IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on July 15, 2020, 11:55:20 AM
-
SEPTEMBER 2020 MSC
Deadline: AUGUST 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)
Submit your SEPTEMBER MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB (https://www.bridgeworld.com/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)
* * *
-
copied into this month's discussion
---Rough draft for "september" quizz
problem A:>> If I had to place the ontract on this very bid, it would be "4 Spades", but i don't have to. We all can picture the deals where partner has beaucoup running winners, if we will just fess up to the heart stopper, but when he does not, well, "3NT ends all auctions" they say, and that would be too bad especially if they cannot beat 4 spades. SO my bid is THREE SPADES which will likely give pard a fat headache. Who knows-- HE may come up with the 3NT bid! another fun thing we might hear is 4 Diamonds, then I have good hope for 5 Clubs making. But frequently, he will be end-played into raising spades with 0-1 trump and that should be fine [fingers crossed]
problem B:>> Do you protect with a "perfecto" 7-count? I don't , at least not without the boss suit PASS
problem C:>> This quizz should be about the NEXT round of bidding, after pard bids <whatever, even 3 Spades> to our negative double. 3NT NOW, nor 4 Clubs never crossed my mind. DOUBLE
problem D :>> I can't bear to watch them scramble 6 to 8 tricks in spades with this hand, and assuming they cannot manage eight, still doubling now does not mean this hand-- it further promises the heart support i do not have. So, i am assuming partner's yarborough has 4 diamonds , plus-or-minus. THREE DIAMONDS ( and whack three spades for sure)
problem E:>> We are about a queen heavy for a non-jump reply, so does that mean we must bid 4 hearts? I am chicken and bid only 3 HEARTS. Jumping in DIAMONDS may win the day but good luck with that . IF somebody bids something and i can say 4 diamonds, I hope it means pard has 4 pieces when he goes back to hearts!
problem F:>> 2nd easy one: UNT for me, and jump to FIVE harts ( SIX, if five H is not a jump ) --even if pard preferences clubs-- 2 NOTRUMP
problem G:>> No fake reverses this month ! poster-child for plain old jump-rebid. THREE DIAMONDS
problem H:>> haven't a clue in hell; mark me down for DIAMOND ACE, for now
-
Submitted on behalf of Marty (Aloha9):
PROBLEM A 4 !C
PROBLEM B 2NT
PROBLEM C X
PROBLEM D 4NT
PROBLEM E 4 !H
PROBLEM F X
PROBLEM G 2 !H
PROBLEM H !C 2
-
No problem Jock. Todd had not created the September location until after you prompted him to catch up with you.
I just thought since you put so much effort into giving us your preliminary thoughts, they deserved to be a part of the correct poll.
Glad to make the assist.
-
My initial thoughts:
Problem A: 3H For now, I will show my stopper, and try to get to 3NT. By the time I make my final decision, it may be back at my current second choice 3S. I expect 3S to be a decent score because it is such a powerful suit, but 3H or 3NT to be the 100.
Problem B: Pass Not anxious to double or overcall. 2NT is my second choice, but the risk of balancing them into a game or us into a penalty is greater than finding a good strain
Problem C: Dbl This one I have to check whether negative doubles are played this high. I intend to get to game or slam opposite, but may run out of space to explore. I will have to rethink if this is a penalty double.
Problem D: Pass This call is unsastisfactory, but 2NT opposite no entries is worse, as are double without hearts and 3D without assuarances that partner has length. Perhaps I will get lucky and have partner balance with length in one or the other red suit and shortness in spades. I now sort of wish I had lied by bidding a very heavy 1NT; at least I would not feel so helpless now.
Problem E: 4C To show strength and at least two places to play. Patner could have a 3-card major, so I want to cater to that instead of jumping to game in my Jxxx.
Problem F: 2NT I want to be in slam opposite the least encouragement. I will start by showing both suits, then listen to what happens next.
Problem G: 3D Never been a fan of manufactured reverses, and outside of diamonds, the hand does not revalue upwards. If the diamonds were AKQTxx, I probably would have rebid 3NT. They are not, so I will make the normal value bid.
Problem H: SJ I will not lay down the DA - too easy for it to set up something in dummy while having the ace be ruffed away. I also will not lead my trump, automatically pickling anything partner might have. A club is a possibility, but which one - the 10 to retain the lead if possible, the 6 2nd from nothing, or low to imply something in the suit?
-
I never do this, usually preferring the scientific approach.
Partner needs very little for us to have grand. But I am thinking this little jump may get in the way of the opps auction just a bit.
Looking at my hand, this will definitely be an action auction. Why not get in the first lick?
PROBLEM F: 6 !H
I am also contemplating 5NT. If I could be sure partner would field it properly, I would be more tempted. Still, a possibility.
-
I just have a complaint! Why am I working on September MSC and I'm not really finished with the month of July yet! Hello MSC, time to catch up with the digital age of publishing.
-
Personally, I like to have a bit of closure on the previous months problems before opening up the new set, but Todd is getting slower in providing a summary of the comments and Pat is getting faster with her complaints about no activity on the new month's problems. I keep looking around for Major Major Major, to ask if he got his promotion to Major yet.
-
The quizz closes on August 10th. Then they give the moderator a couple weeks to adjudicate and compose his comments, and we are close to September, then it's off to the nuts and bolts guys to fit this mastepiece into an actual magazine --- that's why we see "September" in mid-July :)
-
Well Jim, looks like my complaint last month did some good. Much more activity earlier this month.
-
A - 4♠ fwiw, I'll put it out there since no one has mentioned it yet. I'm not interested in a minor-suit slam nor 3NT where my heart stopper will be knocked out at trick 1. So I shall bid what I think I can make. After responder's reverse this is weaker than 3♠.
B - torn between pass and 2NT, the former being right if opps have the balance of power, the latter if pard has got a minor as well as the implied spade stack.
C - dble with 4♣ a good second choice. Double has the advantage of flexibility and keeping 3NT in the picture if pard can bid it.
D - dble and pass if pard tries 3♥. My first thought was to bid 2NT but despite the points I really only have five tricks and six if I'm lucky.
E - too many possibilities, but maybe 4♥ is the simplest (considered 4♣ and 4♦).
F - dble, but am toying with Todd's idea of 6♥, may change my choice because Todd always scores so highly.
G - 3♦
H - ♦A
-
On Problem A, my thinking was that 3H can be a pattern bid, but more importantly a potentially useful fragment in hearts. Partner clearly has a minor two suiter, and 3H shows opener's reluctance to favor either. On the other hand, even a singleton HK could bolster opener's QJx into a double stop. At the same time, I believe 3H now guarantees the sixth spade, which 2S did not. In hands like this, I like to show what I have until one of us can determine the strain. I am still uncertain, so I show a bit more of my hand.
