Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge
On Top of the World
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 7Y88 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in May of 2004, 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 or location, and participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.
| Problem 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Final Notes |
The wrong guesses included Hamilton, Bermuda; Bali, Java (I smell the coffee!) and Jakarta, Indonesia; Hong Kong; Waikiki, Mauna Lea, Honolulu and Maui, Hawaii; Menton, France; Monte Carlo, Monaco; Ocho Rios, Jamaica; Bogota, Colombia; Lima, Peru; and closest of all: Rio de Janeiro. Then there were the improbable guesses of Perth, Australia; Reykjavik, Iceland; Tibet (refusing my advice to rule out Mount Everest); Scunthorpe, England (lost me there); the ever-mountainous Cape Canaveral, Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach, Florida; and of course the beach capital of the world: Denver, Colorado.
The tournament was held in Guaruja, Brazil, an island reached by ferry from Santos, the main seaport of Sao Paulo. Pictured is the beautiful Guaruja beach, both at noon and at dusk. This vacation paradise may have been overkill for a bridge tournament, but even card buffs hit the beach once in a while (or a soft 17 at the casino).
The coffee cup silhouette was another clue to Brazil, which is the #1 coffee producer in the world.
My title and space photo* referred to the stature of the winning team, an indisputable fact of the times.
*Several people noticed that the faint land mass looks like Florida (viewed from the East), which didn’t occur to me as I chose the photo only for its Earth view. Closer study shows this to be true, as I detect Lake Okeechobee in its proper place.
The background song Top of the World by the Carpenters has been one of my favorites since it became a #1 hit in 1973 — which was also the year of this tournament. A handful of people guessed 1972, when the song was released, but I was aiming for the gold-record year. Congratulations to Nigel Marlow, who was the only person to guess both the year and location — in fact, he’s the only one to guess either. Darn! My space-shot decoy almost worked. Marlow, huh? Now I see it; must be related to Phillip.
Leonard Brum Wins!This poll had 1265 participants from 118 locations, and the average score was 45.06. Congratulations to Leonard Blum (US) who was the first of four with perfect scores. Also scoring 60 were Stefan Basinski (US); Ian Totman (Canada); and Brad Theurer (US). How about that! A United States sweep, except for a token Canadian. OK, OK, a North American sweep. Close behind at 59 were Luis Rodrigues (Portugal); Dean Swallow (UK); Victor Zidaroiu (Romania); Sing Lam (Hong Kong); and Don Hinchey (US).
Much like the previous poll, the average score of 45.06 was lower than usual — third lowest ever. This does not imply any inferiority in the participants but only that the voting was diverse. Most of the problems were close — the exception being Problem 3, which drew a slight majority (51 percent) for the raise to game. OK, I flunked in choosing that one.
The overall leaderboard has a new leader in Chris Maclauchlan (US) who edged out previous champ Jean-Christophe Clement (France) by my tiebreaker. Both have the same average of 56.50, but Chris had a better high finish by one rank. In third place with 55.75 is Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden (Netherlands) — or “Mr. Alphabet” as I had to redesign my database to fit his name. Julian Pottage (UK) holds fourth place, also with 55.75.
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
The 19th Bermuda Bowl was held May 15-25, 1973 in Guaruja, Brazil at the Casa Grande Hotel. Only five teams were involved: the defending-champion Aces and four continental representatives: North America, Brazil (South America), Italy (Europe); and Indonesia (Asia). The first stage was a round-robin, where each team met each other in three 32-board matches, converted to Victory Points, with the top two teams advancing to the final. Standings at the end of the round-robin were: Aces 177, Italy 176, Brazil 148, North America 140, and Indonesia 101. As almost everyone predicted from the start, the Aces would face Italy in the 128-board final.
The Aces, a team of professional players, was the brainchild of Ira Corn Jr., who, like Martin Luther King Jr., “had a dream.” His goal was to develop a team, through extensive coaching and training, to topple the Blue Team dynasty. Despite the Aces’ Bermuda Bowl victories in 1970 and 1971, this was still unachieved, as the Blue Team did not participate — citing their “retirement,” but I suspect it was more a case of boredom with winning so easily. Would this be the moment Ira was waiting for?
No, Ira’s dream would have to wait. The Blue Team proved it was still the best, coming out of retirement to win the 1972 Olympiad, this Bermuda Bowl, and the next… and the next. Squadra Azura was truly “On Top of the World,” and nobody had the tiniest bone of contention to argue otherwise. The only time they didn’t win was when they didn’t play — a great high for Italy but depressing for the rest of the world.
Representing Italy (pictured L-R, top row first) were Vito Pittala, Giuseppe Garabello, Benito Garozzo, Benito Bianchi, Giorgio Belladonna and Pietro Forquet. This was a different Blue Team than in the 1960s, but the top guns — Garozzo, Belladonna and Forquet — were still there. Indeed, they could each grab a waiter from the bar and probably win.
The Aces team also varied over the years. In 1973 it included Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Jim Jacoby, Bobby Goldman, Michael Lawrence and Mark Blumenthal. Rather than fixed partnerships, the team consisted of two wheeling triads: Hamman, Wolff and Jacoby played a strong club system. Goldman, Lawrence and Blumenthal played Aces Scientific, a system developed by Bobby Goldman based on Eastern Scientific.
The final began with an incredible rout, as Italy won the first 16 boards 65-4, and the second 59-2! Wow. Talk about being on top of the world! Italy easily held on to win 333-205, a curious margin of exactly 1 IMP per board. Four of the six problems are from the Italy-Aces match, and Problems 4 and 5 are from the round-robin match between Italy and North America. So pull up a chair and match your bidding skills against the world’s best of 1973.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 1
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass | North Pass 1 
| East Pass Pass | South 1  ? | A Q 10 9 8 A K Q 6 A 8 6 2
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 601 | 48 |
| 2 NT | 8 | 358 | 28 |
| 3 | 7 | 99 | 8 |
| 3 NT | 5 | 137 | 11 |
| 2 | 2 | 70 | 6 |
This problem is reminiscent of Problem 1 in the last poll, except this time there is no interference. Once again, the reverse bid is the winner, and I agree. If the trend continues, we may have to rewrite the textbooks that say a reverse shows 5+ cards in the first suit. Well, not really; I think it still shows that; it’s just that production levels have been down lately.
With 19 HCP, most 2 bidders intended to drive to game, surely justified at IMPs, though it wouldn’t be a great surprise to go down on a misfitting hand. Over a likely 2 by partner, I would bid 3 hoping it is construed as natural (or A-x-x) — at least then we should have a wide selection of places to go down. Oh well; no matter what you do, it seems that you or partner will be struggling in 3 NT later.
Predictably, the next popular choice was 2 NT, supposedly a balanced 18-19 but certainly reasonable. One big plus is that partner can pass with a bad hand (and this 19 rates to play more like 17). The lack of a second spade could be a downside, but it also could work well if partner insists on 4 with six — the ace can’t be all that bad, and notrump may be untenable without communication.
Three clubs is also reasonable as it creates a game force and allows further exploration. A heart fit won’t be lost, since partner will bid 3 with 5-4 in the majors. It also has some attraction in making hearts the unbid suit, perhaps drawing a heart lead against 3 NT. Nonetheless, it goes against my grain to bid a weak club suit before a meaty heart suit.
As usual, 3 NT got a lot of votes; but it’s clearly an overbid — as well as a misbid because it’s supposed to show long, strong diamonds, e.g., x K-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x-x A-x. Some people, of course, feel 3 NT can never be too wrong, citing Hamman’s Rule for credibility.
I included 2 mostly as a filler, so I was surprised it got 70 votes. (In Kaplan-Sheinwold this would be fine, as it is forcing like a reverse.) It is certainly true that 2 , passed by partner, could be your best spot with no game anywhere, but you’ll be awaiting the dummy with fear and trepidation. No thanks. I’d rather avoid the anxiety and just go set.
Here’s what happened in Guaruja in 1973:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | K 10 8 7 6 4 5 4 3 J 9 Q 7
| |
| Q J 5 3 K 6 8 4 2 K J 10 3
|  | 9 2 A J 7 2 10 7 5 3 9 5 4
|
| N-S Vul | A Q 10 9 8 A K Q 6 A 8 6 2 | |
| Hamman WEST Pass Pass Pass | Garozzo North Pass 1 2
| Lawrence East Pass Pass All Pass | Belladonna South 1 1
| 2 North Made 2 +110 |
| Garabello WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Goldman North Pass 1 3
| Pittala East Pass Pass Pass | Blumenthal South 1 3 3 NT | 3 NT South Made 3 +600 Aces (USA) +10 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at the second table, where Blumenthal chose to bid 3 — no doubt with the old “unbid suit caper” in mind. Sure enough, Goldman repeated his spades, then Blumenthal bid 3 NT with high hopes of a heart lead. Garabello didn’t bite (he led a spade), but the tenuous contract was unbeatable when Goldman produced two welcome tidbits ( J and Q), and two key cards ( J and K) were onside. Plus 600 for Aces Scientific.
At the first table, the more famous G-B partnership began with a strong, artificial 1 and negative 1 . Over the natural 1 rebid, Garozzo’s jump described his hand well — at least as far as spades, maybe not the tidbits — and Belladonna threw in the towel with a misfit. Garozzo easily made 2 , but stopping short of game cost 10 IMPs.
It seems that our consensus to bid 2 would have worked well, as the bidding would likely continue 2 3 ; 3 NT — in theory much better, because it right-sides the tenuous Q.
Comments for 2 Stefan Basinski: I don’t like 2 since it may be passed. Since diamonds are so strong, I’ll reverse. Also, for notrump I worry more about clubs than hearts, so the reverse also gets that message across.
Brad Theurer: No bid is perfect; I’ll pretend I have five diamonds (normally a reverse shows at least five in the first suit) since the four are very strong.
Jinzhou Loo: Should promise 5-4 at least, but the good diamonds and extra strength make up for it. A close second would be 3 .
David Caprera: A clear call; I would prefer to have a fifth diamond, but A-K-Q-x is good enough. If I bid 2 , I play there when partner holds x-x-x-x-x K-J-x-x x K-x-x. I don’t like coming back to the table with 3 making four when 6 is reasonable, and 4 is pretty cold. … Bidding notrump on a 4-4-4-1 shape is only a last-ditch effort.
Gabriel Lindstrom: The diamond honors compensate for a fifth card.
Steve Boughey: So a heart fit isn’t missed. Three clubs now risks hearts being taken later as “fourth suit forcing”…
Bill Breslin: Give partner a chance at hearts if he’s 5-4 in the majors. This doesn’t rule out 3 NT later; it’s forcing and I’ll let partner be the captain.
Sandy McIlwain: I can’t give up on a suit contract when slam is still possible. Two clubs is too little, and 3 [might] miss hearts, which makes 2 just right…
Tim DeLaney: The reverse should promise five diamonds, but I don’t see a good alternative. Notrump bids could result in losing a 4-4 heart fit, and club bids seem misdirected.
Thiruvenkata Chari: Even if partner takes me for five diamonds, this is OK because of the suit quality. If I bid 3 NT, I may be too high because of my singleton ace. …
George Klemic: I have enough values to pattern out with 3 after partner’s expected 2 or 2 NT rebid. My reverse does not promise five diamonds, but with only four, I must have a reason — like this hand.
Nigel Guthrie: Accurately describing my strong “1=4=5=3 shape.” I don’t want to…miss the good diamond slam opposite, say, K-x-x-x-x-x A-K J-10 K-x-x.
Jim Munday: I’d rather have a fifth diamond, but this suit is not far from it. I don’t particularly like to bid notrump, which could easily lose the club suit. … This hand is too strong for 2 , which might lose the heart suit as well; nor does 3 [describe it]. To paraphrase Churchill, “Two hearts is the worst choice, except for all the others.”
Sapan Desai: A simple reverse. … If partner rebids 2 , I will bid 2 NT.
Jorge Castanheira: If 3 NT is the best contract, it [probably] should be played by partner.
Tibor Roberts: A smaller lie than 2 NT with a singleton. I’d like a fifth diamond for the reverse, but the suit is great.
Gonzalo Goded: … The real problem may come next turn after partner bids 2 . Bid 3 ? Or raise to 3 with the stiff ace?
Neelotpal Sahai: It looks criminal not to reverse into hearts with such good spots. … (In Problem 1 of the last poll, consensus was to bid a four-card suit with much weaker spots.)
Lawrence Cheetham: If partner bids 2 NT next, we will be better placed for 3 NT. If he bids 3 , I will trust his judgment and not bid 3 NT.
Imre Csiszar: Two notrump would not be a big lie; but in March, Problem 1, a reverse with four cards in the first suit was the winner with a balanced hand. If right then, it must be “more right” with this unbalanced hand.
Robert Lipton: The distinction between rebids is purely a stylistic one: 2 for Roth-Stone, 2 NT for people who routinely bid notrump with stiffs, and so forth. I prefer 2 because, if I bid 3 , I cannot judge whether partner’s 3 shows a heart suit or asks for a stopper (unless we have discussed it thoroughly).
Uwe Gebhardt: Forcing, hoping to find a fit, or partner to hold a six-card spade suit; 3 NT will not run away.
Jing Liu: Establish a forcing auction. Two notrump may be right, but I don’t like it with a singleton spade.
Mike Kerr: I need to cater to five spades and four hearts in partner’s hand, especially at IMPs; we’ll still get to 3 NT if that’s the right spot.
Bob Richardson: Notrump will be better from North’s side if it’s the right contract.
Rosalind Hengeveld: When a lowland lady lies a little, she likes at least to lie at a low level.
And then when the dikes give way, I suppose she sells seashells by the seashore.
Yi Zhong: It seems partner will be in a better position to declare notrump. I will follow with 3 [over 2 ].
Cres Cole: Two notrump would be OK; but I can show my distribution better this way by bidding clubs next round.
Michael Spurgeon: Showing my general strength. Notrump might play better if North is declarer, and North might have four hearts. I will bid just 2 NT if North rebids 2 .
Carsten Kofoed: I must lie about my distribution with any bid, and this keeps the bidding low. Furthermore, it may be better for North to declare notrump.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: A small lie, as the reverse promises five diamonds; but all other bids also have flaws, and A-K-Q-x is almost a five-carder. Three notrump might be better in partner’s hand to protect a possible Q-x.
Jerome Farrugia: A club fit may be missed, but it is more important to find a heart fit.
Daniel Testa: I don’t like bidding notrump with a singleton in partner’s suit; 2 is an underbid; and 3 would be my choice with 5-4 in the minors.
David Dumont: To save space, I much prefer 2 over 3 . Two notrump may get us to the worst contract. …
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: This is the best description, as the excellent diamond suit compensates for the absence of a fifth card. Two clubs is an underbid; 2 NT is right on values and even distribution, but unattractive with the wrong suit textures.
Soren Justesen: From the start, I planned to show a five-card diamond suit; now I can reverse to show 16+ points. My second choice is 2 NT.
Jacob Grabowski: Three notrump has appeal since partner is a passed hand; but there could still be a heart fit. I will follow up with 3 NT, and partner will get the message — unfortunately, so will the opponents so a direct 3 NT may have more merit.
Peg Kaplan: Very close between 2 and 2 NT. Normally, I hate to rebid 2 NT with a singleton, but it could work here. Still, with a weak hand partner might pass 2 NT with 5-4 in the majors and a stiff diamond when we are cold for game.
Richard Morse: I may not have a fifth diamond, but I have quality and am reluctant to bypass hearts. Three notrump is unilateral, as well as a stretch, although it seems to be the most likely resting place.
Mike Sweet: I will tell partner that I had a club mixed in with my diamonds. Any amount of notrump seems wrong, and waiting while partner thinks over 2 is too stressful. At least this shows a strong hand…
Rainer Herrmann: Clear-cut, as it keeps the bidding low. I can always bid notrump later, which will imply some doubt about the final strain.
Justin Corfield: I don’t like 2 NT because we may need to play notrump from partner’s side with my club holding; 2 might be passed; and 3 will make it tough to get to hearts.
Carl Federl: Descriptive, and the club suit can still be shown if necessary. Two clubs is underbid; 2 NT misdescribes with only one spade; 3 misdescribes due to poor suit length and quality, plus it hides the heart suit; 3 NT is OK on HCP but should show longer diamonds.
Paul Friedman: Looks like 1=4=5=3 shape to me; then 2 NT over 2 .
Mark Abraham: Aiming at a simple natural sequence. If partner rebids 2 , I’ll bid 3 and play in any contract he suggests. …
Karl Barth: I used to bid 2 NT with these hands, but my partner strongly objected, “You have suits; bid them.” OK, it is a yummy hand, so I’ll pretend I have five diamonds and reverse. I just hope I don’t wind up in a 4-2 fit.
Ugur Tas: What on the earth could be more natural? Maybe partner will invent a 2 NT bid with the Q.
Sebastien Louveaux: Seems pretty straightforward. I don’t need to bid notrump right now, as it probably ought to be played from the other side.
Manuel Paulo: This suggests at least 4-5 shape, but the top strength in diamonds should compensate. With all weak hands partner must rebid 2 or 2 NT; then, I choose 3 to complete the picture of my hand.
David Kempe: Deja vu from the last poll. The reverse is a diamond short but otherwise pretty accurate; anything else is a worse lie.
Gillian Paty: Normally this shows five diamonds and four hearts, but the diamond quality is such that I prefer lying about diamond length than spades (2 NT is my second choice).
Dima Nikolenkov: I will follow with 3 over the likely 2 from partner.
Danny Kleinman: Best way to force, find a heart fit if one exists, and permit partner to bid the notrump first if he has a club stopper, especially Q-x-x or K-J-x. Never mind that I don’t have a fifth diamond; A-K-Q-x plays better than most ordinary five-carders, so if partner insists on diamonds…that will be fine.
Vikas Phadke: Two clubs and 2 NT are timid; 3 may mislead partner to get carried away with a three-card diamond support and wrest control; 3 NT is too final.
Geoff Bridges: This seems obvious, and I don’t see a compelling reason not to bid 2 . Two notrump seems like masterminding; and 3 leaves less bidding room and makes it harder to find 4 if that is the right spot.
David Ingham: I suppose the values are there for a standard game-forcing 3 , but I hate preempting my own auctions: If it continues 3 4 , will partner know to go on with, say, J-x-x-x-x K-J-x-x J-x K-x? The reverse is only a teensie lie; doesn’t A-K-Q-6 look like a five-bagger? …
Dick Wagman: This should just about guarantee that we get to the right strain. … If partner rebids 2 or 2 NT, I will bid 3 next; if he finds a heart or diamond raise, I will sniff for slam; if he rebids 3 , I will bid 4 ; not sure what I will do after 3 NT. … Bidding notrump now gives up on too many possible slams.
Josh Sinnett: A fairly easy one; over 2 or 2 NT, I will bid out my pattern with 3 . Over my partner’s responses, 19 HCP and nice intermediates are enough to force to game.
Willem Mevius: Alternative is 2 NT, but notrump may be better in partner’s hand (with Q-x for instance).
Dale Freeman: I think I should bid out my pattern; 3 next if possible. If 3 NT is the spot, partner probably should be declarer.
Brian Julius: Conveys the strength and unbalanced nature of my hand, while keeping the auction low. Treating A-K-Q-x as a five-card suit seems a less harmful lie than a notrump bid implying at least two spades.
J.J. Gass: The [only] problem with 2 is not the lie about my diamond length, but that it [suggests] a club lead if we end up in our likely spot of 3 NT. Blasting to 3 NT would more likely attract a heart lead into my strong holding…
Olle Morell: Toss of a coin between 2 and 2 NT, but this involves a slightly smaller risk of ending up in 4 when it is wrong.
John Lusky: We could belong in any suit or notrump, and notrump is likely to be better from partner’s side. The hand isn’t quite good enough for 3 ; and 2 might bury the heart suit.
Comments for 2 NTGodwin Jeyaseelan: This seems to be the smallest lie, with minimal damage in conveying my distribution and strength. …
Carolyn Ahlert: A singleton is usually a no-no for notrump, but it’s an ace in the suit partner bid. The heart suit is rather weak for a reverse but not bad for notrump, and 2 NT describes my point count well.
Jyri Tamminen: Easiest way to keep all suits in play; no fourth-suit complications.
Bill Powell: I wouldn’t object to 2 either, but a heart lead [against 3 NT] might be nice.
Leonard Helfgott: A stiff ace is reasonable replacement for x-x. Two clubs is an underbid; 3 NT shows a long diamond suit; and 3 must be worse than 2 (my second choice).
Kenneth Wanamaker: Lies about my distribution; but if partner wants to bid 4 , I have [adequate] support. …
Stu Goodgold: A problem distribution; better to describe the strength and lie just a little about the shape.
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: I’m not exactly balanced, but this seems to involve [little] risk: Partner didn’t open a weak 2 , so he’s [unlikely] to jump to 4 … If partner is 5-4 in the majors, the heart fit will not be missed. …
David Wiltshire: I’m not happy with any of the options. Since partner is unlikely to have six spades (he passed), this seems like the best bid to describe my values… although it might wrong-side the contract.
Kieran Dyke: Two hearts is sane but misleading; it will make it very hard to find club slams. Any club bid is ridiculous — misses heart fits, and 2 risks being passed. Two notrump shows my values and find all heart fits.
Gerald Cohen: This won’t miss a heart fit or make me worry about adequate trump support in a minor contract.
Mark Reeve: Slightly off-shape, but everything else is worse. Two hearts or 3 promises five diamonds; 2 is a gross underbid; and 3 NT shows long running diamonds.
Ron Sperber: Any bid will be a lie, so I may as well pretend that 1=4=4=4 is balanced.
Andrew de Sosa: I don’t like the singleton spade, but at least it’s a high honor; 4-4-4-1 hands are “balanced.”
Mauri Saastamoinen: Easy opposite a passed hand. If partner insists on playing in spades with a lousy six-card suit, that’s his problem; besides, my hand is also suitable for that.
Daniel Korbel: The smallest lie; anything else may lead to a tortured auction.
Kent Feiler: Looks like notrump: no long suits, and a chicken in every pot. I particularly don’t want to reverse into hearts because that’s the suit I want led no matter where we end up.
Barry Rigal: Right on values; wrong on shape — but the bare A is better than two small if partner insists on spades.
Chris Willenken: Seems practical. This hand will be a good dummy for spades with all the quick tricks. … Two hearts (my second choice) buries the club suit and overstates diamonds; partner will assume I have five. Three clubs buries hearts entirely, as partner’s 3 is then waiting; and 2 would have me playing there opposite x-x-x-x-x A-K-x-x x x-x-x, where 6 is a decent spot.
Comments for 3 Stephen Fischer: Gives partner room to show a four-card heart suit, even when weak. Two notrump suggests less desire for playing in a suit.
Bogdan Vulcan: … This could lead to a problem if partner bids 3 (fourth suit) next, but I would have to bid 4 . Two hearts is OK, but the suit is poor; 2 NT and 3 NT are lies; and 2 doesn’t express the strength. …
Jason Flinn: Too good a hand not too force; 3 keeps all options open…
Rob Herman: This shows both my shape and points, although we will probably end up in 3 NT anyway.
Jonathan Steinberg: With a powerful hand and good spot cards, I make the normal game-forcing jump shift. The heart suit will not be lost if that is where we belong.
Michael Roche: Three notrump or slam is still in the picture. It’s hard to get to clubs if I don’t bid them now.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 2
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | NORTH Pass 1
| East 1 1 NT | South Dbl ? | A Q 10 7 5 A J 9 5 Q A Q 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 387 | 31 |
| 2 | 9 | 182 | 14 |
| Double | 6 | 131 | 10 |
| 4 | 5 | 205 | 16 |
| 2 | 4 | 223 | 18 |
| 2 | 3 | 126 | 10 |
| Pass | 1 | 11 | 1 |
Apparently, you should have chosen East as your partner, as it feels like about 37 HCP in the southeast corridor. East’s 1 NT bid opposite a passing partner suggests 18-19 balanced, though it’s possible he is operating at the vulnerability. Usually, the best way to expose the balance of power over a notrump bid is to double; but here, you might not beat it with the lopsided division of strength. Therefore, it seems right to raise hearts with four-card support.
How many hearts? It is easy to reject 2 as being inadequate, and 4 as too much. Therefore, my choice is between a simple invitation with 3 and a cue-bid of 2 followed by a heart raise.* The former provides clarity by ensuring four-card support, while the latter allows stopping a level lower if partner is broke. I slightly prefer 3 because I’d feel nervous about passing 2 (or correcting 2 to 2 ) — I’d want to bid 3 anyway — so I might as well confirm the fourth trump.
*This brings up the controversial issue as to how high your partnership is forced after a cue-bid. The system guidelines say that cue-bids are forcing to game or four of a previously bid minor, however, this assumes partner has shown some values. A cue-bid after an obligatory response is different and forcing only for one round.
The consensus also went with the 3 raise. Hey! This could mean that cue-bids are going out of style in the 21st century. It used to be that cue-bids solved everything in bidding polls. Or maybe it’s the modern catch-phrase, “Support with support.” Who knows, but it’s refreshing to see the natural bid win.
Double is the only other palatable option to me, as West is likely to run out to 2 or 2 , leaving you no worse off, with penalty possibilities still intact. Even so, you can’t rely on West to be part of your system, so it seems too speculative to risk defending 1 NT with no attractive lead.
Well, I got 11 people to pass. Do I win something? Perhaps they had some devious scheme in mind not to venture even a 2 raise; but then, why do I keep thinking about monkeys and keyboards?
I posed this problem as it would occur with natural methods, though in 1973 both Easts opened a strong, artificial club. Here’s what really happened:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | 9 8 2 Q 8 7 6 3 10 9 2 7 5
| |
| 4 3 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 J 6 4 2
| | K J 6 K 4 2 A K J K 10 9 8
|
| N-S Vul | A Q 10 7 5 A J 9 5 Q A Q 3 | |
| Hamman West Pass 2
| Garozzo NORTH Pass 1 2
| Wolff East 1 Pass All Pass | Belladonna South Dbl 2
| 2 North Made 4 +170 |
| Bianchi West Pass Pass All Pass | Lawrence NORTH Pass 2 3
| Forquet East 1 Pass Pass | Goldman South Dbl 3 4
| 4 North Made 4 +620 Aces (USA) +10 IMPs |
Both Souths doubled the strong club to show the majors, but the responses differed. Garozzo bid his bad hand as most would at adverse vulnerability, while Lawrence seized the opportunity to make a mild preempt (weak by partnership agreement). After all, he was forced to choose a major with nothing, so five to the queen was a bonus. Goldman’s 3 cue-bid looks like a waste of time, but it was well-judged with every finesse sure to be working. Note that 6 is pretty good if North has a tad better, say, J-9-x Q-10-8-x-x x-x-x-x x.
The play began the same at both tables with two top diamonds. Garozzo ruffed low (apparently careless in not using the nine) and led the J, ducked around.* Garozzo then led the 10 to the jack, ruffed the next diamond high and led the 9, overtaking with the queen. Wolff could not keep Garozzo from reaching his hand to win the rest — making four, plus 170.
*If the 9 is used at trick one, declarer can overtake the J when the 10 appears, thus forcing a trump entry to hand and simplifying the play.
At the second table, where 10 tricks really meant something, Lawrence ruffed the second diamond low and cashed the A. He next tried the 10, won by Forquet, who cashed the K. Now a diamond return would lock declarer in dummy and defeat the contract — alas, Forquet made an uncharacteristic error and returned his last trump. Lawrence soon claimed plus 620; 10 IMPs to the Aces.
Comments for 3 Stefan Basinski: This should show a great hand. Game has good chances opposite as little as K-x-x-x.
Brad Theurer: Vulnerable at IMPs, I want to be aggressive. On the plus side I have lots of good positional values; the downside is that partner’s hand has few entries. Still, I want to get partner to bid game with anything extra — even 10-x-x-x-x and a stiff spade might be enough.
Dean Swallow: My values are prime, and sitting over East. Partner will go on if he has anything useful.
Don Hinchey: This is a big bid, and I expect partner to bid game with any reasonable excuse. By the way, standard responses to takeout doubles give partner an excessive…range for a one-level response. [I prefer] Don Oakie’s method, which is predicated on guaranteed support in doubler’s hand: 0-5 for the one level; 6-9 for two-level jumps; and 10+ for a cue-bid…
Godwin Jeyaseelan: The upper limit of the hand is 4 , and I invite partner to bid it.
Frans Buijsen: If I believe East, game may be far off; but I have seen too many opponents that are less credible. So I want to do more than the just a competitive-looking 2 …
David Caprera: East’s 1 NT call is bad news — and good news. It suggests partner doesn’t have much, but it also means that East’s cards are all slotted. The problem will be partner getting to his hand to finesse East. I don’t like double because West may own J-10-x-x-x, and East will have an easy trip to seven tricks. …
Jonathan Siegel: I am tempted to go straight to 4 , but partner could have nothing; so I think 3 is enough.
Bill Breslin: Two hearts can be mistaken as competitive. Even opposite a bust, we should be safe at 3 ; and I don’t want to miss a vulnerable game at IMPs.
Damo Nair: If North has some entry card, 4 has a good chance.
Sandy McIlwain: Two hearts without competition might be enough, but here it could be done with less. … There are not many points left for North; and I think he bypassed diamonds, bless him, to bid hearts… I don’t think a cue-bid will accomplish much, and 2 will likely be passed in a worse fit.
Tim DeLaney: A choice between 3 and 4 , based on positional considerations. East’s 1 NT bid argues for caution.
Bill Daly: Double could prove embarrassing if East has A-K-x and West has J-x-x-x-x-x.
Doug McAvoy: Partner may never be able to get to his hand, and diamond taps may make this very unattractive to play. …
Jyri Tamminen: Partner is probably broke, but K-x-x-x-x will make 4 a good contract. It’s also possible that East is fooling around in this vulnerability.
Nigel Guthrie: Double may not be a great success if East has the expected K-x K-Q-10 A-K-J-10 K-x-x-x. … This may be a slight overbid, but I can hardly do less.
Nigel Marlow: Double is tempting, but may not provide many tricks if declarer can run diamonds. Raising partner to show the fit and close-to-game values is surely better.
Bill Powell: Worth an unambiguous invitation.
Leonard Helfgott: I must allow some leeway, but it is too unlikely that partner has only three hearts not to raise immediately. Second choice is 2 .
Tibor Roberts: This best fits the playing strength of my hand — an excellent shot at game, and no reason to believe we can set 1 NT four tricks. Two spades conceals the fit. …
Jim Wiitala: I will be lucky if partner as even one entry to his hand, but I must invite game. East may be trying to slow us down with a psych, intending to bid 2 over the expected double.
Lawrence Cheetham: Not hearing 1 from partner is encouraging, as he [almost] has to have four hearts. … Over 3 , partner should bid game with K-x 10-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x, and it will make. …
Uwe Gebhardt: We wont get rich defending 1 NT doubled, so I invite game with 3 .
Scott Stearns: If North can just get to his hand, I’m almost certain game will make with all finesses onside. …
Fraser Rew: An overbid (3 ) or an underbid (2 )? Naturally, I go for the former.
Kaz Yamada: Double is risky, and 4 will be playable if partner has one key card among K, K and A.
John S. Robson: If there is a chance for game, it must be in partner’s suit. …
Michael Spurgeon: This seems right on values, since I’m sitting over East’s black-suit kings.
Carsten Kofoed: It’s almost sure that North has at least four hearts — he could have a 3=3=2=5 distribution, but accidents are a part of life. So I’ll be optimistic and hope North can appreciate any resources he is equipped with…
Stu Goodgold: Even at this vulnerability, I have to give partner some leeway since he was forced on the first round.
Jacob Grabowski: I would like to double to get the strength across; but partner is a passed hand, and there’s no need to let West mention diamonds. …Four hearts is [tempting], but partner is still there…
Mike Sweet: Technically, it is probably right to bid 2 then raise hearts; but I don’t want to make it easy for West to introduce the diamond suit.
Richard Morse: Partner appears to have more hearts than diamonds. Given the vulnerability, I am inclined to shoot for game rather than defend, particularly since partner may only have an entry playing in hearts. The Q may be dead meat, but in general the cards will lie well on the bidding. Nevertheless, I need to give partner the chance to bail out with…a bust.
Rainer Herrmann: Given the bidding by East, this may be an overbid since North is likely to be broke. But since I am unwilling to sell out to 3 (if I bid only 2 ) I might as well invite in case North have some unexpected useful values.
David Wiltshire: I’d bid 2 on less, and my values seem well placed. I just hope partner has an entry — and four hearts.
Paul Friedman: … Doubling 1 NT and then raising hearts would sound like three-card support, not four. If this hand is too weak to jump raise, I should have bid 1 the first round.
Irina Dimitrova: … Even though I can see a nice fit in hearts, partner was forced to bid after my double; so 3 is enough to let him decide whether we have a game or not.
Mark Reeve: Effectively showing 21 points in support of hearts, inviting partner to go on… Double seems pointless, as [West probably] will find a diamond bid. …
Ron Sperber: I can’t bid 4 opposite a partner that could be broke. Partner should bid game with any useful values.
Rob Herman: We [might] kill 1 NT for penalty, but West will [probably run]; so I might as well invite game with 3 …
Gillian Paty: I expected a 1 answer to my double, which didn’t come; so I assume partner has four hearts and invite game. On another vulnerability, I’d probably double 1 NT.
Sandy Barnes: Partner likely has four or more hearts since he bypassed 1 . I think the cards lay well for our side, but I need a high heart card from partner [for game] unless he has a five-card suit.
Daniel Korbel: As game is good opposite as little as J-x-x 10-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x, this is worth at least a strong invitation.
Pat Rich: On the auction, this hand is probably worth 21-22 points in support of hearts. I want to encourage game on any excuse, and partner can’t have much more than that. One entry would be nice. …
Alan Brooks: Why let West show his 1 HCP and six-card diamond suit? If partner has K-10-x-x, we’ll make game.
Steve White: About right on values and makes it hard for West to show diamonds.
Chris Willenken: We’re going to win a lot of finesses; game is good opposite x-x K-x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x. I hate double; they might take five diamond tricks and two kings.
Dan Osburn: I made partner bid; now I need to show the good fit and let him take the next step.
Paul Inbona: Partner will bid four if not completely blank. Finesses are likely to work, but he may need a hand entry.
Tom Barry: This shuts out a bid from West and lets partner know I am serious [about game] if he has any values.
Ulrich Nell: We may be able to defeat 1 NT, but I rather expect that my lead will just hand over the contract. I hope partner will bid 4 with five-card suit containing a top honor.
Comments for 2 John R. Mayne: I would have overcalled 1 initially, but double is preferred by most. Two clubs cannot be natural, and I don’t much care how partner otherwise takes it. Double, while attractive, leaves me poorly placed next round (if there is one) and I’ll likely be endplayed multiple times.
Tysen Streib: Double is very tempting, but I think the vulnerable game is worth going for.
Paulino Correa: How strong is East? Does he have a balanced 18-19, or is he gambling with 14? I cannot leave him in 1 NT (he may make it with diamonds running), and I also cannot jump to game (partner may have a Yarborough). Partner will understand 2 as an interested cue-bid (constructive raise)… and in the worst case it keeps us low.
Miguel Ramos: Slam has a good prospect; so I’ll investigate, even though this allows the opponents to find a diamond fit.
Thiruvenkata Chari: Partner is unlikely to have many points because of East’s bid. Still, it is worthwhile to [explore]. If Partner bids 2 , I fall back on 2 .
Lajos Linczmayer: Partner may have a bad hand, e.g., x-x-x x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x-x. If he has a better hand, e.g., x-x Q-x-x-x-x-x x-x-x x-x, or x x-x-x-x-x J-10-x-x-x x-x, we can play 4 .
Dean Pokorny: Partner is probably fairly weak, and 2 immediately shows great game interest. I’ll pass a 2 rebid. Double isn’t good because I don’t have a good action if West bids 2 or 3 .
Jacco Hop: If East’s bid is honest (18-19), partner won’t have anything. Over 2 , if partner produces 2 , I will pass.
Gerald Murphy: We have found a fit, so I cue-bid. If partner rebids 2 , I’ll bid 2 . …
Jim Munday: This hand looks great with all the cards figured to be positioned favorably. Unfortunately, partner may be unable to reach his hand. Still, game seems worth trying for when five small hearts and stiff spade will give it a play. … Can I get the information I need? Partner will no doubt bid 2 next; then I will bid 3 , which should be stronger than a direct 3 . …
Jorge Castanheira: Double [might] be in order with reversed vulnerability. If partner bids only 2 , I will make another move.
Gonzalo Goded: If partner is broke, only a five-card heart suit might provide enough entries to make 4 ; but, sadly, all I can be sure of now is three cards; hence, I need bidding space.
Imre Csiszar: Though game appears remote (unless East psyched 1 NT), this try is unlikely to cost. It may gain, e.g., if West bids 2 and North rebids 2 on Q-x-x-x-x and [some shape] where 4 has good chances.
Yi Zhong: Unless East has psyched, South and East have almost all the points. … I will later bid 3 to show strong game interest, after which partner should go on with a fifth heart alone.
Jerome Farrugia: North should have 0-2 HCP, but I still hope for game if his hearts are long enough. Two hearts seems more competitive than a proposal.
Michael Dimich: East has 18-19 HCP, but I still want to try for game. North can bid spades now, or jump in hearts with 5+ cards and no HCP.
Opposite anyone who jumps with no HCP, I say stand clear if he gets dealt a few jacks.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: East’s 1 NT shows a strong balanced hand. Though most of my high cards are working, partner is unlikely to have any entries.
Adrian Petculescu: If I believe East, partner and West are broke; so 2 should be enough. Well, let’s hear it from partner.
Kieran Dyke: Then 3 next, as a very strong invitation. Double begs for a vicious lead problem, and it’s almost inconceivable the opponents don’t have a safe home somewhere.
Dan Spain: I will pass 2 , or convert 2 to 2 . …
Mark Kessler: This hand is huge with most of the cards on my right. Over 2 , I’ll try 3 .
Ugur Tas: Four spades could still be a better contract; and I believe 2 , then 2 over 2 , is the only intelligent way to explore it. I will assume they can’t defeat us in 3 if partner doesn’t have three or four spades.
Gerald Cohen: With the J, I might double; but not knowing what to lead, I will try for our side’s best contract.
Raija Davis: Near game-force, I hope, fishing for more information. I cannot risk 2 or 2 (partner might pass).
Julian Wightwick: Close between 2 and 3 — troubles being that 2 doesn’t promise much extra in competition, and 3 [may be too high] with East showing a good hand… The missing honors should be onside, but partner won’t have many entries to take finesses. I’ll compromise with 2 , suggesting only three hearts. Perhaps partner is 4-4 in the majors, in which case I can raise spades next time.
Barry Rigal: It is tempting to assume East has psyched, but sometimes partner has x-x-x x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x-x or the like. Two clubs is an unequivocal heart raise — none of this post-modern 17-19 with three hearts that “experts” throw at us — and I’ll respect partner’s decision to play 2 . …
Comments for DoubleSteve Boughey: Show strength; support hearts next.
George Klemic: The auction suggests there are about 3 HCP between West and North, which [diminishes] the chance of 4 barring significant extra length in partner’s hand. I will correct diamond bids by either side to minimum hearts. Nice lead problem, by the way; I think I’d try the J.
Adam Saroyan: My problem may come on the next round, but doubling here sets the table nicely; and if it goes all pass, I wont complain.
Teymur Tahseen: Points are even, but I’ve got the lead.
Jojo Sarkar: Four hearts might be trickier than taking nine tricks at 1 NT doubled for plus 500. If opponents scramble to 2 or 2 , I can always get back into the mix. I lead the 5.
Sven Neirynck: Without the 1 NT overcall I would bid 2 or 1 ; but now, 2 would just be competitive.
Stephen Fischer: With controls in three suits and opener’s suit well stopped, I’ll go for the penalty. If it’s passed out, I’ll lead a spade (the most likely source of tricks) since I have enough cards there to avoid having to open another suit for a while.
Richard Fedrick: Game is a long way off, and this could be a bloodbath.
Kent Feiler: I have no idea how many hearts to bid, and I’m not even certain that partner has a four-card suit. Double will probably smoke out the diamond suit; then I’ll have more information when it gets back to me. If not, diamonds are probably splitting, so they won’t be able to run too many diamonds in 1 NT doubled.
Dick Wagman: I plan to raise hearts on the next round (if there is one). … I’ll see if I can get a peep of enthusiasm from partner. If he wants to play 1 NT doubled, that’s fine with me (I’ll lead a spade); if he retreats to 2 , I will raise to three; over any other call, I will insist on a heart game.
Lois Stuart: East has a good hand, so there’s not much left for my partner. Who has diamonds? I lead the Q.
Thijs Veugen: This [should] be at least 300; and if we can make 4 , it [might] earn more.
John Lusky: I expect West to run to 2 ; then I will support hearts.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 3
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | NORTH 1 2
| East Pass Pass | South 1 ? | K 10 9 7 A J 6 5 5 A 9 5 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 643 | 51 |
| 2 | 8 | 324 | 26 |
| 3 NT | 7 | 83 | 7 |
| 3 | 5 | 105 | 8 |
| 2 NT | 4 | 58 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 40 | 3 |
| Pass | 1 | 12 | 1 |
As the lopsided vote suggests, this was not a good problem. I would also bid 4 ; but when I came across this deal and saw the choice made at the table, I was influenced that my thinking might not be in the mainstream. Therefore, I was curious how others felt, and the problem was born. At least there’s some consolation in learning my beliefs are normal — well, at least one of them, anyway.
The 4 bid is straightforward and simple. You’ll end up there anyway probably 90 percent of the time, so describing your hand further is more likely to help the defense. Further, if partner elected to raise with only three trumps, he would not have four spades (else why not 1 ?) nor a hand suitable for notrump (else why not 1 NT?). Therefore, trying for any contract but 4 seems headed for oblivion. You can’t drag a dead horse — unless, of course, you’re the proud owner of a PavCo Horse Hearse.
The runner-up view was to show the hefty spade suit. There’s an outside chance that partner is 4-4 in the majors, in which case a spade contract may play better because of the intermediate spot cards. For example, opposite Q-J-8-x K-x-x-x A-K-x x-x, a heart game might fail on a bad trump break, while 4 is quite secure. Nonetheless, this quest has all the characteristics of needles in haystacks.
Rather than dwell on the obvious, let’s get to the good stuff from 1973. This may have been the origin of Hamman’s Rule:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | A 3 Q 3 2 A K 8 7 6 8 4 2
| |
| J 5 2 K 10 9 7 Q 9 K J 7 6
| | Q 8 6 4 8 4 J 10 4 3 2 Q 10
|
| N-S Vul | K 10 9 7 A J 6 5 5 A 9 5 3 | |
| Goldman West Pass Pass | Garozzo NORTH 1 NT 2 3 NT | Blumenthal East Pass Pass All Pass | Belladonna South 2 3
| 3 NT North Down 1 -100 |
| Garabello West Pass All Pass | Jacoby NORTH 1 2
| Pittala East Pass Pass | Hamman South 1 3 NT | 3 NT South Made 3 +600 Aces (USA) +12 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at the second table, and I was quite surprised by Hamman’s choice. In fairness, however, the situation he faced was not really analogous to our poll, or to most American systems. Hamman and Jacoby opened four-card majors, so the raise would more often be on three cards, and Jacoby would presumably correct to 4 anytime he held four trumps. On this basis, 3 NT is quite reasonable by nondisclosure principles, with a vulnerable game on the line. Unfortunately, the gift of Hamman’s Rule to the bridge world was like Dr. Frankenstein’s gift to Germany.
At the first table, Garozzo and Belladonna reached the same contract by a different route playing Super Precision. After the 13-15 notrump and Stayman, I’m not sure whether Belladonna improvised with 3 , or whether it systemically showed a four-card suit. In any event, 3 NT looked right to Garozzo with good diamonds and nothing in clubs.
Three notrump should fail, as did Garozzo when Goldman and Blumenthal gave away nothing on defense. Hamman, however, had help: Two club leads, ducked, then a heart to the king. Hamman later ran the 10 to establish his ninth trick — 12 IMPs to the Aces.
Comments for 4 Stefan Basinski: Partner bid minimally, and I regard my diamond shortness as a deficit rather than an asset. … I am a strong believer in bidding game quickly (if no slam) to minimize information to the opponents.
Dean Swallow: Bid game without tipping off the defense. Game is likely; slam very unlikely.
Don Hinchey: My primes suggest suit play, and the singleton in partner’s suit suggests wastage; so I content myself with the logical game.
Frans Buijsen: It looks we have the controls to [consider] slam, but the side suits are lacking in tricks. …
John R. Mayne: This is obvious, so I’m sure it makes 6 or 3 NT in practice. I vote 4 = 10; 3 NT = 2; everything else zero. If this isn’t the 10-point answer, I’m going to whine and sulk — and probably sue.
No problem. I have a fireplace full of subpoenas but there’s always room for one more.
Chris Maclauchlan: Slam chances seem hopelessly dim, so there is more value to conceal my hand. Only a very rare hand would cause partner to raise with three hearts; and even then, the 4-3 fit may be correct.
Dean Pokorny: Too many controls for inviting, though the diamond shortness doesn’t look good. Even if partner occasionally raises with 1=3=5=4 or 1=3=6=3, this hand should have a good play.
Hank Eng: Like Nike might say, “Just bid it.” The diamond shortage is a minus, so slam is probably not there.
Sapan Desai: I don’t see a slam after partner’s 2 bid, so I prefer the shutout bid. …
Jorge Castanheira: One needs real imagination to bid something different.
Jim Wiitala: Why draw a road map for the defense? … Slam is unlikely without a jump raise.
Neelotpal Sahai: With 12 HCP in prime cards, good spots in the side suits and ruffing power — albeit in partner’s suit, which [could be] a disadvantage — I’ll jump to the vulnerable game. No other choice comes to mind.
Kenneth Wanamaker: Two or 3 NT with this unbalanced hand? No. No use mentioning spades or clubs to help the opponents with the defense. …
Robert Lipton: A more delicate auction might get us to a better spot — or give opponents the information to set us.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Strong enough to force to game. With 2 (long-suit trial) or 2 NT, I might find out if partner raised on three cards; but most of the time he will have four, and it’s more important not to give extra information to opponents. Partner should only raise on good three-card support with a ruffing value, in which case 4 will usually be at least as good as 3 NT.
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Partner is minimum, and so am I [for game]; so I see no reason to [bid anything else]. Slam is highly unlikely with a singleton in partner’s first suit.
Mike Sweet: Even if partner has nothing wasted in diamonds and a maximum, slam is probably not very good. Give him A-Q-x K-x-x-x x-x-x-x K-Q… and 6 is poor.
Rainer Herrmann: I am not going to stop below game. Even if North has raised with only three hearts, 4 may well be superior to 3 NT.
Jerry Merrell: I will take the chance of a [possible] 4-3 fit. If partner chose to raise with three hearts, he should be to provide ruffs and/or discards for quite a few of my black-suit losers.
Stephen Fischer: Why give the opponents any more clues on defense?
Karl Barth: I don’t see a slam try here, so I just bid the obvious game.
Ugur Tas: Dream is a beautiful thing; but if I am able to make a slam with this hand, partner should have found a more promising bid than 2 . I wouldn’t be surprised if 4 goes two down.
Irina Dimitrova: My partner’s opening bid shows seven losers, and after that a fit in hearts; so with seven losers in my hand, we should have a game.
Jack Brawner: Unless I am playing some sort of gadget to uncover a three-card raise, this seems straightforward.
Rob Herman: We’ve probably got the heart fit; we’ve definitely got the points. Let’s bring it on.
Dima Nikolenkov: The Sandra Landy game try: Bid it and try to make it.
Jonathan Steinberg: Three notrump is a definite possibility (pass with three hearts, convert to 4 with four), but I don’t like it with a stiff. If partner raised on three, he must have a good reason, and the Moysian might play better than 3 NT.
Andrew de Sosa: Slam chances are remote. Hopefully, there are more tricks in hearts than notrump.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Game should be better than the required 37 percent, and West might easily help me with the…lead. True, partner might sometimes have only three-card support, but that’s life. The risk in bidding 2 is that we end in 4 anyway, but now it is easier for defense — maybe even to double us.
Geoff Bridges: This may be a Moysian fit. If so, I assume partner had a good reason for a three-card raise — for instance, weakness in one of the black suits — so 3 NT doesn’t look very attractive. Besides, it has to be worth an extra trick or two to have me declaring instead of partner, right?
Pat Rich: What’s the problem? Shall I swoon over the hypothetically horrible specter of partner having 10 of his 12 HCP in diamonds? Nay, I say. Into the breach!
Alan Brooks: The 1 opening suggests overlap so I’m happy to be in game.
Bruce McLain: I expect to have 24-27 HCP and an eight-card fit. My points all seem to be useful, so bid the game.
Willem Mevius: I don’t see any reason to do anything else; the hand is control rich, but a singleton in partner’s suit is not encouraging. …
Brian Julius: Either North is balanced with four-card heart support, or unbalanced with good three-card support. In either case, I expect 4 to play better than 3 NT.
Ram Ramjee: I can’t see slam with a singleton in partner’s suit.
Bruce Scott: … It is straightforward to bid game, vulnerable at IMPs. The Bidding Guide suggests partner will rarely raise to 2 with only three-card support. I prefer a more liberal policy; thus in my normal partnerships, I might have to investigate alternate strains. …
Norm Gordon: Losing Trick Count says we are in the 10-trick zone, so I bid game. Slam hunting seems ambitious, and dangerous. … Pass is a choice? LOL, c’mon.
J.J. Gass: I have great controls and intermediates, and we could have a 27-HCP slam. I’m not confident in my ability to get the slam decision right, and the odds seem much against it; so I’ll take the “sure” game. By the way, do they play a different form of bridge in Florida where N-S always have unfavorable vulnerability?
Yes, it has something to do with the Doppler effect on the Gulf Stream. Partscores are rare, too.
Ciaran Coyne: Lots of controls, so this hand looks more suitable for a suit contract. Slam seems distant with only four hearts.
Comments for 2 David Caprera: I am getting to game, so anything that can be passed is out. I think that 2 NT should be a one-round force, but you don’t (at least it’s not clear by your Standard American Bidding) so I can’t do that. It is possible that 3 NT or 6 are better than 4 , so jumping to game is premature. That leaves 2 or 3 ; I like my spot cards in spades and it keeps the bidding lower.
Anant Rajani: Forcing. With values in clubs and diamonds, partner will bid 3 NT; with an unbalanced hand, 4 .
Damo Nair: Why not? If North doesn’t have much in diamonds and values outside, who knows?
Carolyn Ahlert: Forcing at least one round. I hope to find out whether partner has three- or four-card support for hearts; 3 NT may be our best contract.
Thiruvenkata Chari: Long-suit trial. I would have bid 4 but for my singleton in partner’s suit. Moreover, partner might have supported hearts with only three cards.
Jyri Tamminen: Cheapest bid and most flexible game try, which keeps both 3 NT and 4 in sight.
George Klemic: How likely is a raise to 2 when holding four spades and three hearts? Not knowing partner’s style, I will go this route but force to game regardless. Clearly, 4 must have gone down because bidding the vulnerable game at IMPs looks to be about a 100-percent action — just a question of how to get there. If partner takes this as a slam try, I wouldn’t be unhappy to get there opposite something like Q-J-x K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x-x x.
Jim Munday: Vulnerable at IMPs, I’m playing game; the question is which one. If partner has a three-card raise and scattered values, 3 NT figures to be easier. … This should clear up any fear of notrump on his part. …
Leonard Helfgott: To allow for a three-card raise with short spades. Over 2 NT, I will bid 3 (forcing).
Lawrence Cheetham: If partner bids 2 NT, I will bid 3 NT. Partner might not have four hearts, e.g., x K-Q-x A-J-9-x-x Q-J-x-x.
Paul Flashenberg: Most flexible bid. It is possible for North to have raised with three hearts and four spades also, and this will find the right denomination. With a singleton diamond, I am going to bid conservatively.
Richard Stein: The singleton in partner’s first suit means that game will need help. I don’t want to be up there opposite three low spades.
Jing Liu: Two hearts may be only three-card support, so I’d like partner to decide between 3 NT and 4 .
Mike Kerr: Hard to bid without tools; I need to force, so only 2 and 3 can work.
Rosalind Hengeveld: At matchpoints, I would not want to commit us to game; but missing this vulnerable game at IMPs — if it’s on — is too hard to explain to teammates (or to a loaded Vugraph room).
Teymur Tahseen: Notrump could be right, so I’ll describe my hand and let partner decide. If partner has three hearts, game is uncertain but still probable.
Stu Goodgold: If this belongs at 3 NT, it should probably be played by North.
Gareth Birdsall: My partners could have 4=3=5=1 shape, not that it makes much difference; 2 is clearly best.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Three notrump could be the right contract if partner has raised on three hearts with [short] spades. Did I hear, “Keep it simple, stupid?”
