February MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, DirectorProblem C 3 NT (WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, BluBayou, YleeXotee, VeredK, CCR3)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 9 8
♥ A K 4
♦ K J 7 3 2 ♣ Q 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ 2 ♠
3
♦ Pass 3 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Partner has made a nebulous cue-bid, and now you have to decide how to respond. I call it nebulous because you really cannot tell whether the bid is an ask or a tell. Is it asking for a spade stopper, as the IAC solvers all believe? Or is it a raise of your diamonds, a suit you freely bid at the three-level, and, if so, what is your next move?
4 ♥ 60 BWP 11% BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Carl Hudecek, makes his own cue-bid because "Three spades was a control-bid, showing a fit in diamonds, I assume that partner is void of spades, but the spade ace may not be useless."
3 NT 100 BWP 30% BWS 46% IAC 100%
John Hurd says "Seems routine." No one else seems to agree.
David Berkowitz, for example, points out, "Game first. Partner's call is not yet a slam-try, it is firstly a punt, e.g.: ♠ xxx
♥ Qxx
♦ Axx ♣ AKxx. I must admit to my spade stop. while I do have extra values, the hand has no direction." Similarly,
Bart Bramley says "Three spades was punt until proven otherwise. No need to stretch for what might be a thin slam at matchpoints when three notrump will be popular, and I can gain point in the play. If slam is good, partner may be able to continue."
BluBayou also echos: "Do we all realize that pard's 3 Spades will usually be a waffle? What can an ordinary opening had lacking a spade card AND a heart suit do after all?? It's too early to get rowdy yet--just do what Hamman says for now"
Masse24: "I worry this is not enough. But let’s see where partner is going with his cuebid. If he passes, we are where we belong."
WackoJack asks "What is partner telling me? Most likely a balanced 12-14 with no spade stop. If so with my semi balanced hand and the A♠ I must bid 3NT. Could partner have an unbalanced hand with
♦ support say ♠ x,
♥ Qxxx,
♦ AQx, ♣ AJ10xx when we would want to be in 6
♦? Or even the same with ♣AKxxx when 7
♦ is a laydown? Then partner should take out my 3NT into 4
♦ to tell me this news."
YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed." Nonetheless, there were several that seemed interested in bidding 4 NT if they could be certain of the bid's meaning, or the hand met slightly different criteria.
Boye Brogeland says "The hand is work 3.5 notrump. I believe that the field would bid three notrump in this situation, so I copy that and hope that partner has a balance hand with 12-14 HCP rather than a good hand with clubs."
JCreech: "The question is whether I am being a wimp by not jumping to 4 NT (hopefully quantitative under the circumstances)."
Fleisher and Friesner: "If we were sure that four notrump would be interpreted as natural, we would bid it - if partner has extras and combined we have a source of tricks in diamonds and/or clubs, slam is likely to be a favorite. However, this sort of bid is easier to handle in the postmortem than at the table."
Jill Meyers feels the hand has "The values for four notrump but no running suit." While
Oren Kriegel has his own hesitancies: "Four notrump (or some other forward-going bid) might work out better, but the hand is a bit too light for four notrump, and at matchpoints I don't want to bid a suit."
4 NT 90 BWP 20% BWS 16% IAC No solvers
Nonetheless, there was a strong contingent, more certain of the bid's meaning, willing to jump to 4 NT.
Frank Merblum, for example, thinks "Partner either has a weak notrump with no spade stopper or an excellent fit for diamonds. Four notrump is a natual slam-try with no clear direction."
Eric Kokish says "Three spades is not yet known to represent a powerful hand; rather, it is a grope, perhaps with 3=3=5=2 or a balanced hand with three-card diamond support and modest values lacking a spade guard. Three notrump may be the last plus, so there is a noose (not a moose) element in bidding anything else. However, if North has long clubs or diamond support, these cards are good for slam, and the main downside to four notrump is that maybe we can't make it (could be down a lot, in fact)."
Ira Chorush: "Partner's bid is ambiguous in that it tells us nothing about his hand. It would be mandatory with many weak notrumps, as well as with some very-distributional hands with good clubs and diamonds. Therefore, we will do best by describing your hand; four notrump shows slam-onvitational values in a balanced hand with a spade stopper." Joey Silver feels that "With no trump suit agreed, this is natural."
Jerry Stamatov is "Trying to show a little extra, not ideal with ace-low-low of spades."
Phillip Alder: "A tad too much to settle for three notrump."
Kamil and Sherman: "We can't call it a day at three notrump. This fits best, even if imperfectly. We'd rather hold king-jack-low of spades, but this is what were dealt." And
Zia asks, "Who knows? But it's never exactly nine."
4 ♠ 70 BWP 15% BWS 24% IAC No solvers
Some are not content with simply trying to interpret partner's cue-bid, they see the cue, and raise it one.
Sami Kehela goes with the simple interpretation: "Partner is probably angling for three notrump, but I have too many values to comply."
Eric Stoltz "Not certain what partner is selling, but I am buying. Three notrump would be too unilateral and might wrong side the contract, especially as East bid red against white. I have a potentially-great hand opposite a real club suit and/or a diamond fit."
Robert Wolff feels it is "A fairly easy choice, at least for now. I'm almost sure we will wind up in at least a small slam."
Danny Kleinman finds the choice "Close between this and pick-a-slam five notrump with the intention of raising partner's reply one level. Five notrump could get me in trouble if partner replied at the seven-level and I tried to raise."
4 ♣ 70 BWP 11% BWS 2% IAC No solvers
The bid I understand least is returning to partner's first-bid suit on Qx when partner's cue-bid is still unclear.
Kit Woolsey wants to "... see if partner has diamond support. If not, he pretty much must have long clubs, since with four hearts he would have bid three hearts. This is a huge hand, as North apparently has nothing wasted in spades."
Ralph Katz the cue-bid "... as showing a strong hand, not necessarily a slam-level control. If partner bids four diamonds, I will face another decision."
John Swanson thinks "The club queen has become such an important card that, along with the controls, there is enough to force to slam. Four club has the advantage of giving partner options at the four-level, which will provide an opportunity to determine strain and level."
Problem D 2 (VeredK, BluBayou, JCreech)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 6 5
♥ A J 10 8 3
♦ 8 5 3 2 ♣ Q J
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT Pass 2
♦ Pass
?
What call do you make?
An auction that occurs all too frequently. Partner opens a major, you bid a forcing NT, and partner rebids a minor. You hold two in partner's major, four in partner's minor, and five in your own major suit. Three potential places to play, with strengths and weaknesses associated with each.
2 ♥ 100 BWP 56% BWS 25% IAC 37%
The strength to bidding 2
is that your hand will be worth more tricks than as dummy to one of partner's suits, the weakness is that partner will be expecting six and there is a possibility that diamonds will be a safer contract.
JCreech is "Torn between three weak calls. The 1 NT has already given partner the warning to tread carefully. I am going with hearts so my hand will be worth some tricks. I am hopeful that partner has three having bypassed clubs (though that might indicate real diamonds and a stiff heart)." While
BluBayou says "I have never shown a 5-card red suit after this auction, but.....Jim put a bee in my bonnet:: in hearts, I AM worth some tricks, more than usual COMPARED TO WHAT a crappy dummy this is for spades. we will not speak of dropping pard in 2
, ok? ...This TRULY a "misery preference" to 2 spades--worse even than most 6-to-9 with a doubleton trump compared to the alternative of 2
"
John Swanson thinks the bid "Offers a bit of flexibility, and the suit is worthy enough."
Carl Hudecek seems to just like his hearts: "I dislike bypassing a good heart suit (by giving partner a spade preference on two low), and I dislike bypassing such good hearts by raising diamonds." As does
Frank Merblum: "Tough hand at matchpoints, but I like the quality of the heart suit."
Jerry Stamatov: "Although partner will expect six hearts, these five are good enough. On a good day, I will hit partner with 5=3=3=2. And if North has a singleton heart, he can get back to spades." Several suggest that they would not bid hearts except holding a specific card.
Billy Eisenberg: "Thanks for the heart ten."
Phillip Alder: "An earlier experience with this hand-type involved bidding two spades with a poor outcome. That eight of hearts was just too tempting."
Ira Chorush: "Without the eight of hearts, I would bid two spades."
Bart Bramley feels 2
"Should be best when partner has two or more. Might survive when he has fewer, especially as then North might not pass. I'm looking at the strong heart interiors, whereas partner's interiors are unknown." And
Sami Kehela points to system uncertainties: "Why not? In BWS, the partnership could have eight hearts and only seven diamonds."
Pass 80 BWP 26% BWS 25% IAC 1 solver
The strength to passing is that you know you are in at least a seven-card fit, but could be more, spades is pretty much limited to seven, while the combined heart holding could be anywhere from 5 to 8. For example,
Oren Kriegel thinks "Game chances aren't great, and very likely we have an eight-card diamond fit. At matchpoints, I expect that partner would have passed with most 5=3=3=2 hands, even some with which he would have accepted a game-invitation."
Eric Stoltz feels "The odds are high that two diamonds represents a four-plus-card suit. This is a minimum hand, so it would be too risky to try two hearts. Pass yields the best chance for a plus."
John Hurd points out "The more aggressive North's opening style, the more the pass stands out."
Kit Woolsey argues that "Plus 110 for nine tricks in diamonds ties plus 110 for eight tricks in a major, and I doubt that we have plus 140 available. Bidding either major could result in a terrible contract."
YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed."
Robert Wolff says "Passing is relatively safe, and a passer can expect a plus score; flying to two hearts, which is likely to be passed if North has a singleton heart, will often lead to a minus score ... everything considered, it has a lower matchpoint expectation than pass."
Boye Brogeland: "We have found a fit and rate to go plus. Bidding a major may be a way to go minus."
2 ♠ 50 BWP 15% BWS 42% IAC 50%
Going for the sure 7-card fit in a major, some are concerned about partner still having a strong hand. For example,
WackoJack "Not playing Gazzilli partner could have 18-19. So I must not pass. I think a preference bid of 2♠ is about right. ... In my book 2
will deny a 3 card suit otherwise I would raise immediately. I pity those poor souls who have to respond 1NT when they have a weak 3 card raise."
