IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on October 03, 2021, 01:44:33 PM

Title: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: Masse24 on October 03, 2021, 01:44:33 PM
DECEMBER 2021 MSC

Deadline: OCT 31 at 11:59 p.m. (ET)

Submit your DECEMBER 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 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on October 05, 2021, 02:08:36 AM
I am moved to a BRIEF list of least-bad votes  this week,  with a few rants and manifestos  coming in the distant future:
A::>  #1:  reverse into hearts   #2: open hearts, rebid D as second suit,  #3: open 1N
#4: 1D then rebid as if 12-14 (1NT rebid)       find the least bad of these, PLEASE.


forget that-- we all already know what the 1, 3, or more possible bids are, right?
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on October 05, 2021, 09:36:53 PM
My initial thoughts.  As last month showed, I will not be bound by these decisions, but offer them as straw selections to help get others to start thinking about their own choices.

Problem A:  a3 [1 ♦, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — (a3) 2 ♥] I will start with diamonds and reverse into hearts.  I might be a hair light for the reverse, I may wish the diamonds were a bit better quality suit, but those are quibbles, not concerns.  Nothing else strikes me as being a better choice at this juncture.

Problem B:  6 !C  I will probably change my answer before submission.  What I would really like is to bid 4 !D as RKC for clubs.  I may end up bidding 4 !D anyway, as a fit-showing force, but there is no good way to find out what I need to know, so in the absence of science, try a punt.

Problem C:  2NT Lebehsohl, asking partner to bid 3 !C.  There are a lot of potential contracts just from my side.  So what is the most flexible approach?  If a direct bid of 3 !S shows hearts without a spade stopper, then it seems reasonable that by going through the lebensohl relay, that a 3 !S rebid after 3 !C, should show hearts with a spade stopper.  If that is the case, I have shown two of my possible strains - hearts and NT.  And partner has the opportunity to show diamonds with extra strength and length in that suit.

Problem D:  Pass  The vulnerability speaks loudly to me - they are red, we are white, partner has opened, and I am likely to be looking at four tricks myself.  Pass and then pass the reopening double.  I can only hope I get the chance for a penalty pass of hearts.

Problem E:  2NT I have both minors, so describe it and move on to the next hand  It might be better to put in the lead director and hold the clubs in reserve, but that can be part of my rethink before submitting.

Problem F:  3NT  Not happy, but I do have a stop that I can hold up on.  By bidding NT, it should deny at least four spades, so if partner pulls, they should be showing their better minor or spade length, so I should be well-placed for such a call.

Problem G:  Dbl  They say you should try to justify a reopening double whenever possible; this one is light on the clubs and possibly heavy on the spades, but who knows, partner may have the trap pass that makes it worthwhile.  Personally, I am hesitant due to the vulnerability, but I have been wrong before.

Problem H:  !S 2  Anything could be right.  Partner  has close to an opener and did not bid, so I am hoping that he has some spades behind the responder, similar to my having some diamonds behind the opener.  When the opponents have bid both of my long suits with a silent partner, that is when I truly hate the lead problems.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: kenberg on October 07, 2021, 03:16:51 PM
Another opening, another show, as Cole Porter would say.

A. b2,1H. Some long forgotten expert said "AKQJ is a five card suit". I see it as the best chance to avoid disaster while still keeping hope alive. If I open 1NT pard might well have a 6 count and QTxxx in spades. Oops. And a 16 count can be enough for a reverse but not this 16 count. I want better diamonds to do that. If the spade A were a diamond A, and the D 2 a spade 2, I would happily open 1D but if I do it here and then bid 2h over 2S, I will find it tough to slow pard down. It's true that by opening 1H it might go 1H-1S-2D-2H and I play in a 4-2 fit. But I might survive that. And on many hands I will be fine.
So 1H.

B. X. Lho probably has 5+ hearts. We might end in 4S on a 4-3 fit, that might be ok, but we also might end in 3NT. Yesm it night belong in 6C. Italso might not belong in 6C.

C. 2NT but I need to look at agreements more fully, along Jim's line of thought.
 It says 3S asks about hearts while denying a spade stop. Fine. So 2NT-3C-3S asks about hearts while showing a spade stop? It's often played that way, and that's my intention.

D. 2NT is right on values and, if pard raises to 3NT, I think I will leave it there. If he pulls to 3C I will bid 3NT. If he passes 2NT we might be in a good spot.

E. 2D. I seriously doubt that this is our hand although maybe pard has spades. Mostly I think 2D is apt to be safe. 

F.  4H I passed 2H, I should think that 4H now asks pard to choose a minor. But of course who knows?

G: X. I am not passing. Maybe I should, but I am not. So X. If pard bids 2C I bid 2D and then whatever happens happens.

H. Who knows? Otherwise put, who has what? I have a 7 count and the opponents are passing this out. Pard has stayed silent. Who has four hearts? Opener I think. maybe he is 2=4=4=3. So maybe the club J? Well, pard not only did not X over 1S, he also did not bid 2C.  As others here are thinking, maybe a spade or a D? I sort of like small D. Sort of.

Continuing the Cole Porter theme:
"Four weeks we rehearse and rehearse, three weeks and it couldn't be worse, one week will it ever be right, ...."
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on October 07, 2021, 11:15:07 PM
Problem A:>>  I don't believe  I have felt like copying Ken's thought  word for word before,  but count me in  for problem A.
Problem C:>>  Frank taught me not to be afraid of the "Stayman with a Stopper plan, by way of  lebensohl 2NT.  Obviously  if partner cannot show four hearts, she will "return" to notrump  much more often than she will bid the very awkward "4 !D " We hope  the 4-4 heart game if it exists will not go set.
]Problem B:>>  Somebody who has played rubber for money  tell us how to feel about locking up the first game, rather than blasting to a likely slam.  I assume  the below-the-line situation  is  "nil"  or  the b.W.  must have mentioned any leg.  Unless someone documents the virtue of GETTING VULNERABLE in the rubber, I am voting for a direct slam bid.[
P.S.  KEN:  You cannot play a 4-3 spade contract  in rubber!  (or IMPs)  with 5 1/2 clubs a laydown..  Tell us you didnt read the top line of the problem :)


Problem D:>>  Two Notrump seems perfect.   They didn't ask, but I would admit to spade tolerance if north rebids 3 of a minor, though  I can't quite see why we will need a trump suit.

Problem E:>>All 3 bids are wrong. ( I am counting "double" as a possible call)  So I pass.
Problem F:>>  Three Notrump ( TAKEOUT, in our dreams.)[/i]

Problem G:>>  "Double"--unanimous.   Really this should be a question about the next round of bidding --after "double, [pass], 2Clubs, [pass]"  shouldn't it?

Problem H:>>  Anything could be right, eh?  But I'm eliminating spades because even if we get a trick there,  we are going to loose the spot war in the end.  the low heart is my current favorite since it might hit partner,  or turn out to be a neutral led. 
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: peuco on October 12, 2021, 04:27:55 PM
A. a3 i never expect perfect hands for a bid. And i prefer a slight overbid than a gross underbid. The imperfection of the reverse worries me less than opening 1H hearing 1S and biding 2D which misleads the count of the suits AND the strength of the hand
B. 4D if pd cues then slam else 5C. Pretty simple
C. 2NT non-problem using Lebensohl
D. Pass matchpoints agree 100% with Jim
E. Pass the 3 spades prevent me for bidding unusual
F. Pass 3NT hast the substantial risk of a S entry to the Hs and a minor game not clear so i refrain from bidding 4H
G. 1NT almost unanimously and i do not have the problem of the next round of bidding
H. D 4 i am with Blu
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on October 19, 2021, 01:18:20 AM
PROBLEM G::>>  WHAT the heck are you early musers looking at??   I see 16 working and a "useless"   !S Qx  (doubting that).   I don't  "try hard"  to reopen as opener with a double--i LUST for the chance!   the fact that my third bid, if needed can be my second suit t a minimum lever  is almost TOO comfortable.  Don't tell Major  Milktoast that I would gladly reopen 'red-card'  even if my minors were  !D Qx,  !C AKXX.
   But you early speakers have shaken my faith on all 28 panelists  to double in" .01 heartbeat"  :(
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on October 19, 2021, 10:36:21 AM
Blu,

The concern is whether there is too much shape, or at least not enough right shape for the double.  Holding Qx in the opponents suit makes it more likely that partner is not licking his chops waiting for my double.  And the more points I hold, the less likely that partner has anything, so if we declare there may be little, if any, transportation between the hands.  These are some of the thoughts that lead me to be less than enthusiastic about a reopening double.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on October 23, 2021, 11:34:08 PM
These will be my final answers UNLESS  I paste the official entry showing otherwise.


Problem A:>>   A lightening bolt just struck this morning:  They are gonna cut the Gordian Knot  and just...
                                                  ---OPEN 1 Notrump! --- 


Problem B:>>   Shawn's dad has played rubber bridge for the rent money,  and he says  "Get VUL  ASAP; 3NT or      5C  are ironclad."   In my ignorance,  I bid 6C anyway and expect to get beaten only  when diamonds are lead and ruffed by evil  LHO.                                                   ---  6 Clubs ---
  Bulletin:  Hoki has convinced me to see how many 1C openers may perfectly well lack two aces  (QJxx, KQ9X, J, Axxx ?)   --and don't count him out for having the diamond king LOL!   So,  I am backing off a notch, and settling for a cuebid.                 
                                                   --- 4 Diamonds ---

Problem C:>>   Stayman-with-a-stopper ,via  lebens. 2NT.  plan B .(.3C= nat. & not broke ) should be a DISTANT second.                               --- 2NT  ---
Dammit!  Hoki got  me again!  Why was I forcing game opposite a 12-count??  Re-opening a weak two  don't require a strong NT, nor a maxiRoman.   I disapprove of lebensohl in the "lurker" position  but  BWS doesn't share that view, so not-broke  3C  comes in handy here.
                                                        ---3C ---

Problem D:>>   Going for the throat  is gaining ground but if the reopening double doesn't come,  I will be in the embarrassing position or  "accepting my own game try"  which I avoid like the plague.   For now,  let's stick with my original honest  bidder's bid:
                                                  --- 2NT ---

Problem E:>> I am comfortable or more doubling with 10-point PERFECTOS, but  void combined with Jxx in the other major doesn't really fit.  But passing with a really skimpy 5-5  cost me a podium spot last month  (passing the 3C pre-empt raise was lucky to earn a 30  ::)   So, for the third time this month ( God help me!)I am going Hoki's road and putting in a...                             
                                                  --- DOUBLE ---
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: hoki on October 24, 2021, 04:22:09 AM
As usual I prefer to go for all the simple options, eschewing extrapolated
projections or complex conventions (who needs lebensohl?):
A - (a2) {1D - 2C }  the smallest and hopefully least expensive lie;
B - 3NT, no guarantee that partner holds two aces for 6C to be gin;
C - 3C, sure a bit extra but pard can still bid again - I don't believe in hanging an enterprising balancing bidder;
D - 2S, discounting my heart values - failing to support pard erodes partnership trust;
E - dble, the void must be worth heaps if pard chooses to bid any number of spades;
F - 3NT, but no strong feelings on this one;
G - 2D, as I said I'm a simple soul;
H - H6
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: bAbsG on October 24, 2021, 04:12:08 PM

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Babs Giesbrecht

PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 4

I never did get a confirming email from BW so maybe my answers were so bad they just pretended to record them.  Teehee
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: peuco on October 26, 2021, 04:21:41 PM
Francisco
       Magdalena 75 D 62 
       Santiago  7550109
       Chile

Your Solutions for the December 2021 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Diamond 4
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: kenberg on October 29, 2021, 04:14:14 PM
MASTER SOLVERS CLUB SOLUTIONS RECEIVED


Your solutions have been received. This copy is for your records.

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

Your Solutions for the December 2021 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: (b2)
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club Jack
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: wackojack on October 30, 2021, 11:40:05 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Wackojack

Guildford
England

PROBLEM A: (c)
PROBLEM B: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Spade 2

Decided to spend no more time than I would at the table.  May make comments tomorrow if time
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on October 31, 2021, 03:11:49 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR: Jock McQuade 3 Bag End, Hobbiton The Shire.
PROBLEM A: (c)  [ one norump!?]
PROBLEM B: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Diamond 4  (  I REALLY want to go for all the marbles, with a low diamond--really I do,  but am thinking that will go to declarer's nine, today :-[ :'( )
    CURSES!  I had finally resisted the siren-call of the lead into declarer's suit from QT54 ,  but my typing finger didn't get the message,
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: wackojack on October 31, 2021, 06:52:40 PM
Checking problem C

This looks to be a perfect hand for Lebensohl slow shows.  Jim and Ken described perfectly my understanding.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: Masse24 on October 31, 2021, 11:19:30 PM
A - (a2) {1D - 2C }  the smallest and hopefully least expensive lie;

Although I am picking another of the options, I'm a bit surprised Oliver's choice here did not garner more support. I like it. It's a classic "if I can only survive this round" call. The reason I am not picking it is that I have come to realize the MSC likes aggression.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: Masse24 on November 01, 2021, 12:24:46 AM
PROBLEM A: (a3)            - The most aggressive of what I believe are the three choices.
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump    - This hand is huge, so slam is certainly possible. But with a stiff heart I worry about partner’s hand shape. Pard has hearts, so 3NT is easily the safe bid.
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump    - Should be the popular choice.
PROBLEM D: Pass            - Hardest of the set.
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump    - Not going to pass, and since partner is unlikely to be on lead not going to worry about the lead-directing aspect.
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump    - Hamman made me do it.
PROBLEM G: Double        - Easiest of the set, which means I will get it wrong.
PROBLEM H: Club Jack    - My first choice. Then was sold on a low heart for the entire month. Back to first choice at the last minute. By the way . . . I hate lead problems.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 01, 2021, 01:12:39 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
5107 Sewells Pointe Dr.
FREDERICKSBURG 22407-9355
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 4 Diamonds  I knew I would always come back to the cue-bid; I can always bid slam next time, but this gives partner a chance to contribute to the decision making.
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Club Jack  Almost anything could be right or wrong.  If declarer is missing the Q as well, maybe I will be played for a false-card lead.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: ccr3 on November 01, 2021, 01:25:13 AM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Patricia McDermott
8015 Buford Commons
N. Chesterfield VA 23235
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Double
PROBLEM H: Heart 4
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: Veeree on November 01, 2021, 03:17:36 AM
PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 6 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Club Jack
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: MarilynLi on November 01, 2021, 08:54:23 AM
PROBLEM A: (a3)
PROBLEM B: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM C: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Heart 4
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 01, 2021, 05:38:22 PM
December Results

BluBayou won this month with 680! 

CCR3 was second with 640 and third was JCreech, with 630.  Congratulations to all!

BluBayou made the Honor Roll this month, which required a score of 650.

NAMEBW-SCORERANKMPs
BluBayou     680   1   30
CCR3     640   2   15
JCreech     630   3   10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Also participating were  BabsG, Hoki, KenBerg, MarilynLi, Masse24, Msphola, Peuco, VeeRee, WackoJack, YleeXotee.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on November 02, 2021, 12:53:10 AM
I have a few kudos to  hand around:
   First, congratz to Ken for finding the phrase " AKQJ is a 5-card suit!"   and gaining a 90  for backing that position.  Our 100 for opening 1NT is no doubt the ugliest 100 of the Covid era.
   Then, from deep left field as far as theIAC is concerned,  Peuco realized that 50% of the panel would pick a reopening 1NT by opener on problem G, holding Qx, AQ432, AK98,  Kx!   I never saw THAT coming and still don't get it --but Hats Off to Frank.
   Finally, my profound thanks to the master player who all too frequently walks  paths that the USA tournament royalty  do not walk-- Oliver.   His vote to double with Jxx,--, AKxxx, Jxxxx gave me courage to avoid the bad-scoring  "no bid" that I was settled on  <upon which I had settled>  for 3+ weeks!....And I believe his observation that partner could easily have an opening bid yet only one ace eventually changed my mind from booming off to slam on problem B..another catastrophic mark-down avoided.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: hoki on November 06, 2021, 06:15:52 AM
Thank you.  :D
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 12, 2021, 05:30:13 PM
December MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem A  (c) 1 NT (WackoJack, BluBayou)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A   ♥ A K Q J   ♦ Q 10 8 3 2   ♣ 9 6 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
   ?
What is your plan?

(a) 1 ♦, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ?
(a1) 1 NT (a2) 2 ♣ (a3) 2 ♥ (a4) 2 NT;
(b) 1 ♥, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ?
(b1) 1 NT (b2) 2 ♦ (b3) 2 NT
(c) 1 NT.

Sometimes, to show the nature of your hand, it can be shown in a single bid.  Many times, you have to follow a path that is in part guided by others.  Then there are hands that you can anticipate how the auction is likely to progress and you can plan how you want to describe your hand.  With this hand, not only can you anticipate the auction, but you have choices of how to describe your holding. 

a3 (1 ♦, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ? 2 ♥)   70   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 21%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 50%  Intermediate/Advanced Club solvers (IAC) 54%
One approach is to bid the hand in its natural order.  Show diamonds and reverse into hearts.  The flaw is that it stretches the HCPs, but otherwise describes the hand well.  Brian Platnick says it well "I don't like to open one notrump with a singleton ace if there is a reasonable alternative."  Joel Wooldridge thinks the hand is "In range for a reverse.  One notrump is tempting, but I'm not too fond of bidding it with a stiff ace."  Kit Woolsey thinks it is "Worth stretching a reverse in order to show my shape."  JCreech agrees: "I will start with diamonds and reverse into hearts.  I might be a hair light for the reverse, I may wish the diamonds were a bit better quality suit, but those are quibbles, not concerns.  Nothing else strikes me as being a better choice at this juncture."  Peuco says "i never expect perfect hands for a bid. And i prefer a slight overbid than a gross underbid. The imperfection of the reverse worries me less than opening 1H hearing 1S and biding 2D which misleads the count of the suits AND the strength of the hand"  And Masse24 admits to taking "The most aggressive of what I believe are the three choices."

