2022 September MSC

[jcreech]

September MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem D  Double  (CCR3, YleeXotee, KenBerg, JCreech)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       2 ♦        2 ♠*       3 ♦
   ?†         
*BWS: forcing to three clubs
†BWS: double = cooperative takeout

What call do you make?


Problem C, in its hint, raised a partnership understanding that North uses in this problem.  A new suit was bid by North that is natural and forces the auction to be kept open through two of the opener's suit.  Although a raise of North's suit is nonforcing, the bid implies that North wants another opportunity to bid, and that has implications.  As East's bid has removed the requirement to bid from South, to bid under these circumstances should convey additional information.  What do you want to say to partner?

4 ♠   70   BWP 7%   BWS 28%  IAC 30%
All of the comments in support of jumping to 4 are the equivalents of shrugs; I want to be in game, but not certain how best to say I could be interested in more.  WackoJack, for example says, "I will give up the slam possibility and just bid 4 "  Carl Hudecek notes that "North's failure to double strongly suggests that he has fewer than four hearts.  I'll bid what we can make."  While John Stewart writes "Showing my age perhaps, but nothing else appeals."  The problem is that neither North or South have limited their hands, so for South to bid game and expect North to understand that they hold extras, means that the assumption is that North is bidding on minimum values.  With North also holding extras, which is still possible, then North has to take another move.  Is this a tenable approach?  Probably not.

5 ♠   80   BWP 18%   BWS 11%  IAC 20%
Since the message involved in bidding 4 is too  muddled, maybe 5 is a better approach?  Personally, I don't think so because North could still be a minimum and game the limit.  However, I think there is another reason; I think of 5 as inviting slam if you have control of the opponent's suit.  That is certainly one question you need answered, but I also think you need to know whether partner is min or max before thinking about making that invitation.  Although Bart Bramley is with me on what question is being asked, "Asking for the diamond control.  If partner bids six diamonds, I'll try seven clubs, which might be the only grand."  Apparently, though I am out of date.  George Jacobs points out that "In the modern era, partner could have more diamonds than I do."  Jeff Rubens writes "Perhaps an overbid (the ten of spades should be the jack, the diamonds two low), but our finesses, if any, rate to be favorable to win."  BluBayou: "Blasters just bid 5 spades NOW on problem D.  How will interposing a 'co-operative takeout double hurt?  I dunno, but somehow life finds way. so  i say it's pointless."  Joining Jock spiritually, at least, Phillip Alder cries out "The kamikaze pilot flies again!"

4 ♦   90   BWP 29%   BWS 17%  IAC 10%
So what does the cue-bid promise?  I think it shows either a very big fit, a very big hand, or both.  Whether the bid also promises a diamond control is up for debate.  For example, Robert Wolff thinks "A small distortion with no diamond control but the closest description of this hand."  While Chris Willenken says "It's probably academic whether four diamonds should guarantee a control (I'd vote no), because what can partner have for a positive move without a diamond control himself?  I plan to pass four spades."  The most basic message is expressed by Masse24: "Showing support. Not giving up on slam."  Jeff Meckstroth feels "I must tell partner that I have a strong raise.  This is the only way to show it."  Zia:  "Four diamonds shows a strong four-spade bid.  Okay, there is no diamond control, but holding ace-king, ace-king, ace, I can't see partner's moving positively without good trumps and a diamond control."  Kit Woolsey argues that the bid is a slam-try in spades.  If partner produces a Last-Train four hearts, I will drive to slam.  If partner signs off in four spades, I will make one more move."

Double   100   BWP 46%   BWS 27%  IAC 40%
The moderator, Eric Kokish, argues that a double should deny three spades.  Partner, with only five spades, will not expect three-card support and would not be wrong to pass with many 5=3=3=2 hands where North-South belong in four spades.  Double is not the fallback option when opener can't decide the best way to describe a strong spade raise."  However, a plurality of the Panel and IAC disagreed.  David Berkowitz:  "Don't want to punish partner with a five-spade bid; will try to figure out what to do next, if there is a next."  Janice Seamon Molson is "Hoping to elicit more information.  Four spades would not be enough.  A cue-bid when holding all the other controls seems senseless."  Barry Rigal is "... not committing past game, but slam-tries are in the offing."  Richard Colker describes the hand as having "Flexible three-level values; no more-descriptive natural bid available.  I'd also double if the pointed-suit lengths were reversed."  IAC solvers focused on the hint.  JCreech "I am underwhelmed by the hint, but I will take it for now.  Partner forced to 3 , and since that only included two bids, I guess with a minimum you could show a balanced min with 2NT or and unbalanced min with 3 .  But the opponents have thrown both options out the window, so now I am uncertain what my bids will mean, as well as what partner's bid meant.  I don't want to defend undoubled, but the support double I had hoped for, does not exist."  YleeXotee "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."  In the end Sami Kehela summed up my thinking:  "Double.  Not that I know what 'cooperative-takeout' means."







Problem E  4   (None)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A   ♥ A K Q 10 5   ♦ 9 7 3   ♣ K J 8 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      Pass      Pass
  1 ♥       3 ♠      Double    Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

This problem looked to be a continuation of determining how to interpret 4 of a minor versus 5 of a minor at a high level in a competitive auction.  Last month, as moderator, 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 which 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 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 expected to find the panel split again, with no certainty that the panel will prefer forcing over nonforcing.  What happened?

4 ♣   50   BWP 7%   BWS 24%  IAC 50%
Certainly the solvers thought the choice was between four and five clubs; nearly half of the Bridge World solver split their votes evenly along those lines, while IAC had a clear preference for the four-level.  WackoJack simply says "forcing," though evryone else clearly thinks otherwise.  For example, Masse24 writes "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."  Speaking for the Panelists making this choice:  Carl Hudecek says "North's initial pass cools my ardor.  Clubs should play better than notrump.  Four clubs may be the limit of what we can make."  While Joey Silver is "Tempted by three notrump, but the hand is too inflexible, and there are not enough tricks.  Five clubs will not get me to slam, while, curiously, a gentle four clubs might. ... Four clubs might leave me in a partscore, but we are playing matchpoints, and I am sure a plus will score something."

5 ♣   70   BWP 14%   BWS 25%  IAC 30%
Embracing the five-level, YleeXotee laments "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)."  JCreech: "The choices seemed to be between 3NT and 5 .  I am not embracing Hamman with a singleton ace."  While from the Panel, Danny Kleinman argues, "Yes, it's matchpoints, and this is the last chance to bid three notrump. That might be right when North has a perfect hand (e.g., ace-fourth, ace-queen-fifth in the minors), but it will often have no play."  And Mats Nilsland simplifies Joe's thoughts, "It would be nice if four clubs were forcing, but it isn't, so I take a guess."

3 NT   60   BWP 7%   1BWS 2%  IAC 20%
The clubers seemed focused on TGBH (The Great Bob Hamman) and his law; surprisingly, this was not Todd's choice and Jock was left to defend 3 NT from IAC.  BluBayou wanted to bid 4 if forcing, but took forcing/nonforcing guidance:  "A little lukewarm,  but coming from Joe,  it nets about 6 on the Richter scale. ... down 3 with 11-20 tricks cold in clubs"  Panelist Janice Seamon Molson was more explicit:  "I will steal from Bob Hamman and say that if three notrump is possible, bid it."  With a dearth of commentary, the moderator weighed in:  "The Great Bob has seen many misadventures blamed on him for that comment.  Nonetheless, I suspect he would consider three notrump as a possible bid with this complicated hand - particularly in comparison with a nonforcing four clubs."

Pass   50   BWP No Panelists   BWS 11%  IAC No solvers
Although there were no takers among the Panel or IAC, pass was given serious thought by both.  Masse24 feels "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."  While for JCreech "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)."

4 NT   80   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
An interesting approach to this problem was taken by Jeff Rubens.  He said "Five clubs rates to be a sensible contract (and maybe three notrump would be also, if I don't mind finessing the ten of hearts), but North may have, say 3=2=5=3; he can't wait for ideal distribution when holding substantial values."  But by bidding 4 NT, he also implies a fit in both minors, which may be the information North needs to make the right decision.

4 ♠   70   BWP 18%   BWS 12%  IAC No solvers
What about the cue-bid as an option?  George Jacobs thinks "With a fine hand and three places to play, why guess?  Partner was under pressure, so let him know that I am there for him with support in either minor and extra values.  I spurned four notrump to avoid either of two glaring, bad things happening; plus four spades allows partner to bid four notrump, in case I have a preference, which I do."  Barry Rigal: "I'll make a slam-try and risk the five-level.  Partner-blaming is behind Doors 2 and 3, I believe.  Question:  Is four notrump by partner now no clear direction?"  Michael Becker says "Partner knows that I may not have classic 0=5=4=4 shape, and he will strain to bid four notrump to bid five diamonds over five clubs to show uncertainty as to level.  I know that North may not have a classic negative double.  If partner has ace-queen-fifth in one minor and ace-third in the other, we will make four or five diamond, or six or seven clubs.  On a bad day, four hearts could be our limit."  Perhaps Phillip Alder describes this choice best:  "Soaring ever upward."

4 ♥   100   BWP 50%   BWS 13%  IAC No solvers
Finally, we get to the Panel's choice; fully half of the Panel picked 4 which caught the IAC completely offguard.  Masse24 said "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. ... 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."  JCreech continued with, "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."  And never to mince words, BluBayou said "the exper panel has lost its 'collective'(hive)  mind  absolutely"  So what convinced the Panel?  Kit Woolsey argues that "This suit is strong enough to play opposite a singleton.  Three notrump would be too risky."  Andrew Robson found it "Tempting to pass, which may net 800 versus a game, or 200-500 versus partscore; but with only one spade, it's a bit rich.  That heart ten has talked me into this dubious venture."  Agreeing, Bart Bramley thinks "The hearts look like six.  Clubs might be safer, but hearts pay more.  Notrump and slam are too speculative.  If partner were unpassed, I'd need to worry about a 'thrump' double - where partner with a game-force, was hoping that I could bid three notrump."  Others just point to the bid being (Billy Eisenberg) "Practical at matchpoints." (Pepsi) "What I think I can make for a good matchpoint score." or (Sami Kehela) "A study in supineness, bowing to the matchpoint diety."  Then we have Zia bringing in the experience from the money-game:  "Rubber-bridge players know about that heart ten.  The money is in the major.  No safety in cue-bidding.  We need not have a club fit, e.g.: ♠ Jxx   ♥ xx   ♦ AKJxx   ♣ Qxx."



This concludes Part two.  I'll be back with the remaining part when able.  I hope you enjoyed the write-up and found something interesting.

[blubayou]

RE: the problem C hint  (and a handful of others similarly)...I wish they would say  "not forcing beyond 2 of opener's opening suit" or something like that.   That's what these hints MEAN,  but it isn't what they SOUND LIKE   Does anyone other than me get off the target after reading one of these style of footnotes?

Now,  onto  problem D:   i read ALL the comments in support of the "whatever-it-means" double  and was really unimpressed.   Most of them are really 5 spade bidders, "out there picking daisies"   Maybe I will pull a bunch of quotes when vacation starts to support this grumble.   And while I'm at it  i really object to director Kokish statemen that a  "co-operative Takeout double" her denies three spades!!!!  Frankly, even as Sammy K voted to double,  i say "amen" to his closing words "whatever co-operative takeout means"


Finally we come to the problem for which some several people other than me should have typed something indisputable  in boldface..CAPS..OVERSIZED FONT...This rant applies only to the folks  pondering a  4C versus a 5C rebid:  IMAGINE THAT INSTEAD OF 17 POINTS SHAPED 1=5=3=4  INCLUDING  KJxx IN CLUBS,  YOU HAD ONLY 12 OR 13....  LIKE  X AKJxx, xxx,KJxx !  How would you feel  if your partner felt the Coyotee-rule were in effect,  huhh?  I say those considering  4C rebid  after  1 , (3 ), double, (pass);  ___? as "stronger than five clubs" cannot bid 4 clubs here which is  absolutely nuts. (And Coyote-Joe  agrees with this, somewhat regretfully--look it up  upthread)   I am not proud of my choice of 3NT, and like all of us, am totally stunned that half the experts  went for 4    but it is mandatory to stomp on the idea many discussed  that 4    is forward-going -- too easy frankly

[jcreech]

September MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Eric Kokish, Director

Problem F  Double  (KenBerg)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q J   ♥ K 7   ♦ K Q 7 6 4 3   ♣ 8 5 4

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

This hand essentially feels like an underbid or an overbid, and very little that feels just right.  But even when values are right, the quality of the spade holding is such that you feel that you have stretched

2 NT   70   BWP 7%   BWS 10%  IAC 10%
The bid that is closest in values is 2 NT; you have the invitational 11 HCPs, a possible source of tricks with KQ-sixth, and a well-placed stopper with the Kx behind the heart bidder.  BluBayou says it "seems a binary choice between 3D and 2NT.  3D risks getting lost in complications, while 2NT is EXACTLY right on HCP and spade tolerance."  Joey Silver thinks "Maybe not quite the value bid in shape, but certainly it is in high cards.  I am stuck, and this come closest."  Phillip Alder: "How I hope that partner has the diamond ace."  The way my luck runs, partner does have the A, singleton, or doubleton with the suit breaking 4-1 and the QJ in spades is a slow entry.

2 ♠   80   BWP 25%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
One of the underbids was the simple raise of opener's spades.  With doubleton QJ as support, I would be hesitant to bid more strongly initally; even the free simple raise promises three, but I can see the argument that QJ is better than xxx most of the time.  No solvers chose this action, so we are left to the Panel for their thoughts.  Michael Lawrence argues "No bid shows this hand.  Two spades (or a stronger raise) are closest to the truth.  Double, then three diamonds over three clubs, is possible.  With neither vulnerable, I go conservative, at 30 points a trick."  David Berkowitz "Feels about right on values, and everything else feels so wrong."  Robert Wolff says, "Not even a distortion worth mentioning."  Michael Becker want to bid more strongly:  "The hand is almost worth an opening bid with perfect honors in partner's suit and a promoted heart king.  But as it has only two 2-1-points, I am unwilling to force to game with three diamonds.  Even a stronger raise would be better than two notrump."  And Barry Rigal is a bit embarrassed: "Hide my answer!  It's only a nonvulnerable game; a different vulnerability might make this harder.  Two spades is an underbid only by the spade jack."

3 ♦   90   BWP 32%   BWS 65%  IAC 80%
The solvers generally went with the overbid; though it is an overbid primarily due to the quality of the points held (e.g., if the QJ had been Kx there would have been very few with qualms).  Jeff Meckstroth may have said it best:  "Hope we can make game.  This is the way to find the best one."  Masse24 says "An overbid, but descriptive."  JCreech: "Show my suit and values and hope partner's rebid will provide clarity."  John Stewart is "Overbidding for strain choice, as usual."  Bart Bramley thinks "Bid out when it's close.  Several ways to win.  Nothing else appeals."  YleeXotee feels it "could be an overbid, but going with it."  A couple of comments focused on the negative double as an alternative.  WackoJack "Initially choes double.  Reconsidering:  better to show with 3 rather than ask with a double."  While Richard Colker wrote "I dislike one-suited negative doubles.  If three notrump is right, partner can probe with three hearts or bid it himself; there's no need to suppress my diamonds or bid notrump.  I'll raise three spades to four or try four spades over four of a minor."  More pragmatically, Janice Seamon Molson is "Upgrading.  In the days of computer bridge, just say misclick if it turns out wrong."

