Author Topic: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC  (Read 9357 times)

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2022, 03:02:41 AM »
Last month when the bidding on the "companion deal"  went :  "1NT, 2C; 2D, 3D;  THREE HEARTS", that call was based on doubleton AJ [with a spades stopper waiting in the wings].  Well--as it's your birthday and you have the jack yourself,  you deserve a doubleton ace-QUEEN  this month -- and a writeup in the acbl bulletin when you bring home this sub-moysean  heart game!

I had forgotten that, or more likely not noticed it at the time. But thanks to your comment I did go back and look at my answer to the January quiz. I am happy to say that I did not bid 3H over 3D on my AJ, I raised 3D to 4D.  For some reason, I see that 3H and 4D scored equally. As long as I am playing with my clone I will be ok! I can raise my clone pard's 3H to 4H. Probably the 3H on AJ guy and I would not do well together. 
 It will be interesting to see if any of this is addressed when the mag comes.

I find bridge quizzes confusing.

Added: if pard's  3H over my 3C was on Ax of hearts, then he can hopefully figure out what to do. I imagine he will bid 5C, and then I will pass.


 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 02:41:26 AM by kenberg »
Ken

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #46 on: January 03, 2022, 02:35:36 PM »
A recent hand reminded me of problem A.
https://tinyurl.com/yy5bzeto
 
The uncontested auction begins Pass-1H-2C(Drury)
For problem A I mentioned that at the table I would probably just bit game. Here I have a 17 count, in problem A there is only a 16 count but in A there is also a six-card trump suit. Anyway, at the table I did just bid 4H and I took 11 tricks when the heart finesse failed. Note that I lose exactly one club regardless of where the club K is.  So it's close.

Just for amusement I tried the robots on this.  Their auction went Pass-1H-2C-2D-4H-Pass.
That seems odd. If I am going to pass a 4h response to 2D, why not just bid 4H right away? Maybe S would bid 3NT if n had responded 2h pver 2D? Nope, I tried it, S bid 4H. Seems to me that if all roades lead to 4H you might as well take the quickest one.


Playing with my clone, if it began Pass-1H-2C-2D then I, as N, would bid 3H. To my mind this is forcing to 4H and leaves room in case pard is thinnking about a slam. I tried this also, and over 3H the northern bot just bid 4H.

So the bots are not getting to 6 on any reasonable auction. Fair enough, it only makes 11 tricks.

I will close with an observation: Playing 2 way Drury, it would begin Pass-1H-2D-? Now S knows pard has four hearts and invit values. Playing standard Drury, it can begin Pass-1H-2C-2D-3H and now S knows not only that pard has four hearts, he also knows pard has a maximum Drury hand. Even if we did not get to the doomed slam here, on other hands that could be useful. As mentioned above, I think that after the 2C Druy and then the positive 2D, then 2H is still passable of course, but I think 3H should be "Ok, you had a positive response, I have four hearts and a max,  we are bidding game, and are you interested in more?" I believe this is standard Drury.

Ken

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2022, 03:18:43 PM »
I have also thought a bit more about problem G.
The auction begins 1NT-2C-2D-3C-3H
I am not bidding 3S unless pard and I have had a very clear discussion. For purposes of NT, there are two suits in question, spades and diamonds. Imo, standard is that 3S says "Look, I can handle the spades but I can't handle diamonds", If diamonds had already been handled then yes, 3S would ask, not show. Perhaps we can say that since pard's 2D denied a major we should treat his hand as having stoppers in both minors so that only spades are at issue. I have a stiff spade and a good three-card diamond holding, but I would have bid Stayman and then 3C if I had a stiff diamond and a good-three card spade holding, in which case I am worried about diamonds, not spades.

Anyway, I bid 4H. Suppose pard does have only Ax. Does he have a problem? I doubt it. He has at most three spades (probably exactly three spades) and so he has eight cards in the minors. He presumably has three clubs, so he bids 5C. If he has only two clubs then he has six diamonds. Ok, he can open 1NT with a six-card minor but I think that then ever my 3C he would have bid his six-card diamond suit instead of his two-card heart suit. At least I am not choosing my bid on the assumption he skipped over his six diamonds to bid his two-card heart suit. No doubt he will explain afterward why I should have figured it out.

I think msc is useful for prompting discussions of what various bids mean to each of us. What does 3S mean over 3H? For me, it shows a spade stop. But I do see why a person with KJ8 in spades and a stiff diamond might just bid 3NT, trusting N to take care of the diamonds, and with that agreement then 3S could ask. I see that 3NT scored 90. I believe in optimism but that's over the top for me.
Ken

Masse24

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
  • Karma: +13/-4
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2022, 05:19:02 PM »
I have also thought a bit more about problem G.
The auction begins 1NT-2C-2D-3C-3H
I am not bidding 3S unless pard and I have had a very clear discussion. For purposes of NT, there are two suits in question, spades and diamonds. Imo, standard is that 3S says "Look, I can handle the spades but I can't handle diamonds", If diamonds had already been handled then yes, 3S would ask, not show. Perhaps we can say that since pard's 2D denied a major we should treat his hand as having stoppers in both minors so that only spades are at issue. I have a stiff spade and a good three-card diamond holding, but I would have bid Stayman and then 3C if I had a stiff diamond and a good-three card spade holding, in which case I am worried about diamonds, not spades.

Anyway, I bid 4H. Suppose pard does have only Ax. Does he have a problem? I doubt it. He has at most three spades (probably exactly three spades) and so he has eight cards in the minors. He presumably has three clubs, so he bids 5C. If he has only two clubs then he has six diamonds. Ok, he can open 1NT with a six-card minor but I think that then ever my 3C he would have bid his six-card diamond suit instead of his two-card heart suit. At least I am not choosing my bid on the assumption he skipped over his six diamonds to bid his two-card heart suit. No doubt he will explain afterward why I should have figured it out.

I think msc is useful for prompting discussions of what various bids mean to each of us. What does 3S mean over 3H? For me, it shows a spade stop. But I do see why a person with KJ8 in spades and a stiff diamond might just bid 3NT, trusting N to take care of the diamonds, and with that agreement then 3S could ask. I see that 3NT scored 90. I believe in optimism but that's over the top for me.

I am still thoroughly confused by Problem "G." 

I must say I am surprised that four panelists chose to bid 3NT after opener's advertised spade weakness via his 3 !H bid. At least . . . that was my interpretation. If this interpretation is accepted, then 3 !S could simply be used as a waiting bid. A punt. Since it is the cheapest bid, it provides partner with the most room to further describe his hand.

A question for the 3 !S bidders. If partner next bids 3NT, do you intend to sit? What would partner have in spades to not bid 3NT earlier, but to bid it now? !S J98?

