Analyses 7Y32  Main Challenge

France Wins in Hammamet

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in March 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

Hey look! The title has changed. My original title “Hamman Crewmen at Finis” was an anagram, as many respondents correctly deduced from its strained wording, or more specifically the uncommon word “finis.” Nonetheless, it also happened to be true, as Bob Hamman and his teammates did indeed get to the final, eventually losing to France. Or, as my warped mind has pondered: Is this the place where Bob Hammamet Bobby Wolff? Enough silliness. The tournament was held in 1997 in Hammamet, Tunisia, a popular tourist spot on the Mediterranean.

The flag image is that of France, the winning team. The pictures are all of Tunisia. At top is a view of the Hammamet beach at sunset. The camel caravan is on the Sahara Desert, which blankets the southern portion of Tunisia, as well as most of North Africa. Also pictured is a portion of downtown Hammamet, directly on the sea.

The background song A Night in Tunisia is a jazz arrangement by Dizzy Gillespie.

Most of the wrong guesses this month were close (I think the camels deserve most of the credit): Tunis and Djerba, Tunisia; Algiers, Algeria; Casablanca (mistaking my web site for Rick’s Cafe?) and Morac, Morocco; Cairo, Egypt; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Israel; Beirut, Lebanon; and every American’s favorite vacation spot: Tripoli, Libya. Then there were a few camel-challenged picks for Monte Carlo, Monaco; Bali, Indonesia; Tahiti; and even Honolulu, Hawaii. I don’t think so.

Congratulations to Giovanni Bobbio, David Harari and Anthony Golding, who were the first three of 25 respondents to guess the exact venue and unscramble my title. You people are becoming better detectives. On second thought, maybe this month was a little easier. Camels? Stand up and take a bow.

Espen Erichsen Wins!

The average score this month was lower than usual, mainly due to the wide dispersion of the voting. None of the problems were runaways, and most were extremely close. Also remarkable was the lack of a 59 score, especially since I offered 9 as the second-place award on five of the six problems. Strange — but you can be sure the votes were counted accurately; I mean, this is Florida.

The overall leaderboard took on a new appearance. Now perched at the top with a 56.25 average is Gerry Wildenberg (US). Four players are close behind with an even 56.00: Josh Sinnett (US); Arend Bayer (Germany); Lenze Walker (US); and Ronald Brantsma (Netherlands).

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

Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the 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 1997 Bermuda Bowl was held October 19-November 1 in Hammamet, Tunisia — an unusual venue, as it was (and still is) the only world bridge championship ever held in Africa.

This was the largest Bermuda Bowl to date with 18 teams. The original idea of this contest was to have one team from each continent (or World Bridge Federation “zone”), but current conditions allowed two teams, as well as a defending champion and a token berth to the host country.

After a complete round-robin the Victory Point standings were: USA I 323, USA II 315, France 296, Norway 294, Italy 290, Poland 285, China 278, Taiwan 277, Brazil 274, Denmark 264, Australia 256, Canada 233, India 226, Venezuela 223, New Zealand 205, Chile 189, South Africa 174, and last but not least the host country Tunisia 154.

Only the top eight teams advanced to the knockout phase. The quarterfinals went true to form as USA I, USA II, France and Norway easily emerged. For the semifinals, conditions required the USA teams to square off (so the final was sure to be international). USA II prevailed by a hefty margin 276-157, and France defeated Norway 220-157. The final would pit USA II versus France.

Representing France (pictured L-R, top row first) were Paul Chemla, Michel Perron, Herve Mouiel, Christian Mari, Alain Levy and Frank Multon. The surviving United States squad were Nick Nickell, Richard Freeman, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell. The final consisted of 160 boards (10 sessions of 16 boards each), and France won 328-301.

Viva la France! The problems for this poll were all selected from the final match, so tie up your camel and see how your bidding compares with the world’s best in 1997.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 1

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 1 NT	North 2	East Pass	South ?	9 4 Q 10 8 6 A 3 A K 5 3 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	203	20
3	9	154	15
Pass	8	229	23
4	6	162	16
3 NT	5	107	11
3	2	144	14

This turned out to be a great problem — closest bunching in all my polls — as each choice received from 11 to 23 percent. I guess this means I win. Even though pass got the most votes, it was clearly against the consensus (77 percent chose to make some move toward game) so it is demoted in the scoring.

Is game likely? I think so, even with the consideration that partner might overcall lightly with a shapely hand. As little as A-Q-J-x-x-x and out makes 3 NT a favorite (probably nine running tricks), and partner will often have more. It is also possible that he has less, so it seems prudent to leave an out in 3 .

I agree with the consensus of the bidders; 2 NT feels right, both in strength and direction. Many partnerships would treat 2 NT as forcing (clearly superior), though it is nonforcing in standard bidding; but even so, partner will rarely pass. With a hand suitable for notrump, he will raise to 3 NT; and with a shapely hand he will bid 3 or 4 . There is also a chance partner may have a two-suiter (remember, there are no conventional bids in use over 1 NT); indeed, if partner next bids 3 , it would be quite an eye-opener for those who passed 2 .

Bids of 3 NT and 4 are overbids, and further defective in offering no flexibility as to strain. It’s like flipping two coins: one for the level and one for the strain — you’ll be right only 25 percent of the time, so it’s probably better to pass and take a plus score.

Three clubs seems to be the worst choice as it should show extreme club length and a misfit for spades (e.g., x A-x-x x-x Q-J-10-9-8-x-x). Besides offering little chance to reach game, clubs will usually be the wrong partscore.

Here’s what happened in Hammamet:

West deals	A Q J 10 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	9 2		Perron	Wolff	Chemla	Hamman
	10 5 4		1 NT	2	Pass	Pass
	9 6 4		Pass
K 8 7 6		5 3
A K		J 7 5 4 3
K Q 9 8		J 7 6 2
J 10 8		Q 7
	9 4
	Q 10 8 6
	A 3
	A K 5 3 2

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
2 North	2 West	Nickell	Mari	Freeman	Levy
Made 2 +110	Down 2 -200	1 NT	Pass	2	Pass
		2	Pass	Pass	Pass
France +3 IMPs

I must say I was shocked by the first auction. I would not have bid 2 with Wolff’s hand, and I’m surprised Hamman would pass after Wolff chose to bid.* At least they know each other’s style! What ever happened to Hamman’s Rule? Isn’t 3 NT a viable option? Or at least a potential contract via 2 NT? As usual, the maestro was right as Wolff could win only eight tricks in spades (East led the Q). Plus 110.

*In fairness, however, their auction was not identical to the problem scenario because Wolff could have bid 2 to show both majors. Hence, Hamman could rule out a heart fit and knew the Q rated to be useless.

The auction at the second table seems more normal, and Nickell lost the obvious seven tricks. Down two; 3 IMPs to France. Evidently, the bottom line is that Wolff’s flimsy overcall was the wrong strategy after all. Or maybe it was just a scoring fix — if he could add his 100 honors, it would have been a push.

Comments for 2 NT

Ed Barnes: One of 2 NT, 3 (2 ), 3 NT or 4 is likely to be the best contract. Wouldn’t partner know better than I?

Mark LaForge: Too strong to pass, but for me this is as much a style issue. I would bid game with some partners.

Geoff Ostrin: Playing teams, the [concern] is whether game is missed. The 1 NT opening implies that partner needs the remaining points; although on the other hand, all the points are marked, saying that perhaps the finesses sit behind my aces. Thus, although a long shot, I think a noise is worthwhile; so I’ll plump for 2 NT.

Neelotpal Sahai: Partner’s overcall range is likely to be wide, so I’ll give him one chance to reach game if he has extras.

Leonard Helfgott: I might bid 3 if I could be sure it was 100-percent forcing with spade tolerance; but 2 NT seems better than that or a spade raise.

Tim Francis-Wright: Three notrump is too rich for me, even in this town.

Ciaran Coyne: Even nonvulnerable games are worth bidding, so I have to make some try.

Laszlo Sztrapkovics: I have a chance to make game, but I don’t know yet; 3 NT or 4 may be better.

Robert Katz: I consider 2 NT forcing and not just seeking a better partial. We probably belong in 4 , though we might belong in 4 or 3 NT, depending on partner’s hand. While I like my partners to bid nonvulnerable with a reasonable six-card suit and [few additional] high cards, it is hard to imagine a hand without a reasonable play at game.

Tim DeLaney: This is a general purpose game try, and also caters to the chance that partner has a side suit of hearts…

Carsten Kofoed: I suppose this is forcing; North can [rebid spades], show…another suit or bid 3 NT with A-Q-J-x-x-x.

Daniel Korbel: We can still get to spades if it’s right, but this will be our last chance to get to notrump.

Andrei Varlan: As I play, 2 NT is a cue-bid in this position; I have to know if partner’s hand is weak or fair. At IMPs I cannot afford to [pass].

Nicola Farina: This should be forcing; 3 NT is probable even if partner is weak (e.g., A-Q-J-x-x-x x-x x-x x-x-x).

Leigh Gold: …The simple action to show an invitational hand.

Paul Huggins: If partner has either a running six-card spade suit or a one-loser spade suit with an entry,… I have good chances in 3 NT. Two notrump gives partner the chance to raise if he has points or playing tricks to spare for his overcall, or bid another suit… I don’t want to be in game all the time, though, as he might overcall with K-Q-x-x-x-x and the K.

Adam Folke: As 2 promises only spades, and any suit bid at the three level should be nonforcing, I think partner should interpret 2 NT as forcing one round and invitational.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: At this vulnerability, it is not very prudent to jump to game; but with a doubleton spade and so many prime cards, the three level should be safe.

Rosalind Hengeveld: It may very well be right to pass, especially with an aggressive partner. As against that, with “All suit bids = natural” (system notes), partner may even have a second five-card suit in hearts. Two notrump does best to leave options open, even if not understood as forcing.

David Lindop: I have to make a try; even at this vulnerability, partner could have something. I’ll let partner out in 3 , or go back to 3 over 3 .

Julian Wightwick: Partner’s bid has a wide range at this vulnerability. Pass could certainly be right, but it seems reasonable to make one try for game.

Barry Rigal: Two notrump natural has some attraction; 2 NT artificial (Ogust style, or feature ask) also makes sense. How can 2 NT be the right place to play on an auction like this?

Robin Zigmond: Looking for game, obviously. I’d rather tell partner that I have the other suits stopped than show the moderate clubs or ropy spade support.

Dale Freeman: Most flexible bid. I think 2 NT should be forcing, like a cue-bid; to play it nonforcing is useless.

Sandy McIlwain: Worth a stab at game. Three notrump is too arbitrary.

John Haslegrave: With my normal partner as North, this would be a clear pass. :)

Andrew de Sosa: I must at least invite game at IMPs. Two notrump seems the best choice, showing a balanced game invitation with only two spades. … If partner cannot make at least 3 with this dummy, we gotta talk about his overcalls.

Stan Dub: We probably have a game but not certainly. Partner could have a weak hand with long spades. Only 2 NT keeps all options open; every other bid makes a unilateral decision. I will pass 3 or 3 NT.

Bryson Crowell: Maybe partner will bid 3 NT with A-Q-J-x-x-x.

Bob Zorn: This must be constructive and gives partner a chance to show a new suit, sign off in 3 , or bid game in notrump or spades — perfect.

Tristan Dupas: A cue-bid! Partner can bid 3 if he doesn’t want to play game.

Nikolay Demirev: As good a guess as any. If partner bids 3 , I’ll correct to 3 to show a balanced invitation and choice of 3 NT or 4 . When partner holds a little more than A-Q-x-x-x-x x-x J-x-x x-x, 3 NT is the right choice; and whenever his hand is around A-Q-J-x-x-x J-x-x x-x x-x, 4 [or 3 NT] should make. I won’t bid game directly because you never know these days how crappy a nonvulnerable overcall could be. …

Randy Corn: I hate to miss games at IMPs, and partner can probably make 3 if he is weak. …

Alan Holmes: Wish I had paid more attention to the kinds of overcalls Hamman makes! Perhaps pass is best.

Barbara Reichman: I have a lot of good tricks in the unbid suits…but must allow partner to make the final decision based on the value of his overcall.

Brian Ross: A generic cue-bid; I don’t want to hang partner for having a suit.

Gerald Murphy: I want to take some action, and 2 NT should relay the message that I hold few spades and a decent hand; otherwise I would pass. …

Elianor Kennie: How good is the 2 bid, partner?

Comments for 3

Roger Morton: I am not sure 3 is forcing, and diamonds look a bit thin for notrump. I’ll stick with a spade game try, hoping trump finesses are working.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: … I feel I’m very close to bidding game on my own, but I shouldn’t hang partner if he’s stepped out on K-Q-10-x-x-x and an 8-count.

Jean-Christophe Clement: This beautiful hand justifies a proposition for game. With the possibility of a diamond ruff, it seems better to propose 4 than 3 NT.

Michael Clark: The answer to this depends greatly on what I know about my partner. Opposite a reasonable overcall, I expect a good chance at game; but as we’re nonvulnerable, I’m not going to push it and will just invite.

J. Michael Andresen: This seems worth a game try. I have three entries to lead through the strong hand. Partner should have a reasonable six-card suit, so I’ll just raise.

Gerald Cohen: As someone who bids better than I do said on a different occasion, “…Game is for children.”

Never heard that, but I remember some rabbit singing “Trix are for kids!”

