Analyses 7W40  Main Challenge

Catch a Falling Star

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in May of 2001, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals played in a past tournament. In the poll I did not reveal the year and location, but participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

Among the guesses I received were the Stardust Hotel, Las Vegas; aboard ship on the Royal Viking Star; Hollywood, California; Anchorage, Alaska (associating the “northern lights”); the Lone Star Regional (Houston, Texas); Flagstaff, Arizona (site of a meteor crater); Jupiter, Florida (when in doubt, pick my neighborhood?); and Star Lake (wherever that is). Sorry, all wrong. About a dozen respondents suggested that “falling star” might refer to some major upset (e.g., a team of all-stars being defeated) but made no attempt to guess where.

Then there were the comical guesses like Tugunska, Siberia (site of the colossal meteor impact in 1908); Starbuck’s Cafe (yeah, sure); and one wiseguy took a safety play with the Milky Way galaxy. Well, I guess he’s right.

OK, folks, I win this time. Nobody made the connection from my clues. The tournament was held in Como, Italy. The one important clue was in the title “Catch a Falling Star” (a beautiful song I’ve enjoyed since a child). Remember who made it famous? That’s right, Perry Como. And here’s a curious coincidence: The song became a #1 hit in 1958, which was the same year as the tournament.

Sadly, another eerie coincidence is that Perry Como died on May 13, as this poll was running. Hearing that news a few weeks ago was very upsetting; in fact I almost feel guilty in some way. At least there is comfort in knowing his songs will live on.

Svein Erik Dahl Wins!

Assume both sides use Standard American bidding (unless noted otherwise) with 15-17 notrumps,
five-card majors and weak two-bids. The object is to determine the best calls based on judgment,
so only basic conventions are allowed. For a system reference, see Standard American Bridge.

The scoring of each problem is on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 was determined by the consensus of the voting. The scoring of the other calls was determined partly by this and partly by my own judgment, which to some extent might be influenced by the actual deals.

The tournament was the 1958 World Championship, held in Como, Italy. (No, I wasn’t there, thank you.) Como is located in northern Italy in the foothills of the Alps. Pictured is nearby Lake Como, a popular vacation spot.

Three teams vied for the world title: Argentina representing South America, Italy representing Europe, and the United States. The event was a round-robin, with each team playing 164 boards against the other two. Italy was the winner, beating the U.S. by 37 EMPs* and Argentina by 72 EMPs. These problems were all taken from the U.S.-Italy match.

*European Matchpoints, an old-style IMP scale in which spans were wider. For example, a difference of 720 points (like a vulnerable game swing) translates to 6 EMPs, instead of 12 IMPs on the current scale. Therefore, the 37-EMP margin of victory would have been about twice that in IMPs.

So, let’s drift back in time and pull up a kibitzer’s chair. Playing for the United States you will see the famous partnerships of B.J. Becker and John Crawford, George Rapee and Sidney Silidor, and Alvin Roth and Tobias Stone. Playing for Italy were the pioneers of the soon-to-be-legendary “Blue Team”: Walter Avarelli and Giorgio Belladonna, Eugenio Chiaradia and Massimo D’Alelio, and Pietro Forquet and Guglielmo Siniscalco.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 1

IMPs		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass Pass	North 1 2 NT1 3	East Pass Pass Pass	South 1 3 ?	Q J 7 5 A 8 5 K J 5 2 8 6
1. 19-20 HCP

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	178	34
3 NT	8	185	36
4	7	61	12
4	5	38	7
4 NT	3	45	9
5	2	12	2

This was a tough problem to score. Despite the slight plurality of votes for 3 NT, a clear majority of the respondents favored a definite slam move (55 percent chose 4 , 4 or 4 NT). It could be argued that 3 NT is also a slam try and belongs in the same group, but many (I think most) of the 3 NT bidders did not share this view. Therefore, I believe 4 deserves the top award. Of course, the fact that it’s also my choice has nothing to do with it (hehe).

The reason I like 4 is not only because of the marginal slam chances but because of the doubts of playing in notrump. Even if partner has a club stopper, 3 NT might be hopeless (e.g., A-K-x K-Q-x Q-10-x-x-x K-Q) while a game in spades or diamonds is excellent. This will be my only slam encouragement; if partner can’t drive it from here, we’ll play 5 (or 4 if partner bids it next).

Speaking of doubts about notrump, let’s visit the Calamity of ‘58:

West deals	A K 6		West	North	East	South
Both vul	K Q 4 2		Forquet	Roth	Siniscalco	Stone
	A Q 6 3		Pass	1	Pass	1
	Q 3		Pass	2 NT	Pass	3
10 3		9 8 4 2	Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
J 10 6 3		9 7	Pass	Pass	Pass
9 8 7 4		10
K J 4		A 10 9 7 5 2
	Q J 7 5
	A 8 5
	K J 5 2
	8 6

USA N-S	Italy N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	4 North	Crawford	D'Alelio	Becker	Chiaradia
Down 2 -200	Made 4 +620	Pass	1	Pass	1
		Pass	3	Pass	4
Italy +13 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

Witness the first auction, which parallels the problem. Stone’s decision to bid 3 NT went terribly awry, albeit unlucky, losing the first six club tricks. I suppose a case could be made that Roth should bid again over 3 NT, but this has the feel of an armchair quarterback. In my view the ball was with Stone, and 3 NT was just too delicate, if not a matchpoint decision.

The Italians had no problem avoiding the notrump trap — the best way to avoid a bad strain is to strain not to bid it. Even though they reached the wrong Moysian fit (4 is obviously better) they had 10 easy tricks and won 7 EMPs (13 IMPs).

Note: Actual deals have been rotated as necessary to make the problem hand South.

Comments for 4

Ruthanne Williams: This must surely be a slam try asking about club controls.

Shuino Wong: We may have a vulnerable slam; partner needs my cue-bid.

Bill Jacobs: This is a powerful fitting hand. The Q-J in spades has just got better opposite partner’s support. I cue-bid 4 , ambiguous on what suit is set. I will then bid 5 whatever partner bids next to clarify a slam try with diamond support. Despite the good fit, this is only worth one nudge.

Rik ter Veen: Partner’s distribution is either 3=3=4=3, 3=3=5=2, 3=2=5=3 or 3=2=4=4. With the last two hands, a slam is well possible. Five diamonds goes wrong if we’re missing A-Q in trump and an outside ace or king. That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Furthermore, I already decided to investigate a slam. Why else did I bid 3 ? My 4 cue-bid is the only move towards slam that I’m willing to make. The rest is up to partner.

John Givins: Not Blackwood with two small clubs, and this must be a cue-bid.

Rainer Herrmann: I intend to follow up with 5 . I hope this clarifies that I want to invite 6 if North is suitable and has control in clubs.

Leonard Helfgott: This is the best description to try for a diamond slam. If partner lacks club control and returns to 4 , I’ll be happy to pass and play the Moysian.

Manuel Paulo: Cue-bidding on the way to a diamond slam, possible/likely if partner has 3/4 club cards, respectively.

Neelotpal Sahai: After two suits have been supported, the new suit bid is showing extras. Slam has a realistic chance, but I can’t bid 4 NT with two top losers in clubs. All other bids seem too timid.

Will Engel: Not wanting to get to 6 off the A-K, I’ll start cue-bidding.

Steve Mager: Probably wind up in a diamond slam depending on a finesse.

David Neiman: I hope this shows extra values, a control, and a mild slam try. Hand is slightly too good to subside meekly in 3 NT.

Olivier La Spada: We are not in danger in 5 . Showing a heart control (without a club control) and slam interest seem the best.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Worth a slam try with four trumps and extras. Unilateral action (Blackwood) is not advisable because there may no second-round club control.

Gordon Rainsford: Then 5 over 4 . Partner should get the message about the club control being crucial.

Eric Leong: If partner can’t make a slam move [after this] I can give up.

Krishna Chakravartula: I’ll make one slam try with 4 , and drop if partner shows no further interest (4 or 5 ); over 5 I’ll bid 5 .

Mike Crowder: Tempted to bid 4 NT, but knowing partner’s aces may not give me enough information. Hoping that 4 will be read as slam interest, heart control (and no club control), and let partner decide. …

Peg Kaplan: I could go for Blackwood and “make ‘em guess”; but just in case someone has the A-K, I prefer a bit of science.

Arvind Ranasaria: What is the problem? Three notrump is meek and 4 NT premature.

Joe Steel: Cue-bid the A just in case partner doesn’t have two club losers and 6 might be right, rather than 5 or 4 .

Alvin Bluthman: Showing my control. There are 30-31 HCP and no singletons or voids. Partner should have three spades. But does he hold four diamonds, or five? A slam try seems warranted. Three notrump (natural) would be my second choice. Hoping partner holds A-K-x, K-x A-Q-x-x-x K-x-x or the like (essentially a magic 19-count).

Ian Payn: More of a problem at pairs, I’d have thought, where it’s vital to be able to play in 4 NT if 3 NT was the right spot.

