August MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, DirectorProblem D a1 | b3 (Pass | 3♥) (none)
Imps
Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 9 7 4
♥ A J 10 7 3 2
♦ 10 3 2
♣ —
(A) As dealer, what call do you make?
(a1) Pass; (a2) 1
♥; (a3) 2
♥.
(B) If East dealt and opened three clubs, what call would you make?
(b1) Pass; (b2) Double;(b3) 3
♥; (b4) 4 ♣ [BWS: majors.]
This problem has been particularly difficult for me to write, partly due to the nature of the problem, and partly due to the extreme disconnect between the expert community as expressed by this Panel and the IAC solvers. Ultimately, I decided to treat this as two problems using the same hand.
(A) As dealer, what call do you make?
(a1) Pass BWP 73%; BWS 56%; IAC 46%.
Even though nearly half of the IAC solvers chose to pass initially, neither
BluBayou (“Are they serious”) nor
KenBerg (who initially said “I suppose a3, but but but.” but there must have been enough buts to change his mind when push came to shove). Nonetheless, the experts on the Panel had much to say directly about their passes.
Jill Meyers thinks “An initial pass will leave room to express the hand later; especially holding both majors.”
Ira Chorush agrees “I will have a better idea of what to do by listening and, I hope, learning.”
Zia says “Too many controls for even my weak two-bids.” And
Boye Brogeland argues that there is “Too much game potential in spades to open two hearts and a bit too weak for one heart. By passing I hope I can get both major suits in later.”
(a2) 1 ♥ BWP 19%; BWS 18%; IAC one
Fleisher and Friesner think the hand is “Too promising for spades to open two hearts, and we don't want to pass. Playing strength is good enough for a one-bid, and the defense isn't so bad.”
David Berkowitz says it “Looks like a normal opening bid, offensewise.” And
Joey Silver concludes “A decent six-card suit, three 2-1 points, and 7 losers is a one bid.”
(a3) 2 ♥ BWP 1%; BWS 24%; IAC 46%.
DickHy starts by closely examining system notes “
BWS; A first- or second-position weak two-bid that includes three of this list of characteristics is unacceptable: five cards in the bid suit; seven cards in the bid suit; flimsy (definition adjusted to suit the vulnerability) six cards in the bid suit; side void; side four-card or longer suit. Otherwise, opener may use judgment. This hand has only 2 from this list, so it’s down to my judgement – that’s ok then!?!” The thought is that a four-card major side-suit does not prohibit a preempt is an increasingly popular treatment is one that appeals to IAC.
JCreech “On A, I dislike preempting with four in the other major, but that heart suit is too good not to bid, and I will not open one.”
Peuco “Top players open W2 with four of other major all the time. guess they know the game” YleeXotee “In real life I think I would bid the weak open, so stuck with it.”
WackoJack “I don't like it with a 4 card spade suit, but it looks like the least of evils.”
Masse24 “I do not mind preempting with four card major.”
Phillip Alder, from the Panel, also agreed “Two hearts is certainly the modern style. If we miss a good spade contract, I will apologize.” To which the moderator pointed out, “Not on this panel!” as Alder was only joined by one other Panelist.
(B) If East dealt and opened three clubs, what call would you make?
(b1) Pass BWP 15%; BWS 43%; IAC 85%
DickHy estimates that “If East opened 3
, partner and West have 24 HCP between them, a 20/20 hand perhaps. Passing feels poor with six hearts, but looks correct … even for methed-up MSC bidders?”
JCreech says “On B, I am sorely tempted to bid, but the hand is too weak to make a direct bid as much as I would like to.”
YleeXotee writes “... I pass after they open, maybe we'll defend in a major”
Danny Kleinman worries that “To intervene at the three-level with a hand I'd pass as dealer would destroy partnership confidence, even if this were an occasion on which it would have worked.” Similarly,
Harry Steiner says “Passing worries me, but the auction is not over; maybe partner can help. The problem with direct action is that partner might bid one more than we can make in a suit or branch off into notrump. It will benefit the partnership over the long run if North knows that I will not enter such auctions with a paltry 8 HCP.”
(b2) Double BWP one; BWS 10%; IAC none
Bart Bramley thinks “A photo with three hearts, four clubs would be too strange, and pass is unthinkable. Acting is urgent; I have the shortness, and I may not get another chance. The fourth spade tips the scale to doubling. Regardless of my action, my problems may not be over.”
David Berkowitz says “I love to act with shortness, but I don't see an intervention surviving both LHO and partner.”
Phillip Alder justifies his bid: “Weak in high-card terms, but the club void persuaded me.”