Frank van Wezel: In practice I would bid 4 , but this is a bidding contest… so for once I go for the top score.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Partner may have as little as K-Q-J-x-x-x for his nonvulnerable overcall, so a simple invitational 3 should be clear enough. I have three quick tricks, so 3 will almost certainly make if partner has a minimum. …

Julian Pottage: I expect six spades for partner’s bid, but I won’t hang him at this vulnerability.

William Campbell: Since A-K-J-x-x-x x-x x-x-x x-x gives a decent play for game, a middle-of-the-road approach looks best. I don’t know partner’s style here, which may make quite a large difference in what I would bid at the table.

Brian Zietman: I must make a game try, and I do not like the doubleton diamond for notrump. Pass is too timid. Despite being nonvulnerable, I trust partner has a decent hand.

Phil Clayton: There are many offensive hands partner can hold…that make game odds-on. About the minimum I would expect is K-Q-J-x-x-x K-x x-x-x x-x; add an honor card and game is cold, and partner should bid it.

Richard Morse: Pass is feeble; too unbalanced for notrump (West will know what to lead if I declare); 3 leaves it unclear how to proceed after a 3 rebid. Spades is our suit, and [any missing honors] are likely to be well-placed… At this vulnerability, I will offer with 3 ; there are many hands for partner where this will be the limit.

Comments for Pass

Manuel Paulo: With tolerance but not good support for partner, I would need the equivalent of a strong 1 NT opening to advance.

Florentin Axinte: With a third trump I’d consider some action; but here I pass, if only not to discourage partner from bidding the next time with A-K-10-9-x-x and nothing else…

Rik ter Veen: Partner need not have much, and I am not going to risk [our plus score] for a nonvulnerable game that, admittedly, might be there.

James Hudson: The way I play, partner could be pretty weak. Lacking a fit, I’ll leave well enough alone.

Bill Maddock: Discretion is the better part of valor.

Steve White: Partner suggests distribution, not strength. Without a fit, 3 is too much.

Rex Settle: No great fit for spades… so white-vs-red there is no reason to push. At this vulnerability, I need to cut partner some slack.

Jim Grant: Partner’s bid could be anywhere from a good weak two-bid to an opening bid; I hope he has six spades. I hope I’m right in assuming that the point stack in West will make it difficult to make nine tricks in notrump or 10 in spades. …

Karen Walker: Any other call is hanging partner. It takes a downright spectacular hand for me to raise a simple overcall over a strong notrump, and this certainly isn’t it.

Jeff Goldsmith: Without a fit, there is almost no hand which should try for game after partner’s simple overcall of a strong notrump.

Jacco Hop: … I don’t go for game with a strong notrump in my neck. I mostly have junior partners, so I hope 2 will make.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Nonvulnerable, I’m disinclined to stretch. Partners do overcall on broken suits sometimes, don’t they?

Ed Shapiro: Nice to be able to reconsider your bids here. I was going to invite with 3 , feeling the hand is worth 2.625 spades, rounding it up. Upon reflection, nonvulnerable at IMPs, I’m going to try to get a plus. Of course, it would be nice to know partner’s overcalling style. … Playing with myself, there’s a chance only 2 will make, e.g., opposite Q-J-10 seven times and out.

George Stewart: It is usually best to give partner a little slack with overcalls of a strong notrump. At this vulnerability, he needs little more than a good six-card suit.

Martin Bootsma: I don’t want to punish partner for a lead-directing overcall. As a general rule, I don’t try game after a strong notrump by the opponents unless I have a fit for partner.

Neil Morgenstern: They are vulnerable and we are not, which reduces the chance of the 1 NT opening bid being psychic and increases the chance that partner has nothing but a decent spade suit. I will not punish partner for competing on these hands. …

Sandy Barnes: I’m worth a bid but have no safe call and, what’s worse, no clear direction. Pass is a chicken effort to secure a plus score.

Mike Doecke: I think this question comes down to partner’s overcalling style. At these colors partner doesn’t need much for 2 , so I won’t hang him.

Josh Sinnett: I like to encourage my partners to compete at this vulnerability, and turning a plus into a minus by overbidding here loses just as much as missing game.

Len Vishnevsky: … Two notrump is OK on values, though pushy, but I have no safe home at the three level when we can’t bid or make 3 NT.

Gerry Wildenberg: Conservative, I know; but if partner’s spades are not solid and he doesn’t have a diamond card, where are nine tricks coming from? The [vulnerability] helps as nonvulnerable games need better odds to be bid.

Ron Zucker: Coming in over 1 NT is not designed to find a game, it’s designed to find a partscore. Moreover, we are nonvulnerable; if vulnerable, I might take a shot with 3 NT.

Bruce Scott: Maybe partner will make it. I suppose the answer depends on what sort of hand is worth an overcall of 2 in your partnership. Game bidders obviously have different overcalling standards than I do, and won’t have to face this situation very often, as they won’t be overcalling very often.

Tibor Roberts: The hardest question of the lot because there’s no consensus on how strong North has to be, or how good his spades are, especially at this vulnerability. With an unknown partner I have to pass, rather than hanging him for competing.

David Wetzel: I like plus scores. … This depends a lot on partnership agreements; …and modern tendency is to overcall 1 NT with a six-card suit, and the rest be damned.

Chuck Arthur: The philosophy behind bidding in partner’s position is not that we should get to our own game, but that we should simply get in their face. These days, players interfere over 1 NT with very light hands, especially at these colors. If partner holds, say, K-Q-10-x-x-x x-x x-x-x x-x, he is very likely to come out with the same eight tricks he started with. There is no safety at the three level, so no game tries are allowed.

Ramkumar Vaidyanathan: I do not expect miracles, as I do not expect partner’s spades to be running. A diamond lead could be fatal for 3 NT.

David Wiltshire: There is little upside to inviting game without a fit after partner overcalls a strong notrump at favorable vulnerability. Pass and hope he can make it.

Michael Kaplan: Depending on system, 2 may be a weak six-card suit…or up to an opening hand. If the former, the Law and HCP suggest pass; if the latter, then all HCP are accounted for…and 3 NT or 4 might be a good gamble. … Safest is a quiet pass…as 2 may be our only plus score. …

Gillian Paty: The Q is probably useless, …and with only two small trumps I fear I won’t have time to get a diamond ruff. I fail to see a game here.

Murat Azizoglu: I might be risking an unlikely game by passing, but it is more probable that 2 is our best contract.

Ruthanne Williams: … I can think of many hands for partner that won’t make game. Three clubs isn’t forcing, nor likely to improve the contract.

Steve Mager: This seems to be a set of man-or-mouse problems. I’m a mouse here; partner is probably taking advantage of vulnerability.

Jonathan Goldberg: Let’s go plus, shall we? With a single diamond stopper and a strong notrump behind me, these values don’t justify going out on a limb for a nonvulnerable game.

William Maxedon: If partner had [a strong spade suit], e.g., A-K-Q-x-x-x, … he would [pass] and hope that E-W reach 3 NT for a good vulnerable set. [At this vulnerability] partner probably just has a long spade suit and no outside entries.

Dirk Enthoven: With only E-W vulnerable, partner doesn’t promise a house with his 2 overcall. My two small trumps are welcome but not encouraging enough for a direct raise.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 2

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 3	North 3 NT	East Pass Pass	South Pass ?	K K J 8 7 9 4 K J 9 6 3 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Pass	10	405	41
4	9	228	23
4 NT	8	134	13
4	5	42	4
5	4	75	8
6	2	115	12

While a slam is probably against the odds, there is definitely a chance, and I see little risk in trying. I would bid 4 , natural* and forcing. If our assets don’t warrant a slam, 4 NT should be safe — at least it’s hard to construct a hand for partner that would make exactly nine tricks opposite this fine catch. The fact that I passed originally makes 4 even more attractive, as my limited values should make the slam decision easier.

*According to system guidelines all responses to a 3 NT overall are natural, except a cue-bid. The conditions for Gerber require 4 to be a jump.

The consensus felt otherwise, as there were more votes for pass than all the slam tries (4 , 4 and 4 NT) combined. (I did not include 5 and 6 in this comparison, as they both seem way off base.) So be it; the passers win. Indeed, the more I look at this hand the less I like it, so pass may indeed be the most productive decision.

Of the slam tries, I don’t care for the 4 cue-bid, as it may elicit 5 from partner — not exactly music to your ears. Over 4 , at least partner can bid his diamonds cheaply, allowing us to stop in 4 NT. The only merit in the cue-bid might be to discover a heart fit; but even if partner has four hearts, it is doubtful that hearts will play better than clubs or notrump.

In Tunisia, both teams faced the problem scenario:

East deals	A Q		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	9 5 3		Perron	Wolff	Chemla	Hamman
	A Q 6 5				Pass	Pass
	A Q 8 5		3	3 NT	Pass	Pass
J 10 9 8 7 5 3		6 4 2	Pass
A 10 6 2		Q 4
K		J 10 8 7 3 2
4		10 7
	K
	K J 8 7
	9 4
	K J 9 6 3 2

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	6 North	Meckstroth	Mouiel	Rodwell	Multon
Made 5 +460	Down 1 -50			Pass	Pass
		3	3 NT	Pass	4
USA II +11 IMPs		Dbl	Rdbl	Pass	4 NT
		Pass	6	All Pass

At the first table, Hamman stuck to his “Rule” and did not disturb Wolff’s 3 NT — right on the money, as 11 tricks were the limit. This was lucky, however, as even with Wolff’s minimal values, if you change the Q to the Q, 6 is cold.

At the second table, Multon elected to cue-bid. Meckstroth’s double was anti-lead-directing (implying a weak spade suit with high cards elsewhere). Mouiel redoubled to show the A, and Multon retreated to 4 NT — presumably natural. The final jump to 6 , besides being an overbid, suggests that 4 may have had a special meaning (perhaps showing clubs). In any event, the slam had no chance as the cards lie; 11 IMPs to the Americans.

It appears that a natural 4 response would have worked OK. North could hardly expect a slam facing a passed hand, so a simple raise to 5 would end the bidding. Also note that with South declarer, 6 has a chance to make ( A lead).

Comments for Pass

Sartaj Hans: I like putting down good dummies for my partner once in a while.

Rik ter Veen: I’m not going to hang partner for making a good bid on a 16-point balanced hand. Other bids may score well on this hand, but such is life.

S.T. Arasu: Wild distributions and a shortage of aces warn me to keep away from slam.

Ciaran Coyne: Partner may already have stretched since I’m probably marked with some values. I would have opened 1 .

Robert Katz: I will not punish partner for possibly sticking his neck out a bit with long diamonds and a spade card. We probably are missing the A for starters and need to bring home either the diamond or club suit without a loser.

Roger Morton: North will surely have powerful diamonds and my K will give partner a second stopper. [Slam] seems unlikely.

Peter Gill: I seem to have trapped myself by my old-fashioned pass when a modern 1 opening bid seems normal. If partner is as conservative as I have been, then I suppose 4 …or 4 NT is acceptable. Perhaps this time partner has the feared seven solid diamonds and the A.

Nicola Farina: I don’t think it is right to approach slam with a hand like this when I’m not sure about partner’s hand. Maybe he has a classical strong balanced hand; maybe he has a strong diamond suit. Furthermore, there’s no reason to presume that partner has three or four aces.

Leigh Gold: Not moving; I have no aces, and partner may have…a running [diamond] suit.

Eric Goff: Normally I would have high hopes for this hand, but the singleton K looks bad… I could easily be saddled with two losers even with a [good] hand from partner. If I had more room, I might explore.

Rex Settle: Who knows? I am going to assume partner has counted on me for 8 HCP; and with perhaps [only] a trick more than that, slam is too optimistic. I’ll pass 3 NT, where I know my K helps.

Jim Grant: I know we could be in 6 , and in truth, I know the hand: West has bid 3 with seven to the jack, and 3 NT is the best resting place. But even without knowing the deal, I would pass 3 NT since [the K is a wasted value]. …

Paul Huggins: I have a better hand than partner might expect, but I am aceless and any contract higher than 3 NT could be in danger — West is likely to have a singleton somewhere and could get a ruff. …

Dave Maeer: … I can construct a plausible hand for partner where 3 NT is the only making game; so if the name Hamman in the title is for real, there is no alternative.

Karen Walker: The other five choices all come with a complimentary noose for partner’s neck. Partner could have anything from a 2 NT opener down to a 12-count with running (or near-running) diamonds, but I refuse to be bullied into guessing.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Well-timed preempt, West. In cases like this, I prefer to play partner for a typical minimum of about a strong notrump, rather than cater for the occasional powerhouse with which we belong in slam.

Jeff Goldsmith: What’s the problem? Partner has A-x x-x A-K-Q-J-x-x-x-x x.

Ron Lel: The 3 NT bid can be made on a variety of hands. I am not going to crucify partner, who may have bid under pressure.

Daniel Auby: The lack of aces makes higher ranking contracts dangerous. In Sweden, 4 asks for suits up-the-line, but not knowing if it is that in the U.S., I pass.

George Stewart: Partner either has a balanced 16-25 count or (less likely given my spade holding) a running diamond suit with a spade stopper. …

Martin Bootsma: A boring pass. Of course, another contract could be better; but there is no way to investigate it without passing 3 NT.

Tom Dawson: While slam is certainly possible, a sure 400 to 490 seems best.

Roger Courtney: Six clubs or 6 may make, but going higher is too big a risk for me.

