July MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – David Berkowitz, DirectorProblem A 5 (CCR3, BluBayou, Hoki)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K Q 6 5
♥ Q J 9 2
♦ 5 ♣ A J 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 3
♦Double Pass 4
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
You have 17 HCPs with nearly perfect shape for a takeout double when RHO opens 3
. However, partner threw the ball back into your court by cue-bidding 4
showing at least two places to play. You do have both majors and he has at least one, so you have several options available.
5 ♦ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 48% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 38% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 1 solver
Nearly half of the Panel threw the ball back to partner. As
Hoki puts it: "The plan is to settle for slam in the suit of partner's choice."
Robert Wolff describes one variation: "Then bid six diamonds over five of a major as a general grand-slam-try. ... Few partnerships have discussed what six diamonds means here." While
Bart Bramley describes another: "Driving to slam. Will raise a major to six. We lack the tools to reach seven or to avoid six." And
Chip Martel offers a third: "May drive us too high, but four of a major could miss a good slam. I will pass five of a major." Maybe a slam is not automatic after all. Oh well, back to the slammers. Bruce Rogoff feels the hand is "A little too strong to settle for game. The risk of going down at the five-level is far lower than the likelihood of missing a cold slam by going low."
Kit Woolsey: "Picture North with e.g.: ♠ Jxxx
♥ AKxx
♦ xx ♣ Kxx, where playing slam in the four-four fit is critical. This sort of layout is very likely; I will raise five hearts to six."
Gary Cohler: "Hate to hang partner, but the right 10-count produces a slam, Might need to reach hearts if we need a club pitch." Aye, that's the rub; as
Iain Sime says "If partner stretched to find a fit, five hearts may prove tenuous, but North would often pass four hearts and miss a slam." Nonetheless, several point to the extras that need to be shown.
Eric Kokish: "Too strong for four hearts; four spades would deny four-plus hearts."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn: "North was willing to commit to the four-level, so it is important to show the extras."
BluBayou: "A simple jump to 5
looked fine to me at first, but why shouldn't that show an even bigger hand with two diamond losers??"
4 NT 40 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 5% IAC 22%
Some take the bull by the horns.
Sami Kehela describes "A cunning strategem designe to determine how many aces partner holds." WackoJack says "I would like to ask partner how many Aces. If 2 then I ask for kings. How do I do that? I think 4NT must be asking for aces. So 4NT." While
DickHy is concerned about the meaning of the bid: "4
shows both majors, so we’re playing in spades. 4
seems wimpish, as I would have bid the same with KQxxx in spades, but how is slam best investigated? 5
or 5N seem blind shots. What would 4N be? If it’s Blackwood, I can bid 5
, 6
, 5N after 5
, 5
, and 5
respectively. That seems ok. If 4N is summat else, I'll get a kicking -- two actually, one from myself too"
4 ♠ 80 BWP 26% BWS 28% IAC 33%
What is partner showing with his 4
cue-bid? Some throw out some possible hands to demonstrate the variety that partner may have.
Danny Kleinman: "With significant extras and an unexpectedly good suit, I'm tempted to do more. But North might hold, e.g.: ♠ xxxx
♥ xxxx
♦ Axx ♣ KQ."
John Carruthers: "Not smart enough to distinguish between: ♠ Jxxx
♥ AK10x
♦ xx ♣ Kxx and: ♠ Jxxxx
♥ AK10xx
♦ x ♣ xx. Very tricky to reach hearts." As
Zia points out: "Underbid? Misbid? Maybe both, but a plus score. Four diamonds is wide-range."
JCreech settles for the obvious: "Too many things to show, so I will show that I have a fine suit and that I have extras. Anything beyond that partner will have to ask."
Masse24 feels "Partner may simply have a choice of games for his 4
call. I've already shown extras by doubling at the three level. While I do have a bit more, I'm going to allow partner to make the slam move."
Phillip Alder argues that the bid "Could cost a slam, but perhaps partner overbid to ensure finding the right fit."
