IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on March 18, 2020, 01:37:34 AM
-
MAY 2020 MSC
Deadline: April 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)
Submit your May MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mscentercontest.html)
BWS 2017 System: BWS 2017 (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html)
BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: BWS 2017 - Polls, Changes, and Additions (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html)
- Bridge World Standard 2017 (BWS or BWS2017) is effective beginning with the January 2017 Master Solvers' Club problems. 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.
IAC Forum MSC Scores (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1whamPj4_SDF3cbYUdGL9dpMX23tpwzUJzUvNoVmip_w/edit?usp=sharing)
* * *
-
Again, I'll get things rolling:
PROBLEM E: Matchpoints
East-West Vulnerable
You, South, hold:
!S A2 !H T85 !D T9642 !C AK2
| SOUTH | WEST | NORTH | EAST |
| — | — | 1 !S | Pass |
| 1NT | Pass | 2 !D | Pass |
What call do you make?
Actually, I posted this one first because of last month's PROBLEM A. Look familiar? For those of you who didn't like the "artificiality" of responder's 3 !H rebid, here is a hand where that rebid is a potential winner.
Somebody at The Bridge World has a sense of humor! ;D
Not sure where I go with this one. Probably 3 !H. Although 4 !C fits nicely, it blows right past 3NT. I doubt the MSC panel would think that wise when 3NT is still in the offing. With partner probably short in clubs, hopefully this increases the chances that partner has enough in hearts to offer 3NT as a place to play. 3 !H i both aggressive, and still allows partner an opportunity to say where we are going.
-
I do wish BWS played Gazzilli here. Then it would go 1 !S-1NT-2 !C if partner had 16 and we would be on our way to game when I showed 8+ by bidding 2 !D.
So partner has at least 5 !S + 4 !D and worth 12 to perhaps 18. If 15- 17 likely to have a singleton and that could be a !H or a !C. He could also have a 6 card !S suit with 4 !D if not a min opener. If singleton !H, then all points are working. If singleton !C, then 3 wasted points. The fact that the opps have not intervened suggests either, partner has a !C singleton or partner has a very good hand. I think we have to go cautiously and assume for now that partner has 5341 shape close to a min opener. Say partner has: !S KQJxx, !H QJx, !D Axxx, !C x, then we would want to be in 3NT. So you cannot bid 3 !H and expect to get into 3NT. Nor 3 !D. In fact everything is horrible. 2NT gives you the best chance if you believe partner has 3 hearts.
-
A:> 2 Diamonds. I hope to pull someone's red suit bid to 3 or 4 clubs---and hope the message get through to partner-- but worst case i may have to pull 4 of something red to 4 Spades. wish us luck with that.
B:> Double. I am glad this isn't a 2-part question, as i would like to be at the table when pard responds 3 Spades.
C:> 2 Hearts. The system notes make no mention of 3 Hearts being a fit--jump vs. opp's single overcall-- and would 3-count be overdoing things anyway?
D:> [no guess yet] Here is a paste from the system notes about this situation from the bws2017 notes: If anyone cans sort that mess out for us we will be wiser folk next month---
After a one-level new-suit response and opener's two-notrump rebid:(a) responder's three-club rebid is artificial, and opener bids three diamonds unless he has three-card support for responder's major (responder's next bid up to and including three of his original suit is nonforcing; otherwise, responder's next bid is a signoff if that is possible; otherwise, it is a choice of games if that is possible; otherwise, it is a checkback for an eight-card major-suit fit if possible; otherwise, it converts the three-club rebid into..."
it may have not been clear that my main fear about responding 1S involves surviving pars's jump to 2NT, buth there are other dragons lurking in this travel. i WIsH the hand qualified as a 'constructive raise" but that makes a mockery of the entire concept -- so single-raise No!....that leaves only the "pretend' raise via forcing notrump as choice "C"--sad:(
E:> 3 Hearts--with a secret respect for Wackojacks' analysis all the same.
F:> 3 NT. Spade barrage WITH some teeth. By trigger-pulling time, i may be switching back to Jacoby 2NT?
G:> Double. Wow! Three ugly choices, (leaving out "pass") i choose respo dbl because IF we live through partner's next bid, we can say Mission Accomplished ie: bumping them up a level and bowing out. (My first wife always said "stiff queen IS 'tolerance' for my overcalls, Ronnie"
F:> a trump The four, if it matters. (If the forcing defense is the way to go, I hope I have enough in-cards to get back on that track.)