John Kruiniger: The only reason I hold more than I should is that the kibitzer who held my cards when I went to the loo didn’t know how to open. Even so, I’m only a tad more than partner is already expecting.

Dale Freeman: Partner might have bid my values; he has a tough problem with a great diamond suit and doesn’t want to go beyond 3 NT.

Dale Rudrum: I don’t see any reason to think 5 is a better contract, and partner needs a lot for a slam. … My feeling is that [reaching an unmakable 5 ] is about as likely as [reaching] a good slam.

J. Michael Andresen: I have a nice hand, but slam seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Josh Sinnett: Three notrump covers a huge range of hands. If we miss a slam, add it to the hundreds of other “preempts work” listings.

Len Vishnevsky: Partner might have a spade stopper with long diamonds. Where are we going?

Frank van Wezel: Sometimes I will miss a small slam. That’s bridge.

Nicoleta Giura: We might miss a (notrump) slam, but I don’t want to punish partner for bidding 3 NT on Q-10-x Q-x A-K-Q-x-x-x A-x.

Pieter Geerkens: I like Lawrence’s rule: With soft values in the opponent’s suit, partner rates to be minimum.

Tibor Roberts: I have about a king (specifically the K) more than partner can expect on this auction — not enough to go slamming. Partner could have doubled and bid notrump with a really big hand, after all.

Jinzhou Loo: The system says natural; so I assume partner has long solid diamonds. I can provide a trick in whichever suit East leads.

Stan Dub: Hamman’s Rule says pass. Partner could easily have seven solid diamonds, and he could have doubled if he wanted to hear about your suits.

Toby Kenney: Partner only promises about 16 points, so I have no reason to suspect that slam might make…

Chuck Arthur: Partner rarely has the big balanced 20-count to make this bid; give him a little slack. He likely holds an almost-running diamond suit, a spade stopper, and a card or two on the side. He may need my whole hand to make even 3 NT; I expect that we will take 11 tricks on average.

Michael Pauly: Partner was under pressure, so I will not [try for] 6 .

Bob Zorn: Preempts work. … Go plus and win the match on another hand.

Tristan Dupas: If 3 NT could be the best contract, I pass it!

George Klemic: So I have the values for partner to make? Odds are partner has diamonds, so why should I lean towards a marginal slam when he could have stretched with a 16-count?

Nigel Guthrie: Don’t punish partner for his enterprise with, e.g., A-10 10-x-x A-K-Q-J-x-x-x Q.

Michael Kaplan: The K is probably quite useful, as partner didn’t venture 3 NT on air. There is too little room to explore for 4-4 hearts or a club slam, though a club fit is highly likely. Aceless, I’ll settle for 3 NT. …

Ruthanne Williams: Taking the sure plus. We might have a magic 6 , but there’s no good way to get there. Partner will often stretch for his 3 NT overcall, and I don’t have that much more than he expects. … Four clubs is obviously Gerber, Stayman or a club suit.

Ruthanne: “Alert! That’s Gerber, Stayman or natural.” Opponent: “Thanks. We play it the same way.”

Jonathan Goldberg: If you’re fixed, stay fixed. Obviously, 6 could be a make; but how do I get there? Considering that partner may have bid about two of my kings, I’m not inclined to go adventuring.

William Maxedon: Partner probably has long, solid diamonds and a spade stopper. He is figuring me to have a stopper or two in the other two suits. … Based on the Rule of Seven, I have only 4 more points than he is counting on. Therefore, pass.

Comments for 4

Ed Barnes: Forcing. Slam depends largely on partner’s club holding. We ought to say so, eh?

Manuel Paulo: Partner should have the A, and a strong balanced hand or a solid diamond suit. I’ll make a natural slam try…

Florentin Axinte: Hopes for a club slam are not remote, and I [expect] to stop in 4 NT if partner is minimal. …

Tim Francis-Wright: Bidding 4 NT is right on strength but won’t tell me about our club [fit].

Bill Daly: Presumably this is forcing, as I would just pass 3 NT with a bad hand. I intend to force to slam if partner bids anything except 4 NT. Seven is possible, and definitely worth investigating; partner could easily have A-J-x A-x A-x-x-x A-x-x-x for example. I don’t see how a cue-bid could help.

Tim DeLaney: Just barely worth a slam try. If we reach slam, I will likely correct to notrump to protect partner’s diamond holding.

James Hudson: I wouldn’t have passed. Now I want to show a maximum without committing to slam. I think 4 must be forcing, so I choose it (rather than 4 or 4 NT). Five clubs or 6 would be unilateral.

John Reardon: I am too good to pass. Four clubs shows my source of tricks and is forcing, so it seems the most logical move.

Daniel Korbel: Opposite A-x-x A-x-x A-x-x A-x-x-x, we have good play for seven; so let’s see what happens. I would have opened this hand.

Steve White: This is forcing and indicates the potential source of tricks. It should be safe, as partner can’t expect more from a passed hand.

Adam Folke: In this position partner could have as little as 16 points, but he could also have up to 20-21. Four clubs can only be interpreted as slam-invitational opposite the strong hand. If partner has running diamonds, the combined strength should be sufficient for 4 NT.

Imre Csiszar: Though any bid may lead to a minus, pass looks cowardly when even a grand slam may be on — and not trying for dubious slams gave me poor scores in previous polls. Four clubs natural will find the best slam if one is available but does not exclude reaching a slam missing two aces (as Gerber would, unavailable here as it must be a jump). …

Kevin Podsiadlik: Stayman? Gerber? Natural? Whatever it is, I’ve got it! Not going to drive to slam, as partner may just be following Hamman’s Rule.

Ed Shapiro: Four clubs must be forcing since partner can have nine tricks in hand, mostly in diamonds. (I’d pass rather than try to improve the contract from game to partscore.) … I will pass 4 NT; …over 4 , I’ll bid 4 and hope partner makes the rest of the decisions; if he cue-bids 4 , I’ll bid 5 …

Julian Wightwick: I doubt that 3 NT is the last making spot, since there should be 10 tricks if we can enjoy the club suit. I’ll backpedal with 4 NT next unless partner bids hearts. The  K is probably not a good card for suit play, so I’m close to passing 3 NT.

Neil Morgenstern: Key-card Gerber (OK, in my dreams). I must make a forward-going move, though how I’m going to continue after, say, 4 by partner I don’t know.

Gareth Birdsall: … My hand couldn’t be better, and I have an excellent source of tricks; so we could easily have a slam…

Thijs Veugen: Since I passed before, partner could be very strong. Three notrump might be the only makable contract, but it seems worthwhile to show my maximum.

Tim Bolshaw: Five clubs and 6 can be eliminated; there is no reason to assume clubs will play better than notrump. A case can be made for all the other choices, but 4 is a clear slam try that gives partner maximum room to cooperate.

Andrew de Sosa: Partner rates to have about 20 HCP with spades well stopped. Four clubs should be a natural slam try. Since I am already passed, partner should not get overly excited without top controls and good clubs. I will pass 4 NT…

Adam Saroyan: Partner was under considerable pressure over 3 , so I can’t be sure what we might make. If he likes clubs, we may well get to a grand there or in notrump. I don’t think 4 helps much in looking for a heart fit, and I’m not even sure I’d want to be in hearts anyway. … Partner’s most likely hand includes a lot of diamonds, and my hand may not be pleasant for a high-level contract there. … Inviting slam in notrump could be embarrassing if 3 NT was based on a very slow spade trick and a running diamond suit. Four clubs keeps the most options open.

David Wetzel: I’d like to use the special “Not Gerber” 4 card, just to be on the safe side; but really, this ought to be natural. I have no idea what partner has; if it’s running diamonds and a spade stopper, hopefully 10 tricks will be there when he bids 4 NT.

Julian Pottage: As a passed hand, I could hardly be better. If 3 NT is the limit on the hand, partner is an optimist!

Frances Hinden: Very close to a pass but too easy to miss slam. An advantage for being able to bid 4 naturally is that we can stop in 4 NT when partner has 9-x-x.

David Wiltshire: This should be forward-going, as partner would be rightfully angry if I took out his 3 NT with a worthless hand only to find he has a running diamond suit and nine top tricks.

Kjetil Hildal: This hand has good trick potential if a club fit exists. Four clubs (natural and forcing) is the best way to get the message across. I will pass partner’s sign-off in 4 NT; if he has club support, he will cue-bid…

Stu Goodgold: I’ll make a slam try without committing. Partner might have bid 3 NT on a running diamond suit and spade stopper.

Stephen Hamilton: All my honors are likely to be useful, and the club suit may run, so 3 NT looks pretty good. But if partner has three aces and a [club fit], slam seems quite possible.

Comments for 4 NT

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Once again, a delicate raise when I have quite a bit in reserve. Would four clubs be forcing? In the Mixed Pairs final in Montreal, partner held a Yarborough with six clubs to the nine-eight and heard me overcall the opponent’s three hearts with three notrump. Fortunately, her RHO doubled allowing her to run freely to four clubs.

Jacco Hop: I would open this hand, but since I did not I now have to gamble. Four notrump looks most like my hand.

David Lindop: Quantitative. Partner has a wide range for 3 NT. If partner is interested in slam, we can start showing suits at the five level.

Barry Rigal: … As a passed hand, 4 NT might be a sensible advance; but I don’t like this hand. What the hell! If he can hope to make 3 NT facing a weak hand, 4 NT must have play.

Mike Hargreaves: Yes, we could be cold for 6 ; but partner may have bid 3 NT on a long diamond suit. This is an ideal situation for 4 to be asking for a description, but we do not play that. So I will make the quantitative raise.

Sandy McIlwain: Partner tends to have a rack of diamonds when I have this hand. Slam may still be in the picture, but clubs aren’t good enough to insist on.

Gerald Cohen: The club finesse probably works if needed.

Alan Wilson: I wonder whether you will get many complaints from this side of the Atlantic about not opening this hand. Although 3 NT may well be the right spot, I cannot really continue to hide all this strength completely. …

Bill Jacobs: This hand is a bit easier with me as a passed hand. First, partner will have full values; second, partner will not play me for more than I have. I don’t want to play 6 with a diamond lead (or even a stiff heart lead).

Randy Corn: I hate to miss slams at IMPs. This might ask partner if he has 17 or 20 HCP (I guess that’s why people preempt).

Arindam Ray: If 3 NT is going to make, then so should 4 NT; so a mild invitation has [almost] no risk.

Gerald Murphy: Partner’s 3 NT is unknown as to amount of quality points and suits held; however, I can help a bit by making a quantitative raise. … With a good hand, partner can bid 6 NT…

Richard Morse: If partner has a big balanced hand, 6 or 6 NT may be the right spot. If he has a weaker hand with running diamonds, 3 NT may be enough. Which does he have? At this vulnerability, West should have his bid, making slam rather less likely; but surely I have to make some move. …

Kevin Costello: The singleton K seems increased in value opposite partner’s stopper in the suit, and along with the club suit, this puts me at the very top of what I’ve promised so far.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 3

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North 1	East Pass 1	South 1 ?	A 5 7 6 A J 8 A K J 9 8 5

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	322	32
3	8	283	28
3 NT	7	205	21
2	5	76	8
2	3	59	6
2	1	54	5

The primary concern with this hand is to convey the appropriate strength, and 60 percent chose to invite game (2 NT or 3 ). As to strain, I agree with the consensus; 2 NT provides a direct route to the most likely game. If you bid 3 and partner has a club fit, it will be difficult to reach 3 NT if partner has no stopper in either enemy suit.

Insisting on game with 3 NT or a cue-bid (game force) is an overbid, perhaps suggesting the same hand with the Q instead of the jack. As to which cue-bid, it is standard when the opponents have shown two suits to cue-bid the suit you have stopped so that partner can bid notrump if he stops the other suit. Hence, it is more descriptive to cue-bid diamonds, which could be a great bidding coup if partner has a positional spade stopper such as Q-x-x. But then, we all live in dream world sometimes; a diamond lead through your A-J-8 might not be so cool either.

The other extreme, bidding only 2 , may be the underbid of all time. Many successful players occasionally have less than advertised, but hardly an ace more. Awarding it 1 point is probably generous.

Here’s how the cards fell in Tunisia:

East deals	K 7		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	Q J 9 5 3		Levy	Hamman	Mari	Wolff
	Q 9 6				Pass	1
	Q 3 2		Pass	1	1 NT	2
Q 8 4 3		J 10 9 6 2	4	Pass	Pass	Dbl
A		K 10 8 4 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
K 7 5 4 2		10 3
10 6 4		7
	A 5
	7 6
	A J 8
	A K J 9 8 5

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
4 × West	4 × East	Rodwell	Chemla	Meckstroth	Perron
Down 1 -100	Down 1 -100			Pass	1
		1	1	1	2 NT
No swing		3	3 NT	4	Pass
		Pass	Dbl	All Pass

In the second auction, which parallels the problem, Perron agreed with our consensus and bid 2 NT. Rodwell was not to be silenced with his excellent spade fit, so he improvised a 3 cue-bid, which spurred Meckstroth to sacrifice in 4 on his shapely trash — a typical “Meckwell” auction, complete with a cue-bid on a combined 13-count. Perron accurately passed with his offense-oriented hand, and Chemla chose to double.* Down one; plus 100 was a small consolation for the stolen vulnerable game.

*Considering the vulnerability, club fit, second spade stopper and extra high cards, 4 NT seems right. But then, the word may have been out to double Meckwell and ask questions later.

