February MSC Summary (Part 3):  Director Jeff Rubens

PROBLEM E.   3N (peuco, masse24, thornbury, babsg, jcreech, DrAculea, Curls77, veeree)

Matchpoints  Neither vulnerable  :AJT   :632   :AKQJT9   :A

South  West  North  East
   -          -         3C      p
   ?
 
This was eerily like the IAC discussion.  Some cited possible cards or friendly lines of play: “Sometimes they lead spades; sometimes partner has a heart stopper (Carl Hudecek)”; “I might catch a critical major-suit card in dummy … or get lucky with a blockage in hearts (Oren Kriegel), “Perhaps North will have a hand similar to Problem A’s South hand [with KTx outside the long suit] (Sami Kehela)”, “Hearts to break 4/4, or partner may have help in hearts (ccr3) and opponents making a poor lead (peuco and masse24).  Others channelled their inner Mr Micawber believing “something would turn up”: “With eight certain tricks, a ninth often appears (Boye Brogeland)” and (Roger Lee) “Even in the MSC, you’re allowed to be lucky” - Really?? That’ll be news to most of the IAC.  Others knew they might be headed for trouble but “that’s too bad.  Delicacy won’t accomplish anything (Kit Woolsey)” and “oh uh” (Curls 77).   

3

Almost as popular, and seen as more flexible.  Ralph Katz; “Three no trump would be too unilateral.  If partner bids three spades or four of a major, off to the races; if he bids four clubs I pass.” Curtis Cheek saw the same high road; “maybe I’ll hear four hearts and wind up plus 920” and Henry Steiner spotted other routes; “three diamonds allows partner to show a heart stopper … if he surprises me with either three spades or four diamonds, I will try five diamonds.”  Kenberg saw this too; “Among other things, it's possible that the hand belongs in diamonds.”  Michael Rosenberg acknowledged, “three clubs may be our last plus, but passing doesn’t feel like winning bridge (and barely feels like bridge)” …

… which drew the retort “some people say that matchpoints isn’t bridge” from Jeff Rubens the Dissenting Director (who will now be referred to as The Voice of Sanity [I wonder why?! – Ed]) as he continued: “Panellists listed different ways the bidding could be right.  Start listing the ways it could be wrong, and you will soon see that passing is as good a matchpoint guess as anything (and probably better).”  The lesson here for future MSC quizzes (and perhaps bridge generally) is; hope trumps pessimism.


PROBLEM F. 1 (jcreech, peuco, masse24, wackojack, babsg, msphola, ccr3, DrAculea, kenberg, veeree, dickhy, yleexotee)

Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable   :AK542   :8   :JT7542   :T

South  West  North  East
   -          -          p       p
   ?

Chosen overwhelmingly as showing where we want the lead.  Bart Bramley; “Covers all the bases: lead-direction, pre-emption, constructive action.  Whatever happens we will have a chance to cope.  Pass would leave too much ground to make up.  Higher bids would be too unilateral. Diamonds can wait, probably until the next deal.”  On the last point he was joined by David Berkowitz “Get the lead first and foremost.  Diamonds can come later if at all”.  IAC bidders were like-minded.  Jcreech; “I hate opening this, but spades is a wonderful lead director, the hand has a lot of offensive potential, and it is my turn to bid,”  Peuco; “I do not see how one can profit by passing and see many ways by bidding both offensively and defensively”  wackojack; "If partner has 3 card ♠ support we likely buy the contract.  If West out bids us then we have got our lead director in"  kenberg; "This appears to be their hand, maybe we can compete in spades, if not a spade lead from pard seems right" and MarilynLi: "Just a 3rd seat opening, also lead directing.

2

Jeff Rubens was surprised the two-bidders (there were none in the IAC) favoured (7 to 3) spades over diamonds.  Danny Kleinman; “Eccentric, but third-seat weak-two bids can be frisky.”  Billy Eisenberg planned to run to three diamonds if doubled.

2

Required the courage of conviction later.  Carl Hudecek; “if anyone bids hearts I will be able to bid spades at the two- or three-level to complete the picture of 56” and, naturally enough, the fearless Zia; “two diamonds, then spades (as high as four).  I may be on my own but I like it there.”

Pass

Chosen by 6 panellists, most because like blubayou ("they can throw 8-pt "one-bids" at me till hell freezes.  It ain't happening”) pass seemed most accurate.  Eric Kokish; “not always right to open these canape hands with one suit or other at the one- or two-level, especially when finding a rebid or a comfortable pass of partner’s response may be an issue.”  Eric and Joey Silver mentioned the chance of showing both suits later.

I'll post the last part probably on Wednesday ... or Thursday, depending on how much trauma is involved in reviewing the lead problem.  Meanwhile, thanks for your patience and the very kind remarks.

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.”

Problem A.  I said I'd be willing to learn about forcing passes and Todd, Jim and Ken reckon this to be an example.  I confess to being worried about East doubling 4N holding something like (6511)* and 16 HCP as an intended sacrifice when vulnerable against not.  But putting that to one side, what would I bid?

Todd's construction of partner's hand suggests diamonds might be the target suit, rather than hearts.   

Preliminary thoughts . . .

PROBLEM A: 5
Why 4NT? Why not 4 instead? Why does partner not care about the King?
What hand I consistent with partner’s bidding? If partner had spades long enough to bid, he bids them. With enough hearts to want them as trump, he asks keycards with 4 .

Partner is also single suited. Diamonds. That is what I can come up with.
Maybe:
AKJ x AQJ9xxxx x    . . . (this is still not close,but something like this)

Showing my King is the only information I can convey.
So I do.

---

Why can't partner have spades as a single suit instead of diamonds?  His bidding would make equal sense - he simply wants to know about aces.  He might also make the same bids if he was aiming at hearts (holding Ax Kxxxx AKQx xx). If those are not ludicrous thoughts, conceivably partner might be thinking of diamonds, hearts or spades.  That rules out a bid of 5 for me.  5 is attractive, but in fact I can support him in spades (with much less elan, admittedly), so double might be better.  Further, perhaps he passed 5 because he's worried about two losers in the suit, a double would be more informative than 5 - surely this would show a void/singleton (it can hardly be for penalty from a pre-emptive opener who has no aces).  If I become completely convinced this is a forcing pass situation, I will double. 

Problem E.  I have to say I find 3 an unattractive bid because it almost certainly converts a positive score into a negative one.  Suppose partner has KQJxxxx in clubs.  Now let's say he has nothing outside.  With any 7222 hand 3 is cold (and possibly has 2 overtricks)  and 3 is doomed.  With a 7(321)* hand, partner is most likely to have a singleton in diamonds and so 3 goes down again, whereas even if he has 3 hearts and opponents lead them, we're making with 3 (with an overtrick). 

I'm hesitant over 3N for the same reason; if partner has nothing outside clubs I've swapped a positive score for a negative one.  Moreover, if partner does have the K , I will need hearts to break 4-3 or 4-4, otherwise that's 5 tricks gone from the start (opponents have hardly got the HCP to lead any other suit). 

I am not afraid to say that I don't understand how this plays out at Matchpoints.   I'm a bit ashamed about that - whenever someone says "well, it's matchpoints ... " my mind seems to become a void.   I hope someone can point me to a nice document which explains MP v IMPs.  But, to my simple mind, 3N is either a clear top or a shared bottom, and 3 is better than average (much better if everyone keeps choosing 3 !).  So, I will pass or if it's better to aim at a putative-but-quite-unlikely top at MP, 3N.   

A short (ish) note on D and B raised by Jock and Jim:

D.  BWS says under Initial Defensive-Action Requirements, "An unpassed-hand's cue-bid in opener's suit, in either direct or reopening position, shows any biddable strength and: (a) both majors if the cue-bid is in a minor; or (b) the unbid major and an unspecified minor if the cue-bid is in a major. "  Although Michaels/UNT is often used only with specific HCP ranges, BWS would allow a 2 bid here.  The Panel is supposed to be using the system, so why not 2 ?

B.  One of the advantages of using 4-suit transfers after a 1N (15-17) opening is that thin 3N games can be found.   Responder with (AK/AQ/KQ)xxxx and nothing else transfers to the minor (1N - 2 for clubs, 1N - 2N for diamonds).  If opener simply completes the transfer, responder passes.  But opener can super-accept when holding (Q+)xx in the minor by using the intervening bid (1N - 2 - 2N superaccept in clubs, 1N - 2N - 3 superaccept in diamonds).  If she does, responder then raises to 3N game, counting on 6 minor suit tricks and relying on 3 more tricks from opener's remaining 11-13 HCP.  So a 3N game on 20/21 HCP.

This problem seems to me to be similar to this.  Partner is not promising a 6c diamond suit, but we surely have 22 HCP between us.  Sure, West should have decent clubs (he is vulnerable) but he could be pre-balancing (against a 1 - 1N - p-p-p auction -- am I talking rubbish here?) so his clubs might only be (say) Kxxxx.  Anyway, to those who use 4-suit transfers, a 3 bid looks almost automatic holding Axx.  If partner has got weak diamonds or good diamonds and no club stop, he can pass,  Otherwise, hello thin 3N game!

