My initial thoughts:

Problem A:  3   Seems like the best description; it shows nearly half my hand in terms of suit, and my values. My other choice was the inverted raise promising at least one more diamond or something worse.  I could trot out 1 NT, but with nothing higher than a nine, that begs disaster from my side.

Problem B:  2   Best description again.  That diamond suit looks like six, and partner has only promised four hearts and three clubs if 4-4-2-3; the percentages suggest that partner has more clubs, but I would rather play in diamonds opposite a stiff or void than clubs opposite xxx.

Problem C:  3   This is close; if we were red, I would regard the try as automatic, but white at imps, pushing for game is not as important.  With opener sitting behind me, I think it is worth the try for game. 

Problem D:  3 NT  The values are about right, the stop (with potential for a second stop) is right, the question is whether we have the tricks.

Problem E:  2   This is why I like playing weak NT; I bid my NT and follow partner's lead.  On this auction, I have a decent suit to rebid, but tend to promise more length.  Partner's negative double just forced me to rebid a five-bagger when a Moysian is not particularly good (especially in hearts where I would be ruffing with an honor).

Problem F:  Pass  This definitely feels like an underbid, but where am I headed.  I need help for a notrump stopper.  In spades, the wrong hand is tapped.  If partner has three or four diamonds, that would be good, but difficult to get to except with a negative double and you are more likely to hear spades than diamonds.  And clubs, you need partner to have at least five. If partner has a good hand, we will have another chance to bid; he is clearly short in hearts.

Problem G:  2 NT  What I really want is 3 forcing for one-round, then if partner rebids hearts, I can bid notrump.  2NT and 3NT are both possibilities, but I really do not want to hear partner bidding 4 next.

Problem H:  J  Trying dummy's second suit.  It sounds like declarer has the club control, so maybe the king is well placed, and my trump length may give some problems, but I don't want to advertise.  A heart looks wrong with LHO bidding the suit and I don't know if the top honors are together or split yet.  That leaves diamonds, the sequence is also suggestive.

Problem A:  3NT  I have had some of Hoki's concerns about 3NT and had just about pulled the trigger on 4 , when I took a moment to construct a minimum where partner might have bid as they have in the problem:  ♠ x   ♥ QJxxx   ♦ KTx   ♣ AKQx.  I think partner could have a bit more, but I think KT8x should be sufficient to tie up the spades long enough to scramble nine tricks.
 
Problem B  2 It is tempting to splinter on this, but the purpose of a splinter is to show fit (check) and highlight the side suits (no check).  There is one side-suit that is also of splinter length.  So I will show partner where I live before I show the fit.

Problem C 4   Really torn on this one, more because of the options not available.  If partner had started with one heart, I would have had the impossible spade to show the big club fit.  Now I only seem to have various levels of club raises, and how high is largely a guess.  I have wonderful controls, but limited values, and a lot of clubs.  I have no presumption that 4 is forcing, but it should be invitational

Problem D  Double I have roughly invitational values and not so distributional that I could not bear to hear partner pass.  But the real point is that partner could have four spades, two hearts or a willingness to play in 3NT if balanced.  At matchpoints I feel we need to compete here.

Problem E  3   I with Hoki, in that I am not certain that I want push the opponent's into game.  The advantage of 3 is that it helps partner with the lead if they play in the presumed heart contract and it hasn't necessarily given up on spades.  I guess what I am saying is that it is a more flexible bid, with distinct immediate advantages.

Problem F 3   Torn between going low with 3 amd high with a Western cue.  At IMPs not-vulnerable, I will aim low and hope the Panel is not hungry for a game.

Problem G  Double  I can always leap about in diamonds later, but we may have a heart fit.  And knowledge of the double fit may be critical before the end.

Problem H A  This is such a terrible lot to lead from, I can only think about the invitation via clubs (btw my best suit), so the key may be to find out and knockout the side entry.  So I am leading the spade ace to look at dummy and figure out what to attack next.


SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Fredericksburg VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace

I apologize for not being able to do this with more flair.

VeredK won this month with 730.  Close behind were Hoki with 720 and YleeXotee with 710.  VeredK and Hoki also made this month's honor role.  Congratulations!

Also participating were BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, JCreech, Masse24, WackoJack.

July MSC SUMMARY (Part 3) – David Berkowitz, Director

Problem F  3 NT  (BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, WackoJack, YleeXotee, BluBayou, Hoki, CCR3, VeredK)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J   ♥ A 10 9 4   ♦ Q J 5   ♣ J 9 6 5 4

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

What call do you make?

Partner has announced a moose, and the opponents throwing up a minor barrage in diamonds.  Of course, partner's suit is your singleton jack in spades, you have a stop in diamonds and length in the round suits (including the heart ace).  How should you approach this promising collection?

3 NT   100   BWP 56%   BWS 78%  IAC 100%
In a problem with the majority is across the board, Iain Sime is right on the money: "Hamman's Law.  If three notrump is where the matchpoints are, we need to bid it now."  Where is Todd?  Masse24 "I've shown values with my initial pass. This is sort of an interesting call since it conveys the nature of my hand. Partner is clearly short in diamonds, so will likely make another call. But if he passes, that's okay."  He is making the bid without giving the credit.  Robert Wolff: "Most descriptive bid available, although the hand is somewhat heavy."  Bart Bramley: "Obvious?"  DickHy thinks "For the 2 , partner could be balanced 22-24 (with Kx or xx) in diamonds.  That’s unlikely as E would then be ATxxx and W xxx, which seem rather meagre holdings for their bidding even if they are white v red.  Partner’s probably unbalanced and a tad stronger.  However, this is an opportunity to show my stops in the other suits.  Partner can still carry on."  JCreech is "Showing stoppers and some decent general values, but not much of a spade fit.  I wish I had a second spade, but perhaps I can borrow one from one of the round suits."  Danny Kleinman: "Anther fast ball down the middle."  Hoki worries a bit: "If my earlier pass shows at least something, then this does not have to end the auction."  But Zia is with him:  "I hope this won't end the auction."  Gary Cohler also has concerns:  "A little heavy, but there are some wasted values.  This keeps the auction low and might allow partner to show a side four-card suit.  If he bids four spades, I will control-bid hearts."  Wackojack "First thoughts were that I am too strong to bid 3NT. Say partner has ♠ AKQ10xx, ♥ Kxx, ♦x, ♣ AKQ.  Then would we miss the ♣ or ♠ slam?  OTOH this is match point pairs and perhaps we should go for the certain 3NT +1 or +2."  Alan Sontag: "Partner has a chance to bid another suit or perhaps to cue-bid."  Now we start to feel the certainty that the auction is not over.  Eric Rodwell thinks "It is possible at these colors that partner has two low diamonds.  WHat other bid is more descriptive?  The hand lacks the values and the diamond holding for four notrump..  If North pulls, I'll be better placed."  John Carruthers argues that "We might make slam in spades (or clubs); if so, I hope partner will bid on.  We'll be away to the races if he bids four clubs."  And Sami Kehela believes "It's odds-on that North will remove, and we will then proceed to more-profitable ventures."

Where else might we go, if not notrump?

4 ♣   60   BWP 15%   BWS 10% IAC No solvers
One option is to bid your length.  Phillip Alder's assessment: "No doubt three notrump will enjoy popularity with the panel, but could lose in either of two ways; We go down there or we miss a slam."  Kit Woolsey thinks there is "No reason not to bid the five-card suit.  We could belong in clubs or have a slam in any of three strains.  Kerri and Steve Sanborn points to the more general strength: "Even with three low diamonds, this hand would be strong than a double negative."  And Larry Cohen finds the hand "Too strong for three notrump (I love the spade jack).  Wrong hand for four diamonds (whether or not that shows a diamond control)."

4 ♥   80   BWP 11%   BWS 1% IAC No solvers
Another is to bid your four-card major.  Ron Gerard: "Forcing. ... If partner retreats to four spades, I'll raise.  If North has clubs, I expect him to bid that suit next."  Bruce Rogoff feels the bid is "Forward-going for spades, not a suit that I could have introduced at the two-level."  More convincing to me, Jason Feldman says "With an ace and the jack of trumps, I owe partner more than a game bid."

4 NT   50   BWP 7%   BWS 0% IAC No solvers
You could stick to the popular strain, but suggest a bit in reserve.  Barry Bragin reasoning makes sense: "Natural; with spade support, I would cue-bid."  As does Eric Kokish: "If North is short in diamonds, we can finish in spades or clubs, but there is no bid over three spades that gets the strength across.  Saying that the diamond queen-jack are worthless would be presumptuous."

4 ♠   70   BWP 11%   BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Or you could raise with your Jackleton (to borrow from an earlier Panelist).  Billy Eisenberg thinks it "More comfortable than three notrump with only a single stopper."  Jeff Rubens points out that "The diamond quacks don't rate to be worth much on offense; if those are discounted, this is at worst a mild underbid, and even nonvulnerable interference suggests bad breaks."  Steve Gardner: "If three notrump is in the ballpark where fans gather to witness another October demise, I'll play it safe and avoid getting called out at the plate."

I'm with Adam Grossack who did bid 3NT:  "One working card and slow diamonds."  If all partner needs is one card from us, we will hear from him again, but let's show the slow stopper and give partner the maximum room to describe his hand if he wants to bid on.




Problem G  3   (Hoki)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 6   ♥ J 5 2   ♦ A K Q 4 3   ♣ A K Q 10

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       2 ♥       Pass      Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: four of a minor = that minor plus spades (forcing); 4 ♥ = spades plus a minor

What call do you make?

This such a powerful hand, but the concentration of values in two suits makes it uncertain what direction to take.  Then add into the equation that the opponents preempted in your Jxx suit and you are sitting in the balancing seat.  As expected with an MSC problem, the solution is not obvious, nor satisfactory.
 
3 ♦   100   BWP 48%   BWS 29% IAC One solver
The top choice for the Panel seems like a give-up; a simple overcall in the balance seat just does not feel like it communicates the power of the hand.  Perhaps that is why Hoki, the only IAC solver to make the choice said: "Hmmm, no comment."  The comments from the Panel are not much more useful than to say there was a fear of a misfit, their best suits were minors, and going low was the best shot to make a plus.  To me, the best analysis for the winning choice was John Carruthers': "I'm usually more of an optimist, but for three notrump I need not only a half-stop in hearts but also big help in spades.  At least the game I may miss is nonvulnerable."  Bart Bramley: "Pass is too deep for me.  Anything at the four-level could be too high.  When in doubt, bid the long suit."  Carl Hudecek thinks "The hand has enough to pass two hearts at this scoring and vulnerability, but I'll go with the field."  Billy Eisenberg makes the bid "Despite the fact that it looks so cowardly."  Danny Kleinman doesn't see a problem: "A third fastball down the middle.  Has Hoyt Wilhelm retired from his job as Problem Setter."  Jeff Rubens: "Unlikely as it may seem, this may be too high."  Similarly, Jason Feldman: "We may not be able to make more on a misfit.  As East didn't raise, I don't like the chance of finding heart shortness with partner."  Barry Bragin: "My imaginary coin flipped to low."  Chip Martel is "Going low with no sensible bid to find a good game."  Robert Wolff: "Very heavy, but four notrump would be a huge gamble and risk playing in the wrong minor."  Iain Sime sums it up reasonably well: "Guessing and hoping that somebody bids."

3 NT   70   BWP 33%   BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Holding Jxx in the opponent's suit makes 3 NT an attractive likely game, but to bid it directly takes, to me, a leap of faith that partner has the right cards.  Bruce Rogoff describes what is needed: "All I need is some diamond length with a few major suit scraps (or even three low hearts and a high spade).  I can't think of any other sequence that will take us there intelligently."  Larry Cohen expresses my fear, but in a nice way:  "It would be fun to score minus 450 the hard way opposite, say, ♠ Q10   ♥ 10xx   ♦ J10xx   ♣ Jxxx, after West leads a low heart to East's singleton king and East shifts to a low spade from ace-seventh."  Alan Sontag thinks it "Right form of scoring for a flight of fancy.  At least I will have a good story no matter which side makes three notrump."  Kit Woolsey says "Sometimes, one must gamble.  This looks to be one of those times.  Three notrump is very likely to be where we belong, and there is no sensible way to find out anything."  Gary Cohler: "Who knows?  Everything is flawed, so take a shot for the matchpoints.  Nobody has solid hearts any more."  Although Masse24 chose differently, he made these arguments for 3 NT: "I've shown values with my initial pass. This is sort of an interesting call since it conveys the nature of my hand. Partner is clearly short in diamonds, so will likely make another call. But if he passes, that's okay."  Zia: "Imperfect?  Pluperfect?  Never could get those right."  Eric Rodwell: "No heart raise makes me hopeful of buying an okay dummy.  Therre is substantially too much strength for three diamonds.  Double would be too likely to generate a later four-spade correction (and converting that to five diamonds might not work well)."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn: "The modern game."  The last word to Steve Gardner: "Time to put an end to my rather-dull habits."

3 ♥   40   BWP 7%   BWS 28%  IAC 44%
If 3 NT is a legitimate goal, then why is the cue-bid asking for heart help given such short shrift in the scoring?  True, you need help with more than just hearts, but hearts are the devil the whole table is aware of, while spades it the devil you are hoping to keep hidden.  Ron Gerard is "Asking for a stopper.  I'm tempted to pass and to play for hundreds, but I had this vision of partner's holding:  ♠ Axxxx   ♥ x   ♦ J10xx   ♣ xxx.  If North advances three spades, I will bid four diamonds."  Masse24: "Too strong to pass. Not right to double. That leaves this ambiguous cuebid. Hopefully, we can agree on a suit."  WackoJack: "I think shows the minors.  Problem:  What if partner then bids 3♠? I think I will bid 3NT and hold my breath."  JCreech: "Is it asking for a stopper or a minor two-suiter?  The hints all include spades, so a simple cue might hit my two suits.  Otherwise, all I can think of is double and pull spades to clubs to show the other two suits.  Time enough to mull this a while longer."

Double   50   BWP 11%   BWS 22%  IAC 22%
If spades is the flaw with a cue-bid asking for a heart stop, it is more of am issue for double.  At least when asking for a stopper, you can  be certain that if partner bid spades, they have a lot of spades.  If they bid spades after a double, they may be trying to keep the auction low with only three.  DickHy has a sensible plan for most situations.  "I’ll bid 3 over 2 or try not to go nuts over 3 .  I’ll break a 2N Lebensohl transfer with 3 .  If partner was intending to continue 3 (showing 4c spades and a heart stop), he can bid 3N."  While Sami Kehela is hoping that "Having passed over two hearts, partner is unlikely to offer a punishing four spades, perhaps leaving us room to alight in an acceptable trump suit."  And Adam Grossack thinks "Partner is unlikely to escalate to four spades, so I can correct to notrump."







Problem H  6  (YleeXotee, WackoJack, VeredK, JCreech, Masse24, Hoki)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 9 7   ♥ 5 3   ♦ K Q J 8 6 5 2   ♣ 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♦       2 ♣      Double
  Pass      2 NT     Pass      3 ♠
  Pass      3 NT     Pass      4 ♥
  Pass      Pass      Pass
What is your opening lead?

LHO opened your seven-bagger, partner overcalled in clubs, and RHO made a negative double.  LHO now bid notrump while RHO insisted on a major.  With no four-card major, I think dummy will come down with something like 0=3=5=5 or 1=3=5=4.  With 11 or 12 diamonds, between dummy and my hand, a diamond lead is probably just a waste of tempo.  You are also unlikely to ever be on lead again, so either you lead a trump or partner's clubs.

♥ 3 5   50   BWP 18% BWS 18%  IAC 22%
If partner had not bid, this would be a no-brainer; Barry Bragin: "On a preference auction, lead a trump.  East might shed a club on the diamond ace, but cutting down spade ruffs in dummy is more likely to pay dividends."  Going with their general bridge instincts are:  Steve Gardner: "I hope that partner can play the ace and another trump."  Billy Eisenberg: "Partner is likely to have four-plus spades, so I'll try to protect his holding."  Eric Kokish: "The auction suggests that dummy will be short in declarer's main suit, so with the minors locked up (sort of) this feels right."

