2022 JANUARY MSC

[blubayou]

Some interesting twists in the scoring this month --as usual.
 On the lead problem,  the honest card from either minor buried us spade leaders. But the 4th-best SIX  of spades(underleading the KJT )scored a decent 70  then came the Jack and KING though no panelist actually chose that one.  "Spade, other" all got zero even the ten.   Funny to single out the six with high honors above 'any random spade spot'.
   On F,  2H and 3H hogged all 25 votes,  but with zero panelists and almost zero solvers to their name,  2S  and 2NT  got half-credit.  Then there is a handvul of solvers going for  ..4SF (XYZ)     and getting no respect at all.  Expect some firm 'nays'  in the postmortem  for 2 clubs.
   Problem E   looks nice and normal on the scoreboard....  BUT WAIT!  There's a single vote for FIVE CLUBS   that got a respectable 70!   SOMEBODY  sold the moderator  that this is a Bluhmer??--  and  how can it be?  I wait with bated breath for sure.
   

[yleexotee]

I'm not a fan of the 2S top answer even on A. 2S is a good heart raise to me, and I just don't have it with that hand. and on B, since when do I look at my 16 pt balanced hand and bid 3nt! (ok, ok, there is a little more context to it, but still)

[yleexotee]

Some interesting twists in the scoring this month --as usual.
 On the lead problem,  the honest card from either minor buried us spade leaders. But the 4th-best SIX  of spades(underleading the KJT )scored a decent 70  then came the Jack and KING though no panelist actually chose that one.  "Spade, other" all got zero even the ten.   Funny to single out the six with high honors above 'any random spade spot'.   I believe this is because its the traditional 4th best

 

[FleuretteD]

A) as a reverse - dislike NT with ace singleton
b) 3N
c) 3h
d) 2nt
E) 2n showing stoppers in M
F) 3nt
G) 1n
h)  K

I see Feb 2022 on MSC page not January

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem A  2   (None)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 8 7 4   ♥ 9 4   ♦ A K J 8   ♣ K 9 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♠
  Pass      1 NT      2 ♥       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

David Berkowitz, the moderator, describes the problem nicely:  "A nice hand we have here.  Do we wish to tell partner about our barely existent heart support, or perhaps to let him know about out meager spade stop?"

2 ♠   100   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 56%   Bridge World solver (BWS) 22%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) None
The punters cue bid spades and hope partner doesn't take this seriously as heart support; IAC was not among them though.  YleeXotee opined "I'm not a fan of the 2S top answer even on A. 2S is a good heart raise to me, and I just don't have it with that hand ...", and to a large extent, that is why there were no IAC votes for 2 .  My thinking is that the cue-bid should indicate the bidder has a clear direction to take; either limit raise or better of partner's suit or forcing values and a good suit or a solid stop for notrump.  This hand has neither, but it doesn't seem to be important for the Panelists.  Kerri and Steve Sanborn write:  "Cheapest bid wins.  Maybe we'll hear partner bid two notrump."  Bart Bramley expresses the doubt and if notrump is best, wants it declared from the other side of the table:  "Good enough for a strong invite, despite the trump defect; but not good enough to drive to game, for the same reason.  Two notrump is tempting, though that has its own defect, and I'd rather that partner declare notrump."  If we belong in notrump, most likely it will be better from partner's side.  This bid leaves the most room for flexibility in the auction."  John Carruthers has the most complete discussion:  "Two spades.  One might argue that South is short a heart for this, but what other bid describes the hand better?  With spades bid on the right, two notrump has little appeal, as West will lead his partner's suit.  Three diamonds?  Ugh.  Could I raise hearts?  If I did, to what level?"

2 NT   70   BWP 20%   BWS 20%  IAC 42%
Hesitant to suggest heart support are the notrumpers.  Larry Cohen writes:  "Even in the unlikely even that East has ace-king-queen-jack-low of spades, we are not yet down in two notrump.  There is an excellent chance (hope) that partner has honor-low in spades, and West leads an honor from honor-low, and South ends up with not one but two stoppers.  Two notrump is right in all other respects (maybe a bit heavy)."  Bruce Rogoff has similar thoughts,  "It's unlikely that pard has both spade help and enough values for three notrump (else what was West reponding on?), but it's far from impossible - maybe he has stiff quack and six running hearts.  Two notrump expresses the general nature of the hand with only a mild flaw, something that cannot be said about a heart raise or cue-bid."  Masse24 thinks "Vul at IMPs, so must make a move. I worry that the ambiguous 2 or even 3 may win. But 2NT is safer."  JCreech argued "Too good to pass, not good enough to insist on anything.  At least I have enough reasonable spades to pretend I have a stop."


3 ♥   60   BWP 16%   BWS 15%  IAC one solver
Trying to find the middle ground, some try 3 .  Ron Gerard covers the bases:  "Not three diamonds, which would be natural (picture no hearts and jack-ten-nine-seventh of diamonds).  Not two spades, which would overstate the heart support.  Not two notrump, because partner might fear spade wastage, after the bidding continues, say, three of a minor - three hearts.  Not pass, because presumably I want to keep my partner."  Hoki echos Ron's last thought: "Partner has made a two-level overcall vulnerable. I would not fault my partner for looking elsewhere for partners if I passed a perfectly respectable 11-count."  Robert Wolff writes "I have attempted to find a compromise.  Two spades would be an overbid and drive us to the wrong contract more often than a simple raise.  I expect partner to have a robust heart suit, so an invitational heart raise is a better choice."  Carl Hudecek adds his own perspective:  "Sounds as if someone is kidding, but perhaps North has six or seven decent hearts and a side card, so we may have game.  A cue-bid would sound like better hearts and perhaps side shortness." 

4 ♥   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 2%  IAC one solver
Jeff Rubens gambles (in my opinion wildly):  "My guess is based on heavily weighting the possibility that, with all this vulnerable bidding, West is light in high cards, thus probably has three spades.  Secondarily, I hope that, if necessary, both minor-suit finesses will win."

Pass   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 38%  IAC 33%
Danny Kleinman pessimistically thinks, "The chance that two hearts is the last making contract, plus the chance that partner accepts a game-try and we go down and that the bid I make will drive us to a game that makes.  This is one of many situations in which strong, rather than weak, single-jump overcalls would help, as North's two hearts would be limited by his failure to jump to three."  To Peuco "2H sounds as lead directing"  While BluBayou builds on that belief:  "In life, it would never occur to me to push on  (my 'intruder' seat bids are in liNe with Peuco's thinking)"




 
Problem B  3 NT  (BluBayou)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 10 6 2   ♥ A Q 6   ♦ A 9   ♣ Q 10 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       ——       3 ♣
   ?         
What call do you make?

I will leave the general description of the problem to Eric Kokish this time:  "Three notrump might be the only game if North has two or three clubs, but as east has a good suit vulnerable ..., the likelihood of the defense's retaining a link in clubs points to our needing to take the first nine tricks.  If North is the player short in clubs, we will have a decent chance of hitting long hearts or some spade support.  So it is close among three notrump, double, and three spades."

3 NT   100   BWP 52%   BWS 27%  IAC one solver
Gary Cohler thinks that  "While this is a suitable hand for either major, the club holding makes three notrump the most likely game.  I could bid three spades, but partner would be boxed in when he has values, a doubleton spade, and no club stopper."  Steve Garner, feels the call to be "Clearcut, although I have some sympathy for double.  Even if we miss an eight- or nine-card major fit, notrump may be best."  Adam Grossack simple believes this is "The most likely game.  Three spades would be a nice alternative, but after a threee-spade overcall, partner will seldom know that three notrump is possible."  And Billy Eisenberg admits the call is "A gamble, but three spades isn't cold."  Similarly, BluBayou writes " 'They'  always bid 3NT with this,  and when it's wrong, usually  "3 "  is equally or MORE wrong.   'Pass'  and 'double'  = no comment, except "double" gets zero to 1 vote."

Double   70   BWP 28%   BWS 18%  IAC None
Ron Gerard chose his bid after "Trying to comprehend any other action:  Three spades next will show five=three or five=four in the majors, not a one-suiter.  I would pass before I would bid an immediate three spades or higher.  Can't bring myself to utter the words ending in notrump."  Zia thinks it "Better to ask what to do after a three-of-a-red-suit advance."  Jeff Rubens has his answers "Then three notrump over a red-suit advance; may make opposite a lucky buy (e.g.: spade queen plus a red king)."  Kit Woolsey does as well, but they are different:  "I can bid three spades over three diamonds or three hearts, showing a likely five spades and tolerance for other suits.  Anything else would be too unilateral."  As does Carl Hudecek, but again, the answers are different: "North likely has a stiff or doubleton club, so he is a favorite to hold a major.  I double rather than bid three spades to bring hearts into the picture.  If North bids three diamonds or three hearts, I will let him play there."  While Phillip Alder simply says, "I hope partner does not advance with four diamonds."

3 ♠   60   BWP 20%   BWS 49%  IAC 92%
Eric Rodwell admits that it is "Close among double, three notrump, and three spades.  If pard has the stiff club, we rate to have an adequate fit.  This also gives us a chance to stop facing a weak hand.  I would not be happy doubling and hearing three diamonds or perhaps three hearts."  JCreech writes that "I am tempted to bid 3NT, but then where are my tricks.  If partner does not have fitting cards, it just becomes a horrible call.  I need spade tricks in both contracts.  At least by overcalling, the suit is in the mix for the final contract."  While Bart Bramley is "Hoping that partner, rather than LHO, has the short clubs, and I might survive if he does not.  In three notrump, I probably would need LHO to have at most one club unless I have nine runners.  Sure LHO might light me up right here - too bad."  Larry Cohen also expresses mixed emotions:  "With king-ten-low of club, three notrump would be fine (as I could hold-up).  Here, I fear a dummy with a low singleton, and I would need nine running tricks."  Peuco simply believes thate are too "few HCP for 3NT"  And Masse24 expresses his frustration: "Moth-eaten suit. Hate this."




