2023 January MSC

[yleexotee]

Looks like I'm going
A- X but I am torn by the idea of 2nt, still thinking.
B - 3S, partner should understand I have no diamonds and am checking on 3nt.
C - 2D, going more aggressive and inviting
D - really leans toward 4C, but considering pass (but panel punishes me when I don't choose a 4m)
E - Pass. I don't mind weak opens with a 4 card major, but I don't do it with a good honor in the 4 card major. (I think I have a recent one saved where a p bid that way and squashed our M game)
F - 3S, but only because I appear not to be able to bid 4nt
G- 3C
H - 10!H . Choosing the short major in hopes of hitting pards suit, and the 10 will hopefully alert p to my shortness.

[yleexotee]

Looks like I'm going
A- X but I am torn by the idea of 2nt, still thinking.
B - 3S, partner should understand I have no diamonds and am checking on 3nt.
C - 2D, going more aggressive and inviting
D - really leans toward 4C, but considering pass (but panel punishes me when I don't choose a 4m)
E - Pass. I don't mind weak opens with a 4 card major, but I don't do it with a good honor in the 4 card major. (I think I have a recent one saved where a p bid that way and squashed our M game)
F - 3S, but only because I appear not to be able to bid 4nt
G- 3C
H - 10!H . Choosing the short major in hopes of hitting pards suit, and the 10 will hopefully alert p to my shortness.

PROBLEM A: Double  -BTW, this is the spot for my Coyote convention. 1h-2S is so common, I think its worth carving out some specific meanings for things like 2nt, 3c and 3d. Because you can't "invite" with 3S (cuz it forces to game). we can use these other bids to show things. 3D shows the good heart raise, 3c shows an interest in a minor., 3h weak raise
PROBLEM B: 3 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 5 Clubs  - Changed my mind and went BIG
PROBLEM E: Pass
PROBLEM F: 3 Spades
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Heart 10

[Veeree]

PROBLEM A: Double
PROBLEM B: 3 Spades
PROBLEM C: 2 Diamonds
PROBLEM D: 4 Clubs
PROBLEM E: 1 Diamond
PROBLEM F: 4 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3 Clubs
PROBLEM H: Heart 10

[Masse24]

January Results

Yleexotee led the IAC solvers with 710.  Masse24 was second with 700, and BluBayou was third with 690. All three made the honor roll this month.

NAME	BW-SCORE	RANK	MPs
YleeXotee	710	1	100
Masse24	700	2	90
BluBayou	690	3	80

Also participating this month were:  JCreech, Veeree, Hoki, CCR3, VeredK, BabsG, and Peuco.

Congratulations to all!

[blubayou]

A LOT of good answer sets got sunk by the lead problem  ( 10  didn't get much love from the moderator--or the panel though the solvers  went for it big-time),  but didn't squash  Todd and Joe.  (NICE last-minute switch to going for the club game, Joe!)
  Leading spades instead or  H 10  is hard to make a locked-down case for frankly...I hope some panelist or member can explain our winning choice convincingly.
--- I think I had visions of winning a lot of defensive tricks and feeling the need for THREE exit cards,  hence punting in spades on the go.

[Masse24]

Yeah, Blu, all the alternatives occurred to me and were my second choices. One I changed from. So I'm fine with the scores.

Joe's brave 5 , however, I did not even think of.

As always, the panel analysis will be fun.

[yleexotee]

ON the 5C, I realized I had locked myself into a false dichotomy of either pass or 4m. You all know I hate 4m, but the panel is usually more aggressive, so it finally dawned on me that if they were aggressive, then they would bid game.
I stand by a heart lead!

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem A  2 NT  (BluBayou)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 10   ♥ A Q J 10 9   ♦ A 10 6 2   ♣ Q 3

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

MSC problems are supposed to have at least three reasonably likely answers, but if you look to the Panel, only two answers pop up.  Are there really others available?  Yes, but, but as is typical, each has its own set of challenges.  One possibility, that did not even make the list is 3 ; the suit is high quality and you have the extra strength, but there is a gap in the suit and only five in length for a three-level bid all by your lonesome.  I think 3 had a similar fate; although it gives partner a choice, you are still at the three-level with no certainty of fit.  These shakey three-level actions gives rise to the thought that perhaps pass might be a better way to go; the arguments against largely revolve around 17 HCPs is a bit much to go quietly.  Similar to pass, double allows you to take an action without committing to the three-level, but unless partner has an unlikely trump stack (after all, lefty did preempt vulnerable), you are virtually committed to partner bidding three of something.  That leaves 2 NT; you do have a sure stopper along with the 10 as a partial, but your suit has a gap near the top, and unless partner has something like Hxx, you may find lefty back in with his suit ready to run.  What arguments were found to be convincing?

3 ♥   0   Bridge World  Panel (BWP) No Panelists   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 2%  Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) No solvers
Only a small percentage of BW solvers were willing to go it alone with their nearly solid 5-bagger.   However, Kit Woolsey is willing to bid the suit with the wrong response to a double: "Maybe partner will pass.  If not, I can handle things okay, passing three of a red suit or bidding three hearts over three clubs."

3 ♦   30   BWP No Panelists   BWS 14%  IAP One solver
This was actually my second choice behind double.  Hoki had similar thoughts "but it's close to double which I'd do ony if I was prepared to pass 3!C from partner in the hope that partner has five clubs."  Oliver bid to avoid feeling that he had to pass partner's 3 response to the double, but wouldn't the pull of clubs to diamonds be an equal-length conversion?

Pass   40   BWP One Panelist   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
Bart Bramley was the lone wolf among the Panel:  "Unpopular, but most of my constructions had better prospects on defense than on offense.  Game is unlikely, especially in hearts, when partner couldn't act.  Getting involved could turn a plus into a minus."  The moderator, David Berkowitz, admitted this "... could be right, we should know when the dummy hits."

Double   80   BWP 41%   BWS 63%  IAC 80%
The clear solver choice was to double, and even the Panel's vote would often be enough for the pluraity choice.  JCreech thinks "The reopening double stands out; shortness in spades, length in at least two suits, enough strength to convert clubs to diamonds under any set of agreements."  Robert Wolff has similar plans:  "And I suppose I will correct three clubs to three diamonds, but first I'll wait till I need to, likely haveing been doubled."  Masse24 says "Double seems clear. Too much to pass vul at IMPs. A close second is 2NT. East's failure to further the preempt increases the possibility that partner has three or more spades."  Phillip Alder:  "Maybe delaying the evil moment, but perhaps doing okay."  However, the Panel seems to have spotted a lurker; what does it mean if partner bids 2 NT?  Steve Gardner considers double to be "... the easy part.  I will continue with three diamonds after a three-club continuation or raise two notrump to three."  Ron Gerard says "Wrong hand (mostly wrong spades) for two notrump.  Partner's two-notrump bid will be scrambling, since I could have an ace less, so I would pass if instead he bid three clubs.  And what rule prevents North from holding:  ♠ xxxx   ♥ x   ♦ Kxxxxx   ♣ Kx?"  So would partner's 2 NT response be natural (and wrong-siding the contract), scrambling, or even a lebensohl extension?  According to BWS, the bid should be natural, but the vulnerability and South's hold speak otherwise.  Nonetheless, this ambiguity may drive the notrumpers.  For those wearing rose-colored glasses,  Carl Hudecek is representative:  "If partner leaves it in, we should collect a telephone number.  If he pulls to three clubs or bids a lebensohlish two notrump, I will bid three diamonds; then if pard has say: ♠ xxx   ♥ x   ♦ xx   ♣ K9xxxxx, he can bid four clubs, and our merciful opponents may not double." 

2 NT   100   BWP 56%   BWS 17%  IAC One solver
BluBayou was our lone IAC solver choosing 2 NT: "Originally I saw the reopening double protecting partner's trap pass  as our duty.   But he doesn't HAVE a penalty leave-in;  he has  the Jxx in spades  plus some lifesaving trash in clubs.  So, 2NT play by south is going to slither home,  but get murdered when the A-10  is in the dummy.  Farewell,  reopening double, I'm bailing for.........Two Notrump"  If our side is going to play notrump, then I agree that South is the appropriate bidder.  John Carruthers thinks "If I doubled, what would I then do over two notrump or three clubs?  Or even three of a red suit?  Notrump ought to be play from my hand opposite nine-fourth, jack-third or queen-low.  Besides, this bid is perfectly descriptive."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn agree:  "It can only be right to play this from the South side, and double would create more problems than it would solve."  Eric Stoltz considers it to be the "Best description of the hand, which has a source of tricks.  It will not take much to produce a second spade stopper (even three low in the North hand might be enough to shut out the suit)."  Gary Cohler:  "Seems too normal, but what else can I do?  Double would work if partner knew to pass with honor-third or honor-fourth, but it would work poorly if partner bids three clubs - in contrast, if he pulls two notrump to three clubs, that will be fine.  Two notrump is the value bid and the most descriptive call.  Why mess around with anything else?"  Zia says "This will work most days.  You must have provided the spade ten for a reason.  Pass is not an option, and this is a normal compromise." 

When all is said and done, I wish that I had opened 1 NT on this hand, and handed captaincy to my partner.





Problem B  3   (Veeree, VeredK, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, BluBayou, CCR3)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       Pass       1 ♥       Pass
  2 ♣       Pass       3 ♣       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

You have opened and rebid clubs, while partner bid your singleton and then raised your suit.  With 12 HCPs you have fully described your hand, or have you? Partner freely raising your clubs when he could have passed may change everything; the clubs may now run, so you could easily be bringing seven tricks and only need two from partner for 3 NT.  And before I forget, it is vulnerable at IMPs.  It is your move.

Pass   50   BWP 19%   BWS 27% IAC One solver
The simpliest view is to say I have a minimum with six clubs, I've shown a minimum with six clubs, and I have no moves left to make.  For example, Danny Klienman thinks "A hair more than a minimum (one club if the club jack were the four) but a hair short of a game-try (I'd bid three spades if the four of diamonds were the jack).  Vulnerable at imps offers not only a 10-imp gain for bidding amd making game but also a 7-imp loss for down two in game when three clubs makes with an overtrick.  Good enough odds to tempt me, but not quire enough to seduce me."  Hoki says "I don't feel as if my values and partner's are sufficient to secure nine tricks for a notrump game. After all, I've only got 12 HCPs and partner has shown a distributional hand."  Robert Wolff:  "Especially (preferred) if playing with a partner who will bid two notrump in preference to three clubs if given a close choice."  Adam Grossack feels "This is a good minimum, and clearly there are some constructions where three notrump could be cold.  More likely it is not cold, and my first reaction was to pass."  Chip Martel agrees:  "Nice hand but not a max, and most North hands where game is good would have been a two-notrump bid by partner.  Still, a pushy three spades is tempting."

3 ♠   100   BWP 70%   BWS 56%  IAC 80%
Succumbing to temptation.  Billy Eisenberg considers this to be "A routine try for three notrump or five clubs."  Eric Kokish writes that it "Doesn't take much to make a decent three notrump and it's tempting to bid it withou squealing."   JCreech "Trying for 3 NT seems sensible with partner's club fit - I just hope it is not one of those robot small doubletons.  If partner has red suit coverage, then I likely only need two tricks from him."  Zia comments that "Hamman would bid three notrump.  Probably, he is right."  But where is our resident Hammanite?  Masse24: "IMPs, vul. Too much to give up on a 9 trick game."  Apparently, he is messing around with a trial bid, that happens to have a higher pay off.  Bart Bramley is "Hoping that partner can provide two timely tricks, which is not unduly optimistic.  Grabbing the notrump would be too crude ..."  Eric Rodwell points out that "This is a nice trick-taking minimum.  It looks as if pard should be the declarer, so I bid where I live."  Phillip Alder:  "I hope partner can bid three notrump (holding both red-suit aces and the club queen."  Bruce Rogoff:  "A near-minimum opener has turned into a nice source of tricks with a fast winner on the side.  Three spades is clear.  Three notrump would be an unnecessary gamble."

3 ♦   40   BWP One Panelist   BWS 3% IAC No solvers
When trying for 3 NT, I tend to bid where I have values, so I would be disinclined to bid 3 .  Eric Kokish (who preferred 3 ) seems to have qualms as well "I don't much care for three diamonds although any call that lets North become declarer in three notrump is probably okay."  Carl Hudecek did make the choice:  "If partner has the heart ace, four plus clubs, and some round-suit strength, say ♠ Kx   ♥ AJxxx   ♦ xx   ♣ Qxxx, we might have a game."  The moderator agrees with everything Carl had to say except the bid:  "It seems better to bid where one lives."

3 NT   70   BWP 7%   BWS 12%  IAC One solver
Not many bidding with TGBH.  Even Peuco changed his vote, but initially chose "no info to the opps on what to lead"  But he did make a convert in BluBayou: "Peuco's direct bash to 3NT got me thinking about our probe for it via '3 '.  We expect north to coff up '3NT' over this.  But suppose he HAS weakness in diamonds and has to retreat to 4 or  [double-yukk]  4   how will we like that.  To Hell with stopper-checking"  Jason Feldman felt that "Looking at seven likely tricks, I can't not bid game.  Sure, the opponents might run a red suit, but a more-scientific approach such as three spades is likely to help the opponents as much if not more than our side."  Larry Cohen:  "To keep with my theme for the month ..."





   
Problem C  2   (BabsG, YleeXotee, VeeRee)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      Pass       1 ♣       1 ♦
   ?*         
*BWS: double = at least four-four in the majors

What call do you make?

This problem involves responding to partner's opening bid following LHO's interference.  The other pertinent information consists of 11 HCPs mostly consisting of quacks, 3=3=3=4 shape, and Jxx is your contribution to stopping LHO's suit.  By and large, the Panel viewed this as a raise of opener's suit situation with the decision between a simple raise and an invitational raise almost equally split.
 
Double   50   BWP 7%   BWS 2% IAC No solvers
The note on this problem made it quite clear that double would show "at least four-four in the majors" so you would think the option did not apply on this hand.  Larry Cohen understands that the call "Guarantees four-four majors, but nothing too bad can happen.  Maybe partner can bid notrump to rightside the contract with ace-ten-low of diamonds."  Adam Grossack comes to a similar conclusion:  "The definition of this call notwithstanding, there is no other intelligent action.  Neither two clubs nor three clubs is suitable with so many values.  Two diamonds is a close second choice, but with such soft values I would rather listen to the auction and decide later about how strongly I want to act."

1 NT   60   BWP 11%   BWS 27% IAC 40%
Some focused on the hand shape and downgraded the overall values a bit, probably based on the long-time adage of subtracting one point when 4=3=3=3.  JCreech, for example, argues that "The soft values and 4=3=3=3 have me bidding a bit conservatively this round, but willing to accept any invitation.  I went with 1 NT because I have cards to be led into, and at the one-level, Panelists do not seem to care much about guaranteeing a stopper.  If I had a fifth club or a doubleton diamond, I probably would raise clubs."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn "... guess to go low with no tricks to speak of."  Hoki says "I'd rather show a balanced hand than suggest that I have some distribution." And Gary Cohler correctly assesses the MSC points:  "If I choose to underbid, it will be wrong; but the hand looks like notrump, and we are nonvulnerable, so if we miss a game it will be no big deal. ... the distribution is a warning to avoid a suit contract."

2 ♣   90   BWP 37% BWS 23%  IAC 30%
The IAC was evenly split between the slight over or under bids.  BluBayou passionately describes his reasoning:  "If everybody promised to pass,  I could swallow that stopperless, natural, TO PLAY One Notrump (and indeed everybody might just shut up  this deal).  But if some villain manages to say '2 '  I will be up the creek  to show my 'Maximum'!  To double after my NT bid would surely need some trump winners--right?  And to support clubs at the 3-level risks partner having the 4=4=2=3 12-count we know he is holding.   When our first response is '2 ',  we can double an opp's compete to 2   with a clear conscience.     There is no need to make a cue-invite  with this QT9, AJx,Jxx, QJTx!  It will take a full opening notrump from partner to bring in 8 tricks after he comes up with a diamond stopper."  Masse24 reluctantly agrees: "Originally thought showing a limit raise best, but will now go the other end of the spectrum with a simple raise. It is, ostensibly, a flat 10. At MP it would be a easier to choose 1NT, but I'm going low--even though the panel more often shoots high. (Heaven help me--do I see that Blue also went with 2 here?)"  Bart Bramley thinks "The values are too slow for three notrump opposite a balanced opening hand, and we're not vulnerable, so I'll go low.  No need to distort with double or any number of notrump."  Jeff Rubens is "Willing to show a weak raise, since some of the strength may be wasted opposite long clubs."  Jason Feldman is also "Going low for now with 4-3-3-3 and jack-third in the opponent's suit."  Chip Martel feels it "Should be a reasonable partscore; nonvulnerable, one need not stretch with this soft hand."  John Carruthers:  "Don't show this to the children.  This is a nine-loser hand despite all the HCP.  I suppose one notrump will be the popular choice."  John was wrong, and I think Carl Hudecek accurately points to the reason:  "I didn't reach my ripe old age (approaching 90) by freely bidding notrump without a stopper in the opponent's suit.  Two clubs has the preemptive value of not permitting West to show a five-plus-card major cheaply."  Carl, only by passing will that last thought be true; 1 NT, 2 and 2 all force West to the two-level to show a major.