Sit? Not me, had I chosen that route. I would next bid 4 !D.

The panelist analysis should be interesting.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2022, 04:10:08 PM by Masse24 »
“Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.” Abraham Lincoln

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2022, 06:00:23 PM »
Thie only way that 3NT makes sense to me is if the 3H is interpreted as asking me to bid 3NT if I control hearts. But why would it mean that? I do not regard that as at all standard when there are two suits at issue.
Ken

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 393
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2022, 10:47:21 PM »
When the opener has to rebid after hearing 3 of either minor, and he has strong support,  it is 'advisable'  to NOT REBID  3 NOTRUMP  without spread out garbage in all other suits.  If we're going to fret about spades being wide open,  consider that , at least THIS month,  he skipped over diamonds.   With this  dog of a hand[for our bidding so far], we MUST not leave 3NT behind, since there are plenty of combined hands that have 3 likely loosers playing in clubs  (see above...WAY above).  Just the fact that last month 3H was the panel's darling rather than 3S holding KTx,AJ -- grossly unfair-- makes  3NT now  on a must.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2022, 10:49:27 PM by blubayou »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2022, 11:26:23 PM »
I think the 3H bid has to be either a cue-bid or a tell-bid.  It cannot be an ask-bid.  Under those circumstances, 3NT does not make sense. 

If 3H is a cue-bid, then 3S seems correct if you want to cooperate or 4D if you do not.

If 3H is a tell-bid, then 4D seems correct.

3NT is correct only if 3H is an ask-bid.

So the expert commentary should be enlightening - lol.
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2022, 10:19:17 PM »
Ok, my BridgeWorld arrived today.
As for bidding 4H on G, I am in bed with Bobby Wolff, Kit Woolsey and Zia. I have had worse cellmates.

But the real reason for this post is the end of the article. For the lead on H, John Hurd says: Spade three. Anything could be right.
Jeff Rubens then says:
Important Words-- Written by Tex Davis and Gene Vincent, originally recorded by Vincent (and the Blue Caps) in 1957). He goes on to say: And where did I see another reference to that year recently?
I don't know the answer to his final question but it was a pleasure to see Gene Vincent mentioned. Well, a pleasure for me and my fellow octogenarians. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnKcSdJKSR0

Ah yes, the 50s.
 Be Bop A Lula
Ken

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2022, 06:29:33 PM »
February MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Jeff Rubens, Director

The results from this set made me feel a bit discombobulated, so I am reversing the order of my three writeups.  Also, in the aftermath of the results being revealed, but before reasoning was revealed, the post mortem discussion seemed to focus on the two problems discussed in this section.

Problem G  4 !H  (FleuretteD, Masse24, KenBerg, WackoJack)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 5    K J 9 5    K J 9   ♣ K J 7 4 2

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

The moderator, Jeff Rubens, ended the discussion of Problem G with the following:  "Not at all mysterious is the lesson to be learned from this problem:  Having a strong partnership requires agreements about extended sequences, whether those system components arise from general principles, using defaults, or discussions of specific details."  In the IAC post-mortem, I raised questions of whether the 3 !H continuation was an ask or a tell bid in this sequence.  What is clear is that when the responder to a NT opener uses Stayman, and then follows with showing a minor, the partnership is still groping toward the NT game.  So in this sequence what is partner saying with 3 !H?  The answer affects how you should continue.

4    60   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 8%   Bridge World solver (BWS) 13%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC)  No solvers
Those bidding 4 !D are absolutely certain that it shows short spades because you bypassed 3NT on this sequence.  Eric Kokish believes "The one thing partner's bidding says is: 'Do not bit three notrump with short spades."  While Kamil and Sherman emphasize a singleton or void and a wish and a prayer that the partnership is in sync:  "This must imply short spades, the actual shape or 0=4=4=5.  Four diamonds is obvious as long as partner is on the same wavelength.  North of the Master Solvers' Club should be quite adept at reading partner's intentions after all these years."

3 ♠   60   BWP 8%   BWS 17%  IAC 45%
The IAC favorite is 3 !S, and the expert opinion is that it is a last train to 3NT showing doubt about the spade stop.  Oren Kreigel, for example, thinks "Its tempting to commit to a suit contract with four hearts but I'll give partner one last chance for three notrump.  North should have bid three diamonds with strength there, so if diamonds were my problem suit, I would bid beyond three notrump. That leaves three spades to show doubt about spades."  Similarly, John Swanson says "We are looking for the best game.  North should treat this bid as showing something in diamonds, allowing three notrump."  Within IAC, the view is that we are agreeing to clubs as a trump suit, but considering the perfecto for slam.  Hoki writes, "3♣ shows a club suit (in addition to one four-card major) and partner's 3♥ bid is a control bid, showing club support. So I bid 3♠ to show first or second round control in spades - with slam interest in clubs."  JCreech is also "Making a cooperating cue-bid."  While YleeXotee hedges his bet:  "This is a cue bid, following partners cue bid for our minor. i have some worry that we will end in 3nt with pard counting on my spade stop, so I could be convinced to go to 5c.  leaving room to land in 3nt"

4 ♣   70   BWP 13%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
Roger Lee is "Assuming we simply bid where we live in this type of sequence, this seems as accurate as anything.  This shows four hearts - with four spades, responder would usually continue with three spades or three notrump."  Although he eventually chose differently, BluBayou put together an interesting analysis comparing this problem to one from last month:  "Remember last month's  Problem E?  This is exactly the same problem, seen from the other side of the table. Here, side by side  are the two hands
                   JANUARY                                         FEBRUARY

            KTx, AJ, AKx, 8xxxx                    KTx, AQ, 8xxxx, AQx -- still 15;  still  5 lousy in the other minor still HHx "trumps".   
            v,  KQxx, Qxxxxx, Kxx                  x, KJ9x, KJ9, KJ7xx

If these south hands are really worth 'stayman + show my minor', then clearly checking out whether 3NT is viable has to be the thrust if the next couple of bids--launching off to 5 or 6 Diamonds [Clubs] comes later.  Therefore opener's re-rebid  should have been his stoppery spades, not his ace as the bidding diagram foists on us (3 Hearts).  On the pair of hands we have, we have just blown past past 3NT and I wonder if the percentage of 5 !C [ !D ]  coming home is as much as 40%.     On the January problem, 7 panelists made the WRONG cue-bid  that we see here in current  Problem G.  And 7 kissed 3NT bye-bye by raising responder's minor to four.  Both groups got 100 (??)  And the 5 who cued the spade stopper got 80.      Now,  HOW are we getting to 3NT now that partner has filled in our heart suit?  We aren't-- that train has left the station. (If we now bid 3NT  over 3H,  then why did we bother to start showing something-- why not just close out in 3NT after openers stayman response?)    (Somebody say  "In fact, I WOULD have done this"?)     If opener has made the same erroneous 3H call  with a hand resembling  December #E, we are blowing past the pretty solid 3NT, and headed for a sketchy 5 Clubs, because my vote is to slink back to...

4 ♠   70   BWP 17%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Another bid that agrees to clubs is 4 !S, splintering to also show the spade shortness. Jill Meyers visualizes "Three hearts suggests that partner is concerned about spades.  Opposite weak spades, there can be a slam." As does Joey Silver: "As partner doesn't want to grab the contract.  I might as well show my spade splinter - to cover the unlikely event that all my honors are working and we have a play for slam."  Similarly, Ira Chorush writes "A splinter agreeing clubs.  This may be all partner needs to ask for key cards.  There are quite a few hands with which North will know exactly what to do - assuming that he understands what I am doing."  And Paul Boudreau is trying to provide the best picture: "I suppose partner could have a diamond problem with 3=3=2=5, but he might have bid four clubs with such a hand.  Although the South hand is minimum, the splinter is more descriptive than showing a red king would be."

3 NT   90   BWP 17%   BWS 14%  IAC 1 solver
Those bidding 3NT think that partner's problem suit is diamonds, not spades.  David Berkowitz thinks it is "A little counterintuitive, but partner is worried about diamonds, not spades."  Phillip Alder simply writes, "I have something in diamonds."  BluBayou points out that"Partner skipped probing in  !D s,  so 3NT despite wide open spades here  (WHY did I bother to show my clubs in the first place, you might well ask.  ;D )"  Ralph Katz echos "Partner did not bid three diamonds, so it is reasonable to assume at least one spade stopper."

4    100   BWP 38%   BWS 30%  IAC 36%
Leave it to Danny Kleinman to raise an interesting issue differently:  "Trusting North to know when the three-four (Naisyom) fit may be best - if that's what he may gave in mind."  For those having difficulty transposing Naisyom, that is Moysian spelled backwards to suggest that the trump tap is coming in the wrong (4-side) hand.  I know I discarded the 4-3 fit for exactly that reason; something the plurality of Panelists did not.  WackoJack sums up the situation as, "We have 27-29HCP and we need partner to have 3 aces for slam.  Optimistically ♠ xxx, ♥ AQx, ♦AQxxx, ♣Ax where we ruff 2♠ with ♦J9.  This looks just a bit too much to hope for so I will go for 4♥ to play 4-3 fit."  Kit Woolsey thinks "Spades is likely to be a soft spot for notrump.  If partner is willing to play in a four-three heart fit, I'm game.  Otherwise, five clubs should be okay.  Partner will place me with just about this hand."  Bart Bramley points out that "I've shown clubs, hearts and no interest in notrump.  Maybe partner will know what to do.  Four diamonds wouldn't be as informative."  Zia feels "The inferences are as plain as the bid is unusual.  Showing shape with four diamonds would not say that four hearts is playable opposite, e.g.: ♠ Jx    AQx    Axxx   ♣ Axxx."  Masse24 sounds more like he is flailing:  "Moysian? I really worry that not bidding 4 !D now misses partners five-card suit. No guts."  But Robert Wolff, while choosing a different alternative bid, seems to have similar concerns:  "Four clubs would be more flexible, but, then again, North might bypass four hearts."  The end result, though, may be best expressed by Billy Eisenberg: "If partner passes, this could be the best spot."







Problem H  !S 3  (Hoki, Masse24, KenBerg)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 8 3    K J 2    A K 4   ♣ K Q 9 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 NT      Pass      2       2 ♠
  3            3 ♠          (All Pass)
What is your opening lead?

Before heading into the actual selections, John Hurd points out that "Anything could be right."  And Ralph Katz says that "All four suits are possible."  So what are the salient points of consideration.  Partner has shown the heart suit, and frequently the most appropriate lead is partner's suit.  However, it is clear from your holding of KJx, that partner's suit is at best a broken holding, and which heart to lead is unclear.  Building a defensive trick on the lead can often be a good choice, so leading a top honor from KQ9xx might be worthwhile, but if partner does not hold the jack, it might be better for declarer than for you.  Leading a top honor from AKx does not usually give up a trick or tempo, so that could work well, at least in the short run, but if partner does not have either the queen or a doubleton, then it might work out better for declarer.  Another advantage of the diamond, is that it gives the defense a chance to switch to something more effective.  Which comes down to, it is not absolutely clear which non-trump lead will be most effective, and Joey Silver's logic: "No lead tempts me, and, as a wise man once said (or was it my grandmother): When in doubt, lead a trump."

I expected the Panel to have a wide variety of leads on this problem.  And to the extent, as the moderator so aptly said "... there were at least two votes for cards from each of the four suits ... Some other-suit leaders were avoiding spades, while others had specific reasons for choosing a particular suit."  Nonetheless, the vast majority of the Panel (75%), led a trump.

♠ 3   100   BWP 67%   BWS 27%  IAC 27%
The case for a trump lead seems split between find a passive lead, reduce declarer's ruffing ability, and not sure what to do, so when in doubt lead a trump.  Starting with the passive approach, Hoki says "Partner doesn't seem to have much at all, so I look for a passive lead: the three of spades."  Paul Boudreau adds his own twist:  "Passive looks best.  Might as well lead suit-preference."  Oren Kreigel raises the issue (but not seriously), of pickling partner's trump holding:  "Not much reason to get active, and I am not terribly worried about picking off a trump honor in partner's hand (although queen-low is a possibility).  A trump lead might stop a ruff in dummy or prevent me from blowing a trick in whatever other suit I might lead."  Preferring to prevent ruffs, Bart Bramley thinks that "With strength in all of the side suits, let's try to prevent ruffs.  If we need to work on hearts or clubs, we should have time."  Roger Lee has similar aspirations:  "Second choice is a high diamond, but I'd rather start getting trumps off the table, then try to beat the contract on power."  Masse24 simply wants to "Reduce ruffs."  And Jill Meyers says, "I want to get trumps going, and I am not in a hurry to break any suit."  And speaking for those who are uncertain which direction to head, Robert Wolff thought it "Seems logical but a close case, with both of the minor suits in contention."  While Sami Kehela chooses to rank his alternatives: "Second choice: club king.  A high diamond is likely to lose a tempo."

♠ 8   90   BWP one Panelist BWS 15%  IAC No solvers
Kit Woolsey combined reasons (passive with reducing ruffs) but lost style points with his actual choice of a trump to lead: "With all plain suits under control, there is no rush to establish anything.  A trump is probably safest, and it might cut down a ruff in dummy."  Perhaps the moderator thought the eight might be an important pusher in a subsequent trump lead.

