Attaining par on a golf course is not easy, unless you’re name is Jones, Snead, Nicklaus, Woods or Scheffler (spanning some generations) or in my case, virtually impossible. Having the same birthday (September 10) as Arnold Palmer would seem to be an asset, but the only par scores I can remember were at mini-golf, and even then it was rare, as I usually took three shots to get through the windmill.
But wait! I can honestly brag that I once had a hole in one!Unfortunately it was my left shoe when I stepped on a nail.
Attaining par on a bridge deal is not easy either, and that will be your task on the following six problems. You are shown the event in which the deal occurred and the vulnerability. Select what you think is the highest achievable score, assuming perfect bidding and double-dummy play by both sides. A plus sign (+) means the score goes to North-South; a minus sign (-) to East-West.
The first event is recent (December 2024) then they drift back in time, all the way to 1933, when the Augusta National course was opened by Bobby Jones. But don’t let a golf event bother you. My research shows Jones knew nothing about bridge, unless you count the “Sarazen Bridge” which was commemorated for a double eagle, not a doubled contract.
Is your game up to par? Test yourself before reading the solutions.
2024 Soloway Final: Fleisher vs Messika
Par score -200 -500 -600 -620 -630
2011 Spingold Round of 16: Cayne vs Schwartz
Par score -100 -130 -300 -600
1995 Vanderbilt Final: Pavlicek vs Steiner
Par score +100 +110 +120 +130 +140
Quit
1978 Rosenblum Final: Poland vs Brazil
Par score +600 +630 +1100 +1300 +1370
1955 Bermuda Bowl Final: Great Britain vs USA
Par score 0 +100 +110 +120
1933 Bridge Championship: America vs Britain
Par score -70 -90 -110 -120 -140
*Solvers did not have the benefit of multiple choice, which was added for this writeup.
For each of the six problems, the correct par score is awarded 10. Near misses are assigned lower awards per my discretion, which may be influenced by voting and comments. The average score of all entries was 47.13, and everyone who scored above average is ranked below. Ties are broken by date-time of entry (earliest wins).
Over the years people have asked whether computer aids, particularly double-dummy solvers, are allowed for my puzzles. Yes! Puzzles provide a mental challenge for enjoyment, so solving by any means you enjoy is fine. The only unfair practice would be to collaborate with other persons.
To facilitate analyses, at the right of each deal is a matrix of double-dummy results for each hand in each strain.
Four hearts by East-West obtains the highest score (-620) for a contract made, but North-South do better to sacrifice in 4 ×, which can be set only one (-200). But wait! If North-South will do that, then East (but not West) can declare 5 , however unlikely, but unbeatable (-600). North-South must then go a level higher in spades to achieve par.
Nicholas Greer: The highest making contract is 5 by East (West would go down with two heart ruffs) but North-South can sacrifice in 5 for a slightly better result.
Jim Munday: It looks like 5 by East is making; North gets squeezed, and a heart ruff loses the N-S trump trick. In 5 × North-South can take six spades and three clubs for a good sacrifice.
Richard Stein: East-West can bid 5 , but only East can make it (because of heart ruffs) over which North-South can sacrifice in 5 ×, winning nine tricks.
Stan Zhang: East makes 5 ; North can be squeezed in hearts and clubs after ruffing two spades (if South gets a ruff, simply run the Q). North-South can sacrifice in 5 × for -500.
Three notrump is cold for East-West (-600) but North-South should have none of that, since a sacrifice in 4 × is down only one (-100). But we’re not done yet… West (but not East) does better to declare 4 to achieve par, over which 5 × (-300) is too expensive.
Nicholas Greer: East-West make 3 NT, over which North-South have a cheap sacrifice in 4 ; but West can make 4 [for a better score].
Jim Munday: East-West make 3 NT (only) but North-South have an easy save in 4 × down one; however, 4 by West gets home by cashing the K then setting up spades with a ruffing hook.
Richard Stein: East-West bid their making 3 NT, but North-South dive into 4 which is down only one. West counters with 4 , which only makes from his side, preventing an opening lead through the A-Q.
Charles Blair: Minor-suit transfers, anyone?
Ah! I remember this event. Alas, the actual play records have been lost by the ACBL despite being recorded with ‘Pendergraph’ (a vugraph program created by Peter Pender). I do have the 64 hand records, which suffices for this purpose, but not our private scores for the match. I was East on this board (Bill Root was West) but cannot remember our auction or contract after almost 30 years.
The highest makable contract is 3 (+110) by North-South, but they also make 2 NT which scores 10 points more. East-West can win only seven tricks in hearts or diamonds, so there is no profitable sacrifice. Hardly a memorable deal, as my recollection indeed confirms.
Jim Munday: East-West can kill any squeeze to hold 3 to three, so North-South [do better] making 2 NT. East-West can’t make much…
Richard Stein: North-South can make 2 or 3 for +110 but also 2 NT (by leading to the K) which scores better. East-West can win only seven tricks in either red suit.
It is evident that North-South can make 6 (+1370) which today would be the par score. But this deal occurred before the 1987 scoring change, when nonvulnerable doubled sets were lenient (100 300 500 700 900…). Despite winning only five tricks in spades, East-West can sacrifice in 6 ×, down seven, cutting the North-South profit to +1300. In fact, East-West can do the same in 6 ×. Whether such actions resemble bridge is another story, which led to the scoring change.
Charles Blair: Aha! Nonvulnerable sacrifices were cheaper then.
Nicholas Greer: North-South make 6 for 1370, over which East-West can sacrifice in 6 — too expensive today but gaining 70 points back in 1978.
Richard Stein: This was before the scoring change. East-West can win five tricks in spades or diamonds [to lose less than] the makable slam in clubs for North-South.
Stan Zhang: South can hold East to five tricks in spades by clearing trumps quickly*, but [still a good sacrifice] under the old scoring. Diamonds also seems to make at most five tricks.
*Good observation! If South leads anything but a trump honor, East can escape with six tricks.
The scoring of this event was by total points (not IMPs) which means that honors count, which was overlooked by some solvers. Indeed, many duplicate players of today have never even played bridge where honors score, so consider this a history lesson. East’s 100 honors in spades affects the par score.
The highest makable contract is 3 by North or South, but East-West can do better by sacrificing in 3 ×, which is down one. Ostensibly this would make the par score +100, but East still scores his honors to achieve a rare incidence of par zero.
Nicholas Greer: North-South can make 3 , over which East-West can sacrifice in 3 × down one. Honors counted in 1955, so this results in a total score of 0.
Richard Stein: This was played at total points. East-West go to 3 (over 3 making by N-S) which is doubled and down one for 100, but East takes that right back by claiming honors.
No one got this right, which is not surprising considering the scarcity of references. Like the 1955 encounter, scoring was by total points but with a peculiar twist. Quoting from The Contract Bridge Championship of 1933 by Ely Culbertson, “The bonus for a partial score was agreed upon as the equivalent extra score to that successfully contracted for.” In other words, the partscore bonus for 2 NT was not the 50 points we are accustomed to, but the same as the trick score (70 points), hence bidding and making 2 NT scored 140.*
*While this method has merit (partscore value is proportional to its size) it was rightfully rejected in future duplicate scoring. Otherwise 2 NT would outscore 1 NT making two (80 + 30 overtrick = 110) so a raise could just be greedy (think matchpoints) rather than to invite game. Similarly, if you can make 3 , stopping in 2 would not be good enough. In short, obfuscating the strategy of duplicate bridge as we know it.
Comparing the billing of this match with the 1955 match, it seems Britain became ‘Great’ after 22 years, while America lost its expanse to become the USA. Hmm… I guess our regression is no surprise, as politicians have ensured its continuity.
I just hit a drive but can’t see the ball anywhere… [Crack] Oh no! It went backwards and fractured some guy’s car windshield. Now he’s angry and running toward me! No problemo! A few threatening swings of my driver sent him running back to his car. Sigh… If I had just applied this technique at the bridge table, I would never have lost a match. Bid over me, fella, and you’re airborne!
Speaking of which, the would-be airborne crew can finish it out:
Jim Munday: I’m sure my score will be great for golf (below par); not so much for bridge.
Charles Blair: No optimal 3-3 fit? Or a deal where everyone makes 1 ? Real life can be boring.
Richard Stein: The hidden historical test was a nice touch. Problem 4 illustrates why the scoring change was made, on account of the havoc wreaked by favorable vulnerability.
Nicholas Greer: After Problems 4 and 5, I was expecting a strange slam sacrifice on Problem 6 with pre-1935 scoring.
Well, I certainly gave you the “strange” part.
© 2025 Richard Pavlicek
by Richard Pavlicek by Richard Pavlicek