June MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem A  4 (VeredK, BluBayou)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 4 2   ♥ A K Q 6   ♦ —   ♣ Q J 7 6 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       2 NT*     3 ♣     Pass
   ?         
*red suits; any strength

What call do you make?

You opened 1 with six, when you could have easily only had three, the opponents show both red suits, and partner raises.  Partner had the ability to show a stronger club raise through unusual vs. unusual, so he is clearly limited by the decision to not use a cue-bid. According to BWS2017, North is limited to less than a game-invitational raise of clubs.
 
5 ♣   50   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 11%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 20 Intermediate/Advanced Club (IAC) 57%
The low road was not a popular approach by the panel, but it was the majority choice of IAC.  Hoki says "although I did toy with that fancy idea of trying a 4D splinter bid (but rejected that idea as being too much pie-in-the-sky stuff when it is not even certain that we can make game)"  Similarly, JCreech doesn't "... see much chance for a slam, so I will holster the cue-bids and just bid the club game."  Masse24 thinks it "Should have play. An exploratory splinter, or even 3 (my second choice) accomplishes what? What sort of perfecto does partner need for slam to be decent?"  David Berkowitz argues "No call seems appropriate, so I will try to buy the contract.  Feels like partner is 3=1=4=5, but who knows how to reach slam opposite ace-king-fifth in clubs?  At least I've shut out four diamonds."  And Robert Wolff will "... probably bid six if pushed but I can hope that an opponent doubles five clubs."

3 ♥   70   BWP 30%   BWS 36% IAC 1 solver
It is not clear how best to start the cue-bidding process.  The heart bidders thinks it show a concentration of values.  Doub and Wildavsky says "Bidding where we live.  We can't yet picture partenr's hand well, so we'll show ours."  similarly, Drew Casen: "I like to bid where I live.  If partner bids three notrump, I will probably settle for five clubs.  If partner does not bid three notrump, I will look for six clubs."  Frank Stewart is "Heading for six clubs if I can receive just a little cooperation from partner.  Over four clubs, I will try four diamonds."  Jeff Alexander thinks that "If partner doesn't bid three notrump, slam is in the picture.  Partner figures to have fewer than five cards in the majors."  Kevin Bathurst feels "Slam may be excellent if partner if partner has the spade ace and a high club honor, but more likely he's loaded in diamonds.  I won't pass three notrump, which could fail if we have only one stopper in diamonds or spades so I'll keep looking for a club slam."  Irinia Levitina "If partner bids three notrump or four clubs, I'll bid five clubs.  If he bids three spades or jumps to five clubs (showing strong clubs), I'll bid six clubs."  Typically, with the opponents showing two suits, a cue-bid shows a stopper in the bid suit and is seeking a stop in the other suit; it seems like 3 is placing the emphasis on the wrong suit, seeking wastage rather than useful controls.

4 ♦   100   BWP 52%   BWS 23%  IAC 29%
By the barest of majorities, the Panel has slam in their eyes via a splinter.  BluBayou discussed the limits imposed with a simple raise under BWS2017 before saying: "I guess that rules out partner having Axx,  xx, Qxxx, AKxx for our  Kxx, AKQx, --, QJxxxx (or even similar with five trumps)?  So shall we bid the simple cuebid of 3   hoping to hear 3   OR 3NT (Will be ugly if we don't have running clubs)?  No--  I will remove the temptation to land in 3NT and stay with the knee-jerk SPLINTER."  Kit Woolsey is "Showing diamond shortness and slam interest.  If Partner control-bids four spades, I'll bid slam.  If partner has both top clubs, he can work out that he has the right cards."  Eric Kokish thinks "With two key cards, North won't stop short of slam, which might still take some luck if those cards are the ace and king of clubs."  Carl Hudecek believes "Partner will interpret this as a cue-bid slam-try.  He can control-bid the sueful ace of spades, or sign off in five clubs with a hand like: ♠ Jxx   ♥ xx   ♦ xxx   ♣ AKxxx."  Marty Bergen: "A splinter, not an-ask.  Slam is on the horizon."  Billy Eisenberg is "Hoping for a spade control-bid."  Nick L'Ecuyer: "I don't need much to make six clubs, so I'll try for it. Partner won't control-bid hearts but may well control-bid spades.  I'll bid six clubs over any sign of life."  Zia says "A four-spade bid from partner will turn me on."  Jeff Rubens: "I'll bid six clubs over four spades."  I like Robb Gordon's thoughts best: "I don't need much for slam and want to elicit information below five clubs."  Coupled with Bart Bramley's: "Should get partner to focus on the right things.  ... I will bid slam over any positive move."  Which leads to Ron Smith's "We could have a slam on a good day."

My problem with most slam tries with this hand is whether North would be showing a first-round or second-round control.  When dealing with a minor, it is easy to get too high.  In those situations, I find it better to bid the game that is almost certain to make, than to stretch for a slam that might risk turning a plus into a minus position at imps. 



Problem B  1 NT  (CCR3, Hoki, YleeXotee, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 8 6 4   ♥ A 10   ♦ K J 6 2   ♣ 10 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♣        1 ♥      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

LHO opened 1 , partner overcalled 1 , RHO passed and you have 10 HCPs in a semi-balanced hand with no stopper in the opponent's suit, and only doubleton support for partner.  Not a lot of outstanding choices. Robb Gordon summarizes nicely: "A typical Master Solvers' Club dilemma:  bid notrump without a stopper, raise on a doubleton, or bid one spade with only four."
 
Pass   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 5% IAC No solvers
The alternative that did not occur to most, but upon reflection, has a lot to offer is the simple pass.  Carl Hudecek thinks "The auction isn't over yet.  East's pass has made the auction more difficult for me."  In these days of negative doubles, the virtually automatic reopening double makes pass a standout.  Wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with 1 doubled if passed back to you?  And if it isn't, then you may have a better option available to you.

1 NT   100   BWP 74%   BWS 4% IAC 71%
A strong majority of the Panel and IAC show their shape and good values.  Although the points may be toward the top, the important thing is to show the shape and not worry about stoppers.  Bart Bramley considers the bid to be "Closest to what I have. One notrump should be safe, and three notrump is our most-likely game on the evidence so far.  Still time to find other strains.  Pass, one spade, and heart raises all pale in comparison."  JCreech argues "I am a maximum for my bidding, but then a minimum for my stopper.  I don't want to introduce a four-card suit, even at the one-level.  I will settle for my least of evils/ best of descriptions."  Phillip Alder: "I would prefer a better suit to bid one spade on four.  I also would prefer better clubs for one notrump, but the hand is too strong to pass."    Masse24: "Ten third is stopperish. Keeps things alive if partner has more to say."  Zia: "some prefer one spade, but I'd like four better spades when I have this club stopper."  Eric Kokish argues "It's just the one-level - lots of time to look for a better strain."  Hoki is "second-guessing the panellists who normally don't give a stuff about piffling things like stoppers (at the table I'd probably agree with 1S)"

1 ♠   50   BWP 15%   BWS 32% IAC 1 solver
Hating to bid 1 NT without a stopper, something to try bidding 1 .  Marty Bergen says "I believe strongly that after partner overcalls, advancer's new-suit bid at the one-level should be forcing with four or more cards in the suit."  Kevin Bathurst: "If this may be based on as few as four.  I prefer it to one notrump, my close secnd choice, which may fail when West has genuine clubs."  Nick L'Ecuyer is "Keeping everything in the picture.  A fifth spade would be nice but I don't have one."  Marty clearly feels that an advancer should bid similar to a responder, but the moderator, Danny Kleinman, thinks the advancer's bid is "... non-forcing, (so) a one-spade advance should deliver a decent five-card suit or better.  One spade keeps one spade in the picture, and that may be the final contract if North has a garden variety one-heart overcall with a balanced hand, e.g.:  ♠ Kx   ♥ KJ98x   ♦ xxx   ♣ AQx."