The first auction was entirely different. Wolff’s 1 opening was strong and artificial, and Hamman’s 1 response was semipositive (6+ HCP, 0-2 controls). Mari judged well to butt in (evidently showing both majors) and Levy took away any further bidding room by jumping to 4 . Wolff had little recourse but to double, as I don’t think 4 NT would be natural. (Note that 5 would fail.) Oh well; the defensive bidding prevailed at both tables. Just another push.

Comments for 2 NT

Charles Blair: I hope this shows more high cards than 3 NT.

Manuel Paulo: My hand is almost balanced, I have stoppers in the opponents’ suits, and the sixth club compensates the 1 HCP that I lack for this rebid.

Geoff Ostrin: Holding stoppers in both enemy suits and a semibalanced hand, notrump isn’t so bad; but partner may [be weak], so I’ll invite.

Florentin Axinte: Second choice is 3 NT, but I choose the normal way. If partner really has something (his 1 was a free bid), we will play a game. Any way to let partner to bid notrump in case he has Q-x-(x)?

Leonard Helfgott: Stoppers in both pointed suits and a source of tricks. Since partner with the A and Q gives me nine tricks in notrump, I’ll try for that game.

Rik ter Veen: The spade stopper could be better; but I’m limiting my hand, telling partner I have [at least two] hearts, and suggesting 3 NT with one bid.

Laszlo Sztrapkovics: My normal bid (without overcalls) is 3 , but now I want to show stoppers in the opponents’ suits.

Bill Daly: … I see no reason to complicate the auction with cue-bids, and if I don’t bid notrump now, partner may not believe that I have both enemy suits stopped. My second choice is 3 NT, which I would bid if the J were the queen.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Not much in reserve, but this should land us in the best spot since it describes a hand stronger than a 1 NT opening with spades and diamonds stopped…

John Reardon: I have a source of tricks and can stop both their suits… If the auction ends in 2 NT, I doubt we will have missed a good game.

Steve White: There’s a definite risk of wrong-siding the notrump, but 3 may not right-side it either. …

Eric Goff: Three notrump is a quite a bludgeon when partner had little to offer except some reasonable hearts and short clubs. Two notrump is neither an underbid or overbid and leaves options open.

Jim Grant: Often the best way to show a hand that could bid 2 NT is to do just that! Cue-bidding the opponents’ suits might lead to confusion… If partner wants to bid 4 with a six-card suit, I have [adequate support] as well as a ruffing value.

Paul Huggins: A pot at 3 NT is tempting; but if partner lacks the Q, I could lose five tricks before I set up nine… Two notrump assumes partner has a trick and a half; he can go further if his hand is a bit better.

Karen Walker: This hand is as good as most 18-counts, so this is pretty much a straight value bid. Three clubs suggests a more distributional hand that’s missing stoppers in at least one of the opponents’ suits.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: A close decision between 2 NT and 3 NT; but I think partner will raise, even with a decent 7-count.

Jeff Goldsmith: Partner will bid 3 NT most of the time. Give him room and an out.

David Lindop: This might get us to notrump from the wrong side, but 3 would give partner a problem with no stopper in either [enemy suit]. Three notrump is tempting, but my clubs aren’t quite good enough.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Shows the strength; shows the stoppers. What’s not to like?

Jean-Christophe Clement: Propositional, allowing North to pass with a weak hand or choose the best game (3 NT or 4 ).

Neil Morgenstern: Yes, it might be better to right-side the notrump if partner has Q-x-x and West has Q-x-x, and a [cue-bid] might bring that about; but partner might have the Q and no spade stopper. A simple invitation is appropriate, I feel, showing my overall strength and keeping open chances of slam. Three clubs would be nice as it shows my suit, but partner might be scared off by a lack of stoppers in the enemy suits.

Gerben Dirksen: Good trick-taking potential with stoppers in both enemy suits.

Sandy Barnes: This is a good start toward our most likely game (3 NT), without totally giving up on hearts.

Roger Courtney: It probably does not matter if I choose 2 NT or 3 ; I have a feeling I’m going to defend 4 doubled.

Thijs Veugen: Too strong for 3 . Two notrump shows the strength of the hand, stoppers in the opponents’ suits, and at least a doubleton heart.

Mike Hargreaves: Hamman’s Rule suggests 3 NT, but that is too much of an overbid. Two notrump is hardly a sign of weakness.

Michael Clark: I’m slightly off-shape, but I have the opponents’ suits stopped; and if partner has six hearts, he’ll know where to go.

Dale Rudrum: A big advantage of 2 NT over 3 is that partner will bid 4 with x-x K-J-10-x-x-x Q-x-x x-x. Three clubs seems a bit weak, and 2 is an overbid. It could be that notrump plays better from partner’s hand, but forcing to game with 2 is too much for me.

Josh Sinnett: What I would have bid without interference; however, I’m more concerned about going down in two if partner passes than about making three if partner bids it.

Ron Zucker: I opened this 1 because it was too good for 1 NT. It still is.

Bruce Scott: I don’t want to fiddle around with cue-bids, and partner may be trapped into passing 3 when it is wrong. I have stoppers and a hand in range for 2 NT. Three notrump doesn’t show this hand; it would normally have better clubs and often a singleton heart.

Chuck Arthur: Technically, 2 NT is a bit of an overbid; but since I am the one with stoppers in the enemy suits, I am the one who must bid notrump…

Bob Zorn: Best of a tough lot. Change the J to the queen and I’d bid 3 NT.

Frances Hinden: This is what I was going to rebid after a 1 response, and I don’t see the intervention changing my plans.

Nigel Guthrie: One must compromise one’s integrity with such underbids to get any marks from Richard. Two notrump is a really a pussy bid because, if 2 NT makes, then 3 NT probably makes, too.

Audibly at least, you can’t be proved wrong, because: If 2 NT makes, then 3 NT probably makes two.

Michael Kaplan: Partner may have a very weak four-card heart suit, so notrump has risks; but 2 NT conveys stoppers and 18-19 points, which is about right. … The trouble with 3 is that partner won’t be able to envision a 3 NT game. …

Nikolay Demirev: Tricks and stoppers. I trust partner to evaluate the Q and A as enough for game.

Anthony Golding: … This might end up wrong-siding 3 NT, but so might 2 . Partner has room to rebid hearts, and he’s more likely to do so over 2 NT than 3 (when I could easily have a singleton).

Ruthanne Williams: An overbid, but the least of evils and most likely to get us to the right spot. With everyone having a suit, I don’t have to worry too much that partner will zoom into slam.

Dirk Enthoven: It’s refreshing to have a problem without pass as a choice. This hand qualifies for 2 NT (as 1 NT was left off the list of choices). No reason to transplant the notrump to partner or encourage more heart bids.

Comments for 3

Neelotpal Sahai: This looks like the [right] middle path; 2 NT is probably an overbid. If partner speaks again, we will reach game.

S.T. Arasu: When all are crying, it’s better to bid naturally. If partner rebids hearts, I may propose 3 NT. …

Carsten Kofoed: With the A and Q, partner will try to reach 3 NT or another game contract.

Nicola Farina: I don’t like to cue-bid without a fit in partner’s suit; 3 should show a good hand.

Keith Balcombe: Since even 2 shows [a little extra], 3 shows a lot; and I am delivering it.

Dave Maeer: … Notrump would be pretty miserable from my side if partner has Q-x-x.

Rosalind Hengeveld: This hand would qualify for the same bid [without intervention] — “conservative, perhaps, but live with it” — and the opposing bidding has not particularly improved my hand.

Ed Shapiro: Only slightly heavy. … I don’t try 3 NT, showing good long clubs and stoppers, for two reasons: (1) It’s possible partner should play it in notrump, and (2) 3 NT tends to show no interest whatever in a heart contract, and this control-laden hand may play OK in hearts. … I will bid 4 over 3 . If the two minor jacks were the Q, I’d bid 3 NT as something I expect to make.

Barry Rigal: Three notrump has some attractions, but 3 shows my values; and I don’t mind playing there if partner passes. After all, even facing the Q, I have not taken a ninth trick yet; and why should partner have the A or K?

J. Michael Andresen: While 3 NT is a possibility, 3 is perfectly descriptive and far more flexible.

Gyorgy Ormay: Partner must have a bit more then a minimal responder, and then 3 NT may be better from his side…

Tibor Roberts: I’m a little light for 2 NT, and my stoppers a little solitary; besides, this isn’t a hand that suffers from being dummy at notrump if partner has quacks in the pointed suits. Partner should infer a good suit, side strength and [usually] no more than two hearts; how about that, just what I have.

Adam Saroyan: There’s still time to get to 3 NT or 4 . I think 3 is slightly more descriptive than 2 NT — my aces say look for a suit game first — but it’s close.

David Caprera: In light of your Hamman comment, I just looked ahead to see whether 3 NT was available for all six hands. If both East and West had passed, I would have bid 3 ; slightly heavy but within bounds. The fact that the opponents are bidding doesn’t change my hand — at least not a lot. :)

David Wetzel: Hmm; a good hand with good clubs. Shocking, no? If partner bids again, I’ll try 3 NT next. And yes, nine tricks could be there opposite x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x; but partner might have J-x-x K-J-x-x-x x-x-x x-x, and then life’s not so good.

David Wiltshire: An underbid, but 6 could be on; or partner may rightly pass me out in 3 (after a light response on a good suit such as K-Q-10-x-x). This bid also [allows us] to get to 4 or 6 when partner has a good suit.

Brian Zietman: I must show my hand; if partner now cue-bids one of the opponents’ suits, I can bid 3 NT.

Tim Hemphill: Too many points in this deck!

Chris Maclauchlan: Partner should be able to make the right decision after this wonderfully descriptive bid. If he can’t cue-bid a stopper, I don’t want to be in notrump.

Richard Morse: Good suit; extra values. Partner only needs the A and Q to make 3 NT laydown, but he won’t know how important the Q is unless I show length.

Comments for 3 NT

Sartaj Hans: Life is easy if I don’t give impossible problems to partner.

Bas Lodder: A strong suit; no support for partner’s hearts; stoppers in the remaining suits.

Tim Francis-Wright: I can’t bid 3 because partner won’t have stoppers in the pointed suits. …

James Hudson: I hope to bring in the clubs. Maybe they’ll sacrifice in 4 .

Roger Morton: I need to play the notrump and cue-bids may give the contract to partner. I’ll hope for a little help in spades and go for it.

Daniel Korbel: Since x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x makes game, I’ll bid it. Vulnerable at IMPs, right?

Adam Folke: Showing a strong hand with running clubs. This time I need some help in clubs; but one can’t always have everything, eh? …

Imre Csiszar: Vulnerable at IMPs, I cannot afford only to invite; and it is unlikely that scientific bidding could reveal whether partner has the little needed for game. A 2 cue-bid would ask partner to bid notrump with a spade stopper, [perhaps] making the wrong hand declarer.

Jacco Hop: Bidding what I think I can make.

Paul Hightower: This should have chances almost regardless of partner’s hand, and there is no way to tell which side it should play from — 2 might right-side the spade stopper but wrong-side the diamonds.

Sandy McIlwain: A vulnerable game at IMPs? Can’t really go wrong with this bid.

Kristian Kjorstad: Why give partner a hard time with a dubious cue-bid or 2 NT? Three notrump is a perfect bid — loads of tricks in clubs, spade and diamond stoppers, and weak support in hearts.

Frank van Wezel: I always find the Q, so this is an easy one for me…

Gerry Wildenberg: Optimistic perhaps, but we are vulnerable and there are lots of 6-point hands where 3 NT is cold (or at least making).

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: No problem. Holding semisolid clubs, no heart support, and stoppers in both diamonds and spades, I’ll go for the most probable game.

Tim Bolshaw: The vulnerable game beckons. I do not want to suggest other strains unless partner has strong hearts and a pointed-suit shortage, in which case I think he will remove anyway. If West doubles, I shall feel less than sanguine about my chances; but I should be no more than five down!

Alan Wilson: Hopefully, in a poll with the title you gave this one, enough people will want to point out the appropriateness of Hamman’s Rule to make this the most popular choice.

Not this time, or in the words of Dennis the Menace: “Sorry, Mr. Wilson!”

Toby Kenney: I just need the Q and the A (or any other trick) from partner for 3 NT to be cold. Even if partner doesn’t have the Q, 3 NT may have good chances.

Bryson Crowell: All I need is one quick trick plus the Q or some club [length] for game.

Jerrold Miller: Go for the vulnerable game. Partner shows only four hearts, as he would need both majors to double. He [should] have at least 7 points, making game likely.

Phil Clayton: How often will a hand like this take exactly eight tricks? The hand is much better than its 17-count.

Randy Corn: I’m pretty sure I want to play notrump from my side. I can duck a spade and hopefully handle the diamonds. Can partner have a useful 5-count?

Kjetil Hildal: When in doubt, bid 3 NT; the trick potential is too big for 2 NT. Sometimes we might belong in 4 , partner can still bid it with a semisolid suit.

Jonathan Goldberg: Roll them dice. Finally, one I can blame on Hamman.