b2 (1 ♥, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ? 2 ♦)   90   BWP 36%   Bws 8%  IAC 1 solver
A second approach treats the red suits as being equal, bidding hearts first and rebidding diamonds.  Certainly the hearts are so strong, they are essentially a five-card suit in every way other than actual length; the flaw is that there is extra strength that has not yet been shown.  Laying out the full set of arguments for this approach and why not the others was Doub and Wildavsky:  "Neither the hand nor the diamonds are strong enough to open one diamond and reverse into two hearts.  If we open one notrump, partner will transfer to a poor two spades fairly often.   Moreover, he might hold a strong hand with long clubs or four-plus diamonds and drive to a notrump contract when out singleton spade makes a minor suit far more desirable.  We overstate heart length with a one-heart opening, and the suit is so strong that a heart contract will often be best even in a Moysian.  Another benefit is that we'll attract a heart lead if West declares."  David Berkowitz feels the hand is "Not strong enough to reverse.  Preparing to say that the lighting is awfully poor in this room."  The moderator, Danny Kleinman, prefers to "Just stick the ten of diamonds with your hearts, claim 150 honors, then look puzzled and ask.  'You mean it's not rubber bridge?'"  KenBerg is not hiding from his choice:  "Some long forgotten expert said 'AKQJ is a five card suit'. I see it as the best chance to avoid disaster while still keeping hope alive. If I open 1NT pard might well have a 6 count and QTxxx in spades. Oops. And a 16 count can be enough for a reverse but not this 16 count. I want better diamonds to do that. If the spade A were a diamond A, and the D 2 a spade 2, I would happily open 1D but if I do it here and then bid 2h over 2S, I will find it tough to slow pard down. It's true that by opening 1H it might go 1H-1S-2D-2H and I play in a 4-2 fit. But I might survive that. And on many hands I will be fine."  Jeff Rubens claims that "The matchpoints made me do it."  While Billy Eisenberg considers the choice "The best of very bad choices."

c (1 NT)   100   BWP 36%   BWS 31% IAC 15%
A third approach is show the strength in one bid; the flaw is that you have an unbalanced hand, though you do have a sure stop in the short suit with a singleton ace, but you still have the clubs wide open.  Let's start with (Nick) L'Ecuyer's Law:  "All hands that can be opened one notrump should be opened one notrump."  Kevin Bathurst says "I can't quite bring myself to reverse, so I'll show the strength rather than the suits."  Drew Casen regards the bid as "Flawed, but anything else would be worse.  One heart then two diamonds lands in a four-two fit if partner takes a normal preference on a doubleton.  One diamond then two hearts with woebegone diamonds and rock-bottom high-card strength lands us in three diamonds opposite a weak hand."  Marty Bergen writes "If I knew what to rebid, I would be delighted to open one heart or one diamond.  As I don't, I'll follow the principles of a lifetime."  Or you can have an epiphany like BluBayou:  "A lightening bolt just struck this morning:  They are gonna cut the Gordian Knot  and just...  ---OPEN 1 Notrump!"

What is most interesting about this hand is that everyone feels as Robb Gordon does about his decision - "The least lie."  Although his comments were aimed at one of the three top scoring choices, I think the moderator's thoughts apply across the board:  "At least [they] are exercising judgment.  That's what makes bridge fun."

 


Problem B 4 !D (MarilynLi, Peuco, BluBayou, Jcreech)

Rubber bridge  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 8 3   ♥ J   ♦ A Q 4 2   ♣ K Q J 8 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——        1 ♣        3 ♦
   ?         
What call do you make?

Realistically, I thought this hand would largely an over or under proposition, with a smattering of blasters.

6 ♣   40   BWP 7%   BWS 3%  IAC 1 solver
Starting with the blasters.  Carl Hudecek is "Expecting to make, probably with an overtrick.  I will not over complicate the auction at rubber bridge."  Paul Ivaska thinks "If we assume that East has the missing diamond honors, it's virtually impossible for North to have fewer than two aces, and I don't see an effective way to investigate a possible grand slam."  Only one IAC solver bid 6 !C, but there were two others that toyed with the idea.  BluBayou thought "I bid 6C anyway and expect to get beaten only  when diamonds are lead and ruffed by evil  LHO."  And JCreech warned everyone that I will probably change my answer before submission.  ...  there is no good way to find out what I need to know, so in the absence of science, try a punt."  Perhaps the better football analogy would be a Hail Mary pass - a long toss for a big score.

4 NT   40   BWP 7%   BWS 5%    IAC no solvers
Alternatively, if you are unwilling to make the assumptions Ivaska made, you can ask about aces, and so another smattering of votes went to Blackwood.  No one from IAC took this path, but there were panelists.  Drew Casen decides that "East's overcall tells me that North has more than three clubs and does not have the king of diamonds.  Thank you, Easley Blackwood.  You are da man."  Nick L'Ecuyer "... would like to splinter, but there's not splinter available.  Four diamonds would be futile, as partner will surely rebid five clubs.  Four no trump should be asking for aces.  I'll bid six clubs if partner shows two."

3 NT   50   BWP 11%  BWS 28%    IAC 38%
For some, the temptation to go plus was substantial; after all, you can't make money at rubber bridge if you go down.  David Berkowitz says to "Take the money and run.  No guarantee partner has real clubs, and the splits may be bad."  Masse24 believes "This hand is huge, so slam is certainly possible. But with a stiff heart I worry about partner’s hand shape. Pard has hearts, so 3NT is easily the safe bid."  Ron Smith is "Trying to go plus."  And Hoki is pragmatic:  "no guarantee that partner holds two aces for 6C to be gin"  Although he made a different choice, BluBayou brought an interesting point to the discussion:  "Shawn's dad has played rubber bridge for the rent money,  and he says  'Get VUL  ASAP; 3NT or 5C are ironclad.'"  Which brings up another interesting question:  which game is safer, 3NT or 5 !C; in my mind, 5 !C is the safer choice, but that was not selected by any of the Panel.

4 ♦   100   BWP 71%    BWS 52%    IAC 31%
The overwhelming choice for the Panel (and a majority choice for the BW solvers as well) was the nebulous 4 !D cue bid.  Frank Stewart summarizes the choice nicely:  "Big club fit, diamond control, slam interest.  I suppose Blackwood might work, but I am not sure I want to take control."  Zia has interest and a warning: "Two aces with five clubs and some trimmings will produce slam, but only when partner has no more than one diamond, else an opening diamond ruff can sink us."  Joel Wooldridge concurs:  "Three notrump is possible, but five clubs is unlikely to go down, so I'll issue a slam-try along the way.  Forcing to slam opposite two aces would be an overbid, but not a big one.  I'd like partner to have diamond shortness as well, and with that he'll probably take control himself."  Kevin Bathurst thinks "Slam is close enough, and clubs will play well enough that I'm happy to bypass three notrump while showing the fit."  Kit Woolsey describes the bid as a "Slam-try in clubs, giving partner room to sign off, cooperate, or take charge.  I don't see an alternative."   Peuco view is similar:  "if pd cues then slam else 5C. Pretty simple"  JCreech flirted with bidding the slam directly, but wrote "I knew I would always come back to the cue-bid; I can always bid slam next time, but this gives partner a chance to contribute to the decision making."


