March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1b and Part 2a)– Eric Kokish, DirectorProblem C proved to have too many Panelist choices, so I was forced to split it from Problems A and B.
Problem C 4 (None)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ —
♥ K 9 6 4 3
♦ 7 ♣ A K J 10 6 5 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♣ 1
♦ Double* 1 ♠
?
*BWS: at least four-four in the majors
What call do you make?
Three in a row where the plurality-Panel choice failed to be given the top score. This time, part of the reason is because the Panel split their choices among 11 bids.
4 ♥ 90 5 32 2
Let's start with the plurality. One might take the 4
call as as a give up on slam. Although it may be true for some (including those who expect the bidding to continue at the five-level), for example,
A.K. Simon thinks "If partner's hearts are weak, we will lose heart tricks regardless of which suit we make trumps. If West bids four spades and partner doubles, I will pull to five clubs."
Carl Hudecek: "Slam would be easy opposite a red ace, but I will be happy with a game. I will reluctantly defer to partner if he doubles five spades."
Robert Wolff feels it is "An easy decision, even though a heart slam (even a grand) could be cold." Others are not as certain.
Chris Willenken: "The bidding probably isn't over. After four spades-pass-pass-?. I'll try five diamonds."
BluBayou asks "do we need something sexier than plain old 4 Hearts on void, Kxxxx, x, AKJxxxx? Probably yes, but for starters, that's my bid" But
Barry Rigal has a different concern: "I want to get the extra shape, not strength across; a cue-bid would show something different and let the opponents get together more easily. I plan to keep on truckin' till the ooponents double."
2 ♠ 70 BWP 7% BWP 10% IAC 40%
The plurality choice for IAC was the spade cue-bid.
YleeXotee says "Presumably, this is a good heart raise. MSC has not been kind to these kinds of bids, but its what I would do in real life to see if we have slam or something."
Sami Kehela agrees, though he also wants to keep the clubs in play: "Despite the five-card support, clubs may be a more-productive trump suit, particularly if slam is contemplated. Space is required for maximum exploration; a three-spade splinter, though tempting, would defeat this purpose."
Hoki thinks "we are far too strong to sign off in game, so I'm going slowly but have no idea how the auction will actually proceed but I can certainly follow up with a club cue bid later - and if that is going to torture partner, then so be it."
2 ♦ 70 BWP 7% BWS 17% IAC 1 Solver
The other low-level cue-bid is 2
.
Bart Bramley thinks "Slam is okay opposite the heart ace and out. I can guess to bid that at any time, but I might as well go slow to improve the chance of finding out for sure. I'm not too worried about the opponents, who are unlikely to bid a lot of spades into a known bad split; if they bid a lot of diamonds, I can bid more hearts."
KenBerg expects "This auction will be competitive. I am prepared to bid hearts at the 5 level if need be and I am thinking that bidding 4H and then, later, 5H doesn't do justice to this hand. There is a question of what various bids mean. It seems to me that if the auction begins 1
- (1
) - X - (1
) then double by opener of the 1
should say "Had my Rho not come in here, I would have been pleased to bid 1
. Suppose I have, say, a 12 or 13 count and a decent four card spade suit. If that spade bid on my left is real, I don't really want to play in 2
and get a 5-0 trump split. It seems better to just have X show that 13 count with four spades. Partner will then cope." While
Billy Eisenberg is planning his follow-up: "I intend to bid five hearts, asking for good trumps." (Rich Colker has a different interpretation of this sequence, Billy. An interpretation I happen to agree with, but he can speak for himself in the next section.)
5 ♥ 70 BWP 11% BWS 11% IAC No Solvers
Among those eschewing the slow approach are:
Richard Colker who "Asks about trump quality (a cue-bid followed by five hearts would focus on control of the uncued suit)." Peuco agrees: "Pd: if you have good Hs bid 6" While
Kit Woolsey thinks "It is necessary to make a move. Even if this gets us too high, it might be a good save against four spades or five diamonds. Partner will look at his trump holding first." And
Danny Kleinman "North may not be able to judge what he needs to bid slam (though strong hearts will make it easy), but West may not know what he needs to lead." I think of this bid as asking for two of the top three before proceeding to slam, but with a nine-card fit, just the ace may be good enough.
4 ♠ 100 BWP 11% BWS 2% IAC No Solvers
Another bid that eats space is 4
which also received the top score.
Philippe Cronier described it as "Exclusion-ask for hearts. It's probably impossible to stay below the five-level, and the aces question is the most-important issue." While
Michael Lawrence has a different concern: "This has the fault of indicating a diamond lead." The moderator did take a moment to discuss this bid: "Four spades is an honest bid, and it may survive a one-key reply if North's trumps are not very weak. It's the easiest way to stay out of an ace-flawed six or to reach a good seven opposite two keys and the heart queen or length-equivalent."