Eric Rodwell agrees "We could have a good slam, but partner might bid on. He could be stretching to find the best game with four-four majors and an 8-count or even have 3=3=2=5 and about a 10-count."
Carl Hudecek settles: "Many North hands won't make slam, many more make us laydown for slam. With slam interest, partner can bid again."
5 NT 60 BWP 15% BWS 6% IAC No solvers
Some offer a choice of slams immediately.
Steve Garner says "I expect partner to hold a minimum game-force with both majors, but he might have a four-card major and longer clubs. I'll try five notrump to ask partner to pick a slam." Barry
Bragin is "Offering a choice of strain caters to North's 2=4=2=5; I will correct six clubs to six hearts." Adam Grossack: "I want to try to reach six hearts, in case North holds, e.g.: ♠ Jxxx
♥ AKxx
♦ xx ♣ Kxx. I'll bid six hearts over six of a minor. This highlights my lack of first-round diamond control." And
Larry Cohen entertains higher yet aspirations: "Too strong for only four spades, and five spades might be interpreted incorrectly. I'll leave room for partner to bid six diamonds to try to reach seven."
5 ♠ 50 BWP 7% BWS 6% IAC No solvers
While others are still only inviting, but is the meaning clear?
Billy Eisenberg thinks so: "Natural seems a logical meaning." And
Jeff Rubens seems willing to play in five in spades, but forces partner to choose a slam alternative in another strain: "With an ace-value extra, a strong suit, and slam-oriented values, a positive move is necessary. North knows I am prepared for a run from spades."
Problem B 3 (Masse24, JCreech, BlyBayou, CCR3)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 6 2
♥ 7 4 3
♦ A K 8 5 ♣ A 10 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♦ Pass 2 ♣* Pass
?
*BWS: game-force
What call do you make?
You have opened 1
with a traditional, square minimum, and partner has responded with a game-forcing 2/1, one suit below yours. Do you show support, your shape, or something else?
2 NT 90 BWP 41% BWS 38% IAC 56%
A majority of the IAC solvers preferred to show shape on this hand, with roughly 40% of the BW Panel and solvers joining them.
Zia declares "A weak notrump is still a weak notrump, positional or not."
WackoJack writes "I have a balanced 13 so I must show that by bidding 2NT. OK what could go wrong? Suppose partner had ♠x,
♥AQx,
♦Qxx, ♣KQJxxx. Then I would expect him to bid 3♣ and we get to the reasonable 5♣ contract. Suppose partner had ♠Jx,
♥Axx,
♦Qxx, ♣KQJxx and you raise to 3♣. Then only poor bidding will get you to the making 3NT. So 2NT it is."
Robert Wolff: "I prefer this general approach."
Chip Martel: "Best to show the general nature of the hand rather than make an ambiguous bid such as three clubs. Might wrongside three notrump, but may need to protect spade queen."
Sami Kehela: "It would be less vexing if you were to provide more of these uncomplicated problems. A good case for the feeble notrump."
Gary Cohler: "A flat, minimum hand. Worry about stoppers later rather than distort now."
Eric Rodwell "I don't love it, but I must define the hand-type. Strongly dislike three clubs with only three."
John Carruthers: "Describing the nature of the hand is more important than trying to place the notrump declaration 'correctly.'"
Adam Grossack: "Depends on style, but with 4-3-3-3 opener should bid notrump. Maybe partner has three low hearts."
Larry Cohen: "Partner won't bid three notrump with a singleton heart. Describe the hand-type and don't distort. If partner has ten-low-low or jack-low-low of hearts, someone must bid notrump."
Kit Woolsey: "A perfect description of hand-type. If there is a heart problem and the contract is wrongsided, too bad. Anything else would be a distortion." This time
Hoki is determined to follow the Panel: "Normally I would raise to 3♣ and move on, but these panelists seem to prefer to show shape and not care about such piffling matters as stoppers." But
DickHy is concerned about possible flaw in the auction "Presumably 2
may not be a real suit. Qxx isn’t a stop but I’m not promising one with 2N, a bid which describes the hand well." Yes, Dick, Qxx is not a full stop in spades, but you seem to be neglecting another unbid suit, with even less at the top. It is hands like this that have convinced that it is often best to get your hand and shape out of your system at bid one; I have been a weak notrumper for nearly 40 years, and reminded why nearly every time I play strong notrump.
3 ♣ 100 BWP 44% BWS 48% IAC 33%
For those who raise,
Carl Hudecek brings out an important point: "A KISS from me. The bulk of the hand is in the minors."
Bruce Rogoff reminds us of our heart problem: "This can still take us to notrump. Bidding notrump now would condemn us to that strain when partner has a balanced minimum with two low hearts."
Eric Kokish: "Good layout for an artificial two hearts to show a balanced hand. Don't like two diamonds when it's not necessary."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn has read the system notes: "Per system, opener may raise on a minimum." And
Jeff Rubens is hardly ruling out the higher scoring option: "Looks best for making a sensible decision about three notrump." One way to think of it is
Iain Sime's "Set up a base camp, then explore."
JCreech thinks "Despite my balanced shape, I think it is right to show support. Except for the
Q, the values are generally better for suit contracts. If we belong in NT, it should be from partner's side of the table."
Ron Gerard says "I like to have more (in high cards or in clubs) for this raise, but I don't see what two diamonds would accomplish."
Bart Bramley considers "Two notrump is tempting, but that would be more of a matchpoint move. Raise with support and let nature take its course."
Masse24 thinks the problem to be "Somewhat of a system agreement question. I believe that over 1
a 2
response shows 5+. A 2
rebid in this auction absolutely shows 5+, so that is out. And although my shape is right for 2NT, my "stoppers" are lacking. So . . . support with support."
Barry Bragin: "The most likely final contracts are three notrump and five clubs. Every effort must be made to mae partner the declarer."
Steve Gardner: "I feel a little guilty about misdescribing the hand-type, but raising may improve partner's hand evaluation. Change the club ace to the spade ace and I'd bid two notrump."
2 ♦ 50 BWP 15% BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Although this response was not on my radar,
Danny Kleinman has reasonable rationale: "After adopting this policy, I learned that Al Roth may have devised it first: two diamonds shows 13 cards and nothing special to say. I'd bid the same way if the eight of diamonds were the eight of hearts."
Billy Eisenberg makes the choice largely for the same reason that many chose to raise: "Two notrump looks worse with such weak majors."
Problem C 3 (VeredK, BluBayou)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 3 2
♥ K Q 10 4 3 2
♦ A ♣ J 5 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♥ Pass 2 ♣ Pass
2
♥ Pass 3
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
You have opened and rebid your nice, but less than wonderful six-card heart suit, while partner has put on a game force with 2
, and followed that with 3
. How to proceed?
3 ♥ 100 BWP 37% BWS 28% IAC 22%
The easiest thing to do is soldier on; you don't particularly like your fit with either of partner's suits, and yours is headed by KQ10.
Jeff Rubens thinks "The suit is strong enough for trumps opposite two low or a singleton honor, so it would be misleading to bypass it."
Ron Gerard: "Need to let partner know that singleton jack is okay trump support. If we need to play in three notrump from my side, I can bid it next over three spades. Supporting clubs would be premature until North clarifiess his club intentions."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn say "No reason to take up extra space when we have a suit playable opposite honor-doubleton (or even stiff ace) if partner has two low spades."
Billy Eisenberg thinks it "Obvious to show the sixth heart."
Danny Kleinman: "If I don't bid this, partner will never imagine that I have six hearts."
BluBayou: "12 points, pretty-good 6-card suit looks like "1H...2H...3H" to me. no need to commit to some half-baked third bid when pard can steer us to port with HIS 3rd bid." However,
Jason Feldman says "I'm unsure of the best game; this leaves room to get more information from partner." Similarly,
Chip Martel writes: "Must show a good six-card suit lest we miss a good four hearts. Partner could be 3=1=4=5 with three low spades, so I also must leave him a three-spade bid to let me bit three notrump." Many are thinking of notrump.
Barry Bragin points to a past problem: "Similar to November 2021 (E), where three notrump will be best only if partner can bid it."
Larry Cohen: "Don't want to bypass three notrump. If partner bids it now, I will pass. Think."
DickHy "Qxx isn’t a stop and I would be promising one with a bid of 3N. There is the 'I’ve shown a stop in the bidding so don’t need one in my hand' approach, I guess. My 2
may not show 6-card suit, 3
would. Partner has choices then: 4
(with two hearts), 3N with a spade stop, 4m with more shapely minors and 3
asking for a spade stop. With the last two, I’ll sign-off with 5
."
Eric Rodwell: "The spade stopper is tenuous; if pard punts with three spades, I will bid three notrump."
3 NT 50 BWP 15% BWS 13% IAC No solvers
Taking a leap of faith that Qxx will be a good-enough stopper in spades are the three notrumpers, but those making the bid clearly have issues. For example,
Carl Hudecek says "I would like the hand more for a club contract if it had another diamond, or if my spade honor were the king."
Adam Grossack thinks he's sending a message: "Don't like the hand; want to make a negative noise." And
Phillip Alder is trying to ask a question: "How many spades do you have, partner?"
3 ♠ 60 BWP 22% BWS 29% IAC 78%
JCreech describes the fourth suit in this auction as "A punt. I am still not certain about the strain, and I don't want to bypass 3NT when that is a possibility. Second choice is 3NT based on Hamman's Law." Similarly,
John Carruthers is "Marking time. If North bids be yond three notrump, I'll support clubs."
Bart Bramley says "Keeps all viable strains in play. Partner will know that a partial spade stop is enough, since he couldn't bid two notrump last round."
Kit Woolsey thinks "Three notrump is still in the picture; I will pass if partner bids it; otherwise, we will reach clubs or hearts."
Masse24 is "Showing something, but not enough to bid 3NT."
WackoJack: "First of all, after 1
♥-2♣, I believe that if you rebid 2
♥ in this position, then you are showing a 6 card
♥ suit. You have good alternatives with only a 5 card ♥ suit. With say ♠xx,
♥KQJ10x,
♦Axx, ♣Kxx,; then you would raise to 3♣. With say ♠Qxx, ♥KQJ10x, ♦Ax, ♣Jxx you would rebid 2NT (similar to problem B) So when partner bids 3
♦, he has longer clubs than diamonds and not 4♠ and likely singleton
♥. So 3145, 2146 or perhaps even wilder. So I bid the 4th suit 3♠ and partner will bid 3N with 3145 and a partial ♠ guard. Or 4♣ with 2146. If I bid 3♠ now partner should be able to supply the answers. Partner with a strong hand say: ♠Ax,
♥ x,
♦ KQJ10, ♣ AKQxxx will bid 4NT"
Hoki: "I'm reluctant to bid hearts again since that would show seven of them."
Iain Sime wants to "Pass the buck. I fear three quick losers in a club contract." And
Alan Sontag anticipates: "I can hear partner now: 'When did you intend to support my suit?'"
4 ♣ 80 BWP 26% BWS 30% IAC No solvers
Now we hear from those that did raise partner; violating Hamman's Law notwithstanding.
Gary Cohler thinks "Three spades will be popular, but it tells nothing; three hearts would prolong the issue. With a real club fit, I like the clarity of four clubs."
Zia is in sync with Iain, but making the other decision: "Seems North is looking for support, and three spades would be a bit of passing the buck."
Steve Gardner believes that "Three notrump may well be best, but four hearts or five clubs might be better. Why not clue partner in about the club support."
Robert Wolff: "I'll pass five clubs from partner but head toward slam after most alternatives." I think
Eric Kokish's arguments are the best for this choice: "Three spades could put us in three notrump opposite weak spade length and will often catch two-card heart support, but supporting North's first suit when a high club contract is still in play feels cleaner."
This concludes the first part. I hope you found it interesting and/or useful. For those who may be unaware, Eric Kokish recently passed, so his contributions to MSC will sometime in the coming months. His contributions are staggering to the bridge world and he will be missed.