May MSC SUMMARY (Part 1)– Bart Bramley, DirectorProblem A 3 
(Masse24, JCreech, BabsG, YleeXotee, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A J
♥ Q 9 8 6 4 3
♦ Q J 7 ♣ A 8
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1 ♣
1
♥ 1 ♠ 2
♥ Double*
?
*three spades
What call do you make?
With 14 HCPs and six hearts, you have a nice hand, but your primes are in short suits, and you have soft values in the diamonds. How good is your hand, really? At the table, given that it is imps, I might try bidding game, gambling that partner's values are working in concert with mine. But this is MSC, so thinking through the strengths and weaknesses of the hand are important. Everyone is bidding, which lends itself to a partscore and competing, but the right values from partner could make game a laydown, which suggests making a game try.
3 ♥ 100 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 34% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 59% Intermediate-Advanced Club (IAC) 100%
IAC is all in with 3
, while the BW solvers make it their majority choice and the Panel, their plurality choice. Most view this action as purely a competive action.
Masse24 thinks to "Jam their auction. Unanimous?" but his prediction only works for the IAC solvers.
Kit Woolsey: "I will want to compete to three hearts, and this isn't worth a game-try, so I don't see Plan B."
Jeff Rubens is "Hoping to profit from unresolved ambiguities in the East-West bidding."
Billy Eisenberg: "Bidding my limit before the opponents have a chance to discover what they can make."
Ross Grabell: "To make it uncomfortable fot he other side to compete."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha thinks "I will need to bid this eventually, so I might as well impede the opponents. Game is remote with flat shape, slow values, and no cue-bid from partner."
Kevin Rosenberg struggled: "Almost all the decent games I can construct give North a hnd worth a cue-bid." I agree with
JoAnna Stansby: "Too many losers for a game try." Resulting in
Sartaj Hans' observation: "After a game-try, North would too often accept when game has no play. Three hearts will miss some close games but avoid a lot of hopeless contracts."
Danny Kleinman: "Just enough extra to have hope for game. In-and-Out valuation and all that jazz." Taking a simplistic view,
BluBayou "Binary choice! -- Follow the LAW, and reraise or don't do so and let 2
ride and likely buy it. Right now, count me IN ..." While
JCreech responded: "I don't know where Jock gets off thinking there are only two options, I can see two cue-bids available for the aggressive, in addition to the two he identified. Would I choose one of the cue-bids? Probably not. Are they unreasonable? No. You only need nine HCPs from partner to have a reasonable shot at the heart game (less with the unlikely singleton or void in diamonds). Nonetheless, I find solice in the LAW. Pass is too weak and the cue-bid too strong, while 3
is just right."
Pass 60 BWP 7% BWS 7% IAC No solvers
Those passing have given up on game entirely, but not necessarily competing. Arguing for the wait-and-see approach,
Augie Boehm says "The heart tricks seem too slow for notrump. I'll listen before deciding about competing to three hearts; our nine-card heart fit lacks ruffing potential."
Carl Hudecek writes "If two spades comes around, I'll bid three hearts; but game looks hopeless, and freely bidding three hearts would be forward going." However, Carl's view of 3
seems old fashioned.
2 NT 70 BWP 10% BWS 1% IAC No solvers
Showing their black-suit stoppers and offering an alternative strain are the two notrump bidders. Does it hurt to put partner on notice that a double of 3
may be the best place to play this hand?
Phil Clayton feels the "Game is too likely merely to reraise."
Hemant Lall points out that "Partner can have useful cards in all four suits; two notrump puts that message across." While
Eric Kokish feels that "It will be good to be able to double three spades with partner involved. A redouble would be too much, pass or three hearts too little."
3 ♦ 80 BWP 21% BWS 12% IAC No solvers
Some viewed 3
as the best game-try alternative.
Phillip Alder thinks the bid: "On the aggressive side, but we are vulnerable at imps."
Allan Graves: "Usually, partner will not be strong enough to bid more than three hearts. If the opponents bid on, a diamond lead from the king would be good."
David Berkowitz says to " Announce that we own the deal before things get out of hand. If we sell to three spades, so be it."
Steve Beatty feels he "Can't redouble with an extra heart and secondary honors in long suits. Vulnerable at imps, partnerships usually invite aggressively and accept conservatively so maybe we won't get too high." The moderator,
Bart Bramley, points out that "The trouble with three diamonds is that it is misdescriptive, implying a two-suiter, or at least a suit-oriented hand. Partner, with a top card in each red suit, will often drive to game when there is no play." I'm not so sure about all of Bart's analysis, but the hand is versatile - aces and heart length for a suit contract, as well as QJx of diamonds, AJ of spades and values in all suits suitable for notrump.
Redouble 90 BWP 21% BWS 10% IAC No solvers
For me, the problem with 3
was that it put the focus on only diamonds, when I would also like to know something of trump quality; it was too one-dimensional. An alternative is redouble, and if I were inclined to make a game try, I think redouble is the one I would make.
Robert Wolff describes it as "Informing partner that I have an excellent overcall, just under the values for bidding game." Similarly,
Mike Passell says "To involve partner. If he starts doubling, I will be happy."
Sami Kehela: "Strong hand; general values."
Jeff Alexander: "To convey that this may be our deal (against today's light openings and responses). We might have game opposite a couple of kings and a queen."
Joe Grue sums it up nicely: "To make it possible to find game; three diamonds is not what the hand is about. Three notrump is far more likely than four hearts to be our game, and I will be happy if we buy the contract in three hearts."
Problem B 3 (VeredK, CCR3, Blubayou, YleeXotee, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 10 9 7 2
♥ 9 6 3 2
♦ 10 7 3 2 ♣ —
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1
♥ 1 ♠
?
What call do you make?
You have length in both partner's and RHO's suits, the opponents are vulnerable while you are not, and you have 1 HCP and a void. Does this give you the liberty to mess with what appears to be the opponent's auction?
Pass 70 BWP 14% BWS 15% IAC No solvers
There were naysayers.
Danny Kleinman: "Ain't go nothin' but shape, and for all I know partner may have lots of stuff in clubs. No reason to try to obstruct opponents who may be headed for spades."
Jeff Rubens: "Current biggest worry is partner; I don't want North to think that I have or might have high-card values."
Allan Graves: "I don't want to encourage partner to bid except voluntarily. North should allow for this hand if short in spades." This call describes your HCPs, but little else; there is a lot of playing strength in that one measly point.
2 ♥ 60 BWP 7% BWS 8% IAC No solvers
Chiming in timidly.
Robert Wolff says "If I do not support now, I'm likely to regret it later."
Sami Kehela is "Joining in, against my better nature." What I don't like about this bid is that partner will expect values, not shape, which can turn into wrong expectations later.
3 ♥ 100 BWP 55% BWS 60% IAC 100%
Another IAC unanimous vote, coupled this time with majorities from both the Bridge World Panel and solvers.
BluBayou writes: "A favorite quote i heard long ago goes 'If your weak jump raises don't terrify you a bit, you're not doing them right.' If you combine the votes for 'pass', 2
and 4
together, the panel should still be at 21-6 or something in favor of the jump-raise ..."
Phil Clayton "Gives our opponents just enough rope without hanging partner.
Steve Beaty think it is "Right on playing strength and forces East-West to begin looking for a minor at the four-level."
Zia: "Should be enough. Should be enough. Four would be a bit over the top, and there is no reason to thing that the opponents' clubs are not breaking badly."
Joe Grue: "I'm content trying to stop the opponents from reaching three notrump easily."
Mike Passell says: "Perfect hand. Makes it difficult to find a fit, which is a good idea."
Kit Woolsey describes the bid as a "Classic preempt to the level I think we should compete. If partner bids game, I might or might not have the right cards, but there is no way to find out.
JCreech: "The LAW guides me ... Let's get to our proper level as quickly as possible. This may result in the opponents continuing to imprudently bidding spades, but it will also make it more difficult for the opponents to find an alternative strain."
Kevin Rosenberg: "Too attractive to resist."
Phillip Alder: "No doubt there will be four-heart bidders influenced by the void."
Masse24: "I was all over the place on this one. Considered 2
and 4
too. But 4
was too hot. And 2
was too cold. 3
was juuuuust right."
4 ♥ 90 BWP 24% BWS 17% IAC No solvers
Going for the gusto, some bid game directly.
Joanna Stansby is "Counting my void plus the vulnerability as a fifth trump. The opponents will have problems finding their best spot."
David Berkowitz: "Do not know who can make what, but I won't wait to find out. Maybe I can coax an injudicious four spades out of the opponents, or maybe I can keep them out of clubs. It won't always go double all pass."
Eric Kokish says "One either believes a jump-raise is acceptable or worries about doing too much if the opponents complete."
Sartag Hans: "Hands with voids and a fit play exceptionally well. Nonvulnerability increase our downside protection. The opponents' vulnerability provides an extra edge in the hope they misjudge."
Hemant Lall argues that the bid is "Better than three, because it gives the opponents less room to explore. On a good day, they will double four hearts, and partner may make it with as little as: ♠ x
♥ AKxxxx
♦ Axx ♣ xxx, for a double-game swing. Also, we may beat four spades when five clubs is cold."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "The book bid is probably three hearts, but that would allow West to double, perhaps enabling the opponents to get together in clubs. I am reasonably confident that partner can take at least seven tricks and prefer to force the opponents to make the last guess when possible."
Roy Welland: "Overbidding as usual."
Problem C 4 (BluBayou, CCR3, Masse24, BabsG)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 6 5 3 2
♥ 7 3 2
♦ K J 10 7 5 ♣ —
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
Pass 1 ♣ 2 ♠ 3 ♣
?
What call do you make?
Another big fit, but a better hand. Again, there are multiple ways to describe the hand, but much depends on how optimistic you are. And BTW, the opponents have already established a fit.
3 ♠ 50 BWP 7% BWS 4% IAC No solvers
A simple raise doesn't strike me as doing much. It doesn't describe the big fit, it doesn't explore whether there is a double fit, and it doesn't obstruct the opponents much. As a top choice, it feels more like a cow flop.
Jeff Rubens: "I don't see how giving partner information rates to help: He can't be short in hearts and is not likely to be void of clubs, so he won't turn up with a boatload of diamonds." Working toward life balance,
Roy Welland says this time: "Maybe underbidding could work sometimes."
4 ♠ 80 BWP 24% BWS 55% IAC 43%
4
wold be the classic preemptive strategy. You bid to your side's maximum level immediately and leave the opponents the last guess.
Danny Kleinman writes "I have no idea who can make what. The opponents might have no idea either. Let them guess at the five-level, and let them guess
now."
Phillip Alder: "I usually like to make a fit-showing jump in this position, but that would give extra wiggle room to the opponents."
Robert Wolff: "Yes, I'm underplaying the offensive potential but, at this moment, I need to show support and await further developments."
Jeff Alexander asks "Where are the hearts? I'll defend against five clubs, since five spades may be too expensive."
Hemant Lall: "The alternative is four diamonds, but giving descriptive information will help the opponents more than partner."
JCreech: "I typically like to blast to the level I want to be at immediately. I may come to regret not bidding to the implied level of the LAW, but the 5-level is frequently daunting. I will gamble that game will suffice."
JoAnna Stansby says "Partner's preempt can be a poker bid opposite a passed hand. If I were unpassed, I would bid five spades to take away a key-card ask."
Augie Boehm: "I may have a guess over five clubs, but sometimes four spades will buy the contract."
YleeXotee is "wondering a bit about system, and Todd makes an argument for the fit jump. but over a weak overcall? I like 4S as the simple answer, but what will I do over 5c??"
3 ♦ 70 BWP 21% BWS 11% IAC No solvers
Partner only overcalled, but sometimes overcalls can be quite good. Bidding diamonds should show spade support, but how high should you be bidding the diamonds, if you do.
Carl Hudecek is "Preparing a defense if the opponents by the contract. I will keep raising spades to the four-level, then leave the rest to partner."
Allan Graves: "I would like diamonds led when the smoke clears."
Don Stack: "Do not want to bid four spades and push the opponents into five clubs. If the bidding ends at three diamonds, we will have stolen the deal."
Sami Kehela feels the bid "Necessary, although the possibility exists that I may not make it."
4 ♦ 100 BWP 48% BWS 18% IAC 57%
As
Masse24 pointed out "'
Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump.' Should aid partner if a 5-level decision must be made." Similarly,
Kevin Rosenberg "This might help our partnership judge whether to bid on over five or six clubs. I plan to bid five spades if partner passes a five-level decision to me. Bid more with voids generally; here, it's especially important to bid four diamonds so that partner can judge to bid six spades later."
Zia: "We may need to make a solo judgment later, breaking discipline."
Sartaj Hans is "Hoping to encourage partner to bid when we have a double fit."
Steve Beatty says "I hope that partner guesses my intentions correctly. I want to bid five spades, but I am willing to give up pressure to suggest the lead if we are outbid. Four diamonds might push us to a good slam on some days."
Billy Eisenberg describes the bid: "Lead directing, showing spades and diamonds."
Pratap Rajadhyaksha: "Directs the lead without committing to the five-level. Pard can be relatively wide-ranging opposite a passed hand and will be able to make an intelligent decision."
Mark Feldman: "Opposite a passed hand, partner's possible holdings are numerous, and a fit-showing jump is not primarily lead-directing."
Ross Grabel thinks it "May help in getting the best lead or in guaging how high to compete."
Kit Woolsey: "Slam isn't in the picture. If the opponents bid over four spades, I can hope that partner will know what to do."
Phil Clayton: "Partner probably has at least three hearts, so our high-level prospects are poor, and I do not expect to compete to the five-level. However, a diamond lead might be the key to beating five clubs ..."
Joe Grue: "Partner can have a decent hand (opening strength is possible). I want to stress that I have a ton of shape and big fit, so North can be in charge of competing. I also want a diamond lead."
BluBayou "If we were not a passed hand, any number of spades from 3 to 6 -- plus 3 or 4 Diamonds would be in the running, but it would be presumptuous to imagine that the opps have a club or heart slam when partner jumps in 3rd seat. Let's give what I hope is taken as a fit-jump and be glad we don't have a follow-up about what to bid on round 3."
This ends Part 1 of the May MSC summary. I will return as time permits. I hope you find something useful here, and will take some time to participate in the June problem set (now open on a different thread).