4 ♦ 80 BWP 14% BWS 7% IAC 13%
Now for the splinters. (Although 4
is a form of splinter, it is also so much more.)
Masse24 says "Splinter now. Later, maybe spades. Fun hand."
Paul Boudreau plans a similar auction: "I will bid four spades over four hearts and hope for reasonable hearts opposite."
Andrew Robson identifies the other splinter but choses to show the short diamonds: "Three spades would be a splinter, too, but the psych-exposing gremlines are in my head."
Pepsi has a different reason to show the diamond shortness: "The correct bid is three spade, but I doubt that the opponents will let us play in four hearts or allow us to bid freely. I am hoping to encourage a spade lead."
George Jacobs "The issue is that even though partner showed spades, the opponents are about to barrage us with spades and diamonds, and we will lose bidding room anyway. When I continue with five or six hearts, my intentions will be clear. Opposite ace-fifth of hearts, slam is virtually cold; and North could have more. This hand is a player, and I cannot be outbid."
3 ♦ 80 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 3% IAC 1 Solver
Nonetheless, I find 4
to be the misdescriptive splinter. A jump cue-bid is a splinter, so a double-jump cue-bid should be a void splinter. This would apply to spades as well 4
were below the heart game (which it is not).
JCreech says "I would rather be showing my void first, but as Blu pointed out, the chance of partner misconstruing is much higher with an immediate bid of spades than diamonds."
Jeff Meckstroth simply "Will await further developments."
3 ♠ 80 BWP 7% BWS 6% IAC 1 Solver
David Berkowitz choses the spade splinter: "I will commit to five hearts and leave the rest to partner. I have a feeling that the winning bid is six hearts, which will probably transfer the opponents into six spades."
2 ♥ 70 BWP 11% BWS 3% IAC 13%
The bid that felt wrong when I set about answering the quiz, makes more sense to me in hindsight. I viewed 2
as simply a non-forcing preference, but did not take into account that the auction was unlikely to ever end that low.
Joey Silver thinks "This is the right time to take Fido for a walk he is not for sale for under 12 hearts. With the villians holding nine spades and who knows how many diamonds, there is no way that two hearts will end the auction."
Jeff Rubens is "Hoping to hear further unpressured descriptions of the other hands before I make our side's final decision (as, very likely, I will need to do)." While
Zia says "Let's see how many spades or diamonds East-West want to bid and how partner reacts. There is a case for bidding clubs, but there is also a case for lots of tactical moves on this freak."
3 ♥ 70 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 5% IAC No Solvers
There is similar thinking about a jump-raise of hearts. The advantage is that partner knows you clearly have hearts with him.
Michael Becker writes: "Not likely to be passed out, as the opponents have a double fit. More likely, partner will bid four hearts. If all goes well, I will make a surprise raise to five hearts, asking for good trumps. If East-West bid four spades, I'll be forced to bid five diamonds to try for slam. I'm not concerned about immediately specifying a shortness, since the opening lead may be a spade in any case."
George Jacobs took a moment after Problem C, to point out: "This is a cool set, as I can answer four diamonds to all of the problems."
This concludes Part 1. Sorry I had to make the split, but I will get to the rest as quickly as possible.
Problem D 2 (None)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 9 3
♥ J 6 2
♦ Q 5 ♣ K J 6 5 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— Pass
Pass 1
♥ Pass 1 NT
Pass Pass Double 2
♦ ?*
*BWS: double = penalty
What call do you make?
Ok, this is an unusual auction and deserves some thought and reverse engineering. West opened in third seat and then passed a semi-forcing 1 NT. The pass indicates a balanced minimum, so I am guessing 10+ to 13- with either five hearts or a lead-directing four. East does not have a heart fit, but does have diamond length and less than opening strength. East-West probably do not have the balance of power, but it is not quite clear how much less. North passed over 1
, and then made a reopening double of 1 NT; which suggests heart length/strength and values. If partner has the strength for a 1 NT overcall, then there must be shape issues. If partner is balanced, then the strength is less than a 15+ to 18. How best can we communicate the nature of our hand to a partner who has not exactly been reticent about their own shape and strength?
Pass 50 BWP 11% BWS 29% IAC 67%
The simplest choice would be to pass. This was majority choice for IAC.
YleeXotee exclaimed, "I actually wrote down Pass ??"
Michael Lawrence thinks "The hand is too lousy to venture three clubs. It's possible we could not set one notrump. Could two hearts be the winner?"
Carl Hudecek bemoaned, "Partner passed in his first turn Where am I going (except set) with this quackery?"
Peuco agreed: "why Pd did not X previously? i do not see good HCP bec he has probably 3 Ss and he did not X. Only way to good HCP is he has 5 Hs, not very likely. My hand seems suited for defense so i Pass"
JCreech says "Who knows what is going on. It sounds like partner has hearts and values. I certainly do not have a penalty double of diamonds, and I don't think partner is inviting me to bid." I can practically see
Masse24 shaking his head, muttering to himself: "Difficult choice. What could partner have? Opps do not have a heart fit, so I assume three hearts with partner. No direct seat double, so probably not four spades. Is partner 33(43)? Opener must then be approximately 4522? Partner should have at least three clubs. So we have a fit. But if it’s only 5-3, do I want to play it at the three level?"
Hoki wishes for a different system: "I would normally double but BWS's modern system doesn't allow us to make this most flexible of bids." While
KenBerg studiously goes through his own reconstruction: "What's up? First, who has four spades? Partner I think. With long
and four
I think E would have bid 1
rather than 1NT. W might have four
but he has five
so, while possibly he has four, my guess it is partner that does. Now what about the hearts? on this auction, with my three card
holding, it seems pard must have at least three
and my guess is four. I only have two
. Maybe that have a bunch but if they do they will probably go on to 3
over my 3
, and if they don't have a lot of
then pard has some, and that doesn't give him many clubs. I suppose he has three for his double, but that doesn't mean we should compete to 3
. my guess is his shape is 4=4=2=3 with modes values. I'm for letting them play 2
"
2 NT 80 BWP 14% BWS 4% IAC No Solvers
You could communicate your shape and approximate values by bidding 2 NT.
Jeff Rubens wants to "Maintain some flexibility while showing values."
Bart Bramley feels that "Partner has shown good hearts and a strong hand, but his holding is limited by failure to overcall one notrump. I can't double with only a doubleton, and at these colors I can't pass when it's our deal. Notrump will often be best, and playing from my side is right when the ace and king are split between LHO and partner."
Michael Becker thinks "Partner has four hearts and probably four spades. It's our deal, so I should bid something. A penalty double with soft values and three hearts cannot be right. I'll hope that partner has three diamonds to a top honor, all that is needed to make notrump the right strain." While
Kit Woolsey "... can't imagine scoring many matchpoints by passing, and we might not defeat two diamonds. This is a decent value bid, and I hope that notrump is a playable strain."
3 ♣ 70 BWP 18% BWS 51% IAC 20%
Some of the experts apply the LAW.
A.K. Simon says, "I figure partner is 3=4=3=3, yielding a total of 16 trumps, so we bid to the three-level." Similarly,
Dan Gerstman writes, "I figure partner is 3=4=3=3, yielding a total of 16 trumps, so we bid to the three-level."
Robert Wolff response seems more like a shrug: "Why not? Yes, you are right. But so what?" And
Billy Eisenberg simply "Can't sell to two diamonds." While
Phillip Alder chooses the bid due to an uncertainty: "I would prefer two hearts if confident that partner would take it as natural."
2 ♥ 100 BWP 50% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
The Panel plurality never occurred to IAC. Many pointed to the fact that North was willing to make the penalty pass of 1
, but only a few even speculated while selecting something else. Buying into this view wholeheartedly,
Joey Silver writes. "North has shown a strong hand with hearts; being a good partner, I'll support him." Similarly,
David Berkowitz says "I'll let North in on the fit; as diamonds can be ruffed in my hand, this should play okay." As does
Janice Seamon Molson: "Partner has hearts. I hope five." More realistically,
Danny Kleinman thinks "East didn't open two diamonds, yet he ran to two diamonds - why? I suppose that he has a weak diamond hand with a void, or perhaps a low singleton, in hearts, also suggested by North's pass and back-in double."
Barry Rigal: "Double would be penalty, but I will try to find a fit, which might be in hearts. I don't know what we've got 'til it's gone."
Jeff Meckstroth: "Must act and can't double."
Pepsi: "If North passes, I will be happy."
Zia: "Might end here."
Andrew Robson: "A bid for all seasons."
Philippe Cronier: "If North doesn't want to play here, he will be able to bid two spades or two notrump." Except for his first comment,
George Jacobs may have the most accurate assessment: "I may be an outlier here and receive a score of negative 10. Partner wants a heart lead, and a lot of clues point to his having five hearts. I would need four spades to bid two spades, and bidding three clubs would lose hearts forever. If this goes well, I will score three firsts: playing in the opponents' suit, having a maximum, and not bidding four diamonds."
Oops, it happened again (too much writeup for the posting area) - but this time I had a place to stick part of the write-up. Part 2b is coming very shortly.