46
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: May 18, 2023, 02:13:53 AM »
Blu, at the table I would pass 1 
and would not give it a second thought.
and would not give it a second thought. News:
Please do not Register if NOT an IAC Member.
Your Registration will automatically be rejected.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: May 15, 2023, 04:21:22 PM »June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – Danny Kleinman, Director
Problem D 2
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 9 3 ♥ A K J ♦ A K Q 10 4 ♣ J 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♠ Pass Pass
Double* Pass 2 ♥ Pass
?
*BWS: 2 NT would have shown 18-19 HCP
What call do you make?
2 ♠ 100 BWP 52% BWS 45% IAC 43%
An interesting new rule emerged. Joel Wooldridge:
This matches a rule of mine: a takeout double followed by a cue-bid most often shows three-card support for advancer's suit and about 18 high-card points. Other hand-types are possible, but this is what partner should assume, as it's the most common."
Clearly other subscribe to this rule. For example, Brian Platnick describes the bid: "The most-likely hand for cue-bidding here is extras with three-card support." Similarly, Phillip Alder writes: "Surely this cue-bi, which typically shows a strong hand with three-card support for partner's major, will win in a landslide." Zia: "Two spades implies fewer than four hearts, most likely three." Others are less certain. JCreech is awaiting further developments: "A nebulous cue-bid. I want to show support, but leave room for more description. This cue takes up the least space, and maybe I will hear something I like." As are Hoki: "in the hope of coping with any continuation (3D over 3C should show heart support)" and Jeff Alexander "I hope partner will know what to do."
Agree, Jim. I had not heard this before. If "expert standard," I'll want to add it to my arsenal. It seems like a good use for it since there is no other way to express that hand.
48
IAC & Master Solvers Club / 2023 JULY MSC
« on: May 02, 2023, 12:01:20 PM »Deadline: MAY 30 at 11:59 p.m. (ET)
Submit your JULY MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
BWS 2017 System: BWS 2017
BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: BWS 2017 - Polls, Changes, and Additions
- 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
If you post to The Bridge World you will receive a confirmation immediately and by email. It is preferred that you copy/paste that confirmation as it is easy to read due to the formatting. (Thanks!)
Also, if you post to The Bridge World those will be your official bids. If you make a mistake (try not to as it has happened), you will have to live with it.
* * *
49
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: May 01, 2023, 05:54:12 PM »
June Results
Masse24 and Hoki led the IAC solvers with 700 and 690 respectively. JCreech and YleeXotee were close behind with 670.
The Bridge World honor roll this month required a minimum of 690 (Hoki and Masse24 both making the honor roll). A low scoring--and very difficult--month.
Also participating this month were: BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK.
Congratulations to all!
Masse24 and Hoki led the IAC solvers with 700 and 690 respectively. JCreech and YleeXotee were close behind with 670.
The Bridge World honor roll this month required a minimum of 690 (Hoki and Masse24 both making the honor roll). A low scoring--and very difficult--month.
| NAME | BW-SCORE | ||
| Masse24 | 700 | ||
| Hoki | 690 | ||
| JCreech | 670 | ||
| YleeXotee | 670 | ||
Also participating this month were: BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK.
Congratulations to all!
50
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: May 01, 2023, 12:39:41 AM »
JUNE GUESSES:
PROBLEM A: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 4 Spades
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM G: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
PROBLEM A: 5 Clubs
Should have play. An exploratory splinter, or even 3
(my second choice) accomplishes what? What sort of perfecto does partner need for slam to be decent?
PROBLEM B: 1NT
Ten third is stopperish. Keeps things alive if partner has more to say.
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
Unanimous?
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
Really tough problem. 2 Spades is tempting, to elicit more information, but that’s a game-force and I’m just a bit short on values. 3 Hearts (my second choice) with only three is also tempting. But 3 Diamonds gets my values across and leaves the door open for partner to continue with a few values.
PROBLEM E: 4 Spades
This one confuses me a bit. I think 4 Diamonds will be the popular solver choice, but it doesn’t feel right. Can 4 Spades be interpreted as shaping out? Can it be passed? It is Matchpoints.
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
We belong in Hearts since Club ruffs need to be taken in the short hand. Even if we only get one ruff I can envision game, so I will accept. Partner should have a 4=3=5=1 hand with 16 (or possibly 17) HCP. Maybe a hand like: KQ93 - K94 - 
AKJT7 - 
2 
Can that hand make game? I hope so.
PROBLEM G: 1NT
KnR on this hand is 17.9. Knowing that, if we choose NOT to open 1NT, do we open 1C or 1D? I think I’ll stick with the slightly overstrength 1NT.