On Problem F, my initial thought was to jump to 6H as suggested by Todd and now echoed (at least in consideration) by Hoki. If the HJ were the Q, I would be more inclined to do exactly that. At the table, I particularly like the bid because it leaves the clubs undisclosed so that on a run of the hearts, it becomes easy to pitch a club from Jxxx or Txxx in order to save something in spades. I once held a 5-8-0-0, with the 8 bagger headed by AKQJT and the spades by AKQ; I bid 7H on the same general theory. But there is a difference between having an absolutely solid holding and a broken holding where you need enough luck for the Q to be in partner's hand, falling doubleton, or an entry to partner and find the Q can be finessed. 6H may be the panel view, but I think it may be more of a table action than a panel action.
-
Almost half of these deals are not worthy of rethinking--very sad. --- As usual, problem A is not one of those:). Two weeks ago, I did not consider seriously 3rd bid of 3 hearts---thinking it is "patterning out" a 6-4 shape, but Jim has convinced me that ship has left port, so it shows a feature, not necessarily. a suit. BUT WAIT! If pard bids 3NT ON MY heart stopper, we are right back where Hoki (and myself) don't want to be! [ see Hoki's short post]. So... I will stay with my 3rd bid of spades, and only if pard can find a 3NT call will we sit there. Please DO realize that bidding spades twice DOES NOT show this [usually] self-sufficient trump suit (and don't tell, but I will bid it FOURTH time if pard rebids 4 clubs) :)
About PROBLEM B: I ran Sonya's deal-generating program thru 128 deals specifying our exact hand South, and "under 6 points [any]" East. 40 of these could have produced the auction given, and it turns out passing out was a big looser, or potential looser on 30 of those.. Most of the time we owned the deal, and the main problem to getting an actual plus was our partner's taking us seriously and bidding higher than the par three or four-level! but even so we improved on the -140 etc that passing would produce. The main loosing deals had the opener sitting on a 'playing trick strong two" happily correcting himself to 4 spades and often making it (4 instances). So, after 50 years of being a passer, I am a convert -- 2NT will be my vote, and Devil take the hindmost.
-
I am just getting started, a bit late as usual.
For A, I think 3H is the natural choice. What does it mean? It can hardly be an attempt to play in hearts, partner has had enough time to show hearts if he had them. I think it shows about what I have. If I had AQx in hearts I could just bid 3NT. If I had xxx in hearts, I would bid 3S trusting partner to bid 3NT if that seems right. So I think 3H says something like: Maybe this belongs in spades, maybe in NT, I have some help in handling hearts but I am not so enthusiastic about it that I want to bid 3NT all on my own. If partner has no help at all in hearts he can now clarify what he does have. I expect that we belong in either 3NT or in 4S, but he might have the rare hand for which this is not so. So 3H leaves us with options.
On to B: If 2NT meant please bid a minor and then, if the auction continues, please do not bid again, then I would bid 2NT. But while no doubt the 2NT asks for a minor I am not at all confident partner would not carry on in some way if they now find their likely heart fit. Certainly I could have a better hand than I do and still bid 2NT. I think I will just get out with a pass. I am open to re-thinking this.
-
I never do this, usually preferring the scientific approach.
Partner needs very little for us to have grand. But I am thinking this little jump may get in the way of the opps auction just a bit.
Looking at my hand, this will definitely be an action auction. Why not get in the first lick?
PROBLEM F: 6 !H
Not going this route.
-
For problem D: i ran another large simulation in the deal generator giving my partner one or two jacks and only 0-1spade ( and the opps the remaining 16-18 pts and actual 8-9 card fit. big suprize!!-- pard ALWAYS came through with 3-5(6) diamondss for me, -- or 6+ hearts and we hardly ever took a minus, Opps generally were good for 6-7 tricks in spades and occasionally even mad two, so passing them out was a bad move if you agree yarborough partner will not be leaving in our second double. It was truly a landslide win for bidding, and going plus if we bid 2NT was somewhat rare and lost to 3D+1 or 2 anyway, when it did stagger in.
3 DIAMONDS, and protest to Edgar Kaplan's ghost, if it doesn't get the 100.
The lead problem: spade jack, diamond ace, and the correct low club are still a 50-50-50% proposition for me, but i am switchin to:
Jack of SPADES
Bye for this month good luck to all
-
For problem D: i ran another large simulation in the deal generator giving my partner one or two jacks and only 0-1spade ( and the opps the remaining 16-18 pts and actual 8-9 card fit. big suprize!!-- pard ALWAYS came through with 3-5(6) diamondss for me, -- or 6+ hearts and we hardly ever took a minus, Opps generally were good for 6-7 tricks in spades and occasionally even mad two, so passing them out was a bad move if you agree yarborough partner will not be leaving in our second double. It was truly a landslide win for bidding, and going plus if we bid 2NT was somewhat rare and lost to 3D+1 or 2 anyway, when it did stagger in.
3 DIAMONDS, and protest to Edgar Kaplan's ghost, if it doesn't get the 100.
I like this, Jock. I like it a lot.
But I'm not sure I have the guts to try it.
I can picture west with some sort of !S KQT9 - !H xxx - !D xxxxxx - !C - and, sitting across from partner's 1 !C open, just wants to get out of clubs. If I could double and still keep clubs in the picture, I might consider it. But won't partner key in on the red suits? Maybe not due to my failure to bid an immediate Unusual 2NT.
If west has the hand I described above, it's possible for partner to have this yarb: !S x - !H xxxxx - !D xx - !C xxxxx. Yes, I understand it's unlikely.
Tough problem. Partner has zero and with the right distribution we could have game or even slam.
One thing I know I'm not doing is bidding 2NT. Partner has a stiff or void in spades. If I am going to declare, partner's hand is only worth something in a suit contract. Of the "I want to declare" choices that remain, I lean more towards double. Partner will put us in his best red suit, which is another worry. If partner is 4-4 in the reds, at Matchpoints doesn't he put me in hearts?
The panel opinions will be fun to read on this one!!! ;)
-
hi Todd :) A small part of my calling BIDDING (3D) as a landslide win includes the idea that our broke pard with 6+ hearts and less than 3 diamonds will correct my 3D to hearts on his own, but truly he seems to come up with 4 diamonds +/- one an amazing percentage of the time !
SOLUTIONS FOR:Jock McQuade Gresham OR U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump --- my simulation overruled my long-held "rules" [ :(
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds --- "GIB" and the natural me agree big-time on this bid
ROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack 3-way pick-em, to the end :(
3 Spades 2NT DOUBLE 3 Diamonds 2 Hearts (!!) 2NT 3 Diamonds Spade J[/color]
Hey, folks! this paste just above is Jim's final pick chiselled into the club's spreadsheet. Correcting the insufficient "2H" in the 5th spot to a sufficient "3" and I'll be damned if we didn't both end up exactly matching each other.
