Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

This Land Is Your Land

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in July 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 revealed only that the location was in the United States, and participants were invited to guess where from the clues.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

Among the wrong guesses were Detroit, Michigan (headquarters of most U.S. car makers); Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; and a few people did not believe my assurance it was in the U.S. and guessed Paris, France (no doubt mistaking the top picture as the Arc de Triomphe).

The familiar song by Woody Guthrie (my title) offered a clue to the location: “This land is your land. This land is my land. From California…” Nope, not there. “…to the New York island.” Bingo!

Yes, we’re back in the Big Apple again; but I had to make the clues more subtle to avoid a dead giveaway. Also, considering the patriotic theme, no place could be more appropriate today than New York City.

At the top is a view of Washington Square Arch, located on the campus of New York University in the Greenwich Village section of Manhattan. Built in 1889 as a 100-year memorial to the presidency of George Washington, the arch has become a symbol of peace and freedom, and especially the freedom of speech to express contrasting viewpoints. The water pictured hardly suggests New York City, but it’s a view of the Hudson River near Bear Mountain, about 40 miles north of the city. The river flows southward into New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean.

What’s the old car, you ask? This was my only clue to the year (other than the total-point scoring which surely suggests old times). The year 1955 marked a major breakthrough for Chevrolet with a powerful V8 engine and a unique design that suggested the look of a fighter-bomber. The ‘55 Chevy became an icon and is one of the most sought-after cars by collectors today. One astute respondent (Stu Goodgold) noticed that the mags (magnesium wheels) are not the originals but a later addition. Well, I think we’ve located one of those collectors.

About 12 people guessed the location, and eight guessed the year; but only three came up with both. Congratulations to Karen Walker, Timothy Liang Kan and David Stewart.

Allen Prohofsky Wins!

This poll had 1083 participants (a new high turnout) from 113 locations, and the average score was 46.21. Congratulations to Allen Prohofsky (US) who was the first to post the winning score. Also scoring 59 were Tamer Cokgor (Turkey) and Arthur Haut (US). No less than 10 players were close behind at 58, and 13 scored 57.

The overall leaderboard changed drastically, as the top six are all different from my last poll. Now leading the pack with a 55.75 average is Lenze Walker (US). Next in line with 55.25 are Manuel Paulo (Portugal), Adam Saroyan (US), Mihai Valcu (Canada), Anthony Golding (UK), and Jason Flinn (US).

Three new countries were added this month, bringing the total to 83 countries that have participated in these polls and contests. Welcome to John MacGregor of Costa Rica (CR), Gautam Mukherji of Oman (OM) and Karol Lohay of Slovakia (SK). Also, a belated welcome to Mauricio Tawil, my only participant from Colombia (CO), who began several months ago.

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.

Hail Britannia! New York City, 1955, marked the only world team championship for Great Britain. This was the fifth occurrence of the Bermuda Bowl, inaugurated in 1950. (The event was not held in 1952, I think due to travel wariness caused by the Korean Conflict, but I can’t confirm this.) The early Bermuda Bowls involved only two teams, one representing North America and one representing Europe.

The form of scoring was total points, probably unheard of by many players today. Total points is a comparison of raw duplicate scores without conversion to IMPs*, although honors count just as in rubber bridge. The strategy is similar to IMPs but with even greater concern for safety in making a contract. Overtricks are virtually insignificant.

*This was about the time when IMP scoring was introduced and gaining popularity. For several years the Bermuda Bowl alternated between total points when held in New York City and IMPs in Europe — or more precisely, EMPs (European Matchpoints) which was a broader scale than present-day IMPs.

Representing Great Britain were (L-R, top row first) Terence Reese, Boris Schapiro, Adam Meredith, Leslie Dodds, Kenneth Konstam and Jordanis Pavlides (might be my long lost uncle who was spelling-challenged). Partnerships varied, although Reese-Schapiro were usually a pair playing old-fashioned Acol; as were Dodds-Konstam playing CAB. Meredith played with all the players, and Pavlides occasionally relieved Dodds or Konstam.

Representing the United States were Lew Mathe, Milton Ellenby, William Rosen, John Moran, Clifford Bishop and Alvin Roth. The Americans played in varying partnerships using standard methods of the time (four-card majors, 16-18 notrumps, strong two-bids) but Roth and partners were more modern with five-card majors and weak twos. And would you believe? No negative doubles, even for Roth.

The match consisted of 224 boards, and Great Britain won by a margin of 5420 points. It is easy to understand the popularity of IMPs, as losing by 5000+ points must be depressing. At least today we can say we lost by only 100 IMPs.

So pull up a chair and match your bidding skills with the world’s best of 1955. Fasten your seat belts! The fireworks are about to begin.

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 1

Total Points		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1	East Dbl	SOUTH 1 ?	A — K 10 4 A 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	489	45
3	8	238	22
4	7	174	16
2	6	114	11
Redouble	3	25	2
3 NT	2	27	2
Pass	1	17	2

Only nine clubs? At first glance this hand doesn’t seem so great, but then you realize that 6 might make opposite as little as the Q and J-7. On the dark side, partner could just as easily have useless high cards in the majors so that 5  has no play. This pretty much summarizes the problem for any freakish hand. There’s no way to describe your pattern or find out what you need to know, so it’s mostly a matter of tactics: Preempt the bidding or walk the dog.

The overwhelming consensus was to jump to 5 , which seems sensible to me. Eleven tricks is probably the most likely result of a club contract, and bidding it directly might prevent successful competition in spades — or stampede a foolish 5  bid, which partner is apt to double. And if partner raises to 6 , that should be right, too. The more I think about 5 , the more I like it.

Other club bids (2 , 3 and 4 ) certainly have tactical merit, as the bidding is unlikely to end there. For example, when you later bid 5  over 4 , it will sound like a deliberate sacrifice and may draw an impulsive double — to the opponents’ regret. I have no strong feelings among them, so they are ranked by the voting.

Anything but a club bid seems pretty weird, but I’ve never had a listed option go unchosen. Those who elected to redouble or pass probably hoped to learn something on the next round of bidding; but it’s hard to imagine what you could learn that would change your mind about bidding clubs next. Indeed, the waiting process is more likely to help the opponents; plus there’s always the danger of playing there. Imagine having to put down this dummy in 1  doubled or redoubled. Ouch. In that regard, redouble is better than pass, as it gives both opponents another call.

And finally, there were no less than 27 desperadoes who bid 3 NT. Could these people have mistaken total points for matchpoints? Is this a case of Hamman’s Rule gone awry? Who knows, but I decided it was better than pass, which just begs for disaster.

Here is the actual deal from 1955:

Great Britain vs USA	Q 5 4 2 Q J 6 2 Q J 7 5 3 —
10 9 7 10 9 8 7 5 4 9 2 K J		K J 8 6 3 A K 3 A 8 6 Q 7
N-S Vul	A — K 10 4 A 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2

Rosen West Pass

Reese North Pass

Mathe East Pass

Schapiro SOUTH 4

4 South Made 5 +150

Meredith West Pass Pass 4

Roth North 1 Pass Dbl

Dodds East Dbl 3 All Pass

Ellenby SOUTH 1 3 3 NT

4 × East Down 3 -500 USA +350

In the second auction, which parallels the problem, Ellenby chose a conservative (or tactical) 3 and followed with a dubious 3 NT. Then he elected to defend when Roth doubled the 4  sacrifice. This collected only 500 (instead of 600) but certainly could have been right, e.g., if clubs were 3-1 or if West had a singleton diamond.

Schapiro’s 4 opening at the first table defies explanation, at least by modern standards. I realize that preempts of old were more substantial than today; but with an outside ace and king? Or maybe it was Reese’s fault for not raising to 5 . In any case, it shut out the opponents for a pittance; or a tuppence?

Comments for 5

Tim Hemphill: I’ll try to keep the opponents from finding the spade fit.

Abel Bojar: Partner doesn’t need much to make this a reasonable contract. With a holding like x-x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x-x x (a very likely minimum) partner is not going to accept invitations of any kind.

Alan Kravetz: Let the opponents guess at the five level.

Hendrik Sharples: I think it makes sense to bid what I think I can make, rather than invite disaster with a masterminding call hoping to control the auction later.

Karen Walker: There’s no standard way to bid freaks like this one, but this sequence is unusual enough to give partner a pretty good idea of my playing strength.

Shelagh Lorimer: Opponents have spades, so let them make the last guess.

Manuel Paulo: I don’t know any clear-cut way to bid a nine-bagger. After partner’s response in my void, I try to avoid taking the last guess.

Richard Higgins: Tell partner which suit is trump. Redouble may get passed out, to my dismay.

Jean-Christophe Clement: I will never let the opponents play at the four level; 5 is reasonable and may be made, even if partner has a weak hand. Moreover, East-West may miss a good fit in spades.

Scott Stearns: Shows an ace better than opening 5 , which is what I have. This suit can play for one loser opposite a void; so if partner raises on A-Q or both aces, I think I can make six. … Three notrump rates to be silly as I make 5  if 3 NT makes; but I go down a whole lot more if it doesn’t.

Nick Doe: I have never had much success in trying to get doubled later (e.g., by passing or bidding 2 ), and 4  sounds far too like a hand that has improved by the 1  response.

David Harari: I have no idea what is best, except that I find pass and redouble insane. I need a very specific hand for 3 NT to be the better contract, so I bid some number of clubs.

Andrew de Sosa: Nine-card suits are trump. This puts maximum pressure on the opponents and doesn’t mislead partner into thinking I might have a heart fit.

Ian Totman: The message being…playing strength in clubs, not HCP.

Paul Thurston: What I know I’m going to bid eventually, so I’ll leave the last guess to the opponents — or partner!

Sandy Barnes: I don’t know if there really is a right answer with this hand. Three clubs misdescribes the honor strength and allows West to bid easily; however, 4  may be closer to the real playing strength than 5 . Three notrump is a wild gamble at best; and 2  is just gross and purposeless.

Stu Goodgold: There are more hands for North that make 5 than make 3 NT.

Gerald Cohen: No idea what I can make; so when in doubt follow Heitner’s first law: “Always preempt as high as possible as often as possible.”

Vlastimil Lev: As high as possible. My second choice would be 4 , giving West the possibility to bid 4 .

Robin Zigmond: The practical choice. I may miss six, but hopefully this will stop the opponents from finding a good sacrifice.

Julius Linde: My first thought was 3 … but as I would bid 5 over 4 , I should bid it now before the opponents have exchanged information.

Denis Pierre: Gambling, but the high level will make it difficult for the opponents to find spades.

Dale Freeman: I think bidding hands like this (and Problems 3 and 6) is usually dependent on the three personalities at the table.

Mark Raphaelson: Science, schmience. Opponents could easily be cold for 4 . I need only the K or two small clubs in partner’s hand for this to make.

John R. Mayne: I would have opened 5 and doubled anything the opponents bid. (I know that’s kind of felonious.) A forcing 4  is going to lead to: 4  Dbl Pass, and a headache; so it’s time for 5  now.

Tze Cheow Sng: The opponents should have a spade fit, so a direct blast to 5 will make it more difficult for them to gauge whether to pass, double or bid 5 .

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: I opened 1 intending to rebid 5 (excepting special circumstances) so, as the bidding is not exceptional, I will proceed as planned. Nine-card suits are always worth rebidding. :) Three notrump would show solid clubs and some outside stoppers.

Jonathan Goldberg: Maybe I can make it; besides, I don’t dare allow the opponents play 4 . Who knows? I don’t really need to worry about this hand, because I will never hold it.

Adam Saroyan: The ninth club sways me to bid game, and the lack of high cards tells me to do it now.

Roger Morton: I don’t need much more than the Q and a reasonable trump break.

Julian Wightwick: I will want to bid this over 4 by the enemy, so I might as well get it off my chest now. If I get lucky with a couple of minor-suit honors opposite, it might easily make. Nine-carders don’t come around often. …

Jos van Kan: This could win in more than one way: Might make (partner holds K bare or A or Q-J); might be down one against a makable 4 ; or might push the opponents into five. Surely, I would not know what to do after 4  4  P P, so I’m giving them the last guess.

Bill Maddock: I’m not sure why I didn’t open 5 originally; but now that partner has responded in my void, I can bid it comfortably.

Frans Buijsen: With East’s double, slam becomes too improbable, so I just bid the practical game. All other options are just looking for trouble.

Connie Delisle: Glad it’s not matchpoints. This describes a hand too good to open 5 .

Phil Clayton: I didn’t open 5 because of my defensive tricks. Going past 3 NT implies a long suit that isn’t solid (else try for 3 NT), and 5  is a pretty good description.

Nicoleta Giura: I’m not often dealt a nine-card suit, and I feel it’s time to make the opponents guess — and I don’t mean about the location of this event. :)

Tysen Streib: No science here; bid what I [probably] can make and keep West out of the auction.

Ron Landgraff: Six clubs is probably on if partner has A and K (or other decent hands with a high diamond) but too risky just to bash. If partner is weak, I must try to steal the hand before the opponents find how many spades they can make. Three notrump is tempting but has two problem suits (plus clubs?) and may not stop a spade bid.

Alex Perlin: I am not interested in hearing how many spades West wants to bid, and partner’s heart bids rate to be equally disgusting. Thanks for giving me a nine-card suit. For once, I can shut them all up.

Gareth Birdsall: The five level belongs to me.

Tom Schlangen: One club is a sad choice. With nine clubs and only one major-suit card, 5 is a much [better] opening. Now we get to play the guessing game at the five level.

Robert Lavin: No clear-cut way to bid this scientifically, so I make the opponents guess as well as me. At least I am in game, which could make.

Barry Rigal: Close my eyes and guess. … I’m sure Al Roth would bid 2 — “If I can get by this round…” — but this player is no Al Roth.

Ralph White: I have one, maybe two tricks on defense, so I credit the opponents with a 4 game and preempt their finding it. I have no way of knowing partner’s strength, but I can’t let West bid [cheaply].

Margalit Ben-Ami: Try to make it [difficult] for E-W to find their spade fit, even if I [may] go down.

Jess Cohen: I fear the opponents own the spade suit. I will always push them to at least 5 , so why give them room? If I bid only 4  and partner bids 4 , would I pass? Nine-card suits should not be in dummy and usually aren’t great on defense. …

Len Vishnevsky: Pass and redouble might lead to hijinks. Two clubs and 3 (maybe 4 ) let West bid easily, even though partner probably has some spades. I guess 5 .

Bruce Scott: Do I need a 10th club to open 5 vulnerable at total points? I’m not making any call that partner might take as nonforcing.

Luis Argerich: Time to prevent the opponents from finding a fit (maybe too late). The void in hearts is discouraging, so a practical 5  may be the best option.

Jim Tully: I’d have to be very unlucky not to make five. Partner should bid six with a big club honor and an ace.

Yavuz Ovacik: Why not? It depends on where the club honors are. … At least I won’t lose two quick tricks at the start.

Hans Holme: I bid just what my hand contains, conveying the picture to partner and putting great pressure on the opponents.

J. Michael Andresen: I like to play jumps to game in competitive auctions as showing lots of shape with poor slam values (often extreme shortness in partner’s suit). With a more flexible hand, I would redouble…

Comments for 3

Aziza Rusconi: Three clubs in West’s hand could be killing, so I would like to hear a little more and preserve bidding space.

Mary Smith: Partner may well have length in both majors, so our hands may not fit optimally. I don’t think the auction will die at 3 ; I plan to bid again.

Kjetil Hildal: Anybody’s guess. Pass, redouble or 3 NT feels silly; 4 [might be confused as a heart fit]; and 5  leaves everybody guessing. In the light of West’s pass, our side may very well have the majority of high cards. Three clubs is a compromise — not game-forcing but a good hand — and there is no way the bidding will die there.

Nikolay Demirev: I don’t expect the auction to die in 3 , and this saves space for slam purposes while [emphasizing] my playing strength. My plan is to continue with 4  if partner bids 3 NT or 3 . I also believe this approach increases my chances to play 5  doubled. :)

John Reardon: There is no way the bidding will end here. Two clubs is too little, and other bids just don’t seem to help.

Dave Maeer: I’d like to see how partner and the opponents feel about things. I’m going to bid at least 5  eventually.

George Klemic: Intending to pull 3 NT to 5 ; but if partner doesn’t have values, I [probably] don’t belong higher. I suspect someone else will bid, and I can bid 5  later, too.

Jeftor Yeo: I’m going to go slow with a possible grand slam opposite as little as A-Q and K; I’ll wait for partner to say more.

Otto Ruthenberg: This won’t be passed out; then I will bid or invite slam later.

Jeff Yutzler: Since transportation may be impossible and my clubs are not sewn up, I’ll stay conservative. Hopefully, partner is clever enough to raise if [appropriate].

Marcelo Massonneau: Redouble is dangerous (might be passed out); 2 shows a minimum; and 3 NT is too conclusive.

Josh Sinnett: Combines the playing strength of my hand with enough preemption [probably] to keep West from bidding; and it doesn’t take us past 3 NT.

Mary Jo Branscomb: I’m trying to be cautiously optimistic here and hoping partner has a club or so.

Comments for 4

David Milton: I am going to give partner a chance to bid 4 .

Ron Zucker: Any answer could be right, so I’m using the process of elimination. Five clubs precludes getting to six when partner holds x-x-x Q-J-10-x-x A-x-x K-x; … 2  and 3  are too weak for a four-loser hand; 3 NT is awfully tempting, but I’m bringing back a number if clubs don’t run; and if I pass or redouble, [partner might be left] to play 1 . Thus, I’m stuck with 4 .

Gillian Paty: This shows long clubs with only four losers and no concern for 3 NT. I’d like my club suit to be more solid, but I have to bid what I’m dealt.

N. Scott Cardell: Partner should know that as little as J-7 or a stiff king is reasonable support; so if he doesn’t bid 5 , I’m probably not making it. … At IMPs, 5  would have more to recommend it; but at total points, [going set] when the opponents don’t have a game is very poor. … A strategic pass has some merit; but partner then has no way to see that something like x-x-x Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x K-7 is golden when I later bid 5  over there voluntary 4 . … Three notrump and redouble are found on the other side of the looking glass.

Steve Boughey: This should give a pretty clear message about the nature of my hand, and I cannot imagine it ever begin passed out. Over the expected 4  from partner or 4  from an opponent, I’ll follow with 5 . Hopefully, this is enough to let partner upgrade a hand with, say, Q-J-x K, and bid 6 ; or give him the information to double their five-level competition if his values are elsewhere…

Eamon Galligan: I would have rolled out 5 at my first bid at this unfavorable vulnerability.

Andrew Moore: This [could be] an extreme misfit; 3 NT does not appeal with the void.

Bill Powell: Hoping to convince partner that the hand belongs in clubs.

Imre Csiszar: A nonconventional 4 tells partner that partscore, game or slam must be played in clubs; he should not rebid his seven-card heart suit unless nearly solid. I am surprised 2  was not an option; it doesn’t look more dangerous than redouble and should make it easier to reach a slam if available.

Really? There’s no doubt that 2 could lead to a slam but you may have to gag partner to play it in clubs.

Guillaume Lafon: Three clubs [should] be stronger in honor points, and 2 is not enough; but I am not sure I would have opened with 1 .

Bill Cubley: I’ll go beyond 3 NT as a club slam try. Redouble, 2 and 3 don’t really say much about the length of my suit; 5  [probably] ends the auction; and pass is bizarre (partner could go down in 1  while I might have 12-13 tricks in clubs).

Yossi Nygate: Lots of clubs; not much else. Why give the opponents room? Five clubs is a bit aggressive.

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 2

Total Points		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass 3	North 2 Pass	East 2 Pass	SOUTH 1 2 ?	A K 7 6 K A Q 9 8 5 K 10 6

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	350	32
4	9	121	11
Double	7	329	30
Pass	6	85	8
3	4	15	1
5	3	152	14
3 NT	1	32	3

How good is this hand? Even without the K, it seems worth one more game try, as partner could have x-x x-x-x K-x-x-x Q-J-x-x. I would bid 4 , which tells partner his dubious club values are working and leads to the excellent 5 . Even opposite lesser club holdings, 5  may have a play.

The consensus took the conservative route, giving up on game and competing to 4 . This would be right if partner held three low spades, leaving an unavoidable spade loser; but it seems odds-against. If you assume a likely nine-card fit for the opponents, partner’s shape should never be 3=3=4=3, as most experts would respond 1 NT even with no stopper in either major; hence, spade shortness is likely.

Many respondents chose to double, although a few thought it was some kind of takeout double. Sigh. People are brainwashed by conventions. This is a penalty double, although cooperative in light of your previous two bids. If you switched your club and heart holdings, double would be fine; but on the actual hand it strikes me as a matchpoint tactic. You may be a favorite to nip East for 200, but the downside (minus 730) is too great for total points or IMPs. You’d have to set 3  four out of five times to show a small profit. No thanks.

It seems like I’m always including 3 NT as an option, if only to appease Hamman’s Rule fanatics; but just as on Problem 1, it’s little more than a wild gamble. There are times to bid 3 NT with a stiff king in the enemy suit (e.g., after 1  1  2  Pass) but this is not one of them. After a heart lead, East will realize immediately that you must be short and win the ace; and even if you’re lucky enough to catch partner with help, one stopper will usually not be enough.

Let’s see what happened in days of yore:

Great Britain vs USA	J 4 10 9 5 4 K J 6 4 3 8 2
9 5 3 2 7 6 3 10 A Q 7 5 3		Q 10 8 A Q J 8 2 7 2 J 9 4
Both Vul	A K 7 6 K A Q 9 8 5 K 10 6

Roth West Pass Pass Dbl

Pavlides North 2 3 4

Bishop East Pass Pass All Pass

Schapiro SOUTH 1 2 4

4 South Made 4 +130

Dodds West Pass 3 Dbl

Mathe North 2 Pass 5

Konstam East 2 Pass All Pass

Moran SOUTH 1 2 4

5 South Down 1 -100 Great Britain +230

The problem arose at the second table, and Moran was right on the mark with 4 . (Note that 5 would be virtually laydown if the A were in East as expected from the overcall.) Perhaps West’s double of 4  should have been a warning, but Mathe took the stab in 5  anyway, which was doomed.

A similar auction occurred at the first table without the 2 overcall, and Pavlides used good judgment to heed the double* and stop in 4 , easily making. Regarding the East hand, I much prefer Bishop’s pass (flat shape and vulnerable) to Konstam’s 2 , so it is disappointing to see the swing go the opposite way.

*Why did Roth double 4 when he would be on lead against the final contract? Was it an impulse? Or some kind of counter-bluff to make Pavlides think he was trying to talk them out of game? Whatever, I can almost picture the shrewd “doctor” in his spy-vs-spy outfit.

In standard American systems today (with five-card majors) the bidding would be entirely different, as North would respond 1 . This would almost surely lead to 3 NT by South — ugh, which is hopeless even after a club lead into the king. And imagine this scenario: East might double 3 NT for a heart lead, then perfect defense nets a cool 1700. Ouch. Maybe this should be a lesson to us that the old ways weren’t so bad after all.

Comments for 4

Tim Hemphill: Too dangerous to try 3 NT. If they bid 4 , I’ll double for penalty.

Alan Kravetz: Partner didn’t respond 1 . Therefore, the opponents have at least nine hearts while we have at least nine diamonds.

Csaba Raduly: Both sides have at least a nine-card fit, and partner might well have clubs on the side since he denied a four-card major.

Andrew de Sosa: This should be plenty. I would try 4 if my K were a small heart and I had K-Q-x. As it is, my hand is more defensive than offensive, but passing seems too deep of a position to take.

Ron Zucker: I tried for game, and partner said no; so 5 would be presumptuous. The Law suggests at least 18 trumps (and my A-K and A-Q make up for the negative adjustment of the K), so I don’t want them playing on the three level. Double is tempting, but 3  could easily be a make.

John Kruiniger: I’m doubling 4 .

David Woulds: Hope I catch partner with some shape.

N. Scott Cardell: I hope partner will bid 5 [over 4 ]; but if not, I am prepared to double. Partner needs at least four diamonds to raise and, according to the Bidding Guide, J-10-x-x is not good enough; so he should have five diamonds or K-x-x-x. Also, the opponents are likely to be distributional… so both 3  and 5  may be making. … Bidding 5  is a close second choice; 3 NT is tempting, but even if partner has something like Q-x, I am likely to be able to run only eight tricks after they set up their hearts. …

Quentin Stephens: Pass is out; double would be interpreted as penalty; and I don’t have heart cover for 3 NT. … Partner did not respond last time, so 4  is [enough]. Partner can convert to 4  or 5  if appropriate.

Dale Freeman: I think I will make 4 or 5 , and the opponents probably 2 or 3 .

Dave Maeer: Unfortunately, I need partner to be declarer in 3 NT. If he has what I need to make 5 , he can bid it if over 4 .

Jonathan Goldberg: What an odd bid. Despite all these high cards, there seem to be too many total trumps to double and too many losers to bid game; but 5  could be the winner. …

George Klemic: An immediate 3 [might] have been better unless partner routinely bypasses spades to raise diamonds. Double now should be flexible, but it just looks wrong even to give partner a hint that I’m comfortable defending.

Bill Maddock: Then double 4 , should the opponents bid it. Either way, we’ll earn a bit.

Frans Buijsen: Unlikely to be more than one down, and I think both 3 and 4 are making.

Jeftor Yeo: The Law is in our favor; and 4 looks likely to go down.

Connie Delisle: …Hopefully, the bidding will draw [partner’s] attention to my heart shortness.

Paulino Correa: It looks reasonable to expect partner to have K and a black queen in a relatively flat hand. Therefore, 4  has a nice chance to succeed; and we may bring them down at 4  (but not necessarily at 3 ). …

Ted Morris: I don’t think the opponents can make 4 , and I may not make 5 ; so I’ll give partner a chance to voice an opinion.

Gerry Wildenberg: Double seems worst as I can’t even be sure of four tricks, much less five; and 3 NT without a stopper is not good either. … I see 4  as avoiding the extremes of optimism and pessimism.

David Morrow: Partner does not have much, so 5 could be dangerous. If the opponents push on to game, I will double for penalty and hope.

Chuck Arthur: I make the straightforward value bid, even though it seems to be against the Law. I might beat 3 , but it is too close to double. I will double 4  if they try that.

Jess Cohen: Partner has a weak hand… Give East x-x A-Q-10-x-x-x x A-x-x-x for his vulnerable two-bid and West Q-x-x-x J-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x for his raise; then partner will have x-x-x x-x K-J-x-x-x J-x-x. Against hearts, we can take two spades, a diamond and a club; so I need to score my singleton K, and declarer may drop it after I opened and reversed. Is East a rabbinical looking fellow? On offense, I will lose a spade, a heart and one or two clubs. I probably won’t get doubled in 4  [which could make] and I might get a chance at 4 . …

Comments for 4

Hendrik Sharples: How light would partner raise? I’ll give him one more chance to get out under game.

Karen Walker: A lot of soft stuff, but this hand seems worth one more “picture bid” to try for game.

Manuel Paulo: Completing the picture of my strong hand. First I bid a five-card minor; then a four-card major, and now a three-card minor. If I also had a two-card suit, I could keep bidding on. :)

Richard Higgins: Three notrump is tempting and might work, but I’ll show my distribution and see if partner thinks we have a partscore, game or slam — though I hate giving opponents all the information.

Anthony Golding: I’d like to double (I play doubles as competitive up to the two level, or three level if opponents have agreed a suit), but I suspect it would be penalty in your system — let alone a system in force when matches were scored by total points! So it’s a choice between going quietly and bidding one more. No contest! Four clubs gives the best picture and could get us to game if partner has the right hand.

Jonathan Steinberg: Completes the description of my hand and lets partner make the final decision.

Stephen McDevitt: The opponents will have 10 trumps here more often than not, and partner rates to be short in spades (having passed 3 ); so I’ll try one more forward bid with 4 .

Paul Thurston: One more attempt to check partner’s pulse.

Sandy Barnes: Begging partner to bid game, but a slight overbid.

Daniel Korbel: This is where I live, and it puts the ball in partner’s court.

Rainer Herrmann: A slight overbid but otherwise a good description of the hand. I will pass 4 or a raise to 5 .

Mary Smith: If clubs and hearts were reversed, I would double; but on this hand I need to take a plus score home. Four clubs has to be one last on-my-knees game try.

Kjetil Hildal: Pass could be right, especially taking the scoring into account, but it’s tempting to try to find a super-fit. Partner could have five or six clubs…

Gillian Paty: This keeps open options for 4 or 5 , or even 4 in a 4-3 fit.

Steve Boughey: A case of the dog that didn’t bark. Partner’s pass speaks volumes — no spade support, no [extreme] diamond fit; no shot at 3 NT; no penalty double. With nine or 10 trumps between the two hands, I can force to 4  with some confidence; so I may as well bid out my shape to make partner’s next action easier.

Nikolay Demirev: I need some cooperation from partner to make a game. An eight-trick 3 NT at best should not be playable. Five diamonds may be a practical call, but let’s not forget partner passed 3 ; an unsightly x-x-x Q-x K-J-x-x x-x-x-x is possible.

Michael Dodson: Double is a bad gamble at total points, so I’ll give partner one more chance to upgrade his queens and collect the game bonus.

Barry Goren: Game is not out of the picture; 3 NT would be better if the initial overcall were on my left.

Adam Saroyan: This might get partner’s interest, and I would prefer to play 4 (instead of 3 doubled) when partner is very light.

Hans Uijting: Double would be nice if partner knew what to do, but I think it would only give him a headache.

Julian Wightwick: Pattern out. Most of the time this will get us to 4 , which I reckon will make about as often as 3  goes down; 70 percent? The upside comes when partner has the perfect: x-x x-x-x K-x-x-x Q-J-x-x, or they bid on to 4 .

Jos van Kan: I’m still not giving up on game, which needs very little from partner; but I need some cooperation. I don’t think 3 NT is right; partner must hold half a heart stopper (Q-x-x) in addition to Q and K, and with that much he probably would not have passed 3 .

Chris Willenken: I’ll give up on 3 NT and show my shape. If partner bids 4 , I’ll pass.

Bill Powell: Let partner know club values will be useful offensively.

Sheila Dickie: Sounds as though partner is very weak, but I’ll give it one more try. We could be on for a tight game if partner has K and Q, hopefully with only two spades. …

Imre Csiszar: In real life I might bid 5 . Still, if a good partner cannot bid 5 after this strong invitation, stopping in the safe partscore may be best, particularly as the opponents’ bidding suggests unfavorable distributions.

Marcelo Massonneau: Trying to give partner a full description of my hand; he can then judge to play 4  or 5 .

Yossi Nygate: Showing my club values, and who knows? Opponents might think I have a heart void and let me win my king — that would be cute.

Comments for Double

Scott Stearns: Someone once told me that good hands start with a double. …

Yes, of course. All good hands start with a double… at least by your third turn.

Nick Doe: This should show extra values rather than a particular desire to penalize; but partner will pass if relatively balanced, and I shall be content.

Jeff Tang: Long pause, then double. This should show a stiff heart. :)

Charles Leong: Partner rates to have only three hearts as he would presumably bid 1 instead of raising diamonds. Still, I have enough extras to suggest competing.

Julius Linde: Let partner make the decision. I’ll respect 4 , 5 and 3 NT; over 3 I will bid 3 NT.

Richard Morse: Surely this hand is worth one more effort and it is not clear what our best strain is (although diamonds seems more likely than notrump or a Moysian spade fit).

Mark Raphaelson: Since I try to make only one bad call per auction, I’ll double and hope for a plus score. We may be on for 3 NT, but now I’ll never know.

Ed Barnes: Not clearly for penalty. In fact, partner should know my hand quite clearly after the double, give or take a heart or club.

Tze Cheow Sng: Most flexible call, giving partner the final decision. Partner may have four hearts, which will make this an excellent penalty double; or he can take it out.

Ian Payn: Classic, in my opinion. Although no one ever seems to ask my opinion.

Roger Morton: On this bidding I can’t have a trump stack, so I am just showing a good hand.

Sandy McIlwain: This shows the extra strength and gives partner the most choices.

Nicoleta Giura: Showing a semi-stopper in hearts — just kidding.

Rahul Chandra: Three notrump and 5 are too dangerous; 4 and pass are not profitable enough. I am not looking forward to playing 4  in a 4-3 (or 4-2) fit after I bid 3 ; and 4  [may] push things too high also. Take the profit and run.

Thijs Veugen: Shows values and involves partner.

Paul Flashenberg: I’m unwilling to sell out and need partner’s input on how to proceed.

Michael Lindhagen: Bid something, partner; or pass with four hearts.

Tom Schlangen: Two spades showed my shape; partner can pass with a balanced maximum, else pull to 4 .

Robert Lavin: The most flexible action; partner can pass or even bid 3 NT or bring clubs into the picture. I don’t want to go past 3 NT unilaterally.

Barry Rigal: Yes, it is only a 16-count, and the opponents might have missed game. But “points, schmoints” is for Marty Bergen, and this player is no Marty Bergen.

Julian Pottage: Too good a hand to give up, and double seems the most flexible option.

Guillaume Lafon: I don’t want to stop here. Perhaps 4 would be easier for partner to understand, but I don’t want to go over 3 NT.

Nigel Guthrie: Double 10; pass 9 — but no self-respecting walrus could pass. North: x-x J-x-x K-x-x-x Q-x-x-x.

Bill Cubley: This might be our only plus score. … I hope we can beat them; maybe partner has Q-J and J-10-x-x.

Jim Wiitala: I have described my hand, so let partner join in the decision. His heart stopper(s) may lead to 3 NT or a fine penalty.

Gerben Dirksen: This feels like some sort of game-try double with the option to pass — after all, I have A-K, A and a probable club trick.

Jim Tully: Five diamonds looks too hard, even though we have the bulk of high cards. We should be able to take five or six tricks on defense.

Hans Holme: Showing great strength… Partner should not leave the double in with little defense.

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 3

Total Points		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West	North	EAST 1	South ?	— A Q 9 7 5 3 5 Q J 10 7 6 5

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2 NT	10	443	41
4 NT	9	94	9
1	7	390	36
4	5	57	5
3	4	12	1
2	3	70	6
2	2	18	2

Wild and crazy hands this month! With 6-6 shape, the consensus was to invoke the unusual 2 NT, the textbook bid to show at least 5-5 in the two lowest unbid suits. Most intended to follow up with another bid to show the extreme shape. This strategy is surely better than a 1  overcall — more preemptive and indicating both suits at once — but it’s the kind of bid I wish all my opponents would make. It’s just too easy to defend against.

A formidable player bids four notrump. This shows the same two suits (with more extreme shape); but unlike 2 NT, it puts real pressure on the opponents. I’d guess that nine times out of 10 you will be competing to the five level with this hand, so it makes sense to take those odds and force the issue. Sure, once in while you’ll find partner with a complete misfit and look silly; but in the long run you’ll be a big winner by making the opponents dance at a high level. To be a successful player, you have to play a little poker sometimes; and I like my chances here.

Another strategy is to walk the hand, starting with 1 and following with minimal club bids. Sometimes this works, allowing the opponents to get their bids off their chests, ending sweetly in 5  doubled, making. More often, however, it lets the opponents exchange information and make the right decision.

