2022 March MSC

[jcreech]

Todd - only three had the "guts" as you call it.  To me, the bid was way too far into the gray area, so I would not make the bid at the table, and consequently was unwilling to make the call in the contest.  Clearly, the moderator agreed with the choice and interpretation, and could justify the 100 on the large proportion of the Panel wanting to make a move toward slam.  Given all of that, I do not understand why 4 would get the 2nd place 90 other than it was the plurality choice (deity forbid that 5 votes ever made up a MSC plurality).  Under the logic that dictated 4 deserved the 100, then surely the same logic would declare that 4 is a relative give-up and deserved less than 90.  But then, if looking for consistency, I am reminded that MSC is not the place to look.

[kenberg]

As mentioned earlier, bidding involves judgments and agreements. I don't often get dealt a 0=5=1=7 shape and if I do, the auction probably will not begin as this one has. So I have no agreements, except perhaps inferred agreements. MSC can highlight places where agreements could be improved upon, my judgment is and will remain a problem.

So take something simpler. 1 - (1 ) - X (majors) - (1 ) - X. What is X? I can tell you from experience that not everyone will answer this in the same way. I think it makes sense to play it as showing four spades. Maybe I also have a seven card club suit, usually I won't also have a seven card club suit, but X says I have four spades and we go on from there.

The meaning of the X in the sequence 1 - (1 ) - X (majors) - (1 ) - X, whatever that meaning is, will come up far more often than the meaning of 4 in the sequence  1 - (1 ) - X (majors) - (1 ) - 4 . Both sequences could use an agreement when they come up, but we start by preparing for those issues that regularly arise. When I prepare to play in the Bermuda Bowl I will perhaps (or not) ask pard how he would interpret 1 - (1 ) - X (majors) - (1 ) - 4 .

[kenberg]

Todd - only three had the "guts" as you call it.  To me, the bid was way too far into the gray area, so I would not make the bid at the table, and consequently was unwilling to make the call in the contest.  Clearly, the moderator agreed with the choice and interpretation, and could justify the 100 on the large proportion of the Panel wanting to make a move toward slam.  Given all of that, I do not understand why 4 would get the 2nd place 90 other than it was the plurality choice (deity forbid that 5 votes ever made up a MSC plurality).  Under the logic that dictated 4 deserved the 100, then surely the same logic would declare that 4 is a relative give-up and deserved less than 90.  But then, if looking for consistency, I am reminded that MSC is not the place to look.

My attempt at mind-reading. Suppose I, for assigning points, decide:

Well, it's about 50-50 whether we should try for slam. But whichever we do, we must do it briskly. So those who want to try for slam and do it briskly with 4 will get a good score, and those who decide not to try for slam and do that briskly with 4 will get a good score, and those who think "Oh maybe I will and maybe I won't", they will get a lesser score.

That's my ESP effort for the day.

[Masse24]

We've had this sort of inconsistency before.

I agree with Jim. If the 4 bid (however defined but clearly a slam move) received the top score, the other slam moves should be close behind. Instead, the director wedges a timid 4 ahead of all other slam moves.

That makes no sense to me.

Again.

[blubayou]

In defense of timid rebids,  with my giant lack  of both diamond and spades such a hand is well set up for some 'walk the dog' action, EXCEPT  the dog walker usually has a better idea of what the successful outcome will be  than I do here.   It's curious  that just below 4   and a handful of spliter rebids, 2 , 3 , 5   AND  6    all were awarded 70s  (Or was the runnaway robot scorekeeper excercising "judgement"?)

[kenberg]

I wasn't saying I agree with the scoring, I was making a guess as to what the thinking could be. Inconsistent, yes, probably.

Now what should 4 be? I think, as you say, it must be exclusion key card with hearts as trump. The alternative would be: I opened 1 , not 2 , and after partner has shown the majors with no promise of great values or of any clubs  I for some reason have decided to make a slam try in clubs. Seems crazy. So at least it seems to be a slam try in hearts and if so that would seem to make it be exclusion.

I guess it could be interesting to say what the meaning is, directly over the 1 call, of X, of 2 , of 3 and of 4 .  I can hope that 5 will never be bid directly over 1 .

[blubayou]

Ten of us,  including all the contenders took a 50 on problem D (either doubling or passing 2 .
 The panel hopefully will teach us something in their comments about Problem D!  None of us made even a tiny squeek about bidding 2   or 2NT over opp's runout to 2 .  Apparently 14 or more of them agree with me that North has the best hand here and..(1) can play and make in openers suit when he is also short in diamonds
                                                   (2) can segue to 2S when he is 4=4=1=4
                                                   (3) can take the notrump successfully when we had them murdered in 2D
These guys don't vote to PLAY in the enemies opening major very often, so I am very interested in finding out what moved 14 of them to come up with "2 Hearts".  Perhaps they just couldn't stand to settle for +50/+100 defending 2D?

[kenberg]

D: MSC stipulates that X would be for penalties and I am definitely not up for that. My guess is that each of the four hands is somewhere around 9-11 highs. Probably Lho has 11 or maybe 10, I think partner has maybe 10 or 11, holding 4 spades (someone has to hold 4) but also 3 or 4 hearts. For his double he has to be prepared for a Pass on his left and a 2C call by me, but maybe it's just Ax trusting/hoping that if I bid 2C then either I will have 5 clubs and can cope or else they will rebid something. And here they did rebid something, 2D, even before I bid my clubs.

Letting the opponents play at the 2 level is not popular but it is sometimes right.

Also, I have no idea what 2 is supposed to show. Is it one of those "Do Something Intelligent" bids? I tell my partners that asking me to do something intelligent is extremely risky.

[blubayou]

opener is 3rd hand light,  and his pard is running for his life.  partner is TRAPPING.   There is no 'balancing'  double  of  "1X, ...,1NT" with random eleven-counts, as you will agree if you think back to the many times  you were actually in that position.  The fact that our panel is sallyng forth with OUR  "random nine-count" into diety knows what contract show that they to expect the good stuff to be in north.
  It will ruin my week if their comments aren't delicious, and orbiting around this idea.

[jcreech]

My thinking about bidding 2 was that it showed a good hand for my previous passing, and was inviting a NT partial or game.  I didn't think the hand was good enough for that, so I didn't make the bid.  So clearly, I was not on the same track as Jock.  However, with Jxx, I could tolerate partner passing - I may not be happy, but I should be able to tolerate.

[Masse24]

On "D," I was in the 80% of solvers who chose either 3 or Pass. Almost a coin flip and, in the end, I chose the lower scoring option of Pass, figuring I could not get hurt too badly most of the time. Other calls I barely glanced at. The top scoring 2 was my 5th choice.

Oh well. 

[kenberg]

On "D," I was in the 80% of solvers who chose either 3 or Pass. Almost a coin flip and, in the end, I chose the lower scoring option of Pass, figuring I could not get hurt too badly most of the time. Other calls I barely glanced at. The top scoring 2 was my 5th choice.

Oh well. 

Pretty much identical to how I thought about it. I passed, later I thought oh maybe I should have bid 3 , but then noo, I am happy with pass.

Lack of imagination? Yeah, maybe, but there are times my partners would prefer that I go easy on imagination. It seemed like a hand where whoever ends up as declarer might well wish he hadn't.

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1a)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem A 4 (FlueretteD, Duffer66, Masse24, JCreech, WackoJack, Hoki, CCR3, VeeRee)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 6 5   ♥ A 9 4   ♦ 10 3   ♣ A Q 9 8 7

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       2 ♦*
 Pass      3 ♦†     Double    Pass
   ?         
*8-13 HCP; five-plus diamonds; may have four-
card major
†not invitational

What call do you make?

Eric Kokish, the moderator, wrote "It saddens me to report that when there is no good action, resorting to a cue-bid is far too often the expert choice."  With the help of Dusty Springfield, Barry Rigal sums up the problem nicely:  "... but today, wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin' won't get me into the right contract."

4 ♦   80   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 36%   Bridge World Solvers (BWS) 22%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 1 Solver 
As indicated by the moderator, the plurality of the Panel went with the cue-bid.  For Joey Silver, "The hand is too strong to stop short of game.  I intend to bid five clubs over four hearts or pass four spades.  My reasoning is that partner may have only a four-card heart suit but would almost surely have five spades in order to bypass four hearts."  Richard Colker wants "To get partner to bid suits up the line and then to pass whichever major he bids.  If we have three sure losers (say two diamonds and a spade), the best game would be in a Moysian major." Similarly, Jeff Meckstroth "Will pass partner's bid - at least I won't need to play it.  I hope he has a five-card major."  Phillip Alder hasn't made a final decision yet:  "Do I hope partner has a five-card major (or can handle the four-three fit), do I plunge into five clubs?  It's matchpoints, and maybe we'll get lucky."  George Jacobs feels that "Bidding four clubs would be the sign of a person whose glass is less than half full.  It is far more likely that we belong in a major.  Partner could be five-four, but even if we wind up in a four-three fit, the opponents cannot tap us, at least not right away.  Pass would probably go plus, but matchpoints screams for action."

Pass   70   BWP 21%   BWS 25% IAC 13%
Although Zia cue-bid, he thinks "In a year or two, it will be shown it's right to pass.  Luckily, I won't be around."  Others base their decision on the form of scoring.  Billy Eisenberg:  "Five clubs would be normal at imps, but aiming at 200 seems better at matchpoints."  Pepsi thinks "Game is uncertain, so trying for plus 200 seems better at matchpoints."  KenBerg:  "It's matchpoints. I think the probability of making a game is less than 50-50, I think the probability of taking five tricks against 3D is better than 50-50. One of the problems about going for game is that even if there is a making game somewhere it is far from clear that we can sort out where it is."  Michael Lawrence says "I may have three tricks.  Or not.  I see no reliable route to a game, and since it is matchpoints against an aggressive style, passing and playing for 200 or 500 is reasonable."  Andrew Robson thinks "Part of the problem is:  If I don't pass, what do I bid?"  David Berkowitz is philosphic:  "So what if we beat them one (or none) cold for a zillion clubs?  Matchpoints is not played for comfort, and it's only a board."

5 ♣   60   BWP 14%   BWS 10%  IAC 1 Solver
For our moderator, "... the issue is choosing the correct number of clubs.  ... Five clubs did not attract much panel support, although it could be considered close to the value bid."  Danny Kleinman says "What I expect to make.  Four clubs won't get us there, nor to slam.  A four-diamond cue-bid will undoubtedly fetch four of a major from North, but that won't tell me whether he has four or five."  YleeXotee views the bid as a bit of a gamble:  "pard's X at the 3 level surely shows a bit more than minimum, 4C would be promising zero, so I'm taking my shot."  Barry Rigal wonders "If we played non-leaping Michaels, we might have some ingerences as to what kind of hand partner might or might not have." 