Jacob Grabowski: No rush; I’ll show my spades, even at the risk of telling the opponents too much. This looks like a game, so lets find the best contract.
Peg Kaplan: Partner might have raised me with four spades and only three hearts. I hope to smoke him out.
David Wiltshire: With the singleton in partner’s suit, this hand looks like a game try to me. This continues looking for the [best contract], as partner may have raised to 2 with only three hearts…
Justin Corfield: Trying to find which game to play. Can partner have 4=3=5=1 shape and bid like this? If so, it might be good for one of us to bid spades.
Kieran Dyke: Depends a lot on partner’s style — if he’s a fan of three-card raises, I’ll have to tread carefully.
Carl Federl: Since the 2 bid could be on three-card support, I need room to determine the [best contract].
Paul Friedman: Have you noticed how many of your problems (opener and responder) are 4-4-4-1 shapes? Says something about a hole in standard systems. This might get me to a bad 4-3 heart game, but it stands to win more often than not.
Mark Kessler: Over 2 NT I bid 3 . Two notrump seems right on points but wrong on shape.
Mark Abraham: The correct action depends a little on partner’s bidding habits with 4=3=5=1 shape. It is playable either to bid 1 (planning a heart rebid with all hand strengths) or to raise immediately with minimal values and reserve the [delayed raise] to show extra values. …
Daniel Cecchelli: Find out if partner is supporting with three cards or four… If he bids 2 NT, I’ll bid 3 NT; over 3 , I’ll bid 4 .
Bogdan Vulcan: Out of respect for partner, I should bid 2 , even though I constantly bid four hearts with this. I am announcing a forward-going hand with spade values (with a diamond more I would bid 2 NT). …
Gerald Cohen: Who knows how this partner would bid with 4=3=5=1 shape. Plus, 3 NT might be best, though I doubt it.
Michael Dodson: Heading for 4 but would like to keep 3 NT in the picture.
Mark Reeve: Forcing for one round. If partner has a 12-14 count with only three-card support, 3 may well be the limit with my singleton [in partner’s suit].
Danny Kleinman: Contrary to the opinion of many intermediates (i.e., experienced beginners), opener’s simple raise does not promise four-card support. Some experts would even bypass a four-card spade suit to raise to 2 ; so we may belong in spades. This will find our best fit if partner has done that, and it will also ferret out four-card support (partner will bid 3 or 4 ) or let him bid notrump if he’s raised on some 2=3=5=3 or 2=3=4=4 hand.
Keith Falkner: Maybe our best suit has not yet been bid.
Daniel Korbel: This may allow us to get to an excellent 4 or 3 NT, assuming partner may raise with 4-3 in the majors.
Michael Roche: In old-fashioned bidding, partner might have three good hearts and four spades; so someone should bid the suit if we have a 4-4 fit.
Tim Hemphill: Odds are we have game, but 3 NT may be the best shot.
Julian Wightwick: In my style, partner can still have a 4=3=5=1 minimum; so this is necessary to back into a spade fit.
Barry Rigal: Best to be playing some artificial stuff here, but this gets us to spades facing the 4=3=5=1 or 4=3=4=2 hands…
Josh Sinnett: Offering spades as an alternative contract. If partner is also 4-4 in the majors, and all his points are in the pointed suits, 4 will play much easier.
Chris Willenken: Seems normal; 4 is still a possible contract. Plus, I’d rather play 3 NT from partner’s side if he has a balanced hand with only three hearts.
Dale Freeman: Partner could have long diamonds and only three hearts, so this keeps options open for 3 NT or 4 …
John Lusky: I’d like to keep 3 NT in the picture if partner is 2=3=4=4.
Comments for 3 NTPaulino Correa: Partner may have supported hearts with only three cards. I want to be in game, and partner will correct to 4 if he has four.
Nigel Guthrie: A 4-3 heart fit may still be the best game, but I should [suggest] the possibility of 3 NT.
Nigel Marlow: This warns partner off if he has raised on three-card support.
Tibor Roberts: Game is at least worth a shot, vulnerable at IMPs. Three notrump shows the black-suit stoppers and exactly four hearts — perfect, unless partner opens junk.
David Ingham: …Vulnerable at IMPs, I need to reach game …so invitations are pointless… The primary controls and distribution make the hand look suit-oriented (indeed, a Moysian fit may offer the best play for game), while the black-suit spots suggest notrump. Partner will probably be in the best position to know — he might have soft black-suit values and only three hearts, e.g., J-x K-x-x K-Q-J-x-x Q-J-x.
Kent Feiler: This is just like Problem 1. Partner shouldn’t raise with four spades and three hearts, so there’s no reason to bid 2 — and a good reason to not bid spades because it’s the suit you want led.
Alan Kravetz: Giving partner a choice of games. He may have only three hearts.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 4
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North 2 14
| EAST 1 Pass Pass | South 2 3 ? | A 5 2 A 6 J 10 A Q 10 9 8 7
|
| 1. general force | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 525 | 42 |
| 5 NT (pick slam) | 9 | 188 | 15 |
| 4 | 8 | 199 | 16 |
| 5 | 5 | 30 | 2 |
| 5 | 4 | 164 | 13 |
| 4 NT | 3 | 77 | 6 |
| 6 | 2 | 82 | 6 |
What is partner up to? Apparently, he has a good hand with a diamond suit*, though he may have other goodies such as a club fit (or maybe K-x or J-x) or a spade suit. One thing is clear: You have an excellent hand and it keeps getting better; even the J-10 now rate to be golden. I’m convinced we have a slam, and the only question is whether to play 6 or 6 ; so I would bid 5 NT to let partner choose. The only danger seems to be the slight chance of missing a grand; but if partner is looking at solid diamonds and the K, he might ask himself what I could be bidding on, and deduce to bid seven.
*A new-suit response to an overcall is nonforcing per system guidelines, so the cue-bid is necessary on most strong hands (with or without a fit) to create a force. This sequence, however, is unusual because with six diamonds partner could have jumped to 3 (forcing) over 2 . Hence, he rates to have only five diamonds, or perhaps 5-6 shape in the pointed suits that would be awkward to show starting with 3 .
The consensus was to bid 4 , which is certainly reasonable; but it seems too risky to me. If 4 is clearly a control-bid and forcing, it would be fine; but it is equally plausible that partner has both pointed suits, and 4 suggests a contract. (Even if you have a spade fit, it is likely to be the wrong spot, e.g., facing K-x-x-x-x x A-Q-9-8-x-x K, slam should be played in diamonds.) If my diamonds were x-x, I would have more sympathy; but J-10 is too precious to ignore.
Also popular was a third cue-bid. My philosophy is that a second cue-bid in a forcing auction shows the ace*, which is exactly what I have, so a further noise in that department doesn’t add much. In fact, I think there should be a law that three cue-bids on the same auction automatically loses 3 IMPs — you’ll probably average that loss anyway, since partner never knows what you’re doing. Seriously, 4 is quite reasonable because it’s forcing and noncommittal, so partner’s next bid should determine the best strain — unless he bids 5 , which you probably deserve.
*Exceptionally, it could be based on a singleton or void, but in that event you would not pass if partner bids 3 NT.
Other options are greatly inferior. Rebidding clubs or raising diamonds is too committal to those strains. Blackwood is useless when you’re not sure of the best strain, plus you already know you can’t be missing two aces.
Slam bidding is the hallmark of the Blue Team, and so it proved in Brazil:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | K 10 8 6 3 7 A K Q 4 3 2 5
| |
| J 7 4 9 8 5 3 8 7 6 5 6 3
|  | Q 9 K Q J 10 4 2 9 K J 4 2
|
| None Vul | A 5 2 A 6 J 10 A Q 10 9 8 7 | |
| Swanson West 2 Pass Pass All Pass | Forquet North 3 4 5
| Soloway EAST 1 Pass Pass Pass | Bianchi South Dbl 4 4 6
| 6 North Made 6 +920 |
| Garozzo West Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Rubens North 2 4 5
| Belladonna EAST 1 Pass Pass Pass | BJ Becker South 2 3 4 6
| 6 South Down 2 -100 Italy +14 IMPs |
The problem arose at the second table, and Becker chose to bid 4 per our consensus. Rubens raised, then Becker bid 6 intended to offer a choice of slams. Alas, this choice did not include diamonds. Rubens expected 6 to show a self-sufficient suit (perhaps A-x-x A-x x K-Q-J-10-x-x-x) so he passed — down two.
At the second table, Bianchi began with a double (Italian overcalls have a weaker range than American style). Forquet’s cue-bid indicated at least two places to play, and the correction from clubs pinpointed them. Bianchi cue-bid 4 to suggest his excellent values; Forquet jumped in spades to cooperate, and Bianchi guessed right to bid 6 , although it seems 5 NT would be better to keep clubs in the picture. Twelve tricks were easily made; plus 920, and 14 IMPs to Italy.
Comments for 4 Stefan Basinski: Showing spade control. Partner bypassed 3 NT after my heart cue-bid, so he [probably] has a club fit.
Brad Theurer: With all my controls, a decent club suit and J-10 (better than a stiff or two small), I move towards slam.
Don Hinchey: Though I’m uncertain where the ship may be headed, I will continue to describe my hand, trusting partner to choose a prosperous harbor.
David Caprera: Partner’s 2 didn’t promise clubs; but after my 3 rebid, 4 by partner would be forcing, so I am going to assume he bid 2 based on a good hand with diamonds. … (I would have preferred 2 instead of 3 .)
Steve Boughey: Cue-bid. I will cooperate with partner’s ongoing aggressive action.
Sandy McIlwain: I’ll show my control while we try to figure out which suit to play in. I may not let go on this one either!
Doug McAvoy: My J-10 are working cards, unless partner is completely crazy! … If my spades were better (e.g., A-K-x or any four), I would have bid 2 over 2 ; so this is merely slam invitational [with control]. …
Chris Maclauchlan: This may be all North needs to jump to six of a minor, which I will raise gently.
George Klemic: I can’t be suggesting a place to play since I didn’t bid 2 before. I don’t know what to do, so let partner decide.
Dave Setterholm: Partner could have bid 3 forcing on the first round, right? I expect we are headed to a club slam.
Nigel Marlow: Surely correct on the way to game, allowing partner to contribute to the decision between 5 and 6 …
Gerald Murphy: I’m unsure where this is headed, but I have enough diamonds to go with partner if he holds diamonds. I’ll show the spade control, and…let partner set the contract.
Leonard Helfgott: Continue cue-bidding to get partner to show what he’s up to, while covering his spade concern.
Tibor Roberts: It’s certainly worth cooperating in the hunt for slam, but I don’t know which yet. Partner should be the first to bid notrump, if it is right…
Kenneth Wanamaker: … This has to be a cue-bid. Partner is better placed to choose the contract, and showing spade control may help. I don’t want to raise diamonds with just two, although I have good fillers. … If partner bids 5 next, I will bid 5 NT (pick a slam). If he bids 5 NT (asking me to pick), I will bid 6 .
Imre Csiszar: As 3 was not noted, I assume it showed not only strength but heart control. Then it should be right to show spade control now, to let North decide whether or not we belong in slam — and which. For example, if North has solid diamonds, he can now use Blackwood to reach a good grand slam.
Robert Lipton: It’s beginning to look like a 5-or-7 hand. Is 4 a cue-bid? Or is it a real suit? … I think I’ll contribute to the confusion by bidding 4 .
Paul Flashenberg: I will raise 5 to 6 , and pass 5 .
Adam Saroyan: Why not cooperate? I love my diamonds if we are going there.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Showing the A. My hand is now well-described, but partner’s is not; so I’ll let partner choose the contract.
Scott Stearns: I’m not sure what’s going on here, so I’ll pass the buck with another cue-bid.
Kaz Yamada: Two hearts doesn’t guarantee club support, and 4 might be a real suit. Four notrump doesn’t make any sense opposite K-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x-x x. Five notrump is my second choice, but slam might is remote opposite Q-J-x x-x-x A-Q-x K-J-x-x.
Rosalind Hengeveld: My hand is great in controls but probably disappointing in shape. Whatever partner is up to, other than some slam try in clubs, cue-bidding the A should be welcome…
Yi Zhong: I’m not sure where we belong, so I cue-bid a control and see what partner will do.
Cres Cole: My 3 bid showed a control in hearts, and I don’t want to use Blackwood without any kings (we could get too high with partner’s response to 5 NT). …
John S. Robson: Partner may need the spade cue-bid; he already knows I have a club suit.
Darren Cotterell: I still don’t know what partner has, so I’ll keep cue-bidding and let him decide the final contract.
Daniel Testa: I’ll let partner captain this hand since he is unlimited.
Jacob Grabowski: Partner has forced and must be loaded in diamonds to bid this way — and I have some nice diamond spots. Knowing how many aces partner holds won’t do as much good as partner knowing mine. This shows spade control, and leaves partner the opportunity to inquire with 4 NT if in doubt.
David Rock: Partner is cue-bidding for some reason. Maybe we belong in 7 ; but both of partner’s bids [suggest] captaincy, so I will follow along.
Peg Kaplan: Isn’t cue-bidding fun? We could have a grand…
Yes, your opponents could have a grand, too… a grand old time when you go set.
Richard Morse: I’m not wild about 3 last time, unless 2 agreed clubs. The questions are: Do we have a grand slam? And which suit will be trumps? The merit of 6 is that it expresses the club length well, but it makes it difficult for partner to bid seven. … I don’t think 4 can possibly be construed as natural, otherwise I’d have bid 2 over 2 …
Jerry Merrell: I think I need partner’s help in selecting the final contract. Any other bid prevents me from showing this ace.
Mark Abraham: This cannot be natural, and thus shows spade control and interest past game. I plan to rebid 5 over either 5 or 5 from partner, which should get him to appreciate the value of the A-K-Q and K. We have good grand slams opposite x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x, or x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x K-x-x.
Karl Barth: I’m not sure where we’re going, but it can’t be wrong to let partner know that spades are controlled.
Margaret White: I’m still not certain if slam is on, so I’ll cue-bid my spade control — over to partner.
Ugur Tas: The bidding isn’t going well, as I don’t believe partner knows what contract we belong in. I couldn’t make him believe I have the [ A], which is probably why he is passing 3 NT. … I’ll continue to show what I have, the A.
Sebastien Louveaux: I think I should show my A, which could be essential for slam. Partner could have very good diamonds with a club filler, e.g., x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x.
Manuel Paulo: Bidding this way, I have just shown my suit and my controls. Partner may have a hand like x-x-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x K-x, and we can win 7 NT; or like K-x-x x-x-x A-Q-x-x-x K-x, and we should stop at game; so he must put on the captain’s hat.
Irina Dimitrova: Showing the A will encourage partner toward slam…
Danny Kleinman: I love this hand. Partner could have a hand for 7 , e.g., x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x. Therefore, I mustn’t stop cue-bidding…
Sandy Barnes: [I hope] partner has some idea where he is going; I’m along for the ride with 4 , bidding only clubs afterward.
Jonathan Steinberg: I protest! Two hearts as a “general force?” What ever happened to cue-bids showing support? This type of auction creates a guessing game for all. I’m guessing 4 . What’s my score?
Andrew de Sosa: While I have a very nice hand, I don’t think it’s good enough to commit to slam without a known strong fit. Presuming that I’ve already shown heart control with 3 , I’ll now show spade control to see where partner is headed.
Pat Rich: What the heck was 3 supposed to accomplish? Here we are at the four level already, and the only suit we’ve bid twice is theirs. Isn’t there some kind of pathetic irony in this? Bah! I’m betting we have a heart and diamond loser playing in diamonds; so clubs it will be, and I contemplate mayhem if partner has no fit.
Richard Fedrick: Four diamonds is unclear; but…both my clubs and diamond support are more than adequate, so I take the opportunity [cue-bid].
Kent Feiler: A weird auction. If partner has diamonds, why didn’t he bid 3 over my 2 ? Is this some kind of club raise? As usual, I don’t know what’s going on, so I’ll bid 4 to show slam interest and await further data.
Tim Hemphill: Cue-bid and follow partner — who seems to know more about this hand than I do.
Ron Nordgren: Continue to cue-bid. It’s not clear where we’re headed since North has not supported clubs. North now can bid 4 NT, or 5 or 5 and I would raise to six. There may even be a grand slam here.
Dick Wagman: I really want partner to know that his black cards are all working. I hope this talks him into bidding Blackwood, then he’ll learn everything there is to know about my hand. I can’t really find out enough about partner’s hand by using Blackwood myself… This should clarify that my 3 cue-bid showed the ace…
Barry Rigal: I’m not passing 5 . My question is whether to make a grand slam try, but if one were making, partner would use Blackwood here, wouldn’t he?
Josh Sinnett: This must be a cue-bid since I could’ve doubled at my first turn or bid 2 at my second. I’d like partner to ask for aces; he knows more about the hand than I do.
Alan Kravetz: I don’t know where partner is going, so I may as well show him the A. If partner pushes to 6 , I will bid 6 NT.
Roderick Ewan: I’ll continue to show controls, as we must be headed for a slam with this one.
Bruce Scott: I hope that partner would have bid notrump with a heart stopper; maybe he would have done so with Q-x. (If “pick a slam” gets to be a basic convention, then 3 asking for a partial stopper can be as well.) Five clubs might be enough; my 2 already showed a good hand, and 3 (whatever it meant) showed better. Do I really have the sort of extras to suggest another move? Maybe not, but the 4 cue-bid is on the house. I will let it go if partner bids 5 .
Norm Gordon: Still not sure what partner is up to, but I’ll…cooperate by showing the A.
Ciaran Coyne: No idea what’s going on; but I have the A, and this must be forcing. … The Bidding Guide implies this sequence shows five diamonds since 3 (forcing) over 2 would show six, and 2 is nonforcing. I guess we’re on the way to a club slam.
Ulrich Nell: In case the general force may be an attempt to show a two-suiter.
Comments for 5 NTDean Swallow: Partner knows I have five, likely six clubs. Give him the choice.
John R. Mayne: … Given that 5 NT is “pick a slam” rather than Josephine, it seems as good as any. All other paths lead to murky futures.
Thiruvenkata Chari: Six clubs or 6 is likely to make, so let partner choose. …
Jim Munday: A difficult problem. Partner has a…long diamond suit and values, so slam figures to be very good. The club finesse figures to work if needed, so I will certainly not be content with bidding just game. … For this bid I must have controls in both majors, good clubs and diamond tolerance. I would be hard-pressed to show this hand via cue-bidding, which may wrongly commit us to diamonds when partner has K-x x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x K-x. Partner might even be bold enough to bid the grand with x-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x. …
Lawrence Cheetham: Partner should bid 4 (not 4 ) if his cue-bid was based on a strong club raise; so he must have a good diamond suit. So why not suggest slam in [either minor] with two diamond honors?
Richard Stein: I’ve got quite a hand; in fact, all I need is to know what’s going to be trump. By the way, let’s gobble up bidding room a little faster next time. :)
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Slam prospects are looking good. I’ll let partner make the final decision on which slam to play — so I can always blame him if it’s wrong. :)
David Wiltshire: No idea what is right. I don’t think partner will ever be in a position to bid slam when I have three aces, including control of the enemy suit. Another advantage of 5 NT is that we will play in the right suit; any other action leaves that in doubt. Hopefully, the six level isn’t too high!
Justin Corfield: … If my guesses about the system are right, partner couldn’t be much worse than K-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x x-x, which would be a good slam. I prefer 5 NT, as partner’s reply may help; whereas his reply to a cue-bid may not. We may need to play this in clubs still.
Craig Biddle: This hand may be too strong for “pick a slam,” but everything else is either misdescriptive or unilateral.
Thijs Veugen: Either 6 or 6 should be OK.
Janet Dugle: … This may be passing the buck, but maybe partner knows better.
John Lusky: I can’t see that 4 or 4 will help much since partner will likely be worried about whichever suit I don’t cue-bid. So I will try a more direct route.
Comments for 4 Frans Buijsen: I’m not sure what my 3 meant, though I bet it was positive. Partner can hardly have the controls to be slam-going, so he’s just bidding his suit. I don’t quite understand why he didn’t start with 3 . Anyway, I’ll just cue-bid my A and await developments. I won’t stop below slam.
Lajos Linczmayer: Partner must have a strong diamond suit. If he has no more than x x-x-x-x A-K-Q-9-x-x x-x, 7 is a decent contract (East must have the club king). As I cannot ask about diamond honors I plan to bid a grand-slam try later.
Dean Pokorny: Four hearts should promise the A and a very good slam hand. I like the three aces and J-10 very much. Even 7 is possible.
Jouko Paganus: Partner, I have the A; but I don’t know where we are going.
Gonzalo Goded: Too much chance of a cold seven to bid 5 NT. I have a problem about which suit to play in, so I hope J-10 is enough support for a partner who bids this way. Three hearts just showed a strong hand; 4 shows first-round control.
Fraser Rew: Cue-bid for one suit or the other. I’m the one who does all the work; let the lazy sod figure out something himself for a change.
Teymur Tahseen: Cue-bid; maybe partner can ask for aces or cue-bid the K.
Michael Spurgeon: Showing the A; I might ask North to pick a slam the next round.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: First-round control. I’m not strong enough for 5 NT or 6 , but slam is still in the picture. Three hearts previously asked for a heart stopper for 3 NT. The danger is losing a heart and a diamond. A diamond contract is better if partner has something like K-x Q-x A-Q-x-x-x-x K-x-x (to protect the Q), but with that he would probably bid 6 over 5 NT.
Jerome Farrugia: To confirm the A. Holding three aces is too much not to cooperate with partner.
Gareth Birdsall: It can’t be wrong to cue-bid at the cheapest step on a very suitable hand; I can’t be sure whether six or seven is right. Five notrump is also fine.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: The most flexible action to reach the top spot. I will raise to slam if partner bids either minor, or bid 5 NT if partner bids 4 …
Stephen Fischer: Partner [probably] has club support and the A. Slam looks to be on, but I may as well cooperate; over 5 or 5 , I’ll bid 5 .
Kieran Dyke: Making it clear I have control in hearts. I think this is from an old world championship, where BJ Becker played 6 opposite a small singleton club and 5-6 in the pointed suits.
Dima Nikolenkov: … I don’t think I can commit the hand to slam, but one move is surely OK.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Seems like this hand requires some greedy thinking; 5 NT feels premature because we have a playable 7 opposite partner’s A-K-Q-x-x-x-x and x-x.
Mark LaForge: Not sure what partner is doing; I plan to bid 6 over 5 , or pass 5 .
Chris Willenken: Three hearts was a general force, so I’ll cue-bid my ace now. I’m driving to slam, and a grand slam is good opposite many hands. I’ll like my hand much better if partner cannot cue-bid 4 .
Willem Mevius: I have as good a hand as partner can possibly expect, so I should cue-bid. I can’t bid six yet myself, as it looks like we could lose a major trick and a top diamond.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 5
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass | North 1 2 NT | East Pass Pass | South 2 ? | Q 10 5 2 — A Q J 10 7 3 2 K 10
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 514 | 41 |
| 3 NT | 9 | 245 | 19 |
| 3 | 6 | 33 | 3 |
| 4 | 5 | 171 | 14 |
| 5 | 4 | 88 | 7 |
| 3 | 3 | 136 | 11 |
| 4 (Gerber) | 1 | 78 | 6 |
Three diamonds would be the perfect call if it were forcing, but of course it’s not. The obvious alternative then is 3 , as the voting confirmed, but I don’t like it. First, I don’t want to play in spades (opener will seldom have four); and second, I don’t want to steer partner away from 3 NT for fear of an adequate club stopper. Some of the 3 bidders had slam ambitions, but this is surely a rosy view. Unless partner makes a move, my only desire is to reach the best game.
I would just bid 3 NT, which I expect to be the best contract about 80 percent of the time. Sure, there are layouts where 5 will be superior, but I doubt that 3 will help us locate them; so I’ll just go with the odds. Further, I’ll gain an IMP or two in the common situations when both contracts make.
Three clubs has some merit — cheap and forcing if nothing else — and the extra wriggling room may allow you to bid next turn what you should have bid this time. Nonetheless, it delivers the wrong message, not so much because partner might raise clubs (you can always correct to diamonds) but because he will be worried about spades for 3 NT.
Other choices are clearly inferior. Jumping to 4 or 5 is too committal to diamonds, bypassing the most likely contract. And 4 Gerber? With doubtful slam prospects and a void? Give me a break. Even a nonforcing 3 must have a greater expectation in the long run; partner will sometimes bid, and when he passes you may find that game would fail.
Here’s what happened in 1973:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | K 7 4 A J 9 6 3 5 A 7 3 2
| |
| J 8 6 3 10 7 5 2 K 8 6 5 4
| | A 9 K Q 8 4 9 8 6 4 Q J 9
|
| None Vul | Q 10 5 2 — A Q J 10 7 3 2 K 10 | |
| BJ Becker WEST Pass Pass Pass | Bianchi North 1 2 NT 4
| Rubens East Pass Pass All Pass | Forquet South 2 3
| 4 South Down 3 -150 |
| Belladonna WEST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | M Becker North 1 2 2 NT | Garozzo East Pass Pass Pass | Bernstein South 2 2 3 NT | 3 NT North Made 3 +400 Aces (USA) +11 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at the first table, where Forquet followed our consensus and bid 3 . Bianchi did not like his club holding for 3 NT; so with ruffing potential and a control-rich hand, he raised spades. Forquet had chances in the Moysian fit, but after a club lead to the king; spade to king, ace; Q to ace; he took a straight diamond finesse. This was correct in theory but fatal when it lost. Further, the club return tapped his hand, and he finished down three.
At the second table, Michael Becker (BJ’s son) and Andy Bernstein used a system structure where 2 was waiting (not suggesting a six-card suit). This allowed Bernstein to mention spades one level lower, and the obvious game was reached. After a club lead (or any lead for that matter) 3 NT could not be defeated, even after losing to the blank K; 11 IMPs to North America.
Comments for 3 Stefan Basinski: Partner was allowed to bid 2 without showing extras, so I’ll show my shapely hand.
Brad Theurer: Too good to bid 3 … Even though partner should not have four spades, I prefer to bid my length.
Jinzhou Loo: Shows my hand, while keeping 3 NT open if partner has much duplication.
Frans Buijsen: There are still chances for slam, but I need spade values in partner’s hand for that. … Five diamonds looks at least as safe as 3 NT, so I’ll go over 3 NT without worries.
