Analyses 7Y16  Main Challenge

Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in November 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

A number of respondents thought my title was an anagram, trying in vain to unscramble something meaningful. Sorry, but it was already meaningful, at least to my deranged mind. The “Stanwyck Role” (actress Barbara Stanwyck) was that of Stella Dallas in the 1937 film of the same name, which means the location was Dallas, Texas. The phrase “and Sixty” indicates that the tournament was held 60 years later, or in 1997. Got it?

The pictures are all of Dallas. At the top is a sunset view of the downtown skyline. The strange “OWL” photo has nothing to do with birds but is part of the entrance to the famous football stadium; the complete sign reads “Cotton Bowl.” The rollercoaster is called “Titan,” one of the newest attractions at Six Flags Over Texas. Also pictured is the Texas state flower, the bluebonnet.

As usual, there were a variety of wrong guesses: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Las Vegas, Denver and Houston (all U.S. cities); but the great majority of those who guessed were right on target with Dallas. The Cotton Bowl picture was the biggest clue (some said too easy). Only four people, however, gave the exact year as well. Congratulations to Giovanni Bobbio, Kevin Podsiadlik, Muriel Altus and Karen Walker. Karen also mentioned another curio (unbeknownst to me) that 1997 was the 60th anniversary of the Cotton Bowl Classic.

“When we dance together…”

The background song Waltz Across Texas was another clue to the location. The popular country hit was first recorded by Ernest Tubb in 1955, and later in 1965 as a duet with Loretta Lynn. Curiously, the song was recorded again in 1992 as a duet with Tubb and Willie Nelson — obviously a marvel of electronics since Tubb died in 1984.

Michael Kanigsberg Wins!

The scores were unusual this month. Out of 939 entries (highest ever) there were no perfect scores, and only one 59. This doesn’t seem related to my scoring decisions because, if anything, I thought they were on the generous side (five of the six problems offered 9 as the second-best award). It seems to be just a fluke, or maybe it was a supernatural effect of last month’s “Lake Erie Ghost Ship.”

The overall leaderboard took on a new appearance. Leading the pack are Rosalind Hengeveld* (Netherlands) and Gerry Wildenberg (US) with a cool 57.00 average. Leo Zelevinsky (US) is in third place with 56.75, and previous leader Rich Dorman (US) is fourth with 56.50.

*The girl who knows every dinosaur by name. I am grateful to Rosalind for translating my poll and contest announcements for the nl.sport.bridge newsgroup. I have even learned a little Dutch in the process, like “ghost ship” = spookschip (makes sense) and “baseball” = honkbal (say what?).

A new country was added to the participant list this month. Welcome to Sin Keong Tong of Malaysia (MY). Sin Keong actually entered my first bidding poll in October of 2000 (before I asked for country status) so I really should say, welcome back. Are Malaysian months that much longer than ours? Don’t stay away so long!

On a sad note, we must bid farewell to Bill Sinnett, who died in September. Bill had been a regular participant for about a year and was ranked seventh in the overall standings prior to this month. Our sympathies to his son Josh (also a regular participant) and the rest of the Sinnett family.

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

Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voter 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 Vanderbilt is the most prestigious championship of the American Contract Bridge League. Held annually in March, this week-long knockout team event attracts almost all the top North American players, as well as a handful of foreign stars (the latter mostly in recent times).

The Vanderbilt is unique to all other ACBL championships in that each member of the winning team receives a handsome sterling silver cup, valued at over $2500. A much larger traveling cup (shown partially in photo) is awarded to the team as a whole — at least symbolically, as the ACBL guards it day and night. These trophies are made possible through a perpetuating fund, donated by the late Harold Vanderbilt, inventor of contract bridge.

The ‘97 Vanderbilt began with 84 teams and came down to a battle between Schwartz and Cayne, the original #3 and #4 seeds, respectively. Each team had three fixed partnerships. Playing for Schwartz were Richard Schwartz and Mark Lair; Bobby Goldman and Paul Soloway; Peter Boyd and Steve Robinson. Playing for Cayne were Jimmy Cayne and Chuck Burger; Michael Passell and Michael Seamon; Alan Sontag and Mark Feldman. Pictured (L-R) are the winners: Goldman, Robinson, Schwartz (holding trophy), Soloway, Lair and Boyd.

These six problems are from the 64-board final match, won by the Schwartz team, 156-128 IMPs. So pull up a chair and see how your bidding compares to American experts five years ago, as well as voters of today.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 1

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North Pass Pass	East Pass 2	South 1 ?	A J 3 2 J 6 A K Q 8 6 3 2 —

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	327	35
5	9	153	16
2	8	126	13
4	7	166	18
3	5	111	12
3 NT	2	47	5
2 NT	1	9	1

Should you try to reach a magic 3 NT? Or jack up the bidding real fast? I’d be guessing like anyone else, but it seems that you should go one way or the other. The bid I don’t like is 3 (the consensus, naturally), which does neither. If you’re plan is to try for the gold ring, 2 looks right. If you’re aim is preemption, shoot the works — 5 appeals to me.

Regarding the choice of cue-bids (2 or 3 ) it is generally accepted that, if two suits are shown by the opponents, you should cue-bid the suit in which you have a stopper.* Therefore, 2 delivers the right message, allowing partner to bid 3 NT with a heart stopper. Of course, this totally ignores the ominous club situation, which might be a good indication to forget about 3 NT.

*There is a popular convention in which a three-level cue-bid implies a solid minor suit and asks for a stopper in the suit bid, but this is not a part of the Standard American system in effect. Further, it is normally defined as an overcall of an enemy opening bid, so an attempt to use it here by cue-bidding 3 is clearly off base.

As the proverb goes, truth is stranger than fiction. Here I am, writing about ways to get to 3 NT, and in the actual deal the opponents were cold for a grand slam in two suits. This was the remarkable layout:

North deals	Q 10 7 4		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	8 4		Cayne	Goldman	Burger	Soloway
	9 7 5 4			Pass	Pass	2
	7 6 3		Pass	2	Pass	2
K 9 8 6 5		—	Pass	3	Dbl	3
A K Q		10 9 7 5 3 2	5	5	All Pass
—		J 10
K J 9 5 2		A Q 10 8 4
	A J 3 2
	J 6
	A K Q 8 6 3 2
	—

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	5 × South	Boyd	Passell	Robinson	Seamon
Down 3 -150	Down 3 -500		Pass	Pass	1
		1	Pass	2	2
Schwartz +8 IMPs		4	5	Dbl	Pass
		Pass	Pass

Witness the second auction, which parallels the problem. Seamon opted for 2 , obviously with an eye on 3 NT, and a lively auction ensued to 5 doubled. The defense was merciless: K (10 as suit preference); spade ruff; heart; spade ruff, and West still had to make the K. Down three. Even so, the operation was a theoretical success, since East-West can make a grand slam in two suits.

At the first table, Soloway’s 2 must have been a new systemic treatment (Acol 2 * apparently). This certainly had a quieting effect on Cayne and Burger, as Soloway stole the show in 5 undoubled for a gain of 8 IMPs. It seems that Cayne should have bid 6 after Burger’s lead-directing double, so there was ample opportunity to reverse the swing.

*Thanks to Tim Francis-Wright for clarifying that 2 was either a balanced 20-21 HCP or a strong two-bid in diamonds. Soloway was a bit light for the latter, but a loud bark is often worth a few points — and so his tactics proved.

Comments for 3

Jugoslav Dujic: I’m pessimistic about this hand; partner is broken with clubs. Three notrump might be on, but I’d rather not investigate.

Leo Zelevinsky: I’m tempted [to cue-bid], but unless partner has specifically the A, I don’t think 3 NT will be good — and given that I expect partner to have at most 5 points, I think he is unlikely to have the A. Also, 4 could be too high; I may not even make three if his hand is unsuitable.

Uwe Gebhardt: I do not know if the opponents have a fit in hearts, so let’s wait and see. In case they want to play just 3 , they will have my blessings; in case they will play 4 , I can still bid 5 the next round.

Richard Fedrick: About right for values and takes away West’s cue-bid (to show a maximum overcall) as a bonus; a heart raise will now sound purely competitive. Partner is marked with short spades (2 will have spades on the side) and therefore some diamonds, but I do not wish to bid more than 3 as E-W may bid game in rhythm, and I have no particular reason to expect to beat it.

Chris Maclauchlan: Partner apparently doesn’t have a decent hand with 4+ hearts; so if we bid 3 NT, the opponents could bid 4 or double us at their whim.

Leonard Helfgott: Notrump is bizarre with a void and unstopped hearts; cue-bids are difficult to interpret. With partner’s pass, 3 seems enough. Playing good-bad 2 NT, 3 would show this strength (2 NT then 3 after the 3 relay is weaker).

John Huus: With my eight tricks, I will continue to compete through 5 ; but I may buy it cheaper or encourage the opponents into an unmakable contract by my [gradual bidding].

Paul Huggins: This shows my extra values without getting too high. … Two spades suggests a more balanced hand than I have; any number of notrump deserves to go for a large penalty on the auction so far. If 3 meant, “Bid 3 NT with a heart stopper,” then it might be the best choice, but we’d still have the risk of losing lots of club tricks. …

Wilson Leung: Two spades, 3 , 2 NT and 3 NT may mislead partner that my hand has clubs; 4 and 5 are too aggressive.

Jonathan Jacobs: Try to get doubled in 3 or 4 , rather than 5 . If opponents have a major-suit fit, they know about it already; so preempting now could mean getting doubled at an unnecessarily high level.

Eddie Grove: Partner didn’t negative double, so if he has the strength I hope, he does not hold four hearts; and West is likely about to raise hearts. If I bid 2 , West raises to 3 and partner bids 3 NT, will I be happy? The hand is not worth 4 .

David Caprera: In these days of bidding inflation, do I need a bad hand to bid 3 ? Partner can imagine this type of hand and [cue-bid] or raise with the hand I need. The problem with 2 (my only other choice) is that if the opponents compete, partner may expect a different hand.

Alvin Bluthman: This hand is getting worse with each bid. Partner has spades (no spade raise), six or more clubs (unless the opponents have a hidden fit), and probably few diamonds. I’ll try for down one and hope to conceal the opponents’ club fit.

Roger Courtney: Either cue-bid [2 or 3 ] could work out, but I’m happy to play in 3 or defend three of a major. …

Tony Warnock: The major-suit honors seem to lie badly for our side.

William Campbell: Two spades is a stronger hand, looking for 3 NT. Direct notrump bids are out, as my club stopper is marginal. Three diamonds in the face of two bidding opponents and a twice-silent partner already shows a good hand — no need to bid at the four or five level. …

Judy Nahmias: I am toying between 3 and 5 . Since I think that partner has some cards and could not take action, I tend to bid three. I don’t think the auction will end here.

Barry Rigal: Mundane, I know. Some would bid 3 NT and sit it out doubled. I can’t afford such flights of fancy.

Ron Hutchison: Four diamonds will probably propel the opponents into 4 , which is a likely make. If partner raises, I will bid 5 over 4 .

Terry Briscoe: The opponents appear to have something. I’m not going to take any crazy chances. The fact that I’m willing to come back into the bidding at the three level is enough to let partner know I have a very nice hand.

Sheila Lieber: I’m your basic chicken. Partner has passed twice, [and] I’m hoping he can squeeze out a bid. I don’t think my hand can bid game all by itself.

Good point. If your hand could bid game all by itself I must admit that’s pretty creepy.

Bogdan Vulcan: Length in spades should spell trouble. If forced to bid, I choose 3 . …

George Klemic: The lengths are in the wrong hands; East overruffs dummy in spades, and West overruffs me in hearts. But, [I’m] clearly worth another call. Three diamonds is enough from a constructive standpoint; I will think about sacrificing later.

Paul Hankin: Tell partner about the good diamonds. I don’t worry about missing a nonvulnerable game, which likely only makes on misdefense.

Rain Lan: I think there is time to go 5 if they reach game in hearts. No need to hurry; [I] may be able to swindle a double for a makable 5 , too…

Lance Marrou: As far as I know, I have five losers; so I do not want to go down more than one if they cannot get to a game. I don’t think any higher bidding will keep the opponents from a game in hearts; 5 is too risky.

Florentin Axinte: Partner is broke (or almost), so where can I play? Three notrump is remote (we’re nonvulnerable), and 5 is like a bridge too far.

Rainer Herrmann: With eight solid tricks, I think it is wrong to bypass 3 NT. Three diamonds makes it more difficult for E-W to find a possible club fit than 2 . If E-W continue with 3 , then I will follow up with 3 . If partner bids 3 , I can follow up with 3 NT. If E-W bid a major game, it is better for North to decide whether to sacrifice or defend.

Robin Zigmond: Describing my hand never did me any harm. If partner has the hand for 3 NT but no spade stopper, I’ve left him room to [find out].

Gordon Bower: Since partner couldn’t double, they seem to have a heart fit. Bidding 3 or 5 could be right. (Bidding 4 to force them to bid 4 , most likely their best spot, would be silly.)

Jean-Christophe Clement: North is probably very weak, and playing in notrump seems dangerous.

John Schuler: Goals are: (1) Stop a cheap club bid, (2) make West’s heart raise sound competitive, and (3) don’t go for a number on a partscore hand.

David Davies: This seems quite enough as it must show a fair hand with good diamonds. If opponents are misfitting, they might welcome the chance to double a higher contract.

Chuck Arthur: Technically, 4 shows this hand; so at these colors, 3 is quite an underbid. Partner is unlikely to have anything useful for me on offense; I expect that I have only the eight tricks dealt to me if I play a diamond contract. Most likely I owe the opponents at least 620, so I shall almost certainly hear 4 next…if I bid 4 … I think that my best hope for a reasonable score is to underbid now and hope the opponents forget to bid their game. I may have a defense against 4 : If partner has a singleton diamond (opponents’ diamonds are 3-2), I can underlead the second round of diamonds for a club ruff.

Jonathan Monroe: If partner has garbage, 4 is making [and] 5 will be a good save. If 4 is going off, I hope partner will be able to double it; so I don’t put him off by showing massive diamonds and no defense. …

Jyri Tamminen: The possible (probable?) misfit scares me from taking my normal, more aggressive action. On the bidding, partner either has 2+ spades or a weak hand…

Dave Maeer: I’ll go slowly. I shan’t be able to ruff spades in dummy as East will be overruffing. I can think about going to 4 on the next round, as I have a fair chance of beating 4 .

Michael Dodson: Gentle bid to make West’s heart raise ambiguous (invitational or competitive?). I will sell out to 3 but sacrifice over 4 .

Howard Byers: There is a lot to be said for a pass; some really terrific things could develop with aggressive opponents. However, I’ll just bid what I have, and not bid what I don’t have. Yeah, everyone is going to cue-bid or bid game in some form, [which] could well be a bloodbath…

Jeff Tang: I will start playing rook if 5 is the correct answer.

Comments for 5

Frans Buijsen: Opponents probably already found their fit, but with this bid I at least give them no more than a straight guess as to how high they should bid. Five diamonds is almost certainly a good save against their game. Three notrump is a very interesting choice, but I don’t think it will fool them.

Milton Spinner: Let the opponents have the last guess.

Rosalind Hengeveld: With the club void, no heart stopper and a passed partner (who won’t have a penalty pass), forget about 3 NT. The opponents are likely (though just not sure) to have a fit in hearts or clubs, and I want to preempt them before they find it. This is unlikely to go down more than two, and might even make. Two spades (unlikely to score below 8) is a typical “bidding poll safety bid.” :)

Jeff Goldsmith: The opponents have either an eight-card heart fit (no negative double from partner) or game values (one of them is short in diamonds most likely). If I bid any smaller number of diamonds, West will probably bid that number of hearts, so let’s give him a real guess. By the way, it would be reasonable to open 5 in third chair, favorable. It’d be a lot of fun to have the auction go 5 P P Dbl — a [plausible] occurrence given what I know now…

Tibor Roberts: Looks like the opponents have found their heart fit, partner is close to a bust, and most of my points are wasted on defense. If I bid anything but 5 , they are getting [to 4 ], and I choose to bet they’d make it.

Neelotpal Sahai: Spades are placed nicely for E-W, and it is likely that hearts are also placed well. There is a very good chance they will make a vulnerable game in a major, so I put maximum pressure on them.

Jan Nathan: Worst-case scenario is probably down three, doubled, for minus 500. I don’t think partner has too much.

Gaye Marks: If partner had 5-6 points and a four-card major plus tolerance for clubs, he would have made a negative double; so the opposition appears to have game in hearts. Therefore, with favorable vulnerability, 5 is a very competitive bid — if they bid 5 , they are likely to fail with my spade holding.

Michael Dimich: West can overcall vul-versus-not, and East can make a forward-going bid? Jam ‘em and ram ‘em!

Brian Ross: Let ‘em guess. I will be down 500 versus their vulnerable game.

Craig Satersmoen: Maybe I won’t get doubled? Or better yet, maybe East will go back to 5 .

Murat Azizoglu: Four hearts seems to be a sure bet. I’ll let the opponents guess whether to push to 5 .

Mark Florencz: Advance sacrifice; might even make. Who has the clubs?

Paul Hunter: No noise from partner suggests a weak hand or short hearts (or both). Steal the opponents’ 4 bid, especially at favorable vulnerability.

Maria Pel: I presume E-W can make 4 , so I make things a little more difficult; they now have to decide whether to bid 5 or double.

Scott Maramo: Any notrump bid is out of the question. I know we’re going to get a heart lead. The opponents know where their best major game is, and 5 tries to keep them from it.

Michael Kaplan: North has little; or if 6-8, less than [four] hearts, so the opponents likely have a heart fit. With my seven diamonds, partner likely has two but might have one. The Law suggests 3 as viable [though conservative]. Given eight playing tricks, the likelihood of only one or two defensive tricks, and [favorable] vulnerability, maximum interference is in order. …

Jonathan Siegel: Even with all those points, my hand may well take only two tricks on defense against 4 . (Note that partner did not double.) At favorable vulnerability, with minus 500 likely the worst case, let’s go for it.

Comments for 2

Richard Higgins: Possible game. Since opponents bid two suits, I’ll show my stopper and invite partner to bid notrump with a heart stopper. (I hope partner has the A or K-x-x, and also some clubs, e.g., Q-10-x-x).

Peter Karlsson: A rebid of 3 will be impossible for partner to read, as he can hardly expect a solid suit and a side ace. With no special agreement, I prefer to bid where my values are; 2 also keeps the bidding [low] so partner will have a chance to get his probable club suit off his chest. Over 3 , I can bid 3 … Notrump bids might have a good psychological effect but are purely speculative… Game is possible, but…partner might be exceptionally weak, so it is important not to just bash some bid at this point.

Nicola Farina: When opponents bid two suits, a cue-bid in one of their suits should show values with a strong hand. We are very close to 3 NT.

Gerald Cohen: When in doubt, make the cheapest bid; and when opponents bid two suits, bid what you stop.

Sim Therrell: Willing to try for 3 NT if partner can stop hearts.

K. Scott Kimball: With two enemy suits bid, I bid the one I have. Also, I can still get out in 3 .

Gerald Murphy: This shows a great hand; if partner bids 2 NT, I will bid 3 NT.

Toby Kenney: Shows a spade guard. Three notrump is probably our most likely game, but it still needs two guards and a trick from partner. This gives partner a chance to show these guards, or to show diamond tolerance if 5 is an option.

Simon Cheung: When two suits are bid, cue-bids should show where your values lie. If partner bids 2 NT, I will rebid 3 to show my long diamonds and excellent playing strength, leaving the rest to partner.

Costin Georgescu: This affirms a spade stopper and great potential for notrump (7-8 tricks with a long, good diamond suit).

Paul Boudreau: I won’t give up on 3 NT yet, and I hope they can’t make 5 . Maybe partner will be better placed to know what to do if they get to 4 .

Josh Sinnett: Game is not out of the question if partner can provide a heart stopper and a trick somewhere. This leaves plenty of room to find out…, and I can still get out in 3 if need be.

John Reardon: I am too good for 3 , and 2 leaves room to find out if partner has a useful hand.

Richard Stein: This rates to work wonders. The ride climbs to the top as partner jumps to 3 NT with both rounded-suit kings and out; it goes double, and East leads a heart to West’s ace; then the coaster shoots down the track as high clubs come roaring into the void for 300 to the evil forces.

Andrew de Sosa: Showing a spade stopper in an effort to cajole a 2 NT bid out of partner.

Anthony Golding: When opponents have bid two suits, I bid the one I hold, and partner should bid notrump with a stop in the other. Clubs? What clubs?

Dale Freeman: I still think game is possible (3 is competitive only, and 4 or 5 go beyond 3 NT). When the opponents bid two suits, I play a cue-bid shows values in the suit bid.

Imre Csiszar: If North has heart control, 3 NT may make or be a good sacrifice. Otherwise, showing strength may discourage opponents from bidding 4 ; if they do bid it and partner passes, I can still bid 5 .

Chris Willenken: Shows a strong one-suiter in diamonds. Generally, when the opponents have bid two suits, I cue-bid where I live, so I’d like to say that 2 shows something in spades; but 3 would propel us past 3 , so I might just bid 2 to stay low. Two spades is better than 3 because 3 NT is barely possible opposite the A and some club length.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Angling for 3 NT. Partner rates to have plenty of clubs. When the opponents bid two suits, I should cue-bid what I have instead of what I need.

Nick Krnjevic: Game in diamonds seems unlikely. Even if partner has the magic singleton spade and three trumps, the opponents can either lead or switch to trumps, holding me to 10 tricks. Since an 11th trick requires partner to hold [a trick in hearts or clubs], our best bet is 3 NT…

Jos van Kan: … If partner can contribute a heart stopper (a club stopper is more or less certain), we are a favorite to win nine tricks in notrump. Notrump calls probably will wrong-side the contract; 3 isn’t ambitious enough for my money; and higher diamond bids bet only on the diamond horse.

Nick Doe: It’s [either 2 ] or 3 . I have a sneaking regard for 3 NT, however, subject to double-bluff considerations, I expect a heart lead; so why should I gamble on partner producing a stopper when I can ask him? It is normal to cue-bid the suit one holds in these positions. …

Elianor Kennie: Holding seven of a minor, I will take my chances and aim for notrump any day.

Alan Kravetz: Bid the suit I can stop. If partner has a heart stopper, we can make 3 NT.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 2

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 1 3	North 3 1 Pass	East Pass Pass	South 1 3 ?	9 7 5 A K J 8 A K 5 2 A 10
1. weak

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Dbl	10	292	31
Pass	9	182	19
4	7	299	32
4	4	83	9
4	2	10	1
5	1	73	8

Partner’s jump raise, while noted as “weak,” might be subject to interpretation. How weak is weak? For most who use inverted minor raises, the jump raise typically shows a standard single raise, about 6-10 total points (distribution included). Considering the favorable vulnerability and the fact that partner passed after you showed game interest, it is certain he is on the low end; and some players may have fudged to bid 3 with subminimum values. Therefore, it seems clear to give up on game, so the question is whether to compete to 4 , pass or double.

The flat nature of the hand suggests defending, especially since partner could have bid 4 (over 3 ) with extra shape or short spades. (This would be mostly competitive since partner should bid game or 4 if maximum.) Is it worth a double? It surely is at matchpoints, but at IMPs it’s questionable. I wouldn’t criticize either action (pass or double), and knowing the opponents might be a deciding factor for me.

Despite the slight plurality of votes for 4 , the consensus was clearly to sell out. Therefore, double gets the top spot (per the voting), and pass, a close second. This is only fair because in other cases I’ve demoted a “plurality pass” because the consensus was to bid (e.g., on Problem 4).

Let’s see what happened in 1997:

South deals	Q 10 6 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	4		Passell	Goldman	Seamon	Soloway
	Q 9 8 4					1
	9 7 5 2		1	3	Pass	3
A K J 8 4 3		—	3	Pass	Pass	Pass
Q 6 5 2		10 9 7 3
—		J 10 7 6 3
K 8 6		Q J 4 3
	9 7 5
	A K J 8
	A K 5 2
	A 10

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
3 West	3 South	Schwartz	Sontag	Lair	Feldman
Down 1 -100	Down 1 -50				1
		1	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Schwartz +4 IMPs		Pass	2	Pass	Pass
		Dbl	3	All Pass

In the first auction, which parallels the problem, Soloway’s final pass was sensible. Goldman was not a shy bidder, so the pass of 3 was strong evidence to cool it. I’m sure Soloway considered doubling, but this could easily backfire; and you must admit that catching Goldman with two trump tricks was remarkable. Maybe Goldman should have doubled 3 .

Passell got off cheaply with his doubtful 3 bid. Goldman led a heart to Soloway’s king (how could he know to finesse the eight?), then a heart continuation cost a trick as the ruffs came with natural trump tricks. Down one. A diamond lead would defeat it at least two tricks.

At the other table Sontag didn’t feel his hand was worth an initial raise (I suspect many would agree), and a rather peaceful auction led to 3 . This also was down one with routine defense ( K, spade ruff, club shift), so the Schwartz team gained 4 IMPs for judging well to sell out.

Comments for Double

Leo Zelevinsky: This is a really tough problem. I was very tempted by 4 , but I changed my mind to double. First, partner may have meant his pass to be forcing (I was willing to play in 4 if he had no spade stopper before, so he could have bid it over 3 if not willing to sit the double). It’s possible West will make it, but a heart lead will give us a good start…and partner should know I don’t have a trump stack.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I’ve told my shape (or lack thereof) but not all of my defensive strength in the side suits. Partner should expect a hand like this, rather than a spade stack. I’d bid with a fifth diamond.

Peter Karlsson: Partner will not leave this in if he has zero defensive tricks. If partner does anything but bid 4 , I can look forward to setting 3 or playing 5 . Bidding 4 myself would give partner the incorrect impression of spade shortness. Bidding 4 or 5 takes away partner’s chance of contributing anything intelligent. …

Mark Shaw: This shows a high-card oriented hand (not trump tricks)… and asks partner’s cooperation.

Paul Huggins: For a vulnerable 3 bid, West probably has something like six good spades with scattered values outside. … I reckon doubling to show extra values gives us the best chance of a good score. If partner is short in spades, he can bid on in diamonds; if not he can pass, and we’re looking at (hopefully) plus 500…

Dima Nikolenkov: Partner should know to pass with [short] hearts and to pull with [short spades].

Frances Hinden: Partner might have three low spades. It’s certainly arguable that pass is forcing after my 3 bid, so I don’t expect x Q-x-x Q-x-x-x-x K-x-x-x from partner.

Sid Ismail: If partner has a stiff spade, he will pull to 4 or 5 . For now, I’d like to tell him I am better than 16-17 [points].

Neelotpal Sahai: Whether partner chooses a red suit or leaves it in, double should be OK. This convention may not be played in the times from which you picked the hand, but the concept would be there.

William Campbell: Another easy one. I have power, no spade stopper, and no shape. I think it’s craven to pass, as partner is still there and can pull to 4 if need be. Four clubs, 4 , and 5 are not even close, and 4 would show a lot more shape than I have.

Gaye Marks: Partner can remove the double if he has no possible defensive trick.

Florentin Axinte: … This is cooperative, obviously; I didn’t suddenly discover a fourth spade under a club. Partner will pull with freakish [shape].

Ed Freeman: With a singleton or void in spades, or a sixth diamond, partner can pull the double. With two or more spades and only five diamonds, we [should] collect [at least] 200.

Rob Stevens: Game is far off. The hand has 4+ tricks on defense, and partner can pull to 4 with very short spades and five diamonds; so double seems quite clear.

Nicoleta Giura: Balanced game try; 3 NT and 3 doubled are still possible. Second choice is 4 , but that should be more shapely.

Gordon Bower: I expect something like 16, not 18, total trumps… Only four of my five tops [may] cash, but I feel confident of one card outside diamonds from partner (either guarded black queen is enough). On a bad day it’s down one; on a good day, down two (or even three with a club ruff).

Scott Stearns: Partner can convert if he doesn’t think any diamond tricks are cashing. This certainly shows [at least] three tricks outside [diamonds].

Frimann Stefansson: I am not ready to give up. Partner can remove to 4 with total garbage.

Kieran Dyke: Partner should be fairly aware that I’m unlikely to be loaded in spades, so he shouldn’t be passing this with a stiff spade. How weak is weak? Opposite a prospective 0-count, I should be going quietly; but opposite a likely 7-count, I’m happy to go for the throat.

John Reardon: I am not prepared to pass yet, and this keeps all our options open.

Mike Doecke: While there is no guarantee we’re setting this, partner is in a better position to judge the right action.

Veljko Vujcic: Game could easily be cold, so my alternative is 4 ; but I would probably [be sorry after] partner’s 4 . Double sounds like a better bet, [perhaps getting] 200 versus 130, or 500 versus 400, but anything is possible.

Jonathan Monroe: If in doubt, reopen with a double; I don’t mind what partner does. Assuming one of E-W has a singleton diamond, I only have four defensive tricks; but partner will remove the double unless he has [a trick] of his own. And E-W may not have that singleton.

Chris Willenken: I can’t have much better defense against spades, having failed to bid 3 NT last round. We could easily get 500 against air if partner has something unimpressive like x-x x-x Q-x-x-x-x Q-x-x-x.

Ted Ying: Partner should not be preempting with a spade stopper, and there’s no guarantee that diamonds will run (even with five opposite). I think 3 may be the limit for our side, but I should be able to set 3 (and it may be in real trouble if partner has a singleton or doubleton heart).

Dale Rudrum: I know, I know; I have bid my hand, and partner could have doubled, but…it is hard to imagine West having three outside tricks with six trumps (or two with seven trumps). If partner now bids 4 , I pass and hope I make it.

Neil Morgenstern: Card-showing, as we call it. I am under the notion that, as I made a forcing bid last round, I cannot now pass. Maybe partner can scramble up the K and a doubleton heart, and we get a little crossruff going; or maybe I’m heading for minus 730.

David Harari: Shows a strong balanced hand (3 could have been 16-18 HCP with 1=4=5=3 shape, for example).

Donald MacMillan: Game is not in the cards. We should be able to set West for 200 [at least].

Pieter Geerkens: Card-showing, allowing partner to pass or bid. Three diamonds [does not promise] defense, so partner should leave it in with the K or spade cards but bid on with a singleton spade or a complete bust.

Michael Kaplan: … Partner likely has five diamonds and the low end of his 0-10 points; West [must have] six or seven spades to go out on a limb; [probably] 17 or 18 [total] trumps. The Law suggests 4 if 18… Double passes the decision to partner, [who should] convert to 4 if he has only one spade.

Comments for Pass

Frans Buijsen: I have done enough, and I see no more than four tricks for our side…

Jugoslav Dujic: Why wouldn’t I like to be plus on this hand?

Jeff Goldsmith: Partner has dog meat, probably something like x-x-x x Q-x-x-x-x J-x-x-x. Opposite that, we aren’t making anything. (I’m not assuming partner has a stiff heart so we can beat it a bunch.) …

Uwe Gebhardt: I am a chicken, at least in public. Playing at my local club, I would double; but [there] West has just 10 HCP and a six-card suit. Assuming West is an expert, he will be at most one off because of the vulnerability.

Richard Fedrick: I go quietly; I may not even be able to beat 4 .

David Caprera: Partner heard me. At matchpoints I might chance a double, but this is IMPs.

Tibor Roberts: Sure, I’ve got a fine hand; but I’ve already shown it. Time to trust partner. Looks like a nice hand for defense but not good enough to double with confidence. …

Gerry Wildenberg: [I would] double at matchpoints, but West can easily have seven spades and three or more clubs.

Alvin Bluthman: As East did not raise spades, partner has too many spades for me to make a high diamond contract. Also, I do not expect to beat 3 [after] partner has raised diamonds. I’m not playing for 18 total trumps [which suggests bidding 4 ], so I pass.

Gerald Cohen: Much more defense than offense, and no real desire to raise the stakes.

Sim Therrell: North heard my game try and elected not to bid. Why should I bid more? I am almost certain to go down at the four level, and I am not doubling a partscore in hopes of a one-trick set.

Jan Nathan: I’ve announced a big hand, and partner chooses to pass. I believe partner.

Barry Rigal: No game could possibly be making our way, and why should we beat 3 ? Perhaps 4 is possible, but partner’s 3 bids may look like mine.

Pat Rich: Looking for a plus. West must be stretching a little, and he will be disappointed in East’s hand. Too close to double at IMPs. West knows the conditions as well as I do.

McKenzie Myers: At IMPs I’ll just hope for plus 100, or maybe 200. [To double and try] for 200 or 500 is just begging for minus 730.

Michael Dimich: It is very important to remember partner is not an idiot and neither is West; they both heard the bidding and are aware of the vulnerability. The worst nightmare would be [to double and find] West with K-Q-x-x opposite East’s J-x-x-x.

Bogdan Vulcan: Partner seems to be short in spades without heart length (three at most); he probably has something in clubs, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I hope he has five diamonds; but even if the diamond suit runs, I see no play for the 10th trick… So why [bid]? …

Toby Kenney: I’ve shown my values. I’m not sufficiently convinced 3 is going off to double, since the potential loss is much greater than the potential gain. The Law tells me not to bid 4 .

Stu Goodgold: Let it go. I’ve shown a big hand, and partner declined to move.

Murat Azizoglu: Double seems too risky; West might have a stiff diamond [or void].

Robin Zigmond: Utterly horrible. At matchpoints I’d probably double, but 3 isn’t usually going more than one off, and it might well make; so I’m not risking it at IMPs. Five diamonds would be a good spot if partner is short in spades, but it’s all too likely he has two [or three].

Arian Lasocki: Try to go plus. This [decision] may depend on [partnership] style: what to expect for 3 .

Maria Pel: West could have A-K-J-10-x-x x-x x K-Q-10-9, and 3 will make. Also, we may have two or three spade losers; the red suits may split unfavorably; and 4 will go for 300. I will settle for minus 140 or 170, or maybe plus 100 if partner has the right cards.

John Schuler: I would not be shocked if West could make four spades. Five diamonds needs a perfect hand from partner; and the vulnerability favors them, not us. Go quietly.

Daniel Korbel: No reason to think we can beat 3 or make 4 . I have already shown game interest and partner has declined.

Barbara Boswell: Partner heard my strong rebid, and…by passing at his second turn, he [implies] poor defense (no double) and [no extra] shape to continue on…in diamonds. The most I can hope for is that with the proper defense, 3 may go set.

Gerben Dirksen: There appears to be no game for us, and 3 probably goes down. I think double is too dangerous at IMPs.

Stephen McDevitt: A nice hand that aged poorly during the auction. I don’t think we have a game, and partner has told me we’re only likely to get one diamond trick on defense. Risking minus 730 would be insane at these colors. [If I bid], a spade lead is coming and is bad; so I go gently into that good night.

Luis Argerich: Not enough distribution to bid a game, and my honors are in the wrong suits to double.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Playing safe. Partner’s pass makes him unlikely to have the cards for game our way, and on a bad day four spades might make.

Pekka Niemisto: Three hearts was a strong bid, and partner didn’t take further action. With flat distribution, no offense and possibly wasted defensive values in diamonds, I give up. On a lucky day, 3 can be set.

Jos van Kan: I already [showed] a strong hand, and I don’t belong to the partner-too-stupid-to-bid school. Three spades probably will go one off, and so will 4 .

Doug Burke: I’ve made a game try, and I feel I’ve bid my hand to the maximum. … At matchpoints I’d probably double.

Howard Byers: Do I have ears? Sometimes great hands have to defend… Partner is weak; West is strong as a bull.

Robert Burns: With possibly two spades, a club and a heart loser, it looks better to defend, even though we may have at most one diamond trick.

Comments for 4

David Wetzel: Pass is OK; double is clinically insane. I can probably go down one in 4 , with a chance to make if partner has extra-long diamonds. I’m not worried about pushing them to 4 — I think they’d have already bid it if it were making.

Leonard Helfgott: I don’t see a sure set… so will compete to 4 . Bidding 4 with a doubleton is a distortion.

Eddie Grove: All it takes to make 10 tricks is for partner to hold Q-J-x-x-x and x-x-x-x.

Julian Wightwick: Tricky. West is vulnerable at IMPs, so probably not far from making; we are nonvulnerable, so 3 might have been frisky. If partner had a stiff spade with a good card…outside ( Q, K, Q-J or sixth diamond), he [would] have gone on with 4 over 3 . Therefore, I’m not worth another game try. Partner probably has two spades, in which case there might be a trump promotion at trick three. It might be better just to pass and hope that [both] 3 and 4 go off.

Alan Wilson: At matchpoints, double; but on a bad day it could even make with an overtrick, [so] teammates probably wouldn’t be very sympathetic. I would probably have chosen 3 (hoping partner could bid 3 NT with a stopper) on the previous round, not 3 . There is also a systemic issue: 3 presumably showed a willingness to go to 4 if West kept quiet, so is partner’s pass stronger than bidding 4 ?

Karen Walker: Looks like it’s time to give up on game. With a stiff spade and/or anything of value, I think partner would have shown some life over 3 . It [doesn’t seem] right to defend 3 , as it’s probably cold; and I can’t imagine doing worse than down one in 4 .

Bruce Scott: … With this flat hand, 4 is enough. … Double might be OK at matchpoints but seems nutty here; passing isn’t bridge; 4 shows considerably more distribution; 5 seems inconsistent with the 3 bid; and 4 as an artificial choice-of-games call isn’t available (it is presented as a cruel trick). … I would have bid 3 instead of 3 , asking partner for a spade stopper and forcing only to 3 NT or 4 in the Bruce Scott make-it-up-as-you-go-along bidding panel system.

Sounds like a great system. Just imagine, folks: You can give up K-S and switch to B-S.

Mark Florencz: If we belonged in 3 NT, partner [would] already have bid it. Double is crazy, but my hand is definitely valuable enough for 4 . If our diamond fit were in hearts, it would be obvious to bid 4 . So what’s the difference?

Gareth Birdsall: This looks best as it gives me the chance to consult partner as to the best spot. West is marked with plenty of distribution to bid 3 at red, so we won’t get rich doubling. Four hearts [may be] the most likely game to make, although bad breaks could cause problems.

Josh Sinnett: Pass is bad; double is worse. I need tricks in the opponent’s suit to double. It sounds like there’s about 18 total trumps out there, making 4 a win-win [proposition] — either they make nine tricks in spades or we make 10 in diamonds.

Richard Stein: I can’t just go gently with my 19-count; partner can raise to 5 with a singleton spade. As for West, he isn’t screwing around at these colors; he has strong spades and [probably] a good side club suit; so doubling is a good way to put 730 on the wrong side of the ledger.

Andrew de Sosa: By process of elimination. Pass is too timid; double is too scary (especially at IMPs); 4 implies spade shortness; 4 implies 5-6 shape; and 5 is too unilateral.

David Davies: This seems safest; it would be very unlucky to make less than nine tricks, and I can’t see more than four obvious tricks defending 3 . Five diamonds is too much; we could easily lose the first three spade tricks. As it is, partner might bid five with short spades.

Anthony Golding: I was tempted to bid 5 , as it’s good opposite as little as x x-x Q-x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x; but partner could easily have a doubleton spade or only three clubs, so I won’t be pushy.

Imre Csiszar: How weak is “weak?” Five diamonds is unlikely to make (North would not pass 3 with a singleton spade); 4 is likely to make, or be down one when 3 makes. Four hearts may be on, e.g., if North has Q-x-x and Q-x-x-x-x [barring bad breaks], but the risk of a big set is not worth it (unless behind in the match).

Christoffer Arntzen: In my world 3 could have been bid on garbage, so 4 is too much (it should indicate almost the values to open 2 ). On an inspired day, partner will raise 4 to 5 with a singleton spade.

Jyri Tamminen: Four clubs might lead partner to think I have shortness in spades. In my opinion, 3 created a force to 3 NT or 4 ; and intervention does not change that.

Dave Maeer: It depends how weak “weak” is. I think I can make 4 opposite Q-x-x-x-x and spade shortage, and I have four defensive tricks; so this looks about right.

Joe Steel: I’ll play safe. Double should be worth 200 or even 500, but diamonds might split 4-0.

Nick Doe: This seems right if either 3 or 4 makes. I am not aiming to make game, and I’m not too worried that the opponents can either.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 3

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North Pass 1	East Pass 2	South 1 ?	Q J 10 A Q J 10 6 A J 10 5 4 —

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Dbl (support)	10	370	39
3	9	234	25
2	8	144	15
3	5	131	14
4	4	37	4
3	3	19	2
2	1	4	0

In presenting the options for this problem, I decided to include the support double* to see how adamant its advocates really are. Sigh, I guess it’s an obsession. Some doublers commented that their follow-up in diamonds (usually at whatever level necessary) would be ideal, having already shown three spades. True if you get there; but don’t be surprised if your actual “follow-up” is to lead the Q against 2 doubled. With only four spades and lacking a heart fit, partner will be eager to defend when he has four clubs; and this will usually be wrong.

*Personally, I do not like support doubles. In my view the knowledge of three versus four trumps is more likely to help the opponents, either in evaluating their offensive potential (e.g., in deciding whether to compete) or in choosing the opening lead. I will often raise with three trumps (particularly in competition) if I feel a 4-3 fit will be OK, but I want to choose these occasions myself.

I am amused by some support-double devotees who alert opener’s other action (most often a pass) and explain it as, “Denies three spades.” To me, this labels the user as naive. After 1 P 1 2 , would you really make a support double with x-x-x K-Q-J-x K-x-x A-x-x? I hope not. It is proper to alert the failure to double, but the explanation should be, “Usually less than three spades.”

To me, the choice is between a conservative 2 and an aggressive 3 (game forcing). The advantage of 2 is that it allows you to stop below game, but this makes me nervous with such good spot cards. The advantage of 3 is that it assures another turn, and I’d have no qualms about bidding 4 next (if 3 is unavailable) to complete my pattern. Therefore, I would go with 3 ; so did the voting, so it was easy to decide second place.

I don’t like the 3 cue-bid because it wastes a turn. How will you be able to show the five-card diamond suit and the three spades? You’d probably end up raising spades next, and your best trump suit might go unmentioned.

Here’s what happened in the ‘97 Vanderbilt:

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

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	3 NT North	Goldman	Feldman	Soloway	Sontag
Made 3 +600	Down 2 -200		Pass	Pass	1
		Pass	1	2	2
Schwartz +13 IMPs		Pass	2	Pass	3
		Pass	3 NT	All Pass

In the second auction, Sontag eschewed the available support double (certainly reassuring to me) and opted for the natural rebid; then after a simple preference and jump raise, he accepted Feldman’s decision to play 3 NT. I’m sure Sontag must have been mumbling to himself, “Terrific; all this so I could be the dummy in 3 NT.”

Because of the strange turn of events, Soloway could picture the A-Q on his right; so he led the Q, won by the ace. The  Q was ducked, then Goldman won the next spade and returned a club, ducked; then the 8 went to the 10 and king, followed by another club. It seems Feldman should have succeeded ( A, heart finesse, overtake spade, etc.), but the result was down two.

At the first table, Robinson chose to respond 1 NT (he and Boyd played Flannery, so he could rule out a minimum opening with four spades), and Burger had less reason to overcall since he would be on lead against a notrump contract. A natural auction led to 3 NT, which was easily made after a club lead and heart finesse — 13 IMPs to Schwartz.

Note that North would routinely pass a support double; and even with his spectacular trumps, the best the defense can achieve is down three. While only a small loss (500 versus 600), this certainly casts doubt on the wisdom of doubling. Nonetheless, it’s a plus score. If you bid 3 (my choice), you would surely correct 3 NT to 4 — an interesting contract, but it looks like a trump lead will beat it.

Comments for Double

Frans Buijsen: I’ll be more active at my next turn; but now is my chance to tell partner about my three-card support, so I jump at the chance.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Should West preempt in clubs, I’d feel more comfortable about having [shown] exactly three spades than my diamond suit. No sensible bid gets my extra playing strength across at this moment.

Jeff Goldsmith: If I had a weaker hand, I’d raise to 2 showing four spades; but this hand is good enough to bid diamonds freely later, so I’ll start with a double. It’s almost an example hand from “Flexible Support Doubles” recently in The Bridge World.

Richard Fedrick: This looks like a soft action, but it is less flawed than the alternatives. Two spades overstates the spade length [and] understates the overall strength; 2 feels right, but if the auction gets crowded it may never be possible to correct the “less than three spades” message; 3 is just a huge overbid (there is no way this hand can force to game opposite what might be a 4=2=3=4 7-count); higher spade raises are just plain ugly.

Micha Keijzers: Anticipating some further interference from opponents, it is important that I show support now. Diamonds are higher than clubs, so diamonds could be bid later…

Chris Maclauchlan: My only chance to show three-card support. I’m aiming for the auction [to continue] 5 P P 5 , then partner can go down in his choice of contracts!

David Wetzel: I’ve been minus 380 before; rarely with game on for our side, I admit.

Mike Cafferata: I’m prepared to bid 5 next if necessary.

Peter Karlsson: A support double (followed by 3 if partner signs off in 2 ) is more important than bidding diamonds. Bidding spades directly has obvious drawbacks: 2 is too weak; 3 or 4 is guessing that partner has good spades. Three clubs is too strength-oriented. …

Chris Vinall: I must start with a double. At the colors partner shouldn’t leave it in too often. More likely, I am helping him judge his action over a club raise by West.

Jonathan Jacobs: If the opponents next bid 5 , the spade support gets lost unless I show it now. Showing the diamond suit over 5 (with partner silent) paints an accurate picture and avoids the last guess. …

David Caprera: Then follow with 3 ; looks about perfect [unless] we defend 2 doubled, but even then it might be right.

Julian Wightwick: This way, if West competes (even to 5 ) and partner doesn’t double, I can keep going in diamonds.

Tibor Roberts: The problem with anything other than double is that it implies either more or less than three trumps. I want to be in spades, most likely, and I want to be at least in game unless partner has a minimum with wastage in clubs. So double, and bid 3 over 2 ; and if partner then bids 3 NT, I’ll know not to take it out. Actually, a diamond call will make sense over practically any rebid by partner.

Alvin Bluthman: Only because most who play support doubles require it regardless of other features in the hand (an idea that Eric Rodwell, inventor of the support double, has abandoned as unworkable). If given the option to make another bid, I would choose 2 . Please correct my bid and my score if I have that option.*

*Luckily, you’re stuck with 10. Your vote always stands, regardless of any conflicting comment. -RP

Roger Courtney: Intending to bid 3 if 3 from West is passed around, or if partner simply corrects to 2 . It looks like game, but I don’t want to force past the three level on what could be a misfit.

Sim Therrell: If I don’t double, partner will never be convinced I hold three spades. The danger is that he will pass the double when we should be bidding game or slam, e.g., A-x-x-x x Q-x-x-x Q-J-10-x produces a reasonable play for 6 , but I may well be on lead at 2 doubled. I will risk that in hopes of conducting an intelligent auction to the right spot (which just might be 2 doubled).

Sid Ismail: Then bid diamonds if able.

K. Scott Kimball: Since I might be making a decision over 5 next, at least I have this off my chest and can bid 5 .

Bogdan Agica: After a negative 2 from partner, I will followed up with 3 .

McKenzie Myers: Planning to bid 3 over 2 , hopefully letting partner know about my club void in this semi-slammish hand.

Gerald Murphy: … If the opponents next bid clubs, I can bid diamonds. This is a great hand but not enough to [jump] to 3 , in my opinion.

George Klemic: If my hand were a shade stronger, I would cue-bid. But, except for all pass, this route will show my values best. If the auction continues P 2 P, I now bid 3 to complete my hand [description]. I also bid diamonds over club overcalls.

Rain Lan: The 2 overcall provided a nice opportunity to save bidding space. I think I can show my diamonds and strong hand later, in one fell swoop.

Ed Freeman: Potentially slammish, and not selling out to 5 , I have plenty of time to bid. …

Stu Goodgold: Then continue on if partner shows little interest. E-W will likely compete in clubs, after which I will show diamonds to complete my shape.

Rainer Herrmann: … If playing support doubles and the bidding is at the two level, should not any other bid deny holding three spades? I understand that sometimes you might hold an awkward hand to start…with a support double… Here, partner could pass… but a fit-showing double does not particularly invite this action, nor does the fact that North is sitting under the 2 bidder. I think the negative inference that you do not have three spades when you bid anything else is too valuable to give up for infrequent cases [like this]. …

Rob Stevens: Support doubles aren’t my favorite convention but might work well here, allowing me to show spades and then diamonds (even perhaps over 5 if it comes back to me undoubled). The problem is perhaps that partner with, say, K-x-x-x x Q-x-x-x K-J-x-x, may just pass. Although 2 will be set, 5 is attractive. Still, the ability to show the exact hand type over extravagant club bids is worth the risk.

Simon Cheung: Expecting West to bid some number of clubs next. Partner may better judge the competitive auction, knowing our spade fit. I hope to rebid 4 over 4 . Over 5 , I would try my luck defending (five level belongs to opponents) and double (showing convertible values).

Bruce Scott: I can’t figure out the trick here. This would have been a good hand to give us under the bidding system usually in place (where double is not support). Am I supposed to be worried about the impending club raise? Partner probably has a red card to display after a 5 call. Partner knows that I have actual opening values (even if you have agreed that support doubles are mandatory in first or second chair, they aren’t in third chair). Over 3 or 4 , I will reopen with a minimum call in diamonds.

Murat Azizoglu: I might not get a chance to show my spade support later if I don’t do it now, as the bidding is likely to get too high soon.

Gordon Bower: This is my one chance to show partner how many spades I have. On the next round I can show my strength; I may well bid 5 over 5 if need be!

Arian Lasocki: Show partner the three-card support, then I can bid diamonds to show the shape and values.

Rik ter Veen: I’ll follow…with diamond bids. If partner passes the double (unlikely), we’ll live.

Gyorgy Ormay: Dangerous if partner has club [length], but I have to trust in him. Maybe West calls 3 , so it is important that partner knows the [spade] fit, or non-fit.

Jonathan Brill: Two diamonds is tempting followed by a spade bid, but West may raise clubs and make this impossible. It is usually best to show support at the first opportunity when the auction gets competitive.

Bob Zorn: I hate support doubles; but if that’s the agreement, then other bids deny this spade holding. If partner doesn’t pass, I’ll be well placed in the auction; if he does, maybe we’ll survive.

Paul Boudreau: I will be well placed to bid diamonds later, even at the four level over a 4 preempt by West.

Kieran Dyke: Systemic, I guess. I hope partner doesn’t try too hard to look for reasons to pass it. [I’m] well placed to bid 3 or 4 over club raises.

Justin Lall: This seems like the best move towards game. Yes, I’m worried partner will sit; but he can see the vulnerability too, and he won’t do that lightly.

Josh Sinnett: Intending to follow with 3 over a two-of-a-major sign-off. Or, we might defend 2 doubled if partner has a handful [of clubs].

Mike Doecke: The risk is that partner might pass it; but given that my hand is unlimited and we’re red versus white, I think it’s unlikely.

Daniel Korbel: I will bid diamonds at my next call, completing the picture of my hand. I hope partner doesn’t pass 2 doubled!

David Davies: I don’t like this at all, as I have a lot else to say about this hand; but the diamond suit is not necessarily buried. The problem with 2 is that, quite apart from the risk of being passed out, partner will have difficulty believing that I have three good spades. Also, if opponents are about to leap into the stratosphere with their clubs, the spades will probably be more important to partner than the diamonds.

Dale Freeman: I think it is important to show the spade fit first; the diamond bid can come later over an opponent’s club bid, or over partner’s bid as game try.

Robert Dannels: Hopefully, this will not end the auction. I plan to bid diamonds later.

Chris Willenken: Double followed by diamonds is the most economical route. If I bid diamonds now, my later spade bid might have to come at the four level, precluding other four-level contracts. If I raise spades now, my later diamond bid will allow for all possible strains at that level.

Ted Ying: Have to show my raise first. I’ll hope to be able to show the rest of my hand at a later opportunity (although a preempt in clubs is likely to make that difficult).

Nick Krnjevic: Seems most flexible. I can follow up with a natural 3 bid (I must have compensating shape to be adventuring at the three level with no guaranteed eight-card spade fit) over partner’s likely major-suit sign-off; this may get us to either 5 , 4 , 4 or 3 NT, while preserving the option of stopping below game. This also eliminates the risk of playing in 2 when partner holds either a bad hand with [5=1=3=4 shape] or a well-fitting minimum with four diamonds (e.g., A-x-x-x x-x K-x-x-x J-x-x) — I hate having to reply “plus 190” when our teammates read out “minus 1390.” …

Joe Steel: Leave room to explore. Probably, 4 is the right spot; but even with a passed North hand, we might have better (6 or 6 ).

Dale Rudrum: I would like to bid 3 as a strong 5-5 or better, but in your system it’s 5-4 or better with 19* points or more. … Probing for more information with 3 is a possibility, but I don’t know what to do after 3 NT. Any spade bid…seems silly if I can show my exact support at a low level…

*This hand is indeed worth 19 points in my methods: 15 HCP, 3 for the void, and 1 for having four aces and/or 10s. Further, with the extra 10 and elegant honor sequences, it is probably worth 20 points. But wait! There’s more: If you order today, I’ll throw in a PavCo Slice-O-Matic! -RP

Neil Morgenstern: An important rule in competitive auctions is to support partner’s suit as soon as possible, and the only way to show three-card support is to double. Now if the next hand bids 3 and I compete to 3 , I think I have reasonably well shown my hand. But if I bid 2 now and they bid 3 , I am trapped. Jumping in diamonds seems to achieve nothing except take away more bidding space from ourselves. …

Doug Burke: If partner bids 2 , I’ll bid 3 (pretty much showing my hand). Four spades may be the best place on a 4-3 fit. The only reason I’m leaning this way is that 2 can be passed, and my hand is not good enough for 3 .

Pieter Geerkens: Showing a fit early, especially when I can pinpoint [the number of trumps], cannot be beat. I can always cue-bid clubs later. Who knows, partner might have hidden assets to show. Why jam the auction when we own spades?

Comments for 3

Jugoslav Dujic: This hand has improved a lot, [and] I don’t like support doubles on shapely hands.

Leo Zelevinsky: I really like my hand now — later supporting spades will give partner a good idea of my hand, and we’ll go from there.

Dima Nikolenkov: I have a lot to show, so I’ll bid the suit I have and follow with a spade bid (over 3 I bid 4 ). Slam is still in the picture. I cannot run the risk of being passed out in 2 (unlikely).

William Campbell: Nice problem. I am expecting to get bounced in clubs, probably at the five level. My hand is quite good, and I’m willing to bid out its shape even at the five level; so a natural 3 looks perfect. … I’ll support spades at my third call, even at the five level, and maybe the six level, [assuming partner fails to double].

Bogdan Vulcan: Now, really; this is no time for showing support. If East had passed, my bid would have been 3 (my suits are good…) so I [make the same bid]. … I will show my three spades [next]; and if asked, I will show my club void also…

Bas Lodder: Even if partner has a lousy hand like x-x-x-x-x x K-x-x K-x-x-x, there are chances for making game. My only worry is the spade fit, but I don’t want to end the bidding with a double.

Paul Hankin: No rush to show spade support; 6 might be better than 4 .

Nicoleta Giura: Let’s force to game; the spade support can wait.

Shyam Sashital: I prefer 3 to 3 . If East-West have a club fit and West raises to the five level, my diamond suit may never be revealed to partner.

Anthony Golding: Since we’ve got spades, there’s no rush to support, and I’d rather describe my hand better. According to the system notes, it looks as if partner could pass 2 — if not, put me down for that — so I have to jump. I’ll bid 3 over 3 and 4 over 3 NT.

John Reardon: I am too good in playing strength and shape to risk 2 . I intend to continue with 3 if partner bids 3 , or [4 ] over 4 .

Stephen McDevitt: This hand is looking prime. A preempt in clubs is likely on the way, so the support double just seems like a very bad idea. I can always be a dutiful partner and return to spades, but this might be the last opportunity to get the diamond suit out there for partner’s sake. The playing strength merits a jump to 3 .

Jonathan Monroe: … If opponents have a big club fit, we [may] need our best fit to [outbid] them, which could well be diamonds. …

Jyri Tamminen: The thought of partner passing 2 doubled is too much for me. After deal one, I’m back to my usual mindless overbidding.

Michael Dodson: Force now, raise [spades] next.

Pekka Niemisto: A double could easily be left in when we have a game. With all my 10s I’m going to play in [one] of our suits; hoping next to support spades if partner bids 3 .

Damo Nair: Seems pretty straightforward; I can’t support spades and suppress this good five-card diamond suit.

Ross Crichton: This is a good hand, playable in spades, hearts or diamonds; [but I] need further description from partner. …

Comments for 2

Leonard Helfgott: I really don’t want to exclude diamonds when club losers would get ruffed with high trumps [in spades], so I think this hand is wrong for a support double; I [also] wouldn’t want partner to pass with mediocre clubs. I’ll take the risk that 2 will get passed out in the hope of describing my hand well on the next round (bidding 3 ). …

Frances Hinden: I admit that personally I’d double and bid 3 over 3 , as it’s cheaper than 2 followed by 3 ; but I’m trying to second-guess the panel — usually a mistake!

Gerald Cohen: A support double with a void is a hate-partner action.

James Hudson: A lie, which I hope to get away with. I don’t want partner converting my double.

Barry Rigal: “Support with support” is one thing, but diamonds may not wait, and spades can. I am going to bid spades next.

Pat Rich: Ugh. Whatever reasonable bid I make, 5 by West is going to hurt. Game is likely, possibly even slam, but the suit is far from obvious at this point. Two diamonds (what I would have bid without the interference) is slightly more constructive now that I could pass and…leaves room to explore (if the opponents cooperate). …

Lance Marrou: No need to rush into the support double yet; I might as well bid my shape. … After 2 or even 3 by partner, I will bid 3 .

Florentin Axinte: Tempted a little by the intellectual support double, but I have to describe my hand. If partner can bid again, I’ll be in a comfortable place…

Karen Walker: There’s no immediate need for the support double. I think I can show this hand better by bidding diamonds then freely bidding spades later. The support double also risks the chance that partner will feel endplayed into passing.

Costin Georgescu: This is enough, and it leaves time for spade support (or a cue-bid) later. Three diamonds is possible but seems too high as there may not be enough time [to suggest] spades; e.g., over 3 NT, do I pass or bid 4 ? Smog. LOL.

John Schuler: Spades may not play so well even if we have a 5-3 fit, as the taps may create trump tricks. Only a 5 bid will prevent me from supporting spades on the next round.

Imre Csiszar: A support double is too risky with a void; partner may pass for penalties, although that would not necessarily be bad for us. Two diamonds will hardly be passed out if we have game, and [showing] spade support on the next round will describe the hand well.

Dave Maeer: Of course, I’ll follow up with spades. I don’t think I should give priority to showing three-card support above a five-card suit. If I double now, I’ll never convince partner that I have five diamonds. When I raise spades later, he’ll know I have three and he [should infer] the fifth diamond as I must have a reason for not issuing a support double.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 4

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 2	North 2	East Pass Pass	South Pass ?	Q 9 J 9 7 10 7 4 A Q 6 5 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	282	30
3	9	175	19
Pass	8	391	42
2 NT	4	44	5
3	2	47	5

Most people agree this is a close decision whether to pass or try for game. The problem is further clouded by the conflicting influence of the form of scoring and vulnerability: IMPs suggests stretching for a close game, while being nonvulnerable does not. Indeed, it would seem clear-cut to bid if you were vulnerable, or clear-cut to pass if it were matchpoints.

My own choice is to bid (perhaps the spade nine sold me) and I prefer the simple spade raise. The lack of spot cards in clubs makes 3 less attractive. It is quite common to hold six clubs after passing (unlike other suits because of weak two-bids), so partner will expect a better suit. He certainly should pass 3 with, say, A-J-x-x-x-x A-x K-J-x x-x — not a pretty contract.

Even though pass got the single most votes, the majority (58 percent) felt it was worth trying for game; hence the top award should go to bidding. The preferred bid was 3 , so it gets the top spot; and 3 (my choice), a close second. I felt the other bids were too eccentric to warrant a good score; 3 is a distinct overbid, and 2 NT with an imaginary stopper is more like a postmortem choice (especially considering the vulnerable weak two-bid).

Let’s see what really happened:

East deals	A K J 3 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	A 2		Feldman	Soloway	Sontag	Goldman
	6 3				Pass	Pass
	K J 8 4		2	2	Pass	3
10 7 5		8 6 4	Pass	3	Pass	3
K Q 10 8 5 3		6 4	Pass	5	All Pass
K J 9		A Q 8 5 2
2		10 9 7
	Q 9
	J 9 7
	10 7 4
	A Q 6 5 3

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	2 North	Robinson	Burger	Boyd	Cayne
Made 5 +400	Made 5 +200			Pass	Pass
		2	2	Pass	Pass
Schwartz +5 IMPs		Pass

The problem scenario arose at both tables. Goldman chose to bid (3 ) and Cayne chose to pass. While the actual deal proves nothing, Goldman was certainly right this time, as 5 was an easy make (Feldman shrewdly found a diamond lead to stop the overtrick). At least Burger played in the major suit (same 11 tricks), cutting the loss to 5 IMPs.

When I first saw this hand I liked the 9, but then something bizarre (OK, deranged) occurred to me. Suppose you bid to 4 and East doubles. Naturally, you win the opening heart lead with the ace and lead a spade to the nine. Ouch! Well, maybe not. When West wins the 10, he may continue hearts or shift to his stiff club, giving the game back after all. Now wouldn’t that be a story.

Comments for 3

Frans Buijsen: Making a slight noise towards game, hoping to involve partner in the decision by showing where my values are.

Richard Fedrick: Clubs; constructive values; spade tolerance (being a passed hand). This is a pretty good description and justifies the risk that 2 was the last plus score.

Chris Maclauchlan: Why not? [Partner could have] A-K-x-x-x-x A-x x K-x-x-x.

Leonard Helfgott: Though some pass with this, it’s really too good, though not nearly enough for a cue-bid. The choice is between 3 (trumps are good enough) and 3 , which could conceivably be passed. As a passed hand, however, I would be unlikely to correct to a minor at a higher level; so 3 really should have spade…tolerance. This also adds flexibility to other calls and makes it easier to get to 3 NT.

Paul Huggins: I’m a bit minimum for bidding on; but partner is likely to have a fairly good hand, and passing might lead to a missed game. Three hearts is a bit too strong if partner has a minimum, while 3 is risky if partner has, e.g., 5-3-3-2 shape. Two notrump suggests a heart stop that I do not have; so 3 seems the least of all possible evils.

Carolyn Ahlert: Shows decent values, tolerance for spades, and a possible try for notrump.

Julian Wightwick: I’d like a sixth club, but this is still less of a distortion than 3 . If partner passes, we might be in a good spot.

K. Scott Kimball: As a passed hand, partner expects only a point of so more from me, and 3 is nonforcing. I have visions of a horrible spade break, and who knows; partner might be able to bid 3 NT if on the upper end.

Collins Williams: Partner must have a good hand, so I need to show some life. Why didn’t he double? Most likely, [because of] bad shape.

William Campbell: Game is possible in spades or notrump, and I’m a passed hand; so a forward-going natural bid seems best and leaves plenty of room to maneuver below 3 NT.

Pat Rich: My values are average but exceptionally well-placed, so this is worth one constructive bid. There are a wealth of minimum hands opposite that make game odds-on, and partner has information about the defenders’ holdings that will help in the play. I will subside in 3 if I receive no encouragement.

Gerald Murphy: Partner is interested only in spades, and I have Q-x. [Bidding] clubs should show interest in game with spade tolerance. With a better hand I would cue-bid hearts or raise spades directly.

Toby Kenney: I’m too strong to pass, but too weak to bid to game directly; so I’ll just invite. Three clubs starts to describe my shape.

Ed Freeman: I am a passed hand, so partner shouldn’t go crazy; 3 must imply spade tolerance.

Stu Goodgold: A forward-going bid, showing where my values are located.

Scott Stearns: This should show some spade tolerance, else I would probably have opened 3 . I don’t disturb my partners as a passed hand without good reason.

John Schuler: Pass seems too extreme, and every bid has flaws. Three clubs may beget 3 NT, which will make me happy.

Josh Sinnett: Too much to pass; [no] stopper for 2 NT; not enough trumps to bid 3 ; and 3 doesn’t say anything. I can’t have a great club suit since I didn’t open or preempt, so the spade tolerance should be implied.

John Reardon: Although my suit is poor, 3 at least leaves many options open to us and is forward-going.

Sartaj Hans: I will bid 3 NT over 3 .

Veljko Vujcic: Natural, nonforcing, with spade tolerance. …

Imre Csiszar: Any bid may change a plus to a minus, but at IMPs I dare not pass when even a slam may be on. …I prefer 3 as the most descriptive bid, clearly forward-going since with nothing but long clubs I would have opened 3 .

Ted Ying: I shouldn’t be pulling to the three level in a minor from an undoubled contract without tolerance for partner’s suit. Partner should know that he can go back to 3 if needed and that I have some values.

Nick Krnjevic: Even though I have nine losers…looking at a nonvulnerable game, several indications favor bidding. First, my partial spade fit and potential source of (well-placed) club tricks make game a favorite opposite many well-fitting minimums (e.g., K-J-10-x-x-x x-x A-K-x K-x). Second, the auction suggests that partner can easily have extras, so a power game is a reasonable possibility. Third, the vulnerability is such that the opponents’ silence does not suggest that partner is a strong favorite to have the dreaded three-card heart holding. Fourth, if it gets ugly, it’s only 50 a down-trick (I hope).

Dale Rudrum: What is standard defense against weak twos in your part of the world? I could not find this in your Bidding Guide* so I assume it is roughly at least an opening bid and 5+ spades. I have a useful hand, but not enough to force game; so a nonforcing 3 is ideal. Whether or not you play 3 nonforcing, I do not know. I know Holland is divided, but the majority (in my biased perception) go for nonforcing. …

*My Bidding Guide defines a two-level suit overcall as 13-18 total points. Since no special defense to weak two-bids is given, the same range applies. This is more or less in the expert mainstream. New-suit responses to overcalls are nonforcing, though most experts make an exception after an enemy weak opening when responder is an unpassed hand. (The exception doesn’t apply here, so 3 is nonforcing.) -RP

Dick Yuen: After an initial pass, I have to tell partner where my strength lies.

Neil Morgenstern: Surely this is constructive, showing tolerance for partner’s suit, and might indicate a good lead if they compete to 3 .

Howard Byers: This is what I have, after all. Why complicate things? This call is mandatory if partner is your spouse.

Comments for 3

Chris Vinall: Imperfect; I don’t like anything much.

David Caprera: The old “I had a club in with my spades” [story]. The hand is too good to pass; not good enough for 3 ; 3 isn’t forcing by a passed hand; and 2 NT shows a stopper I don’t have. So what is left?

Dima Nikolenkov: The practical game try. With a regular partner, 3 is a better if known to show spade tolerance.

Barry Rigal: Seems about right on general values. Three clubs would not be a fit-bid because, even though I am a passed hand, the fact that I had no two-level preempt in clubs allows me to be quite single-suited in clubs…

McKenzie Myers: North should have six (or a beautiful five) for his two-level overcall, though I do worry that West is a touch heavy, say 12-13 HCP. Three spades should be in no danger.

Lance Marrou: Partner only shows a 1 opener, so I am not strong enough for more action.

Rainer Herrmann: For me, this is the toughest of the set. I can only admire those who have the courage to bid 2 NT, when 3 NT by South turns out to be the only makable game.

Karen Walker: I’d probably pass at matchpoints, but at IMPs I think I have to give partner a boost. I don’t have enough outside power to try the stopperless 2 NT; and 3 and 3 may propel the auction into the stratosphere.

Justin Lall: Just too good to pass. The spade support is certainly adequate. Wouldn’t this be routine with Q-x-x J-x-x x-x A-x-x-x-x? Is this hand worse than that?

