IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on August 14, 2020, 05:41:34 PM
-
OCTOBER 2020 MSC
Deadline: SEPTEMBER 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)
Submit your OCTOBER 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)
* * *
-
Somebody is going to score in the low 400's this month--maybe it's ME.
Watch this space horrible answers coming soon :(
-
Somebody is going to score in the low 400's this month--maybe it's ME.
Watch this space horrible answers coming soon :(
I agree. Of the eight problems, I have only narrowed down my initial thoughts to one probable answer in two. I think Joe might say the theme of this set is double trouble - lol. Best of luck to all who participate. Like Jock, I intend to get intial thoughts out soon - I just want to cry in my beer a bit longer before making any tentative commitments.
-
It's as though The Bridge World is saying to us: We dare you to make the Honor Roll this month! Good luck everyone.
-
Not exactly Pat.
I think we will see a lot of split decisions. If we get a normal moderator, the choices might be something like 100/90/80/70, then there will be few nearly perfect sets, but we could still see normal sorts of ranges. If we gt the moderator from hades, then the results will be more like 100/60/50/30. Now we could see normally good sets brought down by 100-200 very easily, and the honor roll struggling to get to 700.
-
You all weren't joking about those tough hands. I'm going to think about these for once, though I doubt that will help.
-
Todd, where are our 3 and 6 month rolling averages for the challenge!
-
Here are my initial self-flagellations.
Problem A: 3NT Where do I go from here? The opponents have preempted, partner made a responsive double, I have 16 HCPs all in aces, we are unfavorable vulnerability and nothing seems good. Partner has to have values to make a responsive double at that level, so I am thinking 3 !D if I take the low road, 3NT, 4 !C and 4 !D if I take a high road. Aces and spaces really make this difficult. If I pass, I start with two rounds of hearts and try to find partner for a ruff. The advantage to 3 !D is that is stays below 3NT, but what if partner has 9 or more. 3NT would be better with a third club so I could duck two rounds. Nothing feels right yet, but at least 3NT puts us in a game.
Problem B: 5 !C I am tempted to just bid 4 !C to leave room for partner to bid 4 !H, but then I would also be tempted to bid on havimg underbid on the prior round. So I think I am stuck with jump bidding clubs to show my values and hope I am not finding partner with only three.
Problem C: 1 !S Again, what to do? The best description is 3 !C showing invitational values and six clubs; but what a lousy suit, it has way too many honor gaps at the top. For similar reasons, I am not keen on bidding 2 !C and forcing to game with this hand. At least with 2 !D I have the right values and a concentration in the suit, but a potentially 3-3 fit is not at all appealing (though I really expect to see at least 4 in partner's hand). The good thing about 2 !D is that partner is highly motivated to show the heart stop, and perhaps move us toward 3NT. Speaking of NT, I am more inclined to bid 1NT than 2NT. In both, the stiff heart makes me reluctant. The values are more right for 2NT, but the stiff makes me more inclined to bid a heavy 1NT. One last thought ia 1 !S (borrowing a club to be my fourth spade). If partner fails to bid 1NT or raise spades, I will begin to picture a shape something like 3-4-5-1. Nonetheless, I will have more information about partner's hand.
Problem D: d Planning an auction. The values are reasonable for passing, but trumps are not up to snuff. I will try 4 !S (d) because I am close to a jump response. My other thoughts include c (3NT) shows values and a stop, but not such a great stopper that I do not pass for penalty, and b3 (bidding 4NT, which should be natural showing the heart stop). Of these, d is more appealing to me. But I would rather just bid 3NT at my first turn than to back into it later over 4 !D.
Problem E: 2 !S With two bullets and four spades, I will upgrade a bit for the jump response. 1 !S is a good choice if you do not upgrade, as is 1NT. I do not like passing the double at this level and with this holding. You will probably emerge with three heart tricks, but still need four more. I might pass with AJ9xx though.
Problem F: 6 !D With first round control in the three side suits, this feels right. I am a bit concerned about missing 7 !D. I thought about 5NT, but that only asks about two of the top three - I don't have any top honors, so partner would be justified to go with KQ; I'd have to be sure that we were on the same wavelength to try that. I also thought about passing; it may be right, but seems wimpy. This was the easiest decision in the group for me.
Problem G: 2NT I feel like I have only bad choices. I have enough to jump but my strength is in the suits I am fairly certain partner has length in. I do not feel like jumping in clubs on a very ratty suit. The trump are not good enough to pass and then convert partner's reopening double. So do I bid 3C on a 9xxx or 2NT on T9xx - I opt for 2NT because they may be 4-4 or partner has a stiff honor to give me a for real stop and I should have close to these values for the call.
Problem H: !C Q What was it the DickHy said last month - I wish they would stop at G? This month, I wish they had not started this set. But given that they didn't, I am now at the lead. The choices I like best are the !C Q and any small spade. Partner was willing to bid the suit, so I will lead it. However, they may be in a 4-3 or worse, and the lead of a trump may help the defense immeasureably. But who knows, maybe the Q will hold, and a switch to a trump will look good.
edited to make my final choice on Problem D make sense with the rambling that I had written and then changed my mind
-
Problem A:>> I keep seeing partner having 5 running diamonds, plus a king-equivalent(in ANY suit), so that makes 3NT the bid even when we cannot shake three loosers trouble, playing in diamonds. --3NT
Problem B:>> Give pard !H AKJx[x?] !C AQxx[x?] and 4 unhelpful cards in "their suits", leaving opps withe effectively the other 15 pts. He could have more, but a KING more, really? This view shows that 4 clubs is our limit--or 4 HEARTS, if he has 5 of them. It would be nice if we could cue 4!D and it catered to that possibility, but there are 2 problems with this: [1] it drives us to 5C when he cannot take it in hearts and [2] "4!D" shows DIAMONDS given the opps' big club usage of a 1 diamond opening (check this out with your steady partners). --4 Clubs
I am really considering just BIDDING 4!H hoping the Moysean holds together, or is actually a 3-5 fit...hmmm
Problem C:>> I checked BWS2017 and found "1D, 1S; 1NT, three clubs" is a natural, N.F. invite, so we are going that route. Of partner's other likely rebids, there is no problem except a single raise in spades. At the table, this dilemma would almost rule out the 1 spade response, since passing there at vulnerable imps is disgusting. but... --1 Spade
Problem D:>> Partner could have AK,..,AK,A and still be beaten at 5 Diamonds, and he may well have only four of those big guns. Count me OUT, in money,marbles or matchpoints --(b1)
Problem E:>> too difficult -- onward
PRoblem F:>> PArtner is void in spades, so my ace there is not exactly a cover-card, just a naked trick. So.. must partner have an optomistic NINE winners to add to my two other aces? Sure he does : --, KQx,KQJxxxx,Kxx isn't even a stretch. slam it!
Todd's following post is making me feel like a milktoast ( one of my 17 bbo nicknames) . Once there was a modification of grand-slam-force catering to "megasuits", such as partner has advertised here, where 6C showed worst case, 6D showed "what you expected" and above 6 of trumps showed RUNNING. Anybody want to take a 20 voting for this variation?? Eddie Kantar will smile upon you. -- 6 Diamonds (and ready to upgrade)
Problem G:>> Leaning towards 3 clubs..........
Problem H:>> gotta be the club Queen, but LORD I hate under-ruffing multiple times throughout the entire play so don't say "I told you so"; I'm already kicking myself for not starting trumps. Club Q [but not for much longer]
-
I am forced to quote our most poetic contributor Kenberg-- from several months back for zero particular reason except old-guy solidarity:) : "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. " One of your many poems that touch me, Ken
-
PROBLEM F: 5 !S
The question is not, "do we belong in slam?" but instead, "which slam do we belong in?"
Somehow finding a grand is beyond my vision. I'm open to suggestions.
Partner knows I have four hearts. And based on partner's jump, I'm guessing he has a strange hand with few HCP and lots of diamonds. Maybe something like the below construction might fit partner's bidding:
!S x - !H Kx - !D AKJxxxxx - !C Kx
A perfect fit with my hand. Probably unlikely. Would partner instead bid 3 !S with this? Does partner's failure to bid 3 !S deny running diamonds? This concerns me. Anyway, I want to alert partner to the potential for another strain by cuebidding 5 !S. This should show first round control (the Ace?) and I think implying the heart control. If partner's diamonds are "solid," he may catch my drift and bid notrump---which scores higher.
