Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Aces and Plum Blossoms

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in March 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.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

The respondents offered a variety of guesses, and the most common was Japan (cities of Yokohama, Nagano and Sapporo), followed by China, Singapore, Malta, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Hawaii. Sorry; some good tries, but wrong. Then there were the less-than-brilliant guesses like Stockholm, Sweden and the ever-mountainous Orlando, Florida — does Space Mountain at Disney World count?

The Orlando guess (by three people, no less) was no doubt because of the background song: “Knock Three Times” by Tony Orlando and Dawn. The musical link, however, was only to suggest the year; the song became a #1 hit in 1971. Bob Richardson, who guessed Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) offered “Knock three times on the Ceylon if you want me…” as proof. Cute, but not what I had in mind.

Congratulations to Richard Stein, who was the only one to guess the exact venue: the 1971 World Championship held in Taipei, Taiwan. Barry Rigal also identified the location (as he has in several past polls), but he was vague about the year as “1970 or so.”

The pictures are all of Taiwan. At the top is a view of Sun Moon Lake (the flowering tree branches add a nice touch). Next is a stream in Taroko Gorge, Taroko National Park. Third picture is a view of Snow Mountain National Park (the large whiteness is not snow but low-lying clouds). These pictures really changed my conception of Taiwan, which now ranks high on the list of places I’d like to visit.

The plum blossom is the national flower of Taiwan. It is also common in other Far East countries, not only in nature but as a cultural symbol. Many years ago, my parents visited Taipei and brought home some beautiful paintings of the four seasons, each elaborately decorated with plum blossoms.

Franco Baseggio Wins!

This poll had 813 participants from 106 locations, and the average score was 47.33. Congratulations to Franco Baseggio (New York City), who was the first of six with perfect scores this month. Also scoring 60 were Ashish Agarwal (India), Rosalind Hengeveld (Netherlands), Jonas Collen (France), Khalid Yassine (France) and Tommy Andersson (Sweden). Eleven players were close behind at 59.

Curiously, the winner in the country rankings this month with an average score of 51.38 was Taiwan. Is this a coincidence? Or could it be the plum blossoms? Who knows, though it is also curious that none of the Taiwan players identified their homeland (in fairness, however, they offered no guesses either, which may be due to a language barrier for some). Maybe next time I’ll use tana leaves and see if Egypt wins.

Congratulations to our new overall leader, Leonard Helfgott (Teaneck, New Jersey); and a belated congrats to Josh Sinnett (Bellingham, Washington), who held the top spot for so long.

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 1971 Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held May 6-17 in Taipei, Taiwan. This was the first of the more realistic world championships, with teams participating from five continents: Australia, Europe, North America, South America and Asia. Europe was represented by France; South American by Brazil; and Asia by Taiwan. North America was allowed to enter two teams, one chosen by its trials process, plus the 1970 world-champion Aces, thus making a six-team field.

The Aces were a team of bridge professionals living in Dallas, Texas. The arrangement was the brainchild of Ira Corn, a wealthy businessman, who put the players on yearly salaries to do nothing but study and play bridge. Not a bad job! Corn’s goal was to develop a championship team through extensive training. At first, many people scoffed at the idea, but Corn proved them all wrong as he succeeded perhaps beyond his own dreams. Hats off to a man with a mission!

The event was conducted in two stages: (1) a round-robin in which each team played 96 boards (three 32-board segments) against each other team, scored by victory points, and (2) a 128-board final between the two top teams. At the end of the round-robin the standings were: Aces 228; France 182; Australia 154; Taiwan 118; Brazil 103; North America 98. I guess you could say the two American teams sandwiched the field.

The problems in this poll are all taken from the final match between the Aces and France. Playing for the Aces were Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence, Billy Eisenberg and Bob Hamman, and Jim Jacoby and Bobby Wolff. Playing for France were Pierre Jais and Roger Trezel, Henri Svarc and Jean-Michel Boulenger, and Jean-Marc Roudinesco and Jean-Louis Stoppa. Hmm. So that’s the secret: My parents didn’t name me Jean-Richard.

So who won? You guessed it. The Aces defeated France by a final margin of 61 IMPs, though the match was not a walk in the park. In the final segment the French almost closed the gap but then faded at the end. So pull up a kibitzing chair, and let’s witness some of the problems they faced.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 1

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST 1	North Pass	East Pass	South ?	A J 6 5 K Q 10 8 8 Q J 6 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
1 NT	10	359	44
Pass	8	167	21
Double	6	184	23
2	5	59	7
2	3	44	5

Obviously, there is no textbook action on this hand (else it wouldn’t be a problem) so it comes down to choosing the least of evils. The respondents were right on target, I think, with the consensus to bid 1 NT. The point count certainly fits, and the defect of having only one diamond is bearable.

Balancing with a double seems far more dangerous, as a 2 response from partner is untenable. What then? Correcting to 2 NT would be a gross overbid, and laying down that dummy would have partner questioning your sanity. I don’t think he would buy: Sorry partner, I had my spades switched with my diamonds. I would rather pass 1  than risk that scenario.

I have some admiration for the 2 bidders. It’s certainly an off-beat action with just four hearts, but the suit is meaty, and it could strike gold if partner lacked the diamond strength needed for notrump. Bidding hearts is surely better than bidding clubs, not because of the suit quality but the upside of reaching game. Unfortunately, if asked to explain the bid, you won’t get away with, “I had a diamond in with my hearts,” as two eights won’t wash.

Here’s what happened in 1971:

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

Jais WEST 1 Pass

Wolff North Pass 3 NT

Trezel East Pass All Pass

Jacoby South 1 NT

3 NT South Down 1 -50

Lawrence WEST 1 NT

Svarc North Pass

Goldman East Pass

Boulenger South Pass

1 NT West Made 93 -200 France +6 IMPs

Jais’s 1 opening on the first auction looks weird, but it was based on the French canape style of reserving the longest suit (diamonds) for the second bid; hence, the first bid sometimes had to be a three-card suit.* Even so, it is still weird. Why didn’t he open 1 NT (15-18 in the Jais-Trezel system)? Who knows, but 1  was a fine contract as far as Trezel was concerned with his 4-3-3-3 Yarborough.

*I withheld this information because I wanted the poll to address the common situation, not the bizarre case of defending against three-card majors.

Jacoby’s practical decision to balance with 1 NT seems more risky in light of the enemy system, but it led to sound contract when Wolff had diamonds well protected. Alas, toward the end of the play Jacoby had a blind spot (apparently miscounting his tricks) losing a club finesse to West’s 10 when he had nine tricks established — down one.

At the second table Lawrence was routinely down four (Goldman must have chuckled when he put down that dummy) so the French gained 6 IMPs when they rated to lose the same.

Comments for 1 NT

Ashish Agarwal: Double does not solve the problem; partner will always bid 2 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: I’d pass with the hearts and diamonds reversed. As it is, we may easily have a game or a good partscore on, while 5  (or 6 ) for them seems too remote to worry about.

Kieran Dyke: I never did that well letting the opponents play at the one level.

Dave Maeer: I think I should bid. Partner could easily have the ammo for 3 NT, and 1 NT is best because if we have a game in hearts we’ll find it. If we have five diamond tricks off, they were going to make 1 .

Richard Stein: There’s some attraction in passing it out, but we rate to do better on offense; indeed, as West has opened in a major, we aren’t even guaranteed a plus score on defense. Among the non-pass calls, each one makes some distortion so I’ll try to pick the least lie. If I doubled and got a response in diamonds, I’d be stuck.

Leo Zelevinsky: I don’t want to sell out to 1 , and 1 NT seems like the most descriptive option. Too many flaws for double.

Daniel Korbel: Passing is wimpy; 1 NT is only a minor distortion. I presume this shows 11-14 or so (couldn’t find it in the bidding guide).*

*My Bidding Guide does not cover this area, but my summary of Standard American Bridge shows 10-15. So, you’re exactly right, or so. R.P.

Elianor Kennie: One notrump in balancing seat promises 11-15 HCP and not necessarily a stopper in the bid suit. However, with this hand there is a bonus with the spade holding.

Bob Simkins: I may only gain 1 IMP by bidding, but I will usually make 1 NT. Passing risks losing 5 IMPs.

Thomas Alm: Difficult. West might have a strong notrump, or maybe partner has a poor hand for a takeout double (e.g., Q-x-x x-x-x A-Q-J-x A-x-x). My strong heart suit makes me bet for the latter alternative.

Neelotpal Sahai: It may not be by the book, but 1 NT looks better than the others.

Gareth Birdsall: There’ll always be time to find a heart fit if we have one.

Leonard Helfgott: The choice between pass and an off-shape 1 NT is influenced by the lack of spade spots and good hearts. A heart game is still in the picture.

Geoffrey Toon: A case can be made for all your options, but I like none of them! I choose 1 NT as the least painful.

Jenny Millington: I don’t like it, but the only alternative I can see is to pass, and I like that even less.

Doug Burke: In the passout seat, this bid should show about 12-14 balanced. True, I have the singleton diamond, but I think this lie is smaller than the lies involved with the other choices.

John Hoffman: Too many spades for double, and too few clubs or hearts for an overcall.

Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: No safer way to enter the auction with 13 HCP, even though diamonds are wide open.

Robert Katz: We could easily have a 4 game, which is more important than balancing the opponents into a diamond partial.

Tom McGuire: Oh, do I have two eights in diamonds? How strange.

Ian Coombs: Your excellent link about this quaint American system shows that 1 NT is 10-15 here. I’d rather lie about diamonds than anything else, and hopefully Stayman and transfers are still on.

Ron Zucker: At least in my universe, double will always draw 2 . One notrump will draw pass when it’s right most often, so I’m going with it.

Thijs Veugen: The last time I bid 1 NT in a similar situation, West doubled and partner bid 2 . It still seems a reasonable choice to me.

Niklas Warne: Not ideal, but partner doesn’t need much for a heart game to be playable.

Sebastien Louveaux: Protecting. Double is not an option — partner would bid diamonds, and then what?

Norman Grant: I hope partner has one or two stoppers in diamonds. If I were to double, it is likely partner will bid 2 , which I would have to take out into another suit, indicating a much stronger hand than I have.

Stu Goodgold: If I double and partner bids diamonds, what then? [Most] 4-4-4-1 hands are tough in standard, but 1 NT gets the closest here.

Andrew de Sosa: Perfect in all respects, save one. If this comes a cropper, I can always plead that the heart got mixed in with my diamonds. Second choice: a prudent pass.

Beve Smith: I am not letting a singleton stop me from bidding what is in front of my face.

Walt Schafer: This hand is going to be hard to describe no matter what I do. … Probably the best reason for 1 NT, especially at IMPs, is that we’ll be able to bid game more accurately.

Chris Willenken: It’s too easy to miss a game by passing; it’s too easy to have a disaster by doubling.

Josh Sinnett: With game not out of the question our way, I can’t afford to settle for 50 per trick. And once I decide to bid, this seems to be the smallest lie.

Bill Cubley: This shows the strength of this badly shaped hand. … I hope partner has values to bid, and some high diamonds.

Michael Palitsch: For me it is a decision between 1 NT and double. I do not have a distribution I like for either bid, but 1 NT (10-14) limits my values better…

Dima Nikolenkov: If we have a game it is 3 NT or 4 ; and the 1 NT bid will get me there.

Kevin Costello: If I double and follow it up with 1 NT or 2 , partner will play me for a much stronger hand. One notrump lies about a little diamond, but that seems preferable to lying about anything else.

Haisam Osman: Partner does not have a penalty double, but he could have four hearts and be unable to overcall. Game is remote for the opponents, so there is little risk in competing.

John Weisweiler: If the red suits were reversed, I would pass, but here 1 NT is almost riskless; if partner bids 2 , I pass of course.

Richard Baumer: We can still reach hearts if partner bids 2 or if opener tries 2 over 1 NT. If 2 happens, double by notrump balancer should show unbid suits (I believe more useful than penalty oriented) but only by partnership agreement.

Bill Maddock: Ugly, but then my bridge is often not very pretty.

Bill Powell: Don’t want to hear 2 after my double.

Mark Friedlander: Pass could easily be right, but I can’t give up on 3 NT opposite North’s possible balanced 13 count. As little as 10-x-x J-x K-Q-J-x K-x-x-x could produce nine tricks.

Paul Hightower: I’d certainly bid this was with A-J-x K-Q-10-x x-x Q-J-x-x. Might catch a heart fit; might get creamed.

Chuck Arthur: Spade stopper; 11-14 HCP; [balanced shape]. Well, two out of three isn’t bad.

Robin Zigmond: Close between this and pass; I bid because there’s an outside chance of game. All the alternatives are seriously flawed.

Manuel Paulo: Every call has its flaws. If partner bids or suggests diamonds, I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy; I’ll think about that tomorrow.

John R. Mayne: Right on strength, right on stoppers, and anything else is just sick. Double deserves a diamond reply, after which you’re in a lot of trouble.

Martin Nathan: Least of evils. Too strong to pass; can’t double and bid over 2 ; two-level overcalls on four-card suits invite trouble. …

Rainer Herrmann: Pass may be the book call and the bridge teacher’s choice, but I doubt that it is successful at the table.

Anthony Golding: I owe partner a diamond. He could easily have enough for game, with no easy bid over 1 , e.g., 10-x-x A-x K-Q-J-x K-10-x-x.

Bill Jacobs: Looks right; feels right; is right.

Craig Zastera: Strength is right; spade holding is right. One notrump with the stiff diamond is a lesser lie than guessing which four-card suit to bid at the two level.

Jelmer Hasper: … I’d bid this without thinking at the table, but then that’s my general approach to the game. Is that the reason I never seem to win?

Bijoy Anand: If I were playing equal-level conversion, I’d double and then convert partner’s expected 2  to 2 ; as it is, 1 NT best describes my strength and spade values and still keeps alive chances for finding a fit.

Comments for Pass

James Hudson: Avoiding trouble on what is surely a partscore hand.

Bruce Scott: This is a nice bread-and-butter problem. I simply cannot double; after a 2 advance, I am sunk. There are circumstances where I would balance with a four-card suit, but I don’t think this is the hand. I hate to look this wimpy on record, but my spade length favors passing. …

Jan Nathan: In matchpoints I’d be more aggressive. In IMPs, I’m not giving away that much, and may even end up with a positive score.

Karen Walker: Length in their suit is always a strong argument against balancing, especially at IMPs. If you held a gun to my head and removed all the pass cards from my bidding box, I’d choose 1 NT.

Bill Haughie: I think it is highly unlikely that we have a game on… and quite likely that they have a better place to play this hand. The only alternative is 1 NT, which could well end up with me playing in 3 . …

Peter Talyigas: We probably have no game. Worst case scenario says minus 11 IMPs when I bid; minus 5 IMPs when not.

Nigel Guthrie: Here, the choice is not among calls, one of which is pass. It is between pass and all other bids; so pass should be handicapped in the scoring. Possible North hand: K-x J-x K-Q-x-x-x-x x-x-x.

Tomasz Radko: Thou shalt not balance with length in opener’s suit. Second choice: 1 NT.

Nice logic. Kind of like: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Second choice: a weekend tryst in the Bahamas.

Christian Vennerod: Most likely, neither side can make game. We may have the highest partscore in 3 , but partner will not believe hearts is my strongest suit if I bid 1 NT. Any other call is even worse. I pass and hope the opponents have a better strain.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: … Trying to get a positive score. I don’t want to double and hear a 2 response from partner, and I am not so aggressive as to bid 1 NT with diamonds wide open.

Paul Friedman: I don’t see much upside here, and there’s a lot of downside by getting active.

Robert Lipton: Unlikely to be right, but this is the sort of hand partnerships stumble over. [If I reopen] partner may have three spades, and West will escape safely into 2 .

David Lindop: It’s only a nonvulnerable game we might miss.

George Klemic: … I am inclined to [try for] 50 a trick. I have a feeling that, if I bid, someone is going to bid diamonds; and no matter who it is, I won’t like it. …

J. Michael Andresen: Partner couldn’t take any action despite [probably] being short in spades, so we [probably] don’t have game. We seem to have a good chance to go plus against this contract…

Baxter Clifford: I feel that questionable balancing actions are unwise at IMPs, but mandatory at matchpoints. Second choice would be 2 , which makes it harder for the opponents to get together in diamonds; keeping the opening bidder on lead is always desirable.

Gerald Murphy: I am not going to take a chance on them finding a resting spot in 2 . Nothing seems right here, and I will try to defeat 1 .

Mark Raphaelson: Anything else is not only a lie, but will help the opponents get to an obviously better spot.

John Jones: So I have one less spade than West. He may have several more diamonds than I do.

Comments for Double

William Slepin: If partner bids 2 , I should be safe in rebidding 2 NT; partner stands to have 10 HCP.

Jean-Pierre Patry: If partner bids diamonds, I will bid notrump; I will support any other bid by partner.

Carl Hudecek: Any call other than double risks losing a heart game. One notrump is inadequate with a hand including such good hearts (1 NT tends to deny hearts). Over a 2  response I just pass.

Comments for 2

Gjivo Tikvica: I don’t like to pass in this situation, and I dislike 1 NT because of the singleton diamond. The four-card heart suit seems [strong enough] to bid it.

Glenda Hansen: Doubling or bidding 1 NT will surely have partner bidding diamonds.

Carlos Dabezies: The least evil. I’m not good enough to double and then bid 2 NT, and partner could well bid 3  over a double. Apart from the singleton, 1 NT has the disadvantage of concealing the four-card major.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 2

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass Pass	North Pass 2	East 2 1 Pass	South Pass ?	K 9 6 2 8 2 A 9 A K 9 8 6
1. weak

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	247	30
3	8	144	18
2 NT	7	117	14
Pass	6	187	23
3 NT	4	46	6
3	3	38	5
2	1	34	4

It’s been said many times that weak two-bids in diamonds aren’t effective, and there must be some better use for a 2  bid. Well, this one seems pretty effective to me; the situation is uncomfortable if not annoying. I’ll keep my weak 2  bids, thank you.

Some respondents commented they would have acted the first time (usually overcalling 3 ), but I agree with the conservative pass. This is not so much because of the awkward choices (3  suggests six cards, and double is dangerous without heart support) but because partner is a passed hand; hence, the upside of reaching a successful game is diminished. It seems more prudent to wait and give partner a chance to balance.

And so it happens. Now what? My initial impulse was to drive to game, but the lack of a heart fit and the lone diamond stopper suggest caution. The one thing I don’t like about the 3  cue-bid is that partner is likely to infer heart support (surely, that’s the most likely reason for your enthusiasm). Nonetheless, the consensus strongly favored the cue-bid, so it gets the top award.

To me, it’s a close choice between 2 NT and 3 ; the former is more accurate as to strength, and the latter is better in direction. Having no strong feelings, I’ll follow the voting and give the edge to 3 .

There was trouble brewing in “Plum City”:

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

Lawrence WEST Pass Pass Pass Dbl

Svarc North Pass 2 4 All Pass

Goldman East 2 Pass Pass

Boulenger South Pass 3 Pass

4 × North Down 3 -800

Stoppa WEST 1 2

Wolff North Pass Pass

Roudinesco East 1 Pass

Jacoby South 2 Pass

2 East Down 1 -100 Aces (USA) +14 IMPs

On the first auction, which parallels the problem, Boulenger chose the aggressive cue-bid. Svarc now thought he was facing a heart fit and made an aggressive jump to game. Oops. Two rosy views led to one purple plum, as Lawrence alertly doubled. When the smoke cleared, Svarc was down three; minus 800.

At the second table, a light opening by Stoppa kept Wolff out of trouble — or dare I say, the 1 bid did stoppa da wolff. The French came to rest in 2 , which failed by a trick; 14 IMPs to the Aces.

It is interesting to note that Lawrence’s pass of the West hand worked out much better than the feeble opening. People who favor light openings often overlook cases like this, where the winning way is simply to give the opponents enough rope.

Comments for 3

Ashish Agarwal: [The most likely] game is 3 NT, and the best way to reach it is via 3 . If partner bids 3 , I will pass.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Two things I hate in bridge: hanging partner for balancing, and missing fair games at IMPs. :) I had too much to pass last time, though admittedly a difficult hand to bid. With just an invitation in hearts I’d now bid 3 , so 3  should come across as searching for strain as well as level.

Christopher Miller: An overbid, but it’s vulnerable at IMPs. I don’t want to be in 3 NT unless partner has something in diamonds.

Kieran Dyke: I probably would have bid 3 last time. I guess I’ll bid 3 , then 3 NT to suggest alternatives.

Dave Maeer: If notrump is going to make, it will need to be bid by partner. This also allows him to show a second suit.

Richard Stein: Two advantages make this stand out — it’s flexible and it shows my strength. If partner has the Q, we will right-side notrump; if he has four spades, we can play game in that strain. If he rebids a default 3 , I’ll have another problem (he won’t necessarily have more than five hearts); I’ll probably just bid 3 NT and hope.

Leo Zelevinsky: I don’t see much wrong with 3 . It can get us to 3 NT from partner’s side when he has something in diamonds, and it doesn’t rule out a spade or heart contract.

Daniel Korbel: Game could still be on opposite such trash as Q-x K-Q-J-10-x Q-x-x x-x-x. Since partner didn’t make a weak two-bid, I expect him to have only five hearts… I expect partner to bid 3 NT [with a diamond stopper] or even Q-x.

Elianor Kennie: I expect partner has a hand that was almost an opener… I want to make a forcing bid, as I want to be in game somewhere. Three diamonds should show a little better heart support, but it’s the best of all the other bids.

Bob Simkins: I will follow with 3 NT if partner rebids 3 . This sequence implies tolerance for alternative contracts.

James Hudson: Hoping partner has something in diamonds, so we can play 3 NT from his side. If he rebids 3 , I’ll pass.

Thomas Alm: Oops, I suddenly found another ace (at least the way I usually play). Three diamonds is the only forcing bid; it lets partner bid 3  if he has four spades but no diamond stopper. The problem is that this might take us too high since he’s just competing…

Neelotpal Sahai: We have to be in game; partner should have 10-11 HCP and a good heart suit. The question is 3 NT or 4 . If partner has Q-x-x or J-10-x, then 3 NT would play better; if partner bids 3 , I will raise to four.

Bruce Scott: I was wimpy last hand, so this time I will point out that I would have been a 3 overbidder last round. I therefore could claim that I don’t need to know what to do with this hand. That didn’t fly? OK, then I will bid 3 . I will pass 3 ; raise 3  to 4 ; and 4  to 5  (yikes!). I don’t take too much inference from the fact that partner didn’t open 2 ; he is second chair, vulnerable, at IMPs and could still have a pretty good hand.

Geoffrey Toon: Three notrump looks like a good spot if partner has a diamond stopper… and he doesn’t need a great deal for us to make nine tricks. For example: Q-x K-Q-x-x-x Q-x-x Q-x-x.

Doug Burke: I don’t feel comfortable bidding 3 NT with just one stopper; I can’t see running off nine tricks after a diamond lead. If partner has a stopper, I’ll give it a try; [I’ll pass] 3 .

Karen Walker: Ace-doubleton in their weak-two suit isn’t usually a good holding for notrump… Over 3 , partner may surprise me with 3  or 3 NT; but if he bids the expected 3 , I can then rebid 3 NT. This auction should show doubt about the suitability of my stopper and talk partner into bidding 4  with decent hearts and diamond weakness.

Robert Katz: I like to play this as undefined, and certainly partner’s first obligation should be to bid 3 NT with a diamond card.

Ian Coombs: The possible contracts from here look like 3 (North can’t pass the opening bid with six hearts can he?), 3 NT and 4 . Nothing else forces and keeps [open] the spade and notrump options.