 


Problem C 2 NT (KenBerg, Masse24, Peuco, VeeRee, WackoJack, CCR3, Jcreech)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 7 4   ♥ J 8 5 3   ♦ 2   ♣ A Q 10 5 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       ——        2 ♠
  Pass     Pass    Double     Pass
  ?*         
*BWS: lebensohl applies; 3 NT = strong suggestion;
3 ♠ asks hearts, denies spade stopper

What call do you make?

Clearly Lebensohl applies to this hand, but how do you plan to use the convention?  There were three specific approaches taken, and one approach that spurned making use of the convention' inferences.

2 NT   100   BWP 54%   BWS 33%    IAC 46%
The most popular approach was to take the hint directly and start with 2NT.  The plan most panelists (10 of the 15) subscribed to was described by Drew Casen:  "lebensohl, planning to follow with three spades to show four hearts and a stopper.  The strong clubs will provide tricks in three notrump.  I have upgraded, because of the strong five-card suit and well-placed king of spades."  Zia would join in, if he were more certain:  "Will two-notrump followed by three spades show four hearts with a spade stopper?  I like to play that two notrump followed by four of a minor shows four hearts and a longer minor."  And Eric Kokish envisions a different sequence thinking it shows the same thing:  "Two notrump.  Then three notrump, which should show four hearts and a spade stopper, allowing doubler to rightside heart contracts by transferring."  From IAC, JCreech joins the majority:  "There are a lot of potential contracts just from my side.  So what is the most flexible approach?  If a direct bid of 3 !S shows hearts without a spade stopper, then it seems reasonable that by going through the lebensohl relay, that a 3 !S rebid after 3 !C, should show hearts with a spade stopper.  If that is the case, I have shown two of my possible strains - hearts and NT.  And partner has the opportunity to show diamonds with extra strength and length in that suit."  KenBerg agrees:  "It [the hint] says 3S asks about hearts while denying a spade stop. Fine. So 2NT-3C-3S asks about hearts while showing a spade stop? It's often played that way, and that's my intention."  As does WackoJack, "This looks to be a perfect hand for Lebensohl slow shows.  Jim and Ken described perfectly my understanding."  And Masse24 simply says "Should be the popular choice."

3 ♥   70   BWP 21%   BWS 19%    IAC no solvers
For the panelists, the next most popular approach was to bid 3 !H directly.  Susan Panter describes the bid:  "Shows 8-to-11 points with four hearts; four hearts would be an overbid, especially as North won't always have four hearts."  Doub and Wildavsky argue that it is "The value bid, discounting by a king or so when partner is reopening."  Marty Bergen thinks "This is an underbid, but partner's minimum is low.  If he has a good hand with three hearts, he'll bid three spades, and I'll bid three notrump."

3 ♣   50   BWP 7%   BWS 25%    IAC 31%
For the solvers, it was more important to show length with a decent hand by bidding 3 !C directly.  Ron Smith say to "Show values, so maybe partner can do something good."  David Berkowitz is more expressive:  "Unwilling to punish partner for balancing, I'll make the value bid in clubs and keep the weak hearts in my pocket."  Expressing some of the same concerns, Hoki writes:  "sure a bit extra but pard can still bid again - I don't believe in hanging an enterprising balancing bidder"  As does BluBayou:  "Re-opening a weak two  don't require a strong NT, nor a maxiRoman.   I disapprove of lebensohl in the 'lurker' position  but  BWS doesn't share that view, so not-broke  3C  comes in handy here."


4 ♥   50   BWP 7%   BWS 12%    IAC no solvers
Some panelists think the heart game is worth bidding directly.  Paul Ivaska writes:  "I'm not sure what you're trying to seduce me into doing with your asterisk, but I should have a good play for four hearts whenever pattern has four (e.g.:  ♠ xx   ♥ AQxx   ♦ Kxx   ♣ KJxx) and often when he has only three, so I'll decline the 'science' that you offer so graciously."  And Robert Wolff says "If I'm wrong, it only hurts when I laugh."  Obviously, this pair has not heeded the warning from Joe - ignore the hint at your own peril.

 
This concludes the first part.  Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3, which will appear as I have time.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on November 13, 2021, 12:22:23 AM
Regarding problem C:  Apparently,  from the HINTS,  BWS  has no more faith in the "slow show / fast denies" version of Lebensohl  than I have.  The entire discussion made ZERO mention  of the hint's second first phrase: "3NT=Strong Suggestion"....Under that agreement, Robinson and ??  should get a 10 or 20  for leaping to 3NT,  even though the hint is obviously correct.  Which means  we aren't really playing Lebensohl at all as it is played  after  "2 !S , Double,  pass,  [whatever]."  That's totally fine with me--just get this straightened out in the next iteration of BWS-2028, or whatever.   I would vote for  dropping the gadget enitely and not bothering with "tweaks"!    Even though PRETENDING that Lebensohl is 'on' made our choice of  3 !C  (-10-12? natural)  the best response on this problem.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 13, 2021, 03:34:53 AM
Jock,

There were two votes for 3NT on Problem C.  You identified one, but only used a ? to indicate the other. 

The first vote was from Arthur Robinson, who when on the panel almost never provides his reasoning.  He did have something to say on this problem.

The other vote was from Danny Kleinman, the moderator and person determining the scores for problem answers.  If he made the choice of 3NT, either he believes that the hand meets the criteria for a strong suggestion, or he really does not care what BWS2017 has to say about the bid.  Which of those choices do you believe?
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: blubayou on November 14, 2021, 03:08:44 AM
hehehe!  "strong suggestion"  is likee:  AJ9,  Qx, AKQxx, Kxx! (or somewhat weaker).  I have to put Kleinman  in "my" column,  ie: " the BWS2017 defaults in this area are loonie-tunes"  :)
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 14, 2021, 08:36:27 PM
December MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem D 2 NT (KenBerg, BluBayou)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 8 7 2   ♥ Q J 7 3   ♦ A K 10 3   ♣ J 2
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♠        2 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

To a large extent, there is a pair of choices for this hand.  Do you pass, and go for the gusto, or do you bid, and show your stopper in the opponent's suit.  So to that extent, it is not a hard choice.  So why did Masse24 describe this problem as being the "Hardest of the set."  It is because of the fine line between having only invitational values, a trump stack in the opponent's suit, three pieces in partner's suit, and favorable vulnerability.  Will the four pieces in the opponent's suit net the magic 200 when there is only a partscore, or 500 when there is a game.  Or will the three pieces in partner's suit be enough to make a game, while at the same time allowing the opponent's partscore to make as well.  The experts were nearly evenly split.  I will admit that I was startled by few actual raises of North's spades holding three of the suit, regardless of individual valuation.

Pass   90   BWP 43%   BWS 36%    IAC 38%
Personally, I find it difficult to construct a hand that North would not reopen, and with 10 hearts between East and myself, the chances are good that the reopening will be a double.  David Berkowitz says "I'm not playing matchpoints for fun, I'm playing for blood.  Our best result will come if partner passes."  Barnet Shenkin declares "Play for penalties.  Live or die in the fast lane."  Less demonstrative, Marty Bergen writes "At these colors, I love to defend."  JCreech agrees:  "The vulnerability speaks loudly to me - they are red, we are white, partner has opened, and I am likely to be looking at four tricks myself.  Pass and then pass the reopening double.  I can only hope I get the chance for a penalty pass of hearts."  Irina Levitina thinks  "Partner will double more often than not.  If he doesn't, it may still be best to defend."  Frank Stewart takes the drawback into consideration:  "At this vulnerability, I am willing to defend against two hearts doubled despite holding three cards in spades."  Or most colorfully, Zia says to "Ask a fox what he'd do when he sees a vulnerable chicken."

2 NT   100   BWP 46%   BWS 27%    IAC 15%
Drew Casen did a nice job of discussing why 2NT rather than a spade raise:  "I am not sure what this hand is worth in spades, as the secondary heart values would not be pulling their weight.  However, these hearts have value in notrump.  If partner bids anything but three notrump, I will bid four spades."  KenBerg thinks "2NT is right on values and, if pard raises to 3NT, I think I will leave it there. If he pulls to 3C I will bid 3NT. If he passes 2NT we might be in a good spot."  Bart Bramley thinks the hand "Looks more like notrump than spades, an opinion reinforced by my first few constructions."  Similarly, BluBayou writes:  "Two Notrump seems perfect.   They didn't ask, but I would admit to spade tolerance if north rebids 3 of a minor, though  I can't quite see why we will need a trump suit."  Masse24 says he is "Not going to pass, and since partner is unlikely to be on lead not going to worry about the lead-directing aspect."  Kevin Bathurst says "No trap pass with three spades; I'll invite the most-likely game."  The moderator, Danny Kleinman, feels that "... having three spades tips the balance when it looks close."  His guideline is "Do not double the opponents in their suit below the level of your length in partner's suit. ... the same guideline helps when we contemplate a trap pass."

 


Problem E Dbl (Hoki, BluBayou)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 6 5   ♥ —   ♦ A K 10 9 7   ♣ Q 8 7 6 3
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

You hold a shapely 10 HCP hand at unfavorable vulnerability, and RHO has opened in your void.  Do you bid or not?  And if you bid, how do you intend to compete?  If you double, are you worried that partner will make the penalty pass?  If you show both minors, are you worried that you are missing an 8+ card fit in spades?  If you overcall in diamonds, do you plan to show the clubs later?  How much are your decisions affected by the fact that your side is red, and the opponents are white?  A lot of questions need to be resolved as you decide how to act.

Pass   40   BWP 11%   BWS 10%  IAC no solvers
A central tenet of bridge is that when a player is short in the opponent's suit, they are expected to bend over backwards to find a way to compete.  Those who chose to pass felt the pressure.  Frank Stewart:  "The heart void suggests competing, but the hand is not quite strong enough for a double."  Barnet Shenkin thinks that his choice is "Flawed, but so is every action.  Double and two diamonds are reasonable alternatives, but I don't like two notrump on adverse vulnerability."

2 ♦   60   BWP 25%    BWS 24%    IAC 15%
An overcall limits the exposure to a penalty double while also helping to set the defense (presuming the overcall is in the AK-headed diamond suit).  Zia pulled out his dictionary to express his concerns:  "With voids and adverse vulnerability, avoid vociferous actions."  KenBerg "I seriously doubt that this is our hand although maybe pard has spades. Mostly I think 2D is apt to be safe."  David Berkowitz says "I don't have enough guts to force to the three-level.  Why tip the eventual declarer how to play?"  Irina Levitina writes:  "I want to compete, but two notrump would drive the bidding a little too high for me."  Paul Ivaska thinks "Too much playing strength to pass, and we may be able to make a lot of spades if North has a good hand with decent long spades.  If West declares in notrump, I'd like a diamond lead.  The hand is too weak and the clubs are too poor for an unusual two-notrump, especially on adverse vulnerability."

Double   100   BWP 50%   BWS 21%    IAC 15%
The primary reason to double is to not lose the spade suit.  How important is that on this hand?  Brian Platnick says "The jack of spades made me do it.  With three low spades and queen-jack fifth in clubs, I'd bid two notrump instead."  Doub and Wildavsky argue "Two notrump has too many ways to lose, missing spades and suffering a large penalty at the three-level.  Doubling would be  happier choice if the jack were the queen."  Marty Bergen considers the action "Much safer than two notrump, and more flexible.  As I tell students:  When I double a major, I have four in the other - except when I have three."  Eric Kokish decides this is "My poison of choice.  Can't pass with this shape and strength.  Neither two diamonds nor two notrump is a middle-of-the-road alternative.  I can live with the flaws (minimum strength and a missing fourth spade)."  Hoki focuses on the one suit, "the void must be worth heaps if pard chooses to bid any number of spades"  BluBayou "I am comfortable or more doubling with 10-point PERFECTOS, but  void combined with Jxx in the other major doesn't really fit.  But passing with a really skimpy 5-5  cost me a podium spot last month  (passing the 3C pre-empt raise was lucky to earn a 30  ::)   So, for the third time this month ( God help me!)I am going Hoki's road and putting in a... DOUBLE"

