Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge
Starry, Starry Night
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 7Y24 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in January of 2003, 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 |
The “Route 66” sign caused many people to assume the United States. This famous historic highway runs from Chicago to Los Angeles, so there were many guesses for places in between such as St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, Phoenix and Albuquerque — the last being an excellent choice because of the Sandia Mountains. Sorry, but the road sign indicated only the year — the tournament was held in 1966.
The title and background song of the same name were clues to the location. The song is also known as “Vincent,” or more completely “Vincent (Starry, Starry Night).” Similarly titled “Starry Night” is the famous painting (pictured at right) by Vincent van Gogh. I was keying on the name Vincent to suggest the tournament was held in Saint-Vincent, Italy. The mountain silhouette shown is the peak of Mont Avic, one of the nearby Italian Alps.
A number of people were close, guessing various locations in Europe: Arles, France; Amsterdam (site of the van Gogh museum); Aix en Provence, France; and Como, Italy (see Catch a Falling Star). At least 10 people guessed either the year or the location, but only three were right on both accounts. Congratulations to Kevin Costello, Richard Morse and Barry Rigal.
The background song Vincent was written and recorded in 1972 by Don McLean (composer of many great popular hits, including “And I Love You So” and “American Pie”). The title and lyrics are based on the life of Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890), and especially the painting, which van Gogh completed in a mental institution only a year before he died. The painting certainly has a touch of insanity, yet a sense of balance seems to prevail. Fascinating.
Frans Buijsen Wins!This poll had 1035 participants from 107 locations, and the average score was 47.05. The top score of 59 was achieved by 13 people! Congratulations to Frans Buijsen (Netherlands); Neil Morgenstern (England); Erik Stoffer (Netherlands); Keller Wightman (Seattle, Washington); Michael Dodson (US); Jonathan Brill (US); Dean Swallow (UK); David Lindop (Toronto, Ontario); Bertrand Kushner (US); Jim Grant (UK); Gordon Bower (US); Janneke Zim (Netherlands); and Alessandra La Spina (Italy).
Like the last bidding poll, it was surprising that no one scored 60, especially with the record number of participants. The top award for each problem became apparent after about a week of voting, and someone usually comes through with all 10s — but not this time. Frans must be sitting on a stack of horseshoes to win with 59. Oh, and I must mention (if I want dinner tonight) that Mabel came through with her best-ever 57 this month. That’s my girl!
In the overall standings, Rosalind Hengeveld (Netherlands) scored a solid 56 this month to hold her lead (by tiebreaker) over Gerry Wildenberg (US), each with a 57.00 average. Close behind are Chris Maclauchlan (US) and Leo Zelevinsky (US) with 56.75. Watch out! Josh Sinnett (US) is next with 56.50, closing in fast to the top spot he held for so long in the past.
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
The 1966 Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held April 26-May 4, 1966 at the Hotel Billia in Saint-Vincent, Italy. Five teams were involved: Italy (defending champion), Netherlands (Europe), North America, Thailand (Asia) and Venezuela (South America).
The event was conducted as a straight round-robin, with each team playing 140 boards against each other in 20-board segments. This format was as good as any in those days since Italy almost never lost a match, although starting in 1967 it became the custom to have a final match between the two leading teams.
After a grueling 560 boards, Italy won every match, defeating North America 319-262, Netherlands 326-198, Thailand 486-143, and Venezuela 362-203. North America finished second, beating Netherlands 477-243, Thailand 359-234, and Venezuela 398-260. Venezuela finished third, Netherlands fourth, and Thailand fifth (sounds better than last).
So what else is new. The Italian Blue Team won each match convincingly to wrap up its eighth consecutive Bermuda Bowl title. Just another walk in the park for Benito Garozzo, Pietro Forquet, Giorgio Belladonna, Walter Avarelli, Massimo D’Alelio and Camillo Pabis Ticci. Ho hum. Hopefully, they will forgive my decision to picture my countrymen.
Three partnerships comprised the American team: Bob Hamman and Lew Mathe, Phil Feldesman and Ira Rubin (all U.S.), and Eric Murray and Sami Kehela (Canada). Pictured (top row) are Hamman, Murray and Kehela, and (bottom row) Rubin, Feldesman and Mathe. I couldn’t help but notice the humor in this photo (actually a wide shot that I split into two rows). Observe that partners Murray and Kehela are standing together, and so are Rubin and Feldesman. Hamman, however, is as far away from Mathe as possible. Anyone who remembers Mathe’s volatile disposition will appreciate this.
The problems for this poll were selected from three different matches, all involving the North American team (Italy, Netherlands and Thailand). So pull up a chair and see how your bidding compares with the experts in 1966.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 1
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 1 
| EAST Pass Pass | South 1  ? | K Q 4 K 5 A 3 A Q J 8 5 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 NT | 10 | 407 | 39 |
| 2 | 9 | 274 | 26 |
| 2 | 8 | 29 | 3 |
| 3 NT | 7 | 101 | 10 |
| 4 | 5 | 55 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 140 | 14 |
| 3 | 2 | 29 | 3 |
There is no descriptive rebid in this awkward standard sequence, so it’s a matter of choosing the least of evils. The consensus preferred 2 NT, hoping partner would not have the rare hand to pass. If this were the only gamble, I’d say OK; but even if partner bids again, is there any realistic chance to reach the nearly laydown 6 or 6 NT opposite A-J-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x K-x? Hardly; partner would just raise you to 3 NT.
A number of respondents commented they would have opened 2 NT to avoid this problem, which is certainly reasonable although not ideal. The actual 1 opening would have been fine if partner had the decency to bid 1 or 1 ; then 3 NT would be a good description, showing at least a strong six-card club suit. After the unlucky 1 response, however, 3 NT is much less desirable with fitting spade honors and weak red-suit stoppers.
My own choice is to manufacture a reverse, and I slightly prefer 2 to 2 because of the secondary honor in hearts. Curiously, it is also safer to bid hearts than diamonds because, if partner has four hearts and raises, you can always correct to spades knowing he must have five. The reverse bid also confirms five or more clubs, which is more likely to bring a slam into the picture. On my previous example, the auction might go: 1 1 ; 2 2 (5+ cards, 1-round force); 3 (ace showing) 4 ; 6 (or 6 NT).
Here is the actual deal from the Italy-North America match:
| North America vs Italy | A J 10 6 5 9 7 4 2 Q 10 9 2
| |
| 2 A J 8 6 K 8 7 5 4 10 6 4
|  | 9 8 7 3 Q 10 3 J 6 2 K 9 7
|
| Both Vul | K Q 4 K 5 A 3 A Q J 8 5 3 | |
| Avarelli West Pass Pass Pass | Feldesman North 1 2 4
| Belladonna EAST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Rubin South 1 2 3
| 4 North 9 Made 5 +650 |
| Hamman West Pass Pass Pass | Forquet North 1 2 4
| Mathe EAST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Garozzo South 1 2 3
| 4 North 3 Down 1 -100 North America +13 IMPs |
The North hand was such that all roads (except a 3 NT rebid) would lead to 4 . At the first table, Rubin chose to make a fake reverse in diamonds and then gave a jump preference (forcing) after Feldesman bid 2 . Belladonna led a trump, and Feldesman drew trumps and took a straight club finesse, winning 11 tricks easily by establishing clubs.
At the second table in the Neapolitan Club system: 1 showed a strong hand, and 1 showed an ace or two kings. The rest was natural to reach the same contract. The play, however, was not so easy when Mathe led a heart*; king, ace; heart to the 10; diamond shift, ducked to the king; then a heart tapping dummy. Forquet could have succeeded, but he guessed wrong to play A; club ruff; heart ruff, then overtake the K. Down one; 13 IMPs to North America.
*Mathe was adamant about not leading trumps on the opening lead. Many years ago, he expounded this theory to me at the end of a round in a pairs event. Sure enough, in a subsequent event I came to his table again and was on lead against 4 . A trump lead stood out to me, so it was on the table. Mathe’s expression was priceless. I’m sure he was thinking, “How dare you, fool!” as he wrapped up 10 tricks with the flair of a virtuoso. Naturally, I could have beaten him with a club lead from K-J-x-x.
Comments for 2 NTFrans Buijsen: An opportunistic choice between 2 and 2 NT. I actually think 2 is more likely to stay out of a bad 3 NT, but choose what I think will be majority choice. Actually, I would rather open 2 NT then rebid it in this way.
Neil Morgenstern: … Even if partner has five spades, I might want to play in notrump to protect my hearts, especially if partner has the K and we are going to bid a slam.
Gordon Bower: This feels like a serious misdescription (and a little bit of an underbid), but anything else nonforcing is worse. A phony reverse into a doubleton doesn’t do much for me.
Mark Florencz: Flexible enough; I want to declare, should we happen to play 3 NT. If we have 5-3 spades, we have brilliant bidding methods to find that fit.
Alex Perlin: This is a gross underbid, but it does leave room to get to 4 opposite A-x-x-x-x x-x Q-J-x-x x-x.
Scott Stearns: You will never convince me not to open 2 NT on this hand. Solves this problem, doesn’t it? I suppose a fake 2 reverse is the scientific bid, but it leaves me feeling like I’ll have too much catching up to do; so I just bash 2 NT for now. We can still get to spades, but bidding spades now will preclude us from right-siding 3 NT.
David Stewart: A little off-shape, but it’s still the best description of my hand.
Joc Koelman: This is somewhat an underbid, but 3 NT is no alternative as it promises a more solid six-card club suit and closes the road to a possible spade contract.
Chris Vinall: I would have opened this hand 2 NT, but with the conditions as given I now have to bid 2 NT. Three notrump would not suggest this spade holding.
Rosalind Hengeveld: The option of getting to a good 5-3 spade fit outweighs the chance that partner passes this and 3 NT makes. I love to bid vulnerable games on a finesse in teams, of course, but you just cannot bid them all.
Dave Maeer: I don’t fancy reversing on a doubleton, and 3 NT rules out spades. I think I’ll gamble on partner not passing 2 NT.
Mike Hargreaves: No spade bid is right; 3 NT is a misbid; 3 , a gross underbid. Two hearts stores up problems: When I prefer back to spades, I will have pinpointed a 3=4=1=5 or 3=4=0=6 hand, not exactly what I have. Two notrump is only a slight underbid. I would open 2 NT with this hand.
Karen Walker: A little heavy for this (which is why I would have opened 2 NT, even playing 20-22). All the alternatives, though, are poor — 3 is a serious underbid, 3 NT takes spades out of the picture, and reversing into a two-card suit takes partner out of the decision, as it makes it impossible for him to make an informed decision later.
Andrew Morris: This allows partner room to discover my spade fit. Three notrump is too unilateral. I accept the slight risk that partner may pass with nine tricks cold.
Peg Kaplan: I want to force to game, so 2 NT seems an odd choice since clearly partner can pass. Nevertheless, I think it’s an Al Roth kind of move: “If I can get past this” I will be better placed to figure out if we belong in game or slam — that is, of course, if we don’t rest in 2 NT!
Peter Gill: I seem to have forgotten to open 2 NT, which unsurprisingly would have made the bidding substantially easier, as partner could have transferred with five spades (right-siding the spades) or used Stayman with four spades.
Adam Folke: Two diamonds or 2 could lead to the goal, but in my experience bidding a nonexistent suit causes more trouble than it is worth most times. … In the choice between 2 NT and 4 , I choose 2 NT as we often should play 3 NT. …
Y.C. Koh: Bluffing partner on my distribution (kind of) but a fair reading on point count. … I’ll just tell him I mistook my 3 for the 3. :)
Eric Goff: Bidding a red suit [could] be a disaster. My spades are too good and clubs too bad for 3 NT. Three clubs and 3 are hopeless underbids. Four spades is possible, but I really like to insist on four trumps. Two notrump seems like the most descriptive and flexible call.
Julian Wightwick: Three notrump is tempting, but it shows a solid club suit. This is a slight underbid but not so much as 3 . If partner bids again, I can bid spades strongly and will be well placed to get to slam in either black suit.
Godwin Jeyaseelan: Keeps the bidding low and flexible to find a 5-3 spade fit; right-sides a potential notrump contract.
Jonathan Steinberg: I prefer to risk that partner will pass, rather than make a phony reverse or try to guess the final contract. Two notrump is the best description, even though I am on the heavy side. …
Richard Willey: The Bridge World never settled this one. Do you think that we’re going to? Two notrump stands out due to the need to protect the K on the opening lead.
Robert McGlohon: According to your Bidding Guide, the book bid here is 4 *, which isn’t an option. Even if it were, I’d treat it as balanced and bid 2 NT.
*Good observation, and you must admit it could be the winning move toward reaching slam. Nonetheless, the balanced nature of the hand makes it so unappealing that I decided not to insult you with the option. The Bidding Guide, of course, is just that: a guide, not a doctrine. -RP
Thomas Kniest: Maybe a little overstrength, but it protects against the heart lead in notrump and certainly keeps spades in the picture.
Gyorgy Ormay: Better to play notrump from my side with the guarded K.
Bob Zorn: Tough hand in standard methods. This gives a reasonable description, protects the K and keeps spades in play; unfortunately, it probably loses clubs. Why didn’t I open 2 NT?
Leonard Helfgott: Any spade raise is more of a distortion than 2 NT, which is an underbid. Three notrump should be reserved for hands that have more elsewhere and less in spades, like K K-J-x A-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x. Better to reverse into diamonds (my second choice) than hearts, but unnatural non-telling bids are usually more dangerous than underbids. Wolff sign-off would be useful here, so responder can bid again with spade length and garbage, after which I can jump in spades.
Steve Landen: I might have opened 2 NT but won’t bid 3 NT now without the 10.
Rainer Herrmann: An old chestnut; I prefer the straightforward 2 NT to 2 . Two notrump is only a very slight underbid.
Neelotpal Sahai: While this should show a balanced hand, it pinpoints my high-card strength, and no other bid is perfect. Bidding 2 or 2 is distorting the shape; 3 is an underbid; 3 NT and 4 are overbids. Three spades is the other option, but I would prefer another trump for that. …
Rik ter Veen: If I reverse and then support spades, partner expects a singleton. If I bid 3 or 4 , partner expects four trumps. I’ll try an almost-forcing 2 NT. By the way, if you give 2 NT as an option now, it is clearly better to open [2 NT].
Florentin Axinte: Ouch! Seems partner’s put pressure on me. Two diamonds is very, very tempting, but I guess 2 NT is the lesser risk. … Anyone for 2 NT opening here?
Roelof van Lopik: … Better than 3 NT because partner [has more room to bid]. Maybe 4 is a better contract.
Comments for 2 Jonathan Brill: This is a hand that epitomizes the lunacy of standard bidding methods.
David Lindop: We could belong in spades, notrump or clubs; we may belong in game or slam (hopefully not a partscore); and notrump may play better from partner’s side. Two diamonds seems most flexible.
Jim Grant: I went for 3 NT originally, but now I change my mind and follow the Jeff Rubens route. I don’t know where we’ll end up, so I have to keep my options open and force for one round.
Ted Ying: The reverse bid…establishes my strength. After I raise spades at my next opportunity, partner will probably think I have 3=1=4=5 or 3=0=4=6, but at least he will know I have three spades and at least five clubs.
Adam Saroyan: All actions are flawed. At least with 2 I will get another chance to misdescribe my hand further. As partner is likely to hold five or more spades, 4 is probably best in the long run, as ugly as it looks; I simply can’t bring myself to bid it. With my regular partner I can bid 3 or 3 to show three-card spade support, long clubs and an honor in the bid suit — not a perfect solution but a vast improvement on the alternatives listed. …
Nigel Guthrie: …A slam is cold opposite, say, A-J-x-x Q-x-x x-x-x K-x-x. I assume that 2 is forcing in the U.S. (it would not always be in the U.K.). …
Danny Sprung: Joann and I play three of a red suit shows three-card spade support and long clubs; convenient for this hand. I would have opened 2 NT to avoid this problem; now 2 seems like the smallest lie, assuming partner plays it 100-percent forcing. If I am playing with Geir, I’d bid 4 ; he is the one who passed here, right?
Danny is referring to a recent deal in which Geir Helgemo (playing with Jimmy Cayne) passed a reverse, which indeed was a manufactured one. As I recall, Cayne played the silly 2 contract cleverly to make it, albeit for little consolation. -RP
Jeff Goldsmith: Seeing this problem in advance, I would have opened 2 NT; it’s a balanced hand too good to jump rebid 2 NT. Note that you have a rebid problem over any one-level response.
Manuel Paulo: I want to raise spades in a forcing context; so I reverse, and I choose a minor rather than a major suit. (My opening bid would have been 2 NT).
Ron Zucker: The hand rates too strong for 2 NT, especially in a suit contract, but I don’t like to jump raise on three pieces. Meanwhile, 3 NT is too unilateral, as I can’t investigate. … Two diamonds lets me bid spades over partner’s next bid…
Connie Delisle: I need three bids to describe my hand.
Hmm. If one of those bids is two diamonds you must be a magician, too.
Barry Rigal: Woolsey-Manfield, as I recall, used to play 3 as a three-card raise with six clubs, an ideal method for this hand. Short of that, the reverse into hearts has some merit because partner will not raise without five spades, but 2 gets my vote since over 2 I can bid 3 .
Len Vishnevsky: Clubs aren’t good enough for 3 NT (showing a hand too good to rebid 3 ); 2 NT, 3 and 3 are nonforcing; 2 is hair-raising; 4 is misguided. Two diamonds doesn’t have to work, but it should score 10.
Nick Doe: Close, but this has the merit of keeping the bidding low when I am still uncertain about strain and level. It also shows real clubs, which 2 NT does not. Three notrump loses the spades.
Frank van Wezel: Best of all lies; keeps the bidding low and all options open. If partner keeps on bidding diamonds, I can correct to spades all the time.
Chris Maclauchlan: I want to force to game, but I don’t know which game. That leaves the fake reverse, which I have done once in my entire bridge playing career, and now three times in your polls, Mr. Pavlicek.
Ron Sperber: One of a lot of misleading bids. Two notrump, 3 and 3 are underbids; 4 with only three-card support seems dubious; and 3 NT should show solid clubs. At least by reversing I can later show three-card support, and [bidding] diamonds seems a preferable lie to hearts.
Alan Kravetz: Three notrump is right on strength, but a [red-suit] lead could hurt, and partner may have 5+ spades. Three clubs and 2 NT are [underbids].
Dale Freeman: [It pays to] bid aggressive vulnerable games at IMPs. Two notrump; 3 and 3 are underbids; 3 NT and 4 are too final. I would rather lie with 2 than 2 .
David Davies: … I have some sympathy for spade raises (if partner bids up-the-line) because then there is a very good chance that partner will have five; however, I am too strong for 3 , and 4 is too final when there are other possible strains and levels. So I bid a red suit; diamonds seems better since there is less chance of partner embarrassing me by trying to play in it.
Sandy Barnes: Ugly options; but I need to force to game, not go past 3 NT, and have a chance to support spades. Two diamonds leaves partner more space, and a heart lead might be helpful if I play it.
Jack Duranceau: Hopefully, partner doesn’t go nuts with [diamonds]. The prepared reverse is a Kaplan-Sheinwold staple… and staying low [may help solve] many issues.
Bill Huepenbecker: I’m not a fan of the fake reverse, but the flaws present in the other bids are too great. I choose 2 since partner is less likely to punish me than if I bid 2 .
Richard Fedrick: I don’t see a sensible alternative. I’m not about to try and stop on a pinhead below game, so 2 NT, 3 and 3 are all out; 3 NT and 4 are absurd; and if I’m going to lie about length, I’m obviously going to choose the minor.
James Hudson: Create a force and get some further description of partner’s hand. I want to know about his spade length, club support (if any), and overall strength.
P.A. Eriksson: Awkward! This could have been avoided if I had opened 2 NT. Bidding 2 NT now is an underbid. Bidding 2 is a pain, but at least partner will not pass, and if he bids 2 we are on the move.
Michael Kenny: I do not think 2 NT does my hand justice, and I am much better than 3 . I want to make a choice that does not make it difficult for partner to indicate extra spade length if he has that. I am much more concerned about having to retreat from hearts than from diamonds so I choose 2 .
Erwin Witteveen: This is extremely difficult…and 2 is the most flexible. The natural 2 NT surely underbids my hand. Will partner ever bid 6 with A-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x K-x? If I bid 3 , I risk missing a game, or notrump in the wrong hand, or a creative 3 or 3 answer which doesn’t help me. So, my 1 opening was wrong. I should open either [2 NT or 2 ].
John Jones: Three clubs and 3 are significant underbids. Of the others 2 seems most flexible in terms of allowing further investigation without placing too much emphasis on any strain.
Tim DeLaney: I want to be in game, but I don’t know where. Two diamonds is a better bid than 2 because I have a sure diamond stopper if partner declares 3 NT. I normally detest a fake reverse, but I see no good alternative here.
John Byers: Spade and club bids seem premature and take up too much room. Fast unilateral arrival at 3 NT gives up on slam prospects. I prefer hearing partner’s structured response to my reverse, and having the prospect of a 2 response over 2 gives 2 the edge.
Tayfun Kucuk: If partner next bids 2 , I bid 3 ; if 2 , I bid 4 ; if 2 NT, I bid 3 .
Prahalad Rajkumar: Though I hate to reverse with a doubleton, I dislike the other options with more vehemence.
John R. Mayne: A mild tweak on the Bridge World “death hand,” but that hand is usually 6-3-3-1. Here, 2 NT is unattractive with the prime red-suit values, and I really need partner to cough up some information. Two diamonds, while misdescriptive, should permit a reasonable path.
Michael Spurgeon: … I will probably support spades on the next round. If North rebids 2 NT, then he should have a heart stopper to reinforce my doubleton king. Bidding 2 NT is an underbid and might prevent us from bidding a good slam.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Too strong for 2 NT or 3 ; don’t like three-trump jump raises; and 3 NT shows a solid suit, though it might still be practical here. Between the reverses, I favor 2 as it gives partner an easy 2 bid over which I can support spades economically.
Anthony Golding: I notice that going back and opening 2 NT is not one of the options; pity. I might have bid 4 if available — your system notes say it’s forcing, although my suit might be too weak. It’s a choice between 2 NT and a false reverse, and I’m too good to risk being passed. I choose 2 to leave partner room to bid 2 .
Stu Goodgold: This hand is certainly worth [forcing]. Two notrump might be passed, and 3 NT suggests a long, running minor. While 2 lies about shape, at least partner won’t bid notrump without a heart stopper.
Ed Shapiro: This is trivial if you play this as forcing and have any sensible rebidding structure for responder, such as that used in Kaplan-Sheinwold. … If I had any question whether this auction were forcing, I would have opened 2 NT, even though the hand might be a bit good for that.
Atul Khare: I will never be able to get across the great spade support by bidding 3 NT, which sounds like a hand with a long club suit and everything except spades covered. Ergo, it’s time to manufacture a reverse — hopefully, partner isn’t 4-5 in spades and diamonds. :)
Mark Raphaelson: Eventually I will bid 3 NT after my delayed spade raise. If I bid 2 and partner bids notrump, a heart lead through my king could be deadly. If I bid 2 and partner bids notrump, we should be OK with partner’s heart stopper.
Michael Kanigsberg: Aggressive, but with three possible slams, I need more information. This leaves the most flexibility.
Oleg Rubinchik: At my next turn I will have to make a decision, but I need information about partner’s hand. [If I learn nothing more], I can always choose spades.
Comments for 2 Arend Bayer: Common wisdom says, “Don’t lie about length in majors,” but that is irrelevant as I will correct any contract in hearts to spades. Also, partner’s high cards in hearts seem more useful than in diamonds; hence I prefer 2 over 2 .
J. Michael Andresen: The rare problem of not having a game-forcing bid available when the final strain is in doubt. Usually there is a three-card suit to reverse or jump shift into, but here it has to be a two-card suit. I’ll bid spades at my next turn to give a picture of my hand.
Giovanni Bobbio: It’s either 2 or 2 . Two diamonds is cheaper, but 2 has the advantage that if partner raises I will know for sure he holds five spades, too. If he raises diamonds, he may still be 4-4 in the pointed suits.
Kieran Dyke: Forcing, so it’s temporarily safe. If partner raises he must have five spades also, so it’s safe for later, too. Nonforcing bids and direct spade raises are out.
Richard Stein: If partner raises hearts, I raise spades. Two diamonds carries a slight risk since some players have a style of responding 1 with four spades and four (or even five weak) diamonds.
Gordon Rainsford: If I’m going to manufacture a reverse, it has to be in hearts not diamonds since partner might bid 1 with 4-4 in spades and diamonds; but he won’t do so with spades and hearts.
Chris Willenken: Two hearts is fairly safe; if partner has four hearts, he will also have five spades. This hand has too much slam potential to rebid 2 NT.
Daniel Korbel: I like the reverse into hearts because, if partner has support, he must logically have five spades; so we will not get to the wrong strain. This keeps clubs, spades and notrump open.
Nikolay Demirev: I hate to do this, but it is system-protected as partner cannot have 4-4 in the majors; i.e., any heart raise is correctable to spades. Another little consideration is that whenever partner declares 3 NT a potential Q-x-x will be protected. …
Roger Courtney: This may well get a bad score in the poll… but I’d bid it at the table as a lead-director for East. :) If partner bids anything other than 2 , it will be hard to keep me out of slam… 2 is an insurance policy which might pay off even if we play in 4 with K offside. If partner plays 6 NT with a heart lead, it’ll be OK as my partner’s all have a sense of humor.
Bijoy Anand: Two notrump, 3 and 3 all have flaws, the biggest being that they are only invitational. Three notrump is too unilateral. The key is to find out if partner has only a four-card spade suit; or is it longer? The manufactured reverse to 2 also has lead-inhibiting value.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 2
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST 2 1
| North 2 NT | East 3
| South ? | 7 6 3 2 10 K Q 10 9 7 5 2 6
|
| 1. 12-16, 5+ hearts, 4+ clubs | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 378 | 37 |
| 3 NT | 8 | 281 | 27 |
| 4 | 6 | 261 | 25 |
| 4 | 5 | 50 | 5 |
| 4 | 4 | 22 | 2 |
| Pass | 1 | 43 | 4 |
Strange situation. A few respondents complained that I shouldn’t pose a problem based on a special convention without explaining defensive agreements. Perhaps not, but we’ve all faced unfamiliar situations at the table where the only recourse is to wing it based on general bridge knowledge. That was the intent here. Partner’s 2 NT should be a normal notrump bid (16-19 per system guidelines), and this hand is clearly worth a bid. The problem is whether to bid game in 3 NT or 5 , or compete to 4 .*
*It is arguable whether 4 is forcing or competitive, but the latter meaning is more logical and should prevail in the absence of specific agreements. Opener is certainly allowed to bid 5 with the right dummy, but he should also be able to pass.
I agree with the consensus. The extreme shape suggests that 5 will have a play opposite most hands — even a bare minimum with wasted club values, e.g., K-x A-x-x A-J-x K-J-x-x-x, probably only needs the A onside. This example also shows that 3 NT may be hopeless even when partner has the A, contrary to the beliefs of many who assumed all they needed was that card. On the average, I’d guess it’s better than even money that 5 will make, and slightly less for 3 NT.
The 3 NT bidders could certainly be right, e.g., it’s the only game opposite Q-J-x A-J-9 A-x K-Q-x-x-x. But I’m sure if I bid it, partner would have J-x, and my hand would be useless. Three notrump is probably right at matchpoints because, when it works, you’ll often score an overtrick or two for a top. At IMPs I’ll keep my feet on the ground.
What about cue-bidding 4 (or 4 , whatever that means)? If the purpose is to search for a 4-4 spade fit, it’s like chasing rainbows. Even if partner has four spades, a 4 contract is probably doomed either by your weak trumps or a bad trump break. The one redeeming feature for a cue-bid is the off chance it might lead to a magic diamond slam, e.g., opposite K-Q A-x-x A-x-x-x A-x-x-x.
