Best MSC problem ever?

[cherdanno]

I came across this one the other day. I don't think I have seen a master solvers' club problem before where the plurality choice got less than 20% of the expert vote.

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=saqt7ha4dj73cak94]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♦)......pass...(pass)...X

(pass)...pass...(1♥).....?[/hv]

[Gerardo]

Pass, doubles are for penalties here.

[jdonn]

Obvious 1NT to me. Partner showed the diamonds so I'm only worried about hearts if anything, but partner will at least realize I didn't double.

[Gerben42]

1NT can't be right, partner will pass too often when we have 3NT. I'll bid 2NT with Josh's reasoning but instead trying to get the strength right....

[Hanoi5]

I bid 2♥ which I expect to be taken as a cue-bid, as double by me should be for penalties now.

[1eyedjack]

1NT for me.

Partner is never going to have a hand suitable for taking a 1 level penalty against Hearts as well as diamonds. And 1NT shows a strong hand so I do not expect to miss 3N if it is making.

[the hog]

1NT for me.

Partner is never going to have a hand suitable for taking a 1 level penalty against Hearts as well as diamonds. And 1NT shows a strong hand so I do not expect to miss 3N if it is making.

Yes. I agree with this.

[kgr]

Is 1NT still showing 18-19 after partner's penalty pass? Partner will have something and it feels that we will likely make 3NT (with 5 ♦ tricks in partners hand).

[1eyedjack]

Is 1NT still showing 18-19 after partner's penalty pass? Partner will have something and it feels that we will likely make 3NT (with 5 ♦ tricks in partners hand).

If partner has enough diamonds and no suitable alternative he can take a risk with a penalty pass, without requiring much in values. Heck 1D doubled making could be your best result available. That said, 18-19 is probably pushing it a bit. I would have said about 15-18

[kgr]

Is 1NT still showing 18-19 after partner's penalty pass? Partner will have something and it feels that we will likely make 3NT (with 5 ♦ tricks in partners hand).

If partner has enough diamonds and no suitable alternative he can take a risk with a penalty pass, without requiring much in values. Heck 1D doubled making could be your best result available. That said, 18-19 is probably pushing it a bit. I would have said about 15-18

..Still I think I agree with Gerben and would bid 2NT.

[Fluffy]

1NT is NF, and tehre is no way I stay below game now, so 2♥ for me.

[TimG]

Would our pass be forcing? I would guess "yes" after the attempted one-level penalty.

[helene_t]

If a direct 1NT would be 11-14 then 1NT here is stronger, say 15-17. Maybe 18 is ok. Anyway I voted 2♥.

[y66]

I voted for 3N, gambling that pard has AQ98x of diamonds or better and hearts splitting 4-4 and spade honors split. If I bid less than that, how will pard know what to do?

 

2N seems wiser now. But beyond me.

 

Edit: I totally missed the key to this one. OP's login now has 2n's.

[655321]

I like 2NT. 1NT doesn't feel quite enough.

[kenrexford]

3NT.

 

Only alternative is a penalty double.

[keylime]

I bid 1NT to avoid the 2NT trap. Pard's penalty pass of diamonds doesn't promise any values because they themselves failed to bid 1NT -> so what would you do on a hand like xx xx KJT9x xxxx or forms thereof in this auction after a balancing auction? We know the opener doesn't have a maximum, or a shape hand.

 

I'm staying low.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm right on the line of 1NT and 2NT... 1NT should be like 15-18 here, because in Balancing I imagine 1NT is 11-14, therefore 2NT now should show 19-20ish... I expect my partner to invite on 7, so I will bid 1NT.

[1eyedjack]

BTW I do not reckon pass is forcing over the 1H, just because earlier in the auction your side elected to defend a doubled contract in another suit.

 

Do we get to hear how the MSC voted?

[RichMor]

It's a problem with at least 3 levels.

 

1. What do rebids mean in this position ?

As other posters wrote, a balancing 1NT is weak and a balancing 2NT is strong (18+) so a balancing double followed by a minimum NT rebid is in between (15 to 17 roughly)

 

2. Does the actual auction change the meaning ?

If pard's penalty Pass shows some values then maybe a 1NT rebid can be less that 15 to 17 and a 2NT rebid can be less than 18.

 

3. What's the best call with the given hand ?

Even if we have a perfect understanding with pard about 1. and 2. it's still not clear what to do. Rebidding NT with Ax in hearts is antipositional. A double is murky; penalty or takeout or 'cards' ?

 

I think I agree with Helene, cue bid 2♥ anyway.

[jwmonty]

3D. I remember this hand from when it ran in the magazine. Hardly anyone on the MSC panel wanted to bid this, and it seems the same is true here.

 

It seems really obvious to me to bid diamonds now. Partner has five good diamonds at least, and is more likely to have six. With Jxx, you have more, and better, diamonds than you could have been expected to hold on the auction. With AK A A on the side, you contribute four tricks in a diamond contract, plus a likely heart ruff (if partner has a weak hand with a doubleton heart, the opps have nine combined and probably either will, or should, bid 3H anyway).

 

If partner has KQ109x(x) of diamonds and out, a diamond contract is where you want to be. In notrump, opener will hold up his ace and kill partner's hand. If partner has more than that, or holds the ace of diamonds instead of the king, he can bid 3H to ask you for a stopper.

 

Bidding some number of notrump now won't get the job done. Partner will think you have some kind of, perhaps, 4=3=1=5 shape with extra values. Even if he credits you with more than one diamond, he will expect a doubleton rather than three of them. In any event, if you are going to play a partscore diamonds has to be better than notrump. You don't want to be in notrump unless it is game.

 

A 3D bid here clears away any confusion that could result from a different call. It tells partner: Good hand, unexpected diamond fit, let's consider game, and we can expect to make 3D if there is nothing better for us to do. Isn't this just about perfect? The only argument I can really see against it is that this hand is so strong you should gamble on a game anyway (because partner won't necessarily know when to carry on toward game). So if not 3D, blasting 3NT (another bid with little support) seems like the alternative.

[mikeh]

It is not surprising that no-one likes his or her choices. This is a relatively unexplored area of bridge theory, and we have to cater to a lot of uncertainty about partner's hand. Years ago, I passed my partner's direct seat takeout double of 1♠ with J1097xxx xx xx xx... not because I was sure I could beat it, but because I had nowhere to go, and so on this hand, if partner was 2=2=6=3 with Q109xxx in diamonds, what do we expect him to do?

 

playing partner for AQ98xx in diamonds seems somewhat optimistic to me.

 

and opposite any lesser diamond holding, we are flat out down in 3N... rho will hold 5+ hearts and lho almost certainly holds 3+.

 

Raising diamonds is the best way to ensure a plus opposite a bad hand, but makes it impossible for partner to evaluate a so-so hand..... should he venture game with AQ98xx but not KQ109xx?

 

My view is that 1N is the best, even tho it is an underbid in terms of point count... if I held Axx in hearts (say one less black spot) I would bid 2N, intending to shut out rho's 5 card heart suit. 1n has the advantage of showing at least diamond tolerance and a good hand, so that partner has the best chance to do the right thing.. he can pull to 2♦ with the long weak suit, and may work out that he needs a good suit, headed by the Ace, since he rates to have no sure side entry, in order to bid or invite 3N.

 

Nothing is perfect.. this is as far from a wtp? as I can recall.

[OleBerg]

2♥

 

I am forcing this one to game.

 

Should partner have four spades, hearts are a favorite to be quite open.

[rogerclee]

3D.  I remember this hand from when it ran in the magazine.  Hardly anyone on the MSC panel wanted to bid this, and it seems the same is true here.

 

It seems really obvious to me to bid diamonds now.  Partner has five good diamonds at least, and is more likely to have six.  With Jxx, you have more, and better, diamonds than you could have been expected to hold on the auction.  With AK A A on the side, you contribute four tricks in a diamond contract, plus a likely heart ruff (if partner has a weak hand with a doubleton heart, the opps have nine combined and probably either will, or should, bid 3H anyway).

 

If partner has KQ109x(x) of diamonds and out, a diamond contract is where you want to be.  In notrump, opener will hold up his ace and kill partner's hand.  If partner has more than that, or holds the ace of diamonds instead of the king, he can bid 3H to ask you for a stopper.

 

Bidding some number of notrump now won't get the job done.  Partner will think you have some kind of, perhaps, 4=3=1=5 shape with extra values.  Even if he credits you with more than one diamond, he will expect a doubleton rather than three of them.  In any event, if you are going to play a partscore diamonds has to be better than notrump.  You don't want to be in notrump unless it is game.

 

A 3D bid here clears away any confusion that could result from a different call.  It tells partner:  Good hand, unexpected diamond fit, let's consider game, and we can expect to make 3D if there is nothing better for us to do.  Isn't this just about perfect?  The only argument I can really see against it is that this hand is so strong you should gamble on a game anyway (because partner won't necessarily know when to carry on toward game).  So if not 3D, blasting 3NT (another bid with little support) seems like the alternative.

I like this post a lot and agree that 3♦ is the best call.

[kenrexford]

I partner actually bids, that tells us nothing about his values. He coud be 4333 with a 0-count. When he passes, however, this shows some sort of values. Hence, this is not, IMO, aking to a rebid after partner makes a forced call.

 

Of course, I have no idea what is standard.

 

Using my personal logic, though, it seems that NT ranges are different here. What they are seems to be in debate. But, I cannot imagine that 1NT shows 15-17 and 2NT 18-19.