April MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Kit Woolsy, DirectorProblem D 3 NT (Hoki, KenBerg)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 8
♥ A K 9 2
♦ 4 2 ♣ A K 10 6 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 2 ♠
Double 3 ♠ Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
The scoring on this problem puzzles me. The bidding is straightforward. The opponents preempt, you double, RHO furthers the preempt which gets passed back to you. Partner clearly does not have a penalty double of 3
, nor a suit clearly worth introducing at the four level without additional prodding. Let's review the select chosen ones:
3 NT 100 BWP 37% BWS 12% IAC 17%
The choice I have the least sympathy for is 3 NT, but it did draw co-equal plurality among the Panelists on this problem. All that I can think of is one round earlier, I did not anticipate the subsequent bidding when I doubled initially. If I had, I would bid 2 NT to put partner into the captain's chair. Having doubled, I now have a problem. But if 2 NT was not the right action one round earlier, why is bidding 3 NT the right action now - one level higher?
KenBerg thinks "It's not crazy, maybe not even overly optimistic, to think we have 9 tricks off the top. Pard could have Qxx in clubs and Qx in hearts. Can they take the first five tricks in
. Maybe, maybe not. I am not thinking 3N is something to bet my house on, but I don't think it is totally nuts either."
Howard Weinstein believes it is "Too strong a hand to pass. This shows a flexible hand. If three notrump is the right spot, a second double is very unlikely to get us there, and I would not be excited upon hearing four diamonds from partner."
Peuco also has expectations: "again X will get 4D (i hate 4D lol)"
Zia says it is "More optimistic than four clubs, less hazardous than a double, more losing than a pass, but more irresistible than any other action and not far away from the best plus." In other words,
Hoki's to be more specific, "a pure guessing situation."
Larry Robbins: "Pass would be significantly timid, and double would invite four diamonds. Our most likely plus is defending against three spades, but I can't risk missing a vulnerable game."
David Berkowitz has a great point: "This is why one needs to play with great dummy-putters. So many ways this can be wrong, but one way it could be very right. Won't sit for a double."
4 ♣ 60 BWP 11% BWS 31% IAC 42%
For IAC, 4
was a co-plurality selection. For those avoiding the unsavory NT, and fearing a 4
response following a double, yet feeling that you hold too many HCPs to pass, 4
is the perfect compromise.
Sami Kehela thinks it is "Worth a second double, but that is likely to beget four diamonds."
Masse24 is "Not fond of another double with only a doubleton diamond."
Robert Wolff feels you "Cannot cover all weaknesses."
Danny Kleinman believes "The route to four hearts when partner has four, and the best bet for the right strain otherwise." The moderator,
Kit Woolsey, has some strong sentiments here: "Usually, a takeout double is the most flexible action, but not this time. ... a double's flexibility does not extend to three notrump. Similarly, partner won't pass the double. Four clubs is a more-flexible call, since it shows clubs along with hearts, so it is the sensible choice for those who don't want to risk three notrump."
Pass 70 BWP 15% BWS 15% IAC No solvers
If I had taken some other type of direct action over 2
, such as 2 NT or 3
, then I might be willing to go quietly with a pass, but having doubled first, I am less willing to pass now. Let's see what those Panelists who did have to say.
Steve Robinson argues that "Partner's hand is limited; with four or five hearts, he would have gone out of his way to bid. Three notrump might have good play, but that requires specific cards."
Carl Hudecek agrees, "In view of partner's failure to bid four hearts, it is unlikely that we have a game. At imps, I take the sure plus."
Jeff Rubens: "I doubt that we will be able to bid a making game often enough to risk turning a likely plus score into a minus." While
Billy Eisenberg is simply "Hoping to go plus as danger lurks."
Double 90 BWP 37% BWS 42% IAC 42%
BluBayou "Passing is for chickens even though we have only a king more than we should have. The chickens ma live, but I will die like a hero, doubling again."
John Carruthers says "If I passed, I'd spend the whole deal worrying that we'd missed a game."
