2020 December - MASTER SOLVER'S CLUB

[Masse24]

DECEMBER 2020 MSC

Deadline: NOVEMBER 10 at 9:00 a.m. (ET)

Submit your DECEMBER MSC responses here: The Bridge World - MASTER SOLVERS CLUB

BWS 2017 System: BWS 2017
BWS 2017 POLLS, CHANGES AND ADDITIONS: BWS 2017 - Polls, Changes, and Additions

• Bridge World Standard 2017 (BWS or BWS2017) is effective beginning with the January 2017 Master Solvers' Club problems. This page shows (1) the results of the panelist polls that were used to adjust the system; and (2) the changes in and the additions to Bridge World Standard 2001 (BWS2001) that were made.
  In the listings of the questions and answers, an asterisk indicates the BWS2001 agreement; the proportion of the expert votes for each item, rounded to the nearest percent, is shown in brackets.

IAC Forum MSC Scores

*     *     *

[blubayou]

A: Give partner some leeway--pass    B:  17 pts can overcall 2 of a minor--ignoring the heart queen
C:  Invite with our "6-card suit"          D;  Go for the minus 160!
E:  A CLASSIC  UNT .                             F:  And a balanced 12-14, of the same "purity" that "E" has for UNT ;>
G: CUE partner into the party.            H:  I bid my 16-count and that skip-straight 6bagger already. Done.
                                                                                  (  oops!   leading 4th in longest & strongest )
   Here is my 2nd 15-minute quick-and-dirty   which will probably outscore my 8 final answers in four weeks --AGAIN.

A:   60 / B: 40 C:  70 [4SF] D: 100  E: 80  F: 90  G: 100  H: ZERO     total=540    so reconsidering helped a BUNCH (680)

[blubayou]

OK, there are FEW re-thinks  from the above'from the hip'votes..   but these five  I might as well send today to Bridge  World:
Problem B:>>  Overcall 2D,  then double any expected rebid--if any, is my only plan, but it sure ain't pretty.
Problem D:>>  Leaving in the double of one heart took two seconds,  and we will never look deeper.
Problem E:>>  The selling point for me on Michaels, and unusual notrump is that you can express a hand that, if it were only 5-4             distribution WOULD NOT BE WORTH A BID AT ALL, or would be worth one bid only, leaving one with that left-over feeling later.  That is how I feel about this one.  The 5 child hearts make it ugly,  but count me IN.
Problem F:>>  It's a balanced 12:::  Open your minor and rebid a notrump.  What's the problem??
Problem G:>>  Cue-bid-- Encourage partner in whichever suit he wants to be encouraged in.  Who has a plan "B"?
   These five are settled for me;  that leaves  [A]  [C] and  [H]  to fuss over for three weeks.  Come on  IAC  give me some wisdoms!
                 (why is it ALWAYS  ,  A,  C,   and  H   ?)

[jcreech]

Problem F:>>  It's a balanced 12:::  Open your minor and rebid a notrump.  What's the problem??
Problem G:>>  Cue-bid-- Encourage partner in whichever suit he wants to be encouraged in.  Who has a plan "B"?
   These five are settled for me;  that leaves  [A]  [C] and  [H]  to fuss over for three weeks.  Come on  IAC  give me some wisdoms!
                 (why is it ALWAYS  ,  A,  C,   and  H   ?)

Ok - you didn't ask for help seeing other alternatives for the others, but

On F - it may be a balanced minimum, but one stopper in the two unbids might be more than some may want to take on.  Although my inclination is to bid 1NT, as you did, I have not entirely ruled out bidding 2C to show the solidity of the club suit or 2 to advertise good clubs, a diamond fit and concern for the majors in NT.  Also, I only have one card to be led into, and it may be a filler for partner than a tenace position.  So it may not be so automatic, there are other considerations.  Supposedly, a bridge problem is a hand that has three or more reasonable choices - I think it applies here.

On G - some may think of the cue bid as being too strong of an action, but the Moysian fit will work out fine with the singleton club in your hand, so bidding either of partner's responsive double suits is reasonable, as is rebidding or jump rebid to show a longer heart suit.  I still haven't developed an initial position on this hand, but I can see these as possible plan A, B, C, D ...

As for A, C and H - when I sit down and take a look at them for my initial thoughts, I will pass them on to IAC.  Until then, I wouldn't mind seeing some initial thoughts from others.

[kenberg]

Thinking about C:

I assume the problem is that the hand is just a bit short of what we would like for a game force..

I also assume that a bid of 2 over 1 is game-forcing. I could not find that statement browsing through the BWS stuff, but I think that's how they play it.

I want to consider bidding 2NT. Of course this is passable and possibly I end in 2NT with no Stop. Ok, but worse tings have happened. And maybe partner will not pass. If not, then I think that with three card support he should bid 3 , meaning that "Yes, I accept the game invitation and I have three hearts in case you are interested".  That is, a 3 bid is forcing, offering a choice of games. Yes, this means that it is possible I will be playing in 2NT when partner has a 4=3=4=2 shape but if he lacks the values to accept the invitation that might not be all that bad. We might well have 8 tricks ready to go (five heart tricks and three elsewhere) as soon as we get the lead and that might well be the limit of the hand playing in hearts. I am saying "might" here. So sure, things can go wrong. But things can go wrong if I make a game forcing 2 bid and things can go wrong if I decide to treat my strong five card suit as if it were six cards.

My guess is that of I do bid 2NT then about half the time partner will accept the invitation and, if he does not have three hearts, 3NT will be a reasonable spot. 


So I think a case can be made for 2NT, even if I am less than confident that 2NT will be my choice. Mostly I want to see if we all agree that over 2NT a partner, if he accepts the invit, should bid 3 when holding three hearts. It seems cleat that 3 should be forcing since, after I bid 2NT, partner has to be prepared for me to have only a four card heart suit.

[Masse24]

Thinking about C:

I assume the problem is that the hand is just a bit short of what we would like for a game force..

I also assume that a bid of 2 over 1 is game-forcing. I could not find that statement browsing through the BWS stuff, but I think that's how they play it.

I want to consider bidding 2NT. Of course this is passable and possibly I end in 2NT with no Stop. Ok, but worse tings have happened. And maybe partner will not pass. If not, then I think that with three card support he should bid 3 , meaning that "Yes, I accept the game invitation and I have three hearts in case you are interested".  That is, a 3 bid is forcing, offering a choice of games. Yes, this means that it is possible I will be playing in 2NT when partner has a 4=3=4=2 shape but if he lacks the values to accept the invitation that might not be all that bad. We might well have 8 tricks ready to go (five heart tricks and three elsewhere) as soon as we get the lead and that might well be the limit of the hand playing in hearts. I am saying "might" here. So sure, things can go wrong. But things can go wrong if I make a game forcing 2 bid and things can go wrong if I decide to treat my strong five card suit as if it were six cards.

My guess is that of I do bid 2NT then about half the time partner will accept the invitation and, if he does not have three hearts, 3NT will be a reasonable spot. 


So I think a case can be made for 2NT, even if I am less than confident that 2NT will be my choice. Mostly I want to see if we all agree that over 2NT a partner, if he accepts the invit, should bid 3 when holding three hearts. It seems cleat that 3 should be forcing since, after I bid 2NT, partner has to be prepared for me to have only a four card heart suit.

Yes, I agree Ken. 3 must be forcing. It is merely an "I accept your invitation to game and oh, by-the-way, I have three hearts" bid.

BTW, I hate 2NT. Which is why I am leaning that way too.

I'm just happy my clubs are not weaker.

[blubayou]

Problem C  is a perfect candidate for Sanya's deal-generator, which hasn't happened for a couple months.   I set the south to Qx, AKQ98, xx, 6542,   and north to generate 11-19 point diamond openers with four spades (allowing five might have been more fun--sorry)   After banging away through 180 deals  we have 100 that would actually be bid as required.  On 45 of them, it DID NOT MATTER which of the 3 thinkable rebids we choose!  "2NT", "3H" and 4SGF="2C"  each had less than 10 wins versus the other two.....And [hold onto your hat!]  the kitchen-bridge/Kaspar Milktoast  "2H" won more times than those three combined.  So who will adopt the wimpy 2H rebid  in challenge-the-champs I dare you.  (Meant  the MSC of course [does the magazine still do  "challenge the champs'??)
   As an aside,  the experiment  showed forcefully  how important it is for opener to check back when holding 3 hearts,
when able to accept. should responder choose the 2NT rebid -- As discussed in the chats just above! The "all answers end at same place" category would shrink considerably, and "2NT"would turn into a disasterous choice if that advice is not followed.
   PPS:  it was eye-opening to notice that every time 'we' ended up in notrump, the defenders won the battle of the spots in the club suit, no matter how much help north brought to the party--cashing the 4th round over our six-spot  was pretty monotonous and was a major factor in the giant underbid-rebid of "2H" having had such a great winning ratio.

[kenberg]

I am leaving the comment, since I once made it. But see addendum below.

Indulge me a bit/ I am a long time skeptic of using computer programs to analyze such situations.   Some thoughts:
For example:
You say: On 45 of them, it DID NOT MATTER which of the 3 thinkable rebids we choose!  "2NT", "3H" and 4SGF="2C"

Bidding 2C will put them in game so, if it doesn't matter which bid is made on these  45 hands then I guess opener has enough strength to accept the game inviting bids of 3H and 2NT, else it would matter that 2C was bid. Further, if responder bids the game invitational 3 , I would expect that opener, if he accepts the invitation, will bid 4 rather than 3NT, while if opener has two hearts then, over the game invitational 2NT, he would, if he accepts, bid 3NT rather than 4 . This is matchpoints so even if both 3NT and 4 make, it matters which one we choose.

So the only case I see where it won't matter is if opener has three hearts and the strength to accept an invitation. Then they end in 4 no matter which of the three calls is made. (I am ignoring the possibility that opener could have slam interest). So maybe it is true that on 45 of the hands opener has three hearts and will accept any of the three invitations. Is that it?

Well, I guess I can think of another possibility. If opener has two hearts and will always accept, and if 3NT and 4 both fail by one trick, then it won't matter. If responder bids 3 opener raises to 4 , off 1, and if responder bids 2NT then opener raises to 3NT, off one.

Also, suppose opener has KJx. Or Kx. And suppose he has two hearts. Now, if responder bids 2NT he will be playing the NT, while if he bids 2 , opener will be playing the NT. I would be surprised if it never mattered which had was dummy. Although here we also have the possibility that 2NT will be passed. So maybe sometimes, after a 2NT call, the contract is 2NT off 1 because the wrong hand is declarer, but this is matched against the 2 call where opener rebids 2NT but now, since 2 was game forcing, the contract is 3NT down only 1 because opener is declarer.

And I would expect that on may hands there will be options as to declarer play and defense.


Anyway I am trying to understand just why it does not matter on these 45 hands.

Addendum.
Ah yes, while clearly it matters on each hand I guess it could be that while bidding 3 will sometimes be off 1 while 2NT would have made while other times bidding 2NT will lead to +120 while bidding 3H will  lead to plus 140, so that no matter which we do we will sometimes wish we had done the other. Still, I am less than convinced. And still not sure just what is being said.

Suppose that the N hand is such that we can be confident that, with the given S hand, the auction will begin 1 - 1 - 1 . Now imagine that 30 pairs are given the NS cards. Ten Souths are instructed to rebid 3 , ten rebid 2NT, ten rebid 2 . Then the auction goes however it goes and the hands are played. I guess a way of thinking of "it doesn't matter" is to say that if you could place a bet on which group of ten will come out best, there is no reason to choose one group over the other.  That would indeed be surprising..

[blubayou]

Hi Ken  re: just above  You figured my thrust out pretty well,   except the thirty pairs bit.    If one or two of the three choices  came out ahead, on the deal generated,  that deal would be put in the "DOES matter" column.  And by the way  if  all roads lead to a doomed contract,  then choice #4  -- "2H"  would receive a win  [ as long as it too was not equally doomed] this happened A LOT  as i state upthread  to my suprize, and I am running a further 128 generated hands  to check on what seemed a BaD LUCK run  of hearts not running, as well as implementing a more refined registering of what bid wins, and how resoundingly, egged on by your concerns    

[jcreech]

My initial thoughts on this month's problems:

Problem A:  Pass - I would like to bid more, but in what direction.  Is 4 and improvement?  What does 4 say?  My second choice is 4NT,hopefully asking do you have what we need to make slam?  But of course, partner won't know unless peaking in my hand.  To move or not to move is a pure guess.

Problem B:  2 - I am not going to encourage partner bidding spades, and I am not going to overstate the strength of my diamond suit.  I will start with the overcall, and hope I get a chance to further describe my hand.

Problem C:  3 - To GF or not to GF.  Right now we have a misfit, so I tend to pull in my horns a bit.  Also being NV suggests not pushing hard.  Hearts are where this hand lives, so I will make an invitational jump.  The holding will be good opposite anything other than a void (and even then, the Q may provide an entry.

Problem D:  Pass - Matchpoints is a nasty game.  I am looking at a probable five tricks and they are red.  I am hoping for the magic 200 vs. a partscore or 500 vs. a game situation.  I am close to bidding 1NT to show my heart values that way.

Problem E:  2NT - I am torn between making the lead directing bid of 1 or getting both of my suits off my chest right away.  Typically, when I can accurately describe to partner where to find 10 of my cards in one bid, I like to show them.  I am almost too rich to make this bid.

Problem F:  2 - Usually I like to show my shape and rebid 1NT, and would have over 1 or 1 .  So what is different with 1 ?  I think it is that neither of us is showing a major and I only have one stop for both suits.  Also, when partner responds 1 over 1 , there tends to be either five diamonds or a club fit.  Unless partner intends to reverse into a major, I want to steer clear of NT at this point.

Problem G:  3 -  This feels a bit like a stretch, but what a fit for partner's responsive double suits!  Not certain what my cue-bid shows except that my hand improved with what partner had to say.  Now it is time to listen.

Problem H:  A - Did Todd ever mention that he hates lead problems?  I haven't been as vocal, but I really hate lead problems too.  I don't really have a standout lead to make.  I hate leading my bare trump ace - I would prefer to wait and have it get a chance to pick up something other than air.  But the only other thought I have is the J, so maybe it will be better to look a dummy to get an idea of what might be an effective shift.

[kenberg]

Hi Ken  re: just above  You figured my thrust out pretty well,   except the thirty pairs bit.    If one or two of the three choices  came out ahead, on the deal generated,  that deal would be put in the "DOES matter" column.  And by the way  if  all roads lead to a doomed contract,  then choice #4  -- "2H"  would receive a win  [ as long as it too was not equally doomed] this happened A LOT  as i state upthread  to my suprize, and I am running a further 128 generated hands  to check on what seemed a BaD LUCK run  of hearts not running, as well as implementing a more refined registering of what bid wins, and how resoundingly, egged on by your concerns

There is a serious danger here of provoking the academic part of my personality. I can feel myself wandering in that direction.

What can we decide so far about partner's hand? Well, that depends  bit on who partner is. Suppose I (aka partner) was dealt KJxx / xx / AQxx / Kxx.
Of course I open this 1 , you bid  , then I do what?  Probably I bid 1 but this is a pretty flat hand and perhaps I think "Maybe I might regret skipping over the spades suit but on many hands I will be happy to be playin this in whatever number of NT pard thinks is right, having the lead come into my hand looks like a good thing, and keeping quiet about my four card spade suit might well inspire a helpful spade lead." Certainly some would, over 1 ,  bid 1NT with this hand.

The point: If the automatic deal generator includes this hand in its analysis, we have to consider whether the bidding would actually go 1 - 1 - 1 when opener holds this hand.

And do we want to be in 3NT on this? It's optimistic to think we can run five . We could duck a to establish four tricks, but we will be needing some tricks and that also requires that we firs give them a . While all of this ducking is going on they might be setting up three minor suit tricks to go with their and . More often than not, we are probably limited to 8 tricks here. And it will probably, or at least maybe, help if opener, not responder, plays the NT.

A further complication is that perhaps double dummy analysis, which I assume you use to see how the hands work out, might show that 8 tricks is the limit but in actual play the defense has to do the best they can without seeing the full deck.


There are many more complications with modeling. What should we assume? I have a partner who, when he holds 4-4 in the minors likes to open 1 . Frank Stewart advocates that, or at least he used to. I haven't seen him pitch that so often recently. Steve Robinson, in Washington Standard, says (I'm pretty sure but haven't looked it up) says with 4-4 in the minors you can open either, depending on just what else you hold. That seems better, but me, I almost always open a 4-4 with 1 .  So, after 1 - 1 - 1 a model has to allow for me being 4=1=4=4. But I think Stewart would have opened that 1 , if I understand him correctly.

Also, suppose opener is 4=3=5=1. Suppose the are KJx and the are four spots. Give him a 13 count. Me, I raise 1 to 2 . In I figure pard can ruff a or 2 and then draw trump. And, if he has four , nothing is stopping him from bidding 2 over my 2 . Or, if he has a flat hand, he can bid 2NT over my 2 .


The point is that there are numerous possibilities for what partner has, opener still has choices to make over whatever responder does t his second turn, and even if we reach a bad contract the opponents still have to beat it.

I am still considering 2 . If pard has three hearts they would not be such that he would raise hearts instead of bidding his spades. But a big problem is that often, or at least sometimes, over 2 , he will bid 2 . I am not going to like that. Clearly this hand is a selling point for XYZ, but we are not playing that here.
 

[blubayou]

YOU ARE RIGHT JIM-- MY TEXT DID NOT CONFIRM THAT I HAD SWITCHED SIDES ON PROBLEM F-- sorry  --->>
After being made aware that deal F auction was  "1c, 1DIAMOND; __? " , not "1C, 1HEART; __?"   and AGREEING THAT THE 1NT rebid is ill-advised,  my votes on the five dud-problems (relatively speaking) stand as posted on day one OTHER THAN SWITCHING #F TO  2 0F SOME MINOR, and strangely, mirroring Jim's upthread votes not only in substance, but in the thinking he sends to usJ about those!

Then there's A : I propose this middle-of-the-road hand for pard's 3NT response to go with my xx, AKxxxx, Ax,  KQx....... Axx,  ?x, Kxx, AJxxx.   Even this "non-stretchy" minimum has 10 off the top,  so it seems  raising to 4NT  is safe enough. and as he may have some goodie like a major-suit queen, then slam could come home if only hearts come home with one looser.    There are stretchy 3NT bids that will  bite the dust if hearts split lousy and there is no fast 10th trick, but I am leaning heavy toward giving partner a bump.



LEAD PROBLEM:   I desperately want to take a peek at dummy,  but  I am leaning to cashing the HEART ace, not the trump ace  to do this.  Perhaps deep heart looser they have will go away if we do not get right after it?  Perhaps  will see exactly WHICH diamond to shift to at trick two? Perhaps i will see no massive club suit in dummy in time to get back on that track?   And of course,  I may be blowing the timing sky-high by helping opps get heart tricks up and running:(   May I join the 'i hate problem H" club?


Problem C  will have to wait  until our 2nd and 3rd run of 100 sample deals is analyzed with the delicacy that Ken has driven me to apply to these!

[jcreech]

I am confused!  Jock are you still voting for 1NT or switching to 2 ?  I ask partly for the reason that you are unclear, and partly so you don't get stuck like Joe did last month, with an inaccurate (albeit, Joe's was blank) response recorded (even temporarily) for you.

After being made aware that deal F auction was  "1c, 1DIAMOND; __? " , not "1C, 1HEART; __?"   and agreeing that 1NT rebid is ill-advised,  my votes on the five dud-problems (relatively speaking) stand as posted on day one, and strangely  as Jim's upthread votes.

This suggests that my vote is for 1NT, but as you can see from my quote below, I am currently planning to vote for 2 . 

Problem F:  2 - Usually I like to show my shape and rebid 1NT, and would have over 1 or 1 .  So what is different with 1 ?  I think it is that neither of us is showing a major and I only have one stop for both suits.  Also, when partner responds 1 over 1 , there tends to be either five diamonds or a club fit.  Unless partner intends to reverse into a major, I want to steer clear of NT at this point.

Please clarify where you currently stand on Problem F.

[kenberg]

On F, 2 seems right. Of course agreements matter, and agreements vary. Here is from BWS 2017

"In response to one club, with four of a major and four-plus diamonds, responder bids: one of the major with four diamonds, one diamond with invitational-plus values (otherwise one of the major) with five diamonds, one diamond with six diamonds."

So can responder have only four diamonds? Well, yes, but not often. With four diamonds he would skip over to bid a major if he had a major so if he has four diamonds he does not have a major. He is also very unlikely to be 3=3=4=3, with that holding it seems he would bid some number of NT, although perhaps there are hands where he would not. The most likely case where he holds four is when he also holds four .  That's one too few to bid either 2 or 3 , although there could be the occasional game forcing holding where he would bid 2 on a four card holding, showing strength, planning to clarify shape later.

So it seems that very very often he will be holding five for his 1 call.  And, when I raise , he will expect me to be holding five .   It seems to me that after 1 - 1 - 2 we are in a good position to end up in NT when we belong there, and in a minor when we do not belong in NT. It could go wrong, but I think it's odds on. Often with these MSC hands we have to go with the least bad choice. But here, it seems to me that 2 is not bad at all. 

[thornbury]

PROBLEM A: Pass
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump
PROBLEM E: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM G: 4 Hearts
PROBLEM H: Heart Ace