[Echognome]

When given a bridge problem, I am accustomed to asking "What is the vulnerability and form of scoring?"

I pose to the forum readers an exercise of constructing a bidding problem where your best bid will vary significantly under varios vulnerabilities and forms of scoring. It seems pretty easy to come up with one that varies according to one of the two, but a little trickier to come up with one that has different solutions* depending on vulnerability and depending on the form of scoring.

I also think this exercise might be beneficial for readers that do not think in terms of how the solution* might differ depending upon the conditions of the problem.

*Of course bidding problems do not have a solution, per se, I am thinking here in terms of something reasonable.

[mtvesuvius]

Scoring: Select One

1♥ - (2♥) - 2♠ - (4♥) -
5♥ - (5♠) - ?

---

This is somewhat close, however I'm sure if I spent a little time with this I could come up with a really good one.

The other one would be a close double type hand, where even at MPs it depends on the vulnerbility etc...

[nige1]

Echognome, on Jun 19 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

When given a bridge problem, I am accustomed to asking "What is the vulnerability and form of scoring?"  I pose to the forum readers an exercise of constructing a bidding problem where your best bid will vary significantly under various vulnerabilities and forms of scoring.  It seems pretty easy to come up with one that varies according to one of the two, but a little trickier to come up with one that has different solutions* depending on vulnerability and depending on the form of scoring. I also thiPnk this exercise might be beneficial for readers that do not think in terms of how the solution* might differ depending upon the conditions of the problem.
*Of course bidding problems do not have a solution, per se, I am thinking here in terms of something reasonable.

It's a matter of opinion. Perhaps...Partner opens 1♥ RHO passes and you hold ♠ Jxx ♥ Qxxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx.

• Pairs not vul: 3♠ (splinter) or some other attempt to confuse, Sometimes, this may trick partner into a terrible indiscretion but, at pairs, you are concerned with frequency of gain
  
• Pairs vulnerable: 3♥ in the hope that opponents subside in game when they can make a slam. 4♥ may give them a "fielder's choice": double for 500+ or bid a making slam
  
• Teams not vul: 4♥ seems sufficient and won't fool partner. Unsuccessful flights of fancy stretch team-mates' sense of humour
  
• Teams vulnerable: Pass is worth consideration. Perhaps opponents will not realise when they are playing with a 30 point deck ...but 2/3♥ is better with stern team-mates -- in case partner has a powerhouse and pass misses a game