2022 June MSC

[Masse24]

Seems my Bridge World is late this month. Can another subscriber get a scan of the MSC to Jim? 

Finally arrived today.

[jcreech]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – Danny Kleinman, Director
 
Problem A  1   (WackoJack, YleeXotee, Masse24, VeredK)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♦        Pass      Pass
   ?*
*BWS: 1 NT = 10-14 HCP; 2 NT = 18-19 HCP

What call do you make?

This is a hand with options, none of which are particularly appetizing. The moderator, Danny Kleinman, says "Adverse vulnerability makes this a problem.  Were the vulnerability favorable, passing and piling up undertrick bonuses might be clear.  Vul against not, however, few are satisfied to score at 50 a copy, especially with some hope of a 500-point game bonus.  However, I have a sneaking admiration for any spadophobiac who passed."

Pass   70   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 29%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 30%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 50%
The first temptation is to pass.  If you pass, the opponents will be playing in your best suit, but before you pass the hand out, some thought is needed.  Opener could be looking at 11 to 19 HCPs, so if you pass, you could be missing a game or you could be struggling to make a partscore.  And all of that is without considering the strain.  Taking up Danny's gauntlet, JCreech asks "Where are the spades?  If partner has five or more, they must be very weak.  My HCPs and the vulnerability make me want to bid.  My length in diamonds and shortness in spades make me want to pass.  I suspect that opener is looking at 4-4 in the majors and only 3 cards in diamonds.  If I double, and we end up in hearts, we could be struggling with a bad trump break."  Phillip Alder echoed Jim's initial spade concerns, but then shifted gears:  "A pass could cost 7 or 9 imps, but one heart comes with no guarantee of finding our best spot." Others agree that finding the right strain or level is no picnic.  Jeff Rubens:  "Rates to be at least as good as anything else if we have no game.  If we do have a game, how would we reach it (and how often would we go minus looking for it)?"  Kevin Bathurst:  "If I could figure out which action offers the best chance to reach a good game, I'd try it; but I can't, so I'll try to go plus.  If I acted, the opponents might find a spade fit and improve their contract."  BluBayou is seeking the least minus position:  "-70 beats -140, or some goulash madness, like -590."  While Brian Platnick thinks "Game is unlikely, so I'll try to go plus."
 

1 NT   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 4%  IAC No solvers
If you bid, 1 NT is certainly a possibility.  The strength is a bit more than BWS requires in the balancing seat, but you are also missing the spade suit - so perhaps it should be thought of as compensating factors.  The best reason to balance 1 NT is that you have a double diamond stopper.  Although not making the bid himself, Eric Kokish points out that "... no notrump does have the merit of keeping West from showing spades cheaply."  Nonetheless, Nick L'Ecuyer is "... not worried about spades when neither North or East could bid the suit; spades are probably 4=4=4 or 4=5=3 around the table.  I doubt that this hand will play well in a suit contract with diamond length behind it; therefore, I don't want to bid one heart short a card.  Too risky to pass and perhaps miss game vulnerable against not.  This holding looks more like a balanced 10-14 HCP than anything else."

Double   50   BWP 14%   BWS 23%  IAC 1 solver
To properly show your values, if your plan is to rebid in NT, is to start with a double.  I don't know about your luck, but mine is that if I make a badly misshapen double, I have a partner who leaps to 4 without a self-sustaining suit.  Hoki aims his choice directly at our most bombastic IACer "and 1NT over 1S; plus 90 is better than minus 70, Jock"  But is joined by members of the Panel.  Drew Casen:  "Then bid one notrump over a likely one-spade advance.  This could backfire if the auction goes differently, but all other calls are far more dangerous."  Joel Wooldridge:  "Planning to bid one notrump over a one-spade advance.  One heart is a reasonable alternative, but I don't like to pass with 16 HCP."  Our retiring ACBL Recorder, Robb Gordon, mixes in a little friendly deception:  "I'll just mix a low diamond with my spades and treat the hand as a balanced 15-17 HCP.  Offshape doubles of one-bids passes around are common."

1 ♥   100   BWP 54%   BWS 42%  IAC 33%
To avoid partner from going nuts in spades, you could overcall in hearts.  WackoJack argues that "If ever there was a right time to overcall with a 4 card suit, this must be it"  Kit Woolsey lays out the arguments for the heart overcall:  "The hand is too strong to sell out to one diamond and any notrump bid or a takeout double risks reaching a bad spade contract.  If partner fits hearts, we may well belong in four hearts; if he doesn't, one heart will probably work out okay anyway."  YleeXotee says it best for me if you chose action:  "the alternatives don't seem appealing to me. 1nt with no spades, ouch, but only other thing I can think of. Pass - in balancing seat?? never."  David Berkowitz:  "Least of evils; notrump can wait.  Though on may layouts I will regret not passing one diamond, this hasn't worked out poorly yet."  Masse24 thinks it "Less flawed than the alternatives."  Billy Eisenberg agrees:  "Not perfect, but one notrump and double, the other options seem much worse."  Marty Bergen writes, "When in doubt, make the cheapest reasonable bid.  The stiff spade suggests that one heart will not end the auction."  But will a different ending be better for North-South?  Nonetheless, you are shy a trump for the call, but the suit is headed by AKJ, so it is not an embarrassment.  And Ron Smith's answer seems appropriate now:  "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." The problem is that if you are in a 4-3 fit and the defense finds spades, the wrong hand may be tapped and you could lose control.  A lot of ifs given that the defense is likely to start diamonds; a suit that you have completely controlled.

If you rate this hand as only worth a part-score. I think the least risky approach to a plus score is to pass; if you rate this hand as having game potential, then action is called for, and the 1 overcall is probably the least problematic of the actions, but, in my mind, only because the defense is unlikely to attack spades on the go.







Problem B  Double  (Hoki, VeredK,  CCR3, MsPhola, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K J 10 6   ♥ J 8 4 3   ♦ K J 6 2   ♣ A

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass      Pass      Pass
  1 ♦       2 ♣      Double      3 ♣
   ?*         
*BWS: double = cooperative-takeout

What call do you make?

At best, I would count on the partnership holding 24 HCPs; that is giving partner as much as 11 that they were not willing to open.  The redeeming quality of this hand is that it has two four-card majors and after partner's negative double, you should have at least one eight-card fit.  The unfortunate aspect of this hand is that you are now at the three-level without establishing which major is your fit.

4 ♣   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Four clubs commits you to game, but at least you will find your fit.  Bart Bramley feels that the hand is "Not strong enough to insist on game with four clubs."  But WackoJack makes the bid:  "Partner's initial take out double will be showing at least 4-3 in the majors.  I bid 4 .  With both majors she will likely bid 4 which I am happy with."

3 ♠   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 11%  IAC No solvers
Bidding 3 gets you to your best major, but perhaps not your best fit.  I view the bid as taking a position, and possibly not your best position.

3 ♥   40   BWP 11%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Bidding 3 is also taking a position, but it does allow partner to make an equal-level conversion when holding spades but not hearts.  You can still get out at the three-level in a major, you have improved your chances to get to your fit, but if partner is 4-3 in the majors, you may still be in your Moysian.  Bart Bramley says "I choose hearts, so that with only spades and diamonds, partner can remove to three spades.  If he bids four diamonds, I'll pull to spades, my stronger major.  If I were to bid three spades, we couldn't get back to three hearts opposite a heart-diamond hand."  While Brian Platnick is more pragmatic:  "Not enough defense to double, too much offense to pass, not enough strength to force to game."

Pass   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The choices so far make me want to pass, just to escape the likelihood of getting too high, or finding the wrong strain.  Taking this position Drew Casen writes:  "I must wait for partner to act, as I have opened with a dead minimum, and game is very unlikely facing a passed partner.  If North doubles again, I will continue with three hearts (relying on him to correct to three spades with four-four in spades and diamonds).  Should partner bid three diamonds, I will pass, giving up on game."

Double   100   BWP 79%   BWS 69%  IAC 75%
The final option is also the majority choice made by both the Panel and solvers.  Double to suggest a major-suit fit and willingness to compete, but also allows partner to pass with the right sort of hand.  You do know you have the only opening hand at the table, and opponents have a tendency to be pushy, so partner may be ready to try for 300 to beat all partscore contracts. But then again, partner may take you for more than a minimum, as you have not limited your hand yet.  Let's consult the expert on negative doubles, Marty Bergen:  "I won't pass, bid four clubs, or guess a major.  North's double does not promise both majors."  The moderator terms a double in this sequence "... for want of a better word, ... 'renegative.'"  Zia says "Surprisingly simple answer to an equally-surprising question:  Does double promise extras, or both majors?"  To which Paul Ivaska answers, "I don't have much extra, but, but fortunately, acting here  doesn't promise extras.  It merely shows a fit, which we surely have somewhere."  BluBayou initially wanted to bid 4 , but "On further study,  forcing us to game looks unwarranted [!]"  While Masse24 mulls over the question of level: "A guess. Partner is a passed hand, are we high enough? Pass now may be right."  YleeXotee is focused on strain: "I'm assuming that is choose your major partner."  And Hoki on level: "pard is a passed hand, so I see this is a partscore deal"  JCreech's focus is on strain, but with concerns about level: "I think I am stuck with the cooperative-takeout double, and hope that partner places us at the proper level."  Nick L'Ecuyer is critical of the note:  "Automatic.  I don't approve of 'cooperative take-out' for a double of a raised overcall.  This should be a takeout, pure and simple.  Like any other takeout double, it lets partner pass for penalty with enough defense and trumps."  Mark Laken is looking to the future:  "My real problem may come next turn."






Problem C  Pass  (KenBerg)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

Another fourth seat opener, but this time an uncontested simple raise from partner.  You hold a sixth trump, but minimum values, and somewhere out there are 12 unaccounted spades.  Do you make a preemptive move by jamming out a game, or 1-2-3-stop?  Do you make a game try, and if so, which one?  Or do you just settle in, and trust that the opponents won't balance in spades?

4 ♥   40   1 Panelist   7%  No solvers
The most aggressive view is to bid game.  This happened to be the choice of the moderator.  His argument was that "Any contract bid directly has better prospects than the same contract reached 'scientifically,' and I'd guess that the difference exceeds eight percent.  Anyone who makes a descriptive game-try of any kind with this hand has spent too much time trying for top scores in the Master Solver's Club and too little time trying to eke out a living at rubber bridge."

3 ♣   90   BWP 36%   BWS 21% IAC 1 solver
Game tries would be the next most aggressive stance to take.  Those bidding 3 are taking the honest approach of asking for help with a bad holding, but is it realistic.  Probably not, but it was the choice for about a third of the Panel.  Phillip Alder thinks this hand to be "Almost a textbook help-suit game-try with a six-loser hand."  David Berkowitz wonders "Maybe partner will love his clubs."  Eric Kokish builds his case:  "With the opponents apparently out of the picture, two hearts might well buy the contract, but it's tempting to try for game as a two-way shot, while perhaps deterring the club lead that might wreck three hearts."  The moderator scoffs:  "During the most-recent decade ... I have yet to see any sophisticated player offer a new-suit game-try with anything stronger than jack-third, and the explanation is always 'help-suit.'  Aces are nearly always helpful, so it is the value of lower honors that responder must assess. ... So, when an opponent explains opener's game-try as 'help-suit,' I treat it as a lead-director for me."

3 ♦   30   BWP No Panelists   BWS 11% IAC 1 solver
3 is an alternative game try, but since game tries in BWS are help suit, looking to reduce the number losers in the suit, the South holding should preclude acceptance by North unless there is shortness.  Masse24 writes, "A tactical approach to the 3 '1-2-3 Stop' bid."  But I think he viewed it only as a game-try that will not be accepted.  The moderator views it differently:  "If you want to deter a club lead nowadays, you must bid three diamonds.  That will get you a diamond lead for sure, and you don't even need to psych.  Strangely, no panelist bid three diamonds."  Clearly, the moderator wanted to give 3 a higher score and 3 a lower score, but could not justify it by the Panel's responses.

3 ♥   70   BWP 17%   BWS 39% IAC 67%
The clear choice for IAC was 3 , and 1-2-3-stop, but the Panel seemed to have a different understanding of the bid.  One remembered that it is a non-competitive raise.  Irina Levitina wrote "As North did not use Drury, West will surely compete if I pass."  Hoki points out that the bid is "purely competitive with many alternatives if wanting to invite game"  JCreech's analysis is "I need three of six cover cards from partner's raise to make a heart game; that would take a perfecto.  So now the question is, when everyone in front of me passing, do I need to pull out a 1-2-3-stop?  My concern is the spades; I'm looking at a stiff, and passing 2 may create the opportunity for a spade balance.  If the opponents are looking at a length (e.g., JTxxx) opposite strength (e.g., AKx), then a balance at the two level looks pretty good.  I'll bump up the auction one to make it harder for the opponents to come in."  And BluBayou expects partner to pass, but "Maybe pard will break discipline with a perfecto ( 2 aces and a doubleton etc ?)"  Most of the panel viewed the reraise as a game try.  Robert Wolff, for example, called it "A two-way action."  Bart Bramley thought it a "Non-specific game-try.  No natural try fits the hand.  With both opponents passing twice, I needn't bid three hearts to impede them."  Brian Platnick's view is more like Jock's, "Partner's failure to use Drury makes game unlikely.  Pass is probably right (opponent's don't always balance), but I'd rather buy the contract for three hearts than pass and perhaps need to sell out to three spades later.  If partner bids four hearts, I'll probably make it."

Pass   100   BWP 43%   BWS 20% IAC 1 solver
The Panel's plurality choice was to pass.  As the moderator points out, "Sometimes two hearts will buy the contract.  Sometimes we'll get pushed to three hearts and the defenders' bidding will help us make it.  Sometimes the opponents' failure to balance will help us in the play."  Doub and Wildavsky think "Bidding now would be too likely to drive us to a poor game."  Drew Casen says "No Drury, no game.  No need to preempt with three hearts, as both opponents have passed twice already."  Carl Hudecek:  "In fourth seat, I'd have opened two hearts.  Not vulnerable, I won't push my luck."  Paul Ivaska thinks "There is no need to bid to obstruct the opponents who each passed twice and may well sell out to two hearts.  Even if they balance, I'd expect to buy the contract for three hearts later, particularly at imps."  Nick L'Ecuyer views the pass as a bit of a discovery play:  "Partner has spade length and may be itching to double it West balances in spades.  If, instead, West balances and the opponents find clubs, I'll nail them by bidding a crazy four hearts."



This concludes part one of the June MSC discussion.  The other two parts will be available as soon as I can pull them together.  Until then, there is always the July problems to work on.  Please take a little time to tell us why you made the choices you did; they are very much appreciated.

[jcreech]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem D  Pass (None)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

Another tough balancing situation.  This time the opponents opened and raised, while you doubled the opener, and partner was silent.  What to do?

Pass   100   BWP 57%   BWS 31%  IAC No solvers
The choice of pass represents one of the strongest divisions between the experts on the Panel contrasted with the IAC solvers.  A majority of the Panel chose to pass, while none of the IAC solvers did.  The problem is you have no penalty double available, so you either pass or take a guess at the strain.  Nick L'Ecuyer is closest to my own position:  "Why didn't I overcall one notrump, which would have been a better depiction of four-triple-three with 19 HCP than double-then-guess?"  Bart Bramley:  "I might set this contract in my own hand.  If partner has anything useful, perhaps we can set it more than one.  Only if I knew somehow that my opponents always took the push would I be tempted to act again."  David Berkowitz says "Being unable to double for penalty, I'll try to go plus.  I don't fear that our vulnerable opponents are trying to steal from us."  According to Carl Hudecek, "It's easy to steal from me.  Partner had a chance to bid over the weakish two-heart raise, but he didn't."  Zia thinks "Down two seems likely.  Two spades is tempting, but passing will outscore it."  Billy Eisenberg:  "Many ways to win, including two hearts down two."  Mark Laken is "Looking for the matchpoint magic plus 200."

2 NT   50   BWP 18%   BWS 25%  IAC 50%
For those that bid, IAC was split between the two top choices, while the Panel favored, slightly, 2NT.  Masse24's reasoning is that the bid is "Natural. The reason for my initial double. Not changing horses in mid-stream. If I do not follow-through now, then I should not have doubled in the first place."  Kit Woolsey says "Too strong a hand to sell out, and another double might lose our chance to play in notrump."  Kevin Bathurst:  "We may have a game, or we might make two notrump but nt be able to beat two hearts."  WackoJack thinks "Partner is unlikely to have 4 spades and we may well have a good play for 2NT."  While Phillip Alder laments "Pity I cannot make a penalty double.  Pass could be the winner, but my bid describes the hand well.  I hope partner has something."

Double   40   BWP 14%   BWS 39%  IAC 50%
The other half of IAC doubled, along with the plurality of BW solvers.  BluBayou argues "6 tricks in hand --yeah-right!--Seriously,  if I am not allowed to double twice with this,  change our 1NT overcall range to  17-to-20!"  Funny how your alternative universe range is identical to that recommended by Edgar Kaplan.  Thinking along similar lines, JCreech wishes "... I had made a hefty NT, then I would feel confident that this double was penalty.  As it is, I think partner will need to have a good reason to pull."  The moderator, though, thinks North will bid:  "I make the odds about two to one that a double will lead to your becoming dummy in three of a minor."  Hoki doubles this time "but strongly disagree with the first double, 1NT being perfect"  Joel Wooldridge feels that "Two notrump might work but would require finding just the right hand opposite."  Robert Wolff finds it to be a "Difficult choice: hoping West has the heart queen."  And YleeXotee says "Seems reasonable to me"



 


Problem E  2 NT  (CCR3, KenBerg)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 3 2   ♥ J 6 5   ♦ J 7 5 4 3 2   ♣ Q

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

This is a problem that really addresses differences in the thought processes of players.  Three options turned into a near dead heat for the Panelists, though one of the three was much more popular with the solvers.