David Berkowitz also feels he "Must keep the bidding going in case partner has something." Most are just worried about getting out in the best contract.
Masse24 is "Really torn between the 'book' 2
and a heart suit just good enough for consideration. But I’ll stick with the “known” 5-2 fit rather than the hoped for 5-3."
Jill Meyers "Partner did not promise four diamonds, so I choose a known seven-card major-suit fit where I have a ruffing value."
Kamil and Sherman "Not pass for a variety of reasons. Two hearts would land us in an unfortunate contract far too often, thus the unhappy preference." And finally
Zia weighs in: "Am I really this sick? I guess so."
Problem E 2 NT (WackoJack)
Imps North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 6
♥ K 9 4 2
♦ A K Q 3 ♣ 10 6 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
2
♦ Pass 2 ♠* Pass
?
*BWS: need not be six-plus-card suit
What call do you make?
The good news is that you have an opening hand and partner opens first. The bad news is that you made your game-forcing response in a four card suit and you only have two in partner's suit. It looks like you are headed for a notrump contract, but what will be your route.
2 NT 100 BWP 56% BWS 40% IAC 1 solver
Oren Kriegel: "According to a secondhand account, Kevin Bathurst has described two-over-one auctions this way: Opener rebids two of his major, responder rebids two notrump, and then they start to describe their hands. That seems to be the right approach here. I won't commit the partnership to spades or worry too much about club weakness. There may be time to get out of notrump, and heart weakness might have been why partner did not rebid two notrump."
David Berkowitz continues with: "A classic mark-time bid. It gives partner the most space to explore." Though I think
WackoJack may have the best simple description of the sequence: "I have a balanced 13. So I will bid a forcing 2NT." And we end up in an auction that
John Hurd sums up: "This is terrific. We are at two spades and neither knows how many cards partner has in any suit." Or as
Danny Kleinman rephrases: "Routine. Thank heaven for game-forcing two-over-one response that unburden us of premature strain decisions with game-going hands." 2 NT may be the Panel's choice, but one thing is clear - no one really likes the bid, but no one really likes the alternatives.
Jill Meyers says "There is no great bid available. Partner can bid three spades to suggest making that suit trump."
Kit Woolsey feels it "Gives partner the most room and is descriptive. If we have a club weakness, we might be able to sort it out in time."
Ira Chorush points out that a "Lack of a club stopper and possible wrong siding are defects, but bidding notrump now may allow an escape to spades later if partner does anything but bid three notrump. If North bids three notrump, the opponents may lead the wrong suit."
Joey Silver: "Most descriptive, albeit slightly flawed in the club department."
Eric Kokish: "Pretty awful but more flexible than three spades or an ultra-ugly three hearts. I hope that North will mention a different strain if three notrump is not obvious. Of course, playing from the wrong side is no joke."
Billy Eisenberg reiterates the basic position: "Not without some concern." While
Kamil and Sherman summarize the position of the adherants: "As close as we get to, 'What's the problem?' No second choice."
3 ♥ 80 BWP 33% BWS 42% IAC 75%
Although the Panel is mostly in lockstep with the 2 NT rebid, the solvers are slightly more in favor of showing their heart values. This has the advantage of right-siding the contract more often, but is suggestive of a more distributional hand, eats up bidding space, and may give the defense an important clue as to how to proceed.
Masse24 describes the bid as "Keeping 3NT alive and highlighting the club problem. Assuming partner has a stopper, I want the lead coming into him."
Bart Bramley views it as "Delaying the guess but showing where my stuff is, which may be all that matters. I can pass three notrump or bid spades over anything else."
Carl Hudecek is trying "To reach three notrump opposite five spades and club stopper. Who knows where we will end if partner has five spades and no club stop."
YleeXotee points out that "It's not checking on heart fit, that's already denied, but it's letting p know I don't have club stop. so passing the buck."
Fleisher and Friesner feels they are "Indicating a heart stopper as opposed to guaranteeing an unbalanced hand with diamonds and hearts."
JCreech "Looking for 3 NT, but could end up in a spade contract."
BluBayou "I know bidding 3
now is 'kitchen bridge' when not having 5+ length in diamonds, but i don't see the harm. If partner supports diamonds now, correcting to 4
cant be that bad, so the first-impulse rebid of 2NT is not needed with our 10xx club holding. The panel will probably split between a spade raise and that automatic rebid in NT, though
. I know I am not changing to a spade raise this month--after all north may have 6-4 majors and then we can't get to 4
"
Phillip Alder frets "If partner bids three notrump, I won't know whether or not to pass (I will), but bidding three spades instead might drive us to an inferior four spades if North has only five." In the end,
Zia says "I know that most bid two notrump, but that doesn't mean it's right."
3 ♠ 40 BWP 7% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Although aware of the pitfall,
Eric Stoltz still moves forward with raising partner's spades: "This problem highlights the major downside of rebidding two of a major without promising six."
This concludes Part 2. The last segment will be out when time permits. Be sure to participate in next month's contest. All are welcome.