IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on December 16, 2020, 09:13:14 PM

Title: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on December 16, 2020, 09:13:14 PM
FEBRUARY 2021 MSC

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

Submit your FEBRUARY 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)


IAC Forum MSC Scores (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1whamPj4_SDF3cbYUdGL9dpMX23tpwzUJzUvNoVmip_w/edit?usp=sharing)


*     *     *

Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on December 16, 2020, 09:33:51 PM
NON-PROBLEM A:>>    The Decider has decided.  We do not get a vote here. 
We don't get a vote if SIX clubs came around to us.   For all we know, pard has bluffed them out of a grand slam in spades,  but whateveR is going on, we are bound by the "pre-emptor's Oath" now.  I wish ALL our intermediates would come look at this problem A and realize that we, the 3D opener  are NOT being asked if they want to come back into the dance now or not.  Dropping the enemy in club game is exactly what our partner hoped might happen.
    -----PASS


pROBLEM C:>>  I have no answer yet,  BUT -->  Does anyone get the idea that the editors are on a campaign to get  XYZ onto  the new  "BWS-2025"?   This must be the 4th month in a row where that option would make our answers nearly unanimous.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on December 17, 2020, 01:07:23 PM
Very quick and dirty, anticipating the arrival of the January post-mortem:
A:   see above
B:   Axx, AJ, Kxxxxxx, x  facing our Kx, Qxx, A9x, 97xxx = a shaky play for SLAM,  so how can we not raise to 3 DIAMONDS?
C:   No 200-deal simulation this month, but this fits the mold.  2SPADES
D:   Finally a tolerable suit and hand for a 2 heart overcall on five-carder.  'Forbidden Zone" for Michaels, and shelving the.....                T/O double for today.   ---2HEARTS
E:   3NT  (WOW-- I misread WHO opened 3C  for 2 whole weeks  but 3NT is still in the running for the final voting)
F:   They can throw 8-pt "one-bids" at me till hell freezes.  It ain't happening  ---PASS
G:   Pencilling in "PASS"  but having a big eraser nearby.
H:   stiff diamond.  If pard is aceless,  'laissez les bon temps roullez!'(for our lucky oppies)
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on December 22, 2020, 11:34:04 PM
My initial thoughts, none of which I have any confidence will be retained by 01/10/2021.

Problem A:  5 !D  On this auction, I think that partner's pass of 5 !C has to be a forcing pass.  Partner was sniffing at slam when all he knew about was 7 hearts.  I may not have any aces, but I do have a defensive trick. The  question is whether to cue the diamond king or double; I think should show that I have something outside of hearts.

Problem B:  Pass  I am torn between taking another move or giving up.  I have a max for my bidding and good three card support, but 11 tricks is a lot for the diamond game and 9xxxx is not much of a stop in the opponents suit.  A cue bid might get partner to show a club honor for 3NT, but feels hefty for 9 HCPs.  I think I will just pass with the intent to compete.

Problem C:  2 !H  This looks to be a misfit hand, so unless I hear something more promising, I am going low.  I have a 6th heart, but no spots, only doubleton support in diamonds ,tripleton support in spades, and Qx in clubs, so nothing is appealing.

Problem D:  2 !H  If one of my round suit cards were a diamond, I might have bid double.  If I had five diamonds along with five in either hearts or clubs, I might have tried Michaels or Unusual NT.  I don't, so I overcall and await further development.

Problem E: 3NT  I have eight tricks on a club lead.  Perhaps partner has one, to fulfill my NT game, perhaps partner has five or more in a major to try a different vein, perhaps we are just sucking wind.  It is matchpoints, and 3NT is my best guess for a game after the preempt.

Problem F: 1 !S  I hate opening this, but spades is a wonderful lead director, the hand has a lot of offensive potential, and it is my turn to bid.

Problem G: 2 !H  I have too many points to pass this out, but my suit is horrible - no lead direction potential because all my points are elsewhere.  I have to do something, so I think this is better than double.

Problem H: !H A  Have I mentioned lately that I hate to lead?  The only reason to double is that I think we have a game, but do not have a slam and do not think that we can make 5NT.  We have a double fit, so they probably do also.  I think we need to take our tricks before they disappear on  the diamonds.  If I thought this would be a cross ruff, I would lead a trump.  Hopefully, if I am wrong, leading an ace willgive me a chance to switch gears.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on December 23, 2020, 03:33:49 AM
Welcome in, Jim!     2 quick ones...RE: problem D,   please explaing why  0-5-5-3 shape  leads you somewhat towards michael's cue,   but our actual 0-5-3-5 shape  is disqualified.  This should be instructive.   ......as for problem B:   how badly are we misleading pard if we raise after our 1NT response (given 9HCP--none of them in clubs).  Do i really need a super-max--ie: 4 diamonds to do this?
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on December 23, 2020, 02:01:25 PM
2 quick ones...RE: problem D,   please explaing why  0-5-5-3 shape  leads you somewhat towards michael's cue,   but our actual 0-5-3-5 shape  is disqualified.  This should be instructive.   

This is part of why this was initial responses.  Sometimes I am not thinking clearly.  If you are willing to play Michaels with intermediate strength, this hand qualifies.  Michaels and Unusual NT are typically reserved for preemptive or game-force types of hands.  The former because it quickly identifies potential fits and cramps space; the latter because it identifies potential fits and allows partner to visualize the potential playing power of their hand given your hand shape and strength.  This hand is intermediate strength, so I overcall, and, unless partner raises, plan to double or bid clubs next.  That is the big reason why I planned to await developments.  Partner may have a spade stack, but I am not anxious to try the double at the one-level.  Recently I saw someone who doubled a one-bid in the pass out seat, only to have partner make the penalty pass with a balanced 1 HCP hand - the result was -940 the hard way.

However, I will admit that I am frequently tempted to make the two-suit bit whenever I get the opportunity.  It is a temptation I have to stifle often.

......as for problem B:   how badly are we misleading pard if we raise after our 1NT response (given 9HCP--none of them in clubs).  Do i really need a super-max--ie: 4 diamonds to do this?  or maybe five would be safer.

I may be too jaded from recent holdings - 12 counts with Jxxxxx diamond suits - where I have had similar auctions.  I probably should rethink my pass, holding Axx, but that will need to wait for my final submission.  I may have just come into these hands with too conservative of a view.

I said I don't have much confidence in my initial responses this month, but I find value in expressing those thoughts, and seeing what others are thinking along the way.  I find it incredibly frustrating to seen a number of members participate by just providing their answers, without giving us any idea of why they made that choice.  I know it can be difficult, but, if nothing else, it helps you see what steps you are taking to weed through the possibilities.  I also find it frustrating that some who used to participate early, hold off until the end.  I loved watching the evolution of their thinking, as they give the problem more thought or see something that makes them reconsider.  Sometimes, it is the focus on one or two specific problems, sparking debate.

Typically, I make my initial thoughts without considering what others might have to say.  When I make my final selections, I start with answering the problems without looking at what others have written, but then I go back to my initial thoughts, as well as everyone else's thoughts and re-evaluate those choices.  Mostly, I see a lot of consistency, but not always.  Sometimes I am persuaded by my original thoughts, sometimes by the thoughts of someone else, and rarely, the reflection gets me thinking along a different vein altogether. 

If I haven't said it before, I really appreciate the dialog that emerges each month on eight problems.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on December 24, 2020, 12:29:57 AM
Hi Folks, Well you all know this is my first attempt at this and it might be my last. Here goes:
A. If my partner wanted me to play in hearts, I'd be playing it. Yes strange bidding but I pass. Let him play it.
B.  3 d. Pard could have 18 points. I'll leave it up to him.
C.  Could this be another Sayna 2H?  Other than hearts just a couple of queens and a J. 2H. Still thinking about it.
D.  I haven't seen it in print yet wherein Michaels is low count or high count. And I've tried it and don't like it. My partner and I
        open Michaels and if I have a good hand I'll bid again. It's always worked for us. Maybe I'll pay a visit to Larry.  2S or 2H. I'm in a quandary. Leaning toward 2H.
E.  3NT? I debated on this and finally decided this is too good a hand to bid anything else. Hearts to break 4/4, or partner may have help in hearts. Don't want to
           make a forcing bid of 3d, and see partner rebid 4c. So, 3nt it is.
F.  Only 8 HCP. I had a partner once who opened that light in 3rd seat but she had 10,000 ACBL MP. And it worked for her. I pass.
G. I don't relish the idea of bidding 2H. I could dble. As long as I have 4 pieces in one of the majors it could work. Still thinking about it.
H. And now we come to the lead. The leads have really done me in. But for now A H. Partner seems reluctant to get excited about his suit.
    So a good possibility hearts will make it around the table followed by the C Ace. If I was in that seat I think I'd be too chicken to double.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on December 24, 2020, 10:57:28 AM
A short (ish) note on D and B raised by Jock and Jim:

D.  BWS says under Initial Defensive-Action Requirements, "An unpassed-hand's cue-bid in opener's suit, in either direct or reopening position, shows any biddable strength and: (a) both majors if the cue-bid is in a minor; or (b) the unbid major and an unspecified minor if the cue-bid is in a major. "  Although Michaels/UNT is often used only with specific HCP ranges, BWS would allow a 2 !S bid here.  The Panel is supposed to be using the system, so why not 2 !S?

