Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge
When the Chips Are Down
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 7W56 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in September of 2001, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals that were played in a past tournament. When and where? I didn’t reveal this in the original poll, but the page contained clues and participants were invited to guess for the fun of it.
| Problem 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Final Notes |
It is impossible to prepare these analyses, or do anything, without harrowing thoughts of the brutal attack on our homeland.
My wife cries every day in empathy for the innocent victims and their families. I can only hope that these monthly forums,
in whatever small way, might reduce the amount of hatred in the world.
The casino theme (chips, dice, cards, roulette wheel) made Las Vegas the number-one guess, and there were also a few for Reno and Atlantic City. Sorry, too close to home. About a dozen respondents inferred the European flavor suggested by the “natural” (K-9 is unbeatable in baccarat or chemin de fer but not so great in blackjack, Texas hold’em and other card games) and guessed Monte Carlo. Bingo! Of course, a few people thought K-9 meant “canine” and this was just another “Dog Days of Summer” episode.
Congratulations to Andy Lewis (United States), who was the only person to guess the specific tournament: 1954 World Championship in Monte Carlo. There were several clues regarding the year: The background song “Mr. Sandman” (recorded by The Chordettes) became a #1 hit in 1954, and my picture of a die showed “54” on its front faces. Also, the option on Problem 6 for a strong cue-bid (instead of Michaels) should suggest old times in the bridge chronology.
Bob Geyer Wins!This poll had 577 participants from 102 locations, and the average score was 47.64. Congratulations to Bob Geyer of Australia, who was the only person to achieve a perfect score. Five players were only one point back with 59: Ramkumar Vaidyanathan (India), Tim Hemphill (US), David Baer (US), Marcia Greenstein (Sunny Isles Beach, Florida), and Mike Isaacs (London, England). Well done!
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 1954 World Championship, held in Monte Carlo, Monaco. Pictured is the famous Monte Carlo Grand Casino, the only casino in the world, I am told, that accepts the currency of any country. What? You think I’ve actually been there? I’m not the globe-trotting type, but I can picture James Bond at the roulette wheel right now, shoving all his chips on 17 Black.
Only two teams were involved: Europe vs. United States. The event consisted of 224 boards, and the United States won by 49 EMPs.* This would be the last U.S. win for a long time — until Stockholm in 1970 (revisited in my Bidding with Finess poll).
*European Matchpoints, an old-style IMP scale with wider spans. For example, a difference of 720 points (like a vulnerable game swing) translates to 6 EMPs, instead of the current 12 IMPs. Therefore, the 49-EMP margin of victory would have been about twice that in IMPs.
Playing for the United States were Cliff Bishop, Milt Ellenby, Lew Mathe, Don Oakie, Billy Rosen and Doug Steen. The partnerships varied throughout the match — sort of like, “This round, you play with Cliff and I’ll play with Billy.” No doubt, the U.S. team was in good spirits feeling, “We could beat these guys with any lineup.”
Playing for Europe in fixed partnerships were Rene Bacherich and Pierre Ghestem, Jacques Amouraben and Marcel Kornblum (all of France), and Jean Besse (Switzerland) and Karl Schneider (Austria).
Let the games begin!
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge |  | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 1
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass | North Pass 1 
| East 1  Pass | South Dbl ? | K J 10 6 A K 5 A 9 2 A J 4
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 171 | 30 |
| 3 | 9 | 150 | 26 |
| 1 NT | 8 | 90 | 16 |
| 2 | 6 | 63 | 11 |
| 2 NT | 4 | 103 | 18 |
This turned out to be a good problem, as evidenced by the close grouping of the votes. Despite the 20 HCP, many respondents felt this would be a disappointing hand because of the flat shape and lopsided partnership assets. I agree, at least for spades; but the potential for nine tricks in notrump is undiminished. For example, if partner has Q-x-x-x-x and the Q, 3 NT would be a heavy favorite, but there might not be a 10th trick in spades. Therefore, I don’t like an immediate spade raise. There is also the possibility that partner was strapped for a bid and has only three spades.
Being nonvulnerable at IMPs there is less reason to push, so my choice is to bid 1 NT; this conveys my high-card strength (stronger than a 1 NT overcall) without getting too high in the event partner is really broke. I would expect partner to bid again on almost all hands that will produce game. Even with the case I alluded to above, partner may have the vision to invite with 2 NT.
Alas, the ubiquitous cue-bid rides again. Rather than decide which strain and what level, the consensus was to bid 2 and try to guess later. I suppose this is OK if partner would rebid 2 with a worthless hand and four spades; but that is moot. I think most experts would assume the cue-bid denies four-card spade support and look for another suit. Hence, the cue-bid does little but muddy the water, since you’ll end up bidding 3 anyway. A potential advantage is the off chance partner will bid notrump, but even this is imperfect: Will you raise 2 NT to 3 NT? I suspect many would, but partner could have, say, Q-x-x and out leaving little play; with 4 or 5 points, partner should bid 3 NT himself.
If there are any children in the room, please tell them it’s bedtime. All clear? OK, then I can reveal the bidding in 1954:
| Europe vs USA | Q 8 5 3 2 9 6 Q 8 7 K 9 7
| |
| 7 4 10 4 10 5 4 Q 8 6 5 3 2
|  | A 9 Q J 8 7 3 2 K J 6 3 10
|
| E-W Vul | K J 10 6 A K 5 A 9 2 A J 4 | |
| Bishop WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Ghestem North Pass 3 4
| Oakie East 1 Pass Pass | Bacherich South 2 4 4
| 4 North Made 5 +450 |
| Schneider WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass | Steen North Pass 1 3 4
| Besse East 1 Pass Pass All Pass | Mathe South Dbl 2 NT 3
| 4 North Made 6 +480 USA +1 EMP |
The first auction is almost amusing by today’s standards. A strong cue-bid? Give me a break. I decided not even to include this option, lest people feel insulted. The French pair did manage to reach a good contract, but I wonder what would have happened if North were broke.
In the second auction, which parallels the problem, Mathe judged well to bid notrump, albeit with an overbid. (From the looks of these two auctions, it makes me wonder if anybody ever held a Yarborough back then.) Steen followed up with a checkback cue-bid, leading to the normal spade game. Take notice, however, that 3 NT is laydown, while 4 could fail (though admittedly unlikely).
The U.S. managed to pick up 1 EMP (1 IMP) in the play. The stiff club was led at both tables, and when in with the A, Besse shifted to a low diamond. This ran to the 10 and queen, then Besse was eventually squeezed for 12 tricks. Oakie wisely shifted to a heart, making declarer work to win 11 tricks.
Comments for 2 Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: North can bid with zero points, so by bidding 2 NT there is no future if you have no entries into dummy. Playing a spade contract is much better, so I bid 2 indicating spade support. …
Dima Nikolenkov: I will quit in 2 if partner cannot bid more. One spade may well be a three-card suit.
Arvind Srinivasan: Best chance of game is in spades. I would raise a 2 rebid to three.
Jim Fox: I expect partner to bid 3 if he suspects 3 NT might be right for us, or 4 if he has some values with a clear preference for spades.
Sivakumar Salem: If partner has 4 points (as Q-x-x-x-x and Q) then game is on. Even if he is weak, 2 should be makable, so to keep the options open I prefer 2 .
Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: Seven points are divided between partner and LHO, so I will cue-bid to invite partner if he has 4-5 points.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: The hand is too strong for 1 NT, especially with a four-card spade fit. Two notrump may lead to the wrong strain and/or level. If partner rebids 2 , it is probably right to pass with a 4-3-3-3 hand pattern and no source of tricks.
James Hudson: Very ticklish. I want to invite game without committing the hand to spades, since 3 NT might be our only making game. If partner rebids 2 , I’ll give up and pass (I hope this is allowed). Otherwise I’ll try to judge from partner’s response whether to support spades or bid notrump.
Mark LaForge: I plan to raise to 3 on the next round.
Micha Keijzers: I need to show strength, spade support and keep the opportunity of 3 NT open. I can’t do that when I raise spades; partner will always bid spades. He might pass 2 NT while we can make 4 , so I can’t bid that. [My cue-bid is] forcing for (at least) one round and gives partner the opportunity to show his hand further.
Jeff Goldsmith: In response to this cue-bid, I play that 2 is an artificial double negative. Every other call is natural and shows some values. Is there any other way to stop in 2 intelligently?
Josh Sinnett: Will partner believe I have four spades if I bid notrump now? No. Will we be able to get to notrump if it’s right if I support spades now? No. That leaves the 2 cue-bid. Over partner’s (assumed) 2 call, I can bid 2 NT, which should show flexibility as to strain. If partner bids another suit, I will probably jump to 4 with my prime values and secondary fit.
Dirk Enthoven: Two hearts seems on the money, asking partner about the quality of his 1 bid. …
Ian Payn: Fairly automatic, I’d have thought. Let’s see if I can squeeze a little life out of partner.
Tapas Banerji: Strongly invitational to game with implicit spade support. …
Sebastien Louveaux: Trying to extract more information from partner [so I can determine if] we belong in 3 NT, 4 , or a spade partial.
Neil Morgenstern: Showing my exceptionally good hand. Opposite Q-x-x-x-x x-x x-x Q-x-x-x, game will be cold most of the time.
Arpan Banerjee: Need to find partner’s exact point count (including distribution) which is in the 0-7 range. … According to partnership understanding, partner can bid 4 to show 6-7, 3 to show 4-5, and 2 to show 0-3.
Robin Burns: Unsure what the final contract should be — notrump or spades, game or partscore. Hopefully this will help me make the right decision.
Rich Pavlicek: I’m following up with spades after my partner’s next bid.
Olivier La Spada: Asks partner if he is minimum or maximum for his 1 bid.
John Weisweiler: Most flexible. I don’t want to play notrump if we have a nine-card spade fit.
Manoj Kumar Nair: This shows a good spade raise. If partner rebids 2 , I will bid 2 NT to show 20-22. With just A-x-x-x-x and out, 3 NT will have a good play.
Kent Feiler: A tough one! If partner just rebids 2 , I’m going to pass.
Manuel Paulo: Partner may have no points, but the premium [for game] is worth the trial. …
William Campbell: One notrump and 2 are underbids; 2 NT probably buries spades if they are right; 3 is awfully high and might be the wrong strain if partner has bid a three-bagger plus there’s no way to get to 3 NT then. That leaves 2 — nice and low, which should help us get the strain and level right.
Bernard Pascal: This lets partner define his strength range (0-4 or 5-7) which is extremely important. …
Daniel Moisa: The 1 reply to the double covers a wide range of hands, and 2 forces partner to describe his hand more accurately. I will pass a 2 bid, while on other semipositive announcements I will look for the best game: 3 NT or 4 .
Ramaratnam Krishnan: Planning to bid 2 NT over partner’s 2 .
Neelotpal Sahai: There could be a game in notrump or spades even if partner has got 4-7 points. [My cue-bid] shows 19+ points. One notrump would show 18-19 points in most systems.
Mike Cassel: Can’t count to 10 tricks in spades without extra length from partner, so I punt with a cue-bid. If partner is 3=4=3=3 with the J, we might right-side the notrump contract.
Howard Abrams: … I will follow with a notrump bid over partner’s call. I think (hope?) partner can read this as [strength-showing] with four-card spade support. (With five spades I would have raised spades directly, and with three spades I would have bid notrump.) …
Peter Gill: Will raise 2 NT to 3 NT, or 2 to 3 . As so many West players would raise to 2 on very little after the double, there is a good chance that West has only one or two hearts.
Comments for 3 Tim Hemphill: Must confirm strong support and a double at the upper end of its range.
Mark Shaw: I play a cue-bid denies four spades and is searching for another strain. Yes, we could go down, but it’s only 50 a trick. Partner could have only three spades, but could also have Q-x-x-x-x x-x x-x 10-9-x-x. Why think the worst? …
Martin Nathan: Two spades is an underbid (16-19). Given the wealth of controls and all points working, even deducting a point for squareness, this is worth 3 .
Greg Lawler: Since spades will play better if partner has a four-card suit and a doubleton, it makes sense to make the value bid in spades. This hand is not strong enough for a cue-bid followed by a raise of 2 to 3 .
Bogdan Vulcan: Two hearts has the advantage of being forcing; but what can partner bid after it? He only has 2 or 2 NT, which doesn’t solve anything. One notrump tells nothing about my spades. … I choose 3 , showing a strong spade fit and willingness to play a game in spades.
Rainer Herrmann: This hand is between two and three spades, but 2 is much more of an underbid than 3 is an overbid. One notrump, though right on values, is not a reasonable compromise… I consider 2 to be forcing for at least another round below game and therefore even stronger than 3 . …
Jonathan Fry: All I need to have a good play for game is A-x-x-x-x. I prefer spades to notrump in case partner has [five or six low spades] and two low diamonds.
Ruthanne Williams: Should show a hand of about this strength. Partner will know to go to game unless he is completely broke.
Al Kimel: I’m torn between 2 NT and 3 . Bernie Chazen says that if one has two stoppers in the enemy suit, one should strain to bid notrump. But if I don’t show my spade support now, partner will never find out about it.
Andrew de Sosa: An overbid, to be sure, but then 2 is just as much an underbid, even with the demerit for 4-3-3-3 distribution. Neither of the notrump rebids accurately describe this point count either and have the added flaw of implying less than four-card support. Two hearts smacks of a “mark time” bid which also implies less than four-card support; if I rebid 3 over whatever partner responds, he should play me for an even stronger hand than the direct 3 bid.
Mark Smith: Close between a cue-bid and 3 , but [this should be] stronger because I [can] bail out [in 2 ] after a cue-bid if partner has nothing.
Craig Satersmoen: With a truly bust hand, partner should go out of his way to bid a minor to avoid this very type of problem. With all hard cards, I like a trump contract better.
Len Vishnevsky: Give partner Q-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x K-x-x and 4 is excellent, so I can’t stress notrump (partner won’t correct), and I can’t bid a craven 2 . … Three spades seems perfect. What does 2 accomplish?
Patricia Banks: I have 20 points, but partner could have zero.
Leonard Helfgott: A cue-bid solves nothing, so it’s a choice between playing partner for only three spades (bid 2 NT) and hoping for four spades (bid 3 ). …
Thijs Veugen: A hand with aces plays better at a trump contract.
Bob Simkins: We have a game opposite most 5 or 6-point hands; partner would pass 2 with those.
Arvind Ranasaria: …The choice is between 2 NT and 3 . If I bid 2 NT, I wont be able to show my good spade support later. This hand has all prime values outside spades so it is a good suit-oriented hand.
Bruce Scott: Give partner a chance to get off the hook. Not enough tickets here to cue-bid. Maybe only bidding 2 is right, as the shape stinks, but I am not up to it. Why not notrump? I do have two heart stoppers. I only have one diamond stopper, however, and they might profitably lead that suit early. …
Rosalind Hengeveld: The value bid, barring the dreaded Yarborough and three-card spade suit. For 1 NT, I rate my stoppers as too fast.
Mike Hargreaves: This hand is not as good as its point count suggests, yet even so, I need little for game so I cannot do less. One notrump has a sneaking attraction, but I’ll be uncomfortable going back to spades later, if there is a later.
Bruce Cook: Three spades in an uncontested auction should show 18-20 HCP.
Comments for 1 NTGord Murray: I’ve bid my three-card spade suit opposite this double before. [If I raise spades] there’s usually a heart singleton lead and a subsequent ruff when East is in with the A. The balanced 1 NT alternative (19-21) might keep the points off the table.
Has Henken: [This shows] 18-19.
Beverly Terry: I will be lucky to find a queen in partner’s hand. I don’t want my high heart to be ruffed. … This bid shows 18-20.
Jonathan Jacobs: Shows a hand too good to overcall 1 NT immediately.
Steve Stein: Close between this and 2 . Shape (and lack of West heart raise) dictates notrump. Partner could have only three spades.
Marek Pontus: The choice is between 1 NT and 2 . Other options are overbids.
Peter Kay: Shows the hand most accurately. Partner may have bid 1 on three cards and a bust. He can take matters further if he has 5-6 HCP.
John R. Mayne: Sure, we’ve likely got a 4-4 fit, but anything else is misdescriptive. This hand is built for notrump, anyway.
Bill Jacobs: Essential to organize the plus opposite Q-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x; not to mention Q-x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x. If partner moves towards game I can show my spades. This isn’t a bulletproof plan, but I am swayed towards trying to go plus when partner is broke.
Barry Rigal: Two hearts is a valid alternative, intending to pass 2 . I’d need to know a little of partner’s style — might he foolishly bid a three-card spade suit in front of a four-card minor?
Tommy Cho: Best to describe your hand strength and pattern.
Bill Haughie: Accurately describes the point count and shape, although suppresses the spade support. If partner moves, I will have an opportunity to show that support (if deemed necessary). Likeliest contracts are in notrump.
David Caprera: This shouldn’t cause us to miss game, and it looks like a better partscore than I will get to by bidding 2 or 3 (2 is too much of an underbid, and 2 NT an overbid).
Michael Day: Three spades is likely to be the popular choice, but with a six-loser hand I’m not so sure this is wise. Nine tricks in notrump might be easier to make than 10 in spades, so I’ll start with 1 NT and show my values (I can always support spades later if partner rebids spades, raises to 2 NT, or bids a new suit).
Jerrold Miller: … Partner has 0-8 points and now knows I have a balanced hand with about 20 points (19-21) and hearts well stopped. …
Michael Clark: This is a horrible looking 20 count. I have to choose between 1 NT and 3 , and I choose 1 NT because 3 NT might well be the best place to play; and if partner is busted, anything more will be too high.
Bill Cubley: Right on strength and shape. I allow for partner making a forced bid on a three-card suit and very few HCP. …
Sriram Narasimhan: Conveys shape and strength. I cannot imagine making 4 without partner making another call, either with extra length in spades or a collection of points.
David Stern: I forced partner to bid — he may have nothing. This bid shows 17-19 and I am happy to have an extra point with such a flat hand.
Dave Chen: Showing 19-20 balanced. …
John Reardon: The chance of a thin nonvulnerable game is less than the chance of an unnecessary penalty. Partner may have only three spades and a very poor hand. I will support spades later if I get a chance.
Dave Scott: Partner has shown a minimum hand — maybe no HCP. One notrump promises a hand too strong to overcall in notrump (19-20 HCP) and is a good description…
Jan Langoy: Shows 19-21 (or good 18) HCP and a balanced hand with hearts stopped.
Rex Settle: If partner can move toward game or bid a second suit, his spades are real; then a raise to 3 will be clear to partner. Otherwise, this seems like the best chance for a plus opposite a weak forced response.
Comments for 2 Pieter Geerkens: A singleton diamond and two black queens is enough for game, and enough for partner to move over 2 . A seven-loser hand can’t be too aggressive nonvulnerable.
William Slepin: By bidding again after your double and partner’s minimum response you show a very strong hand. Don’t punish partner, who may have no points…
Harold Simon: Lots of high cards, zero distribution. The trouble with cue-bidding 2 first is that it suggests only three spades when you [later raise spades].
Leo Zelevinsky: This is a nice hand, but not that nice. I will need partner to have close to a maximum 1 bid to make a game.
Sandy Barnes: Way too many losers to want to bid higher than the two level. With my quick tricks I vote for a suit contract; therefore, no 1 NT (second choice).
Thomas Peters: I’m close to 3 , but there are a lot of losers. Most hands that offer a good play for 4 will be near-maximum 1 bids. My red-suit holdings are bad for notrump, and I want the opening bidder to lead. This is a weaker version of a hand in the recent Washington Solvers, moderated by Steve Robinson for the Washington Bridge League. That panel was pretty down on the cue-bid, saying it should be avoided with four spades.
Chris Willenken: One notrump, the only alternative, seems like masterminding. Why can’t partner have x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x Q-x-x-x?
Stu Goodgold: This is still a six-loser hand — it will take more than modest values from North to make game. With my prime values, it should play better in spades than notrump.
Vic Sartor: Torn between 1 NT and 2 ; lousy distribution makes 3 too much. I hope partner will make one try with 6-7 HCP.
Rick Kelly: I’m turned off a bit by the 4-3-3-3 shape, and notrump doesn’t look good either if partner is broke.
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 2
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1
| North 1
| EAST Pass 1
| South Pass ? | J 7 5 J 7 6 5 2 Q 10 7 5 2 —
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 313 | 54 |
| 5 | 9 | 127 | 22 |
| Other* | 7 | 63 | 11 |
| 2 | 4 | 35 | 6 |
| 3 | 3 | 31 | 5 |
| Pass | 2 | 8 | 1 |
*any bid but a heart raise
Rather than list various tactical (bluff) bids, I grouped them as “Other” because their intent is the same (to disguise the heart fit) and having a single category simplifies scoring. Among the tactical bids described in comments were various diamond bids (lead-directing or fit-showing) and club bids (generally to show shortness with the potential to guide partner’s defense against a spade contract). There were also a few of the “New Zoo Review” type, such as notrump bids, a 2 cue-bid and 4 NT Blackwood. (Bridge players are seldom lacking when it comes to imagination.) Alas, even collectively, the tactical bids did not make a strong showing.
The majority took the simple approach: When you expect a 10-card fit, bid for 10 tricks. I’m not happy with bidding 4 because it is likely to push the opponents into 4 (or 5 ), and then what? Presumably, you defend. For my money, I would prefer to inflict maximum pressure with 5 , else go with a tactical bid (1 NT appeals to me). My choice at the table might depend on the opponents and the state of the match.
Let’s see what happened in days of yore:
| USA vs Europe | 8 3 K Q 10 9 4 9 3 K 10 6 4
| |
| A Q 4 A 3 A J 8 Q J 8 7 3
| | K 10 9 6 2 8 K 6 4 A 9 5 2
|
| E-W Vul | J 7 5 J 7 6 5 2 Q 10 7 5 2 — | |
| Amouraben West 1 4 5
| Bishop North 1 Pass Pass | Kornblum EAST Pass 1 4 NT 6
| Oakie South Pass 4 Pass All Pass | 6 East Down 1 -100 |
| Mathe West 1 NT 4
| Ghestem North Pass All Pass | Steen EAST Pass 3
| Bacherich South Pass Pass | 4 East Made 6 +680 USA +7 EMPs |
In the first auction, Oakie chose the routine 4 bid, which (in theory) was not a success. Its effect was to propel the French pair into a cold slam. Note how much more difficult a 5 bid would have been; it’s hard to imagine either West or East bidding over that (my guess is that West would double). Further, this was in the days of softer penalties (no 800 sets nonvulnerable) so 4 seems almost cowardly.
Alas, Oakie got a reprieve. Kornblum had a blind spot in the play and went down in 6 . (After drawing trumps, he missed the safety play of leading a low club first and cashed the ace instead. Ouch.) This was a costly error — 7 EMPs (13 IMPs) to the U.S. instead of vice versa had the slam been made.
At the second table, the French were never in the bidding, so it was up to Mathe and Steen to bid the slam on their own. The primitive bidding speaks for itself. It is hard to blame Steen, but surely Mathe could have made a control-bid over 3 to indicate his tiptop values.
Comments for 4 Tim Hemphill: Take up bidding space and, with the opponents’ bidding under consideration, a strong diamond fit is also possible. Therefore, all my cards (including the club void) are important.
Mike Isaacs: I will bid 5 over 4 so partner can lead that suit when in with A.
Gord Murray: My 2 NT and 3 NT bids here often draw questions. How about 4 so when partner is in with a heart at a spade contract, there’s a club ruff? The 2 lead should get me that anyway without giving away the position except [that] sometimes I bid 4 here with only four; but I should have at least one of the top three honors for a standard fourth-best lead, shouldn’t I?
Mark Shaw: Anything could be right. If I bid at the five level, I’d bid 5 (void) preemptive. Since I’m a passed hand at favorable, partner will know I have this type of hand and not some good freak. If East were not a passed hand, I think I would trot out 5 and let them guess. Of course if partner had something like x-x A-K-x-x x-x K-Q-10-x-x, he would not be amused.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: After both opponents have bid their suits, any tactical bid is unlikely to work. Anything less than 4 is too timid — read: too old to bid 5 . :)
Martin Nathan: Law* supported. Why get fancy when you know where you want to play? Why an advance sacrifice when they haven’t shown a fit (a spade fit is problematical given North and West have at most five between them).
*Law of Total Tricks.
Vincent Harackiewicz: I will bid 5 over 4 .
James Hudson: If partner has a lot of clubs as well as several spades, my diamonds won’t be worth much on offense. But it would be masterminding not to bid 4 .
Mark LaForge: I will pass 4 — partner could have a duke.
Andy Lewis: As there is no indication that the opponents have a fit (or the balance of power), an advance save in 5 is premature.
Jeff Goldsmith: Overpreemption is less urgent when West knows his partner is limited (passed hand). Partner ought to be able to judge reasonably if I bid 4 . I’ll pass 4 . Perhaps this ought to be a “plan required” problem.
Josh Sinnett: Anyone who chooses a different bid should be arrested for breaking the Law, especially at this vulnerability.
Peter Kay: Lawful. Anything less is puny if meant seriously, but maybe 2 seeking to go to 3 , then 4 could be sneaky. …
John R. Mayne: Why should I think 4 or 5 is making? Four hearts places the pressure on the opponents, and also gets us something we’ve got a decent shot of making. Anything other than 4 or 5 should get nothing; it’s too late for screwing around.
Bill Jacobs: No one can know how best to manipulate the opponents’ minds. Preempting reduces their dialogue and their options — it is therefore the percentage bid. Yes, they could fall on their feet (say, forcing West to make a winning 4 bid), but why should they? Also, 4 offers partner a reasonable description, and allows me to pass subsequently and respect his decisions. Putting partner into the game is an undervalued part of bridge.
Pieter Geerkens: Six spades might be down off the top. Let them guess when they still have a little bit of room to feel their oats!
Everett Dyer: I will follow the Law. Partner can compete to 5 if he has the [right] hand, knowing that I hold five hearts.
Barry Rigal: Sometimes it is our hand. Four clubs as a splinter raise might get the defense right for partner, but 4 seems simpler — and less misleading as to HCP. [Should I] bid 5 on the next round if partner does not double 4 ?
Tommy Cho: … If I had a few more points (e.g., K instead of 2) I would bid 3 — fit suit jump. But now my hand is miserable in HCP, so I choose to bid to its maximum.
Sebastien Louveaux: Given that I have three spades, a tactical bid will probably help them uncover the (possible) spade fit at a low level. Maybe West will guess wrong. Five hearts is not a good bid as I am not sure who can make what.
Bogdan Vulcan: I have to bid; this is no hand for passing. Two hearts is an underbid, judging my distributional strength. Five hearts may be stupid if we had a 4 contract. … If they bid 4 , they might go down, or partner could bid 5 .
Rainer Herrmann: Why can’t partner have a strong hand? I would consider an advanced sacrifice only if partner would be limited. Since I am likely to be on lead against a non-club contract, I see little merit in a tactical bid.
Arpan Banerjee: Tactical bids might boomerang (force the opponents into a contract they would otherwise not reach, or restrain them from reaching an unmakable contract they would have reached). With 10 cards between the N-S hands, 4 clearly stands out. …
Bill Haughie: Seems automatic to preempt to the limit with this hand. The alternative is a lead-indicative 4 bid, but that overemphasizes the strength of the hand.
David Caprera: I am on lead against spades, and I want partner to decide what to lead against club contracts, so any tactical bid seems misguided. Four hearts seems about right on preemptive values. Nothing says partner doesn’t have a good hand.
Al Kimel: I’m a simple person; I show my heart support now. I am not prepared to make the save of 5 when I do not know if they have a game.
Alan Wilson: I think 5 could well be a winner, posing more problems for E-W, but my partner tends to be unsympathetic when such efforts don’t come off.
Phil Clayton: While 5 looks right (are you really selling out to 4 ?), the J-x-x diminishes their chance of a spade fit. The club void is an asset I’d rather not divulge at this point, as it may be the key to beating a slam.
Andrew de Sosa: I may have enough spades to preclude West having a clear-cut 4 bid, and partner may have enough clubs to preclude East having a clear-cut 5 bid. Four hearts puts the pressure on the vulnerable opponents to complete the description of their somewhat ambiguous one-level bids at the four or five level. Five hearts is too unilateral against opponents who have yet to prove they have a fit.
John Weisweiler: I have had no success with tactical bids. I bid 4 and hope that the opponents misjudge. I have some sympathy with 5 , but partner may have massive club values; if not, they may have 6 , and maybe they will not bid it if I only bid 4 .
Michael Clark: I simply bid to the level of the fit. West may be just itching to bid spades, and I’ll make him guess at the four level. Five hearts will be a good sacrifice if 4 makes, but I’ll let partner be the judge of that.
Sandy Barnes: Bidding clubs seems wrong since it will allow West an opportunity to double. …
Len Vishnevsky: Give partner K-10-x A-Q-10-x-x x A-J-10-x, and we’ll probably buy the contract with any heart raise except 2 . Four hearts is decent, and with a worse hand they might bid and make a black partial; so 3 is probably not enough, and 4 is plenty.
Robert Tamlyn: I have some defense against 4 . If their fit is in clubs, they may have trouble bidding over 4 .
William Campbell: I’ll be on lead against spades, so a lead-directing tactical bid is out. Pass, 2 , and 3 are craven. At this vulnerability there’s a lot to be said for a direct 5 , taking away Blackwood; at IMPs I’m not as worried about 500 vs. 800. I wish I were strong enough to get diamonds into the picture via a fit-showing jump, so partner could decide. In the end, I think 4 is enough, but 5 is a close second.
Thomas Peters: Cannot do less with this shape (Law). Tricky bids usually help the opponents describe their hands. Presumably they will now guess at game, and I will defend. Five hearts is too unilateral. How do I know they can bid the correct game and make it?
Bill Scherer: I figure this to be about down two.
Philip Smith: I don’t know that E-W have a huge spade fit, so I may as well put partner into the picture by bidding my hand.
Chris Willenken: Partner should be well prepared over 4 since I have weak spade length. I won’t misdescribe with some club bid to get the lead.
Mike Cassel: Should have had the craps table layout next to this one! I am a big fan of fit jumps, but these diamonds aren’t quite enough.
Samuel Krikler: The principle of “fast arrival” should convey the message that I am weak with very few defensive values against 4 .
Bruce Scott: I am not willing to write the check for 5 doubled. There is some chance that partner is on a four-card heart suit. My club shortage means he is likely to have length, and he is more likely to make a four-card overcall with length in opener’s suit. Maybe I can lead a funny heart spot against 4 and get a club ruff or two.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Five hearts looks attractive, but partner may have a good hand where we make 4 and they don’t have a make or save. Anyway, preemptive bids are my idea of the best tactical bids.
Gareth Birdsall: Seems the normal call. I am not bare defensively, and partner may well have plenty, so 5 seems wrong.
Mike Hargreaves: Five hearts… is too much and may act as a red flag when it isn’t. They don’t have to have a spade fit; they don’t have to have a slam. Tactical bids are likely futile, with the exception perhaps of a leap in clubs — but I am on opening lead.
Michele Holm: With favorable vulnerability a preempt seems best. I don’t want partner to think I have defensive values.
Comments for 5 Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: … I would like to try an advance sacrifice, as North did not double.
Sivakumar Salem: With favorable vulnerability, I like the advance sacrifice to give little room for further exchange of information.
Kieran Dyke: I don’t think I’m keen on defending game in a black suit, so I’ll see if they bid any higher.
Micha Keijzers: I’ll put the pressure on. … It looks like they have the black suits, and we have the red suits. …
Beverly Terry: The popular vote will probably be 4 , which will elicit 4 by the opponents. I would like to pass and bid later, however, partner would not have any idea of my holding; hence I’d better describe my hand now.
Ian Payn: Law of Impending Disaster.
Dave Maeer: Turn the cube. Let’s see how much bottle they have (sorry, cockney rhyming slang) and let’s hope partner has the wit to return a club after he wins the A if they go to 6 .
Just what part is it that rhymes? Here, have another bottle.
Michael Day: Who knows. At this vulnerability, it’s probably right to bid 5 over the opponents’ 4 or 5 . I’ll do that now and let the opponents be the ones to guess.
Milton Spinner: Make them guess; 4 gives them room to stop at 4 or use Blackwood.
Andrei Varlan: A void is a supplementary trump in the Law. Let’s get them high.
Ron Zucker: Let them guess which suit and how high.
Manoj Kumar Nair: If I bid 4 , over their 4 I must guess. If I bid 5 now, they must guess. … The only tactical bid that comes near is 4 NT (most other bids give the opponents too much room). …
Will Engel: This is pretty risky, as they may not have a game in any of their fits (only fit?), but at favorable you have to exert maximum pressure.
Kent Feiler: Give the bad guys the last guess.
Manuel Paulo: On lead against a spade contract, I have no interest in a tactical club bid, so I preempt as much as possible or reasonable.
Michael Kaplan: … Choice is 4 (Law) or 5 as a maximum preempt. The trouble with 4 is that it won’t stop 4 or 5 , hence an insufficient deterrent. I’ll let them try to bid accurately over 5 , where I expect to go down less than four.
Leonard Helfgott: Any bid is a guess, so I’ll apply maximum pressure and hope that either it’s not our hand or that it will make. I don’t fare well making tactical bids, but if my diamonds were stronger I would bid 3 as a fit-showing jump.
Daniel Moisa: Since I will bid 5 over 4 anyhow, why give valuable space to the opponents. Better offer them the pleasure of guessing with a direct 5 .
Stu Goodgold: I just hope partner has some defense against a club slam.
John Reardon: At this vulnerability I am prepared to make life as difficult as possible for everyone.
Rick Kelly: No fooling around for me; opponents can have the last guess here.
Comments for Other (tactical bid)Dirk Enthoven: Two spades comes to mind; after all, East too has passed originally. This will serve to find out if partner has the poisonous Q-x-x (if LHO doesn’t bid 3 ). …
Brian Ross: Four clubs (splinter).
Tapas Banerji: Four clubs. Implied heart support, guiding partner to sacrifice if he wishes. Also, potential defense against 4 with small heart to ace, club ruff.
Neil Morgenstern: Four diamonds (fit showing jump). … If the next hand bids 4 , partner will know what to do; he will clearly be short in spades and I am short in clubs. If partner has a hand like x A-K-x-x-x K-J-x-x x-x-x, he will bid 5 ; but with x A-K-x-x-x x-x-x K-J-x-x, he will want to defend.
Jerrold Miller: I would bid 4 , which partner should take as a splinter in support of hearts. If they get to a spade contract, I might be able to get a ruff or two.
Harold Simon: Four notrump. It’s meaning will be obvious to the opponents, but it robs them of many levels of bidding. As well, it is uncommon for pairs to have discussed bidding in this situation.
Jack Rhatigan: Four clubs. This should show heart support and club shortness and allow partner to do any sacrificing.
Craig Biddle: Two diamonds (or 3 if fit-showing).
Luc Segers: Two clubs (club shortness and heart fit). With a possible double fit in hearts and diamonds, I want to describe my hand to partner as accurately as possible.
Gerald Murphy: Four clubs. It looks like the opponents have a spade or club fit, and this lets partner know about my shortness. If partner has spade shortness, he can compete higher.
Richard Willey: A fit-showing jump in diamonds seems obvious. I am a passed hand; partner won’t go overboard.
Howard Abrams: Two clubs. I think there are three tenable bids here: (1) 2 with the idea of having partner be able to make an informed decision later (downside: opponents can listen to the auction too), (2) 5 which puts the auction past Blackwood and gives the opponents the last guess, and (3) 4 intending to bid 5 over 4 (but the auction may be past 4 by the time it gets back to you). Realizing that any of these could work or backfire, I take the first option. …
Dave Scott: Two clubs. … If we are on defense, I want a club lead when partner gets in, and this seems to be as good a spot as any to announce it.
Ed Harris: Two spades. I am willing, especially on this vulnerability, to play 5 . Starting with 2 might keep the opponents from doubling, and might even cause them to misvalue their partnership strength to the extent that they don’t even bid 4 over 4 . … I am aware that 2 overstates the strength of my hand, but partner is unlikely to get so energetic as to go higher than 5 . …
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 3
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | NORTH 1 3
| East Pass Pass | South 2 ? | A 7 5 K 10 5 3 2 A J 6 K 7
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 142 | 25 |
| 3 | 8 | 259 | 45 |
| 4 | 6 | 41 | 7 |
| 4 | 5 | 45 | 8 |
| 3 NT | 3 | 13 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 | 17 | 3 |
| 4 NT | 1 | 60 | 10 |
This problem created a scoring predicament. My normal practice is to assign the top award according to the consensus of the respondents, but I had to take exception here. The trouble is that most 3 bidders, no doubt influenced by their own methods, assumed it was forcing. Alas, in Standard American it shows a “2 1/2” spade raise, and opener is expected to pass with a bare minimum. Note that opener’s raise to 3 is forcing because a two-over-one responder promises to bid again, but it does not show extra strength. It is ironic that this allows you to stop in 3 but not in 3 , but that’s the system. I didn’t invent it, folks. Therefore, to give 3 the top award would be a great injustice to those who knew the system or bothered to read my available summary. Because of the large vote for 3 , I will be generous and award it 8.
Aside from 3 , the consensus was to bid 4 as a slam try. I can live with this, although the hand is not as good as it might appear. The double fit might be a liability, e.g., if partner’s spades are K-x-x-x-x, it would dictate another probable loser. I would be happier if the hand were, say, A-7 K-10-5-3-2 A-J-6 K-7-5. The more I look at the problem, the more it feels right to be conservative.
In 1954 both South players felt their Wheaties:
| Europe vs USA | Q J 9 3 2 A Q J 8 6 K 5 3
| |
| 10 6 4 9 4 10 8 4 A Q 10 6 4
| | K 8 7 Q 9 7 5 3 2 J 9 8 2
|
| E-W Vul | A 7 5 K 10 5 3 2 A J 6 K 7 | |
| Rosen West Pass Pass All Pass | Besse NORTH 1 4 5
| Oakie East Pass Pass Pass | Schneider South 3 4 NT 6
| 6 South Made 6 +980 |
| Ghestem West Pass Pass Pass Pass | Steen NORTH 1 3 4 4 NT 6
| Bacherich East Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Ellenby South 2 4 4 5
| 6 South Made 6 +980 No swing |
Amazing! Both tables bid the lousy slam and scored it up. In the first auction, Schneider literally forced to slam after a strong jump shift. In the second, Ellenby tried with 4 then bid again when Steen signed off — hard to believe, but why argue with success.
The play records are not specific, but it would seem to me that an expert declarer would go down. It’s all a matter of guessing the spades, and the only real distributional clue is the heart division; hence when the Q holds, it seems slightly better to play for a doubleton 10 than a doubleton king. Note that East’s play of the 8 is irrelevant since it’s a routine falsecard from K-8-x. But what do I know; maybe Oakie and Bacherich looked too honest.
Comments for 4 Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: Slam chances are high so I start cue-bidding.
Tim Hemphill: Cue-bid the A. Partner has the option of signing off in 4 .
Gord Murray: Slam looks improbable, but after 4 I will make minimum bids. When in doubt, pass the buck. How good could 3 possibly be?
Dinu Raducanu: Then 4 over 4 .
Martin Nathan: Hard to construct a North hand that won’t be odds-on for slam, given the double fit. Three spades would be OK if playing two-over-one game forcing. … If partner lacks the A, I better play in hearts… to protect the K.
Steve Stein: Is 3 forcing? The Bidding Guide doesn’t say. I’d like to make one try, but partner should be limited, so slam may be remote.
The Bidding Guide, under “Rebids by Responder” and “After a Two-over-One Response,” says: “Any nonjump bid below game (except an unbid suit) shows 11-12 points and is invitational.” Also, under “Slam Bidding” it says that to make the initial control-bid after a raise you must “bid an unbid suit or an enemy-bid suit.” Hence, 3 is natural and nonforcing. -RP
Gordon Rainsford: I’d like to bid 3 forcing, but I don’t believe it is, or should be.
Peter Kay: According to the system, 4 is the lowest slam investigation. …
John R. Mayne: Worth one try at slam; not worth committing past 4 . Any spade bids might end up getting played in spades, which is almost certainly a mistake.
Giovanni Bobbio: According to my reading of your Guide, 3 is nonforcing, and we do not play Italian control-bids. We can make six if partner has a maximum; but I cannot force to slam, nor can I Blackwood because that will not tell me what I need. Only 4 remains. …
Tapas Banerji: The doubleton K predisposes a final contract in hearts rather than spades (unless North holds the A). …
Neil Morgenstern: No harm in making a slam try, although we probably need to have 12 tricks to run, e.g., partner holding K-Q-x-x-x-x A-Q-x-x x-x x (or minors reversed, or only five spades but running).
Herbert Wilton: Then follow up with 5 after a 4 sign-off.
Bogdan Vulcan: … If partner bids 4 , I’ll bid 4 next and my hand will be clear to him ( A A). …
Ron Zucker: … I know, partner only showed 13-15 HCP, but my hand is very prime and we have a two-suit fit. I’ll bid 4 over 4 but respect partner’s next sign-off.
John Hoffman: This hand is worth one try even if partner has a minimum.
Will Engel: Playing Standard American, partner can’t have much more than a minimum opener, so slam seems remote. But this hand still merits exactly one try.
Harold Simon: Heading for five or six hearts. It seems better to play in hearts to protect the K.
Bill Cubley: We might have slam with a double fit so I’ll start cue-bidding.
Jack Rhatigan: … I will bid 4 over 4 . Just bidding 5 directly to ask about the quality of the heart raise should have at least some merit.
Sandy Barnes: … I’ll make my intentions clear by cue-bidding diamonds, then raising the level with a spade cue-bid. Playing in hearts makes me bold.
Albert Sekac: We should play in hearts to protect the K. I intend to bid 4 over 4 …
Bill Scherer: If partner cue-bids the A, I’ll bid the slam in hearts.
Philip Smith: Prod partner with a cue-bid. If he parks it in 4 , I’ll be happy enough. …
Samuel Krikler: The South hand is rich in controls. A small slam is possible and should be explored…
Comments for 3 Dima Nikolenkov: Hoping to hear a cue-bid.
Arvind Srinivasan: Definitely forcing, intended as support and the start of a cue-bidding sequence.
Mark Shaw: I like 3 NT as a nonserious slam try (better than a natural 3 NT, especially at IMPs). [Hence] a cue-bid is a serious slam try (got my bid but barely). Incidentally, for those using “kickback” (4 Roman key-card Blackwood for hearts) you better have some good agreements here.
Confucius say: Nonserious slam try like politician… Already know kickback.
Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: Gives choice of contracts by announcing fit in two suits and interest in slam. Let partner decide.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: This hand looks very promising with a double fit and control in the unbid suits, but there is no hurry to bid 4 NT. It pays to keep partner in the loop (oh, for DKCB*, if only Kantar had set these problems).
*double key-card Blackwood
Kieran Dyke: Forcing. No need to rush.
Mitch Edelman: Let’s find out if partner has a minor-suit control.
Micha Keijzers: Cue-bid for hearts. Three hearts sets suit, at least in my book; so 3 can now be employed as a cue-bid. It gives the chance to hear something in the minors that might be of interest.
Ian Payn: I know it’s neither helpful nor instructive to say “I always bid 3 on hands like this,” but I always bid 3 on hands like this.
Dave Maeer: I have bad hearts and good spades, in context. I expect partner to make a forward going move if we have a slam, and if he bids 4 I will continue because he guarantees four hearts now.
Bill Jacobs: What is 3 , RP? Weaker than 4 ? I bid 3 not because it is necessarily right, but because I think it will get me at least 7 points. Please don’t let me down!
In Standard American, 3 shows 13-15 points and 4 shows 16-18 points. Note that 3 is forcing by logic (responder has 11+ points and cannot determine when opener has the bottom of his range) and also by the rule that a two-over-one responder promises to bid again (below game).
Sebastien Louveaux: In any sane system, this sequence is forcing to game and shows slam ambitions.
OK, so mental health was never a priority for me… But write I what make does sense a lot of.
Larry Gifford: Forcing, and perhaps the most helpful feature for partner to know about.
Rainer Herrmann: I do not know of any sensible system, which does not play this sequence as 100-percent forcing.
Arpan Banerjee: I would like to play the hand if partner doesn’t have A, to protect the K from lead. Three spades gives partner the double-fit good news at the cheapest level, and partner will cue-bid the A if he has it…
Bill Haughie: Forcing. Lots of hands where slam is cold, or at least is odds-on. Partner will cue-bid with a suitable hand.
Ruthanne Williams: Doesn’t seem right to give up on slam right now, and 3 should be a cue-bid of the A, not another suggestion about the trump suit.
Robin Burns: This will keep the ball rolling below game and sound out slam possibilities.
Olivier La Spada: Forcing. Optimistic description. Partner is not minimum (would have to bid 2 otherwise), so I will respect his 4 and push to slam if anything else.
Horia Garbea: I indicate the double fit and wait for a club cue-bid…
Al Kimel: With the double fit, 3 should be game forcing.
Alan Wilson: I assume there’s no doubt about this being forcing on your side of the Atlantic? Partner will be better able to judge the trick potential facing known spade support than simply a cue-bid.
Phil Clayton: Must be a slam try. With Q-x-x K-10-x-x-x A-J-x K-x, I simply bid 4 . Three spades gives partner room to cue-bid the A; however, we still need a perfect hand for six. Once I try 4 , I will let partner take control.
Andrew de Sosa: Cue-bid investigating a heart slam. If I don’t bid it now, partner will never play me for first-round spade control. If partner cue-bids 4 , I will cooperate with 4 . …
Michael Clark: Partner would need to be very suitable (five losers) for slam to be an option, and I don’t think he is after his 3 bid. I’ll give him a choice of major suits, and if he chooses hearts (indicating 5-4 shape) I might make one tiny slam try.
Sriram Narasimhan: We still need to find the best strain and level.
Manuel Paulo: Hearts became the agreed suit and this is a spade cue-bid. I am afraid of partner having a biased mirror like K-10-x-x-x A-x-x K-x A-J-x; even so, slam is possible with good breaks and the Q onside.
Robert Tamlyn: I assume this is forcing. I am going to bid 5 next over four of a major from partner. This must show both secondary suits controlled (else I would cue-bid the one I had). I want partner to choose the stronger trump suit and focus on kings and queens in the majors. Perhaps I will pitch a losing spade on the Q or he will pitch a heart on a diamond (e.g., K-Q-x-x-x-x A-x-x K Q-x-x).
Leonard Helfgott: Most economical in that it allows a 4 cue-bid. …
William Campbell: Even though partner is limited, slam is possible — even a grand slam with K-Q-10-x-x A-Q-x x-x A-x-x (though without at least one of the major-suit jacks, I’d settle for six). …
David Stern: Support or cue-bid — who knows, but I have a better-than-average hand and don’t mind taking one action to show it.
David Neiman: Plenty of room to explore. Show the double fit and let partner describe his hand further.
Bob Simkins: Even though partner is limited to 15 support points, we can make six often enough to try for it. I envision some variation of 9, 10 or 11 tricks in the majors plus something like the A and a ruff. If I show my spade card, perhaps partner will know that strong major-suit cards plus a minor-suit control are invaluable. …
David Hooey: I know its nonforcing, but no reasonable partner would pass 3 on this auction.
Chris Willenken: Let partner know that his majors are the key for slam. Any five-level drive is a huge overbid. Though I have a lot of controls, I also have a lot of losers. Opposite Q-x-x-x-x Q-x-x K-Q-x A-x, 4 is in danger.
Richard Willey: Let partner know about the double fit as soon as possible.
Dave Chen: Start cue-bidding. Maybe we can even stop in 3 NT.
Stu Goodgold: Bidding out my shape, and with the cheapest bid available too.
Arvind Ranasaria: I have controls in both minors, so it is important to check that there are not too many losers in the majors for slam purposes. Showing my spade support is the best way to do this.
John Reardon: Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.
Vic Sartor: Not certain which suit is best, yet partner may know. He may now start cue-bidding with extra values or sign off with a minimum. I will cooperate either way.
Dave Scott: If I don’t show the support now, it will be hard to convince partner we have a double fit. Cue-bids can start on the four level.
Jan Langoy: Shows A or K and slam interest in hearts.
Aljosa Cakic: With the ideal partner’s hand we could make 7 ; and also only 4 . My cue-bid shows some slam interest.
Steve White: This should be forcing and gives partner the opportunity to show mild slam interest by cue-bidding either minor. A cue-bid of either minor by me would be a clear slam try, but would not alert partner to the double fit and [instead] focus concern on control of the unbid suit.
Comments for 4 Marek Pontus: I think 4 is the best bid for showing interest in 6 . A spade contract cannot be better.
Gerry Wildenberg: This is a tough problem in that you need to learn about the aces, the K, and the major-suit queens. Since your web page says 3 is nonforcing, that’s out (though in my partnerships it is forcing). …
Gerald Murphy: Partner has a minimum hand, however, I will bid 4 to show some interest in going higher. If he bids 4 , I will bid 4 ; if he bids four hearts, I will pass.
Howard Abrams: I want to explore for slam and cue-bidding seems more likely to be useful than Blackwood. The real question is whether your partnership agreements permit you to cue-bid second-round controls under the game level or require you to cue-bid first-round controls first. (I checked your Standard American Bridge summary which was silent on this issue.) …
You needed to check my more detailed Bidding Guide, which says, “A control-bid shows first-round control (ace or void) in the suit bid.” Note that I use the word “shows” (not “promises”) as occasionally there are hands that offer no ideal bid; hence, you might improvise with only second-round control as a means to convey slam interest to partner.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Not 3 , as that would set spades as the trump suit, and it looks like the contract should be played from my side (despite my lousy scores in Richard’s play contests). I presume we’re not in a game-forcing situation (else I’d bid 4 NT).
Comments for 4 John Weisweiler: Opposite what my partners have when they bid like this, I don’t want to play slam.
Peter Gill: Too many losers for slam, and I want to protect my minor-suit tenaces so spades are out. I haven’t checked the system, but if you’re playing 3 as forcing here, then you are completely nuts not to have indicated so above, once you’ve indicated that the bidding methods are basic.
Ooh, that hurts. Ask any of my partners and they will assure you I’m only partially nuts.
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 4
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West | North | EAST 1 1
| South ? | A J K J 7 6 2 K Q 5 3 J 2
|
| 1. often four cards | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 359 | 62 |
| Double | 8 | 129 | 22 |
| Pass | 6 | 50 | 9 |
| 1 NT | 4 | 39 | 7 |
The fact that the opponents play “four-card majors” has little bearing on the decision here, but I included it to duplicate the conditions. I thought the voting would be close, but no; the overwhelming majority stepped right in with 2 . Many respondents commented on the danger but felt it was justified. All I can say is, be prepared to crawl under the table if it goes pass, pass, double. It could be ugly.
Some action seems warranted, as you could miss a vulnerable game by passing. My own choice is to double. This is certainly safer than 2 , and it’s probably just as good in regard to reaching game. The obvious downside is that you will have to pass a 2 response and might play a 4-2 club fit when you have a 5-3 heart fit — but that’s still better than going for 800 after a 2 overcall. If partner’s 2 response is doubled for penalty, I would redouble (SOS) hoping to improve with a red suit.
Another possibility is to bid 1 NT, but this is frightening on such a scant 15 points without any suit texture — I’d prefer to pass. Bidding 1 NT is even more risky than 2 , as it may incite a doubling spree, after which your runout to 2 is more likely to get nailed. I suppose you could redouble (SOS) and pull 2 to 2 (implying both red suits) to increase your chances of a successful escape.
Seeing what happened in 1954 almost makes me want to play four-card majors:
| Europe vs USA | Q 10 7 5 4 3 8 J 10 9 A 7 4
| |
| 2 Q 5 4 3 8 6 4 K 10 9 6 5
|  | K 9 8 6 A 10 9 A 7 2 Q 8 3
|
| Both Vul | A J K J 7 6 2 K Q 5 3 J 2 | |
| Oakie West 2
| Besse North 2
| Mathe EAST 1 All Pass | Schneider South 1
| 2 North Made 3 +140 |
| Kornblum West Pass | Steen North Pass | Amouraben EAST 1 Pass | Bishop South 2
| 2 South Down 1 -100 Europe +4 EMPs |
The first auction typifies what would happen at most tables today: East opens a “convenient minor,” South overcalls cozily at the one level, West raises, and North plays an easy partscore in spades. I suppose some West players would push to 3 , but this also gives N-S a plus (maybe 200).
Alas, the second auction was vive la difference. Amouraben’s in-your-face 1 bid set the stage for trouble, and Bishop couldn’t resist bidding his suit. No disaster this time (down only one) but hardly a success when 2 made 140 (it could be held to 110) — 4 EMPs (6 IMPs) to Europe.
Consider what might have happened if Bishop had doubled 1 . Presumably, Steen would pass for penalty, and Amouraben would redouble (SOS) hoping his partner has a suit; then Kornblum runs to 2 . Steen might double this (down at least one after the obvious stiff-heart lead), but suppose he passes it around to Bishop. Now what? I would bid 2 , which logically should be to play. Now there’s a novelty! You double a suit for takeout and then later bid it naturally. Bridge is a strange game sometimes.
Comments for 2 Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: Doubling and bidding would show a stronger hand.
Gord Murray: Too weak for 1 NT, pass might miss game, and double gets me 2 too often. I’m stuck trying out the ugly red suit I wish had been lost at the cleaners. Thank you R.P.
Arvind Srinivasan: The best chance of game lies in hearts, and an overcall will get you there whenever it is on.
Mark Shaw: Yes, I could go for a number, but I could have a vulnerable heart game. This is the best way to reach it. Second choice is to double, then 1 NT; I would never pass. Someone should run a simulation to find the best [percentage action]…
Sivakumar Salem: Really a problem hand. The best I would think is to overcall 2 , [although] there is a high risk of being penalized.
Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: If you double, you may play in a 4-2 club fit when there is a 5-3 heart fit. If you overcall, LHO may have five hearts and penalize you; but 2 is better than 1 NT.
Kieran Dyke: This could be very wrong, but it heads in the direction of our most likely game.
Rich Johnson: Not pretty, but I never got rich passing these hands.
James Hudson: The prospect of a vulnerable game at IMPs beckons, and if we have a game it’s probably in hearts. I’m just barely strong enough to take this risk.
Beverly Terry: A difficult choice between 1 NT and 2 .
Mabel Pavlicek: What else? I’m not good enough to double and bid again.
Jeff Goldsmith: Standard methods don’t work well here. “Power doubles” solve this problem, though not without cost. See: waggle.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/system/powerdoubles.html
Greg Lawler: Of course, I might get killed.
Steve Stein: The opponents play negative doubles, don’t they? I can hear my father’s voice, “You’re gonna overcall on that garbage?”
Dirk Enthoven: I would not like to be passed out in 1 NT (never mind the four-card red herring) so I bid my suits, hearts first.
Ian Payn: Select the least bad bid, and do it in tempo. Second choice: double. Too many downsides to pass or bid 1 NT.
Dave Maeer: I can see the merits of 1 NT, but a double is appalling — 1 Dbl 4 5 ; Dbl (your go). I’m easy with an overcall; pass is for wimps.
John R. Mayne: Why’d I bid 2 ? To try to get a high score on the quiz. I think the field is wrong. … The hand isn’t worth 15; double is misdirected as to both round suits; and 2 is 1100 territory with this moth-eaten suit. Pass is clear.
Sage advice from our esteemed attorney: Pass — or you’ll be steamed at tourney.
Brian Ross: I would like to have a better suit, but this is it.
Pieter Geerkens: Too hard to untangle (in a casual partnership) if I start with a double.
Jerry Bigler: Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Everett Dyer: Just a simple overcall then 3 if I need to compete or if partner shows interest.
Barry Rigal: OK, cart me out; take me to the cleaners. If they reopen with a double, I might run to 3 myself; and if 2 comes back to me, I might try 3 . There is no stopping me!
Tommy Cho: Although my heart suit is mediocre, pass may lose more in the long run. Definitely, I don’t have the strength to double and convert to 2 after a 2 response from partner.
Larry Gifford: I don’t like such a poor suit, but I have extra values. Double is imperfect, 1 NT is distorted, and pass feels very wrong. I prefer to show my heart length.
Neil Morgenstern: I am in the school that prefers to overcall with a five-card major. I could lose a big penalty in 2 doubled, but I could miss game if I pass.
Arpan Banerjee: Who will pass or bid 1 NT with a 15-point unbalanced hand? Double will lead to a problem if partner bids 2 or 3 . … [I don’t have] a very good suit, but 2 is the lesser evil.
Bill Haughie: Whatever I do has risks, but repressing the heart suit heavily reduces my chances of reaching a heart game (or partscore). … Nobody likes bidding 2 on such a ratty suit, but the alternatives are far less palatable.
David Caprera: Sure, this isn’t perfect, but neither is anything else. If I go for sticks and wheels, I’ve been there before.
Ruthanne Williams: Least of evils. One spade could be only four cards, but my hand suggests it’s not.
William Slepin: Get my suit in at lowest level early.
Horia Garbea: Normal with a five-card heart suit. I hope we have a heart fit.
Milton Spinner: Tough. I hate to overcall with such a ratty suit, but double may lose a 5-3 fit. Better to get in early rather than wait.
Andrei Varlan: I lack a sixth heart, but double followed by 2 shows a stronger hand.
Phil Clayton: The extra king makes up for the missing 10. Neither black jack is carrying its weight here, so no 1 NT overcall.
Jerrold Miller: If I double and partner bids clubs, what then? I really don’t have a 1 NT overcall with this distribution, and pass is likely to get 2 on my left, passed around to me. Then?
Ron Zucker: I rarely will get hurt. One notrump is my second choice, but [for that] I’d like a third spade.
Mark Smith: Double would be the right answer if you play equal-level perversion.
John Weisweiler: I have no better idea. Pass may be a winner, but it is too risky; partner may simply not be able to reopen when we have a game.
Manoj Kumar Nair: Close call between 1 NT and 2 . I have learned the hard way not to make off-shape doubles in this position. For 2 , the suit is not good, but I have a maximum, oh hmm, I think. …
Gerry Wildenberg: Off-shape doubles are not to my taste — they are disaster prone. Pass is very reasonable, but I’ve gotten away with these non-textbook overcalls a zillion times — let’s hope for a zillion and one.
Harold Simon: Ugly. This or pass could lose big.
Jack Rhatigan: Pass is wrong; double is wrong; both 1 NT and 2 have merit. I have poor spots in heart suit, but I would overcall 2 anyway.
John Jones: This could go for a number, but it’s a long-run winner. Pass is timid enough to frequently lose partscores and occasionally games. Neither double nor 1 NT adequately describes 2=5=4=2.
Craig Satersmoen: Sure, the heart suit is weak, but 1 2 is one of the toughest auctions for four-card-major bidders to [handle]. …
Michael Kaplan: If I double, I’m too weak to convert partner’s club response to a red suit or notrump. I dislike 1 NT with 5-4-x-x and likely only 13-14 working HCP. A 2 overcall is sound. …
Thomas Peters: Not remotely strong enough to double and hope to bid hearts later.
Bob Simkins: I hate to overcall on this anemic suit, but if we have a game, it’s in hearts. If I don’t bid now, we’ll never get [there].
Gerald Murphy: I don’t like a double because the bidding could get too high. My choice is between 2 and 1 NT. Because of my two black doubletons, I will bid 2 and hope partner can respond.
Howard Abrams: I do not think Standard American allows for equal-level conversion, which rules out a takeout double.
Magnus Skaar: Close to a 1 NT overcall, but 5-4-2-2 shape often plays better in a suit contract.
Vic Sartor: Double avoids a huge penalty, but I don’t want to double and then bid hearts. … So I’ll risk 2 .
Mike Hargreaves: I expect to take at least four tricks in 2 doubled. I’d like better spots, but I don’t have them. Pass is for losers, and both double and 1 NT are misguided.
Aljosa Cakic: It could be dangerous, but passing with 15 points seems much too cowardly. With a doubleton club and only 15 points, it is not my style to double.
Michele Holm: At this vulnerability a two-level overcall should promise an opening hand, and I don’t like to misrepresent my shape.
Ed Harris: … I would prefer to have better hearts, but my hand is above minimum in strength…
Steve White: Obviously risky, but also obviously where our best game prospects are.
Comments for DoubleVenkatesh Ramaratnam: My heart suit is too moth-eaten to bid at the two level, especially at this vulnerability. Very close between 1 NT (negative extension of Hamman’s rule) and double. Clubs could actually be the right strain if partner has 5+ cards, and if wishes were horses… :)
Mitch Edelman: If I double and partner then bids 2 , I am not good enough to bid 2 NT or 2 ; bidding 1 NT with five of the other major seems misguided, and my heart suit is not really good enough at IMPs for 2 . Sigh. Partner just might bid something besides 2 .
Micha Keijzers: … I’m not overcalling 2 on this crappy suit vulnerable. Double might be wrong too, but it’s probably not as bad as 2 .