2 NT   100   BWP 39%   BWS 24%  IAC 17%
The first thought is you have a six-card minor and less than invitational values.  What's the problem:  transfer and dump.  Next board please.  Paul Ivaska thinks "With my long but weak suit and potential weakness in clubs, we'll be better off in diamonds than in notrump.  There could be entry problems in notrump."  Frank Stewart:  "I will pass North's three diamonds.  This is the least-likely way to reach a silly contract.  Two clubs might work well, especially if North is willing to open one notrump with a five-card major."  Mark Laken is "Looking for a plus with safety at matchpoints."  Kit Woolsey thinks "Three diamonds looks like our best spot and this is the route to it.  Even at matchpoints, we are allowed to play in a minor."  However, some still have higher aspirations as Billy Eisenberg's plan is to raise to "... three notrump if opener shows a maximum."

2 ♣   80   BWP 29%   BWS 27%  IAC 17%
Alternatively, you might try a garbage Stayman approach.  What's the problem:  Bid 2 and pass the response.  If partner bids a  major, you are, at worst, in a Moysian fit, and if partner opened 1 NT with a five-card major, even better.  Otherwise, you are in diamonds one level lower.  Carl Hudecek asks "How can this possibly go wrong?  I intend to pass anything partner bids."  Masse24 says he is "Intending to stop a level lower than those transferring to diamonds."  And WackoJack: "I pass partner's response. WTP?"  One  problem, according to the moderator, comes when "North replies two hearts with four thin hearts and four strong spades.  Remember, BWS requires opener, with two four-card majors, to bid hearts, not the stronger major; don't ask why (though I can tell you why spades first is better)."

Pass   90   BWP 32%   BWS 45%  IAC 67%
With a different form of scoring, the state of the match dicey, and a better collection of the values making up the 7 HCP, it might be worthwhile being aggressive, but I don't think it is called for here.  So the real question is which partscore has the least risk and greatest potential.  The problem with this hand is, as Irina Levetina points out, "All soft values."  Robb Gordon thinks that passing is "The most-likely way to go plus."  JCreech: "This is matchpoints, I have a smattering of values that may be helpful, and NT pays more than diamonds.  I think it is worth the risk."  Eric Kokish adds that it is "Just a guess, but my tricks are slow, and three diamonds may fail when partner can make one notrump (perhaps with an overtrick)."  Jeff Rubens believes "The defense is more likely to be effective against diamonds than against one notrump.  An occasional very-bad outcome and the small chance that we can bid and make game do not count for much in matchpoint expectation."  Despite the strong vote split, BluBayou thinks "This is not a quizz question"


 


Problem F  Double (VeredK, Peuco, CCR3, MsPhola, YleeXotee, WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K Q 10 6   ♥ K 6   ♦ Q J 9   ♣ K 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——-      ——      2 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

Now RHO has preempted in hearts and you are staring at 18 HCP that includes a single stop and fine five-bagger in spades.  Do you bid your suit, double to bring your 3-3 in the minors into play, or try 2 NT to advertise your strength, stopper and semi-balanced shape. 

2 NT   50   BWP 18%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The hand can most succintly be described with the bid of 2NT.  You might be a bit strong with the fine spade suit, but other than that, the shape, the stopper are all subsumed within that bid.  Nick L'Ecuyer:  "When notrump is an option, bit it.  Two spades may fail when partner has good values without a fit."  Ron Smith says it is "A slight underbid, but the other options look worse."  Marc Jacobus concludes that "Nothing else fits."

2 ♠   70   BWP 31%   BWS 26%  IAC 25%
So what about the overcall?  Kit Woolsey writes "If partner passes, we may be in the right spot.  If he bids anything, we will reach a decent game."  David Berkowitz points out that "This hand is chock-a-block with losers, and there's nothing wrong with having a little extra.  If the opponents bid again, I will be happy to have bid my best suit early."  Robb Gordon says "I am likely to be in the minority here, but the hand lacks enough beef to double and then bid three spades, especially if partnr tries to sign off via lebensohl.  Two notrump would be criminal."  Hoki agrees that the hand is "not strong enough for double and then 3S"  Doub and Wildavsky have a fairly complete analysis:  "A bit heavy, but balanced shape suggests conservativism.  Two notrump would better describe the strength, but there is a good chancce that we'll need the extra time that a trump suit provides to set up our minor-suit winners.  Let them chase after a nonvulnerable game at the other table with a double.  Two spades is not a weak bid, and we still have a good chance to reach a making game.  Partner needs to cover two losers and then some; if he can, he'll usually bid."

Double   100   BWP 50%   BWS 62%  IAC 75%
This leads us to the choice of most of the solvers and half of the Panel, double.  Although the call is the most flexible and  retains the most room to explore, it is not a solution panacea.  Mark Laken worries that "Partner's reply may not be enlightening."  Which leads to Phillip Alder's thought that "The problem will come  on the next round."  JCreech says "The suit is not long enough to make a jump to 3 and the stopper not good enough to bid 2 NT, so I start with a double."  Joel Wooldridge:  "The hand is too strong to overcall two spades, and the short hearts and overall values feel wrong for two notrump.  I'm happy enough doubling and then bidding spades.  I might reconsider if partner bids a lebensohl two notrump, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it."  Zia:  "I can hope lebensohl will save me from a further quandry, but I see danger ahead."  Masse24 remembers that "The panel generally prefers six card suits to overcall. Me too. This one is close."  Jeff Rubens is also "Planning to bid spades next.  I dislike having only a doubleton king of hearts for notrump when I have no minor-suit ace."  BluBayou has other worries: "IS there a 18-point 2 level overcall.. Not on april first"  (Note:  this set of problems came out on April Fools Day.)



 
This concludes part 2.  I will be back when able with the last portion of this summary.  Until then, enjoy the tidbits here, and start working on the problems due at the end of the month.

[jcreech]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 3) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem G  2 (Peuco, Masse24)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 6 3   ♥ Q 8   ♦ 10 9 6 2   ♣ A K 4 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♦       Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♥*     Pass
   ?         
*BWS: forcing for one round (no further agreements)

What call do you make?

3 ♣   50   BWP 11%   BWS 22%  IAC No solvers
Marty Bergen argues:  "As three diamonds would be nonforcing and four diamonds would bypass three notrump (disastrous at matchpoints), I'll hope that three clubs is forcing in BWS.  It should be, even though a one-notrump responder could have a very weak hand with long clubs."  This is the concern that prevented JCreech from making the bid: "I am afraid that 3 would be interpreted as long clubs and a weak hand, but would love for partner to think of it as a diamond fit and a concentration of values in the club suit."  Marc Jacobus definitely thinks the bid is "Forcing."  While Paul Ivaska thinks "Three clubs shous extras with club strength and is forcing to game."  Danny Kleinman, the moderator, scolds this thought:  "To the woodshed with you all! ... three clubs very likely will end the auction), as it actually shows a club one-suiter too weak for an invitational three-club response."

3 ♦   60   BWP 14%   BWS 40%  IAC 17%
Slightly better is the 3 response.  The raise is nonforcing but is more constructive than telling partner to go away with 3 .  Hoki expects opener to bid again: "I always thought that a reverse while not GF promises another bid"  Panel members are not as certain, though they are hopeful.  Irina Levitina says "It should be treated as forcing."  Going back to my debate days, Blackstone Law Dictionary defines should as "ought to but not necessarily will."  Mark Laken uses the "should" word as well, though his use is improved:  "Should show some values and be somewhat forward-going.  Well placed for game or slam."  Most realistic is Kevin Bathurst, who is "Hoping partner thinks it forcing.  I'll bid four clubs next, even over three notrump."

4 ♦   90   BWP 32%   BWS 17%  IAC 42%
Probably the most straightforward approach to show diamond support and a hand that has re-evaluated a limit-raise or better is to jump in diamonds.  Half of the Panel plurality went this direction, as did the plurality of the IAC solvers.  David Berkowitz expresses his frustration:  "Okay, I hate these methods, but everybody else does too.  Making the best of the situation, I'll show my enthusiasm by jumping  thus paving the way for an easy five clubs over partner's possible four spades."  Similarly, JCreech: " I've already limited my hand and denied four-card majors, so I should advertise my good fit with diamonds and a maximum."  WackoJack thinks "We are likley to score at least as well in diamonds as in no trumps.  So I force with 4 "  Carl Hudecek says "Partner doesn't like notrump.  Neither do I with no spade stopper and good four-card support for his first suit."  Brian Platnick argues that "Partner might have raised notrump with spade strength and club shortage, but not the other way around."  BluBayou "save me  tell me what blacksuit to bid!! ... Footnote CLEARLY shows that the forces end with responder's rebid --refreshing sanity"  The trouble with 4 is that it does give up on three notrump when the partner may still think the contract may still be on the table.

2 ♠   100   BWP 32%   BWS 18%   IAC 33%
For IAC, 2 was a bit of a stealth answer.  Peuco submitted the answer without comment, then in an under the wire moment, Masse24 did as well.  JCreech discussed the bid, after the fact, "This is not your usual impossible spade.  Typically, the impossible spade follows a forcing NT and a major-suit opening and supports the opener's minor rebid.  The 2 should be a one-round force, and since you denied a four-card major and limited your points on the first round, it must be a maximum raise of the opening suit, but not appropriate for a weak-jump raise, so probably balanced.  Nice picture bid Todd."  Celebrating, Masse24 exclaims, "My “woop-woop,” out there bid. This saves space, allowing partner to better describe his hand. I can always jump to 4 later. I will probably get hammered for this."  Not this time Todd.  It may not be familiar to IAC, but this must be relatively new thought among experts.  Phillip Alder shows some uncertainty making the bid:  "Shows a good hand in context, akin to the same rebid by a one-notrump responder to one-heart after opener's two-club or two-diamond rebid.  However, as we might be about to have an accident, perhaps I should settle for a straightforward three diamonds (or four)."  Eric Kokish:  "Game-forcing (normally with diamond support) by inference, as no natural bid below three notrump in any other strain would be forcing."  Drew Casen is "Giving partner a chance to show his pattern.  The hand is far too strong for a nonforcing three diamonds."  Well, there are punters, but there is a start of a coalescence of what the bid means, and Zia may be on the cutting edge for continuations:  "I like to play that the first step may start a signoff."



 

Problem H  3  (BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, YleeXotee, MsPhola, CCR3, Peuco, VeredK)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 8 6   ♥ Q 10 9 7 3   ♦ K J 9 7   ♣ 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♣       Pass       1 ♠
  Pass      3 ♠*     Pass       4 ♠
  Pass      Pass      Pass
*does not deny splinter

What is your opening lead?

The commentary was very disappointing on this problem, but then what should be expected when 75% of the Panel all choose the same card, as did similarly strong segments of the BW and IAC solvers.

♣ 3   100   NWP 75%   BWS 73%  IAC 67%
There is conflicting information about leading singletons against suit contracts.  One line of thought is that instead of looking for reasons to lead a singleton, you should look for any excuse to not lead the singleton.  Garozzo's rule, however, says "When a singleton is a reasonable lead against a suit contract, lead it."  My rule of thought is to lead a singleton in a moment of desperation - for example, the opponents have bid strongly to slam, and you think your only chance is to catch partner with the ace and a return for a ruff to set.  Such heroics seldom work out, so I do tend to look for other possible leads instead.  A second scenario involves having enough control of the trump suit to ensure that there is a chance for a ruff, even if partner does not win the opening lead.  Axx certainly qualifies as the needed level of trump control.  JCreech "If I don't lead my singleton on the go, partner will never play for me to have a singleton.  I have the top trump to stop declarer from pulling my trump too quickly, and maybe after seeing dummy, I will have a clue how to reach partner for a club ruff."  Mark Laken:  "Following Garozzo's rule."  Masse24: "Garozzo. How wrong can it be?"  yleeXotee: "I'll take the standard score here."  Waffling, Brian Platnick also considers alternatives from all of the suits:  "A low trump could work, as could either red suit.  Dummy will enlighten us."

♠ 6/8   50   BWP 14%   BWS 10%  IAC 17%
For the trump lead, there were several different opinions, but the primary reason seemed to be perceived safety.  Jeff Rubens says "My best guess at the most passive lead."  WackoJack wants "To take away ruffing value and unlikely to give away a trick"  Hoki thinks "the singleton club looks far too dangerous to me"  And Billy Eisenberg feels that "Anything else might blow a trick."

♥ 10   40   BWP 7%   BWS 12%  IAC 1 solver
Marty Bergen "... would have doubled one spade.  Any suit could be right to lead.  I usually lead a side singleton, but here it feels wrong; it might tip off declarer.  So I'll lead my longest suit."

♦ 7   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 3%  IAC 1 solver
BluBayou "fourth in our strongest/not longest. ... stubborn to the end, sigh"

The best part of the discussion was the moderator's interpretation of what constitute Garozzo's rule based on his own experience.  He was playing in the May 1990 Omar Sherif invitational and drew Grazzo as his partner on the first deal.  "At imp scoring, I was on led against one heart - two hearts - four hearts with ♠ A1074   ♥ J943   ♦ K98   ♣ 104.  Fearing that clubs might be dummy's or declarer's side suit.  I led the eight of diamonds.  I was right, in that dummy held queen-jack-eight-six-low in clubs; but I was wrong, which I learned at trick one when declarer put up dummy's queen of diamonds and Garozzo banged a low diamond down with special emphasis.  Two seconds too late, I knew he had the clubs bottled up (his holding was in fact king-jack-seven-low).  Garozzo's Rule then must have been "Lead clubs! and I had violated it."  I think it fair to say that Danny Klienman hates lead problems, even when it is his turn to moderate the problem set.



With that, I conclude this month's MSC summary.  When done here, please go to the July problem set and give it a go.  And when you do, take a moment to jot down why you made your choice - you don't have to do every one, but whenever you can it is appreciated by both the readers and me, as I pull these summaries together.

[jcreech]

IAC does not often miss the mark in the Master Solver's Club problem sets.  As a group, we typically the Panel's plurality bid, or if not, then a bid that is very close,  but perhaps a bit more aggressive.  In the June set, we had three misses.  The first two, I could argue were mild misbids on the previous round, and now we need to find the best recovery description for the hand.

Let's start with Problem C, which KenBerg was the only one to find the Panel's choice of Pass.

Problem C  Pass  (KenBerg)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass      Pass      Pass
  1 ♥       Pass        2 ♥      Pass
   ?     

One the first round, I think a better opening is 2 .  To me, it is the perfect picture bid in fourth seat.  You have an excellent six-card suit, and enough losers, that it virtually impossible for partner to have a hand that can make game.  Since you do not expect to make game, you want to be at a level that will discourage the opponents from bidding, and you are at a level where you are likely to make the contract, even if partner's points are nearly useless.  In my eyes, the advantage is that you have gotten the hand out of your system in one bid, and will not be tempted to bid again.

What happened?  You opened one, partner raised and now you either suspect that a game is possible and make a game try or you are worried that the opponents will creep into the auction and steal the plus.  If you open one, the opponents have more opportunities to interfere; if you open two, they don't.  Although the two auctions seem to rate the same, they aren't.  When you opened one, and partner raised, the opponents know you have a fit, so they probably do too.  If you open two, unless partner raises that, they don't know whether you have a fit, and are willing to chance that you don't, but if partner raises, it should be based on the LAW, and if the opponents want to sneak in, it will be hard.

Now on Problem D, no one in IAC found the Pass that was the Panel's choice.

Problem D  Pass (None)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      Pass     1 ♥
 Double    2 ♥      Pass      Pass
    ?

I think you should bid 1 NT at your first turn.  Again, it is a one bid description that is nearly perfect; in all likelihood, you have the opponents double stopped sitting behind the opening bidder, and while 19 HCP feels a bit rich, this 19 feels a bit less because it is 4-3-3-3 and the one 10 feels more like an x sitting at the end of a KJ10 tight.  Validating my at-the-table assessment, the KNR value for this hand is 18.5.  But the important thing is to get this hand out of your system early, so that partner can become captain and steer the contract toward the right level and strain.  If asked, you will be happy to say that you are max, but otherwise, partner should control this auction.

Problem E, however, is different.  At least to our knowledge, there has not been a prior regrettable bid made by your hand, so no recovery is necessary.  Nonetheless, only CCR3 and KenBerg found the plurality Panel choice.

Problem E  2 NT  (CCR3, KenBerg)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 3 2   ♥ J 6 5   ♦ J 7 5 4 3 2   ♣ Q

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 NT      Pass
   ?

This time it is a true problem, born of stylistic and assessment differences.  And the three paths suggested by the Panel are nearly split into equal thirds,  so there was little penalty for selecting one of the lesser lights.  Now that the results are in, I am not certain that the Panel got it right.  In a less than exhaustive simulation, I think the garbage Stayman bidders are right on this one.  The possibility of a Moysian fit in either major (with the tap being in the correct hand), plus the possibility of the 1 NT opener having a five-card major give a slight edge over the notrumpers, and the ability to get out in diamonds one level lower adds a little as well.  In the long run, the transfer to diamonds is a bit safer, but higher scoring major-suit and notrump contracts have an edge over the diamond contracts, and the prospect of an extra trick in a major all tend to give the garbage Stayman bidders the matchpoint edge. Finally, the concern shown by Danny Kleinman about being in hearts when the hearts are weak and the spades are also four in length and strong is a bit of a red herring; true, the spades would tend to score better than the hearts, but both would tend to play better than notrump and score better than diamonds.

Just a few msings following this latest club results.