Double   100   BWP 36%   BWS 18%  IAC 10%
The negative double actually ended up being the Panel's top choice.  Chris Willenken says "I can comfortably raise spades, uncomfortably raise notrump (hey, it's only 50 per trick), or convert three clubs to three diamonds.  Two notrump feels wrong.  With these red suits, it would be unlikely for our side to take exactly eight tricks in notrump.  Two spades would probably be best at matchpoints."  Billy Eisenberg feels it "Will leave me well-placed."  Pepsi thinks it "Offers the most options."  Mats Nilsland plans to "Then raise two spades to three or bid three diamonds over three clubs."  Dan Gerstman: "I hope to be able to bid a nonforcing three spades, so partner will know that I don't have three."  Philippe Cronier: "Not strong enough for three diamonds.  What would I do after opener's three hearts?"  Kit Woolsey feels "Partner's next call may be helpful.  I'll probably bid three spades next round.  Showing the diamond still doesn't look important."  Andrew Robson was highly optimistic:  "Most economical.  Spades, diamonds, perhaps even notrump are all nicely in the game I expect a big majority here."  But as a prognosticator, his answer only drew a slight plurality.







Problem G  Pass  (BluBayou, Masse24, WackoJack)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

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

For me, in the first two seats, this hand is not really a problem.  I have only the spade quick-trick, the spades are longer than the hearts, and partner still has an opportunity to open; this is a 5=6, only two cover cards away from a game, that I am willing to pass smoothly.  In third seat, however, I feel as though I have a problem.  The features of the hand have not changed, but neither partner nor RHO found the wherewithal to open.  The chance for game is pushing against the likelihood that LHO will open because my gut says we have at least a partscore at the same time I fear the hand will be passed out.

Pass   100   BWP 46%   BWS 20%  IAC 30%
A plurality of the Panel and IAC take the principled route; they pass and hope LHO will open in the fourth seat.  They don't distort their values, shape or defensive potential.  Michael Lawrence is certain "The deal won't be passed out.  My next call will imply my shape.  For instance, pass - (pass) - pass - (one club) - pass - (one diamond) - two notrump would show this kind of hand."  Jeff Rubens feels the hand "Spectacularly deficient in defense for a one-bid, and if I must guess, I'd rather do so after obtaining more information.  A passout would probably be bad for our side but that seems unlikely when I have 8 HCP and a lot of shape."  Bart Bramley will "Wait and hope to show both suits at once without overstating the defense.  Opening any number of either major would be awkward, but I might open one spade with suits reversed."  Michael Becker: "An annoying hand to open at any level.  When I hold so few HCP, the deal is unlikely to be passed out and I will have a better chance to describe the shape later.  Still, I can't remember the last time I passed six-five shape with some values."  Masse24 "Extremely close between this and 1 ."  WackoJack says "I will come in if conditions favourable"  Janice Seamon Molson has faith in the opponents:  "Like a terminator, 'I'll be back.'"  Ditto for Joey Silver: "Rather not put all my eggs in one basket with a heart bid.  No hurry with the boss suits. Ain't my faith in the opponents touching?"  George Jacobs: "If I were to open, it would be close between one and two hearts.  Maybe one spade will get a bunch of votes also, but more likely I will have an opportunity to show both black suits.  I hate to open with possibly zero defensive tricks."  Danny Kleinman: "A one-bid would misrepresent the high-card strength grossly.  To preempt in hearts may miss spades."  One of the flaws of this hand is the higher-ranking suit is also shorter; I like the understanding described by Phillip Alder: "John Lowenthal and I had the agreement that if we passed, then showed a big two-suiter on the next round, the lower-ranking suit was longer than the higher-ranking."

1 ♠   50   BWP 7%   BWS 26%  IAC 20%
Nearly a plurality of the BW solvers focused on opening spades first, so both majors could be bid naturally.  Richard Colker actually dreams of different solution: "Where's Bill Flannery when we need him?  I plan to rebid hearts - the Devil be damned - as game requires little more than finding partner with the king of hearts, an ace, and a fit for a major."  YleeXotee "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."  Phillipe Cronier admits "I could pass, but showing the two suits at next turn could be at a very-high level.  One spade is not perfect, but c'est la vie!