But maybe my thinking is off?
-
PROBLEM A: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Club Queen
-
Problem A: We have to bid game -- there is no point inviting when pard has zero aces --and I think either 5 diamonds or 3NT is on. especially when my dream of a running 5-4 diamond fit comes true.
Just now it occured to me that I don't have to decide this turn, but can listen to partner rescue himself . which game to bid if partner pulls 3CX to hearts? I wish i knew if that tips the scales toward NT, or 5 diamonds. Pass will probably make a lousy quizz score, but here i go. --PASS <-- These last sentences have to be struck; partner may rightfully take out PASS as a leave-in -- back to 5D or 3NT again for me:(
Problem B: I give partner ALL the missing points in our suits (!h jack??) and 9 or 10 of them.. ( opening points + 2 FOUR card suits is really swinging from the trees at the colours). But I can't see another king over there , so unless he has 10 cards, we are stuck with the equivalent of 3 losers in their suits. That lets 5 clubs out for me, but i am betting the ranch on hearts coming home, partly hoping for !HAKxxx and partly that he has he jack as well as the AK. --4 HEARTS
P.S.: Sitting behind the 3!S response, i would never dare to double holding other than 9+ clubs+hearts despite the announced nebulous 1D opening. If I had enough hand to correct a non-heart response to diamonds, then the opener has psyched, given south's good cards.
Problem C: As 2 weeks ago, still leaning toward ONE SPADE, with the non-forcing jump to 3 Clubs coming after pard's 1NT. Two of a red suits we can also live with, but the killer rebid here is his possible raise to 2 Spades. I have no right not to make a game try over this, but now it all seems like a trip down the famous rabbit-hole, whether i reraise, or bid 3 diamonds --or name a green suit. this is one of the 4 or 5 problems I knew was going to end in madness even after 4 weeks of 'thinking'.
Problem D: IT looks like we missed the winning 3NT, assuming east's hearts can be shut out. Partner should have quite a bit more than just a 'courtesy' reopening double:. I am getting back on the gravy train by returning to notrump hoping for 2 clubs, 5 of 6 diamonds, the heart and 2 to 4 spades. Raising to 5 diamonds is NOT worth the trouble since it will require this meat-axe I am dreaming about to have a prayer-- might as well play for some bad news and drop it at four. Thanks to ??? ?? for mentioning that four notrump was an option--I started out as a passer. -4NT
P.S. A thought for those of us who are voting for a game bid [(c) or (d) ] : We did not know at first tun to respond that pard had other than an ordinary opener, [of acceptable shape] -- it is only after her rebid that we know he's got the goods. Still, we have a bit more than the bits-and-pieces we are assumed to have, so fair winds, you high-road folks!
Problem E: We are big believers in the Rule of the Borrowed Queen in balancing auctions (more like the borrowed king) so, this EASY positive response had partner doubled directly is not so certain on this deal. I am thinking about waiting for partner to tell me he has at least the middle range of a normal double -- WITH four spades before reaching for that brass ring. Knowing all the while that we may be able to scramble 10 tricks even with only 20-21 points between us. Leaning heavily to the low road . -- ONE SPADE
Problem F: Seven running diamonds plus a king and a KQ is not too much to expect, and adds up to thirteen notrump. but how to ask if pard has this. Can a 5 spade cue bid show all three aces at once? Well, it might with a dream partner, as what else CAN I have to be proud of, if he dos have such? Let's go for it --5 Spades
.
.PROBLEM!!! GEE: The year's champion for driving a solver insane. no FANCY gadget to wish your pair has agreed, just hunker down and guess well. First blush it looks like 2 or 3 sick answers (3C, 2NT, or give up [pass).. but there are actually two more even sicker! -- DOUBLE (responsive) then correct hearts to spades [letting poor pard make the fatal choice between clubs and spades, and GLORY BE!-- BIDDING 2 spades!. 3 Clubs i would bid in a heartbat when i was 18. Taking the diamond punches with pard's hoped-for good clubs not a problem, as i still have the mighty 9-8xx. Jim's scenario of 'Let them rape me in diamonds playing notrump --it's only FOUR tricks, and i may manage 8 of the next nine or come close" has to be considered. anybody who PASSES, may easily find herself in posession of a plus score -- check out how defense might have 6+cashers vs. opps perfectly OK diamond contract--.
This leaves the two auctions that probably end up in two spades. responsive X with correction out of hearts, and the simple two spade reply. I am choosing one of those. LET the long trump hand take the diamond hits! my AQT tight will hold the fort, eh? --2S, or X followed by 2S --
.
Problem H:>> WHAT the heck were we thinking when first looking at this problem? -- Declarer running 4 trumps+club ace + 5 solid diamonds for ten?? And how will a club lead change that? kill some x-ruffing and they are toast, toast TOAST, unless they have all the above goodies! IF pard actually has more than nine clubs to the ten, i predict a non-vulnerabl, not-doubled "bloodbath"! SPADE TEN (actually giving them credit for an 8-card fit which hurts , if i crash my partner's stiff jack/queen,,lol)
-
Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada
Your Solutions for the October 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: (c)
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Club Queen
-
All thoughts subject to change.
A. 5 !D
I would dearly like to bid 4 !C, with the understanding that when partner responds 4 !H and then I bid 4 !S, this would mean that I want to play in spades if partner has 3 and in 5D if he does not. But I am far from sure that would be understood.
B. 4NT (trusting that it asks pard to choose a minor)
Pard is forcing me to the 4 level, so maybe my hand is good enough for the 5 level. I suppose they are playing some big club system and I suppose that their 1NT would be maybe 13-15 or 12-14 or some such. If we end up declaring it's important to know which. If indeed the opener has only two !D then it is very likely that they do not have the point count to open 1N. Knowing their NT range could guide us in the play. At any rate, for the bidding, I think I want to go to game and I imagine opener can have two diamonds and four clubs just as easily as he can have two clubs and four diamonds. Yes, I know, maybe 4 !H is the winning contract. We can't have everything..
C. 2 !C
Oh I suppose I am a bit light. Ok. But bidding 3 !C could leave us in a stupid 3 !C contract when we belong in !D, and bidding an inverted 2 !D might get us to a stupid !D contract when we belong in !C. At least by bidding 2 !C this will steer us to !C when we belong in !C and we can still find !D when we belong in !D.
D. b1
I have no serious reason to think we can make more than 9 tricks in spades.
E. Pass
It's mps, they are vul, and it's not crazy to hope we can beat this a trick. Maybe yes, maybe no.
F. 6 !D
That 5 !D does not leave me with room to explore, but I have the !S A opposite what is probably a stiff, I have two other aces, all I have said so far is X over the 1 !S.
6 !D seems to be odds on. If it makes 7 that's tough. I'll hope for 6.
G. 3 !C
Well, I have four clubs and I have some values. Unfortunately the values are not in clubs. Maybe pard doubled with good values and hearts, and we are about to hear a 3 !H bid. Or not. But if 3 !C gets passed out I should probably be ok.
H. !S 3 (or some !S spot)
The fewer ruffs they get the more apt we are to beat this.
-
Good to hear from you Ken; you are right in there spotting the insoluableness of several of these problems. Two points to reconsider though: on D: [the balancing X of opp 3H overcall....Agreeing entirely that we have no right to fly to game on our first turn...but doesn't pard's pull to 4 diamonds show a mountain, or at least a high hill?. secondly: ...on B:> Pardner absolutely has HEARTS AND CLUBS regardless of the note about opener's garbage 1D opener. ( If he has hearts and DIAMONDS, that opp has "psyched" not only his shape but his high cards as well. Truly, cannot imagine intruding with a double without the two suits partner (us) will expect us to have -- do you really?
-
On B: 2D, alerted as possibly 2, would not be a psych as it was alerted as systemic. But what system? I assume they are playing some big club system. Thus the opening with 4=3=2=4 is either 1D or 1NT and the opening with 4=3=4=2 is either 1D or 1NT. Of course 1NT requires a specific range. So 1D when outside that range.
Often alerts are minimal such that you need to know more about their system before you can make much of them. Consider an opening by a2/1 player of 1C, alerted as "could be short". Ok really this means "could be as short as 2". But it will (for most 2/1 players, only be as short as 2 when his shape is exactly 4=4=3=2. It's true that some open 1C on 4=3=4=2 so that a 1D opening also promises 5, but that is definitely not standard. Similarly, for a 2/1 player, if 1D is alerted as possibly on 3, this will only be (for most players) when they are 4=4=3=2. So it comes down to: Is a 4=4=3=2 opened 1D or 1C? On other shapes, 1C is on 3+ and 1D on 4+. In particular 1D=1M=1NT is on 4+ D and 1C-1H-1NT is on 4+C unless, fpr some, pn precisely 4=3=3=3.