2 NT   50   BWP 14%   BWS 45%    IAC no solvers
No other bid describes the shape of this hand better than the unusual notrump.  Only the third spade and the vulnerability create barriers for some.  Drew Casen is "Showing 10 of my cards while putting pressure on responder, who might otherwise be able to make a simple heart raise.  Yes, by not doubling I risk losing the spade suit, but the gains outweigh that."  Susan Panter thinks it "The best description, though it risks a missed spade fit."  Nick L'Ecuyer says "Too bad if we lose spades, but I don't want to be guessing later."  Masse24 "Not going to pass, and since partner is unlikely to be on lead not going to worry about the lead-directing aspect."  JCreech :I have both minors, so describe it and move on to the next hand  It might be better to put in the lead director and hold the clubs in reserve"

Jeff Rubens sums it up nicely:  "I don't want to pass; beyond that, I'm just guessing what's most likely to work."
 


Problem F 3 NT (JCreech, BabsG, MarilynLi, Masse24, VeeRee, WackoJack, BluBayou, CCR3, Hoki)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 6   ♥ A 4 2   ♦ K Q 7 4   ♣ J 6 4 2
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       2 ♥
  Pass      3 ♥      Double    Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

You have a decent hand for the auction leading into your decision.  You are red and they are white and partner has made a takeout double at the three-level.  Matchpoints is a game that favors going plus, but sometimes going plus is not enough; sometimes it is getting the right plus that pays off.  If you pass and the vulnerable game is on, you will need to set the contract three or more tricks.  But then, this is the Bridge World, and Edgar Kaplan set the expectation:  "Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out."

Pass   70   BWP 29%   BWS 26%    IAC 1 solver
So let's start with those who do not understand this basic premise and pass.  Carl Hudecek says "I hate passing vulnerable against not, but we should beat three hearts one or two, and it is important to go plus at matchpoints."  Irina Levitina writes "I don't see any good bid, I hope we can't make game."  The evilness of matchpoints is that even small scoring differences can turn into something devastating.  If you can make game, 600 vs. 500 is only three IMPs, or if you can only make a partscore, 130 vs. 100 is only one IMP, but in matchpoints, the difference might turn out to be the tie for a top compared to a tie for the bottom.  David Berkowitz finds solace for the choice in the LAW:  "Suppose North is 4=1=4=4.  We have an eight-card fit; they have a nine-card fit.  The law suggests defending despite pure values, and there is an attractive spade lead to engineer a ruff.  Time to stop letting opponents push us around and no bid is very attractive."  Peuco passes because "3NT hast the substantial risk of a S entry to the Hs and a minor game not clear so i refrain from bidding 4H"  Zia ponders "Should I lead a trump or a spade?  That is the question.  I'd lead a spade, but it could be wrong.  The answer shows how bridge has changed over the years, as I would never have passed, nor expected many panelists to pass, a few years ago."  Robb Gordon passes because he thinks "Three notrump would be far too speculative."

3 NT   100   BWP 46%   BWS 53%    IAC 69%
As Kit Woolsey puts it "The usual counter to a preempt.  I can hope that East lacks an outside entry to his hearts."  Phillip Alder hopes "... that by ducking hearts twice, I can keep East in an isolation booth."  Brian Platnick asks "Why is this a problem?  Three notrump seems normal and anything else abnormal."  Well, Brian, perhaps the MSC is on the cusp of a changing perspective, as Zia described above.  JCreech "Not happy, but I do have a stop that I can hold up on.  By bidding NT, it should deny at least four spades, so if partner pulls, they should be showing their better minor or spade length, so I should be well-placed for such a call."  Nick L'Ecuyer says "Three notrump.  When it's one of your options, bid it.  I dare not bypass three notrump at matchpoints.  Five of a minor is a long way away, and I am not sure how to reach it in comfort."  Masse24 has similar thoughts, but provides proper attribution:  "Hamman made me do it."  Hoki makes the choice but damns with faint praise:  "no strong feelings on this one"  Kevin Bathurst bids because "Brave people pass."

4 NT   50   18%   11%    no solvers
How do you get to a minor?  You make a takeout bid - 4NT.  Drew Casen says "I have always railed against passing a takeout double when there is a reasonable alternative.  Three notrump with ace-third opposite likely shortness?  No thanks.  A wimpy four of a minor when I don't even know which minor?  No thanks.  Four notrump will propel us to the right minor, and it expresses the value of the hand."  Eric Kokish thinks "Once is a while, this will lead to a good slam opposite a moderately-well fitting hand.  No reason to think three notrump will be better than five of the right minor, nor that a penalty pass would yield a large-enough penalty."


And thus ends Part 2, one more to come (as time permits).
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: jcreech on November 15, 2021, 05:49:42 PM
December MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Danny Kleinman, Director
 
Problem G 1 NT (Peuco)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 6   ♥ A Q 7 5 3   ♦ A K 9 8   ♣ K 4
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♥        1 ♠      Pass      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

With a better spade stop, this would be an automatic reopening of 1NT.  With 3-3 in the minors, it would be an automatic reopening of double.  With neither, you have a problem.

2 ♦   40   BWP 11%   BWS 26%   IAC 31%
Some (including a sizable percentage of the solvers) chose to reopen in the second suit, diamonds.  I think Hoki had the best argument for 2 !D:  "as I said I'm a simple soul;" it says I have hearts and diamonds.  Doub and Wildavsky:  "Two diamonds.  Second choice one notrump, third choice double, both quite reasonable.  Not likely enough to score a penalty against one spade to risk a club reply to double, even if we intend to correct to diamonds.  Game seems remote, and we can still reach a rightsided three notrump if partner has judged well to pass with ace-third and values."  The moderator,  Danny Kleinman also chose 2 !D, but viewed this as "A very happy problem with three reasonable choices.  I have my preference, but I wouldn't call either of the alternatives wrong."

