Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in July 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

As you can see, my title has a new look. Indeed, the touring Polish team defeated Jimmy Cayne’s team in the final of this tournament. My original title, “Turin Polls Raise Cain,” was a sound-alike, or homophonic phrase. Nobody made the connection. Many thought it was an anagram, and some made valiant attempts: Kevin Podsiadlik suggested, “Lair Pounces in Trials,” and “Auction Reprisals: Nil”; Kees van Schenk Brill came up with, “Crisp Italians Rule On.” Not bad for being out in left field!

Most wrong guesses were in Italy: Besides Turin (from original title) there was Salsomaggiore, Como, Dolomiti, Cortina D’Ampezzo (ski resort), Isle of Capri, San Marino, Rimini and Verona. Other wrong guesses were Austria, Switzerland and Israel; and over to the right continent, U.S. cities of Denver, Phoenix, Santa Fe (close!) and Gatlinburg.

The tournament was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Pictured at top is the aerial tram (world’s longest) to Sandia Peak, the highest point in the Sandia Mountains (pictured) that cuddle the beautiful city. I’ve taken this spectacular ride four times, but the only way to get Mabel aboard was to promise her dinner at the fine restaurant at the summit.

Hot-air balloons are also symbolic of Albuquerque with its annual Balloon Fest.

“Happy trails to you… Until we meet again.”

The background song Happy Trails is the theme song of Roy Rogers (written by his wife Dale Evans). While unrelated to the year or location, I chose it for its western genre. When I was a child, the “King of the Cowboys” was my hero, so it’s sentimental, as well as tearful now that Roy and Dale are both gone. Bill Cubley thought there might be a connection to the U.S. Team Trials, as in Happy Trials. Sorry, no, but I wish I had saved it for that.

Congratulations to Bob Richardson (US) who was the only person to guess the location and year (1997). About 20 people correctly guessed Albuquerque, but most thought it was 1994 — not surprisingly, as this was the venue of the WBF Rosenblum Cup. Guessing the year was tough, as my only clue was the disguised title, which nobody deciphered.

Jim Myers Wins!

This poll had 1185 participants from 118 locations, and the average score was 45.43. Congratulations to Jim Myers (US) who was the first of only two with perfect scores. Also scoring 60 was Peter van der Stap (Netherlands). Only a point back at 59 were Murat Yavuz (Turkey) and Rob Avery (Canada). Scoring 58 were Kalyan Lahiri (India), Arlo Tuppel (US) and Micha Keijzers (Netherlands); 11 players had 57.

The average score of 45.43 is higher than the last two polls, but the number of high-end scores (58-60) is unusually low. I’m not sure what to make of this, although it seems to suggest that overall competence of the field is increasing. The problems turned out to be good; no option received a majority (highest was 45 percent), and the voting was well-dispersed — especially Problem 5, where the most popular call drew only 21 percent.

In the overall leaderboard, Chris MacLauchlan (US) retained his top spot in absentia with a 56.50 average. He’s so good, he doesn’t have to play anymore!. My method of counting only the best four scores in the last six events makes this possible, but it never happened before. Next in line with 55.75 are Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden (Netherlands) and Julian Pottage (UK); and at 55.50 are Jean-Christophe Clement (France) and Michel Mayeur (France). Hmm… A French uprising?

A new country was added this month, bringing the total to 88 countries (including unofficial countries such as Bermuda and Taiwan) that have participated in these polls and/or contests. Welcome to Homeyra Ettehadieh of Iran.

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 1997 Spingold Knockout Teams, main event of the Summer North American Bridge Championships, was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 28 through August 3. The week-long event began with 104 teams, including virtually every top player in the U.S. as well as many foreign stars.

After five days only four teams remained: Nickell (Nick Nickell, Richard Freeman, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff); Shugart (Rita Shugart, Andrew Robson, Michael Rosenberg, Zia Mahmood, Tony Forrester, Geir Helgemo); Cayne (James Cayne, Chuck Burger, Mark Feldman, Alan Sontag, Mike Passell, Michael Seamon); Baze (Grant Baze, Tipton Golias, Adam Zmudzinski, Cezary Balicki, Merek Szymanowski, Marcin Lesniewski).

Nickell, going for a record fifth-straight Spingold win, was the obvious favorite, but Baze Polished them off 162-129. In the other semifinal, Cayne mounted a strong last-quarter comeback to eliminate Shugart, 153-138. So the final match would pit Baze and the “tourin’ Poles” against Cayne.

Grant Baze is a fast, brilliant card player, and about as tough as they come. I’ve known Grant for many years. Don’t I ever. His team beat mine in last month’s Spingold in New York — argh, by 1 IMP. Some years ago, our 64-board match ended in an exact tie, which we lost in the 8-board playoff — against this same team: Baze, Golias and the Poles. Enough already! I think I see the secret, and I’m planning a comeback with Pavlicek, Alvin and the Chipmunks.

The 64-board final was close most of the way, but the Poles pulled away in the second half to win 152-116. Five of the six problems are from the final, and one (Problem 3) is from the Cayne-Shugart semifinal. So pull up a chair and match your bidding skills with the 1997 champs:

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 1

IMPs		None Vul		You, South, hold:
West	North	EAST 1	South ?	7 A K 10 9 A Q J 8 A 10 6 5

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Double	10	485	41
1	9	230	19
Pass	7	111	9
2 NT ( + )	6	128	11
1	5	109	9
1 NT	3	122	10

I was delighted to discover this problem, as it’s quite unusual to find a hand with six plausible options for your first call (excluding preemptive tactics on weak hands). Not surprisingly, the notorious 4-4-4-1 shape fits the bill. No call is ideal, so it’s a matter of choosing the least of evils.

The consensus clearly favored a double, hoping the 18 HCP would offset the dangers of a singleton spade — surely sensible, and probably the expert consensus as well. If partner responds 1  as expected, most intended to bid 1 NT, which describes the strength well. The problem, of course, is that partner will continue to 2  on most weak hands with five spades, expecting at least a doubleton (and likely three) in your hand. What then? I suppose you just pass and hope for the best; but I don’t like it.

My choice is to bid 1 , which is unlikely to end the bidding in view of the singleton spade. At my next turn I will either double (spades) for takeout or bid diamonds. The meaty heart suit might also lead to a great Moysian fit, and perhaps the only game. For example, opposite as little as x-x-x-x-x J-x-x x-x-x-x x, you have a decent play for 10 tricks in hearts, while those who double will rot in 2 .

Of the remaining options, I can live with pass (even if you next hear “Your lead,” defending 1 could be your best result); or a “highly unusual” 2 NT (might strike gold opposite a long red suit); or even 1 . The only option that I really dislike is 1 NT; besides being dangerously off-shape (I can feel the spade transfer coming), the hand seems too good with its potential to play in a red suit.

Here’s the actual deal from Albuquerque:

Cayne vs Baze	A Q 10 8 6 5 2 10 9 6 5 2 3
9 4 3 8 6 5 4 K 7 4 3 J 8		K J 2 Q J 7 3 — K Q 9 7 4 2
None Vul	7 A K 10 9 A Q J 8 A 10 6 5

Szym'ski West Pass All Pass

Burger North 2

Lesniewski EAST 2 Pass

Cayne South 2 3 NT

3 NT South Down 1 -50

Passell West Pass Pass All Pass

Balicki North 1 3

Seamon EAST 1 2 Pass

Zmudzinski South Dbl 2 4

4 North Made 4 +420 Baze +10 IMPs

The problem scenario arose at the second table, and Zmudzinski chose to double. After the expected spade response, he punted with 2  hoping to find a fit. Balicki jumped to 3  and Zmudzinski raised, no doubt because of his prime values and dubious communication for notrump. All’s well that ends well; 10 tricks came home.

Cayne faced a more difficult problem at the first table after the natural 2 opening. Opting for 2 and hearing 2  from partner provoked the obvious 3 NT. This was a decent contract, but Cayne misguessed the play. He won the second club; cashed the A and led the Q to West’s king; on the spade shift, he finessed the 10*, losing to the jack; then East led the Q, foiling communication for any endplay.

*It seems unlikely that West would lead a spade from the jack while dummy has an entry in diamonds, so winning the A looks like a better play. Running diamonds then results in a successful endplay against East.

Curiously, the best trump suit was never mentioned at either table; 6 can be made against any defense, even with 4-0 trumps.

Comments for Double

Micha Keijzers: With all the intermediates, this hand is too strong for 1 NT (and the singleton spade is not pretty). One heart could work, but I find it too strong for that also.

Barry Margolin: I plan to bid notrump over partner’s likely spade bid; raise 1 to 4 ; or cue-bid 2  over 1 .

Kevin Lewis: Partner will bid spades (of course), jumping in the suit (of course); then I will rebid in notrump (of course), and partner will correct with Q-J-x-x-x-x (of course), and he will be down three, doubled. But who am I to argue with destiny?

Kevin Podsiadlik: To be followed with a notrump bid over partner’s likely spade response. Too strong for an immediate 1 NT or a simple overcall.

Jos van Kan: Too strong for a simple overcall. If partner jumps to 4 , I have a problem; but I suppose he’ll hold six then and make it on power.

Sandy McIlwain: I plan to bid 2 NT over 2 . The hand is too strong for 1 NT directly and might lose a suit [fit] that way.

David Rock: I hate this [least]. … If partner bids spades, I’ll cue-bid 2 (assuming enemy passes) and hopefully hear something else; then if partner rebids spades, I’ll bid notrump.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Treating the hand as an excellent 18, balanced. It is definitely too strong for one of a red suit or pass. Objection to 1 NT (15-18) is not the lack of a second spade but that the hand is too good. This goes to show why [good] bridge players tend to be light criminals. Players who strictly obey rules and laws are usually no more successful than those who are totally undisciplined.

Josh Sinnett: I usually like to pass and double back in over the opponents’ spade bids, but this hand is just too strong. I’ll bid 1 NT over 1 , or 3 NT over 2 . If partner jumps to 4 , I’ll wish him luck.

Margaret White: If partner replies 1 or 2 , I will rebid 1 NT or 2 NT, respectively.

Jouko Paganus: Over partner’s 1 , I bid 1 NT; over 2 or 3 , I will bid 3 NT. If partner gets crazy about spades and leaps directly to 4 , he should have long spades…

Conor Moore: Pass [might be] best, but 1 could easily be passed out; and 1 could suffer the same fate. If partner bids 1  over my double, I will bid 1 NT…

Steve Kitching: … If partner bids 1 , 1 NT is easy. Over 1 , I will raise to 3 .

Olivier La Spada: Over 1 , I’ll bid 1 NT; over 2 or 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT.

And if your partner ends up declarer, he will scold you: “Olivier, how can you double without la spada!”

Jim Grant: Then I’ll bid 1 NT over 1 ; or raise to three in hearts or diamonds.

Bob Zorn: Bobby Wolff would say it’s too risky to pass; and I agree. Once I decide to act, is double any worse than the alternatives? …Partner doesn’t always bid something awful (spades), so I give double the nod.

Ed Shapiro: I recall the late Bobby Goldman bidding 2 NT on a hand like this, but my partners wouldn’t expect it. My choice is between pass (hoping I get a later chance to enter the auction) and double, even if that’s only running the gamut of the alphabet from A to B. At the table, I’d pass since my partners have a sense of humor; but in a bidding poll, double figures to be more popular.

Mauri Saastamoinen: Playing strength of this hand is simply too great to do anything less than double. I intend to bid notrump after partner’s spade bid. Question is: How many spades can I stand? One or three is not difficult; but if I leap to 3 NT over 2 , we might lose our best contract in hearts or diamonds; and over 4 , I can only hope partner has enough length and strength in spades. In contrast, after the double I might hear West bid 1  and partner 2  or 2 , then I have almost all golden cards.

Roger Gibbons: Too strong for 1 NT, which [could] work out badly if partner transferred to spades… If I double, I can bid 1 NT over 1  (showing 18-20), or 3 NT over 2 . If partner jumps to 4 , dummy should not be a disappointment. …

Chuck Henke: Four and a half honor tricks are too much to overcall. I will bid notrump if partner bids spades; or cue-bid if he bids hearts or diamonds.

Sapan Desai: … I know partner’s most probable bid will be 1 , but then I can bid 1 NT showing 18-19.

David Matthews: Too strong for anything else; over 1 , I bid 1 NT.

Steve Boughey: Detractors of double sing the fearful refrain: “What if partner jumps to four spades?” While 4  is indeed the call from hell, I am fine if partner bids spades at any [lower] level — I just correct to notrump. Another likelihood is that West will bid spades, which leaves me with a sensible action (a second double). …

Ronald Michaels: If partner bids spades, I will rebid notrump. (Hopefully he will not bid 4 , which I will pass.) If he bids hearts or diamonds, I will cue-bid. If he bids 1 NT, I will be surprised and bid 3 NT — with my spade stopper, opponents probably won’t be able to run more than five tricks. :)

Dinshaw Burjorjee: Nice nightmare. I don’t know which is worse: West bidding 1 and partner passing, or vice versa.

Nelson Ford: If this hand isn’t strong enough for an off-shape takeout double, what hand is? I would prefer another spade for the 1 NT rebid over 1 , but every other call is a lie as well.

Gareth Birdsall: Intending to bid 1 NT over 1 . I expect to have enough high cards to survive if partner jumps.

Julian Wightwick: I can rebid notrump if partner bids spades, so long as he doesn’t go all the way to 4 . Second choice is 1 , with a heart rebid.

