Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge
Let the Good Times Roll
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 7Y40 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in May 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 |
Among the wrong guesses received were U.S. cities of Anaheim, Baltimore, Charleston (SC), Cincinnati, Detroit and Orlando; Canadian cities of Montreal and Quebec; Sydney, Australia; and a wild stab at Monte Carlo, Monaco. The majority of guesses, however, were right on target with New Orleans, or as the locals pronounce it, “N’Awlins.” The city is also known by various nicknames — The Big Easy, Crescent City, and The City that Care Forgot — and its motto, “Let the Good Times Roll,” became my title.
At the top is a night view of downtown New Orleans from across the Mississippi River. What may appear to be Cinderella’s Castle is not a castle but St. Louis Cathedral, the most notable landmark in the city. The statue of a man on horseback is Andrew Jackson, famous for defeating the British (for my UK friends it was all a myth) in the Battle of New Orleans, and later U.S. President. The bridge is not one but two parallel spans across the Mississippi, called Greater New Orleans Bridge 1 and 2. Hmm. You’d think that a city with such flair could do better in naming bridges. The fleur de lis is also symbolic of New Orleans.
While at least 30 people guessed the location, only four came up with the year as well: Richard Morse, Bill Powell, Jonathan Siegel and Richard Stein, each of whom correctly deciphered my clue. If you look closely at the cathedral picture, you will see two white numbers barely visible against the cloud background. What year could 43 and 46 indicate? Well, to quote the Highest Authority, “Be fruitful and multiply.”
The background song, a jazz arrangement of Basin Street Blues, is one of the most realistic midi files I have ever heard. If you close your eyes, you can almost see Pete Fountain live at the New Orleans Hilton. The music is especially sweet to me because I used to play the clarinet in elementary and middle school. I never sounded like that!
Justus Rozemond Wins!This poll had 1036 participants from 108 locations, and the average score was 44.62. Despite the record turnout (curiously by one vote over January this year), no one submitted a perfect score. Congratulations to Justus Rozemond (New Zealand), who was the first of three with 59. Aha! That’ll teach those who say there is no justus in these polls. Also scoring 59 were Peggy Hayslip (Norcross, Georgia) and Ivan Viehoff (UK). Close behind with 58 was Carlos Cabrinha (Portugal), and seven players scored 57.
The average score this month was the lowest ever (previous low was 45.00 in January of 2001). Does this mean the respondents were up all night partying? No, I’ll take the credit (hehe) for finding some tough problems with more plausible answers than usual. Hence, the voting was more widely dispersed, which perforce lowered the average. Indeed, Problem 6 set a new record as the lowest percentage for the most popular choice.
The overall leaderboard took on a new appearance as Geraint Harker (UK) captured the top spot with a 56.25 average. Second place goes to Leo Zelevinsky (US) with 55.75, and third to this month’s runner-up Peggy Hayslip with 55.50. Next with 55.25 are Richard Higgins (US), Ian Greig (UK) and Ronald Brantsma (Netherlands).
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
New Orleans, 1978, marked the inauguration of the Rosenblum Cup, an event to be held every four years, and relegating the Bermuda Bowl to odd-numbered years only. (Previously, the Bermuda Bowl was held three out of four years, and the Olympiad on years divisible by four.) Essentially, this change makes the Olympiad and Rosenblum Cup synchronous with the Summer and Winter Olympics, respectively.
The Rosenblum Cup has a unique format. The 64-team field was divided into 16 groups of four, and each group played knockout matches to eliminate one team. Thus, three of each four advanced, leaving 48 teams to play straight knockout matches — reducing to 24, 12, 6 and 3. Meanwhile, all losing teams were shunted to the “repechage Swiss” with appropriate carryovers, giving everyone a second chance. The top five teams in the Swiss joined the three losers from the last knockout round to form a mini-knockout, the winner of which would be the fourth semifinalist. This complex format may seem silly, but the intent was to keep more teams in contention and playing bridge.
The new format proved significant. The three semifinalists from the straight knockouts, Brazil, France and United States were joined by the repechage winner, Poland. Brazil then defeated United States, and Poland defeated France. The final would pit Brazil against Poland and, you guessed it, Poland won. This was the first world championship for Poland, and no doubt a catalyst for the surge of Polish bridge.*
*On average, I would guess that the level of bridge in Poland is the highest of any country today. As evidence, Poland has been the top country in six of my last seven play contests and leads the overall rankings by a wide margin. Years ago, I remember how Polish humor was in, like the silly “light bulb” jokes or “Archie vs. Meathead” in All in the Family. Nowadays, however, the joke’s on us.
Representing Poland (pictured L-R) were Andrzej Macieszczak, Andrzej Wilkosz, Marian Frenkiel (poor guy, probably had to hold the trophy because he had no Z in his name) and Janusz Polec. The iron horsemen! Not only did they win, but they did it four-handed. Representing Brazil were Gabriel Chagas, Pedro Paulo Assumpcao, Gabino Cintra, Marcelo Branco, Roberto Taunay and Sergio Barbosa.
All the problems in this poll involved the Polish team — some from the final against Brazil and others from earlier matches. So pull up a chair and compare your bidding with the world’s best of 1978.
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 1
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass | North Pass | East 4 
| South ? |  A Q J 8 3 A A K J 8 4 3 J
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 349 | 34 |
| 4 NT | 9 | 262 | 25 |
| 5 NT | 8 | 40 | 4 |
| Double | 5 | 237 | 23 |
| 5 | 4 | 55 | 5 |
| 4 | 3 | 73 | 7 |
| 6 | 1 | 20 | 2 |
When selecting these problems, this was an iffy one because I felt 5 would be an easy winner. Well, it was the winner but not so easily as expected. Your comments also brought out some interesting viewpoints, so I’m glad I chose it.
The 5 cue-bid clearly shows a two-suiter with spades (a la Michaels), and it will almost always locate your best trump fit. The danger, of course, is that it commits you to slam. Some people said they would pass if partner bid 5 , but this seems dubious. Think about it: You find a fit and stop on a dime; but without a known fit, you are willing to bid a slam. It seems partner should bid only 5 with one useful card to give you some leeway under pressure. Hence, facing 10-9-x and the A, slam will usually make, and there’s a prayer opposite less.
A number of people chose 4 NT (ostensibly minors) intending to correct 5 to 5 . This action would be somewhat illogical with both minors; what was the point of 4 NT? Hence, it probably should cancel the previous message and show diamonds plus spades. Nonetheless, this is moot*; some experts would argue you can’t change what you showed, so 5 indicates a lopsided minor two-suiter, giving partner the option to bid 6 if he has a real club suit and moderate values. Both interpretations have merit.
*An interesting point of bidding theory. Excluding psychs and accidents, can an indicated hand type be changed by an illogical follow-up? I think so. Suppose partner opens 1 NT, next player doubles, and you bid 2 (natural rescue). When it’s doubled, you redouble. This is illogical with clubs, so partner should assume you have improvised with 4=4=4=1.
Many of those who doubled 4 thought it was takeout, but it is optional by system guidelines. This means that partner may bid with a long suit (typically 5+ spades or 6+ in a minor), but the default action is to pass. Obviously, this does not bode well with your desire, so it is likely to produce a poor result. Only the large vote persuaded me to score it ahead of bidding 5 or 4 .
Let’s see what happened in the “City that Care Forgot”:
| Poland vs Brazil | 7 2 7 5 4 Q 7 6 5 8 6 4 3
| |
| K 10 9 6 5 J 2 9 2 K 10 9 5
|  | 4 K Q 10 9 8 6 3 10 A Q 7 2
|
| None Vul | A Q J 8 3 A A K J 8 4 3 J | |
| Branco WEST Pass Pass All Pass | Wilkosz North Pass 5 NT | Cintra East 4 Pass | Frenkiel South 5 6
| 6 South Down 1 -50 |
| Polec WEST Pass Pass Dbl | Assumpcao North Pass 6 All Pass | Macieszczak East 4 Pass | Chagas South 5 Pass | 6 × North Down 1 -100 Poland +2 IMPs |
Both Souths chose the cue-bid to reach the inferior slam — not hopeless, of course, but a spade finesse through the preemptor is considerably odds-against. So what else is new? Good players tend to be aggressive under pressure.
At the first table, the North Pole (Wilkosz, not Santa’s workshop) used the normal Michaels framework (5 NT asked Frenkiel to bid his minor). At the second table, however, Assumpcao’s 6 response must mean that 5 showed specifically spades and diamonds. (Evidently, the Brazilians bid differently with both black suits.) Polec gambled a double based on his spade stack, so Poland gained 2 IMPs when the slam was down one.
The 4 NT bidders would have been right this time, stopping in 5 ; but the cue-bid was still much better than a double. North has a routine pass of 4 doubled (even if the double is takeout, I think) and that puts you minus 590.
Comments for 5 Charles Blair: I hope partner interprets my subsequent 6 bid as a choice between diamonds and spades.
Peter Haglich: Forcing at least one round! Will bid 6 over 6 , hoping partner gets the picture.
Rainer Herrmann: This hints at a strong spade-minor two-suiter. Four notrump should show minors, even after correction to diamonds.
Anthony Golding: I need one of K, Q or A to give slam some play. If I start with 4 NT, and it goes 5 5 , partner won’t bid on. I know I shouldn’t overbid in these situations; but why change the habit of a lifetime?
Jyri Tamminen: To be followed by 6 . I wouldn’t be surprised if the winning bid were 4 or 5 .
Dave Maeer: I only have three losing cards, and I hope partner can cover one (at least) and I can get lucky for the other. The problem with double is that, if partner bids 5 , my 5 bid does not really show [a two-suiter]; and I would hate it if partner passed when we have spades and diamonds and they have hearts and clubs — could be minus 590 instead of plus 1210. …
Adam Saroyan: So few losers; so little space. I choose 5 and hope partner can work out the rest. Doubling could get messy…
Robin Zigmond: Am I missing something? This one looks routine. Admittedly, I can’t now play in 5 ; but making exactly 11 tricks looks unlikely… I intend to raise 5 to six and hope for the best.
John Reardon: This is the safest bid that gives partner a chance to make a sensible decision. This hand is too good to treat as one-suited.
Bill Huepenbecker: Showing hearts and a minor; planning to correct 6 to 6 . I am definitely willing to commit to slam with this monster.
Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: I think this conveys clearer the message that I have a very strong two-suited hand, which lacks so little to make six.
Paul Friedman: I do not see much choice. Even if 4 NT were a [general] two-suit takeout, am I really going to pass 5 or simply convert 5 to 5 ?
Andrew Gumperz: … Since my alternative is to guess which game to bid (4 is my second choice), I’d just as soon find the right strain and gamble that partner holds the right high cards [for slam].
Ed Freeman: … This must show spades and another suit, with no more than 2 1/2 losers since I bypassed 4 and five of a minor.
David Sired: Am I a man or a mouse? Over 5 , I will bid 6 offering a choice of slams.
John Kruiniger: Guessing that East has an 8-count for his bid, this leaves 12 points split between West and partner. If partner has his 6 points, I think we are odds-on to make 6 or 6 . If he has fewer points but a spade fit, we may still make 5 . …
Leonard Helfgott: High-level Michaels. Eleven cards in two suits means offense, and 4 NT would be a strong minor-suit hand. Partner should bid slam with two [useful] cards.
Tibor Roberts: Have I ever held a better Michaels hand? Seriously, double should be convertible (not this hand); 4 NT should be for minors (ditto); 4 and 5 are too unilateral; and 5 NT and 6 look like fillers to me.
Phil Clayton: Spades and a minor. When I could bid 4 on a very wide variety of hands, such as a decent 9-count (as a sacrifice against 4 ) to a awkward 18-count, I must try for slam with this 2 1/2 loser hand.
Paul Huggins: East’s preempt leaves very little room to maneuver… Assuming my cue-bid shows the [unbid major], we can always stop in 5 . Give partner his fair share of the outstanding points, and 5 or 6 has a decent chance. On a pessimistic day, I’d stick to 4 and hope for the best; but today I fancy a potential slam.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Rightly or wrongly, I’m going to bid a slam on this one. I’ll raise 5 to six or convert 6 to 6 . If I bid 4 NT…and convert 5 to 5 , will partner believe that the Q and K will produce a slam? … Since I ultimately I have to guess, I’ll guess for the maximum return.
Samuel Rozenberg: Shows the other major and a minor, [willing] to play six; 5 NT ask for the minor.
Gyorgy Ormay: Like your title, I’ll let the good times roll.
Bruce Scott: I’m going to force to a small slam and offer a choice of suits. If partner bids 5 next, I will bid 6 , asking partner to choose between spades and diamonds. I don’t think this sequence suggests better diamonds than spades, even though I would like it to for this particular hand. …
Bijoy Anand: Over partner’s expected 6 , I plan to bid 6 ; he should get the picture. …
Philip Smith: Procedure for dealing with hands like these: Close eyes; pick bid; hope you land in the right spot.
Marcos Paiva: Planning to bid 6 over 6 . With spades and diamonds reversed, I would bid 4 NT intending to bid 5 over 5 . In a ideal world West will pass my bid and everything will work. :)
Chris Willenken: Seems obvious; the value bid that rates to get us to the right slam, while allowing us to stop in 5 .
Jonathan Steinberg: I want to be in a slam. I will raise 5 to six, or correct clubs to diamonds.
Scott Stearns: … Then pulling 6 to 6 should show this type of hand. Since partner needs only two of A, K and Q (or third-round diamond control playing in spades) and conceivably even one to make, I’ll take a shot. …
Karen Walker: The cue-bid shows the big two-suiter and asks partner to bid the cheapest suit he’s willing to play in at the appropriate level. Over his presumed 6 , my 6 bid will show the diamond-spade hand. If partner is broke and we can’t make six, at least we’ll be going down in our better fit.
Bob Boudreau: When I convert 6 to 6 , I hope partner will appreciate the value of the K; but I don’t know how to get to seven even if he has A because he won’t know for sure there are no heart losers.
John R. Mayne: … I don’t think 4 NT should be any two-suiter, so 5 is a strong two-suiter with spades. This forces to slam, which is an overbid — but if they got us, they got us.
Adam Dickinson: After partner corrects to 6 , 6 surely shows a huge two-suiter in diamonds and spades.
Rosalind Hengeveld: I hate to advance beyond game on my own, but this hand may have a play for slam opposite a shapely Yarborough. Five hearts should best sell that message. I’m not confident 6 would come across as leaping Michaels. :)
Charles Cohen: Michaels, showing spades and a minor; If partner bids 6 , I bid 6 and he can choose…
Kevin Costello: As little as K-x-x [might] make slam odds-on, so [trying for a] penalty seems unattractive. If partner selects spades, I’ll probably take the plunge and go to slam…
Belva Quattrin: To show a two-suiter. Partner can bid 5 NT to find out [my minor] if not interested in a spade contract. …
Jess Cohen: I intend to bid 6 over 6 ; 6 over 5 ; or pass 6 .
Daniel Korbel: Initially I thought to double, but then I realized North will pass in a flash with K-x-x x-x-x-x Q-x-x A-x-x, where three grand slams are cold. Better to go for the brass ring and hope. Five hearts has the advantage of letting us out in 5 when partner is bust.
Gordon Bower: I really hate to gamble; but if I have to flip a coin between game and slam, I’ll take slam. When I correct the inevitable 6 to 6 , maybe partner will visualize this type of hand.
David Wetzel: It’s either this or 5 (hoping for 5 so I can bid 5 ), and I’m willing to chance that 5 isn’t our last making contract.
Mary Jo Branscomb: I plan to go to slam. If partner bids 5 or 5 NT, I will bid 6 . Hopefully, partner will put it in spades [if appropriate].
Comments for 4 NTTed Ying: This should show a good two-suiter. If partner bids 5 , I will bid 5 which should show spades and diamonds.
Bill Powell: Ostensibly for the minors, but partner may get the picture when I bid 5 over 5 .
Nicoleta Giura: I’ll bid 5 over 5 , showing a two-suited hand capable of playing at the five-level.
Richard Higgins: Four notrump is two-suited takeout for minors, but partner will realize I have spades and diamonds after correcting 5 to 5 . This should help decide whether we have slam and where to play.
David Davies: We [might not] get to slam, but suits may break badly rendering a slam poor. This will get us to the best strain, which is important as there could be a three- or four-trick difference.
Ognian Smilianov: This is the only way I can bid twice in order to show my two suits and proper strength.
Wayne Burrows: A fit, one card and a finesse is all that is required for slam.
Steve Landen: Then convert 5 to 5 showing a big [two-suited] hand; else I would just bid 4 .
Karel de Raeymaeker: … This normally shows the minors, but over partners 5 or 6 , I’ll bid diamonds and hopefully partner will get the picture.
Gareth Birdsall: I want to show a slam try with spades and longer diamonds, and I suppose 4 NT then pulling clubs to diamonds shows precisely this.
Bogdan Vulcan: Bidding 4 seems a little pessimistic, while 5 is a little optimistic. I plan to correct 5 to 5 , suggesting spades and diamonds.
Bill Cubley: Shows a two-suiter. If partner bids clubs, I bid diamonds; then he knows I have spades, too.
Frank van Wezel: Over 5 , I bid 5 , which promises a strong hand with diamonds and spades — at least in the Netherlands.
Unlike in the U.S. where it means, “Partner, I’ve got both minors, but I’ve just lost my mind.”
Soren Justesen: Two-suited takeout. If partner bids clubs, I correct to 5 ; otherwise, I raise.
Daniel Miller: This shows two places to play. Partner assumes minors and bids his better minor; over 5 , I will bid 5 (strong but nonforcing) to show diamonds and spades; then if partner corrects to 5 , I will pass. Over 5 , I will settle for 6 …
Micha Keijzers: Then 5 over 5 . This way I hope to show a strong hand with spades and diamonds. With a weaker 5-5 in spades and diamonds, I would bid 4 .
Michael Roche: I’ll bid 6 over partner’s 5 … Over 5 , I’ll bid 5 and then 6 .
Nikolay Demirev: Four notrump over a preempt usually conveys the idea that it is possible to play in two suits. There is also an inference that the hand is stronger, as with a weaker two-suiter I might have doubled or bid 4 . One or two cover cards out of three (or a good fit) is a reasonable wish.
Len Vishnevsky: A standard double is optional and partner should pass with K-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x. I’m good enough to try for slam, and 4 NT followed by 5 [shows this because I went beyond 4 ]. I’m not good enough for 5 or 5 NT followed by 6 .
James Hudson: The hand is too offensive to double; 4 is both too pessimistic (about partner’s strength) and too optimistic (about his spade length). I don’t have enough to drive to slam unilaterally.
Imre Csiszar: Partner will expect a minor two-suiter (no partner of mine would take 4 NT as natural), but my next 5 or 6 call will clarify. Lacking prior discussion, this sequence is less likely to be misunderstood than a direct 5 call.
Neelotpal Sahai: Spade and diamond bids are like putting all eggs in one basket; and double shows imaginary baskets as well. The suit and the level can’t be determined without hearing from partner.
Connie Delisle: This shows a two-suiter, and partner will assume minors; when I correct 5 to 5 , partner will know I have diamonds and spades. The other option (5 ) gets us to the six level when partner has clubs and hearts only.
Tim DeLaney: If we don’t have a good fit, I don’t want to get above the five level. I will bid slam if partner chooses 5 , or just bid 5 over 5 .
Rik ter Veen: I’ll correct 5 to 5 . It feels like I haven’t shown my whole hand, but I don’t want to force to slam opposite a passed hand.
Ted Morris: Double shows a more balanced hand; 4 , 5 , and 6 all risk missing the correct strain and level… Next I will bid 6 (over 5 ) to tell partner which suits to pick, or 5 (over 5 ) as a cue-bid looking for seven…
Stu Goodgold: Too good to sit for a converted double. If partner bids the expected 5 , I will bid 5 to show a diamond-spade two-suiter. If partner bids 5 , I’ll cue-bid 5 (can’t do that with a 5 NT first bid).
Frans Buijsen: I’m not making an optional double of 4 , since that may well be making (e.g., if they have a secondary club fit). Since the K and Q are enough to make 6 odds-on, I’m trying 4 NT, correcting 5 to 5 , thus painting my hand as close as I can.
Murat Azizoglu: Takeout; will correct 5 to 5 , or raise 5 or 5 to six.
Charles Leong: My agreement with most partners is that 4 NT shows two or more places to play. With an extremely large three-suited hand, I bid 5 . I will pull 5 to 5 (obviously). I will not drive to slam, as third seat 4 openers may just be a good hand expecting to make. …
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It is correct to keep both pointed suits in the picture, and a close decision whether to bid slam or not. As to the level, I prefer to get partner’s opinion by correcting 5 to 5 and inviting slam (thankfully, my minors are not reversed).
Jacco Hop: Two-suiter, intending to correct 5 to 5 ; or raise 5 to 6 — could be terribly wrong though.
Steve Boughey: Showing a big two-suiter, and I will clarify which two by bidding 6 over 5 . I intend to play a slam in diamonds or spades [according to] partner’s preference.
Willy Purzelmayer: This should be understood as a strong two-suiter. If partner answers 5 , I will bid 5 to show diamonds and spades; then partner can decide if he has a trick to bid on.
Bill Daly: I don’t feel strong enough to force to slam, so that excludes anything above 5 . Assuming 4 NT shows a two-suited hand (nominally the minors) I will usually be able to show both my suits, which is more likely to land us on our feet than a unilateral shot at spades or diamonds. Double is overly pessimistic; we’re not down yet.
Dale Rudrum: It seems this only shifts the problem to my next turn: How to make partner bid six with the A or K. I don’t think I can manage that, so I will gamble on slam. To end up in our best color, 4 NT followed by 6 lets partner choose.
David Grainger: Expecting to convert 5 to 5 ; then partner will know I have spades and, therefore, a very good hand as I [went beyond] 4 . I will raise an unlikely 5 response to six.
Mark Florencz: … This indicates a strong hand (enough to commit to the five level) that is unsuitable for defense. I will bid 5 over 5 .
Michael Dodson: I am driving to six in our best suit. A double could rack up minus 590 instead of plus 920.
Dale Freeman: I think 5 is too aggressive. I like 4 NT, then remove 5 to 5 , or 6 to 6 . If the opponents bid 5 , I will double.
Comments for 5 NTGeorge Klemic: Partner won’t appreciate that K-x-x or Q-x-x may be all a slam needs.
Josh Sinnett: I’m willing to gamble on slam with this hand. There are two ways to get there: 5 showing spades and a minor; or 5 NT, ostensibly minors but converting 6 to 6 to show diamonds and spades. I think 5 should emphasize spades more since partner won’t necessarily find out I have diamonds; and 5 NT followed by 6 should be stronger diamonds. I just hope everyone else thinks so, too. :)
Chris Maclauchlan: Correcting clubs to diamonds. I would bid 5 if I had six spades and five diamonds.
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 2
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1
| North Dbl | EAST 1 2
| South Dbl ? | A 10 6 3 A 6 J 10 8 6 5 A J
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 314 | 30 |
| 3 | 9 | 16 | 2 |
| Pass | 8 | 145 | 14 |
| 3 | 6 | 390 | 38 |
| Double | 5 | 30 | 3 |
| 3 | 4 | 28 | 3 |
| 2 NT | 2 | 73 | 7 |
| 3 NT | 1 | 40 | 4 |
From the scoring of this problem it would appear that I overruled the consensus, but such is not the case. Many of those voting for 3 (probably most based on my survey of comments) assumed the double to be takeout or responsive.* Hence, those votes are essentially meaningless to the problem, which makes 2 the true consensus.
*Even if responsive doubles were a part of the system — which they are not — this is not a responsive double. Responsive doubles apply only when the opened suit is raised; so this is penalty, showing spades and possibly revealing a psych. This meaning seemed pretty clear to me, else I would have noted it with an asterisk. Some partnerships, of course, redefine these doubles by special agreement, but that hardly applies here.
My only objection to 2 is that this hand may be too good. It seems routine to bid 2 on almost any hand with four spades, else partner will assume you have three. Therefore, with three aces and a potentially fine playing hand, I would bid 3 to invite game. I’m a little nervous about the weak spade spots since West’s bid is probably legitimate, but the reward for a vulnerable game says push. Partner can still pass 3 if he stretched for his double.
Other actions are misdirected as they should deny holding four spades. A second double or 3 cue-bid suggests more high cards; 3 suggests a better suit; 2 NT suggests a better heart stopper; and 3 NT, well, it suggests the need for a therapist.
What about no action? Pass may seem cowardly, but I have some admiration for it. Partner is likely to balance with 2 , which may right-side the contract if he has the Q. Unfortunately, if you then raise to 3 , partner will not expect your hand to be this good; so you’ll have to bid 4 and hope for the best.
Getting to game wasn’t so easy in “The Big Easy” either; nor was making it:
| France vs Poland | K Q 8 4 8 7 3 K 2 10 8 6 3
| |
| J 9 7 2 4 2 Q 9 4 Q 5 4 2
|  | 5 K Q J 10 9 5 A 7 3 K 9 7
|
| N-S Vul | A 10 6 3 A 6 J 10 8 6 5 A J | |
| Frenkiel West 1 Pass | Perron North Dbl 3
| Wilkosz EAST 1 2 All Pass | Mari South Dbl 2
| 3 South 4 Made 3 +140 |
| Lebel West Pass Pass Pass | Polec North 1 Pass 3
| Chemla EAST 1 2 3 All Pass | Macieszczak South Dbl 2 Pass | 3 North K Down 2 -200 France +8 IMPs |
Witness the first auction, which parallels the problem. It seems astounding that Mari would pass 3 after bidding only 2 , but the French style may be different. (Translation: Unlike this writer, they like to go plus once in a while.) Mari won the A on the second round, then led the J; queen, king, ace. On the next heart Mari pitched the J, then Wilkosz shifted to a trump.* Ten tricks could now be won based on the inferred spade lie, but Mari of course played safe for nine; plus 140.
*Best defense is a fourth heart, which I believe holds declarer to nine tricks.