Henry Day: At pairs 3 NT is clear, but at IMPs it’s probably worth making one try for 6 . …

Michael Clark: I want to investigate a diamond slam and this seems the best way to go about it. Four notrump might take us too far.

Bijoy Anand: I found this one the hardest of the lot! But, after constructing various hands consistent with his bidding, 6 looks odds-on. Seven diamonds may be a possibility if he has something like: A-K-x K-x A-Q-x-x-x A-x-x. …

Mihail Neagu: I have to show slam interest, since six diamonds is excellent opposite something like K-x-x K-x A-Q-x-x A-K-x-x or A-K-x Q-x A-Q-x-x-x A-x-x. … I will pass 4 or 5 , and bid 5 over 5 .

Dwayne Hoffman: To launch into 4 NT at this point is not exactly sound bridge, and to stop at 3 NT is cowardly. … Show a heart control and give partner a chance.

Comments for 3 NT

Konrad Ciborowski: Enough is enough. I need some miracle hand to make 6 : A-K-x K-x A-Q-x-x A-x-x-x. …

Jeff Goldsmith: Without special methods, partner doesn’t know if I am bidding 3 here to find a 5-3 spade fit or if I am really interested in diamonds. The 3 NT rebid disambiguates the 3 call; partner knows that I want him to consider either notrump or diamond contracts.

Karen Walker: I guess I’d still be thinking if this were Bridge World Challenge the Champs (where no matter how many HCP you have, there’s always an unstopped suit for 3 NT). … Partner is most likely 3=3=4=3, making 4 and 5 unattractive.

Grant Peacock: I made a slam try already, and that’s all I have.

Tjeerd Kootstra: I’ve already shown a decent hand with four diamonds.

Peter Gill: Three notrump indicates that 3 was a mild slam try. If I had the 10 or 10, the hand would be worth 4 , planning to pass 4 NT.

Simon Cheung: Bidding 3 before 3 NT should show some interest in 6 . If partner can’t bid over 3 NT, it may be the last plus. …

James Hudson: We may miss a good 6 , but it would distort my distribution not to bid notrump here, and I don’t want to invite a slam in notrump.

Sebastien Louveaux: I already showed interest with 3 . … With two balanced hand, 30 HCP doesn’t seem enough for slam.

Kent Feiler: Denying spade interest makes this auction a mild slam try, about all I can afford.

Stu Goodgold: I’ve described my shape and showed some strength with 3 . If North has diamond length and good controls, he can make a move toward slam.

Steve Landen: Hopefully implying interest in a high-level diamond contract. If so, then 3 NT is enough.

Leo Zelevinsky: I think my sequence up through 3 NT suggests four spades, four diamonds and mild slam interest. Seems to be what I have.

Rosalind Hengeveld: This should now come across as a mild slam try in diamonds. And with 31 or (nearly twice as likely) 30 HCP in two balanced hands, 6 is possible but as yet remote.

David Wetzel: Not because I don’t think 6 might be on — it could be — but because if it is, partner should find another bid.

Steve Stein: In Bridge World Challenge the Champs the top spot in these auctions is usually 6 . :) We could have close to mirrored shape, though, and this makes me leery of slam.

Robb Gordon: With the poor intermediates, a stretch is unwarranted. Partner will know that I have some values since I didn’t raise to 3 NT straightaway.

Doug Burke: My first gut call was to bid 3 NT, and I guess I’ll stick to that. The maximum point count is 31, which is very close to making a small slam. While I can picture many hands that will make 12 tricks, I can also picture many that will make 11. …

Eric Hurley: Partner appears to be very balanced, and I suspect no slam is on.

Sandy Barnes: I made one slam try. I think that’s enough without partner wanting to bid more over 3 NT.

John Weisweiler: Slam will probably be at least on a finesse with our two balanced hands.

Josh Sinnett: Partner should be able to read me for this hand. I had to have a reason for bidding 3 on the way to 3 NT if I wasn’t looking for a 4 contract. Therefore, I must have good diamond support in a slammish hand. Partner can move if appropriate or take the plus here.

Comments for 4

Fred Zhang: If there is a slam, it should be in diamonds. Four hearts would be a close choice, but would partner know it’s for spades or diamonds?

Prahalad Rajkumar: The hand doesn’t seem oriented for a slam. The best option available is to look for the right game. Over 4 , if partner signs off in 4 , 4 NT or 5 , I will pass.

Yannis Procopiou: Blackwood will follow, hopefully. The final contract will be in diamonds of course.

Arvind Srinivasan: Keeps all options open. Three notrump, which will end the auction, may not be a great contract if opener turns up with Q-x-(x).

Daniel Korbel: We’re very close to a slam on this auction; give partner A-K-x K-x-x A-Q-x-x A-x-x or some such hand and six is laydown; 4 seems to be the best slam try available.

Rex Settle: Sets the trump suit for slam investigation. Other new suits feel like cue-bids for spades. [I’m] willing to stop in 5 . [I would bid] 3 NT at matchpoints.

Jyri Tamminen: It’s the percentage action to move past 3 NT. … However, I think a cue-bid of 4 is too strong a slam try; besides, it casts doubt over the agreed trump suit. Consequently, I bid slowly to 5 , denying club and spade control in the process. … Partner would certainly bid six with K-10-x K-x A-Q-x-x A-K-x-x. …

Comment for 4 NT

David Hemmer: I’m having trouble constructing a hand for partner where slam isn’t a good possibility. I’ll bid 4 NT just to be sure we’re not off two cashing aces and then bid 6 in case partner has a hand like K-10-x K-x-x A-Q-x-x A-K-x. Yes, I know partner could have A-K-x K-Q-x A-Q-x-x-x Q-x, but maybe they won’t lead a club if I don’t tip it off with a cue-bidding sequence.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 2

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 2 3	East Pass Pass Pass	South 1 2 ?	A J 10 9 7 A 8 7 5 2 10 5 4

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	281	54
5	7	65	13
3	6	75	14
4	5	26	5
3 NT	4	24	5
4 NT	2	48	9

The respondents showed fine judgment in their overwhelming consensus to reject a slam try. The unexpected heart raise and excellent controls would usually suggest optimism, but there is no assured source of tricks. Partner should have only three hearts (with 0=4=4=5 shape he would normally rebid 2 , and with 1=4=4=4 he would open 1 ) so spade ruffs will be limited (probably just one). Hence, you are likely to need great solidity in clubs (e.g., K-Q-J-10-x) to make slam a good venture, plus there’s the anemic trump suit to worry about. Well done.

In 1958, the Americans were too ambitious:

North deals	3		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	K Q J		Roth	Siniscalco	Stone	Forquet
	K Q J 2			1	Pass	1 NT
	A Q 8 6 2		Pass	2	Pass	2
Q 5 4		K 8 6 2	Pass	2 NT	Pass	3
6		10 9 4 3	Pass	4	All Pass
A 6 4 3		9 8 7
J 10 9 7 5		K 3
	A J 10 9 7
	A 8 7 5 2
	10 5
	4

Italy N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
4 South	6 South	D'Alelio	Becker	Chiaradia	Crawford
Made 4 +420	Down 2 -100		1	Pass	1
		Pass	2	Pass	2
Italy +11 IMPs		Pass	3	Pass	5
		Pass	6	All Pass

Witness the second auction. Crawford took a rosy view of his hand and jumped to 5 , which asked about trump quality. Could Becker’s trumps be any more sturdy than K-Q-J? Hardly, so the slam was reached. The contract was fair, but no more than that, and justice was served as it proved to be unmakable (Crawford finished down two).

The Italian auction began with two artificial bids: 1 strong (17+) and 1 NT showing 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1). After that, the bidding was natural to the routine game. Siniscalco knew the partnership was off an ace plus the K (or two aces) so a slam would be marginal at best. Chalk up another 6 EMPs (11 IMPs) for the home team.

Comments for 4

Ruthanne Williams: Houston, we have a mismatch! Three notrump across from a spade void won’t be pretty. …

Bill Jacobs: Sure it’s a nice hand, but if partner has 0-1 spades, how do I make use of that spade texture? Switch the hearts and spades, and the hand is worth a slam try, as a crossruff may work. I won’t go chasing moonbeams on your starry night. …

Rainer Herrmann: Enough, in spite of my aces. North seems to be void in spades.

Leonard Helfgott: Too many holes and shortness opposite partner’s minors to try for slam. If partner has a monster, he can move forward.

Uwe Gebhardt: A lot depends on the meaning of 2 . Is it natural or is it artificial? I believe that Standard American defines it as natural, so 4 since partner showed 16+ and 0=4=4=5 shape, hence the A is wasted. In case 2 is artificial I would bid 4 as well, but would curse myself for not bidding 3 the round before, since the raise of the fourth suit is always dubious.

Will Engel: Partner’s stiff spade is not helping.