Jim Munday: Pass could work out well; presumably opponents will bid spades and I can double at my next turn. If I were an ace weaker, I would go that route; but partner will never expect this strong of a hand, and we could miss game. One notrump is too flawed (a slight underbid and a stiff spade). Four-card overcalls have their place, but I do not figure to enjoy a 4-3 fit if opponents can tap me in spades early. Two notrump is presumably an attempt to see if anyone will duplicate HAL’s choice. … After doubling, I should be reasonably placed if partner bids spades, and quite well placed over anything else.

Karl Barth: My partner regularly admonishes me not to treat three-suited hands as balanced, so I’m not overcalling 1 NT. Double, followed by notrump over a spade call, looks like the best description.

Dirk Enthoven: If partner expectedly responds 1 , I will bid 1 NT; if he bids 1 or 1 , I will jump raise.

Tom Rand: Ugly. Good news is that partner shouldn’t have enough to jump to 4 ; [over any other spade bid] I have enough to bid notrump. If my spade were an honor [and still 18 points] I would probably settle for 1 NT.

Anthony Golding: Sorry partner, I thought East opened 1 ! :) This hand is so good that I can afford to treat it as 19 over a spade response. Second choice is 1 NT — sorry partner, I had a club in with my spades! The Italians always get away with off-shape doubles, so I’ll be Italian this time.

Jens Palsberg: This is justified with 18 HCP. If partner bids 1 or 1 , I will support; if he bids 1 , I will bid 2 .

Georgiy Shevchenko: I think this hand is good enough to bid notrump if partner bids spades, or make another takeout double if opponents bid spades.

Yury Shatz: If partner answers 1 , I bid 1 NT. If he answers anything else, we [probably] have a game.

Tysen Streib: Planning on bidding 2 if partner bids the expected 1 .

Steve Stein: Who knows what’s right? I’ll double and bid hearts, then diamonds. Maybe partner won’t bid spades!

Comments for 1

Kenneth Wanamaker: Length in the opponent’s suit and a good four-card suit are [desirable features] for overcalling on a four-bagger. My outside values make up for the loss of the Q or J. I would want five-card suits for the 2 NT call.

Pieter Geerkens: My extra values should make up for the lack of a fifth heart, and I prefer a major 4-3 fit over a minor 4-3 fit any day. If the opponents bid spades, I’ll get another chance to show my minors and extra values.

Jeff Goldsmith: Old style is to pass and hope to make a takeout double of spades. New style is to bid something flawed. They each work some of the time. Bidding 1  looks like it has some vigorish as someone is going to bid spades. If partner bids 1 , 2 NT looks about right; if the bad guys bid spades, I can still double for takeout.

Michael Spurgeon: If partner bids spades, I like the possible continuations after bidding 1 (compared to double) because a response to an overcall shows some strength.

James Hudson: If I double, partner will probably bid some inconveniently large number of spades, and I won’t have a real suit to run to. After overcalling, I may get to make a takeout double of spades next round.

Carsten Kofoed: Marmic hands with the enemy suit are hard to handle. I would prefer to pass if the system allows fourth hand to keep the bidding alive with 7-8 HCP, but the Bidding Guide doesn’t tell me anything about this. Therefore, I choose 1 . If partner can’t find a bid and East-West are silent, we may miss a diamond game — but at least we’re nonvulnerable.

Imre Csiszar: All actions are seriously flawed; and so is pass, which works fine if somebody bids spades but risks 1  being passed out. With 1 , the risk is smaller… Question: If 1  is followed by 1  P 1 NT (or 2 ), is 2 NT unusual for minors? If so, it perfectly describes this hand, and 1  stands out.

To Imre’s question, I would say yes over 1 NT; but not over 2 . -RP

Nigel Guthrie: Two notrump is unspeakable; 1 risks losing hearts completely; double and 1 NT may get us to high spade contracts. Pass and 1  are the [most] sensible [and I choose 1  because] a 4-3, or even a 4-2, heart game may be playable.

John R. Mayne: Doubling appears to comply with PavCo standard, but it has the technical defect of sucking on lots of follow-ups. It’s unlikely 1  will be passed out; and if it is, it isn’t wrong yet.

Gerben Dirksen: Overcalling in four-card suits is underrated. If I double or bid 1 NT, partner will expect more in spades and [may] punish me accordingly.

Cheuk Hin Leung: I may get into big trouble if I double for takeout, so the four-card overcall is safer.

Bill Erwin: This gives is a shot at hearts or notrump without giving partner the impression I have spades.

Karen Walker: Even if the opponents bid spades, it will be impossible to describe this strength [if I pass], so it seems right to start showing it now. It’s especially dangerous to pass at IMPs, as if West passes, partner is unlikely to balance with the unremarkable 7-9 points that give us a laydown game. I’m not crazy about the 1  overcall, but I think the hand is too good for a white 1 NT.

Richard Aronson: I won’t double because partner, holding K-10-x-x-x-x and out, will correct forever. I won’t pass or bid 1 NT because it could go all pass opposite partner’s x-x-x-x x-x K-x-x-x-x-x x, when we’re cold for 6 . Two notrump sounds great, except I’m a card shy in both suits, and I’ll have to bid something after partner picks a suit. I choose 1  because, when I bid diamonds next, partner might be able to place me with too much strength and not enough length for an unusual notrump…

Kees van Schenk Brill: This seems the least of evils, as no action will describe this hand. … If the opponents bid spades, I can double to show extra values and short spades. If partner bids spades, I can still show my diamond suit. … As for the choice between 1  and 1 , if I am going to treat my red shape as 5-4, let’s make it five hearts as that is more efficient to bid.

Carl Hudecek: If I double, I can’t handle a 1 or 2 response. Pass is a possibility but could result in missing a near-laydown game when partner fits hearts, e.g., K-x-x-x Q-J-x-x-x x-x x-x.

Andrew Gumperz: In this modern age, I can count on partner to raise me with the four trumps… Game in hearts is far more likely than game in diamonds; hence 1 , not 1 .

Andrew de Sosa: I secretly admire those that blithely ignore the spade problem and double or bid 1 NT. Against me, they always come out smelling like a rose. Whenever I try it, however, I end up either declaring spades or looking for discards while the opponents run their [spade suit]. With three suits, I’ll start off on the low road by putting my major on the track.

Junaid Said: I don’t believe in passing such strong hands when there is a reasonable alternative available. I may have a problem on the next round — but that’s for the next round. :)

Lajos Linczmayer: I don’t want to encourage partner to play a spade contract by doubling or bidding 1 NT…

Richard Morse: Pass is quite tempting, but 1 seems [the best start] to describe my hand. If I double, partner may get carried away in spades; and 1 NT and 2 NT are [gross distortions] with this shape.

Tim Hemphill: I prefer to go slow with 30 points accounted for; partner may be naked.

Barry Rigal: One notrump with a singleton spade makes me uncomfortable. My plan is to bid diamonds next, or double some high number of spades — then blame partner if it is wrong.

Jeff Hand: Taking a chance it doesn’t go all pass. Two notrump could be the winning action, followed by 3 NT; but it would be hard to convince partner what my hand [looks like].

Weidong Yang: This is the maximum for a simple overcall; anyway, somebody will bid spades.

Dale Freeman: Pass and wait to double spades could be technically correct, however, if West also passes, partner might not balance with some 6-9 point hands where game is on. Overcalling 1  gives the chance to find 3 NT or 4  games, and it does not lie about my spade holding.

Sandy Barnes: This is not so good a hand that I would like to hear 2 from partner over my initial double; then I would need to follow with 2 NT, and partner may bid 4  (expecting at least two); or he might simply bid 4  over my double. In either case I wouldn’t be happy.

Thijs Veugen: The least lie; I plan to bid diamonds next.

Mark Reeve: Double is dreadful with a spade singleton, and 1 NT is an underbid; so I’ll start with 1 , and hopefully make a takeout double of spades [next]. I might occasionally bid an unusual 2 NT with 5-4 shape, but never 4-4.

Keith Falkner: If partner bids spades, I can bid diamonds or notrump. If opponents bid spades, I can double for takeout (I hope). I don’t think I risk playing a game hand in 1 .

Jeffrey Lehman: Aiming toward the most likely game. With Q-x-x-x-x and a stray minor-suit card, partner might pass [a 1  overcall] and game would be missed. Also, a 1  advance over 1  is easier to handle than 1  over a double.

Joon Pahk: I’ll try 3 NT next if partner makes a peep [in spades].

Jojo Sarkar: Tough problem! Double or 1 NT [may] get us to a bad spade contract.

Sergey Kustarov: I am willing to play a 4-3 heart fit because of my strong suit.

Ulrich Nell: Double or 1 NT will entitle partner to expect spade support. Game is a real possibility and we need to find the right one. Partner will surely raise with four-card support and 5+ points…; if he passes, game is unlikely.

Comments for Pass

Len Vishnevsky: I can double next for takeout (if West bids spades) or business (if West bids 1 NT). If he bids 1  or 2 , I’ll be glad I passed.

Brad Theurer: Any action is a misdescription, so I will wait. Probably, the auction will go 1 by West, and either 1 NT or 2  by East; both of which I can double for takeout, and partner will know I didn’t act on the first round due to spade shortness.

Bill Cubley: These 4-4-4-1 hands often are weaker than they look for declaring… Taking 7-8 tricks on defense usually helps the cause anyway, and the bidding isn’t over yet.

Mark Kessler: If I survive passing, I will likely be in great shape for the rest of the auction.

Amit Raturi: I will next double a spade contract at any level…

Eric Leong: Patience. Maybe something juicy is coming our way.

Paul Flashenberg: I hope West bids 1 , then I can [double] on the next round to show both red suits.

Lorand Dali: If this is passed out (unlikely), we probably don’t have a game. The hand seems too strong to pass, but any action could cause trouble.

Roger Morton: Hands with 4-4-4-1 shape are…defensive in nature, so I’ll await future events (if any) and prevent embarrassing spade bids from partner (if I were to double or bid 1 NT). …

Charles Blair: I hope I can double 2 next. This does not look like a hand for a 4-3 fit.

Adam Saroyan: No need to bid yet, and there is no accurate bid if I do.

Manuel Paulo: There is no hurry to enter the bidding…so I’ll wait and see: two more green cards!

Nigel Marlow: I think this is a close choice between 1 NT and pass; but if both West and partner can’t produce a bid, we’re [probably] not going anywhere, and defense may be best.

Jonathan Steinberg: Someone will bid spades, and then I’ll be able to take action. And if 1 gets passed out, it won’t be the first (or last) time I’ve been left hanging with the best hand at the table!

Comment for 2 NT

Scott Jeggle: Any other bid allows opponents the opportunity to find their spade fit.

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 2

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West 4 1	NORTH 1 Dbl	East 2 Pass	South Pass ?	A 7 9 7 2 Q J 9 6 4 3 4 3
1. weak

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	533	45
4	8	203	17
6	7	16	1
4 NT	6	9	1
5	5	4	0
4	3	296	25
Pass	2	124	10

Clearly, this hand has great potential in diamonds, with slam a distinct possibility. If partner has K-Q-J-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-x x, 6  is a big favorite; but he will often have weaker spades and/or diamonds with more strength in hearts, and even game won’t be a picnic. Therefore, the consensus to bid 5  seems practical and sensible. For one thing, there is still a chance that partner may bid six over five; while taking the optimistic view leaves no retreat.

Four spades could be right, e.g., opposite K-Q-J-x-x K-Q-x A-K-x x-x, but it seems to aim for a small target. This would have more appeal at matchpoints, since 4  and 5  will often both make; but it must be odds-against at IMPs. It’s not even hard to picture 4  going down, with 6  on, e.g., facing K-x-x-x-x A-K-x A-K-x-x x. No thanks.

The only other palatable options to me are the slam moves (4 NT, 5 and 6 ) of which Blackwood might seem the most sensible to avoid a slam off two aces; but it risks a potentially damaging double of a 5  response. For this reason, I think a direct 6  bid is just as good and ranked ahead by the voting. The mysterious 5  cue-bid would be ideal if it showed a 5  diamond bid, but partner would have to be clairvoyant to draw that conclusion.

I was amazed by the number of votes for 4 , which is a gross underbid, sneering at a vulnerable game. Nonetheless, it’s better than passing. Imagine partner with K-Q-x-x-x-x A-x-x A-K-x-x —, and one opponent a singleton spade; then explain minus 510 to your teammates when you had a grand slam. Or should I say, former teammates.

Here’s what happened in Albuquerque in 1997:

Cayne vs Baze	K J 9 8 6 4 A Q 6 A K 7 7
10 3 2 10 8 3 8 2 Q 10 6 5 2		Q 5 K J 5 4 10 5 A K J 9 8
N-S Vul	A 7 9 7 2 Q J 9 6 4 3 4 3

Szym'ski West 4 All Pass

Burger NORTH 1 Dbl

Lesniewski East 2 Pass

Cayne South Pass 4

4 North Made 5 +650

Passell West 2 NT 4 All Pass

Balicki NORTH 1 Dbl 4

Seamon East 2 Pass Pass

Zmudzinski South 2 Pass 4

4 North Made 5 +650 No swing

The problem scenario arose at the first table, and Cayne chose to bid 4 . This was a comfortable spot with Burger having a six-bagger, and 11 tricks were easily made after taking the losing spade finesse. Even so, it was an opportunity lost, as the long spade suit would also make 6  a breeze.

At the second table, the Poles evidently play a free-wheeling style in competition, as Zmudzinski bid 2  directly. This might have been the key bid, but Balicki took a conservative view and settled for game. Passell’s 2 NT was an obvious bluff — if not at first, surely after the jump runout to 4  — after which I’m surprised Balicki wasn’t more ambitious.