4 ♣   100   BWP 25%   BWS 41%  IAC 53%
Dan Gerstman thinks "The hand has pretty much what North will expect:  10 HCP, no four-card majjor.  Leaves him room to bid a major and doesn't commit us to defense opposite what may turn out to be only two defensive tricks.  Leaves me well-placed to bid four hearts over four diamonds.  I'll hand him by raising four of a major to five.  It's all worked out for the post-mortem."  Carl Hudecek writes similarly, "Denies a four-plus-card major, shows some values and club length - with a terrible hand, South would bid a three-card major." BluBayou based his decision of the LAW:  "Do we really have 9 clubs,  and they really  9  [or 10!] diamonds??   Then the LAW suggests we go on to 4 Clubs:  ( total number of trumps being 18= either they are making ,  or if holdable to 8 [7] tricks then we will make.  I have the sick feeling the TNT number is lower than this, or the the TNT guideline is off the rails this time, and we are both going set ." While others are just trying to preserve a plus position.  Jeff Rubens:  "Partner may fail to raise when we should be in game, but North must push in when short in diamonds, and it's important to protect against that possibility, even at the cost of missing some good game contracts."  A.K. Simon: "At matchpoints, I want to go plus.  This leaves the door open for partner."  Janice Seamon Molson:  "At matchpoints, I go low."  Paul Bordreau:  "Partner hoped I had a major, I'm giving him some leeway at matchpoints."  JCreech brings experience to the auction while still expressing frustration:  "I have played this form of two-bid (when I do, we call them action twos).  They can be very effective and hard to bid defensively on.  So I hate coming up against the bid, as I am here.  Partner has doubled, I suspect we are just shy of game values.  I cannot show strength and keep us out of game, so I have to guess between a possible Moysian, when there may be a 5-3 major-suit fit, 3NT without holding the stopper myself, or bid 4 and hope partner converts with five in one of the majors."  Masse24:  "I know the panel is aggressive, so am a little concerned about 4 appealing to the panel. But I’m not going to bury partner for competing. So 4 ."  While Hoki is trying to project a bit more values than attempting a signoff with a lower bid in a major:  "with less I'd try and sign off in a major; this allows pard to bid four
of a major while inviting 5♣."

Here the plurality cue-bid did not get the top score, nor did the game bid, or even what could be an aggressive conversion of the double from takeout to penalty.  Instead, it went to what might be considered to be the safer middle ground of a partscore bid, and violation of the rule of the coyote.  Even though I benefitted from this decision, it seems to fly in the face of MSC scoring norms; but I will take it as recompense for other scoring slights.






Problem B  Pass (VeredK, VeeRee BluBayou, Duffer66)
Imps  North-South vulnerable

You, South, hold:

♠ Q J 3   ♥ A 8 7 2   ♦ J 7 4 3   ♣ Q 6

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

Another MSC scoring anomaly?  This time we have a tie between two votes.  Usually, the tie break goes in favor of the one matching the tendency of other votes.  Here the tendency is toward bidding game (or more), yet the top went to Pass when the vulnerability is unfavorable (so you have to work harder in order to earn a set the exceeds the game).

Pass   100   BWP 25%   6%  IAC 27%
Those that pass view it as the middle ground.  Kit Woolsey, for example, thinks "We figure to defeat the contract at least a couple of tricks, more if partner has extras.  Game our way looks uncertain.  At this vulnerability, East might be frisky."  Zia writes "Passing a double of a preempt came sooner than I expected.  I would bid something, but, as that would be three notrump, I hedge."  Sami Kehela points out that "It will not be easy to determine strain and level, but three notrump is a close second choice."  Andrew Robson:  "I'm not bidding (only) three hearts, that's for sure.  I'm either passing and leading the queen of spades or gambling on three notrump - but if three notrump is on, we'll probably get 500."  Michael Lawrence:  "If I were sure that parner had four hearts, I would bid (only) three hearts.  As it is, I have an excellent lead against three diamonds (spade queen) and potential in clubs along with the ace of hearts."  BluBayou makes two predictions when making his selection "All alone, except for HOKI  [side bet]  I  ---Pass, for blood---"  Wrong on both counts - he was not alone within IAC, but Hoki was not not among them - now all we have to do is figure out where to send the BBO bucks.

3 NT   90   BWP 18%   BWS 24%  IAC 14%
The gambler's choice is 3NT.  David Berkowitz asks "Have you seen what passes for a white-versus-red three-diamond bid these days?  The softish values suggest notrump.  The winner here is always pass, but the colors got me."  Janice Seamon Molson:  "Soft values outside of hearts lends to notrump.  If the diamond suit doesn't block the long diamond hand almost certainly won't have an entry."  Peuco says "tilting towards 3NT as opposed to 4H. When non vul vs vul they preempt on nothing and six carders"  Chris Willenken feels there is "Too much strength not to bid game.  Pass is not my thing with all the secondary black-suit values.  Three notrump has many ways to make; four hearts only one."  Danny Kleinman thinks the hand "Too strong for three hearts, suit too weak for four hearts.  Three notrump figures to make often; when it doesn't, bidding it may induce partner to bid the game that does."  Meanwhile, Masse24 gets one of his choices from TGBH:  "Whisper from Hamman."

4 ♥   80   BWP 25%   BWS 37%  IAC 20%
The other game of choice is four hearts.  Bart Bramley thinks it "Scary with these hearts, but the black fillers indicate that game will be okay opposite most North hands with four hearts and a stiff diamond."  YleeXotee:  "finding game with 10 points. These aren't always going to make but I'll take my chances over the ops preempts these days"  Phillip Alder wrote "At matchpoints, I might pass, but that seems too likely to yield only 100 or 300 when we can make a vulnerable game.  I am not exactly in love with four hearts on only a four-card suit, three notrump will probably be beat if West has only one diamond."  Richard Colker acknowledges it as "A guess, but imp odds favor a brave sheep over a timid lamb.  If we land in a four-three fit, hearts is the right major to reach (ruffing diamonds in the short hand)."  Talking about the flip side, Dan Gerstman says he "Can't risk trying for the five-three fit when we may end up in a four-three spade fit where the long hand is being tapped."  But then, as Barry Rigal points out "It's only a game ... and everything's fun, fun, fun ..."

