Analyses 8W08  Main Challenge

The Verdict in 48 Hours

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in September 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 usual there were many guesses, and the surfing theme made Hawaii (Honolulu, Maui, Diamond Head) the top pick. Other wrong guesses included Malibu and Newport Beach, California; Sydney, Australia; St. Vincent (Caribbean island); Monte Carlo, Monaco; and Deauville, France (right country!). On the weird side were various beaches in Florida. Read my lips: We have no mountains here! The funniest guess came from John R. Mayne, who was sure it was in Arizona (48th state) because he recognized Tucson Beach and the Phoenix Lighthouse.

The tournament was held in Biarritz, France, which is the surfing capital of Europe. Pictured at top is the Biarritz Lighthouse, which is also shown close up. The foaming surf is the Bay of Biscay, across from which you can see the Pyrenees Mountains, which separate France and Spain.

My clue to the year was in the title, a composition of two acclaimed American movies: The Verdict starring Paul Newman, and 48 Hours starring Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy. Both were released in 1982 (curiously on the same date), the year of the tournament.

The only respondent to catch the film reference was Barry Rigal, although four others guessed the venue (Biarritz 1982): Christian Osterman, David Harari, Patrice Piganeau and Kevin Podsiadlik. Not surprisingly, three of them are from France!

“Dominique, -nique, -nique…”

The background song Dominique was popularized in the 1960s by Soeur Sourire, the “Singing Nun” — not to be confused with Sally Field, the “Flying Nun” — but I must say, those cute epithets cast a pretty light on Catholicism, a stark contrast from the scandals today. I chose Dominique not only for its French lyrics but because Dominique Pilon was on the winning team. Christian Osterman also noted the song was “remixed for disco” in 1982, a coincidence I was unaware of. The song has always charmed me with its mysterious (to me) lyrics.

Another tidbit, noted by David Harari and Patrice Piganeau, is that a computer glitch delayed the scores in the Open Pairs (prior to the Rosenblum Cup). They weren’t sure for how long, but “The Verdict in 48 Hours” had another plausible significance.

Or Shoham Wins!

Participation this month was the highest ever (previous best was 1338 in March 2004) and curiously, the average score was the lowest ever (previous low was 44.62 in May 2003). The average score is not an indication of the quality of the field but merely reflects the voting diversity and my decisions with the awards. Most problems were close, and no choice drew a majority vote. Further, Problems 5 and 6 offered eight choices each, spreading out the voting even more.

In the overall leaderboard, Jorge Castanheira (Portugal) now claims the top spot with a 56.50 average, but only by tiebreaker over David Caprera (US). Next in line are Damo Nair (US) with 56.25; and Jim Bauch (US) with 55.75. Following with 55.50 are Fadi Fattouche (Lebanon); Jean-Christophe Clement (France); and Michel Mayeur (France).

Two new countries were added this month, which brings the total to 91 (including unofficial countries). Welcome to Mateo Cobos of Ecuador (EC) and Deborah Fletcher of Trinidad & Tobago (TT).

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

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

Biarritz, France was the site of the Rosenblum Cup, the premier event of the 1982 World Championships. This second-quadrennial edition (inaugurated 1978 in New Orleans) drew 129 teams. A preliminary round of short matches (four-way with three survivors) cut the field to 96, which was divided into three 32-team knockout brackets. Topping their respective bracket and advancing to the semifinals were France, Spain and USA (Hamman).

Teams that lost in the knockout were merged into a repechage Swiss for a second chance. (This complex format was designed to keep more teams in contention and playing.) The winner was USA (Martel), which became the fourth semifinalist.

The conditions of contest required the USA teams to meet in the semifinals to ensure an international final. This proved to be lopsided as Martel annihilated Hamman, 189-66 over 80 boards. (Hamman’s squad was notably weakened by sponsor Jim Chew.) In the European encounter, France defeated Spain, 137-98. Therefore, USA (Martel) would meet France in the 80-board final.

Playing for France (pictured L-R) were Albert Faigenbaum, Dominique Pilon, Michael Lebel and Philippe Soulet. Playing for USA were Chip Martel, Lew Stansby, Peter Pender, Hugh Ross, Ed Manfield and Kit Woolsey. USA was the clear favorite, not only because Martel beat Hamman but because earlier in the tournament Martel-Stansby won the Open Pairs.

Alas, destiny looked the other way, as France prevailed 176-161 in a hard-fought match.

So pull up a chair, and compare your bidding with the world’s best of 1982.

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 1

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 2	East Pass Pass	South 2 ?	Q 3 9 6 A 8 3 A Q 7 5 3 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	477	34
2	8	169	12
2 NT	7	198	14
3 NT	5	319	23
3	4	215	15
3	3	33	2

Where to play? The auction so far leaves doubt as to strain (spades, notrump or clubs) and level. Is this hand strong enough to force to game? Certainly moot, so top priority should be given to finding the right strain, and so it was by our respondents.

Bidding the fourth suit (3 ) is noncommittal, and partner’s next bid will hopefully resolve the issue. Most respondents intended to pass 3 NT, or support spades if partner bids 3 or 3 . Over 4 , opinions were mixed between a belated preference to 4 and a 4 control-bid — the latter being my choice, as the well-placed values suggest a club slam is not far off, and there is no great concern about reaching 5 instead of 4 .

Nonforcing rebids are slightly defective: 2 suggests a third spade; 2 NT suggests a different diamond holding (usually secondary or positional honors); and 3 suggests a better suit with less outside. One factor in favor of these choices is being nonvulnerable, which does not predicate stretching for game. Among them, I prefer 2 — if you’re going to stop below game, you might as well stop as low as possible to ensure a plus score. For the same reason, I like 3 least, as it wouldn’t be a great surprise to go down and find that 4 was made at the other table.

The remaining options (3 and 3 NT) surely overstate the desire for the named strain, besides being slight overbids. The lack of suit texture suggests that if you must choose the strain, it is more sensible to invite game than to force. Further, failure to limit your hand could have dire consequences if partner has slam aspirations and bids beyond game.

Here’s what happened in Biarritz:

West deals	A K 10 4 2		West	North	East	South
None vul	K J 5 3		Ross	Lebel	Pender	Soulet
	K		Pass	1	Pass	2
	9 8 4		Pass	2	Pass	3
9		J 8 7 6 5	Pass	3	Pass	4
Q 10 8 4 2		A 7	Pass	Pass	Pass
J 10 9 5 4		Q 7 6 2
K J		10 6
	Q 3
	9 6
	A 8 3
	A Q 7 5 3 2

France N-S	USA (Martel) N-S	West	North	East	South
4 North	4 North	Faigenbaum	Stansby	Pilon	Martel
Down 1 -50	Down 1 -50	Pass	1	Pass	2
		Pass	2	Pass	2
No swing		Pass	4	Pass	Pass
		Pass

At the first table, Soulet followed our consensus and bid the fourth suit. This still left Lebel a problem, and he bid 3 to suggest a good suit (3 NT and 4 are also reasonable options) which made it easy for Pilon to bid 4 . The contract was fair but doomed by a bad trump break. Perhaps Lebel should have put more value into his blank K and tried 3 NT — at least that’s easy to see as an armchair quarterback.

At the second table, Martel’s 2 bid was forcing (2-over-1 game force) but its essence (choosing to support spades) is analogous to our problem. This quickly led to the same contract, and trumps didn’t break at this table either. Down one is good bridge — or at least a push.

Comments for 3

Or Shoham: …Three notrump should play from partner’s side in case he has [ Q-x] or poor hearts. If he rebids spades, I will try 4 . …

Damo Nair: A wide-ranging bid. If North says 3 NT, I’ll stay; if he says 3 or 3 , I’ll bid 4 .

Olle Morell: I want partner to declare 3 NT; and if he doesn’t, I will support spades.

Jonathan Goldberg: At least this will get 3 NT played from the right side. [If playing] two-over-one game forcing, I would bid 2 NT to allow partner to show a club piece. As it is, we’re heading toward missing a club slam.

Bas Lodder: If partner isn’t able to bid 3 NT, we belong in a trump contract; and he will tell me whether it will be spades or clubs.

Ted Ying: With 12 HCP, I’m willing to force to game. Two notrump and 3 are both passable options. If partner can’t bid 3 NT, I’ll raise [spades] and play a 5-2 fit (or 6-2 if lucky).

Ed Barnes: A friend objected that this “endplays partner”; well, that’s the idea. I want partner to strain to bid 3 NT; to rebid a good spade suit; or to support clubs. …

Jess Cohen: … This shows game-going values, and more clubs than diamonds. If partner rebids a major, I will bid 4 . I will pass 3 NT and hope clubs will set up, and the Q is an entry. …

Philippe Westreich: This gives partner a chance to show further shape, e.g., a six-card spade suit, and also may protect his heart holding if he declares 3 NT.

Jeff Tang: Hoping partner bids 3 NT with K-J or Q-x.

Nigel Marlow: I want to be in game; but which? Three notrump seems likeliest, best played by North to protect a possible Q-x.

Lawrence Cheetham: Allows 3 NT with a protected honor, as well as partner to bid out his pattern; e.g., 3 to show 6-4…

Petko Boukov: Partner could have [additional shape] then 4 may be best. … I don’t want to be in 3 NT with my lonely A.

Arne Jordestedt: Bidding the fourth suit leaves the door open for 3 NT, 4 , 5 or 6 .

Erwin Witteveen: I would prefer 3 NT to be played from partner’s side. Besides, he might have 5=4=1=3 shape, and we’d better play in 5 or 6 . If he bids 3 , this is not a notrump hand; and I guess we better play a game in the 5-2 [spade] fit.

Oleg Rubinchik: I would prefer to play 3 NT from partner’s hand to protect his possible Q-x and heart stopper. The real question: If partner repeats one of his majors, should I bid 4 or show a single diamond stopper with 3 NT?

Brian Ross: This has positional advantages for 3 NT, and even better “pass the buck” advantages.

James Hudson: Groping for the right strain. I don’t want to overstate clubs (a bid of 2 or 3 would be better than 3 ).

Ivan Kolev: … Over 3 NT, I pass; otherwise, I bid 4 .

John R. Mayne: … I will push to game, and I want to hear more from partner. The aces in the minors are gold for a spade contract; I expect we’ll get to 4 , but there are still detours available.

Pekka Niemisto: This will right-side the contract if partner has Q-x, and is also correct if partner supports clubs.

Sven Neirynck: I have three working cards: Q and two aces, which should be enough for game (likely 3 NT or 4 ). Partner may have the Q and bid 3 NT.

Mike Kerr: Partner should declare 3 NT to protect Q-x.

Paul Flashenberg: An awkward problem. With a partial misfit, this hand is marginal to force to game; however, any other action is very conservative. I hope partner can do something intelligent.

Why should you be so lucky? For most partners, “doing something intelligent” would be to give up bridge.

Ciaran Coyne: Close between this and 3 (invitational), but I can’t stomach the thought of 3 being passed. Maybe partner will oblige with a 4 bid.

Jyrki Lahtonen: I want to force to game without bypassing or wrong-siding 3 NT. If partner doesn’t bid 3 NT, I will show my spade support next.

Simon Cheung: A slight overbid but quite justified by the quality of HCP and the sixth club. Three notrump is much better played from opener’s side when he has a positional stopper like Q-x. … This also keeps 4 in the picture.

Luigi Alibrando: I think 3 NT is the spot, but I won’t bid it when partner might have Q-x… If partner bids 3 , showing 6-4, even better.

Jean-Christophe Clement: At IMPs, I want to be in game (probably 3 NT). At matchpoints, my choice would be 2 NT.

Barry Goren: Forced, leaving the door open to play spades as well. Three notrump is too committal and wrong-sided; 3 is nonforcing.

Manuel Paulo: I want to create a game force. Several light opening hands, such as A-J-x-x-x A-10-x-x K-x x-x, A-K-x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x-x x, or K-J-x-x-x A-J-x-x x K-x-x, can be enough to win 3 NT, 4 or 5 , respectively.

Jack Brawner: Trying to endplay partner into playing 3 NT (even with a partial diamond stopper) surely must be better. I prefer not to have a red suit led [through partner’s hand].

Peter Schwartz: A tough choice between an aggressive 3 and a conservative 2 , which actually would depend on who I was playing with.

David Turner: Hoping partner can bid 3 NT, which I’ll pass. Over 4 , I’ll bid 4 ; over 3 , 3 ; and over 3 , 4 .

Dale Rudrum: I’m too strong for 2 or 2 NT; 3 is not my hand; and 3 NT is solo-bridge, especially as notrump will probably play better from partner’s hand. I would like to bid 3 forcing…but 3 is hardly worse…

Sven Pride: If partner has Q-x, I want to play 3 NT from his side; otherwise, I’m happy in 4 .

Hamish Brown: Whether this is natural or fourth suit forcing, we won’t miss 3 NT (probably right on most hands) and may find partner with three clubs and enough for slam.

Richard Aronson: At IMPs, it is unlikely we want to stay out of game (3 NT, 4 or 5 ). Two spades and 3 are underbids; 3 is too committal; and notrump bids wrong-side the contract if partner has, say, Q-x. This allows partner to bid 3 NT holding, say, A-K-J-x-x K-Q-x-x Q-x x-x (I’ll pass); or 3 with 5-5 in the majors (I’ll bid 3 , probably playing 4 ); or even 4 with 5=4=1=3 shape, leading to 5 or 6 .

Barry Rigal: Two spades on only two would mislead partner (unless we agreed this to be allowable). Three clubs might get 3 from partner with Q-x-x, leading to 3 NT being declared from the wrong side — which is why I don’t go for 2 NT now.

David Matthews: Partner might be 5=4=3=1 and bid 3 NT. If he rebids hearts, I will jump to 4 . Five clubs is not out of the equation either…

Dima Nikolenkov: I will follow with 3 over 3 ; pass 3 NT; and 4 over 4 .

Kerry Lafferty: … Partner’s next bid should pinpoint his distribution. I’m not worried about 3 getting us too high since partner’s options are limited and should be descriptive enough to let me set the contract.

Vlastimil Lev: Leaves all possible games open; I plan to bid 3 over 3 , or pass 3 NT.

Julian Wightwick: I’ll try 3 NT over 3 , or raise 3 to four. Second choice is a quiet 2 , since we are nonvulnerable.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: As 3 is nonforcing, and I want to force to game, this will find the best game and maybe get 3 NT in partner’s hand when he has Q-x.

Richard Morse: Stopping [short of game] seems unduly pessimistic. This is not perfect but allows me to bid 3 NT over 3 ; push 3 to four; and for 3 NT to be played the right way up when partner has Q-x-x.

Madhukar Bapu: Three notrump appears the likely contract, and this may allow it to be played from the right side. … If partner bids 4 , I will bid 4 ; if he bids 4 , I will bid 5 .

John Reardon: I prefer to overbid with a good chance of reaching the best game, than to underbid and misdescribe my hand.

Pieter Geerkens: We belong in notrump if partner has minor-suit cards; and 4 otherwise. How can it be wrong to ask for more information? After all, a slam in clubs is still possible.

Carlos Dabezies: … Partner should bid 3 NT with some help in diamonds. Over 3 , I will bid 3 ; over 3 , I will raise to 4 .

Sebastien Louveaux: Probing for more information — always a good investment in bidding contests. :)

Howard Byers: I’m betting this will play better in a major than in notrump. My clubs are long but low in punch, so with only one diamond stopper…I will see if partner can bid 3 NT…

Lajos Linczmayer: If partner bids 3 , e.g., A-K-J-x-x K-J-10-x x-x x-x, or A-K-x-x-x-x A-K-Q-x x x-x, I bid 4 ; if he bids 3 NT, e.g., J-x-x-x-x K-Q-x-x K-x K-x, I pass; and if he bids 4 , we will play a club game or slam (e.g., A-K-J-x-x A-x-x-x x K-x-x).

John Hoffman: The cheapest forcing bid. I will raise 3 to 4 ; or bid 3 NT over 3 .

Serge Bondar: Anything [nonforcing] should be out of the question, since there is about an 80-percent chance that N-S have a game. … Partner may bid 3 NT with Q-x-(x) or J-x-(x). I still can bid 3 NT over 3 ; but more importantly, I can raise to 4 if partner [bids] 3 .

Geoff Morris: Looking for help in diamonds for notrump; otherwise, I’ll return to spades.

Charlotte Vine: To see if partner has 5-5 shape to play in 4 ; [else probably] 3 NT.

Justin Lall: Shows a game-forcing hand with no clear direction. Hopefully, partner will make a descriptive bid and might even find a 3 NT call with Q-x — or maybe I’m dreaming. :) Four spades could easily be the right spot.

Comments for 2

Bill Daly: This hand looks like a good one for caution.

Jouko Paganus: I hope partner is strong enough for further action, and he may continue [even with a minimum] if he has the K. Missing a good game is unlikely if partner passes.

Chuck Henke: Spades looks like the place to play unless partner bids 3 next.

Nigel Guthrie: … This (or 3 ) is an underbid; and 3 is an overbid. Two notrump works only if partner has club support; and anyway, would partner raise to the [excellent] game with A-x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x K-x?

Carsten Kofoed: If partner passes and we miss a game, it’s nonvulnerable. If he bids 3 , I’ll get back in business with 4 .

Chris Willenken: This is an underbid, but it will make if partner passes — something that cannot be said for any other choice — and allow us room to reach the right game if partner has enough to continue. I think that any game I guess to bid will be down over half of the time, and 3 won’t leave us enough room to figure out the right strain.

Jacco Hop: … Partner might have opened light with both majors, so caution is desirable; and notrump might play better from partner’s side.

Bob Boudreau: Three diamonds would be a game force, and I’m not sure I want to be there unless partner can make another bid over this preference.

Chuck Lamprey: Since this is nonforcing, it seems so obvious that I wonder what I’m missing. I’m not wrong-siding the notrump; or playing in 3 opposite a singleton; and I have easy continuations over anything partner can throw at me. Most of my partners like to play this bid as forcing, but this hand is the showcase for the nonforcing treatment.

Gerald Cohen: Nonforcing, but I doubt game is better than a favorable split (or two) and a finesse (or two) if partner passes. (Vulnerable I would bid 3 .) Two notrump is also nonforcing but if passed [may] be a terrible partscore.

John Schuler: … With partner holding at least nine cards in the majors, both 2 NT and 3 are unappealing.

Anthony Golding: I’ve already shown 11+ points according to the system notes, so the question is whether to show the sixth club or give a preference. With Q-x, I prefer the latter.

Michael Dimich: If North has a bad opening, we are high enough; with a good opening, another call is forthcoming.

Danny Kleinman: Until I learn that the hands fit or mesh better than it seems so far, I cannot commit to game by bidding 3 or jumping; and my diamond holding is wrong for 2 NT. Partner should not play me for more than a doubleton [honor] in spades…

Rosalind Hengeveld: This suggests three-card support, of course, but is as flexible as anything. Even if officially nonforcing, it will seldom be passed. I can’t much stomach any of the other bids listed, though none of them really looks like a filler — take that as a compliment for this problem.

Mark Abraham: Partner has both majors, so an 11-count opening would be no surprise. I have no intermediates, no evidence of a fit, and no clearly correct stronger move. This protects our plus score if partner passes… [Only] if we respond two over one on all spurious 10-counts would I need to try 2 NT now to sound a little more progressive.

Don Hinchey: I’m a trifle heavy for this, but a trifle light for more aggressive action. Partners seldom complain when you have a little extra.

Stephen Fischer: Most of my points are working, but there could still be a shortage of tricks opposite a minimum opener. Partner’s next bid should help, if it comes.

Bill Powell: Possibly an underbid, but 5-5 in the majors has been known to induce light openings.

Alon Amsel: If partner has 5=4=3=1 shape, we’re not going anywhere [if he’s minimum].

Comments for 2 NT

Charles Blair: I hope partner looks at his clubs before making the final decision.

Gerald Murphy: I cannot force to game with this hand — no fit and poor cards. … If partner bids 3 , I will bid 3 .

Sandy McIlwain: Long suit and nice aces; but poor texture and no fit. This leaves room for partner to make a natural call, and still get to any game that may be on.

Bill George: … Partner needs a helping hand to make 3 NT. If partner bids 3 , I’ll raise to four.

Joel Singer: This may wrong-side notrump; but I do have a reasonably balanced hand with a diamond stopper, and it allows partner to make a descriptive bid at the three-level.

Michael Mayer: [If North bids again], I want to play in 3 NT, 4 or game+ in clubs. If North has the perfect hand (e.g., A-K-x-x-x A-x-x-x x K-x-x), 6 is cold, and 7 is very frosty.

Gareth Birdsall: Three spades and 3 NT are liable to work particularly badly — reaching the wrong game when there may even be a slam in clubs. Two spades is likely to be best if opening bids may be shaded.

Adam Saroyan: Just about right on strength, and allows for more natural bidding… We might be playing notrump from the wrong side, but 3 is just too unilateral. …

John Chen: I will need club support [or extra strength] to make 3 NT on a diamond lead.

Kieran Dyke: An underbid, but partner won’t strain to pass; and a distribution rebid might [locate a better] strain.

Frank Ryck: My partners typically have 11-12 HCP and a stiff club on this auction — too many bad memories of hopeless 3 NT contracts to do it again!

Scott Jeggle: Opponents could run diamonds if partner has a minimum…and we can’t run off nine winners.

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 2

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North Pass 1 NT	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	A Q J 8 7 5 K 6 4 K Q J 5

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	635	45
2 NT	9	130	9
2	8	120	9
2	6	487	35
3 NT	3	15	1
3	2	13	1
Pass	1	11	1

Underbid or overbid? That’s the issue here, as the obvious choice is between a conservative 2 and a game invitation with 2 NT or 3 . A pertinent consideration is how to evaluate a singleton king, but I’m not going to stir up a debate on hand evaluation. Perhaps the deciding factor is being vulnerable at IMPs, which suggests going long. The consensus clearly favored an aggressive move, and so do I. At least we can always reflect that “down one is good bridge” compared to missing a vulnerable game.

Of the aggressive actions, I slightly prefer 2 NT to 3 , as I can see two disadvantages in spades: (1) There could be four top losers (e.g., K-x Q-J-x Q-J-x-x 10-x-x-x) and (2) there could be an enemy club ruff (e.g., K-x A-x-x Q-x-x-x x-x-x-x). As against this, I can see only one likely defect in notrump: Partner having a weak diamond holding — but even then, he might steal the game when the lead is from the A.

Another possibility is to compromise with an off-beat 2 . This has more merit than the voting would suggest; and the more I think about it, the better it seems. You’ll be well-placed whenever partner bids again, and it might allow reaching a heart contract that would be shut out if you rebid spades (e.g., x Q-J-10-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x). Of course, the main concern is that partner may pass; but even that could be a blessing opposite x Q-x-x A-x-x-x 10-x-x-x-x.

The remaining options (Pass, 3 and 3 NT) were offered mainly as fillers. Pass probably deserves the “Designated Dummy Award,” though it did serve to clarify that 1 NT is nonforcing. Three clubs (game force) is a gross overbid; as is 3 NT, but I always aim to please the Hamman’s Rule fanatics.

Here’s what happened in Biarritz:

West deals	9 3		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	J 10 9 7		Ross	Faigenbaum	Pender	Pilon
	A J 9 8 7 4		Pass	Pass	Pass	1
	2		Pass	1 NT	Pass	3
4 2		K 10 6	Pass	4	Pass	Pass
A 8 3 2		Q 5	Pass
Q 5 2		10 6 3
A 7 6 3		K 10 9 8 4
	A Q J 8 7 5
	K 6 4
	K
	Q J 5

France N-S	USA (Martel) N-S	West	North	East	South
4 South	2 South	Soulet	Stansby	Lebel	Martel
Made 4 +620	Made 4 +170	Pass	Pass	Pass	1
		Pass	1 NT	Pass	2
France +10 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

The same problem arose at both tables: Pilon took the high road, and Martel the low road. Looking at only the N-S hands, I’d definitely prefer Martel’s view; and even looking at four hands, Martel was right with best defense (trump lead). Alas, what’s right on paper means little in practice, as Pilon made his game. Ross led a diamond to the king; then won the Q with the ace and switched to a low heart (nothing mattered after the lead) — 10 IMPs to France.

The deal shows another case where spades plays better than notrump, which causes me to reflect on my choice to bid 2 NT. Four spades might still be reached if North bids 3 , and South 3 ; but this is moot. Further, on this sequence West would never lead a diamond and probably find the killing trump lead.

Comments for 3

Damo Nair: Vulnerable, push! Values in any suit in North’s hand could ignite 4 , I think.

Olle Morell: Can’t I bid 2 spades? :) Vulnerable at IMPs, I do not dare bid two. As usual, I wish we played a strong club, then this bid would be automatic.

Bas Lodder: With this vulnerability at IMPs, 4 down one is easier to accept than 2 making four; partner needs quite a perfect hand, though.

Ted Ying: A little light (should have 16-18, and a singleton king doesn’t carry full weight); but at IMPs, I want to try to get to the red game if possible.

Jess Cohen: I need a sprightly 9 points from partner, such as x-x A-x-x Q-x-x-x K-x-x-x, to make game pretty certain. With good playing potential, I certainly want to make a strong try for game at IMPs, and I steer toward spades because of diamond shortage.

Jeff Tang: East-West are passed hands, so I’ll be more aggressive.

Jouko Paganus: I do not want to miss a vulnerable game, even with the slight risk going down in 3 .

Fraser Rew: Close between this and 2 , but these bids seem to work out.

Bud Hinckley: I know you want me to stay low and rebid only 2 ; but I can’t! Partner could hold crap like K-x Q-J-x x-x-x-x 10-x-x-x, and we’re still fairly safe in 3 .

Erwin Witteveen: Since 10-x Q-J-x x-x-x-x K-x-x-x is enough for a [fair] chance in 4 , I can’t afford to bid only 2 . I’d love to bid 2 NT, but only if it showed a hand like this with six good spades. …

Oleg Rubinchik: I don’t feel 2 NT is a good compromise for a 2 spade bid. My actual decision might be based on the match, or tournament position, or partner’s and opponents’ aggressiveness; but by default, vulnerable at IMPs, I choose the overbid.

James Hudson: A close choice between 3 and 2 NT. I may need trump control while setting up tricks in the side suits.

Facundo Chamut: Just to torture a cliche, I hear they pay a bonus for bid and made games.

Sandy Barnes: An overbid, but 2 is just too weak sounding. Notrump calls are wrong in shape…; 2 is an interesting choice, but the spades are too good…

Djordje Jankovic: We might be in game range if North is maximum, and 2 is too much of a stop signal. …

Robin Zigmond: A little pushy perhaps, but then we are vulnerable at IMPs.

Jack Brawner: Nothing is perfect, but this seems most likely to find the best spot. At the table, there was a 6-3 heart fit, right?

Trevor Pepper: I like rebidding a good six-card major; and half way between 2 and 3 , I feel optimistic.

Sandy McIlwain: It’s tempting to bid 2 to let partner play too, but this is the most descriptive bid available.

Bill George: My K will be useful if partner bids 3 NT.

Dean Swallow: Vulnerable, I must try for game. Partner may have a couple of spades, and a couple of fitting honors.

Tim Hemphill: This is my chance to convey strength, while giving partner the option of passing.

Paulino Correa: I would like partner to bid again: 4 if he has a pair of spades and some strength, or 3 NT. In the latter case, my K may be quite worthy.

John Schuler: I’ll go with the value bid, although 2 NT could work out very well. This is why I play a big-club system.

Barry Rigal: Too good for 2 . Two notrump is tempting, I admit, but spades is clearly better facing a hand with one weak suit, e.g., 10-x A-Q-x-x-x x-x-x K-x-x.

Gillian Paty: Optimistic with so many losers, but 2 is an underbid. I surely don’t want to miss a vulnerable game.

Kerry Lafferty: Most descriptive. I’m not afraid of missing game, since I expect partner to go on with the slightest excuse, vulnerable at IMPs.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Invitational with good spades. My K is dubious; but if partner has a maximum, he will usually have diamond values, and it will pull its weight.

Irina Dimitrova: Inviting game in 4 or 3 NT…but allowing partner to pass with a minimum.

Pieter Geerkens: I want to be in game opposite a doubleton spade and anything more than a pair of kings, so I’ll invite partner to the dance. Since I’m playing the hand, partner won’t stretch too much. :)

Ron Sperber: This is close since the K may be worthless, but partner [would hardly] bid again over 2 with a hand like x-x A-x-x Q-x-x-x K-x-x-x; thus, I have to be aggressive, especially vulnerable at IMPs.

Martin Harris: I hate to miss vulnerable games, and this is the direct way to suggest the most likely spot… When I bid 2 on this type of hand, partner has a nasty habit of passing.

Dirk Enthoven: At IMPs, I’d rather be safe than sorry; so I’ll show my sixth spade and coins. I’ll pass 3 NT.

Jordan Chodorow: N-S vulnerable. Need I say more? … If the question is whether this hand is good enough, it is at these conditions.

Gary Sikon: A six-loser hand and a good six-card spade suit.

Howard Liu: I don’t want to be in notrump due to potential trouble in diamonds. If partner has two spades and [more than a minimum], we have 4 ; so I have to take a shot.

Daniel Miller: … This should be playable in 4 opposite as little as x-x or a stiff 10. Two spades is a distinct underbid, and 2 NT a distortion.

Jeff Ruben: Seems clear-cut. Even with the stiff king, it’s too good for 2 ; and not good enough for a jump shift.

Gabriel Ip: The extra spade and shapely 16-count warrant a jump. Two clubs or 3 is playing with fire; partner may support strongly with 1=4=3=5 or the like. If partner is maximum (e.g., K-x Q-J-x-x x-x-x-x K-x-x) a spade game is on.

Andrew de Sosa: Straightforward value bid. Notrump could be a superior spot, but I’ll leave that up to partner to decide.

Chuck Arthur: This is textbookish, although perhaps not a hand you would choose to include in a textbook. :)

Ulrich Nell: Diamonds represent a serious notrump hazard. If partner has diamonds covered, clubs or hearts may be the problem; with honors in all three suits, partner can say so.

Gordon Bower: Seems like a textbook call. I just want partner to choose between 3 , 3 NT and 4 , based on how many spades he has and whether he has the top of his range.

Bill Powell: Without gadgetry, this is the best I can do.

Mike Harney: I’m comfortable playing 3 even if partner has next to nothing — challenge me!

Willem Mevius: … I need quite a bit from partner for game; but if I bid only 2 , that’s most likely going to be the final contract.

Justin Lall: Admittedly, a junky 16; but my suit is fair; and who knows what the K is worth? A Kokishesque 2 has some appeal, but it’s not for me.

Comments for 2 NT

Jonathan Goldberg: Vulnerable at IMPs, I [won’t] take the underbid of 2 or the somewhat misdirected 3 . If partner can bid again, he can show secondary spades on the way to 3 NT. If not, I hope he makes it.

Nigel Marlow: I want to invite game; but with my soft values, 3 NT seems a likely better spot than 4 .

Michael G. Phillips: I doubt there will be much support for this, but I’m quite happy with the singleton honor.

Petko Boukov: Time to show some discipline. Three notrump would suggest 18-19 HCP; and 2 , a weaker hand.

Rai Osborne: Maybe my K will be worth something toward a vulnerable game. Nonvulnerable, I’d bid 2 .

Dale Freeman: I think I am too good for 2 , and 3 may miss 4 .

John R. Mayne: This hand is better for notrump than suit play, and it looks like 18-balanced to me. (Sometimes I don’t clean my glasses.)

Nigel Guthrie: Two spades and 3 are OK; but 2 NT seems best. The singleton king may not be such a liability in notrump.

Charles Blair: I hope partner looks at his spades before making the final decision.

Carsten Kofoed: Game is still possible, and my spade suit is useful in notrump. This keeps other contracts open as well.

Mike Kerr: I need to be pushy, vulnerable at IMPs.

Ciaran Coyne: Two spades seems too little, vulnerable, with a good six-card suit; and soft values suggest that notrump may be best.

Fedor Goumans: This does not exclude 4 as a final contract, as opposed to 3 .

Richard Aronson: … I pick this over 3 . Give partner x-x Q-x-x Q-J-x-x K-x-x-x, and 3 NT is excellent, and 4 isn’t; give him the major-suit 10s, and 3 NT is much better than excellent.

Anthony Golding: Opposite anything other than a suitable maximum, a spade game is a long way off; but a middling hand, e.g., x-x Q-10-x Q-J-x-x K-x-x-x, gives 3 NT pretty useful chances.

Martin Bootsma: I feel I have just too much to pass or bid 2 . As my hand has a lot of soft values…, 3 NT will likely be [better] than 4 .

Julian Wightwick: Aggressive; but we are vulnerable at IMPs, and 4 seems a long way off with my soft values.

Richard Morse: A bit lopsided; but if partner can show anything over this, I should be well-placed.

Mark Abraham: … Since x-x Q-10-x-x J-10-x-x K-x-x might make a game, I need to make a game try at least. Two clubs is reasonable to fish for a heart contract, planning to rebid 2 over 2 ; but this is less attractive with partner a passed hand.

Leonard Helfgott: Since 1 NT is nonforcing, my choice with 16 HCP is between 3 and 2 NT; and I’ll go for the latter with soft values and a stiff king.

Serge Bondar: … With a close choice between 2 NT and 3 to invite game, I prefer 2 NT since I have…9 HCP outside of spades. …

Alon Amsel: Partner knows I’m unbalanced, else I would have opened 1 NT. Moreover, my singleton king [has more value] in notrump than a trump contract.

Comments for 2

Ed Barnes: Most flexible… Partner is only likely to pass with minimum values and spade shortage.

Rainer Herrmann: Should partner pass, I may well be in the best contract available; and if bids again, I am much better placed than after any other rebid. …

Pekka Niemisto: This finds the right contract if partner has 5+ hearts; the alternative of 3 is inflexible.

Nick Krnjevic: I’m a fraction too good for 2 , and this gives partner a chance to bid a welcome 2 .

Jyrki Lahtonen: Yuck. I have some potential for game, and some potential for a misfit. Let’s go slowly.

Simon Cheung: Two spades is an underbid, and 3 is an overbid. This compromise allows an accurate description of my strength and distribution (by rebidding 3 ) should partner take another bid. This cheap bid has the additional advantage of allowing partner to introduce hearts at two level.

Chris Willenken: Easy. The spades and hand are too weak for 3 , and this might get us to hearts. If partner passes, 2 will probably be inferior to 2 — but superior to 3 .

Steve Moese: Planning to bid spades again at my next turn to show extras, but insufficient for 3 directly. I expect a pass by partner may allow us to find a plus score that others will miss.

Bob Boudreau: This leaves the most options; I can bid 2 over 2 ; 3 over 2 ; and even 3 over 3 .

Ernie Szavay: Over 2 , I’ll bid 4 ; over 2 , 3 ; over 3 , 3 ; over 2 , 2 ; and over pass — oh well, 2 IMPs away.

Ole Normolle: … Maybe this will allow us to reach 4 . If partner bids 2 , I will bid 2 .

John Kozero: A passed partner could have bid more aggressively if he had anything to brag about, so I’ll tread lightly with 2 . I’m fishing for a 2 call, which I’ll raise to three; ditto for 2 NT.

Han Peters: This should work out better than 3 (the only alternative, in my opinion) even if partner passes. Over 2 , I will bid 2 ; over 2 , 4 ; and over 2 , 3 .

Dick Yuen: If partner bids 2 , I can bid 2 ; if he bids hearts, I will raise; if he passes 2 , that shouldn’t be bad.

Dima Nikolenkov: I intend to follow with the cheapest spade bid [except to raise hearts] — just hoping I have that chance. :)

Vlastimil Lev: Hard decision. With 2=4=4=3 shape, I hope partner will give a preference to 2 …

Kent Feiler: This is a lot like the first problem. If the auction doesn’t stop abruptly, I should be in good shape. The problem with 2 NT or 3 is that our best contract could be in hearts or clubs.

Mike Doyle: With 3 a very close second. I hate stiff kings. Two spades is too pessimistic; 2 NT should deny a sixth spade; 3 is too optimistic; 3 NT requires a better suit; and pass? Pass! Pass!?

Stephen Fischer: Three spades will force partner to guess too often. If partner bids again, I should be better placed; if not, 2 might even be the right contract.

Eduard Munteanu: Buying some time, and keeping as many gates open as possible.

Razvan Tablet: … Over 2 , 2 or 2 NT, I’ll rebid spades to show game interest. If partner passes 2 , it might be better than 2 .

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 3

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 2	North 1 3	East Pass Pass	South 1 NT ?	A 10 6 K 8 7 10 2 Q 8 6 5 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	428	30
3	9	59	4
4	7	251	18
3 NT	6	396	28
5	5	192	14
Pass	2	85	6

Partner certainly struck gold with 3 , but he might just be bidding on the knowledge that you must have four cards in at least one minor. Standard methods are unclear whether this sequence is constructive or competitive, so you must judge for yourself. I would think partner may be minimum (you’re unlikely to bid again with a limited hand so it’s his duty to compete), but he also might have extras. Therefore, the exceptional catch justifies another bid.

The consensus favored the cue-bid, no doubt trying to solve the problem with the old back-to-you strategy — at least this way, no matter what happens, you can split the blame. Logically, the cue-bid is not a game force because your strength is limited by the 1 NT response; hence, it should be taken as an implied club fit, leaving room for 3 NT as well as an out in 4 . Most cue-bidders intended to abide by partner’s decision, passing 3 NT or 4 , else reaching 5 .

I have no serious quarrel with 3 , but 3 may be a superior way to explore. Clearly, this cannot show four hearts* but should show at least honor-third and a good club fit. The advantage (compared to 3 ) is that partner may next bid 3 , allowing you to bid 3 NT — the inference being that you are not delighted with notrump, which fits the hand to a tee.

*For most people, 1 NT denied four hearts; but even if you sometimes bypass a lousy four-card major, you would hardly be bidding it now.

Other forward-going moves (3 NT, 4 or 5 ) are either too committal to clubs or notrump, or too aggressive in driving to game. Some might argue that 3 NT still allows an out in 4 , but this strikes me as a horrible burden to put on partner. Your hand certainly has mixed potential (clubs or notrump) and you can’t convey that by choosing one or the other. If you had to guess between strains, clubs seems the favorite; so 4 was ranked ahead of 3 NT.

Pass certainly could be right, especially at the vulnerability, but it seems like an insult to partner: Sorry, all I had was five trumps to an honor, and an ace and a king. The great majority (94 percent) agreed, so it gets the basement.

Here’s what happened in 1982:

North deals	K		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	Q 6 5		Soulet	Pender	Lebel	Ross
	A K 9 8 3			1	Pass	1 NT
	K 9 7 4		2	Pass	Pass	Pass
Q J 9 8 7 3 2		5 4
A J 9		10 4 3 2
4		Q J 7 6 5
J 10		A 3
	A 10 6
	K 8 7
	10 2
	Q 8 6 5 2

USA (Martel) N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
2 West	3 NT South	Woolsey	Faigenbaum	Manfield	Pilon
Made 2 +110	Made 3 +400		1	Pass	1 NT
		2	3	Pass	3
France +11 IMPs		Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
		Pass

The problem arose at the second table, where Pilon chose the cue-bid and Faigenbaum guessed to bid 3 NT. Wrong in theory, as 3 NT is terrible with a spade lead; the friendly club break only allows eight tricks, as the defense can set up spades before declarer can get a heart trick.* Alas, all that matters is what happens: Woolsey was keen to the bidding and felt there wouldn’t be time to develop spades off the A-K; so he tried the A and continue hearts. Oops; nine easy tricks, even after misguessing clubs.

*Declarer can succeed by leading a heart first.

At the first table, Pender evidently adhered to the school that 3 showed considerably extra, as he passed 2 . Ross had no clear action, so Soulet stole the show. The defense also slipped, allowing Soulet to score up 110 for 11 IMPs to France.

Anyone for opening the North hand 1 NT? This appeals to me, as hands with a stiff king are awkward to bid via any route. South would raise to 3 NT, and East would lead a diamond. End of story — unless West wants to go for a number in 4 .

Comments for 3

Or Shoham: Surely partner is driving for game. Opposite x-x A-x A-J-x-x-x A-K-x-x, 5 is a gimme… Even over 3 NT by partner, I’ll bid 5 .

Damo Nair: Seems normal. We could be on the verge of 6 , and this also keeps 3 NT in play.

Olle Morell: Intending to follow up with a club raise even if partner bids 3 NT.

Jonathan Goldberg: Having already limited my hand, I can hardly do less. …

Bill Daly: For the record, I will bid 4 over 3 NT.

David Leavitt: Partner’s club bid improves my hand considerably. First-round spade control may be needed for him to bid slam.

Jouko Paganus: Even a slam is possible. Over partner’s likely 4 , I will bid 4 .

Nigel Marlow: … We may belong in 3 NT, as 5 may just be too high (e.g., off the K, A and A). I hope partner bids it with Q-x or better.

Andrei Varlan: Bivalent. I’m asking for a half stopper in spades (like Master Yoda will say) or a big club fit.

Bud Hinckley: Partner could hold x A-x K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x, where 6 could make and 3 NT is down one. Of course, partner could also have an ace less since we’re not playing good-bad 2 NT.

Lawrence Cheetham: This keeps 3 NT available opposite Q-x. If partner does not bid 3 NT, I will bid 5 next and let partner imagine my spade control. Why insist on a club game?

I agree. Never insist on a club game when you can play just as easily at home or online.

Bob Johnson: I want partner to have a [spade] stopper to play in 3 NT; otherwise, we’ll play 4 or 5 …

Rainer Herrmann: Partner is probably short in spades, and 3 NT is unlikely to succeed unless a high contract in clubs is also available. This hand looks too strong for a simple 4 raise.

Arne Jordestedt: Showing club support and a maximum, strongly inviting game.

Erwin Witteveen: It’s free to bid 3 because I’ve limited my hand already. [This shows] a maximal hand with first-round spade control and a great club fit. … If partner bids 3 NT or 4 , I will trust him and pass.

James Hudson: I’m not entirely giving up on 3 NT; but 5 is probable, and 6 still an outside possibility. I wonder where the hearts are.

John R. Mayne: Let’s play another round of “Torture partner!” … Four clubs may be right on values and orientation, but I can’t stand to bypass 3 NT. …

Carsten Kofoed: Partner hit a gold mine, so I explode with my six winners.

Anand Nuggihalli: When I bid 4 next, 3 will be understood as an advance cue-bid.

Paul Flashenberg: If partner can bid 3 NT, that’s fine; otherwise, I intend to push to 5 .

Nick Krnjevic: We’re gin for slam opposite many hands partner could have for his 3 bid. Over his likely retreat to 4 , I’ll cue-bid 4 so he’ll know that 3 was a slam try (within the context of my 1 NT bid) and not simply looking for the best game.

Simon Cheung: This shows a good hand and keeps both 3 NT and 5 in the picture. … If partner is unable to bid 3 NT, I will bid 5 , as little is required for 11 tricks; e.g., x x-x A-K-x-x-x A-J-x-x-x yields a good play.

Gerald Murphy: Letting partner know I have a good club raise with spades under control. I don’t think that this bid should ask for a heart card. Slam is still a possibility.

Djordje Jankovic: This cue-bid shows a maximum, an excellent club fit (new-found information) and the A.

Luigi Alibrando: This keeps all the doors open — finding the better game, or slam. I won’t punish partner by bidding 3 NT…

Jean-Christophe Clement: Asking partner for a spade stopper; if he has it, 3 NT is probably the best contract; if not, 5 .

Gerald Cohen: This might induce a heart lead after my later jump to 5 ; but nothing else seems better.

Michael Lindhagen: Asking for a stopper in spades; if not, I’ll pass 4 .

Sandy McIlwain: This cue-bid may be necessary to get us to slam. Five clubs is the lowest I’m stopping — unless partner surprises me with 3 NT.

David Turner: I’m not planning to pass 3 NT.

Dean Swallow: This hand has just shot up in value, so I’ll see if partner has values in spades; if so, 3 NT may be best.

Richard Aronson: Ah, the spurious cue-bid! But what else can I do? I am already declaring notrump contracts, so this has to be a plea for half a spade stopper. I would think 3 shows at least a little extra… I’ll pass 3 NT, else bid up to 5 .

Michael Mayer: Shooting for 3 NT with a [second] stopper from North.

Jack Rhatigan: This may bypass 3 NT, but there is too great a chance for 5 or 6 .

John Schuler: Showing spade control and a big club fit… Partner showed extras by rebidding freely at the three level.

Anthony Golding: With five-card support and a maximum, I should show some enthusiasm. I will pass 3 NT.

Barry Rigal: Game try (implicitly for clubs) suggesting the A, as with [secondary spade strength] I’d bid 3 NT myself; and with nothing in spades, I’d try 3 .

Dick Yuen: A single spade stopper is not enough for 3 NT, so I need to get partner involved…

Kerry Lafferty: If partner bids 3 NT, I will correct to 4 . Partner will then know that 3 showed the ace, and he should be able to judge whether to bid 5 . I just don’t think this hand should be played in notrump.

Jan Andersson: I probably need some help from partner in spades for 3 NT.

Conor Moore: Asking for a spade stopper for 3 NT; else I will bid 5 .

John Reardon: My hand is much improved by the club fit, so I show spade control.

Pieter Geerkens: An advance control-bid to announce my ambitions. If partner has a control-rich 6-4, we might have a grand; and a small slam certainly looks likely.

Ron Sperber: At matchpoints, I’d probably just bid 3 NT; but at IMPs it seems right to investigate. Also, if partner doesn’t have a [second] spade stopper, 3 NT could be in danger.

Danny Kleinman: Slam may be on the horizon, so I’ll show a maximum 1 NT response with splendid club support and the A.

Nicoleta Giura: If partner has x-x Q-x A-K-x-x-x A-K-x-x, we can’t make nine tricks in 3 NT, but we could make 11 in clubs. …

Kent Feiler: There are a lot more hands where 5 makes and 3 NT goes down than the other way around; and 6 is a realistic possibility.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I will support clubs next round, even if (unlikely) partner bids 3 NT. An immediate 5 would have partner worry about spade control when 6 is on. Three hearts is a Futile Willie bid: it looks interesting but suggests concentrated heart strength and no spade control.

Mark Abraham: Hmm, a good-bad 2 NT would have been nice; then I’d know whether partner has x Q-x K-Q-J-x-x K-J-10-x-x, or a serious hand. I wonder how much partner was trading on my 1 NT bid when he bid 3 ? If he bids 3 NT, I’ll leave it there; but I really want to hear a 4 control-bid.

Gary Sikon: Partner hit my hand like a brick, so I’ll make an advance cue-bid on the way to at least 5 .

Beverly Terry: If partner bids 3 NT, I shall bid 4 ; then he will know I was cue-bidding [to show spade control].

Howard Liu: Three notrump is a little risky to bid right away; on a spade lead, I can imagine getting one spade, two diamonds and five clubs — with the K trapped… If partner has a spade stopper, 3 NT has a good chance. Otherwise, he’ll probably bid 4 , which won’t be too bad. Five clubs has a good chance of failing, so I don’t want to invite game and miss the chance at 3 NT.

Stephen Fischer: I’m going to push to game but don’t want to commit to 3 NT without help in spades.

Andrew de Sosa: An advance cue-bid, most likely in support of clubs, so partner can better gauge game or slam prospects.

Anil Upadhyay: Showing first-round spade control. Game is on, and partner can judge whether to go to slam…

Chuck Arthur: I expect partner will bid 4 or 4 next, in which case I will happily bid 4 . The immediate cue-bid in these types of auctions (partner has bid two suits…) shows unequivocal extra-value support for the second suit.

Gordon Bower: At matchpoints, I’d probably just bid 3 NT. At IMPs, I will involve partner in the choice between 3 NT and 5 . I am counting on partner for a few points more than just an opening bid — no one made him bid at the three level — but this auction is much more comfortable if you play good-bad 2 NT.

Richard Lawrence: … After my 1 NT response, this should ask partner for a decision between 3 NT and 5 .

Ties van der Laan: Showing a club fit and asking for a spade stopper.

Comments for 3

Ed Barnes: Slam is looking possible. … If partner bids 3 NT, I will pull to 4 ; then cue-bidding 4 should describe this hand.

Dale Freeman: This should show a maximum with three hearts and a club fit. If partner bids 3 NT or 4 , I pass. If he bids 3 , I will bid 3 NT.

Ivan Kolev: A tangible hint. Partner may next bid 3 NT, or 3 to ask for a stopper.

Chris Willenken: Showing secondary values in hearts. I’ll follow with 4 on the next round to show the A, so partner should have a good enough picture of my hand to bid a good slam.

Yke Smit: If partner is fairly balanced, he can ask for a spade stopper with 3 . No need for partner to be strong; even a 5-5 minimum [might be enough for game].

Manuel Paulo: My hand became much better, and slam is possible. I don’t cue-bid spades because I’m afraid it might deny a heart control; partner may hold, e.g., -- A-x-x A-K-x-x-x A-J-x-x-x.

Chuck Lamprey: The general rule in these situations should be to bid softer values at the three level (where the choice is between suit and notrump play) and aces at the four level (where the question is how many clubs to play). I’m bidding 4 next round, however the auction develops.

Han Peters: … This shows a maximum with club support and [leaves room] for 3 NT; but it will get us to 5 if partner has a stiff spade.

Amnon Harel: Neither 3 nor 3 can be natural, and 3 asks for a stopper. Hopefully, this will confuse partner (is it a game try in notrump or clubs?) and he’ll just bid his hand.

Vlastimil Lev: Partner bid [after interference] so he needn’t have [extra] values. This indicates a heart [honor], and partner can bid 3 (e.g., with J-x x-x A-K-x-x-x A-K-x-x) to ask for a spade stopper; then 3 NT.

Richard Morse: Difficult to see how this can be natural after 1 NT. Partner can bid 3 if interested in notrump, or 4 or 4 with a [more distributional] hand.

Adam Saroyan: Such a lovely bid as this comes along so seldom; only risk I can see is that it may alert the opposition [about the best lead]. …

Eduard Munteanu: I [implied] some clubs with my 1 NT bid; but the maximum values, fifth club and A make me bid further. It’s important to see how good the K is.

Tim DeLaney: A forcing bid to keep 3 NT in the picture. If partner bids 3 NT, I’ll pass; over 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT; otherwise, we’ll play in clubs.

Francesco Badolato: My hand has become very [useful], and there may be a small slam in clubs.

Kieran Dyke: Showing a good club raise. Partner has room to ask for a spade stopper.

Alon Amsel: Since I cannot have four hearts, this indicates that I’m prepared to play game. Over 3 , I will bid 3 NT; over any other bid, I will cue-bid 4 , as 6 might still be on.

Razvan Tablet: This shows a maximum fitting hand with heart values.

Comments for 4

Jess Cohen: At IMPs, I don’t want to strain to be in 3 NT when I have a big club fit. I think a club game or slam is safer, and where we should be headed. …

Fraser Rew: I could bid 3 , but that would just muddy the waters. …

Bob Feller: Three spades, my second choice, might look like a try for 3 NT and confuse the auction.

Yury Buzjko: My K doesn’t look good, but a pass still would be too passive.

Steve Moese: At matchpoints, I’d be sorely tempted to bid 3 NT hoping to elope with [a top score]; but at IMPs, I need partner to know the right strain so he can judge the right level.

Dale Rudrum: I cannot play 3 NT after this bid, and chances for slam are just too good… Starting with 3 seems to gain a lot of bidding space; but if partner bids 4 or 4 , it will be unclear to him whether 3 was slam-going with clubs or a try for 3 NT…

Joel Singer: This shows a good hand and allows for a cue-bid of 4 if partner bids 4 or 4 . Bidding 3 , then raising clubs, sounds like I was looking for notrump.

Nick Doe: This is perhaps a “nothing bid,” but I don’t want to punish partner for a possible stretch under pressure. … Three hearts suggests more in hearts and less in spades, and 3 leaves me guessing on the next round. If we can make a game, 5 seems more promising than 3 NT.

Jeff Ruben: Game prospects are good after partner bids 3 freely; but West rates to have good spades and an entry for his vulnerable overcall. I could chance 3 NT to protect the K, but I would rather invite with 4 …

Brian Zietman: Passing is not an option with so much in reserve for my 1 NT — 9 points, long clubs and [control] in spades. At matchpoints, I’d try 3 NT; but at IMPs, it is better to [invite] 5 ; and if partner has a really good hand, he can [try for slam].

Willem Mevius: Partner rates to be 5-5, so I’m just showing support and a maximum. Three notrump looks unlikely with probably just a single stopper in each major.

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 4

IMPs		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1	East 3	South 1 ?	Q 2 A Q 3 2 Q 9 7 A K J 4

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
Dbl (penalty)	10	691	49
Pass	8	181	13
4	6	234	17
4	5	211	15
3 NT	4	64	5
5	2	30	2

It would be nice if you could go back and open 1 NT, as this 18-pointer is a reasonable candidate for devaluation; but that’s water under the bridge. In any case, the retribution seems unduly severe. Who could anticipate this predicament?

The consensus was to double, which is frightening to say the least. Double is attractive at matchpoints, expecting a likely 200 with no game your way; but at IMPs it’s a recipe for disaster without a trump trick. Some respondents didn’t like the conditions, stating that a double would be takeout* in their methods. Fine, but then this wouldn’t be a problem. It is also apparent the voting is skewed because some doublers commented that partner should interpret it as takeout or card-showing, even though it was noted as penalty. (I doubt this was a case of illiteracy, but more likely contempt for the methods.) Even so, considering the alternatives, double may be the best of a bad lot.

*A European tendency. Most American experts who play competitive doubles in certain situations would not apply them here because of the unilateral jump and being behind the bidder. In any case, the purpose is not to judge which method is better, but to determine the best call when double is penalty.

Bidding a suit at the four level seems out of bounds to me, so I’d bite the bullet and pass. (I’d like to think I might have judged to open 1 NT, but probably not.) I suspect game is unlikely unless partner can find another bid — which may be written on my epitaph when we miss a cold 3 NT. Actually, I’m hoping 3 makes, and there’s a fierce doubler in my seat at the other table.

What about 3 NT? The old line about “real men not needing stoppers” comes to mind, but here it seems too speculative. Even if you partner has a favorable spade holding (e.g., J-x-x), there’s no indication you can win nine tricks; hence, you’re gambling twice, so the odds stack up against you. Change your hand to Q-x A-x-x Q-x A-K-Q-J-x-x, and 3 NT would be a fair shot. Also note that with West leading a spade and dummy in view, there is little chance to fool East about the spade lie.

Here’s what happened in Biarritz:

South deals	A 8		West	North	East	South
Both vul	10 9 7		Pender	Soulet	Ross	Lebel
	K 10 8 6 3 2					1
	8 5		3	Pass	Pass	Pass
7 5		K J 10 9 6 4 3
K 4		J 8 6 5
A 4		J 5
Q 10 9 7 6 3 2		—
	Q 2
	A Q 3 2
	Q 9 7
	A K J 4

France N-S	USA (Martel) N-S	West	North	East	South
3 West	3 × East	Pilon	Martel	Faigenbaum	Stansby
Down 2 -200	Made 3 +730				1
		Pass	1	3	Dbl
France +14 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

The problem scenario arose at the second table, and Stansby chose to double. In the Martel-Stansby system (weak notrumps) this showed a “strong notrump” and was not necessarily for penalty, but Martel had no assurance of a better spot (3 NT would have been the winner) and elected to pass anyway. Three spades should have failed, but after a top club lead (ruffed) Faigenbaum led a heart, and Stansby inexplicably won the ace. Trumps were cleared, but declarer eventually led the J to establish the eight. Party time on the Champs Elysees!

At the first table, Pender changed the subject with a weak jump overcall in opener’s suit — hardly a classic hand with a side ace and king, but sometimes you have to bid what you’re dealt. Ross, no doubt, was sick with no clubs and no tricks; but there was also no double, so he passed. Pender was just as sick when dummy came down but managed to escape for down two, thanks to a defensive slip. Despite the ugly contract, the Americans had hopes for a pickup with 3 NT on. So much for hopes; 14 IMPs to France.

Comments for Double

Or Shoham: Pesky East, getting in the way like this. Some people have no manners! I assuming partner will pull my double with a slam-friendly hand, as I’m showing plenty of extra values.

Damo Nair: What else? Four diamonds assumes things about North’s hand; and 3 NT is really optimistic. I’m hoping North will take it out with an unbalanced hand.

Olle Morell: How can we play a system where I can’t open with my major and can’t make a takeout double here? Are we members of Handcuff Addicts Anonymous? :)

Jonathan Goldberg: If we can make 3 NT, we should bury East in 3 ; and if we can’t, this is probably our best spot. Partner is not barred. This could backfire; but I’m so good I must act, and anything else is a gross distortion.

Ted Ying: We have nowhere to play the hand and don’t seem to have an eight-card fit. Even if the opponents have nine trumps,…they should have very few side tricks, and 3 doubled may be our best result.

Jess Cohen: I am not certain of game or strain, but I don’t want to pass with so much more than a minimum. I don’t have a full spade stopper, so I am pretty much left with double. If partner has enough outside stuff, and the other half (or full) spade stopper to make 3 NT, double should pay off well also.

David Leavitt: … I can’t be sure of making 3 NT (partner needs a partial stopper to have a play); and while partner probably has at least five diamonds, I don’t want to hang him by raising. If he has more than five, he should consider taking out the double.

Good luck! I wonder how many would take out a double when playing with a guy named Leavitt?

Bob Johnson: Game is probable, but where? At least the double [rates to] give a plus score; and any game could be shaky — especially if partner would bid a major in preference to 1 over my 1 .

Rainer Herrmann: What else? Defining doubles of preempts as penalty, negative or action doesn’t make much of a difference. Bridge players will continue to double when no bid gives a decent description and they are too strong for a (nonforcing) pass. I cannot bring myself to pass here, though I admire it. Also, with two unsupported queens this hand is quite close to 17 points, and I would have preferred a 1 NT opening…

Oleg Rubinchik: … I doubt East can make 3 , and I want to say it. If partner has a special hand, he is free to pull it.

Nigel Guthrie: Three notrump may be the winning bid; or we could lose seven tricks with a slam available in three suits. A slow double expresses this hand well. :)

C.P. Howard: If 5 or 4 is making, this will go for 500. Other forward-going actions have a high risk of a minus score… If partner has a slam-going hand with a singleton spade, he will surely bid on.

Facundo Chamut: Cornered into a dark, humid, little room.

Chris Willenken: This is risky, but there are no riskless alternatives; so I’ll take what I believe is the percentage action.

Gerald Murphy: East’s bid really tied my hands. I cannot pass; nor bid hearts; nor rebid clubs; so I will double and hope I can beat it. If partner’s hand is so weak, or strong [for slam], he can continue on.

Sandy Barnes: I’ll take the plus rather than crapshoot 4 ; or worse, bid 3 NT with no stopper.

Djordje Jankovic: This hand has undisclosed values (18 points as opposed to the minimum I could have), so passing the decision to partner is [undesirable]. Three notrump without a spade stopper sounds strange (why is it there?). If partner plays in 5 , he might easily lose two spades and another trick. On the other hand, if partner is quite strong (top diamond honors, etc.) we should be able to beat 3 …two or three tricks…

Steve Moese: It seems like partner and West can have only two spades each. Three notrump seems very wrong; a pass is nonforcing; and any suit bid is too unilateral. I like to play this double as a focus on values, not just trumps.

Manuel Paulo: I should not commit our side to the four level; and pass is nonforcing, as partner (if he has 5-10 HCP) will not know that our side holds 23+.

Sandy McIlwain: Too much to pass, and any bid is a distortion. If “penalty” means two or three trump tricks, we’ll have to cross that one off the card. “Penalty” here should mean a good hand with no [convenient] bid, which is what I have.

Dale Rudrum: When caught by a situation your bidding system does not cover, you have to gamble. The advantage of double is that sometimes partner will decide this is not the way to go. Unfortunately, in practice he may be [ethically obliged to pass] after seeing doubler’s agony.

Solaris Whitesail: I would have preferred a 1 NT opening. Still, I’ll try to make the most of it; maybe partner has more to say.

Tim Hemphill: Partner [usually] would have bid 1 if he had four. Game looks questionable.

Paulino Correa: Game is likely (possibly 3 NT); but if I bid 3 NT…there may be no way out. Thus, I’d rather double for penalty. Partner might still take it out with a weak [distributional] hand; and he might bid 3 NT with [long diamonds] and a spade guard.

John Schuler: I have slightly too much to pass; but I wouldn’t be surprised to see East make it, especially if partner is nearly broke. Partner [shouldn’t] play me for a huge trump stack, as I’m under pressure.

Gillian Paty: [Forced] to play double for penalty, it still seems better than guessing partner’s hand with another bid. [I prefer] this double for takeout, showing overall strength and no stopper for 3 NT (likely spade shortness).

David Shelton: Some people might bid 3 NT — the “Winsome and Loathsome” author is one.* I think double will go plus.

*I have my doubts about this. Maybe this will draw some feedback, and Zeke Jabbour will ‘fess up. -RP

Conor Moore: Pity double is for penalty, but I may as well take what’s coming.

Irina Dimitrova: With both vulnerable, I prefer the [almost sure plus score]. East cannot make the contract with trumps only, and we have the other suits; whereas 3 NT is risky without a stopper, and 5 may also go down… Let’s hope East will go down enough to cover our game, if we have one.

Roderick Ewan: I am hoping for a big chop on this one — maybe 800+.

Carlos Dabezies: We have most of the points [outside of trumps], and partner probably does not have four hearts. …

Sebastien Louveaux: Least of evils. I am [unlikely] to have a trump stack, so partner is welcome to remove the double with a very offense-oriented hand.

Kent Feiler: We might hold East to just his seven spade tricks, and we have no guarantee of making any contract higher than 3 .

Dirk Enthoven: I thought they opened this hand 1 NT in the Ice Age. :) Even playing 15-17, it would be acceptable. Now I’m stuck, and double is the only reasonable action…

John Hoffman: East will get little help in the side suits… as partner’s response doesn’t leave much for West. No bid seems to offer enough assurance of a…plus score.

Don Hinchey: The distribution could cause problems for East in the play, and this is not a command for partner to pass. I wish I’d have opened 1 NT, as partner’s response would likely be more informative than 1 .

Howard Liu: We have almost all the side-suit high cards but no clear game, since West may well have the K. This is a good place to try a “balance of power” double.

Eduard Munteanu: I would have liked to open 1 NT; now I must show some cards and not bypass 3 NT.

Daniel Miller: Hard to see 3 NT as a winning action; nor that pass would elicit a reopening double from partner. Four diamonds may drive us [overboard].

Jeff Ruben: With offensive prospects uncertain, I will take my chances that we can beat 3 at least one — hopefully more.

Richard Stein: Three notrump will often be down three in a hurry; and there’s no way to find out what game is right, if we have one. So I’ll just levy a modest fine on East for speeding.

Alan Wilson: This looks to me like a defensive hand, despite the lack of a trump trick — and partner doesn’t have to leave it in if completely unsuitable, of course.

Jacob Grabowski: Neither pass nor 4 would be forcing; 4 on a four-card suit is just a little too dodgy; and only my opponents can bid 3 NT on Q-x and have a stopper. I’d prefer this double to show [general] strength, rather than penalty…

Gordon Bower: I hope partner figures out this shows a good hand and willingness to defend — not a big spade stack.

Joep Lohmann: Take your pluses!

Frank Ryck: Anything could be correct, so I’ll go with the odds and hope for plus 200 or 500.

Comments for Pass

Albert Ohana: Preferably without pause; else partner will have [ethical] problems if he has [modest] values.

Nigel Marlow: Thanks, pal! On this side of the Atlantic, we play this as takeout, guaranteeing 4+ hearts. All your options seem to be unpalatable: Double could see minus 730 on the score sheet; 3 NT rates to lose the first seven tricks; and any suit bid is too high if partner has a minimum hand. I will pass (in tempo) and see if partner reopens.

James Hudson: I’ll stay fixed; other choices are risky and misdescriptive.

John R. Mayne: I’m counting on RP to upgrade this despite its support by only 28 percent of the voters; the Q is not worth much, and passing lets partner make the final, fatal decision. If this gets passed out, I will not be sick.

Well, his percentage was way off, but he got the “upgrade” part right. -RP

Sylvain Brethes: Double (penalty) is not in the equation…; 3 NT is very far out; 4 and diamond raises are scary in a different way. Any other choices, Richard? OK, I’d pass cowardly; I can’t really count 18 HCP. :)

Charles Blair: We may miss a heart fit; but if we belong in five of a minor, we’ll get there. I would be amusing if partner has four hearts, and West has five.

Ciaran Coyne: Easy in a poll, but doubt I could do it in tempo at the table. …

Jean-Christophe Clement: Help! 3 NT is a too dangerous. East is probably down one or two in 3 , but he may succeed; so I pass — but double is very tempting.

Chuck Lamprey: I hate these methods. Why must double be penalty, rather than suggesting this type of hand? If my majors were reversed, I would like to double for penalty; but I could also bid 3 NT without much pain (and the difference in frequency must be enormous). Since you leave me no sensible action, I guess I’ll pass, hoping there’s no game or that partner can act when there is.

I expected more answers and comments like Chuck’s, i.e., unhappy with the conditions but outright dismissing a penalty double on Q-x. Who knows? If everyone adhered to the system and used good judgment, pass might have been the winner. -RP

Gerald Cohen: I hate it, but partner is still there. I think I could make this decision in 10 seconds, so I hope East announced his “skip bid.”

Dean Swallow: Difficult. I’m worried about getting too high if partner’s diamonds are weak.

Michael Mayer: Nice bid; I’m screwed. Four potential places to play, and I have no idea what is right.

Michael Dimich: … I can’t see why I should punish partner for bidding 1 with A-K-x-x-x and out.

David Matthews: Unless partner can bid again, we [probably] don’t have anything. …

Brian Patmore: Why stick out my neck, vulnerable? If partner bids again, I will be happy…

Daniel Korbel: A classic example of why these doubles should just show “extras.”

John Reardon: The Q is not full value, and partner is still there.

Danny Kleinman: I don’t have enough strength to drive to game; or enough defense to double for penalty (and partner will never play me for a hand like this if I do); or good enough support to raise diamonds. So pass is the only reasonable option — and I won’t stew over it more than the normal 10 seconds I take over opposing jump bids…

Lajos Linczmayer: The Q is probably worthless; and if partner has not enough to act again, I prefer to defend. Maybe we can make 3 NT, but only from partner’s side.

David Harari: …Playing double for penalty here is inferior, and now I’m stuck. I really should have opened 1 NT. Anyway, game is unlikely if partner doesn’t bid again, as he would [usually] bid 1 instead of 1 with four hearts and a weak hand.

Adam Saroyan: No good bid, and East might make it; partner has a chance still. …

Jordan Chodorow: … I have more than a minimum, but only 16 not counting the (probably) useless Q. …

Stephen Fischer: Bidding something feels right, but all actions are dangerous and committal. Maybe partner can find a second bid, or maybe it’s not our hand.

Suzi Subeck: I hate doubling a part score into game at IMPs unless I have it beat in my own hand. …

Tim DeLaney: I can’t double for penalty with Q-2, and I don’t have the cards for another call. If partner passes and we beat 3 a trick, it won’t be a disaster; but I wouldn’t be surprised to see 3 make.

Tapas Banerji: The penalty double is fettering in this situation. … Partner [probably] does not have four hearts, else he might have bid 1 rather than 1 …

Comments for 4

Carsten Kofoed: I must take some action, and partner will often have at least five diamonds. If partner has four hearts, they will be weak (if he has less than 10 HCP); and he can still bid a natural 4 in this competitive auction.

Nick Krnjevic: I’ve taken so long over this miserable hand that partner has been barred, chained, fenced and branded. Next time I’ll give my pointed-suit queens the weight they’re worth and open 1 NT. That doesn’t solve my problem, which I’ll resolve with the least ugly 4 .

Peter Gill: Clearly the best call, as the Bidding Guide tells us that partner has 5+ diamonds* — unless 11-12 HCP with no four-card major, in which case a three- or four-card suit is possible (encouraging the spread of bridge’s so-called germ warfare by teaching us to bid three-card suits, some would say, but not I). Adding to the attraction of 4 is that if partner now calls 4 , my convenient A implies that it is natural.

*Peter is right per my Guide, which lists 1 NT as the priority response with only four diamonds (and no four-card major); however, it is just that, a guide. Judgment is hard to formulate. With four good diamonds and weak majors (e.g., x-x x-x-x A-J-10-8 J-x-x-x), responding 1 is better. -RP

Jack Brawner: I hate this hand. I have eliminated every possibility — more than once. I secretly admire a smooth pass, but I have been tanking much too long now.

Richard Aronson: I would have downgraded this hand and opened 1 NT (lack of intermediates, two unsupported queens) but that was last round. If I pass, we could miss a slam; double, and East may win seven spades and two red [tricks]; 3 NT, and they’ll run spades; or 4 , and partner will put me in 5 with x-x K-x K-x-x-x-x-x Q-x-x. … I don’t like anything, but I must do something; 4 should show extras…

Anthony Golding: Why do you fix me with a penalty double? I know, it’s what it would have been at the table, but it makes life difficult. I don’t suppose my 1 could be Precision? I’m not prepared to risk 3 NT against a vulnerable preempt; nor to double; and I’m too strong to pass, so I’ll support partner. He rates to have five diamonds, as with 4-4 in the reds he’d have bid 1 …

Julian Wightwick: Unpleasant. It’s tempting either to pass or double — though they are both punts — but at least this gets partner involved.

Nick Doe: There is no easy answer… If I pass, partner will worry that I have a weak notrump; double for takeout fits the bill, but for penalty…seems an extreme view; Q-x might be a stopper for 3 NT,…but this doesn’t seem the time to try; and 4 suggests longer clubs (so I won’t know whether to remove partner’s 5 preference to 5 ). Supporting diamonds seems best, and 5 is a long way off; so 4 .

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: According to the Bidding Guide, partner usually has 5+ diamonds; and most of the time he doesn’t have four hearts. My hand is not worth 18 points but still worth a move. Pass would be my second choice.

Pietro Campanile: Hell of a decision! … Partner rates to have five diamonds most of the time, and my extra HCP should offset the balanced shape and lack of a fourth trump.

Madhukar Bapu: Every possible option is fraught with danger, and this seems the best of the bad.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Partner will (hopefully) bid 4 with a four-card suit, or else will often have five diamonds. Not perfect; but then, this is a problem where all options are fillers.

Mark Abraham: Partner shouldn’t have hearts without extra values (and if so, I hope 5 makes too). Three notrump is just a guess; and even if you buy spade-stopping help (A-x, K-x, J-x-x)…you don’t have much of a trick source either.

Leonard Helfgott: Ugh. Partner will not know about diamonds if I try 4 ; and Walsh types will usually have long diamonds.

Mike Doyle: Maybe 3 NT is right; but this tells partner I have a fit and extras.

Andrew de Sosa: Least likely to get doubled, and just about perfect on values. I have not denied four hearts, so partner can still bid ‘em if he’s got ‘em.

Bill Powell: I wish I’d opened 1 NT, but now I don’t have the courage to pass.

Alon Amsel: Who invented penalty doubles in the first place? Pass and 3 NT are no options. Partner is more likely to have five diamonds than four hearts, and I would not compete with a minimum hand; so 4 is sufficient.

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 5

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1 2	East Pass Pass	South ? ?	K 8 6 4 2 9 K Q J 10 9 7 5

Your Two Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
B. 1 then 2 NT	10	360	26
A. 1 then 2	9	232	16
H. 2 then 3	6	123	9
C. 1 then 3	5	327	23
F. 2 then 2	4	275	19
E. 1 NT then 3	3	61	4
G. 2 then 2 NT	2	27	2
D. 1 NT then 2 NT	1	6	0

As many respondents remarked, there is no good way to bid this misfitting hand; but then, that’s why it’s here. As usual, your first call is supposed to be honest, which seems to be upheld, as the convincing majority (65 percent) bid 1 .* Now the problem is how to extricate yourself from the predicament.

*Clearly, if you knew partner was going to rebid 2 , many would change their plan (perhaps Choice E or H) to be able to stop in a club contract. Without hindsight, however, there is too much danger in missing a spade fit to justify this diversion.

In posing the problem, I was faced with a dilemma: A traditional problem (one call) left too few options, and a two-parter left too many. Normally, I never have more than seven options.* My first draft had nine, and I compromised by cutting “1 followed by 2 .” Offering a heart preference with 11 black cards did not appeal to me. Nonetheless, a number of people commented this would be their choice, so I should have scratched Choice D. After reading your comments, it probably should be worth 7. Sorry.

*The reason is that my 10-point scoring system (with no ties) loses flexibility as the number of options increase.

My own choice (after an honest 1 response) is between 2 and 2 NT, and at IMPs I slightly prefer the latter. Four club stoppers should be enough, hehe. Seriously, West might have an indifferent hand and punt with the unbid suit, giving me a critical tempo (in 3 NT) opposite, say, A-x A-Q-x-x-x A-x-x-x-x x.

I was surprised by the number of votes for Choice C (1 then 3 ), which virtually commits the misfit to game. I suppose you could still get out in 4 , but more likely you’ll rot in 4 or a hopeless red-suit contract. This route also may inspire a final double; e.g., if partner bids 3 NT, West might double for a spade lead. Now, if you could announce this option as “the third and final club,” I’d say OK.

Some who chose not to bid 1 may have fudged the issue, but there’s also a fair case for anticipation. Even barring the actual 2 , most rebids by partner will still leave you guessing; so starting an auction that allows you to play 3 has some merit. Of course, any time you try this you can be sure partner will have three or four spades.

Then there’s the group that vowed to describe their shape at any cost with 2 then 2 (Choice F) presumably followed by 3 to complete the pattern. This freewheeling style might be OK in Acol, but few if any American experts would consider it. If you start with 2 , it seems obligatory to rebid 3 to limit your hand.

Enough speculation. Let’s see what happened when this deal arose in Biarritz:

North deals	—		West	North	East	South
None vul	A K J 7 3 2		Lebel	Pender	Soulet	Ross
	Q J 7 4 2			1	Pass	2
	6 3		Pass	2	Pass	3
Q 10 9 3		A J 7 5	Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
Q 5		10 8 6 4	Pass	4	All Pass
A 8 6 5		10 9 3
A 8 2		K 4
	K 8 6 4 2
	9
	K
	Q J 10 9 7 5

USA (Martel) N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
4 South	4 North	Stansby	Pilon	Martel	Faigenbaum
Down 3 -150	Down 2 -100		1	Pass	1
		Pass	2	Pass	2 NT
France +2 IMPs		Pass	4	Pass	Pass
		Pass

The problem was handled differently at each table. Ross chose the anticipatory route, but it was tough for Pender to pass 3 with an unshown sixth heart and the right black-suit shape. I’m sure Pender must have wondered what happened to the spade suit! Three hearts was forcing, so Ross tried 3 NT. Pender knew 3 NT was hopeless, so he completed his pattern with 4 , wisely passed by Ross (I would have assumed it was forcing). The defense was brutal: Two rounds of trumps and a heart shift put Ross down three.

At the second table, Faigenbaum echoed our consensus, bidding 1 followed by an invitational 2 NT. Pilon then took the reasonable shot in 4 — or maybe I should say, it was just as reasonable to be shot in 4 as anywhere else. Down two, however, showed a small profit; 2 IMPs to France.

Comments for B. 1 then 2 NT

Or Shoham: Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to get a club lead in 3 NT, which incidentally should be available as a rebid.

Damo Nair: When I hear 1 from partner, I don’t think I’m bidding 2 (that has to be a stretch). Now I have to bid 2 NT.

Jonathan Goldberg: My K just went up in value. If we have game, this is how to get there. It’s an odd sequence, but everything else is in hyperspace.

Sid Ismail: In this situation, I’ll often receive a club lead!

Nigel Marlow: I feel one has to bid 1 first on these hands, else risk missing a 5-3 major fit. Surely, there’s no point trying for game in clubs now, so I’ll try 2 NT.

Andrei Varlan: A classic hard problem — abstain, if I were Al Roth in The Bridge World. :)

Petko Boukov: Well, I would like to be stronger for this; but I can’t refuse to show my club [stoppers], and my spades are not worthy repeating.

Bob Johnson: Hate it. I would like to have passed 1 and relied on West to balance and get into trouble.

Oleg Rubinchik: Where is pass after 2 ? Where is 2 ? Where is a weak jump shift of 3 ? OK, the last is probable not part of the system; but I hate to choose between methods of suicide. With a misfit at IMPs, fall down as soon as you can!

Carsten Kofoed: At the table I’d bid 1 , else the spade suit would disappear. Two notrump now is not as bad as 2 (suit too weak) or a game-forcing 3 . Even though communication lines look very thin, opponents haven’t doubled us yet — but I feel that their neck hairs starting to rise.

Paul Flashenberg: Nothing is appealing. Hope I survive, or that partner has extras and we can make 3 NT.

Nick Krnjevic: … I would always have bid 1 on the first round, so this is the best (least bad?) description of my hand.

Carolyn Ahlert: This looks like a classic misfit, so even with “six-five, come alive” I hesitate going to the three level. If partner doesn’t like notrump, he just might bid 3 over 2 NT; then I’ll try 4 .

Chris Willenken: One spade seems clear. Why should partner rebid 2 ? On the next round, 2 NT is probably forced on me.

Gerald Murphy: I cannot bid 3 because this would be game force… so I’ll tone down the bidding with 2 NT. Partner is [unlikely] to have three spades because I think he would raise with 3=5=4=1 shape.

Sandy Barnes: Closest to what I really have.

Steve Moese: This seems the least-of-evils approach; right for level, misleading for strain. I won’t bid 1 NT with five spades. If the K were the K, I would bid 2 ; but not with Q-J-10-x-x-x.

Luigi Alibrando: If 2 NT is a brake, I love it! Pushing with 3 (fourth suit) is too much.

Jean-Christophe Clement: The hand is too weak for a 2 response, and spades are not good enough to bid twice.

Robin Zigmond: And then pass any three-level bid!

Chuck Lamprey: A silly bid for a silly hand. Actually, I prefer bidding 2 over 2 , but that wasn’t one of the options. Choices E and H are great [hindsight], but at the table I’d have to investigate spades.

Ole Normolle: I would always bid 1 with such a hand, so there’s nothing to do now but bid 2 NT. Three clubs would be game forcing; and 2 shows six cards.

John Kozero: That 9 seems to warrant making a more aggressive call than just 2 .

Jack Rhatigan: Too many years of “2-over-1” for me to offer 2 .

David Matthews: I am going to upgrade this misfit, as my clubs may well be useful in notrump; however, it could easily be a disaster.

Martin Bootsma: I would start with 1 , as otherwise I could never show I have five spades. After 2 ,…I guess 2 NT is best; but I don’t like the bidding at all.

Amnon Harel: Sure, this is a weak part of the system — but it’s the system, which means it’s better than any one-sided improvisation.

Julian Wightwick: Overbidding, though not so much as some of the alternatives. If I knew partner would rebid 2 , I would prefer Choice E; but I think 1 is better initially in case partner can raise. You didn’t offer 1 then 2 , which I prefer to rebidding 3 .

Nick Doe: At the point of responding to 1 , I did not know (merely feared) partner was about to rebid a red suit; so I do believe I would have buried the spades. On the second round, 2 NT seems the least lie. …

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Three clubs is a solid contract, which I [might] reach while inviting with option H; but if partner has three spades…, 4 will have good chances [and be missed]. So it is better to start with 1 and invite with 2 NT.

Jan Andersson: I hate this. Normally, it’s best to limit the damage and just pass.

Irina Dimitrova: A five-card major is more important than a six-card minor. As it turns out, I cannot bid clubs because it would be the fourth suit; so 2 NT shows I have some clubs, although it gives the wrong idea about my distribution.

John Reardon: I am sure I would have responded 1 ; now I have to bid again, and 2 NT seems least harmful.

Alan Brooks: Too weak to bid clubs then spades; too unpleasant to bid clubs as fourth suit. I’d rather hide the good minor than the bad major.

Nicoleta Giura: Since my choice (1 then 2 ) was not listed, I’ll choose this — and get ready to apologize for not having my values.

Dirk Enthoven: Partner has not shown a big hand, so there’s no assurances in notrump; but my [working] count went from 6 to 9 after 2 . …

Gareth Birdsall: I can’t fathom why you didn’t include 1 then 2 — which I would rate above at least six of the given options.

OK, rub it in. At least you didn’t rank it first. Then I would have to investigate the origin of your name.

Mark Abraham: Responding 2 makes me [suppress the spade suit] or force to game, which I don’t want to do until I have evidence of fit. Since 2 is evidence of a misfit, I will offer a (barely) playable 2 NT.

Alan Wilson: A truly horrible problem, but I’m sure I would bid spades first at the table; then I’m pretty much stuck with what feels like an overbid on a misfit…

Jacob Grabowski: A 2 response would distort my strength too much, as even then I would want to look for a spade fit. Now the hand looks like a freakish misfit.