Comments for 5

Micha Keijzers: About right, bidding what I think I can make.

Kenneth Wanamaker: Partner has extras; but how much? Can we make a slam with East showing [sound] high-card values? Maybe, but I am not willing to commit with this hand. … But neither am I so timid as to stop in 4 .

Daniel Korbel: I don’t like partner’s task in trying to get to my hand to run diamonds in 4 — or a heart lead from West at trick two.

Kevin Lewis: Good thing this is IMPs.

Lois Stuart: Conservative; we could have a slam.

Len Vishnevsky: If partner thinks we can take 10 tricks, I think we have enough playing strength for 11; but I don’t have the controls for slam.

Kevin Podsiadlik: With a little trepidation, since partner probably already suspects I’m not broke — but that A is such a nice card. Four spades could be the winner at the table, but it overstates my trumps and understates my strength.

Jos van Kan: I have to tell partner I have a decent hand, and he must have diamond tolerance or his double would be pointless. Second choice is 4 . By the way, this would be a good hand for negative free bids.

Jeff Goldsmith: Let’s see; give partner K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-x-x x, and 5 looks cold. He could have more than that; but to play him for both A-K is too optimistic.

Michael Spurgeon: Since North didn’t open 2 , a slam in diamonds or spades would require a perfect holding; whereas 4  seems insufficient with a reasonable six-card suit and the ace in partner’s long suit.

James Hudson: Too much offense not to bid game; not enough to suggest slam.

David Rock: Pass looks like a disaster, as partner…probably has a stiff club or void. Hopefully, he has a moose to force me to bid at the four level, so 5  should show about a six-card suit and [useful values].

Curious that many people call a strong hand a “rock,” but David Rock calls it a “moose.”

Rosalind Hengeveld: The fact that I had little option but to pass on a hand worth a negative free bid (which we don’t play) does not mean we suddenly have [a slam]. Note that in 4 , a holdup of the A may render my hand a “negative dummy.”

Josh Sinnett: Partner’s most likely shape is 5=4=3=1; I have way too much strength not to bid game but am worried about a foul trump split in 4 .

Ron Sperber: Too much to simply bid 4 but not enough to [make a slam move].

Willem Mevius: Four spades could be better if there are three top losers, but the risk that partner can’t use my diamond suit is too great. …

Brad Theurer: Showing a good suit but not enough to act over 2 . There may be a slam, but partner may be able to bid it himself with the right hand. A 5  cue-bid would leave partner wondering what I have.

Carsten Kofoed: A practical bid. Partner shows strength, probably with 5=4=3=1 shape, so 5 should be playable.

Rai Osborne: My hand could be a lot worse than this!

Jeff Ruben: I’m afraid of club taps in 4 if partner has only five spades. Presumably, partner would have bid 4  with longer spades, or 4  with five hearts; so he must have diamonds. …

Conor Moore: Partner is strong (16-19 HCP), but East is likely to have [defensive] values. Partner’s double settles the [trump] suit, and the jump describes my hand; partner then can bid on or leave it.

Jim Grant: … Too good for 4 ; may be good enough for 6 and/or 4 ; but I’ll bid what I think I can make.

Arvind Ranasaria: A red-suit finesse, if needed, is going to be offside; so 5 is high enough, while still suggesting the possibility of slam. Could it be too high? [Possibly], but I think 4  is meek.

Nicoleta Giura: I hope partner has something like K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-x-x x. I should talk him into playing negative free bids at the two level. :)

Nigel Guthrie: Partner is probably mainly interested in majors, but I have to risk the minor game at IMPs.

John R. Mayne: Four spades is very tempting; but 5 has the advantage that partner can still bid 6 , as well as being close to even on hands where only game is in play. This is a very strong hand on the auction.

Jeroen Lodewijks: I think I have enough, and hopefully not too much.

Leonard Helfgott: Four spades is tempting, but the diamonds might be worthless there. At IMPs, red, 4  might miss a good game; so I’ll risk the 11-trick contract.

Andrew Nitzberg: I wonder how many HCP the A is worth on this auction? …

Amit Raturi: Can’t stand the pumping of partner’s hand in 4 , so I’ll show him my diamond length.

Bob Zorn: Suddenly this hand looks like a monster, so I can’t bid less than five. Six diamonds would be my second choice, even though 4  might be the winning call.

Ed Shapiro: For slam purposes, a jump response to partner’s takeout double seems right. How much more could I have and not bid 2  initially? At matchpoints, I’d consider 4 .

Gerben Dirksen: This hand is too strong for 4 , and 6 is a wild guess. …

Alon Amsel: All four-level bids are too weak, and Blackwood doesn’t help. Partner should still raise to six [or cue-bid 6 ] with K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-x-x —.

Eric Leong: I have to bid something more than 4 , as my hand could be a lot more worse.

Cheuk Hin Leung: … Four spades…might be better, but I want to tell partner I have much better than a forced bid.

Willem Jan Maas: … I’d like to bid a slam but refuse to punish partner for competing, e.g., on a nice 5=4=3=1 shape.

Mauri Saastamoinen: Simple: Partner made a takeout double showing extra strength; I have diamonds, so I bid diamonds; and with much more strength than I might have, I cannot bid only 4 . Leaping to 6  [or 4 NT Blackwood] is wild… and 5  should show club control. This leaves only 5 .

Roger Gibbons: This hand is just too good for 4 — the sixth diamond and A-x are very good holdings — and partner [rates] to have a singleton club at most. …

Karen Walker: A fairly straightforward value bid. At this vulnerability, the opponents may well have only nine clubs, so there’s no guarantee we have the controls and/or tricks for 6  — or perhaps even 5 .

Scott Stearns: Partner is probably 5=4=3=1 or 6=3=3=1. This being IMPs, choosing 4 over 5 isn’t that important as long as both make; so I’ll go with the longer trump suit to minimize [the danger of] bad breaks.

Richard Aronson: … Partner could have something like K-Q-J-x-x A-Q-x-x A-K-x x, in which case he might bid 6 ; but 6  [by me] overstates things — imagine the above hand with the K instead of the K. … If partner has grand-slam interest, with K-Q-J-x-x A-Q-x-x A-K-x-x —, he’ll bid 5  (has to be a control-bid, as with a two-suiter he’d have bid 4 , not double); I’ll bid 5 , and there we are.

Kees van Schenk Brill: The opponents aren’t giving us a walk in the park. Partner seems to be 5=4=3=1, 5=4=4=0, 6=4=3=0 or 6=4=2=1, and 4  may be a difficult contract with spades perhaps breaking badly, no entry to the long diamonds, and a heart suit that is surely not solid. Give partner a respectable K-Q-10-x-x A-K-J-x A-x-x x, and 4  has [various dangers] while 5  is excellent. … What I fear most in 5  is the lead of the Q, then a heart switch through dummy’s A-Q.

Paul Flashenberg: If partner has a club void and a great hand, he can bid 6 — after all, I did jump, and I don’t have much in reserve for that.

Carl Hudecek: Partner, with a stiff or void in clubs, chose to step in at the four level despite my initial pass. He probably is 5=4=3=1, 5=3=4=1 or 5-4-4-0. Game is a near certainty, and slam a distinct possibility; but 5  is adequate for now.

John S. Robson: Not 4 surely, and I’m too strong for 4 . Partner is likely to be 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=4=0, and 5  looks right in either case. If a slam is there, partner will bid it.

Andrew de Sosa: An aggressive but reasonable shot. Six diamonds asks an awful lot from a partner who may already be stretching [to compete].

Ed Davis: This should describe a hand not quite strong enough to bid 2 [previously]. Our combined assets should be enough to make 5 , and partner may be able to bid 6  with the right cards, e.g., K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-K-x x.

Ole Normolle: There’s a good chance partner is short in clubs, and he must have good values in the other suits to double. We may have weakness in hearts [which warns against slam].

Richard Morse: Partner is [likely to be] 5=4=3=1, 5=3=4=1 or 5=4=4=0, so this hand should play better in diamonds than spades. Nevertheless, 6  seems a real punt, with any outstanding high cards likely to lie behind partner. If partner would treat a club void as an ace, I’d try 4 NT…

Ronald Michaels: This should show [good] offensive power in a hand [not quite good enough] to bid 2  over 2 . If partner has the perfect hand for slam, he may deduce that I have the A [in view] of his diamond and heart holdings.

Nelson Ford: My hand may be worth only one trick in 4 , but four or five in 5 .

Jean-Christophe Clement: This hand justifies game, and the diamond fit is certain.

Barry Rigal: This might be either too much or too little, but I will hope, like Goldilocks, it is just right.

Nikolay Demirev: Straightforward. Although it may be a little high, having passed 2 , this is not a moment to be shy. One consideration is that, with a marginal hand, partner should sell out at IMPs. I wish 5  were a transfer to 5 . :)

Alan Kravetz: Partner probably has a five-loser hand, and I have an eight-loser hand. Subtracting the 13 losers from the maximum 24 losers gives us the 11-trick game.

Bharat Rao: Partner is likely to be 5-4-3-1 (with six spades he might just bid 4 ). … We will miss slam if partner has the magic K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-x x; but he should risk 6  with K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-K-x x.

Bill Powell: Maybe 4 is the last making spot, but I want to show [my values].

Weidong Yang: Although 4 is cheaper, entry considerations make the hope of discarding North’s losers on diamonds much less than discarding my losers on spades.

Julian Wightwick: I don’t fancy a 5-2 spade fit, with partner having to take at least one force in his hand.

Dale Freeman: I am worried partner is 6-4 in the majors, however, he will normally have at least three diamonds; so 5  should be about right.

Jordi Sabate: My other option is 4 , but I like to play with a lots of trumps at a high level. Six diamonds is excessive, and 4  is what I would say without the A.

Jim Munday: Partner obviously has a big hand, and I’m giving him at least one club from the opponents not bidding 5  at this vulnerability. Pass could be right…and 4  is tempting; but partner has offered other strains with his double, and with six diamonds I think that suit is best. This may not work well if partner is 5=4=2=2; but even then, game is still possible. Slam is unlikely, and we are not well placed to investigate… so 5  feels just right.

Gonzalo Goded: I think partner can bid six with K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x A-K-x x.

Tibor Roberts: I’d rather take my chances in a nine-card fit at the five level than in a seven-card fit at the four level.

Mark Reeve: Partner has a very good hand, and I have useful values, [especially] in the context of the auction. Four spades might be better, but I’m not going to risk it.

Karl Barth: I hate my heart holding, but the rest looks pretty good. Partner needs to know I’m not broke and that I have a [long] diamond suit. …

Adam Saroyan: I may make more, but I cannot see any other bid that works better — 6 is reasonable, too.

Manuel Paulo: I count my losers (eight) and estimate partner’s losers (five or six). Vulnerable at IMPs this points to game.

Anthony Golding: I was going to bid a safe 4 , but it’s hard to think of a hand where 5 won’t be just as safe — and partner may be able to bid six on a super fit.

Jack Brawner: I can hear a mentor’s voice, “In a preempted auction, don’t go for miracles; just try to land on your feet.” Therefore, I don’t want partner to play a 5-2 spade fit, taking a tap at trick two, with a potentially entryless dummy.

Nigel Marlow: Partner is prepared to play at the four level opposite a possible bust, so he should have something like K-Q-J-x-x A-K-x-x A-x-x x at worst. If he has the K, I want to be in 6 ; but I think 5  is right, hoping partner will bid six with the [right hand].

Phil Andrews: Partner [almost surely] has a singleton club or void, so taking the money in 4 can’t be right at this vulnerability. I have slightly more than partner may expect, but no way can I justify slam in one bid; so the question is which game. Partner may well have bid spades himself with a good six-card suit; so with diamonds the real strength of my hand, and [doubtful] entries for a spade contract, I bid 5 . I am prepared to look silly, though, if partner turns up with K-Q-J-x-x A-K-Q-x 10-x-x x.

Julian Pottage: I have far more playing strength than partner could reasonably expect.

Steve White: It must be right to bid diamonds, and my hand is a lot better than it might have been.

Steve Stein: We should have a good fit, and partner would need an awful lot of cover cards to have a good play for slam. Sorry, partner, if we had seven tricks on defense.

Ulrich Nell: Six diamonds is an extreme temptation; but I shall resist.

Comments for 4

Apisai Makmitree: If an opponent continues to 5 , I will bid 5 .

Steve Boughey: … Partner might have K-Q-10-x-x, and there’s no way he could rebid that suit himself. Five diamonds may be unmakable, but A-x may be good enough for 4 .

Godwin Jeyaseelan: I don’t want to miss a vulnerable game, and I am a bit wary of 5 with two club losers staring at me. I hope A-x will solidify partner’s suit so he can bring home 4 .

Frans Buijsen: Partner has a good hand, but I’m pessimistic for anything higher than game. We may well have two club losers (or a club and two tricks elsewhere) so the 5-2 spade fit seems better [than 5 ].

Jonathan Steinberg: Which game rates to be superior? … I’ll try for the 10-trick contract.

Brian Zietman: With two probable losers on top, I do not fancy 5 . …

Comments for 6

Georgiy Shevchenko: I suppose partner has 5-4-3-1 shape. Diamonds are better than spades to ensure trump control. I hope to discard heart losers on spades.

Joon Pahk: Can partner have less than K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x A-K-x x to force me to bid at the four-level? Even without the K, 6  should be cold. And if he doesn’t have the K, he might be void in clubs (or the K could be onside).

