2022 September MSC

[jcreech]

Todd,

I did give some thought to both pass and 1 .  The key elements to me are the opponents are red, it is a jump overcall, and partner is a passed hand.  So I doubt the opponents are crazy; to jump overcall red in fourth seat could be on anything short of thinking they have game opposite a passed hand, and while I am likely to hold a decent hand, it doesn't have to be as good as it is.  So I think partner's double is takeout/cooperative.  With hearts, partner could have easily raised directly.    With the opponents already missing the ace, I don't think partner has a stack over the preemptor.  That leaves a decent hand with the minors (e.g., xxx xx Axxx AQxx, xxx x AQxx Axxxx, or some similar variation). 

In other words, I think 3 will go down 1 or 2 tricks, and there will be a decent play for game; whether to pass and take the near-sure plus, or to go for the game is the no guts, no glory moment.  I chose to steer clear of converting the double because too much of my strength is bound in a known suit - I think the spade bidder is prepared with no more than two losers in the suit, I also think the suit is breaking badly, which leads me away from 4 . 

That leaves 3NT on a single stop, and no opportunity to duck even once; no thank you Mr. Hamman. 

And a choice of two minor suit games.  Of these, I think it more likely that partner has either 4-4 or 4-5, and less likely to hold 5-3.  Given that belief, I chose to bid my four-card clubs than my three-card diamonds so at worst I expect a 4-4 fit, and at best a 5-4 fit.

Did I miss anything Todd?

[Masse24]

Similar to my thinking, Jim. Though not identical.

If we pass 3 I think it's probably down two. We would need to somehow find one more to be profitable. But there is no way to know if another is available, so -500 is likely the extent of the hand on defense.

The problem with 4 is, the only way it makes is if partner has two hearts. But I worry that the only way to play 4 is to bid it now. As you clearly point out, not correct. Jack suggests that bidding 4 now (wouldn't it be nice if partner then bid 4 showing two hearts?) is forcing. Is it? If it were, that would be the easy call. But I don't think that it is. This is the only way we can play in 4 , to risk a pass and allow partner to bid it.

It is quite possible the panel has been staying up late watching old Road Runner episodes and they have fully embraced the Coyote Rule. If so, then 4 is clear.

[jcreech]

This hand has substantial similarity with last month's Problem B, where 4 got the 100 and 5 lagged with 70.

As Jeff Rubens wrote:  "Another system problem is that the panel is in considerable disagreement over whether four clubs is forcing. ... You can't have it every wich way.  If four clubs is forcing, then five clubs is a picture bid, showing (a) limited values and (b) especially strong clubs.  If the South hand doesn't match (b), it is irrelevant whether it matches (a)."

However, the BWS system notes say:  "When a call could logically be interpreted as either forcing or nonforcing, and there is no explicit agreement:  In a competitive situation, treat as nonforcing."

So in last month's Problem B, it was clearly a competitive auction, North has opened and reversed, and RHO self-raised and the panel treated the simple preference to the minor at the four-level as forcing (roughly half choosing 4 , a fourth 5 , and a fourth something else).

This time, the auction is clearly competitive, the South hand has opened, the LHO has preempted and North has doubled.  The double would normally be penalty, but the vulnerability and the South hand suggest a take-out component, so is 4 forcing again?  I think we will find the panel split again, with no certainty that the panel will prefer forcing over nonforcing.  With about half of the panel being fixed, and the other half rotating in and out, there can be substantial differences from month to month, even if the problems were identical.  Regardless of your choice, do you feel lucky?

[Masse24]

SEPTEMBER Submitted Guesses:

PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds
The only other option, in my opinion, was 2 (usually showing six). This pinpoints more of my cards.

PROBLEM B: Double
Too strong for 2 , but I seriously considered putting the blinders on and bidding 2NT. Double, as always, is flexible.

PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
Which shows a limit+ raise in diamonds. Coincidentally, that's what I have.