Let’s turn back the clock to 1955:

Great Britain vs USA	Q J 10 9 7 6 8 2 6 K 8 4 2
A 8 5 K 10 Q J 9 8 4 3 2 3		K 4 3 2 J 6 4 A K 10 7 A 9
E-W Vul	— A Q 9 7 5 3 5 Q J 10 7 6 5

Ellenby West 3 4 5 Pass

Schapiro North 3 5 Pass Pass

Roth EAST 1 3 NT Pass Pass Dbl

Reese South 1 4 Pass 6 All Pass

6 × South Down 2 -300

Meredith West 4 NT 6 Dbl

Mathe North Pass 6 All Pass

Konstam EAST 1 5 Dbl

Bishop South 1 6 7

7 × South Down 3 -500 Great Britain +200

Both South players chose to start slowly with 1 , although in fairness I don’t believe that 2 NT and 4 NT were options in the systems played. The tempo picked up fast and, after locating the club fit, Reese judged well to bid 6 . It’s uncommon to make a sacrifice bid with a void in partner’s suit, although Reese had some hopes of making 6 . Not this time, but minus 300 was a bargain with 5  cold.

The auction at the second table gave me a chuckle. Bishop had to bid his second suit at the six level, only to hear partner bid 6  out of the blue in his void. This strange bid could only be based on a club fit, so Bishop ran to 7  — a definite improvement over 6  — but the opportunity was missed to go plus against 6 . Perhaps Mathe should have kept quiet since his spade holding was useless in clubs but a likely trick on defense. Even so, give Meredith due credit for playing his own game of poker with the Blackwood bid.

Comments for 2 NT

Tim Hemphill: Unusual notrump. Of course, partner is going to bid his six-card spade suit. :)

Abel Bojar: If opponents reach their likely 4 contract, I will come again with 4 NT, intending to sacrifice in five, six, or even seven hearts or clubs. I feel uneasy bidding 4 NT immediately, as 4  might be the best place to play at.

Hendrik Sharples: Might as well get both suits in before the inevitable 4 call.

Karen Walker: This seems the best start, as it gets both suits in early. If a spade barrage ensues, I can show the extra playing strength later. Four notrump is precipitous, as I have no reason to assume the par contract isn’t 4  by us.

Scott Stearns: This feels about right; my best chance to get both suits in at a relatively low level. I don’t think I’ll sit for 4  unless partner whacks it…

Nick Doe: … I would like to give partner a chance to do something voluntary before deciding how far to go. … If it goes 4  P P, I will try 4 NT.

David Harari: Nowadays this shows the two lowest unbid suits, but I’m not sure it was available when this match was played! One heart is possible, but I need help from partner if the opponents bid quickly to 4 .

Csaba Raduly: Trying to get both my suits in… and I’m prepared to bid once more with this four-loser hand.

Andrew de Sosa: Seems like a perfect description; I’ve got the two lowest unbid suits and a distributional hand.

Samuel Rozenberg: I tend to make a bicolor bid when weak in HCP (like here) or heavy (more than 15) so partner can [judge] whether to compete or defend.

David Milton: Second choice would be 4 . My regular partners know that I mean it when I use the unusual notrump bid. Next to Blackwood, I think it is the most abused convention out there.

Stephen McDevitt: At these colors, best to show both suits but not overcook, since partner may have values and lots of spades. Bidding just hearts is very unilateral, especially with such a ratty suit.

Sandy Barnes: Not showing both of my suits is masterminding in the extreme. …

Daniel Korbel: I must confess, I have a strong admiration for a simple 1 overcall; but 2 NT then [continued] bidding will make it clear to partner I have a real freak.

Gerald Cohen: Willing to bid 4 NT later if needed, but I will sit for a double of 4 .

Jeff Tang: Bidding hearts wastes time; 4 NT is too destructive.

Julius Linde: Four hearts has some merit; but as I’m not going to pass over the likely 4 , it will leave me badly placed, as partner won’t play me for 6-6 after a 5  bid. I will continue with 4 NT (or 3 NT if possible).

Ron Zucker: Then 5 over 4 . Ugh, but I might as well get the idea of the freak across quickly.

N. Scott Cardell: … Two notrump can lead to problems on hands [with more high cards] but not strong enough to bid again; but this hand has enough playing strength to bid again.

Steve Boughey: … My next bid could be the more interesting one, as there are [many possible scenarios]. Four notrump immediately has some appeal as an aggressive action, but why anyone should decide to bypass 4 …at this stage is beyond me.

Mark Raphaelson: Interesting problem; 1 , 2 NT and 4 NT could all work out right. I’ll hedge my bet and raise whichever suit partner picks.

Nikolay Demirev: I’ll show my suits and raise a level later. It’s so rare to be dealt such a perfect hand for 2 NT…that I cannot find any alternative to be attractive. Is this a problem to test our system knowledge? :)

Dave Maeer: Embarrassing. I don’t play the stupid unusual notrump, but I see it’s on our card so I better try it; otherwise partner will never be able to work out my hand type. I don’t think the suit quality in hearts is good enough to sock it to them with 4 NT — someone has a lot of spades, and it might be partner.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Showing both my suits with one bid at a level below 4 only suggests they are five-baggers instead of six-baggers, which seems the smallest disadvantage. Four hearts probably would not shut them out of 4 , and I wouldn’t know what to do if doubled.

Ian Payn: I could do with a laugh. See how this pans out, as the auction gets slower and slower.

Julian Wightwick: I shall bid again to show the extreme shape. Four notrump is attractive, except that…4  might be the last making spot.

Chris Willenken: With equal length, it seems obvious to show my suits wholesale.

Bill Maddock: I’ve been known to use the unusual notrump on 5-5, 6-6 and 7-7. :)

James Hudson: More descriptive than anything else — except 4 NT, which would take us past 4 . It’s tempting to bash 4 , but the suit is too poor.

Jeftor Yeo: Showing the two lowest unbid suits. … I can always explore slam options after finding a fit.

Sandy McIlwain: No reason not to show the two suits, and 4 NT gets us past 4 .

Sheila Dickie: Looks like a good hand to describe early, as I expect the bidding to be at about 4 by my next turn.

Ron Landgraff: By the time I get to bid again, we may be at the six level; at least I’ll have shown two long suits. …

Samuel Krikler: For the unusual notrump, this 6-6 two-suiter is right out of the picture book.

David Lindop: Seems about right; gets both suits in before the opponents take all the room away. Four notrump would be too unilateral.

Jon Rice: I will bid game in whichever suit partner picks. If partner doesn’t bid and the opponents bid [4 ], I can always use 4 NT later.

Josh Sinnett: Isn’t this hand the type that the unusual notrump was made for? I won’t bid 4 NT as 4 may be our spot…

J. Michael Andresen: I plan to bid again, but I’ll start with the shape bid. I like to play 2 NT as a good hand or a bad hand. This four-loser hand has plenty of playing strength to qualify as “good” despite the relative paucity of HCP.

Comments for 4 NT

Alan Kravetz: Once again, let the opponents guess at the five level.

Anthony Golding: The system bid, and the most descriptive and disruptive.

Richard Morse: It is always a bit alarming to preempt partner and give away distributional clues, but the opponents are already on the move and surely I want to make spade bids as difficult as possible for them. Given the extreme shape, I will get it all off my chest with 4 NT.

Vijay Goel: Opponents are likely to have spades, so I am shifting the onus of decision to them.

John R. Mayne: I’m showing my two suits, so it’s 2 NT or 4 NT. At these colors I can’t resist the slight overreach to 4 NT.

Ed Barnes: Bid high as quickly as possible — the last guess should be theirs.

Ciaran Coyne: While defending 4 might be right, I won’t be too happy to pass it. Let them find their fit at the five level.

Frans Buijsen: Anything might work, especially 2 if it catches partner with a fit. … Bidding 4 is worse because that usually acts as a transfer to 4  (for the opponents).

Connie Delisle: The opponents are surely going to get to 4 or some number of diamonds, either to make or as a premature sacrifice. I am bidding as high as I am prepared to go. Two notrump would trigger some number of spades and I’m not defending; so I may as well bid 4 NT. Make ‘em guess; I have it off my breast.

Most people would say, “off my chest,” so I wonder… Is this some kind of visual aid?

Gerry Wildenberg: Four notrump may prevent the opponents from finding their spade fit (or worse, their double fit). They’re vulnerable; we’re not; they’re in the bidding; and I have [little] defense and lots of offense. All this says: bid high.

Nicoleta Giura: Showing 6-6 in the lowest unbid suits… and we are nonvul-vs-vul, so keep them guessing.

Imre Csiszar: At this vulnerability, 2 NT [should] deny this much distributional strength. Of course, 4 NT may backfire; but it is hard to imagine a hand better suited for the bid.

Paul Flashenberg: Hope I don’t find partner with a lot of spades.

Jonathan Siegel: I hate to give up on 4 , but this hand seems designed for 4 NT… and it has the advantage of making it hard for the opponents to find their spade fit.

John Haslegrave: … If I bid 2 NT, I’ll want to bid again. At this vulnerability, I can just about stomach 4 NT.

Tom Schlangen: Elevator going up? Hope it isn’t partner with the nine-bagger in spades.

Chuck Arthur: Wasn’t this bid invented just to handle this hand?

Len Vishnevsky: If I try 2 NT or 4 , I’ll have to sacrifice over 4 anyway; so I might as well try 4 NT now.

Tim McKay: The opponents may well have a solid 4 , so I’ll be more preemptive than 2 NT.

Paul Hightower: A perfect description, leaving partner well-placed to compete or double.

Gerben Dirksen: Makes it hard for opponents to find a spade fit. If their hands are very distributional, they might bid over their level.

Chris Maclauchlan: With the vulnerability as it is, I think this is the only logical bid — and will no doubt be proven wrong.

Comments for 1

Paul Thurston: Too good to give up control via an unusual 2 NT. I’ll walk the dog and see what develops.

Carolyn Ahlert: I’ll bid clubs next if I have a chance. The hand is too good for an unusual 2 NT.

Dale Freeman: I suppose 4 NT is about right and it may disrupt their bidding; but I think I will try a different strategy this time.

Adam Saroyan: Too good for any other action now. I want to bid a lot on this hand and probably want a heart lead should we be forced to defend.

Elianor Kennie: How I love distributional hands! I’m prepared to bid 5 next.

Mark LaForge: I want a heart lead, and I do not think I can preempt the opponents.

Ted Morris: This gives partner an opportunity to support hearts if he can after 1 by LHO. The possibility of a misfit for both sides is too great to be more unilateral with 3 , 4 , or 4 NT. Two notrump merits consideration but more clearly locates the cards for declarer if we lose the auction.

Bill Powell: I’ll bid clubs next. (I don’t think the awkward case over 4 will arise.)

Tysen Streib: Even with the extreme distribution, I’d say this falls between the “weak or strong” range that is [commonly used] for 2 NT. I’ll try jumping in clubs later.

David Morrow: I want to know if partner has anything to tell me; we could have a slam, or nothing at all. I intend to push on to at least game.

David Davies: Higher bids [may] hinder partner as much as opponents. I will bid clubs next round, up to the five level.

Thijs Veugen: Too distributional for 2 NT; the bidding isn’t over.

Jeff Yutzler: I want to keep things light just to see if I can get a spark from partner.

Robert Lavin: I will show clubs later. [Any preempt] now will make it harder to judge when the opponents bid on.

Barry Rigal: Al Roth might pass and await developments. Eric Kokish, on the other hand, would overcall low rather than preempt…and hear 4  and have to guess again. Well, I do plan to bid clubs…

Jess Cohen: My first thought is 2 NT, unusual for the two lower unbid suits, however, “only the most basic conventions are allowed” doesn’t seem to allow this. If it does, I want to change my vote to 2 NT.* …

*I published this comment to emphasize two things: (1) A reference is available on Standard American Bridge to determine which conventions are allowed, and (2) your vote stands regardless of any conditional statement in your comment. -RP

John Byers: I will have time to show my second suit unless the opponents bid quickly to 5 (unlikely). A direct 2 NT should be for weaker or stronger hands.

Bill Cubley: I think it is better to bid my suits one at a time with a 6-6 hand. The unusual notrump tends to show less extreme distribution, and this cat needs to show a lot in the dogfight. …

David Colbert: With 6-6, I bid both suits.

Jim Tully: With overcall strength, I should bid my suits rather than use the unusual 2 NT. If opponents have a spade fit, I’m going to steer them into it either way.

