not be taken for some kind of trap-pass by doing this." Similarly,
KenBerg writes "Well, I passed the first time and pard says he can make 3
. Seems we should be able to make 4
." And
CCR3 says "Give partner a chance. I have clubs with him."
Zia is reluctant: "Four clubs. Three diamonds is the right bid, as it asks for three notrump with both major stops. But clearly that is subjective, and so I boringly bid this."
Pepsi is uncertain: "Don't know who is making what, but I'll make it more difficult for the opponents to bid and I like to raise."
Philippe Cronier says "Maybe we can make three notrump, but I've no good bid to make in that direction. More importantly, the opponents have a fit somewhere nd will bid over three clubs. Four clubs will make their lives a bit more difficult, and will let North bid five with a very special hand."
Nonetheless, the moderator says "The plurality choice gets no love from me, as it gives up on three notrump without sending enough information for North to make a wise decision about continuing on to game. I'd rather bid five clubs than four." Which leads us to why the second place points go to the game bidders. IAC had a couple (as did the BW Panel, and 10% of the BW solvers).
Peuco chose 5
, arguing that "Pd must have a play for 5C. With an 8 card suit it could be cold"
The IAC player going with 3NT was silent, but
JCreech describes why he thinks the bid might be best. "I have no shape to justify a try for an 11 trick game, but the club support is superb; that is why I think NT may be the best contract - partner's self jump-raise suggests values outside of clubs, so (s)he may have the outside stops, while I have the material to make the 6-7 bagger a running suit."
Harry Steiner, from the Panel argues "Partner must have great strength outside clubs and appears to have some length in the majors, as the opponents have not suggested an eight-card major-suit fit. Three diamonds might be natural, so it's unacceptable. Five clubs is less likely than stealing three notrump on a favorable lead."
Other game tries fared much less well than 4
. The BW Panel was roughly evenly split among 3
/
/
, while the IAC solvers were more of one mind (combined, 10 Panelists made a game try below 3NT - the same number as those that bid 4
). I know that I was reluctant to try either
or
because the opponents had bid those suits and, to me, those cue bids would promise stoppers.
Masse24 summed things up well: "This is the sexy MSC bid. Giving us our only shot at the only game I think we can make—3NT. The question is, will enough of the Bridge World MSC panel agree? Too flat and too little help to make 5
. So I see little value in raising clubs to either 4
or 5
. (Probably.) But partner is jump-rebidding 3
without the
KQT. What else could 3
be but a grope for 3NT?"
WackoJack's discussion focuses on the other concern, right-siding the contract: "If partner has 7 clubs ♣ AJ9xxxx must have good high cards outside and yet did not rebid 2NT or 3NT. I reckon he could well have 8 of them. I think that with 7 or 8 tricks in clubs we could well have 3NT on." And as
DickHy observed "right siding for 3NT could be crucial. So, I will go for 3♦. I will pass 3N or 4♣." If you cannot tell, I think this action was severely undervalued in the contest. Some of the BW Panelists jump in as well.
Sami Kehela wants to compel "... partner with ♠ Ax
♥ Ax
♦ xx ♣ AJxxxxx or the like to bid the (nearly) laydown three notrump."
David Berkowitz: "Interesting to have such strong clubs. I bid my stopper, hoping not to play there, and, more importantly, to let partner bid three notrump." And
Dan Gertsman: "I can't pass with such good clubs and want to leave three notrump in play."
Pass was the overwhelming choice of the BW solvers (50%), but were much less likely to be chosen by either the Panel (5) or IAC solvers (3).
YleeXotee said "It's MPs, I"m going to stay low and beat those going down in 3nt, and making it up with a couple extras if we make 5c." When I was making my initial selections, I chose Pass because I didn't think there was enough to make an 11 trick game, did not want to bid 3NT directly myself, yet could not think of a sensible way to get to partner to bid 3NT.
George Jacobs thinks "Partner surely has ace-jack-sixth or -seventh of clubs, but for three notrump he needs every suit stopped, and he didn't say he had that. How do we get him to declare three notrump? Whichever suit we psyched might get doubled. If we bid three notrump, we might not get in until trick eight. Why look for trouble?" Similarly,
Richard Colker: "Three notrump could be cold from partner's side, but how do we get there?"
Problem C 2 NT (Blubayou, one other)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
♠ A Q J 10 8
♥ A 9
♦ 10 5 ♣ 9 8 4 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2
♦ Pass
?
The debate on Problem C is whether the hand is worth a game force or only invitational. For the panelists, it was a dead heat between the two most popular choices representing each position. The top score was given to 2NT largely because the bulk of the other selections were votes to the low side. Two IAC solvers went with the choice of 9 panelists and 25% of the BW solvers.
BluBayou thinks "An invitational bid will do just fine here, and wrongsiding the club situation is not as ugly as it appears! There are many layouts wher the 98xx comes to the rescue holding the def to 3 club winners, or trapping the 4th-round winner in a now-dead hand (QTx and AJxx surrounding pard's club king ie) we don't need to WIN a club in imps just have them be held at bay until the spades can come home:) Another thought: hearing partner rebid his hearts after our 2NT is more 'informative' than hearing same after 4th-suit forcing 3!C, where it is simply the default 'nothing to add" bid. Those who want to force to game arent exactly swinging from tree limbs, but we are in for inviting only, and fits that bill" From the Panel,
Michael Becker: "I must invite, as there are too many hands with which partner will pass two of either major when we have good play for game. Two notrump keeps the bidding low enough while leaving other strains open, although it might not be the best partscore."
Bart Bramley: "Closest among imperfect choices. Must play in spades or notrump to give full value to my spades."
Again IAC solvers (9 of them) are more aggressive (along with 9 Panelists and 42% of the BW solvers) and make the game-forcing 3
bid.
DickHy's analysis is "4SF is GF in BWS but I’ll live with that. Partner’s shape offers various games 4
(3541), 4
(2641) or 3N (1543). Doubtless, he’ll be 2542 and we’ll end up in 3N hoping opponents will throw us a bone (clubs aren’t running - neither opponent overcalled 2
, white - and a couple of cards are well-placed)."
KenBerg waxes philosophic with "BW keeps offering these problems where it won't take much for game, you would like to have a descriptive game invite, but you do not. So I keep making game forcing bids and I keep getting bad scores, Quoting Hank Williams 'She warned me once, she warned me twice, but I don't take no one's advice'. Partner plays the cards well I hope."
Andrew Robson thinks this is a "Classic strain-over-level problem. Three clubs in not a big overbid with such fine intermediates."
Janice Seamon Molson agrees: "A small overstatement. Two notrump is the value bid but could wrongside the contract, and perhaps four hearts or four spade would be better even in a five-two fit." While
Billy Eisenberg is succinct: "Three clubs. Too much hand for less."
The best invitational alternative is 3
, which tends to promise six, but the quality of this suit is almost worth treating it that way.
Peuco puts it this way: "Not afraid to play 4S opposite a singleton" While
YleeXotee is worried about both bidding and play but thinks "3S is the most descriptive bid for me, 3C being GF and I feel that's a touch overboard. if p doesn't have club stopper, what am I doing over after 3c -3d/3h. p sees my 3S, don't they bid 3nt with a club stopper and 1 or 2 spades?. OTOH, I tend to be aggressive and I suspect 3c is my real bid at the table. if Vul IMPs I might go this way. is that ace of h enough transportation to get those spades running....oy!"
Harry Steiner likes "Three spades. Faking a sixth spade rather than a club stopper. With an opening bid, I can risk a heavy invitation, the lack of a spade being compensated for by the maximum in high cards. This spade holding can reasonably be treated as a six-bagger."
Problem D 4 NT (Masse24, WackoJack, KenBerg, CCR3, VeeRee)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
♠ A 8 6
♥ Q 10 3
♦ K J 8 ♣ A Q 7 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 3 ♠ Double Pass
?*
*4 NT natural by agreement
The big question is what does partner have for his double. There are two principles to consider. One is that to act in the direct seat forcing the partnership to the four level (3NT notwithstanding), you have to have decent values. The other is that if one member of the partnership has shortness in the preemptor's suit, there is added pressure for that person to act. Looking at a good, balanced 16 HCPs the question is particularly pertinent.
Those bidding 4NT clearly regard their partner as having full values and want to invite slam.
Masse24 is open to partner's direction: "I certainly have the values for this. Maybe partner can suggest another strain." While
CCR3 says "Let's not leave partner in the dark, 4NT" And
KenBerg felt that the bid "Seems right."
Michael Lawrence bids "Four notrump. This will be bad if partner passes and I can't make it, but it may lead us to slam somewhere. Four spades rates to lead to an awkward auction."
Kit Woolsey says "Too strong for three notrump, and a cue-bid or a club bid doesn't make sense. Four notrump is about what the hand is worth."
WackoJack was not as certain. He chose to bid 3NT because "We cannot expect much more than 14 HCP from partner for the take-out double and likely nothing in spades. So, with ♠ xx, ♥ AKxx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ Kxx, we can count 9 top tricks only and likely only 1 extra trick in the red suits. Can we then try 4N? Partner no doubt would bid 6NT with about 15 or 16. It looks right to try 4NT. However, give partner 16: ♠ xx, ♥ AKJx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ KJx. We still need 4 tricks in ♦s opposite ♦ KJ8. That is unlikely. So, I think I will take the low road and bid 3NT."
Jeff Meckstroth also tries 3 NT: "We may make a slam, but I'm hoping for a plus score. No good way to explore." And more cautiously,
Carl Hudecek: "Playing West not to have a red ace along with seven spades."
The moderator made Pass the third highest scoring choice even though only two Panelists made the choice because "Even when the penalty is disappointing, the loss will be small when slam is not in the cards, and there may well be some North-South minus scores from unlucky decisions."
Andrew Robson presents this case for the panelists: "If I bid, what would I choose? Three notrump would not be enough, four notrump too much (and spades worrying). A 500-point penalty seems very likely, with 800 a distinct possibility." Similarly,
Zia says "If I knew whether to bid three or six, and which strain to choose, I might not pass; as I don't know, I take the money and hope it's enough."
The moderator views bidding 4
as a "mountain or precipice" choice and points to
Sami Kehela as recognizing the abyss potential: "Four spades. Heading not so blithely into uncharted waters."
DickHy was far more certain of the mountain. "All North’s HCP are outside spades, and I’d expect him to have 14+, rather than a measly 12, say. So, we have 26+ HCP in his three suits. He’s probably 1444 – with 3c spade support East would have bid four spades. That looks close to 12 tricks to me. Among the silver linings, they could have a queen and two jacks, East could have the club king or West could have the heart king. With thick clouds, East may have a red suit ace/heart king to go with his two spades, but if I make a 4N bid and North has 14 – minimum for his bid - he’ll certainly pass. I'd bid 6N at the table, but that's likely to be a bit too blunt-instrument for pros. A 4S cuebid may well lead us to a decent 6m contract." Less certain, but still thinking slam,
Peuco said "Let pd know slam is on the radar" and
YleeXotee "I want to declare the spade control and keep exploring"
David Berkowitz thinks "Opposite a stiff spade, we have a mountain, with the perfect spade holding for a suit contract as opposed to say king-queen-low, which would be more notrump-oriented."