May MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Bart Braamley, DirectorProblem E Pass (FleuretteD, Peuco, Jcreech, Yleexotee, Blubayou, Masse24, MarilynLi, CCR3)
Matchpoints
Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 5
♥ J 9
♦ 9 4 3 ♣ A J 10 9 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass Pass 1
♦ 1 ♠
1 NT 3 ♠ Double* Pass
?
*BWS: cooperative-takeout
What call do you make?
Again we are faced with a matchpoint decision: which is the best route to the highest score? The two best options are to either convert the cooperative/takeout double to penalty or bid 3NT. Anything else would be either conceding that the opponents may make their partscore or that we are unable to make the more aggressive contract of 3NT.
Pass 100: The top score was for Pass; 43% of the Panel, 49% of the BW solvers and 47% of the IAC solvers all made this their selection. Perhaps the best argument is based on the LAW.
Pratap Rajadhyaksha described his thinking this way: “Pard is likely 1=4=5=3. Not clear what game we can make. If West has the usual nonvul. Dreckm we could easily score 500 or 800. There are likely 17 total trumps, so an 11-trick game would be a Law violation.”
JCreech thinks “I have my bid, in fact I have a max for my bid, and a bit more for my stop, so I see no reason to not convert the cooperative double to penalty.” Similarly,
Mike Passell says “Matchpoints let’s go for it. No reason to suspect that five clubs is cold with wastage in spades.”
3 NT 90: 43% of the Panel also voted for 3NT. The moderator broke the tie in favor of pass because he liked “… their case better.” Nonetheless, 3NT was close to being the top choice, but the solvers agreed with the decision; only 29% of IAC selected 3NT, while 40% of the BW solvers followed suit.
Joanna Stansby saw “No reason to override Hamman’s Rule.” While
Kit Woolsey “Figures (the contract) to make and likely is where we belong. I can’t be confident of a three-trick set.” And
Ross Grabel rates “… the chance of making three notrump somewhat higher than the chance of scoring plus 500. I think my chance of failing in three notrump is minimal.”
WackoJack agrees. He is “More confident of making 9 tricks in no trumps than taking 7 tricks defending 3♠ x.”
A significant portion of IAC bid some number of clubs.
5 ♣ (70):
DickHy said “I’m at the top end of the 1N response range. Partner could well be 1444 – a 1D opening would be consistent with that and the auction. If 6C has chances, that is the spot. Partner would need AK in both red suits and the K of clubs – is that unreasonable? How best to pursue 6C? 4C looks a bit “ok, I’ve got to bid, so here it is (sigh)”. 5C looks better”
Eric Kokish joined him with these thoughts “Much depends on whether cooperative might include a spade void and whether we can expect enough extra values to offer a play for 11 tricks. With no diamond honor, it’s tempting to pass rather than to bid three notrump, which might be best if East has both high spade honors; however, the diamond length, doubleton heart, and excellent clubs sway me toward five clubs, which might occasionally catch a raise,”
4 ♣ (60):
Hoki tries “4 Clubs, 3NT gives up on slam”
Leonard Helfgott wants to provide partner with more information: “Partner already knows about the spade stop. Bid where you live. Pass is too risky against a nine-plus spade fit.”
Problem F 2 (Yleexotee, Blubayou, CCR3, KenBerg, Thornbury, BabsG, VeeRee, Msphola, WackoJack)
Imps
North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 4
♥ K 8 5
♦ 9 7 4 2 ♣ A Q 8 6 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ 1 ♠
?*
*BWS: 2 ♠ invitational-plus diamond raise; 3
♦ preemptive; 2 ♣ forcing to 2
♦What call do you make?
The moderator described this problem “… as mainly a two-horse race. Both horses are diamond raises. The simple bid feels like an underbid, while the cue-bid feels like an overbid.” There is a third horse in the race, that is deceptive, because in the hint, it sounds a bit like a diamond raise, but is in actuality a one-round force to 2
.
2 ♠ 100: 53% of the Panel and IAC solvers decided that the hand was worth the invitation, along with 36% of the BW solvers.
YleeXotee is “taking the first hint and going with diamond raise, already 8+ fit why go hunting for other things, and frankly I want to take away what looks to be the ops spade fit bidding.” While
WackoJack agrees “Partner almost certainly has 4 or more ♦s so this fits the bill”
Kit Woolsey focuses on the quality: “With primes and a singleton spade, the hand is easily worth an invitation.”
Zia thinks the hand is “Closer to an invitation than to a preempt. Partner will usually hold at least four diamonds. It would be tempting to bid three spades opposite an unbalanced diamond.”
2 ♦ 90: Noone in IAC went with the slight underbid, while 29% of the Panel and 9% of the BW solvers did.
Danny Kleinman is “Happy to raise a minor with secondary support and extra values, while preparing to continue with three clubs if the opponents bid two spades.”
Allan Graves argues that he is “Top of the range, but limiting the hand now allows maximum aggression as the auction develops.”
2 ♣ 70: 47% of the IAC and BW solvers bit on the 2
hint, along with four of the Panel.
Mark Lair “Decided tactically not to go low with two diamonds, and two spades seems wrong with four low diamonds. And
Leonard Helfgott decided it was “Worth it, because of the diamond fit.” Personally, I found the wording the hint to be suggestive of a diamond raise of some sort: “2 ♣ forcing to 2
♦.” Upon further reflection, I think all it is saying is that it is a one-round force, as in keeping the auction open and 2
is coincidentally the opening suit. It makes me wonder if 2
is natural.
Masse24: “Later supporting
at a low level. 2
also in the running.”
Hoki: “2 Clubs, about as natural as we can get”
Peuco “2 Clubs Ds too poor to push an invite via 2S”
DickHy: “This looks pretty close to a 2S invite plus – all the HCP are working, but I’d probably prefer the minor holdings to be switched for that. 3D doesn’t look right. Which leaves 2C. It’s likely that West will bid 2S over my 2C, then if partner passes I can bid 3C and if partner does anything stronger, I can bid 3S asking for stop.” Stressing the confusion,
JCreech adds “I hope this is right.”
Problem G 3 (Hoki, BabsG, VeeRee, DrAculea, Yleexotee, KenBerg, Msphola, WackoJack, Masse24, MarilynLi)
Imps
North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K Q
♥ 6 5 3
♦ 8 7 4 ♣ A 10 9 6 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♠ Pass
1 NT 2
♦ 2
♥ 3
♦ ?*
*BWS: double = penalty
What call do you make?
The moderator talked about how “This problem produced one of (the) most schizophrenic votes I’ve ever seen. A significant bloc forced to game, while a bigger chunk passed (hoping that if our side is supposed to keep bidding partner will do it), and the largest group staked out the middle ground."
3 ♠ 100 is considered to be the middle ground; 59% of the IAC solvers made this selection, but the choice was a bit less popular with the Panel (36%) and BW solvers (38%).
Sami Kehela doesn’t speak to stronger actions, but feels the “Inaction is pusillanimous.” Some do not want to defend at this level.
WackoJack: “With ♦s overcalled and raised partner’s distribution is likely 5413. So we don’t want to sell out and defend a ♦ contract.”
MarilynLi thinks “3S is likely to make and better than 3DX-1, Game is possible too” Some think that if they don’t act, partner might not.
Don Stack says “I fear partner won’t bid again if I pass. We could have a partscore, even a game. I have three possible entries, so partner can lead up in hearts.”
YleeXotee adds “I think this might be overly aggressive, but surely p wont take me for anything more because of the initial 3s. KQ are almost 3 spades.” And others bid because double would not be a takeout variant.
Hoki prefers a different option “3 Spades, but I would play double as responsive which would handle this situation perfectly”
Sartaj Hans gives added context “In Australia, we are used to all such doubles being takeout. Since that is not an option, and game can be cold opposite not much, we need to take action. Three spades is least misdiscriptive.”
Pass 90: Roughly a third of the Panel (32%) and solvers (IAC: 29%; BW: 39%) decided that Pass was the right way to go. For many, the pass represents the ambivalence they feel about this hand.
Zia “Feels like a double, but not penalty. Feels like a bid, but which one?”
JCreech “I still don't know which of partner's suits to prefer. Maybe I will get lucky on the next round of bids.”
FleuetteD chose to “pass but I came close to X as we dont have fit so they have some cards in my partner's suit.” Many expect partner to reopen.
DickHy assess the situation as “Partner looks to be short in diamonds and could be 55 or 64 in the majors or 5404. I’d like to give him another chance to bid so I can choose the right suit. Presumably, pass is forcing if x is definitely penalty and would shut partner up?” But not all regard the pass as forcing.
Kit Woolsey thinks “North won’t pass with a singleton diamond and ten cards in the majors, so if he does pass, we figure to be better off defending. If North bids something, I may need to guess, but that hasn’t happened yet.” While
BluBayou is in a quandary “I both do, and do not hope to hear 3H. Would we GO, vul at imps?” And others do not want to bury partner.
Ross Grabel reminds us that “Partner still has another turn. With opening bids being so light these days, I see no need to punish North.”
Danny Kleinman says “I’ll settle for a small plus on defense rather than the minus I could expect from bidding three of either major. I don’t relish partner’s needing to take diamond taps in the long hand.” Or
Jeff Ruben’s more simply stated “Chickens of the world unite.”
4 ♦ 80 is the road less taken. Forcing to game, but what game? IAC avoided this choice, as did 96% of the BW solvers. Only the five Panel members were pushing this option. Most were viewing this as a choice of games solution.
Augie Boehm: “More useful and frequent as a choice of games than a slam-try control-bid, particularly against two bidding opponents.”
