PROBLEM A:>> After my first two bids, I can't have a single drop for a better dummy. So pard can't get carried away when I put him in game. I choose the minor rather than a tempting four spades, since partner MIGHT have Kxxxxx, A, AJxxx, x. Of course he might also be 5-5 and have 3 off-suit loosers off the top [ or would he have left things in 2 !S with such?]
B. 3 !D. Gives partner a chance to show a diamond stop or 3c spade support. We have 5 !C as a fallback.
Lead Problem:>> my family found a deck of cards and layed out, bit by bit, the hand shown by east's 6 answers to 6 asking-bids.. here it is: A2345, x, K??, AQ?? ! the 7 diamond bidder knows each and every one of these bits of information. My family decides that 7 diamonds is ice-cold . I agree. SOMEBODY tell me how these geniuses can be brought to humiliating defeat. Especially if that is by means of something other than drawing a round of trumps!!
In case I was unclear, I hate lead problems.
I might not post this month. I shall return.
You have inspired me, I will give it a try. It might be sort of "choose first, think later".
If this set scores well I might decide to never think again.
NAME | BW-SCORE | RANK | MPs |
Masse24 | 730 | 1 | 30 |
Hoki | 720 | 2 | 25 |
Peuco | 690 | 2 | 10 |
Also participating this month were: BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, DickHy, JCreech, KenBerg, VeeRee, VeredK, WackoJack, YleeXotee. Congratulations to all! |
It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem.Yep! Another example of what we have seen over and over.
On the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100.
The rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.
It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem.
♠ K Q J 10 ♥ K Q J ♦ 10 9 8 7 ♣ 10 9
The 100 went to 10/9 of !C, with a combined 7 votes.The single top vote getter was the !H K also with 7 votes and a score of 30 (the Q/J had no votes and also got the same score).
The 10/9/8/7 of !D got a combined 9 votes with a score of 80
And the K/Q/J/10 had a combined 6 votes with a score of 90 (the Q/10 had no votes).
On the basis of single-card voting,the !H Kthe !C 10 and !S K should have gotten the 100, while on the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100. However,neither criterion fit the top two scores.the rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.
edited because I accidently looked at the solver % and made it a Panel vote - oops
Looking at PROBLEM A only:
Ken's thinking . . .PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
This shows !H and a minor in BWS. I assume 3NT by partner asks for the minor.
If partner bids 3NT I bid 4 !H. I think he will then have a pretty clear picture of my hand.
If partner bids 4 !C, as he well might do if he holds 5=1=1=6 shape, I am still bidding 4 !H but I will not be so happy about it.
and Joe's . . .A: I should have looked at the system notes, but again I'm trying to answer as I would behave on the table. I find this gives me more insight into my assumptions about bidding or principles that might govern my decisions (which I don't always recognize explicitly until I do these kinds of exercises). Anyway, I also had a thought about leaping micheals but thought it shouldn't apply here (Although we all know that 2s is often bid on air, just like a preempt). I went with 3s as most obviously showing hearts, and an unknown minor which I will likely bid next no matter what p says.
was similar to my initial thinking. However, employing a two-suited bid somewhat implies equal (or at least similar) length.
My first guess (though my third choice) was to use a two-suited Leaping Michaels. But per Ken's post about BWS above--it ain't part of the system! I had to look it up (probably a good idea for a bidding quiz reliant on a specific system). I had thought it might be part of BWS. It's Larry Cohen who espouses (or mentions) it. He states, "Note: Even rarer (but popular among many expert pairs) is to use Roman Jump Overcalls [using this interchangeably with Leaping Michaels] after the opponents Bid and Raise a Major. For example, (1 !S) Pass (2 !S) 4 !D = 5-5 or better in diamonds and hearts. In that case, 3 !S would ask for a stopper for 3NT. As usual, this is dangerous stuff unless thoroughly discussed and remembered. Without discussion, the jump overcall would just be preemptive and natural."
I still think I prefer Cohen's method better, but it's good to know "our system" for the purposes of these quizzes!
I may as well quote BWS while I'm at it: "When the opponents raise a one-bid to two, there are no special system agreements other than those listed here:
(a) a cue-bid shows majors over a minor, unbid major plus unspecified minor over a major;
(b) a jump-overcall is preemptive or sacrifice-suggestive."
If I could be certain that 3NT by partner "asks for the minor," as Ken suggests, a 3 !S call (intending a 4 !H followup) would have more appeal. But I have serious doubts that 3NT will be available. I think it quite likely that the level of bidding will reach 4 !S before we can blink. If that happens, the opportunity to show the suit disparity will have been lost. By bidding the !H suit first, then introducing the !D suit (most likely at a very high level) the "primary !H suit" with secondary !D will have been communicated.
Another possibility that occurs to me is to take Fido for a walk by slipping in a quiet 3 !H. But this will probably not win any MSC poll points!
I think for now I stick with my initial 4 !H, holding the !D suit back until I need it.
A fun problem!
August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director
Problem A 4 !S (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 2 ♥ 4 3 2 ♦ K Q 10 ♣ 6 5 4 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 2 ♦ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3 ♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
David Berkowitz: "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since: ♠ Kxxxxx ♥ - ♦ AJxxx ♣ AK is a playable grand slam. I must make a slam-positive bed. In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal. If I though otherwise, I would bid five diamonds."
I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite. Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.
It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem.Yep! Another example of what we have seen over and over.
On the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100.
The rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.
Since:
any !S scored the same as any other,
any !D scored the same as any other,
any !C scored the same as any other, and
any !H scored the same as any other . . .
one would think the "most votes" by suit would score highest.
I think Rubens is the director this month. My guess is he chose a club. ???
August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director
Problem A 4 !S (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 2 ♥ 4 3 2 ♦ K Q 10 ♣ 6 5 4 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 2 ♦ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3 ♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
David Berkowitz: "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since: ♠ Kxxxxx ♥ - ♦ AJxxx ♣ AK is a playable grand slam. I must make a slam-positive bed. In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal. If I though otherwise, I would bid five diamonds."
I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite. Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.
Jim, my impression has been exactly the opposite simply because it makes no sense to me. Why treat it (the invite) like a hot potato?
Partner 1: "I have invitational values, partner. What are your thoughts on our chances in game?"
Partner 2: "I'm not really sure, partner. Exactly how invitational were you?"
As long as you are on the same page as your partner, it likely matters not. But with no discussion, the "not two invites" method would be what I assume partner plays. It just feels like the second invite is splitting a hair that has already been split.
This is probably one of those meta-agreements that deserves further investigation into what is standard and what is best.
Anyone else wish to chime in?