IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on February 02, 2022, 07:35:58 PM

Title: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 02, 2022, 07:35:58 PM

APRIL 2022 MSC

Deadline: FEB 28 at 11:59 p.m. (ET)

Submit your APRIL MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB (https://www.bridgeworld.com/pages/msc/mscentercontest.html)

BWS 2017 System: BWS 2017 (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html)
BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: BWS 2017 - Polls, Changes, and Additions (https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html)

• Bridge World Standard 2017 (BWS or BWS2017) is effective beginning with the January 2017 Master Solvers' Club problems. This page shows (1) the results of the panelist polls that were used to adjust the system; and (2) the changes in and the additions to Bridge World Standard 2001 (BWS2001) that were made.
  In the listings of the questions and answers, an asterisk indicates the BWS2001 agreement; the proportion of the expert votes for each item, rounded to the nearest percent, is shown in brackets.

---

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

---

*     *     *

---

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: duffer66 on February 02, 2022, 10:15:04 PM

duffer
A  4S
B  2NT
C  1S
D  X
E  P
F  3D
G  2S
H  Cl 7

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 07, 2022, 04:12:54 PM

PROBLEM A:  Partner may well have  AQJx, AJxx, xxx, Ax   etc. facing our 10xxx,  KQ, AKQxx, xx  so some slam move is 'a must'.   I like this MILD one they footnoted on account of my ridiculous trumps which could put us down at the 5-level with a million different north hands.  Need to hear 4 !C  over this 3NT then cue my diamonds and she can take it from there, with the hand above  (etc.).  Over 4 !H  or4 !S   I will subside [but they didn't ask did they]                                              --- Three Notrump ---


PROBLEM D:  Passing is for chickens even though we have only a king more than we should have.  The chickens ma live,  but I will die like a hero,  doubling again.         
                                                                   ---Double---

PROBLEM E:  Before considering what BID to reopen with, I first check to see if I can do the normal expected thing of reopening with a double.  the 6 goodish spades and the unbid suit Qx are flaws,  but I dont wait for 15 point three-suiters to do this. (after all, on the problem above,  we did a similar thing  with a flat hand  and xx in diamonds)                                                                      ---Double---

PROBLEM F:  We saw this footnote last year, attached to a hand with Q9xxx in clubs and damn little else: "*weak but strong enough for three notrump opposite 18-19 HCP"  The panel went HEAVY to ignore the hint and made the preempt anyway and they will again.  And actually this 109, xx, 109xxxx,  Kxx WILL help many a balanced 18 bring home that 3NT so 'going heavy'  might become "choosing unanimously"?
                                                              ---Three Diamonds---
PROBLEM G:  A couple of years catching MSC panelists' comments when support doubles come up have revealed that there is a RED team and a BLUE team over when to use them:  One group says something like "My supp. doubles LOOK LIKE RAISES of partner's response--not merely opening bids that happen to have three of his suit."   The larger group [ I am guessing] almost never passes up the chance to show three spades [or whatever].  Now, if our partner agrees with this first group, South may take courage and bid his eleven points eg:  jumping to 3 in our Moysean fit?  If his north ALWAYS gives the support double with three, I cant see going over the 2-level -- 11 points or not, with this            K1085, KQx, Qxx, Jxx.        I know from experience that showing those 3 spades cheaply even with a blahh opener  has its upside,  but with this hand I wish we were on the Red Team :(                                                                 --- 3 !S , 2 !S  or even 2 !D ---   ??

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 09, 2022, 04:31:47 PM

My initial thoughts:

Problem A:  3NT  I will take the hint.  If partner has a club control and good spades, slam is a possibility.  A friendly defensive layout and a perfecto 14, slam is gin, so there is reason to explore the prospect below game.

Problem B:  Dbl  My suit is not so strong that I want to overcall at the three-level, so hopefully partner will have a sense of humor when I pull diamonds to hearts with only 15 and a probably double stop in spades.

Problem C:  3 NT  Thoughts are to force with a cue-bid and then steer toward 3NT, or just bull my way there.  Right now, I am more inclined toward avoiding partner thinking I have a fit.

Problem D:  Dbl  I wish that I had made the horrible call of 2NT on the first round, but at least I would have this hand out of my system.  Not good because only Ax as a stop, but otherwise fairly descriptive.  Now I don't know whether to bid 3NT opposite a quiet partner, 4 !C or double; double is the most flexible, so I am headed that direction.

Problem E:  Dbl My distribution is not so wild that I will not make the reopening double. 

Problem F:  4 !D  Too weak for either 2 or 3 !D, so I will go to the max without committing to game.  At the table, I would be sorely tempted to bid a major in the attempt to steal their suit; question is, which is their suit?

Problem G:  2 !S  I am wishing that I did not ignore that fourth spade and bid notrump before the clubs became a worry.  I'd rather go down in ignorance, than play in the wrong strain.  Since I did not, I will go low; its matchpoints and a Moysian, both suggesting a bit of conservativism.

Problem H:  !C 7  My initial thought is this is the unshown suit, and if declarer is 5-4-1-3 with Qxx in clubs, then we can take four off the top, and hope for a setting trick somewhere.  However, more thought is warranted.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 15, 2022, 11:09:38 PM

#B, #C, and the lead problem  continue to drive me crazy...  but on Feb15 I am going UBER-passive   leading dummy's 6-bagger.  but this is not sane.  COME ON PARD!  SOME in-card, then nice fillers in clubs for the easy set!---This will not get any support, here or from the panel. 
                                         --- Diamond 10 ---
  B and C  are the most impossible questions in 2 years..I will be guided by the IAC "majority" on them in a shameless attempt to at least REACH the podiums:(


   Jim: It worries me that on the 5 problems that HAVE an answer we are solid (punting in diamonds is a boozy fantasy)on  four of them :o .  So  those madness inducing  #B  and C  become the battleground.
   

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: drac on February 17, 2022, 10:23:32 AM

SOLVER: Wladislaus Dragwlya
        Tin Street No. 1
        Castrum Sex  545400
        Romania

Your Solutions for the April 2022 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond 10

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: peuco on February 20, 2022, 04:41:25 PM

A. 3NT take the hint
B. 3H X will get 4D in the real world and then i wuld have to bid 4H on a lousy suit
C. 3NT what else
D. 4C again X will get 4D (i hate 4D lol)
E. 3S when I make a reopening X and p does not pass he always bids my singleton
F. 3D
G. 2S 4333 and the J of C only add up to 10
H. D 10 If Ds are solid leading C probably gives an overtrick, if not they can go down

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: hoki on February 22, 2022, 07:47:33 AM

Being stubborn, I'd rather make the bids I can stand to rather than the
bids that score well on the MSC panel, so of course I'm going to ignore
the hints and all the slam moves where nothing is clear, like 4♠ on A; 3♥
on B (so I won't have the headache of deciding what to do if pard bids
5♦ in response to my double - my partners do that but no MSC panellist
ever would); 5♦ on C which rates to go down less than 3NT where my
pard can't stop clubs more than once if that; and 3NT on D, a pure guessing
situation.

On E the old school to which I belonged always claimed that if we are fixed
we stay fixed - so I pass when today's world always takes a view with half
gaining on me and the other half paying out.

I'll be in a minority of one no doubt with making the book bid of 2♦ on F.

G: 2♠, having run out of arguments by now.

H: ♣7, really what else? How can a diamond ever be right?

Oliver

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 24, 2022, 03:42:27 PM

Oliver,

I don't always agree with your bids or your thoughts, but I always learn from them.  I know your bridge background is different than mine, but then everyone's background is at least somewhat unique.

What I do know, is that you give each problem, and, in your classes, each hand, reasonable (if not careful) thought.  I appreciate what you bring to MSC and to your classes, and am a better bidder and player for it.

Thank you.

Jim

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 24, 2022, 10:21:34 PM

An excellent player refusing to bother to consider the merits of the 3NT hint on problem A simply because it's beyond the pale of natural bidding ....hmmm.  come to the party o master


A---mild slam try.
B---I would rather pass  than either double,  or bid those hearts.   Two Notrump   
C---I put the simulator to work--doing a job that is beyond its capabilities, BUT... at least I did learn the suprizing news that west will not always have diamonds double- or triple-stopped and that even if so 3NT  did not always automatically go down, as I have feared for three weeks [shocking news]   Three Notrump
D---Double

E---Double
F---ignore the hint!  Three Diamonds
G---  :( Two Spades
H--- Diamond Ten

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: peuco on February 25, 2022, 04:02:15 PM

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Frank
Magdalena 75 D 62
Santiago 7550109
Chile

PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM E: 3 Spades
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades
PROBLEM H: Diamond 10

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 25, 2022, 07:01:14 PM

Guesses for April:


PROBLEM A: 3NT. The “mild” slam try at best. With such a poor trump suit, I hesitate to show more interest by showing the diamond control. This merely shows that I would cooperate with a further slam move by my already limited partner.

PROBLEM B: 2NT. Ugly, but the heart suit (my second choice) needs to gain some weight before I introduce it at the three-level.

PROBLEM C: 1 !S. We have the values for game, so the kneejerk 3NT seems reasonable. But I would like to know more about who has what. Though non-forcing, this “temporizing” bid is the only way to get the information I need to make a more informed decision.

PROBLEM D: 4 !C. Not fond of another double with only a doubleton diamond.

PROBLEM E: Pass. Double is probably right. The MSC panelists lean towards aggression. I hate this problem and am uncommitted on any of the possible choices. Might go another direction on this.
Decided on the double. I went back and forth on this. No strong feelings either way.

PROBLEM F: 3 !D. I hate this, but only because of the tip provided. At the table this is an easy 3 !D for me. I wish Blu could find the previous example of this as I would like to compare the hands.

PROBLEM G: 2 !S. Not brave enough to pass. A slight underbid, but at MP prefer to play the 4-3 spade fit. If partner has extras he can bid again.
2 !D. Basically conveys the same thing that 2 !S does, however, it has the added benefit of showing moderate diamond support and bringing partner in on the final decision.

PROBLEM H: !C 7. A little worried about blockage. Would the J or 9 be better?
Really like the 9, but no guts.

---

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes

PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Club 7

Not confident (what's new?)!  :o

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 25, 2022, 07:06:58 PM

Have you heard the news? February is a short month! The rumor is . . . there are only 28 days! Please submit your MSC responses soon.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 26, 2022, 12:12:05 AM

MY, MY, Todd--How time flies!   it came in the April 2020  contest  [problem C]  :
      IMPS  opps only vul;      J2, J72, 762, QT642  ->>  1C, [pass] , ___?

     If you have the hard copy or (cached files of the club's spreadsheet)  let us know how big the win was for '3 clubs' , spitting in the face of the same HINT as shows under our current PROBLEM F :o .   Feel free to include an intelligent comment or two, if you have the energy.
  If I recall,  I was having one of my best sets  until following the hint  by passing got clobbered by the panel.  As indicated by the fact that I never ever forgot what they did to me  TWENTYFIVE MONTHS AGO years ago :'(
   

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 26, 2022, 02:08:03 AM

D**N!! Jock,

Good sleuthing.  What I see as being the principal differences between the two hands are as follows:

April 2020      
My initial comment:
Problem C:  4 !C – Without the note, I would bid 3 !C without much thought.  With the note, do I lie, taking a chance that partner does not have a 3NT conversion?  Do I pass, leaving the auction wide open for the opponents to enter cheaply?  Or do I jump to 4 !C and lie about my club length?  At this vulnerability, I feel like the least lie is to bid 4 !C, plus it difficult for the opponents to find the right strain and level.
My final comment:
Uncharacteristically, I made a change to my choice, but failed to say why.  I think it had to do with 4 !C just seemed too high with only five-card support.
New commentary
As for the hand, it contained four HCPs all in quacks - which made the pass more attractive.  Nonetheless, I hate to make any auction too easy for the opponents, so my inclination is to preempt.  The hint suggests 4 or pass, but the hand suggests lie or pass.  I finally decided to lie and hope that partner would pass - 3 !C.

April 2022
My initial comment:
Problem F:  4 !D  Too weak for either 2 or 3 !D, so I will go to the max without committing to game.  At the table, I would be sorely tempted to bid a major in the attempt to steal their suit; question is, which is their suit?
My final comment:
TBD - but I am giving strong consideration to 3 !D, but for different reasons.  See below.
New commentary
The hand contains only 3 HCPs, but what a difference this time.  It is a K, which translates into a reasonable chance of a trick.  Given that partner is highly likely to hold four diamonds for the opening bid, that gives the partnership a minimum of nine, while also likely to have ten diamonds - now I can almost count seven tricks in my own hand, and if partner is strong, then 3NT may easily be a laydown.

So in sum, in 2020, my hand is probably at best only able to contribute five tricks with slow side tricks, so the bid can only be meant preemptively.  The bid is clearly a lie, but the panel decided it was worth the mild risk.  While in 2022, my hand is likely to contribute seven tricks, so if partner has a strong hand, there is likely to be a reasonable play for game.  Technically, the bid is again a lie, but the intent is to get the partnership to 3NT opposite a strong hand.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 26, 2022, 03:00:31 AM

AMEN, Jim-- to the "constructive"  possibilities  of the current hand , to fulfill the "promise"  of the strange BWS footnote  8)

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 26, 2022, 03:59:01 AM

Blu, you went with Pass 2 years ago, as did I. It scored a respectable 80. Most of the IAC chose pass as well. Only Jim, Dave, and Pat bid 3 !C.

The numbers were:
3 !C = 13
Pass = 9
and 4 miscellaneous "other" bids.

I now feel immensely better about my 3 !D this month.

My comment last time explained how pass was opposite of what I would do at the table: "This “feels” wrong. Often, I feel a though the system notes added to these problems are trying to talk me into an action. Here, it feels as though they want to talk me out of a “normal” preempt. Do I ignore the note and risk partner going on? Or does the preemptive value of 3 !C outweigh the risk?"

So I did something not likely to happen again in my lifetime. I overthunk it.  :P

Not this time.  ;)

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 26, 2022, 07:18:26 AM

Great;  I have hard copies  of most of the most recent 18 months in a (pasteboard!) folder .  this one  did not make it into that folder,  so i had to relearn my windows'  "document search"  to  retrieve the  YOU-HOLD page:(
but the summary.doc didn't make the cut,  so thanks  for this 13 to 9 to random 4  info.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: bAbsG on February 26, 2022, 05:34:48 PM

SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
Your Solutions for the April 2022 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 3

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: veredk on February 26, 2022, 09:17:08 PM

My selections are:

A - 4D 
B - 2NT 
C - 1S
D - 4C
E - 3S
F - 3D
G - 2S
H - 10D

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 27, 2022, 08:36:00 PM

Here are my "early" choices. Something like 30 hours to go.

A: 3NT: I suppose so. If partner has the AK of spades, the A of hearts and the AQ of clubs I guess 6S is a decent contract played from his side of the table. He can win the opening lead, cash the trump AK, and start the diamonds. It's asking a lot butat says "mild' so maybe so.

B: I like 2NT

C: 1S

D: 3NT

E:  X

F: 3D

G: Pass

H: DT


Comments later.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 28, 2022, 12:23:18 AM

A beautiful set,  Ken!  NOT fair to sneak in that LEAVE-IN  of the support double, though, without giving us some of your poetry on this subject.     STAY STRONG, though!  Last month Todd was the only one to even sniff at the 4S double-jump cue bid as exclusion RKC  [which scored 100 with an overwhelming 3-24  plurality :D \] ....and i see  a little upthread  that he alone of all of us appears to have considered the leave-in.
        A good omen.  I predict a lock on the honor roll for ya.


SOLUTIONS FOR: Jock McQuade 3 Bag End , Hobbiton OR 97030.
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump 
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades       PROBLEM H: Diamond 10

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 28, 2022, 01:09:57 AM

Quote from: blubayou on February 28, 2022, 12:23:18 AM

A beautiful set,  Ken!  NOT fair to sneak in that LEAVE-IN  of the support double, though, without giving us some of your poetry on this subject.     STAY STRONG, though!  Last month Todd was the only one to even sniff at the 4S double-jump cue bid as exclusion RKC  [which scored 100 with an overwhelming 3-24  plurality :D \] ....and i see  a little upthread  that he alone of all of us appears to have considered the leave-in.
        A good omen.  I predict a lock on the honor roll for ya.

It was a mistake!

I went through them a bit quickly!

Tomorrow I review.


I had done the first couple,, where I have at least a few words, earlier. Today I figured I had better get going on the rest.

Usually I am at least a little more careful but time is growing short so I figured I would put down a few thoughts.

Today I played in the acbl practice tournament and in the Forum tourney, all with robots. There were 12+10=22 hands and I passed out 3 of them. Scores so far in percent are 100, 56, 25. I just got into passing mode.

No, I am not passing that X!