At the second table, Lebel kept quiet, which seems sensible to me with that foot, I mean, hand; so Polec was not clued about the spade lie. He chose to win the A and cash A, K; then with the 4-1 break now revealed, he led the 2 from hand. When the dust settled he was down two; minus 200; 8 IMPs to France.
Comments for 2 Ted Ying: … I assume partner is showing me four spades and [values to compete]. I like my hand, but I don’t have all that much extra for double; so 2 should be enough. Sounds like a 4-4-4-1 spade suit to me.
Sid Ismail: Expose the baby psych.
George Klemic: OK, I survived the double with a favorable outcome. Now I need to let partner know my spades are real and not just the promised x-x-x. This should not show significant extras, [else] I would have to jump or cue-bid.
Peter Haglich: West may have been trying to talk us out of our spade fit.
Rainer Herrmann: It is not clear whether West psyched, but it is important to confirm now that the double was based on a four-card spade suit. I’m close to bidding 3 .
Marcus Chiloarnus: I know a few Wests who need to be exposed.
Bill Powell: Forewarned is forearmed.
Anthony Golding: North’s double should show four spades, so this confirms the fit without promising extra values — I hope.
Jyri Tamminen: Pass or double (takeout, extra values) [is appropriate] with three spades… Maybe I am worth 3 because of three aces.
Nicoleta Giura: As West, nonvul vs. vul, 1 would be one of my favorite psyches on a weak 1=4=4=4 shape. …
Kevin Podsiadlik: No reason to get excited — at least not until I learn partner thinks he made a responsive double.
Kalle Byden: Double by partner promised a four-card spade suit.
Tim Francis-Wright: Well, I survived my earlier flawed call. Partner effectively bid spades, so I’ll raise.
Doug Burke: I’m taking partner’s double as penalty, so we may have a spade fit. My only other option is to pass, as every other call is misleading.
Robin Zigmond: … I’m assuming partner’s double is a psych revealer with four spades and some values, in which case 2 now looks right (I’m not much above a minimum double, and I could pass with less or no spade support). …
John Reardon: I play that partner’s double means he would have bid (at least) 1 . Therefore, I show my support, perhaps exposing a baby psych by West.
Richard Higgins: Partner’s double is not responsive; it is penalty, so we have a good spade fit.
Jinzhou Loo: Did West try the baby psych?
David Davies: I think partner is showing spades but not necessarily a great hand. My hand is not so good, so I think 2 will do.
Gerald Murphy: … Partner has spades and will bid on if he has good cards; otherwise pass. The spade bid may be a psych and the double may have exposed it.
Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: Whether 1 was a psych or not, this will either be the right contract or find the way to it.
Josh Sinnett: Standard American defines partner’s double as spades, not responsive. Standard tactical bridge says West could easily have psyched 1 , so a spade bid is in order.
Andrew Gumperz: Partner’s double showed spades, so the only question is whether to bid 2 or 3 . I think two is sufficient.
Karel de Raeymaeker: … Partner’s double is penalty showing spades to cover the normal psych and/or the crappy 1 bid on x-x-x-x. Bidding 2 seems more than enough.
Gareth Birdsall: I don’t have the extras needed to double, but I do have four spades; so I’ll support partner.
Ciaran Coyne: Since my double can clearly be off-shape, I’ll confirm that I hold four spades.
Leonard Helfgott: North has shown four spades, and I could have much less (I could conceivably pass with A-x-x-x A J-x-x-x Q-x-x-x). Not quite enough for a jump to 3 .
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Partner’s double indicates four spades (West may have bid a psychic 1 to try and talk us out of a spade contract), so I will happily raise to 2 . If partner has extras, I will soon find out.
Frank van Wezel: West could have psyched. I’m just bidding what I have, as I don’t want to miss a vulnerable game.
Gerard Versluis: Showing a non-minimum double with four spades.
Daniel Miller: One spade looks like a psych. We have the balance of points and can’t [subjugate] 2 to a sizable penalty, so I’ll try for game with 2 and await developments. …
Phil Clayton: Partner’s double says he was going to bid 1 , in which case I am worth a raise to 2 .
Paul Huggins: It looks like West has psyched intending to support hearts later, and partner has doubled for penalty. I’ll show that I do have four spades and a minimum hand…
Malcolm Ewashkiw: I’d like to be a touch stronger for this bid, but I want partner to know we have at least a 4-4 spade fit.
Richard Stein: Looks like we have a spade fit, so I’ll try to play there. A 4-1 trump break loses much of the sting when you know about it beforehand.
Michael Roche: … If West had passed and partner bid 1 , I could barely bid 2 ; so this will have to do.
Alan Kravetz: … Partner’s double should show at least four spades, and West may have psyched the 1 bid.
Nikolay Demirev: Natural and competitive. I’d expect partner to be showing 7+ points and exactly four spades. I have extras and will accept an invitation. To distinguish: Pass = three spades and/or a weaker hand; double = 16+; … 3 = four spades and a six-loser hand (or more HCP).
Len Vishnevsky: Partner has spades and values, so this seems about right. [Playing in] spades is probably safer than notrump, even if West has four [spades].
Mark LaForge: I’m torn between 2 and 3 , as I assume partner’s double is penalty.
Chris Willenken: I have four spades and am not ashamed of my hand.
Jonathan Steinberg: We have found our fit.
Theodore Hwa: West’s 1 sounds like a psych to me. Partner’s double probably shows four spades.
Kieran Dyke: Partner’s double is penalty, in the traditional style. This just confirms four spades and denies a big hand.
Hans Holme: North shows spades, so I bid them; I’m not strong enough for 3 .
Scott Stearns: The 10 convinces me to give this a shot despite the bad split — at least I’ll know how to play the hand. Normally, I overcall 1 here; but then I wouldn’t know about the break.
Karen Walker: Partner’s double promises more than just spade length; it should be sending a this-is-our-hand message with 4+ spades and decent high-card strength… Whether 1 was a psych or a real suit, I’m willing to play 2 .
Connie Delisle: Partner’s double showed spades, so I will fight for the partscore in our known fit. Pass [would] suggest only three spades.
John R. Mayne: … Partner’s double is clearly spades (any other agreement is poor). Can I bid 2 on this only-slightly-above-minimum hand? Answer: I dislike the style where I am supposed to do this, but it’s very common.
Tim DeLaney: Partner’s double is the equivalent of a free bid of 1 , and I have just enough to compete.
Michael Dimich: Standard psych exposure, [showing] our fit.
Rik ter Veen: Partner’s double is penalty showing spades. … I don’t think my hand is good enough to bid 3 .
Stu Goodgold: Partner’s double was business; we have a spade fit and should make 2 despite the bad break — and West may be psyching.
Frans Buijsen: Supporting partner’s four-card suit. This bid promises sound values, but not a lot of extra values for me.
Alex Perlin: … West’s 1 bid could be fishy. Double by advancer followed by a spade bid by doubler looks like an efficient way to catch such fish.
Tysen Streib: This should be natural. West’s 1 bid might have been a psych.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It looks like West is operating since partner’s double clearly show spades. It is imprudent to pass because West may raise the ante. Bidding 2 immediately should just proclaim the fit without any extras.
Brian Ross: Partner has exposed the 1 bid.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Natural, showing four spades, as does partner’s double. West may or may not have psyched (a somewhat old-fashioned type as nowadays most players prefer to preempt with heart support). If West does have genuine spades, we’re not in 4 against a 5-0 break yet.
Neil Morgenstern: Pretty standard; 1 was probably psychic and partner’s double promises four. My hand isn’t that great — not much more than a minimum takeout double — so 2 is quite adequate.
Peg Kaplan: Where I come from, the double by partner says “I’ve got spades.” Well, I’ve got ‘em, too! I think I have enough to bid 2 , whether West is serious or not.
Kjetil Hildal: Partner’s double shows spades (as opposed to the unbid suits), so I bid 2 now and leave it up to partner to compete to the three level.
Bill Daly: … West isn’t necessarily psyching, but he might be, and it’s up to me to find out.
Uwe Gebhardt: Since the double by North showed spades and I have a minimum takeout double, this is easy.
Daniel Korbel: West may have psyched, so I must show spades immediately. Only question is whether to bid 2 or 3 .
Michael Dodson: Expose the baby psych. Not worth more than 2 .
Kaz Yamada: Partner’s double shows a constructive hand with at least four good spades. Pass is possible of course; but having decent values, 2 is kind to partner.
Nigel Guthrie: Worth a raise of a free bid in spades.
David Wetzel: OK, so we have a nice eight-card spade fit; let’s play it. Ruffing hearts in hand will be icky; ruffing diamonds in dummy should be much more fun. I’m slightly concerned that partner will think I’m showing more than this, but tough cookies.
Dale Freeman: This is enough. Partner can try for game with 10-11 HCP or extra spade length (uncovering a psych).
Comments for 3 Jugoslav Dujic: Spades is the only sane bid; but two or three? I’d say 2 1/2. :) Having three aces suggests 3 ; the likely bad break suggests 2 . I’ll be optimistic.
Fred Zhang: … I take partner’s double as penalty, so I will invite game in spades.
Comments for PassDave Maeer: This is not a wonderful double, and having been warned that spades don’t break, we would do well to be conservative. If partner has enough to make game, he’ll bid…
John Kruiniger: Well, I would not double in the first place, so I wouldn’t be here. … Anyway, I’ll pass and let partner drive.
Bruce Scott: I agree with the double of 1 as long as the plan was to pass 2 . I must pass over 2 because I don’t have anything extra. Partner expects me to have at least three spades, so I don’t need to bid spades right now to expose a possible psych. … I have better defense than I might against 2 , but [not enough to warrant] a second double. …
Ron Sperber: I don’t have any extra values, and our only known fit [probably] has a bad break; so I’m not eager to play in spades unless partner has some real extras.
Murat Azizoglu: Waiting for further developments. … Partner may have a penalty double of 2 at his next turn.
Kent Feiler: No reason to bid anything. I told partner I had spades last time, and West’s spade bid doesn’t change that.
Kevin Costello: Is this cowardly? Perhaps. Nevertheless, it seems unsporting to rescue them when they could have so much fun diagnosing the misfit themselves.
Jess Cohen: Aces and spaces. I have my values for a vulnerable double, but not much more.
Andrew de Sosa: My original double is somewhat flawed and in the minimum range; I have only a little extra. I should let partner in on the secret.
Dale Rudrum: Partner’s double is penalty; so in his evaluation it is either no game for us, or he has a lot of spades. My extra values are not good enough to dispute him, so I pass…in the hope that he can double for penalty again…
Robert Eachus: Sounds like we are playing with a pinochle deck, but I will give partner a chance to steer for a bit. I will pass a double of 2 , or raise 2 to 3 …
Comments for 3 Jonathan Jacobs: Partner’s double should be penalty; but with four spades he will probably bid 2 (natural), so [he may have] only three spades. Game is still possible, so I’ll bid 3 , mildly encouraging. …
Biddy Smyth: This will probably miss a 4-4 spade fit; but with a 4-1 [or 5-0] trump break, it [may be] best not to be in it.
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 3
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 2 NT1 | North 3
| EAST Pass 4
| South 1 ? | A 9 5 3 K Q 4 A Q 8 7 5 2 —
|
| 1. hearts + clubs | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 455 | 44 |
| 5 | 9 | 158 | 15 |
| 4 | 7 | 224 | 22 |
| Double | 5 | 69 | 7 |
| 6 | 3 | 100 | 10 |
| 4 NT | 2 | 20 | 2 |
| Pass | 1 | 10 | 1 |
This turned out to be the most lopsided vote of the month. The consensus was to bid the obvious game, which makes good sense to me. Chances for 11 tricks seem excellent. Yes, there could be a slam, but with limited high-card strength and duplication in hearts, it’s a long shot. Another advantage in concealing slam interest is that you might get doubled in 5 .
I must give 5 a close second, as it could be the key to a magic slam opposite, say, K-x-x x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x. Even with one less diamond and one more club, 6 would probably make on a crossruff. But I dream a lot; my partners never seem to produce that dummy.
The second most popular choice was 4 , but bidding such a weak suit at the four level makes me shudder.* Partner is unlikely to have four spades; and even if he did, a 4-4 fit may be doomed by bad breaks. Certainly, this is not the kind of auction to be aiming for a Moysian fit.
*Some would argue that 4 is forcing, i.e., a control-bid and slam try in diamonds. Not by my beliefs, and not by any standard rules that I know of. With West showing two suits, there are enough cue-bids available, so bidding a major that our side might hold should be natural.
Defensive prospects seem to be good against hearts, but these situations can be deceiving — too many diamonds, I think, to seriously consider defending. The most probably result in 4 is down one, and you’re a favorite to score 400 if you bid.
Here’s what the Cajun cooking had to offer:
| Poland vs France | J 4 2 10 K J 9 3 K J 10 4 2
| |
| K Q 8 7 5 3 2 — A Q 9 7 5 3
| | 10 8 7 6 A J 9 6 10 6 4 8 6
|
| None Vul | A 9 5 3 K Q 4 A Q 8 7 5 2 — | |
| Chemla West 2 NT All Pass | Frenkiel North 3
| Lebel EAST Pass 4
| Wilkosz South 1 4
| 4 South Made 4 +420 |
| Polec West 2 2 Pass Dbl | Perron North Pass 3 4 5
| Macieszczak EAST Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Mari South 1 Dbl 3 5
| 5 South Made 6 +420 No swing |
In the first auction, from whence the problem came, Wilkosz chose to introduce his feeble spade suit, and the treacherous 4-3 fit was reached. After a heart lead to the ace, Lebel returned a heart; then Wilkosz led a low spade, taken by the king. Chemla returned a heart, then Wilkosz tried to reach dummy with a diamond (no doubt to run the J) and Chemla discarded.* Wilkosz worked out what was going on and quickly led a spade to the ace — how sweet; plus 420.
*The contract would fail if Chemla ruffed, or if Lebel had returned a diamond at trick two.
The second auction was entirely different, leading to the normal game. After a heart lead to the ace, declarer’s spade loser disappeared, and 12 tricks were easily made on a crossruff. (If a slam were bid, I’m sure Polec would have led the K.) Same score! Just another push.
Comments for 5 George Klemic: This should have a play. Opponents know they are missing heart cards; against 4 I may not take more than a trick in each of my suits, and the diamond may not be there at all. Slam is iffy because there is likely to be a spade loser, and the K-Q are wasted.
Anthony Golding: Probably a trick to lose in each major, so I’ll stop at game — or maybe it’s a sacrifice.
Jyri Tamminen: I want a heart lead if partner has x-x-x x K-x-x-x K-J-10-x-x, and I [don’t want to diminish that chance] by trying for miracle slam… although I admit a slam is possible: K-x-x x K-J-10-x Q-x-x-x-x. …
Dave Maeer: This might make, and I know what to do with 5 . Partner is guaranteed to have four diamonds (maybe five) so beating 4 may not be easy.
Adam Saroyan: We might go down in five; or we might miss six, but my K-Q are certainly wasted. Being on lead against 4 , I do not expect to get rich defending. …
Robin Zigmond: When opponents preempt, it’s best simply to bid your games and not rock the boat looking for slams. Partner’s 3 looks weak, plus my heart holding is wasted; so I need a seemingly-unlikely stiff spade [or K] in dummy for slam to be good.
Mark Raphaelson: I think we are too likely on for 5 (maybe six) and too unlikely to beat 4 enough (any club ruff will likely be in exchange for a heart trick anyway).
Josh Sinnett: Partner has length in clubs but didn’t double (retaining the option to penalize), so his values must be in the pointed suits. Still, it takes a perfecta to make slam, and suits are not breaking; 5 is enough.
Wayne Burrows: Partner has short hearts, I have short clubs, and these hands play well. I can’t even guarantee that 4 is failing.
Paul Friedman: This might make (doubt it); or be a good sacrifice; or convince the evil ones to bid 5 .
David Sired: I’m tempted to bid six, but I probably have a spade loser.
Gareth Birdsall: I hope diamonds don’t break.
Peter Gill: Partner’s 3 is not especially strong, as he could have cue-bid 3 with a good hand.
Jonathan Jacobs: No need to do any more. If partner had some useful values, he would start with a double or a cue-bid.
Leonard Helfgott: I [probably] need partner to have at least the K…for a good slam, but 5 should be quite safe unless his values are all in clubs. There is no point in considering 4 , as partner might pass with only three; but a 5 cue-bid might be superior if partner construed it properly.
Geoff Croes: Appears to be the best bet for a game, as a spade fit is likely to [suffer from] bad breaks. …
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Whether partner has four spades or not is irrelevant. If he does, 4 might be better; but 5 will probably still make. If he doesn’t and I bid 4 , he might pass with three spades, then I [may] have to ruff clubs in hand and lose control. …
Roger Allen: Partner is presumably just “making a noise” since with a good raise to 3 , I assume he would bid 3 .
Phil Clayton: Who knows who can make what? Bidding 4 is possible but real shaky, and partner might expect five cards.
Michael Roche: Six diamonds could be laydown, but 4 would be natural. My heart values figure to be wasted opposite a singleton.
Bruce Scott: This two-way shot seems straightforward to me; I guess I have no imagination.
Len Vishnevsky: Five clubs to get the lead is pointless. Partner’s 3 is just competitive, so 5 is enough.
James Hudson: I won’t mess with spades if partner couldn’t bid them. If partner has clubs wrapped up, we might be better off defending; but maybe I’ll get a crack at 5 .
Chris Willenken: Four spades is possible, looking for the 4-4 fit; but if partner has (for example) Q-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x Q-J-x and the opponents lead hearts, 5 is cold, while 4 might lose a heart and three trump tricks.
Neelotpal Sahai: Opponents should be very close to making 4 , and we should be close to making 5 ; so I would like to insure ourselves.
Hans Holme: I think this will make, and maybe they will bid 5 … then I double.
Bill Michell: With partner’s support and my shape, game should be on. Four hearts probably only goes one down, if that. If they push to five, I will double for penalty.
Karen Walker: We may be making 6 , but I won’t be bullied into a blind guess. The only information I have is that partner probably has a singleton heart, and that’s discouraging.
Connie Delisle: Partner cannot cover all my losers. The urge is there, but I will save it for the bedroom.
I’m guessing she likes forcing raises, too. Oops. There goes my family rating.
John R. Mayne: With slow heart values, nothing breaking nicely and a good distributional hand, nothing else appeals. … A slam try is just too giddy, and double isn’t going to pay enough.
Tim DeLaney: I wouldn’t dream of doubling, since they might very well make 4 and are unlikely to go down more than one. I think 5 is just too optimistic and [might not] help partner because he cannot tell whether I have the A or a void.
Alex Perlin: It is ridiculous to assume I will defend holding the beer card after partner raised. Five is enough though; they don’t give you an extra pint for making a slam.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It is prudent to be conservative because heart values are wasted in offense, and partner could have given a stronger raise. I prefer long-suit slam tries on auctions like this; hence 4 is a distant second choice.
Brian Patmore: Might be right; might be wrong. Bid it quickly and double 5 .
Marc Julius: Partner [is likely] to have five diamonds; so according to the Law, I should bid to the five level.
Gerben Dirksen: Five diamonds is probably making on a heart lead (discard two spades from dummy on K-Q). Even if it isn’t, our huge fit suggests that West may bid one more.
Peg Kaplan: I don’t like the K-Q-x on offense; surely they are better for defense. Still, 4 could easily be cold. At IMPs it so often pays to bid one more; 5 may be cold (or I may get a favorable lead and make it anyway), or the opponents may go to the well again.
Richard Morse: I’d prefer to defend, but not at the four level. Five clubs would be better if partner would be on lead against 5 ; 6 seems a stretch. Second choice is 4 .
Uwe Gebhardt: East’s preference for hearts [suggests] that partner has lots of clubs; combine this with my heart holding, and 6 is out of the question. Even 5 may fail, but I won’t get rich doubling 4 .
Gerald Cohen: Probably there are 19 total trumps. Pass is not forcing; 5 seems a likely make and scores more than 4 doubled two down.
Jean-Christophe Clement: There’s a real chance to make this contract; slam is a little bit optimistic.
Kaz Yamada: My choice lies between 4 and 5 because double is premature. Four spades might be better if partner has 4+ spades and we have three losers… but I still choose 5 because it will stand up better against a likely club force.
Biddy Smyth: I have not many defensive tricks, as opponents probably have a diamond void.
David Wetzel: Five clubs is a really, really sexy call — except that I’m on lead. I’m pretty sure I can make 5 ; not so sure about 6 , or defeating 4 doubled. I’ll double 5 .
Dale Freeman: There might be a magic 6 here, but 5 is the only sensible slam try and partner would probably go to slam with heart shortness rather than the magic spade holding I need.
Thijs Veugen: Too many diamonds for a double.
Comments for 5 Ted Ying: I don’t like my wastage in hearts, but I’ll make a slam try anyway. I won’t bid 4 since I don’t want to hear partner cue-bid the A. …
Peter Haglich: Invites cooperation in looking for slam.
Bill Powell: A little too good for 5 .
Kevin Podsiadlik: Partner, if you can cover spades, I think we might have slam. Perfect!
David Davies: I must play at least 5 . Slam is unlikely, but it is important to tell partner I have a real hand and am not just competing. Five clubs seems more helpful than 4 ; there could be a double fit [for both sides], and partner will now be able [to evaluate his club holding].
Gerald Murphy: It’s not safe to bid six without knowing about the spade situation. Partner may have club cards which are of no value to me. After 5 …partner will bid 6 if his honors are in other suits.
Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: Indicating my shortness will surely help my partner make the right decision — either in bidding or defending.
Andrew Gumperz: I hope this will cause partner to bid slam with the K… but not with a lesser spade holding.
Ed Freeman: Partner must have a bunch of diamonds (since I only promised three) and no club wastage since he didn’t double 2 NT. With the two pointy kings and first-round heart control, I might as well let him bid seven.
Paul Huggins: Opponents might well bid 5 over a simple 5 , leaving me with a problem. This cue-bid will help partner judge whether to bid on or double them. … Five diamonds should be cold, or even 6 if partner has the right cards.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: This seems right on values, but I’m not sure what partner can bid over it. I suppose with the K…, singleton heart and the K, he should bid a slam. Unless I bid 5 now, he won’t be able to evaluate those cards properly.
Ansar Burney: A mild slam try; and why not? I have a good hand, and partner should know that.
Nikolay Demirev: This keeps exploration routes open. Facing K-x-x x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x, we have a laydown slam; and K-Q-x — K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x makes a grand. Second choice is a practical 6 . Four notrump correcting to 6 regardless of partner’s response might be even better against expert opponents to inhibit a spade lead.
Marcos Paiva: In doubt between 5 and 6 , I’ll invite partner to join me in the difficult decision and show my feature in the process.
Mark LaForge: Worth one slam try. I think 4 is passable.
Imre Csiszar: If there is a biddable slam, showing the club void appears to give a better chance to reach it than a 4 bid. I believe this situation is an exception from the rule that a cue-bid denies the ability to make a lower one.
Jonathan Steinberg: I’m too strong for 5 but don’t want to unilaterally bid six, perhaps off a spade (or two) and a heart. Five clubs should show slam interest with first-round club control, and partner can make the final decision.
Kieran Dyke: Four spades misses the point, since I don’t need a club card. This might get the job done if partner appreciates his K.
Frans Buijsen: I hope this cue-bid makes partner understand I’m looking for spade values in his hand.
Kjetil Hildal: I won’t defend with this hand. Slam could be on, e.g., K-x-x x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x. Partner should be able to read 5 as a void (looking at his own cards), so he may do the right thing — although unlikely. :)
Jess Cohen: Preparing the defense against 5 doubled: Low diamond lead; club ruff; maybe a low spade if a high club comes back. Also preparing for a possible 6 contract if partner likes my first-round club control.
Dale Rudrum: I don’t know what to do because it is partner who knows whether he has values in clubs or spades… As pass is not forcing, I cannot end in 4 doubled when that is best… As I can almost certainly make 5 , I choose 5 ; bidding 4 might lead to a lousy spade contract.
Mark Florencz: The K-Q seem to be wasted, so the slam depends on my partner’s spade holding. The meaning of 4 would be ambiguous here.
Michael Dodson: I’m not willing to drive to six, so I’ll try to focus partner on spades and hearts for slam.
Roger Morton: Four spades could be an alternative trump suit in some partnerships, so I make a more obvious slam try.
Comments for 4 Soren Justesen: Natural; partner can easily have spades also.
Richard Cornett: Partner will pass or correct.
Ed Barnes: Works well in two ways. If partner has spades, he can pass. If partner is short in spades, he can convulse with excitement.
Jim Grant: Game in hearts is possible: K-x-x A-J-x-x-x — Q-J-x-x-x opp. x-x-x 10-9-x-x x-x A-K-x-x. So is game in diamonds or spades. I bid 4 in case we have a fit there (partner would not bid 3 with, say, K-J-x-x-x x K-x-x-x x-x-x) as this is our last chance to play there. …
Scott Stearns: This looks like an offensive hand to me. If partner doesn’t like spades [and corrects to 5 ], his spades can go on the K-Q. Partner didn’t double, so no club stack. …
Stu Goodgold: North might have four spades but no good bid beside 3 ; he can always go back to 5 . Doubling 4 may go positive, but not by a lot.
Murat Azizoglu: Intended as major-suit game suggestion; partner may still have four spades. If partner bids 5 , I’ll pass.
Steve Boughey: Two likely pluses here: 5 or double. Which is better? I fancy plus 400 as a likelier result than plus 500 (4 doubled, three light) as East could have club support in reserve. I’m on my way to 5 , and 4 costs nothing en route as it also gives partner a better game to play should he hold, say, Q-J-10-x x x-x-x-x-x K-x-x.
Paul Gans: Partner will probably bid 5 , in which case I will pass. If opponents bid 5 , I will double.
Francesco Badolato: Meaning either to play or a cue-bid. It’s up to the partner now.
Florentin Axinte: Kind of anybody’s guess; 4 might be a good save or a makable game.