B.  One of the advantages of using 4-suit transfers after a 1N (15-17) opening is that thin 3N games can be found.   Responder with (AK/AQ/KQ)xxxx and nothing else transfers to the minor (1N - 2 !S for clubs, 1N - 2N for diamonds).  If opener simply completes the transfer, responder passes.  But opener can super-accept when holding (Q+)xx in the minor by using the intervening bid (1N - 2 !S - 2N superaccept in clubs, 1N - 2N - 3 !C superaccept in diamonds).  If she does, responder then raises to 3N game, counting on 6 minor suit tricks and relying on 3 more tricks from opener's remaining 11-13 HCP.  So a 3N game on 20/21 HCP.

This problem seems to me to be similar to this.  Partner is not promising a 6c diamond suit, but we surely have 22 HCP between us.  Sure, West should have decent clubs (he is vulnerable) but he could be pre-balancing (against a 1 !D - 1N - p-p-p auction -- am I talking rubbish here?) so his clubs might only be (say) Kxxxx.  Anyway, to those who use 4-suit transfers, a 3 !D bid looks almost automatic holding Axx.  If partner has got weak diamonds or good diamonds and no club stop, he can pass,  Otherwise, hello thin 3N game!

OK, not so short, then.  Happy Hols to all you bidders.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on December 24, 2020, 02:59:50 PM
I'm waiting to be called to do Christmas chores, so a bit of a stream of consciousness ... for which I should apologise, really

A)  Why hasn’t partner bid 5 !H?  And why did he respond 4N (ace ask) instead of the much safer 4 !C (RKC ask)? (In BWS, C. After Our Preempt; Responding to preemptive openings in a suit: When responder is an unpassed hand: (a1) if the opening is not in clubs and not at the four-level, a four-notrump response is an ace-ask, a four-club response is a key-card-ask).  If he was serious about a heart slam, holding 2 Aces, he would choose 4 !C.  Even if he held 2 Aces and the K !H, he would choose 4 !C.  (If he’s serious and got a void presumably he would have used Exclusion RKC and bid 5x).  And after I showed no aces, he would have bid 5 !H, surely. 


H)   There’s an awful lot about this auction that eludes me – including quite why I doubled this contract.  East has overcalled diamonds and then bid spades.  BWS says “if intervenor overcalls and then shows a lower-ranking suit indicating length in two suits that could be shown directly, the lower-ranking suit has only 4 cards”. That’s not the case here.  East could have bid 2 !H (remember; this covers any biddable strength in BWS) to show spades and a minor, so the auction means East is 5x6x? 


Ok, I'll shut up now  :-[
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: peuco on December 24, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
Hello,

A. Pass Blubayou original reasoning
B. 3D working points
C. 2NT xyz 2C
D. 2S showing shape makes life easier
E. 3NT hope opp misses the lead
F. 1S I do not see how one can profit by passing and see many ways by bidding both offensively and defensively
G.3NT do not know if Ogust is played in BWS
H. H Ace  D x too risky
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: peuco on December 24, 2020, 06:19:09 PM
Misread problem G but I will stick to 2NT
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on December 24, 2020, 07:44:29 PM
A)  Why hasn’t partner bid 5 !H?  And why did he respond 4N (ace ask) instead of the much safer 4 !C (RKC ask)? (In BWS, C. After Our Preempt; Responding to preemptive openings in a suit: When responder is an unpassed hand: (a1) if the opening is not in clubs and not at the four-level, a four-notrump response is an ace-ask, a four-club response is a key-card-ask).  If he was serious about a heart slam, holding 2 Aces, he would choose 4 !C.  Even if he held 2 Aces and the K !H, he would choose 4 !C.  (If he’s serious and got a void presumably he would have used Exclusion RKC and bid 5x).  And after I showed no aces, he would have bid 5 !H, surely. 

  • So, maybe partner is pulling a con – we are white v red - holding AKxx in hearts and pretty much nothing outside? A 4 !C response would have left East with options (among them 4 !H and 4N).   If this is what partner is doing, one of the opponents must have a void in hearts, my K !D is our only possible winner and they have a safe small slam.  I’m reaching for the pass card, but I worry why East hasn’t done this sort of thinking after partner passed 5 !C – wearing his hat, with all these thoughts whirling under it, wouldn’t I have bid 6 !C? 

    Someone will tell me about pass/double inversion situations one day, but partner can’t be leaving the pass/x decision to a pre-empting opener?  The bottom line is that he didn’t bid 5 !H, so I can’t make a move.  The inner demon has started whispering “double to show club control” – goodness knows what messes I’d get into if I spent this long at the table thinking about bids.

I wondered this too, Dick.

Why was the !H K of no concern to my partner? He either has it . . .  or has a stiff heart and his own long suit. I'll have to come up with a possible construction when I can sit and think about it.

Is partner pulling a con? Maybe. Would that be a Stripe-Tailed-Ape-Ace-Ask?  ;) But I doubt it, so I will bid. If partner cannot stand the 5 level with me showing no aces, he shouldn't ask. So 5 !D seems the only informative call I can make with safety. So I will.

Have not looked at other problems yet.   
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on December 24, 2020, 08:11:58 PM
re: the lead problem...Thanks DickH, for pointing out that there is way too much bidding here for everybody to be fully honest, barring goulash distributions.   I took out a deck of cards and tried to get all 3 of them to have their bid and could not do it without a joker added.   All the more support for going for my diamond ruff as maybe the ONLY way to even beat this a single trick,   say I :)
   And if Righty is COMPLETELY blowing smoke,  it might be TWO OR THREE diamond ruffs if  we can get pard in with his known kings :)
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on December 25, 2020, 11:21:25 PM
A few changes:

Problem H: Thanks Dick for leading the way. The lead of the diamond makes sense: !D 5.
Problem D: I checked with Larry Cohen. According to him the weak, strong is not set in stone. There are many who
                 think as I do. He also added one way to deal with it by partner is to use the law of total tricks:
                 bid 3 holding 4 in support,  bid 4 holding 5, !S 2
Problem F: Got to thinking, maybe light 3rd seat openers by my partner is why she had 10,000 MP: !S 1
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on December 27, 2020, 04:14:16 AM
Preliminary thoughts . . .

PROBLEM A: Pass
I still think 5 !D is viable. And I hate to cater to what would have to be a tactical and "fake" 4NT from partner. I was able to come up with constructions for everyone at the table consistent with their bids. Everyone but partner's pass.

Hopefully, the opps are cold for slam and partner's brilliance has paid off.

5 !D
Why 4NT? Why not 4 !C instead? Why does partner not care about the !H King?
What hand I consistent with partner’s bidding? If partner had spades long enough to bid, he bids them. With enough hearts to want them as trump, he asks keycards with 4 !C.

Partner is also single suited. Diamonds. That is what I can come up with.
Maybe:
!S AKJ !H x !D AQJ9xxxx !C x    . . . (this is still not close,but something like this)

Showing my !D King is the only information I can convey.
So I do.



PROBLEM B: 2 !H.
My hand got better after 2 !D. I’ve already denied having four hearts, so this merely shows something in this suit and good !D support in the context of the auction. Partner should be able to figure out I have the !D Ace.


PROBLEM C: 3 !H
An overbid, just by a bit. Give me the !H T instead of the deuce and it's clear.
Vul at IMPs convinces me.

2 !H
Slight underbid on values, but everything else looks right.



PROBLEM D: Double
Half my values are in my three-card suit. It looks like my distribution is closer to 0 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5
So I double.

2 !S
I will need to be convinced this is wrong.



PROBLEM E: 3NT
Give up on something bigger. Give up on right-siding. Hope the quick 3NT steers the opps to a poor opening lead.

3 !D
Not sure where I’m going with this. Hoping to hear 3 !H but then what? Does 3 !D then 3NT leak too much information? Should I just blast 3NT and cross my fingers?



PROBLEM F: 1 !S
Third seat, may as well use the minimal preemptive value of 1 !S.

1 !D
Third seat. No rebid problem. Open the longer suit. This is merely a style issue, as always decided by this month’s panel.



PROBLEM G: 2NT
Crossing my fingers with this "value bid."

2 !H
Only because other choices are worse.



PROBLEM H: !H A
No reason.
No logic.
No argument.
I hate leads.

!C A
Partner’s unwillingness to cooperate beyond 3 !H, then bid 5 !C hints at weak hearts and good clubs. We probably have a ten-card fit, so a club lead may not withstand a trick one ruff. Which concerns me. Maybe the diamond ruff is best?


Have I mentioned that I hate lead problems?
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: thornbury on December 27, 2020, 11:34:56 PM
PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Diamond
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Club Ace
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: wackojack on January 02, 2021, 11:13:17 AM
Initial thoughts
A 5♦
Partner should have been prepared for me to play in 5♥ opposite no aces.  I have a singleton ♣ and the K♦ which could be crucial for making 12 tricks.  So 5♦ should give that message.
B 3♦
West’s 2♣ overcall does increase the chances that partner is short in this suit.  Could partner have   ♠ Axx; ♥ KJx; ♦ KQxxxx; ♣x?  Yes easily.  So I will press on to make the invite in ♦s.
C  2♥
This looks like a misfit so I will bid a conservative 2♥ with my quacky 11.
D 2♠
The best chance of finding a fit and should be able to stand the 3 level.  A take out double perhaps gives you a better chance of finding a fit as it does not exclude diamonds.  However, you will be kicking yourself if partner turns up with a decent hand with 3 hearts.
E 3♦
How I hate partner pre-empting me.  8 tricks in my hand and likely zero in partner’s hand except when ♣ are trumps.  I will try 3♦ hoping partner has something like ♣ KQJ10xxx and a doubleton ♥. Of course partner might well have ♥ Kxx and ♣ KQxxxx .  And we may well have missed 3NT.  ☹
F  1♠
If partner has 3 card ♠ support we likely buy the contract.  If West out bids us then we have got our lead director in. 
G dbl
The heart suit is too poor to overcall 2♥.
H A♣
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 03, 2021, 12:29:07 AM
PROBLEM A:>>  We are not ALLOWED a bid here, And a solid wall of  25 "5D" votes won't change this.   The Captain has elected to take a lead to five clubs, and I don't even have to figure out what those reasons might be .
    PASS
PROBLEM B:>>  3D might be our limit, but it will never go down. On the other hand,  the club  bidder might be coming in spades and be pleasantly suprized.   LET that happen at the 3-level, eh?   Also, partner's  non-jump to 2D can yet be making five with this dummy, so raising seems clear.
    3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C:>>  Can't explain why raising 1 spade feels like such a happy compromise for this large pile  so i will just bid it and move on.
     2 Spades
PROBLEM D:>>   Am letting the united voice of our contributors suck me in on this one.  I.E.  switching from the 2H overcall to Michaels cue:(  Via con Dios, Jim--I am with you in my heart.
     2 Spades
PROBLEM E:>>  Am tired of going down in 3NT in my nightmares--whether they grab 5 hearts, or collect 5 something at the end after a different lead.   This hand reminds me of goulash maxim #4: "The quick tricks belong in service to the guy with the looong suit"-- so i will put this down as dummy
     PASS
PROBLEM F:>>  Hell hasn't frozen over,  so no ONE-BID  for me.  And I am terrible at playing catch-up after oddball two-bids, so this remains a...
    PASS
PROBLEM G:>>.  I broke a promise to myself to stay off the simulator--not on problem C, which is a natural  candidate but on this one.  But gave up after only 24 valid examples.  One thing became clear--"pass"  is a huge LOOSER but "2H", 2NT, and "double" all had their days in the sun.  Also--  if you DO double, it's ok to raise pard's 2 Hearts, but NOT his 2 spades!  (in case you meet this beast in real life).  The 3sided coin came up....
    DOUBLE
PROBLEM H:>>   With max of  KQ, KJ in our suits,  pard who opened has one of their aces  [or at least some stopper].  Definitely go for the ruff--OR RUFFS!] After all if they are 4-1  and 3-0 in our suits there is no setting trick if we don't
    singleton Diamond!

Congratulations  to our February champion --dropping partner in his 3C opener on #E pretty much seals MY fate  I suppose:)
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 04, 2021, 11:56:03 AM
Jock, I don't care how much you rail about it, but the nature of bidding contests is that there are more than one probable answer, and sometimes the nature of multiple possibilities is that one or more will violate your sensibilities. 

True, after a preempt, you are generally expected to keep your mouth shut.  The primary exceptions being (1) partner makes a forcing bid and (2) you have  a highly distributional hand that you always intended to bid a second time if the opportunity arose.  Problem A is a variant of the first.  Partner has made a forcing bid, you have made two calls that describe your hand accurately and now partner has passed and you can still return to your suit at the level partner, when he forced, he had committed the partnership.  Now we need to make a final decision based on an unfamiliar partner.

Last month, I was burned because the bulk of the panel assumed a light-action partner, so when partner failed to overcall 1H with 1S, it effectively barred a spade lead.  Now I have to guess whether I have a partner who will ask for aces, following my preempt, as a move to just make things more difficult for the opponents, or as a serious slam move.  If partner may have just thrown a wrench, Jock is right - I should pass because partner is captain.  But if it was a serious slam try, then partner's pass should be forcing, and my responsibility is to keep the auction alive.  My choices are to double, bid 5 !H or 5 !D; of the three, I consider 5 !H to be the least forward going, and double as the most.  But my biggest problem will be deciding the nature of my fictitious partnership before I submit this month's entry.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: kenberg on January 05, 2021, 06:12:48 PM
Maybe everything to be said about A has been said, but I have changed my mind from Pass to 5 !D and I'll say why.

I agree that after a preempt we should now submit to partner's wishes. But what are his wishes? I'm not so sure that he wishes to defend.
The auction begins 3 !H - Pass - 4NT, with 4NT asking for aces not key cards. Regardless of why partner chose 4NT instead of 4 !C, he has announced that he is willing to play this hand at the 5 level at least, and perhaps at the 6 level. If we go with this, then a pass of 5 !C says "I don't care if you are willing to play this at the 5 level, I am choosing otherwise". That's a pretty independent choice for a preempter.

I admit to not completely understanding this auction, but it seems that E, for his X, probably has some two suited hand and he wants to consider a sacrifice. Maybe not, but that seems reasonable.  The XX is explained as showing no aces, presumably a pass would show one ace, so S had no choice in his call, XX was required.. Now W says he can play in !C if that is one of the  suits E had in mind. And now N is not sure what to do. Maybe he should hit 5 !C maybe not. So he leaves it up to S.

Thinking this way, N is not saying "I wish to defend 5 !C" he is saying "I'm not sure".

And I'm not sure either. But I think that once pard has indicated through 4NT that he is willing to play at the 5 level, a pass of 5 !C is not what he is expecting, or at least not what he is hoping for. So I am going with 5 !D.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on January 06, 2021, 03:48:33 PM
Jim is right, first time glancing at these problems can be in error without realizing it.
For instance, Problem A: I thought my partner bid 5 clubs. Lefty bid 5c. But answer remains the same, pass.
Problem B: Thrown again: no, partner doesn't have 18 pts but I do have enough to raise to 3d.
I'm at the top of my bid. Answer again remains the same: 3d.
               
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 07, 2021, 07:28:22 PM
Problem A.  I said I'd be willing to learn about forcing passes and Todd, Jim and Ken reckon this to be an example.  I confess to being worried about East doubling 4N holding something like (6511)* and 16 HCP as an intended sacrifice when vulnerable against not.  But putting that to one side, what would I bid?

Todd's construction of partner's hand suggests diamonds might be the target suit, rather than hearts.   

Preliminary thoughts . . .

PROBLEM A: 5 !D
Why 4NT? Why not 4 !C instead? Why does partner not care about the !H King?
What hand I consistent with partner’s bidding? If partner had spades long enough to bid, he bids them. With enough hearts to want them as trump, he asks keycards with 4 !C.