56.1

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on February 28, 2022, 02:56:29 AM

Quote from: Masse24 on February 25, 2022, 07:01:14 PM

PROBLEM C: 1 !S. We have the values for game, so the kneejerk 3NT seems reasonable. But I would like to know more about who has what. Though non-forcing, this “temporizing” bid is the only way to get the information I need to make a more informed decision.

Really confused here as to what is best.
Though 1 !S is not forcing, it only promises four-plus in my opinion. The forcing way to show spades (by cue-bidding first) would, I think, show five-plus. Also, since I have 17 HCP, and opener has around 13 minimum, partner has 7-10ish. A minimum overcall. If I cuebid, will partner with a minimum overcall do anything other than rebid his hearts? So I have a fair idea of what partner would do in that bidding sequence. However, the non-forcing 1 !S permits partner to support with even four small, or . . . bid 2 !C with some length and an honor there. My !H K increases that possibility.

So while 2 !D may be the system bid, the risky 1 !S leaves partner the room to show  something in a black suit.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 28, 2022, 12:35:22 PM

Pulled the trigger.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
5107 Sewells Pointe Dr.
FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds  I reconsidered after Jock's challenge.  Two years ago, I was worried about what I would do if partner showed the strong balanced hand.  This time, I almost relish the thought despite only holding 3 HCPs.  If partner converts, it may not be a sure thing, but I still like our chances.
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club 7  Although I am concerned about the suit blocking, I am more concerned that partner will not think of the 9 as a low lead from honors.  I can see partner ducking the king if I lead the 9, thinking I led top of nothing.

Todd, only the change on F for the spreadsheet.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 28, 2022, 02:05:12 PM

A: 3NT: I suppose so. If partner has the AK of spades, the A of hearts and the AQ of clubs I guess 6S is a decent contract played from his side of the table. He can win the opening lead, cash the trump AK, and start the diamonds. It's asking a lot but it says "mild slam try' so maybe so.

B: I like 2NT. I just like it.

C: 1S 
If the opponents have an 8 card fit we probably have an 8 card fit, and if the opponents have a 9 card fit we surely have an 8 card fit. The same arithmetic applies when we fit with an opponent. S (that's me or rather that's I) have a massive fit, at least a 10 card fit, with W (Lho). So N and E have a fit. Probably two fits, probably in !H and !C.
Passing might not be totally crazy.
I am thinking 1 !S, maybe that suit is distributed reasonably evenly.
I am not looking for game, I am looking for a contract that is not awful.

D: 3NT
It's not crazy, maybe not even overly optimistic, to think we have 9 tricks off the top. Pard could have Qxx in clubs and Qx in hearts.
Can they take the first five tricks in !D. Maybe, maybe not.
I am not thinking 3N is something to bet my house on, but I don't think it is totally nuts either.


E:  X

Partner might pass and if so then 3 !H X might be the winning contract. Of course partner might also bid 4 !D. Then I bid 4 !S. Yeah, we are a bit high in 4 !S but it might be fine.


F: 3D

It's true that this is a pretty weak hand as far as hcps are concerned. But I am not that worried about partner bidding 3NT over my 3 !D. I will be leaving it in. If partner has AKxx, not unlikely for a 3NT rebid, I see six !D tricks. And even if his !D holding is only Axxx we are in pretty good shape if he has the values for 3NT. If opponents can set up their five card suit on the opening lead, so be it. Often they can't of they don't.



G: 2 !D
OK, I did not mean to pass. This looks like a good hand for pessimism. I have been optimistic on earlier hands, not here. There is no good reason to think we have an 8 card fit anywhere. Partner would open 1 !D on a 3=3=4=3 hand and a 12 count or at least he would on a 13 count. With that 2 !C overall I suppose it is more likely pard is 3=3=5=2. But that doesn't mean I want to be in 5 !D.
Someday I will learn how to use the online hand evaluator but my offline evaluation is that this is a crappy hand. It's flat and it's aceless.
If we miss game I accept responsibility. But I probably bid the same 2 !D next time.


H: I said DT,  but now I think maybe a small !C

This one I am still struggling with. My thinking was: This is matchpoints, we aren't beating this, why hand them a trick with a !C lead. But I am re-thinking this. Maybe the aggressive !C lead is right. Lho has 6+  !D, but pard can easily have Jxxx.

I have a few hours to go before I must choose

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on February 28, 2022, 03:18:38 PM

Quote from: kenberg on February 28, 2022, 02:05:12 PM

H: I said DT,  but now I think maybe a small !C

This makes me think of the old coffee-housing practice.  I want to lead the !C 9, drop it on the floor, and as picking it up, say small club to the table.  Everything is clear - a suit for partner to lead back, the 7 preserved to avoid blocking the suit if partner has five, and if there is a problem with the opponents, CAS will let me off because I married someone who is only third generation Italian or that I heard about how to do this when I was young (in the bridge world, young is relative - I think before 40 qualifies as young.

Sorry, Ken, the 7 may be the smallest club, but it still feels pretty big.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 28, 2022, 06:01:43 PM

Here is one of my favorite small/large stories. It was long ago, I was something of a novice duplicate player. I made a hand that could have been defeated. My LHO led an A (from AKxxx), my Rho followed with the 3, my Lho switched to a different suit. After the hand, my Rho, who had held the Q32, said "You didn't see the 2 anywhere, did you dear?"

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: yleexotee on February 28, 2022, 08:33:11 PM

I had 10 minutes before class and jumped on this at the last minute.

PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump - taking the hint, though I wanted 4s at first.
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts - giving the 5 card major
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade - hate this, but I don't want to overshoot it with 2D, which can be misunderstood
PROBLEM D: Double - 3nt was considered
PROBLEM E: Pass - against my nature to pass, but 3s is too much
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds - taking the hint
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades - MP convinced me not to bid 2D
PROBLEM H: Club 7 - standard which  means this is a 50 for score .

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on February 28, 2022, 09:36:14 PM

WILD GUESSES FOR:
Ken Berg
Sykesville Maryland

 
-------------------
PROBLEM A:  3 Notrump

PROBLEM B:  2 Notrump

PROBLEM C:  1 Spade

PROBLEM D:  3 Notrump

PROBLEM E:   Double

PROBLEM F:   3 Diamonds

PROBLEM G:  2 Diamonds

PROBLEM H:   Club 7

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on February 28, 2022, 11:31:38 PM

I am sad  nobody saw the glass half-full or more on the responsive double deal.  on the downside,  we are aceless, and the club jack can hardly be 'an eleventh point'.  I guess those two items plus the known 4-3 fit have made all of us  gutless.   Probably  the panel  will go the low road also,  but if we are wrong and a big bid wins the voe,  I will salute any one of us  that joined that parade

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on March 01, 2022, 01:16:54 AM

Quote from: blubayou on February 28, 2022, 11:31:38 PM

I am sad  nobody saw the glass half-full or more on the responsive double deal.  on the downside,  we are aceless, and the club jack can hardly be 'an eleventh point'.  I guess those two items plus the known 4-3 fit have made all of us  gutless.   Probably  the panel  will go the low road also,  but if we are wrong and a big bid wins the voe,  I will salute any one of us  that joined that parade

KnR on it is 9.05.
And that does not even take into account the fact that LHO has overcalled 2 !C.
So even the 9.05 KnR seems . . .

optimistic?  ;)

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: ccr3 on March 01, 2022, 02:35:38 AM

SOLVER: Patricia McDermott
        8015 Buford Commons
        N. Chesterfield VA 23235
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the April 2022 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club 7

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: Masse24 on March 01, 2022, 12:39:20 PM

Wow, Ken! Nice job. First place in the April MSC with a sweet 790.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 01, 2022, 01:01:32 PM

What a thing to wake up to! I assure you that no one is more stunned than I am.

I see that I am tied with a guy named Kevin Castner. I first thought it was Kevin Costner. I was going to write to him and see if he could introduce me to one of his co-stars, Susan Sarandon for example.  I am trusting that Becky won't see this post.

You and Joe came in with 750 and Pat came in with 730. Since they don't post by iac nicknames I may have missed some.
A good month for iac.

I can be stubborn. I don't always think that I am wrong when I score poorly and the corollary is that scoring well doesn't mean I am right.

Short version: Thanks

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 01, 2022, 01:20:54 PM

April Results

KenBerg tied for first overall in the MSC competition worldwide.  Also hitting this month's honor roll were YleeXotee and Masse24 tied at 750, and CCR3 close behind with 730.

