[bluecalm]

My answers before reading any posts below:

1) DBL - wtp ?
2) 2NT assuming it's natural and we don't play any kind of lebensohl here; I am not especially happy about it; I think I can be easily convinced there is much better option but I don't see it for now.
3) DBL - wtp again for me;
4) 2♣; If I am reading it right I opened the bidding with 7hcp and partner made t/o double (showing 4spades I guess). I can't see anything but 2♣ to be honest.

5)Very difficult without agreements because it's not clear if partner interprets our 3NT as showing extras here. I bid 3NT.

EDIT:

After reading replies:

Quote

I choose 4♣: not a sign of weakness in my book, and highly suggestive of 5=5 blacks. Partner's negative double implied nothing about clubs, so I have to have shape and power to bid 4♣. Double seems insane to me: surely we'd all double with say 5=1=3=4 shape or many 5=2=2=4 hands with extras. Partner will often leave it in. Enough said. I'd rather bid 4♥ than double, but we can get back to hearts sometimes, when it is right, over 4♣, and never get to clubs over 4♥.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense to me. I am just too afraid partner has hearts and I think I have to pass 4♥ from him. I would definitely choose 4♣ playing negative free bids because then I can make a move toward slam after 4♥.

Quote

2. 3N: assuming the clubs run, we have 7 tricks in our hand.

Yeah, 3NT was 2nd call I considered. I am used to very light style of reopening though (every time with xx of ♦). Is your style of reopening different or do you bid 3NT regardless ?

I still can't believe anybody would choose anything different than 2♣ in 4th.
I am also very surprised people aren't doubling in hand no. 3; So many disasters waiting for us if we don't double (miss penalty, miss 3NT, miss 4♠ on spades 5-2 or even 6-2 if partner is weak). I really really hate 4♦. I frankly prefer 3NT and pray over 4♦. I think it's just that bad.

[dkharty]

hanp, on May 26 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

Somehow I doubt that the answers will give a consensus.

True to a certain extent, but at this point there is only one problem which doesn't have an outright majority answer. Here are the results so far, with 13 sets of answers submitted:

1. 4♣. 7 votes. Strong minority vote for double (4 votes). One vote each for 5♣ and 4♦.

2. This is the closest vote. 3NT is the largest single votegetter (5 votes), with significant support for 3♣ (4 votes) and 3♦ (3 votes). Also 1 vote for 2NT.

3. 4♦ (8 votes). Other options are double (3 votes) and 4NT (2 votes).

4. 2♣ (11 votes). The strongest consensus, with several people commenting on how much they hated the 1♣ opening bid. 3♣ and 2♦ garnered 1 vote each.

5. Pass (10 votes). Double (2 votes) and 3NT (1 vote) were also mentioned.

[jjbrr]

I don't hate the 1♣ opener as much as others, I guess. I don't think I would have done it (it's either too strong or too weak, depending on how you look at it), but partner is unlikely to hang us after a 2♣ rebid, and the opponents are likely to bid anyway.

[Jlall]

Lobowolf, on May 26 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

I was going to suggest anonymous posting also, but I'm not sure if that's just because Justin thinks it would be a good idea.

haha

[bluecalm]

OP, don't forge to keep us informed about choices of the panelists once they become public.
Justin, don't forget to keep us informed about your choices once no more people post theirs anymore.

[dkharty]

bluecalm, on May 27 2010, 12:00 PM, said:

OP, don't forge to keep us informed about choices of the panelists once they become public.
Justin, don't forget to keep us informed about your choices once no more people post theirs anymore.

Will do. As I said, it's a quarterly publication, so it will be a while before the next issue comes out, but I'll definitely post the results eventually.

I guess I will just set an arbitrary deadline for answers...how about Saturday, May 29, at 6:00 p.m. EDT? That's a little over 48 hours from now so it should be plenty of time. If Justin (or anyone else for that matter) would like to submit answers but wants to keep them hidden until after the deadline, feel free to PM me and I will keep them secret until Saturday night.

[Jlall]

I thought 4 and 5 were auto (2C and pass). The others are good problems.

Disagree with hanp that X would be weird on 5314 shape on the first auction, I think that is by far the most common shape. What else can one do with like 15 and that shape? We have extras, we want to compete, and we don't know what suit to play in.

Double with a void is risky as partner might pass, but it keeps hearts in the game quite well. I would be worried after 4C that we might miss hearts, and I also think it's an underbid (it shows a good hand but our hand is extremely good. We would bid 4C if one of our hearts was a diamond).

Overall I'd go with double on that board.

Hand 2 I would have bid 2N over 2D (disagree with the first pass). Now it's pretty impossible, but I'd probably bid 3D which I think always shows a hand with clubs too good to bid 3C. With say 2344 with 4 small diamonds I would always double first (10+) or just bid 2S now.

Over 3H p p I'm sure this is a minority view but I feel pretty strongly about passing. It's matchpoints, and by far our most likely plus is defending 3H imo. If we bid we will very often get to the wrong strain, and possibly the wrong level, and sometimes we'll just start out by being too high. Sure I'm only going to get small pluses but that's what MP is about, and I think bidding anything will lead to a minus very often.

[Jlall]

Also I have to give a big lol to passing 2D and then bidding 3N when partner showed nothing extra. That is completely inconsistent bidding, it is the equivalent of 1N p 3N p 4N to me.

[rogerclee]

1) Double, I have extras without heart support.
2) I would have started with 2N, now I would just guess 3N. I don't like the initial pass at all.
3) 4D, this is the hardest problem to me. Double keeps everything in play, but if partner bids 3S or 4S I have no idea what to do, and these are surely going to be his most frequent bids.
4) 2C, and I think opening was fine, though it has obviously not gone our way.
5) Pass, not enough in hearts to double.

[Jlall]

I think opening vul at imps is absurd on hand 4

[karlson]

Jlall, on May 27 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

Also I have to give a big lol to passing 2D and then bidding 3N when partner showed nothing extra. That is completely inconsistent bidding, it is the equivalent of 1N p 3N p 4N to me.

Partner did show something very important: some club support.

How is bidding 3♦ going to help? It isn't clear to me that forcing to 4c is a lot better than forcing to 3n. Besides, is partner supposed to infer a diamond stopper?

[Jlall]

karlson, on May 27 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 27 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

Also I have to give a big lol to passing 2D and then bidding 3N when partner showed nothing extra. That is completely inconsistent bidding, it is the equivalent of 1N p 3N p 4N to me.

Partner did show something very important: some club support.

How is bidding 3♦ going to help? It isn't clear to me that forcing to 4c is a lot better than forcing to 3n. Besides, is partner supposed to infer a diamond stopper?

Partner might X with 5422, and that looks very likely right now.

Partner does not have to infer anything, if he bids 3M we can bid 3N. That let's us have a shot at 5C if he actually does have short diamonds and club support and extras, and it lets us play 4C if partner's hand is minimum. I don't see how you can think getting out in 4C is not a win vs playing 3N if partner has some random 12 count, and partner will know not to play 3N if he has that.

Where is the gain in just bidding 3N?

[cherdanno]

Jlall, on May 27 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Disagree with hanp that X would be weird on 5314 shape on the first auction, I think that is by far the most common shape. What else can one do with like 15 and that shape? We have extras, we want to compete, and we don't know what suit to play in.

LOL. The Mikeh-hanp debate was whether to double with 5=1=3=4.

[jjbrr]

hanp, on May 26 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

Somehow I doubt that the answers will give a consensus. Here are my answers:

1. Double, this one seems easy.

2. This kind of problem props up fairly often, and this time there are many possibilities, including a direct 2NT, a delayed 2NT, a direct 3C (my clear choice at IMPs), a delayed 3C and pass. I'll go with the delayed 3C at MPs but I find it a difficult call.

3. At MPs 4D. Double can work out well but we'd be stuck too often.

4. 2C. We are not doubled yet, pass is too pessimistic.

5. Pass, will bid 5D if partner bids 4H.

fwiw these were my answers exactly except 3♦ on #2

[Jlall]

cherdanno, on May 27 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 27 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Disagree with hanp that X would be weird on 5314 shape on the first auction, I think that is by far the most common shape. What else can one do with like 15 and that shape? We have extras, we want to compete, and we don't know what suit to play in.

LOL. The Mikeh-hanp debate was whether to double with 5=1=3=4.

haha my bad! 5134 wtf. I knew i never disagreed with hanp !H

[hanp]

edited !h

[cloa513]

Is noone asking for a direct 3C bid over 2D before the double- seems obvious then opening can cue with 3D to get 3NT.

[mikeh]

cloa513, on May 28 2010, 01:49 AM, said:

Is noone asking for a direct 3C bid over 2D before the double- seems obvious then opening can cue with 3D to get 3NT.

because for everybody else who has posted, a direct 3♣ shows a strong hand. Different people will have different minimums, but 3♣ (in standard) promises a lot more than you have here.

Note: this isn't true for those few who play negative free bids, but NFB's are not standard.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Note: this isn't true for those few who play negative free bids, but NFB's are not standard.

I think most people who play NFB's don't play them on 3 level anyway, at least this is the case in Poland where 2level NFB's are standard (which means lols play them) but nobody ever heard of NFB''s at 3level.

[gwnn]

In my club 3 level NFB's were standard whenever you were dealt one (this is an unfair and perfidious account that is nevertheless somewhat real).