OK, not so short, then.  Happy Hols to all you bidders.

Oh, the New Year.  Many congratulations to those who made the 2019 Honour Roll -- excellent work!

A)  5H.  This is such a nasty situation.  In my (admittedly meagre) experience, 4N shows two 5(+)-card suits.  Chances are slim that p has 5c H (I will leave Ken to tell me exactly what they are) but they are not negligible and if he does we ought to be in 6H.  We might also have 6H if p is 0355.  But I can’t bid 6H because the likelihood is that p is 1255. Nightmare #1: p has a 5c H suit but believes he can’t raise 5H to 6H.  Nightmare #2: He is 1255/2155 so my 5H bid puts him in an uncomfortable position.  I suppose he can bid 5S which I can convert to 5N.  If he is 0166 or 0265, he can bid his 6c m at the 6-level.  I’m damned one way or the other.  Actually, that sentence is five words too long, so 5H. 

B)  1H.  Without looking at anything else, my partners will tell you that this is the sort of hand on which I go totally crazy (as opposed to my default moderate setting).  We’re white, West looks to have about 16 so they could have game.  I want to get in the way … I’m not sure why I’m bothering trying to rationalise this cos I’m gonna bid 1H, even as y’all throw excellent criticisms and chapters on reverses at my head.  We should all be allowed our foibles. 

However … here’s what Bridge World Standard says under B. Choice of Suit, “With a minimum-range five-six hand, open in the higher and shorter suit only when the long suits are adjacent.”  Returning to a point made earlier in the year, if we choose our answers based on predicting what pros will bid (rather than airing our own preferences) should we be opening 1S?

C)  2H/3N.  OK, I’ve not quite settled back to moderately-crazy; the jitterbug in me can see 6H tricks, 1D, and two black suit tricks from partner, just like that.  So, let’s just bang out 3N before someone force-feeds me tranks.  Back in the straitjacket, I’d count 12 working HCP and meekly slip the 2H card onto the bidding-tray.

D)  3S.  I’m with Joe here – partner with 4c S and 5c C and a game-forcing hand will bid 2C first.  I know that’s right ‘cos it’s in the IAC 2/1 spreadsheet, and we need to be loyal.  Of course, GF p with 2335 or 2236 would also bid 2C, but let’s show the 4c S suit – why not, we’ve got the space.

E)  5S/6S.  As Jim and Jock say, 6D might be a successful operation in finding the right major, but the patient will be dead barely after the cutting starts.   They must have the 10 HCP in D between them, and probably E has half of those (KQ at the top of 8, possibly, 9 diamonds). That leaves 9 more and surely W must have almost all of those, perhaps at best (for us) except for a Q.  Does 6S have much of a chance?  Even if I can ruff a H to get them going, I’m still faced with an ugly Kx in C.  Which is where the best case for us comes in and p holds the club Q.  Now the tranks are biting, I’m tempting to bid a sober 5S and hope partner will raise with a Q outside D.   

F)  1S.  I’ve got a nice hand for partner in 2H, offering a couple of club ruffs and a trump honour.  I become much prettier if he has spade support, so let’s show them knowing that 2H is the safe-haven.  Will partner raise S with three-card support?  Can’t see that on BWS.   

G)  QS/HT.  Undecided still.

H)  ST.  Oh, a lead problem that I might not cock up completely.  W is 5(332)* and N has denied a 4c spade suit, suggesting p has 5+ spades and, from the auction, 7 HCP.  However, his spades aren’t that solid because he spurned the chance to overcall 1S – maybe at best KJxxx, then and an outside entry he can tell me about later.  Should I be leading the S8 to show no interest in the suit (a la Eddie Kantar)?  Nah, with KJxxx, partner’s life is much easier if I play the T.

A postscript:

It's true I can't lead a  from QT2 after declarer has knocked out my club winners.  But, how about leading a low  before he's done that - say at T2? 

Doesn't that mean I can defeat a declarer who holds AKxx in  ?   

OK, I'm giving him a third trick, so he's up to 8 tricks, but this way I am certain that I can defeat declarer with AKx or AKxx in  . 

So perhaps at T2 I should be leading the HT.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Richard Harvey
Netley Abbey
Southampton SO31 5EL
U.K.

PROBLEM A: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace

richard Harvey
Southampton
U.K.

PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades
PROBLEM D: 5 Spades
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 3 Spades
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: 4 Spades