October Scores:

Q1: 2D.    100
Q2: 2NT.   100
Q3: 1H.      90
Q4: Pass.  100
Q5: 3H.     100

                490

Pretty good month. On Q3, I went low, which being a down-the-middle bidder I tend to do. Waiting for panel commentary.

Pass =    10
Double =  4
4 =      2

Preempts work. Although I have great shape, I'm about an Ace short to take action. There's no guarantee partner doesn't have a stiff and my LHO the missing honors behind me.

My Bridge World arrived so I've added some panel opinions below.

The director for October was Kit Woolsey.

A few snippets from the panel:

PROBLEM A: Pass was the majority panel choice. Our IAC forum solvers were pretty much in line with the panel vote for Pass. Danny Kleinman stated it best with, “Not expecting to be able to run clubs, I don’t like my prospects for nine tricks quickly enough to make three notrump; so, with two ace I’ll hope for a moderate penalty, trusting North to have ample high cards.”

Kit summarized with, “One of the problems with bidding anything is that even if there is a better spot than defending against three diamonds doubled, we might not find it. That is often a good reason to pass a takeout double of a preempt when there is no attractive alternative.”

PROBLEM B: 5  . This was a landslide majority. Kit started off with, “The obvious five-diamond bid speaks for itself,” later asking, “What’s the problem?”

Darn it! Not so “obvious” to me.

Kit’s words pretty much summarized everyone else’s. But Bobby Wolff quipped, “I love two-suiters, especially when both suits are only one.” Yup! 😊

PROBLEM C: 2NT. Although 2NT was the plurality panel choice (as well as the IAC forum), there was plenty of dissention on this one. Kit states, “Yes, the singleton club is the big flaw. A five-four heart fit can be located, and three-notrump might be better than a five-three heart fit. However, if West leads a club and partner doesn’t have the suit well-stopped, nothing will save the notrumpers.”

PROBLEM D: 2  . The runaway panel choice, receiving 19 of 27 votes.

I went with 1NT after long contemplation. A flip of the coin, which did not pan out as planned.

Kit: “It is true that South has a great heart holding for notrump. Otherwise though, there is nothing about the hand that looks like notrump. A singleton. A broken six-card suit that will take time and entries to establish. If this is a part-score deal, diamonds figures to play a lot better than notrump.”

PROBLEM E: 2  . Universally considered a game-force, which was part of our forum discussion. Maybe I'm wrong but, I'm not sure that everyone on our forum understood the GF nature of this bid, so this was a good "what means what" moment.

Kit: Opining about 2 , “I don’t get it, isn’t that game-forcing?” (Kit obviously disagreed with the GF strength evaluation by bidding 2NT).

Karen McCallum: “A slight overbid (game-forcing), but this is our best shot at reaching the right strain.

Zia: “Confucius: better to overbid a little than underbid a lot.”

There were several other 2 bidders who slipped in comments alluding to the fact that it was a mild overbid, but the flexibility (also expressed by some of our forum) made up for the mild over-evaluation.

PROBLEM F: Double | Double. A wide variance on this one, which makes sense since it was a two-parter.

Kokish (with Bramley, Berkowitz, and Robinson) believed the Double | Double route to be the most flexible. Kit disagreed stating, “Double then double may seem more flexible, but that is an illusion. Unless partner happens to have an unlikely spade stack, how will he know whether or not to pass? . . . Bidding five diamonds may leave only two options, but these are likely to be the right ones.”

PROBLEM G: 3 . Kit summarized with, “If the choice were between pass and five clubs, I would agree that bidding is the percentage action. But there are other options. As long as South makes a forcing bid, five clubs won’t run away. (Exactly!) Three-notrump or even five diamonds might be the best game. Probing does little damage. . . . It must be better to try to find the best game . . . .

PROBLEM H: LOW . A low received 10 panel votes, a low received 9. Close – hence the close scores of 100 and 90 respectively. 
There was wide agreement that dummy showed a 4=3=1=5 with roughly 16 HCP.

Although there were a few who chose the King, Karen McCallum voiced the negatives for that lead best with, “Partner probably has five hearts but not enough strength to establish and run the suit, even if the hearts are strong.” Kokish, however, had other ideas, choosing the K with the following, “Likely to be productive to lead North’s five-card suit rather than to guess which black suit card will not concede a trick.” Good point! 

That's all folks!
Attempting to reproduce all the panel responses would take forever, however, if you have a question about a particular problem and how the panel voted, just ask.

Yeah, the 6-0 split (around 1% a priori) is not on my radar.

The bad break is equally possible, yes? Maybe this "super-safe" play is best? But I'd want to see the math on it. 

NOVEMBER MSC

Deadline: October 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)

Submit your November responses here: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

BWS 2017 System: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html

BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html 

• (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.)

---

PROBLEM A: Matchpoints. Nil Vul. You hold:
J94 AKT642 9 AK8
Auction to you:
(P) – P – (P) – 1
(P) – 1 – (P) - ??
What call do you make?

PROBLEM B: IMPs. E/W Vul. You hold:
Q3 Q4 QJ98 KQ743
Auction to you:
(1 ) – 1 – (P) - ??
What call do you make?

PROBLEM C: IMPs. N/S Vul. You hold:
J52 J84 AKQ AKT9
Auction to you:
1 – (1 ) – 1 – (P)
??
What call do you make?

PROBLEM D: Matchpoints. E/W Vul. You hold:
2 KT876 8 KT8642
Auction to you:
1NT – (2 ) - ??
What call do you make?
(a) double
(b) 4 (BWS: Texas)
(c) 3 (BWS: forcing)
(d) 3 (BWS: forcing)
(e) 2 NT (BWS: lebensohl), then, after (Pass) - 3 - (Pass) - ?
     (e1) Pass
     (e2) 3

PROBLEM E: IMPs. Nil Vul. You hold:
K2 743 93 AK9876
Auction to you:
1 – (P) - ??
*BWS: 2 = GF. 3 = Invitational
What call do you make?

PROBLEM F: IMPs. N/S Vul. You hold:
K52 63 J87 AQT72
Auction to you:
— (—) — (P)
P – (1 ) – 1 – (1 )
X^* – (XX)^! – 2 ^§ – (P)
??
What call do you make?
Note: * with tolerance
! Support = three
§ Natural by agreement

PROBLEM G: IMPs. E/W Vul. You hold:
AT92 9 KQT52 T54
Auction to you:
P – (1 ) – 1 – (P)
??
What call do you make?

PROBLEM H: Matchpoints. Both Vul. You hold:
2 KJ95 K765432 2
Auction:
P  –  (1 ) – 1 – (4 )
5 – (X)  –   P  –  (5 )
P   –   (P)   –  X  – All pass
What is your opening lead?


Good Luck!

P.S. Panel answers and scores are usually published the same day as the deadline.

Some of these might be a bit eccentric

No doubt a result of your Minnesota upbringing. Heck, you probably even double up on the tater tots in your hot dish.

Now that's eccentric! 

I think it’s close, but being right on the cusp it’s the least lie. Although only 17 HCP, the KnR on it is 18.3 If it’s a game force (or close enough), then 2 is clear . . . at least for me.

If the auction continues 1 – (1 ) – X – (P) – 2 – (P) – 3 – (P) – 3 . . . then 3 cannot be passed, since a cue-bid and a rebid of responder’s suit is a game-force.

Kokish, in describing this 2 bid in the March 2019 MSC wrote, “Sometimes, overbidding a bit can be justified if it helps to locate the best strain for game.”

The very similar March hand was: A762 KJ4 A7532 A

The auction started the same, with the question hinging—like here—on opener’s rebid. The surprising plurality vote was for 3 , which left me scratching my head. But the hands are different, the primary disparity as I see it is the stiff A in the March hand. That makes the jump to 3 there more attractive since ruffs are more likely. Here, that Q mucks up the works for any intended ruffs. A flaw, at least as far as a jump to 3 .

This month’s hand is a point stronger, making the game-force less distasteful. It’s certainly the best way to discover our best strain. If I squint, I can see it.

2 for me. 

Your are dealt the following hand:

      KJ5 QT5 KJ862 64

Partner opens 1 and you respond with a forcing 1NT, intending to show a 3-card limit-raise over partner’s rebid. But partner rebids 2 . Now what? Do you continue your plan to show a 3-card limit-raise by bidding 3 ? Or do you revalue and, knowing of the 9 card fit, push to game? I’ve seen it done both ways and have done it myself.

Your initial plan intended to bring partner in on the decision. What has changed? Quite often, I’ve seen responders rebid 3 in this auction with invitational values but only two-card support. Which is fine. Lacking a better rebid and knowing partner has 6+ make 3 a relatively safe rebid. But partner does not know how many you have in support. Is it two, or three?

Change your original hand to this:

      KJ5 QT KJ862 764

Assuming the same auction that begins 1 – 1NT – 2 do you rebid 3 showing invitational values? Or possibly 2NT denying support, potentially missing a known (to you) 8-card fit?

There is a solution.

Simply expand your definition of an Impossible 2 to include this auction. Therefore, when you have the first hand your rebid is 3 , showing a 3-card limit-raise--which is what you intended to show in the first place. A rebid of 2 —Impossible!—denotes the 2-card limit-raise. Partner is now in a much better position to determine how to proceed.

I saw two hands recently that could have made use of this Impossible 2 . We all learn it as part of a forcing 1NT structure in 2/1 to show a good raise of opener’s minor suit rebid. This is simply an extension. I learned this years ago in a Billy Miller lesson. Miller suggested that the doubleton be Qx or better. You can tack on additional complexity over the 2 rebid to ask for and target shape and honor placement.

Definitely requires agreement. But it is simple. A cool gadget.