-
Right or wrong. Teehee
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada
Your Solutions for the May 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace
-
May 2020
A. x
B. x
C. 2H
D. 2H
E. 3H
F. 4S
G. 2N
H. AH
-
Posted by request of ccr3:
SOLVER: Pat McDermott
N. Chesterfield. Va VA
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the May 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace
-
I generated 50 deals on Curls' deal-generator about the freakish spade-raise, and it shows that this hand is a lousy dummy for HIGH level spade bidding, so the BWS gadget of "3NT=pre-emptive raise with some defense" is clearly better than jacoby 2NT suprizingly better. even full barrage of a four-raise was better than J-2nt!.
As for the 3HCP deal with 3 baby hearts support, it took me way to long to notice the 4th option -- "NO BID" all us folk that raised hearts to two in the MSC are gonna get crushed, i fear :(
rest of my silly guesses i will live with.:| SOLUTIONS FOR: |
| Jock McQuade |
| Gresham{Portland} OR |
| U.S.A. |
|
| PROBLEM A: 2 Diamonds |
| PROBLEM B: Double |
| PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts |
| PROBLEM D: Pass |
| PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts |
| PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump |
| PROBLEM G: Double |
| PROBLEM H: Club 4 |
-
I just could not find the time to do a preliminary set of guesses and a final set, so I will annotate my answers:
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Fredericksburg VA
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: Double I do not have a way to show both suits, and I have a very strong hand. I will take my chances that partner has a penalty double. Plus I do have defense. If partner jumps in hearts, I still have the boss suit.
PROBLEM B: Double This time I am more nervous about the double, I have two of three suits, but only a doubleton spade. I also have the top of a strong NT opener, but no stop. I wish that 4 !C would be a successful ask for 3NT with a stop, but the director would rule against me on that one. So I take my chances with double and hope partner has enough spade length to justify playing opposite my doubleton if that is the choice.
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts With such a great club fit, I am willing to try the BW option. The vulnerability makes me nervous, but if doubled, I have clubs if I get too nervous. I suspect a bad score here.
PROBLEM D: Pass I am tempted to raise, but it will be easier to compete later than to see partner jump to game now.
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs Having limited my hand with my first bid, how can I not show a maximum raise in diamonds. Not only do I have a club control, I have TWO. And I have the ace in partner's first bid suit and five pieced in partner's second bid suit.
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump I have so many temptations, but the 3NT offering by the BW staff makes the most sense to me. Although it has the points of a limit raise, and the playing potential of a forcing raise, half of the points are in the spade suit which gives us a total potential of non-spade defensive tricks equal 1 or less. I still have five points for defense, and this bid will warn partner not to count too much on spade tricks, but that I have a little something to help out if the opponents get too high.
PROBLEM G: Pass I have values but no fit for partner so far. The opponents are bidding my second suit, so I will sit back and pass for now. If partner has better than a lead director, there may be a reopening double, then I will show my clubs. The two-level is too low and my trump too poor to be thinking of penalizing.
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace We are only in a partscore, so I don't see why I should not start my solid holding. Once I see dummy and what cards are played, I will adjust. Perhaps, we have a bit of a crossruff coming, but I don't want to give away everything at trick one in a partscore.
-
Please, will you several solid THINKERS in this forum get some ideas up, while you are supposedly housebound!? I have nothing for two weeks to bounce thoughts with except creech's trigger-pull YESTERDAY, with which i have too many agreements already! (Jim i want to turn your lead-problem comment on it's head and suggest the OPPONENTS my be the ones that have some cross-ruffing, not us defenders. but of course throwing winning spades at them may still be in the cards:)
sure hope i dont' mess up a nice set by the re-opening cubid with the 'wrong' two suits on #1! .
much more tractable set of deals than the hateful april 2020 set
(ps: did we notice our lionesses cranked utup with "2NT" on misfit problem G, while the boss just sat on his hands, and moi "quaisi-raised" pard's overcall with lone queen?)
-
Jock,
Don't be so hard on contributors - demands on our time can vary, and being largely housebound may not change anything. It doesn't for me. I still work full time, and have done so from home 95% of the time for the last five years. This month, I have been struggling to find the time and also waiting on others to help clarify my thinking on this set. I couldn't wait any longer, so I got mine out or risked not participating at all. I was too late one month last year for similar reasons and did not want to repeat.