Problem C  4   (Peuco, VeeRee, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, WackoJack. MarilynLi, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 10 8 7 4 2   ♥ 8 7 4   ♦ Q J   ♣ 9 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠        Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

I kept looking for Al Roth's response and a "What's the problem?" as the discussion, as IAC was unanimous, BW solvers joined in at the rate of 81% and even the BW Panel weighed in at 76% for 4 .  The moderator complained "Where have all the imaginative bidders gone?  Long time passing.  I expected a heated debate about the advantages of bidding one minor or the other, or even two hearts.  What did I get?  A yawning majority of boring four-spade calls.  What a disappointment."  While I anticipated a smattering of bid stealing calls, I thought the major debate would be the level to make the opponents guess; should we bid 4, 5, or 6 to make the guess as hard as possible at favorable vulnerability.  I was also disappointed; both Berkowitz and I were equally at fault for our disappointments as we rotely contributed 4 to the mix.

4 ♠   100   BWP 76%   BWS 81%  IAC 100%
Straight up bidding is the choice of the vast majority.  BluBayou declares  "The obvious, is my choice;  [/b]"5S" does not mean this,  and other bids/passes  are psyches, that I'll leave to others. Do we REMEMBER, over a year ago, the 'hint' that BWS uses "1 / ,[pass]3NT"  as  "a pre-emptive raise with some teeth"?   Therefore, this utterly toothless thing is in line with the system for a direct 4-bid "  Kit Woolsey says "Let them guess.  I don't see how being tricky will help."  Chip Martel believes the bid to be "Reasonably descriptive and takes away space.  May be overprempting but can't resist."  Some contemplate jazzing up the auction.  They range from Masse24's musing "I suppose some panelist might walk the dog with 2 ?"  To Steve Garner's reminiscence "... I recently witnessed a similar deal.  Responder tried two diamonds with a comparable hand and got away with it, because he stole the opponents' suit.  Lucky.  But my partners seem never to be in on the joke when I try something like that."  Zia's speculation:  "If I needed a swing, it would be clear to bid four diamonds as a splinter, to beat the opponents' five- or six-level contract."  Or JCreech's bull by the horns "... the problem is whether I should be bidding higher to help shut out the opponents.  Nonetheless, it is difficult to bid at the five-level no matter how shapely your hand might be."

2 ♠   50   BWP 12%   BWS 10%  IAC None
Of the few that chose mix things up, most walked the dog.  Robert Wolff thinks "... misinforming partner is worse than over-bidding to exclude cheap entries into the bidding."  Sami Kehela choses to be conservative:  "A preemptive four spades?  I'd need to be a lot younger."  While Ron Gerard views the bid as being  "Supposedly moderately constructive.  Don't care.  Won't utter words ending in notrump.  Nothing says we will need to bid four spades, so don't go crazy when holding the boss suit."

1 NT   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC None
Meanwhile, Jeff Rubens takes the time-honored approach to slowing down a major-suit opener:  "Don't want to over-encourage partner or not stimulate the opponents on what may be a part-score deal."


This ends the first segment, and as usual, I will be back with the other two segments as time is available.  Until then, hopefully this will whet your chops in anticipation.

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem D  2 (Masse24)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 4   ♥ A 3   ♦ 8 7 5 4 2   ♣ Q 5 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  Pass      Pass      1 ♣       1 ♦
   ?         
What call do you make?

Another problem with little IAC support for the top answer.  This time, with 10 HCPs and only three-card support for a 1 opening, the top answer was to raise in a competitive auction.  Support with support is always a good, but many hesitate to raise with only three when the suit is a minor.  A key piece of information is that there is a diamond overcall while your hand is also holding five; that often ensures that opener has a real club suit.

Pass   60   BWP  16%   BWS  23%   IAC 17%
Let's start with those who choose to leave well enough alone.  Carl Hudecek thinks "It would be suicidal to bid one notrump.  Let's see what develops."  Similarly, Paul Boudreau feels there is "No choice for the time being."  Eric Rodwell:  "I don't fancy a club raise on three or one notrump with eight-high diamonds, and I can't double.  If partner passes, that rates to be okay at this vulnerability and suggests that the overcall might have been based on a strong four-card suit. I will have a problem over a reopening double - it will be close between pass and two diamonds."  Though Zia appears to have been frightened off by a spectre of partner from Christmans past: "As I was about to bid, I saw Michael R. shaking his head with a Scottish accent."