Daniel Korbel: My Q-9 should be good enough support, and I have the values to raise.

Dale Freeman: Pass is possible; but it is IMPs and the Q and A-Q are working values.

Chuck Arthur: Partner should be allowed some latitude since he is bidding opposite a passed hand.

Dave Maeer: Awkward. If we have a game, it’s probably in spades. Pass is a bit wimpy; 2 NT is reading far too much into East’s non-raise and ignoring the possibility of West holding A-K-Q-x-x-x and out; 3 is to play; and 3 is just an overbid.

Chris Willenken: Pass at matchpoints; but when partner acts at IMPs opposite a passed hand, he should have a sound hand with reasonable game prospects. Four spades is the most likely game; and when 3 NT is best, partner will often be able to bid it over 3 .

Manuel Paulo: With a fair spade fit and clubs rather puny, I raise.

Comments for Pass

Leo Zelevinsky: We might miss a game, but I hate my J-9-x. It’s quite possible that even 3 will be too high, and game seems remote on a heart lead and the likelihood of a bad trump break. Three notrump might be there, but I can’t afford to try for it with 3 or 3 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: No reason to get overambitious just because partner is unlikely to go down in 2 .

Jeff Goldsmith: Can’t bid every game.

Micha Keijzers: I don’t like this hand. Clubs are nice; as is my spade support, but it’s still only a doubleton. We will make this with an overtrick.

Richard Higgins: Very close decision between pass and 3 . Nonvulnerable I will try for positive score, rather than push into a non-making game.

David Wetzel: What exactly do I have to get excited about? Would anyone be stunned to go down in 3 with this hand?

Peter Karlsson: … My heart holding and West’s bidding suggest that East might get a heart overruff in a spade contract.

Tibor Roberts: Why should I think this isn’t our best spot? If we miss a game, well, LHO made a good preempt. …

Frances Hinden: Seems a complete guess between pass and 3 . I’m not sure what 3 means by a passed hand; but I doubt it’s a trial bid for 4 , which is what I’d like it to be.

Alvin Bluthman: I don’t have much more than the approximate 7 HCP partner is playing me for, though what I have is mostly in the right suits. I could raise with inadequate trumps, or bid 2 NT with an inadequate stopper. With a minimum, this is not the time to do either.

James Hudson: Trying to stay out of trouble with short spades and long hearts, but feeling pusillanimous.

Gal Hegedus: The vulnerability [suggests] caution.

Sim Therrell: Tempting to bid, but no clear-cut direction. Sounds like North has some heart length (maybe two), and it looks like the defense will have a road map as soon as this dummy hits. I hope North doesn’t have something like A-K-J-x-x-x x-x A-x K-x-x, but I can never find out.

Bogdan Vulcan: West opened a vulnerable 2 , which partner [did not] double. I think that whoever finds himself at the three level is bound to lose; so pass.

George Klemic: I have 9 points, most working, but…my heart holding is bad. Also, I wouldn’t put it past West (third seat, unfavorable) to hold a little more than normal for a preempt.

Andrew Moore: When bidding over a preempt, I usually assume partner has about 7 points and bid [accordingly]. With no clear direction and not much extra, I feel it is best to pass.

Rob Stevens: Not enough high cards and not enough spades to try for game, even at IMPs. An adverse penalty is more likely than a missed game. Why shouldn’t partner have A-K-x-x-x x-x-x K-J-x-x x?

Simon Cheung: No need to push when nonvulnerable. If 4 is cold, partner may have jumped or doubled; if he has A-K-x-x-x-x x A-K-x J-x-x, it is unlucky.

Nicoleta Giura: Game needs specific cards, and we’re nonvulnerable.

Bruce Scott: This isn’t too much more than partner is hoping I have. Nonvulnerable at IMPs, I’ll let partner play an easy one. Our trump suit might be inadequate for the four level. On some (most?) hands that make 3 NT a good contract, he might have found a different action over 2 .

Murat Azizoglu: We might be missing a game, but the vulnerable preempt makes me think not.

Mark Florencz: A very tough problem and I’ll be unjustly down-scored for this, but I don’t even know which game to bid, and no game is likely to make. So why bid it, after all?

Gordon Bower: I just can’t see game. Too easy for partner to have only a 12-pointer, or for the defense to start with two hearts and a ruff, and then have a slow minor loser. Two notrump without a stopper, 3 without a strong hand, 3 with spade tolerance, and 3 without real support and no shape all seem crazy. …

Charles Blair: Would missing a nonvulnerable game be so terrible?

Rik ter Veen: Am I supposed to be looking for game? I’m glad that 2 will make.

Gyorgy Ormay: Just be careful. If partner has a strong hand and good spades, he’ll double first.

Gareth Birdsall: Three clubs is a close second, which would be analogous to the auction P (1 NT) 2 (P); 3 . However, I think we may just go minus too frequently by bidding on. After all, even great hands, e.g., A-K-10-x-x-x x-x K-x K-x-x, may go down in 3 ( K overtaken, two diamonds, Q and another heart to promote a trump trick).

Bob Zorn: Missing a nonvulnerable game isn’t the end of the world. I want my partners to bid aggressively in this seat, and I see no need to punish them.

Paul Boudreau: Close to a raise, but at least it’s only a nonvulnerable game if I am wrong.

Kieran Dyke: Two notrump, 3 or 3 might work a treat, but often only one of those will work. Nonvulnerable vs. vulnerable I’ll pay out and miss an occasional game.

Richard Stein: I do not have much more than partner expects by the Rule of 7, and his 2 bid is certainly no cause for ecstasy. In addition, West is likely to be sound, and partner could be trading on the favorable colors.

Andrew de Sosa: If partner has the requisite 17 points (or playing tricks) needed for game, he might have doubled instead of merely overcalling. I won’t stretch for the nonvulnerable game.

David Davies: Because I have a good hand, partner may make this.

Anthony Golding: Partner hasn’t doubled or bid 3 , so there’s no reason to think we’re missing a game. Sure, he could have A-K-J-x-x Q-x K-x-x K-x-x; but how do I find out without going overboard if he hasn’t? We’re nonvulnerable, so no need to push.

Gerben Dirksen: I don’t have a good fit; I don’t have a good suit of my own; and I don’t have a strong hand.

Stephen McDevitt: Close one. Two hearts should be pretty sound at these colors, and partner could have doubled or bid 3 but didn’t. My shape is not exciting, and my heart holding looks like a non-feature.

Luis Argerich: Any bid could work, [but] I’ll do something for the ecology and use the green card.

Kevin Podsiadlik: I’m getting the feel for the rollercoaster theme, as this looks like a time to pull back again. This is a decent hand but no more, and the heart holding is bad news.

David Harari: Game is unlikely (and nonvulnerable), so I will not punish partner if he has a minimum.

Nick Doe: I don’t really see any reason to bid on. Of course, partner may have enough for game; but he may have enough for precisely 2 , and I have no way of finding out at a safe level. Second choice is 3 …

Pieter Geerkens: Looks like a partscore hand, and my assets for partner are only lukewarm. … A lot depends on partner’s style and aggressiveness.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 5

IMPs		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North Pass Dbl	East 1 Pass	South Pass ?	K Q 8 3 A J 8 2 Q 5 J 10 7

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	237	25
1 NT	8	160	17
2	7	174	19
Pass	6	58	6
3 NT	5	115	12
3	4	130	14
2	2	65	7

This turned out to be an excellent problem, as evidenced by the diversity in the voting. In fact, the percentage for the preferred call (more accurately, 25.24 percent) is the lowest ever since I began these polls over two years ago. (Previous low was 25.43 percent in “Catch a Falling Star” Problem 3.)

I agree with 2 NT (natural game invitation) because of the secondary spade strength. I’m hoping the 8 comes into play as a third stopper (e.g., 9-x in partner’s hand); but if not, there’s still a good chance that notrump will be OK. Even though partner is a passed hand (suggesting at most 24 combined HCP), the fact that East has almost all the enemy points makes trying for game a sound venture. I won’t be too pushy and bid 3 NT because partner might have doubled with a shapely 8-9 count.

Most of the heart bidders elected to give up on game with 2 — certainly the right decision if you intend to play in hearts, since four losers seem inevitable with the duplication in spades and partner being a passed hand.

Those who elected to pass for penalty made a gutsy move. If partner has two spades this might be right, but opposite a singleton it seems odds-on they will make 1 . I’d be more attracted to this gamble if I had a better lead; the J could work out badly if dummy hits with Q-9-x-(x).

OK, let’s put some cards on the table:

North deals	6 4		West	North	East	South
Both vul	K 10 7 5		Passell	Soloway	Seamon	Goldman
	A 6			Pass	1	Pass
	Q 9 8 4 2		Pass	Dbl	Pass	2
J 5		A 10 9 7 2	Pass	Pass	Dbl	Rdbl
9 6 4 3		Q	3	3	All Pass
J 10 7 4 3		K 9 8 2
5 3		A K 6
	K Q 8 3
	A J 8 2
	Q 5
	J 10 7

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
3 South	3 NT South	Schwartz	Sontag	Lair	Feldman
Made 3 +140	Down 3 -300		Pass	1	Pass
		Pass	Dbl	Pass	2 NT
Schwartz +10 IMPs		Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
		Pass

Both tables faced the identical situation. Goldman chose the conservative 2 and was pushed to 3 when Seamon shrewdly reopened with a double. This could have been defeated with a diamond lead, but Passell led a club; then after three rounds of clubs, ruffed, Goldman was in the driver’s seat. Nine easy tricks.

At the second table Feldman chose the 2 NT bid, and Sontag added a little imagination to his HCP and bid game. On a good day the fifth club might have been the key to nine tricks. Alas, this was not a good day. Schwartz found the brutal diamond lead, and Feldman was down three before he could breathe. Note that even the J lead beats 3 NT one trick, which is no big surprise with only 22 HCP. Another 10 IMPs for Schwartz.

Comments for 2 NT

Frans Buijsen: The most probable game is 3 NT rather than 4 , so I’ll try to reach that.

Jugoslav Dujic: I’m not sure 1 doubled will be very productive. I’ll try for plus 600 — or minus 100. :)

Leo Zelevinsky: I like this problem [as] I am somewhat tempted by every choice presented except 2 — boy, will I look foolish when 2 turns out to be the top choice. :) After devaluing my spades for a suit contract and giving partner some slack for his reopening double (and of course as a passed hand), I will bid 2 NT [to invite 3 NT].

Rosalind Hengeveld: … Surely, any notrump bid (at whatever level) gets this hand across better than a heart bid and is more likely to lead to a winning contract.

Jerry Merrell: Not strong enough to pass; 1 NT and 2 are underbids; 2 creates a problem because partner won’t be able to bid 2 NT, and I will have an awkward bid [next time]; and 3 NT is too strong [opposite] a passed partner. Two notrump describes the hand and still allows us to get to 3 NT or 4 , whereas 3 only allows us to find a 4 game. Opt for 2 NT.

Jeff Goldsmith: Game is still possible because we know where all the high cards are. Notrump seems more likely to make than hearts; [so] with an 8-loser hand, I’ll aim for the nine-trick game… My partners can have a pretty fair hand to pass in first seat with shortness in spades.

Richard Higgins: A difficult choice: hearts or notrump? [I will] take [my] chances at inviting the nine-trick game to avoid possible spade ruffs.

Leonard Helfgott: This is an extremely notrump-oriented hand, and the position and knowledge of where everything is allows me to bid 2 NT, which partner should read as [invitational]. … The fourth heart does not dissuade me from this strain, as it [would] if I held A-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x-x K-J-10.

Peter Karlsson: My hand looks [better than 13 HCP]. A jump in hearts would give partner the wrong picture, while [2 NT] describes the distribution of honors well. …Partner [may] hold [up to] 11-12 HCP, and Easts opening bid has given us an advantage in the play; so it is not too much to hope that partner raises to 3 NT with a maximum.

Paul Huggins: Partner is a passed hand and hasn’t promised the earth for his protective double. Bidding some number of hearts might not look too clever if partner has a 1=3=5=4 10-count… Two notrump seems about right… a balanced, minimum opening hand with a double stopper in spades. …

Jonathan Jacobs: Partner does not promise four hearts. It must be right to invite game with the spade values well placed and partner possibly having as much as a flat 12-count.

David Caprera: Good problem. How light do you open? How light do you reopen? With my current partner, I would bid 1 NT and hope to have a chance to make it, knowing that game was impossible. But playing a sounder opening style, I think game is still a chance. … If we are making game, nine tricks are going to be easier than 10 (even the 8 may be a big card). …

Nicola Farina: A double in balancing seat does not assure four hearts; I think the more probable game is 3 NT.

Julian Wightwick: Pushy, but this is vulnerable at IMPs, and I will know where the high cards are in the play. With soft cards in spades, diamonds and clubs, I prefer to play notrump rather than hearts a level higher. If I were sure of a 4-4 heart fit, this would be a close decision, but hearts might be a Moysian. One notrump at matchpoints.

Tibor Roberts: Well, it’s always going to be a guess because partner can make a reopening double with so many hands. Two spades is tempting, but it commits us to the three level in what might not be a great fit. Partner’s points figure to be in the minors; I like a spade lead and want to right-side the contract; and I ought to have a shot at 3 NT if partner takes me there with a maximum, whether or not we have a 4-4 heart fit. If I bid 1 NT, I play it there — which could be a good thing, of course.

James Hudson: Looks like notrump, in spite of the four hearts. Vulnerable at IMPs, I suppose I must invite game; I’ll be well placed for the postmortem.

Gal Hegedus: Game isn’t ridiculous and 3 NT is the most probable.

Dafydd Jones: A close one. At matchpoints I’d bid 1 NT.

