July MSC SUMMARY (Part 3) – David Berkowitz, DirectorProblem G 4 
(CCR3, Blubayou, Masse24, BabsG)
Matchpoints Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ K J 9 5
♥ A 6 5
♦ 9 ♣ K J 7 4 2
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— —— 1 NT Pass
2 ♣ Pass 2
♦ Pass
3 ♣ Pass 3 ♠ Pass
?
What call do you make?
The moderator,
David Berkowitz, describes the auction: "Three clubs was a try for the right game, with slam a distant thought. It looked as though North would bid three diamonds, and we would probably end up in three notrump. But a funny thing happened; partner tried three spades, a shocker to be sure." So what should be bid after that?
3 NT 40 BWP 12% BWS 37% IAC 1 solver
One thought should be a favorite of the Hammanites; it certainly was the plurality choice of the BW solvers.
Zia says "Four spades is tempting, but it would be a very-swingy bid that the field won't match. If partner moves with four clubs, I will bid slam, but opposite ♠ Axx
♥ xx
♦ AQxxx ♣ AQx, maybe we'll make 10 tricks in notrump and spades."
Carl Hudecek: "Now that I have demanded a red-suit lead, I'll bid what I should have bid at my previous turn." But a real warning sign that 3 NT is heading down the wrong path is that Todd was no where to be seen with his whispers of "Bob."
Eric Rodwell says "Three spades implies doubt; with better spades than hearts, I've already pushed the envelope by bidding three clubs."
4 ♣ 60 BWP No Panelists BWS 7% IAC 1 solver
KenBerg pushes on, making a slam try: "Ah yes, it would be nice to have agreements. 3C is natural and GF, S seems to agree, I suppose 3S is the spade A and a good club fit but maybe it's just shapely with three good spades. And my 4C? Maybe it's minorwood. Or maybe not. I would prefer not. After my 3C I think 3D by pard would show Ds, maybe a 3=3=5=2 shape or maybe even sid diamonds. So if 3D over 3C would not be a cue showing a club fit, then my 4C gives him a chance to cue now with 4D. But the truth is that I have no idea what is going on and so maybe I should just bid 6C." Although making another selection,
Eric Kokish said "Four clubs would be okay, segueing into four diamonds - four hearts -four spades - four notrump (Last Train)."
4 ♦ 60 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 6% IAC No solver
Chip Martel tries to get partner interested in slam: "Worth one below-game slam-try. If four hearts were a slam-try pattern bid (my preference), that would be much better, but it is not so defined in BWS. Partner won't know that heart honors are better than diamond honors but will know that black ace-queens are gold."
4 ♥ 80 BWP 35% BWS 17% IAC No solvers
For the Panel, 4
was a more popular slam try, though it was seen more as a confused cooperation, than anything else.
John Carruthers, for example, says "I am puzzled by partner's bid, since he must have something in at least one of the red suits. Is he attempting to say that he has a great fit for clubs and something in the other three suits ... I'll bid where I live and hope that North will know what to do."
Steve Gardner says "If partner is worried about hearts, then I have doubts also, even though three notrump might be the best contract. Will partner interpret four hearts as a forward-going shape bid? I don't know, but I am confident that North will think that he has struck gold if he is looking at something along the lines of: ♠ AQx
♥ xx
♦ Axxx ♣ AQxx."
Gary Cohler makes a "Control-bid slam-try showing short diamonds. Three notrump is out of the picture when partner didn't bid three diamonds."
4 ♠ 100 BWP 50% BWS 28% IAC 40%
If you do not regard partner's 3
bid as some sort of move toward slam, then it clearly should be regarded as natural, indicating that the hand may not be suited for 3 NT and offering the 4=3 fit as an alternative place to play.
Barry Bragin points out that "The logical inverse of Hamman's Law is "If three notrump is not right, don't bid it." I'm expecting something similar to: ♠ AQx
♥ Qxx
♦ Jxx ♣ AQxx. The opponents take three diamond tricks, the I take the next 10 tricks." Surprisingly,
Masse24 is on board, eschewing Hamman, "Partner is in the dark as to my strength, which is borderline for slam exploration with a club fit. I assume partner was suggesting we play in a Moysian, so I accept. If he corrects to 5
, I’ll bid 6."
Danny Kleinman has similar thoughts: "If partner bid three spades to suggest playing in a four-three fit, that's fine with me. If North is angling for a club slam, that's fine with me too, as he'll be happy to see that I have four nice spades and prime values." Meanwhile
Larry Cohen thinks "I am dreaming of 650 or 680 in a four-three fit, and a top board opposite, say: ♠ AQx
♥ Jx
♦ Axx ♣ Axxxx. Yes, that also provides a club slam. Am I dreaming that partner might move over four spades?" More simply,
Bart Bramley says "If partner doesn't want to play in three notrump, neither do I. Raising spades is simplest. Maybe North will know what to do."
Problem H J (BluBayou, YleeXotee, CCR3, Peuco, BabsG, JCreech, Masse24)
Imps Both sides vulnerable
You, South, hold:
♠ J 10 4 ♥ Q 10 6 3 ♦ 10 9 ♣ Q 9 6 3
SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST
—— 1
♦ Pass 1
♥ Pass 1 ♠ Pass 2 NT*
Pass 3 NT (All Pass)
*forcing
What is your opening lead?
The moderator set up the problem as follows: "Usually, in this Club, our lead choices are one more distasteful than the next. Here, we have four attractive suits lead from." This may be true, but the auction does provide some distributional clues. For example, dummy is almost certainly going to come down with exactly four spades and either four or five clubs and 2-2 or 2-3 in the round suits; by not raising hearts, dummy eliminated the 4=4=3=2 shape, and by acquiescing to notrump, suggested at least two in each of the rounds. Declarer is a bit less certain, but almost certainly has only four hearts and some sort of length/stopper in clubs. Given this information and my hand, my inclination is to lead through dummy's strength in diamonds and spades, and let partner lead through declarer's strength in hearts and, presumably, clubs. Nonetheless,
Masse24 is consistent, even when picking the top scoring choice: "I still hate lead problems."
♠ J 100 BWP 54% BWS 49% IAC 70%
Billy Eisenberg is "Expecting large agreement." And he was essentially correct; there was a strong contingent from IAC, and from the BW a slight majority of the Panel and a clear plurality of the solvers, all in agreement with the spade jack lead.
YleeXotee writes "I really preach leading through the major of responder on this kind of set up. It's their second suit and NT bidder is relying on that spade stop. lets knock it out as soon as possible." At a maximum, the opponents will have a seven-card fit, so it is reasonable to catch partner with four or five cards positioned over dummy.
JCreech echos "For similar reasons as YleeXotee. Leading through dummy's second suit."
Bruce Rogoff writes "Given that East's best holding are likely in the rounded suits (he didn't bid two clubs to hear about red-suit length, thus rates to have good clubs), leading one of them would be too dangerous. Even if we set up a trick or two there, I would probably have no entry. The spade jack combines attack with some safety."
Kerri and Steve Sanborn are "Trying to choose the lead that will least help declarer. Wish we had the spade nine also. All our intermediates could slow down declarer's search for tricks."
Eric Rodwell thinks the "Most passive (lead) would be the diamond ten, but that could pickle queen-third. If pard has four decent spades, this is probably a good start. I wouldn't know which rounded suit to attack."
Steve Gardner feels "Nothing is appealing, but not blowing a trick on lead may be our best chance. Perhaps a spade lead will deprive declarer of a late entry, should dummy have long diamonds."
Zia wavered between a "Spade or heart? Jack or spades or low heart? Somehow, the dummy always has a stiff heart honor, but, occasionally, it's the jack. A club lead strikes me as smelly, for some reason."
BluBayou: "Esthetically, this footnote pleases me: "1X, 1Y, 1Z; 2NT**" . 2NT is forcing. HOWEVER, it makes this lead problem close to trivial. Declarer promised us he he is balanced (or he would have bid 2C first if long there--or used XYZ or 4SF at the second turn). Our two queen-fourths must be defensive gold, and passive defense has to be the winner. I have no problem ruling out punting in what may their only 5-3 fit (diamonds) . No way i will start either of responder's suits."
♦ 10 60 BWP 15% BWS 15% IAC No solvers
Dummy's other suit is diamonds. We know this because he bid the suit, and the style is presumably Walsh; when diamonds are opened, the only time the suit is opened with less than four is if opener holds exactly 4=4=3=2. Since hearts were not raised, opener did not have the only short diamond pattern.
Will Beall makes the situation out to be a "Two-horse race here; I'm not leading a rounded suit. Partner is more likely to have five diamonds than five spades."
Barry Bragin thinks "We are unlikely to be able to defeat three notrump on power, so I need to hope that we have a long suit to set up. If it were spades, partner might have overcalled, so I'll try to hit a diamond suit. This auction implies that East is not concerned with clubs." While
Kit Woolsey believes "Our best hope is that partner has diamonds under control, so a very-safe lead is called for."
♥ 3 70 BWP 23% BWS 9% IAC No solvers
One thing I failed to understand is that time after time, Panelist's would mention that the opponents have clubs well under control, and so avoided that lead, but couldn't the same be said for hearts? The difference is that declarer explicitly bid the suit. Why is the implied holding more of a concern than the explicit holding? Nonetheless, if you are going to make a length lead, then hearts are slightly better (a difference of a 10 compared to a 9), but is it really enough of an improvement to prefer attacking the explicit holding instead of the implied?
Gary Cohler says yes: "East didn't show five hearts. West's hand will usually be unbalanced, short in hearts. I could guess one of West's suits but prefer the traditional fourth-highest."
Adam Grossack agrees "Fourth highest from our longest and strongest. Feels as if dummy will have heart shortage a good amount of the time, so we can hope to catch something in partner's hand." As does
Ron Gerard: "Fourth from strongest. Dummy has some clubs, so not much will be going on in that suit. Partner has some spades, but that could be only three, and how often could I pound away at that suit."
Eric Kokish thinks "On balance, West will be short in hearts, and it won't take much for us to build some heart tricks. If two notrump had been only invitational, I would have lea a not-quite-passive diamond. With no spade eight or nine and no club ten, we'd need more luck to set the contract with one of those suits than via heart attack (so to speak)." While
Robert Wolff considers the lead to be "The best chance to defeat the contract. If two notrump might have been a checkback for three-card heart support. I would lead the jack of spades."
♣ 3 50 BWP 1 Panelist BWS 26% IAC 30%
This is one of those times when the thought patterns are clearly different for the Panel than the solver. While the Panel preferred to attack the hearts, the solvers preferred to attack the unbid suit. The lone Panelist preferring the unbid clubs was
Phillip Alder: "If two notrump had been nonforcing, I would not lead a club, fearing that declarer was four=six in the rounded suits. As it is maybe East started with two clubs with a strong hand."
KenBerg's analysis was: "I have a 5 count, I guess pard has something somewhere. If get has the A or the K or the J of clubs this might work out ok. I am not leading a red card, and it seems at least possible that dummy's fourth spade will eventually be a trick, so a club seems right. But who knows? The Shadows knows, but I am not the Shadow. (The Shadow was a fun radio program from the 40s and 50s, in case you youngsters don't get the reference.)" And
Hoki makes the club lead due to "being a simple soul."
This ends the discussion for the July MSC problems. I hope you found it thought provoking.
We are about a week out of having the next set of answers due, so please partake. As some are wont to say "Come on in, the water's fine." All participants are welcome, and despite the Panel's opinions, there are seldom any truly wrong answers; in most instances, you will find at least some in the Panel or at least some percentage of the solvers that will agree with your choice unless you severely misread the problem.
