2023 JUNE MSC

[jcreech]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem D  2   (YleeXotee, JCreech, Hoki)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 9 3   ♥ A K J   ♦ A K Q 10 4   ♣ J 7

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♠       Pass      Pass
Double*   Pass     2 ♥       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: 2 NT would have shown 18-19 HCP

What call do you make?

The opponent's opened 1 , and you balanced with a double.  Partner bid 2 and the auction is back to you.  You have 19 HCPs that you were unwilling to balance 2 NT originally due to the Jxx stopper, but this 19 has both flaws (unsupported jacks) and the diamond suit makes the hand rate somewhat better.

3 ♥   40   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 9% IAC No solvers
Robert Wolff "Best of several choices, two other being two notrump and pass."

2 NT   30   BWP No Panelists   BWS 3% IAC No solvers 
No Panelist or IAC solver chose this option, but it reasonably ought to be on the table.  At your first turn, you could have bid 2 NT immediately to show these values, but did not.  What would be different at this turn?  First, you are not raising hearts, so the reopening double was not based on four hearts.  Second, without four hearts, to suggest notrump at this turn also indicates less than a full stop - so this should warn partner off with two or three small.  In other words, if notrump is wrong, partner should be able to work it out, though my partner never seems to.

Pass   50   BWP 7%   BWS 9% IAC 1 solver
There are a lot of losers for partner to cover, so there are pessimists finding a pass.  WackoJack has a fairly complete analysis: "Yes, a nasty problem.  Optimistically: West opened with 12 East has 3.  So partner has 6. Maybe:    Axx.  Qxxxx,  xx,  xxx. That just about makes 4 a good contract.  BUt only just.  Pessimistically:  West opened with 15, East has 3.  So partner has 3.  Maybe:  xxx  Qxxxx,  Jx,  xxx.   You lose 5 tricks off the top.  So at match points it is tempting to pass."  Irina Levitina is "Going for a plus.  Too many losers make it too risky to bid."  BluBayou: "If we raise to 3 , they may grab 5 off the top as discussed above, on top of that, partner may not realize that his 5-6 count  is what we need for game  (Qxxxx + club king, or diamond jack?)"  Marty Bergen thinks "Anything could be right.  I considered two notrump, which was perfect except for one very large flaw."

2 ♠   100   BWP 52%   BWS 45% IAC 43%
An interesting new rule emerged.  Joel Wooldridge:  "This matches a rule of mine: a takeout double followed by a cue-bid most often shows three-card support for advancer's suit and about 18 high-card points.  Other hand-types are possible, but this is what partner should assume, as it's the most common."  Clearly other subscribe to this rule.  For example, Brian Platnick describes the bid:  "The most-likely hand for cue-bidding here is extras with three-card support."  Similarly, Phillip Alder writes: "Surely this cue-bi, which typically shows a strong hand with three-card support for partner's major, will win in a landslide."  Zia:  "Two spades implies fewer than four hearts, most likely three."  Others are less certain.  JCreech is awaiting further developments:  "A nebulous cue-bid.  I want to show support, but leave room for more description.  This cue takes up the least space, and maybe I will hear something I like."  As are Hoki: "in the hope of coping with any continuation (3D over 3C should show heart support)" and Jeff Alexander "I hope partner will know what to do."

3 ♦   80   BWP 37%   BWS 33% IAC 43%
The last real option is to bid the fine diamond suit.  My tendency when faced with this sort of situation is to overcall, then double on the next round, but then I am not usually starring at 19 HCPs along with a diamond suit this nice.  Masse24 writes:  "Really tough problem. 2 Spades is tempting, to elicit more information, but that’s a game-force and I’m just a bit short on values. 3 Hearts (my second choice) with only three is also tempting. But 3 Diamonds gets my values across and leaves the door open for partner to continue with a few values."  Frank Stewart thinks "Maybe a slight underbid, but the black jacks may be wasted, and I see no alternative."  Bart Bramley focuses on the number of hearts: "To the point.  Implies three hearts, else I should have bid three diamonds initially."