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
I’ve recently developed a distaste for lead problems.
PROBLEM A: 5 Clubs
PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 4 Spades
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM G: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
PROBLEM A: 5 Clubs
Should have play. An exploratory splinter, or even 3
(my second choice) accomplishes what? What sort of perfecto does partner need for slam to be decent?PROBLEM B: 1NT
Ten third is stopperish. Keeps things alive if partner has more to say.
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
Unanimous?
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
Really tough problem. 2 Spades is tempting, to elicit more information, but that’s a game-force and I’m just a bit short on values. 3 Hearts (my second choice) with only three is also tempting. But 3 Diamonds gets my values across and leaves the door open for partner to continue with a few values.
PROBLEM E: 4 Spades
This one confuses me a bit. I think 4 Diamonds will be the popular solver choice, but it doesn’t feel right. Can 4 Spades be interpreted as shaping out? Can it be passed? It is Matchpoints.
PROBLEM F: 4 Hearts
We belong in Hearts since Club ruffs need to be taken in the short hand. Even if we only get one ruff I can envision game, so I will accept. Partner should have a 4=3=5=1 hand with 16 (or possibly 17) HCP. Maybe a hand like:
KQ93 - K94 - AKJT7 - 2 Can that hand make game? I hope so.PROBLEM G: 1NT
KnR on this hand is 17.9. Knowing that, if we choose NOT to open 1NT, do we open 1C or 1D? I think I’ll stick with the slightly overstrength 1NT.
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace
I’ve recently developed a distaste for lead problems.
51
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: April 26, 2023, 07:56:29 PM »On problem F, where we were asked to raise 1 heart or not raise it with KJx, Kxx, AKxxx, 98, ZIA's comment : "If you don't know by now that this the winning bid, it's probably too late." infuriated me. Then I noticed the 72% agreement from the panel which changed my mood to merely 'depressed'. I have played about 400,000 bridge hands since 1963, and raising hearts with this hand is not even on my "let's have a little fun" list, so I guess it's well and truly too late for me
Blu, I too have not fully embraced raising on three. I rarely do it. And although I know Spiral and know 3344, I do not advertise it 'cuz my three card raises are so few and far between. When I do raise with three I generally limit them to when I have a stiff somewhere.
This panel result has me thinking that I need to rethink. Sigh . . .
52
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: April 22, 2023, 01:49:10 AM »
Just looked at June now.
As to the lead problem, I think partner's double is screaming for a heart lead to his void. But I want to maintain control of the suit, so I'll underlead my Ace. The J looks right, asking for a spade return (the ace?).
On second thought --- probably not. I lead stiffs more than I should. Why stop now?
Nothing set in stone. Ihate am not fond of lead problems.
As to the lead problem, I think partner's double is screaming for a heart lead to his void. But I want to maintain control of the suit, so I'll underlead my
Ace. The J looks right, asking for a spade return (the ace?). On second thought --- probably not. I lead stiffs more than I should. Why stop now?
Nothing set in stone. I
54
IAC & Master Solvers Club / 2023 JUNE MSC
« on: April 04, 2023, 02:11:10 AM »Deadline: APRIL 30 at 11:59 p.m. (ET)
Submit your JUNE MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
BWS 2017 System: BWS 2017
BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: BWS 2017 - Polls, Changes, and Additions
- 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
If you post to The Bridge World you will receive a confirmation immediately and by email. It is preferred that you copy/paste that confirmation as it is easy to read due to the formatting. (Thanks!)
Also, if you post to The Bridge World those will be your official bids. If you make a mistake (try not to as it has happened), you will have to live with it.
* * *
55
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: April 02, 2023, 08:39:35 PM »
May Results
CCR3 and Masse24 led the IAC solvers with 760. JCreech was close behind with 740. BabsG had a 720. The Bridge World honor roll this month required a minimum of 710. A high scoring month.
Also participating this month were: BluBayou, BabsG, VeredK, YleeXoTee.
Congratulations to all!
CCR3 and Masse24 led the IAC solvers with 760. JCreech was close behind with 740. BabsG had a 720. The Bridge World honor roll this month required a minimum of 710. A high scoring month.
| NAME | BW-SCORE | ||
| Masse24 | 760 | ||
| CCR3 | 760 | ||
| JCreech | 740 | ||
Also participating this month were: BluBayou, BabsG, VeredK, YleeXoTee.
Congratulations to all!
56
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: March 31, 2023, 11:55:37 PM »
PROBLEM H: Spade 8 - 2/4 leads I think 8 technically correct if you want to lead the empty spade suit. (I believe I've seen this in past problems, not sure)
Second highest from crap if non-consecutive. So with
9753 the 7. From
9832 I'm pretty sure the 9 is correct.
57
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: March 31, 2023, 01:18:45 PM »
Problem D - I am likely wrong here, but I don't think 2h is passable. X and then a new suit. if p and I are misfit, they should have passed 2d. They must have X to show hearts, but have a bigger hand with at least 5+ hearts after all. I feel like I have system questions all over this month. I am considering 2nt and 3nt straight out. (but then again, 2h straight out should be forcing for at least one round, so why choose the X route)
I may have knee-jerked a bit here. Unless I am playing negative free-bids, a negative double followed by a new suit typically shows a long suit with less than a game-forcing hand. I did not put it into the context of imps and that with a misfit, partner should have bailed first. Nonetheless, what is partner doing? Despite Joe's declaration that "...I don't think 2h is passable," I still think it is, or partner would have chosen a different route to describe his hand. 2
I picture something like:
xxx -- AKT985 -- - -- xxxx Passable? Yes.
"I did not put it into the context of imps and that with a misfit, partner should have bailed first." Partner knows this, yet he still bid. So his 2
now is an attempt to improve the contract under the assumption that 2 would be worse. Hence my guess at responder's hand above. A diamond void or a stiff at best.At least that's how I look at it.
58
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: March 29, 2023, 03:27:09 AM »
MAY GUESSES
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM G: (c4)
PROBLEM H: Diamond Queen
Problem A: 3 Hearts.
Jam their auction. Unanimous?
Problem B: 3 Hearts.
I was all over the place on this one. Considered 2 and 4 too. But 4 was too hot. And 2 was too cold. 3 was juuuuust right.
Problem C: 4 Diamonds.
“Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump.” Should aid partner if a 5-level decision must be made.
Problem D: Pass.
The law of Holes applies here. “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
Problem E: 1NT.
Follows system (Constructive raises). The four-card spade suit is a red herring. The thing that concerns me is that two or three 1 responses will dilute the 1NT responses. I’m also concerned that a handful of panelists will eschew the system in favor of the preemptive value of 2 .
Problem F: 1NT.
Why didn’t I open 1NT?
Problem G: C4.
The ugly reverse. Also strongly considered the “if I can only get past this round” 1. But the point shy reverse is the lesser lie. It also has the advantage of being more likely to get us to the right strain.
Problem H: Diamond Q.
Hoping for length and a Jack from partner.
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM C: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM G: (c4)
PROBLEM H: Diamond Queen
Problem A: 3 Hearts.
Jam their auction. Unanimous?
Problem B: 3 Hearts.
I was all over the place on this one. Considered 2
and 4 too. But 4 was too hot. And 2 was too cold. 3 was juuuuust right.Problem C: 4 Diamonds.
“Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump.” Should aid partner if a 5-level decision must be made.
Problem D: Pass.
The law of Holes applies here. “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
Problem E: 1NT.
Follows system (Constructive raises). The four-card spade suit is a red herring. The thing that concerns me is that two or three 1
responses will dilute the 1NT responses. I’m also concerned that a handful of panelists will eschew the system in favor of the preemptive value of 2 . Problem F: 1NT.
Why didn’t I open 1NT?
Problem G: C4.
The ugly reverse. Also strongly considered the “if I can only get past this round” 1
. But the point shy reverse is the lesser lie. It also has the advantage of being more likely to get us to the right strain.Problem H: Diamond Q.
Hoping for length and a Jack from partner.
59
IAC & Master Solvers Club / Re: 2023 MAY MSC
« on: March 28, 2023, 01:42:27 PM »
I usually hate lead problems.
My choices are often just a gut feeling, or even a guess, or best of bad choices. Rarely, a suit and card is indicated. Like here.
That Q, though scary, is screaming, "lead me!" We need something from partner and length to the Jack in diamonds seems our best bet.
Something must be wrong because I liked this problem. Uh oh!
My choices are often just a gut feeling, or even a guess, or best of bad choices. Rarely, a suit and card is indicated. Like here.
That
Q, though scary, is screaming, "lead me!" We need something from partner and length to the Jack in diamonds seems our best bet. Something must be wrong because I liked this problem. Uh oh!
60
Sleight of Hand / Re: How to bid to 3NT?
« on: March 22, 2023, 03:28:57 AM »
Not really. More suggesting that to stumble into 3NT, one of you must be aggressive. That would be one path. Personally, I would pass.
I think your result was fairly normal.
I think your result was fairly normal.