Karen Walker: I can envision dummies where we won’t have two losers, but I can’t think of too many that give us 12 winners. With partner’s singleton or void in spades and my lack of fitting cards in his suits — plus my poor trump quality — I’m not optimistic about scraping up more than 10 tricks.

Grant Peacock: My feeling is that partner promises 0=4=4=5 shape. If he just had an ordinary 1=3=4=5, he must bid notrump, or 3 with no heart stopper. My nice looking A-J-10-9-7 is junk facing a void. I settle for 4 . He can bid again if he has extras. His hand is unlimited at this point.

Fred Zhang: … Partner can still move with good source of tricks in the minors.

James Hudson: Surprising that partner is supporting hearts here. He should have four, but then I would have expected his second bid to be 2 . If he really has a spade void we have a bit of a misfit, and my hearts are weak; so I’ll bid timidly (but showing that I have a real heart suit).

Sebastien Louveaux: Partner is very short in spades and I have nothing to help in the minors. On a trump lead, 6 rates to be too much.

Dave Maeer: Can’t make my mind up between 4 and 5 — it has to be hearts to tell him I really have them and not some fourth-suit effort. Deciding factor is that if he’s really 0=4=4=5, then the A is waste paper and if we have a slam he’s mountainous and will go on. As 2 is game forcing, I can’t have much less.

Kent Feiler: This doesn’t sound like it’s going to play very well. If I ruff spades, I lose trump tricks. Reverse the majors and I’d cue-bid.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Simple standard or not, I presume we’re playing fourth suit forcing, so it’s high time to “support with support.” Otherwise, I’m not at all wild about this hand. Note that partner may well have only three hearts, rather than 0=4=4=5.

Arvind Srinivasan: Partner should be able to move over this with a maximum reverse. …

Krishna Chakravartula: Only practical bid (not taking risks at IMPs); if partner has a hand to bid further, well and good.

Robert Sekulski: … [Partner’s shape] should be 1=3=4=5, or maybe 0=4=4=5 with [bad hearts]. …

Steve Stein: I’m a chicken, and I hope I’m not also a fish! Even if partner has magic cards, isn’t slam unlikely? I’d have to ruff spades with partner’s high trumps.

Arvind Ranasaria: The hands do not seem to fit great, so the question is between 3 NT and 4 . It seems there will be one or more ruffing tricks, so 4 is better.

David Hemmer: Even monstrous hands like x K-Q-x A-K-x-x A-K-x-x-x, or — K-Q-x-x A-K-x-x A-K-x-x-x, don’t give good play for slam.

Gareth Birdsall: What was 2 ? It seems partner has a singleton spade so my hand isn’t worth more (or less) than 4 .

Vincent Harackiewicz: Slam is unlikely unless North acts vigorously.

Doug Burke: The only question I would have is: Would partner bid this way with a 1=3=4=5 hand? If he has 0=4=4=5, then I think his second call should have been 2 . I’m going to assume the first shape and go quietly into the night.

Frans Buijsen: I have a lot of controls but I think too many wasted values in spades to make slam likely. Partner looks like 0=4=4=5.

Sandy Barnes: I am not sure I am going to like a trump lead.

Bruce Scott: … How good is my hand for slam? Probably not very good. If the majors were reversed it would be much better. As it is, the lovely J-10-9-7 is facing shortage and therefore wasted. … Two small diamonds is a distinct minus. I will take the low road.

Henry Day: No interest in going beyond game on this misfit.

Sid Ismail: On a trump lead, and missing an ace, even 5 gets precarious.

John Conover: Take the game and the points.

Comments for 5

Manuel Paulo: Taking for granted there are no side losers, 6 depends on suit quality.

Neelotpal Sahai: Opposite prime cards (aces and kings) slam will make, but opposite queens and jacks it will depend on a guess. I don’t want to bid 4 NT with two top losers in the same suit. …

Jojo Sarkar: Partner has a very strong hand on this auction, and is marked with at most one spade. Five hearts asks about the quality of his trump support, and that is the most important question.

Tjeerd Kootstra: Looks like partner is 1=3=4=5 or 0=3=4=6, so I will just invite.

Anthony Golding: … This should ask for heart quality.

Prahalad Rajkumar: Partner is likely to hold a 1=3=4=5 hand. If he has K-Q-x, slam has an excellent chance. If not, 5 cannot be in jeopardy, as the rest of partner’s high cards will have a role to play.

Leo Zelevinsky: Seems to me this hand warrants a slam try, and 5 looks like the best [bid to allow] partner to make the right decision.

Everett Dyer: Partner must have a 0=4=4=5 or 1=3=4=5 hand with 17+ points. If partner has two of the top three honors in hearts, then I want to play 6 .

Allen McDonald: Partner should be 0=4=4=5, but why did he bid 2 instead of 2 ? No slam is good if partner has four bad hearts.

Alvin Bluthman: The good news: If partner is bidding in an old-fashioned style, he should be 1=3=4=5. … The bad news: There is no available bid below game that shows my hand. That leaves me to choose between 4 NT (Blackwood) and 5 , asking partner to bid on with strong hearts. Hoping partner is not aceless, I choose the latter.

Bill Powell: A bit pushy, perhaps, but partner’s reverse is quite wide ranging and this seems more natural than the other constructive move.

Bijoy Anand: … [The success of a slam] depends on how many losers we may have in the trump suit. I want partner to look at his heart holding and bid the slam with K-x-x-x or K-Q-x, but not with anything less.

Comments for 3

Steve Mager: If partner has four hearts, why did he reverse into diamonds? I still must make some kind of slam move here.

David Neiman: Show the control on the way to 4 . This should help partner decide how well the hands fit for slam.

Dima Nikolenkov: Follow with 4 over 3 NT — a mild slam try.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner’s hand pattern is 0=4=4=5, or 1=3=4=5 (occasionally). Slam could be on with the correct cards in partner’s hand. I’ll make a mild slam try before signing off in 4 . Since partner has indicated extreme spade shortage, this bid has to be a slam try in hearts.

Gordon Rainsford: And then 4 over partner’s 3 NT, so he will know it wasn’t just a four-card heart suit wondering about the correct strain.

Simon Cheung: … I remember someone famous once said, “When in doubt, keep the bidding low.” Second choice is 3 NT.

Eric Leong: The cheapest forcing descriptive bid that leaves all options open.

Stu Goodgold: It’s cue-bid time. North is probably 1=3=4=5, and slam has a reasonable outlook.

Ed Harris: I expect North’s shape is 0=4=4=5, and he should have at least 18 points. … But I have lots still to tell and lots still to learn. The telling involves warning North that I have the A (a liability because of the duplication of values) and my fifth heart (I could have four), and the learning involves North’s minor-suit controls. Both North and I realize the play will involve crossruffing, so even the lowliness of my heart spots could be a problem in slam.

Herbert Wilton: Will alert partner to your slam interest when you next bid 4 . Any higher bid is dangerous, since partner may still hold only J-x-x in trumps.

John Weisweiler: I want to get more information at a low level.

Rex Settle: … A perfect minimum for partner, — K-x-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-Q-J-x, makes slam close to laydown, so I want to make one try. …

Jyri Tamminen: This might confuse the issue and lead to a shaky five-level contract if partner thinks I’m showing good spades without real hearts (i.e., if he bids 4 and I bid 5 ), but I feel compelled to make one slam try below game. That leaves only 3 .

Josh Sinnett: Once I remove 3 NT this becomes an obvious cue-bid. Three notrump and 4 are wussy, 4 sounds like you’re setting clubs as trumps, I have no idea what 5 would ask for, and 4 NT deserves to find partner with x K-Q-J Q-J-x-x A-K-Q-J-x.

Mihail Neagu: The hand is clearly worth a slam try and this feels about right, with 5 a close second choice. I will raise 4 to five.

Michael Kaplan: … Slam is possible. A 3 cue-bid begins the process (promising the ace as partner has at most one spade). … After 4 by partner, 4 will be my next bid, and partner will need to bid on if he has diamond control. …

Comments for 4

Yannis Procopiou: On the way to 6 (or maybe seven?). It’s time to remember our dummy-reversal methods.

Daniel Korbel: Partner’s hand should be something like — K-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-Q-x-x-x, or better. …

Comment for 4 NT

Ian Payn: Call me Mister Subtle.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 3

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North Pass	East 3	South ?	A A K J 4 3 A K Q 10 9 7 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Dbl	10	132	25
6	9	112	22
5	6	95	18
3 NT	5	55	11
4 NT	3	92	18
4	2	17	3
4	1	16	3

Quite a mitt! Looking at 10+ tricks in your own hand, it seems right to aim for a slam. The consensus was right on the mark to start with a double. I would like to use Blackwood, and I cannot do this over 3 (4 NT would be a minor-suit takeout by overwhelming expert opinion). Therefore, I am willing to take the slight chance that partner might pass the double, and even if he did it could be our best result.

