Author Topic: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB  (Read 3080 times)

bAbsG

  • IACAdmins
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2020, 02:37:24 PM »
SOLVER: Babs Giesbrecht
       Qualicum Beach BC
       Canada

Your Solutions for the September 2020 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace


Thank you for participating in the Master Solvers Club.

Curls77

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +8/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2020, 02:43:35 PM »
a) 3S
b) 2N if it is unusual
c) X
d) chicken pass
e) 4H
f) 2N by bws, but never heard of this treatment
g) 3D
h) sJ

phew, hopefully still on time

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2020, 05:20:16 PM »
780  ;D 

Jim Creech --- so close!

Perfection on the Bridge World MSC is almost impossible. This is pretty darn close.

We had six IAC Solvers who made the MSC Honor Roll this month.
1. JCreech
2. Thornbury
3. MarilynLi
3. BluBayou
3. CCR3
6. BabsG

Well done!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 11:16:55 AM 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

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2020, 05:39:32 PM »
Congrats Jim.  I was just wondering what the thinking was for 4C on E and here you are, bidding 4C. But maybe I get it. If partner bids 4S over 4C then you give up on hearts and bid 5D,   trusting/hoping  partner understands this means you want to play 5D? This never occurred to me.

Back in the mundane world:

PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts                       90
PROBLEM B: Pass                            100
PROBLEM C: Double                        100
PROBLEM D: 3 Diamonds                 100
PROBLEM E: 3 Hearts                       60
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump                  100
PROBLEM G: 2 Hearts                      80
PROBLEM H: Diamond Ace               60

                                                    690

I see we also have a some 730s , three I think. I have not carefully checked who all is on the HR.  Good going.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 05:53:37 PM by kenberg »
Ken

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2020, 07:05:03 PM »
Thanks Todd and Ken,

Apparently I would have still made the honor roll if I had stuck with all my original answers, but thanks to BluBayou (Problem D) for boosting me from 740 to 780.  I did not like my original answer, and so it was nice to have an alternative I liked better.

My two bad (if 90 can be regarded as such) included one that I considered and had in my pocket as a second choice. 3 !S on Problem A, but the other I would never have considered - 2NT on Problem G - I was more willing to manufacture a reverse into hearts than to trot out  2NT.

It was also fun to see someone I know and have played against frequently sitting just ahead of me on top of the Honor Roll.

I do feel bad about one thing.  It looks like there was another IAC player who made the Honor Roll, but did not send a submission into the forum, Todd or myself.  Thornbury would have been second among IAC players if he had submitted to our Monster Point contest.  Bad luck, but a personal congratulations John!!  John intended to submit and thought the process worked differently than it does.  We have added his score to the list receiving Monster Points.  The process is that you submit your answers to the forum, Masse24 (Todd) or myself.  If you submit to Todd or me, we will assume you are submitting anonymously unless you tell us differently.  We encourage you to also submit to the Bridge World; if you have problems submitting to the forum  or forget, it can be a useful record to allow us to include you among the IAC participants.  It is that record that allowed us to include John's scores.

I am anxiously awaiting the panel discussion on these.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 12:06:43 PM by jcreech »
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 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2020, 10:01:25 PM »
September Results

NAMEBW-SCORERANKMPs
JCreech     780   1   30
Thornbury     740   2   25
MarilynLi     730   3   20
BluBayou     730   3   20
CCR3     730   3   20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Also participating: BabsG (also made MSC Honor Roll), Aloha9, Curls77, DickHy, DrAculea, Hoki, Kenberg, Masse24, MsPhola, VeeRee, Wackojack, YleeXotee
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 11:15:14 AM 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

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2020, 07:23:27 AM »
So,  it was MARILYN,  not Jim,( who made 2 last-hour improvements)  that exactly matched my picks.  My hat is off, sir although  i am pouting over that 4C cuebid that practically  guarantees we end in 5 diamonds :).    I would love to see  Marilyn   in the club's mentoring events  ,  as well as DickH , Babs,   and our MSC GHOST POstmOrtem, sharing their creative thoughts in real-time.  I feel a bit   je ne sais quoi   supplying three fourths of the heckling from the gallery ,and those solvers' chats would likely be entertaining . 
   Sanya!  If you had run  problem D  through the generator program you sent to me,   your 'chicken' moment would surely have gone  pouff, and we would have had FOUR tied for the silver bronze!   :P


Correction made by Jcreech after allowing Thornbury's submission.  Pardon is begged from Jock for editing his post. - Jim
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 12:11:20 PM by jcreech »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

wackojack

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 231
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2020, 09:12:00 AM »
SOLVER: Jack Goody
        Guildford
        England

Your Solutions for the September 2020 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Hearts
PROBLEM B: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: Pass
PROBLEM E: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM F: 6 Hearts
PROBLEM G: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

thornbury

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2020, 03:03:44 PM »
our Solutions for the September 2020 Contest 
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
PROBLEM B: Pass
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM H: Spade Jack

yleexotee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2020, 08:26:33 PM »
Nice Jim! I hadn't noticed the scores were up. I believe my bids were all the 1st or 2nd choice of the participants, and yet I was relegated to the bottom of the heap with a 680!
« Last Edit: August 17, 2020, 08:45:29 PM by yleexotee »

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • Karma: +11/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2020, 10:31:40 PM »
SEPTEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric Kokish Director

A handful of the panel's comments:

Problem A: 3 !S

It is interesting that the panelists slightly favored 3 !H over  3 !S (12 to 11, IAC had a similar split, 7 to 6), but the top score went to 3 !S.  That was because 3 !H is a waffle between spades and NT, and there were panelists who did not, in favor of spades. 

Votes were evenly split between 3 spades and 3 hearts, with the panelists opinions ping-ponging back and forth between the two.
•   Jeff Meckstroth: "3 !S. With no aces, it seems spades will be a better strain than notrump if partner has nothing in hearts."
•   Danny Kleinman: “No reason not to bid an independent suit a third time.”
•   Blubayou sums it up nicely, “If I had to place the contract on this very bid,  it would be "4 Spades",   but i don't have to.  We all can picture the deals where partner has beaucoup running winners,  if  we will just  fess up to the heart stopper,  but when he does not, well,  "3NT ends all auctions"  they say,  and that would be too bad   especially  if they cannot beat 4 spades. SO my bid is THREE SPADES  which will likely give pard a fat headache.   Who knows-- HE may come up with the 3NT  bid!  another  fun thing we might hear is 4 Diamonds,  then I have good hope for 5 Clubs making.  But frequently,  he will be end-played into raising spades with 0-1 trump  and that should be fine   [fingers crossed].”
•   Masse24 has a slightly different take:  “I think the system note to be a bit of a red herring. Although the 2 !S rebid does not promise six, in this auction, it frequently does show six. This is because of the availability to opener of both red suits—and also 2NT—after partner’s 2 !C response. No 2!D or 2!H rebid = No four-card red suit. Additionally, in checking the BWS system, it does not state that a 2NT rebid by opener must have stoppers in the unbid suits (ala Lawrence 2/1 method). But why else would the system specify that a rebid does not promise six? Based on the preceding, if I did rebid spades it would not be to “show six.” Instead, it would be to better communicate my suit quality—which I want to emphasize.

•   ”Speaking in favor of 3 !H, WackoJack summarizes it as being “I need more info from partner and 3♥ asks for it.” 
•   And Joey Silver, in a word: “3 !H. Groping.”
•   Jcreech expands on this saying “my thinking was that 3H can be a pattern bid, but more importantly a potentially useful fragment in hearts.  Partner clearly has a minor two suiter, and 3H shows opener's reluctance to favor either.  On the other hand, even a singleton HK could bolster opener's QJx into a double stop.  At the same time, I believe 3H now guarantees the sixth spade, which 2S did not.  In hands like this, I like to show what I have until one of us can determine the strain.  I am still uncertain, so I show a bit more of my hand.
•   While YleeXotee considers 3 !H as an asking rather than telling bid – “If I ask if he has a heart stopper with 3H, and partner doesn't have one, he will bid the dreaded 4 of a minor,which would be death. And when the hand comes down my p will throw their cards at me since I'm the one with the heart stopper.”

•   Hoki makes the argument for 4 !S well “I'm not interested in a minor-suit slam nor 3NT where my heart stopper will be knocked out at trick 1. So I shall bid what I think I can make. After responder's reverse this is weaker than 3♠.”
•   And Bart Bramley: "Four spades. Shows semisolid suit and a  minimum. With  more, I would have bid three spades last time. With weaker spades, I. would bid something else (usually three spades) this time."

Problem B: Pass

The top score on this hand was Pass, which was selected by 6 of the IAC solvers.  Several wrote of the dilemma of choosing between Pass and 2NT (the 2nd place choice).  For example,
•   Hoki wrote “torn between pass and 2NT, the former being right if opps have the balance of power, the latter if pard has got a minor as well as the implied spade stack.” 
•   Masse24 also expressed uncertainty – “I went back and forth on this on several times. My nature is to be conservative, so pass was my first choice. Then I changed my mind to 2NT. Today, I’m back to pass. It’s really a coin flip for me. One of the final factors that pushed me toward the pass is that half my HCP are in a short suit. A suit they probably own. A suit where, if they do possess the ace, it is almost certainly on my left.”
•   Seemingly agreeing about the location of the heart honor was Janice Seamon Molson: “Pass. If the heart King were the diamond King, I would bid.”
•   Pepsi: “Pass. I’m afraid East-West will find hearts.”

2NT was the next best choice according to the MSC panelists, but more popular among the IAC solvers (10). 
•   Bobby Wolff: “2NT. An overbid, but it’s too dangerous not to include both minors.”
•   Curls77 said it most succinctly – “2N if it is unusual.” 
•   Similarly, MarilynLi said “2 Notrump.   Partner rates to have an opening hand with 5 card Spades. If so, bidding probably make a better score than passing 1S. Difficult decision. I really tempted to bid a minor.”
•   Andrew Robson, echoing the concern about the opps finding hearts chose the aggressive action anyway: “2NT. This may backfire if the opponents find hearts.”


Problem C: Double

Nearly every IAC solver selected Double for their answer.  This was lucky, because it was the overwhelming choice of the BW panel too. 
•   MarilynLi says it succinctly – “Double is flexible. I can accept any of my partner's bid 3S, 3NT or 4C. If partner bids 4D, I bid 5C.” 
•   Taking a cue from Marilyn . . . Michael Becker: “Double. Most flexible.”
•   Channeling Al Roth and his “What’s the problem?,” YleeXotee wrote “What else? show my spade holding.” 
•   Meanwhile, BluBayou is ready to move on “This quizz should be about the NEXT round of bidding, after pard bids <whatever, even 3 Spades> to our negative double.  3NT NOW, nor 4 Clubs never crossed my mind.”

•   Eschewing the obvious, Masse24 goes his own way – “The negative double, showing four spades is staring us in the face. I believe it will be the majority solver choice. But we will not lose the spade fit if one exists. Bidding clubs first should better convey my hand shape.”
•   Todd is in good company as Zia, Kokish, and Rubens all among those who chose 4 !C.
•   Zia: "Four clubs. Should handle well  by bidding clubs then spades. A doubler will not be happy lf partner bids four diamonds."
•   Anders Wirgren: "Four clubs. In a simulation, North held three or four hearts only 18 percent of the time, so  it is unlikely that three notrump is the highest makable contract. l  therefore follow Edgar's advice and bid the longest suit."

•   Kokish, however, explained the ever-evolving propensities in bidding theory (and the majority panel vote) with, “I am confident that with a full-value, six-four, prime-values hand with a control in the opponents’ suit, four clubs would have been a clear choice during the sixties, seventies and eighties, well after the birth of the negative double. But the majors-first mind-set has taken root in tournament players’ philosophy, and the panel’s vote reflects that."


Problem D: 3 !D

Summarizes the problem nicely –
•   Jim Creech: “2NT opposite no entries is worse, as are double without hearts and 3D without assurances that partner has length.  …  I now sort of wish I had lied by bidding a very heavy 1NT; at least I would not feel so helpless now.”
•   Sami Kehela: “Too strong to pass, and the wrong shape to double.”
•   MarilynLi described her bid simply – “Bidding NT has no chance. Opp's 2S contract looks down 1 at best. Our 3D contract has good chance of making.”
um-my."
•   Jeff Meckstroth: "Three diamonds. Hoping for  some trump  length in the dummy."
•   Rich Colker: "Three diamonds. Partner is  marked with  little more than  a grim countenance. Two notrump rates to take at most eight tricks and will  likely fail by one to  four tricks. Partner's  long suit could be clubs, but there is  no easy way to get there, and  diamonds could play almost as well. Three diamonds is  risky; partner could show  up  with something like 1=4=2=6. But as  Victor Mollo's Papa the Greek has said, 'The essence of bridge is to see through the backs of the cards.'"
•   While BluBayou worked at finding his reason:  “i ran another large simulation in the deal generator  giving my partner one or two jacks and only 0-1spade ( and the opps  the remaining 16-18 pts and actual 8-9 card fit.   big suprize!!--  pard ALWAYS came through with  3-5(6) diamondss for me,  -- or 6+ hearts  and we hardly ever took a minus, Opps generally were good for 6-7 tricks in spades and occasionally even mad two,  so passing them out  was a bad move if you agree  yarborough partner will not be leaving in  our second double. It was truly a landslide win for bidding,   and going plus if we bid 2NT  was somewhat rare and  lost to 3D+1 or 2 anyway,  when it did stagger in.  3 DIAMONDS,  and protest to Edgar Kaplan's ghost, if it doesn't get the 100.”  Blu’s analysis sold some on the bid.” 

IAC paid attention.  Some liked the analysis but did not move.  For example,
•   Masse24 said “I like this, Jock. I like it a lot. But I'm not sure I have the guts to try it.” 
•   While DickHy had other reasons to steer clear. “I wouldn’t have thought of 3D were it not for Jock’s work, so ethically I should pass, but something to remember for another day and I’ll be pulling for 3D to gain the maximum 100.” 
•   But then there was Jcreech – “God forgive me, but I have allowed Jock to persuade me into bidding 3 !D  on Problem D.  I cannot imagine partner passing with 6 hearts after my double, so I think the chances that partner will have 4+ diamonds increases.  I was dissatisfied with passing, so I was looking for an excuse to bid anyway.”

Four of the IAC solvers went with the BW second choice, 2NT. 
•   YleeXotee not only chose this bid, but declared that he noticed a pattern – “2nt - hoping to right side this, if p has the min, she can pass and we will get the dreaded spade lead. NO TRUMP is the theme of the contest this week!”
•   Kit Woolsey: "Two notrump. Notrump is likely the right strain unless partner thinks otherwise. I need some values from North to make a game."
 
The most popular choice for the BW solvers, and 5 of  the IAC solvers, was Pass. 
•   Curls77 described it as “Chicken Pass.” 
•   Masse24: “Pass. Tough problem. Partner has zero and with the right distribution we could have game or even slam.  One thing I know I'm not doing is bidding 2NT. Partner has a stiff or void in spades. If I am going to declare, partner's hand is only worth something in a suit contract. Of the "I want to declare" choices that remain, I lean more towards double. Partner will put us in his best red suit, which is another worry. If partner is 4-4 in the reds, at Matchpoints doesn't he put me in hearts?”
•   Phillip Adler: "Pass. I hope partner will lead  his trump and  plus  100  will  be good. Double or three diamonds could lead to a four-two fit. Two notrump will  surely fail."



Edited by jcreech to allow additional BW panelist comments. Part 2 follows.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 01:18:59 PM by jcreech »
“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 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2020, 12:27:33 PM »
SEPTEMBER MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish Director

Problem E: 4 !C
As moderator, Eric Kokish wrote "This problem is about choosing the right red suit at the right level (perhaps by overbidding slightly with a cue-bid to assist in the strain choice), but its most interesting aspect is North's duty in reacting to the cue-bid."

Almost half of the BW panel and 3 of the IAC solvers chose the cue-bid, 4 !C, for the top score. 
•   Jcreech described the bid simply – “4C To show strength and at least two places to play.  Partner could have a 3-card major, so I want to cater to that instead of jumping to game in my Jxxx.” 
•   Paul Boudreau: "Four clubs. Two places to play. No sense in bidding four hearts, since partner will bid  that with  four. Will correct four spades to  five  diamonds and hope that we are not too high."
•   Andrew Robson: "Four clubs. Classic strain-over-level choice, made in the hope that partner will  have the wit  to  bid four hearts with  five  spades and  four  hearts.  I like to play that three diamonds, rarely used in the  natural sense, is a form of lebensohl, which allows more hand descriptions."
•   However, Masse24 thinks about the hand differently:  “Partner should have both majors. Probably has at least four hearts. But it’s not guaranteed. Partner could be 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2, or even 5=4=4=0. So I hesitate to bid 4 !H on this collection of garbage; the jump implies a fifth heart (or at least I would like it to). 3 !H is too timid as it does not show my values. 4 !D shows my values, and allows partner to bid a major---so this is certainly a possible bid (my second choice).  But I choose 4 !C. Hopefully partner can bid hearts now. Yes, it does risk partner choosing his “better” major, or longer major if 5=4, so I hope he is aware of my possible hand shape. If instead he bids 4 !S, I go to 5 !D.”

Most of the rest of the IAC solvers bid hearts.  Among the 4 !H bidders,
•   Hoki describes the situation simply, “too many possibilities, but maybe 4 is the simplest (considered 4♣ and 4).” 
•   Similarly, YleeXotee writes: “4H - I had a hard time with this one. I first wanted 3h, but I can't imagine bidding that with 10 pts when I would bid it with zero. 3d, same issue. I'll take my chances.” 
•   Michael Lawrence: "Four hearts. The hand is too strong to  overlook bidding four hearts. lfl bid any number of diamonds, the heart suit could get lost."
•   While BluBayou argues (mainly with himself for a quieter response: “We are about a queen heavy  for a non-jump reply,  so does that mean we must bid 4 hearts?   I am chicken and bid only 3 HEARTS.  Jumping in DIAMONDS  may win the day but good luck with that. IF somebody bids something and i can say 4 diamonds, I hope it means pard has 4 pieces when he goes back to hearts!”
•   Michael Becker: "Three hearts.  Must bid some number of hearts and hope for the best. If the  heart honor were the queen, the hand would be an  easy game-force; make it  the ten, and I'd be comfortable bidding three hearts (or perhaps three diamonds). I'd force to game at imps, but I'll go low at matchpoints. Too much can go wrong after a cue-bid: Partner could bid  four spades with five=four or four=three majors; over four clubs, four diamonds would not say 'pick a major."'

Making the case for diamonds,
•   WackoJack said “My hearts are too weak to bid 4♥ and I prefer 3♦ to 3♥.  Partner with 18+ can still bid 3NT.
•   Danny Kleinman: "Four diamonds. We may belong in four hearts, but partner can bid a five-card major on the way if he's willing to reach five  diamonds. I'm not sure I'd want to play in four hearts if we have only a four-four fit."

 
Problem F: 2NT

Nearly all of the BW panelists and solvers went with the footnoted 2NT to show the two specific suits.  That was also true for the IAC solvers. 
•   Curls77 may have been echoing the thoughts of most of the IAC solvers when she wrote “2N by bws, but never heard of this treatment.” 
•   From YleeXotee, “2nt - I'll take the BWS hint given - but honestly, where else am I going to land but 6H, so....” 
•   Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. BWS does not discuss four diamonds. I'll start by getting both suits in and see what happens next. My expectation  is  that the opponents will bid  spades or diamonds, and hilarity  will ensue."
•   George Jacobs: "Two notrump. My kind of hand; l  can bid far into the night. If I were  feeling  lucky Punk (Well, am I?),  I could bid six hearts. Probably partner has enough spades to stop a high-level sacrifice. I will  start by showing both  suits, then  will l bid  hearts, except over four clubs where I will  Exclude with  five  diamonds. If LHO bids  three diamonds and  partner passes,  I will  bid  four  diamonds. If partner bids five clubs, I will  have more options,  including five  hearts, as I will  have  laid it bare. If the bad  guys  persist with  four diamonds, I will leap  to  five  hearts, pleading with  partner to look at  his  hand. Did I mention  that I love this hand?"
•   And Jcreech – “2NT  I want to be in slam opposite the least encouragement.  I will start by showing both suits, then listen to what happens next. … my initial thought was to jump to 6H as suggested by Todd and now echoed (at least in consideration) by Hoki.  If the HJ were the Q, I would be more inclined to do exactly that.  At the table, I particularly like the bid because it leaves the clubs undisclosed so that on a run of the hearts, it becomes easy to pitch a club from Jxxx or Txxx in order to save something in spades.  I once held a 5-8-0-0, with the 8 bagger headed by AKQJT and the spades by AKQ; I bid 7H on the same general theory.  But there is a difference between having an absolutely solid holding and a broken holding where you need enough luck for the Q to be in partner's hand, falling doubleton, or an entry to partner and find the Q can be finessed.  6H may be the panel view, but I think it may be more of a table action than a panel action.”

Having introduced the elephant in the room, 6 !H was the second choice of the BW panel. 
•   From IAC, WackoJack defends his choice:  “Double just gets you into trouble.  2NT tells partner what you have but you need to know what partner has.  If  partner makes the expected response of 3♣?  Would 5♥ now encourage partner to bid 6♥ with nothing except ♥Qx?  That is asking a lot.  Alternative is to bid 6♥ immediately and hope partner can give me the Q♥ or at lest 3 card ♣ support.  I will go for 6♥.” 
•   Dan Gerstman: "Six  hearts. I guessed. Let the opponents guess too. Makes it  hard for them to find spades, or to decide whether or not to  save."
•   Joey Silver: "Six  hearts. Sure, it's a gamble, but it is  not more of a gamble than bidding this hand scientiflque and not pre-emptively, while letting the villains get together in the pointed suits."

Garnering fewer votes from the panel, yet receiving the same score, 1 !H was chosen by one of the IAC solvers. 
•   Masse24 discussed his thought process:  “1 !H.  On a fact-finding mission. My stiff spade and diamond void make it almost impossible that this will end the auction. My goal is to find out what partner has. This has the best chance of doing so.  But this is such a bizarre hand . . . anything could be right.”
•   Jeff Rubens: "One heart. I hope to hear some natural bids before I guess, and l want to give East-West a chance to bid out.  Lacking my  four honor-tricks, they aren't likely to bid a great deal unless provoked."
•   Michael Lawrence: "One heart.  Likely following up with six clubs. This sequence, should it  occur, will  imply my  shape. With six-six, I'd start with two notrump."


Problem G: 2NT

Only two IAC solvers got the top BW choice right on this hand. 
•   WackoJack approached the hand from the least lie perspective:  “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.” 
•   While YleeXotee stuck with his theme perspective – “I prefer 2NT to 3♦ as it likely right sides the contract is the closest nearest description.”
•   Billy Eisenberg: "Two notrump. A matter of agreement, but practical."
•   Jeff Rubens: "Two notrump. When an overtrick may be  valuable, distorting declarer's shape will  often be advantageous if three notrump is the normal contract."
•   Barry Rigal: "Two notrump. We are not being graded on style as opposed to  efficiency. Three diamonds might well end the auction, and I doubt J would be happy when dummy came down."

Solvers, though, preferred 3 !D.  12 of the IAC solvers and roughly 60% of the BW solvers took this route. 
•   Jcreech had this to say of his choice:  “3D  Never been a fan of manufactured reverses, and outside of diamonds, the hand does not revalue upwards.  If the diamonds were AKQTxx, I probably would have rebid 3NT.  They are not, so I will make the normal value bid.” 
•   This was simplified by Blubayou – “No fake reverses this month !   poster-child  for plain old jump-rebid.   THREE DIAMONDS.”
•   Bart Bramley: "Three diamonds. Tried and true. Good suit, good hand. Okay to have a maximum occasionally. Experiments like two clubs are still  not my cup of tea, and two hearts would be asking for trouble. And I don't see how either of those choices would make my  problem easier on  the next round."

Representing the three IAC solvers that went for the manufactured reverse,
•   Masse24 wrote: “I think this is too strong for 3 !D, but some panelists will choose it anyway (Kleinman? Becker?), being right on shape, but “an underbid,” which they will mention. 2NT is also possible, and I strongly considered it. But the black suit aces, one naked, the other unsupported, are not good notrump features.  But it’s a bidder’s game. This leaves two choices. A reverse to 2 !H, not attractive with only a three-card major, though it has the advantage of leaving the most room for partner to continue the description of his hand. Alternatively, a GF value bid of 3 !C, a jump-shift. Is it strong enough? I’ll choose the completely non-standard reverse. I’ve done this several times with a three card minor: 1 !C – 1M – 2 !D to force, but never with a three-card major. This is waaaaaaay out there and will either score a 20 or hit big. Purists will hate this. (I can hear Hoki shaking his head disapprovingly from here.)  I’ll add that I have never done this (reverse into a 3-card major) at the table.”
•   Sami Kehela: "Two hearts.  Although I  am generally  disinclined  to  introduce a three-card suit in a natural  sense, here it is more or less obligatory, for the hand is too strong for three diamonds."
•   Pepsi: "Two hearts. A little dangerous, but I would like to  play notrump from  partner's side. Between the alternatives, I  like two notrump more than three diamonds."


Problem H:  !S J

BluBayou, I think, spoke for everyone when he said “spade jack, diamond ace,  and the correct low club  are still  a 50-50-50%  proposition  for me.”  As did DickHy, when he wrote “This quiz would be a lot easier for me if it stopped at G.”

Both the panel and solvers (BW and IAC) voted overwhelmingly for the !S J.  WackoJack clearly indicated his ambivalence for his choice – “J♠ looks reasonable.”  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Many made their choice by eliminating the alternatives.
•   Jcreech chose the !S J this way:  “SJ  I will not lay down the DA - too easy for it to set up something in dummy while having the ace be ruffed away.  I also will not lead my trump, automatically pickling anything partner might have.  A club is a possibility, but which one … ?”  While DickHy took different information to get to the same spot:  “There’s 26 HCP between W and N, but how are they split?  W hasn’t raised and N hasn’t doubled, so perhaps N has 4c hearts and 12 HCP.  He could be short in diamonds – the K is probably with W anyway – but I have no entry to give him a ruff if he has xx.  Perhaps the best way I can help is to lead the SJ across W.  If partner is short in D he can lead them after winning that trick.”
•   George Jacobs:  "Spade jack. Trying to  lead  through dummy's strength. l could even get a crazy ruff.  Diamond lead is not allowed for too many reasons to  list."
•   Michael Lawrence: "Spade jack. Least of evils. The other three suits have serious warts."
•   Bart Bramley: "Spade jack. Pusher and a ruffing value."
•   Pepsi: "Spade jack. At imps,  the best chance to beat the contract."

Club leads held the number two and three spots, but clearly choosing the right spot card mattered. 
•   As Jcreech pointed out, “A club is a possibility, but which one - the 10 to retain the lead if possible, the 6 2nd from nothing, or low to imply something in the suit?” 
•   YleeXotee wants to suggest a poor suit:  “Spades are out, I don't do doubleton leads with no trump control, although this is not likely to be the opps side suit, so maybe there is less danger here.  3h is out, likely to finesse p if she has any heart honors. I would hit my own hand with a ruler if I led from AQ, so....a club lead it is. I think BWS is 2nd best. so 6C.”
•   Danny Kleinman: "Club  six. Second-highest from  length and weakness. The ace of diamonds would be too likely to  set up a trick for dummy, but it could do  something even worse: wreck my chances of beating Eddie Kantar in our contest to  see who can go to  sleep with aces on defense most often, lifetime."

The BW panel preferred to be showing something, so the 3 got a bit better score than the 6.  I think those players were hedging their bets so they could follow up with either the 6 or 2 depending on what came down in dummy.
•   Robert Wolff: "Club three. A horrible choice but the best one available."
•   Barry Rigal: "Club three. We don't need another hero. The only sensible alternative is the spade jack, and when three hearts gets passed out, my bet is that dummy has spades."
•   Joey Silver: "Club three. Partner could not bid  spades, so I will  play him  for  better values in clubs."

Second choice among the IAC solvers was the !D A. 
•   Although most of the IAC solvers were silent on their reasoning, Masse24 probably identified their reason – “ !D Ace.  Hoping a peek at dummy will guide my trick two choice.”
•   Paul Boudreau: "Diamond ace. Hoping that the peek at dummy compensates for the possible loss in tempo."
•   Jeff Rubens:  "Diamond ace. Maybe dummy will  have one strong black suit and one weak black suit."
•   Phillip Adler: "Diamond ace. After seeing the dummy, maybe I will know that we should not be attacking spades."




Overall, a great month for IAC solvers. A very high-scoring month! Well done!

Originally part of the previous post (Masse24), edited by jcreech to allow additional BW panelist comments.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 01:25:28 PM by jcreech »
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2020, 11:12:54 PM »

quote:  PROBLEM B:•   Andrew Robson, echoing the concern about the opps finding hearts chose the aggressive action anyway: “2NT. This may backfire if the opponents find hearts.”
    I ran the simulation a second time  (south exactly this problem hand,   East any hand under 6 hcp)   [ my generator is not the sharpest knife in the drawer]   and got a total of over 30 deals that might produce the desired auction.   Suprizingly few of the LOOSING  cases (for re-opening with anything) involved opps going to town in hearts.  The killing hands involved opener walking the dog with a 'playing-trick' spade game hand.  There were 4 of those in my first run,  and 5 of them in the recent one, of which 3 would or should have failed.   Improving  our score by reopening remains good for a matchpoint gain,  but it's not the runaway winner that 3 diamonds was in problem D.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 09:17:57 AM by blubayou »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

ccr3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 SEPTEMBER - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2020, 04:21:13 PM »
Great Job Todd! Thank you.