Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Bidding with Finess

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in July 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 were: Anaheim, California (strawberries from Knott’s Berry Farm?); Indianapolis, Indiana (birthplace of Dan Quayle from the “finess” misspelling?); the Plant City Strawberry Festival (sorry, I missed that chapter); Sturbridge, Massachusetts; Washington D.C. (site of the National Spelling Bee with bears from the National Zoo?); Madrid, Spain (its city flag has a bear, a strawberry tree and stars); Australia; and the strangest of all, Moscow (was it the stars and stripes?). Sorry, all wrong, but I admire your creativity. The closest offering came from Peg Kaplan who guessed Finland. No doubt she was just hoping to Finnish with a higher score, but she got the Scandinavia part right.

The word “finess” was the clue. Would a spelling-champ teddy bear misspell a word in the title? Hardly. In fact, it is spelled correctly, though not in English. The spelling is correct for only one language, at least as far as I could determine, and that is Swedish. The tournament was held in Stockholm. So what did you expect? A smorgasbord with Swedish meatballs? (OK, OK, so the pictures were decoys; I happen to like bears and strawberries, so hush.) The year of the tournament could be found from my choice of background music — “Close To You” by the Carpenters became a #1 hit in 1970.

Michael Clark Wins!

This poll had 583 participants from 97 locations, and the average score was 47.93. Hail to the winner, Michael Clark of Durham, England, who was the first of five perfect scores. Also scoring 60 were Milton Spinner (California US), Martin Bootsma (Utrecht, Netherlands), Josh Sinnett (Bellingham, Washington US) and Evelyn Ber (Denver, Colorado US). Congratulations to all!

For the poll, it was assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective was to determine the best calls based on judgment, so only the most basic conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.

Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.

The tournament was the 1970 World Championship, held in Stockholm, Sweden. Though I’ve never been there, it ranks high on my wish list. Sometimes called “the Venice of the North,” Stockholm is a beautiful city spanning 14 islands. Pictured is an evening view of Riddarholmen (Knights Island).

Five teams vied for the Bermuda Bowl world championship: Brazil, Italy, Norway, Taiwan, and United States. The event was organized in two stages: a round-robin in which each team played 96 boards against each of the others, then a 128-board final between the top two teams.

The scoring was unique. Rather than cumulative IMPs, each match was divided into 32-board segments scored separately by Victory Points. This method is acceptable in the round-robin, as it facilitates the ranking to determine the top two teams; however, it is definitely wrong for the final. The effect is to give boards unequal weight. For example, an 11-IMP swing would be worth 3 VPs if a segment were close, but only 1 VP (conceivably none) if a segment were lopsided. Surely, all IMPs should count equally in a single match between two teams. Had the organizers lost their minds?

This event has often been referred to as “the world championship that wasn’t” because the defending-champion Italians did not field the Blue Team (which had won every previous year since 1957) but instead a band of newcomers. (The Blue Team had supposedly retired, though they would regroup to compete in several future world championships.) And thus it proved, as Italy finished last. The U.S. easily won the round-robin and would meet (and trounce) Taiwan in the final. These problems were all taken from the U.S.-Taiwan matches (three from the round-robin, three from the final).

So, let’s drift back in time and pull up a kibitzer’s chair. For the United States you will see the original Dallas Aces, a group of bridge professionals brought together by Ira Corn several years prior for intensive training. The partnerships were Bob Hamman and Mike Lawrence, Jim Jacoby and Bobby Wolff, and Bobby Goldman and Billy Eisenberg. Taiwan fielded a five-man team: Patrick Huang and M.F. Tai were a partnership — how poetic, Tai-Huang from Taiwan. The remaining three players (Elmer Hsiao, Conrad Cheng and Harry Lin) wheeled to form the other partnership.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 1

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North 2	EAST Pass Pass	South Pass ?	10 7 4 K 4 A 10 9 8 5 Q 6 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	126	22
3	9	120	21
Pass	8	257	44
2	6	64	11
2 NT	1	16	3

This was a difficult problem to score. Despite the large plurality for pass, it was clear that the majority (56 percent) favored some move toward game. Whether this should be 2 , 3  or 3  is moot (I’ll omit the offbeat 2 NT) and most bidders were torn among these choices, with pass not even a consideration. Therefore, it would not be fair to give the top award to pass.

I have a slight preference for the 3 raise (K-x should be adequate support for almost any two-level overcall), but I’ll defer the top award to the bidders’ choice of 3 . The diamond suit may seem a bit meager, however, as many 3  bidders pointed out, partner should not expect a good six-card suit from a passed hand (else you would open 2 ) so some heart tolerance is implied. I felt the 2  cue-bid was too aggressive (change the clubs to A-x-x or K-x-x and it would be ideal) so I ranked it fourth, after the pass.

In 1970, it also paid to bid — maybe not in theory but in practice, which is all that counts. Have you heard the story about Jesus walking on the water? Well, this might be the sequel with Lawrence and Hamman on jet skis:

Taiwan vs USA	K 3 A J 10 9 8 7 6 4 3 K 2
A J 8 6 5 2 Q 2 Q A 8 7 4		Q 9 6 5 3 K J 7 2 J 10 9 5
None Vul	10 7 4 K 4 A 10 9 8 5 Q 6 3

Goldman West 1 2

Hsiao North 2 All Pass

Eisenberg EAST Pass Pass

Cheng South Pass Pass

2 West Made 4 +170

Huang West 1 Pass

Lawrence North 2 4

Tai EAST Pass Pass All Pass

Hamman South Pass 3

4 North Made 4 +420 USA +11 IMPs

Witness the second auction. Hamman judged well to raise, and Lawrence continued to game despite his minimum-range overcall. This should have been routinely down one, but Lawrence found a smooth way to engineer a defensive slip: He won the second spade, crossed to dummy with a trump, and led a low club; West panicked and hopped with the ace — thank you, making four.

The Taiwanese were outmaneuvered at the first table also. Cheng chose to pass the 2 overcall, and Goldman was allowed to buy the contract cheaply in 2 , making two overtricks (you don’t want to know how the play went). Hard to believe, but that’s 10 tricks to the U.S. in each room and an 11-IMP gain.

Comments for 3

Michael Clark: I want to make a forward move and have no stopper or support, so I just show my suit. If partner bids 3 , presumably asking for a spade stopper, I can show my slight heart support.

Milton Spinner: Would like a third heart to raise, but too much to pass.

Martin Bootsma: Should show some heart support.

Josh Sinnett: There should be heart tolerance implied here, as I didn’t open the hand (so can’t be a long, self-sufficient suit). Partner can judge which red suit to play and at what level, or even take a crack at 3 NT.

Gerald Murphy: Showing diamonds and a tolerance for hearts — invitational.

Mark Lincoln: This will imply a partial heart fit, since I am a passed hand. This is encouraging, but nonforcing.

Kieran Dyke: As a passed hand (no weak two-bid) this should imply some kind of heart fit.

Howard Abrams: This is a more descriptive constructive bid than 3 . The implication of heart support is clear because of (1) the failure to open 2  and (2) if all I had was a weak hand with long diamonds and no heart support I would pass 2 .

Anthony Golding: This should show heart tolerance.

Mark Rishavy: I think I have to be able to tolerate 3 to bid 3 here, as other possible hands for 3  aren’t consistent with my first pass. Therefore, I will try 3  to give partner the best chance of choosing the right strain, although there’s a good chance we will get too high.

Jonathan Goldberg: My hand is too good to pass, and unsuitable for 3 or 2 NT. A cue-bid is too murky; am I asking for a stopper or showing a heart fit? I suspect the latter. Three diamonds is no prize, but it’s what’s left.

Vic Sartor: I assume this is constructive, with tolerance for hearts.

Krishna Chakravartula: This will help partner make a more intelligent decision than if I bid 3 . I should be showing some tolerance for his suit by coming into the bidding at the three level as a passed hand.

Bijoy Anand: [I have] no support for partner and no stopper but have values to bid and a decent five-card suit…

Robert Johnson: Game is not out of the question if partner has a singleton spade and 13 points in the other three suits. My bid may not be forcing in Standard American, but it sure as hell is constructive.

Alan Wilson: Too good to pass. Partner will expect some heart tolerance for this bid.

Lance Marrou: There is potential for a game and 3 is the best choice. It lies a little on point count, but I like it better than bidding 3  with only two hearts or 2 NT without a spade stopper. It also doesn’t force to game. Partner can show a spade stopper with 3 NT or ask for a spade stopper with 3 . In the first case I pass; in the second I bid 4 .

Bjorn Rem: Can’t miss the chance to go for game, and wouldn’t want to miss a healthy 3 NT.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Recently, I had a very similar hand at matchpoints. My hand had a sixth diamond, one less spade, virtually the same point count. At the table, I raised to 3  and partner bid 4 . I believe he should have tried 3 NT (he held K-Q-x and fitting diamond honors). I think 3  should show heart tolerance (I didn’t open a weak 2 ) and allow partner to judge his hand accordingly.

Lutsen Jansen: I am worth a bid. I don’t mind bidding 3 on a (strong) doubleton, but I think 3 is more descriptive. Since I am a passed hand, this must show heart tolerance and a diamond suit worth mentioning in a hand worth more than a simple raise.

Dima Nikolenkov: Game is possible. A passed-hand bid at the three level should show heart tolerance but not three-card support (else raise or cue-bid).

Manoj Kumar Nair: Partner usually has a six-carder or five with extras. The third-hand opening can be trash. My diamond bid will not be construed as a good suit having elected not to open weak first round; ergo, some heart tolerance and interest in moving further. We may have a quick 3 NT if partner has a spade stopper. …

Manuel Paulo: Accepting to play 3 , helping partner to evaluate his hand, and [possibly] preparing the defense against a spade contract.

Comments for 3

Will Engel: Sure, tempt me with the 10-9-8.

Frank Pancoe: Have to give partner a chance at IMPs. I am short a heart but least of evils.

Leonard Helfgott: I’d consider a pass from South to be insulting, and the fact that the doubleton is the king makes this an easy 3  bid. Too much to pass; too little for 2 ; no stopper for 2 NT; and, while it would be nice to play 3  to show heart support, I don’t consider that standard. So 3  wins by elimination.

John R. Mayne: Pass and 2 NT are quite silly (running out of problems over at PavCo?) and while 3 is a bit cowardly, the tripleton spade deters me from the aggressive cue-bid.

Bob Boudreau: Two spades would need better hearts.

Jyri Tamminen: Too good to pass. Every call is flawed. However, I’ve heard that there are special places in bridge players’ heaven for those, who support their partner whenever reasonable.

Phil Clayton: I flipped my four sided coin. (2 wasn’t a choice).

Steve Rogers: I’m not happy to raise with two trumps, but the only other call I can see is pass. It would help to know the opponents — will West almost always reopen?

Paul Boudreau: King-doubleton is good enough for a simple raise.

Alan Kravetz: Only two trumps, but the values may be there for game. Partner should have at least a good five-card suit (or six cards).

Bert Eccles: The key high cards easily compensate for the missing trump.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner’s overcall could be wide ranging, hence passing is out of question. Bidding 3  with honor-doubleton and extras more than compensates for the lack of a third trump. Any other bid is likely to derail the auction.

Gordon Rainsford: I hope partner’s suit is as good as mine would be.

Eric Hurley: I suspect partner to have a six-card heart suit (or a very good five). Game is not out of the question as partner can be up to 18 points in strength.

Franco Baseggio: I have a diamond in with my hearts.

Bill Jacobs: Keep it simple. We can still get to 3 NT, but not 5 . How likely is 5 anyway? Two spades = 8. In fact, I’m happy to score the entire six problems for you, if you like.

Thanks. I was thinking of changing to the Roth method: My choice = 10; anything else, zero.

Peter Karlsson: I am not strong enough for 2 followed by 3 (or whatever), but the system notes say that 2  is 13-18 points, so I am too strong to pass. I can only see 3  (at matchpoints I might just pass).

Barry Rigal: Try to get a heart lead against spade contract and try to invite game (2 seems an overstatement and allows a cheap double or three-of-a-minor bid, too). Three hearts is right on values and facing a sound partner my trump support is adequate.

Leo Zelevinsky: I almost passed but decided to give partner another chance. I do hate the three spades.

Rob Stevens: Too much to pass; not good enough for 2 ; no stopper for 2 NT.

Dave Maeer: I have to bid something (although pass could be a winner), and I’m pointing to the most likely game.

Graard Steenbakkers: Too much to pass; less encouraging than 2 .

Carlos Dabezies: The least of evils. Even as passed hand, I’m not good enough for 2 . …

Arvind Srinivasan: Expresses my values adequately. The three small spades are a liability. A fit-showing 3  should have more values in diamonds. I am a bit light for 2 .

Daniel Korbel: … For a two-level overcall, K-x is fine support. If 3 NT is right, partner might well still bid it.

James Hudson: Just barely enough to invite game. The heart support is substandard, and the three little spades are a big negative. But I do have some HCP and a good diamond suit. (I might bid 3  if it were forcing.).

Bruce Moore: … Showing support is better than bidding notrump without a stopper or introducing a new suit at the three level with these values. I play that 2  shows a better hand with trump support.

David Caprera: Just enough to act. … I don’t like raising on a doubleton but will do it on occasion just to screw up the LOTT freaks.

Comments for Pass

Neil Morgenstern: West is likely to reopen. I’m not strong enough to bid anything at this stage, especially because of the vulnerability (partner would overcall on less).

Itea Goldstein: Is this too big a position? East’s pass is a negative signal, as it suggests the possibility of more spades in partner’s hand, and perhaps some hearts with East. I’m taking the low road. If vulnerable, I would go on.

David Wetzel: Any other call horribly misdescribes my hand, so pass is what’s left. Every once in a while you have to pass with a decent hand. West will probably bail us out anyway.

George Klemic: We may miss a game, but partner will really have to have the works for game to be there. … Nonvulnerable at IMPs, I don’t need to stretch.

Rik ter Veen: I only see a game if partner has an absolute maximum or has a four-card diamond suit and short spades. In the first case, that’s life; we’re nonvulnerable. In the second case there is a good chance that the auction ain’t over yet.

Gerry Wildenberg: Since partner could have 18 HCP, 2 is tempting. However, arguing for pass are: the vulnerability (OK to miss close nonvulnerable games), the trump holding (I’d like three), and 3  may be too high.

Jeanni Blume: My first worry is that they do not have a fit.

Mike Hargreaves: I have the death holding in spades (after no raise), short hearts, and LHO will probably reopen and buy us another chance if we need it. …

Andrew de Sosa: I have a nice hand, but where are we going? If partner has enough to make game, he might have doubled or overcalled in notrump. I pass and take our probable plus.

Jonathan Steinberg: Conservative, perhaps, but I hate my three small spades.

Simon Cheung: This hand doesn’t qualify for a cue-bid (too weak) or a nonforcing 3 (the suit is too flimsy). … Since there is no safety at the three level, and there is no need to press for a thin game, I choose the conservative pass.

Sandy Barnes: Only two trump, questionable club value, and the killer holding in spades.

Jojo Sarkar: My hand is not that good … and we still may find our game if LHO balances.

Rick Kelly: Why push for a magically possible game?

Daniel Moisa: … My spade holding tells me to be careful. East is probably short in spades and might be long in hearts. I am happy to play 2  and if West reopens I will have a better understanding of the hands. …

John Vega: Somehow I doubt that the auction dies here. If it does, then we are probably in a good spot.

Grant Peacock: The only danger in passing is missing a nonvulnerable game, which I think will happen once for every 10 times I get in trouble by bidding.

Nigel Guthrie: … I do not like my spade holding. Partner may have, say, A-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x Q-x A-x, in which case 2  is high enough.

Mark Hangartner: I don’t want to punish partner for a bold overcall, and a diamond contract is unlikely to be better than 2 .

Mike Cassel: Good problem; no 2 opening by West, so am inclined to think we may be vulnerable to spade ruffs if East couldn’t squeak out a raise. …

Comments for 2

Frans Buijsen: I am a bit too weak for this unassuming cue-bid, but 4 (or 3 NT) is quite likely and the alternative (3 ) takes away too much space.

William Campbell: Partner could easily have enough for game in hearts, notrump, or even diamonds, so pass is out. … Three diamonds is not bad either, since this is probably our trick source for 3 NT if partner stops spades. The kicker for 2  is that it’s so cheap. …

Luis Argerich: Maximum passed hand, some good values and heart tolerance. … I can’t discard 4 or 3 NT as playable contracts; partner might have: A-Q-x A-Q-x-x-x-x x J-x-x, a normal 2  overcall and I want to play 3 NT (this would also explain East’s silence).

John Reardon: I have an excellent hand, considering that I passed. Two spades keeps the bidding low and gives partner a chance to investigate where we are heading, even if only to 3 .

Sebastien Louveaux: I will follow with 3 to show a good raise to 3 . We might even belong to 3 NT which partner will be able to bid with the right hand.

Rosalind Hengeveld: What is more likely? (1) We can make game, or (2) neither side can make anything over 2 . It’s not that clear, but I put my money on (1). Three hearts should be more preemptive; 2 NT or 3  look too much like “unlucky expert” bids to me.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 2

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	North Dbl	EAST Pass Pass	South Pass ?	Q 7 3 A 3 J 9 5 3 K 10 5 3
1. 11-15, 5+ clubs

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	354	61
Pass	8	59	10
3 NT	6	138	24
2	4	24	4
2	2	1	0
3	1	7	1

I was disappointed with the voting here; translation: I chose a poor problem. I thought it would be close between pass (my choice) and 2 NT. In forcing-club systems the 2  opening is a weak link, and this is an ideal opportunity to capitalize. Prospects for game are dubious without a major-suit fit, so I’ll take the profit. Even with my clubs in front of declarer, it would take quite a miracle to bring in eight tricks with dummy probably broke. On a good day I’ll get 800 versus no game our way. Nonetheless, the overwhelming vote for 2 NT gives me cause to reconsider.

The actual deal seems to exhibit a case for bidding. Opener had a good six-card club suit with excellent shape, and doubler had a good five-card diamond suit. Yet, even then it proved right in practice to defend:

Taiwan vs USA	K 8 4 Q J 8 7 A K 10 7 6 9
A 6 K 10 5 2 4 A Q J 8 7 4		J 10 9 5 2 9 6 4 Q 8 2 6 2
Both Vul	Q 7 3 A 3 J 9 5 3 K 10 5 3

Goldman West 1 2 All Pass

Hsiao North Dbl 2

Eisenberg EAST Pass Pass Pass

Cheng South Pass 1 NT 3 NT

3 NT South Down 2 -200

Huang West 2

Lawrence North Dbl

Tai EAST Pass All Pass

Hamman South Pass

2 × West Down 1 -200 USA +9 IMPs

In the second auction, Hamman smartly took the profit with the penalty pass — down one with routine defense.

The swing hinged on whether 3 NT would be made at the first table. Goldman led the Q, won by the king, and Cheng could not come to nine tricks without the diamonds — down two; 9 IMPs to the Americans. Even if Cheng had ducked the Q, normal defense would set the contract one trick.

Comments for 2 NT

Michael Clark: I have no suit worth bidding, and the penalty pass is unattractive, especially with declarer to my left. I’m torn between jumping to 3 NT and just inviting with 2 NT; the latter just wins it, even taking into account the vulnerability and form of scoring.

Josh Sinnett: Converting while sitting in front of the bidder is asking for trouble. Taking a bid that could show 0 HCP is asking for trouble. Bidding a three-card suit is asking for trouble. Overbidding by a king is asking for trouble. And believe me, I’ve got enough trouble already.

Frank Pancoe: Seems most flexible. I would shoot out the pass (the matchpoint call) rather than bid any number of diamonds.

Kieran Dyke: Right on values, although pass could easily be the winner.

Simon Mostyn: I don’t fancy leaving it in. Two notrump should show some values (since we are not playing Lebensohl).

Neil Morgenstern: Partner may have a suit to introduce at the three level; I don’t want to shut partner out. Pass may work, but it would be a wild gamble (maybe worth it at matchpoints but not at IMPs).

John Hoffman: Passing is too much of a view.

Itea Goldstein: Giving partner a little leeway if he’s understrength and looking for the majors.

Howard Abrams: The hand is suitable for notrump but a little short of the playing strength needed for a 3 NT bid. If 3 NT is on, partner will have enough playing strength to bid it. … Three diamonds has no appeal on that diamond suit.

John R. Mayne: I have a lot of admiration for the pass, which could easily be right. Three notrump also appeals; but, for nine tricks, we’re going to need a little extra, and I don’t want to hang partner for doubling with a light, shaped hand.

David Wetzel: I am sorely tempted to try 3 NT, but I believe 2 NT shows approximately these values. If partner has a dog, 3 NT will be ugly — it’s not like I have a source of tricks. (With much less, I’d bail into a suit, even if 3=3=3=4.) …

Anthony Golding: I must have these sort of values, or I’d bid a suit.

Jonathan Goldberg: Seems about right on values. … Why should I bid a bad suit, or a non-suit, here? Pass is a shot in the dark.

Bob Boudreau: This is forward going without punishing partner for competing.