Anyway, my point is that alerts, by rheir nature, are often incomplete and I take this alert as saying "We are playing a big club system so, when we hold 11-15, opening 1C is out of the question and thus unless we can open 1NT the 1D says nothing about the relative length of clubs and diamonds". 4=2 and 2=4 in the minors are equally likely shapes. If so, I want pard to choose his longer minor.
On D, yes, I misread it. More later.
Added: Ah yes, now that I have had my coffee I remember what I was thinking. I take the X, followed by 4D, as "I have extras, I Xed in case you wanted to make a penalty pass, I don't have four spades, so raise to 5D if you want." Thus X followed by 4D is a hand with enough strength to be willing to play 3HX if that suits me, but not such a monster as to force 5D. But of course it doesn't forbid 5D. Pard really does not know I have anything at all, and he can assume I do not have a great deal since, with four spades and values, I would have Xed directly over 3H. So I have more than I might have. Is it enough to go on to 5D? Maybe so.
Requires more thought.
-
A few more words, I think I will start with B. What issues do people see?
A big issue I see is that partner might have five !H. Give him decent values and five hearts. Is he really going to bid 4 !H over 3 !S on a five card suit? That's pretty unilateral. So I think he could have five. Otoh, players get dealt more four card suits than five card suits so...
I think it is very plausible that my partner and my Rho both have four hearts. Do I then want to play 4 !H? I am thinking not, but perhaps I do.
Second issue: If I decide against bidding 4 !H, do I want to force to game? That's not really clear to me either, but it does appear to me that if we have a minor suit game it is equally likely to be in either minor, or at least almost equally likely. Rho can open 1 !D on a 3=4=2=4 shape and pard, with strength, might double on a 1=4=5=3 shape if the clubs are strong, with the hope that if I do not have four hearts then maybe I have five clubs. And, if not, well I can ruff a spade in dummy and maybe cope.
If I sound uncertain, that's because I am. Rho has an opening bid, do I really want to play at the five level? Do I really want to risk playing in 4 !H? It is not clear to me.
-
Ken,
I see your issues, but there are similar issues from the other perspective. Holding three hearts, am I to make the assumption that partner will double with a 5-card suit rather than overcall at a possibly precarious level. Our 8-card fit might be in hearts, but I would be hard pressed to bid them from my side. If it is a Moysian (4-3), then we are taking the tap from the wrong side. At least in a minor, if it is a Moysian, the tap is coming from the correct side, allowing the best chance to be able to still pull trump.
My problem is how to get to the best minor contract, both level and strain, and I am at a loss in doing that. 4 !C does not show the values, 4 !D is too ambiguous, 4 !H might be the garden spot, but might be a disaster, 4 !S takes you past 4 !H, 4NT is ambiguous, and 5 of a minor risks guessing the wrong strain.
The longer I think on some of these problems, the more I think the best choice is to pass on these and wait for the November problem set - lol.
-
Question: Is 4NT really ambiguous? I passed over the 1 !D opening.
After
1 !D pass 3 !s X
Pass,
can 4NT be natural? Can it be key card? I don't think it can.
So I think it it's for the minors , or at least it is some sort of try to find the right suit at the 5 level. If I were not passed hand, so if Lho had dealt and opened 3 !S, it might be a different story (or not) but here I think it is a minor suit take out. Most likely we belong in clubs, but diamonds could be right. I would expect pard to bid 5 !D only if his !D length was greater than his !C length (by one card would be enough) but I think that could be the case.
But I am far from confident we belong in 5m, either m. Well, 3 !S preempts work.
I do not worry that much about being right or wrong, I think the value of these problems is to sort out what this or that bid would mean, and how to evaluate our strength. 4 !C seems like an underbid, forcing to the 5 level seems optimistic. A long hesitation followed by 4 !C is unethical, or, if unintentional, at least causes a UI problem. So we must choose.
-
A little speculation.
North:
!S 3
!H AT32
!D KQ843
!C AQ2
South:
!S J2
!H Q65
!D A765
!C KJ87
Do I double in 4th seat after 1 !D - Pass - 3 !S - ?
I don't see myself as passing.
I can see 4 !H making on a good day, and maybe 5 !C as well. But on the auction there is no good reason to think E has all four !D and so I would like to play this in 5 !D.
Sure, partner might not have this shape. In which case he bids 5 !C over my 4NT. But he might have this shape, I don't see why not. E opens 1 !D on 3=4=3=3, on 3=4=2=4, on 3=3=2=5, and so on. I am not seeing the downside of 4NT , rather than 5 !C, given that pard will choose 5 !C unless he has something like the hand I have constructed.
4NT does commit us to game, and it does rule out playing in 4 !H. So I can see the value of 4 !C leaving it open to playing at the 4 level, either 4 !C or 4 !H. If I choose 4 !C, that will be why. But if I decide that we are going to 5m then it seems like 4NT leaves the most doors open.
-
PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds Not 3NT where partner needs five running tricks (outside of our aces) for us to be successful.
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs Keeps more options open than the alternatives.
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs Yes, it's a rotten suit but we have two good aces and it's less of a distortion than 1S.
PROBLEM D: (c) 3 NT Answer (b) tells us pard has a single-suited diamond hand (which we are not supposed to know), so have UI.
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades One point shy for a pass, using the rule of nine.
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds How wrong can this be when we've got all the other suits controlled?
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs An underbid for sure, but the alternatives are all overbids.
PROBLEM H: Club Queen As a simple soul, I look no further than partner’s suit.
-
SOLUTIONS FOR:[ Jock McQuade Gresham ORU.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 4 Hearts --Ignoring the 'pick a minor' debate because I believe we have three 'holes'.
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: (b3)
PROBLEM E: 1 Spade
PROBLEM F: 5 Spades -- This won't get us to seven, but I tried.
PROBLEM G: Double -- Prepared to force/suggest a choice between spades and clubs.
PROBLEM H: Spade 10
-
A. 3NT. I reckon there is better than a 40% chance of 8 top tricks outside clubs. Say !H KQ and !D KQ.
B. 4 !C. One chance to land on the head of a pin.
C. 3 !C. I am resisting the temptation of making the slight over bid of the game forcing 2 !C.
D. 4 !S. (d) I bid what I think we can make.
E. 2 !S. A penalty pass may not work. Besides we may be lucky enough to get a penalty double of 3 !H.
F. 6 !D. I Don,t think we could ever bid 7 !D with any certainty.
G. Pass. Partner could reopen with a good take out double. Then, I will pass for penalties.
H.Q !C. A trump lead does not look like saving a trick.
-
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: 5 Spades
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club Queen
-
I just may be the lunatic they're looking for...
Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
Sykesville MD
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the October 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: (b1)
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Spade 4
-
Hi HOKI :
On problemA:...He HAS 5 running tricks --HE is not B-S-ing wth the responsive double--the opps are! but I still choose to convert those to eleven or more in diamonds. That is the american take on this responsive double ( Is this the FIRST of my 5 20-scores??)
On problem G: how fun will 3C be with diamonds tapping your [HOPEFULLY] nice club support a few times? Better we join Jim and hope diamonds actually stopped once, or that the rape ends after four tricks in notrump :)
Hope your cjhoice beats m y insane quest for a 3-4 spade trumpsuit, however [ ??? }i am truly hoping someone choose to defend 2 diamonds and gather in six OR SEVEN fast defensive trick! anybody seeing this happening -- and ANY of our choices taking a minus as well?
-
Not enough time to think about these as its approaching midnight. As usual, I bid them like I'm at the table - trying not to analyze beyond what I would do in real life when playing.
A. 3D - I don't usually go low, but I don't favor my chances of finding partner with 5 straight tricks to make 3nt.
B. 4H - Moysian and staying away from 5 level games
C. 2C - Its technically a GF hand and I should take the hint of 3C invitational, but I'm not going to pretend I didn't see that Intermediate jump shifts are on.
