Sorry that my initial responses are also my final responses.  Time slipped away.

Problem A:  3   The Q makes it tempting to bid 3 NT, but I am worried about where the tricks may come from.  With fitting diamonds, partner can retry for 3 NT by bidding hearts, spades or NT.

Problem B:  5 Not sure what 2 means.  As a passed hand, I think it is showing a good passed hand with a fit.  I'm not sure who can make what, but I don't want to guess when the opponents bid 4 , but I think I will get a plus if they bid 5 .

Problem C:  1 NT  The right values and right-siding the hand still outweigh bidding or asking partner to bid the spades

Problem D:  Dbl  This vulnerability scares me to force us to the three-level.  I hope partner will treat this as an equal-level conversion if I pull clubs to diamonds.

Problem E:  2 The void in partner's suit and the jack-sixth length suggest to me be conservative.  This is another hand where if partner can take another move, I will likely bid a game.

Problem F:  1   I would be inclined at the table to bid clubs first, but even with Panel, the clubs feel like a card or two longer than the spades.

Problem G:  3   Bid my outside control, and hope that nine-trick game is a viable alternative.  I really want to bid 4 to continue shape description, but decided to keep 3 NT available

Problem H:  8  The was a who knows sort of lead.  I eliminated the majors first - J may be important stop in that suit and I don't want to pickle any spade holding the partner may have.  The minors seem about equal in terms of both safety and aggession, so I took a bit of negative inference that partner did not double the club keycard response, and decided to play the 8 to be constructive if partner has something in the suit, and suggestive that I don't want the suit led back to me.


SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech

FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 1 Club
PROBLEM G: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Diamond 8

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 ...

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.

Darn it! Why didn't I pass on Problem A?!

And why didn't I stick with my initial answers for C, G and H.  Because I got sucked into believing in, or at least accepting of, a different answer. I got lucky that I really did not get the 400 I deserved for making so many switches, but the zero for an answer I would have never thought of on my own is a reason to stick more to my original choices,  or at least only switch when I was initially tempted (as I was on A).

Thank you, Pat (CCR3), for including your comments.  As one of the most consistently high-scoring contributors, your thoughts are valued.  I don't mean to add pressure, but we are grateful. 

There are others with similar reluctance, that we would also love to see what goes on in their thought process.

For problem B:  we bid  3     with 10x,  10 8 x x, QTxx, Qxx because that is less likely to catch a RAISE, than   3 is.   There is some kind of chance that Mr. Spades may rebid hearts himself  whereupon we can DROP HIM    ( I really am not enthused with this hand, ok?).  One quoted panelist pointed out that partner might pull     3   to a 6-card spade suit,  but leave us in a lousy 3   situation...  All the better for 3   if true.

I am truly shocked, Jock, (with tongue firmly in cheek) I always thought of you as being old-school in choosing length over strength in response to a double.  It is clear from a direct comparison of the heart and diamond suits (as presented by you), that the heart suit is longer and should have been your pick (if not the panel's):

10 8 x x  (hearts)
QTxx       (diamonds).

Congrats on having a better reason for selecting diamonds than any member of the Panel.  In the end, I still think the most likely distribution will be 5=4=3=1 (with the hearts and diamonds equally likely to be either the 4 or 3).  With this shape, I don't see North pulling to spades holding three of the chosen suit; there will be hope that you picked your 5-bagger.  With a 6=3=3=1, including a good 6-bagger, I could see North pulling to spades believing that the risk of a poorish 4-3 too great to leave the contract there.  However, if there is an inclination to pull, I can see the inclination being acted upon more often when the chosen suit is diamonds, than if the chosen suit is hearts.  Spades and the red suit may play equally well, but hearts pays the same as spades; the lower payoff of diamonds increases the greed of being in a major.

Matchpoints is a nasty version of the game.

February MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, Director



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

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 9 8   ♥ A K 4   ♦ K J 7 3 2   ♣ Q 6

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

Partner has made a nebulous cue-bid, and now you have to decide how to respond.  I call it nebulous because you really cannot tell whether the bid is an ask or a tell.  Is it asking for a spade stopper, as the IAC solvers all believe?  Or is it a raise of your diamonds, a suit you freely bid at the three-level, and, if so, what is your next move?

4 ♥   60   BWP 11%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
Carl Hudecek, makes his own cue-bid because "Three spades was a control-bid, showing a fit in diamonds, I assume that partner is void of spades, but the spade ace may not be useless."

3 NT   100   BWP 30%   BWS 46%  IAC 100%
John Hurd says "Seems routine."  No one else seems to agree.  David Berkowitz, for example, points out, "Game first.  Partner's call is not yet a slam-try, it is firstly a punt, e.g.:  ♠ xxx   ♥ Qxx   ♦ Axx   ♣ AKxx.  I must admit to my spade stop.  while I do have extra values, the hand has no direction."  Similarly, Bart Bramley says "Three spades was punt until proven otherwise.  No need to stretch for what might be a thin slam at matchpoints when three notrump will be popular, and I can gain point in the play.  If slam is good, partner may be able to continue."  BluBayou also echos: "Do we all realize that pard's 3 Spades will usually be a waffle?  What can an ordinary opening had lacking a spade card AND a heart suit do after all??  It's too early to get rowdy yet--just do what Hamman says for now"  Masse24: "I worry this is not enough. But let’s see where partner is going with his cuebid. If he passes, we are where we belong."  WackoJack asks "What is partner telling me? Most likely a balanced 12-14 with no spade stop. If so  with my semi balanced hand and the A♠ I must bid 3NT.  Could partner have an unbalanced hand with ♦ support say ♠ x, ♥ Qxxx, ♦ AQx, ♣ AJ10xx when we would want to be in 6♦?  Or even the same with ♣AKxxx when 7♦ is a laydown?  Then partner should take out my 3NT into 4♦ to tell me this news."  YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed."  Nonetheless, there were several that seemed interested in bidding 4 NT if they could be certain of the bid's meaning, or the hand met slightly different criteria.  Boye Brogeland says "The hand is work 3.5 notrump.  I believe that the field would bid three notrump in this situation, so I copy that and hope that partner has a balance hand with 12-14 HCP rather than a good hand with clubs."  JCreech: "The question is whether I am being a wimp by not jumping to 4 NT (hopefully quantitative under the circumstances)."  Fleisher and Friesner: "If we were sure that four notrump would be interpreted as natural, we would bid it - if partner has extras and combined we have a source of tricks in diamonds and/or clubs, slam is likely to be a favorite.  However, this sort of bid is easier to handle in the postmortem than at the table."  Jill Meyers feels the hand has "The values for four notrump but no running suit."  While Oren Kriegel has his own hesitancies:  "Four notrump (or some other forward-going bid) might work out better, but the hand is a bit too light for four notrump, and at matchpoints I don't want to bid a suit."

4 NT   90   BWP 20%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Nonetheless, there was a strong contingent, more certain of the bid's meaning, willing to jump to 4 NT.  Frank Merblum, for example, thinks "Partner either has a weak notrump with no spade stopper or an excellent fit for diamonds.  Four notrump is a natual slam-try with no clear direction."  Eric Kokish says "Three spades is not yet known to represent a powerful hand; rather, it is a grope, perhaps with 3=3=5=2 or a balanced hand with three-card diamond support and modest values lacking a spade guard.  Three notrump may be the last plus, so there is a noose (not a moose) element in bidding anything else.  However, if North has long clubs or diamond support, these cards are good for slam, and the main downside to four notrump is that maybe we can't make it (could be down a lot, in fact)."  Ira Chorush: "Partner's bid is ambiguous in that it tells us nothing about his hand.  It would be mandatory with many weak notrumps, as well as with some very-distributional hands with good clubs and diamonds.  Therefore, we will do best by describing your hand; four notrump shows slam-onvitational values in a balanced hand with a spade stopper."  Joey Silver feels that "With no trump suit agreed, this is natural."  Jerry Stamatov is "Trying to show a little extra, not ideal with ace-low-low of spades."  Phillip Alder: "A tad too much to settle for three notrump."  Kamil and Sherman: "We can't call it a day at three notrump.  This fits best, even if imperfectly.  We'd rather hold king-jack-low of spades, but this is what were dealt."  And Zia asks, "Who knows?  But it's never exactly nine."

4 ♠   70   BWP 15%   BWS 24%  IAC No solvers
Some are not content with simply trying to interpret partner's cue-bid, they see the cue, and raise it one.  Sami Kehela goes with the simple interpretation:  "Partner is probably angling for three notrump, but I have too many values to comply."  Eric Stoltz "Not certain what partner is selling, but I am buying.  Three notrump would be too unilateral and might wrong side the contract, especially as East bid red against white.  I have a potentially-great hand opposite a real club suit and/or a diamond fit."  Robert Wolff feels it is "A fairly easy choice, at least for now.  I'm almost sure we will wind up in at least a small slam."  Danny Kleinman finds the choice "Close between this and pick-a-slam five notrump with the intention of raising partner's reply one level.  Five notrump could get me in trouble if partner replied at the seven-level and I tried to raise."

4 ♣   70   BWP 11%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
The bid I understand least is returning to partner's first-bid suit on Qx when partner's cue-bid is still unclear.  Kit Woolsey wants to "... see if partner has diamond support.  If not, he pretty much must have long clubs, since with four hearts he would have bid three hearts.  This is a huge hand, as North apparently has nothing wasted in spades."  Ralph Katz the cue-bid "... as showing a strong hand, not necessarily a slam-level control.  If partner bids four diamonds, I will face another decision."  John Swanson thinks "The club queen has become such an important card that, along with the controls, there is enough to force to slam.  Four club has the advantage of giving partner options at the four-level, which will provide an opportunity to determine strain and level."



Problem D  2 (VeredK, BluBayou, JCreech)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 6 5   ♥ A J 10 8 3   ♦ 8 5 3 2   ♣ Q J

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠       Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♦      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

An auction that occurs all too frequently.  Partner opens a major, you bid a forcing NT, and partner rebids a minor.  You hold two in partner's major, four in partner's minor, and five in your own major suit.  Three potential places to play, with strengths and weaknesses associated with each.

2 ♥   100   BWP 56%   BWS 25%  IAC 37%
The strength to bidding 2 is that your hand will be worth more tricks than as dummy to one of partner's suits, the weakness is that partner will be expecting six and there is a possibility that diamonds will be a safer contract.  JCreech is "Torn between three weak calls.  The 1 NT has already given partner the warning to tread carefully.  I am going with hearts so my hand will be worth some tricks.  I am hopeful that partner has three having bypassed clubs (though that might indicate real diamonds and a stiff heart)."  While BluBayou says "I have never shown a 5-card red suit after this auction, but.....Jim put a bee in my bonnet:: in hearts, I AM worth some tricks, more than usual COMPARED TO WHAT a crappy dummy this is for spades. we will not speak  of  dropping pard in 2 ,  ok?  ...This TRULY  a "misery preference"  to 2 spades--worse even than  most 6-to-9 with a doubleton trump   compared to the alternative of 2 "  John Swanson thinks the bid "Offers a bit of flexibility, and the suit is worthy enough."  Carl Hudecek seems to just like his hearts:  "I dislike bypassing a good heart suit (by giving partner a spade preference on two low), and I dislike bypassing such good hearts by raising diamonds."  As does Frank Merblum: "Tough hand at matchpoints, but I like the quality of the heart suit."  Jerry Stamatov: "Although partner will expect six hearts, these five are good enough.  On a good day, I will hit partner with 5=3=3=2.  And if North has a singleton heart, he can get back to spades."  Several suggest that they would not bid hearts except holding a specific card.  Billy Eisenberg: "Thanks for the heart ten."  Phillip Alder: "An earlier experience with this hand-type involved bidding two spades with a poor outcome.  That eight of hearts was just too tempting."  Ira Chorush: "Without the eight of hearts, I would bid two spades."  Bart Bramley feels 2 "Should be best when partner has two or more.  Might survive when he has fewer, especially as then North might not pass.  I'm looking at the strong heart interiors, whereas partner's interiors are unknown."  And Sami Kehela points to system uncertainties: "Why not?  In BWS, the partnership could have eight hearts and only seven diamonds."

Pass   80   BWP 26%   BWS 25%  IAC 1 solver
The strength to passing is that you know you are in at least a seven-card fit, but could be more, spades is pretty much limited to seven, while the combined heart holding could be anywhere from 5 to 8.  For example, Oren Kriegel thinks "Game chances aren't great, and very likely we have an eight-card diamond fit.  At matchpoints, I expect that partner would have passed with most 5=3=3=2 hands, even some with which he would have accepted a game-invitation."  Eric Stoltz feels "The odds are high that two diamonds represents a four-plus-card suit.  This is a minimum hand, so it would be too risky to try two hearts.  Pass yields the best chance for a plus."  John Hurd points out "The more aggressive North's opening style, the more the pass stands out."  Kit Woolsey argues that "Plus 110 for nine tricks in diamonds ties plus 110 for eight tricks in a major, and I doubt that we have plus 140 available.  Bidding either major could result in a terrible contract."  YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed."  Robert Wolff says "Passing is relatively safe, and a passer can expect a plus score; flying to two hearts, which is likely to be passed if North has a singleton heart, will often lead to a minus score ... everything considered, it has a lower matchpoint expectation than pass."  Boye Brogeland: "We have found a fit and rate to go plus.  Bidding a major may be a way to go minus."

2 ♠   50   BWP 15%   BWS 42%  IAC 50%
Going for the sure 7-card fit in a major, some  are concerned about partner still having a strong hand.  For example, WackoJack "Not playing Gazzilli partner could have 18-19.  So I must not pass.   I think a preference bid of 2♠ is about right. ... In my book 2 will deny a 3 card suit otherwise I would raise immediately.  I pity those poor souls who have to respond 1NT when they have a weak 3 card raise."  David Berkowitz also feels he "Must keep the bidding going in case partner has something."  Most are just worried about getting out in the best contract.  Masse24 is "Really torn between the 'book' 2 and a heart suit just good enough for consideration. But I’ll stick with the “known” 5-2 fit rather than the hoped for 5-3."  Jill Meyers "Partner did not promise four diamonds, so I choose a known seven-card major-suit fit where I have a ruffing value."  Kamil and Sherman "Not pass for a variety of reasons.  Two hearts would land us in an unfortunate contract far too often, thus the unhappy preference."  And finally Zia weighs in: "Am I really this sick?  I guess so."



Problem E  2 NT  (WackoJack)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 6   ♥ K 9 4 2   ♦ A K Q 3   ♣ 10 6 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♠         Pass
  2 ♦      Pass       2 ♠*       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: need not be six-plus-card suit

What call do you make?

The good news is that you have an opening hand and partner opens first.  The bad news is that you made your game-forcing response in a four card suit and you only have two in partner's suit.  It looks like you are headed for a notrump contract, but what will be your route.

2 NT   100   BWP 56%   BWS 40%  IAC 1 solver
Oren Kriegel: "According to a secondhand account, Kevin Bathurst has described two-over-one auctions this way:  Opener rebids two of his major, responder rebids two notrump, and then they start to describe their hands.  That seems to be the right approach here.  I won't commit the partnership to spades or worry too much about club weakness.  There may be time to get out of notrump, and heart weakness might have been why partner did not rebid two notrump."  David Berkowitz continues with: "A classic mark-time bid.  It gives partner the most space to explore."  Though I think WackoJack may have the best simple description of the sequence:  "I have a balanced 13.  So I will bid a forcing 2NT."  And we end up in an auction that John Hurd sums up:  "This is terrific.  We are at two spades and neither knows how many cards partner has in any suit."  Or as Danny Kleinman rephrases: "Routine.  Thank heaven for game-forcing two-over-one response that unburden us of premature strain decisions with game-going hands."  2 NT may be the Panel's choice, but one thing is clear - no one really likes the bid, but no one really likes the alternatives.  Jill Meyers says "There is no great bid available.  Partner can bid three spades to suggest making that suit trump."  Kit Woolsey feels it "Gives partner the most room and is descriptive.  If we have a club weakness, we might be able to sort it out in time."  Ira Chorush points out that a "Lack of a club stopper and possible wrong siding are defects, but bidding notrump now may allow an escape to spades later if partner does anything but bid three notrump.  If North bids three notrump, the opponents may lead the wrong suit."  Joey Silver: "Most descriptive, albeit slightly flawed in the club department."  Eric Kokish: "Pretty awful but more flexible than three spades or an ultra-ugly three hearts.  I hope that North will mention a different strain if three notrump is not obvious.  Of course, playing from the wrong side is no joke."  Billy Eisenberg reiterates the basic position:  "Not without some concern."  While Kamil and Sherman summarize the position of the adherants:  "As close as we get to, 'What's the problem?'  No second choice."

3 ♥   80   BWP 33%   BWS 42%  IAC 75%
Although the Panel is mostly in lockstep with the 2 NT rebid, the solvers are slightly more in favor of showing their heart values.  This has the advantage of right-siding the contract more often, but is suggestive of a more distributional hand, eats up bidding space, and may give the defense an important clue as to how to proceed.  Masse24 describes the bid as "Keeping 3NT alive and highlighting the club problem. Assuming partner has a stopper, I want the lead coming into him." Bart Bramley views it as "Delaying the guess but showing where my stuff is, which may be all that matters.  I can pass three notrump or bid spades over anything else."  Carl Hudecek is trying "To reach three notrump opposite five spades and club stopper.  Who knows where we will end if partner has five spades and no club stop."  YleeXotee points out that "It's not checking on heart fit, that's already denied, but it's letting p know I don't have club stop. so passing the buck."  Fleisher and Friesner feels they are "Indicating a heart stopper as opposed to guaranteeing an unbalanced hand with diamonds and hearts."  JCreech "Looking for 3 NT, but could end up in a spade contract."  BluBayou "I know bidding 3   now is 'kitchen bridge' when not having 5+ length in diamonds,  but i don't see the harm.  If partner supports diamonds now, correcting to 4   cant be that bad, so the first-impulse rebid of 2NT is not needed with our 10xx club holding.    The panel will probably split between a spade raise and that automatic  rebid in NT, though . I know I am not changing to a spade raise this month--after all  north may have 6-4 majors and then we can't get to 4 "  Phillip Alder frets "If partner bids three notrump, I won't know whether or not to pass (I will), but bidding three spades instead might drive us to an inferior four spades if North has only five."  In the end, Zia says "I know that most bid two notrump, but that doesn't mean it's right."

3 ♠   40   BWP 7%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Although aware of the pitfall, Eric Stoltz still moves forward with raising partner's spades:  "This problem highlights the major downside of rebidding two of a major without promising six."


This concludes Part 2.  The last segment will be out when time permits.  Be sure to participate in next month's contest.  All are welcome.