IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on March 06, 2022, 12:09:05 AM

Title: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on March 06, 2022, 12:09:05 AM
MAY 2022 MSC

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

Submit your MAY 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: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 07, 2022, 04:24:19 PM
A:   Imagine X, KQ, K8xxx, AQxxx facing our AQJxx, Ax, Qxx,  KJT.  3NT appears to be a claimer while even 5 of a minor needs a small bit of luck.  I don't know how to ask pard "Does Q42 diamond support make you happy?"  but I gotta push one time in case he can  take over.
                                                           --- Four Clubs ---        p.s.  CAN a 5-5 minor opener tell me to drop dead by repeating notrump?  And if that must be RKC...are there now 5 key cards or six?  ;D


B:  I get hammered sometimes for being too "pure" on deals like this.  Both 1S  and double are impure thoughts,  and let's not MENTION  the 1NT overcall.   This time,  let's live it up a tad...
                                                            --- One Spade ---

C:  There are plenty of tournament players that play.."1m, (1H), DOUBLE"  shows NOT-SPADES, rather some 8+ collection of mostly minor cards.  But our BWS partner is not of this religion.  And those that ARE are not too happy to have only 6 cards in the minors--especially these six. For sure, I am going to pretend AKJ  is a spade suit and...                                                            ---Double---     not trapping with 9234 in his suit! :D

D:  Single-raise [duhh]  Change this to Bergen 3 !C , if they forgot a 'hint'.
                                                              ---Two Hearts---

E:  Sort of [!!] deja-vue  from a couple recent months, where defending (doubled or not) got votes along with 3H, 4H, & 3NT.   THIS time, I expect the game bids will be off the table.  And if I end up defending, it will be for the big money :P
                                                          --- Double OR 3 !H  ? ---

F:  ABSTAIN!  This hand must start with 2 clubs.  Having failed to do this--and with "abstaining" being banned since 1970-whatever, I must now bid 3 clubs (which at my house is 'showing' not asking.)  but the truth is, I might as well jump to the spade game, and hope that all these plus values are not a figment of somebody's imagination.
   It's a fun month:  So far  here I am calling  AKJ tripleton a spade suit (problem C)  and now on the edge of calling  10 8 3 2  = NOT a spade suit, here ::)


G:  Bad news folks:  BWS  does NOT seem to clarify what it takes to be better than a double-negative :'(   Is it "one king"...is it "two queens"?     The good news is that we can raise 3NT one level whichever it is.  This may loose out when he passes  and spades makes one more than notrump,  but really will give him courage when he has a "large" pile of trash rather than the bare minimum required.?
                                                  ---4Notrump ?---
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: hoki on March 22, 2022, 11:40:53 AM
Agree with A, C, and D and offer the following alternatives on the others:
B = Pass and rely on any opportunity to balance later;
E = agree with double;
F = 2NT will take the hint for a change (the hand is nowhere near strong enough to force to game with 2C initially);
G = 4C to torture partner and probably 6S next time;
H = C2 (but H6 if I felt RHO held only four hearts).
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 22, 2022, 04:46:28 PM
Who knows? But forward we go. A few thoughts.  Subject to change.


A: 4 !C
I am the one with undisclosed strength since I would have bid a GF 2 !H with a good deal less. Now, over 4 !C would partner bid 4 !H holding Kx? That would be nice. I am not so sure what I will do if partner bids 4 !D over my 4 !C. After 4 !C - 4 !D I could bid 4NT, I am more or less prepared to play 6 !D, or rather have partner play 6 !D, if he has two keycards. But I would feel better about it if I knew he had !H Kx. 

B: Probably 1 !S.
I guess I need to think about it. If partner has three spades there is a good chance that I can ruff a heart or two in dummy.

C:  I am passing.
For now at least. As with B, I have an option that might lead to playing spades in a 4-3 fir. With B, I can at least hope that partner, with his three spades, will be short in hearts and I can ruff hearts without weakening my four card spade holding. Here I have the three card spade holding and I am definitely not the one with short hearts. I don't like having pard ruff a heart in his hand. So I will wait. What happens next? We will see. 

D: 3 !H seems fine.
I realize it is 4 triple 3 but it's still a good holding. 

E: 3 !H.
I bid 3 !H. An optimistic call.  So sue me!

F: Not sure.
I have to look up a bit about what means what. It says 2NT is invit. Well, sure. But I suppose 3 !C is also invit. And I suppose that one way to decline a 2NT invit is by passing. I have to check on some of this.

G: 6 !S
I have shown a strong hand, although it is stronger then I have shown. I have also bid spades and then hearts. Still pard is willing to play 3NT. It seems pard has some values in the minors and not just because 2NT denied a double negative. I think having some trump available for control could be useful here. 

H: I am giving some thought to the !H 6. I'll get back to you 
That 2NT on my right is basically a club bid. Ambiguous as to length and strength, but if RHO has a five card suit somewhere, I am betting it's clubs (his invite values precludes 2 !C on the first round). Probably he has two four card suits.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 22, 2022, 07:40:22 PM
My initial thoughts.

Problem A  4 !C I expect partner to be at least 5-5 in the minors with a heart stop/partial stop.  If we have a slam, it is likely to be in one of the minors.  The move past 3NT should be slammish, so the question is which minor.  I've already shown a preference for diamonds, 4 !C should suggest that I do not have a clear choice.

Problem B  Pass  My choices are from the aggressive 1NT, to a poorly shaped double, or pass.  If I bid, I like 1NT best - it shows my stopper, I have cards that are working together along with great spots, and I have three tens.  Nonetheless, I tend to pass these hands and hope I can back in later.

Problem C  1 NT  I don't particularly like how this auction is proceeding.  The hand is wrong for a Moysian in spades (partner, if holding four, will take the tap), I only have two clubs with partner, and partner opened clubs, so the likelihood of a 4-4 or better fit in diamonds is low.  I also don't like the prospect of converting a double at the one-level.  I will try 1NT and hope partner does not raise to game without a little something in the suit (besides, RHO could have stuck in a four-card overcall with very nice honors).

Problem D  2 !H I have four-card support and 10 HCPs, but I also have 3-4-3-3 shape.  I will go low to start based on shape and vulnerability, but will accept game tries.

Problem E  Pass  An unsavory choice between showing my four-card heart suit or my stopper.  My stopper is well-placed for a diamond lead, but not if RHO has an entry to lead through my holding.  The 3-4-3-3 shape says defense, the shape, the jacks and the placement of the !D K all suggest downgrades for the hand, so I go for the third option and go quietly for now.  I don't know if we have a plus position on this hand, but I do fear the 200 that might go against me if I chime in now.

Problem F  2 NT  I will take the hint.  With partner opening diamonds, I have hopes that the !D K is pulling its full weight, and the clubs are a source of tricks.  I do want to check more closely the type of game tries that are available before making a final decision.

Problem G 6 !S  Is there a sensible way to explore a grand?  I am afraid of any bid below slam, as being something that partner can pass.  Jam and pray seems the best avenue.
 
Problem H  !H 6  Quoting Todd:  "Have I said how much I hate lead problems?"
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 23, 2022, 12:53:18 PM
I have been re-thinking C, maybe I double.

I was worried that if pard plays in spades holding four spades and if the defense starts with three rounds of high hearts then pard has to ruff in the hand that has the long spades.

True enough, but that might not be so bad.

We know W has the short spades. So suppose partner is playing in spades, it starts with three hearts ruffing the third. Partner then leads a small spade to the A and leads another !H. If one of the defenders has four spades it is likely to be W, and he might not be all that happy ruffing. Thats especially true if partner holds the spade T. If W ruffs low he is over-ruffed. If he has the Q he would not like ruffing with it. And then partner (or maybe first) can take a couple of clubs and ruff a club with the J.

Now all this assumes pard has at most two hearts. But if he has three hearts then the opponents do not have a heart fit, in which case the auction might come to a halt at a low level and all will be well.

Anyway, I am now thinking of doubling on C.

And I am coming around to passing on B.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: peuco on March 23, 2022, 04:37:48 PM
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Frank

PROBLEM A: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 4 Spades
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 6
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 24, 2022, 01:02:30 AM
Three of you purists  on the 'lurk or act' hand  problem B:(  And I thought I was at the outer border of those who pass when all BIDS are not right!....Probably  I will join you smart people soon  (or REjoin!) ...
   Now back to C: like your prediction that playin some low number of spades "scrambling" style can work..  But I like to mention in postmortems that "bridge is not Pinochle:  ruffing when out is not required on pain of revoke penalty".......(  ie:  "WHY did you ruff trick 3???---Just sluff some trash card/ then you have everything under control! ??? :( "
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 24, 2022, 11:29:17 PM
I am not sure that Jock is being fair in his analysis on Problem C

Quote from: blubayou on March 24, 2022, 01:02:30 AM
   Now back to C: like your prediction that playin some low number of spades "scrambling" style can work..  But I like to mention in postmortems that "bridge is not Pinochle:  ruffing when out is not required on pain of revoke penalty".......(  ie:  "WHY did you ruff trick 3???---Just sluff some trash card/ then you have everything under control! ??? :( "

First, the hand:  ♠ A K J   ♥ 9 6 4 2   ♦ 9 8 6 5   ♣ K 3, then what I had to say about playing spades

Quote from: jcreech on March 22, 2022, 07:40:22 PM
Problem C  ...  The hand is wrong for a Moysian in spades (partner, if holding four, will take the tap) ...

and finally, what Ken had to say about playing in spades:
Quote from: kenberg on March 22, 2022, 04:46:28 PM
C:  ... Here I have the three card spade holding and I am definitely not the one with short hearts. I don't like having pard ruff a heart in his hand. ...

I will give Jock credit that sometimes a loser-on-loser play can be a winning strategy, but what neither Ken nor I made explicit is why we were hesitant about playing in the Moysian this time. 

RHO has shown a probable five hearts, our hand has four bad hearts (where none are growing up), and we do not know how the remaining four hearts are distributed.  If LHO has zero or one, then he will be pitching losers while our side is sucking up losers, if LHO has two, then he will have the choice of overruffing or pitching a loser, while partner's hand comes down to only three trump.  And if LHO has three or four, we may see a courtesy raise, but if partner is going to pitch while the defense is running hearts, that is four losers off the top in order to retain trump control.  That is a pretty big hole to start off in.  If partner's hand is used to ruff in, then you are counting on a 3-3 break, because otherwise you have already lost control of the trumps.

In other words, whether we ruff or pitch a loser, the hand can become hard to manage very quickly.  Rather than go down that road, we each took a different path.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 25, 2022, 12:40:00 AM
Yes-- I did not notice that if we just float the 3rd round of H,  we will be facing the forth round too--  and that is NOT nice to contemplate.... :-[
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on March 25, 2022, 01:32:48 AM
Quote from: blubayou on March 25, 2022, 12:40:00 AM
Yes-- I did not notice that if we just float the 3rd round of H,  we will be facing the forth round too--  and that is NOT nice to contemplate.... :-[

Why do on the fourth round what you can delay until the fifth round?  ;)
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Masse24 on March 25, 2022, 01:32:48 AM
Quote from: blubayou on March 25, 2022, 12:40:00 AM
Yes-- I did not notice that if we just float the 3rd round of H,  we will be facing the forth round too--  and that is NOT nice to contemplate.... :-[

Why do on the fourth round what you can delay until the fifth round?  ;)

Spoken like a procrastinator par excellence! ;)
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: bAbsG on March 28, 2022, 08:22:01 PM
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht

Your Solutions for the May 2022 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 6
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on March 29, 2022, 04:44:14 PM



i was getting comfortable, on problem C, with doubling 1H holding only AKJ in spades.
Yesterday I allowed myself to remember that when it goes "1C, (1H), double, pass; 1S"  opener's 1S rebid is a "misery-bid" showing the worst possible opening when holding 4 trumps,  or more commonly Qxx plus bad hearts and no minor worth bidding/rebidding.
With a reasonable opener plus 4 spades, he will rebid not !S but 2S.
Our MSC partner will bid this way, even if lots of us gloss this point over as we have done for 3 weeks,  so  the neg X is OUT for me,  which sadly leaves only   ---pass---

p.s. My side-bet for a bonus 5 monster points...is that a few panelists will mention this downside to doubling  (on a deal with a TNT number below 16 :-*


SOLUTIONS FOR:Jock McQuade3 Bag EndHobbiton OR 97030U.S.A.
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 1 Spade
PROBLEM C: Pass
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 10
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on March 30, 2022, 01:22:09 PM
Quote from: blubayou on March 29, 2022, 04:44:14 PM
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades

Jock, really???  I could see your earlier caution, expressed by bidding 4 NT, but lamely bidding game with that monster opposite a non-double-negative (regardless of how poorly defined that bid is).  I think we will find that the Panel expects at least an ace or king for North's minimum bidding.

I still do not see a way forward that allows both a slam exploration and the ability to stop short, but then that may be why you are giving up on slam altogether.  I wish you well with your 4 !S choice, but I think it will be a big reason why you will not make HR this time.

Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: kenberg on March 30, 2022, 04:58:22 PM
SOLVER: Ken Berg
 
Your Solutions for the May 2022 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 1 Spade
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 6

What's done is done.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on March 31, 2022, 03:30:43 AM
MAY Guesses:

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
I like the texture of my club “support” more than the diamonds. So it’s time to tell partner. Obviously showing slam intentions.

PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump
Pass probably most common. But it feels like too much to pass. The spots help, but just a little.  I checked the KnR. 14.55
This could get completely ignored by the panel.

PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
AKJ looks a lot like four and the negative double was my first instinct. But I’ll take the over-strength 1NT with the questionable stopper. 

PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
Feels like a 2 ¾ bid. Maybe steering the auction a bit with a forcing notrump then jump to 3 !H is a happy medium? But I’m afraid too few panelists would try that “in-between” bid.

PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
Tempted to double instead.

PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
IMPs. Vul. I’m giving full value to the !D K. Partner could be rebidding on three card support.

PROBLEM G: 4 Clubs
A jump to 6 !S is probably in my future. But there is no hurry.

PROBLEM H: Spade 3
This is a lead problem, yes? If so, I hate it.

Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: ccr3 on March 31, 2022, 04:03:59 PM
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 6
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: veredk on March 31, 2022, 04:08:57 PM
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club 2
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on April 01, 2022, 01:32:05 AM
lead problem:  whether declarer's REAL suit  is  hearts or clubs,   or both are four long [or less]  is maddening toss-up  . I hate lead problems...(and I wish OPPONENTS[!!]  played  XY-Notrump,  so we could expect not to be leading around into responder's "un-showable [size=78%]  five-bagger [/size] :-X



Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 01, 2022, 01:54:03 AM
No changes from my initial thoughts. 

