Master Solvers Club, posts up to June 2019

[kenberg]

For F I think I go with 2NT. Just for myself, I would never (hardly ever?) open 1 and rebid 2 when holding five clubs and four diamonds. I suppose maybe if the diamonds were five small and the clubs were strong but probably not even then. Goren recommended 1 with such hands, and I used to do it, but I have not liked the results.  Now suppose I am 2=3=4=4 with xx in . After 1 - 1 do I bid 2 ? I try not to. With a decent three card holding in hearts I raise hearts. So I think opener is 1=3=5=4. And how strong? Well, he could have passed. So decent values I think. Game seems not out of the question. I guess 2NT. Possibly this tells partner to bid 3NT if E holds the ace of but to pass if W holds it. We need a convention for that! Bidding 3 instead of 2NT should be safe for +110, bidding 2NT is aggressive. So are you feeling lucky? Well, do you, punk?

[Masse24]

Trigger pulled. I pretty much stayed with my initial thoughts, but flipped the coin on the lead problem (combined with some hand shape deductions).

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

[jcreech]

I submitted my entry, and already have regrets.  On A, I decided that the splinter was the better choice.  If partner is not turned off, then there can be a cooperating cue bid in either red suit - either would be good.  On C, I decided that pass was too aggressive, and that I should be a better partner.  On E, I thought that 3 was the least of the lies.  Anyway, the die has been cast - now to await the verdict.

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Gen Allen VA
U.S.A.

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

[Masse24]

I like your 2 on "G," Jim. I definitely took the low road with 2 . Glad to see someone else try a nebulous forcing bid. The last two times I tried something like that I got burned, so I wimped out. 

Now we await the verdict. 

[kenberg]

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

SOLVER: Ken Berg
        Eldersburg MD
        U.S.A.

Your Solutions for the March 2019 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack

We shall see. I gave some thought to each of them, I am confident of none of them.

I continue to really enjoy this thread.

I had been thinking of 4 for A, but I got to thinking that I would like to hear who if anyone bids 4 . If the opponents do, my hand is better. If partner does, then my void is not of much use. So 4 . There is really no way to show partner what I have, so I might have to take some responsibility for figuring how high to go.

[drac]

SOLVER: Wladislaus Dragwlya
        Castrum Sex
        Romania

Your Solutions for the March 2019 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 4 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

[kenberg]

Some thoughts. Hand A is a freak. I do not often have 6=6=0=1 shape, and when I do the auction does not usually go 1 by partner, pass on my right. So, while I found it an entertaining question, I don't think the hand will be coming up today or tomorrow.

Hand G, otoh, is representative of a frequent problem. I have a 4=3=5=1 shape, hardly rare, I have a decent but not great hand, I open 1 , there is a 1 overcall on my left, and partner makes a negative double. Hardly unusual at all.

So I am thinking of A as interesting and provocative, but at the end of the day maybe not all that important, but hand G is very much worthy of thought.

 2 ? It wouldn't be the first time that I have bid a strong 3 card holding in response to a negative double but I don't like to do it. Moreover, I have a 16 count and a stopper, neither of which would be shown by 2 . And I am not bidding 3 on a three card holding, no matter how strong the three card holding.  My thinking with 2 : The overcall was at the one level, often that's no great suit. It's not impossible that partner has some sort of spade values as well and, if so, NT might play a lot better from his side. But would he bid 2NT over my 2 with, say, Qx? I could hope.  But usually I will not hear 2NT in response to my 2 . But I will hear something.  Maybe 3 ? Fairly likely, I think. Now what? Well, I have to do something. Would now bidding 3 say something such as "Well, I have a decent hand but I still don't know whether this should be played in or or NT"?


Some contest hands are simply "What do you do? How do you evaluate this hand?" Others, such as G, are "What are you going to do, and what do you envision happening next?". With G I see the hand as maybe belonging in game, maybe in a part score, and maybe in NT, maybe in , maybe in . How to sort this out is a real puzzle.

[Masse24]

Brutal Set!     

[kenberg]

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs                80
PROBLEM B: Double               100
PROBLEM C: 1 Spade               60     
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump           80
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump           50
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump         100
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades            60
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack     60


That seems to add up to not much, 590 I guess.


So they really went with 3 on G. That was my first thought but then I decided, no, I am not making a jump response on three cards, I'm just not.

[Masse24]

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs          80
PROBLEM B: Double         100
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades      100
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump     80
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump     90
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump    100
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts        60
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack    50
                                        660

Wow, what a set!
Unsurprisingly, there were a bazillion possible responses on PROBLEM A, which makes for a good MSC problem. With nine different panel votes, there were obviously many opinions on how to best proceed. I’m surprised at the top choice of 4 , which would have been about my fourth choice. I wait to be convinced by what I read in The Bridge World.

On PROBLEM E, 3 would never occur to me. Can’t wait to see the thinking on this one!

Another one, sigh. PROBLEM G. 3 ? Really? It crossed my mind for a fleeting half-second (short trip), but as Ken mentioned above . . . NO! Just NO! [ADDED]: I just noticed that my choice of 2 , had it garnered one more panel vote, would have scored 100. But instead of the second highest score, the judge knocked it down to a measly third place and a score of 60. A judge's whim, apparently. Now in addition to bidding problems, we are tasked with figuring out what side of the bed the judge woke up on! 

The lead . . . PROBLEM H: I thought this was an incredibly difficult lead decision. The trump was a possibility, but I ended up going for a “safe” lead. I realize it’s usually not best against a slam, but the bidding was such that I could not gather much meaningful information. I punted on third down.

[kenberg]

One thing that occurred to me on G:  If I am to consider 3 , how about instead using a 2 bid followed by 3 ?  I did not open with 2 and all partner has done is to make a negative double of 1 . If I had four hearts and a good hand could it really be so good that I think a jump to 4 understates my values? So maybe 2 followed by 3 could be something like the hand that I hold. Strong, good three card holding, but still thinking that maybe this could be played in something other than hearts.

But  then I suppose no, it doesn't mean that. I suppose 2 followed by 3 means four hearts, the A or void, and game forcing, leaving room for slam exploration. Except then what would bidding 3 over the X mean? That must be hearts and spade control, no? A stiff, I suppose.

If ever I were to jump to 3 on a three card holding I suppose this would be the hand for it but but but. "Never? Well, hardly ever." Gilbert and Sullivan play bridge.

[jcreech]

SOLUTIONS FOR:
James Creech
Gen Allen VA
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: 4 Clubs                    80
PROBLEM B: Double                   100
PROBLEM C: 2 Spades                100
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds              50
PROBLEM E: 3 Spades                  70
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump              100
PROBLEM G: 2 Spades                  60
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack           60
               Total:                         620

I didn't even think about a trump lead on H - not on my radar - maybe I am just jaded because in matches recently, I have seen solid 5-baggers thwarted in a trump contract by six small in an opponent's hand.  I did not even want to possibly pickle my partner when trump is being introduced at the 6-level.

I hated most of my calls, but I hated worse the alternatives.  I guess it is still good to be above 600, just disappointing not to be higher.  On to next month's drawing and quartering.

[Masse24]

Another observation on PROBLEM A. While I missed the top scoring answer of 4 , choosing the splinter instead, why is it that the J2NT response receives a 90 and the splinters received only 80? Yes 2NT had 4 panel votes, but the splinters combined received 6 (three each). 

The fickle judge strikes again! 

[kenberg]

I have always assumed that the scoring is perhaps influenced by but not totally dependent on the panel votes. So I looked this up and I quote:

" The director does the scoring according to a personal view of the merits of different possibilities but is guided by the votes and comments of a panel of experts. However, the director must award 100 to an action receiving a majority panel vote, at least 10 to any action receiving at least one panel vote, and some score (even if zero) to every legal action."

For March there were 28 panelists. There were three where 15 panelists all picked the same action, the above rules make that an automatic 100 score.  For all of the rest, the director gets to use his/her judgment.

I'm pretty much ok with that and anyway even if I am not it's the way that it is.

I think the two splinter choices are definitely different. My first thought was 4 but then if partner bids 4 I know nothing about his clubs, while if I bid 4 then I can make some inferences about partner's diamonds based on whether he does or does not bid 4 . My hand is almost impossible to accurately describe, so I think that judging how high to compete will largely  fall to me so 4 seems better than 4 .

As to 2NT, I really don't understand that at all. I suppose I might then learn if partner has a stiff , but I would be pretty surprised to find my LHO passing over 2NT. These highly shapely hands usually get pretty high pretty fast.  If Lho bids 3m I have no idea if 3 by partner still shows a stiff, and nothing that I subsequently do will undo the (imo) mis-characterization of my hand by the 2NT call. I will be very interested to see how the 2NT bidders are thinking of this.

On the lead problem can I understand the trump lead? Well, I guess I can. It was not on my radar, not at all. I suppose we can imagine declarer needing to ruff diamonds in the dummy. I suppose. Still!!

[Masse24]

Yeah, I thought the “rules” were such that a plurality of the votes scored an automatic 100. I did not realize it required a majority. Based on the caliber of the panel, I can’t imagine a director overruling the choice receiving more votes than any other. I wonder if it has ever happened? But it matters not because, as you say, Ken, “it’s the way that it is.”

As far as the splinters being “definitely different,” I agree. Mostly. That is why I chose one over the other. But they also have something in common. They show a specific range, and they are “telling” bids. At least that’s how I play splinters. I realize this is not universal, but it’s common. This commonality is why I think the splinters should outscore the lone 2NT. But "it’s the way that it is."

The difference in my opinion is as follows: The splinter is superior to the splinter because, a) it contains a stiff, rather than a void, (theoretically making it easier for partner to assess the value of Axx), and b) because of the potential continuations. Ken, I agree with your statement, “if I bid 4 then I can make some inferences about partner's diamonds based on whether he does or does not bid 4 . My hand is almost impossible to accurately describe, so I think that judging how high to compete will largely fall to me so 4 seems better than 4 .” Over 4 , if partner skips the suit—great news—and bids 4 instead, I am happy to continue, probably with 5 . If instead partner shows me a control, I’ll skip 4 and just bid 4 . This was my thought process initially and why I chose 4 .

The “mischaracterization” you mentioned, Ken, is exactly the reason I steered clear of the J2NT response. Even though it is initially an “asking” bid, if partner thinks I have even a bare minimum non-splinter hand, I may never be able to get partner to put on the brakes. It's just too risky in the hope that partner shows me shortness.

Finally, I am still flummoxed by the number of calls receiving a score of 80; there were six. 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 6 . WOW! From a hyper-aggressive (and also preemptive) 6 , to a walking-the-dog 2 . And everything in between.

Although I have not been reading The Bridge World for a long time, I can't recall a problem with such varied responses. I'm curious whether the director will write something like, "Weird hand, impossible to predict which response is best" to justify the range of high-scoring responses. 

Definitely one of the best MSC hands I've seen.