3 ♥   70   BWP 18%   BWS 28%  IAC 40%
Taking the low road Carl Hudecek points out that "Partner may have stretched to reopen, so I won't punish him.  The chance of poor-splitting suits looms large."  JCreech "This is one of the worst 10-counts that I have seen.  I am not trotting 3 NT on a J-fourth stopper, and not jumping to 4 on a potential Moysian with bad breaks.  If we belong higher, maybe partner has the extras to make the move."  Michael Becker says "I am unwilling to bid more with weak hearts and soft values.  I would expect to score 100 or 300 against three diamonds doubled, but partner may have enough to bid again."  Philippe Cronier:  "Not enough power to bid game.  Partner's strength and diamond length are not clear, and even a three-level contract could be difficult if we don't find an eight-card fit.  At matchpoints, I would pass.  Here, three hearts seems less dangerous, giving North the opportunity to act again."  Hoki is a bit concerned that the opponents might make:  "it's not inconceivable that the opponents can make their contract if partner is balancing aggressively with a diamond singleton or void."  KenBerg:  "Partner's balancing double is based on the assumption/hope that I have something. I have something, but not all that much more than something."

4 ♦   70   BWP 11%   BWS 4%  IAC No Solvers
George Jacobs clearly points to the parallel:  "See Problem A.  After a pedestrian three hearts, would partner ever believe I had a useful 10-count?  Bidding three notrump with a thin stopper when we might have an eight- or nine-card fit would be masterminding.  Four hearts would be too committal."  Jeff Meckstroth says "Partner should pick hearts with equal major lengths, and agains I won't need to be the declarer."  Joey Silver thinks "With 9 working points and seeing the possibility of a vulnerable-game bonus, I ain't stopping in a partscore."

Paul Boudreau sums this problem up nicely:  "Lots of uncomfortable choices."
 

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 1b and Part 2a)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem C proved to have too many Panelist choices, so I was forced to split it from Problems A and B.

Problem C  4 (None)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣        1 ♦      Double*  1 ♠
   ?         
*BWS: at least four-four in the majors

What call do you make?

Three in a row where the plurality-Panel choice failed to be given the top score.  This time, part of the reason is because the Panel split their choices among 11 bids. 

4 ♥   90   5   32  2
Let's start with the plurality.  One might take the 4 call as as a give up on slam.  Although it may be true for some (including those who expect the bidding to continue at the five-level), for example, A.K. Simon thinks "If partner's hearts are weak, we will lose heart tricks regardless of which suit we make trumps.  If West bids four spades and partner doubles, I will pull to five clubs."  Carl Hudecek: "Slam would be easy opposite a red ace, but I will be happy with a game.  I will reluctantly defer to partner if he doubles five spades."  Robert Wolff feels it is "An easy decision, even though a heart slam (even a grand) could be cold."  Others are not as certain.  Chris Willenken: "The bidding probably isn't over.  After four spades-pass-pass-?.  I'll try five diamonds."  BluBayou asks "do we need something sexier than plain old 4 Hearts on void, Kxxxx, x, AKJxxxx?  Probably yes,  but for starters, that's my bid"  But Barry Rigal has a different concern: "I want to get the extra shape, not strength across; a cue-bid would show something different and let the opponents get together more easily.  I plan to keep on truckin' till the ooponents double."

2 ♠   70   BWP 7%   BWP 10%  IAC 40%
The plurality choice for IAC was the spade cue-bid.  YleeXotee says "Presumably, this is a good heart raise. MSC has not been kind to these kinds of bids, but its what I would do in real life to see if we have slam or something."  Sami Kehela agrees, though he also wants to keep the clubs in play:  "Despite the five-card support, clubs may be a more-productive trump suit, particularly if slam is contemplated.  Space is required for maximum exploration; a three-spade splinter, though tempting, would defeat this purpose."  Hoki thinks "we are far too strong to sign off in game, so I'm going slowly but have no idea how the auction will actually proceed but I can certainly follow up with a club cue bid later - and if that is going to torture partner, then so be it."

2 ♦   70   BWP 7%   BWS 17%  IAC 1 Solver
The other low-level cue-bid is 2 .  Bart Bramley thinks "Slam is okay opposite the heart ace and out.  I can guess to bid that at any time, but I might as well go slow to improve the chance of finding out for sure.  I'm not too worried about the opponents, who are unlikely to bid a lot of spades into a known bad split; if they bid a lot of diamonds, I can bid more hearts."  KenBerg expects "This auction will be competitive. I am prepared to bid hearts at the 5 level if need be and I am thinking that bidding 4H and then, later, 5H doesn't do justice to this hand. There is a question of what various bids mean. It seems to me that if the auction begins 1 - (1 ) - X - (1 ) then double by opener of the 1 should say "Had my Rho not come in here, I would have been pleased to bid 1 . Suppose I have, say, a 12 or 13 count and a decent four card spade suit. If that spade bid on my left is real, I don't really want to play in 2 and get a 5-0 trump split. It seems better to just have X show that 13 count with four spades. Partner will then cope."  While Billy Eisenberg is planning his follow-up:  "I intend to bid five hearts, asking for good trumps."  (Rich Colker has a different interpretation of this sequence, Billy.  An interpretation I happen to agree with, but he can speak for himself in the next section.)

5 ♥   70   BWP 11%   BWS 11%  IAC No Solvers
Among those eschewing the slow approach are:  Richard Colker who "Asks about trump quality (a cue-bid followed by five hearts would focus on control of the uncued suit)."  Peuco agrees: "Pd: if you have good Hs bid 6"  While Kit Woolsey thinks "It is necessary to make a move.  Even if this gets us too high, it might be a good save against four spades or five diamonds.  Partner will look at his trump holding first."  And Danny Kleinman "North may not be able to judge what he needs to bid slam (though strong hearts will make it easy), but West may not know what he needs to lead."  I think of this bid as asking for two of the top three before proceeding to slam, but with a nine-card fit, just the ace may be good enough.

4 ♠   100   BWP 11%   BWS 2%  IAC No Solvers
Another bid that eats space is 4 which also received the top score.  Philippe Cronier described it as "Exclusion-ask for hearts.  It's probably impossible to stay below the five-level, and the aces question is the most-important issue."  While Michael Lawrence has a different concern:  "This has the fault of indicating a diamond lead."  The moderator did take a moment to discuss this bid:  "Four spades is an honest bid, and it may survive a one-key reply if North's trumps are not very weak.  It's the easiest way to stay out of an ace-flawed six or to reach a good seven opposite two keys and the heart queen or length-equivalent."

4 ♦   80   BWP 14%   BWS 7%  IAC 13%
Now for the splinters.  (Although 4 is a form of splinter, it is also so much more.)  Masse24 says "Splinter now. Later, maybe spades. Fun hand."  Paul Boudreau plans a similar auction: "I will bid four spades over four hearts and hope for reasonable hearts opposite."  Andrew Robson identifies the other splinter but choses to  show the short diamonds:  "Three spades would be a splinter, too, but the psych-exposing gremlines are in my head."  Pepsi has a different reason to show the diamond shortness:  "The correct bid is three spade, but I doubt that the opponents will let us play in four hearts or allow us to bid freely.  I am hoping to encourage a spade lead."  George Jacobs "The issue is that even though partner showed spades, the opponents are about to barrage us with spades and diamonds, and we will lose bidding room anyway.  When I continue with five or six hearts, my intentions will be clear.  Opposite ace-fifth of hearts, slam is virtually cold; and North could have more.  This hand is a player, and I cannot be outbid." 

3 ♦   80   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 3%  IAC 1 Solver
Nonetheless, I find 4 to be the misdescriptive splinter.  A jump cue-bid is a splinter, so a double-jump cue-bid should be a void splinter.  This would apply to spades as well 4 were below the heart game (which it is not).  JCreech says "I would rather be showing my void first, but as Blu pointed out, the chance of partner misconstruing is much higher with an immediate bid of spades than diamonds."  Jeff Meckstroth simply "Will await further developments."
 
3 ♠   80   BWP 7%   BWS 6%  IAC 1 Solver
David Berkowitz choses the spade splinter: "I will commit to five hearts and leave the rest to partner.  I have a feeling that the winning bid is six hearts, which will probably transfer the opponents into six spades."

2 ♥   70   BWP 11%   BWS 3%  IAC 13%
The bid that felt wrong when I set about answering the quiz, makes more sense to me in hindsight.  I viewed 2 as simply a non-forcing preference, but did not take into account that the auction was unlikely to ever end that low.  Joey Silver thinks "This is the right time to take Fido for a walk he is not for sale for under 12 hearts.  With the villians holding nine spades and who knows how many diamonds, there is no way that two hearts will end the auction."  Jeff Rubens is "Hoping to hear further unpressured descriptions of the other hands before I make our side's final decision (as, very likely, I will need to do)."  While Zia says "Let's see how many spades or diamonds East-West want to bid and how partner reacts.  There is a case for bidding clubs, but there is also a case for lots of tactical moves on this freak."

3 ♥   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 5%  IAC No Solvers
There is similar thinking about a jump-raise of hearts.  The advantage is that partner knows you clearly have hearts with him.  Michael Becker writes:  "Not likely to be passed out, as the opponents have a double fit.  More likely, partner will bid four hearts.  If all goes well, I will make a surprise raise to five hearts, asking for good trumps.  If East-West bid four spades, I'll be forced to bid five diamonds to try for slam.  I'm not concerned about immediately specifying a shortness, since the opening lead may be a spade in any case."

George Jacobs took a moment after Problem C, to point out: "This is a cool set, as I can answer four diamonds to all of the problems." 
 
This concludes Part 1.  Sorry I had to make the split, but I will get to the rest as quickly as possible.




Problem D  2 (None)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 9 3   ♥ J 6 2   ♦ Q 5   ♣ K J 6 5 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——      Pass
  Pass      1 ♥      Pass      1 NT
  Pass      Pass    Double    2 ♦
   ?*         
*BWS: double = penalty

What call do you make?

Ok, this is an unusual auction and deserves some thought and reverse engineering.  West opened in third seat and then passed a semi-forcing 1 NT.  The pass indicates a balanced minimum, so I am guessing 10+ to 13- with either five hearts or a lead-directing four.  East does not have a heart fit, but does have diamond length and less than opening strength.  East-West probably do not have the balance of power, but it is not quite clear how much less.  North passed over 1 , and then made a reopening double of 1 NT; which suggests heart length/strength and values.  If partner has the strength for a 1 NT overcall, then there must be shape issues.  If partner is balanced, then the strength is less than a 15+ to 18.  How best can we communicate the nature of our hand to a partner who has not exactly been reticent about their own shape and strength?