Tony Rolfe: I don’t really mind if partner takes this as a suit or cue-bid. …
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 4
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass 2
| North 1 Pass | East Dbl Pass | South Rdbl ? | K Q 9 7 2 A 7 4 Q J 8 4 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double | 10 | 334 | 32 |
| 3 | 9 | 169 | 16 |
| 2 | 8 | 100 | 10 |
| 2 NT | 6 | 191 | 18 |
| 3 | 5 | 115 | 11 |
| 3 NT | 3 | 115 | 11 |
| Pass | 1 | 12 | 1 |
There always seems to be one problem in each poll where I strongly disagree with the consensus, and this is it. A redouble followed by a penalty double is supposed to be serious, not speculative.* Partner is expected to pass with a singleton trump, which rates to be a disaster. Imagine having to explain how you were minus 180 on your club slam when partner has some ordinary hand like J-10-x A-J-x-x-x x A-K-x-x. No thanks; I won’t give my teammates a reason to change my initials from R.P. to R.I.P. There may be a case to double at matchpoints, but I think it is dead wrong at IMPs. Enough said.
*Partner should double 2 with three trumps, so the pass implies one or two. Hence, redoubler should have at least four trumps (usually with honor strength) for a penalty double.
On a few occasions in the past (three out of 96 problems, to be exact) I have overruled the consensus, but I don’t feel justified here. First, the margin of victory for double was substantial; and second, I’m not sure a majority of experts would agree because the alternatives have drawbacks as well. Begrudgingly, double will get the top award.
My own choice is to bid 3 (forcing). It is possible this may lead nowhere — or at least nowhere plus — but chances look pretty good for game. If we don’t have a club or spade fit, perhaps I can right-side the notrump. Opposite x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x Q-x A-x, partner will continue with 3 ; then over my 3 , 3 NT seems clear. Or am I dreaming?
There were a lot of votes for 2 NT, which conveys about the right strength; but it seems reckless to drive into notrump so soon. The only good thing I can say for 2 NT is in comparison to 3 NT. The potential for a club or spade contract is too high to pass up. Even a 4-3 spade fit rates to play better than notrump, which makes 2 my second choice.
What about a 3 cue-bid? This would be ideal if it showed 4=1=3=5 shape with the A, but partner would need a Ouija board to decipher that. I think it should show the A since you can force in either black suit; but the shape should have heart tolerance — certainly not a singleton. An ideal hand might be Q-x-x-x Q-x A-x-x K-Q-x-x.
Well, it must be Mardi Gras time! At least that was my reaction when I saw this first auction:
| Brazil vs Poland | A 8 2 K 10 5 4 3 K Q 10 9 2
| |
| J 5 J 9 8 6 J 10 6 5 3 2 7
| | 10 6 4 3 A Q 7 9 8 A K 6 5
|
| None Vul | K Q 9 7 2 A 7 4 Q J 8 4 3 | |
| Wilkosz WEST Pass 2 Pass | Assumpcao North 1 Pass 2
| Frenkiel East Dbl Pass All Pass | Chagas South Rdbl Dbl | 2 North Down 2 -100 |
| Taunay WEST Pass Pass All Pass | Polec North 1 1 NT | Barbosa East Pass Pass | Macieszczak South 1 3 NT | 3 NT North Made 3 +400 Poland +11 IMPs |
At the first table, Frenkiel must have been delighted to escape from his dubious takeout double, as Wilkosz had him covered with a six-bagger. Could this be the origin of Polish Ice Dancing? Even more remarkable was the final contract reached by Brazil: a 5-1 fit. Obviously, this must have been some kind of misunderstanding, as the auction hardly befits a brilliant player like Chagas. I’ll spare you the play-by-play, but 2 was defeated two tricks.
At the second table, the Poles had no interference as they bid to the excellent game. Polec could have made 10 tricks but played safe for nine. Plus 400; 11 IMPs to Poland.
While the actual deal proves nothing, observe how a double of 2 would have fared. Even with North holding K-Q (the best trumps possible), 2 is cold. Perhaps this might convert some doublers into future bidders.
Comments for DoubleTed Ying: Since I have shown an invitational hand and have nothing more, partner already knows if we can make game or not. If so, he can bid. If not, I think that doubling 2 is our best option, especially being short in partner’s suit and having values in…spades behind the doubler.
Charles Blair: Game is not a sure thing on this potential misfit. On Problem 2, South doubled 1 with two-card support for a minor.
Peter Haglich: Hoping for plus 300 or 500, with only some chance of game our way.
Bill Powell: Hoping to look more confident than I feel. …
Jyri Tamminen: To nail the opponents scientifically after a takeout double, we need agreements on the difference between pass-then-double and redouble-then-double. Now partner must guess whether I have this hand type or 4=1=4=4 with [stronger diamonds]. Anyway, I believe they are in trouble when partner has a doubleton diamond. …
Dave Maeer: Not nice, but I fancy all the other choices less.
Adam Saroyan: It is not hard to visualize the play going very badly for West in diamonds.
Richard Higgins: Misfit; go for the penalty. [At least I’m] not doubling the opponents into game if it makes.
David Davies: I think partner indicates some willingness to defend. The A, singleton heart and useful black-suit honors point to the possibility of taking 500 or more. The apparent misfit indicates we might not be able to make anything declaring.
Ognian Smilianov: This deal looks like a misfit. The best behavior in these cases is to leave your opponents to play their suits — and to double when [we have most of the high cards].
Ed Freeman: Game isn’t obvious here, so I’ll take a clear plus and potentially might get 500.
Karel de Raeymaeker: Nice hand, but I’m going the chicken route and doubling. Three diamonds may be better if partner can produce a diamond stopper; if not, we’re up the creek.
Bill Cubley: Time to live up to my redouble and get a heart lead.
Geoff Croes: I believe we will play 2 more than two down, as opponents have no source of tricks. Partner will start a trump.
Soren Justesen: If I bid 2 NT, it is dangerous and may be from the wrong side.
Phil Clayton: I have spades behind the doubler, no fit for partner, no particular source of tricks for 3 NT, and a shaky diamond stopper for 3 NT. … I’ll risk 3 IMPs trying for plus 500 or 800, but settling for 300…
Malcolm Ewashkiw: … Partner’s pass suggests a balanced hand, so we should be able to take at least 300, with no apparent game on for us. I wonder who has the odd heart? Would partner always pass 2 with six hearts and a weak hand? …
Richard Stein: It could be that neither side has a fit. Good things can happen on defense: Maybe we’ll get heart ruffs; maybe we’ll be able to burn three rounds of trumps…
Bart Traksel: Our side has the most points and no suitable contract; let’s go for some downs.
Michael Roche: If we can make 3 NT, we should do all right against 2 . Partner’s pass [often means] a balanced minimum, so defending [may] turn out best.
Ron Zucker: Partner tends to be fairly balanced for his pass. My choice is between double and 3 , and I go for the double because it’s not clear that we have a fit. …
Nikolay Demirev: If partner can’t take a call, this probably is our only plus score. If opponents have a nine-card fit, 2 may make; but I’ve been there before. On a 4-4 fit, I’d expect plus 100 or 300 when 3 NT is down one.
Gyorgy Ormay: My partner is an expert as well, so our score may be minus 180 or 380. :)
Bruce Scott: Double will probably receive a poor score in the poll, as I’m supposed to have the J instead of the J. This is a very awkward area for standard bidding ideas. On the positive side, I have fairly high hopes of a heart ruff and about the spade position. Doubling two of a minor at IMPs is a bargain, isn’t it?
Manuel Paulo: Partner’s pass confirms his values and, with a misfit, I want to defend.
Philip Smith: I set up the penalty; partner gives me the chance; so I take the penalty. If I bid notrump, what’s my source of tricks?
Marcos Paiva: I would like to have one more diamond, but I hope the consistency of my HCP will compensate this flaw. I bet we will defeat 2 at least one, and I don’t know if we have any game.
Mark LaForge: I love doubling two of a minor. Any further move by partner should show a strong hand.
Jonathan Steinberg: Without interference, we would reach game with no guarantees. But now I have a sure plus. Why not take it?
Theodore Hwa: I think this is the surest way to go plus. Three notrump is vaguely possible, but the hand sounds like somewhat of a misfit.
Keith Balcombe: Hopefully, partner will not have a singleton diamond; but even if he does, the indicated trump lead [may] leave declarer with no winning options.
Jim Grant: Since plus 400 in 3 NT is no certainty, I’ll try for 300 or 500 against 2 . …
Connie Delisle: [Too bad] I wasn’t dealt another diamond, but I still think this will give us our plus.
Rik ter Veen: … If the opponents happen to make 2 doubled, [it is probably only a small loss] as our teammates will be plus for defeating their game. [More likely] it will be plus 300 for us and plus 50 at the other table. May I hope for that?
Frans Buijsen: … I think partner is likely to be minimum, putting 3 NT at very low odds; and even 2 NT is in danger. I’m counting on at least plus 300; but even if it makes, it’s only minus 180.
Steve Boughey: … Are we going to get more out of 2 doubled than we would from the obvious 3 NT contract? If partner has most of his points in clubs, like A-K-x, 3 NT might be the spot (five clubs, a diamond, two hearts and a spade perhaps) with 2 going only one or two light. I’m tempted to go for the penalty, hoping East has 4=2=3=4 shape…
Rosalind Hengeveld: Despite admittedly inadequate trumps, I think the following factors tip the balance towards doubling: singleton in partner’s suit; I’m not doubling them into game; and we may not make any game.
Brian Patmore: West has a lot of hearts but cannot stand the redouble, so he probably has only [four] diamonds. East has spades, so the cards are lying favorably for the defense. …
Kent Feiler: Most likely, 3 NT will make and we’ll be plus or minus 3 IMPs in 2 doubled. But once in a while, 3 NT won’t make and we’ll pick up some serious IMPs.
Bill Daly: If we can make 3 NT, we should be able to rip 2 to shreds.
Daniel Korbel: Partner will find the marked trump lead, and 2 rates to get crushed. I have had good success with this sort of double in the past.
Michael Dodson: Game doesn’t look good, and this double doesn’t put the opponents in game.
Gerald Cohen: We don’t need a big number if we don’t have a game.
Gordon Bower: I wish I had started with 1 . Now I seem to be stuck into doubling… I had an uncanny feeling about this hand and Problem 2, and was quite worried they were two sides of the same deal — until I saw two club jacks.
Comments for 3 Anthony Golding: I assume that in your system double would be penalty, although I think it’s more efficient to play takeout doubles and [trap] passes in these situations. Three clubs must therefore show about this shape.
Kevin Podsiadlik: If I’ve let them off the hook, oh well.
Jinzhou Loo: Slightly superior to 3 , the Master Solvers Club cue-bid.
Gerald Murphy: I think partner is minimum, without diamonds, and waiting to see what my redouble is. This is forcing, and we still may arrive at a makable game contract, either in clubs, [spades] or notrump.
Josh Sinnett: I’ll start bidding my shape. Assuming partner’s next bid is three of a red suit, I will follow with 3 . We’re not playing notrump unless partner can bid it.
Gareth Birdsall: I want to bid 2 , but I’d be forced to bid 3 NT over 3 . I should be able to bid my pattern with 3 then 3 over 3 , and partner may be able to bid a right-sided 3 NT with the Q.
Ciaran Coyne: If 3 NT is the right contract, it should probably be played from partner’s side.
Jonathan Jacobs: Three notrump is possible if partner can help out in diamonds, but the problem with bidding 3 directly is that we may then be too high.
Ansar Burney: Time to introduce my five-carder and await further developments. We may or may not have a game in clubs.
Imre Csiszar: … Diamonds are probably 5-3 from West’s free 2 bid and partner’s pass; thus we probably can make 3 NT by ducking twice, and 2 is unlikely to go down more than two. Three clubs looks better than 3 NT directly, as partner may have a singleton diamond, or he may have four spades.
Neelotpal Sahai: I want to show more than I showed by the redouble (10+ HCP)… The objective [may be] to reach 3 NT from partner’s side if he has a secondary stopper in diamonds… and 3 may achieve it.
Charles Leong: Forcing. Partner has already denied the ability to make a penalty double of 2 , so I am not going to defend 2 doubled with only A-x-x in trumps. …
Peg Kaplan: Not an easy hand to bid (even not redoubling wouldn’t have helped). I bid my long suit, as there’s no reason why we can’t have a nine-card fit there. If we have spades or belong in notrump, we can find that, too. Only thing lost is playing 2 doubled; but if partner doesn’t want to hit it, neither do I.
Andrew de Sosa: I can’t pass; double could prove disastrous; 2 should show a five-card suit; and if notrump is right, partner should probably be bidding it. I’ll try the effect of bidding my five-card suit.
Comments for 2 Robin Zigmond: It would be foolish to make a tight double like this when game chances are so good. While I would have bid clubs after 1 , pass, now there’s less space to maneuver.
Andrew Gumperz: Double is superficially attractive, but I am too chicken. The opponents rate to be in a 5-3 diamond fit, and I have no real surprise for declarer. Three notrump could be a good spot if partner can declarer it. Partner should infer that my spades are not five cards long from my failure to bid 1 .
Dirk Enthoven: Two spades does the hand justice; it’s premature and space consuming to bid 3 now.
Ed Barnes: West is likely to have lots of red things and not too many black ones. We may have a fit in spades or I may be able, very slowly, to transfer the blame of a terrible 3 NT contract.
