IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on July 14, 2019, 02:12:21 PM

Title: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on July 14, 2019, 02:12:21 PM
September MSC

Deadline: August 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)

Submit your September responses here: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html)

BWS 2017 System: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html)

BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html) 
Good Luck!
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on July 16, 2019, 04:16:27 PM
Just to get things going, I thought I would look at the first two problems rather than wait until I have thought through all  8 of them.

A:  The competitive auction begins with W:  2 !S  - 3 !H - Pass - ?

It indeed seems possible that there are 12 tricks in NT, and it also seems possible that there are not 12 tricks in anything. Should we try? I have gone back and forth on this but I am thinking pessimism is right. W opened 2 !S vulnerable missing the KQ, my guess is he has a  little extra shape. Partner's !H do not have to be headed by the AKQ. This still leaves us to choose between 4 !H and 3NT, but I really am thinking a simple 4 !H has merit.

B: This time the auction begins with E:
1 !C - 1 !D - 1 !H - 1 !S
 X         ?

I checked BWS and NS are playing Snapdragon (not by that name) so if N held !S together with !D support he could have shown that by doubling.  So he has !S but he probably does not have !D support. Well, he has to have something, I guess in !H or !C. Not aces, but something. Such a holding could be useful on defense, not so useful on offense.  At first I was thinking that bidding 5 !S is right but now I think I go with  4 !S. We can probably make 4 !S and if I am right about partner having some values in the round suits then they might not find 5 !H to be all that easy.


I'm not so sure of either of these, I seldom am sure, that's the point of these problems.   
Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on July 16, 2019, 05:10:34 PM

A:  The competitive auction begins with W:  2 !S  - 3 !H - Pass - ?

I really am thinking a simple 4 !H has merit.

B: This time the auction begins with E:
1 !C - 1 !D - 1 !H - 1 !S
 X         ?
At first I was thinking that bidding 5 !S is right but now I think I go with  4 !S. We can probably make 4 !S and if I am right about partner having some values in the round suits then they might not find 5 !H to be all that easy.


I'm not so sure of either of these, I seldom am sure, that's the point of these problems.   
Any thoughts?

A. I think I take the high road and express at least mild slam interest with 3 !S.

B. I agree, Ken, 4 !S. 5 !S did not even occur to me.

I feel good about A. Problem B, not so much.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on July 17, 2019, 08:23:58 AM
Very rough initial thoughts.

1.   3 !S.  My initial thought is to cue bid.  It seems the right way to begin a slam try.  I think slam is likely, but when the opponents preempt, it applies pressure to the rest of the auction.
2.   4 !S.  My initial thought was whether 4 !D would show a 6-4 after an overcall like it would an opener, but decided that would be too convenient.  Then I wondered how likely it would be for partner to have the right cards to make the spade slam, and whether I should try.  I had come to the conclusion that I was hoping for the 50 point deck, when I read the results of Ken’s research which dovetailed into my conclusion of bidding 4 !S.
3.    3 !S.  I am not willing to force to game, do not have a good enough stop in the unbid suit to feel comfortable with 2NT, but my spades are an excellent source of tricks.  Right now, I feel more comfortable with the invitational self-raise, but may subscribe to the notion that the opponents are not in the auction, maybe I should bid 3NT with confidence and hope for a 4-4 break and/or help from partner to bring home 9 tricks.
4.   2 !S.  The chances seem good to explore slam possibilities.  So I will try 2 !S as my first trial balloon.
5.   Pass.  I still have something in reserve and first round spade control.  I think it is time for a forcing pass.
6.   2NT.  This seems to be the value bid.  I would rather bid this now than to face the reopening double that I am unwilling to make a penalty pass at this level and vulnerability.
7.   Redouble. ?.  I have not even come up with a preliminary decision.  Is this another 50 point deck, or has partner preempted with total cheese?  I am torn among 3 and 4 level bids in both hearts and spades.  I am leaning toward spades because partner’s hand will be more useful in their long suit, and with the negative double advertising hearts on my right, I could easily have two losers in that suit if trump.  I still think the bidding reflects a 50 point deck, so I think I should advertise my piece of the deck.  When I later bid my !H suit, I am showing a good hand with a good suit.
8.   !D J. ?.  I do not have a good idea on this one. There has to be a weakness, but nothing stands out yet.
  My thoughts are now considering diamonds a potential source of weakness.  West did not jump to 6 !C until East showed something in diamonds.  If it were a singleton, then they might have bid slam before this bid.  I still do not hold much hope of defeating this contract, but I hope this will give us our best chance.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on July 17, 2019, 12:37:52 PM
I intended to complete all the questions before looking at other opinions and then possibly modify after looking at other submissions.  That I have not achieved as I have already read some thoughts on A.  The remainder are unprompted.

A. 3 !S:  If partner can cue 4  !C or 4  !D, I will bid 4N.  If partner bids 4 !H, I will pass.

B.  4  !C.  I splinter with 4  !C.  If partner can cue 4 !D, I will be really tempted to to bid 5  !H (Exclusion)  If partner cues 4  !H, I am not sure what to do.  I cannot just sign off in 4  !S. 

C. 2NT.  I cannot make a game force with just 11 points.  So I make the least imperfect bid of 2NT.

 D. 4 !H  What else?

E. 6  !D.  It could be that there are 2 11 card fits and both 5  !H and  5 !S are making.  Pursuing this further, if we can make 6  !H, the opps have a cheap save in 6  !S.  The most helpful bid I can make I think is 6  !D. 

 F1 Pass.    Any other bid looks worse. 
F2 3  !D.   I certainly don't fancy a penalty pass or 3N.  So I conservatively bid 3  !D my suit.

G. pass   Very unhappy that 3  !H is not forcing.  So if I bid 4  !H will partner take this as a splinter agreeing spades?  It looks like if we play in 4  !S we may never get to make the long hearts, so we are between a rock and a hard place.  How about passing and then bidding hearts after west bids a number of diamonds?  I suppose this is the best option. 

H  J !C.  I confess that at the table I would just lead a "safe"  J !S.  However, I suspect that I might be squeezed in hearts and spades when I lead a spade.  Perhaps the best chance of avoiding this assuming that it is not a laydown is to make a less informative lead.     
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on July 17, 2019, 01:43:05 PM
I'll still hover over the first two problems for a bit.

A: It seems clear that we can take ten tricks in hearts even in the somewhat unlikely case that E has a stiff !S so that the defense begins with a !S to the A and a ruff.  After that beginning, it is likely the next eleven tricks are ours. But this is matchpoints. Is it clear that we can take more tricks in hearts than we can in NT? We have more control if !H are trump, but do we have more tricks? Of course if E has the !H  Kx, and presumably two !S, then NT might go badly. W leads the !S J. We can duck, and that will stop W from establishing and running !S, but it does mean that they get two !S and a !H where we could hold them to two tricks playing in !H.  That's the argument, I think, against NT. The argument for playing in NT is that it seems unlikely we can ruff a minor suit in our hand, ruffing a !S in the N hand wilt not increase our trick total, and if partner has six !H then ruffing a !S on the board and then ruffing a minor on the board also will not increase our trick total. It would not surprise me at all if we have exactly eleven tricks, and that's the total in either !H or NT.

I also think that if we bid 3 !S in response to partner's 3 !H it is virtually certain the rebid will be 4m. Partner did not bid 3 !H on simply AKxxxx.  And I have another thought: Imagine that I, as S, hold a good hand, with maybe  two  small !S instead of the KQx, a small !H, and a running !D suit. Over 3 !H I do what? Do I not bid 3 !S hopping partner can bid 3NT? And then, when partner cannot bid 3NT and chooses 4 !C instead, do I not bid 4 !D? Not as a cue in support of !H, which I don't have, but rather to show a game forcing hand with !D which I do have? Yes, I could show good values and a good hand by bidding 4 !D over 3 !H but at least in some cases I am not sure I want to pass up the opportunity to play 3NT.

Maybe I am making this too complicated, but I am still fretting over it.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Curls77 on July 17, 2019, 07:35:32 PM
I am gathering courage to join the quiz, post and suffer from deep embarrassment  :-\
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on July 17, 2019, 09:48:52 PM
I am gathering courage to join the quiz, post and suffer from deep embarrassment  :-\

That's a great idea. You do a lot for IAC, it's good to have IAC doing something for you.  One of the most important lessons of life: "I don't have to be right".  Join in.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on July 22, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
When I submit for this month, I intend to list Ken as a partner.  However, partners should not become disheartened if they do not match well in their choices.  When Ken and I play, we seem to understand what the other is trying to do with their bids, but we may have chosen differently if we held the other's hand.

For example, in last month's contest, we made the same choice in 25% of the bidding and lead questions, but while I may not have selected the same as Ken, his choices were nearly always something that I considered for myself. I don't know if we will ever get to the point where we concur the 75% of the time for the bonus, but it is still fun and interesting to see how Ken came to his final choice; and to the extent that I agree with those thoughts, he will gradually influence my own thinking.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on July 22, 2019, 05:10:15 PM
Thanks.

I think Rodwell and Meckstroth would not always choose the same call. The best that can be hoped for is that we have an agreement on which bids are artificial, which are natural and forcing, and similar matters. I suppose if I had an identical twin we both might make the same choice, but even there I am not so sure.

Anyway, I will soon put out more thoughts on this month's stuff. I heartily encourage more participation. It can be fun too be wrong, it makes us human. And of course to forgive is divine, but I have never set divinity as a goal for myself. Realism can also be useful.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 02, 2019, 12:15:39 AM
First guesses:

PROBLEM A: 3 !S. I’ll start out by stating the obvious, 4333 hands are ugly. And my !S honors do not carry the full weight of their HCP. But I have a big fit. Control rich. WTP? I would like to make some slam noise; 3 !S accomplishes this.

PROBLEM B: 4 !S. If 3 !H is a splinter (is it?) then 4 !H is a void, yes? And what about the other splinter--4 !C ? Or is this far too optimistic with everyone bidding? If I did splinter it would be 4 !C since it allows partner to show a !D control. Partner's own !H length will announce my !H shortness (void?). But maybe 4 !S is best? And take the push(es). This is a very, very close call.

If I were brave I’d be very tempted to walk the dog with 2 !S or 3 !S (I'll bet one or two panelists try this) in an attempt to let them push us to game. But if I’m passed in a part-score, I’ll look like an idiot. Today I’m the Cowardly Lion, so I get there fast with 4 !S in an attempt to prevent the opps from exchanging information. This is admittedly a safe choice.

ADDED: So close to trying 4 !C here, but stayed with my first instinct of 4 !S . Partner's failure to bid 2 !S (a fit jump) reduces the possibility of his having any !D support.
BWS defines a jump by advancer thusly: "Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump."
Partner only needs !C A and !D K for slam to make, but the failure to jump to 2 !S reduces that possibility.

PROBLEM C: 2 !D. Close. Very close.
Yes, it’s an overbid, so is flawed. But 2 !D has a lot going for it. Keeps the auction low, giving us room to find our best fit. It allows partner to show support. Remember, partner’s 2 !C rebid is wide-ranging; I’m allowed to be an optimist! If we end in a major suit Moysian, it would not be the first time. Change the !D Jack to the Queen and I think we all bid a game-force 2 !D. I will not quibble long over one measly HCP.

Alternatively, a non-forcing 2NT is flawed but is right on values. My guess is this will be the plurality choice of solvers. And a non-forcing rebid of the !S suit (3 !S is right on values but shows six) is also flawed. The solidity of the spade suit sorta looks like a six-card suit, which entices me to make this call—but not today. Not only am I short a !S for this call, it consumes a full level (and then some) of bidding space, which is too much to give up for such a flawed call.

PROBLEM D: 2 !S. We know we have at least game, but surely this is worth a slam try? Initially, 2 !S will be interpreted as a game-try. If partner signs off in 3 !H, I will continue with 4 !C, attempting to extract a diamond cue. I wonder though about bidding 3 !C rather than 2 !S. While forcing only one round, it squeezes partner’s rebid choices below a 3 !H sign-off to 3 !D, which is what I want to hear. My subsequent !S bid—showing a control--would then then be an unequivocal slam move.

I may be overthinking this.

ADDED: I ended up going with 4 !H . The "perfect fit" slam--at Matchpoints--is tempting, but I'll settle for the "get there fast lack of specificity" jump to game.

PROBLEM E: 6 !C. What does partner have to freely bid 5 !H? Values in !C? !C AK would be outstanding! Surely partner with !S xx knows, or strongly suspects, I have a !S void. If I bid 6 !C and partner has this perfecto of !C AK, he will suspect what I am up to and will be better informed to bid the grand over the probable 6 !S . My thinking here is admittedly a stretch.

Also, is pass forcing? I’d like it to be, showing a better than minimum, trying to elicit a (first-round) !C control from partner. But we must remember that, while freely bid, partner’s response was made under pressure. For this reason I am not convinced that it is forcing. To quote Zia, “In principle, anytime both sides may logically be able to make what they bid, it’s non-forcing.” And Larry Cohen, “Other than where stated in our notes, pass is forcing only if the janitor of the building would know it is forcing.” When asked, our janitor gave me a blank stare.

Finally, I think 6 !D will be the plurality choice here. While it shows a first-round control, I’m not sure it helps partner find the grand, if it is there. It does have the added benefit of giving partner a clear lead versus 6 !S x, if that’s where we land.

ADDED: Stayed with 6 !C . This is a bit of a "Zia bid." I am hoping this can help partner decide on bidding the grand--if it's right. 

PROBLEM F: 2NT. Flawed, as is often the case. That !H Jack is a long stopper, so 2NT is only a mild overbid. But Pass (my second choice) carries with it additional problems in subsequent bidding. Both 3 !C and 3 !D are, in my opinion, horribly wrong. So while flawed, 2NT is the best of bad choices.

PROBLEM G: 3 !H. I could go in many directions here. Redouble is also attractive—as is 4 !H. With East advertising four !H, I’ll go low.

ADDED: Changed my mind. Went high with 4 !H .

PROBLEM H:  !S J. To avoid getting squeezed like a grape appears to be the goal here. But my initial thought was to lead the safe !S J. Opener must have some crazy length in !C for that leap to 6 !C lacking the !C JT. So something like !C AKQ9xxx(x)? Although the !H Q or !C J lead may be required to break up the squeeze, I’ll stick with safe and let declarer find the right line.

A new day may bring changes. Nothing yet set in stone.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on August 02, 2019, 03:59:14 PM
More thoughts on Problem B

I think partner's distribution is likely to be 5503 or 5512.  Also partner can deduce that I have a void in    !H  I need to tell partner that I have a singleton club by making the splinter bid of 4  !C.
 Now partner is completely in the picture and "knows" that my distribution is 5071.  (Well almost knows)  Will partner go overboard seeing no losers in  !S,  !H and   !D and only 1 in    !C ?  He could put me with some top  diamonds on that bidding.  In a spade contract with a spade lead 9 tricks will be available ignoring any top cards in  !D or  !C that he might think I have.  So even if he thinks I have the A  !D he is not likely to be looking for slam.  So knowing this he is much more likely to make the right decision if the opps bid to the 5 or 6 level in  !C or perhaps in  !H. 

 
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 03, 2019, 06:21:06 PM
Well, here are some thoughts:


A: 4NT. This is described as invitational. I might describe it as "This punk feels lucky". I suppose if partner raises 4NT to 5NT that's a choice of slams bid and I will bid 6 !H.


B: 4 !S.  Partner is short in !D, so maybe 6 !S is there by establishing the long !D, but it seems overly optimistic, more likely we have to lose a club and a diamond first.  My biggest concern is that they will bid 5 !H and neither I nor partner will know whether to pass, to double, or to bid on. Well, I have cleverly shifted some of the responsibility to partner. Put the blame on Mame, boys, put the blame on Mame.


C: 2 !D, pretty much as Todd says. It's optimistic,but so what.


D: 3 !C. As Todd says, partner will  take such a bid as a game try. If he accepts, and bids 4 !H, I will now bid 4 !S. He will now know that I was looking for slam rather than game, and surely this will draw his attention to his !D holding.


E: 6 !H.  There is not much room!  I would love to tell partner "If you have the !C AK don't worry about your holding in any of the other suits, just bid 7 !H but I have no idea how to legally tell him/her that. So I will just accept that I can't, and I will bid the very reasonable 6 !H.



F: 3 !D. Forcing but not game forcing I assume. We are likely to have a minor suit fit somewhere: If partner has five spades he has six clubs, if partner has at most four spades then the opponents have at least an eight card spade fit so we are likely to have a fit. And, if we belong in NT, that is still possible.

G: XX.  Not sure where we belong, but this seems like a good start.

H: !S J, on about the same thinking as Todd. Very possibly I will be throwing all of my spades on the run of the clubs. We will see after I see the dummy and how the hand starts to unfold.


I need to give these some more thought, but this is it for the moment.




Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 03, 2019, 11:10:18 PM
G: XX.  Not sure where we belong, but this seems like a good start.

Yup. Redouble is a strong contender and was a choice I strongly considered. This is certainly flexible, which is often a good start. I'll need to ruminate on this one a bit.

By the way, Ken, I am curious about your thinking on "D." Why 3 !C and not 2 !S? I considered it too, and tried to look into the future as to how the auction might go. But I could not come to an obvious advantage to one over the other, so I "punted" and chose the lower suit. Assuming the panel goes with one of these black suit "game-try" "slam-tries," the rationale for one over the other could be an interesting topic. Unless I'm missing something.  :o
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 04, 2019, 12:34:26 AM
G: XX.  Not sure where we belong, but this seems like a good start.


Yup. Redouble is a strong contender and was a choice I strongly considered. This is certainly flexible, which is often a good start. I'll need to ruminate on this one a bit.

By the way, Ken, I am curious about your thinking on "D." Why 3 !C and not 2 !S? I considered it too, and tried to look into the future as to how the auction might go. But I could not come to an obvious advantage to one over the other, so I "punted" and chose the lower suit. Assuming the panel goes with one of these black suit "game-try" "slam-tries," the rationale for one over the other could be an interesting topic. Unless I'm missing something.  :o



Various typos corrected, thanks Oliver!  I need a keeper. Or at least an editor.


With regard to 3 !C  rather than 2 !S in D: Suppose it goes 1 !C - 1 !H  - 2 !H -  2 !S - 4 !H.     Great, partner is at the upper end of his raise to 2 !H.  But now? I have three keys, do I want to be in slam if partner has only one? If he also has the !D K then yes, it seems worth a shot. If he has say Jx(x) in !D, then no. Of course I could, over 4 !H, bid 5 !C and see whether he comes back with 5 !D.  But cueing clubs first and then spades seems simplest. If he lacks second round control of diamonds, surely he will just sign off in 5 !H. At any rate, after 4 !S, partner can take control. Thee is still room for rkc if he wants, although unless he has at least the !D K I expect he will sign off in 5 !H.

I suppose a pair could have more detailed agreements. For example maybe after 1 !C - 1 !H - 2 !H - 3 !C - 4 !H - 4 !S a pair could agree that 5 !C would say "Yes I have help in clubs, and I do have the !D K, so if you think that's enough, go on."  On this hand I am sure S would be glad to hear such a message since he will be declarer and he has the !D Q to back up the K.

I think that you recently mentioned that a good discussion of cue bidding could be valuable  I very much agree. For one thing, if 4 !S over the 4 !H would be kickback, this plan would not go well. As I usually play, it is not kickback. I guess I need to check BWS, If I cannot cue with 4 !S over 4 !H then I have to revise this.


Added, Sunday morning: Looking over BWS I cannot really tell if, on my imagined auction of 1 !C - 1 !H - 2 !H  - 3 !C - 4 !H - 4 !S, whether 4 !S is a cue or kickback. I know that  some use kickback only over the minors, some use it over hearts as well, but BWS? I don't know.  I think I will assume 4 !S is a cue, so I will stick with my 3 !C.  Would partner bid 3 !D with the A (or K) if he accepted the invitation? That requires discussion. His 2 !H call did not  promise four card support and he might well see his first task as clarifying when he holds four by either 3 !H, discouraging, or 4 !H, encouraging.

Back to A for a moment, where I bid 4NT. It says this is invit but does not explain further.  I assume 4NT to be passable and I am ok with that. If he wants to accept the invit, I would like him to just raise to 6NT with xx in !S but bid a choice of slams 5NT with a stiff !S.  With a minimum hand and a stiff !S I would hope for 5 !H.   Or pass, his choice. But just what invit means? I dunno.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 05, 2019, 03:05:50 PM
I'm not strongly swayed on PROBLEM D in choosing which black suit "control-bid" (that would initially be interpreted as a game-try).

Also, in viewing BWS 2017, I see no mention of game-try methods or continuations. Notably, I did find a blurb in the BRIDGE WORLD STANDARD 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS. See:
The !C Ace definitely qualifies as "especially useful."
Admittedly, this "System addition" addresses slam-tries. Maybe it could be tangentially applied to this auction, where the initial bid over 2 !H would be interpreted as a game-try.

But maybe this is a stretch.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on August 05, 2019, 03:53:52 PM
My final decision and I am losing patience  on a difficult set in which I see that I differ a lot from Ken and Todd's thinking.  So I am expecting a low score

A.   3  !S.

B.  4  !C   

C. 2NT.

D. 3  !D ♦    If partner has A or K♦ then I expect him to accept the “try” and now I roll out  the Blackwood.

E. 6  !D   OK this must be a forcing pass situation.  However, my hand needs to tell rather than to ask with a FP.  I bid 6 !D which I believe “tells” partner that I have no control in clubs.  I will take the slight risk that partner has a low doubleton club

F1 Pass.  F2 3  !D 

G. redouble    Pass initially looked attractive.  However, does the redouble not convey that I hold doubleton top honour in spades?  Rosencrantz convention? So better to give this info rather than wait.   

H  J  !C.

Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 05, 2019, 06:58:11 PM
I was completely unaware of the polls, changes and additions site that Todd mentions.

It's very substantial

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html

Probably few IAC players would want to go through the whole thing but if a pair wanted to discuss the meaning of some specific auction I think this would be a great place to start. They might well decide to not adopt what they see, but it seems to me that they could save a lot of time by first looking there. They would then know that BWS plays it in a certain way, this presumably means it's not totally crazy, and then they could, perhaps, just go with that. Or they could argue back and forth for a couple of hours. Their choice.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on August 06, 2019, 06:09:13 PM
Hitherto, I had no knowledge of the existence of "Bridge World Standard". 

"Bridge World Standard is the standard system developed by The Bridge World magazine based on the preferred methods of leading American experts." Thus I assume it ignores all non-America world experts.   

Delving into this I notice it says:
601. The basic defense against one-notrump openings should be . . .
A. Cappelletti* [20]
B. DONT [7]
C. Meckwell [20]
D. Multi-Landy [15]
E. Woolsey [26]
F. none of the above [12]
   System change: After an opposing one-notrump opening: double = a four-card major and a longer minor (advancer can bid two clubs to ask for the minor, two diamonds to ask for the major), two clubs = majors (advancer can bid two diamonds to ask for a preference between them), two diamonds = a major one-suiter, two hearts|two spades = the bid suit plus a minor, two notrump = minors, three of a suit = natural.

My understanding is that Woolsey and Multi-Landy are identical, as a defence to a strong 1 no trump.  BWS does not seem to recognise that opps may inconveniently open this with a 12-14 or even 10-12.  Surely BWS would recognise a penalty double of a weak no trump?

I am not sure what to make of this BWS standard.  One of the leading pairs in iac plays a multi 2D opening bid, and a dual 2C opening bid (Either weak diamonds or artificial game force)
 These opening bids are very common in Europe and I have played them in one partnership.  My point is that if BWS is an all American affair it will be ignored by the rest of the world.   
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 06, 2019, 06:52:30 PM

My understanding is that Woolsey and Multi-Landy are identical, as a defence to a strong 1 no trump.  BWS does not seem to recognise that opps may inconveniently open this with a 12-14 or even 10-12.  Surely BWS would recognise a penalty double of a weak no trump?
   

Not quite identical (but extremely similar). The double is different.

Whereas with Multi Landy the double is penalty, with Woolsey it show a four-card major and longer minor.

The poll numbers is how The Bridge World came to its current methods. As we see, the previous "agreed" method, espoused in BWS 2001, was Cappelletti. Sometimes the poll results reflect a majority. Sometimes the decisions are less clear, like here, where only a plurality swayed The Bridge World to make the change.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 06, 2019, 09:21:42 PM
I think the idea of BWS was/is that it can be a start on agreements. A pair can always say let's change this or that. But for the purposes of the NSC, it's essential. Problem D is one such case. I want to bid 3 !C and then, if partner bids 4 !H, I want to bid 4 !S as a cue bid. But is it a cue bid, or is it  a kickback keycard ask? It's not a matter of which is best, it's a matter of how the judges will see it. And, for that matter, it's a matter of how partner would see it if I did it in an actual game. 

Problem G is another example. As near as I can tell, BWS does not play Rosenkranz XX. My XX was to show values. I am re-thinking that choice, but if I submit XX then I expect to be judged on whether it is a good bid when playing that XX shows good values.

If you poll people in a high level tournament, say round of 16 in a major national event. I doubt any would say "We pay BWS exactly as written". But a fair number of 2/1 players are probably pretty familiar with it and could play it if needed, say if their pard got sick and a sub came in. It is a way to play, not the way to play. But for the MSC, it's simply the basis on which your choice of bid will be judged.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on August 07, 2019, 11:16:25 AM
Ok, I have pulled the trigger and my votes are:

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Glen Allen VA
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Redouble
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack

I made two changes to my "initial thoughts" selections. 

Problem A, I went with my first inclination selection - cue bid and let partner know that I have a good hand and a fit.  3 !S only speaks to fit, not strength.  A cue bid is clear about strength and implies fit.  I would hate to find us playing in 3 !S, which is a risk with that bid.  4 !H does not have that flaw, but it does eat up all of the remaining space below game.  Can't have everything, especially in MSC.

Problem C:  When I made my initial selection, I was focused more on points.  When I looked at the hand again, I focused on tricks.  Tricks make this hand worth bidding 2 !D (4th suit forcing);  I think 4-5 tricks in my suit raises the 11 HCPs to a game force.

I am formally identifying Ken Berg as a partner - between IAC tournament play and discussion in the forums and in private, I feel like he is as close to a partner as I have in IAC.  However, I do not expect our answers to be substantially greater than last months 25%.  We may respect each other choices, have a good feel for what the other is trying to communicate at the table, but, in MSC, where choices are particularly hard, I suspect that 75% agreement will be more a matter of luck than a meeting of the minds.

Good luck to all that participate!
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 07, 2019, 11:35:11 AM
Yes, it would be unrealistic to expect full agreement. I often don't even agree with myself.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 07, 2019, 02:32:17 PM
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
Problem C:  When I made my initial selection, I was focused more on points.  When I looked at the hand again, I focused on tricks.  Tricks make this hand worth bidding 2 !D (4th suit forcing);  I think 4-5 tricks in my suit raises the 11 HCPs to a game force.

Yup, exactly. It's rare that I am confident on an MSC problem. But I feel very good about this one. I expect the panel votes to be a convincing majority.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 07, 2019, 03:58:38 PM
Bang! Trigger pulled.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades       100
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades       100
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds     60
PROBLEM D: 4 Hearts         70
PROBLEM E: 6 Clubs           80
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump      100
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts          70
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack      70
                                         650

Good job Ken and Jim ------ Honor Roll this month! https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mschonorrollforlastmonth.html (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mschonorrollforlastmonth.html)

I also changed my mind on a couple . . . PROBLEM D and PROBLEM G. My rationale for the changes has been added in blue to my original "guesses."
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: bAbsG on August 07, 2019, 04:53:48 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: Pass | 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: Redouble
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

I try.  God knows I try.   :-\
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Curls77 on August 08, 2019, 10:31:59 AM
I am so unsure about most of problems  :-[
I am sure after reading what you guys posted I'll feel even more confused, so here comes brave try without peeking.

A: 3S
B: 4S
C: 2NT
D: 4H
E: 6H
F: Pass & 2NT
G: Pass
H: sJ

BTW, where one can see BWS system?

Sanya
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on August 08, 2019, 10:46:01 AM
The link to Bridge World Standard is https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bwsmainpage.html the linked text appears in the second paragraph under MSC Contest as "Bridge World Standard".
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 08, 2019, 01:45:51 PM
A further thought about G.
 One option: Bid 4 !H
Another option XX and then bid 4 !H.

Is it reasonable to say that the first option says "I want to play 4 !H, leave me alon" and then second option says "I think 4 !H is reasonable but in some cases you could consider going back to !S"  ?

Now maybe I don't want partner going back to !S even if he has a !H void, but do you think it reasonable that XX followed by 4 !H offers him that option while a direct 4 !H does not?
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 08, 2019, 01:53:31 PM
Is it reasonable to say that the first option says "I want to play 4 !H, leave me alon" and then second option says "I think 4 !H is reasonable but in some cases you could consider going back to !S"  ?

Now maybe I don't want partner going back to !S even if he has a !H void, but do you think it reasonable that XX followed by 4 !H offers him that option while a direct 4 !H does not?

Absolutely, which is the reason I steered clear of it. Still, it was a tempting choice.

Looking (again) at my choice of 4 !H . I'm having buyer's remorse. I sure wish that !H 6 was the !H 9!!!  ;)
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: toasterln on August 08, 2019, 09:24:44 PM
Hi Folks,  Thank you for starting this discussion.
A.  3  !S  Let's find out more about p's hand
B.  4  !S   We have at least 10 cards in  !S's.  If p has a fit in  !D , he can go forward. 
C.  3 !S  No help for p, but I want to be invitational.  4sf  seems too much.
D.  3 !D  4SF ...  We have at least game in  !H 
E.  6  !H  Opps bid sound preemptive to me... Partner has "stuff" or would Dbl the 4 !S bid since we are VUL
F.  Pass then 3 !D
G.  4 !H  7 card suits are meant to be trump.  The AQ !C rates to be in the right location.
H.  J !S  , looks passive to me
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: DickHy on August 09, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
Here's a view from the intermediate side of the tracks.  I decided on my entries before reading beyond Ken's discussion of the first two problems.  It was good fun after making my selections to read what you guys (who are much better than me) thought.  Doubt it will entertaining for you to read my thoughts, but I may enter regularly just to see if I improve.

A.  3S.

Partner didn’t double – but 3H would be the bid (irrespective of the S holding) with AKxxxx in H and some HCP in minors (even with 4 cards in one of the minors).  We could run into A of S lead and a S ruff, and then find Qxx in trumps with East.  Still, slam could be on.  If partner cue-bids 4C, then I sign-off in 4H.  If partner cue-bids 4C, then I will bid 4N, passing a 5H response and raising 5S to 6H (with a prayer that partner has xx or x in S).

B.  4C

Partner will be able to work out from the bidding that I am short/void in H, so I will show the C shortage with a splinter bid.  Partner looks to be 5512/5503/5413 so a C shortage could be of great interest, and leaves room for a 4D cue-bid.

C.  2D

I am happy to force here because of the good spades.  If partner continues with 2N, 2H or 2S then the choice of game is obvious.  After 3C, however (probably showing a 2515/1525 hand), I would bid 3S thinking partner might raise to 4S (holding 2515) which looks a decent spot or bid 4C (holding 1525).  I might pass 4C, knowing we have 2 diamonds losers at T1 and T2.  I would worry that my 3S bid after partner continues 3C over 2D is not crystal clear, but with 6 spades I would have rebid 3S instead of 2D, so perhaps partner can work out it shows a solid 5c suit?

D.  3D

Slam looks possible even if partner has only a moderate opening hand (say xx Axxx KJx KQxx).  Much depends on agreements on game tries.  The BWS First Slam-Try [“When the first slam-try after suit agreement is made by a player who has shown no suit other than the agreed suit, it shows length in the bid suit (or, when applicable, where a high-card value will be especially useful).”] suggests 3D – asking partner if he has values in the suit – and that seems a reasonable start.  Certainly, if partner has no high cards or control (void/x) in D slam is not on (especially after advertising the D weakness!) 

E.  6H

Defensively it looks as though we’re not going to make a H trick, but the two diamond tricks look safe.  What have we got in C?  Partner probably is 36xx, but not 36xx with both the A and K of clubs (surely 5H is a little shy then?).  6H is on with 3631/3640 or 3622 with either the K or A of C, but looks dicey with 3613 and Kxx/Axx in C.  Partner maybe not have bid 5H (holding 3613 or 3622) without the K or A of C.  However, if he did, we look unlikely to beat 5S.  So, in that case 6H-2 would be a good result.