PROBLEM D: 4 Diamonds
Showing support. Not giving up on slam.

PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
I do not think this is forcing. But it allows partner to show a doubleton heart. I hope partner is up to date on current Coyote concepts. 

PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
An overbid, but descriptive.

PROBLEM G: Pass
Extremely close between this and 1 .

PROBLEM H: Spade 4
They will be cross ruffing. This will slow them down.

[yleexotee]

PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds  - Really wanted to bid 2S, and in the real world think I would, but I can't ignore the hint.
PROBLEM B: Double - Of course, one never takes the hint on problem B of MSC and avoiding 2nt. 2c is such an underbid I can't stomach it. X and a followup bid should clarify somethings and might get something useful from partner.
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts - and taking the hint on problem C of MSC is even worse, so not 2c. but 2h =supporting with support.
PROBLEM D: Double - always take the hints from MSC, so X must equal I have stuff and can play in spades too. won't settle for less than 4S.
PROBLEM E: 5 Clubs - If I could be sure that 4c was forcing, I think I would try it. but I'm getting to game here not expecting to make anything more.3nt was considered, but its awfully thin with one spade stopper, and hearts not likely to run since they are all on my right. (pard doesn't have them nor does the 3S bidder).
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds - could be an overbid, but going with it.
PROBLEM G: 1 Spade - I decided to do what I think I would really do at the table, which is to make a bid in third seat that can be light. I see now that lots of others chose hearts, and that makes sense too. but I decided If p doesn't have 4 spades, they will be lost completely if I start with 1h since I will never be bidding 2s at some later time. meanwhile if p bids 1nt, I am going to take another bid at 2h and suffer the consequences non-vulnerable. I doubt if we are winning this contract, and I want to get in the way with a low 1s preemptive bid. 
PROBLEM H: Club Ace - hate doubleton leads, but this is a good spot for one. But Ace and setting up some more clubs for them to have to ruff seems right to me.

[kenberg]

SOLUTIONS FOR:
Ken Berg
 
PROBLEM A: 2 Spades
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: Double
PROBLEM G: 1 Spade
PROBLEM H: Spade 4

[ccr3]

Your Solutions for the September 2022 Contest   
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: 2 Hearts
PROBLEM D: Double
PROBLEM E: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM F: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM G: 1 Heart
PROBLEM H: Club Ace

[blubayou]

in problem E  we have this opening bid with extras.: A, AKQ10x, xxx, KJxx   It goes  1H, (3S), double (pass).  Quite a few of us wished, hoped, or insisted that  "4C" will be forcing.  I gotta ask what we get to bid  if our opener was lacking one of the major aces  or even the heart  marriage !?!   
   Obviously  -- a non-forcing  4C  / no second choice at all.   In support,  there is a quotable fragment from none other than the Coyotee above on this page:  "If I could be sure that 4c was forcing, I think I would try it. but I'm getting to game here.."   A little lukewarm,  but coming from Joe,  it nets about 6 on the Richter scale.

SOLVER: Jock McQuade 3 Bag End  Hobbiton OR 97030   U.S.A.
Your Solutions for the September 2022 Contest -------------------
PROBLEM A: 3 Diamonds
PROBLEM B: 2 Clubs
PROBLEM C: Double
PROBLEM D: 5 Spades
PROBLEM E: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM F: 2 Notrump
PROBLEM G: Pass
PROBLEM H: Club Ace   
    ghost votes:   A: 2                        E:  5    (should be on my "a" list")
                      B: pass!!                   F:  2NT
                      C: double                  G:  4    (michaels)
                      D: 5   (same)          H:  J

[Masse24]

I still have time to change my mind, right? 

[jcreech]

Yes for IAC, but no for BW, our calculations of whether you make the honor roll will be based on your IAC submission

[jcreech]

September Results

It was very tight at the top of the IAC MCS solvers!  JCreech led the way with 700, Masse24 was close behind with 690, and CCR3, Peuco and WackoJack all tied for third with 680. 

All five made the Bridge World MSC honor roll. Well done all!  (BTW - VeredK and BabsG were within 20 pts of making the honor roll this month - so with a bit more luck/skill IAC would have had 7 on the honor roll.

NAME	BW-SCORE	RANK	MPs
JCreech	700	1	30
Masse24	690	2	25
Peuco	680	3	20
WackoJack	680	3	20
CCR3	680	3	20
Also participating this month were:  BabsG, BluBayou, KenBerg, VeredK, YleeXotee. Congratulations to all!

[Masse24]

PROBLEM E: IMPs
Both Vulnerable
You, South, hold:

A AKQT5 973 KJ82

SOUTH	WEST	NORTH	EAST
---	---	Pass	Pass
1	3	Dbl	Pass

?

What call do you make?
The Majority choice of the panel was 4 .
Wow! I'm honestly shocked at this. Partner can have, at best, two hearts. I tried to picture this before pulling the trigger but could not wrap my head around why this was best. I look forward to reading the panel's opinions. 

[jcreech]

Todd,

I agree that the discussion should be interesting on Problem E.  Most times, if I have not chosen the top score, I can at least say that I considered it before discarding it for whatever my choice had been, and if not, I can usually say that this was a choice that I wished I had thought of at the time.

Not so this time!  This time I might wish that 4 was forcing so partner could show belated doubleton heart support, but I never dreamed of bidding 4 on my own.  Nearly everything on my mind was bidding clubs - 4 if forcing, 5 otherwise.  I also had the 3NT, wish and a prayer, sitting in my back pocket.  The only other bid I contemplated was 4 , but I feared the bid to be too dangerous; that partner would make a rebid that would force us too high.

Nonetheless, about half of the Panel chose the bid; there must be something I don't see in 4 , even knowing that was the road the experts took on the hand.

[blubayou]

a rousing AMEN,  Jim!   and Todd.
....but no:  the expert panel has lost its "collective"(hive)  mind  absolutely.. And their comments in support of their 4 hearts will be wishy-washy and unconvincing (10 bonus monster-points if this is the truth?)

[jcreech]

September MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem A  3   (Peuco, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, WackoJack, YleeXotee, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♠       Pass       2 ♣       Pass
 ?*         
*BWS: 3 ♦ = splinter

What call do you make?

You have two decisions on this hand.  The first is strain.  You have AKQ-sixth of spades, a suit you have bid, and could bid again, and you have Q10-fourth in a suit that partner has shown putting the partnership into a game-forcing auction.  Raising clubs is a partnership action, informing your partner of a known fit; raising spades is a tactical action, trying to get the partnership into a game that requires fewer tricks. 

Once you have decided which strain you want to emphasize, then you have to how you want to describe your holding.  For example, if you want to emphasize the spades, you are limited to rebidding the suit; otherwise, you are making bids in support of clubs or introducing a new suit.  So 2 and 3 both tend to show a sixth spade, but what is the difference.  Since you are in a game-forcing auction, you should not be afraid of simply rebidding the spades, which means that 3 should carry a specific message.  For most partnerships, the jump sets spades as the trump suit, so while the suit is headed by the AKQ, you have to decide whether the suit is good enough to insist on it as the trump suit.

On the other hand, if you choose clubs, you do have additional options.  You can just raise to show support, or jump raise to show some nature of extras (though the jump raise takes you past 3 NT), but then you also have the hint, that 3 is a splinter in support of clubs, and by extension, you may have 4 available as a void splinter.

4 ♦   60   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 11%   Bridge World Solvers (BWS) 6%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) No solvers
I am begining the discussion with 4 because, without discussion and without reading the system notes, I would guess that bid showed a void splinter.  Although this thinking dovetailed with the comments written by  Colker, Jacobs, Lawrence and Zia (according to the moderator) it is WRONG!  Danny Kleiman points out that "In Bridge World Standard, a bid one-level above a splinter is an exclusion key-card ask.  That'll do nicely.  I dare partner to mess up this time."

3 ♦   100   BWP 68%   BWS 57%  IAC 90%
In the IAC, when there is a hint, there are always some that refer to that hint.  No difference this time.  WackoJack says he is "Going with BWS hint"  YleeXotee expresses reluctance:  "Really wanted to bid 2S, and in the real world think I would, but I can't ignore the hint."  Panelist Phillip Alder was a bit more subtle: "You successfully led the witness."  Everyone else focused on reasons for the splinter or reasons why something else might not be better.  JCreech writes "Fit with fit.  No other bid guarantees the fourth club."  Robert Wolff thinks it is "Most important to show support and shortness.  What else is even nearly as important?"  Carl Hudecek:  "Rebidding spades can wait.  If need be, I will later assume that partner has at least a low doubleton in spades.  For now, I will set clubs as our suit, making it easier to find out about the ace and king of clubs."  Masse24 asks "What else? Suit quality not good enough for 3S. And although 2S does not promise six, over 2C it usually does show six. Not bidding spades now may miss our possible 6-2 fit or identify it too high. ... The only other option, in my opinion, was 2 (usually showing six). This pinpoints more of my cards."  Similarly, Michael Becker says it is "Only a notch higher than three clubs and identifies nine of my cards."

2 ♠   70   BWP 11%   BWS 17%  IAC 10%
Some rebid their spades.  Chris Wilenken views the bid as "Probably the beginning of a long campaign.  If there is a slam, it may be necessary to play in spades to protect the heart king."  While Jeff Rubens sees "Too many features to use up space without giving a good description, and any other choice will make it impossible (or virtually impossible) to show or to suggest this strong a spade suit."

3 ♣   70   BWP 11%   BWS 14%  IAC No solvers
Others directly raise the clubs.  John Stewart says "I don't care for splinters with voids.  Happy that it is imps."  David Berkowitz, is more concerned about retaining room to explore: "Do not want to crowd the auction with three diamonds; just want to see what partner has in mind.  A three-heart bid by North will be appreciated, and I do not see the auction getting away from us.  Nice that two clubs actually shows clubs (horrors)."  What I don't understand about choosing 3 is that it only loses one step of auction space while only shows a fit, compared to 3 which shows the fit, shows the shortness, and implies at least mild slam interest.




Problem B  2 (VeredK, JCreech, BabsG, WackoJack, BluBayou, CCR3, Peuco, KenBerg)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K 7 2   ♥ —   ♦ A 8 5 2   ♣ A Q J 9 7

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♠        Pass     Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: 2 NT = 18-19 HCP

What call do you make?

When you look at the auction, this problem looks like an ordinary balancing seat decision, but when you look at the hand, the complexion changes considerably.  To start with, where are the hearts?  Opener could be looking at a Problem G-like hand, and to prevent the spades from being lost, opened that suit, and the opponents have a partscore or sacrifice in hearts.  Next you have to decide how you want to characterize the hand.  The hint provides one option; you have the right HCPs, and if you look at the suits you actually hold, it is a balanced hand, but then you might find yourself transferred into your void and passed.  Similarly, double risks partner going crazy bidding hearts, while an overcall is a clear underbid, and a cue-bid sends the wrong message about what suits you hold.
 
Pass   50   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
There is no certainty with this hand; you cannot be certain of the strain, the level, and with the exception of NT, you must begin your exploration at the two level.  That increases the prospects that the right action may be to pass.  Jeff Rubens argues that it is "Very likely there is some high-scoring contract that we can make.  How we might reach it, except with a luck guess, is another matter."  Only a few BW solvers agreed, and so the assigned score was pretty dismal.

2 NT   60   BWP 14%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
Again, there is a hint.  This time the hint is right on the values (18-19 HCPs) and the stopper in spades, but completely wrong the shape; a void is the antithesis of a balanced hand, but sometimes you have to choose which is the lesser lie or the more important truth.  Jeff Meckstroth says "Not double void of hearts.  This is the only practical way to show strength."  Philippe Cronier agrees:  "Double seems unrealistic when void in hearts.  The hand is too strong for two clubs.  You will not tell me off because I'm not strictly balanced."  Carl Hudecek thinks it is "Less dangerous than double.  Maybe we can stagger into a minor-suit game."  Phillip Alder:  "You led the witness again.  If partner insists on hearts, I will personally wish I had passed out one spade or reopened with two clubs.  I will keep my fingers crossed."  All I know is that if I were to choose 2 NT, partner will transfer into hearts

Double   60   BWP 14%   BWS 32%  IAC 20%
Double is also misshapen, due to the lack of hearts, but at least you can follow up with clubs to show extra strength.  Though with my luck, partner will be jumping in hearts to make my guess of pass or pull even harder.  Zia calls it "A sick choice for a sick hnd.  Don't punish me partner!  Which is worse: doubling with a void in the other major or biddng notrump with that void?"  Michael Lawrence says "I can't find a different call.  If partner bids two hearts, a serious worry, I will continue with three clubs."  George Jacobs:  "What an argument I had with myself over this one, at one point ridiculing the double, but everything else has warts also.  Over two hearts, I can try three clubs; then, over three hearts, three notrump.  Pass would be losing bridge, two notrump losinger, and three clubs wouldn't tell the full story.  Double and run seems better.  I predict that the double will take some heavy flak."

2 ♣   100   BWP 64%   BWS 39%  IAC 80%
And then there is the simple overcall in clubs; it does not show stength in the balancing seat, but it does not promise any hearts like double and 2 NT do.  BluBayou can "... see only EXREME embarrassment coming from making an apocalyptically wrong guess among  PASS, DOUBLE and 2 Clubs.   This and a few more quiz questions are probably the reason none of us have been able to whip any early guesses!"  John Stewart argues that "I might be alone here, but I won't double with a heart void, and I can't defend against one spade (although that could easily be right).  The best chance for a big score is if partner fits clubs, in which case I might hear from him.  Maybe someone other than partner will bid hearts and I can catch up."  JCreech: "The hint is right on points and spade stopper, but completely wrong on shape.  I fear partner trying to insist on hearts, so I will underbid the hand but show my good suit.  Maybe I will get another chance to show another part of my hand."  Chris Willenken thinks "Double and notrump are out with heart void. If this passes out, partner probably has six hearts, and we may easily be high enough."  Masse24: "Too strong for 2 , but I seriously considered putting the blinders on and bidding 2NT. Double, as always, is flexible.... On reflection, double seems best. Although the HCP is right for 2NT, the void screams 'No!' KnR is 22.65. Thankfully, they do not ask 'what is my next bid?'"  Pepsi feels the hand to be "Pretty heavy, but there is not much of an alternative - only two notrumpm but the void is too big a flaw."   YleeXotee finds himself dealing with bile on this hand: "Of course, one never takes the hint on problem B of MSC and avoiding 2nt. 2c is such an underbid I can't stomach it. X and a followup bid should clarify somethings and might get something useful from partner."  Janice Seamon Molson says "Hate it, but there are few choices.  I hope that the bidding will not die."  To which WackoJack feels that "Someone will bid 2 "  The potential is wide open according to Michael Becker:  "The beginning of a great auction or the end of a bad one."






Problem C  2 (BabsG, WackoJack, YleeXotee, CCR3, Peuco, VeredK, Masse24, JCreech)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A J 7   ♥ 9   ♦ 10 8 5 4   ♣ A 8 7 5 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♦        1 ♥
   ?*         
*BWS: 2 ♣ forcing to two diamonds

What call do you make?

This time you have tweener values, a potentially uncertain fit, and options on how the values can be expressed.  You have 9 HCPs, a four-card fit with partner's opening suit (which often shows at least four, but there is the possiblity that partner is 4-4 in the majors), and a singleton heart, which could be good if partner does have a real diamond suit.  So is this hand worth an upgrade or not?  Then there is the hint factor; the description is incomplete because 2 is both natural and forces to the two of the opener's suit.
 
2 ♣   50   BWP 7%   BWS 36%  IAC 10%
Let's start with the hint.  Michael Lawrence points out "I can follow with three diamonds, nonforcing."  This bid is also the choice of the moderator, Eric Kokish:  "Should opener rebid two diamonds, responder may pass.  With plenty of bidding room, raising two diamonds to three is not forcing, though the formal system is limited to what it says in the footnote.  Things gets cloudy when opener rebids two notrump, which is nonforcing, or bids a black suit (which means different things to different partnerships) or when the bad guys compete further.  It is the delayed diamond bids that occupy center stage on Problem C."

2 ♥   100   BWP 46%   BWS 32%  IAC 80%
JCreech "Two bullets, four diamonds, 9 HCPs and a stiff heart, this feels like a good diamond raise, so I will spurn the hint and make a nebulous cue-bid."  So goes a plurality of the Panel and a majority of IAC.  Kit Woolsey calls the bid "The right evaluation.  If partner bids two notrump, I'll retreat to three diamonds."  Masse24: "Which shows a limit+ raise in diamonds. Coincidentally, that's what I have."  Many on the Panel take on an almost smug view of the bid.  Janice Seamon Molson:  "If if walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."  David Berkowitz:  "I have support, I have a good hand.  I have a call to show that."  Zia:  "Dare I suggest unanimous?  Not with this group, but it should be getting there."  Leading to YleeXotee who thinks "... taking the hint on problem C of MSC is even worse, so not 2c. but 2h =supporting with support."  While WackoJack expresses a mild concern:  "support with support.  OK I take the risk that partner has a min opener with 4432 distribution."

2 ♦   80   BWP 25%   BWS 12%  IAC No solvers
Nonetheless, I can (barely) understand those not quite willing to reevaluate their holding with only 10xxx in partner's suit which some small percentage of the time could be only three.  I think the chances of three go down considerably when the opponents overcall in a major, but it does not go away.  Danny Kleinman talks of "Limiting the hand first.  I'd like to have a fifth diamond or a higher honor, but partner won't be disappointed by my nice dummy.  I may be able to bid the skinny five-card club suit later."  Pepsi differentiates his valuation by scoring:  "At imps, I would bid two hearts; at matchpoints, I prefer an early underbid to an overbid.  I'm pretty sure I will be able to show extras later."  Philippe Cronier:  "East-West will likely give me a second chance; I will double to show max support and some defensive assets.  I don't want to double now, because I'm not a very big fan of playing in a four-three fit at the three-level (two spades, I will reach anyway).

Double   60   BWP 21%   BWS 17%  IAC 10%
Speaking of the negative double, BluBayou "On the third hand, it has been a LONG time since I made pard declarer in a 3-3 spade fit at the one-level via a neg double!  There is a growing tribe of players that abandon the neg-double of 1 as showing a spade suit, and they would love this hand. ... I am loving the neg-X  even though it does show a spade suit as of 2022"  Joey Silver acknowledges that he "... might be lying about my spade length, but the hand has no clear direction.  I intend to bid three diamonds over two spades but will raise three spades to four."  Carl Hudecek feels the shape makes up for the missing spade:  "Two aces, a four-card fit, and a stiff in the opponent's suit make up for a missing spade deuce."  Robert Wolff makes a strategic resorting of his hand:  "Close enough to what we have, especially after moving the club three in with the spades."  Nonetheless, Chris Willenken concludes:  "Spades will play well in a four-three fit, and this avoids deciding how many diamonds to bid until I learn more.  This is a standout at matchpoints, looking for plus 130 opposite a minimum opening.  I may end up making a penalty double of three hearts."




This concludes the first segment of the September problems.  More will come as time permits, but until then, Jock is looking for company on the October guesses; you should certainly consider testing your bidding acumen, and join in the fun!