As for the opponents cross ruffing; that may be true, though I think partner is short in my spades.I am playing the !S A for a look-see. My next play may be the !H A heading toward a defensive cross ruff, or it might be a trump switch to reduce an offensive cross ruff. I don't want to gamble everything on either a trump or !H A opening lead.
-
Far short of having decided, I offer some thoughts:
A: X
This hand could provide hours of discussion. Eg.
1 !D - Pass - Pass - X
1 !H - X
Are pard and I on the same wavelength? I think his double shows hearts.
B: X.
Ah yes.
3 !C - Pass - Pass -X
Pass - 4 !S.
I hope he is making this, I'll take the blame if not. If he only bids 3 !S I will be converting to !D.
C: 1 !H.
Yes, this might not go well. Otoh, we might well belong in some number of hearts.
Added: I am liking this pretty well. We surely have an eight card fit in either clubs or hearts.
D: 2 !H.
KISS
E: 3 !H
It's at least conceivable that we can make 3NT if partner has !H xxx. or even !H xx.
F: 3NT
I guess so.
G: X
Partner has one heart (at most). If he has six spades he at least might rebid them.. Lacking six spades, he will have a four card minor. This might be ok.
H: The !C 4.
This seems right. If, say, declarer has four spades and wants to ruff in dummy, partner might not have the cards to overruff. So I guess we should start removing dummy's clubs.
-
My method on these is to bid them quickly as though I were at the table.
X
3D
Pass
Pass
3H
3nt
pass
A of H
-
A. 1 !S .
Unless there is a 3♦ bid available which shows spades and clubs I will go with 1♠. If the bidding does not get too high at my next turn, I will show my clubs. Double looks gross to me.
B. 3 !D
I cannot double and bid so I will go for 3♦. If partner can manage a bid of 3♠, then I will raise to 4♠.
C. 2 !H
If BWS says that 2♥ is pre-emptive, then I will pre-empt.
D. Pass
Beginners are taught that you need 6 points to respond to an opening bid. Then as you get more experienced it reduces to 5 points. I have 3 points and it may be worth another 2 due to the singleton ♣. I will go for 2♥ unless BWS plays this as constructive. Yuck yuck it does.
(c) a single raise is moderately constructive (when responding with a weaker fitting hand, bid one notrump planning to rebid two of the major, a sequence that could also show 6-9 HCP and a doubleton fit)
How I hate BWS letting opps find their likely club fit cheaply. Maybe 1♠ and then if hopefully partner rebids 2♣ I can now get my 2♥ bid in. How I hate these risky manoeuvres when 2♥ response looks like the sensible response. Rant rant ; I So I reluctantly will have to go for pass
E. 3 !H
This is a question of interpreting BWS. I suppose 3♥ must be the bid.
F. 3NT
*BWS: 3 NT = preemptive triple raise with some defense
OK 3NT. That is what I have.
G. Pass.
Certainly double looks wrong here. I give partner the chance to make a take-out double with a suitable hand should it be passed round to partner.
H. 4 !C.
I lead to reduce opps ruffing power
-
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Jack Goody
Guildford
England
PROBLEM A: 1 Spade
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Club 4
-
This is a hard month, in many ways . . .
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 2 Clubs
If I double first, I expect to hear hearts. Then what?
If I were playing Ghestem, I’d use it, bidding 2 !D to show the blacks. Lacking that, the best way to show my hand is to bid my suits. I’ll start with my longest suit and pray it does not get passed out. If I later introduce the spades, my partner will be better informed.
I expect double to be the runaway solver choice.
PROBLEM B: Double
Having only two spades is ugly, and a flaw. Change the club honor to the queen and Bob Hamman would be whispering in my ear, “3NT—do it!” But I’m not brave enough with only !C Jx. A double seems flexible.
3 !D is a close second choice.
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
WTP?
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump
Obviously intending to show a weak hand with two (or three like here) hearts. Since my HCP are in spades, it is less likely that LHO will compete in spades if I pass. The advantage of bidding something—even 1NT—is that it removes the one-level from the opponents arsenal. Coincidentally, so does the constructive 2 !H response. (Remember the “seemingly normal” 3 !C preempt from last month?) Sometimes, the risk involved with making a bid—despite the system—is outweighed by the effect it has on the auction.
This is my "woop-woop" out there bid this month. Not too crazy, though.
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
I want to keep 3NT in the picture and also include partner in the decision. One way to do that would be to just bid it. I've seen other problems like this where the panel does it without blinking. "Stopper? We don't need no stinking stopper!"
At IMPs, I would be far more inclined to take a rosy view and bid 4 !C, willing to bail out in 5 !D if we can’t find a slam. If I had a singleton somewhere this would be an easy 4 !C.
This looks like one of those hands where Kokish and Kit trot out 3NT.
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
Not going to splinter a stiff King. A wee bit too strong for 4S. I do have some defense, and this is preemptive. Seems a fair description.
We had a not completely dissimilar MSC hand a year ago. It was 6=6=0=1
!S KQJTxx !H xxxxxx !D - !C x
This 3NT treatment was mentioned then, and, not surprisingly, not one panelist chose it. But the 2nd place bid (just behind the practical leap to 4 !S) was a Jacoby 2NT! I mention this only to raise the possibilty of a J2NT response now. I will not do it because the hand a year ago, while having only six HCP, had more potential. This hand has the requisite spade length for the preemptive aspect of the 3NT response with juuuuuuust enough defense on the side to fulfill the “some defense” definition of this jump. I’ve seen this treatment described and defined elsewhere (though I can’t recall where) and the hand looked almost exactly like this one.
I think there will be a fair number of panelists who dislike this treatment and will choose the straightforward leap to game.
But as I wrote above, 3NT is a fair description.
PROBLEM G: Pass
Going with pass. Reluctantly.
Double has merit.
PROBLEM H: Club 3
I hate lead problems.
The !H A occurred to me, hoping for ruffs. But that seems too speculative.
I think the !S A will be the popular solver choice, but I’m hoping the panel chooses the trump lead to cut down on ruffs by declarer, hoping to beat the contract with sheer power.
I hate lead problems. Did I say that?
-
I pretty much stayed with my first thoughts. A couple of comments.
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
Sykesville MD
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the May 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Double
2 !C was my second choice, I think maybe it should have been my first
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 1 Heart
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club 3
I had said the 4, but I am choosing the 3. Even in std carding, three trump spots are often played middle then down. But, all in all, I have no interest in making my shape clear. Probably it doesn't matter a bit whether I play the 3 or the 4.
-
Tough problems.
PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 1 Heart. I like my hand.
PROBLEM D: 1 Spade. I want to play at the 2 level. I don't want to hear an invitational bid from partner after 2H.
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Pass. We probably have a minor fit, but I don't like risking going down in MP.
PROBLEM H: Club 3. No rush to cash side winners, they won't disappear after the trump lead. It's unlikely partner can get in. I'm worried about being thrown in.
-
PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 1 Heart
PROBLEM D: 1 Spade
PROBLEM E: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace
-
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Castrum Sex
Romania
PROBLEM A: 4 Spades
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 4 Spades
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
-
On C we 1 !H bidders are in a minority, so I thought I would say a bit more about why I like it.
We surely have a fit, but in hearts, in clubs or in both? Both is fairly likely. And once we find our fit, my hand is pretty good. If we play in clubs, my honors are in trumps and I have a stiff diamond. And a doubleton spade.
Thinking about the fit:
It's unlikely partner has five spades but if so then he has a lot of clubs so we have a super fit there. Let's now go with the realistic assumption he has at most four spades.
If he has seven cards in the minors then he will have at least four clubs (partner would not open 1 !C on three if he held four !D) and he also holds at least two hearts since he holds 13-7=6 cards in the minors.
If he has eight cards in the minors then, at least if he bids as I do, he holds at least five clubs since when 4-4 in the minors I open 1 !D.
If he holds six or fewer cards in the minors then he holds at least seven cards in the majors and so at least three hearts.
The upshot is that we hold at least an eight card fit in at least one of the two obvious suits, and it seems that starting with 1 !H is the best way to sort out the details. With my shape, and with honors in partner's club suit, I am not all that worried about getting too high . For example, if over my 1 !H then Lho bids 4 !D and partner bids 4 !H, this might well be making.
I will be interested to see how this scores, but I like my 1 !H.
On A, I am still worried for obvious reasons about my double, but I am sticking with it.
On the lead problem, I always worry about a lead problem, both in quizzes and at the table. I agree with Marilyn that being thrown in later is a serious worry. That would be my main reason for laying down the !H A at T1, but that seems extreme so I will stick with the !C spot.
