Analyses 7W64  Main Challenge

Down by the Riverside

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in November 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 participants were invited to guess from clues on the page.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

Obviously, the tournament was held by a river, but that doesn’t rule out many places. Most major cities were founded near a river for its water supply and transportation. Among the guesses I received were New Orleans (on the right river but too far south); Memphis, Tennessee (close!); San Antonio, Texas; Vista Hotel in New York City; Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania (of Groundhog Day fame but quite a stretch); Verona, Italy; and Cairo, Egypt. There were also some weird guesses like Willemstad, Curacao; Hamilton, Bermuda; Marco Island, Florida; and Miami Beach — all of course well known for their rivers.

Pictures are all of Tunica, Mississippi. At the top is a sunset view of the Mississippi River (building is the Gold Strike Hotel). Number 54 is a montage of Sam’s Town Hotel and Casino, where the tournament was held. Number 37 is a gazebo in a park in downtown Tunica. It might surprise many people that Tunica is the third largest gaming area in the U.S. (after Las Vegas and Atlantic City). There were other clues, too: The flower is a magnolia, the state flower of Mississippi, and the background music is “The Mississippi Rag” by William Krell.

As to the year, the numbers on the pictures (54 and 37) were the clue. Surely, those strange numbers must have meant something. No, it wasn’t the year 1954 or 1937. I went modern this month. The event was the 1998 U.S. International Team Trials. If you’re still wondering about the numbers, multiply them.

Congrats to Barry Rigal (New York City), who was the only person to guess both the location and year. He attributed this to “inside trading,” as he remembered some of the deals from his press coverage for the ACBL. (Barry is a prominent bridge writer as most of you know, and I’m delighted he shares his views in these polls.) I was surprised no one else guessed this one, as I thought my clues were generous.

David Johnson Wins!

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

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.

Each year, usually in May, the United States conducts an event to decide which team will be the official representative in the next world championship. Up until the mid ‘90s, this was limited to the winners of the four major U.S. team championships (Vanderbilt, Spingold, Reisinger, and Grand National Teams), but now it is open to all interested teams.

The event begins with a round-robin stage, then the top eight or 16 teams enter a straight knockout. (Actually, a few teams are awarded byes to the knockout stage based on their performance in other national events.) Knockout matches are now 120 boards (used to be 128) played over two days.

The final match of the 1998 Trials pitted two strong teams: Nickell vs. Cayne. Each team consisted of three fixed partnerships. Playing for Nickell were Nick Nickell and Richard Freeman, Bob Hamman and Paul Soloway, and Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell. Playing for Cayne were Jimmy Cayne and Chuck Burger, Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz, and Mike Passell and Michael Seamon.

The six problems are all taken from this final match, which was close all the way. The lead changed hands five times, with Nickell hanging on to win by 12 IMPs. Hmm… I wonder what would have happened in 128 boards.*

*Each segment of any serious bridge match should be a multiple of 8 boards, so that all dealer-vulnerability conditions occur equally. For reasons I will never understand, the Trials format was cut from 16 to 15-board segments. Well, actually I do understand… ACBL incompetence.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 1

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	North Pass 4	East Pass 4	South 1 ?	A K 5 A J 10 9 8 9 K Q 9 7
1. weak

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4 NT	10	320	45
5	9	122	17
5	7	157	22
Dbl	5	96	13
Pass	1	21	3

If partner has the right hand, there certainly could be a slam; e.g., K-x-x-x-x and the A would do nicely, but there is no reason to assume that. Partner could just as easily have the wrong hand, e.g., x x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x. The raise to 4 does not imply five trumps, nor even four; it merely shows a hand too good for a single raise.

Because the five level seems reasonably safe, and the penalty against 4 doubled will surely be less than our game value, it feels right to venture forth. My choice is to bid 5 , which hopefully will cause partner to bid a slam with my first example and sign off with the second. Some would say 5 promises first-round club control, but I firmly believe that when the agreed suit is the only suit bid by your side, the next suit bid should show a real suit, typically with some control (ace or king). Otherwise, partner would never be able to evaluate the degree of fit.

The consensus of the voters was to bid Blackwood, then presumably carry on to slam opposite one ace (though a few said they would bid six only opposite two aces). Alas, some of the comments indicated they were using Roman key-card Blackwood. Certainly, this would make 4 NT more attractive, but it’s not in the system (I take part of the blame, too, as I should have clarified this with a footnote since many don’t bother to read the system summary). Nonetheless, even allowing for changeovers from those who would use key-card but not regular Blackwood, it is evident that 4 NT would still get the most votes, so it gets the top award.

Let’s see what happened in real life:

North deals	J		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	K 6 5 4 2		Rodwell	Cayne	Meckstroth	Burger
	7 5 3 2			Pass	Pass	1
	A 8 2		2	4	4	5
10 9 8 7 6 4 2		Q 3	Pass	Pass	Pass
Q		7 3
K J 8		A Q 10 6 4
6 4		J 10 5 3
	A K 5
	A J 10 9 8
	9
	K Q 9 7

Cayne N-S	Nickell N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	5 South	Passell	Nickell	Seamon	Freeman
Made 6 +680	Made 6 +680		Pass	Pass	1
		3	4	4	5
No swing		Pass	Pass	Pass

On the first auction, which parallels the problem, Burger took a conservative view merely to compete in hearts. This seems especially pessimistic against “Meckwell,” who are infamous for bidding on air. An opportunity missed, as an excellent slam went by the wayside, or should I say, the riverside. Remarkably, bidding this slam would have changed the outcome of the match — instead of losing by 12, Cayne would have won by 1 IMP!

The second auction was quite different. Nickell was obligated to bid 4 (if he bid at all) so the raise carried no impact. Hence, a slam try by Freeman, while plausible, would be more of a stretch. Twelve tricks were easily made for a push board.

Comments for 4 NT

James Calabut: The question here is: Can we make a slam, or should we stop at 5 ? At unfavorable vulnerability, doubling is discarded, since we would need to beat the contract by four tricks. Though Blackwood (not RKCB) doesn’t tell me about the K, it won’t cost bidding space, and a response of zero or two aces would make things clearer.

Zeno Lin: Asking aces; if partner has one ace, I’ll go to 6 . Since there is no spade loser (by trumping), there will be a lot of chances to make 6 . I imagine partner’s hand like x K-x-x-x A-x-x-x-x J-x-x. …

Ben Cowling: If partner has an ace, I want to be in 6 ; otherwise, I would prefer to be in 5 rather than double 4 .

Raimon Tatxe: Any doubt? With only x-x K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x J-x-x, we make an easy slam. Of course, if partner has x K-x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x-x-x, I will bid 5 over 5 .

Neil Morgenstern: … Even with regular Blackwood, I can hope that partner has a heart honor; and if it’s the queen, the K [rates to] be onside.

Mark Smith: Well, we have to be able to make 4 , and it doesn’t look like we are going to get enough defending 4 . Sometimes they bid some more, and then it will be ax time; but slam is very possible with this holding.

Jacek Gackowski: According to the old proverb: When you have a choice between several bids, and one of them is 4 NT, bid it! :)

Daniel Testa: At this vulnerability, doubling 4 is probably not the percentage call. Five hearts should be on, and I think the hand is good enough for 4 NT.

David Wetzel: I find it hard to construct hands where 5 is down, and I may as well check for aces along the way. Partner won’t have two, of course (will he?), but I can always hope. Any write-in votes for a save-inducing 6 ?

Eric Leong: Don’t we have a play for slam if partner is as weak as: x K-x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x?

Jojo Sarkar: For a [good slam] all I need from partner is the K, along with the A (or A plus J or x-x). I know he’s got the third round of spades covered. Without RKCB, I can’t go after a grand, so if partner shows two aces, I still have to stop at 6 . Going after a penalty is not an option at these colors.

William Slepin: Probably only two losers; maximum: one diamond and one club. I do not think we can beat 4 four tricks. …

Doug Burke: … Hard to tell if my partner has shape or points at this time, but he is marked with a probable spade singleton. I expect West to bid 5 or 6 after 4 NT, so I sure hope partner has worked out a DOPI convention with me. :)

Never fear… The world is swarming with people who’ll play as many dopey conventions as you want.

Jonathan Siegel: Interference has made this difficult, but I think regular Blackwood is the best bet. Give partner a spade void and slam looks good opposite as little as K-x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x-x or K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x A-x-x-x.

Jonathan Fry: It’s our hand. The penalty won’t compensate for a slam if we have one. Partner’s bidding suggests a distributional hand, so I think the tricks are there. I’ll check for aces with 4 NT. Lacking a convention like DOPI or DEPO, I expect partner to double West’s 5 with no aces, and I will pass his double.

Brad Bart: Partner surely must have a good hand to bid 4 vulnerable against not.

Jonathan Goldberg: And I hope we’re playing DOPI, or the equivalent. Asking partner what to do is pointless; he can’t possibly know. At the table I might bid six and let them guess, but the problem format restrains my wilder impulses.

Matthew McCoy: I am going to bid 5 anyway. It cannot hurt to bid 4 NT along the way; maybe partner has a little more than he said. …

Leonard Helfgott: Partner shouldn’t preempt a preempt, so 4 should not be weak. …

Thijs Veugen: I ask for aces (unfortunately not for key cards). If I hear one ace, I’ll bid 6 , which [hopefully] depends at worst on the heart finesse.

David Caprera: North shows values; the five level should be safe, and 6 takes two cards and a little bit more.

Peter Schwartz: … The opponents will, undoubtedly, take the “safe” sacrifice in 6 , since neither side knows whether or not 6 will make.

Paul Hightower: Partner has a limit raise. As little as Q-x-x plus an ace gives a good play for five hearts, and two aces gives an excellent play for slam. … It’s hard to get rich doubling 4 unless 5 goes down.

Bryan Strydom: Even with one ace in partner’s hand and duplication in diamonds, there should be a play for six. I’d expect partner to have five hearts for his bid; there’s no spade losers, and a minor-suit ace plus the K and we’re home. On second thoughts, I can construct hands where it will be difficult to make even 5 ; but I’ll risk it…

William Claassen: With both East and West not being strong, bidding 4 doesn’t have to be weak; x K-x-x-x-x Q-x-x A-x-x-x is possible. …

Chris Willenken: Doubling is too dangerous; we might only get 300, or we might have a slam. Once I decide to bid, Blackwood seems [best]. I’m willing to gamble on the club position.

Bill Jacobs: Is pass forcing? Probably (they’ve preempted opposite a passed partner), but I’m not prepared to risk it. Your notes say simple Blackwood, which takes the gloss off 4 NT, but I’ll try it anyway. Even if North has wasted diamond values, I’d be dreadfully unlucky to fail in 5 .

Uwe Gebhardt: Since pass is nonforcing, and 5 will at worst depend on a finesse, I may as well check for aces. Looking at the A-K, I just wonder if North has the singleton Q.

Sergey Kustarov: Even K-x-x-x plus an ace gives good chances for slam. The [main] threat is a club lead to the ace and a club ruff.

George Klemic: Even though 4 should be relatively weak, partner can have an ace, and Q-x-x-x is enough to make this a good slam.

Manuel Paulo: I will bid slam if and only if partner has both minor aces; on the other hand, if an opponent bids again, I will know better what to do.

Ian Payn: Apparently if you bid 4 NT loudly whilst leaning forward, partner tells you how many aces he has. That’s what happens where I play, anyway. Then you sit there for half an hour working out that this knowledge doesn’t help in the slightest.

Jack Duranceau: It’s my hand, darn it! Partner needs K-x-x-x-x and the A.

Michael Clark: I can’t believe we’ll be getting 800 or more defending. I can, however, believe we’ll be getting 1430 (or 2210) declaring.

Len Rubin: Doubling nonvulnerable opponents won’t get it done when we look solid for 5 or 6 .

Will Engel: Since partner can be showing anything from x-x Q-x-x-x-x K-J-x-x-x x to a limit raise with two aces, I’m going to hope the five level is safe and try slam opposite one ace.

Jerry Bigler: I’m not sure I know what North has for his 4 bid. I’d like to consider bidding 5 to try for the optimum defense against 5 , but maybe he’ll have the magic A and there will be a play for 6 .

Peg Kaplan: My first inclination was 5 to let partner know where my stuff is. … As for doubling, yes, my K is not going to be wonderful on offense; but we may beat 4 just one trick, while 6 is cold. So, I’m venturing on.

Dave Mattingly: Partner is most likely void in spades. If he’s got the A and a heart honor (very probable from the bidding), slam is on. …

Matthew Dyer: Partner should have 10+ points for the jump to game — I’ll gamble on slam opposite one ace… There’s no good way to find out about diamond wastage, and 5 might suggest a void to a partner with the A…

Scott Benson: I don’t need much from partner. Five clubs may just sound like it’s lead directing.

Karen Walker: This seems like a free stab at a slam, as the five level certainly looks safe.

Rob Stevens: … Four hearts should not be preemptive as a passed hand, but here should presumably show long hearts.

Comments for 5

Zuzana Herrmann: If partner holds one ace and a heart honor, a heart or club slam might be possible.

John R. Mayne: It looks likely that there are serious double-fit issues, and the five level looks reasonably safe. I think I want a club lead, and this should ensure that partner does the right thing over 5 .

Nicholas France: While partner can’t have much, all he needs is the A and the K to make slam a reasonable contract. Five hearts is my second choice as this rates to make while 4 doubled is down three at most.

David Davies: If partner has diamonds, I’ll wish I had hit 4 ; but 5 should be safe whatever.

Ron Zucker: I know, 5 is supposed to be the ace. Still, what’s going on here? … As little as x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x A-x-x makes 6 pretty much cold, and it’s a 7-count. Of course, make the A the K-Q and 5 is the limit. Five clubs will let partner tell me; it will excite him if he has the A, and allow him to cue-bid the A. I’ll respect a 5 sign-off.

Rich Dorfman: Do I want to be in six any time partner has an ace? Probably not, as his likely distribution is 0=5=4=4 or 5-3 in the minors. Without the A, the defense is likely to [get a] club ruff. …

Paul Friedman: I assume 4 is weak since 3 is available for a high-card raise. If I double, partner will, of course, show up with x-x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x A-x-x. If I bid on, he will show up with x K-Q-x-x-x K-x-x x-x-x-x; still, that has chances at 5 . I want 5 to show a source of tricks, but this is Standard American, so it’s probably a cue-bid; [nonetheless, I think] it’s the right bid. …

Michael Day: Doubling 4 doesn’t seem likely to produce more than 300, and 5 could make with as little as Q-x-x-x-x and the J. Since partner could have K-x-x-x-x and a minor-suit ace, I’ll try 5 .

Arvind Ranasaria: Put in a lead director in case they sacrifice further. Also, if partner can raise clubs, we can reach a good slam with partner holding something like: -- K-x-x-x-x x-x-x A-x-x-x-x.

Tony Rolfe: Cue-bid, looking for 5 from partner (showing A and desire to continue). This is better than 4 NT, which is too unilateral.

Michael Palitsch: We can probably make something between 10 and 12 tricks. I believe in 11, but also want to try for 12. Playing RKCB, 4 NT would be my choice, but 5 [is better without it]. If neither 4 nor 5 is making, I am sorry.

William Bascom: Even if 4 is a poor raise with long hearts, if partner shows the A, I am going.

Teng-Yuan Liang: Slam is close with some help from partner, such as x-x x-x-x-x-x A-x-x A-x-x, or x-x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x A-x, make a cold slam. …

Carlos Dabezies: Maybe a bit aggressive, but I want partner to bid 6 holding the A and K.

Mans Bruun: Since 5 from West is likely, I think cue-bidding clubs is the best solution, when slam is not too far away.

Bruce Scott: … I prefer a pass here to be nonforcing. … I choose 5 rather than 5 to help partner decide what to do over 5 , and perhaps to get to a few good slams. …

Andrew de Sosa: I must try for slam since it is a good bet opposite a likely minimum (i.e., x K-x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x). Four notrump (non-RKCB) could work if you’re willing to assume no trump losers and go to slam opposite one ace. But 5 lets partner participate in the decision. With anything less than long, strong trumps and a minor-suit ace, partner should sign off in 5 .

Mark Rishavy: Partner’s bid shows some values, so slam is worth investigating. Since 4 NT is normal Blackwood, I will be guessing what to do if I use it. Therefore, I will try 5 so partner will know that K-Q-J are not what I need.

Mark Lehto: It’s a shame we aren’t allowed to use RKCB. I am slightly torn between still using 4 NT, which will be less confusing, and trying 5C, which could unnecessarily highlight a diamond weakness if we are on different wavelengths.

Sandy Barnes: Slam is still possible, and there is a slight chance of failing at 5 . However, I would like a club lead if they push to 5 , so I’ll make a slam try and hopefully assist the defense.

Robert Knight: Possible slam in hearts; let partner know my second suit.

Nilesh Mitra: Four spades doubled may not compensate for the lost game, and slam looks like a good chance. I will leave the decision to partner with the cheapest cue-bid.

Pieter Geerkens: Pass is out, as partner has no way to know it’s supposed to be forcing. Five hearts is out, as I want partner to at least think about slam with the A and K. Double seems cowardly, as slam could be cold with a below-minimum 4 raise, and 4 might only go down a couple. Four notrump won’t really tell me what I need to know. That just leaves 5 , which at least let’s partner know to think about slam. I really like agreements with partner that all initial cue-bids can be on either control (ace or king).

Comments for 5

Jeff Goldsmith: We are not in a force, so double shows convertible values. Still, it seems very likely that if we can’t make 5 , they can make 4 .

Luis Argerich: I know there’ll be a lot of doublers, but I guess that doubling is statistically wrong. It’s highly probable that we don’t have a major-suit loser and that we may end up losing a diamond and a club.

Alex Kemeny: I assume partner has five hearts for his immediate 4 jump (TNT approach). So there is at most one loser in the majors. If that’s so, then either the A or A with partner will mean 5 is cold. This bid also gives them the last guess. If they bid 5 , of course I double.

Rex Settle: Both sides have a good fit, so try for our own contract rather than risk 4 making.

Andy Lewis: We are not in a force and have no assurance of beating 4 . Five hearts will often lose a few IMPs, but avoids the big disaster.

David Lindop: Although the K is almost certainly wasted ( A may also be), I rate to make 5 opposite almost any dummy with five hearts. If East-West can get a club ruff, we might not beat 4 . Who knows where the high diamonds lie. I hope to push the opponents to 5 before doubling. …

Kent Feiler: Who knows? I’ll make this most of the time and I don’t see a big set in 4 ; on a bad day, it could even make.

Jonathan Jacobs: Partner’s bid should show a shapely hand with decent trumps but few controls, and therefore limited defensive strength…

Comments for Double

Eric Taylor: Five hearts is probably making, but I estimate down three for them, losing 4 IMPs at most. It’s certainly possible for 5 to go down, in which case I’d lose [at lot more] if I bid it.

Greg Lawler: This could go down a lot of tricks if partner has some diamonds and I draw trumps. People bid crazy when nonvulnerable — this time they may have been too crazy.

John Weisweiler: The five level belongs to the opponents, especially when A-K-x of trumps suggest that the total trick count is reduced.

Craig Zastera: I’ll “take the money.” Yes, I think the most likely result is that we get this for only 500 while we can make 5 . But 5 could go down (if most of partner’s limited values are wasted in diamonds). I know I’ll get a reasonable set against 4 ; it could even go for 800. At matchpoints, I would bid on.

Phil Clayton: Fit-showing jumps would be a huge advantage here since there is a huge difference in the playability of 5 opposite x K-x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x-x and x K-x-x-x-x x-x A-J-x-x-x.

James Hudson: Partner’s 4 must show a fair hand… (there was little urgency to preempt them). Still, he had a stronger call available (3 ) so I won’t push for slam. … If partner has -- K-x-x-x-x x-x-x A-x-x-x-x, it’s too bad; I’m hoping for x Q-x-x-x K-Q-J-10-x x-x-x.

Barry Rigal: Too much in spades to think both 4 and 5 are making. But it would not totally surprise me to find I was wrong (e.g., 4 made or 5 was worth more than the penalty from 4 ). Still, my good trumps will limit their overtricks!

Stu Goodgold: Partner [failed to cue-bid 3 ] so I’ll play him for a nondescript 11-count with four hearts. Slam seems unlikely, and I expect West to go for 800 on a trump lead.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 2

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North 1	East 2 1	South ?	A K 4 2 K J 9 9 8 7 7 5 4
1. weak

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	212	30
3	8	107	15
3	7	33	5
3	6	141	20
2	4	111	16
Pass	3	53	7
Dbl (penalty)	2	59	8

An awkward situation. The instinctive course is to take a stab at notrump, hoping partner has a club stopper (or West’s suit is not a threat). It is also reasonable to settle for a simple diamond raise, though it may be difficult to reach 3 NT intelligently if partner bids again. Trying to locate stoppers scientifically with a cue-bid is too aggressive. While 3 appears to keep the bidding at a safe level*, it gives the totally wrong message — when the opponents have bid two suits, the overwhelming expert opinion is to cue-bid the suit you have stopped so partner can bid notrump with a stopper in the other suit. Hence, I scored 3 ahead of 3 despite its much lower vote total.

*In Standard American, cue-bids are supposed to be game forcing, though most players relax this to allow stopping in four of a minor when 3 NT is unplayable. A strong case can be made to allow stopping in three of a minor, which no doubt spawned the “invitational cue-bid” — but remember, this convention is not a part of the applicable bidding system.

The consensus of the respondents was to gamble on the club situation and bid 2 NT, so that gets the top award. I would do the same. It’s often been said that if you bid notrump confidently enough, you don’t need a stopper. Let’s hope West is convinced. Well, on second thought…

West deals	8 7		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A 4		Cayne	Rodwell	Burger	Meckstroth
	A K J 6 5 4		1	1	2	2 NT
	9 6 2		3	3 NT	Pass	Pass
Q 10 9 5		J 6 3	Pass
Q 10		8 7 6 5 3 2
3		Q 10 2
A K Q J 8 3		10
	A K 4 2
	K J 9
	9 8 7
	7 5 4

Nickell N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT South	3 NT South	Nickell	Passell	Freeman	Seamon
Down 2 -200	Down 3 -300	1	1	2	2 NT
		Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
Nickell +3 IMPs		Pass

When I first saw this deal, it gave me a chuckle. Especially note Cayne’s devious raise to 3 , drawing the enemy focus away from clubs, though I wonder what he had against defending 2 NT. When I looked more closely, however, it was apparent that 3 NT is a decent contract. If clubs are 4-3 and diamonds run, it’s cold; plus, it’s the only game that has a chance. If the cards lay differently, one might describe South’s action as brilliant. So much for brilliance.

I was a little surprised that Cayne led the A, and Nickell the K, rather than the more aesthetically pleasing fourth best, but I guess aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder. After West cashes his six club tricks, declarer should win the rest as East is caught in a show-up squeeze in the red suits (a small consolation). At the second table, however, Seamon inexplicable pitched a heart from hand and finished down three; 3 IMPs to Nickell.

Comments for 2 NT

John Vogel: Stopper in right-hand opponent’s suit plus tolerance for diamonds.

Zeno Lin: If partner has A-K-J-10-x K-J-10, 3 NT is not difficult to make it in spite of limited points. Two notrump is invitational and partner should have a good sense of his hand’s value, especially with East’s weak jump. West should have all the missing points.

Jacek Gackowski: Let’s check how responsible are overcalls in Standard American.

Let me get this straight: You bid 2 NT with nothing in clubs and worry about partner being responsible?

Lance Marrou: A bid of 2 could prove really embarrassing for partner, so I’ll let him know about my good hand and stoppers. If partner has an opening hand, I would expect a bid of 3 NT; [else] a correction to 3 .

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner is unlikely to bid further if I just raise diamonds, [so I’ll] take a chance and bid 2 NT without a club check.

Arend Bayer: This is a slight overbid compared to the 12-14 points demanded (upgrading the heart honors but downgrading due to the 4-3-3-3 shape), but I do not want to pass.

John R. Mayne: This one’s ugly. A penalty double with three trumps is unattractive, while a natural 2 NT in competition galls me; but I have that option, so I’ll take it.

Jojo Sarkar: Three notrump from my side is the most likely game, and I have to try and get to game at these colors. Missing a 4-4 spade fit is not as big a tragedy because I’m totally flat, and I’ll never convince partner I have only four spades if I bid them now. (Any goofing around with the minors will probably end up with partner passing or signing off, which he still can do in this sequence.)

Colin Smith: I’m bidding partner’s club stopper because I don’t think he will be able to [bid notrump].

David Davies: Partner will probably have a club stopper; it is difficult to believe that West has solid clubs. Nevertheless, I’ll run to 3 if doubled.

Brad Bart: Double is my second choice, certainly my first choice at matchpoints. I’m just too greedy at IMPs when vulnerable vs. not.

Matthew McCoy: … Yes, West may run six club tricks — it happens.

Thijs Veugen: A vulnerable 1 overcall requires a good hand. A negative double would be better here.

David Caprera: I would prefer double as responsive. My alternative is 3 , but I can’t see how that will get us to 3 NT when partner has a fair hand and club cards.

Peter Schwartz: Although missing the obvious club stopper, some action must be taken, and this is the least of evils.

Luis Argerich: I believe that 4-3-3-3 hands must bid notrump somewhere in the bidding, and there’s nothing better…than bidding 2 NT now.

Paul Hightower: Two notrump shows the values and the heart stopper. If doubled, I’ll run to 3 .

Bryan Strydom: Without a club stopper? [Bidding] 3 is too weak. Does 3 ask partner to bid 3 NT with a club stopper? If so, 3 is too aggressive. Two spades would surely be on five cards. Looks like we own the hand, so 2 NT seems like the least of evils.

Chris Willenken: I am well aware that 2 NT achieved a ridiculous result on the real-life deal, but 3 boxes partner with a club stopper and a moderate hand, and 3 propels us into the stratosphere.

Greg Lawler: Right on strength and heart cards; wrong on club stopper, but you can’t have everything.

Kaz Yamada: I don’t worry about a club stopper in this situation.

John Weisweiler: Yes, I have no club stopper, but I have no alternative with my prime values ( A-K, well-placed heart values, three-card support) opposite a partner who promises an interesting hand with his bid.

Michael Palitsch: This is the best description. Pass gives me a problem when partner reopens; double is a possibility but too risky at IMPs; 2 I only bid with five cards; 3 is completely out, showing more strength and a club stopper; 3 is possible but doesn’t show either my good four-card spade suit or my good heart stopper; 3 I like quite well but is an overbid.

Sartaj Hans: Three clubs or 3 endplays poor partner, as 3 by him would show a heart stopper (since they have bid two suits).

William Bascom: Considering the diamond fit and vulnerability, 3 NT should be better than a double if we have the values.

Craig Zastera: When opponents bid two suits, our cue-bids show stoppers; hence, 3 here would be possible, but this hand isn’t good enough to force our side that high opposite a simple 1 overcall. Two notrump is right on values and shape, so I’m not going to worry about the lack of a stopper in opener’s minor. Three diamonds seems too conservative — must at least try for that game bonus. Two spades is too off-beat with only four.

Bijoy Anand: Most descriptive of my values. Pass and double are out of the question, and I’d like to have a fifth spade to bid 2 ; 3 feels like an underbid.

Teng-Yuan Liang: Normally partner’s overcall of 1 should be a good diamond suit. At the vulnerability, I will try an overbid. If partner has no club stopper, he can rebid 3 , and I will bid 3 .

Barry Rigal: A blind guess but right on values; rely on partner for clubs.

Carlos Dabezies: Double could be disastrous; and if I pass, partner may not reopen; 3 is no help to partner; 3 hides the stoppers and may miss a game; 2 will not help as partner may raise on three. Although 2 NT may be a little light, especially lacking a diamond card, it will help partner focus on the quality of his diamond.

Peg Kaplan: … Showing my approximate values and where they are. Without any distribution, this middle course seems like the most reasonable course.

Rob Stevens: Stoppers, Schmoppers.

Alex Perlin: … Over a Standard 1 opening, 1 is a game try. I am accepting it by bidding 2 NT. Partner is obliged to bid 3 anytime he has four pieces in spades. That’s how we play this sequence on Mars.

Herbert Wilton: [Must take the] risk [for the] reward. Three diamonds may be best if 3 by partner is asking; but what if he thinks it’s telling?

Jonathan Jacobs: Pass is not an option. The problem with 3 or 3 is knowing whether these are asking or telling bids. The problem with 2 NT (apart from the obvious lack of a club stopper) is that if this is the limit of the hand, total-trick analysis (14 or 15 total trumps) suggests taking the money is better. The problem with double is the danger of accepting a 300 penalty in lieu of a vulnerable game. …

Tomasz Radko: I’d bid 3 NT. We are vulnerable, so partner’s overcall should be sound. East has hearts and is weak; therefore, the missing diamond and club values should be onside. …

Geoff Croes: Showing 10-12 HCP; flat distribution. I do not want to try for spades with this 4-3-3-3 hand.

Comments for 3

Eric Leong: With game possible, how can it ever be far wrong to give partner a courtesy raise?

Doug Burke: Well, if double is penalty, then I’d rather not do that; I’d like one more heart. Two notrump looks bad because of the poor clubs, and I don’t want to be in 4 on this hand in a 4-3 fit. Three hearts is a bit ambitious; partner could have a minimal sort of hand with a 1 bid. Since I feel too good to just pass, that leaves 3 .

Al Goldspiel: Keeps the bidding open; least flawed.

William Claassen: Double should be this hand, but alas, it’s penalty. Bidding 2 promises five in my view, so the choice is between 3 (good hand, diamond support) and 3 . Question of style: I don’t like my hand enough for 3 , so 3 it is.

David Neiman: Might be the last safe spot; possibly an underbid but game is iffy. Bidding might not be over; I’ll slow play the hand and take action if it comes back around.

Andrew de Sosa: According to our system notes, a cue-bid in response to an overcall is game forcing, so 3 and 3 are out. Two notrump is about right on values, but I’m missing a club stopper. Two spades (nonforcing) is too likely to land us in a 4-2 fit. This leaves only 3 which, as it turns out, is just about right.

Peter Oakley: Cuts out a 3 rebid, putting pressure on the opponents without great risk.

Sandy Barnes: A bit strong for 3 , a bit weak for 3 , but 3 may place partner in a problem position with no good bid available. If I bid 2 , I will have the problem if partner raises. It’s OK to have a little extra, isn’t it?

Comments for 3

Nicholas France: This should show a heart stopper but not a club stopper. While this may get us to 4 down one, the chance of game seems to great to bypass. Partner’s 1 bid should be based either on a good suit or good hand as it doesn’t interfere much with the opponents bidding.

Jonathan Goldberg: Showing the stopper I have. It’s a stretch, but vulnerable at IMPs is like that.

Gerald Cohen: Trying for 3 NT opposite a six-card suit and a club stopper. Bid what you have, not what you need.

Josh Sinnett: This should show rather than ask. Three notrump is well within the picture if partner can contribute ample minor-suit cards.

George Klemic: With two suits bid, show the suit with a stopper. Partner should have a reason for bidding only 1 (he would not come in on garbage with no preemptive value).

Dima Nikolenkov: When they bid two suits, I show a heart stopper. If partner bids 3 , I raise; … I give up in 4 .

James Hudson: I hate to bid 2 NT without a club stopper. So I’ll go with the overbid of 3 , looking for 3 NT and still able to stop in 4 if partner has no club stopper.

Karen Walker: It would be great to be able to bid 3 to ask for a stopper (and stop safely in 3 if partner doesn’t have one), but I don’t think an expert partner would ever work this out. In other auctions where the opponents bid two suits, you search for notrump by bidding the suit where you have the stopper, so I think you have to be consistent here. I may regret this if 3 was the last safe spot, but everything else feels like an underbid.

David Lindop: Tough problem. When the opponents have bid two suits, I cue-bid the suit in which I hold a stopper. Obviously, I’m hoping partner can bid 3 NT with a club stopper. We should be safe at the four or five level with my strength opposite a vulnerable overcall. The three-card support for diamonds sways me away from a penalty double.

Stu Goodgold: With two suits bid by the opponents, I show my stopper instead of asking for one. Partner is likely to have something in clubs.

Comments for 3

Mark Smith: A limit raise or better in support of diamonds. Two notrump is possible, but no club stopper makes it imperfect. I hate to advance a four-card spade suit; maybe partner can if his hand is good enough.

Neelotpal Sahai: Showing a good raise in diamonds. With a sound overcall and a club stopper, North is free to try 3 NT.

Michael Moss: There is a good chance for a vulnerable 3 NT that I wouldn’t want to miss by doubling for penalty, so 3 as a limit raise seems best.

David Wetzel: [Showing a] good diamond raise, which is what I have; I’ll pass 3 . Just because RHO is weak doesn’t give me the right to blast notrump without a stopper, or assume partner has a super overcall.

Ron Zucker: An unsatisfying answer to an unsatisfying group of agreements. I’m too good to bid 3 , but can’t bid 2 NT without a club stopper. I’ll eat the fact that my hearts are being led through if partner bids notrump, and try to get more information. I’ll respect 3 and pass.

Leonard Helfgott: Worth a limit raise, even with weak trumps. I admire a 2 bid, but wouldn’t risk it normally.

Micha Keijzers: Game try for 3 NT, and being able to sign off in 3 . Two hearts will not be beaten enough to compensate for missing game; 3 is an underbid; and 3 is above 3 , which forces us [too high].

Bill Jacobs: Forcing to a misunderstanding. Three diamonds is altruistic; 2 is slap-stick; 2 NT is hedonistic; double is sadistic; pass is masochistic; 3 is ballistic.

Matt Campbell: Three notrump should have a play opposite a vulnerable overcall with clubs under control and the hearts pulling full value.

Michael Day: Let’s hope partner takes this as a good raise, rather than showing a club stopper for notrump.

Gareth Birdsall: Good hand with diamond support. There’s time to find spades later if partner’s maximum.

Manuel Paulo: I want to play 3 if partner is rather weak, but I look for 3 NT if he has good diamonds and a club stopper.

Ian Payn: The all-purpose pointless cue-bid. Misleads partner about shape, trump support and where my values lie. So much scope for argument afterwards!

John Hoffman: Invite with support. Partner can rebid 3 with a club stopper. Defending 2 doubled risks a lot both ways.

Albert Sekac: I don’t want to bid notrump with clubs unstopped. I choose the lower cue-bid to let partner escape to 3 .

Jan Nathan: A general forcing bid. Partner can either read it as western cue (go to 3 NT with a club stopper) or a limit raise in diamonds; I don’t care. If he just rebids 3 , we play there.

Graard Steenbakkers: I like 2 NT, but I’d rather have something in clubs. A lot of points here, which increases the possibility of West having opened on an unbalanced minimum (e.g., Q-x-x x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x). …

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 3

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West 3	North Dbl	East 5	South Pass ?	Q 9 8 6 4 K Q 10 7 6 5 3 5

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	407	57
Dbl	7	101	14
Pass	5	64	9
5	4	49	7
6	3	83	12
5 NT	2	12	2

This is the kind of hand with which we all usually bid, then realize afterwards we should have been defending. On a frequency basis, the most likely outcome is that 5 goes down a trick, as does 5 (perhaps down two). Nonetheless, to pass or double is to try for a small gain at the risk of a huge loss; while bidding risks a small loss for the chance of a huge gain. These odds suggests that passing or doubling may be right at matchpoints, and bidding may be right at IMPs. (Translation: I’m looking for an excuse for choosing a poor problem.)

The majority view was to bid what you’re looking at, and being a passed hand makes this a little more comfortable. Certainly, it’s possible that spades could be a better trump suit, but there’s no way to determine that without an egregious overbid (5 NT or 6 ). I suppose there’s a case for barging into slam hoping the opponents will save in 7 , but at equal vulnerability this is far-fetched.

A few respondents suggested that a pass should be forcing. If this were the case, it’s definitely the right call, but I don’t see any basis for it. My rule for a forcing pass is simple: The bidding must suggest that our side holds at least 23 HCP. In this case it’s not even close to being true. Some experts like to treat almost all auctions when the enemy raises a preempt (after their own side bids or doubles) as forcing, but I’ve always felt this to be unsound.

Predictably, the actual deal was a routine one:

South deals	K 7 3 2		West	North	East	South
None vul	A 8 3		Hamman	Passell	Soloway	Seamon
	A J 10 7 6					Pass
	2		3	Dbl	5	5
J 5		A 10	Pass	Pass	Pass
J 9 5		4 2
2		K Q 9 8 4
A 10 9 8 7 4 3		K Q J 6
	Q 9 8 6 4
	K Q 10 7 6
	5 3
	5

Cayne N-S	Nickell N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	5 × West	Cayne	Nickell	Burger	Freeman
Down 1 -50	Down 2 -300				Pass
		3	Pass	5	Pass
Nickell +8 IMPs		Pass	Dbl	Pass	Pass
		Pass

In the first auction, which parallels the problem, Seamon went with the flow and bid his heart suit. No luck. Passell had his usual “it was my turn” double, so there was no play. Down one.

In the second auction, Nickell chose a peculiar strategy that worked nicely. Rather than make a borderline takeout double, he chose to pass 3 . Then, in view of his quick tricks, he judged that 5 was a blocking bid and doubled for penalty. Down two, and a cool 8 IMPs for the tricky Nickie.

Comments for 5

James Calabut: Hearts look better than spades (we have a fit in both suits), and with only 7 points, no aces nor voids, I can’t force my partner to play a slam.

Zeno Lin: Slam is far away, and there is too little room to make a decision. Five hearts is the most likely game, and maybe it is a good sacrifice. Who can say that 5 isn’t going to make?

Neil Morgenstern: [Since] partner’s double was takeout, I’m not that happy about having a singleton club, as he probably has a matching singleton. Over 6 I plan to defend, so I can only show one major — may as well be my better one.

Neelotpal Sahai: Five clubs will be off by at most two tricks and may make also. In either case, 5 can’t be a bad bid.

Chris Maclauchlan: And tip my cap to the opponents when we score plus 480.

Lance Marrou: Let’s hope partner has equal hearts and spades (or corrects to spades, which I will raise to 6 ). My free bid should alert partner to a decent hand, especially given the bidding. …

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Anything could be right. I’m too shapely to double and have too much to pass.

Daniel Testa: East has made a good bid, forcing our side to make the last guess. Defending may be right, but I think 5 may work out better.

John R. Mayne: Not close. I recognize that partner would be more willingly double with a strong 4=2=5=2 than a strong 2=4=5=2, but the suit disparity is too much to choose spades. Double and pass are nuts.

Steve Stein: Whee!

David Wetzel: Selecting my best suit. I doubt they’re going to bid again, so I’m not concerned about trying 5 followed by 6 — I don’t believe there is going to be a next time.

Eric Leong: If I have to guess, I bid my best suit. Five hearts may even be cheap sacrifice against 5 if partner has something like K-J-x-x A-x-x-x A-x-x-x x, and RHO has a ruffing value.

Jojo Sarkar: To make a slam, partner needs all but one of the A-K, A, A-K and A. That’s too much to expect, and there’s no space to find out — good bidding by E-W. :)

Doug Burke: I think in this position, double is probably the weakest call I can make, while pass should be forcing and show some values and encourage a double from partner if he has a minimal sort of hand. A suit bid would show shape and some values. …

Nicholas France: Six clubs is tempting, but they can easily have a second trick to go with their club trick.

Jonathan Siegel: Six clubs is too bold; double has too much disaster potential; and I defy anyone to say what 5 NT means. I’m not thrilled with 5 , but I think I just have to bid my best suit and be done with it.

David Davies: Enough; partner doesn’t have to have a great hand. We could easily lose a club and one other trick. I prefer 5 to 5 as now, if the opponents go to 6 , partner will make a sensible lead.

Brad Bart: Slam requires many key cards from partner: A-K, A, A-K and A. I can’t hope for all 22 HCP, and even 18 is too hopeful, so 6 is out. Double gives up on six of a major completely, so maybe partner will get the message that I have a good hand with the 5 bid. I’ve been down one before.

Curtis Loftis: I might be going down, or making seven. Who knows?

Ron Zucker: These problems obviously came from the Marquis de Sade School of Bridge. At IMPs I’m risking fewer IMPs by bidding and being wrong than by passing or doubling and being wrong — I’m probably losing 5 IMPs (converting plus 100 to minus 100) if wrong, but gaining 8 IMPs (plus 450 vs. plus 100) if right. Mostly, I just want to stop the double game swing if distributions are completely wacky.

Matthew McCoy: Double game swings can be scary.

Leonard Helfgott: Must go for the trump quality at this level, and I cannot afford to stay fixed with 10 cards in majors.

Mark Raphaelson: Insisting on slam with 7 HCP and a likely club loser really ties partner’s hands the next time he wants to compete… Five notrump or 6 is crazy.

Peter Schwartz: Although I would like to show both majors, this hand is not good enough… The advantage of 5 is that it is also an effective lead indicator.

Luis Argerich: A lot of total tricks in this hand — my guess is 20 — so bidding 5 is right.

Paul Hightower: Bidding my stronger suit. Can’t tell whether I’m sacrificing, bidding to make, or hunting for slam; but defending looks wrong, and pass puts too much pressure on partner. No reason to assume partner can cover five of my six losers, so 6 is too unilateral. Choice of strain doesn’t seem critical, given my strong hearts.

Paul Friedman: Didn’t Al Roth once say, “Stay fixed?” Well, I never learn.

Bryan Strydom: Their preempt has done it… East’s 5 can be a barrage or a possible make, but either way, I’m bidding.

Eric Taylor: Partner cannot make this decision. I’ll bite. If double were responsive, I would do that instead.

Micha Keijzers: I don’t think I have enough for 6 (then 6 over 6 to let partner pick the right major suit slam). … It could be that 5 is better, however, I think 5 will be better on average.

William Claassen: I don’t have enough for six; double is tricky. I just bid five in my best color; at least partner knows what to lead now against 6 doubled. :)

Greg Lawler: They shouldn’t be sacrificing at 6 , so I won’t get a chance to bid both suits. Might as well bid my better one.

Bill Jacobs: After staring at this problem for ages, I’ve decided I don’t like your competitions any more. Someone should run an alternative bidding poll and make you enter it.

Been there… I used to be a Bridge World MSC panelist until the problems started coming from outer space.

Michael Day: Who knows? I surely don’t. Double looks wrong with the trump count this high, and there is no reason to risk a minus score by jumping to slam. Thus, I’ll bid my best suit and cross my fingers.

Josh Sinnett: Since I’m not counting on freely bidding a suit over 6 , I should introduce my stronger suit.

Arvind Ranasaria: If partner has a hand like A-K-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-x-x x, he would much rather raise 5 than 5 .

George Klemic: My values are too soft for slam to be sure, so I bid my better suit. If partner has spades and diamonds, I pay off.

Gareth Birdsall: I won’t be bidding on my own to the six level, so 5 seems best.

Alex Kemeny: Partner should be able to tolerate either major. Too much chance of them making 5 to pass or double. They may have a double fit in the minors, since we seem to have a double fit in the majors. True, I have no aces, so if this is a phantom save, then I will have the fit!

Ian Payn: Just because partner has asked me to bid at the three level is no reason to suppose we can make something at the six level. Double would be penalties, which is a shame. I think I’ll just put my hat on and bid my best suit.

John Hoffman: Better suit; not planning to rebid a suit at the six level. Lacking aces, this hand does not have magical prospects.

Albert Sekac: Who knows? Depends on the strength of partner’s hand. I intend to bid only once, hence I choose the stronger suit.

Michael Clark: Mourning the lack of controls, I just bid my best suit at the lowest possible level.

Craig Zastera: … I don’t think the hand is good enough to force to the six level, so I will settle for bidding my better suit.

Philip Smith: Nice hand — pity about all that club bidding. I don’t think partner can expect you to hold six hearts (a hand making a free bid at the five level would surely open something with a six-card suit) and that really leaves you with another suit somewhere, so I don’t think you are losing spades if partner [lacks] heart support.

Jan Langoy: North: A-K-x-x A-x-x-x A-x-x x-x, making 5 ; or A-J-x-x A-x-x K-J-10-x-x x, down one or two.

James Hudson: A double would very likely be passed out — I wouldn’t like that. I have too much offensive strength to pass, and I’m not worth two bids; so I’ll take my best single shot.

Teng-Yuan Liang: Experience tells me, “When holding a freakish hand, just bid it!” In the long run, it usually works. Do I see slam in hand? Doubtful. …

Barry Rigal: Close my eyes and pick the suit that will handle a bad split best. I have respect for those who double here and are right, but who knows? I might be saving!

Peg Kaplan: … I don’t like double — is partner really supposed to figure out I am 5-5 in the majors? Couldn’t I have a flat hand with scattered values? My hearts are much better than my spades… Hope I’m a good guesser on this one.

Gordon Bower: Assuming double is penalty here, I have no way to ask my partner to pick a suit, and no way to find out whether there might be a long-shot six of a major on. Not much to choose between 5 and 5 , but since I can only bid one, why not bid the better one?

Sven Neirynck: Playing partner for 4-4-4-1 shape, there are 20 total tricks. If they are not divided 10-10, then the winning [action] is to bid.

Scott Benson: Too good to pass; no evidence that double is right; 6 is way too strong. What’s 5 NT? No reason to pick 5 over 5 .

Andy Lewis: Bidding a slam is overly ambitious with this aceless collection, so I am forced to pick a major myself. The difference in suit quality more than makes up for partner’s tendency to have slightly better spades on this auction.

Bruce Scott: Six clubs should show both majors, but with a better hand; 5 NT should show that better hand but with diamonds and a major. Maybe if both suits were as good as my hearts, one of these calls would be okay. Double is out, even if it were responsive (which it won’t be in this poll). … Passing with this much playing strength is wet. What I have left is five of a major. I am not going to take two bids, so I choose my better major.

Andrew de Sosa: Pass is too timid, and double is silly with what is likely negative defense. On the flip side, despite our two likely nine-card fits, this hand does not warrant forcing to slam either. This leaves 5 and 5 . While either could be right, I choose 5 in case we end up defending — I’d much rather have a heart lead.

Karen Walker: This hand is worth stretching for one bid, so there’s really no point in bidding the weaker spades just so I can prepare a rebid. Even if you play responsive doubles (not part of your quiz system, right?), no one plays them at the five level.

David Lindop: Can’t be perfect over preempts. I might regret not bidding 5 (or 6 ), but I prefer to show where my values are. Partner knows I’m under pressure and may be able to find the winning call (if I haven’t got us overboard already).

Peter Oakley: Not prepared to force to the six level; partner won’t be put off bidding a good spade suit.

Mark Rishavy: I’m wondering if I’ll even make at the five level, so 5 NT and 6 seem overzealous. But I do think I have a lot of offensive tricks, and maybe partner will be able to go on. Since I can only take one bid on my own, I show my best suit.

Kent Feiler: Who knows? Theirs could make; ours could make. All I know for sure is that I have a lot of offense and maybe no defense.

Rich Johnson: If partner has five of the A-K, A, A-K and A, I’ll let him tell me the good news.

Mark Taylor: Nice problem. Double for takeout would be best. It’s probably a case of three tricks being easier than 11. Another reasonable shot is 6 — getting to the best strain but [probably] down in top tricks.

Comments for Double

Colin Smith: I can’t have many clubs, but the one I do have is a real pain in the neck.

Thijs Veugen: Partner will bid on with a club void.

David Caprera: I realize that partner may convert this when it would be better for him to bid, but I think that is less likely than guessing which suit to bid when it was right for us to defend.

Chris Willenken: Double will get us to slam when we have one. Five of a major is too small a target; we will virtually always get 300 when that is making.