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
FREDERICKSBURG VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades
PROBLEM H: Heart 6
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on April 01, 2022, 02:13:01 AM
Jim,  with several followers  say than  problem G hand is bigly more than a "demand-bid"  in spades with 4 hearts on the side.   I disagree--morso every week i look at it.    Note that our partner's NON BUSTED bids are not restricted to 3-4 points,  though I guess her third bid --3NT -- will not have 8+..?   (i.e.  my 4S  need not end the auction.)  Yes, Jim  this IS my wild-card bet  for this month,  and I wish mysef  fair sailing from it,  also 8)
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: yleexotee on April 01, 2022, 02:48:28 AM
Just in time:

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs - I was tempted to try 4D also, but having already showed my 3 diamonds, this is better.
PROBLEM B: Pass - waiting for developments here - pard isn't going to let them play at 1h, and I can X 2h later if I need to beg partner to do something.
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump - This was very difficult for me. I wanted to pass, but that is just too passive with this hand and I thought the panel might kill that bid, X was good and maybe the best, but in the end I decided to try 1nt because somebody has said that any 4 cards is a stopper. The problem is, with no heart bid, I would be bidding 2nt! so I have no clue what this will score.
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts - I'm trusting that this is within system, and the 1nt then 3h bid isn't better.
PROBLEM E: Double - maybe putting too much pressure on Pard, but it seems right to say I have some points, and not much preference. (this will surely land me in 4 clubs!?)
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs - The bad pard about this is it is the second hint that I am not taking, but surely 3clubs is a better description than 2nt.
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades - I don't like to jump to these contracts, but just don't see how the bidding is going to proceed. P is guaranteeing probably the King of clubs, or perhaps Ace of diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade 3 - I'm leading through the second suit of the NT bidders partner. often the NT bidder is relying on that second bid major to be stopped by p, and its already not their best suit (most of the time).
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: drac on April 01, 2022, 06:11:15 AM
Wladislaus Dragwlya
Tin Street No. 1
Castrum Sex 545400
Romania

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Club 2
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: kenberg on April 01, 2022, 01:30:33 PM
I just got a note from Kit Woolsey congratulating me on my extraordinarily clear reasoning for my answers.

Today is April 1, right?
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on April 01, 2022, 02:55:15 PM
Quote from: kenberg on April 01, 2022, 01:30:33 PM
I just got a note from Kit Woolsey congratulating me on my extraordinarily clear reasoning for my answers.

Today is April 1, right?

OK, Ken. Whatever you say!  ;)
(https://i.ibb.co/3y2BDXp/it-doesnt-add-up-1466x733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HD6nWvt)
 (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 01, 2022, 03:26:12 PM
Last month, they were johnny-on-the-spot in getting out the results.  I think they are waiting until tomorrow or next Monday so the results are taken seriously.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 01, 2022, 06:14:52 PM
May Results

JCreech won this month with 760 and making the honor roll (so this is obviously an April Fool's joke).  Also hitting this month's honor roll were BabsG and VeredK tied at 730, and CCR3 close behind with 720.

NAMEBW-SCORERANKMPs
JCreech     760   1   30
VeredK     730   2   25
BabsG     730   2   25



Also participating this month were:  BluBayou, DrAcula (Drac), Duffer66, Hoki, KenBerg, Masse24, Peuco, YleeXotee.

Congratulations to all!
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: kenberg on April 01, 2022, 06:20:25 PM
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs             100
PROBLEM B: 1 Spade             10
PROBLEM C: Double             100
PROBLEM D: 3 Hearts             90       
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts             90
PROBLEM F: 3 Clubs               90
PROBLEM G: 6 Spades          100
PROBLEM H: Heart 6              100

                                             680

Except fpr B the panel did a good job of scoring this month.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 12, 2022, 12:17:05 AM
May MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, Director

Problem A  4 !C  (Masse24, VeredK, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, DrAculea, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A Q J 7 6   ♥ A 10   ♦ Q 4 2   ♣ K J 10

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

What call do you make?

It has been said that a good bridge problem has at least two very tempting answers.  If that is the case, then Problem A fails as a good problem.  There is simply too much concurrence in how to bid next; not enough temptation for any other solution.

4 ♣   100   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 81%   Bridge World Solver (BWS) 61%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 83%
Actually, the 4 !C bidders are of two minds and a single bid masks the subtle difference of whether you are probing for a slam and whether you are probing for the proper strain on the way to some slam.  Let's start with those sniffing but not committing to a slam yet.  Allan Graves says "Cheapest important slam-invitational value."  Joe Grue has planned his auction:  "If partner bids four diamonds, I will think he has pretty good diamonds.  If partner bids four notrump, I will pass."  Mark Feldman argues "Three notrump could be the last making contract, but there is a decent possibility of slam with partner having moderate extras."  BluBayou has similar thoughts:  "Imagine X, KQ, K8xxx, AQxxx facing our AQJxx, Ax, Qxx,  KJT.  3NT appears to be a claimer while even 5 of a minor needs a small bit of luck.  I don't know how to ask pard 'Does Q42 diamond support make you happy?'  but I gotta push one time in case he can  take over."  Billy Eisenberg thinks he has "Too much hand to give up despirte partner's minimum three notrump." 

For those who are more certain about reaching slam.  Mike Passell is "Going to slam.  Let's pick the best one."  Phillip Alder says "Up we go.  Six notrump seems the likely terminus at the moment."  Mark Laken thinks "The hand keeps getting better.  We are on our way to a slam.  A grand cold still be in the picture.  A six-key-card-ask would be helpful."  Kit Woolsey says "I will drive to slam.  The key is to find the best slam, whatever partner does.  This sequence should show roughly equal holdings in the minors, and he can choose the best strain."  KenBerg: "I am the one with undisclosed strength since I would have bid a GF 2 !H with a good deal less. Now, over 4 !C would partner bid 4 !H holding Kx? That would be nice. I am not so sure what I will do if partner bids 4 !D over my 4 !C. After 4 !C - 4 !D I could bid 4NT, I am more or less prepared to play 6 !D, or rather have partner play 6 !D, if he has two keycards. But I would feel better about it if I knew he had !H Kx."

Riding the fence, not clearly indicating whether they are committing to a slam or simply keeping the option open.  JCreech says "I expect partner to be at least 5-5 in the minors with a heart stop/partial stop.  If we have a slam, it is likely to be in one of the minors.  The move past 3NT should be slammish, so the question is which minor.  I've already shown a preference for diamonds, 4 !C should suggest that I do not have a clear choice."  Eric Kokish argues "As North is 1=2=5=5 or 0=3=5=5 (but with the latter, he would probably have bid three hearts, not three notrump) with a heart guard, the South hand has a ton of cover cards.  Four clubs caters to finishing in the right minor or notrump, and I can't imagine a different bid."  YleeXotee is a bit more succinct: "I was tempted to try 4D also, but having already showed my 3 diamonds, this is better."  Masse24: "I like the texture of my club 'support' more than the diamonds. So it’s time to tell partner. Obviously showing slam intentions."  Steve Beatty thinks "North has at least 11 cards in the minors and a heart stopper (probably the king).  This suggests that, in a minor-suit contract, we will have no major-suit losers and that our fillers for partner's suits will give him a good source of tricks.  We owe partner at least one more bid, and we need to introduce the club support, since clubs may be our best trump suit." 


4 NT   70   BWP 12%   BWS 16%  IAC 1 solver
A different route to an invitation involves agreeing to the NT strain.  Sartaj Hans admits the "Clubs is likely to be the best strain for a slam contract.  In the more-likely scenario of playing in a game, especially at this vulnerability, notrump affords more safety than either minor."  While Don Stack starts by indicating that he "Cannot pass with a fit in both minors.  Do I bid four notrump quantitative or four of a minor to gather more information? ... Since there is not apparent reason to play in a minor, the straightforward notrump raise is the choice."

5 NT   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1 solver  IAC No solvers
Jeff Rubens wants to be in slam, but wants partner's input in order to bid the grand:  "Partner has a heart royal and has limited his values, so we won't bid seven."




 


Problem B  Dbl  (Peuco)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q J 9 7   ♥ A 10 8   ♦ 10 7   ♣ A Q J 10

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

Unlike the previous problem, Problem B has several reasonable choices, all of which have flaws.  So pick your poison.

Pass   80   BWP 27%   BWS 27%  IAC 50%
Half of the IAC looked at the doubleton diamond, and said that as one of the unbid suits, the hand was too flawed for immediate action and passed.  As Augie Boehm points out, this approach is "Not modern.  Maybe not vulnerable and playing matchpoints, I'd try something, but which distortion would that be?"  Hoki tries "Pass and rely on any opportunity to balance later"  As does YleeXotee: "waiting for developments here - pard isn't going to let them play at 1h, and I can X 2h later if I need to beg partner to do something."  Phillip Alder believes it is "Probably not popular with the panelists, by self-explanatory."  JCreech "My choices are from the aggressive 1NT, to a poorly shaped double, or pass.  If I bid, I like 1NT best - it shows my stopper, I have cards that are working together along with great spots, and I have three tens.  Nonetheless, I tend to pass these hands and hope I can back in later."  Danny Kleinman says "Pass.  In the same tempo and with the same demeanor as I would with a yarborough.  No thought of a Woodrow Wilson Double.  Balanced Hands Defend - unless there's a compelling reason not to." (Note: President Woodrow Wilson, in 1918, presented Fourteen Points as part of a proposal to end World War I.)


Double   100   BWP 65%   BWS 42%  IAC 1 solver
The Panel largely said the points are right, I have four spades, this is close enough to a takeout double and found that 42% of the BW solvers were fellow travelers.  Joe Grue writes "My style is not to worry about a doubleton in an unbid minor for a takeout double.  One notrump isn't a bid for me with 14 HCP, pass is a possibility, but it is so uncommon these days."  Steve Beatty points out that "Years ago, it would have been safe to pass, but modern bidders are opening too light to risk not getting into the auction immediately, so I will double and hope that partner doesn't like diamonds too much."  Sartaj Hans will "Happily take on the risk of an unsuitable diamond partscore.  The rewards are juicier: playing in the right game, competing for the partscore, getting in and out of the auction early."  David Berkowitz:  "I've gone for a number before and will again, but in the long run more impas are lost by passing than by bidding."  Ross Grant thinks it "Important to ge in now.  Probably, partner will not bid two diamonds without at least five; if that is his choice, I will live with it."  JoAnna Stansby:  "If partner jumps in diamonds, I have enough strength to bid three notrump."  Sami Kehela sums up the choice well:  "Can't wait for the perfect hand." 

1 NT   60   BWP 8%   BWS 25%  IAC 25%
A fourth of the solvers (both BW and IAC) felt the hand a bit too misshapen for the double while close enough to a NT overcall; it is only shy a HCP with three tens and a stopper plus in hearts.  Masse24 takes a flyer:  "Pass probably most common. But it feels like too much to pass. The spots help, but just a little.  I checked the KnR. 14.55  This could get completely ignored by the panel."  Todd was wrong about being the KnR being completely ignored.  Steve Beatty brought it up while saying it was too weak for him to overcall 1 NT.  Nonetheless, at the beseeching of the moderator, Jeff Rubens provided a bit of an historical note:  "The R in 'KR' is a misnomer.  That hand-valuation scheme would be called '4C's,' which was developed in an attempt to recreate Edgar Kaplan's judgment mechanically, for the purpose of dealing practice hands by computer.  My part of the project was restricted to explaining the requirements and programming a machine to do the dealing."  As for the Panelists, only two took this path, which surprised the moderator.  Mark Feldman said "It's a close decision, but the tens and nine sway me.  If I held the heart nine instead of the ten, I wouldn't like it, but I would double."  Don Stack believes "This hand is probably the strongest one at the table, so we should enter the aution if there is a reasonable action.  Fourteen HCP with tens and nines is enough.  The ten of hearts could ensure a double stopper.  If doubled, I will proably run to two clubs."  Perhaps Pratap Rajadhyaksha describes the reluctance well:  "Yes, I see all the married nines and tens, and nonvulnerable I would overcall one notrump.  At imps, I don't like to take marginal actions that might result in minus 1400.  My teammates generally appreciate that."





 


Problem C  Dbl  (Duffer66, KenBerg, Hoki, Peuco, VeredK)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K J   ♥ 9 6 4 2   ♦ 9 8 6 5   ♣ K 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♣        1 ♥
   ?*
*BWS: 2 ♦ forcing to three clubs

What call do you make?

On this Problem, the choices are the same as Problem B, but the meaning has changed dramatically.

Pass   70   BWP 15%   BWS 19%  IAC 1 solver
A substantial minority did not like either a hefty NT or a negative double short a spade, and chose to pass in the hopes that they will be in a better position if the auction comes back to them.  Danny Kleinman is "Hoping for the matchpoint magic plus 200 against one heart passed out, while avoiding the small minus that is likely to result from trying to show 'eleven points.'  The Cobbler's Son's Law says, 'When no shoe fits, go barefoot.'"  KenBerg agrees "As with B, I have an option that might lead to playing spades in a 4-3 fir. With B, I can at least hope that partner, with his three spades, will be short in hearts and I can ruff hearts without weakening my four card spade holding. Here I have the three card spade holding and I am definitely not the one with short hearts. I don't like having pard ruff a heart in his hand. So I will wait. What happens next? We will see."  Kit Woolsey thinks "If partner passes it out, we figure to get a decent matchpoint result.  If he reopens with a double, I can bid two hearts, which would show something like this."  Jeff Rubens writes "Might work out badly if the opponents have diamond tricks, but the alternatives seem to have bad layouts that are more likely."  And Zia laments "It hurts me to do this, but I have been assured by a Scottish ex-partner that this is the right call.  If the panel thinks double is better, I would like to hear the reasons."

