Author Topic: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB  (Read 4909 times)

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2020, 11:06:34 AM »
Where I fell short:

A Zero
Went with the 3  !C crowd on A.  The lead directing fit non jump bid of 2  !S did not  occur to me. I have not looked to see if BWS confirms that 2 !S is a fit bid. I see now that I should have thought of this. 

B Zero
 I bid 4  !C because that is what I would have done at the table believing that it is technically superior to 3NT because it is the only way I can convey to partner that I have the K !C which could be crucial for partner to know.  Sadly BWS rules 4 !C is a serious slam try rather than a mild slam try and presumably this ruled out any panellists voting for it. 

H 90
I overlooked the remote possibility that the 6 !H might become good if I led the 2 whereas the 2 would not if I led the 6.   

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2020, 01:44:53 PM »
I am not understanding the discussion about whether to lead the 6 or the 2, unless we are assuming that dummy might come down with a five card heart suit.
Assuming dummy hits with four, then after T1 dummy will have three and declarer will have either two or one.  I will have the QJ9x. It was mentioned that dummy could have the 5 and the 4. OK, suppose he starts with the AK54. I lead a small hear, the 2 or the 6, and after trick one maybe dummy has AK5 on the board or maybe A54. If declarer still has the Tx my QJ  will take care of that, even if I am leading the suit instead of covering a card declaer leads. Every time I am in I lead a top heart and, eventually, my 9 is good. And my spot.

So, when dummy cmes down with four, I just am not seeing how it matters. I agree that it could matter if dummy comes down with five.

Assuming that I simply have a blind spot, could someone explain this? It's in the nature of blind spots that we do not see them.

Here is  an example from one of the "crazy slams" session that I noted at the time.

At T1 against a NT contract a diamond is led from T8543. Some play second best leads from such a holding, so the 8 was chosen. The full layout was:

                       KQ62

T8543                                   J7

                       A9


The 8 is led, dummy plays small, third hand must rise with the J to keep declarer from winning with the 9, declarer takes the A.
Now declarer can lead the 9, letting it ride of not covered. So the 9 is covered with the T, dummy plays the Q, the 7 falls under the Q, and the K and 6 are both good.

This one I picked up on when I saw it. The choice of spots can matter. But I am not seeing how it matters on the problem at hand, unless dummy can come down with five cards. I was assuming that if dummy was 5-5 in the majors they would have a way to show that, so I assumed 5-4. I agree this assumption could be an error, but so far nobody has said anything about a five card dummy. I get the idea people are saying the  choice of spots could matter even when dummy comes down with four cards, and, having QJ9 in my hand, I just don't see it. After the first round, dummy has three cards, declarer two (or one), it seems that  the QJ9 should suffice.

Help please.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 03:48:09 AM by kenberg »
Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2020, 02:57:02 PM »
I lead the !H 2 (instead of the !H 6) because:

   1.) I expect a stiff in partner's hand.
   2.) It may cause mild confusion with declarer, who may misread the !H position. (Maybe he wins trick 1 when a duck is best?)
   3.) It costs nothing to do so. (Any confusion on the part of partner is of no matter.)
   4.) So misdirection, subterfuge, hoodwinkery is exactly why I am doing it.
   
“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 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2020, 06:28:18 PM »
Yes, the false card for misdirection makes sense to me. I decided against it but I considered it. Partner will not have much but he has a little something and, assuming the spades are eventually developed and run, he will have to choose some discards and knowing my shape could be, I suppose, important. At any rate I decided to play it straight. But the false card makes sense.

As to how many hearts dummy will hit with, their auction showed five spades and four hearts. Could it be five hearts? I doubt it. Since they can show four hearts and five spades I assume that they can also show five hearts and four spades, and thus 1NT - 2 !H - 2 !S - 3 !H presumably is a game forcing 5-5. So I assume dummy will hit with exactly four hearts so my QJ9x should cover all possibilities after the first round, however that first round goes and whatever my x is.

Anyway. yes, as a deceptive play I can see leading the deuce.
Ken

EddyHaskel

  • IACAdmins
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2020, 09:03:32 PM »
I scored only 600
A double  80 (why not tell pard we have exactly four spades and opening pt count? 2S was my 2nd choice but panel's first
B 4D       30 (why not look for "serious" slam? we have a double fit and can always stop of at 5 if needed)
C 2D       60   (yes I reverse, KnR agrees w/17.65 pts..also 2D shows my correct hand pattern)
D 2C      100
E  1S       90  I'm with Curls.  If 1NT pard will never ever believe I have five spades
F  Pass    80  If pard has the cojones to X their 4H we ought to set this at matchpoints for a + score
G (b3)    70 
H  H6      90

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2020, 10:58:25 PM »
I am hoping that the panel's answers will clarify the meaning of some options on A. I did consider doubling.

Consider the contested auction 1 !C - 1 !D - 1 !H - X.

In BWS, VI C, we find:
Among advancer's actions when responder bids a new suit:
(a) a double shows length in the unbid suit plus a tolerance for overcaller's suit;
(b) a cue-bid in opener's suit is similar to one had responder passed;
(c) a cue-bid in responder's suit is a strong raise of overcaller's suit;
(d) a simple bid in the unbid suit is nonforcing.

So a double would show spades plus a tolerance of diamonds.

But how many spades? And just tolerance? And, importantly, does the same general idea hold after 1 !C - 2 !D - 2 !H - X?

My understanding of the Snapdragon double, as 1 !C - 1 !D - 1 !H - X is called, is that it shows five spades and modest tolerance for !D. For 1 !C - 2 !D - 2 !H - X  I can imagine it being different. The situation is certainly different. Partner now has more diamonds than he would promise  for a 1 !D call and fewer points. And he seems even less likely to be holding four spades. And maybe 1 !C - 2 !D - 2 !H - 2 !S should also show a diamond fit (else we are getting pretty high) and just be guiding the defense if they go on in hearts.

But I was not sure of any of it, so I decided that we will contest this in diamonds, forget the spades, and see where that takes us. Playing in a 4-3 spade fit when a 6-4 diamond fit is available did not appeal to me.

Well, I get 0 for my choice. So I await their thinking. I still sleep well, but I do await their thinking.
Ken

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2020, 10:01:10 PM »
There were three pages of discussion on Problem A.
Quote from the moderator, Eric Kokish: "Although not explicitly, the doublers treat this as a version of Snapdragon: diamond tolerance and fewer spades than a bid of two spades".  Well sort  of. My understanding is that a Snapdragon double shows spades and a diamond tolerance, 2 !S shows spades without a diamond tolerance.  But the double, as I understand Snapdragoon, still shows five spades.  But is a double snapdragon when partner has made a weak jump overcall?

What I got out of the three pages of discussion is that there is pretty substantial uncertainty as to just what 2 !S would be. Philip Adler chose a call of 3 !S. If my partner did that I might still be at the table trying to figure out just what he had.

There was an amusing variant at the club the other day.  Nobody vul, Rho dealt and bid 1 !C, I decided to jump in with 2 !D holding

void
T763
AKJ74
9876

If anyone wants to say mean things about my 2 !D call I heartily agree but I did it. Lho now bid 2 !H, I was getting a feeling of deja vu.
Partner bid 3 !D and they went on to 4 !H, off 3. Who has the spades? I was wondering about that myself. Partner had a 6=2=3=2 shape. I have no idea what I was going to do had he bid 2 !S over 2 !H. He has six to the J.         

As to the lead of the heart deuce on H, Bart Bramley opines "There is not much use in leading an honest count card when I have most of our assets" Well, ok.  And there are a pile of reasons offered for instead leading the 6. The 2 scores 100, the 6 scores 90, I'm ok with that.


Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2020, 02:01:42 AM »
March solutions. Eric Kokish was the director.
A handful of the panel’s comments:



PROBLEM A: 2 !S. Friendly scoring by Kokish, with five answers scoring 70 or above.

Kokish began with, “The main criterion was tactics, either in choosing the appropriate number of diamonds or in showing spades without overstating prospects.” Indeed.

Berkowitz: “Two spades. Before insisting on diamonds, let’s see how partner feels about spades. Is: !S Qxx !H x !D AQxxxx !C xxx too much to hope for? This deal ha the makings of a double game swing.”

Bramley: “Four diamonds. Bid the limit immediately.”

DickHy: “At the table, however, I would probably diagnose this as a 20-20 hand, where a part-score was the limit.  We should make 8 tricks (2S, and 6D) even if overcaller has AQxxxx in D and nothing else and, in that case, we can make 9 if overcaller has 3 cards in C (overcaller might easily be 3262 however).  A 9th trick might also come if overcaller has SQ or CK.”

I thought this an extremely difficult problem with many viable answers. The panel seemed to agree, both by their answers and opinions.


PROBLEM B: 3NT.

I‘ll begin with my own assessment, “What else?”

But my thoughts are not what count. So . . .
Kokish: “In BWS, four hearts over two hearts would have been a picture bid: for most, strong clubs and hearts, no spade or diamond control, and 2=4=2=5.”

Which is what KenBerg wrote: “For the auction 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H - 4 !H I would understand the 4 !H to show good hearts, good clubs and you are on your own in the other suits. For example
xx / KJxx / xx / AKQJx
would be fine. And if that's what is meant by raising 2 !H to 4 !H then raising 2 !H to 3 !H is anything else with a heart fit.”

Willenken. echoing my “what else” thinking: “3NT. I do not understand this problem. Can’t sign off with great hearts and side controls nor make a serious slam-try with a minimum including three low spades. Textbook hand for non-serious try.” Yup.


PROBLEM C: 2 !C.

JCreech: “Partner’s expected heart bid puts me in a bind that I should have anticipated.  All of my options are bad so this is a least lie situation.  I don’t think this is right for a Moysian, so 1S is out, I don’t like bidding an immediate 1NT with a singleton in partner’s suit, not enough points to reverse and not enough hearts to raise – guess what that leaves?  The club suit is robust enough for me to rebid and pretend there are six.” This explanation is as good as any of the panelists.

Agreeing were Janice Seamon Molson, Pepsi, and Jeff Rubens: “Two clubs. Closest description of my hand, the least of horrible choices, and seems to lie the least.”

This was, however, an almost binary choice, with 1 !S coming in a close second. Hence the high scores for 1 !S (even with a three-card suit).


PROBLEM D: 2 !C. Almost unanimous, which is rare. Thirteen of fourteen IAC bidders chose this, so it was apparently fairly obvious to our crew as well.

George Jacobs concurring: “Two clubs. Obvious. A rare occurrence."

Pepsi: “Two clubs. Everyone’s bid.”

Hoki, putting it succinctly with, “2 !C.”

Wackojack: “2 !C. It describes the hand.”


PROBLEM E: 1NT. Close. Very, very close. A coin flip.

Twelve panel votes for 1NT and ten for one spade. Double received several votes, but was a distant third. All three possible bids scored highly.
 
KenBerg “found it a close call as to bidding 1NT or 1 !S. . . . I see that everyone, or close to everyone, chose 1NT. [Curls also went with 1 !S I now see]
A couple of reasons:
1. My major is spades, not hearts. If the auction does not die out at the one level, we might want to contest their 2 !H contract with 2 !S.
2. Often NT plays better when a lot of the values are in lesser honors, and suit contracts play better when the honors are aces and kings.
But yes, I hardly want a spade lead and perhaps that should settle the issue for 1NT. But I went with 1 !S."

The panel explanations go back and forth, primarily between 1 !S and 1NT. For obvious reasons. All make good points.


PROBLEM F: 4NT. With 4 !S close behind. Pass, too, garnered some votes.

Rubens in summarizing said, “There is something positive to say about each of the main candidates, and I’d be surprised to see any smug comments.” I agree. All viable choice—ANY OF WHICH COULD BE RIGHT.

Barry Rigal, recognizing the risk in bidding the spade game: “4 NT. Taking out takeout double works well for me, and I’m not a sufficient fan of Mr. Moyse to head for a four-three (or three-three) fit.”

BluBayou initially bailed on this one, deeming it too hard: "Too hard; maybe Feb9th lightning will have struck." Apparently there was a storm early this month because Blu found the winning 4NT.


PROBLEM G: 2NT. This was a majority. Personally, I was surprised. I had guessed it would be between this and the 1 !D open then 3NT rebid, but that the votes would be far closer.

Meckstroth: “2NT. Simple is sometimes best. Witness the problem rebids with the other options.”

Wackojack also chose simple: "This hand is well worth 20HCP. Automatic 2NT."

There were a few who, like our IAC crew, saw the slam potential in first bidding diamonds to convey the length.


PROBLEM H: !H 2. Twenty-two of twenty-seven panelists led a heart. Thirteen chose the deuce.

Kokish: "A heavy majority picked dummy's four-card suit, with more support for the "slightly-deceptive" deuce than the honest, very-rarely-spot-wasting six."

Bramley: “There’s not much point in leading an honest count card when I have most of our assets.”

Becker: “The deuce might confuse declarer and is unlikely to trick partner . . . .”

BluBayou, our only IAC voter who got this one right opined: "lead problem: hearts is either the mother-lode or it isn't--KEEP your big ones even the six! Deception has no roll in this problem." So we give Blu credit for the !H deuce, but deduct for the "deception has no role" comment. I'm thinking half-credit. Whaddya think? Blu? ;)

So a bit of hoodwinkery was the intent of at least a couple of panelists. I completely booted the lead problem, so will hide in shame.





ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ARE STILL WELCOME.
That’s it. On to the April problems.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 09:57:09 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

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2020, 03:01:04 PM »
Thank you Todd!

One question - I noticed this month that the proportion of IAC quotes had increased compared to the Bridge World panel.  Does this mean that at least one IAC member is doing a more complete, succinct and pithy description of the panel response than anyone on the pane?

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 March - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2020, 04:10:18 PM »
Thank you Todd!

One question - I noticed this month that the proportion of IAC quotes had increased compared to the Bridge World panel.  Does this mean that at least one IAC member is doing a more complete, succinct and pithy description of the panel response than anyone on the pane?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A dearth of comments this month, Jim. We usually get plenty-o-pithy in the IAC forum. But no matter, I can make them up on the fly if needed.
“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