Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge
A Large Gala Occasion
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 8W16 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in November 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 |
Most of the wrong guesses made a great European tour: Geneva, Switzerland; Paris, France; Turin, Italy; Budapest, Hungary; Warsaw, Poland; Prague, Czech Republic; Athens, Greece; Crete; London, England; and (pulling my leg I think): Galashields, Scotland. Next came a wide swing to Buenos Aires, Argentina; and some close guesses for U.S. cities of Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston, and everybody’s favorite tournament site: Bangor, Maine.
The tournament was held in “The Big Apple,” or New York City, as were many of the world championships in the early years. One of my clues appeared in the title: “Large Gala” is a synonym for big apple. Elsewhere in the poll I wrote that one team had a huge “delicious” victory, another apple reference. Congratulations to J.J. Gass and Bill Powell, who were the only respondents to mention this connection.
For the fruit challenged, gala and delicious are kinds of apples.
Pictured at top is a row of flagpoles in the courtyard of the United Nations building. When the General Assembly is in session, flags of each nation are hoisted atop the poles. The statue of a lady archer (Mrs. Goldfinger in the buff?) is an exhibit at the New York Museum of Art. Also pictured is the Central Park reservoir on a foggy morning.
The background song Love Letters in the Sand was my only clue to the year. Originally recorded by Pat Boone, it became a #1 Hit in 1957, which was the year of the tournament. Congratulations to Bill Cubley and Tim Francis-Wright, who were the only persons to identify both the year and location. A total of 15 persons correctly guessed New York City, and four guessed 1957.
Leo Jongens Wins!This poll had 1276 participants from 120 locations, and the average score was 45.20. Congratulations to Leo Jongens (Netherlands) who was the first of two with perfect scores. Jozsef Szikszai (Hungary) also scored 60. Close behind at 59 were Andrew Rautio (Russia); Oleg Rubinchik (New York); Lawrence Cheetham (Massachusetts); Rinus Balkenende (Netherlands); and Zahary Zahariev (Bulgaria).
Participation was down from the previous poll, which had 1410 entries, but still third highest (second highest was 1337 in March 2004). The average score was up slightly from last poll, but among the lower ones; but this only reflects the dispersion of voting and my scoring decisions. None of the problems had a majority (I can barely say that because one choice drew exactly 50 percent on Problem 1) and three problems were extremely close.
In the overall leaderboard, David Caprera (Colorado) took over the top spot with 56.50 average; followed by Damo Nair (California) with 56.25. Past leader Jorge Castanheira (Portugal) dropped to third, by tiebreaker over Jean-Christophe Clement (France) as each had 55.75. All alone in fifth place is Fadi Fattouche (Lebanon) with 55.50.
As in the past, some respondents complained about the total-point scoring — a few because they didn’t understand it, and the rest because it’s obsolete. Sorry, but I always retain the scoring format in which the deals were played. For the most part, bridge is bridge. It’s amazing how little the form of scoring affects the bidding* (play strategy varies more). Indeed, in these problems I couldn’t see any case where my awards would be different at IMPs.
*I once wrote a lesson on bidding differences between IMPs and matchpoints but junked it because convincing examples were hard to create.
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
The seventh Bermuda Bowl (inaugurated in 1950) was held at the Biltmore Hotel in New York City, January 6-11, 1957. Only two teams — that’s right, two — would fight it out over 224 boards to determine the world champion. Events like this didn’t need any round-robins or knockouts!
Representing the American Contract Bridge League was a team of six U.S. players, winning their berth by capturing the 1956 Master Knockout Teams: Charles Goren, Helen Sobel, Harold Ogust, Boris Koytchou, Peter Leventritt, and William Seamon.
Representing the European Bridge League was — sound the trumpets — Squaddra Azura, the dawn of a bridge dynasty. This was the first appearance of the Italian Blue Team, earning its berth by winning the 1956 European Championships held in Stockhom.
Pictured (L-R) are Pietro Forquet, Massimo D’Alelio, Eugenio Chiaradia, Walter Avarelli, Guglielmo Siniscalco, and Giorgio Belladonna.
Unusual by today’s standards was the form of scoring. This was the last world championship to use total points, which is an accumulation of raw duplicate scores without conversion to IMPs, although honors count as in rubber bridge. Relax! None of the problems chosen for the poll have honor bonuses to consider.
One of the participants in this event, Billy Seamon, was a good friend of mine and occasional teammate. In fact, I won my first national championship with Billy in 1973 (Grand National Teams) and curiously, his son Michael was my partner in winning the same event 24 years later. Good blood, this family, which has produced a raft of top players. Indeed, anyone wishing to field a family bridge team could benefit from this Seamon sample (apologies for that).
The match was close for the first 100 boards or so, then Italy switched on the afterburners to win by a convincing margin. So what else is new? The final difference was 10,150 points, which I’d guess to be about 150 IMPs in today’s scoring.
Italian teams of today have to work much harder. In the Istanbul Olympiad last month, Italy had to march through 72 teams in 14 days to win the championship. All this team had to do was show up in New York and beat up on Goren. Ah, the good old days.
So pull up a chair, and compare your bidding with the world’s best of 1957.
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 1
| Total Points | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 2  Pass | North Pass 2 
| EAST Pass Pass Pass | South 1 Dbl ? | A Q 10 4 3 A K Q 10 4 A 8 7
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pass | 10 | 638 | 50 |
| 3 | 8 | 144 | 11 |
| 2 NT | 7 | 278 | 22 |
| 3 | 6 | 128 | 10 |
| 3 NT | 2 | 22 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 | 66 | 5 |
To try for game, or give up; that’s the issue. Partner could have as much as 7-8 points with a doubleton spade (with 3+ spades he would have raised earlier), so game could be on; but he could also have a worthless hand, where another bid will put you overboard (if not already). The odds are surely stacked against game, so this would be a no-brainer at matchpoints — pass and take the plus. At total points, however, or at IMPs to a slightly lesser degree, the vulnerable game bonus might be enough to warrant the risk.
The consensus was to quit. The vote of 50 percent (curiously exactly) for pass is a mandate, considering that people tend to bid when in doubt, especially in bidding polls. In other words, some bidders may have been persuaded to do so because pass is seldom the winner. This leaves no doubt that pass deserves the top spot. As much as I like to take optimistic views, I must agree that pass feels right.
Another reason for caution is that game may fail even when partner has the values to be there (e.g., K and K-J). Three notrump rates to go sour with the obvious club lead; and 4 (in a 5-2 fit) might suffer from a bad trump break, or perhaps requiring the J to drop doubleton or third.
Of the forward-going moves, I don’t like 2 NT because it is too committal to notrump with just the ace as a stopper. Partner would raise routinely to 3 NT with K-x x-x-x K-J-x-x x-x-x-x, offering no play with a club lead, while 4 offers a decent chance. Similarly, I don’t like 3 because it is too committal to spades; partner would raise to 4 with J-x x-x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x, rather than venture 3 NT. If I decided to bid, I would try 3 , which would reach the right game opposite either of these hands, and still allow a resting place in 3 if partner is broke.*
*The system description of a cue-bid as “forcing to game or four of a previously bid minor” assumes partner has shown some values. Here, partner promised nothing, so a cue-bid is logically just a one-round force.
Here is the actual deal from 1957:
| USA vs Italy | K J 9 2 10 9 6 9 7 6 5 6 4
| |
| 6 8 5 3 A K J K Q 10 9 3 2
|  | 8 7 5 Q J 7 4 2 8 3 2 J 5
|
| Both Vul | A Q 10 4 3 A K Q 10 4 A 8 7 | |
| Avarelli West 2 Pass Pass | Leventritt North Pass 2 4
| Belladonna EAST Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Seamon South 1 Dbl 3
| 4 South Down 1 -100 |
| Koytchou West 3 Pass All Pass | Forquet North Pass 4
| Ogust EAST Pass Pass Pass | Siniscalco South 1 3 4
| 4 South Down 1 -100 No swing |
At the first table, many players today would raise directly to 2 ; but Leventritt passed, no doubt because “free bids” of the time showed sound values. After the reopening double and 2 takeout, Seamon judged his hand worth a game try; and Leventritt had a clear acceptance, having promised nothing so far. The fact that 4 was doomed, even opposite the great trump catch, is strong evidence that our consensus to pass 2 is the percentage call. It also shows that Leventritt was smart not to raise the first time.
The auction at the second table began differently with a strong 1 opening, then Koytchou muddied the waters with a natural 3 preempt. Siniscalco reopened with 3 , and Forquet’s 4 cue-bid looks strange (4 seems obvious); but I’ve learned over the years not to question Italian methods. Somewhere in the Roman Tabernacle must be inscribed: Never make a natural bid when a simple cue-bid will do. Anyway, down one is good bridge; or at least good enough for a push.
Comments for PassZuzana Herrmann: Partner must be very weak. Why should I lure myself on to destruction?
John Reardon: Partner could not bid over 2 and did not have a stack of clubs. Therefore, the chance of game is very slim; but the chance of getting too high if I continue is quite high.
Paul Huggins: Call me a pessimist, but partner did not raise spades at once, and did not pass 2 doubled for penalty; hence he must have a very poor hand with 2-3 spades. Add to this the fact that East did not raise clubs, and it looks like partner has 2-3 of those too. Therefore, anything beyond 2 could be dicey; better to stay low and hope for the best.
Steve Boughey: Call me chicken, but I smell a rat (too many animal metaphors?). Partner could be desperately weak, e.g., x-x-x J-x-x x-x-x J-x-x-x. To go higher could be at our peril.
Bogdan Vulcan: I am not going anywhere. Partner doesn’t have a six-card red suit. I may go down a bunch in notrump. …
Ivan Kolev: A lot of points; few tricks. With 6-7 tricks in my hand, it is hard to see how partner could come up with 3-4 tricks on this bidding. …
Bill Jacobs: Partner couldn’t bid 2 the first time, and he couldn’t bid a red suit now; so he has some length in clubs. Even Dr. Watson could read the clues here.
Andrew Straus: … Partner probably has only two spades and a flat hand. Despite the [form of scoring], I don’t think game is there; I have a five-loser hand and don’t expect two tricks with partner.
Vincent Mes: Oldest lesson? Don’t play partner for the perfect cards.
Ron Landgraff: Partner couldn’t support originally — no support; no points; or both? — and now he can’t bid another suit. Where are we going? If he has three clubs, bad news.
Olle Morell: Unless partner has some fillers, this hand is not as good as the HCP suggest. When partner now bid spades with both red suits easily available, he’s likely to have three spades, thus a very weak hand as he did not support immediately.
Geoff Bridges: Bidding on in hopes of finding the perfect hand is overly aggressive.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Partner usually has three spades and 0-4 points (otherwise he would have bid 2 the first time); then 4 or 3 NT will usually not make.
Carsten Kofoed: With three winners, North should find something more positive than 2 .
Kieran Dyke: Partner has filth. Two notrump is vaguely in the ballpark, but it will need running spades and some club help — maybe too much.
Sandy Barnes: I have 19 real but few tricks, and partner could not scrape up a raise over 2 . This is the time to go quietly.
Junaid Said: Partner didn’t have enough to bid a direct 2 earlier, and couldn’t bid anything else on the second turn, so game does not rate to be good.
Jeff Hand: If partner is not good enough to bid 2 over 2 , we could easily be overboard if I take another action.
Christian Vennerod: Partner should stretch to bid 2 [immediately] with support; and he does not need much for a negative double either. If he has K-x x-x-x K-J-x-x-x x-x-x, a perfect maximum, 4 is still no better than 50 percent. Leave it be.
Sean Lester: Partner didn’t make a negative double; so he is either understrength or has club length. In either case, game in spades won’t play well.
Josh Sinnett: Too many losers for partner to cover in order to have game. I’d rather take my sure plus at total points.
Ian Totman: I need too much from partner, who is probably somewhat balanced; else really weak.
Bill Daly: If all partner can scrape up is 2 , where are we going? If West bids on, I will be happy to defend.
Jonathan Goldberg: I shudder at missing a vulnerable game at [total points], but this hand has too many losers to make game without a genuine raise. Let’s go plus.
Gerald Cohen: When the event with this problem was held, it was probably right to bid 2 NT; but free-bid concepts are dead in the 21st century, and partner won’t have much.
Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: Spade honors are likely to lie unfavorably, and partner doesn’t have the strength for a free bid. … Four spades may be on if partner produces the J and A-J; but it is a long bet.
Nigel Marlow: Partner does not have three spades and values; otherwise he would compete over 2 . If he has some values without three spades, he might have made a negative double. I’ll take a safe plus.
Tim DeLaney: On a bad day, even two spades could be in trouble.
Mark Raphaelson: … I see no reason why I should expect any sort of entry into partner’s hand; 2 may be plenty.
Billy Chen: Partner’s spades can’t be good, so there are too many losers to consider 4 or 3 NT.
George Klemic: … Partner needs perfect cards to have even a play for game, and it’s not even clear we have an eight-card fit.
Phil Adamson: Partner would have bid on the previous round with any hand opposite which I’d want to play a spade game. If there’s a play for 3 NT, partner [probably] would have found a red suit to bid. If I’m lucky, I’ll walk away with a plus score.
Danny Kleinman: No direct raise from partner and no jump reply to my takeout double [means] no game — and no safety at the three level.
Alon Amsel: Partner couldn’t bid 2 right away, or 2 or 2 after the double; so he should be very weak…
Frans Buijsen: [To make game], partner must have two of the top honors I’m missing; and I really don’t think he can have them, else he would have bid earlier.
Dirk Enthoven: Two notrump comes to mind, as partner may well have club [length] when East doesn’t raise. Still, partner did not bid 2 NT on his own… so passing seems best.
Nicoleta Giura: We might miss a game here if partner has K-x x-x-x-x x-x-x-x Q-x-x; but I’ll take the risk.
Michael G. Phillips: … Without a sure (or even implied) source of tricks, game looks pretty remote with this balanced hand.
Petko Boukov: Game is very unlikely after partner’s [discouraging] bid. Besides, West’s strength is behind mine, so finesses are unlikely to succeed.
Brian Zietman: Partner may have a Yarborough, and I may even go down two in 2 — losing three diamonds, two clubs and two spades.
Willem Mevius: An ugly 19 points, and partner couldn’t bid 2 over 2 . I’ll be happy if I make this. …
Jeff Ruben: Even if partner has as much as K-x-x, I am not close to making game; and he could have less.
Sartaj Hans: The first objective of the auction is to determine if we belong in game, and partner’s pass over 2 is a definite statement that we don’t. Unless someone has a distributional monster, the rest of the auction is simply about finding the best partscore (or occasionally penalizing the opponents).
Steve Stein: Partner could be really busted; if he had any forward-going interest in spades, he’d speak over 2 .
Yes, even if he’s holding a dog… Here, boy! Speak!
Jacob Grabowski: Partner seems almost broke, placing West with most of the missing honors — all wrong for any finesse, unless West is endplayed on the opening lead. I’m beginning to like this hand less and less…
Gordon Bower: Chickenhearted, I know; but partner can’t have three spades and 6 points… and on a bad day he won’t have either. Total points, and we play negative doubles? A wee bit of an anachronism? :)
Jonathan Monroe: Partner didn’t bid 2 because he wanted do… and if he has fewer than 6 HCP for the pass, he can’t have two cover cards (and may only have K-x). …
Eduard Munteanu: Partner doesn’t have four hearts or five diamonds, so it seems he has three spades but couldn’t find a 2 bid [over 2 ]. A balanced hand means lots of losers, and having three clubs is bad news.
Len Vishnevsky: Partner could have x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x; or maybe K-x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x x-x-x, and I’ll be lucky to make 2 . Do I get to keep the partscore? :) Could partner have K-x Q-x-x J-x-x-x x-x-x-x? Sure, but game is still lousy; and if he’s any better or has three spades, he wouldn’t have passed.
Jean Claude Melka: I trust partner; if he had something better than 5-6 points and three spades, he would have bid 2 over 2 ; and he may have [nothing].
Ken Masson: Partner has a very poor hand, as he would have stretched to bid over 2 ; or [jumped] over my balancing double with any values. He probably has some 4-3-3-3 distribution; and even if the missing spade honors are with East, I won’t be able to get to dummy to finesse. I can’t see any prospect of game…
Mike Harney: All the points are on my left, so I’ll pass. (Now that’s got to be a shocker to my former partners.)
You seem to have phrased that very well… Are all your partners former partners?
Julian Wightwick: Partner would have stretched to bid 2 last time with, say, K-x-x and another high card.
Martin Rotblatt: If partner had 6+ points and three spades, he would bid 2 ; so he either has less then 6 points with three spades, or [up to] a little more with two spades. I only see eight tricks at best.
Madhukar Bapu: Partner seems to have [three spades], so his failure to act over 2 indicates a near bust. Pass is a standout.
Peter Oakley: Give partner the K and K (best scenario since he passed first round) and game will still be unlikely to make.
Stephen Hamilton: Partner was too weak to support spades or to make negative double, so we don’t have the HCP for game. Moreover, 2 after my double is the weakest response partner could make, so he very likely has 0-4 HCP… If West bids 3 , I will then try 3 (and double any further E-W bid for penalty).
Comments for 3 Spiros Liarakos: A game try with some length in clubs. The K and J (or Q) [may] be enough. I will try 3 NT next over 3 or 3 ; or pass 3 .
Sebastien Louveaux: Even though partner is probably weak, I cannot afford to miss a vulnerable game. The cue-bid will focus on his strength, while bringing notrump in the picture.
Jyrki Lahtonen: As I doubled in the close-out seat, I’m surely worth one more move. This gives partner room to show a concentration in diamonds that I would welcome most warmly.
Ulrich Nell: If partner has more than 4 points, he probably has 2=3=3=5 shape (with which I would expect him to pass 2 doubled with 7+ points). If he does have 6-7 points, I still have reservations about 3 NT; but playing total points and being vulnerable, I think I have to be even more aggressive than when playing IMPs. …
David Wiltshire: This hand is strong enough for one more try. Committing to any strain (spades or notrump) seems wrong, so I’ll leave that decision to partner.
Jordan Chodorow: Spade bids are unspeakable; notrump bids are all wet with this holding. Pass wins most often; but vulnerable at total points, I’ll take one last chance and pass whatever partner bids.
Philip Pallenberg: I’ll pass 3 , or bid 3 NT over three of a red suit.
Don Hinchey: Trying to awaken the sleeping midget.
Comments for 2 NTJohn R. Mayne: Total points? Ouch. At any other scoring, pass would be tempting; but I think 2 NT on this sequence gives us the best shot at a game. Anyone bidding a game solo deserves the balanced Yarborough partner has promised. Why didn’t I just open 2 NT? This is surely worth 20 points.
Bas Lodder: At least the odds of finding a dummy with K-x or J-x and 6-9 HCP are higher than being doubled for minus 800 by a very patient East.
Mauri Saastamoinen: I might catch J-x Q-x-x K-x-x-x J-x-x-x, or x-x-x J-x-x J-x-x x-x-x-x;…so passing is not for me, and leaping all the way to a game is a bit too rich — even if it isn’t my money…
Gerard Versluis: I don’t like it, but I have too much to pass. After all, partner can have an 8-count with a doubleton spade ( J-x Q-x-x K-x-x-x J-x-x-x) and 3 NT might by solid as a rock. If the man bids 3 , I’m in trouble. :)
Jack Brawner: Since partner would have supported me originally with spades and points, the only hope is that he has 6+ points but had no bid over 2 . Is this possible? Yes.
Paul Meerschaert: I may have just bypassed my last plus score, but that game bonus is still possible.
Dale Freeman: The double does not promise extras (just protecting in a penalty situation) so I think partner could have 6-9 HCP; therefore, one more try.
Dean Swallow: Game is still just possible, and it may be in 3 NT, so I will try for it. I probably would have opened 2 NT.
Guven Dalkilic: My aim is to show balanced distribution with maximum honor point (19 HCP) and let partner decide if game is possible.
Mark Abraham: If partner is worthless with three spades, he can retreat to 3 . Hopefully, I can avoid the guess after a small club lead against 3 NT, opposite K-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x J-9-x.
Julian Pottage: Worth a try, vulnerable at this scoring method; and the hand is as balanced as it could be for the previous actions.
David Harari: Describes my strength and distribution. With a better club stopper, I would have bid 2 NT instead of double.
Richard Morse: Worth one more go, I think, even with most of the opposition points on my left. I dislike 3 ; what can partner tell me that he cannot over 2 NT? And West will be on lead, so protecting North’s club holding becomes immaterial. …
Jeff Goldsmith: Total points makes partscores so cheap.
Mark Lincoln: This looks like a 2 NT opener to me (I would not have opened 1 ). Given the current sequence, it looks as though partner holds two spades (or a really bad hand and three spades). I have to make a try for game since partner could easily be hiding a 7-8 count.
Simon Cheung: … If 3 NT is a good spot, partner may have bid the first time or jumped after my reopening double. Still, a game is possible opposite J-x 10-9-x-x K-x-x-x Q-x-x. “Down one is good bridge,” especially when a vulnerable game is at stake.
Sandy McIlwain: While I suspect pass is the winner in the long run, there are just enough possible hands where 3 NT will fetch to make bidding worthwhile. The advantages of 2 NT over 3 are: (1) We might get out at the two-level, and (2) partner’s J-x-x pulls its weight more often with West on lead.
Imre Csiszar: Some Norths would raise immediately with three-card support…and as little as 5 points. For others, a raise would promise 7+ points even in competition; then the risk to bid on may be worth taking. Two notrump gives North the choice between a partscore and game in spades or notrump.
Andrei Varlan: I would pass at pairs, but partner can still have 6-7 points. Two notrump describes 19 points.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Pass is too weak, and the game forces are too much; so it’s down to 2 NT and 3 . This seems the more descriptive invitational move.
Erwin Witteveen: North has 0-7 HCP and two or three spades, probably with something in clubs. This might be too high; but so could be 2 . By bidding 2 NT, I grab two chances: Reaching the better strain (notrump versus spades), and [maybe] reaching game.
Arindam Ray: Since my double is almost automatic, partner would not show enthusiasm with something like the J, K and Q. Therefore, I think I am worth one more try.
Lajos Linczmayer: Though even 2 may go down, I must make a further effort. Partner may have a [fair] hand with a doubleton spade…, e.g., J-x x-x-x-x A-J-x-x x-x-x, or x-x Q-x-x K-J-x-x J-x-x-x, or better.
Nick Krnjevic: The most likely game is 3 NT, e.g., if partner holds K-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x J-x-x.
Damo Nair: It just seems I need to take one more call. Opposite as little as half a club stopper, the J and the J, 3 NT is respectable.
Leonard Helfgott: A single club stop is not ideal; but I need very little to make, and partner may have as much as 6-7 HCP. Perhaps with 7 controls, two good 10s, a good five-card suit and everything stopped, I should have stretched a point and opened 2 NT.
Jon Sorkin: North needs K-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x J-x-x, or J-x-x Q-x-x x-x-x-x Q-x-x. … Pass is a close second choice.
Rainer Herrmann: The hand would have been worth a 2 NT opening, so technically this is a slight underbid. Nevertheless, any other bid is surely too aggressive. Pass could be the winner in the long run.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Pass is tempting, but partner may have a hand without spade support and up to 7-8 HCP; so we may still have a decent game on.
Gonzalo Goded: Not the best stopper, but this shows the strength and shape correctly; partner will have good information to decide among 2 NT, 3 , 3 NT and 4 .
Gary Sikon: Partner may have fair values. This gets my strength and distribution across, and partner can pass, bid 3 , 3 NT or 4 .
Andrew de Sosa: I need to make one more try, as partner could have 6-8 HCP with a doubleton spade. Double followed by 2 NT should show less in clubs than an immediate 2 NT.
Eric Goff: I could have quite a bit less for my [reopening double] so a nice, gentle 2 NT seems best, although pass could easily be a winner.
Tim Francis-Wright: The most accurate game try. Partner doesn’t have a single raise, but he could easily have something useful ( K-x-x and J-x-x-x).
Godefroy de Tessieres: I must double even with a minimum hand (if short in clubs) so now is the time to show that I have extra values. My club stopper is not very good, but partner will know it; with a good stopper I would have reopened with 2 NT.
Adam Saroyan: I can’t bring myself to pass… Partner might like his meager values. With a better club stopper, I would have bid 2 NT right over 2 …
Comment for 3 Neelotpal Sahai: Vulnerability and method of scoring are significant factors, so I think my hand is worth another bid. My first instinct was to bid 3 (not listed), which would be a gray area, but [probably should show a fragment] since 2 and 3 were available as natural bids previously. …
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 2
| Total Points | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass | North 1
| East 5
| South ? | K Q Q 8 7 5 A K 5 A J 10 7
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 NT | 10 | 613 | 48 |
| 5 NT | 8 | 195 | 15 |
| 6 | 7 | 210 | 16 |
| Double | 5 | 146 | 11 |
| 6 | 2 | 89 | 7 |
| 5 | 1 | 23 | 2 |
Ah, the good old days, when nonvulnerable was synonymous with invulnerable. The scoring change of 1987 was probably for the better, but I miss some of the old quirks, such as misjudging a sacrifice and going for 700, then happily finding out the opponents make seven (4 or 4 ) as the cards lie for 710. Now they just nail you for 800 without a prayer.
Meanwhile, back to the problem. With a balanced hand including trump strength, it feels right to double; but then you realize that you will never offset a vulnerable slam with this penalty. Even under the new scoring, a double is doubtful because East would be likely to have greater playing strength (wilder shape). The fly in the ointment is that you might not make a slam, and going minus on this deal would be huge disappointment.
The consensus was to go for the gusto, taking a stab at the most likely slam. Placing the slam in notrump eliminates any danger of a ruff, albeit at the slight risk of missing a superior suit slam if partner has a shapely hand. I have no quarrel with the practical 6 NT bid. Even if partner opened light based on distribution, there is likely to be a play for 12 tricks in notrump, perhaps just needing a finesse.
Another slam move that appeals to me is 5 NT. No specific meaning was given because this is the kind of bid that few partnerships would have discussed. Common sense dictates that it must be forcing to search for an alternate strain, or as commonly known, asking partner to “pick a slam.” The trouble is that partner will offer a suit choice on almost all hands, so hearing 6 or 6 will not tell you what you need to know; e.g., most experts would bid 6 on A-J-x-x-x-x A-x x-x K-9-x, expecting 5 NT bidder to have a heart-club two-suiter. Therefore, I see no advantage in 5 NT; or any real disadvantage either, as you can always bid 6 NT next. If there is a subtle distinction between these routes, it eludes me.
I also have no quarrel with 6 , assuming the same correction to 6 NT. While partner will assume this promises a spade fit, it is surely the best way to try for a grand slam since it promises first-round diamond control. Even so, the lack of space makes it virtually impossible to bid seven with any confidence.
Enough speculation. Let’s see what The Big Apple brewed 47 years ago:
| USA vs Italy | A 8 7 6 3 2 K J 9 2 — K 8 5
| |
| J 10 9 5 4 A 10 6 3 8 6 Q 3
|  | — 4 Q J 10 9 7 4 3 2 9 6 4 2
|
| N-S Vul | K Q Q 8 7 5 A K 5 A J 10 7 | |
| Forquet WEST Pass 3 Pass All Pass | Koytchou North 1 3 5
| Siniscalco East 2 NT Pass Pass | Ogust South Dbl 4 NT 6
| 6 North Made 6 +1430 |
| Goren WEST Pass Pass | D'Alelio North 1 6
| Leventritt East 5 All Pass | Chiaradia South 5 NT | 6 North Down 3 -300 USA +1730 |
The problem scenario arose at the second table, where Leventritt gave the Italians a headache with a well-judged preempt. (Compare this to the paltry interference of Siniscalco.) Chiaradia elicited a choice of slams, and D’Alelio picked 6 . This basically came down to a club guess, and D’Alelio eventually went wrong; down three because he had drawn trumps and cashed his top spades before losing to the Q.
The same slam was reached at the first table, albeit more peacefully, and the outcome might have been the same, too. But wait! Siniscalco led a club (jack, queen, king) and Forquet led another upon winning the A, completely resolving that suit for declarer. The rest was easy; making 6 to gain 1730 points — a short-lived bright spot for my fellow countrymen (oops, plus one countrywoman).
Alas, it appears that 6 NT would be ill-fated as well (without a club lead) as routine play reveals that East has four clubs, then the finesse with 2-to-1 odds fails. Bummer, as echoes of “Take the money” reverberate through my ears.
Comments for 6 NTLawrence Cheetham: Can we really be off A-K? This has a play even if partner has only J-10-x-x-x A-K x-x-x K-x-x.
John Reardon: Near enough the value bid — and in no danger of ruffs.
Robin Zigmond: Assuming East isn’t a complete idiot, 5 isn’t going any more than five off, which at this scoring is 900 — way less than our almost certain slam. Notrump will probably play better than spades, even if partner has six spades.
Matthew Mason: I’d rather not have a diamond led and ruffed at trick one.
John R. Mayne: It’s double or bid slam; 5 is awful. It’s tempting to double, as partner will often pull when it’s right; but at total points and old scoring… Richard, is this some sort of torture? What did your readers do to deserve this? Wasn’t giving impossible problems under existing rules enough?
Paul Flashenberg: This might protect against some foul distribution. Partner should play me for about this many high cards.
Jonathan Brill: I have a 19-count that looks like 21; K-Q are golden. Partner surely has nothing in diamonds. I may get burned…if partner opened with A-J-x-x-x-x x-x-x x K-Q-x (not real likely); but even then, I might get a diamond lead and make it.
Paul Huggins: I fancy a punt. :) I would be very surprised to be missing two aces or A-K — in fact there isn’t much room for both North’s and East’s bids.
Jean-Christophe Clement: There’s no way to ask for control in hearts. I like 5 NT also, but 6 NT should have a chance even if partner is minimal.