Barry Rigal: A slight stretch, but my 8 persuades me — all I need is a nice 9 in partner’s hand, and I’m set for 3 NT.

Aha! All my life I’ve been using the wrong preposition: Barry is set for 3 NT, and I’m always set in 3 NT.

Gerald Murphy: Partner is a passed hand but could have near-opening values. [A 4-4 heart fit] is not guaranteed, [so] I will jump to 2 NT to show upwards of an opening bid with game interest. Spades will be well stopped. I think extra length in minors would be needed for 3 NT.

Craig Satersmoen: Partner knows we’re vulnerable too; I don’t need to hang him when he balances with an 8-count.

Rob Stevens: The minor honors favor notrump, even when a 4-4 heart fit exists. Jumping to 3 NT is an absurd overbid, as examination of several minimum distributional balancing hands clearly shows (e.g., x Q-x-x-x A-J-x-x K-x-x-x, or x K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x-x). I think it’s close between 1 NT and 2 NT…

Simon Cheung: Applying the “transfer king” principle and deducting 3 points, this hand is worth only an invitational bid. Pass is too awful for words.

Karen Walker: This seems about right on general values. The alternative, 3 , may land me in a 4-3 fit, one level higher.

Nicoleta Giura: Aiming for the 24-point game.

Gyorgy Ormay: Enough strength and stoppers (but not good enough to consider 4 ). Three notrump may be [excellent] with a usable minor from partner.

Bob Zorn: Who knows what’s right here? … At least 2 NT points to the most likely game.

Paul Boudreau: Tough one. I am falling in love with the 8 — hope that I am right since this might be the final contract…

Kieran Dyke: Then 3 if partner pulls. The 8 makes a game invitation look reasonable. Nonvulnerable, I just bid 1 NT.

Justin Lall: My hand is awful for playing hearts. I want to bid my vulnerable games… and notrump seems a heavy favorite.

John Reardon: I am prepared to bid a thin game if partner cooperates, and I think my hand is better for notrump [than for hearts].

Mike Doecke: With balanced shape and multiple spade stoppers, notrump is the right strain. At matchpoints I’d settle for 1 NT, but 2 NT seems right at IMPs [since] there’s still an outside chance of game.

Daniel Korbel: Only under these conditions would I ever bid a piggish 2 NT (otherwise, 1 NT is enough). When all the cards are in one hand, 3 NT often rolls on a little less than usual.

Stephen McDevitt: With a maximum original pass, 3 NT may have chances; but partner’s hand has to be great. Even though I’d open this hand, I actually could have slightly more for my pass [over 1 ]. My minor-suit honors aren’t worth much in a suit contract, [so] 2 NT seems like the right call. If partner raises to three, I expect that 8 to be huge!

Imre Csiszar: As North cold not open, a heart game is unlikely, but 3 NT may make if the reopening double was not minimum. I trust partner will bid it then, so a jump to 3 NT is not needed.

Luis Argerich: Not enough trumps to leave the double at the one level. Bidding 3 NT can destroy your partner’s confidence when if he likes to reopen light. The hand seems to be better for notrump than a suit game, and that’s why I bid 2 NT.

Chris Willenken: Three notrump is the most likely game; 1 NT, protecting the plus, is also possible; but I’m hoping to catch a five-card minor in dummy.

Michael Dodson: With no source of tricks I’ll settle for an invitation; close to 3 NT.

Ed Barnes: Pass is absurd. Partner might not have the [four] hearts I am hoping for, so let’s see if game is making. Partner will bid it if it is.

Damo Nair: This is probably a stretch; but I need to show I have a real opener in case partner has [an] 11-point hand.

David Harari: Forget the hearts for the moment; nine tricks might be easier then 10. Two hearts is possible, but I don’t want to miss a vulnerable game.

Ingunn Skre: Partner probably has 10-12 points and four hearts, or 6-10 and 5-5 in hearts and a minor suit. … After 2 NT there is bidding room to decide on 3 , 3 NT or 4 .

Alan Kravetz: Although we [probably] have a heart fit, West may ruff my spade winners in a heart contract.

Comments for 1 NT

Richard Fedrick: I payoff to the 1=4=4=4, 11-count perfecta which allows 4 to make; opposite just about anything else, I am sure I’m in the right spot.

Micha Keijzers: I don’t think there is a game, so let’s stay as low as possible; and I think notrump will be slightly better than hearts. If opponents balance, I can always bid some more.

Mark Shaw: If partner were not a passed hand, I’d bid 2 NT.

Eddie Grove: Give partner a [typical] 12, say x-x K-Q-x-x A-K-x-x x-x-x, which is more than he can have, and game is still out of the question; so the choice is 1 NT versus 2 . It seems unlikely that I can take two more tricks in hearts than in notrump.

Dima Nikolenkov: Game needs a lot of luck, so I stay low and try to protect spades from being ruffed.

Sim Therrell: Conservative, I know. North could easily have the 10 to give me three stoppers; and with all the HCP in one hand, 3 NT or 4 could be child’s play. However, I like partners to balance with any excuse, and I don’t want to do something to make him afraid to do it on a future hand. With the chunky spades and dispersed honors, notrump looks logical.

Sven Neirynck: The problem would be much harder if partner were not a passed hand. On the other hand, the probability of a heart fit is high; but 1 NT shouldn’t be a problem.

Pat Rich: Sufficient; accurate; and no need to punish partner by jumping around. Balancer doesn’t guarantee four hearts, although three is probably a necessary minimum. If he bails into a minor, I will then bid the heart suit.

Bas Lodder: To avoid an eventual spade ruff. Passing means making partner pay for a light reopening double. Chances for making game are [poor].

Toby Kenney: Most players will protect on very little, and I can’t imagine many passed hands opposite which I’ll make game; so I’ll just take the positive score. (If it’s not a positive score, I want a new partner). …

Ed Freeman: Partner is a passed hand, and I have no source of tricks; so game is very unlikely and converting to penalty is too dangerous a position at IMPs. No need to penalize partner for reopening on 2=3=4=4 shape; 1 NT is the only clear plus.

Bruce Scott: Going slowly this time. As partner is a passed hand, I’m not really worried about game; I want to reach the safest partial. Partner isn’t always going to have four hearts… and even when he does, a heart contract risks a spade ruff [or two]. …

Gareth Birdsall: The protective double is not anchored to the unbid major nearly so much as a direct double, so notrump seems the best strain to bid. Opposite a passed hand, I’m not too worried about missing game so I’ll just bid 1 NT. …

Josh Sinnett: Safest plus score. Don’t hang partner out to dry when he balances on a 2=3=4=4 9-count. If the opponents compete in a minor, I can bid my hearts later.

Andrew de Sosa: This hand begs to be played in notrump; the question is how high. I have trouble constructing a hand for partner that couldn’t be opened yet would provide a play for game. One notrump sounds right opposite a hand that is “borrowing a king” to reopen. Give me the 10, however, and I could be convinced to try 2 NT in pursuit of the vulnerable game.

David Davies: Going by transferred king ideas, this seems like a maximum 1 NT response; I think 2 NT here would show 14-15 or so. There is no reason to upgrade. I am not too bothered about missing a heart fit, as it is likely to play as well in notrump.

Dale Freeman: …I believe in opening 11 and 12-point hands; therefore I cannot see enough values for 3 NT, and the spade values [may be] useless in 4 .

Chuck Arthur: This one is really tough. About the only thing I know about partner’s hand is that he has short spades and some high cards. He may not have the perfect shape (he does not promise four hearts). My first conclusion is that we do not have the potential for me to make a game try…

Jyri Tamminen: Safest contract; partner might easily have 2=3=4=4 with weak hearts, and game chances are [poor]. Partner is not barred with, say, 0=4=4=5.

Dave Maeer: Very close. I’d probably do something a bit more dynamic with K-J and either A-Q or K to make up the extra point. I’ll settle for 1 NT because, if the opponents can beat 3 NT, they may well beat it two.

Jos van Kan: The real brave hearts now pass, but I’m just aiming for plus.

Nick Doe: I don’t want to pass for penalty opposite a passed hand with such a good fit for partner’s implied hearts. If I am going to bid hearts, the Law and the “transferred king” [principle] suggest caution; but I can’t bring myself to bid just 2 . So notrump it has to be, and this is just about maximum for 1 NT.

Manuel Paulo: After partner’s initial pass, game is unlikely; at IMPs I don’t like to bet on plus 200 against minus 160. I choose the notrump partial after seeing that with North holding x-x K-9-x K-9-x-x K-x-x-x and East holding A-J-10-9-x x-x A-J-x-x A-x, I make 1 NT but go down in 2 .

Comments for 2

Bengt-Eric Fredriksson: My partner didn’t open, so he has a maximum of 10 HCP, which is a long way to game.

Chris Maclauchlan: Game is too unlikely; I am just looking for a plus score. I will of course double anything the opponents bid.

Harriet Dingler: Two hearts is enough. Partner is a passed hand and only balancing, so it is very unlikely we have game on.

Carolyn Ahlert: I don’t get excited when partner makes a shape double, probably looking for heart fit. …

Leif Lundberg: I don’t want partner to quit balancing.

Roger Courtney: I’m happy to defend 2 , maybe even doubled. Why punish partner for balancing with a passed hand?

William Campbell: Partner’s a passed hand, so game is pretty much out of the picture. The spade length/spots aren’t good enough to pass, and 2 is pointless; so that leaves 1 NT, 2 , and 3 . Given that we aren’t getting to game, and I’d be willing to take a shot at doubling 2 , I’m left with either 2 or 1 NT. I could go either way on this one.

Bogdan Vulcan: Partner’s shortness in spades scares me away from a notrump bid… [so I’ll] just bid 2 … As for passing; yuk!

Brian Ross: I have an eight-loser hand opposite a passed partner, so let’s not hang him.

Scott Stearns: Where are all the points? East should have 16-17. I don’t see a game here. One notrump might work just as well, but it could also be off the diamond suit.

Rik ter Veen: I don’t believe [we have a] game with my wasted spade strength.

Richard Willey: Even opposite a perfect maximum, x K-10-x-x K-J-x-x A-9-x-x, game isn’t assured.

Anthony Golding: Partner is a passed hand, so he’s almost certainly got hearts. Choice is between 1 NT and 2 — I don’t want to punish partner for competing, and it’s an eight-loser hand. I choose 2 , even though the hand looks notrumpish, because if partner is shapely and his hand improves by finding a fit, he may be able to bid again.

Gerben Dirksen: Partner is just protecting the partscore. My K-Q-x-x is well placed, but in order to [bid] 4 I’d rather have them someplace else.

Oleg Rubinchik: I can’t see game and don’t want to make problems for myself.

Ted Ying: Partner’s a passed hand, and the double [usually] shows four hearts. With bad minors, I’d rather play a 4-3 heart fit than 1 NT.

Joe Steel: Two hearts seems an underbid, but a likely plus 140 is preferable to a probable plus 120 in 1 NT.

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

Problem 6

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

Your Two Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
C. 1 then 1 NT	10	335	36
D. 1 then 2	9	144	15
F. 1 then 2	8	65	7
B. Pass then 2	6	342	36
E. 1 then 1 NT	2	11	1
A. Pass then 1 NT	1	42	4

Most respondents felt this hand should be opened, and so do I. Having an awkward rebid is a flimsy excuse to pass a normal bid, especially with good spot cards in your long suits and nonvulnerable. (Make it 5-3 A-K-J-2 K-9-4-3-2 8-7, vulnerable, and a pass is justifiable.)

Despite playing five-card majors, I would open 1 * and rebid 2 . If partner raises hearts, so be it. Notrump often goes sour on hands like this, and a Moysian fit could be the savior. My only slight concern is that partner may give a preference to 2 with a doubleton; but in that event we’re not headed for game, and it’s only 50 a trick — and sometimes it will make (especially when the defenders are unaware of the 4-2 fit).

*I believe in the practical philosophy that bids show; they don’t promise. There aren’t enough bids to describe every hand, so it is often necessary to deviate slightly to convey the most useful information to partner. I firmly believe that opening 1 will get you to the best contract more often than opening 1 . Plus, there’s the lead-directing bonus if the deal belongs to the opponents.

This was a difficult problem to score. Option B got the single most votes, but I could hardly give the top award to an original pass when 64 percent chose to open. Since the majority (51 percent) opened 1 , Options C and D get the top spots, and I promoted my own Option F into third place. Option E (1 then 1 NT) seems weird (voters agreed) so it gets only 2. Option A gets the basement because a 1 NT response shows 6-10 HCP, hence it’s a gross underbid with a good 11.

Several wise guys (my son Rich included) elected to pass because this automatically gave partner a better hand, neatly changing the 1 response into an opening bid. Nice try, but hindsight will get you about as much here as it would in real life. You’re choice at each turn is supposed to be what you would do at the table, not based on future events.

When this deal occurred, the auctions at both tables were identical:

East deals	K J 6 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	9		Passell	Goldman	Seamon	Soloway
	8 6 5				Pass	1
	A J 6 4 2		Pass	1	Pass	1 NT
Q 7 4		A 10 9 8	Pass	Pass	Pass
Q 10 6 5 4		7 3 2
Q J		A 4 3
Q 10 3		K 9 5
	5 3
	A K J 8
	K 10 9 7 2
	8 7

Schwartz N-S	Cayne N-S	West	North	East	South
1 NT South	1 NT South	Schwartz	Sontag	Lair	Feldman
Down 2 -100	Down 1 -50			Pass	1
		Pass	1	Pass	1 NT
Cayne +2 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

Soloway and Feldman took the same view in the bidding, as upheld by our consensus. A push board? No, Feldman guessed the play better: After the 9 won the first trick, he led a diamond to the king (Soloway finessed the 10). This resulted in down one, with Soloway down two, so the Cayne team finally gained some IMPs in this poll, albeit only 2.

As I see it, if you can’t make 1 NT with a heart lead away from the queen, then it must be a poor contract. Note that opening 1 and rebidding 2 would end right there, probably making after the indicated trump lead — but that’s easy for me to say. The armchair quarterback wins again.

Comments for C. 1 then 1 NT

Frans Buijsen: A style question. It’s my prediction that Americans are more prone to pass this, and Europeans will open. It’s my style to rebid 1 NT…

Jugoslav Dujic: This is definitely an opener; I do play four-card majors, but I don’t like to misdescribe suit lengths. Two diamond rebid is a close second choice, but I think 1 NT is a tad more flexible (I wouldn’t like to be in 2 with partner’s 5=3=1=4); I wish I had at least J-x.

Leo Zelevinsky: Another nice one. If I know the opponents will stay out and the hand won’t be passed out, I like pass (and then 2 over 1 ); but I don’t think that’s fair. At the table, I’d worry about the opponents [bidding] or the hand getting passed out; so…I’d probably go with 1 then rebid 1 NT.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I might open this hand 1 (playing five-card majors) in third hand, but not in second. Pass on a decent hand (which I think this is) is just not my style, even with a slight rebid problem. Rebidding 2 is more likely to lead to a silly contract than rebidding 1 NT.

Jeff Goldsmith: Playing five-card majors, these hearts are not good enough to open.

Micha Keijzers: … My diamonds are not good enough for 2 .

Richard Higgins: Too strong not to open; a 1 opener is OK if playing four-card majors.

David Wetzel: Concentrated honors; decent shape; what’s the problem? Option F is also tempting and probably would have been my choice 20 years ago. Take that with a grain of salt — I was only eight then!

Leonard Helfgott: In a four-card-major system 1 would be the clearly correct choice, should I open. However in this five-card-major system, if I open I should stick to diamonds in first or second (1 in third, pass in fourth), rejecting Options E and F. Diamonds should not be rebid, rejecting Option D… so rebid 1 NT. …

Carolyn Ahlert: Nonvul-versus-vul I get into the bidding early, especially with a good major on the side.

Dima Nikolenkov: Two and a half quick tricks, plus a working 10-9 is an opening in my book; but K-10-9-x-x is not good enough to rebid.

Julian Wightwick: I have two decent suits, so want to open. It’s a good thing I’m playing a strong notrump, so don’t have to rebid the diamonds.

Alvin Bluthman: Too strong to pass… I am a five-card majorite, eliminating the 1 opening. Playing standard, I prefer Option C; playing K-S, Option D.

Sim Therrell: With all my honors working in my long suits, this hand is certainly worth opening. Since I don’t want a preference to hearts on two, and I don’t want to rebid diamonds, I will open 1 and rebid 1 NT. The worst that should happen is that we play 1 NT when we should be in two of a red suit. If we belong higher, we will find the right spot. Worrying about wrong-siding 3 NT due to clubs is just hearing footsteps.

Neelotpal Sahai: With a seven-loser hand, I will open; for the rebid, 1 NT is the only option.

Pat Rich: Too good to pass. I play four-card majors and would normally open 1 ; but playing five-card majors, I risk playing in a 4-2 fit; and there is always the matter of eroding partnership trust. One diamond followed by 1 NT only lies about a spot card in a black suit and immediately limits the hand. Partner would have bid 1 with 4-4 in the majors on most such hands, and with 5-4 he will bid hearts now; so the risk of missing the heart suit is minimal. If partner gets aggressive, I will get a chance to show heart values later. And, this auction often attracts a heart lead on general principles…

McKenzie Myers: A toughie, especially since my opponents usually lead clubs after 1 1 ; 1 NT 3 NT. …

Gerald Murphy: With 11 HCP and good controls in the red suits, I would open. After 1 , I will limit my hand and rebid 1 NT. …

Brian Ross: I open seven-loser hands; the rebid is ugly, but 1 NT gets my values right.

Paul Hankin: The only reason not to open 1 is to avoid the rebid problem, but either 1 NT or 2 seems [sensible].

Lance Marrou: Although I might very well pass this hand in practice, I realize that the current trend amongst experts (those who play for money or write books) is to bid whenever you hold 13 cards. Thus, I choose to bid and pick the least of evils — otherwise, I would not get a good score on this problem. Hey, I might still not; but I bet neither of Options A and B are in the top three.

Good bet. Never stand up for principles… It’s the money that counts.

Stu Goodgold: With concentrated values, I’m worthy of an opener. One notrump should promise a stopper in the suit partner is [unlikely] to have (hearts).

Karen Walker: Two decent suits and 2 1/2 quick tricks has to be an opening bid… Whether I open 1 or 1 , there’s nothing awful about a 1 NT rebid — which can’t be said about a 2 rebid.

Bruce Scott: … This hand is good; too good to pass, even with the probable rebid problem. … I probably open more four-card majors than the majority of five-card-major players, but this hand doesn’t feel right for it; I’m terrified of the sequence 1 1 ; 2 2 (now they are going to track a club and I might lose control). …

Murat Azizoglu: If my hearts were A-K-Q-x or A-K-J-10, I might have chosen Option F (my second choice).

Rik ter Veen: I’ll sell it as a 2=4=4=3 shape.

Gyorgy Ormay: I don’t like canape (only as an overcall if ever), and I always open with good tricks. [Bidding] diamonds twice [takes away the chance] to find 4-4 hearts [when partner is weak].

Jonathan Brill: [Passing] can’t be right according to the Rule of 20, particularly in light of the excellent suit quality. Option D is insane on K-10-9-7-2 when the bid strongly suggests a six-card suit. Option E is weird (never mentions my longest suit); Option F distorts my shape and may get a preference when partner holds two hearts and three diamonds (not good). … Sure, I would like to have a club stopper, and I always do except when I don’t.

Gareth Birdsall: Definitely a 1 opening. Normally, I wouldn’t have the chance to rebid 1 NT sensibly (playing weak notrumps), but I prefer it to 2 as it describes the balanced nature of my hand. Of course, if the question were, “Which of the auctions would you be most happy with?” then the answer would be pass then 2 , since it misdescribes the hand least.

Kieran Dyke: Passing hands like this isn’t my style. Opening 1 is begging for a 4-2 fit — 1 then 1 NT is superior to 1 then 2 for that reason, but if you’re going to rebid 1 NT, why not open the longest suit? The 1 NT rebid is flexible, unlike 1 then 2 which will be our final resting place opposite a lot of weak hands with short diamonds. At least this way, if partner is 5-4+ in the majors, we’ll find hearts.

Mike Doecke: Decent spots and concentrated values make this worth an opening bid. I’d rather rebid 1 NT without a stopper than 2 on an average five-card suit.

Richard Stein: I open 11-point hands in which every point is concentrated in two long suits. After the inevitable spade reply, all that remains is to rebid 1 NT and hope that clubs don’t roar through — like they did at the beginning of the ride!

Andrew de Sosa: With 2 1/2 quick tricks, this hand qualifies as an opener using the Rule of 20. Of course, if I knew partner was going to open 1 , I’d pass then bid 2 . :)

Anthony Golding: I’d probably open this in practice… Having done so, I think it’s right to treat it is as balanced.

Sartaj Hans: If I rebid 2 , partner without a heart stopper [probably] bids 3 , and then I bid 3 NT; so I end up declaring notrump anyway.

Dale Freeman: The best lie! The 10-9, two and a half quick tricks and concentration of points make me open…

Gerben Dirksen: A nice 11-HCP is really enough to open. One notrump on two small clubs is not nice, but rebidding K-10-9-7-2 gives partner the wrong impression.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Roth-Stoners would pass, but most everyone else opens these days. One heart might be the bid in third seat, but not second. One notrump seems the more descriptive follow-up with such moderate diamonds. We are playing “new minor forcing” so we can find the heart suit; right?

Nick Krnjevic: This is an opening bid — fitting honors, good intermediates, two potential sources of tricks, two and a half quick-tricks, and the right vulnerability and form of scoring. What more could I want? … I must confess a sneaking admiration for four-card majorites who can get this hand off their chest in fine style via Option F; unfortunately, that’s not our system, and I don’t relish partner correcting to 2 holding Q-J-x-x x-x Q-x-x K-J-10-x, or driving to 4 with K-Q-10-x-x x-x-x Q A-J-10-x. One diamond followed by 2 overstates my diamond suit and gets us beyond 1 NT when that may be the last plus. Option C looks best. …

Dale Rudrum: Given the choice in hindsight, I would go for Option B (the most accurate description of my hand), [but] this is never the case; [so] I should open. Option C is the only one that does not give a completely wrong impression of my hand.

Doug Burke: Well, Marty Bergen keeps saying to open these hands; so 1 seems the right move. I feel I’m missing too many faces in the diamond suit to insist on it with 2 , however, so a smooth 1 NT may give me a heart lead. Is it Christmas yet?

Alan Kravetz: A good partner will have a club stopper.

Comments for D. 1 then 2

Richard Fedrick: Completely automatic for me, despite its imperfections. Without the 9, I would have chosen Option B.

Peter Karlsson: With hearts and a minor, it is more important to get into the bidding quickly. (Holding spades it is normally easy to balance later.) I prefer to open 1 … [but] a 1 NT rebid has two serious drawbacks: First, partner tends to HCP more seriously in notrump situations; second, the two small clubs.

Roger Courtney: Passing at the first turn is [reasonable], but I’d have a bigger problem if West opened 1 or 2 third in hand. Once partner responds 1 [to my 1 ], 2 is mandatory; 1 NT does not describe this hand.

Judy Nahmias: I must open, [even] knowing that my next bid will be a tough one. Rebidding diamonds is the least of evils.

Bogdan Vulcan: One diamond loses nothing. I simply won’t open 1 with four cards when my five-card diamond suit [is respectable]. … After that, 2 . I really don’t want to play notrump with the lead coming through my partner’s A-Q or something. …

Robin Zigmond: Not opening this hand at favorable vulnerability is just chicken, even with a potential rebid problem. Even after the unattractive 2 rebid, we should still reach the right spot, particularly as partner has an opening hand himself. :)

Arian Lasocki: Partner will know I can have this kind of hand. If 4 is making, we won’t miss it; however, we may miss the best partscore. …

Veljko Vujcic: I think this holding is a must-open in modern bridge. With x-x A-J-x-x K-10-9-x-x K-x, Option C could be the best option.

Christoffer Arntzen: Difficult. I want to open but have no good rebid. Notrump should not be played on my side; so I prefer to rebid 2 , even if it normally shows 6+ cards. …

Luis Argerich: I can’t pass a seven-loser hand with 11 HCP [in the long] suits. [Compared to] 1 NT, a 2 rebid is easy; I have at least five diamonds and not a great hand.

Andrea Missias: Rebidding 1 NT would show a full opener, which I don’t have. Tough to be quiet on all those heart values, but rebidding 2 gives the best picture.

Manuel Paulo: Though my values are scarce, I open; and I don’t distort the shape of my hand, either by opening 1 or by rebidding 1 NT.

Comments for F. 1 then 2

Tibor Roberts: Either pass then 2 , or 1 then 1 NT seem reasonable if partner and I never open four-card majors; but I think the better players are going to show where their values are, especially with such a convenient rebid.

James Hudson: I expect to score badly on this one, but the other choices strike me as even less appetizing. I suppose Option B is the best of the rest.

Florentin Axinte: One must be a diehard for five-card majors not to open 1 (least of evils). Why open? Because the HCP are concentrated in two suits, plus nice texture.

Rainer Herrmann: Should partner next give a preference to hearts, get ready for the fun playing a 4-2 fit — on a sunny day it may even be the right strain. I know the majority will choose Option C, but bypassing such a heart suit cannot be good bridge in my view. I could live with Option E but not C. I do not mind at all getting raised with a three hearts… and should North hold Q-x and a diamond fit, I could now reach 4 as the only makable game!

Simon Cheung: … This hand is qualified for opening because it contains good honor sequences and intermediates. After 1 , rebidding over 1 is almost impossible; either I wrong-side notrump or [may] end up in a silly diamond contract… Opening a four-card major is unorthodox, but this hand should play well opposite three-card support. I hope partner will not have 2-2 in the red suits.

Charles Blair: Partner has A-x-x-x Q-10 A-Q-x-x x-x-x; clubs are 5-3, and hearts are 4-3.

Bob Zorn: I cannot tell a lie. I’ve been doing this at the table my whole life, and I think it works more often then other approaches. My wife and favorite partner would open 1 and [make] the anti-positional 1 NT rebid. Just a matter of style.

Richard Willey: I have forgiving partners.

Stephen McDevitt: The only sequence that makes sense. This is a suit-oriented hand and just worth opening (the diamond texture puts it over the top). Partner may grumble at the missing fifth heart, but that’s why God gave me thick glasses.

Howard Byers: Oops, had a diamond in with my hearts, partner. This excuse usually works, especially at my age.

Michael Kaplan: I’d open (Rule of 20). Those who open 1 are forced to rebid 1 NT, as 2 with a poor five-card suit is a bad idea. … With a chunky heart suit, opening 1 and rebidding 2 is a standout.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 532), and on each problem only for the top three calls. About 67 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

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

I hope you enjoyed this flashback to “Big D” and the 1997 Vanderbilt.
Thanks to all who responded, and especially those who offered kind remarks.

I’m off to the Cotton Bowl to see the Texas Longhorns, so the trail hands will finish it out:

Jeff Goldsmith: I think this was the easiest bidding set you’ve had in many a moon.

Bob Zorn: Did you empty your archives of hands without solutions? This was the hardest bidding set I’ve ever seen.

One says easy, the other says hard, but only one thing really matters:

John R. Mayne: Don’t mess with Texas!

Analyses 7Y16 Main Challenge

Scores Top Stanwyck Role and Sixty

© 2002 Richard Pavlicek