Thanks. Helpful. I think I’ll stick with 3D, with 2NT being my second choice on A.
On B, I’ll change my bid to 4NT.
Via e-mail
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator 2N 6S 3H 2H 4C 4C 3N H6
oirg 2N P 2N 2H 4C 3S 3N S2
SW 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 3D 4S C10
Klaymen
ST
BTDT 2D 5H 1N 2H 4C 4C 3N C10
NN
veni vidi vici 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 4C 3N DA
4Sigma
Abstract Actuary 3D 4N 2C 2H 4C 3N 3N DA
Leading 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 4C 3N
Now a leader on all except the lead.
A) 2D
B) 4NT
C) 2C
D) 2D
E) 4C
F) 4S
G) Pass
H) dA
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator 2N 6S 3H 2H 4C 4C 3N H6
oirg 2N P 2N 2H 4C 3S 3N S2
SW 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 3D 4S C10
Klaymen 2D 4N 2C 2D 4C 4S P DA
ST
BTDT 2D 5H 1N 2H 4C 4C 3N C10
NN
veni vidi vici 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 4C 3N DA
4Sigma
Abstract Actuary 3D 4N 2C 2H 4C 3N 3N DA
Leading 2D 5H 2N 2H 4C 4C 3N DA
Now a leader on all, but some of them only by a single vote.
Leading choices submitted
Scored. I’ll post details tonite. Our 720 made the honor roll. VVV’s 720 obviously would have also. BTDT’s 700 would also have, the lowest score to make it.
Also will post next month’s problems tonite
A B C D E F G H Total
procrastinator 2N 100 6S 50 3H 0 2H 100 4C 90 4C 100 3N 100 H6 70 610
oirg 2N 100 P 100 2N 100 2H 100 4C 90 3S 60 3N 100 S2 0 650
SW 2D 80 5H 80 2N 100 2H 100 4C 90 3D 70 4S 70 C10 90 680
Klaymen 2D 80 4N 50 2C 80 2D 60 4C 90 4S 90 P 80 DA 70 600
ST
BTDT 2D 80 5H 80 1N 60 2H 100 4C 90 4C 100 3N 100 C10 90 700
NN
veni vidi vici 2D 80 5H 80 2N 100 2H 100 4C 90 4C 100 3N 100 DA 70 720
4Sigma
Abstract Actuary 3D 0 4N 50 2C 80 2H 100 4C 90 3N 0 3N 100 DA 70 490
Submitted 2D 80 5H 80 2N 100 2H 100 4C 90 4C 100 3N 100 DA 70 720
2N 100 P 100 2N 100 2H 100 4S 100 4C 100 3N 100 S6 100
2D 80 5H 80 2C 80 2D 60 4C 90 4S 90 P 80 S5 100
3D 0 4N 50 1N 60 3D 70 4S 70 C10 90
6S 50 3H 0 3S 60 H2 80
H6 70 Our Submitted’s and VVV’s 720 would be in a tie for 17-26 on the monthly honor roll. BTDT’s 700 would be in a tie for 41-53.
Pass was the top score on B, eh?
Guess I was wrong when I told AA that 4H would be interpreted by most as a slam try.
Or maybe the moderator got it wrong?
I would agree that the 8 panelists who passed and almost certainly the 2 who bid 4S thought it was just a choice of games (since 4S over a slam try would be incredibly cowardly). But 4H as a choice of games seems extremely low win, since surely 4S is a reasonable game and 4H as a slam try seems more useful, since it doesn’t force us beyond 4S if we have an unsuitable hand.
And presumably many of the 16 panelists (a majority) recognized that slam was at least possible with opener’s sequence, possible enough that they bid beyond game. Odd if partner’s sequence is not at least a mild slam try.
Similarly a majority of solvers bid above 4S. Will be interesting to read the discussion in the article.
A: b4. Our hand is just so strong. With that many HCP, two stoppers in opponents suits. Strong holdings like KQ109, with likely power in RHO’s hand. I want to explore a bit and double gives us the most space. Now what to do next is less clear for me. I assume Partner’s 2NT is weak? If not, can someone clarify. If so, let’s just jump to 3NT at that point and be done with it.
B: 3H. I’m not sure exactly what each bid would mean here. Presumably 3H shows 5 hearts and some strength, which feels right.
C: 2NT. A bit at a loss here. My instinct was to allow 2SX, but with neither side vulnerable, this seems like it isn’t worth the risk. And with an effective stopper in spades and no support for partner and moderate strength, thinking we try to get to game. If partner had 6 hearts, presumably he would have bid 3H over 2S? So I think 3H by me is promising too much.
D: Double. Another one that I felt pretty lost with. I started with double, but didn’t like that 5D is a likely response from partner, and then what? Considered 4S, but that felt like an overpromise on spades and also potentially limiting slam exploration. 5C could be right, but again, might miss a better spade game or slam. Then considered Pass as the surest positive score. But likely leaves a lot of points on the table. And ended up back at Dbl.
E: 3H. Not perfect. I think it says we have 1 heart, but does show our heart weakness in a 3NT scenario. Maybe it misses a chance to properly show our spade strength or our diamond support (or maybe the 3H bid shows diamond support).
F: 3NT? What does “Bart applies” mean?
G: 4S.
H: D10
Tough problem set. Given my track record, may be worthwhile to just throw my votes out.
What does “Bart applies” mean?
From system notes:
I’m not sure what that means, for this auction, beyond that a 2C rebid would have suggested hearts. Perhaps the direct 2H bid suggests a complete minimum, or perhaps i suggests at least 6 hearts.
The issue arrived. Discussion is not so interesting. Some panelists (Carl Hudecek, Jeff Rubens, Nik Demirev [who??? perhaps a short-stint panelist based on a high score, like we will be for 3 months in 2025], Zia, Bart Bramley, Howard Weinstein, Robert Wolff, Mark Cohen all seem to think partner’s sequence is a slam try. [Of those, Zia at least seems to consider that maybe it was not intended as a slam try]
Others (Brian Glubok, John Diamond, Steve Robinson, Larry Robbins, Danny Kleinman, Fred Stewart, moderator Kit Woolsey) all thought it was just a choice of games and passed. Daniel Korbel also passed, presumably thinking it was just a choice of games, but he wasn’t quoted.
That leaves a few panelists for whom I can’t be sure what they though partner’s intentions were, but thought the hand was so good they should bid above game.
Moderator Kit Woolsey has this comment about all the invitational sequences: if partner’s bid is in fact a slam try, you should be bidding a slam, not inviting (since your hand is so good, opposite a slam try you should insist on one, and from partner bidding only 2H, there should be no thought of reaching a grand).
Thanks for posting the summary. I also resubscribed recently, so will read it myself eventually.
I played on a team with Nik about 15 years ago. He was an expert/pro from the Chicago area then, making top 16 in Spingold type of results (not with me on the team :P). Not sure how much he has been playing recently.
From VVV by e-mail
A b4; Dbl then 3N over 2N. To suggest (with 3NT, even more than the original Dbl) that I would be glad to have him put us in hearts.
B. 3N. A toughie, since hearts could be better. Maybe 3H should be forcing, but even if it is partner might not be in a position to bid 3S over it when 3N is best. We should have good chances for 3N, and we are vulnerable. (Though VVV makes a good case for Double)
C. 2N. Definitely more points than I might have for this auction, but partner is presumably short in spades and hand doesn’t have much except at least one spade stop.
D. 5C. Yes, I would like to keep 4S in play, but I can’t suggest diamond tolerance IMO.
E. 4H. It hadn’t occurred to me, but I think that VVV is right that this would be exclusion key-card, and if so it seems like a good choice. (Or maybe it’s not a good choice since this isn’t matchpoints. Pretty good chance we can take as many tricks in spades as in diamonds, but are we just going to assume that’s the case. If we start with exclusion, we can’t find out anything about his spades. And some chance NT would be best)
F. Pass. Our surest plus; game is remote.
G. 4S. Worth a shot. Looks like a no-brainer, vul at imps (unless we should be doing something now for the possibility that they bid 5C?). Would be a tougher choice at matchpoints.
H. SJ. Yes, anything could be right, but a heart lead would be my 4th choice, and a club not very tempting either. Dummy has 4 spades, but almost certainly not 5, so I’m going with this.
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator
oirg
SW Dbl, then 3N 3N 2N 5C 4H P 4S SJ
Klaymen
ST
BTDT
NN
veni vidi vici Dbl, then 3N Dbl 2N Dbl 4H 3H 4S SJ
4Sigma
Abstract Actuary Dbl, then 3N 3H 2N Dbl 3H ? 4S D10
Leading Dbl, then 3N 2N 4S