Bart Bramley "Can't give up. Four clubs would be safer, but double focuses better on hearts. Over four diamonds, I'll pass and pray."
Eric Kokish feels the call is "Dangerous, but I have always played with partners who did not bid four diamonds. Pass would be sensible, but our counterpart is likely to double, and we lack the evidence to do otherwise."
Mark Laken says "Risky. If passed out, we should be okay; if partner bids, he will like my winners."
JCreech wants an undo: "I wish that I had made the horrible call of 2NT on the first round, but at least I would have this hand out of my system. Not good because only Ax as a stop, but otherwise fairly descriptive. Now I don't know whether to bid 3NT opposite a quiet partner, 4
or double; double is the most flexible, so I am headed that direction."
Problem E Dbl (BabsG, DrAculea, CCR3, BluBayou, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q 10 8 7 6
♥ 5
♦ Q 5 ♣ A 9 8 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ 3
♥ Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
Another preempt, another obvious set of responses - pass, double, or bid.
Double 100 BWP 48% BWS 45% IAC 58%
The reopening double caters to partner having made a trap pass, a partner unwilling to make a courtesy raise with poor HCPs, as well as a partner with length in one or both minors; what is not to like about the call?
JCreech says "My distribution is not so wild that I will not make the reopening double."
John Diamond "Won't avoid doubling with a singleton heart only because I have a doubleton diamond."
John Carruthers asks "Short hearts? Must act."
KenBerg "Partner might pass and if so then 3
X might be the winning contract. Of course partner might also bid 4
. Then I bid 4
. Yeah, we are a bit high in 4
but it might be fine."
BluBayou "Before considering what BID to reopen with, I first check to see if I can do the normal expected thing of reopening with a double. the 6 goodish spades and the unbid suit Qx are flaws, but I dont wait for 15 point three-suiters to do this. (after all, on the problem above, we did a similar thing with a flat hand and xx in diamonds)"
David Berkowitz wants to see "The look on partner's face when we have them murdered is enough to make me do this." Waffling to the end,
Masse24 thinks "Double is probably right. The MSC panelists lean towards aggression. I hate this problem and am uncommitted on any of the possible choices."
Zia argues that "This boils down to whether partnre will pass or not. I vote yes; if I didn't, I would pass. Three spades would be passing wind rather blowing in the wind."
3 ♠ 80 BWP 26% BWS 28% IAC 17%
Rebidding spades only caters to the vanity of holding a pretty-good spade or the fear of partner bidding diamonds at the four-level.
Sami Kehela thinks "Venturesome, perhaps, but six-four shapes are usually quite productive."
Phillip Alder says "I am not brave enough to double and risk hearing four diamonds from North) and double from East). Pass could easily be the winner, but if partner hoped for three hearts doubled, I must act."
Peuco agrees "when I make a reopening X and p does not pass he always bids my singleton"
Rozanne and Bill Pollack thinks "This hand seems better for offense than for defense, even though we can 'feel' partner praying that we double. With two aces, it's close."
Pass 80 BWP 26% BWS 26% IAC 25%
Pass just caters to uncertainty, caution, and acceptance that the opponents have taken away most of the options available to me and my partner.
Hoki "the old school to which I belonged always claimed that if we are fixed we stay fixed - so I pass when today's world always takes a view with half gaining on me and the other half paying out."
YleeXotee finds it "against my nature to pass, but 3s is too much"
Carl Hudecek is "Applying appropriate caution, vulnerable at imps. Partner could not conjure up a competitive raise."
Robert Wolff says "Finally, a hand with which I want to be conservative." The moderator points out that "Although it is usually right to compete with a singleton in the enemy's suit, I'm inclined to agree. Partner's failure to bid three spades is highly significant - he won't have both three spades and values, so we won't make four spades."
Problem F 3 (YleeXotee, JCreech, KenBerg, Masse24, DrArcula, Duffer66, BluBayou, CCR3, Peuco, VeredK)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 9
♥ 3 2
♦ 10 9 7 6 5 2 ♣ K 6 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
?*
*BWS: 3
♦ weak but strong enough for three
notrump opposite 18-19 HCP
What call do you make?
The problem has a clear message related to a possible bid, and, at least among the IAC solvers, there has been discussion about what to do. For example,
YleeXotee says he is "taking the hint," while
BluBayou wants to "ignore the hint!" So who is right? In this case, it seems that both are because they both made the same choice of bidding 3
. The difference may be in what their next bid might be.
3 ♦ 100 BWP 70% BWS 57% IAC 83%
BluBayou makes the bid despite the hint: "We saw this footnote last year, attached to a hand with Q9xxx in clubs and damn little else: '*weak but strong enough for three notrump opposite 18-19 HCP' The panel went HEAVY to ignore the hint and made the preempt anyway and they will again. And actually this 109, xx, 109xxxx, Kxx WILL help many a balanced 18 bring home that 3NT so 'going heavy' might become 'choosing unanimously'?" While
JCreech makes the bid because of the hint: "I reconsidered after Jock's challenge. Two years ago, I was worried about what I would do if partner showed the strong balanced hand. ... The hand contains only 3 HCPs, but what a difference this time. It is a K, which translates into a reasonable chance of a trick. Given that partner is highly likely to hold four diamonds for the opening bid, that gives the partnership a minimum of nine, while also likely to have ten diamonds - now I can almost count seven tricks in my own hand, and if partner is strong, then 3NT may easily be a laydown. ... This time, I almost relish the thought despite only holding 3 HCPs. If partner converts, it may not be a sure thing, but I still like our chances." This dichotomy of thought is repeated among the Panelists:
Daniel Korbel: "Who knows? Maybe enough for three no-trump opposite a strong, balanced hand."
Karen McCallum: "A system violation, perhaps, but my long diamonds will be tricks in three notrump."
Mark Laken: "Combines preemption with offering a potential source of tricks for notrump."
David Berkowitz: "I have an entry, and my diamond length may be valuable. I would nee a singleton to bid four diamonds. Passing would make it too easy for the opponents."
Phillip Alder: "If partner bids three notrump, he might well make it."
Mark Cohen: "The sixth diamond and potential club entry justify an upgrade." Back in the IAC:
KenBerg: "It's true that this is a pretty weak hand as far as hcps are concerned. But I am not that worried about partner bidding 3NT over my 3
. I will be leaving it in. If partner has AKxx, not unlikely for a 3NT rebid, I see six
tricks. And even if his
holding is only Axxx we are in pretty good shape if he has the values for 3NT. If opponents can set up their five card suit on the opening lead, so be it. Often they can't of they don't."
Masse24: "I hate this, but only because of the tip provided. At the table this is an easy 3
for me. I wish Blu could find the previous example of this as I would like to compare the hands."
Pass 70 BWP 15% BWS 27% IAC No solvers
The passers do so largely for tactical reasons. For example,
Carl Hudecek says "The less I raise diamonds, the harder it will be for the opponents to appreciate the extent of their fit(s)."
Jeff Rubens thinks "Bidding might not keep the opponent out when I would prefer them out. At matchpoints, being able to make three notrump won't be a factor often enough."
Sami Kehela "Goes against the grain, but no number of diamonds fits."
Nik Demirev writes "I'd rather not go overboard at matchpoints if it is our deal. I am confident of being able to judge well later on in a competitive auction. ... I am not worried about all pass, because LHO is sure to balance with his expected zero to two diamonds."
4 ♦ 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 9% IAC 1 Solver
Danny Kleinman takes the hint as it was intended: "Too little offensive potential for three diamonds, too little defense not to bid four." To which the moderator responds: "How can too little offensive potential to bid three justify bidding four? Shouldn't one have more offensive potential, not less, to contract for 10 tricks instead of nine?"
And so ends part two for this month. I will get the last part out as soon as I am able. Meanwhile enjoy, and start to work on next month's problems.
