Analyses 8W24  Main Challenge

Tales of the Wild West

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in January 2005, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals played in a past tournament. In the poll I did not reveal the year or location, and participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

The Wild West theme drew guesses for virtually every major city in the western United States: Albuquerque, Boise, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Reno, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Portland and Seattle. Plus some really wild, like Yellowstone, Wyoming; Laughlin, Nebraska; Dodge City, Kansas; Tombstone, Arizona; and Deadwood (an ace-asking bid?), South Dakota. There were also two guesses for Vancouver in the Canadian west, and one for Istanbul, Turkey (seems a bit East to me). Sorry, wrong continent!

The tournament was held in another Wild West, that of Australia; or more specifically, Perth, which lies on its western coast. Perhaps the best clue was the black swan, native only to Australia and appearing on the Western Australia flag. The mountain photo at top shows part of the Stirling Ranges, and the painting is a distant view of the same. The silhouette against an overcast sky is a kookaburra in a tree, photographed in the Western Australia outback.

“It must have been cold there in my shadow…”

The background song Wind Beneath My Wings was my clue to the year. The awe-inspiring rendition by Bette Midler became a #1 Hit in 1989, which was the year of the tournament. The song is from the movie Beaches, starring Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey, which opened the year before. This heartwarming story of a lifelong friendship will make you both laugh and cry — a must-see if you missed it.

Surprisingly, only three respondents correctly identified the location (Perth), and each knew the year as well. I’m not impressed, people! What did you expect, a kangaroo boarding a Qantas jet with a boomerang? Congratulations to our three wise men: Bill Powell, Richard Morse and Tim Cope.

Brad Ross-Jones Wins!

Participation this month was the highest ever (previous high was 1410 in September 2004) so it was surprising to have no perfect score — as well as only three 59s, considering that four of the six problems offered 9 scores. The average score was the lowest ever (previous low was 44.52, also September 2004). This is easily explained by the fact that this problem set was the best ever in terms of voting diversity. Two problems (2 and 4) were won by a 27-percent vote, and the rest were in the 30s, which is remarkably low. What do I win?

In the overall leaderboard, previous leader David Caprera (Colorado) remains on top with the same 56.50 average. Close behind at 56.25 is Geraint Harker (England). Four players are next with 55.75: Jorge Castanheira (Portugal); John R. Mayne (California); Sandy McIlwain (British Columbia); and Michel Mayeur (France).

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

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

The 29th Bermuda Bowl (inaugurated in 1950) was held in Perth, Western Australia, September 9-23, 1989. This was the first world championship to be held in Australia — no doubt because of the great travel distance for many, as it certainly couldn’t be for the lack of bridge talent down under.

Ten teams (zonal representatives, defenders and host country) were involved, and two of them (United States and Poland) had an automatic berth to the semifinal. The remaining eight teams played a double round-robin (14 matches) to determine the other two berths. Standings by Victory Points were: Brazil 280, Australia 240, Taiwan 231, France 229, Egypt 203, New Zealand 200, Colombia 142, and Canada 137.

Therefore, Brazil and Australia would enter the final four. The semifinal matches consisted of 160 boards, played in 10 segments. United States topped Australia 387-327 (IMPs) and Brazil bested Poland 369-327. Both winners jumped out to a quick lead and led all the way, as neither match was close.

Anchoring the Brazilian team were Gabriel Chagas and Marcelo Branco (pictured in a photo, circa 2000), who played every board of the final and semifinal, and I think the round-robin too but can’t document that. Their teammates were Carlos Camacho, Pedro Paulo Branco (Marcelo’s brother), Ricardo Janz and Roberto Mello. Representing United States were Lew Stansby, Chip Martel, Peter Pender, Hugh Ross, Michael Lawrence and Kit Woolsey.

The final match was 176 boards, a curious number, but considering some of the organizational blunders over the years, at least it was a multiple of 16, albeit 11 segments.* United States was the clear favorite, but Brazil showed it was in a class by itself, overcoming an early deficit to win by a comfortable margin: 442-388.

*Ideally a match between two six-player teams should be 12 segments (192 boards) or 9 segments (144 boards) so it is possible for each partnership to play an equal number of boards.

So tie up your horse at the hitching post, check your guns with the Marshall, and join me for a drink in the saloon. You may need it, as you try to match bids with the world’s best of 1989.

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 1

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North Dbl	East Pass Pass	South Pass ?	7 9 8 3 A K 9 7 Q 8 5 4 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
1 NT	10	534	37
3	8	364	25
2	7	371	26
2 NT	6	84	6
Pass	3	76	5
1	2	14	1
2	1	10	1

When I first saw this problem, it seemed like a routine 3 response; and I was surprised that neither expert who held the hand chose that bid. It wasn’t until I read some of your comments that I began to doubt my own view, and I must admit I’ve been educated. (I heard that wisecrack, now shut up or I’ll make you dance with my six-shooter.)

I am now convinced 1 NT is best because it conveys the essence of the hand — strength and direction — in a single bid. The danger of the singleton spade is a mirage, as partner is likely to have four good spades; and the only opponent who might have five is probably broke. In fact, I’d welcome a spade lead, as it might provide an extra trick; whereas a diamond could damage communication. The club suit should provide tricks opposite a likely fit. If anything, 1 NT is conservative, since a perfect minimum (e.g., A-K-x-x x-x-x-x x A-J-10-x) could produce game. If vulnerable, 2 NT feels right.*

*Systemically, the 1 NT response shows 6-9 HCP, which puts this hand at the top end. There are also some 10-point hands with which 1 NT is a wise choice due to wrongly positioned diamond values. The presence of the five-card suit, however, suggests aggressive action if vulnerable.

The textbook 3 bid is surely OK; it conveys the strength well, though the misdirection makes it tough to reach 3 NT. If partner bids again (3 or 3 ), he is unlikely to pass 3 NT with a singleton diamond and a club fit. Five clubs, of course, could be a viable spot; and possibly the only game with a good chance (e.g., A-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x K-J-9-x).

What about those heart bids? Many respondents joked that I even included such choices; but this was a Wild West show, and no rodeo would be complete without clowns. Alas, with 24 clowns we could open a circus. I admit that bidding hearts could be right — but I’ll still remember to lock your cages at night.

Another extreme is the penalty pass. Certainly, this could work nicely opposite some hands, but it strikes me as an insult to partner. Even if it works, your partnership may be irreparably damaged, as partner will be leery of ever making a shapely double. Edgar Kaplan summed it up well when he quipped, “Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out.”

I’m running out of bullets, so let’s see what happened in the wilds of Western Australia:

East deals	A 9 6 5		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	A K 7 5		Stansby	Chagas	Martel	M Branco
	6 5				Pass	Pass
	K J 2		1	Dbl	Pass	1 NT
K J 10 2		Q 8 4 3	Pass	Pass	Pass
10 6 4 2		Q J
Q J 10 4		8 3 2
A		10 9 7 6
	7
	9 8 3
	A K 9 7
	Q 8 5 4 3

Brazil N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
1 NT South	2 South	Camacho	Lawrence	Janz	Woolsey
Made 3 +150	Made 5 +150			Pass	Pass
		1	Dbl	Pass	2
No swing		Pass	Pass	Pass

The problem scenario arose at both tables; Branco took our consensus view, and Woolsey chose a conservative 2 . Both partscores were easy opposite the sound takeout double.

Looking at the North-South hands only, you’d want to be in 3 NT (essentially needing a 3-2 club break), but accurate defense will prevail after a diamond lead. (Even though the A is blank, South’s entries can be removed.) Against 1 NT, Stansby led the Q and Martel discouraged with the eight*; Stansby shifted to a spade on winning the A, and Branco had nine easy tricks.

*Many players today swear by upside-down signals, but there are hidden glitches like this. Once the 8 is played, even if Stansby continued with a diamond honor, declarer can win and establish a diamond with impunity. This still doesn’t yield nine tricks; but eight is better than seven.

Looking at all four hands, would you want to be in game? Yes! Woolsey showed that 5 is unbeatable. After the Q lead and a club to the ace, he could not be stopped from winning five side tricks and six trumps on a crossruff — all for a push. Maybe there’s more to bidding clubs than we realized.

Comments for 1 NT

Joseph Lane: Consistent with where my values are.

Jyrki Lahtonen: I’m happy with showing about 8 HCP. The hand is too strong for 2 , and the suit is kind of ratty for 3 .

George Klemic: This pretty well describes my hand, though 3 is viable as well. Since a stiff 10 might be enough to produce three diamond tricks, it seems right to suggest notrump.

John R. Mayne: While 3 is tempting, this is right on values and stoppers; and partner ought to have some spade stuff. Heart bids are asking for trouble.

Peter Gill: … If partner has five spades, he must also have four hearts (else he’d overcall 1 ), and he may be 5=4=2=2. If not, East-West have an 8+ spade fit, which 1 NT preempts more than 2 (West is more likely to double 2 for takeout). …

Manuel Paulo: This shows a [fair] hand, a diamond stopper, and denies a four-card major — looks like a pretty picture.

Leonard Helfgott: It may be hard to get to notrump if not now. This is right on values and solves the issue of how many clubs to bid.

Bruce Blakely: I’m not entirely happy with this due to the singleton spade,… but it says I have something with my points concentrated in diamonds. … Two clubs or 3 is also [reasonable], but suit is so anemic…

Josh Sinnett: Right on points and diamond stoppers. The lack of a spade bid by anyone makes it sound like the suit is 4-4-4 around the board.

Neelotpal Sahai: …Showing no four-card major, and [most] of my points in diamonds. Responding 2 is very timid, and the club suit quality is bad for 3 .

Arpan Banerjee: A positive description, as 3 NT is likely to be a better playing spot than 5 . Two clubs is an [underbid] and 3 is a bit high with a moth-eaten suit. …

Kieran Dyke: Heading for the most likely game. Two clubs is a nothing bid and likely to miss a game; 3 is OK but a little misdirected with all this stuff in diamonds.

Joon Pahk: This doesn’t overstate my values or get us too high too soon. I have a feeling partner will bid 2 (or double again if opener comes back in), over which I plan to try 3 .

Robert Eachus: I don’t particularly like bidding 1 NT with a singleton spade, but I’d rather deal with partner bidding spades at the two level than the three level. Three clubs is also a reasonable choice.

Ted Ying: When a hand doesn’t fit any bid perfectly, I like to bid according to the most important feature that I need to convey to partner. I think A-K-9-7 is that feature, so 1 NT. The club suit seems too weak for 3 (holding such good diamonds); and bidding on three small hearts is misleading. …

Jess Cohen: If I bid 3 , can I realistically expect [to reach] 3 NT? I have diamond stoppers and potential for taking tricks if partner has the right hand; but 1 NT is as far as I want to go if partner is a minimum. …

Costin Georgescu: I’m not proud of this, but with 7 HCP in diamonds I must show it.

Barry Rigal: My choice is between 2 and 1 NT, and this gets us to game more easily — not that we’ll make it! Three clubs looks too extreme with so much of the strength in diamonds; and partner might have doubled with some 5-4-2-2 hands.

Anthony Golding: This gets my values and their principal location across. …

Dale Freeman: … This shows some values, whereas 2 does not; and 3 would be better with the K instead of the K.

Mark LaForge: I will take the low road… I do not believe I am strong enough for 3 . [Unless] partner has a strong one-suiter in spades, both opponents will have spades, and 1 NT will be high enough.

Norbert van Woerkom: Maybe a slight underbid, but I don’t really like any alternative. With most of my values in partner’s short suit, I’ll be cautious.

Frans Buijsen: I have enough HCP to say something positive, but 3 sends us very high on a weak suit. Bidding notrump focuses on my diamond values, but 2 NT is over the top when the hand [could be] a misfit.

Paulino Correa: I’ll be looking at 3 NT if partner bids again. Two clubs would undervalue this hand too severely.

Olle Morell: Shows my values reasonably… My only other option is 3 , but that should show more in clubs and less in diamonds.

Amiram Millet: The best shot for game is 3 NT, and the club suit is too anemic.

Robin Young: A bit of an underbid, but at least it shows where my strength lies…

Paul Huggins: If we have a game on, it’s more likely to be in 3 NT than 5 ; so I’ll show my stoppers and values… Three clubs is another possibility, but the suit isn’t great.

Ron Landgraff: This may keep opponents out of spades. If partner can bid again, 3 NT looks good. Even if we could beat 1 doubled, I doubt opener will sit for it.

Jerome Farrugia: With 7 of my 9 points in diamonds, 1 NT seems better than 3 despite the singleton spade.

Bruce Scott: I’ll pick 1 NT; 3 is my second choice. … I didn’t even consider passing 1 doubled, and I wonder how well that would work if we ran a simulation. Problem is, opponents probably have a better place to play (like 1 ). It might depend on how big a hand partner needs to double with a one-suiter in spades.

Paul Flashenberg: This shows values, even if I’m off-shape. If partner’s double is primarily for majors, a club bid would work poorly opposite a small doubleton. If we have a game, it is most likely in notrump.

Winston Munn: The jump to 3 is unattractive with such a poor suit, and I suspect partner has doubled on a good one-suited spade hand — otherwise spades are [probably] 4-4-4-1. If I bid 3 and partner bids 3 , I won’t like bidding 3 NT; however, if I bid 1 NT now to show the diamond stopper and general strength, I will be better situated if partner [bids].

Kent Feiler: At least this shows some values. Two clubs could be the same distribution with zero HCP.

Michael Shuster: East doesn’t have five decent spades, so I’m not worried about that suit in notrump. I’d rather show my general values than guess whether to bid 2 or 3 .

Erik Lauer: This shows my values and the stopper in diamonds. I hope spades break 4-4-4.

Charles Leong: Diamond stopper; scattered values; no interest in the majors. Two clubs might work; but it might go: Dbl P 2 , and opponents have found their fit. Spades are [probably] 4-4-4-1, so West…is likely to have club shortage.

John Lusky: This is better than 2 because it shows some values. The hand isn’t good enough for 3 with so much diamond strength opposite probable shortness.

Tim Posney: This shows a stopper, denies a major, and is limited to a 9-count or so — sounds pretty close.

Comments for 3

Chris Cooper: Pass just doesn’t seem right without a fifth or sixth trump. One notrump is a possibility, but this describes the hand OK. If partner bids 3 , I am happy to play in 3 NT.

John Hoffman: Natural; mildly invitational; safe. I have easy follow-ups if partner rebids, showing extras.

Dima Nikolenkov: The value bid. I plan to bid 3 NT over 3 or 3 ; or 4 over 3 .

David Rock: Reading the Bidding Guide*, 3 must be the best choice with 9 HCP and a fifth club. Two clubs is just too weak. Personally, I like 1 NT, ignoring the five crummy clubs; but I hate ignoring the stiff spade.

*Note the word “Guide.” The hand qualifies for either 3 or 1 NT, so judgment must determine which is better. -RP

Shawn Tate: I feel quite optimistic about a club game if partner has the right hand…

Imre Csiszar: Problem or not, I see no reason to depart from the book answer at IMPs. At matchpoints, there would be more reason to consider [1 NT] or 2 NT.

Sandy McIlwain: Good controls for suit play; still room to get to 3 NT.

Kevin Costello: If partner has a minimum for his double, I’d prefer being in clubs to notrump. If partner has strength to bid again, he’ll likely bid 3 (I’ll raise to four…), or 3 (I’ll bid 3 NT). I’d sit for the double if I was sitting over West instead of the other way around.

Scott Stearns: Seems simple. I will bid 3 NT over 3 or 3 ; or raise 3 to four. If partner passes, we haven’t missed anything since my club suit isn’t self sufficient. …

Gerald Murphy: This may overstate the quality of my hand, but I do have a few working points. The hand is light for 2 NT; and 1 NT with a singleton is [undesirable].

Madhukar Bapu: This keeps all options open, including the possibility of reaching 4 , as well as the obvious 3 NT and 5 [if partner bids again].