Problem E  4   (BluBayou, Hoki, JCreech)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ A J 2   ♥ A Q 6 4 3 2   ♦ —   ♣ A K J 6

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  1 ♥       Pass       1 ♠       Pass
  3 ♣       Pass       4 ♣       Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

You have a big hand and have elicited support for your second suit, as well as three-card support for partner's first-bid suit.  I agree that you have first-round control in all of the suits, along with your 19 HCPs, but is this enough to force to slam opposite a hand that really hasn't shown any strength beyond the 5-6 needed to make a one-over-one response.  However, Marty Bergen doesn't like the presented auction:  "To say that I object to the way-beyond-absurd one-heart opening would be the understatement of the century."

5 ♠   30   BWP 1 Panelist   BWS 0% IAC No solvers
Forcing the issue and providing the maximum choice, Bart Bramley thinks the bid "Logical choice of slams.  In my world, South guaranteed at least four clubs and denied four spades, so partner should make the right decision.  I might miss a good seven, but I want to bring spades into the picture, and four spades wouldn't be forcing."

5 ♦   50   BWP 11%   BWS 2% IAC No solvers
Also forcing the issue, but with what meaning?    Robb Gordon thinks "This hand is a poster child for Exclusion Key-Card."  But is it Exclusion or is it a splinter?  Four diamonds is not a jump, so it is not typically a splinter.  And one thing it does not do is show support for spades, yet Billy Eisenberg claims it "Should convey the gist of my hand."  What it does do is commit our side to a slam in clubs without any certainty that we have the values to be there, much less an eight-card or better fit.  This feels like trying to reach the seven-level without being certain we want to be at the six-level.

6 ♣   50   BWP 11%   BWS 5% IAC No solvers
I consider this to be a more honest approach.  Jeff Alexander says "Four spades would show four-card support and might end the auction.  Maybe North has: ♠ Kxxx   ♥ x   ♦ xxx   ♣ Q10xxx, and we'll get lucky."  Kit Woolsey gambles:  "I'm not going to stop in five clubs when we might have an eight-card major-suit fit found by the field.  Six clubs probably has play whatever partner has and I don't see any sensible way to find out if there is a better contract."  Joel Wooldridge "I treat raises of minor-suit jump-shifts very seriously.  For four clubs, I expect North to have either a fifth club or slammish values.  With anything less, he might have take a three heart preference on a doubleton or punted with four diamonds. ... if I bid six directly, partner can infer that I wasn't merely trying for six, and he may be able to bid seven himself."  Joel, it is good to have agreements of that sort, but are they applicable to BW2017 without additional discussion?

4 ♠   70   BWP 26%   BWS 22% IAC 57%
Masse24 has good questions as he makes this choice:  "This one confuses me a bit. I think 4 Diamonds will be the popular solver choice, but it doesn’t feel right. Can 4 Spades be interpreted as shaping out? Can it be passed? It is Matchpoints."  Frank Stewart says "This sequence describes the hand reasonably well."  Carl Hudecek thinks "Partner had a chance to control-bid or to show heart preference at the three-level.  He didn't, so I go lightly with four spades, which shows some spade support."  Drew Casen shapes out:  "Didn't I already say I have a game-force with at least five hearts and four clubs?  Now partner will know 12 of my cards, and any further move will be up to him."  Doub and Wildavsky's plan is "If partner bids five clubs, we'll bid again, so he won't worry that we lack a diamond control."  Eric Kokish believes that "In the unlikely event that North has the heart king, he will love it.  If partner has short hearts. he will love the spade king and a fifth club."  Jeff Rubens: "Strong controls and clubs, yes; but the queen of hearts is only a medium-value slam-level card, so I won't push too hard."  One thing is certain, these experts do not generally think that the bid necessarily shows a fourth spade.

4 ♦   100   BWP 48%   BWS 62% IAC 43%
BluBayou: "Most MSC panelists have no objection to a phony jump-shift on this auction.  They and I have to pay the piper this time:  slam in clubs is so likely that we cannot support spades right now; we must confirm our fit and cue in diamonds.  There is a fair chance that spades and clubs both make the same tricks, and that we won't be able to get back to the major . .....   I regret that I have to give up on patterning out  with delayed spade support and  that not doing so  may hyrt a lot."  Kevin Bathurst says "I'll start control-bidding and hope that partner can show second-round heart control at the five-level on the way. I'll reach at least six clubs, hoping that we can find a way to feel confident about seven."  Nick L'Ecuyer feels it "Must be the right way to start.  Let's see what partner does."  Zia admits "We need cooperation from partner to determine the right level.  (1) Will his four hearts next suggest a place to play? (2) Are we sure that he has the queen of clubs?  (3) Might he have marked time with three diamonds if he didn't?  Too many questions, too few answers."  Nonetheless, David Berkowitz feels that "Partner's not bidding three diamonds is quite encouraging."  And Brian Platnick points out that "Except in a regular partnership with elaborate agreements, this is a very-difficult auction.  Would partner's four hearts or four spades next be an offer to play?  I would assume yes, so four notrump will be partner's only slam=try over four diamonds."  Then there are those who just cannot bear to hear partner pass 4 .  JCreech: "To show shape or to cue-bid?  I think I will cue-bid rather than imply the shortness.  Since I hope to be slamming, I won't like bidding 4 and then hear pass."  Phillip Alder: "If I knew partner wouldn't pass, I would bid four spades; but he probably would pass.  So I will control-bid and hope for the best."  Hoki: "a cue bid with maybe 4S to come (over 4H)"





Problem F  4   (BluBayou, Masse24)

Imps  East-West vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 7 5 4   ♥ Q J 10 7 5   ♦ Q   ♣ 10 9 8

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——      ——       1 ♦        Pass
  1 ♥       Pass      1 ♠        Pass
  2 ♠       Pass      3 ♥        Pass
   ?         
What call do you make?

I find this auction confusing.  Partner opens 1 , then bids a second suit at the one-level which does not necessarily show extras.  Some of the Panel have even suggested that 1 should be passed.  Marty Bergen, for example wrote:  "Although two spades may have worked out well, I object to it.  With this collection of quacks, even when vul., to pass one spade was clear."  Then when I raise that second suit, he raises my first suit.  Is this a true raise, a game try, or something else?  The Panel clearly behaves as though the hearts are natural, but are they?  For some Panelists, it isn't even clear that 3 is forcing.

3 ♠   40   BWP 7%   BWS 31%  IAC 43%
I think that JCreech is expressing the fears and hope of the hand: "I am tempted to pass, but then is partner bidding out their shape or cue-bidding.  I'll retreat to our 4-4, and hopefully showing a hand that is weak."  Jeff Rubens admits "The bidding has improved the hand, but I'm not sure it was worth two spades in the first place."  While Arthur Robinson just says "I assume three hearts is forcing."

4 ♠   40   BWP 7%   BWS 19% IAC No solvers
Although certain that partner has both majors, Kevin Bathurst at the end makes a guess: "This hand sure grew up fast.  I might have passed one spade, but now I must bid game.  If partner has good diamonds, spades may be better; but if he has good controls, hearts may be easier to manange except perhaps on a trump lead.  I'll guess spades."

