DECEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Danny Kleinman, DirectorAs we continue through the December contest.
Problem D: Pass This is a problem that frequently distinguishes between the expert and the non-expert. An expert, while not always passing, first thinks about passing, where the non-expert will typically think first of bidding as a gut reaction to partner’s takeout double. Here more than half of the panel does pass, while only 20% of the IAC solvers did likewise.
Only three of the IAC solvers converted the reopening double to penalty, while more than half of the BW panel did.
BluBayou made a gut-reaction type of decision: “Leaving in the double of one heart took two seconds, and we will never look deeper.”
JCreech, though, did dig a bit deeper: “Pass - Matchpoints is a nasty game. I am looking at a probable five tricks and they are red. I am hoping for the magic 200 vs. a partscore or 500 vs. a game situation. I am close to bidding 1NT to show my heart values that way.”
Irina Levitna and
Ron Smith, were identically succinct “Pass. Let’s go for it.”
Phillip Alder likes the vulnerability, “Pass. I expect most panelists to bid one notrump, but the form of contest and favorable vulnerability tempt me too much.”
Zia: “Pass. The opponents’ spade fit scares me, but I take pleasure in nailing a vulnerable overcall on a thin suit.”
Doub and Wildavsky: “Pass. The hearts are too strong not to take a shot at plus 200 or more. Partner will almost surely lead a diamond, a likely good start for us, and our hand rates to be worth at least five tricks on defense. The only worrisome feature is the low singleton spade, as the opponents have eight spades.”
If you do take out the negative double, what should be the strain? 35% of the panel, half of the BW solvers and 60% of the IAC solvers selected 1NT.
DickHy expresses regret and quotes BWS in his decision to bid “1N. This feels a bit wimpish but I imagine partner can make a negative double at the 1-level with 6 or 7 HCP. Bridge World doesn’t say a negative x necessarily shows 4 cards in the missing minor, so 2C has the weakness that it might hit a 3c suit … and the much graver weakness of hiding my H stops. Bridge World says under negative doubles,
“After opener's one-notrump rebid, responder's two-level cue-bid shows invitational-plus strength. If partner has 10+ HCP he can invite.” While
WackoJack thinks passing the double puts him on the wrong side of the risk/reward calculation: “1NT If I were declarer in 1
, with a 4-1 fit (against Burns Law) would I make 7 tricks? It looks horribly risky for the +200 prize. I will go for 1NT. True! If partner has a 4144 distribution, then 1N may not score as well as 2
or 2
. The upside is that the opps may well compete to 2
with their 8 card fit. Then I wield the axe. Burn Law states:
When you are declarer, the total number of trumps held by your side should be greater than the total number of trumps held by your opponents.” And
Masse24 states it simply, “1NT WTP? I’m not bold enough to pass.” The great fear of the panel is that West will run to a better strain.
Carl Hudecek: One notrump. I’d be happy defending against hearts but unhappy defending against spades. If I pass, East-West may find their spade fit.”
Paul Ivaska “One notrump. … if I pass, West is apt to run, and the opponents are likely to find their eight-card spade fit. Then we’ll probably wind up declaring our own contract against an effective opening lead followed by accurate defense.”
Bart Bramley bids 1NT more on general principle, “Notrump rather than clubs when it’s matchpoints. Shape flaws for notrump are more palatable in competition. I’d pass if desperate for a top, but passing is too risky otherwise.”
The other choice for taking out the negative double was to bid 2
. This was the choice of 10% of the panelists, 16% of the BW solvers and 20% of the IAC solvers. None of the IAC solvers making this choice discussed their reasoning, so we will look to the panelists for those clues.
Kevin Bathurst is tempted to pass, but bids “Two clubs. The stiff spade and strong hearts suggest passing, but I’m a bit too short of strength outside of hearts to gamble for a top on defense at the one-level.” While
Jeff Rubens has other concerns: “Two clubs. Defending might be okay if West sits and partner's spades are strong, but the opponents have a spade fit and we (very likely) have a minor-suit fit, so this is not a good time to game a pass.”
Problem E: 1 The question in this problem is how best to show your hand. You can show both suits at once with an unusual 2NT overcall, you can bid out your shape by bidding 1
and rebidding diamonds, or you can get you lead director in by bidding diamonds and suppressing the hearts unless partner shows them in some fashion. In the end, it was a close contest between bidding to show a suit to lead and showing both suits in a single bid.
Half of the panelists and about 40% of BW solvers selected 1
. Only three of the IAC solvers joined in.
KenBerg described his thoughts for bidding 1
as “partner is a passed hand, I don't have all that much, I expect the opponents to be the declaring side. If partner is going to be on lead I want a
lead, not a
. Well, at least I think I want a
. Depends a bit.”
Bob Boudreau properly values his heart suit: “One diamond. I don’t want partner to lead hearts against West’s spade contract, so I’ll pretend that I have only four.” While others recognize that the opponents have the master suit.
Billy Eisenberg: “One diamond. We’ll be on defense often enough to ignore the fifth heart.”