NAME	BW-SCORE	RANK	MPs
KenBerg	790	1	30
Masse24	750	2	25
YleeXotee	750	2	25
CCR3	730	4	20
BTW, Duffer66 just missed the honor roll with a 720. Also participating this month were:  BabsG, BluBayou, DrAcula, Duffer66, Hoki, JCreech, Peuco, VeredK. Congratulations to all!

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 02, 2022, 10:51:31 PM

The  Support Double problem  (G), FAR from attracting the 'big bid'--jumping in our 4-3 fit-- did not even draw a MENTION  of 3 Spades!
  Jumping in  pard's diamonds  did get a courtesy-20 with 3% of the citizens  choosing this (zero panel votes), but 5% of the citizens that picked the cue-bid [3 !C ]  did not get any respect at all.   
   I guess  the folks on the panel all have their K&R valuation app  at the ready.


P.S. Funny that LEAVING IN  the sup double which only appeared in our club 'by accident'  was tied for 2nd
  (11-6-6-random-silly).  Sadly,  there are pretty few shocks in the vote-count for us to bemoan or celebrate among the other problems  this month :P


Correction:   On the lead problem,  4th in longest/strongest got 9 votes, and the 100.  The three sensible 'punt'  cards ( !S J,   !H FIVE,   !D 10)  managed  6+6+3=15 votes  and  80 or 70.  I GUESS it is fair by their rule  not to give the 100 to all those 15 panelists, especially since some of the voters may have considered SJ or H5 as "hopefully attacking", but i wish it were judged otherwise

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 10, 2022, 04:35:10 AM

April MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, Director


Problem A  3 NT  (Peuco, CCR3, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 5 4 3   ♥ K Q   ♦ A K Q 6 5   ♣ 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       ——       1 NT     Pass
  2 ♣        Pass       2 ♥       Pass
  3 ♦         Pass      3 ♠        Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: Both partners have shown four spades, so
three notrump is a mild slam-try.

What call do you make?

The question here is, do you have a hand that makes a slam try or not?  And if you do have a slam try, how do you go about making that try?  BW is kind enough to provide a hint if you choose to try for the slam.

The pertinent information is that partner opened a strong NT and is 4-4 in the majors, and our hand has 14 HCPs that appear to be working, but there are questions about trump quality and whether there is a club control.

3 NT   100   Bridge World Panel (BwP) 63%   Bridge World Solvers (BWS) 60%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 67%
A strong 60+% of the Panel and Solvers went with the hint. This puts the opener into the position of cooperating or signing off.  YleeXotee "taking the hint, though I wanted 4s at first."  Phillip Alder says "You led the witness."  Billy Eisenberg is "Happy to have this convenient agreement."  Peuco "take the hint"  KenBerg is more analytical:  "If partner has the AK of spades, the A of hearts and the AQ of clubs I guess 6S is a decent contract played from his side of the table. He can win the opening lead, cash the trump AK, and start the diamonds. It's asking a lot but it says "mild slam try' so maybe so."  Masse24 focuses on the poor spades:  "The “mild” slam try at best. With such a poor trump suit, I hesitate to show more interest by showing the diamond control. This merely shows that I would cooperate with a further slam move by my already limited partner."  As does Mark Laken:  "While weak spades are a concern, the hand merits a try."  Brian Glubok is wondering about "The real problem will be next round; probably, I'll go low.  The moderator, Kit Woolsey, considers the possible follow-ups:  "If partner bids four hearts, it will be clear to sign off.  If partner bids four clubs, the decision won't be so clear.  A diamond control can't be the issue, because if North is looking at strong-enough spades to make slam, he will know that South has strong diamonds.  Following with four diamonds over four clubs is probably okay."  JCreech thinks about the perfecto minimum:  "I will take the hint.  If partner has a club control and good spades, slam is a possibility.  A friendly defensive layout and a perfecto 14, slam is gin, so there is reason to explore the prospect below game."  Karen McCallum gets the final word on 3 NT:  "An opportunity to look for the perfecto safely.  Four diamonds would highlight the need for a club control but would overstate the hand.  Prefer to go low with weak trumps."

4 ♦   70   BWP 11%   BWS 16%  IAC 17%
Those making a slam try without using the hint, relied on showing their source of tricks.  Daniel Korbel thinks the hand is "Worth one try.  This denies a club control.  I hope partner will appreciate aces and trump honors."  Larry Robbins says he "Will sign off over four hearts."  John Carruthers:  "If I bid three notrump, partner will have no idea what I hold.  Here, O deny club control.  Weak trumps will make me subside over four hearts." 

4 ♠   80   BWP 22%   BWS 20%  IAC 17%
Roughly 20% of the Panel and solvers were not willing to push the envelope with a 10-high suit and 29-31 HCPs.  You can construct a minimum perfecto that gives you a play for slam, but one problem is 4-4 fits is that too often you get 4-1 breaks as well.  Hoki stands on principle:  "Being stubborn, I'd rather make the bids I can stand to rather than the bids that score well on the MSC panel, so of course I'm going to ignore the hints and all the slam moves where nothing is clear"  Zach Grossack is more in touch with the Panel's thinking:  "Don't like my trumpsl four-four fits generally need good trumps to make slam."  Steve Robinson points out that "If partner has:  ♠ AKxx   ♥ AJ10x   ♦ xx   ♣ Axx, there will need a three-two break.  Don't encourage when you need a perfect hand."  Zia writes "Even this hungry mouth must watch its diet."




Back on February 15th, BluBayou was almost prophetic when he aimed a message at me:  "Jim: It worries me that on the 5 problems that HAVE an answer we are solid ...  So  those madness inducing  #B  and C  become the battleground."  And when the results were announced, I had been brutalized by those two Problems.


Problem B  3 !H  (YleeXotee, BabsG, Hoki, Peuco)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A J 2   ♥ K 10 9 6 5   ♦ 9   ♣ A Q J 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      2 ♠       Pass       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Tackling the first, of Jock's pair, you have 15 HCPs, a possible/probable double stop in the opponents suit, and a singleton diamond.  What are your options?  With five hearts, one thought is to bid the suit, but the flaw is that the suit is largely empty of high cards.  With the spade holding, a natural thought is to bid 2 NT, but the HCPs are a little thin and there is a singleton.  What about double?  The singleton diamond is the biggest flaw, but the spade length is also problematic.  So the last option is to throw up your hands and pass, which also does not feel right, especially in the pass-out seat; you have too many points, hold five in the unbid major, and possibly three places to play.

Pass   60   BWP 7%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
Let's start with the least palatable choice.  Mark Laken thinks "When all possible actions are fraught with danger, pass is often right."  While Jeff Rubens is "Guessing at the action most likely to lead to a plus score."  Although I chose action over inaction, I did contemplate passing because once you find yourself fixed, trying to find the way to unfixing often leads to disaster.

Double   60   BWP 7%   BWS 20%  IAC 1 solver
I think double was treated less well than it should have been.  With this hand, action is clearly better than inaction, so either Pass was given too many points or Double too few.  In addition, Double allows North to define the nature of their hand more clearly by choosing to bid 2 NT (lebensohl) or not.  However, BWS does not discuss whether equal-level conversions apply (e.g., bidding hearts when North bids diamonds)  JCreech "My suit is not so strong that I want to overcall at the three-level, so hopefully partner will have a sense of humor when I pull diamonds to hearts with only 15 and a probably double stop in spades"  Fred Stewart believes the call is the "Least flawed and most flexible.  Two notrump is right on values, but there is a singleton and it will often lose hearts.  Three hearts?  Ratty suit."  The moderator presented the best argument against a double:  "The problem with double followed by three hearts is that it implies that really don't like notrump, and partner won't expect such strong spades."  On the other hand, if partner asks with a spade cue-bid, why wouldn't he trust your decision to play in NT?

2 NT   90   BWP 41%   BWS 35%  IAC 58%
The IAC favorite was to bid 2 NT.  As BluBayou put it, "I would rather pass  than either double,  or bid those hearts."  He would rather bid NT with an unbalanced hand.  Masse24 describes the hand as "Ugly, but the heart suit (my second choice) needs to gain some weight before I introduce it at the three-level."  Karen McCallum thinks "All actions are flawed.  This is the best of a bad lot."  Howard Weinstein feels the bid is "Most descriptive and flexible.  If the spade jack were elsewhere, I would try three hearts."  David Berkowitz muses "Don't remember ever entering the auction on the three-level with king-ten-nine-fifth."  Nik Demirev says "A little off but represents the hand well.  Right on values and stoppers, not so much on shape.  Two out of three, and nothing else comes close."  KenBerg sums it well:  "I like 2NT. I just like it."