2 ♥   80   BWP 7%   BWS 15%  IAC No solvers
Another option is to preempt.  It could work well if you have a general understanding like Zia: "No strong feeling.  In my style, I can open two hearts and bid three spades later.  I certainly expect to need to bid later; either you believe in those pips or you don't."  But the real purpose of preempting on this hand is expressed by Dan Gerstman: "I want to enter the bidding and establish lack of defense.  I hope that the opponents leave me room to bid three spades, or that RHO converts a minor-suit overcall to three notrump, so I can cue-bid the minor."

3 ♥   80   BWP 18%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
If a weak-two is good, then with this much distribution 3 could be better.  According to Kit Woolsey "The suit is good enough for a three-level preempt, and this seems to be the right level to give the opponents headaches.  Spades isn't likely to play any better."  Robert Wolff considers the bid "Dangerous only when the partnership is loathe to open close hands at the one-level."  while John Stewart says "I may regret this if partner has a couple of aces, but why should he?"  David Berkowitz has a different regret:  "Not so easy for East-West to act when I have the spades.  Gutless of me not to open four hearts, but I've alway been a little bit of a wimp."

4 ♥   60   BWP 7%   BWS 4%  IAC No solvers
A couple of Panelists are not gutless.  Andrew Robson thinks "If one needed to guess, it would be that West is keen to declare in three notrump.  He may be stymied with a strong, balanced hand.  In four hearts (doubled, perhaps), the defense won't read my shape and my not pursue a forcing defense when that would be best."  But Pepsi just goes for the gusto:  "It's too big a temptation no to go for it."

1 ♥   70   BWP 11%   BWS 28%  IAC 50%
Half of IAC and a plurality of the BW solvers decided to open 1 .  Jeff Meckstroth's reason was "Certainly won't preempt when not sure what suit to play in."  JCreech points out "... I only need two cover cards from partner, so I will start with 1 and hope I hear a raise or 1 from partner."  Chris Willenken: "If partner has ace-third of spades and a singleton heart, the deal could play better in hearts, so I won't distort the shape.  Could open four hearts if needing a swing; what are the odds that LHO will have enough spades to double?"  CCR3 "Thought about this one a long time. I recall this hand not too long ago.  Lost the board because I passed in first seat."  Billy Eisenberg's conclusion was "No better way to go."





Problem H  4/6/7 (Masse24, KenBerg)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 7 6 4   ♥ 8 3   ♦ K 5   ♣ A Q J 10 6

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♣*      Pass       1 ♦
  Pass      1 ♥       Pass        1 ♠
  Pass      2 ♠       Pass        4 ♠
  Pass      Pass       Pass
*East-West use Bridge World Standard

What is your opening lead?

Essentially, with this problem, there are three perspectives.  One is to lead trump and reduce the coming crossruff.  A second is to play a forcing game, trying to get declarer to lose control of the trump suit, and thereby lose control of the hand.  The third is to attack the transportation between declarer and dummy, hoping that whether this is crossruff hand or an establish the side tricks hand, there will not be enough of something to pull the trump and enjoy the non-trump tricks.

♠ 4/6/7   100   BWP 46%   BWS 21%  IAC 20%
The Panel plurality went with reducing the crossruff.  Bart Bramley thinks "Dummy has at most one diamond.  A successful crossruff looms.  I hope to hold declarer to six trump tricks and three side winners.  I need partner to have a red winner and a late diamond control.  I considered the club queen, which will usually work as well as or better than the ace and might shorten declarer's trumps when his diamonds are very strong."  Pepsi feels certain that "Declarer has 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=4=5, so I'll try to stop a crossruff."  Jeff Rubens: "The auction suggests a trump lead, and nothing about the South hand suggests otherwise."  Masse24 says "They will be cross ruffing. This will slow them down. ... I hate lead problems."  Dan Gerstman: "At matchpoints, I'd lead a heart, but to beat the contract I need partner to have strength, so I'll reduce ruffs.  Ideally, declarer will win the lead in dummy and play its diamond; partner will duck the ace so I can win and lead another trump."  Robert Wolff thinks this "Probably will lose only when East has an excellent diamond suit and can draw trumps."  David Berkowitz: "Maybe declarer needs to ruff something or will not get the spades right now or would have played them effectively anyway."  Carl Hudecek feels "A trump lead is in order.  Leading clubs to try to shorten declare seems hopeless, since West almost certainly holds the club king." Joey Silver thinks it is "Not the time to try to set up winners; rather, it is one for patience and passively."  Mats Nilsland is "Just following my bridge instincts."