Many respondents recognized the 2 opening as a Roman two-bid, and yes, here come those Italians again:
| North America vs Italy | A J 9 A 6 5 J 6 3 A K 9 8
| |
| Q 10 4 K Q J 8 2 A Q 7 5 4
|  | K 8 5 9 7 4 3 8 4 J 10 3 2
|
| E-W Vul | 7 6 3 2 10 K Q 10 9 7 5 2 6 | |
| Belladonna WEST 2 1Pass | Rubin North 2 NT Pass | Avarelli East 3 Pass | Feldesman South 3 NT | 3 NT North 3 Down 1 -50 1. 12-16, 5+ hearts, 4+ clubs |
| Mathe WEST 1 Pass Pass Pass | Garozzo North 1 NT 3 4 5
| Hamman East Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Forquet South 3 3 4
| 5 South K Down 1 -50 No swing |
In the first auction, from which the problem came, Feldesman guessed wrong to try the nine-trick game — down one after the routine heart lead. Unlucky, perhaps, but it seems he went against the odds.
At the second table, the Italians bid well after the opposing 1 opening to reach the much superior 5 game. Mathe led a trump (sure, when Hell freezes over); of course he led the K. Forquet won the ace, ruffed a heart, forced out the A, and proceeded along elimination lines to reach a four-card ending: A-J-9 6 opposite 7-6-3 Q. Alas, this was an oversight. When he next led the 3 intending to finesse the nine, Mathe sharply played the queen; now he was down no matter what he did. Remember this trap the next time you plan for an endplay. Oh well; just another push board.
Comments for 5 Frans Buijsen: I would play 4 as forcing and slam-going, so see this as a weaker fast-arrival bid. Hoping for some aces in partner’s hand…
Neil Morgenstern: Three notrump (my first thought) is a wild gamble relying too much on partner having one particular card (the A). And even if he does have it, we might be beaten… Five diamonds should hopefully make whatever partner has for his 2 NT bid.
David Lindop: Three notrump could be very right or very wrong. We’re unlikely to have a spade fit since partner didn’t double; and even if we do, diamonds may be better. Five diamonds feels about right…
Jim Grant: Call me a hog if you like. Besides, the opponents might bid 4 over 3 NT or 4 , so it would be back to me anyway. …
Gordon Bower: … I’m going to ignore spades and try 5 with my somewhat freakish shape. … Second choice is 4 , but I am not sure partner’s second call will help me any more than his first did.
Andrew de Sosa: Avoids a disaster. It’s extremely unlikely to get doubled, and it could make (including some hands where partner doesn’t hold the A); and even if it doesn’t, it could be a great save. The other choices seem far less palatable. Passing is out since game is quite possible… and 3 NT requires partner to hold the A and two outside quick tricks. And what is 4 or 4 ? … Even I manage to convey a Stayman request and partner happens to hold four spades, it’s hardly clear we belong in 4 given the probable bad splits.
Ted Ying: Here’s hoping that my two singletons in West’s suits are working, and that it doesn’t duplicate too many round cards in partner’s hand. At matchpoints I might consider 4 but don’t want to miss a game at IMPs.
Jonathan Goldberg: Looks like about 19 [total] trumps, which usually makes this right. I might even make it.
Adam Saroyan: Can’t tell who’s making what; possibly no one can. Partner has a right to expect more if I bid 4 to try and show the spades; and do I really want to play there anyway? East might just know how that will go.
Frances Hinden: Seems a guess between this and 3 NT, but 5 will go fewer off [if wrong].
J. Michael Andresen: I do have a six-loser hand, so I should make 5 . A double here would be nice if it were responsive, allowing us to find 4 when it’s right. Slam seems possible but unlikely, but I leave that open to partner to bid with appropriate controls and fit.
Nigel Guthrie: In my opinion, 5 = 10, 3 NT = 8, 4 = 6. Hoping partner has K-Q-J A-J-x J-x-x A-Q-x-x.
Murat Azizoglu: I expect spade strength (not length) and two- or three-card diamond support from partner.
Rosalind Hengeveld: This probably stands a good chance whenever partner has two aces. Besides, also an advantage over 3 NT, it puts Avarelli or Belladonna on my left under pressure if he has a pronounced two-suiter.
Only one thing worse than a wise guy… It’s a wise gal.
Jeff Goldsmith: Four diamonds is essentially a transfer to 5 , so why give the bad guys another bid in there?
Mike Hargreaves: Even if we have a 4-4 spade fit, that suit may be a poor choice for trumps. At IMPs pass is cowardly, and 4 is being too careful. …
Doug Burke: I smell a game, and 3 NT is a bit too risky.
Peter Gill: A 7-2 fit may play much better than a 4-4 fit when I have 7-4 shape. …
Kieran Dyke: Interestingly, this can be right if partner fits diamonds (although 3 NT might make also) or, more likely, when he doesn’t…
Roland Watzdorf: I guess that 2 NT is still strong after this kind of opening, but who cares. If partner is strong, I can make; else I can sacrifice.
Philippe Westreich: If partner has the A, 3 NT should be easy; if not, it could be a disaster. So I think 5 is safer.
Damo Nair: I’m making my one call and keep will keep quiet for the rest of the auction.
Richard Stein: I think I can make it. Perhaps partner and other skeptics may disagree, but I think I can make it.
Jonathan Steinberg: I can give partner hands where only 3 NT will make, 4 is maximum, and/or 5 has play. A complete guess; but if going down, 5 must be safer than 3 NT. I am 7-4! I’ll play in my suit.
Kenneth Wanamaker: The opponents got in our way, so I can’t be scientific; I can’t pass with this distribution.
Robert McGlohon: Likely can’t run diamonds in 3 NT; so 5 , preemptive, but hoping to make.
Sverre Johnsen: … Unless partner has the A, I cannot be sure diamonds will run [in 3 NT].
Comments for 3 NTAlex Perlin: I am trying to teach partner not to overcall 2 NT with the stiff A.
Scott Stearns: I think East is fooling around. I could (barely) live with a responsive double, but for now I’ll just bid 3 NT to make; I hope. Good partners always have A-x, anyway.
Martin Bootsma: The same as I would have done without the 3 call. If the opponents double I might run to 4 .
Joc Koelman: A bit a gamble, but I need a lot of controls from partner to have a go at 5 . If 3 NT is not making, it might have kept the opponents out of a cold 4 .
Chris Vinall: North needs the A (or three diamonds with a 2-1 break). I can construct hands where 5 makes when 3 NT doesn’t; but I think it is more likely that North’s heart or club kings are rendered useless [in 5 ].
Gerben Dirksen: I’ll take my chance that partner has the A. Without it he [would need] a great hand to make 5 .
Dave Maeer: I think this is the most likely game. There may be two aces and a ruff against 5 . I will look foolish if partner has J-x.
Dale Rudrum: … If partner has A-x, three diamonds, or even two small diamonds and West the ace singleton, we might make 3 NT… If they double, I run to 4 .
Karen Walker: It’s impossible to determine if partner’s hand is prime enough for 11 tricks, but it seems against the odds. (Would anyone, even a disciple of the Pavlicek No-Frills System, really take 4 as Gerber here?) Although 3 NT will be a bigger minus score if partner doesn’t have a suitable diamond holding, I think it’s a better gamble.
Manuel Paulo: Slam is possible, but unlikely; I bet on the nine-trick game.
Ron Zucker: Partner shows stoppers. I think this hand is more likely to produce nine tricks than 11. I’d like to bid 4 1/2 , but this will be my guess for now.
Bruce Scott: I picked 5 first; I’ve changed my mind to 3 NT. I don’t have anything intelligent to say about this problem. In contrast to the other questions, this time I admit it.
Barry Rigal: I won’t stick it out if doubled (what a coward!), but 3 NT is our most likely game. …
John Reardon: I have a source of tricks but too many losers to try anything else yet.
Andrew Morris: This is IMPs, so the gamble to find partner with A-x or better in diamonds should pay off in the long run. However, it pays to have a partner with a good temperament when this goes wrong!
Kevin Costello: This seems grotesque, but so does bypassing 3 NT when it might be the only makable game. I’m fully prepared to tuck tail between my legs and run like heck if doubled.
Peter Schwartz: Partner should have both hearts and clubs stopped, along with the values to open 1 NT; so 3 NT looks like a reasonable shot.
Chris Maclauchlan: This should be right if partner has the A-x or x-x-x; it could be very wrong if he doesn’t. If I’m doubled, I plan to slink proudly to 4 .
Ron Sperber: This is a bit risky but gambling that partner has the A; 3 NT seems a more likely game than 5 .
Giovanni Bobbio: I try to run home with nine tricks for now. I may have a problem if the opponents bid 4 ; but they might not, given our bidding and the vulnerability. I’ll bid 5 , if the necessity arises.
David Davies: I need partner to have the A, a heart stopper and one other quick trick to make 3 NT reasonable — not too much to ask for in the circumstances. Four diamonds is safe but unambitious; and while 5 is possible, 11 tricks could be difficult to make if partner has mediocre spades.
Sandy Barnes: Most likely game if one exists; second choice is 5 .
David Colbert: Partner is odds-on to hold the A, and otherwise we are not a favorite to make any game.
Roger Morton: Partner will need too many quick tricks to make 5 . I hope for slow stoppers in hearts and clubs plus a diamond fit, and it’s only fifty a trick if I’m wrong.
Andy Lewis: This is the most likely game. If partner lacks the A, we may go down several; but that risk is bearable nonvulnerable at IMPs.
Stephen McDevitt: Partner’s a slight favorite to have the A.
Chris Willenken: Five diamonds usually runs out of tricks with this few HCP and controls.
James Hudson: … This may go down a lot if partner lacks the A, which is about 50-50; but it won’t be doubled (if so I’ll run to 4 to avoid a disaster). …
Daniel Korbel: Let’s hope partner has A-x. Five diamonds seems quite a ways off.
Jelmer Hasper: My first thought was to bid 4 , and my second was to bid 3 NT. These two thoughts are now fighting in my head, but 3 NT is winning at the moment.
Erwin Witteveen: Hamman’s Rule, but a very close decision with 5 .
Howard Abrams: There is no room for science on this auction without going past 3 NT. Even nonvulnerable, IMPs encourages trying for game, so I will try the nine-trick game. I need too many specific cards from partner for 6 .
Nicoleta Giura: If partner has the A, my hand is a gold mine (er, make that a diamond mine).
Steve Mager: Making four or down four.
Gerald Cohen: When you dive into the depths of the unknown, it is better to grasp for a pearl than a pebble.
John Jones: This may well go down several when it goes down, but it is the most likely game.
Tim DeLaney: I have no certain way to go plus, so I might as well try for the brass ring.
John R. Mayne: If partner has the A, this should be cold. It’s a flat guess, and I think 3 NT is the percentage [bid].
Kevin Podsiadlik: If I thought 3 was invitational, I’d make them guess with 5 ; but in the context of the auction that seems unlikely. So I go for the gusto.
Nikolay Demirev: Does 4 show diamonds plus spade tolerance? :) If partner has no A, we may have three or four losers at 5 … so 3 NT looks the least demanding. There is a back door to 4 in case 3 NT is doubled.
Ian Payn: Save me from all the trouble and the pain.
Sriram Narasimhan: Four clubs and 4 are out of the question; if I pass, that will end the bidding in all likelihood. Five diamonds needs too much from partner, so 3 NT (aggressive) and 4 (conservative) seem to be the best options. …
Rob Stevens: Partner surely has a stopper in hearts and clubs, so the only reason to try for 5 is the craven fear of down several fewer when the A is [missing]. Four spades rates to be terrible even opposite four, succumbing to a bad break or a diamond ruff. Five diamonds also could be set by a ruff.
Comments for 4 Michele Holm: This doesn’t look like a notrump hand. Partner must have at least two diamonds; and if he has [good] controls, we may have a slam. … The best spot may be in spades, but I don’t think mine are biddable.
David Shelton: On an optimistic day 3 NT will make, [but] 4 has a better chance for a plus.
Adam Folke: I like 4 as it gives partner the option to bid 4 NT if he has the A.
Eric Goff: If 3 NT is right, 4 NT [may] be right as well.
Jack Duranceau: Total tricks imply bidding, although North may have soft heart values that make it wrong. (As my success with New Year’s resolutions indicate, I have no discipline).
Julian Wightwick: This seems about right; remember that partner [probably] has wasted stuff in both hearts and clubs. I can construct hands where 5 or 4 is on and partner passes, but I think there are more where game fails.
Mike Doecke: Tough problem. I’m not confident bidding 3 NT without an outside entry.
George Klemic: Five diamonds is probably a bit rich, but it would be silly not to compete. Partner should take this as highly invitational; and even if just to play, it’s probably not bad.
Tolga Yuret: We have a much better chance to make 4 than 3 NT. My spades are too poor to look for a fit.
Bob Zorn: Cowardly, for sure; but partner didn’t double which suggests wasted round-suit values. Missing a nonvulnerable game is not necessarily the end of the match. If the opponents continue to 4 and partner doubles, what will I do?
Anthony Golding: Enough to compete; if partner has the right cards (controls) for game, he’ll go on.
Gerald Murphy: Chances are partner will not have spades. This should show long diamonds and not much else; and partner now has the option of bidding on. Three notrump seems wrong, because my hand may be useless if partner lacks the A.
Brian Zietman: If partner can double 4 , fine; if not, I will sacrifice in 5 which then may be doubled (and made).
Stu Goodgold: North is likely to have some wasted values in hearts and clubs, but he can go to 5 [with good] controls.
Philip Smith: Tough. It’s hard to know if 4 is on with partner holding a good defensive hand. … Four diamonds won’t come to much harm…
Ed Shapiro: I want no part of spades, so a cue-bid is both misdirected and a huge overbid when I correct to diamonds. I have to get into the auction, since this easily could be a two-way game swing.
Bijoy Anand: Partner is unlikely to hold four good spades; his values are in clubs and hearts. My hand is much more offense-oriented, so I choose 4 (which may be the limit of the hand). If they bid 4 and partner doubles, I’ll sit for it.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 3
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass | North 1
| East 1
| South ? | A 6 4 3 A K 3 K 10 8 4 2 Q
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double | 10 | 578 | 56 |
| 2 | 9 | 198 | 19 |
| 3 NT | 5 | 81 | 8 |
| 1 | 3 | 57 | 6 |
| 2 | 2 | 84 | 8 |
| 2 NT | 1 | 37 | 4 |
I was disappointed with the voting on this problem, as I expected 2 to be the winner. Alas, the sight of four spades provoked the majority into a negative double despite the consequence that you can no longer show your five-card diamond suit* and might commit the partnership to a weak spade fit on a slam deal.
*A negative double followed by a diamond bid at any level would show a limited hand (nonforcing) with four spades and 5+ diamonds.
Those who doubled obviously wanted to settle the spade issue immediately. This will certainly work fine most of the time. If partner rebids 2 , the best contract is probably 3 NT and you can bid it forthwith, or perhaps after a cue-bid. But how will you reach the good 6 when partner has K-x x-x Q-J-x A-K-x-x-x-x? I suppose there’s a case that partner should bid 3 if you follow with 2 , but he might also do so with A-x. This kind of backdoor bidding makes a good postmortem, but in real life it must be better just to bid your suits.
If you respond 2 , you can still find a spade fit. Opener will bid 2 * on any decent spade suit, which is what you really need to consider a spade slam. If opener raises to 3 , you will have a close choice among 3 , 3 and 3 NT — I would bid 3 at IMPs since there’s no dread about reaching 5 instead of 3 NT. At matchpoints the problem is tougher, and the immediate negative double is probably better.
*This would not show extra strength (like a typical reverse bid) because you forced opener to rebid at a higher level than expected. All it means is that opener would have bid 1 if you had responded 1 (without interference).
You wanted a 4-4 spade fit? You got it! Here’s what happened in North America vs. Netherlands:
| North America vs Netherlands | Q 9 7 2 — A Q 6 5 A K 7 4 2
| |
| J 8 10 9 6 5 4 J 7 3 J 6 5
|  | K 10 5 Q J 8 7 2 9 10 9 8 3
|
| N-S Vul | A 6 4 3 A K 3 K 10 8 4 2 Q | |
| Kreyns WEST Pass 2 Pass Pass All Pass | Murray North 1 3 4 5
| Slavenburg East 1 Pass Pass Pass | Kehela South 2 3 4 NT 6
| 6 South Made 6 +1370 |
| Feldesman WEST Pass Pass Pass 5
| Boender North 1 2 4 6
| Rubin East 1 Pass Pass All Pass | Oudshoorn South 2 3 4 NT | 6 North Down 1 -100 North America +16 IMPs |
The actual deal should dispel some of the fears people have about missing a 4-4 major fit. Murray and Kehela bid well to avoid the spade trap, reaching the laydown diamond slam. Note that even a grand slam in diamonds is good (basically just needing a 4-3 club break), while 6 is odds-against.
At the second table, Oudshoorn’s direct cue-bid is bizarre (for the world this implies a club fit); but then, I don’t know their system. Maybe this was Standard Dutch of the times. In any event, it led to discovery of the spade fit and a much inferior slam. Boender was down one for a loss of 16 IMPs. Yes, 6 could be made with an intrafinesse (low to the nine then run the queen), but this required mirrors.*
*Even if declarer assumes East has the K and starts with a low spade to the nine and 10, the winning play is not clear; West’s eight could be a routine falsecard from J-8-5. Therefore, it seems better in theory to cash the A first as this picks up all singleton honors with East; then you can always play East for a doubleton king. Boender thought so, too.
Comments for DoubleFrans Buijsen: I can indicate my great strength later; now I want to hear a bit more about partner’s hand. … Over 2 , I bid 3 NT; over 1 or 2 , I cue-bid 2 .
Neil Morgenstern: Yes, I have a lot more than I might have; but I’ll start with double to show my four-card spade suit. The opponents will not bounce the auction (if they do they will probably regret it), so I’ll have lots of space to investigate.
Erik Stoffer: First bring in the spades… later I can show my strength with a heart cue-bid.
Jonathan Brill: If I bid 2 (forcing), will partner show four spades with a minimum (balanced or unbalanced) hand? If I can’t be sure he will, what do I do if he rebids 3 ? Can I really show my spades when I am the one who has to bid 3 NT? The only time 2 will work well is when partner raises diamonds. A thunderful negative double is the percentage action.
David Lindop: Double leaves more room for a suitable follow-up. Two diamonds would leave me awkwardly placed if partner rebids 3 .
Gordon Bower: This gets the spades in cheaply, and I’m not too worried about missing a diamond fit since I know notrump should be secure.
Jonathan Goldberg: To be followed by a cue-bid. Perhaps I’ll have enough space to get this hand across or get some useful information from partner. … If I bid 2 and partner rebids 3 , I’m poorly placed.
Adam Saroyan: No need to be brilliant, so save the room and double; subsequent actions should become fairly obvious. Bidding 2 or 2 (pointless here) simply takes up too much room… If partner has long clubs, I have a wonderful dummy for him. If I give ourselves room, we can get to the proper [game or] slam, which I have a hunch might be 6 or even 6 NT.
J. Michael Andresen: Game or slam is still possible on this hand in any of four strains. I’ll start slow and try to get as much information about partner’s hand as possible.
Danny Sprung: Why hurry? The opponents can’t profitably preempt us, so I might as well go slow.
Chris Vinall: The alternative, 2 , seems likely to elicit 2 NT or 3 , whereupon I will have to bid 3 . By doubling, I can follow with 2 , 3 and 3 NT.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Normally I’d bid my five-card suit first (when not playing negative free bids), but with such a meager suit in a strong hand, double is a good alternative. I hate partners who bid 2 as a generalized, strong, say-nothing bid.
Jeff Goldsmith: Two diamonds seems natural; but if partner rebids 3 , we will have had a [wasteful] auction. I think that’s most likely, so I’ll make the call that will get partner to reveal his hand type [at a lower level]. If it’s a minimum single-suiter in clubs or a balanced hand without four spades, 3 NT will [probably] be the final spot.
Dale Rudrum: I have to start [by showing] my spades, as after 2 P 3 , I either miss 3 NT if I bid 3 , or [maybe] 4 if I bid 3 NT. All the other bids give a wrong description of my hand, except maybe 3 NT; but what if partner has K-Q-x-x x-x Q-J-x A-x-x-x? The hand is just to strong for a nonforcing bid, even if it is a game.
Ron Zucker: A spade bid [by partner] makes me like my hand a lot. A club rebid means I’ll be bidding notrump next. Worst case scenario: West bids 4 at his next turn. If so, doubling on the misfit seems right.
Bruce Scott: A very suspicious problem. The negative double looks straightforward. Maybe I will get a chance to make a forcing diamond call later (after cue-bidding hearts first). I don’t feel that the spades are nearly good enough to justify bidding 2 first and then spades later. I suspect that Mr. Pavlicek has an agenda here. Am I supposed to pick 2 instead and ignore spades altogether? This is a potential slam hand, and that spade suit may be too weak to justify playing in slam, worried that partner might turn up with something like Q-7-5-2.
Barry Rigal: Where’s the catch? I seem to have an easy advance over notrump or club calls from partner; and if instead I respond 2 , the spades might get away. Worse, if partner rebids 2 NT over 2 and I bid 3 , this [suggests] 5-6, and we might get locked into diamonds facing [a heart ruff]; partner may not believe I am so suitable for notrump.
Doug Burke: Hmm. This looks like a hand you are going to give us a lesson on; the negative double is just too obvious. My guess is the bidding will continue 4 P P, at which time I will crack it and miss the cold 6 NT.
Chris Maclauchlan: Starting with a negative double gives me the best chance to get an honest rebid from partner. Bidding 2 would [obscure] partner’s relatively likely 3 call. …
Peter Oakley: Shows four spades (1 would show five); no need to rush with all this strength.
Jan Gutenwik: Over 2 I will bid 3 NT.
David Davies: It seems right to keep the bidding low; it could be right to play in anything except hearts. If opponents get busy in hearts, I can comfortably double; so there is no problem there. Two diamonds is second best, but I don’t want to go chasing a 5-3 diamond fit with a poor holding such as this.
Leo Zelevinsky: I was going to bid 2 but then realized that partner is most likely to have a 12-14 balanced hand with no heart stopper and be very stuck for a rebid. So I decided to give him the maximum room.
Ciaran Coyne: Two diamonds is the only alternative, but I prefer double since my suits are poor.
Elianor Kennie: I can guess that partner has a long club suit and will rebid clubs. Double keeps the bidding at a low level.
Kieran Dyke: Two diamonds is theoretically OK; but if I bid spades at my next turn, notrump may be lost forever. Double retains some small chance of reaching a diamond contract and makes it easy to sort out notrump [versus] spades.
Bill Huepenbecker: I will bid 3 NT over the expected 2 bid from partner, or cue-bid hearts over [anything else].
Richard Stein: Might as well start by showing the spades; I can [next] force with a cue-bid and then bid notrump later.
Stephen McDevitt: No rush. This hand is suit-oriented so I won’t ignore spades despite the frightening texture. Yep, so far I’ve bid a two-card diamond suit and ignored a five-carder.
George Klemic: My answer would depend on what partner would do with a minimum hand and four spades and club length after a 2 response by me. If he would bid 2 (patterning out), then 2 is right; but if he would just choose 3 , then I need to start with double.* …
*Partner would bid 2 , just as he would bid 1 after a 1 response. Nonetheless, my policy is never to change votes based on conditional comments, even though it would further my own cause in this case. Sorry, but you’re stuck with 10. -RP
Jonathan Jacobs: If West now preempts to the three level with partner silent, I’ll bid 3 NT; over 4 I’ll double again, which should be just card-showing… If partner shows a spade suit, I’ll bid 4 .
James Hudson: Why not look for a 4-4 fit in spades? And this might discourage a spade lead if, as is likely, I end up in notrump.
Keith Balcombe: If I bid 2 , the spade suit may be hard to find, plus it will be harder to show the strength of this hand.
Richard Willey: Interesting hand. Two diamonds natural and forcing, followed by a reverse into spades seems like the best way to describe my shape, however, that creates a problem: If partner rebids 3 , 3 will be interpreted as [lacking] a heart stopper. Regretfully, I’ll start with a negative double, immediately clarifying my spade length.
Andrea Missias: I’m happy to bid 3 NT over 2 … I have enough hearts that I’m not frightened of 4 on my left.
Prahalad Rajkumar: I will follow with 2 over partner’s 1 , or 3 NT [over 1 NT or 2 ].
Bob Zorn: A style choice. My favorite partner would bid a straightforward 2 . I’ll stay low, listen to the auction, and no doubt confuse partner later with some ambiguous cue-bid.
Michael Spurgeon: A negative double ensures that North will [bid spades] with four, and I will not be embarrassed with any other rebid.
Stu Goodgold: Double is surely right on shape. Slam is a possibility, so it pays to keep the bidding low now. I can bid notrump later if needed.
Barbara Boswell: With a singleton, I am looking for the major-suit fit first… Depending on partner’s rebid, a slam is quite possible.
Philip Smith: Opponents aren’t going far given my heart holding, and I can always retreat to notrump later. We could easily miss a…slam if I wade in with 3 NT now.
Paul Huggins: My hand is standard shape for a negative double. We’ve got at least game on, so I’ll get more information about partner’s hand before I go any further. If partner has a weak hand with clubs, then 3 NT is the place to play; otherwise, game or slam in spades or diamonds could be on. No rush; if opponents preempt in hearts, we can take a large penalty.
Rik ter Veen: This shows exactly four spades. To bid 2 and then spades, I would like to have a better diamond suit.
Paulino Correa: I’m looking toward 3 NT, but it is possible that (1) partner opened with three small clubs and four spades, where I’d rather bid 4 , or (2) partner has a strong hand, where a slam [is likely].
Comments for 2 Andrei Varlan: I have the strength to bid spades later.
Scott Stearns: Start a forcing auction by bidding my longest suit — advanced concepts I know. Yes, partner’s 3 rebid won’t be great, but I’ll know he doesn’t have four spades. …
Nigel Guthrie: … Slam is [excellent] opposite, say, K-x x-x A-J-9-x A-x-x-x-x.
Gerben Dirksen: Diamonds followed by spades shows game-forcing strength with four spades and longer diamonds, and that’s what I have.
Fred Wills: I don’t know the correct denomination or level. Maybe if I bid my suits, partner will be able to help me out.
Mike Hargreaves: With this hand, why distort? Partner will bid 2 before 3 , if he has spades. Otherwise, I will bid 3 NT next (barring an unlikely diamond raise, over which I will think some more).
Thijs Veugen: I’ll bid spades later.
Nick Doe: I’ll stick with my first inclination to bid this as naturally as possible, although it could work out badly if they bounce us.
George Stewart: Followed by introducing spades. A negative double is the second choice since it would probably make it difficult to bid out my shape.
Peter Jorck: I like this better than double, as I am willing to reverse into spades (at the four level if necessary). This describes the hand well (slam invitation). …
Micha Keijzers: Followed by a spade call at the lowest level necessary.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Let the auction develop naturally with this much strength.
Giovanni Bobbio: I don’t think this is a problem. Partner should bid 2 over 2 with four spades. Even if he doesn’t, I cannot fail to show my slam potential for fear of bypassing 3 NT.
Peter Skafte: Maybe we have 6 opposite partner’s A-Q-x. I have a nice hand.
Peter Gill: On a potential slam hand, I start by bidding my most respectable suit.
Sandy Barnes: I’m thinking of slam. I can always bid 3 NT [next] if partner calls 3 .
Eric Goff: When I have the strength, I always bid my shape. No exceptions.
Jack Duranceau: Slow and steady; no need to preempt the auction or cause insurmountable problems with a double. …
Mike Doecke: Bidding out the full shape seems right, given that I have slam potential.
Andy Lewis: With a game force, I’ll start with my best suit. If partner has four spades he can bid them. Over 3 I’ll settle for 3 NT.
Gordon Rainsford: Bid my suits, longer first.
Richard Fedrick: No reason not to bid this hand out. The Q [may be] golden, given that partner clearly has no heart values for his opening bid.
Chris Willenken: Always bid your long suit first with a good hand.
David Caprera: Failure to double does not deny four spades.
P.A. Eriksson: Start with diamonds, then spades so that partner knows the suit lengths correctly. Double is an alternative, but then partner will not know about the fifth diamond, and we might miss a diamond slam.
Michael Kenny: Difficult. With these controls I do not want to choose a course that steers too quickly to 3 NT. If I double and partner does not show spades, where am I? With a similar hand, weaker in controls (and also with weak diamonds) I would more likely choose the double and then bid 3 NT if partner does not show spades.
Jonathan Steinberg: With forcing hands, I bid my shape naturally.
Howard Abrams: This hand is strong enough to bid the suits in natural order; slams are certainly possible. Three notrump may be the right final contract but bidding it now is far too premature.
Gerald Cohen: I’ve got time, and my hearts are too good to suggest that opponents will be blasting.
Gal Hegedus: Create a forcing auction. We’ll have time to discover the spade fit if necessary.
Paul Boudreau: If partner has four spades, he will bid them next…
Tim DeLaney: Bidding the hand naturally in an effort to attract a raise. If partner bids spades or raises diamonds, I will cue-bid hearts. Otherwise, we’re likely to end up in 3 NT.
Nick Krnjevic: I bid my hand; partner bids his. Seriously, though, the alternatives are poor; 2 NT is nonforcing; 3 NT precludes 6 opposite any number of minimums that would never go on; 2 takes up space without providing definition (and implies a club fit); 1 followed by diamonds will suggest five spades; while double will render any subsequent diamond bid nonforcing. Two diamonds lets me state my values and identifying my longest suit. How bad can this be?
Aziza Rusconi: I am strong enough to bid spades next. …
John R. Mayne: I am clearly missing the point here. We have a potential slam; 2 is normal. I see no reason to do something stupid, and all other options are plainly wrong.
Leonard Helfgott: Full openers that can force to game should always show the longer minor in this situation. A negative double with this pattern should be reserved for game invitational (or weaker) hands, like A-x-x-x A-x-x K-10-8-x-x J.
Steve Landen: Why not go with the natural bid? Slam is still in the picture.
Kevin Podsiadlik: I don’t want to worry about playing catch-up after a double. I should have time to bid spades later.
Albert Ohana: This allows partner to bid spades, even with a minimum hand (it will not be a reverse). If partner repeats clubs, I will content myself with [3 NT].
Gerald Murphy: I have a clear-cut 2 call. Partner can bid 2 when holding four. Unless spades or diamonds are bid, I will settle in [3 NT].
Ross Taylor: My style is to bid naturally and [describe] my hand over the next two or three rounds.
Ed Shapiro: … Roth was right in his early writings to use negative doubles (modestly, “The Roth-Stone double”) only when you didn’t have a descriptive bid. I’ll bid 3 NT over 3 , not worrying about missing a spade fit, since if partner rebids 3 while holding four spades, they’re not very good.
Charles Leong: To be followed by some number of notrump if partner does not show spades.
Sverre Johnsen: A double might make it more difficult to find a slam. I don’t think a cheap spade bid from partner is a reverse, so 2 is the more flexible.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 4
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass Pass | North 1 2 3
| East Pass Pass Pass | South 2 2 ? | 9 A K Q 2 10 9 6 A 9 8 7 5
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 277 | 27 |
| 3 NT | 9 | 379 | 37 |
| 5 | 7 | 104 | 10 |
| 3 | 5 | 37 | 4 |
| 4 NT | 4 | 197 | 19 |
| 6 | 2 | 41 | 4 |
While 3 NT got the single most votes, the consensus clearly was to raise diamonds, the only question being whether to settle for game or try for slam. Therefore, the top award goes to the preferred bid in that category (4 ), which also happens to be my choice. This is clearly forcing, since bidding the fourth suit (2 ) in a two-over-one auction creates a game force, and it leaves room for partner to evaluate slam chances — the key being the amount of spade duplication.
I don’t care for the jump to 5 because partner may still bid six, and this should show better support (perhaps at least K-x-x). This follows the standard bidding philosophy that jumps in a forcing auction show good trumps. The only good case for 5 seems to be if you thought 4 could be passed.
Bidding 4 NT* is an overbid, as is jumping to slam. If partner’s strength is lopsided toward spades, 6 may have no play. And even if he has a perfect minimum, e.g., A-x-x-x-x x-x A-Q-J-8-x x, slam is no bargain after a likely trump lead. For now at least, your hand seems worth only game, and any slam move will have to come from partner.
*Regular Blackwood in the default system. As usual, some respondents assumed it was Roman key-card (making it a better choice), but it’s still an overbid no matter how you slice it.
The 3 rebid is a curious choice, ostensibly describing 5-6 shape but leaving various avenues open. For example, if partner next bids 3 it will dim your slam chances, and you can bid 3 NT. Unfortunately, partner may feel that he owes you a 4 bid with 5=1=5=2 shape; then when you raise diamonds, he will never expect three-card support (else 14 cards). In short, he will have no idea what you’re doing; but then, neither did you, so it might be fun.
Here’s the full deal from the match between North America and Netherlands:
| North America vs Netherlands | A Q 10 8 6 6 3 K Q 5 4 3 2
| |
| K J 4 3 2 J 8 J 8 2 Q J 3
| | 7 5 10 9 7 5 4 A 7 K 10 6 4
|
| E-W Vul | 9 A K Q 2 10 9 6 A 9 8 7 5 | |
| Slavenburg WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Feldesman North 1 2 3
| Kreyns East Pass Pass Pass | Rubin South 2 2 3 NT | 3 NT South J Made 4 +430 |
| Kehela WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Oudshoorn North 1 2 3
| Murray East Pass Pass Pass | Boender South 2 2 5
| 5 North Down 1 -50 North America +10 IMPs |
The identical problem arose at both tables. Rubin opted for 3 NT and received the J lead, then the 10 was run to the ace; so 10 tricks were made. Had the diamond finesse lost, 3 NT would usually fail so the Americans were a bit fortunate.
At the second table, Boender opted for 5 . In theory (based on the North-South hands only) this contract is just as good as 3 NT and should also have made. Alas, Oudshoorn apparently called the wrong card from dummy on the third spade lead (instead of ruffing he pitched a club) allowing West to win; then two rounds of trumps killed any further chances. Note that an original trump lead (ace and another) would not suffice, as declarer has 11 easy tricks with the spade finesse and a ruff; in fact, 12 tricks can be made by squeezing East in hearts and clubs. No matter; down one meant 10 IMPs to North America.
Comments for 4 Neil Morgenstern: Four diamonds is surely forcing, and I have four tricks plus three-card support and a ruffing value. Chances for slam depend on partner not having wasted spade values. Four diamonds surely describes my shape perfectly, allowing partner to make the assessment.
Jonathan Brill: This has to be forcing. The answer to the question, “How good are partner’s diamonds?” will determine the correct contract, and I will never get that answer by bidding 3 , 3 NT, 4 NT, 5 or 6 . The only scientific action is 4 .
David Lindop: Three notrump could be a poor contract, and we may be cold for 6 . This leaves room for partner to show some slam interest with good diamonds and the A; otherwise, 5 should have a play.
Andrew de Sosa: Forcing and slam invitational; should show a singleton spade by inference. Partner should be able to judge prospects by his wastage (or lack of it) in spades.
Ted Ying: After my reverse, which should be game forcing,…4 should be a slam try. Hopefully, I’ll be able to find out how good partner’s trumps are.
Jonathan Goldberg: Let’s settle that we have a place to play. This should show real heart values and slam ambitions.
Adam Saroyan: On our way to five, six, or seven; no other bid is acceptable. … Partner will infer I am willing for big things. After all, he’s the one who knows what his suits look like.
Scott Stearns: … This [invites] cue-bidding and strongly suggests slam. If partner has K-Q-x-x-x x K-Q-J-x-x K-x, we’ll rest safely in 5 .
Martin Bootsma: I want to investigate the possibility of a diamond slam, and 5 seems to be safe.
J. Michael Andresen: At IMPs I’m not afraid of bypassing a making 3 NT to end up in a making 5 . … This should be a mild slam try and probably unbalanced, so partner should picture a control-rich 1=4=3=5 hand, which is exactly what I have. (Playing kickback instead of Blackwood would improve this auction because partner could ask for key cards with 4 and sign off in 4 NT.)
Sheldon Spier: This is forcing, and I wish to hear 4 from partner;…if not, I sign off in 5 .
Jeff Goldsmith: Good thing we are playing IMPs so we can judge between 5 and 6 . If it were matchpoints, I’d have to bid 3 NT now. I suspect 6 is slightly less than 50 percent, but 5 is fine.
Michele Holm: Partner is 5-5 or better and doesn’t seem to have notrump interest; better to show the fit in case slam is possible.
Dave Maeer: Just worth a try. Shutting up shop with 3 NT feels wrong.
Ron Zucker: … This is forcing (2 was forcing to game), and if partner bids 4 looking for a diamond slam, I’m happy to cooperate. Partner could have A-10-x-x-x x-x A-K-J-x-x x, which makes slam, or 5 could easily be the limit when he holds K-J-x-x-x x K-Q-J-x-x K-x. …
Bruce Scott: … I wish 4 were Roman key-card Blackwood here, as some people play; I am willing to decide among 5 , 6 or 7 based on key cards. Too bad I don’t have that toy, but I’ll still bid 4 . Bidding 5 or 6 is simply a guess; 3 NT fails to appreciate the possibilities; 3 is misdirected and quite odd. … I firmly believe that 4 NT here should be natural and quantitative [though] I expect this is a very small minority opinion.
Barry Rigal: Guesswork, but if 3 NT were the right spot, you would not be asking. Quick tricks make 5 plausible. Facing a typical A-Q-x-x-x x A-Q-x-x-x x-x, 5 looks comfortable enough; and I might buy a better hand where slam could be laydown.
Len Vishnevsky: My aces are working, but that might be all. I am worth about 4 (forcing) but not a jump to 5 (not “fast arrival”) on 10-9-6. Partner’s K-Q-J-10-x-x x K-Q-J-x-x x makes 3 NT much worse than 4 or 5 , and we might reach slam if partner has an ace or two.
Peter Schwartz: I will be a genius if partner’s diamonds are top-heavy, or a bum if his principal honor values are in spades. The choice is more difficult in matchpoints.
Ron Sperber: I want to investigate the diamond slam. Blackwood doesn’t look terribly useful; if partner has one ace, I still don’t know what the diamond suit looks like.
Gerrit de Ruiter: We’re going to play in our 5-3 fit; I just don’t know if it’s the five or the six level.
Ciaran Coyne: Forcing. I don’t like the lack of honors in partner’s suits… This is normally three-card support, so partner will have good cards to continue beyond 5 .
Jack Duranceau: Shows my hand. Partner knows whether his values in spades are soft or not. Five diamonds should imply better trumps, and 3 NT looks wrong if partner is minimum.
James Sheppard: I dunno. Hmmph. Slam could be at worst on a finesse; 5 could be off on a finesse. … Three hearts doesn’t show my diamond support and things may get ugly. Now, if 4 NT were Roman key-card…
James Hudson: There’s a significant chance that we can make 3 NT and not 5 , but there’s a greater likelihood that we can make 6 but only game in notrump. So I’ll suggest slam in diamonds. …
P.A. Eriksson: … This sets diamonds as trumps so partner can cue-bid in search for a slam. … Bidding 3 NT might be good, but partner will often pass because he thinks we have [a misfit].
Jelmer Hasper: Slam-going, surely. I like clear, unambiguous and slightly pointless bids.
Tong Xu: I like the 10-9.
Howard Abrams: … Lying about the quality of my diamonds (but being truthful about their length) seems the least of evils. This also may be the best route to a possible slam.
Andrea Missias: At IMPs it’s worth the risk of reaching a less valuable game to sniff for slam prospects. (At matchpoints I bid 3 NT.)
Gyorgy Ormay: The road to the starry sky.
Paul Boudreau: … I feel I should make one move toward slam, in spite of my questionable diamond support.
John Byers: I’m going to need a cue-bid from partner before giving slam a whirl. I don’t mind missing 3 NT at IMPs.
Albert Ohana: I cannot give up on slam… If partner makes an encouraging move (4 or 5 ), I will bid 6 .
Sven Neirynck: I don’t like 3 NT with partner being 5-5. With the perfect hand, it can be 6 .
Anthony Golding: This must be forcing. If partner can’t cue-bid the A, I’ll just bid 5 … I can’t think of a way to ask for trump quality in a minor.
Florentin Axinte: Two hearts was fourth suit, so I have to describe my hand, and those spots in diamond are so nice. A slam in diamonds is not so remote, and at IMPs I don’t mind that we’ll bypass 3 NT.
Toby Kenney: Five diamonds looks to be the best game, and if partner has a very suitable hand, say, A-x-x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x x, slam is likely. I’m not particularly keen to investigate slam, but…I will cooperate.
Comments for 3 NTFrans Buijsen: … I am not optimistic about this hand for slam. My heart values are of limited value, and one or both of partner’s suits may contain dangerous holes.
Gordon Bower: Maybe diamonds is safer if partner has a good diamond suit but not much transportation, but I will go with the obvious 3 NT. Second choice is 4 — slam is very possible if partner has good diamonds. …
Mark Florencz: Just because partner has 5-5, I don’t see the reason for not bidding 3 NT. He may still pull me out of it… As far as I can make it out, our chances for slam are bad.
Frances Hinden: Why didn’t I bid 3 NT last round? I have a misfit…and three stoppers in the unbid suit.
Nigel Guthrie: … Descriptive, and quite enough opposite K-Q-J-10-x x K-J-x-x-x K-x.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Time to apply the brakes on this misfit. I don’t see why 5 would be more likely to make than 3 NT.
Fred Wills: My HCP look wasted, so I think I’ll settle for notrump.
Mike Hargreaves: I can see 6 making, and 5 may be superior to 3 NT, yet I would like a higher diamond (or to hear an unlikely 4 bid by partner) before venturing beyond the nine-trick game.
Dale Rudrum: …Because of my 9-8-7, I have a slight preference for notrump, but either 3 NT or 5 could be right.
Karen Walker: Lots of quick tricks, but I don’t have enough trumps to feel confident about covering all of partner’s spade losers in 6 , especially with the expected trump lead. I’ve already shown some extra values, so partner is free to bid on if he has something in reserve.
John Reardon: All my values are in my suits, and partner should be warned.
Nick Doe: My honors are not sufficiently well-placed to envisage higher things.
George Stewart: The hands are not fitting terribly well. This should tell partner my values are outside his suits and leave him well placed to decide what to do.
Sid Ismail: This sequence is stronger than 3 NT on the previous round.
Peg Kaplan: I have zero HCP in my partner’s suits. Yes, we may have more than game; but with so much of what I have appearing to be wasted, I am not looking for anything higher.
Giovanni Bobbio: The deal is no great fit, and I hold no extras. Partner might not even have five diamonds, e.g., K-10-x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-J x-x.
Peter Gill: Partner can always move. Misfits with only eight trumps often lead to awkward slams, especially if trumps break 4-1.
David Shelton: Three notrump should have a better chance for game than 5 . Is slam on? Not likely, unless partner bids past 3 NT.
David Davies: This seems like the most likely game. Partner has shown five diamonds but they don’t have to be good — and if they are, 3 NT is likely to make. Six diamonds seems very ambitious; partner hasn’t shown any extras.
Leo Zelevinsky: Please don’t tell me partner has A-x-x-x-x x A-K-Q-x-x x-x, but I don’t see a way to reach slam opposite that hand and stay where I belong opposite his normal hands.
Michael Palitsch: If 6 is laydown, partner might make one more move. On some occasions, even 5 might be to high.
Kieran Dyke: Really, I would have bid this one round sooner. With no honors in spades or diamonds, this isn’t a good hand for diamonds or for slam.
Roger Morton: My heart honors are probably wasted except as stoppers in notrump. I doubt that we can make 6 on a trump lead.
Julian Wightwick: I should have bid this last time. Now I have suggested only a single heart stopper, and partner [may] bid on with unsuitable hands…
Richard Stein: Why didn’t I bid 3 NT on the second round? A diamond slam might have a shot, but I’m worried about honor mesh.
Richard Fedrick: I expect 4 to score best, but I think this is the percentage action. Six diamonds will take a lot of handling (where are all the spades going?) even opposite a suitable hand, e.g., A-Q-x-x-x x-x K-Q-J-x-x x; and the five level is not necessarily safe with [my] poor trumps.
Chris Willenken: I strongly object to 2 ; I consider 3 NT clear on the second round. With 5=4=4=0, opener should rebid 2 , then 3 , so responder’s 2 over 2 serves no purpose. Now I ask myself the same question that I should have asked the round before: Where am I going with zero HCP in partner’s suits?
Daniel Korbel: My first instinct was to bid 5 , but we will certainly get a trump lead; and then where are the tricks coming from? …
Jonathan Steinberg: With the right maximum, a slam is possible; but with a minimum 5-5, even 5 is in jeopardy on a trump lead. Three notrump seems best.
Steve Mager: I’m prejudiced. The last time my partner held this hand, she bid 5 and caught me with a J-x-x-x-x trump suit.
And I’ll bet she never raises you again after you bid that suit twice.
John Jones: Seems perfect: hearts stopped; minimum game force; and it will frequently be the best contract.
Tim DeLaney: I have a sound minimum opening bid and only a mild fit for partner, so bidding beyond 3 NT is foolish. It’s possible to miss a slam when partner has a perfecta (e.g., A-x-x-x-x J-x A-K-J-x-x x), but I have no secure landing place at 4 NT or 5 . Even 3 NT may prove difficult if things break badly.
Nick Krnjevic: Most of my honor strength is wasted opposite partner’s shortness, and I lack the fourth trump that would make a five-level venture a safer proposition. My quick tricks coupled with the diamond suit should give me enough winners, while partner’s spade bid and my club length (and interior solidity) should keep the bad guys at bay.
Leonard Helfgott: I’ve already created a game force, and I don’t relish bypassing 3 NT (by raising diamonds) with this holding, especially since the 2 bid didn’t yet show a stopper. If a diamond slam is there, partner might make another call.
Steve Landen: No honors for partner, so try for the nine-trick game.
Eduard Munteanu: A diamond slam is possible,…but partner probably needs at least A-K and A to have a chance — not this time.
Ross Taylor: Opposite weak spades and good diamonds, maybe I’ll regret not bidding 4 ; but at the table, I would just bid 3 NT…
Imre Csiszar: If 3 were a cue-bid in support of diamonds, I would bid that; but I doubt partner would understand it without prior discussion. Lacking an unambiguous slam try below 3 NT, I prefer 3 NT, which I believe makes more often than 5 if partner is minimum.
Philip Smith: …Partner surely hasn’t shown extra values, so I can’t realistically see a slam. I can imagine 5 going off, though, so 3 NT.
Ed Shapiro: Nice problem. We don’t have any round-suit losers in diamonds, but there’s no real guarantee we have 12 (or even 11) tricks in diamonds with trumps led. I bid 3 NT to avoid complications — yeah, going down in 3 NT with [5 ] making is a complication, but by staying practical at least I won’t get savaged in the postmortem. …
Rik ter Veen: Why did I bid 2 ? I am not getting any wiser (partner can still have 5=2=4=2 or 5=3=4=1), and it suggested that I wanted to play something other than 3 NT, which I don’t.
Sriram Narasimhan: Six diamonds needs good diamonds plus more from partner, so I am going to take the low route.
Rob Stevens: Six diamonds? You were really scraping the barrel to come up with that choice. My concern is that I have already misbid; surely, this sequence should show either extra values or doubt about hearts. I actually believe there was a good case for bidding only 2 NT on the previous round.
Comments for 5 Shekhar Sengupta: … Three notrump is likely to have transportation problems, and slam is unlikely given my limited HCP.
Elianor Kennie: East should lead a trump with this bidding; therefore, I don’t think that 6 is in the making. I will settle for game and be happy.
Gerry Wildenberg: Since partner has at most three pointed-suit cards, some of my honors are wasted. There are many hands where…6 is hopeless; but if partner is going slow after my 2 bid (due to the possible misfit),…he can bid six himself. The club suit could be the Achilles heel in 3 NT.
George Klemic: Partner should infer…this hand shape. Looking at A-K-Q-x-x, he should bid six; or just pass if that’s his spade holding.
John Kruiniger: Danger of 3 NT is a club attack and not having nine tricks on top.
Michael Spurgeon: This shows my trump support, distribution and additional strength, and should encourage North to bid slam with [appropriate values]. Four notrump is inferior because we may not make slam even if North has two aces; 3 NT gives up on…slam, plus we have at least two singletons or voids between us.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 5
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North Pass 1
| East 1 2
| SOUTH 1 Dbl ? | A J 4 A K 4 A 7 6 5 3 2 A
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 303 | 29 |
| Double | 9 | 250 | 24 |
| Pass | 8 | 86 | 8 |
| 3 | 7 | 118 | 11 |
| 2 NT | 6 | 80 | 8 |
| 3 | 4 | 127 | 12 |
| 4 | 2 | 71 | 7 |
Not your everyday auction, but I was delighted to discover this problem because there are at least four reasonable choices (pass, double, 2 and 3 ) and perhaps 2 NT as well; yet nothing stands out. The wide dispersion of the voting also makes this evident. Could there be a game? Yes, but you also must remember that partner could have a Yarborough with only four spades. Bidding even two spades might be too high, and 3 risks landing in a dismal contract if partner has a singleton.
The voting consensus favored 2 , which is certainly sound, and it might be the best solution toward reaching game. If partner has just Q-x-x-x-x and out, he is worth another bid. The downside is that you might be in the wrong partscore (e.g., if partner has only four spades with a diamond fit) and you commit your side to declaring.
My choice would be the second double. This should describe a strong hand with good defense, without four spades and without a heart stack (you wouldn’t double 1 with four good hearts), which is exactly what you have. Whatever partner bids should lead to the best contract — if he bids 2 , I would bid 3 ; or if he bids 3 , I would try 3 NT (odds-on with a heart lead opposite only J-x-x). The upside I really like is that it allows you to defend; if partner has a stiff diamond, he’ll probably pass, and a crossruff should produce 300 or 500.
The deal came up in the match between North American and Thailand:
| North America vs Thailand | 10 9 6 3 2 7 5 Q 8 9 8 7 2
| |
| Q 8 7 9 8 6 J 9 4 J 6 5 3
| | K 5 Q J 10 3 2 K 10 K Q 10 4
|
| N-S Vul | A J 4 A K 4 A 7 6 5 3 2 A | |
| Boonsupa West Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Mathe North Pass 1 3
| Nandhabiwat East 1 2 Pass | Hamman SOUTH 1 Dbl 3 3
| 3 North Made 4 +170 |
| Feldesman West Pass Pass All Pass | Gimkiewicz North Pass 1
| Rubin East 1 1 NT | Istenyeli SOUTH 1 Dbl 4
| 4 North Down 2 -200 North America +9 IMPs |
The problem scenario occurred at the first table, although the 2 rebid by Nandhabiwat (or is that Nandha bid what?) was bizarre. Maybe this was the Thai variation of the Roman 2 showing hearts and clubs. Hamman opted for 3 , which surprised me.* Mathe then showed great insight and appreciation for his diamond holding to cue-bid 3 . Note that if Hamman’s K were the K (a more typical hand), 3 NT would be cold. Hamman next showed a spade preference; and Mathe gave up, figuring he’d pushed his queen far enough. Ten tricks were made.
*Hamman’s decision may have been due to less sophisticated bidding of the times. I suspect that Hamman would double today — of course, he now plays a strong-club system, so he wouldn’t have the problem. Hmm… Maybe that’s why he switched.
On a similar auction at the second table, Istenyeli chose an egregious overbid of 4 . Yikes; apparently they don’t deal Yarboroughs in Thailand. Luckily, he caught his partner with five spades and a useful hand, and the contract could have been made. After East overruffed the third diamond, declarer played for the missing spades to split 2-2 — down two, and 9 IMPs to North America. Had declarer guessed right to cash the A and lead good diamonds, Thailand would have won 10 IMPs. Quite a swing.
Comments for 2 Frans Buijsen: This should show about what I have: three-card spade support and a very strong hand.
Jonathan Brill: I have the values for 2 NT but not the tricks. If anything is going to become of this hand, it will be in spades or diamonds; but to bid 3 on such a ratty suit is to take a position. … Double would be more attractive if E-W were vulnerable.
David Lindop: Pass might be best with only three spades and no real noise from partner, especially since partner won’t expect this shape; but I could have a worse hand. We might belong in diamonds, but 3 is just too scary.
Scott Stearns: I think if I had four spades, I would bid 1 over 1 ; therefore, a raise to 2 with two honors seems indicated. Plus, I’m showing my strength by taking three [actions].
Carolyn Ahlert: [Should be a] good play for 2 , and I plan to double 3 if they bid it.
Frances Hinden: Horrible. I have to say I’d have bid 1 NT over 1 . I have to bid 2 now to stop partner from bidding 3 on 4=2=2=5 when 2 comes round to him.
Joc Koelman: Following partner’s spade bid, I now have a rock crusher; I’m close to 3 , but partner wouldn’t appreciate that with a Yarborough.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Despite a likely 4-3 fit, 2 is typically easier to make than 3 , and less likely to run into an occasional trump stack and be doubled. Over 3 , which they are far from sure to bid, I’ll pass and collect a likely plus score. Game is possible but remote.
Michele Holm: Partner is weak and may only have four spades, but I don’t want to double 2 with only five sure tricks. If they compete to the three level, I will double for sure.
Manuel Paulo: I am afraid of partner bidding clubs after another double.
Andrew Morris: These hands often play well in the best suit of the weak hand, however, 3 would show four-card support.
Nick Doe: When you don’t know what to do, pick the third from the left. This is likely to end the auction, but I don’t especially like the hand. What vulnerable game was that?
George Stewart: Pass could be right, but I hate to sell out at the two level with such a good hand. Since East has bid and rebid hearts, partner’s spades should be a real suit (i.e., not a forced bid on a 3-bagger) so this competition is safe enough. Most of the other bids are [too forward-going] opposite the hands partner is likely to have.
Peter Jorck: Partner doesn’t seem to have much, but K-x and some length in spades could make four spades. Two spades is invitational; 3 is too much.
Chris Maclauchlan: Partner has at least four spades (with 3=4=3=3 shape he should raise diamonds I think) so this should be good. Two notrump could be really ugly if partner is broke, so at these colors I will walk softly. With five spades and [some values], partner should [bid again].
Dale Freeman: Partner could have a Yarborough, however, 2 should have a shot. I hate double at IMPs, but it could be right.
Alexei Vinogradov: I am willing to compete at this vulnerability; I will double 3 .
James Sheppard: And cross my fingers that 2 is better than 2 , or that we get to the right game.
Tim McKay: Two spades is as good as 3 , and a double might backfire.
Bill Huepenbecker: Don’t want to punish a partner who was forced to bid, but he still doesn’t know that I have 20 working HCP and a ruffing value. Can’t rebid the five-card (yes, I have my glasses on) diamond suit.
Damo Nair: If partner can come up with a another bid, there should be game somewhere.
George Klemic: This can win in a few ways, the most likely being that 2 is making, and 2 is making or down one. I see no reason to hang partner by bidding any more; …he’s allowed to bid again.
John Kruiniger: Softly, softly catchee monkey.
Howard Abrams: This should have a good play opposite an average (2-3 HCP) North hand. … Three spades overstates my trump length.
Gerald Cohen: I think 2 will make more than half the time — even more likely when they can make 2 .
Lance Marrou: Tough choice; pure guesswork. At IMPs and unfavorable vulnerability, I will give partner a chance to make a partscore; it is worth more than 2 doubled down one, but not as risky. …
Tim DeLaney: Tough problem. I don’t think enough of our game chances to invite with 2 NT or 3 , and the chances of beating 2 are remote. If I had a fourth trump, our prospects would be considerably enhanced. …
Stu Goodgold: Where have all the clubs gone? Best to give partner one more chance to bid; let’s hope he didn’t say 1 with only a three-card suit.
Paul Redvers: I opened, doubled, then bid. This allows partner to make the choice to move on or pass.
Gillian Paty: Hoping I will hear 3 , which I will happily double.
Comments for DoubleNeil Morgenstern: I bullied partner into bidding 1 ; and he could have nothing, and his spades could be four to the nine. I’m not guaranteed to beat 2 , but I think defending is probably our best option.
Andrei Varlan: This is not penalty. I have only three spades (otherwise I would cue-bid), and I’m awful strong.
Andrew de Sosa: Shows a monster with only three spades and asks partner to describe his hand further.
Ted Ying: [If partner passes], I might be get some ruffs in partner’s hand with diamond leads. …
Gareth Birdsall: I couldn’t be more defensive in the context of my [previous] takeout double.
Mark Florencz: It may be risky; but it’s cool.
Martin Bootsma: I have to show my strength. This is not a penalty double, although it tends to show something in hearts.
J. Michael Andresen: Describes a hand with extras that still doesn’t know what to do, implying long diamonds and three spades. Partner’s next action should clarify where we belong.
Nigel Guthrie: The best description, as partner is able to pass with, say, x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x-x.
Chris Vinall: I’ll answer 3 with 3 , and 2 with 3 .
Gerben Dirksen: This shows a great hand with game interest opposite some 0-5 point hands.
Fred Wills: Double was takeout before and is still takeout; should show three spades only.
Dale Rudrum: Very strong; not necessarily much in hearts. If partner…bids, I’m more confident in reaching a playable contract. …
Karen Walker: This should be interpreted as an extended takeout double, showing extra values and three spades. I’d want a stronger, more runnable diamond suit for a 2 NT bid.
Thijs Veugen: I’m able to correct 3 to 3 .
Connie Delisle: I will convert 3 to 3 ; partner can pass that or pull to 3 . If he bids 2 , I will raise to 3 .
Peter Schwartz: If partner rebids 2 , I will try 3 . If he bids 3 , I will bid 3 .
Frank van Wezel: This is more a problem for partner than for me.
Peg Kaplan: … Two spades seemed right at first; but upon reflection, double (whatever it means!) is more flexible. If partner has a singleton diamond, perhaps he will pass. If partner has five spades, perhaps he will rebid them (and I will raise to 3 ).
Micha Keijzers: I don’t believe in raising spades yet. I will correct 3 to 3 ; then it must be clear to partner I have long diamonds with three spades and lots of HCP.
Peter Gill: Opposite x-x-x-x x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x, I need little more than a 2-2 diamond break to make 3 NT, and J-x-x is even better. With a vulnerable game at IMPs so close opposite so little, it is curious that 3 NT is not listed, and pass is. I have already indicated three spades by doubling, so spade [raises] opposite a partner who would strain to bid a five-card suit over 1 are poor. I plan to convert 3 to 3 NT. …
Adam Folke: Repeated takeout, I presume. It should show a hand strong for both offense and defense.
Michael Palitsch: Seems to be the most flexible call, probably showing a pattern like 3=2=5=3 (which I do not have exactly, but I want to show my spade length correctly).
Jack Duranceau: This seems to call for a Roth, “How dare you give me this problem?” I’m sure someone knows what to do. If partner rebids spades, I’ll go to 4 .
Kieran Dyke: Certainly not a direct spade raise. Double will probably hear 2 (I’ll pass) or 3 (I’ll convert to 3 ). If partner tries 3 , I’ll convert to 3 NT. If partner passes, I’ll convert it to a house in the country.
Bas Lodder: Not for penalty but a cheap, last game try.
Roger Morton: I’ll squeeze another bid out of partner and see whether he has a five-card spade suit or diamond support.
Julian Wightwick: This suggests three spades. I can still correct clubs to diamonds.
Mike Doecke: Pass is also tempting. Partner had two chances to show some life, so he certainly hasn’t got much.
Richard Fedrick: Least flawed option. Still takeout, this implies extra values with three spades. I will pass 2 ; convert 3 to 3 ; and if I’m feeling frisky, convert 3 to 3 NT.
Jelmer Hasper: Lots of power but no idea what we make. …
Nicoleta Giura: A good hand, but I need to find out how good the spade fit is.
Nick Krnjevic: Most flexible call. If partner bids 2 , I’ll raise; if he bids 3 , I’ll bid 3 ; if he bids 2 NT, I’ll wonder what on earth he’s doing…; if he passes, I’ll check the back of my cards.
Ross Taylor: Very tough problem. Do I mastermind with 2 or 3 , or punt with double? … I choose double to preserve my options — and also ensure a decent score in the poll.
Ian Payn: I knew that I was out of luck.
Ed Shapiro: … I plan to pass 2 , or bid 3 over 3 (implying spade support). The nature of the first double (takeout) isn’t changed by the second, which only shows more strength. Pass is too passive for me, with a vulnerable game available opposite hands weak enough for partner to pass 2 out.
Charles Leong: [Showing] cards. I may make one more effort…, but game is unlikely.
Rob Stevens: I have always found bidding after one plum, pass, pass, one grape, a mystery. What should three plums show? Double? One notrump or 2 NT? Two grapes? This problem doesn’t clear it up for me. Double is not [ideal] but could be the brass ring. Game, if there is one, would appear to depend on partner having a good diamond fit — he isn’t going to hold five spades to an honor and essay only 1 . …
Comments for PassAdam Saroyan: I may not have bid all I have here, but I am not going to hang partner with 2 . He has another bid, and perhaps he will do something. If not, I may not be able to beat 2 anyway; can’t really tell who is short in diamonds.
Mike Hargreaves: Pass will enable us to reach 4 , since partner will almost certainly bid 2 with as little as Q-x-x-x-x; and we likely need that to make game in spades. … Three diamonds on this suit is dangerous and aims at no target beyond 3 ; partner will certainly not bid 3 with Q-x-x-x-x x-x J-x x-x-x-x. …
Bruce Scott: Two spades is the feel-good answer. How can I not raise partner’s suit with this great hand? Well, it isn’t really that great in terms of what I have already shown. Partner is probably bidding over 2 if he has five spades. It is hard for me to believe there will be many votes for 3 or 4 . Have you no sympathy for your poor partner?
Barry Rigal: If partner cannot act after this start, why would I want to be in again? I would have bid 1 NT (not double) at my second turn.
John Reardon: If the auction ends here, I doubt we have missed much.
Peter Skafte: Chicken. Partner can reopen with five spades.
David Davies: East is doing a lot of bidding on a queen-high suit. If East has shape, it may be best to keep low. With that in mind, double is far too risky and raising spades could turn nasty if partner only has four and they break badly. … I think the time for the green card has come.
Eric Goff: I certainly have nothing more to say. If partner has five spades, he will almost certainly be in there again.
Gordon Rainsford: Looks like a plus score, with no game available. Partner did have two opportunities to show something.
Chris Willenken: Partner will bid again when it’s right. I’ve already shown interest in competing opposite a 0-4 HCP hand by doubling 1 , and they’ve got no guarantee of a fit; so why bail them out by bidding again?
James Hudson: I’ve done enough with this defensive-looking hand. As it is, partner may bid 3 and land us in the soup (he knows I don’t have four spades and expects me to have three or four clubs).
Paul Boudreau: This hand has more defense than offense. Let me see if partner bids spades again.
John Jones: I have shown a good hand and implied spade tolerance, but partner has little. I hope partner will bid again if he has five spades.
David Collier: I suspect that partner has complete rubbish. If he doesn’t, he’s still got another chance to bid. …
Bob Zorn: If I double again, it could encourage partner to bid clubs; if I raise spades, I could catch him with [ 6-5-3-2]. My five defensive tricks make me want to try for a plus right here.
John R. Mayne: I have a moose, and I told partner I have a moose. My spades are worse than partner has a right to expect. Double would be “action,” and one of partner’s actions might well be 3 , expecting me to be 3=1=5=4. …
Daniel Auby: If partner has five spades, he will always bid them in the passout seat. Therefore, another takeout double…is overly aggressive. Pass may lose if partner has three diamonds and cannot find a bid.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Against the grain, but I have done enough and now need to stay out of trouble. Partner knows that I know he’s weak, so [he can bid if he has any values].
Imre Csiszar: Any bid here risks a set, perhaps doubled. The risk is not worth taking since game, even if makable, does not appear biddable; and 2 is likely to go down. …
Sverre Johnsen: Partner knows I have extras so he has another chance. We have a good chance of a plus score by defending; declaring is more uncertain.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
Problem 6
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North 2 Dbl | East 2 Pass | SOUTH 1 NT Pass ? | Q 5 A J 8 A Q Q 9 7 6 5 4
|
| Call and Opinion | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Pass; agree with 1 NT | 10 | 328 | 32 |
| B. Pass; disagree with 1 NT | 9 | 223 | 22 |
| E. 3 ; agree with 1 NT | 7 | 201 | 19 |
| F. 3 ; disagree with 1 NT | 6 | 233 | 23 |
| C. 2 NT; agree with 1 NT | 4 | 19 | 2 |
| D. 2 NT; disagree with 1 NT | 3 | 31 | 3 |
For scoring purposes in this two-part problem, the choice of calls was the primary consideration, and whether you agreed with 1 NT was secondary. The majority (54 percent) chose to honor partner’s penalty double and pass, so choices A and B get the top spots. This percentage would even be higher if I excluded some of the bidders who erroneously thought the double was takeout or competitive.
I have no strong feelings about this (other than agreeing with 1 NT), and my actual decision might depend on who bid 2 or on partner’s inclination to make close doubles. Passing makes me nervous, as partner might have four clubs, and declarer might have a diamond fit with dummy, sending our defensive prospects down the tubes. It feels like plus 200 most of the time, but minus 670 seems just as likely as plus 500.
The second part of the problem was extremely close; 52 percent agreed with the 1 NT opening and 48 percent disagreed. It is also noteworthy that most of those who passed agreed with 1 NT, while most of those who bid did not. This certainly makes sense; if you don’t like your first bid, there is more reason to pull the double.
Here’s the deal from North American vs. Thailand:
| North America vs Thailand | J 7 3 K 10 9 6 5 K J 9 2 J
| |
| 10 9 4 7 4 3 2 10 8 10 8 3 2
| | A K 8 6 2 Q 7 6 5 4 3 A K
|
| E-W Vul | Q 5 A J 8 A Q Q 9 7 6 5 4 | |
| Nand'wat West Pass Pass | Murray North 2 Dbl | Gaan East 2 All Pass | Kehela SOUTH 1 NT Pass | 2 × East 6 Made 2 +670 |
| Feldesman West Pass 1 Pass | Istenyeli North 1 Pass 4
| Rubin East Dbl 3 All Pass | Boonsupa SOUTH 1 Rdbl Pass | 4 North K Made 4 +420 Thailand +14 IMPs |
Disaster for the Americans. Murray’s decision to double 2 with only J-x-x was more doubtful than Kehela’s pass, but the North hand was ill-suited for their system.* Against 2 doubled, Kehela led a club to the jack and ace, then won the diamond return. The contract can be beaten if the defense now gets a tap going ( A and another), but this was hardly obvious. Kehela continued a club for Murray to ruff, and I don’t think there was any way to recover — minus 670.
*No transfers. The Canadians used a 2 response to ask opener to bid his longer major (even if only three cards) or 2 with equal length. This was Murray’s own invention.
At the second table Boonsupa opened 1 (he had no option as 1 NT was 12-14 at this vulnerability) and the normal 4 game was reached, albeit after a little jostling from the Americans. With the K lead and the Q singleton, the contract was duck supa, so the Thais scored a game at each table to gain 14 IMPs. Seems like it should be more.
Comments for A. Pass; agree with 1 NTFrans Buijsen: I expect partner to have about 9 HCP and at least honor-third in spades, judging that defending is my best option. Two spades should almost always be down, and may occasionally pick up 800 if East crossed the line.
Neil Morgenstern: …Partner’s double is penalty, and I see no reason to pull it. My hand is as good as it might be for defending 2 ; my values are in the short suits, and the Q is well placed over, say, K-J-10-x-x-x in declarer’s hand…
David Lindop: The auction hasn’t gone as I hoped, but I’ll stick to my guns — nervously.
Gordon Bower: Unless we’re vulnerable against not and think there is game our way, penalty doubles after 1 NT openings are usually big winners. It’s a bonus that I have Q-x instead of x-x, and that most of my high cards are in short suits and won’t be ruffed. I expect a big profit.
Andrew de Sosa: Double is not cooperative without prior agreement, and the vulnerability is right to extract a penalty. Partner should hold four spades, or at least three with a trump trick and sufficient extra values to make up the deficiency. I’ll lead a club.
Mark Florencz: Yes, it would be easy to disagree with 1 NT now, but I would have bid it myself.
Adam Saroyan: Not the prettiest 1 NT bid but hardly a misbid. I’ll pass the double and lead a club; whatever happens I will survive the postmortem. Bidding 3 now should suggest a suit worth mentioning; I see no reason to torture partner.
Scott Stearns: Although I’m not thrilled with how the auction has turned out, partner is not doubling on my Q, so I expect to have at least four defensive tricks. I could live with opening 1 and rebidding 1 NT; but the 1 NT opening works for so many other auctions that I’ll take my medicine on this one.
Joc Koelman: I agree with opening 1 NT on soft hands (15 HCP but still seven losers). Double is penalty, I hope!
J. Michael Andresen: For a minimum off-shape 1 NT, I have fine defense against spades, so I will trust partner’s penalty double. Presumably, partner has four spades and enough points to know that we’re going to set them. If more of my points were in clubs, I might worry about my defensive potential, but then I would have opened 1 instead of 1 NT. …
Nigel Guthrie: In my opinion, 1 NT is the only sensible opening. It is close whether to pass or pull, but I do have Q-x…
Chris Vinall: I’m not in love with 1 NT on this bad suit, but 1 leads to big rebid problems. Pulling the double is very close; I’ll pass, but without conviction. If we were winning the match, I would pull.
Sheldon Spier: Opening 1 NT right-sides a notrump contract. As most of my points are outside clubs, pass is right, I think.
Gerben Dirksen: Partner should have four spades for the double. With points in my short suits (behind East), I’d rather defend.
Michele Holm: I often open 1 NT with two doubletons, as long as I have strength in them; I would prefer K-x, but Q-x is what was dealt. Partner says East stepped out of line, so I choose to defend.
Mike Hargreaves: Dangerous, but partner knew that as well. My clubs are a poor sign, but the rest of my hand suggests defense. I will lead a club and hope that it is declarer who is short, rather than dummy. …
Karen Walker: This isn’t the best-looking 1 NT opener, but if I open 1 , all my rebid alternatives are pretty ugly, too. I have the values I advertised, and we have no known fit; so I can’t imagine overruling partner.
Manuel Paulo: If partner knows that I may open hands like this with 1 NT, then I should pass his penalty double.
Ron Zucker: Too good to open 1 and rebid 1 NT. With two aces and scattered queens, I have good defensive values and about what partner expects — except for the sixth club. My partner’s have more of a sense of humor than to hang me for that.
Barry Rigal: I’d only pull the double if partner made it slowly (joking). This hand has the right strength for 1 NT and, although minimum with HCP in the short suits, anything else (1 then 1 NT, or ugh, 2 ) looks more misleading. After all, if partner has a five-card major, how bad can it be to play there and conceal my hand and get the strong hand (in both senses) playing it?
John Reardon: I must admit that I would open 1 NT with this collection. Having done so, I will take my medicine and hope that it is East who is going to be punished.
Nick Doe: Holding Q-x and a couple of aces seems too much defense to overrule partner now. If I’d known that East was going to come in, perhaps I’d have opened 1 ; but the rebid in an uncontested auction wasn’t exactly going to describe my hand with my usual pinpoint accuracy, was it?
Ron Sperber: The club suit is blah enough to be treated as a five-bagger. As for passing, partner knows I might have only x-x, so Q-x is a [bonus].
Giovanni Bobbio: My problem is the lead; either black suit may spell success or disaster. One may argue that this means I should take out the double, but I will respect partner…
Peter Skafte: I won’t be afraid here;… partner should have four spades.
Adam Folke: Yuck! Queens never made anyone happy but the king.
David Davies: The opening is a matter of style, …but 1 NT seems no worse a description than 1 followed by something else. As for the pass, why would I override partner’s judgment? Partner should be happy with Q-x.
Leo Zelevinsky: Close call. I generally don’t like to open 1 NT with a six-card minor, but this seems to be a case to do it. I don’t see why I should overrule partner, who thinks our best score is in 2 doubled.
Michael Palitsch: I agree with 1 NT because, after a 1 opening, I do not have a good rebid. Now I pass because the double is penalty, and I see no reason to run.
Sandy Barnes: Partner doubles and I have the trump queen?
David Colbert: Short-suit honors say “defend.”
Jack Duranceau: … If I make interesting opening bids, I am going to stay the course.
Bill Huepenbecker: The initial 1 NT is correct with 15 HCP and a rancid suit. The vulnerability is right to play 2 doubled. I think this is a lead problem.
Roger Morton: If you look at the hand quickly, it seems balanced. …I’ll stand for the double with two aces and a spade honor. If partner’s tricks contain A-K-x-x, tough luck.
Julian Wightwick: The 1 NT opening bid is clear because there’s no good rebid after a 1 opening. Partner’s double is for penalty, suggesting four spades, so I pass comfortably; I have average defense, with a trump honor and honors in my short suits.
Mike Doecke: If I’m going to open this hand 1 NT, I don’t think I should second guess myself later.
George Klemic: What’s the problem? Extremely routine, both calls. One notrump is in range; bad club suit; and honors in all other suits… I’m expecting 500 out of this; more if partner has a moose.
Richard Fedrick: … I’m happy with the double, as my values are mostly outside my six-carder. I’ve got as much defense as partner would have counted on when he doubled.
Chris Willenken: One notrump seems normal to me. Partner’s double is for penalty, so he should have four spades and values. My hand is terrific for defense, with all my high cards outside of my long suit; so I pass, expecting a substantial number.
Michael Kenny: I like 1 NT when the six-card minor is really too poor for a jump rebid. It’s the vulnerability that really seals the pass, as I think there are chances for an interesting number — for our side.
Erwin Witteveen: Weak clubs; enough HCP; and tolerance for majors; so I agree with 1 NT. …
John Byers: I don’t have any problems with an auction leading to plus 200 on a partscore hand; I’m not embarrassed by my holding.
Aziza Rusconi: … [If I open 1 ] and partner bids a major, I cannot support; but [after 1 NT] he could have a five-card major and be able to transfer.
Daniel Auby: It is very rare to remove a penalty double in this position; and with four probable defensive tricks, this hand does not even come close to a removal. To open 1 NT is a standout.
Ross Taylor: I’m pleased my six-bagger only contains 2 HCP; so even opposite length in clubs, we should be OK — given that partner has 4+ spades and 7+ HCP. I neither agree nor disagree with 1 NT; I don’t mind it but may not have bid it myself. I decided this constitutes “I agree.”
Brian Zietman: Looks like we’re headed for a nice swing.
Ian Payn: This’ll be the day that I die.
Robert Nordgren: One notrump protects all my queens from the lead and tells the nature of the hand. … It sounds like East stepped into partner’s [four-card] suit and will pay for it dearly.
Paul Huggins: … The notrump bid is a bit off-center, but it’s a better description than [available] after 1 . I have a better spade holding than partner could have expected, and partner has a much better idea of my hand than I have of his. …
Sriram Narasimhan: I think 1 NT is reasonable, and I am also quite happy with my hand on defense. I am leading a club.
Gillian Paty: I agree with 1 NT, as my doubletons are not that bad, and my club suit is [almost] nonexistent. …
Comments for B. Pass; disagree with 1 NTJonathan Goldberg: One notrump distorts both my shape (two doubletons) and my strength (all those queens). The clubs need a raise, and I can never get it after 1 NT. …
David Stewart: They really don’t have a good trump fit (seven cards), and we have the majority of points. At this vulnerability, I’m going for the throat. … I would open 1 then rebid the clubs over partner’s bid.
Murat Azizoglu: I don’t think this is good enough to open 1 NT — lots of worthless honor cards. Leaving in the double is risky, but any bid is more so.
Dave Maeer: I don’t like 1 NT, but I don’t want to double-cross partner by pulling a penalty double. My defense is reasonable; at least my high cards are not in the long suit.
Doug Burke: I’d only bid 1 NT with 5-4-2-2 shape if I had the short suits stopped (A or K in each suit). Having opened 1 NT, though, I pretty much put myself into your partner’s hands; he cracked 2 , so here we go. If they make because of my poor holding in spades, you have to blame the 1 NT opening, I think.
Kevin Costello: Given the weakness of my club suit, I would feel perfectly comfortable bidding 1 followed by 1 NT. As it is, I feel that [bidding] would be an insult to partner, especially with that lovely spade honor.
Chris Maclauchlan: Although maybe not quite what partner is expecting, this hand has decent defense for a minimum 1 NT opening. … I don’t mind a 1 NT opening on this hand, but with all the quacks and honors in my short suits, I would downgrade it to a 1 , 2 bid.
Alan Kravetz: I pass because I have 2 1/2 quick tricks on defense plus the trump queen. I disagree with 1 NT because of the ratty club suit and my partners’ nasty tendency to transfer into my two-card major.
Bill McFall: One too many flaws; if 17 HCP, 1 NT is OK.
Gerry Wildenberg: The two unsupported queens (albeit one with length) and six-card suit make 1 NT suspect. I don’t condemn it too strongly, but it’s not my choice. As for passing or pulling, partner has four spades, my Q is now valuable, and my red suits are very defense-oriented — all argue for pass.
Richard Stein: I have decent help for defense in trumps, and a very defensive hand. I wouldn’t call a 1 NT opening preposterous, but I wouldn’t do it.
Daniel Korbel: I don’t like the 1 NT opening; however, once I’ve done it, I’ve made my bed, and I have some defense.
Lance Marrou: Egad; 1 NT with two doubletons, one of them Q-x? Partner doubled for penalty; why should I take it out when 1 NT is such a clear bid? How is this even a choice?
Roger Pewick: Actually, I choose G — I do not disagree with 1 NT. This is known as taking a position; normally I open 1 , but it does not bother me to choose 1 NT, especially if my table presence brings it to my attention. …
Colin Ward: Not only do I disagree with opening 1 NT, but I might pull partner’s 1 NT (at IMPs at least) if the auction went, say, 1 1 1 NT P, back to me.
Paul Friedman: Off-shape notrump openers are the bane of American bridge — well, one of the banes.
John R. Mayne: One notrump is close, but I don’t think this hand is worth 15. On the Kaplan count, which works best for opening evaluation for suit play, it’s 13.05 — way short. As to the double, once I open 1 NT I’m committed; pulling is totally anti-partnership, and violators should be shot.
Gerald Murphy: I don’t agree with 1 NT because of the weakness of the club suit; the only redeeming feature is the A-Q. Partner doubled, and I will respect his decision in that he holds spades.
Philip Smith: What a rubbish opening; the queens look potentially useless. In fact, I might open a 12-14 1 NT, now that I think about it. Anyway, I’ve made my bed, so I lie in it. …
Christopher Miller: This hand looks like a 12-14 notrump.
Rob Stevens: I think that two flaws (weak six-card suit, really minimum notrump with 8 HCP jammed into two doubletons) make 1 NT anti-percentage. Pulling basically is an admission of guilt.
Toby Kenney: I don’t think my values are adequate for a 1 NT opening; the queens in my doubletons are not full value; my points are nearly all in my short suits, and I have poor intermediates. I would open the hand a weak notrump. … Having opened 1 NT, I must respect partner’s decision; my hand isn’t so bad for defense.
Comments for E. 3 ; agree with 1 NTRosalind Hengeveld: I like 1 NT as the best way to bid this queensie hand with a bad suit. However, even if partner has four spades, my defensive values are so-so, and I lack an obvious lead against 2 doubled. Partner’s style for doubling in a position like this is highly relevant — from a sure spade stack such as J-10-x-x (or better) to an “it must be our hand but I don’t have a good bid.”
Connie Delisle: Double under the bidder I take as cooperative, showing at least invitational values. I have poor defensive values and bid my six-shooter.
Andrew Morris: I like 1 NT for the preemptive effect against vulnerable opponents. …
Peter Gill: Impossible problem on paper. Assuming that partner’s double is for penalty, it depends totally on how solid a bidder East is. If he’s reckless, I pass and collect 800. If he’s solid, I am wary of his extreme shape and take the safe course, so I need to know where the event took place. Australia? Then I take an easy 1100 or 1400. Phoenix? Or elsewhere in America where people are so disciplined that they won’t even open 2 NT on Problem 1? Then I fear minus 670.
Ah! So that’s why Australia is called “Down Under”… It’s a bridge thing.
Kieran Dyke: Opening 1 NT is much better than opening 1 and trying to decide on a rebid; this hand is much more a scattered 15-count than a club one-suiter, anyway. Partner’s double is penalty, but my atypical 1 NT opening ought to pull; partner may have a spot of club length, ruining defensive chances.
James Hudson: Partner may have only three spades; I’ll trust the vulnerable opponents. Bidding 2 NT is right only if partner had some sort of club fit, in which case I may as well bid clubs, giving him information and making him declarer if he passes. Bidding 1 NT didn’t work well this time, but I consider it the right bid.
P.A. Eriksson: I will never pass 2 doubled with only Q-x. East is not suicidal and is likely to have A-K-x-x-x-x or better.
Paul Boudreau: I don’t want any IMP disasters; we can still play 3 NT or 4 — but not 2 doubled.
Bob Zorn: While I like 1 NT, partner is expecting at least one more defensive trick. Three clubs avoids a disaster and does not necessarily end the auction…
Nick Krnjevic: Much as I dislike the texture of this hand, I think that the 1 NT opening has a tactical, preemptive benefit at these colors and this form of scoring. My motley collection of clubs and quacks might well shut out the opponents from a vulnerable spade game.
Leonard Helfgott: This is a very notrump-oriented hand, and red tenaces plus the sixth club compensate for the spade weakness, low controls and lack of spots. After all, we’d all open 1 NT with Q-x-x A-J-x A-Q Q-9-x-x-x. …
Steve Landen: I’ll bet partner hesitated, in which case I think I have to pass. As is, East must have a good suit red-vs-white, and partner’s [potential] A-K aren’t worth much on defense.
Albert Ohana: Partner will bid 3 NT with an adequate hand, knowing I’m not interested in defending 2 — which can make if East has good distributional values and [short] in clubs.
Imre Csiszar: The hand is well suited to notrump, and 1 would lead to a rebid problem. I take out the double unless East is known for unsound vulnerable overcalls… I prefer 3 to 2 NT, for North then can bid 3 NT [if appropriate].
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 573), and on each problem only for the top three calls (two calls on Problem 3). Over 55 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.
Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.
I hope you enjoyed this journey back to 1966. Thanks to all who responded, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Uh-oh, I can see daffodils and shadows on the hills. It’s time to go, so I’ll leave you with these starry remarks:
Stephen McDevitt: I scored OK last time; let’s hope this poll doesn’t bring out The Big Dipper. …
Thomas Kniest: Looks like Bald Mountain. The problems are the work of an evil wizard.
Alex Kemeny: Your themes are very Northern Hemispheric. Hey, it’s mid-summer here in Australia! …
Anthony Golding: I could have told you, Vincent, these problems were not meant for one as beautiful as you.
| Analyses 7Y24 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Starry, Starry Night |
© 2003 Richard Pavlicek