3 ♥   100   BWP 44%   BWS 40%  IAC 33%
The BWS plurality choice was to show the thin heart suit.  Perhaps the best argument goes to Phillip Alder:  "Two notrump will miss five-three hearts, but three hearts won't preclude three notrump."  Danny Kleinman says "Despite the short and weak hearts, there's no better action.  I can't bring myself to pass and miss too many good games."  Hoki makes the bid "so I won't have the headache of deciding what to do if pard bids 5♦ in response to my double - my partners do that but no MSC panellist ever would"  Peuco fears that "X will get 4D in the real world and then i wuld have to bid 4H on a lousy suit"  While YleeXotee simply is "giving the 5 card major"  Rozanne and Bill Pollack point out that "All contenders have serious flaws.  Three heart is the most likely to survive.  We expect not to hear four hearts without some tolerance for hearts."  The moderator argues that "The main gain for two notrump versus three hearts is when partner has a weak hand with a singleton or worthless doubleton heart, making three hearts terrible and two notrump between merely bad and possibly makeable.  However, add in the five-three heart games that are preferable to three notrump, and three hearts looks better on balance."




Problem C  1 !S  (VeredK, CCR3, Duffer66, YleeXotee, Masse24, KenBerg)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♦*      1 ♥       Pass
 ?         
*East-West use Bridge World Standard.

What call do you make?

In the second of Jock's two hands, the opponents have opened in your best suit and partner has overcalled in the better of your two singletons.  Although you have 17 HCPs, four are in your singletons.  You have a four-card major and seven in opener's suit.  Do you use the ever-popular nebulous cue-bid to show stength (and imply fit for partner's hearts), bid a non-forcing 1 !S (risking that partner will pass), or try to find some other solution.

2 ♦   90   BWP 41%   BWS 29%  IAC 1 solver
A popular solution, but not the most popular, was to make the nebulous cue-bid.  It feels strange to make a bid in your seven-bagger that does not show that suit, but it is the only strong bid you have available.  Nik Demirev has his plan ready:  Then two spades after the expected two-heart rebid by partner, then to offer three notrump."  Karen McCallum thinks "Wouldn't it be nice to hear two spades?  There are not many options, other than a reckless stab at three notrump."  Mark Laken says "Must start with a force.  Follow-ups likely will be challenging."  Danny Kleinman thinks "We probably belong in three notrump, but first we can probe for the right strain, which may be hearts or spades."  Although, selecting a different bid, I liked Mark Cohen's analysis of the cue-bid:  "Too strong to pass, and a cue-bid will work only if LHO doubles, partner passes, and so do I."

3 NT   60   BWP 7%   BWS 13%  IAC 33%
A popular choice within IAC was to try 3 NT.  It certainly is not perfect with clubs potentially wide open, but it represents the overall strength of the combined N-S holdings, the certainty of the diamond stop, and the inappropriateness of declaring spades if a Moysian 4-3 (the tap would be coming in the wrong hand, and the spades likely to be breaking badly, like all other suits).  Relying on brute-force science, BluBayou "I put the simulator to work--doing a job that is beyond its capabilities, BUT... at least I did learn the suprizing news that west will not always have diamonds double- or triple-stopped and that even if so 3NT  did not always automatically go down, as I have feared for three weeks [shocking news]"  Phillip Alder said "And damn the torpedoes."  Peuco, being succinct: "what else"  While JCreech writes "Thoughts are to force with a cue-bid and then steer toward 3NT, or just bull my way there.  Right now, I am more inclined toward avoiding partner thinking I have a fit."

1 ♠   100   BWP 44%   BWS 48%  IAC 50%
I personally discounted the 1 !S response for several reasons:  1. it is non-forcing; 2. North is unlikely to have four - with four or more I would expect either a double or Michaels; and 3.  I am expecting all suits to be breaking badly on this hand.  Nonetheless, this was the plurality choice for both Panelists and solvers.  Masse24 "We have the values for game, so the kneejerk 3NT seems reasonable. But I would like to know more about who has what. Though non-forcing, this 'temporizing' bid is the only way to get the information I need to make a more informed decision."  Bart Bramley:  "I hope someone bids, though my troubles may be far from over.  Not a cue-bid without at least a doubleton in partner's suit.  I expect to reach game: in spades over a raise, in hearts over a heart rebid, or in notrump over a club rebid."  YleeXotee says, "hate this, but I don't want to overshoot it with 2D, which can be misunderstood"  Fred Stewart thinks "Two diamonds would show either a moose or support, and it's not there.  Nothing else makes sense."  KenBerg "If the opponents have an 8 card fit we probably have an 8 card fit, and if the opponents have a 9 card fit we surely have an 8 card fit. The same arithmetic applies when we fit with an opponent. S (that's me or rather that's I) have a massive fit, at least a 10 card fit, with W (Lho). So N and E have a fit. Probably two fits, probably in !H and !C.  Passing might not be totally crazy.  I am thinking 1 !S, maybe that suit is distributed reasonably evenly.  I am not looking for game, I am looking for a contract that is not awful."  Larry Robbins points out that "A missed game will be nonvulnerable.  If partner raises, I will try three diamonds to explore three notrump.  I want partner to bid the notrump.  Over North's two hearts, I will grope with three diamonds.  Stiff jack is not a robust stopper for notrump."  I agree that missing a game is not horrible and that the NT contract will be best from partner's side, but I cannot imagine North ever bidding the NT first.



This ends the first segment.  I will post the next once it is complete.  Patience is a virtue not often shared by many bridge players.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 11, 2022, 03:00:31 AM

April MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Kit Woolsy, Director


Problem D  3 NT (Hoki, KenBerg)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 8   ♥ A K 9 2   ♦ 4 2   ♣ A K 10 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       ——       ——       2 ♠
 Double     3 ♠      Pass     Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

The scoring on this problem puzzles me.  The bidding is straightforward.  The opponents preempt, you double, RHO furthers the preempt which gets passed back to you.  Partner clearly does not have a penalty double of 3 !S, nor a suit clearly worth introducing at the four level without additional prodding.  Let's review the select chosen ones:

3 NT   100   BWP 37%   BWS 12%  IAC 17%
The choice I have the least sympathy for is 3 NT, but it did draw co-equal plurality among the Panelists on this problem.  All that I can think of is one round earlier, I did not anticipate the subsequent bidding when I doubled initially.  If I had, I would bid 2 NT to put partner into the captain's chair.  Having doubled, I now have a problem.  But if 2 NT was not the right action one round earlier, why is bidding 3 NT the right action now - one level higher?  KenBerg thinks "It's not crazy, maybe not even overly optimistic, to think we have 9 tricks off the top. Pard could have Qxx in clubs and Qx in hearts.  Can they take the first five tricks in !D. Maybe, maybe not.  I am not thinking 3N is something to bet my house on, but I don't think it is totally nuts either."  Howard Weinstein believes it is "Too strong a hand to pass.  This shows a flexible hand.  If three notrump is the right spot, a second double is very unlikely to get us there, and I would not be excited upon hearing four diamonds from partner."  Peuco also has expectations: "again X will get 4D (i hate 4D lol)"  Zia says it  is "More optimistic than four clubs, less hazardous than a double, more losing than a pass, but more irresistible than any other action and not far away from the best plus."  In other words, Hoki's to be more specific, "a pure guessing situation."  Larry Robbins:  "Pass would be significantly timid, and double would invite four diamonds.  Our most likely plus is defending against three spades, but I can't risk missing a vulnerable game."  David Berkowitz has a great point:  "This is why one needs to play with great dummy-putters.  So many ways this can be wrong, but one way it could be very right.  Won't sit for a double."

4 ♣   60   BWP 11%   BWS 31%  IAC 42%
For IAC, 4 !C was a co-plurality selection.  For those avoiding the unsavory NT, and fearing a 4 !D response following a double, yet feeling that you hold too many HCPs to pass, 4 !C is the perfect compromise. Sami Kehela thinks it is "Worth a second double, but that is likely to beget four diamonds."  Masse24 is "Not fond of another double with only a doubleton diamond."  Robert Wolff feels you "Cannot cover all weaknesses."  Danny Kleinman believes "The route to four hearts when partner has four, and the best bet for the right strain otherwise."  The moderator, Kit Woolsey, has some strong sentiments here:  "Usually, a takeout double is the most flexible action, but not this time. ... a double's flexibility does not extend to three notrump.  Similarly, partner won't pass the double.  Four clubs is a more-flexible call, since it shows clubs along with hearts, so it is the sensible choice for those who don't want to risk three notrump."