Steve Boughey: All partner’s points, even if he is minimum, should be working. On a bad day I could run into J-10-x-x-x with West, but the lure of plus 1440 beats the expected 700 or 900 gain by doubling. I may even come to 12 tricks without needing all the spades (which is why notrump gets the nod). I do not feel I can reasonably investigate a grand slam with just K-Q doubleton.
Bogdan Vulcan: I think double is too risky, especially with the old scoring. :) I’ll just bid what I think I can make. Other bids seem inappropriate: 5 is a gross underbid;… 6 is a bet on partner’s spades, as well as risking a diamond ruff; and 6 , cue-bid without a fit.
Mauri Saastamoinen: At least I do not have to worry about our trump suit being dealt 5-0; in fact, any of our possible trump suits might split badly. Doubling simply isn’t enough. The 12th trick might very well be there only [in notrump] after a squeeze or throw-in against West.
Bill Jacobs: It’s this or double, and I’m bullish. We should be missing at most one of the A, A-K and K.
Andrew Straus: The deck is down to 37 points, as East’s Q-J is going to be worthless; so we have at least 31, leaving opponents with a maximum of 6. …
Vincent Mes: With [so many] diamonds between East and myself, West has too much length in the other suits to suggest playing in a suit. Five diamonds doubled should produce 500 [most] of the time; 700 [sometimes]. How often will 6 NT make? The hand should play like an open book, of course; but is the book any good? :) …
Brad Theurer: East, off the A-K of his suit, probably has a 7-5 freak; so we may not get 5 for all that much, especially under the old scoring. Thus, I’ll keep it simple and make the value bid; 6 NT could go down, or we could be cold for a grand, but there’s no room to find out.
Jack Brawner: It is possible that we are off A-K if partner opened a shapely 11-count; but I would rather take my chances then passively collect 500 (or even 1300) points [on defense].
Razvan Tablet: My 19 points is a strong indication of slam, so it’s just matter of which slam to play, and A-K suggests 6 NT. Five notrump is forcing, asking for another suit; unfortunately, I don’t 4-4 shape is enough.
David Caprera: This should have a play, and we won’t get rich at 5 . … Playing in partner’s suit risks a diamond ruff. Too hard to bid a grand.
Carlos Dabezies: Double is safer but could easily miss a slam. In spades there is a risk of a diamond ruff.
Chris Cooper: Bidding what I think I can make. This should come in, even if partner is minimum. If partner knows my style, he can bid on.
Interesting style: bidding what you can make. I’ll have to try that sometime.
Bill Daly: If I thought partner would interpret 5 NT as a choice of slams, I would try that instead; but most likely he would take it as the grand slam force. I think 6 is dangerous, as a 6 NT follow-up should be choice of slams at the seven level.
Jonathan Goldberg: The only two real possibilities are to take the plus with double, or bid a slam. Most hands I construct for partner provide a play for 6 NT, so I’ll try to win 300-600 points. … Five notrump…risks ambiguity. …
Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: The [wild distribution] is going to make life awful [in a suit contract]; West may be waiting to ruff a diamond. I am confident of the best final contract, so I’ll bid it without ambiguity.
Guven Dalkilic: If partner has more than 15 HCP, he should raise to 7 NT.
Jyrki Lahtonen: The practical bid (second choice is 5 NT). If partner has a two-suiter, we may miss a grand in hearts or clubs; but we most likely wouldn’t be able to bid it with any degree of confidence if I took a slower route. After all, I cannot see any sources of tricks with this hand.
Joel Singer: Taking my best shot — not 6 , as West may ruff a diamond lead. … I can reasonably hope for five spades, a heart, two diamonds and four clubs.
Julian Pottage: This stands a good chance of making and avoids the ambiguity of 5 NT (grand slam force or pick a slam?).
Bill Michell: This seems safer than 6 , since West could easily ruff the first diamond. Double is unattractive, since East obviously has lots of diamonds; faint heart and all that.
Richard Morse: I’m not sure the old scoring should make much of a difference here. Five diamonds is surely not going down that much. Having decided to go on, I might as well be hung for a sheep as a dog. Five notrump seems open to misinterpretation.
Anthony Golding: [In England] this is known as a “Landy slam try” (after Sandra, not Alvin): Bid slam and try to make it.
Danny Kleinman: Tricks should be there somewhere, and any suit slam risks foundering on the rocks of distribution. Six diamonds would be nice as a choice-of-small-slams cue-bid; but would I really welcome being in a heart slam that might fail with West having J-10-9-x when 12 tricks are available without bringing hearts home? And what if partner interprets 6 as agreeing spades, offering a choice between a small and grand slam (a reasonable interpretation).
Tommie Nooij: Six spades [may fail] with a diamond ruff, so I don’t want to be there; and I don’t want to be in 5 when I could have doubled 5 for down four or five.
Tamara Pereira de Sousa: Even opposite a minimum hand, we should have enough for 6 NT; e.g., A-J-x-x-x K-x-x x K-Q-x-x.
Mark Lincoln: I may be cold for seven, or I may be one off. This looks like a slam hand, and the high preempt from East warns me off looking for a grand — also, I’m not sure how I would get partner to accept an invitation, since he is missing several high cards.
Simon Cheung: Doubling to suggest defense could be very wrong when I imagine East with something like — K-J-10-x-x Q-J-10-9-x-x-x x for such a vigorous preempt… Playing 6 NT, I can’t run into a bad trump break that may have ruined six of a suit. If our main suit doesn’t break favorably, winners in other suits may be enough [to compensate].
Imre Csiszar: A magician might find out if it is right to stop below slam; a hero might go for the grand. Being neither, I just take the middle-of-the-road action.
Erwin Witteveen: Six diamonds looks more brilliant; but am I really sure what a 6 answer will mean? Will I pass that? Another disadvantage of not bidding notrump is that partner might become too enthusiastic with his diamond void. …
Lajos Linczmayer: A straightforward bid, and I suppose I can make it. I prefer notrump, as West may be void in diamonds. If North has enough extras, he will bid seven.
Steve Stein: The value bid — hope I can make it. We’re not likely to set 5 more than 700. Suit splits are likely to be foul; so if we have a 4-4 heart fit, we may face a 5-0 break.
Richard Stein: With today’s scoring, East [might] get punished; but here we’re unlikely to get enough. I’ll bid what I think will make. If West bangs down A-K (or two aces), I’ll tip my cap.
Steven Yang: Six spades would be risky because West may be void in diamonds. North is likely to be short in diamonds, so he probably has length in a runnable suit, making 6 NT very likely.
Myles Ellison: East has billions of diamonds for that bid… so I’ll bid 6 NT to safeguard against a diamond ruff.
Leonard Helfgott: This seems right on values and placement. There’s no way to tell whether partner has A-J-x-x-x-x x-x x K-Q-x-x, or A-J-x-x-x A-K-x x K-x-x-x.
Denis Mortell: My six-loser hand should be good enough, and this also protects my club holding. Will I really defeat 5 by [more than] three or four? I don’t think so. I just hope partner hasn’t opened light.
Gonzalo Goded: I lack a third spade to try for seven. This will be better than 6 if West [is void] in diamonds, or if spades break badly and hearts/clubs can provide 12 tricks. Six spades will be better only if partner has a singleton heart [and there is no diamond ruff].
Anand Nuggihalli: I have doubts, but I must make the value bid. Who knows, partner could have the rest of the deck and a really long suit; and he might know to bid seven.
Gary Sikon: I can’t set 5 enough to offset our probable slam. Six spades may run into a diamond ruff on the lead.
Yke Smit: The old scoring made me go for 6 NT. Otherwise, an easy double.
Andrew de Sosa: This should have a decent play opposite a normal disciplined opener. If partner tends to open any 11-12 point hand, I would double and take the sure plus.
Tim Francis-Wright: This is better than 6 in case spades split poorly and clubs [or hearts] is a source of tricks.
Martin Rotblatt: We may be missing an ace, and West may be void in diamonds, so 6 NT is safer. Partner might have A-J-x-x-x-x K-J-x x-x K-x.
Neelotpal Sahai: There is a good chance that West may ruff a diamond, or that spades are 5-0; so why take chances? … In all probability, the enemy distribution can be found out early if crucial to the play of clubs or hearts. …
Stephen Hamilton: We can’t get there scientifically, but slam seems likely. Odds are good that partner has one or both of the missing A-K, and a spade suit worth five or six tricks. The danger of spade slam is that West may be void in diamonds…
Comments for 5 NTSteve Moese: Pick a slam; then when I bid 6 NT, partner can decide whether to risk seven.
Bob Boudreau: Meaning pick a slam, and still leaves open a chance to get to seven.
Ulrich Nell: I expect East to hold nine diamonds, or eight with a side ace. If I double, I expect on average to score 700 points. If partner is minimum for his bid, I already expect a one-in-three chance to make 6 NT… so I hope he considers 5 NT to be a serious invitation.
Roger Morton: Pick a slam, partner. We are only getting about 900 if we defend. I’ll miss out on the grand, as suits are breaking badly. I’ll decide next round whether to pull to 6 NT.
Alon Amsel: Pick a slam. East is not completely crazy and will not go eight down.
Sandy McIlwain: Trusting that partner will make a good choice next. As partner’s hand is unknown, and likely to be shapely, the decision should be his.
Gareth Birdsall: Pretty certain to be followed with 6 NT.
Jeff Ruben: Slam prospects are too good to double, even with potential bad splits. This gives partner a choice of bidding 6 or 6 if he has a second suit, or 6 …
David Wiltshire: Asking partner to pick a slam. The K is probably waste paper; but partner opened vulnerable against not.
Jordan Chodorow: With slam virtually certain, why not let partner pick the strain when I’ll be delighted with any choice?
Brandon Einhorn: I have a balanced hand and am short of trumps [to raise spades]. The double diamond stopper is great, and we are unlikely to set 5 four tricks. Let partner bid slam if he likes.
Eduard Munteanu: My next bid will be 6 NT, giving partner a chance for a better spot.
Ken Masson: Asking partner to choose a slam. Six of anything but diamonds is conceivable.
Comments for 6 K. Scott Kimball: What to do? This leaves room for 6 , 6 and 6 NT.
Stephen Fischer: I’ll bid 6 NT next (West might well be ruffing diamonds). Partner then has some idea that I am suggesting a grand.
Shuino Wong: Invitation for a grand slam.
Tim DeLaney: Keeping a grand slam in the picture.
Bill Cubley: I think our small slam is OK; but what about a grand? The choices do not allow “pass and pull.” This is the strongest bid I can make to help partner.
Hart Leppard: If partner cue-bids the A, my problem is trying to find out if he also has the A. If he doesn’t cue-bid hearts, I just hope we aren’t off A-K.
John Kozero: The cue-bid in advance of a 6 NT call should encourage partner to raise under the right circumstances.
Bill Erwin: And then 6 NT — a grand slam try.
Gerald Murphy: While a double is tempting, I would be surprised to do better than down four. … Over partner’s rebid, I will convert to 6 NT, implying a willingness to play seven.
Nick Krnjevic: Partner may have extras, so I’ll give one try for a grand. If partner bids 7 , we’re playing this in notrump.
Vincent Harackiewicz: If we were leading, then double and take the 1100 or 1400 point set.
Trust me. If you were leading, it wouldn’t be because of any arithmetic skills.
Jon Sorkin: I’m cue-bidding on the way to 6 NT, which should be stronger than 6 NT directly. If North has long spades, or a maximum, I don’t want to discourage him from bidding seven.
Chuck Arthur: I know, I should have more spades. I hope the extra spade high card compensates for the length deficiency. I will bid 6 NT over 6 , hopefully showing this hand.
Jonathan Steinberg: Since I’ve decided to bid on, this is a good start to keep everyone guessing. (Under current scoring rules, I would double and take my plus.)
Madhukar Bapu: This suggests playing for 13 tricks. … If partner bids 6 or 6 , I will convert to 6 NT; then partner should bid seven with extras.
Stan Dub: I will pass 6 but bid 6 NT over 6 . At this scoring, even down seven would not compensate for a lost slam.
Lois Stuart: We could have seven. What to do over partner’s 6 ? I’ll bid 7 and hope for the best.
John Chen: If partner bids 6 , I will pass. If bids 6 , I will try 6 NT.
Adam Saroyan: Only chance to get to a grand now is to cue-bid; over partner’s next bid, I will bid 6 NT. No matter what I do, I’m not sure partner can know to go on with his [broken] spade suit; but this gives him the best shot at figuring out my hand.
Comments for DoubleChristian Vennerod: Partner rates to have no diamonds or only one, and breaks will surely be bad. With almost 40 percent of my strength in diamonds, and only two-card support for partner, the Law is not on the bidders’ side.
Gerald Cohen: Slam is probably a decent contract on normal splits — but they won’t occur. If partner pulls, I will bid the slam.
Mark Abraham: Take the money, not the box.
Georgi Bachev: We have a good slam opposite A-J-x-x-x K-J-x x K-x-x-x (probably just finding Q), but if partner has points in diamonds, or East a void or singleton spade, we could be set. Double is safer (probably down four); I believe East has eight diamonds.
Nicoleta Giura: I’m tempted to bid 6 NT… but I’ll go for the sure profit, hoping partner has A-J-x-x-x J-x-x x K-Q-x-x.
Nigel Guthrie: Although double is penalty, partner will not expect a raft of trumps; so he may bid again with shape.
Arindam Ray: With a decent minimum for partner (e.g., A, K and K-Q) I can foresee only 11 tricks, and bad breaks are a concern; so with no assurance the hand belongs in slam, I will double. Let partner take it out with enough distribution; then I will look for slam.
Gordon Bower: Taking a sure plus seems sensible. The penalty should be at least as good as a game; and to pass up 700 or 900, I need at least a 2/3 chance of making slam. I don’t think I have it, as it’s too easy to be nailed by [bad breaks]. …
Jonathan Monroe: Where exactly is the source of tricks for a six-level contract? Whatever cards West has will be well-placed [on defense]. … Also, by doubling I don’t have to worry about partner [misinterpreting] 5 NT.
Guy van Middelem: Even in the old scoring format, I’m sure 5 will go down [500 or more]; and at total points, that’s better than guessing and going down ourselves.
Rainer Herrmann: Suits will not break well. If I could be sure to land in our best fit, I might bid 5 NT (if it asks partner to choose a denomination). Should partner continue over the double, we are much more likely to land in our best fit.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Despite the old scoring, I’ll take the sure substantial plus. We may not have a slam on, especially since bad breaks are to be expected. Or if I bid, we may end up at the right level in the wrong strain.
Chuck Lamprey: All the “old scoring” means to me is that opponents will be friskier. I don’t know how to find the right slam if there is one, and an otherwise reasonable contract might be doomed by bad breaks.
Julian Wightwick: Stay fixed. If partner has extra distribution, he can still bid on; after which, I shall try 6 NT.
Rik ter Veen: I don’t know what contract we should play, and I am not going to guess. I’ll take what I can get. East also knows it is “old scoring” and probably bid hard. :)
John Hoffman: Take the money, even if there is not as much of it in the old scoring. I have no clear destination, and only one bid (5 NT) to sort it all out. Suits will break badly, and too many of my HCP are in diamonds. East has a lot of latitude opposite a passed partner, making it harder to locate shape and honors if we declare.
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 3
| Total Points | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1
| NORTH Pass Pass | East 1 3
| South 1 ? | J 9 7 2 — A Q J 9 8 7 2 K J
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 268 | 21 |
| 3 | 9 | 260 | 20 |
| Pass | 7 | 480 | 38 |
| Double | 5 | 167 | 13 |
| 4 | 4 | 27 | 2 |
| 5 | 3 | 63 | 5 |
| 4 | 1 | 11 | 1 |
While pass got the most votes, it can hardly be considered the consensus when 62 percent chose to compete in some fashion. To me, it seems clear to act; the only question is whether to mention spades or just rebid diamonds. If there’s a game, it’s more likely to be in spades; so I’d bid the moth-eaten spade suit and hope for the best. Prospects of a spade fit are pretty good if you consider that West would usually make a negative double with both majors; and it wouldn’t be a great surprise to go down in 4 and find out 4 could be made (e.g., facing Q-10-x-x-x Q-J-x-x x x-x-x).
Another way to probe for spades is with a takeout double, but this doesn’t appeal to me. Doubling with freakish distribution just begs for trouble, as partner will expect more defense; if he elects to pass with a heart stack, I’d expect minus 730; and if he doubles 4 , you won’t be comfortable passing. Further, if spades will be played — perhaps in a delicate 4-4 fit — I’d rather have my seven-card suit hidden.
The consensus was to bid 4 , surely a safer course with the security of the long trump suit. Suppressing spades could be a winning decision, perhaps stopping partner from a spade lead against 4 or 5 . Many 4 bidders, however, intended to bid 4 over the likely 4 by West (assuming partner didn’t double). This certainly conveys your relative suit lengths, but driving the hand to 4 or 5 unilaterally may be too pushy.
The remaining choices (4 , 4 and 5 ) were added mostly for variety, as they’re surely overbids, if not egregious misbids. At least a 4 cue-bid is amusing, since nobody at the table will know what you have (aside from a hole in your head); but I suppose it should indicate a giraffe-like two-suiter, though it seems the spades should be better. Jumping to 4 or 5 is really rolling the dice.
Here’s the actual deal from 1957:
| USA vs Italy | Q 10 8 6 4 3 J 10 6 3 5 4 2
| |
| K 5 K Q 8 5 2 6 4 Q 9 7 3
| | A A 9 7 4 K 10 3 A 10 8 6 5
|
| Both Vul | J 9 7 2 — A Q J 9 8 7 2 K J | |
| D'Alelio West 1 4
| Leventritt NORTH Pass Pass All Pass | Chiaradia East 1 3
| Goren South 1 Pass | 4 West Down 1 -100 |
| Koytchou West 3
| Siniscalco NORTH Pass Pass | Ogust East 1 4
| Forquet South 3 All Pass | 4 West Down 1 -100 No swing |
The first table inspired the problem scenario, and Goren chose to go quietly. Four hearts was easily beaten, but plus 100 was a small consolation for the makable spade game. Nonetheless, considering that 4 isn’t laydown even after catching six trumps in dummy, there may be more merit to Goren’s pass than I’m willing to admit.
At the second table, Forquet chose the preemptive approach (Italian preempts are typically sound) so the 10-card spade fit was buried once again. Same result for a push.
Comments for 4 Lawrence Cheetham: My next call could be 4 if partner does not double 4 . :)
Robin Zigmond: This suit is worth another push, although of course it could go horribly wrong.
Matthew Mason: Planning to bid 4 if 4 comes back around to me. This more accurately describes my shape than a spade bid now.
Jonathan Brill: … Partner might have some values, and if so, two good things could happen: I could make this, or opponents might bid 4 and partner might whack it…
Alan Kravetz: Too risky to bring in the spade suit. If opponents bid 4 and partner has a heart stack, he will double.
Paul Huggins: A spade bid is dubious on such a poor suit. (With A-K-x-x or better, which is what I [probably] need to make spades playable, partner might well have [acted] over 3 .) A takeout double would suggest four poor spades, but the danger is that partner with a flat hand might not necessarily find the best fit (he doesn’t know I have seven diamonds…) I prefer to treat my hand as a one-suiter…
Bas Lodder: Then 4 after 4 . I’m still young. :)
Mauri Saastamoinen: Too many diamonds; not that many spades. Overbidding or not, I intend to double opponents’ 4 for takeout. If partner then wants to bid spades, that should be OK.
Spiros Liarakos: This suggests some defense along with my long diamonds. [I will abide] by partner’s decision over 4 .
Bob Boudreau: I want to emphasize diamonds; then I will bid 4 over 4 to give partner a choice.
Fred Tanzer: Planning to bid 4 over 4 .
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I’d like to show my spades (for instance by bidding 3 ), but I prefer to play in diamonds if partner has three spades and one diamond. Not enough HCP to double. Over 4 , I may double or bid 4 .
Kieran Dyke: Uncomfortable. This might lure opponents into 4 , which partner is probably itching to hit. Three spades seems anti-percentage when partner passed up a chance to bid 1 .
Sandy Barnes: I don’t have enough defense to risk a double. Even if partner has five spades, I may be better in diamonds.
Sebastien Louveaux: The only way to get these seven diamonds across. Double (or bidding spades) would focus too much on a bad suit. Partner will know whether or not we should defend.
Josh Sinnett: I intend to bid 4 over 4 . Since I bid diamonds twice first, partner should take me back to them if he doesn’t have four-card spade support. With my extreme [distribution], this could be a double game swing.
Stephen Fischer: My suit is worth a second bid, and I do not want to suggest a contract in…a poor four-card suit that partner couldn’t bid at the one level.
Gerald Cohen: … I don’t want to play in spades unless partner has five. A 4 bid by me on the next round (which I will only do if West bids 4 and partner passes) will show at least a two-card difference between spades and diamonds.
Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: When opponents have more strength than us, a [bad] spade suit is not worth mentioning. If I double, partner will not know the length of my diamond suit.
Joel Singer: I’m worth one more diamond bid, but not worth searching for spades. I don’t want to double, as partner may well pass it, and my defense isn’t strong enough.
Jeff Mayhew: Stress the diamond length. Over 4 , I will bid 4 , then partner will know it’s only four cards…
Frans Buijsen: I play this to hint at bidding 5 over the inevitable 4 . I offer this option to partner so he can make the last mistake. :)
Sandy McIlwain: … Over the expected 4 , if partner stays mute, I will bid 4 to show my full shape. The pressure bid of 5 , forcing the opponents to guess first, has tactical appeal in a long match but will only score 4 here at best.
Imre Csiszar: Suggesting a strong desire to sacrifice against 4 and letting partner decide. Four diamonds doubled may go down 800, but that’s better than 1100 in 5 . Three spades looks against the odds; for 4 to be superior to 5 , partner needs five spades, with which he may have risked 1 ; and 3 may encourage the wrong lead.
Petko Boukov: Opponents [probably] have a game in hearts, so it’s time to sacrifice. I plan to bid 4 over 4 . With stronger spades or shorter diamonds, I’d bid spades right away because partner would not expect me to have more than four spades…
Mark Taylor: I would have preferred 3 on the first round. Yes, I know that I have four spades, but we’re unlikely to find that fit. I recall a theory that 7-4 hands should be bounced to the four level immediately, so I take back my initial thought; make that 4 over 1 . :)
Arindam Ray: Four spades does not have much hope when partner couldn’t bid 1 over 1 . A forcing defense is [likely] to be enough to kill me…
Jeff Ruben: Offensive potential is too good to pass. I want to get spades in the picture; the only question is the best way. This will emphasize my good suit, then I will balance with 4 over 4 .
Gordon Bower: I want partner to be able to make an intelligent decision over 4 (pass, double or bid) and to find a good contract if they don’t bid 4 . I was very tempted by 3 despite the bad suit; with Q-x-x-x or K-x-x-x, I would bid 3 to help partner know which honors are useful in his hand. But since he couldn’t bid 1 over 1 , I think the risk outweighs the potential gain.
Myles Ellison: Suggesting a sacrifice, and leaving the choice to partner (who might well be able to double 4 ). Bidding 5 straightaway leaves partner no choice and suggests I should have [preempted] on the first round.
Jess Stuart: Playing in spades, my hand could be ruffed down and not make the diamond tricks.
Gonzalo Goded: Too weak to double (3 could easily be passed out), and playing in spades with this suit will hardly be good unless partner has five spades.
Tim Francis-Wright: This hand reminds me: We should play that if opponents bid 1 , double shows hearts; [and vice versa]. But we need a name for that convention; if only we had a spaceship to name it after.
Peter Oakley: I want to ensure a diamond lead against the inevitable 4 ; I don’t want to suggests spades.
Lois Stuart: I’d like to look for a spade fit; but East is strong, and more hearts will be coming.
Comments for 3 Paul Flashenberg: I don’t want to sell but don’t have enough defense to double. I wish my spades were stronger, but this is what I was dealt; and I think 3 comes closest to describing the hand. At least partner will know I have longer diamonds with a very offense-oriented hand. …
Bogdan Vulcan: My options are pass, double or 3 . I hate to double with a void and dubious defensive strength; and I also hate to pass with 7-4-2-0 shape. So I’ll bid the ugly suit…
Geoff Bridges: This is aggressive, but it seems more flexible than a 4 bid. Hopefully, partner is understanding.
Christian Vennerod: Could partner have K-10-8-x x-x-x K-x x-x-x-x? Or A-10-x-x-x x-x-x x-x x-x-x? Maybe… then 4 is probably on, and we have a play for 4 . The problem with 3 is that partner may lead a spade against 4 from K-x-x; and if he doubles, this is a catastrophe. …
Paul Meerschaert: Not enough strength for me to double. This shows 6-4 or 7-4 in the pointed suits, so partner should make a good decision.
Shuino Wong: I’m afraid partner will pass if I double.
Guven Dalkilic: Over 4 , I intend to bid 5 ; but first I prefer to show spades to investigate a possible strong fit.
Tom Schlangen: I hope partner has a sense of humor. Of course, my friend Ron D. from Minneapolis would simply have overcalled 1 with 4 and gotten it over with (no, that is not a typo).
Ulrich Nell: Partner may hold spade length, and 4 may be on despite an overwhelming minority in high cards. Partner will hopefully understand that my bid is based on shape, rather than strength. If I am doubled, I don’t know if I shall retreat to 4 ; fortunately, you did not ask.
Georgi Bachev: I think opponents will bid 4 , so I need to help partner in choosing the lead at least. :)
Simon Cheung: I don’t like to double for takeout when I can’t stand a leave-in. Avoid double with a void. Though my diamonds are much stronger, I may need the spade fit to outbid hearts.
Erwin Witteveen: No double with this freak; I don’t want partner to pass with K-Q-x K-10-x-x x-x x-x-x-x. Only disadvantage of 3 is that partner will pass with 3=4=1=5 shape; but that’s the price I have to pay for investigating 4 . …
Richard Stein: With partner passed, I would consider overcalling 4 [the first time] so I see no problem in [bidding again]. Meanwhile, maybe I can hit a spade fit.
Chuck Lamprey: I must act with this hand, as there may be games both ways. Doubling suggests 3=1=6=3 or thereabouts; I want partner to know I have four spades.
Anand Nuggihalli: If doubled, I will pull to 4 . Opponents might set me three and have no slam; but we might have [a good fit] in the boss suit. I won’t double because I don’t have enough defense if partner decides to leave it in.
Rik ter Veen: This might allow a save one level lower against 4 .
John Hoffman: This could be anyone’s hand, even if the opponents have most of the HCP. This is my final bid, and maybe it will bring partner to life.
Comments for PassJohn Reardon: Partner’s failure to bid and the vulnerability make it too dangerous to bid again.
John Hall: My 1 on the first round was a little on the pusillanimous side. Partner obviously doesn’t have much, but bidding again seems unlikely to inconvenience our opponents. I hope partner has enough hearts to cause them problems.
Andrew Straus: Four diamonds won’t stop the opponents, and it may be doubled since partner [probably] has nothing…
Ron Landgraff: Opponents aren’t in game yet, and I don’t want to encourage them. Doubling or bidding spades gambles that partner has useless heart values (4 could go down). …
Olle Morell: Suits seem to be breaking badly. Four spades could make; but it could as well go for a number, as opponents will tap my hand with the long side suit.
Jack Brawner: Plenty of downside (1100?) and not much upside to be sticking out my neck on this one; this is not matchpoints.
David Caprera: Partner had a chance to show spades, so bidding them myself is too much of a crapshoot. Maybe partner has the best hearts at the table and is just waiting to take a piece.
Junaid Said: Even if partner has spades, he’s too weak to introduce them at the one level; so I’m not going solo on this one. If this gets passed out, I’m happy; and if West bids 4 , I’ll pass — unless inflections play a major role. :)
Sean Lester: This looks like a deal in which whoever defends goes plus.
Bill Daly: I wish I had bid 3 or 4 originally. Maybe partner has a heart stack.
Jonathan Goldberg: I can’t believe I’m selling out on a hand with 11 cards in two suits; but 4 is pointless; 5 (my second choice) is too much; and I think that for us to have a future in spades, partner would have [bid 1 ].
Tim Posney: Why did I bid only 1 on the first round? Perhaps my bidding box broke!
Tim DeLaney: Partner’s values (if any) might well be in hearts. Bidding again could be minus 1100 instead of minus 140, or even plus 100 at 4 .
Bill Cubley: Partner may have nothing… and opponents’ bidding shows good cards. As Al Roth once said, “The auction is not over.”
Julian Pottage: Very close. We probably have a 500 save against 4 , but that is only a small gain. The trouble with double is that I do not want partner to pass; and 3 might attract an unwanted lead.
Bill Powell: Discretion is called for at this form of scoring.
Richard Morse: I’d [prefer] to bid 3 last time. Now I feel we are above the comfort zone, and bidding is more likely to help opponents get to the right spot, or place the cards [in the play].
Jan Andersson: I need a better suit to bid 3 , as partner may treat it as lead-directing. I do not like to double with void. …
Roger Morton: Partner could not find a cheap spade bid after my overcall, so we are not going to win this auction. A save could be expensive at game all, and I don’t want to tell declarer how to play the hand. I hope they get too high on a bad trump break…
Danny Kleinman: I expect the opponents to overbid in hearts, unless I warn them of the bad split by taking further action. Facing a passed partner, I would have preferred to have put it to them with 3 initially. With a three-card disparity in suit lengths, and a two-honor disparity in quality, I’m not very concerned about the small (though real) chance of missing a good spade contract.
Toros Yuksel: The sequence is too hot to enter the bidding with such miserable spades and a partner who passed twice. Diamonds won’t buy the contract. If the opponents bid 6 , I will double for a club lead.
Mark Lincoln: I think it is too risky at this vulnerability to stick my neck out once both opponents have bid, and partner has passed twice. Maybe a preemptive bid earlier may have been advisable?
