June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – Danny Kleinman, DirectorProblem D 2 (YleeXotee, JCreech, Hoki)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 9 3
♥ A K J
♦ A K Q 10 4 ♣ J 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♠ Pass Pass
Double* Pass 2
♥ Pass
?
*BWS: 2 NT would have shown 18-19 HCP
What call do you make?
The opponent's opened 1
, and you balanced with a double. Partner bid 2
and the auction is back to you. You have 19 HCPs that you were unwilling to balance 2 NT originally due to the Jxx stopper, but this 19 has both flaws (unsupported jacks) and the diamond suit makes the hand rate somewhat better.
3 ♥ 40 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Robert Wolff "Best of several choices, two other being two notrump and pass."
2 NT 30 BWP No Panelists BWS 3% IAC No solvers
No Panelist or IAC solver chose this option, but it reasonably ought to be on the table. At your first turn, you could have bid 2 NT immediately to show these values, but did not. What would be different at this turn? First, you are not raising hearts, so the reopening double was not based on four hearts. Second, without four hearts, to suggest notrump at this turn also indicates less than a full stop - so this should warn partner off with two or three small. In other words, if notrump is wrong, partner should be able to work it out, though my partner never seems to.
Pass 50 BWP 7% BWS 9% IAC 1 solver
There are a lot of losers for partner to cover, so there are pessimists finding a pass.
WackoJack has a fairly complete analysis: "Yes, a nasty problem. Optimistically: West opened with 12 East has 3. So partner has 6. Maybe:
Axx.
Qxxxx,
xx,
xxx. That just about makes 4
a good contract. BUt only just. Pessimistically: West opened with 15, East has 3. So partner has 3. Maybe:
xxx
Qxxxx,
Jx,
xxx. You lose 5 tricks off the top. So at match points it is tempting to pass."
Irina Levitina is "Going for a plus. Too many losers make it too risky to bid."
BluBayou: "If we raise to 3
, they may grab 5 off the top as discussed above, on top of that, partner may not realize that his 5-6 count is what we need for game (Qxxxx + club king, or diamond jack?)"
Marty Bergen thinks "Anything could be right. I considered two notrump, which was perfect except for one very large flaw."
2 ♠ 100 BWP 52% BWS 45% IAC 43%
An interesting new rule emerged.
Joel Wooldridge: "This matches a rule of mine: a takeout double followed by a cue-bid most often shows three-card support for advancer's suit and about 18 high-card points. Other hand-types are possible, but this is what partner should assume, as it's the most common." Clearly other subscribe to this rule. For example,
Brian Platnick describes the bid: "The most-likely hand for cue-bidding here is extras with three-card support." Similarly,
Phillip Alder writes: "Surely this cue-bi, which typically shows a strong hand with three-card support for partner's major, will win in a landslide."
Zia: "Two spades implies fewer than four hearts, most likely three." Others are less certain.
JCreech is awaiting further developments: "A nebulous cue-bid. I want to show support, but leave room for more description. This cue takes up the least space, and maybe I will hear something I like." As are
Hoki: "in the hope of coping with any continuation (3D over 3C should show heart support)" and
Jeff Alexander "I hope partner will know what to do."
3 ♦ 80 BWP 37% BWS 33% IAC 43%
The last real option is to bid the fine diamond suit. My tendency when faced with this sort of situation is to overcall, then double on the next round, but then I am not usually starring at 19 HCPs along with a diamond suit this nice.
Masse24 writes: "Really tough problem. 2 Spades is tempting, to elicit more information, but that’s a game-force and I’m just a bit short on values. 3 Hearts (my second choice) with only three is also tempting. But 3 Diamonds gets my values across and leaves the door open for partner to continue with a few values."
Frank Stewart thinks "Maybe a slight underbid, but the black jacks may be wasted, and I see no alternative."
Bart Bramley focuses on the number of hearts: "To the point. Implies three hearts, else I should have bid three diamonds initially."
Problem E 4 (BluBayou, Hoki, JCreech)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A J 2
♥ A Q 6 4 3 2
♦ — ♣ A K J 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
3 ♣ Pass 4 ♣ Pass
?
What call do you make?
You have a big hand and have elicited support for your second suit, as well as three-card support for partner's first-bid suit. I agree that you have first-round control in all of the suits, along with your 19 HCPs, but is this enough to force to slam opposite a hand that really hasn't shown any strength beyond the 5-6 needed to make a one-over-one response. However,
Marty Bergen doesn't like the presented auction: "To say that I object to the way-beyond-absurd one-heart opening would be the understatement of the century."