Pass   70   BWP 15%   BWS 15%  IAC No solvers
If I had taken some other type of direct action over 2 !S, such as 2 NT or 3 !C, then I might be willing to go quietly with a pass, but having doubled first, I am less willing to pass now.  Let's see what those Panelists who did have to say.  Steve Robinson argues that "Partner's hand is limited; with four or five hearts, he would have gone out of his way to bid.  Three notrump might have good play, but that requires specific cards."  Carl Hudecek agrees, "In view of partner's failure to bid four hearts, it is unlikely that we have a game.  At imps, I take the sure plus."  Jeff Rubens:  "I doubt that we will be able to bid a making game often enough to risk turning a likely plus score into a minus."  While Billy Eisenberg is simply "Hoping to go plus as danger lurks."

Double   90   BWP 37%   BWS 42%  IAC 42%
BluBayou "Passing is for chickens even though we have only a king more than we should have.  The chickens ma live,  but I will die like a hero,  doubling again."  John Carruthers says "If I passed, I'd spend the whole deal worrying that we'd missed a game."  Bart Bramley "Can't give up.  Four clubs would be safer, but double focuses better on hearts.  Over four diamonds, I'll pass and pray."  Eric Kokish feels the call is "Dangerous, but I have always played with partners who did not bid four diamonds.  Pass would be sensible, but our counterpart is likely to double, and we lack the evidence to do otherwise."  Mark Laken says "Risky.  If passed out, we should be okay; if partner bids, he will like my winners."  JCreech wants an undo: "I wish that I had made the horrible call of 2NT on the first round, but at least I would have this hand out of my system.  Not good because only Ax as a stop, but otherwise fairly descriptive.  Now I don't know whether to bid 3NT opposite a quiet partner, 4 !C or double; double is the most flexible, so I am headed that direction."






Problem E  Dbl  (BabsG, DrAculea, CCR3, BluBayou, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A Q 10 8 7 6   ♥ 5   ♦ Q 5   ♣ A 9 8 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♠        3 ♥        Pass     Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Another preempt, another obvious set of responses - pass, double, or bid. 

Double   100   BWP 48%   BWS 45%  IAC 58% 
The reopening double caters to partner having made a trap pass, a partner unwilling to make a courtesy raise with poor HCPs, as well as a partner with length in one or both minors; what is not to like about the call?   JCreech says "My distribution is not so wild that I will not make the reopening double."  John Diamond "Won't avoid doubling with a singleton heart only because I have a doubleton diamond."  John Carruthers asks "Short hearts?  Must act."  KenBerg "Partner might pass and if so then 3 !H X might be the winning contract. Of course partner might also bid 4 !D. Then I bid 4 !S. Yeah, we are a bit high in 4 !S but it might be fine."  BluBayou "Before considering what BID to reopen with, I first check to see if I can do the normal expected thing of reopening with a double.  the 6 goodish spades and the unbid suit Qx are flaws,  but I dont wait for 15 point three-suiters to do this. (after all, on the problem above,  we did a similar thing  with a flat hand  and xx in diamonds)"  David Berkowitz wants to see "The look on partner's face when we have them murdered is enough to make me do this."  Waffling to the end, Masse24 thinks "Double is probably right. The MSC panelists lean towards aggression. I hate this problem and am uncommitted on any of the possible choices."  Zia argues that "This boils down to whether partnre will pass or not.  I vote yes; if I didn't, I would pass.  Three spades would be passing wind rather blowing in the wind."

3 ♠   80   BWP 26%   BWS 28%  IAC 17%
Rebidding spades only caters to the vanity of holding a pretty-good spade or the fear of partner bidding diamonds at the four-level.  Sami Kehela thinks "Venturesome, perhaps, but six-four shapes are usually quite productive."  Phillip Alder says "I am not brave enough to double and risk hearing four diamonds from North) and double from East).  Pass could easily be the winner, but if partner hoped for three hearts doubled, I must act."  Peuco agrees "when I make a reopening X and p does not pass he always bids my singleton"  Rozanne and Bill Pollack thinks "This hand seems better for offense than for defense, even though we can 'feel' partner praying that we double.  With two aces, it's close."
 
Pass   80   BWP 26%   BWS 26%  IAC 25%
Pass just caters to uncertainty, caution, and acceptance that the opponents have taken away most of the options available to me and my partner.  Hoki "the old school to which I belonged always claimed that if we are fixed we stay fixed - so I pass when today's world always takes a view with half gaining on me and the other half paying out."  YleeXotee finds it "against my nature to pass, but 3s is too much" Carl Hudecek is "Applying appropriate caution, vulnerable at imps.  Partner could not conjure up a competitive raise."  Robert Wolff says "Finally, a hand with which I want to be conservative."  The moderator points out that "Although it is usually right to compete with a singleton in the enemy's suit, I'm inclined to agree.  Partner's failure to bid three spades is highly significant - he won't have both three spades and values, so we won't make four spades."


 


Problem F  3 !D  (YleeXotee, JCreech, KenBerg, Masse24, DrArcula, Duffer66, BluBayou, CCR3, Peuco, VeredK)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 9   ♥ 3 2   ♦ 10 9 7 6 5 2   ♣ K 6 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♦        Pass
   ?*
*BWS: 3 ♦ weak but strong enough for three
notrump opposite 18-19 HCP

What call do you make?

The problem has a clear message related to a possible bid, and, at least among the IAC solvers, there has been discussion about what to do.  For example, YleeXotee says he is "taking the hint," while BluBayou wants to "ignore the hint!"  So who is right?  In this case, it seems that both are because they both made the same choice of bidding 3 !D.  The difference may be in what their next bid might be.

3 ♦   100   BWP 70%   BWS 57%  IAC 83%
BluBayou makes the bid despite the hint: "We saw this footnote last year, attached to a hand with Q9xxx in clubs and damn little else: '*weak but strong enough for three notrump opposite 18-19 HCP'  The panel went HEAVY to ignore the hint and made the preempt anyway and they will again.  And actually this 109, xx, 109xxxx,  Kxx WILL help many a balanced 18 bring home that 3NT so 'going heavy'  might become 'choosing unanimously'?"  While JCreech makes the bid because of the hint: "I reconsidered after Jock's challenge.  Two years ago, I was worried about what I would do if partner showed the strong balanced hand.  ... The hand contains only 3 HCPs, but what a difference this time.  It is a K, which translates into a reasonable chance of a trick.  Given that partner is highly likely to hold four diamonds for the opening bid, that gives the partnership a minimum of nine, while also likely to have ten diamonds - now I can almost count seven tricks in my own hand, and if partner is strong, then 3NT may easily be a laydown. ... This time, I almost relish the thought despite only holding 3 HCPs.  If partner converts, it may not be a sure thing, but I still like our chances."  This dichotomy of thought is repeated among the Panelists:  Daniel Korbel:  "Who knows?  Maybe enough for three no-trump opposite a strong, balanced hand."  Karen McCallum:  "A system violation, perhaps, but my long diamonds will be tricks in three notrump."  Mark Laken:  "Combines preemption with offering a potential source of tricks for notrump."  David Berkowitz:  "I have an entry, and my diamond length may be valuable.  I would nee a singleton to bid four diamonds.  Passing would make it too easy for the opponents."  Phillip Alder:  "If partner bids three notrump, he might well make it."  Mark Cohen:  "The sixth diamond and potential club entry justify an upgrade."  Back in the IAC:  KenBerg: "It's true that this is a pretty weak hand as far as hcps are concerned. But I am not that worried about partner bidding 3NT over my 3 !D. I will be leaving it in. If partner has AKxx, not unlikely for a 3NT rebid, I see six !D tricks. And even if his !D holding is only Axxx we are in pretty good shape if he has the values for 3NT. If opponents can set up their five card suit on the opening lead, so be it. Often they can't of they don't."  Masse24: "I hate this, but only because of the tip provided. At the table this is an easy 3 !D for me. I wish Blu could find the previous example of this as I would like to compare the hands."

Pass   70   BWP 15%   BWS 27%  IAC No solvers
The passers do so largely for tactical reasons.  For example, Carl Hudecek says "The less I raise diamonds, the harder it will be for the opponents to appreciate the extent of their fit(s)."  Jeff Rubens thinks "Bidding might not keep the opponent out when I would prefer them out.  At matchpoints, being able to make three notrump won't be a factor often enough."  Sami Kehela "Goes against the grain, but no number of diamonds fits."  Nik Demirev writes "I'd rather not go overboard at matchpoints if it is our deal.  I am confident of being able to judge well later on in a competitive auction. ... I am not worried about all pass, because LHO is sure to balance with his expected zero to two diamonds."