Jeff Rubens “One diamond. A pessimistic view of the offensive prospects, but very often we will be outgunned, and matchpoints sometimes pays a lot for any extra trick.”
IAC solvers went with 2NT quite strongly (75%), much more so than the BW panelists (39%) or solvers (45%).
WackoJack puts it simply, “2NT I cannot see a better bid than the ‘unusual’.”
JCreech adds a little texture to the argument: “2NT - I am torn between making the lead directing bid of 1
or getting both of my suits off my chest right away. Typically, when I can accurately describe to partner where to find 10 of my cards in one bid, I like to show them. I am almost too rich to make this bid.”
DickHy used BWS to help justify his answer of “2N. 2N or 1D? How bad will playing in 3Hx be in a xxxxx/xx fit? Partner will surely choose H when 22 in the red suits. He is a passed hand, so opponents could well have a vulnerable game. Then again, perhaps I’m pessimistic; partner is bound to have 3c support for one of my two suits! Bridge World;
The requirements for initial pre-emptive defensive actions (jump overcalls; the weak version of two-suited actions) are possibly light. So, there’s that excuse for the bar afterwards. Besides, on the day I overcall 1D, partner will have four hearts and one diamond.” And always the pragmatist,
BluBayou explains that “(t)he selling point for me on Michaels, and unusual notrump is that you can express a hand that, if it were only 5-4 distribution WOULD NOT BE WORTH A BID AT ALL, or would be worth one bid only, leaving one with that left-over feeling later. That is how I feel about this one. The 5 child hearts make it ugly, but count me IN.”
Bart Bramley: “Two notrump. Show two-suiters if you can, especially when you may shut out spades. I wouldn’t know which red suit to bid if I had to choose. Tipping my shape seems less likely to matter than usual, as I have no finessable holdings, and an opposing declarer would probably finesse clubs through North anyway.”
Kit Woolsey: “Two notrump. Perfect. Partner is a passed hand, so we aren’t missing game, and the vulnerability is right. Anything else would make life too easy for the opponents.”
There is a minority view (2 IAC solvers, 2 BW panelists and 6% of the BW solvers), that want to bid the two red suits in their proper order. This implies that they feel the hand is worth two bids. Our IAC solvers were silent on this, so we are forced to the panel for enlightenment, but all we get are jokes.
Robert Wolff: “One heart. For lead direction.” And
Arthur Robinson: “One heart. Getting ready for fan tan.”
Problem F: 2 Too often in bridge, you find yourself in a position of not having any good bids available, and you are stuck looking for the least lie. This problem is one of those times, if fact, this is the sort of hand that, given that it is a semi-balanced 12 count, that at the point of rebid I ask myself, why did I open this in the first place. The answer of course is that you have a good 12 and were hoping to have a better bid from partner.
Carl Hudecek seems to be in this camp: “Why did my substitute open this garbage in second seat?”
The panel’s choice (40%) was to rebid the beefy club suit, though it was slightly less a favorite with solvers (33% IAC, 34% BW). The lie, of course, is that there are only five in the suit.
DickHy thinks rebidding the clubs is more descriptive: “2C. 1N shows the HCP, but 2C shows the hand. Partner could well be starting a Walsh-like/invitational + sequence and then the choice doesn’t matter too much (if at all). If he’s weak with say 3343 then 2C looks a better spot to play than 1N. One problem might be if he is weak with long diamonds – say 3361 or 3352. Then he will bid 2D over 1N which looks safer than 2C with such hands, but maybe not 2D over 2C. Still, I’m the weak one in the partnership, so 2C it is.” While
WackoJack is relying a bit more on his gut feeling: “2
I think I just prefer this to 2
. After all partner may have 3343 distribution. 2
leaves no doubt that this is at least a good 5 card suit.”
Nick L’Ecuyer: “Two clubs. Looks like a six-card suit. My other choice is one heart, but my partners tend to raise when I bid a three card suit.”
David Berkowitz: “Two clubs. Against my religion to rebid a five-bagger, but these clubs really look like six, don’t they?” Some want to rebid the clubs to right-side the contract.
Joel Wooldridge: “Two clubs. Normally, I’d rebid one notrump with this shape, but there are two low spades and two perfectly playable minors. Rather than wrongside three notrump (an important consideration at imps), I’ll settle for a minor-suit contract when partner can’t bid again. Clubs rather than diamonds because I want to portray the excellent quality of the suit right away.”
A close second choice was 1NT. 36% of the panel selected to show their shape, despite a spade stopper made of air. This was also the plurality choice of the BW solvers (42%), though it was a lesser choice for the IAC solvers (only 2). However, the only IAC comment was a disappointing one from
Masse24: “Another WTP?” While Todd is right that it describes the hand, the auction points to weakness in the majors, and not only are the spades a doubleton, but there is nothing there to help bolster partner’s holding. The only plus is that the opponents are not biding the suit, so there is some hope for a 4-4.
Ron Smith: “One notrump. Balanced minimum. No reason to be scared.”