2 ♥   40   BWP 7%   BWS 12% IAC No solvers
And then speaking for those who would raise.  Joel Wooldridge writes "One notrump and two hearts look good.  I prefer two hearts with no club stopper."  I have seen worse doubleton raises than A10-tight.

2 ♣   0   BWP No Panelists   NWS 3% IAC 1 solver
I will present one more option; the nebulous cue-bid.  To tell the truth, similar to the "Pass," this has more merit than the polling indicates.  BluBayou "We have everything we need for a cue-advance of pard's 2 clubs, except a third trump.  I am doing this anyway:"  If you had a third heart, this would probably be a standout first or second choice.  It gives partner a chance to show a second suit or a stopper, if inclined toward notrump.  The problem is that it is also an aggressive bid with no sure fit or stopper.  I am certain that the Panel also looked at vulnerability and were not being pushy with our side white.





Problem C  2   (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A Q J 10   ♥ Q 8   ♦ Q J 10 8 5   ♣ 4 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♥        2 ♣      Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: new-suit bids nonforcing

What call do you make?

Partner has overcalled opener's 1 with 2 , so you, if you bid, would be the advancer.  You have 12 HCPs, doubleton support for partner, and both remaining suits, including five decent diamonds.  The hint indicates that all new suit bids are nonforcing, so a cue-bid is the only forcing bid.  Is this hand worth forcing with?  And surely a new suit would show at least constructive values; opposite what constitutes an overcall these days, what do you need to show a new suit?

3 ♣   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0% IAC No solvers
Let's start with the truly awful.  Jeff Rubens says he "Can't bring myself to pass with all these honors, however queeny."  Doubleton support and 12 HCPs?  It seems a bit much for a courtesy raise Jeff, but perhaps you have seen more terrible overcalls than I have.

2 ♥   40   BWP 7%   BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
How about making a forcing bid?  You do have 12 HCPs, and cue-bids in response to an overcall are more often of a nebulous nature - make a one-round force now and clarify whether it is a raise or something else later.  Brian Platnick thinks "North may expect better clubs or a slightly stronger hand, but this is superior to two diamonds."  BluBayou is only thinking in terms of a raise:  "We have everything we need for a cue-advance of pard's 2 clubs, except a third trump.  I am doing this anyway:"  The only thing keeping me from the cue-bid is what is my next bid?

2 ♦   100   BWP 74%   BWS 62% IAC 86%
Two diamonds feels as though it is a bit wimpy.  Phillip Alder makes a pitch for the non-systemic approach: "I prefer to use a new-suit advance as forcing, so that a cue-bid guarantees support for partner's suit.  But if partner passes two diamonds, I doubt that we will have missed game."  Kit Woolsey remarks:  "I was surprised that the BWS voters made new-suit advances of two-level overcalls nonforcing, but if partner passes two diamonds we probably won't be missing anything."  Robert Wolff says "And await developments.  I hope I'm not left here; but if I am, two diamonds may turn out well enough, especially at imps, where playing in the lower-scoring strain matters little.  I'll bid spades next in the unlikely event that I can do so conveniently."  Bart Bramley feels that "With no known fit and no sure heart stopper, game is a long way off.  Take it slowly and hope that something good happens, which could include all pass."  JCreech argues "I may be a bit heavy for my bid, but it is the best description.  I can tolerate partner's suit and I want to make a constructive move.  This satisfies those desires without going crazy."  Irina Levitina thinks that "Even if it is not forcing, it still must be constructive."  Similarly, Hoki says "forward-going but non-forcing constructive in standard is fine"  Carl Hudecek: "The downside to two diamonds is that part may lead diamonds if West buys the contract, but I'm willing to take that risk.  This hand is too strong to pass partner's two-level overcall."  Doub and Wildavsky: "Not forcing, but nothing compels partner to pass."  Kevin Bathurst is "Resisting the temptations to treat my four strong spades as though I had five and to bid two notrump to protect the doubleton queen, but I may be able to do that later."  Masse24 makes a prediction:  "Unanimous?"  Todd, you were close, but there was even a dissenter among the IAC.

2 NT   50   BWP 15%   BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Except for one missing element, this would have been my choice.  With more than the constructive values of a new suit and stoppers in both unbid suits, this bid seems ideal until you get to a stopper in the opponent's suit.  Even there, you have a partial stop with Qx, and even the best location for that partial stopper if you bid the notrump first, but I would not like to be in a notrump contract with Qx opposite air.  Eric Kokish writes: "This hand suggests suit play, but two diamonds and two spades are length-short and high-card heavy.  If the heart queen is worth something it's in notrump.  We can get out of notrump if that looks better to North."  I'm afraid that once you have promised a heart stop, partner will take you at your word.  I agree with Jeff Alexander: "If we belong in notrump, I should declare.  I don't see how cue-bidding two hearts would help."  But I am not raising my hand without encouragement from partner, unlike Zia, who wants to "Grab it while it's hot."


This ends Part 1 of this month's summary.  Despite two very concentrated votes, I found some of the minority selections particularly intriguing.  I hope you found something of interest as well.  Once you finish, think about going to the current month's problem set.  Who knows, maybe we will see Ken Berg triumphant return, or Curls  (who we haven't seen since she has turned into a Yellow) participate.  Anyway, any and all who do participate are welcome; the more the merrier.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech

Fredericksburg VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 5 Clubs  I don't see much chance for a slam, so I will holster the cue-bids and just bid the club game.

PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump  I am a maximum for my bidding, but then a minimum for my stopper.  I don't want to introduce a four-card suit, even at the one-level.  I will settle for my least of evils/ best of descriptions.

PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds  I may be a bit heavy for my bid, but it is the best description.  I can tolerate partner's suit and I want to make a constructive move.  This satisfies those desires without going crazy.

PROBLEM D: 2 Spades  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.

PROBLEM E: 4 Diamonds  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.

PROBLEM F: 3 Spades  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.

PROBLEM G: 1 Diamond  I was tempted to bid 1 NT, but it feels bigger than its HCPs.  Also bidding 1 gives us a better shot to find a major, and deceptively discourages a diamond lead if I bid the NT.

PROBLEM H: Spade 8  I think the double is steering me away from the heart lead, but what should I lead?  I doubt that partner is ruffing clubs, but he might have the spade ace.  As the saying goes, I cannot have a singleton if I did not make it my opening lead.

May MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Bart Bramley, Director


Problem G  (c4) 1 ♣; then, after, (Pass) - 1 ♥ - (Pass) - ?, 2 ♦ (JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, Masse24, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 4 3   ♥ 3   ♦ A Q 10 4   ♣ A K 6 4 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
   ?         
What is your plan?

