Master Solvers Club, posts up to June 2019

[kenberg]

My Bridge World came today so naturally I turned to the responses to Problem A. Before I get to some amusement I note that Kit Woolsey bid 4 and supplied an argument that matches Todd's almost verbatim.

The responses and the reasons were all over the map.

The first they gave was 2   (no, not a typo). The panelist noted that this maneuver had worked against his team in the Reisinger final and suggested that the editors, if they wanted further explanation of the logic, talk to the guy that actually did it at the table!

Another panelist suggest 5 and then commented "I might bid different things on different  days to keep the opponents guessing" He must play a great deal of bridge if he expects to see this hand or its close relative often enough to be varying his response on different days.

There was also support for 2 . "Watching and listening while I walk Fido, so I can figure out where to take him next".

A prevailing attitude was that describing this hand adequately was not on the agenda, rather we would do what seemed best to learn as much as possible about other hands and then place the contract.  Or else we would just place it.  Exclusion Key Card was mentioned several times. I don't play Exclusion with anyone, my failing no doubt, but in highly competitive auctions such as I expect this one to be it seems to me that a partnership has to have had very thorough discussions about when it is on and when it is off else there will be trouble. 

I can be lazy. I have subscribed to Bridge World for quite a while but I don't read it all that often. I also have more than  a few mathematics books around that maybe I will read someday but don't hold your breath. And I have some books on economics written for people who  keep thinking surely it must be an interesting subject. Back to bridge, this thread has me at least cracking the covers.

[Masse24]

I note that Kit Woolsey bid 4 and supplied an argument that matches Todd's almost verbatim.

Aha! I had a feeling Kit Woolsey was stealing my ideas! Now there's proof.  Sigh . . .

Have not received my The Bridge World yet. Slow mail here.

I'm like you, Ken. Lazy. I pay for it, but do not read it all. Still, I do enjoy some of the articles, and the MSC--especially the commentary--is its best feature.

[jcreech]

I too like Kit (though he moved out of the area before I moved in).  I have played Barbu with Sally Woolsey many years ago - I think I was the designated loser for the game.  That is the one card game I would love to see available online.

I had a partner who gave me about 10 years worth of BW (from the 60's and 70's) I devoured them, but was disappointed with the content when I subscribed.  Something about the articles - more technical, less fun.  So I stopped subscribing.

Since we are admitting failings, I too am lazy.  Nonetheless, at work, I try to work smarter, not harder.  If I can put additional effort into something on the front end that will make it easier for me later - I will overcome my natural tendency for that short burst.

[Masse24]

My Bridge World arrived.

Nothing about Problem “A” has been clarified. Like Ken stated, the responses—and reasons—were all over the map. I understand all the choices.

😊 😊 😊 😊 How often does an MSC answer make you smile? Zia’s did. His response? 2 . His logic? “To get a lead vs. 7 .” Note 1 to self: Expand your thinking! 😊

I scored okay on Problems B thru F, so won’t overthink my choices other than to better understand the winning vote-getter. But Problem G is another one that thoroughly confuses me. Still. To remind:

A762 KJ4 A7532 A

Auction:
1 – (1 ) – X – (P)
??
A few shortened panel answers:
Rubens: “Three hearts. Everything about the hand says hearts.”
Wirgren: “I’ve played in too many successful four-three fits to consider anything else.”
Meckstroth: “Three hearts shows extra without forcing. Best of the bad choices.” 

When I stared at it—over and over and over—I dismissed 3 out of hand. Note 2 to self: See note 1!

Finally, the lead Problem H. The trump lead was my fourth choice. I could not come up with any construction resembling certainty (which I usually want for a trump lead), so chose safety. Some of the constructions posited in the panel choices were fearful of ruffs.

Meckstroth and Woolsey: “Heart six. I expect partner to have dummy’s long clubs under control. Dummy must be short in either spades or diamonds, so we need to try to stop ruffs.” I am mildly encouraged that even these two were unsure who had what shortness.
Willenken: “Heart six. With East showing a big hand, how can dummy have enough to jump to slam without a spade void? A possibility:
West               East
—               Axxx
xx              AKQJxxx
Axx            Kx
QT9xxxxx    —

Kokish, the director, opines: “Not a bad construction.”

Gerstman (who also chose the heart six) thought “dummy might be 3=3=1=6,” which was more in line with my guess at dummy’s shape. My construction was 3=2=1=7 or similar. Again . . . incomplete thinking; the possibility of dummy being short in spades did not occur to me. Note 3 to self: See note 1. Again.

Now if I can only remember some of these dance moves on the dance floor . . . 

[Masse24]

APRIL MSC

February is almost over . . . time to be thinking The Bridge World MSC.

Link here: https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

Answers due March 10. Good luck!

[Masse24]

First stab . . .

PROBLEM A: 3 . Beginners will choose 3 . Today, I'm a beginner. The hand is very flat. 2NT with a possible overtrick scores better at MP and will be a popular, safe, choice. In no trump my round-suit honors (especially that K) are protected. But . . . the  suit is also potentially a big problem. If they lead it, I need to run eight tricks off the top. I think the obvious MP choice of 2NT needs closer examination. I really may flip a coin here. It's close.

PROBLEM B: 2. I’m not sure what continuing with a diamond accomplishes, other than, I suppose, allowing partner to indicate suit preference. Doing so, though will set up a future discard for declarer. The 2 seems safe since partner is almost a lock to have club values. But a low trump, cutting down on possible ruffs, is also attractive. I’ll need to think on this some more.

PROBLEM C: 1NT. A tussle between the preemptive value of the descriptive 3 and the allure of the higher scoring No Trump. I have two aces, which are worth a bit extra. And although the system indicates that 1NT = 6-10, I prefer to respond 1NT with the upper end of that range, reserving the preempt for very poor hands.

PROBLEM D: Double. The suit is not robust enough to introduce at the 3-level. The fact that I have only two (no fit there) is also a consideration, steering me away from the suit. A double, certainly showing (possibly only four), will convey my values.

PROBLEM E: Double. My first impulse was a sketchy 2NT, but the stop is tenuous. Pass does not feel right with these values. So a double, while often considered anathema with this shape, seems the most flexible choice.

PROBLEM F: Double. Again, flexible. Yes it shows four , so sue me.

PROBLEM G: Pass. Partner’s double at the three-level should be a game-force. If played in , they will break poorly. And while four is implied, it is not 100% guaranteed. 3NT with a double stop looks attractive and was my initial thought.

PROBLEM H: 6. Partner has very little. Not leading a , as I do not wish to give away a freebie. I see at most a seven-card fit for the opps. So partner has a minimum of four. This is timid, but gives nothing away.

I'm back-and-forth on at least six of them, so I'll need to have a "re-look" later in the week. 

[jcreech]

My preliminary thoughts:

PROBLEM A: 4 . Let’s look at the assets and considerations.  It looks like I was starting to either make a heavy 3-card limit raise or a bad 3-card forcing raise.  I still have 3-card support.  My hand has improved with partner’s bid.  Nonetheless, I would like to protect the K, and the hand is flat with a nine-trick game sometimes easier to make than a 10-trick game.  I feel as though I have two choices – 3NT or 4 .  I think it is possible to overthink a hand, and this one may be one of those.  My plan was to raise partner, so I will do so,  If I was planning on a limit raise, my hand has gotten better; if my play was to show a bad forcing raise, its still bad, but just not quite as bad as when I started.
PROBLEM B: 3. I don’t know why we are defending a one-level contract, but the traditional action is to lead trump early and often.  I failed to do that at trick one, but I will not fail at trick two.

PROBLEM C: 2 . I am torn between a light inverted raise to 2 and 1NT.  Those aces are speaking volumes to me, and I would prefer to right-side this hand.  I am also toying with a short-suit bid, either 2 to show where I have something, or 2 to stave off a diamond opening lead.  The more I think about it, 2 is the least lie – five clubs, almost 10 HCPs and a chance to right side this contract.

PROBLEM D: Double. I’m not real happy with my options.  3 is a stretch.  Pass is a possibility, hoping for a reopening double and then be able to show my five hearts with some security that I am not cross bidding partner. Also if partner reopens by rebidding clubs, I can try 3 for a partial stop for 3NT.  Who knows?

PROBLEM E: Double. Partner will try to bid a major before anything else, so this is less of a gamble than it looks.  I hate that I only have a doubleton club, but you need to bid something.  Qxx is just not enough for 2NT, particularly being at the bottom of the range.

PROBLEM F: Pass.  Awaiting further developments.  I don’t have the right shape to try for a Moysian fit, and that is what double would be offering in both red suits.  Clubs and possibly NT are the best options unless partner really has a lot of shape.

PROBLEM G: 3 . 3NT is also a thought, but the vulnerability screams bid to me.  It takes down 4 to recover a vulnerable game and the Q is on the wrong side of the heart bidder.  If partner passes this bid, then I will regret not passing the double.

PROBLEM H: 6.  Just don’t want to give away contract on opening lead.  I don’t have anything in the suit, declarer did not seem interested in what partner has in the suit, so my partner my have something that does not get hurt by my leading the suit.

[kenberg]

I have been thinking about problem B. I think I switch to the K at T2.

It seems right that declarer has at least four hearts for his 1 H call, and it also seems right that partner has at least two hearts to leave the double in. There are six unseen hearts, so this means that partner has exactly two and declarer has exactly four. But then declare cannot reasonably have four spades as well, or he would have simply passed the XX. And I would expect partner to not leave the double in if he had five spades. It's maybe a bit of guessing, but it seems right.

Partner has to have some values,   QJxx seems reasonable, and it's consistent with the 7 at T1. But of course he needs more than that. Again, he has left the X in with two hearts. Ax seems reasonable. So what happens when I play the K to the A on the board. I have still only placed 7 points in pard's hand, it is not asking too much to give him the K. If so, declarer is stuck. Say he plays a small . Up with the A and cash two spades. Pard now has a completer count on the hand. He knows from the lead at T1 that I have AK tight in , he has seen me show out in spades, he will certainly assume from the double that I have four hearts, so he knows I was dealt 2=4=2=5. This means that he knows how many declarer has. If declarer started with two diamonds (so pard has 5!) then   leading a fourth spade would let declarer pitch his last . In that case, pard will lead a to my K and I will return a . In the more likely case that declarer started with three diamonds then he started with 3=4=3=3 and no pitch does him any good. So he gives me my ruff, I cash my , and I return a .

It is of course dangerous to start placing cards just where I want them to be but partner did XX and  he dis leave the X in at the 1 level. It seems fair to place him with some good cards.

I might give this some more thought, but I am liking the K at T2,

I also am liking 3 on Problem A, but I went on quickly to B so maybe I need to think more. I figure if pard has a flattish sort of hand he is not prevented from accepting the game invitation with 3NT, and this sill leaves him the more likely options of Pass or 4 .

[Masse24]

Rethinking PROBLEM H.

East has 18-19. But West may have made a leap of faith to 6NT with just 14. It's possible (barely) that partner has as much as a Queen. If it's in then a low could set up my King while I still have a possible entry with the Q .

A safe will be the runaway solver's choice. But I'm seriously considering a low .

Disclaimer: This is all pre-caffeine. Intelligent content is not guaranteed or implied.

Re-rethinking. Probably not, though. A low is just too dangerous.

[Masse24]

Still struggling with PROBLEM A.

Knowing the system helps. Partner does not have complete trash, otherwise he passes.
See BWS2017:

• “(a) a one-notrump response is semiforcing (limited to at most game-invitational strength; opener may pass with 5-3-3-2 or 4=5=2=2 and a hand deemed no stronger than 12 high-card points).”

