Author Topic: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB  (Read 4860 times)

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #45 on: March 12, 2020, 03:02:57 AM »
anonymous PAT (ccr)?   and my other pal  shawn not evn entering??   come on you two!  GROW a pair  and get into ths great forum!!!!
    And  i am glad so glad to look forward to a ne BETTERbunch of problems.      THESE AS A GROUP  ARE THE MOST SICK THAT I CANRECALL IN60 ISSUES IF Bridge WoRLD  in my possession.   Bar none 
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 03:08:13 AM by blubayou »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2020, 03:15:32 AM »
PROBLEM C: Pass
Looks like a textbook 3 !C. But the note: “*BWS: 3 ♣ weak, but values for 3NT opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP” differs from my personal methods, and therefore, if I strictly adhere to the system notes, my hand is too weak.

So I pass.

But this “feels” wrong. Often, I feel a though the system notes added to these problems are trying to talk me into an action. Here, it feels as though they want to talk me out of a “normal” preempt. Do I ignore the note and risk partner going on? Or does the preemptive value of 3 !C outweigh the risk?


I passed. Scored okay, which I figured on this one, so no real complaints. But I allowed the system note to talk me out of a normal action. Even with the note (and potential for partner going overboard), sticking with a normal action--a solid obstructive preempt should outweigh the advertised risk.

Which I knew.

Sigh.

“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: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2020, 12:22:17 PM »
Yes, I also passed and with the same thoughts that 3 !C seemed like the normal action.

Interestingly, Pass got a top score on both B and G. I did pass on B but went with 2 !H on G.


I was worried about passing on both B and C thinking "Oh, they wouldn't give two problems such that pass is right" But they did, just not the same two as I checked.


When I was in college I of course had to take some of these general courses outside my major. In Psych 1 and 2 they used multiple choice exams and I took some satisfaction in getting an A in Psych 1 and a B in Psych 2 without much reading the book and rarely coming to class [Added: I might be exaggerating some, but not much], I just psyched out the multiple choice exams. It's actually a bad habit. I need to stop thinking that way on these MSC problems.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 02:11:56 PM by kenberg »
Ken

EddyHaskel

  • IACAdmins
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2020, 03:14:16 AM »
700. I'm cool with that.
I don't bother with BWS, I just bid what I would actually bid. 
The only answer I would change is F.  I said 4S. 3nt is the better bid there.   
However 3S came in second place and I think that bid is chickensh#t.  4S came in 3rd and got 70 pts, but should be the 90 pointer.

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2020, 12:14:23 PM »
March MSC I scored 2 zeros because I stubbornly ignored BWS and voted for what I would have done at the table.  April MSC I have avoided the zeros.  However, my first choices were made ignoring BWS and would have scored 740.  Then looking at the effects of BWS on my deliberations I changed some of them which reduced my score to 670.  C'est la vie!

Post Mortem


A
♠ 4   ♥ K 9 7 5 3 2   ♦ K Q 10 2   ♣ K 6
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——   ——   1 ♠   Pass
 ?*         
*BWS: 2 ♥ game-force; 3 ♥ invitational

Interesting that 77% thought this worth a game force.  Maybe, that the panel’s requirements for an opening bid are higher than mine.  E.g. 2♠ opening bid includes 10HCP.
I voted 3♥ scoring 60, perhaps reflecting a slightly lighter opening bid requirement than the panel

B
East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 5   ♥ Q 8 5 3   ♦ J 6 5 2   ♣ K Q 10
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——   ——   Pass   Pass
 ?         


I understand why 50% of panellists voted pass.  BUT why 1♣ the 3 card suit preferred to 1♦?  That is anathema to me. I voted 1♦ scoring 70.

C
♠ J 2   ♥ J 7 2   ♦ 7 6 2   ♣ Q 10 6 4 2
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——   ——   1 ♣   Pass
 ?*         
*BWS: 3 ♣ weak, but values for 3 NT opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP

So 3♣ gets 50% and pass gets 36%.  I constructed some hands and could see that 19 point hands might give you a 50% chance of making 3NT.  But 18 point hands far fewer.  I assume that if all the panellists were mindful of the BWS then they would automatically bid 3N with a balanced 18-19.  Moreover, opposite a balanced 14 with 4 spades should we be pre-empting the opponents?  Perhaps so because it puts the “last guess” in the opponents’ court. 
I voted pass scoring 80.  And perhaps in retrospect 3♣ has more going for it.   

G
♠ 10 6   ♥ A J 5 3 2   ♦ J 6   ♣ K 10 5 2
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
Pass   1 ♦   1 ♠   Pass
 ?         