4 ♥   100    BWP 67%   BWS 29% IAC 29%
A majority of the Panel are certain that 3 was offering an alternative strain.  Carl Hudecek thinks "With partner probably void of clubs, I'd rather ruff clubs with hearts I don't need for tricks than let the defenders force partner to ruff with useful spades."  David Berkowitz finds it "Easy to see South's spades going on North's diamonds."  Similarly, Jeff Alexander believes "Game should have a play in hearts, as spades may go on diamonds."  Nick L'Ecuyer bases he decision on the relative strength of his two suits: "Game can make.  Looks as if partner has a decent 4=3=5=1.  With stronger spades, I would bid four spades."  As does, Doub and Wildavsky: "Pass was a standout over one spade, but having raised we've hit the jackpot.  We'll choose the stronger suit for trumps."  Masse24: "We belong in Hearts since Club ruffs need to be taken in the short hand. Even if we only get one ruff I can envision game, so I will accept. Partner should have a 4=3=5=1 hand with 16 (or possibly 17) HCP. Maybe a hand like: KQ93 - K94 - AKJT7 - 2   Can that hand make game? I hope so."  Robb Gordan: "The five-three fit will be better than the four-four.  If dummy gets tapped and trups split badly, partner won't be able to use all the hearts in a spade game."  Phillip Alder will "Take the ruffs in the shorter-trump hand.  I do not expect to need discards on the long hearts, and the spades are weak."  Eric Kokish: "Suddenly an excellent hand, but not good enough for four clubs."  Kit Woolsey says "This piece of junk just became a lot more valuable.  If partner has the 4=3=5=1 shape he has portrayed, four hearts figures to be better than four spades."  BluBayou is "Expecting a dummy equivalent to AKxx, Kxx, AKxxx, x to go with our 'measly'   Jxxx, QJTxx, Q, Txx!  The panel may say "THAT  is a jump-shift to 2 , so pray hard, Blu!", but  I'm standing firm."  Drew Casen is reluctantly drug along: "I would have passed one spade, and I'd also pass three hearts if not vulnerable at imps."

Pass   60   BWP 19%   BWS 20% IAC 29%
This last group believe partner's heart bid, but are satisfied either with the final strain, or at least not terribly discontented.  Whether they view 3 as forcing is not clear, but if they do, it doesn't matter.  Robert Wolff  is simply done:  "Which I might have done last turn but didn't lest West enter in clubs."  Hoki writes:  "haven't I already bid my hand (if not overbid it, lol)"  Brian Platnick thinks the strain has improved: "Presumably, partner is 4=3=5=1 with extras but short of a jump-shift.  Hearts may play better than spades." 



This ends Part 2.  Hopefully you find something interesting or thought provoking.  Until the lasr part is ready, please join in nrxt month's problem set.

[Masse24]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 2) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem D  2   (YleeXotee, JCreech, Hoki)

Matchpoints  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ J 9 3   ♥ A K J   ♦ A K Q 10 4   ♣ J 7

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  ——       1 ♠       Pass      Pass
Double*   Pass     2 ♥       Pass
   ?         
*BWS: 2 NT would have shown 18-19 HCP

What call do you make?

2 ♠   100   BWP 52%   BWS 45% IAC 43%
An interesting new rule emerged.  Joel Wooldridge: 

This matches a rule of mine: a takeout double followed by a cue-bid most often shows three-card support for advancer's suit and about 18 high-card points.  Other hand-types are possible, but this is what partner should assume, as it's the most common." 

Clearly other subscribe to this rule.  For example, Brian Platnick describes the bid:  "The most-likely hand for cue-bidding here is extras with three-card support."  Similarly, Phillip Alder writes: "Surely this cue-bi, which typically shows a strong hand with three-card support for partner's major, will win in a landslide."  Zia:  "Two spades implies fewer than four hearts, most likely three."  Others are less certain.  JCreech is awaiting further developments:  "A nebulous cue-bid.  I want to show support, but leave room for more description.  This cue takes up the least space, and maybe I will hear something I like."  As are Hoki: "in the hope of coping with any continuation (3D over 3C should show heart support)" and Jeff Alexander "I hope partner will know what to do."

Agree, Jim. I had not heard this before. If "expert standard," I'll want to add it to my arsenal. It seems like a good use for it since there is no other way to express that hand.

[jcreech]

June MSC SUMMARY (Part 3) – Danny Kleinman, Director

Problem G  1 NT  (Masse24, YleeXotee, BluBayou, CCR3, VeredK)

Matchpoints  North-South vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ K Q 10 4   ♥ K Q 10 9   ♦ 5 3 2   ♣ A K

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

Apparently, this problem is a periodic test of whether the bridge community will open a strong four-card major when there is a convenient rebid.  The moderator, Danny Kleinman, provides a brief history:  "The original Bridge World Standard specified that a strong four-card major may be opened if a convenient rebid is available.  The current BWS restricts this leniency to third- and fourth-seat opening if the bidder can 'handle' the auction."  Danny anticipated a split between which major to open, but the schism emerged elsewhere.