Stephen Hamilton: Partner has to have something for his 1 bid, such as Q [and any other trick]…

William Maxedon: If partner has a quick heart trick and clubs run ( Q in North, or finessed or dropped), 3 NT is solid. That is not asking for too much, especially vulnerable in IMPs.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 4

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 4	North 4	East Pass 5	South 2 ?	A K J 6 2 A K J 8 4 3 2 — J

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Pass	10	73	7
5	9	338	34
6	7	250	25
6	5	229	23
5 NT	3	58	6
Dbl	1	51	5

My usual practice in bidding polls is to give the top award to the consensus, but this time I must overrule. I am confident that pass would be the choice of an all-expert panel, and I believe the majority of respondents simply overlooked it — no doubt because it is extraordinary to pass with such wild distribution. Only a pass provides the flexibility needed to find the best contract, so awarding the top score to any other call would be an injustice.

The popular choice of 5 is too committal, as it precludes the possibility of a spade contract — though it does leave room for partner to cue-bid 6 , which makes it better than guessing 6 . Imagine how sick you would feel if dummy hit with Q-x-x-(x) and a stiff or void in hearts.

In forcing auctions, bidding a suit directly at a high level indicates confidence as to the proper strain. Conversely, a forcing pass followed by a suit bid is correctable. The intent, of course, is to pull partner’s double or 5 bid to hearts (whether to bid 5 or 6 next is moot), then partner has the option to correct to spades.

Some respondents tried to implement the above plan by bidding 5 NT or 6 . Too risky. Five notrump does not mean “pick a slam” (a pass serves that purpose) but should be a “grand slam force” asking partner to bid 7 with two of the top three trump honors; and 6 should show first-round club control. After either of these bids, you may find yourself endplayed into bidding 7 over 7 . Partner might still correct to 7 , of course, but that’s little consolation if you’re off an ace.

As expected, many respondents complained (some vociferously) about the 2 opening, preferring a natural 1 instead. While I agree that 1 would almost never be passed out, this does not solve the problem. Suppose you had opened 1 . Would you now bid 5 ? Most would, but then what is partner supposed to do with Q-x-x x K-Q-J-9-x-x-x x-x? He would hardly bid 6 (an excellent slam); but after 2 you should get there: P 5 ; 5 5 ; 6 . I think you are better placed after opening 2 because (1) if the bidding goes slowly, all your bids below game are forcing; and (2) if the auction is preempted, you can make a forcing pass at any level. The key, of course, is to take full advantage of the forcing pass, which most respondents did not.

The actual deal was a cause celebre in Tunisia, but not for the reasons of this problem. Take a look:

East deals	3		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	Q 10 7 5		Perron	Wolff	Chemla	Hamman
	Q J 10 8 6 4 3				Pass	1
	A		3	3	5	Pass
Q 8		10 9 7 5 4	Pass	5	Pass	5
6		9	Pass	6	All Pass
7 5 2		A K 9
K 10 9 8 6 4 2		Q 7 5 3
	A K J 6 2
	A K J 8 4 3 2
	—
	J

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
6 South	7 South	Meckstroth	Levy	Rodwell	Mari
Made 7 +1460	Made 7 +2210			Pass	1
		1 NT	2 NT	3	3
France +13 IMPs		4	4	5	5
		Pass	6	7	7
		All Pass

In the first auction, Hamman faced the problem scenario* and passed, then he corrected Wolff’s 5 to 5 . This should have led to the laydown grand, but Wolff inexplicably raised to 6 . It was widely agreed (and no doubt a factor in the breakup of the Hamman-Wolff partnership) that Wolff should cue-bid 6 , which is exactly what the Hamman express train needed to hear.

*Well, not exactly. Hamman and Wolff play a forcing-club system, so the actual opening was 1 . For the poll, I changed it to an analogous standard auction, starting with 2 .

At the second table, Mari chose to open 1 . Then, despite the ensuing clown antics of “Meckwell,” the French bid impressively to the top spot. Levy did not actually show the A, but Mari evidently assumed he held that card to justify his bids — either that or he trusted Rodwell’s lead-directing 3 bid. In any case, it was 13 IMPs to France for reaching the grand.

Comments for Pass

Mark LaForge: I will bid at least 6 later but want partner to be able to pick a slam.

Michael Jinks: Pulling 5 to 5 …

Manuel Paulo: I am in no hurry to bid; this is clearly forcing.

Florentin Axinte: Will partner bid his four-card spade suit? Only with a forcing pass can I find out. Where is the book on five-level bidding? Please send me a copy.

Bijoy Anand: Forcing. I plan to bid 6 over partner’s expected 5 . Should he surprise me by bidding a major, so much the better! …

Robert Maier: For the record, let me express disgust for the opening bid. This pass [is] forcing, and when followed by 5 ought to be [more flexible] than a direct 5 . Maybe partner will bid 5 over my pass and 5 over 5 . Maybe I ought to get out more.

Zuzana Herrmann: Partner is certainly not allowed to pass. When I bid hearts afterwards, it should also suggest a spade [suit].

Bill Daly: Five notrump and 6 both should agree diamonds. Bidding hearts would imply a one-suited hand. So, a forcing pass is my only choice.

Al Goldspiel: Pass and pull to 5 ; should show the slam interest.

James Hudson: I’ll pass (forcing) then pull partner’s double to 5 . I don’t think I can show the spades; surely 5 NT doesn’t do that job (it must be a grand slam force).

Roger Morton: I am going to listen first before I blast a slam. Tough problem with bad breaks maybe around.

Daniel Korbel: Pass must be forcing, after which a pull to 5 NT should show the majors, I think. With equal holdings partner will bid 6 [or 6 ]. Let’s hope he’s not 2=1=7=3.

Steve White: Forcing pass; then hearts should suggest spades as an alternative contract.

Nicola Farina: Why is 7 not an option? From the auction partner clearly has x Q-10-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x-x A! Joking aside, this is one of the most famous hands in bridge history. Hamman passed (after 1 strong); why shouldn’t I?

Eric Goff: Pass, followed by a correction to hearts over whatever partner says should show this hand. (If I had a single suit, I would bid immediately.)

Rex Settle: If partner bids 5 , I will try 5 and hope the major two-suiter is obvious. Yes, it’s a great hand; but I wish I had started with 1 as this auction went.

Adam Folke: I will bid hearts next round and hopefully convey to partner that I have both mayors (as I would bid now with but one). Six clubs should show first-round control, and 5 may [lose] the spade suit…

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: I intend to pull partner’s double; [however], I feel it is better to open 1 then make a high reverse [into spades].

Rainer Herrmann: I think pass and pull should invite [slam] and allow for other strains.

Michael Dodson: Hoping partner will read 5 later to offer a choice; and when I bid 6 over 6 , I mean majors.

Albert Ohana: Forcing. When partner doubles or bids 5 , I will bid 5 , hoping partner can add the sixth — or bid 5 , then I will add the sixth.

Kristian Kjorstad: I need more information from partner. If partner doubles, I’ll bid 6 .

Dale Rudrum: To begin with, I remind myself to open 1 in the future. Do I want to present partner with a choice in the high colors, or am I going to gamble on hearts? … My pass is forcing. …

Nicoleta Giura: Pass, then bid 5 over 5 — surely, this shows 5-7 in the majors. :)

Andrew de Sosa: Forcing. Assuming partner bids neither 5 nor 5 , I will bid the minimum number of hearts at my next opportunity. This should show primary hearts, secondary spades and a singleton club.

David Wetzel: Then pull partner’s double or 5 to 5 , suggesting two places to play… If partner bids a major, I raise and be sure to send a thank-you note.

Jeff Tang: Hoping partner does something intelligent so I know what to do when the opponents sacrifice in 7 over 6 .

Kjetil Hildal: I will correct 5 (or double) to 6 to indicate a two-suiter. (If one-suited, I would bid 6 directly.)

Richard Higgins: See what partner does… If he doubles or bids 5 , I’ll bid 6 . If I cue-bid 6 , it may mislead partner into thinking I have the A or a void.

Comments for 5

Ed Barnes: Pass would suggest a nondescript collection; 5 NT and 6 are similarly nebulous…; double is criminal. If partner has x-x-x-x -- A-K-Q-x-x-x-x x-x, I miss a better contract in spades; but at least 5 is honest.

Geoff Ostrin: A toughie. To play in game or slam? And in which suit? That gives four combinations. Slam is slim, as it needs specific cards from partner, and his diamond bid smells of wasted values. So I’ll plump for the safety of a vulnerable game… and I could still go further if partner makes a push.

Sartaj Hans: Bid my suits. This hand is not as good as it appears.

Leonard Helfgott: Five notrump sounds like a grand slam force, and a forcing pass may be best. I’ll take the simple route.

Tim Francis-Wright: A great hand to have a strong 2 opening available. … I can’t expect partner to know what 5 NT means because I’m not sure [myself]; pass and double each seem wrong; 6 risks losing both majors; and 6 definitely loses spades.

Robert Katz: I hate hands of this type where it is basically a crapshoot. Not quite enough to commit to slam.

John Reardon: Both 5 NT and 6 are dangerous because they imply diamond support or no club loser; double…seems crazy. I am not prepared to bid a slam without some cooperation, so 5 is enough for me.

Leigh Gold: If you’re preempted, you’re preempted; I prefer to open these hands 1 , though.

Paul Huggins: Science is not going to help much. It might be a bit much to expect partner to cover two of my three potential losers to bid slam on my own. So I’ll play safe and hope for a major-suit queen from partner (or less likely, the A).

Karen Walker: With three losers to cover, I really need some serious help, so I’ll trust partner to evaluate his hand. If he’s got nothing but great diamonds, he’ll pass and we’ll be high enough (or perhaps even too high). If he has a fit and/or an outside queen or two, he’ll probably bid on.

Imre Csiszar: With a partner of my caliber, this would be clear-cut, as double is too pessimistic; 6 is too optimistic; and anything else implies diamond tolerance. With an expert partner, pass may come into account, hoping that my next heart bid cancels diamond tolerance, and partner can infer I also have spades. Lacking prior discussion, however, this might not be clear even for an expert; therefore I still would prefer the perhaps-inferior but unambiguous 5 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: Yuck — goes to show why I don’t like 2 . Looks like not the time for “the five level belongs to the opponents,” but that’s not a Hamman’s Rule, is it?

No. I think it was the late Ed Manfield who decided “The five level belongs to Rosalind.”

Daniel Auby: Hehe; I deserve this. Pass followed by 5 sounds too strong (fast arrival assumed). Partner needs three cover cards (or two plus a fit and ruffing value), and I doubt he has that.

Paul Hightower: Showing a big hand with hearts. A void in partner’s suit is a turnoff for bashing slam.

Ed Shapiro: Serves me right that I precipitated this guessing game by opening 2 . (One heart is clear; an old-fashioned strong 2 bid would be even better.) … Partner knows I’m bidding at the five level with the intention of making and, I hope, will take the right action. In my fantasies I make a forcing pass, then pull the double or 5 to 5 , implying a second place to play the hand; but I’m afraid partner may play me for a club void and misevaluate the A. So I will avoid any high-level inferences that only become clear in the postmortem and just bid what I hope I can make.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Sometimes this will fail (and 5 will go down two or three); but the probability of success is strong. A slam proposition seems optimistic and dangerous with such wild distribution.

Julian Wightwick: I’m guessing between 5 and 6 . If partner has three-card support, he should raise. If 5 NT followed by 6 showed this, it would be attractive; but I bet partner would take it as grand slam force. I would have opened 1 .

Tom Dawson: Six clubs would be construed as a grand slam try in diamonds, and I’m afraid 5 NT as grand slam force; so it’s either 5 or 6 . Hopefully, partner will bid six with a useful card or two in the majors; he should realize I don’t like diamonds.

Barry Rigal: More guesswork. That will teach me to open 2 with this hand! Six clubs, converting 6 to 6 , seems an option; but is that a grand slam try in diamonds? Maybe pass and then 5 is more flexible over partner’s double or 5 call. Still, without discussion I’ll bid my long suit; can that be bad?

Neil Morgenstern: Hard problem. We might not have a slam, and 5 might be all we can make. I have no idea how we will find a spade fit, but at least I’m not lying (6 surely shows a void, not “pick a slam” and 5 NT is Josephine for diamonds). Partner heard my 2 opening and can raise 5 to 6 …

Gareth Birdsall: The 4 bid doesn’t really fit with my hand, so I will content myself with 5 . …

Donald MacMillan: … This is obviously a distributional deal, and who knows how the majors will break. Partner can raise if he wants. …

Sandy Barnes: How can partner tell what cards he needs? How can I tell where our fit is? I’ll try for a plus. I won’t like a 6 call.

Roger Courtney: [Potential] misfit… if partner has any extra, he will raise.

John Kruiniger: Four small spades in dummy would probably not be enough to let me make 6 on this wild hand, so no point in bidding 6 — it’s hearts or nothing. If partner has a trick for me, he will raise to 6 .

Mike Hargreaves: Not a 2 opener for me; is there any risk of 1 being passed out? Makes little difference maybe, but I’d prefer to have bid 1 and now 5 .

Len Vishnevsky: According to your standard bidding guide, 5 NT is a grand slam force, not “pick a slam.” Oops. 6  is hair-raising; 6 is misdirected (why open 2 with a two-suiter?); double seems wrong; so it’s either 5 , or pass and pull. I think pass and pull might imply spades (or a better hand), but I don’t see how partner will envision 5=7 in the majors either way. …

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Nasty situation. I was hoping to be able to show both majors, but those pesky opponents have made this impossible. So, I will concentrate on my longer suit. Partner will raise to slam if appropriate, but he will never know the value of the Q until 5 is passed out and I have made two cold overtricks.

Gyorgy Ormay: Not enough for a slam by myself.

Tim Bolshaw: Anything is a guess. Although not guaranteed to avoid problems, I would have opened 1 . My first priority now is to try to ensure a plus score. With a probable club loser and wild distribution, I do not risk taking us to slam.

Bruce Scott: I deserve this problem for opening 2 . I have a two-suited hand and LHO is at favorable vulnerability with a passed partner. Isn’t it pretty likely that he will make our life difficult? I open this 1 . Double of 5 is strictly for penalty and thus out; 5 is my guess…

Tibor Roberts: With heart support partner will carry me to six; without it, well, five might make anyway. …

David Caprera: I need to bid a suit. Sure, pass is forcing; but partner will assume I have diamonds. By the way, I would have opened 1 .

Toby Kenney: It was a bit unlucky that opponents preempted us in a minor. If only there had been some way of guessing from my hand that they would have a good fit in one of the minors, perhaps I would have taken the opportunity to show one of my suits. Now I’m reduced to a random guess. It seems unlikely that partner has enough for me to make 6 ; and if he does, maybe he can bid it.

Julian Pottage: I fear that pass followed by 5 is going to sound like a slam try in diamonds.

Frances Hinden: What on earth possessed me to open 2 ? I don’t mind the strong 1 chosen at the table so much, but 2 is just asking for this type of preemption.

Jerrold Miller: Partner’s diamonds don’t help a bit. Trying for six isn’t worth the risk of missing a vulnerable game.

Samuel Krikler: Partner must be given a chance to assess the partnership assets. There may be slam, but what if partner has x-x x A-K-Q-x-x-x-x-x x-x?

Phil Clayton: Gives partner the chance to bid spades or get another diamond call off his chest; might even hear a 6 cue-bid.

Comments for 6

Rik ter Veen: With hearts so much longer than spades, I am going to forget about spades and bid what I think (a lie, the truth is “hope”) is a reasonable contract.

Jeff Goldsmith: Two clubs was a blunder; opening 1 is clear-cut. Now I hope and pray that partner has the right garbage to make a slam.

David Lindop: The auction has not gone well; maybe I’ll get lucky in the play.

George Stewart: A guess. In the back of my mind is an awful feeling that we belong in spades, but I am out of space and tools to show both suits. (I would play 5 NT here as a grand slam force and 6 as a cue-bid, agreeing diamonds.)

Martin Bootsma: This is exactly the reason why I don’t like to open such a distributional hand with two clubs. Now I have to guess where we belong, so I just bid my longest suit at the level I think is most likely…

Robin Zigmond: If partner turns up with four spades and a void in hearts, I apologize; but asking him to choose when the hearts are so much stronger is silly. Sometimes you just have to guess, and I’d far rather play in a 7-1 heart fit than a 5-2 spade fit, say.

Rain Lan: For me, it’s either 6 to cue-bid control or 6 ; but I am sure partner will take 6 as a void. (I’m not sure if 6 would show major suits in this scenario.)

Sandy McIlwain: If a true misfit, this may go down a couple; but two queens from partner may be more than is needed.

Michael Clark: I can’t really not bid the slam, and emphasizing my long hearts is far better than showing my second suit. …

J. Michael Andresen: I think 5 NT is ambiguous in this auction, so I’m going to bid our most likely slam.

Frank van Wezel: Pass would be forcing but makes life difficult for partner. If I bid 5 , partner will pass with two small clubs. Six hearts promises [club control].

Jonathan Siegel: Unfortunately, partner’s diamonds are likely to be irrelevant, even A-K. If he has both major-suit queens, slam is probably cold; if he has one, it’s probably no worse than a finesse for the other — and I get to finesse through preemptor’s partner. …

Alan Wilson: Maybe a bit of wishful thinking — 5 could easily be the limit — but I’ll never know if partner has the little needed to make six worthwhile, and I’d rather not pay out to what might be a laydown slam bid at the other table.

Adam Saroyan: This is a crapshoot. I seriously doubt I would have opened 2 , though it cannot be wrong to do so. …

Stan Dub: Tough problem. Double could be right, but it takes so little major help for the slam that I say: Go for it.

Ian Payn: Luck be a lady tonight.

Tim Hemphill: Opponents seem willing to sacrifice, so it will take slam to take the bid. There is the possibility that their hands look exactly opposite of mine, and 5 is making.

Stu Goodgold: We’re going to the six level one way or another. No sense dilly-dallying around.

Stephen Hamilton: North’s bid implies some strength; West and East are [bidding with weakness]; odds are good that North has at least one or two hearts, and probably at least 50-50 that North has the Q. …

Richard Morse: Initially I liked 6 to “pick a major,” but then I worried that partner might take it as showing control to help choose between 6 and 7 ! Same goes for 5 NT, which might be interpreted as a grand slam force in diamonds.

Kevin Costello: I really don’t want partner bidding his tripleton spade over his doubleton heart, so I’ll [bid my best suit]. …

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 5

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 NT 2	East Pass Pass	South 1 2 1 ?	A K 10 9 8 6 5 Q A K Q 7 6
1. conservative, but live with it

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	243	24
3	9	152	15
4	8	156	16
3	7	130	13
3	5	258	26
3	3	43	4
2	1	17	2

As suggested by my footnote, many players (myself included) would prefer a jump to 3 on the second round — a slightly optimistic game force — but the actual 2 bid would receive much expert approval. I considered making this a two-part problem to see how many respondents agreed with 2 , but there were so many choices as it was that I opted to keep it simple. Also controversial is the opening bid; many players, especially of the old school, would prefer 1 ; but 1 is the norm for five-card majorites today.

Like most of the problems this month, the voting was close (at least among five choices), making the scoring difficult. The consensus was clearly to make a move toward game, so I could hardly give the top award to 3 despite its plurality of votes. Indeed, 3 is way off base, as it is essentially a corrective bid, typically a hand like A-K-10-9-8 -- x-x-x K-Q-J-9-x; so besides offering little hope to reach game, it may repress a viable heart contract.

Of the forward-going bids the consensus was to make the simple raise to game, so 4 gets the top award. I don’t care for this because it overstates your heart support*; a superior game might be available in clubs, spades or notrump. Unfortunately, any black-suit bid understates your heart support (partner would expect a singleton or void). Therefore, I would punt with 3 , a makeshift fourth-suit bid that should be forcing even if its meaning is unclear. I need another opinion, and whatever partner bids next should be the best strain for game. If by chance he raises to 4 , I will correct to 4 . If he passes 3 , well… I might just fall out of my chair.

*I feel that some 4 bidders were under the wrong assumption that partner showed six hearts — possibly because of the Bart convention (2 over 2 implies five hearts) which is not allowed. No, 2 only shows five hearts, and it might be crucial to do so with, say, 2=5=4=2 or 2=5=3=3 shape, lest a game be missed when opener is 5=3=1=4.

Here is what happened in the land of camels:

South deals	7 6 4		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	A K 10 9 4 2		Chemla	Freeman	Perron	Nickell
	10 7					1
	9 8		Pass	1 NT	Pass	2
Q 3		J 5 2	Pass	2	Pass	4
8 7		Q J 3	Pass	Pass	Pass
A K 6 4 2		J 9 8 5 3
J 10 5 4		3 2
	A K 10 9 8
	6 5
	Q
	A K Q 7 6

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
4 North	4 South	Rodwell	Levy	Meckstroth	Mari
Made 5 +450	Made 5 +450				1
		1	2	3	3
No swing		Pass	4	Pass	Pass
		Pass

In the first auction, I like Freeman’s decision to suppress the spade support to show his heart suit. (Many experts would opt for a simple spade raise.) While this might work poorly on occasion, the prize was only a nonvulnerable game; and the partnership would be on solid ground if partner bid again over 2 . Nickell agreed with our panel, taking the simplest route to game. Luckily, he caught Freeman with an excellent heart suit.

The second auction was entirely different as Mari followed the traditional style to open 1 . The jump to 2 was weak but stronger than American-style weak jump shifts. When Mari introduced spades at the three level, Levy deduced the likely five-card suit and raised. No difference; both games easily made 11 tricks for a push. Even in theory, it’s difficult to say which game is superior.

Comments for 4

Ed Barnes: Four hearts might have a sad ending if they win the A, two hearts and the K; but 3 might be dropped, and [inviting] with 3 is Alzheimic.

Manuel Paulo: After my conservative first rebid, I am afraid of a misunderstanding; hearts should be our best trump suit, so I jump to game.

Florentin Axinte: Partner will not introduce five weak hearts, but also his hand is not strong enough for a direct 2 ; so I can count at least two losers (one in diamonds, one or two in hearts). Ergo, bid what I think we can make. …

Neelotpal Sahai: Since 2 was conservative, now I have to make up for it. If partner has K-Q-J-x-x-x and nothing else, the game should score.

Rik ter Veen: I have an excellent hand and something in partner’s suit. If he has six or more hearts, this should be good.

S.T. Arasu: Let my poor partner play this in 4 . Five clubs or 4 [may] have no chance, and I need a tea break badly. (I just made 6 on the last deal and deserve a tea break.)

Tim Francis-Wright: This is our most likely game. With x K-Q-10-x-x-x J-x-x x-x-x, 4 is a likely make, and no other game has real play.

Robert Katz: Any bid short of game will make my rebid look even sillier than it already does.

Bill Daly: How bad can this be? I wouldn’t expect partner to have a broken five-card suit at IMPs.

Tim DeLaney: This should have a decent play. I think the 2 bid is fine. …

James Hudson: Bidding what I think we can make, assuming partner has six hearts.

Roger Morton: I have plenty of tricks; partner probably has six hearts; and we are protected against a diamond lead by my singleton.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Even opposite the barest of minimums, we should have a reasonable play for game. Raising to 3 would make partner’s choice too difficult; I must bid what I think we can make.

John Reardon: What I lack in heart support is compensated by the other excellent features of this hand.

Peter Gill: If partner has — K-Q-J-x-x-x x-x-x J-x-x-x, a 4 splinter would lead directly to [slam]; but I may as well settle for the obvious game rather than look for miracles.

Dave Maeer: I think this is just about worth it — A-Q-x-x-x-x and out gives a play — but for a tuppence, I’d change my bid to 3 .

Jacco Hop: Hmm. Three clubs was normal [last turn]; now I am already in trouble, so I will gamble 4 .

George Stewart: Partner should have six hearts (perhaps five really good ones) with some 5-8 HCP, so we have found our trump suit. After having bid only 2 at my previous turn, I cannot afford to stop short of game now.

Martin Bootsma: … As partner is likely to have six hearts, even with a bare minimum ( x Q-10-9-x-x-x K-J-x-x x-x), 4 has chances. Therefore I bid game, as any non-game bid is nonforcing.

Gareth Birdsall: Tempted to abstain. Four hearts surely has play, and I can’t see a way of finding 6 when it’s right.

Gerben Dirksen: Partner should have six hearts, but even with a good five-carder my hand may be worth gold.

Robin Zigmond: I have a distributional hand with top cards, so this will [usually] play better at a suit contract. Three diamonds is liable to get partner to bid 3 NT when the heart game is better all along…

Albert Ohana: My second bid has not revealed my hand, so now I am obliged to take the risk of the game that is probable.

Gerry Wildenberg: … I’d like to show the fifth club and extra strength, but 4 seems too awkward; and 3 sounds like a weak 5-6. If 3 asked about the heart suit, that would be my choice; but it really asks partner to bid four with extra side strength — exactly what I’m not interested in.

Ron Zucker: Five quick tricks; potential for more. Partner rates to have a six-bagger…

Tim Bolshaw: Why not? Something like x K-Q-10-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x opposite is enough. I have no strong arguments against 3 or 4 (suggesting a hand improved by the 2 bid); but why complicate matters?

Chuck Arthur: No invitation will convey that I am this good. If partner has something like x K-Q-10-x-x-x x-x-x-x J-x (just over a minimum for his bidding; he might be better), he may pass my invitation…

David Wiltshire: Game must have a reasonable chance opposite a decent six-card suit from partner. If he doesn’t have it, bad luck — next board. …

Nigel Guthrie: Game is fair opposite most hands that partner is likely to hold, e.g., x A-J-10-x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x; and with such hands, I cannot expect partner to venture game opposite a single raise. Three diamonds has some merit as “exquisite partner torture” to right-side the blame for missing a cold game.

Comments for 3

Geoff Ostrin: If 2 is conservative, why hold back now? Fourth suit force will do the trick.

Robert Maier: Why isn’t 3 NT an option? (Don’t say because it’s wrong.*) I have to make a strong call; I didn’t jump shift with a four-loser hand and A-K fifth, A-K-Q fifth; and my kickers in the A-K suit are nothing to sneeze at either. Bidding 4 now when I didn’t bid 3 before seems a little perverse. Since none of the options fit my hand, I’ll try 3 — at least it ought to be forcing.

*I try to list all reasonable options and sometimes add a few more if the problem is short of alternatives. In this case I did not consider 3 NT reasonable, and the problem had an adequate selection; so there was no need to pad it. I would be shocked if 3 NT were seriously chosen by an expert — Hamman’s Rule notwithstanding, hehe. -RP

Eric Goff: This simply has to mean, “Do something, partner.” I will pass whatever partner rebids.

Adam Folke: Since I screwed up, I must do something that conveys my hidden values. With a decent six-card suit, partner will bid the game.

Imre Csiszar: I would have bid 3 ; and then after 3 , I would be forced to bid 4 . Still, now I cannot afford to raise to game but only invite via the fourth suit (stronger than a raise). Partner needs very little to make 4 a good contract…

Marcus Chiloarnus: No one has bid these yet.

Julian Wightwick: Partner probably has six hearts but might be 1=5=4=3 or similar. I could just raise hearts now; but 3 is a slight underbid, and 4 rules out other strains. This fourth-suit effort might get us back to clubs or notrump. I will pass a 3 rebid.

Leif Lundberg: Forcing; I want to find the best game and will not stop short with 3 1/2 losers.

Sandy McIlwain: Ugly, but it may get the job done.

Mike Doecke: Planning to pass 3 NT, or bid 4 over 3 or 3 .

Dale Rudrum: Our hearts may be too bad to play in despite the fit. I will raise 3 , or pass 3 NT. The problematic answers are 3 and 4 ; then I will bid 4 and hope partner gets the message.

Len Vishnevsky: Two spades and 3 are wildly inaccurate; 3 and 4 are mildly inaccurate (partner hasn’t promised six or even five very good hearts); 3 is weak. So, 3 should show a good 5-5. That’s better than 4 .

Nicoleta Giura: Keeps all three [potential trump] suits in play. I’ll bid 4 over 3 NT.

Adam Saroyan: Am I the only one who thinks this is the way out of this mess? At least it was offered as a choice, so someone else thought of it. … Hopefully, partner has a sense of humor when he is 5-5 in the reds and I table this dummy in 4 . I sure hope he bids 3 NT — we might actually make that contract. Switch my red suits and 3 or 4 makes sense, but I’m not going to raise on two small.

Toby Kenney: Perfect. Partner will now show an extra heart or an extra spade if he has one. If he bids 3 NT, that will probably have some play.

Bob Zorn: Four hearts is the most likely landing spot, but why not go slow as [other contracts] are still in the picture. Partnership style is very important here — as are toys like “Bart” — but without these insights, this is just a guess.

Frances Hinden: I’m going to commit to game, but I don’t know if it should be in hearts, spades or clubs. Three clubs is nonforcing.

Tristan Dupas: I can’t see another way to force game while keeping 3 NT in view.

Erik Stoffer: It is time to pull the throttle.

Nikolay Demirev: Requesting a choice of contracts. I am not going to bypass 3 NT when partner holds x-x A-x-x-x-x-x J-10-x J-x…

Tim Hemphill: I’ll force partner to further describe his hand.

Gillian Paty: Fourth suit forcing, looking for a diamond stopper; else I could bear 4 in a 5-2 fit, 4 on a 6-2 fit, or even 5 .

Kjetil Hildal: … I will raise 3 or 3 to four, or pass 3 NT.

Stu Goodgold: Having to live with a conservative underbid at the two level, I will now apply liberalism at the three level.

Comments for 4

Ciaran Coyne: Since I didn’t bid 3 last turn, this must imply that the heart bid improved my hand. Partner should picture a shape like this — but I don’t think any of my partners will picture a four-loser, four-quick-trick hand for a nonforcing 2 rebid.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Okay, go ahead and call me an unlucky expert. This bid should imply mild heart support; with a misfit, I cannot possibly be strong enough for it.

Donald MacMillan: I don’t want to be in notrump with a singleton Q. This conveys to partner that I am strong but distributional.

Roger Courtney: If I were confident partner had six hearts, I’d bid 4 ; but I think he may have only five. This will let us stumble into a reasonable game; and if partner has an 8-count with an ace, then slam may be OK.

Thijs Veugen: This should show a fine club suit, maximum values and heart [tolerance].

Mike Hargreaves: This should show a hand that has improved after 2 , and mine sure has. Partner should be happy to bid 4 with a six-card suit.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: This peculiar bid (why not 3 over 1 NT?) should show extra values, good clubs and heart [tolerance]. Lo and behold, this fits my hand perfectly. :) …

Doug Burke: Well, since I didn’t jump the first time, I guess I have to do it now. Five clubs [could] be a decent place at IMPs.

Julian Pottage: Partner should work out that his 2 bid has improved my hand; I could not jump with a misfit.

David Grainger: I have to make a strong push for game but don’t want to end up in 4 opposite a 1=5=4=3 distribution or a weak heart suit. Partner will repeat his hearts if he has no black fit and they are any good.

William Campbell: Conservative perhaps? So I’m Al Roth for this hand? Funny, he always says “If I can just get by this round, I’ll know what to do.” — but I still don’t know. I’ll bid 4 and pass 4 by partner; or convert 4 to 4 .

Barbara Reichman: Hopefully, this…will allow partner to chose which of three suits might produce the best game.

Stephen Hamilton: Showing 5-5 in clubs and spades, and game-going values… If partner has the A and three clubs, 5 will be a good contract; or if he has two spades, 4 looks pretty good.

Comments for 3

Leonard Helfgott: Almost worth a 4 call since partner should have a six-bagger — if only five, he can still try 3 NT with something in diamonds.

Laszlo Sztrapkovics: Game try. If my partner’s suit is good, 4 is a make; else he can pass or bid 3 NT.

Steve White: Least of evils. Since it pinpoints short diamonds, maybe partner will do the right thing.

Rex Settle: Partner can still have a lot of unsuitable hands where 3 will be a struggle, but I think this is enough to invite on overall strength — so I will ask partner to make the last mistake.

Karen Walker: I’ve been underbidding so far, so I’ll stick with that strategy and hope we can make good use of the extra room. Partner may have diamond cards and be able to bid 3 NT, in which case I’ll be glad I didn’t bid 3 at my last turn.

Jeff Goldsmith: Four hearts is possible; but if partner has x Q-J-10-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x, are we making game?

Michael Dodson: Leave the table; go to the rest room; don’t come back! Any choice loses the postmortem.

David Lindop: What I lack in hearts I have in high cards. Three clubs sounds too discouraging; 4 might be an interesting choice with an understanding partner.

Tom Dawson: Something to be said for opening one club: 1 1 ; 1 2 ; 2 . I’ll invite, as game is quite makable opposite K-Q-J-x-x-x and out. No point in showing the fifth club at this point. I agree with 2 , by the way.

Barry Rigal: Sticking with my conservative position, I’ll just invite. After all, why should we make game just because I have two hearts and 18 points? Partner could easily be quite weak.

Neil Morgenstern: I have more points than partner might expect but fewer hearts, as it sounds like I’m 5=3=1=4 — so it should balance out.

Dale Freeman: … I like 4 as “pick a game” — not a choice! I am not sure 3 is forcing. Conservative 2 ? Then I guess I will live with a conservative 3 .

Charlotte Vine: I’d really like to pass, but that is not an option. Partner probably has 6 points in hearts and diamonds, not an attractive prospect.

Bill Jacobs: Difficult… Three diamonds is an interesting option, as it really ought not be natural (would bid 2 NT then); but I’m not going to try it. I am taking the middle-of-the-road action.

Ruthanne Williams: Since I wouldn’t bid 2 , I wouldn’t have this problem. [Now] I have to be consistent and pass 2 . What, pass isn’t an option? Four diamonds not also? Three hearts then, but I don’t like this. …

Gerald Murphy: Partner has a weak hand with hearts, likely six of them… I cannot give up on the hand, so I raise to three and hope partner has enough for game.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1	East Pass	South ? ?	J 10 6 7 A J 8 5 A Q J 4 2

Your Two Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
C. 1 then 2	10	304	30
B. 1 then 1 NT	9	295	30
A. 1 then 1	8	44	4
F. 1 then 2	7	339	34
E. 1 then 1 NT	2	15	2
D. 1 then 1	1	2	0

This familiar problem, debated for years, will not be solved by this poll, but at least we may add some insight. A few people wrote this was just “a matter of style” and shouldn’t be in a bidding poll. I fail to see why not. Isn’t style just an application of judgment over time? Comparing different styles seems quite relevant — but then, I’m in a minority camp with Choice A, so some would say I have no style.

As expected, this was a close three-horse race. The top vote-getter was Choice F, the prepared sequence to show both minors; but the majority (64 percent) preferred to open 1 and worry later. After all, the problem might not even occur; and if it does, there are several reasonable solutions. If you open 1 , you essentially create a problem. Therefore, the top three spots go to opening 1 ; and Choice C gets the edge by its narrow win over Choice B.

I can live with Choice C, but not B. After a 1 NT rebid, I would expect partner to bid 2 with, say, K-x-x-x A-J-x-x-x x-x x-x, knowing that I must have two or three trumps. Putting down a stiff heart in dummy is cruel, although a stiff honor might be forgivable. This example also shows the merits of the unorthodox 1 rebid — partner would raise to 2 , the ideal partscore. Yes, folks, when I pick the examples, I win every time.

Choices D and E were not serious proposals but just fillers. I knew that at least one person would open 1 and rebid 1 , and sure enough, there were two. Where are these guys? A pair like that would be a great secret weapon the next time we play Meckwell.

Here’s how the problem was handled in Tunisia:

South deals	Q 5 3 2		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A J 9 3 2		Mari	Meckstroth	Levy	Rodwell
	9 6 3					1
	3		Pass	1	Pass	2
A K 8 4		9 7	Pass	2	Pass	Pass
10 8		K Q 6 5 4	Pass
Q 10 2		K 7 4
8 7 6 5		K 10 9
	J 10 6
	7
	A J 8 5
	A Q J 4 2

USA II N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
2 South	2 South	Hamman	Perron	Wolff	Chemla
Made 2 +90	Down 2 -200				1
		Pass	1	Pass	2
USA II +7 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

The first sequence is not representative, as Rodwell was obliged to open 1 (promising only 2+ cards) playing a club system. The 2 rebid merely showed both minor suits, 5-4 either way. The 2 contract was hardly glamorous but made.

At the second table, Chemla chose to bid and rebid clubs, leading to an inferior partscore; down two; 7 IMPs lost. Clearly, this was mostly unlucky for France. The actual deal proves nothing, though I could use it to plug my 1 rebid again.

Comments for C. 1 then 2

Ed Barnes: Many experts seem to like rebidding notrump on these 5-4-3-1 shapes. I don’t like apologizing to partner after he reasonably chooses a heart contract. One spade is fun, especially when you raise partner’s 3 to game; but 2 doesn’t lose the spade “suit.”

Mark LaForge: I would open 1 and rebid 2 if I were a king stronger; and I would rebid 1 NT if my clubs were weaker. Every time I bid 1 with this hand, my partner bids 4 when we are cold for 3 NT.

Manuel Paulo: First, I bid my longest suit; second, I don’t bid a short major, nor 1 NT showing a balanced hand.

Florentin Axinte: It is tempting to open 1 and rebid 2 if my uncooperative (as usual) partner bids 1 , but here I’ll bid and rebid clubs — not six cards, agreed, but a good suit. After a 1 response, I would raise.

Sartaj Hans: … I [usually] favor 1 NT rebids, but 2 quantifies the hand and keeps diamonds in the picture… and right-siding spades could be crucial.

Leonard Helfgott: I would bid 1 with better spades, or open 1 with stronger diamonds. Although I don’t like rebidding five-card suits, it’s a good one. [If I rebid 1 NT], there’s a real danger that partner will rely on me for a doubleton heart…; a stiff honor would make 1 NT more comfortable.

Robert Maier: I’m of the “Don’t rebid 1 NT with a singleton” crowd. I also like opening 1 with 4-5 in the minors when the clubs are not up to snuff, but these clubs are just barely good enough to rebid.

Rik ter Veen: The club suit is good, so I don’t need to worry… This limits my hand.

Tim Francis-Wright: [Most] will choose F, but that risks playing in diamonds when clubs are much better. If 2 NT or 3 NT is right, partner will bid it. If 1 NT is right, it’s my fault.

Laszlo Sztrapkovics: This can be bad if partner passes with a singleton club, but other solutions have more disadvantages.

Robert Katz: I would normally open this distribution 1 , but my clubs are so much better than my diamonds that I will treat them like a six-bagger.

Bill Daly: I might rebid 1 NT at matchpoints; but if we belong in notrump, partner should probably be declarer — not just to protect hearts but to protect a possible A-x…

Tim DeLaney: Clubs are sturdy enough to rebid… Options D and E are particularly odious, and should probably get minus scores.

James Hudson: Which lie am I most likely to get away with? Choices D and E are ridiculous, but the others are all quite plausible. I rate it a toss-up between C and F.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: This is a minimum hand, so I bid it in a minimum fashion. Opening a prepared 1 and rebidding 2 [muddles] the strength of the hand, to say nothing of the shape.

Nicola Farina: Two of the strongest Italian partnerships (Bocchi-Duboin, Buratti-Lanzarotti) have in their systems the possibility to bid 1 with three cards on hands like this. But without that agreement, I don’t think it is necessary. I have a good (even if not beautiful) club suit and think I can rebid it.

Rex Settle: The diamonds are not strong enough for me to distort the distribution; and 1 NT seems wrong when unbalanced without a spade stopper. The club suit, while only five cards, has honors; so that is the way to go.

Jim Grant: This hand caused problems for Chemla when he went off two in 2 , but I agree with him; 99 times out of 100, opening 1 and rebidding 2 over a 1 response [will work fine]. … If partner has diamonds, he [might still] bid them.

