IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on September 11, 2019, 06:40:15 PM
-
NOVEMBER MSC
Deadline: October 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)
Submit your November 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) - (This page shows (1) the results of the panelist polls that were used to adjust the system; and (2) the changes in and the additions to Bridge World Standard 2001 (BWS2001) that were made.
In the listings of the questions and answers, an asterisk indicates the BWS2001 agreement; the proportion of the expert votes for each item, rounded to the nearest percent, is shown in brackets.)
PROBLEM A: Matchpoints. Nil Vul. You hold:
!S J94 !H AKT642 !D 9 !C AK8
Auction to you:
(P) – P – (P) – 1 !H
(P) – 1 !S – (P) - ??
What call do you make?
PROBLEM B: IMPs. E/W Vul. You hold:
!S Q3 !H Q4 !D QJ98 !C KQ743
Auction to you:
(1 !H) – 1 !S – (P) - ??
What call do you make?
PROBLEM C: IMPs. N/S Vul. You hold:
!S J52 !H J84 !D AKQ !C AKT9
Auction to you:
1 !C – (1 !H) – 1 !S – (P)
??
What call do you make?
PROBLEM D: Matchpoints. E/W Vul. You hold:
!S 2 !H KT876 !D 8 !C KT8642
Auction to you:
1NT – (2 !S) - ??
What call do you make?
(a) double
(b) 4 !D (BWS: Texas)
(c) 3 !H (BWS: forcing)
(d) 3 !C (BWS: forcing)
(e) 2 NT (BWS: lebensohl), then, after (Pass) - 3 !C - (Pass) - ?
(e1) Pass
(e2) 3 !H
PROBLEM E: IMPs. Nil Vul. You hold:
!S K2 !H 743 !D 93 !C AK9876
Auction to you:
1 !D – (P) - ??
*BWS: 2 !C = GF. 3 !C = Invitational
What call do you make?
PROBLEM F: IMPs. N/S Vul. You hold:
!S K52 !H 63 !D J87 !C AQT72
Auction to you:
— (—) — (P)
P – (1 !D) – 1 !H – (1 !S)
X* – (XX)! – 2 !D§ – (P)
??
What call do you make?
Note: * !C with !H tolerance
! Support = three !S
§ Natural by agreement
PROBLEM G: IMPs. E/W Vul. You hold:
!S AT92 !H 9 !D KQT52 !C T54
Auction to you:
P – (1 !C) – 1 !H – (P)
??
What call do you make?
PROBLEM H: Matchpoints. Both Vul. You hold:
!S 2 !H KJ95 !D K765432 !C 2
Auction:
P – (1 !C) – 1 !H – (4 !S)
5 !H – (X) – P – (5 !S)
P – (P) – X – All pass
What is your opening lead?
Good Luck!
P.S. Panel answers and scores are usually published the same day as the deadline.
-
First: Thanks Todd for copying the problems (by hand?) to this department-- saves the casual reader from wondering what we will be talking about. problem A - I had a jump rebid penciled in for two weeks -- tiny stretch. Then it sunk in that i was 4th seat, and have hardly any mor that a 4th "1H" lacking spades should have, so, my vote will be simple 2!H rebid. it still looks like potential magic, though.
-
A> 2 hearts see post above (80)
B> 2 hearts -- invite+ in spades. but what to do when partner bids 3S over pass OR opp's 3H? (70)
C> 3 spades-- i found no reference in BWS to negative double NOT SHOWING 4 spades, so
jump raise should not be getting us too high in a 4-3 fit.
"I like my hand--guess why" cue-bid not today. (80)
D> lebensohl to 3 clubs, and pass ( e-1) (90)
E> 3 clubs--natural invitation. if this isn't that hand i resign (100)
F> pass-- is this so much extras to bid up? otherwise, what's the problem?? (100)
G> pass (100)
H> low diamond Heart king seems a fun mastermind and probly gets the 100 :( (70)
____
<690>
-
PROBLEM H: !C 2
Garozzo's rule.
-
Problem H: !D4 !C2 was my first thought but BWS mentions 'alarm clock' leads to suggest an unusual situation - so I'm thinking 5th highest from 7 diamonds (also unbid suit). Maybe I am understanding it wrong?
-
If I were to lead a !D, and I might, I think I would lead the 7.
My intention in leading any !D would be that I am hoping that partner can ruff. If so, then he will realize. perhaps, that my 7 was intended to encourage him to underlead his !H A back to my hand for another ruff. Given that I am holding five spot cards lower than the 7, it is reasonable that he can read the 7 as a high spot.
Now is he void? Or, to put it differently, what can we make of the auction in general and his X in particular?
I would expect North's double of my 5 !H to be mostly based on a couple of small hearts, warning partner off of bidding 5 !S. He can expect 5 !H to go down, but if he passes partner might go on to 5 !S and he has a hand where this doesn't sound so good. But his partner overrules him and bids 5 !S anyway. Surely he has at most one !H.
So: If partner has a !D void and declarer has one !H, then we can beat this by !D ruff, !H back to my K, another !D ruff.
Is that our best bet? Beats me. It's asking a lot.
-
My thinking right now:
A: 2S
B: 2C
C: 2H
D: 3C
E: 3C
F: Pass
G: 2D
H: D7
As always, I regard the choices as pretty tough.
On A: I think 2 !S is a bit wimpy. But with my stiff !D I like the idea of playing in spades and 3 !S is too aggressive. Maybe I would bid 3 !S with Axx and a stiff, and decent values, but not with Jxx.
On B: 2 !C shows clubs and decent values, that's what I have. If the auction continues I might get a chance to bid 2 !S, I assume such a call would show something like Qx in support.
I will try to post some other thoughts later.
-
Here are my initial thoughts.
A. 2 !S Show support and have the right sort of hand for a Moysian fit if partner only has 4
B. 2 !C Options are not great, but I do have 5 with good values. Places me well if partner rebids !H or cue bids !S
C. 2 !H Making a general force – willing to treat as a game force – I hope to be in a better position to know where we are headed after partner describes a bit more of their hand.
D. 3 !C I intend to show !H next – I wish I had more HCPs, but with the proper minimum from partner, this could be a slam going, and I am not ashamed to have force game opposite any NT opener.
E. 3 !C As loath as I am to take one of the BWS suggested bids, the suit and values are right for an invitational club bid.
F. 2NT Thought about pass because if partner is going to play in a suit that breaks badly, the extra values and lower level may be best, but partner has taken shown two suits and I have both a stopper and invitational values, so this seems to be my best description
G. 1NT I hate this call the most. If partner had four spades, there would have probably been a double, so diamonds seem like our most likely fit. But with only 9 HCPs I am unwilling to pass and hesitant to bid 2 !D. This seems like it may be the least lie, but I may change my mind and go with 2 !D because it my next closest least lie. I am trying to decide which least lie is the nearest neighbor to the center of what I consider to be a true reflection of my hand.
H. !D 7 This feels like a lightener double, so I’m treating it that way. The 7 is my best spot card to imply a heart entry, so that is the card I am leading. If I am certain that partner has the CA, would lead it first, and then continue, I would lead the 2 – but I think that would take a mind reader. Better to try the 2 on the second lead, still suggesting an entry, but one that takes work. If I don't lead a diamond, I think it is a severe breach of partnership trust.
-
A couple of add-on thoughts about the lead on H:
Regardless of any Lightner meaning (and I agree that it is Lightner-like), partner has to think that there are three tricks somewhere. Surely he is not expecting us to take a bunch of heart tricks so he has tricks elsewhere. Where? Shortness in diamonds seems like a good bet and the auction is reasonably supportive of that. Rho has a lot of spades bur surely at most one heart so there is room in his hand for a few diamonds. Lho has a couple of hearts but not many spades I would think (since he doubled my 5 !H instead of passing or bidding 5 !S) so there is room in his hand for some diamonds. And I have seven of them. So a !D void seems like a good explanation for partner's double, both on Lightner grounds and on where does he think three tricks are coming from grounds.
One worry I had was that declarer might have no hearts. This is possible. But I only have four. Partner will see the dummy, he can look at his own hand, he can figure I have (at least) four hearts for my 5 !H call, so if declarer is going to ruff the first round of hearts I think partner can figure that out. Hopefully, in that case he has the A of clubs or else two other tricks somewhere. At any rate, after the !D ruff, if declarer has a heart void partner can figure it out and look elsewhere for two more tricks.
-
Initial thoughts:
PROBLEM A: 3 !H . I see this as a slight variation on The Bridge World Death Hand. Six of my suit, three of partner’s major. Extras. My support for partner’s major, however, is so poor that the space eating 3 !H gets my vote. It’s descriptive of my length. It nails my point range. My second choice would be a flexible 2 !C .
[Added] Now that I think of it, 2 !H (admittedly a super-max) has merit. A distant third fourth choice is 2 !S .
PROBLEM B: 2 !C . Too much to pass. Not enough to force. Raising partner on !S Qx does not interest me.
PROBLEM C: 3 !S . I would not have objected to a downgraded opening of 1NT, but we’re past that. Obviously, I intended to rebid 2NT over any 1-level response. It is a very notrumpy hand. Do I continue with my original plan to rebid 2NT despite the lack of a full heart stopper? I think not. I’m not going to stay wedded to my original plan if the auction steers me in another direction.
What about the spades? Partner’s 1 !S should promise at least five. Do I ignore the “fit”? Although a jump rebid somewhat implies four card support, since partner now promises five, does that still hold?
Another option, and the most flexible, would be to cuebid 2 !H , however, subsequent bids (like delayed spade support to show 3 rather than 4) are game-forcing. Does this hand merit a game force? Is the added flexibility of 2 !H worth the overbid?
PROBLEM D: 3 !C . This one really stumps me. These two-part questions get me every time. First question, how strong am I? 6-5 come alive? Maybe. An immediate 3 !H is pushing it. If I were to bid hearts, I’d go through 2NT first. But an immediate 3 !C , while very pushy, is flexible. It’s forcing and has the added benefit that it may uncover a !H fit, so 3 !C it is. Anyway, that’s my thinking.
PROBLEM E: 3 !C . Systemic. Part of BWS. What else? (Every time I think this I'm wrong.)
PROBLEM F: Pass. I think partner is probably 5-5 for this 2 !D rebid. I’m banking on it with this pass.
PROBLEM G: 2 !D . I could just as easily go with Pass. This is a coin flip for me.
PROBLEM H: !C 2 . Garozzo.
I’ve not pulled the trigger yet. Will probably do so this evening if I have the opportunity to review once more.
Submitted. Stayed with my initial choices above.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Club 2
-
E. 3 !C As loath as I am to take one of the BWS suggested bids, the suit and values are right for an invitational club bid.
Funny! ;D Exactly my thinking.
Every time I read the little notation explaining options below the auction, I get sucked in and bid it. Well, maybe not every time, but every time I do, it turns out poorly.
-
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada
Your Solutions for the November 2019 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 4
-
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Castrum Sex
Romania
PROBLEM A: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Heart 9
-
Took the same time as I would have at the table . Well almost.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Jack Goody
Guildford
England
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (e2)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Club 2
-
I made one change from my original thoughts - I decided that 2 !D was a better description on G than 1NT.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Fredericksburg VA
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 7
Added (but consistent with last month): I declare kenberg as a partner for contest purposes.
-
SOLVER: Ken Berg
Eldersburg MD
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the November 2019 Contest
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 7
-
A 3h
B 2c
C 3d
D E2
E 3c
F pass
G 2d
H 5d
-
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: (a)
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Club 2
-
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Fredericksburg VA
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades 60
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs 90
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts 100
PROBLEM D: (d) 100
PROBLEM E: 3 Clubs 100
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump 70
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds 100
PROBLEM H: Diamond 7 90
Total 710
A good month, but a couple of scores that were below where I hoped.
Congratulations to Todd (Masse24), Jack Goody (wackojack) and Ken Berg for making the BW Honor Roll! Todd was tied for 7th with a 770, while Ken and Jack had a 740.
-
We (the IAC) had five people who scored over 700 this month, though not everyone submitted to The Bridge World.
FIVE!
Really Outstanding!
-
The scores for everyone and placing for the November MSC contest are as follows:
| NAME | BW-SCORE | RANK | MPs |
| Masse24 | 770 | 1 | 30 |
| Anony1 | 760 | 2 | 25 |
| KenBerg | 740 | 3 | 20 |
| WackoJack | 740 | 3 | 20 |
| Jcreech | 710 | 5 | 11 |
| DrAculea | 660 | 6 | 1 |
| EddyHaskel | 640 | 7 | 1 |
| BabsG | 630 | 8 | 1 |
| Msphola | 620 | 9 | 1 |
| Blubayou | 580 | 10 | 1 |
| . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . |
|
Congratulations for the four that had scores that were good enough to make the Bridge World Honor Roll!
Thank you all for participating, and good luck next month.
-
My Bridge World arrived so I've added some panel opinions below.
The director for November was Bart Bramley.
A few snippets from the panel:
PROBLEM A: 2 !C . The MSC panel votes were very close, with 13 going for the flexible 2 !C and 10 voters choosing the “traditional jump-rebid” of 3 !H . 2 !H and 2 !S were a distant third and fourth.
Bramley summed it up immediately with the following: “Yet another version of the MSC Nightmare Hand: Extra values, a strong six-card suit, and three-card support for partner. The choice I between the traditional jump-rebid in the six-bagger, and “something else,” which is usually scattered among several possibilities. Over time, “something else” has gravitated toward the cheapest call in a three-card minor.”
This summary by Bramley was echoed upthread by yours truly (though I called it The Bridge World Death Hand), but I went the traditional route with 3 !H . Surprisingly, not one of our IAC group chose the winning bid, the “something-else” bid of the cheapest call in a three-card minor.
PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump. Bramley: “Another nearly binary decision.” 1 Notrump was the number one vote-getter with 14 with 2 !C a close second at 12. Justin Lall stated it most completely with: “One Notrump. Not more, because the hand is very soft opposite a white overcall. [Welland agrees – B.B.]. One should not fear bidding notrump with Queen-low of hearts; in fact, I relish it when hearts haven’t been raised. I am showing values, rightsiding notrump, getting the general hand-type off my chest, and bidding what should be a very playable partscore while leaving all of my options open.”
Rubens, exhibiting typical brevity, “One notrump. Too queeny not to try notrump. Too slow to adventure higher.”
Lall’s point about the allure of bidding notrump when hearts have not been raised is, I think, the clincher here.
PROBLEM C: 2 !H . Bramley: “Our third straight heavily two-way choice.” 2 !H garnered 15 panel votes. 3 !S was a close send with 12. A distant third was 2NT.
There were five panelists (Hudecek, Kleinman, Eisenberg, Rajadhyaksha, and Bramley) who agreed with my assessment that the hand should be “downgraded” to a 15-17 notrump.
Mike Passell forces to game with 2 !H stating, “The old all-purpose cue-bid. Partner did freely bid one spade, so I will force to game.” Good point. It crossed my mind that the “free bid” of 1 !S should not be made on complete garbage, so the game-force 2 !H should be a winner. But I could not pull the trigger on that winning choice.
Still, there was plenty of ambiguity about “what means what.” Bramley summarized with, “There are a number of issues here. The cue-bidders intend to force to game; the spade raisers are willing to stop at three. The cue-bidders hope to imply exactly three spades, either immediately or when they later raise spades; they want four-card support for a direct jump. The spade raisers are willing to incur trump length ambiguity to avoid strain ambiguity. The cue-bidders welcome exploration of alternative strains, especially notrump; the spade raisers, not so much.
PROBLEM D: 3 !C . Bramley starts with, “Awkward. We have great shape without enough high cards to be confident of making anything unless we catch a decent fit. Also, the vulnerable opponents, with almost half the deck, may have a big fit of their own and be about to raise to three or four spades.”
The immediate and forcing 3 !C garnered a high plurality of the vote with 14 of 29 choosing it. Next was 3 !H with 6 votes followed by a Texas 4 !D with 5.
I agree with Bramley, awkward!
PROBLEM E: 3 !C . This was almost unanimous with the MSC panel, garnering 24 of 29 panel votes. Zia, pithily adding, “Three clubs. Close to the truth.”
PROBLEM F: Pass. Bramley: “Answering this problem is easier than comprehending it; that’s a lot of auction-cum-footnotes to wade through.” I agree. I had to read it more than once to get a handle on what was going on. Bramley continues, “The opponents have shown a five-three spade fit, purportedly with enough values to open and respond. We have already shown exactly what we’ve got: Five clubs, two hearts, and enough values to compete. Partner has surprised us by showing secondary diamonds (LHO’s opening suit) along with his hearts. Even more surprising is that we have the agreement that 2 !D is natural. Who discusses this level of detail in complex competitive auctions.”
The majority went with Pass.
Justin Lall (again) explained best with: “Pass. This is definitely the right fit. Two diamonds is a strong statement about diamonds when partner could have passed and would often have bid one-notrump with only four diamonds. I would say it is a lock he has five diamonds. Since the opener is third seat not vulnerable, we may be the victims of a steal, but that is life. We have only one high card in partner’s suits,and partner is short in our best suit.
Bramley agrees, adding, “Why otherwise would partner go out of his way to introduce the suit into an apparent misfit?”
PROBLEM G: 2 !D . The majority went for 2 !D with 1 !S taking second place. Steve Beatty summarizes his thinking with, “Two diamonds. Too much texture and strength to pass; My passed-hand status will keep partner from being to aggressive.” Good point.
PROBLEM H: !C 2 . This ended up being another binary choice, with the lead of the stiff !C 2 the plurality choice, garnering 14 panel votes. A !D (7, 6, and 2) totaled 11. Bramley, on the choice of a !D : “Among diamond leaders, those who commented on their choice of spot all led the seven, intending it as suit-preference.”
This was echoed by both Jim and Ken in their pre-choice opinions upthread. Don Stack, one of the MSC panelists nailed that thinking with, “Diamond seven. Could be partner has Aces, but my bet is on a diamond void.I’m leading the seven as suit-preference for hearts to give a second diamond ruff. Just like in the books. What about my club ruff? Maybe it doesn’t exist.”
Still, the Lightnerish/Lightneresque tone of partner’s double (mentioned by Jim and Ken) moved several panelists to choose the !C deuce anyway.
That’s all folks!
Once again, attempting to reproduce all the panel responses would take forever, however, if you have a question about a particular problem and how the panel voted, just ask.
-
Great summary Todd!. Thank you.
-
Brilliant Todd! Thanks so much for the summary. And congratulations on your November score!!!
-
Yes, a nice summary. Problem A yielded my lowest score. I'll have to think about this nightmare idea. A number of the panelists who chose 2 !C at least commented that it could be passed but hoped that it would not be. Give partner a 5=1=3=4 minimum and I guess we play in 2 !C instead of 2 !S. It's a risk but maybe it's best. I have to be convinced. I do understand the arguments for 3 !H, I just didn't like that call. A couple of panelists agree with my 2 !S, but it's pretty lonely out there.
These are all tough problems, that's why they are there. I got a kick out of the alternating responses to the lead problem.
Rajahyaksha: !C 2 with explanation
Ekeblad: !D 7 with explanation
Bekowitz: !C 2 with explanation
Stack: !D 7 with explanation
Grue: !C 2 with explanation
J. Lall: !D 6 with explanation
This back and forth was a good way of indicating that it's a close call.