BEST OF LUCK ON AUGUST 11, JIM! :)
-
A. 3H. There are two ways to 3N: a direct bid which (as Ken says) would show strong stops, AQx, AK; and an indirect 3H which (as Jim says) shows the half-stop I hold. Partner has at most 4 cards in the majors. With Kxx/Axx in H he can bid 3N, and we’ll be happy. With 2-c spades (xx xx), he can bid 3S (surely worth venturing as I might have a 6-card suit) and we’ll be happy in 4S. If he denies both with a 4m bid, we’re playing in 4S, since I already have 3 losers (2H and a S) rather than in 5m. If partner has a GF hand with no HCP in the majors, and I hold KD, he must have AD, and AK of C. Sure, 4S might be risky opposite a partner void in S, but it can cope with a 4-2 trump break. Whereas if partner has (- xxx 46) 5C is only 50/50, needing a running S finesse to work. 3H looks like a bid that leaves a sensible 3N contract open as well as having a back-up 4S.
B. 2N. N and partner have about 30 HCP between them. Partner probably has 3 or 4 spades but didn’t overcall 1N, so that limits him to a maximum of 14 HCP? So, at best a 20/20-ish hand. If 1N could have been used by a passed hand as an Unusual NT, then there’s no hesitation, but here we’re forced into 3m contract. Still, -100 is better than 1S making. How likely is it that NS have 4S? With 20/21 HCP N might struggle.
C. X/4C. Showing the 4c S suit fast looks tempting. What do we do after partner’s 4D continuation - will he believe 5C shows a 6-card suit? Bidding 4C then, over 4D, bidding 4S, might portray my hand more accurately. Even then would partner think I had 6 clubs? And let’s not forget that 4C takes away the possibility of 3N, which a negative x preserves.
D. pass. Jock’s analysis is eye-opening. Even with only 3 diamonds, a yarborough partner could give me two S ruffs, for 3 spade tricks, 1 heart (eventually, the way back to my hand after the first S ruff) and 4D tricks. And if he has 4 or 5 diamonds, I’m making 9 tricks easily, with a 10th coming. We’re beating 2S, so passing yields a positive score. 3D might be -50 or it could be +110/130. I wouldn’t have thought of 3D were it not for Jock’s work, so ethically I should pass, but something to remember for another day and I’ll be pulling for 3D to gain the maximum 100.
E. 3D. 4H looks a pragmatic bid. 3H is a little too weak and 4C too strong (and has the disadvantage of probably receiving a 4S answer). 3D leaves options open (including 3N if p has a suitable club holding ATxx or QJT, say), and if p bids 3S that, I can bid 4H.
F. 2N. I want to show both suits quickly, because there’s a decent chance W bids 3D and partner passes. If that happens I can then bid 5N (pick a slam). If W passes and partner chooses H, I’m going to bid 6D. If partner chooses C, I’ll go into the tank over whether to bid 5H or 5N. But showing both suits must be the priority.
G. 3D.
H. JS. This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G. There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split? W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP. He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx. Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W. If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.
-
G. 3D.
H. JS. This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G. There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split? W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP. He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx. Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W. If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.
the day after ( maybe two) an IAC torney put me in this pickle.... same diamond suit (had the jack as well), same pre-emptor as declarer. I cashe my D ace , and it lived...BUTdummy's D king was a vital sluff for the make that we could have nullified by (either?) black suit lead. soI changed my vote right then to one of the other suits though still thinking that all 3 choices are about equal.
pity analysis of of problem G, Dick. can there be a double 100% vote for an MSC answer-- panelists and "subscribers" ?
-
quote of my hero DickHY above: ...
G. 3D
H. JS. This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G. There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split? W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP. He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx. Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W. If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.
The day after publishing( maybe two) an IAC torney put me in this pick!le.... same diamond suit (had the jack as well), same pre-emptor as declarer. I cashed my D ace , and it lived...BUT dummy's D king was a vital sluff for the make that we could have nullified by either black suit lead. So I changed my vote right then to one of the other suits though still thinking that all 3 choices are about equal.
pithy analysis of of problem G, Dick. can there be a double 100% vote for an MSC answer-- panelists and "subscribers" ?
-
My choices done without studying others choices. So may not be final
A. 3♥
I need more info from partner and 3♥ asks for it.
B. 2NT
Partner has been silent over 1♠, therefore rule out 15+ any distribution and also 12+ with 4 hearts. However, if we give partner say 12HCP then that would give opener 17+. The odds favour partner not to have 4 hearts and perhaps a 4333 distribution with a range of between 11 and 14 HCP. So I am happy to bid 2NT.
C. Double
More chance of success than 3NT.
D. Pass
If we believe that the opps are not psyching then we can place partner with 0-2HCP. If partner has 4+ diamonds we will get a part score there or even a lucky game. However, if we double for take out and partner bids 3♥ I think we are doomed. So pass and likely defeat 2♠ getting 1♠ + 1♥ +3♦ + 1♣ trick. Modest but realistic ambition.
E. 3♦
My hearts are too weak to bid 4♥ and I prefer 3♦ to 3♥. Partner with 18+ can still bid 3NT.
F. 6♥
Double just gets you into trouble.
2NT tells partner what you have but you need to know what partner has. If partner makes the expected response of 3♣? Would 5♥ now encourage partner to bid 6♥ with nothing except ♥Qx? That is asking a lot. Alternative is to bid 6♥ immediately and hope partner can give me the Q♥ or at lest 3 card ♣ support. I will go for 6♥.
G.
I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.
H. J♠
J♠ looks reasonable
-
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
Your Solutions for the September 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace
-
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club.
-
Finally pulled the trigger. God forgive me, but I have allowed Jock to persuade me into bidding 3 !D on Problem D. I cannot imagine partner passing with 6 hearts after my double, so I think the chances that partner will have 4+ diamonds increases. I was dissatisfied with passing, so I was looking for an excuse to bid anyway. The rest did not change.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
FREDERICKSBURG VA
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
-
A couple of "experimental" bids. Not totally nuts, but possibly will receive a 20. One of them--my reverse into a three card major, I've never done at the table. But this is the MSC.
PROBLEM A: 3 !S.
I think the system note to be a bit of a red herring. Although the 2 !S rebid does not promise six, in this auction, it frequently does show six. This is because of the availability to opener of both red suits—and also 2NT—after partner’s 2 !C response. No 2!D or 2!H rebid = No four-card red suit. Additionally, in checking the BWS system, it does not state that a 2NT rebid by opener must have stoppers in the unbid suits (ala Lawrence 2/1 method). But why else would the system specify that a rebid does not promise six? Based on the preceding, if I did rebid spades it would not be to “show six.” Instead, it would be to better communicate my suit quality—which I want to emphasize. Once I convey my spade strength, partner can more readily hop on the spade train with a stiff Ace.
Since I did not rebid 2 !D, partner’s 3 !D is unlikely to be a grope for possible !D strain. Instead, partner is looking for a fit for either clubs or, more likely . . . notrump. Significantly, partner failed to rebid 2NT. With some sort of 1=3=4=5, with both red suits stopped, he will usually do so. So I am not much enamored with the 3 !H bid since it partially be a grope for something partner has denied. But who knows, maybe partner has !H Kx?
I think 3 !H (seemingly a two-way shot) focuses partner’s attention more on 3NT, whereas 3 !S gives partner permission to support with the very specific holding of !S A.
I flipped on this at the last minute.
A very difficult choice between 3 !H and 3 !S.
PROBLEM B: Pass.
I went back and forth on this on several times. My nature is to be conservative, so pass was my first choice. Then I changed my mind to 2NT. Today, I’m back to pass.
It’s really a coin flip for me. One of the final factors that pushed me toward the pass is that half my HCP are in a short suit. A suit they probably own. A suit where, if they do possess the ace, it is almost certainly on my left.
A “cute” alternative would be 2 !D. If I happen to hit partner, we’re fine. If not, and he tries 2 !H, then I am forced to the 3-level (where I did not want to be) with 3 !C.
But I just can’t force myself to bid. Today.
PROBLEM C: 4 !C.
The negative double, showing four spades is staring us in the face. I believe it will be the majority solver choice. But we will not lose the spade fit if one exists. Bidding clubs first should better convey my hand shape.
PROBLEM D: Pass.
Play or defend? The opps have a fit, so we do too. Partner will not bid unless I double. Not doing that.
Although Jock’s proposed 3 !D intrigues me, it would not be my choice. If I bid, it would be to risk the double.
But I’ll take what I consider to be the sure thing—they’re going down!
I’m leading trump.
PROBLEM E: 4 !C.
Partner should have both majors. Probably has at least four hearts. But it’s not guaranteed. Partner could be 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2, or even 5=4=4=0. So I hesitate to bid 4 !H on this collection of garbage; the jump implies a fifth heart (or at least I would like it to). 3 !H is too timid as it does not show my values. 4 !D shows my values, and allows partner to bid a major---so this is certainly a possible bid (my second choice).
But I choose 4 !C. Hopefully partner can bid hearts now. Yes, it does risk partner choosing his “better” major, or longer major if 5=4, so I hope he is aware of my possible hand shape. If instead he bids 4 !S, I go to 5 !D.
PROBLEM F: 1 !H.
On a fact-finding mission. My stiff spade and diamond void make it almost impossible that this will end the auction. My goal is to find out what partner has. This has the best chance of doing so.
My first thought was to overcall 2NT, intending a subsequent jump in diamonds if possible. I’m pretty sure 2NT will be the runaway solver choice. Plenty of panel votes, too. It’s certainly safe.
After my initial gut feeling on what to overcall, I changed my thinking to a “cross-my-fingers-hope-this-makes-but-also-preemptive” 6 !H. It gives up on grand, but slams the door shut on any low-level contract exploration by the opps.
I think most of the panel will lean toward finding out as much as possible from partner. Keeping the bidding low, at least initially, may be the best way to accomplish this.
But this is such a bizarre hand . . . anything could be right.
PROBLEM G: 2 !H.
I think this is too strong for 3 !D, but some panelists will choose it anyway (Kleinman? Becker?), being right on shape, but “an underbid,” which they will mention. 2NT is also possible, and I strongly considered it. But the black suit aces, one naked, the other unsupported, are not good notrump features.
But it’s a bidder’s game.
This leaves two choices. A reverse to 2 !H, not attractive with only a three-card major, though it has the advantage of leaving the most room for partner to continue the description of his hand. Alternatively, a GF value bid of 3 !C, a jump-shift. Is it strong enough? I’ll choose the completely non-standard reverse. I’ve done this several times with a three card minor: 1 !C – 1M – 2 !D to force, but never with a three-card major.
This is waaaaaaay out there and will either score a 20 or hit big. Purists will hate this. (I can hear Hoki shaking his head disapprovingly from here.)
I’ll add that I have never done this (reverse into a 3-card major) at the table.
PROBLEM H: !D Ace.
Hoping a peek at dummy will guide my trick two choice.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 1 Heart
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace
-
Thanks for the last second reminder, Todd. and in a panic, I choose the following bids (and really wouldn't this be just like the table in BBO when I rush back from a snack break):
A: 3nt - If I ask if he has a heart stopper with 3H, and partner doesn't have one, he will bid the dreaded 4 of a minor,which would be death. And when the hand comes down my p will throw their cards at me since I'm the one with the heart stopper.
B: 2nt - X could be right since p has likely spades and we are going to be in a crummy contract, but its too late. I submitted already
C: X - What else? show my spade holding
D: 2nt - hoping to right side this, if p has the min, she can pass and we will get the dreaded spade lead. NO TRUMP is the theme of the contest this week!
E: 4H - I had a hard time with this one. I first wanted 3h, but I can't imagine bidding that with 10 pts when I would bid it with zero. 3d, same issue. I'll take my chances
F: 2nt - I'll take the BWS hint given - but honestly, where else am I going to land but 6H, so....
G: 2nt - because I want to be consistent with my other bids! I have made a 2H bid on this hand in real life, and it hasn't led to very good results, as we tend not to find the right strain. I have tried 2H in this contest, and it also has scored poorly. AND yet, it calls to me. but I'm going to resist, showing my well known discipline at the table and try 2nt.
H: Spades are out, I don't do doubleton leads with no trump control, although this is not likely to be the opps side suit, so maybe there is less danger here
3h is out, likely to finesse p if she has any heart honors. I would hit my own hand with a ruler if I led from AQ, so....a club lead it is. I think BWS is 2nd best. so 6C
H:6C
-
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Castrum Sex
Romania
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
-
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades. Telling partner I don't have any minor fit and emphasizing my Spade suit seem to fit my hand. I would take 3H bid as asking for H stopper which partner is unlikely to have. I almost denied having 4 card Diamonds, partner still bid 3D, so probably partner doesn't have heart stopper to bid NT.
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump. Partner rates to have an opening hand with 5 card Spades. If so, bidding probably make a better score than passing 1S. Difficult decision. I really tempted to bid a minor.
PROBLEM C: Double. Double is flexible. I can accept any of my partner's bid 3S, 3NT or 4C. If partner bids 4D, I bid 5C.
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds. Bidding NT has no chance. Opp's 2S contract looks down 1 at best. Our 3D contract has good chance of making.
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts. I can see 4H.
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump.
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
-
sept 2020
A. 3N
B. 2N
C. x
D. x
E. 4H
F. 6H
G. 3D
H. 3H
-
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada
Your Solutions for the September 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace
Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club.
-
a) 3S
b) 2N if it is unusual
c) X
d) chicken pass
e) 4H
f) 2N by bws, but never heard of this treatment
g) 3D
h) sJ
phew, hopefully still on time
-
780 ;D
Jim Creech --- so close!