(a) 1 NT
(b) 1 ♦
(c) 1 ♣; then, after (Pass) - 1 ♥ - (Pass) - ?
    (c1) 1 ♠
    (c2) 1 NT
    (c3) 2 ♣
    (c4) 2 ♦
    (c5) 2 NT

The question raised by the moderator, Bart Bramley, was "Is this another 'style tester'?  The question before the panel was: 'Is this enough to reverse?'"

c4 (1 ♣; then, after, (Pass) - 1 ♥ - (Pass) - ?, 2 ♦)   100   BWP 52%   BWS 59%  IAC 100%
The answer emerging from both the Panel and the solvers is "yes."  All three groups provided a majority for the reverse into diamonds, but other than IAC, the majority was joined by substantial minority positions.  BluBayou declares:  "The die has been cast! If we aren't reversing after partner's normal response, we shouldn't have opened one club."  But Jock, you cast the die for clubs; you had other openings available.  Mark Feldman admits to the sequence: "Having opened one club, I would be quite content to reverse."  Ross Grabel is "Not uneasy about this.  The hand has the values to open one club vs. one diamond."  Robert Wolff says to "Just bid naturally and recognize a minimum; natural has advantages."  Steve Beatty: "With a control-rich, five-loser 16-count and two reasonable suits, this is a model reverse."  Kit Woolsey: "With all these prime values, I'm willing to risk a reverse.  Sometimes the auction doesn't go as shown, and then it will have been best that I opened in my longest suit."  JCreech: "I see no reason to distort my shape.  I wish I had some better spot-cards, but this hand has primes, so I am willing to reverse on this 16."  Sartag Hans: "After half a lifetime of waiting for 'pure' six-four-type hands for reverses, I've joined the herd of 'show the strength and the basic shape with a five-four reverse.'"  JoAnna Stansby: "Short only a jack for an otherwise-perfect description, and the good controls everywhere make up for it."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha considers it "A bit light for a reverse, but I like the other alternatives less."  Kevin Rosenberg agrees "This is a bit light to reverse, but it is least of all evils."  Jeff Alexander: "Minimum.  Without the spade king, I'd open one diamond."  Joe Grue: "Hits the bottom of the reverse range."  Zia, though, says "This is a good 16-count.  I'm an optimist and will make a goodish approach.  The diamond ten is not chopped liver."  I like the point Masse24 makes: "The ugly reverse. Also strongly considered the 'if I can only get past this round' 1 . But the point shy reverse is the lesser lie. It also has the advantage of being more likely to get us to the right strain."

b (1 ♦)   90   BWP 34%   BWS 23%  IAC No solvers
The most substantial alternative vote from the Panel, was to not reverse by distorting the shape of the hand; bid the four-card diamond suit first, so the five-card club suit could be shown without reversing.  Among the solvers, there were no IAC votes, but nearly a quarter of the BW solvers liked this approach.  Danny Kleinman considers the hand "Just a hair below the threshold for one club then two diamonds.  Add two black tens and I would say 'just a hair above.'"  David Berkowitz claims the gerontological excuse: "Too old to change now.  To open one club and not anticipate a one-heart response would be very shortsighted."  Mike Passell: "No auction looks promising after opening one club.  After one diamond - one heart - two clubs - two diamonds, I will upgrade to two notrump."  Don Stack asks "Will we miss game after a two club rebid?  Probably not.  As long as the shorter diamonds make a decent four-card suit, this usually works well."  Allan Graves: "I almost never prepare an auction in the minors, but when I have enough strength to bid around with a strong two-of-a-major raise and too little for a pushy reverse and the diamonds are decent, the I say okay."  Eric Kokish says "... I'd rather bid the long suits without admitting to reversing values."  Billy Eisenberg regards this approach "The least evil."  Augie Boehm writes:  "Without the wire, I might well open one club and hope for competition or a one-spade response that would elevate the hand into reverse territory."  Augie regards this problem as telegraphing what will happen, I think he is taking the wrong approach to the problem.  To me, the problem is anticipating the worst-case scenario, and trying to cater to the best solution.  That is Carl Hudecek's approach: "I prefer to solve a rebid problem early, so not one club.  Don't ask me what I would do if partner responds one spade."

c3 (1 ♣; then, after, (Pass) - 1 ♥ - (Pass) - ?, 2 ♣)   60   BWP 7%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The third choice was to avoid the reverse by bidding and rebidding the clubs; a common approach understood to show an unbalanced hand that may not have a sixth club.  Hemant Lall thinks "With 16 HCP, I want partner to keep the bidding open over two clubs with 9-10 HCP.  I suspect he will have more hands with which to give a courtesy raise to three clubs if I open and rebid clubs than if I open one diamond and rebid two clubs.  Over three clubs, I will bid three notrump."  Jeff Rubens says "The advantage of (c) is that the single-most-likely scenario will often not occur.  (c3) is a guess with the excuse of demotion for the misfit and the absent sixth club."  The moderator points out that "We would bid the same way with 11 HCP and six clubs, right?  Sure partner may give those panelists another chance, but they're pretty much on their own, because North will never figure out what they hold.  And how will they reach diamonds opposite four or five of them?  Consider this North hand:  ♠ QJx   ♥ Axxx   ♦ Jxxxx   ♣ x.  Good luck!  They land in two clubs when six diamonds is on a finesse and normal splits."

c1 (1 ♣; then, after, (Pass) - 1 ♥ - (Pass) - ?, 1 ♠)   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The fourth choice was too avoid the reverse by clearly distorting the shape; choosing to bid the spade fragment rather than upgrading the hand to a reverse, or suggesting a balanced hand by rebidding 1NT.  Phil Clayton is reluctant: "I don't love it, but I dislike the other options more.  If partner raises, I will have an easy two notrump.  If partner bids one notrump or two clubs, two diamonds will complete the picture."  The moderator commented "Unnecessarily bidding a three-card spade suit is the 'suicide bombing' option.  Two diamonds may complete a picture, but it's not a pretty one."

a (1 NT)   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
The fifth choice is a repudiation of the ACBL restriction of the opening of 1 NT with a small singleton.
Phillip Alder "I do not like this with a low singleton, but I strongly dislike opening one diamond, and the rebid problem after partner's one heart response is even worse."



Problem H  A  (None)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 9 8 3 2   ♥ A 5 4   ♦ A Q 5   ♣ Q 5 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       Pass      Pass
  1 ♣     Double     Pass      1 ♠
  Pass      2 ♥        Pass      3 NT
  Pass      Pass      Pass
What is your opening lead?

You opened and partner was not helpful as the opponents ran roughshod over you to bid 3 NT.  LHO doubled and bid hearts.  RHO bid 1 when forced to respond, but jumped to 3 NT at his next opportunity.

In general, I would place RHO with spade length and club values, and LHO with extra strength and hearts.  Beyond that, the placing of values and length are in the minds of the opening leaders.

♦ A   100   BWP 55%   BWS 26%  IAC No solvers
Hemant Lall feels "The best shot to beat the contract and not to give up a trick.  East is probably 4=2=3=4 or 4=2=2=5, and the diamond king rates to be in the dummy - maybe doubleton when partner has jack-fifth or -sixth.  Or, if king-third is in dummy, we may be able to set up partner's diamond and hope that he gets in with a heart."  Kit Woolsey believes "Our future might be in diamonds; but, since declarer appears to have at most four spades and three hearts, his future might be in diamonds.  By leading the ace, I can see the dummy and partner's signal, an those should tell me how to continue."  Steve Beatty goes for the last suit standing: "The other three suits look worse."  David Berkowitz: "LHO has hearts and a good hand.  RHO has the blacks.  Maybe that leaves partner with some diamonds.  Leading the ace, I can see what aI should have led at trick one."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "Must attack before the heart ace is dislodged. ... I lead the ace rather than the queen, because we may spear something at trick one, and it allows me to look at dummy.  A beat seems unlikely on the auction, but we may be able to stop some overtricks."  Carl Hudecek reminds us that "Partner couldn't bid over one club doubled, so he is probably broke.  I'm not optimistic about beating three notrump, so I take a look."  Zia finds it "A narrow choice between ace and queen.  I've seen bare kings and other friendly layouts."  Ross Grabel: "Preferable to the queen as I can see dummy and also get partner's reaction."  JoAnna Stansby may have the best reason identified: "Partner would have raised clubs in some fashion with five.  At least I'll get to see dummy and know what to do next." 

♦ Q   90   BWP 34%   BWS 20%  IAC 57%
JCreech: "I hate to say this, but my strongest inclination right now is to lead the Q, like last month, hoping to hit Jxxxx with partner."  Masse24 is also "Hoping for length and a Jack from partner."  Kevin Rosenberg thinks "The queen might be more effective than the ace (maybe declarer will have king-ten-low and fail to duck when partner has jack-fifth).  It might have more deceptive value.  I'll be sorry if dummy has stiff king."  Phillip Alder: "If we can defeat the contract, this looks like the suit to lead.  If partner lacks the king, surely it will be in the West hand.  No other lead has any appeal."  Billy Eisenberg "At least as good as anything else and may produce a home run."  Allan Graves: "With no good lead, let's attack and force a duck with king-third to hold declarer to four."  Don Stack: "It appears that leading any other suit would produce tricks for the opponents."  While Mike Passell may have the best reason: "Looks like a time to be desparate."

♠ 2   60   BWP 7%   BWS 14%  1 solver
Phil Clayton feels "Any non-spade could easily blow a trick and would be too committal. ... North will be weak, so I am not too concerned about camouflaging my spade holding."  Augie Boehm: "It wouldn't be a great surprise to find partner with four spades, or at least three, since the opponents didn't bother to explore a spade fit."

♥ 4   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Robert Wolff echos the uncertainty of his choice: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; this opening lead belongs in that category."

♠ 9, 8   10   BWP No Panelists   BWS 30%  IAC 29%
About 30% of the solvers made this selection, but no Panelists.  Phil Clayton discussed why he did not choose a high spade to show his disinterest: "I cannot afford to lead the nine or eight and crash partner's two honors doubleton (or even honor-seven-doubleton)."

I feel Sami Kehela has the right idea: "Just an uneducated guess." regardless of what lead was chosen this month.


Meanwhile, this concludes this month's MSC summary.  I hope you found something interesting, or at least entertaining in this summary.  Please join next month's contest (and when you do, tell us why you chose what you chose - you may find yourself quoted in the next summary).

May MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, Director

Problem A  3   (Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A J   ♥ Q 9 8 6 4 3   ♦ Q J 7   ♣ A 8

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♣
  1 ♥       1 ♠        2 ♥       Double*
   ?         
*three spades

What call do you make?

With 14 HCPs and six hearts, you have a nice hand, but your primes are in short suits, and you have soft values in the diamonds.  How good is your hand, really?  At the table, given that it is imps, I might try bidding game, gambling that partner's values are working in concert with mine.  But this is MSC, so thinking through the strengths and weaknesses of the hand are important.  Everyone is bidding, which lends itself to a partscore and competing, but the right values from partner could make game a laydown, which suggests making a game try.

3 ♥   100   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 34%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 59%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 100%
IAC is all in with 3 , while the BW solvers make it their majority choice and the Panel, their plurality choice.  Most view this action as purely a competive action.  Masse24 thinks to "Jam their auction. Unanimous?" but his prediction only works for the IAC solvers.  Kit Woolsey: "I will want to compete to three hearts, and this isn't worth a game-try, so I don't see Plan B."  Jeff Rubens is "Hoping to profit from unresolved ambiguities in the East-West bidding."  Billy Eisenberg: "Bidding my limit before the opponents have a chance to discover what they can make."  Ross Grabell: "To make it uncomfortable fot he other side to compete."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha thinks "I will need to bid this eventually, so I might as well impede the opponents.  Game is remote with flat shape, slow values, and no cue-bid from partner."  Kevin Rosenberg struggled:  "Almost all the decent games I can construct give North a hnd worth a cue-bid."  I agree with JoAnna Stansby: "Too many losers for a game try."  Resulting in Sartaj Hans' observation: "After a game-try, North would too often accept when game has no play.  Three hearts will miss some close games but avoid a lot of hopeless contracts."  Danny Kleinman: "Just enough extra to have hope for game.  In-and-Out valuation and all that jazz."  Taking a simplistic view, BluBayou "Binary choice!  -- Follow the LAW, and reraise or don't do so and let 2 ride and likely buy it.  Right now, count me IN ..."  While JCreech responded: "I don't know where Jock gets off thinking there are only two options, I can see two cue-bids available for the aggressive, in addition to the two he identified.  Would I choose one of the cue-bids?  Probably not.  Are they unreasonable?  No.  You only need nine HCPs from partner to have a reasonable shot at the heart game (less with the unlikely singleton or void in diamonds).  Nonetheless, I find solice in the LAW.  Pass is too weak and the cue-bid too strong, while 3 is just right."

Pass   60   BWP 7%   BWS 7%  IAC No solvers
Those passing have given up on game entirely, but not necessarily competing.  Arguing for the wait-and-see approach, Augie Boehm says "The heart tricks seem too slow for notrump.  I'll listen before deciding about competing to three hearts; our nine-card heart fit lacks ruffing potential."  Carl Hudecek writes "If two spades comes around, I'll bid three hearts; but game looks hopeless, and freely bidding three hearts would be forward going."  However, Carl's view of 3 seems old fashioned.

2 NT   70   BWP 10%   BWS 1% IAC No solvers
Showing their black-suit stoppers and offering an alternative strain are the two notrump bidders.  Does it hurt to put partner on notice that a double of 3 may be the best place to play this hand?  Phil Clayton feels the "Game is too likely merely to reraise."  Hemant Lall points out that "Partner can have useful cards in all four suits; two notrump puts that message across."  While Eric Kokish feels that "It will be good to be able to double three spades with partner involved.  A redouble would be too much, pass or three hearts too little."

3 ♦   80   BWP 21%   BWS 12% IAC No solvers
Some viewed 3 as the best game-try alternative.  Phillip Alder thinks the bid: "On the aggressive side, but we are vulnerable at imps."  Allan Graves: "Usually, partner will not be strong enough to bid more than three hearts.  If the opponents bid on, a diamond lead from the king would be good."  David Berkowitz says to " Announce that we own the deal before things get out of hand.  If we sell to three spades, so be it."  Steve Beatty feels he "Can't redouble with an extra heart and secondary honors in long suits.  Vulnerable at imps, partnerships usually invite aggressively and accept conservatively so maybe we won't get too high."  The moderator, Bart Bramley, points out that "The trouble with three diamonds is that it is misdescriptive, implying a two-suiter, or at least a suit-oriented hand.  Partner, with a top card in each red suit, will often drive to game when there is no play."  I'm not so sure about all of Bart's analysis, but the hand is versatile - aces and heart length for a suit contract, as well as QJx of diamonds, AJ of spades and values in all suits suitable for notrump.

Redouble   90   BWP 21%   BWS 10% IAC No solvers
For me, the problem with 3 was that it put the focus on only diamonds, when I would also like to know something of trump quality; it was too one-dimensional.  An alternative is redouble, and if I were inclined to make a game try, I think redouble is the one I would make.  Robert Wolff describes it as "Informing partner that I have an excellent overcall, just under the values for bidding game."  Similarly, Mike Passell says "To involve partner.  If he starts doubling, I will be happy."  Sami Kehela: "Strong hand; general values."  Jeff Alexander: "To convey that this may be our deal (against today's light openings and responses).  We might have game opposite a couple of kings and a queen."  Joe Grue sums it up nicely: "To make it possible to find game; three diamonds is not what the hand is about. Three notrump is far more likely than four hearts to be our game, and I will be happy if we buy the contract in three hearts."




Problem B  3   (VeredK, CCR3, Blubayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 10 9 7 2   ♥ 9 6 3 2   ♦ 10 7 3 2   ♣ —

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♥         1 ♠
   ?         
What call do you make?

You have length in both partner's and RHO's suits, the opponents are vulnerable while you are not, and you have 1 HCP and a void.  Does this give you the liberty to mess with what appears to be the opponent's auction?

Pass   70   BWP 14%   BWS 15% IAC No solvers
There were naysayers.  Danny Kleinman: "Ain't go nothin' but shape, and for all I know partner may have lots of stuff in clubs.  No reason to try to obstruct opponents who may be headed for spades."  Jeff Rubens: "Current biggest worry is partner; I don't want North to think that I have or might have high-card values."  Allan Graves: "I don't want to encourage partner to bid except voluntarily.  North should allow for this hand if short in spades."  This call describes your HCPs, but little else; there is a lot of playing strength in that one measly point.

2 ♥   60   BWP 7%   BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Chiming in timidly.  Robert Wolff says "If I do not support now, I'm likely to regret it later."  Sami Kehela is "Joining in, against my better nature."  What I don't like about this bid is that partner will expect values, not shape, which can turn into wrong expectations later.

3 ♥   100   BWP 55%   BWS 60%  IAC 100%
Another IAC unanimous vote, coupled this time with majorities from both the Bridge World Panel and solvers.  BluBayou writes: "A favorite quote i heard long ago goes 'If your weak jump raises don't terrify you a bit, you're not doing them right.'  If you combine the votes for 'pass', 2   and 4   together, the panel should still be at 21-6  or something in favor of the jump-raise ..."  Phil Clayton "Gives our opponents just enough rope without hanging partner.  Steve Beaty think it is "Right on playing strength and forces East-West to begin looking for a minor at the four-level."  Zia: "Should be enough.  Should be enough.  Four would be a bit over the top, and there is no reason to thing that the opponents' clubs are not breaking badly."  Joe Grue: "I'm content trying to stop the opponents from reaching three notrump easily."  Mike Passell says: "Perfect hand.  Makes it difficult to find a fit, which is a good idea."  Kit Woolsey describes the bid as a "Classic preempt to the level I think we should compete.  If partner bids game, I might or might not have the right cards, but there is no way to find out.  JCreech: "The LAW guides me ... Let's get to our proper level as quickly as possible.  This may result in the opponents continuing to imprudently bidding spades, but it will also make it more difficult for the opponents to find an alternative strain."  Kevin Rosenberg: "Too attractive to resist."  Phillip Alder: "No doubt there will be four-heart bidders influenced by the void."  Masse24: "I was all over the place on this one. Considered 2 and 4 too. But 4 was too hot. And 2 was too cold. 3 was juuuuust right."

4 ♥   90   BWP 24%   BWS 17% IAC No solvers
Going for the gusto, some bid game directly.  Joanna Stansby is "Counting my void plus the vulnerability as a fifth trump.  The opponents will have problems finding their best spot."  David Berkowitz: "Do not know who can make what, but I won't wait to find out.  Maybe I can coax an injudicious four spades out of the opponents, or maybe I can keep them out of clubs.  It won't always go double all pass."  Eric Kokish says "One either believes a jump-raise is acceptable or worries about doing too much if the opponents complete."  Sartag Hans: "Hands with voids and a fit play exceptionally well.  Nonvulnerability increase our downside protection.  The opponents' vulnerability provides an extra edge in the hope they misjudge."  Hemant Lall argues that the bid is "Better than three, because it gives the opponents less room to explore.  On a good day, they will double four hearts, and partner may make it with as little as: ♠ x   ♥ AKxxxx   ♦ Axx   ♣ xxx, for a double-game swing.  Also, we may beat four spades when five clubs is cold."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "The book bid is probably three hearts, but that would allow West to double, perhaps enabling the opponents to get together in clubs.  I am reasonably confident that partner can take at least seven tricks and prefer to force the opponents to make the last guess when possible."  Roy Welland: "Overbidding as usual."






Problem C  4   (BluBayou, CCR3, Masse24, BabsG)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 6 5 3 2   ♥ 7 3 2   ♦ K J 10 7 5   ♣ —

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  Pass      1 ♣        2 ♠        3 ♣
   ?         
What call do you make?

Another big fit, but a better hand.  Again, there are multiple ways to describe the hand, but much depends on how optimistic you are. And BTW, the opponents have already established a fit.
 
3 ♠   50   BWP 7%   BWS 4% IAC No solvers
A simple raise doesn't strike me as doing much.  It doesn't describe the big fit, it doesn't explore whether there is a double fit, and it doesn't obstruct the opponents much.  As a top choice, it feels more like a cow flop.  Jeff Rubens: "I don't see how giving partner information rates to help:  He can't be short in hearts and is not likely to be void of clubs, so he won't turn up with a boatload of diamonds."  Working toward life balance, Roy Welland says this time:  "Maybe underbidding could work sometimes."

4 ♠   80   BWP 24%   BWS 55%  IAC 43%
4 wold be the classic preemptive strategy.  You bid to your side's maximum level immediately and leave the opponents the last guess.  Danny Kleinman writes "I have no idea who can make what.  The opponents might have no idea either.  Let them guess at the five-level, and let them guess now."  Phillip Alder: "I usually like to make a fit-showing jump in this position, but that would give extra wiggle room to the opponents."  Robert Wolff: "Yes, I'm underplaying the offensive potential but, at this moment, I need to show support and await further developments."  Jeff Alexander asks "Where are the hearts?  I'll defend against five clubs, since five spades may be too expensive."  Hemant Lall: "The alternative is four diamonds, but giving descriptive information will help the opponents more than partner."  JCreech: "I typically like to blast to the level I want to be at immediately.  I may come to regret not bidding to the implied level of the LAW, but the 5-level is frequently daunting.  I will gamble that game will suffice."  JoAnna Stansby says "Partner's preempt can be a poker bid opposite a passed hand.  If I were unpassed, I would bid five spades to take away a key-card ask."  Augie Boehm: "I may have a guess over five clubs, but sometimes four spades will buy the contract."  YleeXotee is "wondering a bit about system, and Todd makes an argument for the fit jump. but over a weak overcall? I like 4S as the simple answer, but what will I do over 5c??"