Partner is also single suited. Diamonds. That is what I can come up with.
Maybe:
!S AKJ !H x !D AQJ9xxxx !C x    . . . (this is still not close,but something like this)

Showing my !D King is the only information I can convey.
So I do.



Why can't partner have spades as a single suit instead of diamonds?  His bidding would make equal sense - he simply wants to know about aces.  He might also make the same bids if he was aiming at hearts (holding Ax Kxxxx AKQx xx). If those are not ludicrous thoughts, conceivably partner might be thinking of diamonds, hearts or spades.  That rules out a bid of 5 !H for me.  5 !D is attractive, but in fact I can support him in spades (with much less elan, admittedly), so double might be better.  Further, perhaps he passed 5 !C because he's worried about two losers in the suit, a double would be more informative than 5 !D - surely this would show a void/singleton (it can hardly be for penalty from a pre-emptive opener who has no aces).  If I become completely convinced this is a forcing pass situation, I will double. 

Problem E.  I have to say I find 3 !D an unattractive bid because it almost certainly converts a positive score into a negative one.  Suppose partner has KQJxxxx in clubs.  Now let's say he has nothing outside.  With any 7222 hand 3 !C is cold (and possibly has 2 overtricks)  and 3 !D is doomed.  With a 7(321)* hand, partner is most likely to have a singleton in diamonds and so 3 !D goes down again, whereas even if he has 3 hearts and opponents lead them, we're making with 3 !C (with an overtrick). 

I'm hesitant over 3N for the same reason; if partner has nothing outside clubs I've swapped a positive score for a negative one.  Moreover, if partner does have the K !S, I will need hearts to break 4-3 or 4-4, otherwise that's 5 tricks gone from the start (opponents have hardly got the HCP to lead any other suit). 

I am not afraid to say that I don't understand how this plays out at Matchpoints.   I'm a bit ashamed about that - whenever someone says "well, it's matchpoints ... " my mind seems to become a void.   I hope someone can point me to a nice document which explains MP v IMPs.  But, to my simple mind, 3N is either a clear top or a shared bottom, and 3 !C is better than average (much better if everyone keeps choosing 3 !D!).  So, I will pass or if it's better to aim at a putative-but-quite-unlikely top at MP, 3N.   


Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: bAbsG on January 07, 2021, 10:37:06 PM
Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.

SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
              Canada

Your Solutions for the February 2021 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Club Ace
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on January 08, 2021, 03:37:51 AM
SOLVER: Todd Holes
        Glen Ellyn IL 60137
        U.S.A.
 
Your Solutions for the February 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace

Modified comments upthread.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: wackojack on January 08, 2021, 11:30:36 AM
Final thoughts
A 5♦
Partner should have been prepared for me to play in 5♥ opposite no aces.  I have a singleton ♣ and the K♦ which could be crucial for making 12 tricks.  So 5♦ should give that message.
I refuse to believe that partner is psyching 4NT so stick with 5 !D

B 3♦
West’s 2♣ overcall does increase the chances that partner is short in this suit.  Could partner have   ♠ Axx; ♥ KJx; ♦ KQxxxx; ♣x?  Yes easily.  So I will press on to make the invite in ♦s.
2 !H is too esoteric for my liking so I stick with 3 !D

C  2♥
This looks like a misfit so I will bid a conservative 2♥ with my quacky 11.

D 2♠
The best chance of finding a fit and should be able to stand the 3 level.  A take out double perhaps gives you a better chance of finding a fit as it does not exclude diamonds.  However, you will be kicking yourself if partner turns up with a decent hand with 3 hearts.

E 3♦ pass
How I hate partner pre-empting me.  8 tricks in my hand and likely zero in partner’s hand except when ♣ are trumps.  I will try 3♦ hoping partner has something like ♣ KQJ10xxx and a doubleton ♥. Of course partner might well have ♥ Kxx and ♣ KQxxxx .  And we may well have missed 3NT.  ☹
Change of mind.  I will gamble that partner's 3  !C pre-empt is "pure"  Even with a "dirty" K !H 3NT is still only 50%.  So a match point pass.
 

F  1♠
If partner has 3 card ♠ support we likely buy the contract.  If West out bids us then we have got our lead director in.

G dbl
The heart suit is too poor to overcall 2♥.

H A♣
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 08, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
5107 SEWELLS POINTE DR
FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407-9355
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds  - I think I do need to make one more move after all, and what information does partner need most, where is the !D A.
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts  - I have the invitational values and I am red at IMPs, so I will make the slight overbid instead of the slight underbid.
PROBLEM D: Double  -  When I have three strains, I like to show them.  The void may see the opponents jumping in spades, so lets get all three strains in play now.  AQx of diamonds is almost as good as KTxxx of clubs.
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace

Each of my changes were bids I thought about during when I made my initial thoughts.  Problem D is the one decision that was furthest from being an actual choice, but like so many things, recent experience is coloring my thoughts - I have seen a number of times when I have lost the opportunity to show a second or third suit because the auction careened into the stratosphere in my void and it would have been better to get all options into view.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: msphola on January 08, 2021, 07:50:38 PM
A. Pass
B. 3 !D
C. 3 !H
D. 2 !S
E. 3 !D
F. 1 !S
G. 2 !H
H.  !S7
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: peuco on January 08, 2021, 08:17:30 PM
Nickname Peuco


SOLUTIONS RECEIVED
Your MSC Solutions have been received for the
February 2021 Contest


SOLUTIONS FOR:
Francisco Lizana
Magdalena 75 D 62 Las Condes
Santiago 7550109
Chile

PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace

A copy of these solutions will be e-mailed to you for your records.

Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club contest.

MSC CONFIRMATION
Your MSC entry has been received.

Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on January 08, 2021, 10:27:23 PM
A 5♦
Partner should have been prepared for me to play in 5♥ opposite no aces.  I have a singleton ♣ and the K♦ which could be crucial for making 12 tricks.  So 5♦ should give that message.
I refuse to believe that partner is psyching 4NT so stick with 5 !D

Yes, about refusing to believe that partner is psyching 4NT.

It bothers me that we are being forced to consider it as an option! And yet . . . here we are.

As I wrote above, I came up with a construction of all four hands that I thought consistent with the auction. But I could not come up with one consistent with partner's pass. The only thing that made sense, then, was the unthinkable. Partner has choreographed this entire auction. He has kept them out of slam with his "Stripe Tailed Ape 4NT."  ;)

At least, that is what I am banking on.

This problem more than any other caught my attention this month. I can barely wait to see the panel comments!  ;D
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on January 09, 2021, 12:23:52 AM
SOLVER: Pat McDermott
        8015 Buford Commons
        N. Chesterfield  23235
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the February 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Diamond 5
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 09, 2021, 03:11:17 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR
BLUbayou
PROBLEM A: Pass                  pre-empt discipline demands
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades          5th choice of 5?
PROBLEM D: Double            awkward for Michaels, reasonably 3-suited
PROBLEM E:] Pass               
]PROBLEM F:] Pass

PROBLEM G: Double             (pass wins 1 time in 20), 2h,2nt,X all about equal
PROBLEM H: Diamond 5        a ruff or 2 almost certain
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: drac on January 09, 2021, 07:58:32 PM
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Tin Street No.1
Castrum Sex 545400
Romania

PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Club Ace
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: kenberg on January 09, 2021, 10:08:01 PM

I need to think a bit more but here is what I am now thinking.


A:  5D. I still have no idea of what is going on. But it's my bid, and I bid 5D

B:  2NT. You may be right, I may be crazy.

C: 2NT. With my 11 count this actually seems normal.

D: 2S. This also seems normal enough

E: 3D.  It's forcing, as I think it should be.  Among other things, it's possible that the hand belongs in diamonds. Maybe not likely but possible.

F: 1S. This appears to be their hand, maybe we can compete in spades, if not a spade lead from pard seems right.

G: 2H. I need to think about this.

H: I have no idea. Probably the heart A.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Curls77 on January 09, 2021, 10:56:16 PM
Jim's 3rd reminder worked  ;D

PROBLEM A: 5D
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 3H inv
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 3NT, oh uh
PROBLEM F: 1D
PROBLEM G: 2H
PROBLEM H: cA
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: wackojack on January 10, 2021, 12:06:30 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Jack Goody
England

PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club Ace
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: kenberg on January 10, 2021, 03:09:05 AM
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
        320 Quail Dr
        Sykesville MD 21784
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the February 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Club Ace
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Veeree on January 10, 2021, 03:42:27 AM
I don’t know how it works but
 A) x
B) pass
C) 2h
D)2S
E)3nt
F)1sp
G)2heart
H) 5 dia
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: MarilynLi on January 10, 2021, 06:54:12 AM
PROBLEM A: Double
At first glance, it looks like partner with H support and weakish hand is messing up the opps. But wait a minute, why partner didn't bid 5H then, it preempted both 4S and 5C by opps. With white vs. red, that would be the best option. So my conclusion is partner who bid 4NT, didn't have H support, but a good hand with likely H small singleton. I hope my X tells partner I have one defensive trick and hope partner can make a smart choice.

PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
My motive of the 3D bid is partner probably has club shortness. I can imagine a Diamond game vs. 13 count partner.

PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts
Right points and shape for 3H bid.

PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
I don't like to double with a void and I don't like to see a 3S bid by West after I bid 2H. So Michaels, introduce my two suits now.

PROBLEM E: 4 Diamonds
The hand has 8 tricks itself, but where's the 9th trick for 3NT if you can't get to partner's hand. If partner doesn't have the HA nor the SK, there's almost no way to make 3NT, but there are still chances to make 5 level minor game (like a singleton Heart). If partner has either of those, both games would probably make. So I'm on the path to 5 level minor game. 4D here is key card asking for clubs. If I hear the best news, I'd go for 6C, otherwise, I will settle in 5C.
One thing conerned me is the Match Point scoring. Pass could be a good strategy for it.

PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
Just a 3rd seat opening, also a leading directing.

PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
I don't like my H suit, but I don't see other better choice.

PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
Take a look at dummy first.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 10, 2021, 09:58:10 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Richard Harvey
Netley Abbey
Southampton SO31 5EL
U.K.

PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 1 Spade
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Diamond 5

A copy of these solutions will be e-mailed to you for your records.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: yleexotee on January 10, 2021, 11:04:07 PM
Thank you all who kept reminding me. but I failed to enter them again. I jotted down some notes a couple days ago,but I can't see the problems anymore. I'm going to post my notes before the answers come out and see where that gets me.
A = X but I had a note that said, what does it mean in BWS. so I think I remember that I want to at least bid 5D. it has to be forcing pass if p asks for aces.
B = Pass
C = 2H but wondered if 2s was better
D = 2h
E = 3D if its forcing, don't remember the problem at all
F = 1S
G = 2H
H = don't remember the problem but wondered if I should take an ace off the top. one of them was maybe AQ and there other wasn't I think so I choose that one (A of H? or A of C maybe)
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Curls77 on January 12, 2021, 06:44:43 PM
before the answers come out and see where that gets me.

Where are our results?  ???
 :)
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on January 14, 2021, 03:42:51 AM
Hey Jim, tell us about your BIG win!
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 16, 2021, 02:07:27 PM
February Results

First, my apologies for the lateness of providing the winners. 

JCreech won this month and made the BW Honor roll.  BabsG and newcomer to the MSC contest, Peuco, were 2nd and 3rd; both narrowly missed the honor roll.  Congratulations to all.

NAMEBW-SCORERANKMPs
JCreech     720   1   30
BabsG     700   2   15
Peuco     690   3   10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Also participating: BluBayou, CCR3, Curls77, DickHy, DrAculea, KenBerg, MarilynLi, Masse24, Msphola, Thornbury, WackoJack, and one anonymous participant. 

Yleexotee submitted late - he was not given the participation point, but his responses will go into the recap and are appreciated.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Curls77 on January 17, 2021, 10:51:38 PM
WTG winners!  :)
Welcome Peuco and yippie to Babs for assuring girl name at top !

Thanks Jim, and congrats!

PS: Jim, use same strategy on Joe as you do on me LOL
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 18, 2021, 12:10:20 AM
I did until he said he had a tickler to ensure getting it done on time.  You see the results of believing him; about the same as believing he has a full opening bid - lol.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 23, 2021, 11:38:08 PM
With my usual rashness, I volunteered to write the summaries this month.  I plan to drip-feed boards two at a time.  I hope that’s ok.  You never know, after the first three parts I might get away with ignoring the lead problem.

February MSC Summary (Part 1):  Director Jeff Rubens

PROBLEM A.  Pass (blubayou, ccr3, peuco, babsg, masse24, msphola)

Imps EW vulnerable   !S:J5   !H:QJT8763   !D:KT5   !C:5

South  West  North  East
  3H        p        4N      x               4N = ace ask
  xx        5C        p       p               xx = no aces
   ?

There was much discussion in the IAC about this auction, particularly over whether partner was psyching or making a forcing pass.  The panel by a majority of 17-10 chose the former.  But, to be honest, quite a few of the panel were not sure what was going on.

Ira Chorush; “an auction which nobody has ever seen.”  Carl Hudecek; “Partner could have been kidding around. I told my story.”  Kamil and Sherman; “Seems a fairly good bet partner is the joker here.” Joey Silver; “Partner’s 4NT put him in charge.  He was either looking for a slam or trying to monkey the villains out of what they could make.”   Kit Woolsey; “I have described my hand … for all I know partner has psyched opponents out of a slam.  I am not invited to the party.”  Eric Kokish and Bart Bramley shared Kit’s view, with Bart adding; “If partner’s objective was to confuse the opponents, it worked.  If his objective was to confuse me, that worked too.”

blubayou quickly diagnosed the top mark and steadfastly stuck to his guns. His resolution was shared by ccr3: “If my partner wanted me to play in hearts, I'd be playing it. Yes, strange bidding but I pass.”  Masse24 originally doubted partner was pulling a con, but after analysis, chose the top score, “I came up with a construction of all four hands that I thought consistent with the auction. But I could not come up with one consistent with partner's pass. The only thing that made sense, then, was the unthinkable. Partner has choreographed this entire auction. He has kept them out of slam with his "Stripe Tailed Ape 4NT."  This was essentially blubayou’s point three weeks earlier; “For all we know, pard has bluffed them out of a grand slam in spades.”

Panellists commented on forcing passes. Ralph Katz: “Either partner psyched or asked for Aces with no club control and thought his pass was forcing.  I would vote for the former.”  John Hurd and Jill Meyers thought the pass could not be forcing at this vulnerability.  Oren Kriegel agreed but said he would not be sure about other colours either. 

5 !D. 

For the panellists reaching for something other than the green card, 5 !D was the popular choice (8/10).  Ira Chorush: “If I bid, five diamonds will tell North something about my hand which may be of use if the bidding continues, including what to lead.”  Curtis Cheek: “Five diamonds, ‘must’ show short clubs and a diamond king.”  Michael Rosenberg; “Five diamonds announces diamond and club controls.”

Those comments echoed precisely the analysis of Wackojack: “Partner should have been prepared for me to play in 5 !H opposite no aces.  I have a singleton club and the K !D which could be crucial for making 12 tricks.  So, 5 !D should give that message.” Jcreech shared the view: “On this auction, I think that partner's pass of 5 !C has to be a forcing pass … I think should show that I have something outside of hearts.”

Despite being a popular choice with 5 votes in the IAC, double rated nary a mention by the panel.


PROBLEM B. 3 !D (blubayou, ccr3, peuco, babsg, wackojack, jcreech, msphola, MarilynLi, dickhy)

Imps Both vulnerable  !S:K2   !H:Q73   !D:A97   !C:97632

South  West  North  East
   -           -        1D      p
  1N        2C      2D      p
    ?


Jeff Rubens acknowledged that 2 !H “seems technically correct on a constructive basis” but he preferred 3 !D.  One reason was that 3 !D would make it harder for East-West if they had a spade fit – a point echoed by Kamil and Sherman; “just in case the opponents have a major suit fit.”  Most 3 !D bidders on the panel weren’t thinking about opponents, however, but aiming at game.  Ira Chorush; “Partner could easily have a holding that makes 3N a good contract.” Danny Kleinman; “A maximum in context, with both face cards likely to be working, so give partner a chance to bid game”. Fleisher and Friesner; “Normal hands for partner make five diamonds cold; the club overcall and our length suggest North is short there, eg, Axx KJx KQTxxx x.  If partner bids 3N we will likely be putting down a satisfactory dummy opposite, say Qxx Ax KQxxxx Kx.”

Their construction of a 5 !D game mirrors that of Wackojack: “West’s 2 !C overcall does increase the chances that partner is short in this suit.  Could partner have ♠ Axx; ♥ KJx; ♦ KQxxxx; ♣x?  Yes easily.  So, I will press on to make the invite in diamonds.”  MarilynLi was thinking in this vein too; “My motive of the 3 !D bid is partner probably has club shortness. I can imagine a Diamond game vs. 13 count partner.”  Blubayou touched on both motives for the 3 !D bid: “3 !D might be our limit, but it will never go down.   On the other hand, the club bidder might be coming in spades… also, partner's non-jump to 2 !D can yet be making five with this dummy, so raising seems clear.”  In aiming for a possible 3N, the important card was cited by Jcreech: “I think I do need to make one more move after all, and what information does partner need most, where is the diamond A.”

3 !C and 2 !S. 

Nine panellists found 3 !D insufficiently encouraging. Eric Kokish; “Three diamonds feels inadequate with everything likely to be working and a near-maximum.” Ralph Katz thought 5 diamonds could be a great spot so made “the strongest bid possible”, a view in which he was joined by Boye Brogeland. Michael Rosenberg, with an eye on slam, opted for 2 !S - his son, Kevin (who Jeff Rubens wants us to look out for “one of America’s most talented younger players”) first preferred 3 !D and then decided a stronger bid was necessary, “two spades or three clubs is better; three clubs is more clearly raising diamonds, but the best card outside diamonds is spades.”  Neither of these bids seems to have occurred to IAC bidders.

2 !H.

This was seen as being flexible. John Hurd; “Encouragement at the cheapest level in the hope of giving North room to get his hand across.  We want to reach 5 !D opposite 3370 and similar shapes, perhaps 3N occasionally, yet stop in 3 !D opposite partner’s usual garbage” [I want to partner Mr Hurd if this is his default view].  Kit Woolsey; “Holding a maximum with nothing wasted in clubs, it is important to give partner this information rather than merely bid 3 !D which I would do with a random hand including some diamond support.” Curtis Cheek; “The same bid I’d have made without the overcall: maximum, diamond fit, cheapest stopper.”   

Masse24 was the only IAC bidder to take this approach; “My hand got better after 2 !D. I’ve already denied having four hearts, so this merely shows something in this suit and good diamond support in the context of the auction. Partner should be able to figure out I have the diamond Ace.”

Of other bids, Kenberg chose 2NT; “You may be right, I may be crazy”.  Keeping him company in the padded cell was Phillip Alder; “It is hero-or-goat time” to which the director observed; “let partner decide which; he’s the one who will be misled into thinking that the South hand has a high club honour.” Outside the cell being fitted with straitjackets will be 5 IAC bidders who passed - the option being mentioned only once: “pass is out of the question.”
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 24, 2021, 12:49:22 AM
With my usual rashness, I volunteered to write the summaries this month.  I plan to drip-feed boards two at a time.  I hope that’s ok.  You never know, after the first three parts I might get away with ignoring the lead problem.

Not a chance Dick.  Thank you for stepping up, but the first quarter looks too good to believe that you won't have enough gas to make it to the finish line.  Certainly an excellent start, and I await further installments with anticipation.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 24, 2021, 02:12:03 AM
     The B-Team's February comment summery:


Problem A:  10 panelists bid something red-mostly the low hanging fruit of 5 Diamonds.  The other 17 passed, with 10 of them echoing Harry Steiner'sobservation: "Once I opened 3 hearts, I relinquished captaincy. Partner has made the final decision....Anything other than PASS would be anti-partnership."   Twelve of the seventeen pass voters said "amen" to this position, many more or less sarcastically.
(ZIA: "If partner is not up to a friendly psych, you can call me a wacky Paki"). Four other passers hedged their position, hinting at other vulnerabilities, they would be inclined to ruin pard's operation with some bid.
Oops!   Keep it rolling, Richard!  I did not scroll up before starting the project, and you are doing a bang-on  job.  I am loving your stuff.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: ccr3 on January 24, 2021, 03:14:02 PM
Excellent Dick. Do keep up the good work. Eager to read more.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 24, 2021, 09:34:25 PM
RE:  problem B--- I have no problem with those who wish to "raise" via any of the 3 side-suit bids, per se but i do think that hose who intend to push to the 4-level  ( or have already done so )  owe our team a 4th diamond!  Given the 3C butt-in,  partner may already be counting on such and a 2=3=4=4 shape is hardly suprising, when responder (us) goes ballistic, n'est pas?   One fascinating morsel touched on by panelists was how the three Club advanced should be understood!  SEVEN panelists chose this as their way to say "I like my hand",  but only David Berkowitz was specific on what he was up to: "no major cue actually fits, so I will try an anti-cue-bid [The Boss inserts: "BLOOMER"  ['Bluhmer??]  ] ...I have a NICE hand opposite club shortness".  the other six left us high and dry ( Or were all 6 of them just announcing "I like my hand--can you guess why." )  possibly
i
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 24, 2021, 11:51:41 PM
February MSC Summary (Part 2):  Director Jeff Rubens

PROBLEM C.  2 !H (wackojack, ccr3, DrAculea, veeree, yleexotee)

Imps Both vulnerable  !S:QJT   !H:AJ5432   !D:J9   !C:Q6

South  West  North  East
    -         p        1D      p
   1H       p        1S      p
     ?

Half of the 12 panellists who chose this bid mentioned the poor heart suit.  Some didn’t like the rest of the hand much either: Bart Bramley; “Too much junk.  No heart texture.”; Carl Hudecek; “Not enough strength to force to game with this quackery, and the heart suit is too ratty to jump to three hearts.”  Fitting right in was Wackojack; “This looks like a misfit so I will bid a conservative 2 !H with my quacky 11.” Curtis Cheek was more positive; “Two spades could be right opposite a low singleton heart, but the boring two hearts rates to be the best opposite everything else.”  He was joined by Eric Kokish; “Two hearts often will be enough opposite a misfitting minimum and the bid most likely to reach game when North has two hearts and prime honours.” Eric then went on to say, “at matchpoints, I could see two spades drawing a lot more panel support” …

2 !S

… indeed, ignoring the results and just reading the start of the discussion, gives the impression 2 !S was the favoured answer.  Jeff Rubens leads off; “Three strong spades, ace of hearts, broken long suit, ruffing potential, no apparent big fit elsewhere – seems like spades to me.  An important point is that when you raise a secondary suit on three, you should be prepared to accept (not necessarily in that strain) if partner makes a game-try; this hand qualifies.”  Kit Woolsey added the detail; “If partner can’t bid, this will probably be as good a contract as any.  If North is worth a move, I will be able to continue with three hearts and likely reach the best spot.”  Those explanations might be helpful to Blubayou; “Can't explain why raising 1 spade feels like such a happy compromise for this large pile, so I will just bid it and move on.”

2 !C

This was equally as popular as 2 !S (6 each), but everyone admitted it was too much.  Ralph Katz; “an overbid to find the best strain.”  John Hurt; “If it is right to reach game, I will reach the correct one.  I would likely choose one notrump or two of a major if nonvulnerable.”  Choosing between minimum moves and a game-force was, Jeff Rubens observed, the drawback of using fourth-suit bids as game-forces.  John Swanson could barely rein in his disgust; “Using two clubs as a game-force is repulsive.  It’s time to review Extended PLOB” [see below]

3 !H.

This had two takers both because they disliked the other bids.  Harry Steiner; “Far overstating the heart suit, but right on overall values, and all the alternatives are depressing.  I could be talked into two hearts at match-points, but vulnerable at imps, I won’t make that underbid.”  This was pretty much the view in the IAC, where 3 !H was the most popular choice (7 votes).  MarilynLi; “Right points and shape for 3 !H bid.”  Jcreech found nothing appealing originally and was going low with 2 !H on a misfit hand but sparked up later; “I have the invitational values and I am red at IMPs, so I will make the slight overbid instead of the slight underbid.”  Masse24: "An overbid, just by a bit. Give me the heart T instead of the deuce and it's clear. Vul at IMPs convinces me.”  Robert Wolff agreed about the card’s importance; “the absence of the ten of hearts tones me down from three to two.”



PROBLEM D.  2 !S (peuco, wackojack, msphola, ccr3, DrAculea, kenberg, veeree, MarilynLi, dickhy)

Imps Both sides vulnerable   !S: -   !H:AJ972   !D:AQ3   !C:KT984

South  West  North  East
   -         -          -       1S
   ? 


To Michaels or not to Michaels?  The majority of the panel (16-11) did, explaining that it was important to show 10 cards in two suits, this, as peuco said, “makes life easier” and MarilynLi wanted to avoid a later problem; “… I don't like to see a 3 !S  bid by West after I bid 2 !H. So Michaels, introduce my two suits now.”   John Swanson (“I’ll bid two of my three suits”) and Michael Rosenberg (“Uncomfortable because of the playability in diamonds”) worried about diamonds being lost.  However, others thought the suit could be resurrected if the auction went as expected:  Jill Meyers; “… if East-West bid three spades, I will double to show extras and 0535.”  Nodding their heads at this were Ira Chorush and Bart Bramley who also thought a fast spade raise would leave him “better placed than the doublers.”   

For the IAC debate about when Michaels should apply there was no resolution.  Danny Kleinman; “Thankfully, BWS contains no doughnut-hole for a cue bid”, but Kamil and Sherman; “as usual with these two-suited bids we wish the strength were either weak or strong.”

2 !H

Proponents of 2 !H, Oren Kriegel and Carl Hudecek, mentioned the same advantage of a later double over a fast spade raise as showing the minors.  David Berkowitz chose 2 !H but; “if it goes all pass, I will be sick” …hence an attraction of …

Double

“This is a three-suiter” (Billy Eisenberg) and a “potentially very-good dummy for diamonds” (Robert Wolff).  Jeff Rubens begins to emerge as the Dissenting Director.  After liking 2 !S in Problem C, Jeff departs from the consensus again, “it seems that there is no good answer.  One strategy in such instances is to pick what seems to miss by the least.  To me, that means doubling.”

Five IAC members agreed.  Masse24; “Half my values are in my three-card suit. It looks like my distribution is closer to 0 / 4.5 / 4 / 4.5 So I double.”  Jcreech; When I have three strains, I like to show them.  The void may see the opponents jumping in spades, so lets get all three strains in play now.  AQx of diamonds is almost as good as KTxxx of clubs.”

Hurling some cold water, Wackojack (who chose the top answer) observed; “ … A take out double perhaps gives you a better chance of finding a fit as it does not exclude diamonds.  However, you will be kicking yourself if partner turns up with a decent hand with 3 hearts.”  Joey Silver agreed; “As an initial action, I prefer overcalling in a five-card major to doubling.”   This weakness was not ‘fessed by any of the 6 pros who favoured the double.


Petty Little Odious Bid (PLOB) originates in the report of the MSC bidding quiz in the September 1968 issue of The Bridge World (TBW).  Dick Walsh suggested 2D as a forcing bid after 1C – 1H – 1N.  The Director Sonny Moyse didn’t like the idea of NMF at all; “I can't imagine why anyone would want to bid two diamonds (an odious, meaningless, petty little bid if I ever saw one).”  Obviously, PLOB is a better acronym to OMPLB! And was extended to fourth suit forcing bids by John Swanson in the July 1978 issue of TBW [I think this is accurate?]. 
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 25, 2021, 02:59:23 PM
Don't die on us, Mr. Swanson!  Extended PLOB WILL be on the docket when the BWS2026 polls come out, and for sure the XYZ Party will sweep the field.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 26, 2021, 01:29:30 AM
February MSC Summary (Part 3):  Director Jeff Rubens

PROBLEM E.   3N (peuco, masse24, thornbury, babsg, jcreech, DrAculea, Curls77, veeree)

Matchpoints  Neither vulnerable  !S:AJT   !H:632   !D:AKQJT9   !C:A

South  West  North  East
   -          -         3C      p
   ?
 
This was eerily like the IAC discussion.  Some cited possible cards or friendly lines of play: “Sometimes they lead spades; sometimes partner has a heart stopper (Carl Hudecek)”; “I might catch a critical major-suit card in dummy … or get lucky with a blockage in hearts (Oren Kriegel), “Perhaps North will have a hand similar to Problem A’s South hand [with KTx outside the long suit] (Sami Kehela)”, “Hearts to break 4/4, or partner may have help in hearts (ccr3) and opponents making a poor lead (peuco and masse24).  Others channelled their inner Mr Micawber believing “something would turn up”: “With eight certain tricks, a ninth often appears (Boye Brogeland)” and (Roger Lee) “Even in the MSC, you’re allowed to be lucky” - Really?? That’ll be news to most of the IAC.  Others knew they might be headed for trouble but “that’s too bad.  Delicacy won’t accomplish anything (Kit Woolsey)” and “oh uh” (Curls 77).   

3 !D

Almost as popular, and seen as more flexible.  Ralph Katz; “Three no trump would be too unilateral.  If partner bids three spades or four of a major, off to the races; if he bids four clubs I pass.” Curtis Cheek saw the same high road; “maybe I’ll hear four hearts and wind up plus 920” and Henry Steiner spotted other routes; “three diamonds allows partner to show a heart stopper … if he surprises me with either three spades or four diamonds, I will try five diamonds.”  Kenberg saw this too; “Among other things, it's possible that the hand belongs in diamonds.”  Michael Rosenberg acknowledged, “three clubs may be our last plus, but passing doesn’t feel like winning bridge (and barely feels like bridge)” …

… which drew the retort “some people say that matchpoints isn’t bridge” from Jeff Rubens the Dissenting Director (who will now be referred to as The Voice of Sanity [I wonder why?! – Ed]) as he continued: “Panellists listed different ways the bidding could be right.  Start listing the ways it could be wrong, and you will soon see that passing is as good a matchpoint guess as anything (and probably better).”  The lesson here for future MSC quizzes (and perhaps bridge generally) is; hope trumps pessimism.


PROBLEM F. 1 !S (jcreech, peuco, masse24, wackojack, babsg, msphola, ccr3, DrAculea, kenberg, veeree, dickhy, yleexotee)

Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable   !S:AK542   !H:8   !D:JT7542   !C:T

South  West  North  East
   -          -          p       p
   ?

Chosen overwhelmingly as showing where we want the lead.  Bart Bramley; “Covers all the bases: lead-direction, pre-emption, constructive action.  Whatever happens we will have a chance to cope.  Pass would leave too much ground to make up.  Higher bids would be too unilateral. Diamonds can wait, probably until the next deal.”  On the last point he was joined by David Berkowitz “Get the lead first and foremost.  Diamonds can come later if at all”.  IAC bidders were like-minded.  Jcreech; “I hate opening this, but spades is a wonderful lead director, the hand has a lot of offensive potential, and it is my turn to bid,”  Peuco; “I do not see how one can profit by passing and see many ways by bidding both offensively and defensively”  wackojack; "If partner has 3 card ♠ support we likely buy the contract.  If West out bids us then we have got our lead director in"  kenberg; "This appears to be their hand, maybe we can compete in spades, if not a spade lead from pard seems right" and MarilynLi: "Just a 3rd seat opening, also lead directing.

2 !S

Jeff Rubens was surprised the two-bidders (there were none in the IAC) favoured (7 to 3) spades over diamonds.  Danny Kleinman; “Eccentric, but third-seat weak-two bids can be frisky.”  Billy Eisenberg planned to run to three diamonds if doubled.

2 !D

Required the courage of conviction later.  Carl Hudecek; “if anyone bids hearts I will be able to bid spades at the two- or three-level to complete the picture of 56” and, naturally enough, the fearless Zia; “two diamonds, then spades (as high as four).  I may be on my own but I like it there.”

Pass

Chosen by 6 panellists, most because like blubayou ("they can throw 8-pt "one-bids" at me till hell freezes.  It ain't happening”) pass seemed most accurate.  Eric Kokish; “not always right to open these canape hands with one suit or other at the one- or two-level, especially when finding a rebid or a comfortable pass of partner’s response may be an issue.”  Eric and Joey Silver mentioned the chance of showing both suits later.

I'll post the last part probably on Wednesday ... or Thursday, depending on how much trauma is involved in reviewing the lead problem.  Meanwhile, thanks for your patience and the very kind remarks.
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 28, 2021, 01:47:18 PM
February MSC Summary (Part 4):  Director Jeff Rubens

PROBLEM G2H (thornberry, babsg, jcreech, msphola, DrAculea, Curls77, kenberg, veeree, MarilynLi, yleexotee) 

Imps EW vulnerable  !S:AQ6   !H:J9652   !D:J43   !C:AK

South  West  North  East
   -        2D       p       p
   ?

Enthusiasm had sailed, every bidder was lukewarm.  This bid was clearly the top choice (in the IAC too).  In preferring this to a double, Joey Silver’s point on Problem D was re-iterated: Kit Woolsey; “It is a major and I have five.  Nothing else makes sense”; Bart Bramley; “I have a five-bagger, so I bid it.  No double with these major suit lengths”; with quite a few mentioning the possibility of a 5-3 heart fit being missed by doubling.  The choice was not especially appealing. Jcreech (“I have too many points to pass this out, but my suit is horrible - no lead direction potential because all my points are elsewhere.  I have to do something, so I think this is better than double”) and MarilynLi (“I don't like my H suit, but I don't see other better choice”) were with Ralph Katz (“might be the least of all evils, two notrump is a close second choice”), Kamil and Sherman (“when in doubt bid your long suit, our second choice is pass”) and Jill Meyers (“I hate the hearts but don’t want to pass.”).  Jill also said; “if the opponents weren’t vulnerable, I might bid two notrumps” - is Jill suggesting two hearts is likely, if passed, to push East into bidding 3 !D for -200 which two notrumps would rule out?


Double

The poor heart suit (Carl Hudecek, David Berkovitz, Billy Eisenberg) and Wackojack lay behind this option, but no-one was keen; “just guessing like everyone else (John Swanson)” and “unlikely to find favour with the purists (Sam Kehela).”

2N

Begrudging bidding continued, this call being made because 2H and 2N could not be stomached. Masse24; “Crossing my fingers with this "value bid."” Ira Chorush; “Every action has at least one drawback.  This one won’t miss game, although it could certainly lead to playing in the wrong one.  I doubt that pass will get many votes, even if it is technically correct”, a call which Danny Kleinman made; “no reason to think either side can make anything.” 

and so, with mood downbeat, the panellists faced the lead problem ...


Problem H. AH (jcreech, masse24, peuco)
   
Imps NS vulnerable  !S:T74   !H:AQ4   !D:5   !C:AT9763

South  West  North  East
    -         p        1H      2D
   3D       x        3H      3S      3D invite + 3H discouraging
   4C      4S       5C       p
    p       5S         p       p
    x   all pass

Take our tricks?  The overwhelming majority of the panel and the IAC said ‘yes’, but whereas the heart ace was a clear winner with the pros (16-4), the IAC favoured the club ace (6-3). 

Jeff Rubens explained the foundation for this approach; “North … with either six hearts or five clubs, would normally have accepted the game invitation [of 3 !D].  When North is only 54 in hearts-clubs, the opponents possess five hearts and three clubs – they will very often have three losers in those suits.”  Those three tricks were scented by the panel (and Jcreech; “we have a double fit, so they probably do also.  I think we need to take our tricks before they disappear on the diamonds.”)    The widespread opinion was that the heart ace was much more likely to cash (ccr3 saw this too; “partner seems reluctant to get excited about his suit, so a good possibility hearts will make it around the table”) and also kept options open.  Bart Bramley; “Plan A is to cash three tops before declarer claims with six diamonds and five spades. I start with the heart ace, since a club might be ruffed, and it will leave me time to try Plan B, a diamond ruff, should dummy indicate the futility of Plan A.”  Boye Brogeland, Curtis Cheek, Kit Woolsey and Harry Steiner were with Bart.   Fleisher and Friesner too, but they were looking to partner as well as dummy to decide between plans; “The best chance to beat the contract is to cash three tricks in our suits.  It is conceivable that partner has a pointed-suit ace and an opponent is void of clubs … in such a layout we will need to shift to a diamond to obtain a ruff and this will become clear after seeing dummy and partner’s signal.”     

In aiming for a ruff straightaway (4 panellists), much depended on one’s view of the standard of North’s 1 !H.  Danny Kleinman; “I don’t expect partner to be aceless for the opening bid, so I expect a ruff or two to be coming” and Oren Kreigel “maybe partner has a fast winner and I can get a ruff or two” echoed blubayou’s point; “with max of KQ, KJ in our suits, pard who opened has one of their aces, or at least some stopper.  Definitely go for the ruff--OR RUFFS!.”  Harry Steiner and Kit Woolsey suggested; “If partner has an ace I can clobber this by leading by leading my singleton but I have an ominous feeling partner has Kxx or Qxx in diamonds, and declarer might take the first 11 (or more) tricks after a diamond lead.”  Eric Kokish thought that those diamond holdings were ruled out by the auction; “As North seems to have at least one high card in diamonds or spades and was unlikely to have bid five clubs with the diamond king under the overcaller, we might as well go for ruffs, playing North for an ace.”   

Two panellists underled the club ace to give suit preference information to North.  The club ten called for North to lead a heart back through declarer's doubleton king.  This strikes me as an approach which will lose me partners even faster than the rate I lose points on lead problems, but looks an intriguing idea in the correct circumstances. 

The problem came from the 2010 Spingold. It’s a shame TBW didn’t provide more detail, as seeing the cards held by the other three players in this auction would be fascinating.

This has been great fun (if rather long-winded and slow to hit your screens), and prompted much admiration for Todd and Jim.



Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 28, 2021, 06:20:46 PM
Nicely done Dick, and thank you.

Next time I do this, I think I will try to blend in some of your approach because I find it so readable.  (Now how to make those wonderful British phrasings come naturally as part of MY style - if Ia try too hard, I am certain that you will all start calling me a tosser - lol).
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 29, 2021, 02:18:44 AM
V nicely done, Dick.  Your quotes from Director Reubens jolted me! I Had not noticed that if he-- the boss, had veto-power,  he would have rescued four of my below-80 guesses to undeserved glory!  This must be the reason his ancient "Secrets of Winning Bridge" has moved with me through 7 or 8 households while a few dozen other bridge books have made the trip to Goodwill?
Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 29, 2021, 02:07:27 PM
Suit Preference Leads

These were mentioned in the review of Problem H of the MSC February bidding quiz (just above).  Ever keen to be educated, I looked at Eddie Kantar’s Advanced Bridge Defense and Kit Woolsey’s Partnership Defense in Bridge.  I imagine most of you know all about this, but some may find it interesting.

The opportunity for a suit-preference signal on the opening lead is rare indeed,” says Kit.  He and Eddie cite the chief circumstance:

1) Underleading an Ace in a supported suit

This is Kit’s example.

West  North  East  South
  3S      x        4S      6H

West  !S: AQT9632   !H: 873   !D: -   !C: 652

West leads the 9 or 10.  East unexpectedly wins his King, and realises partner has underled the Ace as suit-preference.  Here asking for a diamond to ruff.  Eddie gives a very similar example but with the auction 4S – (x) – 5S – 6H and opening leader, who has a club void, leading the spade 2.

In each case there is only one spade trick cashing, and no other way of getting a ruff.  Presumably any supported suit situation would count – the one in the MSC quiz arose in a competitive auction – and the suit-preference signal would not always be for a ruff – the MSC quiz asked partner to lead through declarer into an AQ tenace. 

After (1S) – 2H – (2S) – 3S – (4S), presumably a spot card in hearts would be suit-preference.  But after (1S) – 2H – (2S) – 3H – (4S), with weaker heart support, opening leader may need to be cautious.

2)  The Alarm Clock Lead

Kit describes a second circumstance which is more frequent and not strictly suit-preference.  Here you may not be underleading an ace, but partner knows that a) you have “excess length” in the suit and b) are trying to get him to do something unusual.  “The first condition is satisfied if you have shown length in the suit during the bidding.”  Kit’s example is this:

South   West  North  East

   1H       2S      3H      p
   4H

West   !S: KJT642  !H: 942   !D: -   !C:Q875

You lead the lowest card in your long suit.  Partner is not guaranteed to have the Ace, but if he does, the lead “awakes partner out of his normal lethargy” (hence the name) to do something unusual.  The spade two is not suit-preference, but (in this case) says “I have a void in one of the other two suits.”  The newly-perked-up partner ought to be able to work out where after looking at dummy, his hand and remembering (hopefully accurately) the auction.   The crucial point is that you have shown length in the bidding.  This is especially true if your normal leads against suits are 3rd/5th because the lead of a lowest card in a 5c suit will appear to partner as standard. 

Please, please tell me if in future you make one of these leads.

PS:  Jim, "English" please; I don't want to be mixed up with the neighbouring Celts.  I'm sure they'd be even more alarmed to find me in their midst.  Thanks Jim and Jock.

Title: Re: 2021 February - MSC
Post by: Masse24 on January 31, 2021, 01:37:11 PM
Stellar job, Dick!

Thank you!