David Caprera: … Partner will now know that K-J-x J-x-x-x-x K-x A-x-x is a good hand [for suit play] — 6 cold and 3 NT potentially failing. Anything else leaves partner [or me] guessing.
John R. Mayne: Two notrump is very wide ranging… I’m not willing to give up on slam. I don’t like 3 much, but if it ekes a preference to 4 , we may find that nice little slam.
Anant Rajani: Showing my second suit. Who knows? Partner could have 4=5=1=3 shape.
Steve Boughey: This [implies] at least six diamonds… I will pass 3 NT (partner has been warned about clubs) as this could be a big misfit; over anything else, we’ll finish in 5 or 6 .
Damo Nair: Why don’t I bid my other suit? What a novel idea!
Sandy McIlwain: Three clubs, while cheaper, doesn’t really advance things as I need spade help — I can make slam opposite nothing in clubs, but not spades. … Next turn I will bid 4 to launch partner upwards yet again — getting dizzy up here.
Lajos Linczmayer: I need A-K-J x-x-x-x-x K-x A-x-x to make 7 … so I must describe my hand.
Dean Pokorny: Natural bidding does the work. Over 3 NT, I’ll pass; over 4 , I’ll cue-bid 5 . Six diamonds could be a good slam, and I would rarely go down in 5 .
George Klemic: Hands like this play better in diamonds than 3 NT, but I’m not ready to sign off yet. This seems best, then 5 over 3 NT.
Nigel Guthrie: I hate to put opponents off the spade lead, and at pairs I would settle for 3 NT. At teams, however, I do not want to explain to my teammates how we failed to reach 4 when partner has K-J-x-x Q-x-x-x-x K Q-J-x.
Good point. Opposite that opening, I would definitely let partner explain it.
Nigel Marlow: To bid out my shape. Over the expected 3 NT, I will bid 4 (forcing) to move towards 6 or 6 NT.
Jim Munday: A choice between this and 4 . The flaw with 4 is that 5 might be too high on a number of hands, and 3 NT our only making game. … Partner now can evaluate his spade holding to determine the right strain and level. …
Bill Powell: I can’t see sufficient reason to eschew the natural bid.
Leonard Helfgott: It’s still possible partner may have four spades, e.g., K-9-x-x A-Q-x-x-x K Q-J-x. At any rate, I want to try once more for a suit contract, and 3 is nonforcing.
Gonzalo Goded: … Partner needs information if he has to make a decision; I plan to bid 4 over 3 NT.
Imre Csiszar: Partner’s 2 NT is [not limited to a minimum opening], so slam is possible. … As 5 does not look much worse than 3 NT at IMPs, I plan to show heart shortness by following with 4 over 3 NT, leaving the rest to partner.
Paul Flashenberg: Depending on system, partner could hold four spades. Also, we might have a diamond slam, and this should help partner evaluate.
Adam Saroyan: Two bids from now might be tough, but for now I am content to force with 3 . Stopping in 3 NT may prove difficult…
Scott Stearns: With partner [unlikely] to have four spades, this should point out that I have an unusual hand type. Slam depends on partner having little wastage in hearts.
Richard Stein: I know what’s going to be trump… Five diamonds at my next turn should tell partner that I don’t care about his heart [values].
Kaz Yamada: Six diamonds is remote if 2 NT is a balanced minimum, but it’s a tough choice between 3 NT and 5 . I’ll await partner’s judgment.
Rosalind Hengeveld: This is not so much to find a 4-4 spade fit, but to let partner know where I need fillers for my sweet dreams of slam.
John S. Robson: Natural, suggesting long diamonds. Surely, 3 NT may be the only game contract, never mind slam.
Michael Spurgeon: Showing the distributional nature of my hand, while not giving up on 3 NT…
Darren Cotterell: Descriptive and lets partner know I am worried about the clubs for 3 NT. … If partner does not bid 3 NT, I will look for slam.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Partner may still have four spades (no Flannery). Over 3 NT, I will bid 4 (forcing) as a slam invitation. …
Jojo Sarkar: I have to try and avoid notrump because there may be no entry to the diamonds. A seven- or eight-card spade fit is possible, but 5 is most likely. If partner bids 3 NT as expected, I will bid 4 .
Martijn Schoonderwoerd: Showing a game-forcing hand with four spades and longer diamonds. Partner may hold a four spades, and I hate to miss those fits.
Venkatesh Ramaratnam: Three diamonds is nonforcing, and 3 NT is too unilateral with such a shapely hand.
Jack Rhatigan: I will pass 3 NT, or continue to 5 over any other call.
Peg Kaplan: From your notes it appears that 3 is nonforcing (otherwise, that’s my choice), and I sure can’t make a nonforcing call with this hand. … It seems like the big question is what to do when partner rebids 3 NT.
Richard Morse: Natural and forcing, plus it might even deter a spade lead against 6 .
Stephen Fischer: Following up with 4 should help partner make an informed decision. If the auction proceeds 3 NT 4 ; 4 NT, this should be natural [and I will pass].
Mark Abraham: Partner will now know that spade honors (and the K) are useful cards… I plan to rebid 4 . …
Karl Barth: … It seems right to bid out my pattern and let partner know I’m shapely. If I hear 3 NT, I’ll go quietly. …
Daniel Cecchelli: Warning partner of the danger in notrump …plus he may still have four spades…
Bogdan Vulcan: Three diamonds is nonforcing, so the only option is 3 . Will I pass 3 NT? No, I’ll bid 4 …
Manuel Paulo: Natural and forcing; partner may be 4=5=2=2. This does not rule out 3 NT, but bidding 3 NT precludes any chance of a slam.
Gerald Cohen: Sadly, 3 isn’t forcing; but 4 will be when I bid it over 3 NT.
Dima Nikolenkov: … I bid where I live, and will follow with 4 over 3 NT.
Danny Kleinman: … I must force to game while keeping the bidding low enough to give partner a chance to show extras conveniently; and I bid spades rather than clubs so he knows that spade strength will be valuable (he’ll treat the A as valuable regardless). A golden hand for partner would be K-J-x Q-10-x-x-x K-x A-x-x…
Chang Luo: North can bid 4 with four spades; otherwise, I will correct 3 NT to 5 …
Bill Cubley: This may help greatly in the game-slam decision, as 4 is a stab in the dark… Hard to believe, Richard, that I have a 20+ year reputation for getting to makable slams.
Are you sure you have that right? I would guess it took you 20+ years to get to a makable slam.
Andrew de Sosa: Preparing for a slam try (4 ) after the expected 3 NT.
Mauri Saastamoinen: … The only question is whether I should continue with 4 over partner’s expected 3 NT; at IMPs, I think I should.
Keith Falkner: I need help in spades, so this will aid partner’s decision if I make a [slam] invitation later.
Raija Davis: I don’t know what 3 is after, but any diamond bid is too final as to strain (and 3 isn’t even forcing); 3 NT could still be right.
Geoff Bridges: The call most likely to get useful information from partner.
Daniel Korbel: Bidding where I live. Sometimes we’ll get to 5 when it’s right; 3 NT is too final.
Michael Roche: I know I must be missing something, so I’ll listen to the explanation why a natural game-forcing bid is off the mark. :)
Richard Fedrick: … I will pull the expected 3 NT to 4 , which will show my hand pretty well.
Kent Feiler: What do I do if partner now bids 3 NT? I’m bidding 4 , hoping that partner wouldn’t bid 2 NT with no black-suit cards.
Dick Wagman: There is [little] chance that partner will have a real spade fit; but we might have a club problem in 3 NT, and partner might well have a secondary diamond fit. … I will pass 3 NT. …
Steve White: Alert partner to the unbalanced pattern. If he bids 3 NT, I’ve had enough.
Willem Mevius: This was my plan when I started with 2 , so why change it? We could still have a 4-4 spade fit. Over 3 NT, I’ll pass.
Lois Stuart: Bid out my shape, and pass 3 NT.
Mike Cafferata: I’ll bid 4 after the expected 3 NT.
Ram Ramjee: If partner bids 3 NT, I will bid 5 .
Olle Morell: If partner bids 3 NT, I will follow with 4 to show powerful diamonds and at least 4-6 shape.
Janet Dugle: I don’t think partner has denied four spades, and I have no note from my mother or doctor to go to 5 . …
Comments for 3 NTDon Hinchey: One could make a case for optimism or pessimism. I prefer pragmatism.
Tim DeLaney: With a void in partner’s suit, I am pessimistic about slam; and even the five level might be too high.
Lawrence Cheetham: If the hand were 4=1=6=2, I would surely bid 3 NT. Is this hand so much better that I can risk getting to 5 (when partner discourages a slam try) rather than 3 NT?
Fraser Rew: Another misfit. Five diamonds could be right, especially if my hand has only one entry; but I’ll take my chances in 3 NT.
Yi Zhong: The lack of controls suggests settling for game.
Mark Reeve: Partner [probably] has 5-3-3-2 distribution, all suits are stopped, and diamonds will come in nicely. … If 5 makes exactly, so does 3 NT.
Oleg Rubinchik: Let eat bee. :)
David Ingham: With a void in partner’s suit, I cannot be sure how much wastage there is; but assuming there’s at least some, slam looks out of the question; and nine tricks will be easier than 11 most of the time. … I don’t want to fool around with spades; even if I knew partner had four spades, it’s not clear that spades will play better than diamonds [or notrump]. Besides, when I lay down the dummy I can put down two small diamonds as if they’re hearts. :)
Bruce Scott: Two notrump is unfortunately wide-ranged — one of those auctions that isn’t so good for standard bidding. I’d prefer to bid 3 forcing, which isn’t possible in this poll, so I’ll guess 3 NT.
Comments for 3 Chris Maclauchlan: One of those “brilliant” bids that usually blow up in my face, but it doesn’t seem likely here. I can find out if partner has spade strength or diamond support, and it [might] be the best way to choose between 3 NT and 5 .
Carl Federl: Where are partner’s values? If in hearts, I will stop in 3 NT; otherwise, slam may be possible. Three spades uses excessive bidding room…
Chris Willenken: Three diamonds is nonforcing, and I think 3 asks partner to look at his clubs (not his hearts) for notrump. So I’ll try 3 and follow with 3 over 3 to pinpoint short hearts; 3 NT over 3 ; and either 4 or 6 over 3 . Obviously, this will score poorly in a bidding poll, but I’m sure it’s the winner at the table. [Second choice] is 3 NT, which is much better than 3 .
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Problem 6
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 1
| EAST Pass 1
| South Pass ? | 9 8 2 J 8 6 3 — Q 10 9 7 4 3
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 350 | 28 |
| 1 | 8 | 163 | 13 |
| 4 | 7 | 282 | 22 |
| Pass | 6 | 164 | 13 |
| Double | 4 | 56 | 4 |
| 5 | 3 | 56 | 4 |
| 3 (limit raise) | 2 | 194 | 15 |
Bidding polls rarely include bad hands, so I have to sneak one in now and then lest you acquire a card-rack complex. (I wouldn’t want you to be overconfident in your next rubber-bridge game.) The dregs of real-life bridge have arrived. How should you handle this quackmeister with a great trump fit?
The consensus was to offer a simple raise, and I agree. A significant factor is that both opponents have passed; so partner almost surely has a good hand, and the likelihood of being bounced around in diamonds is lessened. Further, opposite a likely 18-19 HCP balanced hand, 3 NT is still a possibility — unless you jump to 4 and take it out of the picture. (If partner had opened in first seat, 4 has greater appeal and might be the top vote-getter.)
What about a 4-4 heart fit? Certainly, a heart game is possible, but introducing a jack-high suit on a bad hand is wayward at best. Partner can still bid hearts, and that seems to be the most sensible path to 4 . Further, if you bid 1 , you may find yourself in an ugly 4-3 fit when partner raises hearts after a likely diamond raise. I’m an avid fan of Moysian fits, but I’ll draw the line on this one. I’d rather pass.
Anyone for a very negative double? I threw in this option mostly as a filler, but it earned its keep. I suppose it’s not so bad since you always have a home in clubs, but it reminds me of the explosives “expert” who razed an old building but forgot to get outside. I’d rather pass.
The remaining club raises are distinct overbids. A limit raise of 3 is way off base, unless you’re searching for another partner; and 5 is a little rich — but then, so was my son once. One potential bright side for 5 is that it might goad West into bidding 5 , but this has to be a long shot when he couldn’t open in third seat.
Here’s what happened in 1973:
| Italy vs Aces (USA) | Q 10 7 A K Q 4 A Q 9 J 5 2
| |
| K 6 5 9 7 J 7 6 5 3 A 8 6
|  | A J 4 3 10 5 2 K 10 8 4 2 K
|
| Both Vul | 9 8 2 J 8 6 3 — Q 10 9 7 4 3 | |
| Wolff West Pass 3
| Bianchi North 1 All Pass | Hamman EAST Pass 1
| Forquet South Pass Pass | 3 East Made 4 +130 |
| Belladonna West Pass 3
| Goldman North 1 3 NT | Garozzo EAST Pass 1 All Pass | Lawrence South Pass 2
| 3 NT North Down 3 -300 Italy +5 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at the second table, where Lawrence raised to 2 . Alas, this was not a success when Goldman bid 3 NT (wouldn’t you?) after the diamond raise — down three. Obviously, finding the heart fit would have been an improvement, but note that 4 also fails, even with a diamond lead. Unlucky, perhaps, but Goldman’s choice of openings bears some of the responsibility.