Hans Holme: With 6-6, I like to bid my suits, watching the development of the bidding. …

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 4

Total Points		None Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 2 NT	East Pass Pass	SOUTH 1 2 ?	10 A 7 A K 9 3 2 K J 9 7 4

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3 NT	10	451	42
3	8	63	6
3	6	100	9
3	5	369	34
3	4	17	2
Pass	2	26	2
4	1	58	5

A classic dilemma in standard bidding. Obviously, you would like to bid 3 forcing, but this is not the case.* Instead it would indicate you are unhappy with notrump and suggest playing 3  or 3 . Therefore, most experts would reject 3  on the grounds that showing your strength takes priority over showing your exact hand pattern.

*Most standard textbooks are silent on this issue, but the accepted philosophy is that opener’s third bid after an invitational 2 NT is nonforcing (1) if rebidding a lower-ranked second suit or (2) if bidding the same suit three times. Note that 3 , 3  or 3  would be forcing.

The consensus was simply to raise to 3 NT, which is sound and sensible. The singleton spade is a concern; but partner showed a spade stopper with 2 NT, and for all you know, he might be 4-4 in the majors with strong spades. Plus, the 10 may be helpful in creating an additional stopper, e.g., it might win the opening lead opposite K-Q-x. Indeed, this would have been a better problem if the majors were 2 A-10, but my policy in these “historic polls” is not to alter the actual hands.

The best effort to seek an alternate contract is 3 — a slight lie as it implies three hearts (typically 1=3=5=4 or 0=3=5=5) — but it clearly pinpoints your spade concern. If partner’s spade stopper is tenuous (A-x-x, Q-x-x, etc.) it may lead to a superior 5-2 heart fit or a minor-suit game. The danger is that partner will bid 4  on most hands with five hearts, not realizing your 3  bid was inspirational.

Another workaround is to bid 3 .* Clearly, this cannot be a spade suit (you would bid 1 over 1 ) but it should be shape-descriptive, i.e., 3=1=5=4 or 3=0=5=5. Hence, it conveys the wrong message. Partner will now be concerned about his heart holding and likely to choose the wrong game.

*A popular convention among experts is to use this fourth-suit bid artificially to show a “forcing 3  rebid.” My own preference, however, is to keep it natural. I remember several occasions where it led to an excellent Moysian fit in 4 , where 3 NT would go sour because of heart weakness.

I scored 4 last, not only because it precludes playing 3 NT but because it’s Gerber by definition — unlikely, for sure, but plausible with extreme shape, e.g., x A K-Q-J-x-x-x K-Q-J-x-x.

Here’s the actual deal:

Great Britain vs USA	K 8 4 K 8 6 3 2 8 6 4 A 6
A 9 7 6 2 Q J 9 4 Q 10 7 Q		Q J 5 3 10 5 J 5 10 8 5 3 2
None Vul	10 A 7 A K 9 3 2 K J 9 7 4

Bishop West Pass Pass Pass

Schapiro North 1 2 NT 4

Mathe East Pass Pass All Pass

Reese SOUTH 1 2 3

4 North Made 4 +420

Meredith West 1 1 Pass Pass Pass

Ellenby North Dbl Pass 2 NT 3 3 NT

Konstam East Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Roth SOUTH 1 Pass 2 3 3

3 NT North Down 1 -50 Great Britain +470

I was impressed by the British auction at the first table. Reese opted to show his heart fragment, which is admittedly more attractive playing four-card majors because a 1  response would not be made on a weak four-card suit (as evidence see Problem 2 auctions). This avoided the inferior 3 NT*, and 4  was easily made after a spade lead and return, ruffed in dummy. Plus 420.

*Assuming the obvious spade lead, 3 NT needs a lucky club lie (Q-x-x or Q-10 doubleton onside, or a blank queen offside), which is only about 20 percent. The chances in 4  are difficult to assess accurately, but I’d guess about even money.

At the second table, Meredith was up to his usual antics* of bidding whatever caught his fancy. Note that Ellenby’s double was penalty, kind of a shocker in partnership with “Mr. Negative Double,” but this was pre-sputnik times. When the Americans realized that Meredith had escaped once again, a belabored sequence with a delicate “anti-Meredith checkback” ended in 3 NT.

*It seems only fitting that Meredith would bid 1 with five spades, as his favorite tactic was to make bogus spade bids. Looking through the deals in this match, I counted six such occasions (opening in a three-card suit, overcalling on J-x-x-x, etc.) so I’m sure his spade bids were never taken seriously. Evidently, the only way Meredith could convince his partner he really had spades was to bid something else first.

Three notrump would appear to be a success with the Q singleton, but Meredith’s reputation worked to his advantage again. When the A dropped the queen, Ellenby suspected Meredith was up to another one of his tricks with Q-10 doubleton, so he didn’t take the finesse — down one.*

*In theory, declarer should take the queen at face value because West should always play the 10 from Q-10. If the 10 drops, declarer should still finesse because it could be a routine falsecard from 10-x-x.

I think it was Edgar Kaplan who summarized the systems used by the British team as something like, “Reese and Schapiro play traditional Acol, Dodds and Konstam play CAB, and Meredith bids spades.”

Comments for 3 NT

Tim Hemphill: Maybe we can sneak off with nine tricks.

Alan Kravetz: Odds are good that one of my five-card suits will come in.

Hendrik Sharples: Partner knows I don’t have much in spades and will appreciate the A. I’d like to bid 3  on the way but really need three hearts for that action.

Karen Walker: In a theoretical quiz, 3 [may be] the right answer; but I would bid 3 NT at the table. Is it guaranteed that partner would take 3  as an inquiry about how good his stoppers are? Or might he think it’s a picture bid showing extreme heart weakness? Chances are, he’ll just be confused, which convinces me to go back to my real-life choice…

Manuel Paulo: I am strong enough for game. To envisage any other better contract, partner must have specific cards.

Anthony Golding: Partner could have bid the fourth suit with strong club interest or doubt about spades.

Jean-Christophe Clement: I must trust partner and accept his proposition with 15 HCP.

Scott Stearns: … With a good hand, I accept the invitation (3 would be to play). Partner won’t be surprised or dismayed at my hand.

Nick Doe: This seems too obvious, but I can hardly stop out of game. Poor partner may go down, of course, but neither opponent managed to scrape up a 1  overcall; and I don’t want to give West another chance by letting him double 3 .

Csaba Raduly: … Would partner understand 3 expressing doubt? I’ll just grit my teeth and bid game.

Jonathan Steinberg: Three clubs should be a weak two-suited hand, which eliminates that call. Both 3  and 4  have merit, but partner invited in notrump and I’m happy to accept with lots of extras. If I’m wrong, I can always claim that I thought my 4 was a spade. :)

Aziza Rusconi: I count on partner to hold a stopper in spades, the only suit not mentioned.

Stephen McDevitt: I have what might be a useful singleton and certainly enough to accept the invitation. Partner could be 4=5=2=2, and there are lots of bids between 2  and 2 NT that partner did not make.

Paul Thurston: Partner invites; I accept… Three clubs would be the most accurate call if partner took it as progressive, but [most] play it as regressive.

Sandy Barnes: Three clubs should show a much weaker hand than I hold; 3 is…misdescriptive; 3 and 3  have [little] merit; and 4  bypasses our most likely game…

Facundo Chamut: Is there any other forcing bid that makes sense without bypassing 3 NT?

Stu Goodgold: North invited, and I’ve got a good hand. Even way back then, Hamman’s Rule applied.

Rainer Herrmann: No other bid at the three level looks right; but the notion that 3 shows three-card support and cannot be done with a doubleton honor…is dubious.

Jeff Tang: Partner could have bid 2 instead of 2 NT; and with 12 spades outstanding, I’m guessing he is 4-4 in the majors. Slam is also unlikely, so bidding 3 NT seems clear.

Robin Zigmond: Routine; I have the values for game and no fit, while partner presumably has spades stopped. …

Charles Leong: Three clubs is nonforcing, and 4 might take us past our best spot. …

Julius Linde: Three spades as a splinter would be great, but I assume it would show a fragment to steer partner from notrump in case he has nothing in hearts. Three hearts would show one more heart and one less club, so I just bid the most likely game.

Richard Morse: This must be a reasonable proposition. Three clubs is surely too negative; 3 or 3 , a distortion; and 4  may take us past the best spot. …

Gillian Paty: … This seems like the best spot, though 6 might be possible opposite the right cards. I trust partner to have a good spade stopper.

N. Scott Cardell: … Even if partner has only a nice looking 9 HCP (say, A-Q-9 K-10-9-x-x x-x 10-x-x) this should be a favorite to make. The possibility of a minor-suit slam is very remote, and there is no good reason to think that even 11 tricks are there in a minor.

Quentin Stephens: Partner has spades stopped, else he would bid 2 (fourth suit forcing).

John R. Mayne: I’m torn between 3 and 3 NT, but I think my extra strength will make 3 NT a little safer. It’s not clear that a one-spade-stopper hand will be better in hearts, and the 10 is potentially useful in notrump.

John Reardon: Too good for 3 and unsuitable for 3 or 3 ; so I bid what may well be the best game.

Ed Barnes: Did I miss something? Three clubs is a mirage — its pros (find a suit game or slam) are overshadowed by its cons (miss 3 NT or tell the opponents what to lead). Hamman’s Law without pause for thought.

Leonard Helfgott: Three clubs isn’t forcing, and anything else but 3 NT requires [special] understanding.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Two notrump is forward-going; I have extras, so what’s the problem?

Rosalind Hengeveld: That’s what people mean when they say to their partner, who has bid 3 NT over their 3  sign-off on a hand about an ace weaker than this one: I can bid 3 NT if that makes…

Ian Payn: In my sleep, waking up only to write minus 100 on my scorecard. Still, you only live once.

Roger Morton: Partner knows my potential weakness in the majors. I have an honor in hearts and spades, together with 15 points, so 3 NT looks good. Don’t tell me 4  is the contract! If so, partner should have fiddled around a bit more.

George Klemic: Partner need not have a great fit in either minor for 2 NT, which could be as bad as 9 HCP… I have the extras to bump it up to 3 NT.

Jos van Kan: Hamman’s Rule. Of course, we have a slam opposite [an unlikely] x-x-x-x K-x-x-x Q-x A-Q-x, but I’m told not to play partner for the perfect hand. Any wastage in the form of a spade honors will help us in 3 NT.

Gerry Wildenberg: No reason partner can’t be 4=5=2=2. Pass is my second choice. …

Andrew Moore: To bid notrump, partner will likely have something in spades, so 3 NT is worth a try.

Bill Powell: This seems too obvious; we can’t have 6 on, can we? Anyway, I’ll go with the mundane real-life choice.

John Haslegrave: I’m worried that not bidding 3 NT will avoid a lot of good 3 NT contracts as well as the bad ones.

Charles Blair: Somebody else can figure out a deal on which 4 in a 4-2 fit is the only makable game.

Jeff Yutzler: If partner doesn’t have at least 10 points and an spade stopper, something is wrong.

Marcelo Massonneau: A little risky, but 3 is passable.

Bruce Scott: I’ll volunteer to score this problem for you, Mr. Pavlicek: 3 NT 10; 3 8; 3 7; Pass 5; 4  3; 3  2; 3  1.

Well, you got one out of seven right… Sort of a biographical summary?

Paul Hightower: I’ve shown 90 percent of my shape, and now my approximate strength. Three clubs sounds weak; 3  suggests short hearts; and 3  suggests three hearts.

Hans Holme: Partner invites game; I accept with 15.

Comments for 3

David Harari: I cannot bypass 3 NT, and 3 is nonforcing by standard agreements. This is the smallest lie, as 3  would show heart shortness.

Andrew de Sosa: Sounds like we’ve got game-going values — albeit just barely — but the strain is as yet uncertain. This is forcing and identifies my spade shortness… The problem, of course, is that partner will expect me to have three hearts; but…I don’t see a better way of leaving 3 NT as an option while warning partner off if he doesn’t have [adequate spade protection].

Tim Goodwin: Berkowitz’s Rule.

Daniel Korbel: A tricky hand; 3 unfortunately is nonforcing, and I don’t like 3 NT because we could easily be off the entire spade suit. This will let partner know I have a singleton spade, so he should be able to judge well.

Kjetil Hildal: Forcing… (If I had a weaker hand and 1=3=5=4 shape, a direct raise works much better; and this is exactly the hand to show why.) OK, I would like to have one more heart, but at least partner knows where my values are…

Ron Zucker: Didn’t Bridge World have a long discussion about whether 3 is forcing here? My preference is that it should be, and the way I show a weak hand is by passing. However, the most important things for me to show are the spade shortness and the desire not to play in notrump. If partner overrules with 3 NT, I’ll trust him.

Steve Boughey: I would rebid 3 (nonforcing) if my hearts were J-x instead of A-x, so that’s not an option. This is not perfect but sends a loud message that partner must be able to deal with spade attacks more than once. If he can, fine; he can bid 3 NT. Otherwise, I expect to hear [a suit bid] next.

Dale Freeman: … This is forcing and shows short spades (3 would be nonforcing).

Nikolay Demirev: I believe 3 would be discouraging; and 4 , although accurate, gives up 3 NT. Ideally, this shows 1=3=5=4 and not a minimum (I raise directly with a minimum). Now partner can choose the [proper strain].

Ciaran Coyne: After seriously considering 3 , 4 and 3 NT, I’ll go with 3 because it’s most flexible. …

Chris Willenken: Showing my singleton spade. I’ll remove 4 to 5 — not perfect, but at least I avoid 3 NT when partner has Q-x-x or the like.

James Hudson: If the 10 were the jack, I’d try 3 NT.

Phil Clayton: Focuses on my spade shortness as a red flag in 3 NT, and brings a 5-2 heart fit into the picture, as well the minor suits.

Thijs Veugen: Partner can choose between 3 NT and 4 .

Chuck Arthur: At the price of being slightly dangerous (partner might play me for three hearts and a slammish hand), this focuses on the spade problem. I expect partner to have decent spades on most hands and simply bid 3 NT now.

David Lindop: … Although I don’t have the perfect pattern, I have extra strength as compensation, and this lets partner know that spades are a concern for notrump.

Comments for 3

Dave Maeer: I think this is how to show a game-forcing 5-5 on this sequence. Partner can bid four of a suit…if his spades are a bit dodgy. Three hearts is a close second but comes close to compelling partner to bid 4  if he has five hearts.

Barry Goren: Three clubs is nonforcing, so three of the off-suit shows 5-5, forcing.

Adam Saroyan: Partner had lots of bids available, so I’m not worried about spades. I am just not going to risk 3  being passed or bypassing by 3 NT. A minor-suit slam is possible, and no other bid allows me to sniff for more and still play 3 NT. …

Julian Wightwick: Game values but not sure that 3 NT is the best spot. I shall raise 4 to five, or try 4  over 4  suggesting honor-doubleton. Unfortunately, 3  would be weak; and 3  suggests three-card support.

Frans Buijsen: Sort of fourth-suit or last-train, looking for the best game, which could be in any denomination except spades.

David Wetzel: Exotic, no? But, really, 3 …is nonforcing; 3 should show three; and 3 NT just asks for [trouble]. I can’t have spades, so this should show about what I have — analogous to: 1  1 NT; 2  2 .

Ted Morris: Hopefully…this expresses concern about the spade suit, and partner can now make a well-reasoned choice between 3 NT and a minor-suit contract.

Nicoleta Giura: Just in case partner holds A-x-x-x K-x-x-x Q-x Q-10-x and 3 NT fails when 6 is gin. …

Gareth Birdsall: Three clubs is nonforcing except by [special] agreement, so…3 suggests other strains.

Tom Schlangen: A “wonder bid” perhaps, but I think partner should figure this one out — that I have extra values, extra distribution…and fewer than three hearts.

Barry Rigal: Three clubs is weak and nonforcing — do not believe anyone who tells you different. Three spades…suggests extra shape and HCP; I will respect 3 NT but hope to find game in another denomination.

Julian Pottage: Three clubs would not be forcing, and 3 NT is too committal.

Bill Cubley: My partner hates it when I make a [bid] that is not on the convention card — but I like to make a plus score if we end up in 3 NT.

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 5

Total Points		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass Pass	North 1 1	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	Q 4 2 J 10 8 6 5 K J 10 7 4 —

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	265	24
1 NT	9	253	23
Pass	7	283	26
2	5	234	22
2	2	49	5

This dull collection proved to be the best problem of the set, with the voting rather evenly split among four options. Pass got the most votes, however, it could hardly be called the consensus. The great majority (74 percent) felt it was right to keep the bidding open; the only question was how. Therefore, it seems only fair to give 2  the top award.

To me, the choice is between 1 NT and 2 , and I have no strong feelings either way. If the bidding is to end immediately, 2  seems wiser; but if partner has the strength to bid again, 1 NT is preferable as it’s more flexible toward the final strain.

Pass is the easy way out. While this might be the best choice at matchpoints, it seems premature to cut off the chance for game at total points (or IMPs). There are many hands opener might have that produce game, and the risk of getting overboard by bidding 1 NT or 2  seems minimal.

Other options are less attractive. Two diamonds (forcing) is an overbid and likely to propel you too high. Even if you next bid 3  (5-5, nonforcing) it still shows invitational strength, which is an exaggeration. We’ve all bid this way occasionally with 5-5 in the majors — wishing and hoping — but it must be wrong here with two sensible alternatives.

Two hearts is clearly a misbid but might stumble into a great contract that is unreachable otherwise. If partner has A-x-x-x Q-9 A-x A-K-x-x-x and rightly bids 4 , you’ll be one happy camper. But don’t hold your breath; more likely, you’ll be left to rot in 2  opposite a low singleton.

In the old days, new suit bids were freewheeling, as evidenced at both tables on the actual deal:

Great Britain vs USA	A 9 6 3 3 2 A A K 8 5 4 2
K J 7 5 9 7 Q 5 Q J 10 9 6		10 8 A K Q 4 9 8 6 3 2 7 3
Both Vul	Q 4 2 J 10 8 6 5 K J 10 7 4 —

Ellenby WEST Pass Pass Pass

Meredith North 1 1 2 NT

Roth East Pass Pass All Pass

Pavlides South 1 2

2 NT North Made 94 -400

Schapiro WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass

Rosen North 1 1 3 4

Reese East Pass Pass Pass Dbl

Mathe South 1 2 3 All Pass

4 × South Down 2 -500 Great Britain +100

Both Pavlides and Mathe bid their diamond suits. At the first table Meredith next bid 2 NT and was left to play there. The lack of communication and wrongly placed K made this a nightmare — down four, minus 400.

Could Rosen and Mathe do better? Well, sort of. Rosen rebid his clubs (surely better judgment than 2 NT) and Mathe completed his pattern. Rosen now thought his prime values would be just what Mathe needed for 10 tricks. Alas, Reese thought otherwise and punished the aggressive bidding with a penalty double — at least he knew they weren’t making any overtricks. Mathe won twice as many tricks in hearts as Meredith did in notrump, but the double (down two) cost 500.

Let’s see how our consensus would have done after the raise to 2 . As North I would bid 4 , which is probably down two; but nobody could double — so I guess that makes it successful, relatively speaking. Hmm. I think I’d better move on to the comments before those who wisely passed 1  file a class-action lawsuit for a higher award.

Comments for 2

Abel Bojar: I don’t want to miss a possible…game when partner has something like A-K-J-x A-x A-x-x Q-x-x-x. I know that very often 1  will be the best contract, or partner may overbid with a terrible misfit; but the scoring is total points, after all.

Richard Higgins: It’s either 1 NT or 2 , and playing in a suit looks better. Hopefully, partner can get a crossruff going.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Two bids (1 NT and 2 ) seem reasonable. I like 2 , the Moysian fit, because of the certainty of ruffing in the hand with shorter trumps.

Csaba Raduly: I was about to pass, but that’s too committal.

Mary Smith: Tough decision, as I am not fond of Moysians; but it’s the best chance for game and partner will be playing it. Plus, once every five years partner has five spades.

Ron Zucker: The first easy problem of the set. Too good to pass; not good enough for 2 with the void in clubs; and my nice values make up for the missing trump.

Mark Raphaelson: I don’t mind three-card support if there’s good ruffing value. Two diamonds is too forward-going for me.

Barry Goren: I hope the opponents don’t lead trumps.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: My hand looks OK for a spade contract: a nice diamond suit to set up; some trumps to ruff clubs. Who cares if we will be in a 4-3 fit?

Adam Saroyan: One notrump leaves another hard bid if partner bids again. By raising now, I am ready for anything further.

Ciaran Coyne: Passing could be right, but that signals the trump lead and probably costs a trick anyway. This could get us overboard; but partner can still be quite strong, and 3 NT and 4  are both still possible.

Andrew Moore: With a weak hand, I show support as soon as possible. Even though we likely have only seven trumps, spades will likely play best.

Ron Landgraff: Least of evils; at least it may keep partner out of clubs. God forbid the A-Q is with West!

Robert Lavin: I can think of many bad things that could happen, but I will try a gentle raise to 2  and hope partner can bid again.

Jess Cohen: Two diamonds shows a pretty good hand, and I may not have much opposite a partner with the black hand of Calcutta; 2  overstates my heart suit; and 1 NT with a void and no real source of tricks is not for me. … Is my club void worth much? … I think I am too good to pass, but just barely. I had a dream that partner passed my 2 , and a 3  balancer appeared. Yeah, right.

Len Vishnevsky: Two diamonds is an overbid; 2 is sick; 1 NT is very misdescriptive… and pass might miss a game. Two spades looks best.

Bill Cubley: The ruffing ability makes this a [decent] spade raise despite the lack of a fourth spade.

Luis Argerich: Least of evils. Sorry, partner; I had a diamond among my spades, and you know I’m color blind.

Gerben Dirksen: I don’t feel like passing; 1 NT as a final contract is unappealing; 2 is fourth suit forcing; and 2  [shows] six. I don’t feel bad about 2 ; after all, I have a trump honor and good ruffing values. …

Comments for 1 NT

Alan Kravetz: My two J-10 combinations will give good value at notrump.

Karen Walker: There’s no reason to hide the diamond stoppers and skew my distribution with 2 . A spade raise overestimates the ruffing value in partner’s suit and encourages him to make game tries with hands that would have passed 1 NT. And if partner has significant extra values, 2  now will make it almost impossible to convince him that 3 NT is the better game.

Anthony Golding: I’ve got the unbid suit stopped; 2 may encourage partner too much.

Scott Stearns: Ugh. The best lie out there. I do have diamonds stopped, enough strength to keep the bidding open, and less than four spades.

Nick Doe: It seems that partner’s 1 is consistent in your style with a minimum balanced hand, and 1 NT doesn’t have to be wrong if he has [an unbalanced hand].

David Harari: Pass, 2 (fourth suit forcing) and 2 are ridiculous; and 2 seems too encouraging if partner is not minimum. If partner bids again (2 ), I still can support spades.

Stephen McDevitt: It would be nice if partner would always pass 2 , but you know you’re probably cooked if he goes on. I have a lot of shape for 1 NT, but it shows my values and stopper; the hand may be a misfit.

Paul Thurston: [Little] choice in the land of fourth suit forcing. This doesn’t preclude a heart or spade contract.

Rainer Herrmann: Two spades may be a better partscore than 1 NT, but a raise may overexcite partner. After 1 NT, we may still reach a spade or heart contract…

Richard Morse: Close between 1 NT and 2 . The latter may play better, but it goes against the grain not even to imply my best suit. If partner bids again, I will be in great shape to show the spade support.

John Kruiniger: Setting myself up to bid diamonds nonforcing next — if it comes around again.

David Woulds: And then bid 2 if North rebids 2 .

Steve Boughey: This tells the fewest lies. I don’t feel I’m good enough to go through fourth suit forcing (2 ); partner’s entitled to jump to game in notrump on better-than-minimum hands, and he won’t be impressed when I put down this collection. I hesitate to raise spades (although we may end up in that strain), as it doesn’t tell the story of my diamond suit.