Pass   50   BWP 11%   BWS 29%  IAC 67%
The simplest choice would be to pass.  This was majority choice for IAC.  YleeXotee exclaimed, "I actually wrote down Pass  ??"  Michael Lawrence thinks "The hand is too lousy to venture three clubs.  It's possible we could not set one notrump.  Could two hearts be the winner?"  Carl Hudecek bemoaned, "Partner passed in his first turn Where am I going (except set) with this quackery?"  Peuco agreed: "why Pd did not X previously? i do not see good HCP bec he has probably 3 Ss and he did not X. Only way to good HCP is he has 5 Hs, not very likely. My hand seems suited for defense so i Pass"  JCreech says "Who knows what is going on.  It sounds like partner has hearts and values.  I certainly do not have a penalty double of diamonds, and I don't think partner is inviting me to bid."  I can practically see Masse24 shaking his head, muttering to himself: "Difficult choice. What could partner have? Opps do not have a heart fit, so I assume three hearts with partner. No direct seat double, so probably not four spades. Is partner 33(43)? Opener must then be approximately 4522? Partner should have at least three clubs. So we have a fit. But if it’s only 5-3, do I want to play it at the three level?"  Hoki wishes for a different system:  "I would normally double but BWS's modern system doesn't allow us to make this most flexible of bids."  While KenBerg studiously goes through his own reconstruction: "What's up? First, who has four spades? Partner I think. With long and four I think E would have bid 1 rather than 1NT. W might have four but he has five so, while possibly he has four, my guess it is partner that does. Now what about the hearts? on this auction, with my three card holding, it seems pard must have at least three and my guess is four. I only have two . Maybe that have a bunch but if they do they will probably go on to 3 over my 3 , and if they don't have a lot of then pard has some, and that doesn't give him many clubs. I suppose he has three for his double, but that doesn't mean we should compete to 3 . my guess is his shape is 4=4=2=3 with modes values. I'm for letting them play 2 "

2 NT   80   BWP 14%   BWS 4%  IAC No Solvers
You could communicate your shape and approximate values by bidding 2 NT.  Jeff Rubens  wants to "Maintain some flexibility while showing values."  Bart Bramley feels that "Partner has shown good hearts and a strong hand, but his holding is limited by failure to overcall one notrump.  I can't double with only a doubleton, and at these colors I can't pass when it's our deal.  Notrump will often be best, and playing from my side is right when the ace and king are split between LHO and partner."  Michael Becker thinks "Partner has four hearts and probably four spades.  It's our deal, so I should bid something.  A penalty double with soft values and three hearts cannot be right.  I'll hope that partner has three diamonds to a top honor, all that is needed to make notrump the right strain."  While Kit Woolsey "... can't imagine scoring many matchpoints by passing, and we might not defeat two diamonds.  This is a decent value bid, and I hope that notrump is a playable strain."

3 ♣   70   BWP 18%   BWS 51%  IAC 20%
Some of the experts apply the LAW.  A.K. Simon says, "I figure partner is 3=4=3=3, yielding a total of 16 trumps, so we bid to the three-level." Similarly, Dan Gerstman writes, "I figure partner is 3=4=3=3, yielding a total of 16 trumps, so we bid to the three-level."  Robert Wolff response seems more like a shrug:  "Why not?  Yes, you are right.  But so what?"  And Billy Eisenberg simply "Can't sell to two diamonds."  While Phillip Alder chooses the bid due to an uncertainty:  "I would prefer two hearts if confident that partner would take it as natural."

2 ♥   100   BWP 50%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
The Panel plurality never occurred to IAC.  Many pointed to the fact that North was willing to make the penalty pass of 1 , but only a few even speculated while selecting something else.  Buying into this view wholeheartedly, Joey Silver writes. "North has shown a strong hand with hearts; being a good partner, I'll support him."  Similarly, David Berkowitz says "I'll let North in on the fit; as diamonds can be ruffed in my hand, this should play okay."  As does Janice Seamon Molson: "Partner has hearts.  I hope five."  More realistically, Danny Kleinman thinks "East didn't open two diamonds, yet he ran to two diamonds - why?  I suppose that he has a weak diamond hand with a void, or perhaps a low singleton, in hearts, also suggested by North's pass and back-in double."  Barry Rigal: "Double would be penalty, but I will try to find a fit, which might be in hearts.  I don't know what we've got 'til it's gone."  Jeff Meckstroth: "Must act and can't double."  Pepsi: "If North passes, I will be happy."  Zia: "Might end here."  Andrew Robson: "A bid for all seasons."  Philippe Cronier: "If North doesn't want to play here, he will be able to bid two spades or two notrump."  Except for his first comment, George Jacobs may have the most accurate assessment: "I may be an outlier here and receive a score of negative 10.  Partner wants a heart lead, and a lot of clues point to his having five hearts.  I would need four spades to bid two spades, and bidding three clubs would lose hearts forever.  If this goes well, I will score three firsts:  playing in the opponents' suit, having a maximum, and not bidding four diamonds."

Oops, it happened again (too much writeup for the posting area) - but this time I had a place to stick part of the write-up.  Part 2b is coming very shortly.

[jcreech]

March MSC SUMMARY (Part 2b)– Eric Kokish, Director


Before you go too far, I had to split Part 2 as well.  I added Problem D to the previous discussion and renamed the section to be both Part 1b and Part 2a.  If you want to see the grimy details about Problem D, you will need to back up briefly.  Meanwhile, on to Part 2b.



Problem E  3 NT  (Peuco, Duffer66, BluBayou, FlueretteD, VeeRee, VeredK, KenBerg, WackoJack, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 7 5 3   ♥ J 9 4   ♦ 10 6 3   ♣ Q 9 2

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

I'm not sure whether this hand is "how lucky do you feel?" or "how desperate are you for the game bonus?"  It doesn't really matter, but either you push a lot, push gently or don't push at all.

