Author Topic: 2022 MAY MSC  (Read 5941 times)

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 MAY MSC
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2022, 01:32:53 AM »
May MSC SUMMARY (Part 2)– Bart Bramley, Director
 


Problem D  2 !H  (DrAculea, BluBayou, JCreech, Hoki, VeredK)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 7 5 2    Q 10 8 4    A J 8   ♣ Q J 7

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       ——      1        Pass
 ?         
What call do you make?

Problem D is a valuation question.  You have four pieces in your partner's opening major, 10 HCPs, but you also have a 3=4=3=3 shape.  Essentially, how  much do you upgrade for the fourth trump, and how much do you downgrade for the lack of a ruffing value.

3    90   BWP 38%   BWS 42%  IAC 58%
A large proportion (often enough to be the plurality winner) of the Panel voted to make the direct limit raise; essentially saying that the upgrade and downgrade cancel each other out.  A solid percentage of the BW solvers, as well as nearly 60% of the IAC solvers made this choice too.  Don Stack asks "Simple raise or jump-raise?  The queen-jack of clubs together boost the hand to the higher category."  According to Sartaj Hans, "The fourth trump is too precious an asset to withhold."  Masse24 "Feels like a 2 ¾ bid. Maybe steering the auction a bit with a forcing notrump then jump to 3 !H is a happy medium? But I’m afraid too few panelists would try that “in-between” bid."  JoAnna Stansby echos:  "Really two and three-quarters.  One notrump followed by three hearts might be better, bu there is an advantage to describing the hand in one bid in case fourth hand has something to say."  YleeXotee also thinks about the two-step approach:  "I'm trusting that this is within system, and the 1nt then 3h bid isn't better."  Kit Woolsey says "This hand looks t touch too strong for a simple raise."  KenBerg agrees:  "I realize it is 4 triple 3 but it's still a good holding."  Phillip Alder says "I am a big advocate of the Losing Trick Count, which advises bidding only two hearts, but ... If one notrump were forcing, I would make that response and rebid three hearts."



2    100   BWP 58%   BWS 47%  IAC 42%
However, nearly 60% of the Panel only made a simple raise; they were joined by more than 40% of the solvers.  If you are an adherent of KnR evaluation, the simple raise would be no surprise.  The calculated KnR is 7.9, which suggests to me that partner would need to make a help-suit game try in a minor or a short-suit try in spades to spark any game interest from this hand.  Eric Kokish points to "Lots of losers, as with most marginal 4=3=3=3's.  Not ashamed to reject a stronger raise."  JCreech: "I have four-card support and 10 HCPs, but I also have 3-4-3-3 shape.  I will go low to start based on shape and vulnerability, but will accept game tries."  Danny Kleinman:  "Flat shape and a cornucopia of quacks do not tempt me.  With three more tens, I'd have a problem."  Steve Beatty thinks "A constructive raise is enough with 9 losers and 10 HCP."  Roy Welland considers his bid "A rare underbid."  David Berkowitz say he "May be pushed to three, but not worrying about the opponents yet; too many losers to bid three hearts."  Jeff Rubens considers the hand to be "Too quacky to drive higher."  Zia thinks the hand "So close to three hearts that I will be happy to stand corrected.  I feel it's slightly random."  While a couple of writers are looking for different bids than offered in BWS:  BluBayou: "Single-raise [duhh]  Change this to Bergen 3 !C , if they forgot a 'hint'."  Joe Grue:  "I would make a mixed raise, but I can't find one in BWS."  The final word is given to Augie Boehm:  "Goren advised deducting a point for this distribution.  Goren has to be right sometimes."


1 NT   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 8%  IAC No solvers
There was one Panelist and only a smattering of BW solvers that tried to find the middle ground, to show a poor limit raise.  The actual sequence is intended to show a 3-card limit raise, but many like to use the forcing NT as a way to send a warning message to partner to tread softly regardless of the responder's rebid, and there were Panelists and IAC solvers that toyed with the idea of making the delayed limit raise.  The one Panelist explicitly supporting the bid was Allan Graves:  "If partner passes, one notrump will be safer than three hearts.  I don't mind a single raise and then a redouble."


 


Problem E  Pass  (VeredK, JCreech, DrAculea)

Matchpoints  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A 8 2    J 9 5 2    K 9 3   ♣ J 7 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       2        Double    3
 ?         
What call do you make?

The opponents have preempted and furthered the preempt after partner made a takeout double.  You have 9 HCPs, 3-4 in the majors and 3-3 otherwise, so you have options.  One is to bid the anemic heart suit.  A second is to make a responsive double and hope that if partner bids spades, he has five.  You do have a diamond stopper, so you could ask yourself if you feel lucky enough to take nine tricks with a 3 NT bid.  Or you could decide that you do not have a clear enough direction to take, and pass; after all, partner has another chance to bid.

3 NT   10   BWP No Panelists   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Apparently, this is too rich for nearly everyone.  Only two percent of the BW solvers trotted out this bid, and I only included it above because there was a stop and nearly enough HCPs to jump.  Although the bid was only mentioned by one of the Panelists on the way to bidding something else, it was clear that 3NT was in the running for the final contract as several Panelists were concerned about the positional value of the diamond king.  For those making this unlikely choice, the scoring was appropriately dismal.

Double   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 16%  IAC 25%
I was a bit surprised that the responsive double was not a more popular.  Holding 3-4-3 in the unbid suits, you have support for any suit partner has five.  The problem comes when partner does not have five in any suit and perhaps made the double more on values than shape; now the partnership could be in a bad 4-3 or even an ambitious 3-3.  The good news is that if partner doubled with poor shape, he will lose the post-mortem.  YleeXotee "maybe putting too much pressure on Pard, but it seems right to say I have some points, and not much preference. (this will surely land me in 4 clubs!?)"  While Sami Kehela is certain about the call, though not the meaning:  "Cooperative-takeout, whatever that means."

3    90   BWP 42%   BWS 62%  IAC 50%
The solver's choice is to bid the four-card heart suit.  At least if it is a 4-3 fit, the short hand should be taking the tap, and maybe you will get lucky and find partner with four as well.  Roy Welland says "Not perfect, but in the ballpark."  Mark Laken thinks "While both double and three notrump are possible, this seems like the down-the-middle action."  BluBayou "views the problem as a "Sort of [!!] deja-vue  from a couple recent months, where defending (doubled or not) got votes along with 3H, 4H, & 3NT.   THIS time, I expect the game bids will be off the table.  And if I end up defending, it will be for the big money"  Masse24 is "Tempted to double instead."  Similarly, Phillip Alder says "My immediate reaction was to doublel but  by bidding, assuming that I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."  Carl Hudecek says "I prefer bidding my suit and rightsiding our  likely heart contract."  Phillip Alder agrees:  "My immediate reaction was to double but by bidding assuming I become the declarer, I make the diamond king safe from West's opening salvo."  Zia also makes rightsiding point:  "Positional over(mis) bid."  KenBerg: "An optimistic call.  So sue me!"


Pass   100   BWP 54%   BWS 19%  IAC 25%
The Panel's choice was to pass.  When the choices are this ugly, sometimes the best course to take steer clear of choices.  The hand really is not good for offense, and may be nice for the defense.  Furthermore, the KnR indicates that the hand is less than a sum of its parts (7.3).  JCreech feels it is "An unsavory choice between showing my four-card heart suit or my stopper.  My stopper is well-placed for a diamond lead, but not if RHO has an entry to lead through my holding.  The 3-4-3-3 shape says defense, the shape, the jacks and the placement of the !D K all suggest downgrades for the hand, so I go for the third option and go quietly for now.  I don't know if we have a plus position on this hand, but I do fear the 200 that might go against me if I chime in now."  Mike Passell "Can't see getting involved with this defensive hand."  JoAnna Stansby thinks "Partner will double again if it's our deal for three hearts."  Ross Grabel:  "I don't care for one-suit responsive doubles, and I don't care for a freely bid three hearts on at best marginal values."  Pratap Rajadhyaska say "This time we have a 10-loser hand.  Bidding would be a Law violation, assuming 17 total trumps, which is not guaranteed.  Pard will act again when he has more than a minimum; if not, I am okay with defending."  Steve Beatty:  "Both the shape and the diamond king suggest defending.  This is why I never win at matchpoints."






 


Problem F  2 NT  (CCR3, Duffer66, JCreech, Hoki)

Imps  Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 10 8 3 2    J 9    K   ♣ A K 10 9 6 4

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——      1          Pass
  1 ♠       Pass      2 ♠         Pass
   ?*         
*BWS: 2 NT invitational

What call do you make?

This problem starts with an argument about how the auction should have been the round before.  Some think the first response should have been 2 !CArthur Robinson asks "Why didn't I respond two clubs?  Is one spade modern bidding?" Kit Woolsey is trying to "... reach the right strain intelligently.  Maybe this is an indicator that we should have responded two clubs."  Sami Kehela:  "I should have bid two clubs.  Not BWS?  Too bad."  This might have been the better problem, asking how you approach this hand one round earlier.  Two clubs seems a bit of a stretch with dubious values in the stiff diamond king and doubleton jack of hearts.  Others are suggesting a weak jump shift.  Danny Kleinman says "To avoid nasty problems like this, I respond three clubs with such holdings.  Any attempt to extricate myself now is apt to sink me deeper into th miry clay ... or is it the Big Muddy?"  David Berkowitz thinks it "Might have been better to start with three clubs ..."  Of course, the problem with the WJS is the probable loss of the spade suit.  But enough with the coulda/shoulda's, and on with the problem, presented as is.

3 ♣   90   BWP 31%   BWS 51%  IAC 58%
The 3 !C bidders are trying to get to the right strain.  It may be that they are afraid of the Moysian, with the long hand being a 10-high suit, or that they fear having suppressed such a long-strong suit as AK-sixth.  YleeXotee laments, "The bad pard about this is it is the second hint that I am not taking, but surely 3clubs is a better description than 2nt."  Carl Hudecek thinks "A suit this good should be bid at some point."  Billy Eisenberg feels this "A good hand if pard has four good spades."  I can almost hear Jock saying at this point, "Aye, there's the rub.  Does partner have four GOOD spades."  Masse24 is bidding clubs partly for that reason. "IMPs. Vul. I’m giving full value to the !D K. Partner could be rebidding on three card support."  As is Kit Woolsey: "Usually, one is rooting to be raised.  Here, I hated to hear a raise, which suggests having made the wrong bid."  Augie Boehm thinks "If pard raised on three, we might back into a terrific three notrump.  Of course, I may be trading a plus score for a minus, but the conditions are tempting."  More optimistically, Mark Laken asks (and channeling Al Roth) "What's the problem?  Follow-ups may be harder.  Pard should be the declarer at notrump."  Pratap Rajadhyaksha is most pragmatic:  "BWS does not use two notrump as a relay here, so I will make a natural game-try and hope for the best.  It's tempting to blast four spades with this seven-loser hand, but weak trumps and the wrong doubleton suggest caution.  Also, pard might be able to bid three notrump with ♠ Jxxx    AQx    Axxx   ♣ Qx, or a similar holding, which would be delightful."