1 NT   80   BWP 15%   BWS 25%  IAC 50%
Half of the IAC went with 1 NT, opting to upgrade the 9xxx as a stopper, while downgrading the 11 HCP.  JCreech thinks through the problem like this:  "I don't particularly like how this auction is proceeding.  The hand is wrong for a Moysian in spades (partner, if holding four, will take the tap), I only have two clubs with partner, and partner opened clubs, so the likelihood of a 4-4 or better fit in diamonds is low.  I also don't like the prospect of converting a double at the one-level.  I will try 1NT and hope partner does not raise to game without a little something in the suit (besides, RHO could have stuck in a four-card overcall with very nice honors)."  Eric Kokish says "I'd rather not double missing a spade when I can live with an alternative.  It's not only that hearts may well block but that North's heart holding may be strong enough to make rightsiding irrelevant.  Two diamonds?  Well, thanks for the information, but no thanks."  Similar, but more succinct, Joe Grue says "I could double, but I try not to do that without four spades."  Masse24 fights the urge:  "AKJ looks a lot like four and the negative double was my first instinct. But I’ll take the over-strength 1NT with the questionable stopper."  Sartaj Hans feels that "Passing is out of the question at this form of scoring.  Showing four spades is a reasonable option.  I would rather bid two clubs, supporting partner, who will likely have club length, than bid two diamonds on four low."  While YleeXotee found "This was very difficult for me. I wanted to pass, but that is just too passive with this hand and I thought the panel might kill that bid, X was good and maybe the best, but in the end I decided to try 1nt because somebody has said that any 4 cards is a stopper. The problem is, with no heart bid, I would be bidding 2nt! so I have no clue what this will score."  JoAnna Stansby's conclusion is that it "Seems like the best description.  If the hearts were headed by the ten instead of the nine, I wouldn't give this a second thought.  Maybe I should be worried that I have too much strength, but I am not."

Double   100   BWP 69%   BWS 47%  IAC 42%
Nearly 70% of the Panel and better than 40% of the solvers chose the negative double.  The flaw here is that the hand only has three spades. Ross Grabel thinks the hand "Looks like 4=4=4=2 distribution for now.  Too strong to pass, which would only delay the problem.  Admittedly, the heart nine could turn out to be a stopper, but if this is a partscore deal, we should be fine."  Roy Welland:  "Least of all evils.  I hope partner won't bid spades."  BluBayou believes "There are plenty of tournament players that play.."1m, (1H), DOUBLE"  shows NOT-SPADES, rather some 8+ collection of mostly minor cards.  But our BWS partner is not of this religion.  And those that ARE are not too happy to have only 6 cards in the minors--especially these six. For sure, I am going to pretend AKJ  is a spade suit and..."  Carl Hudecek is "Showing my four-card spade suit."  Normally, I would agree that this three-card holding (AKJ) is worth an upgrade to a four-bagger, but when suggesting a Moysian fit as the the place to play, you also have to consider (a) which hand will be ruffing, (b) whether partner's hand is likely to be overruffed, and (c) whether partner might be interested in  a Moysian holding only three from the other side (hence setting up the partnership for a violation of Burn's law of having fewer trump than the defense).  Not understanding the principles of playing in a Moysian,  Don Stack says he "Cannot pass with 11 HCP, as there will be no good way to catch up after that.  Playing in a four-three spade fit would not be terrible."  While Allan Graves thinks "This is a good hand-type for spades."  Maybe, if the opponents had not bid hearts, telling you that the long hand is taking the tap.  Others are more realistic.  Phillip Alder writes "I hope the three-three fit plays all right."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha says "Looks like a four-card suit to me, and a three-three fit may play all right given the extra values.  ... Don't see any choice."  Actually, despite the Burns violation, the 3-3 may play reasonably - at least you are not ruffing with the long-trump hand.  David Berkowitz has a reasonable plan:  "Not quite enough spades to bid one spade, so I will settle for second-best.  I will reluctantly bid one notrump if partner continues with one spade."  Mark Laken considers this to be "The least-worst action.  Passing would only delay the problem."




This ends Part 1.  As always, I will continue as I find time.  Until then, chew on the June problems, and write down some pithy reasons why you think your bid is best.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 14, 2022, 01:32:53 AM
May MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Bart Bramley, Director
 


Problem D  2 !H  (DrAculea, BluBayou, JCreech, Hoki, VeredK)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

Problem D is a valuation question.  You have four pieces in your partner's opening major, 10 HCPs, but you also have a 3=4=3=3 shape.  Essentially, how  much do you upgrade for the fourth trump, and how much do you downgrade for the lack of a ruffing value.

3 ♥   90   BWP 38%   BWS 42%  IAC 58%
A large proportion (often enough to be the plurality winner) of the Panel voted to make the direct limit raise; essentially saying that the upgrade and downgrade cancel each other out.  A solid percentage of the BW solvers, as well as nearly 60% of the IAC solvers made this choice too.  Don Stack asks "Simple raise or jump-raise?  The queen-jack of clubs together boost the hand to the higher category."  According to Sartaj Hans, "The fourth trump is too precious an asset to withhold."  Masse24 "Feels like a 2 ¾ bid. Maybe steering the auction a bit with a forcing notrump then jump to 3 !H is a happy medium? But I’m afraid too few panelists would try that “in-between” bid."  JoAnna Stansby echos:  "Really two and three-quarters.  One notrump followed by three hearts might be better, bu there is an advantage to describing the hand in one bid in case fourth hand has something to say."  YleeXotee also thinks about the two-step approach:  "I'm trusting that this is within system, and the 1nt then 3h bid isn't better."  Kit Woolsey says "This hand looks t touch too strong for a simple raise."  KenBerg agrees:  "I realize it is 4 triple 3 but it's still a good holding."  Phillip Alder says "I am a big advocate of the Losing Trick Count, which advises bidding only two hearts, but ... If one notrump were forcing, I would make that response and rebid three hearts."



2 ♥   100   BWP 58%   BWS 47%  IAC 42%
However, nearly 60% of the Panel only made a simple raise; they were joined by more than 40% of the solvers.  If you are an adherent of KnR evaluation, the simple raise would be no surprise.  The calculated KnR is 7.9, which suggests to me that partner would need to make a help-suit game try in a minor or a short-suit try in spades to spark any game interest from this hand.  Eric Kokish points to "Lots of losers, as with most marginal 4=3=3=3's.  Not ashamed to reject a stronger raise."  JCreech: "I have four-card support and 10 HCPs, but I also have 3-4-3-3 shape.  I will go low to start based on shape and vulnerability, but will accept game tries."  Danny Kleinman:  "Flat shape and a cornucopia of quacks do not tempt me.  With three more tens, I'd have a problem."  Steve Beatty thinks "A constructive raise is enough with 9 losers and 10 HCP."  Roy Welland considers his bid "A rare underbid."  David Berkowitz say he "May be pushed to three, but not worrying about the opponents yet; too many losers to bid three hearts."  Jeff Rubens considers the hand to be "Too quacky to drive higher."  Zia thinks the hand "So close to three hearts that I will be happy to stand corrected.  I feel it's slightly random."  While a couple of writers are looking for different bids than offered in BWS:  BluBayou: "Single-raise [duhh]  Change this to Bergen 3 !C , if they forgot a 'hint'."  Joe Grue:  "I would make a mixed raise, but I can't find one in BWS."  The final word is given to Augie Boehm:  "Goren advised deducting a point for this distribution.  Goren has to be right sometimes."


1 NT   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
There was one Panelist and only a smattering of BW solvers that tried to find the middle ground, to show a poor limit raise.  The actual sequence is intended to show a 3-card limit raise, but many like to use the forcing NT as a way to send a warning message to partner to tread softly regardless of the responder's rebid, and there were Panelists and IAC solvers that toyed with the idea of making the delayed limit raise.  The one Panelist explicitly supporting the bid was Allan Graves:  "If partner passes, one notrump will be safer than three hearts.  I don't mind a single raise and then a redouble."


