Blu,
I won't disagree that there were not some top-scoring answers that stretch my imagination to see the confidence of the panel this time around.
Problem B: I realize that using the forcing NT and raising to 3
may get you to the right spot, but I tend to do that sequence with a crappy limit raise and only three trump, not on a good limit raise and two trump. Maybe the ace warrants a trump length upgrade?!?
Problem C: A leap to 6
is better than 5
. Why? Presumably because the double guarantees a heart control. Perhaps I would think that if the auction had gone 2
- X - 4
, but I would raise with three, so that could leave partner with xx, and I am jamming into slam. No thank you! I prefer to try to find a way to get partner to cooperate than force my will. I was reading a story about a Venice Cup hand - the auction went 1
- X - 3
- 3
; P - ?, Jxx AKQTxxx Ax A doubled initially and then raised to 6
on the strength of partner's free bid. The writer placed the entire blame on the free bidder who had little other than
Txxxxx and a few quacks - the contract went down two. I see similar issues with both slam bids - unilateral action without giving partner a chance to weigh in to try to stifle an over zealous partner.
Nonetheless, there was only one problem where there was a huge leap in voted from the top score to the second place choice, so I think there will be some interesting ideas.
My biggest disappointment was with Problem G. I thought the hand too distributional to risk a double, the choice between the two primary suits not good enough to make the decision unilaterally, and 5NT gave no chance to play 4
. I can understand the shrug double, but to give decent scores to the unilateralists seemed too much. Other than only getting one Panel vote, I wonder what else might have kept the moderator from being more forgiving to the 4
cue-bid.