Perfection on the Bridge World MSC is almost impossible. This is pretty darn close.
We had six IAC Solvers who made the MSC Honor Roll this month.
1. JCreech
2. Thornbury
3. MarilynLi
3. BluBayou
3. CCR3
6. BabsG
Well done!
-
Congrats Jim. I was just wondering what the thinking was for 4C on E and here you are, bidding 4C. But maybe I get it. If partner bids 4S over 4C then you give up on hearts and bid 5D, trusting/hoping partner understands this means you want to play 5D? This never occurred to me.
Back in the mundane world:
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts 90
PROBLEM B: Pass 100
PROBLEM C: Double 100
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds 100
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts 60
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump 100
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts 80
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace 60
690
I see we also have a some 730s , three I think. I have not carefully checked who all is on the HR. Good going.
-
Thanks Todd and Ken,
Apparently I would have still made the honor roll if I had stuck with all my original answers, but thanks to BluBayou (Problem D) for boosting me from 740 to 780. I did not like my original answer, and so it was nice to have an alternative I liked better.
My two bad (if 90 can be regarded as such) included one that I considered and had in my pocket as a second choice. 3 !S on Problem A, but the other I would never have considered - 2NT on Problem G - I was more willing to manufacture a reverse into hearts than to trot out 2NT.
It was also fun to see someone I know and have played against frequently sitting just ahead of me on top of the Honor Roll.
I do feel bad about one thing. It looks like there was another IAC player who made the Honor Roll, but did not send a submission into the forum, Todd or myself. Thornbury would have been second among IAC players if he had submitted to our Monster Point contest. Bad luck, but a personal congratulations John!! John intended to submit and thought the process worked differently than it does. We have added his score to the list receiving Monster Points. The process is that you submit your answers to the forum, Masse24 (Todd) or myself. If you submit to Todd or me, we will assume you are submitting anonymously unless you tell us differently. We encourage you to also submit to the Bridge World; if you have problems submitting to the forum or forget, it can be a useful record to allow us to include you among the IAC participants. It is that record that allowed us to include John's scores.
I am anxiously awaiting the panel discussion on these.
-
September Results
| NAME | BW-SCORE | RANK | MPs |
| JCreech | 780 | 1 | 30 |
| Thornbury | 740 | 2 | 25 |
| MarilynLi | 730 | 3 | 20 |
| BluBayou | 730 | 3 | 20 |
| CCR3 | 730 | 3 | 20 |
| . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . |
|
Also participating: BabsG (also made MSC Honor Roll), Aloha9, Curls77, DickHy, DrAculea, Hoki, Kenberg, Masse24, MsPhola, VeeRee, Wackojack, YleeXotee
-
So, it was MARILYN, not Jim,( who made 2 last-hour improvements) that exactly matched my picks. My hat is off, sir although i am pouting over that 4C cuebid that practically guarantees we end in 5 diamonds :). I would love to see Marilyn in the club's mentoring events , as well as DickH , Babs, and our MSC GHOST POstmOrtem, sharing their creative thoughts in real-time. I feel a bit je ne sais quoi supplying three fourths of the heckling from the gallery ,and those solvers' chats would likely be entertaining .
Sanya! If you had run problem D through the generator program you sent to me, your 'chicken' moment would surely have gone pouff, and we would have had FOUR tied for the silver bronze! :P
Correction made by Jcreech after allowing Thornbury's submission. Pardon is begged from Jock for editing his post. - Jim
-
SOLVER: Jack Goody
Guildford
England
Your Solutions for the September 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
-
our Solutions for the September 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
-
Nice Jim! I hadn't noticed the scores were up. I believe my bids were all the 1st or 2nd choice of the participants, and yet I was relegated to the bottom of the heap with a 680!
-
SEPTEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric Kokish Director
A handful of the panel's comments:
Problem A: 3 !S
It is interesting that the panelists slightly favored 3 !H over 3 !S (12 to 11, IAC had a similar split, 7 to 6), but the top score went to 3 !S. That was because 3 !H is a waffle between spades and NT, and there were panelists who did not, in favor of spades.
Votes were evenly split between 3 spades and 3 hearts, with the panelists opinions ping-ponging back and forth between the two.
• Jeff Meckstroth: "3 !S. With no aces, it seems spades will be a better strain than notrump if partner has nothing in hearts."
• Danny Kleinman: “No reason not to bid an independent suit a third time.”
• Blubayou sums it up nicely, “If I had to place the contract on this very bid, it would be "4 Spades", but i don't have to. We all can picture the deals where partner has beaucoup running winners, if we will just fess up to the heart stopper, but when he does not, well, "3NT ends all auctions" they say, and that would be too bad especially if they cannot beat 4 spades. SO my bid is THREE SPADES which will likely give pard a fat headache. Who knows-- HE may come up with the 3NT bid! another fun thing we might hear is 4 Diamonds, then I have good hope for 5 Clubs making. But frequently, he will be end-played into raising spades with 0-1 trump and that should be fine [fingers crossed].”
• Masse24 has a slightly different take: “I think the system note to be a bit of a red herring. Although the 2 !S rebid does not promise six, in this auction, it frequently does show six. This is because of the availability to opener of both red suits—and also 2NT—after partner’s 2 !C response. No 2!D or 2!H rebid = No four-card red suit. Additionally, in checking the BWS system, it does not state that a 2NT rebid by opener must have stoppers in the unbid suits (ala Lawrence 2/1 method). But why else would the system specify that a rebid does not promise six? Based on the preceding, if I did rebid spades it would not be to “show six.” Instead, it would be to better communicate my suit quality—which I want to emphasize.
• ”Speaking in favor of 3 !H, WackoJack summarizes it as being “I need more info from partner and 3♥ asks for it.”
• And Joey Silver, in a word: “3 !H. Groping.”
• Jcreech expands on this saying “my thinking was that 3H can be a pattern bid, but more importantly a potentially useful fragment in hearts. Partner clearly has a minor two suiter, and 3H shows opener's reluctance to favor either. On the other hand, even a singleton HK could bolster opener's QJx into a double stop. At the same time, I believe 3H now guarantees the sixth spade, which 2S did not. In hands like this, I like to show what I have until one of us can determine the strain. I am still uncertain, so I show a bit more of my hand.
• While YleeXotee considers 3 !H as an asking rather than telling bid – “If I ask if he has a heart stopper with 3H, and partner doesn't have one, he will bid the dreaded 4 of a minor,which would be death. And when the hand comes down my p will throw their cards at me since I'm the one with the heart stopper.”
• Hoki makes the argument for 4 !S well “I'm not interested in a minor-suit slam nor 3NT where my heart stopper will be knocked out at trick 1. So I shall bid what I think I can make. After responder's reverse this is weaker than 3♠.”