 


Problem E  Pass  (VeredK, JCreech, DrAculea)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

The opponents have preempted and furthered the preempt after partner made a takeout double.  You have 9 HCPs, 3-4 in the majors and 3-3 otherwise, so you have options.  One is to bid the anemic heart suit.  A second is to make a responsive double and hope that if partner bids spades, he has five.  You do have a diamond stopper, so you could ask yourself if you feel lucky enough to take nine tricks with a 3 NT bid.  Or you could decide that you do not have a clear enough direction to take, and pass; after all, partner has another chance to bid.

3 NT   10   BWP No Panelists   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Apparently, this is too rich for nearly everyone.  Only two percent of the BW solvers trotted out this bid, and I only included it above because there was a stop and nearly enough HCPs to jump.  Although the bid was only mentioned by one of the Panelists on the way to bidding something else, it was clear that 3NT was in the running for the final contract as several Panelists were concerned about the positional value of the diamond king.  For those making this unlikely choice, the scoring was appropriately dismal.

Double   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 16%  IAC 25%
I was a bit surprised that the responsive double was not a more popular.  Holding 3-4-3 in the unbid suits, you have support for any suit partner has five.  The problem comes when partner does not have five in any suit and perhaps made the double more on values than shape; now the partnership could be in a bad 4-3 or even an ambitious 3-3.  The good news is that if partner doubled with poor shape, he will lose the post-mortem.  YleeXotee "maybe putting too much pressure on Pard, but it seems right to say I have some points, and not much preference. (this will surely land me in 4 clubs!?)"  While Sami Kehela is certain about the call, though not the meaning:  "Cooperative-takeout, whatever that means."

3 ♥   90   BWP 42%   BWS 62%  IAC 50%
The solver's choice is to bid the four-card heart suit.  At least if it is a 4-3 fit, the short hand should be taking the tap, and maybe you will get lucky and find partner with four as well.  Roy Welland says "Not perfect, but in the ballpark."  Mark Laken thinks "While both double and three notrump are possible, this seems like the down-the-middle action."  BluBayou "views the problem as a "Sort of [!!] deja-vue  from a couple recent months, where defending (doubled or not) got votes along with 3H, 4H, & 3NT.   THIS time, I expect the game bids will be off the table.  And if I end up defending, it will be for the big money"  Masse24 is "Tempted to double instead."  Similarly, Phillip Alder says "My immediate reaction was to doublel but  by bidding, assuming that I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."  Carl Hudecek says "I prefer bidding my suit and rightsiding our  likely heart contract."  Phillip Alder agrees:  "My immediate reaction was to double but by bidding assuming I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."  Zia also makes rightsiding point:  "Positional over(mis) bid."  KenBerg: "An optimistic call.  So sue me!"


Pass   100   BWP 54%   BWS 19%  IAC 25%
The Panel's choice was to pass.  When the choices are this ugly, sometimes the best course to take steer clear of choices.  The hand really is not good for offense, and may be nice for the defense.  Furthermore, the KnR indicates that the hand is less than a sum of its parts (7.3).  JCreech feels it is "An unsavory choice between showing my four-card heart suit or my stopper.  My stopper is well-placed for a diamond lead, but not if RHO has an entry to lead through my holding.  The 3-4-3-3 shape says defense, the shape, the jacks and the placement of the !D K all suggest downgrades for the hand, so I go for the third option and go quietly for now.  I don't know if we have a plus position on this hand, but I do fear the 200 that might go against me if I chime in now."  Mike Passell "Can't see getting involved with this defensive hand."  JoAnna Stansby thinks "Partner will double again if it's our deal for three hearts."  Ross Grabel:  "I don't care for one-suit responsive doubles, and I don't care for a freely bid three hearts on at best marginal values."  Pratap Rajadhyaska say "This time we have a 10-loser hand.  Bidding would be a Law violation, assuming 17 total trumps, which is not guaranteed.  Pard will act again when he has more than a minimum; if not, I am okay with defending."  Steve Beatty:  "Both the shape and the diamond king suggest defending.  This is why I never win at matchpoints."






 


Problem F  2 NT  (CCR3, Duffer66, JCreech, Hoki)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♦         Pass
  1 ♠       Pass      2 ♠         Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: 2 NT invitational

What call do you make?

This problem starts with an argument about how the auction should have been the round before.  Some think the first response should have been 2 !C.  Arthur Robinson asks "Why didn't I respond two clubs?  Is one spade modern bidding?" Kit Woolsey is trying to "... reach the right strain intelligently.  Maybe this is an indicator that we should have responded two clubs."  Sami Kehela:  "I should have bid two clubs.  Not BWS?  Too bad."  This might have been the better problem, asking how you approach this hand one round earlier.  Two clubs seems a bit of a stretch with dubious values in the stiff diamond king and doubleton jack of hearts.  Others are suggesting a weak jump shift.  Danny Kleinman says "To avoid nasty problems like this, I respond three clubs with such holdings.  Any attempt to extricate myself now is apt to sink me deeper into th miry clay ... or is it the Big Muddy?"  David Berkowitz thinks it "Might have been better to start with three clubs ..."  Of course, the problem with the WJS is the probable loss of the spade suit.  But enough with the coulda/shoulda's, and on with the problem, presented as is.

3 ♣   90   BWP 31%   BWS 51%  IAC 58%
The 3 !C bidders are trying to get to the right strain.  It may be that they are afraid of the Moysian, with the long hand being a 10-high suit, or that they fear having suppressed such a long-strong suit as AK-sixth.  YleeXotee laments, "The bad pard about this is it is the second hint that I am not taking, but surely 3clubs is a better description than 2nt."  Carl Hudecek thinks "A suit this good should be bid at some point."  Billy Eisenberg feels this "A good hand if pard has four good spades."  I can almost hear Jock saying at this point, "Aye, there's the rub.  Does partner have four GOOD spades."  Masse24 is bidding clubs partly for that reason. "IMPs. Vul. I’m giving full value to the !D K. Partner could be rebidding on three card support."  As is Kit Woolsey: "Usually, one is rooting to be raised.  Here, I hated to hear a raise, which suggests having made the wrong bid."  Augie Boehm thinks "If pard raised on three, we might back into a terrific three notrump.  Of course, I may be trading a plus score for a minus, but the conditions are tempting."  More optimistically, Mark Laken asks (and channeling Al Roth) "What's the problem?  Follow-ups may be harder.  Pard should be the declarer at notrump."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha is most pragmatic:  "BWS does not use two notrump as a relay here, so I will make a natural game-try and hope for the best.  It's tempting to blast four spades with this seven-loser hand, but weak trumps and the wrong doubleton suggest caution.  Also, pard might be able to bid three notrump with ♠ Jxxx   ♥ AQx   ♦ Axxx   ♣ Qx, or a similar holding, which would be delightful."