D. (c) 3nt against trying to keep us from going to 5D when 3nt is the right choice
E. 2S. not enough to pass, doesn't meet rule of 9
F. 6D I wouldn't clearly know all the meanings of other possible cue bidding or what not to find a slightly better 6nt.
G. X !, I know that this is what I would do at the table. I suspect this won't be a popular answer.
H. Q of clubs. tried to talk myself into the King of H to get count from p, but they won't have any trump so it wouldn't matter.
-
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Castrum Sex
Romania
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: (c)
PROBLEM E: 1 Spade
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Spade 3
-
SOLVER: James Creech
FREDERICKSBURG VA
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the October 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: 5 Spades - I almost never stick 100% with my original thoughts, I choose to try for 7 by cue bidding the opponents suit
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Club Queen
-
Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.
SOLVER: Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the October 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
Hamman? Who’s he?
If partner is doubling at this level, we belong in game. Not sure where. This may help us find the right spot. It should certainly show a complete max for my overcall.
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
My first instinct was 4NT. But it’s a bit rich for me.
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
2 !C –big overbid. 3 !C – should show a much better suit. These invitational type bids—with a long suit—seem to consistently promise a very good suit. I do not have that, so I squint a bit and choose the overbid. It allows us to let partner describe his hand further. I also liked 2 !D.
PROBLEM D: (d)
4 !S. My first instinct was 3NT. I admire Oliver’s bravery, but I chose the safe route.
PROBLEM E: 1 Spade
1NT is the value bid.
1S is what I would do at the table.
PROBLEM F: Pass
A "gambling pass." ;) These are the October problems, so I thought I would pull a Halloween answer! This one is scary! :-\
I’ll set aside my slam aspirations. Partner had the opportunity to show more, but didn’t. He also had the chance to bid 3 !S, or double--but didn’t. He had the opportunity to show the hand I want to see for slam, but didn’t.
So he is not terribly strong, but has lots of diamonds. This is high enough.
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs
Double also a strong contender.
PROBLEM H: Club Queen
Partner’s suit. Have I mentioned I hate lead problems?
-
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: (d)
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Spade 10
Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club.
-
oct 2020
A. 3D
B. 4H
3. 2C
D. B, B2
E. 2S
F. P
G. 3D
H. QC
-
Wait please! I am reading questions now and will post in 3 mins -- swwwwy!
-
PROBLEM A: 3D
PROBLEM B: 4C
PROBLEM C: 3C
PROBLEM D: why cant I X? c)
PROBLEM E: 2S
PROBLEM F: 6D (happy be brave when p declares!)
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: cQ
-
With regard to the lead problem, I recall once reading expert advice (maybe Edgar Kaplan) that the only excuse for not leading partner's suit is that you are void, and even then you should apologize!.
So, of course, I led a spade spot.
We shall see.
-
With regard to the lead problem, I recall once reading expert advice (maybe Edgar Kaplan) that the only excuse for not leading partner's suit is that you are void, and even then you should apologize!.
So, of course, I led a spade spot.
We shall see.
My first instinct was also a low spade, so I think it is very much a possible winner. But I was contemplating the 3, which I thought was BWS. :P
But I just went with Hoki's "simple soul" route.
-
October Results
| NAME | BW-SCORE | RANK | MPs |
| YleeXoTee | 710 | 1 | 30 |
| KenBerg | 690 | 2 | 15 |
| Thornbury | 650 | 3 | 10 |
| . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . |
|
Also participating: BabsG, Blubayou, CCR3, Curls77, DrAculea, Hoki, Jcreech, MarilynLi, Masse24, Msphola, WackoJack
-
Your Solutions for the October 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds 60
PROBLEM B: 4 Notrump 90
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs 100
PROBLEM D: (b1) 80
PROBLEM E: Pass 100
PROBLEM F: 6 Diamonds 100
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs 60
PROBLEM H: Spade 4 100
690
I am content. I considered my pass of 1HX on E and my lead of the spade spot on H as the most dangerous. with my 4NT on B also very iffy. I will be interested in hearing about the X on G. I can see passing instead of 3C, but the responsive double did not occur to me.
-
I have been thinking about G. 14 panel votes and a score of 100 for X.
Most likely this will bring a call of 2 !H from partner. After that, I suppose a bid of 2 !S by me should be something like "Hey buddy, if I had four spades and lacked four hearts I would have just bid 2 !S. Duh. So, when I X and then convert 2 !H to 2 !S I am saying I have a good three card spade holding so if you think I can score up 8 tricks there feel free to pass. But I can also stand a run to 3 !C if that seems better.
I have seen various such things about the responsive double but I usually think of it in simple, maybe simplistic, terms. After 1M-X-2M-X, that second X shows the minors. After 1m-X-2m-X, that second X shows both majors. But logic suggests some extensions.
Todd, I see you chose pass but contemplated X. Your thoughts about X were along the lines I am describing?
There is also a question, after the X, of just what partner would do if holding four cards in both majors. With the ordinary takeout double, after 1m-X-Pass, a partner holding both majors and some values but not enough to bid 3m should surely bid 1 !S. As the auction continues he can later bid his !H, and then, if the X was on a 4-3, they will get to their 4-4 fit regardless of whether it is !H or !S. I have not thought about whether similar reasoning applies with the responsive double.
PS Blu, I think you agreed to some sort of penalty if there was any substantial support for 4NT on B. Maybe you were going to mow my grass for a month, was that it? Or bake apple pies for everyone?
-
Grrrrr, Ken! The only reason to give 4 hearts the top score, is that the moderator--and many panelists mus fear three loosers, so, I am flummoxed that thebidthat drives to the 5-level gets 7 votes and a big fat 90. But , Dibby- you must cancel my 1 participation points. My word is my bong.
-
I have been thinking about G. 14 panel votes and a score of 100 for X.
Most likely this will bring a call of 2 !H from partner. After that, I suppose a bid of 2 !S by me should be something like "Hey buddy, if I had four spades and lacked four hearts I would have just bid 2 !S. Duh. So, when I X and then convert 2 !H to 2 !S I am saying I have a good three card spade holding so if you think I can score up 8 tricks there feel free to pass. But I can also stand a run to 3 !C if that seems better.
I have seen various such things about the responsive double but I usually think of it in simple, maybe simplistic, terms. After 1M-X-2M-X, that second X shows the minors. After 1m-X-2m-X, that second X shows both majors. But logic suggests some extensions.
Todd, I see you chose pass but contemplated X. Your thoughts about X were along the lines I am describing?
There is also a question, after the X, of just what partner would do if holding four cards in both majors. With the ordinary takeout double, after 1m-X-Pass, a partner holding both majors and some values but not enough to bid 3m should surely bid 1 !S. As the auction continues he can later bid his !H, and then, if the X was on a 4-3, they will get to their 4-4 fit regardless of whether it is !H or !S. I have not thought about whether similar reasoning applies with the responsive double.
PS Blu, I think you agreed to some sort of penalty if there was any substantial support for 4NT on B. Maybe you were going to mow my grass for a month, was that it? Or bake apple pies for everyone?
Yes, Ken. Pretty much my thinking. Although the bid of 3 !C is not made with zero values, it must show some. But the double has some flexibility as you describe above. I look at it as a "values double," which will become clear with my next bid.
But even knowing that, I chose the "safe" 3 !C. I do think this was one of the more difficult problems. But I thought they were all tough this month.
As far as Blu goes . . . I like apple pie. But I am happy to contribute to his purchase of a new lawnmower for his budding new lawncare business. ;)
-
Grrrrr, Ken! The only reason to give 4 hearts the top score, is that the moderator--and many panelists mus fear three loosers, so, I am flummoxed that thebidthat drives to the 5-level gets 7 votes and a big fat 90. But , Dibby- you must cancel my 1 participation points. My word is my bong.
No need.When someone says "I hope to kiss a duck" we do not bring in a duck and insist that he actually do so.
I think it is a balancing of dangers. And there are quite a few dangers to balance. The 3 !S bid ups the chances that other suits are not breaking well. Also, partner could have five hearts. Over the 3 !S what is he to do holding a five card heart suit? A direct 4 !H on five is pretty unilateral. But of course he also might have four. The hand might not make game anywhere. Then again it might.
So: Both 4 !H and 4NT tale one of these bulls by the tail. It commits us to game. So that's the first choice, we play it in game. After that choice is made, then which game? Unless partner has a very unusual hand, 4 !H will be passed and we will play in a !H game, 4 NT will get pard to choose a minor and we will play in a minor suit game. I opted for the latter, but hardly with confidence.
