Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Garozzo in Miami Beach

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

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

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

As revealed in the true title above, the tournament site was Miami Beach, Florida — just 25 miles south of where I live in Fort Lauderdale. Congratulations to Charles Blair, who was the only person to unscramble my anagrammed title, or at least the only one to mention it. Come on, folks! I expected more people to decipher “A Gem-Rich Zoo in Zambia” from its obvious incredulity. Bridge is almost nonexistent* in Zambia, plus it’s a landlocked country so an ocean view would be impossible.

*I tried to find a bridge player in Zambia, hoping I might coax an entry into this poll. So I set off by foot onto the wild African plains… OK, so I sent some e-mails. I found a bridge club in Lusaka (capital); alas, it had no e-mail contacts, and peripheral attempts proved futile. Oh well; the good news is I didn’t run into any Mau Mau headhunters either.

As usual, I received a lot of guesses. Drawing on the zoo theme, the most popular was San Diego, California, followed by New York City (Bronx Zoo) and Washington, D.C. (National Zoo). The African theme brought guesses for Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa; Harare, Zimbabwe; Kenya; Sun City, Botswana (pulling my leg maybe); Mozambique; and Lusaka and Ndola, Zambia. There were also two guesses for Hawaii, and one for Lake Saimaa, Finland because Finland has “thousands of rhinos” — well, that’s news to me. Perhaps the funniest of all was from Barry Rigal, who did not know where, but he was sure that Ira Rubin (aka “The Beast”) must have been playing.

The pictures are from the Miami area. At the top is a view of the Miami Beach surf, taken from an angle in which the sandy beach is barely visible. What about the animals? Can they really be from Miami? Yes, even those too, courtesy of the Miami Metrozoo. The cheetah, named “King George,” is one of only about a dozen living in captivity worldwide. The rhinoceros is not only nameless but ready to charge anyone who misbids in this poll — so watch out!

The palm tree is also indigenous to Miami Beach and South Florida.

The background song Somethin' Stupid was a clue to the year (and arguably a description of my original title). The beautiful, memorable duet sung by Nancy and Frank Sinatra became a #1 hit in 1967, the same year as the tournament.

Robert Defreyne Wins!

This poll had 875 participants from 108 locations, and the average score was 46.94. Congratulations to Robert Defreyne (Waterford, Ontario) who submitted the only perfect score of 60. Only a point behind at 59 were Charles Page (Australia); Peter Schwartz (Cote St. Luc, Quebec); and Marybelle Hoenig (Lomita, California). Five players posted scores of 58, and no less than 26 scored 57.

In the overall standings, Chris Maclauchlan (Virginia) retained his lead with a cool 58.00 average despite a mediocre month. Four players were next with 55.75: Mircea Petrescu (Romania); Gordon Rainsford (England); Rich Dorfman (US); and Dinu Raducanu (Australia).

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 Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held May 26-June 4, 1967 at the Americana Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. Five teams were involved: Italy (defending champion), France (Europe), North America, Thailand (Asia) and Venezuela (South America).

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. Predictably, it came down to an Italian-American final, as the round-robin standings were: Italy 170; North America 161; France 132; Thailand 73; Venezuela 64.

Representing Italy was the famous Blue Team, playing in three fixed partnerships: Benito Garozzo and Pietro Forquet; Giorgio Belladonna and Walter Avarelli; and Massimo D’Alelio and Camillo Pabis Ticci. The partnerships each played different systems, respectively: Neapolitan Club, Roman Club, and Little Roman Club.

I’ve always felt that Garozzo (pictured) was the best on the Blue Team. No doubt this influenced my choice of titles — certainly it wasn’t for an easy anagram (those Z’s were tough). Belladonna is often credited with more spectacular plays, but studies of past deals show occasional lapses, too. Garozzo, however, was about as flawless as humanly possible. I have also played with and against Benito locally (he now lives in Florida) and he’s still sharp as a tack.

Representing North America, also in three fixed partnerships, were: Edgar Kaplan and Norman Kay; Bill Root and Alvin Roth; and Sami Kehela and Eric Murray. The two U.S. pairs played Kaplan-Sheinwold and Roth-Stone (you can guess which played which). The Canadians played Modified Acol, or as Edgar Kaplan once described it, Murray-Murray.

The six problems are all taken from the Italy-North America match (five from the final, one from the round-robin). Italy won the final by a convincing margin, 338 to 227 IMPs. The Blue Team’s dominance of the era was phenomenal, this being their ninth consecutive Bermuda Bowl championship. For Garozzo, an annual lunch.

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 1

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass	North 2 1	East Pass	South ?	A K Q J 9 6 2 K Q 10 9 7 4
1. weak

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT (only force)	10	267	30
3	9	208	24
3 NT	7	152	17
Pass	5	241	28
4	2	5	1
5	1	3	0

The consensus favored the all-purpose forcing response, but unless partner bids 3 (non-minimum, club feature, which here must be the ace) it is unlikely to help. Most of the 2 NT bidders intended to pass 3 , which could easily be the wrong strain. Imagine playing 3  and finding out partner has x-x x A-J-10-x-x-x J-x-x-x. Admittedly, this would be unlucky, but I believe there are many more hands where clubs will play better than diamonds than vice versa. Even if partner bids 3  over 2 NT, you will still be guessing at the best game.

I much prefer a 3 response. While nonforcing, it is constructive, and partner will usually bid again on hands that produce game. Virtually any hand with the A would justify another bid, and even J-x or x-x-x would warrant optimism. If partner happens to bid 3  next (logically a stopper) my intention is to bid 3  as a delicate probe. Hopefully, Partner will be keen enough to bid 3 NT with x-x-x A-x A-J-10-x-x-x J-x, or 4  with x-x K-x A-J-10-x-x-x J-x-x, leading to the best game.

So what did partner have for his 2 bid? Even in the old days, weak two-bids were not always exhibits from a textbook:

North America vs Italy	10 5 3 2 A Q J 8 7 6 5 J 2
Q 9 4 K 10 8 7 5 A 9 3 8 5		J 8 7 6 4 3 2 K 10 4 A 6 3
None Vul	A K Q J 9 6 2 K Q 10 9 7 4

Avarelli WEST Pass Pass

Root North 2 Pass

Belladonna East Pass Pass

Roth South 3 NT

3 NT South Made 3 +400

Kay WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass

Forquet North Pass 2 3 3 NT

Kaplan East Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Garozzo South 2 2 3

3 NT North Made 3 +400 No swing

In the first auction, Roth took the devil-may-care approach and leaped to the most likely game. I can imagine Root’s apprehension as he put down four spades in dummy. Whew! (I agree with opening a weak two-bid if the side four-card major is J-x-x-x or worse.) Despite the nice catch of the J in dummy, Roth was fortunate to receive a heart lead, allowing nine tricks to be made in relative ease. An original spade lead would defeat 3 NT.

At the second table Forquet could not open the North hand (2 would show a strong three-suiter), but a labored auction ended in the same contract. I wonder about the merits of North responding 2  (artificial force) to the limited, natural 2  opening, but the Italians are like cats falling out of a tree, always landing on their feet. Kaplan judged well to lead a spade and continue the suit after winning the A, but something went awry in the discarding, allowing Forquet to make 3 NT.

Just another push.

Comments for 2 NT

Robert Defreyne: Hardest of the bunch! How weak is weak?

Brian Ross: I don’t know what I expect to hear. I am not going to play 3 NT without a card in partner’s suit, but at IMPs I must make some sort of move. I hate our methods here.

Thomas Peters: Passing 3 , or converting any positive rebid to 3 NT. Too bad we are not playing Ogust, as I could pass a 3  rebid.

Richard Stein: As it is common practice not to make a weak two-bid with a side four-card major, partner has at least one club, perhaps more. If he shows any feature, I’ll roll into 3 NT; otherwise I’ll retreat to 4 , which I hope is nonforcing.

Philip Smith: In second seat, surely partner has something reasonable.

Michael Day: Your Bidding Guide indicates that a 2 opener may be made on as many as 11 HCP, so passing risks missing an easy 3 NT. It also indicates that 3  shows 10-15, so [this hand may be too good]. Thus, I [prefer] bidding 2 NT, with the intention of going to 3 NT if partner shows a feature, and passing a 3  rebid (and hoping partner has a decent suit for his second-seat preempt).

Alex Kemeny: If 2 NT is the only force available, then surely with a four-loser hand, 2 NT is the only bid.

Mark Friedlander: I will pass 3 , but bid 3 NT otherwise.

Alan Kravetz: The A plus the A equals 3 NT. Although this risks being minus in 3 , the opponents may make 3 .

Jason Chiu: If partner rebids diamonds, I will invite game in clubs with a nonforcing 4 , as I will not have enough entries to establish and enjoy his diamonds in 3 NT. If partner shows a round-suit feature, I will bid 3 NT…

Jonathan Goldberg: I know the Bidding Guide says to bid my suit with 10-15 HCP, but how does that get us to 3 NT? Over 3  or 3  from partner, I’ll bid 3 NT; if he can do neither, I hope 3  is a good sacrifice over 2 . The fact is, pass could easily win, especially at this vulnerability.

Remi Dessarce: Three clubs would be my choice if forcing, but I follow the system indicated and try to get more information, as I can’t send any.

John R. Mayne: If I find the A, 3 NT is on; else I’ll retire at 3 . Playing my preferred style of preempts, pass would be automatic, and I have some respect for it even here. Without the 10, I’d surrender.

Bob Boudreau: Three notrump is still possible with a heart or club feature. The worst-case scenario will be to pass 3  since I can help partner more than he can help me.

Beve Smith: IMPs! Can’t afford to miss a possible game. Let’s hear what partner thinks about his hand before committing to 3 NT.

Anthony Golding: Since your weak two can be up to 11 points, I should make one try. … If partner has a maximum, 3 NT should be good.

Michael Dodson: Willing to play 3 NT opposite either a club or heart feature (no guarantees but will usually have a play). Otherwise, 3  should be as good as anything else.

Paul Huggins: If partner is minimum, then we can play quietly in 3 ; if partner is a bit stronger, then 3 NT has chances (also 5  if partner happens to have a bit of help there). But I must force now, as missing an easy game wouldn’t leave teammates very happy.

Robin Zigmond: It can’t hurt to ask; I’ll bid 3 NT if partner makes any encouraging noise. He should have something for a second-seat preempt.

Facundo Chamut: Second-seat preempts can’t be that bad. I’ll pass 3 , and bid 3 NT over anything else.

Barbara Reichman: Partner might have a solid diamond suit and bid 3 NT. I would like that.

Stephen McDevitt: Second-seat preempts tend to be sound; but I still have a bad feeling about the spades, so I’ll give partner a chance to bag. I’ll try 3 NT over a 3  or 3  rebid, pass 3  (or 3 NT), and might even try 4  over 3 .

Wes Harris: Find a feature. If partner rebids 3 , play there. If partner shows a heart or club feature, I expect to make 3 NT.

Luis Argerich: I guess that 5 is a better game than 3 NT due to a lack of entries to dummy. I think the real problem will come after partner bids 3  (no feature); then my guess will be 4 .

Ed Shapiro: Without knowing partnership style, this is an inane question. If we’re sound in principle, 2 NT… might find a game, at the risk of getting to 3  down.

Manuel Paulo: If partner can show any feature, I will try 3 NT; else, I will pass 3 .

Comments for 3

Leo Zelevinsky: I think this is about right; if we have a game, partner can go on.

Daniel Korbel: This is nonforcing, right? Nice to have it available.

Peter Karlsson: Naturally, it might be good to pass and hope the opponents overbid; on the other hand, partner will probably not lead a club. Besides, 3  might easily make while 2  fails.

Bruce Scott: At first I thought this was very much a matter of partnership style (and therefore a poor question for a poll). Then I realized I would bid a nonforcing 3  (if available) whether my partner’s weak two-bid was more likely to look like one from Marty Bergen or Norman Kay. … Lo and behold, I note that the Bidding Guide says that new suits are nonforcing. It also says that 3  should show 7+ clubs. Tant pis. (That’s what the cool panelists say.) …

Hmm… that must be French for “to taunt and piss off.” Reread the Guide which says “a strong six or 7+ cards.”

Richard Higgins: Make it more difficult for the opponents to find a spade fit. Partner may be able to try 3 NT with some club help e.g., J-x-x, along with A-K or A-Q.

Tim Bolshaw: Constructive, nonforcing, and no diamond fit (which seems descriptive). This gives an equal chance or better for a plus, compared to pass; and it also cuts out the opponents’ possible spade balance. Game is remote without a club fit, and partner will not pass with a maximum and a fit. Too bad if he has Q-x-x 10-x-x K-Q-10-x-x-x J.

Bob Zorn: Tough. This should provide the maximum chance at preserving the plus, while allowing partner to take another call with a magic hand.

Graham Osborne: Not strong enough to insist on game. Most likely game is 3 NT, and that will depend on the degree of club fit opposite. Alternatively, 3  may improve the partscore.

Kieran Dyke: If 2 NT is the only force, I hope this is potentially constructive. If so, partner might be sufficiently fortified by a club fit to bid again. In any case, 3  should make; any amount of diamonds probably won’t; and higher commitments (3 NT) are way too rich for my blood.

Horia Garbea: More descriptive than 2 NT, and there [may be a chance] to bid 3 NT later. …

Gerrit de Ruiter: I am too weak for 2 NT with no communication, so the best contract will be in clubs.

Niklas Warne: Pass is a too conservative, and 2 NT too aggressive. Partner will bid again with something in clubs and a decent hand. So 2  made and 3  went down? Not the first time I bid too high.

Nick Doe: How nice to have a nonforcing 3 available (not my usual methods). Two notrump won’t tell me where to play even if partner has a 3 NT rebid. Pass is my second choice, even opposite the stronger U.S. weak twos.

Dale Freeman: This must be invitational; a mild game try.

Thijs Veugen: This [rates to be] a better contract than 2 .

Pratap Nair: Two notrump is not going to give or receive any useful information. I like this semiforcing 3  bid, allowing partner to rebid 3 , pass or make a forward-going bid.

Thomas Hanford: If partner has a good hand, he may bid again. Three notrump and 5 are possible. If he passes, 3  will play nicely.

Daniel Moisa: I bring partner in with 3 nonforcing and constructive. Three notrump is the most probable game; but if North has x-x K-x A-J-10-x-x-x J-x-x, we make only eight tricks in notrump and 11 tricks in clubs. If maximum, North will bid again over 3 ; then over 3 NT, he can bid 4  with the example hand. If minimum, he will pass, and 3  seems a reasonable contract. Two notrump (feature ask) is unilateral and doesn’t help (I cannot learn much about our combined values); 3 NT is pure gambling.

Carlos Dabezies: Three clubs is constructive. I want North to bid 3 NT with some club help, but I don’t want to be there if he has a heart feature and poor clubs.

Kevin Costello: Yes, this is a cowardly action. Nevertheless, I’ve seen too many of my partner’s weak twos to feel safe trying for more.

Tibor Roberts: Trapped by auction; trapped by system. If I bid 2 NT… I can’t switch to clubs after because it would be forcing; and I can’t revert to diamonds because it would be invitational… If I knew partner’s preempts were sound, maybe 2 NT. But these days? No way.

Kent Feiler: Is my 3 invitational or runout? Never mind, I’ll bid it either way.

Mircea Petrescu: I hope “nonforcing” means this is still inviting game, not “You got diamonds? I got clubs.”

Rainer Herrmann: Unfortunately, your “detailed” Bidding Guide does not say how a weak-two opener should continue after a new suit bid except that he has the option to pass. I assume that opener will bid again unless minimum, in which case 3 NT or 5  will be reached with fair chances. After a spade lead, 3 NT essentially requires that clubs play for one loser and there are two fast tricks in the red suits, unlikely if North is minimum.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Against an opposing spade contract, I want a club lead; a diamond from something like K-Q-x-x-x-x could be the way to chuck it. Besides, if they balance at 2 , I’m going to bid 3  anyway. Bidding it right away seems the best way to possibly get them overboard. I’m glad it’s nonforcing.

Jonathan Siegel: Two notrump is a close second choice, then a 3 rebid by North would then make 3 NT an easy call. But what if North rebids 3  or 3 ?

Andrew Cotton: Partner may proceed with a maximum and a fit, which is precisely what I want.

Nicoleta Giura: On a good day I might find partner with x-x-x x K-Q-10-x-x-x A-x-x.

George Klemic: Clubs rates to play better [than diamonds]. Three notrump requires A-K and finding the J, or a third-round spade stopper, etc. Five clubs is worse, requiring the A and a key card, or two outside cards. The problem with 2 NT (forcing) is that when partner rebids 3 , I am up a level regardless of which suit I pick.

Tze Cheow Sng: Showing strength and a club suit. Partner may evaluate further on the basis of his club holding. If he has no help, he may pass; if he holds the J or A, he may bid 3 NT on the basis of a running suit and a [good] hand opposite. Here it is best to describe my hand and let partner make the final decision.

Andy Browning: Pass could easily be right, but 3 feels more like a correction than anything else. Given that partner has a six-card diamond suit, and maximum 3-3 in the majors, the only time bidding 3  is likely to come unstuck is when he has exactly 3=3=6=1 shape (I’m assuming partner isn’t in the habit of bidding 2  with a four-card major). There are some big upsides to 3 ; partner may well be 6-4 or 6-3 in the minors with maximum values (he should be fairly near the top of his range as second hand anyway) and be able to make a positive move.

Steve Stein: Even though my hand looks good, if partner is really minimum, this may be the last safe contract.

Paul Friedman: [This may] depend quite a bit on partnership weak-two style, but I’m willing to raise the level to play in a known decent suit.

John Haslegrave: Presumably pretty constructive; I hope partner knows what to do. I don’t seem able to cope with any rebid after 2 NT (3  in particular).

Rob Stevens: Game is a long shot, so 2 NT, 3 NT, 4 and 5 are huge overbids. Nonetheless, if partner fits clubs, there is a good chance for 5 . It wouldn’t be too surprising if 3  went down, with 2  making; but it’s IMPs, and this hand seems worth a forward-going move. Another factor is that I will be unable to double 2  if the opponents get busy — indeed, it may be their hand.

Michael Kanigsberg: Unless partner is specifically 3=3=6=1, this figures to be our best spot. No reason to get pushy; a plus score should be OK.

Marcos Paiva: According the Bidding Guide, with a 6+ card unbid suit and 10 to 15 points I should bid my suit. The club suit is strong enough, and I’m short in diamonds. I will follow the system and, if I get a poor result, at least I can blame the damned Guide writer — just kidding. :)

Shekhar Sengupta: I don’t want the opposition to be able to discover a spade fit at the two level. Since 3  is nonforcing, I’d like to bid it.

Bogdan Vulcan: It seems that the only reasonable calls are pass and 3 , and I [prefer the latter]. Of course, I am one trick higher, but I think it’s worth the risk. Partner should be short in the majors (maximum 3-3), so he has surely one club, and in most cases will have two or three. [If I respond] 2 NT, partner could bid 3 , for example, leading the way to disaster.

Comments for 3 NT

Bill Powell: Probably too much, but it’s too tempting to resist.

Carl Hudecek: A 3 call serves no constructive purpose; I want to be in game.

Constantino Sifaqui: I think the correct call is pass, but at the table it’s hard to resist to bid on.

Doug Burke: At IMPs, this looks like the best place to play. I may as well bid it right off and not give the opponents any more information…

Juha Tamminen: This has a good chance to make if partner has some good cards.

Mark Ganzer: The most likely game. Partner should have solid values for the second-seat weak two-bid, and I have high hopes for five club tricks. Why give away free information by bidding 2 NT?

Lance Marrou: When 3 NT is an option, bid it; although it may be a 50-50 proposition on this deal. I hope partner has three spades and the suit breaks 4-4.

Lothar Kuijper: Seems a reasonable contract. In second position partner should not have a very destructive hand.

Stu Goodgold: We belong in 3 NT whenever partner has A-x, J-x or x-x-x, or if he is at the top of his preempt. There is no way to find out all this, so I just bid it.

Gerald Cohen: Good partners have the J.

Richard Maybin: After writing a long explanation about the virtues and values of a 3 bid, I decided to bid 3 NT. There are just too many hands where I can scramble it home, in some cases where the opponents can make a 3  or even 4 . Why bid 2 NT? Even if I would like to be in a conservative 4  when missing the club bullet, there is no way to get there.

Roger Morton: I’d pass opposite some partners, but I don’t need much — J-x, for instance, would help.

Josh Sinnett: Second-seat preempts should be fairly sound, so it’s difficult to think this shouldn’t have a play. Two notrump wouldn’t answer any pertinent question, and 3  risks a passout with several hands that allow game to make.

Neil Morgenstern: I don’t know what the rebids after 2 NT are, or how we will stop in anything better than 3 NT if that contract is not making. So without giving too much away about my hand, I’ll bid what might make. Partner might have A-Q and J, or Q-x-x giving me extra time to develop nine tricks. … I would be happier bidding 3 NT if vulnerable (game is worth more, and partner is likely to have more).

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: I should be able to develop either clubs or diamonds. With my own holding in the majors, I am not afraid of an attack in those suits (though I admit that Q-x-x in dummy would be very helpful if I need to lose two tricks in a minor).

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 2

IMPs		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 3 NT1	EAST Pass Pass	South 1 ?	A K Q J 5 4 2 4 2 6 5 6 2
1. 17-18 balanced

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4 NT	10	252	29
4	8	182	21
Pass	7	138	16
6 NT	5	126	14
5 NT	4	20	2
5	3	87	10
6	2	71	8

To slam or not to slam; that is the question. Certainly, slam could be on if partner has the right hand; but it could be hopeless (off two top tricks) if he has the wrong one. It is also apparent that a slam on a finesse should be bid because it must be better than 50 percent considering the advantage of the lead in 6 NT, and for this reason it is clearly better to choose notrump over spades.

I agree with the consensus to let partner decide. While some might view 4 NT as passing the buck, an invitation* is likely to work. The difference between 17 and 18 HCP will often be significant. For example, opposite x-x-x A-K-x A-Q-x K-J-x-x, slam is poor (needs two finesses) but sound if you add either red jack, or switch the J for the queen. Partner also may judge some 17-point hands worth a push, e.g., x-x-x K-10-x A-K-x-x A-K-x (on a finesse) but not if the hearts were Q-J-x. It is possible that 6  may be better than 6 NT, e.g., facing x-x-x A-x-x A-K-Q K-Q-x-x, but a 4 NT bid does not preclude this (partner can still offer the option).

*Some respondents thought 4 NT was ace-asking, but that is not the case — either by expert opinion or by the system guidelines. Therefore, the numbers for 4 NT are padded by these misvotes. Even so, I think 4 NT natural would still have won if the misvotes were eliminated.

Several respondents complained about the conditions, stipulating that South should have opened 4 . While controversial, I am confident that most experts (certainly American experts) would agree with 1  because of two factors: being in second seat (i.e., one opponent has already passed) and the vulnerability. Preempts at favorable are almost never made with a solid suit, and are often quite ragged.

A few others complained that I offered no bids like 4 , or perhaps 5 super Gerber. Well, the purpose of the problem was to evaluate slam prospects based on judgment. No shortcuts! Also note that 4  would show a real suit (Gerber must be a jump).

Here’s what happened in 1967:

North America vs Italy	10 7 3 A K Q A Q 2 K 9 7 4
8 6 10 9 7 K J 10 8 4 3 Q 3		9 J 8 6 5 3 9 7 A J 10 8 5
E-W Vul	A K Q J 5 4 2 4 2 6 5 6 2

Garozzo West Pass Pass Pass Dbl

Root North 2 NT 4 4 NT 5

Forquet EAST Pass Pass Dbl Pass All Pass

Roth South 1 3 NT 4 5

5 South Made 5 +450

Kaplan West Pass Pass

D'Alelio North 4 NT 6 NT

Kay EAST Pass Pass All Pass

Pabis Ticci South 4 5

6 NT North Made 6 +990 Italy +11 IMPs

At the first table, Root’s 2 NT response showed 13+ (unlimited), then the 4 control-bid indicated 17+.* It appears that 4 NT was Blackwood from the 5  response, then Root took a conservative view to stop in 5  — especially opposite Roth, whose openings are usually sound. Note that 6 NT would have been a cakewalk thanks to the tell-tale doubles.

*For the sake of the problem, I decided to omit this circuitous route and give you the same information via one standard bid.

The second auction shows a fundamental difference between methods: Italian preempts are usually sound, while Americans tend to bid with junk. If my partner opened 4 , I would pass with the North hand (only at this vulnerability). Could there be a lesson here? Sigh. We may never learn, as they keep kicking our butts. On another day this swing might have gone the other way, but Kay chose to lead the A (hard to blame him) which took the guess away — 12 easy tricks and 11 IMPs to Italy.

Comments for 4 NT

Robert Defreyne: Oh, the allure of a slam!

Brian Ross: Holding seven tricks, I’ll try a gentle nudge upwards.

Leo Zelevinsky: I definitely want partner to play the hand. I’ll see how much he likes his hand — certainly, he might have A-K, A-K, A in the other three suits, making six laydown. On the downside, he may have K-Q-J, A-K, K-Q… but then he might downgrade with nothing in spades and only one ace.

Peter Karlsson: I certainly want the lead to run up to partner. If partner has good HCP (not just a bunch of queens and jacks), 6 NT feels like a good option.

Richard Stein: I had decided on zipping into 6 in case I needed to establish a long suit in North by ruffing, then I woke up and realized I had to right-side North’s cards. Besides, he is unlikely to have a long suit to establish anyway. Many maximums offer a good play for slam (e.g., x-x K-Q-x A-K-x-x A-Q-x-x), but change either of the queens to a jack and 6 NT needs a lot more luck.

Tim Bolshaw: We could be cold for 7 NT opposite x-x-x A-x-x A-K-Q-J A-x-x, or missing three aces! We must clearly play notrump to protect partner’s possible tenaces. No spade bid describes my hand, and with no direct way to ask about controls, I will just invite 6 NT. Hopefully, partner will accept with two aces and all outside suits controlled…

Tysen Streib: I ran a little simulation using your deal generator and looked at the first few hands. At double-dummy the following could be made, either in spades or notrump: 10 tricks, 1 deal; 11 tricks, 11 deals; 12 tricks, 5 deals. Not enough to insist on slam. If I bid 4 NT, will partner know I’m mostly interested in controls since I already know his point count. [It’s unlikely] I’d be interested in slam if he has 18 but not if he has 17. …

Michael Day: There seems to be no advantage to playing in spades (partner is balanced so I can’t ruff a long suit good), and playing notrump might protect partner’s holdings on the opening lead. With seven tricks, inviting slam seems about right.

Alex Kemeny: With this source of tricks, 6 NT is worth a try… Notrump is preferable to spades because partner gets the lead around to him.

Graham Osborne: Nothing’s perfect here. I’m closer to bidding slam than signing off in game, though.

Kieran Dyke: Ugh. Why consume all that space? In any case, it looks wrong to play this from my side, and it feels wet to give up on slam.

Gerrit de Ruiter: Hate to go for the ideal hand, but a slam in notrump is very possible.

Remi Dessarce: I would have opened 4 . These 7-2-2-2 hands are really traps; any decision I make can lead to disaster. Now, I don’t have any idea about what to do, so I’ll try the effect of a 4 NT bid on partner.

Julian Wightwick: This won’t always work if partner has a maximum with bad controls, but on a good day he might downgrade those hands. …

Rich Morrison: This can’t be quantitative [strictly by point count] but says: Bid a slam if you don’t have two fast losers outside spades.

David Davies: Quantitative. Playing in spades wrong-sides the contract, and there is no reason to think it would make extra tricks even if partner were declarer.

Mircea Petrescu: … I have to invite slam, and there is no better call.

Kent Feiler: I like to play that a gambling 3 NT can be a solid major. My partner’s all think I’m crazy, but how else do you get to what’s probably the right contract on this hand: 6  by North. I don’t know what a 4 NT bid means here, but don’t tell me; I’m bidding it anyway.

Rainer Herrmann: Unlikely that spades would be better than notrump. While 4 NT should be safe, my guess is that pass would be the long-term winner at double-dummy; but even experts may fail after this uninformative sequence to put up the best lead and defense should partner accept.

Dick Yuen: Can partner’s hand provide five tricks? Most likely, but we may still be missing the A-K of a suit. Four notrump provides a way to stop…

Dave Maeer: Partner needs a lot for slam to be laydown, but with seven tricks I owe him one try.

Stephen McDevitt: Interesting. I definitely want partner to play the hand and receive the lead, and there are many hands that partner could have where he’d take 12 (even 13) tricks in notrump, but we could be off all the side aces as well. A quantitative raise looks about right. If partner evaluates how “acey” his hand is, we should end up in the right spot.

Frances Hinden: … I did a simulation and we were making 6 NT about half the time, so now I can blame partner if we end up in the wrong contract.

Steve Stein: Though it’s tempting, it’s hard to just blast into slam when the opponents could have three aces.

Shekhar Sengupta: Either A-K, A-K, A (18 HCP) or A-K, A-K, K (17 HCP) will produce a slam. I prefer to play in notrump to protect partner’s tenaces.

Comments for 4

Thomas Peters: Unless the 4 card is missing from my bidding box. Slam seems remote, and there is no sensible way to investigate. Both games are probably cold, but an unstopped suit in 3 NT seems more likely than four losers in 4 .

Daniel Korbel: Four spades is probably safer [than 3 NT]; partner may have Q-x-x or such in one of the suits. Slam needs perfect cards.

Bruce Scott: … Partner probably has positional values, but I am having trouble constructing a hand that fails in 4  but makes 3 NT. Slam tries are fatuous. The super-prime x-x-x A-K-x A-K-x A-x-x-x or the like that makes slam is a mirage, as that hand [seems] too good to [describe as] 17-18 balanced. …

Jan Nathan: At matchpoints, I’d pass 3 NT. At IMPs, I’ll insist on spades.

Alex Perlin: There is some delicious irony in this problem. While 6 NT is offered as a possible bid, partner may go down in 3 NT if he has x-x Q-x-x K-Q-J-x A-K-Q-x.

Carl Hudecek: Even giving partner an optimum two-ace 18-count, such as x-x-x A-K-x K-Q-10 A-Q-10-x, 6 NT takes luck or a guess.

Neelotpal Sahai: The five tricks from partner for any slam would require [perfect cards], and more often than not it will not [happen]. I will emphasize my suit quality and playing potential by bidding 4 , and leave the decision to partner.

Cenk Tuncok: If 4 NT were Blackwood, I would try that; but [it isn’t]. So I’ll bid 4 , hoping partner may [bid again] if he has a hand with prime cards.

Michael Dodson: Spades should score the same as notrump, but just maybe a control-rich partner can move, knowing about my long suit. Six notrump goes down opposite too many high-card maximums to invite in notrump.

Anthony Golding: Partner could hold x-x K-Q-x K-Q-J-x K-Q-J-x, when 3 NT will fail on a heart lead on a bad day, and the five level isn’t safe either. Or he could hold x-x A-K-x A-K-x-x A-x-x-x, when 6  and 6 NT are cold. But he really shouldn’t bid 3 NT with such a control-rich hand, so I’ll take the safe 4 …

Ed Freeman: I hate bids that use up our auction. Now, no matter what, it is a guess. Since this is IMPs, there is no reason to [risk] 3 NT. Four spades tells partner I have a source of tricks and shape. If he has a control-heavy hand, he can bid on.

Sid Ismail: If partner cue-bids over this, I’ll sign off in 5 . Should he bid 4 NT, I’ll bid 6 NT.

Leif Lundberg: After trying your deal generator, I found out that slam will make in less than 50 percent of the cases. Therefore, I will settle for game.

Lance Marrou: There are still 12 HCP outstanding, and no method to query about aces or controls (4 NT is not Blackwood, and 4  is not Gerber, though not listed). Four spades is a better probability than 3 NT, so at IMPs it is the better bid.

Bill Maddock: Slam is 50-50 at best, I suspect.

Tibor Roberts: Gee, no option for 4 Gerber? (Yeah, 4 should be natural, here.) Partner could have a maximum, and still be off all three aces, so a quantitative 4 NT is out; and I’d read 5  as a trump ask; so it’s a straight guess that I’m sure to get wrong. It’s barely possible that 3 NT is off, while 4  is probably a rock. I hope the opponents have two cashers, or that the other table doesn’t bid slam either.

Mark Smith: I am guessing, but anything could be right. Where has all the bidding room gone? How can I make a rational decision going into the four level? Where is Al Roth when we need someone to abstain?

After missing this slam, he partnered up with Ira Rubin, which of course was the beginning of the Roth IRA.

Elianor Kennie: This will tell my story. If North has [prime values, he can bid again] over 4 .

George Klemic: Slam could be cold if partner’s 18 points are three aces and two kings, but it seems awfully likely there will be a number of useless jacks and half-value queens. Four spades will probably win an IMP over playing in notrump. I would expect 6  to be in the range of 40-50 percent, so it’s pretty much an even-money guess; I [may] gain or lose 11 IMPs…

Tze Cheow Sng: Showing a minimum. There are 12-13 HCP out there, which makes slam unlikely. A spade contract is safer than notrump, as it ensures the opponents can’t run a long suit.

Bogdan Vulcan: … I think it’s difficult to make a slam. The opponents could have 13 HCP… which [usually] would lead to at least two losers. I will settle for 4 .

Gareth Birdsall: Partner may have the perfect cards… but on some of these hands he would bid where his values lie. Opposite scattered values we are unlikely to make six…

Comments for Pass

Jonathan Goldberg: Play this from partner’s side. I can’t believe we’ll go set. Slam is possible, of course, but I cannot think of a reasonable invitation, and it needs too specific a hand from partner to blast.

Nick Doe: I think it’s odds-against for partner to produce five tricks without two losers. My second choice is 5 , which must give him the best chance of bidding slam for the right reasons…

John R. Mayne: Versus spades, 3 NT right-sides [the contract] and is one trick lower. I need a perfecta for slam; this doesn’t seem particularly close.

George Lathbury: Hello; this still looks like a 10-count with six losers. Sure, 6 NT might fetch, but partner can be off [two top tricks] in any of three suits… same for 6 . …

Bob Boudreau: With a maximum of 28 HCP, there are too many [card] combinations that will beat 6 NT.

Thijs Veugen: Notrump [should be] fine from partner’s hand, and I won’t play partner for the perfect hand.

Thomas Hanford: Six spades wrong-sides the contract, and we only have 28 points [at most]. Partner would need the perfect hand [for slam], and he never has it.

Robin Zigmond: I don’t expect this to be a popular choice, but with a solid suit and no ruffing value this will play better in notrump. As for slam possibilities, how do I find out? I’m assuming 4 NT and 5 NT are quantitative, and 5  looks like a trump-quality ask. I’ve got no right to just bash it with this hand, so I’ll take the plus score.

Kevin Costello: Partner has 17-18 points in the three other suits, but it would take quite a bit of luck for those points to include five tricks.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: What do you expect, miracles? Three notrump is a decent enough contract to play.

Ron Sperber: A slam is possible, but 3 NT has taken away a lot of bidding room. With solid spades, there doesn’t seem a reason to choose spades over notrump, especially with the lead coming up to partner’s hand rather than through it…

Stu Goodgold: Partner could make some other forcing bid with a hand rich in controls, so I’ll take 3 NT as a hand [with] slow tricks. We have a near-certain plus score, so take it.

Milton Spinner: Seven spade tricks are tempting [for slam], but there are two many hands for partner that won’t make five tricks.

Josh Sinnett: No reason to move here. Partner must have a spade (else 3 NT is insane) and shouldn’t have enough controls to make slam a likely make.

Franco Baseggio: Slam is unlikely to be better than on a hook. Three notrump and 4 are both likely cold, but I think 3 NT is marginally safer.

Damo Nair: Looks right. Partner needs at least two aces and a king [for slam]… and the remaining 6 or 7 points [are unlikely] to produce a slam with a balanced hand.

Paul Friedman: Who knows? I assume partner would not bid the elephantine 3 NT with all aces and kings. There is certainly no reason to bid 4  — besides, I need a bathroom break.

Robert Tamlyn: We are off 12-13 HCP, so there are lots of ways to be off two tricks… with x-x K-Q-x-x A-K-x K-Q-J-x, partner will accept a slam invitation. Three notrump seems safe enough.

Rob Stevens: Even the five level could be in jeopardy opposite, say, x-x Q-J-x A-K-Q-x K-Q-x-x. Really, North needs an 8-control hand for slam to be cold, or something like x-x K-x-x A-K-Q-J A-x-x-x; but in my opinion these are not the proper hands on which to assay this (dubious) 3 NT bid. I think that pass is quite clear. The only try that makes sense is 5 , but North may not realize he should convert to notrump.

Karen Walker: This looks like a 4 opener to me, but it appears that 1 has actually landed us in a better contract; so I’ll take the sure thing. There are some hands partner could hold that would make 6 NT, but there are too many others where even the five level isn’t safe.

Wes Harris: My partner never has aces when he bids this way. With six fast losers in my hand, I don’t think slam is very likely. I have no intermediates in the short suits, so I can do nothing to improve partner’s honor combinations.

Len Vishnevsky: Give partner a perfect maximum… and slam is probably only 50 percent. Culbertson said to invite slam when it would be cold opposite a perfect minimum…

Marcos Paiva: Slam is unlikely, and I don’t know how to explore it safely. I could try 4 , but this will unprotect partner’s honors. Chicken! Chicken!

Gerry Wildenberg: … Though I have a nice seven-trick hand, there are way too many hands where the opponents take two tricks for slam to be a consideration.

Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: My wings are being cut off. :)

Shyam Sashital: Missing up to 13 HCP, 12 tricks in notrump looks very difficult.

Luis Argerich: I can imagine just too many hands where slam is hopeless, and 3 NT is a nice contract from partner’s side. I’m gonna write this one on my side of the score sheet.

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 3

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	NORTH Pass 2 NT	East 1 Pass	South 2 ?	A 8 4 3 A K 7 5 3 2 10 6 K

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3 NT	10	332	38
4	8	206	24
3	7	65	7
3	4	209	24
Pass	3	64	7

The consensus was clear to bid game in notrump, and I agree. While the 6-4 shape suggests steering back to hearts, the spade length and the singleton K suggest leaving well enough alone. Further, West rates to have a singleton spade, which is likely to be a killing lead against a heart contract.

When I first saw this problem, it seemed that a 3 cue-bid might be a good solution, as it will elicit a second opinion from partner as to the best strain (hearts or notrump). Unfortunately, partner is likely to assume you are short in spades, so his decision will be misguided and apt to be the wrong strain. If partner has a tenuous spade stopper, you certainly don’t want to frighten him away from notrump.

Similar reasoning can be applied to a 3 rebid, but this has the further defect of being nonforcing. Surely, this hand is worth a game bid at IMPs.

Fate provided a curious twist back in 1967:

North America vs Italy	K 7 Q 8 A 9 8 7 Q 9 8 4 2
Q 5 J 6 5 4 2 J 10 7 6 5 3		J 10 9 6 2 10 9 4 K Q J 3 A
None Vul	A 8 4 3 A K 7 5 3 2 10 6 K

D'Alelio West Pass All Pass

Kaplan NORTH Pass 2 NT

Pabis Ticci East 1 Pass

Kay South 2 3

3 South Made 5 +200

Root West Pass Pass All Pass

Forquet NORTH Pass 2 2 NT

Roth East Pass Pass Pass

Garozzo South 1 2 4

4 South Down 1 -50 North America +6 IMPs

In the first auction, Kay chose the conservative 3 rebid (or perhaps he thought it was forcing in the partnership methods), and the good game was missed. I’m sure Kaplan had an urge to gamble 3 NT (or 4 ) anyway, but the disciplined pass was necessary to cater to weaker hands Kay might have held, plus the K looked liked dead meat in hearts. Eleven tricks were made after a spade lead and friendly defense.

At the second table, the Italians reached the normal heart game without opposition. Was Roth asleep? No, the East hand was hardly an opening bid in his style; plus it would be poor strategy to stretch to bid 1  when he really wants a diamond lead. Garozzo then bid spades (canape style), so against 4 , Root simply led the unbid suit. Declarer won the ace and led a club to the blank ace. Roth did not cash a diamond but shifted craftily to the 9, won by the queen. Declarer next tried to cash the Q, ruffed by Roth with the 10 and overruffed. Declarer was still OK if he could ruff a spade, but Root was able to ruff in front of dummy with the J and put Roth on lead with a diamond to lead his last trump. Pretty! Down one, and 6 IMPs (is that all?) to the Americans.

No doubt Garozzo was upset to fail in 4 , though it’s hard to fault his line of play. Looking at all four hands, one would simply draw trumps and claim, but a 4-1 trump break was far more likely than the ill fate that befell him. Give Roth due credit.

Note that 3 NT was cold — even Roth couldn’t stop 10 tricks — so the voting consensus was right in practice as well as in theory. Well done.

Comments for 3 NT

Leo Zelevinsky: I have trouble deciding between pass, 3 NT and 4 . In the end I went with the one that might make on one unfortunate selection of opening lead.

Thomas Peters: Clear-cut, as partner must have something useful in hearts. The stiff king is likely to win the first trick.

Peter Karlsson: This looks obvious. Partner has a spade value and mixed honors, with no ruffing values in a heart contract. I have good quick tricks and an easy-to-establish heart suit.

Bruce Scott: This is a fine problem. Anything I try could go spectacularly wrong. … I decided in favor of 3 NT, partially because I am very tickled by the idea of partner having Q-x-x Q-10 A-Q-x-x x-x-x-x, and East blowing a trick with the lead (the A underlead would be my favorite).

Richard Higgins: Protect partner’s hand against the opening lead; maybe the K scores on a low club lead.

Richard Stein: …I have enough playing power for game. The choice is between 3 and 3 NT, the former getting us to 4  when partner has a heart fragment like Q-x. I really have to stretch to find a hand where 4  makes and 3 NT goes down (e.g., K-J Q-x J-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x); but on many more hands, the reverse is the case (e.g., Q-x Q-x K-J-x-x Q-10-x-x-x, or J-9-x Q-x K-Q-x-x Q-9-8-x).

Tim Bolshaw: This may be a very thin game, but I fancy it, even on a minor-suit lead. I expect partner to produce a doubleton heart or a maximum pass. I forget about [playing in] hearts because I want East on lead.

Bob Zorn: Imagine partner’s hand as K-J x-x Q-J-x-x Q-10-x-x-x, and we’ve got a play for game; and he could be better. Three spades is a trap; 3  is passable… and 4  is a different kind of a guess.

Bill Powell: Three hearts doesn’t sound invitational, so I’ll have to take the plunge.

Sartaj Hans: Too many losers in 4 . I hope East leads a spade.

Peter Kay: Two notrump shows 8-11 with a stopper in the enemy suit. My hearts are not worth a rebid… the minors are OK, and maybe that 10 will be helpful as a stopper.

Alex Kemeny: I try never to play 2 NT at IMPs, and nothing else makes any sense.

Graham Osborne: Skimpy… but 2 NT often conceals a partial fit for overcaller’s suit. Hearts is unlikely to be a better strain than notrump for game.

Kieran Dyke: With East on lead, this will at least be hard to defend. Four hearts is unlikely to be better.

Jonathan Goldberg: Three hearts is what I bid without the A. Assuming partner has [at least x-x] in hearts, 3 NT must be a good shot. Once again, though, the vulnerability argues for caution; 3  is cautious, but I guess I’m not.

Horia Garbea: Three hearts could be passed. If North has three cards in hearts, it is good for us in 3 NT also.

Nick Doe: Although I’d prefer better heart intermediates, this is a good overcall in my style (perhaps less so in yours). Heart contracts are in danger from spade ruffs.

John R. Mayne: You can’t make me pass in the always-ugly contract of 2 NT, and I can’t see why I should expect hearts to play better. This suit quality is normal for my 2  bid, so anything else seems weird.

George Lathbury: I could have a much worse hand.

Bob Boudreau: With at least four heart tricks and two likely spade tricks, 3 NT is certainly a good shot with help in both minors.

Neelotpal Sahai: Partner’s 2 NT should show 10-11 HCP, Q-x-x or better, and lots of minors. So, if hearts can be brought home for five tricks (or even four with lucky leads), 3 NT will make. The [advantage of the] lead and the knowledge of East [having most of] the high cards should also help in play.

Doug Burke: When in doubt, I was taught to bid game at IMPs. Spades should be all right, but [I hope] East does not find a diamond lead.

Mark Ganzer: Most of the sad bridge stories I hear start out, “I was afraid.” This hand has extras and nothing to be afraid of.

Thomas Hanford: With the good spade situation and the sixth heart, we should have a good play for 3 NT.

Lance Marrou: Although 4 may be a better contract, I think it is better to put East on lead, especially if partner has Q-x-x. Game is a very good possibility and should be bid at IMPs.

Paul Huggins: Partner presumably doesn’t have much in the way of heart help… and allowing room in his hand for one spade guard implies he has the minors guarded. I shall put down one more spade guard… and a useful card in clubs, and I [hope] the hearts will set up with at most one loser.

Carlos Dabezies: Our side seems to have a double spade stopper, and partner is likely to have at least 8 HCP in the minors. It’s not without risk… but partner may make nine tricks at notrump (assuming a reasonable heart split) when I could not make 10 at hearts.

Rainer Herrmann: I have enough to accept but do not relish [playing in] 4 after a spade lead from West.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Looks like we belong in game. Now what’s more likely: 3 NT failing by losing the first five tricks in a minor, or 4  failing because of all the spade losers and the lead coming the wrong way? I vote for the latter.

Lothar Kuijper: Partner usually has a small doubleton in hearts. Three notrump is well placed [with East on lead], but a heart contract is not.

Andrew Cotton: My six excellent hearts will be useful, and the K has been upgraded to full value by partner’s bid.

Stu Goodgold: With partner having some spades, this will play better in notrump. In hearts, West [may] score some ruffs.

Roger Morton: I have entries and a good source of tricks.

Keith Barrie: I’ve changed my bid from 3 NT to 3 and back again about four times… How humiliating if neither of them is the best bid!

John Haslegrave: The sixth heart looks to be useful. This is quite a good overcall, at least by my standards.

Robert Tamlyn: With spade length I do not want to try for a heart game, so I settle for 3 NT — a little pushy opposite Q-x-x x-x K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x.

Rob Stevens: It seems worth bidding game, and the slow spade losers make 4 unattractive unless partner’s spades are very strong (K-Q-x), which is way against the odds. If the opponents run a five-card minor, that’s just too bad. Three spades should show doubt about spades.

Neil Morgenstern: True, I have aces and kings which are better for suit play; but if hearts are running, they are doing so also in 3 NT.

Karen Walker: I’ve got too much to turn down a game invitation, and too many spades to want to play 4  (especially if the lead comes through partner’s possible Q-x-x). If 3 NT is going down on a surprise minor-suit lead, 4  may not have had a chance, either.

Len Vishnevsky: [Bidding] game at IMPs seems obvious, and partner’s spades make 3 NT better then 4 . Three spades? Come on.

Shyam Sashital: If spades are 1=3=5=4 in the four hands, the last thing I want is [West on lead against 4 ].

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Game should be on from partner’s side because the lead [may be an advantage]. Partner needs only Q-x to make 3 NT better than 4 , though he probably has more.

Gordon Bower: It’s tempting to rebid hearts to show six, but I think it is more important to tell partner about the extra values and extra spade stopper.

Comments for 4

Philip Smith: I hope West doesn’t have a spade void and get an early ruff.

Alan Kravetz: As a passed hand, partner should not bid 2 NT with a stiff heart.

Jason Chiu: If partner has the A, this should be close to cold. Otherwise… it should have a [reasonable] play.

Michael Dodson: Good partners have two hearts.

Bill Maddock: If partner has exactly the right 16 cards, we may be able to make a slam here, but who cares? …

Spending too much time in the outback lately? Heck, why not just bid a grand?

Robin Zigmond: It would be nice to protect partner’s spade holding by making him declarer, but this looks safer in the suit contract. At IMPs there is no excuse for not bidding game.

Tibor Roberts: If I play in hearts, the danger is that West will be able to ruff a spade (but no opening ruff with West on lead); if partner plays in notrump, the danger is that I have not enough entries to let partner enjoy my long hearts… On balance, hearts seems the safer game at IMPs. [I might] see an opening diamond to East’s king, spade ruff, diamond to the ace, spade ruff; but barring that, I have real chances.

David Davies: It’s a good overcall with nice controls, and the K is probably working.

Elianor Kennie: North should have a hand with 10-11 HCP. There is a possibility of a game if East behaves.

Etienne Klis: With two unguarded suits and six hearts, 3 NT seems too dangerous, so I bid the game I think will make.

Rich Johnson: At IMPs I like to play my 6-4 hands in suits.

Luis Argerich: This is not a hand to play in notrump; both minor suits are unprotected, and partner is not stopping spades plus both minors. Since partner has some values, I’ll chance a heart game.

Manuel Paulo: At IMPs it looks mandatory to bid game; with eight hearts on our side, I choose 4 .

Comments for 3

Michael Day: I’ll stretch for game at IMPs, and this gives partner a choice between 3 NT and 4 .

Bill Cubley: Let partner help decide if we are better off in hearts or notrump.

Niklas Warne: Extra values (often six hearts) with the final destination uncertain.

Dale Freeman: This is natural and forcing, weak in minors.

Ed Freeman: Assuming that this shows a spade card, partner can evaluate his minors and pick the game.

Pratap Nair: I trust this gives partner the message to chose between 3 NT and 4 .

Julian Wightwick: Give partner a choice of games. Sadly, this [may] suggest concern over the spade stopper.

Mircea Petrescu: Pick a game, partner.

Josh Sinnett: I would like to be in game with this strong offensive hand, but I’m not sure which is right. This should describe a spade feature in my hand, since 3  or 3  would show holdings in those suits, and it will simultaneously ask partner to confirm that he can handle a notrump contract.

Dave Maeer: We may have an unstopped minor, so I’ll offer partner a choice of games.

Franco Baseggio: Always pass the buck in bidding contests.

Andy Browning: This gives partner the option of bidding 4 with a suitable hand (honor doubleton in hearts) or 3 NT.

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 4

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	North Dbl	East Pass	SOUTH Pass ?	5 2 K 7 5 4 3 K J 8 7 Q 7
1. 10-15, 5+ hearts, 4+ clubs

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	331	38
2 NT	8	232	26
Pass	6	237	27
3 NT	2	52	6
4	1	24	3

The opening 2 bid may seem unusual to many players, but it was common to several Italian systems of the era. In any event, the meaning of partner’s double (takeout) is obvious, and the first decision you must make is whether to pass for penalty. The great majority (73 percent) were against this, and I agree. The heart spots are too weak to expect a handsome profit, and there’s a significant chance that 2  will make.

As to bidding, the advantage of 2 NT is that it shows your values and is more likely to lead to game. The advantage of 3  is that it is likely to lead to a safer contract, with partner marked for a singleton or void in hearts. The jump bids (3 NT and 4 ) seem way off base, and the scarcity of votes clearly upheld this. I slightly prefer 2 NT at IMPs; the potential of a game is hard to resist.

Alas, there were a few respondents who assumed 2 NT would be Lebensohl (an artificial relay to 3 , usually to show a weak hand) and, as a corollary, 3  showed constructive values. This may be a superior treatment, but that’s immaterial. The conditions for these problems are to abide by the framework of the default standard system, and that means no special conventions. Get it?

Witness the action in 1967:

North America vs Italy	A J 9 2 A 9 2 A J 10 9 8 6
10 8 6 A Q J 10 8 — K 5 4 3 2		K Q 7 4 3 9 6 Q 10 6 5 4 3 —
N-S Vul	5 2 K 7 5 4 3 K J 8 7 Q 7

Belladonna West 2

Root North Dbl

Avarelli East All Pass

Roth SOUTH Pass

2 × West Down 1 -100

Kaplan West 1 2 All Pass

Garozzo North Dbl 3

Kay East 2 3

Forquet SOUTH Pass Dbl 3 NT

3 NT South Down 1 -100 North America +5 IMPs

In the first auction, which parallels the problem, Belladonna’s opening showed at least five hearts and at least four clubs. Root’s double was atypical with long clubs (but clearly the best action), and Roth elected to pass for penalty.

Against 2 doubled, Root led a trump of course; then a spade was led toward dummy. Root ducked this to the king (nothing really mattered), then Belladonna was able to ruff a diamond, ruff a club, ruff a diamond, and wait for two more trump tricks. Down one. Whew! Somehow, I don’t think even Mr. Roth would score this one: Pass 10; anything else, zero.

This looked like a gain for the Italians, who reached the aggressive 3 NT at the other table, like cats in the trees again. Note that Forquet didn’t even double three hearts. After the Q lead, Forquet ducked; then on the J continuation he pitched a diamond from dummy. Alas, what would have been nine top tricks with the diamond show-out, now became only eight. Forquet still could have succeeded with a correct view in the end position, but the result was down one. A scary 5 IMPs to the Americans.

On a humorous note, several respondents wrote they were worried about clubs being protected for notrump. Well, are six stoppers enough? Those unwilling to risk notrump or a penalty pass, opted for “safety” in diamonds — and look at the trump break they got. Bridge is a crazy game sometimes.

Comments for 3

Brian Ross: Very tempting to go for blood, but the [heart] spots suggest the blood might be ours.

Leo Zelevinsky: I feel very wimpy bidding 3 on this hand, but I am worried they will make 2 if I pass. I think my hand is much worse than its HCP on the auction.

Thomas Peters: With [weak] heart spots and no aces or source of tricks, notrump will be very difficult.

Daniel Korbel: Minus 470 (570?) is not a nice number.

Peter Karlsson: This hand just became worth very little. Two hearts will probably go one down; but it might also make, as I have no intermediate heart pips.

Bruce Scott: Double is takeout… so I am taking it out. Passing is feeble. Making a stronger call seems really silly when I have what looks like a 4-count. Bidding 2 NT to try to give my rounded-suit honors some value seems a bit desperate; 3 NT and 4  are bids for people who are looking to get rid of their current partner and/or teammates.

Richard Higgins: The heart spots are too crummy to leave the double in.

Philip Smith: Game in diamonds or notrump looks far off; and if North’s bid is based mostly on good spades and diamonds, leaving the double in could be expensive.

Tysen Streib: With hearts and clubs on my left, my hand is worth less than the HCP suggests.

Bill Powell: A bit of an underbid (unless 2 NT were Lebensohl), but the bidding has devalued my round-suit holdings considerably.

Michael Day: My hearts are too weak to pass for penalties or bid notrump, and the hand in general isn’t very good with more than half of my strength in secondary honors in West’s suits. So I’ll content myself with a simple 3  bid. It would be nice if Lebensohl were available, so this would show a constructive hand, but alas, your Bidding Guide has not incorporated that yet.

Alex Perlin: If partner holds K-x-x-x — A-Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x, we may have a hard time against 2 doubled.

Jason Chiu: Only with a power double of 2 should partner have enough tricks in his hand to have a play for 3 NT. With this soft hand, I will undervalue it slightly to land safely in 3 .

Bill Cubley: Conservative, but West needs to be 2=5=2=4 and minimum [for a penalty pass] to be profitable. I hold an average hand opposite a takeout double.

Tony Warnock: Too weak for a penalty pass.

Nick Doe: The heart spots are not good enough to pass or suggest notrump on an aceless hand. Partner was playing me for most of this, given my poorly placed K.

Carl Hudecek: The heart spots are too rotten to defend 2 or bid 2 NT.

Neelotpal Sahai: Defending this hand, or playing in notrump with very little in clubs, is going to be far tougher than playing in diamonds. I will settle for 3 , as 4  is an overbid with the probably useless K and Q.

Anthony Golding: My hearts aren’t good enough to pass, and I lack the values for 2 NT; so I’ll make the underbid of 3 .

Michael Dodson: Cluck, cluck.

Mark Ganzer: With 5 of my 9 HCP in opener’s long suits, this hand looks better than it is. If partner takes another call, I may still be able to bid 3 NT.

Julian Wightwick: It would be nice if this were constructive, per Lebensohl. The heart pips aren’t good enough for a pass or 2 NT.

Sid Ismail: The safer partscore. Should partner now bid 3 , then 3 NT by me.

Colin Smith: I’m tempted to bid notrump… but I’m convinced it’s wrong on this round. East may be hoping upon hope.

Lance Marrou: I don’t like my hand on defense, as I certainly can’t handle a heart lead by partner. Notrump doesn’t look good either, with a likely spade stack in East.

Bill Maddock: Partner’s double says: Bid a suit please, partner. Righto, says I.

Ron Hutchison: Pass is tempting, but the quality of my hearts suggest they won’t take many tricks.

David Davies: I’m not convinced we can take six tricks in hearts, especially as it looks as if East has something in hearts. Three diamonds looks like a better bet.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: Two hearts doubled may even make. My responsibility is to oblige partner by showing my suit.

Ron Sperber: Pass is tempting, but those hearts spots aren’t encouraging for defense; and Q-x is dubious as well.

Richard Maybin: All other options seem uglier. Two hearts might make, especially if partner does not have a heart to lead. In notrump, we better be able to run a bunch of tricks after a heart lead. Bidding 4  gives the K too much value.

Roger Morton: Somewhat passive, but I’d like better heart pips to pass or try notrump.

George Klemic: I have a perfectly biddable suit. With my bad heart spots, there is a real chance that 2  doubled will make. If partner has extras, I will hear another bid and gear towards 3 NT.

Josh Sinnett: Yes, we’re probably setting 2 , but I won’t pass at IMPs with such bad spots. Similarly, I won’t bid notrump with a non-stopper [in clubs]. Four diamonds takes us past our most likely game, so I’m left with 3  as the least of evils. Partner still has another call available if we belong in game.

Dave Maeer: I’m going quietly. I don’t like to pass with [poor] intermediates [in hearts], and it doesn’t look right for 2 NT.

Tomaz Butina: West is probably 3=5=1=4, and my Q and K are probably not working. East is probably 4=2=4=3.

Andy Browning: The heart pips aren’t good enough to pass, and it looks like East has at least x-x from the failure to correct to clubs. Two notrump is another possibility, but partner’s likely singleton or void in hearts makes this unattractive.

Steve Stein: Once again, I have to be a bit pessimistic. My K and maybe my Q are worth bupkis.

Paul Friedman: We are going to lose the match anyway since the opponents are playing a [better] system (Roman 2  opening is a good indication thereof). As Edgar Kaplan said, “Take out takeout doubles.”

Rob Stevens: Passing 2 is very dangerous, especially since I can’t really expect more than a one trick set. If partner has a five-card pointed suit, it’s going to be diamonds. The  K is wasted, so 3  is enough.

Wes Harris: The heart and club honors are wasted, so I have a very minimal hand. I’ll honor partner’s takeout double and let him know that I don’t have spade support.

Gerry Wildenberg: My hearts aren’t nearly solid enough for a pass. Jumping to 4 because of my 9 points ignores the fact that the K is likely opposite a void or singleton. Two notrump and 3 NT are bizarre with clubs an obvious danger.

Bogdan Vulcan: This is a hard one. I would [like to] pass, but the low quality of my hearts suggests not. Also, we could have a game and 2  doubled might be very bad for us. …

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: … Leaving the double in is absurd; with declarer’s hearts over my hearts, K-7-5-4-3 will amount to almost nothing.

Manuel Paulo: I evaluate my hand as poor, both defensively (so I don’t pass) and offensively (so I bid my suit as low as possible).

Comments for 2 NT

Richard Stein: Relying on this heart suit to defeat West’s contract will often lead to a nasty surprise. Relying on it as a stopper, however, is more realistic. I am happy not to be burdened with Lebensohl here.

Tim Bolshaw: If playing Lebensohl, 3 would show values; without it, 3 is a nothing bid that puts too much pressure on partner. Actually, a natural 2 NT is not bad on this hand; the most likely game is 3 NT with the lead coming around to me.

Peter Kay: I need more solid hearts to go for a penalty. Two notrump may be a bit pushy; but I am fairly balanced, and partner reckons to have spades covered.

Graham Osborne: Since we don’t play Lebensohl here, I can bid 2 NT to show some values. Three diamonds doesn’t promise anything in the way of high cards.

Kieran Dyke: I’ll assume this is natural, else put me down for 3 , constructive.* It feels like partner has at most one heart, so defending 2  doubled looks like hard work.

*Just for the record, my policy is never to change votes based on conditional comments. If unsure about the meaning of a call, you must do your own checking (appropriate references are given). Otherwise, I’d soon have some wise guys writing, “but if 3  scores 10, put me down for that.” -RP

Jonathan Goldberg: Finally, I have an excuse. Five diamonds seems very far off; if we have a game, this is the bid to get there. Would Hamman bid 3 NT? Well, he plays better than I do.

When Hamman advised, “If 3 NT is an option, bid it!” I don’t think he had my bidding polls in mind.

Gerrit de Ruiter: I hate this one; my hearts are long but wrongly placed and very low. I don’t pass, and the best alternative is 2 NT.

Niklas Warne: Difficult. Pass could be a winner, but I don’t like it with the small heart pips. I’ll opt for a natural 2 NT, hoping partner has something like A-x-x or K-x-x.

Bob Boudreau: The heart spots aren’t good enough to draw trumps, and I don’t want West to score them separately, [so I won’t pass].

Doug Burke: Close between 2 NT and 3 . I don’t like bidding diamonds because it looks like a crossruff hand, and the opponents are going to get good shots to overruff.

Ed Freeman: Describing my hand. [I’m not strong enough] to bid 3 NT on my own; but with Q-x, I definitely want to be declarer if we play in notrump.

Thomas Hanford: If we can make a game, it is probably in notrump, so I bid what is in front of my nose. Pass is too risky.

Paul Huggins: … This seems best, as it gives us a chance of finding 3 NT if partner has a club guard, and more space to show our suits if he doesn’t. Three diamonds is too unilateral; passing the double will only gain if partner has a huge hand, and even then, a vulnerable game may score better.

Carlos Dabezies: … This has the advantage of showing some values in West’s suits and a tolerance for either unbid suit. At this vulnerability I cannot risk passing.

Tibor Roberts: White-on-red it looks like an easy pass; but if we miss a vulnerable game to collect 300, I’ll feel pretty silly. Three diamonds does nothing to get us to game, most likely. I’m a little light for 2 NT, but with few options it seems the least of the evils.

Rich Morrison: Three diamonds is too wimpy; 3 NT is too macho; pass is too scary. Goldilocks says 2 NT is just right.

Kent Feiler: Yuk; there’s nothing I want to bid, but I’m scared to pass.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Looks like Roman twos, probably Belladonna and Avarelli in the days of the first Italian empire. That was before The Law was popular. The Law suggests that pass is the best chance for a plus score, but probably not a huge one; and I wouldn’t be surprised if 2  makes.

Andrew Cotton: A bit on the weak side, but I need to stretch, as 3 would not promise any points. My weak hearts and the vulnerability rule out passing.

Stu Goodgold: Showing some values… If partner has a minimal shapely double, he should pull it to 3 . My hearts are not good enough to sit for the double.

Nicoleta Giura: Natural; my hearts are not good enough to pass. The total number of tricks seems very low, so nobody can [probably] make anything; but then again, why didn’t I pass?

Stephen McDevitt: Three diamonds is just too wimpy, despite the anemia of my lower four hearts. We’re red-on-white, so I have to try; the Q should be fabulous if I declare 3 NT. I lack quick winners and minor-suit-game shape (no singleton) so I’ll offer the notrump game. Partner knows I am passed and will expect just about this hand.

Tze Cheow Sng: Although it is tempting to leave in the double, I have to consider the potential vulnerable-game bonus missed if I do so. In this situation 2 NT describes my point range… and shape most accurately.

Etienne Klis: My hearts are long but poor. We might make 3 NT, or perhaps 5 or 6 .

John Haslegrave: Using the vulnerability as an excuse; but to be honest, I’ve written down minus 470 too many times recently. Partner should have some clubs, as East doesn’t seem too keen on them. Maybe the strange E-W system is a clue to the event?

Robert Tamlyn: I do not like my chances against 2 doubled (but give me the 9 and I would) or suggesting diamonds as trumps (East will be overruffing hearts). Two notrump is a little pushy, but I have to do something.

Karen Walker: Two notrump seems an almost-perfect description of my strength and stoppers. (It’s convenient that we’re not playing Lebensohl 2 NT here.) I have no qualms about treating Q-x as a stopper, especially since partner surely has some club length.

Len Vishnevsky: … If West has x A-Q-J-10-8-x x-x A-x-x-x, and dummy has 9-x x and nothing else, we go minus 470 against our vulnerable game… so, a natural 2 NT seems just right.

Comments for Pass

Alex Kemeny: The vulnerability is wrong, but this is still likely to be a profitable bloodbath. Even if declarer has six solid hearts, there’s likely to be only one trick anywhere else for him. We have no easy game anyway, since suits will break badly and we have no clear fit.

Horia Garbea: Hard to decide. I suppose there is no game for us, so one down is OK.

John R. Mayne: Prosecutors gotta be Law-inclined; here it looks like we’re defending against a 5-2 fit, and it should be trivial to play taps against West.

And if 2 makes, we’ll warm up the bugle and play Taps for you.

Pratap Nair: The 10-to-15 range is much too high for my liking.

Rainer Herrmann: May be very wrong, but it looks like the long-term winner.

Charles Cohen: I think we can whup him.

Neil Morgenstern: While I don’t expect to get rich from this, I don’t expect it from anything else either.

Shekhar Sengupta: I’ll take my sure plus instead of a dubious notrump game. I don’t see a source of tricks, since partner did not bid spades [or diamonds].

Ed Shapiro: If we’re playing against specialized systems, like Roman, for example, we would have a defense discussed, so this is another inane problem. If double is general strength, pass stands out; if takeout of hearts alone, 2 NT; if hearts and clubs, a chicken 3 . Here I’ll assume we’re using Italian methods against Italian methods and pass.

Ed makes a valid point, but in absence of special agreements virtually any expert (or at least any non-Italian expert) would assume the double to be takeout, not general strength. Whether it is takeout of clubs and hearts, or just hearts, is moot, but this has no real effect on the problem. The club suit is hardly a threat in notrump, being West’s shorter suit, with East preferring hearts, and with partner likely to have a club honor. -RP

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 5

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	North 3	East 4	SOUTH 1 ?	6 4 A K 6 3 2 J 3 A K J 8
1. weak

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Double	10	411	47
5	9	193	22
Pass	8	160	18
5	4	79	9
4 NT	2	29	3
5 NT	1	4	0

It is almost certain that East’s bid is an advance sacrifice, but this conclusion is based on your four quick tricks rather than a mandate from the auction. Therefore, I don’t believe a pass would be considered forcing in standard bidding.* It seems you have to do something, and most respondents agreed. Also, even if a pass were forcing, it might be based on a weaker hand with a diamond fit, so it would hardly describe this hand.

*Some experts vary their forcing-pass agreements according to the vulnerability, but that is irrelevant here. Conditions of the poll do not allow special agreements.

Double and 5 seem to be the sensible actions (4 NT would be Blackwood by standard agreements, so that is misguided without knowing the best strain). Double was the consensus, so it gets the top award, but it doesn’t feel right to me. For one thing, I hate to make a direct double with nothing in spades; there are just too many hands with which partner should be bidding, and I don’t want to discourage it.

I would bid 5 , expecting that our side has something better than 4 doubled, which might be a slam. This could work out poorly if partner’s bid was a stretch, but I like the odds.

Special methods certainly have their advantages. Witness how the Neapolitan Club coped with the predicament:

North America vs Italy	J 10 5 A K Q 10 8 5 2 Q 7 4
K Q 9 8 7 5 Q 9 8 7 — 6 5 3		A 10 3 2 J 4 9 7 6 4 10 9 2
N-S Vul	6 4 A K 6 3 2 J 3 A K J 8

D'Alelio West 1 Pass Pass 6

Kay North 2 3 6 Dbl

Pabis Ticci East 2 Pass Pass All Pass

Kaplan SOUTH 1 3 5 Pass

6 × West Down 4 -700

Root West 2 Pass 6

Forquet North 3 6 Dbl

Roth East 4 Dbl All Pass

Garozzo SOUTH 1 4 NT Pass

6 × West Down 4 -700 No swing

In the second auction, Garozzo faced the problem scenario. I’m not sure of the exact meaning of 4 NT, but it was obviously some kind of telling bid — either showing clubs, or maybe a declarative-interrogative (DI) variation. In any event, Forquet knew he could expect good controls opposite, so he jumped to the obvious slam. Roth’s double was the “negative slam double,” showing no defensive tricks*, so it was obvious to Root to sacrifice in 6 .

*With one or two tricks, Roth would pass; then Root would pass with one trick or double with no tricks, allowing Roth to make the final decision. I’ve never cared for this convention because it is usually impossible to tell whether a particular card will win a trick or not. For example, in the actual case Roth apparently assumed the A was not a trick. Further, the double might make it obligatory to save in a situation where the penalty is too severe, although this factor was negligible in 1967 before the scoring change.

At the first table the Italians advanced the ball more slowly but judged well to take the same sacrifice. No doubt they were influenced by the track record of their opponents. Would Kaplan and Kay bid a poor slam? Of course not. Automatic six spades. The result was the same at both tables — down four, minus 700 (old scoring) for a push.

Comments for Double

Thomas Peters: This completely depends on whether pass is forcing. Some would say it is, but in the absence of an agreement I won’t make that assumption, so I must double to show my cards.

Peter Karlsson: The only call left to show extra values. Besides, I have no diamond support, so it feels natural. If the opponents have 5-4 in spades, we [probably] won’t be making any slam.

Bruce Scott: … While I understand why some might agree to play a pass in this auction as forcing, I don’t think it is in this poll. (My personal preference here is to play that we are only forced to the level of 4 .) Once I decide that pass is nonforcing, a double is mandatory. …

Tim Bolshaw: Is pass forcing? Absent contrary agreement, I assume not. Thus, double is not strictly penalty but shows extra (transferable) values. What about 4 NT? I like it to be general takeout over 4  and would consider it here (though with a doubleton spade I think I would double anyway); [but] the standard meaning is Blackwood. I am certainly not guessing 5  or 5 . …

Bill Powell: I invariably double when I feel I should bid something but have no idea what. Perhaps, one day, it’ll work.

Jan Nathan: This should show cards [outside of spades], but not support in diamonds.

Michael Day: If one can believe the opponents and partner has a stiff spade, we may well have slam in a minor. On the other hand, at this vulnerability the opponents may not have 10 trumps between them, in which case the five level will be plenty high enough. I’ll start out with a card-showing double and see how partner reacts.

Alex Kemeny: … I’ll show my extra values (which must be in clubs), and let partner make the final decision.

Jonathan Goldberg: Plus 500 instead of a vulnerable game isn’t so bad, but trading 300 for a minus score is not something I want to explain to my teammates. If partner has A-K-Q-x-x-x-x and a singleton spade, I guess I’m wrong; but my defense-to-offense ratio is too high to bid voluntarily to the five level. With so much offense, let partner bid.

Niklas Warne: I like to play this for takeout, but even as a penalty double it seems OK.

Nick Doe: Quickly. We have no eight-card fit guaranteed, and the opponents [often] do not have to have 10 trumps at these conditions.

Carl Hudecek: I am too balanced to push on. I expect to get a telephone number with trump plays.

John R. Mayne: I think we’re in a force. I don’t want partner to bid any more since I have a doubleton spade. If I lose 3 IMPs, I’ll pay without remorse.

George Lathbury: Anything else is fishing.

Dale Freeman: Assuming a pass is not forcing (I think it should be), I will double to show extras and no diamond fit.

Thijs Veugen: Partner might have two small spades.

Neelotpal Sahai: Automatic. Good defensive cards, a misfit and lots of losers for high-level contracts makes this hand ideal for defense. A pass would be forcing, showing spade shortage.

Doug Burke: Partner should have some values for the three-level bid, probably in diamonds. I’m not sure if we can make anything at the five level, so I’ll [suggest] to play 4  doubled if partner agrees.

Anthony Golding: Additional values; no clear direction. I’m happy to defend if partner passes.

Mark Ganzer: I don’t want to discourage partner from bidding with short spades and great diamonds. So, is pass stronger than double? [This is a] great hand for illustrating the importance of having solid partnership agreements.

Ed Freeman: Five and a half losers; no diamond fit; quick tricks? I’d like this to be a forcing-pass situation, but too many partner’s won’t see it that way. So, I’ll take my plus.

Pratap Nair: Take the certain positive score and simultaneously announce that I have a decent hand.

Julian Wightwick: What else on this apparent misfit? If partner has extreme shape, or hidden heart support, he is expected to pull.

David Stewart: There’s no way they’re making 4 , and I don’t know if we’re making five of anything.

Sid Ismail: [Showing] hard defensive values.

Kevin Costello: Darned opponents! I’m not sure at all if we have 11 tricks, so I’ll [double] and hope for the reasonably sure plus.

Tibor Roberts: Venture to the five level with no evidence of a fit? Too rich for my blood. I have some defense, so I’ll double and see what partner does.

Mark Smith: On a trump lead, this probably should go for [a big number]. Partner is allowed to pull, though, if he thinks we have higher places to go; but that would require partner to have spade control.

David Davies: The doubleton spade indicates that slam may be difficult. With little fit for partner and good defensive values, I should tell partner that I would rather defend.

Kent Feiler: Being a Law-abiding citizen and all. Still, I might’ve tried something else; but I’m not sure that pass is forcing, and I’m pretty sure that 4 NT is either Blackwood or natural.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Jack-doubleton is not enough fit to venture to the five level, and other choices look even less attractive. So, the old “transfer double”: Transfer the blame to partner, who may well have an attractive choice after all.

Richard Price: I’d rather defend this potential misfit, especially with two spades.

Ron Sperber: We don’t have a known good fit, and most of my points are quick tricks. Partner can still pull with a suitable hand.

Milton Spinner: Showing cards, but the two spades may be a killer [on offense]. Maybe partner knows what to do.

Richard Maybin: Since partner did not make a negative double, I am not going to bid 5 . Five diamonds is appealing but puts a lot of weight on the J. Pass is wimpy (unless it is forcing and I do not think that is clear). Four notrump and 5 NT are bizarre with the doubleton spade.

Roger Morton: Showing top cards and nowhere obvious to go. Five diamonds might suffer on a bad trump break or a forcing spade attack.

Dick Yuen: The usual saying applies here, “The five level belongs to the opponents.”

I hope you can count trumps better than you count levels. But it’s good advice, courtesy of the late Ed Manfield.

Tze Cheow Sng: This gives us the most options. It denies diamond support, and partner can decide [whether to] bid.

Damo Nair: What else? This is not binding on partner.

Andy Browning: Hopefully showing extra values, no primary diamond support, and something in clubs. Partner is probably going to pass, as he [likely has no] heart support, nor a club suit (no double), and this will be fine with me. …

Paul Friedman: Showing aces and kings, but no fit for diamonds.

Robert Tamlyn: This seems to show exactly what I have: doubleton spade, only secondary diamond support, and no [extreme distribution].

Neil Morgenstern: … I want to defend. Two small spades is the worst holding (partner could easily hold the same), and we could have slow losers [elsewhere]. Hopefully, we’ll just lead trumps and they’ll go 800 down.

Karen Walker: With two quick spade losers, dubious diamond support and no other proven or likely fit, I can’t imagine wading in at the five level. The double is a warning, not a command, and partner can bid on if his hand is screaming for us to declare.

Gerry Wildenberg: The vulnerability suggests bidding; but my semibalanced shape, lack of support for partner’s suit, doubleton spade, and weak intermediates in hearts, all say defend. …

Luis Argerich: Flexible, showing more than regular opening values, no diamond support, and no [extreme distribution]. Partner will know what to do; he can pass the double, bid a suit, or even drive to slam. …

Comments for 5

Leo Zelevinsky: Those pesky opponents! I guess I will bid 5 , showing where I live. Yes, it might be right to double them in 4 , and I might be too high, and partner might have two small spades; but I think we are likely to make a slam…

Richard Stein: I will solve this problem naturally, like a mammal. They’ve found their fit, so we might as well try to find ours. If partner’s diamonds are good enough that they should be trumps, he will bid them again.

Philip Smith: It’s hard to see partner holding much more than a single spade and two hearts, so surely 5  or 5  should be sound.

Peter Kay: Slam is surely a possibility, but maybe partner doesn’t have spades controlled. I’m not sure exactly what 5  means, but I’ve got to bid it!

Alan Kravetz: This completes my distributional picture and is lead directing.

Tony Rolfe: Too strong to pass; not sure where to play.

Ned Kohler: Sounds like partner has one spade and no more than two hearts (unless he bids 5 now). If he is 6-4 in the minors, we probably belong in 5  (or more); with 7-3, I imagine he will rebid his diamonds.

Colin Smith: The vulnerability seems poor to prefer penalties already, and I have a sensible bid available. …

Carlos Dabezies: This hand is too good to leave to partner, especially at the vulnerability. I can’t bid 5  with a doubleton. … I don’t think 5  could be taken as a cue-bid, and partner might have four clubs.

Andrew Cotton: Partner should have a singleton spade from the opponents’ bidding, so I’m worth a slam try. … I will pass 5  or 5 .

George Klemic: I have enough extra, and partner probably has a singleton spade. If partner has good enough diamonds to play opposite J-x, I will hear them bid again.

Stephen McDevitt: Tough one. Why are we always red-on-white? My hand looks superb defensively, yet too often we’ll be missing slam when we get them for 500 or 800… Since slam is my concern, I’ll… bid 5  [natural]. I’ll pass 5 … Partner still could have something to say in hearts, or the hand may play best in clubs, even opposite Q-x-x.

Wes Harris: This hand is a full king better than a lot of the hands on which I would open 1 . I wish I had another club for this bid. Oh well.

Comments for Pass

Richard Higgins: Forcing, to get more information on partner’s hand.

Mark Friedlander: This is forcing since 3 showed a good hand. I don’t have sufficient shape to make a bid, and double seems wrong with no wasted spade values.

Graham Osborne: Forcing. We could be cold for slam. If partner pulls to a suit, I’ll raise; and if he doubles, I’ll respect that.

Kieran Dyke: Must be forcing. I’ll sit if partner doubles, which likely warns of a doubleton spade. If he bids, I’ll raise.

Bill Cubley: This is forcing and gets partner involved in the decision.

Remi Dessarce: I play 3 auto-forcing, so a pass is forcing. I would double with a minimum or wasted values in spades.

Cenk Tuncok: With two small spades a lot of people may double, but I think the opponents are stealing. Since this is a forcing auction… I will leave the decision up to partner.

Thomas Hanford: I have nothing more to say. I am sure partner will have a better idea what to do.

Lance Marrou: This needs to be partner’s decision. I don’t [want] to double myself… and I don’t have enough to [bid at the five level] in clubs or hearts. You can’t bid all the time!

Robin Zigmond: This must be forcing, and it’s a good time to pass the buck. I have good controls and extra values, but no suit to commit myself to.

Rainer Herrmann: I do not play many forcing pass sequences (in particular, not when based just on unfavorable vulnerability). However, in this case, partner has made a near-game-forcing bid, so pass [should] be forcing.

Lothar Kuijper: This one is for partner to decide. If he doubles, fine; if not, we’re in business, as partner will have one spade at most.

Stu Goodgold: This should be a forcing-pass situation, and I have nothing that needs to be shown at this point. Let’s see what partner has to say.

Josh Sinnett: Is pass forcing? I think it should be, so I’ll give partner the chance to double or pass as he sees fit. We could belong in any of three strains, at any level from five to seven, or just defending 4  doubled.

Tom Barry: My partners [wouldn’t make] a vulnerable 3 bid unless they had something more to say.

Tomaz Butina: Partner’s 3 is strong, I believe; so pass is forcing, showing a good hand with no [clear-cut] bid.

Bogdan Vulcan: If partner had doubled, I would bid 5 now; but 3 is not a very promising bid. I can’t double, since I know partner will be in a very big dilemma with his obvious singleton spade. If he passes, we could burn ourselves. So I’ll pass for now and wait for more information. Maybe partner has a heart fit or long diamonds, but I can’t bid the hand for him.

Marcos Paiva: Forcing… I’d like to play 4 doubled, but partner’s hand is unrevealed.

Ed Shapiro: Forcing because of the free, three-level bid (not just the vulnerability). I will then pull a double to 5 , showing significant extras and diamond tolerance. …

Frank van Wezel: The real problem is what to do when partner doubles.

Gordon Bower: Forcing, since partner’s 3 bid was a game force for all practical purposes. Four notrump would be Blackwood, not “I have clubs, too; bid five of something.”

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass Pass	North Pass 1	East 1 Pass	South Dbl ?	A Q 3 6 5 A K J 5 4 2 A Q

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	333	38
3	9	248	28
2	8	221	25
3	3	65	7
2	2	9	1

When I chose this problem, I had a slight inclination to bid diamonds; but after reading your comments, I am convinced that 2  is better because partner needs so little for game. Even J-x-x-x and out might make 3 NT unbeatable with East having the missing high cards. It is also worth noting that bidding a vulnerable game at IMPs is warranted on as little as a 38-percent chance. Hmm… a curious coincidence for 2  to get 38 percent of the votes.

Another advantage of forcing with a cue-bid is that it keeps spades in the picture. If partner has just J-10-x-x-x x-x x-x x-x-x-x, 4  has a good play; and this would be missed if you bid diamonds instead. Over 2 , partner will rebid 2 ; then I think the South hand is worth 3 , and partner should accept the invitation.

As to the diamond bids, I have no strong feelings — 3 seems to overstate the suit quality, while 2  doesn’t do justice to the strength — so the awards are based on the voting. An immediate spade raise is clearly way off base, as partner might even have three cards for the forced response.

Ironically, when this deal occurred in 1967, the more aggressive action of forcing to game led to a plus score, while stopping in a partscore led to a minus:

North America vs Italy	10 6 2 K 10 7 2 9 8 8 6 5 4
J 7 5 4 J 4 7 3 J 10 7 3 2		K 9 8 A Q 9 8 3 Q 10 6 K 9
N-S Vul	A Q 3 6 5 A K J 5 4 2 A Q

D'Alelio WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Kehela North Pass 1 2 NT

Pabis Ticci East 1 Pass Pass

Murray South Dbl 2 3 NT

3 NT North Made 3 +600

Root WEST Pass Pass All Pass

Forquet North Pass 1

Roth East 1 Pass

Garozzo South Dbl 3

3 South Down 1 -100 North America +12 IMPs

Both tables faced the problem scenario, and Murray handled it better by eliciting the heart stopper and driving to 3 NT. After a heart lead to the jack and king, Kehela finessed the Q and claimed nine tricks when diamonds split (though he could safely have won 10 if he played it out).

At the second table, Garozzo chose the invitational jump to 3 . While this might have caused some games to be missed, in this case I think the charge goes to Forquet. Surely, K-10-x-x warranted a shot at 3 NT to win the same nine tricks. And thus it proved, as 3  was defeated: After three rounds of hearts, Garozzo pitched a spade; Root ruffed and accurately returned a spade, leaving Garozzo no path to success — 12 IMPs to the Americans.

Comments for 2

Daniel Korbel: I have a lot of strength. The choice I think is between 2 and 2 . Because game is possible opposite x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x x-x-x, I will choose 2 , which keeps all strains in the picture.

Bruce Scott: Vulnerable at IMPs and all, I’m looking for a squeak out of partner. If he can bid 3 , I will raise to four; over 3 , I’ll bid 3  (although perhaps I should bid 3 ). If partner can only manage 2  over 2 , I will pass (I don’t believe I have promised another bid on this auction). …

Richard Higgins: Hoping to find out if partner has five spades or a heart stopper.

Richard Stein: I believe this shows three-card support, a more important feature for now than my long minor. Over 2 , 2 NT or 3 , I can bid 3 , completing the picture. I will raise 3  to four, and pass 3 NT or 4 .

Tim Bolshaw: We belong in 4 opposite J-10-x-x-x x-x-x x-x x-x-x; or 3 NT opposite 10-x-x-x Q-J-x 10-x-x x-x-x; or maybe a diamond partscore opposite only four spades and no heart stopper. It is tricky because a 2  rebid by partner over 2  does not guarantee five (nor even four in the worst case). I will follow up with 3  on the next round.

Peter Kay: Partner could have bid 1 on a three-card suit. This will get [a further] description from partner.

Alex Kemeny: With this monster, I have to force to search for game. No other bid does this.

Graham Osborne: I am too strong to bid 2 , and 3 suggests a more one-suited hand.

Niklas Warne: We’ll often make game opposite K-x-x-x-x and out, so 2 is [inadequate]. Three diamonds puts too much emphasis on that suit, and the same can be said for raising spades.

George Lathbury: Partner, I got the nuts, and we can play a 4-3 spade fit (worst case) or 3 .

Bob Boudreau: Looking for more information. I can show diamonds or invite in spades next.

Neelotpal Sahai: A game may make opposite almost nothing in partner’s hand… But which game? It is too early to make that decision. Two diamonds shows a big single-suited hand, but does it show this hand? … On balance, I prefer the cue-bid.

Anthony Golding: If partner bids clubs, I’ll bid 3 , which should get the three-card spade support across (otherwise I’d just bid diamonds over 1 ).

Mark Ganzer: On a great day, partner’s next bid may simplify the situation. But even if partner cannot bid 2 NT or 3 , I can bid 3  next to complete the picture of this strong hand.

Anthea Rowberry: Forcing, and it would be nice to know if partner has hearts stopped.

Pratap Nair: If partner has J-x-x-x-x, I would like to be in game.

Thomas Hanford: I want to hear more from partner. If he shows a heart stopper, I will bid 3 NT; if he rebids 2 , I will raise gently to three (if he is busted, he may not be able to get to his hand).

Julian Wightwick: I’m worth 3 , but I’ll cue-bid on the way to suggest three spades. I will raise 2 NT to three, or bid 3  over anything else.

Carlos Dabezies: If partner has five spades and the Q or a king, we should have a decent shot at game. Three spades is the [value] bid, but it would tend to show four trumps and might not be such a strong hand. … Whatever partner rebids, I will next bid 3 , which I hope conveys a big hand with three trumps.

Howard Preece: I need to [ask] rather than tell at this stage.

Kent Feiler: The problem with bidding 3 is not that we might miss 3 NT; it’s that we might miss 4 .

Mircea Petrescu: This hand seems too strong for 2 , and in a previous poll the majority agreed that double, then 3  showed solid diamonds looking for 3 NT. …

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: This will keep the bidding open to explore partner’s hand further.

Micha Keijzers: My choice is between 2 and 3 . Three diamonds shows a hand too strong for just 2 , but it doesn’t keep spades available as a possible strain. So, 2 .

Lothar Kuijper: It is unclear whether we should be in 2 , 3 , 3 NT, 4 or even a diamond contract. Two hearts has the best chance of finding the right strain, at the expense of sometimes bidding too high.

Ron Sperber: This could still belong in notrump opposite something like J-x-x-x K-x x-x-x x-x-x-x, and it’s probably safe in 3  if partner makes the weakest possible bid.

Stu Goodgold: My queens are likely to be behind East’s kings, so this hand is already near game. After 2 , partner can show a heart stopper; if not, I’ll bid 3  next.

Charles Cohen: … If partner has a heart stopper, 3 NT is the right final contract.

Nicoleta Giura: [I’ll force] one more hint [from partner] before going natural.

Roger Morton: Keep it rolling and hope something nice happens!

George Klemic: An easy one. This should show three-card spade support and big hand. If really big (too strong for a direct raise) I might have four-card support. Partner will strain to bid notrump [with a heart stopper].

Josh Sinnett: Time for the nebulous cue-bid. I’ll follow with 3 over 2 to show primary diamonds, secondary spades, and this strong a hand. (With nothing but diamonds, I would jump to 3  over 1 ).

Tze Cheow Sng: Showing a strong hand and asking partner if he has a stopper in hearts. If there is no stopper, I’ll support spades. …

Franco Baseggio: I have to give partner (who rates to hold a few hearts) a chance to scrape up 2 NT.

Frances Hinden: In my methods 2 would describe this hand, but I don’t think this is mainstream. I have too much potential in spades to bid 3 , and too much potential in diamonds to raise spades.

Etienne Klis: I will next bid 3 over 2 , or 4 over 3 . I think that a cue-bid now then 3 shows three-card support in spades. (If I had only diamonds, I would bid 3  over 1 .)

Neil Morgenstern: I’ll show the power of my hand first. If partner has K-x-x-x-x and K-x-(x) we’re probably cold for 6 . Strangely, I hold 20 points, but it’s partner’s possible tenace that needs protecting. East opened third-in-hand, green, and therefore may not hold full opening values.

Len Vishnevsky: …Two spades and 3 are gross misdescriptions. I play Kokish-style overcalls, so 2  is plenty here, but in Standard American… I’m a bit heavy with a prime, tricked-out 20-count. Three diamonds suggests a better suit…

Marcos Paiva: Over 2 , I’ll bid 3 ; otherwise, I’ll bid diamonds below game.

Bogdan Vulcan: I won’t raise spades when partner can have three cards. For now, my only options are a diamond rebid (two or three?) or 2 . I don’t want partner to pass 2  with 4-5 points; and 3  is very likely to be passed, too… What I want is to force partner to rebid spades with 4-5 cards, or to bid notrump with a heart stopper and 3-5 points. So I bid 2 . …

Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: Followed by 3 if partner repeats spades.

Luis Argerich: A powerhouse hand with mild spade support. I’ll check if partner is broke or has something [constructive] to say. I just love my A-Q holdings over the opening hand. :)

Ed Shapiro: Followed by 3 over 2 , or 3 NT over 2 NT.

Comments for 3

Leo Zelevinsky: I admit, I would have bid 2 on this hand on the previous round — I prefer doubles at the one level to promise a fit for all unbid suits. Having doubled… I guess I’ll just bid where I live and figure that partner, with enough values to go on, will realize I might have three-card spade support.

Thomas Peters: This describes the overall hand and allows partner to bid 3 NT with a stopper, and it gives us an out if he is broke. Yes, we could miss 4 , but maybe partner can scrape up a 3  or 3  bid in that case.

Bill Powell: This may not get us to the right spot, but I think it stands as good a chance as anything else, and at least it will be in a playable suit.

Michael Day: Three diamonds describes my hand, and I’m happy with any action partner takes… If he passes, we have no game, so 3  is likely to be as good as spot as any at IMPs.

Mark Friedlander: [The hand is] too good for 2 , which I’d bid without the K.

Kieran Dyke: This looks about right on strength, and there are still chances to reach a 5-3 spade fit.

Bill Cubley: Maybe partner has a heart stopper for notrump; or maybe he has 5-6 spades with [a heart control] and can envision a slam.

Jonathan Goldberg: Two spades is too little, and 3 needs a fourth trump. Two hearts is tempting, but I think [this is the wrong hand]. Diamond bids are what’s left, and I choose the aggressive one because I expect the finesses to work. I hope to get spades in later but realize I may never have the chance.

Carl Hudecek: This is too good to rebid a mere 2 . Game in spades needs only J-x-x-x-x and out in partner’s hand.

Dale Freeman: I think this hand is too strong at IMPs for 2 , therefore 3 . All partner needs is a heart stopper for a chance [in 3 NT].

Ed Freeman: I’ll show my four-and-a-half-loser hand with 6+ diamonds.

Paul Huggins: I have a massive hand and this tells partner about the decent diamonds (bidding 2 is a bit too weak for this hand). If partner rebids spades (to show 5+) we should have a good play for 4 ; if he has a heart stopper, he can bid 3 NT; if he has only four spades and no heart guard, he may have three diamonds and give me a chance at 5 .

Kevin Costello: This is an absolutely magnificent hand if partner has entries to lead the black suits. If he has those, he’ll bid again over 3 .

Facundo Chamut: I don’t need a lot from partner to make game, and, while 3 might not be 100-percent safe, the possible reward outweighs the risk.

Andrew Cotton: I will bid 3 over 3 (Western cue-bid); 4 over 3 ; or pass 3 NT. My tenaces are upgraded because East opened.

Richard Maybin: If partner has K-x-x-x-x or [any six cards], I would expect a 3 bid, and I will [bid 4 ]. I like my chances in 3 . A Moysian [spade] fit rates to be a struggle.

Stephen McDevitt: A monster hand. Partner is probably very weak, but he needs so little to bring home a game. He could conceivably make 4  with five spades and a Yarborough, and of course we’re red-on-white again. It’s hard to say whether 2  or 3  conveys more strength, but 3  is preferable if partner has bid 1  on garbage ( x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x). If partner bids 3  over 3 , I’ll put him in four immediately, as it should play quite well.

Dave Maeer: Close between this and 2 . Two diamonds shows a good hand but not quite this good.

Michael Kanigsberg: This describes my hand and leaves partner an out if he has a bust. …

Gerry Wildenberg: … This has the advantage that it will get us to 3 NT when partner has a heart stopper, and it doesn’t rule out 4 .

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Two diamonds is a strong bid… so I will show my rock crusher with a jump to three. Of course, partner may hold x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x, but even then 3  may be our best spot. … Supporting spades [immediately] could lead to playing a 3-3 fit.

Comments for 2

Peter Karlsson: This is enough. I show strong cards with this sequence, and since we are vulnerable, partner will look carefully for game possibilities… Partner could now easily bid 2  with a five-card spade suit and some values, then I will bid 3 .

Bob Zorn: Style is important. Opposite me, 2 is enough, as I’d bid again with any North hand that would make game a good shot. … As an aside, I [prefer to] play intermediate jump overcalls in this seat, which makes double then 2  either very strong or with a spade fragment — a nice tool for this hand.

Tysen Streib: I’ll keep the bidding low and show my suit and strength. [Hopefully] I can support spades later.

Remi Dessarce: The natural choice. With one less ace I would have bid 2 directly. This hand is playable in three game contracts (3 NT, 4  and 5 ), and 2  is very descriptive although a slight underbid.

Nick Doe: This shows most of my hand, and I don’t think we will miss anything if it ends the auction. I might be tempted by 3  with better spot cards.

Doug Burke: Partner announced 0-8 HCP and possibly only three spades, so there is no need to get too aggressive. If partner makes another bid, we [should] have game somewhere.

Michael Dodson: A slight underbid to me (some partners would call it a big underbid), but I’d like to encourage partner to rebid spades at a low level.

Sid Ismail: If partner passes, there is [probably] no game.

Colin Smith: I need room, perhaps to bid spades with this as a back-to-front game try, if that makes sense. (Wide open for an RP smiley comment, but unlikely to score enough.)

Sorry. Smileys are too valuable to hand out on request, even when you make a point for the New Zoo Review.

Robin Zigmond: Hmm. This is a slight underbid, but 3 would be an overbid. I still need five or so points from partner to make game, and he won’t leave me here if he has them. …

Tibor Roberts: … If partner has a pulse, I can give a delayed spade raise later.

David Davies: This is enough. Partner is allowed to have a bad hand.

Rainer Herrmann: A strong hand certainly, but I prefer an unforced bid from partner before considering game. I am aware that there are a few hands with a diamond fit and a heart stopper, with which partner may not be able to bid again.

Rosalind Hengeveld: A fair shot at game takes little more than a heart stopper (3 NT) or a five-card spade suit (4 ). With either but little or nothing else, partner may well pass; yet I don’t believe that bids like 2  or 3  will lead to a better final contract on average. Two diamonds at least begins to describe my hand and leaves lots of useful bidding space.

Paul Friedman: Purely a matter of style. With a small card replacing either black queen, I would have overcalled 2 .

Rob Stevens: Raising spades is premature (and could result in a 3-3 fit). … The hand has plenty of losers for diamonds, so 2  seems like enough.

Karen Walker: Vulnerable vs. not, an initial 2 overcall would have shown quite a good hand, so partner should play me for a lot when I double first and then bid 2 . If he can’t scrape up another bid, we may be high enough, especially since his dummy won’t have enough entries for me to finesse everything.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 490), and on each problem only for calls awarded 6 or higher. Over 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 flashback to 1967. Thanks to all who entered, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. It’s closing time at the zoo, so I’ll tend to the animals:

Kent Feiler: Out of curiosity, who is your partner supposed to be on these hands? In the Bridge World Master Solvers it’s a good player that you’ve never played with before. Is that the idea here as well?

No, here at PavCo it’s an idiot you’ll never play with again. Seriously, I would describe it as an expert you’ve never played with before, and I’ll try to mention this in future polls.

Al Hollander: The Roman 2 bid implies Italians in the 50s or 60s… The range is a bit confusing though. I thought the Roman System uses a range of 12-16 HCP.

Yes, it does. I chose to make the footnote 10-15, because Belladonna actually held only 10 HCP. (Noting it as 12-16 and showing the deal with 10 would surely have drawn complaints.) I suppose I could have listed the textbook range, then say that Belladonna’s play is worth an extra queen.

Analyses 7W96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Garozzo in Miami Beach

© 2002 Richard Pavlicek