Phil Clayton: I don’t want to hang partner for getting into the auction with A-x-x-x K-Q-x-x Q-x-x-x x. This hand seems like an endorsement for 2  or 3 , but I also want to get to a notrump game vulnerable at IMPs, and a diamond call does not facilitate that.

Albert Sekac: I would like to bid the vulnerable game, but partner might have made an aggressive takeout double.

Dinu Raducanu: Would love to bid two and a half notrump.

Rik ter Veen: How nice that we’re not playing Lebensohl!

George Lathbury: Giving partner room to move if he has better than a minimum takeout double.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Bidding diamonds at any level is bound to misrepresent my hand in terms of high cards, suit quality and length. Passing when we could be making a slam or they could be making 2  is unthinkable. Two notrump adequately describes my hand, and it may well be the limit for our side.

Gerry Wildenberg: Close between 2 NT and 3 NT.

Gordon Rainsford: Pass might be right, but they are not off their LOTT level yet.

Thijs Veugen: A good description of my hand.

Jacob Ron: The value bid.

Robert Johnson: Tell partner the good news and the bad: “I have pretty good tickets with clubs stopped, but no biddable major.”.

Mike Hargreaves: Pass is too unilateral, my hand is too good for desperate measures such as 2 , and 2  is a nothing bid. I like partner to be able to pull 2 NT to 3  without showing extras.

Andrew de Sosa: This should be constructive showing just about exactly this strength and hand shape. Partner needs to have a little bit extra [for game].

Bill Jacobs: Keep it simple. Pass would have more appeal if white versus red.

Gary Brown: Three notrump feels like it could be right with West holding the missing points, but I do not want to hang partner for a shapely takeout double. Partner can decide.

Jonathan Steinberg: Natural and invitational. With a bad hand, I would strive to bid a suit at the two level.

Doug Burke: Two notrump should describe just this sort of hand. If partner has anything extra, he should bid again. …

Simon Cheung: … Just the right description, making it easy to reach 3 NT when it is right.

Barry Rigal: Best guess. Passing for penalties is a huge position but might be right I suppose.

Arvind Ranasaria: Three notrump is a rather aggressive alternative. Give partner a minimum, shapely takeout of 2  and even 2 NT is going to be a struggle.

Andy Browning: This sums up the hand pretty well: balanced, no four-card major and a good stopper in clubs. Three notrump is a bit crazy seeing as I passed the first time around, but I suppose partner could have a decent 15 points and pass (I could have a [slightly] weaker hand …) but that’s life — I can’t bid two and a half notrump.

Luis Argerich: Pass and 3 NT are bad choices since partner may be making a light takeout double since I’m a passed hand. Two notrump should deliver the message: good values, club stopper(s) and no four-card major.

Dave Maeer: Awkward, but I’m not good enough for 3 NT, and other options are unspeakable. I suppose I can always find a minimum bid on a no-major 0-8 points, so this shows 9-11. …

Lutsen Jansen: Natural; don’t want to punish partner for a light take out double.

Rainer Herrmann: About right on values. I would pass only if I needed swings urgently.

Ben Cowling: Scattered values and a club stop; not enough defense to pass (would probably require four tricks from partner). Game should be on if partner has more than a minimum. …

John Reardon: I am good for this bid, but I must not punish partner for competing, nor should I rule out other strains. Partner will stretch to bid game when it is possible.

Robert Tamlyn: [Values are] too scattered to overbid with 3 NT. …

Bill Powell: My second choice of 3 might give the impression of better diamonds.

Andrei Varlan: Lacks some good intermediate cards for a jump to 3 NT.

Rick Kelly: The clubs are not quite good enough to leave it in.

Nigel Guthrie: … My diamonds are too long and my clubs too weak to pass confidently. Two notrump is right on values and avoids guessing in which suits partner has four or more cards. Partner may have, say, A-10-x-x K-Q-J-x A-10-x-x x.

David Caprera: At matchpoints I might sit, but at IMPs I make the normal call. Two notrump shows values; 3 NT is an overbid; others strike me as silly.

Comments for Pass

Mark LaForge: So sue me. I think 500 or 800 is more likely than 600. If they make it, it may not be too expensive.

Krishna Chakravartula: The options are between pass and 3 NT. With my clubs in a vulnerable position, I’m not sure if we can set them three even if partner has say, A-x-x-x K-x-x-x A-K-x-x x; however, this means even 3 NT will be in lot of danger. Hence, I’ll settle for a pass (a sure plus?) and hope to set them one or two. If East has no entry, 3 NT may be better, but that may not be the case here with an 11-15 third-seat opening.

Eric Hurley: The best to hope for is plus 500 and no game on our way. The worst is plus 200 (or even minus 180) and game on — sorry partner. Optimism wins out for me here.

Gareth Birdsall: I would expect a nice penalty and there’s no guarantee we have game on. And minus 180 isn’t a very bad downside either.

Brian Ross: Blood in the water; it might be ours, but we rate to beat it. It is much easier to pass at matchpoints.

Rob Stevens: Not a textbook call, to be sure; and it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve written down minus 380. But it could just as easily be plus 500 on a partscore deal. Two diamonds is pusillanimous and leads nowhere; and if I am going to try notrump, I might as well defend.

Daniel Korbel: Passing will probably net a plus score: 200 is almost certain opposite most takeout doubles, and 500 and 800 are possible. Three notrump may or may not make, and although 2 NT is a reasonable call, I think I will take the money and pass. The times 2  doubled makes will be more than offset by the times it goes for 500 with no game on our way.

Mike Charles: If we make 3 NT, we should kill 2 .

Comments for 3 NT

Jojo Sarkar: Our values in the majors suits should be working, and this is a vulnerable game at IMPs. (The difference between minus 100 and plus 120 is 220, and the difference between plus 150 and plus 600 is 450 — so tight games are worth bidding.

Sebastien Louveaux: This should make with a double club stopper and most of the opponents’ strength sitting under partner’s.

Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: Only ideal bid, with the 10.

Michele Holm: Hate to miss a vulnerable game at IMPs. …

Dima Nikolenkov: Bid what I think I can make.

Daniel Moisa: This seems to be the best game, since I have two stoppers in clubs. North’s values are well-positioned … and West may be endplayed from trick one.

Sivakumar Salem: Even though I’m a point or so light, it is compensated by the 10 and four clubs.

Rosalind Hengeveld: “Game try” and poifect description of my hand. (Not being a native speaker, I am exempted from the requirement of poifect spelling and can mix in a little Texan.)

Watch it, girl. Texas is the home of many brilliant people like… um… give me a few days and I’ll think of one.

Grant Peacock: Two notrump and 3 NT are my choices. Do I really want to play in 2 NT vulnerable at IMPs? Add a point for declarer play, a point for having opener on lead, and a point for knowing where at least 11 HCP are, and 3 NT is a no-brainer. (Partners tell me that most of my bids are no-brainers.)

Manuel Paulo: No suit contract is alluring; IMPs and the vulnerability are game suggestive, and the play should be easy knowing that East has an almost blank hand.

Bruce Moore: I might not make it, but I like the odds when I can place most of the cards.

Olivier La Spada: As I believe in signs, the four threes show me the way; so with two club stoppers and 10 HCP, 3 NT is the contract I want to play.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 3

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	NORTH 1 2	East 1 Pass	South Pass ?	A J 6 — J 9 8 6 2 J 7 6 5 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	159	27
5	8	96	16
2	7	115	20
3	5	173	30
Pass	2	25	4
2 NT	1	15	3

Several respondents didn’t like the conditions, feeling that South should have made a negative double of 1 . I also would have doubled 1 , but the decision to pass is certainly reasonable. It’s easy to see how a negative double could work out badly, e.g., if partner were to rebid hearts.

Now, to the problem at hand. Partner’s choice to reopen with 2 rather than double suggests extreme shape or short clubs — either of which is good news. Despite the slight plurality of votes for 3 , the great majority of respondents felt the hand was too good for a single raise, and I agree. Whether to bid 4  (invitational) or 5  is a close choice, though the invitation seems adequate; and since it was the preference of the non 3  bidders, it gets the top award. I didn’t care as much for 2  because this should show a real suit*, hence it may be more detrimental than helpful in reaching the optimal level in diamonds.

*I think most experts would interpret 2 as natural and forcing for one round. There has to be some way to show a real spade suit, otherwise your system would be like Swiss cheese to enterprising opponents.

Let’s see what happened in 1970:

Taiwan vs USA	10 3 2 A Q 10 9 8 A K 5 4 10
8 5 J 5 4 3 10 7 A 9 8 4 2		K Q 9 7 4 K 7 6 2 Q 3 K Q
N-S Vul	A J 6 — J 9 8 6 2 J 7 6 5 3

Eisenberg West Pass All Pass

Cheng NORTH 1 2

Goldman East 1 Pass

Hsiao South Pass 3

3 North Made 4 +130

Huang West Pass All Pass

Hamman NORTH 1 2

Tai East 1 Pass

Lawrence South Pass 5

5 North Down 2 -200 Taiwan +8 IMPs

The auction paralleled the problem at both tables. Hsiao chose the conservative 3 , no doubt influenced by the fact that North was limited to 15 HCP (with 16+ he would open 1 ). Lawrence went the other way, jumping to game. These two extreme views suggest that the middle-of-the-road 4  may be the best choice.

Against 5 , Tai led the K and Q, ruffed by Hamman. The contract could be made by running the Q through East; if covered, ruff, draw trumps, then establish the hearts with a lower-on-loser play. Alas, Hamman chose a different line and finished down two when East was able to overruff in clubs — 8 IMPs to Taiwan.

Comments for 4

Michael Clark: Ideally, I’d like to cue-bid 2 to show good support, but I’ll live with the jump raise. At matchpoints I might want to be in the decidedly dodgy 3 NT, but here I’ll settle for 5  if partner thinks it’s appropriate.

Josh Sinnett: I’d love to bid 2 to show my strength and keep 3 NT in the picture, but I’m afraid of playing it there. Four diamonds describes my playing strength but gives partner an out if he’s completely minimum here. I would have doubled last turn.

Irwin Boris: Shouldn’t 3 be one of the options? It should show a big diamond fit and a void or singleton surely in hearts.

Perhaps it should, but it would sure sound like a lot of spades to me. The trouble with unusual agreements like this is that you might wait years to ever use them. Better to keep it simple. R.P.

Gerald Murphy: A good fit but may have club losers. … The heart void tends to downgrade the hand.

Mark Lincoln: I prefer both 1 NT and double to the pass originally. I cannot cue-bid here, since that would usually imply a spade penalty-pass hand. The raise to 4  is highly invitational and usually based on eccentric distribution. Mind you, partner will not expect A-J after my original pass.

