October MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, DirectorProblem A 3 
(JCreech, BabsG, BluBayou, CCR3, Peuco)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 9 5
♥ A 9 6 5
♦ — ♣ A 9 8 6 4 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass 1
♦ Pass
1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass
2 ♠ Pass 3
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
This hand brings out questions of level and strain. You have a couple of bullets and a void, but the fits are iffy. As for level, it is matchpoints, so going plus is more important than stretching, particularly for a white game, while if you play in a major, your hand has both features that could be worth re-valuations both ways; it depends on how; lucky do you feel. As for strain, both you and partner have been flirting with a major-suit contract, but it feels like a pair of 4-3 fits, so a big question is which hand will be taking the tap in trump. You can see the void in diamonds, but can infer partner's shortness in clubs. However, there is still an elephant, named Hamman's rule, that is still in the room; three suits have been bid, and your best suit is the unbid clubs. Can you scrape together nine tricks with your two Moysian's before the opponents can figure out where they might have five? Certainly, food for thought.
3 ♠ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 26% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 36% Intermediate/Advanced Club (IAC) 63%
According to the moderator,
Bart Bramley, "Those that pass or revert to three spades are betting either that game is poor or that landing in the best strain will be enough to get most of the matchpoints:" For example,
JoAnna Stansby thinks "This four-three fit will play better than hearts because I'd rather use my lowish spades for ruffing. Game is possible in a major, but I'll be happy with 140 or 170, because I don't think three notrump will make." Worded a bit more strongly,
BluBayou says "WHAT was I thinking?? Assuming pard's raise is passable, it would be darned lucky for the 4-3 spade game to come home. But spade partial is the place to try to stop." Or more simply:
Peuco writed "S is the suit to play"
Kit Woolsey: "Spades will be our best strain unless partner wants to suggest something else. How many spades is North's problem."
Joe Grue: "I would not have bid two spades, but once I did I'm not bidding three notrump or four spades. Four spades might make, but we whould do well if partner scores 170."
JCreech was "Close to abstaining because this auction has gone from bad to worse. I take it back to spades so the tap will be in the short hand and to discourage partner. At least the worst that can happen is a zero."
Kevin Rosenberg seemed to consider the hand as being even worse: "Staying low on a misfit. Three notrump doesn't look particularly good, and four spades wold be a bit ambitious at matchpoints." While
Steve Beatty thinks "We have a stronger hand than partner will expect but fewer trumps. Opposite a 4=3=5=1 15-count, taking 10 tricks could be challenging, so I will hope partner outplays the field for extra matchpoints." I do not disagree with
Mark Feldman's assessment: "My guess is that one of three notrump or four spades would succeed and one would fail. But I don't know which would turn out better, and it's not impossible that neither would make."
Pass 90 BWP 26% BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
Passing is a guess that hearts will play better and leaves no doubt that you are willing to stop below game. The one IAC solver did not express an opinion, so we are left with the expert comments.
Danny Kleiman is susinct: "No eight-card fit, no source of trick, no jump-shift by partner: no game." While
Carl Hudecek provides more food for thought: With no eight-plus-card fit and a void in the suit partner opened, I'll stay low. A heart contract will play well on a crossruff, even with a trump lead, because I hold the heart ace. The same can't be said for playing spades, where it's conceivable the defense could start with three rounds of trumps."
Mike Passell: "I expect to be able to crossruff for quite a few tricks. Marchpoints is a fun game."
4 ♣ 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 4% IAC No solvers
Allan Graves thinks this is a "Natural choice of games. The methods should cater to this hand-type. With good spades. the contract will play itself; with good hearts, discard spades and crossruff." He might be right, but I agree more with
Augie Boehm's interpretation of the bid: "I would interpret four clubs as a control-bid agreeing a five-three heart fit and sniffing for a super-fit slam." For obvious reasons, Augie chose a different action on the problem.
3 NT 60 BWP 15% BWS 12% IAC 1 solver
I suggested 3 NT as the elephant in the room; no real fit and a stopper with length in the unbid suit, and voila, our resident Hammanist appears.
Masse24 "I had a chat with Hamman. A misfit in all suits, but maybe we can build our tricks in the Moysians?" While I do not regard Moysian's as misfits, they are challenging to develop the requisite nine tricks for the NT game. More realistically,
Sami Kehela makes the bid and describes the chances: "Playing North for 4=3=5=1 and hoping for a minor-suit miracle."
4 ♠ 80 BWP 22% BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
Although those settling for partscore contracts were evenly split between the majors, for those bidding a major-suit game, there was a clear choice of spades.
YleeXotee is "going aggressive as I hope the panel will."
Ross Grabel says "While I can't undo (and not sure I would want to) what I have done, I know I want to play in game, so I must follow through. What's that? I'm playing with Hamman? I guess there will be overtricks then!"
David Berkowitz thinks "Even on a trump lead, we should have no trouble scrambling for 10 tricks. The only reason to stay low (with three spades) is that we have found the highest-scoring strain."
Barry Bragin agrees: "Even after a trump lead, partner will be a favorite to take six trump trick and four (or more) side-suit winners."
Roy Welland: "Should have a good chance without a trump lead, and it may be possible to try setting up diamonds after a trump lead."
Zia has a specific concern: "In for a penny. Lots of tricks if we have the spade ace."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha makes a good argument for the bid: "Easier to ruff diamonds in South with spades trump than clubs in North with hearts trump. Must bid game with this lovely hand, and three notrump does not rate to fetch."
4 ♥ 70 BWP 7% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
Meanwhile,
Jeff Rubens was one of only two Panelists bidding the heart game: "I'm considering only four of a major. In hearts, I may be able to throw spades on diamonds and ruff at least twice with our low trumps and possible three times." The other was the moderator, who went with hearts because "In hearts, we should be able to ruff at least twice with our low trumps and possibly three times."
Problem B 2 NT (Peuco, CCR3, Hoki, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)
Matchpoints East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A 9 2
♥ A K
♦ 10 9 5 4 ♣ A Q 6 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— Pass 2
♦ ?
What call do you make?
The opponents opened a weak two in front of you, in some ways you wish you were in the balancing seat where doubling with the wrong shape is more forgivable. But you drew the direct seat, holding 17 of the finest, but with 4-4 in the minors, and only 109xx in opener's suit. The choices seem to be between showing your values with 2 NT and hoping that partner has a bit of help for you, or passing, hoping that partner has the strength/shape that would allow him to compete, and if not, then maybe pass is your last plus position. Is there something else? Well you could risk your partner's wrath with a double; after all, you have at least three-card support for all the unbid suits (well, AK feels like three-card support even though it is a spot card short).
Pass 90 BWP 37% BWS 24% IAC 1 solver
According to the moderator, "This decision boils down to whether we want to try for (at least) 400 on offense or (at least) 200 on defense." For those going low, the aim is for a penalty.
JoAnna Stansby says "Looking for a penalty, which might be 200 even without a double."
BluBayou says "I have 2!D booked. If partner has some help, they are down maybe 200 if it is serious help."
Sartaj Hans thinks "Plus 100 will not be a diaster. And a bigger plus score may await us."
David Berkowitz: "Partner is still there; should he choose not to participate, we should be fine. If partner does indeed pass, then a two-notrump bid probably would have traded a plus for a minus, or a small minus for a larger one."
Roy Welland: "If partner can't double or bid, we might not be able to make anything. I'm not confident that I will know what to do over North's double, but I think I would pass."
Danny Kleinman: "The road to 400 or 420 on offense (that starts with overcalling two notrump, a close second choice) looks thornier than the road to 200 on defense."
Kevin Rosenberg: "Given the vulnerability, if partner has a stiff diamond and can't balance, I will be happy defending. If North, holding two diamonds, passes it out, I will hope that we have no game. I will pass a double, aiming at 200 (500 when we have a game). If partner bids two hearts, I'll move toward game with three diamonds; over two spades, I can raise to game."
Jeff Rubens concludes: "Don't see any way to avoid taking some dangerous position."
2 NT 100 BWP 59% BWS 69% IAC 75%
Steve Beatty writes "I would prefer a real stopper, but any other action has more serious issues. I expect two notrump will be a big vote-getter." He was correct, the majority clearly went with the descriptive bid.
Kit Woolsey, for example, was succinct: "Not pass with this strong a hand and not double with a doubleton heart; this is what is left."
JCreech says "I hate this bid, and will look for something else, but it describes the strength, shape, and near stopper. Maybe I will get lucky and either find partner with an honor or LHO with a void."
Peuco: "Agree 100% with Jim"
Erik Kokish argues "Not beautiful, but nothing is better. It would be too extreme to hope for plus 100 or 200 (or minus 90) on defense to be our maximum result. No one has told us yet that we can't make (say) six clubs."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "Makes the auction easier if partner has a long major. Gets across the general nature of the hand. North could have diamond help; if not, the suit will likely block."
Hoki points out that "A singleton honour with West or any honour with partner is enough to create a stopper."
Masse24 finds that "Pass is also tempting at these colors."
Robert Wolff, though, has a different second choice: "Not proud of this, but no wimpy pass for me. Double is a close second."
Barry Bragin: "When one bid conveys the strength and nature of the hand, it's hard to look elsewhere. If we end up in notrump, any diamond honor in partner's hand or a stiff honor with West will prevent the opponents from running the suit. If partner has a most one diamond, then I hope he will transfer into his major."
Double 60 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 6% IAC 1 solver
Phillip Alder steered clear of this bid: "A double with only two hearts, even these, looks too dangerous."
Mark Feldman though, was more afraid of another alternative! "East, who bid in second position and vulnerable, has deterred me from overcalling two notrump."
YleeXotee also has a concern with the other active call: "I'm not sure I have diamonds stopped. so going a different way"
Problem C 3 
(None)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 10 3
♥ A K Q 4
♦ K 9 8 7 6 ♣ K Q
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass 3 ♣
?
What call do you make?
Another preempt and another awkward 17 HCPs. This time the starting level is a bit higher, the stopper a bit more certain, and one of the major suits missing-in-action. Some of the considerations include, how much weight to give to your KQ-tight in the opponent's suit and should you treat the AKQx of hearts as equal to the K9876 of diamonds. Then again, you could risk a double missing the spade suit, or pass, hoping that either partner has the strength/shape to compete, or that if he doesn't, then maybe this is the last plus position.
3 ♦ 80 BWP 15% BWS 29% IAC 38%
David Berkowitz says it well: "Bid the long suit and hope for the best." Unfortunately, everyone else largely mentioned the roads not taken.
Peuco: "thou I may make change to pass"
YleeXotee: "thought hard about 3h too"
Masse24: "This one stumps me. Pass? 3NT? 3H?"
Billy Eisenberg: "Not happy but hope it is not awful." Which was aptly summed up by
Robert Wolff: "In another hopeless-awkward moment, this bid should be classified as not more than a lesser evil than any other choice." Nonetheless,
Ross Grabel had an interesting take on his road not taken: "Three hearts is sexy, but there is too much strength to pass, and I don't want partner raising hearts on three or, worse yet, on two."
3 ♥ 100 BWP 33% BWS 11% IAC No solvers
I assumed that 3
was regarded as a sexy bid, because it was so risky. Bidding a four-card suit opposite a passed partner at the three-level; sounds risky to me, as it must have for the IAC solvers. However, it was was the co-plurality position of the Panel, and the moderator granted it the top score. Why?
JoAnna Stansby points out the obvious: "The easiest way to find the four-four heart fit. Even a four-three fit may score more than diamonds or notrump. I hope this isn't the time part wants to raise on a doubleton."
Allan Graves says "This would seem to be the hand for a four-card overcall for all the usual reasons. It is not as if anything else is clear-cut." But shouldn't the three-level mitigate this reasoning?
Augie Boehm thinks the bid "Sort of scary, but the hand is too weak to double and then correct three spades to four diamonds (or to three notrump, when unable to hold up in clubs)."
Kit Woolsey believes "Partner is allowed to have heart support. If he doesn't, maybe we'll survive anyway."