2 NT   100   BWP 50%   BWS 16%  IAC 33%
Half of the Panel went with 2 NT, as did a third of IAC (the BW solvers were the laggards here, having nearly gone all-in with 3 !C).  Zia describes the situation well:  "More or less about the fourth spade.  With three, partner is likely to have shorter clubs than hearts.  If he bids three spade, I will raise.  If he bids three no trump, I may slip it past the defenders."  JCreech "... will take the hint.  With partner opening diamonds, I have hopes that the !D K is pulling its full weight, and the clubs are a source of tricks."  Hoki also "will take the hint for a change (the hand is nowhere near strong enough to force to game with 2C initially)"  Roy Welland says "Maybe partner will raise and I can chance a pass."  Mike Passell will "Try for game."  Joe Grue says "Let's see what's happening."  JoAnna Stansby thinks the hand has "Too much strength to pass.  Three clubs would leave poor choices if opener continued with three diamonds."  Jeff Rubens considers the bid to be "The safest invitational action.  With weak spades and a possible misfit, pass is a sensible alternative."  Mark Feldman also thinks "Passing could be the winning action, but it seems a bit too conservative.  The hand is more skewed than opener will expect, but not dramatically so; partner will be aware that I hold four spades, at most three hearts, and invitational values."


3 NT   70   BWP 12%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
The moderator, Bart Bramley, makes a nice case for jumping to 3 NT.  "If partner passes three notrump, he will usually be 4=3=3=3 or only have three spades.  One flaw is that partner's three-trump raises will probably have one or two low clubs, else he would have rebid one notrump.  However, the defense seeing those clubs in dummy, may err by setting up the suit for declarer.  If partner bids four spades, he will have four.  I like the blast better than two notrump, since ... this may be a 'game or bust' deal."  Phillip Alder says "I would hate to bid two notrump and be left there.  If this is passed out, I will feel optimistic.  If partner removes to four spade, maybe it will make.  We are vulnerable at imps."  Allan Graves asks "Why not?  The defenders will be in the dark in the early going, and game will often have some play.  Partner might pass with 4=3=3=3.  Two spades may be the last plus, so why not bid game now?  Slow auctions to four spades may end in four spades doubled."

Pass   50   BWP 8%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
Other than the spade fit, which may or may not include reasonable strength in the trump suit, the hand feels like a misfit, so I can understand the desire to quit low, even with invitational HCP.  Ross Grabel "Just guessing, but I see no intelligent way to get partner involved."



This ends Part 2, and the final part will come as I have time.  Don't forget to check out the June MSC, look over the problems and submit your own entry.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: blubayou on April 15, 2022, 12:23:34 PM
On problem E, Sammi Kehela doubles as I did even though citing it as "co-operative takeout whatever the hell THAT means".  Other people considering doubling and declining to.. call the X "responsive."  No wonder it got only one panel vote if that is true, considering the glaring wrongsiding issue among others.  Me, I expect partner to take a lead more often than not and we collect 200 / 500.   Where is this source for  Co-operative Takeout,  or is this just an expert-standard default about which I never got the memo ?
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 15, 2022, 02:19:17 PM
Jock,

I called it responsive because the structure meets the definition - one grape - dbl - 2 grapes - double is responsive.  The difference is that everything is one level higher.  I think the double is still responsive, but due to the higher level of bidding, starts to become more cooperative.  By cooperative, I mean I have some points, you have some points, let's see how many they will go down (and cross my fingers that they do). 

With this hand, I expect partner to have a five-card suit when the opponents have preempted and raised, while I hold three in the suit.  Otherwise, there is definitely a pair of four-card majors and now I wish I had bid my four-bagger.  With no five-card suit, I expect partner to pass unless HCP challenged, and have a reasonable shot of defeating 3 !D.

Sami calling it takeout-cooperative is essentially saying the same thing.  A responsive double is a specialized form of takeout double.  He may not have used the "correct" term, but he intended the double to show no clear choice among the takeout suits, just as Joe did in the problem, and I discussed above.
Title: Re: 2022 MAY MSC
Post by: jcreech on April 15, 2022, 04:04:15 PM
May MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Bart Bramley, Director

Problem G  6 !S  (YleeXotee, Peuco, VeredK, CCR3, JCreech, KenBerg, BabsG)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K Q J 9 2   ♥ A K J 3   ♦ K   ♣ A 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  2 ♣      Pass      2 ♦         Pass
  2 ♠      Pass      2 NT*      Pass
  3 ♥      Pass      3 NT       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: denies double-negative

What call do you make?

The big question is how good is not bad.  Partner has denied a double negative with 2 NT, but then suggests a minimum with 3 NT.  So where do we belong with this monster?  It is a question of both level and strain.  Is there a method that will sort all of this out when our next bid will be at the four-level or higher?  Given that the Panel supplied eight answers, and three of those answers were co-leaders with only five votes, I would say everyone is groping.

For lack of a better plan, let's just start with the cheapest choice and work our way up to the most expensive choice.

4 ♣   80   BWP 19%   BWS 28%  IAC 17%
Starting with 4 !C, we should begin with "What does the bid mean?"  The Panel clearly regards the bid as having some natural context, while IAC solvers are less clear.  The bid does come up immediately following a NT, so I can see some viewing it as Gerber.  I will leave that discussion to partnerships.  Pratap Rajadhyaksha is "Temporarily pretending to be 5=4=1=3 with a very bid hand.  I must show more than a minimum two-club bid.  If pard shows no sign of life, I'll sign off in four spades; else, I'll jump to five spades."  It sounds like a more complete version of the IAC plans, but that is with the benefit of the doubt:  Hoki bids "4C to torture partner and probably 6S next time"  And Masse24 thinks "A jump to 6 !S is probably in my future. But there is no hurry."  Mark Laken:  "Let's try to learn a little more before deciding which slam to bid."  Ross Grabel says "I don't want to make a bid that partner can pass (such as four notrump), and anything else would be misdirected.  If partner bids four diamonds, I will bid six spades and trust North to value the heart queen appropriately.  If North bids four spades, I will raise to five, a general slam-try indicating a diamond control of my own."  Allan Graves' plan is "Then five spades over four diamonds, which is surely forcing and looking for seven.  Five notrump over anything but four diamonds, then follow with six spades offering a choice of spades or notrump."  This bid was one of the three co-leaders in the poll.

4 ♦   90   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
JoAnna Stansby is making an "Anti-lead-control-bid on the way to six spades."  However, the moderator wonders "... but is that the lead you want to stop?  If partner has, say, the three side-suit queens, clubs will be the lead you want to stop."

4 ♠   60   BWP 8%   BWS 16%  IAC 25%
Panelists making 4 !S their choice, clearly did not see the bid as necessarily the end of the auction.  As BluBayou points out:  "Bad news folks:  BWS  does NOT seem to clarify what it takes to be better than a double-negative :'(   Is it "one king"...is it "two queens"? ... Note that our partner's NON BUSTED bids are not restricted to 3-4 points,  though I guess her third bid --3NT -- will not have 8+..?   (i.e.  my 4S  need not end the auction.)  ... this IS my wild-card bet  for this month"  Eric Kokish agrees:  "Three-notrump is a regressive move, as North could have bid four notrump over three hearts with more. ... So, despite the great promise of the South hand, there is no 100-percent security in four notrump.  A wholesale control response might have been very useful here.  As it is, I can bid four spades and expect North to bid again with any two of the heart queen, club king, and diamond ace."  Phillip Alder:  "My immediate reaction was to invite slam more strongly ... If he holds:  ♠ x   ♥ xxx   ♦ Jxxx   ♣ KJxxx, I will probably be glad that I did not bid four notrump."  The moderator points out that "Sure, partner could have a misfitting sub-minimum for his previous actions, and three notrump did limit his hand, but surely bidding four spades is far too pessimistic.  At the same time, expecting partner to bid again with the right hand is far too optimistic.  Four spades is corrective, not invitational."

4 NT   80   BWP 19%   BWS 17%  IAC No solvers
Is a quantitative raise the right way to invite?  Enough Panelists thought it the right action to be the second of the poll co-leaders.  Augie Boehm says you "Need decent scraps in the minors or the heart queen for slam.  Meanwhile, play the matchpoint angle."  Kit Woolsey thinks "Too strong a holding to quit.  Either spades or notrump might be the better matchpoint strain, for four notrump is okay."  Jeff Rubens agrees:  "Willing to stop here opposite a minimum.  Spades might be better, especially at the slam level, opposite some (but relatively few) North hands."  Robert Wolff simply says "Let partner take the blame."  One question:  How will partner know that a singleton trump is sufficient support for spades?

5 ♠   80   BWP 12%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The other invitational bid is 5 !S.  Sartaj Hans is more descriptive:  "Given the absence of a quantitative four-notrump bid on the previous round, partner cannot have a lot.  However, a couple of well-located cards are all that is needed for slam, so we must make some sort of effort."  Less verbose is Billy Eisenberg:  "This is a difficult hand to evaluate." 

5 NT   90   BWP 8%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Offering a choice of slams were a few Panelists.  Though how they expected North to understand what would be needed to support spades was unclear unless the slam choice was for a minor suit.  Joe Grue says "I will give North a choice between six spaders and six notrump.  This is super-arhaic; to bid like this, I should be from Texas, or Canada, or somewhere."  Steve Beatty laments:  "I don't see any way to invesitgate slam scientifically.  Since I will ultimately bid six spades or six notrump, I will start with five notrump and correct partner's minor-suit bid to six spades, to let him decide between spades and notrump."

6 ♠   100   BWP 19%   BWS 19%  IAC 58%
The last co-leader in the poll is the leap to 6 !S.  JCreech asks "Is there a sensible way to explore a grand?  I am afraid of any bid below slam, as being something that partner can pass.  Jam and pray seems the best avenue." Similarly, YleeXotee says "I don't like to jump to these contracts, but just don't see how the bidding is going to proceed. P is guaranteeing probably the King of clubs, or perhaps Ace of diamonds"  Danny Kleinman thinks "Three queens opposite will make six spades a big favorite; and, with some North hands, an uninformed opening lead may yield an overtrick, provided that I don't help the defenders with scientific slam-tries along the way."  KenBerg: "I have shown a strong hand, although it is stronger then I have shown. I have also bid spades and then hearts. Still pard is willing to play 3NT. It seems pard has some values in the minors and not just because 2NT denied a double negative. I think having some trump available for control could be useful here."  David Berkowitz:  "Practical value bidding.  Bid what I think I can make.  Reject five notrump followed by six spades, because I really don't want partner to correct to six notrump."  Mike Passell:  "Bid what I hope I can make."  Roy Welland:  "Little bit of a gamble.  Seven seems unlikely, with partner willing to stop in three notrump, and spades might have some hands where notrump would fail."  Sami Kehela:  "Cut the cackle and get to the play." 

6 NT   90   BWP 12%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
Taking additional inferences from the auction, some choose to go for the matchpoint edge of NT over a major.  Carl Hudecek believes "Partner is biding like a person with the diamond queen and club king.  He shouldn't bid this way with an ace."  Don Stack says "There is no reasonable way to reach seven notrump, so I'm bidding what I think we can make.  I'm not going to worry about making six spades when partner is two-two in the majors."  The moderator, Bart Bramley, writes:  "I'm with them, though I quibble about the details.  Why can't partner have bid as he did with the diamond ace?  And with two-two in the majors, North might have bid three spades last round.  But I agree that notrump will often be as good as or better than spades.  The lead could be critical against either contract.  Playing in notrump could induce a major-suit lead, which (I think) I want.  The field rates to be in slam, so going for the extra 10 points in notrump is a worthwhile gamble."

 




Problem H  !H 6  (BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Duffer66, CCR3, Peuco)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♦       Pass       1 ♥
  Pass      1 ♠      Pass      2 NT
  Pass      3 NT      (All Pass)
What is your opening lead?

The moderator described the collection of answers in an interesting fashion.  "Another two-way vote.  Sort of. On one side, a majority of 15 picked the heart six.  On the other side, the other 11 panelists picked 'not the heart six' and split their votes among seven of the remaining twelve cards."

♥ 6   100   BWP 58%   BWS 17%  IAC 50%
According to the moderator, "The heart leaders see the potential to set up two or three heart tricks with a relatively small chance of blowing a trick."  Ross Grabel says "Dummy may be one=three in hearts and clubs but won't be three=one, so a heart lead from a holding with such good spots needs to find little with partner to be successful."  Sartaj Hans thinks it "Requires little from partner.  Even if we strike three low hearts in his hand, bare ace-king of hearts in dummy or an honor-jack holding might save us."  Eric Kokish:  "Declarer's initial-response suit is often the weak spot on this auction.  Should I lead the queen to deal with stiff jack opposite ace-king-fourth?  Like the punk in Dirty Harry, I am not feeling (that) lucky today."  The only comment from the IAC just pulled out that tired old phrase:  "Quoting Todd:  'Have I said how much I hate lead problems?'" (JCreech).

♥ 10   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 9%  IAC 1 solver
Billy Eisenberg selected a different heart:  "I hate everything else."  Why the 10?  The moderator obliges:  "The ten is best when partner holds king-eight-seven-low, or when partner has king-eight-low and dummy has seven-low.  Against that, the ten loses when dummy has the jack and declarer has the eight-seven, and on many combinations where partner has the ace or king and declarer has the other relevant cards."

♣ K   80   BWP 12%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Steve Beatty:  "... I am leading the club king and hoping that partner has enough in the suit, along with an outside card, to beat the contract."  Mark Feldman guesses "Partner could hold anywhere from ont to five clubs."  As a second choice, Danny Kleinman would lead the king of clubs, not the deuce, so that partner can share the burden of guarding the suit if he has the jack."

♣ Q   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Mike Passell:  "Assuming the king is the power lead."

♣ 2   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 29%  IAC 25%
Roughly a fourth of solvers chose to lead low from the unbid suit, but only one Panelist.  The Panelist's response was not reported, and none of the solvers provided insight as well.

♠ Q   70   BWP 8%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Carl Hudecek:  "In real life, these exotic leads seldom work for me.  But since I don't have that much life left, I'll try again."  Jeff Rubens:  "Least unattractive."

♠ 3   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 8%  IAC 17%
YleeXotee: "I'm leading through the second suit of the NT bidders partner. often the NT bidder is relying on that second bid major to be stopped by p, and its already not their best suit (most of the time)."  Masse24: "This is a lead problem, yes? If so, I hate it."

♦ 10   60   BWP 8%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Mark Laken:  "Going passive."  Kit Woolsey:  "Passivity seems to be indicated, with the hearts and clubs behind declarer's holdings in those suits.  Any other lead is very likely to blow a trick."

Admittedly, I gave up on trying to justify the "not the !H 6" responses.  If those that chose the lead discussed their reasons, I generally accepted the reasoning unless the moderator had something pithy to add.



Meanwhile, this concludes this month's MSC summary.  I hope you found something interesting, or at least entertaining in this summary.  Please join next month's contest (and when you do, tell us why you chose what you chose - you may find yourself quoted in the next summary).