1 NT   100   BWP 37%   BWS 69%  IAC 71%
The argument for this bid is entirely on the basis of HCPs and field expectations; because this is matchpoints, to open anything but 1 NT is viewed as swinging unnecessarily.  Frank Stewart writes: "So it's a maximum with both majors.  To open one diamond would be masterminding.  North would pass with a five-card major and a hand too weak to respond."  Joel Wooldridge thinks it "Seems normal.  One diamond might work well but might induce partner to overrate low diamond honors and overbid with queen-third there.  At imps, I might risk a one-diamond opening to reach a skinny game, but at matchpoints I want to preserve an average-plus."  Masse24: "KnR on this hand is 17.9. Knowing that, if we choose NOT to open 1NT, do we open 1C or 1D?  I think I’ll stick with the slightly overstrength 1NT."  Jeff Rubens points out that "If overstrength for one notrump, it is only by a sliver.  If I deemed this too strong for one notrump, I would need to bid something else, and I strongly dislike all four possibilities."  Kit Woolsey: "Even if something else is theoretically a bit better, which is a big 'if,' it isn't better by enough not to take what is certainly the field action."  Kevin Bathurst: "I expect many will open in a minor, and some days I might too as it's worth it (one diamond to preclude the lead would be my preference), but at matchpoints I'll try to start with the field and beat the other pairs later."  Robb Gordon says "Yes, the hand is too strong for one notrump.  But that is what the field will bid, and one diamond followed by a jump in partner's major would paint a poor picture of the hand."  BluBayou, in his own unique way, says what's the problem:  "A creative 1 diamond,  atruly antique 1 Spade??  WHAT else, seriously  than...."

1 ♥   50   BWP 11%   3% IAC No solvers
If not 1 NT, then  what?  What about a major, since that is what the problem was designed to elicit.  Doub and Wildavsky say "An unusual hand.  We could plausibly open one club, one diamond, one heart, one spade, or one notrump.  With 17.90 Four C's points, it is too strong for one notrump.  ...With one club and one diamond both flawed, we'll follow Kaplan's advice: 'Find your strongest four-card suit and pretend you have five.'  We will have easy rebids over any response and may rightside three notrump."  Nick L'Ecuyer argues "If there was ever a hand to open a four-card major in third seat, this is one.  It keep spades and everything else in the picture.  One notrump might be passed out when we have a much better partscore, perhaps even a game, in a major."

Note: All of a sudden, we start to see references to "Four C's."  This reference is to the evaluation computation that eventually is known as Kaplan and Rubens (KnR) hand evaluation.  Originally, the system was mentioned, not described, and was generally explained as Caution! Complex Computer Count, hence the Four C's.  That name did not catch on, but KnR did.

Since my original post, someone provided a link to a subsequent BW article that explained the calculations that went into the Four C's.  It can be found at https://roquibridge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cccc.pdf.

1 ♣   60   BWP 19%   3% IAC No solvers
A more traditional approach would be to open a minor.  The advantage to opening one club is that partner's bend over backwards to keep the auction open in case the opener has club shortness.  Jeff Alexander writes "Too strong for one notrump.  I'm not worried about playing in my doubleton, because nobody passes one club."  Marc Jacobus is "Seeking a major."  Billy Eisenberg is "Hoping to raise one heart or one spade to three."  While David Berkowitz "... put myself in Zia's shoes and wondered what would he bid.  Voila!  If he would bid it, so must I."