Bill Haughie: … Partner protected so there is no guarantee that game is on. This gives us the best chance of getting to the correct game (notrump, hearts or spades) or stopping in 3 .

Mike Weber: It’s time to wake up and tell partner I have a good hand but didn’t have an appropriate action over 2 . … If we play 3 NT, I want partner to declare. …

Nigel Guthrie: Surely, 3 is the only forcing bid… Even a weak protective hand may contain four spades (e.g., J-x-x-x A-K-J-x-x-x J-x-x —) or a diamond stopper.

Thomas Hanford: Western cue-bid. If partner has a diamond stopper, 3 NT looks right; and he may surprise me and bid 3 . If partner rebids 3 , I pass; no need to hang him for protecting.

Chris Willenken: With an invitational heart raise, I could just bid 3 , so 3 shows a doubleton heart and offers both black suits as alternative strains. [If I] bid 2 NT, would partner know to bid spades with A-x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x-x-x x?

Josh Sinnett: I’m torn between this and 3 . The tiebreaker comes when partner tables x A-K-x-x-x x-x-x Q-J-10-x and says he couldn’t imagine me having this much when I passed 2 , while writing down plus 150 or 170.

Bill Cubley: Give partner some intimation of my strength. He might rebid in spades or clubs (we might even have a slam)

Dima Nikolenkov: Will try to get to 3 NT from partner’s hand in case he holds Q-x-(x).

Christian Vennerod: … I must try for 3 NT, which should be played from the other side. The real question is: Do I pass 3 ?

Haisam Osman: Partner didn’t open 2 , so there is some flaw in his hand. I’ll force for now; raise 3  to four; or pass any other bid.

Richard Baumer: If hearts are solid (unlikely opposite a passed hand) then 3 works as well as notrump calls. This may lose if partner has a minimum 5-5 in hearts and clubs with bad clubs, and he can’t bid clubs at the four level. If partner opens weak twos in first and second seat on anything, then 3  is not that good a call since he is unlikely to have six hearts.

Bill Maddock: A Standout! I passed the South hand, did I? That’s not like me.

Michael Schmahl: We may belong in 3 NT, 4 or 4 , and partner’s rebid will tell me which. Plus, partner gets to play this, which is useful if he has Q-x or similar; and I get to blame him for going down one, instead of vice versa.

Bill Powell: I hate to hang partner, but this is worth a move.

Mike Kerr: I actually like 3 better, but only if you can promise partner won’t pass.

Todd Anderson: I don’t know what the right contract is, so I need to make a forcing bid.

Lance Marrou: I’d prefer to find out if partner also has a stopper in diamonds (western cue-bid); if so, even Q-x, then 3 NT is a good contract. Without that convention, I still need to show an opening hand.

Paul Hightower: Looks like we may have a black-suit fit. Partner may have passed a 4-6 hand originally, or be 3=5=2=3 with some values.

Chuck Arthur: I know, I am supposed to have better hearts. However, if perchance partner can bid 3 NT, it will be much better from his side.

Richard Higgins: Try for game, showing a good hand; other choice is 3 .

Robin Zigmond: We could belong in either hearts or notrump, and I don’t know which. Admittedly, this could force the bidding too high, but game chances are too good to make a nonforcing non-game bid, and this is better than punting the final contract.

Bill Huepenbecker: Partner has one of two hand types: a weak 2 bid with four spades, or 10-11 points with five hearts. Three diamonds gives him the chance to bid 3  with the former, or (hopefully) just 3  with the latter.

J. Michael Andresen: Vulnerable at IMPs, I’ll make a strong move. Partner will know I’m limited, since I couldn’t act over 2 . I’ll pass 3  or raise 3  to 4 , but I hope that partner can bid 3 NT. I can’t bid it myself because we won’t have enough tricks on power with just a single diamond stopper.

Baxter Clifford: Most flexible, but if partner rebids 3 , I won’t be happy about my raise to 4 (a cue-bid followed by a pass should never happen).

Peter Gill: Then pass 3 . If we weren’t vulnerable, pass would be a possibility.

Mark Raphaelson: Frankly, I would have bid 3 on the first turn. I’m still interested in 3 NT, but I’d like a second diamond stopper. I’ll pass partner’s rebid.

Comments for 3

Larry Gifford: The most descriptive forward-going bid. For A-x to be an adequate notrump stopper, there must be a quick side source of tricks. The ace will be dislodged immediately.

John Hoffman: Natural and forward-going.

Ron Zucker: It’s not clear from the bidding guide if this is forcing, but I can hope. I’d like to play in game opposite most hands, but partner passed in second seat, so I need to leave some room. Partner, without support, will probably pull to 3 , and it’ll be played there. …

Thijs Veugen: Since I couldn’t bid over 2 this must show some values and heart tolerance.

Andrew de Sosa: Should be constructive. I’ve got just too much to give up on a vulnerable game at IMPs. It would help to know partner’s style here; pass could easily be right.

Rich Morrison: Game in hearts is unlikely after North’s initial pass. Game in notrump is most possible if North has some values in clubs. …

Kevin Costello: I will raise spades; pass 3 NT; or bid hearts over a 4 raise. If partner doesn’t have something in diamonds, I don’t want to be in notrump; while if he does, I want him to bid notrump first.

Glenda Hansen: If partner now bids hearts, I can show my spades.

Mark Friedlander: North is likely to have less than six hearts since he didn’t open a weak two-bid; less than four spades since he didn’t double; and less than three diamonds since he balanced. Thus, he probably has some clubs, possibly a two-suiter. We can make 5  opposite x A-K-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x-x-x. Partner knows that I don’t have a powerhouse because I didn’t bid 3  directly, so he can pass with less support.

John R. Mayne: Ugly problem. Notrump wrong-sides, while the cue-bid surely implies support by a passed hand. Maybe something good (not 3 ) will happen; or maybe I’ve just propelled us out of the last making contract.

Phil Clayton: I must make a move because (1) partner didn’t open a weak two-bid, so he must have a flaw or an additional feature that will make clubs, spades or notrump playable; (2) we are vulnerable at IMPs, so I expect adequate values for the 2  call; (3) heart honors rate to be well placed in West’s hand, possibly making a 23- or 24-point game possible. I want to coax a 3 NT call from partner’s side if possible.

Comments for 2 NT

Leonard Helfgott: Partner is unlikely to hold six hearts, so game is unlikely unless he also has spades. However, I must do something with this strong hand; and the anti-positional 2 NT implying a sound opener, flawed as it may be, seems the least of evils.

Michael Palitsch: I won’t hang partner for balancing, but I am too strong to pass. Two notrump should say something like: With 10-11 HCP bid something other than pass or 3 .

Rudolf Buitelaar: I think partner has 10-11 points and five hearts but not four spades. Three notrump is too ambitious, and a 5-2 fit is uncomfortable. I just hope he has another diamond stopper.

George Klemic: This is a pushy call, but it looks to be the cheapest game. Partner with 11 should take a positive call. …

Gerald Murphy: This should show a good hand with little heart support. If partner has extra values or a sixth heart, he can bid on. As well, East may only have a five-card suit.

Bill Jacobs: Now I know how Torquemada’s victims felt. Desperately looking for a bid that keeps game chances alive but is not too committal. Second choice: pass.

Craig Zastera: I’m strongly tempted to pass. Game does not seem like a favorite opposite a passed hand with five hearts… [but] it is possible, and I couldn’t stand [to hear] partner’s, “How much more would you have needed to bid?” …

Comments for Pass

Gowniyan Vaideeshwar: Partner is already bidding on my points.

Tommy Cho: I’ll try to get out as low as possible with a possible misfit hand. My honors must be useful to partner, but his honors in hearts may not be helpful to me in any other contract.

Sebastien Louveaux: Game is a long shot with a passed partner, no fit and a poor stopper in the opponent’s suit. Better not to punish partner for his courage.

William Claassen: As a passed hand, partner has only five hearts; I won’t punish him for balancing.

Jamie Cameron: Partner couldn’t open 1 or 2 , so there won’t be a decent six-bagger over there. He’s probably got a decent five-card suit plus an outside card. [Game] looks very optimistic, so I pass.

Arvind Srinivasan: Partner would have at most a decent five-card suit (or a poor six-card) with about 10 points. A forward move looks dubious despite all those nines.

John Weisweiler: This is close, but the three level is not safe at all. Partner’s third diamond probably cannot be ruffed in dummy, and the K might be worthless.

David Lindop: At least partner got us back into the auction. I’ll settle for a plus.

Ron Landgraff: If partner had six decent hearts, he would have opened with a weak two-bid. Looks like problems in three suits.

Martin Nathan: It is possible partner has four spades but unlikely… He surely has a five-card suit (if he’s strong enough to balance, he probably would have opened 2  with six). Not likely he has much in diamonds, which rules out 2 NT. When in doubt, go plus.

Rainer Herrmann: Of course we could have a game, but for every game we may have (probably 5 ), any advance will at least twice as often change a plus into a minus position.

James Heneghan: Partner probably has five hearts, 9-11 HCP and no spade fit. Bidding on [may] punish him for balancing.

Carlos Dabezies: My club suit is not good enough for either 3 or 3 NT, and my trumps are not good enough to bid 3 . Three diamonds could be right, but it may not be clear to partner (and the Bidding Guide does not seem to cover it). … Two notrump is a close second choice.

Ed Freeman: Partner did not double, so he is [probably] short in spades. Can we have a game here? With borderline points and bad breaks likely, I don’t see it. Let’s go plus. If we played Roth-Stone openings, I might consider bidding.

Carl Hudecek: Partner couldn’t double or open with 2 ; this should make easily.

Olivier La Spada: I would not have passed on the first round; but now that it is done, I do not see any other contract to play. Partner has either five hearts or six bad ones, and he does not have four spades.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 3

IMPs		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 3	East 3 Pass	SOUTH Pass Pass ?	K 9 J 8 6 5 4 2 K J 10 7 6

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3 NT	10	290	36
5	9	181	22
4	8	72	9
4	7	37	5
4	4	130	16
4	3	66	8
Pass	2	37	5

An ugly suit kept you from opening a weak two-bid, and then East’s preempt silenced you again. Some people didn’t agree with this, citing the vulnerability as an excuse to freewheel; and I’d probably succumb* myself on the pretext that nonvulnerable means invulnerable. Nonetheless, the two passes are eminently sound and can hardly be criticized.

*Don’t ask me at which turn. On the advice of my attorney, I invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Partner surely has at least five clubs and four spades, and a strong hand if no more than that. More likely, he has an extremely black hand, so any thoughts of bidding 4  are lunacy on such a feeble suit (perhaps with J-10-9-8-x-x, 4  would be sensible).

As on the previous problem, I don’t agree with the voting, but I will honor the consensus and give it the top award. I don’t like 3 NT because you will probably need nine running tricks, and partner would never realize this since he will expect you to have longer diamonds. On most layouts East will be able to duck the first diamond to preserve communication, then it may be hopeless. Several respondents cited “Hamman’s Rule” (if 3 NT is an alternative, bid it). Darn! It’s too bad he didn’t hold this hand in the actual match, then we’d know for sure.

I believe it is right to raise clubs, and since 4 is just a simple preference (essentially a nothing bid), 5  stands out. The higher probability of bad breaks is a cause for concern, but I must bid my cards. Laying down this dummy in 4  is an insult to partner.

Bobby Goldman saw it the same way:

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

Stoppa West Pass Pass All Pass

Lawrence North 1 3

Roudinesco East 3 Pass

Goldman SOUTH Pass Pass 5

5 North Down 1 -50

Jacoby West Pass Pass All Pass

Jais North 1 3

Wolff East 2 Pass

Trezel SOUTH Pass 2 4

4 North Down 1 -50 No swing

At the first table, Lawrence’s decision to open 1 was probably predicated on suit quality (I think his usual practice is to open 1  with 5-5 in the blacks). This has always been a controversial issue: Opening 1  lets the bidding flow more easily, but it takes three bids to show you have five spades. The modern tendency is to open 1  to convey the five-card major in one bid, however, suit quality and overall strength are also issues.

Goldman’s value bid led to a sound 5 contract, which might have made despite the foul breaks. After the 10 lead, Lawrence worked immediately on establishing the spade suit, and East’s early ruff was fatal. It is rare when drawing one round of trumps would stop a ruff. More probable is that East’s heart lead was from shortness, so it may have been necessary to preserve trump leads to return to hand.

At the second table Jais also bid clubs first, but his sequence had a different meaning: In the canape style he showed five or more spades at his second turn. This led to the spade game, which was also a sound contract. Looking at the North-South hands alone, it’s almost a toss-up which game is better.

Both games were down one with the vile distribution, so the board was a push. Curiously, both games could have been made by the same general plan of drawing one round of trumps before leading the other black suit. It also might be better to dislodge the A immediately, but this could backfire, too.

Comments for 3 NT

Rosalind Hengeveld: Partner did not double, so he is more likely short in hearts than diamonds. We will probably need nine running tricks, but we may well have them. Anyway, I cannot pass or make minimum bids (4 ) forever opposite a possible monster — I mean the hand, not the person. :)

Kieran Dyke: Everything is flawed. This will be wrong if the clubs don’t run. The original pass is hardly clear.

Dave Maeer: Can we run nine tricks in notrump and not make 5 ? It’s certainly possible, therefore I have to bid 3 NT. A good partner will hold something like A-Q-J-x-x Q-x x A-K-Q-x-x (or a little less) where 3 NT is the [best] game.

Bob Simkins: Our most likely game. If partner bids again, I will raise clubs to game or pass 4 .

Thomas Alm: Partner has a strong hand: 4=1=2=6, 5=1=1=6 or similar. My diamond holding may be worthless in 5 , so I go for the notrump game.

William Slepin: The club finesse should be on, so five clubs, one diamond and three spades seem very likely.

Leonard Helfgott: Gambling on partner having runnable clubs and decent spades, like: A-Q-x-x Q x-x A-K-J-x-x-x.

Bruce Scott: … Isn’t this a PavCo 2 opener white-on-red in first chair? How good is my hand here? Obviously, the K is huge; maybe the 10 is a good card. The  K is probably only good in notrump, however, K-J tight doesn’t make a very good stopper. Partner has short hearts (else he’d have doubled), so 4  is out. … I think partner will sit for 3 NT if he only has four spades and six clubs; with more black cards, he might pull.

Geoffrey Toon: I am a passed hand (twice!) yet partner has a good enough hand to reverse at the three level. I must show my diamond stopper, and my K is a huge card. My only concern is missing 6  when partner has something like A-Q-x-x-x K-x — A-K-x-x-x-x.

Gjivo Tikvica: This seems easier than 5 without any aces.

Jenny Tsai: I have a stopper in diamonds so I shouldn’t let 3 NT go away. North will evaluate the situation and correct to 4  if he is 6-5, and then I bid 5 .

Bill Haughie: I need to show some values, so 4 doesn’t cut it. The only sensible alternative is 5 , which seems a bit one-dimensional.

Cris Waller: Not the ideal distribution, but four- and five-level bids [are doubtful]. Partner has indicated a very strong hand with the reverse, and I have a diamond stopper.

Henry Day: It seems that I have two tricks to contribute to the cause. I cannot see this being enough for 5 , but if partner has a decent five-card spade suit it may be enough for 4 . (On the other hand, he could still have a strong 6-4) …

Mike Weber: Partner seems to have a barn burner, and I’m shooting with 3 NT. Five clubs seems like a stretch; and 4  to explore the right strain (spades, clubs or 6-2 heart fit) bypasses 3 NT. I’m hoping for a diamond (on the lead), five clubs (with a finesse), and three spades (or two spades and a heart) for nine. Then again, we could go down a lot; but I’ve been down before.

Thijs Veugen: When 3 NT is an option, bid it. [Hamman’s Rule]

Peter Talyigas: East’s outside high card is likely in hearts. …

Thomas Hanford: Partner has 17+, so 3 NT should roll. Partner’s hand: A-Q-x-x K-x x A-K-Q-x-x-x. …

Chris Willenken: Anything could be right, so I’ll hope for A-x-x-x x-x x A-Q-J-x-x-x and a winning club finesse. If I’m down five when the club hook loses, at least I’m nonvulnerable!

Tomasz Radko: Absolutely, positively, I hate this hand! Bridge would be a nightmare if such actions happen every day. Why 3 NT? Hamman’s Rule. At least I will get some points for this lazy bid.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: Three spades, five clubs and a diamond trick should be there.

Richard Baumer: … This caters to A-Q-x-x x Q-x A-K-Q-x-x-x (or any 4-6 shape when clubs come home).

Bill Powell: [I expect to win] six clubs, two spades and one diamond.

Steven Forsythe: If 5 makes, then there is a good chance 3 NT will make as well. This may make when 5  doesn’t.

Mark Friedlander: This may be the easiest game, but partner can pull if it’s wrong. North can pass with A-Q-x-x Q-x x-x A-K-Q-J-x, or bid on with [extreme shapes].

Paul Hightower: Hamman’s Rule. Seems a better shot than 5 or 4 .

George Klemic: I have quite a good hand given the auction (take a king away and I’d bid 4 ). Partner should be 4-6 or better, with good values. My biggest concern in 3 NT is the A followed by four heart winners.

Jojo Sarkar: Partner is showing an extremely strong hand with his reverse. … If he’s really distributional, he can still bid; then we can get to 5 .

Craig Zastera: Given my pass over 3 , this hand is a near maximum. Partner’s bidding sounds very strong to me so I’m going to game. Jumping to 5  is reasonable, but following both Hamman’s Rule (when 3 NT is a possible bid, choose it) and space-conservation principles, I’ll try 3 NT instead. After all, we might be off three top tricks in clubs: A-Q-J-x Q-x x A-K-Q-J-x-x.

Jelmer Hasper: Five clubs might be better, but I only need nine tricks for 3 NT; and if it’s on a club finesse, chances are it’s onside.

Matthew McCoy: Partner can bid more with a super-distributional freak.

Paul Redvers: Cheapest game. I will bid 5 if partner bids over 3 NT.

Carlos Dabezies: Too good for a simple preference to 4 . I can’t raise spades with only two, although partner is likely to have five. Hearts not good enough to bid at the four level, since partner may well be 6-5. … Three notrump seems the most descriptive bid, showing at least tolerance for partner’s suits; but 5  is a close second choice.

John Jones: Hoping for six solid clubs plus the A.

Carl Hudecek: I see two red losers and one black loser in 5 . … In 3 NT, I have a good chance for six clubs, one diamond and two spades, e.g., A-10-x-x-x x x A-Q-J-x-x-x.

Comments for 5

Richard Stein: I have two valuable kings and should certainly make a positive move. Three notrump is too shaky (a diamond duck may defeat me, or I may lose the A and four hearts). … As West didn’t raise diamonds, North is marked with heart shortness; and slam enters the picture if he holds a strong 5=0=2=6.

Leo Zelevinsky: I don’t like my chances in 3 NT (I think partner will often be void in hearts since they didn’t raise diamonds). I think I just barely have enough values to push to the game here — the K is key, the third club is nice, and the K may be a trick if partner is 5=0=2=6, for instance. Four diamonds may work well, too; but I could have had K-J-x x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x, and wouldn’t I want 4  to show that hand? Tough problem.

Daniel Korbel: Let’s hope for A-Q-x-x x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x. Four hearts could be right, but I don’t know how to get there.

Elianor Kennie: Partner has a monster, and his hand should have at least six clubs and five spades.

James Hudson: Stretching for game at IMPs. Ignoring Hamman’s Rule for fear of short hearts in partner’s hand.

Doug Burke: Partner should have a very distributional black-suit hand, and slam is a decent possibility. …

Mark Ganzer: Four clubs would be a preference, and this hand has a couple of useful cards. Partner did not double, so hearts are out of the equation.

Karen Walker: One good filler for partner doesn’t seem like enough to make a slam try, especially opposite a balancing call that could be a bit of a stretch. The value bid of 5  suggests a helpful value or two, so if partner really has the monster reverse, he can bid on.

Tommy Cho: Partner should have a very good hand, but surely he cannot stand a heart contract, else he would double. The most probable distribution will be something like 4=1=2=6. My two kings and three trumps should be enough to [make] game.

Niklas Warne: Partner will expect something in my hand when balancing, but not this much.

Sebastien Louveaux: Partner should be short in hearts (no reopening double) and 5-6 or 4-6 in the black suits. I have working cards and a fit, so I better not give a simple preference.

Grant Peacock: I’m going to be creative and try to count the whole hand during the bidding. It’s significant that West didn’t raise and partner didn’t double. I’m going to put partner on a 5=0=2=6 shape. West couldn’t find a 2  opener, so I’ll give East three hearts. So East has three black cards, and my best guess is 2=3=7=1 shape. Conclusion: Clubs is our best strain. My 10-7-6 ought to be quite useful for ruffing spades. I think 6  is too ambitious, but I’m not stopping below 5 .

Nigel Guthrie: North would double unless short in the reds, so my kings and three trumps are gold. [This may make opposite as little as] A-J-x-x-x — x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x.

Steve Mager: We might have nine runners [in notrump]; but if that’s the case, 5 also may make.

Josh Sinnett: Partner should be 6-5 for this auction, else he would have reopened with a double. Four spades could be better, but I’m worried about partner getting tapped on a heart lead.

Bill Cubley: The vulnerable 3 bidder will have something extra, and this rules out 3 NT. Supporting partner’s first bid suit seems like the usual good idea — at least until the scores come out.

Michael Palitsch: Partner should be 6-5; seldom 6-4; never 5-4. I want to settle in a game contract, but either 3 NT, 4  or 5  could be best. Where are my dice? Yes, 5  is best!

Jamie Cameron: Partner’s probably 5-5 in the blacks with a couple of diamonds (LHO didn’t raise) and a stiff heart. My hand fits quite well then with two working cards plus a club fit, so I’ll take the pressure off him.

Arvind Srinivasan: Partner expects some values on the auction; the only consideration is that I have the right values. The least partner could have is: A-Q-J-x A-x x K-Q-J-x-x-x, and even here we are home on a diamond lead.

Bill Maddock: This might be right. If not, I can always blame partner for overbidding.

Michael Schmahl: Partner has 10 or more black cards (my usual partner will always have 11 or more). Would he bid this way with A-Q-x-x-x x x A-Q-x-x-x-x? I think that is much too weak, so I expect 11 tricks in the black suits (with a spade ruff to help him set up the suit) or 10 black tricks and a red ace.

David Lindop: I hope partner only bids this way with 6-5 (or 6-4). If he bids [a minimum] 5-5 in this order, I would simply return to 4 .

Manuel Paulo: My kings seem guaranteed, and a slam is possible; but a 4 cue-bid may suggest a better fit.

Martin Nathan: Partner wouldn’t introduce spades here with four, so I’m betting on 6-5. The club finesse should work if needed, and my K is a killer card. It looks like partner will lose one trick in each red suit; he might even be void in hearts.

James Heneghan: Five clubs must be the safest contract, as the opponents could easily grab five tricks off us in notrump.

Anthony Golding: I don’t want to hang partner for competing, but I’d bid 4 without the pointed kings; so I’ll be optimistic.

Harold Simon: My methods presume 5-6 in the blacks for partner. The deal may swing on his holding two diamonds with the K getting ruffed (a possible plus in 4  if West has four) — a puzzler that my choice of bids cannot solve.

Ed Freeman: Partner has at least 10 and probably 11 black cards. My K is a monster card, but the controls aren’t there for a slam (else a 4  bid). Let’s just bid the best game.

Olivier La Spada: My partner is 6-4, and slam is too far.

Comments for 4

John Hoffman: I hope partner’s shape is 5-6 [although] 4 might make on a 4-2 fit with good trump honors. I expect East to have at least one control on the side for a preempt at unfavorable vulnerability opposite a passed partner, so 3 NT looks unlikely to make (even though it might be the top vote-getter).

Beve Smith: Betting my last dollar that partner is 5-6 (or 5-5 at the very least) with a good hand. Wish I had another spade.

Richard Higgins: Hope partner has five spades and the K protects against a force.

Jonathan Goldberg: According to the Bidding Guide we open 1 with 5-5. Therefore, I’m playing partner for 11 black cards. That makes hearts pointless; I’ll take a shot at game in spades.

Comments for 4

Neelotpal Sahai: Four spades and 5 are close, and I can’t make the decision myself. After passing twice, this can’t show a [strong hand]; I’ll respect partner’s choice of black-suit contracts.

Ron Zucker: Partner doesn’t want to know about my six-card heart suit. I’d like to just bid 5 , but partner could have a rock crusher… Over the expected 4 , I’ll bid 5 . …

Andrew de Sosa: Partner would have doubled with as many as three hearts. If 4 says, “I’ve got a ratty jack-sixth suit, pass with A-x or K-x,” it would be perfect; but in the long run, it’s probably better to reserve that to show a self-sufficient six- or seven-bagger. Four diamonds gives us a shot at 4  if partner is 6-5; if he is only 6-4, we should end up in 5 , a reasonable shot at IMPs. Sometimes preempts work.

Christian Vennerod: In my partnerships this means, “Pick a suit.” If partner has five spades, 4 is a good contract; but if he is 6-4, we belong in clubs. I do not bid 3 NT as it is far too likely that East can duck the first diamond, then I must take nine tricks directly.

John Weisweiler: Partner is expected to bid 4 if he is 6-5, or 5 if 6-4. [It is unlikely] that 3 NT makes while a black-suit game fails.

Thomas Peters: I don’t know which of three suits to play in, so I’ll ask partner. Even if we don’t play that doubtful cue-bids are choice-of-games, it is unreasonable to suggest that South has found a slam try in spades after passing 3 . Also note that even if there are nine tricks in 3 NT after the A is knocked out, there is a second way to lose: East may return a heart for four fast heart tricks.

Peter Gill: Even playing basic bridge, I hope we are playing this as choice-of-games, like sensible folk do.

Phil Clayton: This asks partner to choose the spot. … My pointed-suit kings are gold, and I have a useful ruffing value. Partner didn’t reopen with double, so I expect either a flawed 4=1=3=5 maximum, or at least 10 cards in the black suits. …

Alex Kemeny: Since partner is 6-5 or 6-4 in the blacks, I dislike my diamond stopper for 3 NT. If holding five spades, partner should bid 4 .

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 4

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	NORTH 1 3	East Pass 3	South 1 ?	J 6 4 K 10 9 5 10 6 A Q J 9
1. intermediate

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Double (penalty)	10	305	38
4	9	194	24
4	7	110	14
5	6	123	15
Pass	4	65	8
3 NT	1	16	2

Whom to believe? It seems like a lot of bidding with 2 described as intermediate, so somebody is speeding; else there’s some wild distribution around. Your values suggest that game is in reach, most likely 5 ; but that surely would be an overbid. For one reason, if partner needs the A or the K onside, it’s unlikely to be so. I would opt for the middle-of-the-road raise to 4 . It is unlikely that partner will have the hand to bid game, but who knows; I might even get a chance to double 4 .

The consensus of the respondents to double is reasonable but dangerous. While your trump holding is subpar, it does seem unlikely that West could win nine tricks in view of your club and heart holdings. Nonetheless, it would not be my choice. These doubles often backfire — remember, this is defined as penalty, not card-showing as many people play. You might run into extreme distribution and fork over 530, and it could be a double game swing. Reluctantly, it gets the top award.

What about bidding 4 ? It is possible that partner has four clubs, or that a 4-3 heart fit could play well, but these seem like long shots. Most of the time partner will just bid 4  leaving you to guess again.

Let’s see what really happened:

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

Stoppa West 2 Pass

Lawrence NORTH 1 3 5

Roudinesco East Pass 3 All Pass

Goldman South 1 4

5 South Down 1 -50

Jacoby West 1 3 All Pass

Jais NORTH 1 2 Pass

Wolff East Pass Pass Pass

Trezel South 1 3 4

4 North Made 5 +150 France +5 IMPs

Goldman faced the problem scenario in the first auction and chose to bid 4 . This was forcing, of course, so Lawrence had no choice but to raise to game — down one; off the obvious top tricks. To be fair, Goldman was unlucky to catch Lawrence with two spades (a singleton was far more likely based on the bidding). If you switched North’s major suits, 5  would be the perfect spot, and a brilliant piece of bidding to reach it from the right side.

The second auction was completely different due to the canape style, and the French stopped accurately in 4 . An overtrick was made when the defense led three rounds of spades, so the French gained 5 IMPs. Note that with North declarer it was not obvious for West to cash the A before leading the third spade.

Those who raised diamonds, including me, will be disappointed to see that even 4 fails after the obvious trump promotion. I must say, this makes the 4  bid look even better.

So what about 3 doubled? After a top diamond lead, it looks like the defense can always get five tricks; down one. Whew! Living on the edge can be scary. I should also point out that if you swap the 2 and 2 (giving North a typical hand), 3  doubled would make, as would 5  by South, for the dreaded double game swing — certainly a reason to dim one’s view of the penalty double.

Comments for Double

Ashish Agarwal: This is a standout. With [an extremely] distributional hand, partner should pull to 4  or 5 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: The Law suggests that with likely 17 total trumps (maybe 18), if we can make 5  (the most likely game), they will go down three (or two). If 3  makes, we could have made no more than 2  or 3 , which seems unlikely.

Richard Stein: I see the opponents with nine spades and partner with six diamonds (he will have more on occasion). That makes 17 total trumps and probably that many total tricks, pointing the way to a business double. As North has shown more than a minimum opening bid, I don’t have to worry too much about 3  making.

Leo Zelevinsky: Partner should realize that my double on this auction can’t be a command, but more of an opinion. I simply won’t have enough hands with a trump stack for that to be a reasonable meaning. I am a bit worried that partner will take my double as a certain indication of a singleton diamond, but I do have an awfully nice hand opposite a freely bidding partner. I am also influenced by the fact that my opponents often bid like maniacs, and I like to punish them for it. :)

Daniel Korbel: Tough problem. Anything other than double is a guess; we might not even beat it, though.

Bob Simkins: I hope we aren’t minus 530 or 630; but where are their nine tricks?

James Hudson: Penalty? I’m hoping partner doesn’t take that too seriously. This is a good spot for a card-showing double. Pass and 3 NT are ridiculous; 4  and 5  suggest more shape and (especially 4 ) less high-card strength…

Chris Maclauchlan: Then lead trumps — even if I have to do it out of turn.

Dinu Raducanu: And hope for a trump lead.

William Slepin: Game at the five level looks dim for us. My values in the side suits and short diamonds [suggest] we defend.

Neelotpal Sahai: We [may] have game-going values (5 seems closest), but I prefer to collect a plus score by doubling.

Bruce Scott: Penalty-ish. … Partner may pull if he has a truly horrendous hand, the kind that maybe should have been opened with 4 . … The best call, of course, is the huddle-pass. If using this convention, you can show desire to compete. Advanced huddled-passers will reach for their bidding box once or twice before eventually selecting a green card. I will assume this popular method is considered an advanced convention and therefore not in use for this poll. …

No, that’s basic. The advanced version has three levels: huddle-pass, huddle-double, and I-double-urass.

Daniel Auby: Depending on how much I count partner for (in some partnerships not much at all), I may want to invite game or slam. Since the only sensible game or slam try is double, and that is defined as penalty, I am lost. A quick penalty double that partner [can ethically] remove may be the best approach!

Ron Zucker: Doesn’t sound like there’s a slam unless partner’s hand is so offensive he can pull the double. Let’s just get a likely plus on partner’s trump lead (he’ll pull with a void) and hope we don’t give away too many IMPs.

Stu Goodgold: We have no fit, and the odds of setting 3 two or more tricks vastly outweigh the chances that they will make it.

Jamie Cameron: This would be easier at matchpoints, but the Law dictates a pass. Five diamonds is the only sensible alternative, [but since] I’m not sure we are making 11 tricks, I want to make sure of plus 300.

Kevin Costello: We have the points, but we don’t have the fit. I don’t see where their tricks are coming from, except in spades and maybe a heart trick or two.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: This seems to be the [best] option with two losers in spades and a possible heart loser. I like my chances in doubling.

Paul Friedman: I’m not letting the “intermediate” scare me. The overtrick will scare my partner, though.

Lance Marrou: We need a lot of help for a game to make our way; and if it does, chances are we take down 3  more than two tricks for a better result.

John R. Mayne: We’re not playing good-bad 2 NT, so partner may be stretching to compete on shape. Still, they ought to be short a trick or three; and even if game makes, we might not get to the right one.

Martin Nathan: If partner’s bid was based only on diamond length, he’ll pull the double. Otherwise, we’ve got well more than half the deck. … So how can they have nine tricks?

Jonathan Goldberg: I assume partner will pull with a void. Otherwise, where do they get their tricks?

Paul Redvers: The hand belongs to us, but there is no obvious game; so take the plus.

Ed Freeman: I like my diamond holding for defense, not offense. I just see no source of tricks for them, and no safe game for us. If partner passes my double, it is where we belong.

Alex Kemeny: Game is uncertain for us, and 3 will be ugly for them. Partner, being an expert, will lead a trump.

Carl Hudecek: Partner can pull with a void or some hands with a small singleton. He knows I don’t have a trump stack.

Comments for 4

Kieran Dyke: Who plays this double as penalty? A more cooperative double (any double that partner won’t pass with a stiff spade) would be automatic.

Dave Maeer: I don’t fancy a penalty double with nothing in trumps, or 3 NT when they can run the spade suit; so I’m stuck with 4 . I don’t think partner’s 3  shows the full value of a jump 3  rebid, so I shall be happy if it’s passed out. If they bid on, the doubling will start.

Roger Clough: I would double at matchpoints.

Leonard Helfgott: Weak spades opposite known shortness indicate that 4 should be fairly safe, but [I won’t bid 5  and] bury partner for making a competitive bid.

Geoffrey Toon: My hand is worth another bid… and as partner has a likely singleton spade (maybe even a void, considering East is bidding with close to zero points), 3 NT has no hope. All my points are working, and showing my diamond support is important. I expect partner to bid game if he is full value for his 3  bid, and pass if he stretched last time.

Doug Burke: Double doesn’t look right, and pass gives up on a possible game. I’m not crazy about this bid, but there you go.

John Hoffman: I’ll cut partner some slack for possibly competing with a very good diamond suit and not much else.

Karen Walker: This may be a bit of an underbid in high-card strength (and an overbid in trump support), but all the alternatives tell bigger lies. Five diamonds is the equivalent of a lynch mob; partner doesn’t need the world’s fair for his 3  bid.

Niklas Warne: I like to play double as takeout in this position (much more frequent than penalty), but without that option there isn’t much to do except support partner.

Nigel Guthrie: Extra HCP may compensate for my lack of trumps. A double is a reasonable speculation at pairs, but at teams discretion is the better part of valor. A minor-suit game is still possible, e.g., x Q-x A-K-J-x-x-x-x K-x-x.

Andrew de Sosa: All other calls are overly flawed. Four diamonds even gives us a shot at a reasonable 4  if partner has good three-card support.

Beve Smith: Gotta invite somewhere. Partner should be short in spades.

Christian Vennerod: It is most likely that partner has a singleton small spade and six good diamonds. We may beat 3 , but it is too close to double at IMPs. If I pass it will end there; but 5  may be on, and 4  will surely have a decent chance.

Richard Baumer: This may drive West to bid 4 , which will be doubled — if partner doesn’t bid 5 .

Bill Powell: I don’t think we have a spade stopper [for 3 NT], but 5 may be on.

Marc-Andre Parent: A comfortable invitation. Partner didn’t show enough for a game, but we’re close…

Robin Zigmond: Three notrump looks suicidal with both opponents bidding spades; 5 is too much of a stretch…; and I’m certainly not going to double them into game when partner could well have [poor] defense. …

J. Michael Andresen: I’m worth one more bid. I don’t know if partner is competing or has a good hand. (I wish we were playing good-bad 2 NT.)

Ron Landgraff: I would like to double, but this is IMPs. If they have 10 spades and short diamonds, 3  may make. Maybe they will bid 4 .

Rainer Herrmann: At pairs, pass or double may be indicated. At IMPs, the choice is between pass and 4 . Since I would not be able to pass in tempo, I prefer 4 .

Anthony Golding: Why is double penalty? I know, because it is, and if we played it as competitive, this wouldn’t be a problem (hmm, maybe that’s why I play them). I don’t want to pass, and this is the least likely to mislead partner.

Mark Raphaelson: Nonforcing. Let’s keep the 4-3 heart fit alive, although unlikely. I’m not strong enough to force game on my own.

Carlos Dabezies: They might only go one off in 3 (or even make). Although partner does not figure to have more than a singleton spade, 4  is competitive enough, given only two small diamonds. If 4  comes around, I would double for penalty.

Harold Simon: Partner has a stiff spade, but my high cards are not well placed. He’s welcome to bid 5 .

Comments for 4

Thomas Alm: This may lead to a makable 4 on a 4-3 fit (partner has the spade shortness), 5 in a 4-4 fit, or 5 .

Tom McGuire: I think we’re going to be defending 4 doubled. I may as well give partner some information along the way.

Bill Haughie: Forcing obviously, to be followed by support for diamonds, indicating this was a cue-bid.

Cris Waller: A hard call between double and 4 . [Defeating 3 ] is by no means certain; and 4 gives the opportunity to discover a [4-3] heart fit.

Henry Day: It looks likely that we’ll take five defensive tricks, so at this vulnerability a making partscore would beat the available penalty. Our offensive position looks good because partner is marked with only one spade, so I’ll make a forcing bid and hope he can point us towards a game contract.

Mike Weber: Oh boy. If this were matchpoints, I would shoot with a double, but I have teammates who will be wondering over dinner why we went for 530. So, my hand is good enough to invite game, but where? West rates to have six spades with East contributing three, and that leaves one spade with partner. Three notrump rates to be a disaster. … If partner has four clubs, we happily play in 5 ; [otherwise probably] 5 . … Who said there is no place for minor-suit games?

Josh Sinnett: I’d like partner to know what to lead against their doubled spade contract (if it gets to that point), and I may need to [find greater] diamond length if we declare the hand.

Tomasz Radko: … I’d love to double, but not a penalty double. Three notrump? I hope that is a joke. … Four clubs may be a slight overbid; but North has six diamonds, not a minimum hand and [probably] only one spade. Can’t he have: x  A-x-x A-K-J-x-x-x K-x-x?

Arvind Srinivasan: This should be read as some kind of fit-bid for diamonds, and partner should be able to judge that a good slam is on when he holds: x  A-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x-x.

Jan Gutenwik: Aiming for 5 , but there might be six if partner has the right cards.

James Heneghan: This has a number of benefits: a lead against a sacrifice; a possible trump suit (which might right-side the K); and a handy cue-bid if partner is more distributional. Also, a Moysian heart contract is possible.

Comments for 5

Gareth Birdsall: We should make 5 opposite most hands for partner’s bidding.

Thijs Veugen: Partner seems to have a stiff spade, so 5 should be fine.

Thomas Hanford: A penalty double is out (too close). Partner [probably] has seven diamonds and a singleton or void in spades, so I go for the game bonus at IMPs (at matchpoints I bid only 4  to protect the plus). … If partner has a void in spades and the K, we may be laydown for six.

Chris Willenken: Four diamonds sounds competitive, so I’ll take a shot.

Michael Palitsch: Three diamonds shows playing strength, so we will play game. Double is too much of a gamble; 3 NT is crazy; 4  would be nice with one more high card. …

Mark Friedlander: Partner probably has a singleton spade, so our hands fit well. I am too good for just 4 .

Richard Higgins: Double is tempting — my partner could handle that if it makes, but one teammate I have played with would need a tranquilizer.

George Klemic: If I take their bidding at face value, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to find partner with 1=2=7=3, losing a spade and one [other trick]. … If there are three top losers, they may well make 3 . I’m not bidding only 4 , as it sounds simply competitive with some trump length.

Manuel Paulo: Partner should have a 1=3=6=3 pattern, with a good suit and an honor in hearts and/or clubs.

Thomas Peters: Strong bidding around the table suggests that no one has wasted honors in an opponent’s suit. So I expect partner to have very good diamonds and a low stiff in spades.

Peter Gill: I have too many working cards, including the 10s and nines, to call only 4 , which is nonforcing given our basic bidding system (though Eric Kokish would probably say 4  is forcing). We may even make 7  opposite an 11-count: —  A-x-x A-Q-J-x-x-x-x 10-x-x.

Bill Jacobs: Time to commit. Partner didn’t have to pipe up with 3 . I just hope he has a stiff spade.

Craig Zastera: Partner needn’t have a rock crusher at this vulnerability. Still, x A-x A-Q-J-x-x-x-x x-x-x gives adequate play for five, and he can hardly have less than that.

Jelmer Hasper: Good problem. Partner has at most one spade (I hope) and probably really long diamonds and a minimal hand, so 5  must have a good shot. I would never defend 3 , as it is a maximum of two off and could even make if East has the perfect hand.

Matthew McCoy: Double is risky — partner rates to have only one spade. This should make most of the time, and I can even see six making.

Olivier La Spada: With a spade loser I do not think that partner has all the remaining honors; if the K is missing, it should be in the wrong hand.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 5

IMPs		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass	North Pass	East Pass	South ?	— K 10 9 5 4 6 5 A Q J 10 5 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
1	10	318	39
1	9	290	36
Pass	7	142	17
3	6	35	4
4	5	7	1
5	4	13	2
2	2	8	1

Is the void in spades a strong enough indication to pass the hand out? Over 80 percent thought not, and the great majority of the votes were split between 1  and 1 . The extreme distribution suggests the opponents can be outbid successfully, or at least I’d be willing to try. I’m also torn between 1  and 1 , so I’ll just hop into the winners’ circle and say 1  stands out a mile.

The voting certainly rips the Rule of 15 to shreds. Also known as the Pearson Rule or Cansino Rule, this dictates that in fourth seat you should add your high-card points to your spade length; if the total is 15 or more, you should open. Wow. Here the answer is only 10, yet it seems right to open. I always felt this rule was flawed; now I’m sure of it. Of course, I might rethink this when I go minus.

I thought there would be a larger vote for 3 (followed by a heart bid); or even 4 or 5 . I threw in the weak 2  possibility mostly as a filler for lost lambs, as I’m sure it would make Howard Schenken* roll over in his grave. I’m all for frisky weak two-bids, but this one borders on depraved. (OK, OK, I’ve been called that, too.)

*Schenken (1905-1979) invented the weak two-bid. He was also once voted by his peers as the best bridge player of all time. In his heyday, anything less than a sturdy six-card suit with two of the top three honors would be considered heresy.

Here’s how Mike Lawrence handled the problem:

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

Roudinesco WEST Pass 2 All Pass

Goldman North Pass Dbl

Stoppa East Pass 4

Lawrence South 1 5

5 South Down 3 -150

Jacoby WEST 2 Pass

Boulenger North Pass Pass

Wolff East 4 Pass

Svarc South 5

5 South Down 1 -50 France +3 IMPs

In the first auction, Lawrence chose to open 1 . Predictably, Roudinesco overcalled in spades (wisely with a jump) to give Goldman a problem. Normally, a negative double shows four cards in the unbid major, but Goldman thought it was a better description than bidding his meager diamond suit (I agree). When Stoppa jammed the auction (did he use a Stoppa card?), Lawrence had no real choice but to bid 5 , expecting a nine-card fit. On a good day this would make with an overtrick, but the early spade tap and foul distribution led to down three. Unlucky. It seems a 1  opening wouldn’t have fared any better.

A completely different scenario unfolded at the second table. Instead of having to decide what to open, Svarc had to guess at the five-level. After bidding his longer suit, the spade tap was less damaging, and 5  was only down one; 3 IMPs to France. Note that against 4 , North must lead a trump to beat it (would you?), so Svarc and Lawrence were both probably wise to compete.

Well, as in the punch line of the classic genie joke: Let me see that Rule of 15 again. Like I said all along, I pass!

Comments for 1

Rosalind Hengeveld: Comparing with Problem 3, West may have a bad six-card spade suit, but then so can partner. On average, the opponents will have about nine spades, so there is no reason to presume they have a good 4  bid. This hand has enormous playing strength. As someone (maybe partner) will surely bid spades, I prefer the more flexible 1  opening. Incidentally, the Rule of 15 (add HCP to number of spades) basically applies to borderline opening bids in fourth seat, which this isn’t really. Best problem of the set.

James Hudson: Three clubs is possible, but I don’t want to hear 3 NT from partner. Pearson’s rule looks especially dubious here, with a reasonable 6-5. I’ll swing for the fences: If partner has a heart fit, I’ve hit a home run.

Dinu Raducanu: Then rebid clubs at whatever level.

David Harari: I wonder whether such an auction is possible when I have this hand.

William Slepin: If I want to get both hearts and clubs into the auction after a likely spade response from partner, I need to keep the bidding low and not lie about strength by reversing.

Gjivo Tikvica: I prefer major openings even with a shorter suit.

Doug Burke: I’m tempted to pass this out, but it’s too distributional. The next choice is between 1  and 2 . [The latter] gives up on the clubs, so I guess I’ll open one and keep on bidding.

John Hoffman: Not good enough for a club opening and heart rebids. Preemptive openings, even in fourth seat, risk losing the other suit.

Zuzana Herrmann: The only way to show both colors appropriately.

Henry Day: Partner needs as little as x-x-x-x Q-J-x x-x-x K-x-x for an easy game here, so I think it must be investigated. At any other vulnerability I’d be unhappy about allowing the opponents space to be a nuisance in spades, and I would open 3 , settling for a partscore; but here (which will look to the opponents like a partscore hand) they will have to be careful.

Mike Weber: Wow. Who dealt this hand? One club would be preferable to describe this hand, but with just opening values I don’t want to create a headache for myself by having to reverse into hearts (especially with West introducing spades and East raising). …

William Claassen: Going straight for the magic minus 790, 4 doubled by partner.

Steve Mager: If partner has right 9-11 HCP, the hand might be cold for a slam; if the wrong 9-11, I may wish I never opened.

Eva Upper: … This opens the door for their spades, [but I am] prepared to keep bidding clubs if partner gets frisky and doubles them.

Michael Palitsch: I guess that the other three have balanced hands, so partner has two or three hearts. After opening 1 , partner will tell me. I am not afraid of 4  doubled, since partner [probably] has four or five spades.

Christian Vennerod: I think the logic behind the Rule of 15 is not to open borderline hands. This is not borderline. I rate to have the best hand at the table… If we are at 4  by my next turn, I will bid 5  as we [probably] have a solid fit somewhere. Therefore, it is not important to bid the six-card suit first.

Arvind Srinivasan: The only reason I am opening is that the hand could play badly for the opponents, and we could still make something. Opening 3  or higher would be counterproductive.

Glenda Hansen: If I start with clubs, the hearts may get lost. I can rebid clubs forever.

Michael Schmahl: The opponents will compete in spades, of course, but why should I preempt when I have two places to play? Passing is chicken; I rate to go plus somewhere — if we sell out to spades, they will probably be on a nine-card fit, and the 4-0 break will hurt their chances. …

Arne Jordestedt: The opponents don’t [rate to] make 4 . I normally prefer to open the major with 5-6, but perhaps 1  might be better on this board if partner has to lead.

Martin Nathan: This is a great hand if partner has hearts, so let’s find out right away. All he needs is three hearts to the ace (or Q-J) and the K or A to make game an odds-on favorite (he could have less and still be 50+ percent). If he bids 1 , I will show clubs. I’m not strong enough for 1  1 ; 2 .

Rainer Herrmann: This is a good example why I believe it is superior to adopt a canape style specifically for 6-5 distributions, even in standard systems. If your 6-5 is the other way around (with six hearts), you need less to reverse; and if you are still too weak to reverse, you can treat your five-card minor as a four-card suit…

Jonathan Goldberg: This may lose a partscore battle (in which case I should have followed Mr. Pearson and passed), but at least I won’t miss game. All funny bids are worse than pass.

Mark Raphaelson: I hope with this kind of shapely hand the “passers afraid of spades” don’t rule. First hand, I’d pass and hope to show a two-suiter, but I’m not wimping out in the passout seat.

Carlos Dabezies: Although it might be right to pass, not everyone’s distribution may be equally uneven. With no spades it is best to show hearts immediately, and the suit is not good enough for 2 . Three clubs a possibility, but a game is more likely in hearts.

Ed Freeman: OK, they have the spades, and I have little defense. But this is IMPs, and there are just too many hands where we are making 4 . If they end up playing in spades, they’ll likely be disappointed by the bad break.

Comments for 1

Kieran Dyke: I’m not passing this out with a huge playing hand. The opponents’ spade suit isn’t breaking, and partner is likely to pick off their fit with his response.

Dave Maeer: Reluctantly… No partner will believe I have a hand [this weak in high cards] unless he’s called Alvin Roth, so I’d better make the least destructive opening. There’s no need to preempt because if the opponents have the sort of spade fit that a preempt will keep out, partner will have a surprise for them.

Richard Stein: I like this hand too much to pass it out, and I have too many hearts to preempt. Each opponent has already had a chance to bid spades, and if we do face competition, I am prepared to bid and rebid hearts up to the three level. …

Leo Zelevinsky: Good old Rule of 15: 10 points plus zero spades, so I guess I should pass, right? I don’t think so. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be making something at the three level, or even a game. The problem with club preempts is that they rule out hearts, which could easily be right; and 2  rules out clubs. So I’m down to opening either 1  or 1 . I guess I’ll go with 1 . I plan to ignore hearts unless partner can bid them (or negative double).

Daniel Korbel: I firmly believe in bidding my longest suit first. Worst-case scenario: 1 1 P 4 . Oops. :)

Bob Simkins: It will be easier to explain to our teammates how we went down in game than to explain why we didn’t even bid with these cards. I’m not worried about spades; the enemy can probably take only eight tricks, and we’re likely to take at least 10.

Thomas Alm: I prefer to open with my longest suit. That way I can bid hearts till doomsday, and partner will always know that my club suit is longer. …

Leonard Helfgott: With a five-loser hand, I’ll gamble that we’re much more likely to have game or go plus, than the opponents have a spade game — after all, East passed in third chair. The longer, stronger suit comes first.

Karen Walker: Pearson Points, Schmearson Schmoints, as Marty Bergen might say. I’m not so pessimistic about my ability to outbid the opponents that I’m going to pass out a 6-5 hand I would have opened in any other seat. Although the Pavlicek Quiz System doesn’t play nonforcing jump reverses, this hand is a good advertisement for that convention (1  followed by 3  to show a minimum 6-5).

Robert Katz: Anything could work out, but I will not pass a hand where we could have a slam.

Tommy Cho: Seems to me that we hold the balance of strength since West and East both passed, and they are likely to hold length in spades. … Comparing 1  and 1 , I would like to bid the longer, stronger suit first in case partner may give me the wrong preference — which is extremely important when my hand is tapped by the opponents.

Jenny Tsai: I would pass it out if I had one more diamond and one less club. It is risky to open with no spades, but I have [great] distributional strength.

Bill Haughie: It is tempting to open 1 so that suit at least gets mentioned; but the quality of the clubs is so much better. Maybe pass is right; they own the spade suit (or will think they do).

Ron Zucker: Yes, I don’t have spades. Yes, I don’t have enough Pearson points. No, I won’t pass; it’s just too good when we may have game in clubs or hearts. If they bid spades, I’ll bid over them.

Damo Nair: The club suit is too chunky to be ignored.

Stu Goodgold: Game is not out of the question opposite: J-x-x-x Q-J-x A-x-x-x K-x. Yes, the opponents have the spades, but they are vulnerable and will not be willing to sacrifice against our heart game or partial.

Andrew de Sosa: Too much potential for game to pass. The vulnerability might prevent the opponents from going hog-wild in spades, given they are both passed hands, and partner might even get to bid them first.

Dima Nikolenkov: I will bid up to 3 later in the show; and if partner cannot beat them in 3 , too bad.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: If partner responds 1 , I will rebid 2 .

Nicoleta Giura: I decided not to panic.

Richard Baumer: If I can, I will bid hearts twice to get the message across; though if partner bids 1  and the opponents pass, I may bid a quiet 2  and wait for partner to bid again (or the opponents to balance in diamonds), then my heart bid will yield a perfect description.

Bill Maddock: It is a pity there are seven options here. Were there only six, then I could roll a die.

Rudolf Buitelaar: I think I’ll get a chance to describe my hand further.

Paul Hightower: Since spades outgun both of my suits, I might as well [bid] my better one. … I’m hoping partner bids spades before they do.

George Klemic: I am a little shy of the Rule of 15 (what’s 5 points), but I am pretty confident I can bid hearts next turn and expect to go plus. It’s tempting to go for 2  followed by clubs, or 3  followed by hearts, but I may as well get as much information as I can at a low level.

Andrei Varlan: Always open your long suit first!

J. Michael Andresen: Assuming everyone else is relatively balanced, I should find the right game when it’s there, even despite a big spade fit for the opponents. I’m just as likely to preempt myself by opening more than 1 .

Manuel Paulo: With five losers, I don’t follow the Pearson Rule, and I go ahead and bid my longest suit.

Ron Landgraff: Hearts is alluring but a 5-3 fit might have problems with multiple spade ruffs. Maybe partner will bid hearts or imply them with a negative double.

Thomas Peters: All the other hands must be balanced 10-counts, so the spade panic is unjustified. Since x-x-x-x A-x A-x-x K-x-x-x provides a play for 7 , looking for game is very realistic.

Costin Georgescu: And I will rebid hearts, and hearts again, if time.

Bill Jacobs: I am not scared of 4 . They are two passed hands, and spades aren’t breaking. All right, I’m a little bit scared.

Jelmer Hasper: Okay, maybe I should pass, but the pass card seems to be glued to the bottom of my bidding box; so I guess I’ll have to open 1 . A couple of years ago, as a junior, I would have opened 4 , but that doesn’t appear to be an option in this quiz. Why not?

Oops, my fault. I forgot that Internet access is now available in mental asylums.

Carl Hudecek: Partner has cards, and the opponents’ spade fit is destined for a bad break. I will bid this excellent playing hand normally.

Comments for Pass

Gerry Wildenberg: This could backfire but (1) there is no reason to think we have the preponderance of strength, (2) we don’t own the spade suit so we are likely to be outbid, and (3) this fails the Rule of 15 test.

Bruce Scott: Matthew Granovetter would claim that I must hate the game of bridge if I pass this hand. So be it. I would open in any other chair. If you switched the clubs and hearts so I could describe my pattern in a convenient way, maybe I would open. I have nearly no defense against 4  (or even 6 !). Let’s hope the hand is a huge double fit, so if I pass it out my “save” will be much cheaper.

Larry Gifford: I believe it’s their hand for a plus, perhaps a big one.

Mark Ganzer: Who has the spades? Why am I always so pessimistic in this situation when partner needs so little for game? Because if partner has so little, my vulnerable opponents might also have game.

Tom McGuire: Chances are they have spades, or we have a misfit. Toss this one in.

Nigel Guthrie: At pairs this is a clear-cut 3 bid; but at teams, pass is advisable because of the slight risk of awakening a sleeping 4  Kraken.

Thomas Hanford: Spades rule the roost. If partner has them, I don’t want to hear about them. More likely, the opponents have them; then it’s like sleeping late in the morning at a hotel: put out the do-not-disturb sign.

Alin Salinacki: I think the opponents have spades; or if partner has them, it is a misfit. The points seem to be [equally divided].

Jamie Cameron: Swap the hearts with the clubs and I could be talked into opening 4 .

Steven Forsythe: Five clubs might make, but the odds don’t look good enough. Am I sure to be going plus on this hand? If they outbid me in spades, where do I stop?

Mark Friedlander: Nonvulnerable, I don’t have enough to gain to offset the likelihood that East-West may have a spade game.

Robin Zigmond: Is there any distribution of the remaining cards where no one has an opening bid? It looks like someone has a strong hand with spades and has tried a tactical pass. I hope it’s not my partner.

Bill Huepenbecker: I am not about to bid and let them get plus 620 or 650.

John R. Mayne: What torture is this? I know what the answer is: It’s “lose X IMPs” where X is greater than 10, and then listen to the questions about how our bidding went. I’d feel much more comfortable about passing without all those big spot cards.

Jojo Sarkar: … I will risk our nonvulnerable game prospects for fear of the opponents finding a big spade fit.

James Heneghan: I’m tortured on this one. I’m afraid of the opponents getting to a nice spade partial or game, plus partner needs too many specific cards [for me] to make game.

Comments for 3

Josh Sinnett: I don’t want the opponents competing. This bid may be just preemptive enough to keep them out, while leaving room for partner to bid with a suitable hand.

Kevin Costello: This hand comes nowhere near the Rule of 15, but I still don’t think pass is right. Opening 1  gives the opponents room to [bid] spades, and I’ll never be able to convince partner about my club suit if I open in hearts. This shouldn’t be taken as [weak] in fourth seat, and if I follow it up with a heart bid, I’ll have described my hand very well.

Phil Clayton: Three clubs is purely a tactical decision. While I don’t mind opening this, I want to get some preemption to lock out their spade fit. We are by no means guaranteed to hold the balance of power; they have a minimum of an eight-card spade fit and could have more. They also may be walking into a bear trap vulnerable. I’m willing to give up on the heart fit, but might try a 3  call over a 3  balance. …

Alex Kemeny: A fair chance to steal a partscore. A one-level opening is likely to lose out to their spade partscore.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West 3	NORTH Pass Pass	East 2 1 Pass	South ? ?	10 9 6 A K Q J 4 K 3 2 A 2
1. 11-15, 5+ clubs

Two Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
D. 2 then Double	10	309	38
C. 2 then Pass	8	102	13
B. Double then 3	7	287	35
F. 2 NT then 3	4	52	6
A. Double then Pass	3	42	5
E. 2 NT then Pass	2	21	3

I liked this problem when perusing the deals (you’ll see why later); but with only three plausible actions over 2 , it didn’t fit into my usual format. Hence, the two-part problem. Knowing about the 3  raise ahead of time might influence your plan; but the objective was to try to be honest with your first call, then proceed from there.

To some extent, this problem addresses the cutoff point between overcalling and doubling when a hand is too strong. It was not intended as a system issue because the methods in force are Standard American (with my outline as a guide). In that regard, the hand falls in the overcalling range (described as up to 17 HCP), and nothing about this hand would suggest otherwise. Experience has shown that 5-3-3-2 shapes often play poorly.

The alternative of overcalling 2 NT certainly has merit. It is easy to picture hands for partner that are perfect for notrump, even including a heart fit, e.g., x-x-x-x x-x-x-x A-Q-x x-x produces an easy game. Nonetheless, as long as I’m placing cards, it’s just as easy for notrump to be hopeless, e.g., Q-J-x x-x-x Q-J-x-x-x x-x. Since there is no way to discover which hand partner has, it seems against the odds to pursue notrump.

Therefore, I start with a 2 overcall, and the only problem is whether to balance with a takeout double. Instinct says yes, but the flat shape says no. If you play responsive doubles (not part of Standard American), it seems wrong to balance since partner’s pass is more meaningful. In light of the actual system, it’s a close call. A good guideline in these situations is to balance only if a game your way is feasible. I suppose partner could have K-J-8-x-x x-x Q-J-x-x x-x; but even then, 4  is no bargain.

The more I study this, the more it seems right to pass 3 ; or maybe I’m just influenced by the shrewdness of Pierre Jais. Witness this setup by Bobby Wolff:

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

Wolff West 3

Trezel NORTH Pass Pass

Jacoby East 2 Pass

Jais South 2 Pass

3 East Made 4 +130

Svarc West 1 3 4

Goldman NORTH Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Boulenger East 1 2 3

Lawrence South 1 2 Pass

4 East Made 4 +130 No swing

In the first auction, Jais used keen judgment not to fall into the trap set by Wolff. You can be sure that if Jais reopened with a double, Wolff would redouble, then double the pullout to 3 . I believe South can escape for down two with best play, but down three (minus 800) is more likely. Remember this the next time you think you have a good 5-3-3-2 hand.

At the second table, Lawrence faced an easy auction and was able to bid twice cheaply. Note his decision to treat the strong five-card suit as a six-carder, though a double of 2  would be a solid alternative. After that, it was obvious Goldman was broke so he checked out, no doubt wondering if the opponents would ever stop bidding — they did, and just in time, as 4  was the limit. Just another push.

Comments for D. 2 then Double

Ashish Agarwal: Holding 3-3 in the unbid suits is an asset.

Rosalind Hengeveld: The lower limit for a direct 2 overcall should be a decent opening bid, so this must be at but not over the upper limit. The developments themselves show why bidding hearts then doubling is better than the other way around.

Dave Maeer: I think this is reasonable. The level is a little high, but they won’t double 3 .

Richard Stein: I don’t like 2 NT with this good a heart suit, and I’m not about to pass out 3 . So, I’m doubling and bidding hearts; it’s the order that’s the problem. A double followed by 3  could be done with a side four-card suit in spades or diamonds, and might show even more than this. The other order seems to be the better description.

Leo Zelevinsky: I don’t like 2 NT with A-2 for a stopper here, so E and F are gone. Then, the question seems to be whether I am too strong just to overcall 2 . I don’t think so; 2  can show a very nice hand. I would love to have a fourth spade instead of the little club, but I can’t have everything.

Daniel Korbel: Six losers and 17 HCP is not strong enough to double and then bid hearts. Bidding hearts first and then doubling seems like a near-perfect description.

James Hudson: Not quite strong enough to justify a first-round double. Then the second-round double is automatic.

Gerry Wildenberg: Showing my suit and later doubling to show extra strength is the normal way to bid this type of hand.

Thomas Alm: Holding 10 HCP in a five-card heart suit, and 0 HCP in a three-card spade suit, if I begin with a double, partner will never see that until I put down the dummy.

William Slepin: Two hearts then double best describes my hand: a good suit and tolerance for anything else partner may bid. Double then three hearts overstates my HCP and also lies about my support for partner’s expected suits.

Gareth Birdsall: Two hearts then a takeout double seems to express the suit and values adequately.

Leonard Helfgott: It’s best to show strong suits first, and red vs. white this isn’t too strong. A double at the second turn should show precisely this hand type.

Bruce Scott: Seems straightforward to overcall 2 and then double back in. If I were on a committee and this hand came up (with an agreed slow pass by North after the 3  bid), I would allow the double to stand. It seems that clear. Add the K to the hand, and I would choose the double-and-then-bid plan.

Larry Gifford: Upper end of two-level overcall range; clearly worth balancing.

Mark Ganzer: While doubling first and then bidding hearts shows a good hand, bidding hearts first and then doubling shows a good suit and a good hand. The 5-2 fit will play better than many 4-3 fits.

John Hoffman: Show my suit, then show [extra] values and support for the unbid suits.

Karen Walker: This became a little easier when assured we’d get two chances to describe this hand. Without that knowledge, I might have doubled first and then bid hearts, but here, I have the better alternative of emphasizing the strong hearts first, then showing some strength and a willingness to play in other suits. I think that approach gives a more accurate description of a six-loser hand.

Robert Katz: Two hearts is a slight underbid but I think best; if I start with 2 , then double is clear. If I start with double, then I have a major problem next time around. …

Tommy Cho: Show the suit first, then show strength and secondary support for the other two suits [next]. I’m finished.

Tom McGuire: Shows my suit and my strength. Seems too easy; what’s the catch?

Ron Zucker: I’d like to answer B, but I’m not sure it’s not right to defend. Bidding 2 first will let partner evaluate his hand for hearts and then make a wise decision at the three level, especially if he’s a Law user. He’ll know I rate to have at least one three-card suit, and since I strain not to double with a void, he should be able to evaluate trumps fairly accurately. Sometimes, it just pays to let partner in on the joke.

Henry Day: This is only a six-loser hand, and doubling first then bidding suggests something more like an Acol two opening. Bidding then doubling suggests better than a typical overcall, which is pretty much what I’ve got. …

Thijs Veugen: Rather a heavy overcall. The overload on heart HCP makes the hand less powerful on defense.

Sebastien Louveaux: Show hearts, then flexible values.

Peter Talyigas: I hope I promised maximum points with maximum spades. That’s what I have.

Nigel Guthrie: This is “six-card” heart suit, and anyway, if notrump is the correct denomination, it is probably better that partner plays it.

Thomas Hanford: … The reopening double tells my entire story: [good hand], good heart suit and support for the unbid suits. Partner can now make an informed decision. …

Josh Sinnett: Even with 17 points, this hand has way too many losers to double then bid. And once it goes 3 , back to me, I have a classic shape for a reopening double. Easily the easiest problem of the lot (and now that I’ve said that, I’ll probably take a 4).

Michael Palitsch: For double then 3 , I have too many losers; so I bid then double to show a maximum [though] not of perfect distribution with only three spades.

Dima Nikolenkov: Partner rates to have a doubleton club. We should be all right at the three level — the worst case being if partner is 4=2=5=2 and bids 3 . Oops.

Jamie Cameron: This shows five hearts, tolerance for the other two suits and a decent hand.

Michael Schmahl: What’s the problem? A heart suit, right on strength, support for the other two suits, and I want partner to play 3 NT if he has Q-x-x or the like.

Bill Powell: Good hand, good hearts, spade and diamond tolerance — perfect!

Chuck Arthur: This is almost a model hand for this set of actions. I would like to be 3=6=3=1 shape, but I cannot be perfect all the time.

David Lindop: I could go for a number since partner [may be broke], but maybe I’ll buy well.

George Klemic: This sequence suggests 3=6=3=1 shape and the 17 HCP I have. I’m off only one card (extra club), which makes it almost textbook. The 2 NT start would be reasonable, but I don’t like to double initially (I don’t think the hand is good enough to double and bid at this level).

Robin Zigmond: It is silly to suppress a strong five-card major in this kind of hand. Assuming 3 was weak, I want to compete further on the second round. If partner chooses to pass, that’s also fine with me.

J. Michael Andresen: At worst, I’ll end up back in a misfit 3 , but the opponents won’t want to double without a trump honor.

Manuel Paulo: Partner’s suit may be diamonds.

Thomas Peters: Ideal hand for this sequence; I’m even prepared for partner to pass. So obvious I wonder what I am missing.

John R. Mayne: Both choices are automatic. This one seems to be from a different set than the others; few good players would stray from plan D.

Rainer Herrmann: Close. What tips the scale to double instead of pass is that if North has a good five-card spade suit with 6 or 7 points, we could easily have a vulnerable game. I give up on 3 NT, which requires very specific holdings for North.

Gerald Murphy: Two hearts seems right with most of the values in one suit. Once they compete to 3 , I will not sell out. Partner may have a five-card suit, and if not he can bid 3  [with a doubleton].

Anthony Golding: I was originally tempted by 2 NT, but this sequence gets the hand across pretty well.

Phil Clayton: Hopefully, the initial 2 call will de-emphasize my spades on the second round.

Jelmer Hasper: Five cards in a major come first. It’s nice of them to give me a second chance to show my strength and shape.

Comments for C. 2 then Pass

Bob Simkins: I expect partner to be aggressive in these responsive situations. If we have a game, he would have bid; in fact, if he has a six-card suit, he would have bid with minimal values.

Chris Willenken: This seems like a normal maximum for a 2 overcall. Once partner can’t act, there is no reason to double back in. My hand is not a good dummy for spades or diamonds. It goes against the grain to sell out with 17 HCP, but opposite typical hands such as Q-x-x-x x-x A-x-x-x-x x-x, my best chance for a plus is on defense.

Christian Vennerod: This has turned out perfectly. I did not take the risk of bidding 2 NT, and have given a fair picture of my hand. The opponents cannot make game, and I hate to give them 500 or even 800. …

Lance Marrou: Although my hand has 3 1/2 quick tricks, it also has six losers. Vulnerable, that would not be a pretty sight.

Ron Landgraff: How many points can partner have?

Craig Zastera: Partner didn’t [act] so he doesn’t have much (perhaps nearly nothing). We certainly have no game. If I [balance], I could go for a number. This is IMPs, so I don’t stick my neck out when the downside is large and the upside small. At matchpoints, I suppose I’d balance with a double.

Carlos Dabezies: Nice heart suit, but I’m not keen to have to [play] at the three level opposite a passed hand. So I start with 2 , although a bit conservative. [Partner had a chance to compete], so I now opt for safety, even though there is some danger of missing a spade fit (less if partner’s double of 3  would have been responsive).

Comments for B. Double then 3

Doug Burke: I don’t like playing notrump with just A-x as a stopper, so I’ll look for the major-suit fit.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: This is the normal course of action. By bidding 2 NT I am concealing the heart suit, which might not be advantageous in the long run.

Bill Maddock: Like finding one bid isn’t hard enough, now Pavlicek wants me to find two!

Peter Gill: As A-J-x-x-x x Q-10-x-x x-x-x offers good play for a vulnerable 4 , a 2 overcall is too risky. A 3  strong jump overcall of 2  would have some appeal if systemically permitted. Two notrump seems to be aiming for what looks like the wrong spot (3 NT). …

Bill Jacobs: Choices A and C are massive underbids; E is a different kettle of fish, as 2 NT shows the values, but to leave the heart suit unbid is bad; F works OK as the auction goes, but I disagree with 2 NT with the short unimprovable club holding. Choices B and D are both sensible, and true bridge players will choose between them (don’t let me down Richard).

Mark Raphaelson: I’m not thrilled with the way this auction is going, but I’m not going through it without mentioning that heart suit. I have just enough for my double and bid.

Alex Kemeny: Six losers, but with 17 HCP I’m not selling out to 3 .

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 424), and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. About 75 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 by answering a few remarks:

Michael Schmahl: The name of the bidding poll anagrams to “NABCs: So Seldom a Slump”; I don’t know what this means, though.

It means you have too much time on your hands.

Bill McFall: I think the large water is Pacific.

True! Sun Moon Lake looks peaceful to me.

Charles Blair: Hands like this make me want to spend more time on chess.

Don’t give me ideas. Hmm. The queen’s gambit may be coming soon.

Dirk Enthoven: My compliments for not being “politically correct” and putting United States at the top of the country list.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I still get a lot of misclicks, often for American Samoa (next in the list). I think I’ll start a new policy: If you click it and don’t live there, you’ll be deported.

Mabel Pavlicek: I hope this time I will finish fourth, and next time third.

Reminding me of your fifth-place finish in February won’t help. The keys to placing high are (1) study, (2) concentration, and (3) fixing my favorite dinners.

Analyses 7W80 Main Challenge

Scores Top Aces and Plum Blossoms

© 2002 Richard Pavlicek