3 ♦   70   BWP 21%   BWS 11% IAC No solvers
Partner only overcalled, but sometimes overcalls can be quite good.  Bidding diamonds should show spade support, but how high should you be bidding the diamonds, if you do.  Carl Hudecek is "Preparing a defense if the opponents by the contract.  I will keep raising spades to the four-level, then leave the rest to partner."  Allan Graves: "I would like diamonds led when the smoke clears."  Don Stack: "Do not want to bid four spades and push the opponents into five clubs.  If the bidding  ends at three diamonds, we will have stolen the deal."  Sami Kehela feels the bid "Necessary, although the possibility exists that I may not make it."

4 ♦   100   BWP 48%   BWS 18%  IAC 57%
As Masse24 pointed out "'Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump.' Should aid partner if a 5-level decision must be made."  Similarly, Kevin Rosenberg "This might help our partnership judge whether to bid on over five or six clubs.  I plan to bid five spades if partner passes a five-level decision to me.  Bid more with voids generally; here, it's especially important to bid four diamonds so that partner can judge to bid six spades later."  Zia: "We may need to make a solo judgment later, breaking discipline."  Sartaj Hans is "Hoping to encourage partner to bid when we have a double fit."  Steve Beatty says "I hope that partner guesses my intentions correctly.  I want to bid five spades, but I am willing to give up pressure to suggest the lead if we are outbid.  Four diamonds might push us to a good slam on some days."  Billy Eisenberg describes the bid: "Lead directing, showing spades and diamonds."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "Directs the lead without committing to the five-level.  Pard can be relatively wide-ranging opposite a passed hand and will be able to make an intelligent decision."  Mark Feldman: "Opposite a passed hand, partner's possible holdings are numerous, and a fit-showing jump is not primarily lead-directing."  Ross Grabel thinks it "May help in getting the best lead or in guaging how high to compete."  Kit Woolsey: "Slam isn't in the picture.  If the opponents bid over four spades, I can hope that partner will know what to do."  Phil Clayton: "Partner probably has at least three hearts, so our high-level prospects are poor, and I do not expect to compete to the five-level.  However, a diamond lead might be the key to beating five clubs ..."  Joe Grue: "Partner can have a decent hand (opening strength is possible).  I want to stress that I have a ton of shape and big fit, so North can be in charge of competing.  I also want a diamond lead."  BluBayou "If we were not a passed hand, any number of spades from 3 to 6 --  plus 3 or 4 Diamonds would be in the running, but it would be presumptuous to imagine that the opps have a club or heart slam when partner jumps in 3rd seat.  Let's give what I hope is taken as a fit-jump and be glad we don't have a follow-up about what to bid on round 3."


This ends Part 1 of the May MSC summary.  I will return as time permits.  I hope you find something useful here, and will take some time to participate in the June problem set (now open on a different thread).

D: ---(no "speedball" answer  for this nasty problem)---

Problem D

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?

Got intrigued with Jock's comment, and now I see what he means.  You gave up the simple description on the first round of bidding due to only a partial stopper.  Now you have to decide between a cue-bid, that I think is a bit strong given five black losers, a raise with only three pieces, when partner could only have four, and bidding the diamonds and hoping that if hearts are right, partner will rebid them (or that you will get a chance to show the support later).

Right now, I am definitely headed toward a red-suit bid, but which one?  My inclination is toward the hearts.  I may not be happy ruffing a club with the jack, but it is better than ruffing with the queen (and maybe partner has the queen).

Problem D - I am likely wrong here, but I don't think 2h is passable. X and then a new suit. if p and I are misfit, they should have passed 2d. They must have X to show hearts, but have a bigger hand with at least 5+ hearts after all. I feel like I have system questions all over this month. I am considering 2nt and 3nt straight out.  (but then again, 2h straight out should be forcing for at least one round, so why choose the X route)

I may have knee-jerked a bit here.  Unless I am playing negative free-bids, a negative double followed by a new suit typically shows a long suit with less than a game-forcing hand.  I did not put it into the context of imps and that with a misfit, partner should have bailed first.  Nonetheless, what is partner doing?  Despite Joe's declaration that "...I don't think 2h is passable," I still think it is, or partner would have chosen a different route to describe his hand.  2 may be invitational, it may be descriptive, but it is definitely unclear within partnership understandings.  I am now asking myself if I should take another bid, and if so, which one.

April MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, Director


Problem A  3 NT (BluBayou)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q   ♥ 6 5 3   ♦ A K 9 8 7 3   ♣ K 10 9

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♦       1 ♠       2 NT*     Pass
  ?†         
*BWS: natural; invitational; nonforcing
†BWS: 3 ♣ nonforcing. 3 ♦ nonforcing by partnership agreement.

What call do you make?

You have opened, LHO overcalled and partner made an invitational NT call.  Your values are on the low end of an opening bid, but you do have a singleton queen in the opponent's suit to help bolster partner's stopper, and you have a nice six-bagger, but unless partner has help for your suit, it is unlikely to run without giving up the lead.  Do you accept the invitation, and if not, you have some non-forcing options. The last consideration is that this is matchpoints, where a plus can be worth more than being in a risky game.

Pass   70   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 14%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 17%  Intermediate-Advanced Club 1 solver
Certainly the quickest way to turn down an invitation is to pass.  If the NT partial makes, it will score better than diamonds, but it clearly gives up on the game bonus.  Eric Stoltz votes strain over level: "Playing in exactly two notrump is rarely right at imps, but at matchpoints being in the most-productive strain often pays big dividends.  There is no need to press for a close game if you are in the winning strain."  Jeff Rubens agrees: "If we can make three notrump, it might not be necessary to bid it to obtain a good score; and we might be able to make only eight tricks at notrump."  Finn Kolesnik indicates that "Passing is a sensible option ... given matchpoint scoring and the possibility of being set many tricks in three notrump.  At matchpoints, I wouldn't consider playing in diamonds with a source of tricks such as the one I have." 