1 ♦   90   BWP 33%   BWS 24$ IAC 29%
Of course, once you try to pin Zia down, he zigs or zags to avoid being predictable.  This time he went with the other minor.  Zia wants to "Stop the lead and find the major.  With queen-fifth in clubs and ace-fourth in a major, partner would pass a one-notrump opening butt could make game in the major."  Hoki has similar thoughts: "at matchpoints I'd like to explore for a major-suit first before committing to notrump with the hidden agenda of maybe deterring a diamond lead against a NT contract"  As does JCreech: "I was tempted to bid 1 NT, but it feels bigger than its HCPs.  Also bidding 1 gives us a better shot to find a major, and deceptively discourages a diamond lead if I bid the NT."  Carl Hudecek thinks "This hand is too strong for a 15-to-17 HCP notrump.  Opening either minor will let us find a major-suit fit quickly.  I prefer one diamond, then jumping to four in the major partner bids.  Opening one diamond makes partner the declarer whether we play in hearts or spades."  Eric Kokish: "This hand looks better for suit play than for notrump, and I can handle any response, so I'll take a small gamble on finding a major fit as easily as possible.  Not to mention deterring a diamond lead when it matters."  Brian Platnick says "I hope partner will respond one heart or one spade, then bid four over my jump to three.  In my fantasy, east will cleverly underlead his ace of diamonds up to my partner's doubleton king."  Irina Levitina believes the hand "Too strong for on notrump, and one diamond makes it easier to find a fit in a major."  While Bart Bramley describes the situation as "Stayman.  ... we will find a major-suit fit immediately."  Drew Casen: "Four C's rates this hand at 17.90, but if I opened one notrump we might miss a superior partscore in a four-four major-suit fit."  Phillip Alder: "Four C's rates this 17.90.  One diamond makes it easy for partner to show a four-card major.  Majors and notrump may play better from his side.  My fear is being passed in one diamond."






Problem H A  (Masse24)

Imps  Neither side vulnerable
You, South, hold:

♠ 8   ♥ A J 10 9 8 7 3 2   ♦ 2   ♣ J 10 9

SOUTH   WEST   NORTH   EAST
  4 ♥        Pass     Pass       5 ♦
  Pass      Pass    Double   (All Pass)
What is your opening lead?

What is the purpose of the double in this auction?  Sadly, no one on the Panel or the moderator mention the double as having any influence in their choice of lead.  They do not even treat it as a red herring; the Panel makes their lead determinations entirely on their hand and were not distracted by other considerations. IAC, though, did give some consideration to the double.

In the end, the Panelists split between two options:  try to cash the top heart, look around and try to figure out what to do next, or lead the spade, hoping to catch partner with the ace to give you a ruff on the way back.  There was talk of the club jack, but no one had a compelling reason to follow through with that option.

♠ 8   90   BWP 28%   BWS 44% IAC 86%
For those trying for the ruff.  Eric Kokish thinks "A heart ruff probably won't go away, and perhaps North won't play me for a second trump.  If North were unlikely to have spade strength, I would lead the heart ace.  A case can be made for the club jack, too."  Kit Woolsey considers the lead "A big winner if partner has the ace of spades, and might be good even if he doesn't."  David Berkowitz cites the old adage:  "If I don't lead a stiff, I haven't got one (unless I have no trumps, of course).  East's failure to double four hearts marks partner with spades (I hope)."  Jeff Alexander seems to have my luck:  "Singleton leads always work when made against me."  Bart Bramley: "When a singleton is an option, I usually lead it.  Also, leading it tends to clarify that it is a singleton.  The heart-ace could leave me guessing at trick two.  We will usually have another chance to obtain a heart ruff - if that's what we need."  Kevin Bathurst "Where are the spades?  I think declarer has some spade length, so perhaps he and my partner are both short in hearts.  I'll try for my ruff and hope that North can get a heart ruff later if necessary."  BluBayou expresses the futility of making leads:  "Lead stiff,  get ruff,  set up 3 pitches for declarer.  Oh well, sigh."  Two our IAC solvers were influenced by the double.  JCreech, for example, said "I think the double is steering me away from the heart lead, but what should I lead?  I doubt that partner is ruffing clubs, but he might have the spade ace.  As the saying goes, I cannot have a singleton if I did not make it my opening lead."  While Hoki explains "my thinking (as misguided as I sometimes may be) is that a partner who wanted a heart ruff would not double because surely I would be expected to lead a heart normally without the double"