Gordon Bower: Ugly. This may get us a bit high on a misfit; but 1 then 2 commits us to spades, and bidding new suits twice is a horrific overbid. My first choice (1 then 2 ) was not included in your list. With 5=2=2=4, a 2 preference is normal and [allows] opener to bid 2 with three spades; and I still have equal length in partner’s suits.

Kieran Dyke: Responding 1 NT or 2 makes it hard to find spades. Fortunately, with a 9-count, 2 NT isn’t too far off base on the second round, even if I’d rather play 3 now.

Justin Lall: I bid 1 because sometimes partner has spade support — believe it or not. … After 2 , I’ve sort of endplayed myself into 2 NT.

Frank Ryck: While 3 as a second bid is appealing,…it’s forcing,…and my hand is way too shaky for such foolishness.

Comments for A. 1 then 2

Bas Lodder: Did Moyse write a book on 5-1 fits?

Jeff Tang: With hindsight, Choice E is most attractive; but this is the most realistic.

Jouko Paganus: Better to play 2 with a 5-1 fit than 3 or 3 . Aiming to play 3 by bidding 2 originally seems unsound, as it might easily miss 4 .

James Hudson: By my second turn, I am pining for Choice E; but I cannot tell a lie. I wouldn’t suppress spades…

Nigel Guthrie: This overstates the spade quality; but what else can I do if I want to find a 5-3 or [5-2] fit? Choices E and H lose potential spade fits; C and F are gross overbids, especially given the misfit. … I would go for Choice Z: 1 then 2 .

Pekka Niemisto: My distribution doesn’t match the system, but spades must be shown on the first round, and I’m not going to bid 2 NT with 6-5 (there will be entry problems). … This may lose a partial if partner is short in spades.

Bob Feller: This problem is unfair! Ordinary humans would start with 1 , then have to choose the least of evils. If I knew that partner was going to rebid 2 , I would choose the 2 , 3 sequence.

Unfair or not, you made a good pitch. Hmm… Cleveland Indians? 100-mph fastball? Nah.

Tolga Yuret: None of the choices are appealing. I would actually bid 1 then 2 to stay on a low level.

Charles Blair: The more I look at this hand, the more I see the potential for disaster.

Fedor Goumans: Although 1 NT would work great to allow a nonforcing 3 , I would not risk missing a spade fit. After opting for 1 , rebidding 2 seems the [least of evils].

Gerald Cohen: Honesty seems the best policy, though it may not be the winning answer.

David Wiltshire: Anyone who doesn’t bid 1 first is going to miss a lot of…spade fits, and a lot of games because of it. If my hearts and diamonds were reversed, I’d bid 1 then 2 ; but here I am left with an inelegant 2 rebid.

John Hall: On such a horrid misfit, my inclination would be 1 followed by preference to 2 . Spades aren’t good enough for Choice A; not strong enough for B, C, F, G or H; D is grotesque; and E hides my spade suit. I choose A, as I dislike that least.

Han Peters: At matchpoints, I would go for E; but here I don’t want to risk missing a spade game.

Michael Dimich: I would only introduce the club suit if partner bid 2 NT over 2 . One spade then 2 NT is tempting; but will I have an entry to my clubs in notrump?

Gillian Paty: My first bid is 1 , having not enough strength to bid 2 then spades… Next I’d rather bid 2 than anything else, stopping in a known six-card fit. I don’t have enough for 2 NT on a complete misfit; and 3 is fourth suit forcing. I’m not satisfied, but I’ll go with Choice A.

Dean Eidler: One spade then 2 should be a possibility; …if partner passes, 2 is where we ought to be — or 6 . :)

Ron Sperber: This feels somewhat of an underbid, but any other option feels worse.

David Collier: I have to respond 1 [lacking hindsight]. I’m actually quite tempted to bid 2 now, but my bidding box appears to be missing that card.

John Pedersen: I think this is the best way to show my five spades; and if partner has three spades, this could [uncover] a game.

Sebastien Louveaux: It seems very wrong not to respond 1 ;…then 2 seems the least of evils. I am way too weak for 3 , and 2 NT is wrong in strength and distribution.

David Harari: Sometimes partner doesn’t bid diamonds. I would answer 1 NT with 4=1=2=6; but with five spades, this is too extreme for me.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Over 1 — before partner rebids 2 — the most likely game (if we have one) is 4 ; while the most likely playable partscore is in clubs. It’s IMPs, so I opt for game and respond 1 . Rebidding 2 looks gross, I confess, but is probably the only way not to let the bidding get out of hand.

Jordan Chodorow: This has one advantage over every other choice: It ends lowest. Partner should know I may have an imperfect hand such as this.

Stephen Fischer: I’m not strong enough to bid 2 then 2 ; nor to force with 1 then 3 . Notrump could easily suffer from communication problems, so I’ll probably be able to scramble more tricks in 2 than 2 NT.

Comments for H. 2 then 3

Bud Hinckley: Would I really do this in real life without the wire?

Lawrence Cheetham: Two clubs than 2 is too aggressive (even if partner figures out you hold five spades). Where am I going unless my [minimal] 2 bid arouses partner’s interest?

Rainer Herrmann: Unless partner can bid spades, chances are we are better off playing a club contract.

Dale Freeman: To limit my hand, and play in my longest suit on a possible misfit.

John R. Mayne: If 1 then 2 were there, I’d choose that — this is one of three times I’ve been tempted to go off the board in these polls, and I’d definitely do it here. Notrump is totally wrong on this shape, all the time; how will I set up my tricks and take them? Given that all the options after 1 are horrifying, I’ll try to quit in 3 .

Sylvain Brethes: Choice I: Pass 1 . :) OK, more seriously, Choices B, D and G are far out; C and F are fourth suit forcing and unsuitable. I will go for 2 then 3 , as my [self-sufficient] suit may produce the only score I could mark in my column. Yes, I could be missing a cold 4 . Sorry, partner.

Simon Cheung: … The best way to handle a misfit is to try to play in your best suit and stay low. A 2 response is better than 1 , as it is not game-forcing and makes it possible to [stop] in clubs. …

Bob Boudreau: … My spade spot cards aren’t good enough to bid 1 then 2 .

David Turner: This is encouraging towards 3 NT, the most likely game (which may be better than 4 even if partner has three spades). Five clubs is also possible.

Sheldon Spier: As we are nonvulnerable, getting a plus score is the most important issue. This hand is far more appropriate for suit play than notrump (…communication difficulty). So what are the chances of a spade fit? (Partner needs three of the eight missing spades in his eight unknown slots, out of 34 unknown slots in three hands.) … Further, we still might get to game in clubs [and some spade fits will fail to make 4 ]. …

John Schuler: I’ll never get out of the auction at a safe level if I rebid 2 . …

Anthony Golding: … I like to bid my longer suit first if possible, and the suit disparity leads me to bid 2 even though I’m under strength. I’ve slightly fixed myself (I was hoping for a 2 or 2 NT rebid) as 2 will be fourth suit now…; but I don’t really mind repressing this spade suit.

Barry Rigal: My plan was to bid 2 over 2 ; but now spades won’t be right, so I’ll try to bail out in 3 . …

Vlastimil Lev: I cannot bid both suits, as 2 would be fourth suit forcing; but my club suit is better (playable opposite a singleton) and rebiddable…

Richard Morse: Gross, but this is what I would do. One notrump is even worse, and the hand is not worth 2 (fourth suit forcing).

Carlos Dabezies: … If spades are bid first, clubs must be shown at the three level. I would have bid 2 over a 2 rebid; but with partner having at least nine red cards, the club intermediates should minimize the damage (even perhaps if partner has three spades).

Danny Kleinman: Beware likely misfits and try to get out in a safe partscore… I love six-card suits with [internal] solidity when there’s no fit.

Ivan Viehoff: This pinpoints my strength, and my clubs can play opposite a singleton. … The chance that partner has three spades is less than 25 percent; and trying to find out could lead to disaster; so the odds favor caution. Had I been marginally weaker, I would be forced to bid 1 ; then I would give a false preference to hearts rather than any of the listed options.

John Hoffman: This sequence is a safe way to show mildly invitational values and a long suit. The chunky clubs are close to self-sufficient, so being passed in 3 on a misfit is OK.

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

Problem 6

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 2 1	North 2 2	East 4	South 1 NT ?	K 7 J 7 A K 10 8 4 2 A 7 5
1. spades + another suit 2. cue-bid (game force)

Your Call and Opinion	Award	Votes	Percent
H. 5 , disagree with 1 NT	10	491	35
G. 5 , agree with 1 NT	9	325	23
F. 4 NT, disagree with 1 NT	8	109	8
E. 4 NT, agree with 1 NT	7	109	8
B. Pass, disagree with 1 NT	5	114	8
A. Pass, agree with 1 NT	4	70	5
D. Double, disagree with 1 NT	2	146	10
C. Double, agree with 1 NT	1	47	3

The voting seems clear: Bid what you have — not only now, but preferably the first time. The majority (58 percent) chose 5 , and 62 percent disagreed with opening 1 NT, obviously preferring to open 1 .

I would bid 5 (at matchpoints I like 4 NT) as it seems too dangerous to defend with an undisclosed six-card suit. The aggressive enemy bidding makes partner likely to have a singleton spade, so a 9+ card diamond fit is odds-on — and you can be sure it will be 10+ cards any time you choose to defend. On a bad day, of course, partner will have 1=4=2=6 or 2=4=2=5 shape, and you’ll regret the whole mess.

Regarding the second issue, I definitely agree with 1 NT to convey the strength and direction of the hand in one bid. Opening 1 may force you to underbid or overbid to describe what looks like a “2 1/2 diamond rebid.” Further, 1 NT is more likely to stifle enemy competition, whereas 1 allows an easy overcall.

This problem revives memories of Edgar Kaplan, who was devoutly against off-shape notrumps. As his teammate for a number of years, I would often follow my instincts and open 1 NT. When it worked, the best I might get from Edgar was a rolling of his eyes; and when it didn’t… well, I’d try to avoid the discussion. Board 6? Let’s see… darned if I remember it.

Four notrump (natural) is sensible. Opposite some hands, e.g., x A-x-x-x Q-x-x-x K-x-x-x, there won’t be 11 tricks in diamonds, and 10 tricks in notrump offers the best chance for game. Of course, a surprise non-spade lead might spoil this picnic. On a frequency basis, however, there must be more hands where 5 is the better game; so 4 NT has a distinct matchpoint flavor. Also, 4 NT will miss some slams, where partner would have raised 5 to 6 .

Of the remaining options, I can live with pass (obviously forcing) though I don’t see any advantage. If partner doubles, will you be happy? I wouldn’t be. Even if partner bids 5 , you won’t know whether to pass or bid 5 . Therefore, you might as well flip your coin ahead of time with 5 ; at least then partner will know you have a long suit.

The only option that disturbs me is double. Did you forget you opened 1 NT? Surely, this hand has minimal defense, and excellent prospects for offense, so double seems way off track — and could produce a double game swing against you.

Fasten your seat belts! Whatever you did is unlikely to matter, as the Biarritz bombers were in town:

South deals	—		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A 10 8 6 5		Pender	Lebel	Ross	Soulet
	Q 9					1 NT
	K Q 9 8 6 3		2	2	4	4 NT
A J 9 4 2		Q 10 8 6 5 3	Pass	6	6	Dbl
Q 9 4 2		K 3	Pass	Pass	Pass
7 6 3		J 5
4		J 10 2
	K 7
	J 7
	A K 10 8 4 2
	A 7 5

France N-S	USA (Martel) N-S	West	North	East	South
6 × East	6 × West	Faigenbaum	Manfield	Pilon	Woolsey
Down 3 -500	Down 3 -500				1 NT
		Pass	2	Dbl	2 NT
No swing		3	6	6	Dbl
		Pass	Pass	Pass

The problem scenario arose at the first table, as Pender offered up Astro (spades plus another suit) on a wing and a prayer — a wise move, as East-West might never have bid otherwise. After the cue-bid and jump to 4 , Soulet bid 4 NT (natural) and Lebel tried 6 , which he surely would have done anyway. Ross was right there with 6 for a great save. Perhaps Soulet was too quick to double, as plus 500 was little compensation for a vulnerable slam, or grand slam; but it can hardly be criticized, as the auction suggests bad breaks, which might scuttle any higher bid.

At the second table, the French were fortunate even to get in the bidding after Faigenbaum passed 1 NT. Manfield’s 2 was a transfer to clubs, allowing Pilon to double; then he judged well to save after partner showed a fit. Well fought for a push board!

Regarding the second issue, Soulet and Woolsey both judged to open 1 NT, so I feel a little better about my own position. Alas, it only gave Edgar Kaplan more vitriol for his write-up in The Bridge World, “The auction began with both dealers psyching a 1 NT opening…” We miss you, Edgar.

Comments for H. 5 , disagree

Or Shoham: When in doubt, bid what you think you have!

Damo Nair: How bad can this be? :) Maybe an opponent will bid 5 .

Bill Daly: One notrump is a matchpoint bid. I have to make some effort to play in diamonds; but if partner bids hearts, I’m not going to be happy.

Ed Barnes: I’m not into protecting J-x unless playing with an imbecile. …

Great! I’ll save this hand in case I get the urge to reincarnate Fritz for another contest.

Jess Cohen: I disagree with 1 NT because of personal bias. I once won a regional Swiss when an opposing pro (Steve Garner)…opened 1 NT with a hand like this and got raised to 3 NT. Playing precision, we opened 1 , found our fit, and bid and made 6 . Opening 1 in standard should also get to a slam, if there is one…

Jeff Tang: This hand is a little light for 1 NT at unfavorable vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann: Too much in diamonds, and too little in hearts. One notrump is unlikely to get us to a high diamond contract if best; and if partner has the majors, he may insist on a major-suit contract when 3 NT is best.