Irina Levitina: “One notrump. Says more about my hand than any other bid.”
Bart Bramley: “One notrump. When I have a balanced minimum, I show it as soon as possible. Anything else would be a distortion. Yes, I would have raised hearts, but diamonds are a different animal.”
The favorite (53%) for the IAC solvers was 2
, and a distant third with BW (panel, 21%; solvers, 16%). The lie here is that you are promising four-card support for partner’s suit.
KenBerg writes “2
seems right. Of course agreements matter, and agreements vary. Here is from BWS 2017 ‘In response to one club, with four of a major and four-plus diamonds, responder bids: one of the major with four diamonds, one diamond with invitational-plus values (otherwise one of the major) with five diamonds, one diamond with six diamonds.’ So can responder have only four diamonds? Well, yes, but not often. With four diamonds he would skip over
to bid a major if he had a major so if he has four diamonds he does not have a major. He is also very unlikely to be 3=3=4=3, with that holding it seems he would bid some number of NT, although perhaps there are hands where he would not. The most likely case where he holds four
is when he also holds four
. That's one too few
to bid either 2
or 3
, although there could be the occasional game forcing holding where he would bid 2
on a four card holding, showing strength, planning to clarify shape later. So it seems that very very often he will be holding five
for his 1
call. And, when I raise
, he will expect me to be holding five
. It seems to me that after 1
- 1
- 2
we are in a good position to end up in NT when we belong there, and in a minor when we do not belong in NT. It could go wrong, but I think it's odds on. Often with these MSC hands we have to go with the least bad choice. But here, it seems to me that 2
is not bad at all.” Similarly,
JCreech argued for “2
- Usually I like to show my shape and rebid 1NT, and would have over 1
or 1
. So what is different with 1
? I think it is that neither of us is showing a major and I only have one stop for both suits. Also, when partner responds 1
over 1
, there tends to be either five diamonds or a club fit. Unless partner intends to reverse into a major, I want to steer clear of NT at this point.”
Problem G: 3 On Problem G, the BW panel essentially said “what’s the problem?” as 75% of them proceeded to cue-bid 3
; 40% of the solvers (both IAC and BW) followed suit. BluBayou says succinctly “Cue-bid-- Encourage partner in whichever suit he wants to be encouraged in. Who has a plan ‘B’?”
JCreech seems a little less certain with his bid of “3
- This feels a bit like a stretch, but what a fit for partner's responsive double suits! Not certain what my cue-bid shows except that my hand improved with what partner had to say. Now it is time to listen.”
WackoJack is cautiously optimistic with his 3
bid “I have 14 HCP with 6 card
suit. Partner has
and
with I think 10+ HCP. So is this enough to try 3
? Or try the low road and make the conservative 2
rebid? I will try the aggressive 3
. We can still stop short of game if partner bids 3
with no
stop.” While
Masse24 is almost gleeful with his “3
Tag, you’re it, partner! When all else fails, leave partner with the nasty decisions.” Zia describes his choice of 3
as “(a) great hand if we have a fit.”
Brian Platnick echos: “Three clubs. I have a good hand with doubt about strain.” Or more explicitly by
Nick L’Ecuyer: “Three clubs. I want to reach game, but I don’t know in which of three available suits. Partner’s next bid will tell me.”
Phillip Adler, though selects 3
under duress and wants to know “Why don’t the rules permit me to redouble for takeout?”
There is little consensus among the panelists if some other bid was chosen. Among the IAC solvers, three went with 2
. Although
DickHy was tempted to go in a different direction, he settled on 2
: “What then does partner’s double mean? Bridge World is not much help:
Among advancer's actions when responder raises opener: a double is not for penalty (for takeout or showing general values, depending on level). If partner’s double shows general values, then deflation has set in, ‘cos he’s got only 6 or 7. I have a choice of bidding one of his suits, with only 3c support, or showing the 6th heart. Admittedly, the 3 cards in either case are spiffing, but if partner is 4243 and his values are in his long suits, then hearts looks the best spot. So, I’m tending towards 2H. 3C is exerting a strange pull, however … must find my pills.”
Doub and Wildavsky bid “Two hearts. We hold what used to be considered normal values and a sixth heart. With both opponents bidding, partner rates to be minimum, and we have no clear direction to go in search of game. … One disadvantage of the trend toward lighter overcalls is that a minimum must encompass a wider range.”
Similarly, three IAC solvers chose to bid 2
. Unfortunately, none chose to discuss their reasoning, so we have to rely on the panel for illumination. The one panelist that made this bid was
Kit Woolsey: “Two spades. Partner is supposed to have five spades for this double. He doesn’t expect me to have four, as I didn’t make a takeout double.” The moderator is defensive about Kit’s claim that the overcall could not have four spades, citing distributional examples that would not be suitable for a takeout double.
The last portion of this recap will be out momentarily. I used too much material, so we are having the lead problem as its own section. Todd asked for the segregation (he actually asked that lead problems be banned from MSC) because he hates lead problems so much - lol.