Kieran Dyke: Two spades is wrong (I’ll probably play there). Three diamonds is a big underbid with this massive trump support. Pass and 2 NT are ridiculous.

Leonard Helfgott: On this auction North is likely to be 5-5 (no double or pass), and 10-card fits are too big for a mere courtesy raise.

Michael Cervantes: Inviting partner to bid game. The heart void raises the value of my hand. …

Simon Mostyn: Highly invitational but nonforcing.

Neil Morgenstern: Not sure I like my pass last round. Now I’ll show partner I have a good fit for his second suit. Notrump will rarely play better, especially as partner has reopened with a bid rather than a double, suggesting a shapely hand. …

Itea Goldstein: That perked things up! Considering I already limited my hand, I feel fine making a jump raise.

Howard Abrams: The shape says 5 , the high card strength says 3 , thus I compromise with 4 . This tells partner that diamonds excite you but you need something more than a minimum North hand for the five level. I think that 3  and 5  are too unilateral. …

John R. Mayne: Double, last round. Oh, well. Now that I’m here, I think 2 has a slight flaw in that it won’t play very well — it’s going to be a serious violation of Burn’s Law (As declarer, have more trumps than they do.) As to the number of diamonds, 3  seems chicken even with the heart void opposite strength, and 5  seems giddy; 4  should be the “just right” bowl of porridge.

David Wetzel: Hmm. Obviously someone misplaced my double card last round. And partner couldn’t reopen with a double? Partner must be very shapely, with short clubs, which suits me just fine. Four diamonds here really ought to be forcing. I’m more worried about missing slam than I am about going down in game.

George Klemic: Should be invitational with distribution. I am not going to hang partner, forcing to game, which will not be a success with a holding like K-x A-K-x-x-x Q-x-x-x x-x. Heck, even 4  is too high on that hand, but it’s likely partner doesn’t have that many losers.

Jyri Tamminen: Partner probably has short clubs (no spade raise, no double from partner) so even the J may be worth something. The void in partner’s first suit is not a great asset, but the fifth diamond makes this combination stronger. …

Frans Buijsen: I would have made a negative double over 1 . Now that I’m here, it’s tempting to blast 5 , but that could easily be down off the top. I’ve got to do something positive though, so I’ll try 4 .

Gareth Birdsall: For partner not to reopen with a double and the lack of competition in spades, he is marked with shortage in clubs — so 3 NT is probably a bad spot. I’ll just invite, although 5  is good on some pretty minimal hands for partner.

Rob Stevens: What can partner hold? A hand that doesn’t want to defend spades and/or clubs too short to risk an embarrassing high-level response in the suit. In short, 5-5 in the red suits and, judging from the opponents silence, two or three spades also. As little as x-x A-K-x-x-x A-x-x-x-x x gives you an excellent play for 5  on a club lead. Three diamonds just doesn’t do justice to the hand. …

Rainer Herrmann: Hard to judge how many diamonds are best, but this hints on good distributional diamond support with a likely shortage in hearts.

John Reardon: Since 2 could be construed as natural, I shall bid what I think my hand is now worth. …

Carlos Dabezies: … Choice is between 4 and 5 , and at the vulnerability 4 is more sensible. …

Robert Sekulski: … Partner is nearly forced to reopen, and his normal call is double. Two diamonds, for me, shows 1=5=5=2 or better, and not necessarily strong. I opt for 4  [to invite game].

Rosalind Hengeveld: This smells like mackerel to me. Why did partner not double back in? And if it’s because he has a spade void, where are the spades? That’s why I choose a somewhat conservative 4 . Note that 2  is out, as that should show a penalty-pass type of hand.

Daniel Korbel: This is an excellent hand for diamonds; game or slam are possible. Four diamonds (highly invitational) leaves room available for cue-bidding if partner has a monster. …

Grant Peacock: The value bid, I think. I’m sure can’t have anything more and pass the first time.

Nigel Guthrie: … Game must be reasonable opposite most likely holdings, but to avoid hanging a weaker partner (or hog-tying a stronger one) I like 4 , which partner will pass only on poor hands. Two spades would be OK except that, in a simple system with negative doubles, it could be natural. Partner may have, say, Q-x-x A-Q-x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x —.

Albert Lochli: As highly invitational to five.

Steve Stein: Maybe I’m overbidding here, but I guess partner has some spades and few if any clubs.

Comments for 5

John Hoffman: Partner should have at least 10 cards in hearts and diamonds for not reopening with a double.

Bob Boudreau: My hand is greatly improved, and partner might pass any invitation.

Paul Boudreau: With no spade raise by the opponents and no double by partner, he rates to be very short in clubs. …

Rik ter Veen: In my opinion, 2 would show a real suit and 2 NT would show a penalty pass. I have a maximum… and partner has distribution (otherwise he would have doubled), so I’m going to [take a chance on game].

Bijoy Anand: … Five diamonds should have good play on a crossruff, given that partner has a red two-suiter. Simon says, “Give them the last guess!”

Lance Marrou: This revalues to an opening hand in support of diamonds, and at IMPs I want to be in game. I just hope there are not a lot of high cards in hearts wasted in partner’s hand. With the expected spade lead, there’s the potential of a crossruff.

Jonathan Steinberg: With distributional hands, I bid what I think we might make.

Peter Karlsson: … Partner is probably short in clubs or has extra strength (no spade raise to my left, no rebid to my right), so there is probably a good play for game. …

Jojo Sarkar: Everything is right: I can ruff partner’s hearts good, my spades are well placed, and partner is likely to be short in clubs. If he has five diamonds, we have a great shot … and we’re vulnerable at IMPs.

Dave Maeer: I’d like to bid 2 , but I know this shows spades and is to play. I might well have tried a double last time round, or even 1 NT, so I’d better tell partner I have a monster, in context.

Lutsen Jansen: I won’t torture partner with a 4 bid; I’ll be the madman and bid game myself.

Sebastien Louveaux: West didn’t compete in spades, so partner is known to have some; therefore, he should be very short in clubs. …

Heidar Sigurjonsson: If partner has a hand that could make a slam, he will bid it.

Comments for 2

Mark Rishavy: Not only do I have unimagined playing strength for partner, but the reopening of 2 instead of double suggests partner is short in clubs; more good news. So I will make the strongest possible bid now and try to find out how high we can go.

Jonathan Goldberg: All of the sudden my 7-count is a possible slam hand. I think I’d better let partner in of the good news.

Vic Sartor: If partner shows a spade stopper, he should have shortness in clubs, and I’ll follow with 4  — slam is possible. If he bids something else, I’ll jump to 5 .

Gary Schneider: … Five diamonds is the most likely contract, but it is not difficult to envision hands where 6  has a play. A 2 NT rebid by partner would be encouraging, as K-x-(x) or Q-x-(x) would be golden.

Mark LaForge: The problem with jumping to 4 or 5 is that we could be losing 6 or 7 .

Krishna Chakravartula: No hurry to go leaping anywhere; West has passed and opponents are unlikely to give you any further bidding problems. … [Let’s] see how it develops.

Alan Kravetz: I will support diamonds at my next turn. If the opponents bid 4 or higher, I will double.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: [Not having doubled on the first round] there is a lot of catching up to do. Partner’s reopening bid should usually show five diamonds, and the opponents’ failure to bid spades again places partner with at least two of them. Our trick-taking potential goes up tremendously. Since partner is bound to have some extras as well, the sky is the limit (remember Icarus!). …

Andrew de Sosa: This should show a spade control of some sort and limit-raise or better values in diamonds.

Bill Jacobs: Where’s the abstain button? I suppose you think the heart void should scare me off a negative double; I strongly disagree with that. Anyway, this hand is super-powerful, particularly if I infer spade length and club shortage with North (opponents very quiet at favorable vulnerability). So I think anything except 2  and 5  is inadequate — this hand must drive to game. If I hear some neutral noise from partner (say 3  or 3 ), then I will bid 5 . But if I hear 4  or the like, then slam is worth trying for with 4 , hoping to hear 5 *. Any auction stopping short of game is inadequate.

*Wow. I’m betting you’d hear pass. The 2 bid is OK since it should be forcing (even when it shows spades), but following it up with 4  seems to beg for disaster. R.P.

Peter Schwartz: Obvious call in light of the newly found gigantic fit.

Simon Cheung: The cue-bid is a convenient force used to show either a penalty pass or a strong diamond raise. You can clarify your intentions [on the next round]. … Since slam is playable opposite a medium hand with abundant controls, e.g., x-x A-K-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x x, a cue-bid is better than any direct raise. …

Peter Gill: Both 4 and 5 are reasonable alternatives. Going slow via 2 may extract useful information, and on a good day may even enable us to bid 6  accurately.

Arvind Ranasaria: Five diamonds seems to be a favorite, however, with the wrong cards, 4 might be high enough ( x-x K-Q-J-x-x K-Q-10-x K-Q) and with the right cards 6  might be on. Two spades seems right to start the exploration.

Philip Smith: My hand is as good as it possibly could be for the original pass, so forcing with 2 seems right.

Dima Nikolenkov: We can be cold for 6 , so I’ll cue-bid and bid up to 5 later.

Manuel Paulo: Five diamonds may be the goal, but cue-bidding and raising diamonds may help partner to try for slam. …

Comments for 3

Gordon Rainsford: Partner is showing a weak, distributional hand (no reopening double), but the opponents don’t seem to want to come in again, so I hope 3  will buy it. The hands are probably not fitting too well.

Robert Johnson: I have nice support for partner’s second suit, but the misfit in hearts and lack of aces and kings suggests caution.

Mark Lehto: For me, partner’s reopening action is weak. Three diamonds shouldn’t be encouraging in this sequence.

Ben Cowling: A void in partner’s first suit isn’t a good feature. The spades well placed, and 3 NT might be a good contract, though I don’t fancy it yet.

Robert Tamlyn: Partner could have Q-x A-Q-x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x, or x A-K-x-x-x K-Q-x-x Q-x-x.

Rick Kelly: Partner is in charge here. With the right hand, I’ll hear another bid. …

James Hudson: Even with a partial misfit, I have so many diamonds I must make an encouraging noise. I’ll be nervous if partner now bids 3 NT, but that’s unlikely; he seems to be short in clubs.

David Caprera: … Partner didn’t double or bid 3 , so he doesn’t have to have a great hand. What should he do with x-x-x A-K-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x? We’ll be high enough.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 4

IMPs		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	NORTH Pass 1 NT	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	A Q J 3 — A 10 9 6 3 2 K 10 8

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	240	41
2	9	164	28
3	7	84	14
2	5	27	5
2 NT	3	29	5
Pass	2	32	5
3 NT	1	7	1

Overbid or underbid? South has considerably more playing strength than advertised with 1 , yet the chances for game are uncertain. Notrump prospects are haunted by the likelihood of having to establish two suits, and suit prospects are dulled by the known duplication in hearts. Still, it seems pessimistic to give up on game, so my choice goes with 2 , a one-round force (not a game force).