5 ♠ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 0% IAC No solvers
Forcing the issue and providing the maximum choice,
Bart Bramley thinks the bid "Logical choice of slams. In my world, South guaranteed at least four clubs and denied four spades, so partner should make the right decision. I might miss a good seven, but I want to bring spades into the picture, and four spades wouldn't be forcing."
5 ♦ 50 BWP 11% BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Also forcing the issue, but with what meaning?
Robb Gordon thinks "This hand is a poster child for Exclusion Key-Card." But is it Exclusion or is it a splinter? Four diamonds is not a jump, so it is not typically a splinter. And one thing it does not do is show support for spades, yet
Billy Eisenberg claims it "Should convey the gist of my hand." What it does do is commit our side to a slam in clubs without any certainty that we have the values to be there, much less an eight-card or better fit. This feels like trying to reach the seven-level without being certain we want to be at the six-level.
6 ♣ 50 BWP 11% BWS 5% IAC No solvers
I consider this to be a more honest approach.
Jeff Alexander says "Four spades would show four-card support and might end the auction. Maybe North has: ♠ Kxxx
♥ x
♦ xxx ♣ Q10xxx, and we'll get lucky."
Kit Woolsey gambles: "I'm not going to stop in five clubs when we might have an eight-card major-suit fit found by the field. Six clubs probably has play whatever partner has and I don't see any sensible way to find out if there is a better contract."
Joel Wooldridge "I treat raises of minor-suit jump-shifts very seriously. For four clubs, I expect North to have either a fifth club or slammish values. With anything less, he might have take a three heart preference on a doubleton or punted with four diamonds. ... if I bid six directly, partner can infer that I wasn't merely
trying for six, and he may be able to bid seven himself." Joel, it is good to have agreements of that sort, but are they applicable to BW2017 without additional discussion?
4 ♠ 70 BWP 26% BWS 22% IAC 57%
Masse24 has good questions as he makes this choice: "This one confuses me a bit. I think 4 Diamonds will be the popular solver choice, but it doesn’t feel right. Can 4 Spades be interpreted as shaping out? Can it be passed? It is Matchpoints."
Frank Stewart says "This sequence describes the hand reasonably well."
Carl Hudecek thinks "Partner had a chance to control-bid or to show heart preference at the three-level. He didn't, so I go lightly with four spades, which shows some spade support."
Drew Casen shapes out: "Didn't I already say I have a game-force with at least five hearts and four clubs? Now partner will know 12 of my cards, and any further move will be up to him."
Doub and Wildavsky's plan is "If partner bids five clubs, we'll bid again, so he won't worry that we lack a diamond control."
Eric Kokish believes that "In the unlikely event that North has the heart king, he will love it. If partner has short hearts. he will love the spade king and a fifth club."
Jeff Rubens: "Strong controls and clubs, yes; but the queen of hearts is only a medium-value slam-level card, so I won't push too hard." One thing is certain, these experts do not generally think that the bid necessarily shows a fourth spade.
4 ♦ 100 BWP 48% BWS 62% IAC 43%
BluBayou: "Most MSC panelists have no objection to a phony jump-shift on this auction. They and I have to pay the piper this time: slam in clubs is so likely that we cannot support spades right now; we must confirm our fit and cue in diamonds. There is a fair chance that spades and clubs both make the same tricks, and that we won't be able to get back to the major
. ..... I regret that I have to give up on patterning out with delayed spade support and that not doing so may hyrt a lot."
Kevin Bathurst says "I'll start control-bidding and hope that partner can show second-round heart control at the five-level on the way. I'll reach at least six clubs, hoping that we can find a way to feel confident about seven."
Nick L'Ecuyer feels it "Must be the right way to start. Let's see what partner does."
Zia admits "We need cooperation from partner to determine the right level. (1) Will his four hearts next suggest a place to play? (2) Are we sure that he has the queen of clubs? (3) Might he have marked time with three diamonds if he didn't? Too many questions, too few answers." Nonetheless,
David Berkowitz feels that "Partner's
not bidding three diamonds is quite encouraging." And
Brian Platnick points out that "Except in a regular partnership with elaborate agreements, this is a very-difficult auction. Would partner's four hearts or four spades next be an offer to play? I would assume yes, so four notrump will be partner's only slam=try over four diamonds." Then there are those who just cannot bear to hear partner pass 4
.