Gordon Rainsford: Least evil of four unpalatable alternatives.
Bill Jacobs: East-West are in their 20s and playing Moscito. They would nail 2 .
Herbert Wilton: Seems like the safest way to enter the auction, but very much a matter of partnership style.
Michael Day: Who knows. The 2 overcall of 1 sometimes has to be made on a bad suit when you have a good hand, but this is too much of a stretch for me. If notrump is the right strain, partner is likely to bid it over a double.
Kent Feiler: To avoid that feeling of dread when you bid 2 and the auction continues pass, pass, double.
Leah Cohen: Toughest so far. Might lose hearts or get to the wrong suit, but that heart suit isn’t good enough for the two level.
Robert Tamlyn: I hate to double, but pass (my second choice) seems worse. Nothing good can happen if I pass unless LHO makes a two-over-one response. … Is it so bad to have an extra heart, the suit partner will try to bid, instead of a third club?
Leonard Helfgott: The five-card suit is just too thin to overcall vulnerable at IMPs. Too light for 1 NT, and I prefer to do anything but pass (which may be theoretically correct). I’ll risk a double and pass the expected 2 call.
Chris Willenken: I would usually overcall 2 with this shape and strength, but this hand is not so terrific for hearts with all of the secondary cards. The hand is not good enough for 1 NT with such a terrible 15.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Mostly a matter of style and temperament. Here’s mine; feel free to like it or not. Double gives us more room than 2 to land in a spot where we may get out for minus 800. :)
Dave Scott: It is a good description of the hand, and I don’t really care what partner responds.
Gareth Birdsall: Very tough. I have no strong feelings, and all four answers could prove to be right. I require a better suit to overcall at the two level, but I suspect it will be the most popular answer. It takes a brave person to pass these hands, but it could be right. When you want to bid but no particular denomination seems right, then doubling for takeout is almost always the best, and most flexible call.
Rick Kelly: No good call — double seems to cater to the most possibilities.
Comments for PassJosh Sinnett: I don’t expect to be in the majority with this one, but there’s no good bid at this time. Pass doesn’t mean I don’t have points, nor does it bar me from later action.
Peter Kay: Suit is not quite good enough for a two-level overcall; hand is not quite good enough for 1 NT. Don’t like those doubletons; no 10s or nines.
Tapas Banerji: Probably only a partscore hand, in which partner’s few values could assist in a profitable defense. If partner has good values he will strain to reopen after West passes…
Andrew de Sosa: A conservative action, to be sure, but this is not a high-quality 15 HCP. Besides, the auction isn’t over yet, and we aren’t likely missing a game…
John Hoffman: This is closer to a 12 count than 15 due to the death shape, no spots, and only a five-card suit. I’m willing to open trash but not overcall with trash at the two level.
Michael Clark: I know that I’d bid 2 in real life, but I’ll pass like a grown-up.
Sandy Barnes: Two hearts may get killed, but I would risk it at matchpoints. At IMPs I’m not willing to get destroyed if hearts are stacked against me with such a weak suit. The lack of spots leads me away from 1 NT, and double is difficult to follow up after a club reply.
Steve Mager: If my 7-6-2 were 10-9-2, I would bid 2 .
Albert Sekac: Not pleased with my choices; I hope to bid later.
Mike Cassel: I have missed nothing if partner cannot balance after two passes, but [if I act] I have really blundered if the remaining cards are behind me. So, the risk-to-reward ratio is not in my favor.
John Reardon: This hand is more like a foot.
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 5
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | NORTH 1 3
| East Pass Pass | South 3 ? | A K 9 7 4 K Q 2 A Q 9 7 5
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 198 | 34 |
| 4 | 9 | 158 | 27 |
| 4 NT | 5 | 179 | 31 |
| 4 | 3 | 24 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 18 | 3 |
A number of respondents didn’t like the 3 bid, feeling it crowded the bidding; but this hand would not be easy to describe after a 2 response either. Further, it was unlucky that partner’s second bid was 3 ; over 3 or 3 , you would be well-placed after the jump shift. But that’s water under the bridge (perhaps a poor choice of metaphors). You must cope with the situation at hand.
The main defect of this hand for slam is the lack of heart control, so it seems right to send that message to partner. Hence, I agree with the consensus to bid 4 . While this normally would indicate the ace*, the alternatives are worse. Unless partner control-bids 4 , my next bid will be 5 to ask about heart control.
*Some would argue that 4 shows a real suit, but even in a basic system, few if any experts would advocate a jump shift with a two-suiter (lacking a fit).
The roots of this deal might have been the origin of the warning, “Don’t use Blackwood without control in each unbid suit.” Or at least the Americans found out the hard way:
| USA vs Europe | Q J 10 5 2 6 3 A 9 K J 10 2
| |
| 7 K Q 10 8 5 2 8 6 4 3 8 6
| | 8 6 4 3 A J 9 J 10 7 5 4 3
|
| E-W Vul | A K 9 7 4 K Q 2 A Q 9 7 5 | |
| Besse West Pass Pass All Pass | Mathe NORTH 1 3 5
| Schneider East Pass Pass Pass | Oakie South 3 4 NT 6
| 6 North Down 1 -50 |
| Steen West Pass Pass Dbl All Pass | Amouraben NORTH Pass 1 3 Pass | Bishop East Pass Pass Pass Pass | Kornblum South 1 3 5 5
| 5 North Made 5 +450 Europe +6 EMPs |
The first auction might be seen in textbooks today as an example of how not to bid. Oakie’s choice to use Blackwood was not a success, as the opponents cashed the first two tricks. Yes, accidents happen, and we’ve all been there before; but reaching this slam was clearly no accident with the tools available.
The French pair neatly avoided the slam, though the auction is mysterious. Amouraben chose to pass the North hand, then his 1 response must have been some form of canape to indicate the longer spade suit later. Even so, the jump raise to 3 seems strange, and I guess 5 was an asking bid for heart control. In any case, the smart stop gained 6 EMPs (11 IMPs) for the Europeans.
Comments for 4 Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: Slam looks like a good possibility, and bidding 4 on the way seems to be the best option.
Tim Hemphill: Force the bidding. With a combined 31 points, slam is probable.
Gord Murray: When is partner to be let in on the probably significant spade support? Later.
Steve Landen: I assume this is a cue-bid in support of spades. In expert practice nowadays a strong jump shift implies a fit or a self-sustaining suit.
Dima Nikolenkov: Followed by 5 over 4 , or Blackwood over 4 .
Chris Maclauchlan: I read somewhere that you shouldn’t jump-shift with two-suiters. Now I know why.
Arvind Srinivasan: This should show club and diamond control with a spade fit…
Daniel Korbel: Although 4 should show a stiff diamond in this auction, it seems like the best way to get partner to admit to a heart control. Partner could have Q-J-10-x-x-x Q-J-x A-x K-x (he would surely bid the way he has) so Blackwood is a bit of a misbid.
Mark Shaw: A strong jump shift then a new suit is a cue-bid for partner’s first suit.
Sivakumar Salem: For slam you want partner to have at a minimum the Q, A and K. By bidding 4 I keep the bidding open while denying heart control.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It doesn’t make sense to employ a strong jump shift with a two-suiter hand and no support for partner’s suit. Hopefully, this sequence should show diamond control and a spade fit. Four spades may actually be the limit of the hand.
Mitch Edelman: Grandiose jump shifts went out of style with disco! … If we’re using something like “a jump shift implies game or slam in your suit, my suit, or notrump,” I could bid 4 unambiguously.
Rich Johnson: Agreeing spades pellucidly. If partner shows me a heart control, we’re go [for slam]. If he doesn’t, I’ll call it a day.
Vincent Harackiewicz: I will bid 5 over a 4 rebid.
Beverly Terry: If partner shows a preference for one of my minors, I should be safe at 5 . I hope he doesn’t play me for a heart singleton with my bidding this way. I hope he bids 4 .
Mabel Pavlicek: Four notrump is bad with two losing hearts; 4 is cowardly; 5 is ambiguous. So what’s left?
Josh Sinnett: Jump shifts are made on either a self-sufficient suit or support for partner and a secondary suit. Rebidding your own suit says the former; any other bid should be the latter. Therefore, 4 seems foisted upon you. Over a 4 cue-bid, I’ll ask for aces. Over a 4 sign-off, I’ll cue-bid 5 . Either way, we’re headed for six unless partner [lacks heart control]. …
Dirk Enthoven: With [at most 3 points] in spades, partner should have much on the side to have opened in first seat. … I am trying to elicit a heart cue-bid (or club support). We may still have 6 , or even 7 .
Gordon Rainsford: A bit too good to bid just 4 . Partner needs this extra push because he doesn’t have good trumps.
Dave Maeer: Awkward. I’d love to shut up shop with 4 , but partner with queen-high spades will pass too often. Four diamonds at least recognizes the good control structure. I intend to pass 4 , bid 5 over 5 , or drive to slam over 4 .
Peter Kay: Hard to see how a little lie will hurt in this case. I need to find out about hearts most of all.
Bill Jacobs: I’m going to show diamond control and hope partner can then Blackwood to avoid a slam off two aces. I think 4 should agree spades. Really, 3 is very bad; this is a complex hand in which North or South (or both) are going to be worried about a red suit.
Pieter Geerkens: This should agree spades, else why am I crowding the auction.
Everett Dyer: Waiting to see if partner has anything in hearts before deciding on slam.
Barry Rigal: A cue-bid for spades; not necessarily shortage. Three clubs promises solid clubs, a strong balanced hand, or a spade fit. Since I would bid 4 or 3 NT with the first two hand types, this is clear. Is it not?
Arpan Banerjee: I should not use Blackwood, as on quite a few occasions the opponents will cash the A-K. … Partner will know what I want ( A or K) and bid 4 if he can. With neither of these cards he will close the bidding at 4 .
David Caprera: This is a “what is your agreement” question. I think 4 should be a cue-bid confirming spade support. Others may play it as shortness (OK) or a second suit (not OK).
Robin Burns: Partner will now be aware that a heart control is vital and cue-bid if he has one.
Michael Day: … If partner bids 4 , I’ll bid five (asking about hearts). If he bids 4 , I’ll bid 4 NT… If he bids 5 , I’ll bid 5 and hope partner bids six with a heart stop. Hopefully, we won’t have a mix-up about what the trump suit is.
Alan Wilson: This should clearly agree spades since I wouldn’t force with a two-suiter, and I would rebid 4 to insist on clubs.
Phil Clayton: If partner tries 4 , I will bid 5 asking for a heart control (and not be happy if they have two cashable red aces in six). If partner cues 4 , I bet on black (wood).
Manoj Kumar Nair: A game force has been established. Blackwood is inappropriate because of dangerous hands like Q-J-10-x-x-x Q-x A-x K-J-x versus Q-J-10-x-x-x K-Q-x A-x x-x; one with two top losers, the other a cold slam. … [I hope] 4 will elicit an immediate heart cue-bid, then I intend to pull out the old Black…
Harold Simon: Old-fashioned. Isn’t five of a major everyone’s favorite contract?
Leo Zelevinsky: I can’t have clubs and diamonds and have jump-shifted, so I am showing a slam try in support of spades. I’d rather have the A, but life ain’t perfect.
Jack Rhatigan: If partner calls 4 , I can raise to 5 calling attention to the heart suit. Of course, partner may play me for a singleton heart now; oh well.
John Jones: Relays (partner bidding 3 over 3 ) would help the jump-shifter to describe this hand.
Manuel Paulo: I show where my values are, before raising spades. I do not like the 3 response.
Robert Tamlyn: This has to be a cue-bid of some kind. Partner is likely to bid 4 wondering what trump suit I have in mind. I will try 5 hoping to get to six when he has hearts controlled. Hopefully, he won’t worry about missing A-K.
Bernard Pascal: Partner knows my clubs are headed by two honors. If he bids 4 and I follow with 4 , he will have a good understanding of what I am trying to do.
Bob Simkins: Partner could have shown a concentration of values in one of the red suits, and he didn’t. He must have really wanted to emphasize his spade length. My 4 bid is not an attempt to find a suit; it’s a slam try with a diamond control. If partner can control hearts, we are almost certainly cold for at least six.
Gerald Murphy: Based on my jump shift, 4 should show cards there with spades (because with clubs and diamonds I would bid 2 first). With hearts under control he should simply bid Blackwood and go to slam.
