Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge
Crossroads of Eternal Hope
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 7Y56 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in September of 2003, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals played in a past tournament. In the poll I did not reveal the year and location, and participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.
| Problem 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Final Notes |
The wrong guesses this month made quite a globe-trotting journey: Rome, Italy; Monte Carlo, Monaco; Menton, France; Hamilton, Bermuda; Miami, Florida (I don’t think so); Honolulu, Hawaii; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Perth, Australia; Johannesburg and Cape Town, South Africa. What a trip!
My title provided a clue to the location. No, it’s not some ethereal passage from the great beyond, or even a silly anagram, but a reference to comedian Bob Hope and his famous “Road” movies with Bing Crosby and Dorothy Lamour. The “Eternal” part might be an exaggeration, but Hope came a lot closer than most of us will, living to be a centenarian. More specifically, the movie is “Road to Rio”; hence, the tournament site was Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The background song Thanks For the Memory was Bob Hope’s theme song.
I am honored to pay tribute to Bob Hope, not only because he made us all laugh but because of his active concern for the men and women of our armed forces. When I was in West Germany (1965) there were rumors that his Christmas show might be held at our base because of safety concerns traveling to Vietnam. Wouldn’t you know? He went to Vietnam anyway.
At the top is a sunset view of Rio de Janeiro Bay and part of the rock formation for which it is famous; just out of view is Sugarloaf Mountain, a stunning monolith that I thought would be too well-known to include. Also pictured is a portion of Ipanema Beach, famous for its scantily clad women — or if my wife is reading, its pure white sand.
The night photo is part of the famous Copacabana Hotel, which was my only clue to the year. If you look closely at the facade, you will see a number that doesn’t belong there: 1979 (etched by yours truly). At least 50 people caught this, so I was a bit generous this time in revealing the year. Consider yourself warned; next time you’ll need a microscope.
The orchid pictured, or to be more specific, the “Queen of Laelias” is the national flower of Brazil and has given rise to more cultivated varieties than any other orchid.
Congratulations to Gareth Birdsall, who was the first of 20 people to guess both the year and location. I was surprised, however, that not one person came up with the Bob Hope connection; or at least no one mentioned it. Now that’s what I call hopeless.
Mike Doecke Wins!This poll had 1117 participants from 116 locations, and the average score was 47.31. Congratulations to Mike Doecke (Australia), who was the first of six to produce perfect scores. Also scoring 60 were Gerald Goodman (Fort Lee, New Jersey); Melih Karadede (Turkey); Margaret Parnis-England (Malta); Max Vaight (Toronto, Ontario); and Mark Wittlinger (Bellevue, Washington). Twelve players were just a point back at 59, and 12 also scored 58.
The overall leaderboard took on a new crowd at the top, with Frans Buijsen (Netherlands) leading the way with a 56.00 average. Close behind are Manuel Paulo (Portugal) and Mihai Valcu (Canada) with 55.25; and Matti Niemi (Finland) with 55.00. Five players are next with 54.75.
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
The 1979 Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held October 8-19, 1979 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. One of the closest and most exciting world championships ever, the outcome was in doubt down to the last deal.
Six teams were involved, each representing its respective bridge zone: Australia (South Pacific), Brazil (South America), Italy (Europe), United States (North America), Panama-Venezuela (Central America) and Taiwan (Far East). After a triple round-robin (a nine-day marathon) the standings by Victory Points were: Italy 180, United States 176, Australia 166, Taiwan 128, Panama-Venezuela 124, and Brazil 108.
The top two teams would square off in a 96-board final with full carryover from the round-robin. This meant that Italy would start with a 37-IMP lead over United States.
Representing United States (pictured L-R, top row first) were Malcolm Brachman, Mike Passell, Eddie Kantar, Paul Soloway, Bobby Goldman (appears to have slept through the event) and Billy Eisenberg. Representing Italy were Giorgio Belladonna, Vito Pittala, Benito Garozzo, Lorenzo Lauria, Arturo Franco and Dano DeFalco — kind of a “mixed Blue Team” with veterans Belladonna and Garozzo breaking in the new breed.
It is no mystery that Brachman, the U.S. sponsor, was far below the caliber of the other players; but he was most instrumental in the final match. In the second segment, he and Passell (teamed with Kantar-Eisenberg) may have given Italy their worst 16-board drubbing in history, 71 IMPs to 3. Wow. Even so, give Italy credit for a steady comeback to make it one of the closest world championships in history. When the smoke cleared, United States stood standing by a mere 5 IMPs.
So pull up a chair and match your bidding skills with the world’s best of 1979. On with the show!
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 1
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North 1  3 
| East Pass Pass | SOUTH Pass 1 NT ? | 10 7 K 9 8 4 A Q J 2 5 4 2
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 434 | 39 |
| 5 | 9 | 172 | 15 |
| 3 | 7 | 338 | 30 |
| 4 NT | 6 | 51 | 5 |
| 3 | 4 | 26 | 2 |
| 6 | 3 | 24 | 2 |
| 3 NT | 1 | 72 | 6 |
Slam bells ring (are you list’nin’?) when you see partner’s 3 bid, and the problem is how to proceed. Blackwood is inappropriate without club control.* The consensus was simply to raise diamonds to establish the fit and leave room to explore. Clearly, this is forcing (3 was a game force). The trouble is that 4 does not necessarily indicate slam interest, so it will be hard to gauge what to do next if partner bids 4 , 4 or 5 .
*Regular Blackwood (per system guidelines) is not so bad, as being off two aces is more of a danger than lacking club control. Note, however, that key-card Blackwood is terrible, because a 5 response puts you overboard.
The prominent feature of this hand is the good trumps, so I prefer the immediate jump raise. Even without special agreements, it would be illogical to bid 5 with mediocre trumps because opener might have manufactured the jump shift. Hence, 5 shows exactly what you have and mildly invites six.
Another popular tack was to bid the heart suit. While this gives the right picture regarding hearts vs. clubs, it is unlikely to be the key to a diamond slam. If you next raise diamonds, will partner ever believe your trumps are this good? Hardly, so you’ll have to guess whether to bid slam yourself.
A false preference to 3 is even worse, making it virtually impossible to convince partner you have good diamonds. This would be appropriate with, say, 10-x Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x J-x-x, to keep 3 NT alive; but here it’s like wasting your turn.
Let’s see what happened 24 years ago in Rio de Janeiro:
| USA vs Italy | A K J 8 5 3 2 — K 8 7 4 3 Q
| |
| Q 6 4 A Q 10 6 5 10 J 9 7 3
|  | 9 J 7 3 2 9 6 5 A K 10 8 6
|
| Both Vul | 10 7 K 9 8 4 A Q J 2 5 4 2 | |
| Franco West Pass Pass Pass | Kantar North 1 3 6
| DeFalco East Pass Pass All Pass | Eisenberg SOUTH Pass 1 NT 5
| 6 North Made 6 +1370 |
| Brachman West Pass | Garozzo North 4
| Passell East All Pass | Lauria SOUTH Pass | 4 North Made 5 +650 USA +12 IMPs |
At the first table, Kantar-Eisenberg conducted a perfect auction (at least in my view) to reach the near-laydown slam. Kantar’s main concern was trump quality, and 5 was just the bid he needed to hear. Also, note that Kantar wisely eschewed the temptation just to bid 4 . Even opposite a passed hand, slam was possible; and those who seek shall find.
At the second table, the Italian style of making heavy preempts worked poorly. (It’s about time, hehe, as they usually land on their feet.) Garozzo’s decision would find much expert approval facing a passed hand, so the outcome was somewhat unfortunate. But no matter what you call it, this was 12 IMPs to the United States — and decisive in the match in view of the narrow 5-IMP win.
Comments for 4 George Klemic: Forcing. I will pass 4 from partner; otherwise, cooperate in looking for slam.
Chris Maclauchlan: Since we are in a game-forcing auction, this should show primary trump support and demand a cue-bid. I could definitely see how bashing 6 could be a winner, though.
Frans Buijsen: I am maximum and have the best possible fit, so I want to make at least one move towards slam. I’ll follow up with 5 to show my lack of controls in the side suits.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: … I have super diamonds and am close to 6 . The problem is what to do next if partner cue-bids 4 as we could be missing club control; maybe fake a spade cue-bid with 4 . :)
Phyllis Gibson: Looks like partner’s big hand might be 5-5 or 6-5. I think 4 [may sound] too weak, but I don’t want to prevent partner from asking with 4 NT. I hate to bid 4 NT looking at three losing clubs.
Dale Rudrum: Assuming partner does not bid like this with 5=2=4=2 (he should raise notrump), there are excellent slam possibilities — especially as partner thinks his hand is good enough to jump with a lousy diamond holding. …
Jess Cohen: What does partner need for slam? Can he have less than A-K-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x A-K, and jump to 3 ? I am not stopping short of slam but need only bid 4 to set the trump suit and see what he does next. …
Gerry Wildenberg: Since 3 is forcing to game, I make the most economical raise of diamonds. Three notrump is an invitation to disaster.
Dick Winant: With this great fit I’d like to set the proper strain. It’s easy to imagine a slam hand opposite, and 3 NT would be discouraging. Partner may need Blackwood to investigate so I want to leave that option open.
Dan Griggs: … There maybe a slam, so I’m going to go slow and…hope partner [cooperates].
Teymur Tahseen: … With top values and vulnerable, I must give slam a chance.
Albert Ohana: I opt for game or slam in the minor.
Mary Smith: Most flexible. It’s not my style to mastermind with 5 or 6 , as I live in Detroit and play mostly with Type A personalities.
James Hudson: The diamond support is too good to suppress.
Barry Rigal: Keeps spades open. Bidding 3 (then 4 ) would normally show a first-round control.
Anthony Golding: Three hearts would be a weak hand with a long suit; and I’m not supporting spades with this disparity, nor bidding 3 NT without a club stopper. … This allows cue-bidding to establish if partner has A-K-Q-x-x Q-x K-10-9-x-x A, or his rounded suits the other way around. …
Leonard Helfgott: When in doubt, raise; I cannot suppress this magnificent support. With honor-doubleton in spades and four weak diamonds, 3 might be better; but not here. The only question is whether to emphasize trump quality with a jump to 5 , but I’ll bid more slowly with my side card and balanced hand.
Scott Stearns: My preferred style is not to jump shift into bad suits; so if partner really has a diamond suit, the rest of his hand must be pretty amazing. It’s possible he had to fake a jump shift with a powerful spade suit; if so, I’m still OK with 4 because chances of 6 are reasonable. …
J.J. Gass: …I think Zia would say something like, “I was dealt the 10 for a reason.” At matchpoints, I’d be more worried about whether we could [score higher] in 3 NT than 5 ; but at IMPs I’ll try to simplify the auction by setting trumps… There’s not a great risk that 3 NT is a good contract and 5 a bad one, particularly as compared with the chance that we can make 6 but not 3 NT. It’s easy, for example, to construct a 5=3=4=1 hand for partner that is down in 3 NT (losing at least five club tricks off the top) but has 12 top tricks in diamonds. …
Jack Rhatigan: I will bid 6 later if partner cue-bids [clubs]. …
Bjorn Rem: … Three notrump may be the best contract, but I have to investigate 6 .
Mark Kinzer: The choice is between 4 and 5 . I like 5 to show good trumps, which this hand certainly has; but sometimes partner has fudged a bit with, say, 6=3=3=1 shape, and this keeps an out if he now rebids 4 (which I’ll pass). Also, 5 is more appealing if I didn’t have a heart control; perhaps x-x Q-x-x A-Q-J-x-x x-x-x.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Seems the straightforward approach, suggesting slam prospects and leaving the court open for partner.
