Problem A
Steve White: Yes. Seems automatic, despite realizing that responding 2H could would better
Problem B
Steve White: Four hearts. Seems automatic. Don’t even see any reasonable alternative. Even if 4m is a cue (probably is), not a good choice. Even if 4S is a splinter (probably isn’t), not a good choice. [What could 4S be other than a splinter, with no Drury? Maybe KQ KQ xxxxx xxxx?]
Part A was unanimous among panelists and solvers for Yes.
Here are the results for Part B
Link to moderator’s write-up, if you are interested
No, there is no part A.
Three choices seem possible. Especially both vol at imps, pass is conceivable, since it’s a top when right. 2S is unlikely to be a good contract, but it may be best and is extremely unlikely to get doubled. 3D is harder to judge. It might be a very good contract, but could be bad, and could get doubled.
Leaning toward 3D, the contract I think most likely to produce a plus score.
Problem B
Steve White: Pass. Really wicked problem. Pass has the advantage that it’s sure to be a good score at this vulnerablility if we set it, and there’s some chance we will. If we had any sure plus score I would take it, but we may not have one. East can overruff in hearts fairly soon. Let’s hope West has chosen the wrong time to preempt.
Should have stuck with my first thought.
Link to moderator’s report: https://files.constantcontact.com/2bd6acd1101/afe4eedd-889a-42e5-a8b6-abbfab98f963.pdf?rdr=true
.
Commentary: https://files.constantcontact.com/2bd6acd1101/b5ac588f-a48e-4b70-8329-8c1cbb4dff5e.pdf?rdr=true
The last part of the commentary turns out to be quite interesting, with the conclusion that declarer is roughly 50-50 to make 5D. Slightly over 50-50 double dummy, but actual play is not double dummy, And the non-so-obvious reason it is that high is that the auction started with 3 passes. It is relatively unlikely partner has a minimum if neither opponent could open. The odds for 5D would be considerably lower had we been the dealer.
Interesting, given that partner did not make a negative double so he almost certainly lacks 4 spades. Also east can overruff dummy. Really inconceivable that dummy has a stiff heart and east 3; even a stiff heart and east 2 unlikely. Still selling out to 1H seems too chicken, and bidding 2D overcommitted and overstating the diamond length. So I lean to 1S at either scoring.
The biggest danger to 1S is not that we will get killed at a low level, or that partner will bid too much, but that it lets the opponents get to a good 5C contract.
Not sure what I’ll do. Certainly 1S or pass.
And since I bid 1S on B as well as A, this was good news for me:
If you want to read all the moderator’s comments: https://files.constantcontact.com/2bd6acd1101/643b4582-6fa3-4a7f-9f69-0fa490fb8973.pdf?rdr=true
Redouble and 3H are not out of the question, vul at imps. Or conceivably 2D, expecting an opponent to bid 2S or 3C after which we could bid 3H. Also some merit to just 2H. realizing that if opps bid 2S or 3C we could then bid 3D with a better picture of relative suits. Expect I’ll bid 2H.
For some reason, I cannot see the url for the explanation of the scoring, even though I can read th explanation. If you would like access to the explanations,send me a private message and I think I can get it for you. I may even be able to post it later today or tonight.
I think there are only two reasonable answers at matchpoints, since it would be bizarre to bid above 3NT. 3NT would be my guess now at the best contract, so it’s a possibility and likely what I would choose at the table. 3S seems crazy, too likely to produce 4S from partner when 3NT or diamonds is better.. Though before rejecting 3S I’ll want to see if the convention card says anything about 2NT and 2S by partner.
The only other possibility would be 3H, excellent if it primarily shows inability to bid 3NT, but very bad if partner thinks it shows 6 diamonds & 5 hearts, an extremely rare shape.
No one asked, but here is the link to this moderator’s analysis https://files.constantcontact.com/2bd6acd1101/96f8ff6c-7edc-4bbd-a741-524604e88bba.pdf?rdr=true
Ouch. “Yes” was right on part A, massively agreed, but 3NT on B was only worth 60. 3S was preferred. (GRRR. I did look for the convention card before bidding, and it said nothing about 2S and 3D. But several who chose 3S now did so believing that 3D denied 5 spades, an agreement I had with one partner.)
Link to scoring and moderator discussion: https://files.constantcontact.com/2bd6acd1101/c3ba6bd4-5279-4c1c-9dbe-be1434f98a10.pdf?rdr=true
