May MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, DirectorProblem A 4 
(Masse24, VeredK, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, DrAculea, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q J 7 6
♥ A 10
♦ Q 4 2 ♣ K J 10
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2 ♣ Pass
2
♥* Pass 3 ♣ Pass
3
♦ Pass 3 NT Pass
?
*BWS: game-force
What call do you make?
It has been said that a good bridge problem has at least two very tempting answers. If that is the case, then Problem A fails as a good problem. There is simply too much concurrence in how to bid next; not enough temptation for any other solution.
4 ♣ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 81% Bridge World Solver (BWS) 61% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 83%
Actually, the 4
bidders are of two minds and a single bid masks the subtle difference of whether you are probing for a slam and whether you are probing for the proper strain on the way to some slam. Let's start with those sniffing but not committing to a slam yet.
Allan Graves says "Cheapest important slam-invitational value."
Joe Grue has planned his auction: "If partner bids four diamonds, I will think he has pretty good diamonds. If partner bids four notrump, I will pass."
Mark Feldman argues "Three notrump could be the last making contract, but there is a decent possibility of slam with partner having moderate extras."
BluBayou has similar thoughts: "Imagine X, KQ, K8xxx, AQxxx facing our AQJxx, Ax, Qxx, KJT. 3NT appears to be a claimer while even 5 of a minor needs a small bit of luck. I don't know how to ask pard 'Does Q42 diamond support make you happy?' but I gotta push one time in case he can take over."
Billy Eisenberg thinks he has "Too much hand to give up despirte partner's minimum three notrump."
For those who are more certain about reaching slam.
Mike Passell is "Going to slam. Let's pick the best one."
Phillip Alder says "Up we go. Six notrump seems the likely terminus at the moment."
Mark Laken thinks "The hand keeps getting better. We are on our way to a slam. A grand cold still be in the picture. A six-key-card-ask would be helpful."
Kit Woolsey says "I will drive to slam. The key is to find the best slam, whatever partner does. This sequence should show roughly equal holdings in the minors, and he can choose the best strain."
KenBerg: "I am the one with undisclosed strength since I would have bid a GF 2
with a good deal less. Now, over 4
would partner bid 4
holding Kx? That would be nice. I am not so sure what I will do if partner bids 4
over my 4
. After 4
- 4
I could bid 4NT, I am more or less prepared to play 6
, or rather have partner play 6
, if he has two keycards. But I would feel better about it if I knew he had
Kx."
Riding the fence, not clearly indicating whether they are committing to a slam or simply keeping the option open.
JCreech says "I expect partner to be at least 5-5 in the minors with a heart stop/partial stop. If we have a slam, it is likely to be in one of the minors. The move past 3NT should be slammish, so the question is which minor. I've already shown a preference for diamonds, 4
should suggest that I do not have a clear choice."
Eric Kokish argues "As North is 1=2=5=5 or 0=3=5=5 (but with the latter, he would probably have bid three hearts, not three notrump) with a heart guard, the South hand has a ton of cover cards. Four clubs caters to finishing in the right minor or notrump, and I can't imagine a different bid."
YleeXotee is a bit more succinct: "I was tempted to try 4D also, but having already showed my 3 diamonds, this is better."
Masse24: "I like the texture of my club 'support' more than the diamonds. So it’s time to tell partner. Obviously showing slam intentions."
Steve Beatty thinks "North has at least 11 cards in the minors and a heart stopper (probably the king). This suggests that, in a minor-suit contract, we will have no major-suit losers and that our fillers for partner's suits will give him a good source of tricks. We owe partner at least one more bid, and we need to introduce the club support, since clubs may be our best trump suit."
4 NT 70 BWP 12% BWS 16% IAC 1 solver
A different route to an invitation involves agreeing to the NT strain.
Sartaj Hans admits the "Clubs is likely to be the best strain for a slam contract. In the more-likely scenario of playing in a game, especially at this vulnerability, notrump affords more safety than either minor." While
Don Stack starts by indicating that he "Cannot pass with a fit in both minors. Do I bid four notrump quantitative or four of a minor to gather more information? ... Since there is not apparent reason to play in a minor, the straightforward notrump raise is the choice."
5 NT 60 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 1 solver IAC No solvers
Jeff Rubens wants to be in slam, but wants partner's input in order to bid the grand: "Partner has a heart royal and has limited his values, so we won't bid seven."
Problem B Dbl (Peuco)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q J 9 7
♥ A 10 8
♦ 10 7 ♣ A Q J 10
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1
♥ ?
What call do you make?
Unlike the previous problem, Problem B has several reasonable choices, all of which have flaws. So pick your poison.
Pass 80 BWP 27% BWS 27% IAC 50%
Half of the IAC looked at the doubleton diamond, and said that as one of the unbid suits, the hand was too flawed for immediate action and passed. As
Augie Boehm points out, this approach is "Not modern. Maybe not vulnerable and playing matchpoints, I'd try something, but which distortion would that be?"
Hoki tries "Pass and rely on any opportunity to balance later" As does
YleeXotee: "waiting for developments here - pard isn't going to let them play at 1h, and I can X 2h later if I need to beg partner to do something."
Phillip Alder believes it is "Probably not popular with the panelists, by self-explanatory."
JCreech "My choices are from the aggressive 1NT, to a poorly shaped double, or pass. If I bid, I like 1NT best - it shows my stopper, I have cards that are working together along with great spots, and I have three tens. Nonetheless, I tend to pass these hands and hope I can back in later."
Danny Kleinman says "Pass. In the same tempo and with the same demeanor as I would with a yarborough. No thought of a Woodrow Wilson Double. Balanced Hands Defend - unless there's a compelling reason not to." (Note: President Woodrow Wilson, in 1918, presented Fourteen Points as part of a proposal to end World War I.)
Double 100 BWP 65% BWS 42% IAC 1 solver
The Panel largely said the points are right, I have four spades, this is close enough to a takeout double and found that 42% of the BW solvers were fellow travelers.
Joe Grue writes "My style is not to worry about a doubleton in an unbid minor for a takeout double. One notrump isn't a bid for me with 14 HCP, pass is a possibility, but it is so uncommon these days."
Steve Beatty points out that "Years ago, it would have been safe to pass, but modern bidders are opening too light to risk not getting into the auction immediately, so I will double and hope that partner doesn't like diamonds too much."
Sartaj Hans will "Happily take on the risk of an unsuitable diamond partscore. The rewards are juicier: playing in the right game, competing for the partscore, getting in and out of the auction early."
David Berkowitz: "I've gone for a number before and will again, but in the long run more impas are lost by passing than by bidding."
Ross Grant thinks it "Important to ge in now. Probably, partner will not bid two diamonds without at least five; if that is his choice, I will live with it."
JoAnna Stansby: "If partner jumps in diamonds, I have enough strength to bid three notrump."
Sami Kehela sums up the choice well: "Can't wait for the perfect hand."
1 NT 60 BWP 8% BWS 25% IAC 25%
A fourth of the solvers (both BW and IAC) felt the hand a bit too misshapen for the double while close enough to a NT overcall; it is only shy a HCP with three tens and a stopper plus in hearts.
Masse24 takes a flyer: "Pass probably most common. But it feels like too much to pass. The spots help, but just a little. I checked the KnR. 14.55 This could get completely ignored by the panel." Todd was wrong about being the KnR being completely ignored.
Steve Beatty brought it up while saying it was too weak for him to overcall 1 NT. Nonetheless, at the beseeching of the moderator,
Jeff Rubens provided a bit of an historical note: "The R in 'KR' is a misnomer. That hand-valuation scheme would be called '4C's,' which was developed in an attempt to recreate Edgar Kaplan's judgment mechanically, for the purpose of dealing practice hands by computer. My part of the project was restricted to explaining the requirements and programming a machine to do the dealing." As for the Panelists, only two took this path, which surprised the moderator.
Mark Feldman said "It's a close decision, but the tens and nine sway me. If I held the heart nine instead of the ten, I wouldn't like it, but I would double."
Don Stack believes "This hand is probably the strongest one at the table, so we should enter the aution if there is a reasonable action. Fourteen HCP with tens and nines is enough. The ten of hearts could ensure a double stopper. If doubled, I will proably run to two clubs." Perhaps
Pratap Rajadhyaksha describes the reluctance well: "Yes, I see all the married nines and tens, and nonvulnerable I would overcall one notrump. At imps, I don't like to take marginal actions that might result in minus 1400. My teammates generally appreciate that."
Problem C Dbl (Duffer66, KenBerg, Hoki, Peuco, VeredK)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K J
♥ 9 6 4 2
♦ 9 8 6 5 ♣ K 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ 1
♥ ?*
*BWS: 2
♦ forcing to three clubs
What call do you make?
On this Problem, the choices are the same as Problem B, but the meaning has changed dramatically.
Pass 70 BWP 15% BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
A substantial minority did not like either a hefty NT or a negative double short a spade, and chose to pass in the hopes that they will be in a better position if the auction comes back to them.
Danny Kleinman is "Hoping for the matchpoint magic plus 200 against one heart passed out, while avoiding the small minus that is likely to result from trying to show 'eleven points.' The Cobbler's Son's Law says, 'When no shoe fits, go barefoot.'"