♣ 6   100   BWP 81% BWS 69%  IAC 67%
But partner did bid!  Jeff Rubens says "When in doubt, I have a strong bias toward leading partner's suit."  Similarly, JCreech: "When partner bids, I like to respect the effort by leading the suit.  It also helps that the no-trumper is between my lead and partner's suit.  The safe lead feels like the K - the outstanding diamonds might be split 1-1 or 2-0, but it might be good to get rid of the ace early."  Larry Cohen: "I suppose I'll need to wait to find out why I shouldn't woodenly lead partner's suit."  Ron Gerard: "I can hear the post-mortem: Would you have led a club if I had bid diamonds?  I don't mastermind on opening lead."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn "Don't want to explain later to partner why there was an endplay after a diamond lead."  Carl Hudecek: "Partner bid clubs.  This is my only chance to put a club through."  Bruce Rogoff thinks "East has suggested a weakish six-five, but he was willing to risk partner's passing the double, which suggests a doubleton club."  Kit Woolsey: "East figures to be six-five.  A club through dummy may be necessary."  Adam Grossack says "I'm a simple man.  I'll lead through the dummy's clubs."  John Carruthers: "East who has shown 10-plus cards in the majors, is much more likely to be void of diamonds than North, who has shown six-plus cards in clubs.  I could lead a trump, but leading a club is unlikely to impact our ability to cut down spade ruffs."  Jason Feldman sees it as "The only chance to put a club through, but it wouldn't surprise if a trump worked best."  Masse24 "I'm not imaginative enough to come up with something better." but then Todd never saw a lead problem he has liked.  Though Danny Kleinman has the best reason to lead something other than partner's suit: "But if I hope to dump my current partner, the diamond king." 



This ends the discussion for the July MSC problems.  I hope you found it thought provoking.

We are a bit more than a week out of having the next set of answers due, so please partake.  As some are wont to say "Come on in, the water's fine."  All participants are welcome, and despite the Panel's opinions, there are seldom any truly wrong answers; in most instances, you will find at least some in the Panel or at least some percentage of the solvers that will agree with your choice unless you severely misread the problem.

July MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – David Berkowitz, Director

Problem 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.

July Results

Hoki led the IAC solvers with 710. VeredK came in second with 640, while JCreech and Masse24 were close behind with 620.

The Bridge World honor roll this month required a minimum of 680 (Hoki was the only one making the honor roll). A low scoring--and very difficult--month.

NAME	BW-SCORE
Hoki	710
VeredK	640
JCreech	620
Masse24	620

Also participating this month were:  BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, WackoJack, YleeXotee.

Congratulations to all!

Blu,

Passing 1 makes a lot of sense.  The best reason with this hand to bid is to block the opponents from coming in cheaply.  That was Robert Wolff's point when he passed 3 :  "Which I might have done last turn but didn't lest West enter in clubs."

If you are looking for a game, this 6 HCP rag is just not likely to produce one unless partner is either highly distributional or has a decently fitting 19 of his own.  In either case, opposite a passed hand, I would expect partner to jump shift to announce, "I want to be in game opposite virtually any ordinary response."  If partner is unable to jump shift, then I would be willing to pass.

That does raise questions about what a raise of a non-jump shift suit should mean. 

One possible meaning is Bobby's blocking bid; if that is the meaning, then no one should be taking another move beyond 2 . 

The other is you have a maximum for your minimum response; a value-oriented game-try.  This caters to hands that are short of a jump-shift and are inappropriate for opening a strong NT.  That seems to be the expectation of the North bidders, or they should be passing 2 .  If that is the case, why are so many of the Panelists accepting the game-try after making a blocking bid. 

Few things are worse in bridge than a partnership bidding at cross purposes.

This is a problem where I would really like to see the other hand after all is said and done.