July MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – David Berkowitz, DirectorNot an easy set of problem hands, for IAC, for the solvers, or the Panel.
KenBerg threatens that "If this set scores well I might decide to never think again." For
YleeXotee "This month is a total crap shoot for me."
Problem A 3 NT (KenBerg)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ —
♥ K 6 4
♦ A K Q 7 3 ♣ A K Q 6 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♦ 1 ♠ Pass Pass
3 ♣ Pass 3 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Although no one among the IAC solvers pointed to this, there were members of the Panel that evaluated the previous round of bidding's choice. The moderator,
David Berkowitz, had a clear opinion: "I have no idea what the correct bid is this time around. I do know what the correct call was last round ..." `
Gary Cohler says "Partner has spades, and I forgot to double." While
Kerri and Steve Sanborn seem chagrined, "It is usually a pleasure to partner David until you don't reopen with a double on this hand."
Sooooo, clearly we are in recovery mode and only one IAC solver found the answer that granted the 100.
4 ♠ 70 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 17% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 29% Intermediate Advanced Club solvers (IAC) 40%
The plurality of solvers went with re-cueing the spades. So what does this mean?
Hoki is going slamming: "otherwise Jock's 6♣ is fine."
YleeXotee is similarly inclined: "if (4
) not in BWS as forcing then I have to find the 4S Hoki mentioned. could not be less sure of this bid."
Gary Cohler says "I will drive to slam without control-bidding hearts, so North will know that I have a spade void and second-round heart control. If he control-bids hearts, I will bid seven clubs."
Masse24 is less certain: "If partner had spades stopped, he would likely just bid 3NT rather than 3
, yes? Maybe rebidding 4 clubs is best?"
Kit Woolsey feels that "Four spades says I have a huge hand. Possibly partner intended three spades as natural, in which case four spades might be as good a contract as anything." And perhaps rightfully so,
Alan Sontag makes the bid, almost expecting partner to pass, and provides a memory: "The last time I encountered a similar auction was in the early 1970's. My partner, John Solodar, meant his cue-bid as natural, and I raised to four, which was our best contract."
4 ♣ 60 BWP 10% BWS 26% IAC 1 solver
YleeXotee initially chose 4
"because whenever I don't take a 4m, I get punished by MSC. The problem with this bid is I would play it as forcing but others might not."
JCreech thinks "This should still be forcing after my jump shift and that I have gone past 3 NT. But there is still the question of partner's cue-bid; is it asking for a stop, indictive of a trap pass, or showing support for my second suit? Thinking about 4
and 6
as alternatives." Also confused by partner's 3
,
Sami Kehela writes: "Is three spades a control-bid in support of a minor or would North fair play there? If the later, then he would need to play skillfully."
Will Beall is more certain: "Partner must have a fit for one minor or the other, and that should be enough for slam. I want to leave North room to bid four hearts, in case we belong in seven."
4 ♥ 90 BWP 23% BWS 15% IAC No solvers
Although no IAC solvers made this choice, 4
was the co-plurality choice for the Panel.
Eric Rodwell wants to "Show the pattern. I would have opened two clubs. Four spades might be passed (though I doubt it)." Similarly,
Danny Kleinman calls it "A picture bid, painting 0=3=5=5.
John Carruthers points out that "The ace of hearts with North will produce a play for seven clubs, if he bids anything else, I'll bid five spades, completing the picture of my hand."
Adam Grossack thinks: "Partner's most-likely hand is a big club fit with no wastage in spades; probably, we belong in five clubs, but I might as well pattern out in case North has other ideas."
3 NT 100 BWP 23% BWS 16 IAC 1 solver
Stunningly, though only a co-plurality choice, the top score was for 3 NT and Todd was nowhere to be found. These Panelists felt that the cue-bid was showing a spade stopper.
Barry Bragin, for example, said "Seems to be a poster child for Hamman's Law. I hope partern has the heart queen or a minor suit jack to go along with his spade stopper. If not, we might be overboard."
Carl Hudecek: "If partner has a spade stop, three notrump should be okay - and it sounds as if he does. Slam seems to require some specific cards from North."
KenBerg "I have said I have a big hand with the minors, and now I am saying that I have a heart stopper. If we belong in 6m pard can say so."
Jeff Rubens says "I don't know how to interpret three spades, so my objective is to minimize the chance of disaster opposite the most-likely hand-types that partner might think suitable for that bid."
Problem B 3 NT (Peuco, VeeRee, CCR3, Hoki, BluBayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, Masse24)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 7 5 4 2
♥ K 10
♦ K Q J 10 6 5 ♣ 7
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 2
♥ Double 3
♥ ?
What call do you make?