Erwin Witteveen: The hand is far too strong for a 1 NT opening. Now, I cannot investigate 6 . Even if 4 doubled is the best spot, the silly opening [obliges] me to bid 5 now as a means of damage control.

Dale Freeman: One notrump is not my style, especially at IMPs! Too many controls; poor hearts; and I like 1 then 3 .

Ivan Kolev: I would open 1 NT if my diamonds were weaker, e.g., J-10-x-x-x-x.

John R. Mayne: I’m a big fan of off-shape notrumps and would do so routinely on this shape, except this hand screams “diamond slam!” The prime high cards and lack of a heart stopper dissuade me, though at matchpoints I’d open 1 NT. Now that we’re here, what mental illness must you suffer to double 4 ? If I pass and partner doubles, I have to pass; right? I have a huge offensive hand that should play from my side; if partner raises to 6 , I’ll be elated; and if he passes, that’s cool. Easiest problem of the set.

Chuck Henke: … Opening 1 NT makes it [difficult] to find 5 or 6 .

Carsten Kofoed: A practical bid that [should] show a six-carder. … Perhaps E-W will take a phantom sacrifice.

Carolyn Ahlert: With a six-card suit and no heart stopper, I don’t like the 1 NT opening.

Djordje Jankovic: Taking the vulnerability into account, I discard the double; and also the pass, as partner probably has quite a wrong picture of my hand. While 4 NT is [natural], I think 5 is a better choice. … I would open 1 .

Steve Moese: Not a good time to open 1 NT; my diamonds are too good, and the right 14 points gives us a [slam]. I might open 1 NT in third seat; and would always do so if the J and K were switched.

Bob Boudreau: I can handle this distribution with 1 then 3 ; so why bid an off-shape 1 NT?

Robin Zigmond: One notrump seems very odd, seeing as there’s no objection to rebidding 2 on this fine suit.

Chuck Lamprey: I open more [off-shape] notrumps than most, and 5-4 shapes (five-card minor) don’t bother me; but I don’t like doing it with six. Sometimes the hand plays best in the long suit, and there are few sequences which can get us there. Admittedly, this may be one of them!

Gerald Cohen: Pass doesn’t describe my hand (other than that I can’t double 4 ). Hopefully, avoiding a spade lead through my hand will help.

Michael Lindhagen: With an extra heart and a club less, I might have opened 1 NT; but I think the diamond suit is too strong (perhaps K-x-x-x-x-x makes it a 1 NT opening).

Sandy McIlwain: … Now I have to try to describe my hand in one call. Pass shows a hand with no clear direction, and double shows a hand with good defense; so they’re both out. Four notrump may be right if we can run 10 tricks; but 5 protects me if I have to give up the lead. And what if they bid again?

Richard Aronson: … For scrunching hands into a 1 NT opening, I’m willing to cheat by a smidgen; and on the face of it, pretending the 2 is the 2 is pretty innocuous. But on this auction…that 2 is worth an ace in trick-taking potential, which makes this 15-pointer worth more like 19. Thus, I disagree. Partner could hold, e.g., x-x A-x-x Q-x-x K-Q-J-x-x, and [6 is almost cold] so I must bid. …

Joel Singer: I’ll show my suit — at the five level, but that’s what I deserve for opening this hand 1 NT.

Anthony Golding: Whenever I open hands like this with 1 NT, partner forces me to pick a major at the four level. This hand is all about the diamond suit, so I’d have opened 1 . Now I must show where I live before partner acts, thinking I’m more balanced — the hand, I mean.

David Matthews: My style is not to open 1 NT on shapely hands; it’s misleading if partner never knows what I’ve got.

Brian Patmore: My old granny told me never to open 1 NT with two doubletons — and she died a wealthy woman!

Nick Doe: I don’t normally object to 6-3-2-2 notrumps, but this hand seems just too suit-oriented. As for what to bid now, I want to be declarer to protect the K, and I have a nice hand and a great suit. Why not tell partner the good news? …

Dick Yuen: I would agree with 1 NT only after trading J A for A J.

Pietro Campanile: Beats me why I should open 1 NT at IMPs. Here I would have a nice 1 opening, followed by an easier action on the second round, given that partner’s action over a 1 overcall would be much clearer.

Richard Morse: I have to let partner know I am unbalanced — and when he sees my hand, he’ll know that it’s mentally, too. I would have opened 1 .

Pieter Geerkens: My defensive values (possibly only one trick) are not what partner would expect for my 1 NT opening.

Carlos Dabezies: Not a good defensive hand (more so at this vulnerability), and leaving it to partner won’t help. At IMPs, bypassing 4 NT is not so potentially dangerous, and 5 helps partner to bid 6 with the right cards. It’s rarely right to open 1 NT with two doubleton majors (more so at IMPs).

Danny Kleinman: Never bidding diamonds risks missing a good diamond game or slam; and I’d much rather bid diamonds first and notrump later than the reverse.

Jordan Chodorow: If I can bid naturally at IMPs, I tend to do so; therefore, the cutesy 1 NT appeals more at matchpoints. With partner rating to have only one spade, if this isn’t the hand for 5 , what is? There’s no “Hamman’s Rule” for 4 NT. :)

Leonard Helfgott: With only 4 HCP in doubletons (one without a stopper) it must be wrong to open 1 NT at IMPs — often missing diamonds. Partner doesn’t seem to have enough spades to make 4 NT a good spot, so I’ll accentuate what I should have in the first place. This would have been a harder problem at matchpoints.

Don Hinchey: Two flaws for 1 NT: off-shape and weak hearts. A pass over 4 appeals if partner has club length; but…he may double when we should be declaring.

Daniel Miller: I should have opened 1 . Now I will tell partner I have a phenomenal diamond suit and no particular desire to defend 4 .

Suzi Subeck: Opening 1 would have made my life much easier. I would object less to 1 NT if I had three cards in one major (as opposed to three clubs)… Now, vulnerable, I hate to double an obviously distributional hand when our side is likely to have a game. Hopefully, partner’s 2 bid has tolerance for [diamonds].

Russell Haney: If opponents have a fit, we have a fit. …

Ulrich Nell: I have tried 1 NT openings with six-card minors, but only with a stopper in each side suit; so I cannot change my mind now.

Jerry Merrell: If the K and J were switched, I would agree with 1 NT. As it is, I would open 1 .

Frank Ryck: “In for a penny, in for a pound.” …

Comments for G. 5 , agree

Olle Morell: Pass is the alternative to let partner decide, but I have a quite powerful hand… Both 1 and 1 NT are reasonable openings; 1 NT is attractive if not playing strong club, as you don’t have solid values for a jump rebid, and it’s a bit on the strong side for 1 , 2 .

Ted Ying: One notrump is the best opening, since the hand is slightly too strong for 1 , 2 ; and not strong enough for 1 , 3 . … If I don’t show the six-bagger now, partner will not work it out; so I have to bid.

Albert Ohana: Bridge is a bidder’s game; isn’t it?

Jouko Paganus: Let the opponents guess between pass and 5 . Four notrump is an option, but has a slight risk of going down or being misunderstood by partner as a [minor-suit takeout].

Nigel Marlow: I like 1 NT; otherwise, after 1 and one of anything from partner, I’d have to bid 3 , which doesn’t feel right. I also think I have to come out of the woods over 4 — if I pass and partner bids 5 , I won’t feel very comfortable.

Andrei Varlan: What other opening? OK, I could open 1 ; but what do I rebid over a 1 or 1 response? …

Fraser Rew: Four spades is cold alarmingly often on these hands; and 4 NT rates to have tricks cashing against it. … So I’ll bid our most likely game.

Bud Hinckley: There’s a good chance partner is 2=4=3=4, or similar. With a five-card [heart] suit, he would have jumped to 3 immediately.

Petko Boukov: Even though I don’t like to open 1 NT with two doubletons (especially at IMPs), this hand is a nice exception. Four spades will probably go down, but not enough to compensate for our game.

Sylvain Brethes: One notrump is not obvious? Um, OK. I just hope West’s second suit is not diamonds. :)

Nick Krnjevic: I agree with 1 NT, although I suspect that Edgar Kaplan would disapprove. Partner’s cue-bid is probably Stayman-like, since [with five hearts] he could force with 3 ; and given his likely stiff spade, he rates to have eight cards in the minors; so I’ll retreat to 5 .

Hamish Brown: Sure, 1 NT on all sorts of stuff; how do I benefit from a 1 opening here? … East-West probably make 4 , and we make 5 or 6 .

Solaris Whitesail: I was tempted to bid 4 NT, but partner might take that as unusual. Bidding 5 should show at least five. …

Michael Mayer: This lets partner in on the joke.

Jack Rhatigan: I don’t like bidding 1 , 3 ; so 1 NT is a logical bid.

Paulino Correa: Why not 1 NT? I have honors in all suits; and if I open 1 and hear 1 or 1 , I’d have to bid 2 , losing a nice game opposite some 9-10 HCP hands. …

Barry Rigal: If I’d known what was going to happen, I would not have opened 1 NT! … Now, 5 seems mandatory. How could I not introduce this suit here?

Julian Wightwick: … Partner must have been asking my opinion on something, and I have an extraordinarily good suit for my opening. I don’t feel strongly either way about 1 NT; I’d much rather have queens than the A; still, it avoids a nasty guess between 2 and 3 after opening 1 , so perhaps that justifies it.

Conor Moore: I completely agree with 1 NT,…and 5 now seems the safest option for [game].

John Reardon: Many good players would open 1 NT with this slightly off-center hand, and this…occasion may put it to the test. Five diamonds may be wrong; but who can be sure?

Martin Harris: At least partner will know I have six diamonds, and that he can’t expect more than honor-doubleton in hearts.

John Hoffman: This hand seems too soft for 1 , 3 ; yet too near the high end for 1 , 2 . Five diamonds is as likely to make as 4 NT, and it’s our best chance for slam.

Mike Doyle: This game is all about notrump! Now, I’d better get my suit in before someone bids 5 .

Jeff Ruben: I see no problem with opening 1 NT. On this auction, my surprise suit could be a liability on defense, so I bid 5 … If I were to make a forcing pass, I wouldn’t know what to do if partner bid, say, 5 .

Tim DeLaney: Opening 1 also has its problems, so I don’t fault 1 NT. Partner had an opportunity to bid a [heart] suit, and instead passed the buck to me. Five diamonds is the best description I can find…

Gabriel Ip: The tenuous spade holding just nudges up my agreement with 1 NT. Partner is almost certainly showing [four] hearts. I just hope West’s second suit is not diamonds!

Kieran Dyke: One notrump is fine; although if partner has a good hand with a spade void (he does), we might find it harder to reach diamond slams.

Comments for F. 4 NT, disagree

Andy Holland: This always happens to me when I open a little off-center.

Simon Cheung: … I don’t want to defend (or suggest defending); so pass and double are out. I have a stopper and a source of tricks; so if partner has enough for 3 NT facing a normal 15-17, I think 4 NT should have decent play.

Manuel Paulo: I envisage winning 10 tricks. Against opening 1 NT, I point out that the diamond suit is too good and the heart suit is not stopped.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: With such good diamonds, I prefer to open 1 and rebid 3 . Now, I will try for 10 tricks in notrump.

Sebastien Louveaux: It’s not my style to open 1 NT with a clearly suit-oriented hand. Partner does not expect me to bid 5 here,…but I think we should try for a vulnerable game. With a spade stopper and seven probable tricks in the minors, partner ought to supply only two more…

Nicoleta Giura: I wouldn’t mind 1 NT with Q-x; but J-x? Hmm. Four notrump might be our last spot.

Kent Feiler: One notrump with a bad six-card minor is fine; but not with a good one. It looks like we’re not playing Lebensohl, so partner could have 1=4=2=6 shape, or other bad hands for 5 .

Rosalind Hengeveld: I don’t see any merit in opening 1 NT; I have a good suit, and only one tenace. I wonder what partner is up to with this “cue-bid (game force)”; I hate such nondescript bids. Anyway, 4 NT stands out as the most likely game in town.

Howard Liu: Vulnerability is unfavorable, and it’s unclear how 4 will go; it might even make (West probably has both majors)…

Richard Stein: I must object to 1 NT, with a 1 , 3 plan so natural. However, the auction now permits me to contract for 10 tricks in notrump — an attractive prospect with such a fast looking hand.

Andrew de Sosa: With such weak and short major-suit holdings, I would discount the J and open 1 , intending to rebid 2 over 1 or 1 . Four notrump now should show a more offensive than defensive hand, with a likely source of tricks. Partner should not expect better spades, as then I would double.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 743), and on each problem only for the top three calls. Over 60 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

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

I hope you enjoyed this return to Biarritz, 22 years ago (almost exactly, as I write). Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Time to go, so I’ll leave you with a few words from the peanut gallery:

Madhukar Bapu: All these years, to avoid keeping score, I would grab the South seat. Never again!

Richard Stein: While I have no idea where this tournament was held, or who was awarded “the verdict,” I do know that I will be found guilty — of having no clue what I’m doing.

Rosalind Hengeveld: Wow! This problem set was too difficult to complete in 48 hours.

And finally, references to our recent hurricane:

Charles Blair: I hope you’re safe and sound, and return to a house that’s shipshape — oops, maybe not a great expression for the occasion.

Kent Feiler: Hope you’re all OK. We’ve been having some nasty weather here in Chicago, too. It rained once last week.

Anyone know how to send a hurricane to Illinois?

Analyses 8W08 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Verdict in 48 Hours

© 2004 Richard Pavlicek