Don Lussky: Although my first inclination with nice distribution was to bid 3 , partner rates to have length/values in hearts, and 3 or 4 may be going down. If I bid 3 , partner may double 4 [expecting greater strength from me] and not beat it. …
Dirk Enthoven: Pushing will probably do the opponents a favor. I can’t think of a better place for them to stop.
Bill Erwin: Let opponents bid higher without knowing about the bad heart break.
Willem Mevius: I would have bid 3 initially. Three spades now is tempting but may get partner off to the wrong lead.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Total point scoring swings the risk-reward ratio towards caution. Four diamonds offers opponents a nice penalty when they either might not have bid game, or they were going down against bad splits.
Steve White: Three spades is tempting, but I don’t want a spade lead, and partner could have introduced them at the one level. Further, partner may play me for five spades.
Lajos Linczmayer: As North did not raise and did not bid 1 , I give up. A vulnerable save might produce a small gain, but also a big loss. If partner has x-x-x K-Q-10-9-x x-x x-x-x, bidding now could change plus 800 into minus 800.
Nick Krnjevic: If partner couldn’t bid 1 , there doesn’t seem to be a future in that suit. If I bid again, partner will think I have more juice and may make a speculative double of West’s competitive 4 ; while if I pass, partner won’t double a free 4 bid unless he has the nuts. …
Neat. Juice and nuts. Is it lunchtime? Or maybe I better not pursue this any further.
Steve Stein: I hope opponents get too high — cards might be well-placed for us on defense.
David Wiltshire: Partner [may be] drooling and about to double 4 , so I don’t want to get in the way of that auction. [If 4 is passed around], I’ll consider moving; but it’s probably a bad idea at the vulnerability.
William Peters: I know this seems wimpy, but it may let opponents get too high for partner’s trump stack; my diamonds may be worthless on defense.
Gabriel Lindstrom: Partner has passed two times, so he can’t have much; I don’t think we have a profitable sacrifice.
Tim Pinder: Only five losers, but [little] defensively. … West will almost certainly go to game, and the bad trump split should work in our favor.
Guy van Middelem: Let’s lose 140. At total points I would not have overcalled 1 ; now I’m stuck.
Rainer Herrmann: North has passed twice, bypassing a cheap opportunity to show a reasonable spade suit or diamond support. At total points, I give up.
Uwe Gebhardt: A direct 3 probably would have been better tactics; now I am outbid.
Gary Sikon: … The only reason to bid 4 is to [suggest] a 5 sacrifice against a probable 4 ; but who is to say that 4 will make, or that 4 won’t be down 500?
Yke Smit: I would have preempted with 3 at my first turn; the four-card major is rather irrelevant with a passed partner. Now I should stay fixed, as hearts may be 5-4-4-0.
Jerome Farrugia: I hope West declares 4 and has no more than nine total trumps.
Andrew de Sosa: Partner’s initial pass and failure to bid over 1 makes me a pessimist; being vulnerable doesn’t help either. I can’t justify going for 500 or 800 when the opponents may only have a partscore.
Eric Goff: Four diamonds is unlikely to accomplish much now (perhaps it would have been right the first time); 3 could be right, but not often; and partner will expect better spades.
John Lusky: Too little to gain from bidding further when partner couldn’t act over 1 . Partner may well have all his stuff in hearts.
Neelotpal Sahai: Can I make game? Unlikely opposite a passed partner, with opponents bidding so much. Partner may have good defense against hearts… so I will keep quiet. …
Stan Dub: Partner might have bid 1 with a good five-card spade suit and not much else. Granted, we might make 4 opposite as little as K-Q-x-x; but at this vulnerability there is too much danger in bidding on…
Comments for DoubleBrad Theurer: Partner doesn’t rate to have much, but I have too much offensive potential to go quietly. Need to get spades in the picture — partner could have Q-10-x-x-x and out, and we might even make 4 , or at worst down one as a save against 4 . I’d want better spades to bid 3 directly.
Jeff Hand: The ideal takeout call, showing spades and a much better diamond suit. Partner might have a hand that he wants to pass for penalty, with 3=5=1=4 distribution and [heart] strength.
Jim Grant: Assuming this is takeout. If I bid 3 , partner may lead spades, and that may not be good.
Jacob Grabowski: This brings the spades in play and shows the heart shortness. I can’t imagine bidding 3 on that poor suit (or the psychic 4 ). …
Steven Yang: Seems natural enough to suggest spade length; if North has lots of hearts, he can always let the double stand.
Leonard Helfgott: I believe 3 should show five or a robust four; and I’d rather double and risk a penalty pass with inadequate defense…than rebid diamonds unilaterally. …
Jonathan Steinberg: I could be going for a number, but I prefer the high road, as game is still possible. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
Madhukar Bapu: I cannot rule out partner having four or even five spades. … With, say, K-Q-x-x-x and out, partner should jump to 4 .
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 4
| Total Points | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 1 2
| North Dbl 2 NT | East Pass Pass | SOUTH Pass 1 ? | Q 8 5 K 10 7 3 2 6 5 4 9 4
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 NT | 10 | 311 | 24 |
| 3 | 9 | 302 | 24 |
| 3 | 7 | 336 | 26 |
| 4 | 4 | 67 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| Pass | 2 | 249 | 20 |
The scoring of this problem seems to override the consensus, but I don’t believe that’s the case. While 3 got the most votes, the true consensus was to make a forward-going move to reach game; and this was almost equally split between the delicate cue-bid and a simple raise to 3 NT. Three hearts is a different genre, as it is nonforcing and suggests playing right there. To those who would argue it is forcing, I ask what they would bid with x-x-x J-x-x-x-x-x x-x-x x (or even without the jack).
Between 3 and 3 NT, I prefer the cue-bid. If partner has three hearts, the 5-3 fit rates to play better than notrump, because an immediate attack on clubs may require nine top tricks in 3 NT. For example, if partner has K-x-x A-Q-x A-K-x-x-x K-x, 4 is a heavy favorite, while 3 NT is odds-against. The cue-bid might also find partner with a five-card spade suit ( K-x-x-x-x A-x A-K-x A-Q-x), leading to the superior spade game.
Those who passed 2 NT seem way off base, as this hand has too much potential to wave off the vulnerable game bonus, which is even more significant at total points than at IMPs. Partner’s bid should show 19-21 HCP since he is offering to play 2 NT opposite a potential Yarborough; and your 5 HCP and five-card suit should make game a favorite, or at least within acceptable odds to be justified.
The other extreme is to venture 4 all by yourself, kind of like graduating from aeronautics school on your first solo flight. Probably even worse is the far-out 3 bid, which seems headed for a tenuous Moysian fit, unless you’re lucky and hit partner’s five-bagger.
Here’s how it panned out in 1957:
| USA vs Italy | A K 4 3 A Q 4 A 8 2 Q 10 5
| |
| J 7 6 2 — Q J 3 A K J 8 7 6
| | 10 9 J 9 8 6 5 K 10 9 7 3 2
|
| N-S Vul | Q 8 5 K 10 7 3 2 6 5 4 9 4 | |
| Siniscalco West 3 Pass | Leventritt North Dbl 3 NT | Forquet East Pass All Pass | Koytchou SOUTH Pass 3
| 3 NT North Down 1 -100 |
| Sobel West 1 2 All Pass | Chiaradia North Dbl 2 NT | Seamon East Pass Pass | D'Alelio SOUTH Pass 1 3
| 3 South Made 3 +140 Italy +240 |
The problem scenario arose at the second table, and D’Alelio seems to have led Chiaradia astray by rebidding 3 . Chiaradia could hardly bid any more, as even 2 NT was dubious (I think most experts today would double again). The bad news: An excellent 3 NT went by the wayside. The good news: The Italians were headed for 4 , which was doomed by foul distribution. Indeed, even 3 should fail; but Sobel led the K and shifted to a spade (not a diamond) allowing D’Alelio to score up 140.
This still could have been a pickup for the Americans, as they reached the perfect spot despite a well-timed preempt by Siniscalco. After a club lead to the king and the Q shift, Leventritt won the second diamond, after which there was nothing he could do when hearts and spades failed to produce a ninth trick.* Down one; 240 points to Italy.
*If Leventritt wins the third diamond, he can establish a club as his ninth trick, though it is conceivable he could misguess the layout if the defense conceals who has the fourth diamond.
Comments for 3 NTJohn Reardon: I have a maximum hand in the context of the bidding, and my fifth heart is little reason to avoid the obvious game.
Robin Zigmond: Partner wouldn’t bid 2 NT without serious game interest, and I’m significantly better than I could be.
John R. Mayne: This seems right on values and orientation. It’s not worth the trouble to show the fifth heart because a 5-3 fit is likely to play better in notrump.
Paul Flashenberg: … Partner is sitting behind the opening bidder, and I have two potential entries for him to finesse.
Alan Kravetz: Partner has a monster, and I have good values for my forced 1 bid.
Paul Huggins: Partner must have at least a good 19-count with a good club stopper. With any inkling of heart support, he might have cue-bid clubs or bid a suit; hence I prefer not to give the opponents [any more] information.
Nick Wong: Worth a gamble at total points; my heart suit may provide a few tricks.
Bob Boudreau: Sounds like partner has a double club stopper and about 20 points. …
Ron Landgraff: Bidding hearts again is dangerous because partner’s club values may be wasted. Passing with a hand that counts to 6+ points does not appeal when vulnerable.
Sandy Barnes: I may have enough for game, and notrump requires fewer tricks. I expect partner has a double stopper in clubs.
David Caprera: I considered bidding 3 (best alternative); but even if partner has three hearts, it may be better to play in 3 NT.
Jeff Hand: Partner has 19-20 points, and I hope to score up this [game] now. My fifth heart (and 10) might be enough to produce nine tricks [but not 10]. …
Chris Cooper: … I am well above minimum and quite happy to play in 3 NT. …
Tim Posney: Partner has a good hand. I don’t, but all the eggs in the West basket should give us a play.
Tim DeLaney: We could miss a 5-3 heart fit — and an adverse ruff. Partner surely has a double stopper on this auction, so I should have enough to yield a play for game.
Jyrki Lahtonen: Surely, I’m at the top range, so I will accept partner’s invitation. Hearts might play better, but at least the stronger hand will declare.
Michael Mayer: Partner should have 19-20 HCP, so let’s go for it.
Hart Leppard: Partner shows two club stoppers. Even if he has three hearts, nine tricks will probably be easier than 10.
Richard Morse: Not without a fond look at 3 . Passing seems too coy, particularly with partner behind West. The doubleton club makes me a bit uneasy; but hey! — I’m 5 points better, and a heart longer, than I might have been.
Mark Lincoln: A little pushy, but we are vulnerable. I cannot see that a heart contract would be better.
Gerald Murphy: Based on partner’s double and 2 NT rebid, he must hold 19+ HCP. I can’t be sure he holds three hearts…
Nigel Guthrie: Partner has about 20 HCP, so I must give him a vote of confidence. Three hearts would sound nonconstructive…
Andrei Varlan: Let’s trust partner. Three hearts would show the same hand with no points, and 4 would show six. … If partner had three hearts [and doubts about notrump], he would have cue-bid [or doubled again].
Leonard Helfgott: I certainly have a better-than-average 1 response, and I prefer notrump over guessing what partner has in hearts.
Guy van Middelem: Easy. Partner has at least 21-22; and my fifth heart will be welcome to make game in notrump.
Denis Mortell: … Partner forced me to bid 1 , so now I am worth game. The only question is: 3 NT or 4 ? I prefer to try for nine tricks.
Brandon Einhorn: I have bad intermediate cards; but I know East is broke, so finesses through West will work.
Eric Goff: It feels like I perhaps have a trick or two more than I could have.
Tim Francis-Wright: This [may not make], but the scoring rewards bidding games over stopping short. Partner has a balanced 19-20, and 3 NT will make more often than 4 …
Madhukar Bapu: This is the kind of hand on which nine tricks is a breeze, and 10 tricks is a struggle. …
Manuel Paulo: At total points, I’m going to gamble on game (a probability of success greater than 1/3 is fine).
Adam Saroyan: I’ll take the push, as I am not without values. … I see no advantage in hearts.
Comments for 3 Michael True: Partner has 19+ points, and I think this should ask: Do you have three hearts? In any case, I should be trying for game.
David Hodge: To give partner a choice between 3 NT and 4 . With three-card support, partner can rebid 3 , which I will raise to 4 .
Matthew Mason: I could have a lot less, so I must go to game. This will let partner decide whether to play hearts or notrump.
Jean-Christophe Clement: There is probably a game in 3 NT or 4 ; this allows North to choose.
Steve Boughey: … This is better than a direct 3 NT, as it tells the story of my fifth heart and gives partner a choice of games. (Three hearts would be a shutout bid with J-x-x-x-x-x and out.)
Bogdan Vulcan: Since partner is so convinced, I’ll check for three-card support (he might even have four); if it isn’t there, we’ll play 3 NT.
Mauri Saastamoinen: … I want to bid a game; but which one? If partner insist on 3 NT, that is OK; but I intend to raise partner’s 3 or 3 to four. For example, with A-K-J-x A-x K-x-x-x K-Q-x, partner bids 3 NT; with A-K-x-x Q-x-x A-Q-x A-x-x, he bids 3 ; or with A-K-J-x A-x K-x-x-x A-x-x, he bids 3 .
Scott Stearns: Checking for three-card heart support since my hand is worth more in hearts. I’ll bid game.
John Hall: I could have had nothing, so partner figures to be pretty strong. Over 3 , I’ll bid 4 ; over 3 or 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT…
Bill Jacobs: Accepting the invite, obviously, and prepared to get cute to ferret out a 5-3 heart fit.
Vincent Mes: To play 3 NT or 4 ; partner promises 19-21, I guess. If partner bids 3 , I can still bid 3 NT to [leave the final decision to partner].
Olle Morell: Partner has around 20 HCP, so let’s play 3 NT or 4 .
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I have enough to go to game, and this will find out if partner has three hearts.
Brad Theurer: Showing decent values for my first bid, and some reason not to just raise to 3 NT.
Kieran Dyke: No question of whether to bid, but it might be worthwhile to investigate 4 .
Sebastien Louveaux: I shall play game, and the cue-bid lets partner show three-card support.
Junaid Said: I will raise 3 to four; else 3 NT.
Christian Vennerod: I am strong enough for game, [especially] when the opposing strength is in front of our strong hand. This asks primarily for [three hearts or a spade suit]; but if partner has strong clubs (e.g., Q-J-9-x) he should bid 3 NT regardless of his heart support. Let us pray West does not have A-x-x and K-x-x.
Paul Meerschaert: I must give partner options. I hope he prefers hearts, as game is tight; but I’m still willing to try 3 NT.
Dale Freeman: Trying to find a 5-3 heart fit; otherwise, I’ll sign off in 3 NT.
Josh Sinnett: General force, allowing partner to show three-card heart support. We may be slightly understrength for game; but partner will know where the points are, so his [chances of success] should go up.
Stephen Fischer: I am happy to play 3 NT with our high cards favorably placed, but I’ll look for a 5-3 heart fit.
Bill Daly: I have enough for 3 NT, but I might as well check back to see if partner can support hearts.