Allan Graves: “Traditional best-strain-choice –of-games situation.” And
Eric Kokish “Too much not to force to game and choice-of-games is more important than reserving the cue-bid for a strong heart raise in context.” Nonetheless, the moderator is not sold on this interpretation: “Persuasive, but is it universal? Absent discussion, I’d treat the cue-bid as a big heart raise, but the choice-of-games meaning seems more practical.” In other words, do not spring this on partner, or it may come back to bite you in the arse.
Problem H Q / J (Peuco, Blubayou, WackoJack, DickHy, Hoki, DrAculea, MarilynLi, Masse24)
Imps
Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 7 6
♥ Q J 8 4 2
♦ K J 10 3 ♣ 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1 ♠*
Pass 2 NT Pass 4 ♠
Pass 4 NT Pass 5
♥ Pass 6 ♠ (All Pass)
*East-West use Bridge World Standard.
What is your opening lead?
Perhaps finally listening to Todd’s continual complaints about the lead problems,
The Bridge World has come up with a virtually complaintless lead problem. No fewer than nine cards can be led with a score of 80 or above. Of the remaining four cards, none are likely to be ever the choice for a lead except by misclick. They are the three trump, plus the
K. In other words, not everyone will be plucking the gold ring, but everyone is coming home with something reasonably pleasant as a participation gift.
However, the moderator took a different perspective: “Kudos to the problem-setters. Nobody led a trump, of course. Hearts, diamonds and clubs attracted 11, nine and eight votes respectively. Tough one! … Does that mean the lead is random? I hope not.”
♥ Q/♥ J 100: According to the Panelists, leading the heart honor is all about safety. 36% of the Panel and BW solvers led a top heart, but the IAC solvers embraced the lead more (47%).
Danny Kleinman views the “Heart queen. Least dangerous. I’ll stay passive and hope that we can get another trick after declarer plays trumps straight up and loses a trick to my queen. No heroics figure to be needed.”
DickHy's analysis is that “Opener is minimum but responder, who has no shortness, is 19 HCP ish – strong enough for slam opposite an opener who has shown a minimum hand. Which means partner has nothing, so let’s not dream about a club ruff. If I held the heart ten, the lead of the Jack might be tempting.”
Barbara Haberman thinks “ Any lead could be right, but club and diamond leads seem too dangerous.” Or more simply,
Billy Eisenberg: “Heart queen. Looks normal.” Trying for a little trickiness.
Masse24 argues “Partner has nothing. Partner knows it. I know it. But declarer does not know it. If declarer has the
T (or even partner), and no shortness in the heart suit, might this look like a shortness lead? If so, would he be more inclined to play the trump suit for a drop of the Queen? I don’t know, but I sure do hate lead problems! This is my "woop-woop" out there choice.”
Zia: “Heart jack. Too much chance that a passive defense is best. ‘Tis as safe as I can see on this collection.”
BluBayou: “Heart Jack --lead problem: opps MUST have 31 (12 blah facing 19) even the club JACK with partner is too much to count on . the only hope is opps run out of gas after 4 trump winners, AK,A in the reds, and --lucky us-- only FOUR?! clubs. So the lying heart JACK lead is called for. Todd's idea above all the way for me.”
♦ J/♦ 10 90: The attacking lead is a diamond. Although none of the IAC solvers took this approach, 32% of the Panel and 13% of the BW solvers did, so it is important to understand their thinking on this.
Steve Beatty writes “I have almost all of the defensive strength, and any lead could give away the contract. In addition, clubs may be a source of tricks for declarer, so there may be some urgency to set up a trick and hope for a misguess in trumps. I need only the diamond queen from partner; other leads require more.”
David Berkowitz: “More likely partner has a queen than a king. Declarer will be unaware of his spade loser and unaware of the club split. Even with the ace in dummy and the queen in hand, he might go up with the ace.”
♣ 5 80: While the club lead is a mixed bag. A large segment of IAC embraced the lead (42%), as did BW solvers (38%) and Panelists (29%). Some chose the lead for safety.
Kit Woolsey: “I’m not leading away from an honor, which could easily cost a trick, so this is all that is left.”
JCreech thinks “RHO has a minimum opener with no real distribution (i.e., good long suit or shortness), so I'm not sure I want to commit any of my tenace positions to the opening lead. Even though I am not necessarily looking for a ruff, it is probably the monkey lead.”
Sartaj Hans “Club five. Like leading a trump.” Others are looking to attack.
YleeXotee chooses the “Club 5 - they are missing a ace, and if its club ace, they are down immediately, and no guarantee I will get that Q of trump … 9 card trump fit usually doesn't mind missing queen.”
Roy Welland: “Might be necessary if partner has the club ace and a spade void.” And some are viewing it as a two-way shot.
Carl Hudecek believes that “Leading the stiff club gives us at least two chances for a beat: (a) club ruff at trick two; (b) a spade trick, when declarer misreads the spade situation *plus anther trick later).” Then too, as
Leonard Holfgott points out, there is always “Garozzo’s Rule.”
When in doubt, lead a singleton.That's it until next month. Until then, work on the next MSC problem set; they just keep on coming! And good luck!