December MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Danny Kleinman, DirectorProblem A (c) 1 NT (WackoJack, BluBayou)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A
♥ A K Q J
♦ Q 10 8 3 2 ♣ 9 6 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
?
What is your plan?
(a) 1
♦, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ?
(a1) 1 NT (a2) 2 ♣ (a3) 2
♥ (a4) 2 NT;
(b) 1
♥, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ?
(b1) 1 NT (b2) 2
♦ (b3) 2 NT
(c) 1 NT.
Sometimes, to show the nature of your hand, it can be shown in a single bid. Many times, you have to follow a path that is in part guided by others. Then there are hands that you can anticipate how the auction is likely to progress and you can plan how you want to describe your hand. With this hand, not only can you anticipate the auction, but you have choices of how to describe your holding.
a3 (1 ♦, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ? 2 ♥) 70 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 21% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 50% Intermediate/Advanced Club solvers (IAC) 54%
One approach is to bid the hand in its natural order. Show diamonds and reverse into hearts. The flaw is that it stretches the HCPs, but otherwise describes the hand well.
Brian Platnick says it well "I don't like to open one notrump with a singleton ace if there is a reasonable alternative."
Joel Wooldridge thinks the hand is "In range for a reverse. One notrump is tempting, but I'm not too fond of bidding it with a stiff ace."
Kit Woolsey thinks it is "Worth stretching a reverse in order to show my shape."
JCreech agrees: "I will start with diamonds and reverse into hearts. I might be a hair light for the reverse, I may wish the diamonds were a bit better quality suit, but those are quibbles, not concerns. Nothing else strikes me as being a better choice at this juncture."
Peuco says "i never expect perfect hands for a bid. And i prefer a slight overbid than a gross underbid. The imperfection of the reverse worries me less than opening 1H hearing 1S and biding 2D which misleads the count of the suits AND the strength of the hand" And
Masse24 admits to taking "The most aggressive of what I believe are the three choices."
b2 (1 ♥, then, after (Pass) — 1 ♠ — (Pass) — ? 2 ♦) 90 BWP 36% Bws 8% IAC 1 solver
A second approach treats the red suits as being equal, bidding hearts first and rebidding diamonds. Certainly the hearts are so strong, they are essentially a five-card suit in every way other than actual length; the flaw is that there is extra strength that has not yet been shown. Laying out the full set of arguments for this approach and why not the others was
Doub and Wildavsky: "Neither the hand nor the diamonds are strong enough to open one diamond and reverse into two hearts. If we open one notrump, partner will transfer to a poor two spades fairly often. Moreover, he might hold a strong hand with long clubs or four-plus diamonds and drive to a notrump contract when out singleton spade makes a minor suit far more desirable. We overstate heart length with a one-heart opening, and the suit is so strong that a heart contract will often be best even in a Moysian. Another benefit is that we'll attract a heart lead if West declares."
David Berkowitz feels the hand is "Not strong enough to reverse. Preparing to say that the lighting is awfully poor in this room." The moderator,
Danny Kleinman, prefers to "Just stick the ten of diamonds with your hearts, claim 150 honors, then look puzzled and ask. 'You mean it's not rubber bridge?'"
KenBerg is not hiding from his choice: "Some long forgotten expert said 'AKQJ is a five card suit'. I see it as the best chance to avoid disaster while still keeping hope alive. If I open 1NT pard might well have a 6 count and QTxxx in spades. Oops. And a 16 count can be enough for a reverse but not this 16 count. I want better diamonds to do that. If the spade A were a diamond A, and the D 2 a spade 2, I would happily open 1D but if I do it here and then bid 2h over 2S, I will find it tough to slow pard down. It's true that by opening 1H it might go 1H-1S-2D-2H and I play in a 4-2 fit. But I might survive that. And on many hands I will be fine."
Jeff Rubens claims that "The matchpoints made me do it." While
Billy Eisenberg considers the choice "The best of very bad choices."
c (1 NT) 100 BWP 36% BWS 31% IAC 15%
A third approach is show the strength in one bid; the flaw is that you have an unbalanced hand, though you do have a sure stop in the short suit with a singleton ace, but you still have the clubs wide open. Let's start with (
Nick)
L'Ecuyer's Law: "All hands that can be opened one notrump should be opened one notrump."
Kevin Bathurst says "I can't quite bring myself to reverse, so I'll show the strength rather than the suits."
