My
Bridge World arrived so I've added some panel opinions below.
The director for November was
Danny Kleinman.
A few snippets from the panel:
PROBLEM A: 2
was the runaway winner on the first problem, garnering 17 of the 28 votes.
There were two panelists who chose 2
; Kleinman summarizing that choice with, “Two clubs by a passed hand scares me. Because it’s non-forcing, the sine qua non of a two-over-one by a passed hand is a good suit, playable opposite a low doubleton or a good singleton honor.” Yup.
Six others chose the “flexible” double. Woolsey, Levitina, and Hudecek, all doublers were very concerned about partner having four hearts—either hoping to get away with playing in a 4-3 fit or planning to correct to diamonds. Kleinman echoed one of my concerns with, “What scares me as much as anything is that partner has four hearts and more than a minimum. Do you plan to correct three or even four hearts to diamonds?
Finally, Bramley stated the views of the majority best stating, “Two diamonds. Being short a diamond is less misdescriptive than doubling short a heart or one-notrump short a stopper, as partner will seldom compete further without a fifth diamond.
Zia, the master of brevity said, “That’s been my bid for 20 years, and I’m not changing now.”
PROBLEM B: Double. Again, a runaway majority.
Frank Stewart was the lone 4
bidder and also the lone who asked, “Would double be for penalty?” Kleinman responded, “I’m glad also that you asked the meaning of a double. I don’t know. Do “responsive” (why not just call them advancive?) doubles apply against preempts raised below game? BWS doesn’t specify, but everyone seems to think they do . . . .”
But there were lots of doublers, both on the panel and the IAC. Only a couple of the panelists used the word “responsive,” leaving the name of it somewhat unresolved. But
not the intent. As discussed on our forum, it’s a way to convey values, but certainly less than a jump to 4NT would show. It ain’t penalty.
Kokish: “Double. Both strain and level are live issues. Over partner’s three spades, four-clubs (not a torture laden four hearts or four no-trump).” This was my thinking as well.
Plenty of room for additional discussion here. Feel free to weigh in!
PROBLEM C: 1NT. Another majority with 18 panelists choosing 1NT.
Jim Creech, who also chose 1NT said it was “a bit too good in the balancing seat.” Several panelists (who also chose 1NT) agreed. The standard range for a balancing notrump being 11-14.
Bramley, who doubled, stated that it was “worth at least 16 HCP, thus too strong for 1 notrump.” BTW, I ran it through the KnR which said it was worth 18. A bit more than I would have estimated, but still--more than 14. I must say that with all of the 1-notrump bidders who said it was “heavy” or “out of range,” that I’m surprised more of them did not double. They say one thing but bid another.
I did find a kernel of wisdom in Kokish’s description of his 1NT: “If at all reasonable in the passout seat, one notrump is my default.” A reasonable tip to file away for future use.
PROBLEM D: Double. A huge majority. 21 of 28 panelists. Most of the doublers wanted to keep open the “possibility of a juicy penalty.”
My thinking for my 3
rebid was, “Shows nine of my cards, rather than just six.” Bramley said, “Shows nine of the card; 3 spades would show only six.” Unfortunately, most of our IAC forum used similar logic.
Bummer!
PROBLEM E: 2NT. Without going into great detail, this was a close vote, with the top two (2
a close second) getting 14 and 13 respectively.
I, too, changed my mind at the last moment, initially thinking the “aggressive” 4sF 2
was best, but then changing to the invitational 2NT.
Jacobus, for the 2
bidders: “In the long run, it pays to bid aggressively when vulnerable at IMPs.”
Bragin countering: “2NT. This eight loser hand doesn’t warrant anything stronger. . . . Partner sees the vulnerability and will strain for game.”
A close choice which resulted in a close result in points awarded: 100 vs. 90.
PROBLEM F: Pass. Finally a classic MSC problem with many, many answers. There were 8 different answers.
With a combination of both offensive and defensive characteristics, this hand could go either direction. The Board-a-Match scoring made this a very close decision. Although the winning vote-getter was Pass, it did not garner a majority, merely a plurality.
Kit Woolsey summarized with, “Pass. We probably don’t have a game, and they probably aren’t going to make. Go for the magic 200.”
PROBLEM G: 3
. The majority choice.
The following three panelists summed up the wide range of partner’s hand, but most importantly the possibility that partner’s bidding could include the “very weak” hand.
• Kit Woolsey: “Three spades. We probably belong in spades. I’m willing to give partner a chance to get out if he has a very weak hand.
• Kevin Bathurst: “Three spades. Maybe it’s worth four spades, but I’d rather involve partner in the game decision.”
• David Berkowitz: “Three spades. Partner has a wide range, so I will give him a chance to decide whether to bid game.
PROBLEM H:
Ten.
Although there were 14 who chose a
lead, 10 chose the Ace. In differentiating between the
Q and
Ace, Kleinman chimed in with, “The only thing crazy is to lead the queen instead of the ace. Nobody who prefers it says why. Not so the multitude of ace-leaders.”
The summary is close to 20 pages. If you have specific questions about a specific problem, ask.