2022 August MSC

[Masse24]

It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem. 
On the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100.
The rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.

Yep! Another example of what we have seen over and over.

Since:
any scored the same as any other,
any scored the same as any other,
any scored the same as any other, and
any scored the same as any other . . .
one would think the "most votes" by suit would score highest.

I think Rubens is the director this month. My guess is he chose a club. 

[kenberg]

It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem. 

♠ K Q J 10   ♥ K Q J   ♦ 10 9 8 7   ♣ 10 9

The 100 went to 10/9 of , with a combined 7 votes.

The single top vote getter was the K also with 7 votes and a score of 30 (the Q/J had no votes and also got the same score).

The 10/9/8/7 of got a combined 9 votes with a score of 80

And the K/Q/J/10 had a combined 6 votes with a score of 90 (the Q/10 had no votes).

On the basis of single-card voting, the K the 10 and K should have gotten the 100, while on the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100.  However, neither criterion fit the top two scores.the rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.

edited because I accidently looked at the solver % and made it a Panel vote - oops

My choice of the spade K went something like this:
Possible opposing hands:

S: Axxxx
H: x
D: Kxx
C: AQxx

S: xx
H: Axxx
D: AQJxx
C: KJ

In notrup there are 1+1+5+4=11 tricks so 7D makes with two ruffs on the board. On a D lead it goes:Win on the board, H to A, ruff, C to hand ruff,C to hand, draw trump, back to board with the S, cash the C AQ throwing spade and H from hand. However, an opening S lead fouls up the"back to the board with the S" part of this.

I started with the idea that if one D ruff suffices for the contract we cannot prevent that from happening. So assume two ruffs are needed. That requires transportation and the S lead seemed best to disrupt it. I woke up sometime during my Thursday night sleep thinking "Hey, a club lead should be better" but went back to sleep. I had some other hands where the spade K was right as well, where I assumed declarer would take one D ruff and then run a spade-heart squeeze.

As you can see from my previous comment I was tempted to think that this was overthinking and just lead a trump but after wavering I led the spade K.

Added note: That's a [pretty convenient club J that I gave to declarer but the guy did bid 7D. He did not do it on the basis of a lot of high cards in the majors. The club KJ would make the grand a lot more tempting than Kx.

[jcreech]

Ken, I can see your construction justifying the K, I can construct justifications for a trump lead, but I struggle with finding a construction for the club lead.  Yet the director (presumably Rubens) found the lead compelling enough to grant the top score. 

I guess we are in the wait and see mode.  I am certain that at least one Panelist will provide a construction that will justify the lead, if not, some of us will mutter and curse the director's scoring decision.

[kenberg]

Basically I think the reason for the club lead is this:
Again we give up on preventing one heart ruff, we try to prevent two ruffs, and we attack the transportation. Obviously overtaking the diamond J is out as a way back to hand and he needs to ruff with the small Ds, so he needs to get back to his hand with something other than trump. Assume again that declarer's clubs are KJ. On a club lead he wins in hand, cashes the heart A, ruffs a heart, cashes the D K, comes to hand with the club K, ruffs another heart, and then? No way off the board. He probably hopes for three clubs on his left and tries to ruff back to hand. Nope. More after my coffee. 

OK, I am back. One thing I hope they address: How likely is it that declarer has only two hearts? Dummy has one, I have three. Of course the remaining seven hearts could be 5-2 but my guess is that declarer has three. Or four. I suppose I could do the math but I am not going to. I just think declarer is likely to have three and so he wants to ruff twice if he can. Another thing to consider is that declarer will not be playing this double dummy, at least not if I hold my cards right. That means that if he is holding five diamonds and has transportation issues, he might well think that his best bet is to assume diamonds are 3-2 and decide that he can ruff twice in the dummy and then lead the diamond K and overtake to cash his AQJ.

At any rate, leading a club at T1 gives him something to think about. He will probably figure that the T is likely to be a short suit lead, as it is. If he has to ruff twice in dummy, he needs to get back to his hand after each of those ruffs. A club lead makes that tough unless he has a stiff spade. Of course he might. If he is 1=4=5=3 and his clubs are KJx it can go like this: Win the club lead in hand, heart A, ruff a heart,  club back to hand, ruff a heart, diamond K, spade A, ruff a spade, draw trump, small club to board, toss least hear on the good club. I do think this line requires a declarer, if he has three clubs, to have both the K and the J.  On a spade lead I think he survives with just Kxx in clubs. That is, with x / Axx / AQJxx / Kxx I think he makes on a spade lead, goes down non a club lead. I am not certain of that, but I think so. Maybe I think more later, maybe I check with Gib. Or I just wait for my Bridge World to arrive.

[Masse24]

Regarding Problem E, I recall a similar hand from four years ago. The auction, however, differed.

In Aug 2022 we held: --  AK98543  KQT96  2
with the auction: (2 ) - ?

In Aug 2018 we held: --  KQJ9865  KQT94  6
with a slightly different auction: (1 ) - P - (2 ) - ?

Before doing research in 2018 (Ken's, not my own), I had thought Leaping Mike to be in play. It wasn't. In that auction, a three-level cuebid is the two-suited bid. Though this month's problem is a different scenario, with an opening hand on our left and a simple raise on our right, the hand similarity screamed "same action." So I did.

In 2018, 4 was the overwhelming winner as it was again this month.

Though much of the original posts have been lost, some remain. A snippet of our exchange from 2018 is below.

Looking at PROBLEM A only:

Ken's thinking . . .

PROBLEM A: 3 Spades
This shows and a minor in BWS. I assume 3NT by partner asks for the minor.
If partner bids 3NT I bid 4 . I think he will then have a pretty clear picture of my hand.
If partner bids 4 , as he well might do if he holds 5=1=1=6 shape, I am still bidding 4 but I will not be so happy about it.

and Joe's . . .

A: I should have looked at the system notes, but again I'm trying to answer as I would behave on the table. I find this gives me more insight into my assumptions about bidding or principles that might govern my decisions (which I don't always recognize explicitly until I do these kinds of exercises).  Anyway, I also had a thought about leaping micheals but thought it shouldn't apply here (Although we all know that 2s is often bid on air, just like a preempt). I went with 3s as most obviously showing hearts, and an unknown minor which I will likely bid next no matter what p says.

was similar to my initial thinking. However, employing a two-suited bid somewhat implies equal (or at least similar) length. 

My first guess (though my third choice) was to use a two-suited Leaping Michaels. But per Ken's post about BWS above--it ain't part of the system! I had to look it up (probably a good idea for a bidding quiz reliant on a specific system). I had thought it might be part of BWS. It's Larry Cohen who espouses (or mentions) it. He states, "Note: Even rarer (but popular among many expert pairs) is to use Roman Jump Overcalls [using this interchangeably with Leaping Michaels] after the opponents Bid and Raise a Major.  For example, (1 ) Pass (2 )  4 = 5-5 or better in diamonds and hearts.  In that case, 3 would ask for a stopper for 3NT.  As usual, this is dangerous stuff unless thoroughly discussed and remembered. Without discussion, the jump overcall would just be preemptive and natural."

I still think I prefer Cohen's method better, but it's good to know "our system" for the purposes of these quizzes!

I may as well quote BWS while I'm at it: "When the opponents raise a one-bid to two, there are no special system agreements other than those listed here:
(a) a cue-bid shows majors over a minor, unbid major plus unspecified minor over a major;
(b) a jump-overcall is preemptive or sacrifice-suggestive."

If I could be certain that 3NT by partner "asks for the minor," as Ken suggests, a 3 call (intending a 4 followup) would have more appeal. But I have serious doubts that 3NT will be available. I think it quite likely that the level of bidding will reach 4 before we can blink. If that happens, the opportunity to show the suit disparity will have been lost. By bidding the suit first, then introducing the suit (most likely at a very high level) the "primary suit" with secondary will have been communicated.

Another possibility that occurs to me is to take Fido for a walk by slipping in a quiet 3 . But this will probably not win any MSC poll points!

I think for now I stick with my initial 4 , holding the suit back until I need it.

A fun problem!

[blubayou]

The corollary  to using  leaping michaels  is that the simple 3-level cue is a stopper-ask.   If some geniuses had not decided that that is such a valuable idea,  Leaping michaels would probably never have been invented/come along.

[jcreech]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem A  4   (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 2   ♥ 4 3 2   ♦ K Q 10   ♣ 6 5 4 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠        Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♦       Pass
  2 ♠        Pass      3 ♦       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Partner has opened a major, and then bid and rebid his minor; it sounds like he has a 5=5, perhaps with a bit extra in HCPs.  Your values are concentrated in partner's suits, with only a doubleton ace in the major, and three honors in the minor.

4 ♦   90   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 26%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 41%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 38%
Do you go low, thinking the limit for the partnership may only be 10 tricks, but risking the Coyote's rule to find game or possibly more?  Moreover, is 4 forcing or not?  Even the Panel was less than certain.  As the moderator, Jeff Rubens, writes:  "The diamond bidders did not agree on whether four diamonds would be forcing.  Bridge World Standard (BWS) cold not reasonably cover every bid late in an auction, so it must rely of general principles to handle leftover possibilities.  Unfortunately, the BWS voters were unable to resolve that issue and selected 'treat as forcing or noforcing by which seems more sensible to the observer' for undefined noncompetitive situations."  Will Beall thinks it "Must be forcing.  I want to show diamond support without foreclosing four spades.  I have great admiration for a four-heart Bluhmer, but will partner field it?"  WackoJack is in sync:  "What could partner have in the light of our double fit and the opponents remaining silent: I bid 4♦ as a natural force and leave it to partner to choose between 4♠ and 5♦.  The trouble is that I there are few hands where 5♦ is better than 4♠.  One such could be ♠ Jxxxx, ♥ AK; ♦AJ98x ♣x where 2 losing ♠s can be ruffed in dummy and the 5th spade established to make 5♦."  DickHy seems less certain: "Presumably 3 shows 55 in  , so we're heading for a diamond contract.  5 is too weak for this hand -- all my HCP are glistening with gold and I am max for the 1N response, so a stronger response looks better."  The most aggressive view was taken by David Berkowitz:  "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since:  ♠ Kxxxxx   ♥ -   ♦ AJxxx   ♣ AK is a playable grand slam.  I must make a slam-positive bed.  In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal.  If I thought otherwise, I would bid five diamonds."  I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite.  Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.  Kit Woolsey believes "This gives partner a chance to bid four spades if he ahs a good suit.  Otherwise, he will pass or bid five diamonds, as he sees fit."  Billy Eisenberg says "This is easy, but the next round will be bery awkward."

5 ♦   90   BWP 15%   BWS 17%  IAC 31%
If you fear that 4 is not forcing, do you bid game in the minor to show a maximum for your previous bidding, and a clear preference for the minor?  As the moderator points out, "The meaning of four diamonds affect the meaning of five diamond.  If four diamonds is nonforcing, five diamonds is a selection of contract; if four diamonds is forcing, five diamonds is a picture bid."  BluBayou is in the nonforcing camp: "the single raise to  4 Diamonds is gaining some charm  to me.  I DO NOT BUY THAT FOUR DIAMONDS IS FORCING,  but you guys are making me think the panel is against me   4D  lets us segue to 4 spades, which MIGHT gain 2 imps, or, seldom, 11 of 'em.  But the fun comes when  partner bids 4 HEARTS  and we bid 4 spades--leading to six diamonds.   I am sticking to my plan-A  '5!D'  but  appreciating the beauty of staying at the 4-level for now...sigh."  Fleisher and Friesner "... wish we could offer a choice of games but can't think of a way.  Five clubs might be a Bluhmer, but it is not clear that this is our agreement."    Robert Wolff admits the bid "Could be a weakness sequence, but probably should not be used as such, since partner, even with five low spades, should understand the probability of a misunderstanding.  Therefore, I need to holler to partner that I have these types of values, especially since all other bids (even a jump in an unbid suit) could create a disaster."  Bart Bramley thinks "Four diamonds ought to be forcing, so five sends a strong message about trumps.  With six-five, partner might be able to bid slam."

4 ♠   100   BWP 30%   BWS 29%  IAC 31%
Do you try showing a preference for the major, hoping for the perfect storm - not enough for slam, but a combined holding in spades to bring home the game (one level lower), knowing full well that partner will take you for something like: ♠ xxx   ♥ Qx   ♦ KQx   ♣ xxxxx, with a play for game and probably not much more?  JCreech found "The ten-trick game is what finally tipped the decision.  I'm not sure that we don't have three losers, but I have no delusion that I am showing Ax in spades with terrific diamonds.  I still only promise two spades and less than 10 HCPs; I just think that 4 is better place to play than 5 or 3 NT.  There is reasonable play opposite ♠ KQxxx   ♥ xx   ♦Axxxx   ♣ x, and that is still short of what I expect from partner given his bidding."  Joey Silver says "With every high card working, I expect the 9 HCP superfit to compensate for the dearth of spades."  Kamil and Sherman noted that in their reconstruction of the North hand:  "Most North hands that will produce five diamonds will also make four spades."  Hoki  is "offering game in our 5-2 fit in the hope that pard's extra points include a more robust suit than K-x-x-x-x."  Though the moderator points out "... that should North hold weak spades (unlikely but possible), he can retreat to five diamonds."  Jill Meyers writes:  "If I could make some kind of general force, merely saying that I love my hand, I would do that.  But without advance agreement, it is best to bid four spades, hoping that partner will figure out what I have."  Which Masse24 thinks: "Surely this must show Ax in spades and excellent diamonds." 

Or do you take a stab at possibly something more?  As a rule, the solvers did not, but nearly a third of the Panel did.  What did they see in the hand?

4 ♥   70   BWP 9%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Oren Kreigel sees a Bluhmer:  "My first opportunity to use a Bluhmer, and there are two to choose from.  Four hearts keeps four spades in the picture facing, e.g.:  ♠ KQJ10x   ♥ x   ♦ AJxxx   ♣ KQ where partner will know to offer four spades."  John Swanson thinks the bid is more general:  "Partner might be confused for a moment but will quickly realize this is a choice of both strain and level."

5 ♣   70   BWP 1 Panelist   0%  BWS IAC No solvers
This is the other Bluhmer choice that Oren mentioned.  Zia stands alone making this bid:  "Sounds like a huge diamond raise.  I would bid four hearts if Bluhmers were systemic - that might let us out in four spades.  However, clubs is the suit where partner will not be worried about a control.  As five diamonds is unlikely to be in danger, and: ♠ KQxxx   ♥ AK   ♦ AJxxx   ♣ x produces six, all I need is partner to know what I intend." 

4 NT   70   BWP 9%   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
Surely there will be concensus among the 4 NTers.  Ralph Katz is clear in his thoughts:  "Cannot be Blackwood; it's a very good five-diamond bid."  While Cal Hudecek is clearly of a different opinion:  "How about this!  A responder who mumbled minimally twice is now using a key-card-ask.  Partner may be shapely but not overly strong (is this a mixed team game?):  ♠ KQJ10x   ♥ x   ♦ AJxxxx   ♣ x is a minimum HCP hand that is cold for game.  Add a side ace, and slam is cold.  I expect to be a majority of one."   How are the mere mortals supposed to fair then?

4 ♣   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Another Panelist willing to stand alone is Eric Kokish who says "The ideal bid would be four hearts, but it's just barely possible for South to be 2=1=4=6.  If I were sure that we could make five diamonds but not four spades, I would bid four notrump, but here the idea is to keep both suits in the picture while forcing to game.  As four clubs can't be natural or a splinter, it's the best we can do to show this huge hand."



 



Problem B  4   (WackoJack, YleeXotee, Masse24)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K Q 6 2   ♥ 10 4   ♦ 9 5   ♣ Q 6 5 4

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

What call do you make?

A competitive auction with RHO bidding and rebidding diamonds, you showing your nice spade suit, but partner shows the other two suits, first by opening clubs, then by reversing into hearts.  There are questions about both strain and level that need to be explored, but with RHO rebidding diamonds at the three-level, the room to explore is disappearing fast.  Do you support clubs directly now, and if so, is 4 forcing or not, because that can affect the interpretation of 5 ?  Are you wanting to encourage thoughts of slam, or do you have concerns about whether the partnership can even make game?  And are there thoughts of trying to steer the partnership into the lower-trick, higher-scoring games, such as NT or spades?

Double   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 28%  IAC 1 solver
When the problem includes a hint, it is often worthwhile to at least consider the action.  Clearly, the action sucked in the BW solvers, as the cooperative-takeout double became their second choice, and was joined by Panelist Jill Meyers.  She thinks "A great hand.  The best way to communicate this is to double and then bid five clubs (or four clubs, if partner bids three spades or three notrump)."  However, the moderator was "... a bit mystified.  I don't see what a double might accomplish ..."  I agree with the moderator; is the double trying to encourage a penalty pass, based on misfitting hands, solicit a reluctant spade response, or clarify elements in opener's hand, such as a diamond stopper or the relative lengths in the round suits?  You have the club fit, so you really do not want to risk having the double left in at too low of a level.

3 ♠   40   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 14%  IAC 23%
If you are trying to play in spades or NT, there is a more straight-forward approach, and nearly a fourth of the IAC solvers selected that route.  As Carl Hudecek put it "If I can't rebid an ace-king-queen-fifth suit, we are playing the wrong system."  Hoki, in apparent agreement made a classic understatement: "the suit could be worse."  JCreech, though, is trying to find a legitimate make-time bid:  "I wish I could bid a stopper asking 3 , but RHO beat me to it.  Without a stop myself, I cannot bid 3 NT, but I do have two bids before I get that high.  Hearts are out with only doubleton support, but 3 might be the impetus for partner to show a stop.  I really hate lead problems - oops, too soon for that phrase.  Well, vul at imps, I really need to try to get to game, and I am not yet convinced that 5 is our spot."  Meanwhile, I may have led others down a primrose lane - DickHy  "on second thought, Jim's idea is much better: my spades are pretty spanking, so 3 "

4 ♦   50   BWP 13%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
If 3 is an underbid, I think that 4 is an overbid.  It suggests a big fit with one of partner's suits, which is true, but it also is suggestive of a diamond control, since it drives the contract past 3 NT without clarifying which suit provides the fit.  Eric Kokish's rationale is that "A double would not hint at a club fit of this quality, and I want to force to game while keeping clubs and spades alive.  This seems less complicated than the red-herring double."  A reluctant Ralph Katz argues that "Partner can have as little as:  ♠ xx   ♥ AKxx   ♦ x   ♣ AKJxxx.  The South is too strong for a jump to five clubs.  I do not like four diamonds, but it is the only bid to get partner involved."  It certainly would force partner to contribute to the auction again, but I fear that that it takes too much room away from finding the correct contract.  However, Billy Eisenberg may be right, that it is the level not the strain that is at issue: "Not perfect, but slam is too likely to give up."

Now we are to the debate of whether 4 is forcing or not.  The distinction is important, in part, because it also helps to define what the 5 bid means as well.  If 4 is forcing, then 5 can become a picture bid.

4 ♣   100   BWP 52%   BWS 41%  IAC 23%
About half of the Panel chose to bid 4 , as did a plurality of the BW solvers, and about a fourth of the IAC solvers.  Will Beall thinks "If four clubs is forcing, it's clearly best, since it keeps the ball rolling and shows the nice support without bypassing spades."  Ira Chorush says "I have no idea is this is forcing; I can only hope so.  If partner can muster a diamond control-bid, we will reach slam.  If partner passes, I will apologize."  John Hurd argues "I'm not going to be seduced by the footnote into risking minus 670.  Four clubs is forcing; partner reversed and I raised him to the four-level."  Others are ready to trade in their partners if they pass.  For example, Kamil and Sherman says "If partner thinks this nonforcing, we're headed to the partnership desk.  We will move on to at least a small slam if partner shows a diamond control."  While David Berkowitz's decision is more conditional: "Slam-positive hand, but I need to hear four diamonds from partner.  If we play in four of a minor two deals in a row, I am heading for the partnership desk."  Masse24 insists it is "Forcing. Partner can continue to describe."  While WackoJack debated between 4 and double, concluding:  "I reckon the tell bid is better.  4♣ a natural game force with possible slam interest."  Zia agrees "I'm sure this is forcing.  The hand is too strong for five clubs."  Robert Wolff asks "What else?  Five clubs would rule out a possible four-spade preference, which could be a superior game contract.  Perhaps partner will hold:  ♠ xx   ♥ AKxx   ♦ x   ♣ AKJxxx or two low diamonds and a singleton spade."  While Danny Kleinman says "I'd bid four clubs without the queen of spades, but it can't hurt to have just a little in reerve; if partner tries for slam, I'll cooperate."  Phillip Alder, though, says it simply: "Tell partner about our fit.  How wrong can that be?"

5 ♣   70   BWP 26%   BWS 13%  IAC 46%
About a quarter of the Panel along with nearly half of the IAC solvers, because they did not want to see the hand played below game.  Oren Kriegel makes the bid despite an analysis that concludes that "There are three strikes against five clubs:  (1)I am not sure whether this is a picture bid, as four clubs might be nonforcing.  (2) Perhaps the hand is a touch heavy, but the spade queen will probably be wasted much of the time.  (Picture North with 2=4=1=6 and the rounded-suit ace-kings.)  (3) There is probably a more scientific way to bid this hand.  However, I am a football fan, and I am banking on a fourth-down conversion.  I fear that the auction will become murky if I do not make a clear statement about strain now."  Bart Bramley writes "Similar to Problem A, but it is unclear that four clubs would be forcing.  Jumping still emphasizes trumps.  Failure to bid four diamonds should deny control there."  BluBayou "4-5 in his suits with  AK, AK  can claim,  and picking daisies won't make SLAM easier to bid than this picture-bid would. ... Is partner allowed to stretch to reverse when I have made a free bid,  and expect me to pull in a notch. I say YES, though it hast cost me two nice placings in msc recently.   Sticking to my guns,  I consider jump-raising his clubs is enough -- no need to make one of their ridiculous cuebids instead."

The first two problems are different, but they share certain themes - a high-level decision, and the uncertainty of whether a four-level raise is forcing.


This ends part 1.  The second part will be out as quickly as I have time.  Until then, please consider the September problems, and any thoughts that can accompany your selections are greatly appreciated; as for expressing your thoughts, you may write on as many or few problems as you like.  All are welcome.

[Masse24]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem A  4   (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 2   ♥ 4 3 2   ♦ K Q 10   ♣ 6 5 4 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠        Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♦       Pass
  2 ♠        Pass      3 ♦       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

David Berkowitz:  "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since:  ♠ Kxxxxx   ♥ -   ♦ AJxxx   ♣ AK is a playable grand slam.  I must make a slam-positive bed.  In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal. If I though otherwise, I would bid five diamonds." 

I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite.  Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.

Jim, my impression has been exactly the opposite simply because it makes no sense to me. Why treat it (the invite) like a hot potato?
Partner 1: "I have invitational values, partner. What are your thoughts on our chances in game?"
Partner 2: "I'm not really sure, partner. Exactly how invitational were you?"

As long as you are on the same page as your partner, it likely matters not. But with no discussion, the "not two invites" method would be what I assume partner plays. It just feels like the second invite is splitting a hair that has already been split.

This is probably one of those meta-agreements that deserves further investigation into what is standard and what is best.

Anyone else wish to chime in?

[jcreech]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, Director


Problem C  3   (VeeRee, DickHy, CCR3, BabsG, BluBayou, JCreech, WackoJack, Hoki)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 8 3   ♥ A K Q   ♦ 6   ♣ A Q 7 6 5 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣      2 ♠      Double      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Another competitive auction with the opponents trying to eat up the bidding space.  This time you have opened, and partner has made a negative double that has you bidding on the three level.  No one said these problems would be easy.

3 ♣   100   BWP 48%   BWS 44%  IAC 73%
On the other hand, nearly three out of four IAC solvers went with the choice that a plurality of the BW Panel and solvers also chose.  But the choice wasn't necessarily easy.  Just listen to BluBayou:  "This sucks,  but I am underbidding by the value of my  heart king, say.  to hell with hearts as a trump suit, or fish for 3NT or whatever else."  JCreech says "It feels like a slight underbid, but the benefit is that I haven't gone past 3 NT yet.  If my hearts and spades were reversed, it would be easy to bid NT; if it were ♠ 6   ♥ 10 8 3  ♦ A K Q  ♣ A Q 7 6 5 2, it would easy to go with the Moysian heart fit.  But I don't have those options."  Will Beall agrees, "Pusillanimous, but we will go plus.  Three hearts woulde be exciting but could lead to a silly contract.  Playing matchpoints suggests protecting the plus."  WackoJack sees room for the caution: "Partner has made a take out double without the top 3 ♥ honours and East has not raised ♠s.  So partner could at worst have something like ♠ Kxx ♥ Jxxx, ♦KQxx, ♣xx.  I will be cautious here and just show my suit is ♣s."  John Swanson is tempted elsewhere: "A heart bid, either at the three-level or the four-level, might well be worth a shot at imps; but here, with the emphasis on plus scores, I'll settle for an underbid."  As is DickHy:  "3 is tempting, but while these three top cards might look like a 4c support, I have to ruff diamonds with them.  3 would ask for spade stop, but I think we'd benefit from some space in approaching a putative 3N contract.  This choice shows my hand quite well too."  Nonetheless, many agree with Hoki: "I can't say any of the alternatives hold any appeal."  After all, as Eric Kokish says, it is "Not a sin to have a maximum.  The heart bidders and cue-bidders have visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.  If North bids again, we can bid hearts forever."

4 ♥   80   BWP 26%   BWS 4%  IAC 1 solver
The heart game was enticing for a quarter of the Panel.  Kamil and Sherman believes that "Partner may have five hearts, and the defense will often go wrong anyway by assuming declarer has four.  It could easily be the right time for a Moysian fit.  A good partner will hold:  ♠ xxx   ♥ J109x  ♦ AQx  ♣ Kxx or a similar hand."  Whereas Bart Bramley wants to "Go for the gusto.  Should be able to shut out West if he leads high spades and dummy has two or fewer.  Reverse Moysian will usually play well."  And Joey Silver feels "The hand does not fit in any category:  three clubs would be too little, four clubs would misdescribe suit quality and overall shape.  So, at matchpoints, I might as well take a shot at what is most likely to be our most-profitable contract."  Personally, I don't like bidding games at matchpoints on the wish and a prayer of partner holding five hearts.  It is more likely that we are facing a Moysian 4=3 fit.  The only good thing about the Moysian is that the opponents will probably start spades, so they will not be forcing you to ruff with a top honor immediately, but it is hard to imagine that the defense will not turn to diamonds in short order; it may be very difficult to avoid losing control of the trump suit.  There are hands that are well-suited for playing in a 4=3, but this is not one of them.

3 ♠   70   BWP 9%   BWS 21%  IAC 1 solver
A number of the BW solvers were tempted to seek out the notrump game by bidding a stopper-seeking cue-bid.  Fleisher and Friesner "Don't see an alternative; this is pretty descriptive."  Masse24 sees "Values for game. Can show three good hearts later if partner cannot bid 3NT."  While Zia says "I think this will be popular, and passing would be rich even for a cannibal who is just off a diet."  Zia might be right about passing, but he was not right about the bid's popularity.



Problem D  2   (VeredK, Hoki)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

This time, we are looking at a reopening decision.  The first question is do we or don't we?  While the second question only comes up if we do, and that is how do we reopen? 

Pass   60   BWP 17%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
The response to the first question is largely, we should reopen.  Almost no solvers passed, but some of the Panelists did.  Oren Kriegel opined "Nothing else appeals.  The spade and diamond holdings are worrisome.  The opponents might belong in diamonds Partner might bury me in that suit if I double, e.g.: (two spades) - three diamonds, or put down a dummy with wasted values."  Ira Chorush is "Hoisting the yellow flag again, lest partner hold:  ♠ Q10xx   ♥ Qxx   ♦ xxx   ♣ xxx, and this be our least minus.  If the minors were reversed, I would be willing to rebid diamonds, because there would be no easy entry to the other minor for the opponents."  The moderator, Jeff Rubens, says "I like the pass.  Plus 100 might be enough for a good score.  Minus 80 might be okay if East-West can make three diamonds, which further action by South would allow them to reach .."

Double   90   BWP 22%   BWS 32%  IAC 36%
Of the five choices selected by the Panelists, the moderator felt that double was "The one that seems on the shakiest ground ..."  The advantage of double is that it is flexible; the problem with double is that partner may bid diamonds, your singleton.  John Hurd sees the risk:  "One-time partner?  I hope not to hear three diamonds; over two diamonds, I will bid two hearts and hope that no one doubles.  Two hearts directly would show more shape.  Maybe partner will bid one notrump or pass."  Similarly, JCreech  "I am not so wildly distributional that I must bid my hearts, and I do have defense if partner has a trap pass.  My fear is partner will bid diamonds, and I won't know whether to pass or bid my hearts.  At least if I pass, I can contribute an honor."  David Berkowitz is prepared for his worst-case scenario:  "Commit to play three clubs white.  Never had much luck selling out on the one-level."  Zia:  "Maybe North can bid one notrump(rather than the two diamonds that I will overrule).  And maybe LHO overcalled on a four-card suit."  WackoJack is also hopeful: "If partner has 4 hearts then must have fewer than 7 points.  2♣ is too wimpish so I double.  This could hit the jackpot if partner has 4 decent spades."  BluBayou  "I reopen overcalls passed around to me with a non-jump suit bid ONLY with minimal shapely hands, so  "2    is OUT, and  2   is "in".  But I am making the grossly unprepared double now , on D-Day, the 6th of June."

2 ♥   90   BWP 22%   BWS 31% IAC 64%
The bid is right on shape, and close to right on HCPs (if you give full value to the stiff Q); this was also the favorite action for the IAC solvers.  So for Fleisher and Friesner it "Seems totally normal.  Double with a singleton diamond is not for us."  Bart Bramley considers it a "Small overbid to improve strain selection.  Besides, no other call is especially attractive."  Robert Wolff: "A slight overbid, but still worth a try."  Masse24:  "Yes, partner theoretically denied four hearts, but this gets our shape and values off our chest."  I like Phillip Alder's attitude: "In for a dollar, in for a doughnut.  I will apologize if pass proves to have been the winner."  But it seems a little dangerous to hang too close to DickHy:  " Partner may well have spades, and possibly a stop but with a hand too weak to respond 1N -- say KTxx in spades and out.  He may be nursing four clubs with that too, or possibly four hearts.  Oh, I remember now why I was so poor at this quiz: it doesn't take long for unbridled optimism to burst out.  Still, ya can't deny ya true nature.  If partner doesn't have four cards in one of my suits, he can have great fun with 2N --- rather more fun than I would have in a Moysian 2 ."

2 ♣   100   BWP 30%   BWS 30%  IAC 18%
The plurality choice for the Panel was 2 , but not by much.  If 2 was an overbid, then 2 is an underbid, but there is no good middle ground.  The choices are between risking a route you would rather avoid (double followed by diamonds), stepping on the gas followed by tapping the brakes (2 ), or stepping on the brakes, followed by making encouraging noises (2 ) if partner gets aggressive.  Sami Kehela has a simplistic viewpoint:  "Looks like a rebiddable suit."  Will Beall says "I liked this hand when I picked it up, but the bloom is departing the rose.  Partner has a weak hand or fewer than four hearts.  The spade holding is the pits.  Game seem far off, so protect the plus at matchpoints."  Kamil and Sherman feel they "Must keep the auction open.  Anything else would be too far off the mark."  While Hoki asks "am I really supposed to double or, even worse, pass?"  Jill Meyers says "I want to compete, but the hand is not strong enough to bid two hearts.  I would love to have a sixth club (and I should), but they don't always deal you a perfect hand."  Danny Kleinman:  "I was prepared to reverse if partner responded one spade, but I'm not prepared to bid two hearts when partner said he didn't want to respond one heart.  Two clubs promises extras and will suffice."  Joey Silver probably expresses the best reason to bid:  "I choose two clubs, because I have trouble with the word pass."

1 NT   60   BWP 9%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
Perhaps Kit Woolsey should have used Joey's last few words.  Instead, he describes the meaning of his bid extremely well, then concludes with something from the theater of the absurd:  "This shows a balanced hand, a spade stopper, and more strength than a 15-17 HCP one-notrump opener.  Exactly what I have."  Where does the hand depart from the expectations, let me count the ways.  Nonetheless, if partner will pass the 1 NT, the contract could well be best.  Go figure.



 

Problem E  4   (JCreech, Peuco, Hoki, Masse24)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ —   ♥ A K 9 8 5 4 3   ♦ K Q 10 9 6   ♣ 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       2 ♠
   ?*
*BWS: 4 ♦ = hearts and diamonds; forcing

What call do you make?

Your RHO has preempted with a weak two in front of your red 7=5 and you are playing leaping Michaels.  So how do you approach this hand? 

The moderator points out that "The holder of a freak hand usually needs to make a general plan early on:  Will the goal during the auction be technical (describe hand to partner or induce cooperation in some other way), tactical (deceive the opponents into a losing decision), or some combination of those."

4 ♦   50   BWP 22%   BWS 57% IAC 64%
We start with the "hint," that 4 is forcing showing the red suits, which a majority of the solvers bought into.  The advantage is that you show both suits at once, so partner will be better able to judge how the hands fit and make informed decisions.  The disadvantage is that partner will not know that there is a two-card difference in lengths between the suits.  Robert Wolff thinks "If not now, when?  Of course, this is not perfect; I have an eventual slam in mind, but for now color it red."  DickHy  "Will take the hint, with 4 exclusion coming over 4 and 5 exclusion over 5 ."  Joey Silver says "In a vacuum, I would bid the seven-card heart suit, but at this vulnerability, and lacking the spade suit, I don't expect the villains to keep quiet, I might as well show partner both suits in order to help him make an intelligent decision later."  Phillip Alder: "I do not like the two-card disparity, but what else is better for the moment?"  BluBayou lays out his thoughts: "Leaping Michaels is FORCING, eh? Then Plan A  is  to do that 4   then bid 5   over whatever.  Plan B must be some form of dog-walking, starting with 3 or 4 Hearts, then a diamond rebid above game.    Plan C, (jumping to heart game and shutting up), is a non-starter for me!"  The problem I see with Jock's Plan A is the 5 bid forces a diamond decision at the six-level.  Which brings us to John Swanson who thinks that "Shouldn't the problem be my next call?"  If I were to bid 4 , that is exactly my position too!

3 ♥   60   BWP 17%   BWS 4%  IAC No solvers
Perhaps the riskiest move is to bid 3 ; you risk playing below game.  On the other hand, you potentially have more room to explore level and strain.  Kamil and Sherman think "This will leave us better placed than other calls if it's not (sadly) passed out."  Jill Meyers says "I doubt it will go all pass.  I don't like bidding four diamonds with a seven-card heart suit, and I would rather play in a seven-one heart fit than in a five-three diamond fit."  Zia feels it "Might simplify further bidding.  Or might find the wrong resting place when North has e.g.:  ♠ Qxxxx   ♥ Q   ♦ Jx   ♣ Qxxxx.  I hope someone bids.  Please."  If you had bid game, Zia, you wouldn't need to beg.

4 ♥   100   BWP 57%   BWS 29%  IAC 36%
A majority of the Panel went with 4 , expecting to get the chance to show the diamonds after the opponents bid 4 .  Carl Hudecek is "Intending to bid five diamonds over the opponents' four spades.  There is too much suit disparity for four diamonds."  Will Beall thinks "Diamonds could play better (ace-fourth of diamonds would be enough for slam), but the chance of an opponent bidding four spades is about 90 percent, so I'll be able to bid five diamonds, even over partner's double."  Masse24 argues "I would be more inclined to bid 4 with the length of my suits reversed. If the opps compete with 4 , I’ll rebid 4NT intending to correct partner’s 5 to 5 . This should show the two card disparity in suit length."  While JCreech says "I ended up spurning the hint for reasons akin to Todd's.  If the 7-5 had been reversed, I would have still taken the hint, but with a two-card difference in length favoring the major, I have to go with the major."  David Berkowitz says "The hand is not reds; it is hearts, with diamonds.  I expect more bidding and hope to get diamonds in later."  Sami Kehela feels there is "Too great a length disparity for a conventional four diamonds.  Fifty years ago, I could have bid three spades."  Oren Kriegel points out that "It is tempting to do more, but I doubt that sequences flowing from four diamonds will be effective."  And Hoki, simple soul that he is, is clear about his reason:  "isn't that what I want to play?"


This concludes Part 2.  I shall return once the third part is ready; hopefully, not too long from now.  Until then, please enjoy, allow thoughts to be provoked, and then also consider next month's problems and participate.

[jcreech]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Jeff Rubens, Director


Problem F  Double  (Hoki)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      2 ♥      Double     4 ♥
   ?         
What call do you make?

You hold a strong NT in fourth seat, when everyone in front of you has something to say.  LHO bids a weak two, partner doubles, and RHO raises to the heart game.  At equal vulnerability, it sounds like there are a few extra HCPs running about here, but if you trust partner, you should be close to having a slam to bid. What are your options?

4 ♠   50   BWP 9%   BWS 21%  IAC 36%
The simplest approach would be to give up on slam, assuming that you have two losers (either in hearts, or a heart and something else).  Solvers seemed to gravitate to this choice somewhat; IAC made it the co-plurality selection, while about one-fifth of the BW solvers went with the bid.  Robert Wolff seems to shrug, saying "What is a fellow to do, except pick out a hand that is a huge underbid but possibly the limit of what can be made?"  WackoJack explains that "Partner could have min:  ♠Axxx; ♥ Qx; ♦ Jxxx; ♣Axx where we would want to be in 4♠ or ♠Axxx, ♥ Ax, ♦Jxxx, ♣AKx where we would want to be in 6♠.  Cautious 4♠."  While Carl Hudecek thinks "I may be giving up plus 800, but I know the opponents are not beating me in four spades.  Give East a side singleton and East-West will probably win six hearts and two ruffs in four hearts doubled."

Double   100   BWP 35%   BWS 26%  IAC 1 solver
To me, if you are going to give up on slam, the best call to make is the double.  The only IAC solver to make this call was Hoki who regarded it as "responsive, but if I'm told that is penalty (horrors) I'd have to put my thinking cap on."  For most players, doubles stop being responsive before the four-level, though BWS 2017 seems less conclusive.  Picking up on that, BluBayou (choosing a different call) says  "Never fear, Hoki!  If your Yank partner thinks  you are out for blood doubling 4 hearts...Then BLOOD  you will collect!  They win only 6 trump tricks or even only five..thats  800-1100  beating all slam-avoiders of whom  your pair apparently is:)  And ifhe runs from your double,  then  your diamond or spade slam should be on ice!"  A plurality of the Panel doubles, but their expectation is for it to be considered penalty-oriented.  Ralph Katz:  "With three spades and two-plus hearts, I expect partner to pass the double and collect a big number.  If partner pulls to a minor, I will bid a slam (via five notrump over five clubs, six diamonds over five diamonds).  If he bids four spades, I will raise to five."  Oren Kriegel thinks "If partner has a doubleton heart, he will almost surely pass, which will be a great outcome on average.  If he has a singleton, I expect him to remove the double some of the time, after which we will be on our way to slam.  We might survive a pass with a singleton heart - it is not hard to imagine holding he opponents to just seven trump tricks."  Fleisher and Friesner are realistic: "Might miss some slams, but the alternative might be driving to a poor or hopeless slam."  John Swanson points out that "Unless partner is short in hearts, the opponents are really flying high.  On that assumption, I am willing to reach the five-level making a spade slam-try."  John Hurd thinks "Plus 500 seems like a decent shot and in matchpoints, many overbid as East with four hearts and a weak hand.  If partner musters up a bid, I will bid more."  While David Berkowitz asks "Have you seen what people are bidding on these days?  I cannot underwrite a slam, and my hope is that partner can take this out."

4 NT   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Forcing partner to bid, Zia's plan is "Then five diamonds, hoping that partner will expect a good hand with spades and diamonds, I can't say this is a good bid, but the fact that I didn't bid only four spades clarifies the strength.  Double might work well, unless partner has, say: ♠ Axx   ♥ Ax   ♦ Jxxx   ♣ AKxx and passes, missing the goodish grand."  In this way, Zia is seeking cooperation, but I suspect his intended point will be missed by partner.

5 ♥   90   BWP 9%   BWS 9%  IAC 27%
Danny Kleinman feels certain that partner has a heart control, so like Zia, he is looking for cooperation:  "Thanks to East's conversion of North's otherwise-perhaps-4=2=3=4 double into a splinter raise of my suit, 'I'm willing to reach slam but unsure whether to play it in spades or diamonds.  I'll twist partner's arm to tell me which."  Similarly, BluBayou writes: "Sixteen Primo facing a double of a weak two...hmmm.  Play partner for AK, A in the blacks and a heart control--sure.  So cue bid 5 , correct 6   to 6   if it comes to that, and here we are in  spade or diamond slam.  Easy-peasy."  DickHy is headed down the same road, but seems a bit more uncertain: "Partner looks to have a singleton heart.  4 is far too wimpish from me and double risks sending an unclear message.  Some super-wake-up-partner bid is the ticket -- 5 ?  Probably better than 5N, cos over partner's 5 I can do something useful.  Quite what that would be eludes me just now."

5 ♠   90   BWP 30%   BWS 34%  IAC 36%
Billy Eisenberg thinks "Most experts will bid five spades."  In this set, Billy was not far wrong, many did bid 5 , but slightly more doubled.  Some recognize that the opener may have preempted with only five, that the responder may have raised to game on only three, or that partner may have doubled initially on a shapely minimum.  The moderator interprets the Panel's 5 responses as falling into two camps:  "... the group displays a serious division about what a jump to five of an unbid major in a jammed auction means.  Is is (A) a demand that partner bid six with at least second-round control of the opponents' suit or (B) a general slam-try?"  Belonging in the first group:  JCreech tries to discern the meaning of alternative slam-tries: "The auction says to me that we either have the values for slam, or very close to it.  The heart Jx says to me that even if we have the values, we may still have two losers off the top.  My concern is what message is being conveyed with the various 5-level bids; 5 NT probably should show the heart control and a choice of slams, 5 I think shows the heart control and is closer to a quantitative choice of slams, and 5 , while no longer providing a choice, is asking for a heart control to go forward."  While others focus on just the problem at hand:  Will Beall: "A heart control, a heart control, my kingdome for a heart control!"  Masse24:  "Partner not having a stiff heart is not guaranteed, so this is aggressive with a measure of safety. Is 5NT also an option?"  Ira Chorush:  "Squarely tells partner about our heart problem.  I refuse to believe that modern opponents are bound to have 10 hearts."  Joey Silver:  "With no room for science, thus limited options, I am willing to shoot out six spades should partner have a heart control."  Subscribing to the second perspective are"  Bart Bramley who view theh bid as a "Bulk slam-try.  Neither shows nor denies heart control.  Reasonable chance for partner to get it right, and the five-level will usually be safe."  And Kit Woolsey who thinks "We probably belong in spades and this looks like the value bid."

5 NT   60   BWP 9%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Those bidding 5 NT seem to presume that the opponents do have 10 hearts, though what information are they trying to solicit from partner?  The only thing that makes sense is that they are offering a choice of slams, but similar to Jock (with his bid of 5 ), the intent is to pull 6 to 6 , and give partner a two-suit choice.  Phillip Alder says "Relying on our opponents to be Lawful, but I need to start somewhere."  While Jill Meyers expresses concern: "If East has only three hearts, he or she really got me."





Problem G  Double (Peuco, VeredK, Peuco, Masse24, WackoJack, Hoki)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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


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

In sum, this problem does not have a good solution, so we are clearly on least-lie mode.  You have a stopper for NT, but with only a doubleton, you cannot duck enough to cut communications.  You have a nice Kxx in support of partner's bid suit, but partner may only have three himself.  You are 3-5 in the unbids, but the three is in the unbid major; if you double, you don't mind if partner plays in the spade Moysian, but what if partner also stretching with three spades?  Bidding diamonds is reasonable, except that you are bidding them at the three-level with only 10 HCPs.  And holding those 10 HCPs makes passing seem wimpy.  Which lie are you willing to live with?

Pass   60   BWP 9%   BWS 10%  IAC 1 solver
Personally, pass seems like a non-starter to me.  You have invitational values but a difficult hand to describe.  If the vulnerability were reversed, I would be very tempted to pass.  At unfavorable vulnerability, what reasons to the Panelists give?  Sami Kehela says "Nothing fits."  Carl Hudecek feels "Discretion is the better part of valor at imps with unfavorable vulnerability."  Oh well, this is matchpoints and all you risk is a zero.

3 ♣   70   BWP 13%   BWS 5%  IAC No solvers
Almost no one (and certainly no one from IAC) was willing to raise partner with only Kxx, but that did not stop some from the Panel from being desperate enough to do so.  John Swanson says "A negative double is out holding fewer than four spades.  I'd much rather risk short clubs in partner's hand."  Danny Kleinman, on the other hand, is hoping that "An impossible problem.  One guess seems as good as another.  Once I had a partner who urged me to play five-card minors, four-card majors, instead of the more-usual arrangements, just to discombobulate our opponents.  Where is he now that I'm finally willing to go along with him?  Sitting North I hope."

3 ♦   80   BWP 22%   BWS 27%  IAC 27%
This definitely not the safe option.  As Kamil and Sherman "Three diamonds may land us in the soup or take us to the most-likely game from the superior side.  Perhaps the diamond ten will save us."  Oren Kriegel argues that "Two notrump could be fatally antipositional.  Three diamonds should survive; as I did not preempt or double two hearts, partner should expect a five-card or a weak six-card suit.  I hope he will remove three diamonds with a singleton, even with a minimum."  John Hurd says "I'm not proud of it, but doubling and playing in a three-three spade fit doesn't seem so great either.  At least we will rightside notrump and perhaps even bid a slam intelligently."  JCreech:  "This feels like a bit of an underbid.  2 NT is a bit better on the values and shows the stop, but I worry about the source of tricks without partner providing help with the RHO's hearts. Dick is right that a third heart would make the NT bid better."  Kit Woolsey think the hand is "Playable opposite a worthless doubleton.  If partner bids, we can reach three notrump."  Bart Bramley feels that the hand is "Wrong for notrump, a club raise, or a double."

2 NT   90   BWP 26%   BWS 22%  IAC 36%
Certainly 2 NT shows the values and the stopper well, however, if you have the only stopper, you can only hold up once, and may be wrongsided.  Phillip Alder says "I hope that I will not rue the missing third heart, but nothing else gives a better descrition of the hand.  Even as a passed hand, three diamonds seems too much."  Robert Wolff: "Awkward and wrongsiding the notrump, but that is why it is a problem, and problems need to live too."  Zia ticks off the reasons to do something else:  "Wrongsiding.  Minimum.  Only two hearts.  But what else limits the hand, roughly describes its type, and lets us get out."  Ira Chorush writes:  "The impossibility of choosing between double and three clubs led me to this compromise.  If I had one more heart, two notrump would be clear.  As it is, it is the least of evils."  DickHy agrees in part, "Presumably double would show 4c spades in BWS (though not so much in modern pro bridge judging from Salso).  I'm too weak for a cue bid.   2N is ok from an invite perspective, though Axx would be better as a stop."  While Ralph Katz brings up a reason to act, but not necessarily the action he chose: "Do not like it, but passing would put too much pressure on partner to reopen."

Double   100   BWP 30%   BWS 34%  IAC 45%
As is often the situation, double is thought of as providing flexibility.  However, this time the double has a specific meaning that can have important ramifications.  As a negative double, when showing only one major, you virtually promise four in the suit; certainly the promise in the unbid major is greater than the promise of the unbid minor.  WackoJack is  "Very tempted to pass but with 10HCP I think I have to make a noise so double and hope that the 4-3 spade fit plays well. Maybe partner is sitting there with a 2♥ penalty."  Hoki:  "'negative', most flexible option surely."  Eric Kokish has a plan: "It only hurts for a moment.  I will remove two spades to two notrump and hope to ease into a minor if North has weak hearts."  While David Berkowitz has a different plan "Some good things can happen, which is more than I can say for a lot of other calls.  I am committed to passing two spades and hoping not to hear a higher spade bid."  And Joey Silver yet another plan: "With no clear direction, I double.  If partner (as expected) bids spades, I can show my limited values by returning to our three-three club fit."  Fleisher and Friesner also see the risk: "Most flexible but could lead to disaster if partner bids spades (or two spades on three), but there are no guarantees with any action."  Jill Meyers "Not perfect but the best I can do.  I don't want to bid notrump from my side, and we may not belong in notrump in any event.  I will pass two spades.  If partner bids three clubs, I'll have a lot to think about."  Masse24:  "Tough one. I'll go with double as it is most flexible."  And Will Beall wishes for a slightly different hand: "If I had ace-tripleton of hearts, I'd bid two notrump."




This ends Part 3.  There will be a Part 4 because the lead problem looks to quite extensive this time, and probably will not fit with space limitations.  I probably should invite Todd to tackle Part 4, since his position is well-known regarding lead problems.  Meanwhile, please enjoy what has been presented, and when done, move onto the September problems.  We love to see contributors, particularly when they are willing to share their thought, and I will return with Part 4 when I have time.

[jcreech]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 4)– Jeff Rubens, Director


Problem H  10/9  (None)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K Q J 10   ♥ K Q J   ♦ 10 9 8 7   ♣ 10 9

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♠        Pass      1 NT*
  Pass      2 ♣†      Pass      2 ♦*
  Pass      3 ♦†      Pass      3 ♥*
  Pass      3 NT†    Pass      4 ♣*
  Pass      4 ♦†      Pass      4 ♥*
  Pass      5 ♣†      Pass      7 ♦
  Pass      Pass      Pass
*game-forcing relay
†successively: four-plus clubs, 5=1=3=4, five 2-1-points, diamond king or the other three kings, club queen but not spade queen

What is your opening lead?

The auction shows dummy to be ♠ Axxxx   ♥ x   ♦ Kxx   ♣ AQxx, while little is know about declarer's hand.  We know dummy has two aces and one king due to our own holding that precludes the holding of three kings.  By inference, we know declarer must hold at least the K, AQ and A in order to bid the grand without asking about whether the five 2-1 points includes one or two aces.

The chances of the grand making seem quite good, so the opening lead is your only chance to have an impact.  The primary lines of thought are to either attack the ability for declarer to ruff, or to attack declarer's transportation needed for ruffing.

♦ 10/9/8/7   80   BWP 39%   BWS 65%  IAC 82%
Let's explore reducing the ability to ruff first.  The trump lead was the plurality choice of the Panel and the majority choice of the solvers, yet it received the lowest of the assigned scores.  I suppose the basis for this decision was that the Panel majority attacked declarer's transportation instead of the ability to ruff.  Robert Wolff: "Diamond nine.  "Too late at night to be smart enough to do anything but try to eliminate three or possibly two heart ruffs in dummy."  BluBayou thinks "If we don't lead a trump here, then we simply do not believe all those alerts are honest!   Case Closed."  JCreech:  "Diamond 9  I really don't think there will be a scoring difference for a diamond lead. regardless of choice.  However, the nine is a false-card that will not hurt partner and could talk declarer into taking a wrong line, so if there is a scoring difference, this may capture it."  David Berkowitz:  "Diamond nine.  I hope we change tables soon.  Declarer has the club king and a stiff spade; dummy has two aces and the king of diamonds.  East needs entries to ruff hearts; they can be in clubs, so a a club possible, but I need to stop a crossruff if declarer has two major aces, two clubs, and nine diamonds available."  WackoJack: "7   Lead trumps"  Masse24:  "Diamond 9  I can't manufacture a layout where a trump is not best. It surely looks like declarer will require a ruff or two. The 9, rather than the Ten, is very minimally sneaky on the off chance the opps are in an 8 card fit."  Joey Silver: "Diamond nine.  The villains have shown they have all suits under control, so what's the hurry?"  Phillip Alder:  "Diamond seven.  Each of my simulations left seven diamonds either laydown or with no play on any lead."  Hoki: "♦7, when leading trumps always lead your lowest, they say."  DickHy:  "Trump (9).  No idea what 2-1-points are.  East must have bid 7 with something like x Axx AQxxxx Kxx --- the club king allowing him to deduce that West holds the diamond king.  He'll be looking to ruff two hearts and possibly a club to come home.  Partner has no diamonds and at best only the club queen as a pretty card.  Leading a trump to make the ruffs complicated looks the only (and probably, fond) hope.  Which trump?  Do I really care??? Maybe the 9."  Carl Hudecek:  "Diamond ten.  False-carding to avoid tipping off a squeeze situation can come after trick one, with declarer thinking: 'He had the king-queen-jack of hearts and didn't lead one.'"  Billy Eisenberg:  "Diamond seven.  I hope declarer misguess how to get back and forth."  Eric Kokish:  "Diamond seven.  Sorry, I fell asleep reading the explanations.  I fear an impending squeeze but not enough to make a different lead."

♠ K/Q/J/10   90   BWP 26%   BWS 19%  IAC 27%
Leading a spade does attack declarer's transportation issue.  In this instance, the ability to cash four club tricks.  John Hurd:  "Spade king.  Hard to believe the contract is not cold.  I may need to take out a late entry to the clubs if they are blocked, so I will try."  Kit Woolsey: "Spade jack. ... With any other lead, declarer can ruff one heart in dummy and take seven total trump tricks, four club tricks, and two aces.  The spade lead prevents him from scoring his fourth club trick."  Jill Meyers:  "Spade king.  If declarer has six diamonds, I don't see our beating the contract.  If East has five diamonds, I want to remove an entry from dummy, which might make it hard to enjoy club tricks."  Oren Kriegel:  "Spade king.  My first thought was to lead a club ... Leading spades hoping to kill a late dummy entry, looks like a better shot ... When a club lead works, a spade often does too."

♣ 10/9   100   BWP 30%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
The theory behind leading a club is to prevent declarer from ruffing and getting back to pull the last trump.  Danny Kleinman:  "Club ten.  To cut a club link between declarer and dummy."  Fleisher and Friesner:  "Club ten.  The only layout we found where the lead matters had east with 1=5=5=2.  There may be some related deals, but a club seems right on all of them."  Bart Bramley:  "Club ten. ... Declarer chose diamonds because of the jack.  Diamond lead beats seven clubs similarly."  Though Zia finds breaking a squeeze potential more alluring:  "Club nine. ... A diamond lead might end up with East squeezing partner between hearts and clubs, when declarer can ruff two hearts.  A club lead may tempt declarer to try to ruff three hearts.  Anyway, I have only two nines and must lead one of them."

However, the analysis that seemed to convince follows.  As Jeff Rubens, the moderator put it:  "Getting it right for the right reason:"

Ira Chorush:  "Club ten.  I base my answer on these foundations:  (1) Declarer cannot have four clubs unless he has six diamonds; with five-four he would have played in clubs if he needed two ruffs.  (2) If declarer can come to 13 tricks with only one heart ruff, the contract is unbeatable.  (3) If declarer has six diamonds yet needs two heart ruffsm a spade can work against, e.g., East's:  ♠ xx   ♥ Axx   ♦ AQJxxx   ♣ KJ provided dummy doesn't have the club eight; (4) Any layout where the dummy holds a singleton heart ace and declarer needs two ruffs will be beaten by a black-suit lead yet may make against a red-suit lead.
"A club is the only lead that will defeat East's:  ♠ xx   ♥ Axx   ♦ AQJxx   ♣ KJx by denying declarer reentry to his hand after taking two heart ruffs.  I find this possibility considerably more likely to have been dealt than the one described above that is beaten by a spade lead."


And this concludes this month's summary.  I hope you found something worthwhile in the wisdom of the experts.  Once you are sated with this month, please consider participating in the September MSC contest, and in particular, please tell us why you make the selections you do. Thank you.

[Masse24]

It will be interesting to see how they justify the scoring on the lead problem. 
On the basis of the block of co-equal cards with the most votes was a diamond with 9 votes, then any diamond lead should have gotten the 100.
The rationale for the scoring is quite unclear to me.

Yep! Another example of what we have seen over and over.

Since:
any scored the same as any other,
any scored the same as any other,
any scored the same as any other, and
any scored the same as any other . . .
one would think the "most votes" by suit would score highest.

I think Rubens is the director this month. My guess is he chose a club. 

Rubens did choose the 9.

[jcreech]

August MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem A  4   (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 2   ♥ 4 3 2   ♦ K Q 10   ♣ 6 5 4 3 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠        Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♦       Pass
  2 ♠        Pass      3 ♦       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

David Berkowitz:  "I want to express interest in a potential slam without getting past four spades, but since:  ♠ Kxxxxx   ♥ -   ♦ AJxxx   ♣ AK is a playable grand slam.  I must make a slam-positive bed.  In my mind, four diamonds is forcing; we cannot both be inviting on the same deal. If I though otherwise, I would bid five diamonds." 

I hate to disagree with David, but I have long been under the impression that when one member of a partnership makes an invite, the other can counter with an alternative invite.  Now the level may preclude such cooperative sequences in this situation, but I wanted to object to a hard-and-fast rule that both parties in a partnership cannot both try to invite game.

Jim, my impression has been exactly the opposite simply because it makes no sense to me. Why treat it (the invite) like a hot potato?
Partner 1: "I have invitational values, partner. What are your thoughts on our chances in game?"
Partner 2: "I'm not really sure, partner. Exactly how invitational were you?"

As long as you are on the same page as your partner, it likely matters not. But with no discussion, the "not two invites" method would be what I assume partner plays. It just feels like the second invite is splitting a hair that has already been split.

This is probably one of those meta-agreements that deserves further investigation into what is standard and what is best.

Anyone else wish to chime in?

I'm not exactly chiming in, but the linked hand came up in the 4th quarter of the semi-final in the Spingold  https://tinyurl.com/2936chno.  Kit Woolsey made a game try in diamonds, Bart Bramley countered with a game try in hearts, and Kit signed off in 3 , presumably because he still had too many concerns about diamond losers.  The contract made three for a small gain when 4 went down at the other table.  A hand well-judged by a pair that treats the try and the counter as both being invitational.

I do not find fault with interpreting the counter bid as forcing and accepting the game try, but as Todd says, it needs to be agreed upon.  I'm not sure that Berkowitz was correct in thinking the counter would be forcing in BWS, though I am quite willing to have someone do the research.  I do think that both are invitational in standard, unless the partnership agrees differently.