Drew Casen regards the bid as "Flawed, but anything else would be worse. One heart then two diamonds lands in a four-two fit if partner takes a normal preference on a doubleton. One diamond then two hearts with woebegone diamonds and rock-bottom high-card strength lands us in three diamonds opposite a weak hand."
Marty Bergen writes "If I knew what to rebid, I would be delighted to open one heart or one diamond. As I don't, I'll follow the principles of a lifetime." Or you can have an epiphany like
BluBayou: "A lightening bolt just struck this morning: They are gonna cut the Gordian Knot and just... ---OPEN 1 Notrump!"
What is most interesting about this hand is that everyone feels as
Robb Gordon does about his decision - "The least lie." Although his comments were aimed at one of the three top scoring choices, I think the moderator's thoughts apply across the board: "At least [they] are exercising judgment. That's what makes bridge fun."
Problem B 4 
(MarilynLi, Peuco, BluBayou, Jcreech)
Rubber bridge Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 8 3
♥ J
♦ A Q 4 2 ♣ K Q J 8 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ 3
♦ ?
What call do you make?
Realistically, I thought this hand would largely an over or under proposition, with a smattering of blasters.
6 ♣ 40 BWP 7% BWS 3% IAC 1 solver
Starting with the blasters.
Carl Hudecek is "Expecting to make, probably with an overtrick. I will not over complicate the auction at rubber bridge."
Paul Ivaska thinks "If we assume that East has the missing diamond honors, it's virtually impossible for North to have fewer than two aces, and I don't see an effective way to investigate a possible grand slam." Only one IAC solver bid 6
, but there were two others that toyed with the idea.
BluBayou thought "I bid 6C anyway and expect to get beaten only when diamonds are lead and ruffed by evil LHO." And
JCreech warned everyone that I will probably change my answer before submission. ... there is no good way to find out what I need to know, so in the absence of science, try a punt." Perhaps the better football analogy would be a Hail Mary pass - a long toss for a big score.
4 NT 40 BWP 7% BWS 5% IAC no solvers
Alternatively, if you are unwilling to make the assumptions Ivaska made, you can ask about aces, and so another smattering of votes went to Blackwood. No one from IAC took this path, but there were panelists.
Drew Casen decides that "East's overcall tells me that North has more than three clubs and does not have the king of diamonds. Thank you, Easley Blackwood. You are da man."
Nick L'Ecuyer "... would like to splinter, but there's not splinter available. Four diamonds would be futile, as partner will surely rebid five clubs. Four no trump should be asking for aces. I'll bid six clubs if partner shows two."
3 NT 50 BWP 11% BWS 28% IAC 38%
For some, the temptation to go plus was substantial; after all, you can't make money at rubber bridge if you go down.
David Berkowitz says to "Take the money and run. No guarantee partner has real clubs, and the splits may be bad." Masse24 believes "This hand is huge, so slam is certainly possible. But with a stiff heart I worry about partner’s hand shape. Pard has hearts, so 3NT is easily the safe bid."
Ron Smith is "Trying to go plus." And
Hoki is pragmatic: "no guarantee that partner holds two aces for 6C to be gin" Although he made a different choice,
BluBayou brought an interesting point to the discussion: "Shawn's dad has played rubber bridge for the rent money, and he says 'Get VUL ASAP; 3NT or 5C are ironclad.'" Which brings up another interesting question: which game is safer, 3NT or 5
; in my mind, 5
is the safer choice, but that was not selected by any of the Panel.
4 ♦ 100 BWP 71% BWS 52% IAC 31%
The overwhelming choice for the Panel (and a majority choice for the BW solvers as well) was the nebulous 4
cue bid.
Frank Stewart summarizes the choice nicely: "Big club fit, diamond control, slam interest. I suppose Blackwood might work, but I am not sure I want to take control."
Zia has interest and a warning: "Two aces with five clubs and some trimmings will produce slam, but only when partner has no more than one diamond, else an opening diamond ruff can sink us."
Joel Wooldridge concurs: "Three notrump is possible, but five clubs is unlikely to go down, so I'll issue a slam-try along the way. Forcing to slam opposite two aces would be an overbid, but not a big one. I'd like partner to have diamond shortness as well, and with that he'll probably take control himself."
Kevin Bathurst thinks "Slam is close enough, and clubs will play well enough that I'm happy to bypass three notrump while showing the fit."
Kit Woolsey describes the bid as a "Slam-try in clubs, giving partner room to sign off, cooperate, or take charge. I don't see an alternative."
Peuco view is similar: "if pd cues then slam else 5C. Pretty simple"
JCreech flirted with bidding the slam directly, but wrote "I knew I would always come back to the cue-bid; I can always bid slam next time, but this gives partner a chance to contribute to the decision making."
Problem C 2 NT (KenBerg, Masse24, Peuco, VeeRee, WackoJack, CCR3, Jcreech)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 7 4
♥ J 8 5 3
♦ 2 ♣ A Q 10 5 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 2 ♠
Pass Pass Double Pass
?*
*BWS: lebensohl applies; 3 NT = strong suggestion;
3 ♠ asks hearts, denies spade stopper
What call do you make?
Clearly Lebensohl applies to this hand, but how do you plan to use the convention? There were three specific approaches taken, and one approach that spurned making use of the convention' inferences.
2 NT 100 BWP 54% BWS 33% IAC 46%
The most popular approach was to take the hint directly and start with 2NT. The plan most panelists (10 of the 15) subscribed to was described by
Drew Casen: "lebensohl, planning to follow with three spades to show four hearts and a stopper. The strong clubs will provide tricks in three notrump. I have upgraded, because of the strong five-card suit and well-placed king of spades."
Zia would join in, if he were more certain: "Will two-notrump followed by three spades show four hearts with a spade stopper? I like to play that two notrump followed by four of a minor shows four hearts and a longer minor." And
Eric Kokish envisions a different sequence thinking it shows the same thing: "Two notrump. Then three notrump, which should show four hearts and a spade stopper, allowing doubler to rightside heart contracts by transferring." From IAC,
JCreech joins the majority: "There are a lot of potential contracts just from my side. So what is the most flexible approach? If a direct bid of 3
shows hearts without a spade stopper, then it seems reasonable that by going through the lebensohl relay, that a 3
rebid after 3
, should show hearts with a spade stopper. If that is the case, I have shown two of my possible strains - hearts and NT. And partner has the opportunity to show diamonds with extra strength and length in that suit."
KenBerg agrees: "It [the hint] says 3S asks about hearts while denying a spade stop. Fine. So 2NT-3C-3S asks about hearts while showing a spade stop? It's often played that way, and that's my intention." As does
WackoJack, "This looks to be a perfect hand for Lebensohl slow shows. Jim and Ken described perfectly my understanding." And
Masse24 simply says "Should be the popular choice."
3 ♥ 70 BWP 21% BWS 19% IAC no solvers
For the panelists, the next most popular approach was to bid 3
directly.
Susan Panter describes the bid: "Shows 8-to-11 points with four hearts; four hearts would be an overbid, especially as North won't always have four hearts."
Doub and Wildavsky argue that it is "The value bid, discounting by a king or so when partner is reopening."
Marty Bergen thinks "This is an underbid, but partner's minimum is low. If he has a good hand with three hearts, he'll bid three spades, and I'll bid three notrump."
3 ♣ 50 BWP 7% BWS 25% IAC 31%
For the solvers, it was more important to show length with a decent hand by bidding 3
directly.
Ron Smith say to "Show values, so maybe partner can do something good."
David Berkowitz is more expressive: "Unwilling to punish partner for balancing, I'll make the value bid in clubs and keep the weak hearts in my pocket." Expressing some of the same concerns,
Hoki writes: "sure a bit extra but pard can still bid again - I don't believe in hanging an enterprising balancing bidder" As does
BluBayou: "Re-opening a weak two don't require a strong NT, nor a maxiRoman. I disapprove of lebensohl in the 'lurker' position but BWS doesn't share that view, so not-broke 3C comes in handy here."
4 ♥ 50 BWP 7% BWS 12% IAC no solvers
Some panelists think the heart game is worth bidding directly.
Paul Ivaska writes: "I'm not sure what you're trying to seduce me into doing with your asterisk, but I should have a good play for four hearts whenever pattern has four (e.g.: ♠ xx
♥ AQxx
♦ Kxx ♣ KJxx) and often when he has only three, so I'll decline the 'science' that you offer so graciously." And
Robert Wolff says "If I'm wrong, it only hurts when I laugh." Obviously, this pair has not heeded the warning from Joe -
ignore the hint at your own peril.
This concludes the first part. Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3, which will appear as I have time.