Dave Maeer: Close between Choices B and C, but B has two flaws for notrump: the single heart and the lack of anything you want led up to in spades. As for opening 1 , the mind boggles.

Imre Csiszar: This suggests six clubs; but with such a strong suit, it looks less of a distortion than bidding a weak three-card major, or notrump with a singleton… I would strongly consider Choice F, but it may be more valuable for partner to know I have strong clubs than both minors of unknown strength.

Jeff Goldsmith: This is a pure style poll. I don’t open 1 on these hands because I don’t like playing 4-2 fits. My partners also know they are welcome to rebid 2 with a decent five-card suit, so I avoid rebidding 1 NT with a singleton. Making up three-card majors is a way to get to really silly contracts. So what else is left?

David Lindop: At matchpoints, I might rebid 1 NT; but at IMPs, 2 should be reasonable. I always start with 1 on these hands; even if it doesn’t work well on this auction.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Even though Chemla got burned with this route, most of the time this club suit is worth a rebid. I never liked opening 1 “for the rebid” because partner never knows which suit to prefer.

Daniel Auby: One notrump would be [reasonable] if I had a singleton heart honor and my clubs were weaker, or if it were pairs since 1 NT may be the top-ranking contract. At IMPs, however, it is OK if I make 2 on a partscore deal. To open with 1 is Stone Age and effectively destroys any further scientific exploration…

Julian Wightwick: With a decent five-card suit, there’s no need to distort my shape. Rebidding 1 NT might wrong-side a major-suit stopper.

Tom Dawson: I have never liked starting these with 1 . I won’t bid 1 NT with a singleton in partner’s suit, especially with no spade stopper; and I can’t reverse. So, 2 it is.

Robin Zigmond: Opening 1 is ludicrous. Why lie about your length when you have an easy rebid of clubs? And how costly is missing a 4-4 diamond fit going to be if partner can’t bid again? As for the rebid, I wouldn’t object to 1 NT; but I’d rather show my shape with a good suit.

Mike Hargreaves: OK, this is a problem hand for me, but I’m not changing my style because it doesn’t handle this hand well; it works on many others. Besides, those who choose F will play too many 4-2 fits. I would have a sneaking admiration for Choice A if my spades were better; D and E are abominable.

Dale Freeman: Usually I bid diamonds then clubs with these minimum hands at IMPs; or 1 then spades or notrump at matchpoints. However, because clubs are much better than diamonds, I think 1 then 2 is safer; I might be able to scramble for eight tricks on a misfit.

Sandy McIlwain: Most people I know would choose F, which of course risks a 4-2 fit. My second choice would be B, but some partners are antsy about the lack of support that ensues. Clubs are good enough to overstate.

Mike Doecke: Rebidding 1 NT with a singleton isn’t the end of the world; but with a good suit rebidding clubs seems best.

Michael Clark: I’m not embarrassed about rebidding clubs; so why bother mucking about with canapes and confusing partner?

Tim Bolshaw: I fear the popular choice will be F, but I have never liked that approach. If partner is weak, we often play the wrong partscore. If partner is strong, we are well-placed after 2 .

Andrew de Sosa: If we belong in diamonds, partner will bid them and I will raise. I would not be averse to bidding 1 NT if the singleton heart were the only flaw, but the lack of a spade stopper to boot is just too steep for me.

Adam Saroyan: Least of evils. My diamonds are not good enough to distort this hand by bidding 1 first. One diamond then 1 is for players like my partner. As I learned years ago, good pitchers make bad catchers, and good catchers rarely throw strikes; and this from a guy who just threw a knuckler on the last hand. The trouble with these bidding contests is they turn us all into junk throwers from time to time… Not this time for me.

George Klemic: I will usually open 1 on this shape, but the club suit is of enough quality to rebid 2 .

Anthony Golding: I don’t expect many marks for this, but it’s what I’d do at the table playing this system. (At pairs, I’d rebid 1 NT.) I don’t like distorting my shape…

Murat Azizoglu: Of the choices, I hate F the most. I’d rather hide my diamond suit than distort the picture of my hand.

Kjetil Hildal: Bidding what I have works surprisingly often.

Comments for B. 1 then 1 NT

Neelotpal Sahai: Opening 1 keeps everything open. If partner had responded in a pointed suit, I would have raised. …

John Reardon: Notrump may well play better by partner, but this seems the best description and keeps the level low.

Paul Huggins: So what if I’ve got a singleton in partner’s suit? I have the other three suits covered, and 1 NT describes my hand much better than 2 . Unless we play canape, I’m not opening 1 .

Karen Walker: Every sequence results in a distortion but this, which tells the fewest (and most insignificant) lies — [it lacks] only a small heart. Plus, a good partner should think twice about rebidding a five-card suit…

Paul Hightower: I like 1 then 1 NT since it suggests what look like the two most likely strains. One diamond then 2 gives up on 1 NT. If I’m barred from rebidding 1 NT with a stiff, I’d pick 1 then 2 . Rebidding 1 aims at a bad 4-3 fit, short in partner’s suit.

Barry Rigal: The one shape where I can have only one heart… Diamonds are not good enough to open, and clubs are not good enough to rebid; so I’ll hope not to hear a 2 correction on x-x-x-x-x.

Donald MacMillan: This is a bit of a gamble, but neither opponent has mentioned spades, and I probably have a spade stopper if partner raises to game.

Albert Ohana: I am afraid to begin with 1 and watch partner give a preference with doubleton.

Josh Sinnett: I don’t open a prepared diamond with this much disparity in the suit quality. As for the 1 NT rebid: Sorry, partner, I had a diamond in with my hearts.

Len Vishnevsky: Choices A and D are weird; E is worse than B; and F might be a better description with better diamonds and worse clubs (but here a 2 preference is most unwelcome). If partner will rebid a five-card heart suit, then 2 is right; otherwise, 1 NT.

Tibor Roberts: … Chances of a diamond fit are small since partner presumably won’t bypass good diamonds to bid poor hearts. All rebids are distortions, but 1 NT is forgivably close to describing this hand.

Toby Kenney: Presumably, the only way to make game on this hand is to bid diamonds, spades, then 3 NT and get a club lead; but I think I’ll stick to bidding the suits I have. The 1 NT rebid shows my point range and gives a rough idea of my shape.

David Wetzel: Sigh, this hand again. I think it’s better to show the best suit and then the general hand type, rather than insisting on a strictly balanced hand. … My partners are well trained not to rebid five-card suits. If yours aren’t, I recommend electroshock — zero tolerance for voltage, maybe. :)

Julian Pottage: It is tempting to rebid 2 with the good suit, but I like to have six if possible. Besides, J-10-x looks useful in notrump with neither opponent bidding.

William Campbell: I know that 1 followed by 2 will be the top score, but I just can’t. I think 1 followed by 1 has some appeal, but I don’t like to fool around in the majors — maybe with three honors.

Michael Kaplan: … Simplest is Choice B or F. (Partnerships should agree upon this in advance.) I think Choice F is usually better, as I would rather not rebid 1 NT with a singleton… but in this case J-10-x might be helpful, and 1 NT may be the best partscore. …

Sharon Horton: My strong preference is to open hands like this with 1 . My rebid then depends on partnership agreements (yes, I check this out with each partner). I prefer rebidding 1 NT; but if 1 NT with a singleton is not permitted by system, I rebid 2 . …

Chris Maclauchlan: Perhaps irrationally, I hate opening 1 with this hand type. I just hope partner doesn’t feel the same about off-shape notrump rebids.

Stephen Hamilton: Bid the five-card suit first; 1 NT shows the point count. The singleton heart is not ideal, but 1 NT does not promise two hearts. …

Gerald Murphy: I find these hands the hardest to bid… but opening 1 seems right. I could treat my clubs as a six-card suit, but I won’t and rebid 1 NT. This limits my hand, and I have a lot of options open if partner takes another call.

Richard Morse: I am sure this problem will prompt reminders that bids indicate, not promise. The question is which indicators are the least misleading and the most helpful for partner. For me, the most misleading bid is 1 , which is both unnecessary and dangerous, so I like Choices A and D least. Choice E is illogical, since the only point of opening 1 is to be able to show clubs next. Choice C is rather wet, and with Choice F I don’t much fancy what to do after 2 or 2 . So, I am going to get it all off my chest with Choice B.

Kevin Costello: The disparity in suits is strong enough, and the hand weak enough, that I have no problem opening 1 and fudging slightly to rebid 1 NT.

Comments for A. 1 then 1

Roger Morton: I am very tempted by this “expert” option, and my partners play 4-3 fits very well.

Trying to pull the old switcheroo, huh? No way! You bid it, and you’ll play it.

Adam Folke: Bidding 1 NT with a singleton in partner’s suit often results in playing at the two-level in a 5-1 trump fit. … It’s better then to psych 1 , as at worst it will result in a 4-3 fit with ruffing values in the short hand.

Rainer Herrmann: Not the first time I may end up in a 3-3 fit, and surprisingly such contracts often make in practice. If partner raises, however, he is much more likely to have four cards; and if he does not raise, this is surely the best rebid available.

Neil Morgenstern: I don’t like to open 1 and rebid 2 [because] partner will put me back in diamonds with a doubleton in each suit. … I don’t like rebidding 1 NT with a singleton in partner’s suit. Why would anyone open 1 and rebid 1 — probably zero percent of your vote. One club then 2 is theoretically correct, I suppose… but there’s so much temptation to play this hand in spades… as it will take the opposition a while to work out what is going on; and we may get to 3 NT with them failing to lead spades because they think I really have them.

Jeff Tang: Lead-directing with a minimum minor two-suiter. Rebidding 1 NT exposes partner’s spade holding (like A-x), so I’d prefer 2 ; but I know you secretly rooted for everyone to rebid 1 .

Nikolay Demirev: I believe this will be a highly unpopular choice, and most of the points will go to Choice F. Still, I cannot force myself to do that because of the quality discrepancy in the minors. … When partner has 4-4 in the majors and 10-12 HCP, our best spot may be 4 , e.g., A-K-9-x Q-x-x-x Q-x-x 10-x. I can still rebid notrump later.

Comments for F. 1 then 2

Daniel Korbel: A lot of people would open 1 and rebid 1 NT, but I prefer not to do this with a singleton. … I fail to see how 1 then 2 can be better than this sequence.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Note that from the six options given, this is the only one to bid the two suits in which I have all my schmoints but one. Note also that “I’ve played Precision too long” is a more credible excuse than “I had a club mixed in with my diamonds.”

J. Michael Andresen: I’ll bid my hand as naturally as possible with all my strength in my suits. Partner knows this shape is a possibility.

Charlotte Vine: A least this way I show both suits.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Pretty standard, in my humble opinion. This sequence shows any 5-4 in the minor suits; but with 1=4=4=4 shape, I also open 1 and rebid 2 over 1 .

Ron Zucker: How else will I find my 4-2 fit? Seriously, this is a crapshoot. I don’t like a 1 NT bid. Clubs are chunky enough to rebid a five-bagger, but rebidding five-card club suits is not my style.

Nicoleta Giura: One club then 1 NT is the Aussie way, but I saw lots of American players on OKbridge opening 1 with this shape when not strong enough to reverse — maybe better than rebidding 1 NT with a singleton.

Bruce Scott: I’m a distorter. I dislike opening and rebidding clubs with only five; I’ve never rebid in a three-card major; and Choice E is nonsensical. If I am planning to rebid 1 NT over 1 , then I would open 1 . …

Bryson Crowell: I like to show where my values lay. If notrump is right, it should play from partner’s side.

Bob Zorn: I have no strong feelings, but this is the way my partners like to bid, and it works well on many hands; not so well on others. Other styles have other problems… Best is to pick your poison and stick to it, as it is far worse to have no agreement at all.

Erik Stoffer: This little lie about my distribution is safer than Choice A, my second choice.

Peter Yu: Too few points to reverse; too few hearts to rebid 1 NT.

Nigel Guthrie: This terrible American distortion may stick in your craw, but at least it has the merit of right-siding 3 NT when partner has, e.g., A-x K-Q-J-x x-x-x K-x-x-x.

Samuel Krikler: Boy Scout’s motto: “Be prepared!”

Phil Clayton: I hate this sequence, but it’s a reasonable description. [Partner knows] it could be 4-5 in the minors, however, all the other sequences [show] one more card in a particular suit. Second choice is to open 1 and rebid the chunky five-bagger.

Brian Ross: I don’t expect this to be the popular choice, but a 1 NT rebid should be a balanced hand — period.

Jonathan Goldberg: Standard American’s possibly canape sequence… This is not a good hand for the system; live with it.

David Shelton: This shows both suits. Choice C would be Acol; B and E should have two hearts and a better spade stopper; A and D are great psychs and probably would have been chosen by one of the great players, Ozzie Jacoby.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 519), and on each problem only for calls awarded 7 or higher. 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 flashback to 1997. Thanks to all who entered, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Well, the smell of camels can only be taken for so long. As I pull into the oasis, I’ll leave you with these final words:

Ted Jackson: The island looks like Santorini and the desert looks like the Sahara, so I don’t know where the tournament was — but I’d rather be in either place today with 10 inches of snow in Toronto.

Neil Morgenstern: Well, the pictures certainly aren’t Finland.

Or Shoham: Love the camels. I’m guessing they’d score better on this poll than I will.

Analyses 7Y32 Main Challenge

Scores Top France Wins in Hammamet

© 2003 Richard Pavlicek