From: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Subject: PSP #22.1
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:27:28 GMT

Here are the "answers" to PSP #22.  The questions came from "Chicago Masters"
from 1979, so we have a baseline of "expert" responses to compare against.
The moderator of CM at that time was Mark Starr.  There is also the dreaded
"scoring" for each hand.  I'll include it, because it's popular.

As usual, I'll list the players at the end of each post (one per day
this week).

-- MM


Problem 1.  
Matchpoints, NS vul.
You, South, hold:
S-A6   H-JT94   D-AK753   C-J7

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                     1D       pass
 1H        3C        pass     pass
  ?

What call do you make?

Starr's initial comment:
  This comes down to a question of bid what you have and bypass 3NT or
  bid what you think your partner has and risk losing seven club tricks
  off the top.

The bids:

First, the bid that had *no* expert commentary, and thus get zero points.
Perhaps in the 14 years since this problem was published people have
started opening lighter and lighter so you don't want to go to game opposite
an opener with this hand.  Perhaps... but probably not.

(KTL) 3D.  Even if partner wants to go for a penalty in clubs, it is more than
        likely we can make more in game.  I don't want to pass 3NT, but I'm
        not sure 3D is strong enough.

(BB) 3D. We have values, but quite possibly no game to make. Pard is on a 
minimum (no bid or X) so I'll just bid a nice quiet 3D and see what happens.

(MK) 3d. Partner probably has a balanced 12-14 point hand with possibly
3 diamonds. If my 3d bid cant induce partner to bid 3nt, nothing can.
4d doesnt seem right, when 3nt could be cold.

(TR) 3D

(PW) 3D.  I think 5D is too far away, and don't want to miss 3NT if
possible.  If partner pass 3D it's probably correct contract.

(FB) 3D.  

(IDC) 3D.	Tough.   None of the choices seems right but since it's
	matchpoints I'll underbid.
	
(XH)  3D.  Partner doesn't know about my diamonds.

(JOHN) 3 Diamonds. Five diamonds looks unlikely, but 3NT may be a possibility
               if partner can bid again.

(JSM) 3d. Forcing bids will get us too high - (past 3nt)

(ING) 3D.   This hand would of course have been easier with inverted minors.
        I guess partner can still be 4333 and we will end up in 4D.

Starr says:
  The 3NT bidders defend themselves on the basis that, after all, it's only
  matchpoints.

Gerald Caravelli: 3NT.  East didn't raise clubs.  I believe partner has a club
stopper so I will bid what I think we can make.

Kent Feiler: 3NT.  This is probably the right contract, and, if not, I may
talk LHO out of leading his suit.  The only disadvantage is having to find a
new partner if it doesn't work out.

(RB) 3NT. Somebody has to bid it if it's right.
3S is cute but just asking for a disaster.
4D is for the weak and faint of heart.

(PV) 3NT. The alternatives are worse. 3D is an underbid and a competitive
double shows a different shape.  The lack of a club stopper is, of course,
a big flaw but maybe partner can help a little or LHO is afraid of
leading from AQ.  If we stay in 3NT partner has 4+ diamonds so I have
high hopes of running 9 quick tricks when I get the lead.

(SA)  3NT.     RHO has spade length but did not overcall, so pard
             should have honors there.  Since there are no good
             alternative ways to describe this hand I'm willing
             to take the chance that pard has club help rather
             than wasted heart honors.

(DV) 3S.  Partner's double would have been for penalty.  I don't want
        to gamble 3NT, counting on partner for a stopper, when s/he
        has already suggested not holding one.  Since a double here
        would suggest a spade contract, I hope partner will take 3S
        as a stopper.

A couple of the expert panelists bid 3S as a compromise.  Here's the comment:

Jim Phillips: 3S.  The only forcing bid available that doesn't take us past
3NT.  I'll correct 4S to 5D if necessary, and hope for the best.

to which, Starr responds:
  However, that can lead to plenty of confusions...

(AB) 3S. 3NT is a possible game, and at matchpoints, I want to try to
get there if it's right.  Hopefully partner will bid 3NT with a club
stopper.  If he thinks my spades are a real suit and bids 4S, I'll
correct to 5D.  A diamond slam is a possibility if partner has the
right hand, but there doesn't seem to be any way to look for it
without bypassing 3NT, so I'll give up on it.

(SM) 3S. It's forcing. If partner can bid 3N, we'll play it there.
   If partner raises to 4S, I'll retreat to 5D.
   I wish 3D were forcing, but I don't think it is.

(MS) 4C. Bidding 7C would eat up too much room.


I don't really know what Marc is talking about here.  
Perhaps he misread the problem?

Starr says:
  ... some panelists prefer a simple honest bid of 4D, bypassing 3NT

Craig Allen: 4D.  Best descriptive bid available.  Ruling out a diamond slam
by bidding 3NT without a club stop is just plain silly.

Sandy Zakin: 4D.  I've gotten zeros before.

Hank Rabin: 4D.  The best forcing bid available to me.

(GL)  4D .  This is a nonforcing call describing my values.  
If partner has  KQxx KQ QJxxx Qx we will avoid game.  Not strong enough to
bid 4C at this point and I can't think of any other bids.

(PRM) 4D.  Show my shape and quasi-game going strength.

(EKP) 4D. Not quite sure of game, and envision 3S being seen as 4-6,
and my retreat to 5D as a cue for H.

(DS) 4D. The only shoe that fits. Anybody else like the idea of 
1m-3M = GF raise with 4M?

(DXM) 4D. This bid describes my hand pretty well, and helps us find the
       most likely games (4H and 5D). It'd be nice to have a chance at
       3NT too, but X is far too likely to be passed for somewhere
       between +100 and +500, which won't make it at matchpoints.

(SDR) 4D.  3N is remote, we have a 9 card D fit (I assume that North 
would have bid 3H here with a 4-4-3-2), and a 7 loser hand, so invite 
game.  With Kxxx AKQ QJxxx x perhaps North will bid 5C and we'll get to 6D.

(LTF) 4 diamonds; I'm worried about partner's pass, but game is still
      possible; I'll give him a chance.

(IM)  4D.  Seems about right on strength.  I'm not sure if it is forcing, 
      but, if partner passes, this may be the limit of the hand.

(RD) 4D. 3NT might be best but not frequently and I do not know when.

And another couple of calls that got no expert panel responses, 5D:

(PMC) 5D. 3S might be the way to get us to 3NT , but I'm afraid of the 
confusion if partner calls 4S next... how do I get out? 5D? Won't partner 
think I'm looking for 6S?

(JTW) 5D.

(MSB) 5D. I take partner to have a minimum hand without heart support, and
   expect this to either make or go down one.

(DK) Double.  When in doubt, double. :-) Maybe we can make 5 diamonds
  and maybe we can make 3nt. Unfortunately 3 spades does not ask
  partner to bid 3nt with a club stopper. 4 diamonds is too one-sided
  and 3 diamonds is an underbid.    

(LA) Double. Most flexible alternative, how about a forcing minor raise 
followed by bidding hearts (oops I forgot, inverted minors are not fashionable).

(JLD)  Double.  Card showing.  I really want to steer to 3NT, but partner
will certainly misinterpret my hand if I make any other 3-level bid.
Yes, I'm afraid partner will pass (which will be wrong) but we've
been fixed by the preempt.  The only other reasonable call is 4D, but
partner will raise to 5D which could easily be down.  Make the bid
that guarantees the plus.
 
(JH) DBL.  The hand is too strong for 3D, while 4D takes away too many options.
Defending 3C doubled should be OK if partner leaves it in, despite the 
diamond length.

(TMW) X.   Yuck.  3D is too weak and I can't put us over 3NT (which might
not make).  3Cx -2 might win the board. 

(JR) Double . Takeout, converts 3ma to 4D

(NS) Double. All options have serious flaws; double just happens to have
the fewest.  Partner has a weak NT without heart support (are we
playing support doubles?)  Pass is out of the question, 3D is a gross
underbid, 3H and 3S are unnecessary distortions, a direct 3NT should
promise a *serious* club stopper, and anything above 3NT takes us past
our most likely game.  Double followed by 3NT shows this sort of hand
-- game going values with doubtful clubs.

The totals:
Call    Net   Expert   Score
3D	11    0
3NT	3     2        90
3S	3     2        70
4C	1     0
4D	9     3        100
5D	3     0
DOUBLE	7     0


The players:
(??)	Mystery Guests
(AB)	Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
(BB)	Brett Barksdale <brett@porky.oce.orst.edu>
(DK)	Dennis Kibler <kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU>
(DS)	shamrake@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Danil Suits)
(DV)	varvel@cs.utexas.edu
(DXM)	mytelka@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Daniel Mytelka )
(EKP)	Edward Pavelchek <ekp@mcnc.org>
(FB)	baseggio@deshaw.com
(GL)	jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler)
(IDC)	Ian Crorie <idc@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
(IM)	Ilene Morgan <morgan@math.psu.edu>
(ING)	INGVAR%DAVROS@Venus.YCC.Yale.Edu
(JH)	John.Hoffman@Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
(JLD)	jld1@ihlpm.att.com
(JOHN)	<john@picks.almanac.bc.ca>
(JR)	jar@csd.cri.dk (Jakob Roejel)
(JSM)	James S Morgan <morgan@crayola.cs.psu.edu>
(JTW)	"Jaroslaw Tomasz Wroblewski" <jwr@math.Princeton.EDU>
(KTL)	"Kevin T. Likes" <likes@cs.indiana.edu>
(LA)	Lars.Andersson@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
(LTF)	ltf@gtech.com (Lynn T. Finley)
(MK)	Mordechai Katzman <Mordechai.Katzman@math.lsa.umich.edu>
(MS)	Marc Shepard <marc@wrs.com>
(MSB)	msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
(NS)	nstraguz@hannibal.atl.ge.com (Nick Straguzzi)
(PMC)	"Paul McMullin" <paul_mcmullin@spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
(PRM)	prm@econ.pstc.brown.edu (Paul Markowitz)
(PV)	viitape@helu11.ktt.fi (Pekka Viitasalo /Carelcomp)
(PW)	Per Westling <c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se>
(RB)	rainbow@ihlpf.att.com
(RD)	RDOBER%ESRIN.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu
(SA)	stevea@Princeton.EDU (Steve Albin)
(SDR)	sdr@camsci.com
(SM)	Steve Myerson <sgm@ssd.ray.com>
(TMW)	tim@theory.lcs.mit.edu (timothy m wright)
(TR)	ts@ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
(XH)	UUCP <hatch!lcc!uucp@CS.UCLA.EDU>

--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys