Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Charles Goren in Paris

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in January of 2002, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals that were played in a past tournament. I didn’t reveal the tournament location and year in the original poll, but participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

Hey, look! The title changed. The letters are the same, but they’ve been unscrambled to form the real title. I’m sure you thought “Long Research in Pairs” was strange (especially with all the problems being IMPs). Would anyone in his right mind* embark on a protracted study of pair events? Hardly, but Charles Goren anagrammed neatly to Long Research. Curiously, several people misread “Pairs” in the original title as Paris so got a freebie for the location. Yes, the tournament was held in Paris, France.

*I know what you’re thinking, but I can assure you I’m as sane as the next person. I may be a bridge teacher by day, but every night I’m home watching the sky for saucer people like everyone else.

The pictures are all of Paris. At the top is I.M. Pei’s glass pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre Museum. Left is a sunset view of the Seine; if you look closely at the left edge, you can see a sliver of the Eiffel Tower (which I deliberately cut off to avoid a giveaway). Also pictured is Luxembourg Gardens, a city park.

The Mickey Mouse image may have distracted you. Orlando, Florida? Anaheim, California? No, the other pictures bear no resemblance to those places. Don’t forget there is also a Disneyland in Paris, commonly called EuroDisney. Mickey gets around.

So when was Charles Goren in Paris? Not recently, that’s for sure. We have to go back 46 years.

A clue to the year (as well as the location) was in the background music, a tune that many people find familiar but don’t know the name. The song is “Poor People of Paris” which I discovered became a #1 hit in 1956 — same year as the tournament. How con-veen-ient, as Dana Carvey would say as the “Church Lady” on Saturday Night Live.

Congratulations to Jonathan Siegel, who was the only person to deduce my anagrammed title. About 50 people correctly guessed Paris, although no one identified the year. Many thought it was the recent Paris championships (October 2001) — close (hehe), you only missed it by 45 years. Others guessed 1992 (or thereabouts) when EuroDisney opened, and various other years back to as early as 1928. Actually, 1956 and 2001 were the only years Paris hosted the world championship. All I can say is there may be a lot of bridge talent out there, but Hercule Poirot you are not. Next time I may have to put the year in a flashing neon sign.

Mark Raphaelson Wins!

This poll had 767 participants from 101 locations, and the average score was 46.93. All alone at the top with a perfect score of 60 was Mark Raphaelson (Orlando, Florida). Hmm. Orlando, huh? Maybe the Mickey Mouse exposure paid off! No less than six players were close behind with 59: Keller Wightman (Seattle, Washington); Rich Pavlicek (San Mateo, California) — hey, look at that… OK, all together now, “Fix! Fix!”; Foppe Hemminga (Netherlands); Bill Huepenbecker (Huron, Ohio); Mircea Petrescu (Romania); and Felice Cupane (Italy).

For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.

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

The sixth annual Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held January 7-12, 1956 in Paris, France. Unlike championships of modern times, only two teams were involved: United States versus France (the European champion).

Playing for the United States were Myron Field, Charles Goren, Lee Hazen, Richard Kahn, Charles Solomon and Samuel Stayman. The team (less Goren) earned this right by winning the 1955 ACBL Master Team Championship. Goren was later invited to be the sixth member. The team lined up in a variety of partnerships using similar natural systems, however, Goren’s partners always played the complete Goren System (now there’s a surprise).

Playing for France in three fixed partnerships were Pierre Jais and Roger Trezel, Bertrand Romanet and Robert Lattes, and Pierre Ghestem and Rene Bacherich.

This scenario of “mixed vs. fixed” partnerships would be tested once again. Two years earlier in the 1954 World Championship (revisited in my “When the Chips Are Down” poll) the U.S. won using mixed lineups. This time, however, justice prevailed as the French defeated the U.S. by 54 EMPs* over the 224-board match. How much of this was due to lineup strategies is debatable, but it seems pretty obvious that having fixed partnerships is better.

*European Matchpoints. This was the old-style IMP scale, in which spans were wider. For example, a score difference of 720 points (like a vulnerable game swing) translated to 6 EMPs, instead of 12 IMPs on the current scale. Therefore, the 54-EMP margin of victory would have been almost twice that in IMPs.

The problems are all taken from this match. More specifically, they all begin at a major turning point: Before Problem 1 (Board 48 of the actual match) the U.S. had a narrow lead, but France would move in front and never look back. Speaking of looking back, let’s get the show on the road.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 1

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass 1	North Pass 1	East 1 Pass	South Pass ?	K 5 4 2 A K J Q J 9 4 6 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	235	31
3	8	167	22
2 NT	7	43	6
4	6	109	14
3 NT	5	25	3
2	4	111	14
2	1	77	10

How do you like your chances for game? Fair, I’d say, but not especially great. It is easy to envision hands for partner that leave you off four top tricks, or possibly three top tricks and a doomed finesse. This suggests the alternative of trying 3 NT, but you can’t always depend on a red-suit lead; a surprise club lead could spell disaster. Another consideration is that stretching to reach game is less desirable when nonvulnerable.

I agree with the voting consensus (for a change). Rather than take a blind stab, it must be better to bring partner into the decision with a cue-bid. There’s an off chance partner may bid 3 , then 3 NT stands out a mile. If partner only rebids 2 , the next move (if any) is moot*; but you can’t be any worse off than you are now.

*Even though cue-bids are usually game-forcing in Standard American, I doubt that any expert would assume this to be the case after both players have passed. Logically, any natural bid partner makes should be nonforcing; so if all he can do is bid 2 , it seems right to pass at the vulnerability.

The choice to cue-bid hearts (rather than diamonds) is based on solid bridge logic. Having passed 1 , you might have a real diamond suit; therefore, 2  (even if partner takes it as forcing) is ambiguous and shrouds the subsequent bidding; hence, the much lower score. Two hearts is unmistakably a cue-bid, implying a spade fit.

Let’s see what happened in 1956:

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

Stayman WEST Pass 1 All Pass

Trezel North Pass 1

Solomon East 1 Pass

Jais South Pass 3 NT

3 NT South Made 3 +400

Bacherich WEST Pass 1 All Pass

Goren North Pass 1

Ghestem East 1 Pass

Kahn South Pass 3

3 North Made 3 +140 France +4 EMPs

Jais for France took the bull by the horns and just bid the game he thought was a favorite. This proved to be a winning decision. Stayman led the K, but now the club shift was too late, and Jais limped home with nine tricks. An original club lead, of course, would easily beat the ambitious game (down two with perfect defense).

At the second table Kahn chose an invitational jump raise, which is about what the hand is worth in spades. If Goren had some wilder distribution, he would have accepted, but here he wisely passed. Indeed, even 3  can be beaten. Ghestem found the killing lead ( 9), yet the contract made. The play records I have only give the first three tricks, but I surmise that Goren led the 2 and Ghestem ducked, thus losing the only entry to partner’s hand before the Q was established. (Rising with the A is surely the best chance to beat 3 , but it’s not so easy in practice.)

Avoiding the unmakable game could have been a pickup for the Americans, but here it cost 4 EMPs. Going into this board the U.S. led by 2 EMPs, so the lead flipped to France by the same margin. For the Americans it was the beginning of the end.

Comments for 2

Mark Raphaelson: If partner has A-Q-x-x-x x-x K-x x-x-x-x, game will make; but that would mean someone else is lying about points. I’ll show my hand and support with 2 , but I doubt we’ll get to game.

John Weisweiler: Wouldn’t 2 be natural? If partner bids 2 , I will press on with another cue-bid; then I give up.

Paul Hankin: Two diamonds should be natural (or at least, might be construed by partner as natural). The hand is worth a game try — 2  seems normal.

Stu Goodgold: An unambiguous cue-bid; 2 could be natural in this position.

Jonathan Jacobs: Preparing to bid 3 if partner rejects the game try. …

Anthony Golding: With a choice of two cue-bids, I would think that 2 could be treated as natural against a five-card-major system. Two hearts can’t be [natural], given my pass over 1 , so must be an unassuming cue-bid (assuming I can be unassuming). I want to show the strength of the hand before raising.

Jonathan Steinberg: With a choice of cue-bids, what is the difference? Perhaps the lower should indicate a good three-trump raise, and the higher, a good four-trump raise. Even opposite a passed hand, game is possible. Two hearts should show the best possible hand and invite partner to bid on.

Andrew Morris: I want to make a game try, but 2 may be our limit.

Paul Hightower: I need to cue-bid to set up a penalty double, as well as invite game. Two diamonds might be natural, but 2  can’t be since I didn’t overcall in hearts. Hope partner agrees! I assume he has A-Q-x-x-x plus a side card.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: This should show a good raise in spades. I’ll give another push (2 NT? or 3 ) over partner’s likely 2  rebid.

Rainer Herrmann: Over 3 I try 3 NT, and otherwise 3 . This hand should give a strong invitation but not insist on game. We may lose the first four tricks in a spade contract. East may or may not be weak.

Rosalind Hengeveld: This sounds more unambiguously like spade support than 2 . Game is possible but far from certain with such soft values and opposite a passed partner, who likely intended 1  as lead-directing. …

Shyam Sashital: East may have psyched; however, West is likely to really hold hearts. The cue-bid is the first step towards game…

Tim Bolshaw: First, 2 is out because partner might treat it as natural. No direct spade raise will describe my high-card values — in particular, 2  and 3  are underbids that you can expect to be passed. A raise to 4 … cannot be ridiculous; however, 3 NT may be better, and [I also want to] give partner a chance to stop short of game if his hand consists of a spade suit and nothing else. I think the real choice is between 2  and 2 NT. The latter is OK on values but risks a really stupid contract unless partner has club values (West could have four hearts and six clubs, and you know what he will lead then!). Thus, I dredge out 2 , hoping partner bids clubs, in which case I bid 3 NT; otherwise I continue with 3 .

Barbara Reichman: … I feel I must make a strong bid and [prefer] to show strength in the heart suit.

David Caprera: My diamonds aren’t good enough to play it there.

Alvin Bluthman: Very difficult problem, as I want to show all of my features. If partner rebids 2 , I raise to 3 . Otherwise, I can either raise to 4  or bid 3 NT, depending on partner’s call.

Leonard Helfgott: … Some might construe 2 as natural, but of course 2 cannot be (no 1 overcall). This isn’t quite enough to force to game, and with four spades any notrump bid should be rejected.

Michael Shuster: Given the pass over 1 , there is some danger that partner would interpret the lower cue-bid as being natural; in fact, if I have enough to cue-bid now, I must at least have some length in diamonds, if not strength. I’d like to give partner an out below game if he has made a lead-directing overcall on A-Q-J-x-(x) and an outside queen. It’s tempting to make a further try if partner signs off in 2 , but I’m worried about being off two diamonds, a diamond ruff and a club at the three level.

Ib Christian Bank: I will raise 2 from partner to 3 . Partner should be allowed to overcall on as little as A-Q-10-x-x x-x-x x-x x-x-x.

Dirk Enthoven: Limit raise or better, plus the possibility of notrump. Even at IMPs, opposite a passed hand with strength in the opponent’s suits, 4  is a stretch.

Manuel Paulo: In spite of partner’s initial pass, game is possible, so I must cue-bid. As to the choice, I am afraid that 2  may be confused.

Bill Jacobs: Why not consult partner? Not 2 , which might be construed as natural, nonforcing. I’m not smart enough to get to 3 NT.

K. Scott Kimball: I want to cue-bid to show the fit and my values, but I think 2 would show diamonds.

Henry Day: It is quite possible we have two losers in each minor, so I’m reluctant to jump in spades at this stage. …

Olivier La Spada: I prefer to be sure before playing a game. Over 2 , I’ll bid 3 .

Alex Perlin: Since partner can easily have A-Q-J-x-x x-x x-x Q-x-x-x, I will not insist on game.