Chris Willenken: Secondary black honors and weak diamonds make double terrible; they will make 2 doubled on a really bad day. I would usually have bid 1 over 1 with five, so 2 here only promises four. I don’t like bidding 3 , as we probably do not want to play in clubs unless partner can introduce them himself over 2 .
Tim DeLaney: Least of evils. Three diamonds might work if partner bids 3 NT; but if he cannot, where are we going? …
Ron Sperber: I have to bid something — can’t double with only A-7-4 in trumps.
Jacco Hop: This is probably the best way to get to the right contract, as I’m [unlikely to have] five spades after the redouble.
Jean-Christophe Clement: A double would be penalty. This is forcing and promises only four cards.
David Wetzel: I love it! Surely I’d have bid 1 (forcing) with five, right? So now I’m showing four spades, and not four diamonds (no second double). …
Godwin Jeyaseelan: This keeps the bidding low and flexible to find the right spot.
Comments for 2 NTLeonard Helfgott: I need four good diamonds to double, and 3 would clearly be forcing. With a stiff heart, a nonforcing 2 NT seems the best alternative in this era of light opening bids.
Gerard Versluis: As Hamman would say: natural where I live.
Tibor Roberts: No, I don’t like it, but I do have one or more stoppers where I need them, and the right strength for the bid. Nothing else fits.
Paul Huggins: Partner doesn’t have many diamonds (didn’t double 2 for penalties) and wants to leave the decision to me. … This shows stoppers outside hearts, and partner can go on with [more than a bare minimum]. …
Kieran Dyke: Not even close to a double, since partner, expecting short hearts in my hand, would double with honor-third or sit for my double with a small singleton.
Scott Stearns: … All actions are flawed. I’ll try 2 NT since diamonds look to be 4-4.
John R. Mayne: I am of the strong opinion that partner should have hit 2 with three decent ones; my redouble begged him to do it, and he didn’t. I know 2 NT looks chicken with us having about 25 HCP; but breaks will be bad and there’s no clear source of tricks. If partner doesn’t make another move, this is enough.
Alex Perlin: Most likely we will go down — a just punishment for my mean attempt to nail East-West. On a good day, however, partner will raise to 3 NT holding x-x-x A-K-x-x-x x-x A-K-x.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Maybe I should have just bid 1 to avoid this unpleasant decision. … This is the value bid, but it could wrong-side 3 NT.
Kevin Costello: The point count makes 3 NT seem likely, but my singleton heart suggests our hands won’t fit well.
Kjetil Hildal: Inviting game. Partner knows I am not stacked in diamonds, else I would double. Double is a close second choice.
Chris Vinall: Tough. The problem with 2 is that partner might well rebid hearts; then 3 NT looks grim. This may miss a good spade game; 3 NT is a big overbid.
Eric Goff: Trying to defeat 2 sounds frivolous at this scoring and vulnerability. The opponents’ diamond fit could easily be superb. I’ll go for the middle ground with 2 NT.
Biddy Smyth: Game invitation; I need more than a minimum opening to be in 3 NT. Partner can rebid 3 if weak with six hearts.
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 5
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass | North Pass 3
| East 2 Pass | South Dbl ? | K J K Q 6 K Q 3 2 A K J 2
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 NT | 10 | 348 | 34 |
| 6 NT | 9 | 177 | 17 |
| 4 | 7 | 146 | 14 |
| 4 | 6 | 81 | 8 |
| 5 NT | 5 | 69 | 7 |
| 4 | 3 | 12 | 1 |
| 3 NT | 1 | 203 | 20 |
Partner’s cue-bid is quite a shock in view of the duke you hold, particularly after East’s vulnerable weak two-bid. You can almost place each of the missing high cards, save a red jack or two. East should have A-Q, and partner should have the Q and both red aces. Therefore, 6 NT is the obvious bid.
Bridge players, however, are a suspicious breed. Could partner possibly bid this way with only one ace? Yes, it is barely possible with an extreme two-suiter like x A-J-10-x-x x Q-10-9-8-x-x. Therefore, the consensus was correct to use Blackwood before taking the plunge. If partner answers 5 (one ace), you can bid 5 as a relay to 5 NT. Perfect! Partner won’t like it with my example, but to quote the late Billy Welu (hall-of-fame 10-pin bowler), “Trust is a must, or your game is a bust.”
Other choices only muddle the issue. Bids of 4 , 4 , 4 and 5 NT are clearly forcing; but what’s the purpose? You can always bid 6 NT, of course; but at best you deprive yourself of the chance to check for aces, and at worst you invite disaster by entering unfamiliar territory.
I was surprised by the many votes for 3 NT. It’s hard to believe that 20 percent overlooked such an obvious slam, so I’m sure that some of these bidders misread the auction as an opponent bidding 3 . (This was evident by some of the comments.) Sorry, but just like at the bridge table, it doesn’t matter why you make a wrong bid — you still pay the price. Take 1 point for attendance.
It just occurred to me that the problems this month have an anti-Hamman’s Rule theme. In each case where 3 NT was an option (Problems 2, 4, 5 and 6), it scored last or next to last. Of course, the 3 NT bids are not really “options” by Hamman’s definition but more like fodder for the masses.
Speaking of Hamman, this was not his most memorable tournament:
| USA vs Brazil | 6 A 9 8 7 3 A 10 9 4 Q 10 9
| |
| Q 9 7 4 J 2 J 5 8 7 6 5 3
|  | A 10 8 5 3 2 10 5 4 8 7 6 4
|
| E-W Vul | K J K Q 6 K Q 3 2 A K J 2 | |
| Cintra WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Hamman North Pass 3 5
| Branco East 2 Pass Pass | Wolff South Dbl 4 7
| 7 South Down 2 -100 |
Even the best have accidents. Wolff apparently assumed Hamman’s second cue-bid showed a void (e.g., — A-x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x-x-x) and jumped to the ugly grand. Besides being off an ace, clubs was the worst partnership fit, and the bad trump break only added insult to injury. Down two. Could this be a case of too many cue-bids?
The above is a little bonus coverage from the U.S.-Brazil semifinal — Hamman and Wolff will thank me not — because the opening weak two-bid made a better problem scenario. The finalists had this encounter:
| France vs Poland | 6 A 9 8 7 3 A 10 9 4 Q 10 9
| |
| Q 9 7 4 J 2 J 5 8 7 6 5 3
| | A 10 8 5 3 2 10 5 4 8 7 6 4
|
| E-W Vul | K J K Q 6 K Q 3 2 A K J 2 | |
| Macieszczak WEST Pass 2 Pass | Lebel North Pass 3 6
| Polec East 1 Pass All Pass | Chemla South Dbl 5 NT | 6 North Made 6 +920 |
| Mari WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Frenkiel North Pass 2 3 5
| Perron East Pass Pass Pass Pass | Wilkosz South 2 2 NT 4 NT 6 NT | 6 NT South Made 6 +990 Poland +2 IMPs |
Polec apparently thought the East hand was too good for a weak two and opened one spade. Whether this was a psych or just “light” by their standards is unclear, but it makes me wonder if anybody looked at the vulnerability back then. This detoured the French into an inferior diamond slam — not only by the lower trick score but also in danger of failing.*
*Six diamonds might go down with a ruff or a bad trump break. Note that 6 NT is 100 percent after a spade lead. Declarer should test hearts first; then if not 3-2, cash two diamonds so as to finesse against the player short in hearts. Either diamonds will run, or the player guarding both red suits will be squeezed (or strip-squeezed if East ducked the opening spade lead).
At the other table, Perron showed a little respect for the vulnerability and passed. Congratulations! This left Wilkosz and Frenkiel to their own devices, and 6 NT was easily reached. Both slams came home, so that meant 2 IMPs to Poland.
Comments for 4 NTDennis Dawson: [Blackwood] on the way to 6 NT.
Ted Ying: Hopefully, this is Blackwood. … Since partner has at most about 11 points, a grand slam isn’t a problem; I just need to know if we are off two aces. If so, I’ll settle for 5 NT (by bidding 5 ); and if not, I’ll bid 6 NT.
Sid Ismail: Isn’t our system beautiful?
Peter Haglich: If partner has enough for a game force opposite a minimum takeout double, then we have enough for slam. It probably doesn’t hurt to look for aces first.
Dave Maeer: A bit of idle curiosity about aces. If partner has two aces, I will sign off in 6 NT; if he doesn’t, I expect 5 will give the message to sign off in 5 NT (if only through confusion).
Richard Higgins: We have a minor fit, but I will make sure we’re not off two aces. If we are, I’ll have to accept that minor as game.
Jinzhou Loo: I hope this is Blackwood, as it all depends on the number of aces partner has.
Gabriel Dumitrasciuc: Blinded by my treasure, I am tempted to bid 6 NT; but I need [two aces] from partner…
Ciaran Coyne: We should have the tricks somewhere; do we have the aces? Strange there is no spade raise; East may have opened on a poor seven-card suit at this vulnerability, which would explain West’s silence and partner’s enthusiasm. …
Geoff Croes: Blackwood. I am only interested in partner’s number of aces for the final contract.
Paul Huggins: Partner has surprised me by showing a strong hand (but less than an opening hand) opposite my monster hand. Two aces could be all we need to make 6 NT, so let’s check on them with Blackwood.
Richard Stein: This could add up to a slam. Whether 4 NT is quantitative or Blackwood, I’m happy with whatever it means.
Charlotte Vine: With my extra strength and a partner wishing to play in game, I only need to know the number of aces, expecting to play in notrump.
Ansar Burney: We are on our way to slam, most likely in the notrump zone.
Ron Zucker: … Three spades was just a forcing noise. If it includes two aces, 6 NT should be a good contract. Alternatively, if partner takes 4 NT as natural, that’s OK, too, since I have a spade stopper.
Scott Stearns: Just checking on aces till I bid 6 NT. A 4 cue-bid would sound like a void.
Bill Michell: Partner’s bid is unassuming and strong. Six notrump looks a good prospect; but how many aces does partner have? If the answer is only one, I need a way to bail out short of slam — fortunately, a bid of 5 will be available to request partner revert to 5 NT…
Karen Walker: It’s hard to construct a one-ace hand that would induce a passed-hand partner to force to game, but trotting out “just-checking Blackwood” offers a little insurance if he stretched with something like x-x J-10-x A-J-10-x-x-x Q-x. I suppose partner would interpret 5 NT as pick-a-slam, but assuming East has the A (especially at this vulnerability), there’s no benefit in playing 6 or 6 instead of 6 NT.
Steve Boughey: Partner has been successful in getting my attention! Onwards and upwards it is, via Blackwood; 6 NT if partner has two aces. I suppose it’s possible we’re missing two aces (give partner Q-x-x A-J-x J-x-x-x Q-x-x) in which case I’ll bail out in 5 NT by bidding 5 over his 5 response. …
Kent Feiler: According to your Bidding Guide, this seems to be regular Blackwood. How did that happen? We seem to have just the right convention for the job.
Belva Quattrin: By cue-bidding partner has shown a good hand, and mine is super. I will ask for aces and look for 6 NT.
Kjetil Hildal: Three spades ask for a stopper, so partner probably has…9-11 points… In that case, slam looks to be on; so I’ll check for aces and bid 6 NT opposite two…
Ken Dalley: Partner should have two aces; but if he bids 5 (one ace) I’ll pass and pray. …
Comments for 6 NTGeorge Klemic: Does partner have a maximum passed hand looking for a stopper? Sounds like a point-count slam. Five notrump is good too, which would lead to six of a minor, but I don’t want partner to think we belong at the seven level.
Anthony Golding: I’ll give partner credit for two aces and the Q for his bid, and East one ace for his. … I doubt six of a minor will be much better than 6 NT, and could be worse.
Bill Huepenbecker: Partner has to have the red aces for the cue-bid (and something else useful I would think), so I bid what I think I can make.
David Davies: Six of a minor may be beaten by a bad trump break or a ruff; 6 NT is almost certain to have a good play.
John Kruiniger: Four spades to get partner to bid a minor might be nice, but I don’t want East on lead.
Tibor Roberts: How far would East step out red-on-white in third seat? Would he bid 2 with a queen-high suit and two red jacks? I have to give him the A (or possibly one of the others) plus a jack or queen more. Partner has to have everything else to justify forcing to game, so 6 NT is exactly what should make. Why mess around?
Micha Keijzers: I’m bidding what I think I can make. …
Samuel Rozenberg: Opponents shouldn’t have two aces, and partner should have at least 10 HCP to cue-bid 3 .
Don Lussky: Partner’s 3 cue-bid as a passed hand should show something like x-x-x A-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x.
Manuel Paulo: Partner should have two aces and some quacks. Though I can’t count 12 tricks, I wish to play 6 NT.
Richard Cornett: Partner should have two aces and length in one or both minors.
Philip Smith: It doesn’t look like this hand will play better in a suit contract than notrump (there might even be a first-round ruff in East’s hand) — and bidding 6 NT out of nowhere has so much more panache than bidding a load of stuff first. :)
Marcos Paiva: Hard one! If East has a good spade suit for his vulnerable opening, partner probably has the two side aces for his force to game. …
James Hudson: I won’t ask for aces because partner should have exactly two for his bidding…
Kieran Dyke: Can partner have much less than two red aces and the Q? Playing 6 down one opposite x-x A-x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x on a bad diamond break isn’t my idea of fun. …
Olivier La Spada: Two aces aren’t missing. To play in a minor is too dangerous without the A.
Jim Grant: I can’t see partner having less than a 10-count… Do you want me to be clever with this one? …
Rik ter Veen: If East has A-Q, there are 12 HCP left. With 10 of those in partner’s hand, 6 NT is likely to make.
Frans Buijsen: … It’s almost unthinkable that partner has less than two aces, and even is he has all three (not so likely) we don’t have 13 tricks yet.
Alex Perlin: How can a passed hand force me to game? Since partner has already lost the postmortem, it is safe to jump to slam. Partner should feel free to raise to seven — if he finds he has overlooked another ace, that is.
Rosalind Hengeveld: For 3 , partner can hardly have less than two aces and probably the Q. That’s 11 tricks I can see; the 12th may have to come from a 3-3 red-suit break or some sort of squeeze. Hence, this mild slam try. :)
Jean-Christophe Clement: I can’t see how North could have less than two aces. With the K behind East, this seems a good bet.
Eric Goff: I would like to bid 4 , but as I remember from reading: Once you have the high-card points for slam, the right strain is less important.
Robert Eachus: There may be a better chance of finding a 12th trick in a minor-suit slam, but it is also possible that spades are 6=2=1=4 and we will face a second-round ruff. There is another subtle advantage to 6 NT: West with a holding like x x-x-x-x 10-x-x-x Q-10-x-x might figure I am ready for a spade [and lead a club] hoping East has the A and K.
Thijs Veugen: Partner has a balanced 10-11 count.
Comments for 4 Mark Raphaelson: Partner is asking for my best suit; but if I tell him, he will have no idea of my added strength. I also would still like partner to pick the suit.
Josh Sinnett: Let’s cue-bid it back to partner. This hand should be played by partner, since if we end up in a suit and West happens to have a stiff spade, East has to be somewhat clairvoyant to find it.
Jonathan Jacobs: Partner’s bid is very strong for a passed hand! Slam is likely, but the denomination…is uncertain. I’ll give partner the good news and see if he’ll bid a minor.
Gerard Versluis: Strong hand; asks for a natural bid.
Daniel Miller: Partner has asked me to clarify; 3 NT would show the stopper but, alas, likely end the auction. I am over the preemptor, so this [should] play well in…slam.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: What do these two cue-bids show? Why didn’t partner jump to 4 ? Could he have a 10-11 count with a four- or five-card minor? … By going beyond 4 , I’m suggesting we should play in a minor (or I know where to play). …
David Colbert: Partner must have two aces. I’ll raise his minor to six.
Bruce Scott: Wow. … My guess is that partner has a two-suited hand with hearts and a minor that he thought was just shy of an opener. There are 12 points outside of spades, and partner should have most of them. I’m going to raise to slam in the suit partner bids next.
Imre Csiszar: Six notrump appears a good contract, but a little investigation might find a better one. For example, if partner has 1=4=4=4 distribution with both red aces and the Q as expected, then 6 looks safer; and it will be reached if partner bids 5 .
Keith Balcombe: Two can play the cue-bidding game.
Neelotpal Sahai: Since I don’t have all the necessary information to make the decision, I will pass the buck to partner. This…probably gets only minor suits in the picture.
John R. Mayne: I think I want to play this in six of a minor, so I’d like partner to choose. …
Stu Goodgold: No sense jamming the auction more than necessary. I’ll find out what partner has on the way to slam.
Murat Azizoglu: Partner seems to have the minors and a game-forcing hand opposite a minimum takeout double. My bid hopefully will say: I have both minors and a big hand; you pick the suit. I’ll then raise his suit to six.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It is too risky to bid a minor at the four level and too timid to bid game directly. … This should be a slam try with at least two places to play.
Peg Kaplan: Partner is a passed hand and has enough to cue-bid? And I have this big of a hand? How strange. … Three notrump is not nearly enough; and 6 NT may be the wrong strain. Give partner something like — J-x A-J-x-x-x-x Q-x-x-x-x and we have a slam, but assuredly not in notrump. …
Andrew de Sosa: Slam is too likely to sign off in 3 NT. Four spades should show a control and slam interest. If partner can cue-bid ‘em, so can I!
Francesco Badolato: Showing the minors and a strong hand. If partner has both red aces and the Q, [we have a slam].
Mark Florencz: I can’t imagine a hand that requires an initial pass and an awkward 3 cue-bid now. It might be that partner has a long minor and is [seeking a spade stopper for 3 NT]. Four spades says I can support either minor and have much more than a normal takeout double. …
Daniel Korbel: I can hardly see how partner can have less than two red aces for his 3 call, so a minor-suit slam (in a 4-4 or 4-5 fit) rates to be a good contract.
Zbych Bednarek: Asking for a minor, then I will raise to six.
Nigel Guthrie: The Walrus would be proud of me.
Chris Vinall: Slam in whichever minor partner chooses.
Comments for 4 John Reardon: Although partner has passed, he has forced to game. A suit [slam] may well be preferable to notrump, so I am prepared to bid up the line. Partner is certain to be two- or three-suited, so we are guaranteed a fit.
Gerald Murphy: Based on partner’s cue-bid, this should be playable in at least a small slam; but where? … If partner next bids 4 , I will bid 4 NT to check for aces. …
Michael Roche: Let’s see what happens next. If partner bids diamonds, I’m in good shape with [Blackwood]. Over 4 , I’ll have to think about playing 6 NT. …
Chris Willenken: I assume that the cue-bid promises a rebid below game, even as a passed hand; so why not go slow?
Neil Morgenstern: I don’t know the strain yet, and I want to see what partner bids next.
Dale Rudrum: Although partner is [almost] certain to have two aces, 6 NT may be too high. Bidding 5 NT may help sometimes, but partner will usually need some information first to be able to evaluate his hand. …
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
Problem 6
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 3 1
| NORTH Pass Pass | East 1 Pass | South ? ? | A 10 7 Q J 8 5 — A K J 10 7 5
|
| 1. weak | ||||
| Two Calls | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| D. Double then 4 | 10 | 234 | 23 |
| B. Double then Double | 9 | 219 | 21 |
| A. Double then Pass | 8 | 106 | 10 |
| F. 2 then Double | 7 | 227 | 22 |
| E. 2 then Pass | 6 | 165 | 16 |
| H. 2 then 4 | 5 | 51 | 5 |
| C. Double then 3 NT | 2 | 15 | 1 |
| G. 2 then 3 NT | 1 | 19 | 2 |
This two-parter turned out to be a fine problem, as the most popular choice drew only 23 percent, which is a record low. As usual, my scoring policy is to give primary weight to the first part*, so the doublers win, 55-to-45 percent. Hence, Choice A is ranked ahead of the more popular Choices E and F.
*Two-part problems are intended to emulate what you would do at the table. Your first call should be decided without knowledge of the subsequent bidding. Based on comments received, the great majority understood this. Now, my son Rich would reason, “Well, since West is going to bid 3 …”
Why not promote Choice C as well? Sorry, this is planet Earth. We’ve all bid notrump occasionally with an imaginary stopper, but extending it to a void seems sick. Would partner ever believe any of your bids in the future? The 3 NT bidders will have to share my recovery ward — in the basement — no matter what they did first.
In my judgment this hand falls right on the cusp between overcalling and doubling.* I prefer to overcall but have no strong feelings about it; either action could work out better on any given deal. In the actual case, I would bid 2 planning to make further waves; but when West unexpectedly jumps in my side suit, I’d go quietly (Choice E). A plus score seems almost certain against 3 (maybe even 200 or 300), and further action is likely to send us minus.
*In my teaching, I recommend 19 total points as the requirement for a hand too strong to overcall. This hand has 15 HCP, 3 for the void, and 1 extra point per my aces-and-tens rule = 19 points. Therefore, I would teach to double; but as any expert knows, point count is a guide not a mandate. Here, the danger of missing a game by overcalling 2 is remote, and showing your suit first will usually leave you better placed later.
It is interesting to compare the votes for Choices A and E, which support my view as well. If you’re going to sell out to 3 , it is more comfortable after bidding your suit. Partner might have a huge club fit, e.g., x-x-x — J-x-x-x-x Q-x-x-x-x, with which he would pass after a double but come to life after 2 . Opposite this hand, 5 makes (maybe 6 ) and so does 3 (maybe 4 ).
This deal spelled trouble in River City:
| Poland vs USA | K 4 3 6 J 8 7 6 5 3 Q 8 4
| |
| 9 5 2 A K 10 9 4 3 2 2 9 3
| | Q J 8 6 7 A K Q 10 9 4 6 2
|
| E-W Vul | A 10 7 Q J 8 5 — A K J 10 7 5 | |
| Goldman West 3 Pass Dbl | Wilkosz NORTH Pass Pass 5 All Pass | Soloway East 1 Pass Pass | Frenkiel South Dbl 4 Pass | 5 × South Made 5 +550 |
| Macieszczak West 3
| NORTH Pass Pass | Polec East 1 Pass | South Dbl Pass | 3 West Down 2 -200 Poland +8 IMPs |
The same problem arose at each table after both Souths elected to double. At the first table, Frenkiel chose the aggressive 4 bid. Nice catch! Wilkosz raised to game, and Goldman sensed they were speeding and doubled. After the K lead, Goldman led his stiff diamond, ruffed; then the Q was led, ducked (spade pitch), which Soloway ruffed and returned his last trump. Frenkiel was now able to ruff his remaining hearts then squeeze Soloway in diamonds and spades.* Making five; plus 550.
*Five clubs can be beaten if West shifts to a spade at trick two, but this is super-human with a stiff in partner’s suit.
At the second table, the records I have do not show the North-South pair, but it was two of Malcolm Brachman, Mike Passell, Billy Eisenberg and Eddie Kantar (teammates of Goldman-Soloway). Whoever was South, quite reasonably, chose to sell out. Three hearts was set two tricks for 200, which meant 8 IMPs to Poland for their gutsy bid.
It is interesting to note that a 2 overcall would have worked better since North has just enough to compete to 4 over 3 , then South will bid game. This assumes, of course, that the defense is terrestrial and 5 makes.
Comments for D. Double then 4 Nicoleta Giura: I hate to double with a void; but hey, I know West is going to bid. :)
Adam Saroyan: Hoping for a safe landing and taking a piece of 4 if I get the chance.
Mark Raphaelson: I’m definitely too strong for 2 the first time and refuse to sell out to 3 . Three notrump is cute but would require partner to have a double stopper in diamonds.
Bill Huepenbecker: I think this hand has double-and-bid strength. Partner has to have something.
Gerald Murphy: … A double of 3 is too dangerous as it may make… Partner can convert to spades with a reasonable five-card holding there.
Wayne Burrows: But now I wish I had bid 2 first (then I would pass).
John Kruiniger: Another tough one, but I have to make this bid; then I’m done.
Dirk Enthoven: Inasmuch as West and I share the hearts, give or take one or two, double-then-pass or double-then-double with me under the bidder and partner silent seems unattractive — yielding [probably] only four tricks. So I bring in the minor. If partner takes up the cudgel, we may have a crossruff for 5 …
Jonathan Jacobs: Two clubs is an underbid on such a good hand, so I must start with a double, intending to bid clubs later… The subsequent preempt shows a potential drawback of this plan, but I will still bid 4 , showing the power of the hand.
Bill Cubley: Laissez faire le bon temps roulez. Let’s hope our offense scores better than 3 down one.
Tibor Roberts: Double is clearly right to start; but now there is an inference that partner lacks long spades, and that East doesn’t have a super hand. Time to show my suit; I can’t just pass when 6 is still within the realm of possibilities.
Ansar Burney: I have a cannon, and it’s time to use it to our best advantage.
Ed Barnes: … I’m religiously opposed to doubling for takeout with a void, but this strength justifies sacrilege. Doubling 3 would show something akin to a strong balanced hand, and 3 NT is too frisky for me.
Chris Maclauchlan: If I had bid 2 , I would double 3 . But after my takeout double, I’d expect West at these colors to have either A-K (which he normally shouldn’t have for a weak jump shift) or, more likely, an eighth heart.
Belva Quattrin: Since double would still be takeout after all actions, I will try for a game or slam in clubs.
Paul Gans: Just bidding my hand. I figure to do no worse here than in defending 3 .
Comments for B. Double then DoubleGeorge Klemic: With slightly weaker majors, 2 intending to double diamonds would be my plan; but I might find a great [major fit by doubling]. On the actual auction, I have five probable defensive tricks, and partner might contribute something too.
Robin Zigmond: This [may] get us to a playable game, even in a potential 4-3 spade fit. It also allows partner to bid 3 NT with a diamond stopper (he knows from my initial double that I’m not worried about hearts).
Josh Sinnett: I can’t start with 2 with this strength and distribution; what’s partner supposed to do with K-x-x K-10-x-x-x x-x-x-x x? I’m not sure if my second double is penalty or takeout, but I can bid 4 over partner’s 3 without too much discomfort…
Jan de Kleijn: My second double should be penalty. Five clubs is far away; East might hold a very strong hand.
