I actually prefer 3S, since it leaves room to emphasize the diamonds. If I bid 4C I may later need to bid 5C to confirm the void. Partner may never know about the DK. After 3S, I can plough ahead with 4D over partner’s likely 4C.
My first instinct was 4S. Is slam that much of a slam dunk here? If it said “total points” instead of HCP, I would feel more comfortable. Presumably in 3S or 4C a fit is confirmed and therefore partner will think in total points, rather than HCP. And in that case, I’d go with 4C, so that he knows I have at least second round control in clubs.
4C. void and 5th spade make up for fewer than expected points.
Sure enough, nothing except 4C and 3S got any panelist votes, with 13 for 4C and 2 for 3S. In the scoring, both 3S (2 panelists, 7 of 47 solvers) and 4S (0 panelists, 12 solvers) got 90.
Help!
Matchpoints seems easier. 4H is unlikely to be over 50%, so double.
Probably double at imps, too. At imps we don’t need 50% for game, if choices were just 3 of our major or 4 of our major. Here, it’s 4 of our major vs 3 of their major. It’s very unlikely we can collect down 4 against them, but down 2 is pretty likely, and down 3 about as likely as down only 1.
Double at matchpoints. Deciding between 4H and DBL at IMPs, leaning 4H.
I double at both. You do need a 50% game here to bid it at IMPs, since the alternative seems to be collecting 300, not a measly 170.
double at both. we have a good forcing defense, dummy rates to have nothing, declarer will be playing out of his hand. Expect to set it at least 3.
While I double at both, I’m actually more tempted to bid 4H at matchpoints. Doubling instead of bidding on when 4H makes is often only lose 3 at IMPs, but it still loses the board at BaM (or a full half-board at matchpoints).
Isn’t it further complicated by not knowing if the 3S bid is normal? Maybe irrelevant, but suppose some pairs are stopping in 3H. Then you are beating them by doubling, even if 4H makes.
Entry submitted:
Problem set: March 2022
Respondent: Steve White (D4)
Problem 1A
Steve White: Double. I’ll rate 4H as a little under 50%, so at matchpoints it’s a poor proposition with at least 300 available vs 3S doubled.
Problem 1B
Steve White: Double. Here 4H would normally meet the criteria for bidding a vul game, but that’s when not bidding game figures to produce +140 or +170. Here, with a likely +300 and perhaps +500 available against 3S doubled. you need to have a higher probability of making game to bid it, and I don’t think you have enough here.
Double / Double got 100. Neither was close.
The April problem:
Tentative thought:
A. I’ll agree with the double, even though normally I think the double should show only 4. The hand is too good for just 2S, so double.
B. This is harder, IMO. Despite only one heart, I’m reluctant to double when we surely would have made 4H. 5D is possible, but can’t match the score 4H would have made. With the heart Q, 5 H may be a favorite. I think I’ll try that. If we can’t make our contract 5H is the one that they’re most likely to save over.
The main advantage of 5D is that if partner has 4S, he would surely bid 5S over 5D, probably not over 5H.
I’ll agree with the double.
I can’t see doing anything other than passing here in the first seat.
I could change until Sunday, so it’s not too late for you to talk me out of this.
1A 3D. The alternative to double is 3D. 2S is insufficient. At these colors I think I’ll get constructive with 3D. It’s close, but it’s my only chance to name diamonds, and I think they will usually have an escape in clubs.
1B 5H because HQ and an ace should be enough. 3H by partner over 3C would already have been a monster, yes?
As is the norm with District 4 MSC, almost no separation in scoring. Part A agreeing with the double had a big majority of the panel (10 to 2) and a majority of the solvers (16 to 11), and was worth 20 vs 10. For part 2, 5D got 80 points for 3 panelist votes (also 3 for pass and 3 for 6H), and 11 of the 27 solver votes. Everything else that got at least one solver vote (Pass, Double, 5H, 6D and 6H) all got 70.
It’s hard to imagine anything beyond 2S, 2H and P, and relatively easy to cut those to 2H and P. Then it gets harder, but 2S looks right to me. At least that’s my thinking so far.
I think 2N and 3N should also be in the mix. After all, diamonds is one of West’s suits. I don’t think North should be bidding 2D without at least some extras and at least a stopper in diamonds, and I have a positional stopper in clubs and good enough diamonds to make partner’s holding a stopper from either side. The real question is whether 2D shows enough extras for this hand to bid 3N, or whether 2N is enough. We don’t want to bid clubs as that should be a non-positional stopper or no stopper. If we take the position that the minimum for 2D is the stronger half of 12-14 balanced, then I think our bid is 2N. That’s reasonable, since min/max for 12-14 is going to be tough to sort out later.
So 2N for me. My second choice is actually 2S, since that is somewhat more forward going than 2H and since this is a good suit for a 5-2 fit in game if partner has Kx AQxxx AQ10xx x or the like. Pass is horrid as I think diamonds could be a 3-3 fit. What do you want partner to do with xx AKJxx AQx xxx or with xx AKQ10x AKJ xxx?
The more I think about this, the more I like 2S…So maybe 2S, maybe 2N. I’d rank 2H third, 3C or 3N fourth, and Pass too horrid to contemplate.
2S for me. Also considered 2N. I think we take this chance to show how strong our spades are.