January MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– David Berkowitz, DirectorProblem F 4 NT (VeredK, CCR3, VeeRee, Masse24, Peuco)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 6 5
♥ A J 9
♦ K Q 10 ♣ A J 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♣ 2 ♠ 3
♥ Pass
?*
*By agreement, 4 NT = invitational.
What call do you make?
You open 1
with a tweener NT. The problem with tweeners is that because you open at the one-level, it fails to get any respect, so LHO preempts in spades and partner comes in freely at the three-level in hearts. MSC is kind enough to provide a little context to what 4 NT means, that it is invitational, so that clarifies that it is not RKC. We also know that we have an eight-card fit, but if we choose that strain, we are likely to be wrong-siding the contract. By bidding NT from our side, the contract is right-sided, but do we have enough tricks for game, much less slam.
3 ♠ 70 BWP 26% BWS 42% IAC 50%
Three spades was the clear solver favorite, pulling in half of IAC and nearly that from the BW solvers.
JCreech points out: "I have extras and a fit. The least I can do is give partner a boost. The most is to show strength and suggest the fit, while also keeping the bidding as low as I am able." While
Hoki describes the plan: "then 4
, showing more strength than a direct 4
."
Eric Stoltz echos, "I plan to bid four hearts next to show support and extra values in hearts." As does
Jeff Rubens: "Treating the hand as a strong heart raise. The king of spades may not be wasted, and there are almost enough extra values without it."
Zia: "I must announce a strong hand if possible. This is a squeeze bid, but maybe something good will happen to overcome my current ignorance of the best approach."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn thinks the bid "Ugly, but a must. There are too many tickets for a simple raise and not enough spade 'chunk' for four notrump."
Alan Sontag says "I am not a fan of four notrump." While
Eric Kokish discusses why: "Might not have time to make four notrump; starting slowly provides a chance to learn more about North's hand. If he bids three notrump, for example, the rest probably would be easy. It's not always positional concerns that determine the timing of a notrump bid." My problem with either the cue-bid or NT bids is that they feel like you are locking in a strain before you are certain, at least with the cue-bid, as Eric points out, with the appropriate sort of help from partner, there is still the flexibility to reach the NT strain.
3 NT 40 BWP 11% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
Essentially giving up on slam, but right-siding the
K are a small group of Hammondites.
John Carruthers thinks "With the ace of spades behind the king on most days, this hand is worth no more than a strong notrump." However,
Robert Wolff credits partner with the overreach: "Yes, a huge underbid, but the odds are that partner is overbidding at least slightly, and it is matchpoints, where frequency is king."
4 ♥ 30 BWP One Panelist BWS 12% IAC No solvers
There is also a small group bidding the heart game directly. Optimistically,
Carl Hudecek says "Partner can ask for key cards or cue-bid if so inclined. I don't think much of the king of spades." If you are headed for hearts, it might be better to underbid to devalue the
K
4 NT 100 BWP 56% BWS 32% IAC 50%
The hint did quite well, pulling more than half of the Panel, and strong contingencies from both solver groups.
Phillip Alder: "Okay, you led the witness."
Eric Rodwell: "Talked me into it. I see no good alternative anyway. I hope there will later be a way to back into hearts, but that probably is wishful thinking."
Bart Bramley: "Nice agreement. If not now, why use it."
Bruce Rogoff: "If not now, when? This hand resembles the prototype: 18-19 HCP, balanced shape, spade tenace, heart filler to help run the suit. Maybe I'm supposed to shoot out six notrump (will partner know to raise with: ♠ xx
♥ KQxxxx
♦ Axx ♣ Kx?), but perhaps we'll score well just for playing in notrump. I suppose some will try three spades, but I don't see what that will accomplish other than preventing us from reaching the likely-best strain." , and it might be necessary to play from my side." At last, someone is mentioning that NT may be necessary to protect the king. The IAC comments are more clear on that point.
Masse24 thinks the bid "Conveys a lot of information. Avoids the lead through the
K and possible ruff. I look forward to the panel's opinion. Fun problem."
Peuco agrees: "I make the invitation and protect the S K , plus NT may yield more than H"
Gary Cohler: "If this weren't quantitative, I'd bid three spades. Four notrump gives a perfect description except for the third heart, and it might be necessary to play from my side."
Kit Woolsey feels it is "The value bid. If there is no slam, notrump might or might not be better than hearts. If there is a slam, there will be a chance to suggest hearts later."
Larry Cohen: "Not an ace-ask, as I did not bid three spades first to set trumps, but I am worried that the hand may not be worth it with the depressing spades."
Chip Martel: "Must show some strength, this may get us to the best matchpoint game when there is no slam." However, there was a bit of debate regarding the difficulty of this problem.
Steve Garner thinks it "Another no-brainer." While
Jeff Alexander says it is the "Hardest problem of the set. Four notrump shows the power and stopper, but I am not confident about how poor partner will cope."
Problem G 3 (CCR3, VeeRee, Peuco, VeredK, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, BluBayou, Hoki)
Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 5 4
♥ K 2
♦ 10 4 3 ♣ K Q J 9 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♦ 1
♥ 2
♦ ?
What call do you make?
The opponents have opened and raised diamonds, while partner has interjected a heart overcall. You have an opening hand with a very nice suit, but to show it, you have to bid at the three-level. Unless someone is overbidding, and that is quite possible, it sounds like the HCPs are nearly evenly split. Your hand is too good to remain silent, but do you really want to commit to a nine-trick contract?
Double 90 BWP 33% BWS 20% IAC No solvers
Trying to mark time by creating a quasi-force with a responsive double (after all, take-out doubles are meant to be taken out), several Panelists ignore the technical requirements of a responsive double and gamble that partner will not pass.
Adam Grossack says "I'll risk the spade holding. If partner jumps in spades, he will rate to hold very good cards, and I'll have a chance to survive. It's important to show some flexibility of strain, since I would hate to miss a good game in clubs or hearts. Three clubs would be nonforcing." According to
Zia, it "Feels as if hearts may play well; three clubs would sound like this hand with another club and no spade ace. I will raise two hearts to game."
Steve Garner thinks "It is imperative to show values with a couple o hearts. What I will do on the next round of bidding is less obvious." For
Chip Martel the call is "Clear for now (particularly if interpreted as announcing values without primary support and not promising any specific shape)."
Jeff Rubens is "Planning to show a strong raise with only two hearts. The ace in a side suit and partner's probable diamond shortness - the vulnerable overcall and my honor strength suggest that East-West are bidding on shape - push me toward the high road."
Billy Eisenberg "Nothing fits."
3 ♣ 100 BWP 41% BWS 66% IAC 100%
Although 3
may not forcing, it is highly descriptive of the hand; a plurality of the Panel and most of the solvers chose this bid. As
Danny Kleinman put it "No need for fancy footwork. The Great Shuffler gaave me the nine of clubs or a reason - to allay any fears that I might have had if it had been a lower spot cart. In case the jewelers persist with three diamonds, I have hidden the three-heart bidding card in my shirt pocket, ready to be laid on the table next if needed."
Bruce Rogoff notes that "South's is likely the best hand at the table, with perhaps the best suit, so why not show it? We're practically a lock to have an eight-plus-card fit somewhere., and three clubs will find it. We're allowed to play in five clubs at matchpoints, right?"
JCreech: "I am willing to be in hearts with Kx, but would love to be in 3 NT if partner has a diamond stop and the club ace."
Jeff Alexander "I hate cue-bidding in this situation, so I bid my suit and hope to be able to figure out what to do next. (If partner passes, we will be okay.)"
Bart Bramley expresses a concern: "Obvious. The real problem will come if the opponents bid three diamonds." That
Gary Cohler dismisses: "Not perfect, but there is too much strength not to act, and it looks as if a club lead would be good. I will double three diamonds to show extra values and hope that partner rebids a six-card suit."
Larry Cohen says "I like all 13 of my HCP. It is true that partner might be stuck for a bid, but that's his problem." There is some uncertainty of whether the bid is forcing or not.
BluBayou asks "What's troubling about three clubs?? WE MAY PLAY IT THERE, FOR A 18%"
Hoki thinks "Perfect for 'non-forcing constructive'." On the other hand,
Robert Wolff says "If I thought partner would not treat it as forcing, I'd prefer three diamonds with the intention of making three hearts to game." While
Kerri and Steve Sanborn say "Let's force, and over the expected three of a red suit, raise hearts. A double would miss the mark for spade length, and three diamonds wold over emphasize the heart length." Nonetheless,
Eric Stoltz feels the bid "Maybe not forcing, but what else is possible? Bidding at the three-level, vulnerable, should show a reason to act; and if partner wants to bid more hearts, I am all for it." Similarly,
Masse24 thinks the hand "Enough to probe for game. This shows my values and where I live."
John Carruthers response makes sense to me: "Bidding my suit. I'd love to see a raise; wouldn't you."
3 ♦ 60 BWP 22% BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Although most won't admit it,
Sami Kehela identifies his call accurately: "The Twenty-First-Century panacea: If you don't know what to do, cue-bid."
Eric Rodwell decides "I must do something strong with this many values. Three clubs is a possibility, but the hand has too much potential for hearts for that. I'll gamble that hearts is a playable strain and let pard decide."
Kit Woolsey: "This hand has invitational strength, and we may belong in hearts even if partner has only a five-card suit. A double would show more spades, and even if three clubs were forcing (I think it isn't), it wouldn't be so helpful."
Eric Kokish: "Double would be too dangerous without four-plus spades, and three clubs would be nonforcing and a club short. These cards are fine for hearts, even with only two."
Phillip Alder says "Ugh. But double could lead to a spade contract with the long-trump hand being tapped to death."
Problem H 3/4 (Peuco, BluBayou)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 4 3
♥ 10 6
♦ K Q 10 2 ♣ K 10 5 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1 ♣
Pass 1
♦ Pass 1 NT*
Pass 3 NT (All Pass)
*May be 4=4=2=3, 4=3=3=3, or 3=4=3=3.
What is your opening lead?
[BWS: queen-lead requests jack.]
The opening lead on this hand rates to be a real crap shoot. As the moderator,
David Berkowitz, points out "Searching for a long suit with a nonvulnerable partner that he could not mention at the one-level is nuts." Add to that, both suits mentioned by the oppenents are also your best suits. So do you attack one your best suits or try to hit a partner who had opportunities to help but failed to provide that assistance.
John Carruthers describes it as "The most difficult and the most-unappetizing lead problem I've ever seen. West will have real diamonds and no major, so I'm reluctant to lead a diamond. Partner did not squeak one of a major, so I don't want to pick up an honor in his hand. My second choice, the spade jack, could blow the whole suit. The club lead needs North to have the ace, queen, jack or nine to have a chance."
♦ K 50 BWP 11% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
Diamonds is the strongest suit, but West should have real diamonds; this is a strength vs. strength situation.
Adam Grossack is gambling that the one-diamond response was a temporizing action: "Matchpoints. I'm not sure how fast or slow tricks will be, so I choose a mildly-passive, possible-trick-building lead. People respond one diamond to one club on many hand-types."
Kit Woolsey is more straightforward: "No suit is promising, so I'll lead strongest. No doubt I'll find the ace on my right and the jack of left, but if I led a low diamond those cards would magically trade places."
♠ 3/4 100 BWP 37% BWS 24% IAC 20%
Bruce Rogoff argues for the Panel plurality, that "Any lead could blow up that suit. A minor has the additional risk of hitting th opponent' eight-card fit and losing timing to set up a long card. To set up some tricks, a spade needs less from partner than a heart."
Carl Hudecek adds "The most-passive lead. ... I prefer passive, because the opponents made no attempt to find a major-suit fit."
Eric Kokish feels "A heart lead might be safe if North has five, but a spade combines passive and aggressive with the possibility of finding the best switch later."
Eric Stoltz: "Partner could not bid at the one-level, and I do not want to start one of the opponents' suits, so I lead my better major."
BluBayou is "Tempted to hit partner with the heart ten, but then he has enough to squeek "1
" over opp's 1D response, no prolly not. so I will hope spades are 4-3-3-3 with him having the thirteener. Since all four suits look like opening leader is endplayed, 'I hate lead problems'!"
Eric Rodwell doesn't "... want to commit to a particular minor. The heart ten is more likely to cause us damage than a spade (especially when partner not seeing the nine, places me with heart length)."
Bart Bramley: "Better major. No reason to be a genius. Just because East-West
might have a major doesn't mean they
do have a major."
Robert Wolff "I'd rather that my jack of spades were the ten, but I forget the minor suits and deem the heart ten more likely than a spade to lose a trick."
Chip Martel "Ugly, but fairly safe and might be productive. All four suits are reasonable choices."
JCreech initially said"With all of my strength in the opponent's suits, I like trying to hit partner. Since he was not gracious enough to tell me which major is his, I have to guess. I have two reasons to try spades first: I have the jack and I have three. The jack may help set up the suit more than the
10, and since I rate to get in more frequently than partner, it provides more 'safe' exit cards from my hand than hearts."
Peuco: "3 S is the nemesis of NT the saying goes here"
♣ 3 80 BWP 30% BWS 16% IAC One solver
Then there were adherants for the second-best suit.
Gary Cohler argues "Why guess a short major when partner didn't bid? With diamonds behind me, that suit doesn't look promising. A club could blow a trick, but leading a major could pick up an entire suit."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn say "Partner didn't bid, so we suspect lack of a lead to direct. We don't love a club, but the major-suit leads are fraught with danger too."
Hoki writes "Nothing appeals. Who does like lead problems?" While
Phillip Alder seems to shrug: "Any choice could cost, any suit would work here."
♥ 10 60 BWP 19% BWS 44% IAC 70%
Ron Gerard speaks well for the solver's choice: "There are a ton of distributions where East holds four-plus clubs, in which case partner has five-plus hearts, so why should I blow out a whole suit? Even four hearts with North might be sufficient. Going passive is indicated, whether partner has a two-count or an ace more. Look at the minor-suit spot cards before launching one of those missiles." Others have much less well-thought-out reasons. For
JCreech it was a search for company: "A different type of chicken. I still want to hit partner, but I have been hurt these past two months with lone-wolf actions that I still like, just not the points that accompany those positions. I will go with the unbid suit that has company."
Jason Feldman felt "Everything else seems worse."
Jeff Alexander is "Hoping not to do too much damage. A club at imps."
Masse24 wants to go "Passive. My gut reaction lead without much thought. If I think hard I may go in another direction."
Larry Cohen fears "A low-spade lead might induce partner's placing me with four-plus spades and going wrong later on." But I like
Jeff Ruben's answer best "But delaying the lead as long as possible to increase the chance that the game will be rained out before I play."
This concludes Part 3. I hope you have taken something useful from these comments. Meanwhile, please take part in February contest that is coming close to conclusion. As always, we welcome simple participation, but value any reasoning you would like to add to your answers. Good luck to all.