Dave Seagull: This hand should play better in a suit. If partner can bid again, we should be able to find the right game (3 NT, 4 or 5 ).

Jos van Kan: I don’t think it’s right to suppress the club suit in favor of notrump; if we belong in 3 NT, we still can get there.

Ronald Michaels: Just about right on values. I’ll then accept an invitation to 5 or 3 NT. It’s nice to start the New Year off with love — as in, I’ve fallen in love with this hand. :)

Carsten Kofoed: This shows more distribution than any notrump bid, and makes it easier to find an excellent club slam.

Jonathan Steinberg: I bid what I have: Invitational values and a five-card suit.

Roger Morton: Pity I can’t show my diamond stoppers as well, but this shows the character of the hand best. I may have a chance to bid 3 NT next time.

Toby Kenney: Describes my strength and club suit. Pass is tempting, but it’s unlikely to yield a big score.

Brian Zietman: If partner bids 3 or 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT; if he bids 3 , I’ll raise to 4 .

Patricia Banks: I value this hand at [more than] 9 HCP [considering] the singleton spade, as partner should have at least three clubs for his double. If partner bid 3 (asking for a diamond stopper), I will bid 3 NT.

Rai Osborne: The value bid. My suit is a little trashy; but after getting this bid off my chest, I can just hang around for the rest of the [auction].

Roland Watzdorf: The main feature of my hand is the good cards in diamonds; but it is much easier to show my suit first and stopper later, than vice versa.

Ed Shapiro: If there’s more bidding, I can handle anything partner does. I know that my diamonds might not have full worth, but 1 NT feels wrong with this shape; and 2 with a five-card suit and 2+ honor tricks is too much of an underbid.

Len Vishnevsky: Wrong shape and honor dispersion for notrump.

Padraig O’Briain: I expect partner to have at least three clubs for his takeout double, and this hand is too strong for 2 .

J.J. Gass: … The game bonus at IMPs dissuades me from a minimum response — especially because finesses will probably work, and I’ve got at least two entries to hand to take them. I choose 3 because this hand seems more suit-oriented. If I bid 2 NT, I can’t see our getting to a good club contract; but over 3 , there’s some chance of getting to 3 NT. …

Gerald Cohen: This should be safe enough, and it might work better than 1 NT if opponents compete.

David Boushy: I’ll bid 3 NT over 3 by partner — or double if opponents bid it.

Lajos Linczmayer: If partner is weak (e.g., A-x-x-x K-x-x-x x K-x-x-x), I prefer to play 3 to 2 NT; and if he has a better hand, maybe I can make 6 when 3 NT goes down (e.g., A-x-x A-Q-J-x x-x K-J-x-x).

Barry White: I will bid 3 NT over 3 or 3 ; or raise 3 to game.

Stu Goodgold: Time to make a forward-going bid. Opposite club fillers and decent values, 3 NT is a good possibility.

David Turner: Perfect. I have a comfortable 3 NT bid next if partner bids 3 .

Michal Rosa: This has risk (partner could be 4=4=3=2) but I feel the hand is too good for 2 . I don’t see much point in psyching 1 .

Uwe Gebhardt: I don’t like 1 NT with the singleton spade (partner will have a stopper, but it may be only one), and 2 is an underbid…

Tom Schlangen: One notrump does not convey the playing strength of this hand, although I might not be happy if partner is 4=4=3=2.

Jim Munday: This takes up a lot of room; but if I start with 2 , I may never be able to catch up. If partner fits clubs, we may have a decent shot at slam, particularly since the opposing face cards will be well-placed in front of partner. If partner bids 3 or 3 , I will bid 3 NT; over 3 or 3 , I will cue-bid 4 . Passing the double could work very well, but defending at the one level against eight or nine trumps is too risky. I am not tempted to bid a three-card heart suit. Notrump may be the right strain…; but if I bid 1 NT, partner will have trouble visualizing my shape, and we may go down in 3 NT when 6 rolls.

Dick Yuen: Not a great club suit, but I need to let partner know where we stand.

Frank Ayer: Takeout doubles ask for a suit, and I have a good one. Partner can still bid 3 if he is interested in 3 NT.

James Hudson: A bit strong for 2 , and notrump with a singleton is unappealing.

Karl Barth: With useful values and a five-card suit, I should make an encouraging noise. This seems better than 1 NT since my hand is suit-oriented.

Mark Aquino: I intend to bid 3 NT after 3 ; or 4 after 3 .

Doug McAvoy: One notrump…understates the value of this hand, and it [may] be the incorrect strain on an obvious spade lead. Opposite A-x-x-x A-Q-x-x x-x A-J-x, I feel more comfortable in our best suit fit than in notrump. … If partner rebids 3 , I will raise to 4 ; over 3 , I am comfortable bidding 3 NT. …

Comments for 2

Jonathan Goldberg: I can’t quite find enough for 3 — my high cards (though prime) are in the wrong suit, and I have no spots. Bidding a three-card heart suit when I have a five-bagger is too clever for me, and pass is demented.

Steve Moese: Close call. Three clubs might be right; but I don’t like my major suits, and I’ve got too much in diamonds. One notrump is too unilateral…; 1 and 2 too distorting; and 2 NT is wrong on strength, texture and shape. I can afford partner’s pass of 2 …

Russell Haney: A sticky situation. I can’t pass without a trump stack; I am leery of jumping to the three level; and my hand shape is wrong for notrump. I see bad splits for the opponents, so a mild underbid is in order. …

Jacco Hop: A slight underbid, but I rate this club suit not strong enough for 3 . Bidding 1 NT could miss a club slam [when partner bids 3 NT].

Hamish Brown: If partner bids again, I will bid 3 NT [except over hearts]. If West has another go [in diamonds], I will double; so why cut him out with 3 ?

Tim Francis-Wright: If high cards and diamonds were all that mattered, I’d bid 1 NT. …

Tim Cope: No need to be too aggressive with the K possibly not pulling its weight. This also leaves room for the opposition to find a spade fit with the suit is breaking badly.

Rainer Herrmann: A hand does not get better, just because you have passed. … The test to apply in scenarios like this is whether you are more likely to miss a good game by underbidding, or to reach a poor game by overbidding. I have difficulty constructing hands where North might pass 2 and game would still be good; however, it is easy to see how any jump response might get us too high.

Richard Stein: Three clubs is the value bid, but it’s likely that North is planning to follow up his double with a spade rebid, so I won’t crowd him with a call he doesn’t want to hear. Over 2 , I will probably bid 2 NT.

Mark Lincoln: This hand is impractical for notrump with the singleton spade, so I will just bid my longest and strongest suit. There is a case for 3 , but that’s a slight overbid with my A-K [wrongly placed] …

Guray Sunamak: This is enough, I think. If partner bids 2 , I will bid 2 .

Ulrich Nell: I don’t quite see the need for resourceful bidding. If I bid 1 NT, partner will expect at least spade tolerance…

Steven Price: I want the K in the club suit before I bid 3 .

J. Larry Miles: Partner says bid a suit, so I do; not strong enough to jump.

Comments for 2 NT

Julian Wightwick: Close between 1 NT, 2 NT and 3 . I might have both a third diamond stopper and some club tricks, so I’ll take the aggressive route.

Dick Augur: Nice sevens, eights and nines.

Michael Spurgeon: With the opponent’s suit stopped at least twice plus a five-card suit, this hand is worth more than the 9-point maximum for a 1 NT advance. If I bid 3 , North might pass [in borderline cases] believing the diamond suit is unstopped for 3 NT…

Paul Redvers: Too good for 1 NT. Two stoppers in diamonds, and a lot of club tricks, should get close to nine.

“Wild Bill” Root watched me always get close to nine. I think what killed him was when I finally got nine.

Petko Boukov: If we have a game, 3 NT should be easier than 5 ; and bidding 1 NT seems too weak. Second choice is 3 .

Richard Morse: Good diamonds and the fifth club justify a jump. Hearts may be our best strain, but we will discover this in due course.

Rick Bibby: Considering partner has shown [support] for all suits but the opening, I think I have an invitational hand in notrump. I would need at least one more defensive trick to pass 1 doubled…

Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: Tell partner the good news that diamonds are well stopped…; I don’t see any value in introducing the anemic club suit. …

Gordon Humphrys: Rather optimistic perhaps, but I like my clubs, and a 3 bid [might miss] 3 NT.

Stephen Hamilton: … If I bid 3 , partner may not learn about my diamond stopper in time. Even though I am 1 HCP short, 2 NT [is attractive because] (1) I previously passed, (2) I have a double stopper in diamonds, and (3) I have five clubs. This hand is likely to generate four or five tricks.

Mauri Saastamoinen: … I can only hope that cards sit nicely if I have to struggle against partner’s possible K-J-x-x K-Q-x-x x-x K-10-x; but even then, there is a slim chance to score nine tricks in notrump. Should this convince me to be aggressive? Perhaps… I think my hand is worth 10+ HCP, almost 10 and a half, as the fifth club could be gold.

Carolyn Ahlert: With 9 HCP, a five-card suit and such good stoppers in diamonds, I think I need to [be aggressive].

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 2

IMPs		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass 5	North 1 5	East 2 Pass	South 2 ?	3 A K 9 8 7 5 3 — A J 7 4 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
6	10	388	27
5 NT (pick slam)	9	355	24
6	8	344	24
6	7	209	14
6	5	78	5
Pass	2	79	5

I was delighted to discover this problem, as there aren’t many situations in which a bid of six in any suit is reasonable. Six spades puts your faith in partner, though giving up on seven; 6 states what you’re looking at; 6 may pave the way for a grand opposite solid spades; and 6 could hit partner’s second suit, and otherwise is forcing. Further, there’s the option to relegate the decision with 5 NT. And the winner is …[opens envelope]… Jack Nicholson! Oops, wrong envelope. Six spades. So be it.

I thought 5 NT (pick a slam) would be the winner, especially since I clarified its meaning. (Many would be reluctant to bid 5 NT if not sure, as partner might treat it as a grand slam force.) Some rejected 5 NT because they thought partner might bid 6 NT. No, I’m sure expert consensus is that 6 NT is a possibility only if notrump is already bid; so only suit contracts are offered in this context. Therefore, 5 NT seems best, as it allows partner to express another opinion; and it may be the only route to a grand. For example, if partner bids 6 or 6 , it feels right to bid seven; in spades, however, seven is probably out of reach.

I was surprised that 6 got so few votes, as it seems the obvious choice, at least superficially. I agree that 6 is inferior, as it is too committal to hearts. I would not be happy in 6 opposite a singleton, a likely denouement. Odds are good that partner’s spade suit has better intermediates.

What about a 6 cue-bid to try for seven? To me, it seems unlikely that partner could bid 7 without the A, and there’s no way for you to confirm all first-round controls. A more typical 6 would be a hand like x-x-x A-K-J-x-x-x-x -- K-x-x, which requires only solid spades and the A for a grand. With A-K-Q-x-x-x-x x-x x-x A-x, partner would bid exactly as he did so far, and the grand would be duly reached.

Here’s what happened down under, and the accent should be on down:

West deals	A K Q J 9 6		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	Q 6		Lawrence	M Branco	Woolsey	Chagas
	10 9 7 2		Pass	1	2	2
	Q		4	4 NT	Pass	6
10 8 7 5 2		4	Dbl	7	Pass	Pass
J		10 4 2	Pass
A J 5 4		K Q 8 6 3
9 8 5		K 10 6 2
	3
	A K 9 8 7 5 3
	—
	A J 7 4 3

Brazil N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
7 North	6 North	Janz	Stansby	Camacho	Martel
Down 4 -400	Down 3 -300	Pass	1	2	2
		5	5	Pass	6
USA +3 IMPs		Pass	Pass	Pass

The problem was modeled after the second auction, where Martel adopted our consensus with the practical raise to slam. (I’m not sure what 5 NT would mean in their system, so it might not have been an option.) Alas, playing in spades proved to be a nightmare with the foul breaks: Diamond ruff; heart to queen; three top spades; heart to dummy, ruffed — down three. Note that Stansby would have succeeded despite the bad trump split if West had another heart.

At the first table, the Brazilians bid better in theory, but worse in practice. The 6 response to Blackwood apparently showed a void and two aces (or maybe three key cards with hearts implicitly agreed) as Branco jumped directly to seven. A fine contract, but the cards lay just as bad — down four, and a lucky 3 IMPs to the Americans, who rated to lose 13.

It is curious that both Woolsey and Camacho overcalled 2 as East, which instigated the whole mess. I must say I would pass (and I’m sure Lawrence would pass, too) but I suppose 2 has merit opposite a passed partner — indeed, “merit” would be a gross understatement.

Suppose South bids 5 NT over 5 . Should North offer 6 when his spade suit looks solid? Tough question. Playing in hearts, 12 tricks are easy; and 13 can be made, even with a spade lead (club finesse at trick two).

Comments for 6

Joseph Lane: I don’t like any of the bids very much, but my diamond void may help partner once. …

Chris Cooper: The practical bid. Seven spades could go off on a club lead…

Jonathan Goldberg: Partner has very long, strong spades, as there isn’t enough else left in the deck to justify his 5 bid. This is doubly true because a pass in his position would have been forcing (say I). With first-round control of all off-suits and two potential sources of tricks, we could be missing seven; but there is no [effective] try left.

Bruce Blakely: Tough call with a singleton, but partner bid to the five level on his own not knowing anything about my spades. The diamond void and controls in all suits should help…

Neelotpal Sahai: I am surely going to slam, and there is no scientific way to reach a grand (if it is there). … I do not like 6 (confirming a void) because it may dissuade East from leading a diamond, which is probably worth a trick. …

Shi Yonghui: Considering the potential entry problem [if a slam is played in hearts].

Jess Cohen: … Partner has spades; I have controls; I think we can make it.

David Caprera: Too difficult to look for the grand. Five notrump may get the plurality of votes, but it is difficult to construct hands that should bid 5 in front of an unlimited partner where spades should not be trumps. Partner’s bid is nonforcing but must show a very good, long spade suit.

Joshua Donn: Trying to play in any suit but spades seems misguided. The level is something of a guess, but bidding seven with any confidence seems unlikely since I will never know trumps are solid, and partner will never know I have all the first-round controls.

Brian Zietman: If partner can bid up to 5 by himself, he does not need trumps from me (except the baby spade for first-round diamond control).

Patricia Banks: Partner evidently has a great spade suit and does not need support from me.

Carlos Dabezies: Partner does not know I can ruff a diamond lead, and it is likely that either hearts or clubs can be established.

David Shelton: Five notrump may trap partner. Clubs are not strong enough for 6 .

Murat Tabanli: Partner is not interested in doubling 5 (which I would correct to 5 anyway) so he doesn’t have defensive strength in diamonds. Slam is very likely, even with as little as A-K-Q-x-x-x-x x x-x K-x-x.

J.J. Gass: The system notes do not say what 5 means* (as opposed to a forcing pass and pull)… but even a minimum hand may produce [a slam]… so with first-round control of all side suits, it is reasonable to hope we don’t have two unavoidable losers…

*No stipulation was necessary. In standard methods and by common sense, bidding always shows a better hand than passing. -RP

Paul Flashenberg: I have a lot more than I promised with my 2 bid. If partner can bid 5 by himself, I will bid six.

Winston Munn: If seems as though my spade support should be [adequate]. Six diamonds seems a good call until I I realize how much pressure there has been in the auction, and partner may have fudged a bit on his call. Experience teaches that caution is sometimes the best answer when things get messy.

James Hudson: Seven may be cold, but there’s no room to explore, so I’ll restrain myself. Partner’s spades may not be solid, and he probably has diamond losers that may be hard to dispose of.

Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: It looks like partner…has a self-sufficient spade suit, and I can provide an excellent dummy for 6 .

Gonzalo Goded: We probably need a non-club lead to make, so giving East a clue about my diamond void is not good.

