June MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – Danny Kleinman, Director Problem A 1 (WackoJack, YleeXotee, Masse24, VeredK)
Imps North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J
♥ A K J 4
♦ A K 6 4 3 ♣ 10 5 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♦ Pass Pass
?*
*BWS: 1 NT = 10-14 HCP; 2 NT = 18-19 HCP
What call do you make?
This is a hand with options, none of which are particularly appetizing. The moderator,
Danny Kleinman, says "Adverse vulnerability makes this a problem. Were the vulnerability favorable, passing and piling up undertrick bonuses might be clear. Vul against not, however, few are satisfied to score at 50 a copy, especially with some hope of a 500-point game bonus. However, I have a sneaking admiration for any spadophobiac who passed."
Pass 70 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 29% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 30% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 50%
The first temptation is to pass. If you pass, the opponents will be playing in your best suit, but before you pass the hand out, some thought is needed. Opener could be looking at 11 to 19 HCPs, so if you pass, you could be missing a game or you could be struggling to make a partscore. And all of that is without considering the strain. Taking up Danny's gauntlet,
JCreech asks "Where are the spades? If partner has five or more, they must be very weak. My HCPs and the vulnerability make me want to bid. My length in diamonds and shortness in spades make me want to pass. I suspect that opener is looking at 4-4 in the majors and only 3 cards in diamonds. If I double, and we end up in hearts, we could be struggling with a bad trump break."
Phillip Alder echoed Jim's initial spade concerns, but then shifted gears: "A pass could cost 7 or 9 imps, but one heart comes with no guarantee of finding our best spot." Others agree that finding the right strain or level is no picnic.
Jeff Rubens: "Rates to be at least as good as anything else if we have no game. If we do have a game, how would we reach it (and how often would we go minus looking for it)?"
Kevin Bathurst: "If I could figure out which action offers the best chance to reach a good game, I'd try it; but I can't, so I'll try to go plus. If I acted, the opponents might find a spade fit and improve their contract."
BluBayou is seeking the least minus position: "-70 beats -140, or some goulash madness, like -590." While
Brian Platnick thinks "Game is unlikely, so I'll try to go plus."
1 NT 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 4% IAC No solvers
If you bid, 1 NT is certainly a possibility. The strength is a bit more than BWS requires in the balancing seat, but you are also missing the spade suit - so perhaps it should be thought of as compensating factors. The best reason to balance 1 NT is that you have a double diamond stopper. Although not making the bid himself,
Eric Kokish points out that "... no notrump does have the merit of keeping West from showing spades cheaply." Nonetheless,
Nick L'Ecuyer is "... not worried about spades when neither North or East could bid the suit; spades are probably 4=4=4 or 4=5=3 around the table. I doubt that this hand will play well in a suit contract with diamond length behind it; therefore, I don't want to bid one heart short a card. Too risky to pass and perhaps miss game vulnerable against not. This holding looks more like a balanced 10-14 HCP than anything else."
Double 50 BWP 14% BWS 23% IAC 1 solver
To properly show your values, if your plan is to rebid in NT, is to start with a double. I don't know about your luck, but mine is that if I make a badly misshapen double, I have a partner who leaps to 4
without a self-sustaining suit. Hoki aims his choice directly at our most bombastic IACer "and 1NT over 1S; plus 90 is better than minus 70, Jock" But is joined by members of the Panel.
Drew Casen: "Then bid one notrump over a likely one-spade advance. This could backfire if the auction goes differently, but all other calls are far more dangerous."
Joel Wooldridge: "Planning to bid one notrump over a one-spade advance. One heart is a reasonable alternative, but I don't like to pass with 16 HCP." Our retiring ACBL Recorder,
Robb Gordon, mixes in a little friendly deception: "I'll just mix a low diamond with my spades and treat the hand as a balanced 15-17 HCP. Offshape doubles of one-bids passes around are common."
1 ♥ 100 BWP 54% BWS 42% IAC 33%
To avoid partner from going nuts in spades, you could overcall in hearts.
WackoJack argues that "If ever there was a right time to overcall with a 4 card suit, this must be it"
Kit Woolsey lays out the arguments for the heart overcall: "The hand is too strong to sell out to one diamond and any notrump bid or a takeout double risks reaching a bad spade contract. If partner fits hearts, we may well belong in four hearts; if he doesn't, one heart will probably work out okay anyway."
YleeXotee says it best for me if you chose action: "the alternatives don't seem appealing to me. 1nt with no spades, ouch, but only other thing I can think of. Pass - in balancing seat?? never."
David Berkowitz: "Least of evils; notrump can wait. Though on may layouts I will regret not passing one diamond, this hasn't worked out poorly yet." Masse24 thinks it "Less flawed than the alternatives."
Billy Eisenberg agrees: "Not perfect, but one notrump and double, the other options seem much worse."
Marty Bergen writes, "When in doubt, make the cheapest reasonable bid. The stiff spade suggests that one heart will not end the auction." But will a different ending be better for North-South? Nonetheless, you are shy a trump for the call, but the suit is headed by AKJ, so it is not an embarrassment. And
Ron Smith's answer seems appropriate now: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." The problem is that if you are in a 4-3 fit and the defense finds spades, the wrong hand may be tapped and you could lose control. A lot of ifs given that the defense is likely to start diamonds; a suit that you have completely controlled.
If you rate this hand as only worth a part-score. I think the least risky approach to a plus score is to pass; if you rate this hand as having game potential, then action is called for, and the 1
overcall is probably the least problematic of the actions, but, in my mind, only because the defense is unlikely to attack spades on the go.
Problem B Double (Hoki, VeredK, CCR3, MsPhola, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 10 6
♥ J 8 4 3
♦ K J 6 2 ♣ A
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass Pass
1
♦ 2 ♣ Double 3 ♣
?*
*BWS: double = cooperative-takeout
What call do you make?
At best, I would count on the partnership holding 24 HCPs; that is giving partner as much as 11 that they were not willing to open. The redeeming quality of this hand is that it has two four-card majors and after partner's negative double, you should have at least one eight-card fit. The unfortunate aspect of this hand is that you are now at the three-level without establishing which major is your fit.
4 ♣ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 5% IAC No solvers
Four clubs commits you to game, but at least you will find your fit.
Bart Bramley feels that the hand is "Not strong enough to insist on game with four clubs." But
WackoJack makes the bid: "Partner's initial take out double will be showing at least 4-3 in the majors. I bid 4
. With both majors she will likely bid 4
which I am happy with."
3 ♠ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 11% IAC No solvers
Bidding 3
gets you to your best major, but perhaps not your best fit. I view the bid as taking a position, and possibly not your best position.
3 ♥ 40 BWP 11% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Bidding 3
is also taking a position, but it does allow partner to make an equal-level conversion when holding spades but not hearts. You can still get out at the three-level in a major, you have improved your chances to get to your fit, but if partner is 4-3 in the majors, you may still be in your Moysian.
Bart Bramley says "I choose hearts, so that with only spades and diamonds, partner can remove to three spades. If he bids four diamonds, I'll pull to spades, my stronger major. If I were to bid three spades, we couldn't get back to three hearts opposite a heart-diamond hand." While
Brian Platnick is more pragmatic: "Not enough defense to double, too much offense to pass, not enough strength to force to game."
Pass 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 6% IAC No solvers
The choices so far make me want to pass, just to escape the likelihood of getting too high, or finding the wrong strain. Taking this position
Drew Casen writes: "I must wait for partner to act, as I have opened with a dead minimum, and game is very unlikely facing a passed partner. If North doubles again, I will continue with three hearts (relying on him to correct to three spades with four-four in spades and diamonds). Should partner bid three diamonds, I will pass, giving up on game."
Double 100 BWP 79% BWS 69% IAC 75%
The final option is also the majority choice made by both the Panel and solvers. Double to suggest a major-suit fit and willingness to compete, but also allows partner to pass with the right sort of hand. You do know you have the only opening hand at the table, and opponents have a tendency to be pushy, so partner may be ready to try for 300 to beat all partscore contracts. But then again, partner may take you for more than a minimum, as you have not limited your hand yet. Let's consult the expert on negative doubles,
Marty Bergen: "I won't pass, bid four clubs, or guess a major. North's double does
not promise both majors." The moderator terms a double in this sequence "... for want of a better word, ... 'renegative.'"
Zia says "Surprisingly simple answer to an equally-surprising question: Does double promise extras, or both majors?" To which
Paul Ivaska answers, "I don't have much extra, but, but fortunately, acting here doesn't promise extras. It merely shows a fit, which we surely have somewhere."
BluBayou initially wanted to bid 4
, but "On further study, forcing us to game looks unwarranted [!]" While
Masse24 mulls over the question of level: "A guess. Partner is a passed hand, are we high enough? Pass now may be right."
YleeXotee is focused on strain: "I'm assuming that is choose your major partner." And
Hoki on level: "pard is a passed hand, so I see this is a partscore deal"
JCreech's focus is on strain, but with concerns about level: "I think I am stuck with the cooperative-takeout double, and hope that partner places us at the proper level."
Nick L'Ecuyer is critical of the note: "Automatic. I don't approve of 'cooperative take-out' for a double of a
raised overcall. This should be a takeout, pure and simple. Like any other takeout double, it lets partner pass for penalty with enough defense and trumps."
Mark Laken is looking to the future: "My real problem may come next turn."
Problem C Pass (KenBerg)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 2
♥ K Q 10 9 7 3
♦ A K 9 ♣ 9 8 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass Pass
1
♥ Pass 2
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Another fourth seat opener, but this time an uncontested simple raise from partner. You hold a sixth trump, but minimum values, and somewhere out there are 12 unaccounted spades. Do you make a preemptive move by jamming out a game, or 1-2-3-stop? Do you make a game try, and if so, which one? Or do you just settle in, and trust that the opponents won't balance in spades?
4 ♥ 40 1 Panelist 7% No solvers
The most aggressive view is to bid game. This happened to be the choice of the moderator. His argument was that "Any contract bid directly has better prospects than the same contract reached 'scientifically,' and I'd guess that the difference exceeds eight percent. Anyone who makes a descriptive game-try of any kind with this hand has spent too much time trying for top scores in the Master Solver's Club and too little time trying to eke out a living at rubber bridge."
3 ♣ 90 BWP 36% BWS 21% IAC 1 solver
Game tries would be the next most aggressive stance to take. Those bidding 3
are taking the honest approach of asking for help with a bad holding, but is it realistic. Probably not, but it was the choice for about a third of the Panel.
Phillip Alder thinks this hand to be "Almost a textbook help-suit game-try with a six-loser hand."
David Berkowitz wonders "Maybe partner will love his clubs."
Eric Kokish builds his case: "With the opponents apparently out of the picture, two hearts might well buy the contract, but it's tempting to try for game as a two-way shot, while perhaps deterring the club lead that might wreck three hearts." The moderator scoffs: "During the most-recent decade ... I have yet to see any sophisticated player offer a new-suit game-try with anything stronger than jack-third, and the explanation is always 'help-suit.' Aces are nearly always helpful, so it is the value of lower honors that responder must assess. ... So, when an opponent explains opener's game-try as 'help-suit,' I treat it as a lead-director for me."
3 ♦ 30 BWP No Panelists BWS 11% IAC 1 solver
3
is an alternative game try, but since game tries in BWS are help suit, looking to reduce the number losers in the suit, the South holding should preclude acceptance by North unless there is shortness.
Masse24 writes, "A tactical approach to the 3
'1-2-3 Stop' bid." But I think he viewed it only as a game-try that will not be accepted. The moderator views it differently: "If you want to deter a club lead nowadays, you must bid three diamonds. That will get you a diamond lead for sure, and you don't even need to psych. Strangely, no panelist bid three diamonds." Clearly, the moderator wanted to give 3
a higher score and 3
a lower score, but could not justify it by the Panel's responses.
3 ♥ 70 BWP 17% BWS 39% IAC 67%
The clear choice for IAC was 3
, and 1-2-3-stop, but the Panel seemed to have a different understanding of the bid. One remembered that it is a non-competitive raise.
Irina Levitina wrote "As North did not use Drury, West will surely compete if I pass."
Hoki points out that the bid is "purely competitive with many alternatives if wanting to invite game"
JCreech's analysis is "I need three of six cover cards from partner's raise to make a heart game; that would take a perfecto. So now the question is, when everyone in front of me passing, do I need to pull out a 1-2-3-stop? My concern is the spades; I'm looking at a stiff, and passing 2
may create the opportunity for a spade balance. If the opponents are looking at a length (e.g., JTxxx) opposite strength (e.g., AKx), then a balance at the two level looks pretty good. I'll bump up the auction one to make it harder for the opponents to come in." And
BluBayou expects partner to pass, but "Maybe pard will break discipline with a perfecto ( 2 aces and a doubleton etc ?)" Most of the panel viewed the reraise as a game try.
Robert Wolff, for example, called it "A two-way action."
Bart Bramley thought it a "Non-specific game-try. No natural try fits the hand. With both opponents passing twice, I needn't bid three hearts to impede them."
Brian Platnick's view is more like Jock's, "Partner's failure to use Drury makes game unlikely. Pass is probably right (opponent's don't always balance), but I'd rather buy the contract for three hearts than pass and perhaps need to sell out to three spades later. If partner bids four hearts, I'll probably make it."
Pass 100 BWP 43% BWS 20% IAC 1 solver
The Panel's plurality choice was to pass. As the moderator points out, "Sometimes two hearts will buy the contract. Sometimes we'll get pushed to three hearts and the defenders' bidding will help us make it. Sometimes the opponents' failure to balance will help us in the play."
Doub and Wildavsky think "Bidding now would be too likely to drive us to a poor game."
Drew Casen says "No Drury, no game. No need to preempt with three hearts, as both opponents have passed twice already."
Carl Hudecek: "In fourth seat, I'd have opened two hearts. Not vulnerable, I won't push my luck."
Paul Ivaska thinks "There is no need to bid to obstruct the opponents who each passed twice and may well sell out to two hearts. Even if they balance, I'd expect to buy the contract for three hearts later, particularly at imps."
Nick L'Ecuyer views the pass as a bit of a discovery play: "Partner has spade length and may be itching to double it West balances in spades. If, instead, West balances and the opponents find clubs, I'll nail them by bidding a crazy four hearts."
This concludes part one of the June MSC discussion. The other two parts will be available as soon as I can pull them together. Until then, there is always the July problems to work on. Please take a little time to tell us why you made the choices you did; they are very much appreciated.