John R. Mayne: Two diamonds might be interpreted as natural, while 2 won’t be. Three spades, the alternate attractive choice, may get us too high and destroys our chance of playing in notrump.

Josh Sinnett: Partner can’t play me for this much without a cue-bid, and 2 may be interpreted as natural. Two hearts shouldn’t be, since a 1  overcall was available.

Chris Willenken: Two diamonds is natural by my lights. Opposite a passed-hand overcall, this is not a game drive. I’ll raise partner’s 2  to three.

Dave Maeer: Two hearts is the cue-bid here, as 2 should be natural. I’m worth a strong invitation but not a direct game bid. Difficult to see what partner has (no weak two and not a black two-suiter).

Michael Day: Since partner couldn’t open, it’s unlikely my seven-loser hand will produce game. But it doesn’t hurt to bid 2 …; maybe partner is very distributional. If partner bids 2 , I’ll pass.

Eric Leong: Bidding 3 seems an underbid; bidding 4 seems an overbid. Bidding 2 and then 3 seems just right.

Hmm… been reading bedtime stories to the kids lately? This sounds like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Philip Smith: I don’t think I’m worth a unilateral game force…

Peter van Montfoort: Good raise to 2 and lead directing; maybe 3 is better.

Ed Freeman: Why bury partner if he bid light? It’s our auction; use the space.

Martin Bootsma: As 2 would be real, 2 is the forcing bid. It should show spade support in this situation.

Harold Simon: Playing that 2 is a stronger cue-bid than 2 . Also, some may play that 2 is natural, given that an opening diamond bid may be three-long. After partner’s expected 2  rebid, I will raise to 3  only.

Gerald Cohen: Two diamonds is ambiguous; 2 is clearly a cue-bid.

Michael Palitsch: Shows the spade fit and leaves three possible contracts: 3 , 3 NT (if partner bids 3 ), or 4 . Two diamonds, 2 NT and 3 NT do not show the spade fit; 2  is Mickey Mouse, and 3  also should be weaker. Four spades is my second choice, but not very flexible.

Paul Hardy: … I won’t hang partner, but I can bid to the three level safely.

Daniel Korbel: I think 2 should be natural here, so I’ll cue-bid 2 . It’s a pile of junk, but maybe partner has working cards.

Weidong Yang: I plan to bid 3 NT later, but I must first tell partner that I support his spades; then he can bid 4  with [an unbalanced hand] or pass 3 NT with a balanced hand.

Barry Rigal: I plan not to hang partner by driving to game unless he cooperates. Will I bid over 2 ? Good job no one asked!

Peg Kaplan: … If my partner is overcalling on some of the junk that my standard-fare partners have, I do not want to leap to four! So, I bid 2 . I think that when two cue-bids are available, bidding RHO’s suit, particularly if a minor, should be construed as natural.

Giles Woodruff: The system outline says that cue-bid responses to an overcall are forcing to game. I don’t think this is sensible opposite a passed hand in this auction, and partner should realize [this]. Two hearts gives us the option of stopping in 2  and may also give me the option of suggesting 3 NT instead of 4 . I choose 2  rather than 2  because I imagine 2  might be interpreted as natural (2  cannot be natural as I didn’t overcall 1  originally).

Itea Goldstein: Seems to be the best way to unequivocally show a limit or better raise of spades.

Sergey Kustarov: Two hearts is fit-showing (2 would be natural). Over the probable negative 2 , I’ll bid 2 NT as a strong natural invitation with good stoppers. Then partner can pass, bid 3 , 3 NT or 4 .

James Hudson: We may belong in notrump, but I’m afraid to suppress my spade support, and I don’t like the small doubleton in clubs. Two hearts is more clearly a cue-bid than 2 . I won’t drive to game; I’ll give partner an out at 3 . But maybe he’ll bid clubs, and I can get to 3 NT after all.

Dave Scott: I will see how excited partner is with the heart bid before bypassing the notrump possibility.

Comments for 3

Bob Simkins: I’m not seduced by all those stoppers in their bid suits; the real problem is in the club suit. I am inviting partner to bid four with a near maximum for his original pass.

James Calabut: With at least nine trumps, our side must play a spade contract. Game will only be there opposite good distribution in partner’s hand and maximum points, so let him decide.

Lance Marrou: At IMPs this hand is good enough to invite game, and game in notrump seems too unlikely.

Tony Warnock: I have a good opening hand. If partner is only making a lead-directing noise, we should still be OK. Two spades sounds only competitive.

Matthew Bell: System says raise to three, so I will — should be the right Law level. Are 2 and 2  both natural? I’ll ask partner when he’s taken the Mickey mask off.

Juha Tamminen: Our deal, but how high should we go? Partner has 7-10 points so I think three spades is enough.

Bill Powell: Simple invitation.

Mich Ravera: Rule of nine. I don’t want to miss a game (which probably isn’t there) or allow opponents to play 3 . I can double 4  and 4 . If partner has A-Q-x-x-x and the A, he will surely go to game. Three spades leaves open 3 NT as a possibility.

William Schmitt: … The Law says we [are safe bidding for] nine tricks, and by jumping, I hope partner will bid game with a maximum passed hand.

N. Scott Cardell: Bidding notrump with no club stopper and four-card spade support is unwise and way too piggish. Unless the opponents are psyching, partner is likely to have A-Q-J-10-x or similar and little else. (With six spades he would have opened a weak 2 .) We rate to lose four side-suit tricks, either four tricks in the minors or three minor-suit tricks and a heart. There is also a good chance the opponents can make at least nine tricks in their best fit (which may well be clubs). With more prime values, say, K-x-x-x A-K-x A-x-x-x x-x, I would make a stronger move toward game. …

Mitch Edelman: There are a few hands partner could hold that give us a reasonable shot a game, but my red-suit honors suggest that nine tricks is the limit of the hand for either side. Let E-W stew awhile.

Comments for 2 NT

Ove Hjelvik: I don’t believe in 4 , [which has little play] if partner has, say, A-Q-x-x-x x-x-x x-x K-x-x… [however] over 2 NT, partner will bid 3 NT with the above hand. It’s not obvious the opponents will lead a club, is it? Even if they do, 3 NT is not hopeless.

Roger Allen: North only has five spades (no weak-two opener) so surely he has an ace or king in a minor).

Neelotpal Sahai: Game in spades is unlikely as 11 red-suit HCP are likely to produce only two tricks. Values for 3 NT are not there.

Comments for 4

Robert Lipton: Someone is spoofing and, as I always assume my partner’s bid is correct, it must be East. Let’s give the opponents a problem.

Christopher Miller: As I play, 2 or 2 would be natural, rather than spade support. Partner must have excellent shape to bid in the death seat after passing originally.

Charles Blair: [Hoping partner has] A-Q-x-x-x-x Q-x-x-x x x-x.

Daniel Moisa: Whatever invitational bid or cue-bid I make, partner cannot understand the values of my hand. So I have to announce game; 4  seems better than 3 NT as it protects a club holding like K-x-x in North. …

Cliff Gillespie: … If partner can’t make four opposite this hand, we will discuss our overcalls, especially in the middle of a live auction.

David Stern: Opposite as little as A-J-x-x-x x-x-x x-x A-x-x or Q-J-10-x-x x-x x-x-x A-Q-x, 4  will have some play.

Stephen McDevitt: Process of elimination. I don’t want to bid notrump at either level — West certainly may have clubs and that is likely to be a killing lead. Two diamonds is probably best used as a natural bid and not some spade raise; the same could be said for 2 . Game contracts should be chanced at IMPs. We have a nine-card spade fit, and partner has to have a decent suit and hand to come in after the opponents have both bid. …

Jojo Sarkar: This seems like the value bid. Partner should have a good hand to come in with me possibly broke. The diamonds probably won’t help, but the tops in hearts and the doubleton club are valuable, and the fourth trump is huge. …

Comments for 3 NT

Andrew de Sosa: With my 7-loser hand opposite a passed partner, if we have game, 3 NT seems to offer the best prospects. I bid it directly since a scientific approach may well pinpoint our weakness to the opponents.

Jack Lacy: I might very well win nine tricks when we can make only eight or nine at spades.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 2

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West	NORTH 3	East Dbl	South ?	A 10 3 A J 6 4 6 A 8 7 6 4

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	453	59
Redouble	9	73	10
6	7	108	14
Pass	6	43	6
4	5	24	3
4 NT (regular BW)	3	39	5
3 NT	2	27	4

One of the problems in each bidding poll often turns out to be a runaway, and this was it (voting on others was remarkably close). A clear majority favored the straightforward jump to game, so that gets the top award. Alas, I disagree (else you would probably not have seen this problem). In my experience, when opponents are in doubt under pressure, they tend to bid; hence, I think 5  is likely to spur West into bidding 5  or 5 , which is just what you don’t want to hear. If that happens, you will probably have to continue to 6 , rather than settle for a small plus (or a potential big minus if their bid makes).

In clubs I would expect to win 11 tricks about half the time, with perhaps a 25-percent chance each for 10 or 12 tricks. Nonetheless, regardless of what we can make, it is likely the opponents will do better to bid higher (probably in diamonds). Hence, this is mostly a matter of tactics, not science. The main objective is to inhibit enemy competition beyond 5 , though the best way to achieve this does not stand out. If you take the extreme low road (pass or 4 ), it is likely the opponents will see through your sandbagging when you later bid 5 .

My choice is to redouble. I think this is more likely to let us buy it in 5 than a direct game bid. Further, it has the advantage of allowing me to make a forcing pass (e.g., suppose East competes to 5  or 5  after I bid 5 ). By passing the decision around to partner, he might have the right shape to bid six (e.g., x x x-x-x-x K-Q-10-9-x-x-x would be sweet).

Another possible tactic is to use Blackwood. This may seem like harmless fun (almost always ending in 5 ), but it is theoretically unsound because it gives West three ways to bid: (1) directly with an average hand, (2) pass and balance with a weak hand, or (2) double and bid with a good hand. It also leaves 5  available as a distributional takeout. Indeed, West might have more problems if you simply pass.

Enough hypothesizing. Let’s put the cards on the table:

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

Goren West Pass Dbl

Ghestem NORTH 3 5 All Pass

Kahn East Dbl Pass

Bacherich South 4 NT Pass

5 × North Made 5 +750

Trezel West 1 NT

Solomon NORTH Pass Pass

Jais East 1 2

Stayman South Pass All Pass

2 East Made 5 +150 France +7 EMPs

In the first auction, which spawned the problem, Bacherich took the Blackwood route with great success. It’s not clear which of the Americans was more to blame. Goren’s double, while aggressive, is barely acceptable to show a smattering of values (it should not be a club stack). I would give the charge to Kahn. Surely, he must have been uncomfortable passing 5  doubled, and a takeout to 5  looks odds-on to me. Indeed, this might have changed the course of the entire match, converting a big loss into a big gain — depending on South’s lead of course. Against 5  (probably doubled) would you bank everything on partner having a major-suit singleton? I hate to admit it, but I would just lead the A.

Wow! The bidding at the second table doesn’t look like it came from the same hands. The French enjoyed an uncontested stroll to an easy partscore. Solomon’s original pass can hardly be criticized, but it certainly upholds the adage that bridge is a bidder’s game. The French won 11 tricks at each table for a gain of 7 EMPs (14 IMPs).

Comments for 5

Mark Raphaelson: This should be as high as we can make. Four notrump is ambitious and forces to slam opposite the A, which is silly. Redouble means you are not a good poker player. Let the opponents guess if this is a preempt or to play, and get the double card ready.

Rich Pavlicek: I will compete to 6 .

Bill Huepenbecker: Not brave enough for 3 NT at IMPs!

John Weisweiler: Slam is out of the question against my partner’s preempts; but I also do not want to defend with 11 or 12 trumps on our side. If they bid 5 , I will double.

Stu Goodgold: Three-club preempts are often made on less-than-ideal hands, even vulnerable. The [outcome] hinges on North’s distribution in the side suits. Five clubs is a middle ground, which has a reasonable chance to make. If the opponents compete at the five level, I can take the cheap insurance by pushing to 6 .

Rich Rothwarf: It’s tempting to look for slam, but only slightly. I wish I knew the level of my competition, though.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: There is a strong case for a tactical 4 NT bid, since 5 appears to a good contract for the opponents. But, in the long run, it doesn’t pay to be paranoid.

John Vogel: Worst hand [for partner] is 7-2-2-2 (he’ll lose three tricks), but most others lose only two tricks. Some hands can take 12 tricks (say, 6-7 clubs and the K…) but I don’t have the tools to find out.

Rainer Herrmann: Simple seems best, playing partner for 10 cards in the minors or that another trick can be developed in the majors. Six clubs is remote, and the situation may be hard to judge for E-W.

Rosalind Hengeveld: They may not make five of anything if partner has as little side strength as the J.

Shyam Sashital: Six clubs will surely be doubled for penalty. By bidding 5 , I retain a chance that East-West reach the wrong level and/or denomination if they bid on.

Tim Bolshaw: We can expect to make 5 more often than not, but probably not 6 . Opponents can probably make 9-11 tricks in diamonds. It’s most likely our hand, but messing about will just make it easier for the opponents. This is the time to bid what I think we can make. If the opponents do compete with 5 , I have a rather nasty decision at IMPs; I may have to take out insurance with 6  (which, after all, may be a lucky make).

Bob Simkins: A slam is remote, but game should make on most layouts. Perhaps the direct jump will hide the fact that the opponents have a profitable diamond save. Maybe they will try five of a major and find it too expensive.

James Calabut: … We may be playing 5 doubled, and if partner has three diamonds, we’ll make seven clubs, two aces and two ruffs. I consider 6  a sacrifice, and I will bid it should the opponents bid 5 .

Rich Dorfman: I’ll take the push [to 6 ] after 5 , or double 5 .

Dirk Enthoven: With both vulnerable I first liked the redouble, as 6 seems a stretch. Bidding a makable 5  might elicit a double, whereas their five of a major will fail (doubled).

Lance Marrou: A redouble will not stand, and there’s a decent chance for game. I hope 6 doesn’t make.

Horia Garbea: Seven tricks in North (six in clubs and one extra) plus three aces and maybe a diamond ruff in South. We could make 5 , or preempt 4  or 4  with only one down. I’m ready to double 5  or 5 .

Bill Jacobs: I will make it hard for the opponents to get in and blast to a possible contract. If they bid, I will fling 6  in their faces and send them the last guess. …

Ove Hjelvik: Six clubs might make, but can’t be bid with reasonable accuracy. It’s also conceivable that 3 NT is the only making game, but it would just be a gamble. Five clubs, however, is very likely to be the right contract, even in cases where it goes down. I lack the imagination to see why something more clever (like pass, redouble or 4 ) would rate to work better.

Robert Lipton: Partner should have something like K-Q and an outside king at this vulnerability. … If it’s a major-suit king, we [probably have] 12 tricks; but if it’s the K, only 11. I really can’t see [more] than two losers, so let me bid what I think we can make and start the opponents guessing at the five level.

Tony Warnock: Partner should be counting on going down two, and I can cover three losers; with my club length, probably four. If 6  is on, the preempt was too strong.

Matthew Bell: Partner only promises six tricks, so slam seems unlikely. It is tempting to pass or bid 4  hoping to get doubled in five later, but let’s just make ‘em guess.

Henry Day: If partner has A-x-x we have 12 tricks; or if he has just A-x and something in hearts we still have a chance; but how is this to be determined? Pragmatism says just play in 5 .

Olivier La Spada: Twelve tricks are too far away, and I do not want the opponents to find their diamond fit.

Juha Tamminen: Let’s make life a bit more difficult for the opponents.

Alex Perlin: I am hoping for plus 750. People [often] do not realize how many diamonds they have until they concede a doubled contract.

John R. Mayne: Five clubs (the majority choice?) is going to fetch another bid from the opponents, who will land in 5  or 5 , and I am pessimistic about beating either. The direct 6  has several ways to be right, and it’s far better to do it directly than in the reprehensible two-step (5  then 6 ). My 5  vote is an attempt to field-match.

Too smart, these attorneys. Never take a stand when you can cop a plea bargain.

Herbert Wilton: We may have a game. If it’s 3 NT we won’t get to play it. So let’s hope that it’s 5 , and if they bid on against this two-way action, we [may] punish them.

Michael Day: Partner shows about six tricks. We can make 6 if he has seven clubs and four diamonds, or [most other shapes] with the A, K or K. There are probably also some remote major-suit squeeze possibilities. Unfortunately, any attempt to elicit information will give the opponents the chance to find their fit in spades or diamonds (they may well make a five-level contract). … All in all, I’ll settle for an immediate 5  and try to make it tough for the opponents. If they bid 5  or 5 , however, I’ll bid 6  as insurance against a huge adverse swing.

Philip Smith: If partner has the sort of hand that can make 6 , I can kick him under the table afterwards.

Dima Nikolenkov: Expecting a diamond and a major-suit loser. I will double everything at the five level.

Alex Kemeny: No certainty they can make 11 tricks, so a 6 advance save seems overdone. [Bidding] 6  to make is Fantasy Land.

Bob Richardson: This seems to be a tactical [situation]. At first I thought I should “walk the dog” by passing, but now a direct 5  seems best. Slam is a stretch.

Mike Cassel: We might have three defensive tricks if partner has any major-suit secondaries. I’ll let the opponents try to figure out the five level. There is an East-West 620 for sure.

Sebastien Louveaux: Slam could be on (e.g., K-x x x-x-x K-J-10-x-x-x-x) but it is too optimistic. Maybe I will reconsider if they bid at the five level.

Peg Kaplan: I believe my best shot is to let them guess after 5 . … I am not venturing into a premature save of 6  (though it could be the right move). Why save when I might not have to? The salient question, though, is what am I doing over 5 ? Yes, I have three aces, but only two may be of value on defense.

Cliff Gillespie: It would take a magic hand for six. I will gladly step on the opponents if they bid on.

Gareth Birdsall: We might make 5 . They may make four of a major, but we should find a ruff to beat five.

John Hurd: It seems likely they can make spades and or diamonds, therefore it is necessary to try and find a way to keep them from bidding, while at the same time trying to insure plus 600 (or 620) in clubs, If West has a really long suit, I don’t see how to keep him from bidding it, so I opt for the straightforward jump to five and hope it goes double, all pass (or pass, pass, double, all pass).

Andrew de Sosa: Make the opponents guess. I intend to bid up to 6 over 5 if I have to, but will try defending 5  or 5 . Bidding 5  offers us an opportunity for a positive score should either opponent deem himself too weak to compete further. It also eliminates the dreaded 5  cue-bid, which would provide the opponents their best shot at finding their optimal fit.

Frans Buijsen: Six clubs is over the top, though I will take the push if the opponents bid 5 . It can’t hurt to try to finish lower, though, since I can’t believe we’re making six.

Ian Payn: Pass is asking for it; redouble, ditto. Three notrump is a reasonable practical shot, but if partner only has a six-card suit, it may well come up a cropper. There is no reason to imagine 6  would make, or that it would be a good save against five of a suit. Four notrump? Well, I suppose the A would be one more trick. Four clubs? Achieving what, precisely? When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however unlikely, must be the truth (as some guy in a deerstalker once said). So 5 , which feels just right, too.

Stephen McDevitt: … Slam chances are minuscule despite this acey hand — too much overlap, not enough points. Five clubs has many chances… and it impedes the opponents from finding a major-suit fit or introducing diamonds.

Jojo Sarkar: We should have a good shot at winning seven trumps, two aces and two diamonds ruffs. If not, hopefully my holdings in the majors can lead to an 11th trick. Partner cannot have the A, so a slam is not too realistic. I hope to buy the contract but should get at least plus 200 against five-something doubled.

Robert Katz: I expect partner to hold K-Q-J-x-x-x-x and at most an outside queen. If he holds three diamonds, we make five. If he holds the Q, we probably make six. Bidding 5  may not allow opponents to bid on. If they do bid 5  or 5 , I have a problem and may have to bid six; but I’ll cross that bridge when and if I get to it. My second choice is an immediate 6 , hoping the opponents bid on, and we thus get a plus.

Mike Hargreaves: Since I cannot double any number of diamonds, let’s bid 5 rather than redouble. With luck, East will double this as well. I will not send it back, since 5  may be a good save, or even a make.

Jack Lacy: Two ways to win: We might very well make it opposite some diamonds to go with his clubs, and we might get a few IMPs from doubling the opponents at the five (or six) level. I don’t see any way to explore six…

Comments for Redouble

Foppe Hemminga: Any other contract can later be bid with more knowledge of the other hands.

Anton van Uitert: Redouble and then supporting clubs must show some slam interest.

Paul Hankin: We are probably ending up in 5 , but the redouble seems like a good start; partner might be able to double something (e.g., 5 ).

Alvin Bluthman: Strong raise, of course. Not strong enough to play for slam, but I want to put my strength on record for later bidding.

Leonard Helfgott: Even if partner has seven clubs and three diamonds, slam isn’t there without an outside card. Tactically, I don’t know whether it’s better to trap completely (pass), raise immediately (5 ) or show overall strength (redouble). I’ll go with the last.

Michael Shuster: I choose this for several reasons: First, it might slow West down — he is much less likely to bid 5  here. Also, if he does bid at a high level, either now or on the next round, partner just might be able to double (imagine x-x-x x K-J-x K-Q-10-9-x-x). When I eventually bid 5  it will be to make, so why not let partner in on the secret?

Eric Leong: I plan to redouble then bid 5 in order to get partner involved, and encourage him to go to six if he has a bit more outside strength.

Mich Ravera: I am not really in a position to penalize [the opponents] but if West bids 3 , as I suspect he will, I can go to 5  then.

Sergey Kustarov: [If partner has] K-x x x-x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x-x or x-x x A-x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x-x, we make 6 ; so I want to hear partner’s reaction to their diamond bid after my redouble. If he doubles (with K) I’ll bid 5 . After 3  P P, I’ll cue-bid 4 .

Comments for 6

Paul Hightower: I count 10-11 offensive tricks and two defensive tricks, so I expect this to be a sacrifice. If we can beat five of something, 6  may make.

Ian Coombs: I can’t guarantee beating five [of any suit]. Six clubs probably has chances on a crossruff.

Carlos Dabezies: Assuming partner has seven clubs for his vulnerable bid, then if he has three diamonds I am looking at 11 tricks, and with my cards a diamond lead is likely. With the 10 and J it seems too conservative not to bid six. Even if partner has A, seven will not be on, so there is no point in Blackwood.

Chris Willenken: Six clubs should be an OK spot if they let us play it there. If partner has a useful side card, we will often make; otherwise, they will often make 5 . I jump to 6  to make them guess.

Peter Ijsselmuiden: Hoping for either K-x or a save by our opponents.

Roger Allen: “Make West guess” was the tactic S.J. Simon advocated.

N. Scott Cardell: There is a good chance this will make, and there is little I could do to find out the key information. (As little as x K-x x-x-x Q-J-10-9-5-3-2 makes it cold, barring an opening-lead ruff.) Also, bidding 6  boldly might cause the opponents to take an unwise bid at the six level or double us in a cold contract.

Daniel Korbel: Opposite K-x x x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x-x, slam is ice-cold, and there’s no way I can think of to find out if that’s what partner has. So I’ll just bid it and make them guess.

Weidong Yang: It seems 5 is more suitable for my hand, but can we buy the contract? The opponents will bid 5  or 5  and, very likely, make it! So, why not bid 6  directly? And maybe I can drive them to 6  or 6 ! How can they know I have both major aces?

