Part two of the summary:
Problem E: This was the problem IAC solvers struggled with most. Jcreech described the overall problem like this: “I am still struggling with this one. I detest manufactured reverses, and it would be especially dangerous reversing into spades. I dislike making a jump raise of partner’s suit with only three. I detest splintering into a suit that contains an honor and only have three of partner’s suit. I dislike rebidding my six bagger headed by only QJ8. And I am absolutely not inclined to bid NT with singleton in an unbid suit. Double and redouble are inadmissible. So I am left with Pass, but that is not an option either. Guess I huddle.”
IAC solvers largely missed the boat on this problem. Only Msphola selected the winning 3
bid, but without comment. So we need to look the BW Panel for why it won out. Woolsey writes “Three diamonds. About right on value, and this is pretty-good three-card support. Partner had some reason for bidding diamonds. Anything else would be a big distortion.” The thought process for Bramley was “Three clubs is a close second. Two notrump would be grotesque, though it might work. Majors-first responding style implies greater chance that partner has five-plus diamonds.”
By and large, the IAC solvers picked one of the two choices that received an 80, 3
. When Jcreech finally selected, “3 Clubs One of my lesser bad choices.” P0stm0rtem, upon selection, gave a more thoughtful response, “I like partner's suit, maybe the feeling is mutual? In any case I need that for game in 3N or 5C (even 5D?) and the response to this bid should clarify whether this is the case or not. Admittedly it doesn't feel great, but sometimes partner has a clunker.” From the BW Panel, Meyers said “Another problem with no scintillating options. Two notrump was my knee-jerk reactions, but I talked myself out of it. Too far out. Three clubs is boring, and I’m not proud of it. If I could have one hand each session where I could peek in partner’s hand before bidding, this would be the one.” Similarly, Rosenberg writes “Hate it, but I hate everything else more. Switch the spades and diamonds, and I might try one spade.”
Speaking of 1
, IAC solvers also tried it, the other 80. WackoJack gave the choice nice thought: “Partner likely does not have a 4 card major and so either is weak with a ♦ suit or balanced weak. I do not like jumping to 3♣ with this suit. OTOH a game forcing jump shift to 2♠ is out because I do not have a game forcing hand opposite a minimum response. A 3♥ splinter surely also must be a game force. That leaves 1♠. If partner does have 4 spades and raises to 2♠, then I know partner has a good hand with at least 5♦ and 4♠ and we could be investigating a slam in ♦s.” Nonetheless, I liked Hoki’s reason best, “1♠, again probably not the bid I'd make at the table but sometimes these panellists can get quite adventuresome.” Silver, from the BW panelists, gave the most thorough analysis: “Too strong for two clubs, but the suit quality is not good enough for three. Too strong for two diamonds, but not enough of them to jump to three. Maybe two notrump, valuing the quingleton heart? Nah! One spade is the perfect rebid except for the insignificant detail of the lack of a fourth spade.” Which leaves us agreeing with Adler’s assessment of “One spade. With my fingers and toes crossed.”
Problem F: This problem was brutal for most of our solvers - if you did not get it right, the drop to 50 was precipitous. Only two (Masse24, MarilynLi) managed to find the right choice of 3
. This sounded easy to MarilynLi, who wrote, “3 Clubs. To me, opener has a unbalanced hand, probably 5 card clubs.” Masse24 agreed: “Partner should be unbalanced for this auction.” From the BW Panel, Chorush describes 3
as “Honest, if not typical. If partner tries three notrump, I will be delighted.” Bramley agrees, saying “Partner’s rebid shows real clubs, so I’ll angle for three notrump. Grabbing the notrump is for matchpoints.” And Zia seals the choice with “The easiest bid in 20 years of Master Solvers’ Club problems.”
Hoki and MsPhola were the only other IAC solvers to get as much as 50 on this problem with his choice of 1NT. Hoki chose “1NT, as with problem C this is about describing the general hand shape rather than guessing the right suit contract to play in.” Brogeland, from the BW Panel, describes his thoughts on the problem as “Eleven points, but we don’t rate to make game opposite partner’s 12-14 HCP in a balanced hand (even if he has a maximum).” And Rosenberg points out that “In BWS, opener’s rebid guarantees at least four clubs but does not promise and unbalanced hand, so there is no good answer.”
Almost all of the remaining IAC solvers chose one of two 40 point selections. 1
was the slight favorite. WackoJack described his decision as “I will go for the 1♠ lie, as it is a safe lie. OK if partner has 4405 distribution, we may not be able to get out of a ♠ contract but that is most unlikely.” P0stm0rtem is a bit more succinct with, “Not wanting to gf or wrong-side the NT contract. I can then raise 1N to 2 or rebid 3C next.” And Masse24 is even more pithy with, “Waiting.” Woolsey, from the BW Panel, agrees: “I’ll show the four-card spade suit I don’t have. If partner raises, I’ll bid two notrump and then three notrump, and he should get the message.”
