IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on January 18, 2021, 03:24:38 PM

Title: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on January 18, 2021, 03:24:38 PM
MARCH 2021 MSC

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

Submit your MARCH 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 March MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 18, 2021, 11:31:53 PM
Jan 18, and I have no huge manifesto ready to publish.  When soon they close out the contest on the last day of the month, this won't do!
problem A:    If the opps swear to shut up,  i will cue-bid 2C ( 2S is NOT a cue-bid, but a psyche-control ie: natural).  Then we may wander into a good 3NT, or give partner enough information to eventually get us to a nice high number of Diamonds-- I don't think I am to be dummy to a heart game even if I get him to bid them.
   But they won't shut up, and currently I am thinking that a blast to 4D  will be my choice--another 40 quizz points?                                                             ---4Diamonds       
   Oh-- those FOOTNOTES?    Those are yet another piece of BWS-agreement balonie that our current bunch of panelists will ignore totally, in their vast wisdom.
problem B:  4Clubs--  ]I don't know what this will accomplish, but if partner has jump-raised himself, ALONE, at RED VUL,  then i have one for the road here.  I hope to not be taken for some kind of trap-pass by doing this.

problem C: ......Problem C has become the Home of the Unthinkable Underbid, this winter.  Last month the simple rebid of 2Hearts beat out raising partner's 1S rebid  [ 1D, 1H; 1S, ___?] and a gaggle of other aggressive rebids  holding QJT, AJxxxx, Jx, Qx , and who can forget the original "sanja-bid from December where on the same auction [!!]  "2Hearts" again scored 100 on Qx, AKQ98, xx, 6532?!   This time, some non-signoff rebid will be the winner though--not the wimpy 2Spades, nor the TRULY unthinkable 2H[uggh].  It will be mentioned that these 4 club X's will actually be of help if we endplay partner into bidding notrump (or say the N-word ourselves).  The 6542 of the december problem was ahuge dissapointment in that regard in my December simulation.  So, what will it be? 2Spades, 3Spades or Hearts,  2NT--or 3?  time will tell I dunno.                                                                 ---  ??
problem D: We're letting them take their 5 or 6 trump winners,  plus NOTHING.   The alternative is to cue 4S, then bid 6 Clubs on a 4-bagger,  most/all of the time.  Fooie on that plan.    ---PASS
   Rethinking:  We should have at least 25 of the 30 points in H, D, and C so be able to build nine or more winners there without West getting in, making 4NT "safe".  There may be some doomsday scenarios where we need more than one club trick, or more than two diamond tricks to get past 9 winners, and the opnr has the stopper in that suit, but we owe partner the chance to show more points than, say, Jx, AKxx, AQxx, Jxx
[ Is that even a double of 3 spades?]  So, going with the footnote "suggestion" works out if pard has around 17, as well as when he takes 4NT out to a long suit, especially clubs or hearts.   --4NT

PROBLEM E:  Who doesn't get the jitters when they see a quizz problem with "just one answer"?   Well, be afraid;  here must be the granddaddy of all "What's The Problem?" problems?          --2Spades
PROBLEM F:  I don't suppose that reopening with 5 clubs will get us to the really wrong trump suit, but whatever we settle in my well be a phantom sacrifice.  Bidding on does smack of telling the same story twice, but I may end up doing SOMETHING rash all the same. ....19 days left.
       ps.  the better overbid is "4NT" ofcourse, not 5C.

PROBLEM G:   If you can't beat 3 Hearts with this,  you're playing goulash.           --DOUBLE

PROBLEM H:   Drawing trump should always be given a thought when holding diamonds like this under the bidder but if it is a good play, how can pard get in to continue it.  Possibly we need to lead Diamonds, to grab one or two before they sluff one on the thirteener spade?  But I favor the club king (it's hard to imagine dummy having club Jxx as part of his jump raise <famous last words> )     ---KClubs
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: thornbury on January 26, 2021, 02:39:02 PM
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Club King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 29, 2021, 04:59:33 PM
Initial thoughts.

Problem A:  2 !S  What I lack in HCPs, I make up for in distribution and controls.  How could partner expect more than two bullets and two stiffs when everyone is bidding?  I expect us to end up in 4 !H, but if 4-4-3-2, the contract may end up being in diamonds.

Problem B:  Pass  I suspect the winning call at the table is 3NT, but not in contest.  I have no shape to justify a try for an 11 trick game, but the club support is superb; that is why I think NT may be the best contract - partner's self jump-raise suggests values outside of clubs, so (s)he may have the outside stops, while I have the material to make the 6-7 bagger a running suit.

Problem C:  3 !C  This is IMPs, while I only have 11 HCPs, they are working like they are more, and if partner rebids hearts at this point, I have a powerful doubleton support. 

Problem D:  4 !S  I am far from certain of what to do on this hand.  Regardless, I think we are close to slam here.  The question is strain and level.  Looking at a 4-3-3-3, I can go with any strain, but will partner take me for 16 HCPs without making a cue bid - I don't think so.  Maybe partner's rebid will help.

Problem E:  2 !S  I will start with the obvious response, but I am also thinking of trying 2 !H.  Why?  Because my hand will likely contribute more to the total trick taking in my suit than in partner's.  If we have two 8-card fits, hearts may play a bit better.  If hearts are actually a 9-card fit, then certainly better.

Problem F:  Dbl  Cooperative/penalty.  I have some prime values opposite a 2nd seat opener.  I am not anxious to go to the five-level, but with shortness in hearts, I am willing to try punishing.  If partner has a lot of distribution, (s)he is welcome to pull, but I think we need to double to protect what they took away.

Problem G:  6 !C  This is my at the table bid, but for the contest, I will be giving more thought to double.  If partner has KQ in clubs, we can make slam in some strain, if not, then it will likely be better to double.  How can you tell?  You can't!  So it becomes a leap of faith or a double.  Right now, I feel lucky.  By the 10th, I will probably slip back to the probably 500-800 that I anticipate getting with a double.

Problem H:  !C K  I don't want to make it too easy to set up the diamonds if opener has five or more, or pickle partner's trump holding by leading my heart.  I decided that if the suit is good enough to bid, it is good enough to lead.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on January 30, 2021, 04:15:06 PM
WARNING

The time to think about and respond to the April and May contests will be squeezed.  Starting with the May contest, BW will be moving the submission date to the end of the month, two months before the publication date.  That means that the April contest will be the last to be due on the 10th of the month.  The next three submission dates will be as follows:


Hopefully, they will do something to help us through the quick turnaround - drop the lead question for a month, or make most of the problems clearcut - but they will probably be the hardest set for the year.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: blubayou on January 30, 2021, 11:17:49 PM
Evolving thoughts galore:
   Prob. A:  In support of some high diamond bid [maybe five, not just 4] -- I think that the opponents have someting profitable to say if we use [either] cuebid now--maybe lots profitable to say.  And once again,  I wish to be playing in diamonds rather than an EIGHT card heart fit anyway. So we can get to hearts only if pard manages to bid them TWICE which is (1) a pipe dream, and (2) means we have both a 9+ and a 10+ fit in the reds, and won't get to play in either of those suits at a comfortable level.   So I am now settled on an immediate big jump in !D .                          ---4!D or 5!D
   Prob. C:  An invitational bid will do just fine here, and wrongsiding the club situation is not as ugly as it appears!  There are many layouts wher the 98xx comes to the rescue holding the def to 3 club winners, or trapping the 4th-round winner in a now-dead hand  (QTx and AJxx surrounding pard's club king  ie)  we don't need to WIN a club in imps  just have them be held at bay until the spades can come home:)   Another thought:  hearing partner rebid his hearts after our 2NT is more 'informative'  than hearing same after 4th-suit forcing 3!C,  where it is simply the default 'nothing to add" bid.   Those who want to force to game  arent exactly swinging from tree limbs,  but we are in for inviting only, and
                                                                     ---2NT fills that bill
   Prob. D: We admire those willing to drive to slam in any of the 3 suits via a cuebid,  But we don't trust that partner's 5D reply shows five+.  It is what we would bid with xx, AKxx, AQxx,Kxx . Hey-- wait a moment! On a good day  that does make 12 or 13 off the top.   
                                                              ---4NT MAY NOT BE our final answer!
   Prob. E:  Storm warning:   Do you think pard has classic re-opening double shape?   We think he has at least 3 of Righty's diamonds,  hence is LOADED.  West's pass makes this soo likely in a 'real' bridge game.  All the more reason to make the unmistakably 'broke' 2S call now.  Then when some further bidding endplays you into taking another call, there will be no misunderstanding when you squeek out  "3H".  (we never considered 2H when the quizz came out anyway)   Responding 2H to the double has a higher top end than the 2S does,   and bidding 2H first THEN 3S on the hypothetical next round could lead to a trainwreck.
                                                                 --2S--One Answer, after all.
   Prob. F:  Let's do a little LOTT drill as we contemplate bidding twice on a one-bid hand, ok?...They MAY have 10 trumps--or not;  we MAY have 9 , or two 8's? in the minors. So max likely Law number I call 19.  This is bad news.  It means we can sacrifice for 500 if they are making, and also means we would be bidding to a phantom sac if they are down ONE  [9 for them leaves 10 for us.]  To make matters worse, Law number of 19 also predicts that if we can beat them 2, we are also MAKING 5 of some minor. [8 for them leaves us 11].  Of course (1)  the LAW gets a little sloppy above 17 total trumps  and(2) the LOTT numper could easily be 1 or 2 less than 19.  I do believe we will try for the magical minus 790 and hopefully be pleasantly suprised.                                                       --Double
  P.S:   Cheer up, Lead Hater's Club; This could have been problem H--with 4S X as the conditions!
  Prob H:  Nothing new to report here except that there IS room for partner to have a defensive winner other than the possible deep trump one,  and be able to lead a second round if we get trump started.   Just a tanalizing bit for anyone who is inclined to draw opps' trumps.
                                                                   --- undecided
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: DickHy on January 31, 2021, 01:01:23 PM
A. 2 !S.  At the table or absent the special BWS bids, 5 !D would be my choice.  Partner probably has both majors for his double of 1 !C, and likely 44.  He could have 45xx but would have bid differently with 54xx (1 !S then 2 !H) or 55xx (2 !C).  So 5 !D risks choosing a 73 minor fit over a 44/54 heart fit.  Surely the panel won’t like that? It also rules out 4N (RKC) in the auction or a minor suit RKC – yes, with this hand I’m one excited puppy. 

B.  3 !D (4 !C). I’m not giving partner any ruffs, so am only offering one trick in clubs.  Still, 4 !C is a decent prospect.  But with tail still wagging from Problem A - the majors look to be 5332, with our side having the 3s, and partner could well have stops in both.  After all, only 5 of his 18+ HCP are in clubs.  If I bid 3N, West will lead a heart through North which could be fatal.  Can I make a bid to right-side 3N? How about 3 !D?

C.  3 !C.  4SF is GF in BWS but I’ll live with that.  Partner’s shape offers various games 4 !S (3541), 4 !H (2641) or 3N (1543).  Doubtless, he’ll be 2542 and we’ll end up in 3N hoping opponents will throw us a bone (clubs aren’t running - neither opponent overcalled 2 !C, white - and a couple of cards are well-placed).

D.  6N/4S.  All North’s HCP are outside spades, and I’d expect him to have 14+, rather than a measly 12, say.  So, we have 26+ HCP in his three suits.  He’s probably 1444 – with 3c spade support East would have bid four spades.  That looks close to 12 tricks to me.  Among the silver linings, they could have a queen and two jacks, East could have the club king or West could have the heart king.  With thick clouds, East may have a red suit ace/heart king to go with his two spades, but if I make a 4N bid and North has 14 – minimum for his bid - he’ll certainly pass.   I'd bid 6N at the table, but that's likely to be a bit too blunt-instrument for pros.  A 4S cuebid may well lead us to a decent 6m contract.

E.  2 !S.  This looks suspiciously straightforward for the MSC bidding quiz.  The diamond queen looks worthless.  Do I really want to yap about anything other than spades?

F.  x/4N.  This problem seems to hinge on whether North’s pass is forcing and, if so, whether a double from me would then be for penalty.  If so, I want to double and then slap down the king of hearts.  Are we likely to make 5m with these my patchy suits?  4N would add to the picture: the original double promised 44/44+, not the 55 I have. 

G.  x.  This looks like Problem E from last month.  Assume the 3 !C is KQxxxxxx, hope for a useful card outside and bid 3N.  Here the useful card doesn’t have to be so good – the jack of diamonds would be just fine.  However, this looks like a good time to start biting - we can take 5 tricks (+) against 3Hx for 500 (+)

H.   K !C.  East (35xx, 34xx, 25xx) may not be ruffing my diamond winners, and if he is, I’m not sure I can stop him.  Neither will partner enjoy a heart lead from me.  The king of clubs is an investment for the future too – reassuring partner that my two-level overcalls are solid and when the table is turned he can lead them safely (thus, the excited puppy transforms into Dr Pavlov).   
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: peuco on January 31, 2021, 04:44:11 PM
Problem A  5D. I’ve seen a lot of 4-4 contracts with a 7 card side suit go down

Problem B 5C. Pd must have a play for 5C. With an 8 card suit it could be cold

Problem C 3S. Not afraid to play 4S opposite a singleton

Problem D 4S. Let pd know slam is on the radar

Problem E 2H. with 2S the D ruff shortens dummy and there it goes the chance to profit from the long Hs

Problem F 4NT. what else as yleexotee says

Problem G No 6C for me. So the question is how many tricks will East make. With H AQJ seventh and S KQJ he will make 8. But with that holding he might bid 4H. So he has 6 Hs and if he has S KQJ9 the S 10 will prevent the 8th trick. So by a narrow margin Double over 5C

 Problem H D K. perhaps I can play C K later C K lead can give a trick

Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 03, 2021, 03:05:46 PM
I'll get to the full list soon. I'm playing this morning and we have company in the afternoon, but then I will get on it. In the meantime, I am wondering if I am the only one who would have bid an immediate 2 !S on E. Yes we are vul and yes it is imps but still:

Partner deals and opens 1 !S, Rho bids 2 !D, I hold a 3=5=1=4 shape, the !S being QTx. I don't count any hcps for the stiff !D Q but it is a stiff and it is in their suit. Seems like I should just bid 2 !S, get it out of my system, and then shut up. Stiff in their suit, QTx in our suit, 2 !S sounds right to me.

As it is, after passing, I think partner is doubling to re-open on a three card heart suit. I would guess he is something akin to 5=3=2=3.  He has to be prepared for a 3 !C response to his double so he needs at least 3, I have only one diamond and Lho did not raise diamonds, it seems partner must have a couple of diamonds, and, anyway, if he had a four card heart suit he might well have re-opened by bidding 2 !H. If we are going to play in a 5-3 fit I think spades would be better than hearts.

My first thought was, after the X, I would bid 3 !S to show that I had a max pass. But then I decided passing first and then jumping to 3 is nutty. I would not have passed on the first round, but having done so I think 2 !S is enough.

Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 03, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Hi Ken,

In these contests, I try not to dwell on what might have been.  I've been known to make a call that I later regret as the auction continues, but I have to deal with what is the current situation. 

Yes, I would consider making the immediate raise, but I didn't.  Now what do I do?  The obvious choices are to raise or bid hearts; I think of the jump raise as being a bit frisky, so it did not cross my brain's threshold, but the bid is not crazy, just more than I am willing to go with.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 03, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
A.  2S
What's going on? If we give partner at least six red cards for his double then, between us, we have 17 red cards. So they have 17 black cards. And more, if pard has more than six red cards, as seems likely. Very possible opener has sic clubs and four spades and is about to show some of this.  I can see jumping to 5 !D, honestly it's one of those "Take the bull by the tail and fact the situation" bids I often make at the table, but I think I just start with 2 !S.

B   4C
Well, I passed the first time and pard says he can make 3 !C. Seems we should be able to make 4 !C.

C.  3C
BW keeps offering these problems where it won't take much for game, you would like to have a descriptive game invite, but you do not. So I keep making game forcing bids and I keep getting bad scores, Quoting Hank Willians "She warned me once, she warned me twice, but I don't take no one's advice".   Partner plays the cards well I hope.

D. 4NT
Seems right.

E. 2S
I guess that's what I do.

F. 4NT
I'm really sure that this is what I would do at the table. I look forward to hearing what's wrong about it.

G. 5C
I need to think some more about this.

H. club K
That's my choice.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: wackojack on February 05, 2021, 05:08:14 PM
Problem A
A word about the BWS meaning of 2♣ and 2♠.  If 2♠ is a cue, then what do you bid with 4+♠?  Presumably a double is for penalties and not a type of responsive double. I note Blu’s says that in his view 2♠ should be natural is not a cue. 

On the problem itself we must assume that partner’s take-out double was not stupid.  Then we could assume 10+HCP with the most shape specific hand which is 4441.  11+ for 4432 and perhaps 4342, 12+ for 4M333.  Let’s assume for the moment that partner’s distribution is 4432.  This would give us an 8 card ♥ fit and a 10 card ♦ fit and the opponents would have an 8 card ♠ fit and a 10 card ♣ fit. Give partner an almost minimum value take-out double of 12HCP.  This could easily be the whole layout:

          ♠ Axxx
          ♥ KQxx
          ♦ Kxx
          ♣ xx   
♠ Jxxx               ♠ KQxx
♥ xx                  ♥ Jxx
♦ x                    ♦ Qx
♣ AKQJxx          ♣ xxxx

              ♠ 7
            !H Axxx
             ♦ A1096432
             ♣ x   
North’s hand has the most probable distribution and the only thing slightly fortunate about the North hand is that it is rich in controls.  You can see that 6♥ or 6♦ is easily makeable. Some posts favoured a diamond contract over a heart contract because of possible or probable bad breaks in hearts.  This concern I think is bogus because:
1.   A bad heart break destroys a diamond slam just as much as a heart slam.
2.   Hearts will almost certainly break well because East responds 1♠ and so has fewer hearts than spades.  East is very unlikely to have 5♠ +4♥ because that would mean West has 3♠ + 1♥ and therefore 9 minor suit cards.  With a 3127 distribution, west might decide to open 4♣.  So, my money is on hearts splitting 3-2 if partner has 4 of them.

So, I rule out South bidding a number of diamonds.  South needs to find out how many hearts partner has and needs to make the strongest bid possible because West is inevitably going to bid a number of clubs and we don’t want partner to pass. 

So, I bid 2♠.  Hopefully If partner bids 3♥.  Then, I need to know about partners key cards and if she holds the Q♥.  So, if partner shows a 4 card heart suit then there is an opportunity for 4♠ kick-back.  With the hand shown playing 1430 partner bids 5♥ showing 2 + Q♥.  Bidding the 6♥ here pre-supposes that partner has the bidding room to cue the K♦ below game level which may not be possible if West bids aggressively.

Actually, here kick-back is not necessary as a 5♥ response to 4NT will be passed. 

Nevertheless, none of this may be possible if South does not cue 2♠.

Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 06, 2021, 12:27:33 AM
SOLVER: Jock McQuade,     3 Bag End     Hobbiton  97030,  Eriador Your Solutions for the   March 2021 Contest  (ALMOST trigger-pulled)-----
PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds ( Wackojack's "perfecto" minimum for red suits scares me all the more to try to shut up the                               winning 5 Spade comp, and might make facing most less-than-handpicked support)
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs  -- gotta raise if only for partnership solidarity.
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump  --  4 spades and 4 reds ought to be  as bad as we do
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades -- forcing to slam, in practice: :(    so be it.
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades --  Dick's THREE spades  daydream has me fascinated though
PROBLEM F: Double --  Fearing  a phantom sacrifice,  not hoping for an 800 massacre
PROBLEM G:Double
PROBLEM H: Club King
  TO Jim and Todd: Official entry sent as above, Monday 2/08
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: wackojack on February 06, 2021, 05:53:16 PM
B 3♦
If partner has 7 clubs ♣ AJ9xxxx must have good high cards outside and yet did not rebid 2NT or 3NT.  I reckon he could well have 8 of them.  I think that with 7 or 8 tricks in clubs we could well have 3NT on. And as DickHy observed right siding for 3NT could be crucial.  So, I will go for 3♦.  I will pass 3N or 4♣. 

C 3♣
I have a very good 11 points and so will go for game.  3♣ will find us the best spot.  If partner bids 3NT I will pass.  If partner bids 3♥ or 3♠ I will raise that suit.

D 3NT
We cannot expect much more than 14 HCP from partner for the take-out double and likely nothing in spades.  So, with ♠ xx, ♥ AKxx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ Kxx, we can count 9 top tricks only and likely only 1 extra trick in the red suits.  Can we then try 4N?  Partner no doubt would bid 6NT with about 15 or 16.  It looks right to try 4NT.  However, give partner 16:  ♠ xx, ♥ AKJx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ KJx.  We still need 4 tricks in ♦s opposite ♦ KJ8.  That is unlikely.  So, I think I will take the low road and bid 3NT.   But I may change my mind.

E 2♥
My first reaction was the safe 2♠.  However, we now seem to have a double fit and opponents have got a lot of diamonds between them so west is surely going to compete to 3♦.  So I bid the more forward going 2♥.

F Double
Have we got a 9 card fit in the minors?  Is partner’s shape 2533 or 2542?  So lets be optimistic and assume we have a 9 card fit in a minor.  Then according to LTT there are 19 total tricks:
If they make 4♠ we make only 9 tricks in a minor.
If they are 1 off in 4♠ we make 10 tricks in a minor
If they are 2 off in 4♠ we can make a minor suit game.
I doubt if they can make 4♠ so I double
If partner passed the 4♠ raise with a 5-5 shape she may well pull the double.
I note after writing this that Blu has said the same thing 

G double
If I double for penalties, I reckon at worst +200, likely +500 and even possibly +800 if I can give partner a ♦ ruff.  Playing in 5♣ we may well make for +400 or could go off for -50.  I will double and got for the more certain plus score.

H ♦K     
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 06, 2021, 06:11:13 PM
Quote from: wackojack on February 06, 2021, 05:53:16 PM
B 3♦
If partner has 7 clubs ♣ AJ9xxxx must have good high cards outside and yet did not rebid 2NT or 3NT.  I reckon he could well have 8 of them.  I think that with 7 or 8 tricks in clubs we could well have 3NT on. And as DickHy observed right siding for 3NT could be crucial.  So, I will go for 3♦.  I will pass 3N or 4♣.   

There it is!

That's what I've been thinking. 3 !D . . . Wondering if I was the only one. But . . . does this imply my !C holding?

I keep intending to post but am constantly pulled away. Too many irons in the fire right now.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 06, 2021, 09:14:21 PM
PROBLEM C:

Holding:
!S AQJT8 --- !H A9 ---  !D T5 --- !C 9843

Suppose we do bid 3 !C (also where I am going). The auction continues -
1 !H - (P) - 1 !S - (P)
2 !D - (P) - 3 !C - (P)
3 !D - (P) -  ??

Lot's of 3 !C bidders. Just playing devil's advocate here . . .

Now what?
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: wackojack on February 05, 2021, 05:08:14 PM
Problem A
A word about the BWS meaning of 2♣ and 2♠.  If 2♠ is a cue, then what do you bid with 4+♠?  Presumably a double is for penalties and not a type of responsive double. I note Blu’s says that in his view 2♠ should be natural is not a cue. 

(1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - X
I like to play this as responsive. I know Larry Cohen does too, employing the "no penalty doubles at the one or two level theory." But he recommends a partnership discuss this as it is not universal. But I checked BWS. It is indeed played as penalty!

(1 !C) - P - (1 !S) - 2 !S
I think we all play this as natural. Something along the lines of a good six-card suit.

(1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - 2 !S
2 !S natural? I suppose because it is rare, and the specialized meaning of the cuebid as a "suit-agreement or game" bid had more use. The double opened up that possibility for us.

Still thinking about Problem A (which has many viable choices) and H (I hate lead problems). The rest I have settled on.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 07, 2021, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: wackojack on February 05, 2021, 05:08:14 PM
Problem A
A word about the BWS meaning of 2♣ and 2♠.  If 2♠ is a cue, then what do you bid with 4+♠?  Presumably a double is for penalties and not a type of responsive double. I note Blu’s says that in his view 2♠ should be natural is not a cue. 

(1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - X
I like to play this as responsive. I know Larry Cohen does too, employing the "no penalty doubles at the one or two level theory." But he recommends a partnership discuss this as it is not universal. But I checked BWS. It is indeed played as penalty!

(1 !C) - P - (1 !S) - 2 !S
I think we all play this as natural. Something along the lines of a good six-card suit.

(1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - 2 !S
2 !S natural? I suppose because it is rare, and the specialized meaning of the cuebid as a "suit-agreement or game" bid had more use. The double opened up that possibility for us.

Still thinking about Problem A (which has many viable choices) and H (I hate lead problems). The rest I have settled on.

I have seen the following: (1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - X  shows four heart, (1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - 2 !H shows five hearts. This can be useful if parner doubled holding only three hearts, and for that matter it can be useful for deciding when to call it quits in a competitive auction.

I have also seen (1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - X  played as "Partner, I was going to happily respond 1 !S to your double until my Rho took my bid away". Perhaps Rho's 1 !S was a psych, perhaps not, but if partner, Rho and I all have spade length I imagine Lho will be pulling to somewhere else,  and we can move forward knowing of our own spade fit but warned that very possibly they are not splitting well. With this understanding of the X, then  (1 !C) - X - (1 !S) - 2 !H  reverts to just being hearts, maybe four, maybe five, but of course I could have passed so 2 !H shows some enthusiasm for playing in hearts.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: wackojack on February 07, 2021, 04:15:54 PM
Quote from: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
(1 !C) - P - (1 !S) - 2 !S
I think we all play this as natural. Something along the lines of a good six-card suit.

No we don't.  I play that as showing 6 !H + 4 !D.  (2 !C would show 6 !D +4 !H)   It is true, that here it would have been better the other way round.  However, HR= HR6; LR = LR6  is easy to remember.

Remember the Beatles song "When I'm 64"  So call it the McCartney convention.     


Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: wackojack on February 07, 2021, 04:15:54 PM
Quote from: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 11:49:59 AM
(1 !C) - P - (1 !S) - 2 !S
I think we all play this as natural. Something along the lines of a good six-card suit.

No we don't.  I play that as showing 6 !H + 4 !D.  (2 !C would show 6 !D +4 !H)   It is true, that here it would have been better the other way round.  However, HR= HR6; LR = LR6  is easy to remember.

Remember the Beatles song "When I'm 64"  So call it the McCartney convention.   

Yeah, I worded it poorly. I should have written that it was "expert standard" to play it as natural and not pigeonholed everyone into that method.

I've never heard of McCartney before (the cuebids not the musician!). Hess bids. Some weird variation of Capp. But I never decided to go down that road.

You like 'em?
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 07:38:31 PM
MARCH GUESSES . . .


PROBLEM A: 2 !S.

They have a spade fit, so going low with 2 !H then jumping in diamonds could work.
I think this is a difficult problem (more so than the IAC seems to think) and I expect to see many different answers.

PROBLEM B: 3 !D.

This is the sexy MSC bid. Giving us our only shot at the only game I think we can make—3NT. The question is, will enough of the Bridge World MSC panel agree? Too flat and too little help to make 5 !C. So I see little value in raising clubs to either 4 !C or 5 !C. (Probably.) But partner is jump-rebidding 3 !C without the !C KQT. What else could 3 !D be but a grope for 3NT?

PROBLEM C: 3 !C.

My first instinct was 2NT. With Jack-fourth in clubs this is a unanimous 3 !C. This hand, although only 11 HCP, is one I would open in first seat, a metric I have mentioned previously in determining whether I game-force on close calls. Zia will concur, which is good enough for me. 13.6 K&R.

PROBLEM D: 4NT.

I certainly have the values for this. Maybe partner can suggest another strain.

PROBLEM E: 2 !S.

I can see the viability of 2 !H , but a simple 2 !S can’t be too far wrong. Can it?

PROBLEM F: Pass

What did my first double show? Roughly this hand? Roughly these values? Partner knows this, right? But he did not double. So I pass and hope we defend well.

PROBLEM G: Double

I so much want to bid 6 !C. Partner needs so little for the slam to be good, and that's exactly what he has promised. But they need to be the right cards and there is no guaranteed of that. Although 3 !S is forcing, I do not see much possibility in a !S slam, so concentrate on !C or penalty.

PROBLEM H: !D K.

Not sure which color. Help accepted. Pick: This color --- or --- this color? First guess was the !D. I stayed the course.
Have I mentioned that I hate lead problems?


SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
460 Raintree CT Unit # 1R
Glen Ellyn IL 60137
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Diamond King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 08, 2021, 03:26:23 AM
Quote from: Masse24 on February 07, 2021, 11:49:59 AM

(1 !C ) - X - (1 !S ) - 2 !S
2 !S natural? I suppose because it is rare, and the specialized meaning of the cuebid as a "suit-agreement or game" bid had more use. The double opened up that possibility for us.
....And quoting some wisdom from Kenberg on this point:
   "Perhaps Rho's 1 was a psych, perhaps not, but if partner, Rho and I all have spade length I imagine Lho will be pulling to somewhere else"

  Yes--holding good SPADES to double one spade would be a waste of breath unless 4th hand also has OPENER's suit tied up.   That is why I prefer to be able to bid spades over the responder so they can sort out how far to go in that suit (or some third one), when neither I nor partner have much in that suit.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 08, 2021, 03:35:57 PM
Trigger pulled and some second thoughts this time - probably will cost me dearly in the points.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
5107 SEWELLS POINTE DR
FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407-9355
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds - I always wanted to move, but anything other than 4/5 !C seemed a lie.  I have been convinced that 3 !D can be treated as a try for 3NT, so I am in.
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Double - My at the table heart will always be an S.J. Simons like 6 !C, but the panel will not make it their majority selection.  I will go with the law, and generally reap a greater reward with a double, than I would get by guessing the right level.
PROBLEM H: Club King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: DickHy on February 08, 2021, 04:36:09 PM
Quote from: Masse24 on February 06, 2021, 06:11:13 PM
Quote from: wackojack on February 06, 2021, 05:53:16 PM
B 3♦
If partner has 7 clubs ♣ AJ9xxxx must have good high cards outside and yet did not rebid 2NT or 3NT.  I reckon he could well have 8 of them.  I think that with 7 or 8 tricks in clubs we could well have 3NT on. And as DickHy observed right siding for 3NT could be crucial.  So, I will go for 3♦.  I will pass 3N or 4♣.   

There it is!

That's what I've been thinking. 3 !D . . . Wondering if I was the only one. But . . . does this imply my !C holding?

I keep intending to post but am constantly pulled away. Too many irons in the fire right now.

I worried too about whether 3 !D would show my club holding.  I'm wondering about making a cue bid to show a good club raise.  I could have bid 2 !H directly over East's 1 !H, but instead passed.  If I bid 3 !H now, surely partner will understand that my promised "good club raise" is simply good clubs?

I suppose I could make a cue bid of 3 !S instead, but 3 !H seems (to me, anyway) much more clear as a "delayed" heart cue bid.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: peuco on February 08, 2021, 05:48:30 PM
Hello :)

MSC March
SOLUTIONS FOR: Peuco

PROBLEM A: 5 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club King

Thank you
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: bAbsG on February 08, 2021, 06:44:10 PM
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
       Qualicum Beach BC
       Canada

Your Solutions for the March 2021 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: ccr3 on February 09, 2021, 10:11:42 PM
Problem A: This could be a powerful playing hand with a double fit. I can see it making 6d, not as much slam in hearts. Need more information: 2S
Problem B: Give partner a chance. I have clubs with him. 4C
Problem C: Better than a limit count. Let's try to right side this hand. Also gives partner a chance to support spades if holding 3.
Problem D: Let's not leave partner in the dark, 4NT
Problem E: Don't really think of any other bid: 2S
Problem F.  I can see three tricks leading the heart K and continuing to partner's A and back for a ruff. Surely he has a trick to add to mine: Dble
Problem G: I'm going for the set: Dble
Problem H: This hand seems to call for a trump to defend against a cross ruff. But too risky. C K
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: ccr3 on February 09, 2021, 10:13:16 PM
SOLVER: Pat McDermott
        8015 Buford Commons
        N. Chesterfield VA 23235
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the March 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club King


Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: yleexotee on February 09, 2021, 11:34:38 PM
A - This is one where I'm going to play the game of MSC answers and take the hint of 2S. However, I believe I would bid something like 3D showing my real suit and taking my chances.
B - Pass. It's MPs, I"m going to stay low and beat those going down in 3nt, and making it up with a couple extras if we make 5c.
C - Very hard time with this one. 3S is the most descriptive bid for me, 3C being GF and I feel that's a touch overboard. if p doesn't have club stopper, what am I doing over  after 3c -3d/3h. p sees
      my 3S, don't they bid 3nt with a club stopper and 1 or 2 spades?. OTOH, I tend to be aggressive and I suspect 3c is my real bid at the table. if Vul IMPs I might go this way. is that ace of h
     enough transportation to get those spades running....oy! 3S
D - 4S. I want to declare the spade control and keep exploring
E - 2S. What else
F - Pass. this is a bit passive, and something tells me I might double in real life, but this is what I"going with. I have 1 trick and maybe the king of h. so p needs two tricks, or 3 if dummy only has 
     one Heart. Ace of H, then probably a club honor and a diamond honor, but are they situated well?
G - Another tough one. I wish I could bid some form of kickback here, so I could ask if we are setup with KQ of clubs. 4H is tempting,and I want p to bid 4S showing the king of spades I suspect
      they have. Again taking theMSC hint that this isn't too weak a bid. p has to have something in spades. KH is coming home, LHO isn't going to lead from AQ so won't get a heart lead, to me its     
      somewhat likely we don't have a heart loser unless we end up in slam where he might take it off the top. 4nt? doesn't help, if p has king of c, they say 5c ad now what, if they don't they say
      5d, and we are toast. if I bid 5c p isn't going to raise so we lose out o 6c....    I think I'm going to diverge from everyone and try 4h, and see if I hear the magic response.
H- KD
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Veeree on February 10, 2021, 03:48:39 AM
Hi,
A) 2Sp
B) 4C
C) 3 Sp
D) 4Nt
E) 2Sp
F) Pass
G) X
H) K Dia

Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: wackojack on February 10, 2021, 09:48:35 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Jack Goody

Guildford
England

PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Diamond King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 10, 2021, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: ccr3 on February 09, 2021, 10:11:42 PM
Problem H: This hand seems to call for a trump to defend against a cross ruff. But too risky. C K

I was thinking the same. With West showing approximately 1NT opening HCP but not choosing to do so, shortage seems probable. Maybe something like 3=4=5=1.

But I'm too afraid of leading a stiff trump.

I hate lead problems.  ;)
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 10, 2021, 01:49:06 PM
SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
        320 Quail Dr
        Sykesville MD 21784
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the March 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 3


I believe that I am alone on the last two. Oh well.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: DickHy on February 10, 2021, 01:56:14 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Richard Harvey
5 Westwood Rd
Southampton SO31 5EL
U.K.

PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club King
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 10, 2021, 05:56:51 PM
LOL  Nobody has any axes to grind over the lead problem  --bummer OOPS!  I will count Ken's trump lead as , in essence,  a 'debate'!  Way to go Ken, and there are 2 half-votes in here with you.
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: msphola on February 10, 2021, 06:12:01 PM
A. 2S
B. 3n
C. 3C
D. 3N
E. P
F. 4N
G. 3N
H. KD
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 10, 2021, 06:53:21 PM
March Results

Lots of plus 700 scores this month! There were 8!
 
CCR3 won this month and made the BW Honor roll. Not only the honor roll . . . but FIRST PLACE!  OUTSTANDING PAT!!!

Also making the Bridge World Honor Roll . . . BabsG a solid 2nd place with a score that often wins. Blu completes the top 3 with a big score of 740. And VeeRee, with a solid 730 place fourth also making The Bridge World Honor Roll! Congratulations to all.

NAMEBW-SCORERANKMPs
CCR3     780   1   30
BabsG     750   2   25
BluBayou     740   3   20
VeeRee     730   4   11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Also participating were DickHy, Jcreech, KenBerg, Masse24, Msphola, Peuco, Thornbury, WackoJack, Yleexotee and one anonymous solver.


Points adjusted now
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 10, 2021, 09:00:09 PM

SOLVER: Kenneth Berg
        320 Quail Dr
        Sykesville MD 21784
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the March 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades                     100
PROBLEM B: 4 Clubs                        100
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs                          90
PROBLEM D: 4 Notrump                   100
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades                     100
PROBLEM F: 4 Notrump                      70
PROBLEM G: 3 Spades                       70
PROBLEM H: Heart 3                          80


                                                          710

I have done worse and no doubt will again. B surprised me, I thought 4C was right, I just didn't think anyone else would think so. I will be interested in seeing the comments. My comment, earlier, was that since I had passed, and partner thought he could make 3C, it should be ok to raise to 4C. To my mind, this is a natural bid, partner can pass, partner can bid 5C. I hope that's what the panel says.

I just got my February Bridge World, that's the one with the scores and discussion for February, a day or two ago. Mail seems to be screwed up nationwide but it is seriously screwed up around here. I don't think we have gotten any Christmas cards in the last week  but in late January we were.




Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 10, 2021, 09:42:56 PM
CONGRATULATIONS, PAT!

(https://i.ibb.co/zJG2JF0/Woohoo.jpg)
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: ccr3 on February 11, 2021, 02:15:16 PM
Wow Todd, so cool. Thank you :)   :)  I love it!

Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 19, 2021, 05:37:41 PM
March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric O. Kokish, Director

Problem A  2 !C  (No IAC solvers)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable

♠ 7   ♥ A 8 4 3   ♦ A 10 9 6 4 3 2   ♣ 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♣     Double    1 ♠
    ?*         
*BWS: 2 ♣ = one-round force; 2 ♠ = forcing to suit agreement or game

From the problem-setter, Michael Becker writes:  "Two spades.  The 'high' cue-bid is unlimited, forcing to at least three notrump or four of a minor, and more economical than higher bids.  Clearcut. A clinker."  Nonetheless, 80% of the IAC solvers came to the table with the same answer - 2 !S - which was the most aggressive response in the two BW hints.  All told, there was only three IAC responses; the other two were 3 and 5 !D.  Masse24, while selecting the majority answer, said "I think this is a difficult problem (more so than the IAC seems to think) and I expect to see many different answers."  Although this prediction was correct for the BW solvers (they came up with 11 answers) it was less true for the BW Panel (5).  Unfortunately, their plurality went for the other hint, so 2 !C picked up the top score.

The top score went to the "low" cue-bid of 2 !C (12 Panelists, 24% BW solvers).  The moderator was quick to point out that "No two-club bidder who intends to stop short of game says so explicitly.  The motivation for the cheaper cue-bid seems to be saving space."  Bart Bramley is "Content to go slow, which will help us gauge our fit and level while letting the bad guys get black-suit bidding out of their systems.  If I get to make the first natural call for our side, a diamond bid should imply hearts as well."  Harry Steiner has aspirations:  "A four-four heart fit should handle well, especially as partner has help in and might solidify the diamonds.  If this fails to develop, I'll take a stab at five diamonds.  I know that a perfecto might produce slam."  Barry Rigal expects "...to hear a spade raise and will bid diamonds at an appropriate moment.  A simple diamond bid might work fine, since someone will bid spades and then I can jump in hearts.  It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to."

The IAC solvers were looking hard at the hints provided, but chose the more aggressive approach (along with 8 Panelists and 40% of the BW solvers).  As YleeXotee wrote, "This is one where I'm going to play the game of MSC answers and take the hint of 2S. "  A big reason for the view is discussed by CCR3 "This could be a powerful playing hand with a double fit. I can see it making 6d, not as much slam in hearts. Need more information: 2S"  While JCreech echoes the sentiment, "What I lack in HCPs, I make up for in distribution and controls.  How could partner expect more than two bullets and two stiffs when everyone is bidding?"  Panelists going this direction wanted to set the game-force.  As Dan Gerstman said "Forcing to game:  four hearts if partner has four, otherwise five diamonds; if the opponents compete, I'll bid diamonds at the lowest available level."  While Chris Willenken wants "To set the force in case LHO bids a lot.  If I bid two clubs, even a three-club bid from LHO will cause huge problems, as three of a red suit would then be nonforcing.  Bidding either red suit would be looking for trouble."

The other IAC choices were in diamonds.  Two bid the game directly.  Peuco said "I’ve seen a lot of 4-4 contracts with a 7 card side suit go down"  While BluBayou justifies his bid with "Wackojack's 'perfecto' minimum for red suits scares me all the more to try to shut up the winning 5 Spade comp, and might make facing most less-than-handpicked support"  Joey Silver will "... take the direct route to our most likely game, before the villains can get together."  Similarly, David Berkowitz says the hand is "Unlikely to play well in hearts with my hand tapped, so I will stab at the best contract without letting the opponents get together."  While the one choosing 3 !D was silent, perhaps could be described with YleeXotee's alternative thoughts, "However, I believe I would bid something like 3D showing my real suit and taking my chances."  It was also not a Panelist choice, but discussed briefly by Richard Colker:  "Bidding three diamonds would increase the risk of losing the heart suit or missing game."  And followed up by the moderator "I hadn't thought of three diamonds.  Would that be deemed a different tactical underbid or just a remarkably-conservative unilateral invitation?"


Problem B  4 !C  (KenBerg, BabsG, CCR3, VeeRee, Blubayou)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable

♠ 9 8 3   ♥ 7 6 2   ♦ 10 7 5 3   ♣ K Q 10

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       ——      1 ♣        1 ♥
  Pass       1 ♠       3 ♣        Pass
    ?         

With Problem B, you have a weak hand that was of dubious value on your first opportunity to bid.  Now that partner has jump rebid his own suit, it is time to reassess.  Do you choose to tell partner that you have better than he deserves when you lay down a dummy with three honors in his suit?  Do you bid game on the basis of those honors in either NT or clubs?  Or do you find some game try as a middle approach?

Slightly more than a third of the IAC solvers and BW Panel voted for 4 !C, violating YleeXotee's law; do not voluntarily bid four of a minor when it may be passed to play.  BluBayou shrugs (virtually), "I don't know what this will accomplish, but if partner has jump-raised himself, ALONE, at RED VUL,  then i have one for the road here.  I hope to not be taken for some kind of trap-pass by doing this."  Similarly, KenBerg writes "Well, I passed the first time and pard says he can make 3 !C. Seems we should be able to make 4 !C."  And CCR3 says "Give partner a chance. I have clubs with him."  Zia is reluctant:  "Four clubs. Three diamonds is the right bid, as it asks for three notrump with both major stops.  But clearly that is subjective, and so I boringly bid this."  Pepsi is uncertain:  "Don't know who is making what, but I'll make it more difficult for the opponents to bid and I like to raise."  Philippe Cronier says "Maybe we can make three notrump, but I've no good bid to make in that direction.  More importantly, the opponents have a fit somewhere nd will bid over three clubs.  Four clubs will make their lives a bit more difficult, and will let North bid five with a very special hand."

Nonetheless, the moderator says "The plurality choice gets no love from me, as it gives up on three notrump without sending enough information for North to make a wise decision about continuing on to game.  I'd rather bid five clubs than four."  Which leads us to why the second place points go to the game bidders.  IAC had a couple (as did the BW Panel, and 10% of the BW solvers).  Peuco chose 5 !C, arguing that "Pd must have a play for 5C. With an 8 card suit it could be cold" 

The IAC player going with 3NT was silent, but JCreech describes why he thinks the bid might be best.  "I have no shape to justify a try for an 11 trick game, but the club support is superb; that is why I think NT may be the best contract - partner's self jump-raise suggests values outside of clubs, so (s)he may have the outside stops, while I have the material to make the 6-7 bagger a running suit."  Harry Steiner, from the Panel argues "Partner must have great strength outside clubs and appears to have some length in the majors, as the opponents have not suggested an eight-card major-suit fit.  Three diamonds might be natural, so it's unacceptable.  Five clubs is less likely than stealing three notrump on a favorable lead."

Other game tries fared much less well than 4 !C.  The BW Panel was roughly evenly split among 3 !D/ !H/ !S, while the IAC solvers were more of one mind (combined, 10 Panelists made a game try below 3NT - the same number as those that bid 4 !C).  I know that I was reluctant to try either !H or !S because the opponents had bid those suits and, to me, those cue bids would promise stoppers.  Masse24 summed things up well:  "This is the sexy MSC bid. Giving us our only shot at the only game I think we can make—3NT. The question is, will enough of the Bridge World MSC panel agree? Too flat and too little help to make 5 !C. So I see little value in raising clubs to either 4 !C or 5 !C. (Probably.) But partner is jump-rebidding 3 !C without the !C KQT. What else could 3 !D be but a grope for 3NT?"  WackoJack's discussion focuses on the other concern, right-siding the contract:  "If partner has 7 clubs ♣ AJ9xxxx must have good high cards outside and yet did not rebid 2NT or 3NT.  I reckon he could well have 8 of them.  I think that with 7 or 8 tricks in clubs we could well have 3NT on." And as DickHy observed "right siding for 3NT could be crucial.  So, I will go for 3♦.  I will pass 3N or 4♣."  If you cannot tell, I think this action was severely undervalued in the contest.  Some of the BW Panelists jump in as well.  Sami Kehela wants to compel "... partner with ♠ Ax ♥ Ax ♦ xx ♣ AJxxxxx or the like to bid the (nearly) laydown three notrump." David Berkowitz:  "Interesting to have such strong clubs.  I bid my stopper, hoping not to play there, and, more importantly, to let partner bid three notrump." And Dan Gertsman:  "I can't pass with such good clubs and want to leave three notrump in play."

Pass was the overwhelming choice of the BW solvers (50%), but were much less likely to be chosen by either the Panel  (5) or IAC solvers (3).  YleeXotee said "It's MPs, I"m going to stay low and beat those going down in 3nt, and making it up with a couple extras if we make 5c."  When I was making my initial selections, I chose Pass because I didn't think there was enough to make an 11 trick game, did not want to bid 3NT directly myself, yet could not think of a sensible way to get to partner to bid 3NT.  George Jacobs thinks "Partner surely has ace-jack-sixth or -seventh of clubs, but for three notrump he needs every suit stopped, and he didn't say he had that.  How do we get him to declare three notrump?  Whichever suit we psyched might get doubled.  If we bid three notrump, we might not get in until trick eight.  Why look for trouble?"  Similarly, Richard Colker:  "Three notrump could be cold from partner's side, but how do we get there?"

Problem C 2 NT  (Blubayou, one other)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable

♠ A Q J 10 8   ♥ A 9   ♦ 10 5   ♣ 9 8 4 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       ——     1 ♥        Pass
  1 ♠        Pass     2 ♦        Pass
    ?         

The debate on Problem C is whether the hand is worth a game force or only invitational.  For the panelists, it was a dead heat between the two most popular choices representing each position.  The top score was given to 2NT largely because the bulk of the other selections were votes to the low side.  Two IAC solvers went with the choice of 9 panelists and 25% of the BW solvers.  BluBayou thinks "An invitational bid will do just fine here, and wrongsiding the club situation is not as ugly as it appears!  There are many layouts wher the 98xx comes to the rescue holding the def to 3 club winners, or trapping the 4th-round winner in a now-dead hand  (QTx and AJxx surrounding pard's club king  ie)  we don't need to WIN a club in imps  just have them be held at bay until the spades can come home:)   Another thought:  hearing partner rebid his hearts after our 2NT is more 'informative'  than hearing same after 4th-suit forcing 3!C,  where it is simply the default 'nothing to add" bid.   Those who want to force to game  arent exactly swinging from tree limbs,  but we are in for inviting only, and fits that bill"  From the Panel, Michael Becker:  "I must invite, as there are too many hands with which partner will pass two of either major when we have good play for game.  Two notrump keeps the bidding low enough while leaving other strains open, although it might not be the best partscore."  Bart Bramley:  "Closest among imperfect choices.  Must play in spades or notrump to give full value to my spades."

Again IAC solvers (9 of them) are more aggressive (along with 9 Panelists and 42% of the BW solvers) and make the game-forcing 3 !C bid.  DickHy's analysis is "4SF is GF in BWS but I’ll live with that.  Partner’s shape offers various games 4 !S (3541), 4 !H (2641) or 3N (1543).  Doubtless, he’ll be 2542 and we’ll end up in 3N hoping opponents will throw us a bone (clubs aren’t running - neither opponent overcalled 2 !C, white - and a couple of cards are well-placed)."  KenBerg waxes philosophic with "BW keeps offering these problems where it won't take much for game, you would like to have a descriptive game invite, but you do not. So I keep making game forcing bids and I keep getting bad scores, Quoting Hank Williams 'She warned me once, she warned me twice, but I don't take no one's advice'.   Partner plays the cards well I hope."  Andrew Robson thinks this is a "Classic strain-over-level problem.  Three clubs in not a big overbid with such fine intermediates."  Janice Seamon Molson agrees:  "A small overstatement.  Two notrump is the value bid but could wrongside the contract, and perhaps four hearts or four spade would be better even in a five-two fit."  While Billy Eisenberg is succinct: "Three clubs.  Too much hand for less."

The best invitational alternative is 3 !S, which tends to promise six, but the quality of this suit is almost worth treating it that way.  Peuco puts it this way:  "Not afraid to play 4S opposite a singleton"  While YleeXotee is worried about both bidding and play but thinks "3S is the most descriptive bid for me, 3C being GF and I feel that's a touch overboard. if p doesn't have club stopper, what am I doing over  after 3c -3d/3h. p sees my 3S, don't they bid 3nt with a club stopper and 1 or 2 spades?. OTOH, I tend to be aggressive and I suspect 3c is my real bid at the table. if Vul IMPs I might go this way. is that ace of h enough transportation to get those spades running....oy!"  Harry Steiner likes "Three spades.  Faking a sixth spade rather than a club stopper.  With an opening bid, I can risk a heavy invitation, the lack of a spade being compensated for by the maximum in high cards.  This spade holding can reasonably be treated as a six-bagger."


Problem D  4 NT  (Masse24, WackoJack, KenBerg, CCR3, VeeRee)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable

♠ A 8 6   ♥ Q 10 3   ♦ K J 8   ♣ A Q 7 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       3 ♠      Double   Pass
    ?*         
*4 NT natural by agreement

The big question is what does partner have for his double.  There are two principles to consider.  One is that to act in the direct seat forcing the partnership to the four level (3NT notwithstanding), you have to have decent values.  The other is that if one member of the partnership has shortness in the preemptor's suit, there is added pressure for that person to act.  Looking at a good, balanced 16 HCPs the question is particularly pertinent.

Those bidding 4NT clearly regard their partner as having full values and want to invite slam.  Masse24 is open to partner's direction:  "I certainly have the values for this. Maybe partner can suggest another strain."  While CCR3 says "Let's not leave partner in the dark, 4NT"  And KenBerg felt that the bid "Seems right."  Michael Lawrence bids "Four notrump.  This will be bad if partner passes and I can't make it, but it may lead us to slam somewhere.  Four spades rates to lead to an awkward auction."  Kit Woolsey says "Too strong for three notrump, and a cue-bid or a club bid doesn't make sense.  Four notrump is about what the hand is worth."

WackoJack was not as certain.  He chose to bid 3NT because "We cannot expect much more than 14 HCP from partner for the take-out double and likely nothing in spades.  So, with ♠ xx, ♥ AKxx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ Kxx, we can count 9 top tricks only and likely only 1 extra trick in the red suits.  Can we then try 4N?  Partner no doubt would bid 6NT with about 15 or 16.  It looks right to try 4NT.  However, give partner 16:  ♠ xx, ♥ AKJx, ♦ Axxx, ♣ KJx.  We still need 4 tricks in ♦s opposite ♦ KJ8.  That is unlikely.  So, I think I will take the low road and bid 3NT."  Jeff Meckstroth also tries 3 NT:  "We may make a slam, but I'm hoping for a plus score.  No good way to explore."  And more cautiously, Carl Hudecek:  "Playing West not to have a red ace along with seven spades."

The moderator made Pass the third highest scoring choice even though only two Panelists made the choice because "Even when the penalty is disappointing, the loss will be small when slam is not in the cards, and there may well be some North-South minus scores from unlucky decisions."  Andrew Robson presents this case for the panelists:  "If I bid, what would I choose?  Three notrump would not be enough, four notrump too much (and spades worrying).  A 500-point penalty seems very likely, with 800 a distinct possibility."  Similarly, Zia says "If I knew whether to bid three or six, and which strain to choose, I might not pass; as I don't know, I take the money and hope it's enough."

The moderator views bidding 4 !S as a "mountain or precipice" choice and points to Sami Kehela as recognizing the abyss potential:  "Four spades.  Heading not so blithely into uncharted waters."  DickHy was far more certain of the mountain. "All North’s HCP are outside spades, and I’d expect him to have 14+, rather than a measly 12, say.  So, we have 26+ HCP in his three suits.  He’s probably 1444 – with 3c spade support East would have bid four spades.  That looks close to 12 tricks to me.  Among the silver linings, they could have a queen and two jacks, East could have the club king or West could have the heart king.  With thick clouds, East may have a red suit ace/heart king to go with his two spades, but if I make a 4N bid and North has 14 – minimum for his bid - he’ll certainly pass.   I'd bid 6N at the table, but that's likely to be a bit too blunt-instrument for pros.  A 4S cuebid may well lead us to a decent 6m contract."  Less certain, but still thinking slam, Peuco said "Let pd know slam is on the radar" and YleeXotee "I want to declare the spade control and keep exploring"  David Berkowitz thinks "Opposite a stiff spade, we have a mountain, with the perfect spade holding for a suit contract as opposed to say king-queen-low, which would be more notrump-oriented."
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 19, 2021, 09:58:51 PM
March MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric O. Kokish, Director

Problem E  2 !S  (Blubayou, Jcreech, DickHy, Thornbury, Yleexotee, Masse24, KenBerg, CCR3, VeeRee, one other)

Imps  North-South vulnerable

♠ Q 10 2   ♥ 10 9 8 3 2   ♦ Q   ♣ 7 5 4 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠         2 ♦
  Pass      Pass    Double    Pass
    ?         

The moderator feels that this is a problem that should never have been.  He writes "I feel strongly that it's bad bridge not raise directly to two spades.  Very bad bridge.  Whatever South bids now will not tell North that he's facing a normal three-card raise to two spades, with two trump honors and a singleton in overcaller's suit no less."

Having passed initially, the big question on this problem becomes strain.  Do you raise and go with the sure fit, or based on partner's double, take a chance that the hearts will be better.  JCreech describes the dilemma:  "2 !S  I will start with the obvious response, but I am also thinking of trying 2 !H.  Why?  Because my hand will likely contribute more to the total trick taking in my suit than in partner's.  If we have two 8-card fits, hearts may play a bit better.  If hearts are actually a 9-card fit, then certainly better."  A secondary question, that of level, was more critical to the Panel (64% were looking to go beyond 2 !S, compared 9% of the BW solvers and none of the IAC).

For 10 of the BW Panel and more than 70% of the solvers (BW and IAC), the appropriate response was 2 !S.  Responses made me remember Al Roth's old "What's the problem?"  CCR3 said "Don't really think of any other bid"  YleeXotee virtually shrugged with "What else" And KenBerg:  "I guess that's what I do."  Other's at least gave some thought to alternatives, such as Masse24:  "I can see the viability of 2 !H , but a simple 2 !S can’t be too far wrong. Can it?"  The Panel is more thoughtful.  Carl Hudecek:  "Even with these hearts, I prefer to play in spades, with the short trump hand controlling diamonds."  Kit Woolsey:  "Something is wrong with this picture.  I'm not supposed to hold a singleton diamond.  Best to take a low road and find out what is going on."

I would not have been surprised to see 2 !H show up as the top choice, so second place was reasonable, but not when I saw the poll results.  The pick only received four Panel votes and about 20% of the solvers.  WackoJack's reasoning was "My first reaction was the safe 2♠.  However, we now seem to have a double fit and opponents have got a lot of diamonds between them so west is surely going to compete to 3♦.  So I bid the more forward going 2♥."  Thinking about the diamonds differently, Peuco says "with 2S the D ruff shortens dummy and there it goes the chance to profit from the long Hs"  Chris Willenken thinks "From a technical perspective, it's hard to say which major will play better, but two hearts has higher maximum than two spades (because of the inferences from my failure to raise initially), so I expect partner to bid again most of the time when we have a game.  Not strong enough for three of a major."  Barry Rigal:  "What more can I do?  Hearts is flexible and economical, not the least because if partner corrects to two spades, I can bid game."

For Panelists, the second choice was 3 !S, which pulled in 7 votes, 5% of the BW solvers and not on IAC's radar at all.  Phillip Alder:  "Partner seems to have a strong hand and we are vulnerable at imps."  Zia:  "Close to a cue, but partner will not pass if game is decent."  Robert Wolff: "What else?"

Problem F  Double  (BabsG, Blubayou, CCR3, DickHy, Jcreech, Thornbury, WackoJack)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable

♠ 3   ♥ K 5   ♦ A 9 7 5 3   ♣ J 10 7 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass      1 ♥         1 ♠
 Double     4 ♠      Pass     Pass
    ?         

There are two questions at stake with this problem.  The first is whether you have shown your hand with your first call.  And if you have not, what part of your hand do you still need to show?

Let's start with those that have nothing more to say.  This was the second place score; it polled 12 votes from the Panelists (equal to the top score), 33% of the BW solvers, and four of the IAC solvers.  Masse24 was more certain of his decision: "What did my first double show? Roughly this hand? Roughly these values? Partner knows this, right? But he did not double. So I pass and hope we defend well."  YleeXotee "this is a bit passive, and something tells me I might double in real life, but this is what I" going with. I have 1 trick and maybe the king of h. so p needs two tricks, or 3 if dummy only has one Heart. Ace of H, then probably a club honor and a diamond honor, but are they situated well?"  Michael Becker:  "Earlier my intention was to play in a partscore when my partner has a minimum.  East-West have now shown a nine- or probably 10-card spade fit, but not enough has changed to suggest that I reevaluate.  Give partner a near-balanced minimum, maybe with a wasted spade picture, and we're better off defending than declaring ..."  Pepsi:  "At matchpoints, I don't like a top-or-bottom strategy."

If you do have something more to say, what is it?  Those who are looking to penalize hit the top score.  In addition to have 12 Panel votes, it also got 42% of the BW solvers and half of the IAC solvers.  WackoJack (and BluBayou similarly) tick off a list:  "Have we got a 9 card fit in the minors?  Is partner’s shape 2533 or 2542?  So lets be optimistic and assume we have a 9 card fit in a minor.  Then according to LTT there are 19 total tricks: If they make 4♠ we make only 9 tricks in a minor.  If they are 1 off in 4♠ we make 10 tricks in a minor  If they are 2 off in 4♠ we can make a minor suit game.  I doubt if they can make 4♠ so I double  If partner passed the 4♠ raise with a 5-5 shape she may well pull the double."  CCR3 gauges it somewhat differently:  "I can see three tricks leading the heart K and continuing to partner's A and back for a ruff. Surely he has a trick to add to mine"  And JCreech thinks that a double here is "Cooperative/penalty.  I have some prime values opposite a 2nd seat opener.  I am not anxious to go to the five-level, but with shortness in hearts, I am willing to try punishing.  If partner has a lot of distribution, (s)he is welcome to pull, but I think we need to double to protect what they took away."  Michael Lawrence says it more succinctly:  "You did note that this was matchpoints."  Other panelists - Sami Kehela:  "Double.  But lacking conviction."  Zia:  "Double.  Pathetic and wrong, but acceptable in the post-mortem.  Getting old, I guess."

If you choose to bid, what should you bid?  DickHy describes the reason well "Are we likely to make 5m with these my patchy suits?  4N would add to the picture: the original double promised 44/44+, not the 55 I have."  Not nearly as reticent, Peuco says "what else as yleexotee says" While KenBerg is seeking either validation or explanation, writes: "I'm really sure that this is what I would do at the table. I look forward to hearing what's wrong about it."  To answer Ken, Harry Steiner says "I hate to be pushed to the five-level, but game could make both ways, or a minor-suit contract might be a worthwhile sacrifice (though a phantom save is more likely).  It is unlikely that the opponents will take the push to five spades, but stranger things have happened."  Robert Wolff:  "An overbid, but the clear-cut choice.  More good things than bad can happen."  But I like Phillip Alder's thoughts best:  "Four notrump.  With my apology ready."


Problem G  Double  (Peuco, BabsG, Blubayou, CCR3, DickHy, Jcreech, WackoJack, Masse24, VeeRee, one other)

Imps  East-West vulnerable

♠ A 10 7 5 2   ♥ K 5   ♦ A K Q 7 4   ♣ A

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       3 ♣*      3 ♥
    ?         
*BWS style: not extreme in any direction for the given table position and vulnerability

This problem has a number of potential directions to take, so it was a bit surprising that about a third of the BW Panel and Solvers, as well as about 70% of the IAC solvers, all went in the direction of double, while there was little coherence with any of six other choices.  WackoJack calculates the situation like this:  "If I double for penalties, I reckon at worst +200, likely +500 and even possibly +800 if I can give partner a ♦ ruff.  Playing in 5♣ we may well make for +400 or could go off for -50.  I will double and got for the more certain plus score."  Similarly, JCreech argues "I will go with the law, and generally reap a greater reward with a double, than I would get by guessing the right level."  And DickHy takes an historical view:  "This looks like Problem E from last month.  Assume the 3 !C is KQxxxxxx, hope for a useful card outside and bid 3N.  Here the useful card doesn’t have to be so good – the jack of diamonds would be just fine.  However, this looks like a good time to start biting - we can take 5 tricks (+) against 3Hx for 500 (+)"  While CCR3 says it simply:  " I'm going for the set: Dble"  The simple answer from the Panel comes from Billy Eisenberg:  "Double.  Why bid when the vulnerability favors defending?"  Andrew Robson:  "As in Problem D, if I did bid, what would I bid?  We could get 500 against our game, or 200 if there isn't a game (or if we would choose the wrong one)."  Zia, though, brings in a concern not previously thought of:  "Double.  This is a first, but maybe North will think it's negative." LOL.

The second best score went to 4 !H.  YleeXotee mulled this over "Another tough one. I wish I could bid some form of kickback here, so I could ask if we are setup with KQ of clubs. 4H is tempting,and I want p to bid 4S showing the king of spades I suspect they have. Again taking theMSC hint that this isn't too weak a bid. p has to have something in spades. KH is coming home, LHO isn't going to lead from AQ so won't get a heart lead, to me its somewhat likely we don't have a heart loser unless we end up in slam where he might take it off the top. 4nt? doesn't help, if p has king of c, they say 5c ad now what, if they don't they say 5d, and we are toast. if I bid 5c p isn't going to raise so we lose out o 6c....    I think I'm going to diverge from everyone and try 4h, and see if I hear the magic response."  Michael Becker:  "Four hearts.  We may have a penalty available, and some days we'd be unlucky and go down in five clubs.  But when partner has strong clubs and a tad more, we will have a laydown slam, or a slam that depends on the lead."

The third choice includes 5 !C and was also selected by KenBerg.  Unfortunately, at the time of his writing "I need to think some more about this."  Making the bid more palatable, Jeff Meckstroth chooses "Five clubs.  Not three spades, because I don't want to reach four spades on a five-two fit.  We may survive in five clubs even if North has three spades."  Kit Woolsey makes it "A guess, but on balance it looks like one club loser and one heart loser.  Even if three spades were forcing - and I'm not sure it would be, partner will raise it on the wrong hand."  And Robert Wolff just bids "Five clubs.  And be done with it."

The fourth choice is 6 !C, which could be considered the bid that almost was.  IAC had one player make this selection, but was silent on his reason.  JCreech ultimately went differently but made it clear that "My at the table heart will always be an S.J. Simons like 6 !C, but the panel will not make it their majority selection."  Similarly, Masse24 writes "I so much want to bid 6 !C. Partner needs so little for the slam to be good, and that's exactly what he has promised. But they need to be the right cards and there is no guaranteed of that."


Problem H  !C K  (Thornbury, Peuco, BabsG, Blubayou, CCR3, DickHy, Jcreech)

Imps  North-South vulnerable

♠ 9 8 7   ♥ 3   ♦ K Q J 6   ♣ K Q 10 9 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♦*     Pass      1 ♥
  2 ♣        3 ♥       Pass      4 ♥
 Pass       Pass     Pass   
*four-plus diamonds

An opening lead is all about what you hope to accomplish before anything, other than the inferences that come from bidding, is known.  Here the initial choice is between setting up something for the defense or reduce the cross-ruff potential of declarer by leading a trump.  If the choice is to develop tricks, then there is a second choice because there are two reasonable suits to pursue.

Again, let's start with the trump lead.  This was the lead that had the second highest score.  Nine Panelists, 17% of the BW Solvers and one IAC solver took this path.  Richard Colker considered both sides of a trump lead before selecting:  "Heart three. ... A trump lead risks compromising partner's honor holding.  I'm following the principle that with strong holdings in the outside suits one should lead a trump to cut down ruffs."  The solver voting to lead a trump was silent, but CCR3 talks about the choice:  "This hand seems to call for a trump to defend against a cross ruff. But too risky"  And BluBayou says, "Drawing trump should always be given a thought when holding diamonds like this under the bidder but if it is a good play, how can pard get in to continue it."  Andrew Robson thinks "The only extra tricks declarer can make seem to be ruffs, as diamonds will probably not set up."  Bart Bramley wants to "Make declarer work for tricks.  He doesn't yet know that I can't lead another trump.  Both minors look safe, but each might run into a bad layout."

For those trying to develop tricks, a !C honor was the most popular selection within IAC (50%, 13 Panelists and 49% of BW solvers).  DickHy argues that "East (35xx, 34xx, 25xx) may not be ruffing my diamond winners, and if he is, I’m not sure I can stop him.  Neither will partner enjoy a heart lead from me.  The king of clubs is an investment for the future too – reassuring partner that my two-level overcalls are solid and when the table is turned he can lead them safely (thus, the excited puppy transforms into Dr Pavlov)."  A slightly different perspective comes from JCreech "I don't want to make it too easy to set up the diamonds if opener has five or more, or pickle partner's trump holding by leading my heart.  I decided that if the suit is good enough to bid, it is good enough to lead."  Danny Kleinman says "Let declarer guess hearts and spades on his own, and don't warn him about diamonds."  Michael Lawrence  is "Slightly worried that a diamond lead might give declarer time to set up a long diamond, where the king of clubs won't."  Then again, Sami Kehela chooses the club king, but says to "Ask the guy who bid clubs.  Perhaps he knows something I don't."

Within IAC, nearly 43% voted to lead a !D honor (5 Panelists, 29% BW solvers).  Peuco sees the diamond lead as being safer because "perhaps I can play C K later C K lead can give a trick"  While BluBayou selected a different lead, he recognized that "Possibly we need to lead Diamonds, to grab one or two before they sluff one on the thirteener spade?"  Janice Seamon Molson has a simplistic soul:  "Sorry, but when dealt king-queen-jack I lead that suit.  And who knows, with trumps breaking badly we might survive five diamonds in dummy."  Pepsi believes "Any suit is possible, but the diamond king is a few percent ahead of the club king."
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: ccr3 on February 21, 2021, 02:18:00 AM
Well done Jim!
Title: Re: 2021 March MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 21, 2021, 11:00:55 PM
8) . . . . . . . . . .Thank you, Jim! . . . . . . . . . . 8)