• And Bart Bramley: "Four spades. Shows semisolid suit and a minimum. With more, I would have bid three spades last time. With weaker spades, I. would bid something else (usually three spades) this time."
Problem B: Pass
The top score on this hand was Pass, which was selected by 6 of the IAC solvers. Several wrote of the dilemma of choosing between Pass and 2NT (the 2nd place choice). For example,
• Hoki wrote “torn between pass and 2NT, the former being right if opps have the balance of power, the latter if pard has got a minor as well as the implied spade stack.”
• Masse24 also expressed uncertainty – “I went back and forth on this on several times. My nature is to be conservative, so pass was my first choice. Then I changed my mind to 2NT. Today, I’m back to pass. It’s really a coin flip for me. One of the final factors that pushed me toward the pass is that half my HCP are in a short suit. A suit they probably own. A suit where, if they do possess the ace, it is almost certainly on my left.”
• Seemingly agreeing about the location of the heart honor was Janice Seamon Molson: “Pass. If the heart King were the diamond King, I would bid.”
• Pepsi: “Pass. I’m afraid East-West will find hearts.”
2NT was the next best choice according to the MSC panelists, but more popular among the IAC solvers (10).
• Bobby Wolff: “2NT. An overbid, but it’s too dangerous not to include both minors.”
• Curls77 said it most succinctly – “2N if it is unusual.”
• Similarly, MarilynLi said “2 Notrump. Partner rates to have an opening hand with 5 card Spades. If so, bidding probably make a better score than passing 1S. Difficult decision. I really tempted to bid a minor.”
• Andrew Robson, echoing the concern about the opps finding hearts chose the aggressive action anyway: “2NT. This may backfire if the opponents find hearts.”
Problem C: Double
Nearly every IAC solver selected Double for their answer. This was lucky, because it was the overwhelming choice of the BW panel too.
• MarilynLi says it succinctly – “Double is flexible. I can accept any of my partner's bid 3S, 3NT or 4C. If partner bids 4D, I bid 5C.”
• Taking a cue from Marilyn . . . Michael Becker: “Double. Most flexible.”
• Channeling Al Roth and his “What’s the problem?,” YleeXotee wrote “What else? show my spade holding.”
• Meanwhile, BluBayou is ready to move on “This quizz should be about the NEXT round of bidding, after pard bids <whatever, even 3 Spades> to our negative double. 3NT NOW, nor 4 Clubs never crossed my mind.”
• Eschewing the obvious, Masse24 goes his own way – “The negative double, showing four spades is staring us in the face. I believe it will be the majority solver choice. But we will not lose the spade fit if one exists. Bidding clubs first should better convey my hand shape.”
• Todd is in good company as Zia, Kokish, and Rubens all among those who chose 4 !C.
• Zia: "Four clubs. Should handle well by bidding clubs then spades. A doubler will not be happy lf partner bids four diamonds."
• Anders Wirgren: "Four clubs. In a simulation, North held three or four hearts only 18 percent of the time, so it is unlikely that three notrump is the highest makable contract. l therefore follow Edgar's advice and bid the longest suit."
• Kokish, however, explained the ever-evolving propensities in bidding theory (and the majority panel vote) with, “I am confident that with a full-value, six-four, prime-values hand with a control in the opponents’ suit, four clubs would have been a clear choice during the sixties, seventies and eighties, well after the birth of the negative double. But the majors-first mind-set has taken root in tournament players’ philosophy, and the panel’s vote reflects that."
Problem D: 3 !D
Summarizes the problem nicely –
• Jim Creech: “2NT opposite no entries is worse, as are double without hearts and 3D without assurances that partner has length. … I now sort of wish I had lied by bidding a very heavy 1NT; at least I would not feel so helpless now.”
• Sami Kehela: “Too strong to pass, and the wrong shape to double.”
• MarilynLi described her bid simply – “Bidding NT has no chance. Opp's 2S contract looks down 1 at best. Our 3D contract has good chance of making.”
um-my."
• Jeff Meckstroth: "Three diamonds. Hoping for some trump length in the dummy."
• Rich Colker: "Three diamonds. Partner is marked with little more than a grim countenance. Two notrump rates to take at most eight tricks and will likely fail by one to four tricks. Partner's long suit could be clubs, but there is no easy way to get there, and diamonds could play almost as well. Three diamonds is risky; partner could show up with something like 1=4=2=6. But as Victor Mollo's Papa the Greek has said, 'The essence of bridge is to see through the backs of the cards.'"
• While BluBayou worked at finding his reason: “i ran another large simulation in the deal generator giving my partner one or two jacks and only 0-1spade ( and the opps the remaining 16-18 pts and actual 8-9 card fit. big suprize!!-- pard ALWAYS came through with 3-5(6) diamondss for me, -- or 6+ hearts and we hardly ever took a minus, Opps generally were good for 6-7 tricks in spades and occasionally even mad two, so passing them out was a bad move if you agree yarborough partner will not be leaving in our second double. It was truly a landslide win for bidding, and going plus if we bid 2NT was somewhat rare and lost to 3D+1 or 2 anyway, when it did stagger in. 3 DIAMONDS, and protest to Edgar Kaplan's ghost, if it doesn't get the 100.” Blu’s analysis sold some on the bid.”
IAC paid attention. Some liked the analysis but did not move. For example,
• Masse24 said “I like this, Jock. I like it a lot. But I'm not sure I have the guts to try it.”
• While DickHy had other reasons to steer clear. “I wouldn’t have thought of 3D were it not for Jock’s work, so ethically I should pass, but something to remember for another day and I’ll be pulling for 3D to gain the maximum 100.”
• But then there was Jcreech – “God forgive me, but I have allowed Jock to persuade me into bidding 3 !D on Problem D. I cannot imagine partner passing with 6 hearts after my double, so I think the chances that partner will have 4+ diamonds increases. I was dissatisfied with passing, so I was looking for an excuse to bid anyway.”
Four of the IAC solvers went with the BW second choice, 2NT.
• YleeXotee not only chose this bid, but declared that he noticed a pattern – “2nt - hoping to right side this, if p has the min, she can pass and we will get the dreaded spade lead. NO TRUMP is the theme of the contest this week!”
• Kit Woolsey: "Two notrump. Notrump is likely the right strain unless partner thinks otherwise. I need some values from North to make a game."
The most popular choice for the BW solvers, and 5 of the IAC solvers, was Pass.
• Curls77 described it as “Chicken Pass.”
• Masse24: “Pass. Tough problem. Partner has zero and with the right distribution we could have game or even slam. One thing I know I'm not doing is bidding 2NT. Partner has a stiff or void in spades. If I am going to declare, partner's hand is only worth something in a suit contract. Of the "I want to declare" choices that remain, I lean more towards double. Partner will put us in his best red suit, which is another worry. If partner is 4-4 in the reds, at Matchpoints doesn't he put me in hearts?”
