March solutions. Eric Kokish was the director.
A handful of the panel’s comments:
PROBLEM A: 2
. Friendly scoring by Kokish, with five answers scoring 70 or above.
Kokish began with, “The main criterion was tactics, either in choosing the appropriate number of diamonds or in showing spades without overstating prospects.” Indeed.
Berkowitz: “Two spades. Before insisting on diamonds, let’s see how partner feels about spades. Is:
Qxx
x
AQxxxx
xxx too much to hope for? This deal ha the makings of a double game swing.”
Bramley: “Four diamonds. Bid the limit immediately.”
DickHy: “At the table, however, I would probably diagnose this as a 20-20 hand, where a part-score was the limit. We should make 8 tricks (2S, and 6D) even if overcaller has AQxxxx in D and nothing else and, in that case, we can make 9 if overcaller has 3 cards in C (overcaller might easily be 3262 however). A 9th trick might also come if overcaller has SQ or CK.”
I thought this an extremely difficult problem with many viable answers. The panel seemed to agree, both by their answers and opinions.
PROBLEM B: 3NT.
I‘ll begin with my own assessment, “What else?”
But my thoughts are not what count. So . . .
Kokish: “In BWS, four hearts over two hearts would have been a picture bid: for most, strong clubs and hearts, no spade or diamond control, and 2=4=2=5.”
Which is what
KenBerg wrote: “For the auction 1
- 2
- 2
- 4
I would understand the 4
to show good hearts, good clubs and you are on your own in the other suits. For example
xx / KJxx / xx / AKQJx
would be fine. And if that's what is meant by raising 2
to 4
then raising 2
to 3
is anything else with a heart fit.”
Willenken. echoing my “what else” thinking: “3NT. I do not understand this problem. Can’t sign off with great hearts and side controls nor make a serious slam-try with a minimum including three low spades. Textbook hand for non-serious try.” Yup.
PROBLEM C: 2
.
JCreech: “Partner’s expected heart bid puts me in a bind that I should have anticipated. All of my options are bad so this is
a least lie situation. I don’t think this is right for a Moysian, so 1S is out, I don’t like bidding an immediate 1NT with a singleton in partner’s suit, not enough points to reverse and not enough hearts to raise – guess what that leaves? The club suit is robust enough for me to rebid and pretend there are six.” This explanation is as good as any of the panelists.
Agreeing were Janice Seamon Molson, Pepsi, and Jeff Rubens: “Two clubs. Closest description of my hand, the least of horrible choices, and
seems to lie the least.”
This was, however, an almost binary choice, with 1
coming in a close second. Hence the high scores for 1
(even with a three-card suit).
PROBLEM D: 2
. Almost unanimous, which is rare. Thirteen of fourteen IAC bidders chose this, so it was apparently fairly obvious to our crew as well.
George Jacobs concurring: “Two clubs. Obvious. A rare occurrence."
Pepsi: “Two clubs. Everyone’s bid.”
Hoki, putting it succinctly with, “2
.”
Wackojack: “2
. It describes the hand.”
PROBLEM E: 1NT. Close. Very, very close. A coin flip.
Twelve panel votes for 1NT and ten for one spade. Double received several votes, but was a distant third. All three possible bids scored highly.
KenBerg “found it a close call as to bidding 1NT or 1
. . . . I see that everyone, or close to everyone, chose 1NT. [
Curls also went with 1
I now see]
A couple of reasons:
1. My major is spades, not hearts. If the auction does not die out at the one level, we might want to contest their 2
contract with 2
.
2. Often NT plays better when a lot of the values are in lesser honors, and suit contracts play better when the honors are aces and kings.
But yes, I hardly want a spade lead and perhaps that should settle the issue for 1NT. But I went with 1
."
The panel explanations go back and forth, primarily between 1
and 1NT. For obvious reasons. All make good points.
PROBLEM F: 4NT. With 4
close behind. Pass, too, garnered some votes.
Rubens in summarizing said, “There is something positive to say about each of the main candidates, and I’d be surprised to see any smug comments.” I agree. All viable choice—ANY OF WHICH COULD BE RIGHT.
Barry Rigal, recognizing the risk in bidding the spade game: “4 NT. Taking out takeout double works well for me, and I’m not a sufficient fan of Mr. Moyse to head for a four-three (or three-three) fit.”
BluBayou initially bailed on this one, deeming it too hard: "Too hard; maybe Feb9th lightning will have struck." Apparently there was a storm early this month because Blu found the winning 4NT.
PROBLEM G: 2NT. This was a majority. Personally, I was surprised. I had guessed it would be between this and the 1
open then 3NT rebid, but that the votes would be far closer.
Meckstroth: “2NT.
Simple is sometimes best. Witness the problem rebids with the other options.”
Wackojack also chose simple: "This hand is well worth 20HCP. Automatic 2NT."
There were a few who, like our IAC crew, saw the slam potential in first bidding diamonds to convey the length.
PROBLEM H: 2. Twenty-two of twenty-seven panelists led a heart. Thirteen chose the deuce.
Kokish: "A heavy majority picked dummy's four-card suit, with more support for the "
slightly-deceptive" deuce than the honest, very-rarely-spot-wasting six."
Bramley: “There’s not much point in leading an honest count card when I have most of our assets.”
Becker: “The deuce might confuse declarer and is unlikely to trick partner . . . .”
BluBayou, our only IAC voter who got this one right opined: "lead problem: hearts is either the mother-lode or it isn't--KEEP your big ones even the six! Deception has no roll in this problem." So we give Blu credit for the
deuce, but deduct for the "deception has no role" comment. I'm thinking half-credit. Whaddya think? Blu?
So a bit of hoodwinkery was the intent of at least a couple of panelists. I completely booted the lead problem, so will hide in shame.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ARE STILL WELCOME.That’s it. On to the April problems.