The other popular 40 for the IAC solvers was 2
. DickHy was the only one to express his reasoning, though it is based on the players violating the BWS system. “If a partnership plays Walsh over a 1
opener, 2-way XYZ is tremendously useful. The continuations take up an awful lot of brain cells, but it is a wizard scheme. After 1x-1y-1z: 2
= GI (and forces 2
, unless opener is 17+) and 2
= GF (and asks for more info). BWS doesn’t seem to mention it, but I would expect the pros on the panel to use it. In which case 2
is automatic. If we are not playing 2-way XYZ, why the hell didn’t I respond 2N in the first place?” But then the moderator points out that many of the BW Panelists made bids that “… were deliberate system violations” on this problem. There were two panelists that voted for 2
, but neither were quoted in the article.
Problem G: Five IAC solvers (CCR3, VeeRee, Hoki, Masse24, YleeXotee) made the top pick on this problem with 3
. Masse24 said “3
. Very difficult! Double is too painful with Ax. I see five ugly clubs. Bid what I see.” While Hoki doesn’t “… buy into the argument that we are changing a potential plus score into a minus one, would seem to me to be a clairvoyant's view. If a partner who passed initially is unable to balance then bidding 3♣ now could do the reverse, change a minus score into a plus one.” Echoing Masse24, Adler (from the BW panel) said “Three clubs. The brave will double, but that doubleton heart makes me nervous.” Fleisher and Friesner sees “… little reason to distort the description.” And keeping partner in mind, Kamil and Sherman bid 3
“Trying to avoid a scolding from pard. We live in fear.”
Nine IAC solvers went with double. P0stm0rtem writes “X: Though I don't know Equal Level Corrections really apply here and doubt it's BWS even if so. 3C appears too give up on Spades too early and 2S over commits. In competition Partner should be bidding Spades before Hearts when 4-4.” While Jcreech banks on luck: “Dbl Too many points to pass, not good or long enough suits to bid, so try a double and hope partner bids one of my suits.” The BW Panelists were not much better at justifying a double. Hudecek has a warning for partner: “Double. At some point my partner will need to develop skills at declaring with a combined six rotten trumps. It is best to practice this art when nonvulnerable.” Rosenberg describes his choice as “Not liking it, but disliking the other choices more. I’d bid three clubs if guaranteed that it wouldn’t be the final contract. If partner advanced two spades, I’ll raise to three. Whether I should continue after a two-heart advance is probably a function of what partner should do with four-four in the majors. Over a three-heart advance, I’ll be truly stuck: pass and four clubs will both be legitimate choices. Basically, I am doubling and praying that something good will happen.”
Problem H: KenBerg was the only IAC solver that found the winning lead of the
J. He did not describe his thoughts, but Jcreech did in his initial thoughts: “I am torn between the wooden HK and the more aggressive CJ. I am being aggressive today, but by the final decision, I may chicken out.” From the BW Panel, Meyers writes, “Club jack. At the table, I would lazily lead the heart king, but here I fantasize about declarer’s having no entry outside of diamonds and not being able to enter the closed hand in a timely way.” Brogeland’s analysis goes “If partner has the ace of hearts, I doubt that we have another trick. So I hope t find partner with ace-queen of clubs, or the king of clubs and another trick. After the opponents had supported each other in spades, it is not so clear that partner would have doubled five clubs, anticipating that he would be on lead against six spades (or helping the opponents to play in spades instead of diamonds).”
All other IAC solvers selected the “wooden”
K. DickHy writes, “K
. By now my incompetence at opening leads should have become starkly apparent. What do the 3
and 4
bids mean - 1st and 2nd round control? West skipped over 3
and East as shown x in
, so as
blubayou says, let’s cash our
. I’ll lead the K (rather than Q or J) so that when it wins, I can make a safe exit (from the point of view of the post-mortem) of the J
.” Masse24 is getting the obvious out of the way: “I have thirteen cards. This is one of them. Seems like partner has the
Ace. My King lead will permit him many ways to defend.” Among the BW Panel members voting for the
K, the lack of a double seems to weigh heavily. For example, Kitty and Steve Cooper say “Heart king. Pard didn’t double five clubs.” And Rosenberg’s analysis is “The best chance is that there has been a misunderstanding, and that we can cash two hearts. Partner didn’t double five clubs or six diamonds.” The moderator threw in another twist to the
K lead – “How about a dull idea? If South thinks the king-of-hearts lead is as likely to defeat the contract as any other thrust, a tie-breaker is that it will often stop an overtrick. The contract will frequently be cold against any lead, so …”