Discussing some hands of this event with my friend Ilai Baniri (ISR), we decided to consult some hands with friends. I for my side and he for his, combining experience with youth, and the results are as follows.
All the info about the event click here
Problem 11: Israel against Chile Category U26
Dealer West. N/S Vul
K 6 
10 8 
A K J 
Q 10 8 6 3 2
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1 |
Pass | 2 |
| Pass | 2 |
Pass | ? |
Erik Kokish (CAN) WIM 2
Assuming 2was NOT forcing to game there is no real choice here. 2, where we have something, is better than 2, where we do not.
Jacek Kalita (POL) WGM 3
3. 3NT over 3.
David Bakhshi (ENG) WIM: 3
. We have primary diamond support and may also need to play NT from partner’s hand., 5over 3and pass if partner can bid 3N.Krzysztof Martens (MON) WGM: 3
– why not?Brian Senior (ENG) WM: 3
. This one is difficult for me because I am unfamiliar with our methods. However, in case partner has long diamonds, showing support cannot go far wrong –/ as a feature in search of 3NT, when I will bid 3NT over 3but have to go back to a minor over 3, or he can commit to a minor himself if unbalanced.
3. Forcing
Ida Grönkvist (SWE) WIM 3
3. I don’t have sufficient information about the system to know what approach to have, but assuming 2being a natural 2/1 response I would bid 3.
Adam Stokka (Swe) 3
3. Forcing.
We really need more information about the methods here – is 2GF and what would opener’s other bids mean? Are 3or 3forcing now from me? If 2is GF I’ll bid 3 now.
was game forcing or not, but 3NT seems to be the most likely end destination, and then there’s no reason to give opponents any more help with the lead.
3 Forcing. I dont like 3with so bad suit. 2NT could work but i prefer 3and if Pd now bid 3as values we probebly not belong in NT.
Since I do not wish to play NT from my hand, and certainly do not view my hand as single-suited with clubs, the sensible choice is 3.
While typically guaranteeing 4 cards, I think it hardly misrepresents my actual holding.
Even if system agreements cater for strictly value-showing 2bid, this bidding choice mainly destroys camouflage and conveys a somewhat different hand.
Conclusion: 3.
Answers:
3 = 9 experts
3NT = 1 expert
3 = 1 expert
2 = 1 expert
