February MSC Summary (Part 4): Director Jeff Rubens PROBLEM G.
2H (thornberry, babsg, jcreech, msphola, DrAculea, Curls77, kenberg, veeree, MarilynLi, yleexotee)
Imps EW vulnerable
:AQ6
:J9652
:J43
:AK
South West North East
- 2D p p
?
Enthusiasm had sailed, every bidder was lukewarm. This bid was clearly the top choice (in the IAC too). In preferring this to a double, Joey Silver’s point on Problem D was re-iterated:
Kit Woolsey; “It is a major and I have five. Nothing else makes sense”;
Bart Bramley; “I have a five-bagger, so I bid it. No double with these major suit lengths”; with quite a few mentioning the possibility of a 5-3 heart fit being missed by doubling. The choice was not especially appealing.
Jcreech (“I have too many points to pass this out, but my suit is horrible - no lead direction potential because all my points are elsewhere. I have to do something, so I think this is better than double”) and
MarilynLi (“I don't like my H suit, but I don't see other better choice”) were with
Ralph Katz (“might be the least of all evils, two notrump is a close second choice”),
Kamil and Sherman (“when in doubt bid your long suit, our second choice is pass”) and
Jill Meyers (“I hate the hearts but don’t want to pass.”).
Jill also said; “if the opponents weren’t vulnerable, I might bid two notrumps” - is Jill suggesting two hearts is likely, if passed, to push East into bidding 3
for -200 which two notrumps would rule out?
Double
The poor heart suit (
Carl Hudecek,
David Berkovitz,
Billy Eisenberg) and
Wackojack lay behind this option, but no-one was keen; “just guessing like everyone else (
John Swanson)” and “unlikely to find favour with the purists (
Sam Kehela).”
2N
Begrudging bidding continued, this call being made because 2H and 2N could not be stomached.
Masse24; “Crossing my fingers with this "value bid."”
Ira Chorush; “Every action has at least one drawback. This one won’t miss game, although it could certainly lead to playing in the wrong one. I doubt that pass will get many votes, even if it is technically correct”, a call which
Danny Kleinman made; “no reason to think either side can make anything.”
and so, with mood downbeat, the panellists faced the lead problem ...
Problem H. AH (jcreech, masse24, peuco)
Imps NS vulnerable
:T74
:AQ4
:5
:AT9763
South West North East
- p 1H 2D
3D x 3H 3S 3D invite + 3H discouraging
4C 4S 5C p
p 5S p p
x all pass
Take our tricks? The overwhelming majority of the panel and the IAC said ‘yes’, but whereas the heart ace was a clear winner with the pros (16-4), the IAC favoured the club ace (6-3).
Jeff Rubens explained the foundation for this approach; “North … with either six hearts or five clubs, would normally have accepted the game invitation [of 3
]. When North is only 54 in hearts-clubs, the opponents possess five hearts and three clubs – they will very often have three losers in those suits.” Those three tricks were scented by the panel (and
Jcreech; “we have a double fit, so they probably do also. I think we need to take our tricks before they disappear on the diamonds.”) The widespread opinion was that the heart ace was much more likely to cash (
ccr3 saw this too; “partner seems reluctant to get excited about his suit, so a good possibility hearts will make it around the table”) and also kept options open.
Bart Bramley; “Plan A is to cash three tops before declarer claims with six diamonds and five spades. I start with the heart ace, since a club might be ruffed, and it will leave me time to try Plan B, a diamond ruff, should dummy indicate the futility of Plan A.”
Boye Brogeland,
Curtis Cheek,
Kit Woolsey and
Harry Steiner were with Bart.
Fleisher and Friesner too, but they were looking to partner as well as dummy to decide between plans; “The best chance to beat the contract is to cash three tricks in our suits. It is conceivable that partner has a pointed-suit ace and an opponent is void of clubs … in such a layout we will need to shift to a diamond to obtain a ruff and this will become clear after seeing dummy and partner’s signal.”
In aiming for a ruff straightaway (4 panellists), much depended on one’s view of the standard of North’s 1
.
Danny Kleinman; “I don’t expect partner to be aceless for the opening bid, so I expect a ruff or two to be coming” and
Oren Kreigel “maybe partner has a fast winner and I can get a ruff or two” echoed
blubayou’s point; “with max of KQ, KJ in our suits, pard who opened has one of their aces, or at least some stopper. Definitely go for the ruff--OR RUFFS!.”
Harry Steiner and
Kit Woolsey suggested
; “If partner has an ace I can clobber this by leading by leading my singleton but I have an ominous feeling partner has Kxx or Qxx in diamonds, and declarer might take the first 11 (or more) tricks after a diamond lead.”
Eric Kokish thought that those diamond holdings were ruled out by the auction; “As North seems to have at least one high card in diamonds or spades and was unlikely to have bid five clubs with the diamond king under the overcaller, we might as well go for ruffs, playing North for an ace.”
Two panellists underled the club ace to give suit preference information to North. The club ten called for North to lead a heart back through declarer's doubleton king. This strikes me as an approach which will lose me partners even faster than the rate I lose points on lead problems, but looks an intriguing idea in the correct circumstances.
The problem came from the 2010 Spingold. It’s a shame TBW didn’t provide more detail, as seeing the cards held by the other three players in this auction would be fascinating.
This has been great fun (if rather long-winded and slow to hit your screens), and prompted much admiration for Todd and Jim.
Show Posts