Neelotpal Sahai: Three clubs was less than satisfactory. But having bid that, 4 should show implicit spade support and diamond control. (My first bid showed club control as well.) …
Chris Willenken: Why jump shift? Two clubs followed by a forcing spade bid seems perfect. Now, 4 , assuming that is the system bid, as a cue-bid for spades.
Richard Willey: I don’t make a strong jump suit with a two-suited hand. Three clubs promises either clubs and a spade fit, a notrump oriented hand, or self-sufficient clubs. Four diamonds is the easiest way to find out about heart control.
Arvind Ranasaria: A simple 4 is likely to put too much pressure on partner though it shows my spade support immediately. After 4 , I could bid 5 next to show strong spade support and heart weakness.
Rosalind Hengeveld: The only sensible way to set spades as trumps below 4 .
John Reardon: A clear-cut slam try agreeing spades and yet below game level.
Gareth Birdsall: Four diamonds should be a cue-bid agreeing spades, so I’ll be ideally placed on the next round if partner can bid 4 . If he doesn’t, I can raise 4 to five happily. …
Aljosa Cakic: Not ideal, but I don’t see another way to find out if partner has heart control.
Comments for 4 Jim Fox: I don’t understand why I would take control at this point. I believe I’ve shown my hand perfectly.
Kieran Dyke: Isn’t this why I jump shifted? Four diamonds is possible, but without a clear agreement that it’s a cue-bid [as opposed to shortness] it doesn’t appear to have a lot to gain.
James Hudson: Partner heard me jump shift. He’ll bid again unless he has a real dog. …
Andy Lewis: I would not have started with a strong jump shift, as I prefer the style where this shows either solid clubs, primary (four-card) spade support, or a notrump rebid with stoppers.
Jeff Goldsmith: Three clubs was a poor choice, as the rebid should already have been decided before jump shifting. … As it turns out, 3 should aver good spades (which he cannot have) because partner should strive to bid 3 without something good to say; so committing to spades is easy enough. There’s no need to do more than 4 ; I’ve already promised a very good hand.
Greg Lawler: I’m not sure whether I would have chosen the jump shift, but having done so my job is to show what kind it is — here, spades with a side club suit.
Steve Stein: An underbid by about a king, but let’s set the trump suit.
Ian Payn: Does this not describe my hand? Nice if the clubs were a bit better, but there you go.
John R. Mayne: Must set trumps now; no other bid seems at all sensible. While I don’t generally oppose control-bids for second-round control, 4 seems slated to get to seven off the A.
Gordon Bower: A pretty ugly jump shift! Time to reveal the fit and go out of your way to avoid encouraging partner.
Sebastien Louveaux: I have already shown slam potential. It is time to show the fit and slow things down a bit. With the K, partner will surely make another move.
Larry Gifford: Four spades completes the description. The next move is up to partner. I have my bids.
William Slepin: I told my strength, now show support. If partner is very minimum he can and should pass. If he likes our fit he should make some move toward slam.
Milton Spinner: Set the trump suit. If partner passes, hopefully we haven’t missed a slam.
Jonathan Siegel: I think I did my part with 3 . Now it’s up to partner.
Andrew de Sosa: I’ve already made a strong jump shift, and 4 just clarifies its nature — an exceptional spade raise with a good club suit. I don’t have much more than a minimum for this action, so the next move is up to partner.
Gerry Wildenberg: I hate the 3 call, but having made it, I’ve gotten the hand off my chest. Now I’ll show partner our suit. If I cue-bid diamonds, there is no guarantee partner will know what I’m doing. …
Michael Clark: You have nothing much more to say after the strong jump shift. Trust your partner to continue towards slam with all but the most insipid 11-point openings.
Will Engel: If partner can’t cue-bid or bid Blackwood over this, 4 is high enough.
Bill Cubley: This is better than Blackwood with a worthless doubleton. …
Kent Feiler: Not my idea of a jump shift, but now that I’ve done it, there’s no need to do anything more.
Sriram Narasimhan: I don’t have anything more than I promised with my first bid (other than the good spade support).
Len Vishnevsky: Five spades asks about trumps. Four notrump with x-x in hearts? Four diamonds has to show an ace on this auction, so 4 shows this hand (if you play a system where this is a jump shift).
William Campbell: Four spades is enough. Show support, and deny a first-round red control. … Partner should know what to do, which might be to pass.
David Stern: I already showed a strong hand and my clubs aren’t so good. I feel I am minimum. If I had a red ace I might cue-bid it.
Thomas Peters: I dislike the jump shift a lot. … Now that I am here, 4 is best. Partner knows my values, the trump suit, and my side suit. That will have to be enough.
Howard Abrams: I think you’ve said only part of what you had to say (slam interest with a strong club suit) and now you should show your spade support. If partner cannot make a move, slam is dubious. …
Bruce Scott: Warning — vitriolic comments to follow.
Wanna bet? [Zap]… OK, OK, I’ll listen.
Bruce Scott: I refuse to believe that it can be right to use the jump shift to 3 on a hand like this. I didn’t see any information in the two links provided to give me any help on what we play after strong jump shifts. This hand doesn’t pass the test if we are playing Soloway jump shifts. … If we land on our feet, we should apologize to the opponents.
I would agree if you play two-over-one game forcing, but in standard bidding there is no clear sailing after a 2 response. If partner rebids 2 , what next? You can’t bid 3 , so I suppose you would temporize with 3 . If partner next bids 3 NT, would 4 do justice to this hand? I don’t think so; hence the strong jump shift is a better approach.
Bruce makes a good point that my Bidding Guide does not go into details after a strong jump shift. One reason for this is that I personally prefer weak jump shifts. I do teach strong jump shifts in my classes because this is standard, but I tell my students simply to follow their usual bidding logic but one level higher. This way, when I convert some of my advanced students to weak jump shifts, they will have less to unlearn and won’t have wasted time studying strong jump shifts.
Vic Sartor: Probably denies either red ace (I hope) and shows my jump shift was predicated on a spade fit.
Rex Settle: If I do not leave this up to partner having made a slam try, then why do I have a partner?
Steve White: Let partner know what trumps are. Hopefully, our style is such that this shows I was planning to raise spades regardless of partner’s rebid, not just that I can tolerate spades.
Comments for 4 NTHoria Garbea: It is hard to think partner has no aces. Opposite one ace I will bid 6 — hard to lose (only if the ace is diamonds and there are two losers in hearts). Opposite two aces, I will ask about kings.
Mark Smith: Blackwood is clearly wrong with a worthless doubleton, but I boxed myself in with 3 (which I would never do) and now getting unstuck is the problem. I bet Al Roth would abstain if this were a Bridge World MSC problem.
Peter Gill: Four clubs is obscene; 4 could result in a slam missing two aces (worse than a slam off A-K); 4 and 5 are unthinkable. So I am left with 4 NT, bidding 6 opposite an ace. Fairly sick. Perhaps I should have responded 2 , as my 3 has tipped them off that an attacking lead is required.
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
Problem 6
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West | North | EAST 1
| South ? | — A K Q 10 7 4 2 K Q 8 7 3 4
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 (strong) | 10 | 223 | 39 |
| 4 | 8 | 108 | 19 |
| 2 | 7 | 88 | 15 |
| Double | 5 | 95 | 16 |
| 6 | 4 | 20 | 3 |
| 5 | 3 | 42 | 7 |
| Pass | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Almost all experts agree there is no clear-cut right or wrong way to bid freakish hands. If it works, then it’s right — at least for the moment. In my experience, the main goal on hands like this is to buy the contract because in most cases the opponents have a cheap sacrifice against anything you can make. It doesn’t help much to bid a great slam only to have the opponents save for a measly 100 or 300; in that case you’d be better off just bidding game. Strategy and tactics are more important than science, plus you’ll often get doubled in a makable contract if you bid cagily.
The voting consensus was to make an immediate strong* cue-bid, which I don’t feel is the best strategy. Why tip off the opponents that you have a great playing hand? The bidding is likely to be at 4 when it gets back to you, so you’ll be one bid behind in any attempt to describe this hand.
*I was torn whether to make this option Michaels or strong, and went with the latter, perhaps because I doubt that Michaels was even known in 1954. What I wanted was an unattractive option, since I was trying to get a strategic view on the merits of preempting or not. Alas, it seems cue-bids always win.
I have no strong feelings about how many hearts to bid; chances are the opponents will bid regardless. At the table I would probably bid just 2 , followed by another heart bid (and possibly a later diamond bid) as high as the six level if necessary. I don’t know what I can make, but I aim to play it.
Speaking of cagey bidding, take a gander at Billy Rosen in action:
| USA vs Europe | K 4 5 6 2 A Q J 10 8 6 5 3
| |
| A 10 7 6 3 2 6 3 9 4 9 7 2
|  | Q J 9 8 5 J 9 8 A J 10 5 K
|
| None Vul | — A K Q 10 7 4 2 K Q 8 7 3 4 | |
| Ghestem West 3 6
| Ellenby North 4 Dbl | Bacherich EAST 1 Pass All Pass | Rosen South Pass 6
| 6 × East Down 4 -700 |
| Oakie West Pass Pass All Pass | Besse North 3 5
| Steen EAST Pass Pass Pass | Schneider South 2 3 6
| 6 North Made 6 +920 Europe +4 EMPs |
In the first auction, Rosen passed. He figured there would be lots of bidding and planned to back in hoping to get doubled. This strategy would be dubious today, as any expert would deduce what’s going on. Nobody passes up a low-level opportunity and then comes in out of the blue — unless he was sandbagging all along. Rosen’s strategy worked, I guess, since he probably would have made 6 (after the likely A lead, the only real hope on the bidding is to draw trumps and play for a stiff K). Ghestem believed him, too, and took the save in 6 . This was doubled and set four tricks for 700 (old scoring).
Rosen’s venture reminds me of my all-time worst disaster. Playing in a club game with a student many years ago, I picked up A-K-Q-x-x-x-x-x — — Q-J-x-x-x, and my RHO opened 1 . I decided I was going to fool everyone and wait. Would you believe? All pass! My partner didn’t balance because she had six diamonds. Discovering that her 10 HCP included the A-K was not amusing. Even worse was hearing someone call the director every round thereafter to say, “This score can’t be right.” Talk about feeling like an idiot!
The auction at the second table was perhaps even more bizarre. Imagine raising clubs with the South hand after bidding hearts and diamonds once each. I suppose 5 had some systemic meaning, such as a semisolid suit, but even so. When I pick up 12 red cards, I don’t raise clubs. Wow! Precision bidding. Six clubs is the only slam that can’t be beat. Steen led the A and shifted to a heart. Besse knew not to take the club finesse because if it were working, the defense would have led a spade to tap dummy and prevent it; hence the Rabbi’s Rule* came into play. I’d call that a hard-earned 4 EMPs (6 IMPs) for the Europeans.
*Never finesse when the king is singleton.
Comments for 2 Steve Landen: Who knows. I won’t sell out for less than 5 .
Arvind Srinivasan: To be followed by a jump in hearts.
Jim Fox: Why give up one of two possible slams? I sure don’t want partner to pass 1 doubled.
Michael Dodson: If not on this hand, then when?
Mark Shaw: Nobody plays 2 strong anymore, but if I’ve got it, I’ll use it.
Sivakumar Salem: With a little support and correct cards for this two-suiter, slam is on.
Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: This announces there is game in hand. If by chance partner bids 3 , you have a slam in diamonds more likely.
Kieran Dyke: Why play a strong 2 if you don’t drag it out for this monster?
Mitch Edelman: I would like 2 to be unlimited Michaels. If opponents blast to 4 , I will try 5 anyway.
Rich Johnson: I’m forcing to game. I wonder what level the bidding will be at when it’s my turn again?
Beverly Terry: I would much rather bid 6 , but it doesn’t often work.
Andy Lewis: Assuming the comment means 2 is a strong cue-bid, rather than Michaels, it seems like the appropriate choice. Slam is decent if partner has little more than a minor-suit ace.
Josh Sinnett: The only reason to put pass as an option is if the opponents make 7 after we push them there. But if anyone votes for it, I’ll laugh my ass off. But on to the problem; there’s really no option but to start with a 2 call. Keeps the bidding forced at a low level so I can find out where we belong.
OK, Josh, your ass is history. Pass got 1 vote (besides being Billy Rosen’s actual choice).