Another consideration is the precise meaning of a 2 rebid. Since partner has made a limit bid, I would assume it means game is out of reach — essentially, a sign-off. Nonetheless, signing off in two of a minor is often a tactical blunder (passing 1 NT is usually wiser), which suggests that it should invite further participation from partner. I must say I was impressed with the Goldman-Eisenberg sequence to follow, so I could hardly deny 2  the top award.

USA vs Taiwan	K Q 6 5 4 3 Q J 4 Q 5 3 2
6 4 A K J 8 2 5 A 9 7 6 4		10 9 8 7 5 2 10 9 7 K 8 7 J
E-W Vul	A Q J 3 — A 10 9 6 3 2 K 10 8

Hsiao West 1 Pass Pass All Pass

Goldman NORTH Pass 1 NT 2 3

Lin East Pass Pass Pass Pass

Eisenberg South 1 2 2 5

5 South Made 5 +400

Jacoby West 1 2

Tai NORTH Pass Dbl Pass

Wolff East Pass Pass 2

Huang South 1 1 All Pass

2 West Made 2 +110 USA +11 IMPs

At the first table, after Eisenberg’s mere 2 rebid, the partnership sprang to life to reach the excellent diamond game. If 2  has that scope, it certainly is the right bid, but one could also argue that Goldman’s main reason for bidding again was the fear that East might back in with 2 .

Evidently, this deal makes a good case for “inverted minor rebids after a 1 NT response” — 2 is a game invitation and 3  is a sign-off — as this appears to be the structure employed by Eisenberg, whether by system or logic. In any event, one cannot argue with success.

The second auction is bewildering. Apparently, the double of 1 was penalty and South removed it because of the void. South probably thought his pass of 2  was forcing; at least you would think anyone who doubled 1  for penalty might be able to beat 2 . Not this time. North failed to lead trumps and Jacoby scored up eight tricks on a crossruff. Five diamonds also made, so that was 11 IMPs to the Americans.

Comments for 2

Michael Clark: Partner has a heart stopper, which doesn’t leave him much room for useful points in his hand. He also won’t have four spades. …

Milton Spinner: Unless I get diamond support, this hand is going nowhere.

Martin Bootsma: A slight underbid, but the hands seem not to fit.

Josh Sinnett: My hand, which looked huge on offense, has suddenly nosedived. Partner has shown 8-10 HCP with the free 1 NT bid, but [some] are in hearts, and we don’t have an eight-card spade fit. I’m worried about having to knock out too many cards in [notrump]. …

Will Engel: No overbids with partner’s wasted heart values.

Frank Pancoe: Partner is still there. Notrump is dangerous with a void and a mediocre suit.

Mark Lincoln: It is unlikely that we have a notrump game on, so I will settle for simple rebid.

Simon Mostyn: Partner didn’t made a negative double, so there seems little point in introducing the spades. Two notrump and 3  are overbids, but only slightly. My choice is a slight underbid. Three notrump is just a wild gamble, methinks!

Neil Morgenstern: Three notrump may be on with few points if partner has all the right cards, but he may have the wrong ones.

John Hoffman: Most likely plus. Partner is allowed to raise with something like K-x-x and a maximum 1 NT.

David Wetzel: I just don’t see this stretching to game, though I suppose partner could be shading a good 10-count because he’s afraid of my third-seat opener. (Who says light third-seat openers don’t cost?) For now I’ll bid 2 , which should show a full opening, but which will probably end the auction; if someone can scrape up another bid, I may get a chance to try 2  next.

Mark Rishavy: I don’t like the 1 NT bid at all, so I will be cowardly. Two spades is tempting; a 4-3 fit might work if partner is short in diamonds and has two heart tricks. But I think 2  may get us too high whether partner has three good spades or not.

Jonathan Goldberg: I’m allowed to be maximum for my bids.

Magnus Skaar: North will frequently have wasted values in hearts, and I assume 1 NT denies four spades.

Gary Schneider: East’s failure to raise to 2 leads me to believe that the auction will not end, and if it does then I will be content to play in 2 . Likely continuations are either: 2  by West, a raise to 3  by partner, or a balancing 2  by East.

Mark LaForge: Go carefully on a misfit. Partner probably has five hearts, and I do not want to play in spades on a trump lead (or 3 NT on a club lead) unless partner can bid over 2 .

Alan Kravetz: Almost worth 3 .

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: High-card strength is insufficient for a reverse, even opposite an 8-10 notrump. Unless partner can bid again, there may not be any future in this hand, especially with a heart void.

Gordon Rainsford: I doubt if we can have game, so I settle for the safest partscore.

Thijs Veugen: If partner passes, this is probably the right contract. It is an underbid, though.

Eric Hurley: If the diamond suit were a little better, a jump to 3 (inviting partner to bid 3 NT) would be nice. However, showing a minimum seems appropriate here.

Franco Baseggio: I will bid 2 over the opponents’ likely 2 .

Frans Buijsen: I don’t like the look of this hand, so I’m going slowly for now. I will bid 2 later if the opponents go to 2 . If partner can give belated diamond support, we may still get to game.

Mike Hargreaves: Toughest problem. Two spades may lead to a good Moysian fit; 3 to a borderline notrump game (or even 5 ). Two diamonds doesn’t eliminate game, but makes it unlikely. The main problem with 2  is what to bid over 2 NT (3 ?). I think partner needs too much [for game] so color me yellow with 2 . [At least] we’re nonvulnerable; now I only lose 6 IMPs.

Andrew de Sosa: I’m not willing to stretch for a nonvulnerable game at IMPs on what rates to be a misfit. If partner has the requisite diamond fit that we need for game (presumably in notrump) and about 10 HCP, he can always bid again to invite.

Bill Jacobs: Wimpish. I suppose partner has two heart stoppers and some help in diamonds, making my suit worth five tricks. He wins a heart, loses a diamond, wins another heart and has eight tricks. Now a spade finesse is needed, and it rates to lose. So even x-x-x A-Q-x-x K-x J-x-x-x doesn’t give us a great play. Finally, with a really good hand and a diamond kicker, partner might raise to 3  or bid 2 NT; then we’ll get to a game.

Gareth Birdsall: I’m not too worried about missing game, so I’ll hope to play in our safest partscore. I can always compete with 2  over 2  to describe my hand quite nicely.

Peter Schwartz: If partner cannot bid further, this should suffice.

Jonathan Steinberg: … With fitting diamond honor(s) and a maximum for his 1 NT call, partner will bid again and we may yet reach a slim game.

Peter Karlsson: If partner can raise to 3 (or bid 3 ), I will go on to game (3 NT).

Doug Burke: Partner’s 1 NT says he doesn’t have four spades and he probably has something in hearts, which degrades my hand a bit. If partner can dredge up a 3  raise, then I’m going to try 3 NT.

Simon Cheung: … Since partner can’t have four spades and his hand is limited to 8-10 points, game in spades or notrump is unlikely to be good prospect. So I choose the conservative bid.

Arvind Ranasaria: Game is likely only if partner is maximum and has diamond support, with which he is likely to advance over 2 . More importantly, 2  appears to be the only safe partial for now.

Michael Dodson: This may be safer than notrump. In my dreams partner bids again.

Andy Browning: Conservative, but probably the only safe bid. Partner does not have four spades (no negative double) so it’s unlikely we’re going to find a good spot elsewhere, given his original pass.

Lutsen Jansen: I’ll be cautious this time. Two spades is an overbid with partner’s values mostly in hearts. Three diamonds is also an overbid and misdescribes my hand. … If partner finds another bid, I think I will be well placed.

Rick Kelly: I’ll take the cautious approach — partner’s bid did little to improve my hand.

Michele Holm: Not enough to reverse to 2 or bid 3 . My 2 rebid shows six, so partner will go on with a good fit. …

Carlos Dabezies: No point in bidding 2 NT — partner will not know what to do. I’m not strong enough for 2 , and the diamond suit is not good enough for 3  or 3 NT.

Daniel Moisa: … My diamonds are too fragile for 3 , so 2 is the best description. If partner is maximal, he can [bid again].

Ian Coombs: Not strong enough to reverse. Notrump means a heart lead towards North, but he’s only promised a single stop and 3 NT doesn’t look good. Three diamonds must show a better suit than this.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Having about the K to spare over a minimum opening does not worry me. I trust partner will know when to push again with 2 NT.

James Hudson: Showing six diamonds and a dislike for notrump. This may be an underbid, but my void is opposite partner’s presumed high-card strength. The opponents probably have at least nine hearts, in which case the bidding is unlikely to die here.

Manoj Kumar Nair: … Partner will do something if this interests him. He must have the right cards for 3 NT, and this seems to me to be the best way to find out. Two notrump shows values I do not have; 3  should show a better suit.

Comments for 2

Gerald Murphy: A slight overbid, but I want to show some diamond length. If partner bids 2 NT, I will bid 3  to show six.

Kieran Dyke: I might as well describe my hand. If partner bids notrump three times (over 2 and then over 3 ), I’ll let him play there.

Leonard Helfgott: It’s wrong to play 1 NT, and 3 is too unilateral; so the decision is between a conservative 2  and a concentration-showing 2 . Since 2  helps with evaluation and also carries a “distributional, long diamonds” message, that’s my vote.

Howard Abrams: First, even though partner will usually not have four spades because of the failure to make a negative double, it is not impossible on this auction. Second, when you follow with 3 , you will not be overstating the internal quality of the diamond suit (as would a second bid of 3 ). This sequence might let you avoid a losing 3 NT contract. A 2  bid is too cowardly, while 2  seems premature when you are still uncertain about what strain you want to play in.

John R. Mayne: Light for the reverse, but not that light — this is a big ol’ hand which figures to play well in one of my suits. The playing strength is much more than traditional HCP would indicate.

Stefano Biciocchi: Two hearts? 2 NT? Three diamonds? Why should I bid other hands than mine? [Game may be unlikely], but I will tell partner my cards. And after all, sometimes partner has four little spades.

George Klemic: I am not going to suggest notrump, though if partner bids 3 NT I will sit. I think this hand is good enough to try for game; can’t partner bid 1 NT with a menial stopper like J-x-x-x or even 10-x-x-x-x? We might even have a diamond slam, though that’s pretty wishful thinking. But I won’t rule it out, hence the forcing descriptive call.

Jyri Tamminen: A descriptive overbid; however, even a slam is possible: K-x Q-x-x-x-x K-x-x-x Q-x.

Vic Sartor: The natural reverse seems most descriptive, though a little light.

Phil Clayton: Then 3 over 2 NT, or 4 over 3 . Since a cue-bid is available, a reverse can be shaded here. …

Albert Sekac: May as well bid out the distribution.

Rik ter Veen: Two spades shows my strength and at least 4-5 in spades and diamonds. It could get us to 3 NT in a responsible way, while 3  and 4  still are possible.

Bert Eccles: Too much playing strength for 2 ; suit is too weak for 3 .

Gerry Wildenberg: This is a game try, implying longer diamonds and a dislike of notrump. Two diamonds is a close second choice.

Lance Marrou: Not strong enough for a cue-bid, but strong enough for a reverse based on the void. …

Eric Leong: Slam is still possible.

Brian Ross: This will elicit either 2 NT or 3 from partner. Over 2 NT, I will pattern out with 3 ; over 3 , I’ll try 3 NT — after all, it’s partner’s problem then.

Derek Malloch: A little light for a reverse, but I would like partner to know where my values are. If partner has diamond support and club values, 5  is reasonable.

Rob Stevens: A 4-4 spade fit is not yet out of the question. Who should bid spades first: the player with A-Q-J-x and a heart void, or he with x-x-x-x and K-10-x? Two spades is an overbid, but nothing else seems sensible. If partner bids 2 NT, I will retreat to 3  which I hope is nonforcing.

Rainer Herrmann: Forcing and shutting out 2 by West.

John Reardon: I am willing to play in 3 or more, and I think that 2 is the most descriptive bid. I would be delighted if partner were now to bid 3 , but I will pass 3 .

Dima Nikolenkov: I bid what I have and let partner decide.

Robert Sekulski: Then 3 after 2 NT; pass after 3 NT; or 3 after 3 .

Daniel Korbel: Give partner x-x-x K-x-x Q-J-x Q-J-x-x and 5 is on one of two finesses. Give partner a slightly different hand: x-x-x Q-x-x-x Q-x-x-x A-x and game is nearly cold. Two spades followed by 3  over partner’s non-weak bid, or 3  over partner’s weak bid, should describe the nature of our hand accurately.

Nigel Guthrie: … This is optimistic, but descriptive and constructive, without being overly committal. Partner may have, say, x-x A-Q-x K-x-x J-x-x-x-x.

Manuel Paulo: Showing where half of my strength lies, on the way to a minor or notrump contract.

Bruce Moore: This seems obvious; it describes my shape and values, and leaves the next move up to partner.

Comments for 3

Barry Rigal: Inviting in diamonds seems best. Bidding 2 won’t focus partner on diamonds.

Leo Zelevinsky: What can I say — I fell in love with my intermediates.

Dave Maeer: Awkward. I don’t like 2 , which might give partner the idea I have five of them (he didn’t bid them and he didn’t make a negative double). I think I’ll gamble on 3 NT if partner has a double heart stopper, and 5  if not. In dreamland, he’s got J-10-x-x and a well-placed 8 points elsewhere, and we power our way to 6 .

Bill Powell: This seems the most obvious way of saying “I’ve a good hand but am concerned about notrump.”

Andrei Varlan: Forgetting the suit quality.

Albert Lochli: Highly inviting to 3 NT, but a diamond connection is needed.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 5

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 3	East 1 Pass	SOUTH Pass 2 ?	K 9 A 10 8 7 4 2 Q J 9 10 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	259	44
3	9	63	11
4	8	32	5
3 NT	6	97	17
3	2	132	23

As with Problem 3, some respondents complained about the conditions, namely South’s original pass. Certainly, it would be reasonable to open a weak two-bid, but it’s also reasonable to pass. Admit it; you’d feel sick if you opened 2  and it went pass, pass, double, all pass. I suppose there are a few who would open 1 , but that’s an eccentric view.

Three diamonds gets the top award per the overwhelming vote, but in my view it’s an underbid. Surely, 3  couldn’t be considered forcing by any logical method (you’re a passed hand and you bid in competition) and your values rate to be superb — the perfect heart holding opposite partner’s likely singleton, the K behind the bidder, two trump honors and a ruffing value. A jump to 4  would suit me fine, though I have a slight preference for 3  because it keeps more avenues open.

Here’s the actual deal:

Taiwan vs USA	A J 2 — A 10 6 5 4 3 A Q 9 5
7 6 J 9 3 K 8 2 K J 8 6 2		Q 10 8 5 4 3 K Q 6 5 7 7 4
Both Vul	K 9 A 10 8 7 4 2 Q J 9 10 3

Eisenberg West Pass Pass Pass

Cheng North 1 2 3 NT

Goldman East Dbl Pass All Pass

Lin SOUTH Pass 1 3

3 NT North Made 4 +630

Huang West Pass Pass Pass

Hamman North 1 3 3 NT

Tai East 1 Pass All Pass

Lawrence SOUTH Pass 2 3

3 NT North Made 6 +690 USA +2 IMPs

In the second auction, which parallels the problem, Lawrence was right on the money with his cue-bid. This might have led to the reasonable 6  slam, though Hamman took a dim view with his heart void and settled for 3 NT.

The same contract was reached at the first table after a strong club opening and a double for the majors. Both declarers received a low spade lead. A push board? No. Cheng inexplicably overtook dummy’s 9 with the jack to lead a low diamond to the queen, king; and later he eschewed the club finesse to win only 10 tricks. Hamman, the dunce, took both finesses for 12 easy tricks and a 2-IMP gain — and no doubt he was irritated to see that 13 were available on a double club finesse.

Comments for 3

Michael Clark: I’ve shown my strength, so there’s no need to go overboard. If partner really wants to know about my horrid spade stopper, then I can tell him next time.

Josh Sinnett: Allow me to render the 8,347th usage of the term “flexible” when describing a bid.

Gerald Murphy: Showing a preference for diamonds. Hopefully partner will have extra and bid. …

Frank Pancoe: I am well placed for any action partner chooses, including pass. Two hearts showed a hand this good.

Kieran Dyke: I would have opened something (1 or 2 ). Showing my sixth heart as a passed hand is almost impossible.

Leonard Helfgott: It certainly is a nice hand for diamonds, but I’ve already made a competitive two-over-one bid, and partner was forced to bid. He could have a 5-5 11 count, so 3  seems enough. Rebidding hearts or a rash 3 NT seem like poor options. Partner, with an extra-values 2=2=5=4 hand, can always try 3 .

Simon Mostyn: I think this is most flexible choice. Partner may give delayed support to hearts (promising a doubleton) or investigate the notrump game by bidding 3 . With the same point count, but better hearts, 3  is more tempting.

Neil Morgenstern: Give preference now, and partner a chance to bid 3 .

John Hoffman: Shows a fit (or at least a preference) and gives partner some room to move (or not).

Howard Abrams: I bid 3 with some concern as the hand may easily turn out to have more playing strength than its passed-hand status would indicate, the 2  bid notwithstanding. I am also reluctant to punish partner for opening aggressively in third seat. …

David Wetzel: Why do more? Haven’t I shown a hand with approximately these values with the 2 call? Isn’t it nice to support partner once in a while? If partner has interest, he’ll bid; I’ll raise 3  to four, bid 3 NT over 3 , or try 4  over anything else.

Mark Rishavy: My 2 bid showed all my strength, so now I think I can safely bid 3 . If all partner needs for game now is a spade stopper, he can try 3 . Plus, maybe partner can bid 3  over 3 ; I wouldn’t mind that.

Stefano Biciocchi: I bid the cards I have. Is that strange? Partner can now bid 3 with honor-doubleton, so there is no need to rebid that suit. I have a good fit in diamonds and want partner to know it. I can bid 3 NT at my next turn.

Jonathan Goldberg: Finally, an easy one. I show everything except the sixth heart. If my filling diamonds in brings 3 NT within reach, partner can bid 3 . If he has a secondary heart fit, he can show it. If he has neither of these, we can play right here.

Bob Boudreau: Already promised 10 points, and this still leaves 3 NT as possible.

George Klemic: I’ve shot my wad here. Three diamonds, nonforcing, is a perfect description. … If partner has a little extra, he can bid 3  to look for 3 NT (which I will accept) or do something else.

Jyri Tamminen: I guess 2 should be forcing to 3 , so in a way this is an underbid. But it leaves more room and avoids taking too big of a position. If I can get by this round, I’ll be in good shape. Isn’t this a classic “mark time” bid?

Vic Sartor: I would like to hear 3 from partner. I’m not enamored with notrump, but I’ll bid 3 NT if partner bids 3 .

Phil Clayton: Easiest of the set. I don’t like rebidding my mangy hearts on this misfit. Partner is supposed to open hands like: x-x-x — A-K-x-x-x K-9-x-x-x.

Gary Schneider: Tough call. I have prime cards and a good six-bagger (considering I failed to open a vulnerable 2 ). Three diamonds allows partner to raise to 3  with a doubleton, encourages partner if he has a true minor two-suiter, and still keeps 3 NT in the picture. …

Paul Boudreau: I will take the slight underbid to allow the most room. I hope partner finds another call.

Krishna Chakravartula: My heart suit is nothing great to keep bidding (partner will have the sense to support next with honor-doubleton) so I’ll show my good support for partner’s first bid suit. …

Rik ter Veen: So, I didn’t get to show my sixth heart. At least I got us to a good fit (unless North is 4=1=4=4, then I got us to our best fit). …

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: This hand looks promising with all working cards, yet there is no convenient bid available (I don’t want to just back my instincts). I’ll underbid slightly with 3  and hope partner bids again.

Gerry Wildenberg: Three diamonds is not an underbid in the context of your two-over-one free bid. Three notrump is overly optimistic, as there are many nice hands partner can hold which do not make 3 NT. As for 3 , partner wants a preference, not to hear about your sixth heart — with two hearts, partner can bid hearts next himself if he is strong enough.

Robert Johnson: My 2 bid says I ain’t broke, so my delayed raise to 3 suggests a “two and a half” raise. With extra length or values (or delayed heart support) partner may push on. …

Larry Kahn: Most flexible; allows partner to show secondary heart support or ask about a spade stopper. You’ve already shown some life by bidding 2 , so there’s no need to do anything drastic.

Eric Hurley: Three diamonds leaves the door open for partner to show two-card heart support (he has denied three hearts) or ask for a stopper in spades for 3 NT.

Mike Hargreaves: … This leaves me well placed over all bids by partner and is right on strength. Partner hasn’t shown significant extras on this auction. Yes, I know the modern tendency is to force to game with any feasible play, but there has to be a limit; I’ve found it.

Andrew de Sosa: Three diamonds should amply describe this hand, which doesn’t have much more than was promised with 2 . Having failed to open 2 , I’m not going to try to “catch up” now by rebidding them (rarely a winning strategy). If partner has significant extras, he should make another move and I will be quite willing to take the push in whatever strain might be suggested.

