October MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, DirectorProblem A 3 
(VeredK, Hoki, MsPhola, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, YleeXotee)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q J 9 7
♥ 3
♦ K Q J 9 2 ♣ K 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ Pass 1 NT Pass
2
♦ Pass 2
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
You have shown your two suits, and partner has advertised a different long suit and a weak hand. What you haven't shown is your extra values, a stopper in the fourth suit, and the diamond length is not wholly clear.
Pass 80 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 22% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 19% Intermediate Advanced Club 36%
With no fit for partner's suit, and partner advertising a weak hand, perhaps it is time to bail.
Carl Hudecek thinks "To bid again would be a high crime. Well, maybe a misdemeanor."
Phillip Alder says "Misfits are miserable."
Peuco says "i avoid bidding NT with singleton in p's suit"
Will Beall has a different take as he is "Just protecting our plus (I hope). Partner had ways to show strength or a flexible hand." But I think
Rozanne and Bill Pollack have made the best analysis for passing: "The pointed nines make this very tough. Partner is very likely to hold six-plus hearts (suggesting two hearts with five strong hearts isn't winning bridge). His suit will wither on the vine if either of my suits is trumps. ... We'll go low and wish partner luck."
BluBayou: "Partner 'promises' a weak-two in hearts; We hope he does have one."
WackoJack: "I take partner to have 6 hearts and likely one spade. This leaves 4 card in the minors. Most likely 1
+3
. If partner does have 2 diamonds, then 3
could be a better contract than 2
, but I would not bet on that. Pass looks the best bet."
2 NT 70 BWP 15% BWS 12% IAC No solvers
One option to showing the extra values also highlights the stop in the unbid clubs.
John Diamond points all of this out: "More accurate than three diamonds, with extra values and a club stopper."
Howard Weinstein says ""Two hearts might be right but could be wrong on strain or level, so I bid again, even at matchpoints. Partner may have club length or values, and two notrump is more flexible and higher-scoring than three diamonds." While
John Carruthers thinks that "Success in notrump may depend on finding partner with a second club stop. Two notrump is the most encouraging and optimistic effort; with an extra ace, I'll err on the side of incaution." However,
Karen Mccallum makes the choice because the alternative "Three diamonds would not be invitational, and the hand warrants a move towards game." The moderator,
Kit Woolsey, disagrees: "With a weak distributional hand, opener could bid two spades, which North will not expect to be a six-card suit in a weak hand ..."
3 ♦ 100 BWP 52% BWS 62% IAC 64%
Speaking of 3
, the bid is the most descriptive; it shows two good suits, and as the moderator pointed out, it does show something extra because, not only are you not passing, which you might with a partner showing weakness, but you also bypassed the spades to rebid the diamonds.
Larry Robbins thinks the hand is "Worth another try. With the two nines, the hand has excellent trick-taking potential."
Daniel Korbel also thinks it is "Strong enough for a third bid."
Hoki: "showing extras plus a real diamond suit."
Zach Grossack thinks "Two spades might be playable in a five-one fit, but the hand is just right for three diamonds, with extra values and strong suits."
Steve Robinson: "Should show extra values, because South could pass two hearts with a minimum. Without the king of clubs, I'd pass."
Zia: "Shows a good hand but not quite strong enough for three diamonds last round."
David Berkowitz: "This does not look like a dummy for two hearrts. It looks like an invitational hand with spades and diamonds."
JCreech: "I know that partner has essentially a weak two in hearts. I do regret not making a jump shift on the previous round, aggressive as that might be. The choices are pass, because this may be the only way partner's hand will be worth anything, or pushing forward with diamonds, still looking for the elusive fit. It is matchpoints, so the pass is probably right, but my inclination is still to rebid the diamonds."
Masse24: "Tempted to bid 2NT, but 3
is the best description."
Danny Kleinman also points out that "Two diamonds did not really show diamonds, and I have five strong ones. Fearing a severe misfit, I'll restrain myself from doing more. Ordinarily, I'd open one diamond with this hand, expecting partner to bid hearts, but North would read me for at least six diamonds if I then bid spades twice."
Problem B 4 
(CCR3, WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, MsPhola, Hoki)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 10 9 2
♥ A 5
♦ A Q 3 ♣ J 4 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 3 ♣ Double Pass
?
What call do you make?
The opponents have preempted, and partner has made a takeout double in the direct seat. You do have four trump, good general values, as well as a couple of bullets, so if you pass will it be enough? If you do not think so, how do you proceed?
Pass 70 BWP 19% BWS 13% IAC 1 solver
There doesn't seem to be much unity among the passers.
Nik Demirev is prepared to be wrong: "If partner has, e.g.: ♠ AKJx
♥ Kxxx
♦ Kxxx ♣ x, I will apologize, but when he has a more-common hand-type or we are facing a six-card preempt (fairly common nowadays), we should do better defending."
Zia thinks "It depends on the preemptor. We won't reach slam on most makes, and a four-spade bid is no thing of beauty. Ten years ago, there would have been almost no passes; today, it will attract a majority but not unanimity."
Carl Hudecek considers it "A gamble in four spades club overruffs and a probable bad trump split loom. We will score at least 300 and 500 looks very likely."
Zach Grossack is "Going for the money. Might depend slightly on what I expect from this particular LHO. Even though I am pretty sure that we have a game, it is not a given that partner has four spades, and it's not a given that I have a fully-stable club stopper."
4 ♣ 70 BWP 15% BWS 13% IAC No solvers
IAC shied away from the cue-bid. I would have taken it to mean more than one place to play, but some of the Panel thought it may be a prelude to a slam try.
Fred Stewart plans the auction: "Then four spades; close, but the aces are potentially huge."
Karen McCallum feels that "Four spades would not be enough facing a likely singleton or void in clubs. Pass might produce only 300."
Eric Kokish waffles: "This would normally deliver more than one suit. Spades over North's diamond bid would deny four hearts but over either red suit it implies diamond length, so perhaps the right bid is four spades."
Larry Robbins has the best argument for the cue-bid: "We could have a slam, although it may be difficult to reach. ... Over four diamonds or four hearts, I will bid four spades. Bidding four spades after a cue-bid should be a bit stronger than a direct four-spade bid."
4 ♠ 100 BWP 51% BWS 56% IAC 55%
Although Robbins may be right about the cue-bid showing extra strength, it may be better to eliminate the ambiguity of the original message - more than one place to play the hand.
Steve Robinson is clear: "No cue-bid lacking two place to play."
Daniel Korbel agrees: "No cue-bid with a minimal game-force and only one place to play."
Howard Weinstein similarly points out that "A cue-bid followed by four spades would imply a different shape."
BluBayou asks a different question: "Does a cue bid, then correct 4H to 4S show a so-so 4-bagger? Well, my alternative is to just go to 4S now, so maybe it doesn't matter." Most of the Panel was more worried about finding the right game than finding a slam.
Bart Bramley thinks the bid "Clear. Should score better than three notrump, maybe a lot better. Ten-nine of spades will let me ruff clubs high in dummy. A Moysian fit will play well."
Will Beall would "... like better clubs for three notrump. A club overruff at trick two is a distressing possibility, but I don't expect ace-king-queen on my left, so maybe West will lead something else."
Hoki is also worried: "hoping that East can't overruff dummy in clubs." As is
JCreech: "I am worried about a club overruff. However, partner has virtually assured me of at least four spades, I think there will be more tricks in spades than NT, and this is matchpoints, so I will bid the spade game."
Jeff Rubens chooses 4
"Not because the clubs are inadequate for bidding three notrump, but because spades rates to score more."
Rozanne and Bill Pollack write "With nonvulnerable preempts so often on six, three notrump would be tempting were it not for the possibility of reaching a slam."
WackoJack is concerned about the 4-3 fit but still prefers the spade contract: "Partner could have only 3 spades which might make a contract of 4
problematical. However, in 3NT can I expect my J
to be a stop? A lot depends on how many clubs does the 3
pre-empt have. The modern tendency is for a 6 card pre-empt not vul to be commonplace. If the pre-empt is from 6 cards, that increases the liklihood that then partner has a doubleto club. But it still looks odds-on that partner has only a singleton in which case my J
will get swallowed up."
3 NT 70 BWP 36% BWS 16% IAC 36%
Now for the devotees of the TGBH. The moderator provides the best argument. "A stopper is as strong as it sounds. Even if the opponents can run the clubs, they probably won't. If West has king-queen-ten-nine-sixth of clubs opposite East's ace-doubleton, West won't lead a low club. With ace-queen-ten-nine-sixth, he will often lead another suit, since he 'knows' that South has the king. If North has a doubleton club, three notrump rates to be best. Hamman's rule should not be taken lightly."
Robert Wolff believes "It is sound to bid three notrump rather than to strive for spades, which likely will be better only if partner has four."
Masse24 says "I worry about losing the first three tricks in 4
, which I think will be the runaway solver choice."
Billy Eisenberg considers it to be "A small underbid." And
Peuco makes the bid "even if Blu did not consider it"
Problem C Double (BabsG, MsPhola, YleeXotee, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K Q
♥ K 4 2
♦ A Q 10 2 ♣ Q J 6 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass 3 ♠
?
What call do you make?
Another preempt, another good hand, another unclear choice. So what else is new? This time you have a sure stop, but one that could be cleared while there is transportation. You have 17 HCPs, but the only unbid suit you do not have at least four in is the unbid major. On Problem B, you had multiple choices that felt reasonable; here you have choices that you may reluctantly settle for.
3 NT 80 BWP 26% BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
Although not mentioned this time, I think evoking Hamman's rule may be more appropriate this time. The auction is already at 3
, partner is unlikely to have a stopper when you hold the KQ, and otherwise, 3 NT is a good description of your hand.
David Berkowitz says "You do or you don't. I've gone down before (and will again if I keep bidding like this.)"
Howard Weinstein points out the "Doubling would likely commit us to playing in a suit contract at the four-level. Three notrump may not be favored to make, but playing elsewhere with this spade holding may be worse. The probable downside is 50 a trick for either side, and the hand is too strong to risk a pass at Imps." I am more comfortable with the reasoning of
Daniel Korbel ("I can't bring myself to double with this hand texture. What a disappointment this dummy could be to partner in four hearts."),
John Diamond ("I don't fancy a double with a spade stopper and only three hearts, and I cannot bring myself to pass at all white."), or
John Carruthers ("I don't like it, but I like double even less. The opponents may set up and run spades against three notrump, but they may score spade ruffs and overruffs against four hearts."). Bless
Zia, though, and his simple logic: "They never double me."
Double 100 BWP 48% BWS 56% IAC 45%
Nonetheless, leave it to the moderator to bring the notrumpers back to Earth. "How will three notrump make? West will certainly lead a spade if he doesn't have a singleton (maybe even if he does), which will set up East's suit. Dummy will probably need two aces for declarer to have a chance, and even then nine tricks will be far away; as a passed hand, North can't have much more than that. ... I can't imagine that it is the percentage call." As for double,
Karen McCallum thinks "Three notrump is quite likely to fail for lack of aces. Probably better to hope that our game is four hearts."
Mark Cohen: "Three notrump would be right on values, but king-queen-blank plus no five-card suit steers me away from it."
Eric Kokish writes "I don't hate three notrump as perhaps I should, but there are too many slow values to feel good about making it. Double is an ugly, forced action; I'm sure pass would be best quite often."
Bart Bramley: "Too many defects for three notrump: wrong stopper, not enough tricks, not enough aces. Of course, double has a few defects, too, but I can't bring myself to pass. We might be saving against three spades."
Billy Eisenberg thinks it "Much better than three notrump." And then there are those like
JCreech who "... I chickened out of my earlier pass. I have too many points to sit back quietly and double is the most flexible call. I still fear the 3-3, and to a lesser extent the 4-3 fit on this hand, but so be it."
Pass 80 BWP 26% BWS 16% IAC 45%
So bidding 3 NT with KQ-tight of the opponent's spades is not to your liking, nor is doubling with Kxx in the other major, what is left? Overcalling one of your four-card minors? Probably not. So that essentially leaves you with a pass and a prayer that partner can act with his initial pass at the three-level - oops, four-level, because you have the stop and they bid 3
. I think
Nik Demirev states the position well: "I can't see how we can make something unless partner can act in the passout seat. The hand is too soft and scattered. Even if we are lucky enough to catch partner with 9-10 points, are we guaranteed a make in three notrump? Far from it if North has, say: ♠ xxx
♥ QJxx
♦ Kxxx ♣ Ax. North might have less. And the opening bid may have been a third-seat tactical move with a lot of possibilities."
WackoJack: "I have 17HCP and I would expect the 3
pre-empt to have on average 8HCP. Partner will therefor on average have 7 or 8 HCP. I cannot construct a hand where 3N will make when partner has 7 and fewer than 3 spades. Even if partner has 5 hearts I cannot construct a hand where
is a decent contract."
Danny Kleinman finds "A balanced 17 HCP doesn't tempt me to bid three notrump when the spade royals lack a courtier, and not having a fourt heart dampens my hope that partner could make four hearts."
Fred Stewart: "Clearly has the values for three notrump, but the doubleton spade sways me away."
BluBayou disagrees with clearly having the values: "I am ignoring the spade queen and do what is at least thinkable to do with such a 15-pt hand"
Steve Robinson: "Even if partner held an opening bid (which he has denied), ... we will probably fail in game."
Carl Hudecek says "I think we will go plus on defense and minus if we bid a game contract."
And so ends the first section of the October review. I hope you found something interesting or useful in the discussion, but if not, perhaps in the next two segments. Meanwhile, there is still the November problems to ponder; if you do, please participate.