Nigel Marlow: I want to play in game opposite partner’s likely 19-20 count. Is 3 forcing? No, so I bid 3 to ask for more information; if partner bids 3 , then I’ll bid 3 .
Mark Raphaelson: I might as well give partner a chance to show three hearts. Partner’s hand (sitting over opener) combined with my 5 unpromised points seems worth game.
Bill Cubley: This is the closest I can get to “new minor forcing” to show five hearts and game interest. I have a lot on this auction; but bidding 4 without consulting partner is bidding in a fog (like the picture on this page).
Joel Singer: Partner shows a hand too strong to overcall 1 NT. It’s close between 3 NT and 4 , so I’ll cue-bid to ask partner’s help; if he prefers 3 , I raise to four; otherwise we’re in 3 NT.
Julian Pottage: Having shown no values, I must bid on; but I’m not ready to commit on strain.
Bill Powell: This must be worth a shot at 3 NT or 4 , and this seems the best way there.
Ulrich Nell: Partner has already indicated a club stopper, so this should ask for three-card heart support.
Anthony Golding: Even if partner has three hearts, the nine-trick game may be better, but it will depend on the quality of his club stopper; this lets him choose.
Roger Morton: I’m going to game opposite partner’s likely 21-count, so I’ll fiddle around for a 5-3 heart fit first.
Danny Kleinman: I’m happy to accept partner’s strong game invitation, but I want to bring hearts into the picture again. Partner doesn’t yet know whether 1 was based on 10-7-3-2 or my actual nice suit.
Richard Cowan: Given that partner has already shown a club stopper, this is clearly an attempt to find three-card heart support.
Simon Cheung: Partner shows a balanced hand too strong for direct 1 NT overcall, and I have enough for game. Cue-bidding leaves partner a chance to show three-card heart support — something he may have suppressed last round to make a limit bid in notrump.
Nicoleta Giura: Choice of games, I guess. Knowing where the goodies are should help [in the play].
Gareth Birdsall: I’ll force to game, while keeping hearts in the picture.
Nye Griffiths: Most flexible, allowing partner to bid 3 or 3 .
Mark Taylor: … If partner bids 3 next, I will bid 4 ; over 3 , I bid 4 ; over 3 , 3 NT (I hope partner can get the hearts going). …
Steve White: I have a good hand for the auction, so I can’t risk missing a vulnerable game.
Erwin Witteveen: If partner can bid 2 NT, I can bid 3 NT; but at least I should give him a chance to bid 3 . If partner doesn’t have three hearts, game will be tough; we may need a little luck then.
Arindam Ray: Will partner get the message? … This should ask him to decide between 3 NT and 4 based on his club holding.
Sartaj Hans: … Partner shows good hand; I have a good hand (in context); so I tell him about it and await disclosure of delayed heart support. (Those who bid 3 may have a sadistic tendency to torture partner.)
David Wiltshire: Searching for three-card support; 4 is unlikely to be best in a 5-2 fit.
Gordon Bower: … Partner should have 19 points and two club stoppers, and he knows where all the missing cards are. As long as he can reach my hand once or twice, a 24-point 3 NT might fly; and so might 4 if partner has three. …
Jordan Chodorow: Vulnerable at total points, pass and the passable 3 are out; 3 and 4 distort my hand. Three notrump is the likely resting place; but why not get a [second opinion] from partner?
Jonathan Monroe: Partner has already shown a club guard, so this is asking for a second stopper.
Jon Sorkin: When I next bid 3 NT, this gives North a choice between 3 NT and 4 .
Eduard Munteanu: Showing a fifth heart and trying to help partner to find best spot.
Jack Rhatigan: I’m willing to play game in hearts or notrump.
Chuck Arthur: Showing concern about clubs… and giving partner a chance to show three-card heart support with a tenuous club holding. The real problem may be if partner bids 3 over 3 .
Uwe Gebhardt: Forcing to game, giving partner the chance to show three-card support. A double of 3 won’t hurt since East would lead a club against 3 NT anyway…
Chuck Lamprey: Three notrump or 4 are also sensible; but why not delay the decision? …
Anand Nuggihalli: My hand is looking good now; the heart spots are encouraging, and I want to be in 4 . This gives partner the option to play in 3 NT in case he has an undisclosed diamond suit and short hearts.
Jonathan Steinberg: I’m going to game in either hearts or notrump, and this seems the best way to find out if we have a fit.
Andrew de Sosa: Partner should have close to a 2 NT opener, so game is [likely]. This can’t be natural, so it must be asking for delayed heart support. My suit is neither strong enough nor long enough to insist on hearts being trump.
Julian Wightwick: Suggesting the extra heart, and offering a choice of games.
Don Hinchey: … How good are your clubs, partner?
Rik ter Veen: I want to play in the 5-3 heart fit (if it’s there) because I need entries to finesse through opener.
John Hoffman: … Game is marginal opposite partner’s 19-21 HCP; but we’re vulnerable, so I’m going for it. This seems to be the only way to ask for partner’s input in deciding the final strain.
Godefroy de Tessieres: North has a 19-21 HCP balanced hand. With three hearts, he will bid 3 ; else we belong to 3 NT.
Comments for 3 Ivan Kolev: I must show the length in hearts. North may now do the right thing.
Bill Michell: I can’t pass, so I need to tell partner I have the fifth heart.
Imre Csiszar: This looks unscientific, as it may show a Yarborough with six hearts; but I believe most Norths will go on to 3 NT or 4 when it is right, particularly at this vulnerability.
Brian Zietman: Partner knows I am [weak] so my 5 points puts me in the upper range. I must make another move, and I suppose it is best to show partner that I have five hearts.
Kevin Podsiadlik: I assume this requests a choose between 3 NT and 4 , and not a sign-off.* If not, I guess I have to punt with 3 NT.
*This is the kind of auction for which no textbook would have specific rules, and few experts would have specific agreements (surely not in a casual partnership). Therefore, you must work out the meanings based on logic and general principles. Translation: Wing it! -RP
Jeff Ruben: I am willing to try for game opposite partner’s probable 20-count with club stoppers, so I will show my five-card suit and moderate values.
Charlotte Vine: Hopefully, forcing to 3 NT or 4 .
Gary Sikon: Nonforcing. Hope we don’t make 4 .
Neelotpal Sahai: Partner shows a good 18 to a bad 20 HCP (with less he would have overcalled 1 NT). My hand is worth more if there is a heart fit, but it’s not strong enough to jump to game or cue-bid. …
Stan Dub: Give partner 19 points and a balanced hand, and hearts should play better than notrump. Partner may still bid on with extra values, and I will respect his choice of games.
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 5
| Total Points | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Dbl | NORTH Pass 3 1
| East Pass Pass | South 1 ? | Q J 2 10 A Q J 9 A J 10 9 4
|
| 1. 8-10 dummy points, 5+ diamonds | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 286 | 22 |
| 4 | 8 | 199 | 16 |
| 4 | 7 | 140 | 11 |
| Pass | 6 | 304 | 24 |
| 5 | 4 | 242 | 19 |
| 3 | 3 | 72 | 6 |
| 3 NT | 1 | 33 | 3 |
Some respondents complained about being forced to open 1 instead of 1 with 4-5 in the minors. Certainly, this is moot, as there are valid cases for both sides. I slightly prefer 1 , since opening 1 leaves you awkwardly placed after a 1 response. This hand does not seem worth a reverse bid, so most people would choose among 1 , 1 NT and 2 , none of which is pretty.
Just how good are your chances for game? Partner’s bid is usually based on distribution, so I would not expect 8-10 HCP; more likely, dummy will have 5-6 HCP and a singleton.* Giving partner a typical minimum, such as x Q-x-x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x, offers no play for game; but the right hand, e.g., A-x-x x-x-x K-10-9-x-x x-x, makes game (5 ) a good proposition. I’m less enthusiastic about 3 NT, as partner probably needs two heart stoppers to have a good play.
*Some respondents were unfamiliar with the term “dummy points,” which means HCP plus distributional points. Of the various methods, probably most popular (surely in the U.S.) is the 1-3-5 formula: Doubleton = 1, Singleton = 3, Void = 5. This assumes dummy has at least four trumps.
As on Problem 3, pass got the single most votes, but it could hardly be considered the consensus when 76 percent deemed the hand worth another bid. Three spades was the game try of choice, and I agree. If partner next bids 3 NT, I won’t be delighted; but it’s probably right to pass, as wasted heart values surely eliminate any chance to make 5 .
Other game tries are also reasonable. While 4 and 4 bypass 3 NT, that’s hardly a serious loss considering the unlikelihood of success. Indeed, it might be wise to forget about 3 NT altogether, although this could also be decided after bidding 3 . Even the oddball 3 bid has merit, as it might throw off the opponents (West might have a strong heart hand) en route to 4 or 5 .
Here’s the actual deal from 1957:
| USA vs Italy | 10 8 3 A J 6 5 10 8 7 6 3 8
| |
| A K 7 6 4 K Q 9 8 2 K Q 5
|  | 9 5 7 4 3 2 K 5 4 7 6 3 2
|
| None Vul | Q J 2 10 A Q J 9 A J 10 9 4 | |
| Belladonna West Dbl Dbl All Pass | Koytchou NORTH Pass 3 Pass | Avarelli East Pass Pass 3
| Ogust South 1 Pass 4
| 4 South Made 4 +130 |
| Sobel West Dbl Dbl | Forquet NORTH Pass 3 All Pass | Seamon East Pass Pass | Siniscalco South 1 5
| 5 × South Down 2 -300 USA +430 |
The problem situation arose at each table, and it’s curious that Ogust gave up completely on game, while Siniscalco jumped directly to 5 . What happened to the middle ground? I suppose there may be some subtle nuances regarding the meaning of 3 (system descriptions were vague in this area) but it does seem strange. Ogust was right this time, as the immediate spade ruff made 10 tricks the limit.
Siniscalco’s overbid was duly punished, as Sobel doubled again. Even worse, Siniscalco misguessed trumps after the spade ruff, playing Sobel for a blank king. Down two; 430 points to the Americans. (Billy Seamon was enjoying this one.)
It seems that our winning choice (3 ) would have done just fine, as North has minimal values and should retreat to 4 , ending the auction. Of course, most players today would not have bid 3 with a four-card major, especially with all the points in the major, instead preferring 1 followed by a competitive diamond raise.
Comments for 3 Oleg Rubinchik: I will pass 3 NT, or correct 4 to 5 .
Good judgment. I’m sure Fritz would pass 4 or correct 3 NT to 5 (maybe six).
Michael True: … We are on the cusp of 5 . If partner has a high spade (or a singleton), he should bid game; if not, I’ll play in 4 .
David Hodge: Planning to rebid diamonds; 5 should be OK if North supports to 4 .
Luis Oliveira: Promises a stopper in spades; asks for a stopper in hearts.
John R. Mayne: What, different rules and scoring weren’t enough? Now we have to cope with different systems? I’m going to demand a refund of my yearly fees. I’m bidding 3 because I think the field will search for 3 NT, but I really think 4 is better.
Koos Splinter: I have spade values, partner.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Showing strength in spades and allowing North to bid 3 NT with a heart stopper.
Steve Boughey: …A trial bid (what Reese calls a “notrump probe”) en route to 3 NT if possible, with 4 the resting place should 3 NT be ruled out. … The natural approach is to show (not ask) so this shows a spade [stopper].
Mauri Saastamoinen: An overbid, but there is still a chance for game — either 3 NT, or more probably 5 . I would like to bid spades (strength-showing), hearts (mini-splinter) and clubs (real-suit invitation) all at the same time. :)
Ivan Kolev: Three notrump is likely, so I show my spade stopper and [imply] the need for a heart stopper.
Spiros Liarakos: Showing values in spades; I will pass 3 NT or 4 .
Nick Wong: Looking for 3 NT; 5 is still in the picture.
Scott Stearns: Just because West was going to bid 3 . :)
David Dumont: Showing values and letting partner decide whether to play 3 NT.
Brad Theurer: Too good to pass, so I show my major-suit stopper; both 3 NT and 5 are still possible.
Jack Brawner: Not being Mollo’s Hog, searching for 3 NT seems right.
Carsten Kofoed: Optimistic, but both 3 NT and 5 have chances, and 4 is playable.
Razvan Tablet: Lets not skip 3 NT so easily, and try for 5 only if partner denies a heart stopper.
Junaid Said: This keeps all game options open, and we can still stop in 4 .
Jeff Hand: A game try, and also trying to keep the opponents out of the auction (this could even become a double game swing). I need to find out how my spade values fit partner; we may belong in 3 NT, 4 or 5 .
Christian Vennerod: A trial bid. Partner may bid 3 NT with hearts stopped (e.g., x-x-x K-x-x K-x-x-x-x Q-x), jump to 5 (e.g., K-x-x x-x-x K-x-x-x-x-x x), cue-bid, or discourage with 4 .
Nigel Marlow: If 3 NT is the right contract, I need to know if partner can stop hearts; so I bid my spade feature and hope he gets the message.
Tim DeLaney: Game try. I will pull 3 NT to 4 .
Joel Singer: If partner stops hearts, we’ll be in 3 NT; otherwise, probably 4 . I don’t think this is quite enough for a minor-suit game.
Julian Pottage: With 18 dummy points of my own, we may have enough for an 11-trick game, and partner’s spade holding could be the key.
Bill Powell: Invitational with something in spades. I will stand for 3 NT — unless it’s doubled.
Anthony Golding: Three notrump may well be better than 5 , e.g., opposite x-x K-x-x K-x-x-x-x K-x-x, or x-x K-x-x 10-x-x-x-x K-Q-x. When opponents have shown two suits (as West has by implication), I bid the suit I’ve got stopped.
Richard Cowan: I hope this shows spade values. If partner bids 3 NT, I will stand for it unless doubled; otherwise, I like 5 .
Georgi Bachev: With points in hearts, partner can bid 3 NT; if he bids 4 , I’ll bid 5 .
Simon Cheung: Given the nice club suit, my hand is strong enough to issue an invitation. I don’t want to bid beyond 3 NT, as it may be the only makable game when partner holds x-x-x K-J-x K-x-x-x-x Q-x. New suit bids below 3 NT should be interpreted as notrump probes showing stoppers; so having bypassed hearts, partner can infer I need a heart stopper.
Sandy McIlwain: With all my intermediates, 3 NT should have a play if North can bid it. Below 3 NT, I bid what I have.
Nigel Guthrie: Shows a stopper for notrump and expresses interest in game.
Nye Griffiths: Showing a stopper and looking for 3 NT if partner has a heart stopper.
Andrei Varlan: Clearly, showing a spade stopper, and lacking a heart stopper. I will pass 3 NT (praying) or 4 .
Jordan Chodorow: Three hearts is unspeakable without an agreement that it shows shortness; 4 is an exercise in futility; and 3 NT, 4 and 5 are unilateral guesses. This [shows spades] and asks for help in hearts in pursuit of a reasonably likely 3 NT.
Jon Sorkin: This might get us too high, but it’s also semi-preemptive (opponents might make 3 ). I will pass 3 NT or 4 .
