Analyses 7Y64  Main Challenge

Big Brother Is Watching

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in November 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

Among the wrong guesses were New York City (playing the odds); Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, Anaheim and Half Moon Bay, California; Portland, Oregon (close!); Vancouver (closer!) and Montreal, Canada. Next we cross the Atlantic to London, England; Oslo, Norway; then a wide swing east to Taipei, Taiwan; Shanghai and Hong Kong, China; Tokyo and Osaka, Japan; and finally a slow boat to Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Bogota, Colombia. Are we home yet? Some good guesses, and others perhaps pulling my leg, but a fun lesson in geography.

The tournament was held in Seattle, Washington, and the pictures all relate to that city. At the top is a photo of nearby Mount Rainier, neatly capturing a half-moon as well. The skyline is downtown Seattle taken from Puget Sound — and carefully chosen not to include the Space Needle, a landmark I thought would make it too easy. The monorail is also symbolic of Seattle, one of the first cities to have such a system, inaugurated with the 1962 World’s Fair. Plans are now under way for a new high-speed monorail like the one pictured.

The background song An Affair To Remember was an additional clue. It’s the theme from the movie “Sleepless in Seattle,” a touching love story starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

My clue to the year was in the title — and other references like the Thought Police and “Down with Big Brother” — from George Orwell’s futuristic (for its time) novel “1984” which was of course the year. A great, chilling story (I never read the book but saw the movie four times). Years before 1984, we used to worry that it would really happen. Curiously, five people thought “Big Brother” referred to Microsoft, not because of its location in Washington state, but its bullying presence. Windows 84 anyone?

About 40 people correctly guessed the location, and 25 guessed the year. Congratulations to John Reardon (UK) who was the first of 10 people to mention both (Seattle, 1984). In case you’re wondering about the emerald, Seattle’s nickname is the Emerald City.

Marc Langevin Wins!

The top scores this month took on a curious gap, as nobody scored 59. Considering that four of the six problems offered a 9 score, this was quite a parlay — especially with the new-high participation of 1149.

The overall leaderboard tightened up with three players brandishing a 55.50 average. Frans Buijsen (Netherlands) held his lead by tiebreaker (best finish); Magnus Skaar (Norway) is second; and Scott Stearns (US), third. Next in line with 55.25 are Manuel Paulo (Portugal) and Chris Maclauchlan (US), followed by Jussi Tamminen (Finland) with 55.00.

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

Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.

The seventh World Team Olympiad was held in Seattle, Washington (US), October 27 to November 10, 1984, at the Seattle Sheraton Hotel. Teams from no less than 54 countries vied for the Open title.

A complete round-robin was impractical, so the qualifying stage was divided into two groups, with the top four teams of each advancing to the quarterfinal. After 10 grueling days of play, the survivors and Victory Point standings in Group A: Poland 532, Denmark 520, Austria 508, and France 502. Standings in Group B: Indonesia 531, U.S.A. 509, Italy 508, and Pakistan 482.

On to the quarterfinal, which featured two stunning upsets: Austria beat U.S.A 128-121, and Denmark beat Italy 132-117. The other matches went more or less predictably as Poland beat Pakistan 157-127, and France beat Indonesia 244-95. The semifinal offered some high drama, as Poland beat Austria 147-143 in an exciting comeback — down 33 IMPs with 13 boards to play, and down 3 IMPs going into the last board! France beat Denmark 164-149, holding off a late Danish surge that fell 15 IMPs short.

The final match would pit Poland against France. Representing Poland (pictured L-R, top row first) were Piotr Gawrys, Henry Wolny, Jacek Romanski, Krzystof Martens, Tomasz Przybora and Piotr Tuszynski. Representing France were Michel Peron, Henri Szwarc, Paul Chemla, Herve Mouiel, Fivo Paladino and Felix Covo. The match was anticlimactic, as Poland jumped out to a quick lead and never looked back to win easily 236-156.

This was Poland’s second world championship. The first came six years earlier in 1978 with a completely different team (see my poll “Let the Good Times Roll”), and the trend clearly marked Poland as one of the top bridge powers, which continues to this day. As a case in point, take a look at the overall standings by country in my play contests — not even close, Poland by a mile.

Four of the problems for this poll came from the final match, and the other two (Problems 1 and 3) came from the thrilling semifinal in which Poland overtook Austria at the wire. So have a seat, experience the drama, and match your bidding skills with the world’s best of 1984.

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

Problem 1

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Dbl	North Pass	East 2	South 1 ?	Q 10 7 5 2 A K Q J 9 2 4 10

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	428	37
2	8	399	35
3	7	114	10
3	6	76	7
Pass	4	66	6
4	3	43	4
Dbl	1	24	2

This hand looked great when you picked it up, but prospects are now dimmed by West’s takeout double (implying spades) and partner’s silence. Still, it seems worthwhile to bid spades as that suit will often yield an extra trick. For example, facing a near Yarborough like J-x-x x x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x, it should play well in spades, even with 4-1 trumps, by leading good hearts through West — probably making eight tricks. A heart contract plays worse, and might only produce six tricks after a forcing defense.

The voting was close but upheld my viewpoint to bring spades into the picture. Jumping to 3 is a bit rich — in more ways than one, as I think my son Rich would do that, though he neglected to vote this month — but 2 feels right on the money. At worst you’ll end up in 3 , which could hardly be considered a step out of line. On a good day you might find partner with the right hand for game.

Well, my last sentence was an understatement, as partner actually held a gold mine. Here’s what happened in Seattle:

South deals	A K 8		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	8 3		Romanski	Terraneo	Tuszynski	Fucik
	10 7 5					1
	J 8 7 5 2		Dbl	2	Pass	4
J 4 3		9 6	4 NT	Dbl	5	5
5		10 7 6 4	Dbl	Pass	Pass	Pass
A K J 8		Q 9 6 3 2
A K Q 6 4		9 3
	Q 10 7 5 2
	A K Q J 9 2
	4
	10

Austria N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
5 × South	5 × East	Kubak	Gawrys	Milavec	Wolny
Made 5 +850	Down 1 -100				1
		Dbl	Pass	2	2
Austria +13 IMPs		3	Pass	4	Pass
		5	Dbl	All Pass

The first auction is a bit amusing, as Fucik for Austria never showed his heart suit — but all’s well that ends well. The hidden asset coupled with the ideal dummy meant 11 easy tricks in spades; plus 850 thanks to the double.

At the second table, Wolny made the more normal opening but then took the conservative route, not mentioning spades. Gawrys had every reason to expect good defensive prospects, so he doubled when he sensed Kubak had stretched to 5 . Alas, this netted only a pittance (down one) compared to the vulnerable game, so Poland lost 13 IMPs. (This was early in the semifinal, where Austria built a sizable lead, only to be overtaken at the wire.)

Hmm. One South opens 1 and never bids hearts; the other opens 1 and never bids spades — and the verdict is: 13 IMPs to the spade bidder. I hope there’s not a moral here! Crazy game.

Comments for 2

Adam Meyerson: Partner did not redouble; I don’t want to defend, nor do I want to hear 3 from partner. It seems like I should bid, and it can’t be right to hide the spade suit.

Guy van Middelem: I’m willing to play at least 3 … Maybe this is too high, vulnerable, but I should bid my spades once.

Scott Stearns: I’m not changing my original plan just because LHO might have four spades — he also might not. The opponents probably have five of a minor.

Jonathan Steinberg: Why should I let a double stop me from describing my hand? Six-five, come alive!

Arindam Ray: West may have a minor-rich strong hand. I have a four-loser hand, good enough to reverse, and will mention my spades as that suit is not ruled out yet. If partner doubles their contract assuming my strength, I will take it out to hearts.

Gerald Cohen: Risky; but if I can make anything worthwhile, this will get me there.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Allowing partner to appreciate his spade holding.

Jean-Christophe Clement: I don’t know which spade bid is better. Three spades gives a good description but is a bit high; 2 [seems wiser] at unfavorable vulnerability.

Mike Doecke: Unless partner has concealed heart support, game is unlikely; so 2 looks best.

J.J. Gass: I think this is a problem of partnership style; but with 6-5, I personally don’t worry much about HCP when reversing. I think it’s very important to let partner know I have a two-suiter; and if I don’t bid spades now, I may never be able to convey my hand type. With my shape and location of high cards, I’m not fearful of playing 3 or 3 , even opposite a very weak dummy.

Peg Kaplan: Could I miss game by bidding a mere 2 ? Sure. Might I be more successful by jamming in hearts and hiding my side five-card suit? Sure. But being vulnerable, I don’t much care for the idea of going for 800 if I should be unlucky enough to find an aceless dummy with 2-1 in the majors. Therefore, 2 is my story — and I’m sticking to it!

Ville Likitalo: This is more than enough, as West is likely to hold spades…

Jacek Gackowski: If I open 1 with this shape, I must be ready to introduce spades later.

Richard Higgins: This hand seems too good for simple 2 bid, although 3 may be too high if partner is aceless. A minor ace and J-x-x may be enough for game, though.

Bob Boudreau: Partner…should play me for five spades.

Bill Michell: Partner [probably] doesn’t have heart support… If he has just three spades, I should make a trick in spades and six hearts (so only one down); and if he can give a preference to hearts, I’m not bothered about being at the three level.

Joao Faria: I’m never weak with a 5-6 shape!

Mark Lincoln: My initial thoughts when I opened were to reverse into spades; so I will still mention my second suit, even at this vulnerability.

Alan Kravetz: This is a four-loser hand — in the unlikely event partner has spade support.

George Klemic: The bidding has not changed my plan of attack. Partner should recognize a good fit if he has one, and that aces in the minors are big cards. …

Audrey Kueh: The question is whether to conceal the spades. I don’t know anything about your partner’s hand, so he should make the decision.

Ugur Tas: I must have opened 1 in order to bid spades next (otherwise I would have opened 1 ). West’s double does not necessarily show many spades, so I am looking for a fit…

Karel de Raeymaeker: Not bidding spades seems wrong, and anything higher than 2 is an overstatement.

Pat Rich: Let’s see: Opponents bidding; partner quiet; vulnerable-against-not at IMPs; and willing to force the bidding to the three level for a preference. Isn’t that sufficient for this hand? I’m not optimistic, as 3 could go for a number.

Julian Stefanov: I would like to bid 3 as it (arguably) shows majors.

Junaid Said: This looks pretty straightforward in spite of the implied…spades on my left. The whole point behind opening 1 was to be able to show my shape; so why back out now? If partner picks spades, at least the only surprise in the trump suit would be a pleasant one — a 3-2 break.

James Hudson: We’ll have a spade fit often enough to make up for the times I go down in 3 doubled.

Vlastimil Lev: I’ll show my side values so partner will know to bid with K-J-x x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x-x, or [pass] with x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x.

Bogdan Mitran: I’d really like to play 4 or 4 opposite minimum support. Partner,…could you help me a little? My bid shows 5-6 in the majors but not strong, otherwise I’d double 2 and then bid spades [or jump to 3 ].

Marcelo Massonneau: … The bid will not end here, so perhaps I can bid 3 later.

Andrew de Sosa: This could be spectacularly right or spectacularly wrong. West’s double does not guarantee four spades, so it would be reasonable for partner to have four spades and sufficient values…for game (e.g., J-x-x-x x-x Q-x-x-x A-x-x) yet [pass] over the double. Vulnerable at IMPs, it’s worth a shot.

Andrew Nitzberg: There may be a problem with my lack of defensive values… but I want to bid, and showing my shape could be a big winner; 3 is unlikely to be doubled.

Murat Azizoglu: I think 2 is enough to describe my 5-6 shape and see if partner is interested in game.

Dwayne Hoffman: Tough one; a four-loser hand but not exactly a reverse type. I’m bidding spades, as partner only needs to contribute one or two tricks for game. …

Nicola Farina: Even if West should hold four spades, this helps partner evaluate his hand correctly.

Bill Daly: This is risky enough; 4 would be well over the top.

Richard Maybin: Surely this is right for now; but I am not through bidding.

Anil Upadhyay: This has the advantage of showing 5-6 shape, so partner can judge where to play. A close second choice would be 3 to hide my shape from the opponents.

Michael Palitsch: I don’t want to lose a nine-card spade fit, so I take the risk to bid more than 2 . …

Nick Wong: I need only K-9-x and x-x-x from partner to have a play in game. Thus I must bid; and 2 is preferable so partner can evaluate his spade holding.

Sartaj Hans: I will not bid 3 over 3 but expect partner to do that with, say, K-x and x-x.

Neil Morgenstern: My hand is not as good as it looks because West has doubled for takeout and possibly has four spades. Partner probably has only two hearts as he didn’t raise me after the double, so hearts probably break 1-2-4. Maybe partner is 2=2=4=5, West is 4=1=4=4, and East is 2=4=4=3, which rules out all higher bids; but surely I should bid 2 .

Charles Leong: Two hearts is possibly wimpy at IMPs, and 3 is an overbid.

Kevin Lewis: This sucks; any bid sucks; passing sucks; life sucks. I don’t expect to be left alone whether I bid 2 or 2 ; at least this way, when the opponents bid 3 , I can bid 3 and have more or less described my hand.

I decided I better quote you, else you’d conclude your comment sucks, too.

Hank Eng: Three hearts is a close second choice…as it jams the auction and hides the second suit, which could be an [asset in the play]. Still, I find it too hard to suppress a good five-card side suit, especially spades.

Lee Rautenberg: I see no reason to be overly aggressive immediately with all those spades that may have nowhere to go. Therefore, bidding naturally with 2 and following with 3 should pretty much paint the picture for partner.

Ted Ying: West may have only three spades for his double, and I think it important to let partner in on the story. I’m willing to play 3 if need be; so why not see if partner might fit spades instead?

Martin Bootsma: This should be distributional, as I did not double.

Michael Errington: A bit of a stretch, but I have to put partner in the picture. Only he will know what to do next, [whether it is] to compete, bid game or double 3 .