Peter Gill: Mildly conservative at this form of scoring, but the alternatives all have disadvantages.

Leo Zelevinsky: Seems pretty straightforward. Partner can bid 3 if he is willing to be in game and just needs a spade stopper.

Andy Browning: If partner is minimum, this may be our only playable spot. If he has a better hand, he can show delayed support with two hearts.

Rob Stevens: Despite the useful hand for diamonds, jumping to 4 seems excessive. Even x-x x A-K-x-x-x A-Q-x-x-x opposite makes 5  odds-against, and partner could well have less. Partner must be alive to the fact that you didn’t open a weak 2 , so this bidding suggests general strength, not just a good heart suit.

Dave Maeer: Time to show support. If other contracts are obviously better, partner can bid 3 or 3  himself. Besides, if he has a minimum with a singleton heart, 3  may be the last making contract — something bidding is all about.

John Reardon: If partner passes this, I doubt we have missed a good game. I have shown the majority of my values already, but I will happily cooperate if partner can continue.

Sebastien Louveaux: Partner should be very short in hearts (no spade raise from West), so insisting on hearts would not be very useful. Three diamonds shows my fit, and partner still has a 3  cue-bid available to try for 3 NT.

Michele Holm: Must trust partner to make a move towards notrump or hearts; showing the fit is the most important.

Daniel Korbel: Support with support. If partner has a doubleton honor in hearts, he will bid 3 . If he wants a spade stopper, he will bid 3 . …

Mike Cassel: Partner can still cue-bid 3 with game interest.

Bruce Moore: I’ll show support for partner’s first suit and hope he takes another bid. I plan to bid 4  over 3 , 3 NT over 3 , or 4  over 4 .

Comments for 3

Mark Lincoln: In this little island we are likely to have opened this hand as dealer and avoided this problem. However, with the A likely to be onside, this is worth a try for game. Which game depends upon partner’s shape, so I will try to elicit more information. If partner bids 3 NT, we will play there; if 4 , I will convert to 4 . If partner only bids 4 , I will assume he has no more than one heart and raise to 5 . …

John R. Mayne: OK, you got me to cue-bid on this one. As we are below 3 NT, this should be a general probe rather than agreeing clubs; partner’s next call should get us to the right place.

Alan Kravetz: A second spade stopper is needed from partner to give us the time to set up our suits in notrump.

Bill Jacobs: Three diamonds (as a passed hand) is inadequate for this fitter, with side ace and promoted K. Three hearts overstates the suit quality. The other bids (3 , 3 NT, 4 ) are possible, and it’s a tough choice among them. It’s curious how little the opponents have bid, which suggests partner has three spades and at most one heart. On that basis, I’ll give partner a chance to show a spade stopper, otherwise head towards 5 .

Gareth Birdsall: I’d bid 3 if confident it were forcing. I prefer to ensure we get to game and I’ll keep my options on strain open by bidding 3 .

Simon Cheung: Aggressive, but one should try to bid more games at this match form. Moreover, I have a maximum pass (I may have opened 1  or 2  depending on mood) which you have not promised with your 2  bid. Also, opener should have some extras since he bids on when he could pass. … Three spades may lead to 4  opposite x-x K-x A-K-x-x-x K-Q-x-x. If opener can’t support hearts, he may be able to bid 3 NT with some useful holding in spades.

Jojo Sarkar: I should force to game — partner’s still interested over 2 , and I’m very good for a passed hand. … Three spades is good because it doesn’t go past 3 NT and emphasizes the hearts. …

Dima Nikolenkov: I want to play game but have no idea which one. Maybe partner will know.

Arvind Ranasaria: West’s pass suggests that partner is not short in spades, so he is short in hearts. If partner is 3=1=5=4 with a partial spade stop, he will likely bid 3 NT over my 3 . If he has very little in spades, then 5  is likely to play better than 3 NT, or at least as well. Partner might have x-x x A-K-x-x-x K-Q-J-x-x (we will reach 5 ), or Q-10-x x A-K-x-x-x K-J-x-x (3 NT).

Mitch Edelman: I would have bid 2 without the K; all my honors are working so I will move toward game. I treat 3  here as asking for a partial stopper. I will bid 5  over four of either minor.

Rosalind Hengeveld: How can this passed hand be disappointing when tabled as dummy? The old choice-of-games (or slams) cue-bid should convey this.

Nigel Guthrie: … My hand explodes in value, in light of [the bidding]. Partner can hardly have less than x-x-x — A-10-x-x-x-x A-K-x-x.

Manuel Paulo: My hand is limited by the initial pass but good enough to play in diamonds, hearts or notrump. Therefore, I should not commit myself with any denomination.

Bas Lodder: If partner doesn’t have a spade stopper, we’ll need nine quick tricks in 3 NT. I cannot see them yet.

Comments for 4

Lance Marrou: … Given the likely one stopper in spades and having to lose at least one heart, notrump does not seem like a good place. However, the A and favorable location of the K make my hand very valuable in diamonds, so I will invite game.

Sandy Barnes: All cards look golden, but I would like another trump.

Barry Rigal: Three diamonds seems to be too little (even if 2 implies a diamond fit).

Rainer Herrmann: North is either short in hearts (most likely a singleton) or has more than a minimum, else he would not have kept the bidding open. My hand has improved by the bidding, but 3 NT will require eight fast tricks after a spade lead. If I bid 3  to cater to 3 NT, I will not know what to do over 4 ; … [therefore] I prefer to offer a clear but nonforcing invitation.

Robert Sparks: Allows for 4 , 4 , or 5 , but not the unlikely 3 NT.

Rick Kelly: My honors seem well placed.

Arvind Srinivasan: Since my 2 was nonforcing, partner has good shape and strength. My 4 emphasizes top cards and trumps.

Steve Stein: I have good trump support and can cover two of partner’s major-suit losers, so I’ll invite.

Comments for 3 NT

Jonathan Steinberg: Probably time to show my spade stopper. I think partner will expect a hand very similar to what I have.

Doug Burke: … Partner’s 3 should promise extras, so I guess I’ll show my spade stopper and take a shot.

Bill Powell: Partner will expect some diamonds (having passed I must be able to stand a 3 rebid) so his 3  bid suggests notrump if I have a spade stopper.

James Hudson: I wouldn’t have passed, but I guess I’ve caught up by bidding two over one. Now I have to decide which is most important to show: the diamond support, the sixth heart, or the spade stopper. …

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

Problem 6

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	NORTH Pass 2	East Pass 2	South 1 ?	A 3 K Q 10 8 7 5 A 9 9 7 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	306	52
4	9	111	19
3	8	72	12
3	7	32	5
2 NT	5	38	7
3 NT	3	10	2
Pass	1	14	2

The majority view seems off base here, choosing a competitive bid instead of a game invitation. Game is surely in bounds, e.g., x-x-x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x x-x, would make 4  a virtual laydown; and there are also many hands where 3 NT is cold. Nonetheless, there are strategic considerations as well — how many spades can West make? — and bidding 3  may have some underlying merit in that regard. In any event, the majority rules, so 3  gets the top spot.

I also believe that tactics may be more important than science here, but I would stretch to 4 . Even if this has no play, it is likely that 3  would have made; and further, it may stampede West into a phantom sacrifice. The obvious downside is that it could push West into a makable 4  that he would not otherwise bid, but these fears are usually overrated. Good opponents tend to bid their games with or without your help. My main fear is missing a cold 4 , and that won’t happen.

Those who made a game try (2 NT, 3 or 3 ) correctly judged the value of the hand. Three clubs is the obvious choice since it’s your longest side suit and you could certainly use some help there (now that’s an understatement), plus it might have some strategic advantage in the play. I suppose 3  could be given equal merit through other viewpoints. The intriguing bid is 2 NT, a bold step that could be right on the money.

On the suggestion of Gary Schneider, a good friend, I did a computer simulation to try to determine the probability that notrump would be the right strain. I gave North a balanced hand (else he would correct back to hearts) with 6-9 HCP, two or three spades, and three hearts (or four hearts only if 3=4=3=3 shape). In a million deals North held either the A or a second spade stopper* 55 percent of the time. In real life, however, this would be lower because the missing spade honors are far more likely to be held by the vulnerable overcaller and raiser. Further, even when North has the A, notrump could be wrong (e.g., x-x-x A-x-x x-x-x-x K-Q-x, or the actual deal below). All considered, this convinces me that bidding notrump is against the odds.

*I included the king, queen, J-10-x or J-9-x. The last is not a sure second stopper, but the times it would fail are probably offset by the possibility that J-x-x (which I did not count) would be enough.

Let’s see what really happened:

USA vs Taiwan	5 4 2 A 4 3 Q 8 6 K 8 5 3
K Q 10 8 6 J 2 J 7 4 A J 4		J 9 7 9 6 K 10 5 3 2 Q 10 6
Both Vul	A 3 K Q 10 8 7 5 A 9 9 7 2

Lin West 1 All Pass

Lawrence NORTH Pass 2

Hsiao East Pass 2

Hamman South 1 4

4 South Made 4 +620

Wolff West 1 All Pass

Huang NORTH Pass 2

Jacoby East Pass 2

Tai South 1 3

3 South Made 3 +140 USA +10 IMPs

In the first auction Hamman, in typical fashion, took his shot at game and backed it with sterling play. He ducked the opening spade lead (crucial), won the continuation, and led a club to the eight — put that in your pipe and smoke it! Lin could have defeated the contract only by playing the jack on the first club lead (followed by a diamond shift) but this was an unnatural play that virtually anyone would miss. Also, note that if Lin shifted to a diamond at trick two, Hamman would succeed on a different route.

At the second table the bidding and play were less imaginative (Tai bid for nine and won nine), so that was 10 more IMPs to the Americans in their lopsided victory.

Comments for 3

Michael Clark: Bid to the level of the fit.

Milton Spinner: This one seems too easy. My problem will be what to do over 3 ; I will pass because I may not be able to beat 4 .

Gerald Murphy: I don’t think this hand warrants a game try since partner didn’t make a limit raise. I will just compete.

Will Engel: Now they may not get to 4 .

Frank Pancoe: It’s their hand, but this deprives them of a help-suit game try. Maybe my bid will cause them to misjudge their potential and stop at 3 .

Mark Lincoln: I assume only a three-card raise opposite, so I raise to the three level (LOTT). I hope this little push will make it harder for the opponents to work out whose hand it really is. A clever bid of 3  might get the best lead against a spade contract, and lead to a ruff in my hand, but this could easily backfire and give the contract; it also leaves available an extra call (3 ) to the opposition so they have more room to determine their combined worth.

