March MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Eric Kokish, DirectorOr should I say Part 4 after adding another section.
Problem G 4 
(BabsG, YleeXotee, CCR3, Peuco, VeredK, JCreech, Masse24, KenBerg, MsPhola)
Imps North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ A K 10 8 4
♥ K J 4
♦ A Q 4 ♣ J 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
1 ♠ Pass 1 NT Pass
2 NT Pass 3
♦* Pass
?
*BWS: hearts
What call do you make?
Not much of a choice here. Either you accept the transfer, or you find a way to superaccept the transfer.
3 ♥ 70 BWP 11% BWS 31% IAC 20%
For those simply accepting the transfer, the argument is essentially that my hand has relinquished captaincy and North is steering the ship at this point.
Hoki is simply "doing what pard asked for."
BluBayou believes "Obeying orders wins over superaccept or anything else one thinks of--A horror thought for me "
A.K. Simon writes "Let's not get carried away. Partner knows more about my hand than I know about his."
Chris Willenken points out that "Partner could be light here. Looks straightforward."
Dan Gerstman thinks "Yeah, it's a three-and-a-half heart hand, but the jack of clubs is unlikely to pull any weight, and North knows it's imps. Partner may have more than game values. Maybe he'll bid four clubs, after which I would have room for four diamonds, neither of which would be available after an immediate four hearts."
KenBerg gives partner a chance: "How many hearts does that 3
bid show? No need to be sure just yet. I have three
and if pard raises 3
to 4
maybe that's right even if he has only four. The opponents can cash a couple of clubs after which I could well have ten tricks. If over 3
pard bids 3NT I will assume he has only four hearts and thinks that unless I have four hearts we should give it a shot in 3NT."
Michael Becker valuation is "This is an average two-notrump bid that has improved when partner showed hearts. To drive to game (or control-bids) requires a near 'superaccept.' This hand does not quite make that grade. If I did accept, I would bid four clubs to allow for partner to make a retransfer (not Last Train) four-diamond bid. Also, four clubs might accidently deter a club lead agains game or slam, which might be crucial for success."
4 ♥ 100 BWP 79% BWS 63% IAC 60%
A solid majority of solvers and an overwhelming majority of Panelists decided that if partner was transferring, then they would bid game.
Richard Colker argues that "When game could make opposite little more than queen-sixth of hearts, it's hard to justify taking the low road, especially at imps."
Zia agrees, "When queen-sixth offers a play, it's not partner's job to bid game."
VeredK thinks "partner limited himself"
Masse24 says "Have a ruffing value, so the jump is warranted. Playing in 3
is too risky to simply reply at the three level. Anything stronger (I did contemplate 4
) is unwarranted."
Michael Lawrence says "Good hand, good fit, little chance of slam. Even if partner was hoping to buy the contract in three hearts, we may have a chance."
JCreech writes "Partner is generally showing long hearts and a weak hand, but not that weak - with club shortness and nice heart fillers, let's give the vulnerable game at imps a shot."
Janice Seamon Molson: "If the jack of clubs were the jack of spades, I would control-bid. If partner would have passed three hearts, so be it."
Andrew Robson is "Not playing for a perfecto for six hearts but rightsiding four hearts." Some are like
Joey Silver: "I am more worried about missing a slam than about being too high in game." But
Barry Rigal sums up the general thoughts on this problem well: "Yes, partner might want to stop in three hearts; I just don't care."
Problem H 
A (YleeXotee, Masse24, WackoJack, BluBayou, FlueretteD, JCreech, KenBerg)
Imps Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ 9 6 3
♥ 2
♦ 10 9 8 5 ♣ A Q 8 7 6
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— —— 1 ♠
Pass 1 NT Pass 2
♥ Pass 3
♥ Pass 4
♦ Pass 4
♥ (All Pass)
What is your opening lead?
There are three lines of thought about how to start the defense on this Problem. One line is that the opponents have shortness that they will be exploiting for tricks - these led a trump. A second is that a passive defense is needed and that a diamond represented the safest lead available. The third is based on a forcing defense, so that declarer eventually loses control because a defender has more trump.
♥ 2 60 BWP 7% BWS 13% IAC 27%
Concern for declarer ruffing to make the contract was found more often among the IAC than the Bridge World solvers and Panelists.
Michael Becker thinks There are tiny prospects of beating the contract. East must have a lot of shape but not enough high cards to jump-shift, so he's probably bidding his shortness rather than his fragment. Anyway, if he is short in clubs, our cause is probably hopeless. I'm playing declarer for 5=5=0=3 with king-third of clubs. If I hit partner's major-suit ace, he can lead a club through and get a ruff. East is more likely to bid this way missing the heart ace than the spade ace, so I lead a trump."
Sami Kehela made the lead, but felt he was "Unlikely to have much company."
♦ 10 70 BWP 25% BWS 38% IAC 27%
There was greater interest across the board to lead a safe diamond.
VeredK points out that it is "a passive lead"
Pepsi simply said "Looks like the natural lead."
Hoki chose his lead "pretty much by elimination." And given the bridge-players tendency to lead from sequences, the diamond suit certainly fills the bill.
Billy Eisenberg thinks, "Should be a popular lead."
Kit Woolsey: "Safe, and it could establish a trick or two. I don't see any other route to defeating this contract."
Jeff Rubens: "Spade situation looks too negative for a trump lead."
Peuco says that the "4D seems a phony bid to me. Both opps bidding cautiously and suddenly 4D"
BluBayou agrees: "opp's 4
is declared an attempted swindle--to get some fool to open up clubs. WTG, Zia!"
♣ A 100 BWP 54% BWS 44% IAC 47%
The preponderance of evidence says a club is right, but which one. More than half of the Panel and nearly that many of the solvers think it should be the ace.
Andrew Robson thinks it "Uninspired, but my spade holding is uninspiring." While
Paul Boudreau follows directions: "They told me to lead clubs; I will honor the request."
KenBerg: "Declarer will be tossing some minors on his spades, I think we need to get all the minor suit tricks that we can and then we see what we get in hearts. I might think more about this also, but the !CA seems right." More pragmatically,
David Berkowitz wants "To see dummy and discover what I should have led. With spades and diamonds lying well, a tap may be our best chance."
JCreech agrees: "RHO sounds short in clubs, so maybe this is the time to lay down an ace for a peak." Meanwhile, the bulk of the commentary is all about the tap.
Phillip Alder says "It sounds as if declarer is 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=4=0. If so, maybe we can tap him. Then he might not be able to cope with what I hope is a four-one trump split."
Jeff Meckstroth: "Trying to defeat the contract with a force against a four-four fit."
Joey Silver: "Chances are that East has a dearth of clubs. We need partner partner to have four trumps, so a forcing defense is indicated." Michael Lawrence: "Any other lead loses the opportunity to tap declarer and isn't as potentially rewarding."
Masse24: "I also like the underlead of my
AQxxx. Certainly the hero lead if partner has Kx. But I have no guts. I hate lead problems!"
♣ Q 70 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 0% IAC No solver
It did not occur to me to try the unsupported Q, but that was
Chris Willenken's lead: "Let's get the tap going; maybe declarer won't cover from king-low-low-low." I've been here before - it is right to underlead the ace three times, except I fell from grace on the third lead (but it did not involve holding the unsupported queen).
♣ 6 90 BWP 7% BWS 3% IAC No solver
The more sensible small club was rewarded in the scoring.
Michael Becker's analysis is that "There are tiny prospects of beating the contract. East has made a surprising slam-try. My strength is in the suit of declarer's marked void. Spades are breaking well. Spades and diamonds appear to be onside. For the defense to have any chance at all, partner needs four trumps. I hope dummy has the club king, so that some of partner's honors are working for us. If partner has the club jack (or if declarer plays the nine from king-jack-nine-low), I can make East uncomfortable by leading a low club. He will not fly with the king. In any case, anyone who leads the club ae should prefer to lead low (from odd)." Similarly,
Philippe Cronier thinks "The only explanation of the four-diamond bid opposite a nonforcing raise is a very-unbalanced hand, 5=5=0=3 or 6=5=0=2. To cope with king-low in clubs with North, a low club seems to be a good idea."
This concludes the March set. In some ways, it felt like an appropriate set for the month - in like a lion (with Problems that the commentary felt out of control) and out like a lamb, with a couple of Problems that had a great deal of agreement amongst the Panelists and solvers. I hope you found the discussion interesting and worth the time reading. Until next month's write-up, good luck on the April problems.
