We are panelists for 3 future months, as a result of finishing 4th in the 2022 contest. This thread is for collecting thoughts and votes on the 202507 set.
Since the problems are copyrighted and not yet published, I’m not going to post them in a public thread. I’ll e-mail them or send them by GoA message to people who have voted on 2023 problems. That’s not to exclude anyone else who might be interested. If you want to participate, let me know.
The problems of this set will be distributed today. Threads and problems for the other two sets will be done shortly.
Yes, and I’m a little behind. I already have votes from two people (on one set), but I haven’t posted them yet. I also have not distributed them yet.
I’m not going to post the problems since copyrighted (and not released yet by the copyright owner), but I think it’s fine to post responses here, and I will post the usual summaries. The two people you have responded did so by e-mail.
Oops. Bridge World wanted our responses to all three sets by now. They have said within 3 weeks of today is OK.
This set looks hard to me, but here are my initial thoughts:
A: 3C. Hoping for possible slam, let partner know club values would be good. This one seems pretty easy. Only reasonable alternative IMO is just 4H.
B. 2D Michaels. Reasonably descriptive, much better than double, somewhat better than pass. No, cancel that. See post below about BWS2017 Changed to P, which indeed better than double
C. 1NT, 1 more HCP than I should have, but least of evils. Copper loess than I should have, but least of evils.
D. B1. 1S, then 2H over 2C. Maybe slightly light for a game force, but best chance of reaching correct denomination.
E. 4H. Hoping they don’t bid 4S, but bidding only 3H now is hoping too much that they will bid 3S but not 4S
F. 3D. Show the diamond length. Expecting to bid 6 anyway, but this is best hope for an intelligently bid 7.
G. 1NT. Perfect description except for lack of club stopper. Better than double with only 2 spades.
H. C10. Works for Garozzo. Second choice diamond J.
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator
oirg 3D ??? 1NTA (2S) 4H 4S 1NT C10
SW 3C 2D 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1NT C10
Klaymen 3D P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 2S 1NT SK
ST
BTDT
NN
veni vidi vici
Leading 4H 1NT
Oirg wanted to bid a sandwich NT on B, but I’ve changed it to ??? since 1NT in sandwich position is natural.
A. 3 clubs. While I like that 4 diamonds gets the fact we are making a slam try off our chest immediately, it would also have partner value the black queens the same: really want partner to know that club royals are gold.
B. Pass. I know it is a bidder’s game, but so few high cards, bad intermediates, and vulnerable is a bridge too far for me.
C. 2 clubs. When in doubt, bid your longest suit.
D. b4. I rejected an immediate 2S because thought too good of a hand, but then ended up making an invitational bid later anyways…not sure that makes sense, but feels right somehow.
E. 4 hearts. Seems obvious…
F. 3 diamonds.
G. 1NT. I would bid this if the jack of clubs were the 7, but would at least feel guilty about it then.
H. Queen of hearts. Second choice club ten.
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator 3C P 2C1S/3S) 4H 3D 1NT HQ
oirg 3D ??? 1NTA (2S) 4H 4S 1NT C10
SW 3C 2D 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1NT C10
Klaymen 3D P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 2S 1NT SK
ST
BTDT
NN
veni vidi vici
Leading 4H 1NT
A) First instinct is 4H. Slam is very unlikely, and at matchpoints, not giving away information can be key. The problem with bidding 3C is that partner will overvalue Kxx of clubs, and possibly take us to places we don’t want to go. Question: Is 3H (forcing) a possibility? I don’t know how BWS defines that bid.
B) 1NT if playing Sandwich, but pretty sure that is natural in BWS. So pass it is.
C) 1NT. Slightly over strength, but so much better than 2C.
D) b1. Second choice 2S, but this sure looks like a game forcing hand.
E) 4H. wtp?
F) 4S seems marked. But of course, I’d really like to know about the DK, rather than about keycards. So 3D is a VERY close second choice.
G) 1NT. The rest of the hand is so perfect, that my lack of a full club stopper is not concerning.
H) HQ. Very close between this and DJ.
A 3H. We’ve previously established this is forcing, yes, even though it’s unclear in the BWS write up? Splintering with a stiff King here seems wrong when I can do this.
B 2S. No need to go to the three level, and this doesn’t give them a cheap cue bid like 2N does.
C I’ll downgrade this to 1N
D b1. If my singleton were in partner’s suit I might not force game, but here it is clear.
E 4H I can’t stop short of this and I don’t have enough extra to look for slam, not when I’m missing AKQ of trump. I also don’t need to induce partner not to defend. If he hits 4S it’s probably right.
F 3D It seems premature to jump into machinery. And why mark the club lead if we are off the top two?
G 1H. A good four card major is better than a flawed 1N in direct seat, especially as this is hardly a max for 1N, where I might accept that.
H SK. I don’t know whether I’d be ruffing with a trump trick, but maybe declarer will give me a ruff more advantageously if he needs to take a fast discard on clubs.
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator 3C P 2C1S/3S) 4H 3D 1NT HQ
oirg 3D P 1NTA (2S) 4H 4S 1NT C10
SW 3C 2D 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1NT C10
Klaymen 3D P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 2S 1NT SK
ST 4H P 2C1S/2H) 4H 3S 1H C10
BTDT
NN 4H P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 4S 1NT HQ
veni vidi vici 3H 2S 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1H SK
Leading P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1NT C10
With only BTDT left to vote, nothing has 3 supporters on A
A B C D E F G H
procrastinator 3C P 2C1S/3S) 4H 3D 1NT HQ
oirg 3D P 1NTA (2S) 4H 4S 1NT C10
SW 3C 2D 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1NT C10
Klaymen 3D P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 2S 1NT SK
ST 4H P 2C1S/2H) 4H 3S 1H C10
BTDT 3H P 1NT 2S 4H 4S 1NT C10
NN 4H P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 4S 1NT HQ
veni vidi vici 3H 2S 1NT1S/2H) 4H 3D 1H SK
Leading P 1NT1S/2H) 4H 1NT C10
What a mess we have. 4 different bids on A, with 2 votes for each. Anyone want to change? If not, can people express thoughts about their second choice?
My original thought was that 3C was the only reasonable way to explore for slam, and that 4H would be my second choice. Seeing the initial votes, I would make 3H my second choice.
Especially second thoughts from ST and NN would be helpful, since their 4H will certainly end the auction, and 6 people wanted to explore for a slam.
Then there is F, which now has a 3-3 tie between 3D and 4S. Perhaps Klaymen or ST can help with a second choice. In the absence of any additional comments, I’ll break that tie in favor of 4S, which is really growing on me. If partner denies the club A, we just stop in 6H. If he has the club A, we can bid 5NT, (I think) showing all the keys and the trump Q, asking specific kings. Perhaps he’ll have good enough clubs to bid 7H. If he bids 6C, we can bid 6D, which should say we just wanted the diamond K for 7. The complication is if he bids 6D, denying the club K. Then I guess we sign off in 6H, though we might be good for 7 if he also has the spade A, and if he doesn’t but has the club Q we’re on a finesse.
I like 4S exclusion on F, not sure I noticed it or stopped to take the time to ponder but we only have three losers and 2 of them are in partner’s 2-level bid suit.
OK, proposed answers (including comments) here. I expect to submit on Monday, later than they wanted, hopefully still OK.
Not too late to change the choice on A and F. (And could conceivably change the now-unanimous E, but the current choice is still what I would do at the table.)
A. 3C. Let partner know that values in clubs would be especially valuable.
B. P. Partner would expect more values, and this could opponents judge distribution if they declare.
C. 1NT. With the doubleton KQ of diamonds, strength is OK (max), and this describes the hand well
D. B1 (1S, then 2H). Occasionally we’ll get overboard, but best to remain flexible without hiding the hearts.
E. 4H. Obviously we won’t stop short of game.
[Could we unanimously have missed the boat? Wouldn’t 3C have been better since this could make slam.]
F. 4S. Best chance of letting partner bid 7 intelligently.
G. 1NT. It sounds like a stopper even if it doesn’t look like one.
H. C10. Works for Garozzo.
Submitted, for better or worse, but they do say “Please review for accuracy. If a correction is necessary, please notify editor@bridgeworld.com”, so if anything looks wrong let me know ASAP.