I wouldn't expect an alert for Gerber, at least not in 1NT - 4 . That was Gerber in 1950s Goren, so it seems sort of like Stayman. We don't alert 1NT - 2   unless it is some variant of Stayman.

Now would I try for the grand? Oh, maybe. If so, it would begin 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 .   A grand is a grand, no reason to fret if it is in clubs. With the actual hands we probably won't find the grand, and it's a very iffy grand if North's diamonds are AK654, perfectly consistent with the 1NT opening. Any time that a grand becomes iffy when I change a J to a 6 I don't mind missing the grand.


But suppose:

N:  T8      A52     AK65   A965
S:  AKQ   KT98    Q8      KQ83

Now we have 3+2+3+3=11 top card tricks but if the clubs are 3-2 we get  all 4 club tricks and a ruff for 13.
So trying for a grand is not crazy but with "only" a 19 count we need to find a suit fit for it to be a likely make.

Playing with my clone the auction might go 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3NT - 6 NT, or maybe  1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 6 NT

Pretty much this ^^^ with all the maybes.

Although 3 generally promises 5+ (and by inference four of the other major) I probably trot it out in an attempt to find the grand. But I end in 6NT.

Gerber at both tables was, in my opinion, premature. The 4 answer to Gerber at the first was . . . puzzling. Even more so for that responder!

First guesses:

PROBLEM A: 3 . I’ll start out by stating the obvious, 4333 hands are ugly. And my honors do not carry the full weight of their HCP. But I have a big fit. Control rich. WTP? I would like to make some slam noise; 3 accomplishes this.

PROBLEM B: 4 . If 3 is a splinter (is it?) then 4 is a void, yes? And what about the other splinter--4 ? Or is this far too optimistic with everyone bidding? If I did splinter it would be 4 since it allows partner to show a control. Partner's own length will announce my shortness (void?). But maybe 4 is best? And take the push(es). This is a very, very close call.

If I were brave I’d be very tempted to walk the dog with 2 or 3 (I'll bet one or two panelists try this) in an attempt to let them push us to game. But if I’m passed in a part-score, I’ll look like an idiot. Today I’m the Cowardly Lion, so I get there fast with 4 in an attempt to prevent the opps from exchanging information. This is admittedly a safe choice.

ADDED: So close to trying 4 here, but stayed with my first instinct of 4 . Partner's failure to bid 2 (a fit jump) reduces the possibility of his having any support.
BWS defines a jump by advancer thusly: "Over a bid by responder, a jump, below-game, new-suit advance is a fit-jump."
Partner only needs A and K for slam to make, but the failure to jump to 2 reduces that possibility.

PROBLEM C: 2 . Close. Very close.
Yes, it’s an overbid, so is flawed. But 2 has a lot going for it. Keeps the auction low, giving us room to find our best fit. It allows partner to show support. Remember, partner’s 2 rebid is wide-ranging; I’m allowed to be an optimist! If we end in a major suit Moysian, it would not be the first time. Change the Jack to the Queen and I think we all bid a game-force 2 . I will not quibble long over one measly HCP.

Alternatively, a non-forcing 2NT is flawed but is right on values. My guess is this will be the plurality choice of solvers. And a non-forcing rebid of the suit (3 is right on values but shows six) is also flawed. The solidity of the spade suit sorta looks like a six-card suit, which entices me to make this call—but not today. Not only am I short a for this call, it consumes a full level (and then some) of bidding space, which is too much to give up for such a flawed call.

PROBLEM D: 2 . We know we have at least game, but surely this is worth a slam try? Initially, 2 will be interpreted as a game-try. If partner signs off in 3 , I will continue with 4 , attempting to extract a diamond cue. I wonder though about bidding 3 rather than 2 . While forcing only one round, it squeezes partner’s rebid choices below a 3 sign-off to 3 , which is what I want to hear. My subsequent bid—showing a control--would then then be an unequivocal slam move.

I may be overthinking this.

ADDED: I ended up going with 4 . The "perfect fit" slam--at Matchpoints--is tempting, but I'll settle for the "get there fast lack of specificity" jump to game.

PROBLEM E: 6 . What does partner have to freely bid 5 ? Values in ? AK would be outstanding! Surely partner with xx knows, or strongly suspects, I have a void. If I bid 6 and partner has this perfecto of AK, he will suspect what I am up to and will be better informed to bid the grand over the probable 6 . My thinking here is admittedly a stretch.

Also, is pass forcing? I’d like it to be, showing a better than minimum, trying to elicit a (first-round) control from partner. But we must remember that, while freely bid, partner’s response was made under pressure. For this reason I am not convinced that it is forcing. To quote Zia, “In principle, anytime both sides may logically be able to make what they bid, it’s non-forcing.” And Larry Cohen, “Other than where stated in our notes, pass is forcing only if the janitor of the building would know it is forcing.” When asked, our janitor gave me a blank stare.

Finally, I think 6 will be the plurality choice here. While it shows a first-round control, I’m not sure it helps partner find the grand, if it is there. It does have the added benefit of giving partner a clear lead versus 6 x, if that’s where we land.