I regard one thing as clear. If I opt for a minor suit game then I go with 4NT, offering a choice of 5 !C or 5 !D, rather than just choosing 5 !C. So I see the choices as:
First: Game or not? Surely 4 !C is passable. I chose game.
Second: Ok, game, that's settled. Now do we opt for 4 !H or do we opt for asking pard to choose the minor suit game?
I can't say that I see either of these as clear cut. I decided to go with the game, and I thought that there were more ways for 4 !H to go wrong than for 5m to go wrong.
-
I can't say that I see either of these as clear cut. I decided to go with the game, and I thought that there were more ways for 4 !H to go wrong than for 5m to go wrong.
Ken - Methinks you either voted incorrectly or misstated which contract is more likely to go wrong -- lol.
-
No, I thought there were more ways for 4 !H to go wrong. Since I don't want to go wrong, I went the 5m route by bidding 4NT.
And, to continue the earlier allusion to Billy Joel "I made it home alive, you said that only proves that I'm insane".
-
OCTOBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, Director
A handful of the panel's comments:
Problem A: 4 !C
Masse24 got the top score on Problem A when he spurned the famous advice to not bypass 3NT if at all possible. “4 Clubs Hamman? Who’s he? If partner is doubling at this level, we belong in game. Not sure where. This may help us find the right spot. It should certainly show a complete max for my overcall.” Joining Todd, with a bit more confidence are several Panelists. Billy Eisenberg: “Four clubs. If partner bids four diamonds, five clubs will suggest slam; if he bids four hearts, I will pass.” Zach Grossack: “Four clubs. With four aces and a vulnerable partner entering the auction, I must commit to game at imps. I’m angling for five diamonds. If partner has a black-suit singleton and five diamonds, that should play very well. If he bids four of a major, I will pass. If he bids four diamonds, 1 will raise to five.” Geoff Hampson: “Four clubs. We are close to slam. I will bid six diamonds over four diamonds or pass four hearts.”
Among IAC solvers, Thornbury was the only one to select the second choice 4 !D. The Bridge World Panelists had much to say though. Phillip Alder: “Four diamonds. I expect that four clubs will get votes, but what will those bidders then do after partner bids four hearts?” Bob Boudreau: “Four diamonds. Shows no interest in hearts and a better-than-average hand.” Mark Cohen: “Four diamonds. The value bid.” Carl Hudecek: “Four diamonds. I must express my strength more forcefully than by a mere three diamonds. Four aces aren’t chicken feed.”
The third choice was Pass, which no IAC solver selected. However, Zia did “Pass. What fun if partner has a stiff spade. With no clear game available, the conditions give me a little solace; I’m glad it’s not matchpoints.” Fred Stewart also likes " Pass. With no guarantee of a game, I’ll take my plus. (Second choice: three notrump.)”
IAC solvers were mostly further down the list. At 3 !D, Hoki wrote “3 Diamonds Not 3NT where partner needs five running tricks (outside of our aces) for us to be successful.” And YleeXoTee said “3D - I don't usually go low, but I don't favor my chances of finding partner with 5 straight tricks to make 3nt.” Among the Panelists, Brian Glubok wrote “Three diamonds. A proverbial pinochle deck; probably, the others are all near their respective minimums (12, 4, and 8 HCP).”
The same points were available for 5 !D, where BluBayou waffled between 5 !D, 3NT and pass before finally settling in with 5 !D. “We have to bid game -- there is no point inviting when pard has zero aces --and I think either 5 diamonds or 3NT is on. especially when my dream of a running 5-4 diamond fit comes true.” While KenBerg dreamed of the top spot but settled for the clearer “5 !D I would dearly like to bid 4 !C, with the understanding that when partner responds 4 !H and then I bid 4 !S, this would mean that I want to play in spades if partner has 3 and in 5D if he does not. But I am far from sure that would be understood.” Jeff Rubens has loftier thoughts - “Five diamonds. Hoping that partner will be able to bid six.”
And several gambled on the nine-trick game. WackoJack argued for “3NT. I reckon there is better than a 40% chance of 8 top tricks outside clubs. Say !H KQ and !D KQ.” Though Jcreech bemoaned “Where do I go from here? The opponents have preempted, partner made a responsive double, I have 16 HCPs all in aces, we are unfavorable vulnerability and nothing seems good. Partner has to have values to make a responsive double at that level, so I am thinking 3 !D if I take the low road, 3NT, 4 !C and 4 !D if I take a high road. Aces and spaces really make this difficult. If I pass, I start with two rounds of hearts and try to find partner for a ruff. The advantage to 3 !D is that is stays below 3NT, but what if partner has 9 or more. 3NT would be better with a third club so I could duck two rounds. Nothing feels right yet, but at least 3NT puts us in a game.” From the Panel, Eric Kokish argues “Three notrump. Give North an unexceptional hand with five de¬cent diamonds and the heart king or queen¬jack; three notrump will be very good. If we could count on five diamonds, we could aim for five or six diamonds, but as the double covers a lot of ground, there might be too much handling in five diamonds on a four- four fit, and four of a minor would take us past three notrump.”
Problem B: 4 !H
YleeXoTee simplifies the top choice by saying “4H - Moysian and staying away from 5 level games.” While BluBayou thinks it through carefully. “Ignoring the 'pick a minor' debate because I believe we have three 'holes'. … I give partner ALL the missing points in our suits (!h jack??) and 9 or 10 of them.. ( opening points + 2 FOUR card suits is really swinging from the trees at the colours). But I can't see another king over there , so unless he has 10 cards, we are stuck with the equivalent of 3 losers in their suits. That lets 5 clubs out for me, but i am betting the ranch on hearts coming home, partly hoping for !HAKxxx and partly that he has he jack as well as the AK. --4 HEARTS” The Bridge World Panelists were confident. Eric Kokish: “Four hearts. No spade raise hints at North’s holding two, and we’d need a very good mesh to make five clubs with two fast spade losers. A craven four clubs could well be our limit, but with these working cards, reaching game at imps is much more reasonable, and four hearts might be okay with only seven trumps. A considerate North will deliver a fifth heart.” David Berkowitz: “Four hearts. Four diamonds would be natural. I can take the tap in the short hand (I hope). Five clubs seems like a stretch.” Robert Wolff: “Four hearts. Likely the best effort available.”
4NT drew as many Panelist votes as 4 !H, but less than half of the Bridge World solver votes, and found itself in second place. KenBerg makes his argument: “4NT (trusting that it asks pard to choose a minor) Pard is forcing me to the 4 level, so maybe my hand is good enough for the 5 level. I suppose they are playing some big club system and I suppose that their 1NT would be maybe 13-15 or 12-14 or some such. If we end up declaring it's important to know which. If indeed the opener has only two !D then it is very likely that they do not have the point count to open 1N. Knowing their NT range could guide us in the play. At any rate, for the bidding, I think I want to go to game and I imagine opener can have two diamonds and four clubs just as easily as he can have two clubs and four diamonds. Yes, I know, maybe 4 !H is the winning contract. We can't have everything.” From the Panel: John Carruthers: “Four notrump. A bit of an overbid, but I’m hoping it will take us to the correct strain. Four clubs or four hearts would be pusillanimous and cowboy¬like, respectively.” Jeff Rubens: “Four notrump. Even with only four-four, the high cards are enough above expectation to raise the level.” Daniel Korbel: “Four notrump. Let partner pick the minor. We should treat the opening bid as though it could have been a natural bid in either minor. Four hearts is possible, but partner hasn’t guaranteed four.”
The third choice was the BW solver leader, 4 !C. Hoki likes it because it “Keeps more options open than the alternatives.” WackoJack views it as “One chance to land on the head of a pin.” And Masse24 cops out with 4 !C when his “… first instinct was 4NT. But it’s a bit rich for me.” The Panelists seem to view 4 !C as a compromise. Steve Robinson: “Four clubs. Since three spades could end the auction, partner is balancing and might not have an opening bid.” Geoff Hampson: “Four clubs. Partner will need an especially strong hand to produce 11 tricks.” Mark Cohen: “Four clubs. Very conservative, but I don’t know what else to do. Maybe another bathroom break?”
Problem C: 2 !C
Jcreech succinctly described the choices. “Again, what to do? The best description is 3 !C showing invitational values and six clubs; but what a lousy suit, it has way too many honor gaps at the top. For similar reasons, I am not keen on bidding 2 !C and forcing to game with this hand. At least with 2 !D I have the right values and a concentration in the suit, but a potentially 3-3 fit is not at all appealing (though I really expect to see at least 4 in partner's hand). The good thing about 2 !D is that partner is highly motivated to show the heart stop, and perhaps move us toward 3NT. Speaking of NT, I am more inclined to bid 1NT than 2NT. In both, the stiff heart makes me reluctant. The values are more right for 2NT, but the stiff makes me more inclined to bid a heavy 1NT. One last thought ia 1 !S (borrowing a club to be my fourth spade). If partner fails to bid 1NT or raise spades, I will begin to picture a shape something like 3-4-5-1. Nonetheless, I will have more information about partner's hand.”
Those going with the top choice recognize that it is an overbid. KenBerg: “2 !C Oh I suppose I am a bit light. Ok. But bidding 3 !C could leave us in a stupid 3 !C contract when we belong in !D, and bidding an inverted 2 !D might get us to a stupid !D contract when we belong in !C. At least by bidding 2 !C this will steer us to !C when we belong in !C and we can still find !D when we belong in !D.” YleeXoTee “2C - Its technically a GF hand and I should take the hint of 3C invitational, but I'm not going to pretend I didn't see that Intermediate jump shifts are on.” And Masse24 “2 Clubs 2 !C –big overbid. 3 !C – should show a much better suit. These invitational type bids—with a long suit—seem to consistently promise a very good suit. I do not have that, so I squint a bit and choose the overbid. It allows us to let partner describe his hand further. I also liked 2 !D.” Those Panelists choosing 2 !C feel that any other bid would be a distortion. Howard Weinstein: “Two clubs. Not an overbid, and anything else would be a huge distortion—bidding out of fear, not a good approach vulnerable at imps.” John Diamond: “TWO clubs. A three-club response could see us down in three clubs when three notrump makes.” Zia: “TWO clubs. This is a better opening hand than some we see. No reason to down-grade unless we are using a sick opening-bid style.”
While those showing the values understand its flaws. Hoki: “3 Clubs Yes, it's a rotten suit but we have two good aces and it's less of a distortion than 1S.” And WackoJack: “3 !C. I am resisting the temptation of making the slight over bid of the game forcing 2 !C.” While the Bridge World Panelists making this choice feel it is the best description: John Carruthers: “Three clubs. This may be the worst suit I’ve ever held for the bid. Nevertheless, it is the most-descriptive bid available.” Brian Glubok: “Three clubs. The suit is bad, but the rest of the hand is perfect. I can’t find a one-card missort that makes two notrump reasonable.” Mark Cohen: “Three clubs. The value bid; nothing else makes sense.”
The one IAC solver selecting 2 !D was not reticent of their choice. Panelists, though, spent time justifying their decision: Steve Robinson: “TWO diamonds. 1 can decide later whether the strength is invitational or game-forcing. We’ll probably end up in three notrump, especially if partner bids two hearts.” Danny Kleinman: “Two diamonds. Then three clubs. Too weak a club suit for three clubs directly. This is a hand-type that two diamonds should be defined to include. The late Max Hardy, a meticulous expositor of strong two-over-ones, used the three-club follow-up as showing shortness, but it is far more useful to show a hand such as this.”
And finally 1 !S. BluBayou wrote “I checked BWS2017 and found "1D, 1S; 1NT, three clubs" is a natural, N.F. invite, so we are going that route. Of partner's other likely rebids, there is no problem except a single raise in spades. At the table, this dilemma would almost rule out the 1 spade response, since passing there at vulnerable imps is disgusting. but... --1 Spade.” Agreeing with Jock were Fred Stewart: “One spade. Least of evils. There are prime cards, ruffing values, and a potential source of tricks, particularly if we end in notrump.” And David Berkowitz: “One spade. No minor-suit or notrump bid seems appropriate.”
Problem D: (c) 3NT
This hand is all about thinking about where you think the final contract should be. Most Panelists and Solvers voted for some sort of direct game choice.
Bidding 3NT directly (c) led to the top score. YleeXotee tries to keep partner from heading down the wrong path:“3nt against trying to keep us from going to 5D when 3nt is the right choice” While Hoki chooses 3NT because “Answer (b) tells us pard has a single-suited diamond hand (which we are not supposed to know), so have UI.” [Editor note: UI = Unauthorized Information.] While Curls77 selects (c) but wants to know “why cant I X?” [Editor note: You could have tried to double by passing - choice (a).] From the Bridge World Panel, Larry Robbins makes this analysis: “(c). I can hold off in hearts one round, which may shut out East’s hearts. With king-low of hearts, three notrump would not be as appealing. Three spades would be a distinct underbid. Four spades might work, but doubler might have only three spades.” Eric Kokish: “(c). Nothing awful about four hearts, which will take s to five of a minor when North lacks four spades, but on some of those deals we would miss an easier three notrump.” Or John Diamond’s more simple “(c). A bit of a guess.”
Bidding 4 !S directly (d) garnered the next largest block of votes from both Panelist and solvers. Masse24 expressed a longing for the top choice but chose otherwise: “(d) 4 !S. My first instinct was 3NT. I admire Oliver’s bravery, but I chose the safe route.” While WackoJack “4 !S. (d) I bid what I think we can make.” And Jcreech pontificated as he selects “d Planning an auction. The values are reasonable for passing, but trumps are not up to snuff. I will try 4 !S (d) because I am close to a jump response. My other thoughts include c (3NT) shows values and a stop, but not such a great stopper that I do not pass for penalty, and b3 (bidding 4NT, which should be natural showing the heart stop). Of these, d is more appealing to me. But I would rather just bid 3NT at my first turn than to back into it later over 4 !D.” From the Panel, Zach Grossack “(d). At most slightly aggressive. Three spades would be too timid – I won’t tolerate an accusation of timidity.” Daniel Korbel: “(d). This need not work, but the hand is too strong not to try it. Any other action would complicate things.” And Zia: “(d). I will be surprise if this is not a majority vote. (I didn’t say ‘unanimous.’”
Tying for the second place score was bidding 3 !S and passing if partner then pulls to 4 !D (b1). KenBerg chooses not to stretch because “b1 I have no serious reason to think we can make more than 9 tricks in spades.” John Carruthers, from the Panel, expresses concern: “(b1). Plus scores are the name of the game. Had I known that partner would bid over three spades, three notrump would have been more attractive – bidding it over the double would have relied on nine runners after a heart lead, needing considerable extra values with North. At imps, I’d have tried three notrump anyway.”
The second half of this recap will be out ASAP. Hopefully, this will satiate while we start to fret about the next set.
-
OCTOBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Kit Woolsey, Director
As we continue through the October contest.
Problem E: Pass
The critical question for this problem is whether you think there is a good shot at game. Most Panelists and a large number of BW solvers said no, and passed thinking the partnership will set the contract by more than what can be earned by declaring. KenBerg described his choice: “Pass It's mps, they are vul, and it's not crazy to hope we can beat this a trick. Maybe yes, maybe no.” Similarly realistic are the Panelist comments. Mark Cohen: “Pass. Going for the magic plus 200, but could be minus 160.” Robert Wolff: “Pass. Going against my usual judgment of shying away from low-level penalty attempts.” Arthur Robinson: “Pass. But not if they make it.” But Rozanne and Bill Pollack see blood in the water: “Pass. If our wonderful partner has a heart honor, this could be a feast. Given today’s far-reduced standards, there is nothing wrong with going for blood a bit more often.”
If you choose action, the next question is whether to push your values or not. Most solvers (both IAC and BW) chose to be aggressive. Jcreech describes his thought process: “With two bullets and four spades, I will upgrade a bit for the jump response. 1 !S is a good choice if you do not upgrade, as is 1NT. I do not like passing the double at this level and with this holding. You will probably emerge with three heart tricks, but still need four more. I might pass with AJ9xx though.” WackoJack is similarly pessimistic about the penalty double, while optimistic about a second chance: “2 !S. A penalty pass may not work. Besides we may be lucky enough to get a penalty double of 3 !H.” While two invoke the rule of nine: Hoki “2 Spades One point shy for a pass, using the rule of nine.” YleeXoTee “2S. not enough to pass, doesn't meet rule of 9” From the Panel, Bart Bramley says “Two spades. The value bid. Pass is tempting, but one heart will succeed on too many normal layouts. Since I passed over one heart, partner should place me with exactly four spades.” Fred Stewart echoes with “Two spades. The value of the hand. Partner’s action covers a wide range, passing would be too speculative.” And Zia; “Two spades. In the middle of the possible calls.”
However if you chose to simply bid 1 !S, you were not punished much compared to the jump. Masse24 says“1 Spade 1NT is the value bid. 1S is what I would do at the table.” And BluBayou “We are big believers in the Rule of the Borrowed Queen in balancing auctions (more like the borrowed king) so, this EASY positive response had partner doubled directly is not so certain on this deal. I am thinking about waiting for partner to tell me he has at least the middle range of a normal double -- WITH four spades before reaching for that brass ring. Knowing all the while that we may be able to scramble 10 tricks even with only 20-21 points between us. Leaning heavily to the low road . -- ONE SPADE” Panelists are concerned with partner reopening light and do not want to punish them for being aggressive. Carl Hudecek: “One spade. North should act again with a good hand, so I won’t punish him for enterprise. Too many spades and too few defensive tricks to pass.” Steve Robinson: “One spade. After a reopening, subtract a king; not even close to two spades.” Danny Kleinman: “One spade. Reopener can be a queen-light; advancer can be queen-heavy. About a nine-spot light for a pass.” And Nik Demirev: “One spade. Gives opponents a chance to get in trouble or to reveal more about their hands. If partner bids, there will be lots of room to explore.”
Problem F: 6 !D
The question asked with Problem F is “How high do you go?” Somehow it seems appropriate that the top score was for the middle choice of 6 !D. Hoki concludes, “6 Diamonds. How wrong can this be when we've got all the other suits controlled?” WackoJack is uncertain of going higher “6 !D. I Don,t think we could ever bid 7 !D with any certainty.” And YleeXotee is uncertain of how to proceed, “6D I wouldn't clearly know all the meanings of other possible cue bidding or what not to find a slightly better 6nt.” KenBerg summarizes nicely – “That 5 !D does not leave me with room to explore, but I have the !S A opposite what is probably a stiff, I have two other aces, all I have said so far is X over the 1 !S. 6 !D seems to be odds on. If it makes 7 that's tough. I'll hope for 6.” A majority of Panelists bid what they thought could be made. Brian Glubok: “Six diamonds. … If partner is ‘heavy’ seven might be cold, so passing would be too timid. Five spades would beg for catastrophe.” Mark Cohen: “Six diamonds. No cue bid, since the matchpoint risk/reward ratio is not good.” Danny Kleiman: “Six diamonds. I never promised an ace-garden, but I have one. Must bid a slam to beat the pairs in three notrump making four.”
The next highest score went to the high road, 5 !S. Jcreech started with 6 !D, then switched to 5 !S late because “… I choose to try for 7 by cue bidding the opponents suit “ His earlier thoughts included, “I am a bit concerned about missing 7 !D. I thought about 5NT, but that only asks about two of the top three - I don't have any top honors, so partner would be justified to go with KQ ... I also thought about passing; it may be right, but seems wimpy.” While BluBayou muses “Seven running diamonds plus a king and a KQ is not too much to expect, and adds up to thirteen notrump. but how to ask if pard has this. Can a 5 spade cue bid show all three aces at once? Well, it might with a dream partner, as what else CAN I have to be proud of, if he dos have such? Let's go for it --5 Spades … This won’t get us to seven, but I tried.” The temptation of a grand lures several Panelists. Sami Kehela: “Five spades. My distinguished partner will discern that this establishes the possession of all the missing aces, thereby offering six notrump and seven diamonds as alternatives to six diamonds.” Geoff Hampson: “Five spades. Worth a seven-try. I hope partner won’t assume I lack the heart Ace.” And John Carruthers: “Five spades. Could we have a grand slam? Sure. Could we bid it with any confidence? Maybe not. … The aces are the Siren’s Song.”
And representing the low road, Masse24 selects “Pass A "gambling pass." ;) These are the October problems, so I thought I would pull a Halloween answer! This one is scary! :-\ I’ll set aside my slam aspirations. Partner had the opportunity to show more, but didn’t. He also had the chance to bid 3 !S, or double--but didn’t. He had the opportunity to show the hand I want to see for slam, but didn’t. So he is not terribly strong, but has lots of diamonds. This is high enough.” Of those on the Panel that agree with Todd, some struggle to count to 12 tricks. Carl Hudecek: “Pass.. I have an unexpectedly large number of aces, but how do we get up to 12 tricks.” Bob Boudreau: “Pass. In light of no cue-bid and favorable vulnerability, not clear that having three tricks is enough to raise.” While others are convinced that partner is preempting. Larry Robins: “Pass. At this vulnerability, partner’s action may be an advanced save.” Steve Robinson: “Pass. Partner is preempting. With a strong hand, he’d have doubled three diamonds.”
Problem G: Double
BluBayou described Problem G as being “The year's champion for driving a solver insane. no FANCY gadget to wish your pair has agreed, just hunker down and guess well. First blush it looks like 2 or 3 sick answers (3C, 2NT, or give up [pass).. but there are actually two more even sicker! -- DOUBLE (responsive) then correct hearts to spades [letting poor pard make the fatal choice between clubs and spades, and GLORY BE!-- BIDDING 2 spades!. 3 Clubs i would bid in a heartbat when i was 18. Taking the diamond punches with pard's hoped-for good clubs not a problem, as i still have the mighty 9-8xx. Jim's scenario of 'Let them rape me in diamonds playing notrump --it's only FOUR tricks, and i may manage 8 of the next nine or come close" has to be considered. anybody who PASSES, may easily find herself in posession of a plus score -- check out how defense might have 6+cashers vs. opps perfectly OK diamond contract” In the end, he went with the top scoring Double “Prepared to force/suggest a choice between spades and clubs.” Sami Kehela seemed to understand Jock’s concern: “Double. Could be a rocky landing.” As did Daniel Korbel: “Double. Not sure what I’ll do over virtually any continuation, so thanks for not asking.” YleeXoTee agreed, “X !, I know that this is what I would do at the table. I suspect this won't be a popular answer.” Joe was wrong, and in good company to boot. Zach Grossack: “Double. What else? Values with no clear direction.” Bart Bramley: “Double. Avoids a three-three fit in two spades. Pulling two hearts to two spades will imply clubs. If LHO boosts diamonds and partner bids hearts, I will execute this plan at a higher level.” And Fred Stewart: “Double. Too much strength to pass, and anything else would be crapshoot. I’ll pull two hearts to two spades. (Frying pand to the fire.)”
The moderator found double to be scary. “There is no guarantee that partner has four clubs, and three clubs on a four-three fit might be one partscore North-South can’t make.” Which led into his conclusion that “(a) better way to improve the chance of a plus score is” pass. Pass was the next highest score. WackoJack described his selection as follows: “Pass. Partner could reopen with a good take out double. Then, I will pass for penalties.” Panelist’s going this direction described their choice: David Berkowitz: “Pass. Okay to defend with values in short suits. Partner is still there.” Echoing Jack, John Diamond (with Geoff Hampson): “Pass. And go for the penalty if partner doubles again.” Nik Demirev: “Pass. No good bid. I plan to pass reopening doublr, which rates to score at least 500 when three notrump makes.”
Among the IAC solvers, 3 !C was the most popular. KenBerg: “3 !C Well, I have four clubs and I have some values. Unfortunately the values are not in clubs. Maybe pard doubled with good values and hearts, and we are about to hear a 3 !H bid. Or not. But if 3 !C gets passed out I should probably be ok.” Hoki: “3 Clubs An underbid for sure, but the alternatives are all overbids.” Masse24: “3 Clubs Double also a strong contender.” Two Panelists made this bid. Jeff Rubens: “Three clubs. If the opponents’ bidding is normal, partner is a heavy favorite hold at least four clubs.” Although Brian Glubok is not as certain: “Three clubs. Prepared to look foolish. I’m hoping for a five-card fit and a diamond void opposite. There’s gotta be a pony in here somewhere.”