2 ♦   100   BWP 44%   BWS 42% IAC 30%
The slight Panel plurality went to the limit-plus raise.  Ron Gerard shares Carl's stopper concern:  "Treating jack-third of the opponents' suit as a stopper comes to grief.  I'm overbidding, but the imp payoff is for scoring 400 in three notrump.  The jack-ten of clubs will not necessarily be wasted, so almost all of the high cards are working."  Holding his nose, Bruce Rogoff considers the bid "A little gross, but bridge can be a dirty business.  A bit too strong for two clubs, and bidding notrump seems silly when pard could easily hve ace-low of diamonds."  Alan Sontag:  "Ugly, but two clubs would be too conservative."  Zia suggests that "Partner is allowed to have long clubs or a diamond stopper - on a good day, both."  Kit Woolsey:  "Two clubs would be too much of an underbid, and nothing else makes any sense."  Jeff Alexander thinks "About right on values, but I do not like having only four clubs."  It is about time someone mentioned the elephant in the room when it comes to either raise; why can't opener have 4=4=2=3, with only three clubs?  Sure, two clubs would be okay on a 4=3 fit, but with these soft values, do you really want to insist on the three-level following the cue-bid?  I guess that is why they get the big bucks, and I'm writing this for free.



That is it for the first segment.  Hope you found something fun or useful.  I will be back soon with the next two parts, but we are within two weeks of next month's deadline.  Please swing over to vote, and it is particularly nice that when you have a good reason for your bid, that you share.

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem D  5   (Hoki, YleeXotee, Peuco)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 6   ♥ 4 2   ♦ A K 7 6 3   ♣ A Q J 2

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

This is a very basic problem.  You have opened, LHO overcalls, partner makes a negative double, and RHO jump raises preemptively.  This gets passed back to partner, who doubles again.  So what do you do? 

First, is the double penalty?  Probably not.  With an overcall and a jump raise, it is almost a certainty that partner has three or less, and less is more likely than three.  It should guarantee more values than promised with the initial negative double, but little additional information.

Second, is four clubs forcing?  The moderator, David Berkowitz weighs in:  "BWS makes no explicit statement on this issue, but I know in my partnerships, if partner makes a three-level negative double ... and I bid four of a minor, it is forcing.  Threading a needle at the four-level is just too tough a proposition.  Thus, when partner later produces a strength-showing double, we would be in a game-force.  No need to go jumping around on a four-bagger ..."

Third, does the negative doubler have four or more clubs?  The negative double is primarily speaking of hearts.  It was possible that partner had more than four hearts based on the initial double.  Now there is an inference that the hearts are limited to exactly four.  With game forcing values shown by the double, and the failure to bid two hearts immediately, increases the chances that he does have four clubs with you.

And fourth, if you were to bid 4 NT, what sort of shape expectations would come along with the bid?  Does it require  a two-card difference in length (e.g., 6=4), or is one-card sufficient (e.g., 5=4)?

Pass   60   BWP 22%   BWS 17%  IAC One solver
The first double is clearly negative and therefore for takeout.  But what of the second double?  I am inclined to believe that is shows values rather than values plus both hearts and clubs.  BluBayou argues that "The LAW-number MIGHT be 18  ( 5-4 heart fit versus 5-3 plus 4-4  in our minors),  but I'll be damned if I am going to bet that their 3     is making which suggests a down-one sacrifice by our 23-plus  points.  ... with partner's 11-plus points, They will win no more than 5+2  trump tricks.  The double stands."  Chip Martel reminds us that "Given what nowadays passes for a favorable-vulnerability jump-raise, there is no reason to expect any opposing shape.  On a good day, we will score 800 when we have game or 500 when we do not."  JCreech initially tried for the set: "Partner should have a decent read of my hand (HCPs and clubs), so I will pass the double and hope for a plus."  Jeff Alexander says:  "At least partner will get off to a good lead.  This could be wrong if North has only one spade."  Larry Cohen:  "Usually, I'd try to win it on some other deal rather than gamble for a penalty; but, with trump leads, it is hard to picture the declarer taking many tricks."  Adam Grossack writes "... it is the percentage action.  Not five clubs with two low spades, yet four clubs wouldn't do the strength justice.  We won't need much luck to obtain a sizable penalty; if partner has ace-queen-low-low of hearts, we could easily take two hearts and a ruff."

4 ♣   70   BWP 22%   BWS 59%  IAC 60%
The majority of solvers are unwilling to risk handing the opponents a game bonus, nor do they feel certain of making game (the moderator's opinion, about the bid being forcing, notwithstanding).  Of course, they also are violating the Coyote's law of playing in four of a minor.  Perhaps Ron Gerard said it best:  "Pass for my money but not for that of my teammates.  I'm not worried about beating three spades, but partner might be able to bid game with, for example:  ♠ xx   ♥ AKxx   ♦ Qxx   ♣ K10xx, since I rate not to have a balanced hand."  Similarly, JCreech says "Its IMPs and I cannot stand bringing back a result where we doubled them into a game.  Call me chicken.  My heart is still with the pass."  Masse24: "With Pass the other option."  Billy Eisenberg is "Allowing partner the decision."  Carl Hudecek thinks "The shape dissuades me from bidding more.  If the opponents have 10 spades and a stiff diamond, which is possible, we won't get rich defending against three spades doubled."  Kit Woolsey trusts that "Partner would bid three notrump with a spade stopper.  He has either club or diamond support, and four or five of a minor should be fine.  Passing would be too big a position, since we have no idea what kind of distribution we be running into."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn thinks "The hand didn't grow.  We would like it much better with a major-suit singleton."

4 NT   50   BWP 11%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Four notrump is an interesting choice.  As the moderator puts it "... not strong enough to bid last round but too promising to stop short of game now."  Steve Gardner recognizes that "We may end a level too high, but I have extra high cards and chunky suits.  Certainly game must be worth a shot."  Phillip Alder:  "Showing both minors with longer diamonds.  I hop that we will lose only the first two tricks in spades."   If the opponents have 10 spades, then you could afford losing one red-suit finesse.