Karen Walker: Game isn’t out of the question; but I need help from partner, and the only way to involve him in the decision is to get him to focus on his spade cards. Since I had a double available, partner should read my reverse as distributional values, not great high-card strength.

Comments for 2

Andrew Morris: Anything more may inspire partner to make a penalty double on the next round, when I may have no defensive tricks.

Steve Boughey: I loved this hand at the start but it’s grown less appealing; LHO figures to have some holding in spades to make the [play] awkward, and partner has not even managed a 2 raise over the double. Time to just take it easy, I think. If it now proceeds 3 , pass, pass, I’ll just go quietly.

Irwin Boris: I would bid 3 , but I don’t want partner to double 4 or 5 .

Paul Flashenberg: I would like to bid 2 to show my shape, however, the three level might not be safe. … With the takeout double behind me, I choose the conservative action.

Frans Buijsen: With the running heart suit, I won’t bother to mention spades. Three hearts is attractive but very risky. I may well have only six tricks, so a quiet 2 is enough.

Sylvain Brethes: … If nothing turns out well, I could be limited to just six tricks [despite] my first impression of this hand. I still don’t have the courage to pass, of course.

Teymur Tahseen: I don’t know of any fit, and LHO may well be stacked in spades… This is not the time to stick my neck out.

Josh Sinnett: With spades being shown on my left and partner implying few hearts, this hand has gone significantly down in value. Bidding any more risks pushing the opponents to a game they wouldn’t reach, or going for a telephone number.

Paul Hightower: Despite the wild shape, it is not obvious that either side has game. I’ll bid what I think I can make.

Kevin Costello: The double scares me away from spades, and the vulnerability [warns] me to be cautious.

Richard Morse: It doesn’t sound good for spades after the double. At this vulnerability, even 3 could be too high.

Koos Splinter: I’ll bid the soul of my hand and forget about spades. Partner would not be happy having to bid 3 over 2 .

Carlos Dabezies: West is likely to have four spades and/or a big hand, and partner may have something useful in defense against one or both minors. The spade suit isn’t quite good enough for 2 . I’ll be conservative at the vulnerability; I don’t want to go down two doubled.

Paul Huggins: I may have a four-loser hand, but I could win just six tricks unless North turns up with some help in spades. I’d like to bid “2 1/2 ”… Two spades describes my shape but not my strength — a reverse should show a much stronger hand. With a half-decent response, partner should have bid over West’s double, so 2 (obstructive and suggesting a strong suit) seems about right.

Bill Jacobs: This could be the right contract; it won’t get doubled… and it deprives West of a 2 cue-bid. How many reasons do I need?

Alan Shotkin: West probably has spades, which greatly reduces the value of my hand. Partner may have a bust, in which case I [may win] only six tricks in hearts. … At this vulnerability I don’t want to trade an opposing partscore for minus 800; so call me a wimp.

Craig Zastera: Should I overbid with 2 in case partner holds some magic hand like K-J x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x-x? No, there’s too much of a chance I might be limited to just my six heart tricks. Passing seems too conservative, although it sure could be right.

Ed Freeman: Spades are breaking badly behind me, and my hearts are so much better; so I’ll treat this as a [one-suiter]. On the auction, I have a five-loser hand. Why make any call that might get you the dreaded minus 200?

Arvind Srinivasan: This describes my playing strength. With such poor spade spots, 3 may not play well. A spade game looks unlikely on a forcing defense with trumps likely to split badly.

David Rock: …If North has a little help, this may make; otherwise, probably down one… but the opponents should be on for three of a minor. Maybe North can find a doubleton heart to [compete].

Nick Krnjevic: West has spades, so I’ll keep quiet about my second suit. Besides, partner’s pass makes it unlikely we’re going to buy the contract; so why draw a road map for the opposing declarer?

Justin Corfield: I expect West has four spades for his double, so I don’t think I should be looking for a spade fit. It sounds like North is broke. I probably should pass, but it’s [barely] worth competing.

Tibor Roberts: The quality of the heart suit makes it reasonable to compete, but the spades in front of doubler are likely useless. There is [probably] no game opposite a passing partner, so red-vs-white I’ll be cautious.

Lajos Linczmayer: West probably has a good hand, but East-West must bid 5 or 5 for game. As North did not raise, any higher bid is dangerous and unreasonable.

Paul Friedman: Here, doggie, doggie; want to go for a walk?

Hendrik Sharples: The double tempered my enthusiasm for this hand.

Chris Willenken: Spades does not rate to play well in a 5-3 fit when LHO has four trumps and the opponents tap me.

Dave Maeer: I can’t really bid anything higher; it’s easy to imagine four spade losers after the double. I think my hand is just worth 2 in case partner has enough minor-suit length to beat a higher contract.

Laur Lupulescu: I have six tricks in my own hand without the spades, so this seems OK. … Any higher bid is too much at the vulnerability.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: My playing strength compensates for the lack of high cards. It is imprudent to take a more aggressive action without any noise from partner.

Comments for 3

Kevin Podsiadlik: This seems like the right balance between taking up opponents’ bidding space and keeping us at a safe level. Introducing spades seems pointless.

Bob Zorn: Game is still possible, although unlikely. This [shows my] playing strength and puts pressure on opponents, however, not without risk — partner may think I actually have a hand.

Kieran Dyke: It’s too hard to bid this scientifically, but 4 with four potential spade losers is too much. Maybe partner will bid game with a partial fit and an ace.

Willem Mevius: Two spades now would show too many values, and partner may start doubling. … It’s likely the hand belongs to the opponents, and this will put some sand in their machinery without straying beyond a sensible level.

Nikolay Demirev: This rates to be a good balance between offense and caution.

Bill Powell: A “neither fish nor fowl” kind of bid, but I like the alternatives less…

Ciaran Coyne: I’m not bidding spades so West might be good enough to lead one for me.

Clint Hepner: It looks like partner has at most two hearts and a weak hand. If 3 doesn’t convince him to bid four, I don’t want to be there.

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

Problem 2

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass Pass	North 1 3 1 4	East Pass Pass Pass	South 1 2 3 ?	J 10 2 A J 4 2 K Q J 5 4 A
1. 10+ game force

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	425	37
4	8	125	11
4 NT	6	261	23
5	5	74	6
Pass	4	249	22
5 NT	2	6	1
5	1	10	1

To slam or not to slam; that is the question. The minimal reverse and dubious spade holding suggest caution, while the good diamonds and controls suggest optimism. When in doubt, take the middle road, so I agree with the consensus. Show the first-round club control and pass the buck, intending to respect partner’s decision whether to play game or slam, as well as his choice to play in spades or diamonds.

Four notrump (Blackwood) got the second-most votes, but I don’t like the idea of taking control. First, it feels too aggressive; and second, you’ve already described your shape and strength so well that it seems silly to assume captaincy. Partner is much better placed to decide both the strain and level.

A number of respondents expressed doubt about the meaning of 4 . Could it be nonforcing and suggest to play a 4-3 fit? I think not, and I’m sure almost all experts would agree. If partner had doubts about the strain, he could have bid the fourth suit (3 ); hence the game-forcing diamond raise* followed by 4 should be a control-bid and forcing, consistent with a hand like A-x-x-x K-x A-x-x-x x-x-x.

*Common expert treatment, called “Structured Reverses” in Modern Bridge Conventions by Bill Root and me. The essence is that with all weak hands responder must rebid his major with five cards, or bid 2 NT without five cards, either of which is forcing one round; but the auction may later stop below game. Therefore, any other rebid by responder creates an immediate game force. (Other variations exist.)

Are there any children in the room? If so, please whisk them off to bed, as what you are about to see is not for their eyes. The Emerald City did not sparkle on this deal:

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

France N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
7 South	6 South	Paladino	Tuszynski	Covo	Romanski
Down 1 -50	Made 6 +920				1
		Pass	1	Pass	2
Poland +14 IMPs		Pass	2 NT	Pass	3
		Pass	4	Pass	4
		Pass	4 NT	Pass	5
		Pass	6	All Pass

At the first table, the French duplicated the problem scenario, including the 5 bid of our consensus. But then the wheels came off. Chemla’s 5 NT was purported to be Blackwood (strange) and the two-ace response led to French toast, as there was nowhere to go from there. Chemla opted for 7 , which Perron played well to go down one.

The ski-Poles (apologies for that) did much better at the second table, reaching 6 — certainly not a good contract but quite a bargain compared to seven. With best defense, Romanski would have to play double-dummy (lead the Q and pitch a spade), but Paladino led a club and Covo carelessly put up the jack to give declarer a straightforward loser-on-loser play — 14 IMPs to Poland.

No doubt the French fans in the crowd were ready to storm the Bastille after this board.

Comments for 5

Adam Meyerson: … My feeling is that partner’s 3 should deny five spades and set diamonds (or notrump) as our strain. So 4 should be a control-bid ( K), probably with extras.

Scott Stearns: Partner keeps supporting my suits, so this must be good. He knows I have a stiff club… so I’ll show him it’s the ace.

Steve Boughey: … I’ve completed the picture of my shape but must cooperate with partner’s forward-going actions, so I’ll show the A.

Irwin Boris: Partner can’t have four hearts, else he would have raised to 3 (forcing).

Paul Flashenberg: I don’t want to commit by bidding Blackwood. Partner knows I have a singleton club from my patterned bidding, so this should help him decide the [proper level]. …

Frans Buijsen: I’m not sure if I like my hyper-advanced system, where I’m bidding at the five level and have no idea what’s trump. Luckily, partner probably knows; and if he wanted to play 4 , he shouldn’t have bid like this.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Showing club control… Partner should now be in a good position to decide if slam is on.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Show the A and describing my hand perfectly. Partner is more able [than me] to choose the best contract…

J.J. Gass: I don’t think a 4-3 heart fit will play well if the opponents lead clubs (to prepare a tap). Four spades might be the best spot… but I may as well show my club control on the way to 5 , as partner…may be able to bid a slam.

Mitch Edelman: If partner had heart support, he would have shown it directly… so 4 must be a control-bid in support of spades or diamonds. In either case, I’ll cooperate.

Peg Kaplan: I don’t think 4 can be natural… While partner needs a lot of good cards for slam to be cold…, I owe him a try and have to show my club control. If he’s not interested after that, neither am I.

Julian Pottage: The key to slam is the strength of partner’s spades, and bidding 4 NT will not find out.

Ville Likitalo: Partner might have K-Q-x-x K-Q-x A-x-x x-x-x, so I’m worth a 5 bid. Partner should have bid 3 with five spades, so we don’t have a real major fit. I’ll pass 5 .

Jacek Gackowski: One great Polish player and writer said: If you don’t know what’s going on in the bidding, pass when the opponents bid, but don’t pass when partner bids.

Paul Hightower: Four hearts should be a control-bid, not an offer to play (with four hearts, partner would’ve raised last round); so partner should have extras.

Richard Higgins: Partner’s values seem to be in spades and hearts, which could help; and if he is interested in slam, I am too.

Jonathan Brill: My hand just keeps getting better and better as partner continues to bid.

Mark Lincoln: It looks like partner has the K… I will show my A and let partner decide the contract, which I expect will be 5 or 6 . …

Paul Redvers: This shows…club control, suggesting slam.

Alan Kravetz: My hand is worth one slam try on the way to 5 .

Ugur Tas: Partner seems aching for a club control, so this will make him feel great. He can choose which slam (or five level contract) to play. …

George Klemic: I think this is headed towards a grand. My 3 is pattern bid, but partner’s 4 should be a control-bid — which makes my hand golden. The one thing I’m concerned about is my minimal reverse, as partner may [expect] me to have the Q, or sixth diamond, etc.

Pat Rich: Four hearts has to be more constructive than 4 . Five clubs is unambiguous and does not force past game in diamonds — at IMPs I won’t be straining to play in [a major].

Junaid Said: I’ll pass if partner can bid only 5 . Although I don’t have a lot of points, my hand has gotten better with each bid by partner. I don’t want to discourage him if all he needs is a club control, but I don’t want to force the issue either. I’m not bidding Blackwood because I wouldn’t know what to do if partner shows only one ace.

James Hudson: Partner’s failure to bid 3 NT is encouraging. Still, I have a minimum, with too many holes to take control with Blackwood. Since it’s IMP scoring, I’m willing to play in diamonds rather than spades.

Nigel Guthrie: … Slam is unlikely, but it is impossible unless I admit to club control.

Paul Huggins: My points (minimum for a reverse) are all working, so the five level ought to be safe. …

Bill Jacobs: Four hearts is logically a control-bid, the key point. I am obliged to show the club control and happy to do so.

Ognian Smilianov: I will try for slam. If partner is not keen for it, he can park…in 5 [or 5 ].

Dieter Laidig: Partner’s bidding is at least slam-invitational in diamonds, so I show my club control… I hope partner has something like A-Q-x-x K-x A-10-x-x x-x-x; but he also could have Q-x-x-x K-Q A-10-x-x Q-x-x — in which case I hope we won’t run into a spade ruff in 5 .

Craig Zastera: … I presume 4 is a control-bid looking for a diamond slam. Even though my reverse is minimum (subminimum?), I should show my club control since that might be all partner needs to hear.

Andrew de Sosa: This hand is too weak to reverse for me, but presumably it is acceptable in this partnership. If I wanted to play in a 4-3 major fit, spades is probably the right one; but partner seems to have rejected that offer. Since diamonds now appears to be the best strain and partner is unlimited, I may as well show my first-round club control…

Dwayne Hoffman: Partner has the goods here, and we may have a double fit in spades and diamonds. That stiff ace really looks nice now.

Arvind Ranasaria: I must highlight the fact that spade quality is important for slam. …

Bob Zorn: I’m sure partner thinks he’s painting a perfect picture of his hand, but I haven’t a clue what’s going on; so I’ll bid 5 and hope partner can take it from there.

David Milton: I am looking for 6 , but Blackwood is not an option with [such weak spades]. …

Kieran Dyke: Control-bid for diamonds. I will quit in 5 if that’s all partner can bid.