Ryan Stephenson: … Partner’s spades should be better than my hearts.

Gordon Humphrys: … Please don’t lead a trump — we may need that one. :)

Doug McAvoy: First-round control in all suits tempts me to bid seven — partner’s 5 bid [suggests] no spade losers — however, six will do for now.

J. Larry Miles: I have an ace and a void more than partner should expect. I won’t bid seven unless I can count 13 tricks.

Comments for 5 NT

Alon Amsel: Mother, where are my losers? I will pass six in a major, or raise 6 to 7 .

Mark Abraham: About the worst partner could have is A-K-Q-x-x-x-x x x-x-x x-x, and that still offers play for slams. If partner offers 6 or 6 , [I will pass].

Carol Simon: … Bidding 6 doesn’t show the diamond control, and 6 doesn’t show the club control, which leaves 5 NT. If partner bids 6 , I will raise to 7 .

Jyrki Lahtonen: We may miss a grand, but both 6 and 6 would tend to show better spade tolerance.

John R. Mayne: It’s tempting just to bid 6 , but partner should play me for something like this spade holding. Six clubs sounds like a spade void; and I don’t want partner to avoid spades on K-Q-10-x-x-x-x-x.

John Hoffman: First-round control in all three side suits is too much to pass up; but what now? It’s time to transfer the blame. :)

Dima Nikolenkov: I hope partner will believe that with 2+ spades I’d either raise to 6 or bid 6 . Likely, his 5 bid is based on semi-fit in hearts… Over 6 , I’ll gamble 7 .

Paul Friedman: This should win the postmortem, if not the IMPs.

Manuel Paulo: Consider these hands for partner: A-K-x-x-x-x-x-x x Q-x K-x; A-K-x-x-x-x-x Q-x x-x K-x; A-K-x-x-x-x-x x x K-Q-x-x. We can win 6 , 6 and 7 , respectively (after 6 I bid the grand).

Leonard Helfgott: Despite partner’s huge spade suit, 6 seems too aggressive. I’m not sure whether 5 NT or 6 will give a better message; but if I bid clubs he might think they’re better, and with K-Q-x-x, he can show it now.

David Rock: If partner’s spades are as advertised, we may be headed for seven. Six clubs would be a second suit, not a cue-bid; and what would I do over 6 ? Likewise, after a 6 cue-bid, I wouldn’t know where to go. After 5 NT, I will pass 6 and raise anything else to 7.

Josh Sinnett: This seems obvious if partner reads it as “pick a slam.” I assume he’ll try 6 …with four clubs, or 6 with Q-x.

Imre Csiszar: Six diamonds would be ideal if it requested 7 with solid spades; but technically it promises some support, and partner may believe he needs an outside ace for seven. Over 5 NT, if partner chooses 6 , I will have to pass; but I will raise 6 to seven; and partner may even bid 6 , say, with A-K-x-x-x-x-x -- x-x K-Q-x-x, then the grand in clubs will be reached.

Steve Moese: With four winners, and partner having nine in spades, I should want to bid the grand. The downside is that we may have a longer fit in clubs or hearts, increasing the risk of a first-round ruff. Five notrump lets me engage partner; I will raise 6 , 6 or 6 to 7 ; or 6 to 7 .

Sandy McIlwain: Partner likely has seven or eight spades and a couple of diamonds — not much room for club support (and three-card club support may not be enough. If partner bids 6 , we should be in the right spot.

Arpan Banerjee: Partner seems to have a solid suit, but diamond losers [may exist] on a trump lead. If partner has as much as Q-x or J-x-x, a heart slam looks more probable, and this is just the bid to [get there].

Kieran Dyke: Just a guess. Of course, the 5-1 spade break will beat us at this level, but the grand is a great contract. Seven hearts is good too, unless they think to lead a spade.

OK, wise guy; that’s a perthy good summary, and I’ll bet you would make 7 on a spade lead, too.

Scott Stearns: Yowza! That’s a lot of bidding! Partner isn’t bidding on my hand, which is superb. I kind of like 6 , too; but a diamond ruff may be partner’s 12th trick.

Robin Zigmond: This seems a clear choice if agreed to mean “pick a slam.” In real life, without such an agreement, I’d probably content myself with 6 .

Joon Pahk: … I have no idea if we can make a grand. Are partner’s spades solid? Do we have a club loser? But a small slam has to be odds-on, so hopefully 5 NT will get us to the one with the best trump-suit quality.

Gerald Murphy: If partner has clubs, he can now bid them; if his spades are solid, he can bid 6 …

Madhukar Bapu: Either 6 or 6 could be right, so this is the best bid. Six diamonds suggests spade agreement… and pass is an insult to the Wild West.

Julian Wightwick: I think 6 should be a cue-bid for spades, so this is the way to get both my suits into the game. Partner should introduce a four-card club suit, or two-card heart support.

Michael Kammermeier: I hope a pass by partner would have been forcing. … He must have seven solid spades and something outside. As I never shoot out grands, I’ll go straight down the middle with 5 NT.

Ronald Michaels: With 7-8 solid spades and nothing outside, partner probably would have opened 4 ; hence, he’s got some club values. If I bid 6 , however, I don’t think partner will assume I’m introducing a possible trump suit for the first time at the six-level, especially after he’s willing to play 5 without support. More likely, he’ll take it as an advance cue-bid… Five notrump seems the most flexible. On a few occasions partner may pick 6 (I’ll bid 7 …); and if he picks 6 , I’ll go to 7 ; if he bids 6 , I’ll pass. …

Roger Morton: In spades, my three quick tricks and diamond ruff should be enough for slam; but maybe partner has a secondary heart fit. … I must show good hearts for this bid.

Toby Kenney: Partner can’t take me for more hearts and clubs than I have; and I’ve not shown any spades yet.

Olle Morell: I refuse to give up under slam, however, with the space available I don’t think we can bid a grand with any confidence — especially considering likely bad breaks.

Luis Oliveira: I must bid a slam (which I don’t know yet) and this keeps all options available.

Paul Huggins: The auction has been complete comedy, but I fancy our chances in a slam — either 6 , 6 or 6 . Partner will have more diamonds than me (!) and, since he didn’t double, his points are in the other suits. If he has a solid spade seven-card spade suit, a doubleton heart, or four clubs to the king, slam is making; and he will [bid the appropriate suit].

Bill Powell: But I prefer to play 5 NT as “pick the correct slam.” :)

Dean Pokorny: Partner can safely bid 6 with Q-x and A-K-x-x-x-x-x since I could not expect three-card support in his hand.

Rick Bibby: I don’t like a six-level bid if a grand is possible; and if partner’s suit is solid, why not?

Ragnar Paulson: Partner is counting on me for something, but surely not this much. With two aces and a ruffing value in diamonds, there has to be a slam. …

David Turner: I originally opted for 6 to let the long suit, weaker-HCP hand to declare; but there’s no reason partner couldn’t be 7=0=1=5 (like me), in which case 7 will be the winner…

Kent Feiler: It could be important to reach our 7-2 heart fit instead of our 7-1 spade fit. I don’t see any good way to bid a grand, even though we could have 19 top tricks.

Jim Munday: Partner has voluntarily bid at the five level, and with my control rich hand I will press for slam despite the apparent misfit. I would like to play in hearts if partner has two; clubs if he has four; otherwise spades. I need better support to invite seven via 6 ; and 6 or 6 precludes playing in clubs. I think there is too much disparity in the heart-club length for a direct 6 … Five notrump has the added benefit of being able to blame partner if he picks the wrong suit. :)

Michael Shuster: … There’s a good chance partner has three diamonds and has read my diamond void (and therefore implied spade support) for his 5 bid. I am giving up on the seven level; and I don’t expect to find clubs…

Tim Francis-Wright: How mean of West to preempt on a hand where I wanted to make at least two more calls! Five notrump at least hints that 6 is a possibility. Partner might expect 2=6=0=5 or 2=7=0=4, but my shape shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.

Erik Lauer: Partner can deduce that I don’t have two spades, and that my hearts are longer than my clubs. …

Richard Stein: Maybe I should just bid six of a major suit; but 6 may catch West with Q-10-x-x, and 6 may catch East with Q-10-x-x. It is hard to land in a terrible strain after bidding 5 NT.

John Lusky: Of course, the real answer is a question: How aggressive a bidder is partner? But since slam seems likely in some strain, and we could belong in spades, hearts or clubs, 5 NT seems like the best choice.

Peter Hudson: Whenever possible, let partner make the last decision so you can win the postmortem. :)

Stephen Hamilton: There are lots of good slam possibilities, and it is possible that any suit other than diamonds may be best. The implication of 5 NT is that I have at least five hearts and four clubs, and probably no more than one spade, so it is worth the shot even though partner does not have all the necessary information. Worst case: We will end up in 6 , which won’t be bad, assuming partner [had his 5 bid].

Mauri Saastamoinen: We could easily have a grand, but I won’t bid it anyway; if left alone, partner’s [next bid] will decide (except 6 I will correct to 6 ). … Six clubs is not as good a bid because it should show 6-6 in my suits…

Rik ter Veen: Partner can pick the slam, and I’ll stick with his decision.

Comments for 6

Daniel Cecchelli: Finish the description of my hand, and let partner decide the slam.

George Klemic: Why torture partner? This seems like a reasonable shot [to play] in one of my suits. If partner has eight solid spades, he’s free to try 6 .

Shawn Tate: Partner may have two diamond losers on a trump lead against spades; I need to play one of my suits.

Bogdan Vulcan: I’d like to bid 5 NT and if partner chooses clubs, improvise with 6 ; but this is too “sci-fi.” Six diamonds should imply a spade fit or tolerance — a stiff jack or 10 would be OK, but not the three. Since my hand offers a lot more potential in hearts or clubs than in spades, I bid 6 to show my values — and no sense of direction. :) …

Stephen McDevitt: I have enough controls for slam opposite a voluntary 5 bid. Partner could have tried 5 but could never have shown K-Q-x-x.

Robert Eachus: It is hard to draw a picture of partner’s hand that doesn’t have K-Q, though it could happen because 5 put a gun to his head. … Another possibility is K-x, but in that case he will correct to 6 [or 6 ].

Ted Ying: If partner’s spade suit is that good, he can still bid 6 . However, partner needs to know that 6 is an option; and how could he know if I don’t show them? This should show at least 6-5 shape.

Nicoleta Giura: … Partner should pass with K-Q-x; bid 6 with Q-x; or bid 6 with A-K-Q-x-x-x-x-x.

Barry Rigal: I think my hand is suitable for partner (the singleton spade is so much better than a singleton diamond); but getting to clubs facing three or four can only be done if I [show them].

Dave Seagull: Partner should pass with clubs; correct to 6 or 6 ; or bid 6 * with some heart tolerance and primary spades.

*How con-veen-ient. Several others mentioned this twist, but surely its standard meaning would be first-round diamond control. -RP

Jos van Kan: I’ll offer partner my second suit, and if thinks I’m inviting a grand — well, in fact I am.

Alan Kravetz: I need to get clubs into the picture for partner to make the proper slam choice.

Norbert van Woerkom: I’d love to play a slam, but preferably in one of my suits. In spades, partner probably hopes to score a few diamond ruffs in my hand. In 6 or 6 , I also fear a spade lead, but it seems less obvious than against 6 .

Paulino Correa: I’m not really enthusiastic about a spade slam, and there’s a fair chance partner has several cards in clubs.

Bill Michell: I want to bid a slam; but which one? I need to let partner know I haven’t got much help in spades, and that clubs is a sensible option. …

Michael Spurgeon: If North can bid 5 after my previous nonjump bid, I can push to a slam. …

Paul Redvers: Showing more hearts than clubs, and dislike for spades.

Ron Landgraff: Showing a second suit, diamond control, and short spades.

Petko Boukov: Partner won’t be able to pick the right slam without knowledge of my clubs, and this gives room for a small slam in either major.

Richard Morse: Pass seems incredibly feeble with partner appearing to have solid spades and me having all other suits controlled. I think this should be natural, emphasizing my shape.

Bruce Scott: You will really let us bid 5 NT pick-a-slam? Very suspicious. :) Six clubs might be better than 5 NT anyway since I don’t want to overencourage partner to bid 6 . …

Frank Ayer: Too good to pass, so I bid my shape — and lowest control. :) Six spades probably fails if there is a trump loser.

Guray Sunamak: Five notrump also looks good, but then partner won’t bid his three-card club suit. Six diamonds could work but may miss the only making contract of 6 . …

Tim Posney: A spade singleton is enough [to play in spades], but I do have a two-suiter. Why not show it and let partner decide?

Comments for 6

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Try for a grand showing a void. I have a lot, and seven is close when partner has solid spades;…he could well have something like A-K-Q-x-x-x-x Q x-x-x K-x. Second choice is 6 , [probably] a safer contract if partner doesn’t have solid spades.

Curt Reeves: Giddyap! With first-round controls in all suits, and partner advertising a self-sufficient suit with extras, a grand is in the picture. I just hope he can get to his hand after a diamond lead to draw trumps.

Anthony Golding: Partner has bid 5 on his own after a simple 2 bid, so trumps shouldn’t be a problem. This gives him the chance to show Q-x if he sees fit, in which case the grand should be just about certain. I’ll pass 6 .

Brad Theurer: Trying for a grand. Partner can easily have solid spades, plus either Q-x or K-Q, since he bid freely at the five level at unfavorable vulnerability missing lots of side-suit controls. …

Frans Buijsen: A grand slam try, trying to convey the message that I have all first-round controls. Partner may know to do the right thing holding something like A-K-Q-J-10-x x x-x-x K-x-x.

Sebastien Louveaux: I should have enough for slam, and the diamond void may be the key to a grand.

Simon de Wijs: For a grand, I mostly need partner’s spades to be solid, and this seems the only way to invite it. Maybe partner can bid 6 along the way if his spades are not that good.

Joel Singer: Invitational to a grand slam. Partner surely has a self-sufficient spade suit, and I have the other suits covered. This may perhaps direct a trump lead from East, but I can’t have everything.

Rai Osborne: Sounds like partner has a raft of spades and two little diamonds. This has the best chance of getting us to seven.

Michael G. Phillips: I’m not prepared to give up on the grand. … Hopefully, partner is strong enough to recognize that I have clubs as well for this action.

Lajos Linczmayer: Partner must have a [self-sufficient] suit, so I accept spades and show my first-round diamond control. I hope with A-K-Q-J-x-x-x x-x x-x K-x, he bids 7 ; or with K-Q-J-10-x-x-x x-x A-x K-x, he bids 6 .

Barry White: An effort to get to the grand when partner has something like A-K-Q-J-10-x x-x x-x-x K-x.

Stu Goodgold: This is an enormous hand opposite a self-sufficient spade suit. Time to look for a grand.

Tim Cope: I will raise 6 to 7 , but pass 6 .

Bill Cubley: I have a lot, and this is the strongest bid I can think of. The real problem is getting to the right grand slam.

Tim DeLaney: Partner’s…bid says “great spades”; and if he has the right cards, we might make a grand slam. This is the only way to get him to bid it.

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 3

IMPs		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West	North	East Pass	South ?	— 9 4 Q 10 9 8 7 4 3 A K 9 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
1	10	522	36
4	9	118	8
3	8	337	23
Pass	6	380	26
2	3	60	4
5	1	36	2

As evidenced by the substantial vote in three main camps (1 , 3 and pass) this was a good problem. It also comes as no big surprise that 1 was the winner, considering the hand does have two defensive tricks and qualifies for a one-bid by default methods (9 HCP + 3 for void + 1 for doubleton = 13) as well as by the Rule of 20. So be it.