5 ♣   100   BWP 44%   BWS 21%  IAC 30%
The Panel plurality, along with solid solver contingencies, came away with the top score.  If the Panel felt that 4 were forcing, as the moderator feels, the voting would have been different.  For example, Eric Rodwell says "This is considerably more than a minimum, so the choices are pass (which could be right if pard has two spades) and drive to game.  The vulnerability and concentration of strength suggest the latter.  I could have a 2=3=4=4 12 count to pull to four clubs."  John Carruthers:  "Initially, I thought, 'Four Clubs.  What's the problem?'  Then I looked at those lovely honors."  Eric Stoltz thinks "This is a pretty good hand and we need to push a bit when vulnerable at imps.  Heart ace, and king-fourth of clubs in partner's hand will provide a reasonable play for game, and the second double shows good values."  Bruce Rogoff points out that "Partner doesn't have five hearts (with enough strength to double now, he'd have bid the suit earlier), so an eight-card fit is guaranteed, with a nine-card fit odds-on.  Eric Kokish says "Had there been a good positive action over three spades, I would have chosen it; now, there is too much to settle for four clubs. If considering six, North will remember my earlier pass.  Sure, we may well be off three first tricks."  Hoki: "It is IMPs, so feel we gotta be in game."  Peuco: "I think it has decent chance"  Danny Kleinman: "Partner's second double changes the strength promised but not the general meaning of the call.  He hasn't suddenly grown spade tricks.  As I'd bid four clubs if the king of diamonds were a knave or other imposter, when that card has true royal blood, I'll bid a red-blooded five."




Problem E  Pass  (YleeXotee, Masse24)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 10 4 2   ♥ 6   ♦ K J 10 9 8 6 3   ♣ 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
   ?         
What call do you make?

At one time, it was doctrine that you do not preempt with a four-card side-suit major.  Similarly, there have a bunch of rules about opening at the one-level (typically, mine includes 2 1/2 quick tricks to open a hand with less than 12 HCPs).  So I think this problem was set up to be a referendum on current thinking given the free-for-all that is online.

Pass   100   BWP 44%   BWS 45% IAC 20%
Ron Gerard: "I suppose I need to explain this, since one diamond is all the rage.  Do not open, do not preempt.  Sometimes, you learn from listening.  The auction is not always up to four hearts at your next turn (and wo shat if it is?).  Even notrump sequences won't keep me out, and delayed diamond bids show a major in any throwback approach."  Certainly opening hands such as this at the one-level is seen online quite a bit, but the BW Panel and solvers both made Pass their plurality choice.  One theme was to listen as Ron mentions and Sami Kehela continues:  "I might be better placed to make an informed judgment if I were to listen for a round, since the number of diamonds we should contract for depends on partner's spade holding."  Another theme was that there was no need to force action holding spades, but that might not have been true if the major had been hearts.  Bart Bramley, for example, says "With the majors reversed, I'd contemplate a preempt, but not with side spades.  There is enough playing strength for one diamond, but the hand is too light overcall.  Maybe I will be able to judge better next round."  And Eric Rodwell: "Not quite strong enough to open one diamond.  I don't like three diamonds or four diamonds that much either, but neither would be terrible.  With four strong spades I'll wait.  With four hearts instead, four diamonds would have more appeal."  Masse24: "Changed my mind here as well. With four spades, I do not like the preempt. Pass is what I would do at the table. Previously, my 1 was my attempt to guess the panel's choice--always my goal. But I think they will be wildly split among the three (or four?) choices. Hopefully the Pass is the plurality choice." Other reasons were floated.  Eric Stoltz: "I don't like preempting partner and will have another chance to bid later.  Kit Woolsey: "Not strong enough to open one diamond, and I can't afford to ignore the boss suit.  I may be able to handle things later."  John Carruthers: "If you held a gun to my head and said, 'You must make a bid,' I'd open one diamond.  No other diamond bid is close to being accurate."  And Zia wants to try a bid acceptable in Europe, but not in the ACBL:  "Could try two clubs and pass two diamonds as a hoary joke.  I leave it to Kit to find a perversion level."

1 ♦   70   BWP 26%   BWS 24% IAC 80%
The IAC largely went with the "rage" of opening this hand at the one-level; they were joined by a fourth of the BW crowd.  Adam Grossack thinks "It is a huge advantage to be the dealer, and I want to open at matchpoints both white.  I get mad at my partner for opening with 8 HCP, but I don't see any better options.  We would lose too much by passing, and there is no higher number of diamonds that is comfortable."  And it is hard to argue with Carl Hudecek's logic: "Beyond criticism to open a one-bid here with six sure winners."  Several opened low to ensure that the spades would not be lost.  Chip Martel considers it the "Best way to get my suit in and to keep spades in the game."  Eric Kokish: "It's easy to justify pass or some large number of diamonds with the bonus of the form of scoring to make those choices more attractive, but starting with one diamond keeps spades and notrump in the picture and will be safe enough in most scenarios."  Steve Garner insists that "Preempting is out of the question and I want to get my suit in at a low level.  The good news with this plan is that I'll have some easy rebids."  From the comments made by the IAC, their bids were not based on how they would act at the table, but, rather, gaming the system.  BluBayou, for example writes, "I have said in this forum for years "There IS NO OPENING 1-BID of 8 HCP", and those fools keep giving me 60's or lower.   This may be my only vote to get revenge on them this month:  believing in "pass", but  ---One Diamond---"  Similarly, JCreech says "I don't like it, but I think the Panel will open at the one level with this 4-7."

3 ♦   60   BWP 22%   BWS 26% IAC No solvers
None of the IAC solvers preempted on this hand, but roughly a fourth of the BW Panel and solvers did.  Larry Cohen says  "Yes, I see the good four-card major."  Bruce Rogoff does more explaining:  "We'd all open three diamonds if the black deuce were a club, so with all the benefits that preempting offers, will we let the fourth spade deter us?  The Ming-Dynasty axiom of avoiding preempts with a side four-card major is wrong, period.  The hand has the playing strength to open four diamonds, but I'd like to have a sensible dialogue when it is our deal, in particular, we may be able to introduce spade over three hearts."  Phillip Alder adds:  "When I have made a disciplined pass with this hand-type, it has proven disastrous almost every time.  Some top Australians believe that one should always open with a game-bid when holding below one-bid values and eau-de-cologne distribution.  That seems a tad much here."  I had been unaware of the reference, but the BW editor explained:  "The first product named Eau de Cologne is sometimes referred to as 4711, after the house number where the original manufacturer was located more thant 200 years ago."  A couple of parting thoughts:  Jeff Alexander thinks "If one deliberates between passing and bidding, bidding is indicated.  Three diamonds comes closer to describing the hand than one diamond."  And Robert Wolff believes that "When discipline wars with winning, I choose the latter - or I attempt to."

4 ♦   50   BWP 7%   BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Then there were those who kicked the auction up one more notch.  Kerri and Steve Sanborn say it "Gets the playing strength out there.  Sure, we could miss a spade game, but preempting is always a thorn in the opponents' sides too."  While Billy Eisenberg was a bit understated: "A clear preempt."




Here ends Part 2.  I will be back with Part 3 when time allows.  Christmas is almost upon us, which means that the due date for the February problems will be on its heels.  I noticed the Jock still hasn't made a tentative commitment for the lead problem yet, which puts him well behind his normal standard.  Please participate in next month's problems, and if you have a moment, please also help us understand why you made the choice you did.  Remember, there are no wrong answers.  Happy holidays.

[blubayou]

RE:  problem C:   I DID mention the likelihood (?)   of north  showing up with 4=4=2=3  etc.  in myy long and passionate rant.   Many others seem to have that bad-news situation in the back of their mind 
   By the way,  the go-low  squad outnumbered the cue-invite  crowd  13 to 12  ( 10+3 low bids,  12 cue bids)  in a different month our contest scores might be flipped.  Maybe someone bribed the two doublers to testify  that they are in effect taking the high road?

[jcreech]

January MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– David Berkowitz, Director


Problem F  4 NT  (VeredK, CCR3, VeeRee, Masse24, Peuco)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K 6 5   ♥ A J 9   ♦ K Q 10   ♣ A J 4 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♣       2 ♠       3 ♥        Pass
   ?*         
*By agreement, 4 NT = invitational.

What call do you make?

You open 1 with a tweener NT.  The problem with tweeners is that because you open at the one-level, it fails to get any respect, so LHO preempts in spades and partner comes in freely at the three-level in hearts.  MSC is kind enough to provide a little context to what 4 NT means, that it is invitational, so that clarifies that it is not RKC.  We also know that we have an eight-card fit, but if we choose that strain, we are likely to be wrong-siding the contract.  By bidding NT from our side, the contract is right-sided, but do we have enough tricks for game, much less slam.

3 ♠   70   BWP 26%   BWS 42% IAC 50%
Three spades was the clear solver favorite, pulling in half of IAC and nearly that from the BW solvers.  JCreech points out:  "I have extras and a fit.  The least I can do is give partner a boost.  The most is to show strength and suggest the fit, while also keeping the bidding as low as I am able."  While Hoki describes the plan:  "then 4 , showing more strength than a direct 4 ."  Eric Stoltz echos, "I plan to bid four hearts next to show support and extra values in hearts."  As does Jeff Rubens: "Treating the hand as a strong heart raise.  The king of spades may not be wasted, and there are almost enough extra values without it."  Zia: "I must announce a strong hand if possible.  This is a squeeze bid, but maybe something good will happen to overcome my current ignorance of the best approach."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn thinks the bid "Ugly, but a must.  There are too many tickets for a simple raise and not enough spade 'chunk' for four notrump."  Alan Sontag says "I am not a fan of four notrump."  While Eric Kokish discusses why:  "Might not have time to make four notrump; starting slowly provides a chance to learn more about North's hand.  If he bids three notrump, for example, the rest probably would be easy.  It's not always positional concerns that determine the timing of a notrump bid."  My problem with either the cue-bid or NT bids is that they feel like you are locking in a strain before you are certain, at least with the cue-bid, as Eric points out, with the appropriate sort of help from partner, there is still the flexibility to reach the NT strain.

3 NT   40   BWP 11%   BWS 10% IAC No solvers
Essentially giving up on slam, but right-siding the K are a small group of Hammondites.  John Carruthers thinks "With the ace of spades behind the king on most days, this hand is worth no more than a strong notrump."  However, Robert Wolff credits partner with the overreach:  "Yes, a huge underbid, but the odds are that partner is overbidding at least slightly, and it is matchpoints, where frequency is king."

4 ♥   30   BWP One Panelist   BWS 12% IAC No solvers
There is also a small group bidding the heart game directly.  Optimistically, Carl Hudecek says "Partner can ask for key cards or cue-bid if so inclined.  I don't think much of the king of spades."  If you are headed for hearts, it might be better to underbid to devalue the K

4 NT   100   BWP 56%   BWS 32% IAC  50%
The hint did quite well, pulling more than half of the Panel, and strong contingencies from both solver groups.  Phillip Alder: "Okay, you led the witness."  Eric Rodwell: "Talked me into it.  I see no good alternative anyway.  I hope there will later be a way to back into hearts, but that probably is wishful thinking."  Bart Bramley: "Nice agreement.  If not now, why use it."  Bruce Rogoff: "If not now, when?  This hand resembles the prototype: 18-19 HCP, balanced shape, spade tenace, heart filler to help run the suit.  Maybe I'm supposed to shoot out six notrump (will partner know to raise with: ♠ xx   ♥ KQxxxx   ♦ Axx   ♣ Kx?), but perhaps we'll score well just for playing in notrump.  I suppose some will try three spades, but I don't see what that will accomplish other than preventing us from reaching the likely-best strain." , and it might be necessary to play from my side."  At last, someone is mentioning that NT may be necessary to protect the king.  The IAC comments are more clear on that point.  Masse24 thinks the bid "Conveys a lot of information. Avoids the lead through the K and possible ruff. I look forward to the panel's opinion. Fun problem."  Peuco agrees: "I make the invitation and protect the S K , plus NT may yield more than H"  Gary Cohler: "If this weren't quantitative, I'd bid three spades.  Four notrump gives a perfect description except for the third heart, and it might be necessary to play from my side."  Kit Woolsey feels it is "The value bid.  If there is no slam, notrump might or might not be better than hearts.  If there is a slam, there will be a chance to suggest hearts later."  Larry Cohen: "Not an ace-ask, as I did not bid three spades first to set trumps, but I am worried that the hand may not be worth it with the depressing spades."  Chip Martel: "Must show some strength, this may get us to the best matchpoint game when there is no slam."  However, there was a bit of debate regarding the difficulty of this problem.  Steve Garner thinks it "Another no-brainer."  While Jeff Alexander says it is the "Hardest problem of the set.  Four notrump shows the power and stopper, but I am not confident about how poor partner will cope."


Problem G  3   (CCR3, VeeRee, Peuco, VeredK, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, BluBayou, Hoki)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 5 4   ♥ K 2   ♦ 10 4 3   ♣ K Q J 9 2 

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

The opponents have opened and raised diamonds, while partner has interjected a heart overcall.  You have an opening hand with a very nice suit, but to show it, you have to bid at the three-level.  Unless someone is overbidding, and that is quite possible, it sounds like the HCPs are nearly evenly split.  Your hand is too good to remain silent, but do you really want to commit to a nine-trick contract?

Double   90   BWP 33%   BWS 20%  IAC No solvers
Trying to mark time by creating a quasi-force with a responsive double (after all, take-out doubles are meant to be taken out), several Panelists ignore the technical requirements of a responsive double and gamble that partner will not pass.  Adam Grossack says "I'll risk the spade holding.  If partner jumps in spades, he will rate to hold very good cards, and I'll have a chance to survive.  It's important to show some flexibility of strain, since I would hate to miss a good game in clubs or hearts.  Three clubs would be nonforcing."  According to Zia, it "Feels as if hearts may play well; three clubs would sound like this hand with another club and no spade ace.  I will raise two hearts to game."  Steve Garner thinks "It is imperative to show values with a couple o hearts.  What I will do on the next round of bidding is less obvious."  For Chip Martel the call is "Clear for now (particularly if interpreted as announcing values without primary support and not promising any specific shape)."  Jeff Rubens is "Planning to show a strong raise with only two hearts.  The ace in a side suit and partner's probable diamond shortness - the vulnerable overcall and my honor strength suggest that East-West are bidding on shape - push me toward the high road."  Billy Eisenberg "Nothing fits."

3 ♣   100   BWP 41%   BWS 66%  IAC 100%
Although 3 may not forcing, it is highly descriptive of the hand; a plurality of the Panel and most of the solvers chose this bid.  As Danny Kleinman put it "No need for fancy footwork.  The Great Shuffler gaave me the nine of clubs or a reason - to allay any fears that I might have had if it had been a lower spot cart.  In case the jewelers persist with three diamonds, I have hidden the three-heart bidding card in my shirt pocket, ready to be laid on the table next if needed."  Bruce Rogoff notes that "South's is likely the best hand at the table, with perhaps the best suit, so why not show it?  We're practically a lock to have an eight-plus-card fit somewhere., and three clubs will find it.  We're allowed to play in five clubs at matchpoints, right?"  JCreech: "I am willing to be in hearts with Kx, but would love to be in 3 NT if partner has a diamond stop and the club ace."  Jeff Alexander "I hate cue-bidding in this situation, so I bid my suit and hope to be able to figure out what to do next.  (If partner passes, we will be okay.)"  Bart Bramley expresses a concern:  "Obvious.  The real problem will come if the opponents bid three diamonds."  That Gary Cohler dismisses:  "Not perfect, but there is too much strength not to act, and it looks as if a club lead would be good.  I will double three diamonds to show extra values and hope that partner rebids a six-card suit."  Larry Cohen says "I like all 13 of my HCP.  It is true that partner might be stuck for a bid, but that's his problem."  There is some uncertainty of whether the bid is forcing or not.  BluBayou asks "What's troubling about three clubs??  WE MAY PLAY IT THERE, FOR A 18%"  Hoki thinks "Perfect for 'non-forcing constructive'."  On the other hand, Robert Wolff says "If I thought partner would not treat it as forcing, I'd prefer three diamonds with the intention of making three hearts to game."  While Kerri and Steve Sanborn say "Let's force, and over the expected three of a red suit, raise hearts.  A double would miss the mark for spade length, and three diamonds wold over emphasize the heart length."  Nonetheless, Eric Stoltz feels the bid "Maybe not forcing, but what else is possible?  Bidding at the three-level, vulnerable, should show a reason to act; and if partner wants to bid more hearts, I am all for it."  Similarly, Masse24 thinks the hand "Enough to probe for game. This shows my values and where I live."  John Carruthers response makes sense to me:  "Bidding my suit.  I'd love to see a raise; wouldn't you."

3 ♦   60   BWP 22%   BWS 7%  IAC No solvers
Although most won't admit it, Sami Kehela identifies his call accurately:  "The Twenty-First-Century panacea: If you don't know what to do, cue-bid."  Eric Rodwell decides "I must do something strong with this many values.  Three clubs is a possibility, but the hand has too much potential for hearts for that.  I'll gamble that hearts is a playable strain and let pard decide."  Kit Woolsey: "This hand has invitational strength, and we may belong in hearts even if partner has only a five-card suit.  A double would show more spades, and even if three clubs were forcing (I think it isn't), it wouldn't be so helpful."  Eric Kokish: "Double would be too dangerous without four-plus spades, and three clubs would be nonforcing and a club short.  These cards are fine for hearts, even with only two."  Phillip Alder says "Ugh.  But double could lead to a spade contract with the long-trump hand being tapped to death."





Problem H  3/4  (Peuco, BluBayou)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 4 3   ♥ 10 6   ♦ K Q 10 2   ♣ K 10 5 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      ——       1 ♣
  Pass      1 ♦       Pass       1 NT*
  Pass      3 NT      (All Pass)
*May be 4=4=2=3, 4=3=3=3, or 3=4=3=3.

What is your opening lead?

[BWS: queen-lead requests jack.]

The opening lead on this hand rates to be a real crap shoot.   As the moderator, David Berkowitz, points out "Searching for a long suit with a nonvulnerable partner that he could not mention at the one-level is nuts."  Add to that, both suits mentioned by the oppenents are also your best suits.  So do you attack one your best suits or try to hit a partner who had opportunities to help but failed to provide that assistance.  John Carruthers describes it as "The most difficult and the most-unappetizing lead problem I've ever seen.  West will have real diamonds and no major, so I'm reluctant to lead a diamond.  Partner did not squeak one of a major, so I don't want to pick up an honor in his hand.  My second choice, the spade jack, could blow the whole suit.  The club lead needs North to have the ace, queen, jack or nine to have a chance."

♦ K   50   BWP 11%   BWS 10%  IAC No solvers
Diamonds is the strongest suit, but West should have real diamonds; this is a strength vs. strength situation.  Adam Grossack is gambling that the one-diamond response was a temporizing action:  "Matchpoints.  I'm not sure how fast or slow tricks will be, so I choose a mildly-passive, possible-trick-building lead.  People respond one diamond to one club on many hand-types."  Kit Woolsey is more straightforward:  "No suit is promising, so I'll lead strongest.  No doubt I'll find the ace on my right and the jack of left, but if I led a low diamond those cards would magically trade places."

♠ 3/4   100   BWP 37%   BWS 24%  IAC 20%
Bruce Rogoff argues for the Panel plurality, that "Any lead could blow up that suit.  A minor has the additional risk of hitting th opponent' eight-card fit and losing timing to set up a long card.  To set up some tricks, a spade needs less from partner than a heart."  Carl Hudecek adds "The most-passive lead. ... I prefer passive, because the opponents made no attempt to find a major-suit fit."  Eric Kokish feels "A heart lead might be safe if North has five, but a spade combines passive and aggressive with the possibility of finding the best switch later."  Eric Stoltz: "Partner could not bid at the one-level, and I do not want to start one of the opponents' suits, so I lead my better major."  BluBayou is "Tempted to hit partner with the heart ten,  but then  he has enough to squeek "1 "  over opp's  1D response, no prolly not.  so  I will hope spades are 4-3-3-3  with him having the thirteener.  Since all four suits look like opening leader is endplayed,  'I hate lead problems'!"  Eric Rodwell doesn't "... want to commit to a particular minor.  The heart ten is more likely to cause us damage than a spade (especially when partner not seeing the nine, places me with heart length)."  Bart Bramley: "Better major.  No reason to be a genius.  Just because East-West might have a major doesn't mean they do have a major."  Robert Wolff "I'd rather that my jack of spades were the ten, but I forget the minor suits and deem the heart ten more likely than a spade to lose a trick." Chip Martel "Ugly, but fairly safe and might be productive.  All four suits are reasonable choices."  JCreech initially said"With all of my strength in the opponent's suits, I like trying to hit partner.  Since he was not gracious enough to tell me which major is his, I have to guess.  I have two reasons to try spades first:  I have the jack and I have three.  The jack may help set up the suit more than the 10, and since I rate to get in more frequently than partner, it provides more 'safe' exit cards from my hand than hearts."  Peuco: "3 S is the nemesis of NT the saying goes here"

♣ 3   80   BWP 30%   BWS 16%  IAC One solver
Then there were adherants for the second-best suit.  Gary Cohler argues "Why guess a short major when partner didn't bid?  With diamonds behind me, that suit doesn't look promising.  A club could blow a trick, but leading a major could pick up an entire suit."  Kerri and Steve Sanborn say "Partner didn't bid, so we suspect lack of a lead to direct.  We don't love a club, but the major-suit leads are fraught with danger too."  Hoki writes "Nothing appeals. Who does like lead problems?"  While Phillip Alder seems to shrug:  "Any choice could cost, any suit would work here."

♥ 10   60   BWP 19%   BWS 44%  IAC 70%
Ron Gerard speaks well for the solver's choice:  "There are a ton of distributions where East holds four-plus clubs, in which case partner has five-plus hearts, so why should I blow out a whole suit?  Even four hearts with North might be sufficient.  Going passive is indicated, whether partner has a two-count or an ace more.  Look at the minor-suit spot cards before launching one of those missiles."  Others have much less well-thought-out reasons.  For JCreech it was a search for company:  "A different type of chicken.  I still want to hit partner, but I have been hurt these past two months with lone-wolf actions that I still like, just not the points that accompany those positions.  I will go with the unbid suit that has company."  Jason Feldman felt "Everything else seems worse."  Jeff Alexander is "Hoping not to do too much damage.  A club at imps."  Masse24 wants to go "Passive. My gut reaction lead without much thought. If I think hard I may go in another direction."  Larry Cohen fears "A low-spade lead might induce partner's placing me with four-plus spades and going wrong later on."  But I like Jeff Ruben's answer best "But delaying the lead as long as possible to increase the chance that the game will be rained out before I play."



This concludes Part 3.  I hope you have taken something useful from these comments.  Meanwhile, please take part in February contest that is coming close to conclusion.  As always, we welcome simple participation, but value any reasoning you would like to add to your answers.  Good luck to all.