Karel de Raeymaeker: Double is surely right the first time. Is a second double takeout again? I’d say optional. This allows partner to bid 3 NT with a diamond stopper, pass for penalty or bid 3 …
Daniel Miller: My hand is identical to when I doubled 1 , so the second double is for penalty. I prefer the initial double, as the hand is too good to bid 2 , and it [might locate a major-suit fit quickly].
Samuel Rozenberg: Partner should know to take it out with [mostly] black colors.
Philip Smith: Welcome to the land of misfits. As it’s hard to imagine East with [more than one heart]…, I can’t see 3 making all that many tricks. I’d double on the first round to get the majors in the picture.
Daniel Testa: I think the hand is about a queen too strong for a 2 overcall. With 4-3 in the majors, a takeout double seems right. Defending against 3 doubled may be right, but the opponents may run to diamonds or partner may pull.
Murat Azizoglu: Tough problem. Pass might be right on the second round, but it sounds too passive to me. My double gives partner the option to bid spades, clubs or defend. We should be OK in all these cases.
Neil Morgenstern: The plan when I originally double is to come in with a free bid in clubs later if partner doesn’t bid a major. Following the 3 bid, my second double is surely penalty. …
Jess Cohen: I have a good hand, nothing in diamonds, tolerance for one major and decent support for the other, so I double on the first round. My second-round double shows a [stronger] hand and suggests that defending might be a good idea; it puts the burden on partner. Over 3 by partner, I will bid 4 . …
Dale Rudrum: I double the first round because I like my 4-3 in the majors. On the second round I’m sorry I did so, because 4 is [an overbid]; 3 NT is a joke; pass is unsatisfying; and double may easily lead to the wrong contract — still, it is the lesser evil.
Chris Vinall: Double first is clear-cut; after that, things get ugly. It’s just possible 3 could make, but at the colors I’m going to try and extract a penalty. If partner takes it out to 3 , I will bid 4 .
Comments for A. Double then PassBill Powell: A bit strong for 2 initially but not quite enough to act again now.
Anthony Golding: I double with the intention of bidding clubs if partner doesn’t show hearts. When partner can’t act over 3 , I’ll try and take the money — if available.
John Reardon: In hindsight I wish I had overcalled 2 because I would now double. I must be honest, however, and admit that I would have doubled; now I am fixed.
Richard Higgins: Get a plus. This sounds like a misfit; partner must have diamonds.
Jugoslav Dujic: The initial double is more flexible than 2 . After that, am I supposed to say something when they are vulnerable? I’ll take my plus.
Micha Keijzers: I would like to bid a Raptor 1 NT then whack 3 , showing clubs and hearts; but I understand I can’t do that. Two clubs may shut out one or both majors, so I double first. …
Nikolay Demirev: The initial double has to fare better generally. How weak is 3 at unfavorable vulnerability? A-K-10-9-x-x-x? West has tried to guess once, so I’m not going to stick out my neck with a counter-guess (double or 4 ). Moreover, partner might have done something at favorable vulnerability with five spades, and he is unlikely to hold 4+ clubs.
Bob Boudreau: I would always double with this hand, even with a void, in order to have a chance to play hearts or spades. Pass allows me to play in my second best suit, and they are red.
Michael Dimich: Vulnerable, East and West have positioned themselves to give me a plus. Who am I to deny them?
Ted Morris: Bawk, bawk, bawk (sound of a chicken). The opponents are red-vs-white, so West presumably has not gone insane. This means we don’t rate to have a game, and a misfit could quite easily be in the cards — although I suppose that’s a reference to Tarot cards.
Steve Boughey: I can’t have it both ways. I’d love a double to morph from takeout to penalty, but I’m afraid it would still be takeout (of 3 ); and if partner shoots 4 on a four-card suit, we could be in trouble. (I suspect the other player with four spades at this table is my friend East.) No, I think East did not want to hear 3 , so I’m not going to be the one to disturb it. One good thing: Opponents are red vs. green, so tricks will be coming in 100s. I sincerely hope the 3 NT bidders get a diamond lead and run into A-K-Q-10-x-x with East. :)
Florentin Axinte: A direct 2 facing a passed hand could be weaker, so I must start with a double; but after the bold 3 bid, I must resign.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Double first was to find the best contract straightaway. With East-West vulnerable and partner silent, pass seems a reasonable choice now.
Kaz Yamada: I’m sure that it’s better to start by double with a 6-4-3-0 hand. Still, I will pass against 3 according to the Law (I would bid 3 if I could).
Cheuk Hin Leung: The first double because I hold a good hand with good major support. … There is nothing to bid now except 4 , but it is safer to defend 3 (possibly down) because West should not have a very bad hand vulnerable.
Eric Goff: Two clubs over 1 can be weaker than normal because of its obstructive value, so I choose the preliminary double. This ends the auction since I feel 3 is my best shot at a plus score.
Comments for F. 2 then DoubleDave Maeer: The auction has taken an awkward turn, however, I would never consider anything other than a 2 overcall. After the double, I will follow up 3 with 4 , which will allow partner to try 4 with a decent suit.
Gerardo Malazdrewicz: Maybe partner can bid 3 NT; I can’t.
Bogdan Vulcan: … I bid 2 first since 55 percent of the hand’s values are in clubs…
Let’s see… In Vulcan math, 8/15 must be 55 percent. On Earth it’s about 53 percent. Close enough!
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Two clubs was maybe an underbid; but to double with a good six-card minor and a mediocre holding in the majors — not to mention the diamond void — does not feel right. OK, neither does 2 (I usually have a lot less when I bid this), but the dear opponents gave me another chance. This time I double…to indicate a very solid overcall. … Another problem: What am I going to do over 3 ? Well, in that case 3 NT looks right, as partner very likely has a diamond stopper.
Paul Huggins: This hand is right on the boundary between a double-then-bid and a bid-then-double type hand. At the risk of being pessimistic, I prefer 2 then double, as this describes my hand better. Also, if I doubled first, partner might take me to have a much stronger hand…
Richard Stein: I bid the long suit first because of the relative black-suit holdings. …
Manuel Paulo: I bid my long suit, then I make the most flexible call; partner is asked to pass with [defensive] values or to bid with a [club fit or 5+ spades].
Marcos Paiva: The first bid is clear to me; I don’t like to hide such a strong suit.
Neelotpal Sahai: Overcalling 2 on the first round was straightforward. On the second round, 3 NT was not in contention, but the decision among the remainder was tough. I will double to show additional strength. Even if partner bids spades, it is OK because short spade hand will be ruffing diamonds.
Scott Stearns: I like to start with 2 on these type of hands. I’d feel much better about reopening over 3 , but I’m not willing to sell out.
Karen Walker: There’s no reason to hide the great club suit with a first-round takeout double. The bid-then-double auction shows primary clubs and moderate support for the unbid suit(s).
Tim DeLaney: Overcall first then double better describes my strength, makes it easier on partner if we defend (especially if partner is on lead), which gives us a better chance of exacting a penalty at the three or four level.
Kent Feiler: Regarding the first call, double is just wrong with hands like this. Regarding the second call, spades could be our best spot; so that eliminates pass, 3 NT, and 4 . (Although I confess a secret admiration for 3 NT.)
Gerben Dirksen: I need more to double first. Three notrump with a void in a bid suit seems like a bad idea; 4 is too unilateral; pass is [too conservative].
Andrew de Sosa: I’ve got clubs and spades, as well as good defense should partner by some miracle leave it in.
Comments for E. 2 then PassJyri Tamminen: When I bid 2 , I was planning to double a diamond raise. Now at this vulnerability, I don’t need to try for an unlikely game and risk going [minus]. … My guess is that partner is 4=2=5=2, 4=1=6=2 or 4=1=5=3.
Jinzhou Loo: Get the lead right first, which is most important for clubs since a diamond barrage is likely. A vulnerable 3 bid cannot be that bad.
Gareth Birdsall: It’s hugely better to bid 2 than double on this type of hand, expecting to make a takeout double of diamonds next. Now that West has bid 3 , however, my double should be takeout of hearts; so I guess I have to pass.
Ciaran Coyne: At the table my plan would be 2 then a takeout double of the expected diamond raise… What to do when 3 rolls around? Pass. I cannot see us making much unless partner has a club fit or a good spade suit; I expect he has mostly diamond values, and no suit contract will play well for us.
Leonard Helfgott: Doubling with a void and strong six-bagger is losing bridge. Once opponents bid my side suit at the three level and partner is silent, it’s time to defend.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Passing seems pusillanimous; but having bid 2 the first time, I can pass with a fair degree of certainty that this is not our hand. Partner’s inaction has told me a lot. … (If I had doubled first, I would want to bid 4 now.)
David Colbert: I stay fixed if partner has spades and values. Otherwise, I’ll get a plus here.
Len Vishnevsky: Two clubs is way better than double, and now it must be right to defend. Is West nuts? …
Mark LaForge: What a great problem. I will quietly take my plus 100 or 200 and be glad that the vulnerability gives me some protection. I’m glad I didn’t have this problem at the table. I would still be thinking about it. :)
James Hudson: Two clubs is more descriptive than double; then pass is the only sensible call. I’m guessing that East has a powerful hand with no hearts.
Imre Csiszar: I hate to underbid, but 3 vulnerable will likely go down (and might go down close to the value of our game in the unlikely case we have one). …
Chris Willenken: If I double 1 and West raises preemptively to 3 , I am effectively committed to a second double, as 4 would not imply any major-suit length… It seems better on overall strength and on showing clubs to bid 2 first…
Albert Ohana: Maybe we have a game in clubs or spades, but preempts are made to preempt.
David Harari: By far the most difficult one. Unfortunately, a double of 3 is takeout. At this vulnerability, I [expect] partner to have a dog.
Kieran Dyke: If we get robbed, we get robbed. Partner had a few chances to act.
John R. Mayne: Much as I think the field will double first, I hate it with the void and great clubs. I expected to be able to double diamonds next and get all my suits in. Oh, well; now I’m screwed. Partner has serious shortness in hearts but couldn’t make a move? Yikes. I’m taking my plus in 100s. Double might lead to playing a 4-3 spade fit or a 6-2 club fit, and we have a lot of misplaced red cards. My guess is this answer gets about 15 percent of the vote. …
Stu Goodgold: … We are not going to set this a bundle, but I could easily go down at 4 . I hope to go positive…
Charles Leong: I choose to go peacefully. … It’s likely that East has [extra strength] but not enough outside winners to make 4 a good proposition. Partner’s likely shape is 4=1=5=3.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: A first-round double would get all three suits into the picture, but invariably leads to overstating the hand later. A second-round double would be justified only if the majors were reversed.
Rosalind Hengeveld: After 2 , now that West ran into my second best suit, I don’t feel so bad passing despite having about an ace more than promised. After doubling first, I’d worry much more about never having shown the great clubs.
Peg Kaplan: … Had West been decent enough to make some other bid, I far prefer the plan of bidding 2 , then doubling a call like 3 or 2 , or even 1 NT. But this? Now that West has bid 3 , I am at a loss what to do. Three notrump seems like a wild shot, and double here is not penalty. So I simply pass and hope we go plus, and more plus than the other table.
Bill Daly: Double might be the popular choice, but in practice I would bid 2 . I don’t see where to go next after West has stolen my second suit, so I just give up.
Daniel Korbel: Being from Canada, my two-level overcalls are generally quite sound. My heart length suggests that partner will not have [any useful] values.
Nigel Guthrie: The only alternative is to double — simultaneously closing my hand…and entering the contract on my scorecard. :)
David Wetzel: First I bid my best suit, then I watch them play in my second-best suit. Isn’t double takeout and therefore sick?
Dale Freeman: I do not consider this hand strong enough to double then bid clubs. Also, doubling first may lose my clubs if the opponents have a big diamond fit. Therefore, I overcall with the intention of doubling their diamond bid later. When West bids 3 vul-vs-not and partner cannot support clubs, I give up.
Roger Morton: Very tough! Game is unlikely, so let’s take the money in 3 . Double now would just show a good hand, and partner probably will take it out.
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 560), and on each problem only for calls awarded 6 or higher. Over 65 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 New Orleans, 25 years ago. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Well, the party is winding down, and the orchestra is about to call it a night. As you stagger back to your hotel from Bourbon Street, you ponder over the history of this great city. To wit:
Charles Blair: Today is the anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. No LP, no New Orleans!
I checked this, and the Louisiana Purchase was signed on April 30, 1803. Indeed, this was exactly 200 years from the date Charles sent his answers. (My poll opened on May 1 GMT, but it was April 30 in the U.S. when Charles entered.)
Bill Cubley: I hope I did better on this poll than the British Army did in 1815 against General Jackson.
Whoa… I thought it was 1814, as I remember the song lyrics, “In 1814 we took at little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip…” Oops, you’re right. I just checked, and the main battle was fought January 8, 1815. I guess the “trip” was the month before. And why does the song say Colonel Jackson when he was promoted to General in 1808? All these years I’ve been tricked!
| Analyses 7Y40 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Let the Good Times Roll |
© 2003 Richard Pavlicek