Dima Nikolenkov: When you are fixed, stay fixed. Would hate to pick the wrong major and go down on ruff.

Will Engel: This will backfire if either side can make 11 tricks, but only if I were to bid the right suit — not likely. :) It’s possible partner has K-x or similar, which will be a trick on defense but probably not on offense. At IMPs I’ll take the (hopefully sure) plus.

Carlos Dabezies: Pass would not show a desire for partner to bid. It’s wrong to bid one major to the exclusion of the other, and I can’t commit to the six level. That leaves double.

Dave Mattingly: I think that bidding on here is a waste of time. I’m just trying to get as much of a plus score as possible.

Graard Steenbakkers: Showing values. Bidding would show slightly more.

David Neiman: Take the (pretty) sure plus. Do we have slam? Maybe, but the preempt has done its job. Besides, East is an unknown quantity; 5 could be additionally preemptive or taking a two-way shot.

Nilesh Mitra: Let partner [decide]. If he passes, that is where we belong; if he bids 5 , correct to 5 (asking for better major).

Comments for Pass

Sergey Kustarov: If partner doubles with aces, I’ll bid 5 . If he passes, we [don’t belong at] the five level. It seems clubs are 1-1. If I bid 5 directly, partner may raise to six with no play for it.

Jack Duranceau: Weird! I wanted to bid 6 , then decided to pass.

Tomasz Radko: If we’re going to make five, partner (after my other bid) would bid six. Second option: 6 ; maybe one level too high, but in right suit.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 4

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	A 6 5 4 2 K J A K Q J 7 6

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	263	37
2	9	118	16
4	8	140	20
3	5	66	9
3	4	69	10
2 NT	2	34	5
3 NT	1	26	4

This ostrich-like hand is virtually impossible to describe. Any strong heart raise may lead to a poor heart slam due to bad trumps when 6 might be laydown (e.g., opposite Q-x-x A-K-x-x Q-10-9-x x-x). Even for game purposes, 4 may be hopeless when 3 NT is laydown (e.g., K-x-x-x Q-x-x-x Q-x-x x-x).

Several respondents asked why 3 (splinter bid) was not an option. I didn’t include it because I felt it would get almost no expert votes. Most experts do not splinter with a stiff ace in general, plus in this case it clearly overstates your heart support and may direct the dangerous diamond lead. Nothing but negatives in my view.

My own choice is the manufactured reverse of 2 , which is forcing. If partner next bids anything but 2 , I will bid 3 (forcing as I play) which leaves more avenues open. If partner ever suggests 3 NT, I will be delighted to pass. This strategy is certainly not perfect, but it avoids committing to hearts too soon.

The actual deal certainly had the defect I mentioned, and it was interesting to watch both pairs wriggle out of hearts at the last moment.

East deals	K 2		West	North	East	South
None vul	A Q 10 9 3		Cohen	Rodwell	Berkowitz	Meckstroth
	A Q 9 3 2				Pass	1
	10		Pass	1	Pass	2
Q J 5 4		10 9 8 7 6 3	Pass	2	Pass	3
7		K J 8	Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
10 7 5 4		8 6	Pass	4	Pass	5
8 5 3 2		9 4	Pass	6	Pass	6 NT
	A		All Pass
	6 5 4 2
	K J
	A K Q J 7 6

Nickell N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
6 NT South	6 NT South	Soloway	Passell	Hamman	Seamon
Made 7 +1020	Made 7 +1020			Pass	1
		Pass	1	Pass	4
No swing		Pass	4	Pass	5
		Pass	6	Pass	6 NT
		All Pass

The first auction appears to be from another planet. I’d have to dig into the Meckwell notes to decipher it, but I’ll pass on that. Suffice it to say that any partnership that can bid spades three times on K-x must know what they are doing. Nevertheless, they missed an excellent grand slam — was Rodwell worth one more spade bid (hehe)? Seven notrump by North is virtually laydown, and by South it’s a big favorite (jeopardized only by a heart lead and a 5-1 diamond break).

The second auction, which parallels the problem, is more down-to-earth. Seamon took a simple approach — no doubt, he considered bidding 4 as a shape-descriptive heart raise, but he didn’t want to overencourage with such lousy trumps. Four spades was “kickback” (Roman key-card Blackwood substitute) and 5 showed two key cards without the trump queen (or even the trump seven for that matter). When Passell placed the contract in 6 , Seamon cleverly overruled with 6 NT. After a spade lead, 13 tricks were easily made at each table for a push board.

Comments for 4

James Calabut: Although my hearts are such poor little things, we have a fit, and my hand is worth more than 18 points, so my correct call is 4 .

Zeno Lin: Four hearts is the most likely game. Leave partner to decide whether to try for slam or not.

Jacek Gackowski: Two diamonds is a serious alternative, but only in a bidding panel. Four clubs is too strong, while other bids are two weak.

Lance Marrou: Strangely, my personalized system covers this exact hand with a bid of 2 — singleton ace or void (3 would be any singleton but the ace).

Michael Moss: I was looking for 3 (splinter) to be a choice, didn’t see it, so next best is 4 .

Arend Bayer: Well, it would be nice to have the convention that 4 shows 6-4 in clubs and hearts; as it is, there is no good bid.

Steve Stein: The Master Solvers Death Hand in a new guise. What, no 3 splinter? I’ll just make a bland value bid.

Doug Burke: I don’t like to get too cute when I have a fit with my partner. Just show the fit and the values; if partner has extras, he should continue. I would like to make a splinter bid, though.

Nicholas France: According to LTC, this hand has four losers so I need to force to game. Four clubs is wrong, as this would imply good hearts and good clubs with the same distribution.

Jonathan Siegel: Three notrump would be more amusing if it worked, but 4 looks safer. What if partner has something like x-x-x K-Q-J-x Q-x-x x-x-x?

Mark Raphaelson: Certainly not a shutout. I’d have bid 3 (splinter) if it were an option, despite my horrible hearts. I’m not bidding anything that’s not absolutely forcing to game here.

Matt Campbell: Puts immense pressure on partner to have some heart honors, but I can’t afford to miss the likely game, even nonvulnerable. If partner goes on, I am happy with my hand.

Michael Day: I’d like to bid 4 showing a good 4-6, but the system doesn’t permit that. I also rather like 2 , planning to pull notrump to hearts, or perhaps bid 3 as a splinter over 2 . But I suspect the majority of respondents will prefer a simple 4 , so I’ll go with that to try to maximize my score.

Yep, win the election first. Two diamonds had about the same chance of winning as Bill Clinton becoming Pope.

Dinu Raducanu: Bid what you know (?) you can make. It looks like the only forcing bid available is 2 ; I’ll ignore it.

Martin Nathan: It’s the least I can do with a four-loser hand.

Manuel Paulo: Trivial! Any ace, normal breaks and/or a good guess will be enough.

Sartaj Hans: My hand is not so great [for slam] as I am missing four [crucial] cards. Four clubs is misguided as it would promise better trumps and less outside controls. …

William Bascom: I am going to treat this four-loser hand as five losers because of the poor heart quality.

Dima Nikolenkov: I hope partner bids on with good trumps and 5 controls.

Milton Spinner: Four-loser hand. Bid what you think you can make.

Dave Mattingly: Easy bid. Given the distribution, partner’s probably got five [hearts]. Tell him the good news.

Rex Settle: I would bid 4 with many partners, but I’m not sure the implication of a 6-4 heart raise would be seen as standard under the conditions of this poll.

Scott Benson: Yuk! There doesn’t seem to be any forcing bid other than 2 according to the bidding guide, and what progress does 2 get us? …

Andy Lewis: Too strong for 3 (game is good opposite K-J-x-x and out); right shape for 4 , but wrong honor placement. That leaves 4 and the fake 2 reverse, which I like on some similar hands but not with four hearts. The other bids are not worth mentioning.

Karen Walker: Assuming I can’t bid 4 to show a strong 6-4 raise, I guess I’m stuck with 4 . Three notrump might work, but it’s too unilateral — denying the fit could well talk partner out of bidding a cold heart slam.

Peter Oakley: Would prefer better hearts, but this seems to get the strength and distribution across nicely.

Pieter Geerkens: … If we are cold for 6 , then partner needs to have something like x-x-x-x A-K-Q-x Q-x-x x-x, and he can surely move over 4 .

Tysen Streib: … The great club suit balances the high cards in the short suits. It’s right to game force, I think.

Comments for 2

John R. Mayne: I would like to bid 4 , but in PavCo Standard that’s nonforcing and doesn’t show this shape.* Four hearts is about right, but there are so many hands partner can have where 6 or 6 NT are on ice and 6 has no play. I hate 2 , but all other options are worse.

*Correct that it doesn’t show heart support, but it is noted as forcing by a footnote in my Bidding Guide. R.P.

Eric Leong: The cheapest forcing bid to learn more about partner’s hand. I plan to raise hearts later. If partner has a very strong heart suit, I expect him to make some sort of slam move.

Jojo Sarkar: We surely have enough for game, and this bid is forcing. I need to find out about the quality of partner’s hearts, and have free reign to go nuts if he rebids them.

Jonathan Goldberg: What I hope is the most flexible of the grossly misdescriptive bids at my disposal. At least it’s both low and clearly forcing.

Matthew McCoy: I am biding time, hoping partner lets me know about his hearts as some point.

Gerald Cohen: Something good might happen. I think 4 suggests better hearts with no control in my doubleton.

Philippe Westreich: It’s the only forcing bid I can see here. Four clubs is too far, too fast.

Paul Hightower: I would have preferred 3 (splinter) since in this case I’m happy for partner to discount spade honors. Close enough is the reverse followed by 4 . Partner should get excited with good trumps; the only downside is when he [overrates] the A-Q. I don’t think 4 portrays this strong a hand.

Bill Jacobs: After close examination, I’ve ruled out all your options. If we have some sort of system over reverses (like a bid to denote weakness), then I believe 2 gives me the best chance to bid the hand sensibly.

Arvind Ranasaria: … I will go with the flexible reverse, then support hearts later.

Rainer Herrmann: Three notrump, 4 or 6 could be the best contract. Therefore, I will force and let North describe his hand.

Robb Gordon: The honor pattern is wrong for 4 .

Michael Palitsch: I like my hand too much to only invite game, but I don’t know yet if 3 NT or 4 is better. If partner shows a spade stopper, I will bid 3 NT; else 4 .

Ralph Kuhlman: While 4 is attractive, it takes up bidding space and may result in missing a slam. Also, if partner’s hearts are J-x-x-x, 3 NT might be a better contract.

Albert Sekac: Deferring any heart raise until I hear partner’s response to my natural (!) bid.

Jack Duranceau: I like prepared reverses. Direct raises show [better] trump support; 3 passed out is too gruesome.

Michael Clark: … I’d hate to have to jump to 4 or 4 to get across the strength of this hand, and 2 also has lead-inhibiting connotations should partner end up declaring a high heart contract.

James Hudson: Weaving a tangled web, but I’m going to treat this as three-card heart support, meanwhile getting further information from partner.

David Neiman: This is not the bid I thought I’d be making, but it seems to be the only forcing bid that keeps strain options open.

Bruce Scott: I am so ashamed of myself. Can I have my 3 points now? This is the best way I can think of for figuring out where to play. … I notice that Mr. Pavlicek didn’t include the vile 3 splinter as an option. How am I ever going to complete my “People to never partner” list?

Michael Kaplan: I can eliminate 2 NT, 3 , and 3 as misleading the distribution or just invitational; 4 also misleads the strength of my support. I don’t know what 4 would mean, but it hides four-card support. Two diamonds at least is forcing; if it gets 2 or 2 NT, I will bid 4 and 3 NT, respectively; if it gets 3 , then 3 to show support (if he next bids 3 asking for a spade stopper, then 3 NT).

Mark Rishavy: Two notrump, 4 , and 4 are all gross misbids; while 3 and 3 are big underbids in my opinion. This leaves 2 and 3 NT. I shy away from 3 NT because it is a big slam killer if partner really has a good heart suit. One nice thing about 2 is that I should find out immediately if partner has extra length in hearts…

Kent Feiler: Who knows? I’d like to hear another bid from partner before making a decision. If he doesn’t rebid hearts, we may belong in 3 NT.

Herbert Wilton: Let’s hear what partner has to say while also trying to stop the killing lead.

Stu Goodgold: It is reasonable to look for slam, so make a forcing bid that keeps the auction low. If partner makes a positive response, I can show hearts in a game-forcing sequence.

Gerald Murphy: … The question at what level can we play hearts. Over any response other than 2 , I will bid 4 , which should show a good hand but weak hearts.

Comments for 4

Neil Morgenstern: I’m going past 3 NT, so this must be forcing and slam invitational. I’d rather play the slam in clubs or notrump anyway, both to protect my diamonds and because I’m not sure if the hearts are strong enough.

David Wetzel: Should show 7-4, but this looks close enough. If partner has 9-8-7-3, I hope trumps are splitting. :)

Leonard Helfgott: …Showing a game-going heart raise with 6+ strong clubs. … Partner should offer 6 as an option with weak hearts, such as K-Q-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x 10-x-x, where it takes a heart lead to beat 6 .

Peter Schwartz: The classic call to show my 6-4 distribution. I would like to have better hearts, but you can’t have everything.

Sid Ismail: Heart agreement; great clubs; source of tricks.

Chris Willenken: My first thought was to angle for 3 NT, but no sequence gets the job done effectively. Four clubs should work OK. With a borderline slam hand, partner will not look fondly on his lack of club honors, which should help compensate for my bad hearts.

Howard Abrams: I do not remember ever seeing this written up, but I believe it is used conventionally to show this type of 6-4 hand, i.e., running six-card minor, four-card support for partner’s major, slam interest.

Josh Sinnett: I would like to have some heart honors for this bid, but it seems like a good time to unleash the “convention with no name.” This jump shows six solid clubs and four-card support for partner. With strong trumps, he should push on.

Craig Zastera: I regard it as reasonably standard (i.e., I would make the bid with an unknown expert partner without prior discussion) that this sequence specifically shows four-card heart support with long, strong clubs and game-forcing values. …

Will Engel: I can’t see burying four-card support for partner, and if he has 10-9-8-7 that’s just too bad. …

Barry Rigal: Spot on for shape and values, but the bad trumps make me concerned. Still, I can think of no way to play 3 NT here. …

Peg Kaplan: This is better than a normal 4 bid, but it seems the most descriptive. As far as values go, I like 4 much more than 3 (underbid of all time?); 2 seems so distorting; …3 NT could be wrong in many ways. …

Gordon Bower: I would normally have a high card in hearts (and only two of the top three in clubs), but the alternatives are unappealing. Two diamonds then hearts is a second choice.

David Lindop: My honors aren’t well placed, but at least I show my shape (four hearts and six clubs) and the values for game. With excellent hearts, partner may be able to make a move, knowing my values must lie elsewhere. If partner has a weak four-card heart suit, I’ll wish I could retreat to 3 NT.

Comment for 3

Andrew de Sosa: Hands with so many HCP concentrated in the short suits are not nearly as powerful as those with strength concentrated in the long suits. With such weak hearts, I can hardly insist on game; yet with four-card support and a singleton, I can’t ignore them either. Partner will need more than a minimum to make game, so 3 seems just about right. This also gives partner the opportunity, with a weak heart suit, to bid 3 NT.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 5

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West	North	East	South ?	Q 9 4 3 A Q 9 8 7 6 2 10 8 —

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Pass	10	239	33
1	9	186	26
4	8	135	19
3	5	126	18
2	3	30	4

Does a side four-card major greatly affect your decision to preempt? Clearly, the consensus was yes, so pass gets the top award. My own feelings are a bit different. While the side four-card major certainly reduces the advantage of a preempt, I still believe your expectancy is greater in bidding. In other words, what might be a 65-percent action is now reduced to maybe 55 percent, but it’s still better to take the ball and run than to give it up with a punt (OK, it’s American football season). Sure, you might miss a superior spade fit, but more good things can happen by bidding. I would open 4 .

Many respondents thought this was worth a one-bid. I’m all for light opening bids, but this seems a bit of a stretch. Change the Q to the king (or the Q to the king) and I’d agree. If you start opening these hands with one, it will be too difficult for partner to gauge what to do over interference. If you intend to pull all his penalty doubles to 4 , you might as well open 4 . Nonetheless, I will accede to the voting and award 1 the second spot.

Curiously, the winning strategy in 1998 was a weak two-bid, which surely would be the last choice for most people, including me.

South deals	K 10 6 5 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	10 4		Cohen	Rodwell	Berkowitz	Meckstroth
	Q 5 4					4
	A 10 2		Dbl	Pass	Pass	Pass
A 8		J 7
K 5		J 3
A K J 7 2		9 6 3
K J 9 5		Q 8 7 6 4 3
	Q 9 4 3
	A Q 9 8 7 6 2
	10 8
	—

Nickell N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
4 × South	5 × East	Soloway	Passell	Hamman	Seamon
Down 1 -100	Down 2 -500				2
		Dbl	Pass	3	3
Cayne +12 IMPs		4 NT	Pass	5	Pass
		Pass	Dbl	All Pass

Meckstroth took the practical approach (at least in my view) and achieved a typical result. On a good day 4 might even make, but this was an ordinary day.

At the second table, Seamon tried an unusual tactic, opening a weak two-bid and bidding again on his own. Soloway could only guess what was going on, but Seamon’s bid made it more likely that Hamman had a long club suit. Three notrump did not appeal because of the likely heart lead ducked to the king, so Soloway took the reasonable stab at Blackwood, willing to play 5 or 6 . Passell showed keen table presence to double — he knew his cards were well placed behind Soloway, and the Blackwood sequence marked Seamon with an ace. This was down two (500) and a well-engineered 12 IMPs for the Cayne team.

The encounter on this deal was like an unusual opening in the game of chess. Instead of something normal like “pawn to queen four” Seamon drove his opponents batty with “pawn to knight three.” Unpredictability can be a powerful weapon.

Comments for Pass

James Calabut: With a four-card spade suit, no preemptive bidding is [wise], and in first seat, bidding 1 shows something different to my cards.

John Vogel: I will preempt on the next round (if possible), then partner will know I have spades (else I would have opened).

Neil Morgenstern: I don’t open 3 with four spades. I can bid hearts later, but partner may either have spades or the minors (i.e., defensive values).

Mark Smith: At this vulnerability, I am not going to be outbid except by a lot of spades, and I hope they do get to a lot of spades.

Neelotpal Sahai: With four spades as a side suit, I don’t like to preempt in first or second position.

Chris Maclauchlan: I’d like to think I’d be smart enough to actually pass at the table.

Lance Marrou: Not enough to open in first seat with one of a suit, even by using the rule of 20. I will reopen or overcall 4 (unless it gets passed out). I can imagine opening 4 (certainly not 3 or, ugh, 2 ) only to find partner with [long] spades and an opening hand with a singleton or void in hearts.

Michael Harris: Preempting is not good with both majors, so I’ll wait and see. I can bid 3 or 4 later if necessary.

David Wetzel: Modern tendency is to bid with these, but I just can’t bring myself to look partner in the eye when his 6=1=3=3 opening hand hits in dummy.

Eric Leong: Not strong enough to open at the one level. Too much chance of missing a spade game or even a spade slam if I preempt.

William Slepin: Why preempt partner who may well have four or five spades and can double or overcall?

Doug Burke: I’ve gotten burned too many times preempting with four in the other major. If I open this at one, I’m lying to partner about my values — if it gets to 5 and he doubles, I [doubt he would ever] picture my hand.

Nicholas France: Any preempt is wrong as I have great support for spades. With only a 1 1/2 quick tricks, I’ll take my chances with a pass and come in later.

Jonathan Siegel: I don’t think this qualifies for a one bid and I don’t like to preempt with a four-card major on the side. But I’m sure pass will be a minority view.

Colin Smith: System call, but I can safely get busy once anyone else opens.

Jonathan Fry: I want to give partner a chance to bid spades before I preempt. I’ll jump-overcall at my next turn unless partner has bid.

Ron Zucker: Acceptable suit, right seat, right vulnerability, but wrong side-suit distribution for a preempt. But I have the majors, so it shouldn’t be too late to come in at my next turn. If I come into a live auction by them after passing, partner should get the picture…

Jonathan Goldberg: A preempt could win, but this hand violates too many rules: a side four-card major; good dummy for three suits; too much defense. I’ll never handle the auction after 1 . Thus, I pass.

Al Goldspiel: If partner opens 1 , we have a spade game. If the opponents bid spades; I will bid 4 .

Mark Raphaelson: I will occasionally preempt with four of the other major, but not here. With both majors, I should be able to show this hand more accurately later, and know whom I’m preempting out of what.

Rich Dorfman: All options are reasonable — depends on the phase of moon.

Stephen Seagren: Too weak for 1 . All other options shut out the spade suit.

Eric Taylor: Anything could be right, but since I have the majors, I’ll probably be able to control the auction later.

Chris Willenken: Four hearts is the right bid if I’m going to preempt, but this hand has too many flaws: moderate suit headed by the ace, four spades, club void. One heart is possible, but I’ll be sick when partner responds 2 , so why not pass and try to be accurate?

Howard Abrams: Not enough defensive strength to open at the one level, and I refuse to preempt in first or second seat with four cards in an unbid major. A heart bid could easily preempt partner’s spade suit.

George Klemic: I will get another chance, and it’s unlikely to be over a large number of spades. Second choice is 4 .

Rainer Herrmann: Second choice is 1 , but this looks a bit thin for a one-bid. … Spades could well be a better trump suit should North have [five or more], and passing gives the best chance to find that out quickly. Hearts will not run away when I have the spade suit, too.

Martin Nathan: Not strong enough for 1 ; bidding 2 or 3 makes finding a spade fit next to impossible; and 4 is a gross overbid with seven-card broken suit. I’ll get my chance later, and my suit is higher than theirs.

Michael Palitsch: I like to open light, but 8 HCP are just too little. After 2 or 3 , partner will never judge correctly. Four hearts I like quite well, but, as I am not afraid of opponents bidding 4 , I vote for pass.

Manuel Paulo: Wait and see! I do not have the values to open one. [As flaws] against a preemptive bid, I see two first-round controls and a side major suit.

Ian Payn: Oh, go on, then. Await developments. Whenever I try this in real life, I’m still awaiting developments when the last bus home pulls away.

Craig Zastera: … Too good a dummy for spades to preempt in hearts. Too weak in high cards for 1 .

Phil Clayton: Four spades, the ace in my suit and a side void make too many faults for a preempt. And I love to preempt!

James Hudson: Too weak for a one-bid; too many flaws for a preempt (moth-eaten suit, spade support). Still, at the table I’d bid 4 .

At least he admits it. I wonder how many other passers would abandon their crystal purity at the table.

Will Engel: The hand has two major flaws, so even at favorable vulnerability, I won’t preempt. How will we ever find our spade fit if I open 4 (my second choice)?

Gordon Bower: I see no reason to deviate from standard practice (not preempting with a four-card major), and I have nowhere near the high-card values partner [would expect] if I open 1 .

Andrew de Sosa: Make it a four-card minor, and I would open 3 (would need a more solid suit for 4 ). But if partner were to have a 1 opening (or overcall), there is too much likelihood of missing our spade game if I preempt in hearts. Thus, I will be patient for now and pass.

David Lindop: Despite the favorable vulnerability, I hate to preempt with both an outside four-card major and a void. The hand doesn’t quite satisfy the rule of 20 for a one-level opening, so I’ll pass for now. But, I’ll be back.

Sandy Barnes: Not enough defense to open 1 . … If the spades were weaker I might bid some number of hearts, but I’ll likely have another chance later.

Nilesh Mitra: Too early to make a unilateral decision. Partner may be sitting with a powerhouse, whereupon he will be forced to guess. Also, the hand could play better in spades.

Comments for 1

Zeno Lin: There are too many possibilities, so don’t shut off the chances by yourself.

Zuzana Herrmann: Unless my partner bids spades, I’m prepared to repeat hearts forever.

Daniel Testa: The A, the void in clubs, and the four-card spade suit are all factors which weigh against a first-seat preempt.

Arend Bayer: At other vulnerabilities, I would pass.

Steve Stein: Mr. Roth would pass. Why do I think I’m smarter than he is?

Brad Bart: No need to blast it; I have the spade suit.

Jelmer Hasper: Two hearts and 3 are crazy. At the table I might bid 4 , but opening at the one level will result in the least accidents (I hope). …

Micha Keijzers: This hand is worth an opening. Preempting with a side four-card spade suit is not my style. …

Greg Lawler: I don’t want to preempt my partner when I have spades.

Philip Smith: Ultra light, but hey, opponents are [unlikely] to have a spade fit (and we might well have one); so they’ll have to bid five in a minor to outbid us.

Bijoy Anand: We are playing this hand — either in spades or hearts.

Barry Rigal: No strong feelings, but it’s not right for 3 and I hate to pass. I could live with 4 , too, at this vulnerability…

Dave Mattingly: Hard to tell. Given the void and the good vulnerability, I opt to open normally rather than guess how high to preempt.

Jan Nathan: Never will I pass with this type of hand — hope partner has good sense of humor, however. If partner doesn’t show spades, I will just keep rebidding hearts until he gets the message.

Rex Settle: [This may be the] only way to find spades, but is it an opening bid? Reading S. Garton Churchill, I have great distribution and 1 1/2 honor count. Inspired, I vote to open, though I lack whiskers. I will apologize when partner doubles and my hand disappoints.

David Neiman: Too good for a 2 bid (even if I didn’t have four spades, too). Once again, I’m trying to avoid making a premature, unilateral decision — I’ll do that at my next bid. :)

Bruce Scott: Woohoo! This is a 13-count. … Kaplan-Rubens evaluation gives it 12.85 points. … A friend of mine, Rich Clinite, has a bunch of rules. … One of them applies when you have nearly opening strength and a six-bagger and the hand doesn’t look right for a one-bid or a two-bid. Clinite’s Rule is that you can open one or two, but you cannot pass. I think that this rule should be extended to the three and four levels, too. My favorite Clinite’s Rule explains options for his partners: You can play fast and bad, or you can play slow and good; just don’t play slow and bad.

Mark Rishavy: I think this is between pass and 1 . The only thing I can’t decide about 2 and 3 is which I dislike more, while being pushy with 4 seems wrong when I have length in spades. I like to open light with shapely hands, and since I have spades, I have two chances to survive and avoid a misfit. …

Kent Feiler: Who knows? If my spade suit were a minor, I’d bid 4 instead.

Comments for 4

John R. Mayne: One heart, pass and 4 are in play. The spades are a siren song. I’ve been bidding 4 on hands like this for a long time and had many victories per disaster.

Jojo Sarkar: At favorable, first chair, I should be aggressive. They might bid a spade game when 3 NT makes; they might miss their minor-suit slam; or partner might have enough for me to make the contract.

David Davies: I know that experts don’t preempt with a four-card major on the side, but I am not an expert.

Leonard Helfgott: Not enough defense outside hearts for a one-bid, and with 6 1/2 tricks at favorable, 4 is the correct level.

David Caprera: Seven-four shapes play better in the seven-card suit. The question is [whether to open] three or four. At favorable vulnerability, I’ll go for the maximum.

Peter Schwartz: Violating a standard rule I have with my partners (outside spade suit), but the advantages [of preempting] far outweigh that disability.

Bill Jacobs: Nothing wrong with the rule of two and three. [I’m not] worried about the side four-card major.

Michael Day: If I open 4 , partner will have A-K-J-x-x-x x A-x-x x-x-x. If I pass, partner will have K-J-x K-x-x x-x-x-x J-x-x. I just can’t win, can I?

Josh Sinnett: Too much offense to pass; not quite enough to open at the one level; and too much playing strength for a two- or three-level opener, nonvulnerable. What else is left?

Arvind Ranasaria: It pays to be aggressive at favorable vulnerability. I have only 5 1/2 losers, so if partner bids 6 with a hand like A-x-x K-x A-Q-x-x-x A-x-x, I should be in reasonable shape.

Gareth Birdsall: … I don’t worry much about holding a weak four-card major on the side when I preempt, so the choice is between 3 and 4 . I prefer four at this vulnerability. [This is] almost identical to a hand Meckstroth opened 4 in the Bermuda Bowl recently.

Speak of the devil. Jeff must be glued to these hands… but I really think he considers 4 an underbid.

Alex Kemeny: Make them guess after me; 7-4 shapes often make game [on few high cards]. If they go to 4 , they are likely to misplan the play. If they bid 5 , partner is still there for a possible 5 .

Sartaj Hans: Only at this vulnerability. Far more IMPs swing on high-level [decisions] than on constructive auctions when such hands are involved. Second choice is 1 .

Timo Erkoc: I know pass will win the voting, but I am one who believes the best preempts are made in first seat. :)

Teng-Yuan Liang: [Despite] four cards in spades, this hand deserves to preempt. Opponents may have a minor-suit game or even slam, and a preempt may tempt them to bid a spade game or slam.

Graard Steenbakkers: Too much for 2 or 3 ; not enough to open 1 ; and I don’t like passing with such a hand.

Scott Benson: I would only do this white vs. red. (At any other vulnerability I would pass.) …

Karen Walker: Opening 1 can mislead partner and gives the opponents way too much bidding room. At this vulnerability, with only five losers, anything less than 4 is way too timid. Forget the rule about not having a side four-card major when you preempt; following that blindly isn’t practical.

Comments for 3

Paul Hightower: Yeah, yeah, partner might have spades, and spades might be better than hearts; but the odds are heavy that hearts is correct. I’m not preempting to the maximum (4 ) because of my good defense and the opponents’ most likely game being 5 .

Pieter Geerkens: If they bid spades, they are in for a shock as the wrong hand is long! Let’s go for the cheap preempt; the loss is not so bad nonvulnerable if spades is our suit.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 3 2	North Dbl	East 1 1 Pass	South Pass ?	A 9 3 2 5 3 2 9 4 A J 6 3
1. often 4 cards 2. limit raise

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Pass	10	305	43
4	8	174	24
3 NT	5	149	21
5	4	64	9
4	2	24	3

I think it was Edgar Kaplan who once quipped that “takeout doubles are meant to be taken out.” We will never forget you Edgar, but the voting consensus here seems to be more Law* motivated. With an eight-card club fit likely, and the opponents having an eight- or nine-card spade fit, the total tricks should be 16-17 (probably 17). This suggests defending, because if we can make 4 , 3 should be down two. Of course, if 5 is on, it would be better to bid it than defend; but this seems unlikely with the A probably duplicated by partner’s void.

*When capitalized, “Law” means the Law of Total Tricks.

Another possible game is 3 NT, but this is unappealing with only one spade stopper. From where do you expect nine tricks? The only good thing I can say about 3 NT is that it may be a better choice than 4 . Did I really give you the option to bid 4 ? Yes, because it would have caught a great dummy. This was the full deal:

East deals	—		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A K 9 8 6		Burger	Meckstroth	Cayne	Rodwell
	J 10 8 2				1	Pass
	K 8 7 5		1	Dbl	2	3
10 8 6 5 4		K Q J 7	3	4	Pass	Pass
Q 10 7		J 4	Pass
A 6 3		K Q 7 5
Q 9		10 4 2
	A 9 3 2
	5 3 2
	9 4
	A J 6 3

Nickell N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
4 South	4 South	Hamman	Seamon	Soloway	Passell
Down 1 -100	Down 3 -300			1	Pass
		3	Dbl	Pass	4
Nickell +5 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

Four hearts is a fair contract but doomed (barring mirrors) by the failing club finesse. Even an original trump lead cannot defeat 4 if the clubs are picked up — declarer can arrange three club entries to the South hand and succeed on a dummy reversal.

Now let’s get back to reality. My problem scenario occurred at the second table, and the consensus of the respondents was right on the money. Passing for penalty nets an easy one-trick set (a diamond lead beats it two) and the takeout to clubs led to a minus score. (Let’s not even talk about 5 .)

Four clubs actually can be made, but it’s tricky. After a spade lead, Rodwell started well by ruffing and leading a diamond; East won and led a trump; jack, queen, king; then Rodwell ducked a heart, which effectively conceded down one. Had he continued diamonds, the favorable diamond lie allows a trick to be established, then a trump elopement produces 10 tricks. At the second table, Seamon chose to win the A in hand (pitching a diamond); then K, K and a losing club finesse led to chaos when a spade returned tapped dummy — down three; 5 IMPs to Nickell.

Comments for Pass

James Calabut: An expert like Ron Klinger would tell me to pass. (He does so in 100 winning bridge tips.) …

John Vogel: Five clubs seems too committal — take my plus whatever it may be.

Zeno Lin: Partner’s heart suit won’t be too good, and neither is my suit, so it’s easy to lose trump control. It’s possible that we have 3 NT if partner has [the right cards], however, in that case 3 will also go down three or four. I have good defensive values and a good lead ( 9). Why sacrifice substance for a shadow?

Neelotpal Sahai: I find it difficult to see a game if everybody has bid correctly. I also have a couple of defensive tricks.

John R. Mayne: This is an easy one. This isn’t making, and I’m easily content to take my plus.

Steve Stein: Very hard to find an intelligent call here, so I’ll make a dumb one.

David Wetzel: Boy, I hate this. It’s awfully hard for everyone to have their bids. (Partner does know we’re vulnerable, right?) I guess to pass and take whatever we have coming. If it’s minus 530, I’m guessing that bidding was at least minus 500 anyway.

Eric Leong: I pass and lead trumps every chance I get. Partner came in red vs. white, so our side must have every suit locked up except spades. Why guess at an uncertain game when we can expect 300 or more in 3 doubled?

William Slepin: No certainty of fit with partner; my values are prime and partner must have values for his vulnerable double at the three level. Let’s defend.

Nicholas France: Give partner the normal 1=4=4=4 hand for the takeout double, and the Law would seem to say pass…

Jonathan Goldberg: Where did everyone get all those cards? The Law suggests that, if I can make 10 tricks, I can beat them [two or] three. Trying for 11 tricks is too much of a stretch. …

Leonard Helfgott: The 9 and unlikelihood of 10 tricks offensively tip the scales in favor of the big risk.

Jelmer Hasper: I lead the A and another. No doubt 5 is close, but partner is likely to be void in spades so [my A] is likely to be worthless. I’ll just go for the small safe plus — or the small safe minus 530, as the case may be.

Mark Raphaelson: If partner has five hearts, I hope he would have bid them. I’ll happily defend and take a plus score — maybe a pretty good plus score.

Luis Argerich: Strange options for a lead problem… I looked for the 9 and didn’t find it, so I guess my answer is to pass.

Paul Hightower: No obvious source of tricks for 3 NT, and only one stopper (I think it’s a stretch even if spades are 4-4-4-1). Too flat for 5 . I expect to beat 3 with a diamond lead even if partner has a spade void.

Bryan Strydom: If we have a game, I must bid on. My feeling is that it will require a special hand from North to make 11 tricks in a minor, or an equally special heart holding to make 4 . Surely, they are going down in 3 — I’ll take the plus.

Kaz Yamada: I guess the total tricks are between 17 and 18. The rule says pass is the best.

Sergey Kustarov: Partner should have defensive values. With an offensive hand (at least 5-5) he must bid 3 NT (against spades it’s any two-suiter). …

Josh Sinnett: Hmm; is this a 50-point deck? There’s got to be some serious shape around the table. Still, repeated trump leads suggest at least plus 300 here, against a guess as to which contract is best. As Bobby Wolff says, “Strive for the best result possible, not the best possible result.”

Martin Nathan: Whose lying here? … Given the vulnerability, I’ll trust my partner… Three notrump is impossible if the points are evenly divided and they have a good spade fit; 4 could easily be a miserable seven- or even eight-card fit. Clubs could work, but I like my chances defending better. …

Michael Palitsch: I don’t like my spade spots, but with continued spade leads I hope to hold the opponents to four or five trump tricks and two or three other tricks, even if partner has a minimum.

Manuel Paulo: If we can make a game contract, I don’t know which it is; so I hope to get any plus score.

Timo Erkoc: I will lead a spade, and I have another entry to play three rounds. If we’re making any contract at the four level, the opponents will be in trouble anyway.

Michael Clark: I’ll bet that nobody can make anything on this deal. On some days you might even catch East psyching.

Dima Nikolenkov: Lots of points in this deck. I don’t believe we are making game. Partner will have shape to force me to the four level vulnerable, but he must have [defensive] tricks also. I just pray he is not 0=5=3=5 (we’ll be looking for new teammates).

Philip Smith: Not that there’s much of a penalty available, but it’s not at all clear that we haven’t passed our last making contract. Three notrump is mad… Four hearts with that holding? Five clubs? I’ll pass and hope 3 is down one.

Bijoy Anand: Did East psych? I hope not, so partner is doubling on shape (sounds like 0=4=5=4). Pass and lead a small trump! This feels like a 17-total-trick deal, so if we are making 10 tricks (no guarantee of that!) then they are making only seven. I’ll take the sure plus.

Everett Dyer: I like my hand for defense. With nine losing tricks, and partner with six or more, all signs say pass.

Gordon Bower: Three notrump and 5 are both far-out gambles; 4 is just a miserable contract no matter what. Let’s beat the silly contract. The fact they may have only eight trumps instead of nine just argues more for defending.

Mark Rishavy: This is very hard. Maybe with the 10 or a fifth club I would like 3 NT better, but I think partner will need a tremendous number of aces and kings for [that]. Meanwhile, my red cards are terrible for a contract in clubs. What about defense? I can play lots of trumps to stop ruffs, which [may] be about all West has to offer.

Kent Feiler: My lead? A small spade. If I can get three rounds of spades led, they aren’t going to take many tricks. We might make 5 , but that’s a bit high since my A might not be a useful card on offense.

Rich Johnson: Probably only OK if I get the opening lead right. I’m leading a trump (crosses fingers).

Mark Taylor: Total tricks rate to be 16-17 if we look at clubs (in notrump vs. spades it rates to be 15-16). If they are making, we are down at least two. Bite the bullet and go for the best chance of survival.

Stu Goodgold: Three notrump seems shaky opposite a classic 1=4=4=4 hand. Four hearts with three small is cruel to partner; 5 will be too difficult most of the time. I’ll go for the penalty and hope partner’s double is based on some real values.

Geoff Croes: There is no game for us, and I think 3 will be off a bundle.

Pieter Geerkens: Unless East psyched, partner is on a big distributional hand, maybe two-suited. Our heart fit is not great (on present information), and partner may often be 5-3 in the minors. Time to look at ensuring a profit, as I don’t believe the opponents can make enough tricks outside spades; 3 could easily be down two or three against our partial.

Tysen Streib: If we trust the bidding, partner’s double can’t have that many HCP. Partner is likely to be 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0. It’s time to trust the Law, grit my teeth and pass.

Comments for 4

Jacek Gackowski: Partner’s hand is weak and unbalanced; no chance of beating 3 .

Chris Maclauchlan: A vulnerable double that forces to the four level, plus two aces, should equal game; but I just can’t see it here.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Most likely partner is making a shape double. I’ll pay off if [one of the opponents] has pulled a fast one.

Jojo Sarkar: … Partner should have a very good reason to come into this auction, vulnerable against not. Five clubs is not an option because it goes past 4 ; 3 NT might work, but it’s too risky opposite a stiff spade or void.

David Davies: I don’t think that partner has a lot of defensive strength, so I don’t fancy defending. Three notrump is a punt and requires partner to have seven winners, which he probably doesn’t have. I suspect partner has a heart-minor two-suiter; if he bids 4 , I will bid 4 , but I’m not happy about it if partner has the reds.

Brad Bart: Did someone psych? In that case, I think pass would be best, but just in case: 4 .

Ron Zucker: Larry Cohen is screaming at me to pass. Unfortunately, he’s not my partner. My actual partner asked me to bid a suit, and, given that he doesn’t [rate to] have many HCP on this auction, I’ll do as I’m told. I may or may not win the match, but I’ll win the postmortem, and partner won’t go apoplectic in the meantime.

Peter Schwartz: This hand is not as good as it might appear. The A opposite a probable void might have limited usefulness.

Paul Friedman: I’m always willing to pay off to four-card majors since I play them. :)

Micha Keijzers: Just to be on the safe side. If 3 makes, it costs quite some IMPs. At matchpoints I would pass.

Sid Ismail: And 4 over partner’s 4 , if he has a red two-suiter.

William Claassen: … At IMPs, I am not going to defend 3 doubled when the opponents [probably] have nine trumps. It could be plus 300, agreed, but minus 530 is not that far away. With partner having -- A-J-10-x A-10-x-x-x K-x-x-x, 4 is high enough.

Chris Willenken: It’s hard to construct a deal where partner doesn’t have a spade void. Pass is out; they might easily make it, and I have an attractive alternative in 4 , a contract that will often make.

Bill Jacobs: This is straightforward. Anything else is a hanging offense. The main point, I think, is that the hand would have much more potential with a red ace rather than the A (which could be opposite a void), e.g., if North holds -- K-Q-x-x Q-J-x-x-x K-Q-x-x. How are psychs marked on E-W’s system card? Actually, this problem would be tougher if 3 were preemptive rather than limit. Thank you Richard for being so kind (not).

Michael Day: Partner doesn’t have a lot of HCP, so he likely has a three-suited hand with a spade void. My spades aren’t good enough to pass, and my A is probably wasted on offense, so I’ll just bid 4 .

Howard Abrams: I would pass at matchpoints but cannot afford the risk of doubling their partscore into game at IMPs.

Arvind Ranasaria: Partner seems to have a distributional takeout, and unless he can bid 5 or a red suit over my 4 , we are already high enough.

George Klemic: Partner has a distributional takeout. Unless East or West is psyching, game rates to be very poor. Four hearts on a Moysian fit rates to be bad, and may lose control even [if partner has] five hearts.

Gareth Birdsall: Partner must be very distributional to come in at this vulnerability after a limit raise. Furthermore, he’s limited to about 11 points if we trust the opposition. I believe them, so my A looks wasted, and it might be a struggle to make 10 tricks in our best suit.

Rainer Herrmann: If North has a spade void, there is duplication. If East-West have only an eight-card fit, they must have sound values for inviting game, which makes it unlikely there is a game for our side. Since West invited game, I do not consider passing a serious option.

Alex Kemeny: Yuk. Three notrump can’t be right… bad stopper, and where will our tricks come from? I would pass at matchpoints and lead the A for a probable plus, but minus 530 would look ugly at IMPs.

John Hoffman: The A is worth a lot less on this bidding than if it were in one of partner’s suits. We might have only an eight-card fit.

Craig Zastera: If I believe the opponents, partner is bidding more on great shape than on massive high cards. He’s probably void in spades, perhaps 0=4=5=4. I take the low road, as my hand may not be as good as it looks.

Phil Clayton: I won’t hang partner for making an aggressive double on — K-J-x-x A-Q-x-x K-x-x-x-x.

Barry Rigal: I’m a wimp. Still, sitting for 3 doubled and leading a trump does have a lot to recommend it. But Kaplan’s rule comes to mind: Take out your partner’s takeout doubles. It worked for him!

Jan Nathan: I’m not passing 3 doubled; it’s too dangerous. If opener has 12 points, and East has 10-12 for limit raise, my partner must have more shape than points…

Scott Benson: Who’s messing around here? It looks like partner has about a 10-count, most likely with hearts and a minor. No way we’ll make 3 NT; 4 is too much of a position; and 5 could easily get us in trouble. I’m not convinced we’ll beat 3 if I pass.

David Neiman: Partner is under pressure with 0=4=5=4 or 0=4=4=5 shape, but doesn’t have full strength and is trusting me not to hang him for competing. If 4 or 5 is right, I’d love to learn why from the experts.

Bruce Scott: There are conflicting themes here. Partner should normally be doubling on this auction with great shape rather than HCP… but the vulnerability and form of scoring do not encourage such actions. … I am not going to hang partner. … I admire those who bid 4 with this hand, but I have taken enough positions on other hands that I have to earn a few points, or Mr. Pavlicek won’t print any of my comments…

Don’t worry… I save all your comments in a file under your initials — the B.S. File.

Andrew de Sosa: While 3 may be going down, I seriously doubt it will be down two tricks, so I won’t pass. Three notrump without two stoppers would be foolhardy, at best. Five clubs also seems awfully optimistic with this nine-loser hand, devoid of any intermediates. Thus, 4 seems to be the only sensible action. I would only bid 4 if partner corrected 4 to 4 to show a red two-suiter.

David Lindop: I take out takeout doubles, though I might pass at matchpoints. Despite the opponents’ methods, my A is likely to be wasted, so I don’t think I have enough for game. I’ll take the blame if 11 (or 12) tricks roll home.

Jonathan Jacobs: With only around 10 HCP, even a 1=4=4=4 hand isn’t sufficient for partner to bid like this. A spade void is therefore likely, so pass is unlikely to be successful; nor is 3 NT with such a poor stopper. Four hearts only works if partner has five of them; otherwise, the force could be rather painful. … If partner has a red two-suiter and passes 4 , then I shoot him for not bidding 3 NT in the first place. :)

Elianor Kennie: If 3 is a limit raise, it appears partner doesn’t have much for HCP…

Tomasz Radko: It seems that partner is weakish, and therefore very distributional. Pass is tempting, but not at IMPs. Three notrump is simply stupid. Five clubs too [unilateral]; partner may have something like 0=5=5=3.

Nilesh Mitra: This hand is not as good as it looks. No doubt, partner is void in spades, but if his five-carder is diamonds, there may not be a source of tricks for 3 NT. Four hearts is a gamble, and too often 5 in this situation finds three quick losers. …

Comments for 3 NT

Ian Payn: With a song in my heart? Hardly. Still, partner hasn’t been struck mute and may well speak again. Second choice: 5 , and watch him squirm.

Albert Sekac: I can’t resist the vulnerable game. Hope partner has an appropriate hand. The spade spots are too weak to pass.

Will Engel: We seem to have game values, but stopping at 4 seems too much of a position to take. Yes, I realize 3 NT won’t likely make, but since 5 is even less likely, I’ll try it.

Carlos Dabezies: Passing is unattractive at this vulnerability. Four hearts is too speculative on x-x-x, and 5 can’t be justified… I think there are fewer disadvantages with 3 NT…

Giovanni Bobbio: This is so foolish that I’m almost ashamed. The only thing that would make me look even more of a fool would be to go down in 4 when I can make 3 NT.

Karen Walker: Whom to believe? When in doubt, trust partner, who should have quite a powerful hand. If East psyched (which I suspect), any red-suit finesse should be onside.

Michael Kaplan: I wouldn’t bypass 3 NT holding A-x-x-x (hopefully I can hold off three rounds and survive). … I’m not long enough [in spades] to pass for penalty.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those scoring 48 or higher (top 326), and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. Over 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 flashback to the recent past. I thank all who responded (715 was a record turnout) and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. I’ll finish off this edition by replying to a few remarks:

Gordon Parnes: I don’t like any of my answers!

Don’t worry. No one else did either.

Karen Walker: Where’s Afghanistan in the country list?

A wise gal. :) Actually, my list only includes about 1/3 of the countries in the world — those in which I know duplicate bridge is played — but bridge players from any country are welcome. (There is an option to select “Other” and write in the country, which I would include in future lists.) But I wonder: Any Afghan bridge players out there?

Bill Powell: Are these getting harder, or is my bidding getting worse?

Hmm… Is the latter even possible?

Harold Simon: An imp must have arranged for these opponents and dealt these hands. I’m trying to get out of here as soon as possible, even though the scenery looks very nice.

Yep, I’m outta here, too.

Analyses 7W64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Down by the Riverside

© 2001 Richard Pavlicek