ADDED: Stayed with 6 . This is a bit of a "Zia bid." I am hoping this can help partner decide on bidding the grand--if it's right. 

PROBLEM F: 2NT. Flawed, as is often the case. That Jack is a long stopper, so 2NT is only a mild overbid. But Pass (my second choice) carries with it additional problems in subsequent bidding. Both 3 and 3 are, in my opinion, horribly wrong. So while flawed, 2NT is the best of bad choices.

PROBLEM G: 3 . I could go in many directions here. Redouble is also attractive—as is 4 . With East advertising four , I’ll go low.

ADDED: Changed my mind. Went high with 4 .

PROBLEM H:  J. To avoid getting squeezed like a grape appears to be the goal here. But my initial thought was to lead the safe J. Opener must have some crazy length in for that leap to 6 lacking the JT. So something like AKQ9xxx(x)? Although the Q or J lead may be required to break up the squeeze, I’ll stick with safe and let declarer find the right line.

A new day may bring changes. Nothing yet set in stone.

Diamonds!  It’s all about the diamonds, which is obvious based on everyone’s plan.
IMPs, yes? I don’t much care about the clubs, except as an entry to the board. The entry problem is, well . . . a problem.

My approach is similar to Ken’s.
Trick 2: A – x- x-x
Trick 3: to the board.
Trick 4: T, intending to run it. Will obviously cover if an honor appears. If it wins, great. If it loses to an honor, when in again I play the Ace.
This should handle all cases where East has a stiff honor, doubleton honor, HHx, HHxx, as well as West having a doubleton honor.

I’ve no idea if this is probabilistically best.

A:  The competitive auction begins with W:  2   - 3 - Pass - ?

I really am thinking a simple 4 has merit.

B: This time the auction begins with E:
1 - 1 - 1 - 1
 X         ?
At first I was thinking that bidding 5 is right but now I think I go with  4 . We can probably make 4 and if I am right about partner having some values in the round suits then they might not find 5 to be all that easy.


I'm not so sure of either of these, I seldom am sure, that's the point of these problems.   
Any thoughts?

A. I think I take the high road and express at least mild slam interest with 3 .

B. I agree, Ken, 4 . 5 did not even occur to me.

I feel good about A. Problem B, not so much.

I hate this scorer!!  If they cannot imagine the bid, they hammer those who do.

Tell me about it! This is my first sub-600. Ever! And it wasn't close. My guess is Kleinman was our director. He is brutal when it comes to any response that is not perfect. Oh well, looking forward to reading the panel's rationale in a week.

PROBLEM C: Pass - I want that 4th heart to double and a reason to lead diamonds to overcall - pass the best choice

I really hate my choice of Double here. My least favorite choice of the set, which was especially difficult this month.

FIRST GUESSES:

PROBLEM A: 3 . I should probably go with a more vanilla spade bid (likely the runaway solver choice), but which level? 3 is my second choice.

PROBLEM B: 1NT. Nothing is remotely attractive. 1NT is right on values, so close my eyes and do it. 2nd choice is Pass.

PROBLEM C: Double. [EDIT] Changed my mind on this one. I had originally chosen Pass.

PROBLEM D: 2NT. The K&R on this is 21.7. It’s a close choice between 2NT and 2 – 2 – 2NT. Although a 1 start then jump-shift is at least a naturalish start, the trend toward treating this type of hand as blanced will, I think, be the popular panel choice.

PROBLEM E: 3 . Weird hand. Weird choice. Too weak. But very shapely. The attraction of 3 is that with my length I need very little from partner (Qx?) to run the . So I keep 3NT in the picture. My (very close) 2nd choice is Double.

PROBLEM F: Pass. A viable choice. Since nothing else tickled my fancy, why not?

PROBLEM G: 4 . My first instinct. My 2nd choice is double.

PROBLEM H: Q. Have not yet constructed possible hand shapes. This may screw with communication.

Not yet final. I'll need to let these marinate a while before pulling the trigger.

I went with the choices above

Here is another discussion point from the hand I bid. After  1 - 2 - 2 - 3 I bid 3 . I had the A but I agree that I might bid 3 without it, hoping partner has some values and can bid 3NT which, on a different hand, I would then pass. But on this hand, if partner had bid 3NT over my 3 , I was planning on bidding 4 . What's that?  My thinking: When I make a bid that sounds like to could be an attempt to reach 3NT, and then when partner bids 3NT, and then I pull, then I think the bid, the 3 bid in this case, should be re-assessed. Why would I suggest that maybe we can play in 3NT and then pull when partner says "ok, 3NT sounds right"? I think the 4 says not only that I am interested in a slam but also that that I have the A.  The 3 bid by itself did not show an A, but the 3 bid followed by a pull from 3NT should, I think, show the A.

Ken, this feels a bit too restrictive to me.

I agree that the initial 3 should be assumed to be a grope for 3NT, and the subsequent "pull" of partner's offer to play there is a slam move. But to limit it to only the Ace seems contrary to standard control bidding principles, whereby first or second round controls are shown. My preference would be to treat as simply "a control."