• Phillip Adler: "Pass. I hope partner will lead his trump and plus 100 will be good. Double or three diamonds could lead to a four-two fit. Two notrump will surely fail."
Edited by jcreech to allow additional BW panelist comments. Part 2 follows.
-
SEPTEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish Director
Problem E: 4 !C
As moderator, Eric Kokish wrote "This problem is about choosing the right red suit at the right level (perhaps by overbidding slightly with a cue-bid to assist in the strain choice), but its most interesting aspect is North's duty in reacting to the cue-bid."
Almost half of the BW panel and 3 of the IAC solvers chose the cue-bid, 4 !C, for the top score.
• Jcreech described the bid simply – “4C To show strength and at least two places to play. Partner could have a 3-card major, so I want to cater to that instead of jumping to game in my Jxxx.”
• Paul Boudreau: "Four clubs. Two places to play. No sense in bidding four hearts, since partner will bid that with four. Will correct four spades to five diamonds and hope that we are not too high."
• Andrew Robson: "Four clubs. Classic strain-over-level choice, made in the hope that partner will have the wit to bid four hearts with five spades and four hearts. I like to play that three diamonds, rarely used in the natural sense, is a form of lebensohl, which allows more hand descriptions."
• However, Masse24 thinks about the hand differently: “Partner should have both majors. Probably has at least four hearts. But it’s not guaranteed. Partner could be 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2, or even 5=4=4=0. So I hesitate to bid 4 !H on this collection of garbage; the jump implies a fifth heart (or at least I would like it to). 3 !H is too timid as it does not show my values. 4 !D shows my values, and allows partner to bid a major---so this is certainly a possible bid (my second choice). But I choose 4 !C. Hopefully partner can bid hearts now. Yes, it does risk partner choosing his “better” major, or longer major if 5=4, so I hope he is aware of my possible hand shape. If instead he bids 4 !S, I go to 5 !D.”
Most of the rest of the IAC solvers bid hearts. Among the 4 !H bidders,
• Hoki describes the situation simply, “too many possibilities, but maybe 4♥ is the simplest (considered 4♣ and 4♦).”
• Similarly, YleeXotee writes: “4H - I had a hard time with this one. I first wanted 3h, but I can't imagine bidding that with 10 pts when I would bid it with zero. 3d, same issue. I'll take my chances.”
• Michael Lawrence: "Four hearts. The hand is too strong to overlook bidding four hearts. lfl bid any number of diamonds, the heart suit could get lost."
• While BluBayou argues (mainly with himself for a quieter response: “We are about a queen heavy for a non-jump reply, so does that mean we must bid 4 hearts? I am chicken and bid only 3 HEARTS. Jumping in DIAMONDS may win the day but good luck with that. IF somebody bids something and i can say 4 diamonds, I hope it means pard has 4 pieces when he goes back to hearts!”
• Michael Becker: "Three hearts. Must bid some number of hearts and hope for the best. If the heart honor were the queen, the hand would be an easy game-force; make it the ten, and I'd be comfortable bidding three hearts (or perhaps three diamonds). I'd force to game at imps, but I'll go low at matchpoints. Too much can go wrong after a cue-bid: Partner could bid four spades with five=four or four=three majors; over four clubs, four diamonds would not say 'pick a major."'
Making the case for diamonds,
• WackoJack said “My hearts are too weak to bid 4♥ and I prefer 3♦ to 3♥. Partner with 18+ can still bid 3NT.
• Danny Kleinman: "Four diamonds. We may belong in four hearts, but partner can bid a five-card major on the way if he's willing to reach five diamonds. I'm not sure I'd want to play in four hearts if we have only a four-four fit."
Problem F: 2NT
Nearly all of the BW panelists and solvers went with the footnoted 2NT to show the two specific suits. That was also true for the IAC solvers.
• Curls77 may have been echoing the thoughts of most of the IAC solvers when she wrote “2N by bws, but never heard of this treatment.”
• From YleeXotee, “2nt - I'll take the BWS hint given - but honestly, where else am I going to land but 6H, so....”
• Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. BWS does not discuss four diamonds. I'll start by getting both suits in and see what happens next. My expectation is that the opponents will bid spades or diamonds, and hilarity will ensue."
• George Jacobs: "Two notrump. My kind of hand; l can bid far into the night. If I were feeling lucky Punk (Well, am I?), I could bid six hearts. Probably partner has enough spades to stop a high-level sacrifice. I will start by showing both suits, then will l bid hearts, except over four clubs where I will Exclude with five diamonds. If LHO bids three diamonds and partner passes, I will bid four diamonds. If partner bids five clubs, I will have more options, including five hearts, as I will have laid it bare. If the bad guys persist with four diamonds, I will leap to five hearts, pleading with partner to look at his hand. Did I mention that I love this hand?"
• And Jcreech – “2NT I want to be in slam opposite the least encouragement. I will start by showing both suits, then listen to what happens next. … my initial thought was to jump to 6H as suggested by Todd and now echoed (at least in consideration) by Hoki. If the HJ were the Q, I would be more inclined to do exactly that. At the table, I particularly like the bid because it leaves the clubs undisclosed so that on a run of the hearts, it becomes easy to pitch a club from Jxxx or Txxx in order to save something in spades. I once held a 5-8-0-0, with the 8 bagger headed by AKQJT and the spades by AKQ; I bid 7H on the same general theory. But there is a difference between having an absolutely solid holding and a broken holding where you need enough luck for the Q to be in partner's hand, falling doubleton, or an entry to partner and find the Q can be finessed. 6H may be the panel view, but I think it may be more of a table action than a panel action.”
Having introduced the elephant in the room, 6 !H was the second choice of the BW panel.
• From IAC, WackoJack defends his choice: “Double just gets you into trouble. 2NT tells partner what you have but you need to know what partner has. If partner makes the expected response of 3♣? Would 5♥ now encourage partner to bid 6♥ with nothing except ♥Qx? That is asking a lot. Alternative is to bid 6♥ immediately and hope partner can give me the Q♥ or at lest 3 card ♣ support. I will go for 6♥.”
• Dan Gerstman: "Six hearts. I guessed. Let the opponents guess too. Makes it hard for them to find spades, or to decide whether or not to save."
• Joey Silver: "Six hearts. Sure, it's a gamble, but it is not more of a gamble than bidding this hand scientiflque and not pre-emptively, while letting the villains get together in the pointed suits."
Garnering fewer votes from the panel, yet receiving the same score, 1 !H was chosen by one of the IAC solvers.
• Masse24 discussed his thought process: “1 !H. On a fact-finding mission. My stiff spade and diamond void make it almost impossible that this will end the auction. My goal is to find out what partner has. This has the best chance of doing so. But this is such a bizarre hand . . . anything could be right.”