I do not like 1 because the auction is likely to be competitive, and it’s easy to imagine partner doubling four or five of a major. With minimal defensive values and partner expected to lead a diamond, a sour ending is predictable. I don’t care for 3 because the hand is overstrength and lopsided; and one reason for 3 is to keep 3 NT in the picture, which is far-fetched. Two diamonds is Casper Milquetoast, and 5 is Fritz; so I’d go for the sting with four diamonds. The hand is about right on playing strength (barring a total misfit) and good things often happen, e.g., West bidding 4 and partner doubling, or partner bidding 5 with A-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x J Q-x-x.

Many who chose a disciplined pass argued that “no bid accurately describes the hand.” Certainly true; but do you really expect to describe this hand later? Hardly. You’ll be guessing on the next round, too, so it makes good sense to take away the opponents’ room as well. Wild hands are often best served by wild bids — at least in the Wild West.

When this deal arose in the semifinal, a spectator might find it hard to believe a world championship was in progress. Each South (four tables) chose a different call, and one was a real eye-opener. Funny, I forgot to include one spade in my options. To wit:

East deals	A K Q J 9 8 7		West	North	East	South
Both vul	J 8 6		M Branco	Balicki	Chagas	Zmudzinski
	2				Pass	1
	Q 8		2	Dbl	Pass	3
2		10 6 5 4 3	Pass	3	Pass	5
A K Q 10 3		7 5 2	Dbl	5	Dbl	6
A K 6		J 5	Dbl	6	Dbl	All Pass
J 6 4 3		10 7 5
	—
	9 4
	Q 10 9 8 7 4 3
	A K 9 2

Poland N-S	Brazil N-S	West	North	East	South
6 × South	3 North	Mosz'ski	Mello	Klukowski	P Branco
Down 3 -800	Made 3 +140			Pass	2
		Dbl	2	Pass	3
Brazil +14 IMPs		3	3	Pass	Pass
		Pass

The Balicki-Zmudzinski auction seems right out of Star Wars, but it was not as strange as it looks. One spade was systemic (not a psych) to show 7-12 HCP with either 6+ spades or 0-2 spades. Evidently, the wheels came off in their responding methods, as 6 doubled was not a success, mercifully down only 800 when Branco led a high heart and switched to trump. I notice in recent years that B-Z gave up this beautiful 1 opening. (I have to make light of this, as their record leaves few other opportunities.)

At the second table, Branco’s 2 was either strong and artificial or a weak two-bid in diamonds (obviously the latter), and the partnership bid nicely to a respectable spot. Even three spades was destined to fail; but after four rounds of hearts, Mello ruffed high, and Klukowski pitched a diamond (instead of a club) allowing Mello to win a ninth trick.

East deals	A K Q J 9 8 7		West	North	East	South
Both vul	J 8 6		Lilley	Martel	Klinger	Stansby
	2				Pass	Pass
	Q 8		1	1	Pass	2
2		10 6 5 4 3	Dbl	2	Pass	3
A K Q 10 3		7 5 2	Pass	3	All Pass
A K 6		J 5
J 6 4 3		10 7 5
	—
	9 4
	Q 10 9 8 7 4 3
	A K 9 2

USA N-S	Australia N-S	West	North	East	South
3 North	4 × North	Ross	Lorentz	Pender	Lester
Made 3 +140	Down 2 -500			Pass	4
		4	4	Pass	Pass
USA +12 IMPs		Dbl	Pass	Pass	Pass

In the other match, Stansby chose the disciplined pass, then a well-judged auction led to the same 3 contract. Martel also managed to make his contract.

Well, tie me kangaroo down! Enter my hero Lester. Opening 4 was a perfect setup, kind of like Steve Irwin teasing a crocodile. Sure enough, Ross bit with 4 , a contract easily set two, maybe three. Alas, Lorentz thought it wiser to try 4 , then Ross smartly reversed the setup with an action double. Pender-Ross extracted the maximum for plus 500 and 12 IMPs — the price of playing with crocodiles.

Comments for 1

Mark Abraham: Decent rebid; controls; suits; good pips. Isn’t this from the same intermediate textbook I suggested in November? :)

Carol Simon: No preempt is satisfactory, and I refuse to pass a five-loser hand.

Chris Cooper: An overbid in second position; but I don’t like to pass; 2 is awful; a bit strong for 3 ; and 4 looks a bit of an overkill. Five diamonds? Hmm. Motoring!

Jonathan Goldberg: I hope I didn’t just start something I can’t stop; but I do have some defense, and I want to get started before the spade barrage.

John R. Mayne: Ugly hand! Pass, 1 , 3 and 4 are all in play. In first seat, I would have preempted; but in second seat I’ll try the eccentric 1 . Second choice: Pass.

John Hoffman: … Two quick tricks; all HCP in the key suits; extra texture; no obvious rebid problems. Think positive: I am in second seat, and partner might have most of the cards I need for slam. Too many side-suit controls for a preempt at IMPs.

Dima Nikolenkov: The higher I bid now, the higher the opponents will bid spades; so let them bid at the [low levels]. Over 4 by an opponent, I will follow with 4 NT.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I have a lot of playing strength but no majors. Since East has passed and partner hasn’t bid, I don’t want to preempt, as my diamonds are not good enough. I will rebid diamonds, and later may bid clubs. In first or third position, I would open 4 .

Curt Reeves: I have an easy rebid after any response that partner might make; plus two quick tricks and only five losers. That’s a one-bid, mister.

Manuel Paulo: I favor a one-bid, as the hand has five losers and 2+ honor tricks… Against preempting, the hand has two first-round controls and two suits in which to play.

Wes Harris: I can’t see preempting 5 vulnerable with a club holding that suggests opponents don’t have slam. Insufficient preempts (3 , 4 ) sometimes make it easier for opponents to bid a makable game they otherwise would miss. I won’t bid 2 with a hand this good, so I’ll start at the one level and see what happens.

Leonard Helfgott: No preempt can be right with A-K on the side and this shape, although x-x x-x Q-10-9-8-x-x-x A-K might be a 2 bid. …

Josh Sinnett: Purely a judgment question, not a matter of system. The offensive strength, two quick tricks…and lovely intermediates all point to a one-level opener.

Shawn Tate: I don’t want to preempt partner, and this hand has to be opened with so much playing strength.

Bogdan Vulcan: … If opponents have spades, they can outbid me no matter how many diamonds I bid. Opening 1 [versus preempting] (especially at IMPs) wins on many layouts by allowing partner room to [investigate] game, slam, etc.

Gillian Paty: Vulnerable; bad suit; two defense tricks — nothing that matches with a second-seat preempt. That leaves pass or 1 , I tend to choose the latter because there is no rebid problem (2 on the second round, 3 third, or pass whenever I can).

Sandy McIlwain: Quick tricks, controls, a fair suit and vulnerable opponents — all suggest going slow.

And to that you can add turtles, blind skiers and my Mother driving on I-95.

Kevin Costello: My shortness in the major suits suggests a preempt, but this is more than offset by the vulnerability, the location of my defensive strength, and the seat in which I’d be preempting. Furthermore, passing is undesirable because the hand has a good deal more playing strength than its high-card count indicates.

Scott Stearns: Ahh, the old seven-four-ski. Two diamonds is out; and 3 with an outside A-K is too much; so it’s one, four or five. Since partner has not passed, I won’t preempt him. I have Rule-of-20 opener and two quick tricks, so I don’t have to justify opening — just my pull of 4 doubled.

Robin Zigmond: With a seven-card suit and a choice of two easy rebids, I’m certainly opening. While there’s a good case for opening higher in third seat, it asks for trouble in second seat.

Thijs Veugen: Too much defense for a preemptive opening.

Gerald Murphy: I’m not passing with a seven-card suit and some defense; and preempts don’t enter my mind when I have a void and an A-K combination. …

Dave Seagull: Two diamonds or 3 with A-K-x-x on the side is absurd; anything else is a matter of style. I prefer 1 with a five-loser hand and no rebid problems.

Ronald Michaels: What’s the problem? I think this is what Al Roth would say — after he passes. :)

Alan Kravetz: Second seat is the worst seat to preempt. With two quick tricks, I’ll walk the dog in diamonds.

Brad Theurer: I don’t like to preempt with A-K in a second seat; but it’s best to open now since LHO could open with three or four of a major, giving our side a headache.

Roger Morton: I know this gives opponents room, but I surely can’t preempt on this five-loser hand with two quick tricks in first or second seat. Pass is the only alternative; by why not get the oar in first?

Norbert van Woerkom: Anything can be right or wrong. I hope to get my hand across by starting low. If opponents end up in some high spade contract doubled by partner, well, at least I have two defensive tricks.

Timothy Liang Kan: A preempt in second seat with this suit quality is bound to leave red faces. Pass is tempting, but responding to a 1 opening could prove unpleasant.

Roger Gibbons: Excellent black-suit controls justify a one-level opener. … I would preempt in first or third seat.

Robin Young: With quick tricks and defense, I never preempt in front of an unpassed partner.

Paul Huggins: Partner has had no turn yet, and East’s pass suggests partner has some values, so I don’t want to preempt him. I can see a case for pass (intending to preempt later if necessary…); 1 (good offense and defense) and 4 (long suit with some points). With most of my points outside my suit, I prefer 1 .

Carl White: … I’m a bit reluctant to open in second position, but think it’s important to get the offense going.

Bill Powell: Too lopsided for a second-seat preempt.

David Shelton: Too strong outside of diamonds for a preempt.

Ron Landgraff: Too strong to pass or preempt (a diamond slam doesn’t take much). I have easy rebids — and easy defense in the postmortem if partner gets us into trouble. :)

Damo Nair: I have good controls all over the place — well, except in diamonds. :)

Padraig O’Briain: I do not like to preempt in front of partner, and I hate passing.

Bruce Scott: A pure polling question. This hand is good enough to open 1 . If I decided to preempt, I would try 4 or 5 (the side club length may give me some extra juice in the play).

J.J. Gass: I didn’t think I’d ever see the day when I’d open 9 HCP at the one level in first or second seat; but I have good excuses ready for the postmortem…: (1) A second-seat preempt with an outside void and A-K-x-x is even worse. (2) I have two quick tricks… (3) I don’t foresee any terrible rebid problems. … (4) Opponents probably have a major-suit fit or two, and my opening and later club-diamond rebids will enable partner to make a brilliant sacrifice.

Gerry Wildenberg: Pass is the only alternative. Preempts are misguided with A-K-x-x on the side.

Gerald Cohen: I reject the preempts and think two defensive tricks are enough. There is some risk that partner will do the wrong thing…, but a pass risks a double game swing.

Ragnar Paulson: Opening this could lead to trouble if partner doubles 4 , expecting better defense; on the other hand, A-K is nothing to sneeze at. It’s a bidder’s game, and this hand has way too much outside to preempt…

Tom Schlangen: Points, schmoints. I have two quick tricks, plenty of playing strength, and no foreseeable rebid problems.

Tim Cope: It looks wrong to preempt the auction with one opponent out of the way.

Erik Lauer: This hand has the offense and quick tricks to open, my strength is outside of diamonds, and partner hasn’t passed. It is tempting to try to shut out spades, but I won’t preempt in second seat.

Rainer Herrmann: With two first- and second-round controls outside of my long suit, I refuse to preempt an unpassed partner. Whether to pass or open looks like a no-brainer… Change the doubleton heart to a small singleton in each major, and the hand would not change in value [by most methods]; but with two singletons I would not open 1 and might preempt.

Mark Lincoln: This hand is a clear one-bid; too strong to pass, and too much defense for a [preempt].

Andrew Morris: I prefer 1 for two reasons: (1) I have two defensive tricks outside my suit, and (2) opponents are less likely to bid a making 4 after a one-bid, whereas a preempt tends to push them into it.

James Hudson: I would actually open 3 , but I don’t think this will score well. :) I am guessing that Rule-of-20 thinking is so widespread that 1 will score better — and might work better in practice.

Stephen Hamilton: … A good hand with partner is as likely as with West, so we may very well have a minor-suit game. I don’t want to bid 5 directly because it makes a slam tough to reach, and 5 may be preferable.

Tim DeLaney: My choice is between pass and 1 , as all preempts seem wrong. The trouble with passing is that the hand is no easier to bid later than it is now.

Comments for 4

Alon Amsel: Too good of a distribution for 3 , and I’m too much of a chicken for 5 .

George Klemic: Though this might be a transfer to 4 , it’s not clear opponents will like that contract. Heck, they might even belong in 3 NT. …

David Rock: I would have to be extremely unlucky to take only four diamond tricks (five seems most likely)… so 4 it is. I hate to preempt with two defensive tricks,…but the last time I opened one of these 1 , it was up to 5 by the time it got back to me…

Jess Cohen: I need some help from partner in diamonds, and if he has it he will bid 5 ; if he doesn’t, 4 is about right. If partner has majors, let opponents start looking at the four level.

Paul Redvers: … The void says no to 2 , and it’s too easy to compete over 3 ; so I’ll go for four.

Michael G. Phillips: Three diamonds is too little, giving opponents room to find their best major fit; 5 is too much, cornering opponents into a double with less opportunity to go wrong. This must be right in second seat, vulnerable, as it’s a genuine 4 preempt (in contrast to weaker preempts in other suits).

Lajos Linczmayer: If we have a fit, I prefer to play in diamonds, so I must introduce them — the sooner the better.

Laur Lupulescu: Too much for 3 ; not enough for 1 ; and more flexible than 5 .

Uwe Gebhardt: The only problem I have with this choice is that I have two defensive tricks; but I will not pass, and I will not open 1 . This leaves 4 , since I would bid 3 without the ace or without the king.

Richard Stein: Good suit; good shape; good playing strength; and half the time it is West who’s getting preempted.

Guray Sunamak: With 2-0 in the majors, I wish to put pressure on opponents. Five diamonds might work better, but it’s too risky. It would be nice to hear West bid four of a major and partner double.

Ulrich Nell: One can conjure up various reasons for bidding lower or higher, so they tend to cancel out. My partners expect me to have an eight-card suit or 7-4 for this bid, and I can hardly find something wrong with that.

Gonzalo Goded: The fourth club is worth an eighth diamond.

Comments for 3

Neelotpal Sahai: Not a purist’s delight — too much strength outside and [vulnerable] — but having two cards in the majors, I want to bid diamonds. …

Imre Csiszar: The number of losers suggests 4 , but as my two likely defensive tricks may cause opponents to have no game, it is too risky to bid that high. As second-seat preempts tend to be sound, this is not a gross underbid. …

Stephen McDevitt: When in doubt, shortness in spades calls for preemption. If I pass, I’m going to be stuck if West tries 3 .

Joon Pahk: Ordinarily, it’s not my style to preempt with a mediocre suit and so much outside, especially second-seat vulnerable at IMPs; but with the non-running diamonds and so little in the majors, game is very far away. The only real fear is that we’ll miss 5 or 6 .

Russell Haney: A semi-psychic semi-preempt! I don’t like to preempt partner, but this is the best chance to explore a minor-suit fit, while shutting out opponents’ possible major-suit fit.

Julian Wightwick: Partner will expect a decent hand in second seat vulnerable, so I’m comfortable with this. The club side suit compensates for the ropy diamonds. I shall pull 3 NT to 4 .

Barry Rigal: Passing these hands always shuts me out of the auction. I’d rather bid diamonds at the three level than have to decide if I want to bid 5 over four of a major.

Don Hinchey: Opponents aren’t shut out by preempts; they’re actually goaded into bidding. Ergo, it pays to have some defense in the hope they will get too high.

Mark LaForge: This would be a more difficult problem in first seat; but as one opponent has already passed, the chances increase that partner has a good hand.

David Caprera: I can live with most of the choices (except 2 which is too wimpy). This is a partnership issue, as much as anything.

Joshua Donn: Anything could be right on this hand, but vulnerable second-seat preempts may be very sound, and the suit is fairly shabby for higher bids. This also leaves room to bid 4 next on many auctions.