Problem H: !S 4, 10, or 3
The Bridge World Panel was clearly concerned about ruffs, but as the moderator asks “which trump? … it can matter a lot. . If you lead a low trump, and East-West have a five-three fit, declarer may be able to win cheaply and draw trumps, taking five trump tricks, four diamond tricks, and a club trick. If you lead the ten, partner’s stiff jack may come crashing down, and you will have given away the setting trick.” About half of the Panel voted for a spade lead, the !S 3, 4 and 10 were all given the top score. KenBerg argued “!S 3 (or some !S spot) The fewer ruffs they get the more apt we are to beat this.” BluBayou began planning to lead the !C Q, but switched before the end. “WHAT the heck were we thinking when first looking at this problem? -- Declarer running 4 trumps+club ace + 5 solid diamonds for ten?? And how will a club lead change that? kill some x-ruffing and they are toast, toast TOAST, unless they have all the above goodies! IF pard actually has more than nine clubs to the ten, i predict a non-vulnerabl, not-doubled "bloodbath"! SPADE TEN (actually giving them credit for an 8-card fit which hurts , if i crash my partner's stiff jack/queen,,lol)” From the Bridge World Panel, Fred Stewart: “Spade 10. Clearly a spade will be the unanimous choice. Where are declarer’s tricks coming from? The only digression will be whether we should lead low or high. Probably doesn’t matter.” Geoff Hampson: “Spade four. Likely declarer will come up short without some ruffs.” Robert Wolff: “Spade four. Trying to slow down a crossruff.” Carl Hudecek (and Danny Kleinman similarly): “Spade three. East has at most two hearts, so a crossruff may be looming.”
A top heart was also given a good score. Either the ace or king was also a strong choice for the Panel, but not selected by any of the IAC solvers. John Diamond: "Heart ace. Anything else would be silly." Phillip Alder (and Mark Cohen): Heart ace. All right, let’s look at the dummy and go from there.” John Carruthers: “Heart king. I’m worried that a heart loser or two may disappear on dummy’s diamonds.” Zia: “Heart king. Partner is allowed to have two low hearts and the spade eight. When he sees the heart queen in dummy, he will know who has the ace, whereas the ace-of-hearts lead might be confusing.”
Popular with solvers (both IAC and BW) was the Club Q. Jcreech: “The choices I like best are the !C Q and any small spade. Partner was willing to bid the suit, so I will lead it. However, they may be in a 4-3 or worse, and the lead of a trump may help the defense immeasureably. But who knows, maybe the Q will hold, and a switch to a trump will look good.” Hoki: “As a simple soul, I look no further than partner’s suit.” WackoJack” “Q !C. A trump lead does not look like saving a trick.” YleeXoTee: “Q of clubs. tried to talk myself into the King of H to get count from p, but they won't have any trump so it wouldn't matter.” And finally Masse24, making it clear he would like to see Problem H’s eliminated in the future: “Club Queen Partner’s suit. Have I mentioned I hate lead problems?” The moderator clearly feels that “it is often right to lead partner’s suit, but there should be a reason to do so.” But concludes with a question “what is the point of the club lead?” There were not good answers from the Panelists making this choice. Bob Boudreau: “Club queen. I doubt that partner has a spade.” Brian Glubok: “Club queen. This might be wrong, but at worst it will be the second weirdest lead I have made lately, probably not even second.” Not exactly ringing endorsements.
-
Very well done Jim :)
-
This will be a double posting. Originally posted in the Nov 2020 thread, it pertains exclusively to the Oct 2020 thread.
I am late reading Woolsey's recap of October's contest, and I have been sulking over the 100 for cue-bid versus only 60 for 5 diamonds so should have been real eager to learn something wonderful from the panelists' opinions. This hope was ONE THIRD fulfilled as some of my heros explained that a MERE 5D was inadequate, so cue bidding before placing it in 5D (or SLAM if 4 diamonds was partner's reply!!) was where their headwas. My hat is off to them. But the majority of 4 club bidders mentioned settling in one 5-2 major or another. 'This leaves me cold' is a roaring understatement. i am NOT buying two+ of the panelists' comment that "a responsive double at three covers a wide selection of hand shapes." I chose bidding a game, while many invited or or worse. IF diamond slam-try is worth the 100, we 5D (OR THREE NOTRUMP) bidders deserve 90 or 80, because most of the positive aspect of cue-bidding goes to the brave that are thinking about even higher--in diamonds.
note to moderator: put this rant in the october thread again for me, in a few days , if you wish:)
-
Jock wrote on A: He HAS 5 running tricks.
To justify a 5♦ bid, you are presuming partner is strong, in which
case why did partner not simply bid 3♥? Since ours was just a
one-level overcall a 3♥ bid would be non-forcing constructive. If
partner is strong and fears that a 3♥ bid might be passed,
then bidding 3♦ is fine because partner can bid again with
a stronger hand.
-
On problem G: How much fun will 3C be with diamonds tapping your [HOPEFULLY] nice club support a few times? Better we join Jim and hope diamonds actually stopped once, or that the rape ends after four tricks in notrump :)
Not sure I quite understand: Are you suggesting we bid 2NT and find partner with
the stiff jack? That's not such a bad idea. However, you decided to double - meaning
that presumably you are prepared to play in a 4-2 heart fit and take the diamond
ruffs in the long trump hand? Or were you going to convert 3♥ to 3♠ and risk playing
in a 3-3 spade fit rather than a 4-2 heart fit if partner has a 3=4=1=5 shape?
Since I'm playing partner for the hand that the double showed, for instance K987, KQ87, 6,
A654 I'm not worried about taking the diamond ruffs in the dummy hand (in 3♣).
-
Problem A is a great advertisement for why a person should subscribe to Bridge World. I thought I might mention that since I am sure they hope this thread gets them some customers.
To start with the amusing, Danny Kleinman notes that his choice of 5 !D eschews the Lazzeri Coup bid of 4 !C. He explains " Reportedly Tony once flipped a routine ground ball to Leo Durocher instead of the first baseman saying 'You take it, Leo. You're so smart I am sure you will know what to do with it' " I don't know enough baseball to track this down, but browsing on the Wikipedia I did learn that Durocher had played for the St. Paul Saints in 1927. I grew up in St. Paul back when the Saints were a Dodger farm club, but '27 was before my time.
More seriously, Kit Woolsey rhetorically asks if a bid of 4 !D would be forcing, He says it should be. He sets the rule "When both hands are unlimited, there should be no such thing as an invitational bid of four of a minor". We debate at times which 4m bids are passable and which are not and this is a reasonable standard. It's clear cut and it makes decent sense. There could be a counter argument. Say the hand is such that it is clear to the bidder it should be played in diamonds. 3 !D is very likely to be passed fir reasons discussed in the article, and 5 !D commits us to at least 5 !D (obviousl0 so there could be a reason for 4 !D to mean, "Well, !D are trump and I have more than a minimum so 4 !D should be safe. I''ll leave it up to you to choose 4 or 5." Woolsey notes that stopping on a dime is tough and so he recommends just biting the bullet. Reasonable enough. Of course 1 !S was an overcall, so that hand is somewhat limited, but not seriously limited, and the same for the X. It's not on nothing but it does not have to be on huge values. So the idea is that while an invit 4 !D might work out it is just too iffy, and it is more useful to play it as being ok, we will play in game, but I have not ruled out playing it somewhere other than diamonds. Or maybe that's what it means. We should be clear about what we will do next if partner now bids 4 !H. Woolsey says he will pass 4 !H.
As I say, the whole article is very interesting.
-
Problem A is a great advertisement for why a person should subscribe to Bridge World. I thought I might mention that since I am sure they hope this thread gets them some customers.
I took up a subscription for Bridge World this year but I shall not be renewing it.
That is because I read for pleasure and enjoyment and personally I find that Bridge World
is more like hard work and I often end up on the computer playing the hands through on
BBO to get a better grasp of any point in a particular bridge deal. Further, it irritates
me exceedingly that the bidding tables show South on the left - instead of West.
For me it's the ACBL Bulletin every day of the week for pure enjoyment and for
the delight in seeing West's bids first.
-
I understand. I own more bridge books than I have read, and a great many more mathematics books than I have read. I have this great book on advanced partial differential equations that I really should get to sometime. 400 or so pages of really good stuff. And then there is this book club Becky and I go to. We discussed A Gentleman in Moscow. Good book. And somewhere i have the one we are to discuss next. I have to get to that, whatever, and wherever, it is.
So right, choices must be made.
But I did really like the lengthy discussion of problem A. The moderator, Kit Woolsey, thought 4 !D was the clear choice and was disappointed to find the majority on the panel thought otherwise. I understand his argument.
It was interesting that both Frank Stewart and Zia agreed on Pass. I do not think of these two as peas n a pod.
And I would still like to hear more about the Lazzeri Coup. I just found the A discussion a kick.