The idea of a "master solvers" bidding forum is to give a problem to a number of top players, tabulate their answers, review their comments, and add some additional commentary. So far, so good.  What could be better for someone interested in learning good bidding than to see what the experts do and why they do it?

The moderators of these panels all seem to subscribe to the myth that a good problem divides the panel fairly evenly between two or three alternatives. I can’t imagine a worse problem. Basically they are posing a question that has no answer or perhaps several answers that are all relatively equal, and depend on factors outside the realm of the forum. Imagine that this is a play problem, not bidding problem, and that the solution is that there are 3 sensible lines of play. One is 76%, one is 74%, and the third is only 70%, but with mis-defense could be 80%. Would anyone suggest that this is a good problem? Absolutely not.

Now imagine a competitive bidding problem where 40% of the panel votes to pass, and 60% take action. But those who take action are divided into one group that doubles (which means whatever they say it does) and the other competes in our suit. Is this really a great problem? I’ll read a series of comments that basically all state that it is right to compete if we can be assured of competing properly. Some will decide they can’t be assured and pass. Others decide to attempt to get to our best spot by one of two routes. After reading all the comments, I have gained some insight into expert thinking and methods, but I still don’t have a clear answer as to what is the best action.

I much prefer a problem where 80% of the panel agrees. I can feel pretty confident that I know the answer, and I will still get all the reasons for taking the popular action or rejecting the unpopular ones. The outliers may even provide some interesting counterpoints or systemic ideas that the majority of players didn’t consider.