Bill Daly: I hope this focuses on spades, as we could be off A-K, A-Q-9 or K-Q-9. …

Richard Maybin: With wasted values in clubs, partner would have bid 3 NT. Still, partner needs a little more than a 10-count for slam, so I will show my interest and leave it to him.

Justin Corfield: I could bid 5 NT (pick a slam), but we might be missing a grand. I’m not stopping below six, as it sounds like we have a fit in three suits. I might bid 4 NT if I had some idea what suit is trumps. :)

Connie Delisle: One last kick… to see if partner is interested in going higher.

Nicoleta Giura: Partner must have a good hand to control-bid 4 , perhaps A-9-x-x K-Q-x A-x-x-x x-x. It’s my duty now to bid 5 .

Tibor Roberts: Completing the picture of my hand: five diamonds, four hearts, three spades and one club — a stiff ace.

Excuse me, but you left out “two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree.”

John Hoffman: This minimal reverse got better in every round of bidding. I’m going to slam (probably 6 ), and this should put partner in control. I see no way to [determine] from my side if a grand slam is viable.

Nikolay Demirev: Simply a forward-going control-bid; I like my hand despite its minimum. We will have a [good] slam opposite as little as A-9-x-x K-x A-x-x-x x-x-x. …

Ian Totman: Partner could have bid 3 to show real hearts. This shows my A and [implies] weak spades…

Paul Friedman: I need to [suggest weak spades]. Yea, yea, it’s un-American to cue-bid…with a minimum — I just returned from Italy, though. :)

Adam Saroyan: I wonder where we will end up. Partner will let me know, as I’m willing to play just about anything.

David Harari: I think 4 is forcing after the positive 3 call, so I’ll make one try.

Albert Ohana: Leave the decision to partner. He knows his strength in spades and is better placed to choose the [contract].

John Reardon: … I assume 4 is forcing (e.g., A-Q-x-x-x K-x A-x-x-x x-x) so I bid 5 .

Dave Maeer: Partner is unlimited, and I assume 4 is a control-bid rather than an attempt to play in hearts. I’d better tell partner about my club control.

Laur Lupulescu: Partner should be in charge here, as he could have anywhere from 10-24 HCP. I’ll just show that I have first-round club control…

Comments for 4

Gerald Cohen: Surely partner doesn’t have four hearts, and I have nothing extra.

Mike Doecke: … After stretching to reverse, 5 would show more than I have. … I’m marked with a stiff club from the auction, so partner shouldn’t hesitate to bid again with a good hand lacking club control.

Chuck Wong: If we must play a Moysian fit, it is preferable to ruff in the hand with three trumps.

Gerben Dirksen: If game is to be played in a major, it should be 4 (not 4 because of the force in clubs). Since partner needs good major-suit cards to make 5 as well, I will keep it at the four level.

Josh Sinnett: If we’re going to play in a Moysian fit, we should play in the one where the shorter side can take club ruffs. If partner isn’t comfortable with 4 , he can always convert to 5 .

Kevin Costello: I’m worried about a club force if we play in the hearts; it should be easier to keep control in spades.

Julian Stefanov: Minimum hand, nice shape — time to sign off.

Imre Csiszar: My hand is promising for slam but has minimum point count for the reverse. Four spades completes the shape description (3 might have been bid with a doubleton), and North can go to slam with a suitable hand.

Richard Cowan: Ten tricks seem easier than 11. I prefer 4 because the hand with shorter spades can take club ruffs. Partner may be 4=3=3=3 with only 10 HCP.

Ed Freeman: I have already shown a very strong 3=4=5=1 shape. It looks like partner has put me in a 4-3 heart fit and he doesn’t like his hand on the auction, however, spades seems the better strain for a Moysian since clubs can be ruffed in the shorter hand.

Nick Krnjevic: Presumably, partner could have forced with 3 at his last turn, so 4 does not show four-card support. In any event, since I barely had my reverse, it’s incumbent upon me to slow down the auction, so I’ll sign off with 4 . Given what usually happens in these sequences with my regular partner, he’s going to take this as a control-bid and drive cheerfully to slam off the A-K. :)

Julian Wightwick: Partner could have bid 4 to confirm diamonds as trumps, so I think 4 sets spades. I have nothing to spare. Partner might have A-x-x-x-x K-Q x-x-x Q-x-x and be hoping I have the A and better spades, or a void club.

Neelotpal Sahai: Shifting from one Moysian fit to another because, after a club lead and subsequently losing a trick, a club ruff will not shorten the longer hand in spades.

Craig Biddle: … It sounds like partner has some kind of good 4=3=3=3 hand like K-Q-x-x K-x-x A-x-x x-x-x, which makes slam a poor bet… I have denied four-card spade support, so 4 seems prudent for now.

Kaz Yamada: Slam in spades or diamonds will need at least three key cards among four ( A-K-Q, A) and North will never pass 4 if he has them.

Neil Morgenstern: … If 4 suggests to play in a 4-3 fit, I would rather play in spades because I have a singleton club. …

Chris Vinall: Presumably, 4 is a control-bid… My hand is minimum, and partner should realize this is a suggestion to play, not a control-bid.

Ted Ying: Since both 4 and 4 are likely Moysian, I’d rather play in spades so my weak, shorter trumps can be used to ruff clubs. I shouldn’t need to bid more since I have [a minimum] for my reverse…

Bill Powell: No reason to prefer hearts, and no reason to expect more than game.

Martin Bootsma: Partner seems to be 4=3=3=3. I am still trying to find the best game, and 4 seems a good contract, as clubs can be ruffed in dummy.

Michael Errington: It’s tempting to make a slam try, but I have already bid the shape and strength of my hand — and I have no extras. In fact, the weak spades and singleton A are minus values. So leave it to partner to decide.

Comments for 4 NT

Michael Spurgeon: Looking for 6 . It is inconceivable on this auction that North would have any high honor in clubs.

Richard Morse: The absence of duplication in clubs is promising, and I assume we have settled on diamonds as our suit — although the presence of pass as an option is a little unnerving in that respect.

Alan Shotkin: Partner is unlikely to have any wasted values in clubs, and probably has at least the A or K. …

Hank Eng: I reversed with this six-loser hand? Since partner did not bid 3 NT, I’m assuming most of his points are outside of clubs, which makes slam a very good bet. …

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

Problem 3

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 2	East Pass Pass	South 1 NT ?	4 A 7 5 A J 8 6 4 3 8 7 5

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	330	29
3	9	286	25
Pass	8	301	26
4 ( + fit)	4	165	14
4	3	32	3
2 NT	2	33	3
3 NT	1	3	0

Some respondents didn’t like the conditions, feeling that South should respond 2 . While this would certainly be right in Acol or old-fashioned Goren, it must be wrong under system conditions where two over one shows “11+ points* and promises a rebid.” I wouldn’t mind stretching to bid 2 on a meaty suit (perhaps x A-x-x K-Q-10-9-8-x x-x-x), but to bid and rebid a suit like A-J-x-x-x-x is awful. I’m confident most experts would agree that 1 NT is a better start.

*Distributional points may be counted to reach 11; but in my method this 9-point hand gets nothing extra. Normally, a low singleton adds 2 extra points but not in partner’s suit. I am well aware that many people evaluate distribution differently and consider this hand to be worth 11 points (2 extra for the diamond length), but I’m convinced this is an error. The true value, of course, is somewhere in between — usually closer to 9 than 11; though in this case, 10 feels just right with two aces.

Alas, the 1 NT response only traded one problem for another. Over 2 , I’d like to bid “3 red” allowing partner to choose the suit and level; but in real life it’s a guess. At matchpoints, I’d probably pass and take a plus score (famous last words as partner goes down in 2 ); but at IMPs the odds seem to favor a nudge. Even slam is possible, e.g., A-x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x K-Q-x x would be a great catch for 6 .

My first reaction to this problem was to raise hearts, inviting game in the most likely strain. I’d probably still do that, but the large vote for 3 (along with some good comments) is enlightening toward that choice. The obvious downside to 3 is being left to rot there opposite a low singleton. Nonetheless, the upside is strong (my own example shows that 3 is the only route to slam) so I see no reason to deny it the top award.

I threw in the possibility of bidding 4 (diamond suit + heart fit) mainly as a diversion, as it’s really a gross overbid. Partner will never pass, so it’s essentially like bidding 4 , with the slight advantage that it might uncover a magic slam. I call this option my “caveat pre-emptor” — if a jump bid looks too cute to be true, it probably is. Don’t buy it!

Here’s what happened in 1984:

West deals	K J 8 6 5 3		West	North	East	South
None vul	K 10 6 3		Tuszynski	Milavec	Romanski	Kubak
	K		Pass	1	Pass	2
	K Q		Pass	2	Pass	3
9 7 2		A Q 10	Pass	3	Pass	4
9 8		Q J 4 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
9 5 2		Q 10 7
A 10 9 6 2		J 4 3
	4
	A 7 5
	A J 8 6 4 3
	8 7 5

Austria N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
4 North	3 South	Terraneo	Wolny	Fucik	Gawrys
Down 2 -100	Made 3 +110	Pass	1	Pass	2
		Pass	2	Pass	3
Poland +5 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

As you can see, I adjusted the problem auction to fit my modern Standard American system (the 1 NT response). Both Souths actually began with 2 ; and I must say that after witnessing their auctions, I like 1 NT even more.

At the first table, Austria (this deal was from the semifinal) never let up, reaching the near-hopeless Moysian 4 . Milavec did the best he could to escape for down two — not a big concern at minus only 100, so I suppose there’s some merit in bidding every game in sight, just in case one happens to make.

At the second table, the Poles managed a plus score, though the result seems more like good fortune than good bidding. I’m sure Gawrys was as unhappy with his 3 bid as Wolny was to pass, but the contract came home. Plus 110, and 5 IMPs to Poland.

Comments for 3

Magnus Skaar: … If partner is 5=4=2=2, this rates to be the best contract. If he is 5-5 in the majors, he might well bid 3 ; then I’ll raise to game.

Scott Stearns: How many hearts does four diamonds show? If only three, it seems tailor-made for this hand; but I suspect it shows four. Partner can pull 3 to 3 if he is 5-5.

Frans Buijsen: I want to have four hearts to support hearts, so I’ll bid my suit and show my values. It could still be right to play 3 NT or 4 .

Sylvain Brethes: This does not necessarily end the bidding. Two notrump or 3 NT without a club stopper? No thanks. Any other bid should promise four hearts.

Peg Kaplan: Partner could have extras and game cold, so I don’t want to pass. … I don’t like to raise hearts with only three; 2 NT is a bit short on values and the mysteriously missing club stopper; and 4 seems too strong… I’m somewhat overstrength for 3 , I admit, but at least it keeps hope alive.

Kevin Podsiadlik: A bit heavy, but I decided this hand wasn’t worth 2 last time and stick to that judgment.

Bob Boudreau: If I get a chance to support hearts later, partner will be sure it is only three cards.

Jonathan Brill: Hard problem. This could be a disaster if 2 is our last [makable] spot; but with two aces and a singleton, I really can’t pass because game is just too likely. It is best to bid diamonds, because anytime partner has three, there should be a play for 5 … e.g., A-x-x-x-x K-Q-J-x Q-x-x x, or A-K-Q-x-x J-x-x-x Q-x-x x. …

Ugur Tas: It is a hopeless dream to expect our two hands to produce 10 trick in hearts unless partner has K-Q-x or similar. I will trust partner’s judgment to continue with 5=4=3=1 shape …and I believe we are closer to making 5 than 4 .

Junaid Said: This may be the right hand to play in a 4-3 fit, but game is unlikely unless partner can find another bid over 3 . …

Dale Freeman: If 4 implies only three hearts, then that’s the bid; but not if it implies four hearts. Game in 5 is definitely possible if partner is short in clubs.

Imre Csiszar: No good bid is available, but pass is too dangerous at IMPs. Three diamonds appears less likely to produce a minus score than 3 or 2 NT, and it may lead to a good game (or even 6 ) if North can raise or rebid 3 .

Dieter Laidig: Surely not invitational, but partner can go on with 6-5 in the majors or a diamond fit. …

Richard Cowan: Partner will likely pass but may try 3 with decent 5-5 hand; I then raise to 4 . I don’t think 3 will play any better or worse than 2 if partner is just 5-4, but it keeps [game] chances open.

Kieran Dyke: Partly to show my long suit; partly to keep the auction going on a hand with real potential. An old-fashioned 2 then 3 might have been better.

Andrei Varlan: If partner is 5-5, he [probably] will tell me. If he is weak with 5=4=1=3 shape, I’d [rather] play a 6-1 fit than 4-3.

Sid Ismail: If partner…raises (showing extras), I’ll take it [to 5 ]. And if he rebids hearts, I’ll bid 4 . Otherwise, 3 will do nicely, thank you.

Harold Simon: Hoping for partner to have 5=4=3=1 shape, or 5-5 in the majors.

Lajos Linczmayer: If North has 5-5 in the majors and a minimum, 3 would be a better bid. But if North has A-x-x-x-x K-Q-J-x K-x-x-x --, we can make 7 ; or A-K-Q-x-x x-x-x-x K-x-x x makes 5 good and 3 terrible. If North has 5=4=1=3 and a minimum, 3 is [probably] better than 3 . …

Adam Saroyan: Passing looks really silly when 5 or 6 might be cold. Raising hearts a dangerous second choice.

David Harari: Pass is out, as we might even have a slam ( A-x-x-x-x K-Q-J-x K-Q-x x). Why not a natural bid?

Lee Rautenberg: I don’t see how I can force to game without a clear source of tricks (or real fit) and shortness in partner’s suit. If I raise to 3 , partner cannot make an informed decision about game — and with a normal 5=4=1=3 pattern, 4 would need a miracle.

Clint Hepner: After 2 , game is unlikely unless partner has five hearts. Four diamonds seems like a slam try, since it commits us to at least 4 . …

Comments for 3

Adam Meyerson: At matchpoints I might pass, but at IMPs this hand is too good to risk missing a game. It seems like hearts is the right strain, so I will raise despite only three-card support. With a fourth heart, I might bid 4 …

Jonathan Steinberg: I usually don’t raise partner’s second suit without four-card support (I can always say that I had a diamond mixed in with my hearts), but here I judge the raise as the most descriptive, forward-going call.

Arindam Ray: I am willing to scramble in a 4-3 fit; and with one too few trumps, I’ll stay one level below game. :)

Steve Boughey: Four hearts immediately is tempting and aggressive; but why crucify partner if he has K-Q-x-x-x Q-J-x-x x K-J-x, or some such dross? He could struggle in 2 on that collection, let alone 4 . The courtesy raise is adequate.

Paul Flashenberg: I feel like I need to make a game try or some forward-going action, but nothing is ideal. … With everything flawed, I choose the natural raise — with a diamond mixed in with my hearts. :)

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Four hearts in a 4-3 fit will probably play well; but with only three trumps, I need partner to have a maximum for game.

Mike Doecke: A simple invite is enough; partner could be 5-4 with no extras.

Chuck Wong: If partner has five hearts [or extra values], he will accept my invitation. …

Roger Morton: My two aces merit another bid. With weak diamond intermediates, I’ll support partner’s hearts — he plays 4-3 fits very well. :) I hope East doesn’t lead a trump.

Josh Sinnett: … All bids are flawed: 2 NT has no club stopper; 3 could be bid with an ace and a heart less; and 3 has only three-card support. The last is the least flawed, so I’ll show my invitational strength and heart support.

Facundo Chamut: I think our most likely game is 4 , and 3 takes us in that direction.

Charles Deppen: I feel this is worth a game try, even nonvulnerable and a heart short.

Ron Sperber: I’d like a fourth heart, but passing seems a bit timid. I can’t just bid game, though, opposite what could be a 5=4=1=3 or 5=4=2=2 minimum.

Alan Kravetz: This hand is good enough to invite despite the possible 4-3 fit.

George Klemic: Nonvulnerable, it’s unnecessary to blast a pushy game. If partner bids on, he should find my hand appealing; but it’s completely within reason to find a 5-4-2-2 12-count [fail in 3 ].

Carlos Dabezies: If I don’t show the hearts now, they may get lost. My playing strength compensates for not having a fourth trump.

Tim Francis-Wright: It could be right to bid 3 ; but this looks right with two aces and a singleton, albeit in partner’s five-card suit. This does not rate to be a disaster, even if 3 goes down (because we rate to have no game); but bidding 3 risks missing a game in hearts or notrump.

Alan Shotkin: I prefer to have four hearts for the 4 bid, and to bid notrump is piggy and misguided. Three diamonds is not a great bid (not a very chunky suit to drag out at the three level)… This is most honest of the choices, and a 4-3 fit isn’t too bad since I have ruffing values.

Andrew Nitzberg: The likely heart lead will not help.

Ed Freeman: With three dead clubs opposite a likely 5=4=1=3 shape, do I really have more than an invitation? …

Julian Wightwick: Pass is also possible, but anything else looks wild.

David Milton: Hearts seems our best shot at finding a game; but I’m not willing to commit to four level in a possible seven-card fit. My values are too prime to pass.

Neelotpal Sahai: Even though I have only three-card support, the ruffing potential and prime values tilt the balance in favor of raising immediately.

Willem Mevius: Difficult hand. I’m happy with 2 and want to invite; but 3 could already be in trouble on a likely heart lead. However, partner could still have quite a decent hand. …

Justin Corfield: If this is only a 4-3 fit, it still may play well. I think I owe partner some effort with three-card support, a ruffing value, and two bullets. Over here in England, this is a 2 response.

Connie Delisle: At matchpoints I would pass. With two controls and a ruffing value, I’ll give partner a nudge. I grew up with Moysian fits, and this is a perfect hand for it. The flower bid of 4 is tempting, but it should show 5-4 or 6-4; I cannot commit the hand to game with only three hearts opposite a minimum hand.

Jyri Tamminen: I must bid something positive… This is misbid, but so is everything else. I admire the 4 bidders but don’t have the guts. Three diamonds invitational would be optimal, but that’s not what it means.

Nicoleta Giura: Partner might be 5-5, and I have too much to give up.

Bruce Scott: While I dislike the imposed auction…(surely this hand is good enough for 2 in standard)…my choice is 3 . … According to Alan Truscott’s Bidding Dictionary, “A raise with three hearts may be the least evil with a singleton or void spade. Opener with five hearts will usually venture game.” …

Anil Upadhyay: This is a slight misrepresentation, as partner will presume four trumps, but seems the least bad option. Opposite the right cards, game should be on.

Michael Palitsch: At least this is a simple bid. I hate all my choices.

Nikolay Demirev: Milton Work count significantly devaluates aces. I’m not bidding 4 only because I know my partners continue to four on the slightest excuse. :)

Paul Friedman: Illegal to start with 2 ? How Republican. Aces and ruffing value make for a good 4-3 fit.

Sandy Barnes: Perhaps a bit of a push, but this hand rates to play well.

Hank Eng: Three diamonds is too weak; 2 NT and 3 NT don’t have the club stopper for it; 4 is too high.

Ted Ying: With invitational values and a partial heart fit, this seems the least of evils. If I had four hearts, I would like the 4 call; but with only three I’ll be cautious.

Michael Bodell: Partner is limited by his…nonjump, so slam is doubtful. Game is quite likely… and if partner is non-minimal, I want to play in 4 . If partner is minimal, we should stop at 3 (and 4 skips over that).

Martin Bootsma: Although partner may have only four hearts, game is still possible. Of course, I would like to introduce my diamonds also; but 4 forces to game, which could be much too high.

Chris Willenken: Four hearts is by far the most likely game, and this is a good value bid even though it looks a little weird.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: It is a close call between this and pass. Since partner could have wide variety of hands, I prefer the imperfect raise.

Comments for Pass

Mike Sweet: Game is unlikely, and nonvulnerable there is no reason to stretch; 2 seems a playable spot.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Conservative, but 2 is a good contract that should be made. Bidding 3 might lead to a good game, but more often it will lead to an unmakable contract.

Mitch Edelman: Cluck-cluck; color me chicken.

Julian Pottage: By far the toughest problem of the set. Since we are nonvulnerable and every positive action is flawed, I shall go for the plus.

Ville Likitalo: Enough with the likely Moysian misfit.

Richard Higgins: Game is possible (3 is a decent choice); but nonvulnerable, I’ll take a plus score.

Mark Lincoln: Tough one! I do not like to raise hearts with only three cards; and to bid 3 is crass with such a poor suit and a [likely] plus score in 2 . If we were vulnerable, the choice would be harder.

Karel de Raeymaeker: Partner needs a lot of correct cards to make game.

James Hudson: We may miss game, or even slam. But in the long run, this pessimism will pay off.

Bill Jacobs: I might bid vulnerable, but not here. In a Moysian 4 , I fear a club force and not enough tricks for a scramble. …

Andrew de Sosa: This is tough, especially at IMPs. Nonvulnerable, despite my two aces, I’ll not risk getting to a skinny 4 game… More often, even 2 will be tenuous, especially after the [expected] trump lead. …

Arvind Srinivasan: Nonvulnerable, I’ll take my plus. If I bid 3 , partner will [often bid] a hopeless game.

David Rock: … If my diamonds were chunkier, I might try 3 ; but [not] with this suit. Two hearts should have a play — maybe making three — and while I can picture North [hands] that make [game], I can also picture [hands] where any three-level contract is in trouble. …

Bob Zorn: It’s not the end of the match if we miss a nonvulnerable game; we’ll beat them on the other hands. Needing a swing, I’d bid 4 .

Nick Krnjevic: I haven’t enough imagination to find another call at these colors. Besides, why should I ruin the good commercial for the big-club system at the other table that let’s them find 6 facing A-x-x-x-x K-Q-J-x K-Q-x x.

Fraser Rew: I’ve seen this before: a nice hand, granted, but [probably] a misfit. We’ve found a good contract, so why not take it?

Tibor Roberts: Game may have a play if partner has nothing wasted in spades… but I’ll take the plus rather than put [specific] cards in his hand.

Neil Morgenstern: Should go plus. Nonvulnerable, it’s not worth pushing towards 4 .

Albert Ohana: I would make an effort if we were vulnerable; but game is not a big favorite, especially with a trump lead.

Karen Walker: There’s an outside chance we have a magic fit and a game. Nonvulnerable at IMPs, though, the reward-vs-risk ratio doesn’t offer compelling reasons to remove ourselves from a reasonable contract to search for an unlikely perfect one.

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

Problem 4

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West	North Pass	East 1	South ?	— Q J 6 2 Q J 9 7 6 5 4 A 6

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	319	28
4	9	208	18
1	7	349	30
2 NT ( + )	6	124	11
5	5	68	6
2	3	74	6
1	1	8	1

Despite the plurality of votes for 1 , the consensus was clearly to preempt — the only question being how many diamonds to bid. Therefore, 3 is the true consensus and gets the top award.

Personally, I think 3 is wimpy. The macho bid would be five diamonds, but that’s too extreme in the other direction — thoughts of catching partner with a singleton or void are frightening. Therefore, I’d compromise with 4 . My only problem might be at my next turn if the auction proceeds 4 , pass, pass. Would I bid 4 NT for takeout? I’ll never tell.

What about getting hearts in the picture early? No, not with a 1 overcall — which might qualify you for the asylum, right next to the guy who doubled — but with an unusual 2 NT. I must admit a sneaking admiration for this, as it is mildly preemptive as well. On a good day you’ll catch partner with five* hearts and rip the opponents to shreds, perhaps plus 650 in 5 doubled. On a bad day, of course, partner will not be amused with your short-hearted giraffe as he goes down four.

*It is likely that a 4-4 heart fit will play poorly. For example, if partner held an ideal hand like x-x-x-x K-x-x-x K-x x-x-x, diamonds will almost always play at least one trick better. This is the main reason for the low priority in showing a second suit with lopsided shape; even if you find the secondary fit, you might not enjoy it.

Now let’s really bid ‘em up:

North deals	Q J 10 7 6 3		West	North	East	South
None vul	8 4		Romanski	Perron	Tuszynski	Chemla
	10 3 2			Pass	1	1
	J 9		1	1	Dbl	2
5 4 2		A K 9 8	2	Pass	2	Pass
A 10 9 5 3		K 7	3	Pass	3	Pass
8		A K	4	Pass	4 NT	Pass
K 10 7 2		Q 8 5 4 3	5	Pass	6	All Pass
	—
	Q J 6 2
	Q J 9 7 6 5 4
	A 6

France N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
6 East	6 × South	Szwarc	Gawrys	Mouiel	Wolny
Made 6 +920	Down 4 -700		Pass	1	3
		Pass	3	Dbl	Pass
Poland +6 IMPs		Pass	4	Dbl	Pass
		4	Pass	4	5
		6	Pass	Pass	Dbl
		Pass	6	Dbl	All Pass

Both auctions started slowly but became quite involved. At the first table, Chemla and Perron were content to make a few natural bids then sat quietly as the Poles drove to slam. Chemla probably saw the light when his suit was cue-bid twice, but he hardly considered a save with a void in partner’s suit. Aggressive bidding is often rewarded, and this was no exception as 6 rolled. Well done by the Poles.

At the second table, send in the clowns. Gawrys’s 3 was a psych (low risk with a diamond fit) and he quickly ran when doubled. The rest seems to be just sensible groping, but the French did well to reach the same slam. Surprisingly, Wolny doubled (could this have a special meaning?) and Gawrys then took the save. Wow! Who can argue with success? Down four; minus 700* and 6 IMPs to Poland. Curiously, this was the first board of the match, so the tone was set for a wild encounter.

*Old scoring (1-3-5-7…) that favored wanton sacrifice bids when nonvulnerable — which then almost meant invulnerable. In 1987 the scoring was changed to the current scale (1-3-5-8…) to convert those wanton sacrifices into wonton soup. I’m sure both Wolny and Gawrys would go quietly over 6 today.

Comments for 3

Adam Meyerson: Seems like too much defense for 4 or 5 ; but with partner passed, it can’t hurt to apply pressure.

Jonathan Steinberg: If partner were an unpassed hand, I’d bid a simple 1 . But opposite a passed hand and looking at a spade void, I want to bid more.

Steve Boughey: You omitted a call I often make on similar hands: Pass. LHO is surely about to bid spades, which might be a mouthwatering prospect for partner. But, since some level of diamonds is enforced, I’ll keep to the party line (the authorities in this month’s theme would surely approve) and bid 3 . Note: Those who bid 2 NT (hearts and diamonds), should be shot at dawn — blindfold optional.

Paul Flashenberg: Who knows. If partner has a bunch of spades, diamond shortness and some values, nobody can make anything. I will take the middle road and at least get my diamond length into the auction, without going past the three level.

Gerald Cohen: Too much chance that no one can make anything to bid any more without a red 10.

Jeff Tang: Whenever I bid 4 , partner has five spades.

Teymur Tahseen: Timid, but I don’t like my defensive value and lack of the K, which means I’m more likely to play in the preempt.

Chuck Wong: No bid describes my 7-4 hand; so opposite a passed partner, preempting may interfere with the opponents’ spade game.

Josh Sinnett: If partner has a major two-suiter, I’ll be sorry; but right now it looks like I need to jam the auction.

Charles Deppen: I’m willing to leave the opponents enough rope to hang themselves.

Bill Michell: Partner doesn’t have an opener, so I’ll lift the level to three before they can find their spade fit.

Kevin Costello: Partner failed to make a spade preempt, so opponents probably have a nice spade fit. I’m hoping this jump will make it harder for them to find it.

Paul Redvers: Obstructive; a passed partner [is unlikely] to have what I need to make [any game], so I make it harder for the opponents to bid spades.

Audrey Kueh: Opposite a passed hand, bidding diamonds is the best shot. Even if there is a heart fit, my diamonds [might] be worthless.

Richard Morse: My first thought was 5 , but this might be a stray phantom from last month. Surely, this helps partner judge what to do if and when the opponents get to 4 .

Tim Francis-Wright: This could preempt us out of a heart fit; but it’s likely to be the opponents’ hand on power. I’d rather bid the same as I would if the 2 were a spade.

Vlastimil Lev: I want to block as high as possible, but there are too many side values to bid higher. Further, 7-4 shape should be bid as a one-suiter.

Paul Huggins: No point in suggesting a four-card heart suit as well as a seven-card diamond suit to a passed partner. Four diamonds is OK but a bit much for this hand. This seems the most accurate bid — I am allowed to be maximum sometimes. :)

Alan Shotkin: Blech! Given that I have no spades, I need to preempt West. Three diamonds feels about right at this vulnerability, though 4 isn’t bad.

Dieter Laidig: Unlikely we have a decent heart game on, so I bid tactically hoping opponents [judge wrong]. Second choice is 4 , but I fear a disaster if opponents double in despair.

Connie Delisle: Since partner is a passed hand, I will do the no-no by preempting with a good four-card major. Opponents have the spade suit, so take away their bidding room. If we miss our heart fit, I will apologize to partner for not bidding 1 .

Tibor Roberts: Our chances of game are remote, but opponents’ chances are [fair]. I’m going to make them guess at a high level, bidding a suit that requires little or no support from partner for safety.

John Hoffman: Not an insurmountable obstacle for the opponents but as much as I can afford to risk. Thanks to having a passed partner, it’s OK to preempt with two first-round controls.

Sartaj Hans: The spade void does not augur well. I would bid 4 with an apparently weaker holding of 1=4=7=1.

Peter Koch Larsen: I have no expectation of buying the contract. Thus, missing a 4-4 heart fit (maybe even 4-5) is not a big problem. Having a passed partner, my abundance of defensive tricks does not scare me off.

Charles Leong: Assuming we play fairly sensible weak twos, partner rates to have four or five spades. Since neither major suit breaks for the opponents, I want them to play in 4 or 4 ; so I’ll give them just enough rope to hang themselves. …

Adam Saroyan: We may miss a heart fit for the chance of [obstructing] the opponents. I’m surprised pass was not an option; I might be very happy to let my opponents wander into a misfit without announcing it to them. …

Lee Rautenberg: Partner is a passed hand, so game is unlikely. More importantly, the whole spade suit is missing. I’d rather put the burden on the opponents to find their game as well as give partner some picture of my values.

Comments for 4

Guy van Middelem: Seven-four hands should be bid like eight-card suits.

Andrew Morris: If I keep the bidding low hoping to find a heart fit, it gives the opposition too much room.

Frans Buijsen: Three diamonds is too tame and does little to disturb the opponents; and 5 they’ll just double and collect 500 or more. This may make things just hard enough.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: With a passed partner, I will preempt high to inhibit the opponents from finding a spade fit.

Mike Doecke: A preempt is in order to give the opponents maximum difficulty in finding their likely spade fit. Three diamonds, 4 and 5 are all reasonable…

Sylvain Brethes: Partner is a passed hand, so I’ll put some pressure on opponents who likely have a spade fit. If it’s a disaster: Sorry, partner.

Julian Pottage: Facing a passed hand, I’m willing to give up on a heart fit and want to make life as difficult as possible for the opponents.

Paul Hightower: Force the opponents to guess at a high level. I’m a bit too good [defensively] to blast 5 , as they may have no game.

Richard Higgins: Make the opponents guess at the four level. My distribution should protect against a big set…

Bob Boudreau: Sticking my neck out, but the opponents might have to guess which major is best.

Alan Kravetz: Let the opponents make the last guess. If West bids 4 , does East go further? Partner may have four or five spades.

George Klemic: This ought to be high enough. With partner a passed hand, I’m not concerned about missing anything. Five diamonds might be the winning [tactic], but it’s a little high at equal vulnerability.

Karel de Raeymaeker: Is there a case for 4 to show diamonds and a major? …

My wife plays that it shows four diamonds plus another four-card suit — also diamonds.

Pat Rich: Obstructive; and in third chair opposite a passed hand, undisciplined. Three diamonds leaves too many options open for the opponents.

Carlos Dabezies: Three diamonds is insufficiently aggressive; and I don’t want to bid 5 because we may be able to defeat four of a major (particularly if the opponents end up in the wrong one) and because I don’t want partner to bid 6 inadvisably.

James Hudson: Three diamonds is probably right — I have a bad suit and some defense — but it seems so wimpy. I’ll let the fact that partner is a passed hand sway me.

Ognian Smilianov: It is very unlikely we have a game in hearts or in diamonds, so I will preempt. This might inspire partner to bid 5 ; but more important is to make the opponents guess…

Ed Freeman: You didn’t give pass as an option; but it is definitely worth considering as the opponents may get too high in their likely spade contract. As it is, the choice is between 1 and 4 — and my choice depends on the opponents. If East is aggressive and will bid on over his partner’s likely 4 call, 4 it is. Against a passive East who will pass 4 with 16 HCP and four good spades, then 1 .

Arvind Srinivasan: Time for a pressure bid. Three diamonds might result in opponents bidding to 3 NT, which might be unbeatable. Suits are not going to break for opponents.

Nick Krnjevic: Maximum pressure — which is what I tell my teammates when they raise an eyebrow at minus 800. :)

Julian Wightwick: I want to preempt spades. Five diamonds could easily be the winner, and I might try that if we needed a swing.

Neelotpal Sahai: With a passed partner and a known spade fit with opponents, I don’t want them to find their fit at a low level. I won’t be too wildly off in diamonds, as well.

Kieran Dyke: Just enough rope.

Willem Mevius: As many diamonds as I dare; I think 3 will make it too easy for the opponents… and this is not too risky with only about five losers. Of course, I don’t have to worry about having four hearts…with a passed partner.

Bill Daly: Opponents have been known to land in 4 on auctions like this. I may look pretty stupid if partner has spades.

Richard Maybin: With partner passed, it is time to be tactical… If this is passed out, I may have won the partscore battle — even if it goes down. Opponents will find it hard to double; and if partner tables a couple of red kings, hard to beat.

Jyri Tamminen: Opponents have spades and points, so it’s time to create maximum chaos.

Bruce Scott: … Five diamonds is probably too much, as opponents will often double because they have nothing else to do (few play negative doubles of 5 ). Many play negative doubles of 4 , however, so this will often get them to an [unmakable game]. …

Michael Palitsch: I jump as high as I dare.

Lajos Linczmayer: North has passed, and the opponents probably have a nine-card or better spade fit. … This makes life hard for the opponents; if they bid 4 , North will make the final decision.

Ian Totman: With the 10 instead of the seven, this would be a 5 bid.

Gabriel Ip: Who’s got the spades? North is a passed hand, so I preempt to the hilt.

Albert Ohana: With partner having passed, it is better to try perturbation at the four level — almost safely.

Barry Goren: Maximum pressure.

Hans Uijting: Even if I begin with 1 , I doubt we will be given time to find a heart fit; so I might as well give the opponents no time as well.

Karen Walker: With partner a passed hand, it seems best to preempt the full limit of this hand and make the opponents guess about their presumed spade fit. The heart length is not a deterrent; even if we have a heart fit, it will be just about impossible for us to have a constructive auction to find it — and diamonds may play better anyway.

Comments for 1

Jean-Christophe Clement: A difficult choice. Opponents clearly have a spade fit; but partner may have four or more hearts, and staying at the lowest level may allow us to find the heart fit. Three diamonds or 4 also seems good to me.

J.J. Gass: I have too much [playing strength] and too much outside diamonds to make a preemptive bid. Two notrump is too much of a misdescription (I won’t know what to do if partner bids hearts). Thus, I’ll bid my suits in natural order, hoping partner can make an intelligent decision later. …

Peg Kaplan: I began to write comments for 3 but had to stop. What could I say to partner if we missed 4 when he had x-x-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x x-x x? There are plenty of flaws with 1 … but with a decent seven-card suit, a four-card major, an ace and a void, I can’t bring myself to preempt. …

Roger Morton: I don’t want to preempt with this five-loser hand containing a four-card major, so I will listen to what happens. Probably, I will have to make a decision over 4 next round — but you never know.

Steve White: Rather than guess how high to preempt, I hope to get a chance to show secondary hearts next; then maybe partner will do the right thing over 4 .

Mark Lincoln: I certainly feel this hand, for now, is single-suited. The suit is not good enough for 5 , and the hand is too strong for 2 or 3 . My options are 4 (combined with a possible action double later) or to go quietly with a simple 1 . I just feel that 4 is wrong.

Ugur Tas: No preempt with a four-card major and an outside ace. …

Joc Koelman: Hope I can still introduce hearts on the next round.

Junaid Said: I’ll start slowly and see how the auction develops; I hope my second bid won’t involve a five-level decision. I don’t want to preempt because my hand has potential [in hearts] as well as diamonds. My [main] concern is that if we have a decent heart fit, partner may not have enough in spades to beat the opponents. …

Bill Jacobs: I’d have to be Nostradamus to know how this auction will pan out, so I just name my suit and start listening. This is a hand for Al Roth.

Perhaps you mean Nostradamus, though I do remember Al Roth calling his partners Nostra-dumb-ass.

Andrew de Sosa: Game is still possible if we have a big heart or diamond fit, so I don’t want to take any rash action that might preclude that. Partner could just as easily have a spade-club misfit; so keeping the bidding low, at least initially, is the best way to find out either way.

David Rock: Sure, opponents may have a black-suit slam; but we also may have half the high cards, so there’s no sense in going crazy yet. Maybe they’ll find a nice 4-4 spade fit. As for 2 NT, I really hate to lie about the major — if partner bids 3 with x-x-x instead of 3 with K-x, he won’t care much for dummy. Seven card suits are meant to be bid — and rebid.

Bob Zorn: A big bid in diamonds might steal the hand, but we might also be cold for a slam in hearts. My style is to go slow.

Craig Biddle: I’m hoping to be able to bid a competitive unusual notrump at a future turn. I would preempt, except for the possibility that partner has Q-J-x-x-x K-x-x-x-x x K-x.

Anil Upadhyay: We may have a heart game, and a diamond preempt will block that. …

David Harari: Not bidding diamonds is ridiculous; 3 is possible (facing a passed hand) but unilateral.

Hank Eng: I will bid hearts next (even at the three level).

Ted Ying: I’m not ready to preempt and give up on hearts yet. I can decide next time whether to jump in diamonds, show hearts, or let the opponents stay in trouble on the bad breaks.

Bill Powell: Although opponents undoubtedly have a significant spade fit, it probably won’t play that nicely for them; so I’m prepared to go slowly.

Chris Willenken: Maybe partner can bid hearts; maybe the opponents will find an eight-card spade fit (yum); maybe I can buy the hand cheaply on a misfit. There are too many upsides for not preempting.

Michael Errington: Defensive prospects are good (partner is [likely] to have spades), so no need to preempt. In fact, it may be better to leave the opponents some room to find their likely doomed major-suit fit.

Jack Rhatigan: I fear spades, but I have too much possible offense to bid 3 .

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: This is more a problem of level than strain. Though it is tempting to bid 3 , I prefer to slow down the auction since opponents have already got in, and I have lots outside as well.

Problem 5

IMPs		Both vul		Critique this bidding disaster by East-West:
West 1 1 3 4 4 5	North Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass	East 1 2 1 3 4 5 5	South Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass	K Q 10 6 J K 7 5 K 9 7 5 4		A J 5 3 A 10 J 8 6 4 A 10 2
1. artificial game force

Worst Bid	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	543	47
3	9	102	9
5	7	181	16
1	6	215	19
4	3	62	5
1	2	29	3
5	1	18	2

Six rounds of bidding, hearts bid three times, and both players naming all four suits. Wow. An expert auction in every detail — except one: Where are the hands to match? I decided to present this in a new problem format because a query at any specific turn didn’t offer enough alternatives; but the overall candidate for worst bid had about as many choices as a toddler in a candy store.

Some people wanted to abstain, claiming the worst bid* was 2 . I didn’t list 2 as a candidate because it was systemic to create a game force (not my system but the one in use when the deal occurred); i.e., a jump to 3 would be invitational. The only alternative is to bid 4 , but I’m sure most experts would reject that with such a control-rich hand due to slam possibilities. Therefore, you must live with 2 . Similarly, none of the spade bids were listed, as they could hardly be considered bad — indeed, some would say they’re the only sane bids in the auction.

*I didn’t clarify what I meant by “worst bid” for the sake of this problem, but most people understood it correctly to mean the bid most responsible for the disaster in bidding past 4 .

The consensus targeted 4 as the worst bid, as it’s a clear exaggeration of values. A simple 4 would seem routine, having opened such a dog. This concept depends to some extent on slam-bidding philosophy — i.e., to what extent does 2 ask cooperation? — but it’s generally accepted that the first player to make a slam try shows extra values.

I agree that 4 is bad, and it gets the top award; but 3 may be worse. The normal pattern bid for opener is 3 , and to eschew that to rebid such a lousy club suit reeks. Further, the bogus 3 bid left a gap in opener’s shape that he may have felt compelled to show later with 4 . Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts (or spades) of those who bid like this.

Many felt 1 was worst, but this seems more of a personal distaste than a cause of the result. Sure, 1 sucks — to bid a jack-high suit with a slam in range is hardly a wise move — but there was ample time to recover. I consider 5 worse than 1 as it commits the auction to the five level when responder has probably done enough, though it is arguable that opener is solely to blame.

The other choices may be dubious but could hardly be considered bad. Opening 1 is the way of the times (extras for some); 4 is a routine control-bid; and 5 occurred after the damage was done.

Now that you’ve witnessed this beautiful auction, are you ready for an instant replay? Here’s the actual deal from 1984:

West deals	8 2		West	North	East	South
Both vul	K Q 6 5		Tuszynski	Chemla	Romanski	Perron
	A 10 9 3		1	Pass	1	Pass
	J 8 6		2	Pass	3 NT	Pass
K Q 10 6		A J 5 3	4	Pass	Pass	Pass
J		A 10
K 7 5		J 8 6 4
K 9 7 5 4		A 10 2
	9 7 4
	9 8 7 4 3 2
	Q 2
	Q 3

France N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
4 East	5 West	Mouiel	Wolny	Szwarc	Gawrys
Made 4 +620	Down 1 -100	1	Pass	1	Pass
		1	Pass	2	Pass
Poland +12 IMPs		3	Pass	3	Pass
		4	Pass	4	Pass
		4	Pass	5	Pass
		5	Pass	5	All Pass

At the first table, the Poles conducted a sound and simple auction; 3 NT offered a choice of contracts, and Tuszynski clearly preferred spades. What’s the problem? Plus 620.

Next the French Review came to town. It might make a good Vugraph show to bid all four suits; but when both players do it on the same auction, I start looking for the men in white coats.* I can imagine Wolny and Gawrys just sitting there, jaws dropped, heads turning left and right, like a tennis match. When the ball finally came to rest in 5 , predictably down one, Poland was gifted 12 IMPs.

*Perhaps I am being too critical of Mouiel and Szwarc, as their bidding methods may have some nuances of which I am unaware — or maybe this is a blessing. If so, I apologize; but I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

Comments for 4

Michael Dimich: If you open light with shape, you have to know when to brake.

Magnus Skaar: I’m not sure what 4 means. If it’s a control-bid, it’s wrong because it denies [club control]; but in that case, 5 is really bad, too. If it’s a forward-going shape bid, it’s wrong because West has nothing extra. I believe 4 is right over 3 …

Steve Boughey: This gave East an incorrect impression that West had something extra — he should have bid 4 at this juncture, at which point East gives up.

Frans Buijsen: I don’t like 3 much (3 would have painted a clearer picture); but showing slam interest with an aceless minimum is really bad.

Gerald Cohen: With no aces, West shouldn’t encourage [in any way]. At some point someone has to show a minimum; 5 is almost as bad for similar reasons.

Jean-Christophe Clement: One diamond doesn’t seem good with such a poor four cards; but I think 4 is the worst bid because 4 would surely have ended the bidding. West must send a signal that he is weak.

Michael Spurgeon: One club is debatable but defensible. I didn’t like 2 much, but this was not a selection. Four diamonds gets my vote as worst since West is too minimum (some would say subminimum) to suggest a slam.

Sylvain Brethes: Both players overbid, but West gets most of the blame: 1 is doubtful; 3 is [a misbid]; but this 4 is really too much.

J.J. Gass: Close decision between 1 and 4 ; but I think a lot of folks would open the West hand (good shape and convenient rebid), whereas I can’t imagine anyone thinking the hand…justifies an uninvited slam try.

Chuck Wong: Although East has shown a game-forcing hand, West’s hand is aceless and without middle cards. … Four spades would [end the bidding].

Kevin Podsiadlik: There’s a lot not to like here. I’d prefer 1 to East’s 1 , but that’s a matter of system. West’s 3 misled partner about shape (3 seems normal), and I’m surprised 5 didn’t goad East to the six-level. But 4 seems worst; there’s really no good reason for West to make any encouraging noises on his aceless minimum.

Roger Morton: With an aceless 12-count, surely West does not have a hand to make a slam try over the unlimited spade raise. With all those controls, I can hardly blame East for showing initiative.

Matthew Porter: Surely, West should bid 3 instead of 3 to resolve his shape; but cueing 4 is criminal.

Rahul Chandra: Shouldn’t 4 show first-round control at this point? Bidding 3 (instead of 3 ) also would be better to show [three diamonds].

Bill Michell: What can this be but a control-bid? East obviously took it as such… West should just bid 4 since he has nothing else worth saying.

Ron Sperber: I think West’s opening is right. While 3 sounds strong, I think cooperating with a slam try with this aceless minimum is a mistake.

Jonathan Brill: After East clarified the reason for his fourth-suit-forcing 2 with 3 , 4 must be a control-bid. It cannot be shape-showing since West could have bid 3 …at his third turn (3 was also bad). Thus, on truly minimal values for his opening bid, West initiated a slam investigation — an egregious overbid. … By the way, East’s 5 is also [bad], as 6 is a lock (assuming the black suits behave) opposite the hand West should have minimally: K-Q-x-x x A-x-x K-Q-x-x-x.

Mark Lincoln: I really dislike quite a few of West’s bids, especially 3 (I prefer 3 ); but the real killer is 4 . East can place West with four spades, five or six clubs, the A and a good hand… Therefore, East has to go beyond game…

Kevin Costello: Though West’s 4 bid described his distribution nicely, at some point it’s worth mentioning that your opening is an aceless pile of garbage — and that point preferably should come before the five level.

Brian Zietman: West has to close out at 4 . What is he supposed to be showing with 4 ? Second-round control? Hah!

Richard Morse: My choice is between this and 5 , but to bid 4 on a minimum with no first-round control is asking for trouble — 2 was a game force, not a slam force.

Koos Splinter: This is an extreme overbid on 12 aceless HCP; further, if West chooses to cue-bid, why skip the club suit? …

You seem to be well versed in slam-bidding theory… Some day a convention will be named after you!

Carol Sturdevant: … I think 4 was very misleading unless the partnership plays a convention I don’t know. What’s wrong with 4 at this point? …

Junaid Said: Why the control-bid on West’s aceless junk? If slam is in the air, East will have a great hand and [bid gain] over a sign off. West can’t even be sure of making game, so 4 seems too much like I bid in real life. :)

Tim Francis-Wright: West opened a marginal hand, then forgot to bid normally after that. Three clubs was debatable because it implied a sixth club; but after partner’s 3 set the suit, West was off the hook… Then came the awful 4 call; East was already excited, and this got him to move past game on the next round. …

Alan Shotkin: In my view, the first bad bid is generally the worst, since everything follows from there. What was West thinking to control-bid on that junk? He’s subminimum, so to imply slam interest is absurd.

David Woulds: West is a bare minimum and should show this by bidding 4 over 3 .

John Givins: Where are my brakes?

Ed Freeman: This is the only horrendous bid. Another bad bid is 1 , which actually did well to right-side the contract. Of course, once West has shown good clubs, the A and implicitly good spades, East’s 5 is extremely wimpy.

David Rock: Actually, I’m not enamored by East’s 3 bid — great controls, but no shape and no more strength than 2 showed (after 3 I would bid 4 ). … But I’ll blame West for making a control-bid in diamonds with a really lousy opener…

Nick Krnjevic: Although mere words don’t do justice to how I feel about 1 , it was presumably required by system. Since the…focus is on bidding judgment (as opposed to system), I’ll vote for the other diamond atrocity, West’s 4 . Three spades had to be natural, so it’s not clear why West decided to psych a control-bid. If he meant it as choice-of-games, he should be given the Marquis de Sade Bidding Prize for the bid most likely to inflict pain upon partner.

Mohanakrishnan Kumar: West has already shown whatever his hand has — plus more!

Bill Daly: Wow. West not only opened but made a slam try. Oh no, wait, make that two slam tries.

William Slepin: Four diamonds was terrible; West was subpar to start with and should have gratefully accepted the spade game.

Connie Delisle: The bid that started the problems was 2 (fourth suit forcing) with eight losers to show a hand too good for 4 with slam interest. Since this wasn’t one of the options, I think 4 was an overstatement… then 4 compounded it once more, West gave an out in 4 , and East still persisted. Hope these guys aren’t my teammates. :)

Fraser Rew: This is the only really bad bid; West has no right to make a slam try on that garbage. Although West’s failure to ask for aces should perhaps have tipped East off [to pass], negative inferences are hard to pick up. …

Jyri Tamminen: West’s cards look more like a closing foot than an opening hand; so maybe he should tell that to East instead of cooperating in slam ventures. Three clubs was also horrible. …

Bruce Scott: West, 90 percent. Whoops, that isn’t the format. I have problems with several of West’s actions; I wouldn’t have opened that tripe; I don’t care for 3 (should bid 3 );… and over 3 , West should sign off. … At this point, the auction is out of control… People who open the West hand should at least have the decency to be ashamed of it later in the auction.

Robert Dannels: Why control-bid with no first-round control? West should sign off in 4 .

Erik Hoeksema: … West should hit the emergency breaks with 4 . Three clubs is also quite dubious. …

Janet Dugle: I don’t like East’s artificial 2 (but that wasn’t a choice); nor 1 ; nor 5 . It seems to me the bidding should go 1 1 ; 2 4 .

Kevin Lewis: With his stinky minimum, West should seize the chance to slam the lid on this auction in 4 .

David Shelton: One club is weak but possible. After the fourth suit, 4 is awful; sign off in 4 .

Lars-G Larsson: No bid is really so bad, but I think West has bid enough and should bid 4 over 4 .

Raija Davis: The worst bid (3 ) is not listed. Having made a game force, East has nothing more to add; so bid 4 . Three spades began a slam investigation when East had [minimal strength], poor shape and poor intermediates — though, granted, three aces [is a plus]. Too bad I have to pick the second worst bid, which was by West. :)

Martin Bootsma: In this bidding sequence both East and West are unlimited. Therefore, one should limit himself, and it should be West by refusing to control-bid.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: West’s hand merits an opening in most evaluation methods in vogue. East could have bid 1 instead of 1 ; and West should have bid 3 instead of 3 . Over East’s 3 , West should quietly sign off in 4 with an aceless minimum; 4 surely suggests extras and interest slam exploration… East also might show restraint and pass 4 .

Comments for 3

Adam Meyerson: A lot of dubious bids, but this seems most clearly wrong. Why rebid such a poor club suit instead of supporting partner’s diamonds? East likely thinks West has 4=1=2=6 shape, or at least five decent clubs.

Jonathan Steinberg: This is tough, as I believe West made three awful calls: Three clubs when clearly he should have bid 3 completing the description of his hand; 4 meaning who knows what; and finally 5 . What’s wrong with a simple 1 1 ; 2 4 auction?

David Collier: I’d go for a 1 response rather than 1 by East, but that can hardly be blamed for the final outcome. More to the point, West seems to have an obvious 3 bid at his third turn, after which he could happily raise 3 to 4 .

Jon Freeman: Three clubs overstresses the club suit and creates a need to bid 4 (which now sounds like a control-bid for spades); better to bid 3 , then the need vanishes.

David Grainger: West bid a lot on his aceless wonder… 3 and 4 are both bad. Three clubs is worst because it…overemphasized clubs and started all the troubles that followed… Bidding 3 over 2 would show West’s pattern; and with no aces West is not obliged to make a control-bid (especially having shown his shape earlier).

Peg Kaplan: I’m not crazy about 2 ; I think you ought to have decent extras to bid the fourth suit and then support. Outside of three aces (which are nice), East doesn’t have much to write home about. On the other hand, West’s bidding is over the top. I hate 4 ; what is it anyway? Control-bidding the K? Shape showing? Yuck. But the bid I like least is 3 ; lousy suit; no aces. I vote for an immediate 3 , then raise 3 to four. …

Julian Pottage: Although several bids are questionable, West has such an obvious 3 bid at his third turn that the decision not to make it has to be the worst.

Josh Sinnett: Other than bidding 1 instead of 1 , East bid his hand just fine (and he may have been in a partnership where you must bid suits up the line). West represented a holding along the lines of K-Q-x-x J A-x K-Q-x-x-x-x. (If I were East, I would have jumped to at least 6 …) The auction went off track when West chose to highlight his club “suit” rather than show K-x-x in East’s suit. …

Michael Dodson: The 1 response is disgusting; a bad suit in a possible slam auction… But hiding K-x-x support from partner to show a crummy five-card suit is criminal — but I suppose it’s only justified if you’ve seen East’s 1 responses.

Bill Jacobs: West needs to ease up on the THG. Actually, I can’t decide between 3 and 4 . Four diamonds was probably more damaging to the auction; but 3 beggars belief, when West could show his pattern with 3 .

Julian Wightwick: One diamond, 3 , 4 and 5 are all suspect, however, 1 is just a matter of style. West felt he had to bid 4 because he hadn’t yet described his attractive shape (then East [expected] something like K-Q-x-x x-x x K-Q-x-x-x-x). No, the damage was done by 3 ; West should rebid 3 , then just 4 over 3 .

Kieran Dyke: One club, fine; 1 , pointless (the hand will never be played in diamonds…); 3 , a vile misbid with a real diamond preference; 4 , OK except West has a poor slam hand; 4 , fine; 5 , fair enough (slam is good opposite as little as K-Q-x-x x-x x K-Q-x-x-x-x, and throwing in the A makes a grand); 5 , ambitious but not irrational.

Andrei Varlan: I think that after 2 , West should bid 3 to suggest 4=1=3=5 shape (with 4=1=4=4 I would open 1 ). … West next should bid 4 to end the bidding, with a hand my grandpa wouldn’t have opened.

Willem Mevius: Why not 3 to show the 4=1=3=5 shape? Three spades [is also bad] showing a stronger hand than a flat 14 (4 seems to be enough); 4 is strange (why deny the club control?). …

Richard Maybin: I could fault West on that ratty opener, but many of us would do the same. The seemingly harmless bid that tipped the balance was 3 ; surely 3 is the right call. East will then know to go quietly even if West foolishly bids 4 over 3 .

Craig Biddle: Had West bid 3 instead of 3 , he could then have bid a discouraging 4 over 3 ; then East might have realized what an air ball West opened. By bidding 3 , West endplayed himself…

Roland Watzdorf: Five spades is a disaster? [You should see] some of the contracts I’ve played and lost. :) There are some major faults, and West’s 3 was first. Why not bid 3 to show the exact shape?

Neil Morgenstern: Actually, I think the two worst bids were 2 and 3 ; but you didn’t list those. After West’s 3 , East thought West was short in diamonds; 3 would be better. I almost picked 1 ; what’s wrong with 1 ?

Charles Leong: If 2 is a game force, then bidding out shape with 3 seems sensible. East can then invite a slam with 3 , and West [bids 4 ] with his minimum opener and lack of aces. Personally, I like to respond 1 on the East hand…

John Reardon: Since 2 is game forcing, it makes sense for West to show his shape…by bidding 3 . This would deter East from going too high.

Chris Willenken: Three clubs polluted the whole auction. East hoped to be facing something like K-Q-x-x x K-x K-Q-x-x-x-x when he drove to the five level. If he had learned about three-card diamond support earlier, he would have devalued his hand. The other candidate seems to be West’s 4 ; however, the K rates to be a big card, as West could make a slam opposite A-x-x-x A-x-x A-Q-J-x-x x. So I can’t call 4 the worst bid, even with no aces; it’s never horrible to control-bid when you hold great trumps. I also dislike 1 … Why bid a weak suit with a good hand and a decent alternative? However, it should have turned out well, allowing East to hear about the unwanted support.

Steve Barcus: West made so many bad bids…that it is difficult to assess the worst. In decreasing order of misery: 3 , 4 , 1 and 5 .

Comments for 5

Gilles Korngut: I am not fond of 1 (ugly suit, and West may picture 5+ cards later), but it has some tactical merit in allowing West to bid 1 to [right-side] the contract. After 2 … West has a difficult choice between 3 and 3 (unless 1 implied 5-4 shape, then 3 is automatic). East’s 4 is OK, but he should pass when West [bids 4 ]; 5 is a clear overbid…

Gerben Dirksen: East is minimum, and West’s 4 was a sign-off; bidding on is stubborn.

Jacek Gackowski: I disagree with almost all of East’s bids: 1 on such a weak suit; 2 and 3 showing slam interest with a minimum game force; and finally, 5 — which must mean, “Sorry, partner; my bidding box ran out of green cards.”

Michael Tilles: One diamond was by far the worst bid; but 5 caused the most damage. As you can see, if you had instead asked, “Who is most to blame?” I wouldn’t have any trouble pointing him out. :)

George Klemic: I don’t mean to be a wise guy, but 2 is my vote. With a minimum [game force] and nothing special, a jump to 4 is warranted. If partner needs nothing but aces, that’s what 4 NT was invented for. … Actually, my second choice is not available either; East’s 3 implies a stronger hand than 4 . So I settle for my third choice, though 1 seems poor as well.

Mark LaForge: I feel quite strongly that 2 was worst; what’s wrong with a direct 4 ? It seems that West felt obligated to control-bid… and if that is the agreement, East must not go past game. Both 3 and 5 are terrible…

Samer ElSheikh: If 3 describes an opening hand with a spade fit, then 4 is too much; if it describes a stronger hand, then 5 is too much.

Imre Csiszar: Several bids appear questionable, but the disaster was caused by East not accepting the 4 sign-off. West’s sequence may have indicated a better hand than his subminimum, but an additional queen would not suffice for a good slam. With both minor queens, West would have used Blackwood after East’s strong bidding.

Vlastimil Lev: The bidding up to 3 is OK; and the [merits] of 4 and 4 are debatable — some would assume they show extra values, but in “my book” any control-bid is allowed after a game force. So I vote for 5 , an overbid; East should pass 4 …

Ognian Smilianov: East has eight losers and needs to find a very strong hand from West to reach a good slam. …

Dieter Laidig: Is this a joke? Surely West should bid 3 instead of 3 . I don’t know what’s worst… but with 7-8 losers and flat shape, East should limit his hand as soon as possible with 4 — so 5 is worst because it misses the last exit for a plus score. In a way, we’re all result merchants; aren’t we?

Craig Zastera: My auction: 1 1 ; 2 4 . I’ve heard that some people bid four-card suits up the line, so 1 (repugnant to me) is a matter of style; 2 seems pointless (what’s wrong with 4 ?); 3 seems inferior to 3 (showing support); but 5 is worst. This unequivocally states serious slam interest — totally unjustified, as West has just followed along with East’s high-level intentions.

Tom Rand: Any of East’s non-spade bids would qualify, and I would have nominated 2 (preferring 4 ). One diamond with poor diamonds started the problem, but after dragging West all the way,… East has to quit.

Roger Courtney: Where does East think all the tricks are going to come from?

Nikolay Demirev: East has exhausted his [slam tries] and should simply pass 4 . I’m changing teammates… :)

Lajos Linczmayer: Until 4 , the bidding was OK. West’s 4 bid was right with a singleton heart and four good honors — if East had A-J-5-3 10-x A-8-6-4 A-Q-10, it is just what he needs… Four hearts was a bit optimistic; but 5 was the bad bid.

Ian Totman: East can’t go past game with this 14-point 4-4-3-2 hand unless West shows extras — which he didn’t.

David Harari: One diamond is not great, but could have been harmless. East should pass 4 , having already made a slam try with a marginal hand.

Lee Rautenberg: East’s hand has eight losers, and it’s marginal that he should even be making a slam try opposite a 1 rebid. Once done, however, going beyond game with a flat hand…is pure lunacy.

Bill Powell: West’s 4 was a bit frisky, but East has shown significant slam interest already. East really isn’t worth another go.

Karen Walker: This is very tough because my first two worst-call choices (2 and 3 ) aren’t even on the list. East held his partner hostage through the whole auction by…bidding a nothing-special 14-count like it was a strong two-bid. He could have bid a simple 4 over 1 with his balanced, jack-heavy hand. Absent that, he certainly should have ended the torture by jumping to 4 over 3 . Four diamonds by West may look dubious, but he has my sympathy… I’ll vote for 5 because it was the bid that took them past the normal spot…

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 1 4	North 1 Pass	East 2 1 Pass	South 3 ?	A 10 5 4 J 9 6 3 A Q 9 6 4
1. weak

Your Call and Lead	Award	Votes	Percent
A. Pass, lead A	10	206	18
C. Pass, lead 3	9	247	21
B. Pass, lead 4	8	198	17
E. Double, lead A	7	177	15
G. Double, lead 3	6	112	10
F. Double, lead 4	5	141	12
D. Pass, lead A	3	39	3
H. Double, lead A	2	30	3

Hey, look! Like the old TV commercial for Certs candy-or-breath mints, you get two problems rolled into one. I couldn’t present a bidding problem with only two plausible choices, so I was about to junk it. Then I noticed the interesting lead problem and improvised a new format. Some might argue that an opening-lead problem doesn’t belong in a bidding poll, but I think it fits pretty well.*

*Many will recall my play contest “Leading for the Gold” on opening leads. While interesting, the topic is far removed from other play problems because dummy is not in view. Opening lead problems seem more closely associated with bidding.

As usual in my two-part problems, the first part carries more weight. Pass or double? It feels like the opponents are stealing; but even so, you won’t get rich by doubling. If 4 goes down one, the double gains 2 IMPs; but if 4 makes, you lose 5. Therefore, ignoring extra undertricks or overtricks (or an unlikely redouble), double only gains if you beat 4 over 5/7 of the time, which seems a bit optimistic. The odds improve slightly if you compare the chance of a second undertrick versus their overtrick; but even then, the double is doubtful — unless one of your opponents is Fritz.

The majority (almost 60 percent) also went quietly, so the bidding portion is easy to score. The top spots will go to those who passed, as long as they chose any reasonable lead.*

*The only lead that seems unreasonable to me is the A, and the voting clearly backs this view. You might think I included it just to complete the cycle of all four suits. No! Read on and you will see that it was actually chosen at the table.

Among the viable lead options, I have no strong preference. Leading partner’s suit should stand up well in the postmortem; but it sure is tempting to pursue a spade ruff, or to lead trumps to diminish dummy’s ruffing power. I think the A may be right in theory because it holds the lead, after which you might still shift effectively. Conversely, if you start a red suit, you may have no second chance for a spade ruff. The consensus also favored the A (33 percent versus 31 percent for a diamond) so Choice A gets the top award.*

*Some might argue that the choice of leads depends on whether 4 is doubled, but I don’t buy that. The only difference in the auction would be your own final double, and in either case your goal is simply to beat the contract. What’s best in one situation should be best in both.

Well, let’s get some cards on the table and see what really happened:

West deals	6 5 3		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	J 3		Przybora	Covo	Martens	Paladino
	A K Q 8 2		1	1	1	2
	J 7 5		Pass	2	2	3
K Q J 8		9 7 4 2	3	Pass	Pass	4
A 10 8		K Q 9 7 6 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
10		7 5 4
K 10 8 3 2		—
	A 10
	5 4
	J 9 6 3
	A Q 9 6 4

France N-S	Poland N-S	West	North	East	South
4 North	4 × East	Perron	Gawrys	Chemla	Wolny
Down 2 -200	Made 5 +690	1	1	2	3
		4	Pass	Pass	Dbl
France +10 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

At the first table, the French stole the contract in 4 . Covo could have escaped for down one; but after the 2 lead (unusual choice to suggest a club return) to the ace and the K to the ace, he drew only one trump and led the J.* Martens was happy to get his ruff from somebody; down two.

*This play is not as bad as it looks. The Polish 1 opening could be short (any minimum balanced hand) so Covo was trying to make 4 by catching K-10-x onside. Nonetheless, had he drawn a second trump, he would have discovered such a layout was impossible.

The second table brings us to the problem scenario. Wolny regrettably chose to double, but I was shocked by his ultraconservative 3 raise (hence my change to 3 for the problem) and his decision to lead the A. Chemla must have thought it was Christmas, as he scored up an easy overtrick. Only a trump or the A lead holds it to four.

While the actual deal has no bearing on the scoring, it certainly adds credence to our respondents’ mandate not to double.

Comments for A. Pass, lead A

Adam Meyerson: My hand is pretty well described in the auction, so double (especially at IMPs) seems wrong; no reason to think we had a game. If a trump lead is right, I can switch at trick two (surely spades is not the suit being ruffed in dummy). And if partner has the K (he should have something outside his diamond suit), the spade lead is a clear winner.

Andrew Morris: The vital question is: Who has the spades? Both West and North must have some, probably four each, leaving West with very few diamonds.

Steve Boughey: These are the hands where you may win the postmortem — I had to double! — but inevitably find yourself writing minus 590 on the score sheet. Where are the spades? Partner and RHO don’t figure to have a lot between them, so dummy could well go down with a 4=4=1=4 or 4=3=1=5 shape, with honors over me in the black suits, in which case defending will not be a lot of fun. I pass and make an aggressive lead, hoping to take it light with a spade ruff.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Pass is reasonable, as partner may be weak with his honors concentrated in diamonds. The  A lead…may beat the contract with K in North’s hand; or it may be urgent to establish a second spade trick.

Michael Spurgeon: I would not consider a double at IMPs. Leading the A seems the least attractive; a trump might help if West has only three hearts (but I expect four…); and the 3 is unlikely to help. I will lead the A hoping partner has the K and gives me a ruff, or that his Q will be promoted (East should have [at least] three spades since North and West have no more than four each).

Jeff Tang: A mysterious 4 bid by West; he obviously doesn’t have a running club suit. It’s definitely best to lead the A (unlikely to blow a trick since East is unlikely to have the king) and see what’s going on.

Mike Doecke: No reason to think we’re setting this. I’d lead the A, giving us a chance to find a ruff in either black suit before trumps are drawn.

Mitch Edelman: Double is forbidden without trump tricks! Since 3 must suggest a diamond fit, partner could have [bid] or doubled if either were right. The  A works [for a ruff] when partner has either the K or A; the A works only when partner has a singleton [or void] club. Leading a red card is just giving up.

Josh Sinnett: Trying for a ruff. If dummy has the K, my heart shift may be one round too late; but this seems like the most direct way to defeat the contract.

Michael Dodson: I don’t see a set unless partner has the K (or some surprise where my lead doesn’t matter). I won’t double because partner certainly hasn’t promised anything that makes me think 4 is going down.

Richard Morse: Where are the spades? Who has the points? There is little reason to double — clubs are likely to be badly placed; opponents short in diamonds. I hope partner has the K for one down (maybe two if he also has the A)… Plus I can always switch on discouragement… In my experience, partner tends to have the K less often if you double. :)

Carlos Dabezies: Despite two aces, I have two many diamonds; West figures to have the K, and partner couldn’t double after my cue-bid at the three level. But partner could have the K, or conceivably the heart [entry], so trying for a ruff seems right. My club trick won’t go away.

Imre Csiszar: Unless this is a forcing-pass situation, I pass. Four hearts is more likely to go down than make, but appears more likely to make than go down two.

Ognian Smilianov: I hope for one down. Doubling will not make me rich — but might throw me overboard if I find some crazy distribution and miss the setting lead.

Dieter Laidig: Partner seems to have a four-card spade suit, maybe with the K, so I don’t want to miss a chance to get a ruff. Double is too speculative; a heart lead is too passive; and a diamond lead is unlikely to help — and might [even hurt] by killing communication to partner…

Andrew de Sosa: The A is very unlikely to cost; it gives me an almost-free look at dummy, plus an opportunity for a spade ruff should partner happen to hold the K or A.

Murat Azizoglu: If partner has the K, this works. Otherwise, I get to see the dummy and hopefully will find the correct switch.

Dwayne Hoffman: I will not give the opponents the doubled bonus; I pass. LHO rates to have the K, so my A-Q isn’t so great, and one of them will be short in diamonds. … Pretty simple lead to me: Drop the A to look at dummy.

Nicola Farina: I won’t double — don’t want to punish partner for bidding 1 with only A-K-x-x-x-x, or myself for not finding the right lead. …

Craig Biddle: Playing partner for either K-x-x-x, or any four spades and the A… Even if neither of these chances comes off, the A is best if partner has Q-x-x-x x A-K-x-x-x x-x-x, since [a continuation] builds our second spade trick before the K is established [and while partner has an entry]. Doubling seems unwise since (1) I doubt we can make 5 , (2) LHO might have 4=4=0=5 shape, or [other hands] to make 4 cold, and (3) I doubt we can beat it more than one if partner couldn’t double.

Nicoleta Giura: No reason to double. With the weak hand on my right and spades [probably] 4-4-3-2 around the table, I think it’s safe to lead the A.

Michael Palitsch: There seem to be four spades with West and North. After the A attack and partner’s signal, I will know almost everything about this deal — hopefully not too late.

Lajos Linczmayer: It is better to pass. On a bad day West has K-Q-J-x A-K-x-x — K-x-x-x-x, and East x-x-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x x-x-x --, making two overtricks. We need at least two spade tricks, so the A attack is necessary if North has a spade honor, East has a singleton club, and West has K-x-x-x A-K-x-x x K-J-10-x, or Q-J-9-x A-K-x-x -- K-J-10-x-x.

Charles Leong: I play a system of overcalls whereby the more space you take up, the less strength you promise; i.e., 1 over 1 should show a decent hand, but 1 over 1 , or 2 over 1 , may be lighter. I have fair hopes of finding partner with a diamond trick, but West might be jumping on distributional values such as diamond shortness; and I can’t say I like the Q. I’ve shown about what I have with 3 ; so if partner can’t double 4 , I go quietly.

David Shelton: I’m not sure this can be set, but I lead the A hoping to get a [positive] signal from partner and a chance to trump the third spade.

Tolga Yuret: I think the best option is to bid 5 . Opponents have at least 10 hearts; we have at least nine diamonds. …

Tim McKay: This allows partner to signal and keeps our options open.

Chris Willenken: Double seems wild; opponents are approximately as likely to make an overtrick as to go down two. I feel like someone has a singleton diamond; so I’ll hope to get a spade ruff, or to set up partner’s Q before dummy’s K sets up for a discard.

Michael Errington: I am likely to need partner to have a spade trick, so I attack the suit while he hopefully still has an entry, e.g., Q-x-x-x x A-Q-x-x-x-x x-x.

Kim Ireland: Not enough information to double. Take a spade trick and see the board.

Comments for C. Pass, lead 3

Jonathan Steinberg: My 3 cue-bid described my hand; no heroic measures are required. I pass and lead the suit my partner overcalled in. Simple game!

Paul Flashenberg: If partner overcalled with A-K-Q-x-x and out, we probably won’t beat them… I find no compelling reason to lead anything but a diamond.

Frans Buijsen: It doesn’t look like the opponents are robbing us, and I have no great expectations of beating 4 . Both ace leads are too much of a gamble. …

Gerald Cohen: Partner’s pass not forcing; and I don’t think we can make 5 , so I won’t raise the stakes. The best lead seems unclear, so I’ll go for the avoid-blame-from-partner lead.

Teymur Tahseen: This might set up a diamond trick. I don’t have enough trumps to get rid of ruffing value, and clubs are onside for declarer. … Double only gains a lot if partner three tricks, in which case he may well have doubled; so I pass.

Peg Kaplan: I have two tricks — I think. Why should I think partner, who could have doubled and did not, would have two more? Maybe he has A-K-x-x-x and not much else, and we can cash two diamonds; or maybe we can’t cash two diamonds but partner will shift to a singleton club. If so, great! But I see no reason to up the ante in the meantime.

Julian Pottage: I have already shown a good hand, so no need to double. Declarer may have a discard coming on the K, so I lead partner’s suit. A trump might work if declarer needs two diamond ruffs in dummy but seems too committal.

Roger Morton: The diamond fit surely precludes a double — especially opposite the style of overcalls my partners play! When in doubt, I lead partner’s suit.

Pat Rich: Collect our diamond trick (if we have one coming), then partner can continue intelligently after seeing dummy.

Bill Jacobs: I only double if my THG dose is too high. :) My aim is to set up a diamond trick before East’s second diamond disappears on a black-suit winner. …

Bruce Scott: I’m not going to double; partner heard my strong 3 call, and I have no extras. By the way, where the heck are the spades? … Do I need to get a ruff or not? Partner isn’t going to bid 1 without some outside cards… Therefore, I’ll go for the slow and steady beat; I’ll lead my systemic diamond and wait for my tricks.

John Hoffman: Partner’s vulnerable overcall suggests decent HCP; but it might be of little help on defense if opponents are short in diamonds (and clubs too). I’ll lead partner’s suit in case we need to set up a trick there before declarer can set up a discard in one of the black suits.

John Reardon: Not enough to gain by doubling, but a lot to lose. Leading partner’s suit is a winning policy in the long run, but anything could be right here. Who has the spades?

Bill Powell: If I knew which red card to lead, I’d double. I slightly prefer partner’s suit on this hand (and have a better excuse if wrong).

Karen Walker: I don’t expect a two-trick set, so the double at this vulnerability is a pretty big IMP gamble. When the lead is such a close choice (to me, among A, 4 and 3), the best strategy is often to settle for what looks normal (when in doubt, lead partner’s suit). If opponents have a 6-4 fit, a trump lead rates to be futile anyway.

Comments for B. Pass, lead 4

Jon Freeman: Where are the spades? Partner is unlikely to hold more than four; so [maybe] they’re with declarer, who may have natural losers in the suit.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Cards seem to lay well for opponents: Hearts 2-2 or 2-1; A in front of opener. Four hearts may easily make and is unlikely to go two down; so a double can cost more than it can gain. I’ll try to prevent ruffs in dummy by leading a trump.

David Grainger: Partner rates to have four spades, so most to all of the opponents’ tricks are coming from the heart suit. West could easily have a powerful hand, and I doubt 4 is going down more than one; so double is [odds-against].

Sylvain Brethes: I’m not sure partner can give me two defensive tricks, so I’ll be a coward and pass. As for the lead, opponents lack the HCP for 4 and may make it on ruffs, so I’ll try to prevent that.

J.J. Gass: The first part is easy at IMPs; opponents may have a 10- or 11-card fit with a minor-suit crossruff in the offing — which is why, after passing, I lead a trump.

Facundo Chamut: Where are the spades? West has to be something like 4=3=1=5 or 4=4=1=4. I wonder if they’re stealing. Double is tempting, but somehow I don’t see 4 going down two, and it might well make.

Everyone seems to be asking the same question… I swear, I swear, I didn’t steal ‘em.

Paul Hightower: Hey! I thought this was a bidding poll. :)

Jonathan Brill: Heart lead is a standout. I would double if opponents were vulnerable. I expect to beat this one trick; but it might make or go off two, and these possibilities seem about equally likely. Nonvulnerable, double is nearly an even-money proposition…(-590:420 loses 5; +100:50 wins 2; +300:100 wins 5). Vulnerable, the double’s expected value is clearly positive (-790:620 loses 5; +200:100 wins 3; +500:200 wins 7).

Mark Lincoln: … I do not see a clear way to defeat 4 , and I do not believe we are in the game zone ourselves; so there is no need for a speculative double. I will lead a trump to cut down ruffs on the deck.

Kevin Costello: Based on my hand, it seems like opponents have bid on distribution rather than HCP (or North is a holdover from last month’s game). Thus, I lead trumps to cut down the extra trump tricks their distribution could earn. This should improve my odds, but not enough that I’m willing to risk 170 points [to gain] 50 by doubling.

Brian Zietman: We have control of all side suits, so I must lead a trump to cut down the ruffing possibilities. Doubling may cost, as we are not guaranteed [to win] any diamond tricks.

Alan Shotkin: Too close to double for my blood. The auction screams for a trump lead; West’s clubs aren’t going to help…

Arvind Srinivasan: There seems to be no reason to double; partner’s pass is not forcing, and he could have doubled himself. We have outside values, so I need to stop ruffs.

Nick Krnjevic: Although it’s possible that we need a spade ruff to beat 4 , dummy rates to be 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5; so there are probably more hands where it’s right for me to lead a trump. Doubling seems a bit rich since there are many layouts where East will have only two black-suit losers.

Julian Wightwick: Perhaps West has short diamonds. I have no reason to fear diamond discards on the black suits.

Neelotpal Sahai: My club values seem to be badly placed, and there may not be more than one diamond trick; so I pass. Precipitous action is [unwarranted] so ace leads are out. I choose a trump over partner suit on the assumption that West may be 4=3=1=5 (partner having five diamonds), in which case it is important to take out West’s trumps to beat the contract.

Andrei Varlan: Sometimes one also has to trust the opponents. As for the lead, a trump looks good. From where will they get their tricks?

Willem Mevius: Three clubs was a good bid, whether natural or unassuming… but this is not a forcing-pass situation. I would be disappointed if 4 makes, but at this vulnerability there’s no need to put extra pressure on the contract. I lead a heart, as I still have stoppers so East can’t discard losers, and he may need to ruff spades and/or diamonds in dummy.

Richard Maybin: I hate this hand! My 3 probably makes partner think his pass is forcing. Won’t he be surprised! Alas, he could have a rock ( J-x K-J A-K-Q-x-x-x x-x-x) and take no tricks. My small doubleton trump tells me that tapping will do no good, so I will cut down ruffs in dummy.

Albert Ohana: If dummy is short in diamonds, it may be important to stop declarer from ruffing his losers…

Ted Ying: Partner could have made a lead-directing overcall with A-K-x-x-x and not much else. If the opponents are very distributional (likely), 4 could make; so double seem warranted. I lead a trump to cut down on ruffing since they don’t have the [high-card] values for game…

Barry Goren: We have the high cards and clubs look sewn up, so get those children off the dummy. Whenever I double in this spot, I go minus 690.

Jack Rhatigan: On a good day it’s down two. On a bad day it makes.

After deciding to pass, you may have that backwards… On a good day 4 makes, so not doubling wins 5 IMPs.

Dave Maeer: I never lead trumps — but — if there ever was a time, this is it.

Venkatesh Ramaratnam: I believe I have stated my diamond fit and club values with 3 . Four hearts is unlikely to go more than one down; hence double is pointless. Best defense is to cut the down the ruffs.

Comments for E. Double, lead A

Scott Stearns: Someone has the spade suit; it might as well be partner.

George Klemic: I get this feeling we are being robbed. Partner made a no-nuisance overcall at unfavorable vulnerability… and my club length (and 9) make it difficult for declarer to [use that suit]. But regardless, I suspect beating 4 is nowhere near a lock. … My reflex says to lead a trump; but if hearts are 4-6, it will be irrelevant. I’ll start with A in hopes of a ruff… then if dummy tables an imposing spade holding, I can switch to a trump…

Dale Freeman: Some would consider this auction forcing because of the vulnerability. … We may need a spade ruff to beat 4 if there are no diamond tricks our way.

Tim Francis-Wright: It’s not clear that partner made a forcing pass, but I have more defense than he might expect. I will lead the A to see dummy, then go from there.

Justin Corfield: One diamond takes away no space from the opponents, so North should have values, especially vulnerable. Where are their tricks coming from? No doubt I’ll soon find out. :) I doubt that a trump lead will achieve much (they have too many); nor a diamond (they have too few); so I’ll hope for a spade ruff. Any time I lead the A, East ruffs it. :)

Connie Delisle: I seldom want to double a game at IMPs for a one-trick set; but opponents may be sacrificing and I do not have the luxury of guessing, and I don’t think I am concerned about them making with overtricks. … Since RHO is weak, I will attack with the A and hope to get a ruff.

Nikolay Demirev: Speeding ticket for the opponents. (I infer the standard treatment for double here is penalty, while my personal view is it should mean I was going to bid up to 4 .) A trump lead may be the best but is somewhat blindfold, and it might surrender a singleton king in partner’s hand. The  A gives me a chance for down two, and may be the only way to set the contract.

Sandy Barnes: The double doesn’t risk much, and I can see this down two tricks easily.

Peter Koch Larsen: One diamond from partner? Must be a good hand, else he would make a weak jump overcall. I must double with so much extra (assuming 3 shows at least a good raise to 3 ). … I’ll just take my spade ruff, sit back and relax.

Chris Vinall: We’re getting robbed here if I don’t double. Presumably, the K is with partner or on my left, so I’ll open the A and take stock. …

Lee Rautenberg: I believe I have shown my relative values already, so bidding on seems too aggressive. Furthermore, if we are off black kings, they are more likely to be with West. I like double with two bullets, as I am not likely risking an overtrick and might collect 300-500. As far as the lead, the opponents are likely to hold seven spades, so a third-round ruff should be possible. I would be surprised if neither opponent has a singleton diamond, so I’ll look at dummy and decide what to do next.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 575), and on each problem only for the top three calls (top four on Problem 6). Over 65 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.

I hope you enjoyed this Orwellian revisit to Seattle. Thanks to all who responded, especially to those who offered kind remarks about my web site, and of course to Big Brother for his supreme eminence.

Uh-oh! I turned off my telescreen to write this report, and the Thought Police just arrived to take me downtown. Hope I can talk my way out of this one! If anyone asks, you don’t know me. Oh no! They’re putting the cuffs on, and I can’t fini…

Chief of Police: Sorry, readers. Citizen RP-198497 will be away for a while.

John R. Mayne: Big Brother and pictures of difficult terrain? This is obviously from one of the Reality TV bridge games. I hope I made it to the show! Maybe I missed the clues, by George. Or, well, I couldn’t see the point of this at all.

Tim Francis-Wright: If memory serves, the 1984 World Team Olympiad in Seattle featured Oceania in its eternal war with Eastasia — I mean Eurasia. (I almost expected a photo of the West Seattle Bridge, completed in 1984.)

James Sheppard: On a train, in an emerald mine, in a mountain, in New York? Do I win?

Alon Amsel: If Fritz is my partner, I change all my bids to pass.

Analyses 7Y64 Main Challenge

Scores Top Big Brother Is Watching

© 2003 Richard Pavlicek