SOLUTIONS FOR:
Todd Holes
Glen Ellyn IL
U.S.A.

PROBLEM A: Pass.              Matchpoints--who knows.
PROBLEM B: 3 Notrump.     I see it as a "two bites at the apple" bid. Is the loss of the preemptive value of 5 worth it?
PROBLEM C: 2 Notrump.     I’m not overcalling 3 with that suit quality and only five of them. 
PROBLEM D: 1 Notrump.     Coin flip. Came up tails.
PROBLEM E: 2 Spades.       Treating as a GF. Will support next.
PROBLEM F: Double | Pass. No guarantee that 4 makes, so forcing partner to choose a red suit at the five level is high risk.
PROBLEM G: 3 Diamonds.   Forcing.
PROBLEM H: Club 6.           Leads are tough for me. I also like the T.

I've got my mind made up on all but one, PROBLEM E.

Here it is:
965 AT6 AQ AKT86

Auction:
1C - (1 ) - X - (P)
??

Question: Do you consider this a game-force hand? Or more precisely, close enough to stretch?

Here is a question: Does 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 show something like this hand?   

I think the issue of whether  1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 is a natural passable sequence is of some importance.

Ken, I think it must. Since was bid naturally, in this sequence where responder was put under a lot of pressure quickly, any bid of his first bid suit should be natural and passable by default.

Opener has other bids available to make a slam move.

This bidding by the way, which I believe Jack also proposed as possible, is how I see the auction progressing.

Playing 2/1, with responder's hand I force game and bid 2 . And I do not consider myself a wild or overly aggressive bidder.

Quite often, on hands like this that may be borderline, the question I ask is, "Would I open this hand in first seat?" If the answer is yes, I force game. I suppose I could construct a hand that I would open in first seat but choose not to make a GF response, but I can't think of one easily.

Early Guesses:

PROBLEM A:  4

PROBLEM B:  3NT. Partner will not pass with a void, so I can eliminate that concern. See my earlier post.

Will I bid on if needed? Yes.

PROBLEM C:  2NT. I’m not overcalling 3 with that suit quality and only five of them. 

PROBLEM D:  2 . Just enough not to pass. Though not forcing, I like for this to show a tolerance for partner’s suit. Preferably Hx, which is coincidentally what I have. Not sure if this is part of the system. I’ll need to check.

PROBLEM E:  3 . Yes, really.
[Added] Second choice, which is still in the running, would be 3 . Range is correct, but short a . Maybe it's better to lie about minor suit length rather than major suit length? 2 was the first thing that entered my mind, a simple, unspecified forcing bid. But then what after partner's forced bid?

PROBLEM F: X. Then Pass. However . . . there’s a lot to be said for simply passing to begin with, keeping the trump split and other suits quiet.

PROBLEM G:  3 . Forcing.

PROBLEM H: 6. Dummy should be exactly 4=3=1=5 (or very close) with around 16 HCP. Opps have a 4-3 fit, so even though partner has five , I prefer to hide my King, so will refrain from leading it. Pard has no more than around 6 HCP, so I don’t expect to be able to “set up” his . Basically this is a “I don’t know what else” lead.

Can't say I'm jumping up & down about that 1 open. But I would do the same.

The entire auction seems quite reasonable. I like the 3 call, which under pressure can be HX. KQ is plenty.

I await your "tale of woe."

The director for September was Kokish.
 
A few snippets from the panel:

PROBLEM A: A fairly clear vote for 3 . Kokish called it a “heavy vote” and a “clear indication of its merit.” He went on to say, “It’s true that a Bridge World Standard advancer must start with three spades to investigate slam in hearts, so, for system adherents, the main choices are to go low via four hearts or three no trump, high via a natural four no trump, or TBD via three spades.”

PROBLEM B: Votes were all over the place, but the “get there fast” 4 garnered the most panel votes. The general consensus being to “buy the contract.” Close behind, however, were the slam-seeking 4 and 4 . Interestingly, there were five panelists (Zia, Wolff, Wirgren, Lawrence, Woolsey) who decided to slow-play the hand with either 2 or 3 . Another two mentioned the “slow-play” bids but chose differently. So, as mentioned—votes were all over the place, for all the reasons we stated . . . plus a few more.
Kokish closed with Janice Seamon Molson’s words: “Four spades. Who knows? We could make seven spades. I hate these hands.”

Indeed. Who knows?

PROBLEM C: 2 . This is the problem that shocked me the most. I thought it to be a borderline game-force, but the quick tricks and suit quality pushed it over the edge. Jim’s reasoning echoed my own exactly. Alas, the panel did not agree. The reasons for the admitted “underbid” of 2 (the plurality choice) included “Matchpoints” and “eight losers.” There were also quite a few 3 bids, concentrating on the suit quality and also mentioning it as “the value bid.”

PROBLEM D: 2 . Panel votes were quite evenly split, with the top four scores receiving 7, 8, 6, and 6 respectively. The top three, however, were all slam moves, explaining the scores. Bobby Wolff echoed my (eventual) thinking with the “go low” 4 stating, “I won’t attempt to thread the slam needle.” As for which “slam move” to make? Mike Lawrence mentioned the fact that 2 “leaves room.” Meckstroth and Molson preferred 3 as they “hope to hear 3 next so I can bid 3 next and search for slam.” Others chose 3 . As mentioned, quite evenly split.

Kokish, in validating his choice for the highest score stated, “My inclination on slam-zone hands is to start with my longest or equal-longest side suit. Three diamonds would help us when North has a balanced hand, but it will deprive him of the room to jump to four diamonds with four hearts and diamond shortness. That is enough to make 2 spades or 3 clubs more effective first moves, with 2 spades more attractive, because it leaves room for North to show a good five or six card club suit.”

PROBLEM E: 5NT was the plurality choice. While I considered this, I quickly dismissed it as I thought it to be too ambiguous. The panel disagreed, seeing it as primarily a grand slam try. The 6 bid that I chose was widely considered a second suit and a way to find grand if partner has the AK. Silver, Wirgren, and Robson collectively stated a version of, “if partner has the AK of clubs, he’ll know what to do.” There was not widespread agreement as to what six of a minor means. Gerstman and Meckstroth bid 6 as lead directional, Kehela as a try for the grand. Interestingly, many of panel did not consider the grand, signing off in 6 .

Rubens was the only one who chose Pass, stating that 6m would be non-forcing. His follow-up would be to pull a double of 5 to 6 to invite seven. Kokish explains, “Rubens is confident his pass is forcing, because BWS makes a special provision for unfavorable vulnerability in this type of auction. . . . Pushing the opponents to the five-level and selling out has been widely recognized as a sound strategy when ownership of the deal is not clear from the earlier bidding.” That’s an interesting bifurcation of whether Pass is forcing or not; the vulnerability. I’ll have to look that up.

PROBLEM F: 2NT. An actual majority here, with 15 of the panel choosing 2NT. 

PROBLEM G: Redouble. Not the plurality vote-getter, but second. Still, it scored highest. The redoubler’s plan is to bid a later three or four hearts. The thinking being that it is flexible, showing both spade tolerance and a long heart suit. [A good plan in my opinion]. I believe Ken mentioned something similar.

PROBLEM H: Q and J scored 100. Only one of our solvers (Isabelle10) chose a . Most chose a “safe” , as did the majority of the MSC solvers. The reasons for the lead (as well as all the others) were as varied as the answers. Kokish summarized with, “Panelists hoping for an Ace [with partner] are thinking impure thoughts. Compared with trying to break up a squeeze, playing for a blocked position in the red suits is not only less complicated but also considerably more likely to be right. The heart-honors leaders rule."