July MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– David Berkowitz, DirectorProblem A 2 (Masse24, Jcreech, KenBerg, BabsG, MarilynLi, WackoJack, DrAculea, Yleexotee, Msphola, CCR3, VeeRee, Peuco)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A J 8
♥ K
♦ A 10 9
♣ A 8 6 5 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— Pass 1
♥ 2 ♣ 2
♥ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
Overwhelmingly, the panelists and solvers fell into one of two camps. One camp was viewed as an overbid, while the other was viewed as an underbid. No choice fit into that just right category. So what is the problem? It is primarily that singleton HK. Do you discount it except as a singleton, and discount the spade holding as well because it is very likely a 4-3 fit? Or do you pretend it is worth its full value and keep other options, outside of spades, alive as well?
3 ♥ (70) Bridge World Panel (BWP) 26%; Bridge World Solvers (BWS) 17%; IAC Solvers (IAC) 14%. A distant second place went to the 3
cue-bid, the overbid, with a vote total that would be a much closer second for many other problems, but not this one.
BluBayou thinks "This is a memory-test from problem G last December? There we had the hearts (Axxxxx) and opening side had the clubs; there we had 14 working, here we have 13 working plus their lone king. The cue bid won big in December and it will again this month (But I would gladly trade December's diamond jack for this month's stiff king in their suit -- a completely worthless card on offense, I must admit.) ... I am cuebidding for the contest's 100. The ugly truth is I am in spade game already whether partner rebids spades, diamonds notrump or [impossibly] clubs. Don't tell the BW this." Don't tell Jock, but it matters who owns the heart suit and who owns the clubs. Committing to a 9 or 10 trick game is different from committing to a 9 to 11 trick game.
DickHy went to system notes when making his decision: "According to BWS: Among advancer's actions when responder raises opener: a double is not for penalty (for takeout or showing general values, depending on level). If N’s double was for takeout, EW have a 10/11 card fit and one of them would have bid 3H (or some punchier bid than 2H). Therefore, N must have three (maybe four hearts) and “general values”. For a passed hand these had better be in the 8-10 HCP range or there’s going to be shouting in the bar afterwards. Holding the heart king, should I simply bid 3N? Suppose I bid 3H asking for a heart stop (does 3H have this meaning in BWS?) and partner has JTx or Qxx, will he bid 3N? Still, 3H gives more options "
Billy Eisenberg bids 3
"Hoping to convey doubt. A delayed three notrump would be optional." While
Sue Picus thinks the hand is "Perhaps strong enough ... to look higher. If partner bids three spades, I will bid four. If North bids four clubs or four diamonds, I'll raise. If partner bids three notrump, I'll pass." Echoed by
Gary Cohler: "Extra values but no idea what strain to play, so involve partner." Or as
Sami Kehela puts it "The mantra of the new millenium is 'When in doubt, cue-bid.'" and wonders "Is this a bridge deal or one from pinochle?"
2 ♠ (100) BWP 63%; BWS 59%; IAC 83%. So what are the arguments for 2
? The double is responsive, so at best we are assured of a 7-card fit (we may have better, but from our perspective a 4-3 is our starting point). Looking at 18 HCPs, an opener on my right and a responder on my left, how much can be left for partner to have for the responsive double? All this speaks to being cautious because someone is overstating their values.
Bart Bramley argues for 2
: "A nice hand, but with no assured eight-card fit, I'm going low. Spades should play well. Partner was probably getting his oar in with 4-3-4-2 or 4=4=4=1 and some values. I will double three hearts, despite the possibility of dog-walking."
Masse24 thinks "This one is difficult, I think. My gut tells me 2
, which I may change to. (changed.) This is an underbid. But 3
is an overbid. I can see several possible answers to this one."
JCreech is "... not afraid of the Moysian when taking the tap in the short hand. For the negative double partner should definitely have at least four spades when the opponents have hearts." For some, the
K clearly should be discounted.
Eric Rodwell: "The opponents could be blowing us out if the king of hearts is a good notrump asset. As it is, I make the same bid I would make if my heart were an x."
KenBerg thinks 2
"Maybe an underbid, but the HK is not a trick." And
Harry Steiner "Decided to discount heart king as an offensive asset. I like prospects in a spade partial and will be well-placed should the auction continue - accept a game-invitation or double three hearts. Partner has shown at least four cards in each of spades and diamonds and about 8-11 HCP, but possibly fewer HCP with more shape." I think the actual upper range is closer to 8 or 9, but
WackoJack is clearly on the same page with Harry: "If partner has something like ♠AQxx,
♥xxx,
♦KQxx, ♣xx and decided to pass, she will now make a game try." I will end this discussion with two diametrically opposite views:
Zia picked 2
despite the problem being "Impossibly complicated; too difficult to do anything but guess. I hope the choice of strain will make up for the possible missed game elsewhere." While
Peuco goes for the Al Roth "What's the problem" position: "2S not much to it"
Problem B 1 (BabsG, Yleexotee, Masse24).
