Author Topic: Master Solvers Club - September 2019  (Read 21065 times)

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +12/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2019, 03:05:50 PM »
I'm not strongly swayed on PROBLEM D in choosing which black suit "control-bid" (that would initially be interpreted as a game-try).

Also, in viewing BWS 2017, I see no mention of game-try methods or continuations. Notably, I did find a blurb in the BRIDGE WORLD STANDARD 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS. See:
  • 1303. The first slam-try made by the partnership after a suit has been agreed should show length in the bid suit (or, when applicable, where a high-card value will be especially useful) when . . .
    A. the player making the slam-try has shown no suit other than the agreed suit (e.g.: one club -- one heart -- three hearts -- four diamonds) [37]
    B. the player making the slam-try opened two clubs [15]
    C. the condition in either A. or B applies [22]
    D. something else [26]

       System addition: The first slam-try after suit agreement shows length in the bid suit (or, when applicable, where a high-card value will be especially useful) when the try is made by a player who has shown no suit other than the agreed suit.
The !C Ace definitely qualifies as "especially useful."
Admittedly, this "System addition" addresses slam-tries. Maybe it could be tangentially applied to this auction, where the initial bid over 2 !H would be interpreted as a game-try.

But maybe this is a stretch.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 323
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2019, 03:53:52 PM »
My final decision and I am losing patience  on a difficult set in which I see that I differ a lot from Ken and Todd's thinking.  So I am expecting a low score

A.   3  !S.

B.  4  !C   

C. 2NT.

D. 3  !D   If partner has A or K♦ then I expect him to accept the “try” and now I roll out  the Blackwood.

E. 6  !D   OK this must be a forcing pass situation.  However, my hand needs to tell rather than to ask with a FP.  I bid 6 !D which I believe “tells” partner that I have no control in clubs.  I will take the slight risk that partner has a low doubleton club

F1 Pass.  F2 3  !D 

G. redouble    Pass initially looked attractive.  However, does the redouble not convey that I hold doubleton top honour in spades?  Rosencrantz convention? So better to give this info rather than wait.   

H  J  !C.


kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2019, 06:58:11 PM »
I was completely unaware of the polls, changes and additions site that Todd mentions.

It's very substantial

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwspolls2017.html

Probably few IAC players would want to go through the whole thing but if a pair wanted to discuss the meaning of some specific auction I think this would be a great place to start. They might well decide to not adopt what they see, but it seems to me that they could save a lot of time by first looking there. They would then know that BWS plays it in a certain way, this presumably means it's not totally crazy, and then they could, perhaps, just go with that. Or they could argue back and forth for a couple of hours. Their choice.
Ken

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 323
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2019, 06:09:13 PM »
Hitherto, I had no knowledge of the existence of "Bridge World Standard". 

"Bridge World Standard is the standard system developed by The Bridge World magazine based on the preferred methods of leading American experts." Thus I assume it ignores all non-America world experts.   

Delving into this I notice it says:
601. The basic defense against one-notrump openings should be . . .
A. Cappelletti* [20]
B. DONT [7]
C. Meckwell [20]
D. Multi-Landy [15]
E. Woolsey [26]
F. none of the above [12]
   System change: After an opposing one-notrump opening: double = a four-card major and a longer minor (advancer can bid two clubs to ask for the minor, two diamonds to ask for the major), two clubs = majors (advancer can bid two diamonds to ask for a preference between them), two diamonds = a major one-suiter, two hearts|two spades = the bid suit plus a minor, two notrump = minors, three of a suit = natural.

My understanding is that Woolsey and Multi-Landy are identical, as a defence to a strong 1 no trump.  BWS does not seem to recognise that opps may inconveniently open this with a 12-14 or even 10-12.  Surely BWS would recognise a penalty double of a weak no trump?

I am not sure what to make of this BWS standard.  One of the leading pairs in iac plays a multi 2D opening bid, and a dual 2C opening bid (Either weak diamonds or artificial game force)
 These opening bids are very common in Europe and I have played them in one partnership.  My point is that if BWS is an all American affair it will be ignored by the rest of the world.   

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +12/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2019, 06:52:30 PM »

My understanding is that Woolsey and Multi-Landy are identical, as a defence to a strong 1 no trump.  BWS does not seem to recognise that opps may inconveniently open this with a 12-14 or even 10-12.  Surely BWS would recognise a penalty double of a weak no trump?
   

Not quite identical (but extremely similar). The double is different.

Whereas with Multi Landy the double is penalty, with Woolsey it show a four-card major and longer minor.

The poll numbers is how The Bridge World came to its current methods. As we see, the previous "agreed" method, espoused in BWS 2001, was Cappelletti. Sometimes the poll results reflect a majority. Sometimes the decisions are less clear, like here, where only a plurality swayed The Bridge World to make the change.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2019, 09:21:42 PM »
I think the idea of BWS was/is that it can be a start on agreements. A pair can always say let's change this or that. But for the purposes of the NSC, it's essential. Problem D is one such case. I want to bid 3 !C and then, if partner bids 4 !H, I want to bid 4 !S as a cue bid. But is it a cue bid, or is it  a kickback keycard ask? It's not a matter of which is best, it's a matter of how the judges will see it. And, for that matter, it's a matter of how partner would see it if I did it in an actual game. 

Problem G is another example. As near as I can tell, BWS does not play Rosenkranz XX. My XX was to show values. I am re-thinking that choice, but if I submit XX then I expect to be judged on whether it is a good bid when playing that XX shows good values.

If you poll people in a high level tournament, say round of 16 in a major national event. I doubt any would say "We pay BWS exactly as written". But a fair number of 2/1 players are probably pretty familiar with it and could play it if needed, say if their pard got sick and a sub came in. It is a way to play, not the way to play. But for the MSC, it's simply the basis on which your choice of bid will be judged.
Ken

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 577
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2019, 11:16:25 AM »
Ok, I have pulled the trigger and my votes are:

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

PROBLEM A: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 2 Spades
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Redouble
PROBLEM H: Diamond Jack

I made two changes to my "initial thoughts" selections. 

Problem A, I went with my first inclination selection - cue bid and let partner know that I have a good hand and a fit.  3 !S only speaks to fit, not strength.  A cue bid is clear about strength and implies fit.  I would hate to find us playing in 3 !S, which is a risk with that bid.  4 !H does not have that flaw, but it does eat up all of the remaining space below game.  Can't have everything, especially in MSC.

Problem C:  When I made my initial selection, I was focused more on points.  When I looked at the hand again, I focused on tricks.  Tricks make this hand worth bidding 2 !D (4th suit forcing);  I think 4-5 tricks in my suit raises the 11 HCPs to a game force.

I am formally identifying Ken Berg as a partner - between IAC tournament play and discussion in the forums and in private, I feel like he is as close to a partner as I have in IAC.  However, I do not expect our answers to be substantially greater than last months 25%.  We may respect each other choices, have a good feel for what the other is trying to communicate at the table, but, in MSC, where choices are particularly hard, I suspect that 75% agreement will be more a matter of luck than a meeting of the minds.

Good luck to all that participate!
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2019, 11:35:11 AM »
Yes, it would be unrealistic to expect full agreement. I often don't even agree with myself.
Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +12/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2019, 02:32:17 PM »
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
Problem C:  When I made my initial selection, I was focused more on points.  When I looked at the hand again, I focused on tricks.  Tricks make this hand worth bidding 2 !D (4th suit forcing);  I think 4-5 tricks in my suit raises the 11 HCPs to a game force.

Yup, exactly. It's rare that I am confident on an MSC problem. But I feel very good about this one. I expect the panel votes to be a convincing majority.
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +12/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2019, 03:58:38 PM »
Bang! Trigger pulled.

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

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades       100
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades       100
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds     60
PROBLEM D: 4 Hearts         70
PROBLEM E: 6 Clubs           80
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump      100
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts          70
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack      70
                                         650

Good job Ken and Jim ------ Honor Roll this month! https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mschonorrollforlastmonth.html

I also changed my mind on a couple . . . PROBLEM D and PROBLEM G. My rationale for the changes has been added in blue to my original "guesses."
« Last Edit: August 10, 2019, 10:03:28 PM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

bAbsG

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2019, 04:53:48 PM »
SOLUTIONS FOR:
Babs Giesbrecht
Qualicum Beach BC
Canada

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: 4 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM E: 6 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: Pass | 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: Redouble
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

I try.  God knows I try.   :-\

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 323
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2019, 10:31:59 AM »
I am so unsure about most of problems  :-[
I am sure after reading what you guys posted I'll feel even more confused, so here comes brave try without peeking.

A: 3S
B: 4S
C: 2NT
D: 4H
E: 6H
F: Pass & 2NT
G: Pass
H: sJ

BTW, where one can see BWS system?

Sanya

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 577
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2019, 10:46:01 AM »
The link to Bridge World Standard is https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bwsmainpage.html the linked text appears in the second paragraph under MSC Contest as "Bridge World Standard".
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2019, 01:45:51 PM »
A further thought about G.
 One option: Bid 4 !H
Another option XX and then bid 4 !H.

Is it reasonable to say that the first option says "I want to play 4 !H, leave me alon" and then second option says "I think 4 !H is reasonable but in some cases you could consider going back to !S"  ?

Now maybe I don't want partner going back to !S even if he has a !H void, but do you think it reasonable that XX followed by 4 !H offers him that option while a direct 4 !H does not?
Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Karma: +12/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Master Solvers Club - September 2019
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2019, 01:53:31 PM »
Is it reasonable to say that the first option says "I want to play 4 !H, leave me alon" and then second option says "I think 4 !H is reasonable but in some cases you could consider going back to !S"  ?

Now maybe I don't want partner going back to !S even if he has a !H void, but do you think it reasonable that XX followed by 4 !H offers him that option while a direct 4 !H does not?

Absolutely, which is the reason I steered clear of it. Still, it was a tempting choice.

Looking (again) at my choice of 4 !H . I'm having buyer's remorse. I sure wish that !H 6 was the !H 9!!!  ;)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 02:43:28 PM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln