2023 February MSC

[Masse24]

On "A," I am a little surprised that no one went with 5 to show a massive red two-suiter, though I too went low with 4 . Partly because my partner has passed.

[jcreech]

On "A," I am a little surprised that no one went with 5 to show a massive red two-suiter, though I too went low with 4 . Partly because my partner has passed.

I agree that my 4 was going low, partly because of partner's initial pass.  I also know I did not want to commit to the five-level when it might go down, but I also know that in the back of my mind I knew I could always bid 5 over competition in either black suit.

[Masse24]

February Results

VeredK led the IAC solvers with 760.  JCreech was second with 710, and CCR3 was third with 690. All three made The Bridge World honor roll this month, which required a minimum of 690.

NAME	BW-SCORE	RANK	MPs
VeredK	760	1	100
JCreech	710	2	90
CCR3	690	3	80

Also participating this month were:  Masse24, BabsG, WackoJack, Yleexotee, and BluBayou.

Congratulations to all!

[jcreech]

Vered tied for fourth on the Honor Roll - WTG Vered!!!

[veredk]

Thank you all, I learn a lot from your discussion.

[jcreech]

February MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Jeff Rubens, Director

Problem A  4   (Masse24, JCreech, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A Q   ♥ K Q 10 8 7 4   ♦ A K J 5 2   ♣ —

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      Pass      4 ♣
   ?*         
*BWS: 4 NT natural

What call do you make?

The central theme to the answers of this problem is "Preempts work;" they eat up valuable space that could be used to explore level and strain.  The hand has a lot of potential.  You are 6-5 in the red suits, with first-round control of three suits, and second-round in the fourth.  Slam has clear potential with minimal help from partner and reasonably-breaking suits.  However, partner is a passed hand,  and the bidding suggests anything but reasonably-breaking suits.  The three primary options seem to be to go low (bidding a game), go high (bidding a slam), or try to find the middle ground (solicit cooperation from partner). 

4 ♥   100   Bridge World Panel (BWP) 33%   Bridge World solvers (BWS) 53%   Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 63%
Taking the easy way out.  Oren Kriegel says "I'm too simple to bid anything else."  This was the majority choice of the solvers, and a plurality choice for the Panel.  Carl Hudecek asks "Has it become unfashionable to have full-values-plus when one makes a call?"  Ralph Katz points out that "We might fail here or be cold for a grand, but I am not going to shoot on the hope that partner has two needed cards."  Masse24 thinks "It’s a 30-point deck and I’m looking at two-thirds of it. We need so little from partner to make slam a good bet. But I don’t have a good way to convey that. What is 5 Clubs? Some huge hand with club shortness obviously. Anyway, preempts work."  JCreech argues that "Preempts work!  I will flip-flop on my answer until the very last day but for now it is the simple overcall.  Spades could be right if partner has a boatload, either red suit could be right with a modest fit.  Is there a sensible route to slam, if it is there?  Probably not, even though ♠ xxxxx   ♥ Jx   ♦ xx   ♣ xxxx would certainly have a  play. ... 4 was going low, partly because of partner's initial pass.  I also know I did not want to commit to the five-level when it might go down, but I also know that in the back of my mind I knew I could always bid 5 over competition in either black suit."  Billy Eisenberg hopes that "Maybe I will get a second chance."  Eric Stoltz sees that "There are holes in every suit, so I take the low road.  If five clubs comes back around to me, I can bid five diamonds."  David Berkowitz: "An unfavorable-vulnerability four clubs is enough of a warning for me; I will go low and hope for the best.  It is not as if anything else is as attractive."  BluBayou: "If our majors were flipped,  DOUble, then 4S over 4H might get 20+ votes. But here,  DOUble, then 5H over 4S surely won't come close to that.   The best way to recover from the underbid most uf us will be making here is for the opps  to somehow come up with a club raise,  so we can rebid 5D."  John Swanson: "I have a recollection that this or a similar situation arose at a regional tournament.  East held 0=6=0=7 and the winning call was pass.  Even so, I can't stop myself from venturing four hearts."

5 ♣   90   BWP 26%   BWS 11%  IAC No solvers
Several view 4 as a give up and feel that the cue-bid places the focus on diamonds and a major.  Jerry Stamatov feels "I need very little opposite to make a slam.  I will bid six clubs over five of a red uit or five notrump (to show better hearts than diamonds) over five spades."  My problem is that this is a unilateral approach about level, though it does seek cooperation about strain.  Being at the four-level is not necessarily a sure thing, so do I want to gamble on the six-level?  Fleisner and Friesner have appropriate fears: "A heart bid would bury the diamond suit, and in any case it is not clear how many hearts to bid.  We may wind up playing in a heart contract from the wrong side, but partner could hold the spade king; if not, the opening bidder will need to find a spade lead."  As does Jill Meyers: "Showing a big two-suiter.  The hand is much too strong for four hearts, and I would not be well-placed if I doubled and partner advanced four spades."  Robert Wolff: "Partner perhaps should realize that various slams are in the mix, although six spades is unlikely when North passed originally.  Yes, there is also room for a disaster, but how could that not be a possibility whatever South does?"  And Joey Silver's worries are certainly valid: "Not double, because I don't want to face an opening-lead problem or guess what to do over four spades.  Instead, I'll gamble on slam, intending to raise five of a red suit or bid six diamonds over five spades."  Tongue firmly in cheek, Phillip Alder writes "I will probably havve company in suggesting that four nonrump natural is not best."  So much for the hint on this problem!

5 NT   80   BWP 19%   BWS 4%  IAC No solvers
Pick-a-slam drew some support.  Kamil and Sherman "Four hearts is a bit too wimpy for us.  Partner will pass that on most hands, even some cold for a grand slam.  It's not explicit in the system, but by analogy with other Bridge World Standard methods, five clubs would show the majors."  But isn't this putting the cart before the horse; level before strain?  Ira Chorush: "As an extension of pisk-a-slam, this should show the red suits.  With spades and a red suit, intervenor would need to start with five clubs."  But wait a minute, is it pick-a-slam, or something else?  Frank Merblum says "Most drive to slam, this shows diamonds plus a major.  Five clubs directly would show either a huge three-suiter or the majors."  Eric Kokish writes:  "There's a case for playing this as natural, but without that agreement five notrump is big red. This is a decent description, if an overbid of sorts."  And John Hurd gropes: "I hope partner is on the same page as I am with these meanings:  five clubs is majors, five notrump is diamonds and a major, six clubs is diamonds and a major with first-round club control."

Double   80   BWP 15%   BWS 21%  IAC 38%
Perhaps that is why there is still support for the tried and true double.  Boye Brogeland: "I have learnt from Zia that when the opponents preempt, survival take precedence.  So my immediate reaction was to bid four hearts, but that would be too pessimistic.  I hope to survive with five hearts over four spades or driving to slam over aa red-suit bid."  Kit Woolsey plans his rebids:  "Then, over four spades, five hearts, which shows extra strength and keeps diamonds (and even spades) in the picture.  If partner passes the double, that might be okay.  This plan risks that four hearts in our highest making contract, but the gains appear to compromise."  Bart Bramley thinks "Defending should be fine at these colors.  Otherwise, I will raise a red suit to six or bid five hearts over four spades (and then six diamonds over five spade - I'm stubborn)."  YleeXotee argues that "It's a 3 loser hand, so a suit won't do it for initial bid."  WackoJack believed the hand is "Too good for 4♥.  Not sure what 5♥ would mean.  Safest to double and then bid 5♥ over partner’s expected 4♠.  Problem:  If partner instead bids 4NT which I assume would be natural then I would like to bid 6♣ to show the void.  However, partner might well bid 7♠ with a hole when 7♥ was a laydown.  So over 4NT I would be conservative and bid 6♥."  And Arthur Robinson laments "But when I joined the panel we did not have hands like this."

Four hearts may be too wimpy, but one thing is clear, there is a lot of mud surrounding the alternatives.  The moderator, Jeff Rubens, concludes with a call for system  refinements:  "It's clear that a partnership will often face some difficult guessing when an opponent opens at the four-level.  What is hard to understand is why we do not have principles that yield the meanings of basic actio after such an obstruction."  In past problems, getting the strain right was often the most important consideration, but a lot of the Panel were focused on the level, with no clear, consistent approach to getting to the right strain.  Perhaps that is why the wimps won out



Problem B  3   (VeredK, CCR3, BluBayou)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 3   ♥ 10 8 4 2   ♦ Q 10 8 5   ♣ Q 4 3

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♠         2 ♣
  Pass      3 ♣     Double     Pass
 ?         
What call do you make?

What do you do with a hand whose values are so soft, its KnR (3.4) is less than its four HCPs.  Without partner forcing you to bid (unless you plan to convert partner's takeout double), this is a clear pass, early and often.  With the takeout double, you have three choices, none of which are particularly palatable (though I halfway expected Todd to blurt out 3 NT, adding a fourth choice and citing Hamman).  I agree with Sami Kehela who bids 3 "Today.  But three hearts tomorrow and three spades the day after."
 
3 ♦   100   BWP 48%   BWS 28%  IAC 38%
Choice number 1:  Bid your length and strength.  BluBayou says "I will bid my one card [other than their trump queen].  If partner isn't coming again with a heart rebid,  I would rather be somewhere else.   In fact I DO rather be someplace else!"  Carl Hudecek writes "Partner, whose most likely pattern is 5=3=4=1, may hold three nice hearts and four mediocre diamonds, in which case we are more likely to be able to scramble eight to 10 trick more easily in diamonds than in hearts."  I agree with Carl's assessment of the general shape, but why can't the hearts and diamonds be reversed?  Ira Chorush has a clear and correct assessment:  "Assuming that the club queen is valueless offensively I have about a king less than partner expects.  North most likely has seven red cards, divided four-three, but there is no guarantee that the four-card suit is hearts.  A bid in diamonds does not encourage partner to go on, so it is most likely to produce a plus score or a minimal minus."  Bart Bramley is "Hoping to hit partner's four-bagger; but, if not, a Moysian fit in diamonds will be a lot better than in hearts.  Pass would be too desparate."  Kit Woolsey: "The diamonds are stronger than the hearts, partner is as likely to have four diamonds as four hearts, and he might be able to bid three hearts."  Robert Wolff "Leaves room for partner to bid three hearts with five-four and at most three diamonds."  Frank Merblum: "Safety first when partner's red-suit distribution is not clear."  Joey Silver: "With a dearth of values, I look for the safest and most-flexible bid, and maybe even a plus score?"  Kamil and Sherman think "Three diamonds need not end the auction, and it may be our best port in a storm."  Danny Kleinman is "Bidding the best suit when survival rather than game is in prospect."  David Berkowitz "I would like to bid partner's four-card suit, but my ouija board is out.  With a strong 6=3=3=1, North might be reluctant to correct three hearts but might well correct three diamonds."

3 ♥   70   BWP 22%   BWS 53%  IAC 63%
Choice number 2:  Gambling that partner has both majors.  Oren Kriegel writes "I'll try to be bold (but no bold enouigh to play for penalty).  Three hearts has a decent upside - catch an eight-card fit in a high-scoring strain - and deosn't seem much more risky than other guesses."  Masse24 agrees:  "Although pass is possible at Matchpoints, it’s a bit much with these poor, scattered values. Partner is asking me to bid, and since the major scores better, I go with it."  As does Eric Stoltz: "It's matchpoints, so I bid the suit that scores highest (at imps I might well bid the stronger suit)."  Zia thinks "Partner is hoping for a major.  I have one."  YleeXotee "going low with this I hope. not ready to bail out on 3s."  JCreech: "What worries me about bidding either red suit is that partner could have continued showing his shape, so bidding either could fall into a poorish fit."  While WackoJack ponders:  "Say partner has ♠ AKxxx, ♥ KQJx, ♦ KJx, ♣ x.  Then 4♥ looks good.  Would partner make a re-opening double with less?  Maybe?  Also it is match points so go with the field 3♥."  Clearly the Panel is of one mind:  Billy Eisenberg: "Seems obvious."  Jerry Stamatov: "Tough decision."

3 ♠   40   BWP 7%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Choice number 3:  Going with the certain seven-card fit.  Choosing either red suit could be wrong.  You may be ruffing on the short side, but with your anemic holdings, you could also be ruffing from the strong holdings.  With five or six, you may be able to survive ruffing from the long side better.  John Hurd thinks "Since partner would have bid hearts with five, he will frequently hold six spades.  Three diamonds seems wrong - likely a winner only if partner is 5=3=4=1, and three of a major scores more."  Ralph Katz feels that "If a red suit is the correct strain at the game level, partner will bid.  If North has only five spades we might be in the wrong partscore."

Pass   50   BWP 19%   BWS 10%  IAC No solvers
For those in the mood for feast or famine, pass is also an option.  Jill Meyers is willing to play the doubled contract: "Its matchpoints and I'll take my shot.  At imps, I would be a chicken and bid three hearts, even though that might land us in an uncomfortable four-three fit."  As is Phillip Alder: "I would bid three of a red suit at imps."  Fleisher and Friesner avoids the wrong choice: "Partner rates to have a good high-card hand.  If North is 5=4=4=0, bidding is almost certainly better; however, this is a much lower probability than either 5=3=4=1 or 5=4=3=1, and we would have little chance of making three of a red suit if we guessed the wrong suit."  While Boye Brogeland approaches the problem with optimism:  "At matchpoints, when I lack a good action, I like to go for the one with the biggest upside.  Passing is additionally attractive, since I don't know how well we would fare at the three-level (nor which suit to bid)."  Perhaps the most realistic Panelist is Arthur Robinson, "Expecting minus 670."


This ends the first installment of MSC discussion.  The new month's contest is underway, and the number of IAC participants has been dropping.  If we are doing something wrong, please help us out and let us know.  The next installment will be coming as time allows.

[Masse24]

On problem "B" I was curious as to why 3 was better than 3 . I remain in the dark.

Though Blu perhaps summed it up best with, "I will bid my one card." Still, at Matchpoints I thought the suit quality close enough to prefer the major over the minor. I still do.

[jcreech]

On problem "B" I was curious as to why 3 was better than 3 . I remain in the dark.

Though Blu perhaps summed it up best with, "I will bid my one card." Still, at Matchpoints I thought the suit quality close enough to prefer the major over the minor. I still do.

Of the Panel, I found David Berkowitz the most persuasive.  "With a strong 6=3=3=1, North might be reluctant to correct three hearts but might well correct three diamonds."  But beyond that, Jock's bidding his one Hxxx suit was the other argument where I could find some solace.

I personally expect to go down regardless of choice, and the minus points per trick are the same in diamonds as they are in hearts.

[jcreech]

February MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Jeff Rubens, Director



Problem C  3 NT (WackoJack, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24, BluBayou, YleeXotee, VeredK, CCR3)

Matchpoints  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 9 8   ♥ A K 4   ♦ K J 7 3 2   ♣ Q 6

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♣        2 ♠
   3 ♦      Pass      3 ♠        Pass
   ?
What call do you make?

Partner has made a nebulous cue-bid, and now you have to decide how to respond.  I call it nebulous because you really cannot tell whether the bid is an ask or a tell.  Is it asking for a spade stopper, as the IAC solvers all believe?  Or is it a raise of your diamonds, a suit you freely bid at the three-level, and, if so, what is your next move?

4 ♥   60   BWP 11%   BWS 9%  IAC No solvers
Carl Hudecek, makes his own cue-bid because "Three spades was a control-bid, showing a fit in diamonds, I assume that partner is void of spades, but the spade ace may not be useless."

3 NT   100   BWP 30%   BWS 46%  IAC 100%
John Hurd says "Seems routine."  No one else seems to agree.  David Berkowitz, for example, points out, "Game first.  Partner's call is not yet a slam-try, it is firstly a punt, e.g.:  ♠ xxx   ♥ Qxx   ♦ Axx   ♣ AKxx.  I must admit to my spade stop.  while I do have extra values, the hand has no direction."  Similarly, Bart Bramley says "Three spades was punt until proven otherwise.  No need to stretch for what might be a thin slam at matchpoints when three notrump will be popular, and I can gain point in the play.  If slam is good, partner may be able to continue."  BluBayou also echos: "Do we all realize that pard's 3 Spades will usually be a waffle?  What can an ordinary opening had lacking a spade card AND a heart suit do after all??  It's too early to get rowdy yet--just do what Hamman says for now"  Masse24: "I worry this is not enough. But let’s see where partner is going with his cuebid. If he passes, we are where we belong."  WackoJack asks "What is partner telling me? Most likely a balanced 12-14 with no spade stop. If so  with my semi balanced hand and the A♠ I must bid 3NT.  Could partner have an unbalanced hand with ♦ support say ♠ x, ♥ Qxxx, ♦ AQx, ♣ AJ10xx when we would want to be in 6♦?  Or even the same with ♣AKxxx when 7♦ is a laydown?  Then partner should take out my 3NT into 4♦ to tell me this news."  YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed."  Nonetheless, there were several that seemed interested in bidding 4 NT if they could be certain of the bid's meaning, or the hand met slightly different criteria.  Boye Brogeland says "The hand is work 3.5 notrump.  I believe that the field would bid three notrump in this situation, so I copy that and hope that partner has a balance hand with 12-14 HCP rather than a good hand with clubs."  JCreech: "The question is whether I am being a wimp by not jumping to 4 NT (hopefully quantitative under the circumstances)."  Fleisher and Friesner: "If we were sure that four notrump would be interpreted as natural, we would bid it - if partner has extras and combined we have a source of tricks in diamonds and/or clubs, slam is likely to be a favorite.  However, this sort of bid is easier to handle in the postmortem than at the table."  Jill Meyers feels the hand has "The values for four notrump but no running suit."  While Oren Kriegel has his own hesitancies:  "Four notrump (or some other forward-going bid) might work out better, but the hand is a bit too light for four notrump, and at matchpoints I don't want to bid a suit."

4 NT   90   BWP 20%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Nonetheless, there was a strong contingent, more certain of the bid's meaning, willing to jump to 4 NT.  Frank Merblum, for example, thinks "Partner either has a weak notrump with no spade stopper or an excellent fit for diamonds.  Four notrump is a natual slam-try with no clear direction."  Eric Kokish says "Three spades is not yet known to represent a powerful hand; rather, it is a grope, perhaps with 3=3=5=2 or a balanced hand with three-card diamond support and modest values lacking a spade guard.  Three notrump may be the last plus, so there is a noose (not a moose) element in bidding anything else.  However, if North has long clubs or diamond support, these cards are good for slam, and the main downside to four notrump is that maybe we can't make it (could be down a lot, in fact)."  Ira Chorush: "Partner's bid is ambiguous in that it tells us nothing about his hand.  It would be mandatory with many weak notrumps, as well as with some very-distributional hands with good clubs and diamonds.  Therefore, we will do best by describing your hand; four notrump shows slam-onvitational values in a balanced hand with a spade stopper."  Joey Silver feels that "With no trump suit agreed, this is natural."  Jerry Stamatov is "Trying to show a little extra, not ideal with ace-low-low of spades."  Phillip Alder: "A tad too much to settle for three notrump."  Kamil and Sherman: "We can't call it a day at three notrump.  This fits best, even if imperfectly.  We'd rather hold king-jack-low of spades, but this is what were dealt."  And Zia asks, "Who knows?  But it's never exactly nine."

4 ♠   70   BWP 15%   BWS 24%  IAC No solvers
Some are not content with simply trying to interpret partner's cue-bid, they see the cue, and raise it one.  Sami Kehela goes with the simple interpretation:  "Partner is probably angling for three notrump, but I have too many values to comply."  Eric Stoltz "Not certain what partner is selling, but I am buying.  Three notrump would be too unilateral and might wrong side the contract, especially as East bid red against white.  I have a potentially-great hand opposite a real club suit and/or a diamond fit."  Robert Wolff feels it is "A fairly easy choice, at least for now.  I'm almost sure we will wind up in at least a small slam."  Danny Kleinman finds the choice "Close between this and pick-a-slam five notrump with the intention of raising partner's reply one level.  Five notrump could get me in trouble if partner replied at the seven-level and I tried to raise."

4 ♣   70   BWP 11%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
The bid I understand least is returning to partner's first-bid suit on Qx when partner's cue-bid is still unclear.  Kit Woolsey wants to "... see if partner has diamond support.  If not, he pretty much must have long clubs, since with four hearts he would have bid three hearts.  This is a huge hand, as North apparently has nothing wasted in spades."  Ralph Katz the cue-bid "... as showing a strong hand, not necessarily a slam-level control.  If partner bids four diamonds, I will face another decision."  John Swanson thinks "The club queen has become such an important card that, along with the controls, there is enough to force to slam.  Four club has the advantage of giving partner options at the four-level, which will provide an opportunity to determine strain and level."



Problem D  2 (VeredK, BluBayou, JCreech)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 6 5   ♥ A J 10 8 3   ♦ 8 5 3 2   ♣ Q J

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♠       Pass
  1 NT      Pass      2 ♦      Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

An auction that occurs all too frequently.  Partner opens a major, you bid a forcing NT, and partner rebids a minor.  You hold two in partner's major, four in partner's minor, and five in your own major suit.  Three potential places to play, with strengths and weaknesses associated with each.

2 ♥   100   BWP 56%   BWS 25%  IAC 37%
The strength to bidding 2 is that your hand will be worth more tricks than as dummy to one of partner's suits, the weakness is that partner will be expecting six and there is a possibility that diamonds will be a safer contract.  JCreech is "Torn between three weak calls.  The 1 NT has already given partner the warning to tread carefully.  I am going with hearts so my hand will be worth some tricks.  I am hopeful that partner has three having bypassed clubs (though that might indicate real diamonds and a stiff heart)."  While BluBayou says "I have never shown a 5-card red suit after this auction, but.....Jim put a bee in my bonnet:: in hearts, I AM worth some tricks, more than usual COMPARED TO WHAT a crappy dummy this is for spades. we will not speak  of  dropping pard in 2 ,  ok?  ...This TRULY  a "misery preference"  to 2 spades--worse even than  most 6-to-9 with a doubleton trump   compared to the alternative of 2 "  John Swanson thinks the bid "Offers a bit of flexibility, and the suit is worthy enough."  Carl Hudecek seems to just like his hearts:  "I dislike bypassing a good heart suit (by giving partner a spade preference on two low), and I dislike bypassing such good hearts by raising diamonds."  As does Frank Merblum: "Tough hand at matchpoints, but I like the quality of the heart suit."  Jerry Stamatov: "Although partner will expect six hearts, these five are good enough.  On a good day, I will hit partner with 5=3=3=2.  And if North has a singleton heart, he can get back to spades."  Several suggest that they would not bid hearts except holding a specific card.  Billy Eisenberg: "Thanks for the heart ten."  Phillip Alder: "An earlier experience with this hand-type involved bidding two spades with a poor outcome.  That eight of hearts was just too tempting."  Ira Chorush: "Without the eight of hearts, I would bid two spades."  Bart Bramley feels 2 "Should be best when partner has two or more.  Might survive when he has fewer, especially as then North might not pass.  I'm looking at the strong heart interiors, whereas partner's interiors are unknown."  And Sami Kehela points to system uncertainties: "Why not?  In BWS, the partnership could have eight hearts and only seven diamonds."

Pass   80   BWP 26%   BWS 25%  IAC 1 solver
The strength to passing is that you know you are in at least a seven-card fit, but could be more, spades is pretty much limited to seven, while the combined heart holding could be anywhere from 5 to 8.  For example, Oren Kriegel thinks "Game chances aren't great, and very likely we have an eight-card diamond fit.  At matchpoints, I expect that partner would have passed with most 5=3=3=2 hands, even some with which he would have accepted a game-invitation."  Eric Stoltz feels "The odds are high that two diamonds represents a four-plus-card suit.  This is a minimum hand, so it would be too risky to try two hearts.  Pass yields the best chance for a plus."  John Hurd points out "The more aggressive North's opening style, the more the pass stands out."  Kit Woolsey argues that "Plus 110 for nine tricks in diamonds ties plus 110 for eight tricks in a major, and I doubt that we have plus 140 available.  Bidding either major could result in a terrible contract."  YleeXotee: "i think this is going low, but I can't quite think of how to proceed."  Robert Wolff says "Passing is relatively safe, and a passer can expect a plus score; flying to two hearts, which is likely to be passed if North has a singleton heart, will often lead to a minus score ... everything considered, it has a lower matchpoint expectation than pass."  Boye Brogeland: "We have found a fit and rate to go plus.  Bidding a major may be a way to go minus."

2 ♠   50   BWP 15%   BWS 42%  IAC 50%
Going for the sure 7-card fit in a major, some  are concerned about partner still having a strong hand.  For example, WackoJack "Not playing Gazzilli partner could have 18-19.  So I must not pass.   I think a preference bid of 2♠ is about right. ... In my book 2 will deny a 3 card suit otherwise I would raise immediately.  I pity those poor souls who have to respond 1NT when they have a weak 3 card raise."  David Berkowitz also feels he "Must keep the bidding going in case partner has something."  Most are just worried about getting out in the best contract.  Masse24 is "Really torn between the 'book' 2 and a heart suit just good enough for consideration. But I’ll stick with the “known” 5-2 fit rather than the hoped for 5-3."  Jill Meyers "Partner did not promise four diamonds, so I choose a known seven-card major-suit fit where I have a ruffing value."  Kamil and Sherman "Not pass for a variety of reasons.  Two hearts would land us in an unfortunate contract far too often, thus the unhappy preference."  And finally Zia weighs in: "Am I really this sick?  I guess so."



Problem E  2 NT  (WackoJack)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1 ♠         Pass
  2 ♦      Pass       2 ♠*       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: need not be six-plus-card suit

What call do you make?

The good news is that you have an opening hand and partner opens first.  The bad news is that you made your game-forcing response in a four card suit and you only have two in partner's suit.  It looks like you are headed for a notrump contract, but what will be your route.

2 NT   100   BWP 56%   BWS 40%  IAC 1 solver
Oren Kriegel: "According to a secondhand account, Kevin Bathurst has described two-over-one auctions this way:  Opener rebids two of his major, responder rebids two notrump, and then they start to describe their hands.  That seems to be the right approach here.  I won't commit the partnership to spades or worry too much about club weakness.  There may be time to get out of notrump, and heart weakness might have been why partner did not rebid two notrump."  David Berkowitz continues with: "A classic mark-time bid.  It gives partner the most space to explore."  Though I think WackoJack may have the best simple description of the sequence:  "I have a balanced 13.  So I will bid a forcing 2NT."  And we end up in an auction that John Hurd sums up:  "This is terrific.  We are at two spades and neither knows how many cards partner has in any suit."  Or as Danny Kleinman rephrases: "Routine.  Thank heaven for game-forcing two-over-one response that unburden us of premature strain decisions with game-going hands."  2 NT may be the Panel's choice, but one thing is clear - no one really likes the bid, but no one really likes the alternatives.  Jill Meyers says "There is no great bid available.  Partner can bid three spades to suggest making that suit trump."  Kit Woolsey feels it "Gives partner the most room and is descriptive.  If we have a club weakness, we might be able to sort it out in time."  Ira Chorush points out that a "Lack of a club stopper and possible wrong siding are defects, but bidding notrump now may allow an escape to spades later if partner does anything but bid three notrump.  If North bids three notrump, the opponents may lead the wrong suit."  Joey Silver: "Most descriptive, albeit slightly flawed in the club department."  Eric Kokish: "Pretty awful but more flexible than three spades or an ultra-ugly three hearts.  I hope that North will mention a different strain if three notrump is not obvious.  Of course, playing from the wrong side is no joke."  Billy Eisenberg reiterates the basic position:  "Not without some concern."  While Kamil and Sherman summarize the position of the adherants:  "As close as we get to, 'What's the problem?'  No second choice."

3 ♥   80   BWP 33%   BWS 42%  IAC 75%
Although the Panel is mostly in lockstep with the 2 NT rebid, the solvers are slightly more in favor of showing their heart values.  This has the advantage of right-siding the contract more often, but is suggestive of a more distributional hand, eats up bidding space, and may give the defense an important clue as to how to proceed.  Masse24 describes the bid as "Keeping 3NT alive and highlighting the club problem. Assuming partner has a stopper, I want the lead coming into him." Bart Bramley views it as "Delaying the guess but showing where my stuff is, which may be all that matters.  I can pass three notrump or bid spades over anything else."  Carl Hudecek is trying "To reach three notrump opposite five spades and club stopper.  Who knows where we will end if partner has five spades and no club stop."  YleeXotee points out that "It's not checking on heart fit, that's already denied, but it's letting p know I don't have club stop. so passing the buck."  Fleisher and Friesner feels they are "Indicating a heart stopper as opposed to guaranteeing an unbalanced hand with diamonds and hearts."  JCreech "Looking for 3 NT, but could end up in a spade contract."  BluBayou "I know bidding 3   now is 'kitchen bridge' when not having 5+ length in diamonds,  but i don't see the harm.  If partner supports diamonds now, correcting to 4   cant be that bad, so the first-impulse rebid of 2NT is not needed with our 10xx club holding.    The panel will probably split between a spade raise and that automatic  rebid in NT, though . I know I am not changing to a spade raise this month--after all  north may have 6-4 majors and then we can't get to 4 "  Phillip Alder frets "If partner bids three notrump, I won't know whether or not to pass (I will), but bidding three spades instead might drive us to an inferior four spades if North has only five."  In the end, Zia says "I know that most bid two notrump, but that doesn't mean it's right."

3 ♠   40   BWP 7%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
Although aware of the pitfall, Eric Stoltz still moves forward with raising partner's spades:  "This problem highlights the major downside of rebidding two of a major without promising six."


This concludes Part 2.  The last segment will be out when time permits.  Be sure to participate in next month's contest.  All are welcome.

[jcreech]

February MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Jeff Rubens, Director


Problem F  3   (CCR3, VeredK, YleeXotee, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A J 6 3   ♥ 8 7 5   ♦ Q 2   ♣ A J 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——        1 ♦        1 ♥
 Double    2 ♥        3 ♦       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

Like the last problem, the good news is that you have an opening hand opposite a partner that opened, this time the bad news is that both opponents are interfering with your auction.  Your first call was easy, a negative double that described your shape nearly perfectly (biddable length in both black suits with values to be at the two-level), but partner has stuck with his diamonds and you do not have a stop in the opponents' suit; how best to proceed from here?

3 ♥   100   BWP 48%   BWS 72%  IAC 75%
Boye Brogeland bids 3 :  "Forcing and asking for a stopper.  Easiest problem in this set."  JCreech says "I am wanting to avoid 3 NT without a stopper or 5 without heart shortness"  Jerry Stamatov thinks it "The only possible bid. ... At imps, we must reach game.  I will pass three notrump or bid five diamonds."  Eric Stoltz "I will support diamonds unless partner bids three notrump.  If North is short in hearts (certainly possible, as the opponents are bidding vulnerable), we may be on for a high diamond contract."  Masse24: "WTP? I’ve shown my spades, now it’s time to show my values."  YleeXotee is "asking for a stopper."  Bart Bramley: "Some game should be decent.  Unclear whether three hearts implies help in hearts; I think not, but the South hand may have biased me."  The remaining comments were variations of Al Roth's "What's the problem?"  Zia: "Must be a safe start."  Fleisher and Friesner: "Self-explanatory."  Phillip Alder: "Somewhat automatic."  Robert Wolff and Billy Eisenberg: "Stands out."  Ralph Katz: "Makes life easier."

3 ♠   80   BWP 30%   BWS 5%  UAC 25%
There was strong support for 3 from both the Panel and IAC, but what should it mean?  Frank Merblum "Shows game or slam interest in diamonds or doubt about notrump."  Sami Kehela has one answer:  "Giving up on an unlikely three notrump.  This should clearly be understood as an advance control-bid for diamonds."  Carl Hudecek has a somewhat different concept:  "The double denied five spades, so this suggests a good hand with four spades and probably no heart stopper."  WackoJack largely agrees with Carl:  "With a minimum unbalanced 1♦ opener, partner would pass.  So 3♦ shows extras.  But is it forcing?  I am not promising any more than a 4 card suit with 5HCP.  So it is not forcing.  I have about 2 tricks more than promised so I want to be in game and slam is not out of the question.  What would 3♥ mean?  Normally when there is still an unbid suit (clubs) a bid of the opponents’ suit would be telling partner 'I have a ♥ stop so you can bid 3N in safety if you have ♣s stopped' However, there is something wrong with this generalisation when you can only bid the 4th suit above the level of 3NT.  Therefore 3♥ cannot be telling partner of a ♥ stop.  It must be a 'tell me more' asking bid.  Nevertheless, I am hesitant to do so because say partner has something like ♠ xx, ♥ Ax, ♦ AKJxxx,  ♣ KQx.  Then he will bid 3NTand we have missed 6♦.  I am too good to bid 3♥.  I will keep things going by bidding 3♠ which will be showing a control and not extra length and will not promise a ♥ stop."  While BluBayou may be incorporating one or both ideas, but is not wholly clear:  "Tooo SIMPLE!   In no style I know of, or ever want to know of, does '1   (1 ) double 2 ; 3   (pass) THREE SPADES'   show five+ spades!  there is no need at all  for some mystery cue-bid if you agree with this.   This is a one-answer problem  or Bob's my uncle --  with the distant other answer being to drop pard in three diamonds --  scoring a minus 50."  And David Berkowitz seems to view it as a form of :mark-time" bid as he writes:  "Do not force North to bid three notrump.  I need him to want to bid it.  (What I really want to hear is four hearts; but I usually don't get the lucky.)"

4 ♦   50   BWP 11%   BWS 10%  IAC No solvers
Some give up on notrump, but Eric Kokish seems to have forgotten the forcing/non-forcing discussions of the past two months:  "This is a great hand for diamonds, and a forcing four diamonds is the clearest message-carrier."  4 is not forcing in BWS.  Kit Woolsey explicitly is "Willing to give up on three notrump.  Queen-low is likely to solidify partner's suit, and we might belong in four, five or six."  But implicitly, is also willing to give up on game without partner pushing onward.

5 ♦   40   BWP 7%   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
To force to game in diamonds is easy.  Bid it as Danny Kleinman does:  "Why hand the ball off when I see a big hold in front of me?  How else to show three workers with two helpers?  I thought of jumping to four hearts, but partnr may be unable to tell a Bluhmer from a splinter."




Problem G  Double  (Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, BluBayou, YleeXotee, CCR3, VeredK)

Imps  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K J 6   ♥ A K J 9 5 3   ♦ —   ♣ J 6 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♦       Pass      Pass
   ?*
*BWS: 2 ♦ = majors

What call do you make?

A balancing seat problem, where you have 17 HCPs, a very nice six-bagger in hearts, and potential in both black suits as well.

Double   100   BWP 56%   BWS 61%  IAC 88%
A majority of the Panel clearly chooses to double, with an even greater percentage of solvers accompanying the parade.  The primary difference is that the Panel is understandably concerned that partner may pass.  Joey Silver thinks "Two hearts would risk burying spades, two diamonds would misdescribe the majors, and double riskes a pass from partner.  There are three places to play, so I'll chance a double as the least of evils."  Jill Meyers says "Double and pray that partner does not pass.  I stongly hate doubling with a void, but the hand is too strong for two hearts."  Danny Kleinman feels "Game is not sure, so I'll risk partner's pass.  Second choice: four hearts, which may be beatable but succeed when the defenders need to play in the dark."  Boye Brogeland: "I don't want to commit to hearts, and showing  five-five majors could land us in the wrong spot.  Partner might pass the double when we have a better-scoring contract ourselves, but on a good day he will be stacked in diamonds, and we might not have a game."  John Swanson believes that "At this vulnerability, partner will avoid a speculative pass."  Billy Eisenberg thinks "Too much hand for one heart."  JCreech: "I have enough strength to double and bid my hearts, and who knows, partner may show up with spades."  Carl Hudecek: "Strong enough to double and then bid hearts."  YleeXotee is "bidding hearts later. but could be convinced of a spade fit."  Masse24 avoids one alternative: "Don’t like 6-4 Michaels."  John Hurd thinks the problem "Seems routine."  While BluBayou elaborates:  "there is absolutely no need to look beyond the one obvious answer--in this case 'double'.   I can't believe they didn't present a second round of bidding and ask us what to call after some 7-bid auction."

2 ♦   80   BWP 33%   BWS 20%  IAC No solvers
For some, the Michaels cue-bid is easy.  Sami Kehela: "I have the majors."  If you choose this direction, you really need to have a plan.  Kit Woolsey thinks there is "Too much potential to risk partner's passing a double.  When I bid four hearts over two spades, partner will take into account that I might have this shape."  Jerry Stamotov believes "Double is possible, but I hate to do that with a long suit and void.  Partner will expect five-five, but I plan to bid hearts in any continuation."  Robert Wolff says "Easy for now, and three hearts over a two-spade advance would be 'in the cards.'"  Bart Bramley: "The three hearts over two spades.  This comes closest to describing the hand, without risking defending against one diamond doubled."  And prescient Zia recounts his prior experience:  "Years ago, I had a similar hand, bid two diamonds, then four hearts, and hoped."

1 ♥   30   BWP 7%   BWS 7%  IAC1 solver
Tackling this hand one element at a time, Ralph Katz makes "An underbid, but double would be trying to torture partner, and all other bids have bigger issues than one heart."  Similarly, WackoJack writes "I don’t think there is much risk in 1♥ being passed out when a game is on our way.  1♥. The odds are that West will help us by rebidding 2♦ and now I show my good 4 card spade suit"



Problem H  J  (None)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

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

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1 ♦        Pass       1 ♠
  Pass      2 ♣       Pass       2 ♥
  Pass      3 ♥        Pass      3 NT
  Pass      Pass      Pass
What is your opening lead?

You are defending 3 NT following an auction where the only suit that was raised was introduced as the fourth suit.  It is an ugly auction, and you hold an ugly hand to lead from.  I think the characterization of the opening lead is your side's first mistake is very fitting.  So what will be your first mistake? 

The moderator, Jeff Rubens, wrote "The panel gave at least three votes to each suit, an indication that the uncertainty level is on the high side, or maybe a little higher."
 
♥ 3   60   BWP 11%   BWS 31%  IAC 50%
The least popular suit among the Panelist only had one comment, and it was not much better than Todd's infamous "I hate lead problems."  And that was Phillip Alder's "I hate all 13 cards."  There was more being said by the IAC solvers.  JCreech is "Not sure what to expect for dummy's raise of hearts after bidding both minors.  I don't expect much in declarer's hand for the fourth-suit forcing.  My suspicion is that either the hearts are 4=3=3=3 or that partner and I have the 4=4 fit."  While YleeXotee is "... going to test that heart stopper"

♦ 10   80   BWP 22%   BWS 22%  IAC 50%
The diamond leaders are hoping to hit partner's long suit.  Jerry Stamatov thinks "Dummy is very likely 1=4=4=4, and declarer is prepared for a spade lead.  Partner is marked with at least four diamonds, and we can hope for five."  Eric Stoltz feels "Any lead could be fatal.  Dummy will be short in spades, so I don't want to lead into declarer's tenaces with my weak holding. ... A diamond might be bad, but it seems most likely to be declarer's shortest suit."  BluBayou: "Dummy can be counted on to have a 3-suter as bid.  Declarer ,however seems to have used artificial  4SF for his 2 Heart rebid.   ..Now, I have put off  for 3 weeks deciding WHICH little heart to lead, but suddenly see that hearts is not the suit to attack!   Wouldn't East, with a small singleton heart bid 3 spades to "command"  west take the notrump?  So his 3NT will deliver some heart helper.  yukk.  it comes down to a guess between the doubleton ten  and jack-third , just like last month."  John Swanson: "First the opponents raise my hopes that they will declare in a poorly-splitting suit, then they put me on lead with a guess of which minor to lead.  Today, it's a diamond."  Kit Woolsey points out that "Since we aren't running any suit, I want to make a safe lead.  This is the only suit I can pick and be pretty sure I won't be blowing a trick."  WackoJack asks "What does a raise of the 4th suit show here?  East cannot have a 4 card ♥ suit here unless 5413 distribution.  Could West be showing a 1-3-5-4 distribution with no ♥ stop?  Perhaps.    Maybe the 'beginner’s' lead of the 10♦ is best finding partner with a 5 card ♦ suit and more importantly not giving a trick."  Boye Brogeland: "I see no tempting lead and hope not to blow anything in diamonds, after which declarer will need to struggle for nine tricks."