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 9 6
♥ A 10
♦ 4 3
♣ J 10 9 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass 1
♦ Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
Balancing is an art as much as it is a science. I find balancing actions later in the auction easier to weigh the merits of action versus inaction. The benefits of balancing on this auction include that partner cannot over-value your holding because you are limited as a passed hand. Nonetheless, should you balance or not?
WackoJack gave this considerable thought: "I have 9 and give East most likely 4. That makes 27 between partner and west. 19 -8 at one extreme and 12-15 at the other. We can almost rule out partner having 15 as would overcall 1NT on most hands. If partner has 14 then barring a spade fit we would want to be playing in 1NT and not defending 1
. At the other extreme if partner has 8, then we have only 17 points between us and playing in a vulnerable 1NT would be disastrous and defending 1
looks best. Midway between these 2 extremes is where partner has 11 and we have 20 points each. It is then anybody's guess as to who we want to be declarer.
"I suppose East could have fewer than 4 points in which case the odds tilt slightly towards bidding. So next the problem of what to bid. Double? On the chance of a 4-4 spade fit. As said before, if partner bids 1
, I bid 1
and a balanced partner with a diamond stop would bid 1NT and all would be well provided partner had about 12 points or more. 1
? Partner with 3 spades and 12 points might be tempted to raise to 2
, but in reality should suspect that I only have 4 because I didnt overcall initially. 1NT? Can we rely on partner having a double stop in diamonds Can we rely on partner having a good 11? No we cannot but we can give it about a 50% chance."
"Even going through this analysis I still cannot make up my mind."
Pass (60) BWP 19%; BWS 27%; IAC 14%. Building from the discussion above,
JCreech "... liked Jack's analysis of the relative HCPs, but decided he left out thought about the distribution. Where are the majors? I think opener is looking at a 4-4-3-2 18-19 point hand and partner has length in the diamond suit. A double allows the opponents to escape. They may be able to make 3
on pure power, but I am betting that at 100 per trick, we will do better than the partscore we are at best able to make. If we can make more than a partscore, most times we will set enough to recover that as well."
Michael Rosenberg expounds "A basic matchpoint rule of mine is that if one of a minor is passed to me, and the opponents are vulnerable, I pass if that is in any way reasonable. Clearly true here."
John Carruthers thinks "If partner has a trap pass, we'll take our penalty in 100's. If I acted, what would I do? Whatever I did, what if it continued two hearts - pass - four hearts? South has poor defense against
six hearts."
KenBerg settles for "Let well enough alone" While
Sami Kehela wants to "Pass out of fear - not of the opponents, but of my partner."
1 ♠ (100) BWP 56%; BWS 36%; IAC 21%
Kerri and Steve Sanborn think "One spade is okay for people who already denied five." But how many preempt in spade on five-baggers? Apparently a plurality of the Panel do not subscribe to that sort of rigid thinking. Some are reluctant:
Sue Picus: "One spade. I don't love it, but it is the least of evils. Selling out at pairs, hoping for the smallest minus, rarely works."
Billy Eisenberg: "One spade. The best of bad choices." Phillip Alder: "One spade. At imps I might pass, but someone once said that bridge is a bidder's game." Others think the bid has advantages:
Bart Bramley: "Partner didn't act, so he is light or has too many diamonds or has too few spades. Pass could be the winner, especially with a partner would would double with a 4-3-3-3 12-count (as I would) - but North or the master Solvers' Club probably isn't one of them. If not passing on spade is obvious."
Steve Garner says "I've never had particularly good luck passing out one-bids, and partner often passes over one of a minor with a weak notrump. Secretly, I confess my admiration for those who double, but I'm too chicken for that."
Masse24 considers the stifling effect of the bid "It occurs to me that 1
is a good way to preclude partner from a silly jump in hearts. This is the only suit I can bid on the one level." And
Kit Woolsey considers that "Passing would be taking too big a position, and it's impossible to double with only a doubleton heart. One spade leaves open playing in one notrump, likely to be partner's bi if he doesn't have three spades."
Double (50) BWP 14%; BWS 23%; IAC 50% The IAC is firmly in the double camp. Peuco's plan is "X maybe p is loaded on Ds. if not i bid Spades after Hearts"
Adam Grossack fleshes out this plan: "I like the added possibility of defending against one diamond doubled. If partner bids two hearts, I will convert to two spades. Being a passed hand makes this easier."