1 NT   80   BWP  28%   BWS  55%  IAC 75%
A plurality of solvers chose 1 NT as their solution.  Larry Cohen sees a pattern "Deja vu from Problem A.  If I pass, I will have trouble recovering later."  John Carruthers says "What else, pray tell."  Robert Wolff emphasizes "Value over distortion."  BluBayou waxes philosophical: " For us Glass Half Empty guys, We will  put our KJx,  Ax, 87234,  Q52 across from......QTxx, Kxxx, Jx, AKx.  Why not?  That puts my knee-jerk 'compromise' bid of single raise in clubs in a terrible light.   the value-bid of 1NT  surely will  make on the nose opposite that, but possibly not two of ANYthing!   On the other hand,  if partner has a decent DISTRIBUTIONAL hand,  a free 1NT will put us at cross purposes if I make that bid.  On the third hand <lol> I don't know how I can catch up if I just sit on these goodies for a round, either.   It is stupid to just lurk with clearly values for a free bid AND THEN  take pard's reopening to 1NT, so catering to pard's having someting like the above, I will  jump in directly:"  YleeXotee is pragmatic: "1nt (but considering a less feisty 2D) this one is iffy, pseudo diamond stopped"  While Phillip Alder follows suit "With luck, I will have a diamond stopper.  If not, maybe I can take seven of the last eight tricks."  JCreech writes "I'm a bit heavy for the bid, but if partner has a boatload of clubs, they can be bid again.  Nothing available in the majors, so it is either pass or bid 1NT for me."


2 ♣   100   BWP 48%   BWS 11%  IAC 8%
Most players are hesitant to raise a minor with only three, but this hand seems to be an exception.  With partner bidding clubs, RHO bidding diamonds and our hand holding five diamonds as well, makes the likelihood that partner is short in clubs much less likely.  Jeff Rubens argues "In view of the vulnerable overcall, it would be distinctly unlucky to catch a partner with only three clubs."  Chip Martel agrees and tries to avert future problems: "In this situation, partner usually has clubs, and pass would force us to three clubs after North's reopening double.  This way, we can show some values without getting too high.  I might try one notrump, but not with this holding."  Alan Sontag also thinks the raise will help for the future: "If there is further bidding, I will be well-placed."  Billy Eisenberg is "Betting on partner's having four-plus clubs."  Steve Garner  "Automatic for me.  Raising partner's clubs on three-card support isn't everybody's cup of tea, but I've had pretty good luck with the bid."  Danny Kleinman tries to out-Blu Blu: "The best call to keep partner in the picture.  I hope he's read my revolutionary treatise on statistics, where I employ Aesopian logic to prove that the median number of clubs held by a one-club opener is six.  Wrong time to hog the notrump when partner has king-six of diamonds."  While Masse24 focuses on his stopper before remembering he has support: "I know, I know . . . 8xxxx is a stopper. But if that's true, then Qxx is support!"  However, I like Sami Kehla's remembering the lessons that come from the risk: "Managing a three-three fit is a useful exercise in trump control."

2 ♦   70   BWP  8%   BWS  5%  IAC None
Finally, there are those who pull out the cue-bid to show their strength.  Adam Grossack says "As a passed hand, I'll overbid a little bit to steer us to the correct game.  We could be driving a bit too high, but at least we won't land in the wrong strain."  And Kit Woolsey feels "I have the values for an invitation, and the diamond holding indicates that partner is likely to have a real club suit.  Nothing else make much sense."  I like to make the cue-bid when there is a sense of direction - a clear choice of a trump suit or good multiple stoppers for notrump - but you have neither with this hand.  All you have is the 10 points and three-card support for a minor.




 


Problem E  3 /4   (4 ♦ KenBerg; 3 ♥ YleeXotee, MarilynLi, Peuco, WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 10 6   ♥ A J   ♦ A K 5   ♣ 8 7 6 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♣      Pass
  2 ♦        Pass       3 ♦      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Wow!  Double 100's; the moderator is feeling generous this month.  Let's start with some of the misses.

3 NT   50   BWP  16%    BWS  44%  IAC 33%
Applying Hamman's rule, Hamman's long-time partner, Robert Wolff says "To me, to bypass three notrump becomes a masterminding, but since the hand is minimum, I'll risk missing a diamond slam or playing in the wrong game."  Our own Hamman's rule advocate, Masse24, makes the bid but quibbles in the process:  "Coin flip. Not sold on this. I really liked 3 --- keeping the Moysian in play."  Steve Garner writes "Yes, I may have a wonderful hand for partner, but likely it would be suicidal to bypass three notrump if partner were to hold some ♠ xx   ♥ KQxx   ♦ QJxxx   ♣ Ax.  A three-of-a-major bid usually suggests weakness in the other major, correct?"  That was my thinking (about the major) too, but became convinced that pulling 3 NT to 4 converts the major-suit concern into a cue-bid, looking for more in diamonds.  Nonethelessm Sami Kehela has a strong point: "Matchpoints is matchpoints."

5 ♣   70   BWP One Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC None
This bid came out of the blue for me (pun intended).  As BluBayou points out, it "looks nice and normal on the scoreboard....  BUT WAIT!  There's a single vote for FIVE CLUBS   that got a respectable 70!   SOMEBODY  sold the moderator  that this is a Bluhmer??--  and  how can it be?  I wait with bated breath for sure."  And our answer is - Danny Kleinman argues that he holds "A golden minimum!  Better a Bluhmer than a blunder.  If North thinks this is a splinter, please remind him that I opened one notrump."  Nice catch Blu, though I do believe it is a Bluhmer for the reason given by Danny.

3 ♠   80   BWP  20%  BWS 11%  IAC  8%
So what is three of a major by opener in this sequence?  Guess what?  It is not defined.  Common expert practice treats the major as showing concern about the other major in the notrump game, I haven't heard much discussion of what it means when responder now bid 3 NT and opener pulls to the minor.  Here we are only bidding the three-of-a-major, but it is still all in planning the auction.  Since it is not likely to have been discussed in many partnerships, Kerri and Steve Sanborn make an apt warning: "We may be guessing on every round hereafter, but at matchpoints we expect partner to be very distributional or somewhat slammish (given our diamond holding).  North saw it was matchpoints."  Paul Boudreau takes the chance: "Could easily have a slam if partner is short in clubs.  I hope this does not sound like a heart problem.  Prefer bidding the fragment."  While BluBayou gives it more thought: "Would this hand bid Stayman, followed by3D ? :  Q, KQxx, Qxxxxx, Qx ? If so, then I better show my spade feature, and accept this hand's 3NT re-re-bid, and HOPE to make it.  Near the other extreme, when center opp has: AQxx, KQx, Qxxxxx, -- , 3 Spades will cause him to either "raise" spades or cue the club void, after which a couple rounds of bidding may well get us to the grand, but at least small.  Not a hand to give the 'get lost' 3NT rebid on despite having "only fifteen"..  show a notrump feature and let partner tell if he want's to let it end (3NT)  or if we are off to the races."

3 ♥   100   BWP  28%    BWS  33%  IAC  50%
If three-of-a-major followed by pulling 3 NT is a cue-bid, then 3 should score better than 3 because it shows the first control; this is a control-showing situation, not a fragment-showing situation.  Most making this bid, though, seem to be willing to let the auction die in 3 NT.  YleeXotee says "This is theoretically a cue bid in support of diamonds, can still land in 3nt"  John Carruthers doesn't seem to want to follow through: "I do like diamonds, but I also like notrump.  I will have a chance to express that opinion if partner bids three spades.  Seems to be a problem set where five to the eight is a stopper."  Gary Cohler thinks "I have a great hand for diamonds, especially if North has four hearts.  But I have minimum values and want to leave room to play in three notrump."  WackoJack argues that "If partner has a singleton small club then 3N likely just makes.  OTOH there may be a play for 12 tricks in so I will cue 3 "  Peuco is more clear about his prospects "cue bid with those Ds"  And late to the party, JCreech says "I never thought of this cue-bid, and it makes sense as being flexible."

4 ♦   100   BWP  28%    BWS  6%  IAC 8%
A more straightforward slam try is to bid 4 .  Eric Rodwell argues "With three strong diamonds and filler(s) in his major, I don't see a viable alternative."  Eric Kokish  "With North at least five-four, we might have a notrump problem in either clubs or hearts, but even if we're okay in three notrump, this is a good hand for slam and the clearest message is to raise partner's minor rather than to show something in spades and pass a three-notrump continuation.  Below three notrump, major suit bids are about the best game.  Three hearts or three spades would not be an advance control-bid for diamonds."  (A clear expert view that three-of-a-major is not a route toward slam.)  Phillip Alder asks "Does partner have a club control?"  And Chip Martel view this as "An excellent hand for diamonds, so I will make a clear statement rather than muddying the waters with three of a major.  This should deny the club ace (else I would bid four clubs)."  JCreech, however, sounds a cautionary note (though this does not reflect his final answer):  "At the risk of violating THE rule, I am bidding 4 .  Partner sounds worried about a short suit, and despite having five in that probable suit, I am worried too.  4 + something else still adds to down one in 3NT."




 



Problem F  2    (Masse24, JCreech, WackoJack, YleeXotee, Hoki, CCR3)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 3   ♥ K J 10 7 6 5   ♦ J 3   ♣ Q 9

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♦        Pass
  1 ♥       Pass      1 ♠        Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Let's begin with the elephant in the room.  It is seldom that a problem has only two answers selected; even when the experts are largely in agreement, there are still stragglers that stretch things out into three or more answers.  Not this time.  Everything went either high or low; no middle ground.  BluBayou  "I don't know what to do with problem F now, or maybe ever,  but i am more convinced than ever that the Bridge World is trying hard to get XYZ (NT)   voted into the next version of  BW Standard.  Piece of cake,  with that gadget agreed.  ( They used to do these little "campaigns" , back in the day.)  Some of the old farts like myself have groused loudly that NSGF, when that bid is 2C or 2D,  is abominable,  ie: that there should be some invitational continuations.  We expect to hear from one or two of them in a month.  For now  Invite-Jump in my own suit seems to be ok,  but at least one more call is in the running...."  WackoJack describes the auction "... if playing 2-way xyz I would bid 2 .  Then partner bids 2 and I make the  invite at the 2 level."  Adam Grossack thinks "XYZ clearly solves this issue.  I'll play the percentages (or what I perceive to be the percentages) at matchpoints and go low on what could be a misfit."  And Paul Boudreau clearly supports the addition: "Excellent candidate fo XYZ, which will surely be part of the next BWS.  Not enough for two clubs, so with so many losers I'm taking the conseervative call at matchpoints."

3 ♥   80   BWP 48%  BWS    57%  IAC  42%
The solver favorite was to be aggressive, and invite.  Eric Rodwell considers it to be "The straightforward bid.  At matchpoints, it might be right to bid two hearts, but with the heart ten I need to bid three.  Nothing else remotely appeals."  Bart Bramley agrees: "Down the middle.  Even stiff eight of hearts opposite will improve chances.  Not inviting game would be too timit; forcing to game would be too bold."  Chip Martel considers the 10 critical for the upgrade:  "With the heart ten this seems normal.  Without it, maybe only two hearts."  While
Phillip Alder regards inviting to be the conservative choice:  "This is a slight underbid, but it is matchpoints."  And Peuco: "hope not 8 tricks is the maximum."

2 ♥   100   BWP  52%  BWS   31%  IAC  58%
YleeXotee felt he "could not bring myself to go higher with those orphaned Jx and Qx holdings"  Similarly, Hoki says "okay my diamond jack is worth a point, but I look askance at my lone queen."  And BluBayou agrees: "you are so right that the Club Queen seems complete rubbish ( unless pard, having club length totally misfits hearts, which is another pile or rubbish news),  So, as Pat whispered to me, this may be the Return of the Hideous Underbid"  Bruce Rogoff  "Easy with mostly soft cards, and the scoring makes it unnecessary to stretch.  The club queen is likely wasted if partner has a heart fragment, and if he doesn't then two hearts will surely be high enough opposite any hand in the minimum range."  The Panelists emphasize the form of contest.  Gary Cohler argues that "At matchpoints, I will go low, as the minor-suit values could be worthless.  Partner will raise when we have a sure game, but we might miss close games or we might gain on close games."  Sami Kehela says "Craven, eh?  But matchpoints is matchpoints."  Jeff Rubens thinks that "With no aces, this is at worst a mild underbid."  And Steve Garner sums the hand up well: "What a pile of junk.  As Gerald used to say (whenever we were overboard), 'Mr. Garner, the value of all your random queens and jacks is simply dubious at best!"  This hand says go low."



This ends part two.  I apologize for getting this out a bit slow, but I hope you will find it interesting and thought provoking.  At least until the next segment is ready.

[blubayou]

The winning call for problem A  has reminded me that the MSC is the American home of ..."My cuebid means I like my hand;  just guess why, partner".  How COULD we forget!?


   As for THE problem-of-the-month(for me)  Problem E, it has bothered me for 6 weeks  that solvers and panelists keep showing north hands where 5   is sketchy at best, and we must subside in 3NT  if partner's next bid is 3NT .  My rationale for probing with 3 Spades,  is that I save my ACE cuebid for the next round in my quest for the 29-point grand when partner has  AQxx, KQx, QJxxxx, void.   I guess that now is my last chance to ask our mad scientists if  such a hand may re-re-bid  4    over 3 spades,  or if that would show 0=4=5=4  (or even 4=0=5=4)? 
  Also,  I love the concept of Kleinman's bloomer 5clubs,  but will save that bid for some hand that will make the diamond GAME a lock.  Need help with that construction, Ken!

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem G  4 (KenBerg, BluBayou)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 9 5   ♥ K J   ♦ K 4 3   ♣ K J 9 4 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       Pass       1 ♥        2 ♠
  Pass      Pass      3 ♠*     Pass
   ?         
*BWS: double would have been cooperative-takeout

What call do you make?

The moderator, David Berkowitz, wrote "Let us talk about modern bridge.  Double by partner says, 'I don't know where we are going; let's investigate.'  A cue-bid says, 'I know where we are going, can you cooperate?'  Partner is advertising either a strong hand in hearts or a huge club fit ..."  So, in light of that, what should the various responses mean?