F.  2N

Assuming East’s jump overcall is 6-9 and shows a 6c suit, we may have game as West is a passed hand: (partner 16, me 10, East 7, West 7).  Partner figures to be short in H, so with 16 HCP could not have opened 1N.   Alternatively, E could have 9, West 8 and partner 13, so a GF bid looks dodgy.  2N shows partner the H stop and a decent point count (if partner asks where the 11th HCP is, I can point to the combined 10 and 9 of diamonds to distract him while I make my escape). 

G.  3S

North may well have KQxxxx in S and not a great deal else.  East has shown 4 hearts offering us a choice of declaring with trumps 6-2 (S; with the top 3) or 7-1/7-0 (H, probably missing the A).   3S looks a better spot than 3H - which looks a decent bid if it wasn’t non-forcing.   EW look to be heading to D, but 5 may be too many for them.  Am not sure about xx here, would partner think 10-13 and no S fit?  And is 3S now rather than later stronger?  Whatever, partner being a good egg will raise to 4S when holding the C K!
           

H.  CJ

A 3H response to 2C shows a one-loser suit apparently so perhaps 2H shows none or two losers.  West with his 6C bid suggests he is missing a black suit ace or the KC. East offers reassurance so must have S covered as well as the red suits.  A club lead looks safest – not always a selling point.  I want to avoid a red suit lead.  A club lead might result in East playing off clubs, then I can discard from the red suits after East does.     

 
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: DickHy on August 09, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Dick Harvey
Southampton
U.K.

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club Jack
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: drac on August 10, 2019, 05:08:09 AM
SOLVER: Wladislaus Dragwlya
        Castrum Sex
        Romania

Your Solutions for the September 2019 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club Jack

waiting for the deep embarrassing ... again and again  ;D
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 10, 2019, 12:26:39 PM

Your Solutions for the September 2019 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Redouble
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack


I made one change, problem F, from what I posted earlier. This was not from some great insight but rather because I read the problem more carefully and found that the 3 !D bid I was going to make would be game forcing.  I had chosen 3 !D saying I assumed it was forcing but not game forcing. Always helps to read what is written. In competitive auctions I like having new suits, even at teh non-jump 3 level, be forcing but not game forcing, maybe with some exceptions. This wouldn't be one of my exceptions. But I am glad I read the conditions of contest!

As always, I can easily imagine other choices being right. If it were not so, we would not be doing these.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Isabelle10 on August 10, 2019, 09:12:25 PM
Your Solutions for the September 2019 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Heart Queen
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 10, 2019, 10:05:41 PM
Good job Ken and Jim ----- Honor Roll this month!!!  :)

PROBLEM B is one for the record books. The most answers with a score I've ever seen. 32!! I wonder if it's a Bridge World record?
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 10, 2019, 11:34:51 PM
Thanks. Here are my scores:


PROBLEM A: 4 Notrump              80
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades               100
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds             60
PROBLEM D: 3 Clubs                   90
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts                  90
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump             100
PROBLEM G: Redouble               100
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack              70
 
                                                690

I get some amusement from the 70 on the last problem. That's the one I thought to be the mot obvious. On reflection, I guess I see the point of the lead of the !H Q. I am happy anyway.  I usually get one score of approximately 0, and I have avoided that.

Time for some (more) wine.




Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on August 11, 2019, 02:30:51 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Glen Allen VA
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Hearts             60
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades           100
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds         60
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades           100
PROBLEM E: Pass                    90
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump          100
PROBLEM G: Redouble            100
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack       80

            Total                          690

Getting the same score as the person I designated as partner should count for something, but, alas, no.  The percentage of matched choices, though, has improved to 50%.  Congrats, Ken for good scores on a tough set.

A lot of participants this month.  Congrats to all!  Just the process of thinking through your choice on a set like this makes problems at the table easier to tackle.

A couple of comments about the scores:

Problem A - I underestimated the degree to which experts expect light weak twos from partner.  I thought by bringing 4 tricks to the party that more would be aggressive and cue to show strength.  As usual, when Todd has a strong feeling about an answer, he is usually correct.

Problem E - I really thought that a forcing pass was the correct bid to make in an expert field, and was stunned to see 5NT.  It will be interesting to see what 5NT is expected to elicit as a response since I am holding two of the top three honors, it is not a grand slam force as I am acquainted.  This is where you start to see where changes are occurring among top players.

Problem H:  Since 2 !H was not alerted as a double negative, I took it for a good suit and a positive response.  Therefore, I was unwilling to solve the suit for declarer.  If I was right that the !D stop might be a single stop only, then I wanted to knock it out before they found out that the clubs may not run (opener's primary suit) and entries may be slim for setting up the !H suit.  It will be interesting to see what the experts were thinking on this one.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on August 11, 2019, 02:34:07 AM
Monster Points winners

for September 2019

Name     BW Pts MP Award MP Bonus 
kenberg    690    20       10
jcreech    690    20       10
babsg      650    10
masse24    650    10
blubayou   640    1
Isabelle10 630    1
DrAculea   590    1
Wackojack  590    1
Isabelle10 550    1
DickHy  500     1
Curls77    500    1
ToasterLn  500    1
and two private participants  1 each

We had two players make the Bridge World Honor Roll this month, earning that bonus as well. 

Thank you for participating.  Your comments were good and thought provoking.

Scoring correction:  Thank you Isabelle10, the error was with the lookup function for Problem D.  The score has been corrected and the leaderboard adjusted.  Added blubayou, who sumitted to Bridge World, but missed how to submit for IAC credit.  Added DickHy, who accidently got missed when I put together the posting.

To submit publicly, you can hit reply in the appropriate forum month, then paste a copy of the email submission, and finally submit.

To submit privately, you can send your responses to either Masse24 or jcreech either here in iac.pigpen.org.uk or in BBO.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Isabelle10 on August 11, 2019, 07:34:52 AM
I would like to appeal against the result noted for me.  Unless I am mistaken I scored 630.

Your Solutions for the September 2019 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Hearts               60
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts               70
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds          60
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds          80
PROBLEM E: 6 Hearts               90
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump            100
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts               70
PROBLEM H: Heart Queen         100

Total                                        630

I was particularly pleased with problem H.  I cannot see anyone else choosing the heart queen!



Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on August 11, 2019, 10:12:53 AM
Very interested in how the marks are allocated by BW.  The is a very low correlation between the % of votes and the marks given. 

I happened to score zero on the lead problem H and the Q  !H and J  !H both scored 100.  The Q  !H got 10 (out of 28) expert panel votes and 14% of solvers and the J  !H got 3 expert votes and 1% of solvers. It appears that some panel votes get more marks than others.  Also I would be very interested in the reasons for each vote.  Is this a marketing ploy for BW in that you have to buy the magazine to find out?     

Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: jcreech on August 11, 2019, 11:04:12 AM
Jack,

I think the top score is generally reserved for the answer that has the most panel votes or its justifiable equivalent.  That is why the !H Q was selected, and the J was probably selected as the deceptive equivalent.  (Though when the moderator has strong feelings, or the panelists do not have strong feelings, the moderator will sometimes go with their inclination - as seems to have happened in Problem D of this set.) 

Todd usually summarizes the panel discussion of problems that either interested him or were points of discussion in our forum.  Since only Isabelle10 selected that answer, I suspect it will be something Todd will bring to the forum's discussion.

Some moderators seem to be affected by the non-panel votes when assigning scores, others do not.  But that may be a misperception on my part.  It may be that the non-panel votes for a secondary score happens to correspond with the moderators own preferences.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 11, 2019, 01:16:08 PM
My scores have been all over the place, decent this month, pitiful other months, I don't much worry about it. I enjoy discussing hands, I like seeing what other posters have to say, and when I re-think things it can be  useful. Here are a couple of useful tings for me from the just scored contest..

1. On problem G I redoubled. Thursday I was at the local club and I asked partner what he thought the difference was between an immediate 4 !H over the X, and an XX followed by 4 !H, and he said he thought the second route showed some values in !S.  Right. That doesn't mean that XX is best, but it was a chance to discuss understandings.

2. On H, the lead problem, I chose the "safe" !S J.  I did not think much about it, it seemed obvious. Huh!  Not for the first time I later realized that I should have thought a little more. The !H Q is also safe, and in fact even safer. It is impossible on the auction that dummy will hit with !H Kxx. probably not Kx either, but if so that would not cost a trick. So leading the !H Q is completely safe. It also might be very useful. If declarer holds AKTxx(x) and dummy hits with a stiff, there is at least the possibility that declarer might hope to run a squeeze to establish his 13th trick with the !H T. . Taking out his entry to the !H suit might disrupt this, or at least make it more difficult. So the !H Q it is.

Anyway, I do subscribe to Bridge World and sometimes I even read it. I see it as one source among many.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 11, 2019, 01:33:01 PM
Yup, Jack.

The scores are not always what we might think they should be. For example, on problem "G," there were more panel votes for 4 !H than for any other. Should score 100, right? (Works for me since it was my choice!) Not necessarily. Ken and I had this discussion a year ago on this same topic. Unless the top vote-getter is a majority, the director is given wide latitude in assigning scores.

The conditions of contest read as follows:

Directors and Scoring

Each contest is directed by a member of the Bridge World editorial staff. After the contest deadline, the contest's director assigns scores to answers on each problem, giving a highest score of 100 and lower scores generally in multiples of 10. The director does the scoring according to a personal view of the merits of different possibilities but is guided by the votes and comments of a panel of experts. However, the director must award 100 to an action receiving a majority panel vote, at least 10 to any action receiving at least one panel vote, and some score (even if zero) to every legal action.

So, according to the rules, only an action receiving a "majority of panel votes" must receive a score of 100. If not, the highest vote-getter (the one receiving a plurality of votes) usually . . . almost always . . . just about every time receives a score of 100. In those cases--as we see with "G" this month--the director is given wide latitude in choosing which action scores 100. Also lesser scores.

It is what it is . . .

I am always anxious to read the panel's thoughts when the magazine arrives. For me, this is the point of the whole exercise! I enjoy the slow deliberate thought process for each problem and, since we've started this discussion, the back and forth between IAC'ers. After reading the panel's thoughts, I try to incorporate those principles into my own thought process. While I would never take the time it takes for these problems at the table, I am hopeful that these problems can influence my thinking when it counts.

My own personal choice for "WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?" for this month goes to problem "C." I chose a game-force 2 !D . A clear choice for me. I was more confident on that problem than any other. I thought it out carefully. I eliminated the bad choices. I thought about it some more. Then, I chose wisely . . . or so I thought. But I scored a fourth best 60.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 11, 2019, 01:58:15 PM
The !H Q on Problem "H" was my first choice, but I changed my mind to the "safe" !S . I even considered the !H J for the reasons the panel will give in their answers (a similar situation and choice was made by Zia several months ago simply because it costs nothing but may mildly confuse declarer). The avoidance of squeezery would be the goal.

I had worked out three or four possible layouts on the bidding. This was the closest I could come to:

!S -AKx
!H -x
!D -Ax
!C -AKQxxxx

!S -xxx
!H -AKxxx
!D -KQ9xx
!C-

West did not trot out RKC, instead he leapt directly to 6 !C , so it is also possible he is void in !H . If dummy has exactly 1 heart, leading a heart honor could be essential to disrupt a squeeze, for example if my LHO has !S Hxxx opposite declarer's HH tight, and declarer’s !S AK10. On a non-heart, declarer can take his HH in !S and end up after 9 tricks in dummy with !S Hx. !H x !C x opposite His !H AK10x. I’m squeezed, unable to hold both !S and !H . He doesn’t even need the !H 10. If I give up my !H guard, he cashes his !S winner to squeeze partner in !H and !C .

But in the end, after all those gyrations, I chose the safe !S J.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 11, 2019, 04:33:58 PM
By the way, the panel choices (and the attached rationale), are submitted a full 18 months in advance. The director's choices (if there is no majority) as well his commentary are added between the date panel choices are in and the press date. So, logically, only the panel choices and comments are considered. Solver's choices, while interesting to compare with the cognoscenti, are not considered.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: blubayou on August 11, 2019, 11:14:50 PM
    MASTER SOLVERS CLUB SOLUTIONS RECEIVED


Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.

SOLVER: Ronnie Ronstadt
        Gresham OR
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the September 2019 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump --  I knewthat would get a mark-down,  but its what i did live, that day
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM E: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: kenberg on August 12, 2019, 05:15:05 PM
Fwiw, I also considered 3NT.  This is matchpoints. But I chose 4NT, the invitational bid. My thinking: If hearts run, there is a good chance that the hand will take as many tricks in NT as in hearts. But if hearts don't run, so that I have to give up a heart before cashing my tricks, the hand might well play a trick better in hearts than in NT. If the lead is the !S J and I have to lose a !H, I have to duck when playing in NT but not when playing in hearts.  Of course with my 4NT I might then end in 4NT, but I figure I will chance it while inviting the slam. If partner has a good enough hand to bid slam, I expect t lose to the !S A, and very possibly take everything else, regardless of whether we play in hearts or NT.

Anyway, I did consider 3NT, it doesn't seem crazy to me, but eventually I decided to go with 4NT, scoring a bit better than 3NT. I am not yet convinced that 3 !S is better. With 4NT I am asking partner to choose whether to bid a slam, based on his strength. With 3 !S I am not sure who will be choosing about a slam, and on just what that decision will be made. I suppose that over 3 !S partner will show a minor suit K if he has one. And then?

Anyway, we are seriously outvoted by the panel on this, even if we combine the panel's votes for our choices. It's ok, stubbornness is an underrated virtue.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: wackojack on August 12, 2019, 05:54:19 PM
The !H Q on Problem "H" was my first choice, but I changed my mind to the "safe" !S . I even considered the !H J for the reasons the panel will give in their answers (a similar situation and choice was made by Zia several months ago simply because it costs nothing but may mildly confuse declarer). The avoidance of squeezery would be the goal.

I had worked out three or four possible layouts on the bidding. This was the closest I could come to:

!S -AKx
!H -x
!D -Ax
!C -AKQxxxx

!S -xxx
!H -AKxxx
!D -KQ9xx
!C-

West did not trot out RKC, instead he leapt directly to 6 !C , so it is also possible he is void in !H . If dummy has exactly 1 heart, leading a heart honor could be essential to disrupt a squeeze, for example if my LHO has !S Hxxx opposite declarer's HH tight, and declarer’s !S AK10. On a non-heart, declarer can take his HH in !S and end up after 9 tricks in dummy with !S Hx. !H x !C x opposite His !H AK10x. I’m squeezed, unable to hold both !S and !H . He doesn’t even need the !H 10. If I give up my !H guard, he cashes his !S winner to squeeze partner in !H and !C .

But in the end, after all those gyrations, I chose the safe !S J.

OK to break up the squeeze you need to be leading to the suit that has a singleton in dummy.  From the leader's point of view then with equal length in  !H and   !D , then dummy is is more likely to have a singleton  !H than a singleton  !D, simply because opener has either equal length in  !D and   !H or longer  !H.  So top marks for a  !H lead.  And 2nd top marks for a   !D lead. OK so far I understand.  Now there is no chance that dummy has a singleton  !S (or is there?) Could declarer have a 1-2-3-7 distribution?  Anyway, I am beginning to see why leading a  !C gets a zero.
Title: Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
Post by: Masse24 on August 16, 2019, 10:47:29 PM
The director for September was Kokish.
 
A few snippets from the panel:

PROBLEM A: A fairly clear vote for 3 !S. Kokish called it a “heavy vote” and a “clear indication of its merit.” He went on to say, “It’s true that a Bridge World Standard advancer must start with three spades to investigate slam in hearts, so, for system adherents, the main choices are to go low via four hearts or three no trump, high via a natural four no trump, or TBD via three spades.”

PROBLEM B: Votes were all over the place, but the “get there fast” 4 !S garnered the most panel votes. The general consensus being to “buy the contract.” Close behind, however, were the slam-seeking 4 !C and 4 !H. Interestingly, there were five panelists (Zia, Wolff, Wirgren, Lawrence, Woolsey) who decided to slow-play the hand with either 2 !S or 3 !S. Another two mentioned the “slow-play” !S bids but chose differently. So, as mentioned—votes were all over the place, for all the reasons we stated . . . plus a few more.
Kokish closed with Janice Seamon Molson’s words: “Four spades. Who knows? We could make seven spades. I hate these hands.”

Indeed. Who knows?

PROBLEM C: 2 !S . This is the problem that shocked me the most. I thought it to be a borderline game-force, but the quick tricks and suit quality pushed it over the edge. Jim’s reasoning echoed my own exactly. Alas, the panel did not agree. The reasons for the admitted “underbid” of 2 !S (the plurality choice) included “Matchpoints” and “eight losers.” There were also quite a few 3 !S bids, concentrating on the suit quality and also mentioning it as “the value bid.”

PROBLEM D: 2 !S . Panel votes were quite evenly split, with the top four scores receiving 7, 8, 6, and 6 respectively. The top three, however, were all slam moves, explaining the scores. Bobby Wolff echoed my (eventual) thinking with the “go low” 4 !H stating, “I won’t attempt to thread the slam needle.” As for which “slam move” to make? Mike Lawrence mentioned the fact that 2 !S “leaves room.” Meckstroth and Molson preferred 3 !C as they “hope to hear 3 !D next so I can bid 3 !S next and search for slam.” Others chose 3 !D. As mentioned, quite evenly split.

Kokish, in validating his choice for the highest score stated, “My inclination on slam-zone hands is to start with my longest or equal-longest side suit. Three diamonds would help us when North has a balanced hand, but it will deprive him of the room to jump to four diamonds with four hearts and diamond shortness. That is enough to make 2 spades or 3 clubs more effective first moves, with 2 spades more attractive, because it leaves room for North to show a good five or six card club suit.”

PROBLEM E: 5NT was the plurality choice. While I considered this, I quickly dismissed it as I thought it to be too ambiguous. The panel disagreed, seeing it as primarily a grand slam try. The 6 !C bid that I chose was widely considered a second suit and a way to find grand if partner has the !C AK. Silver, Wirgren, and Robson collectively stated a version of, “if partner has the AK of clubs, he’ll know what to do.” There was not widespread agreement as to what six of a minor means. Gerstman and Meckstroth bid 6 !D as lead directional, Kehela as a try for the grand. Interestingly, many of panel did not consider the grand, signing off in 6 !H.

Rubens was the only one who chose Pass, stating that 6m would be non-forcing. His follow-up would be to pull a double of 5 !S to 6 !C to invite seven. Kokish explains, “Rubens is confident his pass is forcing, because BWS makes a special provision for unfavorable vulnerability in this type of auction. . . . Pushing the opponents to the five-level and selling out has been widely recognized as a sound strategy when ownership of the deal is not clear from the earlier bidding.” That’s an interesting bifurcation of whether Pass is forcing or not; the vulnerability. I’ll have to look that up.

PROBLEM F: 2NT. An actual majority here, with 15 of the panel choosing 2NT. 

PROBLEM G: Redouble. Not the plurality vote-getter, but second. Still, it scored highest. The redoubler’s plan is to bid a later three or four hearts. The thinking being that it is flexible, showing both spade tolerance and a long heart suit. [A good plan in my opinion]. I believe Ken mentioned something similar.

PROBLEM H: !H Q and !H J scored 100. Only one of our solvers (Isabelle10) chose a !H . Most chose a “safe” !S , as did the majority of the MSC solvers. The reasons for the !H lead (as well as all the others) were as varied as the answers. Kokish summarized with, “Panelists hoping for an Ace [with partner] are thinking impure thoughts. Compared with trying to break up a squeeze, playing for a blocked position in the red suits is not only less complicated but also considerably more likely to be right. The heart-honors leaders rule."