Toby Kenney: Opponents probably have a large major-suit fit, so there is no point opening 1 . On the other hand, spades probably split badly for them, and I probably have two defensive tricks. …

Jacco Hop: This may be an underbid, but the bad diamonds and spade void make other actions even more questionable.

Joel Singer: Perhaps merely a matter of style. I can’t stand opening 1 with this type of hand, and the suit quality isn’t good enough to open higher.

Petko Boukov: Five diamonds would be my choice in [first seat] but opponents are unlikely to have a game after East’s pass. If clubs and spades were swapped, I’d pass. If clubs and hearts were swapped, I’d open 1 .

David Boushy: Unorthodox; but if partner has a slug of spades, this will slow him down.

Jonathan Siegel: Particularly with the spade void, I think a preempt is called for.

Barry White: The two first-round controls argue against an opening three-bid, but I still do it. You can’t wait for perfect hands, or you won’t be bidding often enough. …

Michal Rosa: Pass is tempting with such a weak suit, but 3 is more tempting. I strongly disagree with a higher preempt on a weak suit, despite the swan hand.

Willem Mevius: Slightly on the heavy side; but second-in-hand vulnerable, I should have a [sound bid] — and I like opening at the three level.

Tim Posney: I hate to preempt partner, but I have no majors; and this does not feel like a 1 or 2 opening. Even 3 feels wimpy, but I am vulnerable so I’ll procrastinate.

Comments for Pass

Bruce Blakely: I’ll wait to see what partner does; a preempt with this suit may only get in his way.

Arpan Banerjee: Too weak for 1 , and bad suit quality for a preempt at the vulnerability. The hand does have defense, so the best that can be done for the time being is to wait. This may be a hand of bad breaks, where whoever declares is in trouble.

Madhukar Bapu: Second-seat openings should be solid. I cannot imagine “Wild Bill” opening this hand 1 … Five diamonds is my second choice.

Ted Ying: A flawed hand for all diamond options, so I’ll pass and see what partner does. Based on one more rounds of bidding, I might have a clue how to evaluate this hand.

Michael Lindhagen: Too many high cards on the side [for a preempt]. If partner had passed, I would open 3 .

Rex Settle: As one opponent passed, all preempts are less attractive. This is too light for my taste as a one-bid despite two quick tricks. If I felt I must bid, 2 would be my choice; but pass seems best in second seat.

Carsten Kofoed: With an unpassed partner and a passed defender, I will take it easy with this dynamic hand. It doesn’t have the strength for 1 , and clubs are too good for other diamond bids.

Anthony Golding: I don’t expect this will be the majority choice, but I have too much defense to preempt; and a second-seat 1 should be better. I’ll be happy to introduce diamonds later…

Jonathan Steinberg: Opening with any number of diamonds has severe flaws. This is not an opening one-bid; nor is the suit strong enough for a vulnerable preempt. Pass is not a dirty word.

Dale Freeman: In second seat there is a 50-percent chance of preempting partner, and I see no highly descriptive preempt available.

Frans Buijsen: I don’t have the values for a 1 opening; 2 is feeble; and I like to have a better suit for 3 so partner can bid 3 NT with confidence on good hands. I’ll sit on the fence for a bit, hoping wisdom will come to me later — but not too much later.

Jyri Tamminen: … In second seat, both vulnerable, I am not so worried about West preempting into the ozone layer, or opponents bidding game.

Carlos Dabezies: If I open 1 , I will have to keep bidding a suit that is far from solid. I’m not good enough for 4 or 5 ; and partner may be tempted to bid an unmakable 3 NT if I open 3 . This will not be passed out.

Dean Pokorny: I don’t preempt in second seat with a five-loser hand. This hand has enough offensive and defensive potential for 1 ; but partner will probably expect more when doubling opponents’ four of a major — so I pass. …

Jerome Farrugia: A matter of style. In second seat I prefer a good suit for a constructive preempt. …

Ed Shapiro: It may be out of fashion, but my partners like to have some idea of my hand when I take an initial action opposite an unpassed hand. If this is a preempt, they’ll be forever clueless. One diamond is worth considering, and it would be attractive if I could trade the 3 for a club honor.

Len Vishnevsky: Second seat, red, I need a classic hand to preempt, and 1 always gets me bad results.

Martin Bootsma: The alternative is to open 4 ; but if opponents bid 4 , I don’t want partner to lead diamonds. I will get another chance to bid.

Richard Morse: All wrong for a preempt: wrong suit, wrong suit quality and wrong position. Opening 1 might work, but the bidding is most unlikely to die after I pass.

Winston Munn: I want to bid, but no bid is right. If my suit were a major, I would open without question at the one level. I don’t want a diamond lead, and East’s pass makes the hand less dangerous…

Stu Goodgold: Preempting in diamonds seems so wrong with those clubs, and opening 1 in front of an unpassed partner is also suspect.

Jordan Chodorow: The last thing I want is a diamond lead.

K. Scott Kimball: Call me old-fashioned; too weak to open 1 , and too strong to preempt.

John Lusky: In second chair, why not wait and see what partner has to say? This is hardly a classical opening in any number of diamonds.

Bill Cubley: … I will have another chance to bid — and making something doubled always helps win a match. :)

Carolyn Ahlert: I don’t like the quality of my diamond suit for a second-seat preempt, or for a 1 opening.

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 4

IMPs		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North 1	East 2	South 1 ?	A K 8 A Q 5 4 — A 10 9 6 5 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	398	27
3	9	248	17
3	7	67	5
Dbl (support)	6	390	27
4 (splinter)	3	238	16
4	2	79	5
3	1	33	2

This was one of the closest votes ever for the top spot, as the support double* and 2 ran neck-and-neck all month. Whew! You came through at the wire with the choice I prefer — and greatly so. I’m not a fan of support doubles, especially with a void in the enemy suit. Don’t get me wrong; I’m happy that many people use them — I need every edge I can get.

*A few respondents thought a support double was mandatory when opener has three-card support, but this is hardly the expert consensus.

In this case, the support double has two serious flaws: (1) It does not show long clubs, which is likely to be the key feature of the hand if slam is in the offing, and (2) there is the danger that partner will pass, rather than play a dubious spade partscore or try for a game he expects to be out of reach. For example, opposite Q-x-x-x K-x Q-10-9-x Q-J-x, you will defend 2 doubled; you’ll beat it of course, but that’s little consolation for the missed club slam.

The main reason I like 2 is not to find a heart fit (unlikely after partner didn’t make a negative double) but to convey the club length. A reverse bid is forcing* according to the system, so you are assured another turn, at which point I intend to bid 4 to complete the pattern. While arguably a slight overbid, I want to play game somewhere (vulnerable at IMPs) and 3 NT seems too remote to consider.

*Some thought that enemy interference might change this, but I see no precedent for that. Barring agreements to the contrary, competitive rebids should have their usual meaning as long as the interference does not remove a lower bid in the same denomination (which it doesn’t here).

My second choice is 3 , as it also implies long clubs. The only difference is that partner will know slightly less about your pattern when you follow with a spade raise — probably not a factor with a heart fit remote. At least it seems better to conceal the heart suit than to overstate it with a jump to 3 , which suggests 5-6 shape since there is no need to jump in hearts to force.

Raising spades immediately (3 , 4 or a splinter bid) is too committal to that strain. It’s easy to imagine a club slam going by the wayside; and it could lead to the ultimate disaster of failing in 4 with 6 cold — for example, give partner J-x-x-x x Q-x-x K-x-x-x-x.

Here’s what happened in Perth:

South deals	Q J 10 9 6 2		West	North	East	South
Both vul	10 3		Martel	M Branco	Stansby	Chagas
	Q J 7 4					1
	4		1	2	Pass	4
5 3		7 4	Pass	4	Pass	Pass
J 6		K 9 8 7 2	Pass
A K 9 8 2		10 6 5 3
K Q 8 2		J 7
	A K 8
	A Q 5 4
	—
	A 10 9 6 5 3

Brazil N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
4 North	4 North	Janz	Woolsey	Camacho	Lawrence
Made 6 +680	Made 7 +710				1
		1	1	2	Dbl
USA +1 IMPs		Pass	2	Pass	4
		Pass	4	Pass	4
		All Pass

The problem scenario arose at the second table, and Lawrence chose the support double to show three spades. Woolsey retreated conservatively to 2 , and Lawrence tried a delayed splinter; 4 was a last-train noise, and Lawrence certainly had done his all. Perhaps Woolsey was worth another bid, but it’s hard to criticize a pass with only 3 working HCP.

The auction at the first table seems more likely to hit the target, as Branco chose to jump immediately to 2 (weak) and Chagas splintered. I’m not sure of the Brazilian definition of a weak jump shift, but the North hand looks exceptionally good to me, and I would not sign off in 4 (I’d be torn between Blackwood and 5 ).

Twelve tricks in spades were easy, and Woolsey won 13 without a finesse by ruffing three diamonds and establishing clubs, courtesy of the even trump break (he had to ruff two clubs high to avert an overruff) — 1 IMP to USA. In 6 it would be better to ruff only two diamonds and use dummy’s third trump as a hard entry, alleviating the need for 2-2 trumps.

Comments for 2

Joseph Lane: I will support spades later.

Mark Abraham: Caters best to playing in spades, hearts or clubs, any of which could be right, possibly at the slam level. For example, Q-J-x-x-x K-x x-x-x x-x-x, or Q-x-x-x-x-x K-x-x-x x-x x, or Q-x-x-x J-x x-x-x K-Q-x-x. …

Brian Ross: Planning to pattern out [by raising spades next].

Stefan Jonsson: Descriptive; the spade support can wait.

George Klemic: This followed by a spade raise will get across the strength [and shape] of my hand. Support doubles are not mandatory when you have an obvious action. Since when have support doubles been part of the standard card?*

*Never, but I occasionally include nonstandard options in these polls when they are relevant to the actual deal. These are duly noted, of course, as only standard agreements apply by default. -RP

Jonathan Goldberg: This, followed by spade support, should show a good hand and my pattern to within one card — not so bad.

John R. Mayne: … This will give partner an idea of my shape when I complete the description next round with a spade jump.

Jacques Brethes: A natural description. First we need to find a real fit.

John Hoffman: Natural and forcing one round. Partner might have only four spades of mediocre quality, so I will avoid committing to that suit prematurely. The diamond void and opponents’ bidding have increased our chances for something big, like 6 or 7 .

Dima Nikolenkov: I like to bid where I live. Over the likely notrump advance, I’ll follow with a spade raise.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: One spade doesn’t promise five cards, so I don’t want to commit to spades. I don’t want to double, as partner may leave it in while we make slam ( Q-J-x-x x-x Q-10-9-x K-Q-x). Two hearts shows a strong hand, but not necessarily as strong as this; next I will complete my description with 3 or 4 .

Curt Reeves: I might as well show my strength and shape as economically as possible. When I finally support spades, partner will be able to judge whether to bid beyond game; he will know the round kings are the mother lode. If he doubles 5 after I bid 4 , I will respect his decision. I would think a 3 bid shows 5-6 shape.

Horia Garbea: … There could be a slam, and this is forcing. I would like to hear partner repeat his spades…

David Rock: I’ll reverse first to show this monster, then let partner know about spades. … I’ll save the diamond void for a [potential] cue-bid later…

Josh Sinnett: This conveys extra strength. I’ll jump in spades next to show a hand with this [shape], though I could be 3=4=1=5 with, say, the K instead of the queen.

David Grainger: Despite the fact that partner almost surely doesn’t have four hearts, if I make a support double intending to show all kinds of strength later, one of two bad things might happen: (1) Partner will pass it out, or (2) opponents will bid a lot more diamonds before it gets back to me.

Shawn Tate: Forcing. I’m not sure what our trump suit is yet, so I want to give partner a chance to rebid spades or raise clubs.

Bogdan Vulcan: I’d love to make my most-loved splinter bid, but missing a fourth trump could be vital… Maybe the hand belongs in clubs, or even in hearts (partner could be 6-4 although unlikely…) Two hearts (forcing) leaves room for exploration. If partner rebids spades or raises clubs, I will then splinter…

Imre Csiszar: As in Problem 1, the obvious bid looks best. Even if West jumps immediately to 5 , completing my hand description via 5 appears relatively safe.

Sandy McIlwain: This will help…to suggest club length; and partner might sometimes have hearts.

Arpan Banerjee: The right time to reverse (forcing); spade support can come later.

Joon Pahk: I plan to support spades later, at the four level if necessary, to adequately convey my shape and strength.

Madhukar Bapu: … The support double…is a thoughtless application of a gadget “just because it is there” as 2 is more descriptive. Also, partner may have a diamond stack and pass a double for penalty, while missing a slam (perhaps even a grand). … A splinter with three trumps is wild, even by Wild West standards.

Ted Ying: I will raise spades next to pattern out my hand. In most of my support-double partnerships, failure to double does not deny three; only a pass does that. Otherwise, we choose the most descriptive call, and that is 2 here.

Julian Wightwick: I’ll continue with 3 , and hope partner works out my diamond void. Double would work fine unless partner passes for penalties (and even then might be OK); 3 is [less attractive] because it suggests [stronger] clubs and will catch 3 NT whenever partner has a diamond stopper.

Barry Rigal: Support doubles are all well and good, but only a maniac (yes, there will be many!) would rather treat this hand as a spade raise (potentially 4-3-3-3) than to show clubs and hearts. I can always bid spades later to show my pattern, even at the risk of being one or two levels too high. …

Sheldon Spier: If opponents interfere and partner is silent, I will bid…4 over 4 ; or 4 over 3 .

Michael Lindhagen: … I will support spades next time. Over 2 from partner, I will bid 4 .

Rex Settle: This lets me show my strength and pattern better than a support double (second choice). … If West preempts to stop partner from showing if he has five spades, I will be guessing later; but at least partner will know more about my shape.

Carsten Kofoed: Forcing. A support double can’t show this type of hand — in some situations partner will pass, and even if 2 is one down, this cannot compensate for a game. … Two hearts shows nine of my cards; a double, only about six or seven.

Anthony Golding: I’m strong enough to bid out my shape. Spades may well not be our best trump suit…

Jonathan Steinberg: I bid what I have, intending to show my spade support later.

Brad Theurer: This bid is almost as economical as the support double; but if partner has four hearts [or a club fit] we might find a potentially better strain. If partner bids 2 , I will splinter in diamonds.

Mark LaForge: There is no reason why partner cannot have four hearts, and the suit will be lost if I don’t bid it now. … If partner has something like K-x-x, I would rather play in clubs than spades.

Jyri Tamminen: I can’t stomach the idea of partner passing a support double. I’m strong enough to bid spades next, even at a high level.

Paulino Correa: If I double or cue-bid 3 , partner may have a very difficult rebid, with little or no additional information. Two hearts is forcing (partner probably does not have four hearts, or he would have doubled) and suggests long clubs. …

Timothy Liang Kan: Without four spades, or any assurance partner has good spades, I will pattern out and support spades later.

Tim McKay: Forcing, and allowing partner to show his shape more easily.

Paul Redvers: Shows four hearts; denies four spades; shows extra values; and is lead-directing — all with one call.

Murat Tabanli: Forcing…, and leaves the door open for partner to rebid his spade suit with five; so there is no need to skip the heart suit with a support double. …

Dean Pokorny: … My club suit is too weak for 3 … A support double is also OK, but this offers better…slam prospects.

Jerome Farrugia: A natural (forcing) bid seems better when available. Over 2 , partner is supposed to repeat his spades if he has 5+ cards.

Ed Shapiro: Natural, forcing. It’s nice to see the support-double option; and [I hope] the point of the problem is not that I deny three spades by failing to double… Raising to any number of spades is misdescriptive, perhaps fatally. …

Winston Munn: A standout. I want to show the strength of my hand, then follow with delayed spade support…, although after 5 P P, I will have a problem — but no greater problem than if I had supported spades now…

Michal Rosa: This and a later spade raise describes the shape of this hand perfectly. If partner rebids 2 , I will splinter.

