Show Posts
61
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 February MSC
« on: January 16, 2023, 10:20:02 PM »
February MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director
Problem A 4
(Masse24, JCreech, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q ♥ K Q 10 8 7 4 ♦ A K J 5 2 ♣ —
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— Pass 4 ♣
?*
*BWS: 4 NT natural
What call do you make?
The central theme to the answers of this problem is "Preempts work;" they eat up valuable space that could be used to explore level and strain. The hand has a lot of potential. You are 6-5 in the red suits, with first-round control of three suits, and second-round in the fourth. Slam has clear potential with minimal help from partner and reasonably-breaking suits. However, partner is a passed hand, and the bidding suggests anything but reasonably-breaking suits. The three primary options seem to be to go low (bidding a game), go high (bidding a slam), or try to find the middle ground (solicit cooperation from partner).
4 ♥ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 33% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 53% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 63%
Taking the easy way out. Oren Kriegel says "I'm too simple to bid anything else." This was the majority choice of the solvers, and a plurality choice for the Panel. Carl Hudecek asks "Has it become unfashionable to have full-values-plus when one makes a call?" Ralph Katz points out that "We might fail here or be cold for a grand, but I am not going to shoot on the hope that partner has two needed cards." Masse24 thinks "It’s a 30-point deck and I’m looking at two-thirds of it. We need so little from partner to make slam a good bet. But I don’t have a good way to convey that. What is 5 Clubs? Some huge hand with club shortness obviously. Anyway, preempts work." JCreech argues that "Preempts work! I will flip-flop on my answer until the very last day but for now it is the simple overcall. Spades could be right if partner has a boatload, either red suit could be right with a modest fit. Is there a sensible route to slam, if it is there? Probably not, even though ♠ xxxxx ♥ Jx ♦ xx ♣ xxxx would certainly have a play. ... 4 was going low, partly because of partner's initial pass. I also know I did not want to commit to the five-level when it might go down, but I also know that in the back of my mind I knew I could always bid 5 
over competition in either black suit." Billy Eisenberg hopes that "Maybe I will get a second chance." Eric Stoltz sees that "There are holes in every suit, so I take the low road. If five clubs comes back around to me, I can bid five diamonds." David Berkowitz: "An unfavorable-vulnerability four clubs is enough of a warning for me; I will go low and hope for the best. It is not as if anything else is as attractive." BluBayou: "If our majors were flipped, DOUble, then 4S over 4H might get 20+ votes. But here, DOUble, then 5H over 4S surely won't come close to that. The best way to recover from the underbid most uf us will be making here is for the opps to somehow come up with a club raise, so we can rebid 5D." John Swanson: "I have a recollection that this or a similar situation arose at a regional tournament. East held 0=6=0=7 and the winning call was pass. Even so, I can't stop myself from venturing four hearts."
5 ♣ 90 BWP 26% BWS 11% IAC No solvers
Several view 4 as a give up and feel that the cue-bid places the focus on diamonds and a major. Jerry Stamatov feels "I need very little opposite to make a slam. I will bid six clubs over five of a red uit or five notrump (to show better hearts than diamonds) over five spades." My problem is that this is a unilateral approach about level, though it does seek cooperation about strain. Being at the four-level is not necessarily a sure thing, so do I want to gamble on the six-level? Fleisner and Friesner have appropriate fears: "A heart bid would bury the diamond suit, and in any case it is not clear how many hearts to bid. We may wind up playing in a heart contract from the wrong side, but partner could hold the spade king; if not, the opening bidder will need to find a spade lead." As does Jill Meyers: "Showing a big two-suiter. The hand is much too strong for four hearts, and I would not be well-placed if I doubled and partner advanced four spades." Robert Wolff: "Partner perhaps should realize that various slams are in the mix, although six spades is unlikely when North passed originally. Yes, there is also room for a disaster, but how could that not be a possibility whatever South does?" And Joey Silver's worries are certainly valid: "Not double, because I don't want to face an opening-lead problem or guess what to do over four spades. Instead, I'll gamble on slam, intending to raise five of a red suit or bid six diamonds over five spades." Tongue firmly in cheek, Phillip Alder writes "I will probably havve company in suggesting that four nonrump natural is not best." So much for the hint on this problem!
5 NT 80 BWP 19% BWS 4% IAC No solvers
Pick-a-slam drew some support. Kamil and Sherman "Four hearts is a bit too wimpy for us. Partner will pass that on most hands, even some cold for a grand slam. It's not explicit in the system, but by analogy with other Bridge World Standard methods, five clubs would show the majors." But isn't this putting the cart before the horse; level before strain? Ira Chorush: "As an extension of pisk-a-slam, this should show the red suits. With spades and a red suit, intervenor would need to start with five clubs." But wait a minute, is it pick-a-slam, or something else? Frank Merblum says "Most drive to slam, this shows diamonds plus a major. Five clubs directly would show either a huge three-suiter or the majors." Eric Kokish writes: "There's a case for playing this as natural, but without that agreement five notrump is big red. This is a decent description, if an overbid of sorts." And John Hurd gropes: "I hope partner is on the same page as I am with these meanings: five clubs is majors, five notrump is diamonds and a major, six clubs is diamonds and a major with first-round club control."
Double 80 BWP 15% BWS 21% IAC 38%
Perhaps that is why there is still support for the tried and true double. Boye Brogeland: "I have learnt from Zia that when the opponents preempt, survival take precedence. So my immediate reaction was to bid four hearts, but that would be too pessimistic. I hope to survive with five hearts over four spades or driving to slam over aa red-suit bid." Kit Woolsey plans his rebids: "Then, over four spades, five hearts, which shows extra strength and keeps diamonds (and even spades) in the picture. If partner passes the double, that might be okay. This plan risks that four hearts in our highest making contract, but the gains appear to compromise." Bart Bramley thinks "Defending should be fine at these colors. Otherwise, I will raise a red suit to six or bid five hearts over four spades (and then six diamonds over five spade - I'm stubborn)." YleeXotee argues that "It's a 3 loser hand, so a suit won't do it for initial bid." WackoJack believed the hand is "Too good for 4♥. Not sure what 5♥ would mean. Safest to double and then bid 5♥ over partner’s expected 4♠. Problem: If partner instead bids 4NT which I assume would be natural then I would like to bid 6♣ to show the void. However, partner might well bid 7♠ with a hole when 7♥ was a laydown. So over 4NT I would be conservative and bid 6♥." And Arthur Robinson laments "But when I joined the panel we did not have hands like this."
Four hearts may be too wimpy, but one thing is clear, there is a lot of mud surrounding the alternatives. The moderator, Jeff Rubens, concludes with a call for system refinements: "It's clear that a partnership will often face some difficult guessing when an opponent opens at the four-level. What is hard to understand is why we do not have principles that yield the meanings of basic actio after such an obstruction." In past problems, getting the strain right was often the most important consideration, but a lot of the Panel were focused on the level, with no clear, consistent approach to getting to the right strain. Perhaps that is why the wimps won out
Problem B 3 (VeredK, CCR3, BluBayou)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 3 ♥ 10 8 4 2 ♦ Q 10 8 5 ♣ Q 4 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ 2 ♣
Pass 3 ♣ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
What do you do with a hand whose values are so soft, its KnR (3.4) is less than its four HCPs. Without partner forcing you to bid (unless you plan to convert partner's takeout double), this is a clear pass, early and often. With the takeout double, you have three choices, none of which are particularly palatable (though I halfway expected Todd to blurt out 3 NT, adding a fourth choice and citing Hamman). I agree with Sami Kehela who bids 3 "Today. But three hearts tomorrow and three spades the day after."
3 ♦ 100 BWP 48% BWS 28% IAC 38%
Choice number 1: Bid your length and strength. BluBayou says "I will bid my one card [other than their trump queen]. If partner isn't coming again with a heart rebid, I would rather be somewhere else. In fact I DO rather be someplace else!" Carl Hudecek writes "Partner, whose most likely pattern is 5=3=4=1, may hold three nice hearts and four mediocre diamonds, in which case we are more likely to be able to scramble eight to 10 trick more easily in diamonds than in hearts." I agree with Carl's assessment of the general shape, but why can't the hearts and diamonds be reversed? Ira Chorush has a clear and correct assessment: "Assuming that the club queen is valueless offensively I have about a king less than partner expects. North most likely has seven red cards, divided four-three, but there is no guarantee that the four-card suit is hearts. A bid in diamonds does not encourage partner to go on, so it is most likely to produce a plus score or a minimal minus." Bart Bramley is "Hoping to hit partner's four-bagger; but, if not, a Moysian fit in diamonds will be a lot better than in hearts. Pass would be too desparate." Kit Woolsey: "The diamonds are stronger than the hearts, partner is as likely to have four diamonds as four hearts, and he might be able to bid three hearts." Robert Wolff "Leaves room for partner to bid three hearts with five-four and at most three diamonds." Frank Merblum: "Safety first when partner's red-suit distribution is not clear." Joey Silver: "With a dearth of values, I look for the safest and most-flexible bid, and maybe even a plus score?" Kamil and Sherman think "Three diamonds need not end the auction, and it may be our best port in a storm." Danny Kleinman is "Bidding the best suit when survival rather than game is in prospect." David Berkowitz "I would like to bid partner's four-card suit, but my ouija board is out. With a strong 6=3=3=1, North might be reluctant to correct three hearts but might well correct three diamonds."
3 ♥ 70 BWP 22% BWS 53% IAC 63%
Choice number 2: Gambling that partner has both majors. Oren Kriegel writes "I'll try to be bold (but no bold enouigh to play for penalty). Three hearts has a decent upside - catch an eight-card fit in a high-scoring strain - and deosn't seem much more risky than other guesses." Masse24 agrees: "Although pass is possible at Matchpoints, it’s a bit much with these poor, scattered values. Partner is asking me to bid, and since the major scores better, I go with it." As does Eric Stoltz: "It's matchpoints, so I bid the suit that scores highest (at imps I might well bid the stronger suit)." Zia thinks "Partner is hoping for a major. I have one." YleeXotee "going low with this I hope. not ready to bail out on 3s." JCreech: "What worries me about bidding either red suit is that partner could have continued showing his shape, so bidding either could fall into a poorish fit." While WackoJack ponders: "Say partner has ♠ AKxxx, ♥ KQJx, ♦ KJx, ♣ x. Then 4♥ looks good. Would partner make a re-opening double with less? Maybe? Also it is match points so go with the field 3♥." Clearly the Panel is of one mind: Billy Eisenberg: "Seems obvious." Jerry Stamatov: "Tough decision."
3 ♠ 40 BWP 7% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Choice number 3: Going with the certain seven-card fit. Choosing either red suit could be wrong. You may be ruffing on the short side, but with your anemic holdings, you could also be ruffing from the strong holdings. With five or six, you may be able to survive ruffing from the long side better. John Hurd thinks "Since partner would have bid hearts with five, he will frequently hold six spades. Three diamonds seems wrong - likely a winner only if partner is 5=3=4=1, and three of a major scores more." Ralph Katz feels that "If a red suit is the correct strain at the game level, partner will bid. If North has only five spades we might be in the wrong partscore."
Pass 50 BWP 19% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
For those in the mood for feast or famine, pass is also an option. Jill Meyers is willing to play the doubled contract: "Its matchpoints and I'll take my shot. At imps, I would be a chicken and bid three hearts, even though that might land us in an uncomfortable four-three fit." As is Phillip Alder: "I would bid three of a red suit at imps." Fleisher and Friesner avoids the wrong choice: "Partner rates to have a good high-card hand. If North is 5=4=4=0, bidding is almost certainly better; however, this is a much lower probability than either 5=3=4=1 or 5=4=3=1, and we would have little chance of making three of a red suit if we guessed the wrong suit." While Boye Brogeland approaches the problem with optimism: "At matchpoints, when I lack a good action, I like to go for the one with the biggest upside. Passing is additionally attractive, since I don't know how well we would fare at the three-level (nor which suit to bid)." Perhaps the most realistic Panelist is Arthur Robinson, "Expecting minus 670."
This ends the first installment of MSC discussion. The new month's contest is underway, and the number of IAC participants has been dropping. If we are doing something wrong, please help us out and let us know. The next installment will be coming as time allows.
Problem A 4
(Masse24, JCreech, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q ♥ K Q 10 8 7 4 ♦ A K J 5 2 ♣ —
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— Pass 4 ♣
?*
*BWS: 4 NT natural
What call do you make?
The central theme to the answers of this problem is "Preempts work;" they eat up valuable space that could be used to explore level and strain. The hand has a lot of potential. You are 6-5 in the red suits, with first-round control of three suits, and second-round in the fourth. Slam has clear potential with minimal help from partner and reasonably-breaking suits. However, partner is a passed hand, and the bidding suggests anything but reasonably-breaking suits. The three primary options seem to be to go low (bidding a game), go high (bidding a slam), or try to find the middle ground (solicit cooperation from partner).
4 ♥ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 33% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 53% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 63%
Taking the easy way out. Oren Kriegel says "I'm too simple to bid anything else." This was the majority choice of the solvers, and a plurality choice for the Panel. Carl Hudecek asks "Has it become unfashionable to have full-values-plus when one makes a call?" Ralph Katz points out that "We might fail here or be cold for a grand, but I am not going to shoot on the hope that partner has two needed cards." Masse24 thinks "It’s a 30-point deck and I’m looking at two-thirds of it. We need so little from partner to make slam a good bet. But I don’t have a good way to convey that. What is 5 Clubs? Some huge hand with club shortness obviously. Anyway, preempts work." JCreech argues that "Preempts work! I will flip-flop on my answer until the very last day but for now it is the simple overcall. Spades could be right if partner has a boatload, either red suit could be right with a modest fit. Is there a sensible route to slam, if it is there? Probably not, even though ♠ xxxxx ♥ Jx ♦ xx ♣ xxxx would certainly have a play. ... 4
was going low, partly because of partner's initial pass. I also know I did not want to commit to the five-level when it might go down, but I also know that in the back of my mind I knew I could always bid 5 over competition in either black suit." Billy Eisenberg hopes that "Maybe I will get a second chance." Eric Stoltz sees that "There are holes in every suit, so I take the low road. If five clubs comes back around to me, I can bid five diamonds." David Berkowitz: "An unfavorable-vulnerability four clubs is enough of a warning for me; I will go low and hope for the best. It is not as if anything else is as attractive." BluBayou: "If our majors were flipped, DOUble, then 4S over 4H might get 20+ votes. But here, DOUble, then 5H over 4S surely won't come close to that. The best way to recover from the underbid most uf us will be making here is for the opps to somehow come up with a club raise, so we can rebid 5D." John Swanson: "I have a recollection that this or a similar situation arose at a regional tournament. East held 0=6=0=7 and the winning call was pass. Even so, I can't stop myself from venturing four hearts."5 ♣ 90 BWP 26% BWS 11% IAC No solvers
Several view 4
as a give up and feel that the cue-bid places the focus on diamonds and a major. Jerry Stamatov feels "I need very little opposite to make a slam. I will bid six clubs over five of a red uit or five notrump (to show better hearts than diamonds) over five spades." My problem is that this is a unilateral approach about level, though it does seek cooperation about strain. Being at the four-level is not necessarily a sure thing, so do I want to gamble on the six-level? Fleisner and Friesner have appropriate fears: "A heart bid would bury the diamond suit, and in any case it is not clear how many hearts to bid. We may wind up playing in a heart contract from the wrong side, but partner could hold the spade king; if not, the opening bidder will need to find a spade lead." As does Jill Meyers: "Showing a big two-suiter. The hand is much too strong for four hearts, and I would not be well-placed if I doubled and partner advanced four spades." Robert Wolff: "Partner perhaps should realize that various slams are in the mix, although six spades is unlikely when North passed originally. Yes, there is also room for a disaster, but how could that not be a possibility whatever South does?" And Joey Silver's worries are certainly valid: "Not double, because I don't want to face an opening-lead problem or guess what to do over four spades. Instead, I'll gamble on slam, intending to raise five of a red suit or bid six diamonds over five spades." Tongue firmly in cheek, Phillip Alder writes "I will probably havve company in suggesting that four nonrump natural is not best." So much for the hint on this problem!5 NT 80 BWP 19% BWS 4% IAC No solvers
Pick-a-slam drew some support. Kamil and Sherman "Four hearts is a bit too wimpy for us. Partner will pass that on most hands, even some cold for a grand slam. It's not explicit in the system, but by analogy with other Bridge World Standard methods, five clubs would show the majors." But isn't this putting the cart before the horse; level before strain? Ira Chorush: "As an extension of pisk-a-slam, this should show the red suits. With spades and a red suit, intervenor would need to start with five clubs." But wait a minute, is it pick-a-slam, or something else? Frank Merblum says "Most drive to slam, this shows diamonds plus a major. Five clubs directly would show either a huge three-suiter or the majors." Eric Kokish writes: "There's a case for playing this as natural, but without that agreement five notrump is big red. This is a decent description, if an overbid of sorts." And John Hurd gropes: "I hope partner is on the same page as I am with these meanings: five clubs is majors, five notrump is diamonds and a major, six clubs is diamonds and a major with first-round club control."
Double 80 BWP 15% BWS 21% IAC 38%
Perhaps that is why there is still support for the tried and true double. Boye Brogeland: "I have learnt from Zia that when the opponents preempt, survival take precedence. So my immediate reaction was to bid four hearts, but that would be too pessimistic. I hope to survive with five hearts over four spades or driving to slam over aa red-suit bid." Kit Woolsey plans his rebids: "Then, over four spades, five hearts, which shows extra strength and keeps diamonds (and even spades) in the picture. If partner passes the double, that might be okay. This plan risks that four hearts in our highest making contract, but the gains appear to compromise." Bart Bramley thinks "Defending should be fine at these colors. Otherwise, I will raise a red suit to six or bid five hearts over four spades (and then six diamonds over five spade - I'm stubborn)." YleeXotee argues that "It's a 3 loser hand, so a suit won't do it for initial bid." WackoJack believed the hand is "Too good for 4♥. Not sure what 5♥ would mean. Safest to double and then bid 5♥ over partner’s expected 4♠. Problem: If partner instead bids 4NT which I assume would be natural then I would like to bid 6♣ to show the void. However, partner might well bid 7♠ with a hole when 7♥ was a laydown. So over 4NT I would be conservative and bid 6♥." And Arthur Robinson laments "But when I joined the panel we did not have hands like this."
Four hearts may be too wimpy, but one thing is clear, there is a lot of mud surrounding the alternatives. The moderator, Jeff Rubens, concludes with a call for system refinements: "It's clear that a partnership will often face some difficult guessing when an opponent opens at the four-level. What is hard to understand is why we do not have principles that yield the meanings of basic actio after such an obstruction." In past problems, getting the strain right was often the most important consideration, but a lot of the Panel were focused on the level, with no clear, consistent approach to getting to the right strain. Perhaps that is why the wimps won out
Problem B 3
(VeredK, CCR3, BluBayou)Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 3 ♥ 10 8 4 2 ♦ Q 10 8 5 ♣ Q 4 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ 2 ♣
Pass 3 ♣ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
What do you do with a hand whose values are so soft, its KnR (3.4) is less than its four HCPs. Without partner forcing you to bid (unless you plan to convert partner's takeout double), this is a clear pass, early and often. With the takeout double, you have three choices, none of which are particularly palatable (though I halfway expected Todd to blurt out 3 NT, adding a fourth choice and citing Hamman). I agree with Sami Kehela who bids 3
"Today. But three hearts tomorrow and three spades the day after."3 ♦ 100 BWP 48% BWS 28% IAC 38%
Choice number 1: Bid your length and strength. BluBayou says "I will bid my one card [other than their trump queen]. If partner isn't coming again with a heart rebid, I would rather be somewhere else. In fact I DO rather be someplace else!" Carl Hudecek writes "Partner, whose most likely pattern is 5=3=4=1, may hold three nice hearts and four mediocre diamonds, in which case we are more likely to be able to scramble eight to 10 trick more easily in diamonds than in hearts." I agree with Carl's assessment of the general shape, but why can't the hearts and diamonds be reversed? Ira Chorush has a clear and correct assessment: "Assuming that the club queen is valueless offensively I have about a king less than partner expects. North most likely has seven red cards, divided four-three, but there is no guarantee that the four-card suit is hearts. A bid in diamonds does not encourage partner to go on, so it is most likely to produce a plus score or a minimal minus." Bart Bramley is "Hoping to hit partner's four-bagger; but, if not, a Moysian fit in diamonds will be a lot better than in hearts. Pass would be too desparate." Kit Woolsey: "The diamonds are stronger than the hearts, partner is as likely to have four diamonds as four hearts, and he might be able to bid three hearts." Robert Wolff "Leaves room for partner to bid three hearts with five-four and at most three diamonds." Frank Merblum: "Safety first when partner's red-suit distribution is not clear." Joey Silver: "With a dearth of values, I look for the safest and most-flexible bid, and maybe even a plus score?" Kamil and Sherman think "Three diamonds need not end the auction, and it may be our best port in a storm." Danny Kleinman is "Bidding the best suit when survival rather than game is in prospect." David Berkowitz "I would like to bid partner's four-card suit, but my ouija board is out. With a strong 6=3=3=1, North might be reluctant to correct three hearts but might well correct three diamonds."
3 ♥ 70 BWP 22% BWS 53% IAC 63%
Choice number 2: Gambling that partner has both majors. Oren Kriegel writes "I'll try to be bold (but no bold enouigh to play for penalty). Three hearts has a decent upside - catch an eight-card fit in a high-scoring strain - and deosn't seem much more risky than other guesses." Masse24 agrees: "Although pass is possible at Matchpoints, it’s a bit much with these poor, scattered values. Partner is asking me to bid, and since the major scores better, I go with it." As does Eric Stoltz: "It's matchpoints, so I bid the suit that scores highest (at imps I might well bid the stronger suit)." Zia thinks "Partner is hoping for a major. I have one." YleeXotee "going low with this I hope. not ready to bail out on 3s." JCreech: "What worries me about bidding either red suit is that partner could have continued showing his shape, so bidding either could fall into a poorish fit." While WackoJack ponders: "Say partner has ♠ AKxxx, ♥ KQJx, ♦ KJx, ♣ x. Then 4♥ looks good. Would partner make a re-opening double with less? Maybe? Also it is match points so go with the field 3♥." Clearly the Panel is of one mind: Billy Eisenberg: "Seems obvious." Jerry Stamatov: "Tough decision."
3 ♠ 40 BWP 7% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Choice number 3: Going with the certain seven-card fit. Choosing either red suit could be wrong. You may be ruffing on the short side, but with your anemic holdings, you could also be ruffing from the strong holdings. With five or six, you may be able to survive ruffing from the long side better. John Hurd thinks "Since partner would have bid hearts with five, he will frequently hold six spades. Three diamonds seems wrong - likely a winner only if partner is 5=3=4=1, and three of a major scores more." Ralph Katz feels that "If a red suit is the correct strain at the game level, partner will bid. If North has only five spades we might be in the wrong partscore."
Pass 50 BWP 19% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
For those in the mood for feast or famine, pass is also an option. Jill Meyers is willing to play the doubled contract: "Its matchpoints and I'll take my shot. At imps, I would be a chicken and bid three hearts, even though that might land us in an uncomfortable four-three fit." As is Phillip Alder: "I would bid three of a red suit at imps." Fleisher and Friesner avoids the wrong choice: "Partner rates to have a good high-card hand. If North is 5=4=4=0, bidding is almost certainly better; however, this is a much lower probability than either 5=3=4=1 or 5=4=3=1, and we would have little chance of making three of a red suit if we guessed the wrong suit." While Boye Brogeland approaches the problem with optimism: "At matchpoints, when I lack a good action, I like to go for the one with the biggest upside. Passing is additionally attractive, since I don't know how well we would fare at the three-level (nor which suit to bid)." Perhaps the most realistic Panelist is Arthur Robinson, "Expecting minus 670."
This ends the first installment of MSC discussion. The new month's contest is underway, and the number of IAC participants has been dropping. If we are doing something wrong, please help us out and let us know. The next installment will be coming as time allows.
My preference would have been to bid diamonds, anticipating the heart bid, then I could show spades. Since I did not do that, I feel I am stuck with taking the hint, rebidding my spades to show the weakest action.
with a two-suiter, but having done so, I will rebid my spades and hope partner can figure out what to do next.