♣ Q   80   BWP 21%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
With the forcing defense, most of the Panel chose to lead the queen, frequently citing Zia as the teacher or inspiration for the lead.  Philippe Cronier describes the rationale well:  "With controls in diamonds and spades, I'm probably a favorite to be able to shorten declarer.  Which club?  East is short in clubs, so the king is likely with West.  The queen-lead may induce declarer to duck twice."  Jeff Meckstroth says "Can't resist. Zia taught me this lead.  I expect he will lead it as well."  Andrew Robson: "I know I'll have support from Zia, and doubtless others.  We must try the forcing defense.  The chance that the king of clubs is in dummy is pretty good."  Barry Rigal points out that "One gets only gets one chance to appear a fool (and for it not to cost real imps)."  One thing that struck me is that if everyone is going to lead the queen, wouldn't the expert field be expecting the deceptive lead? 

♣ A   70   BWP 7%   BWS 39%  IAC 40%
But where was Zia?  Having recently been a victim of his own brilliance, Zia complains that "They never fall for that club-queen play against me.  I have put it away for 2021."  YleeXotee "... Ace and setting up some more clubs for them to have to ruff seems right to me."  Agreeing, JCreech "I will try to turn this into a forcing game by leading clubs every time I get the chance; it only sets up one trick, and may cause declarer to lose control.  My second choice is dummy's second suit.  I am not thrilled with my choices, but those are my active and passive choices."  CCR3 simply says "I like the forcing game."  Danny Kleinman, however, is "Breaking my vow never to lead unsupported aces in suits partner has not bid.  No lead is safe, but clubs offers the best hope of wresting trump control from declarer."

♥ 8   70   BWP 21%   BWS 37%  IAC 40%
Most of those leading a heart chose the eight.  George Jacobs argues that "What little treasures partner owns are in hearts, so we need to cash a heart before it goes on dummy's club king."  Kit Woolsey says "Holding this much strength, I see no reason to lead away from an honor."  WackoJack: "Looks like west is 4414 and East maybe 4252.  I don’t like leading a doubleton ♥ but this looks least likely to give away a trick"  John Stewart thinks "This might save us a pitch on dummy's club king.  A trump doesn't feel right against declarer's diamond length, and a tap doesn't look effective with the lousy trump spots."  Michael Lawrence considers the lead "Semi-default.  The four of spades might be better."  Chris Willenken: "Club queen could be very right, but why do something dramatic when suits appear to be breaking poorly for declarer?  Similarly, a trump lead could win, but maybe declarer has strong enough diamonds to draw trumps."


♥ 3   80   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
However, the deceptive three, with virtually no votes on any front, save Michael Becker was granted a slightly better score than the more popular eight.  His thoughts were "A low-heart lead may induce declarer to misjudge the play; there is little risk of fooling partner, who has few high cards.  If declarer is 4=2=5=2, not knowing that the club ace is onside, he may try to cash hearts to pitch a club.  Another possibility is that declarer will plan a crossruff and think it's safer to return to the East hand with a heart than with a club.  A heart also attacks declarer's transportation.  A trump lead might work better, but declarer may have 10 tricks (four spades, one ruff, the club king, and four red-suit tricks)."   



A so ends another month, including the Todd complaint about hating lead problems while taking the top score on the problem.

[jcreech]

RE: the problem C hint  (and a handful of others similarly)...I wish they would say  "not forcing beyond 2 of opener's opening suit" or something like that.   That's what these hints MEAN,  but it isn't what they SOUND LIKE   Does anyone other than me get off the target after reading one of these style of footnotes?

Problems C and D share the same underlying system note (BWS 2017) as the basis of at least one hint:  "A simple new-suit response over an overcall is forcing (by an unpassed hand). If at the two-level, it is forcing to the next level of opener's suit, and opener's raise of responder's suit is nonforcing."  The hints were just interpreting this system note to the specific auctions.

In Problem C, you are the one trying to decide whether the system note is something that will help you describe your hand better.  The problem I have is, what do the continuations mean?  For example, if partner rebids 2 as expected, what is the difference between re-raising to 3 compared to a direct jump raise in the suit?  What you do have is the ability to show the clubs naturally, and a fit with diamonds, which, regardless of how you choose to continue, will help set your defense, and put your side in a better place to make competitive decisions.

Now,  onto  problem D:   i read ALL the comments in support of the "whatever-it-means" double  and was really unimpressed.   Most of them are really 5 spade bidders, "out there picking daisies"   Maybe I will pull a bunch of quotes when vacation starts to support this grumble.   And while I'm at it  i really object to director Kokish statemen that a  "co-operative Takeout double" her denies three spades!!!!  Frankly, even as Sammy K voted to double,  i say "amen" to his closing words "whatever co-operative takeout means"

 

The part of Problem D that Blu does ask about is the meaning of the double.  What is known is that the action has gotten too high to be a pure support-double.  So for Kokish to argue that a double denies three spades implies that with three spades, on this auction, South must take an action that shows the fit immediately, or forever be dumped into a lesser-fit category.  Here, I stand with Blu; to say that double denies three spades is too rigid of an interpretation.

But there is a second hint (related to the hint in Problem C).  In Problem D, you have a hand that is worth forcing to game opposite an ordinary minimum response.  Now partner has made a bid that forces to the three-level in my suit and the opponents have bid beyond that.  What is the minimum strength for partner's action?  In some ways, I view partner's bid as being somewhat like a one-round force; that means if you pass or make a minimum bid, that they can pass, but then again, the forcing action is at the three-level.  So the questions I asked myself were, if I passed, would I be happy? (probably not), and other than a probable 8-card fit in spades, do I know where I want to play this hand? (not really.)  Part of my problem was figuring out what the continuations mean, and not being happy with the uncertainty.  I chose to double to throw the uncertainty back to a partner who had yet to finish describing their hand.  Since I could not bear to hear partner say, I have a minimum with spades and not enough shape or points to reopen, I decided that the double was a form of punting.  That is, forcing partner to finish their description, and hoping if partner passes, that we have enough to compensate for whatever we are missing as declarer.

Finally we come to the problem for which some several people other than me should have typed something indisputable  in boldface..CAPS..OVERSIZED FONT...This rant applies only to the folks  pondering a  4D versus a 5Drebid:  IMAGINE THAT INSTEAD OF 17 POINTS SHAPED 1=5=3=4  INCLUDING  KJxx IN CLUBS,  YOU HAD ONLY 12 OR 13....  LIKE  X AKJxx, xxx,KJxx !  How would you feel  if your partner felt the Coyotee-rule were in effect,  huhh?  I say those considering  4C rebid  after  1 , (3 ), double, (pass);  ___? as "stronger than five clubs" cannot bid 4 clubs here which is  absolutely nuts. (And Coyote-Joe  agrees with this, somewhat regretfully--look it up  upthread)   I am not proud of my choice of 3NT, and like all of us, am totally stunned that half the experts  went for 4    but it is mandatory to stomp on the idea many discussed  that 4    is forward-going -- too easy frankly

As for Problem E, after reading the commentary, I am not convinced that at the table, we would see this number of Panelists bidding 4 .  I believe Zia would; based on his years of rubber-bridge play, I can see his argument of the 10 makes all the difference of playing for the 10-trick game.  But for the others, I am far less convinced.  In the heat of the auction and trying not to give away information to either partner or the opponents, that they would focus their attention on the 4 vs. 5 decision.  The 4 bid feels like a luxury-of-time decision to me.  And given the ambiguity of whether 4 is forcing, I think we would see a lot of jumps to 5 to ensure being in game.

[Masse24]

Thanks, Jim for the detailed summary!