Hamish Brown: Then splinter with 4 over 2 , which is the rebid I expect. … An immediate splinter looks bad when we end up in 6 with a 4-3 fit and cannot ruff with A-K.

Jim Munday: Ruffing in the short hand with A-K-x is not something partner will relish unless he can bid spades again. … I will support spades later to give a good picture of my hand. A support double would also allow me to get my hand across, as long as my next action is not the opening lead.

For sure. Defending 2 doubled is bad enough without leading out of turn as well.

Michael Shuster: There is no hurry to make a support double (which I am worried partner may pass) as it grossly understates my enthusiasm toward spades. … I will next jump in spades to get across the general shape…

Tim Cope: Partner is probably very weak, but I will be better placed if I hear him bid spades again… then slam looks odds-on, however weak his spades are.

Mark Lincoln: At this vulnerability, I am not bothered if opponents bounce to 5 . I will take my time to show additional strength by reversing, then pattern out [with a spade raise]. …

Karl Barth: I can afford to bid out my shape, so I’ll give partner some room. If opponents stay in the auction, I’ll show them that spades outranks diamonds. :)

Vaduganathan Murugaiyan: … Partner may have Q-10-x-x-x or K-x-x. Either way, we have a game in the [proper] black suit.

John Lusky: I’ll begin bidding out my pattern, while avoiding a possible penalty pass of the support double. This also has the advantage of showing real club length.

Tim Posney: A reverse is a reverse is a reverse, and I will admit to spades next round to complete the picture. Two hearts is certainly forcing south of the equator; but now I’m in Singapore…

Mauri Saastamoinen: Why couldn’t partner have Q-J-x-x-x K-x-x-x-x x-x x, or Q-x-x-x K-x-x x-x-x Q-J-x? Supporting spades straightaway is premature… and 3 is murky…

Comments for 3

Bruce Blakely: … If partner has five spades or four hearts, I am off to the races. If he has four little spades and a 6-7 count, even 3 could be too much.

Robert Eachus: … If I could bid 3 forcing, I’d wait to cue-bid diamonds; but I might as well make a bid that [implies diamond shortness]. … If partner bids 4 , I’ll bid 5 NT (grand slam force) to reach 7 if partner has K-Q. … What about further interference from the opponents? At this vulnerability, bring it on! …

Roger Morton: … Does partner have extra spades? A club fit? Or even a heart suit? I’d like to bid 2 myself, but partners have been known to pass this kind of bid in a crowded auction.

Frans Buijsen: I don’t like the support double, since West may jump in diamonds; so I will tell partner about my great strength now. Three notrump might still be the right place (partner may well have K-Q-x-x), so I won’t splinter either.

Carlos Dabezies: … I won’t support spades directly when high spade honors are part of the three-card support — a Moysian slam might be unappetizing.

Kurt Schneider: … Slam is a possibility (give partner as little as Q-J-x-x-x-x and K-x) so the key is to give partner an indication of my strength…before West preempts in diamonds. Spade raises imply four pieces.

Ron Landgraff: Information please! Possible contracts are in spades, hearts, clubs and notrump — from three to seven. Two hearts focuses too much on hearts and clubs.

Adam Saroyan: Two hearts doesn’t capture this hand, so I’ll cue-bid early… There are too many possibilities for a grand to commit to anything now…

Michael Dodson: I won’t commit to spades with two other suits in the picture, but neither are good enough to bid directly.

Richard Morse: … Initially, I thought a double likely to give more room…with slightly less risk of a diamond preempt; but on reflection, I think setting up a game force may be [more helpful].

David Boushy: If this fetches 3 NT, I’ll correct to 4 and give up on slam. Partner is stuck if I splinter.

Frank Ayer: I’ll tell partner I have a very good hand and see what he can add to the conversation. A support double might work, but I don’t want partner to pass (same problem with 3 ), and 4 is [too committal] with only three spades.

Comments for 3

Stephen McDevitt: The likelihood that my void is working overtime requires an upgrade… Opposite Q-x-x-x-x-x J-x x-x K-x-x, I’m a significant favorite to make 6 , while a heart lead might scuttle 6 .

Petko Boukov: Four spades is probably our final stop, but a heart [or club] fit should be explored first. …

James Yeager: Showing my power and good hearts… to invite slam. … Opponents’ bidding also suggests partner is likely to have useful points.

Comments for Double

Manuel Paulo: After partner’s free bid, game is certain and slam is likely; so I want to keep the auction level as low as possible [to explore].

Neelotpal Sahai: I want to show two features: three trumps and 20+ support points. … I won’t show hearts because if partner has four, he will then have 5+ spades, and spades should play better.

Gillian Paty: Since 1 doesn’t show five, I see no reason to bid 3 , 4 or 4 . With three-card support, I prefer to double; and it doesn’t really bother me that partner could pass for penalty with [a diamond stack].

Kevin Costello: My spades are strong, but they won’t play like a four-bagger — especially if East leads a diamond, and communications get fouled up.

Kieran Dyke: In the methods, I imagine this is normal and systemic. Over 2 , I will bid 3 next.

Scott Stearns: … Over a 2 sign-off, I will next bid 3 , which should show about this hand. Partner might bid 2 himself, so I don’t want to splinter just yet. …

Gerald Murphy: … If partner bids 2 , I will bid 3 to relay the message that I have a very fine hand with long clubs…

Dave Seagull: Three spades, 4 and 4 should guarantee four-card support… If I don’t show my spade support now and the opponents jump to 4 or 5 , we might lose the spade suit. I can always bid hearts later at any level to complete the description of my hand…

Ronald Michaels: Since 1 guarantees only four, a support double should work perfectly. I’m going to push for some game (including a Moysian fit if necessary) and on the way will make slam inquiries to find fitting clubs and/or hearts. …

Alan Kravetz: If partner passes with a four-card spade suit and a diamond stack, we [might] outscore our best offensive result.

Dale Freeman: I see no reason not to use the support double, as failure to do so may have negative implications about my spade fit. (In a standard system, especially, more discussion is necessary about this convention.)

David Caprera: Double doesn’t deny [a strong hand]. Obviously, I am going to bid again (3 if partner rebids 2 ). If partner bids 3 , should that be forward going? There is a risk that partner might convert the double to penalty; but if he does, I bet West goes down a lot.

Joshua Donn: A logical plan seems to be to double while convenient, then bid hearts next round at whatever level seems appropriate. Partner is unlikely to pass 2 doubled…; but if he does, we have a good shot to murder it anyway.

Toby Kenney: Partner would have doubled with four hearts (unless he has six spades) so there’s little point mentioning hearts; and he may have only four spades, so I don’t want to set spades as trumps. The only worry is that partner might pass, but this is unlikely…, and it may be our best result anyway.

Olle Morell: Playing support doubles, I have to double with three spades, as doing otherwise removes the [main] benefit of the convention. …

Jim Wiitala: Leaving room for a possible heart rebid. I will raise 2 to 3 .

Roger Gibbons: Plenty of time to show extra [strength and] distribution later. Partner won’t pass the double; will he? …

Paul Huggins: … As West could be jumping to 4 or 5 next, I prefer to show my spade support now; then partner [may] read me for a diamond void if West [preempts]. … If I bid 2 now [and West bids], partner would be a bit stuck with five spades and [no heart or club fit].

Sven Neirynck: Mandatory in my system. Not doubling would deny three spades…

Damo Nair: I can’t ignore spades with A-K-x, and I can always try 3 next over whatever.

Len Vishnevsky: I can’t imagine how further preemption can leave me worse off after a double than if I had bid.

Bruce Scott: More conventions available for me? Support doubles? You’re getting soft. … I’m fully aware that I might get blown out of the auction in diamonds, and I wouldn’t be too upset with a partner or teammate who chose 4 or 4 … I’m interested in seeing this vote, as I’m sure Mr. Pavlicek doesn’t approve of a support double here, else it wouldn’t be listed as a problem.

J.J. Gass: I see little danger that partner will pass this double. The bidding has dramatically increased the value of what was already an exciting hand, so I’m not going to stop short of game, and plan to show slam interest. Strain is still in doubt…

Gerry Wildenberg: I have many features to show, so I’ll keep the bidding as low as possible.

Paul Flashenberg: All strong spade raises should have four-card support; and playing support doubles, I would deny three-card support if I bid 2 . … I will show my strength later.

Ragnar Paulson: I thought the problem here was going to be that I didn’t have a support double. It’s not in either of your guides; so is this a test to see if I read those docs? :) When we have a known fit (almost anyway…) it is important to show that first before introducing another suit.

Stu Goodgold: Describing my fit for partner is the best option, in general… The only fear is that partner might pass, but even that could turn out well.

Laur Lupulescu: Showing support is the priority, as opponents [may] not stop bidding…

Tom Schlangen: Describing my spade length first, while keeping the bidding low. I hope to catch up [by showing] club length later; we’ll probably only play hearts if partner bids them.

Kent Feiler: This seems like the best way to start. Partner should show whether he has five spades and how good his hand is; if he passes, West won’t make it.

Tim Francis-Wright: If West is about to preempt, it’s important to get across the most important part of my hand: three-card spade support. Partner is unlikely to have four hearts (no negative double) and could easily have only four spades. Splintering (or 3 or 4 )…risks playing in spades when notrump or clubs could easily be better.

Rainer Herrmann: If playing support doubles, I think you should retain the negative inference that any other bid should deny three-card support. Take this away, and support doubles lose much of their value. A bidding convention must be judged by how well it handles all possible hands, not just the ones on which it [is actually used].

Richard Stein: A cardinal rule of support doubles is to double with three in partner’s suit, no matter what else is going on in your hand.

Or in your brain, for that matter, which explains why a cardinal is a bird.

Charles Leong: My partnerships play that support doubles are mandatory when holding three trumps, strength notwithstanding.

James Hudson: Since when are we playing support doubles? If so, I have to double; bidding 2 first and then supporting spades would suggest honor-doubleton. If partner passes, maybe we’ll be OK (e.g., J-x-x-x J-x-x K-J-10-x K-x).

Ulrich Nell: … If West rebids diamonds, I will bid hearts, then partner should have a good picture of my shape and strength.

Willem Mevius: Playing support doubles, partner is never going to believe I have three spades later if I don’t double now.

Barry Goren: OK, so partner might pass; but how bad can that be with all these top tricks and opponents vulnerable? Partner won’t pass lightly with a safe haven in 2 . I can later splinter with 4 to give partner a clue to my distribution.

Tim DeLaney: This followed by a heart bid shows both my distribution and strength. It’s true that partner can hardly be 4-4 in the majors; but he will be in a better position than I am to judge whether to play a Moysian fit.

Carolyn Ahlert: First obligation is to show three-card support for spades. … Next [I hope] to make a splinter bid with 4 .

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 5

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West 1 Pass	North Dbl 3	East 3 1 Pass	South Pass ?	9 8 7 6 4 A 9 6 3 7 4 2 2
1. weak

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	566	39
3	9	183	13
4	6	44	3
4	5	121	8
5	4	67	5
4	3	188	13
Pass	2	284	20

OK, everyone, let’s see a show of hands: How many would have bid 3 over 3 ? I must admit I would, though I respectfully concede it’s dubious. The fifth spade, stiff club and prime high card suggest pushing, as partner is unlikely to reopen with club length, and opponents appear to be in a cozy spot. Maybe I deserve to hear 3 NT next from partner; but I might also hear 4 with A-Q-J-x x-x A-K-x-x x-x-x, and score up an 18-point game.

Therefore, I am disappointed with the consensus to bid only 3 after passing. Even though partner will almost never have four spades after bidding 3 (he would double again) the hand has too much potential for a 5-3 spade game or 5 to risk being left in 3 . I would cue-bid 3 , followed by 4 , which should show diamond support as well as five spades (without a diamond fit, I’d bid spades directly). Thus, if partner has A-Q x-x A-K-J-x-x-x A-x-x, he will bid 3 NT over 3 , then correct 4 to 5 .

I considered overruling the consensus (something I’ve done four times in the past) — particularly since some respondents expected 3 to be forcing — but I don’t think it’s justified. The large vote suggests that an all-expert panel might also agree with 3 . I admit I’m a graduate of Overbidders Anonymous, so I’ll drop it with a final word: Cowards!

Other options (besides 3 and 3 ) seem off base. A 4 cue-bid is much inferior to 3 because partner may jump to 5 , bypassing any chance of a spade contract. A raise to 4 may be right on values for diamonds; but again silencing the five-card major. Jumping to 4 or 5 is too unilateral for the bid strain, though the latter is a better stab; I’m not sure what 4 should show, but “five to the nine” deserves to share a branch on that kookaburra tree.

Those who passed were either playing a different system, or used to partners who never have their bids. Modern American opinion is that two-level overcalls can be quite good, so the double followed by 3 is seriously strong. Exact requirements vary, but a hand like A-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x K-x-x would be a routine 2 overcall for most.*

*Methods applicable to this poll define a two-level overcall as 13-18 points (distribution included) so 19+ points are needed to double then bid.

Meanwhile, let’s see what happened in the Western Australia outback:

West deals	A K 2		West	North	East	South
None vul	10 7		Janz	Martel	Camacho	Stansby
	A Q 9 8 3		1	Dbl	3	Pass
	A 8 7		Pass	3	Pass	3
Q 5		J 10 3	Pass	Pass	Pass
K Q J 8 5 2		4
K 6 5		J 10
Q 6		K J 10 9 5 4 3
	9 8 7 6 4
	A 9 6 3
	7 4 2
	2

USA N-S	Brazil N-S	West	North	East	South
3 South	4 South	Pender	Chagas	Ross	M Branco
Made 4 +170	Made 4 +420	1	Dbl	2	2
		Pass	3	Pass	4
Brazil +6 IMPs		Pass	4	Pass	Pass
		Pass

The first auction gave birth to the problem, and Stansby took the conservative route of our consensus. Martel duly passed, as he had an absolute minimum for the sequence; he could hardly picture a good game opposite a partner who passed 3 . To some extent he was right, as 4 is only a fair game — but we all know that any game that makes is a good game.

The Brazilians had an easier course, as Ross bid only 2 , I think because 3 would be fit-showing.* This allowed Branco a convenient 2 bid, and the partnership rolled into game.

*Advocates of fit-jumps never seem to realize there are disadvantages like this. I prefer to play all unbid-suit jumps in competition as natural (even a sequence like 1 2 4 ) as it allows more opportunities to preempt.

Ten tricks were made at each table. Branco won the K lead with the ace and led a diamond to the nine. This would have been fatal if Ross had another heart and a doubleton trump. Ducking the first trick would be a better play, but all’s well that ends well; 6 IMPs to Brazil.

Comments for 3

Alon Amsel: I suppose this is forcing, as I do not intend to stop before game.

Daniel Cecchelli: A spade game is more likely than diamonds.

Brian Ross: I will be happy to hear 4 or 4 .

Stefan Jonsson: Partner either has good spade support or a very strong hand with diamonds…

Chris Cooper: Partner is showing a massive hand with diamonds, and I have a superb hand for a 4-count. …

George Klemic: This is [headed for] a suit contract. If partner [needed only a heart stopper] for 3 NT, he should bid 3 . … By not bidding the first time, partner knows I have [limited] values; but despite possible club overruffs behind me, this is a pretty nice hand if partner comes up with at least three decent spades. If not, I can fall back on diamonds.

Jonathan Goldberg: I think it’s clear to bid. My problem comes after a 4 rebid; I’ll probably raise to five, which would be clear vulnerable but marginal here. Four spades could be much easier, so I’ll check that possibility first.

Manuel Paulo: My hand has gotten better, and spades may be our best strain.

Horia Garbea: A game try. … I passed the first time, so partner can pass now if his hand is [minimal] …

Leonard Helfgott: Very tough. If partner bids a lot, it could be very right to pass; and 4 or 5 seem too extreme. I won’t get partner to bid a three-card spade suit with 3 …

Bruce Blakely: If partner has three or more spades, we could easily have a game in spades… [Otherwise] we are still safe in diamonds.

Shawn Tate: Don’t want to hang partner if he has made a big off-shape takeout, but I want to show a little game interest. If he bids 4 , I’ll bid five.

Stephen McDevitt: I have to move forward with such a nice “bad hand,” and I will chase the 10-trick game first.

Kieran Dyke: Worth some kind of try. I would have bid 3 at my previous turn.

Scott Stearns: … Four spades on this ratty suit doesn’t appeal when I have good diamond support. I don’t think it will go all pass; I certainly hope not, since my hand got huge.

Robin Zigmond: Yuck. I’d quite like to pass, but partner has some strong hand opposite. … Partner is [likely] to have some spade support, and if so, the diamonds may produce enough tricks to make 4 .

Joon Pahk: Certainly, this is a good hand; but game in diamonds or notrump is unlikely. If partner’s spades are as good as A-J-x, there will be reasonable play for 4 ; and if he has something like 2=2=6=3 with a heart honor, 3 NT is probably our best spot.

Robert Eachus: … Partner was willing for me to bid spades earlier, so I should do it now [after he announces a strong hand]. … This is forward-going, and it also allows for 3 NT…

Gerald Murphy: It looks like partner is 3=2=6=2, or maybe 3=1=6=3, with a good hand. I expect he would double again with [four] spades. …

Russell Haney: My hand is good, but [not that good] with three small cards in partner’s suit. We [may] have a spade fit, where we can crossfire — I mean crossruff.

Madhukar Bapu: Though nonforcing, this facilitates reaching 4 or 5 . My previous pass denies six spades (and a fair amount of HCP)…

Julian Wightwick: My hand is good for diamonds, but I can’t do more without risking losing a spade fit. Partner doesn’t promise 4 ; but he would stretch to bid with 4-6, so there’s a reasonable chance to find them; and there’s nothing to stop him from having three-card support. I think 3 here would suggest a heart stopper and at most four spades.

Barry Rigal: I’m fairly sure this is constructive and maybe even forcing. … Getting spades into the picture won’t be easy unless I do it now.

Michael Lindhagen: Shows five spades and implies some kind of diamond support…

Dave Seagull: As in Problem 4, if I don’t show my spades, we might lose the spade suit. I can always support diamonds later.

Rex Settle: … Partner has a strong hand with diamonds, but game is spades is possible… I intend to take out 3 NT to 4 , as my hand is worth more for suit play; but I’m not willing to commit to 5 .

Don Hinchey: The real question may be what to do if partner retreats to 4 .

Jonathan Steinberg: I bid what I have; this should be forward-going, else I would pass 3 . I will raise 4 to 5 …

Dale Freeman: I think this is forcing (especially at IMPs) to try for 4 with some useful values. …

Ondrej Tichy: I must look for fit in spades, and 4 is available if partner [disappoints].

Rai Osborne: If I don’t bid spades now, the [fit may be lost]. I might get a little overboard in 4 — but sometimes pigs fly.

Michael Spurgeon: My hand is probably worth two additional tricks in spades. … Partner can always return to 4 [without a spade fit].

Bill Powell: I am worth a constructive move, and 4 could well be the optimum spot.

Paul Redvers: Partner doubled and bid; and I have five spades, an ace and a singleton? …

Michael G. Phillips: Hoping for a skinny game, but I don’t want to commit to diamonds. …

Petko Boukov: Game is far from certain but still possible. Perhaps partner has three spades and five diamonds, so nothing is lost by shifting suits. …

Len Vishnevsky: Partner is showing a strong, flexible hand. Spades is our [likely] strain, but I don’t have quite enough to bid game.

Lajos Linczmayer: I suppose partner has six diamonds and three or four spades, and I hope East has a good club suit. I think 3 is forcing and promises a five card suit. If North has A-K-Q-x x A-Q-J-10-x-x x-x and cue-bids 4 , we may reach 6 . If he has A-Q-J x A-K-10-x-x-x-x x-x, I hope he bids 4 ; then I will bid 4 .

Paul Flashenberg: I have a superb hand considering my previous pass (I was close to bidding before) and I want to explore for a spade fit, and whether we have a slam, before settling on diamonds. I hope partner takes this as forcing.

Barry White: If partner can bid 4 , I expect to have a good chance… Too good to pass up!

Philip Pallenberg: Bidding 4 would punish partner for balancing.

Balancing or not, I’d expect partner to have the nuts… Else, maybe one loose somewhere.

Tom Schlangen: Good suit texture. :)

Guray Sunamak: Partner is likely to have 3+ spades.

Glenn McIntyre: I may have bid 3 the first time.

Bill Cubley: Good controls in their suits. Maybe partner has three good spades — like the A-K-Q. :)

Carolyn Ahlert: Partner knows I am weak because I passed the first time… If he rebids 4 , I will pass.

Comments for 3

Jorge Castanheira: I don’t think partner will be excited with this cue-bid. My plan is to bid 4 over 4 , which implies a diamond fit just in case.

Mark Abraham: Flexible, catering to notrump, diamonds and spades; and it loses only when an immediate 3 NT by me was the only way to a makable game. Passing is for walruses.

John R. Mayne: Passers should have their six-shooter taken away and replaced with a fluffy pillow (good for long naps and short partnerships). This hand is a game force, and I’m not yet convinced 3 NT is wrong.

John Hoffman: Forcing one round, flexible and affordable. … What more could partner hope for in a hand that did not bid over 3 ?

Dima Nikolenkov: Three notrump is still in the picture. Over 3 , I’ll cue-bid 4 ; over 4 , raise to 5 ; over 4 , cue-bid 5 .

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Partner shows a strong hand but may not have three or four spades. With my singleton club, three diamonds and A, I am strong enough to force to game; and 3 shows more places to play. I may be able to bid 4 later to show five weak spades, as with stronger spades I would have bid 4 directly.

Curt Reeves: I can’t give up on game; this implies values for a 9- or 10-trick game, as well as tolerance for 5 if partner has K-3 8-2 A-K-Q-J-8-6 A-Q-4. I’d raise to 4 without the A.

David Rock: If 3 NT is the best spot, this should get partner to bid it. If he signs off in 4 , fine — but at least he will know I’m not a useless dummy as usual. :)

Josh Sinnett: I’ve got as strong a hand as I possibly could have on this auction. I don’t expect this to be the 10-point answer, but it’s what I’d bid at the table.

Bogdan Vulcan: My first instinct was to bid 4 . :) … I’ll just have to improvise with 3 . I am prepared to raise spades or diamonds; but I’d hate to make that decision now based on a collection of nines and sevens.

Imre Csiszar: Perhaps partner can bid 3 NT after learning about my A; or he may bid a secondary spade suit, which I will raise.

Steve Moese: I’ll show my ace on the way to a likely diamond game; I will be able to show my singleton on the next round. I’m not sure whether it’s worthwhile to get into spades.

Sandy McIlwain: There may be slam here; or 4 may be enough. I might as well show what I have [in terms of high cards], as spades is unlikely to be our spot (no club raise).

Ted Ying: This is forcing and shows a heart stopper; I don’t know where to play this yet. …

Jess Cohen: I have a heart stopper, a good hand for diamonds, and not much else. … I don’t want to go past 3 NT now, but I am going to 5 if partner bids 4 . …

Nicoleta Giura: Showing a heart stopper, and hoping to hear 3 .

Michael Kammermeier: Better to be in right strain at the wrong level than vice versa. I will force to 4 or 5 .

Ronald Michaels: The auction has made my hand stronger. … Although a slam is remote, needing a perfecta from partner, showing my heart values and [implied] diamond fit, followed by 4 , will make it easy to get to…the best game. …

Carsten Kofoed: My hand has grown, so I cue-bid 3 (I think a 4 cue-bid needs four-card diamond support). Partner could have A-K-J x A-K-x-x-x-x-x Q-x.

Brad Theurer: Partner may not have four spades (from the failure to double 3 ), but I have a good hand for having passed 3 … If partner bids 3 I’ll raise; over 3 NT, pass; and over 4 or 4 , I’ll try 4 . Partner knows I’m limited, so he won’t go crazy.

Roger Morton: I might have poked my nose in last time. Now that I have another chance, 4 is a bit unilateral; and 3 might be passed; so I’ll keep it rolling with 3 …

David Caprera: … This keeps 3 NT and 4 open as possibilities. If partner needed just a heart stopper for 3 NT, he would have bid [differently]. …

Joshua Donn: This seems easy to follow up: I will raise if partner bids 3 ; pass 3 NT; or otherwise go back to diamonds. Bidding spades myself does not seem right, as a 5-3 fit with this weak trump holding could be in trouble against a tap in either [hand].

Frans Buijsen: Showing my heart stopper and inviting 3 NT; otherwise, I’m going to 5 [unless partner bids spades].

Nelson Ford: For a strong, off-shape double, partner would have at least A-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x, losing a spade, a heart and possibly a diamond; but he could have as much as K-Q-x x A-K-Q-J-x-x-x A-x, probably just losing a spade (in diamonds) but possibly 2+ spades in spades — so diamonds [may be] better even with a 5-3 spade fit. …

Jacco Hop: Showing a heart stopper; I am going to game but not sure which yet.

Joel Singer: Shows a heart stopper and retains flexibility in finding spades, notrump or diamonds.

Luis Oliveira: Partner has a strong one-suited hand, as with four spades he would probably double again. Trump support, an ace and a singleton are good values.

Roger Gibbons: Worth a try, and this keeps spades in the frame, as well as 3 NT. Partner could hold 6+ diamonds and four spades. I will pass 4 .

Roland Watzdorf: Partner is strong, and we have at least one fit; and I have an ace and a singleton more than I promised. Playing IMPs, I don’t need to [strain] for a spade game, and I don’t intend to pass 3 NT…

Ron Landgraff: … This hand is now enormous! Slam is possible — maybe even likely with my controls in both hearts and clubs.

Damo Nair: A slight overbid, but this is a good hand after the previous pass.

Ed Shapiro: Difficult, but the A and singleton club make this hand too good to pass. Partner wouldn’t be taking his life in his hands at 3 [without a very good hand], and the lack of a second double makes a spade jump wrong.

J.J. Gass: … I think this should show a heart stopper. I’m happy to be dummy in a high diamond contract…, but I’d like to give partner a choice to bid 3 NT…

Gerald Cohen: A [slight] overbid to get to the best game. I will bid 4 next (if possible), and partner will know that 5 is reasonable if he has less than three spades.

Ragnar Paulson: … I’ll show my heart stopper and see if partner wants to try 3 NT [or bid spades]; otherwise, we’ll play in 5 .

Kent Feiler: This gives partner a chance to show a four-card spade suit; otherwise, diamonds might be our best bet.

Jim Munday: I’m too good to pass, and my objective is to find the best strain between spades and diamonds. Notrump is possible, I suppose, but my hand will provide more tricks in a suit contract. I want to make a call that leaves spades in the picture without [overstating] them (I’m willing to miss a 5-3 spade fit). …

Erik Lauer: Opponents have bid two suits, so I am showing a stopper.

Jordan Chodorow: This should get us wherever we want to be. If we miss a 5-3 spade fit, we may want to.

K. Scott Kimball: A multipurpose cue-bid! It shows my stopper and asks for a major. :)

James Hudson: Whatever this means, it keeps the bidding low. Opponents don’t seem to have a great fit, so I don’t expect partner to have much in spades; perhaps A-Q x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x. If partner next bids 3 NT, will I pass or take him back to diamonds? Ha! You didn’t ask that. :)

Barry Goren: Gives partner a chance to bid 3 , after which I will bid 4 — slam is possible.

Tim DeLaney: Partner has a very good hand with good diamonds, but he probably lacks spade support. (With spades and diamonds, he would repeat the double.) My hand is as good as it could be, so I’m on my way to 5 .

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

Problem 6

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1 1	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	Q 4 K J 9 8 K J 6 4 J 7 4

Your Call or Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
B. 2 then 3 (over 3 )	10	443	30
C. 2 then 3 NT (over 3 )	8	306	21
D. 2	6	172	12
A. 1 NT	5	154	11
F. 3 (forcing)	3	215	15
E. 2 NT (forcing)	2	129	9
G. 3 NT	1	34	2

Is this a good hand or bad hand? Opinions varied, but it seems too good for 1 NT or 2 , and surely not good enough to insist on game. As usual, there were complaints about the system, most notably: “Why can’t I bid 2 NT or 3 invitational?” And the usual shots like, “What idiot would play these methods?” Sorry, but rules are rules: All jumps by responder are forcing to game. If you don’t like it, um… well… sit on a cactus or something.

I am well aware that a majority of players use limit jump rebids, so this might be a good time to explain why the forcing treatment is clearly superior: (1) On slam auctions, the strain can be established quickly and manifestly (e.g., 2 NT, 3 , 3 or 3 on the problem sequence). Limit bidders must use a fourth-suit detour, which often leaves opener wondering if your next bid is pure or groping. (2) On invitational auctions, you can sometimes stop lower; e.g., to invite 4 , you would bid 2 , then if opener bids 2 or 2 , you will stop in 2 if opener rejects. (3) It is often necessary to bid the fourth suit on invitational hands without direction (e.g., A-x-x K-J-9-x-x K-x x-x-x) so “fourth suit game forcing” leaves a gaping hole in your system.

Whether I converted you or not, the forcing-jump principle is the default in these polls. Actually, I have mixed feelings about trying to convert people, as every time someone changes to this method, I lose some of my edge. Seriously, if you open your eyes to this structure, you are likely to agree.

Rather than underbid or overbid, the majority (51 percent) chose 2 to begin an invitational sequence. I anticipated this, so I divided the response into two parts, depending on your rebid. No doubt everyone intended to support diamonds next, but opener’s unexpected raise to 3 sheds a new light; 3 NT is now tempting since opener is marked with short hearts, and your soft heart values are wasted in diamonds.

Between Options B and C, I agree with the consensus to go low. Many cited the vulnerability; i.e., less reason to stretch for a nonvulnerable game, which is certainly a key factor. Opener’s 3 raise does not show extra strength — he should bid out his pattern with any 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=5=4 hand, since you might have a real club suit. Therefore, 3 NT is an overbid; though some will argue that 3 is, too, after learning your K-J rate to be useless.

Those who underbid with 1 NT or 2 offered better cases than those who overbid with 2 NT, 3 or 3 NT. Surely, if you have to guess, low is the way to go with an aceless hand including three jacks; and some argued the hand is not worth an invitation, period. Even so, downgrading has never been my forte. Let’s see; in my younger days, I would take an extra point for the 9-8. They dealt me those cards for something, right?

In Perth, evidently both North-South pairs were high on eucalyptus leaves:

North deals	K 9 5 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	2		Stansby	Mello	Martel	P Branco
	Q 9 7 5			1	Pass	1
	A K 8 2		Pass	1	Pass	2
J 10 8 3		A 7 6	Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
A Q 10 4 3		7 6 5	Pass	Pass	Pass
A 2		10 8 3
Q 6		10 9 5 3
	Q 4
	K J 9 8
	K J 6 4
	J 7 4

Brazil N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT South	3 NT South	M Branco	Ross	Chagas	Pender
Made 3 +400	Down 2 -100		1	Pass	1
		Pass	1	Pass	2
Brazil +11 IMPs		Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
		Pass	Pass	Pass

Similar overbids at each table, except Pedro Branco was endplayed into 3 NT, while Pender opted to bid it anyway. (Note how the preferred 1 opening with 4=1=4=4 allows a better structure.) So what else is new? As often seems the case in expert competition, the tendency is to bid games on the slightest excuse, and only worry about accuracy in the postmortem. To be sure, 3 NT is an egregious contract.

Brazil got lucky at the first table, as Stansby chose a heart lead (I would too) won by the nine. This in itself wasn’t fatal; but upon winning the A, Stansby shifted to the J*, which gave Pedro Branco a ninth trick, while the defense could win only four.

*The only successful defense with best play all around is for Stansby to lead a second heart; then Martel can hop with the A to run hearts.

At the second table, Pender was less fortunate. Marcelo Branco led the J, not a pretty sight when declarer won the queen; but the defense was easier with declarer not given a heart trick. Pender finished down two; 11 IMPs to Brazil.

A fitting end to my Wild West show… Americans were thrown from their saddles at both tables by a bucking Branco.

Comments for B. 2 then 3 (over 3 )

Alon Amsel: Well if anything except an underbid is forcing, I don’t have much of a choice — since I never underbid. :)

Mark Abraham: I can think of plenty of minimum balanced hands where 3 is in some trouble, but 1 NT is just too timid at IMPs.

Daniel Cecchelli: Force first, then show the support.

Chris Cooper: … Who do I want to play 3 NT, partner or me? Erm, partner!

George Klemic: If I am unable to make an invitational 2 NT call (bad system), I will bid 2 (forcing one round) then 3 , which must be passable. I am not forcing to game on this hand, especially once partner shows heart shortness. …

Jonathan Goldberg: I assume that this is invitational, since 3 is marked forcing. … Does my Q promote this hand to a game force? I don’t think so.

John Hoffman: Natural and safe; barely worth a nonvulnerable invitation. This lets partner off the hook with a minimum, and he will [continue] with midrange [values].

Peter Gill: As 3 would have been forcing, I presume this would be nonforcing. In Australia (down under), it’s vice versa for almost all the top players.

Thanks for the clarification. I think I finally understand the “down” in down under.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: This is the path to follow with 11-12 points and four diamonds according to the Bidding Guide. … Three notrump may be too high when partner is minimal; with full values, he will bid on.

Curt Reeves: Lets partner know I have a limit raise in diamonds with heart values; I don’t want to hang partner by forcing to game. Even a tinhorn should be able to follow up after this sequence. :)

Manuel Paulo: I don’t want to force game; but 1 NT and 2 look like too weak.

Leonard Helfgott: I don’t like the system where both 2 NT and 3 are forcing; but since they are, I’ll assume that the fourth suit followed by preference must be passable. …

Bruce Blakely: … I don’t like [bidding notrump] with the ratty clubs. I would want 3 to be nonforcing; but you didn’t give that option, so this is the only reasonable sequence.

Bogdan Vulcan: I hate this. A maximum 1 NT with a dubious club stopper? A weak invitation to game? Or even a weak game bid! …

Neelotpal Sahai: If there were no choices, I would opt for 2 NT, nonforcing. (You will surely get a lot of requests for this.) … I assume your “fourth suit forcing” is just a one-round force, so I opt for Choice B… Partner will know my general strength, and with a little extra he should bid 3 so I can declare 3 NT [with an appropriate heart holding like this]. …

Imre Csiszar: Apparently, this one is a test. Yes, I did read your Bidding Guide, saying that an invitational raise is given by bidding the fourth suit first. :)

Stephen McDevitt: I’m admittedly unsure what the standard system is; but I wish to invite 3 NT, and this seems like the only reasonable way to do so. I’m not going to get overly excited when partner bids 3 over 2 ; this isn’t much of an 11-count…

Scott Stearns: … I don’t see any way to invite, other than this…

Gerald Murphy: Since I can’t force to game with this hand, this sequence will tell partner I have around 11 HCP with diamond support…

Madhukar Bapu: This sequence clearly tells partner I have four cards in diamonds and describes my HCP well. …

Nicoleta Giura: The only way to invite, since 2 NT and 3 are forcing.

Julian Wightwick: … If the immediate 3 bid is forcing, I shall adopt this sequence to invite in diamonds. … [Despite the unexpected 3 bid] I shall describe my hand anyway, rather than lurch into 3 NT.

Sheldon Spier: According to your Bidding Guide, this is the only sequence that shows 11-12 points, so I lie about the club suit…

Rex Settle: Looks like a limit raise in diamonds. Partner can ask for heart stoppers with 3 if he has [more than minimal] strength.

Michael Kammermeier: At The Bridge World, I’d abstain; 3 forcing is one of the most moronic treatments ever.

I resemble that remark! And you’re wrong; it happens to be one of my least moronic treatments.

Ronald Michaels: Two notrump, 3 and 3 NT are big overbids; 1 NT and 2 are big underbids. Two clubs (fourth suit forcing) shows invitational or better values…; opener’s raise to 3 shows 4=0=5=4 or 4=1=4=4; and 3 shows a real diamond fit… If opener is still interested in game, he can bid 3 to find out how good my hearts are for 3 NT…

Carsten Kofoed: This must be nonforcing if a direct 3 is forcing. If partner passes, the nonvulnerable game will be too marginal. Partner can bid 3 if he wants me to bid 3 NT with good hearts. It is tempting to bid 3 NT over 3 , but partner may be looking at K-x-x-x x A-Q-10-x K-x-x-x.

Jonathan Steinberg: … Given your rules, I assume 2 is a one-round force and [begins] the invitational sequence that describes my hand. So I bid what I have — my theme for the month. :)

Jerry Gaer: If Choice F is forcing, this must be the way to invite, even though it distorts my distribution and suggests one or no spades.

David Caprera: … This hand is a limit raise, and I can’t imagine doing anything else.

Norbert van Woerkom: Opposite a minimum, I don’t want to go any higher than 3 . …

Joshua Donn: … I will overlook the yucky nature of this hand and invite…

Frans Buijsen: I presume this shows a limit raise, since there seems to be no other way. Partner’s 3 shows 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=5=4; but he’ll need some extra values to make 3 NT a good proposition…

Jyri Tamminen: If a direct 3 is forcing, then this should be invitational — it’s still an overbid. :)

Paulino Correa: This sequence invites 3 NT if opener’s hand is not minimum.

Bill Michell: [After 3 ] I still don’t know whether partner has enough strength to make 3 NT practical; I do know he has 4+ diamonds, though, so I’ll show the fit and [invitational] strength…

Joel Singer: … This should show a mildly balanced invitation to 3 NT.

Carlos Dabezies: Too good for 1 NT or 2 ; [barely] good enough for fourth suit forcing; then 3 suggests 2=4=4=3 shape.

Michael Spurgeon: After eliminating the weak bids and game-forcing bids, I am left with 2 . Since North’s 3 rebid promises nothing extra, there is no basis for bidding 3 NT. …

Paul Huggins: Showing an invitational hand in support of diamonds. … As I don’t have a club stopper worthy of the name, I won’t bid notrump — yet. :)

Roland Watzdorf: I choose H: 3 (invitational). Hmm. I cannot find Button H…

Petko Boukov: This is a precaution [versus Choice C] in case we don’t have the strength for 3 NT.

Damo Nair: This describes almost exactly what I have, so [there is no reason] to force with 2 NT or 3 [immediately].

Len Vishnevsky: Since it’s IMPs, I can barely stomach 2 then 3 [to invite] instead of 1 NT. …

Richard Morse: I have to leave partner an out if he is minimum, and this seems to express my hand quite well.

Bruce Scott: … I’m tempted to bid 3 NT over 3 , since the raise of the fourth suit shows…length; but my hand isn’t good enough. I’ll try 3 NT if partner takes another call. …

Gerald Cohen: … After bidding 2 , 3 is the value bid, particularly nonvulnerable. In a 1950s club game, what Edgar Kaplan called “the old black magic” might lead to a cheerful 2 .

Philip Pallenberg: This sequence should show 11-12 points. A direct 2 NT is an overbid, and 1 NT is an underbid. …

Uwe Gebhardt: Partner’s 3 raise implies only four diamonds [4=1=4=4 is more likely than 4=0=5=4] so I do not have enough to force to game.

Kent Feiler: The world’s worst limit raise. At matchpoints, I think I’d just bid 2 .

Jim Munday: Yuck. I’m not willing to commit to game with this garbage unless partner can make a move. This sequence shows [invitational] values with diamond support… At matchpoints, I would bid 1 NT…

Tim Francis-Wright: This sequence appears to be the best way to show an invitational hand with diamond support. My 11-HCP hand is hardly good enough to bid a forcing 2 NT.

Jordan Chodorow: The only sequence that makes sense. Bidding notrump is wrong, and game-forcing bids are unspeakable with this collection of quacks.

Charles Leong: … If partner is 4=3=5=1, I have a good hand; but opposite [short hearts] I have crap. Therefore, after fourth suit forcing, I bid 3 .

Ulrich Nell: Hopefully, partner will understand that I am in need of…a little more than a bare minimum.

Mauri Saastamoinen: [When I bid 2 ] I had an invitational hand in diamonds. Has it improved? No! If partner has a lousy collection like K-x-x-x x A-10-x-x K-Q-x-x, we should [stop in 3 ]. If partner has anything better, he will go on; and he could bid 3 to ask about my heart holding [for 3 NT].

Rik ter Veen: I want to look for game but not commit… so I choose the only sequence that is forward-going but nonforcing.

Carolyn Ahlert: … Highly invitational to game in either notrump or diamonds.

Ivan Viehoff: This seems to come down to system. … In England…, this sequence is forcing and Choice F is limit, so I choose F without sweating. In your area, F is marked forcing, so this must be limit. … Partner appears to be 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=5=4.

Comments for C. 2 then 3 NT (over 3 )

John R. Mayne: Two clubs allows a route out below game… but now that [partner has shown clubs], 3 NT figures to have some play, anyway. The hearts spots may make the difference.

David Grainger: Where is 2 NT invitational when you need it? :) This is tough because the only way of inviting (Choice B) [might] wrong-side 3 NT with partner holding a singleton heart. With all the fillers for partner, this hand is a bit too much just to bid 1 NT or 2 .

Shawn Tate: If we’re going to play notrump, I should declare; but…I’m too big to bid 1 NT. …

Sandy McIlwain: A slight overbid, but my hand has as much [potential] in notrump as in diamonds, and the heart spots should be useful.

Arpan Banerjee: … With clubs covered, I prefer the [aggressive move].

Kieran Dyke: … Once partner shows a three-suiter [with short hearts], I can’t see that 3 NT can be far wrong.

Robin Zigmond: Two clubs is clear-cut. [When partner bids] 3 , presumably showing 4=0=5=4 [or 4=1=4=4], 3 NT seems most attractive.

Robert Eachus: I normally don’t like “fourth-suit forcing” auctions, but in this case it is the least of evils. Having gone that route, I have to try 3 NT after partner [shows club length]. …

Timothy Liang Kan: Three diamonds was my intended next bid with this “notrump hand with a stopper”; but after 3 , it turns out to be unnecessary.

Nelson Ford: My Q and diamond honors have increased enough in value to push to game, so 1 NT and 2 are out (as well as 2 then 3 ). There is no need to rush to bid notrump without a club stopper…

Bill Powell: The 9-8 make this worth the shot.

Lajos Linczmayer: There is no reason to upgrade or downgrade this hand. Partner’s 3 shows…short hearts (zero or one).

David Turner: … Bidding 3 NT (rather than 3 ) over 3 at least ensures I will get some value out of my hearts.

Jean-Christophe Clement: … I assume 3 shows four clubs…, in which case 3 NT is a logical conclusion.

Frank Ayer: This 9-loser hand is not as good as it looks, although the Q is an asset. Once partner raises clubs, I’ll shoot out 3 NT, as I should get a heart or spade lead.

Mark Lincoln: … One notrump and 2 are underbids…; 3 NT is a drastic overbid and lies about club controls. I will start with 2 , expecting to bid diamonds next; but when partner raises to 3 , I will assume he is 4=1=4=4 or 4=0=5=4 and try 3 NT; if my hearts did not include the nine, I would bid 3 .

Karl Barth: … Two clubs looks like the only way to an invitational sequence… [After the 3 bid] I like my heart spots enough to rely on just my hand to stop the suit.

Ryan Stephenson: The only likely making game. Partner’s suits should produce tricks, and a heart lead shouldn’t cause me too much pain.

Willem Mevius: … This doesn’t look secure, but…at worst it will depend on the heart [layout].

Tony Rolfe: … If partner’s 3 says he has four clubs, I bid 3 NT. If it asks me for a partial stopper, I bid 3 NT. If it says something else, I bid 3 NT. :) …

Comments for D. 2

Josh Sinnett: … I’ll take the underbid with no aces, and bid strongly thereafter if partner doesn’t pass.

Jess Cohen: Quack, quack! I don’t like my hand.

Don Hinchey: Can I order a limit 3 bid from the PavCo Deli? (Hold the mayo!) …

Rai Osborne: The shape argues for notrump (only 1 NT on this trash); the good support and weak black cards suggest a suit contract. …

Jerome Farrugia: This seems slightly more positive than 1 NT…

Gerry Wildenberg: … Though my count is 11, the hand is aceless and quite possibly all three of my jacks are worthless. I’m going to call this a 10-count and rebid conservatively. If vulnerable, I might be more aggressive.

Narayan Mohanram: Not worth a [game invitation] when partner did not open 1 NT.

Tom Schlangen: … With all my quacks, I’ll survive this underbid unless partner has “shape and aces” without enough to move on.

Andrew Morris: My random collection of minor honors will improve only if partner can bid again.

Guray Sunamak: We may miss a game, but [other options] will probably be overbids. Nonvulnerable, I’ll risk [stopping low].

John Lusky: It’s easy to come up with hands where 2 is the limit, and there’s no reason to push for a nonvulnerable game. If partner bids 2 NT, I will happily raise — and we’ll be playing it from the right side.

Gordon Humphrys: This should show something better than a 1 NT response…

Comments for A. 1 NT

Brad Theurer: A slight underbid, justified by the very soft nature of my hand and only a partial club stopper. There are lots of 13-14 point hands partner can hold that offer little or no play for game — plus we are nonvulnerable, so a missed game is less costly.

J.J. Gass: … I’m not crazy about this flat, aceless 11-count, even upgrading the Q and K-J. I don’t want to be in game unless partner has extras, in which case he will probably not pass 1 NT… Two clubs is a slight overbid. Two diamonds (which I would take to be less encouraging than 1 NT) is an underbid.

Barry White: Two diamonds may be better; but even if opponents have five club tricks, this should make.

Winston Munn: This hand is not as good as it seems. Nonvulnerable, there is no reason to push for a close game that probably isn’t there unless partner can move over 1 NT.

Michael Shuster: With this very poor 11-count, we won’t miss many games if partner can’t act over 1 NT. The cost of going down by overbidding is comparable to the cost of missing a nonvulnerable game…

Erik Lauer: With 11 HCP, no five-card suit, no 10s and a doubleton queen, it should play the same as typical 10-count.

Rainer Herrmann: This hand should be devalued due to its lack of aces and unsupported lower honors in the black suits.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 741), and on each problem only for the top four calls (except Problem 5 only the top two). 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 Wild West flashback, or should I say outback. I’ve never been to Australia, but it becomes more and more tempting to visit. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks.

The saloon’s about to close, so it’s time to head on home. These dusty cowpokes can finish it off:

Kevin Lewis: This batch of problems weren’t as hard as last year’s. You ain’t gittin’ soft on us, now are ya, pardner?

Ron Landgraff: OK Corral, horse thieves, quick draw; is this Quiet Burp, I mean Wyatt Earp, in Tucson?

Curt Reeves: Why wasn’t there a hand with two aces and two eights?

And finally, the most convincing load of BS I can recall:

Tim Francis-Wright: The hands are from the 1988 Summer North American Bridge Championships in Salt Lake City — the year Bette Midler’s version of “Wind Beneath My Wings” hit the Billboard charts… The swans are Tundra Swans, which migrate to the Great Salt Lake… and the mountains are part of the Wasatch Range.

Analyses 8W24 Main Challenge

Scores Top Tales of the Wild West

© 2005 Richard Pavlicek