♠ 2   80   BWP 19%   BWS 15%  IAC No solvers
The IAC solvers did not find the spade lead enticing.  Panelists, though, seemed to find the expected singleton or void in dummy compelling.  Joey Silver argues that "West has a singleton spade, while East's two hearts did not guarantee either a real heart suit or a five-card spade suit.  Leading a spade looks to be both safe and attacking."  Fleisher and Friesner thinks the lead "Seems safer and more likely to set up a few tricks than a club. ... The fact that opener is marked with a singleton or void in spades (whereas responder's club holding is unknown) makes a spade lead preferable." Danny Kleinman believes the lead "Not good, but everything else looks worse.  I may not be happy if the missing spades are one-three-five around the table and partner has king-third, but even then, it won't hurt if dummy's singleton is any of the three other honors."  Eric Kokish is simply biding his time:  "East surely has decent spades facing known shortage, and we may do best by staying off the other suits until we know more.  We might eventually build a slow spade trick of two while declarer guesses his way through a losing general plan."

♠ 4   70   BWP 7%   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
The other small spade was penalized for not following partnership agreements while not providing a reason for the false card.  Carl Hudecek simply wants to "Attack with a suit where our side has length, probably eight-plus cards."  While Robert Wolff would have done slightly better by going with his second choice:  "Or the spade deuce."

♣ J   100   BWP 33%   BWS 7%  IAC No solvers
If you are awaiting the wisdom of the Panel for why a club, and more specifically, why a jack, you will be more disappointed with the latter answer than the former.  The only Panelist to address the second question was Bart Bramley, who focus first on why not one of the other suits: "Not a spade as declarer rates to have at least five.  Not a heart from a broken holding through dummy's four-card length.  Not a diamond, which may be one declarer's primary trick sources.  In clubs, leading the jack will gain more often than lose compared to the deuce, particularly when partner has four ..."  Everyone else seems to be hoping to find partner.  Kamil and Sherman, for example, are "Hoping either to hit pay dirt or just to survive.  Won't be shocked to end up with egg on our faces."  Oren Kriegel is "Trying to hit partner's suit.  I have more help in clubs than in diamonds, and West may have fewer clubs."  Ralph Katz is "Dreaming of catching partner with the ace or king-ten, plus a good spot card."  Frank Merblum simply is "Hoping that partner has four useful cards." 



This concludes the recap and summary.  I hope you found it useful, interesting, or at least entertaining.  The new MSC contest is going on now; if you have not participated in the past, please dip your toe in the water.  If you have stepped to the side recently, please try to find the time to rejoin the discussion; we miss you.

[blubayou]

For problem B:  we bid  3     with 10x,  10 8 x x, QTxx, Qxx because that is less likely to catch a RAISE, than   3 is.   There is some kind of chance that Mr. Spades may rebid hearts himself  whereupon we can DROP HIM    ( I really am not enthused with this hand, ok?).  One quoted panelist pointed out that partner might pull     3   to a 6-card spade suit,  but leave us in a lousy 3   situation...  All the better for 3   if true.

[jcreech]

For problem B:  we bid  3     with 10x,  10 8 x x, QTxx, Qxx because that is less likely to catch a RAISE, than   3 is.   There is some kind of chance that Mr. Spades may rebid hearts himself  whereupon we can DROP HIM    ( I really am not enthused with this hand, ok?).  One quoted panelist pointed out that partner might pull     3   to a 6-card spade suit,  but leave us in a lousy 3   situation...  All the better for 3   if true.

I am truly shocked, Jock, (with tongue firmly in cheek) I always thought of you as being old-school in choosing length over strength in response to a double.  It is clear from a direct comparison of the heart and diamond suits (as presented by you), that the heart suit is longer and should have been your pick (if not the panel's):

10 8 x x  (hearts)
QTxx       (diamonds).

Congrats on having a better reason for selecting diamonds than any member of the Panel.  In the end, I still think the most likely distribution will be 5=4=3=1 (with the hearts and diamonds equally likely to be either the 4 or 3).  With this shape, I don't see North pulling to spades holding three of the chosen suit; there will be hope that you picked your 5-bagger.  With a 6=3=3=1, including a good 6-bagger, I could see North pulling to spades believing that the risk of a poorish 4-3 too great to leave the contract there.  However, if there is an inclination to pull, I can see the inclination being acted upon more often when the chosen suit is diamonds, than if the chosen suit is hearts.  Spades and the red suit may play equally well, but hearts pays the same as spades; the lower payoff of diamonds increases the greed of being in a major.

Matchpoints is a nasty version of the game.

[blubayou]

problem H,  the led problem:   West's  diamond, then club, then heart bidding HAS TO promise a "Roman"--mini,  midi, but probably not  maxi nor mega.  So  "our"  heart fit might be there but will be 4-4-4-1, if it exists,  which I am doubting as mentioned above. 
   This makes the third mention of  the use or non-use or 3    as 'Last Train to 3NT",  along with problem F and problem C  (where a bunch of us used words like  "punt" "grope"  and "waffle":