4 ♦   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 9%  IAC 1 Solver
Danny Kleinman takes the hint as it was intended:  "Too little offensive potential for three diamonds, too little defense not to bid four."  To which the moderator responds:  "How can too little offensive potential to bid three justify bidding four?  Shouldn't one have more offensive potential, not less, to contract for 10 tricks instead of nine?"
 

And so ends part two for this month.  I will get the last part out as soon as I am able.  Meanwhile enjoy, and start to work on next month's problems.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 13, 2022, 12:41:28 PM

April MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Kit Woolsy, Director


Problem G  2 !D (DrArcula, KenBerg, Masse24)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♦        Pass
  1 ♠        2 ♣      Double* Pass
   ?         
*BWS: three spades

What call do you make?

You are in a competitive auction, with no clear fit.  Not only that, but the last call from your side was a support double, showing three-card support for your 4-card spade suit.  Also, you have a 4-3-3-3 (literally), which suggests a preference for defense, but the level is still low, and your trump holding is J9x (not exactly the most robust of holdings).  And then they ask what will you do?  Not pretty.

2 ♦   100   BWP 41%   BWS 29%  IAC 25%
The Panel plurality goes with showing support for the opener's suit.  BWS follows Walsh-style in that opening 1 !D only rarely shows less than a 4-card holding, but could be better.  This could be the route to a 5(+)-3 fit or give partner the choice of Moysians.  Masse24 says the bid "Basically conveys the same thing that 2 !S does, however, it has the added benefit of showing moderate diamond support and bringing partner in on the final decision."  Carl Hudecek thinks it "Suggests I have only four spades.  With pinochle-deck bidding, I keep it low and confirm a playable fit.  West, with a passing partner will have a hard time bidding over two diamonds."  KenBerg "This looks like a good hand for pessimism. I have been optimistic on earlier hands, not here. There is no good reason to think we have an 8 card fit anywhere. Partner would open 1 !D on a 3=3=4=3 hand and a 12 count or at least he would on a 13 count. With that 2 !C overall I suppose it is more likely pard is 3=3=5=2. But that doesn't mean I want to be in 5 !D.  Someday I will learn how to use the online hand evaluator but my offline evaluation is that this is a crappy hand. It's flat and it's aceless.  If we miss game I accept responsibility. But I probably bid the same 2 !D next time."  Finding agreement with Ken from the Panel is not hard:  Billy Eisenberg:  "Lots of high cards; no hand."  Robert Wolff:  "Nothing else is even appealing."  Mark Laken:  "Poor distribution and no ace sway me to the low road."  This choice is certainly the road to the safest contract, but at matchpoints, you sometimes want to add in a bit of risk in order to take home the top.

2 ♠   80   BWP 22%   BWS 26%  IAC 75%
A return to spades was the clear choice of IAC.  YleeXotee "MP convinced me not to bid 2D"  The extra 10 points per trick when faced with probable competing Moysians can be a real draw.  Plus, you know you have no ruffing values, so a spade 4-3 is taking the tap in the correct hand; the hand with shorter trump length.  Certainly a point in favor of 2 !S at matchpoints.  John Diamond:  "With enough HCP that I expect to make two spades in a four-three fit.  I would not want to risk playing in two diamonds in a four-three fit."  John Carruthers asks "Why bid two diamonds?  It is matchpoints, and my spades are decent."  Mark Cohen says "Partner could have any of numerous shapes and high-card strengths.  Opposite a normal opening, I'll try to preserve the plus."  Peuco sensibly points to shape and minimum:  "4333 and the J of C only add up to 10"  Bart Bramley wants to "Stay low with no shape and no aces.  Play in the major to score more.  With weaker spade interiors, I'd bid two diamonds."  And Hoki concludes for us "having run out of arguments by now."  But wait, there is the request for an undo as JCreech says "I am wishing that I did not ignore that fourth spade and bid notrump before the clubs became a worry.  I'd rather go down in ignorance, than play in the wrong strain.  Since I did not, I will go low; its matchpoints and a Moysian, both suggesting a bit of conservativism."

2 NT   70   BWP 11%   BWS 20%  IAC No solvers
Some of the Panel and BWS solvers try to catch that extra 10 points that come with NT, but it feels late to the party once the opponents have shown clubs and your stopper is J9x.  Larry Robbins says "I don't want to miss a vulnerable game, even if it is under 50 percent.  A cue-bid would be a distinct overbid.  Two diamonds and two spades are underbids and may find the wrong strain.  Two hearts would completely misdescribe the hand."  But isn't giving full weight to the high cards of a 4-3-3-3 also an overbid?  Karen McCallum sees hope "There was no club raise, so the hand looks like three notrump.  I'd consider two diamonds at imps, giving partner the maximum opportunity to bid again; but at matchpoints two diamonds will likely get a very poor score if partner passes."  Danny Kleinman thinks "Two diamonds or two spades would understate strength while overstating length.  It's time to trade on my usuall reluctance to bid notrump without stoppers.  West wouldn't dare lead from his club tenace up to mine, would he?"   To which moderator Kit Woolsey responds "Yes, he would.  He will have no problem leading from his ace-queen-ten-sixth of clubs, hoping that his partner will get in and return a club to defeat two notrump.  He will be very surprised and pleased if his partner's entry is the king of clubs.  The tricks are very slow for notrump.  In order to make three notrump (or even two notrump), South will need some help from partner in the club department."

Pass   80   BWP 22%   BWS 11%  IAC No solvers
Which brings us to what may be the risk-reward winner - Pass.  If there is no game, you only need to nip 2 !C contract one trick.  If there is a game, it is most likely to be in notrump, and to do that, you will need help from partner; if you have help from partner, that increases the chance that you will defeat the contract 800, and even if you don't you will still beat all of the partscores that are likely to be running around on the recap.  Zach Grossack says "We have no definite fit with over half of the deck in high cards, so it feels like a prime time to attack.  With a golder 200 staring at me, it would be rather rude to reject its advance."  David Berkowitz seems to shrug:  "Since I can't decide what to bid, I will take the chance that dummy will be a big disappointment to declarer."  Steve Robinson believes "Plus 200 will be a good matchpoint score.  If the contract makes it's minus on 180, which could score something if this is a trouble deal.  Players sometimes overcall on nothing, and passing could lead to a bonanza if partner is 3=3=4=3 with some club honors."  Rozanne and Bill Pollack can taste the blood:  "We won't let them get away this time.  With invitational values but no clear game, the risk seems worthwhile.  Our only palatable alternative is two notrump, and that has a small club flaw.  Even if partner produces a club stopper, the values are too soft to insist on notrump."  The moderator considers Pass to be "... a gamble, but South committed to gambling when he entered the event, it looks like a good gamble to me."

 



Problem H  !C 7  (Duffer66, Hoki, CCR3, YleeXotee, Masse24, JCreech, KenBerg)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       Pass      1 ♠
  Pass      2 ♦*      Pass      2 ♥
  Pass      3 ♦        Pass      3 NT
  Pass      Pass      Pass
*game-force

What is your opening lead?

The matchpoint dilemma:  do you defend aggressively, trying to set the contract, or passively, trying to avoid giving up the extra trick in a cold game that means the difference between a top and a bottom.  Nonetheless, the moderator writes:  "... as the panel's vote indicates, any suit could be right."  So, let's start with the passive leads and work our way toward the aggressive.

♥ 5   80   BWP 22%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The moderator writes "The heart lead is certainly safe enough.  The problem is that unless you strike unexpected gold in partner's hand, it will take a long time to develop a heart trick."  Nonetheless, Eric Kokish makes the lead because "If we can't run clubs later, maybe the middle of the heart suit will lie well for us, or we'll kill a timely heart entry for the diamonds."  Bart Bramley's lead is "Random.  Hoping to hit partner for a club throught and that declarer's clubs are king-empty."  Billy Eisenberg:  "Hope partner can read it."

♦ 10   70   BWP 11%   BWS 21%  IAC IAC 33%
What about the !D 10?  Mark Laken is "Hoping to hit partner's entry for a club through."  Fred Stewart says "... I'll punt.  If declarer doesn't rattle off the fist nine, partner should know what to do when he gets in."  Peuco thinks "If Ds are solid leading C probably gives an overtrick, if not they can go down"  The moderator points out that "The problem with the diamond lead is that diamonds is likely to be the suit where declarer will be getting the bulk of his tricks.  If both sides are leading the same suit, one side is wrong, and it is usually the defending side."

♠ J   80   BWP 22%   BWS 7%  IAC No solvers
The !S J seems unusual for a safe lead; after all declarer has already announced five card in the suit.  Nonetheless, if the suit is solid at the top, you haven't given anything away except tempo, and if partner has an honor, you have taken a step toward setting up a defensive trick, and possibly an entry to partner's hand for the club shift.  Panelists also raise other considerations.  Zia:  "A first, perhaps a last.  I can't bear to lead a club, evenif it is the field choice.  If my lead is wrong, declarer might think spades are stacked."  Zach Grossack:  "At matchpoints, I often lead against three notrump aiming not to give much away."  Carl Hudecek:  "Least of evils.  Maybe partner will get in early in a red suit and put a club through."  Danny Kleinman:  "Time to kill dummy's outside entry to the diamonds, the singleton ace or king of spades, I hate leading from a four-card suit headed by the ace."

♣ 9   60   BWP 7%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Clubs are considered to be the "pure" aggressive lead, but then which club.  Half of the leads that recieved scores of at least 50 involved leading a club.  John Diamond succinctly describes why the 9:  "Must lead the nine to unblock."  Howard Weinstein argues that "There is no good alternative suit, so as likely as it may be that a club lead blows an immediate trick, there is too much chance that we need to lead clubs and take three-plus club tricks now or later.  Establishing clubs may deter declarer from taking a winning major-suit finesse.  I lead the nine as there is so much chance that I need to preserve partner's club entry - he may have five.  I hope partner will not be misled ..."

♣ A   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 4%  IAC No solvers
Larry Robbins writes "Sometimes declarer will have the stiff king of clubs.  I don't want to score minus 720.  Unblocking clubs would be reasonable."  The moderator says "Leading the club ace could be right, but it could be a catastrophe."


♣ 7   100   BWP 33%   BWS 50%  IAC 58%
The "standard" lead was chosen by a plurality of the Panel and a majority of the solvers.  But even being part of the "in" crowd is fraught with second guessing.  For example, KenBerg, this month's honor roll topper, says "This one I am still struggling with. My thinking was: This is matchpoints, we aren't beating this, why hand them a trick with a !C lead. But I am re-thinking this. Maybe the aggressive !C lead is right. Lho has 6+  !D, but pard can easily have Jxxx."  While someone not much further down on the honor roll, Masse24, despite firmly settling in on  a club, still battles himself about which club to lead:  "A little worried about blockage. Would the J or 9 be better?  Really like the 9, but no guts."  Steve Robinson presents a good argument for the !C 7: "Why can't declarer have queen-third of clubs and partner king-ten-fifth?  Responder might hold seven solid diamonds and out,  When  no other lead makes sense lead fourth from the longest and strongest, as a lot of matchpoint players do.  I don't want to confuse partner by leading the nine of clubs."  JCreech echos this:  "My initial thought is this is the unshown suit, and if declarer is 5-4-1-3 with Qxx in clubs, then we can take four off the top, and hope for a setting trick somewhere. ... Although I am concerned about the suit blocking, I am more concerned that partner will not think of the 9 as a low lead from honors.  I can see partner ducking the king if I lead the 9, thinking I led top of nothing."  Brian Glubok "Fourth highest in the unbid suit.  The nine could be right to unblock opposite partner's five-card suit, but it's too fancy for my taste."  YleeXotee goes for "standard which  means this is a 50 for score ."  While Hoki says "really what else? How can a diamond ever be right?"  David Berkowitz is not happy: "I hate leading a club, but the other suit holdings are so vile that I will stay with the fields."  And Mark Cohen is hopeful: "Can't declarer have queen-third, or king-ten-low when partner has an entry?  I'll pay off to giving declarer an undeserved club trick when he can run many tricks before we regain the lead."




That's it until next month.  I hope you found something interesting to think about, or at least something to vindicate your own thinking.  The new poll is open, so please participate - not only with your votes, but also with your thinking.  We all gain when we share.  Good luck with your selections, and see you in the new month's discussion.

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 14, 2022, 03:28:29 PM

Boo-hoo.  Jim covered everything that any solver could have thought of along with supporting comments from panelists and us.  There's almost nothing left to bring to the after-party :( .
    HOWEVER....The decent score for leaving in the support double on problem G  does set my hair on fire.  Like..where is it written that south can EXPECT a balanced hand for that bid? .....<more soon>...

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 14, 2022, 09:27:15 PM

Quote from: blubayou on March 14, 2022, 03:28:29 PM

Boo-hoo.  Jim covered everything that any solver could have thought of along with supporting comments from panelists and us.  There's almost nothing left to bring to the after-party :( .
    HOWEVER....The decent score for leaving in the support double on problem G  does set my hair on fire.  Like..where is it written that south can EXPECT a balanced hand for that bid? .....<more soon>...

My BridgeWorld just came today and I have not yet read the explanations but perhaps it goes like this: Declarer can probably take six club tricks. What does he do for an encore?

Of course, maybe he has seven club tricks or maybe a lot of things but we have some fitting honors for pard and dummy is apt to be broke so he will be playing this out of his hand.  I didn't pass, but it does not seem totally nuts.
How could it be totally nuts if BW likes it? (That's intended as humor)

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 15, 2022, 05:00:39 AM

Quote from: blubayou on March 14, 2022, 03:28:29 PM

    HOWEVER....The decent score for leaving in the support double on problem G  does set my hair on fire.  Like..where is it written that south can EXPECT a balanced hand for that bid? .....<more soon>...

I think from my writeup of what was said, that there is no expectation of a balanced hand by South.  What South can expect is poorly fitting hand (though, personally, that is not entirely true, because the diamonds may provide an eight-card or better fit), and that it is largely a gamble of whether the contract will go down or not.  I think the scoring was a bit high because the moderator supported the choice himself.  Nonetheless, I do not think the Panelists that chose to Pass, would have done so if a fit had been more clear or the shape less square.  Those became the pegs to downgrade the hand and hang the pass on. 

The other side of the equation was that these Panelists did not see game in the hand.  Therefore a penalty became more attractive as an alternative.  It then becomes a comparison of the relative risks and rewards the alternatives. 

Title: Re: 2022 April MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 15, 2022, 03:11:16 PM

We could speculate on how the hand might go. Some thoughts:

When N opens 1 !D, E, on a different deal, might come in with a speculative 2 !C. After 1 !D - Pass - 1 !S, a 2 !C call from W should be based on a decent suit. The difference is that after 1 !D - (2 !C) there are a lot of unknowns. How strong is S, does he have a major, does he have both majors and so on. After 1 !D - Pass - 1 !S things are clearer for the opening side and they are about to become even more clear. W bids 2 !C, N doubles. S knows that they do not have an 8 card major suit fit, and his options are clearer.

So, at least for me, after 1 !D - Pass - 1 !S a call of 2 !C requires a better suit than I need for coming in second position  over 1 !D. AKQxxx would of course be enough, maybe less, but not a lot less.

Assume AKQxxx in the W hand. We will not be getting any club tricks.

But partner opened and he has zip in clubs.

It's not outlandish to give him AKxx (x) in diamonds and one, not both, of the major suit aces. Dummy will come down with a short suit, but that short suit will be clubs. And as soon as dummy hits, I will know how many spades declarer has.

Let's say N had AKxxx in !D and declarer has a doubleton. Declarer starts with the !D A and unless dummy has shortness, requiring a trump switch, I encourage diamonds, it goes A, K, small !D ruffed. partner's third !D will tell me which major suit A he has.

Can we hold declarer to one trick in the majors? Maybe, maybe not. But I have given pard an 11 count. A very good 11 count, but an 11 count.

So maybe we beat 2 !C a trick, maybe we don't, but Woolsey says "It looks like a good gamble to me".

I did all my crazy stuff when I was 17, I now like a life that is calm and peaceful. So I went with 2 !D. But I can see the argument for pass.

Added: Amusingly, the !S T might be a key card. Declarer's spades might be Ax, give him 2=3=2=6 shape.  Give dummy !S Qxxx. We take two diamonds, declarer ruffs the third, he takes his clubs, he throws us in with a heart, we take our three hearts and then pard is on lead. Pard knows the exact shape by now sp he says a prayer and leads the !S J. We get 1+3+2=6 tricks on defense. Ok, if !H are 3-3 then we can make 4 !H but I doubt we are bidding it.

Anyway, leaving the X in is likely to be a top or a bottom. Allow partner his fantasies.