BluBayou thinks "9 working is plenty to protect with. I think I will take advantage of our passed-hand status and try to double-and-bid in spades. But 2 clubs and one spade are still in the running. ( I thought the balancing 1NT with xx in their suit went extinct before I was 25,when Queen Elizabeth was coronated!) ... then run from hearts to spades when the time comes." While
WackoJack eventually concludes "I think double just shades it. So I now go for double." Similarly,
DickHy says "Balancing seems right. N and W have 28 HCP between them. N could well be 12-14 with three or four diamonds (pretty much like W), but probably hasn’t got five hearts. That raises hopes for a spade fit. Balancing with a 2C bid is likely to lose the spades if they’re there. When N bids 1H over my x I can bid 1S; p will know I have only four spades and because I’m a passed hand won’t get overly excited. My hand is close to a 1N balancing bid (10/11 by a passed hand and not necessarily promising a stopper over a minor suit opening), and I wonder if that will get some votes."
Alan Sontag feels that double is "The most flexible choice. I'm not a fan of bidding one spade." And
Bruce Rogoff feels "Passed-hand status make this a easy choice, as correcting hearts to spades should show this hand-type (with five spades, I'd bid the suit now)."
Problem C 2 (DrAculea, BabsG)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 5
♥ Q J 8 2
♦ Q 9 6 3
♣ K J 9
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass Pass 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 2
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
According to the moderator,
David Berkowitz, this problem is based on the question "Opposite a passed partner, does two diamonds show at least four?" I think this turned out to be too simplistic, because the Panelists seemed to have a lot more on their radar than just the number of diamonds promised.
2 ♠ (100) BWP 52%; BWS 34%; IAC 14%. A slight majority of Panelists went with 2
. But does 2
guarantee four or more diamonds?
Steve Garner citing his own poll says no. "All the Boca Raton experts I consulted assure me that North may be 5-3-3-2, so raising diamonds is out. I predict the vote tally for two spades will echo an American electoral landslide not seen since 1964 (when it was roughly 90-10)."
Eric Kokish argument goes "Not enough for two notrump; not a great hand for diamonds. We need a third bid from North to have a biddable game, so this is a practical hedge - no cheap hedge-clipper humor, please."
BluBayou "I see no reason to avoid the spade preference just because pard is more likely to have a diamond suit than were I not a passed hand (She IS ALLOWED to pass with a minimal 5=3=3=2). So I keep it open in case we can wander into 3NT. Speaking of wandering into 3NT, my wife favors giving this very stoppery 9-count a promotion and rebidding 2NT, as if it were 10-11, yet we are together on not going to the 3-level --in DIAMONDS. 2NT is henceforth on my radar (needs a 50-deal simulation!)
Pass (70) BWP 30%; BWS 21%; IAC 14%. Although
YleeXotee ultimately went a different direction, his initial thoughts make the argument for Pass eloquently: "I have an unsavory collection of Queens and Jacks, and partner is not showing much else either. Lets try the possible 8 card diamond fit rather than the 7 card spades. When ops come in with their 2h, we have 2s to fall back to. But also pass never scores well, so there's that."
Larry Cohen agrees: "No need to stretch not vulnerable game is a long way off. Partner could be light or have only four spades, e.g.: ♠ AQJx
♥ xx
♦ K10xxx ♣ xx. With more in partner's suits, I'd keep the bidding alive with two spades."
Chip Martel: "Sound North hands like: ♠ AQxxx
♥ Kxx
♦ AKxx ♣ x, yield only an okay play for a nonvulnerable game. Three diamonds or two notrump would often get us too high, and two spades risks a minus in the wrong partscore. Vulnerable, it would be risky to pass."
Carl Hudecek knows what to expect, but still passes: "The trend these days is to 'correct' with a low doubleton, an incorrect approach. This hand is too cheesy to act more aggressively."
3 ♦ (60) BWP 15%; BWS 26%; 43%. A plurality of IAC was certain enough to raise the diamonds.
Masse24 thinks "Partner’s range is wide. My range is limited to a 6-9 or so (or bad 10). Pass seems timid. 2NT is a slight overbid, though the lead coming up to my heart and club honors is desirable. If partner has the values to go on, since he has already denied four hearts, a 3
bid on the tails of my 3
would ask me to bid 3NT with the proper club honors."
WackoJack laments "Since we are not playing Gazzilli I have to raise to 3♦. This is much better than 2♠ because it will encourage partner to bid on with 16."
Peuco simply argues that "i have seen game with this kind of holding"
Kit Woolsey also raises the diamonds: "Near the top of my range, so too strong to pass. Partner will have at least four diamonds opposite a passed hand."
2 NT (50) BWP 1 panelist; BWS 18%; 29%. Only
Phillip Alder, from the Panel, went with 2NT. "I like the ten and three nines." But for IAC, 2NT was the second choice.
BluBayou thinks, "First, but not crucially, there are hands partner may have that cannot pass semi-forcing 1NT yet do NOT have four of them...AKxxx, xxx, AKx, xx for example, and for my pairs you can throw in a spade or diamond jack. But our original thought to give the 6-9 preff to his major is history. There is the theory that opener ALWAYS passes this "unless he forgot to jump-shift", so we are sticking with the overbid of... 2NT" 2NT was frequently mentioned as a choice, but the failing was almost universally that the hand was not strong enough, sometimes specifically short by about a queen.