3 NT   80   BWP  40%   BWS  82%  IAC 83%
The solvers say, we should show our stopper, and a substantial number of Panelist do as well.  Larry Cohen feel this to be "An extension of Hamman's rule to bid three notrump when you have the king in the opponent's suit."  Ron Gerald pragmatically asks "Come on.  Could North bit three notrump over four clubs (as opposed to vice versa)?  If that footnote is trying to tell me that North must be short in spades couldn't he have:  ♠ x   ♥ AQ10x   ♦ Qxx   ♣ AQ10xx?  He needs to take out three notrump to get me to cooperate."  Zia: "I think the sequence focuses on stopper.  North could have doubled if he needed support.  He probably has a club fit."  John Carruthers says "He asks.  I answer.  I hope he has a few aces."  Similarly, Gary Cohler "Partner asked for a stopper; I show one.  He might have: ♠ xx   ♥ AQxx   ♦ Qx   ♣ AQxxx and not want to double because of club fit."  WackoJack:  "Partner's 3 bid must be asking for a  stop"  Kit Woolsey: "I have a spade stopper, and that is presumably what partner is looking for.  There doesn't appear to be any other option."  Peuco "well pd asked for a stopper and I have one"  Others are less certain, shrug and bid.  For example, Carl Hudecek says "I do have a spade stopper.  But I don't have an opening bid."  Hoki bids "3NT, but I accept the argument that we probably make only eight tricks.  I'm really rather now wishing that I'd passed this aceless collection unless my partner is aware that I sometimes open trashy hands."  Danny Kleinman believes this is "The only contract for which the hand still rates as worth an opening bid.  If we play there and go down, I'll explain that I mistook my queen for an ace."  YleeXotee:  "I hope the hint just means a lack of clubs, not sure"  For Robert Wolff it is just "Another guess as to whether to jig left or right, notrump or hearts."

4 ♥   50   BWP  12%   BWS  9%  IAC  No Solver
Checking in with Bobby's jig to the right we find Eric Kokish taking the leap of faith: "Three spades is either long hearts or a prime club fit.  This was a poorish hand originally, but it has improved facing either of those hand-types.  As North is not expecting me to bid three notrump with hands in the family of what I hold, the choices are four clubs (which is sort of a default when neither three notrump nor four hearts is a good bid) and four hearts (which does not preclude a high club contract while showing the potentially-best feature of the hand in context)."

4 ♣   100   BWP  48%   BWS  8%  IAC 17%
A slight majority cooperate to allow partner to show the way.  Despite my initial thought of showing the real club length, and by extension cooperating, I finally decided to tred safely with Hamman's Rule firmly in mind; that is why I am still a solver - chicken.  By contrast, Paul Boudreau "Will bypass Hamman's Rule, since the club suit is pretty reasonable, and the red kings should be useful if partner has slam aspirations."  Adam Grossack believes that "Partner must be void for this sequence at these colors.  Not sure what game is best, so I'll stress my longest suit with an economical bid."  Alan Sontag starts envisioning partner's hand: "Let the bidding begin.  Three spades shows shortness with a club fit."  Bart Bramley "Partner apparently fears defending, so he has at most one spade.  Thus, I'm skipping three notrump and cooperating for slam.  Possible tough decisions ahead, as our trump suit is ambiguous.  I'll go slow for now, but I may need to bid five notrump eventually as choice-of-slams."  BluBayou thinks "If  they let us in before setting us,  we MAY run the next 8 tricks  OR NOT.  but the cue bid means we are golden for 10,11,or 12  in clubs"  Fear of NT is also in Billy Eisenberg's eyes "Dangerous to bid three notrump with no aces."  Phillip Alder: "If partner did not like the idea of two spades doubled, I guess he has at most one spade.  If so, I do not like the idea of three notrump, which will presumably gather a number of votes."  Eric Rodwell is the only one not immediately dreaming of slam; his plan for the auction follows: "Three spades implies spade shortness, and the South hand lacks notrump orientation facing that.  If partner bids four hearts, I will pass; if four diamonds, I will try four hearts."






Problem H  10  (VeeRee, BabsG, YleeXotee)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 10 6 5 3   ♥ 7 5 4   ♦ K 6   ♣ 10 9

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  2 ♠       3 ♥        Pass      3 NT
  Pass      Pass     Pass
What is your opening lead?

Our moderator muses:  "One reason opening-lead problems are so widely hated is that you can't win:  if you get a lot of them right, everyone get suspicious; if you get a lot of them wrong, no one wants to be your partner.  On a sample of one deal, any lead can be a winner, but in this case leading dummy's suit is highly-questionable (at best)."  This deal came from Brian Platnick (so you know who to hate).  Recently, he has been posting a bunch of hands where the opponents only bid NT, and you are left to blindly guess what to lead, so we should rejoice that he has provided more information - dummy has hearts, and declarer has at least one stop in your spade suit.  Do you lead your own suit?  And if so, which one - you can hope the partner  has a partial fit yet did not raise, you can try to pin the stiff Q in either dummy or partner's hand, or you can try a more normal lead of either the interior sequence or fourth best.  You can try to hit partner so he can lead a spade back through.  Or you can try for the brass ring by trying to hit partner's suit, while burning your best outside entry in the process.  Let's see where the chips fall.

♠ J   60   BWP 16%    BWS  20%  IAC  42%
In the absence of information, the interior sequence is the stand-out lead.  In this auction, it is less clear because you have bid the suit, and declarer has announced a stopper; this increases the risk of making this lead.  Chip Martel "At imps, I look for a simple route to beat three notrump.  I'd lead the club ten at matchpoints."  WackoJack says "Nothing fancy"  Robert Wolff "Not to follow convention should not be a regular choice."  The problem with not leading the suit is largely with partners.  Peuco "i hate partners who bid a suit and lead another one"  The reason not lead a spade is expressed by Paul Boudreau: "I hope this doesn't yield a ninth trick.  I'm not brave enough for the diamond king."  So why not the king?  Jeff Rubens: "The king-lead might gain if someone has singleton queen, but what if North has ace-low?"  Hoki: "someone asked to be talked out of leading the king, so I'll try. The worst scenario that I can think of is Q-x-x with declarer and A-x with partner.  How sick would that make you feel, partner rightly unblocking the ace and returning your suit?"  Or JCreech, "The king is my fan-favorite, but a plain-vanilla jack is still more my style."

♠ K   50   BWP  No Panelist   BWS  12%  IAC One Solver
Taking the risk, KenBerg admits "Yes I agree the lead of the spade K has its downsides Actually any spade lead could go seriously wrong.  I am influenced by my three small hearts and the 3H call on my left. I figure, or hope,  we will be getting the lead once more after they take their spade.  And then we need four tricks.  So I think we need to start with a spade, some spade, now. If Qx is on dummy, I will regret leading any spade. If the stiff Q hits, I will be glad I lead the K. It's a bit off the wall, agreed. I am still asking myself if I would actually do it at the table."

♠ 6   70   BWP  16%    BWS  11%  IAC  One Solver
Although not usual when holding three that includes an interior sequence, what about fourth best.  Kit Woolsey thinks "This may defeat the contract opposite only one nice card in partner's hand.  Anything else requires more."  Adam Grossack suggests that "Maybe partner has nine-low of spades and declarer ace-queen-low-low, where we need to get the spades going while I have a diamond entry."  But Masse24 may still say it best:  "Who knows? Have I mentioned that I hate lead problems?"

♦ K   80   BWP  28%    BWS  8%  IAC  No Solver
As I was looking at potential leads, I viewed the K as a desparation move; this was a lead I could not force myself to consider without needing a swing of major proportions.  Steve Garner got "Advice from the local swami tells me to avoid the spades and try to hit partner.  If this doesn't work, I'm calling the Grand Poobah for advice on next month's lead problem."  Phillip Alder "It is hero-or-goat time."  Sami Kehela "Either my partner or declarer will be happy."  Bruce Rogoff "Hearts are splitting well for declarer, so it's unlikely that we can set this contract.  I'm hoping that partner has good diamonds and an entry before East can take nine tricks.  Finding a spade honor opposite and the time to get in with the diamond king is too much of a parlay."  Gary Cohler "Hearts seem to be breaking well.  If declarer doesn't have the ace-queen of spades, he rates to have a long minor.  It's more likely he has clubs.  The spade-king looks sexy but usually blows a trick.  The diamond-king lead is aggressive, but then so am I."

♣ 10   100   BWP  36%    BWS  40%  IAC  25%
Eric Kokish lays out the argument fairly clearly for the 10:  "High or low spade could be just fine, and the diamond king is the best bet for a quick set, but the club lead combines safety with a fair shot at hitting a useful club holding.  Let's face it, we're guessing.  In real life, there would be plenty of support for the diamond king or the most-normal spade lead, but so what?"  Eric Rodwell has similar thoughts: "A guess, obviously.  Partner didn't raise, so I won't play him for a doubleton spade honor, though he might have that. I lack sufficient information to plunk down the diamond king."  YleeXotee "could not figure out what to lead, reverted back to 10 of clubs, a somewhat passive lead hoping for pard to lead spades through, and then set them on picking up my diamond winner, hoping p has a heart winner or two"  While Billy Eisernberg was "Happy to have a constructive holding."  Zia doesn't mince words:  "Never a spade.  It's a diamond or a club.  Won't argue if the panel tells me I'm a wimp."



This concludes this month's summary of the MSC discussion.  I hope it has provided a glimpse into expert thinking (muddled as it might be sometimes).  Good luck with next month's MSC problems!

[Masse24]

Thanks, Jim!