[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-005E
EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH
 Pass     1♥     Pass   2♦
 Pass   ? your bid

You open 1♥, partner makes GF 2♦ bid, back to you

---

[han]

2S

I didn't understand this one, what is the problem? I like to play that 2S shows about a king more than a minimal opening, which is what I have.

[HeartA]

Agree, the straight-forward bidding.

[mike777]

2S even Lawrence can rebid 2s yes? expect unanimous vote.

[P_Marlowe]

2S.

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

If you cannot rebid 2♠, change the system.
Partner wants to know what I have, well, here it is

[luke warm]

yeah, 2S...

[Blofeld]

How long before someone utters those fateful words ... "predict first unanimous panel" ?

[yes, I bid 2♠ as well]

[hrothgar]

BPO-005E: 2S

Easy 2S rebid. I expect a unanimous response.

To some extent, I think this is a flawed problem. I believe that the intent of the problem was to explore differences in philosophy between regarding a reverse in 2/1 auction. One camp believes that that reverses are best used to show stoppers. The second camp advocates a more traditional meaning (the reverse describes shape and shows extra strength)... Unfortunately, this hand splits the difference, holding both a Spade stopper and appropriate shape/strength for a reverse (note that the “reverse camp” does not require the same strength for a reverse after a 2/1 auction as it does following a 1 over 1 auction).

Where this hand gets interested is the next round of bidding. More specifically, how does the “Stopper” camp manage to show extra shape and strength...

[inquiry]

Well, I choose this one because the auctions at the two tables in the vugraph went different ways. 2♠ seems obvious to me, but then it could be a matter of partnership style. Two questions arise (or I thought).

1) does 2♠ show extras? and if yes
2) Is this hand (15 hcp, 5422 dist) actually extras.

I would rebid 2♠, as apparently everyone else here. I haven't checked the panel's votes yet. I am not willing to suggest that the vote will be unanamous (well, since I will include the vote from the vugraph, I know it will actually not be) but it might be like 15 to 1 in favor of 2♠. :-)

Besides we needed an easy one since the one before this and the one after this gave Justin headaches.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

(well, since I will include the vote from the vugraph, I know it will actually not be)

Not sure it makes much sense to add the vugraph bids as votes unless we know their system is very compatible with BBO adv at this point.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 04:37 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

(well, since I will include the vote from the vugraph, I know it will actually not be)

Not sure it makes much sense to add the vugraph bids as votes unless we know their system is very compatible with BBO adv at this point.

Agree completely...

Adding at the table results will only serve to muddy the waters.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 21 2005, 09:38 AM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 21 2005, 04:37 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

(well, since I will include the vote from the vugraph, I know it will actually not be)

Not sure it makes much sense to add the vugraph bids as votes unless we know their system is very compatible with BBO adv at this point.

Agree completely...

Adding at the table results will only serve to muddy the waters.

Well, clearly if someone had a different auction, it would not go in. The bids have to be the same to the point of the problem. There could be complications on a hand like this where 2♦ may or may not be truely game force. But when someone opens 1NT and has 15 hcp and the next hand bids 4♠ what you do is really not a matter of what system your playing. Also, the P=1♥=P=2♥ hand we might muddy the waters since I have no idea who does and does not use drury, but I think the bids are interesting in themselves. No doubt Sundelin who jumped to 4♥ might not play drury and so 2♥ remained constructive. If anyone knows for sure, that might be a reason to remove the 4♥ response from the vote.

But for the most part, including the bids at the table (or at least showing them) is interesting in and of itself.

[pclayton]

2♠. Very straightforward. There are some 2/1'rs that would reverse with a King less. Only those that play sayc should find this hand a problem.

Ben - I don't think 'problems' like this should be part of the poll. Problems like this only seem to be a gauge for what a particular bid should mean. Judgement doesn't enter into the answer at all.

If a poll problem spawns a discussion about the interpretation of different bids, and the best use of them, then so be it. These discussions should also be part of FD for BBO-adv. But I don't think that a problem should be used to help fill in the blanks of BBO-adv.

However in spite of this gripe I thought this was a great set. The solver's judgement was well tested, especially on the game try hand and the hand that dealt with the 4♠ overcall over pard's 1N.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Sep 21 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

No doubt Sundelin who jumped to 4♥ might not play drury and so 2♥ remained constructive. If anyone knows for sure, that might be a reason to remove the 4♥ response from the vote.

No, they don't play Drury. As someone else said, I think it's dangerous and a bad idea to include the players' votes, because you can't be sure what certain bids mean in their system - unless you do a lot of reseach of course.

2♣ is natural by a passed hand after 1MA, the difference being that it's not a GF relay as it would have been if responder hadn't passed.

Roland

[Echognome]

2♠ where my values lie. I don't have too much of a problem testing out the limits of certain bids in BBO Adv. That's how we refine it.

[inquiry]

As straight foward as 2♠ appears to be, I didn't think it would as overwhelming a vote as the answers so far in this poll suggest it might be (again, I haven't tabulated the expert poll votes yet). I picked this hand in part because one expert choose not to bid 2♠ over 2♦, and second to see where the panel stood on "reverse" after 2/1. That is, part two of my two options listed above. If "reverse" shows extra values is this 15 hcp "beauty" extra values or not.

Perhaps as "problem picker" I am not the best, because I thought this would be an interesting hand to answer two questions: 1) Does 2♠ show extra values? and 2) If 2♠ shows extra values, is this collection equal to extra (that is, how much extra is extra). I hope the expert panel's words provide an answer to these two questions. For me, this is extra, but then I would open QJxx AKxxx xx xx, so as you can see this is considerable extra in my hands... :-)

So while you consider this inappriopriate, I disagree. I think this hand fits nicely into one of the announced purposes of these polls... to help refine what is standard practice with BBO ADVANCED. I suspected, BTW, a large majority would vote for 2♠, in fact it was the odd 2♥ rebid on vugraph that made me think of this problem and propose it.... And after all, they can't all be hard ones, some need to settle simple questions, like this one.

[han]

I don't think that this particular problem was very interesting, but I think that it was a great set, and I'm really enjoying the return of BPO. Perhaps the votes and explanations of the panel will make this problem more interesting.