With my usual rashness, I volunteered to write the summaries this month. I plan to drip-feed boards two at a time. I hope that’s ok. You never know, after the first three parts I might get away with ignoring the lead problem.
February MSC Summary (Part 1): Director Jeff Rubens PROBLEM A. Pass (blubayou, ccr3, peuco, babsg, masse24, msphola)
Imps EW vulnerable
:J5
:QJT8763
:KT5
:5
South West North East
3H p 4N x 4N = ace ask
xx 5C p p xx = no aces
?
There was much discussion in the IAC about this auction, particularly over whether partner was psyching or making a forcing pass. The panel by a majority of 17-10 chose the former. But, to be honest, quite a few of the panel were not sure what was going on.
Ira Chorush; “an auction which nobody has ever seen.”
Carl Hudecek; “Partner could have been kidding around. I told my story.”
Kamil and Sherman; “Seems a fairly good bet partner is the joker here.”
Joey Silver; “Partner’s 4NT put him in charge. He was either looking for a slam or trying to monkey the villains out of what they could make.”
Kit Woolsey; “I have described my hand … for all I know partner has psyched opponents out of a slam. I am not invited to the party.”
Eric Kokish and
Bart Bramley shared Kit’s view, with Bart adding; “If partner’s objective was to confuse the opponents, it worked. If his objective was to confuse me, that worked too.”
blubayou quickly diagnosed the top mark and steadfastly stuck to his guns. His resolution was shared by
ccr3: “If my partner wanted me to play in hearts, I'd be playing it. Yes, strange bidding but I pass.”
Masse24 originally doubted partner was pulling a con, but after analysis, chose the top score, “I came up with a construction of all four hands that I thought consistent with the auction. But I could not come up with one consistent with partner's pass. The only thing that made sense, then, was the unthinkable. Partner has choreographed this entire auction. He has kept them out of slam with his "
Stripe Tailed Ape 4NT." This was essentially
blubayou’s point three weeks earlier; “For all we know, pard has bluffed them out of a grand slam in spades.”
Panellists commented on forcing passes.
Ralph Katz: “Either partner psyched or asked for Aces with no club control and thought his pass was forcing. I would vote for the former.”
John Hurd and
Jill Meyers thought the pass could not be forcing at this vulnerability.
Oren Kriegel agreed but said he would not be sure about other colours either.
5
.
For the panellists reaching for something other than the green card, 5
was the popular choice (8/10).
Ira Chorush: “If I bid, five diamonds will tell North something about my hand which may be of use if the bidding continues, including what to lead.”
Curtis Cheek: “Five diamonds, ‘must’ show short clubs and a diamond king.”
Michael Rosenberg; “Five diamonds announces diamond and club controls.”
Those comments echoed precisely the analysis of
Wackojack: “Partner should have been prepared for me to play in 5
opposite no aces. I have a singleton club and the K
which could be crucial for making 12 tricks. So, 5
should give that message.”
Jcreech shared the view: “On this auction, I think that partner's pass of 5
has to be a forcing pass … I think should show that I have something outside of hearts.”
Despite being a popular choice with 5 votes in the IAC, double rated nary a mention by the panel.
PROBLEM B. 3 (blubayou, ccr3, peuco, babsg, wackojack, jcreech, msphola, MarilynLi, dickhy)
Imps Both vulnerable
:K2
:Q73
:A97
:97632
South West North East
- - 1D p
1N 2C 2D p
?
Jeff Rubens acknowledged that 2
“seems technically correct on a constructive basis” but he preferred 3
. One reason was that 3
would make it harder for East-West if they had a spade fit – a point echoed by
Kamil and Sherman; “just in case the opponents have a major suit fit.” Most 3
bidders on the panel weren’t thinking about opponents, however, but aiming at game.
Ira Chorush; “Partner could easily have a holding that makes 3N a good contract.”
Danny Kleinman; “A maximum in context, with both face cards likely to be working, so give partner a chance to bid game”.
Fleisher and Friesner; “Normal hands for partner make five diamonds cold; the club overcall and our length suggest North is short there, eg, Axx KJx KQTxxx x. If partner bids 3N we will likely be putting down a satisfactory dummy opposite, say Qxx Ax KQxxxx Kx.”
Their construction of a 5
game mirrors that of
Wackojack: “West’s 2
overcall does increase the chances that partner is short in this suit. Could partner have ♠ Axx; ♥ KJx; ♦ KQxxxx; ♣x? Yes easily. So, I will press on to make the invite in diamonds.”
MarilynLi was thinking in this vein too; “My motive of the 3
bid is partner probably has club shortness. I can imagine a Diamond game vs. 13 count partner.”
Blubayou touched on both motives for the 3
bid: “3
might be our limit, but it will never go down. On the other hand, the club bidder might be coming in spades… also, partner's non-jump to 2
can yet be making five with this dummy, so raising seems clear.” In aiming for a possible 3N, the important card was cited by
Jcreech: “I think I do need to make one more move after all, and what information does partner need most, where is the diamond A.”
3
and 2
.
Nine panellists found 3
insufficiently encouraging.
Eric Kokish; “Three diamonds feels inadequate with everything likely to be working and a near-maximum.”
Ralph Katz thought 5 diamonds could be a great spot so made “the strongest bid possible”, a view in which he was joined by
Boye Brogeland.
Michael Rosenberg, with an eye on slam, opted for 2
- his son,
Kevin (who Jeff Rubens wants us to look out for “one of America’s most talented younger players”) first preferred 3
and then decided a stronger bid was necessary, “two spades or three clubs is better; three clubs is more clearly raising diamonds, but the best card outside diamonds is spades.” Neither of these bids seems to have occurred to IAC bidders.
2
.
This was seen as being flexible.
John Hurd; “Encouragement at the cheapest level in the hope of giving North room to get his hand across. We want to reach 5
opposite 3370 and similar shapes, perhaps 3N occasionally, yet stop in 3
opposite partner’s usual garbage” [I want to partner Mr Hurd if this is his default view].
Kit Woolsey; “Holding a maximum with nothing wasted in clubs, it is important to give partner this information rather than merely bid 3
which I would do with a random hand including some diamond support.”
Curtis Cheek; “The same bid I’d have made without the overcall: maximum, diamond fit, cheapest stopper.”
Masse24 was the only IAC bidder to take this approach; “My hand got better after 2
. I’ve already denied having four hearts, so this merely shows something in this suit and good diamond support in the context of the auction. Partner should be able to figure out I have the diamond Ace.”
Of other bids,
Kenberg chose 2NT; “You may be right, I may be crazy”. Keeping him company in the padded cell was
Phillip Alder; “It is hero-or-goat time” to which the director observed; “let partner decide which; he’s the one who will be misled into thinking that the South hand has a high club honour.” Outside the cell being fitted with straitjackets will be 5 IAC bidders who passed - the option being mentioned only once: “pass is out of the question.”