I find this possibility intriguing.  Even if dummy has Kxx, as the side entry, you can attack this entry successfully by following up with the Q (turning it into a Merrimac Coup), and x if necessary.

Yup. A nice reward for only a teensy bit of bravery.
Too late for me, but I would chose this now if I could. Maybe some other brave soul?

P.S.  0-5-4-4  is usually bid H, then D, then Clubs if at all.

Blu, I disagree. It's pretty standard to bid four card suits up-the-line, even at the two-level.

G.   3 – my stiff king is now carrying full weight.  I would love to bid the nine trick NT game, so I am giving partner a chance to do so.  If partner bids hearts, now 3 should show a stiff honor and complete my picture.  3 is my problem response – do I carry on to game like I should?

This is an interesting choice, and one I had not considered. I'll have to give this one some thought before pulling the trigger.

And I was feeling so smug about my first choice. Darn you, Jim! 

Something that occurs to me, however, is that since 2 was not forcing, neither is 3 . Clearly it shows extras, but it's short of the values for a jump-shift. If opener had a minimum he simply passes 2 . But if opener had a 0=5=4=4 16 or 17 count he might bid it this way, yes? And that is nearly what we have! But what does responder do with a 6=1=4=2 five count? Pass? And we play our 4-3 "fit"at the 3-level?

Scary!

Initial Guesses:

PROBLEM A: 2 . Several choices are possible.
•   1NT with a flat 10 is right on values but lacking the (usually) promised stopper is flawed.
•   A double is flexible, and although rare, a negative double, even with only three hearts, should include this shape as possible when no better response is possible.
•   2 is also possible. As a passed hand I’m limited to 12 at most but show a minimum of 10. I have 10, but the hand is so flat it’s more like 9—plus, it’s my belief that a 2 bid should show 5+ card suit.
•   That leaves 2 (support with support) which is only mildly flawed. I would prefer a fourth but you can’t have everything.

PROBLEM B: Dbl . Every time I pay heed to the little *BWS blurbs I regret it. I don’t quite get the 4NT = “takeout” choice of terminology. It feels like more of an “Unusual” 4NT to me. Looking at both minors, “Unusual” 4NT looks like a good description, at least shape-wise. Regardless, at Matchpoints 4NT is a bit rich for me.

No, I can’t make myself bid 3NT.

Additional thoughts: Over 2 partner had the opportunity to bid 3 to show a two-suited hand with and a minor. (Yes, it’s Michaels-See Aug. 2018 MSC.) With a strong single-suited hand partner could have overcalled 3 or 4 (both strong) so he does not have that hand. Therefore, partner almost surely has the classic three-suited takeout. Also, with LHO showing six and RHO showing three, the location of two hearts is unknown. Does partner have them?

Finally, WHERE ARE THE SPADES? I have a hard time believing they are 4-4-4 around the table. I fully understand partner not overcalling with 2 with only five spades, especially if the suit has gaps. So I think that to be most likely. Partner’s layout is possibly/probably 5=1 (43).

Bidding either of my minors at 4-level is the weakest move I can make. At the moment that’s where I’m leaning.

[Added]: Changed my mind on this one. I'm still worried that 4NT is too much. And I feel strongly that partner probably has five spades. So 4-3 in the minors is also likely. To convey the message that either minor is fine, I double (responsive), then pull partner's 3 to 4 , asking partner to pass or correct. With appropriate extras partner can bid game. This one "feels" right.

PROBLEM C: 2 . Coin flip with 1NT. While 1NT narrows my point range, 2 shows a suit and good lead director. If partner invites with 2NT I’ll bid game.

PROBLEM D: 3 . Shows nine of my cards, rather than just six. I hate this call and may change this one.

[Added]: I'll stick with 3 (for the reason stated above) which is what I would bid at the table. It's descriptive, so should not fare poorly. But I fear that double may be the winning call here.

PROBLEM E: 2NT. [Added]: Jack-third is a stopper in 2019, yes? Changed my mind here. Going low. Admittedly timid when vulnerable at IMPs.

2 . Flexible. 1 could be up to 17 or a bad 18. Queen-third in is nice help for what presumably (hopefully?) is a five-card suit.

PROBLEM F: Pass. [Added] This was a coin flip to begin with. It landed on tails.

2 . BAM scoring. Who knows? Anything could be right, even Pass, which is my second choice.

PROBLEM G: 3 . Although a stiff, the K is a great filler for partner’s suit. While tempting to bid game, partner could have as little as ATxxxx or AJxxxx. Partner has already shown his range, so this invite should request he bid game if at the top of that range.

[Added]: I keep contemplating some level of NoTrump (Prefer 2NT), but worry about entries. So I think I'll stick with the mildly esoteric raise with a stiff.

PROBLEM H: T. Alternatively, the Jack. No strong feelings. I could be convinced otherwise.

A couple of these I have zero confidence in, so may change one or two after I look again.

Your were hoodwinked. 

I peeked (MyHands). The auction is wrong.

I based my analysis on the auction as shown, so I'll let it stand.

With a different auction, I change my thinking.

Declarer was one of the leading iac players.
1 - 2  ;
2 - 3  ;
4NT - 6NT;
pass

4NT was quantitative, not RKC, I assume?
If so, I would guess declarer to have 17ish HCP (meaning partner has little to nothing).

My Bridge World arrived so I've added some panel opinions below.
The director for November was Bart Bramley.

A few snippets from the panel:


PROBLEM A: 2 . The MSC panel votes were very close, with 13 going for the flexible 2 and 10 voters choosing the “traditional jump-rebid” of 3 . 2 and 2 were a distant third and fourth.

Bramley summed it up immediately with the following: “Yet another version of the MSC Nightmare Hand: Extra values, a strong six-card suit, and three-card support for partner. The choice I between the traditional jump-rebid in the six-bagger, and “something else,” which is usually scattered among several possibilities. Over time, “something else” has gravitated toward the cheapest call in a three-card minor.”

This summary by Bramley was echoed upthread by yours truly (though I called it The Bridge World Death Hand), but I went the traditional route with 3 . Surprisingly, not one of our IAC group chose the winning bid, the “something-else” bid of the cheapest call in a three-card minor. 

---

PROBLEM B: 1 Notrump. Bramley: “Another nearly binary decision.” 1 Notrump was the number one vote-getter with 14 with 2 a close second at 12. Justin Lall stated it most completely with: “One Notrump. Not more, because the hand is very soft opposite a white overcall. [Welland agrees – B.B.]. One should not fear bidding notrump with Queen-low of hearts; in fact, I relish it when hearts haven’t been raised. I am showing values, rightsiding notrump, getting the general hand-type off my chest, and bidding what should be a very playable partscore while leaving all of my options open.”

Rubens, exhibiting typical brevity, “One notrump. Too queeny not to try notrump. Too slow to adventure higher.”

Lall’s point about the allure of bidding notrump when hearts have not been raised is, I think, the clincher here.

---

PROBLEM C: 2 . Bramley: “Our third straight heavily two-way choice.” 2 garnered 15 panel votes. 3 was a close send with 12. A distant third was 2NT.

There were five panelists (Hudecek, Kleinman, Eisenberg, Rajadhyaksha, and Bramley) who agreed with my assessment that the hand should be “downgraded” to a 15-17 notrump.

Mike Passell forces to game with 2 stating, “The old all-purpose cue-bid. Partner did freely bid one spade, so I will force to game.” Good point. It crossed my mind that the “free bid” of 1 should not be made on complete garbage, so the game-force 2 should be a winner. But I could not pull the trigger on that winning choice.

Still, there was plenty of ambiguity about “what means what.” Bramley summarized with, “There are a number of issues here. The cue-bidders intend to force to game; the spade raisers are willing to stop at three. The cue-bidders hope to imply exactly three spades, either immediately or when they later raise spades; they want four-card support for a direct jump. The spade raisers are willing to incur trump length ambiguity to avoid strain ambiguity. The cue-bidders welcome exploration of alternative strains, especially notrump; the spade raisers, not so much.

---

PROBLEM D: 3 . Bramley starts with, “Awkward. We have great shape without enough high cards to be confident of making anything unless we catch a decent fit. Also, the vulnerable opponents, with almost half the deck, may have a big fit of their own and be about to raise to three or four spades.”

The immediate and forcing 3 garnered a high plurality of the vote with 14 of 29 choosing it. Next was 3 with 6 votes followed by a Texas 4 with 5.

I agree with Bramley, awkward!

---

PROBLEM E: 3 . This was almost unanimous with the MSC panel, garnering 24 of 29 panel votes. Zia, pithily adding, “Three clubs. Close to the truth.”

---

PROBLEM F: Pass. Bramley: “Answering this problem is easier than comprehending it; that’s a lot of auction-cum-footnotes to wade through.” I agree. I had to read it more than once to get a handle on what was going on. Bramley continues, “The opponents have shown a five-three spade fit, purportedly with enough values to open and respond. We have already shown exactly what we’ve got: Five clubs, two hearts, and enough values to compete. Partner has surprised us by showing secondary diamonds (LHO’s opening suit) along with his hearts. Even more surprising is that we have the agreement that 2 is natural. Who discusses this level of detail in complex competitive auctions.”

The majority went with Pass.

Justin Lall (again) explained best with: “Pass. This is definitely the right fit. Two diamonds is a strong statement about diamonds when partner could have passed and would often have bid one-notrump with only four diamonds. I would say it is a lock he has five diamonds. Since the opener is third seat not vulnerable, we may be the victims of a steal, but that is life. We have only one high card in partner’s suits,and partner is short in our best suit.

Bramley agrees, adding, “Why otherwise would partner go out of his way to introduce the suit into an apparent misfit?”

---

PROBLEM G: 2 . The majority went for 2 with 1 taking second place. Steve Beatty summarizes his thinking with, “Two diamonds. Too much texture and strength to pass; My passed-hand status will keep partner from being to aggressive.” Good point.

---

PROBLEM H: 2 . This ended up being another binary choice, with the lead of the stiff  2 the plurality choice, garnering 14 panel votes. A (7, 6, and 2) totaled 11. Bramley, on the choice of a : “Among diamond leaders, those who commented on their choice of spot all led the seven, intending it as suit-preference.”

This was echoed by both Jim and Ken in their pre-choice opinions upthread. Don Stack, one of the MSC panelists nailed that thinking with, “Diamond seven. Could be partner has Aces, but my bet is on a diamond void.I’m leading the seven as suit-preference for hearts to give a second diamond ruff. Just like in the books. What about my club ruff? Maybe it doesn’t exist.”

Still, the Lightnerish/Lightneresque tone of partner’s double (mentioned by Jim and Ken) moved several panelists to choose the deuce anyway.



That’s all folks!
Once again, attempting to reproduce all the panel responses would take forever, however, if you have a question about a particular problem and how the panel voted, just ask.