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."