Kieran Dyke: Just competitive, based on the sixth heart. Game is unlikely.

Leonard Helfgott: Yes, its possible that partner can cover three of your six losers, but quite unlikely. Also, neither 3  or 3  fits the bill as a natural try (A-x-x would do), and 2 NT seems like a rash gamble. I’ll take the conservative course.

Simon Mostyn: Competitive, not invitational. … Partner is a passed hand and 2 after an overcall can be weak, so game is unlikely.

John Hoffman: We can probably make this.

John R. Mayne: The aces are offset by the sterile shape; a competitive 3 seems enough. Notrump bids are asking partner to have a perfecto; and game tries, even vulnerable, are overaggressive.

Mark Rishavy: Change my vote to 3 NT if partner has that perfect maximum or both missing aces. :)

Stefano Biciocchi: I don’t want to overbid with a 3 trial to look for hands partner can hardly have.

Jonathan Goldberg: … I have two game tries available, so this is competitive. It’s hard to see a single raise covering enough of my losers to make game a good prospect, even vulnerable at IMPs.

Bob Boudreau: Game is unlikely and I don’t want to pinpoint my weak suit.

George Klemic: I am torn either between 3 (because I think 4 is making only a small part of the time) and 4  (because I think 3  is their limit and they will probably push to 4 ). I’m not making a game try, as there is nothing intelligent to bid. I choose 3  because 4  may push them to a making 4  they might not have bid otherwise.

Vic Sartor: I don’t think this rates a game invitation; and if it did, all bids are flawed if they are help-asking.

Gary Schneider: If I keep on waiting to make a bid, will one of my small clubs turn into a diamond so I can bid 3 ? What are the odds of partner having the A? …

About the same as a snowball in hell. If you don’t believe me, ask Paul:

Paul Boudreau: My partners never have the A (which makes 3 NT very right, or very wrong if he doesn’t). Too many losers for a 10-trick game try.

Mark LaForge: Oh, well; hope we can beat 4 .

Krishna Chakravartula: I would bid 3 with my usual patient and understanding partner, but since I know most people are not going to vote for it, I’ll settle for 3  which is guaranteed to garner more votes, especially from people following the LOTT. :)

Rik ter Veen: I don’t see a game, but I’m fairly sure that 3 makes.

Jonathan Steinberg: Competitive; a sixth heart. Seems like a textbook call.

Barry Rigal: I hope they are not playing maximal doubles, so this will take away their game tries.

Jojo Sarkar: This is competitive. … I have six losers, and partner can’t reasonably cover three — unless he’s got a stiff club and the A. :)

Philip Smith: This will probably make, but I wouldn’t bet on either side making at the four level.

Sebastien Louveaux: Merely competing; this hand does not warrant a game try. As they may make 4 , my bid makes it difficult for them to probe.

Comments for 4

Michael Cervantes: … This forces the opposition to bid for the contract at the four level. If partner has the A, 4  [might make].

Howard Abrams: Although 3 is the bid dictated by the LOTT, I would bid 4 to give the opponents the last guess. There is a tactical dimension here, as a direct 4  makes it less likely the opponents will double. …

David Wetzel: Might make; might not. They may save anyway.

Franco Baseggio: Let them guess.

Peter Gill: Obviously, 4 will not attract as many votes as 3 , but the chances of them being pushed into and making 4  are reduced by my good defensive card, the 9. Four hearts is a typical vulnerable-at-IMPs game bid, which can gain in so many ways. It will not be as popular as it should be because so many people have matchpoint bidding tendencies ingrained into their minds.

Heidar Sigurjonsson: Just in case 4 makes.

Rick Kelly: Let the opponents guess; 3 looks like a make for them, and 3 does little to buy it. Hoping for plus 100.

Carlos Dabezies: Unlikely to get doubled, and unlikely to go more than one off. The game could make if partner has the A and good clubs, or they might be able to make 3 . [I would want to bid] 4  over 3 , so I might as well do it now.

Dima Nikolenkov: It might make; they might bid 4 . …

Mitch Edelman: Let East-West decide if they want to save. The LOTT should keep me from getting hurt; if I’m going for 500, they are probably making 4  anyway.

Ian Coombs: They can bid 4 if they want to, or double. Four hearts should have a good chance, and there’s no point beating around the bush.

James Hudson: My hand is worth only a game try (3 ). But I don’t want to sell out to 3 , so I’ll try to induce a 4  sacrifice with a confident-sounding overbid.

Comments for 3

Magnus Skaar: Assuming 3 is a long-suit trial bid.

Jyri Tamminen: Stupid bid, but then I have a stupid hand. At least I’ll be safe in the postmortem: “I meant it to be help-suit game try / psychic / preemptive / competitive / anti-lead-directing.”

Phil Clayton: A six-loser hand [suggests] a game try after a single raise. … Three clubs says where I live. …

If the club suit is where you live, don’t invite me over. I’ve seen better shacks by the railroad tracks.

Albert Sekac: Intended as a help-suit game try. …

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner’s single raise could be wide ranging in competitive situations. After a constructive 2  raise (without interference), a help-suit game try is in order, and there is no reason to do anything else here. If the opponents bid again, partner has a better picture — a new camera :) — to take appropriate action.

Mike Hargreaves: OK, this time I’m overbidding — consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, or something. The two aces, sixth heart and vulnerability all conspire to tempt me.

Andrew de Sosa: Help-suit game try; hopefully standard. Opposite a reasonable minimum ( x-x counts as help) I have a shot at a vulnerable game, so I must at least try for it.

Bill Jacobs: Yes, of course, I’d like to reach the miracle 3 NT opposite x-x A-x-x K-x-x-x x-x-x-x, but it’s no miracle to bid notrump now and find partner with x-x A-x-x x-x-x-x K-x-x-x instead. Over 3 , if partner counter tries with 3 , I’ll give 3 NT a whirl.

Kevin Lee: Avoid a club lead maybe?

Simon Cheung: … Since partner can be quite weak, a jump to 3 NT or 4 is too aggressive. A game try seems best as you can make game opposite many single raises (like x-x-x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x x-x). Three clubs may enable partner to upgrade his singleton club. …

Andy Browning: Must be a game try. All partner needs is a doubleton club, K and A-x-x, and 4 is cold.

Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: Asking for help in the suit, and it may prevent an early attack of clubs.

Michele Holm: Would like to try game if partner can help in clubs.

John Vega: Vulnerable at IMPs, I’ll stretch for a game try. Secondary honors in diamonds are probably wasted, so I’ll focus partner’s attention on the need for club values. Even if North’s club holding is a tenace, West rates to have the bulk of the missing values; so A-x-x K-J-10 looks like a good play for game.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I don’t want to discourage partner from raising light in this situation, hence no 4 . Nine-seven-two may look appalling to some as a help-suit game try, but is in fact better than many holdings, as a small doubleton opposite would be great.

Mark Hangartner: A trial bid. OK, game doesn’t look so hopeful with their bidding, but it’s worth a try.

Manuel Paulo: A classic game try, hoping that partner has only eight losers or can avoid some club loser(s).

Olivier La Spada: Game is not as far off as it seems. I prefer to help partner in making the best decision by showing length in clubs. …

Comments for 3

Bijoy Anand: They have the master suit and the deck is about 50-50, which means we will be outbid and likely to be defending 4 . I want partner to lead a diamond so that, with my trump control, I might manufacture a ruff before his (presumed) A entry is gone.

Eric Hurley: A trial bid showing game interest, as 3 is purely competitive. If partner holds K-Q-x or K-J-x along with the A, game has a reasonable chance.

Frans Buijsen: Help-suit trial. … I’m not sure whether 3 or 3 is better; I play this as asking for values in the suit bid.

Peter Schwartz: The opponents appear headed for 4 . I want partner to lead a diamond in the hope that I can get a third-round ruff after taking the A and underleading in hearts.

Dave Maeer: Impossible. It’s dead easy to construct hands where 4 is cold for us and 4 is cold for them (sometimes on the same deal), so I’ll go for something which may discourage them, may get us to game when it’s right (without a cheap save) and looks like a good lead-director [similar diamond-ruff scenario].

Bill Powell: If all partner’s stuff is in hearts and diamonds, we might have game; and if he’s on lead [against spades], a diamond looks best.

Arvind Srinivasan: I have top cards in defense; and if the opponents were to bid 4 over 4 , partner would be in a good position to judge.

Mike Cassel: May be the only lead to beat 3 .

Mike Charles: Two-way bid; [showing] values and directing the defense against spades.

Comments for 2 NT

Peter Karlsson: If partner has the A, we might make 3 NT. Why not invite a little?

Arvind Ranasaria: Natural game try. This works better than 3 on two counts: I might get lucky and find partner raising with Q-x, and it makes 3 NT a candidate when partner has two aces and out. …

Lutsen Jansen: I want to try for game, and I think 2 NT is the most natural and descriptive bid on this hand.

Rainer Herrmann: Worth a game try. This could be the type of deal where there are nine top tricks, but a 10th trick in hearts is elusive.

John Reardon: I know that I am likely to make 3 NT, or I will wish I was in hearts. However, it is unlikely that the bidding is going to stop here, so I am consulting partner for a second opinion. …

Grant Peacock: Game is possible, but I’m certainly not going there all by myself. There are certainly hands for North where 3 NT is best, such as two aces. So, even though I usually say “A-x isn’t a stopper,” 2 NT seems right this time.

David Caprera: Just enough to make a game try. At first I thought about 3 which would enable partner to value club shortness, but maybe I can catch x-x-x A-x-x K-x-x x-x-x-x (or better) and steal a quick nine. Bidding 3 NT straight out is a crap shoot and could work out very badly.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 329), and on each problem only for the top three calls. About 65 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 hope you enjoyed this journey into the past. I thank all who responded, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my polls and contests. I’ll leave you with these final remarks:

Manoj Kumar Nair: What does 7W41 stand for?

The W stands for “What’s it to you, punk?” Seriously, it’s the numbering system I’ve used for years in my database: 7 is the bank, W is the set, and 41 is the deal number. This edition also includes deals 42-46. Arbitrarily I assign 7W47 to the scores, and 7W48 to the analyses, so my next bidding poll will be 7W49.

Anne Bell: My bidding is based on having a “good” partner, and he will not psych (I make this stipulation after the whitewash from the last contest when the bid that resulted in the worst outcome was awarded maximum points). Definitely a strike, but you have two more left before you are out (joking). Oh, and there better not be any tops for using unassuming cue-bids, since this is definitely not part of the “simple” Standard American system! One strike and counting?

Uh-oh… for whom the Bell tolls is me. Two more strikes and I’m out like Hemingway.

Analyses 7W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Bidding with Finess

© 2001 Richard Pavlicek