♣ K   50   BWP 13%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
David Berkowitz selected the !C K "Only because you were nice enough to give me the nine.  The club jack with partner may be enough, an I would hate to go blasting open another suit.  I would lead a trump except that maybe partner will otherwise produce surprise winner there."

A   50   BWP 8%   BWS 39   %  IAC 64%
Guessing wrongly (as do most making a claim of unanimity), YleeXotee believes "This will be the second time in history that an MSC has only ONE answer...(but someone tell me what the lead is in BWS from AKx. is it ace or king?)"   Kamil and Sherman disagree with Kehela (above in the !S 3 section) "We can't see when we would lose a tempo with this lead.  Our objective is to play for partner to ruff the third diamond - hoping that the opponents are four-four, so that we won't be setting up any tricks.  Then (we hope) we'll sit back and wait for two rounded-suit tricks.  The is the possibility that we can still switch horses after trick one.  Other leads appear to be blind guesses."  BluBayou (and WackoJack almost identically) "I think I see 4 defensive tricks;  think I will   take a peek at dummy and hopefully se where partner might add a couple more."  While JCreech is focused first on partner's suit:  "I want to lead partner's hearts, but which one will be right?  Lead a top diamond to get a peak at dummy first sounds right to me."

Personally, I can understand passivity and when in doubt lead trump, but I have more of a problem with the other two reasons running about for leading trump.  From the auction, I think we are likely to only have two trump in each hand, and advancer is unlikely to have much to offer in the way of ruffs anyway (just as partner is not a strong candidate to have a fast entry for a third round of trump even if we have five).  So I am puzzled by a concern that we have not started trump quickly enough by leading a top diamond.  If it looks right to lead a trump when dummy comes down, then I can lead a trump, and when next in (fairly quickly), I can lead a second trump - now I suspect partner and I are both out, so no third round.  Now I can understand loss of tempo a bit more; if diamonds is the opponent's secondary suit, then we have taken a step to help them set it up sooner.  However, if the opponents do have an 8-card fit, then doesn't that mean that partner has a doubleton, and so by not leading a diamond, we have eliminated our chance to score a diamond ruff (as Kamil and Sherman are explictly playing for)?  Given the expert propensity for choosing a trump lead, that score was deserved, but I do think that the lead of a top diamond deserved somewhat better than the 50 it was given.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2022, 01:21:29 PM by jcreech »
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2022, 12:55:31 PM »
February MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem D  4 !D   (Masse24, JCreech)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 10 6    A J 9 5    10 4 2   ♣ 6 5 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       2 ♠        3          3 ♠
  Pass     Pass     Double     Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Let's consider the situation.  The opponents have preempted in one major and raised, while partner has overcalled and now doubled.  You have good, but not great HCPs, a three-card fit for partner's suit, a possible stopper in the opponent's suit, and a good four-card holding in the unbid major that partner's double strongly implies.  What are your thoughts?

Pass   40   BWP 8%   BWS 10%  IAC 18%
When making my choices, I only thought of passing as an afterthought; the level is high enough and our combined values uncertain enough that it might be the last plus position.  Some who took the bid more seriously had this to say.  Hoki wrote, "With the spade queen a potentially worthless value I'm reluctant to show any encouragement - and the hand is too flat to try for 4."  Bart Bramley thinks, "This time it's game - oh well.  If I have a trump trick, we should set this, and we might well set it anyway.  On a good day, we'll beat it a couple with no game our way.  One can dream."  Kit Woolsey's assessment is that "When I have no sure spade stopper and no high diamond honor, three notrump doesn't figure to make, since partner could have bid three spades with solid diamonds.  The likely trump total is 18, and the hand is defensively-oriented, which argues for defending rather than contracting for 19 total tricks."  And BluBayou speculates, "So, they have AJxxxx and Kxx trumps; where will they find 3 more tricks if we can make 4-something?"

3 NT   40   BWP 8%   BWS 12%  IAC No solvers
In an MSC contest, I do not particularly want to hang my hat on Q10x as a stopper for NT.  However, others were willing.  Danny Kleinman makes a good point, "As I didn't bid this earlier, partner won't read me for a better hand, so he may not sit.  If he passes, I can hope that sombody other than West has the jack of spades.  I estimate that 91 percent of the Wests who would have had the jack of spades for their favorable-vulnerability weak two-bid are dead."  While Eric Kokish uses the bid as a compromise:  "Passing could be best, but it's a bit much for me when someone might be short in diamonds.  I'd make it close between four diamonds and five diamonds, but three notrump is a compromise of sorts.  With a good hand that included four hearts, North would have doubled two spades intending to convert clubs to diamonds, so I'm not leaning toward four hearts."

5    40   BWP one Panelist   BWS 7%  IAC 1 solver
Nonetheless, partner is bidding strongly, and the South hand is far from broke; maybe 5 !D is the magic spot.  WackoJack says "I am expecting partner to have 1 or at the most 2 spades.  Likely 1363 and  ♠x, Kxx AKJxxx, ♣Axx would be about seem to be about minimum.  Here both 5 and 3N would be lucky to make and we would expect to get 5 tricks in defence only on a good day.  Nevertheless, partner could be better so I will be bold and go for 5Ira Chorush "Partner is likely 1=3=6=3.  Most panelists would have doubled initially with five diamonds and four hearts.  Also, North should have a moose ..."

4    80   BWP 33%   BWS 40%  IAC 55%
The remaining game possibility is the Moysian in hearts.  David Berkowitz says "Go for the game bonus.  It would be silly to bid three notrump; there are so many ways to lose (the first six spade tricks, for example).  The spade strength may be useful in hearts, so I will try the probably four-three fit."  Robert Wolff thinks "I owe it to partner, and a four-three fit may work with ruffs in the short hand."  YleeXotee: "I changed on this one, why doesn't p rebid diamonds if they are so great (because he has hearts I pray), lets try 10 tricks in hearts instead of 11 in diamonds, right answer is 4D, but I can't"  While Paul Bordreau goes with wishful thinking: "Partner is allowed to have four hearts.  If he has only three, maybe the Moysian fit will fetch."

4    100   BWP 46%   BWS 31%  IAC 18%
For those unwilling to risk any of the other alternatives, try to find the true middle ground.  Ralph Katz summarizes nicely:  "With four hearts, partner probably would have doubled the first time.  Three notrump would be too risky; there is no assurance of a make even if queen-ten-low is a stopper."  John Swanson agrees, "Game prospects in notrump, hearts and diamonds all too nebulous for any other bid."  Joey Silver: "The spade holding is unlikely to be a stopper, and partner won't often have four hearts.  I go low, showing my true color (yellow) and giving me an opportunity once again to say to partner: 'Sorry!'"  Roger Lee: "No guts.  I like passing these doubles against favorable-vulnerability opposition as much as anyone, but here it feels as if three spades will make a lot of the time.  Bidding three notrump would be asking for too much from partner."  John Hurd points out that "Partner's double would most often be aimed at three notrump.  With four=six in the reds and enough strength to double here, he would likely have doubled originally, and I am unwilling to play in a four-three fit with a likely club lead coming through dummy."  Masse24 also hears the sirens tempting Odysseus: "Really ugly. Hamman whispered in my ear, but I turned away."  While JCreech hears the sirens singing a different tune:  "I could try hearts on the Moysian, but I think it is safer to play in diamonds.  But boy is that Moysian tempting - the tap is coming in the right hand and AJxx is reasonable to control the suit from my side."



 

Problem E  Double/Pass (Double: FlouretteD, Hoki, CCR3/Pass: BluBayou, KenBerg)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 9 7    A 6 4    K Q J 9   ♣ J 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♣        2 ♠
   ?         
What call do you make?

I was definitely confused by the reactions of the Panelists on this problem.  What ever happened to the notion of opening hand opposite opening hand equals game somewhere?  But even in the unusual circumstances of the twin choices that were granted the coveted 100s, Panelists were not talking of showing their strength; instead, they were talking of it not being a disaster if partner passes them below game, even undoubled.  True, this was not an exceptionally good 12 count, but partner did open, RHO preempted, and the Panelists are talking like the partnership has less than the balance of power.  What gives?

Double   100   BWP 38%   BWS 41%  IAC 27%
Personally, I like to still play this double as negative, but that is not true with BWS 2017.  What do the Panelists have to say?  Some are clearly worried partner will take it as a negative double.  Sami Kehela says "Too bad about the missing fourth heart, but I can't pass."  Paul Boudreau "Can't bring myself to pass.  I hope partner doesn't bid hearts."  Jill Meyers thinks they may be headed for a Moysian:  "Going for another four-three fit.  Maybe I will get lucky and see partner bid two notrump."  And Robert Wolff is prepping himself for the post-mortem: "If partner later complains, I'll retort:  'Excuse you!'"  The remainder just do not like what they see.  Phillip Alder reacts, "Ugh!"  John Swanson says "That's my guess."  Billy Eisenberg sounds like he's making a shrug as he writes: "Looks like the right hand for conservatism."  I liked Hoki's reasoning best: "Pass is not forcing, so partner is not obliged to bid again. Hence I double."

Pass   100   BWP 29%   BWS 17%  IAC 18%
I think Pass is a better approach (even though it was not my choice); at one point in my career, a reopening double would be virtually automatic, but in this world of light openings, pass by the opener is a real possibility.  Oren Kreigel is clearly aware of the possibility: "All pass won't be a disaster if we can collect 200; if partner reopens with a double, I will cue-bid."  Similarly, Ralph Katz thinks "Going for plus 200, but plus 100 might be a good score.  If partner reopens with a double, I will cue-bid."  Ira Chorush takes a nearly full inventory of the choices:  "Any bid would be asking for trouble.  The opponents are vulnerable, so East won't have a trashy suit.  A notrump contract may boil down to whether North or West has honor-low of spades - and West may be able to duck trick one effectively, and where will we find runners?  There is a special purgatory for a double with only three hearts.  Three diamonds would be an enormous overbid.  I considered three clubs, but why should partner be able to make that?  I am hoisting the yellow flag.  If partner must pass, we are likely to go plus there but not elsewhere.  If partner doubles, a cue-bid will point us toward the right spot."  Danny Kleinman feels "Any positive action would misrepresent the hand and often lead to a misguess by partner.  Better plus 200 than minus 200."  Joey Silver: "If partner has spade shortness, I'll get another chance; otherwise, our best chance of a plus lies in defending.  (Ain't matchpoints great?)"  Kit Woolsey: "If partner passes, he will be minimal and balanced, in which case defending may be our best way to get a plus score.  Otherwise, I can bid three spades over whatever partner does, suggesting a hand something like this."  BluBayou has a different plan: "What BID is on your plate?   2NT and 3 Diamonds--boo!  [from BWS2017:" two notrump is natural (invitational) and nonforcing (jump or not)"];   so, LURK,  an LEAVE IN the reopening double that is sure to come."  As does WackoJack: "Statistically partner is most likely to have a weak 1 no trump and won’t protect if I pass and in fact legally cannot protect if I pass slowly.  So I have to hope that partner has something in spades and I will bid 2NT."

3    90   BWP 25%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
For Panelists choosing to bid, 3 !D was the preference.  Bart Bramley: "Let's be optimistic.  If we can make game or more, this looks like the best way to start."  Kamil and Sherman "An overbid, yes; but all bids are fraught with danger.  Perhaps we'll ge lucky, and partner will bid three notrump with ace-low of spades and enough to maneuver nine tricks."  Zia is blunt, "Partner knows that notrump is the goal.  I don't like doubling, and three spades would be a bit hairy."  While David Berkowitz is "Praying for three notrump and avoiding the complications of a double."  Eric Kokish: "After doubling (showing four-plus hearts), we might survive partner's three hearts by bidding three spades and reaching three notrump, but his four hearts would force us to pass or convert to five clubs.  Not lovely.  The South hand could play well opposite, say 1=4=3=5, and three diamonds might allow us to explore three notrump or five clubs."  And John Hurd verbalizes the fear of such action on a four-bagger:  "I've scored matchpoint zeros before."

2 NT   20   BWP one Panelist   BWS 10%  IAC 27%
A popular choice for the IAC solvers was 2 NT, though it did not score particularly well.  The best reasons for the choice was that it described very nicely the shape and a conservative view of the values; the biggest flaw, a poor stop in the opponents' suit.  This analysis is echoed by Masse24: "Sketchy stop, but I'll go with it. The value bid."  YleeXotee "I will it bid it boldy and quickly showing all confidence in my ...ahem "stopper". 3S is a huge possibility, allowing for 3nt by p instead, it's just not in me to Pass with this hand and a weak bid by ops over p opening.  Fleisher and Friessner wails, "No real choice.  A pass would risk a game opposite a weak notrump."

3 ♠   10   BWP no Panelist   BWS 19%  IAC 27%
Another popular choice for the IAC solvers did not include any Panelists; the ambiguous cue-bid.  What was interesting about the cue-bid was that if South passes first, and North reopens with a double, then there were several Panelists that planned to make the cue-bid next.  There is nothing to clarify the difference between risking having the preempt passed out versus showing values directly.  The most likely reason is that the double implies spade shortness, so all other values are working; NT would no longer be on the table, but the other suits would be more promising for game.  Personally, I think the bid was poorly treated in the scoring, but then I had a vested interest in the choice: "Show strength, show fit (partner should have real clubs with 9 between RHO and myself), imply partial spade stop for 3NT conversion."
 





Problem F  1 !D  (WackoJack, Masse24)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 8 6    —    A K Q J 8 7 6 3   ♣ K 7

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

When I first looked at this problem, my knee-jerk reaction was to bid 3 NT, thinking the "pro" bid.  It was natural, running diamonds, !C K protected with a club lead practically demanded, but then the heart problem clarified, and other bids fell into view.  With excellent side-suit controls, the prospects of slam increase and makes 3 NT a bid that gives up on those prospects.

3 NT   70   BWP 21%   BWS 24%  IAC 1 solver
As Danny Kleinman puts it, "Matchpoints doth make gamblers of us all. A good North will have jack-ten-fifth of hearts; a good West won't lead hearts when North's hearts are inadequate." Three notrump is bid of choice when the stakes are moderate, but when a national or world championship is at stake, and you are playing against the best, you cannot let an opportunity like this slip away. Carl Hudecek "If partner can't take a joke and bids four hearts, I will run to five diamonds."  Fleisher and Friessner are optimistic:  "Likely to score higher than diamonds and there is no reason to believe that the opponents can run hearts."  Similarly, Ira Chorush says "Some partners are good enough to table jack-ten-nine-low of hearts.  I can't help it if your ox isn't."  While Phillip Alder anticipates the bad luck: "Then watch West lead a heart and see partner table only the king and queen of spades as sigh cards."

Double   80   BWP 33%   BWS 43%  IAC 73%
When the opponents have opened, and you have a strong single-suited hand, the traditional approach has been to double and then bid your suit.  YleeXotee is certain of this approach:  "This will be first time in history that an MSC has only ONE answer chosen by every person who sees it and has played bridge before."  JCreech agrees, but thinks MSC will not be of one mind:  "I am not as certain as Joe about unanimity.  I can see someone choosing to bid 3NT or 6 !D with this hand, but by-and-large this will be a double to start."  Robert Wolff wants more information first:  "Next round (or the round after), I'll have a better feel for bidding five or six diamonds."  David Berkowitz thinks "I can always bid three notrump later - he said hopefully.  There is too much slam potential to start jumping around; let's listen."  Jill Meyers argues that "The hand is too strong for one diamond (or for five diamonds, for that matter) and our game might be in three notrump.  If partner advances in hearts, I will have an easy three notrump bid."  BluBayou follows Jill's lead:  "THEN if partner squeeks " !H " off to 3NT"  Sami Kehela: "Three notrump is possible, I suppose, but what about six diamonds then?"  Joey Silver: "After much agony, I determined that the hand was too strong, and my heart not too weak, for a direct jump to three notrump.  For me, it is atypical to double on this sort of hand; nonetheless, I'll hope to sort things out later."  Ralph Katz "There is no good bid, and it is around 70 years too late to be able to bid two clubs."  Zia was thinking of a different route, but like Bobby, wanted more information:  "One diamond would be safe-ish, but we still would have no easy road.  Let's see if we can reach notrump when partner shows hearts, or slam when he shows life in spades, or ..."

1    100   BWP 46%   BWS 21%  IAC 18%
My actual choice of double was also a bit of a knee jerk.  With hand such as this, when you do not bid game directly, you do not want the auction to die out too quickly.  Is that more likely to happen with a double or an overcall with this hand?  As Billy Eisenberg points out, the auction is "Very unlikely to end here.  Three notrump  and five or six diamonds are all possible."  John Swanson wants to "Get the ball rolling in the right direction."  Roger Lee is concerned about how the auction will go if he doubles:  "I'll bide my time.  In general, I don't object to doubling with lopsided, strong one-suiters, but in this case the auction is likely to get away from me if I were to double."  While Masse24 considers the bid to be "Tactical. Where are the hearts?"  Kit Woolsey aptly notes that "It will be impossible to describe this hand, so I will need to make the decisions for the partnership.  Therefore, it makes sense to go slowly and hear what everybody else has to say."  Some of the 1 !D bidders were still thinking of overcalling 3 NT.  Bart Bramley: "Not double with a void in an unbid major.  The stealth approach should improve my chance to gauge our prospects later.  Sometimes, partner surprises with spades, or even with a diamond raise.  Three notrump would sometimes be my first choice."  But Paul Boudreau  thinks "Only pessimists would bid an immediate three notrump."  The last word, this time goes to Eric Kokish: "Bashing with a game (or slam) bid could work well, but I prefer to listen a bit.  Maybe I should pass to listen a bit more, I'm expecting some company here before they come to take me away, those men in the clean, white coats."



This ends the middle section.  I will return with the final section when time permits.
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 393
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2022, 05:21:59 PM »
February MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem E  Double/Pass (Double: FlouretteD, Hoki, CCR3/Pass: BluBayou, KenBerg)
Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 9 7    A 6 4    K Q J 9   ♣ J 5 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♣        2 ♠
   ?         
What call do you make?

Double   100   BWP 38%   BWS 41%  IAC 27%
Personally, I like to still play this double as negative, but that is not true with BWS 2017
(b) After our minor-suit opening and an overcall: (a) a double is negative through three spades; 
   Big relief to find this in the BWS manifesto
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 04:00:35 PM by blubayou »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

kenberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +13/-5
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2022, 01:56:02 AM »
I don't always remember even what I did, let alone why.
But yes, I passed on E.
Ira Chorush reflects my thinking although he thought it through more completely than I did.

As to partner not re-opening: Yes, he might not. But if he is short in spades, I imagine that he will. If he has decent values he will. If he has a 3=4=3=3 shape and minimum values, just what 3 level contract would be better than defending 2S?

It's one of those hands where we have to choose the call that we hate the least, and pass does it for me.

It's a little weird that both pass and double score 100, but so be it. Some hate pass less than double, some hate double less than pass, it's hard to imagine being really fond of anything.
Ken

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 FEBRUARY MSC
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2022, 08:35:01 PM »
February MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem A  2 !D  (BabsG, YleeXotee, KenBerg, JCreech)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K Q 9 5 3 2    A Q 6    J 6 4   ♣ A

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass      Pass      Pass
  1 ♠       Pass       2 ♣*      Pass
   ?         
*BWS: invitational-plus raise

What call do you make?

You have opened in fourth seat with a hand that it only takes a nudge to convince you that game is there.  The response you get is all that you could ask - an invitational-plus raise!  Now if partner has the perfect holding, a slam is possible.  Do you feel lucky?

4 ♠   80   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 33%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 49%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC)  36%
The 4 !S bidders must see the glass as half empty.  Fleisher and Friessner, for example, think "Slam seems out of reach (no construction makes it better than a finesse) and intelligently reaching three notrump does not seem possible."  Similarly,  WackoJack writes, "Too many holes to think of slam.  No dilly-dallying with 2♦ or giving info to opps with 4♣.  I want to play in 4♠ and that is it."  Paul Boudreau feels "Slam is remote, and any scientific probe might prove costly."  Carl Hudecek "It would take a perfecto opposite, and probably a finesse, to make slam, so the hand is not promising enough for four clubs."  Some of the Panel use the opportunity to complain about BWS 2017.  For example, John Swanson asks "Can we confidently bid a worthwhile slam, or will the investigation give the defense useful information?  Slam will require fitting cards, and the system agreements do not inspire confidence.  Also, the singleton ace is a difficult resource to evaluate.  All in all, the path to slam is too rocky."  Kit Woolsey adds "Slam is unlikely with passed partner not having splintered, and the system offers little help."  And Danny Kleinman says "Easy to visualize North hands for slam and that put four spades in jeopardy.  With appropriate partnership agreements, I'd try for slam, but here any try would be too confusion-prone."  Masse24 comments:  "I would like for 3 !S to be forcing, but the methods are unclear."  While Robert Wolff just gives up:  "Not close."  An interesting anomaly appeared with this problem.  Usually the plurality rules, and gets the top score.  This month, the moderator decided that most of the Panel was not giving up on slam; they just had different ways of trying to elicit the information needed to make a final decision.  So, despite having the plurality vote with 33%, 4 !S only received an 80, while the top score went elsewhere.

2    80   BWP 13%   BWS 19%  IAC No solvers
One option was to try 2 !H.  This call is a double-edged sword; although you are correctly moving partner's attention to the suits other than diamonds for fit purposes, you are also risking that partner will think you are serious about hearts as an alternative place to play.  At least you have the boss suit to overrule that misperception.  Ira Chorush says, "Most North hands that produce a slam have shortness in diamonds, although there are a few perfectos that do not.  Four clubs has superficial appeal, but the club king could provide a useful pitch. ... Two hearts might elicit a four-diamond splinter from partner, who now believes that hearts will be trumps."  While Oren Kriegel simply avoids a less desirable choice: "A splinter would be an imperfect description and would chew up room."

4 ♣   80   BWP 13%   BWS 8%  IAC 18%
Another option is to splinter, but splintering into a singleton ace is problematic because partner now feels that the king and possible other touching honors may be useless, or at least nearly so.  Not to be dissuaded, Phillip Alder thinks the bid "A reasonable description of my hand and intentions."  BluBayou: "Splinter,  looking for Axxx, Kx, Axx, xxxx dummy, since we can easily end in 4 !S  if it's not 'Christmas'"  While Kamil and Sherman are hopeful that partner has the appropriate hand:  "A bit of an overbid, but slam is in the picture if partner has, say:  ♠ Jxxx    Kx    AKx   ♣ xxxx or a hand with short diamonds.  At matchpoints, we might give up on slam and offer no information to the opponents."  Hoki: "I'll go along with 4♣ as a splinter bid since it doesn't cost and we can still come to roost in 4♠."

2    100   BWP 25%   BWS 8%  IAC 36%
The alternative that proved to be the most popular slam try was 2 !D.  Here the problem is misstating where your values are located, but on the other hand, you have maximized the room to explore.  David Berkowtiz writes "With no particularly good bid to describe the hand (I don't like four clubs), I will save room and perhaps partner will have something helpful to show."  JCreech writes:  "Since partner bid 2 !C, showing an invitational plus sort of hand, I think I should allow partner to tell me more.  Anything else may get partner to distort their hand, and I want to collect more information before I decide where we are headed."  Billy Eisenberg throws in another bone for the choice: "Saving room, maybe stopping the lead.  Some careful try is needed.  Not the right hand for a splinter, as many North hands with strong clubs produce slam."  This lead inhibition idea is also central to YleeXotee's thinking:  "I also like it because even though its somewhat artificial asking partner to bid on, it will psychologically keep the ops from leading diamonds I hope! ... 4S was calling to me because, really, where else are we going to land, then I thought p could have two aces, and I don't need much else to make slam."  Eric Kokish takes a little time to make up his grocery list:  "With this club holding, I do not intend to show club shortness, as the king-queen(-jack) of clubs may be valuable.  What we really crave for slam is spade ace, heart king, and a singleton diamond."  And for Ralph Katz, "A splinter would take us to slam opposite something like:  ♠ xxx    KJx    AKx   ♣ xxxx.  We need to go slowly to see if partner has a good red-suit holding and length."

2 NT   90   BWP 16%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
This option caught me off guard.  I understand that it is still a move toward game, but those choosing this direction all talk about if partner shows shortness.  BWS 2017 discusses the 2 !C response as a passed hand, but does not go into continuations.  Without discussion, how is partner showing the diamond shortness?  Nonetheless, Jill Meyers says "If partner shows a stiff diamond, I will look for slam."  Bart Bramley wants to make "One grab for the brass knob.  Opposite short diamonds (four diamonds), I'll drive to slam; opposite a diamond suit (three diamonds), I'll keep the ball rolling; otherwise, I'll give up."  And John Hurd is more concerned with keeping partner from going for an ill-advised slam:  "Four clubs would be misdirected, as partner would surely drive to slam with:  ♠ Axx    Kxxx    Kxx   ♣ xxx or similar hands where slam is terrible."


 






Problem B  1 NT  (CCR3, YleeXotee, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 10    A K 10 7    7 3   ♣ Q 7 6 5 3

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

It is hands like this that remind me why I prefer to play a weak NT system.  You bid 1NT, then let partner be captain.  When you don't open 1NT you either have the extra shape or the extra strength to overcome the problems.  When you play strong NT and face this sort of auction, you have to make a list of bad options, and choose from among them.  Here is WackoJack making up his list: 
"Every bid looks bad. Choices:
1NT:   I cannot stand the thought of partner’s stare when I lose 5 diamond tricks even before I start.
Pass:  I cannot stand the thought of partner’s stare when I pass.
2:  No way Josay!  Reverse overbid by 4 points.
2♠: Would partner pretend to look delighted when he had this? ♠ Axxx, xx, xxx, ♣ KJxx
Least of evils 2♣."

1 NT   100   BWP 79%   BWS 43%  IAC 55%
Those bidding 1 NT are essentially saying, the opponents stuck their noses into my auction, but that is no reason to abandon my plan.  David Berkowitz goes through the checklist:  "Is this hand a club one-suiter?  No.  Does it include spade support?  No.  Is it a weak notrump?  Uh, sure.  Describe the general nature of the hand and hope that the diamonds take care of themselves."  As does YleeXotee: "I know, I know, no diamond stopper so its wrong. Then 2C...I know, I know its a lousy 5 card suit, and not the 6 promised at all.   (2d? can't; 2h? can't; 2S? can't or more of a shouldn't??; ....2nt? I laugh, so back to 1nt)"  But then, as Kamil and Sherman point out, "Who needs stoppers?  Anything else would be too far out of bounds."  Paul Boudreau: "Least of evils.  Keeps HCP and shape in range.  I hope that having no diamond stopper will be less harmful than rebidding this club suit."  Jill Meyers "Best choice among evils.  The hand is too awful to bid anything else."  Sami Kehela: "Best of a bad lot."  Arthur Robinson "I hate it, but the club suit is best for fan-tan."  (Arthur, I like it much better if you can call the start card - I think fan-tan eights is virtually a claimer.)  Joey Silver's summary is among the best: "A two-club rebid on this suit is truly repulsive, while a one-notrump rebid is only ugly."  And to give you an idea of how ugly 1 NT is, Masse24 regards the bid as "The only one I really feel any confidence about. Which means a 70."  And JCreech asks "may I have an undo please, we are playing weak NT, and that is what I want to open ..."

2 ♣   40   BWP 16%   BWS 37%  IAC 36%
Generally speaking, the only alternative bid suggested was 2 !C on a cheesy five-bagger.  Danny Kleinman provides the new list:  "Not two spades with fewer than three, nor a stopperless one notrump.  I'd like to go back, open one heart, shut out West's diamonds, and rebid two clubs over North's one spade, but it's too late for that now.  Two clubs at this point is the least of very, very bad evils."  Hoki agrees, "I prefer ... to play in a 5-1 fit than a 4-2 fit."  Kit Woolsey laments,  "Too bad about the absence of a sixth club, but perhaps that won't matter.  I won't bid one notrump with a worthless doubleton in the opponent's suit, and I don't see a Plan C."  Robert Wolfff: "A distortion, but so is each of the alternatives."  Finally, Zia took advantage of his time on this hand to find empathy: "This must be how big-club players feel after opening one diamond without being able to even stop the suit.  If the winner here was to pass, I would nod sagely."

2 ♠   30   BWP one Panelist   BWS 12%  IAC 1 solver
Surprisingly, there was a small minority of players who found the spade raise.  Carl Hudecek syas, "I will bid a spade for each spade honor I hold, even though partner might have only four spades."  BluBayou is a bit green as he "Raise spades;  one of 4 truly sick rebids.   I envy the kitchen-bridge folk  who just pass 1 !S  this time"






Problem C  Double  (Peuco, CCR3, Hoki, Masse24, JCreech, KenBerg, BabsG)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 5    A 6 3 2    A Q 7 6 4   ♣ A Q 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♠
Double     Pass     Pass      2 ♣
   ?*
*BWS: pass nonforcing

What call do you make?

RHO opened, you had the shape and strength to make a takeout double, and partner made a penalty pass.  Now RHO has bid a second suit and you have extra strength and a five-card suit of your own, where do you go from here?

2    40   BWP one Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC 36%
The traditional way to show a strong hand and a good suit is to start with a double, then bid your suit over partner's response.  Although this is an atypical sequence, some resorted to the stand-by methods.  YleeXotee argues that "p isn't sitting for 2Cx, so forces them to bid 2nt, why not tell p more about my hand strength and then they can make better decision"  Phillip Alder says "Two notrump would promise more strength.  If partner would be on lead, I would double.  As it is, North will know that I have extras."

Pass   70   BWP 29%   BWS 7%  IAC No solvers
Although no one in IAC thought of this, nearly 30% of the Panel passed.  The best analogy I could come up with was they were regarding this as a discovery play; if partner is broke, then the hand will be passed out, but if not, then there will be a reopening and you will be better placed to make a good decision.  David Berkowitz reasons as follows:  "Do I know where we belong?  Absolutely not.  Should partner pass, I won't be happy about not having shown my extra ace, but I cannot bring myself to double with only three clubs.  Maybe partner will produce some good news."  Joey Silver thoughts are: "If partner's pass was based on more than just spades, he will act, so there is no need to get in his way with a hand that offers no clear direction (albeit one with more than minimum values)."  While Kit Woolsey says "I have implied holding at least three clubs, so there is no need to double.  If we have a game, partner won't sell out.  If partner passes, it will mean his earlier pass was a least-of-evils choice with more spades than high-card points, so defending against two clubs undoubled will be okay."

Double   100   BWP 67%   BWS 60%  IAC 64%
The majority of Panelists and solvers went with double, but is double takeout, penalty, or something else in this sequence?  The Panel, by and large, view it as penaltyish.  Fleisher and Friessner point out, "We have four tricks and the hope that opener has a bunch of spade losers."  Danny Kleinman: "As I'd have doubled one spade if the ace of clubs had been the deuce, I dare not risk letting East off the hook with my sound, normal club holding."  Ira Chorush says "I hope that partner will not pass with a singleton and a four-card red suit.  No game is particularly likely for us, especially in view of probable bad breaks."  Robert Wolff plans his opening lead:  "If all pass. I will lead a low club."  Oren Kriegel: " I would like to have a fourth club, but the hand is strong enough that I'll risk it with three."  Similarly, Roger Lee says, "I'd love to have another club, but nonetheless East-West are probably in a lot of trouble here."  JCreech writes, "Partner was willing to defend 1 !S X, so now they are one level higher still seeking to find a home.  I'm not sure where we belong, but I suspect it is defending something doubled.  Pass is non-forcing, and my hand is too good for that when partner was willing to defend at the one-level."  WackoJack: "Partner passed for penalties.  Double tells partner that my first double was a strong take-out double.  Hoping for +800"  Some Panelists are not as certain; not a takeout double, but more of a cooperative double.  Sami Kehela, for example says, "Not necessarily final; partner is permitted to use his discretion."  Kamil and Sherman think "The hand is worth another action, and two diamonds on a broken suit would be somewhat misdescriptive.  The club queen now looks much more like the club king."  Masse24: "Worth another double. This is better than 2 !D."  Bart Bramley: "It's not game if they make it, and we might slaughter them.  Partner will almost always sit - for all he knows my clubs resemble his spades.  Two diamonds is possible; pass is not."  Zia, nonetheless, is "Hoping we have struck the opponents in the nether male regions.  Luckily for them, ladies will never fully understand the force of this comment." 


This concludes this back asswards approach to the most recent MSC set.  I hope you found it entertaining.  Good luck with the new set.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2022, 12:47:53 PM by jcreech »
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran