Best MSC problem ever?

[helene_t]

This is a relatively unexplored area of bridge theory

Yes, probably because it doesn't happen so often that p has a trap pass at the 1-level when we have a strong hand with length in the enemy suit ourselves.

[mikeh]

2♥

 

I am forcing this one to game.

 

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

I can't see this. I suppose that it is possible that partner holds 4 spades, a penalty pass of 1♦ and enough to make game, but surely we don't need to bid 2♥ in that case?

 

I can't imagine him passing over 1N with that kind of hand, and in the meantime, when he does have the more common weakish hand with nothing but long diamonds, we have committed our side to a minus score: unless we are intending to pass 3♦... and if we are, 1N will get us to a safer 2♦ anyway.

 

 

As for the 3♦ call, which I like a lot... but not more than 1N.... my concerns are twofold.

 

1stly, we may flat out be too high. Yes, this is improbable, and if it were the only major issue, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

 

The second issue, and the main reason I prefer 1N, is that partner is endplayed in the auction over 3♦. He should be bidding 3♥, to try for 3N, if he has a good 6 card suit, but how can he tell that KQ10xxx isn't enough... or that AQ9xxx isn't enough? I'm not saying that 1N answers that question either, but it isn't as emphatic about diamonds as is 3N: I would expect that he will only bid 3N over 1N if he has goodish diamonds headed by the AQ or AK... since our typical diamond holding for 1N will be Hx rather than Hxx. A fine distinction, certainly, but this is a complex problem and I think that fine distinctions come into play most prominently in such problems.

[OleBerg]

2♥

 

I am forcing this one to game.

 

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

I can't see this. I suppose that it is possible that partner holds 4 spades, a penalty pass of 1♦ and enough to make game, but surely we don't need to bid 2♥ in that case?

 

I can't imagine him passing over 1N with that kind of hand, and in the meantime, when he does have the more common weakish hand with nothing but long diamonds, we have committed our side to a minus score: unless we are intending to pass 3♦... and if we are, 1N will get us to a safer 2♦ anyway.

 

 

As for the 3♦ call, which I like a lot... but not more than 1N.... my concerns are twofold.

 

1stly, we may flat out be too high. Yes, this is improbable, and if it were the only major issue, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

 

The second issue, and the main reason I prefer 1N, is that partner is endplayed in the auction over 3♦. He should be bidding 3♥, to try for 3N, if he has a good 6 card suit, but how can he tell that KQ10xxx isn't enough... or that AQ9xxx isn't enough? I'm not saying that 1N answers that question either, but it isn't as emphatic about diamonds as is 3N: I would expect that he will only bid 3N over 1N if he has goodish diamonds headed by the AQ or AK... since our typical diamond holding for 1N will be Hx rather than Hxx. A fine distinction, certainly, but this is a complex problem and I think that fine distinctions come into play most prominently in such problems.

I am with you quite some of the way.

 

In general, when you answer these "what should you bid" questions, I see two approaches.

 

1) What would you do, if this happened at the table.

2) What is theoretically the best bid.

 

I used 1) on this. If this happened at the table, I would be too afraid, that partner and I were not on the same wavelength if I bid 1NT.

 

1NT might very well be the theoretical best bid, but as I am not even certain what I believe it should show, I wil not try and guess what partner thinks.

 

And yes, normally I'd use 2), even at the table, but as others have mentioned, this is quite an unexplored area.

[jdonn]

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....

You're right, I answered too quickly and messed up my ranges over minors vs majors. I balance 1NT over a minor with 11-14, double then 1NT with 15-16, double then 2NT (over a 1 level bid) with 17-18. Anyway I still don't see why this is hard, we have a balanced hand so we show our range. As for bidding 3♦, I would rather show my balanced hand as balanced, and avoid making a bid that probably no one in the universe knows the range of. Partner will at least have an inference that my hearts aren't amazing since I didn't double 1♥.

 

To me all the worrying about partner's hand is misplaced, since ours is so easy to show.

[skjaeran]

Tough problem.

1NT in balancing seat would show 11-14 to me.

1NT now would be 15-17 and 2NT 18-20 IMO.

Put me down for 2NT, I think that's the best chance to reach game when it's right. The downside is that it's most probably the wrong contract when we're left to play there...

[bid_em_up]

deleted, misread problem.

[helene_t]

I thought 1NT must be right on values since if it wasn't, we would have bid 2NT immediately:

1NT: 11-14

x then 1NT: 15-17

2NT: 18-19

x then 2NT: 20-21

 

... and our choice of x indicates that x then 1NT includes 18 points.

 

But apparently some have different agreements. Actually I am not sure if I have discussed this with my Lancaster partner.

[H_KARLUK]

1nt (15-17)

X then 1Nt promises more

[mtvesuvius]

1nt (15-17)

X then 1Nt promises more

I'm not sure if the standard Balancing NT in different where you live, but AFAIK a Balancing 1NT is 11-14, so rebidding 1NT now would show the 15-17ish type hand.

[H_KARLUK]

Adam :o

Maybe you make some guess about th best minimum for doubler's partner. Then hopefully we find out a solution.

[Winstonm]

I don't think there is much doubt we have some game contract - partner's passing the double and our Jxx in diamonds argues that partner has some values outside diamonds or the diamonds will run. Question is will Ax of heart be enough stopper. I think it is imperative to get this right-sided if NT is right and I would bid 2H, hoping it would be construed as I mean it.

[mikeh]

1NT is definitely an underbid on high card point count values, but aren't we allowed/supposed to think about the play when we make bids, especially when the auction tells us as much as this one does?

 

Sure, 1N here shows '15-17', but we can be morally certain that we can't make 3N if we have a diamond loser, and what partner would pass a positionally strong 6 card diamond suit after we show 15-17? Is partner a walter the walrus, who will reason that AQ10xxx is only 6 points and therefore we can't have enough for game opposite 15-17? He knows that even xx in our hand gives us chances.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is an easy 2N if we held Axx in hearts.. they'd need to be on a 4=5 or 4=6 fit before rho is running the suit. But when partner holds 6 diamonds, there is far too much risk of the opps having 3=6 or 4=5.

 

I disagree with those who argue that 1N could be on a stiff diamond. We would either have a double of 1♥ (suggesting but not mandating playing for a penalty) or a biddable black suit... no way would we be making a bid that begs for a minus score opposite Q10xxxx in diamonds, which is an entirely foreseeable holding.

 

Neat problem ;)

[hatchett]

I also like the arguments for 3♦. Put me down for that bid.

[OleBerg]

Neat problem :)

Couldn't agree more.

[mtvesuvius]

Neat problem :)

Couldn't agree more.

With the Smiley Face or what he said?

[cherdanno]

I really liked this problem.

After reading through the thread here, I realized that I hadn't given enough weight to the problem that we only have ♥Ax. I agree with Mike that this points towards underbidding if you are going to bid some number of NT.

However, I would think it argues even more strongly in favor of bidding 3♦. If we bid 1N, partner won't know that a little heart stopper help will be golden, and that in that case he doesn't need all that many points in order to bid 3N.

But if we bid 3♦, what can we have? Clearly we have a strong balanced hand, this is the only hand where we can have diamond support. Also, we clearly have a dubious heart stopper, otherwise we would still bid some number of NT.

I also think that 3♦ is much safer than 2N if partner passes (but is still highly invitational).

 

Of course, it matters whether you play pass as forcing. I don't, and so I don't think partner can infer much about our heart holding if we bid NT (a few MSC comments said "if we bid 1N without giving partner a chance to double, we probably don't have 3 hearts" - well given pass is non-forcing, we might be eager to show our extra values even with 3 hearts).

[Winstonm]

I quite frankly never considered 3D but on reflection give it an A+ as a terrific bid.

[benlessard]

X is clearly penalty so its out.

 

After partner passed 1D, 1Nt doesnt really show extras.

 

With a minimum balancing X you can pass but with 13-14 and a 4315 shapes I think the correct bid is 1Nt (unless you play that pass is forcing). Also having a balanced hand is still possible. I dont see why i would balance with 1Nt instead of double when i have no D stoppers and tol in the unbid suit. Some may argue that partner can pass 1DX with little values therefore you should pass with 8-14 hands and bid 1Nt with 15-17, but i dont buy this argument its is simply better to pass with 8-12 hands and bid 1Nt with 13-15 hand with a H stop, in short you have to imply that partner got some values for his pass and that passing with a wide range (8 to 14) will just endplay partner. Also at imps with a 15-17 balanced i think that 2D is often the correct bid even with a H stopper.

 

So 1Nt is out.

 

In balance for a X and bid in a new suit our style is to borrow 3 pts. but its better to have a 5 card suit.

 

So even if a bit tempted by 1S, i consider that 1S 2C--2D and are out.

 

2H is imo the best bid, I dont play this as GF but its forcing up to the 3 level. It allow partner to bid 2Nt with half a stopper and to bid 2S with 4. a further 3D rebid by me is almost forcing.

 

I dont really like 2Nt because 3D seems safer than 2Nt.

 

3D is a bit inferior to 2H because partner will pass 3D instead of bidding 3Nt with a half or a shaky H stopper or you might miss 4S.

 

Even if you play that 2H is 100% GF, I think 2H is equal to 3D.

[nige1]

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

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.

(1♦)......pass...(pass)...X

(pass)...pass...(1♥).....?[/hv]

IMO _P=3, _X=1, 1♠=5, 1N=7 2♣=4, 2♦=10, 2♥=9, 2N=9, 3♣=2, 3♦=8. 3N=6

2♦ seems sufficient (it is a free bid and it shows ♦ support for partner but you balanced with a double of 1♦, so you must be sound) .I hope that 2♥ isn't a game force. 3♦ is a bit adventurous. 1N seems an underbid and 3N a gross overbid. 2N may be be the clearest bid if you want to avoid misunderstandings. I don't think pass is constructive let alone forcing. I reckon that double is penalty.

[jdeegan]

♥ :) 3NT

Partner's penalty pass indicates we have high card values for game, unless pard is an idiot. His having 5 or 6 diamonds and 4 spades is unlikely. Game is not sure, but it seems odds on to hope we either have nine off the top or he has a heart card. I see no way to make an intelligent game try since we should have enough HCP for 3NT (25+) even when pard is at the bottom of his HCP range.

 

I first thought 2♥ was best assuming he might have the heart queen, but actually it plays better from my side considering RHO is so weak, and Qxx and Jxx or 10xxx are equally likely for pard. I would prefer to see Jxx opposite Ax played from my side. If he has Qx(x) in ♥, the odds greatly favor the K on my left anyway.

[sireenb]

I don't think pass is constructive let alone forcing. I reckon that double is penalty.

Pass may work at matchpoints at this vulnerability although it is not 100% forcing. They are red and were in 800 territory before E pulled. 3NT is not sure and we are not vulnerable.

 

Partner expected to defeat 1♦ opposite a balancing double and I am looking at 3 cards of ♦ so there is hope for some outside strength. If it is in ♥ then partner may find a X and that should take us back up to 200 or 500.

 

With most other hands partner should not sell out to 1♥ (assuming W passes it, sometimes they don't if they do not play SOS XX) so the other options may still be possible.

 

The field will probably bid 2NT. At the table I may not always pass, but if I need a top I will consider it!