KenBerg agrees "As with B, I have an option that might lead to playing spades in a 4-3 fir. With B, I can at least hope that partner, with his three spades, will be short in hearts and I can ruff hearts without weakening my four card spade holding. Here I have the three card spade holding and I am definitely not the one with short hearts. I don't like having pard ruff a heart in his hand. So I will wait. What happens next? We will see."
Kit Woolsey thinks "If partner passes it out, we figure to get a decent matchpoint result. If he reopens with a double, I can bid two hearts, which would show something like this."
Jeff Rubens writes "Might work out badly if the opponents have diamond tricks, but the alternatives seem to have bad layouts that are more likely." And
Zia laments "It hurts me to do this, but I have been assured by a Scottish ex-partner that this is the right call. If the panel thinks double is better, I would like to hear the reasons."
1 NT 80 BWP 15% BWS 25% IAC 50%
Half of the IAC went with 1 NT, opting to upgrade the 9xxx as a stopper, while downgrading the 11 HCP.
JCreech thinks through the problem like this: "I don't particularly like how this auction is proceeding. The hand is wrong for a Moysian in spades (partner, if holding four, will take the tap), I only have two clubs with partner, and partner opened clubs, so the likelihood of a 4-4 or better fit in diamonds is low. I also don't like the prospect of converting a double at the one-level. I will try 1NT and hope partner does not raise to game without a little something in the suit (besides, RHO could have stuck in a four-card overcall with very nice honors)."
Eric Kokish says "I'd rather not double missing a spade when I can live with an alternative. It's not only that hearts may well block but that North's heart holding may be strong enough to make rightsiding irrelevant. Two diamonds? Well, thanks for the information, but no thanks." Similar, but more succinct,
Joe Grue says "I could double, but I try not to do that without four spades."
Masse24 fights the urge: "AKJ looks a lot like four and the negative double was my first instinct. But I’ll take the over-strength 1NT with the questionable stopper."
Sartaj Hans feels that "Passing is out of the question at this form of scoring. Showing four spades is a reasonable option. I would rather bid two clubs, supporting partner, who will likely have club length, than bid two diamonds on four low." While
YleeXotee found "This was very difficult for me. I wanted to pass, but that is just too passive with this hand and I thought the panel might kill that bid, X was good and maybe the best, but in the end I decided to try 1nt because somebody has said that any 4 cards is a stopper. The problem is, with no heart bid, I would be bidding 2nt! so I have no clue what this will score."
JoAnna Stansby's conclusion is that it "Seems like the best description. If the hearts were headed by the ten instead of the nine, I wouldn't give this a second thought. Maybe I should be worried that I have too much strength, but I am not."
Double 100 BWP 69% BWS 47% IAC 42%
Nearly 70% of the Panel and better than 40% of the solvers chose the negative double. The flaw here is that the hand only has three spades.
Ross Grabel thinks the hand "Looks like 4=4=4=2 distribution for now. Too strong to pass, which would only delay the problem. Admittedly, the heart nine could turn out to be a stopper, but if this is a partscore deal, we should be fine."
Roy Welland: "Least of all evils. I hope partner won't bid spades."
BluBayou believes "There are plenty of tournament players that play.."1m, (1H), DOUBLE" shows NOT-SPADES, rather some 8+ collection of mostly minor cards. But our BWS partner is not of this religion. And those that ARE are not too happy to have only 6 cards in the minors--especially these six. For sure, I am going to pretend AKJ is a spade suit and..."
Carl Hudecek is "Showing my four-card spade suit." Normally, I would agree that this three-card holding (AKJ) is worth an upgrade to a four-bagger, but when suggesting a Moysian fit as the the place to play, you also have to consider (a) which hand will be ruffing, (b) whether partner's hand is likely to be overruffed, and (c) whether partner might be interested in a Moysian holding only three from the other side (hence setting up the partnership for a violation of Burn's law of having fewer trump than the defense). Not understanding the principles of playing in a Moysian,
Don Stack says he "Cannot pass with 11 HCP, as there will be no good way to catch up after that. Playing in a four-three spade fit would not be terrible." While
Allan Graves thinks "This is a good hand-type for spades." Maybe, if the opponents had not bid hearts, telling you that the long hand is taking the tap. Others are more realistic.
Phillip Alder writes "I hope the three-three fit plays all right."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha says "Looks like a four-card suit to me, and a three-three fit may play all right given the extra values. ... Don't see any choice." Actually, despite the Burns violation, the 3-3 may play reasonably - at least you are not ruffing with the long-trump hand.
David Berkowitz has a reasonable plan: "Not quite enough spades to bid one spade, so I will settle for second-best. I will reluctantly bid one notrump if partner continues with one spade."
Mark Laken considers this to be "The least-worst action. Passing would only delay the problem."
This ends Part 1. As always, I will continue as I find time. Until then, chew on the June problems, and write down some pithy reasons why you think your bid is best.
