April MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Kit Woolsey, DirectorProblem A 3 NT (BluBayou)
Matchpoints Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q
♥ 6 5 3
♦ A K 9 8 7 3 ♣ K 10 9
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♦ 1 ♠ 2 NT* Pass
?†
*BWS: natural; invitational; nonforcing
†BWS: 3 ♣ nonforcing. 3
♦ nonforcing by partnership agreement.
What call do you make?
You have opened, LHO overcalled and partner made an invitational NT call. Your values are on the low end of an opening bid, but you do have a singleton queen in the opponent's suit to help bolster partner's stopper, and you have a nice six-bagger, but unless partner has help for your suit, it is unlikely to run without giving up the lead. Do you accept the invitation, and if not, you have some non-forcing options. The last consideration is that this is matchpoints, where a plus can be worth more than being in a risky game.
Pass 70 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 14% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 17% Intermediate-Advanced Club 1 solver
Certainly the quickest way to turn down an invitation is to pass. If the NT partial makes, it will score better than diamonds, but it clearly gives up on the game bonus.
Eric Stoltz votes strain over level: "Playing in exactly two notrump is rarely right at imps, but at matchpoints being in the most-productive strain often pays big dividends. There is no need to press for a close game if you are in the winning strain."
Jeff Rubens agrees: "If we can make three notrump, it might not be necessary to bid it to obtain a good score; and we might be able to make only eight tricks at notrump."
Finn Kolesnik indicates that "Passing is a sensible option ... given matchpoint scoring and the possibility of being set many tricks in three notrump. At matchpoints, I wouldn't consider playing in diamonds with a source of tricks such as the one I have."
3 ♦ 80 BWP 25% BwS 50% IAC 82%
Bidding one of the two hints drew a majority of the solvers. Although it does not give up on the game bonus, there is a question on whether partner will take the bid as constructive, looking for some diamond help to try being in game.
Larry Robbins argues: "Even with a double spade-stopper, we may fare best in three diamonds. Partner will usually pass, but with a perfect minimum, say: ♠ AJxx
♥ xxx
♦ Qx ♣ Axxx, North may trot out three notrump. Yes, it is matchpoints, but three diamonds is more likely to produce a plus score." SImilarly,
JCreech thinks "The
Q makes it tempting to bid 3 NT, but I am worried about where the tricks may come from. With fitting diamonds, partner can retry for 3 NT by bidding hearts, spades or NT."
DickHy: "Partner has 11/12 (1N would have been 6-10) and something like Axxx KJx xx QJxx. Where do we want to be? If partner has the spade T or 9, 3N might be decent, as he can win the opening spade trick x-Q-K-A knowing that West can’t run the suit. Without a good spade spot, West, after winning the opening spade lead with the K can carry on with the suit (if he has an outside entry) or can switch … to a heart across partner’s holding. That looks gloomy. At least if it comes down to a heart guess, partner is more likely to get it right than I am. At matchpoints is choosing a fairly certain part-score better than opting for a fraught game? I hope you wizards will tell me. Meanwhile, I can chew over whether it’s better to pass 2N or play 3
in a 6-2 fit. " Some have serious concerns about playing in NT.
Karen McCallum feels that "Usually three notrump will have no hope, and matchpoints is about frequency. Passing is out of the question. Reaching two notrump with a six-card minor is dancing on the head of a pin."
CCR3 wants "to ward off NT noting the singleton spade and three small hearts."
Daniel Korbel writes: "At imps, a blind raise to three notrump; but notrump could be in danger in hearts or spades, so it is not a good matchpoint risk."
Danny Kleinman is "Taking our (likely) plus score. The values are meager, and we're not sure how good our spade queen will prove to be. There's also the considerable possibility of a heart attack once lefty gets in."
Carl Hudecek: "I don't consider that an opening bid, since the suit is a minor. Partner has spade values. We are short of HCP for three notrump, possibly with as few as 23. Partner can move on with an in-context perfecto such as: ♠ KJx
♥ K10x
♦ xxxx ♣ Axx."
YleeXotee "considered pass in hopes that diamonds will run, but why not just make them trump in a partial"
WackoJack "Reckon just good enough to bid 3N at imps. However, at MP just 3D"
Masse24 "My Hamman-o-meter dinged once, then stopped. Although the panel is aggressive, I don't feel it's quite worth the 3NT gamble."
Hoki choice is based on being "... consistent with my philosophy that bridge is bridge and poker is poker"
Blubayou guesses the Panel will choose differently than his choice: "So, the two horse race was a battle between correcting to diamonds and RAISING notrump! So far this is a tight battle. The panel will go for the game bonus, counting on 3NT being cold or sneaking home by a less than double-dummy opening lead"
3 NT 100 BWP 57% BWS 1% IAC 1 solver
Jock correcly predicted that the majority of Panelists would turn to Hamman's rule, and bid the NT game; they were reluctant to name names.
Brian Glubok said "No need to invoke Hamman's Law; just bid three notrump and collect the game bonus."
Sami Kehela: "BWS: Trying for game by partnership agreement."
Fred Stewart: "I anticipate two spade tricks, and we don't need a heck of a lot for nine."
John Carruthers: "I have two more tricks than I might have had and a bolstering spade queen - plus my natural optimism."
Mark Cohen disagrees with Hudecek's valuation: "This holding is a lot better than 12 HCP with no special source of tricks." As does
David Berkowitz: "The spade queen is a full value in notrump."
Eric Kokish: "Even at matchpoints, and even though there are lots of ways for three notrump to fail when the spade queen is working. Prime values and a trick source are too attractive to sign off."
Bart Bramley thinks "We could have nine runners after a spade lead."
Phillip Alder points out that there is "No way to invite game."
Zach Grossack is "Happy to bid game with a clear source of tricks and a potentially-quite-helpful queen of spades."
John Diamond feels "The good six-card suit is sufficient to try this."
Nik Demirev summarizes the choice well: "At matchpoints, partner would be careful not to overbid, so it is easy to visualize a lot of North hands with a double spade stopper or providing nine fast tricks after we get the lead."
Problem B 3 
(CCR3, BluBayou, YleeXotee, Masse24)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ —
♥ A J 5
♦ 10 9 7 6 4 2 ♣ A K 9 8
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— Pass Pass 1 ♣
1
♦ 1 ♠ 2 ♣* 2 ♠†
?
*BWS: as if West had passed (2 ♠ would have
been a strong diamond raise)
†four spades
What call do you make?
East opened 1
in third seat and you overcalled with a 10-sixth suit, but 12 nice points in your shorter suits plus a void in spades. West now bid 1
, while partner cue-bid clubs and East raised the spades. The implication of the cue-bid is that it shows a fit for your diamonds, but for some reason, the hint only talks about what a spade bid would have shown, had West had not already bid the suit. I prefer to think in terms of there being two suits that can be used as cue-bids; clubs being cheaper and spades as more expensive (those characterizations should apply to both North and South, but what are their implications? Do they convey differing levels of strength, or do they show stoppers, and is any of this affected by North being a passed hand?
3 ♦ 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 16% IAC No solvers
Since 2
promises support, and you hold six, perhaps it is worth a 1-2-3-stop-like auction.
Fred Stewart "Three clubs might lead to an ugly three notrump. A pass would be nonforcing." And you think 3
is forcing? At least 3
would help partner understand that there is a double fit.
5 ♦ 70 BWP 11% BWS 8% IAC 27%
Working from similar logic,
DickHy writes "According to BWS [C(b)] a passed hand cue-bid guarantees a fit. I guess in this auction 2
could show a fit but a weak hand, 2
a decent raise (6-9) and 2
(10/11) a good one. Partner looks to have 4 spades. With nice spades and Qxx in diamonds, say, he might have bid 1N. Ergo (these Italian drugs are graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate), he has paltry spades and Axxx in diamonds. Carpe diem!"
John Diamond says, "Might as well bid it immediately."
JCreech: "Not sure what 2
means. As a passed hand, I think it is showing a good passed hand with a fit. I'm not sure who can make what, but I don't want to guess when the opponents bid 4
, but I think I will get a plus if they bid 5
."
Larry Robbins has other concerns: "I won't pass three notrump. We could have a slam, but it will be difficult to bid, even if I cue-bid (which might help the opponents find a sacrifice)."
3 ♠ 60 BWP 7% BWS 10% IAC 27%
Some cue-bid. Nik Demirev considers how the auction will proceed: "Followed by a control-bid, depending on the auction. Four-card support will make five diamonds a decent contract, and slam, even a grand slam, is possible. Stopping short of five diamonds is not ideal at imps, even though that contrct may fail."
WackoJack feels "That tells partner game interest" While
John Carruthers says "I'm up for whatever North intends."
4 ♠ 70 BWP 11% BWS 4% IAC No solvers
Although a cue-bid uses a lot of space, a jump-cue eats twice as much, but is quite descriptive. As
Karen McCallum puts it: "For a slam-try opposite a passed hand, partner should expect a spade void and aces."
Eric Kokish: "Our maximum might be a high partial, but it's far more likely to be a slam."
Phillip Alder says "I will be happy to play in five diamonds, and we might will have a slam."
3 ♣ 100 BWP 61% BWS 44% IAC 36%
A majority of the Panel and a plurality of the solvers cose to use the cheaper available cue-bid: 3
.
BluBayou "The hint sent me running to the OKB system notes! IT made me think that both cuebids show "strong diamond raises", which is odd. But no. Turns out that 2
has two legs. It can be the usual invite+ in diamonds, but also a really strong hand (in context) coming in a different suit. With that possibility in mind, I see no haarm in bidding my club suit, in case partner has a 1H opener which will be lovely, or even a club-heart two-suiter--even lovelier. I really expect we are headed for 4 or 5 hearts or 5 clubs." Jock, where are we headed here?
Masse24 says "Game try. Who knows which game." Some think the bid shows clubs.
Mark Cohen: "Most flexible opposite a passed hand; encouraging with club values. I will not pass three notrump."
Danny Kleinman: "Bidding 'em where they is. If the opponents buy the contrct in spades, I can hope that partner will lead clubs."
Daniel Korbel: "If partner can hold four diamonds, we could have a slam. May as well show my second suit on the way to five diamonds." Well, I guess it could; often when you have a choice of two cue-bids, the one bid is often a "tell" rather than an "ask."
Robert Wolff describes the bid as a "General forward-going action. The hand may be worth only three diamonds, but I plan to drive higher."
Jeff Rubens: "The diamonds are too weak to drive to five diamonds, so I will consult partner."
Finn Kolesnik: "Three notrump or five diamonds might have good play; this keeps both in the picture. I will pass if North bids three diamonds or compete to four diamonds if the opponents bid three spades."
Steve Robinson: "With plenty of defense against spades, there is no need to jump to five diamonds. Partner will know that I am short in spades; he will be aggressive with strong diamonds."
Zach Grossack: "I will force to some game but will need convincing that it should not to be in diamonds. The poor quality of the suit makes the hand oriented for a suit contract, and a slam is possible. For now, I show a concentration in clubs."
Rozanne and Bill Pollack: "If partner has four diamonds (very likely but not certain), we have quite the duke. Will try to be somewhat descriptive, but it will not be surprising if it's four spades or eight spades by the time the auction comes back." Nonetheless,
David Berkowitz warns that the auction may not be over for the opponents: "Must anticipate more spade bidding. Not interested in notrump, but this is a mighty nice hand if partner has strong diamonds."
Problem C 1 NT (DickHy, Hoki, CCR3, Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, WackoJack, YleeXotee, VeeRee, VeredK)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K J 4
♥ A Q
♦ K J 3 2 ♣ J 6 5
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1
♦ Pass Pass 1
♥ ?
What call do you make?
This hand is very much like Problem D from last month; the differences being when the overcall occurs in the auction and which seat is balancing. This time, you opened 1
which was passed to East, who balanced 1
. The concern about right-siding the contract with respect to hearts is essentially gone; your AQ is sitting over the heart bidder. Nonetheless, partner still has few points, as he did not respond to your opening bid. And the Panel splits on this hand considerably differently; last month, nearly the whole Panel went with the 1NT rebid, none doubled, and we solvers were stunned to see 1
as the primary alternative to 1NT; this time, those same three options are more evenly split.
1 NT 100 BWP 39% BWS 60% IAC 91%
A majority of the solvers return to the tried-and-true, as well as a plurality of the Panel.
DickHy said: "At the table I’d bang this out with nary a second thought. "
Masse24: "A bit of a tease? So similar to last week's "WTP unanimous?" problem. But it's different."
JCreech: "The right values and right-siding the hand still outweigh bidding or asking partner to bid the spades"
CCR3: "perfectly describes values and can tolerate the heart lead."
YleeXotee: "seems normal"
Wackojack: "That is what I have"
Larry Robbins: "Where we want to land opposite a flat hand, such as 3=4=3=3, where North might bid two diamonds if I doubled. One spade should be more distributional. One notrump loses the club suit but is the contract most likely to make."
Eric Kokish: "An opportunity to offer a clear description should not be discarded in favor of a safer double at this vulnerability. We could buy 2 or 3 HCP and be in the best contract."
Daniel Korbel: "Sure, double could work out better, but when I am supposed to bid one notrump, it's very important to do so (e.g., opposite a balanced hand with scattered bits, where I'd rather not watch partner struggle in two clubs)."
Finn Kolesnik: "Double is possible, but the holding doesn't look suit-oriented. One notrump might suffer extra undertricks, but nonvulnerable at imps this is not scary."
Phillip Alder: "Double will do well when North has four spades, but I will not feel happy if partner bids two clubs, even though that might be the best spot."
Zia: "Mild danger. Greater temptation."
1 ♠ 80 BWP 25% BWS 9% IAC No solvers
1
was a solver surprise last month; this month, not such a surprise and more popular with both the Panel and solvers than last month. What's the attraction?
Bart Bramley thinks "A suit should be safer than notrump, and spades is my best suit. With 2=4=2=5, partner might try clubs on the way to two diamonds. If I doubled, partner might pick diamonds with three than spades with a weak four."
John Carruthers is "Hoping for a trick or two more than in notrump."
Nik Demirev: "Introducing spades may help us compete if the opponents bid more hearts." Carl Hudecek: "Partner can't hold that much, so I compete quietly."
Jeff Rubens: "Any positive action risks reaching the wrong strain, but this stays low and is a likely plus." which leads us to
Danny Kleinman's rule: "What I should have bid last turn. I've seen too many balanced nineteeners get passed in one of a minor when opening in a strong four-card major would have found a fit (perhaps even a raise and a game). Rule of 19: With a balanced 19-or-so high-card points, open in a strong four-card major if you have one."
Double 90 BWP 36% BWS 28% IAC 1 solver
Last month, it was like the Panel did not know that a takeout double existed; this month, it is very nearly the top choice.
Brian Glubok is very confident that double will be the Panel's choice: "No comment will be helpful, because double will inevitably prove the unanimous choice."
Fred Stewart thinks "A notrump bid would be fraught with risk, as there is no source of tricks."
Zach Grossack: "No reason to bid one notrump when our goal is to compete effectively."
John Diamond believes double is "Best for reaching the right strain." Concern about the spade suit is still paramount for some of the Panel.
Karen McCallum sees "No point in bidding one spade; partner won't be on lead. If North has long clubs, I want him to feel free to bid the suit. One notrump is more descriptive, but partner won't care, so why wrn the opponents to stay low or help them with the play?"
Eric Stoltz: "One notrump would not bring spades into the picture; bidding one spade would misdescribe diamonds; double better shows all-around values."
Rozanne and Bill Pollack is in "No rush for notrump, and we can't afford to lose a spade fit. We reject one spade with a flat hand and lots of extras. We need a sign of life opposite to make a game."
Steve Robinson "I want to bring spades into the picture. If I were to bid one notrump, partner would pass with four spades. Opposite a weak hand, we'll do better in a trump suit, even if only a seven-card fit. I'd bid one spade if I had only two clubs."
BluBayou has his own special take on this: "They're having a little joke here-- this is last month's problem D with the heart noise coming from righty instead of lefty! March problem D had a stunning 25 votes to become declarer. Will a majority be sucked in by the heart AQ even though "right-siding" is not an issue anymore? It depends on whether or not after doubling, we are willing to lie down for partner's runout to 2 of either minor. It is IMPS, so I am OK with being dummy to 2 clubs or playing 2 diamonds"
This ends Part 1 of the summary. I hope you found something interesting or useful in it. Todd has opened up the discussion for next month's problems. Please start thinking about your answers and contribute.
