June MSC SUMMARY (Part 1) – Danny Kleinman, DirectorProblem A 4 
(VeredK, BluBayou)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K 4 2
♥ A K Q 6
♦ — ♣ Q J 7 6 3 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♣ 2 NT* 3 ♣ Pass
?
*red suits; any strength
What call do you make?
You opened 1
with six, when you could have easily only had three, the opponents show both red suits, and partner raises. Partner had the ability to show a stronger club raise through unusual vs. unusual, so he is clearly limited by the decision to not use a cue-bid. According to BWS2017, North is limited to less than a game-invitational raise of clubs.
5 ♣ 50 Bridge World Panel (BWP) 11% Bridge World solvers (BWS) 20 Intermediate/Advanced Club (IAC) 57%
The low road was not a popular approach by the panel, but it was the majority choice of IAC.
Hoki says "although I did toy with that fancy idea of trying a 4D splinter bid (but rejected that idea as being too much pie-in-the-sky stuff when it is not even certain that we can make game)" Similarly,
JCreech doesn't "... see much chance for a slam, so I will holster the cue-bids and just bid the club game."
Masse24 thinks it "Should have play. An exploratory splinter, or even 3
(my second choice) accomplishes what? What sort of perfecto does partner need for slam to be decent?"
David Berkowitz argues "No call seems appropriate, so I will try to buy the contract. Feels like partner is 3=1=4=5, but who knows how to reach slam opposite ace-king-fifth in clubs? At least I've shut out four diamonds." And
Robert Wolff will "... probably bid six if pushed but I can hope that an opponent doubles five clubs."
3 ♥ 70 BWP 30% BWS 36% IAC 1 solver
It is not clear how best to start the cue-bidding process. The heart bidders thinks it show a concentration of values.
Doub and Wildavsky says "Bidding where we live. We can't yet picture partenr's hand well, so we'll show ours." similarly,
Drew Casen: "I like to bid where I live. If partner bids three notrump, I will probably settle for five clubs. If partner does not bid three notrump, I will look for six clubs."
Frank Stewart is "Heading for six clubs if I can receive just a little cooperation from partner. Over four clubs, I will try four diamonds."
Jeff Alexander thinks that "If partner doesn't bid three notrump, slam is in the picture. Partner figures to have fewer than five cards in the majors."
Kevin Bathurst feels "Slam may be excellent if partner if partner has the spade ace and a high club honor, but more likely he's loaded in diamonds. I won't pass three notrump, which could fail if we have only one stopper in diamonds or spades so I'll keep looking for a club slam."
Irinia Levitina "If partner bids three notrump or four clubs, I'll bid five clubs. If he bids three spades or jumps to five clubs (showing strong clubs), I'll bid six clubs." Typically, with the opponents showing two suits, a cue-bid shows a stopper in the bid suit and is seeking a stop in the other suit; it seems like 3
is placing the emphasis on the wrong suit, seeking wastage rather than useful controls.
4 ♦ 100 BWP 52% BWS 23% IAC 29%
By the barest of majorities, the Panel has slam in their eyes via a splinter.
BluBayou discussed the limits imposed with a simple raise under BWS2017 before saying: "I guess that rules out partner having Axx, xx, Qxxx, AKxx for our Kxx, AKQx, --, QJxxxx (or even similar with five trumps)? So shall we bid the simple cuebid of 3
hoping to hear 3
OR 3NT (Will be ugly if we don't have running clubs)? No-- I will remove the temptation to land in 3NT and stay with the knee-jerk SPLINTER."
Kit Woolsey is "Showing diamond shortness and slam interest. If Partner control-bids four spades, I'll bid slam. If partner has both top clubs, he can work out that he has the right cards."
Eric Kokish thinks "With two key cards, North won't stop short of slam, which might still take some luck if those cards are the ace and king of clubs."
Carl Hudecek believes "Partner will interpret this as a cue-bid slam-try. He can control-bid the sueful ace of spades, or sign off in five clubs with a hand like: ♠ Jxx
♥ xx
♦ xxx ♣ AKxxx."
Marty Bergen: "A splinter, not an-ask. Slam is on the horizon."
Billy Eisenberg is "Hoping for a spade control-bid."
Nick L'Ecuyer: "I don't need much to make six clubs, so I'll try for it. Partner won't control-bid hearts but may well control-bid spades. I'll bid six clubs over any sign of life."
Zia says "A four-spade bid from partner will turn me on."
Jeff Rubens: "I'll bid six clubs over four spades." I like
Robb Gordon's thoughts best: "I don't need much for slam and want to elicit information below five clubs." Coupled with
Bart Bramley's: "Should get partner to focus on the right things. ... I will bid slam over any positive move." Which leads to
Ron Smith's "We could have a slam on a good day."
My problem with most slam tries with this hand is whether North would be showing a first-round or second-round control. When dealing with a minor, it is easy to get too high. In those situations, I find it better to bid the game that is almost certain to make, than to stretch for a slam that might risk turning a plus into a minus position at imps.
Problem B 1 NT (CCR3, Hoki, YleeXotee, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ Q 8 6 4
♥ A 10
♦ K J 6 2 ♣ 10 5 4
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1 ♣ 1
♥ Pass
?
What call do you make?
LHO opened 1
, partner overcalled 1
, RHO passed and you have 10 HCPs in a semi-balanced hand with no stopper in the opponent's suit, and only doubleton support for partner. Not a lot of outstanding choices.
Robb Gordon summarizes nicely: "A typical Master Solvers' Club dilemma: bid notrump without a stopper, raise on a doubleton, or bid one spade with only four."
Pass 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 5% IAC No solvers
The alternative that did not occur to most, but upon reflection, has a lot to offer is the simple pass.
Carl Hudecek thinks "The auction isn't over yet. East's pass has made the auction more difficult for me." In these days of negative doubles, the virtually automatic reopening double makes pass a standout. Wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with 1
doubled if passed back to you? And if it isn't, then you may have a better option available to you.
1 NT 100 BWP 74% BWS 4% IAC 71%
A strong majority of the Panel and IAC show their shape and good values. Although the points may be toward the top, the important thing is to show the shape and not worry about stoppers.
Bart Bramley considers the bid to be "Closest to what I have.
One notrump should be safe, and three notrump is our most-likely game on the evidence so far. Still time to find other strains. Pass, one spade, and heart raises all pale in comparison."
JCreech argues "I am a maximum for my bidding, but then a minimum for my stopper. I don't want to introduce a four-card suit, even at the one-level. I will settle for my least of evils/ best of descriptions."
Phillip Alder: "I would prefer a better suit to bid one spade on four. I also would prefer better clubs for one notrump, but the hand is too strong to pass."
Masse24: "Ten third is stopperish. Keeps things alive if partner has more to say." Zia: "some prefer one spade, but I'd like four better spades when I have
this club stopper."
Eric Kokish argues "It's just the one-level - lots of time to look for a better strain."
Hoki is "second-guessing the panellists who normally don't give a stuff about piffling things like stoppers (at the table I'd probably agree with 1S)"
1 ♠ 50 BWP 15% BWS 32% IAC 1 solver
Hating to bid 1 NT without a stopper, something to try bidding 1
.
Marty Bergen says "I believe strongly that after partner overcalls, advancer's new-suit bid at the one-level should be forcing with four or more cards in the suit."
Kevin Bathurst: "If this may be based on as few as four. I prefer it to one notrump, my close secnd choice, which may fail when West has genuine clubs."
Nick L'Ecuyer is "Keeping everything in the picture. A fifth spade would be nice but I don't have one." Marty clearly feels that an advancer should bid similar to a responder, but the moderator,
Danny Kleinman, thinks the advancer's bid is "... non-forcing, (so) a one-spade advance should deliver a decent five-card suit or better. One spade keeps one spade in the picture, and that may be the final contract if North has a garden variety one-heart overcall with a balanced hand, e.g.: ♠ Kx
♥ KJ98x
♦ xxx ♣ AQx."
2 ♥ 40 BWP 7% BWS 12% IAC No solvers
And then speaking for those who would raise.
Joel Wooldridge writes "One notrump and two hearts look good. I prefer two hearts with no club stopper." I have seen worse doubleton raises than A10-tight.
2 ♣ 0 BWP No Panelists NWS 3% IAC 1 solver
I will present one more option; the nebulous cue-bid. To tell the truth, similar to the "Pass," this has more merit than the polling indicates.
BluBayou "We have everything we need for a cue-advance of pard's 2 clubs, except a third trump. I am doing this anyway:" If you had a third heart, this would probably be a standout first or second choice. It gives partner a chance to show a second suit or a stopper, if inclined toward notrump. The problem is that it is also an aggressive bid with no sure fit or stopper. I am certain that the Panel also looked at vulnerability and were not being pushy with our side white.
Problem C 2 (Masse24, JCreech, YleeXotee, Hoki, CCR3, VeredK)
Imps East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A Q J 10
♥ Q 8
♦ Q J 10 8 5 ♣ 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♥ 2 ♣ Pass
?*
*BWS: new-suit bids nonforcing
What call do you make?
Partner has overcalled opener's 1
with 2
, so you, if you bid, would be the advancer. You have 12 HCPs, doubleton support for partner, and both remaining suits, including five decent diamonds. The hint indicates that all new suit bids are nonforcing, so a cue-bid is the only forcing bid. Is this hand worth forcing with? And surely a new suit would show at least constructive values; opposite what constitutes an overcall these days, what do you need to show a new suit?
3 ♣ 30 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 0% IAC No solvers
Let's start with the truly awful.
Jeff Rubens says he "Can't bring myself to pass with all these honors, however queeny." Doubleton support and 12 HCPs? It seems a bit much for a courtesy raise Jeff, but perhaps you have seen more terrible overcalls than I have.
2 ♥ 40 BWP 7% BWS 19% IAC 1 solver
How about making a forcing bid? You do have 12 HCPs, and cue-bids in response to an overcall are more often of a nebulous nature - make a one-round force now and clarify whether it is a raise or something else later.
Brian Platnick thinks "North may expect better clubs or a slightly stronger hand, but this is superior to two diamonds."
BluBayou is only thinking in terms of a raise: "We have everything we need for a cue-advance of pard's 2 clubs, except a third trump. I am doing this anyway:" The only thing keeping me from the cue-bid is what is my next bid?
2 ♦ 100 BWP 74% BWS 62% IAC 86%
Two diamonds feels as though it is a bit wimpy.
Phillip Alder makes a pitch for the non-systemic approach: "I prefer to use a new-suit advance as forcing, so that a cue-bid guarantees support for partner's suit. But if partner passes two diamonds, I doubt that we will have missed game."
Kit Woolsey remarks: "I was surprised that the BWS voters made new-suit advances of two-level overcalls nonforcing, but if partner passes two diamonds we probably won't be missing anything."
Robert Wolff says "And await developments. I hope I'm not left here; but if I am, two diamonds may turn out well enough, especially at imps, where playing in the lower-scoring strain matters little. I'll bid spades next in the unlikely event that I can do so conveniently."
Bart Bramley feels that "With no known fit and no sure heart stopper, game is a long way off. Take it slowly and hope that something good happens, which could include all pass."
JCreech argues "I may be a bit heavy for my bid, but it is the best description. I can tolerate partner's suit and I want to make a constructive move. This satisfies those desires without going crazy."
Irina Levitina thinks that "Even if it is not forcing, it still must be constructive." Similarly,
Hoki says "forward-going but non-forcing constructive in standard is fine"
Carl Hudecek: "The downside to two diamonds is that part may lead diamonds if West buys the contract, but I'm willing to take that risk. This hand is too strong to pass partner's two-level overcall."
Doub and Wildavsky: "Not forcing, but nothing compels partner to pass."
Kevin Bathurst is "Resisting the temptations to treat my four strong spades as though I had five and to bid two notrump to protect the doubleton queen, but I may be able to do that later."
Masse24 makes a prediction: "Unanimous?" Todd, you were close, but there was even a dissenter among the IAC.
2 NT 50 BWP 15% BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Except for one missing element, this would have been my choice. With more than the constructive values of a new suit and stoppers in both unbid suits, this bid seems ideal until you get to a stopper in the opponent's suit. Even there, you have a partial stop with Qx, and even the best location for that partial stopper if you bid the notrump first, but I would not like to be in a notrump contract with Qx opposite air.
Eric Kokish writes: "This hand suggests suit play, but two diamonds and two spades are length-short and high-card heavy. If the heart queen is worth something it's in notrump. We can get out of notrump if that looks better to North." I'm afraid that once you have promised a heart stop, partner will take you at your word. I agree with
Jeff Alexander: "If we belong in notrump, I should declare. I don't see how cue-bidding two hearts would help." But I am not raising my hand without encouragement from partner, unlike
Zia, who wants to "Grab it while it's hot."
This ends Part 1 of this month's summary. Despite two very concentrated votes, I found some of the minority selections particularly intriguing. I hope you found something of interest as well. Once you finish, think about going to the current month's problem set. Who knows, maybe we will see Ken Berg triumphant return, or Curls (who we haven't seen since she has turned into a Yellow) participate. Anyway, any and all who do participate are welcome; the more the merrier.