Ron Zucker: My first choice is not on the list; 3 would let partner know that the K is a huge card. Nonetheless, opposite a 7-2-2-2 hand with the K-Q-J and out, 4  is our limit. Of course, with that hand, they’re making four or five spades, depending on the heart position. Blackwood won’t answer my question since I want to be in six opposite x-x K-x x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x-x (the heart hook should work). I choose 6  since it has the most ways to win. …

Dwayne Hoffman: … Bidding the Law. Let them find a 6 doubled slam here.

Jonathan Goldberg: The simple Law bid. I won’t let them play at 5 or even 5 , so I bid to our limit and let them guess.

Comments for Pass

Colin Ward: Let’s not stampede them into 5 , which may be a great sacrifice — or may even make!

Harold Simon: Pass and listen, planning to try and buy the deal at 5 . I won’t double them below the six-level.

Barry Rigal: Six clubs is what I think the hand is worth, but the alternative approach of softly-softly might work better. For instance, if West bids 3  or 3 , I might find out that this implied partner has diamond length (who else has the suit?). Conversely, if West bids 3  and East 4 , it might get the hand off my chest as well.

Itea Goldstein: I always get these wrong at the table. … What I really need to know is partner’s shape. I’m almost in a position where letting the opponents bid will tell me what I need to know — long diamonds in partner’s hand is good. A heart response on my left would give partner high odds of holding a singleton. I’m going to pass [even though] I expect it to score very low.

Comment for 4

Giles Woodruff: The hand is worth 5 (3 NT might also make), and we might even make 6 (opposite K-x x x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x-x, say) but if I bid 5  directly I expect them to bid over it, which gives me a difficult problem. I don’t expect 4  to end the auction, and I will bid 5  next. On a good day this will pick up a double.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 3

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1 NT	EAST Pass Pass	South 1 ?	9 A K 6 A K 10 9 8 2 K 8 7

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	260	34
3	8	315	41
3 NT	6	108	14
3	4	33	4
2	3	17	2
2 NT	2	11	1
4 (Gerber)	1	23	3

This was not an easy problem to score. It may seem like I overruled the consensus, but I don’t think so. A closer look reveals that the majority of respondents (55 percent) felt the hand was too good for an invitational bid, though the means of forcing to game were split among 2 , 3 , 3 NT and, I’m sorry to have to report, even 4  Gerber. Therefore, it would hardly be fair to give the top award to a nonforcing 3 .

The reverse bid of 2 is not game-forcing, of course (just a one-round force), but almost everyone who commented about it intended to drive to game. Another clear advantage of 2  is that partner will often have a club suit, and this allows him to bid it conveniently — 6  is easily within reach, e.g., facing as little as x-x-x x-x-x x-x A-Q-x-x-x or A-x-x x-x-x x-x Q-J-x-x-x. Note how awkward these hands would be after a 3  rebid.

Several respondents asked why 3 (splinter bid) was not an option. That’s easy: Splinter bids are not a part of the system.* In Standard American, 3  would show a game-forcing hand, typically with five spades and six diamonds. This definitely serves a purpose, since a reverse bid of 2  (forcing one round) followed by 3  would not be forcing. I’m sure some people are now thinking, “It’s the Flintstones,” but you have to stick to the rules. Do you remember the saying “When in Rome…”? Well, it also applies to Bedrock.

*Also note that if splinter bids were allowed, I would never have chosen this problem; 3 would be a perfect description.

So what would Goren have bid? I’m glad you asked, but we’ll never know for sure:

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

Field West Pass Pass Pass Pass

Trezel North 3 3 NT 4 5

Stayman EAST Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Jais South 2 3 4 4

5 North Made 6 +620

Bacherich West Pass Pass Pass

Solomon North 1 3 NT 5

Ghestem EAST Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Goren South 1 3 4

5 South Made 5 +600 France +1 EMP

Witness the second auction. Solomon appears to have had an outer-space moment in responding 1 (for the poll I gave you the terrestrial view with 1 NT). Goren’s 3  rebid, of course, cannot be compared to the poll, although it still seems conservative (I prefer a jump shift to 3 ). In any event, the suit that offered the best play for slam was never mentioned.

In the first auction, the French at least found the right strain. Jais’s 2 was an intermediate two-bid, typically 17-22 points, invitational but nonforcing. The auction seems well-judged most of the way but ran out of steam, as neither player found the final push to slam. Playing in clubs netted the French 1 EMP for the overtrick.

Comments for 2

Mark Raphaelson: Three notrump could be very makable, but only if partner has a spade stopper… I’ll lie a little and bid my values.

Foppe Hemminga: I will persist to game but want to hear more from partner.

Paul Hankin: Aiming for 3 NT, with clubs and diamonds as other possibilities.

Stu Goodgold: North lacks four hearts, so the 2 reverse won’t get me into trouble very often. Slam is a good possibility… If not, we’ll be better placed to play in notrump if partner has a spade stopper.

Anthony Golding: I think I’m too good for a nonforcing 3 — partner needs only Q Q-x-x Q-J-x to make 5  a favorite, or A Q-x-x for 3 NT. When I rebid diamonds, he’ll know how to value his holdings.

Paul Hightower: Heading for 3 NT. I need Q-J-x x-x-x Q-x-x J-x-x-x, or such. If spades are wide open, slam is possible, e.g., opposite x-x-x x-x Q-x-x A-Q-x-x-x.

Bjorn Thorlaksson: The best way to choose between clubs, diamonds and notrump.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Bid where the money is. My hand value has increased (especially with the three-card club suit) and the auction is easier to control after a reverse.

John Vogel: Any number of possible final contracts — maybe I’ll find out something useful from partner’s next bid. Two hearts will at least let partner know I have real diamond length and strength.

Rainer Herrmann: … Having to develop my judgment and play Standard American from the stone-age, 2  leaves the door open to 3 NT or contracts in both minor suits. …

I resent that you refer to my methods as “stone-age.” I do play the weak two… um, uh, Yabba-dabba-doo.

Shyam Sashital: The most important action is to show the strength of the hand (and at least five diamonds). If, in the process, I show one extra heart card, it does no harm as partner does not have a four-card heart suit.

Tim Bolshaw: Do I reveal my hand or hide it? Actually, I think 3 (although a slight underbid) may be a more practical option at the table, as it still allows partner to probe with 3  or 3 . The 2  bid, what I believe will be the majority choice, will help us judge between 3 NT, 4 , 5  or possibly 5 . The trouble is that I am announcing my spade weakness to the opponents, which could be bad if we subside in 3 NT.

Bob Simkins: I’m driving to game, but which one? The reverse to hearts should elicit enough information to decide if we belong in diamonds (most likely), clubs or notrump.

Michael Shuster: It looks like we’re headed for 3 NT, as the opponents’ silence at favorable vulnerability with at least nine spades strongly suggests partner has some strength in the suit. However, it seems like I can find out for sure by bidding 2  along the way. If partner restates notrump, I can confidently bid 3 NT. Should partner raise hearts or bid 3 , I will commit the hand to a minor-suit game (or more, e.g., x-x-x Q-x-x x-x A-Q-J-x-x).

Ian Coombs: Force and see what partner says next. Does he have clubs, a spade stopper, or both?

Robin Zigmond: Hopefully, partner will realize I’m looking for something in spades. No danger of him raising hearts — he won’t have four. …

Rich Morrison: Followed by clubs at a low level, I hope. Partner should not bury me in hearts. There could be 6  making, and 3 NT down.

Manuel Paulo: If partner can bid clubs or raise diamonds, that’s great; else I will rebid my diamond suit.

Bill Jacobs: I can rule out 2 (might play there foolishly), 2 NT and 3 NT (no reason to bash), 3 (partner might insist on clubs) and 4  (implying some sort of epileptic fit). It looks just a smidgen strong for 3 , so I’m going to get complicated and try to finesse the auction. Over 2  or 2 NT, 3 NT; over 3 , 4  (pinpoints the stiff spade); over 3  or 3 , 4 . Not perfect, but at least it’s a plan.

Ove Hjelvik: My plan is to tell partner about my spade shortness, if necessary. Two hearts is a harmless first step, promising length in hearts.

Joerg Fritsche: Three diamonds is too committal to diamonds or notrump. As we still might have a slam in clubs and no other game, I’ll try the scientific approach.

Tony Warnock: … If partner bids 2 , then 3 NT; else I will raise partner’s club or diamond bid. …

Matthew Bell: Choice between this and 3 . A direct 3 NT has too many disadvantages; we could go down yet be on for 6  if partner has the right 8 points. It’s the tempting possibility of slam that makes me choose the (unpopular?) reverse.

John R. Mayne: Yawn. Clearly strong enough for the reverse; nothing else is attractive at all.

Josh Sinnett: Since partner denied four hearts, he won’t be raising to an uncontrollable level. We’re very likely to get to game; but notrump, diamonds, and even clubs are possible strains. So I’ll bid where I live.

Herbert Wilton: Partner can’t pass; his next bid should clarify which game or slam I should go after.

Chris Willenken: Easy. The hand is too good for 3 opposite partner’s 7+ minor-suit cards; we could easily make a slam. I’ll start bidding out my pattern, planning to bid 3  next.

Christopher Miller: A slight distortion, but 3 doesn’t seem likely to get us to notrump if we belong there. If I am going to lie about my shape, I’ll tell where my values are.

Michael Day: Game is likely, but where: 3 NT, 5 , or 5 ? … Two clubs, 2 NT, or 3 could be passed when we have an easy game. Three clubs or 3 NT may well get us to the wrong game. That leaves 2 , either a second suit or a fragment. Hopefully, partner’s next bid will clarify the situation.

Eric Leong: Slam in a minor is not out of the question. Partner could even have a long club suit.

Colin Ward: I confess that none of the other options even occurred to me here. :)

Dima Nikolenkov: I bid where I live and let partner judge. Over 2 , we are in 3 NT; over 3 , I will splinter in 4 ; and over 3 , let’s hope partner is better. :)

Alex Kemeny: Showing where my stuff is, and I have a sensible action over any heart raise partner makes.

Charles Blair: Where are the spades?

Martin Bootsma: As three diamonds is nonforcing, and 3 NT could make with only six points by partner (in the black suits), I opt for 2  to emphasis my weakness in the black suits.

Harold Simon: Not giving up on 3 NT if partner has good cards in the blacks. Five clubs is a possibility, too.

Micha Keijzers: I’d like to find out whether we belong in 3 NT, 5 , 5 or even 6 or 6 . The risk of ending up in a weird heart contract is not so great with partner having denied four hearts.

Michael Palitsch: This is perfect to find our best contract (five or six in a minor, or 3 NT). The opponents had three opportunities to bid their spade suit, so hopefully I do not need to jump.

N. Scott Cardell: … I want partner to show diamond support or a long club suit if he has either. Six clubs or 6  could be on when 3 NT isn’t even making (give partner a dead minimum like x-x-x x-x-x x-x A-Q-10-x-x, and 6  is quite good).

Daniel Korbel: I think I’ll [bid clubs next], letting partner know about my spade shortage. This will keep us out of a silly 3 NT contract, where the opponents are almost certain to lead spades — when it’s right anyway. Actually, I have a sneaking admiration for a reverse into spades!

Weidong Yang: Difficult to choose; 3 seems correct, but it takes too many space, and partner cannot bid 3 NT when he holds decent spade stoppers with three low hearts. Partner should bid 2  with spade strength, then 3 NT will be reached. If partner bid 3  (unlikely), I have to retreat to 4 .

Barry Rigal: … I will make a forcing bid and find out whether [to play] 3 NT or a minor-suit game or slam.

Ron Zucker: Can partner have a hand to make 6 a good place to play? There is a perfecta out there ( x-x-x x-x Q-x-x A-Q-x-x-x), so it’s probably worth one shot. If partner now bids 2 , it… must be spade values, and I’ll bid 3 NT. Three clubs would be welcome… since my hand can play well at clubs. Anything else will encourage me in diamonds, especially at IMPs, where 5  might well be a fine contract if I decide against six. …

Sebastien Louveaux: Trying to choose between 3 NT (unlikely when partner is marked with only three spades), 5 or 6 , or even a club contract. The reverse leaves the door open to most options.

Cliff Gillespie: Forcing; if partner still likes notrump, I will raise to game.

Gareth Birdsall: Two hearts then 4 should describe the hand well.

John Hurd: Seems [to be the] most intelligent way to get to a diamond game or slam when it is right, instead of 3 NT.

Giles Woodruff: The spades are a worry, and 5 might be the best spot. East is quite likely to have length in spades (no 1  overcall by West) so I ought to investigate this rather than blast 3 NT…

Bjorn Rem: This signals the correct strength and gives partner a chance to bid a possible club suit.

Milton Spinner: Too many ways to make game… to bid a nonforcing 3 .

Sergey Kustarov: We can have 3 NT, 5 , 5 or 6 (if partner has A-Q-x-x-x).

Comments for 3

Andrew Morris: Partner should now show a notrump stopper in spades with any reasonable hand.

Rosalind Hengeveld: So I’m about half a trick heavy for this bid. Two hearts is too likely to score an unwelcome 3  on Q-x-x, over which I’d feel stuck.

James Calabut: With a spade stopper and more than minimum values, partner can try 3 NT.

Leonard Helfgott: I prefer the old-fashioned value bid to immediate notrump raises. A 2 reverse is also sensible if handled properly, although I reject 2  or 3 .

Robert Lipton: Top of the money for this call.

Carlos Dabezies: Assuming accurate defense, 3 NT would require a running diamond suit and a spade stopper (or a double stopper… if diamonds do not run.) Although it may be too conservative, 3  allows partner to pass if he has very poor diamonds, or to go on with useful cards. …

Olivier La Spada: Three notrump may be the best game, and 6 is still on target.

Bill Powell: Partner can show [a stopper] in spades if he’s worried about hearts for 3 NT.

David Davies: Enough; partner can see the vulnerability as well. Better to tell partner about the main feature of my hand, rather than confuse him by bidding a suit I don’t have.

John Hoffman: Descriptive, nonforcing and safe. Partner can bid 3 to show a spade stopper.

Andrew de Sosa: Looks like a classic bid, if not slightly control-heavy. What’s wrong with having a little extra every now and then?

Frans Buijsen: The opponents have nine spades, but their silence makes it more likely partner has good spade stoppers. Three diamonds keeps both 5  and 3 NT in the picture.

David Stern: I’m nervous about the opponents having a nine-card spade fit. If partner wants to bid 3 NT, then that’s OK.

Gerry Wildenberg: How can I find out whether partner holds A-x-x Q-x-x Q-x J-x-x-x-x, or x-x-x Q-x-x Q-x A-Q-x-x-x? Two hearts looks like the expert bid, a seminatural reverse, saving space and forcing; yet here it looks wrong as it won’t solve my problem.

Itea Goldstein: … Notrump seems against the odds unless partner can trot out a spade bid over 3 , or bid it himself. If partner has x-x-x x-x Q-x-x A-Q-x-x-x, then I hope he can show some more life.

William Bascom: If partner has the values to continue and has a spade stopper, it can be shown with 3 … If partner raises diamonds, I will bid five.

Jojo Sarkar: My diamonds are not solid enough to bid 3 NT. …

Jack Lacy: Where are the opponents with their 9+ spades? Over 3 , I hope partner does the right thing (bids game in diamonds or bids 3  so I can bid 3 NT).

Thomas Hanford: Don’t get too fancy. … We may have a game in notrump or diamonds, and this tells partner where I live.

Comments for 3 NT

Lance Marrou: Can you think of a way to invite slam in diamonds if partner has x-x-x Q-x-x x-x-x A-Q-x-x, and not bypass 3 NT?

Ron Tacchi: I would like to bid 2 and then 3 NT.

Bill Maddock: Anything might make here… but I want to be where the money is. Besides, with spades breaking 5-4 they may block the suit.

Ian Payn: You’d never catch a Real Man bidding anything else. Real Men write minus 200 on their scorecards with depressing frequency.

Comment for 4

Mickey Mouse: I’d like to bid 3 as a Minnie-splinter, but the Goofy moderator didn’t list it.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 4

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass Pass	North 1 3	East Pass Pass	South 2 ?	Q 8 A 8 J 10 6 K Q 5 4 3 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	206	27
3 NT	9	196	26
4	8	104	14
3	7	142	19
5	4	85	11
3	2	34	4

When I first saw this problem, I felt that 3 NT was the best choice of a bad lot. The respondents’ consensus of 3  did not appeal to me, but having read the comments and considered it further, I’m inclined to agree. For one reason, bidding 3 NT precludes any chance of a heart contract, but bidding 3  does not rule out 3 NT. If you only had to speculate on one unbid suit, 3 NT might be a better choice, but with two unstopped suits, the odds are stacked against you.

The 3 bid also conveys your strength accurately — it is nonforcing (essentially a “2 1/2 ” raise) per the system structure. It is true that partner will expect a slightly different hand (i.e., a third heart), but it’s a reasonable description and might be the only way to reach a viable heart contract.

Perhaps my original aversion to 3 was influenced by the horrible trump break in store. Would you believe 6-0? This was a nasty deal in several ways:

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

Field WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Trezel North 1 3 3

Stayman East Pass Pass Pass

Jais South 2 3 5

5 South Made 5 +600

Bacherich WEST 3 Pass Pass

Solomon North Pass Pass 5

Ghestem East 4 4 All Pass

Goren South Dbl Pass

5 North Down 1 -100 France +6 EMPs

Witness the first auction, in which Field’s shrewd silence created the problem. As you can see, this was not the time to speculate on 3 NT — nor hearts for that matter. Jais chose to punt with 3  (who knows what it meant), and this led to the sound game in clubs. Indeed, even 6  is a decent contract looking at the N-S hands alone.

The second auction provides a good study in bidding theory. After Bacherich’s routine preempt (by today’s standards), Ghestem chose to psych with 4  (presumably forcing). Goren was able to double this to show clubs (I’m sure most experts today would play this for takeout), giving Solomon an easy 5  bid later. Note that if Ghestem had simply raised to 4 , he might have bought the contract without a fight (11 tricks are cold in spades).

The play was interesting in 5 . At the first table, a spade was led to the ace and a spade returned, giving declarer a picnic — making five. At the second table, East was on lead, so West was able to discourage on the A; then the heart shift was ruffed, and West accurately returned a diamond — down one. Note that if West tries to cash the K at trick three, declarer can succeed on a crisscross squeeze. So, the rich got richer. Chalk up another 6 EMPs (12 IMPs) in the French column.

Comments for 3

Mark Raphaelson: I don’t like this problem, but if partner chose 3 over all the other options, 3 NT can’t be the right spot. Hopefully, partner will infer that with a double fit and three hearts, I’d have jumped to 4 .

Foppe Hemminga: Best descriptive bid if we play five-card majors.

Paul Hankin: … Three notrump seems too unilateral, and club bids will tend to exclude a heart contract. Three hearts isn’t forcing, but partner will pass only with a minimum opener, which is probably OK, given my poor spade and diamond holdings.

Paul Hightower: From my hand, neither 3 NT nor 5 looks promising. This flexible preference lets partner help decide.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Since most of my values are in our two primary suits, 3 is about right in spite of the doubleton support.

John Vogel: I’m not taking blind shot at 3 NT; at least one suit is almost surely unstopped. Four hearts may be the only makable game contract (if partner has good hearts)…

Rainer Herrmann: The toughest of the set in my opinion. Either 3 NT or 5 (more likely) may be the only game, with 4  a distant third. Three hearts is the only bid that allows me to pass 3 NT with some confidence, since I need help in both unbid suits. …

Tim Bolshaw: Yuck! With all these losers, I certainly do not want to commit us to the five level without looking at alternatives. … Three hearts might work well if partner has a strong five-card heart suit and we lack a stopper in one of the side suits. I fear, however, that partner will assume I have three-card support and will not bid 3 NT with K-x K-9-x-x-x Q-x A-x-x-x. At the table I would go for 3 NT on the basis that, if it’s the right contract, it will likely be better from my side.

Leonard Helfgott: No stoppers elsewhere, and A-8 should be enough support in hearts.

Michael Shuster: Given that we aren’t playing 2-over-1 game forcing, I can bid 3 without showing a forcing three-card raise. Hopefully, partner can make an informed decision between 3 NT, 4  and 4 or 5 .

Dirk Enthoven: Two clubs was not a game force, and 3 NT is a big gamble. While 3 at this point may be nonforcing, it’s just as well as we may have four or more losers on the side. Three diamonds (a delaying bid)… would ask about spade strength, [and I can’t even] promise diamond cover.

Carlos Dabezies: Partner is unlikely to have more than four cards in diamonds and spades together, so it is likely he does not have a partial stop in both… There may not be 11 tricks in clubs when there are 10 in hearts. … Three hearts probably suggests a third heart, but it seems to me the least of evils.

Henry Day: Partner is likely to have only four cards between spades and diamonds, so at least one of these suits may be wide open — and the auction has hardly disguised this fact. So, better to show the heart fragment and let partner choose any one of three games.

Olivier La Spada: This usually shows [three cards], but anyway, 4 may be better than 5 if partner is minimum for 3 .

Bill Powell: Probing for the best game.

Dave Maeer: If partner has good hearts, we should be able to run a lot of tricks. I shall pass 3 NT or 4 .

Alex Kemeny: Showing secondary support and also leaving 3 NT open — possibly via 3 , which can be played as showing a half-stopper.

Charles Blair: If partner doesn’t want to try 3 NT, we may not belong there.

Harold Simon: Hopefully, partner will bid 3 NT with a flat hand or 4 with good hearts. Optimistic, for sure.

Steve Mager: Partner figures to be soft in at least one of my no-stopper suits. The 5-2 heart fit is probably our best shot at game.

N. Scott Cardell: … Four hearts may be the only game that makes, so I must tell partner about my secondary support now. Even if 3 NT is right, it is likely to play better from partner’s hand, e.g., A-J K-Q-x-x-x A-x 10-x-x-x rates to provide two spade and two diamond stoppers, making 3 NT excellent (but only mediocre from my side).

Gareth Birdsall: I must stay lower than 3 NT (which could be the last making game), and 3 is the only plausible choice.

Andrew de Sosa: Leaving our options open, while suggesting a flawed hand for notrump. On the other hand, if partner can bid 3 NT, it could well be our best spot.

Gerry Wildenberg: What a tough set; another hand where anything could be right. If partner is short in diamonds or spades, 3 NT will look foolish. If 3  persuades him to bid 3 NT with a spade stopper, we could be down when 4  or 5  is easy (similarly if I bid 3 ). That leaves club raises and 3 . I go for the latter as concealing my semi-support seems wrong.

Nicholas France: … I don’t want to give up on 3 NT, but I doubt we will get there. Four hearts can’t be that bad compared to 3 NT.

Comments for 3 NT

Stu Goodgold: This hand is balanced and minimal. By bidding 3 NT, denying a heart fit, I must show long clubs (unless the system has no bid for balanced forcing hands without a heart fit).

Jonathan Jacobs: Bidding one of my partial stoppers looks attractive but is also rather risky, as it may make the opening lead easier by provoking a double, or otherwise. My choice could easily depend on tactical considerations, but I narrowly favor 3 NT over 4  (5  is an overbid as the risk of three losers is too great).

Rosalind Hengeveld: “When one of your options is 3 NT, bid it” (Hamman), especially when no other option looks particularly attractive.

Rich Morrison: If the opponents cash the first five tricks, that’s too bad. Exploration will help them more than us.

Manuel Paulo: With a minor fit I try for the nine-trick game when a rather weak symmetrical hand like J-x-x K-Q-x-x-x Q-x A-x-x is enough.

Bill Jacobs: Looking for the symmetrical miracle: J-10-6 K-Q-5-4-3 Q-8 A-8-2. Surely, 73 respondents will quote this hand.

Your number is a bit short, but you and Manuel should hit it off pretty good.

Ove Hjelvik: I think I just have to assume that Q-x and J-10-x are worth something… If not, we’re probably unable to stop in time, anyway. Besides, if I chose to improvise with either 3 , 3  or 3 , I’m not sure partner would tend to make the right decision — but the opponents would.

K. Scott Kimball: Cross my fingers. With only half a stopper in each unbid suit, I don’t want to bid either of them.

Michael Day: We could belong in 3 NT, 4 , 5 , or 6 . … None of the alternatives are perfect, so I’ll try 3 NT with my partial stoppers and hope for the best.

Michael Palitsch: When in doubt bid 3 NT; and when the opponents cash six spades and five diamonds, I will apologize.

Daniel Korbel: With partial stoppers in both side suits, let’s hope partner can contribute.

Ron Zucker: If I bid 3 NT with enough authority, I don’t really need a stopper. The Q-x and the J-10-x argue against a suit contract… Moreover, partner is likely to have one suit stopped, and it’s not insane to ask for half a stopper in the other. A close second choice is 3 , but it’s passable. What should partner do with J-x-x K-Q-x-x-x Q-x A-x-x, which makes three in any strain? At least if that strain is notrump, it’s a red game at IMPs.

John Hoffman: If we are wide open in a side suit, they might not guess to lead it, or it might split 4-3 or 4-4.

Bill Maddock: I want the lead coming around to my spade doubleton honor. I learned that this week from Ken Dalley, who learned it from Michael Courtney.

Well, tie me kangaroo down… so that’s why so many of our 3 NT contracts are going down under.

Ian Payn: A slightly frivolous effort, to be sure, but this rolls home often enough.

Jojo Sarkar: Partner is not showing anything extra with 3 , so I’ll try 3 NT with our relatively balanced 25-28 points. If partner is really distributional, he can bid 5 . …

Jonathan Goldberg: And blame it on Hamman.

Comments for 4

John Weisweiler: There must be a problem either in spades or diamonds (or both). My values are a bit too slow for 5 .

Bob Simkins: Three notrump and 5 are reasonable choices, but 4 will let partner off the hook if he holds a real Mickey Mouse hand. I might even pass 4  if he tries that.

Alan Kravetz: I promised another bid when I bid 2 , and 4 may be our last plus score if partner doesn’t have anything extra.

Chris Willenken: Anything else seems misdescriptive. I like to play that 3 shows either four clubs or extra values; if partner has a balanced minimum, we could belong in 3 NT.

Jonathan Siegel: Since partner probably has only four cards in the pointed suits, 3 NT looks unsafe.

Eric Leong: Bidding 3 or 3 without a stopper in the suit is misleading and could induce partner to bid 3 NT with the wrong kind of hand. Bidding 3  shows full heart support…; 3 NT shows a stopper in each unbid suit; and 5  could be too high. The only bid left is 4 .

Alpha Bao: … This is an invitation; if partner has [extra values], he can raise to 5 ; else, just pass.

Itea Goldstein: Yuck. Again a spade problem for notrump. … This is tough. … If partner has the stuffing I need for 3 NT, I don’t think we have the agreements to discover it before we pass it up.

Comments for 3

Alvin Bluthman: Must give partner room to tell me whether 3 NT or 5 is on.

Joerg Fritsche: A bit of a lie, but a cheap waiting bid. Three notrump, 4 and 5 or 6 are all possible. It might even be right to stop in 4 , but that will be difficult to manage.

Matthew Bell: … I think 5 is going to be a good game, but is slam on? I need a forcing bid to find out. Three hearts and 4  can each be passed.

Juha Tamminen: I’m trying to find out if 3 NT is the right spot.

John R. Mayne: A little third-suit action; committing to strain on my side is presumptuous. In Standard American, I could have another heart for a 3  bid, right?

Josh Sinnett: What, J-10-x isn’t a stopper? Seriously, this leaves partner the most room to make a descriptive call of his own so we can land in the right contract.

Herbert Wilton: Five clubs, off three top tricks? Three notrump, down when 5 is cold? I’ll temporize and see what happens.

Philip Smith: Three notrump on my own is a little far-fetched, and 3 looks too much like a three-card suit. Three diamonds is nice, and noncommittal.

Dima Nikolenkov: Enough strength; no idea where we belong; no clear bid. [Therefore, by general principles]: (1) Keep the bidding low, and (2) if you lie, lie in a minor.

Ed Freeman: I’d rather play 3 NT from my side, so I hope partner bids 3 ; but I expect to end in 4 .

Martin Bootsma: … Partner [probably] has only four cards in spades and diamonds; therefore, 3 NT does not seem attractive. Other games are not appealing either, so I’ll make a waiting bid of 3 , showing a stopper.

Micha Keijzers: A try for 3 NT although not confident since the opponents are likely to have a good fit in diamonds and/or spades. … If I bid 3 , partner will think I have three hearts. I don’t want to bypass 3 NT either. Tough hand.

Mike Cassel: This may deter a diamond lead [if partner bids 3 NT with a spade stopper]. If partner bids 3 , I will raise.

Barry Rigal: I could guess to play 3 NT or try to play 4 or 5 when partner cooperates. A lot depends on whether partner has guaranteed shape for 3 , or if he could easily be 5-3-3-2. When in doubt, opt for economy.

Sebastien Louveaux: Investigating; we may belong in 3 NT or 5 . I will not stop below game…

Peg Kaplan: I don’t like bidding 3 here without three hearts. Since I don’t want to go past 3 NT, though, it seems like 3  is the best temporizing action.

John Hurd: … I will pass 3 NT; raise 3 to 4 ; bid 3 NT over 3 ; and over 4 , I feel a pass is right. Hopefully, partner has A-x K-J-x-x-x x-x-x A-x-x.

Giles Woodruff: The spades might be a weakness for 3 NT. Four hearts or 5 could be the better game, and 3  seems the most flexible way of exploring.

Frans Buijsen: Very difficult. This will work out wrong (3 NT instead of 5 ) only if partner is 3=5=1=4 and we lose five diamonds off the top while 5  is making. In 5 , I am more afraid we will lose three top tricks.

David Stern: Expressing some nervousness about spades.

Sergey Kustarov: Leaving the door open for any possible game: 3 NT, 5 or 4 (partner will bid 3 with A and K-Q-J).

James Hudson: Not very descriptive, but forcing and space-saving. Partner’s next bid may solve my problem.

Robert Katz: Very tough hand; could belong in 3 NT, 4 or 5 , or maybe not make game. … If partner bids 3 , I bid 4 ; if he bids 3 , I bid 3 NT. Partner should assume I am looking for the right game (not slam) since the game search always [gets priority].

Mike Hargreaves: An ugly bid for an ugly hand, but [my values] are too soft to invite 4 or 5 without first seeing whether partner likes notrump.

Thomas Hanford: Looking for 3 NT if partner has a spade stopper. If he has a good heart suit, he can rebid it; then 4  would be an option.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 5

IMPs		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West	NORTH 1	East Dbl	South ?	K 5 2 — K 7 5 3 2 Q 8 7 5 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	289	38
Redouble	8	88	11
2 NT (4-card limit raise)	7	64	8
2	6	199	26
3 (weak)	5	60	8
2	3	56	7
2	2	11	1

Everyone’s plan is to raise spades, but the hand doesn’t fit any of the classic molds. Most of the respondents agree it is too good for 2 , yet higher spade raises suggest greater trump length. Other possibilities are to redouble despite only 8 HCP, or make a tactical bid of 2  (lead directing?) or enter the stand-up comedy field with 2 .

I was surprised that 4 won, even though it is my choice as well. What ever happened to all the Law followers? I usually get dozens of comments citing the Law this or the Law that, but now all of a sudden everyone is quiet. I guess none of the 4  bidders wants to get caught speeding. Seriously, I think 4  is the perfect pressure bid; the heart void strongly suggests that you will have to contend with 4  sooner or later, so it makes sense to preempt it. On a good day West will step in with 5 , and partner will have a trump stack and wield the ax.

So you thought you were headed for spades, huh? The actual deal took a different turn:

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

Field West Pass

Trezel NORTH 1 6

Stayman East 1 All Pass

Jais South 5

6 North Made 7 +940

Bacherich West 3 Pass

Solomon NORTH 1 4 6

Ghestem East Dbl 4 All Pass

Goren South 2 5

6 North Made 7 +940 No swing

Witness the second auction, which spawned the problem. I couldn’t help but chuckle to see our stalwart hero, Mr. “Contract Bridge Complete” himself, bid hearts on the problem hand. Is this how “according to Goren” came into being? Tell me, sir: On which page would I find that 2  bid? This auction certainly altered my image of the man* for the better — not that I agree with 2  but because it dispels the image of a textbook guru.

*I had the experience of playing against Mr. Goren a few times in the late ‘60s at the Southeastern Regional in Miami Beach. I remember coming to his table and being awestruck by the swarm of kibitzers. On one occasion he even stopped during the play to sign an autograph. “Where was I?” he said on return, “Oh yes, the rest are mine.” The only thing missing was the applause from the gallery.

In the first auction Jais and Trezel used a canape style (with two-suited hands, the shorter of the two suits is bid first) and spades were never mentioned. Indeed, even Solomon and Goren found their way to the club slam, so the board was a push (13 tricks were made). Too bad the Americans couldn’t at least get to spades, if only to turn the tide by winning 1 EMP.

Comments for 4

Mark Raphaelson: Redouble is wrong, and 2 and 2 are nonforcing, so it must be a spade-showing bid. Four spades seems like the best option; there should be a play for it at least.

Bill Huepenbecker: Make them guess!

Stu Goodgold: We will likely get to 4 sooner or later. Why let them determine the degree of the heart fit below the five level?

Anthony Golding: Make life as difficult as possible for the vulnerable opponents. If either of my minors were better, I might bid it for the lead, but not here.

Jonathan Steinberg: I need another spade for this bid, but I can’t always have the perfect hand for partner.

Paul Hightower: Let ‘em guess. My hand may be suitable if partner either doubles or sacrifices against 5 . Both 2 NT and redouble imply more HCP in my opinion.

Bjorn Thorlaksson: A fine hand, but if they lead spades I might be in trouble.

John Vogel: All bids seem wrong! So, 4 because (1) it may have a play, (2) it may stampede the opponents into a bad bid, or (3) it may be good sacrifice. I’m probably going to be sorry if partner has 5-5 in the majors.

Rosalind Hengeveld: This looks like a time to blast; as over game tries like 2 NT, the opponents may be able to evaluate their hands better than partner can his.

Bob Simkins: Four spades will usually make and will often goad the opponents into an unwise 5 . I’m hoping for plus 500, or maybe more.

James Calabut: The heart void makes my hand worth a lot more. After East’s double, I presume I can provide partner two ruffs and two tricks with my kings.

Michael Shuster: I reject redouble (the route to a three-card limit raise) as being tactically inferior. West is likely to hold long hearts and be able to jump to game immediately, and I would have to pull partner’s penalty double to 4 . The opponents would now be better placed than us to make a five-level decision. Instead, I believe it best to put maximum pressure on the bad guys with a direct 4  bid (with doubles to follow if they bid on).

Alan Kravetz: Although I have only three spades, the heart ruffs or one of the minors may provide the needed tricks.

Lance Marrou: Too strong for 3 ; too weak for 2 NT; and the playing strength is still much better than the defense. I like the chances for game, especially at IMPs.

Robin Zigmond: The shape more than makes up for the lack of a fourth spade. This has to be the right bid at this vulnerability. Given that I have a six-loser hand, we may even make 4 .

Carlos Dabezies: … Redouble would tend to show a less distributional hand with more values outside spades; 2  may discover a minor-suit fit but less likely to impede East-West; 2  is too conservative…; too good for 3 . My choice is between 2 NT and 4 , but at this vulnerability I go for the latter, albeit somewhat risky with only three spades.

Matthew Bell: Puts pressure on the opponents, and the “losing trick count” says we can make this. … Maybe we can, but anyway, it doesn’t overstate my defensive values.

Christopher Miller: Don’t let them find a heart fit. Partner will be short in at least one minor.

Harold Simon: Rolling the dice.

Micha Keijzers: The pressure bid. Sometimes this will make; sometimes the opponents are cold for 4 , and 4  isn’t beaten enough. I’m trying to put the last guess to them.

Ron Zucker: I hate redouble since they’ll find their heart fit. It’s too good for 2 , and 3 is weak. I prefer not to bid 2 NT, which should be more constructive. Two of a minor is awful with K-x-x, so I’ll shoot out 4 . I’ll have only one confused partner but two confused opponents. I hope I have some saved goodwill from partner in case I’m wrong — of course, this means I hope 6  was right on Problem 2! :)

Peg Kaplan: … I’m going to guess at 4 . I should have more spades, of course, but I like jamming the opponents at this vulnerability.

Neelotpal Sahai: I hate to sacrifice when the opponents may not have anything. But who knows; they may. … The vulnerability also suggests that I bid on.

Frans Buijsen: Since I am going to take the push this high anyway, I’ll just bid four [immediately].

David Stern: Anything is a lie. The opponents are likely to have some play for 4 , vulnerable, so let them guess at the five level. I am fitted with any cards partner has in the minors.

Gerry Wildenberg: Redouble should be penalty oriented… so that’s out; 2 only works against children; and 2  [is misleading]. That leaves the various spade raises, and I go for the game — it might make, it might be a good save against 4 , or it might egg them into bidding at the five level.

Dwayne Hoffman: Toughie — the void in hearts is nice to have. I don’t like 2 or 2 , whether it’s natural or artificial (a la Bromad), and I don’t like 2 NT (Jordan) either. …

Stephen McDevitt: … Bidding diamonds (or clubs) is pointless with an eight-card spade fit; 2 is sick; 2  is too weak, as is 3 ; 2 NT is too strong — I don’t have a fourth trump and I don’t have enough points. My spot cards are also terrible, plus communication is dicey. So, it’s redouble or 4 . Redoubling and then bidding spades over a preempt might be too encouraging. Bidding 4  [directly] seems to misrepresent the shape of my hand; still, I’m worried about the opponents, not about missing slam. … I bid 4  and go for coffee.

Philippe Westreich: Three spades won’t accomplish anything. Maybe we have a game and maybe we don’t, but I’m guessing East-West have a sure 4  game.

Comments for Redouble

Leonard Helfgott: … [Based on the methods] it’s a choice between redouble and 2 , since this hand isn’t weak and it doesn’t have four trumps. I’ll go with the old-fashioned redouble with around 12 dummy points.

Ron Small: Two diamonds and 2 are both nonforcing; 2 is too much of an underbid; 3 is a complete underbid; 4  is too unilateral. This leaves two slightly inaccurate calls: Redouble and 2 NT. Redouble suggests penalty, but rebidding 2  or 3  (after partner doubles hearts) should help to clarify. I just can’t bid 2 NT on this hand even though it may be the most accurate bid.

Horia Garbea: Four spades has the advantage of impeding East-West from finding a heart fit; but West already knows about it. Maybe partner has 6+ spades with one or both minor aces and the K, so a slam in spades is possible.

Chris Willenken: Starting to show a three-card limit raise. I hope the opponents preempt to 3 so partner will be able to infer my shortness when I next support spades.

Colin Ward: Pass then 2 (to show 9 points) is [also] a good option here.

Alex Cameron: Too many points for a weak bid.

John Hurd: This is simply a guess about what will work best. Next I will raise spades then subsequently pass if partner doubles 4 , but not 3 .

Jonathan Goldberg: According to the system summary, redouble shows 10+ HCP or 11+ support points. That’s what I have. It’s also non-tactical and grossly misdescriptive, but so is everything else.

Comments for 2 NT

Rich Rothwarf: Why isn’t pass an option? That would be my first choice!

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Though lacking four trumps, this hand qualifies as a good raise to 3 .

Rainer Herrmann: I do not intend to let them play in 4 ; however, 2 NT may slow the bidding down and give us a better chance to play 4  undoubled… If 2 NT promises four cards, it seems inconsistent that 3  or 4  could show less.

Tim Bolshaw: Interesting. Opponents could have a bid heart fit with East having singleton spade, in which case I need to shut them out. On the other hand, a 4  bid suggests I have much less defensive potential than I really have. I like 2 NT, which while lying about the fourth trump is accurate in terms of values. It will often be enough to intimidate the opponents into silence and give us room to stop in 3 …

Ove Hjelvik: Even though I could get away with introducing my diamonds, I’m not sure partner would agree it was very descriptive. I think 2 NT is appropriate; the void virtually ensures that my hand will behave like one with four-card support, total trick-wise. The hand is certainly worth a limit raise.

Bill Powell: A tiny exaggeration.

Dave Maeer: So I owe partner a trump, but it looks more like a four-card limit raise than any of the other bids.

Michael Day: Every time I try 4 on a hand like this, partner shows up with K-Q-J-x. Redouble just gives the opponents room to find their heart fit. Hopefully, my heart void will make up for the lack of a fourth trump.

Philip Smith: In spite of holding only three spades, this looks like the only sensible action. I have a very nice hand, and West is surely about to bid some number of hearts…

Charles Blair: Sure, it’s a four-card limit raise!

Barry Rigal: The deficient methods force me to guess. Ugh! (Two clubs as a raise, or 2 as a transfer raise is far better.)

Gareth Birdsall: I must make a bid that indicates my support. I’ve seen lots escape bidding 4 on this type of hand, but it could go for an enormous penalty opposite, e.g., J-x-x-x-x K-J-x-x-x Q A-x. Two notrump seems the only alternative.

James Hudson: I hate to lie, but this hand is hard to describe, and I want to get in some description before West preempts.

Comments for 2

Dirk Enthoven: Two notrump (Jordan-like) is a lie and won’t work here as a preempt; my heart void is of dubious value with only two small trumps. Two hearts is futile (partner probably has too many). A quiet 2  [seems best].

Joerg Fritsche: I don’t know how many hearts West will bid, so the best thing for now is to show my support. The real problem might be the next round of bidding.

Olivier La Spada: Too many defensive cards for a preempt, and my hand lacks a spade to bid game.

John R. Mayne: Ow! A void, a fit, and just a wimpy 2 ? The minor-suit spots and the fear of bad breaks make me a coward.

Josh Sinnett: I’m a simple soul; I’ll just show my three-card support in a limited hand and judge what to do later by the rest of the auction.

Herbert Wilton: I’d like to pass and listen to the bidding. All the other actions are flawed, so I’ll bid 2  and wait and see.

Eric Leong: This hand is a little too heavy in HCP for a 2 bid, but jumping in spades with inadequate spade support is out of the question. By default, I suppose I am left with a redouble and then supporting spades; but I would rather bid a slightly heavy 2 . I think I can trap East into reopening with another takeout double; then I can redouble.

David Davies: … My heart void is not such a great asset with only three trumps, and it will be better if partner makes the final decision on whether to compete if and when they bid hearts. So, 2  is enough.

Daniel Korbel: I’ll keep bidding spades as often as necessary (up to 4 ) in the hopes of buying it, perhaps doubled. A redouble is sick with no hearts.

Cliff Gillespie: Going conservative here; see what develops.

Mitch Edelman: The real problem will come when the auction continues 4 , double, pass, to me.

Giles Woodruff: Slightly weighty, but 2 NT would be an overbid. I prefer to show support immediately rather than redouble in case the auction bounces quickly; if I redouble and partner doubles 4 , I would be guessing whether to pull.

John Hoffman: An underbid, but it gets the spade support on the table before the opponents go to the moon in hearts.

Andrew de Sosa: With only three trumps and such ratty side suits, 2 seems like a fine start. I will compete up to 3  on my own, or raise partner’s 3  to 4 .

Itea Goldstein: Call me chicken. I want to show partner my three-card support and moderate values before my West jams it. I’ll bid 4  if it comes back to me at 4 …

Nicholas France: I’ll bide my time for now and show my point count, but I’m ready to bid again over any heart bid by them.

Jojo Sarkar: This hand looks a little better than it is, so I make the value bid. (We could get skewered on a trump lead if we bid a lot.)

Mike Hargreaves: Why assume they can make anything? Or that we can. I’ll wait for more information before going nuts. By the way, this is another spot for a useful treatment: 2  to show a sound raise (or 2  as some prefer).

Jack Lacy: I am going to get another bid, and maybe by then I will know what to do.

Comments for 3

Bill Jacobs: The only bid that allows me to have faith in partner’s decision over the opponents’ heart bidding. By the way, Richard, there’s some sort of bug in your web page. On my browser, it lists 2  as an option.

I’m still looking through my Goren books… It must be there somewhere.

N. Scott Cardell: This makes the opponents guess. If I bid less, it is likely to go 3 by West, then East can make an informed decision. Also if West bids 4 , partner can figure out I am short in hearts… Bidding 4  is too unilateral.

Bill Maddock: If I had another spade, I would get really excited — not a pretty sight, you can be assured.

Thomas Hanford: I am short a spade for this bid, but I need to take up space. Make them guess how high to bid hearts.

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

Problem 6

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass 2	North 2 3	East Dbl 3	SOUTH 1 Pass ?	A Q 10 3 2 A 9 6 2 K 9 J 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Double	10	264	34
3 NT	9	236	31
4	8	124	16
5	6	54	7
4	5	49	6
Pass	3	36	5
3	1	4	1

Has East lost his mind? Or are you about to face some treacherous distribution. The obvious course is to double, as suggested by the Law (now, all the Law followers suddenly reappear), but in my experience you seldom get rich doubling a partscore without intermediate trump strength — and occasionally these doubles backfire miserably. I would be much happier about a double if my trumps were K-10-9-x.

Many respondents opted for 3 NT, figuring the diamond suit would run. This is certainly reasonable, but I don’t like it because of two apparent dangers: (1) It is likely that East has five hearts for the raise, so with only one stopper you will probably need nine top tricks, and (2) you have no club stopper. One of these gambles seems OK, but having to sidestep both hurdles may be too optimistic.

My own choice is to raise diamonds, and I’m torn between 4 and 5 . The former seems adequate since an expert partner is likely to continue to game on hands that will make. Also, if partner passes, there’s a chance that East will try 4  — unlikely, I agree, but stranger things have happened.

The actual deal was about as expected, with East bidding on more shape than high cards:

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

Stayman West Pass Pass

Trezel North 2 2

Kahn East Pass All Pass

Jais SOUTH 1 2

2 South Down 1 -100

Ghestem West Pass 2 All Pass

Solomon North 2 3

Bacherich East Dbl 3

Hazen SOUTH 1 Pass 3 NT

3 NT South Down 1 -100 No swing

Where’s my title character? Evidently he took a break — too bad, as he was just getting warmed up with the psych on Problem 5. Witness the second auction where Hazen took his place and opted for 3 NT. On a good day, Solomon would have A-Q-10-x-x-x-x Q-x-x, and 3 NT would roll. Sorry, not this time, as there was no chance after a heart lead (or a club lead for that matter). Down one.

It seems that if Hazen had raised to 4 , Solomon would bid game — the seventh diamond and K-x surely suggest it. Five diamonds is easy after a heart lead (in fact, it makes six), but a club makes it interesting. Here’s an elegant line: Win the second club; A; heart ruff; Q; heart ruff; club ruff; heart ruff; K to ace; spade ruff, then exit with a diamond for a trump endplay. Essentially, this only requires the J onside and no spade singleton with East.

So how would 3 doubled fare? Down one seems likely with careful play, but declarer might do worse. In any event, it would take egregious play to go down three, so the diamond raise was the winning call in practice.

The Americans posed no opposition in the first auction, and the French bid conservatively to 2 . This contract certainly looks comfortable, but somehow Jais went down. The play records indicate a trump lead, K to the ace, and a club shift; but nothing further. So, it was just another push board.

Comments for Double

Mark Raphaelson: Best chance for a big score; maybe even a very big score.

John Weisweiler: The 11-trick game is far. With a heart void, partner shouldn’t pass the double since I did not redouble when I had the occasion.

Jonathan Jacobs: The call suggested by Law reasoning. If 5 is on, 3 rates to go for 800 or more. I expect partner to pull this double with a diamond stack and no hearts.

Anthony Golding: Defense looks best on this hand; we should be able to get a forcing game going. I assume this is for penalty under our simple system — if not, I might well double anyway, prior to showing belated diamond support.

Paul Hightower: Looks like 16 total tricks — they’re overboard. A [diamond contract] could easily run into foul breaks.

Bob Simkins: I want to defend 3 doubled… Three diamonds is nonforcing, and, yes, we may occasionally pay out 730; but we should beat 3  80 percent of the time. If we can get 500 or more on this partscore hand, we can sit in rocking chairs for the remainder of the match.

James Calabut: Opponents can be in great trouble should partner hold one heart. If we can make 5 , they should go three or four down.

Alvin Bluthman: And hope to defeat it. Partner will pull with a void. My 9 promotes if he holds a singleton honor, and may be worth a trick anyway…

Lance Marrou: It seems like a misfit, which makes a penalty double much more attractive. What are the opponents doing bidding my second suit anyway? :)

Joerg Fritsche: I hope partner will pull this with a void and the K. If they have only eight trumps, they will be in serious trouble. Bidding 5  is my second choice.

Carlos Dabezies: The opponents cannot have more than perhaps 16 HCP… and each is likely to have four hearts, but East might well have five. Even with six diamond tricks running, 3 NT would not make unless partner has the A [or K] as well. Since partner is very likely to have at least one club honor, it is difficult to see where their tricks are coming from. Time to teach them a lesson.

Philip Smith: Nasty. Double or 3 NT? Partner looks to be something like 2=1=6=4, and with East likely to hold a diamond shortage… partner’s diamonds will have to be A-Q-10 or better to bring the suit in at notrump.

Alex Kemeny: I hate to double them to game at IMPs, but if partner’s 2 bid can be trusted (he’s an expert, right?) they should be two off. We have no obvious game since I dislike my heart stopper.

Mike Cassel: Partner probably has 10 minor-suit cards, which makes 5 problematic on a trump lead. So I go for the penalty.

N. Scott Cardell: West was forced to bid, and they seem to have gotten too high. I have a good holding in their suit, and our side has the majority of the strength with no good fit. Partner can pull the double if his hand strongly suggests offense.

Neelotpal Sahai: Clubs and spades seem to be badly placed; unlikely to score game.

Giles Woodruff: Three notrump is not clear to make. It also looks as though partner and East are short in spades, so the cards are probably badly placed for us offensively. If we can lead two rounds of trumps quickly, the hand will probably not play well for declarer.

David Stern: I showed a minimum hand by passing, and partner elected to bid again vulnerable. Partner will have cards outside of diamonds for his two-over-one, and I can’t see much prospect for game.

James Hudson: I’m not so keen on playing in diamonds that I won’t suggest defending.

Nicholas France: Partner has to have an honor outside of the diamond suit and should have at most two spades — if I’m lucky, he only has one and will lead it.

Bill Maddock: Mouthwatering! The only problem is to stop the saliva from dribbling onto my chin. …

Martin Nathan: We have at least 24 HCP and they probably only have an eight-card fit. Where is our game? Only one heart stopper? Take the penalty.

Ian Payn: “Crackle like thunder — she went under” (Bobby Darin).

Theodore Hwa: Three notrump is a possibility, but I’ll take the sure profit.

Jonathan Goldberg: Another Law bid. I don’t think there are enough trumps either for us to bid on or for them to make it. I’ve been wrong before, but ace-fourth of trumps says defend.

Comments for 3 NT

Bill Huepenbecker: Partner should have at least a partial club stopper.

Paul Hankin: We have good chances for 3 NT provided partner has a club stopper; and even if they have running clubs, they might lead a heart anyway.

Stu Goodgold: Partner must have a long, strong diamond suit for the free bid of 3 . We may pick up more with a double of 3 , but it’s not worth the gamble. Three notrump looks reasonably sound. …

Jonathan Steinberg: I protest! I would have bid 2 on my second turn, not passed! Be that as it may, 3 NT stands out — good hand, key diamond card, heart stopper. Also, the hearts rate to be 4-4.

Andrew Morris: Partner is now well placed, as I would not bid 3 NT now without a diamond feature.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner, with known heart and spade shortage, is bound to have a few club cards on this auction.

Rosalind Hengeveld: We may miss the clubs. But they may, too.

Tim Bolshaw: Double would be a blunder, as the opponents probably have a club fit to add to their heart fit, and might make with ease (partner would not lightly remove). Three notrump obviously risks the opponents running the first five clubs, but I still rate it a more practical bid than 5 . I am not [stopping below] game on this hand with my aces and K.

Leonard Helfgott: Partner should have something outside of diamonds, unless he has seven strong ones, so 3 NT seems like a good shot. I’ll pay off to slams and the occasional 5  make when 3 NT fails.

Rich Dorfman: Probably down one — partner’s fault for not retreating to 4 . I’ll whack 4 .

Ron Small: The spades and hearts aren’t in partner’s hand, so x-x x A-Q-J-x-x-x-x Q-x-x [is likely].

Robin Zigmond: Three hearts is probably going off, but not necessarily by a lot. Three notrump looks a good contract with my diamond holding and heart stopper.

Horia Garbea: I should find at least Q-x-x in North [so this will have excellent chances].

Bill Jacobs: Three notrump or 5 ? That is the question. I fear I am about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Henry Day: It is unlikely that 3 is making; even if diamonds split 4-1, I still think we’re coming to five tricks. The question is, can we make 3 NT? It may need nine tricks off the top, relying on a certain quality in partner’s diamonds, but I reckon the chances are better than even.

Josh Sinnett: I don’t think we’re getting rich against 3 doubled, and 3 NT should make with at least six diamond tricks, the major aces, and another trick somewhere.

Chris Willenken: Feels like partner will help me stop the clubs. He has short hearts along with less than three spades, so he must have some club length. Eleven tricks might be hard to manage, especially with spades not rating to break.

Mich Ravera: We can’t beat 3 badly enough to compensate for missing a game, and I wouldn’t be surprised if partner were void in hearts. Partner can always pull to spades or diamonds [with a hand unsuitable for 3 NT].

David Davies: … If partner has A-Q-J-x-x-x, then we have eight tricks, and there should be somewhere to dig for the ninth. It is difficult to construct hands where 5  has significantly better play than 3 NT.

Micha Keijzers: I’m inclined to trust the opponents’ bidding, which is what I think I should do in this bidding poll. But, I’ll probably end up with eight tricks, while 3  doubled is a disaster for the opponents (after a spade lead and a diamond switch).

Michael Palitsch: Partner will have some 2=1=7=3 distribution. Three hearts doubled will be only one off most of the time, but between 3 NT and 5  it is very close.

Weidong Yang: My K is very important, and I can put my hopes on partner’s diamond suit since he bid it twice. I don’t worry about hearts (a 4-4 split is likely). Partner should bid 4  over 3 NT with a long, broken diamond suit.

Barry Rigal: Three notrump suggests one heart stopper and a high diamond honor. It is not terminal; I’d expect partner to remove it without a diamond suit that might run here. I like my earlier pass as this lets me now offer 3 NT, not demand it.

Ron Zucker: Three notrump should include honor-doubleton most of the time, and I have that. I can hold up in hearts if appropriate. … I am worried about clubs, of course, but I feel the need to do something.

Andrew de Sosa: If we can make 5 , then we can probably also make 3 NT. Partner almost certainly has at least three clubs and probably a club honor. The death holding would be x-x x A-Q-J-x-x-x K-Q-x-x with the K offside, where 3 NT goes down while 5  could make; but there’s no way to investigate that possibility now…

Sergey Kustarov: Partner has at most two spades and one heart, so a seven-card diamond suit is highly probable. Chances for 3 NT are far better than for 5 .

Thomas Hanford: Hamman’s Rule: When 3 NT is an option, bid it. If partner can’t stand it, he can pull. Double is out since East has a big two-suiter.

Comments for 4

John Vogel: Who knows? I’ll let partner make the last mistake. I can surely win the postmortem this way.

Rich Morrison: Not 3 NT this time. They figure to have clubs and lead them, too. Maybe 5 is right, but I’m a chicken.

Manuel Paulo: Three notrump is tempting, but I am not sure that diamonds are solid.

Colin Ward: We might yet have game if partner has great diamonds and the K.

Charles Blair: I wonder what negative inferences arise from my non-redouble [on the previous round].

Craig Zastera: I owe partner the information that I have support for his suit. If they bid 4 , I’ll double; a tapping defense should be effective. Doubling 3  is too close, especially at IMPs. East has bid 3  virtually by himself over our strong auction, so he has a lot of shape. …

Sebastien Louveaux: Support with support! Partner will bid five himself when it is right.

Peg Kaplan: I might have called 3 previously. I don’t like double (we might not beat it) or 3 … and 5  seems misdirected. … So I go for either Door #1 (3 NT) or Door #2 (4 ) — #1 or #2, ugh, #2 or #1, wish I had bid earlier. I’ll opt for #2 and hope partner goes right (and that “going right” doesn’t mean we should be in 3 NT).

Talk about fickle women! I’ll make you one last deal: Will you trade your bid for what’s behind the curtain?

Gareth Birdsall: My hand is not as good as it first looks. East seems sure to be 5-5 in the rounded suits, but West may have as few as two hearts and is likely to be stacked in spades. Hence, I’m not quite worth 5 , but partner may bid it anyway (or via 4  or 4 ) with a suitable hand.

Jojo Sarkar: This doesn’t take us past 4 and should [be the best contract] if partner decides to pass. Five diamonds is the likely spot.

Comments for 5

Shyam Sashital: We should have a lucky lie of cards. Partner may have a 2=1=6=4 distribution… so the K and J are both useful cards.

Michael Day: East appears to have a decidedly two-suited hand, while West is probably close to bust. This means partner is more likely to have the K than a club stopper. It’s close, but I think the odds on the diamond game are a little better than they are on 3 NT. Slam seems pretty remote.

Robert Katz: Partner has at most one heart. If he has the K-Q, we may make 5 but go down in 3 NT.

Mike Hargreaves: Four hearts is too much, 4 is too little. Five diamonds is just right.

Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the woods… Here comes Goldilocks again.

Comments for 4

Michael Shuster: Both double and 3 [implying a diamond fit by logic] are tempting, but double is a bit of a risk when weighed against what rates to be a laydown game, or possibly a slam. … Three notrump isn’t tempting at IMPs…

Tony Warnock: Showing diamond support, heart control, and denying club control. …

John Hoffman: [Asks partner for a] choice of contracts: 4 or 5 . Three notrump could be right but is too unilateral and dangerous.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 426), and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. About 67 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

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

I hope you enjoyed this journey into the past. I thank all who responded, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web activities. I’ll leave you with a few choice remarks:

Bill Powell: Guessing the location has driven me inSeine.

Zoran Bohacek: Tournament must have been the Bremuda Bwol in Pairs.

Peg Kaplan: The pictures of gardens and statues look very European to me. Am I on the right continent?

Peg, I’m always impressed when you’re on the right planet. Speaking of which:

Bill Maddock: Tournament venue: Earth.

We got another winner!

Analyses 7W72 Main Challenge

Scores Top Charles Goren in Paris

© 2002 Richard Pavlicek