Ken,

As to your examples. From the recent MSC:

Hand C: I was torn between the 2 bid and the X. My thought process--right or wrong--was this. Up until the last moment, it was truly a coin flip. The decision for me was that my "values" were in  . If partner is overcalling 1 , sans the Ace and Jack, what does he have? A six-card suit? 1 certainly has no preemptive value. I think a six-card suit is likely. Also, the suit, headed by the ten is anemic (do I want a lead?). While the double conveys two pieces of information, it is somewhat misleading. It does not convey the strength (or length for that matter) of my holding. AJx, as you have noted, is more than "tolerance." I believe a common definition of tolerance to be Hx. The immediate raise makes it easier for partner to compete to the three-level if needed.

Hand D: (1 ) - X - (1 ) - ? I am aware that penalty is common, and I would consider it to be the "legacy" treatment of this sequence. Not that my bridge experience contains anything resembling a legacy. This is strictly based on my reading. You mention that many take it to show four . I, actually, if given the opportunity to discuss it, prefer to play this as a Responsive Double, showing both unbids. (Yes, I know it is not the standard treatment.) This is the LC Standard treatment, and I played it this way with a steady partner several years ago. It makes sense to me. 

As far as questioning partner's judgment, it accomplishes little. Understanding partner's judgment, however, and most importantly partner's style, in a long-term partnership is key to partnership harmony. My tendency is to be rather conservative in my bidding. I am a down-the-middle vanilla bidder. That is not to say I can't pull out the occasional tutti-frutti bid. But I try to make bids that partner will understand. Bids that torture partner are not good for harmony. They're fun, though! A long-term partner of mine was a very aggressive bidder. Very! Matched with my conservative nature, it worked. But I must say playing a grand requiring two finesses and a favorable trump split raised my blood pressure a bit!

Anyway, it will be fun to read the thinking of the panel in a month or so.

I have no clue! 

At IMPs, however, I would probably just bid 5 -- rub my lucky rabbit's foot -- and wish partner good luck.

Not picking double, which in this auction would pretty much (although not always) guarantee four . I don't seem to have four , so what else is there? I would double with fewer than four if no other bid makes sense.

But here . . . I have a suit. Let's bid it. 3 it is. Why? Because it's forcing. How forcing? Some will say it is a one-round force. But I believe it is expert standard to consider a new suit at the 3-level by responder to be a game-force. I subscribe to this thinking (it simplifies things), but would want to confirm it with partner before making that assumption.

Regardless of partner's rebid, my next bid will likely be a cuebid, which in the context of this auction should show a very, very big hand.

We are almost certainly headed for slam, but which one?

Using the neg X pathway and responder's 2nd round bid is:

2 : Weak (less than 10 HCP else he responds 2 ). Likely six .
3 : Not possible. A transfer bid, attempting to “transfer” partner to the partnership desk for a new partner.
4 : Not possible. A transfer bid, attempting to “transfer” yourself to a visit by the men wearing the white jackets.

Using the 2 pathway and responder's 2nd round bid is:

3 : Six+ . Not forcing. Invitational values.
4 : Self-explanatory.

Finally pulled the trigger. My choices:

Your Solutions for the July 2018 Contest
-------------------
PROBLEM A: 3
PROBLEM B: Double
PROBLEM C: 2
PROBLEM D: 2
PROBLEM E: 3
PROBLEM F: 3 Notrump
PROBLEM G: 3
PROBLEM H: Jack

Answers are posted promptly--same day--within a few hours of the deadline.

I recently (two years ago) started subscribing to The Bridge World, the world's leading bridge magazine.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of my subscription is the monthly MASTER SOLVERS CLUB. The Bridge World's MASTER SOLVERS CLUB is the world's longest-running and most popular bridge feature. New problems in bidding and sometimes play are presented each month. The great thing about the MASTER SOLVERS CLUB is that it does not require a subscription to enter. The contest is free and is open to all.

Each month there are eight new problems that require careful consideration. Usually they are extremely difficult bidding problems and you, the bidder, are asked to find the best, most descriptive bid. The highest scoring bid is very often doubling, cue-bidding, or bidding a three card suit.

Recently, I started a back-and-forth e-mail exchange of MSC ideas with two other IAC members. While I have done well on my own, twice making the "Honor Roll," I find the "discussion" stimulating. By starting this thread, I thought we might expand the "discussion" to others who might also enjoy the difficulty of the problems, but especially the discussion!

The link to the MSC problems is here:  https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

The deadline for replies is the 10th of each month at 9:00 a.m. EST.

Unfortunately, that is in just a few hours, so we will not see much participation due to time constraints. But maybe going forward we could generate a monthly discussion?

P.S. The reason I put this post in the 2/1 folder is that the MSC uses Bridge World Standard, a basic 2/1 system often used as a beginning template of agreements by experts. On most problems, the system used does not necessarily come into play. The problems are generally bidding judgement problems with more than one (sometimes several) viable answer.

P.P.S. I have not yet submitted my July answers, but I intend to do so later tonight. I'll post my thoughts on this month's problems soon.

1.) Double
2.) Double
3.) 2
4.) 2
5.) 2

Pretty standard stuff. And all of these responses are unlimited. At least up to the values that remain in the deck.