Comment for 4 NT

Jojo Sarkar: Opponents [are likely] to have 10 or 11 clubs, so partner has a stiff or void… If partner shows only one ace, we’re OK (I pass 5 ); but I expect he’s got both red aces, and I’ll bid 6 .

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 3

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST 1	North 1	East 3 1	South ?	A 8 6 J 10 9 5 K 8 Q J 10 2
1. weak

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	514	43
4	9	225	19
3	8	245	21
Double (penalty)	6	98	8
3 NT	4	90	8
Pass	1	13	1

An annoying predicament. First instincts are to double with your trump stack, but the heart fit raises concern. A vulnerable game could be right around the corner, especially if the K has any value; and it’s also possible that 3  could be unbeatable. If that’s not enough, there is also the option to try the game in notrump to protect your K. A great problem, I thought, but the voting was a bit disappointing.

The consensus took the middle ground (a cop-out?) with a simple heart raise. This is probably right on values if the K is truly worthless; but too often, it seems, partner has the A or Q, and a vulnerable game goes by the wayside. For example, opposite K-x-x A-Q-x-x-x Q-x-x-x x, partner has a minimal (vulnerable) overcall, and 4  is excellent. And even if partner has nothing in diamonds, say, K-Q-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x-x-x x, game will offer good chances, and he could hardly bid it over a competitive raise to 3 .

In borderline situations, my policy is to resolve any doubt in favor of the vulnerable bidder, so I’d just bid the game in hearts. Even if 3  were an invitational cue-bid*, which it’s not, it seems right to forgo that delicacy and take the shot at game. The fourth trump and spot cards are just too attractive to languish below game at IMPs. Yes, I’ve been set many times, so I might as well add another one to the list.

*According to system guidelines, a cue-bid is forcing to game (or four of a previously bid minor); hence, it serves no real purpose and is ranked below the direct and simple 4 . Granted, there’s a case for improvisation (i.e., bid 3  and pass 3 ) but this violates the system; partner might rebid 3  with a good overcall (to show six hearts) since it is forcing.

What about 3 NT? This seems odds-against, considering the pitfalls. Protecting the K doesn’t do much good when you need to score a diamond ruff or two for game. Further, the spade suit could be your Achilles Heel, e.g., opposite x-x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x A-J-x x.

Enough speculation. Here’s the actual deal from the semifinal match between Cayne and Shugart:

Cayne vs Shugart	K 5 3 A K 8 6 4 Q 7 4 3 7
J 10 7 4 Q 3 2 A J 9 6 5 A		Q 9 2 7 10 2 K 9 8 6 5 4 3
N-S Vul	A 8 6 J 10 9 5 K 8 Q J 10 2

Zia WEST 1 Pass All Pass

Sontag North 1 2

Rosenberg East Pass 3

Feldman South 2 Dbl

3 × East Down 2 -300

Cayne WEST 1 Pass

Robson North 1 Pass

Burger East 3 Pass

Shugart South Dbl

3 × East Down 1 -100 Cayne +5 IMPs

The problem scenario occurred at the second table, where Shugart doubled 3 for penalty. This should have been down two, but the defense never shifted to diamonds, and Burger eventually pitched his diamond loser on the fourth spade.

The bidding took a different twist at the first table; but the 3 diversion still appeared. At least Feldman knew his partner had a minimum before electing to defend. Here the defense made no slip, so plus 300 was worth 5 IMPs to Cayne — a welcome pickup when they rated to lose 8 IMPs for missing 4 .

Note that the North hand, while nothing more than a typical vulnerable overcall, routinely makes game.* Could there be a lesson here about the wisdom of doubling with a great fit for partner?

*Barring an unlikely spade lead, no heart guess is necessary. After losing a club and a diamond, declarer can cash A-K and elope with 10 tricks.

Comments for 3

Micha Keijzers: This seems enough an a hand with bad minor-suit values. I refuse to double 3 with a nine-card fit.

Kenneth Wanamaker: My club spots are well placed [for defense]; but the K is in the noose, and I have four nice hearts for partner. …

Daniel Korbel: Double is tempting, but it seems like masterminding; and on a bad day, 3 might make. Far better to make the middle-of-the-road bid.

Peter Hudson: My K and Q-J-10 aren’t worth much.

Kevin Lewis: It seems better to show my excellent support than to turn on the flamethrower.

Pieter Geerkens: Support with support. East might just squeak in with 3 , as could partner in 4 ; so let’s go for a plus after the preempt.

Len Vishnevsky: I don’t see five tricks at clubs. Three hearts is certainly enough with a working 5-count…

Kevin Podsiadlik: Business (raising partner) before pleasure (penalizing opponents). The temptation is to jump to game to compensate for the lost penalty, but my playing strength isn’t all that great; and if partner’s strength is mostly in hearts, defending 3  may not have been a great result either. Three notrump is also tempting but an insult to partner; maybe opposite Fritz.

Jos van Kan: If you’re out for blood, you might double; but I don’t think 3 will be down two, and we may have a vulnerable game if it is, e.g., if partner has K-J-10 A-K-x-x-x-x x-x-x x.

Jeff Goldsmith: A working 5-count is enough to raise partner with four trumps. Doubling is premature.

James Hudson: If an opponent bids four clubs, I’ll double; but first I must show my heart support.

Sandy McIlwain: [Double] may be the winner, but I need partner with me for the rest of the set. Support with support. I’m not strong enough to cue-bid with soft values in the opponents’ suits.

Mark LaForge: This hand has become terrible, but I still owe partner a bid.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I hope this comes across as showing values — not just four trumps and out (Mafia standard when 3  is a jump). The secondary clubs and likely anti-positional K mitigate against bidding 3  [or 4 ]. The fact that 3  is forcing to game in Standard American, rather than the world-standard unassuming cue-bid showing a sound raise to 3 , would bother a gangster girl less.

Brad Theurer: Too good to pass; double is out (3 could make!); and bidding game is just too rich for me, even vulnerable at IMPs. Normally this would be enough to cue-bid 3 , but I must devalue my minor-suit cards.

Nick Krnjevic: My minor honor cards are pulling very little weight.

Bill Cubley: A chicken bid, but [bidding 4 ] and being doubled in an impossible contract is worse. Doubling 3  gets us closer to minus 470.

Arvind Ranasaria: What is this hand worth? The K looks worthless, and club points are only [good] on defense. So 3  is high enough with only 5 useful HCP… What about defensive prospects? I have only three sure tricks, so double would require partner to produce a bit rich for a simple overcall.

Neat. Years ago I also managed to “produce a bit rich.” Trouble is, he now doubles everything in sight.

Imre Csiszar: Double likely yields 300, but on a bad day 3 may even make; or, more likely, we may have game. Perhaps partner should take out the double with a singleton club and six hearts…; but lacking this understanding, the simple raise looks preferable. Whether or not the invitational cue-bid raise is part of the system, I don’t think this hand qualifies with half its points [probably] worthless on offense. …

Nicoleta Giura: With better cards (say, K instead of K), I would cue-bid 3 .

Nigel Guthrie: In real life, all sensible players bid 4 ; but this is a bidding competition.

Ed Shapiro: … Even though I have three sure tricks on defense, double feels wrong with the mispositioned K and too many hearts.

Gerben Dirksen: Why should I assume 3 goes down? It might, but if not it’s a huge disaster. I don’t want to try for game with my bad minor-suit points, so 3  for me.

Alon Amsel: I won’t double 3 , since down one is not even certain.

Roger Gibbons: Top end for this bid; but the minor-suit values are unlikely to be full weight… Three diamonds would be an overstatement; partner can still bid 4 .

Bill Erwin: I won’t double with undisclosed heart support. This hand’s strength has been weakened by the opponents’ bidding, but it is still strong enough to support at the three level.

Karen Walker: I don’t remember the last time I declined a move toward game with 11 HCP and four-card support opposite a vulnerable overcall. This hand is so soft, though, that I wouldn’t be surprised if 3  were too high.

Scott Stearns: The value of this hand has plummeted. I’ll bid 3 only because I have four-card support. A bold 3 NT might lead to the only making game, but not likely.

Richard Aronson: … I can see many normal hands, opposite which all our games go down (maybe more than one), and 3  makes, e.g., J-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x x-x x-x, or K-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x-x-x-x x. … If partner has x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x A-x-x-x x, we’ll get to our game; and we may still get there opposite Q-x-x-x instead.

Robert Dannels: Too much in the opponents’ suits [to be more ambitious].

Paul Flashenberg: The poorly placed K and secondary club honors dictate conservative action. All partner did was make a one-level overcall, so I won’t go off the deep end by bidding 4 …

Carl Hudecek: Lots of points, most of which look wasted. This hand is no better than A-x-x-x K-10-9-x x-x x-x-x, and 3  is plenty on that.

Andrew Gumperz: A lot of wasted stuff in the minors makes me downgrade this hand. Double probably rates to get plus 300; but on a bad day we are minus 470.

Aigars Germanis: … My 11 HCP look like about 5 by now, so [this] should be sufficient.

Gerald Murphy: Not sure if a double is right with only three sure tricks and the wrongly-placed K. … This has to show some values, and partner can continue to game if he as a good overcall.

Junaid Said: This seems the most middle-of-the-road action. Partner can still move since I’m not bidding on garbage at these colors — though [some of] my hand might look like that to him. :)

Lajos Linczmayer: I expect an average of 17 total tricks; e.g., partner has K-Q-x-x K-Q-x-x-x x-x-x x, or K-Q-x-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x-x x. In this case 4  (620) is better than 3  down two (300); 3  (140) is better than 3  down one (100); and 3  down one (minus 100) is much better than 3  making (minus 470). If partner has six hearts and/or a club void, e.g., K-J-x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x x-x-x —, there are 18-19 total tricks. Therefore, it is better to raise than to double, and 3  seems [adequate] since my club honors are worthless, and the value of the K is ambiguous.

Richard Morse: This is a rather depressing collection with the K looking isolated and slow tricks in clubs. There is no guarantee we can beat 3 , however, so I’m inclined to try 3 . Partner can go on if he has a little extra…

Steve Boughey: I normally like to exert maximum pressure at the first opportunity (4 ), but it doesn’t seem likely that either side can make a four-level contract. …

Jean-Christophe Clement: This hand justifies a raise; but with wasted points in clubs and the K probably under the ace, 4  may be too high.

Phyllis Gibson: Plenty of time to double if opponents dare go on. Meanwhile, partner and I are looking at about 20 points [or more] and a nine-card fit.

Alan Kravetz: … With four cards in partner’s suit, and the K in the pocket, 3 may make.

Fred Tanzer: Given the location of my K, I am probably not strong enough for [more than 3 ].

Weidong Yang: The four-card support tells me to compete, but the [wasted] high cards…warn me not to make a more aggressive bid.

Jordi Sabate: First, I will let partner know we have a fit and possibilities of game. Once he knows that, I can double later and avoiding any accidents.

Daniel Cecchelli: My K is suspect, so [only] a simple raise is justified.

Roger Morton: It looks like my minor-suit honors are not working too well, and there may be some wild distribution about; but I have to follow the Law, with some misgivings.

Manuel Paulo: I devaluate the K, but I must compete at our security level.

Tze Cheow Sng: … Game is possible if partner has a suitable hand, but it is too optimistic to jump to game. Three notrump is my second choice, but that also assumes too much from partner’s hand; there might not be enough winners to cash after they knock out my diamond stopper.

Nigel Marlow: At first sight, 3 NT is tempting; but a club lead…and a diamond back won’t be funny. If partner has, perhaps, Q-J-x-x A-K-Q-x-x x-x-x x, nine tricks looks like the limit. Pass is an option? Who are you kidding?

Phil Andrews: At first sight, a heart contract; but what level? The K is badly placed, and my club values look worthless in hearts; so 3  seems the place to be. I am almost tempted to double; but at IMP scoring I like to be sure a partscore will fail by at least two tricks before raising the stakes.

Steve White: With wasted values likely in the minors, 4 would be insane; but with four-card support and an ace, I must raise. This hand might be better with no minor-suit honors; at least then East-West might have them, leaving less room for major-suit honors.

Comments for 4

Jeff Ruben: Bidding what I think we can make. Bidding 3 NT may protect the K, but one stopper may not be enough.

Amit Raturi: Don’t want to miss a vulnerable game; partner may have a diamond card.

Eric Leong: A slight overbid; but since game pays a bonus, this is better than a 3 underbid, for which partner would expect you to stretch with much less.

Kees van Schenk Brill: They fixed us again! This is an overbid, but I do not have a lot of options anymore. If I simply bid 3 , partner will never be able to work out with which hands he should continue to game. … With just one flimsy diamond stopper, it doesn’t seem right to bid 3 NT; and doubling 3  with a good heart fit is dangerous. … I would rather not have so many points in the minors for 4 , but at least the lengths are right-sided (partner can safely ruff clubs and diamonds). In all honesty, I expect one down; but then, they say that is good bridge.

Adam Saroyan: Too many hearts to double… so I’ll push to game. Four hearts may make, or it may drive the opponents higher — then I’ll know what to do.

Jacob Grabowski: Double to cash out? Three notrump to protect the K? Nah. I have the strength and support for partner — plus the fact that I’m not playing it should be worth an extra trick. :)

Stephen McDevitt: I’m a firm believer that a 1 overcall should be sound, since a skinny 1 bid does little except allow the opposition to pinpoint their spade fit exactly. The game may not make, but let’s give them the last guess.

Comments for 3

David Rock: We could belong in 3 NT or 4 , or only 3 if partner has a minimum. It would be nice to know if the K is worth anything, and a 3 …cue-bid should give me some idea (if partner bids 3 NT, I’ll take it back to 4 ). … The penalty double is interesting, but I would hate to punish partner for a one-level overcall without two defensive tricks. …

Carsten Kofoed: … Three notrump is putting all the eggs in the same basket — and they could end up scrambled, with shells! … A double may bring in only 100 when we have game.

John R. Mayne: Fabulous problem! All non-pass options have serious merit: Double looks like a sure plus; 3  involves partner; 3 NT and 4  look like they could be right; and 3  properly devalues the K. I admire 3 NT, which is committal but right-siding.

Andrew Nitzberg: Yes, I know this is an overbid.

Damo Nair: This leaves some chance of reaching 3 NT. …

Mauri Saastamoinen: … I have too much to bid only 3 , and I doubt that is our last playable contract. … If partner continues with 3 , I will bid 3 NT.

J.J. Gass: Vulnerable at IMPs, anything that forecloses what looks to be a decent shot at game is ruled out, so no double (3  might even make)… At matchpoints, I might be less aggressive, as my minor-suit values could be useless on offense. …

Ed Davis: We will probably set 3 for an average of plus 300 (with 100 occurring more often than 500) for a 4-IMP gain if [we make only 3 ]. … But I think partner will make 4  most of the time, particularly when holding a singleton club, which will be an 8-IMP gain… And sometimes the opponents do something entirely unexpected when you bid on, like bidding on themselves.

Ronald Michaels: As South I say: No double (of 3 ), no trouble. … Losing two diamond tricks does not mean partner will be down in 4 , especially if West cannot attack spades next.

Nikolay Demirev: Applying the LOTT with adjustments suggests that, whenever we make 10 tricks in hearts, we could hardly collect more than down three. The cue-bid has the benefit of keeping 3 NT open.

Bill Powell: I feel a shade too strong for 3 .

Dale Freeman: I think double is too risky at IMPs with a four-card heart fit. … Bidding only 3 might be enough, but it’s IMPs and we’re vulnerable.

Geoff Bowden: Ending in 4 , but the cue-bid to show strength allows partner to double an enemy sacrifice, or at least leave it up to me… Four hearts directly might buy [a misjudged] 5  from partner.

Julian Pottage: Three hearts would just be competitive — though some will think that is all the hand is worth!

Jonathan Steinberg: It’s hard to know how many working values this 11-HCP hand will produce. Three notrump is tempting, but with four-card support, I’ll cue-bid and let partner decide.

Note: I suppressed about 15 comments that focused on 3 as an “invitational cue-bid” intending to pass 3 . While undoubtedly a superior treatment, this is not part of the system in use, and so documented in the Standard American Bridge reference. Hence, these comments really don’t pertain to solving the problem presented.

Comments for Double

Ron Sperber: Yes, I have four-card heart support; but I think those clubs scream for defense.

Andrew de Sosa: With extreme distribution, partner can pull this. Otherwise, I expect at least a two-trick set opposite any reasonable vul-vs-not 1  overcall.

Ole Normolle: Penalty; not sure we have enough for 4 .

Nelson Ford: … Even 3 may not make. This rates to gain at least 100 (almost enough if 3 makes) and wins if 3  goes off two or more.

Bharat Rao: Partner should have one working card beyond K-Q (worst case)… If West runs out to 3 , maybe partner can double; else I will bid 3  over 3 .

Sandy Barnes: When in doubt, take the money — but if they run to 3 , I may need to rethink this. :)

Jack Brawner: Game (3 NT or 4 ) is not guaranteed here, so I’ll start a headhunting sequence.

Jojo Sarkar: Even with a nine-card heart fit, this hand is more defensive oriented. If partner bids 3 , I bid 4 ; otherwise, [a likely] plus 300 should be a good score.

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 4

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	NORTH 2 NT 3 4	East Pass Pass Pass	South 3 1 4 ?	8 10 8 7 5 4 3 A K 10 9 8 2 —
1. Jacoby transfer

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	313	26
5	8	239	20
4	7	61	5
6	6	193	16
6	5	188	16
5	4	102	9
Pass	3	89	8

Despite a topless trump suit, slam chances are good; but there seems to be no way to find out if partner has the right values (at least two of A A-K). All you can do is use your best judgment to find a bid that keeps the odds in your favor.

The consensus was to control-bid the club void*, hoping partner will appreciate the A as well as good hearts and bid slam only when it makes. For example, with K-Q-x A-Q-x Q-x-x A-K-J-x, partner should sign-off; but holding A-K-x K-Q-J Q-x-x K-Q-10-x, he should bid 6 . The latter is about the best hand you could hope for since partner already implied wasted black-suit values when he retreated to 4 . The obvious downside of 5  is that it pinpoints the spade loser, thus reducing your chance to succeed on a lucky lead — which suggests that a bluff 4  bid may be just as good in practice.

*Some 5 comments (about 10 percent) were oblivious to the system and meant it as “voidwood” or exclusion Blackwood — kind of like an Olympic cannonball dive scoring a perfect 10. Even so, 5  was still the consensus of discerning voters.

Another popular solution was to invite slam with 5 . With two unshown suits, this should focus on trumps — pass with poor trumps, bid slam with good trumps. This rates to work well in extreme cases, but there is no clear definition of what is “good,” and partner does not know the A (and not the A) is a significant factor. With most heart holdings, he will be guessing; but then, so are you, so at least you can split the blame if it doesn’t work.

Because of the uncertainty of any slam try, it makes almost as much sense just to shoot it out, preferably with 6  to give partner a choice. Although partner presumably has three hearts from his 4  preference, 6  could be right. For example, facing K-Q-J A-x-x Q-x-x A-K-Q-x, 6  is hopeless with a spade lead, while 6  is excellent.

I haven’t said what I would do on this problem, mainly because I’m not sure — even after reading all your comments. All I know is that I wouldn’t pass; and I wouldn’t quarrel with any slam try, or just taking a shot with 6 . Moderator’s privilege allows me to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights. The problem seems to be insoluble with any degree of certainty, so it might be wise just to go with your gut feeling and hope for a non-spade lead.

When the deal arose in Albuquerque, no lead would have helped:

Baze vs Cayne	A K J 5 Q J 2 Q 3 A Q J 8
Q 10 9 7 6 2 A 7 6 4 9 5 3		4 3 K 9 6 J 5 K 10 7 6 4 2
N-S Vul	8 10 8 7 5 4 3 A K 10 9 8 2 —

Burger West 2 Pass Pass Pass

Lesniewski NORTH 1 2 NT 3 3 NT 4

Cayne East Pass Pass Pass Pass All Pass

Szymanowski South 1 3 3 4

4 South Made 5 +650

Balicki West Pass Pass All Pass

Seamon NORTH 2 NT 3 5

Zmudzinski East Pass Pass Pass

Passell South 3 4 6

6 North Down 1 -100 Baze +13 IMPs

The Seamon-Passell auction at the second table inspired my problem, but I had North bid only 4 at his third turn. Seamon’s 5  was quite an overbid with a minimum 2 NT opening, overstocked in the wrong suits. Could Passell possibly refuse such an invitation? I suppose, if it specifically asked for a top heart honor; but I’m sure he thought, as I would, that Seamon had to have the A or K lacking both top diamond honors. Oh well; just another no-play slam. Been there, done that.

At the first table, the Poles did magnificently to stop cozily in 4 . Szymanowski managed to bid all four suits in describing his shapely hand and slam interest, then gave up when partner offered no encouragement. Well judged, and a well-deserved 13 IMPs.

Comments for 5

Kenneth Wanamaker: My 4 bid showed slam interest (else I would bid 3 NT or 4 ); now I cue-bid my cheapest control.

Daniel Korbel: If partner can bid 5 , I will bid 5 NT; else I will continue with 6 .

Peter Hudson: Keeping options for 7 open if partner can cue-bid 5 .

Kevin Lewis: I can’t figure out a way to tell partner how rancid my hearts are (or ask how good his are). So I’ll just cue-bid and blame him for the result. :)

Lois Stuart: This hand could produce 7 , or not even make 6 . I’ll cue-bid my first-round control.

Len Vishnevsky: … If partner has a perfect minimum, a grand is cold; so I’m worth an invite, but which one? Five hearts [might not] get us to the right suit; 5  won’t tell partner which black ace is important; and 4  might cause partner to make (or skip) a 5  control-bid. Five clubs seems less prone to disaster, as partner then should value the A (not the A).

Fraser Rew: We could still have a cold grand… Words of advice I got some time ago: “Six-four, bid some more; six-five, come alive!”*

*Curiously, those words came from none other than Grant Baze, winner of this event. -RP

David Rock: … Hard to imagine a 20-point hand that can’t make six of something, but the cue-bid should let me know if partner’s values are concentrated in the wrong places.

Ron Sperber: The five level might be too high if partner has bad trumps and is off the A; but I want to make one last cue-bid before giving up on slam.

Carsten Kofoed: I have already made a slam try, so partner hasn’t five key cards; but with only five losers opposite 20-22 HCP, it is very pessimistic to give up slam ambitions. I hope partner now can see the difference between the A and A.

Anant Rajani: I am not giving up, so I’ll make one more effort with a control-bid. Six hearts only depends on partner’s heart honors and the A. Is that expecting too much?

Andrei Varlan: Over 5 , I’ll bid 6 .

David Kempe: Perfect if we have agreed to cue-bid only first-round controls, so long as partner has the A.

Gerben Dirksen: It would be unlucky to go down in 5 (losing two hearts and the A) and this weighs up to a likely small slam, or even a grand.

Richard Aronson: To me, the question is whether to play safe with 5 as a slam try, or go for the gold with 5  seeking a grand. If partner bids 5 , I think 6  gives partner a shot at getting this monster right. Otherwise, I will accept five or six of either red suit as being right.

Kees van Schenk Brill: … This does not have the meaning I would like (exclusion Blackwood), however, it conveys a useful message ( A or void and not first-round spade control). The continuation is less clear… I guess that in practice I would have bid 6  over 3  and realize later (perhaps after seeing partner wrap up 13 tricks with a sour face) that I was a bit blunt. …

John S. Robson: Surely, this must show a void. I will not stop short of 6 , as even A-x-x or K-x-x in partner’s hand has a shot. I plan to bid 6  next. …

Amnon Harel: … I might as well roll the dice and hope partner will somehow guess correctly.

Lorand Dali: Planning to bid 6 at my next turn.

Tim Hemphill: Partner would have jumped to game with great hearts, but this distribution warrants another look.

Nelson Ford: I don’t think North’s 4 bid denied an outside ace (which would be a stretch with a 2 NT opening anyway) but just showed a minimum with no excitement about diamonds. So I’m asking him to show the A…

Alan Kravetz: We may have a grand. If partner rebids 5 , I will bid 6 .

Bill Powell: Partner didn’t have much room over 4 , and a very modest 2 NT with the A could be enough for six.

Daniel Cecchelli: Seven can be made with as little as A-K-x and the A, so I’ll cue-bid my club void.

Jack Shinehoft: I’ll bid what I have: club control. Surely, this will help partner judge the final contract, which has to better than taking a shot in the dark.

Tze Cheow Sng: With a five-loser hand opposite a 2 NT bid, there is a possibility of a grand slam. This shows [first-round] club control and denies same in spades. …

Tysen Streib: All partner is saying [with 4 ] is that he has 3+ hearts, not an absolute preference for hearts over diamonds. We could easily have a grand. Five hearts would ask about trump quality, but it’s nonforcing, so I’ll start with a cue-bid (which your Bidding Guide says shows first-round control). If partner next bids 5  or 5 , I’m bidding 6 .

Comments for 5

Pieter Geerkens: My approach is that any bid showing half the deck should also have half the controls, or significantly extra playing strength. As I am not overly worried about anything except trumps, I’ll ask partner to bid 6  or pass.

Audrey Kueh: All I want to concentrate on is the heart suit; if [adequate], diamonds can be set up — at least I hope so. :)

Jeff Goldsmith: This should ask about trumps, as I have three other slam invitations available. Partner could have A-K-x-x K-x-x Q-x-x A-K-J, in which case even 5  is in jeopardy. Or he could have enough for a laydown grand. So far, he has shown no enterprise, which suggests lots of black values.

James Hudson: In real life I’d bid 5 NT (pick a slam) and hope not to hear 6 NT. I expect partner to interpret 5  as an inquiry about trump quality.

Sandy McIlwain: What I most want to say is that we need heart cards for slam.

Josh Sinnett: I’m assuming this asks about trump strength, as I had other ways to find out about controls. …

Willem Mevius: Opposite good trumps, 6 should have chances. If I bid 5 , partner might interpret it as 0=5=4=4 shape. (Bidding system is not sophisticated enough to scientifically determine if there’s seven.)

Brad Theurer: Hard to find out if partner has the right cards for slam, but I must try. This asks for good trumps, which I certainly need. Also, bypassing any black-suit cue-bid leaves East in the dark — if he doesn’t own a black ace, he may lead a club when West has the A.

Jouko Paganus: This limits my hand to a slam invitation only, and says that I’m worried about the trump suit.

Jeff Ruben: Partner signed off after my slam try, but 6-6 shape is worth another bid. This focuses on the quality of partner’s trump support.

Bill Cubley: Pinpointing the problem: high trumps. I would have bid 5 (over 3 ) to show the [extreme two-suiter]. …

Craig Zastera: I hope this invites slam if opener has especially good hearts.

John R. Mayne: Little is needed for slam, and this will have partner look at [his hearts]. It’s nice to get this after the last problem, which was torture.

Jeroen Lodewijks: Asking partner to bid 6 with two of the three top honors.

Leonard Helfgott: Asking for trump quality. Five clubs as…a cue-bid sounds like a good 0=5=4=4 shape.

Alon Amsel: Asking partner to bid six with two honors. I don’t want to tell East which black suit to lead.

Charles Leong: Surely this asks for good trumps.

Samer ElSheikh: Asking for two top honors in hearts.

Cheuk Hin Leung: There’s nothing more important than trump quality in a slam contract, and this asks about it. …

J.J. Gass: … By avoiding a control-showing sequence, I leave East in the dark; and the bad guys might well lose their A if East doesn’t lead that suit. Indeed, we could make the slam off both black aces if East bangs down his A, setting up partner’s K to discard my spade loser.

Bill Erwin: Asking partner about heart strength. With good hearts, he’ll bid six; then East will have to guess the right lead if we’re off the A and a trump trick.

Andrew Gumperz: Assuming that partner would superaccept with trump holdings like A-K-Q or A-K-x-x, I can rule out seven. I will try with 5 , asking for good trumps, as slam could easily make off two key cards on a club lead.

Andrew de Sosa: Asking for trump quality — one of those wishy-washy, let-partner-decide bids.

Godwin Jeyaseelan: Cue-bidding 5 or 5 is not going to gain any additional information, as partner will probably bid 5 , and I’m back to square one. … All I want to know about is partner’s heart honors, so I’ll let him decide.

Frans Buijsen: I play this to ask for trump quality; partner should bid 6 with two top honors.

Tibor Roberts: My primary fear is the trump suit, so that’s what I will ask about.

Italo Bovo: Asking for heart honors; two of the top three may be enough for the slam.

Karl Barth: … I suppose it’s possible that 5 is too high, but that seems very unlikely. The main question is how good are partner’s hearts, and 5  asks this. Cue-bidding really doesn’t accomplish much.

Vivianne Lechtman: There are several questions to be asked, and I cannot see a way to do it all at this stage; so I will invite partner to bid 6  if he has two top heart honors. We could be missing the A and A; still, I’ll take a shot. …

Manuel Paulo: Asking partner to bid slam with good trump quality.

Raija Davis: … I hope this asks about trumps. At least partner did not put the brakes on with 4 NT, so he should have three hearts.

Phil Andrews: Partner only gave a preference, so I won’t get too excited. Optimists who considering partner holding all the honors that make seven laydown are likely to be disappointed; but only a real pessimist would not make a further move. A cue-bid is a [wayward] maneuver, as I just want to know about the trump suit. …

Georgiy Shevchenko: I think this is a question about trump quality; with two honors, partner will bid 6 . …

Paul Inbona: The [main] problem for slam seems to be whether partner has two of the top three heart honors.

Ulrich Nell: I cannot bid a slam (in hearts or diamonds) unless partner has some quality in hearts.

Andy Hung: … Partner will know that I want to go to slam but am worried about trump honors. He may even cue-bid 5  to [explore for seven].

Comments for 4

Margaret White: Partner can now use Blackwood, then I will bid 6 to show one ace and a club void.

Conor Moore: This allows partner to use Blackwood (which suits my hand a lot) or continue cue-bidding, or just sign off in 5 .

Olivier La Spada: I am going to bid at least six, and seven may be found if the bidding continues 5  5 ; 5  5 NT.

Jim Grant: I’m moving [toward slam] and this keeps the bidding as low as possible.

Comments for 6

Jos van Kan: Choice of slams. Looks like the most practical bid, although we could miss seven is partner has the ideal [cards].

Rosalind Hengeveld: Hands like this cannot be bid too scientifically. If we’re off two major-suit aces, a club lead may still see us home. If we’re off A-K, I’ll be doing time. :)

David Grainger: Best leaving the opponents to guess which black suit to lead. Five hearts asks about trumps, but it prevents diamonds from being trumps, and 6  may be a better slam. Partner could easily have A-K doubleton and three unattractive diamonds.

Arvind Ranasaria: I describe my shape and leave it up to partner to choose the best strain.

Imre Csiszar: With no room for scientific investigation, I bid what I think we can make. Partner should return to hearts only with a very strong preference. …

Nicoleta Giura: Partner can pass with 4=2=3=4 shape, or convert to 6 with 4=3=2=4.

Nigel Guthrie: An immediate 6 (over 3 ) would have been better. Bids like 5 are what Hugh Kelsey ridiculed as “daisy picking.”

Andrew Nitzberg: I do not see this as a hand that can benefit from a careful analysis — this is a roulette hand. …

Bob Zorn: Down one is good bridge in my game. :)

Mauri Saastamoinen: … We [probably] belong in slam, and it seems impossible to find out [for sure]. Partner showed no interest [over 4 ], which certainly means a heart loser; but so what? If we have a spade loser as well, maybe we’ll get a club lead.

Roger Gibbons: Partner needs so little to make six; even A-x-x and the A gives slam a play (not much). This offers a real choice; and by not cue-bidding, it keeps the opening lead blind. … Partner is unlikely to have the right cards for seven [no interest over 4 ]. …

Aigars Germanis: This should show a clear 6-6 shape, allowing partner to choose his longer red suit. I am not in a position to find [useful information] from partner, so I will help him assess the hand.

Lajos Linczmayer: Showing two equivalent suits, as I want to play a slam in one of them. This is not the right situation to be scientific.

Julian Wightwick: This emphasizes the shape and the diamonds. It could be too high but seems nearer the mark than just 5 .

Jordi Sabate: I want to play 6 or 6 , so let partner choose.

Paul Meerschaert: There’s a [fair] chance that partner has only a doubleton heart (hopefully not 2-2 in the red suits). …

Anthony Golding: I want to play slam in our nine-card fit. Who knows; it may make.

Julian Pottage: A brief simulation suggests that about 85 percent of the time one red slam or the other is on.

Jonathan Steinberg: This paints a good picture: stronger diamonds than hearts. With equal values in the red suits, I could have transferred to 3  and bid 6 .

Sergey Kustarov: After partner bids only 4 , a grand is out of question. Since I’m going to bid 6 anyway, why give away unnecessary information about the lead?

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 5

IMPs		Both Vul		You, South, hold:
WEST Pass Pass Pass	North Pass 2 1 2 NT	East Pass Pass Pass	South 1 2 ?	A 7 A Q J 9 8 7 A K 10 6 7
1. natural (not Drury)

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	246	21
3	9	233	20
4	7	241	20
3 NT	5	167	14
5 NT (pick slam)	4	74	6
4 (Gerber)	3	160	14
6	2	64	5

My footnote about North’s 2 being natural was to emphasize that Drury (of any variety) does not apply. Drury is extremely popular in the U.S., and I felt it might be taken for granted without clarification. Yes, I can hear some of you complaining how these polls are made for dinosaurs — now shut up, or I’ll have to drag you into the tar pits with me.

Despite partner having passed, and without a known fit, there is still a chance for slam; e.g., K-x-x 10-x Q-x-x A-J-10-x-x makes 6  excellent. Therefore, it hardly seems right to sign off in game. Of course, partner might also have Q-J-x x x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x, which makes slam almost hopeless, so you must be cautious.

The consensus was to bid 3 , the obvious choice if forcing — and there’s the rub. Passed-hand, two-over-one auctions are not well defined in standard references (alas, including my own). I am confident, however, that almost all experts would assume 3  is forcing because opener would not introduce diamonds with a minimal 6-4. Therefore, I see no reason to deny it the top award. No doubt, even more people would have bid 3  if sure it was forcing.

My choice is to bid 3 , an obvious control-bid, as I would have indicated a spade suit earlier. Besides ensuring no accidents, hearing partner bid 4  over 3  would be good news for slam; whereas a raise from 3  to 4  would be ambiguous, as he could be honoring my force with doubts about 3 NT. If partner bids 3 NT over 3 , I will give up.

Of the bold options (4 , 5 NT and 6 ) the edge goes to 5 NT (pick a slam) as it at least keeps partner in the picture. Taking control with Gerber presumes you can place the contract; and since you can’t be off two aces, this means you will choose the slam — so it’s not much different than blasting 6  now.

In the 1997 Spingold, the actual bidding did not parallel my problem because of special treatments in use — necessitated by that Drury thing again. The auctions show that these conventions may not be as wonderful as some people think:

Baze vs Cayne	K 2 10 4 Q 4 3 A J 10 8 6 2
Q J 9 6 3 3 J 9 8 5 2 4 3		10 8 5 4 K 6 5 2 7 K Q 9 5
Both Vul	A 7 A Q J 9 8 7 A K 10 6 7

Cayne WEST Pass Pass Pass Dbl All Pass

Baze North Pass 3 3 3 NT

Burger East Pass Pass Pass Pass

Golias South 1 3 3 4

4 South Made 5 +650

Lesniewski WEST Pass Pass Pass

Passell North Pass 3 3 NT

Szym'ski East Pass Pass All Pass

Seamon South 1 3

3 NT North Made 5 +660 No swing

Neither North player could respond 2 because of Drury, so they used a popular companion treatment: 3  showed a six-card club suit and 9-11 HCP. Alas, the lost round of bidding made it difficult to appreciate the promising heart fit, and an excellent slam was missed. Baze and Golias came close with Baze’s well-judged 3  preference (perhaps Golias should have pushed further). Both contracts made 11 tricks for a push board.

So much for missing a slam! The nasty lie of the cards made 6 untenable, short of double-dummy play.* So does this mean their convention gets a reprieve? Yeah, right.

*Assuming a spade lead, win the A, Q and lead a diamond (East must discard); then cross to dummy and lead another diamond. If East ruffs, his trumps can be picked up; otherwise, ruff your last diamond with the 10. It seems that only an original club lead will defeat 6 .

Comments for 3

Kenneth Wanamaker: … I like my heart suit well enough to play opposite a singleton, but I do not want to commit to game or slam right away. This is forward-going, so I’ll find our more about partner’s hand.

Jerry Merrell: This shows my 6-4 shape, and I will explore slam if partner raises either suit.

Lois Stuart: The auction is forcing for now, so I’ll show the sixth heart and strength.

James Hudson: As I see it, 3 after 2 is absolutely forcing to game. I can make a slam try next round.

Sandy McIlwain: This has to show extras. I don’t want to be in slam if partner has a misfit, lacking prime cards.

Mark LaForge: I need to know if partner has one or two hearts; I will pass 3 NT but bid again over 4 . If partner passes 3 , I’ll find another partner. :)

Rosalind Hengeveld: I presume “North’s bids are natural” means Mrs. Guggenheim across would be about to pass 3 . But the godfather will not, realizing that I would have rebid 2  over 2  with a bare minimum 6-4. Over a likely 3 NT, I’ll bid a quantitative 4 NT. Alternatives given to 3  are either premature or misdescriptive.

Josh Sinnett: If I didn’t want to force, I would have bid 2 rather than 2 on the second round. Slam is still possible, opposite a hand like K-J-x 10-x Q-x A-J-x-x-x-x.

Brad Theurer: … This should show a decent 6-4 (I would have bid 2 over 2 with a minimum) so it must be forcing. If partner bids 3 NT, I will pass — even with my excellent hand, partner’s initial pass plus a likely misfit equals no slam.

Nick Krnjevic: Forcing, showing 6-4 in the red suits with extra values. With a minimum 6-4, I would have rebid 2 .

Bill Cubley: Showing the strong 6-4 shape so partner can make the right bid — simple but effective.

Arvind Ranasaria: Bidding out my shape to look for the best strain. This shows some extras, as opposed to rebidding hearts first and then introducing diamonds.

Samer ElSheikh: Forcing. If partner has no heart fit and bids 3 NT, I will pass.

Karen Walker: Even in Caveman Standard, this has to be forcing, showing a good 6-4 hand. If I had a minimum 6-4, I would have rebid 2  on the previous round.

Norm Gordon: This shows the big 6-4, as opposed to bidding hearts, hearts, diamonds to show a weaker 6-4. Without this agreement, I would just bid 6 .

Paul Flashenberg: This should be forcing, showing a good 6-4. Slam is still possible…

Carl Hudecek: Opposite an 11-point misfit, I am more interested in finding the best game, yet leaving room for slam exploration if partner has a wonder hand like K-x-x K-x x-x A-10-9-x-x-x.

Thomas Kniest: Showing a good 6-4. If partner persists with 3 NT, I’ll bid 4 NT; that should be enough.

Jim Munday: … Slam is feasible, and I should investigate; but I don’t think I’m good enough to insist… Three spades is misdescriptive, suggesting 3=5=4=1 or 4=5=4=0; I don’t want to commit to notrump yet, so 3 NT is out; and 4  should show a pure hand with about an ace less (e.g., x-x A-Q-J-9-8-7 A-K-10-x x). … Three hearts describes this hand well (good 6-4) and is forcing. I will raise 3 NT to four…

Bharat Rao: We are in the slam range but have no known fit, so I continue the search. Over 3 , I will bid 3 NT; over 3 NT, I pass; and over 4  or 4 , I will explore further. Hopefully, partner will not trot out 4 .

Paul Meerschaert: I would like to hear one more bid from partner, or more specifically, how many hearts he has. Opposite a singleton, slam may be undesirable, e.g., if partner has something like K-Q-x x x-x-x K-Q-10-x-x-x. …

Jack Brawner: Brawner’s Bidding Rule #1: Describe hand to partner (6-4, forcing) — slam investigation still to come.

Nigel Marlow: Natural and forcing, suggesting six hearts. If partner bids 3 NT, I may try 5 NT next.

Jonathan Steinberg: Forcing, showing a good hand with six hearts and four diamonds. If partner rebids 3 NT, I will bid 4 ; if he raises to 4 , I will [use Blackwood].

Jojo Sarkar: … Our side should have 28-30 HCP; but with no indication of a fit, 3 NT or 4 should be high enough.

Comments for 3

Steven Price: To be followed by 4 over 3 NT.

Peter Hudson: Keeping options for 6 open.

Jos van Kan: I prefer to be in 3 NT opposite a decent spade stopper but in 4 otherwise. Slam seems [unlikely].

Fraser Rew: Nice hand but a misfit from hell. I hope this gives partner a choice between 3 NT and 4 .

David Rock: Since 2 NT isn’t forcing, hopefully this will find out if we belong in hearts or notrump. If hearts, six seems a reasonable level, but I can’t put it there yet. …

Willem Mevius: This…keeps slam options open without me having to gamble and bid it. …

Jouko Paganus: If we have slam, partner must now bid something besides 3 NT.

Carsten Kofoed: If North bids 3 NT, it’s the right contract; otherwise we will get to 4 , or even a…slam.

Anant Rajani: Showing spade control, and asking partner to tell me more about his hand.

Jeff Ruben: … I am hoping for delayed heart support. Over 3 NT, I will just bid 4 , playing partner for something like Q-J-x x-x Q-J-x K-Q-10-x-x.

Catalin Doras: I will bid 4 next.

Imre Csiszar: Unlike Problem 4, we have room for science here. Although 3 , 4 (Gerber) and 4 each look reasonable, 3  (showing spade control) appears best followed by 4  to show semisolid hearts. If partner can’t go on after this strong invitation, slam can hardly be good.

Nicoleta Giura: Trying to suggest a stiff club. If partner has K-x-x x-x Q-x K-Q-J-x-x-x, slam is not so great (on a finesse and a 3-2 break).

Nigel Guthrie: Patterning out in a last-ditch slam try.

John R. Mayne: I’ll honor a 3 NT sign-off over 3 , but I owe partner one more try for slam. Two diamonds last round seems wimpy; I would have bid 3 .

Leonard Helfgott: While 3 should be forcing, this sends a stronger slam message when I next pull 3 NT to 4 .

Andrew Nitzberg: Over 3 NT, I will bid 4 to show the six-card suit. Over 4 , I will panic. :)

Apisai Makmitree: This is a relay to locate heart support with a doubleton, or to confirm 3 NT.

Ed Shapiro: I have to take strong action on this four-loser hand. [Slam chances] probably come down to whether partner has the A instead of the king. I really question the 2  rebid. … Why not bid 3 , showing where most of your strength lies, to get partner involved early? After all, this hand is only the J away from a 2  opening.

Ed makes a good point, but I believe most experts would bid 2 on the general principle that jumping with a two-suiter often the bidding. -RP

Charles Leong: To be followed by 4 . I want partner to [upgrade] a hand like K-x-x K-x x-x-x A-x-x-x-x.

Mauri Saastamoinen: … I intend to pass (color me chicken) if partner bids 3 NT.

Chuck Henke: A mild slam try. Partner could have as little as 9 HCP.

Andrew de Sosa: This highlights both the club shortness and slam-invitational strength. I plan to bid 4  over 3 NT to show the [nearly] self-sufficient suit.

Gerald Murphy: Then 4 over 3 NT should show my hand: a strong 6-4 with spade cards.

Steve Boughey: This may appear too scientific, but I must convey a distributional hand with slam interest. Over 3 NT, I give up; over 4 , I bid 4 ; but secondary support for either red suit will propel me towards slam in that strain.

Ronald Michaels: … This should alert partner to my undisclosed values and distribution. My hearts are so good that I can risk getting to 4  opposite a singleton, rather than 3 NT, for the [sake of exploring] slam. …

Nikolay Demirev: … I intend to follow up with 4 over 3 NT, or 5 over 4 , with little risk of getting overboard. Before I forget: It is time to retire Gerber from active service — maybe with a pension. :)

Weidong Yang: This saves space to locate the best contract, while telling partner I am short in clubs. …

Gonzalo Goded: I will follow with 4 (over 3 NT) to show slam interest in hearts with spade control.

Thijs Veugen: Tells partner that HCP in clubs [except the ace] are undesirable.

Italo Bovo: … Partner probably has 3=2=3=5 shape and 10-11 HCP — not enough for 6 NT. Over 3 , I hope for a 4  cue-bid. If partner bids 3 NT, oh well.

Charles Blair: … I’m more worried about going down in the wrong game than getting to slam.

Adam Saroyan: Over 3 NT, I will bid 4 and trust partner to get it right.

Carol Simon: Followed by 4 to show lots of extras with 6-4 shape.

Tze Cheow Sng: … Showing values in spades, and allowing partner to judge the best game (notrump, hearts or diamonds). Slam is a bit optimistic as there is not much of a fit between our hands, and there are potential entry problems.

Joon Pahk: Slam is a make opposite the K, K and Q; but I worry that partner’s values are in the black suits. This looks like the best grope in case he has the right cards.

Jacob Grabowski: I need more information, but this could turn out to be a serious misfit. I think I would have bid 3  (instead of 2 ) at the table.

Madhukar Bapu: This can never be a real suit, as I would then have bid 2 over 2 . I will follow with 4  over the likely 3 NT by partner.

Comments for 4

Damo Nair: I think this is a great descriptive bid. Slam probably depends on two cards ( K and Q) and outside values [probably] won’t help the cause. We’ll see. :)

Matthew Mason: If I had a weak hand with this shape, I’d have rebid 2 over 2 ; with a better hand, I’d rebid 2  and then 3  over 2 NT; so this shows a very good hand.

Richard Morse: Although the bidding is encouraging from a passed partner, communication between hands could be tricky if his honors and length are in the black suits (as seems likely). … This bid may encourage partner to upgrade any top honors, particularly the K, and [bid again].

Frans Buijsen: … I need an awful lot of good cards for slam (three out of K, K, Q and A) so I’ll just settle for the safe game.

Jeff Hand: Unless my partner is Al Roth, there is no odds-on slam.

Alan Kravetz: Too much is needed for slam opposite a hand with a likely [misfit] and wasted values in clubs.

Bill Powell: Slam is optimistic on this misfit, and I think 4 is safer than 3 NT (even losing two trumps).

Daniel Cecchelli: Slam is a long shot, as partner needs specific cards — and we know partner never has those specific cards. I’ll just bid the safest game and go on to the next board.

Karl Barth: Would partner bid this way with 3=1=3=6? If so, slam is a pipe dream. Even with 3=2=2=6, it takes a perfecta to make slam a good bet. Four hearts seems clearly the best game.

Douglas McCorkell: Two diamonds was not an acceptable compromise between 3 and 3 . Now I must sleep in the bed I made myself.

Phil Andrews: OK, I was sensible with my rebid — no blind “but I had an 18-count” jumps — but I am starting to get itchy. Suddenly, looking for slam with no apparent fit seems bonkers; and Gerber, I trust, is included only for comedy value: Like “Yes, partner, I have the club ace,” is really going to help me. Call me a wimp, but I am quite happy to play in a making game. …

Brian Zietman: I would have bid 3 at my second bid to leave it up to partner whether to make a move toward slam. My hearts do not need support, so I think this is the best practical bid now. If partner has the K and A, he can make a move.

Paul Inbona: Showing a strong 6-4, inviting partner to bid again [with the right values].

Comments for 3 NT

Cheuk Hin Leung: I expect partner to have only one heart (he might have bid 2 over 2 with a doubleton) and without a great club suit. Our HCP should ensure a plus score in 3 NT.

Bill Erwin: Playing notrump (rather than hearts) may protect partner’s Q, and perhaps he has the stiff 10.

Scott Stearns: I don’t see much chance of slam opposite a passed hand with club length and most likely club values.

Godwin Jeyaseelan: If partner’s club suit is not headed by the ace, there is a risk of 4 failing (e.g., Q-10-9-x x J-x K-Q-J-x-x-x) so 3 NT appears the safer game…

Jean-Christophe Clement: North shows about 11 HCP; and with no good fit, a slam in [any strain] is unlikely.

Anthony Golding: Slam looks a long way off without a fit, and 3 NT is where I want to be opposite, say, K-J-x x-x J-x A-Q-10-x-x-x.

Jeffrey Lehman: No safety above 3 NT, opposite, say, a 3=1=3=6 11-count.

Stephen McDevitt: I don’t think it is right to chase perfect cards here. We have a misfit, and I believe it might play better from partner’s side.

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S Vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 3 1	EAST 2 Pass	South Dbl ?	A Q 9 7 A K 7 3 A 10 8 9 3
1. 0-9, natural

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3 NT	10	291	25
Pass	9	245	21
None*	8	442	37
3	7	163	14
3	2	41	3
3	1	3	0

*would have bid 2 NT over 2

Because of the awkward predicament reached after a takeout double, I decided to include the “None” option for those who honestly would have overcalled 2 NT instead. The key word being “honestly,” though I’m sure some chose that option as a cop-out after the double didn’t work. Despite the outcome, I think the double is superior and would do so again; odds are good that partner won’t respond 3 .

As on the previous problem, I noted partner’s bid to avoid any confusion with a popular convention. Many players use Lebensohl in this situation, meaning 3  shows values (perhaps 8-11 points though treatments vary) because partner would bid 2 NT (artificial relay to 3 ) with a weaker hand. All well and good, but not in this poll. No shortcuts!

I seem to have endplayed myself with the nebulous “None” option, as it created a scoring predicament that is sure to make some people unhappy no matter how I resolve it. While “None” got the most votes, it hardly deserves the top award since the majority of respondents agreed with the double.*

*While some people may have answered the problem even though they disagreed with the double, this probably balances out with those who would really double but chose “None” as a cop-out. Hence, the 37 percent is probably a fair indication of honest 2 NT bidders.

So what would I do after doubling? I’m with the consensus and would bid 3 NT. Forever an optimist! If I’m wrong, the downside rates to be small, as even 3  is likely to fail; but if I’m right, the upside is a vulnerable game. As a matter of probability, partner will seldom be totally broke, so I’m hoping he’s on the top of his likely 5-9 point range.

Two other paths are also reasonable after doubling: Pass and take your medicine (why suffer when partner can do it for you) or force with 3 . The latter could strike gold if partner bids a three-card major and you pass* but could also strike out if partner has enough for 3 NT with no diamond stopper.

*Note that this cue-bid (unlike Problem 3) is forcing for just one round because partner has promised nothing. The system structure of “cue-bids forcing to game or four of a minor” assumes partner of cue-bidder has acted voluntarily.

When this deal arose in Albuquerque, optimism was not the key word:

Cayne vs Baze	J 2 J 6 5 7 5 4 K J 6 5 4
K 8 6 5 Q 9 8 4 2 Q 10 7 2		10 4 3 10 2 K Q J 9 6 3 A 8
N-S Vul	A Q 9 7 A K 7 3 A 10 8 9 3

Golias West Pass All Pass

Cayne North 3

Baze EAST 2 Pass

Burger South Dbl 3 NT

3 NT South Down 3 -300

Seamon West Pass All Pass

Lesniewski North 2 NT

Passell EAST 2 Pass

Szymanowski South Dbl 3 NT

3 NT North Made 95 -400 Cayne +3 IMPs

At the first table, Burger chose to bid 3 NT (I’m not sure, and it’s hard to tell from the North hand, but they may have been using Lebensohl where 3  suggested values). Alas, this proved to be hopeless with a diamond lead and East having a sure entry. Even so, 3  was destined to go down two, so 3 NT down three* was only a small loss in the quest of game.

*I’m guessing down three, as the results I have are incomplete at this table, showing only the bidding. If declarer starts with a club to the jack and ace, West is squeezed on the diamond run, and East must return a club to prevent the squeeze from repeating to let declarer escape for down two. Of course, down four is also possible if declarer leads a club to the king.

I am bewildered by the Polish auction at the second table. It seems that 2 NT must have been Lebensohl, intending to pass the relay to 3 ; but the raise to 3 NT then is inconsistent. If this means, “I don’t like clubs,” it would defeat the purpose of the convention; so perhaps it was a misunderstanding (interpreting 2 NT as natural). In any event, 3 NT was just as hopeless with North declarer, and here the result was down four (declarer evidently led a club to the king).

I guess those who would overcall 2 NT with the South hand can claim a Pyrrhic victory, being set only about two tricks.

Comments for 3 NT

Jos van Kan: Nine tricks in notrump are about as likely as nine tricks in clubs. Partner [rates] to have five or six clubs since he doesn’t have a four-card major.

Tom Barry: I hate to play in a suit contract after a weak opening unless I have a distributional hand. If partner has a weak hand and [long clubs], he can pull it.

Scott Stearns: I probably would have bid 2 NT but can live with the double — except now that I’ve backed into this. :) I might as well play partner for 7+ points, as I normally do after a preempt.

Ed Davis: This will probably go down, however, 3 may also go down. While 3 may make more often, 3 NT will sometimes make when 3  goes down (e.g., opposite K-J-x Q-x J-x-x x-x-x-x-x). With the sizable game bonus at IMPs, 3 NT seems like the percentage call.

Yavuz Ovacik: Actually, I should have chosen the last answer; but then, that holds true for all your polls. :)

Tim Hemphill: If partner is really weak, we don’t have the points for game; but I’ll give it a shot.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Optimistic, but I can’t see a way to find out how many HCP North has.

Tze Cheow Sng: … Straightforward. My second choice is 3 ; but it may be too fancy, giving partner a problem [e.g., no diamond stopper] and forcing him to bid 4 .

Jojo Sarkar: Choice “None” is tantalizing now that partner has denied a four-card major; but I think that with both majors it would be [inferior] to overcall 2 NT.

Jacob Grabowski: Hmm. Seeing that double got 3 out of partner, I wish I’d bid 2 NT. Am I looking at a hand where all finesses are off? Oh well; let’s find out.

Comments for Pass

Kevin Lewis: This is only a little bit more than partner should expect.

Pieter Geerkens: Partner must…have 5+ clubs to have made this preference, and he might have bid 2 NT with 8-9 points and a diamond stopper; so 3 NT now seems [odds-against].

Michael Spurgeon: We will miss game only if North has a perfect maximum, whereas we could be down a bunch if North is near the minimum.

Willem Mevius: Having no idea about partner’s strength, I’ll just have to pass and hope for the best. … Playing Lebensohl [as I prefer], I would bid 3 NT because partner’s 3  then would show some values.

Brad Theurer: I agree with the double — 2 NT seems wrong with both four-card majors and only one sure diamond stopper. Now I’m stuck. If partner is maximum, we could be cold for 3 NT; if not, we’re probably high enough; so I’ll stay fixed.

Jouko Paganus: Too risky to continue. Support in a major suit is very unlikely…

Jeff Ruben: Holding both majors, I favor the double over 2 NT… Even if partner is maximum, there is no guarantee that 3 NT will make; and he may have a minimum. This hand shows the need for playing Lebensohl.

Olivier La Spada: Partner didn’t bid 2 NT; so if he has a diamond stopper, he is weak.

Imre Csiszar: Three notrump may get 600, but it also could be minus 800. The cue-bid may work if partner bids 3 NT only with a maximum, else a three-card major (which I pass), but this is not a standard treatment. Anyhow, it looks against the odds to try to improve the contract; 3  may well be the last makable or undoubled one.

Andrew Nitzberg: Mr. Genius is playing at the next table.

Damo Nair: This hand is good only if there is a fit, and I don’t think I should be looking for a 4-3 major fit with 3 . …

Ed Shapiro: … I doubled to get the majors into play, at the risk of a 3 bid.

Alon Amsel: Avoiding a catastrophe [in 3 NT] if partner doesn’t have at least J-x.

Richard Aronson: Yeah, I know the scoring; but I need partner to have the perfect hand to make 3 NT a good idea. … For every time he has x-x-x x-x J-x A-K-x-x-x-x, there’ll be a dozen like x-x 10-x-x x-x A-K-x-x-x-x (or worse, K-Q-x-x-x-x) where 3  is our last making spot.

Kees van Schenk Brill: Well, you win some, and you lose some. Partner would prefer to bid a four-card major — and even with 3=3=3=4 he might bid 2  — so he probably has 5+ clubs. Yeah, we could have 26 points and a game on, but it seems unlikely. …

Paul Flashenberg: This is where Lebensohl works well; but [without it], 3 NT is unappealing. Bidding a major makes no sense, so I’ll just live with what happens to 3 .

Lorand Dali: A game is only good if partner is maximum, so 3 is [likely] to be the best contract.

Lajos Linczmayer: My first impulse was to reject the double and bid 2 NT; but double is superior if partner has a weak hand with a major: (1)  J-x-x Q-x-x-x x-x x-x-x-x, or (2) J-x-x x-x-x-x-x x K-x-x-x. When I next raise to 3 , he passes with Hand 1, or bids game with Hand 2. Even in the actual case, double can be better when partner has a weak hand, e.g., x-x Q-x-x x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x.

Barry Rigal: My first bet failed; now I just hope to get out alive. Currently, we are going down in 100s — and I’d like to keep it that way!

Jeff Hand: Very likely, this is the last chance for a plus score — or the minimum minus.

Alan Kravetz: I would probably bid 2 NT also, but that shouldn’t be a choice; what’s done is done. Partner probably has five clubs. Where are the tricks coming from to make 3 NT?

Bharat Rao: Double is the best original call (to find a major-suit game); but over 3 , pass seems best. Even if we have 25-26 HCP, 3 NT may not make with the misfit.

Bill Powell: I’d have bid 2 NT if I knew partner would bid 3 . Maybe I should try 2 NT now? :)

Sandy Barnes: Live by the sword…

Rainer Herrmann: I do not see where the tricks will be coming from in 3 NT. This hand is better for suit play.

Keith Falkner: It will be difficult to win finesses in 3 NT, so even 26 HCP may be insufficient.

Karl Barth: I asked partner’s opinion and got it. Maybe next time he’ll have a better opinion.

Charles Blair: The zero in “0-9” frightens me. I wonder whether partner would have bid a three-card major instead of K-J-x-x-x.

Adam Saroyan: I don’t like my hand anymore and would be surprised to miss a game in notrump. I am not fond of my double either, but 2 NT seems even worse. If 3  were constructive [using Lebensohl], I would risk 3  now but still be worried.

Manuel Paulo: Partner should have 5+ clubs, which is likely to be our best strain opposite a weak hand.

Phil Andrews: I won’t answer “None” because it’s a cheap shot in a bidding challenge. … If partner could have x-x-x Q-x x-x A-K-x-x-x-x, or x-x-x x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x-x, I have a [tough] decision. In the first case, 3 NT may make (hold up diamonds then lose a club to West), but in the second case it will need about three revokes.

Jens Palsberg: I imagine partner has 3=3=2=5 shape and 5-6 HCP, in which case 3 NT has almost no chance.

Paul Inbona: Partner [might] have bid a major suit with three cards, so it looks like there is no game.

Comments for None (would bid 2 NT over 2 )

Kenneth Wanamaker: Over 2 NT, partner could ask for a four-card major with Stayman.

Len Vishnevsky: … Two notrump last time would have been on target. [If forced to double] I would pass now, as 3 NT is a gross overbid.

Kevin Podsiadlik: … If forced to double, I’d say a silent prayer and bid 3 NT, which could well be a disaster — but so could any other call, so I might as well go for the maximum upside. The  10 isn’t quite a second stopper, but it’s enough to alleviate concerns about wrong-siding the contract.

Jeff Goldsmith: If I doubled last time, I’d pass now — I made my bed, now sleep in it — but the Big Casino makes 2 NT more attractive.

Mark LaForge: [If forced to double] I would pass, as any bid over 3 vastly overstates my strength. Hideous Hog would never have bid this way. :) …

Rosalind Hengeveld: I prefer to describe my hand in one bid if I can. After 2 NT, we can still reach four of a major (though not two of a major). Double would be a better alternative if 3  were positive, i.e., with Lebensohl…

Josh Sinnett: Two notrump seems more appropriate (16-18, diamonds stopped). Partner has Stayman available…

Carsten Kofoed: A direct 2 NT shows both the strength and distribution, and A-10-x may block out East.

Bill Cubley: [If forced to double] I can’t bid 3 now, and 3 or 3 is ridiculous — but I always try to keep a sunny disposition, or I might become another Mr. Bennett. …

Nigel Guthrie: If I started with a double, I would now risk 3 NT now.

John R. Mayne: Some will pick “None” because they are biased by the follow-up, but more will avoid it because they see the auction as a tacit approval by the fine folks at PavCo. Those who endorse the double have poor planning skills; I suspect they are still paying people to prevent the Y2K bug from infecting their computers. Two notrump has easy, reasonable follow-ups. Double has painful, horrible follow-ups.

Bob Zorn: Two notrump is right on many levels — lots of ways to win, and I won’t have to guess over 3 . …

Gerben Dirksen: Double is better if your par result is 2 or 2 ; otherwise, 2 NT is better. At IMPs, I’d rather bet on reaching game than a [partscore]. …

Mauri Saastamoinen: If partner’s 3 shows 0-9 points, it tells me we are not using Lebensohl… which leaves only one option: Bid 2 NT over 2 . …

Roger Gibbons: Two notrump avoids this problem; but without the 10, I would prefer to double. …

Karen Walker: I guess those major suits convinced me to double on the last round, but it appears that I forgot that we could still find a major-suit fit after a 2 NT overcall.

Andrew Gumperz: … Given that we do not play Lebensohl, an original 2 NT overcall is better — at least partner will know when to bid game. Double only leads to a guessing game.

Amnon Harel: Too bad Lebensohl didn’t make it into the bidding system. Game is unlikely, and minus 1100 in 3 NT is [possible]. With these methods, I would pass 3  — or if I’m awake, bid 2 NT the first time…

Andrew de Sosa: Two notrump is just right on values and distribution. Double, followed by 3 over 3 , may right-side the contract if partner can bid 3 NT; but this hand is just not strong enough for that. …

Junaid Said: What can be simpler than 2 NT? This solves the problem of getting to game when partner does have values…

Richard Morse: It seems illogical to bid 3 NT after doubling with a [hand worth only] 2 NT last time; at best it’s a punt. Two notrump also gives a better feel for my shape.

Ronald Michaels: Even playing Lebensohl, I prefer 2 NT to double. Holding three diamonds, I’ll be able to duck to cut communication; and partner is still able to find a major fit. …

Nelson Ford: This hand is too weak to double then bid notrump, so I would bid 2 NT the first time.

Frans Buijsen: Even though this looks like a leftover choice, I definitely would bid 2 NT at the table. With Stayman available, there is no problem in finding a fit in a major.

Nikolay Demirev: I was quite irked by the bidding so far — then I saw the lifeboat at the stern.

Julian Wightwick: Another problem with double is that, if partner responds 2 or 2 , my raise to three would be a little pushy. With another point or two, it would be fine; and then I would also be happy to shoot out 3 NT over 3 .

Dale Freeman: With a king less, I might double and pass; with a king more, I would double and bid 3 NT. With this hand, I must plan ahead (3  is predictable) and overcall 2 NT.

Jim Munday: Double is quite reasonable, but the fix that I’m in is a good indication that 2 NT might have been better. Double allows us to play two of a major on occasion, but 2 NT provides a better structure when game is available. … A quick simulation for partner (0-9 HCP, no major) shows that game is unlikely; so if I did double, I would pass 3 . The choice between double and 2 NT is so close that, without the 10, I would double; with it, I would bid 2 NT.

Mark Reeve: Why aren’t we playing Lebensohl? … I would bid 2 NT on the first round; but [forced to double], I now have to pass as partner might have nothing.

Daniel Cecchelli: I think 2 NT does the hand more justice and is more descriptive than a double. If partner has anything, he can use Stayman, transfer to a major, or raise to 3 NT. …

Kristian Kjorstad: With Lebensohl unavailable, 2 NT over 2 would be my standout choice; A-10-x should be just about enough. [If forced to double] I would pass 3 .

Dirk Enthoven: Even 30 years ago, I would bid 2 NT over 2 , which leaves less guessing in the subsequent bidding. …

Julian Pottage: The 10 makes a 2 NT overcall clear-cut. Partner can still find a 4-4 major fit via a 3  inquiry.

Jonathan Steinberg: The auction clearly shows the problem with doubling 2 . An original 2 NT overcall must be the correct action; partner can use Stayman to find a 4-4 major fit if game is in the cards.

Tysen Streib: I would bid 2 NT despite having two four-card majors; partner can still transfer or use Stayman.

Brian Zietman: Why not show my specific strength? If partner has clubs, notrump is fine; and if we have a major-suit fit, we can still find it.

Steve Stein: An easy cop-out, but otherwise I’m pretty much stuck. After a 2 NT overcall, at least partner can make a fair judgment about game.

Madhukar Bapu: Two notrump describes this hand better, both in strength and shape…

Stephen McDevitt: Weird problem, but with Stayman around, overcalling 2 NT has to be a better plan than to double; A-10-x is a nice holding for notrump. Further, if I double, I think I’m obligated to raise partner’s 2  or 2  to three…

Comments for 3

Sandy McIlwain: Pass may be the winner; but with a vulnerable game at stake, I’ll encourage partner to bid 3 NT with a diamond piece.

Anant Rajani: With both majors, double is the right start; now I will ask for an [additional] diamond stopper to play 3 NT.

Bert Verheij: If partner has K-x, this will right-side a 3 NT contract.

Steve Boughey: Pass is crystal-ball gazing, hoping partner is closer to zero than 9 points; so I’ll make one further try. Surely, Lebensohl would be handy…

Carol Simon: [Hoping for] a 4-3 major fit, which will probably play better than a 5-2 club fit.

Nigel Marlow: To try and right-side the likely 3 NT contract.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 626), and on each problem only for the top four 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 return to Albuquerque, New Mexico, seven years ago — exactly to the day as I write, as the Spingold final was on August 3, 1997. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Oops, Mabel’s calling me for dinner. Wish we could hop the tram to Sandia Peak, but it looks like she’s brought home some Boston Chicken. Close enough! I’ll leave you with a few notable remarks:

Richard Stein: Not sure if “raising Cain” has anything to do with the location of this tournament, but I’m sure this poll will raise Cain around the globe. These problems were hard.

Georgiy Shevchenko: My bidding is still not very good, but I’m hoping to drive my country out of last place.

And he did! Georgiy’s respectable score of 47 moved Ukraine up five places.

Madhukar Bapu: Poor South. These hands were really nightmarish. I hope the coach broke the rules and bought South a drink.

Carter Mobley: I know the tournament! I played North opposite the serpent, versus Adam and Eve. We tried, like idiots, to take their shirts; but they ended up with our fig leaves instead. Quite embarrassing!

Analyses 7Y96 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tourin’ Poles Raze Cayne

© 2004 Richard Pavlicek