♥ A   100   BWP 52%   BWS 48% IAC 1 solver
For those wanting a look-see.  Drew Casen says "When in doubt, lay down an ace and take a look."  Doub and Wildavsky explains further: "Ace-leads go way up in attractiveness against high-level contracts.  Assuming that the lead is not ruffed, the sight of dummy should give us an idea of how to continue."  Zia: "Partner figures to be short in my suit.  I probably will be able to figure out whether to shift at trick two.  I predict a huge majority."  Robb Gordon thinks "Partner rates to be short in hearts.  Let's see the dummy."  Robert Wolff is "Trying to stay in control."  Frank Stewart: "I am not sure how North intends to beat this, but surely he is short in hearts.  It will be unlucky if this is the only losing lead."  Phillip Alder points out that "If partner has more than one heart, he probably has the contract beaten on his own.  If the lead survives, I should know what to do next."  Marty Bergen believes "The best chance to know what to lead to trick two.  Of course, I will not be happy if I fail to retain the lead."  Carl Hudecek "I expect to win trick one, and then I can lead the appropriate singleton depending on dummy.  If the heart ace is ruffed and any other lead beats the contract, too bad."  Barnet Shenkin "Looks normal.  If it holds, I can shift or continue.  Partner may have a singleton or void in hearts and a black ace, or he may just be doubling on power."



Although choosing different leads, these two expressed similar sentiments.  Masse24 wrote "I’ve recently developed a distaste for lead problems."  Of course he has expressed displeasure with lead problems for some time, perhaps he noted something different with this month's problem.  Jeff Rubens points out that "Guessing among pleasant-looking alternatives is just as annoying as guessing among unpleasant-looking alternatives."  Most past problems have been trying to pull the best of bad alternatives, but this month, both viable alternative were good, and even the club was a good alternative, if only there were not two better ones.


This concludes Part 3.  Hopefully, you found something interesting or useful in these summaries.  Everyone should know that Todd did, and I learned some things during the preparation.  Don't forget to participate in the current MSC; we love seeing entries!

[blubayou]

The comments for  PROBLEM F supported an idea  that I have seldom heard. VERY seldom.  We have responded 1   with         Jxxx, QJxxx, Q, xxx and heard pard rebid 1 . 
   Now, Moderator located 7 or 8 quotes that state "I would have passed  one spade......"   or  "I seriously considered passing one spade"  ( and who knows--maybe some unquoted panelists joined this lest?)
   I may be an extreme leftist in saying that 1   rebid by opener is FORCING -- unless the response was completely bogus but i never guessed that there would be THAT MANY experts  who call  passing an option, let alone preferable with jxxx and an actual 6-count
   

[Masse24]

Blu, at the table I would pass 1 and would not give it a second thought.

[jcreech]

Blu,

Passing 1 makes a lot of sense.  The best reason with this hand to bid is to block the opponents from coming in cheaply.  That was Robert Wolff's point when he passed 3 :  "Which I might have done last turn but didn't lest West enter in clubs."

If you are looking for a game, this 6 HCP rag is just not likely to produce one unless partner is either highly distributional or has a decently fitting 19 of his own.  In either case, opposite a passed hand, I would expect partner to jump shift to announce, "I want to be in game opposite virtually any ordinary response."  If partner is unable to jump shift, then I would be willing to pass.

That does raise questions about what a raise of a non-jump shift suit should mean. 

One possible meaning is Bobby's blocking bid; if that is the meaning, then no one should be taking another move beyond 2 . 

The other is you have a maximum for your minimum response; a value-oriented game-try.  This caters to hands that are short of a jump-shift and are inappropriate for opening a strong NT.  That seems to be the expectation of the North bidders, or they should be passing 2 .  If that is the case, why are so many of the Panelists accepting the game-try after making a blocking bid. 

Few things are worse in bridge than a partnership bidding at cross purposes.

This is a problem where I would really like to see the other hand after all is said and done.