(b3) 3 ♥ BWP 81%; BWS 44%; IAC 15%
Carl Hudecek thinks this bid “Describes the hand better than any other call, even though it puts us at risk of losing the spade suit.”
Michael Rosenberg “The void says act. Even though it can be lighter over a preempt, there must be some limit for double-then-bid. If I act, I want to bid the clearly-longest suit. Four clubs would be too much of a violation for me. By the way, I like to play that overcalling three of a minor with three of a major, then removing advancer's three notrump to four of opener's minor, shows six-four in the majors.”
Eric Kokish feels that it is “Too dangerous to pass and somewhat misdirected to double and bury at least one of those hearts. Four clubs would be too presumptuous.”
Boye Brougeland argues that “Three hearts is more descriptive (less divergent from what partner would expect) than the alternatives.”
Roger Lee puts it simply “I must do something.”
a1 | b3 (100)
a2 | b3 (70)
a1 | b1 (60)
a3 | b3 (60)
a1 | b2 (60)
a2 | b1 (30)
a1 | b4 (10)
a3 | b1 (0)At the end of the day, the Panel embraced a conservative view for first seat action, but a more aggressive view toward overcalling a preempt in the direct seat. Nearly half of the IAC solvers were similarly inconsistent, but in the other direction – aggressive in first seat, while conservative following the preempt. The scores were devastating for those solvers. But the commentary makes it clear that a different Panel may have provided different results.
However, question setups like this one, make me feel like I am in a contract that needs both of two finesses to make. If both work, I am elated, but when one or both fail, I feel the odds were against me. In this case, it felt like two two-way finesses, so you have a guess both ways. If you were inconsistent, you needed to be right on both. But if you were consistent, you were not punished nearly so badly.
The moderator,
Jeff Rubens, endorses the majority view on both decisions: “Exactly so. In (A), the hand doesn't match any bid, so South passes – it would be presumptuous (not to mention insulting to partner and teammates) to take a deep view in first position.” To me, these are strong statements, and after having read the system notes (so kindly quoted by DickHy), it is clear that our moderator has not refreshed his memory. This is not to say the judgment is not valid, but with less than the three conditions requiring a pass, it is a judgment call not an insult!
He continues, “In (B), the considerations are dramatically different. On average, North will have around three clubs, so South can't expect him to be able to act, even with substantial values. The defensive bidder short in the preemptor's suit should enter the auction if it is reasonable, even though no particular intervention can safely touch all the bases – it may be that any base is okay, or that hearts is best; and one's 'bridge instincts' should advise that bidding three hearts, warts and all, is better than passing.” Still some of the Panel's discussion indicate that taking direct action over 3
either violates partnership trust, or at least is on the edge of such violation. It is easier if the partnership has understandings such as those described by Michael Rosenberg, where if the 3
overcall is pulled to 3NT, then 4
shows a 6-4 in the majors. Without that sort of agreement, there is a risk of overstepping partnership expectations.
Problem E 2 (CCR3, Hoki. BluBayou, YleeXotee, WackoJack,MarilynLi, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps
North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 7 3
♥ A 10 9 7 2
♦ A J
♣ A 10 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♣ Pass Pass
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Ok, you have balanced, and now partner is bidding a new suit when there was an opportunity to overcall one turn sooner. And let us not forget that you have a good hand with three-card support for partner's suit. How strong do you value your hand and what do various bids mean?
2 ♠ (60) BWP 27%; BWS 25%; IAC none
The 2
bidders seem to have a mixed opinion about what the bid means; ranging from a hand that might have doubled to a hand that is closer to an ordinary overcall in the direct seat.
Ralph Katz thinks it “Shows a good hand when partner could not overcall.”
Carl Hudecek says “North's failure to overcall induces me to take a low road, but the hand is too strong to take the lowest road. Not enough for two clubs or three spades." While
Oren Kreigel believes he is “Possibly underbidding the high cards and overbidding the spade support, but one notrump with such a spade-suitable hand, and two clubs followed by two spades seem like too much.”
3 ♠ (60) BWP 15%; BWS 8%; IAC none
The 3
bidders all seem to think that their initial action might have been pusillanimous.
Harry Steiner is ready to bid game, “Close between three spades and four spades. All the values seem to be working.” While
Ira Chorush says “If partner were to bid two spades over my two clubs, I could not make myself pass.”
Jill Meyers, though, doesn't seem to see the cue-bid option: “Vulnerable at imps, I go high. Partner has five spades or enough values to bid. Having bid only one heart in reopening position, I must come to life.”
2 ♣ (100) BWP 58%; BWS 37%; IAC 77%
Hoki (along with
Michael Rosenberg and
Zia) believe “... it's a clear double on the first round. No choice now but 2♣.”
JCreech expects “... partner to have 10 points or at least close to it, so I expect game somewhere. The spade bid should also show at least tolerance for hearts, just as I hope my cue-bid will suggest a willingness to be in spades. Maybe the cue-bid will get partner to clarify our direction.”
KenBerg thinks he has a “Pretty good hand for my 1H balance.“
YleeXotee bids “2c and make pard decide something”
Masse24 says “If I had more than I do, I would double rather than overcall. I think this conveys a max for my overcall. Also, if partner had five spades wouldn’t he have overcalled in direct seat? I think partner might have four spades and no heart support. 4=1=4=4? Hopefully with 9 or 10 HCP. I dunno, I’m guessing, but this cuebid should get another descriptive bid out of him.”
WackoJack believes “I have too much to raise to 2
, so I will cue to show 3 card spade support and a decent hand.”
Roger Lee writes “Partner probably has a decent hand with four spades but possibly a flawed hand for an overcall.”
Bart Bramley thinks “Partner has two main possible hand-types, which are quite different: a five-card suit that was too weak to overcall (or in a hand too weak to overcall), and a four-card suit in a hand with a wider range. I'll follow with a minimum spade bid. When partner has only four spades, we may be able to wriggle into notrump later, or a Moysian fit could be best. As usual, go slow when you don't know.” Sami Kehela says “True, North passed on the first round, but this is a hand of quality.”
David Berkowitz is also not dissuaded: “So he didn't overcall; so what? Must try for game but will not go past two spades.”
Problem F 3 
(DickHy, Masse24, YleeXotee, BluBayou, BabsG, Hoki, MarilynLi, JCreech, CCR3, WackoJack, KenBerg)
Imps
Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K J 6 5 2
♥ K
♦ Q 10 6
♣ A K 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ Pass 2
♥ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3 ♣ Pass
?*
*4 NT natural by agreement
What call do you make?
3 ♦ (100) BWP 81%; BWS 54 54%; IAC 85%
Michael Rosenberg considers 3
is “Usually an expression of 'doubt' vs. other three-level bids. The hand is much too strong for four notrump. The only other bid I understand is three hearts.”
DickHy declares “We’re heading for a slam, but I know not where, so 3
looks a decent option. If my 2
does not necessarily show a 6c suit, I would like to bid 3
. What will partner do over these bids holding 2524? After 3
he will bid 4
even if he has diamond control because from his point of view clubs are uncontrolled – then I can’t make a move because diamonds may be uncontrolled. That looks a mess. After 3
won’t 2524 partner bid 3
in case I have six spades? That leaves more room to found out about diamond control.”
JCreech feels “... stuck on direction. Right now, I expect to be in slam unless we can determine that we are missing the AK in diamonds, but partner has not supported my spades and I would like to know whether partner has five hearts or five clubs or a concentration of values in diamonds. The next bid may help.”
YleeXotee showed temptation as he wrote: “3D, but should just take the hint and bid 4nt. the hint is always worth 80 or 90.”
Masse24 opines that “Although 2
did not promise six spades, I prefer 3
now because it leaves room. Partner can show me two spades (hopefully Qx if he does), a sixth heart, fifth club (unlikely), 3NT with a diamond honor. The 4NT “helpful hint” is a red herring as it would be an underbid by a Queen or King. I recall a hand a year or more ago (not this strong) where the major was bid three times to show six, so my not choosing 3
now may be a mistake.”
Kit Woolsey views it as "A temporizing bid to get information about partner's hand.” While
Oren Kriegel “... expect(s) to be in the driver's seat, so I'll keep things low and see if I can coax a description from partner.”
4 ♣ (40) BWP 15%; BWS 16%; IAC none
Bart Bramley views “Clubs is the most likely strain for slam, even in a four-three fit, and this is the least-misdescriptive call. Partner will often have five clubs, since he might have bid two notrump otherwise. Over four diamonds, I'll ask for keys.”
Robert Wolff has similar thoughts: “Too strong for four notrump. We must seek the right strain,
and this is my first awkward attempt.” And
Joey Silver says “Lacking the ace-king, partner must have club length (or possibly great hearts). With controls in his suits, 19 HCP, and good spades, supporting clubs should facilitate slam bidding.”
3 ♠ (20) BWP none; BWS 11%; IAC 15%
Peuco plows forward with a bid of 3
because “...2S does not promise 6.”
This is the second installment. I apologize that it has taken me longer than usual, but I truly struggled with how to approach Problem D, while the way this set treated my selections deadened my motivation. There are still two problems to come, and I will try to put them out more quickly.