• Jeff Rubens: "One heart. I hope to hear some natural bids before I guess, and l want to give East-West a chance to bid out. Lacking my four honor-tricks, they aren't likely to bid a great deal unless provoked."
• Michael Lawrence: "One heart. Likely following up with six clubs. This sequence, should it occur, will imply my shape. With six-six, I'd start with two notrump."
Problem G: 2NT
Only two IAC solvers got the top BW choice right on this hand.
• WackoJack approached the hand from the least lie perspective: “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.”
• While YleeXotee stuck with his theme perspective – “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.”
• Billy Eisenberg: "Two notrump. A matter of agreement, but practical."
• Jeff Rubens: "Two notrump. When an overtrick may be valuable, distorting declarer's shape will often be advantageous if three notrump is the normal contract."
• Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. We are not being graded on style as opposed to efficiency. Three diamonds might well end the auction, and I doubt J would be happy when dummy came down."
Solvers, though, preferred 3 !D. 12 of the IAC solvers and roughly 60% of the BW solvers took this route.
• Jcreech had this to say of his choice: “3D Never been a fan of manufactured reverses, and outside of diamonds, the hand does not revalue upwards. If the diamonds were AKQTxx, I probably would have rebid 3NT. They are not, so I will make the normal value bid.”
• This was simplified by Blubayou – “No fake reverses this month ! poster-child for plain old jump-rebid. THREE DIAMONDS.”
• Bart Bramley: "Three diamonds. Tried and true. Good suit, good hand. Okay to have a maximum occasionally. Experiments like two clubs are still not my cup of tea, and two hearts would be asking for trouble. And I don't see how either of those choices would make my problem easier on the next round."
Representing the three IAC solvers that went for the manufactured reverse,
• Masse24 wrote: “I think this is too strong for 3 !D, but some panelists will choose it anyway (Kleinman? Becker?), being right on shape, but “an underbid,” which they will mention. 2NT is also possible, and I strongly considered it. But the black suit aces, one naked, the other unsupported, are not good notrump features. But it’s a bidder’s game. This leaves two choices. A reverse to 2 !H, not attractive with only a three-card major, though it has the advantage of leaving the most room for partner to continue the description of his hand. Alternatively, a GF value bid of 3 !C, a jump-shift. Is it strong enough? I’ll choose the completely non-standard reverse. I’ve done this several times with a three card minor: 1 !C – 1M – 2 !D to force, but never with a three-card major. This is waaaaaaay out there and will either score a 20 or hit big. Purists will hate this. (I can hear Hoki shaking his head disapprovingly from here.) I’ll add that I have never done this (reverse into a 3-card major) at the table.”
• Sami Kehela: "Two hearts. Although I am generally disinclined to introduce a three-card suit in a natural sense, here it is more or less obligatory, for the hand is too strong for three diamonds."
• Pepsi: "Two hearts. A little dangerous, but I would like to play notrump from partner's side. Between the alternatives, I like two notrump more than three diamonds."
Problem H: !S J
BluBayou, I think, spoke for everyone when he said “spade jack, diamond ace, and the correct low club are still a 50-50-50% proposition for me.” As did DickHy, when he wrote “This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G.”
Both the panel and solvers (BW and IAC) voted overwhelmingly for the !S J. WackoJack clearly indicated his ambivalence for his choice – “J♠ looks reasonable.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Many made their choice by eliminating the alternatives.
• Jcreech chose the !S J this way: “SJ I will not lay down the DA - too easy for it to set up something in dummy while having the ace be ruffed away. I also will not lead my trump, automatically pickling anything partner might have. A club is a possibility, but which one … ?” While DickHy took different information to get to the same spot: “There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split? W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP. He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx. Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W. If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.”
• George Jacobs: "Spade jack. Trying to lead through dummy's strength. l could even get a crazy ruff. Diamond lead is not allowed for too many reasons to list."
• Michael Lawrence: "Spade jack. Least of evils. The other three suits have serious warts."
• Bart Bramley: "Spade jack. Pusher and a ruffing value."
• Pepsi: "Spade jack. At imps, the best chance to beat the contract."
Club leads held the number two and three spots, but clearly choosing the right spot card mattered.
• As Jcreech pointed out, “A club is a possibility, but which one - the 10 to retain the lead if possible, the 6 2nd from nothing, or low to imply something in the suit?”
• YleeXotee wants to suggest a poor suit: “Spades are out, I don't do doubleton leads with no trump control, although this is not likely to be the opps side suit, so maybe there is less danger here. 3h is out, likely to finesse p if she has any heart honors. I would hit my own hand with a ruler if I led from AQ, so....a club lead it is. I think BWS is 2nd best. so 6C.”
• Danny Kleinman: "Club six. Second-highest from length and weakness. The ace of diamonds would be too likely to set up a trick for dummy, but it could do something even worse: wreck my chances of beating Eddie Kantar in our contest to see who can go to sleep with aces on defense most often, lifetime."
The BW panel preferred to be showing something, so the 3 got a bit better score than the 6. I think those players were hedging their bets so they could follow up with either the 6 or 2 depending on what came down in dummy.
• Robert Wolff: "Club three. A horrible choice but the best one available."
• Barry Rigal: "Club three. We don't need another hero. The only sensible alternative is the spade jack, and when three hearts gets passed out, my bet is that dummy has spades."
• Joey Silver: "Club three. Partner could not bid spades, so I will play him for better values in clubs."
Second choice among the IAC solvers was the !D A.
• Although most of the IAC solvers were silent on their reasoning, Masse24 probably identified their reason – “ !D Ace. Hoping a peek at dummy will guide my trick two choice.”
• Paul Boudreau: "Diamond ace. Hoping that the peek at dummy compensates for the possible loss in tempo."
• Jeff Rubens: "Diamond ace. Maybe dummy will have one strong black suit and one weak black suit."
• Phillip Adler: "Diamond ace. After seeing the dummy, maybe I will know that we should not be attacking spades."
Overall, a great month for IAC solvers. A very high-scoring month! Well done!
Originally part of the previous post (Masse24), edited by jcreech to allow additional BW panelist comments.
-
quote: PROBLEM B:• Andrew Robson, echoing the concern about the opps finding hearts chose the aggressive action anyway: “2NT. This may backfire if the opponents find hearts.”
I ran the simulation a second time (south exactly this problem hand, East any hand under 6 hcp) [ my generator is not the sharpest knife in the drawer] and got a total of over 30 deals that might produce the desired auction. Suprizingly few of the LOOSING cases (for re-opening with anything) involved opps going to town in hearts. The killing hands involved opener walking the dog with a 'playing-trick' spade game hand. There were 4 of those in my first run, and 5 of them in the recent one, of which 3 would or should have failed. Improving our score by reopening remains good for a matchpoint gain, but it's not the runaway winner that 3 diamonds was in problem D.
-
Great Job Todd! Thank you.