IAC Forums

Chew the Fat! => IAC & Master Solvers Club => Topic started by: Masse24 on May 03, 2022, 01:23:54 PM

Title: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on May 03, 2022, 01:23:54 PM

JULY 2022 MSC

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

Submit your JULY 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 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on May 09, 2022, 10:09:26 PM

I found a way to get a grip on PROBLEM A! ...when I realized that this hand, --, Kxx, AKQxx, AKQxx is at least an ace more than partner expects, yet he made the move toward game. That means that he has enough stuff to have made a neg double or a free 1NT on his first turn yet did not have either of those bids. He has a skewed hand with perhaps 10 points or close ( the opps having only 9 o 10, including mostly HEART honors!) Something like AKJxx, xx, J, Jxxxx. Convinced we have 30+ points and 9 or more clubs, we can and pobably should wrap this up with a jump to 6 clubs.
I daydreamed for a couple hours that 3 spades might be a (non-jump) Bluhmer (xxxx, AQJ, Jxx, Jxx ) giving the opps their entire spade suit and absolutely no more high cards. But [1] I think bloomers are supposed to be jumps and [2] club slam works out fine if that wierd thing is happening, except we have just missed the cold grand.

PROBLEM B: 3NT-- down one when pard has 3 aces + nothing instantly useable. Will think about doing better in spades later this month.

PROBLEM C: 3NT -- #B, this #C and 3 of 5 later problems are totally insane. 3H 3NT and raise clubs all come to mind -- and look out!: the false preference to 3 diamonds will prolly get the 100!

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: wackojack on May 10, 2022, 04:25:27 PM

Problem A
If "Exclusion" is allowed then 5 !S is the obvious bid. So partner has !S xxxx !H Axx !D xx !C 10xxx shows 1 non excluded Ace and 7 !C a near laydown.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on May 10, 2022, 09:21:58 PM

He didn't bid 3 spades with that, and if you throw in 3-5 random points, then he bid 1NT on his first turn. Still, 5S exclusion is an excellent idea, W.J.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on May 17, 2022, 04:57:28 PM

PROBLEM D:>> Last week I jumped into a random 'zoo' table, and saw my new partner berating his now-absent partner thus: "New colour after interference is 10 HCP, please!"
With that guy, this 12-count opener is a slam-try, I guess; with the rest of us what's the problem with raising to 4 Spades?? KTxx, xxxx, ---, AKQxx

PROBLEM E:>> Axx, KQTxxx, !0xx, x FEELS to me like a delayed invitational jump in spades...BUT in BWS2017 the forcing 1NT response CAN BE PASSED . I don't want to be dropped in !NT with this, even in IMPS, so plan B (2/1 in hearts) or plan C (the hint ie: passable 3 hearts) is better. on may 17, i lean towards the game force --- Two Hearts ---

PROBLEM F:>> there are no HCPs available for west NOT to have three big ones. Today, that means i might as well chirp "4 !C ", in case this a goulash deal. The five level I have no clue about however--but for once i hope my preempting partner can take a view in our favor after the spade game i think is inevitable ::)

PROBLEM G:>> Last winter, we had 2 contenious problems, in sequential months ..about the "1nt, 2C; 2??, 3 minor" sequence, and in my opinion we learned bupkas about this bidding! Except that opener's continuation of three of a suit was OVERLOADED with missions to perform. Here's the list:
---1: Does the opener's 3-level suit bid imply liking for partner's minor ( NEVER ADDRESSED EITHER MONTH)
---2: Does such a suit bid imply weakness in any suit bypassed, and does that include DIAMONDS, when the rebid is "3C"?
---3: Whether it does or doesn't, then am I cue bidding for slam, or showing "stuffings" for 3NT?

THIS month, -- holding KJ9x, Axx, X, KJ432, our raise to 4S is totally clear, -- but we have not added a jot to understanding this important area of bidding...
---Four Spades ---

PROBLEM H:> [ Esthetically, this footnote pleases me: "1X, 1Y, 1Z; 2NT**" . 2NT is forcing.
HOWEVER, it makes this lead problem close to trivial. Declarer promised us he he is balanced (or he would have bid 2C first if long there--or used XYZ or 4SF at the second turn). Our two queen-fourths must be defensive gold, and passive defense has to be the winner. I have an inordinate fondness for JTx at times like this, so have no problem ruling out punting in what may their only 5-3 fit (diamonds) . No way i will start either of responder's suits.
--- Spade Jack ---

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: hoki on May 25, 2022, 10:25:01 AM

A 4♠, otherwise Jock's 6♣ is fine.

B 3NT, I'll take down one since there's no guarantee that 4♠ or 5♦ will make either.

C 3NT, but could easily live with Jock's false preference of 3♦.

D 6♠, lacking the science to explore for a grand slam.

E 1NT and if that's not forcing I quit.

F 3NT, on such a distributional hand there's no guarantee we can defeat 4♠ so we need to come up
with something to put West off track - either this or 5♣.

G 4NT, hopefully keycard but BWS might well have something less obvious in mind.

H ♣3, being a simple soul.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: yleexotee on May 26, 2022, 03:40:01 AM

I think I'm heading for an all time low score on this set. Here are my choices so far:

A: 4C - because whenever I don't take a 4m, I get punished by MSC. The problem with this bid is I would play it as forcing but others might not. if its not in BWS as forcing then I have to find the 4S Hoki mentioned. could not be less sure of this bid.
B: 5D - blast to 5D. I don't think the hand is good enough for slam exploration.
C: 3S - showing my spade stops, but not wanting to take 3nt from the strong hand. I don't think having Qxx its going to matter whether the lead in NT goes up to me, or through me. if p doesn't have half a stop we are in trouble either way.
D: 4S - But this seems weak and I'm considering a blast to 6S. Pard has no hearts, and I have no clubs, with no losers in diamonds. How bad can pards spades be!? I think I've talked myself in to 6S
E: 1nt - but shouldn't we always take the hint? I think I'm showing a limit raise in spades. support with support.
F: Pass - hate this one too. always seem to get punished for my passes, but with strong bid to my left and pard is bidding weak. this just sounds like trouble to get involved in some way. Isn't strong opener basically holding all the same cards I am?
G: 4D - but his might not be necessary, maybe its straight to 4nt for a club slam.
H: JS - I really preach leading through the major of responder on this kind of set up. It's their second suit and NT bidder is relying on that spade stop. lets knock it out as soon as possible.

Almost all of these could change. I'm really unsure of many of them.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on May 26, 2022, 12:26:20 PM

My initial thoughts:

Problem A: 4 !C This should still be forcing after my jump shift and that I have gone past 3 NT. But there is still the question of partner's cue-bid; is it asking for a stop, indictive of a trap pass, or showing support for my second suit? Thinking about 4 !S and 6 !C as alternatives.

Problem B: 4 !S Partner almost certainly has four spades for the double, though I am sorely tempted by Hamman. For 3NT, I will need the !D A, and something good in both black suits, for 5 !D, I will need something good in the spade suit and one or both round aces (!H & !C), but for 4 !S, I may just need good spades.

Problem C: 3 !S Marking time and showing my stop. If one stop isn't enough, partner will know and we will end up in either hearts or clubs.

Problem D: 6 !S I don't like the other options. 4 !S is too weak, 5 !S asks about a heart control, 5 !C is probably natural as is 5 !D, and 5 NT would be a choice of slams. Of the other options, I like 5 NT best, but I think a 4-4 will play better than a 5-3, though I am hoping for a 9-card fit.

Problem E: 1 NT The heart suit is nice, but I would rather establish support by showing a 3-card limit raise. If I take the hint, the auction may end there with a 6-1 sort of fit, but if I start the sequence for the limit raise, partner may surprise me with a 2 !H rebid.

Problem F: Pass Do I really want to enter an auction at the four-level when partner has advertised weakness and extra length in one of my singletons and RHO has done the same in the other singleton? I think it is time to steer clear of the potential misfit.

Problem G: 6 !C For now, the blast. I'm struggling to find a more scientific auction, though I also worry that partner's bid shows problems in both red suits.

Problem H: J !S For similar reasons as YleeXotee. Leading through dummy's second suit.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: peuco on May 26, 2022, 05:58:26 PM

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Frank

PROBLEM A: 6 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 6 Spades
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 6 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on May 27, 2022, 05:30:35 AM

Quote from: jcreech on May 26, 2022, 12:26:20 PM

Problem A: 4 !C This should still be forcing after my jump shift and that I have gone past 3 NT. But there is still the question of partner's cue-bid; is it asking for a stop, indictive of a trap pass, or showing support for my second suit? Thinking about 4 !S and 6 !C as alternatives.

Glad to see someone else posit that partner's 3 !S may very well be natural. Picture seven spades headed by an honor or two. And little else. What to do?
I disagree that 4 !C is forcing. Not opposite a partner who did not respond. Almost forcing, yes.
This one is hard! Anything could be right, including Pass, 3NT, 4 !S, 4 !C, 5 !C, 6 !C

I hate to blow past 3NT because I am not completely sure what partner is up to.
I lean toward either 4 !C to continue the picture of my hand, or 3NT since it is my last chance to do so.
Tough one!

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on May 27, 2022, 11:47:41 PM

PROBLEM F, revisited:>> The cards I do not see are: AKQJ, QJ, AKQJ, Q. Twenty-five or the lousiest, considering the big guy can hardly be long in either of those AKQJ suits. Gie both of those queen-jacks to our partners who bid them and that leave him a 19-point notrumper, ok? If their hands are like:
QJxxxxx, xx, xx, xx facing AK, QJTx, AKxx, Qxx , then our four top tricks cash. and there are lots of similar layouts where their 4 spades won't make.
I now judge that spade game won't make and that trying to contest their +140 will be LUCKY to cost only 100 if I buy it at 4 clubs.
may 27th: pass

more reactions to some very juicy points of view from you commenters tomorrow! curiouser and curiouser, as Alice used to say

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on May 28, 2022, 03:02:23 PM

JULY guesses:

PROBLEM A: 4 Spades

If partner had spades stopped, he would likely just bid 3NT rather than 3 !S, yes? Maybe rebidding 4 clubs is best?

PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump

Hi, Bob!

PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump

Hearts are too poor to rebid. I could see lots of other bids, including 3 !S, 4 !C, and 5 !C. But this is Matchpoints, so hopefully we can bring home 9 before they cash 5 quick major suit tricks.

PROBLEM D: 5 Hearts

All the other possible bids are either too weak, too strong, or will not tell me what I need to know. This certainly shows spade support, but allows partner to go low with 5 !S with no top honors—higher with.

PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts

When I first looked at this I thought, “This is closer to 2 !H than 3 !H,” so I gave it a closer look.
3 !H is one dimensional and, if passed, may bury the spade fit. The choice is between 1NT (intending to later show a 3-card limit raise) and a GF 2 !H. Curious, I popped this into the KnR and it spat out 12.2. And this is without being able to tell it that partner opened 1 !S, which must be worth something. The primary feature of this hand is the hearts, so I bid them. A slight overbid, but better to bid strong early than try to catch up later.

PROBLEM F: Pass

Misfit, get out quick.

PROBLEM G: 4 Spades

Partner is in the dark as to my strength, which is borderline for slam exploration with a club fit. I assume partner was suggesting we play in a Moysian, so I accept. If he corrects to 5 !C, I’ll bid 6.

PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

Could also see Club 3. I still hate lead problems.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on May 28, 2022, 08:47:45 PM

Quote from: blubayou on May 27, 2022, 11:47:41 PM

more reactions to some very juicy points of view from you commenters tomorrow! curiouser and curiouser, as Alice used to say

Call me a doubting a Thomas, but then Todd chirped in with his initial thoughts. And some fit the criteria of being "juicy points of view" from a "commenter." Well predicted Jock.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: bAbsG on May 30, 2022, 02:24:07 PM

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

SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht

Your Solutions for the July 2022 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 5 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 5 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: ccr3 on May 30, 2022, 03:21:54 PM

PROBLEM A: 4 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 5 Hearts
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: kenberg on May 30, 2022, 03:29:17 PM

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: yleexotee on May 31, 2022, 12:39:13 AM

PROBLEM A: 4 Spades
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 6 Spades
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

This month is a total crap shoot for me.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: kenberg on May 31, 2022, 01:26:52 PM

A: 3NT. I have said I have a big hand with the minors, and now I am saying that I have a heart stopper. If we belong in 6m pard can say so.

B: 3S. I dunno, it seems reasonable.

C: 4C. I guess pard might next bid 4H and I guess I would pass that. I suppose I can maybe make 3NT if partner has the stiff Jack of spades but I'm going with 4C.

D: 4S. A typical LOTT problem. We have at least 9 spades, maybe more, they probably have 10 hearts, maybe 11, maybe 9, it appears that the total number of trump is probably 19, so LOTT says that if we can hold 4H to 7 tricks then we should be able to make 6S but maybe we can and maybe we can't. 4S is a nice simple choice.

E. 2H I suppose it's slightly aggressive but bidding a passable 3H when holding three spades just does not seem right.

F. 4C. I have a 15 count with two good suits and everyone else wants to bid. What's going on? Beats me, but I like my clubs. If X would show clubs and hearts, and maybe it does, I would do that.

G.4C Ah yes, it would be nice to have agreements. 3C is natural and GF, S seems to agree, I suppose 3S is the spade A and a good club fit but maybe it's just shapely with three good spades. And my 4C? Maybe it's minorwood. Or maybe not. I would prefer not. After my 3C I think 3D by pard would show Ds, maybe a 3=3=5=2 shape or maybe even sid diamonds. So if 3D over 3C would not be a cue showing a club fit, then my 4C gives him a chance to cue now with 4D. But the truth is that I have no idea what is going on and so maybe I should just bid 6C.

H. The Club 3. I have a 5 count, I guess pard has something somewhere. If get has the A or the K or the J of clubs this might work out ok. I am not leading a red card, and it seems at leat possible that dummy's fourth spade will eventually be a trick, so a club seems right. But who knows? The Shadows knows, but I am not the Shadow. (The Shadow was a fun radio program from the 40s and 50s, in case you youngsters don't get the reference.)

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on May 31, 2022, 04:44:10 PM

Jock McQuade 3 Bag End Hobbiton OR 97030 U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the July 2022 Contest -------------------
PROBLEM A: 6 Clubs - -- but you are frightening me, with the idea that pard's 4s may be To Play!
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 3 Notrump --- 5 !C shows more than 4 trumps, I don't believe pard is coming with AQx in !H
PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM F: Pass Partner may have a working singleton or doubleton that will be our setting trick, along with my AK,AK. I had decided to risk 4C until realizing this
PROBLEM G: 4 Spades
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack
Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: kenberg on May 31, 2022, 10:25:02 PM

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

SOLVER: Ken Berg

Your Solutions for the July 2022 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Notrump

PROBLEM B: 3 Spades

PROBLEM C: 4 Clubs

PROBLEM D: 4 Spades

PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts

PROBLEM F: 4 Clubs

PROBLEM G: 4 Clubs

PROBLEM H: Club 3

If this set scores well I might decide to never think again.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: Veeree on June 01, 2022, 02:43:05 AM

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

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 01, 2022, 03:15:46 AM

I stuck with my initial thoughts.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech Creech

Fredericksburg VA 22407
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades - this is my Ken/Jock, "I stand alone" moment. Despite all of the Hammanesque cries from the IAC solvers, I think 4 !S requires less from partner to make than the alternatives.
PROBLEM C: 3 Spades
PROBLEM D: 6 Spades
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: Pass
PROBLEM G: 6 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 01, 2022, 01:47:44 PM

July Results

Masse24 led the IAC solvers with 670, edging out both KenBerg and CCR3, with 660 and 630 respectively. Masse24 and KenBerg also made the MSC Honor Roll!

NAME	BW-SCORE	RANK	MPs
Masse24	670	1	30
KenBerg	660	2	25
CCR3	630	2	10
Also participating this month were: BabsG, BluBayou, Hoki, JCreech, Peuco, VeeRee, YleeXotee. Congratulations to all!

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: kenberg on June 01, 2022, 04:08:47 PM

Quote from: jcreech on June 01, 2022, 01:47:44 PM

July Results

Masse24 led the IAC solvers with 670, edging out both KenBerg and CCR3, with 660 and 630 respectively. Masse24 and KenBerg also made the MSC Honor Roll!

NAME BW-SCORE RANK MPs
Masse24 670 1 30
KenBerg 660 2 25
CCR3 630 2 10

Also participating this month were: BabsG, BluBayou, Hoki, JCreech, Peuco, VeeRee, YleeXotee.

Congratulations to all!

Huh! I wasn't kidding about being busy. We have company tomorrow and an online graduation to watch tomorrow, company Friday, company Sunday, it's been like that. I'll take my 660 and maybe plan to think less in the future

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on June 01, 2022, 04:44:29 PM

May I have a 70-point bonus for predicting 100 for the false preference to stiff diamond queen? Or maybe a 60-point upgrade for changing problem F back to 4 !C , from "3NT"? both of these would tie for 5th on the honor roll ::)

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: Masse24 on June 02, 2022, 01:51:22 AM

Quote from: blubayou on June 01, 2022, 04:44:29 PM

May I have a 70-point bonus for predicting 100 for the false preference to stiff diamond queen?

Okay! ;)
Actually, now that I see the results I can well imagine what the rationale will be. But honestly, with all those clubs it just didn't dawn on me.
So good spot, Blu. Next time pull the trigger. ;)

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 02, 2022, 11:47:30 AM

I'm with Todd on this. If you want the credit, pull the trigger on the selection for the record, not the speculation.

I remember when I read your prediction:

Quote from: blubayou on May 09, 2022, 10:09:26 PM

PROBLEM C: 3NT -- #B, this #C and 3 of 5 later problems are totally insane. 3H 3NT and raise clubs all come to mind -- and look out!: the false preference to 3 diamonds will prolly get the 100!

that this is something I could see the Panel going for, but I would not allow myself to go that direction because when facing an actual partner, I could not make such a false preference. I remember, from many years ago, I had a fine partner reverse into a short suit just to show strength. He happened to hit my six-bagger that I did not have the strength to show on my first bid. Whereupon, I lept to game in that second suit as a fast arrival, and he tried to recover from our miscommunication. In this false preference, I would fear the miscommunication of an undiscussed sequence and choose a different path.

I can appreciate the beauty and logic when there is no partnership consequence, but I treat these problems as partnership situations that lead to discussions about the path not taken (but, nonetheless, considered).

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 20, 2022, 02:11:34 AM

July MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – David Berkowitz, Director

Not an easy set of problem hands, for IAC, for the solvers, or the Panel. KenBerg threatens that "If this set scores well I might decide to never think again." For YleeXotee "This month is a total crap shoot for me."

Problem A 3 NT (KenBerg)

Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ —   ♥ K 6 4   ♦ A K Q 7 3   ♣ A K Q 6 3

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

Although no one among the IAC solvers pointed to this, there were members of the Panel that evaluated the previous round of bidding's choice. The moderator, David Berkowitz, had a clear opinion: "I have no idea what the correct bid is this time around. I do know what the correct call was last round ..." `Gary Cohler says "Partner has spades, and I forgot to double." While Kerri and Steve Sanborn seem chagrined, "It is usually a pleasure to partner David until you don't reopen with a double on this hand."

Sooooo, clearly we are in recovery mode and only one IAC solver found the answer that granted the 100.

4 ♠   70   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 17%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 29% Intermediate Advanced Club solvers (IAC) 40%
The plurality of solvers went with re-cueing the spades. So what does this mean? Hoki is going slamming: "otherwise Jock's 6♣ is fine." YleeXotee is similarly inclined: "if (4 !C) not in BWS as forcing then I have to find the 4S Hoki mentioned. could not be less sure of this bid." Gary Cohler says "I will drive to slam without control-bidding hearts, so North will know that I have a spade void and second-round heart control. If he control-bids hearts, I will bid seven clubs." Masse24 is less certain: "If partner had spades stopped, he would likely just bid 3NT rather than 3 !S, yes? Maybe rebidding 4 clubs is best?" Kit Woolsey feels that "Four spades says I have a huge hand. Possibly partner intended three spades as natural, in which case four spades might be as good a contract as anything." And perhaps rightfully so, Alan Sontag makes the bid, almost expecting partner to pass, and provides a memory: "The last time I encountered a similar auction was in the early 1970's. My partner, John Solodar, meant his cue-bid as natural, and I raised to four, which was our best contract."

4 ♣   60   BWP 10%   BWS 26% IAC 1 solver
YleeXotee initially chose 4 !C "because whenever I don't take a 4m, I get punished by MSC. The problem with this bid is I would play it as forcing but others might not." JCreech thinks "This should still be forcing after my jump shift and that I have gone past 3 NT. But there is still the question of partner's cue-bid; is it asking for a stop, indictive of a trap pass, or showing support for my second suit? Thinking about 4 !S and 6 !C as alternatives." Also confused by partner's 3 !S, Sami Kehela writes: "Is three spades a control-bid in support of a minor or would North fair play there? If the later, then he would need to play skillfully." Will Beall is more certain: "Partner must have a fit for one minor or the other, and that should be enough for slam. I want to leave North room to bid four hearts, in case we belong in seven."

4 ♥   90   BWP 23%   BWS 15% IAC No solvers
Although no IAC solvers made this choice, 4 !H was the co-plurality choice for the Panel. Eric Rodwell wants to "Show the pattern. I would have opened two clubs. Four spades might be passed (though I doubt it)." Similarly, Danny Kleinman calls it "A picture bid, painting 0=3=5=5. John Carruthers points out that "The ace of hearts with North will produce a play for seven clubs, if he bids anything else, I'll bid five spades, completing the picture of my hand." Adam Grossack thinks: "Partner's most-likely hand is a big club fit with no wastage in spades; probably, we belong in five clubs, but I might as well pattern out in case North has other ideas."

3 NT   100   BWP 23%   BWS 16 IAC 1 solver
Stunningly, though only a co-plurality choice, the top score was for 3 NT and Todd was nowhere to be found. These Panelists felt that the cue-bid was showing a spade stopper. Barry Bragin, for example, said "Seems to be a poster child for Hamman's Law. I hope partern has the heart queen or a minor suit jack to go along with his spade stopper. If not, we might be overboard." Carl Hudecek: "If partner has a spade stop, three notrump should be okay - and it sounds as if he does. Slam seems to require some specific cards from North." KenBerg "I have said I have a big hand with the minors, and now I am saying that I have a heart stopper. If we belong in 6m pard can say so." Jeff Rubens says "I don't know how to interpret three spades, so my objective is to minimize the chance of disaster opposite the most-likely hand-types that partner might think suitable for that bid."

Problem B 3 NT (Peuco, VeeRee, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, Masse24)

Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 5 4 2   ♥ K 10   ♦ K Q J 10 6 5   ♣ 7

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

This time you have 9 HCPs, four lousy cards in a suit that partner should have most times for his double, a great six-bagger in a secondary suit, and Kx in the opponent's suit. You definitely have choices available, from showing your stopper to bidding one of the suits that partner has ostensibly shown.

3 NT   100   BWP 37%   BWS 16% IAC 80%
Although the Panel made this selection the top score with a plurality, IAC chimed in with a very strong majority. No surprise, Masse24 is led the parade with "Hi, Bob!" Larry Cohen provides the rule of thumb for apply the Law: "Hamman told me that if you have the king of the opponent's suit, and three notrump so much as enters your mind, then bid it. Perverted as it is, it entered my mind." John Carruthers says "I cannot bring myself to bid four spades or five diamonds ... Any game contract could suffer from a paucity of aces, but there should be a play for three notrump as long as partner holds the ace of diamonds. Will anyone double and use the F-word?" Sami Kehela echos more succinctly "My kingdom for the ace of diamonds." BluBayou figures it is "down one when pard has 3 aces + nothing instantly useable. Will think about doing better in spades later this month." But Hoki "I'll take down one since there's no guarantee that 4♠ or 5♦ will make either." Bart Bramley thinks it "Will make opposite enough aces. Might not make any game opposite too few aces. Four spades or five diamonds would require a specific parlay." Phillip Alder sums it up well: "Worth the gamble at matchpoints."

Double   70   BWP 13%   BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Some of the Panel doubled, yet no one from IAC decided to double. I prefer to believe that none of IAC went this direction to avoid wrong-siding the contract than a pied-piperesque blind-following of Todd to 3 NT. What reason do the Panel provide? Steve Gardner: "Catering to a few of partner's possible hand-types. I will pass three spades or happily pass three notrump. Should North bid four clubs, it will be time to bail our in four diamonds." Eric Kokish: "In order to get my red suit into the mix. I'm willing to risk that the key to this deal is playing in four spades from my side." Zia: "Maybe a shirking-responsibility call. Wrongsiding spades, I admit, but can you give me a better idea?" Ron Gerard: "Three notrump here would be too much of a good thiing. How would it work out opposite: ♠ KQJx   ♥ x   ♦ Axxx   ♣ Axxx? I will bid four diamonds after four clubs by North, following my general rule about how to hand four-card discrepancies and giving partner an out if one is needed."

3 ♠   80   BwP 20%   BWS 24% IAC 1 solver
Or we can avoid wrongsiding the spades, by bidding them directly. Robert Wolff thinks: "Best of a bad lot. Three notrump will likely depend on who has the diamond ace, four spades will be over dependent on partner's havind a decent spade holding. Reaching four spades from the right side is a major consideration." Chip Martel: "Rightsides spades while allowing for five diamonds or three notrump." Kit Woolsey says it is "Not worth risking three notrump, as partner might not have the ace of diamonds, and if he does spades might paly better. If four spades can be made, probably partner will bid it." Adam Grossack is "Afraid of going minus in three notrump and wrongsiding spades by doubling." Though he "Probably would act differently at imps." While KenBerg seems less certain: "I dunno, it seems reasonable."

4 ♠   60   BWP 7%   BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
But is 3 !S an underbid? JCreech, for example thinks: "Partner almost certainly has four spades for the double, though I am sorely tempted by Hamman. For 3NT, I will need the !D A, and something good in both black suits, for 5 !D, I will need something good in the spade suit and one or both round aces (!H & !C), but for 4 !S, I may just need good spades. ... this is my Ken/Jock, "I stand alone" moment. Despite all of the Hammanesque cries from the IAC solvers, I think 4 !S requires less from partner to make than the alternatives." Similarly, Will Beall says "Three notrump relies on finding partner with the diamond ace (or a second heart stopper). Double and four hearts wrongside spades." And Barry Bragin feels "If I must guess, I want to be rewarded with right. If a greedy East doubles, I will retreat to five diamonds."

4 ♦   60   BWP 7%   BWS 17% IAC No solvers
And finally, the moderator asks "Has bidding our long suit become unfashionable?" Not to Jeff Rubens who says "Not clear that finding a four-four spade fit will be advantageous." While Carl Hudecek is both planning the defense and how he will compete: "I'm bidding a suit I want led agains a heart contract. If the opponents bid four hearts, I will bid four spades."

Problem C 3 !D (None)

Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 10 4   ♥ J 10 6 5 2   ♦ Q   ♣ Q J 5 2

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

Although you hold a hand completely devoid of aces and kings, partner has just jump-shifted into your second-longest suit with your best high-card combination. Do you emphasize your stoppers either bidding or trying to steer the contract into NT, or do you raise partner's suit, bypassing Hamman and his law?

3 ♦   100   BWP 23%   BWS 1% IAC No solvers
In one of his prophetic moments, BluBayou wrote "look out!: the false preference to 3 diamonds will prolly get the 100!" JCreech responded "that this is something I could see the Panel going for, but I would not allow myself to go that direction because when facing an actual partner, I could not make such a false preference. I remember, from many years ago, I had a fine partner reverse into a short suit just to show strength. He happened to hit my six-bagger that I did not have the strength to show on my first bid. Whereupon, I lept to game in that second suit as a fast arrival, and he tried to recover from our miscommunication. In this false preference, I would fear the miscommunication of an undiscussed sequence and choose a different path." Chip Martel says "I hate a bid like this, but it seems the only sensible way to keep both four hearts and three notrump in the picture. Six clubs is a long way off when I have no aces or kings." Kit Woolsey has similar thoughts, but caveats with a tenuous assumption: This waiting bid is necessary to reach hearts or notrump. Partner will know it might be a false preference, so if I need to bid five clubs later, he will understand that I have something like this." Kit plays with more talented partners than I do typically, so his expectations of understanding are more likely to be realized than mine would be. Nonetheless, Steve Gardner feels that "It is imperative that we give partner a chance to continue clarifying the nature of the jump-shift. we may belong in clubs, diamonds, hearts or notrump."

3 NT   80   BWP 27%   BWS 51% IAC 40%
Despite my being the only one to name names, Hamman's Law was the plurality choice, but for some reason, not exactly clarified by the moderator, did not get the top score. Adam Grossack says "No need to distort the description with a false preference. I have spades stopped and not a great hand." Though Hoki "could easily live with Jock's false preference of 3♦." Larry Cohen points to "Lots of soft notrumpy junk." BluBayou felt there were many options: "3H 3NT and raise clubs all come to mind" As did Masse24: "Hearts are too poor to rebid. I could see lots of other bids, including 3 !S, 4 !C, and 5 !C. But this is Matchpoints, so hopefully we can bring home 9 before they cash 5 quick major suit tricks." Danny Kleinman used the hand to refine his own law: "Matchpoints doth make Notrump Hogs of us all. While I'm amending 'Laws,' perhaps I should amend one of my own. Change 'The Rule of the Three Queens' (strain to bid notrump when you have that holding) to 'The Rule of the Five Quacks.'" Jeff Rubens thinks there is "Too much hand and fit to wind up in five clubs, even though three notrump may fail." While Billy Eisenberg may be voicing the unspoken premise behind the law: "When in doubt, three notrump looks promising."

3 ♠   40   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 12% IAC 40%
The IAC made 3 !S its co-plurality choice (along with 3 NT), but only Phillip Alder made the bid from among the Panel: "I'm tempted to pass (and maybe miss game), to gamble on three notrump (and fail when anther game makes), and to raise clubs (but partner might have 1=3=6=3). YleeXotee is "showing my spade stops, but not wanting to take 3nt from the strong hand. I don't think having Qxx its going to matter whether the lead in NT goes up to me, or through me. if p doesn't have half a stop we are in trouble either way." Similarly, JCreech "Marking time and showing my stop. If one stop isn't enough, partner will know and we will end up in either hearts or clubs."

3 ♥   50   BWP 10%   BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Another alternative to keep the auction alive below 3 NT is rebidding the heart suit. While I don't mind rebidding a five-bagger, I generally like to have a more robust suit than J10xxx. The IAC seems to agree with me, since none chose the bid, but there were Panelists that did. Ron Gerard argued that "Neither three diamonds nor three spades would help us land in four hearts opposite: ♠ Jx   ♥ KQ   ♦ AKxxx   ♣ AKxx." Carl Hudecek says "Opposite 1=2=5=5 with honor-low in hearts, we should play well with hearts as trumps. I'm not taking a chance on three notrump and a spade lead." Kerri and Steve Sanborn are not worried about missing 3 NT: "Still room to reach three notrump."

4 ♣   90   BWP 23%   BWS 23% IAC 1 solver
The simplest action you could take is to look at four clubs in your hand and show a clear preference for one of partner's suits by raising. Zia says "I try not to mastermind on some auctions (okay, only a few), but the minors are really strong." KenBerg "I guess pard might next bid 4H and I guess I would pass that. I suppose I can maybe make 3NT if partner has the stiff Jack of spades but I'm going with 4C." Bruce Rogoff asks "What can I bid that will instill my confidence in partner's next call? Not three hearts on this suit, possibly being raised on a doubleton honor. Three diamonds would be ridiculous on this shape. I'll feel uneasy if North bid three notrump over three spades - we could miss an excellent club slam, despite the soft stuff in the majors. After four clubs, I can feel comfortable playing in four hearts if partner bids it."

This concludes the first part. I will return with the other two parts as time allows. Until then, please enter the August challenge.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 22, 2022, 11:54:23 AM

July MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – David Berkowitz, Director

Problem D 6 !S (YleeXotee, Peuco, Hoki, JCreech)

Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
1 ♦     1 ♥     1 ♠     4 ♥
?
What call do you make?

This is clearly a level problem. The concerns are (1) how many losers in the spade/trump suit, and (2) how many losers in the heart/opponent's suit? Followed by, (3) is there a sensible/scientific way to answer the first two questions?

5 NT   50   BWP 10%   BWS 2% IAC No solvers
The Panelists making this bid, viewed the meanings similar to Phillip Alder: "As four notrump would show six=four in the minors (wouldn't it?), this can be the old-fashioned Grand Slam Force, as unlikely as that is." Of course, if 5 NT is GSF, then there is an assumption that partner is void in hearts. Bart Bramley says "I believe the opponents; unlucky if a heart cashes. Sure seven spades could be poor opposite only five-card length; but I don't see how to investigate intelligently. I hope partner will think to offer diamonds when appropriate." Jeff Rubens feels the bid "Aggressive, but it North lacks the expected heart void, maybe West will double for a club lead."

4 ♠   80   BWP 20%   BWS 45% IAC 30%
The plurality of BWS solvers took the position of once fixed, stay fixed, which is not necessarily a bad plan. Certainly, they had substantial company from both the Panel and IAC. KenBerg describes the problem: "A typical LOTT problem. We have at least 9 spades, maybe more, they probably have 10 hearts, maybe 11, maybe 9, it appears that the total number of trump is probably 19, so LOTT says that if we can hold 4H to 7 tricks then we should be able to make 6S but maybe we can and maybe we can't. 4S is a nice simple choice. " I'm sorry Ken, but I think you may want to check whether you have the same cards as the rest of the table - you have four hearts, so it becomes difficult for the opponents to be holding 10 or 11, but otherwise, your points, with minor adjustments, are well-taken. Also bidding 4 !S, John Carruthers thinks "The five-level is not safe." Robert Wolff says "Ten tricks could easily be our limit. Sometimes, we must pay off to a wise opponent's preemption." Eric Rodwell finds it "Tempting to do more, but it is not a sure thing that pard has a heart void - and if he does and has good spades, he might guess right. If I did bid more, I suppose it would be five hearts; five spades would sound like an ask for a heart control (against some pairs, we might be off two heart tricks)." So BluBayou concludes with a question: "what's the problem with raising to 4 Spades??"

6 ♠   100   BWP 23%   BWS 20% IAC 40%
Well, the problem is (as identified by the moderator): "Poor partner. He holds: ♠ Axxxxx   ♥ -   ♦ xxx   ♣ xxxx, which yields a great grand slam, and we wind up marooned in four spades." Thinking along those same lines YleeXotee has a stream of consciousness discussion with himself: "4S But this seems weak and I'm considering a blast to 6S. Pard has no hearts, and I have no clubs, with no losers in diamonds. How bad can pards spades be!? I think I've talked myself in to 6S" We heard Ken's LOTT discussion above, this is how Larry Cohen sees the problem: "Six spades. The least we can reach. I don't think there is a sound scientific way to reach seven. (Six clubs would be natural.) Maybe partner can bid seven with the rest of the spades and a heart void (unlikely he'd hold the wasted club ace as well.)" Hoki laments that he is "lacking the science to explore for a grand slam." Will Beall bids "What I think we can make. I have a hard time constructing sound auctions ending at five spades or seven spades." Barry Bragin thinks "Without a helpful invitation available, I'll bid what I think we can make. I hope both opponents didn't obfuscate heart length on the same deal. It will be hard for partner to bid the grand, unless he happens to have the club ace in addition to ace-queen-jack-fifth of spades." JCreech goes through his short list: "I don't like the other options. 4 !S is too weak, 5 !S asks about a heart control, 5 !C is probably natural as is 5 !D, and 5 NT would be a choice of slams."

5 ♥   80   BWP 10%    BWS 13% IAC 30%
Some think that 5 !H might be the answer. Masse24 writes "All the other possible bids are either too weak, too strong, or will not tell me what I need to know. This certainly shows spade support, but allows partner to go low with 5 !S with no top honors—higher with." Maybe, but I think Ron Gerard is more realistic: "Probably useless, but North might have ace-queen sixth of spades and no hearts, thus be able to bid six hearts. Or he might sign off." Another view is expressed by Billy Eisenberg: "The best 12-count." To which I say, how does this provide or ask for useful information. The moderator's thoughts: "Cue-bidding our fifth-round control. Any other thoughts?"

5 ♠   90   BWP 13%   BWS 15% IAC No solvers
With raised hands we have Panelists going for 5 !S. Eric Kokish says "No first-round losers, trick source, North's holding five-plus pades but not a jump to slam. Once in a while, North will surprise us by holding a heart." Chip Martel adds "Since ♠ Axxxx   ♥ x   ♦ Jxx   ♣ xxxx is an okay slam, four spades is not enough. This should take us to six when reasonable and with ace-queen-fifth and a void, partner may know to bid seven." Adam Grossack expects "... partner to bid slam, and we will have a chance to reach a grand if he has a heart void and ace=queen-fifth of spades. He will also bid a slam with: ♠ AJxxx   ♥ x   ♦ xxx   ♣ Axxx, but I lack the space to bid more intelligently."

4 NT   50   BWP 7%   BWS 3% IAC No solvers
And other Panelists trying 4 NT. Kit Woolsey sagely asks "Isn't the reason we play Blackwood to avoid reaching slam off three aces?" While Zia thinks that the bid "May work in several ways, especially when North has two aces and the spade queen. Cannot do less than drive to six with so little to lose, and there might be a club lead when partner has a heart loser. Asking for key card when holding a void is an unexplored area."

Problem E 2 !H (BabsG, Masse24, KenBerg, BluBayou, CCR3)

Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 9 3   ♥ K Q 10 8 6 2   ♦ 10 5 4   ♣ 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——     ——     1 ♠     Pass
?*
*BWS: 3 ♥ invitational

What call do you make?

What a glorious hand! It really does not fit any scheme. It is better than an invitational hand, but not good enough to be a forcing hand. So you are stuck with having to choose between an underbid and an overbid. The problem is, with a double fit, it is clearly worth upgrading to forcing values, but if spades is the only fit, then it might only be worth a simple raise.

2 ♠   50   BWP 12%   BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Certainly IAC viewed 2 !S as an underbid; not one selected the bid as their choice. The same cannot be said of the Panel. Ron Gerard viewed the bid tactically: "In my dreams, I could bid two hearts and then three spades (as we did fifty-odd years ago.) The long suit isn't good enough nor is the hand unidirectional enough to succumb to the footnote-induced three hearts, and if partner will pass my response, I'd rather be in two spades than in one notrump. Raising spades gives me the only chance to get both suits in (four hearts next, if there is a next) and avoid playing in the wrong game." This may be the best reason for such a drastic underbid. Jeff Rubens is pessimistic: "If I did anything stronger, North would turn up with a low singleton heart (not unlikely anyway)." Eric Rodwell argues that "One notrump semiforcing makes it unattractive. Three hearts might work well, but burying the spade fit could be a disaster."

3 ♥   50   BWP 12%   BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
Some chose to make the invitational bid showing hearts. Danny Kleinman was the most complete advocate of the position: "Mark me down as an anti-semi-ite. System doesn't let me delay choice of strain via a fully-forcing one-notrump followed by a three-heart jump over partner's two-of-a-minor rebid to show an invitational three=six. So I must take a unilateral action. I'll guess to invite in hearts, because that suit may go to waste if it's not trump." Meanwhile, Larry Cohen was "Delighted to have it available." And Billy Eisenberg thought the bid "Looks sensible."

1 NT   60   BWP 12%   BWS 24% IAC 40%
A strong contingent from IAC took their chances with the semi-forcing 1 NT. JCreech says "The heart suit is nice, but I would rather establish support by showing a 3-card limit raise. If I take the hint, the auction may end there with a 6-1 sort of fit, but if I start the sequence for the limit raise, partner may surprise me with a 2 !H rebid." Adam Grossack is "Treating the hand as a three-card invitational raise. Any other position is too extreme." YleeXotee wonders "... shouldn't we always take the hint? I think I'm showing a limit raise in spades. support with support." David Berkowitz, the moderator, made his choice clear as he wrote: "Those of us who chose one notrump hope that there will be another round of the auction. When South holds this distribution, the odds favor a further bid by someone (anyone; please!). Of course, treating this as an invitational raise is a bit of an underbid ..." However, we may have to beg Hoki to return next month "and if that's not forcing I quit."

2 ♥   100   BWP 65%   BWS 45% IAC 50%
The majority of the Panel and a plurality of the solvers chose to overbid with 2 !H. BluBayou sums up the situation fairly well: "FEELS to me like a delayed invitational jump in spades...BUT in BWS2017 the forcing 1NT response CAN BE PASSED . I don't want to be dropped in !NT with this, even in IMPS, so plan B (2/1 in hearts) or plan C (the hint ie: passable 3 hearts) is better. ... i lean towards the game force " Steve Garner adds: "Willing to gamble on a game-force to show a source of tricks and maybe finding a longer fit." Chip Martel thinks it is "The only way to explore hearts and spades sensibly. Since: (a) ♠ KQxxx   ♥ Axx   ♦ Ax   ♣ xxx provides a good slam, and if the hearts were three low a good game, it is hard to see this as an overbid." KenBerg says "I suppose it's slightly aggressive but bidding a passable 3H when holding three spades just does not seem right." I will give the last word to Masse24: "When I first looked at this I thought, “This is closer to 2 !H than 3 !H,” so I gave it a closer look. 3 !H is one dimensional and, if passed, may bury the spade fit. The choice is between 1NT (intending to later show a 3-card limit raise) and a GF 2 !H. Curious, I popped this into the KnR and it spat out 12.2. And this is without being able to tell it that partner opened 1 !S, which must be worth something. The primary feature of this hand is the hearts, so I bid them. A slight overbid, but better to bid strong early than try to catch up later."

Problem F 4 !C (KenBerg)

Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 2   ♥ A K 6 5 3   ♦ 5   ♣ A K J 6 5 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——     1 ♣*     2 ♦     3 ♠†
?
*artificial; strong
†weak

What call do you make?

We are three bids into the auction and at 3 !S, and have yet to hear anything about the shape or suits of at least 75% of the HCPs in this hand. You are looking at a distributional 15, and the opener has 16+ with any distribution. Partner has diamonds, but with unknown strength having jump overcalled a strong artificial=bid, and RHO has spade length with a weak hand (whatever that might mean in this auction). No wonder Ron Gerard wrote that "My preferred solution - to choose West as partner ...;" an option that "... wasn't listed."

Pass   40   BWP 12%   BWS 33% IAC 70%
The IAC weighed in strongly in favor of the Pass. Those commenting came up with three reasons to pass. BluBayou bases his pass on the belief that the opponents cannot make their bid: "Partner may have a working singleton or doubleton that will be our setting trick, along with my AK,AK. I had decided to risk 4C until realizing this" Taking the flip side, Kit Woolsey feels certain that North-South cannot take enough tricks to make any bid contract: "It is hard to imagine how West can't have the heart and club queens. We don't figure to make 10 tricks anywhere." The third reason is based on a more general principle, "Misfit, get out quick." (Masse24). Expounding further, JCreech asks "Do I really want to enter an auction at the four-level when partner has advertised weakness and extra length in one of my singletons and RHO has done the same in the other singleton? I think it is time to steer clear of the potential misfit." It is a difficult choice, which YleeXotee discusses: "hate this one too. always seem to get punished for my passes, but with strong bid to my left and pard is bidding weak. this just sounds like trouble to get involved in some way. Isn't strong opener basically holding all the same cards I am?"

Double   80   BWP 8%   BWS 14% IAC No solvers
If you think the contract is going down why not double? The auction is wrong for a responsive double and the level is too high anyway for BWS, or is it? Certainly these Panelists think otherwise. Gary Cohler thinks the double "Shows both suits and gives partner a chance to pass with (likely) shortness in both of my suits. I will bid five clubs over four diamonds. Similarly, Larry Cohen thinks "There is no guarantee of a fit, but there is too much to gain and not a lot to lose by getting in there. If partner is four=six in the pointed suits, that's his fault." The moderator, agrees that the double should be penalty in this sequence, and provided a score that, I believe, reflects North passing the "take-out" double.

4 ♥   60   BWP 12%   BWS 6% IAC 1 solver
The moderator points out that "There is one sure way to reach game." And that is to bid one. Bart Bramley says "I'll try for two bites at the apple, with five clubs next if able. Anything I do could be very strong." Sami Kehela has the same idea, but with less certainty: "Highly unsatisfactory, but I may have the opportunity to show clubs on the next round, if there is one."

4 ♣   100   BWP 73%   BWS 45% IAC 1 solver
The majority of the Panel bid 4 !C. Some wished for a take-out double: KenBerg: "I have a 15 count with two good suits and everyone else wants to bid. What's going on? Beats me, but I like my clubs. If X would show clubs and hearts, and maybe it does, I would do that." Ron Gerard: "Double wouldn't mean what South would like it to mean, because (a) the auction isn't at a low level, and (b) the opponents haven't bid two suits. Given the potential upside, isn't four clubs a forced action?" Eric Kokish: "Too bad we don't have a helpful double in our bag in this sequence." Some hope to show both suits at the four-level: Bruce Rogoff: "Bidding might lead to a large penalty, but it I pass and LHO bids three notrump, I'd bid then for fear of a diamond lead. ... If West doubles and partner pulls to diamonds, I'll bid four hearts and hope." Billy Eisenberg: "If partner tries four diamonds, I will bid four hearts." Will Beall: "Partner can have any of a wide variety of hand-types. If he bids four diamonds, I'll try four hearts, since he did not bid three diamonds, I'm willing to defend against four spades, not sure whether I'll double it." Nonetheless, if you bid, be prepared to scramble: Adam Grossack: "A good way to start. There may be a tougher problem next round." John Carruthers: "Quite a system the opponents play. I'd want a better description than 'weak.' Was my partner's bid strong? (Okay, that was facetious.)" BluBayou: "there are no HCPs available for west NOT to have three big ones. Today, that means i might as well chirp "4 !C ", in case this a goulash deal. The five level I have no clue about however--but for once i hope my preempting partner can take a view in our favor after the spade game i think is inevitable"

Two down and one more to go. I will get to it when I can make the time. Meanwhile, enjoy what has been presented and contribute to the discussion for next month; next month's answers are due in less than 10 days.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: blubayou on June 24, 2022, 06:23:52 PM

We're "listening" Jim! just hard to find something to rant about---or shout HURRAHH; sorry. EXCEPT the fat zero for leaping to club slam on problem A--c'mon! 40+ % of those guys are in for the slam hunt, and will end up there... Zero was an outrageous start to an "easy" set that turned out to contain more mini-outrages :P

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: jcreech on June 25, 2022, 02:08:16 PM

July MSC SUMMARY (Part 3) – David Berkowitz, Director

Problem G 4 !S (CCR3, Blubayou, Masse24, BabsG)

Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 9 5   ♥ A 6 5   ♦ 9   ♣ K J 7 4 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——     ——     1 NT     Pass
2 ♣     Pass     2 ♦     Pass
3 ♣     Pass     3 ♠     Pass
?
What call do you make?

The moderator, David Berkowitz, describes the auction: "Three clubs was a try for the right game, with slam a distant thought. It looked as though North would bid three diamonds, and we would probably end up in three notrump. But a funny thing happened; partner tried three spades, a shocker to be sure." So what should be bid after that?

3 NT   40   BWP 12%   BWS 37% IAC 1 solver
One thought should be a favorite of the Hammanites; it certainly was the plurality choice of the BW solvers. Zia says "Four spades is tempting, but it would be a very-swingy bid that the field won't match. If partner moves with four clubs, I will bid slam, but opposite ♠ Axx   ♥ xx   ♦ AQxxx   ♣ AQx, maybe we'll make 10 tricks in notrump and spades." Carl Hudecek: "Now that I have demanded a red-suit lead, I'll bid what I should have bid at my previous turn." But a real warning sign that 3 NT is heading down the wrong path is that Todd was no where to be seen with his whispers of "Bob." Eric Rodwell says "Three spades implies doubt; with better spades than hearts, I've already pushed the envelope by bidding three clubs."

4 ♣   60   BWP No Panelists   BWS 7% IAC 1 solver
KenBerg pushes on, making a slam try: "Ah yes, it would be nice to have agreements. 3C is natural and GF, S seems to agree, I suppose 3S is the spade A and a good club fit but maybe it's just shapely with three good spades. And my 4C? Maybe it's minorwood. Or maybe not. I would prefer not. After my 3C I think 3D by pard would show Ds, maybe a 3=3=5=2 shape or maybe even sid diamonds. So if 3D over 3C would not be a cue showing a club fit, then my 4C gives him a chance to cue now with 4D. But the truth is that I have no idea what is going on and so maybe I should just bid 6C." Although making another selection, Eric Kokish said "Four clubs would be okay, segueing into four diamonds - four hearts -four spades - four notrump (Last Train)."

4 ♦   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 6% IAC No solver
Chip Martel tries to get partner interested in slam: "Worth one below-game slam-try. If four hearts were a slam-try pattern bid (my preference), that would be much better, but it is not so defined in BWS. Partner won't know that heart honors are better than diamond honors but will know that black ace-queens are gold."

4 ♥   80   BWP 35%   BWS 17% IAC No solvers
For the Panel, 4 !H was a more popular slam try, though it was seen more as a confused cooperation, than anything else. John Carruthers, for example, says "I am puzzled by partner's bid, since he must have something in at least one of the red suits. Is he attempting to say that he has a great fit for clubs and something in the other three suits ... I'll bid where I live and hope that North will know what to do." Steve Gardner says "If partner is worried about hearts, then I have doubts also, even though three notrump might be the best contract. Will partner interpret four hearts as a forward-going shape bid? I don't know, but I am confident that North will think that he has struck gold if he is looking at something along the lines of: ♠ AQx   ♥ xx   ♦ Axxx   ♣ AQxx." Gary Cohler makes a "Control-bid slam-try showing short diamonds. Three notrump is out of the picture when partner didn't bid three diamonds."

4 ♠   100   BWP 50%   BWS 28% IAC 40%
If you do not regard partner's 3 !S bid as some sort of move toward slam, then it clearly should be regarded as natural, indicating that the hand may not be suited for 3 NT and offering the 4=3 fit as an alternative place to play. Barry Bragin points out that "The logical inverse of Hamman's Law is "If three notrump is not right, don't bid it." I'm expecting something similar to: ♠ AQx   ♥ Qxx   ♦ Jxx   ♣ AQxx. The opponents take three diamond tricks, the I take the next 10 tricks." Surprisingly, Masse24 is on board, eschewing Hamman, "Partner is in the dark as to my strength, which is borderline for slam exploration with a club fit. I assume partner was suggesting we play in a Moysian, so I accept. If he corrects to 5 !C, I’ll bid 6." Danny Kleinman has similar thoughts: "If partner bid three spades to suggest playing in a four-three fit, that's fine with me. If North is angling for a club slam, that's fine with me too, as he'll be happy to see that I have four nice spades and prime values." Meanwhile Larry Cohen thinks "I am dreaming of 650 or 680 in a four-three fit, and a top board opposite, say: ♠ AQx   ♥ Jx   ♦ Axx   ♣ Axxxx. Yes, that also provides a club slam. Am I dreaming that partner might move over four spades?" More simply, Bart Bramley says "If partner doesn't want to play in three notrump, neither do I. Raising spades is simplest. Maybe North will know what to do."

Problem H !S J (BluBayou, YleeXotee, CCR3, Peuco, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 10 4   ♥ Q 10 6 3   ♦ 10 9   ♣ Q 9 6 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——     1 ♦     Pass     1 ♥
Pass     1 ♠     Pass     2 NT*
Pass     3 NT     (All Pass)
*forcing

What is your opening lead?

The moderator set up the problem as follows: "Usually, in this Club, our lead choices are one more distasteful than the next. Here, we have four attractive suits lead from." This may be true, but the auction does provide some distributional clues. For example, dummy is almost certainly going to come down with exactly four spades and either four or five clubs and 2-2 or 2-3 in the round suits; by not raising hearts, dummy eliminated the 4=4=3=2 shape, and by acquiescing to notrump, suggested at least two in each of the rounds. Declarer is a bit less certain, but almost certainly has only four hearts and some sort of length/stopper in clubs. Given this information and my hand, my inclination is to lead through dummy's strength in diamonds and spades, and let partner lead through declarer's strength in hearts and, presumably, clubs. Nonetheless, Masse24 is consistent, even when picking the top scoring choice: "I still hate lead problems."

♠ J   100   BWP 54%   BWS 49% IAC 70%
Billy Eisenberg is "Expecting large agreement." And he was essentially correct; there was a strong contingent from IAC, and from the BW a slight majority of the Panel and a clear plurality of the solvers, all in agreement with the spade jack lead. YleeXotee writes "I really preach leading through the major of responder on this kind of set up. It's their second suit and NT bidder is relying on that spade stop. lets knock it out as soon as possible." At a maximum, the opponents will have a seven-card fit, so it is reasonable to catch partner with four or five cards positioned over dummy. JCreech echos "For similar reasons as YleeXotee. Leading through dummy's second suit." Bruce Rogoff writes "Given that East's best holding are likely in the rounded suits (he didn't bid two clubs to hear about red-suit length, thus rates to have good clubs), leading one of them would be too dangerous. Even if we set up a trick or two there, I would probably have no entry. The spade jack combines attack with some safety." Kerri and Steve Sanborn are "Trying to choose the lead that will least help declarer. Wish we had the spade nine also. All our intermediates could slow down declarer's search for tricks." Eric Rodwell thinks the "Most passive (lead) would be the diamond ten, but that could pickle queen-third. If pard has four decent spades, this is probably a good start. I wouldn't know which rounded suit to attack." Steve Gardner feels "Nothing is appealing, but not blowing a trick on lead may be our best chance. Perhaps a spade lead will deprive declarer of a late entry, should dummy have long diamonds." Zia wavered between a "Spade or heart? Jack or spades or low heart? Somehow, the dummy always has a stiff heart honor, but, occasionally, it's the jack. A club lead strikes me as smelly, for some reason." BluBayou: "Esthetically, this footnote pleases me: "1X, 1Y, 1Z; 2NT**" . 2NT is forcing. HOWEVER, it makes this lead problem close to trivial. Declarer promised us he he is balanced (or he would have bid 2C first if long there--or used XYZ or 4SF at the second turn). Our two queen-fourths must be defensive gold, and passive defense has to be the winner. I have no problem ruling out punting in what may their only 5-3 fit (diamonds) . No way i will start either of responder's suits."

♦ 10   60   BWP 15%   BWS 15% IAC No solvers
Dummy's other suit is diamonds. We know this because he bid the suit, and the style is presumably Walsh; when diamonds are opened, the only time the suit is opened with less than four is if opener holds exactly 4=4=3=2. Since hearts were not raised, opener did not have the only short diamond pattern. Will Beall makes the situation out to be a "Two-horse race here; I'm not leading a rounded suit. Partner is more likely to have five diamonds than five spades." Barry Bragin thinks "We are unlikely to be able to defeat three notrump on power, so I need to hope that we have a long suit to set up. If it were spades, partner might have overcalled, so I'll try to hit a diamond suit. This auction implies that East is not concerned with clubs." While Kit Woolsey believes "Our best hope is that partner has diamonds under control, so a very-safe lead is called for."

♥ 3   70   BWP 23%   BWS 9% IAC No solvers
One thing I failed to understand is that time after time, Panelist's would mention that the opponents have clubs well under control, and so avoided that lead, but couldn't the same be said for hearts? The difference is that declarer explicitly bid the suit. Why is the implied holding more of a concern than the explicit holding? Nonetheless, if you are going to make a length lead, then hearts are slightly better (a difference of a 10 compared to a 9), but is it really enough of an improvement to prefer attacking the explicit holding instead of the implied? Gary Cohler says yes: "East didn't show five hearts. West's hand will usually be unbalanced, short in hearts. I could guess one of West's suits but prefer the traditional fourth-highest." Adam Grossack agrees "Fourth highest from our longest and strongest. Feels as if dummy will have heart shortage a good amount of the time, so we can hope to catch something in partner's hand." As does Ron Gerard: "Fourth from strongest. Dummy has some clubs, so not much will be going on in that suit. Partner has some spades, but that could be only three, and how often could I pound away at that suit." Eric Kokish thinks "On balance, West will be short in hearts, and it won't take much for us to build some heart tricks. If two notrump had been only invitational, I would have lea a not-quite-passive diamond. With no spade eight or nine and no club ten, we'd need more luck to set the contract with one of those suits than via heart attack (so to speak)." While Robert Wolff considers the lead to be "The best chance to defeat the contract. If two notrump might have been a checkback for three-card heart support. I would lead the jack of spades."

♣ 3   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 26% IAC 30%
This is one of those times when the thought patterns are clearly different for the Panel than the solver. While the Panel preferred to attack the hearts, the solvers preferred to attack the unbid suit. The lone Panelist preferring the unbid clubs was Phillip Alder: "If two notrump had been nonforcing, I would not lead a club, fearing that declarer was four=six in the rounded suits. As it is maybe East started with two clubs with a strong hand." KenBerg's analysis was: "I have a 5 count, I guess pard has something somewhere. If get has the A or the K or the J of clubs this might work out ok. I am not leading a red card, and it seems at least possible that dummy's fourth spade will eventually be a trick, so a club seems right. But who knows? The Shadows knows, but I am not the Shadow. (The Shadow was a fun radio program from the 40s and 50s, in case you youngsters don't get the reference.)" And Hoki makes the club lead due to "being a simple soul."

This ends the discussion for the July MSC problems. I hope you found it thought provoking.

We are about a week out of having the next set of answers due, so please partake. As some are wont to say "Come on in, the water's fine." All participants are welcome, and despite the Panel's opinions, there are seldom any truly wrong answers; in most instances, you will find at least some in the Panel or at least some percentage of the solvers that will agree with your choice unless you severely misread the problem.

Title: Re: 2022 JULY MSC
Post by: kenberg on July 05, 2022, 01:46:10 PM

A couple of (belated) thoughts about A:
There is an old slogan "3NT ends all auctions". Like most slogans, this one has exceptions. Partner surely has spade length and perhaps planned to pass a re-opening double, but exactly what else he has isn't clear. One possibility is that he has substantial support in clubs. With good clubs and the spade A, a reasonable course of action is to first bid the 3S and then, when pard (me) bids 3NT, pull the 3NT to 4C. That would get us to 6C since I could reasonably expect that after drawing trump I still have a trump in the dummy so I do that, then run diamonds pitching heart losers on diamonds. It's still might not be a cold slam, it would be really nice if pard had the heart Q, but it's a reasonable shot.
As to the possibility that pard actually wants to play 4S: Well, he can bid 4S over 3NT. If that is what he is thinking of, at least I can say that in no way whatsoever encouraged that call. Kit Woolsey says possible 4S is the right contract and maybe so, but if 4S is the right contract opposite my void I expect pard can figure that out for himself.