Dale Freeman: Either 1 NT or 2 seems right. This allows partner to bid 2 with a three-card fit.

Nikolay Demirev: If partner could have as good as A-K-x-x x A-x-x A-Q-x-x-x, it would be a crime to pass — though practical when he does not.

Dave Maeer: Very close between 1 NT and 2 . I think 1 NT is better because 2 cuts out other strains.

Tze Cheow Sng: Best bid to describe my values. If partner has extra, he can press on, and I can show my three-card spade support.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Not a spectator’s bid, I admit; but the secondary honors make me shy away from 2  (the only serious alternative) with three trumps.

Hans Uijting: This leaves all options open and is [probably] only wrong if partner passes with weak clubs.

Roger Morton: Keep it rolling in case partner is very strong.

Bill Maddock: Easy. Should the opponents lead a club at any stage, I’ll just slip in a small spade from hand and hope they don’t notice.

Gerry Wildenberg: How about 3 meaning diamonds but too weak to force? …

Sure, and how about a 4 splinter bid meaning “Partner, my clubs are as void as my mind.”

Ivan Viehoff: Unless partner has just the right cards, a 4-3 spade fit is likely to play badly; so if I do bid again, it should be 1 NT not 2 . The question is whether I should bid at all, balancing the misfit risk against a slim game chance. Here in Acol-land I would pass, as partner will not be 4-4 unless strong (and in many partnerships, at least 5-4)… but I suspect a higher risk of missing something in your system.

Phil Clayton: Pass is out of the question; 1 NT shows some values and lets partner bid out his hand if he wishes. Oddly, this is the only way we can sensibly get to diamonds.

Nicoleta Giura: Flexible; 2 would lock us into spades when we might belong in hearts or diamonds — or in 1 NT. :)

David Morrow: … I don’t like notrump with my shape, but at least I am letting partner know about my stopper in diamonds.

Timothy Liang Kan: I hate everything else more. Passing gives up the chance of [game], and 2 overstates my hand and misses the chance to establish the soft diamond values.

Barry Rigal: This keeps more options open… though we might be better off playing our 4-3 fit at a low level.

David Lindop: Two spades would be reasonable, but I do have hearts and diamonds stopped.

Paul Bethe: I have to advance, as sometimes partner has 4=1=3=5 or 4=0=4=5 (e.g., A-K-x-x — A-Q-x-x A-x-x-x-x) and we are cold for 6 , with a play for seven.

Guillaume Lafon: … If partner bids again (probably 2 with unbalanced distribution), I will bid my diamonds; if not, 1 NT is not so bad.

Paul Hightower: This seems normal with most of my values in the fourth suit. We [probably] belong in a red suit or notrump, and I’m not strong enough to determine which.

Scott Maramo: Looking for a diamond lead into my K-J.

Comments for Pass

Manuel Paulo: If the opponents find their best fit (clubs), I’ll [bid diamonds].

Andrew de Sosa: Getting out low on a potential misfit hand and inviting the opponents to balance. If they try 2 , I’ll try 2 ; if they try diamonds, I’ll double.

Jonathan Steinberg: The void in partner’s suit persuades me to make a conservative pass.

Sandy Barnes: A cowardly action designed not to punish partner, who may hold a substantial hand.

Catalin Lazar: I’m not looking for trouble when vulnerable. After partner bids 1 , his hand should be limited to about 17 HCP if unbalanced or 14 if balanced. There is probably no game for us, and 1  seems the safest partscore.

Stu Goodgold: … At total points, 1 is safe and game is unlikely since opener didn’t jump.

Julius Linde: I don’t expect many points for this. Alternative is 1 NT, but I’d rather play the 4-3 fit; and I don’t believe we have a game after partner could bid only 1 . Partner’s hand could prove me very wrong.

Gillian Paty: Seems to be a misfit; better pass now before we’re too high.

John R. Mayne: Sure, partner can have a big hand for this; but if he’s 6-5 in the blacks, my red cards are useless. One spade looks like a completely reasonable contract, and I’d love to see the opponents wander into this. Second choice: 2 , despite the rule against raising partner’s second suit with three.

Leonard Helfgott: No game in sight, and spades should be safest partscore.

Michael Dodson: Partner is limited by not bidding 2 or 2 NT. Take the plus.

Julian Wightwick: I had trouble constructing a hand where 4 is good…

George Klemic: This should play well. If opponents bid, they won’t be happy in this auction. Two diamonds is way out; other calls have merit. …

Jos van Kan: Ducking for cover. Of course, 2 is out of the question. Maybe partner can scrape seven tricks off the bottom of the barrel; or maybe West will come to our rescue. :)

Chris Willenken: The usual call with a misfitting minimum.

Connie Delisle: Get out while the getting is good. Any bid will create a rollercoaster ride.

Paulino Correa: … Let’s stop as low as possible. If East-West come to life [in clubs or notrump], I may eventually bid again — likely 2  unless partner bids a red suit.

Ted Morris: This may be the most we can make, and I don’t think the opponents are going very far either.

Paul Flashenberg: Misfit hand. I hope partner can make it with a trump lead, or not go down two many.

Michael Roche: As Clint would say, “Do you feel lucky?”

Well, do ya, punk? Go ahead; make my partscore.

Charles Blair: Maybe I have too many partners who get carried away, and carry me out in the process.

Tom Schlangen: No wood; no good fit; where am I going?

Samuel Krikler: A constructive bid runs the risk of getting too high and [suffering] a penalty. Wait and see.

John Byers: Partner may have three hearts but probably not; and I’m not going to stick my neck out to find out. I think we’re high enough.

Josh Sinnett: My shape says we should be in a suit contract; and no jump by partner says no game is [likely]. Let’s stop in a contract we should make pretty easily.

Bruce Scott: Players tend to get too high with this hand type. … If you aren’t willing to pass 1 with this hand, perhaps you should change the system and make it forcing.

Keith Balcombe: This looks too strong to pass, but the hand may not play well if opener has diamond shortness.

Mary Jo Branscomb: … I think we have a home in spades and hate to bid again with a void in partner’s first suit.

Yossi Nygate: If opponents come in with 2 [or 1 NT], I can bid 2 to show my exact hand.

J. Michael Andresen: The shape is nice, but the lack of fit and poor values suggest a pass.

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

Problem 6

Total Points		E-W Vul		You, South, hold:
West 2	NORTH Pass Pass	East 1 3	South ? ?	10 A 6 4 3 — A K Q 8 7 5 4 3

Call or Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
A. 2 then 3	10	290	27
F. 5 immediately	9	330	30
C. 2 then 5	8	256	24
B. 2 then 4	6	87	8
E. 4 immediately	5	38	4
D. 2 then 6	4	33	3
G. 6 immediately	3	50	5

It seems “This Land” must be the land of puppy feet, as we started with nine clubs and finish with eight. As usual with wild distribution, you must decide whether to cast your fate to the wind with a preempt, or go slowly trying to get more information. Partner being a passed hand suggests the former, while the four-card major suggests the latter — all the makings of a good problem, as the voting confirmed.

My scoring policy in two-part problems (or actually 1.57 parts in this case) is to give primary consideration to the first decision. Therefore, despite the fact that Choice F (5  immediately) got the most votes, the majority (61 percent) preferred to start with 2 ; so Choice A (2  then 3 ) deserves the top spot. I decided to rank Choice F second because the main reason for bidding 2  is to keep hearts in the picture — not so much as an alternate trump suit, but a heart fit could be the key to a club slam. Therefore, if all you’re going to do is rebid clubs, it must be wiser to bid 5  immediately opposite a passed hand.

Almost any option has merit when considering bidding tactics on wildly distributional hands, so I was generous in the award scale. It’s also good to play a little poker sometimes (as suggested on Problem 3), but in this case the immediate 6  bid strikes me as a long shot; therefore, last place. (Bidding 6  after the opponents indicate a diamond fit is more sensible because a 5  bid is imminent.) Among the other options, it’s difficult to judge an exact theoretical ranking — anything could work, and it might depend on your opponents or your daily horoscope — so I just followed the voting.

A number of people asked why I didn’t include the option to double 1 . This was to limit the number of options, as I would then have to include various club bids afterward. I doubt that double would receive any expert approval, not because of the slim chance 1  will be passed for penalty, but because partner may bid diamonds at an awkward level. An auction like 1  Dbl 4  is likely, and partner may bid 5  expecting a typical takeout double; and even if partner passes 4  and you bid, is he really supposed to pass 5  with x-x Q-10-x-x Q-J-9-x-x-x x? No, I think double begs for trouble.*

*Also note that if you double and partner bids hearts, it doesn’t really help. You still won’t know if partner has the K (or K-Q) or whether to play in hearts or clubs. Continued taps will ruin 4  facing, say, x-x-x-x Q-J-x-x x-x-x x-x, while 5  is laydown barring K-10-x-x offside.

Another common contention was, “Why can’t I bid 3 to show a solid suit and ask for a spade stopper?” This wasn’t an option, of course, because it’s a special convention and not a part of standard bidding. Indeed, if this were allowed, I would never have chosen the problem as it’s a standout regardless of your later intention.

“And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night…” that our clowns were still there:

Great Britain vs USA	K 8 5 3 K Q 10 7 9 8 9 6 2
9 4 J 9 5 A K Q 7 4 3 J 10		A Q J 7 6 2 8 2 J 10 6 5 2 —
E-W Vul	10 A 6 4 3 — A K Q 8 7 5 4 3

Mathe West 5 Dbl Pass Dbl

Schapiro NORTH Pass 6 Pass 6 7

Rosen East 1 Pass 6 Pass Dbl

Reese South 5 Pass Pass Pass All Pass

7 × South Down 1 -100

Dodds West 2 4 Pass Dbl

Ellenby NORTH Pass Pass 5 Pass All Pass

Meredith East 1 3 5 Dbl

Roth South 2 4 5 6

6 × South Made 6 +1090 USA +1190

The first auction made by jaw drop. Reese chose the preemptive approach (fine), then Schapiro raised to 6 * (OK) over 5 ; but Schapiro’s next bid of 6  boggles the mind. And he was right! Also note that he right-sided the slam to prevent the killing club ruff. Wow. Alas, Schapiro lost his nerve when Mathe doubled, so the amazing plus 1210 (or 1310 if East doesn’t cash the A) faded into oblivion. Seven clubs had no chance with any lead.

*The modern strategy (if North bids at all) would be to bid 5 over 5 as a lead-director. Logically, this must show a club fit as a passed hand.

At the second table, Roth’s serpentine path worked well, ending in the laydown club slam. It seems that Meredith’s double of 5  was an attempt to direct a club lead — no overtricks — but it really shows the folly of making speculative doubles on freakish deals. Also note that East-West can win all 13 tricks in diamonds without a heart lead (then only 11), which proves once again that bridge is a bidder’s game.

Hey! How could we lose this match after the 1190 points gifted here?

Comments for A. 2 then 3

Alan Kravetz: If partner has K-Q-x-x, we will be favored to make 6 . Don’t lose the heart suit.

Richard Higgins: This seems too easy, so maybe I am missing something. Partner should figure [I have] lots of clubs since I didn’t double initially.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Partner has a very weak hand but may have hearts… The opponents [probably] won’t stop below 4  or 5 , so finding a heart fit may allow us to bid 5  over 5 .

Scott Stearns: Although I may pull 4 to 5 if partner raises hearts, I’d like to give him a good idea of my hand. Showing both suits is the best way to do that. The 6  bashers have my secret admiration.

Andrew de Sosa: The lure of 3 NT with nine running tricks is too great to pass up. This gives partner a shot at the nine-trick game should he have stoppers in diamonds and spades. Also, there’s always a chance we have a nine-card heart fit, which could play pretty well.

Stephen McDevitt: Too many awful hands where we’re cold for slam to preempt first time around. Meanwhile, I think it is important to get hearts in if I can because that is the suit I want partner to evaluate for honor strength.

Stu Goodgold: Normally, I would not bother with hearts; but here I am outsuited in clubs, so I show the major.

Mary Smith: At first glance my hand screams clubs, clubs, clubs. But wait! It could really be our hand in hearts, hearts, hearts. If the opponents are double-fitted, we might have a huge heart fit; so I must let partner in on the joke.

Excuse me, but shouldn’t that be: “Joke, joke, joke?”

Henry Raymond: Don’t like any choice; where’s the double? North’s a passed hand, so no fear of passing 1  doubled. If partner bids diamonds, I bid clubs. Lacking that, I will settle for my second choice.

Audrey Kueh: I am looking for heart support to gauge [how high to bid in clubs].

Mark Raphaelson: Honestly, I think I would double first. If partner can bid 2 , I’ll jump to 4 , since I’ll probably have the same losers in hearts as clubs. Either way, I don’t want to shut out hearts.

Mike Giordano: Not really my answer. I wanted to bid 2 then 4 , but the program nullified my entry…

Sorry. Most people like the multiple-choice format. I try to list any option that could possibly win, but yours (while reasonable) would not be popular. -RP

John Reardon: I don’t really expect to play in hearts, but I never will unless I bid them. I very much doubt the auction will end here.

Brian Ross: I’ll try 5 over the expected 4 and will pass partner’s double of 5 .

Barry Goren: Maybe not 8-4 but certainly primary clubs (failure to Michaels). I will bid to 5 myself but refuse to give up on 3 NT if partner can bid it.

Chris Willenken: I probably won’t end up playing in hearts, but partner won’t be able to evaluate his hand well if I never mention the suit. I would have bid Michaels with five hearts, and I would have made a takeout double with 4-6 distribution (and enough high cards to contest the auction), so I think my 3  bid implies 4-7 distribution.

Ted Morris: I was torn between Choices A and D but finally decided that a club contract would suffer from any heart problems with little chance of remediation; but a heart contract might handle club problems.

Geoff Bowden: This seems to put a lot of pressure on partner, but I have somewhere to run if doubled.

Imre Csiszar: A guessing game; Choice F or G may well be best. When choosing the scientific 2 , the logical continuation is to bid hearts to help partner evaluate his offensive and defensive potential, and perhaps to prepare a sacrifice in hearts one trick lower than in clubs — which may even make.

John Byers: Maybe both 5 and 5 make, so this is the last chance to allow partner to compete with 5  over the inevitable 5  call. Not much harm done otherwise.

Josh Sinnett: Wouldn’t you be embarrassed if you never bid hearts and partner had something resembling x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x-x-x-x x?

Nigel Guthrie: … North holding A-x-x-x x-x-x Q-J-x-x x-x 6 is unlikely, but 3 will get us to a safe 3 NT when 5  [needs a 3-3 heart break].

Paul Hightower: Partner might bid 3 NT or 4 . Bidding 2 followed by a jump [in clubs] just gives them room to find their fit. An immediate 6  is probably my second choice.

Gerben Dirksen: The failure to bid Michaels suggests only four hearts and therefore a good 6-4 or 7-4 — or even 8-4.

Mary Jo Branscomb: Surely this will blow my partner out of the water and make him squeak; the vulnerability favors us.

Comments for F. 5 immediately

Tim Hemphill: Maybe the opponents can be bought off their double fit.

Hendrik Sharples: What do you call an eight-bagger? Trumps.

Anthony Golding: So I’ve got nine tricks. I won’t give the opponents a chance to get together at a low level; and I won’t gamble for partner to produce three tricks and force them to double me in 6  when they might not have competed over 5 .

Nick Doe: Why give them a chance at this vulnerability to assess what they have? This is not a hand to play in hearts, although the existence of a heart fit will do my chances in a club contract no harm.

David Harari: This hand must be played in clubs. I bid what I think I can make.

Csaba Raduly: Even green-vs-red, I won’t bid 6 . :)

Jonathan Steinberg: With partner having passed and some strength on my right, the rather strong preempt seems most likely to lead to success.

Rainer Herrmann: As can be seen here, starting slowly usually helps the opponents more than us.

Julius Linde: With a passed partner, I’m standing on no ceremony. Five clubs, while it rules out a 4  contract, is the most likely contract to make and puts a lot of pressure on the opponents. Three spades, followed by 5 , is another option, though it probably leads nowhere.

Gillian Paty: With a passed hand in North, having a slam would be pure luck. I better bid 5 now, and keep the opponents in the mist. …

Steve Boughey: What, no 3 NT option? Partner only needs J-9-x-x and K-J-x-x for it to have a play! But if that’s not allowed, then at favorable vulnerability with partner already passed, how can I bid less than 5  immediately?

John R. Mayne: Two clubs? Ick. … Sure, some enormous number of hearts might be right, but with partner a passed hand, jamming the auction to 5  out of the box has to be right.

Martijn Schoonderwoerd: With four losers and a passed partner, this should be high enough. I see no reason to introduce such a flimsy heart suit, so I will bid as high as I think I can get away with. Second choice is a direct 6 .

Jonathan Goldberg: Opposite a passed partner, this is a two-way shot: either I make it, or I make it hard for the opponents to pick the right game.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Hands with eight-baggers are usually not suited for science. This is the level to which I would always bid (at least), and preferably before opponents find their fit.

Adam Saroyan: If partner has hearts, I will make lots of clubs. If you made me bid 2 the first time, I would bid 4  now — don’t see that choice offered, but it must be better than 3 . Why let the opponents in cheap with the low-level overcall? Yes, we might miss a slam; but they might misjudge as well.

Ian Payn: What, with luck, I can make. If the opponents bid on, partner will double — I hope.

Elianor Kennie: Put the opponents to the test and make it uncomfortable.

Hans Uijting: Why let them find their fit? I’ve already found ours. :)

Julian Wightwick: Then double if the opponents bid on, suggesting a good hand with a side defensive trick. This is easier opposite a passed hand.

Jos van Kan: With a passed partner, I am not going to be scientific.

Connie Delisle: I’m not interested in a conversation and want to silence the opponents. It won’t be easy for them to bid at the five level, vulnerable.

Timothy Liang Kan: Let the opponents discover if their hands fit at the five level. Six clubs seems to require too much, though I imagine it makes when it isn’t bid. :)

Gareth Birdsall: An immediate 5 gives the opponents the greatest opportunity to do the wrong thing, and we’ll be there to apply the ax.

Tom Schlangen: … Take away the opponents’ bidding space. Even if partner has the magic hand with good hearts (making six of a round suit tasty), we’ll likely never get to play this hand.

Robert Lavin: … Unless partner has five or more hearts, this is a club hand. So 5 , and let the opponents guess.

Barry Rigal: I want to force the opponents to bid 5 so I can double them; hence, the immediate action.

Len Vishnevsky: Unless partner bids hearts [voluntarily], I want to play in clubs. This chance doesn’t seem to be worth letting the opponents have three levels of bidding.

Jim Tully: Give up the fantasy of finding a 4-4 heart fit. With a magic hand ( K-Q-x-x) we’d likely make six, but partner is more likely to have wasted strength in their suits.

J. Michael Andresen: After [partner’s pass] this feels like their hand, so I will preempt.

Comments for C. 2 then 5

Karen Walker: Two clubs then 3 would suggest a 6-4 pattern, but 8-4 is just too far removed from that to offer hearts as a suitable strain. Hearts won’t be a good contract if partner has a typical 5=4=3=1…pattern; my hand will be tapped early, and partner…may not be able to run the clubs. … This sequence should show 9-10 tricks with an outside card or two.

Sandy Barnes: I have a play for game opposite Q-10-x and out. After West’s 2 call, there is little left for partner to hold. I am prepared to bid 6  over 5 .

Daniel Korbel: We could be making a lot of hearts or clubs, so preempting at white-versus-red seems premature.

Robin Zigmond: Too many controls to preempt. As it is, I have to guess, and partner probably doesn’t have the right heart holding to make a slam good. Long clubs seem to be a theme this month. :)

Richard Morse: Tough — particularly when I know how the bidding is going to continue. :) Two clubs feels right over 1  since occasionally I will catch partner with a fair (albeit passed) hand with hearts. Once partner has passed twice, it is a question of how high to blast; and 5  combines preemption with some chance of making. It would be hugely galling to bid 6  and find that only five was makable.

Ron Zucker: I bid only 2 hoping partner, not West, had a good hand. That didn’t happen, so now I want the opponents to guess at the five level. I’ll defend 5 .

David Woulds: If North has the kind of hearts where we make 4 , then I should also make 5 . In a 4-4 heart fit it could be disastrous if I am forced at trick one.

Dale Freeman: I do not like immediate preempts with this hand. I have no interest in a heart contract, so either 5  or 6  seems right. Not sure what I will do over 5 . :)

Nikolay Demirev: Can’t I start with a double or 2 ? Now I lose forever the inference that K-Q in partner’s hand is golden. Zia would start with 2  and follow with 5  — the downside is that we don’t have Rosenberg as a partner to work it out. :)

Dave Maeer: Partner will know to value hearts from the auction, and he will know that I have a huge hand because I didn’t bid 5  directly.

Leonard Helfgott: The only advantage in 2 then 4 is that I can bid 4 over 4 to play there only opposite four hearts (an earlier heart bid might imply five). It takes very little to make 5 .

George Klemic: Unless partner has K-x-x-x-x, this is [likely] to play better in clubs. If it goes 5  P P, I will bid 5  (at this vulnerability), which should suggest 8-4. If they jump to 6 , I will probably do the same (6 ) as now it looks like there is a club void.

Sandy McIlwain: Not thrilled with the choices, as it’s [difficult] to get hearts in play. Four clubs puts it to me when 5  comes back; 6  takes partner out of the game; 5  allows me to bid 5  over 5  — finally!

Paulino Correa: Opponents are likely to have a game, possibly at 4 , so it’s imperative to take this bid away from West.

Jinzhou Loo: The bad break in diamonds may just yield the extra trick to defeat 5 .

Judy Eaton: … If I bid 3 , partner might pass with three hearts and a singleton club.

David Morrow: I don’t want to shut partner out on the first round; but when he says nothing over 2 , I go for it — especially at favorable vulnerability.

Ron Landgraff: I gave up trying to make 4 with these hands; the opponents tap me in diamonds, and the long clubs become useless.

Thijs Veugen: First 2 because partner might bid hearts. When not, I bid the most likely contract.

Jeff Yutzler: I’ll take the midpoint on the risk-reward curve.

Chuck Arthur: Although tempting, I think that 3 is wrong. I don’t need a heart lead; it gives information to the opponents…; and partner may erroneously prefer hearts to clubs… I hate to preempt (by now bidding 5 ) when partner could easily have enough to beat 4 ; but I cannot help myself. :)

David Lindop: Five clubs immediately might have worked better, but partner might have enough to bid a slam on this sequence. Of course, I don’t know how partner is expected to figure out that K-Q-x-x is [enough].

Yossi Nygate: I do not want to play in hearts, so there is [little] value in bidding 3 ; 6 is too rich.

Chris Maclauchlan: I don’t want to [preempt] on my first bid; but having given that a shot, I will now bid 5  and leave any further bidding to partner. Bidding 3  is awfully tempting; but if we have a heart fit, I should make 5  anyway.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 576), and on each problem only for the top three calls. About 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 trip back to 1955, as well as the celebration of our country’s 227th birthday, or at least tolerated us, as 227 is not exactly a memorable number. Let’s see… 227 is a prime; does that count? Thanks to all who responded, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Well, the fireworks are over. Time for a glass of wine, as I leave you with a few final remarks:

John R. Mayne: Nice car! I’m sure that’s the prize this month, with entrants to PavCo contests ineligible.

Hans Uijting: Nice set of problems — for those who like to blame partner for not understanding their creativity.

Adam Saroyan: Unusual set, Richard, in that…any one of the choices on each problem might be the best way to go about it at a particular moment. You been watching too much of that World Poker Tour on TV?

Chris Vinall: No more long minors, please!

Analyses 7Y48 Main Challenge

Scores Top This Land Is Your Land

© 2003 Richard Pavlicek