2 NT   100   BWP 50%   BWS 16%  IAC 33%
Half of the Panel went with 2 NT, as did a third of IAC (the BW solvers were the laggards here, having nearly gone all-in with 3 !C).  Zia describes the situation well:  "More or less about the fourth spade.  With three, partner is likely to have shorter clubs than hearts.  If he bids three spade, I will raise.  If he bids three no trump, I may slip it past the defenders."  JCreech "... will take the hint.  With partner opening diamonds, I have hopes that the !D K is pulling its full weight, and the clubs are a source of tricks."  Hoki also "will take the hint for a change (the hand is nowhere near strong enough to force to game with 2C initially)"  Roy Welland says "Maybe partner will raise and I can chance a pass."  Mike Passell will "Try for game."  Joe Grue says "Let's see what's happening."  JoAnna Stansby thinks the hand has "Too much strength to pass.  Three clubs would leave poor choices if opener continued with three diamonds."  Jeff Rubens considers the bid to be "The safest invitational action.  With weak spades and a possible misfit, pass is a sensible alternative."  Mark Feldman also thinks "Passing could be the winning action, but it seems a bit too conservative.  The hand is more skewed than opener will expect, but not dramatically so; partner will be aware that I hold four spades, at most three hearts, and invitational values."


3 NT   70   BWP 12%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
The moderator, Bart Bramley, makes a nice case for jumping to 3 NT.  "If partner passes three notrump, he will usually be 4=3=3=3 or only have three spades.  One flaw is that partner's three-trump raises will probably have one or two low clubs, else he would have rebid one notrump.  However, the defense seeing those clubs in dummy, may err by setting up the suit for declarer.  If partner bids four spades, he will have four.  I like the blast better than two notrump, since ... this may be a 'game or bust' deal."  Phillip Alder says "I would hate to bid two notrump and be left there.  If this is passed out, I will feel optimistic.  If partner removes to four spade, maybe it will make.  We are vulnerable at imps."  Allan Graves asks "Why not?  The defenders will be in the dark in the early going, and game will often have some play.  Partner might pass with 4=3=3=3.  Two spades may be the last plus, so why not bid game now?  Slow auctions to four spades may end in four spades doubled."

Pass   50   BWP 8%   BWS 3%  IAC No solvers
Other than the spade fit, which may or may not include reasonable strength in the trump suit, the hand feels like a misfit, so I can understand the desire to quit low, even with invitational HCP.  Ross Grabel "Just guessing, but I see no intelligent way to get partner involved."



This ends Part 2, and the final part will come as I have time.  Don't forget to check out the June MSC, look over the problems and submit your own entry.
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

blubayou

  • IACAdmins
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 393
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • lifelong director [1977-2010] and haunter of ACBL
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 MAY MSC
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2022, 12:23:34 PM »
On problem E, Sammi Kehela doubles as I did even though citing it as "co-operative takeout whatever the hell THAT means".  Other people considering doubling and declining to.. call the X "responsive."  No wonder it got only one panel vote if that is true, considering the glaring wrongsiding issue among others.  Me, I expect partner to take a lead more often than not and we collect 200 / 500.   Where is this source for  Co-operative Takeout,  or is this just an expert-standard default about which I never got the memo ?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2022, 09:53:00 PM by blubayou »
often it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 MAY MSC
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2022, 02:19:17 PM »
Jock,

I called it responsive because the structure meets the definition - one grape - dbl - 2 grapes - double is responsive.  The difference is that everything is one level higher.  I think the double is still responsive, but due to the higher level of bidding, starts to become more cooperative.  By cooperative, I mean I have some points, you have some points, let's see how many they will go down (and cross my fingers that they do). 

With this hand, I expect partner to have a five-card suit when the opponents have preempted and raised, while I hold three in the suit.  Otherwise, there is definitely a pair of four-card majors and now I wish I had bid my four-bagger.  With no five-card suit, I expect partner to pass unless HCP challenged, and have a reasonable shot of defeating 3 !D.

Sami calling it takeout-cooperative is essentially saying the same thing.  A responsive double is a specialized form of takeout double.  He may not have used the "correct" term, but he intended the double to show no clear choice among the takeout suits, just as Joe did in the problem, and I discussed above.
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran

jcreech

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: 2022 MAY MSC
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2022, 04:04:15 PM »
May MSC SUMMARY (Part 3)– Bart Bramley, Director

Problem G  6 !S  (YleeXotee, Peuco, VeredK, CCR3, JCreech, KenBerg, BabsG)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A K Q J 9 2    A K J 3    K   ♣ A 5

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  2 ♣      Pass      2          Pass
  2 ♠      Pass      2 NT*      Pass
  3       Pass      3 NT       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: denies double-negative

What call do you make?

The big question is how good is not bad.  Partner has denied a double negative with 2 NT, but then suggests a minimum with 3 NT.  So where do we belong with this monster?  It is a question of both level and strain.  Is there a method that will sort all of this out when our next bid will be at the four-level or higher?  Given that the Panel supplied eight answers, and three of those answers were co-leaders with only five votes, I would say everyone is groping.

For lack of a better plan, let's just start with the cheapest choice and work our way up to the most expensive choice.

4 ♣   80   BWP 19%   BWS 28%  IAC 17%
Starting with 4 !C, we should begin with "What does the bid mean?"  The Panel clearly regards the bid as having some natural context, while IAC solvers are less clear.  The bid does come up immediately following a NT, so I can see some viewing it as Gerber.  I will leave that discussion to partnerships.  Pratap Rajadhyaksha is "Temporarily pretending to be 5=4=1=3 with a very bid hand.  I must show more than a minimum two-club bid.  If pard shows no sign of life, I'll sign off in four spades; else, I'll jump to five spades."  It sounds like a more complete version of the IAC plans, but that is with the benefit of the doubt:  Hoki bids "4C to torture partner and probably 6S next time"  And Masse24 thinks "A jump to 6 !S is probably in my future. But there is no hurry."  Mark Laken:  "Let's try to learn a little more before deciding which slam to bid."  Ross Grabel says "I don't want to make a bid that partner can pass (such as four notrump), and anything else would be misdirected.  If partner bids four diamonds, I will bid six spades and trust North to value the heart queen appropriately.  If North bids four spades, I will raise to five, a general slam-try indicating a diamond control of my own."  Allan Graves' plan is "Then five spades over four diamonds, which is surely forcing and looking for seven.  Five notrump over anything but four diamonds, then follow with six spades offering a choice of spades or notrump."  This bid was one of the three co-leaders in the poll.

4    90   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0%  IAC No solvers
JoAnna Stansby is making an "Anti-lead-control-bid on the way to six spades."  However, the moderator wonders "... but is that the lead you want to stop?  If partner has, say, the three side-suit queens, clubs will be the lead you want to stop."

4 ♠   60   BWP 8%   BWS 16%  IAC 25%
Panelists making 4 !S their choice, clearly did not see the bid as necessarily the end of the auction.  As BluBayou points out:  "Bad news folks:  BWS  does NOT seem to clarify what it takes to be better than a double-negative :'(   Is it "one king"...is it "two queens"? ... Note that our partner's NON BUSTED bids are not restricted to 3-4 points,  though I guess her third bid --3NT -- will not have 8+..?   (i.e.  my 4S  need not end the auction.)  ... this IS my wild-card bet  for this month"  Eric Kokish agrees:  "Three-notrump is a regressive move, as North could have bid four notrump over three hearts with more. ... So, despite the great promise of the South hand, there is no 100-percent security in four notrump.  A wholesale control response might have been very useful here.  As it is, I can bid four spades and expect North to bid again with any two of the heart queen, club king, and diamond ace."  Phillip Alder:  "My immediate reaction was to invite slam more strongly ... If he holds:  ♠ x    xxx    Jxxx   ♣ KJxxx, I will probably be glad that I did not bid four notrump."  The moderator points out that "Sure, partner could have a misfitting sub-minimum for his previous actions, and three notrump did limit his hand, but surely bidding four spades is far too pessimistic.  At the same time, expecting partner to bid again with the right hand is far too optimistic.  Four spades is corrective, not invitational."

4 NT   80   BWP 19%   BWS 17%  IAC No solvers
Is a quantitative raise the right way to invite?  Enough Panelists thought it the right action to be the second of the poll co-leaders.  Augie Boehm says you "Need decent scraps in the minors or the heart queen for slam.  Meanwhile, play the matchpoint angle."  Kit Woolsey thinks "Too strong a holding to quit.  Either spades or notrump might be the better matchpoint strain, for four notrump is okay."  Jeff Rubens agrees:  "Willing to stop here opposite a minimum.  Spades might be better, especially at the slam level, opposite some (but relatively few) North hands."  Robert Wolff simply says "Let partner take the blame."  One question:  How will partner know that a singleton trump is sufficient support for spades?

5 ♠   80   BWP 12%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
The other invitational bid is 5 !SSartaj Hans is more descriptive:  "Given the absence of a quantitative four-notrump bid on the previous round, partner cannot have a lot.  However, a couple of well-located cards are all that is needed for slam, so we must make some sort of effort."  Less verbose is Billy Eisenberg:  "This is a difficult hand to evaluate." 

5 NT   90   BWP 8%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Offering a choice of slams were a few Panelists.  Though how they expected North to understand what would be needed to support spades was unclear unless the slam choice was for a minor suit.  Joe Grue says "I will give North a choice between six spaders and six notrump.  This is super-arhaic; to bid like this, I should be from Texas, or Canada, or somewhere."  Steve Beatty laments:  "I don't see any way to invesitgate slam scientifically.  Since I will ultimately bid six spades or six notrump, I will start with five notrump and correct partner's minor-suit bid to six spades, to let him decide between spades and notrump."

6 ♠   100   BWP 19%   BWS 19%  IAC 58%
The last co-leader in the poll is the leap to 6 !SJCreech asks "Is there a sensible way to explore a grand?  I am afraid of any bid below slam, as being something that partner can pass.  Jam and pray seems the best avenue." Similarly, YleeXotee says "I don't like to jump to these contracts, but just don't see how the bidding is going to proceed. P is guaranteeing probably the King of clubs, or perhaps Ace of diamonds"  Danny Kleinman thinks "Three queens opposite will make six spades a big favorite; and, with some North hands, an uninformed opening lead may yield an overtrick, provided that I don't help the defenders with scientific slam-tries along the way."  KenBerg: "I have shown a strong hand, although it is stronger then I have shown. I have also bid spades and then hearts. Still pard is willing to play 3NT. It seems pard has some values in the minors and not just because 2NT denied a double negative. I think having some trump available for control could be useful here."  David Berkowitz:  "Practical value bidding.  Bid what I think I can make.  Reject five notrump followed by six spades, because I really don't want partner to correct to six notrump."  Mike Passell:  "Bid what I hope I can make."  Roy Welland:  "Little bit of a gamble.  Seven seems unlikely, with partner willing to stop in three notrump, and spades might have some hands where notrump would fail."  Sami Kehela:  "Cut the cackle and get to the play." 

6 NT   90   BWP 12%   BWS 6%  IAC No solvers
Taking additional inferences from the auction, some choose to go for the matchpoint edge of NT over a major.  Carl Hudecek believes "Partner is biding like a person with the diamond queen and club king.  He shouldn't bid this way with an ace."  Don Stack says "There is no reasonable way to reach seven notrump, so I'm bidding what I think we can make.  I'm not going to worry about making six spades when partner is two-two in the majors."  The moderator, Bart Bramley, writes:  "I'm with them, though I quibble about the details.  Why can't partner have bid as he did with the diamond ace?  And with two-two in the majors, North might have bid three spades last round.  But I agree that notrump will often be as good as or better than spades.  The lead could be critical against either contract.  Playing in notrump could induce a major-suit lead, which (I think) I want.  The field rates to be in slam, so going for the extra 10 points in notrump is a worthwhile gamble."

 




Problem H  !H 6  (BabsG, KenBerg, JCreech, Duffer66, CCR3, Peuco)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ Q 7 3   ♥ Q 10 9 6   ♦ 10 4   ♣ K Q 8 2

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      1        Pass       1
  Pass      1 ♠      Pass      2 NT
  Pass      3 NT      (All Pass)
What is your opening lead?

The moderator described the collection of answers in an interesting fashion.  "Another two-way vote.  Sort of. On one side, a majority of 15 picked the heart six.  On the other side, the other 11 panelists picked 'not the heart six' and split their votes among seven of the remaining twelve cards."

♥ 6   100   BWP 58%   BWS 17%  IAC 50%
According to the moderator, "The heart leaders see the potential to set up two or three heart tricks with a relatively small chance of blowing a trick."  Ross Grabel says "Dummy may be one=three in hearts and clubs but won't be three=one, so a heart lead from a holding with such good spots needs to find little with partner to be successful."  Sartaj Hans thinks it "Requires little from partner.  Even if we strike three low hearts in his hand, bare ace-king of hearts in dummy or an honor-jack holding might save us."  Eric Kokish:  "Declarer's initial-response suit is often the weak spot on this auction.  Should I lead the queen to deal with stiff jack opposite ace-king-fourth?  Like the punk in Dirty Harry, I am not feeling (that) lucky today."  The only comment from the IAC just pulled out that tired old phrase:  "Quoting Todd:  'Have I said how much I hate lead problems?'" (JCreech).

10   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 9%  IAC 1 solver
Billy Eisenberg selected a different heart:  "I hate everything else."  Why the 10?  The moderator obliges:  "The ten is best when partner holds king-eight-seven-low, or when partner has king-eight-low and dummy has seven-low.  Against that, the ten loses when dummy has the jack and declarer has the eight-seven, and on many combinations where partner has the ace or king and declarer has the other relevant cards."

♣ K   80   BWP 12%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Steve Beatty:  "... I am leading the club king and hoping that partner has enough in the suit, along with an outside card, to beat the contract."  Mark Feldman guesses "Partner could hold anywhere from ont to five clubs."  As a second choice, Danny Kleinman would lead the king of clubs, not the deuce, so that partner can share the burden of guarding the suit if he has the jack."

♣ Q   70   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 1%  IAC No solvers
Mike Passell:  "Assuming the king is the power lead."

♣ 2   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 29%  IAC 25%
Roughly a fourth of solvers chose to lead low from the unbid suit, but only one Panelist.  The Panelist's response was not reported, and none of the solvers provided insight as well.

♠ Q   70   BWP 8%   BWS 2%  IAC No solvers
Carl Hudecek:  "In real life, these exotic leads seldom work for me.  But since I don't have that much life left, I'll try again."  Jeff Rubens:  "Least unattractive."

♠ 3   60   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 8%  IAC 17%
YleeXotee: "I'm leading through the second suit of the NT bidders partner. often the NT bidder is relying on that second bid major to be stopped by p, and its already not their best suit (most of the time)."  Masse24: "This is a lead problem, yes? If so, I hate it."

10   60   BWP 8%   BWS 16%  IAC No solvers
Mark Laken:  "Going passive."  Kit Woolsey:  "Passivity seems to be indicated, with the hearts and clubs behind declarer's holdings in those suits.  Any other lead is very likely to blow a trick."

Admittedly, I gave up on trying to justify the "not the !H 6" responses.  If those that chose the lead discussed their reasons, I generally accepted the reasoning unless the moderator had something pithy to add.



Meanwhile, this concludes this month's MSC summary.  I hope you found something interesting, or at least entertaining in this summary.  Please join next month's contest (and when you do, tell us why you chose what you chose - you may find yourself quoted in the next summary).
« Last Edit: April 16, 2022, 11:58:53 PM by jcreech »
A stairway to nowhere is better than no stairway at all.  -Kehlog Albran