December MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – Danny Kleinman DirectorProblem A 3 
(BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, WackoJack, CCR3, Peuco)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 9 8 6 3
♥ A
♦ 6 ♣ 9 8 4 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 ♣ Pass
1 ♠ Pass 2 ♣ Pass
?*
*three of a red suit = splinter (not BWS)
What call do you make?
Eleven black cards, stiffs in both red suits, 1st or 2nd round control of three suits, five-card support for a suit partner opened and rebid, but only 8 HCPs; how do you describe all of that? Quite a challenge.
3 ♠ 40 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 1 Panelist Bridge World solver (BWS) 5% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) No solvers
Robert Wolff pushes for the spades aggressively: "Catering to matchpoints, with a club slam a slim possibility. I will bid five clubs if partner bids three notrump but pass if he raises to four spades."
3 ♣ 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 3% IAC No solvers
While
Jeff Rubens shows the fit in clubs; the problem is that he risks a pass when game is on, though still leaves a route to the higher paying spades: "Then three spades over three of a red suit or four spades over three notrump; I understand that that last sequence is common on the third moon of Jupiter."
3 ♥ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 1% IAC No solvers
Patricia Ann Straat has a plan "To provoke a lead-directing double that might deflect East from a killing diamond lead against six clubs." She wants to follow with 4 NT as an attempt to elicit exclusion RKC. However, the moderator,
Danny Kleinman, points out that "A direct jump to four hearts would be an exclusion key-card ask, the one to which North's reply would be least likely to get us overboard." Were the hints incomplete this time?
4 ♦ 60 BWP 7% BWP 1% IAC No solvers
A couple Panelists bid 4
.
David Berkowitz thinks it is "Blackwood by me. Off to six clubs opposite three keys." As does
Irina Levitina "Only 8 high-card points, but slam is on the horizon." The moderator explains the problem with bidding 4
, "... in Bridge World Standard (BWS) one level above a splinter is an exclusion key-card-ask, so partner might disregard the ace of diamonds ..."
4 ♣ 70 BWP 7% BWP 5% IAC No solvers
Some Panelists tried jumping in clubs.
Billy Eisenberg suggests that "We can still play in spades, but this gives us a chance to reach a club slam." While
Ron Smith views the auction as the basis for concern: "The silence of the opponents suggests that partner may have four hearts and only five clubs. It will be hard to reach spades." I think that if you are willing to stop short of game, then 4
is your action.
2 ♦ 80 BWP 22% BWP 10% IAC No solvers
There was moderate support for simply making the cheapest new-suit bid. As
Eric Kokish argues: "Any club-related auction will make it difficult to find a spade fit, so going slow with a red-suit force caters better to spades, although supporting clubs accurately afterward may be complicated."
Drew Casen says "I intend to force to game in clubs (without precluding spades). I will bid three forcing-to-game clubs over any continuation."
Carl Hudecek wants "... to give partner room to pattern out. A 1=4=2=6 or 1=2=4=6 pattern won't excite me." While
Robb Gordon is "... headed for game (possibly more), but I am not yet certain of strain."
3 ♦ 100 BWP 52% BWP 67% IAC 75%
Taking the hint,
Kit Woolsey says "You talked me into it. It will be complicated whatever I do, but partner's reaction to the splinter may be helpful." And it is hard to ignore
Masse24's point that "... the splinter conveys a lot of information, showing a lot of black cards." More than half of the Panel, as well as clear majorities for both solver groups, used the splinter. The major remaining split was whether to give up on spades for the final contract, or not. Most thought there wsas still a chance for spades.
Kevin Bathurst thinks "Pretty-good description. I'll try to offer spades later."
WackoJack says "The obvious descriptive bid. If partner can next cue, we are on the road to slam."
Joel Wooldridge, similarly, "How convenient this agreement is! Gives me room to suggest four spades as well."
Doub and Wildavsky writes "Better to make the value bid for clubs and perhaps back into spades than to force with two diamonds, then bid spades, and back into clubs." And
Zia optimistically says "I intend to bid four spades next, permitting partner to pass with a singleton honor and offering a choice of spade game or club slam." More realistic,
Marty Bergen feels "Five clubs might have no play, or six could be cold. If we belong in four spades, I'd love to be able to reach it."
JCreech: "I have a huge fit, first or second round controls of the side suits, so I will splinter since I am assured that partner will take it as such. Anything in the black suits from partner is gold, so partner should be in a position to evaluate that and decide whether to take a move toward slam." Straddling the fence is
Bart Bramley, who is "Heading for five clubs. I'm not sitting for three notrump. Might get to slam or back into four spades on the way." Concentrating on the bird in the hand (i.e., clubs),
Frank Stewart is "Intending to show the heart ace next. I give up on playing in spades, since North surely has several red cards." Echoing with a bit more detail,
Barry Bragin thinks "Most likely, the opponents have too many spades to compete, and partner is within one card of 1=3=3=6. I'm giving up on spades to start the investigation into a club slam." Meanwhile, I think Bart identifies the right reason for "Choosing diamonds as the 'purer' singleton." Hearts, with full control, is not the singleton to highlight, while diamonds with only second-round control is better. Nonetheless, it heartening to hear that
Marc Jacobus "... learned a new convention."
Problem B Double (Hoki, Blubayou, WackoJack)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K Q J 9
♥ —
♦ J 9 6 5 2 ♣ Q J 10
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♥ Pass 2
♥ 2 ♠ 3
♥ Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
The opponents are bidding aggressively, but willing to stop below game, in your void. You are 5-5-3 in the other suits with 100 honors in the suit you overcalled in and your other five-bagger looks more like four, while the three-bagger has soft beef (QJ10). Do you rebid your strength, double to show support for all suits, while risking a penalty pass that when all your quick tricks are in one suit, reverse into that ragged diamond suit, or bail altogether to avoid getting into worse trouble?
3 ♠ 40 BWP 11% BWS 3% IAC No solvers
The spade suit is fantastic, and there are a few Panelists willing to treat it as being longer than five.
Marty Bergen feels "Any suit with four honors can be treated as if it were one card longer." While
Marc Jacobus simply will "Rebid a good suit."
4 ♦ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 18% 25% IAC No solvers
If you are willing to be at the four-level, you could have cue-bid on the first round, and then let partner ask if it matters which minor. I find the bid of 4
to be confusing, suggesting longer spades (which is not wholly wrong given that the spades are close to a six-bagger and diamonds close to being only four). However,
Doub and Wildavsky choose this option because "If we double, partner will make the wrong decision far too often."
Masse24 simply sees the bid as "Aggressive, but since I did not first double should describe a distributional hand just under that threshold." IAC was nearly a three-way split; the smallest chunk, 25%, bid their second suit despite going past their overcall suit.
Double 100 BWP 59% BWS 56% IAC 38%
The slightly offshape double is the Panel and BW solver favorite, but not without trepidation. I like
Hoki's perspective: "maybe if I say it loudly enough or write it in capitals my partner will understand that it is takeout."
Zia is "Trying for a big board but perhaps getting knee-deep in the Big Muddy."
Ron Smith is "Closing my eyes." While
Phillip Alder finishes the thought, "And hope for the best."
Kevin Bathurst is "Holding my breath to see if partner passes." And
Nick L'Ecuyer is "Not selling out. Not much defense if partner passes, but at least I can handle partner's doubleton spade lead." Once you get past the knee-jerk reactions, you find the experience that says it is too soon to sell out.
Robert Wolff says "As I would have when I was 50 years younger and looking for the one big board that would win the tournament."
David Berkowitz thinks "It cannot be winning bridge to sell out to three hearts. Two spades was just a noise, so now I must show my true values."
Eric Kokish agrees that it "Could blow up in my face easily enough, but I like it better than three diamonds or two spades, which ignore clubs."
Joel Wooldridge will "... apologize later when partner passes and the contract makes, or partner pulls and goes down two or more doubled." Brian Platnick is "Not sure this is best, but passing hands like this isn't the way to win at matchpoints."
Drew Casen adds "To sell out to three hearts at matchpoints would be to beg for a bad score. The five weak diamonds look like a four-bagger." The co-plurality IAC choice was the double.
BluBayou gets the last word on this choice: "Michaels is a better first round bid, since I can not stand to give up NOW" to which I now remind him of his initial thoughts: "some of us will follow up now with a double. I wish them the -530 they deserve, since partner could have made his own penalty double,."
Pass 60 BWP 26% BWS 23% IAC 38%
Second choice for the Panel and BW solvers was to stay clear of the potential trouble.
WackoJack has thought this through: "Best we can expect is an 8 card minor fit and another 4 points from partner to add to our 14 points. The opps likely have a 9 card heart fit, meaning that if they can make 3
then we could go 2 off in 4m doubled for a zero. Or if they can only make 8 tricks in 3
then we have phantom sacd in 4m."
Robb Gordon points out that "I could be 'stepping into it' if partner has an indifferent hand with four or five decent hearts."
Carl Hudecek settles for "I put my lead-director in, and I will take my chances defending, matchpoints or no matchpoints. Probably no matchpoints in this case."
Bart Bramley sums up the merits of pass best: "Void and all white say bid, everything else says pass. Second choice four diamonds, with thee spades in contention. Double is out with so little defense. If it's a three-level partscore deal, we did our job, which was to push them up."