JCreech: "To show shape or to cue-bid? I think I will cue-bid rather than imply the shortness. Since I hope to be slamming, I won't like bidding 4
and then hear pass."
Phillip Alder: "If I knew partner wouldn't pass, I would bid four spades; but he probably would pass. So I will control-bid and hope for the best."
Hoki: "a cue bid with maybe 4S to come (over 4H)"
Problem F 4 (BluBayou, Masse24)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 7 5 4
♥ Q J 10 7 5
♦ Q ♣ 10 9 8
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
I find this auction confusing. Partner opens 1
, then bids a second suit at the one-level which does not necessarily show extras. Some of the Panel have even suggested that 1
should be passed.
Marty Bergen, for example wrote: "Although two spades may have worked out well, I object to it. With this collection of quacks, even when vul., to pass one spade was clear." Then when I raise that second suit, he raises my first suit. Is this a true raise, a game try, or something else? The Panel clearly behaves as though the hearts are natural, but are they? For some Panelists, it isn't even clear that 3
is forcing.
3 ♠ 40 BWP 7% BWS 31% IAC 43%
I think that
JCreech is expressing the fears and hope of the hand: "I am tempted to pass, but then is partner bidding out their shape or cue-bidding. I'll retreat to our 4-4, and hopefully showing a hand that is weak."
Jeff Rubens admits "The bidding has improved the hand, but I'm not sure it was worth two spades in the first place." While
Arthur Robinson just says "I assume three hearts is forcing."
4 ♠ 40 BWP 7% BWS 19% IAC No solvers
Although certain that partner has both majors,
Kevin Bathurst at the end makes a guess: "This hand sure grew up fast. I might have passed one spade, but now I must bid game. If partner has good diamonds, spades may be better; but if he has good controls, hearts may be easier to manange except perhaps on a trump lead. I'll guess spades."
4 ♥ 100 BWP 67% BWS 29% IAC 29%
A majority of the Panel are certain that 3
was offering an alternative strain.
Carl Hudecek thinks "With partner probably void of clubs, I'd rather ruff clubs with hearts I don't need for tricks than let the defenders force partner to ruff with useful spades."
David Berkowitz finds it "Easy to see South's spades going on North's diamonds." Similarly,
Jeff Alexander believes "Game should have a play in hearts, as spades may go on diamonds."
Nick L'Ecuyer bases he decision on the relative strength of his two suits: "Game can make. Looks as if partner has a decent 4=3=5=1. With stronger spades, I would bid four spades." As does,
Doub and Wildavsky: "Pass was a standout over one spade, but having raised we've hit the jackpot. We'll choose the stronger suit for trumps."
Masse24: "We belong in Hearts since Club ruffs need to be taken in the short hand. Even if we only get one ruff I can envision game, so I will accept. Partner should have a 4=3=5=1 hand with 16 (or possibly 17) HCP. Maybe a hand like:
KQ93 -
K94 -
AKJT7 -
2
Can that hand make game? I hope so."
Robb Gordan: "The five-three fit will be better than the four-four. If dummy gets tapped and trups split badly, partner won't be able to use all the hearts in a spade game."
Phillip Alder will "Take the ruffs in the shorter-trump hand. I do not expect to need discards on the long hearts, and the spades are weak."
Eric Kokish: "Suddenly an excellent hand, but not good enough for four clubs."
Kit Woolsey says "This piece of junk just became a lot more valuable. If partner has the 4=3=5=1 shape he has portrayed, four hearts figures to be better than four spades."
BluBayou is "Expecting a dummy equivalent to AKxx, Kxx, AKxxx, x to go with our 'measly' Jxxx, QJTxx, Q, Txx! The panel may say "THAT is a jump-shift to 2
, so pray hard, Blu!", but I'm standing firm."
Drew Casen is reluctantly drug along: "I would have passed one spade, and I'd also pass three hearts if not vulnerable at imps."
Pass 60 BWP 19% BWS 20% IAC 29%
This last group believe partner's heart bid, but are satisfied either with the final strain, or at least not terribly discontented. Whether they view 3
as forcing is not clear, but if they do, it doesn't matter.
Robert Wolff is simply done: "Which I might have done last turn but didn't lest West enter in clubs."
Hoki writes: "haven't I already bid my hand (if not overbid it, lol)"
Brian Platnick thinks the strain has improved: "Presumably, partner is 4=3=5=1 with extras but short of a jump-shift. Hearts may play better than spades."
This ends Part 2. Hopefully you find something interesting or thought provoking. Until the lasr part is ready, please join in nrxt month's problem set.