3 ♦   80   BWP 25%   BwS 50%  IAC 82%
Bidding one of the two hints drew a majority of the solvers.  Although it does not give up on the game bonus, there is a question on whether partner will take the bid as constructive, looking for some diamond help to try being in game.  Larry Robbins argues: "Even with a double spade-stopper, we may fare best in three diamonds.  Partner will usually pass, but with a perfect minimum, say:  ♠ AJxx   ♥ xxx   ♦ Qx   ♣ Axxx, North  may trot out three notrump.  Yes, it is matchpoints, but three diamonds is more likely to produce a plus score."  SImilarly, JCreech thinks "The Q makes it tempting to bid 3 NT, but I am worried about where the tricks may come from.  With fitting diamonds, partner can retry for 3 NT by bidding hearts, spades or NT."  DickHy: "Partner has 11/12 (1N would have been 6-10) and something like Axxx KJx xx QJxx.  Where do we want to be?  If partner has the spade T or 9, 3N might be decent, as he can win the opening spade trick x-Q-K-A knowing that West can’t run the suit.  Without a good spade spot, West, after winning the opening spade lead with the K can carry on with the suit (if he has an outside entry) or can switch … to a heart across partner’s holding.  That looks gloomy.  At least if it comes down to a heart guess, partner is more likely to get it right than I am.  At matchpoints is choosing a fairly certain part-score better than opting for a fraught game?  I hope you wizards will tell me.  Meanwhile, I can chew over whether it’s better to pass 2N or play 3 in a 6-2 fit. "  Some have serious concerns about playing in NT.  Karen McCallum feels that "Usually three notrump will have no hope, and matchpoints is about frequency.  Passing is out of the question.  Reaching two notrump with a six-card minor is dancing on the head of a pin."  CCR3 wants "to ward off NT noting the singleton spade and three small hearts."  Daniel Korbel writes: "At imps, a blind raise to three notrump; but notrump could be in danger in hearts or spades, so it is not a good matchpoint risk."  Danny Kleinman is "Taking our (likely) plus score.  The values are meager, and we're not sure how good our spade queen will prove to be.  There's also the considerable possibility of a heart attack once lefty gets in."  Carl Hudecek: "I don't consider that an opening bid, since the suit is a minor.  Partner has spade values.  We are short of HCP for three notrump, possibly with as few as 23.  Partner can move on with an in-context perfecto such as:  ♠ KJx   ♥ K10x ♦ xxxx   ♣ Axx."  YleeXotee "considered pass in hopes that diamonds will run, but why not just make them trump in a partial"  WackoJack "Reckon just good enough to bid 3N at imps.  However, at MP just 3D"  Masse24 "My Hamman-o-meter dinged once, then stopped. Although the panel is aggressive, I don't feel it's quite worth the 3NT gamble."  Hoki choice is based on being "... consistent with my philosophy that bridge is bridge and poker is poker"  Blubayou guesses the Panel will choose differently than his choice:  "So, the two horse race was a battle between correcting to diamonds and RAISING notrump!  So far this is a tight battle.  The panel  will go for the game bonus, counting on 3NT being cold  or sneaking home by a less than double-dummy  opening lead" 

3 NT   100   BWP 57%   BWS 1%  IAC 1 solver
Jock correcly predicted that the majority of Panelists would turn to Hamman's rule, and bid the NT game; they were reluctant to name names.  Brian Glubok said "No need to invoke Hamman's Law; just bid three notrump and collect the game bonus."  Sami Kehela: "BWS: Trying for game by partnership agreement."  Fred Stewart: "I anticipate two spade tricks, and we don't need a heck of a lot for nine."  John Carruthers: "I have two more tricks than I might have had and a bolstering spade queen - plus my natural optimism."  Mark Cohen disagrees with Hudecek's valuation: "This holding is a lot better than 12 HCP with no special source of tricks."  As does David Berkowitz: "The spade queen is a full value in notrump."  Eric Kokish: "Even at matchpoints, and even though there are lots of ways for three notrump to fail when the spade queen is working.  Prime values and a trick source are too attractive to sign off."  Bart Bramley thinks "We could have nine runners after a spade lead."  Phillip Alder points out that there is "No way to invite game."  Zach Grossack is "Happy to bid game with a clear source of tricks and a potentially-quite-helpful queen of spades."  John Diamond feels "The good six-card suit is sufficient to try this."  Nik Demirev summarizes the choice well: "At matchpoints, partner would be careful not to overbid, so it is easy to visualize a lot of North hands with a double spade stopper or providing nine fast tricks after we get the lead."




Problem B  3 (CCR3, BluBayou, YleeXotee, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ —   ♥ A J 5   ♦ 10 9 7 6 4 2   ♣ A K 9 8

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass      Pass      1 ♣
  1 ♦       1 ♠        2 ♣*       2 ♠†
   ?         
*BWS: as if West had passed (2 ♠ would have
been a strong diamond raise)
†four spades

What call do you make?
 
East opened 1 in third seat and you overcalled with a 10-sixth suit, but 12 nice points in your shorter suits plus a void in spades.  West now bid 1 , while partner cue-bid clubs and East raised the spades.  The implication of the cue-bid is that it shows a fit for your diamonds, but for some reason, the hint only talks about what a spade bid would have shown, had West had not already bid the suit.  I prefer to think in terms of there being two suits that can be used as cue-bids; clubs being cheaper and spades as more expensive (those characterizations should apply to both North and South, but what are their implications?  Do they convey differing levels of strength, or do they show stoppers, and is any of this affected by North being a passed hand?

3 ♦   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 16% IAC No solvers
Since 2 promises support, and you hold six, perhaps it is worth a 1-2-3-stop-like auction.  Fred Stewart "Three clubs might lead to an ugly three notrump.  A pass would be nonforcing."  And you think 3 is forcing?  At least 3 would help partner understand that there is a double fit.

5 ♦   70   BWP 11%   BWS 8% IAC 27%
Working from similar logic, DickHy writes "According to BWS [C(b)] a passed hand cue-bid guarantees a fit.  I guess in this auction 2 could show a fit but a weak hand, 2 a decent raise (6-9) and 2 (10/11) a good one.  Partner looks to have 4 spades.  With nice spades and Qxx in diamonds, say, he might have bid 1N.  Ergo (these Italian drugs are graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate), he has paltry spades and Axxx in diamonds. Carpe diem!"  John Diamond says, "Might as well bid it immediately."  JCreech: "Not sure what 2 means.  As a passed hand, I think it is showing a good passed hand with a fit.  I'm not sure who can make what, but I don't want to guess when the opponents bid 4 , but I think I will get a plus if they bid 5 ."  Larry Robbins has other concerns: "I won't pass three notrump.  We could have a slam, but it will be difficult to bid, even if I cue-bid (which might help the opponents find a sacrifice)."

3 ♠   60   BWP 7%   BWS 10% IAC 27%
Some cue-bid.  Nik Demirev considers how the auction will proceed:  "Followed by a control-bid, depending on the auction.  Four-card support will make five diamonds a decent contract, and slam, even a grand slam, is possible.  Stopping short of five diamonds is not ideal at imps, even though that contrct may fail."  WackoJack feels "That tells partner game interest"  While John Carruthers says "I'm up for whatever North intends."

4 ♠   70   BWP 11%   BWS 4% IAC No solvers
Although a cue-bid uses a lot of space, a jump-cue eats twice as much, but is quite descriptive.  As Karen McCallum puts it: "For a slam-try opposite a passed hand, partner should expect a spade void and aces."  Eric Kokish: "Our maximum might be a high partial, but it's far more likely to be a slam."  Phillip Alder says "I will be happy to play in five diamonds, and we might will have a slam."

3 ♣   100   BWP 61%   BWS 44% IAC 36%
A majority of the Panel and a plurality of the solvers cose to use the cheaper available cue-bid:  3 .  BluBayou "The hint sent me running to the OKB system notes!   IT made me think that both cuebids show "strong diamond raises", which is odd.  But no.  Turns out that 2   has two legs.  It can be the usual invite+ in diamonds, but also a really strong hand  (in context)  coming in a different suit.   With that possibility in mind,  I see no haarm in bidding my club suit, in case partner has a 1H opener which will be lovely,  or even a club-heart two-suiter--even lovelier.  I really expect we are headed for 4 or 5 hearts or 5 clubs."  Jock, where are we headed here?  Masse24 says "Game try. Who knows which game."  Some think the bid shows clubs.  Mark Cohen: "Most flexible opposite a passed hand; encouraging with club values.  I will not pass three notrump."  Danny Kleinman: "Bidding 'em where they is.  If the opponents buy the contrct in spades, I can hope that partner will lead clubs."  Daniel Korbel: "If partner can hold four diamonds, we could have a slam.  May as well show my second suit on the way to five diamonds." Well, I guess it could; often when you have a choice of two cue-bids, the one bid is often a "tell" rather than an "ask."  Robert Wolff describes the bid as a "General forward-going action.  The hand may be worth only three diamonds, but I plan to drive higher."  Jeff Rubens:  "The diamonds are too weak to drive to five diamonds, so I will consult partner."  Finn Kolesnik: "Three notrump or five diamonds might have good play; this keeps both in the picture.  I will pass if North bids three diamonds or compete to four diamonds if the opponents bid three spades."  Steve Robinson: "With plenty of defense against spades, there is no need to jump to five diamonds.  Partner will know that I am short in spades; he will be aggressive with strong diamonds."  Zach Grossack: "I will force to some game but will need convincing that it should not to be in diamonds.  The poor quality of the suit makes the hand oriented for a suit contract, and a slam is possible.  For now, I show a concentration in clubs."  Rozanne and Bill Pollack: "If partner has four diamonds (very likely but not certain), we have quite the duke.  Will try to be somewhat descriptive, but it will not be surprising if it's four spades or eight spades by the time the auction comes back."  Nonetheless, David Berkowitz warns that the auction may not be over for the opponents:  "Must anticipate more spade bidding.  Not interested in notrump, but this is a mighty nice hand if partner has strong diamonds."





Problem C  1 NT (DickHy, Hoki, CCR3, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, WackoJack, YleeXotee, VeeRee, VeredK)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K J 4   ♥ A Q   ♦ K J 3 2   ♣ J 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♦       Pass       Pass      1 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

This hand is very much like Problem D from last month; the differences being when the overcall occurs in the auction and which seat is balancing. This time, you opened 1 which was passed to East, who balanced 1 .   The concern about right-siding the contract with respect to hearts is essentially gone; your AQ is sitting over the heart bidder.  Nonetheless, partner still has few points, as he did not respond to your opening bid.  And the Panel splits on this hand considerably differently; last month, nearly the whole Panel went with the 1NT rebid, none doubled, and we solvers were stunned to see 1 as the primary alternative to 1NT; this time, those same three options are more evenly split.

1 NT   100   BWP 39%   BWS 60% IAC 91%
A majority of the solvers return to the tried-and-true, as well as a plurality of the Panel.  DickHy said:  "At the table I’d bang this out with nary a second thought. "  Masse24: "A bit of a tease? So similar to last week's "WTP unanimous?" problem. But it's different."  JCreech: "The right values and right-siding the hand still outweigh bidding or asking partner to bid the spades"  CCR3: "perfectly describes values and can tolerate the heart lead."  YleeXotee: "seems normal"  Wackojack: "That is what I have"  Larry Robbins: "Where we want to land opposite a flat hand, such as 3=4=3=3, where North might bid two diamonds if I doubled.  One spade should be more distributional.  One notrump loses the club suit but is the contract most likely to make."  Eric Kokish: "An opportunity to offer a clear description should not be discarded in favor of a safer double at this vulnerability.  We could buy 2 or 3 HCP and be in the best contract."  Daniel Korbel: "Sure, double could work out better, but when I am supposed to bid one notrump, it's very important to do so (e.g., opposite a balanced hand with scattered bits, where I'd rather not watch partner struggle in two clubs)."  Finn Kolesnik: "Double is possible, but the holding doesn't look suit-oriented.  One notrump might suffer extra undertricks, but nonvulnerable at imps this is not scary."  Phillip Alder: "Double will do well when North has four spades, but I will not feel happy if partner bids two clubs, even though that might be the best spot."  Zia: "Mild danger.  Greater temptation."

1 ♠   80   BWP 25%   BWS 9% IAC  No solvers
1 was a solver surprise last month; this month, not such a surprise and more popular with both the Panel and solvers than last month.  What's the attraction?  Bart Bramley thinks "A suit should be safer than notrump, and spades is my best suit.  With 2=4=2=5, partner might try clubs on the way to two diamonds.  If I doubled, partner might pick diamonds with three than spades with a weak four."  John Carruthers is "Hoping for a trick or two more than in notrump."  Nik  Demirev: "Introducing spades may help us compete if the opponents bid more hearts."  Carl Hudecek: "Partner can't hold that much, so I compete quietly."  Jeff Rubens: "Any positive action risks reaching the wrong strain, but this stays low and is a likely plus."  which leads us to Danny Kleinman's rule: "What I should have bid last turn.  I've seen too many balanced nineteeners get passed in one of a minor when opening in a strong four-card major would have found a fit (perhaps even a raise and a game).  Rule of 19:  With a balanced 19-or-so high-card points, open in a strong four-card major if you have one."

Double   90   BWP 36%   BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
Last month, it was like the Panel did not know that a takeout double existed; this month, it is very nearly the top choice.  Brian Glubok is very confident that double will be the Panel's choice:  "No comment will be helpful, because double will inevitably prove the unanimous choice."  Fred Stewart thinks "A notrump bid would be fraught with risk, as there is no source of tricks."  Zach Grossack: "No reason to bid one notrump when our goal is to compete effectively."  John Diamond believes double is "Best for reaching the right strain."  Concern about the spade suit is still paramount for some of the Panel.  Karen McCallum sees "No point in bidding one spade; partner won't be on lead.  If North has long clubs, I want him to feel free to bid the suit.  One notrump is more descriptive, but partner won't care, so why wrn the opponents to stay low or help them with the play?"  Eric Stoltz: "One notrump would not bring spades into the picture; bidding one spade would misdescribe diamonds; double better shows all-around values."  Rozanne and Bill Pollack is in "No rush for notrump, and we can't afford to lose a spade fit.  We reject one spade with a flat hand and lots of extras.  We need a sign of life opposite to make a game."  Steve Robinson "I want to bring spades into the picture.  If I were to bid one notrump, partner would pass with four spades.  Opposite a weak hand, we'll do better in a trump suit, even if only a seven-card fit.  I'd bid one spade if I had only two clubs."  BluBayou has his own special take on this: "They're having a little joke here-- this is last month's  problem D with the heart noise coming from righty instead of lefty!  March problem D had a stunning 25 votes to  become declarer.  Will a majority be sucked in by the heart  AQ even though  "right-siding" is not an issue anymore? It depends on whether or not after doubling, we are willing to lie down for partner's runout to 2 of either minor.   It is IMPS,  so I am OK with being dummy  to 2 clubs or playing 2  diamonds"



This ends Part 1 of the summary.  I hope you found something interesting or useful in it.  Todd has opened up the discussion for next month's problems.  Please start thinking about your answers and contribute.