JCreech has similar thoughts: "Do I want to double with my only quick tricks in spades and partner may pass with a four or five card stack? Do I want to rebid my spades with only five, albeit great, spades? Do I want to try NT with a void in partner's probable longest suit? Or do I want to introduce a jack-high suit at the four level? Sometimes the better part of valor is to know when to back away." The other co-plurality choice for IAC was to pass.
Problem C 2 (WackoJack, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, CCR3)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K 6 4 3 2
♥ 6 5 4 2
♦ — ♣ A K 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ Pass 1 NT Pass
?
What call do you make?
You opened a spade and partner bid a semi-forcing NT, how do you proceed with a sixth spade, albeit no spots after the AK, a four-card heart suit that perhaps should be thought of as being only three (maybe less) and a diaamond void? The moderator pulls in a response from the 1960's:
Larry Weiss: "Two-and-a-half spades. What the hand is worth." Then makes his own argument that "2.72 spades would be a better approximation; alas, bridge still discriminates against fractions ..." Indeed, spades dominates this hand, but two is too little, while three is too much; so you are left with whether to round up or down, or bid something else to temporize on the way back to spades.
2 ♠ 60 BWP 11% BWS 28% IAC One solver
Taking the low road,
Frank Stewart "... can understand the show-more-than-five-of-your-cards philosophy of David Berkowitz and others. Clearly, to bid two hearts might be best, but I'm afraid of playing there opposite a 1=3=5=4 minimum." At matchpoints,
Brian Platnik bids 2
"But two hearts at imps."
3 ♠ 40 BWP 11% BWS 12% IAC One solver
Opting to round up,
Robert Wolff also looks to a friend from the past" "If Al Roth were here, he would bid two hearts and say, 'If I get by this round ..." However, I haven't heard that lately - and for a good reason, because all too often he didn't."
Billy Eisenberg wonders about the alternative not taken: "This hand is a great commercial for two clubs, as six hearts might make while three spades goes down." An interesting consideration was raised by
BluBayou: "This one made and excellent hand for a 100-deal SIMULATION! It turned out that rebidding 3
and 2
come out dead even IF you assume the double-dummy opening lead. Very many of the deals where 4
was on the cusp would have failed on an improbable lead, but been easy on some other."
2 ♣ 50 BWP 11% BWS 5% IAC One solver
Some Panelists went one step further than Billy, and made the bid.
Marty Bergen argues: "When in doubt, make the cheapest reaasonable bid. Reasonable even though two clubs denies four hearts."
Hoki makes a "... tactical choice since 2♠ is an underbid and 3♠ leaves partner no room to express an opinion; I could even try 2
♥ over 2
♦."
Ron Smith describes his bid as "Strange but flexible."
2 ♥ 100 BWP 67% BWS 53% IAC 63%
The obvious reason to bid 2
is expressed by Marc Jacobus: "I think I have four hearts."
Phillip Alder adds "If we belong in hearts, I must bid the suit."
Nick L'Ecuyer "says I cannot suppress hearts. I'll bid three spades next. Partner knows to be courteous in this auction."
Bart Bramley is "... a true believer here. I might look silly when partner passes with three hearts, but I'll look good whenever I catch him with four or more. Its impossible to reach hearts unless I bid the suit now." This may be a good time to bring up that the fear of bidding 2
is that partner will pass with three hearts and a minimum.
Jeff Rubens thinks it is "Not necessarily a disaster opposite one=three in the majors."
Robb Gordon: "I'll pay off to three weak hearts and a stiff spade if partner passes. I'll pass two spades."
Kit Woolsey: "If partner has four hearts, this will turn out very well. If he doesn't, I may survive."
Doub and Wildavsky: "This might not be best if it end the auction, but it will probably work well on most other continuations."
Eric Kokish: "Sure, we could ignore hearts and perhaps feign holding 6=3=1=3 or 6=3=0=4, but if we have a future, bidding our suit in length order will often be important."
David Berkowitz is not even tempted: "Automatic for me. This hand will play so well opposite four-card heart support that I am disappointed even to see this problem here. While we might not reach game, at least we will find our hearts."
Irina Levitina, though, is pragmatic: "I am not going to guess how many spades to bid." Some even remember that there is extra strength involved.
Kevin Bathurst "... won't skip the heart suit, and forcing to game would be too much, so I hope to survive this round."
WackoJack: "To strong to rebid 2
"
Joel Wooldridge thinks the hand "Not strong enough to jump-shift, and I refuse to bury hearts. I want to encourage game and introducing a new suit is the best way to do that."
JCreech argues "The advantage I see to bidding the hearts is that in addition to finding partner with four as well, you may get a preference to spades with two or three trump, and could make a game try." However,
Masse24 has a different worry than most: "I have a strong hand, so 2
seems best. I worry though about this being directed by Kleinman."