We will soon be judged. An advantage of aging is that I have long ago given up on worrying about being judged. I just assume I am right. :)
-
13-7=6 cards in the minors.
Leave it to our resident Math PhD to show off. ;)
-
13-7=6 cards in the minors.
Leave it to our resident Math PhD to show off. ;)
Yes, and I did not even use a calculator, or bring up my copy of Mathematica, to work this out.
All mathematicians have stories, here is one. Between marriages I took a date to a New Year's Eve party. The host was a mathematician, as were many of the guests, and my date was finding conversation difficult. Hoping to shift away from mathematical talk I asked one of the older guys "What's your daughter doing these days?" The answer was "Partial differential equations". Later my date told me she decided to stop fretting and if someone asked her what she was doing at the party she would explain that I had just picked her up at a bar on the way over.
-
I have a new found respect for you, Ken! ;D
-
Leave it to our resident legal beagle to find the small print in the middle of the document to make his point. - lol
13-7=6 cards in the minors.
Leave it to our resident Math PhD to show off. ;)
-
Scores are out
Marilyn led the way, with Masse24 close behind and KenBerg third; all three made the Bridge World Honor Roll, so congrats!!
| NAME | BW-SCORE | RANK | MPs |
| MarilynLi | 770 | 1 | 30 |
| Masse24 | 760 | 2 | 25 |
| KenBerg | 750 | 3 | 20 |
| . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . |
|
Also participating and receiving 1 Monster Point are (alphabetically): BabsG, Blubayou, CCR3, DrAculea, Hoki, Jcreech, Msphola, WackoJack, and Yleexotee. A solid month, with some high scores all around!
We had a nice turnout! Hopefully we can continue to build on this in the coming months!
Commentary is still welcome for this set. :) There were some interesting problems, solutions, and choices by our members.
-
The threshold for making the honor roll was 740 this month - it occasionally is lower. Two other players were at 700 or above; WackoJack and myself.
MarilynLi was tied for 6th on the Honor Roll
Masse24 was tied for 14th and
KenBerg was tied for 20th.
Well done!!.
-
My break down:
SOLVER: James Creech
Fredericksburg VA
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the May 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Double 100
PROBLEM B: Double 100
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts 100 - this is the one I thought was going to be very bad -
PROBLEM D: Pass 80 - I can see that this scored lower because action was viewed better than inaction - my second choice scored better
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs 80 - Curious why 3H (a general strong D raise) was better than 4C (also showing a club control) - it was my second choice
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump 100
PROBLEM G: Pass 80 - again, inaction bumped this down - my second choice was the negative double - with the 100
PROBLEM H: Spade Ace 90 - the trump lead squeaked out over most of the top spade leads (other than the Q - no one on the panel made that deceptive lead, but I wonder why it would be singled out for a zero when even the J got a 90)
-
WD winners :)
& my appologies to Jim and Todd, I failed post answers again, no good excuse but left till last moment and got caught in Don Quichote battle.
-
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
Sykesville MD
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the May 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Double 100
PROBLEM B: Double 100
PROBLEM C: 1 Heart 90
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts 60
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts 100
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump 100
PROBLEM G: Double 100
PROBLEM H: Club 3 100
If someone said "You will be happy with all but one of your scores" I never would have guessed that raising 1 !H to 2 !H would be the choice that went wrong! Yes, i do have five spades, but I have a heart fit and so raising hearts both takes up space from the opponents and informs pard that we have a fit. I suppose it is one of those constructive raise things. I'm an old fashioned guy. And that stiff club seems pretty constructive.. :)
Ok, constructive raise, constructive raise, constructive raise.
-
One thing is certain, it wasn't Kleinman as director! When he is director, there are few 90's. You either ace the test, or fail. ::)
The tight scores at the top of the honor roll seem to point to someone like Bramley as director. We'll see in a week or so.
I'm fine with the calls I chose on A and D, but I'm not happy with my "inaction" (as Jim calls it) on G. Pass was timid. I should know better. One thing I've learned in the two years I have been doing the MSC, if it's close between pass and another call, pass is more often than not---wrong.
Another thing I've learned ---- my hindsight is very good! :o
-
Yes, choosing the scorer's second or third choice of calls still scored well. There is some realism in that. Take C. 9 panelists chose the top scoring 2 !H, 9 chose the second scoring 1 !H. I chose 1 !H, for reasons I have mentioned, but I certainly considered 2 !H. It seems to me to be a close call. Suppose we randomly picked a panelist from the 18 who chose one of these two bids and have him/her assign scores. It makes sense for the scores then to be 10 and 9 (or maybe 8) rather than 10 and 5 (or maybe 4) .
Of course the vote split on other problems was more strongly in favor of one specific choice. On A, it was 16-9 for X over 2 !C. Still, I very strongly considered 2 !C and I can very much imagine myself, on any given day, choosing 2 !C for the reasons you, Todd, said. Again I think the choice is very close.
One effect of having close second choices get a decent score is that a low score then really gets my attention. I had good luck this time but got 60 on D. I'll be interested in seeing the reasons but I am guessing that the hand is not seems as constructive enough for a constructive raise. I suppose I agree, I just wasn't thinking. I am not all that big a fan of the constructive raise idea and I sometimes just forget about it. Yes, I could bid 1NT and then maybe Lho bids 2 !C, partner passes, Rho bids 3 !C and i do what? Sure, maybe they get to 3 !C no matter what, but raising 1 !H to 2 !H crowds them a bit. Anyway, I did not think much about it, for me it was one of those "of course I bid 2 !H" things. If nothing else, getting a lower score tells me not to be too quick.
Often I see it as a very close call between two choices, it's what makes these hands challenging. So the high scores for second choice make sense. Next month I will go back to some 40s and 30s no doubt.
-
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump
Obviously intending to show a weak hand with two (or three like here) hearts. Since my HCP are in spades, it is less likely that LHO will compete in spades if I pass. The advantage of bidding something—even 1NT—is that it removes the one-level from the opponents arsenal. Coincidentally, so does the constructive 2 !H response. (Remember the “seemingly normal” 3 !C preempt from last month?) Sometimes, the risk involved with making a bid—despite the system—is outweighed by the effect it has on the auction.
This is my "woop-woop" out there bid this month. Not too crazy, though.
Some additional explanation for my choice of 1NT rather than 1 !S . . .
Yes, I wanted to show the "weak !H raise" as explained above. But I chose 1NT--bypassing a perfectly respectable FIVE-CARD !S suit to do so. Although I did not mention it in my original explanation, my thinking was that, by introducing a new suit, it might imply more values when I subsequently showed preference to hearts. That thinking must have been clear to the director, who awarded a 90 to the 1NT responders.
Most of the panel (well, half) disagreed, choosing the "it's right in front of you" 1 !S.
I'm looking forward to the panel thoughts on this.
-
MAY MSC SUMMARY – Bart Bramley Director
A handful of the panel's comments:
PROBLEM A: Double . A majority. Although both 2 !C (my choice) and 1 !S (WackoJack’s choice) scored highly. Bramley began by pointing out the difficulty in “competing with strong two-suiters,” especially when “we don’t have an action that shows both suits immediately.”
Similarly, JCreech:
• “Double I do not have a way to show both suits, and I have a very strong hand. I will take my chances that partner has a penalty double. Plus I do have defense. If partner jumps in hearts, I still have the boss suit.”
• Bobby Wolff: “Double. Planning to bid clubs and perhaps bid spades. How else can one scientifically show this hand?”
• KenBerg: “Double. This hand could provide hours of discussion.” Then later, “2 !C was my second choice, I think maybe it should have been my first.”
Classic second guessing! Isn’t that what makes the MSC fun?!
PROBLEM B: Double. A majority. Again. Even more convincingly.
Bramley began with: “Another brutal reopening situation.” Ya think?!
Although 3 !D (our long suit) garnered few panel votes, it scored only a middling 60. Personally, I thought it was a close call, and said so. Those who pulled the trigger on 3 !D included, Yleexotee, WackoJack, Joe Grue, and of course Kleinman. You’re in good company, guys!
In addition to the mildly conservative 3 !D, there were a few bold 3NT bidders including Kokish and Passell.
Kokish: “3NT. Life is too short to worry about club stoppers.”
But the runaway panel choice was double:
• Jeff Rubens: “Double. Looks bad until compared with other possibilities.” Yup, pretty much.
• Zia: “Double. Not as confident with this double, but I’m hopeful.”
• Bobby Wolff: “Double. And overbid with 4 !D over 3 !S.”
• Justin Lall: “Double. 3NT would avoid doubling with only a doubleton spade,” planning to bid a delayed 3NT. This plan was echoed by many of the panel who chose double.
• JCreech: “Double. I wish that 4 !C would be a successful ask for 3NT with a stop, but the director would rule against me on that one.” This is an elegant solution by Jim, and one that did not occur to me. But I fear he is right, the director might have something to say about this.
Nice try, Jim! 😊
PROBLEM C: 2 !H . Tied with 1 !H on panel votes, but the preemptive response got the nod from Bramley, scoring 100 to 1 !H receiving a close 90. Our IAC solvers leaned heavily toward the preemptive 2 !H, favoring it 8-3 (with one pass).
The heart bidders were all over the place with their reasoning. Two of the best (and conveniently also concise) were:
• Justin Lall: “One heart. I don’t like two hearts with such weak hearts and good club support. If partner has a strong hand with short hearts, we could easily belong in clubs.”
• Jeff Rubens: “Two hearts. Pretending to hold Queen-Jack-Ten-sixth of hearts and nine-fourth of clubs.Tie-breaker: Long in partner’s suit, short in opponent’s.”
• MarilynLi, still the master of brevity: “One heart. I like my hand.”
• And KenBerg, less brief with: “We surely have a fit, but in hearts, in clubs or in both? Both is fairly likely. And once we find our fit, my hand is pretty good. If we play in clubs, my honors are in trumps and I have a stiff diamond. And a doubleton spade.
Thinking about the fit:
It's unlikely partner has five spades but if so then he has a lot of clubs so we have a super fit there. Let's now go with the realistic assumption he has at most four spades.
If he has seven cards in the minors then he will have at least four clubs (partner would not open 1 on three if he held four ) and he also holds at least two hearts since he holds 13-7=6 cards in the minors.
If he has eight cards in the minors then, at least if he bids as I do, he holds at least five clubs since when 4-4 in the minors I open 1 .
If he holds six or fewer cards in the minors then he holds at least seven cards in the majors and so at least three hearts.
The upshot is that we hold at least an eight card fit in at least one of the two obvious suits, and it seems that starting with 1 is the best way to sort out the details. With my shape, and with honors in partner's club suit, I am not all that worried about getting too high . For example, if over my 1 then Lho bids 4 and partner bids 4 , this might well be making."
Marilyn said it best! 😊
PROBLEM D: 1 !S. First—let’s point out that it’s ONLY A THREE COUNT! 😊
Half the panel voted for 1 !S, but only two IAC bidders found the winner, Hoki and MarilynLi. Well done.
There were four clear possibilities and all four received panel votes. Pass was deemed too timid. The constructive 2 !H was too aggressive. The “preference showing” 1 !S then 2 !H was followed closely by the “weak raise” 1NT then 2 !H route, and were the winning choices.
PROBLEM E: 3 !H. A clear winner, with exactly half the panel choosing it.
Bramley starts things out with: “We have an impressive array of tools for raising diamonds strongly. However, we also need to worry that notrump or spades could be superior, especially at matchpoints.”
Our IAC solvers:
• Masse24: “Not sure where I go with this one. Probably 3 !H. Although 4 !C fits nicely, it blows right past 3NT. I doubt the MSC panel would think that wise when 3NT is still in the offing. With partner probably short in clubs, hopefully this increases the chances that partner has enough in hearts to offer 3NT as a place to play. 3 is both aggressive, and still allows partner an opportunity to say where we are going.
• JCreech chose to go slammy with: “4 Clubs Having limited my hand with my first bid, how can I not show a maximum raise in diamonds. Not only do I have a club control, I have TWO. And I have the ace in partner's first bid suit and five pieced in partner's second bid suit.”
• And following the path provided by the system, Wackojack, with a shrug: “This is a question of interpreting BWS. I suppose 3 !H must be the bid.”
Bramley continues with: “The main choice is between the completely artificial three hearts, which saves space, and the control-showing four clubs, which takes up space to show a specific feature.” BINGO!
I like the following . . .
• David Berkowitz: “Three hearts. Leaving room for three spades, which I will happily raise. Will I pass four diamonds? That may depend on how I feel that day.”
And . . .
• Don Stack: “Three hearts. Don’t want to bypass three notrump. This gives partner a chance to rebid a strong five-card spade suit, which I will be glad to raise.”
There was one 3NT by the solvers. I predicted there would be two, Kit and Kokish. But only Woolsey chose the gambler’s 3NT — this time!
PROBLEM F: 3NT. Nothing resembling a majority, the panel was split three ways on this one.
Bramley calls this a tactical problem. I think we all agreed when making our own picks on this one. Do I go with the pure preempt, taking away the four-level from the opps? Do I make a game-force bid, keeping slam in the picture? Or maybe the middling 3NT, in an attempt to accomplish both?
Helping to define what this jump to 3NT looks like:
• Joe Grue: “Three notrump. Not the typical hand, which would be Ace-fifth and King fifth, but it will need to do.”
It’s good to see at least a partial “picture” of what this looks like since there does not seem to be a lot of information out there on this treatment.
• KenBerg: “Three notrump. I guess so.”
Well put, Ken. Well put.
• Masse24: “Three notrump. 3NT is a fair description.”
• JCreech: “I have so many temptations, but the 3NT offering by the BW staff makes the most sense to me.”
Most of our solvers chose the system-noted choice of 3NT, but the third place choice—also scoring well, was a Jacoby 2NT. Mentioning it . . .
• BluBayou: “3 NT. Spade barrage WITH some teeth. By trigger-pulling time, I may be switching back to Jacoby 2NT?”
Although the 4 !S choice had an equal number of panel votes, Bramley decided to give it a 90. This is understandable since a Jacoby 2NT was close behind in third place. So the director (correctly in my opinion) awarded the “aggressive” action a higher score than the preemptive.
PROBLEM G: Double! Only three vote-getters for this problem. But it was close, with all three garnering about a third of the panel votes.
• Don Stack: “Double. This hand is promising enough to compete, so let’s show some strength.”
Our IAC participants were mainly passers and doublers. There were ZERO 3 !C bidders. But of the MSC panel . . .
• Zia: “Three clubs. I have never seen a more simple answer nor a more universal answer. I can’t believe there will be a dissent or an alternative. The club ten is enormous. In fact, I would bet on it.
• KenBerg: “Double. Partner has one heart (at most). If he has six spades he at least might rebid them.. Lacking six spades, he will have a four card minor. This might be ok.”
• And Wackojack with an opposing view: “Pass. Certainly double looks wrong here. I give partner the chance to make a take-out double with a suitable hand should it be passed round to partner.”
• Masse24: “Pass. Going with pass. Reluctantly. Double has merit.”
• And MarilynLi: “Pass. We probably have a minor fit, but I don't like risking going down in MP.”
PROBLEM H: Any !C. Like most lead problems this one had many answers. Several could work.
Bramley summarizes nicely stating, “When we picked up this hand, the last thing we expected was to be on lead, certainly not against a lowly three clubs. But here we are. We face the classic conundrum of whether to try for ruffs or to try to stop ruffs, a choice that arises surprisingly often.”
• BluBayou: “A trump. The four, if it matters. (If the forcing defense is the way to go, I hope I have enough in-cards to get back on that track.)”
I, too, contemplated the !C4 (and also the 5) to later show suit preference. Bramley agreed stating, “In the matter of which trump to lead, I found little to choose so I scored them equally. Those who commented advocated count or suit preference. All of that is largely irrelevant, as partner is unlikely to have any problem knowing what to do.”
That’s all folks. Still time to opine----or complain about the MSC panel’s opinions. We welcome the conversation!
-
I see that I best get into the strategy of the contest. It's clear to me that conservative bids are not valued as much as aggressive action. Which suits me just fine! I believe I took a conservative bid on about 4 problems and all turned out less than 100! Next time...
-
Todd!
A big tumbs up from this member for mailing us faithful the screen-shots of your BW pages of the MSC postmortem-- the best christmas present I have had in 10 years., ;) Thanks also are due to Kokish and Feldman for at least MENTIONING that the balancing cue-bid on Problem A is THEIR correct answer. I wish they had gone rogue and voted their beliefs, then pat and I would have gotten 50 instead of stinking ten! So many of us and them have spit in the face of what they see or assume BWS2017 "mandates" lately that I sure hoped for some support there.
On that note-- has anybody remembered that the whole direct-sealt complex of -"Unusual Notrump + Michaels cue" is null and void in 4th chair? since reopening 2NT is NOT unt, but natural , around 20 pts! So Kokish and my team are right, and the other 26 of em are wrong hehehe