Rainer Herrmann: Though 1 hit the jackpot, it would not have been my choice. I’ll make one try to reach game.
Jack Rhatigan: We might have enough for game; plus this raises the ante [for West] to mention hearts.
Len Vishnevsky: This lets partner evaluate properly; K-x-x x-x-x K-x-x-x-x-x x makes game cold, but x-x-x A-x-x K-x-x-x-x Q-x offers no play [assuming the club finesse is off].
Jean Claude Melka: Partner denies four spades, so this means “no heart stopper”…in French standard.
Don Hinchey: Game try, suggesting heart weakness and probing for a stopper; we may yet have game in either minor.
Comments for 4 Paul Flashenberg: This might keep West quiet, and could also lead to a makable 5 if partner has the right hand.
Bogdan Vulcan: Unfortunately, although I’ve tried many times to bid and make game on hands like this without much success, I’ll try one more time. It doesn’t seem like a 3 NT hand (partner would need at least the K and a double heart stopper) so I’ll just bid my shape, looking for the wonder hand: K-x-x x-x-x K-x-x-x-x K-x, or similar.
Ron Landgraff: Opponents have a nine-card heart fit and are about to find it, so this will help partner judge what to do next. Partner’s failure to bid a major or notrump makes 3 NT unattractive to me.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: A trial bid with clubs. If partner has a maximum, or the right cards (e.g., A-x-x x-x-x x-x-x-x-x K-x), 5 has good chances.
David Caprera: Bidding out my hand; too good to pass, but not good enough to bid game myself. Three notrump is unlikely to be a good spot.
Stephen Fischer: Giving up on what will be, at best, a tenuous 3 NT. This serves as a game try, and it will help partner evaluate his hand if West bids 4 or 4 .
Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: Showing my pattern. We may have a minor-suit game; and if not, 4 will be comfortable.
Guven Dalkilic: Our possible game is in 5 , not 3 NT.
Ulrich Nell: This sheds light on my shape and indicates game interest. I’m not prepared to take a wild shot at 3 NT; and if I try to clarify major-suit protection, I am simply identifying a good opening lead for the opponents.
Roger Morton: I’ll make 5 opposite the right cards, and this may even keep the opponents out of [finding] their major fit. Three notrump will surely fail on a heart attack.
Gerald Murphy: A game try. … If partner bids 4 , I will pass. This also gives partner extra information in case West bids 4 or 4 .
Arindam Ray: East’s silence might indicate potential heart wastage with partner… but 3 would not solve the problem because I would correct 3 NT to 4 , which partner would treat as a slam try. I’ll take the middle path; let partner make the mistake. :)
Nick Krnjevic: Partner is unlikely to have the K and two heart stoppers…so 5 looks better than 3 NT. This will give partner a chance…to upgrade his hoped-for K…
Jacob Grabowski: I’m tempted to muddy the waters with 3 , which would show a stopper on this sequence but might throw West off track. This will end my description; and if West has a powerhouse, he has to come in at the four level.
Steven Yang: Not enough information to jump to 5 , so I’ll tell North about my clubs and let him decide.
Leonard Helfgott: As long as I’ve decided to bid, I may as well make the most natural call and give partner the right information to decide between 4 and 5 .
Guy van Middelem: I don’t understand the opening bid (to me, 1 seems normal), and I don’t understand the need for an asterisk (to me, 3 is always [weak] after the double); but I do understand what I see: a club suit. Three notrump (or 3 ) is out of the question.
Jonathan Steinberg: Even if partner has a heart stopper, 3 NT might be hopeless. I’ll show my shape/values and look for five of a minor…
Mike Harney: I need more information from partner. This may be a stretch — but I paid my entry fee!
John Lusky: Five diamonds is possible if partner has club help, and this also [might inhibit] a heart bid by West.
Adam Saroyan: Three spades [to try for] 3 NT is tempting, but I feel a bit cowardly and will try for 5 instead. The 10 keeps telling me that 3 NT is on; oh well.
Stephen Hamilton: A game try. If partner has a club honor and/or prime values, he should bid 5 ; Otherwise, 4 .
Comments for 4 Bob Boudreau: Continue the preempt so opponents don’t find their nine-card heart fit.
Dale Freeman: Does partner deny a weak 2 opening? Most likely, opponents can make three of major, and we can make 4 …
Mark Raphaelson: Three notrump is a joke, right? I’m only bidding to keep West from bidding 3 . Partner may have the K and [little else], so we might not be able to beat 4 .
Hart Leppard: I’m not quite ready to commit this to game, so let’s see if partner has anything left in the well.
Richard Morse: It’s tempting to pass, but we might miss a miracle game, or let West bid too cheaply. My shape is excellent, and 4 presumably asks partner to value his tops — assuming he has any!
Brian Zietman: I’m sure that East-West will find their heart fit if I pass, and this shows the way for partner to sacrifice in 5 doubled — making.
Richard Stein: With a big fit, a good side suit and ruffing value, this hand is good enough to invite game.
William Peters: I want to bid at least 4 because West …may have a long major. The question here [probably] is whether…we have enough defense to set four of a major. I hope I have three defensive tricks, and partner one, so 4 should tell partner I am happy to defend 4 or 4 .
Brandon Einhorn: If opponents bid four of a major, they will likely be set (especially in spades, which I’d double). Five diamonds may have difficulty making because of the defensive nature of my spade values.
Stan Dub: I prefer not to defend three of a major; so why give West another easy chance?…
Comments for PassJonathan Brill: … Partner expects me to have four diamonds, and he has already bid to the level of tricks equal to our trumps [based on the Law of Total Tricks]. With 15 HCP, game in notrump or diamonds looks unlikely… so I pass.
Alan Kravetz: Partner needs a magic hand to have a shot at 3 NT, which [probably] needs a successful club finesse…
Paul Huggins: Perhaps I am overly pessimistic; but with a double on my left and a preemptive raise from partner, I do not fancy making a game try — or perhaps I am just used to partners who bid on rubbish. :) We could easily lose four hearts and the A in 3 NT, or three top tricks in 5 ; and most of the missing high cards are marked offside by the bidding.
Bruce Lieberman: None of my finesses are working here.
Bill Jacobs: Dummy points are for dummies, frankly. If those 8-10 points are based on high cards, we might make 3 NT; but that seems against the odds.
Padraig O'Briain: Five diamonds looks a long way away.
Sebastien Louveaux: With six losers, partner has to cover four of them to make 5 ; and this is too much to ask. Likewise, in 3 NT we probably have six minor-suit tricks, and partner will have to supply three more; not a good bet.
Jonathan Goldberg: I seem to be timid today, but the vulnerability is discouraging; hearts are probably singly stopped at most; and 5 seems far away.
Balazs Kovacs: Five diamonds [probably] has no chance. If West does something, I will bid 4 . Opponents [probably] have no game, so it is unnecessary to bid 4 in advance.
Michael Mayer: All the minor-suit finesses are wrong.
George Klemic: Even opposite a good fitting hand (three kings in various suits), it will be difficult to tell if 3 NT, 5 or pass is right. Any game is likely to be at best on a finesse, so I’ll take the low road.
Phil Adamson: Take away the Q-J, and I’d bid 4 . Bidding here looks too much like sacrificing against a partscore.
Danny Kleinman: With nobody bidding hearts and the opponents likely to have a combined nine, I suspect partner has wasted heart values. Facing a hand like x K-J-x K-10-x-x-x x-x-x-x, a diamond partial is enough.
Frans Buijsen: There’s no 5 for us, and I see no gain from preempting further.
Deniz Yuret: With 15 HCP and 6 LTC [losing trick count] opposite partner’s 8 LTC, can there be a game? Unlikely.
Jeff Ford: I wouldn’t have opened 1 , but I suppose a lot of people will say that.
Nicoleta Giura: Not sure why I opened 1 — maybe a geographical reason. :) I’m pessimistic about game, which needs partner to have perfect cards (the right three kings).
Lajos Linczmayer: Even if partner controls hearts, we probably will not have nine tricks in notrump; and I need help in three suits to make 5 . I estimate that in 10 possible cases we can make game at most twice…
Steve Stein: No imagination, I guess. This could be a magic fit — or it could give declarer fits.
Gordon Bower: The only question of this set that is an easy decision. I won’t be surprised if nine tricks is the limit, and I don’t want to play 3 NT if partner’s hearts weren’t good enough to respond 1 .
Denis Mortell: A not-very-pretty six losers, so a partscore is the percentage contract; it’s too easy to lose two spades and a heart in 5 . If opponents bid 3 or 3 , I will compete to 4 .
Rosalind Hengeveld: I presume “8-10 dummy points” means not a real dog but a hand more preemptive than invitational in nature — nowadays called a “mixed raise.” Hence, I can’t bring myself to believe in game.
Terminology evolves: Mixed Pairs used to be popular. Next came the tar pits, sputnik, and mixed raises.
Uwe Gebhardt: Trying to go plus.
Chuck Lamprey: I’m not going to stretch for a nonvulnerable game that probably isn’t there anyway.
Andrew de Sosa: If vulnerable, I would bid 3 (showing a spade stopper) to see if partner could bid 3 NT. Still, it would take a perfect maximum to make (say, K-x K-J-x K-x-x-x-x x-x-x) and some luck to boot.
Julian Wightwick: Partner would need perfect cards for game in diamonds; and 3 NT looks even further away. If the K is missing, it’s likely to be offside. This is only a nonvulnerable game, so I’ll go quietly.
Don Berman: I would have opened 1 . This hand is close to a reverse, and the good spot cards [suggest that route]. Reversing a little light also might steal the hand. …
John Hoffman: I plan to compete to 4 if West balances. I don’t think opponents are likely to make four of a major.
Godefroy de Tessieres: Three notrump seems unlikely to make. Five diamonds may be good if North has no wasted values in hearts, but I have no way to ask him that.
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
Problem 6
| Total Points | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 1
| East Pass | SOUTH ? ? | — K J 8 7 3 A J 10 9 6 4 4 2
|
| Two Calls | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| F. 1 then 2 | 10 | 520 | 41 |
| B. Pass then 2 | 9 | 193 | 15 |
| A. Pass then 2 | 8 | 300 | 24 |
| D. 1 then 2 | 5 | 137 | 11 |
| E. 1 then 2 | 2 | 106 | 8 |
| C. Pass then 3 | 1 | 20 | 2 |
Is this an opening bid? Sixty percent thought so, and the consensus was to open 1 and rebid 2 , which is the only way to get both suits in the picture without grossly overstating the strength. Many felt strongly that it was crucial to open with such great playing strength (assuming a fit exists).
I disagree with opening and believe the 60-percent vote is largely due to Rule-of-20 brainwashing. What ever happened to defensive-trick requirements? After opening, how will you know whether to pull partner’s inevitable double of 4 ?
Many respondents felt that passing would make it more difficult to show both suits, but it’s usually the opposite. Two-suiters are easy to show after passing, e.g., with a Michaels cue-bid (over an enemy spade bid) or an unusual notrump (over clubs). Even if the enemy bidding came back to me in 4 , I would risk 4 NT (ostensibly for minors but correcting 5 to 5 to show red suits). An original pass does not stop you from bidding your head off; it just avoids the nasty predicament of what to do if partner doubles.
After passing, I would respond 2 to 1 (planning to bid 3 next) and hope partner’s hand is not as black as mine is red. If the hands are a complete misfit, my original pass might be the key that allows us to stop in 4 — before the doubling starts.
It is also reasonable to respond 2 (after passing) intending to bid hearts twice to show the exact pattern. Unfortunately, this picture bidding extends beyond 4 , which could be your last makable contract.
I was amazed by the number of votes for Choice E, which I included more as filler than a serious option. A reverse? I would call it a perverse, but I suppose it might be worth it just to see partner’s expression when you put down this dummy in 6 NT. Another Kodak moment, brought to you by PavCo.
Probably even worse than the reverse is to pass and jump to 3 . Jump shifts with two-suiters are considered taboo among experts, as the one thing you don’t need is to crowd the bidding. Further, the standard interpretation of a passed-hand jump shift is a hand that improved by partner’s bid; hence, it strongly suggests a spade fit. Ouch.
Here’s how the cookies crumbled in 1957:
| USA vs Italy | A J 10 9 5 3 2 A 9 — Q J 8 6
| |
| Q 7 6 5 K 8 7 5 3 A 9 5 3
| | K 8 6 4 Q 10 4 2 Q 2 K 10 7
|
| Both Vul | — K J 8 7 3 A J 10 9 6 4 4 2 | |
| Avarelli West Pass Pass Pass | Leventritt North 1 3 4
| Belladonna East Pass Pass All Pass | Goren SOUTH 1 2 4
| 4 North Down 2 -200 |
| Seamon West Pass Pass Pass | D'Alelio North 2 3 4
| Sobel East Pass Pass All Pass | Chiaradia SOUTH 1 3 4
| 4 North Down 1 -100 Italy +100 |
Well, I guess this must be a “Goren opening bid,” as Charles himself showed at the first table. Evidently, all that stuff in his “Bridge Complete” about 2+ quick tricks is just fodder for the masses. Seriously, it’s refreshing to see some flexibility in the man so closely associated with rules.
At the second table, the only difference in the auction was that D’Alelio chose to jump in spades at his first turn. Italian jump shifts are more like Acol — just creating a game force, rather than suggesting slam as in American methods. No doubt, the same contract would be reached if South passed. It’s tough to stop low on misfits, as each player’s hand has tremendous potential opposite a suitable dummy. Unfortunately, South’s suitability for spades was null. Four spades required a trump lead to make; fat chance of that.
Belladonna showed that even three spades was in trouble, as his defense began with three rounds of clubs. Leventritt crossed to the K to pitch his last club on the A; ruffed a diamond, and led A-J; then a fourth club delivered a trump promotion. Down two; plus 200, and 100 points to Italy.
Comments for F. 1 then 2 John Reardon: This hand is worth opening, but only if I can show both suits.
Robin Zigmond: On some days I may choose to pass, but I think this hand is worth an opening. I don’t like 1 , though, as rebidding 2 loses the hearts; and reversing just doesn’t bear thinking about.
Matthew Mason: Either I distort the power of this hand with a reverse, or the shape with a 1 opener. I’ll distort the shape since my heart intermediates aren’t 10-9. And I just invented a saying: Six-five, don’t pass!
Jonathan Brill: With 5-6, I need full opening honor values to reverse. I have decided to open (according to the Rule of 20…) so I will treat it as a 5-5 to avoid the reverse.
Paul Huggins: Tough problem. Opening the bidding could easily get us too high; but against that, I have a lot of playing strength opposite any fit with partner. Having decided to open, I prefer 1 then 2 , as otherwise partner will never guess that I have five decent hearts; and I refuse to [reverse] with a 9-count… :)
Jean-Christophe Clement: Choice D is also attractive; but I slightly prefer this, as it shows five hearts directly.
Bogdan Vulcan: I am not passing 6-5-2-0 shape with 9 points and good spots in my suits. [My third bid] will be 3 , and the sixth diamond, hopefully, will be a nice surprise.
Scott Stearns: Just good enough [to open], and I’m bidding the higher suit first [to avoid] rebid problems.
Bob Boudreau: Easiest way to handle [this shape]. “Six-five, come alive.”
Brad Theurer: This hand is not good enough to reverse but shapely enough to open. If I pass, the bidding could be at 4 by the time it gets back to me.
Kieran Dyke: Passing with great playing strength is wrong, and missing the five-card major seems like a worse sin; so 1 lets me bid both suits quickly. …
Sebastien Louveaux: With very good playing strength, I think this hand should be opened; 1 is the only way to bring both suits in the picture.
Dale Freeman: … I open so I can show both suits. Passing could be [better] if, later in the auction, I can show this hand; but over the spade bids by anybody, this may not be easy.
Josh Sinnett: The hand is too offensive to pass, and not enough HCP to start with 1 (Choice D loses the heart suit, and the hand’s about two aces short for Choice E).
Carlos Dabezies: Too much playing strength to pass, especially with the texture in the diamond suit. I can’t reverse, so I must bid the major first.
Bill Daly: I prefer to open, and I want to get both suits in. I may regret this, of course, but at least I’m not going to reverse.
Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: According to the recent article published by Zar Petkov, this hand is worth opening. I prefer to open 1 and rebid diamonds.
Mark Abraham: Isn’t this from an intermediate textbook? Oh, probably not enough HCP for an American audience. :)
OK, wise guy… Now go play with your Lincoln Logs.
Bill Cubley: What the heck. I never played total points, but this looks like a nice distributional opener. I guess it is better that partner bid spades, than opponents finding a spade fit.
Richard Morse: Occasionally, one has to distort for the sake of common sense. Passing does not make the next bid easier. I’m surprised you included Choice E…
Jan Andersson: Think it is better to act immediately. Normally, with this distribution, opponents wont be silent — when it is my turn again, it might be at the five level.
Phil Adamson: I’m not going to pass with 11 red cards; and if I’m going to mention hearts at all, I have to get them in first. It’s the least bad lie.
Mark Lincoln: These kinds of hands are easier to bid if they are opened, and I will treat it as 5-5. Obviously, there is a risk we may get too high… but this is a gamble I will take.
Deniz Yuret: Can I open with 9 HCP and 6 LTC? Barely. If had one more heart and one less diamond, this would be a no-brainer. Can I reverse? No, so I’ll just go with the sequence hearts, diamonds, diamonds.
Nicoleta Giura: Only way to show both suits cheaply.
Gerald Murphy: No way would I pass, but I think the hand is too weak to open 1 and reverse into hearts. Therefore, I open 1 and have good rebids available in diamonds. Choice D (1 then 2 ) is a viable option, but I think 1 is better overall.
Michael G. Phillips: Points are in my suits, so opening looks good; and I can’t stand the thought of losing the heart suit unnecessarily.
Petko Boukov: If I really knew I’d hear 1 , I could have started with pass but not opening with such hand should be considered a sin.
Tysen Streib: Passing this hand initially is a mistake. You lose out in this bidding sequence but gain so much more when the opponents bid spades and partner has support.
Brian Zietman: … I am too weak to reverse, so I must begin with hearts and then bid diamonds until I’m blue in the face. … If I knew in advance that partner was going to open 1 , then maybe I would have passed.
Jeff Ruben: If I don’t open, I may find it difficult to bid both suits. I am willing to lie about the relative suit lengths to be sure I get a chance to show hearts.
David Wiltshire: It will be hard to describe such a distributional hand by starting with a pass; and with such a weak hand, reversing isn’t an option. I’ll put a diamond in with my clubs and bid out my 5-5 shape, hoping for the best.
Tim Pinder: I don’t really like any of the options, but at least this way I get to show both suits without overstating my strength too much.
Brandon Einhorn: This was a dynamite hand before partner bid spades, and it may still work out if partner has diamonds. I don’t know his strength yet.
Rosalind Hengeveld: A matter of temperament, more than anything. … This hand is not ideal for any two calls; I don’t believe passing gives it its best shot, and 1 buries the hearts.
Gonzalo Goded: This seems a matter of style, rather than judgment. I am kind of aggressive. :)
Julian Wightwick: Pushy. I would prefer better hearts for this sequence, but reversing is too rich for me; and there’s less upside bidding diamonds twice.
John Hoffman: An obvious Rule-of-20 opener, with all HCP in the long suits; 10-9 is a plus factor. This is not nearly good enough for a reverse, so I open 1 and bid diamonds twice.
Neelotpal Sahai: With the benefit of making two calls at one go (and knowing what partner will do), I choose F. There can never be honesty in such problems. Why do you test our honesty in bidding polls? :) … Seriously, I open so I should be able to show both suits… and 1 avoids the rebid problem.
Comments for B. Pass then 2 Oleg Rubinchik: I wish the guy who restricted the use of multi 2 in ACBL tournaments would meet this problem every day. At least two perfectly workable tools (multi or Wilkosz) take care of these hands, but here I’m forced to guess like in the old days.
Michael True: In opening a hand, I use the Rule of 20 with two quick tricks, so I would pass. The question is what to do when partner keeps bidding spades.
Paul Flashenberg: If I pass initially, at least I limit my hand. I plan to show diamonds next if partner doesn’t support hearts.
Bill Jacobs: I’ll go with the pass, not because of the 9 points but because the suit order is hard to unravel (switch the red suits and I happily open 1 ). On the second round…I think 2 is needed; otherwise a heart fit might be lost. I don’t understand Choice C, unless it’s catering to masochists.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Opening is unnecessary…as we could easily get too high. If the opponents had bid, I would be able to show this hand accurately with a two-suited bid… Over partner’s 1 , I show my five-card heart suit; I will pass 2 , or bid 3 over 2 NT. …
Stephen Fischer: … As a passed hand, I can bid my shape freely; but if I bid 2 first, I’ll never convince partner I have five hearts, so I’ll start with 2 .
Jonathan Goldberg: My target here is game in hearts. Opening 1 seems misdirected, and starting with 1 may lead to an [awkward situation] on the third round — and I need to worry about that many rounds if game is a prospect. …
Ulrich Nell: I pass initially because I am virtually certain to get another shot in the bidding. Although partner’s 1 puts a damper on my enthusiasm, I bid hearts first (else they may remain a secret forever). If partner rebids spades, I pass; over 3 , I bid 3 . …
George Klemic: The hand may fit the Rule of 20; but the rule should be avoid when there are rebid problems. Over 1 , I respond 2 for two reasons: (1) I have a 3 rebid available over typical rebids, and (2) the most likely game is in hearts. …
Mark Taylor: I like light openings, but the offense/defense ratio means that partner may be disappointed if I open and he later doubles… After passing, I can usually show my hand in a sensible manner regardless of who opens. I prefer 2 to 2 , else I may miss the best chance for game (4 ) unless I push too hard and commit to game on a misfit.
Don Hinchey: A mild distortion in the interests of overall clarity.
Rik ter Veen: Opening this hand leads to a 20-point 3 NT doubled a little too often. I’ll take the conservative road.
Godefroy de Tessieres: [After passing] I think it is better to bid hearts first (4 is the more likely game). Over 2 , I will bid 3 .
Adam Saroyan: Nothing is good here, except a Chameleon 2 opening (6-10, hearts and a minor). No wonder standard bidding makes for so many quizzes; its lack of specificity just begs for trouble. One can only wonder why new methods are quashed — perhaps to keep everyone guessing… Keep shooting messengers; and the throne will be safe a little longer.
Comments for A. Pass then 2 Steve Boughey: I shudder to do this, but any other approach is even more diabolical. Open these hands, and you often have to remove partner’s high-level penalty double because you don’t have the defensive values promised. (I smiled at Choice E, which is a good way to find yourself in 6 NT down four.) If partner rebids 2 , I will bid 3 …
K. Scott Kimball: It’s not my style to open these hands; and having passed, I feel free to bid a lot and show my shape along the way.
David Dumont: I would open if my hearts were K-Q-8-7-3. Over partner’s rebid, I’ll bid 3 .
Vincent Mes: Then 3 after 2 . As a passed hand, this should show 6-5 because I would bid 2 first with 5-5;…and with 6-4, I would rebid 3 [since partner would not have four hearts]. …
Carsten Kofoed: I’m so primitive that I only open with an opening, and I bid my longest suit first.
Sandy Barnes: If I open this sort of hand, I have to open my shorter suit, else lose the benefit of the light opening. I prefer to pass since my defense is minimum; then 2 seems the best chance to land on our feet…
David Caprera: Maybe we’ll miss our 5-3 heart fit, but there is no easy way to bid hearts. This is not an opener by my lights, but there are those who will.
Jeff Hand: With better heart spots that would feel comfortable in a 5-2 fit, I open the bidding. Even if we miss a 5-3 heart fit, it might not play that well. Hopefully, partner will rebid 2 ; if he bids 2 , I will bid 3 .
Paul Meerschaert: I will have to decide what to do over 2 or 3 from partner; and 3 NT will have me scratching my head for a while; but I’m better placed than if I put all my eggs in the heart suit.
Chris Cooper: I don’t like to open this hand, as then I can’t show the shape very well. …
Gerald Cohen: I pass originally because an opportunity for an unusual 2 NT will let me describe this hand fairly well.
Nigel Marlow: In my experience, opening these hands [seldom] works because either we have a total misfit, or partner misjudges my values and overbids. I also think it is almost always right to bid my suit length upwards.
Tim DeLaney: I don’t think a 5-3 heart fit would play well, and bidding both suits in the face of a possibly disastrous misfit does not appeal to me. If partner makes a strong rebid, I can show the hearts. If he makes a minimum rebid (other than 2 !), we are unlikely to miss a game.
Mark Raphaelson: I’m not stopping in any number of spades, so I might as well start bidding out my shape.
Julian Pottage: HLQT (high-card points, length in two longest suits and quick tricks) comes to 21.5 — a fraction short for a vulnerable opening. Choices E (a wild overbid) and C (showing a spade fit!) are both crazy and deserve zero.
Anthony Golding: Very tough. Hand on heart, I’d probably pass at the table, though it looks wrong now. I still plan to bid 3 over a 2 rebid, even though it could be a misfit — partner will know I must have extreme shape…(since he denied four hearts).
Roger Morton: I prefer to listen first on this type of hand, where I can’t reverse due to lack of high cards. I will describe my two-suiter accurately, at whatever level.
Danny Kleinman: … If my diamonds were spades, I’d open 1 ; and if my red suits were swapped, I’d open 1 ; but with marginal high-card values, I hate to open unless I can open in my best suit. Once partner opens, however, I’m optimistic despite the misfit for spades.
Alon Amsel: [My philosophy] on 6-5 hands is to open only with 11+ HCP, and always to bid the longer suit first. …
Willem Mevius: After passing, it is easier to stop at a low level in case of a misfit. …
Erwin Witteveen: Passing seems to be the most flexible start (maybe an opponent will bid one of my suits). If partner rebids 2 , I will pass; over 2 NT, I’ll bid 3 ; over 3 , I’ll bid 3 .
Damo Nair: Bidding should be easier after I’ve passed. I should have enough space to show the five-card heart suit.
Mark LaForge: I do not believe in distorting the length of my suits, as I would much rather be in diamonds [on a misfit]. The chance of partner passing 2 is [close to] zero.
Jacob Grabowski: … This is perhaps timid and conservative, but every other choice lies about length or strength, or completely ignores the heart suit.
Steven Yang: I count points based on length, not shortness, so with 12 points I start with a pass. … Then I will bid diamonds, leaving the door open for hearts.
Gordon Bower: As a rule, I go out of my way to open 5-4 shapes, and to pass 4-5 shapes; so the same approach seems sensible with 6-5 or 5-6. …
Jordan Chodorow: Passing initially is clearly correct because if the 1 opening is by an opponent, you can make perhaps the only call that perfectly describes the hand: 2 . Having passed, this reasonably textured hand is worth bidding out to convey the relative lengths in the red suits.
Myles Ellison: Then, I’ll just keep bidding hearts until partner shuts up.
Jonathan Monroe: I have longer diamonds than hearts without the strength to reverse, so it is [awkward] to open. If an opponent opens (probable with my low HCP), I can show both suits with 2 NT (or similar) with the added advantage that partner won’t make a rash double expecting defensive tricks in my hand.
Leonard Helfgott: Despite the Rule of 20, with two jacks and only 3 controls (1 1/2 quick tricks) this is really a dangerous opener. (Make it A-10-x-x-x then OK with 4 controls and 2 quick tricks.) After passing, bidding the six-bagger seems safer and more natural.
Jon Sorkin: If I were 6-5 the other way, I would open; but it’s too weak to reverse, and I see no reason to [distort the shape]. I hope partner can bid 2 over 2 ; if he bids 2 or 3 , I will rebid 3 .
Len Vishnevsky: Partner might pass two of either red suit, so 2 is better. …
Chuck Lamprey: I understand opening with the suits reversed, but here I’m either burying the hearts or inviting a doubleton preference I don’t want. Once partner opens, I choose to bid naturally.
Gary Sikon: Not good enough to open, despite the 6-5 distribution. My diamonds are better than my hearts, so I respond 2 , hoping to bid hearts later. …
Jonathan Steinberg: This is not a vulnerable first-seat opening! If partner rebids 2 , I’ll next bid 3 (passed-hand reverses must be 6-5 shape). Alternatively, if partner opened light and passes 2 , that’s fine with me.
Yke Smit: I passed first because I hoped to show my two-suiter if an opponent opened. Since a 2-over-1 response can be passed, I prefer to bid my longest and strongest suit.
Andrew de Sosa: While not quite good enough to open, this hand is certainly good enough for a passed-hand 2-over-1 response. I’ll start with the longer and stronger suit, and hopefully get a chance to show hearts later.
Madhukar Bapu: People who open on these hands are looking at newspapers, not their partner. Responding 2 seems clear-cut, with a good possibility of finding a fit.
Manuel Paulo: Opening may cause a trilemma: If I bid 1 , I distort the shape; if I bid 1 , I must either overstate the strength with 2 , or overlook a potential heart fit with 2 . So I pass and bid diamonds (longest suit first) intending to introduce hearts next…
Final NotesComments are selected from those above average (top 700), and on each problem only for the top three or four 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 the days of yesteryear, even if it’s just another New York City getaway. (At least back then you might be able to afford it.) Please leave your key at the front desk when you check out of the Biltmore. Thanks to everyone who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site.
While in The Big Apple, I won’t miss the lighting of the Christmas tree, so I’m off to Rockefeller Center right now. The cabbies can finish it off:
Anand Nuggihalli: After the hours I spent in your wax museum, this was like a walk in the park.
Josh Sinnett: Total points? Should I e-mail my answers, or send them by Pony Express?
Bill Jacobs: Hey, don’t you want to know what state in Australia I come from?
Let me guess from your accent. The state of delirium?
Bogdan Vulcan: Last week I won a national event in Romania (Juniors Pairs Championship) and I must admit I’ve learned a lot over the last two years from the material on your web site… Thank you.
| Analyses 8W16 Main Challenge | | Scores Top A Large Gala Occasion |
© 2004 Richard Pavlicek