Michael Moss: Two spades certainly won’t be passed. If I doubled, I would worry my partner might pass. Two hearts might get passed out; 4 or 5 might miss a slam.
Gordon Rainsford: We’ve got the bid, and I have the hand for it, so let’s use it.
Peter Kay: Nothing is perfect with such an amazing hand, and diamonds could be the best contract. Two spades keeps partner in the loop.
Bill Jacobs: Strong, or Michaels, or whatever. It’s interesting to compare this with Problem 2. A 4 preempt may work here, but I don’t do it because it doesn’t even begin to describe my hand. If I bid 4 and it goes 4 , double, I will be very uncomfortable.
Everett Dyer: … When I next bid 4 , partner will know I have a very strong hand with interest in slam if he has help in the minors.
Tapas Banerji: I can’t double, lest partner fatuously pass. The hand deserves 2 . On a diamond response we may be in clover.
Larry Gifford: I have a strong playing hand. High heart bids are slam negative; double is attractive, but I never want partner to pass for penalties; 2 is nonforcing.
Rich Pavlicek: In the Pavlicek system I would bid 3 .
Good boy. Don’t waste words on instructive comments. Just make sure our promos hit the air waves.
Horia Garbea: Strong, without spades; keeping time for a good description of partner’s hand.
Phil Clayton: I don’t like to double with a two-suiter if I can avoid it. All high heart calls (except six) are weak and do not do justice to this two-loser hand.
Jerrold Miller: … A strong cue-bid followed by a heart bid should do justice to this hand. I have only two losers.
Andrew de Sosa: Pass, double, and 2 all risk getting passed out. Two spades followed by a rebid in hearts seems to do full justice to this hand.
Paolo Paolicchi: One ace (clubs or diamond) may be enough for the slam…
Ron Zucker: Who knows. I need partner to have either minor-suit ace to make a slam playable. I may as well start out strong.
Manoj Kumar Nair: There is danger of a 4 bump coming my way over any of my bids, and 2 looks most descriptive. … A pass is what you make with a cute blonde sitting next to you, of course nothing to do with bridge; 6 is speculative (may miss a grand); 5 expresses anxiety about spades which is not what you feel now; 4 is pusillanimous and also a stop sign to partner; 2 is, well, pedestrian (contrast Problem 4 with this one); double is fine… provided the opponents keep quiet and are thinking about their dinner. …
Michael Clark: Well, I guess if 2 is strong then 2 it’ll be. I don’t really mind if LHO bids “N spades” (as I know he will) since N+1 hearts after that adequately describes my hand.
Will Engel: This, followed by jumping to 4 or 5 , should show my hand pretty well. [An immediate] 4 or 5 might be this hand minus the K-Q, and we could easily miss a slam.
Bill Cubley: Start strong to make the slam try, and start low so we can stop in game. Opener will often have two or three aces and they might be in diamonds and clubs.
Sandy Barnes: Too easy to miss slam with a simple heart call. Since I’m willing to bid to 5 , I’ll give them a chance to call 4 .
Sriram Narasimhan: I will jump to 4 next to convey the message about the hearts, but how will partner know about the diamonds? If 2 were Michaels, this approach is even better.
Manuel Paulo: I intend to bid diamonds on the way to a slam, but I will try to play in hearts when partner is very weak.
Len Vishnevsky: It’s between 2 and 4 . I overcall heavy, but this is not a 2 call. Four hearts can miss a slam if partner holds x-x-x-x x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x.
Leah Cohen: Five hearts might not make; 1 doubled wouldn’t be pretty. Four hearts is too little, even if strong.
Luc Segers: A two-loser hand. I’ll try to find the diamond fit if it exists.
David Stern: A huge playing hand; a minor-suit ace, and six isn’t far away. Partner may bid diamonds after all.
Neelotpal Sahai: With a two-loser hand, I want to bid as strongly as possible. If the opponents bid below 4 , then I can show diamonds; otherwise I will bid hearts at the appropriate level.
Mike Cassel: I’m hoping this call will allow partner to enter the auction — below the five level. LOL
Comments for 4 James Hudson: Over their 4 I’ll bid 5 . Four hearts doesn’t do justice to my playing strength, but it’s hard to bid a freak. If I double or cue-bid, I would have less chance to show my suits.
Jeff Goldsmith: Four clubs Namyats would be nice. Over 4 , I’ll bid 5 .
Ben Cowling: I will continue with 5 after West’s expected 4 bid.
Ian Payn: Tempting as it is to bid 5 twice in one set of six hands, I think it’s putting my head in the oven here. A strong 2 bid has a superficial attraction, but I could be poorly placed by the time it gets back to me. If I just bid 4 , the most likely upshot is that someone bids 4 . Then I can bid diamonds, or 4 NT if this shows a two-suiter with suit disparity (that would be lovely, wouldn’t it?).
Sebastien Louveaux: I could gain by bidding slowly as a slam might be on. My first concern, however, is to show my suit.
Bill Haughie: Toughest of the lot. Chances are there will be further bidding, so I may get the chance to show diamonds at the five level, which will help partner evaluate his hand.
Milton Spinner: Bid what I think I can make. If four spades is bid on my left or right, I bid 5 .
Alan Wilson: I will continue with 5 if it goes 4 , pass, pass. I think 5 over 1 should be treated as an opening 5 , i.e., bid one more with A or K, two more with both. I don’t see a way to tell between 4 going off and 6 laydown, so I’ll keep it simple.
John Hoffman: Planning to bid diamonds next.
Harold Simon: Getting ready to bid 5 over 4 . If partner then doubles 5 , I will wish us well.
Craig Satersmoen: Six hearts is out; partner might raise with one ace. Five hearts might be too high. Four hearts seems right; I’m happy if partner doubles, and it gives me lots of options later on.
Robert Tamlyn: Transfer to the opponents’ 4 , after which I will bid 5 .
Bob Simkins: Unlike Problem 2, if opponents have a spade fit I am never going to defend. Perhaps a 4 bid is my best chance of keeping them from finding their fit. I have a feeling I am going to end up minus 300 in 6 (but maybe plus 1210). In fact, if I were only allowed one bid, I might try 6 now.
Peter van Montfoort: Then 4 NT over 4 (correcting 5 to 5 ). This shows that my hearts are much longer, otherwise I would bid 5 .
Bruce Scott: … I plan to bid again over 4 (provided partner doesn’t bar me with his tempo problems — since the committee will laugh if I tell them I was always planning on bidding again).
Gareth Birdsall: Anyone who makes a call below the four level deserves to hear LHO bid 4 (fit-showing jump) after which you will be screwed whatever you do. Five hearts will give partner an unnecessary headache, and 6 seems overly optimistic — but could work perfectly.
Jan Langoy: Partner could have x-x-x x-x-x-x A-x-x A-x-x (we make 7 ) or K-J-x-x-x-x x x-x K-J-x-x [probably no game]. Both hands have 8 HCP.
Comments for 2 Dinu Raducanu: I’ll get to bid again.
Martin Nathan: … The key to this hand is partner’s diamonds. [By bidding slowly I might] find out about them.
Dirk Enthoven: … A nice slow start, followed by whatever is needed in diamonds next round. This may be a 6 hand…
Dave Maeer: Why not? Let’s try and get doubled at a makable level. The trouble with the strong cue-bid is that we have about 1 1/2 defensive tricks and, probably, zero partnership experience using it; so what do I do if partner doubles 4 ?
John R. Mayne: Start small; I’ll explore and get to the right place (I hope). I’m comfortable with even high-level follow-ups. Two spades, in this context, is wrong as I’ll never describe this hand when it predictably goes 4 , pass, pass — after that start, 5 doesn’t ask or tell anything productive.
Barry Rigal: I doubt this will get passed out, and it may not be bad if it does — 2 making five vs. 6 down one in the other room; gain 6 IMPs.
Tommy Cho: With such wild distribution, nothing can be assured. Your bidding strategy can vary against different opponents. I prefer the slow route and hope to buy the contract at whatever level.
David Caprera: After having gone for a number by bidding 2 on Problem 4, maybe I can sucker the opponents into taking a piece of this one (heck, it has 1 HCP less). I am betting it doesn’t go “all pass” and I will bid again (and again and again).
Ruthanne Williams: We may have 6 , and bidding 2 now is the most constructive way I can think of to get there.
Olivier La Spada: Then 5 over 4 (or 6 over 5 ).
John Weisweiler: I hope that I can jump to five diamonds at my next turn. If they bid 4 , I’ll bid 4 NT, followed by 5 (whatever that means, I’ll blame partner later). If I have to, I will make my next bid at the six level.
Leo Zelevinsky: I don’t think the auction is going to die here. I plan to keep on bidding. The problem with 4 is that I have no idea what to do after it goes 4 , pass, pass; and partner won’t know when to double them.
Kent Feiler: If this gets passed out, I’ll eat my shoe. When I bid diamonds next, it will imply longer hearts.
Leonard Helfgott: Since I always plan to bid to the five level if needed, and there’s no way this will get passed, I’d rather get in my suit now. Over 4 I will bid either 5 or 4 NT (with pull of 5 ). A 4 bid implies a weak hand, and it will be impossible for partner to judge properly to bid to the six level.
David Neiman: Planning to bid a large number of diamonds or hearts later. I would like input from partner before taking unilateral action.
Chris Willenken: If I don’t bid hearts now, I lose any chance of describing my hand when the opponents bounce in spades. Four hearts is problematic because I am forced to bid after 4 , pass, pass, which might easily be wrong. (My partner always has Q-10-x-x-x x x-x-x K-J-x-x when I have this hand.) Two hearts gives me a better chance to judge well later.
Stu Goodgold: The bidding will not die at the two level. I am showing diamonds next, whatever the level.
John Reardon: I can’t believe the auction will end here and I want to cooperate with partner on this hand.
Dave Scott: There is no reason to get carried away. This hand will allow nice patient movement all the way… my next bid will be in diamonds to give partner a choice. The strong cue-bid looks tempting but gives the opponents too much information… I’d rather sneak up on them with this one.
Aljosa Cakic: Only two losers, but with only 14 points I prefer to go slowly to get more information. I think the bidding will not finish in this round.
Michele Holm: A seven-card solid suit is very tempting, but we may belong in a diamond slam. I’m not going to defend this hand, so I will start with the most descriptive bid (since a two-suiter bid is not available).
Comments for DoubleArpan Banerjee: Hearts can be bid later with luxury with this suit. The immediate need is to know how far can partner take me, and the best way is to double. If partner bids 2 or 3 , we may be playing a slam in diamonds. [Otherwise] I can always introduce hearts. …
Robin Burns: Taking it slowly to try to get as much information as possible before making a decision.
Andrei Varlan: Followed by a cue-bid or a certain number of hearts.
Jack Rhatigan: Four hearts is usually a transfer to four spades. Hope partner does not pass! Second choice is 4 .
Istvan Fay: If partner responds weakly, I will jump to a preempting game.
Daniel Moisa: My hand is too strong for any direct heart bid, so the decision is between double and 2 . Just the right 8 HCP in partner’s hand (even if improbable considering the opening in first position) and we are cold for a grand slam. With the double I have additional chances to find the best final contract. …
Rosalind Hengeveld: Over the expected 4 on my left or right, I’ll bid 4 NT (takeout, not ace-asking) next, and over partner’s expected 5 , 5 sells this hand not too badly. Or am I expecting too much? :)
Vic Sartor: I would like to bid 4 (exclusion Blackwood). Without that, starting with a double seems reasonable. Who knows; partner may bid something useful.
Ed Harris: I want to get to 4 even if partner has nothing, and I am willing (even if partner passes throughout) to bid 5 over 4 . [My next call] will be a spade cue-bid (at the four level or lower). …
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 336), and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. About 70 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.
Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.
I hope you enjoyed this journey back to 1954. Thanks to all who responded, and especially the many foreign players who expressed their condolences during this sad time for our country. Even my title, “When the Chips Are Down,” took on an eerie significance. One thing is sure: The world would be a better place if it could emulate the bridge community.
I’ll leave you with two awards I am presenting this month:
Robert Sparks: Bermuda, 1492.
What? No Columbus and the ocean blue?
Sartaj Hans: Hi Richard… I submitted my answers and comments but entered the wrong country. Could you please take care of it?
Of course. I contacted your Embassy. An insurgency task force will free you at 03:00 hours and escort you back to Australia.
| Analyses 7W56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top When the Chips Are Down |
© 2001 Richard Pavlicek