After doubling, I will continue with 4 NT over any suit bid. This might allow us to reach a grand slam (I’ll bid 5 NT over 5 ), and also important, if the answer is 5 (no aces) I can make partner declarer in 6 ; hence, it might protect his K, plus there is greater hope to succeed off the A-K. I suppose this could backfire if partner has the K and East leads a singleton (West might not have led the A), but I can’t cater to everything.

Those who jumped directly to 6 were making a practical choice, albeit unscientific. Certainly, 6 is a favorite after East’s preempt, but you might miss a laydown grand slam. Further, you give up the advantage of right-siding the contract.

OK, fasten your seat belts. Here’s the actual deal:

West deals	10 9 8 6 5		West	North	East	South
None vul	Q 10 5 4 3		Belladonna	Silidor	Avarelli	Rapee
	A 2		Pass	Pass	3	3 NT
	8		4	Dbl	Pass	5
—		K Q J 7 4 3 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
9 2		8 7 6
Q J 10 8 7 6 5		K 9
J 6 4 2		5
	A
	A K J
	4 3
	A K Q 10 9 7 3

USA N-S	Italy N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	5 South	Becker	Forquet	Crawford	Siniscalco
Made 5 +400	Made 6 +420	3	Pass	4	5
		Pass	Pass	Pass
Italy +1 IMPs

Looking at only the North-South hands, you would want to be in a grand slam (7 is best). Alas, with the foul distribution, the only makable grand is 7 by South (somebody show me that auction, please!). Note that even 6 goes down on a diamond lead, though if played by North as I suggested via Blackwood (after 5 shows one ace, South bids 5 NT for kings and passes the 6 response) East is likely to lead a spade.

On the first auction, Rapee took quite a conservative view with 3 NT, then later pulled his partner’s double to 5 . I’m sure he must have been sick when the dummy came down; but the 13 apparent tricks fell quickly to 12, and then 11. Precision bidding! (For clubs, anyway, but note that 6 is cold, even with the spade ruff.)

The auction at the second table was completely different, as Becker struck the first blow with 3 (I wonder why Belladonna chose to pass). Crawford made a cute boost to 4 , which stole the impetus of Siniscalco’s 5 . Talk about having your bid!

A diamond was led at both tables, and Italy won 1 EMP (1 IMP). The play records show that Becker failed to ruff the third heart, allowing a diamond discard on the fourth round. (This must have been a mechanical glitch.)

Comments for Double

Ruthanne Williams: Play in hearts, correct a diamond call or 3 NT to 6 , curse if I hear 7 or 6 NT.

John Vega: In my land of beautiful dreams, partner ends up declaring 6 and receives a diamond lead up to his K-x-x. In practice, partner jumps to 5 and I convert to 6 .

Shuino Wong: Too strong for 3 NT.

Bill Jacobs: Those who bid 6 insult partner by taking him out of the game. The hand is too strong for 5 or 3 NT. Double, then minimum clubs is an excellent description. I’m happy to risk the leave-in.

Rik ter Veen: After the double, I’ll show my club suit. This should convince partner that my club bid is not just serious, but very serious.

Andy Latto: Not willing to give up on slam. I’m bidding 5 next. This sequence shows doubt about the final contract, hence inviting slam.

Uwe Gebhardt: After 4 or 4 I’ll bid 4 NT, intending to pass 5 or bidding 6 NT.

Neelotpal Sahai: Three notrump [and any club bid] are all guesses; each is a good bid opposite a particular hand. … I would double. If partner bids 4 , I intend to bid 4 ; or if he bids 4 , I intend to bid 5 . …

Kathy Morse: Intending to bid 5 on the next round.

Steve Mager: Double is imperfect (as are all bids) but seems to be the most flexible call.

Mike Cassel: Hope partner doesn’t think 5 [at my next turn] is a “cue-bid in support” if he bids 4 . Gee, partner might bid 4 over the double.

Jojo Sarkar: This hand is incredibly powerful, but cue-bidding at this level is not convenient. The  A makes it less likely that partner will pass the takeout double, and 5 over any bid at the four level describes a very strong hand, as 4 or 5 could have been bid directly. If partner jumps to 5 , I can bid 6 comfortably. …

David Neiman: Trust partner; give him a chance to help you figure out how high to play. Six clubs, 7 , 6 NT or 7 NT could all be there.

Tjeerd Kootstra: Double followed by 5 should show something like this.

Fred Zhang: Double seems to give the most flexibility. I would bid 5 over partner’s 4 or 4 ; 4 over 3 NT.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Key question is how to involve partner in the decision making process. … I’ll double and pull any four-level bid from partner to 5 .

Gordon Rainsford: Six hearts or 6 NT played by partner may be the contract, if partner has a positional diamond control.

Simon Cheung: Three notrump may be the last game that can be made (given you can’t sign off in 4 NT after partner’s advance), but I can’t bring myself to bidding it with 8 controls, only 2 1/2 losers and solid clubs. I plan to continue with 5 to show a good hand for slam purpose.

Sebastien Louveaux: Five clubs will almost surely make, so it is not a problem to bypass 3 NT. No club bid will describe this monster, so I start with a double and bid 5 on the way to slam. …

Dave Maeer: When I next bid 5 , partner will know I was too strong for 5 initially. If 3 NT is the last making contract, that’s just too bad when one card in partner’s hand could make slam a laydown.

Prahalad Rajkumar: Holding 10 tricks in hand, signing off in 3 NT or 5 is premature. Six clubs is a blind bid ( A-K may be cashing). …

Arvind Srinivasan: Followed by 5 or 6 . Too many minimum hands offer a play for slam, and 5 would be very unlucky to go down.

Daniel Korbel: Double, then bid clubs over any number of hearts (by partner) or spades (by opponents). Partner needs very little to make 6 , and I’m willing to take a shot at 5 even opposite a Yarborough. …

Sandy Singer: Odds are, I will find partner with five hearts and, depending on his diamonds, we may have a slam. Over 4 I intend to bid 4 .

Robb Gordon: Just too good to settle for 3 NT. Four spades … leaves me stuck without bidding space.

Robert Nordgren: Then will follow up with Blackwood over partner’s very likely four of a red suit. If no aces, pass his 5 response.

Alan Kravetz: Then 5 over partner’s response. At matchpoints, I would just bid 3 NT.

John Weisweiler: Any number of diamonds will be corrected to the next higher number of clubs; after 4 I will cue-bid 4 .

Bill Powell: I may not be any more comfortable at my next bid (or lead!), but I’m not prepared to give up on hearts yet.

Comments for 6

Leonard Helfgott: It’s a reasonable expectation that partner will have exactly one of the two missing diamond tops. I’ll not worry about the heart loser.

Jeff Goldsmith: This could look silly when West cashes the A-K, but partner is never going to be able to cooperate holding nearly nothing. Clubs should be better than notrump, as 6 looks very good vs. K-Q J, but 6 NT is down. Five clubs is strong, but nowhere near this strong. Double doesn’t seem to lead to any good sequences… I think slam will make more often than not, so it’s probably right just to bid it.

Grant Peacock: I know this is a quiz, so partner has zilch, but hey, I underbid on the first two.

Peter Gill: This looks like one of those hands where you can make 6 opposite any of the West, North or East hands as dummy. No doubt the majority will bid more mundanely.

Olivier La Spada: I can’t know if my partner has the A and/or K, so I bid what I want to play (4 NT is for the minors, not Blackwood).

Dima Nikolenkov: Bidding what I think I can make — I am an optimist.

Eric Leong: Just guessing. How can you get partner to cooperate?

James Hudson: The chance that this won’t make is partly offset by the chance that West will sacrifice. I don’t see how to get intelligent cooperation from partner, so I’ll just take a shot.

Kent Feiler: The Shadow knows, but I don’t. I can’t see any constructive auctions that will be of much help. Maybe they’ll bid 6 .

Stu Goodgold: Odds are reasonable that partner can produce a diamond trick, or another without a diamond lead. … [If] partner holds an ace and a king, he should find a 7 bid.

Steve Landen: What I expect to make. If I doubled and partner bid 4 , 5 would not describe this much power.

Leo Zelevinsky: Preempts work. I am guessing.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Anything, even 3 NT, has an element of a gamble in it, and double only delays the gamble, so I’ll gamble on something that pays off nicely if it does pay off. With most slam dummies, I cannot expect partner to act over 5 .

David Stern: I’m a gambler at heart.

Arvind Ranasaria: …If I start with a double and LHO preempts 5 , then partner might put us in the wrong contract of 6 , so why risk it? …

Bruce Scott: Perhaps LHO will be kind enough to sacrifice in 6 . I don’t feel that I can bid only 5 . Partner will not be able to judge to bid slam when it is right.

Herbert Wilton: Better than a 50-percent shot on the bidding.

Sid Ismail: I will take partner out to lunch if I go down.

Better yet, take the whole team… and order six club sandwiches.

Jyri Tamminen: Blackwood would be nice, but not available, obviously. Maybe I’ll buy queen-fifth of hearts and four small diamonds — and a well-educated opponent who leads partner’s suit and not from A-Q. …

Josh Sinnett: When faced with a guess, it’s often best to take the bid with the highest upside. There’s a few different ways that 6 can make.

Comments for 5

Will Engel: I know this is a strong bid, but is it this strong?

Krishna Chakravartula: Even if partner has diamond values, slam may not be on. After the preempt, swallow your medicine and avoid a bad score by simply bidding game.

Gareth Birdsall: How good can I be before I’m too good for 3 NT?

Dirk Enthoven: Even 5 can go down… If partner has any help he should figure to bid six.

Eric Hurley: Showing a very big hand, hoping partner will bid six with some help. Six clubs appears too gung ho.

Henry Day: Very tempting to double first, but I think I’ll trust partner to know when to raise to six.

Rex Settle: Good chance to make and, unlike 3 NT, partner can bid again if this strikes gold.

Comments for 3 NT

Mike Ludkovski: Five clubs is probably making, but so is 3 NT, with a chance for overtricks if partner has a diamond stopper.

Sandy Barnes: All calls have one issue or another. I’ll try for a plus.

Alvin Bluthman: Hope partner holds a diamond stopper, and the [clubs run].

Mihail Neagu: Everything seems no better than a guess. If I double, we may end up in 5 down one. If I bid 3 NT, we may miss a cold 7 NT. Since I don’t see an intelligent way to get to slam, I go for the most likely plus.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 4

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West	North	East 2 1	South ?	A K J 10 8 5 J Q 10 6 4 3 2 —
1. weak

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3 (Michaels)	10	309	60
2	7	108	21
4	6	34	7
3	5	30	6
Dbl	3	29	6
3	2	9	2

With the landslide for Michaels, I guess I deserve low marks for presenting this problem. I considered omitting 3 altogether because in many systems (mine included) it shows a one-suited hand requesting a stopper for 3 NT; but, I finally left it in because I felt Michaels was unattractive with the top-heavy spades. For instance, partner might override your subsequent 4 bid.

A month ago my choice was to bid 4 , but having read the many comments received, I am now convinced that Michaels is best. The occasions when partner would later correct 4 (to 5 ) are almost always favorable, and might even lead to a good slam. The chance of converting a plus score in 4 to a minus score in 5 is extremely small.

Some respondents mentioned they would like to use “leaping Michaels,” a jump to 4 showing spades and diamonds. I also use this convention but would not do so here because of the lopsided strength; partner might leave you in diamonds when 4 makes. (Most experts do not treat 4 as forcing.) In my methods I could bid 4 , which shows a spade-minor two-suiter that’s too promising to stop below game. (Several respondents also mentioned that 4 would be the perfect bid.)

When this deal occurred in 1958, the Michaels cue-bid was little known and probably not a part of the methods used (system notes made no mention). Therefore, the enigma was more like, “How many spades do you bid?” Well, as is so often the case, bidding more won the marbles:

East deals	Q		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	10 7 6 2		Avarelli	Rapee	Belladonna	Silidor
	J 7 5				2	2
	Q J 10 9 3		4	Pass	Pass	4
7 3 2		9 6 4	Dbl	Pass	Pass	Pass
A 9 5		K Q 8 4 3
A K 9		8
K 7 5 2		A 8 6 4
	A K J 10 8 5
	J
	Q 10 6 4 3 2
	—

USA N-S	Italy N-S	West	North	East	South
4 × South	5 × East	Crawford	Siniscalco	Becker	Forquet
Down 1 -200	Down 2 -300			2	4
		5	Dbl	Pass	Pass
Italy +11 IMPs		Pass

It is interesting to observe that both Belladonna and Becker chose to open a weak two-bid with a flimsy five-card suit, though in Belladonna’s case it showed a two-suiter. I must admit I was surprised by this, especially for Becker. In my recollection, you’d have better odds on the sun turning green than on Becker not having his bid. But, in my eyes, he had his bid.

After the weak two-bid, Silidor walked the dog, and Forquet blasted to the most likely contract. Clearly, this decision is not solely responsible for the outcome — Crawford’s push to 5 is dubious at best (perhaps he was influenced by Becker’s staid style) — but you can’t deny the stampeding effect of 4 . On a good day, Silidor’s cagey balancing act might lead to being doubled in a cold game. Alas, the Americans didn’t find many good days on this visit.

Both doubled contracts were set — 4 down one (whew, needed that diamond ruff) and 5 down two — for another 6 EMPs (11 IMPs) to the Italians. OK, folks, we may be losing, but I’m getting a strange craving for pasta. [Tells Mabel we’re going to Olive Garden tonight.]

Comments for 3

Ruthanne Williams: Terence Reese said to call Michaels only if you intend to declare the hand, and I sure don’t want to defend hearts! …

Bill Jacobs: If I bid 4 , and they push on with 5 (surely possible), then I’ll feel terrible, whatever partner does. Michaels then minimum spades (in most continuations) is a descriptive action, aided by having a strong boss suit. And it might just get us to a good diamond contract (e.g., -- Q-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-x-x-x-x). Two spades then diamonds is also possible, but I can’t see any particular advantage to it, and it might just get passed out opposite my example hand.

Rik ter Veen: With a Michaels bid available, I would certainly use it. I plan to bid 4 over 3 and 5 over 3 NT.

John Givins: Actually I prefer 4 .

Leonard Helfgott: Since I plan on bidding spades later if possible, I might as well show both suits.

Konrad Ciborowski: I regret that the best bid (4 ) is not on the list.

Neelotpal Sahai: On a likely 4 by LHO, I will next bid 4 to show a powerful distributional hand.

Will Engel: Four spades would be the right bid if 5 goes down and LHO would bid it over 4 , but 3 leaves open the option of playing in diamonds.

Karen Walker: Michaels seems pretty obvious here. My second choice would be 3 , asking for a cue-bid, but that gives up on diamonds. Last choice is double, which is almost guaranteed to elicit calls I don’t want to hear: some number of clubs or, worse, a desperate pass.

Mike Cassel: Didn’t think 3 was Standard American, but I’ll take it if it’s there.

Jojo Sarkar: This call describes the hand. No matter what partner does, there’s going to be work to do.

David Neiman: Start by showing shape (and spades). The diamond suit will be shown later.

Grant Peacock: I’ve been preempted so I’m not going to stress out over a slam try, but I am going to bid 4 and in the process give partner the option of 5 . Sure, you say, he won’t know which minor I have, but I think with my void in clubs he’ll have a pretty good idea. …

Peter Gill: Michaels first, then 4 , to help partner judge the potentially high-level competitive auction.

Olivier La Spada: … My diamonds are ugly but if I bid 2, 3 or 4 , what can partner do over 4 or 5 . I have to show my pattern, as it is the strength of my hand.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: I’ll bid spades over their 4 , indicating a highly distributional hand.

Gordon Rainsford: Shows a good hand (which I have) over a preempt. Show both suits where possible, even though the spades are strong.

Simon Cheung: If LHO bids 4 , I can bid 4 , showing a hand with excellent playing potential and an unknown side suit. Double or 2 can’t get the job done. Three diamonds (planning to bid 4 over 4 ) can show both suits, but the downside is that it emphasizes the minor and partner will give a preference to diamonds too often when spades is our best fit.

Anthony Golding: … I assume that in our “no agreement” system we haven’t agreed a strength requirement for Michaels. If the auction permits, I’ll rebid spades to emphasize the quality.

Stu Goodgold: We are not stopping below 4 , so might as well show my shape in case slam is on.

Prahalad Rajkumar: First, let me describe my shape. Later, I can always bid 4 .

Steve Landen: Will bid spades next.

Leo Zelevinsky: I can see bidding any number of spades, but they all feel dangerous. I’ll go with this dangerous option. :) …

Rosalind Hengeveld: I’ll continue with 4 over 4 . Only a raise to 5 would give me a headache, but so it would over any alternative.

David Wetzel: I’ll bid 4 next time around if necessary. It’s just too important to let partner know what’s going on, in case he’s sitting on the A-K and, say, a stiff spade.

Arvind Srinivasan: Brings the minor also into focus. May be difficult if you overcall 2 and hear 4 on your left.

Everett Dyer: Expect partner to bid clubs, then I will correct to 4 . If partner bids 5 , then I will try 5 . Maybe partner will get the picture.

Robb Gordon: I don’t play 3 as Michaels, but since this partnership does, I guess it qualifies. I would raise partner’s 3 to four. …

Doug Burke: I usually only use Michaels with preemptive, or strong hands. With 11 HCP, 6-6 shape, and only four losers, I think this qualifies as a strong hand. …

Frans Buijsen: The alternative for me is a direct 4 , trying to obscure my hand to everybody. However, the chance of slam is there if I hit a good fit with partner, so I’ll try to give as much information to partner as I can.

Sandy Barnes: Get the nature of my hand across in one bid.

Alvin Bluthman: … Treating 3 as Michaels (rather than a stopper-ask), I choose that call because it must be better to show that you hold two suits at one time. (Even better, of course, is to identify the suits.)

Rex Settle: Seems Michaels is the best chance to find the right strain; the right level is another problem.

Jyri Tamminen: I feel we’ll have rocky road with this hand whatever I do now. If I would bid 4 , it surely goes: 5 D P, and I’m left guessing. I think I’m only dreaming when I plan on bidding 4 over West’s 4 . He will bid 5 , won’t he?

Josh Sinnett: … I think it’s more important to let partner know my distribution than to hide it from the opponents; we’re almost definitely declaring this one.

Michael Clark: This is very descriptive and you can bid out your extra length later on. …

Bill Powell: If this means a big hand with spades and a minor it seems to fit the bill perfectly.

Bijoy Anand: I am bidding again with this 4-loser hand!

Mihail Neagu: This feels right for Michaels. If they bid 4 , I will balance with 4 .

Ira Hessel: Better than bidding 4 [and hearing] 5 P P. [Then what?]

Comments for 2

Kent Feiler: Are you sure I can’t wheel out leaping Michaels? Oh, well, I’ll probably be bidding 5 over 4 at my next turn.

Mike Ludkovski: Partner must have a pile of clubs, start things off low with a spade bid, intending to show diamonds next.

Robert Sekulski: Better not to hurry in order to bid both spades and diamonds.

Franco Baseggio: I want partner to know both my suits, so I’d better start bidding them. Not worried about getting passed out.

Lynn Schwartz: Keep bidding diamonds afterwards over further competition.

Arvind Ranasaria: I would like to bid both my suits, so conserving room is best. …

Robert Nordgren: Feeling like the slow route is needed. Anything between 2 and slam is a possible final contract on this freak. I would love to see partner finding a spade raise over a heart raise.

Bruce Scott: … I distinctly dislike the undefined-minor version of Michaels. Partner will not know when to compete. What do I actually wish to accomplish on this hand? I would like to get to 4 and not have the opponents bid 5 over it. I think that some tactics are called for here. … I am going to walk the hand up to 4 . …

Comments for 4

James Hudson: I don’t think it’s worth straining after the unlikely diamond slam, which might be unbiddable even if I show a two-suiter here. I’ll just place the contract where it probably belongs. There’s a remote chance I’ll have another opportunity to show the diamonds.

Sebastien Louveaux: Bid the contract you want to play, without leaving too much space to the opponents. I need too much for slam (three out of four key cards: Q, A, A, K).

John Weisweiler: Let’s give them as little space as possible to judge accurately.

Comments for 3

Ed Harris: With this distribution I want to bid game (at least) in whichever of my suits partner prefers. If North does not support spades, I will bid diamonds next.

Henry Day: I prefer to keep Michaels for majors of exactly five cards. Three spades shows where I live without over committing us if we have a misfit.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 5

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 3	East Pass Pass Pass	South Pass 1 ?	Q J 8 7 3 10 2 A Q 4 6 4 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	164	32
3	9	157	30
4	8	127	24
5	4	19	4
4	3	16	3
4	1	36	7

An extremely close vote zigzagged all month and ended with a slight plurality in favor of rebidding the spades. I have no strong feelings about this and could live with any of the top three choices. After a strong jump shift, rebidding a suit at the same level does not show six (responder has to bid something) so 3 conveys where your texture lies.

The case for a heart preference is also strong, as the 10 could solidify partner’s suit. A hand like A-x K-Q-J-x-x K-J-10-x A-x has no better home than 4 . With a worthless doubleton ( x-x) I would much prefer 3 .

Despite all this scientific hoopla, I admire those who simply “bid their values” by raising diamonds. Holding A-Q, it is far less likely than usual that partner has manufactured a jump shift. An immediate diamond raise might be the key to reaching a good slam when partner has a 5-5 two-suiter. And so it was. Hats off to B.J. Becker on this one:

East deals	A K		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A K 8 6 3		Rapee	Belladonna	Silidor	Avarelli
	K J 10 9 7				Pass	Pass
	K		1	Dbl	3	3
10 6 4		9 5 2	Pass	4	Dbl	Pass
9 7 5 4		Q J	Pass	Rdbl	Pass	4
3 2		8 6 5	Pass	4 NT	Pass	5
J 10 5 2		A Q 9 8 7	Pass	6	All Pass
	Q J 8 7 3
	10 2
	A Q 4
	6 4 3

Italy N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
6 South	6 North	Chiaradia	Crawford	D'Alelio	Becker
Made 6 +1430	Made 6 +1370			Pass	Pass
		Pass	1	Pass	1
Italy +2 IMPs		Pass	3	Pass	4
		Pass	4 NT	Pass	5
		Pass	6	All Pass

On the second auction, note how easy it was to reach 6 after Becker’s raise. Crawford could picture a dummy with short hearts and four trumps, hence A-x-x-x and nothing else would provide a reasonable play for slam. If Becker had muddied the water with 3 or 3 , it is difficult (if not impossible) to reach 6 . I don’t see a clear route.

The circus was in town on the first auction. Rapee’s psychic opening and Silidor’s jump raise stole the Italian’s bidding space and drove them to an inferior slam in spades. (Note that two rounds of clubs forces North to ruff with a spade honor.) Alas, when you’re good you’re also lucky. The 3-3 trump break saved the day. Chalk up another EMP (2 IMPs) for the home team. So what else is new?

Comments for 3

Ruthanne Williams: Three diamonds forces to game, so no need to jump around. We are most likely headed toward 3 NT, but 3 best describes my hand below that point.

John Vega: Ick. I hate to lie about my spade length, but I’m not yet willing to give up on 3 NT by bidding 4 .

Konrad Ciborowski: Fifth spade, no club stopper, no heart honor. Easy one.

Manuel Paulo: This shows a five-card suit and a rather weak hand in a game-forcing sequence.

Neelotpal Sahai: Tough choice between 3 , timid 3 , and aggressive 4 . However, I don’t want to cross the 3 NT level and don’t want to be timid.

Will Engel: Showing a fifth spade and an inability to bid 3 NT.

Jojo Sarkar: … Tell partner about my fifth spade. This also gives us the best chance to play 3 NT from the correct side. …

Grant Peacock: I’m gonna just be honest and admit that I have no idea where you are getting all these other bids. :)

Olivier La Spada: Three diamonds is game forcing, so I can show my fifth spade. Over 3 NT I pass; over anything else I will play a slam in diamonds or spades.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Maximum flexibility to find the best possible strain. Partner is bound to raise with honor doubleton in spades. I’ll pass partner’s 3 NT and correct 4 to 4 .

Eric Leong: The cheapest most natural forcing descriptive bid that allows partner to clarify the nature of his jump shift.

James Hudson: The choice is between 3 and 3 (mustn’t support diamonds with only three). Showing the five-card spade suit is more descriptive than giving a preference on 10-x.

Constantino Sifaqui: As a kind of waiting bid; will see if I should support diamonds later.

Leo Zelevinsky: I dislike 3 less than I dislike the other calls. :)

Dirk Enthoven: Keeps the notrump option open.

Frans Buijsen: … I do not want to commit to either of the red suits yet.

Ian Payn: … Not a thing of beauty, but what is?

Rex Settle: Prefer to show barely rebiddable spades then take heart preference.

Comments for 3

Shuino Wong: A waiting bid to let partner show his hand.

Bill Jacobs: Critical to mark time and get a feel for partner’s hand. Over 3 I bid 4 (should be a cue-bid after my failure to raise initially). Otherwise just pass 3 NT or 4 , and raise 4 .

Rik ter Veen: The cheapest bid should be the least informative or reliable. All other bids promise what they show.

Rainer Herrmann: Followed by 4 if possible.

Leonard Helfgott: The cheapest non-artificial bid is usually best after a strong jump shift, and 10-x is a reasonable holding. If partner’s next bid is below 4 , I will bid that next.

Andy Latto: No bid is an accurate description; 3 is no more of a distortion than anything else, and as the cheapest bid, gives us the maximum space to recover.

Karen Walker: This should suggest a doubleton heart and no club stopper.

David Neiman: More helpful to partner than 3 . Should show two or more hearts, and still permits 3 or 3 NT from partner.

Tjeerd Kootstra: Don’t know what we are going to play, so let’s hear what partner has to bid.

Dima Nikolenkov: As long as 3 is a game force, let’s see what partner has to say.

Gordon Rainsford: I like to agree that one always prefers to the major with 2+ cards in this situation; partner can now rebid 3 , 3 NT or 4 if he doesn’t have six hearts.

Simon Cheung: False preference. A good way to handle opener’s jump shift is to give him ample room for description. When a player forces, he should not only have points but also a clear rebid for selection of strain. Three hearts gives partner chances to support spades (then I cue-bid 4 to encourage), rebid diamonds (I raise to five) or rebid 3 NT (I pass).

Sebastien Louveaux: Slowing things down. I leave room for partner to describe his hand further. Does he have three spades or a club stopper?

Dave Maeer: Give partner room to define his jump shift.

Anthony Golding: This gives partner the chance to show delayed spade support. His diamonds may not be that long if he’s just making a forcing noise, so he should be ready for a preference on 10-x.

Kent Feiler: I’ll see what other interesting things partner has to say.

Prahalad Rajkumar: Waiting. Allowing partner to choose the game in notrump or hearts. Else, if he supports my spades, I will bid 4 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: This should come across as a likely doubleton and is, in fact, the perfect waiting bid. …

David Wetzel: Passed hand or not, partner’s jump shift is still game forcing. As I have no club stopper, 3 NT is out, so I’ll take a preference. Four diamonds is a reasonable second choice, but I really think I ought to have four pieces for that bid. (Besides, partner might be coming back in spades soon!).

Daniel Korbel: Good problem. I think 3 is best, keeping more space available. … Three spades and 4 seem far too committal.

Arvind Ranasaria: … Most flexible. I will be able to judge this hand better after partner’s next bid.

Doug Burke: Easy. … You can’t bid 4 because you only have three (not sure I’d want to do it even with four), I hate rebidding five-card suits with a passion…, and you don’t have club control to bid 3 NT. That leaves a preference bid of 3 . Whatever partner bids next, I will raise to game (if not there).

Eric Hurley: Keeping the door open for 3 NT. …

Ed Harris: North has forced to game and advertised an unbalanced hand. … He should know that I could have only two hearts [for this bid].

Alvin Bluthman: A false preference. … I cannot raise diamonds because partner might hold only four, and this bypasses 3 NT. Likewise, 4 does not appeal. Four hearts is too committal, as there might be a diamond slam. Three spades tends to do more than show a rebiddable suit; it also denies interest in partner’s suits. Good problem.

Herbert Wilton: Partner can safely assume I only have two-card support.

John Weisweiler: This is a good hand, but if partner now has to bid 3 NT, slam can’t be good.

Josh Sinnett: This could play in any strain besides clubs. Let’s leave as much room as possible for partner’s next bid.

Michael Clark: Ideally you’d like to end up in 3 NT but need to make sure of a club stopper. Three hearts seems favorable to rebidding your nasty spades.

Mihail Neagu: Routine false preference. I will bid 4 over 3 (then correct 4 to 4 ), pass 3 NT, and bid 4 over 4 .

Michael Kaplan: … I should have four diamonds to raise, or six spades to rebid spades; 4 suggests 5-5; the lack of a club stopper rules out 3 NT; and 4 strongly suggests three hearts. That leaves 3 (or a diamond game).

Comments for 4

David Stern: Partner does not bid 3 unless he is seriously prepared to play 5 so I make what I assume under your methods is a strong raise.

Robert Sekulski: Forcing position for me. Partner should have 5-5 or 3=5=4=1.

Mike Crowder: Not sure which seven-card fit I want to be in, but 3 NT looks like a disaster, and this allows partner to correct to 4 with six hearts (or ugly diamonds), 4 with three spades, or 5 with five diamonds.

Henry Day: (Where’s my 3 NT bid? I’ve been robbed!) I’m not minimum so 3 would be an underbid. Four diamonds is better than 4 because I have no ruffing value in hearts.

Bijoy Anand: Let’s first pick the right strain!

Comments for 4

Bruce Scott: If I had K-x instead of 10-x, you could talk me into preferencing hearts. … My partner has to realize that there is no way that I am introducing a natural club suit here; I would bid notrump instead. This has to say, “I have the strength to force to game but no clear direction. You decide please.” A clear choice of games bid; I can stand diamonds, hearts or spades.

Bill Powell: Having failed to agree a red suit or rebid my suit below game, this must mean “good hand but not sure what to bid.”

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

Problem 6

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 4	North 1 Pass	East 3 Pass	South 3 NT ?	10 9 6 K 4 Q J 10 7 6 A K 7

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Dbl	10	334	64
4 NT	8	75	14
5	6	60	12
5	4	14	3
Pass	3	36	7

I was afraid that double would be a runaway, but I couldn’t resist using this deal for its historical interest. My own choice is 4 NT. I’m not delighted with it, but experience has taught me to respect opponents who bid this way at adverse colors. It’s not difficult to construct hands where 4 is cold; for example, give partner Q-x x A-K-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x, and they might even make an overtrick if the A is behind you. Double may be right against random opponents, but against experts the odds seem poor. Even when you can set 4 , it will rarely be more than one trick, so going down one in 4 NT (or five of a minor) is only a 6-IMP loss; but when 4 would have made, your gain is at least twice that.

Another consideration is the possibility that partner may have psyched. (Yes, I threw in a ringer.) In my partnerships, as I suspect in most of yours, this chance is about nil. I might shade a point or two with my openings, but there’s still a semblance of normality; I don’t believe in outright psychs. Nonetheless, what you or I believe will not change history. Here is what happened:

North deals	8 7 4 3		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	9		Belladonna	Silidor	Avarelli	Rapee
	9 3 2			1	3	3 NT
	Q 6 4 3 2		4	Pass	Pass	Pass
A K Q J 5 2		—
Q 10 6		A J 8 7 5 3 2
K 8 4		A 5
8		J 10 9 5
	10 9 6
	K 4
	Q J 10 7 6
	A K 7

USA N-S	Italy N-S	West	North	East	South
4 East	6 East	Stone	Forquet	Roth	Siniscalco
Made 5 +650	Down 1 -100		Pass	1	Dbl
		Rdbl	Pass	2	Pass
Italy +13 IMPs		4 NT	Pass	5	Pass
		6	Pass	Pass	Pass

In the first auction, Silidor and Rapee were up to their usual antics (compare Problem 5) — psychs were “in” back then — alas, to no avail. Even though Rapee fielded the psych admirably (when in doubt, believe Belladonna?) the only consequence was to impede the Italians from bidding the doomed slam. (This was mostly bad luck, of course, as the swing would be reversed if the K were onside.)

The tournament records include system summaries. There were no details about the Rapee-Silidor psychs, but it did have an explanation of the Roth-Stone psychs, which I found to be amusing: “Roth promises 3 to 6 points and four or more cards in suit; Stone may psych with 0-6 points and does not promise length in suit.” Hmm. A “psych promises?” Seems like an oxymoron, but I guess one could conclude that Stone is an ordinary crook and Roth believes in honor among thieves. Imagine the frenzy in the ACBL today if a pair had agreements like this.

Another curiosity of this deal is Roth’s 1 bid. I had to search far and wide to find it, but yes, Al Roth opened the bidding with 10 HCP. Quick! Call the “Origin of Species” publisher — this could be the missing link to humanity. Seriously, it only shows that the great master’s judgment is second to no one.

Comments for Double

Ruthanne Williams: North’s pass is forcing. Double seems the only intelligent call. It may turn out badly, but 5 seems foolhardy and 5 not worth considering. Hearts are not stopped well enough for 4 NT.

John Vega: Surely partner’s pass was forcing. Swap the vulnerability, and 5 may make more sense. Still, nothing prevents him from pulling 4 doubled to 5 if he has a hand inappropriate for defense. …

Shuino Wong: I don’t like it, but I don’t think I have a better choice.

Bill Jacobs: Sadistic problem. I’m not emotionally capable of passing. I think 4 NT must be to play, not a choice of minors, which means I have no appropriate bid to suss out an eight-card fit. North could be 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=2=6. I’m prepared for minus 790, but I don’t see how West can be confident either. …

Rik ter Veen: With partner’s pass being forcing, I would guess he has something like 4=1=3=5 distribution. The problem is in the word “guess.” At least I’m fairly sure that 4 won’t make and I’d rather take 10 x 200 than 3 x 400 and 7 x -50 for guessing wrong.

Rainer Herrmann: I do not expect to get rich, assuming sane opponents. With this vulnerability and bidding, I cannot have a stack and the double should simply show convertible values either way.

Leonard Helfgott: Since the pass must be 100-percent forcing, and I don’t clearly see 4 NT being cold, a double is automatic. Even if 4 NT or 5 are 65 percent, your expectation at IMPs isn’t noticeably better than the plus 200 you should get on a bad day, and plus 500 on a good day. If partner has an 11-count with eight clubs and 4 makes, it’s just tough.

Konrad Ciborowski: I am going to take 500 or so. That’s fine for me. Why risk going down in 4 NT or 5 ? Yes, North’s pass over 4 is forcing, but still.

Andy Latto: Decent shot at 500, maybe 800. May well score only 200 against a game, but there is no way to guarantee we find the right game if I bid.

Manuel Paulo: North’s pass should be forcing, but the road to slam is not clear.

Neelotpal Sahai: A close choice between double and 4 NT. A partner’s hand where 4 NT makes contains: A A-K Q. At the same time, the A should be with East, in which case 4 would go at least two down (for a score of 500 against 430 in 4 NT). Change the vulnerability and I change my call.

Will Engel: I’ll take the “sure” plus, since my K negates some of my offensive potential.

Jeff Goldsmith: I have a seven-loser hand. In order to make five of either minor, I need partner to cover five of those losers. He’s not doing it; he should take some action over 4 with a hand that good. Yes, his pass of 4 is forcing, but that doesn’t show extra strength, as he is known to have a stiff heart. Nearly any minimum with only one heart is going to pass, since he doesn’t know what my trumps are like. Yes, they might make 4 doubled, particularly if East shows up with eight to the Q-J-10, but you can’t let the opponents play undoubled when you have 26 HCP. …

Karen Walker: I have pretty soft values to be thinking about a minor-suit game (or 4 NT), so I’ll take the plus score. If they’ve outbid us and this is cold, I think I’ll have some sympathy from my teammates.

Mike Cassel: Partner can still move over my double with suitable shape.

Jojo Sarkar: It’s our hand. At these colors they are going to be careful, but we surely have enough to double in this position, and plus 200 is a lot better than a minus score.

David Neiman: Three notrump showed my values. Without a clear place to play, take the sure plus, especially at this vulnerability.

Tjeerd Kootstra: But I wouldn’t be surprised if they made it (West having a lot of majors).

Dima Nikolenkov: Pass must be forcing and I do not think we can make 10 quick tricks in notrump.

Simon Cheung: Game our way is not certain, while we should be able to beat 4 by high cards. …

James Hudson: If I knew I could run the diamonds, I’d bid 4 NT. As it is, I just hope we can set them.

Kent Feiler: The issue here is whether partner’s pass is forcing. I’d say it isn’t, i.e., he has a bad opening bid instead of a good one.

Steve Landen: May not beat it, but what am I to do? Sacrifice in 4 NT?

Yannis Procopiou: This sequence leaves my partner with a singleton heart at most. Furthermore, if he had a minimum he would prefer to double four hearts. But, from my side, I have close to a minimum hand. So, double (but not in a delayed tempo) and let partner decide.

David Wetzel: Okay, so I’m a fish. Please don’t tell me I’m supposed to be taking the sacrifice in 4 NT.

David Stern: Unhappily. They are vulnerable and know it. We have about 26 points, so I don’t expect to get too much but am not prepared to go minus.

Mike Ludkovski: It looks like E-W have nine or 10 hearts, so according to the Law there are 17 or 18 tricks (adjust for their length). So if we make 4 NT they should be down at least two, or 500 doubled…

Krishna Chakravartula: Trust opponents, if you have a slam, they’ll not sacrifice over your game. Of course, looking at the vulnerability, West may be bidding to make, or go one down. Pass is too timid; I’ll double and pray for the best. Partner will have a migraine if you bid further.

Robert Sekulski: Partner’s pass is forcing, and I do not see a better alternative.

Daniel Korbel: Double and hope for the best. You should be able to get them for two tricks I would imagine.

Robb Gordon: Hope I beat it. I need a fourth club to try 4 NT.

Dirk Enthoven: Double, even at IMPs; 5 has no assurance; partner’s pass is presumably forcing.

Frans Buijsen: … I can’t really construct a hand where 4 makes (unless West has the A), so I’m taking the sure plus.

Ed Harris: North has not warned me (by, for instance, rebidding clubs…) and I have an easy [opening lead].

Bruce Scott: Who is insane here, my opponents or partner? … My owning the A-K makes it less likely that partner opened 1 on a hand that others might have opened 3 . If 4 NT meant club support with longer diamonds, it might be the right call, but I fear that it is natural. I am not willing to guess which minor to bid. I couldn’t face our teammates if I passed after bidding game to make. …

John Weisweiler: Maybe a wonder happens, and they will make it (West is not an idiot), but who cares? What else can I do?

Michael Clark: At this vulnerability, take the money. Everything else seems risky.

Comments for 4 NT

Grant Peacock: Partner’s pass is forcing. It’s hard to have less of a heart suit here than K-x, and most of my 13 HCP seem to be working effectively on offense. … I think that by bidding 4 NT, I show solid club support, otherwise the bid doesn’t make sense. Four notrump might be safer than five clubs. I’m hoping partner will correct to five clubs if he has a heart void…

Peter Gill: For the minors. At this vulnerability, they should have either shape or 11 hearts. I hope they lead the A, ruffed. A possible double game swing looms.

Fred Zhang: I don’t think E-W insane to bid 4 , and I am afraid of them making: Say, West has A-K-x-x-x 10-x-x x-x-x-x x. Bidding 4 NT is a shot for (1) making, (2) a save, or (3) getting us to five of a minor if partner has extra shape and pulls.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: At this vulnerability, opponents are unlikely to go more than one down. I’ll take insurance and bid once more.

Eric Leong: My minor-suit honors don’t look very attractive for defense.

Anthony Golding: May make; may be a save. I’ve conceded 790 too often in this type of auction. I suspect partner’s pass is forcing, or I might pass.

Leo Zelevinsky: I wanted to double, but I think partner would have doubled if that is right. I’ll try for 10 tricks in notrump.

Peg Kaplan: I’m not sure if we can make 4 NT; or whether they can make 4 ; or whether we would do far better in five of a minor. But…, I am bidding one more for the road. …

Gareth Birdsall: Opponents don’t look like lunatics. This could be a make or a great sacrifice.

Alvin Bluthman: In for nine tricks; in for 10. Rejecting the double; although partner has opened the bidding, there might not be many tricks on defense.

Herbert Wilton: No double game swings for me!

Jyri Tamminen: I have been down eight before and survived partner’s wrath, barely. So let’s give West chance to lead a spade to the ace, and hearts through; the world needs heroes. Of course it’s possible that we will have only 7-8 tricks after a heart lead. That’s life.

Bill Powell: Pass is far too lame; double is far too risky. Bidding 5 is tempting, but 4 NT is probably the most likely contract to succeed.

Mihail Neagu: Tougher than it appears. … Partner can easily have a hand like A-J-x-x — K-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x, in which case both 4 and 5 might be making. This rules out double (and pass, if anybody would even consider that). As five of a minor may miss a much superior contract in the other minor, this leaves 4 NT. …

Comments for 5

Dave Maeer: … I have to do something. If I can run 10 tricks in notrump, partner can make 11 in clubs. I can’t double because, as 3 NT bids go, I’m below average on defense.

Rosalind Hengeveld: They’ll have at least 10, more likely all 11 hearts. Partner has at least five, probably six clubs. I’ll round down to 19 tricks on the board because of the king of hearts. In pairs I’d worry about both 4 and 5 going one off, but at IMPs “insurance pays two to one.”

Arvind Srinivasan: Bidding to take out insurance; 4 has chances to make.

That’s what I like to see… Back-to-back insurance scams.

Franco Baseggio: Five clubs rates to be cold, and 6 might be cold. I don’t expect to get rich against 4 , and it might even make.

Everett Dyer: Partner may have a 4=1=3=5, 3=1=4=5, 4-0-3-5 or 3=1=3=6 hand. I want to play in game and 5 looks to be the best shot.

Arvind Ranasaria: There is good chance that 4 doubled would net just 200. This pack seems to have lots of distribution, so I would rather play then defend.

Robert Nordgren: Partner should be very short in hearts (probably a void). I wouldn’t be surprised if he is 4=0=4=5 or 4=0=3=6, so I take my “sure” 400. …

Sandy Barnes: Partner may be void in hearts, and I expect long clubs. I may not be able to run 10 fast tricks.

Josh Sinnett: Partner knows they’re vulnerable; the opponents know they’re vulnerable. And yet they sit in 4 undoubled to me. I certainly don’t have any more defense than I’ve promised, so double is out. Partner must have at least five clubs (unless he has a very unlikely doubleton heart or 4=1=4=4, which most open 1 these days) so I’ll play in the known fit.

Andy Lewis: Partner made a forcing pass so should have real clubs. At this vulnerability, I would be happy to take the money and run if I knew we were beating 4 . …

Comments for 5

Bijoy Anand: … Did partner open on just A-K and Q-J? No, so he must have a spade card and probably a singleton heart. We should have a heart loser and (maybe) another loser either in spades or diamonds. …

Comments for Pass

Doug Burke: I can’t see enough offense to take 11 tricks. Defensively, I think this has possibilities. At matchpoint, I would double in a heartbeat, but at IMPs I think I’ll just defend; it looks close.

Michael Kaplan: Is this a forcing auction? Did your 3 NT show game-forcing values after the preempt, or is there some latitude? … With 3 NT possibly bid under duress… [I’ll assume I have latitude].

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 271). About 70 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.

I was pleased to hear from the Durham University Bridge Club (England), which has implemented this poll as a mini-competition among its members. They even posted each person’s choices at their web site… and their winner was: Dave Maeer.

I hope you enjoyed this journey back into bridge history. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Regarding the rehashing of past deals, I was amused by this remark:

regniS ydnaS: When we used to discuss hands at a weekly lunch in Minneapolis, our rule was no names.

I aim to please… Everyone reads left-to-right so your identity is safe.

Analyses 7W40 Main Challenge

Scores Top Catch a Falling Star

© 2001 Richard Pavlicek