This time you have 9 HCPs, four lousy cards in a suit that partner should have most times for his double, a great six-bagger in a secondary suit, and Kx in the opponent's suit. You definitely have choices available, from showing your stopper to bidding one of the suits that partner has ostensibly shown.
3 NT 100 BWP 37% BWS 16% IAC 80%
Although the Panel made this selection the top score with a plurality, IAC chimed in with a very strong majority. No surprise,
Masse24 is led the parade with "Hi, Bob!"
Larry Cohen provides the rule of thumb for apply the Law: "Hamman told me that if you have the king of the opponent's suit, and three notrump so much as enters your mind, then bid it. Perverted as it is, it entered my mind."
John Carruthers says "I cannot bring myself to bid four spades or five diamonds ... Any game contract could suffer from a paucity of aces, but there should be a play for three notrump as long as partner holds the ace of diamonds. Will anyone double and use the F-word?"
Sami Kehela echos more succinctly "My kingdom for the ace of diamonds."
BluBayou figures it is "down one when pard has 3 aces + nothing instantly useable. Will think about doing better in spades later this month." But
Hoki "I'll take down one since there's no guarantee that 4♠ or 5♦ will make either."
Bart Bramley thinks it "Will make opposite enough aces. Might not make any game opposite too few aces. Four spades or five diamonds would require a specific parlay."
Phillip Alder sums it up well: "Worth the gamble at matchpoints."
Double 70 BWP 13% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Some of the Panel doubled, yet no one from IAC decided to double. I prefer to believe that none of IAC went this direction to avoid wrong-siding the contract than a pied-piperesque blind-following of Todd to 3 NT. What reason do the Panel provide?
Steve Gardner: "Catering to a few of partner's possible hand-types. I will pass three spades or happily pass three notrump. Should North bid four clubs, it will be time to bail our in four diamonds."
Eric Kokish: "In order to get my red suit into the mix. I'm willing to risk that the key to this deal is playing in four spades from my side."
Zia: "Maybe a shirking-responsibility call. Wrongsiding spades, I admit, but can you give me a better idea?"
Ron Gerard: "Three notrump here would be too much of a good thiing. How would it work out opposite: ♠ KQJx
♥ x
♦ Axxx ♣ Axxx? I will bid four diamonds after four clubs by North, following my general rule about how to hand four-card discrepancies and giving partner an out if one is needed."
3 ♠ 80 BwP 20% BWS 24% IAC 1 solver
Or we can avoid wrongsiding the spades, by bidding them directly.
Robert Wolff thinks: "Best of a bad lot. Three notrump will likely depend on who has the diamond ace, four spades will be over dependent on partner's havind a decent spade holding. Reaching four spades from the right side is a major consideration."
Chip Martel: "Rightsides spades while allowing for five diamonds or three notrump."
Kit Woolsey says it is "Not worth risking three notrump, as partner might not have the ace of diamonds, and if he does spades might paly better. If four spades can be made, probably partner will bid it."
Adam Grossack is "Afraid of going minus in three notrump and wrongsiding spades by doubling." Though he "Probably would act differently at imps." While
KenBerg seems less certain: "I dunno, it seems reasonable."
4 ♠ 60 BWP 7% BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
But is 3
an underbid?
JCreech, for example thinks: "Partner almost certainly has four spades for the double, though I am sorely tempted by Hamman. For 3NT, I will need the
A, and something good in both black suits, for 5
, I will need something good in the spade suit and one or both round aces (
&
), but for 4
, I may just need good spades. ... this is my Ken/Jock, "I stand alone" moment. Despite all of the Hammanesque cries from the IAC solvers, I think 4
requires less from partner to make than the alternatives." Similarly,
Will Beall says "Three notrump relies on finding partner with the diamond ace (or a second heart stopper). Double and four hearts wrongside spades." And
Barry Bragin feels "If I must guess, I want to be rewarded with right. If a greedy East doubles, I will retreat to five diamonds."
4 ♦ 60 BWP 7% BWS 17% IAC No solvers
And finally, the moderator asks "Has bidding our long suit become unfashionable?" Not to
Jeff Rubens who says "Not clear that finding a four-four spade fit will be advantageous." While
Carl Hudecek is both planning the defense and how he will compete: "I'm bidding a suit I want led agains a heart contract. If the opponents bid four hearts, I will bid four spades."
Problem C 3 (None)
Matchpoints North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 10 4
♥ J 10 6 5 2
♦ Q ♣ Q J 5 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♦ Pass
1
♥ Pass 3 ♣ Pass
?
What call do you make?
Although you hold a hand completely devoid of aces and kings, partner has just jump-shifted into your second-longest suit with your best high-card combination. Do you emphasize your stoppers either bidding or trying to steer the contract into NT, or do you raise partner's suit, bypassing Hamman and his law?
3 ♦ 100 BWP 23% BWS 1% IAC No solvers
In one of his prophetic moments,
BluBayou wrote "look out!: the false preference to 3 diamonds will prolly get the 100!"
JCreech responded "that this is something I could see the Panel going for, but I would not allow myself to go that direction because when facing an actual partner, I could not make such a false preference. I remember, from many years ago, I had a fine partner reverse into a short suit just to show strength. He happened to hit my six-bagger that I did not have the strength to show on my first bid. Whereupon, I lept to game in that second suit as a fast arrival, and he tried to recover from our miscommunication. In this false preference, I would fear the miscommunication of an undiscussed sequence and choose a different path."
Chip Martel says "I hate a bid like this, but it seems the only sensible way to keep both four hearts and three notrump in the picture. Six clubs is a long way off when I have no aces or kings."
Kit Woolsey has similar thoughts, but caveats with a tenuous assumption: This waiting bid is necessary to reach hearts or notrump. Partner will know it might be a false preference, so if I need to bid five clubs later, he will understand that I have something like this." Kit plays with more talented partners than I do typically, so his expectations of understanding are more likely to be realized than mine would be. Nonetheless,
Steve Gardner feels that "It is imperative that we give partner a chance to continue clarifying the nature of the jump-shift. we may belong in clubs, diamonds, hearts or notrump."
3 NT 80 BWP 27% BWS 51% IAC 40%
Despite my being the only one to name names, Hamman's Law was the plurality choice, but for some reason, not exactly clarified by the moderator, did not get the top score.
Adam Grossack says "No need to distort the description with a false preference. I have spades stopped and not a great hand." Though Hoki "could easily live with Jock's false preference of 3♦."
Larry Cohen points to "Lots of soft notrumpy junk."
BluBayou felt there were many options: "3H 3NT and raise clubs all come to mind" As did
Masse24: "Hearts are too poor to rebid. I could see lots of other bids, including 3
, 4
, and 5
. But this is Matchpoints, so hopefully we can bring home 9 before they cash 5 quick major suit tricks."
Danny Kleinman used the hand to refine his own law: "Matchpoints doth make Notrump Hogs of us all. While I'm amending 'Laws,' perhaps I should amend one of my own. Change 'The Rule of the Three Queens' (strain to bid notrump when you have that holding) to 'The Rule of the Five Quacks.'" Jeff Rubens thinks there is "Too much hand and fit to wind up in five clubs, even though three notrump may fail." While
Billy Eisenberg may be voicing the unspoken premise behind the law: "When in doubt, three notrump looks promising."
3 ♠ 40 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 12% IAC 40%
The IAC made 3
its co-plurality choice (along with 3 NT), but only
Phillip Alder made the bid from among the Panel: "I'm tempted to pass (and maybe miss game), to gamble on three notrump (and fail when anther game makes), and to raise clubs (but partner might have 1=3=6=3).
YleeXotee is "showing my spade stops, but not wanting to take 3nt from the strong hand. I don't think having Qxx its going to matter whether the lead in NT goes up to me, or through me. if p doesn't have half a stop we are in trouble either way." Similarly,
JCreech "Marking time and showing my stop. If one stop isn't enough, partner will know and we will end up in either hearts or clubs."
3 ♥ 50 BWP 10% BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Another alternative to keep the auction alive below 3 NT is rebidding the heart suit. While I don't mind rebidding a five-bagger, I generally like to have a more robust suit than J10xxx. The IAC seems to agree with me, since none chose the bid, but there were Panelists that did.
Ron Gerard argued that "Neither three diamonds nor three spades would help us land in four hearts opposite: ♠ Jx
♥ KQ
♦ AKxxx ♣ AKxx."
Carl Hudecek says "Opposite 1=2=5=5 with honor-low in hearts, we should play well with hearts as trumps. I'm not taking a chance on three notrump and a spade lead."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn are not worried about missing 3 NT: "Still room to reach three notrump."
4 ♣ 90 BWP 23% BWS 23% IAC 1 solver
The simplest action you could take is to look at four clubs in your hand and show a clear preference for one of partner's suits by raising.
Zia says "I try not to mastermind on some auctions (okay, only a few), but the minors are really strong."
KenBerg "I guess pard might next bid 4H and I guess I would pass that. I suppose I can maybe make 3NT if partner has the stiff Jack of spades but I'm going with 4C."
Bruce Rogoff asks "What can I bid that will instill my confidence in partner's next call? Not three hearts on this suit, possibly being raised on a doubleton honor. Three diamonds would be ridiculous on this shape. I'll feel uneasy if North bid three notrump over three spades - we could miss an excellent club slam, despite the soft stuff in the majors. After four clubs, I can feel comfortable playing in four hearts if partner bids it."
This concludes the first part. I will return with the other two parts as time allows. Until then, please enter the August challenge.
