JULY MSC SUMMARY – David Berkowitz DirectorA handful of the panel's comments:
PROBLEM A: 4NT. A majority, by more than a 2:1 margin over Pass.
Lots of pre-deadline discussion on this one in the IAC. But The Bridge World made no mention of Ace-asking or Gerber. It was, for the most part, a simple quantitative raise decision.
Berkowitz in summarizing the top choice: “It seemed to most panelists that South held too much strength to pass.”
►
WackoJack said it simplist with: “I have a good 17 and partner must have at least a good 14. That makes 31. So invite with 4NT.”
► Bobby Wolff: “4NT. My guess for partner is:
Kx
xx
AKQTxx
Jxx , but I’m hoping for the Jack of
and Q of
.”
Berkowitz counters with: “I don’t get it. With six solid diamonds a spade stop, could a two-diamond response have been that far off the mark?” This thinking echoed that of many of our IAC solvers, me included.
► Zia: 4NT. No reason not to raise; partner’s range is 11-17 HCP.”
► The Sanborns: 4NT. The question is, what is the top range for 3NT? 16-17 HCP? If so, we should bid again. What is partner’s likely shape? 4=2=3=4 or 4=2=4=3 are the most likely possibilities. With a five card minor, he could show that first.”
Although a few mentioned what partner did not bid, most concentrated on the fact that we have a big hand, too much to pass.
Next!
PROBLEM B: 2
. Huge majority.
In this auction, after the double, a two-level suit bid is non-forcing.
Fully 20 of 27 panelists chose this straightforward “bid where I live” response.
► Adam Grossack: “2
. Perfect example of the bid. I’m bidding where I live for lead purposes and not wrongsiding notrump if partner has a strong hand.”
►
Masse24: “2
is a bid-where-I-live choice.”
► Philip Alder: “2
. I will bid where I live and hope to be able to act again.”
One-notrump, with both majors unstopped was unappealing, with only two panelists making it their choice. Pass found three votes. And redouble two.
PROBLEM C: 1
. This was a “WTP?” choice, it appears.
There were twenty panelists who chose 1
and only seven who went with 1NT.
PROBLEM D: 2
. Another majority.
There were too many explanations to list. But Chip Martel said it simplest with: “2
. Since
the only way to play 2 is to bid it now, I really should do that.”
“I guess with the agreement of Bart, 2
here should be constructive,” was
MarilynLi’s thinking.
The Sanborns: “2
. We have the values for 2
and don’t see any reason to pussyfoot around. Using Bart, if we bid 1NT, we can’t play in 2
, and that could easily be our best spot.”
PROBLEM E: 2
. A mostly binary choice.
We (the IAC) missed the boat on this one. 24 of 27 panelists did something other than Pass.
► Rodwell chose the major saying: “1
. Major more important but 2
would be reasonable. I can’t afford to bid out later to show a 5=6, as a five-three or maybe a five-four spade fit would get lost. Lead-direction is a secondary consideration.
► Kehela: “2
. Hoping that the bidding will proceed in a fashion to permit me to introduce the spade suit at a sensible level.”
►
DickHy: “Pass. We’re not vulnerable. East has passed – what does that show? I guess p is limited to 15 HCP (otherwise x and then H bid or 1N). If E is 3/4 HCP that would leave opener with about 17. But does E pass in this situation with more? They may well have a C fit and if 2C comes round to me (either from re-bid from W or x and then 2C) I can bid 2D, but for now pass. After all, they could land in 2S after W re-opens with a x – and I’m dancing on the table again.”
►
WackoJack, more succinctly: “Pass. Stay out of trouble.”
►
KenBerg: “Pass. If I were to bid I would intend the bid as constructive and expect it to be interpreted as constructive. The old axiom is "Don't rescue a partner who has not been doubled". So is the hand worth a constructive 1
call? I don't really think so. And I don't want a
lead. I probably don't all that much want
lead either and anyway the hand is not remotely worth a call at the 2 level. Passing sounds just fine and dandy to me. Neither 1
nor 2
would be forcing, but partner would think I had something and that might not end well.”
PROBLEM F: Double.
Several viable choices on this one, which makes for a good MSC problem.
Six of our MSC solvers chose the double, so well done. They were: JCreech, DrAculeA, MSPhola, Hoki, and Aloha9 (and our anonymous victor).
PROBLEM G: 3
The forcing 3
garnered the most votes. Double, though, hoping for a juicy penalty, was a close second. Personally, I thought it a close call, but we only had two doublers.
PROBLEM H:
8
Bobby Wolff: “
2. No particular reason not to.”
Berkowitz’ pithy response to Wolff: “Other than the fact that BWS uses third-highest or lowest.” (It is not often pertinent, but occasionally one must look at the system). Continuing with, “I can see more winning scenarios for the higher club leads, and the scoring reflects this, along with the corresponding demotion of non-club leads . . . .”
A large majority of our IAC solvers saw it similarly, choosing one of several clubs.
A rather short summary this month, but plenty of time for others to chime in with opinions and complaints.
P.S. All complaints should be directed to Jim Creech!