Pass   70   BWP 25%   BWS 33%  IAC 40%
Starting with those that did not push at all.  Barry Rigal sums up the position nicely: "Going plus has not yet gone out of fashion; gambling on running clubs and finding a stopper in each red suit is far too much to ask for a nonvulnerable game.  We might make three clubs and not three notrump.  They may do it over there, but we don't do it here."  Hoki says "my hand made a minimum response and opener's jump is clearly based on a distributional hand. I don't have more than what I said."  Michael Becker: "Three clubs is more likely to make than anything higher.  Our only chance for game is in notrump, where playing from partner's side would be preferable; it may need a helpful lead, a four-four break in the suit led, or a perfect hand from partner.  If I bid three of a red suit, I'd be awkwardly placed if partner bid three spades, and three of a red suit might be doubled."  JCreech thinks, "Partner is not using my bid as a springboard to 3NT and did not manufacture a reverse, so I think it is time to pull in my horns and go quietly."  Phillip Alder asks "If I do not pass, what do I do instead?  Plow into three notrump with no red-suit stopper?"  Michael Lawrence is clearly worried: "The hand has little to recommend declaring three notrump from my side.  If the defense should lead spades, I would like even less.  I don't see a bid that would help sort this out."  Danny Kleinman points out, it's a "Nice club filler, but nothing else to like about this hand.  Game is unlikely, and three clubs may be the last making contract."  Andrew Robson suggested that "If three notrump could be made, partner might have bid it."  While YleeXotee simply said "and then it happened again  Pass ??"

3 ♦   70   BWP 21%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
Trying to find the bid that helps sort this out (Mike Lawrence's dilemma), some try the unbid suits - partly to right-side the contract, and partly because they are not ready to give up on the game bonus.  Bart Bramley describes the attempt as "Trying to transfer to three notrump, not only to protect North's holdings but to put East, who couldn't overcall, on lead - he may have less of an idea than West which suit to attack."  Pepsi says, "In matchpoints, I would pass.  Here, we face a guess - thee notrump could be cold or have no play."  Jeff Meckstroth is "Not ready to give up on game."  Carl Hudecek says "I want to reach three notrump, but partner must be the declarer."  And Janice Seamon Molson points out that "The queen of clubs is huge.  With three notrump in the picture, I must bid."

3 ♥   80   BWP 14%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Typically the choice of trial bids is a matter of either a tell or ask.  I think that BWS is based on tells - showing where you have some values, rather than asking if partner has some values, in the bid suit.  Here, there is nothing to tell in either red suit, and a need to ask in both.  C'est la vie.  Apparently, David Berkowtiz thinks of Jxx as a stopper: "With two aces (the queen of clubs is an ace on this auction, isn't it?).  I show my red-suit stopper."  Jeff Rubens and Bart Bramley (bidding 3 in the previous section) think alike "Hoping to transfer the notrump.  Does not suggest spades and hearts (unless I later show strength), because I did not respond two of a major."  George Jacobs "According to the Beatty All Low Level Simulator (BALLS), the likelihood of partner's having king-low in the other is high.  I cannot bid three notrump, in case he has king-low of diamonds."  Paul Boudreau "Probing for three notrump and hoping that the opponents are not listening."
 

3 NT   100   BWP 32%   BWS 43%  IAC 60%
If the clubs run, the partnership has seven tricks, with enough possible tricks that nine may be there.  Whether the nine tricks are only in clubs, with a trump suit, or also in NT is anyone's guess at this point in the auction.  Those taking the chance follow:  BluBayou brings in a bit of history:  "In the 1950's,  Shenken wrote in his book debuting 'the Big Club'  "If your system cannot get you to 3NT with a running 6-carder plus 3 aces,  revise that system!"   What I see here is close enough for me to  that kind of 3NT"  And Zia brings in the rule: "In tribute to Bob Hamman, who would find this easy.  Of course, it's right to pass ... in theory, but stealing is more fun, and bidding a red 'stopper' might help the leader."  KenBerg: "Well, it's imps. Nobody vul but still it's 400 if it makes. At matchpoints I would pass. Probably less than a 50% shot of making."  Masse24 "WTP? Partner should have AKJxxx at a minimum for the jump in clubs. Staring at the queen in my hand means they run. Crossing fingers (hey, it works) partner has the red suits controlled."  VeredK is "hopeful"  Robert Wolff thinks "At imps, why not?  All intangibles are positive."  Peuco "What else?"  Chris Willenken is pragmatic:   "There is no smart way to problem so I'll bid what I think I can make.  Could be wrongsided."  While Joey Silver brings us full circle:  "Chances are if there are nine tricks in clubs (and there may not be), there will be nine tricks in notrump, so we might as well go for the meager nonvulnerable game bonus."





Problem F  3   (MsPhola, Hoki, CCR3, Duffer66, FleueretteD, BluBayou, Masse24, WackoJack)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A Q 9 4   ♥ —   ♦ K Q 10 6 4   ♣ K Q 9 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♦       1 ♠       Double     2 ♠
   ?*         
*BWS: double = cooperative-takeout

What call do you make?

For lack of a better method to approach this Problem, I am simply working backwards from the worst scoring choice to the best.

2 NT   50   BWP 11%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
To me, to bid NT at my first or second opportunity tends to show a balanced hand.  Void in hearts, I would never make that bid, however, we had a few from the Panel making this choice.  Phillip Alder thinks it "Promises extra values, because I could pass."  Billy Eisenberg wants to "Give partner a chance to show something."  While Richard Colker says "I hope that partner won't bid hearts (unlikely, as three hearts last round would have been preemptive).  I'll pay off to a heart lead, perhaps failing when five clubs has decent play."  Bidding 2NT may show extra values, but I do not think it necessarily gives partner a chance to show something.  What it does do, is show the spade stopper.

Pass   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 9%  IAC 33%
Although not the top choice by IAC, Pass drew a third of our votes.  Andrew Robson argues that "Partner, with only one spade, won't pass.  Whatever he does, I'll be pleased to have passed, as I will have learned more."  JCreech says "Why do I feel like I am in deja vu situation?  Here I am in a non-forcing pass auction, thinking that I want partner to reopen with a double - just like last month.  Oh, but I doubled last month because it should have been clear that it was not "cooperative-takeout" like it is this time."  The nature of the direct double should make it more imperative that partner consider reopening with spade shortness.  I think this choice got the short shrift from the scorer, and not just because I made the choice for myself.

Double   60   BWP 14%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Joey Silver has a good plan after doubling:  "I don't expect partner to pass, but this should be a good first step toward finding out how enthusiastic he is about his minor-suit holdings.  I intend to bid three notrump over three hearts or three spades over three of a minor."  Others are not as well thought-out, but feel the need to take some action:  David Berkowitz: "I will bid four clubs over partner's three hearts.  This hand is too strong for a weak action."  George Jacobs: "Not notrump, as the opponents may attack hearts; and I will need at least one ace from partner to run one long suit and then to set up the other.  The hand is minor -oriented, and doubling gives partner a chance to show one.  With a minor-suit fit, we will make a lot of tricks."  Unrealistically, Carl Hudecek says "I hope North passes.  If I bid notrump, North might persist in hearts." 

3 ♠   80   BWP 7%   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
A few Panelists cue-bid.  Chris Willenken says "Feels like a slam.  Double followed by four clubs over three hearts would be 1=3=5=4."  And Robert Wolff plans his auction with, "Then five clubs over four hearts or slam over a minor."  My concern is that the cue-bid might be construed as support for hearts, and what happens if partner prefers hearts to the minor at the six -level?

5 ♣   80   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC 1 solver
Bidding 5 probably gives up on slam, but it does clearly say that I am not interested in your hearts.  Bart Bramley thinks "North shouldn't have, e.g., 1=6=3=3 with all the strength in hearts, so I expect good support for at least one minor.  Opposite a minor-suit ace, we will have only one immediate loser, but I have a lot of spaced to take care of.  When slam is right, partner might bid it.  Not a cue-bid, because I want to become the declarer in clubs."  While KenBerg writes "Again, what's going on. I have no hearts. I am betting pard has five or six. And so too weak to bid 2 . Probably at most one . We should have a minor suit fit and a play for 5m. I suppose I could be cautious and bid only 4 ,  Maybe I will. I'll think about it."  The problem is if Bart is correct about the shape, will partner correct to diamonds because some will open 1 with either 4=5 or 5=4 in the minors and cannot be certain which will be the 5=3 and which will be the Moysian.

4 ♣   90   BWP 14%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
If I were to bid, I agree with Kit Woolsey: "Looks like the value bid.  This hand doesn't look much like notrump."  Still, even though it shows my values, will partner move with the appropriate minimum.  For example, A.K. Simon points out that "... slam (is) likely opposite as little as:  ♠ x   ♥ Jxxx   ♦ Axxx   ♣ Jxxx."  And Michael Lawrence "I expect to find North with four-plus cards in one of the minors.  If he has (a carefully selected hand):  ♠ 2   ♥ 7653   ♦ A43   ♣ A8765, we have a likely grand."  Although partner will move with Lawrence's hypothetical, finding the auction to seven is beyond me.  If I made the bid, I would join Janice Seamon Molson's "Wish I had a fifth club."

3 ♣   100   BWP 43%   BWS 58%  IAC 47%
The winning bid seems to be an underbid to me (but who am I to say that having chosen to pass, risking a pass from partner as well).   Masse24 describes the impression well: "Pass feels wrong. Hate the void. 3 is an underbid of sorts, but what else?"  Sami Kehela clarifies somewhat:  "An underbid, perhaps, but the spades seem to be poorly placed, and there figures to be some serious heart wastage."  Dan Gerstman pragmatically says, "I suspect North is short in spades and will bid again, after which I'll try three notrump.  Should he pass, this will be better than three notrump."  And Philippe Cronier is "Showing minors to avoid partner's three hearts.  If North is strong and raises, the hand is not so bad.  I might be able to double three spades."  Hoki thinks "maybe I'm overlooking something but this looks to be obvious."  BluBayou tries to outsmart partner: "I expect I will have to fight off  a heart rebid  from partner, so let's let him get that out of his system at the 3-level by bidding 3C now.  Then my 3NT may be left in peace.  It's not all rosy, though--imagine 3C  going swish, and dummy coming with a perfectly ordinary ...x, J9xxx, Axx, Axxx!  Down 1  in  7 clubs--ouch."  Danny Kleinman clearly fears what the continuation would be after a pass:  "About what partner will visualize.  I'd expect to beat two spades, but we won't get rich defending at 50 a trick."  Jeff Meckstroth is "Hoping for more bidding."  While Paul Boudreau says "At least it's a freely-made bid." 

If your goal is to reach 3 NT with a void in hearts, perhaps Jock's plan of letting partner get his weak-hand 3 off his chest plan is best.  However, if you assume that partner is short in spades and your direct double cannot be penalty (cooperative at best when partner has 0 or 1 trump), then partner has a responsibility to help protect your opening hand by not selling out to 2 .  Nonetheless, 4 is probably the most honest bid to make on this hand.



These are coming out painfully slow, but they are coming out.  Bear with me and we will see the end of this month.