So knowing that might steer me toward a “reevaluation,” and a jump to game. But even with the possible “double-fit,” because I fear the rounds suits, especially , I’ll go with a very ugly 3-card limit raise rather than either 2NT or 3NT. I’m picturing partner with a stiff . A good partner would have AQ doubleton, mine will have a stiff deuce. OH OH!

If partner has more, he’ll bid more.

[kenberg]

That's a very good point about the 1NT being semi-forcing. I knew BWS did that but since I usually just play it as forcing the implication had not occurred to me.  Even with a minimal hand I expect I would bid 2 with a 5=2=4=2 shape.

 Let's see. Give declarer the AKxxx in spades and Axxx in diamonds and a stiff.  Even with 3-2 splits we potentially lose a spade, a diamond and two aces. But maybe we can set up something in the side suits in time. Say we have the stiff J. Assuming that they take it then we can pitch two diamonds on the KQ of . But then we still have to come up with ten tricks.  Or if E holds the A maybe any stiff heart in the N hand will do. If E ducks the lead of the , which he well might do and might well be the right play, you no longer lose to the A but then again you still need to find ten tricks.

I think people open AKxxx / x / Axxx / xxx. At least I do. And I rebid 2 if partner bids 1NT, forcing, semi-forcing or just a 6-10 hand. If course it might depend on what the x's are. It would increase the chances if the spades are AKTxx.


I guess I am saying that the semi-forcing aspect of 1NT does indeed tempt a 4 bid, maybe it's right, I can well imagine it going down. If I bid 3 , partner will bid 4 with a 14 count but probably pass with a 13 count, and 4 might be a heave favorite to make.


The above seems very inconclusive! Carpe Diem! Or something.

[Masse24]

Going with my initial thoughts on PROBLEM A.

3 for me. Close call. The fact it's MP is the deciding factor for me.

[Masse24]

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

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: Spade King
PROBLEM C: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: Double
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Club 7

I can't remember such a difficult set, which does not bode well for a high score. Both "B" and "H" were excruciating.

My final thoughts on "H" were maybe a bit of a stretch.
Partner has very little.
Not leading a heart, as I do not wish to give away a freebie.
Heart 3 is just too speculative.
Opener did not support spades, so has three at most. Responder did not explore for a 5-3 fit, so has four at most. This means partner has at least four spades. I see at most a 7 card spade fit for the opps. What could partner have? Maybe a Jack? Spade Jack? By leading a spade, do I magically identify the location of the Jack for declarer? By not leading a , declarer will need to guess the location. My Jack, however, would fall under declarer’s AKQ anyway, so I am willing to sacrifice him for the good of the team!

[jcreech]

My submission:

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

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

Just a few additional comments:

On B, I don't see that I am losing a trump trick unless I lead the suit twice - and I doubt I will have that opportunity.
On C, I hate bidding the NT with nothing to be led into, but want a sixth club for 3 , because otherwise, I think it meets the BW criteria, and I am backing away from 2 as not quite having enough.  I'd love to bid 1 , but am afraid of partner biding a major instead of NT, then I am back where I started, and have a big lie to boot.
On H, Todd may be right, but I think leading through dummy's strength is a better choice than away from Jxx.  Todd may get lucky with his lead, but I think I will win at the table more often with mine.

[Masse24]

On H, Todd may be right, but I think leading through dummy's strength is a better choice than away from Jxx.  Todd may get lucky with his lead, but I think I will win at the table more often with mine.

Yup. This was my thinking, too. The 6 (my initial lead) will undoubtedly be the majority choice among solvers (I will guess 70%). It'll likely score an 80 or more. My choice of the was a bit of an experiment. I smell a 100 . . . or a 40. Previously, my experiments have not gone well. I had a feeling of dread as soon as I submitted last night. Too late now!