Double   80   BWP 39%   BWS 53%   IAC 46%
The true choice of the solvers, and a large swath of the panelist was to double.  BluBayou may have hit the nail on the head:  "Really this should be a question about the next round of bidding --after "double, [pass], 2Clubs, [pass]"  shouldn't it?"  Bart Bramley plans to follow-up with "... two diamonds over two clubs will show about what I have.  Too many defects for one notrump.  If we belong in three notrump from my side, partner might have peeped."  Similarly, Paul Ivaska says "Over partner's most-likely action, two clubs, I'll bid two diamonds.  If North perseveres with three clubs, I will pass, as he should have six."  KenBerg joins the crowd, saying "I am not passing. Maybe I should, but I am not. So X. If pard bids 2C I bid 2D and then whatever happens happens."  Frank Stewart argues "I see the queen of spades, which makes it less likely that North has a penalty pass, but am I not supposed to reopen with a double on a hand this strong?"  Brian Platnick thinks double is "Straightforward."  JCreech writes:  "They say you should try to justify a reopening double whenever possible; this one is light on the clubs and possibly heavy on the spades, but who knows, partner may have the trap pass that makes it worthwhile.  Personally, I am hesitant due to the vulnerability, but I have been wrong before."  Masse24 commented that this problem was the "Easiest of the set, which means I will get it wrong."  Not exactly wrong Todd, but also not the top score.

1 NT   100   BWP 50%   BWS 16%   IAC one solver
Half of the panelists reopened with 1NT.  Peuco got it wrong about "almost unanimously and i do not have the problem of the next round of bidding"  but got it right for the score.  Marty Bergen thinks it "Shows the strength and approximate shape.  That's very important.  With East not supporting West's spades, the doubleton queen will be very good to me."  Eric Kokish agrees:  "Double works well only when we have no game and North passes or removes to two clubs with long clubs, then I guess to pass.  I must choose between two diamonds and one notrump; I'll vote for the bid that shows the strength and nature of the hand."  David Berkowitz feels it is "The right bid on values.  The doubleton queen of spades isn't so hot, but life isn't perfect."  Robert Wolff considers the bid "Aggressive, and a bit offbeat, but nevertheless reasonable."  Kit Woolsey is optimistic:  Three notrump from my side is the most-likely game, and this the way to reach it."  And Phillip Alder points to the psychological:  "If the opening leader thinks you have a stopper, then you do."



Problem H !H 4 (MarilynLi, CCR3)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 7 5 2    10 6 4    Q 10 7 4   ♣ J 6
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       ——      1
  Pass      1 ♠        Pass     1 NT
  Pass      Pass      Pass   
What is your opening lead?

Although I might not have agreed with the final conclusion, I think Brian Platnick described the problem well:  "Tough problem.  I'll eliminate clubs first, as the lead of a doubleton jack will often blow up the suit.  A diamond could easily be the winner if East has only four, but could be disastrous, especially if he has five.  A heart looks better than a spade.  I choose the ten, as leading low could be confusing, and a compromise six-lead could be even worse."

♣ J   40   BWP one Panelist   BWS 23%   IAC 31%
IAC's plurality was the lead Brian eliminated first.  Panelist David Berkowitz was our spiritual leader:  "Trying to catch partner's best suit."  Masse24 discussed how he vacillated:  "My first choice. Then was sold on a low heart for the entire month. Back to first choice at the last minute. By the way . . . I hate lead problems."  JCreech's explanation seemed to be almost a shrug:  "Almost anything could be right or wrong.  If declarer is missing the Q as well, maybe I will be played for a false-card lead."  The moderator takes time to provide two more reasons to not choose the !C J.  "First, it's the one suit that responder (if using common methods) was forced by system to suppress.  In older versions of Bridge World Standard as well as the new, responder's two-club rebid is artificial.  Second, if dummy has three or four weak clubs, leading the jack might spoil North's pleasure.  What a pleasure it will be for him to obtain the lead, shift to a low club, and score our short jack for us."

♥ 6   60   BWP 18%   BWS 18%   IAC one solver
The moderator expands  on the Brian's comment about the !H 6 "could be even worse."  "Strangely enough, BWS is silent on leads from three-card suits, but a preference for middle puzzles me.  As North, I'd be sure to go wrong.  If South dropped the ten on the next round, I'd read him for a missing queen or king; if South played the four, I'd read him for a low doubleton."  Nonetheless, there were Panelists making the lead, but their concern seemed more on trying to hit partner.  Doub and Wildavsky:  "In his book Opening Leads, Mike Lawrence advocated leading opener's minor from hands like this.  The four of diamonds is our second choice, but we prefer trying to hit partner's suit."  While Nick L'Ecuyer says it "Combines relative safety with constructiveness.  Everything else looks more dangerous.  At matchpoints especially, we should try to avoid blowing tricks on lead against low partscore contracts."  When I was considering my choice, I looked hard at the hearts, but I rejected when all seemed to be deceptive for partner to read.

♥ 4   100   BWP 36%   BWS 32%   IAC 15%
The Bridge World plurality went with the !H 4.  Again, safety was the overriding concern.  Joel Wooldridge says "Longest and strongest in an unbid suit looks normal.  Low in case dummy has honor doubleton."  Eric Kokish waffles a bit:  "Yes, East may have four hearts and West three, but it's the most-passive lead and has an upside if it hits North's length."  Susan Panter thinks it is "The best of a bad lot.  Second choice: spade deuce."  Bart Bramley feels it "Combines safety with potential to set up tricks.  Leading any other suit would be riskier and more speculative, as would be any other heart."

♠ 2   80   BWP 29%   BWS 12%   IAC one solver
How many safe leads can there be?  Well, according to Panelists, at least one more.  Carl Hudecek:  "Passive defense seems in order, and a low spade looks reasonably passive."  Billy Eisenberg:  "Hoping to lose the least."  Irina Levitina:  "It looks safest."  Jeff Rubens:  "Least unattractive."  However, the logic that speaks to me is Kevin Bathurst's:  Leading any suit could blow a trick.  I hope to catch partner with spade strength behind dummy, while I sit with strong diamonds behind declarer."


And so ends another edition of the MSC torture room.  This session resulted in more solvers struggling than many, but at least the moderator seemed to punish himself as frequently as he did everyone else; he even sided with the solver's choice in a tie, over his own.
Title: Re: 2021 DECEMBER MSC
Post by: Masse24 on November 18, 2021, 12:15:48 AM
Thanks, Jim!

MSC Torture Room. Scary! That conjures images of Kleinman in one corner, Rubens in another, and Woolsey wandering around somewhere in the middle. Shudder! Scary stuff!  :o :o :o