Not sure why pass scores 10  better than 2♥.

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2020, 01:52:28 PM »
Some thoughts about C:


You hold ♠ J 2   ♥ J 7 2   ♦ 7 6 2   ♣ Q 10 6 4 2
The auction begins  1 !C - Pass - ?
We are non-vu;, they are vul, it's imps.
The helpful(?)  reminder is: 3 ♣ weak, but values for 3 NT opposite a balanced hand with 18-19 HCP

We could think about how to interpret the reminder. Let's say that, operationally, it means that pard will bid 3NT holding the balanced 18-19. 
With that in mind, we could think:
"Well, maybe pard will make it if he bids 3NT. It will take a bit of luck but it's not impossible. And, any time that he does not bid 3NT y 3 !C bid has probably made life more difficult for the opponents."

My point is that a preemptive bid will, on occasion, give partner the problem rather than the opponents. So we should try not to put partner in a hopeless position. But 1 !c - 3 !C - 3NT might not lead to a hopeless contract.

So the idea would be: In the mall percentage of hands where pard has the values to bid 3NT we will probably go down more often than not, but in the significantly larger percentage of the hands where partner has an opening hand of normal strength the 3 !C call has a good chance of paying off.

I am not so sure this is right, but I am thinking that being non-vul against vul opponents and playing imps all push in this direction.

I was one of the passers. Reluctant, but a passer.
Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2020, 08:22:17 PM »
A
♠ 4   ♥ K 9 7 5 3 2   ♦ K Q 10 2   ♣ K 6
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——   ——   1 ♠   Pass
 ?*         
*BWS: 2 ♥ game-force; 3 ♥ invitational

Interesting that 77% thought this worth a game force.  Maybe, that the panel’s requirements for an opening bid are higher than mine.  E.g. 2♠ opening bid includes 10HCP.
I voted 3♥ scoring 60, perhaps reflecting a slightly lighter opening bid requirement than the panel
Not "slightly lighter" opening bid requirements, "slightly more." Look at your hand. Just yours. One question to ask, "Would you open this hand in first seat?"

This was the question I asked, and the answer was yes. Do I like it? No, and I said so. But on close hands, such as this, if the answer is "yes," then I make a GF 2/1 response. When the panel opinions are provided in a few days, my guess is that more than one will make a similar observation. I would also guess a few observations will be made about the flexibility afforded by the entire level saved via 2 !H rather than the space consuming 3 !H.


B
East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 5   ♥ Q 8 5 3   ♦ J 6 5 2   ♣ K Q 10
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
——   ——   Pass   Pass
 ?         

I understand why 50% of panellists voted pass.  BUT why 1♣ the 3 card suit preferred to 1♦?  That is anathema to me. I voted 1♦ scoring 70.

Half your values are in the club suit.

Whatever they bid, if they bid, is your intention to try to outbid them?

Of course not. At least, not me. So opening can (and should) sometimes carry an alternate meaning. Like, "Lead this suit, partner!"

If I opened--I pass any response from partner. Yes, even 1 !S.

So although 1 !C looked intriguing due to the lead-directing value, the hand is just too ugly (Jim says "cheesy") to jump in.
“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
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2020, 10:36:59 AM »
Responding to Todd

A
Opposite   !S!H K97532,  !D KQ102,  !C K6

Give partner:  !S AQxxxx,  !H J,  !D Jx,  !C QJxx.  A perfectly sound opening bid.  Yet any game prospect is non existent.  OTOH:
Give partner:  !S AQxxxx,  !H QJ,  !D Jx,  !C Qxx.  Now 4 !H looks good.
The 3  !H response is crucial in opener having the information as to whether or not to go to game. 

The point is that opening bid opposite opening bid does not necessarily mean that game is on. 

B
Yes I can now see the sense in opening 1 !C where the deception to partner will rarely damage.  I normally don't like masterminding because when it does not result in a gain and yet does not result in a loss, partner will notice and may deem you untrustworthy. Here perhaps is a rare exception. 

Responding to Ken: 
    So the idea would be: In the small percentage of hands where pard has the values to bid 3NT we will probably go down more often than not, but in the significantly larger percentage of
     the hands where partner has an opening hand of normal strength the 3 !C call has a good chance of paying off.
   


Yes agree that argument has merit.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 10:42:27 AM by wackojack »

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2020, 07:44:45 PM »
My April Bridge World arrived today. I immediately looked for their thoughts on A. Danny Kleinman and Brian Glubok were the two panelists who chose 3 !H over 1 !S. Glubok notes that the poor texture of the hearts and the possibility that the hand should be played in !D are drawbacks but he chooses it anyway.  Kit Woolsey is the "Director" of the column, and notes "3 !H should be reserved for hands with which responder can de pretty sure that !H is the right strain, level the only issue. This hand doesn't come close."

That seems to be the trade-off.  After 1 !S - 3 !H the hand will almost certainly be played in !H. Are we willing to commit to that? Of course after 1 !S - 2 !H the hand is going to be played in game. That's not so great either. So it's a trade-off. I went with 2 !H but I thought there would be more than 2 votes for 3 !H.

1 !S -  1NT (semi-forcing) got 4 votes.  Carl Hudecek says (partial quote) : "A !H follow-up should suggest a decent hand with a !H suit inadequate for an immediate jump. Does it?"
I mentioned earlier that I thought panelists don't always go by BWS system notes. According to the notes,   The auction 1 !S - 1NT - 2 !D - 3 !H  shows diamonds, saying nothing about hearts.   But also BWS plays Bart, which both ups the chances that opener will rebid 2 !C over 1NT and, if he should bid 2 !D, it promises four.  But when this 2 !D rebid happens, then what? I was hoping the column would get into that.  And also discuss the Bart sequence 1 !S - 1NT - 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 !H. In this sequence responder bid the 2 !D and with 2 !H opener is just doing what he was told that he should do with most hands. Now what, and what does it mean?

The remaining 20 panelists go with 1 !S - 2 !H.  The general thrust seems to be a best of evils argument. I think everyone realizes this could go wrong.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 07:53:21 PM by kenberg »
Ken

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2020, 10:14:00 PM »
I think panelists will use the proffered system notes to guide their decisions, but most will go with their general bridge judgment if it would necessitate research into the BWS system notes.  I am certain that there are some who do the research, but most do not.

I am looking forward to seeing the more complete discussion when Todd finalizes his synthesis.
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 April - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2020, 05:00:56 PM »
APRIL MSC SUMMARY – Kit Woolsey Director

A handful of the panel's comments:


PROBLEM A: 2 Hearts
A majority. A huge one, with 20 of 26 panelists choosing the game-force.

Woolsey: “Sure, two hearts might dump us overboard, but we will probably find the right strain. This will make the choice of strain a lot easier.”

Masse24:  “I would open this in first seat. 2 !H also has the advantage of leaving more room to find our best strain.”

MarilynLi:  “3 !H by responder should shows 6 cards with AKQ or 2 of top 3 honors with a side thing,” which echoed Steve Robinson, “The hearts are too weak for three hearts.” And Kit Woolsey, our director for this set, bluntly says, “Calling this heart suit inadequately strong is a huge underbid. . . . Three hearts will be a winner only when North-South can take exactly nine tricks in hearts and not in notrump. . . . Three hearts should be reserved for hands with which responder can be pretty sure that hearts is the strain, level only the issue. This hand doesn’t come close.”

Zia zeroed in on the problem with, “Two hearts. For some reason, players will open a hand but treat the same holding as a non-opener in response. I would call them ‘confused.’ I eagerly await the one-notrump responses.”


PROBLEM B: Pass
Not unexpectedly, Pass was the majority choice for our IAC bidders. Similarly, fully half of the MSC panel chose the low road.

JCreech stated it most eloquently, calling it “A cheesy 11.”

KenBerg, who also passed, stated, “Shading a point or so in a third hand opening when holding a decent five card major is fine, but a shaded 1 !D on !D Jxxx? Not my style.”

Babs kept it brief with, “Pass.”

A close second (one mentioned by several of those who passed) was the lead directing 1 !C. But not one of our IAC solvers chose this. What were the panelists who chose this thinking?

David Berkowitz: “One Club. Must get the lead. If you open any other non-suit, you get what you deserve. Can’t pass at these colors.”

There were, however, three panelists who chose to open 1 !D (along with five of ours).


PROBLEM C: Three Clubs
A close winner over the second place pass. Only three of our solvers chose to ignore the BWS system note and make the seemingly normal preempt of 3 !C, JCreech, EddyHaskel, and CCR3. Well done!

Blubayou, taking full heed of the BWS system note: “Pass  --- 26 of 27 panelists unless some just DEFY the system note.”

I noted the risk of ignoring the system note but chose to pass anyway. Masse24: “Do I ignore the note and risk partner going on? Or does the preemptive value of 3 !C outweigh the risk?” John Diamond thinks so, stating, “Three Clubs, percentage at these colors. Hope that partner does not have a big, balanced hand.”

Bobby Wolff: “Three Clubs. A worthwhile psych . . . with risk.”