Mike Passell: "Tough. Terrible club holding to bid three notrump. Three diamonds would be middle of the road."
Zia: "Don't like anything, especially my choice. If no one else finds it, you can say was a misclick."
Jeff Rubens: "The four of hearts should be higher for this; pass may be technically superior. I'm adding for the chance that the opponents will make the last mistake." Although I am not persuaded, I found
Eric Kokish's thoughts more comforting toward the 3
choice: "Not sure that North's initial pass makes this more sensible than otherwise, but as three notrump feels dirty with no long, quality suit and east likely to have a decent suit, and three diamonds would be just a different gamble, it's this or a sage pass."
Double 70 BWP 15% BWS 20% IAC No solvers
IAC solvers were also not of a mind to make the off-shape double. Not so with the Panel.
Sartaj Hans "Actions like thse are often indefensible in print yet successful in practice. Some volatility is expected in any action in such a situation. We rate to do very poorly some of the time by doubling, but that is also true of the alternatives. These choices come down to personal taste and experience; articulation of supporting logic is too difficult when the array of possibilities is vast." Exactly why I am disinclined to double in this situation, because when I do step out of line, I do get whacked; I wish I had Sartaj's luck.
Don Stack says "With a third club, this would be an easy three notrump. I hope that partner can bid four clubs as a choice of majors (or three spades, so that an overbid of three notrump can be made). If partner jumps to four spades, I'll hope he can make it. Very tempting to pass, but if there is a three-club bid at all tables, I suspect that no one will pass."
Sami Kehela also relies on luck: "When making a flawed takeout double, I follow in the footsteps of Walter Avarelli, a mainstay of the Italian Blue Team, who never came to grief after one of his unprepared interventions."
3 NT 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 18% IAC 1 solver
Shades of Hamman's rule, even Todd finds the KQ of clubs, missing a small friend, too unappetizing to bid 3 NT. But there is
Phillip Alder making the bid because "Double with only two spades looks too dangerous."
Pass 90 BWP 33% BWS 23% IAC 50%
Now for the Panel's other co-plurality choice: Pass.
Barry Bragin argues that "Unlike (B), this 17-point hand can't accurately be described in one stroke and, with the opponents being one level higher, playing for the likely plus on defense will outscore any pair that tries to guess the right course of action (double, three diamonds, three hearts, three notrump) and picks the wrong one - if a right one exists." Others pointed directly at the similarity to the previous problem. For example,
Kevin Rosenberg "Vulnerable at matchpoints, for similar reasons to those on Problem B, a heavy pass is probably percentage. Second choice, three diamonds." While
BluBayou provided a commercial interlude: "For now, same position as problem B! Together, these two make the 8th and 9th poster-children in this year for the discarded WEISS DOUBLE
" Back to the main discussion.
Danny Kleinman identifies the specifics: "Hearts too short, diamonds too weak to bid; lack of a courtier to accompany the club royals makes three notrump far too risky. Pass and hope to beat three clubs, perhaps more than one."
JCreech adds to the picture: "A passed-hand partner, an inadequate NT stopper without help from partner (perhaps Jxx), and the spades missing in action. A lot of problems if I enter the action. More than 40% of the HCPs are in my hand, so it becomes difficult for partner to balance if I choose to pass. It is matchpoints, so passing may be my last chance at a plus position."
Steve Beatty thinks "Taking action is probably right, but guessing which move to make is the problem. Partner is a passed hand, and vulnerable third-seat preempts are sometimes heavy, so I'll hope for the best by passing. Occasionally, partner will save me (but not very often)."
Carl Hudecek: "Partner is a passed hand, and it is possible that we can beat three clubs, which may be our best chance for a plus score."
Joe Grue: "If partner can double, I'll bid four hearts. East is vulnerable and might go down two."
This concludes Part 1. Parts 2 and 3 will follow as I have time. Meanwhile, next month's problems have been published and are awaiting your contribution. Providing your answers are welcome; providing your reasoning behind the answers are even more welcome. Just jump in where you feel comfortable.