At the first table, the auction began the same but with a different meaning: 1 was artificial. Forquet was too weak for any immediate action, and there was no safety in competing after Wolff’s diamond raise. Defending 3 (making four) was not a great result, but it avoided trouble — 5 IMPs to Italy.
Comments for 2 Stefan Basinski: East-West were willing to pass the hand out, so let’s not go overboard. If they compete once more, I’ll bid one more time.
Brad Theurer: Bidding what I have. I’m too weak for a negative double; and I don’t want to bid 4 or 5 since we could belong in 3 NT if partner has 18-19 balanced.
Don Hinchey: Conventional wisdom and Law-yers may argue for leaps. I’m willing to be called a nonconformist.
Jinzhou Loo: Go slow. Opponents may have a big diamond fit, but they’re unlikely to be going far. We might buy it cheaply, or get a good penalty if partner has 18-19 HCP.
Frans Buijsen: My first impulse was 5 ; but where are all the values when both opponents are passed hands? It looks like partner has a powerhouse, maybe 18-19 balanced, so I will take it slow to keep 3 NT in view.
David Caprera: I want to bid 3 weak; but with that unavailable and West likely to raise diamonds, I have to get in my one bid now — certainly, this is no more than a one-bid hand. Bidding 1 or a negative double? Yech, I would score that minus 10. … This hand is about clubs not hearts. Blasting into the stratosphere with 4 , or the ionosphere with 5 , is too unilateral; that leaves 2 .
John R. Mayne: Both opponents are passed hands, so I just want to go peacefully plus; I’ll compete to up to 4 next round, and quit thereafter. Double is going to get us too high on a 4-3 spade fit (which won’t be fun). Second choice is 4 .
Gabriel Lindstrom: Support with support. My hand is too weak for 1 .
Anant Rajani: Support clubs; the question is at what level. I don’t like to ignore the heart suit; but with only 3 HCP, I’ll just bid 2 , leaving space for partner to bid 2 .
Paulino Correa: Three clubs is out of the question, so why risk an eventual severe penalty with 4 or 5 when both opponents are passed hands? I’ll simply compete.
Thiruvenkata Chari: Bidding hearts and supporting clubs later would show a better hand, so I raise immediately.
Bill Daly: I see no reason to preempt. Partner is the only one who could have a good hand.
Lajos Linczmayer: My hand may be super if partner has a real club suit, e.g., A-K-Q-x x x-x-x A-K-x-x-x. If he is balanced, e.g., K-J-x-x A-K-x A-x-x K-x-x, even 4 may be too high.
Chris Maclauchlan: Keeping the bidding low allows us to find hearts, and makes it more likely that we will play 3 or 4 when it is right — or even 3 NT.
George Klemic: I suspect there are double fits, so this makes it harder for opponents to find spades. Odds of us making 4 are slim, but if partner makes a strong call like 2 NT or 3 NT, I will pull to 5 .
Andrew Morris: Both opponents passed, so partner has a good hand. West may be about to raise diamonds, which might fix partner, so I’ll make a noise without being too encouraging.
Roland Watzdorf: With everyone besides partner a passed hand, there is no need to preempt. And playing IMPs, there is no need to search for a major with such a big minor fit.
Neelotpal Sahai: Both sides seem to have [about the same HCP], so game seems rather unlikely. My idea is not to preempt unnecessarily and get a negative score… If West raises to 2 , partner will surely come in with his four-card major… and if it happens to be hearts, I will bid merrily. …
Kenneth Wanamaker: At IMPs I want the safest contract, not the best plus score.
Imre Csiszar: As partner is likely strong, I will not preempt. If he later [doubles] to show strength, my plan is to bid hearts, which should describe my distribution and weakness.
Paul Flashenberg: In my methods I could bid 3 weak, which would be the most accurate bid. Lacking that, there is no point preempting beyond 3 NT because partner surely has a good hand with both opponents passing originally.
Scott Stearns: The void makes this worth bidding. If we’re going to get to 4 , it will be because North reverses after my simple raise; he rates to have a balanced 18-19 count.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Partner is obviously strong and may well be 18-19 balanced with [three] clubs and four good hearts, in which case high club bids won’t work out. I’d be most surprised if 2 were passed out.
Carsten Kofoed: A tactical bid, so I’ll be wiser next round.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: With no weak 3 raise available, this and later 3 (if possible) is the best alternative. I don’t want to bid 1 and hear partner raise on three-card support. Higher club bids are unnecessary when both opponents have passed, and it might backfire by pushing them into thin [makable] game.
Jerome Farrugia: The void urges to bid, and 4 seems too dangerous…
Jack Rhatigan: Not enough for a limit raise, and I would like a plus score when partner opens [in fourth seat].
Justin Corfield: I don’t like to jump with this, as it might push the opponents into a contract they would not have bid…
Stephen Fischer: There’s no real reason to think this hand belongs to the opponents, so I’ll raise now and compete later.
Rob Herman: I am preparing to bid more clubs in competition, but I don’t want to be embarrassed in 4 or 5 with only a nine-card fit…
David Kempe: This likely won’t end the auction, and I can try hearts later.
And at your third turn, how about a splinter bid… en route to the Roman key-card Nuthouse.
Geoff Bridges: … Three clubs seems about right on level but is not an option in the system; so 2 is the practical choice. There are many great hands partner can hold…where 4 is [too high] since both opponents are passed hands. …
Michael Roche: Taking the dog for a walk on the beach — and hope I don’t have to scoop up this bid.
Richard Fedrick: The bidding will not stop here. By starting low, I do not risk overstating my values when (if) I compete later.
Josh Sinnett: I’ll just keep bidding ‘em until somebody doubles.
Dale Freeman: I do not want to go beyond 3 NT, as partner is likely to have 18-19 balanced. If I pass, West might preempt in diamonds.
Brian Julius: I wish 3 were weak. Given the hand is worth only one bid at most, 2 seems to convey its best feature.
Bruce Scott: I’ll walk this one. Three clubs might fetch 6 from partner; immediate 4 or 5 calls are excessive. My goal is to buy the contract as cheaply as possible.
Olle Morell: Walk this one slowly. Two clubs should be enough to let partner make a sensible decision, and he probably has enough [strength] to prevent the opponents from making anything big. …
Comments for 1 Sandy McIlwain: No reason to believe game in hearts isn’t possible. Clubs at any level now is too unilateral; double should show a hand with a few more high cards; and pass is not an option with a guaranteed fit.
Gerald Murphy: All partner needs is A-K-x-x, A-K-x-x and a doubleton spade, and game will make.
Jim Munday: This feels like a strange call, but I’m not happy with any number of clubs. A quick computer simulation showed our most likely game to be 4 , and game is a likely possibility with both opponents passed… If partner raises hearts (I expect to four), I will pass; if he doubles or bids spades, I will bid clubs; if he bids 3 NT, I will pass (my six clubs should make up for a lack of high cards). …
Gonzalo Goded: Anything could work, so I’ll try to fit the crowd. I am not afraid of 3 NT by partner at all.
Jean-Christophe Clement: East-West have a huge diamond fit (9-11 cards), but partner has a lot high cards. With a double fit in clubs and hearts, game is possible; so I show my hearts. …
John S. Robson: Lots of time to show clubs; three, four or five.
Mike Sweet: I might be a little light, but there may be a large diamond bid coming next. If partner goes nuts, my hand can’t be too much of a disappointment.
Jerry Merrell: Partner must have a very good hand. If we have a double fit, I am going to get the most bids I am theoretically allowed holding only 3 HCP.
I don’t think so. You lost your shot at the record (35) when you failed to open 1 .
David Grainger: Partner is likely to have a good hand, and six trumps with a diamond void could be huge. Why is 3 a limit raise when I’m a passed hand with a cue-bid available?
Ugur Tas: It is usually good to bid your major with a minor fit, even if weak. … Double isn’t good because West will almost always bid 3 , then partner will have a problem…
Bogdan Vulcan: Ugly. I’d like to bid 3 (weak) and give up on hearts…, but since that is not possible, I have to improvise. Pass and 2 are options; still, I bid 1 hoping to find a heart fit, but planning to show the club fit next… I will not pass partner’s double of 3 or 4 …
Jonathan Steinberg: The potential double fit and diamond void makes this hand much better than its 3 HCP. I see no reason not to bid a simple 1 . …
David Ingham: Partner’s likeliest hand is a balanced 18-19 HCP. We could be cold for 3 NT with 5 having no play, e.g., A-x-x A-x-x K-x-x A-K-x-x; or cold for 5 with 3 NT having no play, e.g., K-Q-J K-Q-J x-x-x A-K-x-x. … We could also be cold for 4 … The problem with 1 , though, is that unless we’re playing support doubles, partner might feel obliged to bid 3 (over 3 by West) with three-card support…
Mike Cafferata: I’ll bid a lot of clubs later if no heart raise.
Norm Gordon: Since partner has at least 15 HCP, he should have some shape [else 18-19 HCP] as he didn’t open 1 NT. With 1=4=3=5 shape, even slam is not far-fetched. With a…fit, this 3-count is an eight-loser hand — worth introducing hearts and too good to preempt.
Paul Inbona: I may not have another chance to bid hearts, so I’ll see what develops.
Comments for 4 Dean Pokorny: It is very bad not to play 3 as a weak raise; so I bid 4 , hoping partner will get the message.
Nigel Guthrie: If 3 is a limit raise and a diamond cue-bid is available, I presume this is nonconstructive; but I fear such an obvious bid will find few takers in America. Anyway, I hope the full deal illustrates that bidding hearts on this kind of hand is sheer lunacy. In fact, Zia would rightly prefer to respond 1 .
Fraser Rew: I would bid 5 at favorable.
Richard Stein: Who plays 3 as a limit raise? Make one of those little clubs a diamond, and we need 3 as a weak raise (2 is available as a limit raise). Man, this system is wacko!
Gareth Birdsall: I’d rather bid 1 than 1 .
Peg Kaplan: Partner should have a decent hand, given that both opponents are passed hands. I’d like 3 (weak) but that’s not an option. Passing seems way too meek, and there aren’t enough HCP for a negative double. I sure hope partner knows what to do next!
David Wiltshire: I’m not happy with going past 3 NT ever, but that looks like an unlikely contract. This doesn’t leave room to explore a possible heart game, but I’m far too weak to introduce hearts myself. … This describes my playing strength well, but perhaps 2 is better to leave room to explore.
Kieran Dyke: Just high enough to force a decision from the opponents.
Atul Khare: … This is perfect for 3 weak; but in the absence of that option, I am bidding one higher.
Paul Friedman: One spade looks like my best call, but it ain’t one of the choices.
Mark Abraham: Long clubs, distribution and no clear alternative. If partner bids 5 and we are lacking three quick major tricks, a 3 NT contract is unlikely to have been a success either.
Gerald Cohen: Misses 3 NT but is fairly descriptive.
Ron Sperber: In a competitive auction with what feels like a preemptive hand, I just forget about hearts.
Danny Kleinman: A diamond raise from West is coming — perhaps even at the four-level. I want not only to make it hard for West to support diamonds but also to warn partner that (1) we don’t belong in 3 NT if he has a balanced 19 HCP (perhaps his most likely hand on this auction), and (2) if he doubles 4 , he’s on his own (no defensive help from me).
Bill Cubley: It is time to preempt. A negative double shows at least twice as many HCP. I prefer 3 weak, but that is not an option; so I’ll go one level higher.
Andrew de Sosa: Hopefully, this describes a defenseless club raise. I’m not willing to venture 5 vulnerable with so many losers.
Mauri Saastamoinen: This seems just about perfect for 4 , though my heart honor could also be the queen or king.
Kent Feiler: About right on values. True, it makes it a bit difficult to reach 3 NT or 4 ; but I’m not sure I want to be in those contracts anyway.
Barry Rigal: If we missed 3 NT, I’ll apologize profusely afterwards.
Steve White: This gives a pretty good description, despite the four hearts. Except for a possible but unlikely 3 NT, we’d never buy this below 4 .
Chris Willenken: Big fit; wild distribution; no defense. A touch low in the offense department, but you can’t have everything. …
Ciaran Coyne: Partner clearly has a strong hand with both opponents passed — otherwise, I would probably bid 5 . My diamond void may be very useful.
John Lusky: Partner probably has 18-19 balanced, and West is about to bid some number of diamonds. I don’t think we can make 3 NT, so I will make what the most descriptive bid I can and let partner decide what to do next. …
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 667), and on each problem only for the top three calls. 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 journey to Guaruja, Brazil, 31 years ago. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Worldwide interest in these monthly events has made my cup runneth over — oops, literally, as I now have to reboot to drain the coffee from my keyboard.
I’ll leave you with these remarks:
Stu Goodgold: The space shot is of South Florida, but the mountains say Waikiki. Maybe a split regional — really split.
Barry Rigal: I’ve only been to Rio once, but it looks a little like this. The Carpenters suggest Noah’s Ark to me — thus Mount Ararat in Turkey? I suppose it could be hands from the upcoming tournament in Istanbul — if so, please send me the other deals!
John S. Robson: Just for fun, I usually do these problems twice, at least a week apart. I hate to admit that I have never agreed with myself yet! I wonder if I have company?
Jack Brawner: In general, this set of problems seems like a lesson on, “How not to be brilliant.” Then again, that is my strength.
| Analyses 7Y88 Main Challenge | | Scores Top On Top of the World |
Acknowledgments to songwriters Richard Carpenter and John Bettis
© 2004 Richard Pavlicek