APRIL MSC SUMMARY – Kit Woolsey Director
A handful of the panel's comments:
PROBLEM A: 2 Hearts
A majority. A huge one, with 20 of 26 panelists choosing the game-force.
Woolsey: “Sure, two hearts might dump us overboard, but we will probably find the right strain. This will make the choice of strain a lot easier.”
Masse24: “I would open this in first seat. 2 !H also has the advantage of leaving more room to find our best strain.”
MarilynLi: “3 !H by responder should shows 6 cards with AKQ or 2 of top 3 honors with a side thing,” which echoed Steve Robinson, “The hearts are too weak for three hearts.” And Kit Woolsey, our director for this set, bluntly says, “Calling this heart suit inadequately strong is a huge underbid. . . . Three hearts will be a winner only when North-South can take exactly nine tricks in hearts and not in notrump. . . . Three hearts should be reserved for hands with which responder can be pretty sure that hearts is the strain, level only the issue. This hand doesn’t come close.”
Zia zeroed in on the problem with, “Two hearts. For some reason, players will open a hand but treat the same holding as a non-opener in response. I would call them ‘confused.’ I eagerly await the one-notrump responses.”
PROBLEM B: Pass
Not unexpectedly, Pass was the majority choice for our IAC bidders. Similarly, fully half of the MSC panel chose the low road.
JCreech stated it most eloquently, calling it “A cheesy 11.”
KenBerg, who also passed, stated, “Shading a point or so in a third hand opening when holding a decent five card major is fine, but a shaded 1 !D on !D Jxxx? Not my style.”
Babs kept it brief with, “Pass.”
A close second (one mentioned by several of those who passed) was the lead directing 1 !C. But not one of our IAC solvers chose this. What were the panelists who chose this thinking?
David Berkowitz: “One Club. Must get the lead. If you open any other non-suit, you get what you deserve. Can’t pass at these colors.”
There were, however, three panelists who chose to open 1 !D (along with five of ours).
PROBLEM C: Three Clubs
A close winner over the second place pass. Only three of our solvers chose to ignore the BWS system note and make the seemingly normal preempt of 3 !C, JCreech, EddyHaskel, and CCR3. Well done!
Blubayou, taking full heed of the BWS system note: “Pass --- 26 of 27 panelists unless some just DEFY the system note.”
I noted the risk of ignoring the system note but chose to pass anyway. Masse24: “Do I ignore the note and risk partner going on? Or does the preemptive value of 3 !C outweigh the risk?” John Diamond thinks so, stating, “Three Clubs, percentage at these colors. Hope that partner does not have a big, balanced hand.”
Bobby Wolff: “Three Clubs. A worthwhile psych . . . with risk.”
And finally, Bramley: “Three Clubs. I’m more scared of LHO than partner. Sometime partner makes 3NT. Pass is not in the game.”
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
I thought this one to be the most interesting due to the many tactical considerations available.
A plurality chose 4 !S, with 12 of 26 votes not quite 50%. But 5 !S came in second, garnering 7 votes. So 20 of 26 votes (there was one who chose 3 !S) chose to raise partner’s spade bid to a higher level. But what level? And why?
Blubayou meandered all around the tactics with: “4 hearts - now, we're talking folks! Only 4 spades and 5 spades came to mind, then I recalled the surprise winner from last month--a lead-directing advance of partner's noise in a four-bagger. I reject "3H" because it's not jamming enough.” Then, with a last-minute change of mind, “So , for IAC scoring change the mad scientist "4 hearts" to our WonderWoman--Marilyn's great blast to FIVE spades, please.”
Steve Robinson thought that bidding high as quickly as possible was important: “Five Spades. Lets the opponents guess at the six-level.”
MarylinLi, similarly: “Five spades. Preempt to the most.”
But the simple, game-level preempt of 4 !S was the winner—and also the most popular choice of our IAC voters. DickHy observed: “4S. East’s x denies a “long suit” which suggests something like 1444 or 0(544)* They could well be heading for a bad trump break, so let’s not get too cute.”
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
Big majority. 17 of 26.
WackoJack chose the basic 2 !H, stating: “2 !H. I would have liked the rebid of 1♠ to promise an unbalanced hand in which case I would next bid 1NT. Sadly in BWS it does not so I rebid 2 !H.” If unbalanced means possessing a stiff somewhere, then no. Simple nota pancake flat hand.
Mark Cohen: “Two hearts. I do have six.”
The Pollacks covered all the bases with: “Two hearts. Pass is possible with this seemingly-misfitting, soft hand, but it could miss a vulnerable game. One notrump is right on values, doesn’t stress the anemic hearts, and might leave some room to recover. . . .
Hoki agreed, putting it simply: “2 !H. Not 1NT with an unbalanced hand.”
MarilynLi thought the heart suit too anemic to rebid, stating: “1NT. With 8 hcp, there should be rebid. Can't rebid 2H with that suit.”
For me, personally, this was my “out there” decision this set. I feared it might score a zero. Thankfully, three of the “theorists” chose the same bid: Zia, Kleinman, and Rubens. Whew! At leat I’m in good company. Still, it scored poorly, only garnering a 60.
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
This was very close, with 3NT garnering 12 panel votes, 3 !S 11.
MarilynLi keenly assessed the location of her values: “3NT. 2/3 of my hcp are in opponent's suit. Partner's double could be as little as 13 hcp with shape, so I'm not risking more for now.”
DickHy went back and forth, finally settling on game in spades.
Interestingly, 3 !S was the second choice—NOT 4 !S. John Diamond, a 3 !S bidder went low because of the !D Q, saying “three spades is clear.”
And Blubayou chose 3NT “since I am screwed for good score this month anyway.”
Interesting logic, Blu!
And finally, EddyHaskel, with a strong opinion that included mention of a farm animal writes: “However 3 !S came in second place and I think that bid is chickensh#t. 4 !S came in 3rd and got 70 pts, but should be the 90 pointer.” 😊
PROBLEM G: Pass
More or less a binary choice, with 2 !H coming in a very close second.
Woolsey mentions transfer advances, but since we are not playing them here, we go with what the system offers.
Kudos to our Passers: DrAculea, JCreech, and CCR3.
PROBLEM H: Heart 4
Clear. At least according to the panel.
Of the 26 panelists, 19 chose the !H 4, and 4 chose the !H 2. Only 2 chose the !S T.
A large majority of our IAC bidders chose the !S T, but that choice was widely panned by the MSC panelists. Why?
There were few mentions of the spade lead and why it was bad, but Berkowitz said the following: “If partner needed a spade lead, where was he after 1 !D ?” Fair point.
Howard Weinstein, too: “Partner did not overcall one spade . . . . If my heart spots were weaker, I might try the spade ten.”
Woolsey and Hudecek, however, were the two !S T leads. Woolsey adding: “Yes, it is possible dummy is a little light and the spade lead chops out a critical entry. Or maybe the spade lead will be productive by setting up defensive tricks. Or maybe the spade lead doesn’t blow a trick, while a heart or club would lose a trick.” Yup. I think the safety of the spade lead occurred to everyone.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ARE STILL WELCOME.