And finally, Bramley: “Three Clubs. I’m more scared of LHO than partner. Sometime partner makes 3NT. Pass is not in the game.”


PROBLEM D: 4 Spades
I thought this one to be the most interesting due to the many tactical considerations available.

A plurality chose 4 !S, with 12 of 26 votes not quite 50%. But 5 !S came in second, garnering 7 votes. So 20 of 26 votes (there was one who chose 3 !S) chose to raise partner’s spade bid to a higher level. But what level? And why?

Blubayou meandered all around the tactics with: “4 hearts - now, we're talking folks! Only 4 spades and 5 spades came to mind, then I recalled the surprise winner from last month--a lead-directing advance of partner's noise in a four-bagger.  I reject "3H" because it's not jamming enough.” Then, with a last-minute change of mind, “So , for  IAC scoring  change the mad scientist  "4 hearts" to our WonderWoman--Marilyn's great blast to FIVE spades, please.”

Steve Robinson thought that bidding high as quickly as possible was important: “Five Spades. Lets the opponents guess at the six-level.”
MarylinLi, similarly: “Five spades. Preempt to the most.”

But the simple, game-level preempt of 4 !S was the winner—and also the most popular choice of our IAC voters. DickHy observed: “4S.  East’s x denies a “long suit” which suggests something like 1444 or 0(544)*  They could well be heading for a bad trump break, so let’s not get too cute.”


PROBLEM E: 2 Hearts
Big majority. 17 of 26.

WackoJack chose the basic 2 !H, stating: “2 !H. I would have liked the rebid of 1♠ to promise an unbalanced hand in which case I would next bid 1NT.  Sadly in BWS it does not so I rebid 2 !H.” If unbalanced means possessing a stiff somewhere, then no. Simple nota pancake flat hand.

Mark Cohen: “Two hearts. I do have six.”

The Pollacks covered all the bases with: “Two hearts. Pass is possible with this seemingly-misfitting, soft hand, but it could miss a vulnerable game. One notrump is right on values, doesn’t stress the anemic hearts, and might leave some room to recover. . . .

Hoki agreed, putting it simply: “2 !H. Not 1NT with an unbalanced hand.”

MarilynLi thought the heart suit too anemic to rebid, stating: “1NT. With 8 hcp, there should be rebid. Can't rebid 2H with that suit.”
For me, personally, this was my “out there” decision this set. I feared it might score a zero. Thankfully, three of the “theorists” chose the same bid: Zia, Kleinman, and Rubens. Whew! At leat I’m in good company. Still, it scored poorly, only garnering a 60.


PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
This was very close, with 3NT garnering 12 panel votes, 3 !S 11.

MarilynLi keenly assessed the location of her values: “3NT. 2/3 of my hcp are in opponent's suit. Partner's double could be as little as 13 hcp with shape, so I'm not risking more for now.”

DickHy went back and forth, finally settling on game in spades.

Interestingly, 3 !S was the second choice—NOT 4 !S. John Diamond, a 3 !S bidder went low because of the !D Q, saying “three spades is clear.”
And Blubayou chose 3NT “since I am screwed for good score this month anyway.”

Interesting logic, Blu!

And finally, EddyHaskel, with a strong opinion that included mention of a farm animal writes: “However 3 !S came in second place and I think that bid is chickensh#t.  4 !S came in 3rd and got 70 pts, but should be the 90 pointer.” 😊


PROBLEM G: Pass
More or less a binary choice, with 2 !H coming in a very close second.
Woolsey mentions transfer advances, but since we are not playing them here, we go with what the system offers.
Kudos to our Passers: DrAculea, JCreech, and CCR3.


PROBLEM H: Heart 4
Clear. At least according to the panel.

Of the 26 panelists, 19 chose the !H 4, and 4 chose the !H 2. Only 2 chose the !S T.

A large majority of our IAC bidders chose the !S T, but that choice was widely panned by the MSC panelists. Why?

There were few mentions of the spade lead and why it was bad, but Berkowitz said the following: “If partner needed a spade lead, where was he after 1 !D ?” Fair point.

Howard Weinstein, too: “Partner did not overcall one spade . . . . If my heart spots were weaker, I might try the spade ten.”

Woolsey and Hudecek, however, were the two !S T leads. Woolsey adding: “Yes, it is possible dummy is a little light and the spade lead chops out a critical entry. Or maybe the spade lead will be productive by setting up defensive tricks. Or maybe the spade lead doesn’t blow a trick, while a heart or club would lose a trick.” Yup. I think the safety of the spade lead occurred to everyone.




ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ARE STILL WELCOME.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 12:37:15 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