Gerben Dirksen: … Slam is cold opposite a working minimum like A-K-Q-x-x A-x K-x-x-x-x x.
Geoff Ostrin: Partner knows I am limited…and this keeps the slam door open.
Dennis Kibler: To allow partner to use Blackwood.
Jonathan Steinberg: I prefer to have five cards to raise partner’s minor-suit jump shift; but A-Q-J-x qualifies. I have a good hand with great diamonds. …
Roger Morton: Potentially a huge hand if North has controls in the unbid suits. Keep it simple.
Adam Saroyan: On our way to at least six. Blasting to 6 puts perhaps too much pressure on partner, who might have invented his diamond bid. We might belong in spades so let’s give ourselves some room.
David Lindop: … Partner may want to insist on spades, but we could be cold for 7 on many hands. Partner must have a great hand to jump shift in such a poor suit.
Sandy McIlwain: Most important to convey where I can help the most. Bidding slam is premature, and spades may still be the suit. …
Larry Gifford: My diamond support is phenomenal, and 10-x is a good holding. With most of my points in partner’s suit, I am not trying for 3 NT… This should begin a cue-bidding sequence, or perhaps partner can take control.
Germano Po: Having most of my points in partner’s jump-shift suit indicates immediate support.
Harold Simon: If 4 is playable opposite 10-x, partner will bid it.
Neelotpal Sahai: Slam is in the air but not certain. I am maximum for 1 NT and have excellent support. …
Gareth Birdsall: This should convey my extra values, whereas bidding 3 then 4 would be consistent with a weaker hand.
Sylvain Brethes: … This should show slam interest; partner could have A-K-Q-x-x A-x K-x-x-x-x x.
David Caprera: The harder question is what I do next after partner rebids 4 ; I think I will let it go. Bidding 3 shows [five or more] hearts, not this hand.
Yi Zhong: A preference to partner’s first suit is the default bid in a sequence like this; so this shows good diamonds. If partner has club shortness, even a 4-3 diamond slam is OK.
Dave Maeer: I think it’s time to find out what partner’s idea was; I can probably drive to 6 or 6 …
Svein Erik Dahl: No reason to rush; I do have support and a partner with good judgment abilities. :)
Karen Walker: It’s possible that partner is 6-3; but if so, he’ll clarify with a 4 bid. The temporizing 3 might be attractive if I were willing to sit for 3 NT; but since partner almost always has a singleton for this auction, that doesn’t rate to be our best spot.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Depending on the nature of partner’s jump shift, my hand is playable in spades or diamonds. I will make a strong statement about slam prospects and leave the final decision to partner.
Julian Wightwick: Five diamonds is likely to be safe enough, and this is the best way to get to 6 when it’s on.
Nick Krnjevic: … I have a great hand and will cooperate with any slam try partner makes. Although 3 is superficially attractive (if partner bids 3 then follow with 4 ) it is ostensibly natural, and I may be stuck if he raises to 4 — is 5 then a cue-bid or a belated attempt to find the right strain? Three spades misrepresents my hand; 3 NT is a significant underbid; and 4 NT has the wrong person driving the bus. Five diamonds has some appeal since it conveys the approximate diamond strength; but is partner supposed to bid on holding A-K-Q-J-x Q-x K-x-x-x-x A? …
John Reardon: My diamonds are excellent, but my K may be wasted; let’s see what happens next.
Comments for 5 Bill Powell: Showing the [good] fit, and stronger than 4 .
Charles Blair: Great diamonds; not much else. I hope partner [bids 6 ] with A-K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x K-10-x K and finds diamonds 3-3 and spades 4-1.
Mark Raphaelson: I’m interested in slam; but with two quick losers in [clubs], Blackwood doesn’t look right. This should show [a maximum for 1 NT].
Mihkel Allik: Just hard to see any advantage of 3 NT over 5 . Partner [rates to] be at least 5-5 with weak holdings in clubs and hearts…
Kevin Costello: I’m interested in slam in diamonds, but partner will tend to be uncooperative with such weak trumps. The fact that I can raise so strongly should suggest the strength of my diamond holding.
Gerald Cohen: Clearest way to show good diamonds. If partner has six spades and three diamonds, he might still survive — or even get to slam with A-K-Q-J-x-x A-x K-x-x K-x.
Ted Ying: In Standard American, this should be stronger than 4 . … Partner will read me for a maximum and might be coaxed to bid 6 with a real monster (HCP or distribution).
Carlos Dabezies: … Partner has a strong two-suiter, probably 5-5 or 6-4. … This shows my excellent diamonds and suggests the absence of other controls. With very good outside controls… partner can bid 6 . At IMPs it may not matter much if we languish in 5 when 3 NT scores more.
Naveed Ather: Hopefully, this shows [maximum] values. I would have liked to bid 3 then correct partner’s next bid to diamonds, but that may be tough for partner [if he raises hearts].
Marie-Irene Heyvaert: Showing excellent trump support; lets partner bid six if he wants.
Danny Kleinman: Last chance to show exceptionally strong diamond support (with no side ace) as a mild slam try.
Comments for 3 Gordon Bower: I don’t like my options. Four diamonds seems like the [normal] way to try for slam (seeing if I get a 4 cue-bid back) but partner still won’t know what I have. This will sound like a [long] heart suit and a bad hand…but when I go back to diamonds next, partner will know I like diamonds and have a heart honor; then he can decide.
John R. Mayne: This is potentially a very good hand for diamonds, and 3 …to show heart values seems ideal. Three notrump and 4 NT are particularly awful calls.
David Milton: I am tempted to bid 4 right away, however, that has a number of flaws. Partner may have manufactured his 3 call with a hand too good to rebid 3 (my diamond strength hints at this). If partner bids 3 or 3 NT, I will then bid 4 , hoping to give the message that 3 was an advance cue-bid in support of diamonds.
Facundo Chamut: If I bid 4 and partner follows with 4 or 4 , I would be endplayed in the bidding [not knowing about club control]; hence the imperfect 3 . I hope to be able to bid 4 next…
Dieter Laidig: Showing a stopper and/or an advance cue-bid. After 3 NT from partner I’ll pass; otherwise, I’ll support diamonds. … My hand surely has some slam potential. …
Vladimir Prokhorov: As little as A-K-x-x-x A-x K-x-x-x-x x from partner will be enough to make 6 ; so why not to show my heart values before the diamond fit? On the next round I will bid 5 , and partner will surely pass with something like A-K-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x A-x.
Arthur Hoffman: I must show a feature before supporting diamonds vigorously to imply this strength for a [1 NT response].
Richard Wilson: … The question is whether to bid 5 or 6 , and partner’s [likely] three cards in hearts and clubs [are a concern]. I bid 3 as an advance cue-bid, intending to raise diamonds next.
Tyson Patterson: I plan to bid 4 over the expected 3 NT.
Vasily Zhelezny: No amount of diamonds seems appropriate. If partner supports hearts, I’ll bid 6 ; if 3 NT, then 4 (and accept a 4 NT sign-off later). Partner may have 6-3-3-1 shape, so I better be delicate.
Charles Leong: To be followed by 4 to show an advance cue-bid for diamonds.
Imre Csiszar: … Followed by a jump to 5 . …
David Cochener: Partner should have a two-suiter, and we’re on our way to at least 6 . His next bid over 3 could help clarify issues relative to 7 .
Jeff Goldsmith: First order of business is to find out if 3 NT is playable.
Tim DeLaney: It seems premature to commit to diamonds when hearts, spades or notrump might be better. Over 3 NT, I pass; over 4 , I bid 6 ; and over 3 , 4 .
Jim Grant: I have a…super maximum and a strong fit. I’m not sure whether 3 or 4 would better describe my intent… but 3 has an edge by pinpointing a feature.
Ed Freeman: I’d really like to hear partner’s next call. If 3 NT, I will pass; over anything else, I’ll bid 4 to find whether we make six.
Tibor Roberts: I don’t like this much, but it’s undeniably the most flexible bad bid I can make — I’ll get a little more information from partner before I have to commit.
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 2
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1 Dbl | North 2 Pass | EAST Pass 2 Pass | South Pass 3 ? | J 5 A K 5 Q 8 4 J 10 5 3 2
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 588 | 53 |
| 5 | 8 | 84 | 8 |
| 3 | 7 | 286 | 26 |
| 3 | 6 | 46 | 4 |
| Redouble | 3 | 65 | 6 |
| 3 NT | 2 | 48 | 4 |
In the eyes of the moderator, when the majority choose a particular call, it indicates a poorly chosen problem. OK, so I win some and lose some. I felt that 4 would not do justice to this hand, considering partner made a two-level overcall at adverse vulnerability opposite a passed hand. If partner has short diamonds as the bidding suggests, 5 should make opposite most hands worth a 2 bid.
Some respondents questioned the previous 3 cue-bid (versus 2 ) but this is standard fare. When opponents have shown two suits, the choice of cue-bids implies a stopper so partner can then bid notrump with the other suit stopped.* This was the original plan, but the auction became muddled by West’s double. Partner now might not have bid 3 NT even with a spade stopper for fear of a diamond lead through your hand — in which case, you probably don’t want to be in 3 NT either.
*Do not confuse this with the more common situation when the enemy has shown only one suit. Then a cue-bid would not show anything specific and is often made to ask partner to bid 3 NT with the enemy suit stopped.
My choice is between a delicate 3 or 3 , and a simple 5 . While either delicacy is clearly forcing, there doesn’t seem to be any great purpose, and this might lead to confusion down the line. For example, if you bid 3 partner may infer spade control (say, a singleton); or if you bid 3 partner may expect a real suit and compete to 5 over 5 . Therefore, 5 seems best. Even if this happens to be down one, the strategy of forcing the last guess upon the opponents is undeniably sound.
What about redouble? This is surely wrong as it should mean: Don’t worry about diamonds, partner, just bid 3 NT with a spade stopper. No thanks; it might make more sense to bid 3 NT yourself and gamble on both suits. Yes, it seems I’m always including 3 NT as an option. Bob Hamman, are you list’nin’?
Here’s what happened in the “River of January”:
| USA vs Italy | A Q 9 4 10 7 10 9 A K 9 6 4
| |
| K 10 8 3 2 Q 9 6 3 2 K 2 8
|  | 7 6 J 8 4 A J 7 6 5 3 Q 7
|
| N-S Vul | J 5 A K 5 Q 8 4 J 10 5 3 2 | |
| Pittala West 1 Dbl All Pass | Eisenberg North 2 Pass | Belladonna EAST Pass 2 Pass | Kantar South Pass 3 4
| 4 North Made 5 +150 |
| Goldman West 1
| Lauria North Pass | Soloway EAST Pass 1 NT | Garozzo South Pass All Pass | 1 NT East Made 94 -150 No swing |
The problem scenario arose at the first table, and Kantar took our consensus view to bid 4 . Eisenberg could hardly picture five trumps in dummy, so an excellent game (5 or 3 NT) was missed. Pittala certainly deserves some of the credit for his light opening and tactical double, a clever smoke screen that may have influenced Kantar’s decision.
Well, at least the Americans got in the bidding! Lauria chose not to overcall with the North hand — which certainly fuels the case for South to be more aggressive when North bids — and Soloway stole the show in 1 NT. This was down three for an unusual push. No IMPs either way, but an opportunity lost.
Comments for 4 George Klemic: Partner could have an excellent hand and still have problems in 5 (as could I in 3 NT). Why does the 1 call look suspicious to me?
Michael Palitsch: I haven’t much hope for 3 NT, and I see too many losers for a direct 5 .
Frans Buijsen: I’m not optimistic about the chances for 3 NT.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I have done enough. Everybody seems to have points. Three hearts is an alternative to tell partner what to lead in case we defend against spades…
Paul Michael: I only am a little better than my support cue-bid indicated… so 4 is enough.
John R. Mayne: This is timid, but the spade and diamond cards have little value on offense. Three hearts frightens me; I think we might play it there.
David Milton: If partner were interested in getting to 3 NT [but not declaring], he might have bid 3 to show a spade stopper…
Phyllis Gibson: Partner is leaving this to me, and I don’t want to punish him for a simple overcall. …
Jess Cohen: At first glance, redouble seems the winner…as it doesn’t bypass 3 NT; however, even if we have diamonds stopped, spades may be wide open, or vice versa. Too much of my stuff is in hearts and too little in the opponents’ suits for 3 NT. … I choose 4 over 5 because I want to give partner a voice in the final contract; 5 is too unilateral, although a close second.
Gerry Wildenberg: … Call me naive, but game looks distant with West opening and East bidding freely. Since I’ve got a solid 10 points, it looks like someone is psyching. Well, I can’t stay in diamonds; I’m not worth 5 , so I bid 4 . What redouble means I don’t know (probably asks partner to bid), but minus 2200 or so is not the kind of disaster I risk.
Bill Powell: Partner could have shown a spade stopper, and I’m a bit flat for 5 .
Dick Winant: I’m not going to ring the notrump bell twice; I’ve shown my nice hand and fit.
Dan Griggs: A lot of points around this board! I expect partner to have a minimum-range overcall, like A-K-x-x-x-x [and little else] so the safest place (to go set) appears to be 4 . …
Teymur Tahseen: … Partner would have made some [move] if 3 NT is on; so subside.
Jeff Yutzler: I think I’ll be happy just to win the bid. There are a ton of losers [to cover] and my club length might not be all that useful.
Mary Smith: I have what I described but not enough extras to get excited about. Discretion is often the wisest course when there are too many points in the deck.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Despite the great fit, in clubs we may very well lose three tricks in the pointed suits. Partner did not bid 3 over the double, so I don’t believe in 3 NT any more. Three hearts looks tempting (and may draw many votes), but I think it can only serve to induce partner to [raise hearts]. I’ll settle for the simple bid of what I think we can make — definitely boring, but probably effective.
Mark Raphaelson: Outside of the A-K, all my values are speculative. I see a diamond loser or three, and one or two spade loser. The auction isn’t necessarily over.
James Hudson: Both West’s double and partner’s pass say that 3 NT is unplayable. Bidding 3 would be pointless.
I’m sorry, but none of your bids would be pointless. Even 3 produces a jack.
Robert Johnson: I don’t like the feel of this hand so I take the cowardly approach. I have cue-bid diamonds and partner could not find anything exciting to say. … I think partner has clubs and not much more. Either spades or diamonds are running in 3 NT; and even if they don’t set us off the top, I am not certain of nine tricks.
Rahul Chandra: I don’t want to be clever with a cue-bid or redouble, and 5 is too risky. We have losers outside trumps, and it seems the 10+ card fit will not help with them.
Leonard Helfgott: A long-term partnership might do best with a 3 bid, but “raise with support when in doubt” has been a great credo. Partner should know I don’t have a spade stopper, and that’s enough information. Three hearts will send partner a different message, like x-x A-K-x-x Q-J-x J-x-x-x. Since I’ve already cue-bid, 5 is too much.
Dale Freeman: Not enough shape to force to 5 , and 3 NT seems unlikely with a questionable diamond stopper and nothing in spades.
Dieter Laidig: If I bid 3 or 3 , it’s likely partner will bid 3 NT; but my hand should declare because of the diamond holding. I’m tempted to bid 3 NT but worried partner has A-Q-x Q-x-x J-x K-Q-9-8-x, or some other hand when there aren’t enough tricks after a diamond is ducked around at trick one
Vladimir Prokhorov: I already showed intentions to play game, and 3 NT seems too dangerous (partner can hold J-x at best).
Bill Jacobs: Bidding 3 for the lead (against spades) is possible, and so is 5 as a preempt; but I’m not yet convinced that this deal doesn’t belong to us in 4 . Three of my 11 points are wasted, so this is a fairly accurate description.
Geoff Ostrin: … Without agreement, I take partner’s pass of the double to be weakness; so I’ll sign off in 4 . If the hand were more shapely, I would redouble.
Arthur Hoffman: My cue-bid after an initial pass implied this hand; so what else is there to do now then to affirm the club support? Although bidding 3 seems appealing, it invites 3 NT which is likely to fail with a diamond lead.
Andrew de Sosa: Partner rates to have spades stopped, but my diamond stopper is too tenuous for notrump. Thus, I’ll be content with this highly invitational sequence. If partner has K-x-x-x x-x x A-K-x-x-x-x, perhaps he can visualize our good shot at game.
Adam Saroyan: … On most hands that make 3 NT, partner would have [done something] over the double. Therefore, if there is a game, it is likely to be in clubs. I can do no more than bid 4 now, sadly by default. … As much as I would like to bid 3 , it’s really just a dead end. Will 3 NT make from partner’s side? If he bids 3 over 3 , will I know 3 NT is on? If 3 produces 4 , will I know what to do?
A heart raise presents no problem. Just bid 4 … Oops, insufficient so make it 5 and partner is barred.
Paulino Correa: Three diamonds looks pretty optimistic, so it’s time to put the feet on the ground after partner’s pass of the double.
Kevin Costello: This sequence shows strength, and partner should recognize from the bidding that it’s in hearts. I’m unwilling to bid game myself (in clubs or notrump) with such trashy holdings in the pointed suits.
Richard Wilson: I have a super trump fit but some of my points ( J and Q) are not working on offense. This could also be expressed in Law terms: 10 trumps plus eight or nine base tricks, less one trick for an impure deal = 17 or 18 tricks. Do I want to go to the five level then? …
Charlotte Vine: I won’t punish partner for an overcall that may be short in values. …
Rainer Herrmann: On the bidding North can hardly be short in hearts and must have good clubs for his overcall. If he has a spade stopper and something in diamonds, he would have bid 3 NT already. The conclusion is that 3 NT should not be on. I cannot see why North requires more than, say, 3=2=2=6 with A-K-Q-x-x-x and little outside for his overcall. If he is more distributional, say, K-x-x-x x-x x A-K-x-x-x-x, I think he should bid the game.
David Cochener: I feel like I’ve shown my values. Three notrump could make if West has A-x-x or K-x-x (so that diamonds block) and would be my second choice.
Luis Argerich: Partner’s overcall could have been light in this position, and I’m not going to overbid.
Eric Goff: It sounds like there are some shaded values around the table. I suppose partner could have A-x-x-x x-x x K-Q-9-8-x-x, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Jim Grant: I don’t think we can make 3 NT or 5 ; I’ll take a plus.
Comments for 5 Steve Boughey: There’s a lot of bidding going on; but partner did make a vulnerable two-level overcall opposite a passed hand, so I wouldn’t expect rubbish. …Unless partner is playing a deep game, pass means he has nothing more to say after his overcall; so presuming something like A-Q-x-x x-x-x x A-Q-x-x-x, 5 has excellent chances…
Sylvain Brethes: I don’t like “intellectual bids” of three in major even if I have the strange impression they are the best choice; so let’s just bid what I want to play.
Imre Csiszar: What is going on here? Apparently East is operating with a weak hand and long diamonds, and West has a true opening with diamond support for his double. With North’s expected singleton diamond, we are a favorite to make 5 ; but East-West will surely sacrifice in 5 . … If my reconstruction is wrong and we have no game, a confident 5 may still cause opponents to sacrifice.
Tim DeLaney: I can’t consider 3 NT in view of partner’s pass, and I certainly can’t consider selling out to 4 ; so why give them a fielder’s choice by bidding 4 ?
Comments for 3 Barry Rigal: Still trying for 3 NT; maybe I’m a fool for love.
Anthony Golding: I’ve shown my maximum with support, now I’ll show where I live. I think redouble should show a [sure] diamond stopper.
Stephen McDevitt: Trust partner at these colors — 2 should be a sound call. With no shortness, I have to look into 3 NT first; 4 is giving up.
Scott Stearns: I play that redouble shows a firm stopper, by either player. Since partner might have a stiff diamond, game might still be on; so I make a further try, showing where my values are.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Because it’s there. I might as well let partner know what to lead against spades, just in case…
J.J. Gass: I want to try for our most likely game, which is 3 NT; but…I’m afraid there will be ambiguity about which suits we have stopped. Further, if I cause partner to think he can bid 3 NT without a half-stopper in diamonds, we are in for a disaster. For both reasons, I reject 3 as too likely to be misunderstood. Three hearts, on the other hand, seems to [be safer]; if partner now bids 3 NT (not tremendously likely), I will not be worried about control of the enemy suits, and I can always retreat to clubs over any other bid. Over 4 , I will bid 5 because a 4-3 heart fit will not play well with the tap coming in the long hand.
Bjorn Rem: … This is intended to show a heart stopper, leaving room for partner to bid 3 NT. Over anything else, I’ll move to 4 or 5 .
Mark Kinzer: As a passed hand, 3 must guarantee club support, so I might as well bid 3 to show more about my hand on the way to 4 or 5 .
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Showing my values and allowing partner to judge strain and level.
Carsten Kofoed: I can still imagine 3 NT, which I will suggest over 3 . (If North has a singleton diamond, he won’t let me there.) …
Gerben Dirksen: Descriptive; hopefully partner will show his spade stopper so I can bid 3 NT.
Ed Barnes: An overbid, to be sure; yet 3 NT will be right if partner can bid it.
Jonathan Steinberg: Seems reasonable to show partner where my values are and let him make the next move.
Roger Morton: This keeps an unlikely 3 NT in the frame and shows where my values lie for further bidding and/or defense.
Larry Gifford: I think redouble should show a diamond control, so that’s out; 3 would ask for a spade stopper for notrump when actually I’m more worried about diamonds. Opponents are trying to push us around. I think we have a game, and a natural 3 bid is the best way to help partner evaluate.
Gerald Cohen: Yes, I am on lead against diamonds; but not against spades. I will drive to 5 or 4 doubled.
Ted Ying: If partner has a spade stopper, he can bid 3 ; then I have to decide whether to try 3 NT. …
Vasily Zhelezny: Five clubs is possible if partner has some fitting cards, and 3 should help him evaluate properly.
Germano Po: I already have shown support in clubs with the cue-bid; now I’m trying to play in 3 NT.
Neelotpal Sahai: Having committed to 4 on the previous round, I will show where my values are.
Paul Flashenberg: I’ll give one more shot at 3 NT or 5 by pinpointing where my values are.
Yi Zhong: Three notrump is still possible, so give partner a chance. …
Dave Maeer: Awkward. If partner is short in diamonds we might make a lot of tricks. I’ll show the heart values and see what happens.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner’s pass is forward going. Since I am a passed hand, I can show heart values without overstating the strength of the hand.
Eamon Galligan: Showing my heart values; denying diamond control.
Nick Krnjevic: There are a lot of points in this deck, but at these colors partner’s bid should be taken seriously; while opponents’ should be considered suspect. … I’ll bid where I live; then if partner bids 3 (showing a stopper), I’ll bid 3 NT.
Len Vishnevsky: Partner’s pass is encouraging, so I cooperate.
John Reardon: Presumably this shows values but allows partner to sign off in 4 with a minimum.
Randy Corn: Partner should take this as a cue-bid and, hopefully, a lead-director [if opponents play spades]. …
Danny Kleinman: Giving partner one more chance to seek 3 NT, which I’ll bid if he bids 3 .
Uwe Gebhardt: My first reflex was 4 ; but 3 [continues] the probe for 3 NT.
Tibor Roberts: Since I passed originally, partner should realize that…I must be showing a heart stopper (with a club fit). I’ll respect partner’s choice of level and strain after this.
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 3
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1 2
| North Dbl | EAST Pass 2
| South Pass1 ? | J 8 2 10 A 10 9 8 7 2 A 5 2
|
| 1. You do not play weak 2 2. 4+ cards | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 525 | 47 |
| 4 | 9 | 356 | 32 |
| Double (responsive) | 7 | 28 | 3 |
| 3 | 5 | 86 | 8 |
| 5 | 4 | 114 | 10 |
| 3 NT | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| 2 NT | 1 | 4 | 0 |
Regarding the problem conditions, a number of people commented they would not have opened 2 even if allowed, either because of the spade fragment or the possession of two aces. Well, to each his own. My feeling is that, even though 2 may not be ideal, it is better to bid than to pass. Perhaps your edge drops from 55 to 52 percent, but I still think there’s an advantage in opening.
I was disappointed with the voting, as 3 is a misbid by my philosophy. It would be routine to bid 3 with an ace less, and I’m never one to underbid by an ace. The general strategy in responding to a takeout double is to jump with invitational values, and I see no reason to make an exception here — so 4 . My only misgiving is that it precludes reaching 3 NT, however unlikely.
Despite my beliefs, the strong plurality for 3 cannot be denied; so I will honor the consensus for the top award as usual. A touch of conservatism might be in order, and perhaps my view is aggressive. All I can say is there are a lot of wimps out there — and please don’t tell me how 3 leaves room to explore. If partner bids again over a competitive 3 , I’d be looking for slam.
I thought the responsive double would get more votes, as it serves to compromise, giving partner a chance to bid notrump while still allowing you to bid 4 later. On a good day, partner might have K-x A-J-9-x K-Q-x x-x-x-x, and a magic 3 NT could be reached. The only downside is that, if you later correct clubs to diamonds, partner may think you have hearts.*
*This is matter of style. In my philosophy, if there is one unbid major, a responsive double denies four cards in that suit (i.e., holding the unbid major, I just bid it). Hence, a subsequent diamond bid over clubs would show invitational values, not a desire for alternate contracts.
I have a little admiration for the macho 3 bid, as it might elicit the desired 3 NT. Make that very little, as you know darn well you’ll hear 4 ; then you’re committed to game in 5 — or partner’s wrath if you table your hand in hearts.
Let’s see what happened in 1979:
| USA vs Italy | 7 5 3 A K 9 5 K 6 5 Q 9 8
| |
| A K 10 9 Q 4 3 J 4 3 J 7 6
|  | Q 6 4 J 8 7 6 2 Q K 10 4 3
|
| None Vul | J 8 2 10 A 10 9 8 7 2 A 5 2 | |
| Garozzo West 1 All Pass | Goldman North Dbl | Lauria EAST Pass 2
| Soloway South Pass 4
| 4 South Down 1 -50 |
| Kantar West 1 All Pass | Pittala North Dbl | Eisenberg EAST Pass 2
| Belladonna South Pass 3
| 3 South Down 1 -50 No swing |
The problem scenario arose at both tables. At the first table, Soloway left nothing in reserve with 4 , which had no play as the cards lie. At least he guessed trumps to salvage down one.
At the second table, Belladonna took the low road, although the situation was not really identical. Italian takeout doubles are not shape-oriented (Pittala could have almost any shape, typically with trump support for two unbid suits), so Belladonna could not assume a good fit like Soloway. Belladonna misguessed the diamond suit, so it was just another push.
The root of the problem seems to be North’s action. Is a 12-count with 4-3-3-3 shape worth a takeout double opposite a passed hand? Goldman and Pittala both thought so, but I wonder how many other experts would agree. I like to get in the bidding often and am hardly a stickler for point count; yet I would pass. Or maybe the double was a defensive bluff, trying to persuade the opponents to bid cautiously when the friendly distribution would allow them to make game. Interesting, if not a bit deep.
Comments for 3 Oleg Rubinchik: I am not a chicken, but I am afraid. … I don’t believe this will end the bidding and want to have something in reserve. …
Bill Powell: A slight underbid.
Mark Raphaelson: Maybe a hair conservative, but this is a free bid.
Hans Uijting: I will bid again if allowed.
Anthony Golding: … If I bid 4 and partner has a strong heart hand, I’ll be stuck over 4 ; so I’ll give him the chance to show it at a lower level…
Manuel Paulo: Partner’s hand can be good enough for slam ( x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-Q-x-x) or too weak for game ( x-x K-Q-x-x K-x-x K-J-x-x). Bidding freely at the lowest level seems adequate.
Dieter Laidig: Maybe too strong for a competitive 3 bid. …
Raija Davis: I’ll bid 3 next time if partner bids 3 ; for now, 3 is enough.
Roger Courtney: North [may be] pseudo protecting, so I’m happy to go slowly with a free bid. I’d also bid 3 without the 2 call.
Arthur Hoffman: While I have a little extra, the singleton heart argues for caution.
Greg Lawler: I have extras for this call, but not too much more.
Roger Morton: With a bit to spare, but I did not have to bid. I will compete to 4 or double 4 opposite a silent partner.
Al Goldspiel: If West bids 3 (showing five), I will bid 5 .
Jason Flinn: Seems like a 3 1/2 diamond hand; nonvulnerable, I bid three.
Robert Getz: Constructive. This slightly understates my values but allows the auction to go forward and may leave 3 open for a cue-bid if the expected 3 happens.
Tyson Patterson: I don’t expect opponents to make 4 or us to make 5 .
Bill Maddock: It was going to jump to 4 — until I saw Problem 4. :)
Carlos Dabezies: … Bidding notrump with only half a spade stopper is too hopeful; and why bid 4 only to have to pass 4 with a singleton?
Neelotpal Sahai: Diamonds have to be bid, and I prefer 3 (as opposed to 4 or 5 ) because it will cater to various possibilities of partner’s double. He may have a shape double with minimum values, or there may be a lot of wastage in hearts, or he may be 2=4=2=5,…etc.
Charles Leong: In EBU-land the 2 raise may be often on three, so partner is not marked with [short] spades. I will compete to 4 , and hit 4 …
Kenneth Wanamaker: I didn’t have to bid after 2 ; so 3 should show this hand.
Karen Walker: Partner may have a fairly light double here (especially since I’m a passed hand), so I don’t want to hang him with 4 . If he happens to have a big hand with hearts, this gives him room to get it off his chest. If he has enough to make a game opposite this, I expect he’ll bid on.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: At this vulnerability it pays to be circumspect, especially without a major fit. If opponents bid again, I will double to suggest penalty.
Sundra Malcolm: Switch the majors and I would be more aggressive. I cannot count on short spades in the North hand.
Rik ter Veen: … So I am maximum for my bid. It has happened before.
Ed Freeman: This hand is not worth more than a free bid at the three level. Plus, partner may have a heart [suit]. Why bury him?
Tibor Roberts: I have the values for a bid and no real interest in any suit but diamonds — and a right to expect partner doesn’t have the kind of hand I hold for my double in Problem 4.
Comments for 4 George Klemic: I have values for 5 but a suspicion that partner has a strong double with hearts. Four hearts will be a fine contract with my two aces if partner bids it.
Michael Palitsch: A close decision between 3 and 4 ; but I think I have just too much for 3 .
Thijs Veugen: My hand doesn’t look like notrump.
Frans Buijsen: I expect partner to have more than a minimum double; and considering my very good passed hand, I want to try for game.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Invitational. Partner needs specific cards for 3 NT, and it is difficult to [find it] opposite Q-x.
Nigel Guthrie: Three diamonds is too little; 5 is too much. “Four diamonds is just right!” exclaimed Goldilocks.
John R. Mayne: Hey, even if I did play weak 2 , I wouldn’t do it in second seat with two aces and good playability in spades. Five diamonds now is a perfectly fine bid, also; 3 is a gross underbid. Open 1 , anyone?
Ugur Tas: Today must be Four-of-Minor Day! If partner doesn’t have [wasted heart strength], we may make even 6 . Double and 3 are wrong because it is good policy to settle trumps first; 3 is too weak for a hand with [such good] controls; 2 NT and 3 NT are weird without spade stopper; and 5 may stop partner [from bidding six].
Don Lussky: Tough problem; I suspect that West opened a weak hand with 4 . This goes past 3 NT but is right on values and may get us to 6 . Bidding 3 is a serious underbid; and I’m not quite strong enough for 3 followed by 4 …
Jess Cohen: I have a good hand for a passed hand; good diamonds; and I can cooperate on defense if partner wants to double 4 … [Bidding] 3 might lead to a poor 3 NT, as we probably need more than one spade stopper.
Gerry Wildenberg: Three notrump could be the right spot if partner holds Q-x A-J-x-x K-Q-x K-J-x-x; 6 is nice if he has x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-Q-x-x; and I want to play a partial opposite x-x K-Q-x-x K-Q-x K-Q-x-x. … Bidding notrump is too much of a crap shoot.
Dick Winant: I think 3 NT is unlikely and I’m showing a good offensive hand and a long suit. What more is there to say?
Jeff Yutzler: Barring wicked distribution, I think the either side will go down in game. No one wants to be at 4 , but I think it is our best place.
Rosalind Hengeveld: … This near-opening is just too good for a simple 3 . I’d like to know how often 1 is based on four cards; but as it is, I don’t think we can find out about the magic Q-x for 3 NT. Three spades sounds more like A-K-Q-x-x-x and out; double leads nowhere… That leaves 4 — boring but with the best chance of being effective.
Barry Rigal: Partner can appreciate his short spades — if he has them!
Stephen McDevitt: I can’t bid like 1 is exactly four. This puts partner in the driver’s seat; I don’t think 3 is enough.
Leonard Helfgott: Even if playing good-bad 2 NT where 3 is constructive, I’ve got way too much; I’d bid five before three. Partner only needs x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-x-x-x to make 5 cold, but I won’t play for a perfecta. …
Kevin Podsiadlik: I don’t like opening weak twos with two aces anyway. I need to bid my long suit and this level feels about right; I don’t think opponents can make 4 .
J.J. Gass: … Notrump, especially from my side, is too scary with partner having at most two spades, even though the suit may split 4-4. … Diamonds is the only strain I’m comfortable with, especially since partner’s expected spade shortness may give us first or second-round control in all four suits.
Jack Rhatigan: Too many losers for 5 ; even 4 may be too much.
Bjorn Rem: … Three diamonds will be passed, and 3 NT seems to risky; so I’ll go for 4 .
Mark Kinzer: The main problem is if partner has a strong heart bid, which is suggested by my shape; however, my two aces can’t be much of a disappointment in that instance.
Tom Rand: I’ll pass if partner says 4 , hoping that is a strong heart hand and not just giving me an option with five hearts…
Carsten Kofoed: This shows a good weak 2 opening, although we don’t play that. :)
Geoff Ostrin: The lack of hearts makes me want to bid the strength of my hand. Three diamonds is just competitive, and 5 may be too much; so I’ll stick with my third four-of-a-minor bid in a row.
David Lindop: I think I’m too good for 3 (although that would have been my call if East passed), and I’m hoping I don’t take us past our only makable game (3 NT) or partscore.
Richard Wilson: I will invite but do not force to game. Also, partner may have a good one-suited hand in hearts, and my two aces will be useful if he bids 4 .
Gerald Cohen: This might miss 3 NT but wont miss a good 5 .
Ted Ying: This should show a maximum pass, inviting 5 — pretty much what I have.
Vasily Zhelezny: Three diamonds doesn’t do justice to this hand, even if defined as constructive.
Naveed Ather: Partner is short in spades, so there’s a good chance for a game opposite prime values — might make 5 with as little as x-x A-x-x-x K-Q-x K-J-x-x.
Paul Flashenberg: Partner might have a strong heart hand, in which case a jump to 5 would be bad.
Or Shoham: Slightly aggressive, perhaps, but this seems best against what looks to be a 4-4 spade fit for opponents.
Jyri Tamminen: Simple, natural, expressing the value of the hand. Three notrump is not reachable anymore with any confidence, so I’ll save our energy by avoiding a 3 cue-bid. I think this hand is closer to 5 than 3 . Will partner raise with x A-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-x-x-x? Or bid 6 with the Q also? However, a macho 5 may be tragic if partner makes off-shape doubles (2=4=2=5).
Julian Wightwick: This seems about right on values; 5 would be too much because partner may have stretched to double at this vulnerability and could easily have a second spade.
Nick Krnjevic: The value bid. If partner has a singleton spade, I’m making 5 opposite any number of well-fitting minimums.
Luis Argerich: … With J-8-2, I think chances for 3 NT are very slim if I double; so I’ll bid what I have and show a good hand with diamonds.
Randy Corn: Five diamonds is a misbid, as partner may have a real good hand with hearts. I hope he has a spade card or shortness.
Jim Grant: … Four controls and a six-card suit makes me think 3 is cowardly. This also signals to partner not to bid hearts.
Comments for DoubleGerben Dirksen: Then pull 3 to 3 to show a hand that is too strong for a direct 3 bid.
Sandy McIlwain: … Followed by 4 over clubs, or 5 1/2 over 3 . :) Better to open these at the one-level than fish through all this.
Rainer Herrmann: Four diamonds is the honest value bid, but as usual 3 NT cannot be ruled out yet.
Kees Schaafsma: Then diamonds [unless partner bids notrump]. Any other bid risks bypassing 3 NT.
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 4
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST 2 Pass | North Pass 4
| East Pass Pass | South Dbl ? | K Q J 7 A K 6 A J 7 5 4 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 323 | 29 |
| 4 | 9 | 122 | 11 |
| Pass | 8 | 92 | 8 |
| 4 | 6 | 322 | 29 |
| 5 | 4 | 52 | 5 |
| 4 NT | 2 | 206 | 18 |
Well, you asked for it and you got it. Off-shape doubles always entail a risk, but the odds seemed pretty good this time. If partner bid 3 , you would try 3 NT — not happily, of course, but with fair hopes of finding a suitable dummy. But 4 leaves no such retreat; 4 NT would be Blackwood*, and 5 might set a record as the worst suit ever for a double-and-bid sequence (imagine partner’s dismay when he tables K-x and watches you lose three trump tricks).
*Some people commented that 4 NT “should be natural,” but this is more like wishful thinking, or creating a system to fit the hand. There is no precedent in standard bidding for any meaning but Blackwood, which is far more useful anyway.
The popularity of 4 is frightening. Argh. Some commented that this asks partner to choose a different strain*, but you know darn well he will think it’s a slam try with a diamond fit. The next bid you hear is likely to be 6 . As you put down the dummy, may I suggest: Sorry, partner, I had my red suits switched. Were it not for the large vote, I would have scored it about 3.
*Generally accepted philosophy is that cue-bids below 3 NT are unassuming and often a search for the best strain. Cue-bids beyond 3 NT, however, are assumed to imply a fit, typically in partner’s suit. Hence, if partner next bids 4 or 5 , it would not be an offer to play but a control-bid.
The consensus was to raise to 5 — sound and simple. Partner invited game, and your extra HCP strength could be the key despite the lack of a diamond fit. Partner should have a long suit (6+ cards) to drive past 3 NT, so it’s reasonable to hope that it’s sturdy. Just be prepared to crawl under the table if it goes pass, pass, double.
My gut feeling is that pass is right in theory but, forever an optimist, I’d try 4 at the table. On a good day partner will have three trumps and the Moysian fit will scramble home — and I might even discover a super-Moysian (4-2 fit) to make a great article, hehe. On most days, of course, I’ll be headed for a minus score; but then, 4 might not make either. Plus, there’s always a chance partner will correct to 5 and make it.
Let’s turn back the clock to 1979 and see what really happened:
| USA vs Italy | A 10 4 8 Q 10 9 8 7 3 2 10 9
| |
| 2 J 10 9 7 4 2 K J 6 K Q 2
|  | 9 8 6 5 3 Q 5 3 5 4 A 8 6
|
| E-W Vul | K Q J 7 A K 6 A J 7 5 4 3 | |
| DeFalco WEST 2 Pass All Pass | Eisenberg North Pass 4
| Franco East Pass Pass | Kantar South Dbl 4
| 4 South Down 1 -50 |
| Passell WEST Pass 2 All Pass | Lauria North Pass 3
| Brachman East Pass Pass | Garozzo South 1 3 NT | 3 NT South Down 2 -100 USA +2 IMPs |
Kantar faced the problem at the first table and guessed to bid 4 with his hefty suit. Good catch! The contract was fine, albeit optimistic, but the 5-1 trump break and accurate defense were too much to overcome. After a heart lead, Kantar gave it the best try by leading a club immediately. DeFalco won and made the crucial trump shift; down one.
Even though 4 failed, it still gained 2 IMPs over the doomed 3 NT at the second table. The auction really epitomizes the four-card-major style, as Lauria made no attempt to support spades — mind-boggling to me. After a heart lead, Garozzo’s only hope was to set up diamonds with one loser (needing a doubleton king or jack and guessing which) but no such luck was forthcoming. Down two.
As predicted, the winning decision was to pass. (Four diamonds would make exactly as East would hardly find a club lead.) Don’t you just hate it when it’s right to pass?
Comments for 5 George Klemic: An off-shape 2 NT (or 3 NT) seemed appropriate the first time, even missing the spade fit. Four notrump is Blackwood now, and there is no sense introducing either black suit. Perhaps partner has K-Q-J-x-x-x-x and a stiff club.
Michael Palitsch: I do not like the situation, as pass 4 or 5 could be right. So I roll the dice — yes, it is 5 .
Thijs Veugen: Not many diamonds but surely enough HCP for 5 .
Gordon Bower: Too late to go back and bid notrump the first time, I suppose; I guess I am stuck with 5 and a really bad taste in my mouth.
Oleg Rubinchik: Two notrump! Or if I am berserk, 3 NT. I couldn’t drink enough Russian vodka to double. Now, do I have any choices?
Ugur Tas: I hope partner’s diamonds are as strong as the way he bid.
Gerry Wildenberg: What a nightmare! I blame it on the off-shape double, as 2 NT would have been my choice. (I’m too strong for 2 NT you say, but look what’s happened with double.) Well, no cue-bid for me; I’m afraid to encourage partner. I bid 5 with a prayer but almost bid 4 .
Dick Winant: Looks like a companion to Problem 3; is this a trick? Partner could have a fair hand, or just long diamonds. On average, I imagine he has something a little better than my hand on Problem 3; but slam is unlikely considering his pass, so I’m taking our best shot at game.
Mary Smith: This seems to be the least of all evils; hope partner can take a joke if he needed better support. In my dreams, I would like to hesitate a long time, slam down the 4 NT card, then pick up my scorecard and record the contact. Oh, you guys don’t know how to play kitchen bridge? :)
Rosalind Hengeveld: I don’t believe in slam; I have too much to pass; so I’ll bid the only game in sight straight away. …
James Hudson: Too many high cards to pass; too few trumps to move towards slam. Four notrump, even if natural, is unappealing.
Gerard Versluis: Hope my points compensate the missing diamonds. :)
Jacek Gackowski: Double asked for trouble — and here it is.
Scott Stearns: I think North has K-J-x-x-x-x-x and out, because otherwise he should bid 3 . I suspect a short club suit as well, so 5 will have some play. … Four spades in a 4-3 might be nice, but I don’t want to play a 4-2.
Jack Rhatigan: … This could easily go down one or two, but I hate to bet specifically on 10 tricks.
Manuel Paulo: Partner’s jump is right with a hand like x-x-x x K-Q-J-x-x-x A-x-x…
Dale Freeman: Not sure I agree with double. Four diamonds should be one-suited, as partner should bid 3 with two or more places to play.
Steve Boughey: This is how partner repays me for not assaying 2 NT on the first round. :) I’ll presume a spade loser and hope partner has [at least] K-Q-10-x-x-x and a club card.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: Since we’re beyond 3 NT, this seems automatic. I don’t think 4 NT would be to play without prior agreement; at any rate, I’m not willing to risk a misunderstanding with an unknown partner.
Carsten Kofoed: Diamonds are “four-ever,” so I try five.
Bill Jacobs: … Why has partner left 3 NT behind? Why didn’t he overcall in the first place? I’m guessing: x-x x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x-x-x x.
Gerben Dirksen: I hope partner has good diamonds; 4 NT would be Blackwood so I cannot play there.
Jonathan Steinberg: Is South happy to have started with a double rather than some number of notrump? Let’s hope that 5 is the place to be.
Mihkel Allik: Seems reasonable. Partner must have good diamonds and some extra points in clubs or the A.
Graham Osborne: A guess; I wouldn’t be shocked to find there are three losers. I much prefer bidding 2 NT on the first round.
Gareth Birdsall: I think I would bid 2 NT first time; but having doubled…I don’t think 4 NT is natural, so I’ll hope to land on our feet by bidding 5 .
Paul Flashenberg: Awkward problem. Partner should have quite a long diamond suit for his jump after my balancing double, so I’ll give game a shot.
Yi Zhong: I would not be in this position if I bid 2 NT first, but I have to make a choice now. I trust partner for his jump bid and hope he has good diamonds.
Kenneth Wanamaker: What’s going on? Partner couldn’t act directly and now he finds values for a jump? My ace is [adequate] support if his diamonds are that good; I doubt we should be looking for slam.
David Cochener: Partner could have bid 3 after the double in an effort to reach 3 NT; so I play him for long diamonds. Four diamonds might be the limit, but it’s too much of a position for me. …
Len Vishnevsky: What was my first double? Sheesh! Four notrump is about accurate, except I won’t take 10 tricks; 4 is off by a few spades; and 4 is going to get me to a diamond slam.
Tim Goodwin: Aren’t takeout doubles supposed to have support for the unbid suits? I’ll bet I would have survived a 2 overcall.
Rik ter Veen: Partner has a decent hand with 6+ diamonds. With a lot of extras in high cards, I’ll bid the game because it may be on. (At pairs, this would be a clear pass.)
Comments for 4 Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Enough values for game. Four spades will hopefully be playable in a 4-3 fit — or 4-2. :)
John R. Mayne: Two notrump, last round. Did I really double with this? … Now that I’m here, 4 — and hope I don’t have to put this hand down. (I’m hoping a [4-3 or] 4-2 spade fit plays OK, and the auction stops here.)
Mark Raphaelson: Can I go back and overcall 2 NT? If I get doubled I’ll run, but maybe partner has three spades.
Anthony Golding: Horrible problem; can’t bring myself to pass, although it could well be the winning action. [Even if 4 NT were] natural, it could be a terrible contract. I’ll try to scramble 10 tricks in the 4-3 (or 4-2) spade fit, hoping partner has something like my hand on Problem 3.
Stephen McDevitt: Wretched problem. Since partner has diamonds and chose to bypass 3 NT, the tap is unlikely so my spades may be strong enough to play opposite three small; a 5-1 split is not going to be rare, though. Partner may also pull to 5 (once in a blue moon) or 5 which might be OK. I like 2 NT at turn one.
Kevin Podsiadlik: This shouldn’t be a single-suited hand; else I would have jumped in spades.
Greg Lawler: Stick a club in with my spades.
David Lindop: Tough choice, but I may be able to make this even on a 4-2 fit; and that would make for a good story.
Dave Maeer: … Now that I’m in this mess, I think the best bet is to try 4 — and if East doubles, retreat to 4 NT. This leaves 5 open as an option, as partner should be able to guess what I’m up to. …
Julian Wightwick: Oh dear; I was hoping to avoid that response. Perhaps I should pass now, but I will plow on hoping to find three-card spade support. Even a sub-Moysian might play OK, for example: A-x x-x K-x-x-x-x-x K-x-x. …
Jeff Goldsmith: Ugh. Pass is silly when game is likely somewhere; 4 confirms diamonds; 4 NT is [Blackwood]; 4 and 5 show flexible one-suiters… I’ll choose 4 because it could work even in a 4-2 fit.
Comments for PassJulian Pottage: I should have foreseen this and bid 2 NT last time! The A-K looks like a double stopper to me. :) …
Paul Hightower: Actually, I vote to abstain. I would never double with this hand but would bid 2 NT (or 3 NT if 2 NT is too much of an underbid). Was my plan to double then bid notrump? …
Dale Rudrum: Partner probably has a weak hand with many diamonds. The key question is: What would 5 mean instead of 4 ? I’d say a better hand, so I’ll pass this misfit. …
Rahul Chandra: With a misfit, stop at a reasonable level.
Adam Saroyan: Nowhere to go here; and I reopened with a double because? … No case can be made for bidding further here.
Sandy McIlwain: Partner has a long string of diamonds but couldn’t preempt over the preempt. Any other medicine will taste even worse.
Richard Wilson: My A-K-x is a terrible waste. A vulnerable weak two-bid missing A-K of suit must have playing strength [elsewhere]. …
Larry Gifford: Why did partner not act directly? I think he has a diamond preempt with nothing outside, so I’ll try to go plus.
Bill Maddock: What sort of hand does partner have? If anything like the 4 bid on Problem 3, we may already be too high; so pass and hope partner can get a club loser away on the high hearts.
Jyri Tamminen: I suppose I’m substituting for a player who was struck by a well-deserved thunderbolt after his double. :) … I’m missing only a nonvulnerable game if there is one and if I guess which (4 or 5 ). …
Danny Kleinman: Before I get myself in deeper trouble, I’ll get out on this likely misfit. The off-shape takeout double strikes again…
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 5
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North 2 3
| EAST 1 1Pass Pass | South 2 3 ? | — A K 6 A K J 7 Q 7 6 5 4 3
|
| 1. 4+ cards | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 NT | 10 | 464 | 42 |
| 4 | 8 | 168 | 15 |
| Pass | 6 | 292 | 26 |
| 4 | 5 | 161 | 14 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 29 | 3 |
Another annoying predicament. Not only are none of the choices attractive, but any one could lead to disaster. The consensus was to bid 3 NT, but I wonder where they expect to find nine tricks. In a dream world, partner has a hidden club fit; but realistically I wouldn’t give a nickel for my chances of establishing clubs with one loser. There are other scenarios for nine tricks, of course, but 3 NT seems more like bidding out of fear than taking the odds.
Ironically this month, South has a balanced hand on Problems 1 and 2, but 3 NT gets last place (justifiably, I might add). This time South has a void, and 3 NT gets the top spot. Go figure.
For me, the choice is between 4 and pass, and as usual I’d go for the gusto with the vulnerable game. If partner has a singleton club (likely), it is probably only a matter of holding his trump losers to two — which is likely to be aided by trump reduction. The only alarming news would be to hear a double. Argh. If that happens, I plan to offer: Sorry, partner, I had my clubs mixed with my brain. Is it too much to hope partner has a good spade suit? I know if I passed, he’d have 100 honors for sure.
Bidding 4 has some merit but little. If partner has A-J-9-8-x-x x-x Q-x-x J-10, it might lead to the only makable game in 5 ; but don’t hold your breath. More likely, you’ll just rot in 4 without reward. At least in spades, you get a game bonus when you’re right.
Rounding out the field, 4 was the lowest vote-getter of the month with three votes (well deserved I’m sure) and 4 got about 29 too many. A cue-bid? Give me a break.
Let’s see what really happened in Rio:
| USA vs Italy | A Q J 8 6 4 8 7 5 3 Q 6 2 —
| |
| 10 9 5 3 2 4 2 9 4 3 J 10 9
| | K 7 Q J 10 9 10 8 5 A K 8 2
|
| N-S Vul | — A K 6 A K J 7 Q 7 6 5 4 3 | |
| Pittala West Pass Pass | Goldman North 2 3
| Belladonna EAST 1 Pass All Pass | Soloway South 2 3
| 3 North Made 4 +170 |
| Kantar West Pass Pass Pass | DeFalco North 2 3 4
| Eisenberg EAST 1 Pass Pass All Pass | Franco South 1 3 3 NT | 4 North Made 4 +620 Italy +10 IMPs |
Soloway faced the problem scenario at the first table, where his decision to pass may have been influenced by Belladonna’s ominous presence. Even looking at both North-South hands, it’s not clear you’d want to be in either 4 or 3 NT.*
*Imagine a heart lead against 3 NT, won by declarer, then four rounds of diamonds. If East pitches a low club, declarer can succeed by exiting in hearts. But East was Belladonna, so he’d surely deduce to pitch a spade, or maybe a club honor to dazzle the spectators.
At the second table, Eisenberg’s normal 1 opening created a peculiar auction. The Italians managed to reach the best game; but it seems more a case of being endplayed in the bidding than any great feat. Were the Italians lost in the linguine? Does the raise of a cue-bid show six-card support? Interesting.
In spades, 10 tricks made easily with diamonds 3-3 (after discovering the bad trump break, three clubs can be ruffed) so chalk up 10 IMPs for Italy.
Comments for 3 NTGeorge Klemic: It’s up to partner to pull to spades again with suit such as K-Q-J-x-x-x-x. There aren’t many other values to hold besides clubs, and I have to try for game here.
Michael Palitsch: A bit too strong for pass, and one spade too few for 4 . If I am lucky, partner has A-x. If partner is short in clubs, I hope he also has a spade holding to bid 4 (e.g., Q-J-10-9-x-x-x).
Gordon Bower: I might as well bid what I think I can make. I hope partner either has an entry, or a card or two on the side.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I expect partner to convert to 4 if his spades are playable opposite void (e.g., Q-J-10-9-x-x-x or K-Q-J-x-x-x-x).
Oleg Rubinchik: I am not happy, but it is too dangerous to miss a vulnerable game. My 2 bid wasn’t forcing, so partner should have something; and I believe he will bid 4 if he has nothing outside spades.
John R. Mayne: I don’t think I’m allowed to pass on this sequence… If 4 is right, partner can still bid it. Ick.
Dale Rudrum: The pictured building looks like a casino, which is fitting. This is a question of betting on the right number — you can do all the statistics you want, but at the table it is the actual deal, and not the most likely that counts.
Jess Cohen: I have shown my minors; now it’s time to show my double heart stopper. …
And if that doesn’t work, there may still be time… To hoist the white flag.
Jeff Yutzler: If partner has any strength outside of spades, I should bring this home. If not, we are probably going down anyway, so I might as well stay at a nine-trick contract.
Dennis Dawson: If we can make 3 , we can probably make 3 NT; at least 3 NT has an upside.
Barry Rigal: Partner can get to 4 over 3 NT but not vice versa.
Robert Johnson: I’m embarrassed to bid this, but partner should get the hint that I am very short in spades and have the other three suits. If he has a killer spade suit, he can take it out to 4 …
Istvan Fay: I do not like to bid notrump with a void, but other possibilities are [less attractive].
Leonard Helfgott: Hate it, but too good to pass. Giving partner the last choice is best.
Scott Stearns: Because good partners have club cards. :)
J.J. Gass: Transportation is for wimps.
Bjorn Rem: I can’t pass and leave partner in trouble, and my club suit is not worth a rebid; so I’ll hope for a little connection to partner’s hand.
Mark Kinzer: Too much to stop short of game, and no fit (though partner may have two or three small clubs). This should have some play opposite most hands. If partner’s spade spots are really good, maybe he’ll correct to 4 .
Steve Boughey: A hand to differentiate the optimists from the pessimists, so put me with the former. Partner’s six spades to a couple of honors will be enough to protect that quarter. He may come in with a third trick heart trick (say J-10-x); so anything in clubs will give me time to plug away at that suit for my source of tricks. If he puts down a singleton club and I’m minus 200, I’ll trot out my well-worn standard apology. Of course, the bidding may not end here; with a seventh spade, I’d expect partner to bid 4 .
Greg Lawler: Partner’s 3 might not show that great a suit since he was forced to bid something his last round. I think he expects me to bid again after reversing…
Jonathan Steinberg: Ugh! Vulnerable at IMPs, I’ll try 3 NT hoping partner has the magic cards. No fit; no source of tricks; why am I bidding this way?
Andrew de Sosa: Pass is tempting, but my 3 promises another call. This will have no play unless partner can provide a top club honor — and even then may be quite tenuous. If he doesn’t have that, perhaps he has a semisolid spade suit and can insist on 4 .
Sandy McIlwain: If partner has a 4 bid, he would have made it, so 3 could play worse than 3 NT — without the upside — and less promising contracts than this have been known to make.
Mihkel Allik: If partner has only spades, he will remove to 4 . Another option is 4 , but 3 NT seems better because it has good chances even if partner is as weak as Q-10-9-x-x-x J-x-x x-x A-x.
Larry Gifford: … I’m concerned about communication and a trick source, but not bidding a game seems a deep position. The same may well happen at the other table…
Carlos Dabezies: Partner is likely to have a top club; but 3 was forcing, and (being somewhat unhopeful) he could have as little as Q-J-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x K-x. With J-x-x he might have given a preference. The fact that West did not bid 2 makes it more likely partner has three hearts. This may be a bit pushy, but I’m hoping to set up clubs with two losers. And who knows? Partner might have the Q.
Or Shoham: Partner can rebid spades if he holds 7+ cards. If not, I hope to find my partner with the K-x (perhaps even K-J or K-10) or the Q, and hope that I can find nine tricks…
Dave Maeer: I think I can fiddle this through if partner has some sort of club tolerance. If his spades will play opposite a void, he can always bid 4 (and probably should have bid it last time).
Nick Krnjevic: If partner has all his stuff in spades, I expect him to pull… In contrast, if he has long, broken spades and a club card, 3 NT may well come through.
Tim Goodwin: What, no takeout double? I guess I learned my lesson on Problem 4. :) This time we didn’t get past 3 NT with A-K-6 in their suit.
Tibor Roberts: I know the risks but can’t afford to miss the most likely game.
Comments for 4 Frans Buijsen: Partner will be short in clubs, which is good, because all my values work.
Paul Hightower: … I bid 4 rather than pass since partner expects another call from me after my reverse; 3 NT looks hopeless.
Teymur Tahseen: … Clubs are not going to be a source of tricks in any contract. …
James Hudson: I’d pass; but I think we’re in a forcing auction after my reverse. I don’t want to play 3 NT… and maybe partner won’t want to play 4 — but that’s his problem. :)
Anthony Golding: I was originally going to pass, but I’m in a bidding mood this month. As long as partner can deliver five spade tricks and the K or a red queen, surely reasonable to expect, 4 should be a decent contract.
Stephen McDevitt: After partner bids 2 , I think we should reach game (vulnerable) — either he has club tolerance or great spades, and 3 suggests the latter. Three notrump doesn’t seem hopeful when I expect to lose the lead to East in the play.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Carefully preparing to lay down one of my small clubs as trump when displaying dummy. :) Seriously, with a hand this strong we need to be in game, and given partner’s limited values, only spades seems to be a viable strain.
Bill Jacobs: Only two calls make sense: pass and 4 . It might all depend on the J-10-9, and I’ll go for the vulnerable game… For 3 , partner should have either excellent spades or very short clubs, either of which are positives. Perhaps he didn’t jump to 4 because he doesn’t like his three small hearts.
Gerben Dirksen: Partner’s spades will not be much help in 3 NT.
Arthur Hoffman: It sounds like partner has a very good six- or seven-bagger with short clubs; I’ll take the push.
Roger Morton: Partner…is prepared to play opposite spade shortage, and I have some useful top tricks as a surprise. Trust him!
Adam Saroyan: This should play well in spades; I’m betting partner can take six trump tricks… To assume exactly five trump tricks seems such a small position — unless they hit 4 of course. :)
Damo Nair: Plus 620, or minus 500 or 800? What’s 12 IMPs among friends?
Germano Po: The inability to communicate in spades between North-South indicates the play should be in trumps. If partner has five spade winners plus a side-suit winner, we’re home. …
Neelotpal Sahai: Three notrump doesn’t look good… For a game in spades, even A-K-x-x-x-x-x will be sufficient on many occasions. …
Graham Osborne: Probably not the correct call if I want to garner 10 points; however, partner is likely very short in clubs or has very good spades, or both. Three notrump is sadly misguided…
Jyri Tamminen: Support with support! :)
David Cochener: Partner probably has a singleton club and a semisolid spade suit. Something like K-Q-10-9-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x x makes game a good bet.
Julian Wightwick: To make 3 NT, I would probably need to catch A-x or K-x, but in that case partner must have good spades…to rebid them in preference to 4 . Conversely, if he has short clubs and good spades, he will dislike his hand; but it will fit well. Clearly, pass might be the winner, but this is vulnerable at IMPs.
Jeff Goldsmith: As much as I’d like to pass, 3 [should be] forcing. Three notrump is ridiculous with no source of tricks.
Rik ter Veen: Partner should have 8-11 points with six or more spades. My reverse made the auction…forcing, so I hope partner has good spades.
Tim DeLaney: Partner should have a play for this. With a really weak hand and long spades, he should pass 2 and rescue later if necessary; so his spades should be good.
Ed Freeman: Partner [probably] has no entry, so 3 NT is out of the question. Let’s hope he has no more than a two-loser spade suit…
Uwe Gebhardt: Four spades is probably the better game; my aces will be gold there, and partner’s spades may be worthless in 3 NT. …
Comments for PassGerry Wildenberg: This is a rather deep position, but partner has heard my reverse and not bid 4 ; ergo, I won’t raise spades. Three notrump will not play well; 4 is tempting, but I’ve already suggested a decent six-card suit and don’t even have that.
Rosalind Hengeveld: … Now that partner did not bid 4 , I just don’t see how we can come to nine or 10 tricks for game. …
Mark Raphaelson: We have the points; but with an obvious misfit, six spade tricks are a lot to assume from partner.
Hans Uijting: Surely, partner could have bid something else if game is on.
Patrice Piganeau: I don’t have the courage to raise to 4 , and 3 NT is hopeless.
Jack Rhatigan: Four spades might be a make if partner has seven spades and a two-loser suit. But with no spades, I have no courage.
Manuel Paulo: I do not seek involvement with a misfit; partner’s suit is surely better than mine.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: I’ve heard enough. In my youth, I’d bid 4 like a shot — takes a real pro to raise with a void. :) Nowadays when I make that raise, partner holds A-Q-9-x-x-x-x… not A-Q-J-10-9-x-x.
Carsten Kofoed: The hunting season has begun, so I take shelter.
Geoff Ostrin: For me, 3 is forcing. The question is what partner’s [default] denial is: his suit (3 ) or my first suit (4 )? … I’ll take him for at least six spades and weak points. Even with my void, spades might be the best contract; but I don’t see game after partner does not bid it himself. …
David Lindop: Close between this and 4 . Partner’s spade spots will determine how many tricks we can take.
Kevin Costello: If we play in anything other than spades, I may never get to enjoy partner’s hand. In spades…partner could well lose [three or more] trump tricks. The solution, as in many misfit hands, is to pass now and stop trying for miracles.
Tim McKay: Even if partner is 7=3=2=1, he could well have four losers.
Bill Maddock: With only one proviso, this problem is quite easy. I have four winners. Does partner have six winners playing in spades? I doubt it, therefore pass. The proviso? I just hope I’m right. :)
Martins Egle: I’ve already shown a good hand; no 3 NT or 4 on a misfit.
Kevin Lewis: At least I have four quick tricks, and no one’s doubled partner — yet.
Bryson Crowell: I hate to pass; but if partner’s suit were real good, he could have bid four himself.
Naveed Ather: I have shown my values; looks like a misfit. If partner had club values and wanted to look for 3 NT, he could have bid 3 over 3 .
Paul Flashenberg: Standard action on a misfit. I showed a good hand by reversing, so partner could have bid 4 with a good enough suit to play opposite shortness.
Marie-Irene Heyvaert: Nothing looks safe despite my 17-count. Perhaps we can make 4 , but I’d expect partner to bid it with, say, K-Q-J-10-x-x-x.
Rainer Herrmann: Four spades is the “master bid”; but if that is a good contract, North could have bid that himself.
Karen Walker: Not the strain I was hoping for; but I’ve investigated everything else, and we aren’t doubled yet. If partner had any interest in 3 NT, he probably would have bid 3 over 3 .
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Partner’s advance is constructive but not forcing, and his rebid of the same suit after my force shows a minimum. Partner could have as much as K-J-x-x-x-x-x and the K, and no game is attractive.
Sundra Malcolm: … Partner could not jump to 4 , so his suit is not completely self-sufficient. I would raise with a stiff spade but pass with a void.
Luis Argerich: Enough of this misfit! Pass before we get doubled in some terrible contract. Partner’s bids are discouraging.
Danny Kleinman: Partner’s hand may be worthless as dummy, but mine is not. The only alternative is to raise to 4 , but I can’t bring myself to do that on a void when partner didn’t jump.
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
Problem 6
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1 Pass Pass | North 1 2 3 NT | East Pass Pass Pass | SOUTH 1 2 3 Pass | 8 6 — A 9 6 2 A K 10 9 8 4 2
|
Your opinion of South’s calls:
| Choice | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Agree with all | 10 | 414 | 37 |
| E. Dislike Pass most | 9 | 264 | 24 |
| D. Dislike 3 most | 7 | 336 | 30 |
| C. Dislike 2 most | 4 | 68 | 6 |
| B. Dislike 1 most | 1 | 35 | 3 |
The novel format of this problem created a scoring predicament. The plurality of votes were for Choice A (Agree with all), but the majority (63 percent) disagreed with at least one call. At first, I thought the top award should go to Choice D (Dislike 3 most) because it was the consensus of dissenters. But then I realized that those who chose A were taking a strong position; i.e., the very nature of the problem suggests a poor call somewhere. Hence, many who chose B-E may have been persuaded in that direction, while those who chose A must be confident. I respect the strong stand, so Choice A gets the top award.
Personally, I do not like the final pass, not so much for fear that 3 NT will fail but because there’s a decent chance for slam. My only question is whether to bid 4 (natural) or cue-bid 4 , but I suppose the former is adequate if 3 showed the ace. Perhaps partner also will like his hand and control-bid 4 ; then 6 . Otherwise, I’ll probably play in 5 , which feels at least as comfortable as 3 NT.
The popular dissension was Choice D (Dislike 3 most), but I’m sure that some of those votes were due to insecurity about meanings of the cue-bids. First, 2 is simply a game force, saying nothing about partner’s shape or diamond holding. The counter cue-bid of 3 has no universal meaning; but logically it should be descriptive. Why waste bidding room in a game-forcing auction? Most experts play that it shows the ace* and a hand unsuitable to declare notrump. This certainly fits the bill, so 3 is fine. It would be nice if it also showed a 7-4 ostrich, but that’s a stretch; and so is a giraffe for that matter.
*Another treatment, though definitely a minority camp in the U.S., is to show a partial stopper or half-stopper.
The voters for Choice C obviously thought the hand was too good for 2 , preferring 3 . This has some merit with a five-loser hand, but the overstatement of high-card strength may come back to haunt you. If the suit were a major, I’d agree; but somebody will surely bid over 2 . Then you’ll be much better placed at your next turn having limited your hand.
I threw in Choice B mostly to complete the cycle; and sure enough, it got some votes. I guess there are still a lot of players who won’t accept that preempts are weak — reminiscent of Boris Schapiro’s 4 opening in my previous poll. Oh well. I’m sure I could have included Choice F: Dislike Mom most, and it would have got some votes.
Here’s the actual deal from Rio:
| USA vs Italy | K Q 7 2 A 10 5 4 2 K 5 Q 7
| |
| A 10 5 Q 6 3 Q J 10 8 7 J 5
| | J 9 4 3 K J 9 8 7 4 3 6 3
|
| Both Vul | 8 6 — A 9 6 2 A K 10 9 8 4 2 | |
| Lauria West 1 Pass Pass | Eisenberg North 1 2 3 NT | Garozzo East Pass Pass All Pass | Kantar SOUTH 1 2 3
| 3 NT North Made 5 +660 |
| Soloway West Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass | Franco North 2 3 4 4 6
| Goldman East Pass Pass Pass Dbl All Pass | DeFalco SOUTH 2 3 3 NT 4 Rdbl | 6 South Made 6 +1370 Italy +12 IMPs |
Kantar replicated the problem auction at the first table, and his actions are supported by our consensus. Perhaps my viewpoint was biased after seeing both hands; but the excellent slam seems biddable, and Eisenberg’s sequence seems rock-solid.*
*An alternative for North is to start with a negative double, but this would have no impact as the rest of the auction would be the same. The key to slam is South taking a rosier view.
At the second table the Italians conducted a natural auction through 4 , then control bids paved the way to slam. It is also apparent they are confident in their methods, as DeFalco’s redouble would be frightening to many, including me. (I play that a control-bid in partner’s primary suit shows the ace or king.) Justice was served; 12 IMPs to Italy.
Comments for A. Agree with allGeorge Klemic: … Three diamonds should guarantee length and a stopper, and look for positional values; 3 NT looks like a great spot. If partner has slam interest in clubs, he would have bid differently.
Aziza Rusconi: A club game is probably bad, as East might be void in diamonds… So let’s try 3 NT.
Michael Palitsch: … Three diamonds is a smart call to show diamond values and a hand that doesn’t want to bid notrump. Pass is OK since I showed most of my hand.
Chris Maclauchlan: Four clubs over 3 NT is reasonable; but I’ve already shown most of my hand, and partner could have bid 3 instead of 3 NT if uncertain.
Frans Buijsen: Three notrump depends on whether clubs can be set up before I lose my diamond entry; and this should be OK, as partner has a diamond stopper, too.
John R. Mayne: One club is right; the hand isn’t going well on round two, so 2 seems clear; 3 is pretty descriptive; and clubs may be coming in at 3 NT, so I don’t think pulling is percentage. Generally, these problem types stem from a catastrophe, so this isn’t working out; but I’m with South on any “You Be The Judge.”
Don Lussky: [In clubs] I really do not want a spade lead through partner’s hand; so I doubt we are making 5 when we cannot make 3 NT.
Dale Rudrum: I do not think this is a first-hand 5 opening (the only alternative to 1 ), and there is no alternative to 2 ; and 3 is better than 3 or notrump… After I have described my hand so beautifully, who am I to doubt partner?
Jess Cohen: … I like 3 showing diamond control and some length. …
Dick Winant: I’m proud of this dummy; I trust my partner.
Jeff Yutzler: If partner thinks 3 NT is OK, who am I to argue? I’ve told him everything I can. He’d better have [a spade stopper] or this could be a royal mess.
Mark Raphaelson: I’m not thrilled with the auction, but I trust partner and can’t think of any better alternative to 3 or pass.
James Hudson: Pass is the most doubtful call, but to bid 4 instead leads into a bog of uncertainty.
Robert Johnson: Partner must have a spade stopper and [probably] at least a doubleton club… Therefore, I think there must be a play for 3 NT as scary as it looks. I see no fault with any of South’s bids.
Stephen McDevitt: Impeccable.
Scott Stearns: Not crazy about it, but seems reasonable.
J.J. Gass: I’m not thrilled by this auction, but I’m not sure how to improve it. North bid 3 NT knowing I am short in spades…and that I might have few entries outside clubs; so I’m reasonably well prepared for the postmortem.
Javier Carbonero: Very suitable game from North. All South bids are fine; but if one of them must be changed… the final pass could be changed by 4 ; then 5 over 4 , or 6 over 4 …
Jack Rhatigan: Three clubs rather than 3 might work out; but taking a shot at 3 NT…, we have a great chance at six clubs, two diamonds and [another]. …
Neil Morgenstern: What’s so bad? Three notrump should make if partner has his bids, e.g., K-J-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x.
Mark Kinzer: My rule on bids like 3 is that, if a bid can reasonably be natural, it is. The question here is whether I should have bid 3 instead of 3 ; certainly I have playing strength, but there may be no entry to my hand if partner has a stiff club and my ace is the only diamond stopper.
Malcolm Ewashkiw: The only call that South might have changed is 3 to 3 ; but I think it was right to upgrade the hand despite the void in partner’s primary suit. Yes, slam could be cold even now; but partner needs a club fit with prime cards; and holding all that, he [probably] would have found a call other than 3 NT.
Bill Jacobs: Excellent bidding. North might have Q-J-x A-Q-x-x-x Q-x Q-x-x. Alternative to 1 : 5 ? Nah. Alternative to 2 : 3 ? With a heart void? Nah. Alternative to 3 : 2 NT? Major suit lead through partner? Nah. Alternative to pass: Inconceivable.
Jonathan Steinberg: Let’s see. Choice A will get the most votes but less than 50 percent of the total; therefore it will be downgraded in the scoring. Why do I enter these contests?
That’s a two-part question: Why? has plagued mankind for generations, and: Do I enter these contests? Yes!
Roger Morton: Partner must surely have a diamond honor for 3 NT, as I did not bid this contract. Clubs should play for no more than one loser most of the time.
Andrew de Sosa: I presume 2 was more of an inquiry into my heart-diamond holdings than fit-showing in clubs. In that case, I’ve shown partner almost my exact hand (within one club), and he placed the contract. I trust him to hold either a second diamond stopper or Q-x [or better] to make 3 NT a favorite.
Adam Saroyan: Seems a perfect set of bids. Partner chose to bid 3 NT knowing quite a bit about my cards; I see no reason to doubt him.
David Lindop: I think South described the hand well; hope North is on the same wavelength.
Robert Getz: Better to allow partner to protect his spades.
Martins Egle: If 3 shows the ace, everything is fine…
Carlos Dabezies: … On the basis that 2 asks about stoppers, presumably 3 is meant to show a diamond stopper…but deny a spade stopper… If this is correct, it must be right to pass 3 NT.
Mary Jo Branscomb: I’ve told my story. It’s now in partner’s hands — the jerk.
Kevin Lewis: Unless my partner goes down three, in which case I was an idiot.
Graham Osborne: I showed in order: opening values, long clubs (limited hand) and diamond length and strength. I have no reason to believe 3 NT is not the right spot.
Rainer Herrmann: Maybe a club contract is better and the final pass wrong, but South has given a reasonable description of his hand.
Svein Erik Dahl: Again I have to trust partner’s judgment… I have told my story, and wait for the verdict; it is never eternally hopeless!
David Cochener: Partner can’t have four spades (he would have reversed [or started with a negative double]) and is trying for 3 NT with the 2 bid. He could have K-J-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x, or A-x-x A-K-x-x-x x-x-x Q-x.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: What is the problem, Doc? I have shown my shape and values, and partner has taken the final decision.
Julian Wightwick: I was worth a sign of life at my third turn, and 3 seems best, even if partner interprets it as solid clubs asking for a diamond stopper. I might go on with 4 over 3 NT, but it sounds as though partner has some diamond length, so 5 is still a fair way away.
Eric Goff: Once I opened, all later bids were obligatory. I might have a king less, so 3 NT should make an overtrick. :)
Tim DeLaney: I have much better clubs than I have promised, but my heart void argues for caution. How else can we reach 3 NT when partner has something like K-x-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x Q-J-x?
Ed Freeman: I’ve shown a medium-value 6-4, which is as close as I will get to accurate. Is 6 really likely here? Only if partner has little in hearts; and if that were the case, he would bid 3 . I’ll trust my partner.
Tibor Roberts: The bidding shows faith in partner; let’s see if it’s justified.
Comments for E. Dislike Pass mostThijs Veugen: Given the 1 bid, a club contract seems more attractive than 3 NT.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I would bid 4 over 3 NT. Partner has a game-forcing hand, probably with some club support… Five clubs probably always makes, and 6 is still a possibility.
Dan Griggs: Partner shows strength in hearts, a stopper in spades, and support for my seven-card suit. Six clubs might be makable, so I’d bid 4 …
Mary Smith: These hands tend to play better in a suit. I am pulling to 5 ; hope I don’t miss a slam.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Assuming 3 shows a full stopper plus some length, the bidding up to that point looks effective enough to me. The reason I don’t care for the final pass is not that I believe 3 NT goes down while 5 makes; it is that 6 making seems much more likely than either of the two boring game contracts going down.
Anthony Golding: Partner’s actions suggest doubt about notrump, so I should insist on clubs.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Passing 3 NT is acceptable at matchpoints, but this hand screams to be played in clubs at IMPs. I’m more concerned about stoppers in notrump than finding 11 tricks in clubs.
Dale Freeman: I think 2 implies a club fit (or tolerance); therefore, 5 must be safer.
Vladimir Prokhorov: I believe that a trump contract is better with this hand; I would bid 4 instead of pass.
Gerben Dirksen: Passing 3 NT with 7-4-2-0 shape is probably not right, though the rest seem OK.
Ed Barnes: Way too timid; pass not only gives up on slam but ignores the most likely game.
Sandy McIlwain: Let’s say that 2 shows club support. Why would I want to play notrump? Besides, we are in slam range and can hardly afford to pass without exploring further.
Mihkel Allik: Five clubs or even 6 seems much more reasonable.
Jason Flinn: Too much potential to pass, and no guarantee that 3 NT will play well.
Ted Ying: I think the bidding is OK up to the final pass; then 4 (or possibly 5 ) is a better call.
Charles Leong: At IMPs this is worth at least one slam try; 5 should be safe.
Yi Zhong: Feels like it belongs in 5 or 6 .
Dave Maeer: … I don’t like 3 either, however, pass is most destructive. Partner cannot tell that all I need for 6 is A-x-x-x A-x-x-x-x x x-x-x.
Bas Lodder: In any contract, clubs will be our main source of tricks; and 5 [usually] will be easier to play than 3 NT. If partner has a suitable hand (e.g., A-Q-x-x K-Q-10-x-x x x-x-x), even 6 will be reasonable.
Brian Zietman: Maybe we have 6 on?
Danny Kleinman: This is a suit-oriented hand. Once partner cue-bids diamonds, I want to play in clubs, and the only question is: game or slam?
Comments for D. Dislike 3 mostBarry Rigal: Three diamonds should be a hand like K-x x-x J-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x, so I’d bid only 3 over 2 . Without a club fit, this could play very poorly; consider a hand like Q-x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x J-x-x x opposite.
Leonard Helfgott: Certainly 1 and 2 must be correct; any why pull 3 NT? Even 3 isn’t that bad, but I would have rebid 3 since partner has bid my void. This way, if partner bids 3 , I can bid 3 NT to show the diamond stopper…
Steve Boughey: Why be forward-going? We could have voids in each other’s suits, for goodness sake. Three diamonds was a distant third for me — after 2 NT and 3 .
Dieter Laidig: A 3 bid [should] show Q-x-x or J-x-x and some more HCP. Two notrump or 3 seems OK.
Mike Vaughn: The question should be: Which of partner’s calls do I dislike most? :) …
Gareth Birdsall: Close between Choices A, D and E. The South hand is all about clubs, so I think South should make a third club bid; however, the hand is not good enough to move beyond 3 NT when North could have been just probing for a 4 contract. So I agree with pass but think that 3 would be more descriptive than 3 .
Paul Flashenberg: With minimum values and a misfit, I would have rebid 3 ; we can still reach 3 NT later.
Karen Walker: This auction would make me anxious to slow things down with a retreat to 3 . I’m not sure what I thought I was showing with 3 . Besides hiding the seventh club, it overstates my strength and doesn’t tell partner anything he wanted to hear.
Eamon Galligan: I would bid 2 NT instead of 3 .
Sundra Malcolm: Partner is not looking for a diamond fit; he is looking for notrump. I should bid clubs once more with seven and the top honors. … If partner wants to give another chance, he can reverse into three spades to show values there and me to bid 3 NT. …
Samuel Krikler: South should bid 3 ; a seven-card suit headed by A-K can be bid three times. Playing in notrump [could] be a disaster.
Rik ter Veen: If 3 would be natural, it would be the perfect description; but it isn’t natural. I would bid 3 instead. …
Lorraine Steiner: Vulnerable and having opened light, I think 3 promises too much.
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 588), and on each problem only for the top three calls. Over 60 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.
Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.
I hope you enjoyed this flashback to Rio, 24 years ago. “Thanks For the Memory” and to everyone who responded, especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Well, it seems I’ve reached the crossroads myself, so I’m outta here. I’ll leave you with a few hopeful remarks:
Mark Raphaelson: I don’t know where the tournament was held, but based on the pictures I hope to go there.
Charles Blair: I’m guessing the Perth Bermuda Bowl in 1989, mainly because I get “Perth”, “Ross”, and “second” for anagram purposes…
Geez. Stick to the play contests, please.
Manoj Kumar Nair: I wish there were some soup here for hopeless ‘sohls.
And finally, let’s cross roads with some real Hope:
Bob Hope: My next-door neighbor just had a pacemaker installed. They’re still working the bugs out, though. Every time he makes love, my garage door opens.
| Analyses 7Y56 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Crossroads of Eternal Hope |
© 2003 Richard Pavlicek