Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge
Swan Song Nets Huge Loss
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 8W32 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in March of 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 Elvis theme drew many guesses for Memphis, Tennessee (Graceland home); Indianapolis, Indiana (site of last Elvis concert); and Las Vegas (location of most Elvis performances) — despite the unlikely photos. Probably the best wrong guess was Honolulu, Hawaii (from Elvis film Blue Hawaii) — at least the pictures are plausible — and other sensible guesses included New Zealand; Australia; and Tokyo, Japan. Last and surely far-fetched were Houston, Texas; and Tupelo, Mississippi (Elvis’s birthplace). But I must admit you’re getting better: Nobody guessed Florida!
The tournament was held in Manila, Philippines. Pictured at the top is Lake Taal, located about 40 miles south of Manila; the island mound in the right foreground is an active volcano. Also pictured is a portion of the Peninsular Hotel, where the tournament was held, and a sunset view of Manila Bay. Probably the best clue was the scattering of manila folders, though few made the connection.
My title was a double entendre. Hidden by the contention that Elvis’s swan song (last performance) netted a huge loss (certainly not true) there was an abstruse bridge meaning. “Swan Song” is the nickname of John Swanson, and “Huge Loss” is the online handle of Hugh Ross. In the final of this tournament, Swan Song did indeed net (as in catch) Huge Loss to win the championship. OK, it’s a bit contrived, but so am I; so shut up. Nobody deciphered this, though a few came close, mentioning one name or the other.
My theme offered a clue to the year. Elvis Presley’s last concert was June 26, 1977 (he died August 16) and the tournament was held in October of that year. Only three persons correctly identified the location (Manila) and year (1977). Congratulations to Bill Powell, Richard Morse and Barry White — some familiar names in the PavCo Detective Agency.
The background song All Shook Up was included only for its Elvis connection, though it caused eight people to guess 1957 when it became a #1 Hit. Apologies for the red herring, but you should know by now that I can’t be trusted.
Michael Liu Wins!This poll had 1447 participants from 122 locations, and the average score was 45.35. Congratulations to Michael Liu (China), who was first of six players to post the winning score. Also scoring 59 were George Trigeorgis (Cyprus); Peter Gill (Australia); Jai Grama (India); Darren Cotterell (England); and our token American, Tim Francis-Wright (Massachusetts).
Participation this month was the second highest, falling just shy of the 1453 in January this year. Once again, there was no perfect score, although my decision to overrule on Problem 5 was largely responsible. The average score was up from the previous three polls but still on the low side (ninth lowest of all) and a record 764 players scored above average to make the listing. Problem 1 turned out to be disappointing with a majority (51 percent) voting for 3 
, but the rest were pretty good.
In the overall leaderboard, David Caprera (Colorado) increased his lead with a sizzling 57.25 average. Jorge Castanheira (Portugal) and John R. Mayne (California) are next with 55.75; followed by Geraint Harker (England) with 55.50; and Jouko Paganus (Finland) and Manuel Oliveira (Portugal) with 55.25.
For the poll, it is assumed you play a Standard American system, including 15-17 notrumps, five-card majors and weak two-bids. The objective is to determine the best calls based on judgment, so no specialized conventions are allowed. For a summary of the default methods, see my outline of Standard American Bridge.
Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.
The 23rd Bermuda Bowl (inaugurated in 1950) was held in Manila, Philippines, October 20-28, 1977 at the Manila Peninsular Hotel. Six teams were entered: USA Defending Champions (1976 in Monte Carlo) and five continental representatives: North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
A double round-robin, each team meeting each other in two 32-board matches, would determine the two finalists. After a grueling 320 boards over five days, the standings by Victory Points were: USA Defenders 137, USA Challengers 120, Sweden 95, Argentina 91, Australia 79, and Taiwan 69.
For the first time in world-championship history, the final would not be international. All-American! We can’t lose! This would also be the last time, as future events would qualify four teams, with the rule that any two teams from the same zone must meet in the semifinal. The reason was not to quash bridge talent but to ensure greater interest. As an analogy, compare the media interest of an all-Russian chess championship with that of Fischer-Spassky.
The USA Defenders were Hugh Ross, Erik Paulsen, Fred Hamilton, Mike Passell, Ira Rubin and Ron von der Porten. The Challengers were John Swanson, Paul Soloway, Billy Eisenberg, Eddie Kantar, Bob Hamman and Bobby Wolff. Pictured are Hugh Ross (L) and John Swanson — or as the stars of this bidding poll, Huge Loss and Swan Song.
The final would be 96 boards with a carryover from the qualifying round. This gave the Defenders a lead of 30.5 IMPs before the match even started — not a good idea to promote interest. Further, the half IMP was a nuisance throughout and ruled out any chance of a tie and play-off. Bridge certainly needs a media boost, and the World Bridge Federation gets a big fat zero for this screwball setup.
Despite the all-American final and organizational blunders, the match was one of the most exciting ever. The Defenders steadily increased their initial lead to a seemingly insurmountable 81.5 IMPs. Then the tide turned. The Challengers closed the gap and eventually took the lead, never to look back. The Challengers won 245 to 214.5 — and don’t forget the half — dealing the Defenders, well… a Huge Loss.
The tournament was unique in another respect. This was the first time since 1957, when the Blue Team took the bridge world by storm, that Italy failed to qualify. Sweden was the representative after upsetting Italy in the European Championships. Garozzo and crew no doubt had some laughs: All-American final? Is that an oxymoron?
OK folks, hoist the red, white and blue, and match your bids with the world’s best of 1977. Or don’t, and see if I care.
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 1
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 2
| NORTH 1  3  1
| East Pass Pass | South 2 ? | A 8 7 3 K J 10 9 6 3 K 5 2
|
| 1. nonforcing | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 734 | 51 |
| 4 | 9 | 181 | 13 |
| 3 | 7 | 178 | 12 |
| 4 | 6 | 26 | 2 |
| Pass | 4 | 219 | 15 |
| 5 | 2 | 110 | 8 |
Without interference, opener’s 3 raise would be forcing since a 2-over-1 responder promises to bid again. After the interference, it is controversial (some would assume 3 is still forcing) but I believe the nonforcing meaning is better in competition. Chances are often dimmed for 3 NT, so confirming a minimum-range opening allows sensible stops. I noted 3 with an asterisk, of course, because the default methods do not cover this detail.
I was disappointed by the majority vote. Virtually all 3 bidders intended it as a probe for 3 NT, which seems anti-percentage to me. Partner would have preferred 2 NT to a diamond raise on most hands that belong in 3 NT, so force-feeding it now is likely to catch partner with the A and Q, leaving no play. Surely, partner won’t have two heart stoppers; so even when he has the A, you still need to pick up the diamond suit to succeed. Three notrump could certainly be the ideal spot (e.g., opposite K-x-x-x-x A-x A-Q-x x-x-x) but I don’t like the odds.
I would bid 4 as a simple invitation to 5 , which will be reached opposite K-x-x-x-x A-x-x Q-x-x A-x; and avoided opposite K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x Q-x-x Q-x. This also gives partner a chance to bid 4 with a good suit (K-Q-J-x-x) to suggest an alternate contract, which I’d be happy to pass. I don’t care for 3 now, as it’s too committal, probably leading to many inferior spade contracts.
The only other action that appeals to me is 4 , which should serve the same purpose in regard to reaching 5 . The trouble is that 4 by partner would then be a control-bid by accepted practice*, so the chance of reaching 4 intelligently is lost.
*After a raise, most experts agree that a control-showing sequence can only begin by bidding an unbid (or enemy) suit. Hence, 4 starts control-bidding, so 4 is not natural.
The extreme options, pass and 5 , are like deciding your fate by a coin flip. Here’s a better idea: You won’t need that coin if you bid 4 , so drop it in a jukebox and punch “I’m All Shook Up.”
Here’s what happened in 1977:
| Ross vs Swanson | Q J 7 6 2 A 4 Q 5 2 A 8 7
| |
| K 5 3 K Q J 10 8 A 4 Q 6 3
|  | 10 9 4 9 6 5 2 8 7 J 10 9 4
|
| None Vul | A 8 7 3 K J 10 9 6 3 K 5 2 | |
| Swanson West 2 All Pass | Ross NORTH 1 3
| Soloway East Pass Pass | Paulsen South 2 4
| 4 South Made 5 +150 |
| Passell West 2 Pass | Kantar NORTH 1 Pass 3 NT | Hamilton East Pass Pass All Pass | Eisenberg South 2 3
| 3 NT North Down 1 -50 Ross +5 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at the first table, and Paulsen chose to bid 4 — a good choice, as game in notrump or diamonds was hopeless. In the play, Paulsen stole a trick by starting spades low toward dummy, ending with 11 tricks; plus 150.
At the second table, Kantar chose to pass 2 with his minimum then couldn’t resist the temptation to try 3 NT when Eisenberg rebid his diamonds. On a good day Kantar would catch x x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x K-x-x and be right. This was not a good day, as 3 NT was routinely set; 5 IMPs to the Defenders.
Hats off to the 3 bidders, as it would have led to the only makable game on this occasion. While 4 is unbeatable, it is hardly a good contract as it requires 3-3 spades and no diamond ruff.
Comments for 3 Darren Cotterell: I play this as asking for a stopper; but I’ve been caught out before trying to use this weird system.
Tim Francis-Wright: The best way to try for 3 NT, a likely game if partner has A-Q-x or A-x-x-x, a heart stopper, and almost anything else.
Joshua Donn: Straightforward. Three spades looks more like a “bidding poll answer” than a table answer.
Carlos Dabezies: Partner might have the A and a heart stopper but not a good enough hand to bid 2 NT. Three spades would suggest three-card support.
John Lusky: Game is still possible in spades, notrump or diamonds; and this seems the most flexible approach since it gives partner the chance to bid 3 or 3 NT. I will pass if partner bids 4 .
Chris Moore: Slam is not out of the question opposite a perfect minimum. I want to hear more.
Michael Palitsch: I will force to game; and the only available game might be 3 NT, 5 or even 4 . I cannot decide; maybe partner can.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Looks straightforward to ask for a heart stopper, and settle for 4 if it’s not there.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Asking for a heart stopper. Holding a doubleton heart, 3 NT is often closer than 5 . I will pass 4 ; raise 3 to 4 ; or bid 5 over 4 .
Timothy Liang Kan: Pass is too conservative, while any bid other than 3 looks premature.
David Caprera: Your notes do not state specifically whether 3 (double fit) would be forcing, but my interpretation is that it is not* (although I believe it should be). As K-x-x-x-x Q-x-x A-x-x x-x gives a play for game, it would be cowardly not to make a forcing bid; and as the given hand only makes game in 3 NT, this is the way to get there.
*You interpret correctly. A double fit of mediocre length is often a liability, dictating an additional unavoidable loser, plus the likelihood of mirrored side suits. See “When the Chips Are Down” Problem 3 for more on this. -RP
Thijs Veugen: This hand is worth a game try, and 3 NT seems the most plausible contract.
Andrew Straus: I might have jumped to 3 NT [over 1 ] to protect my K, but that wasn’t one of the options. Now I’ll see if partner can stop hearts, and hopefully avoid a club lead [from East].
Hendrik Sharples: A perfect minimum from partner makes 3 NT laydown, so I have to look for it.
Mark Reeve: Three notrump looks like the most likely game. If partner rebids 3 , I’ll raise to four; if he bids 4 , I’ll probably pass since I think there’ll be too many losers for 5 to make.
Mike Vaughn: Asking for a heart stopper to play 3 NT, or just asking for further description. This need not show a heart control.
Bogdan Vulcan: Nothing seems right; the good diamond texture forces me into another bid, and 3 seems most reasonable. Even a hand like Q-x-x-x-x Q-x-x A-x-x A-x can produce nine tricks in notrump.
Fraser Rew: Leaves all options open: 3 NT, 4 or 5 . With a shaky heart holding, partner should not bid 3 NT; he may bid 3 as a reinvite, over which I will bid 4 …
Randy Corn: I would actually bid 4 [which is unlisted], but this caters to 3 NT. Then I can bid 4 over 4 , get to slam and go down. :)
Luis Argerich: Having the A, a six-card suit, and a king with no wasted values in clubs is a good reason to make a move. If partner has heart values, 3 NT is probably the best game; if not, I will offer a choice between 5 and 4 .
John R. Mayne: I don’t know what the best contract is; maybe partner can help. I’m happy to overbid and force to game with this; committal actions or passing can’t be right.
Sartaj Hans: The objective of the bidding is to determine if you have game, and I bid 2 to help that cause. If I had planned to pass a 3 raise from partner, I might as well have responded 1 NT.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Three notrump is all but cold against the expected heart lead if partner has as little as K-x-x-x-x Q-J-x A-x-x-x x. Without a heart stopper, there’s likely a play for 5 ; or partner can rebid a chunky five-card spade suit, which I will then raise.
Frans Buijsen: Partner’s 3 is nonforcing but should still be positive with a decent hand. I’ll take a shot at 3 NT by angling for the heart stopper; otherwise I’ll try 4 in the 5-2 fit.
Paul Flashenberg: The sixth diamond sways me to try for game, and nine tricks are easier than 11; so I’m hoping that partner can bid 3 NT. I will pass 4 .
Kees Schaafsma: It’s inefficient to play this as a unilateral game force; invitational or better is more flexible.
Kees van Schenk Brill: The big questions: Are we off three top tricks in 5 ? Will 3 NT by partner go down on a club lead? I will ask for a heart stopper first; if partner has one, the nine-trick game will rarely go down; if not, I will propose 4 [so partner] can decide between 4 and 5 .
Christian Vennerod: Give partner J-x-x-x-x Q-x-x A-x-x-x A, and 3 NT is practically laydown. He may easily have a stronger hand: K-J-x-x-x x-x-x A-Q-x A-x; then 5 is a good contract. …
Amnon Harel: Both 3 NT (if partner has a heart stopper) and 4 (if he doesn’t have wasted heart strength) are possible. If I had to guess one contract, I’d pass; but 3 keeps hope alive…
Gabor Szots: Three notrump requires only a heart stopper, the A and one more trick from partner. If he shows no stopper but decent spades [with 3 ], 4 will have reasonable chances.
Tolga Yuret: If partner has K-Q-10-x-x K-x A-x-x x-x-x, he will bid 3 NT… If he has K-Q-10-x-x x-x-x A-x-x A-x, we have a good chance to make 5 .
Mark LaForge: While 3 is nonforcing, partner could have passed; so I expect at worst three small diamonds. Will partner do the right thing with A-x-x and the Q? Probably not, but that’s why I cue-bid — so partner can do the wrong thing. :)
Richard Morse: The best way to pinpoint partner’s high cards. Diamonds looks like the right strain; but at what level? It seems tame to give up, as partner could have passed.
Sebastien Louveaux: It is obvious I have to make a move towards game, and 3 NT…is the best candidate if partner can supply a heart stopper.
Bill Erwin: [Partner having] K-x-x-x-x K-x-x A-Q-x J-x is sufficient for 3 NT.
Alan Kravetz: I want partner to play 3 NT with a heart stopper.
Willem Mevius: Three notrump is within reach. The problem is that we may not be able to stop in 4 (unless partner bids it now).
Jean-Christophe Clement: At IMPs, game should be bid. This asks for a heart stopper, and lets partner choose between 3 NT and 5 .
Jorge Castanheira: I am not prepared to give up on 3 NT, and I don’t want to commit myself to a high-level diamond contract. I dislike my shape and will pass 4 very fast. :)
Sandy McIlwain: An effort to play 3 NT that leaves other contract options open.
David Colbert: Prime values and a six-card suit call for aggression.
Simon Cheung: A move toward game. Opener can rebid 3 with a chunky suit and thin heart stopper, like K-Q-10-9-x A-x-x Q-x-x Q-x, so as to avoid a hopeless 3 NT contract. Game could be cold opposite many minimum hands, so pass is a bit wet. If opener retreats to 4 , I can call it a day and pass.
Roger Morton: Marginal. Tell me more, partner; do you have an extra spade or a heart stopper?
Paulino Correa: Asking partner for a heart guard, aiming at 3 NT.
Brad Theurer: A close call. I might pass at matchpoints; but at IMPs it is just a bit too good with the sixth diamond and decent controls (fast tricks). Three spades would show three-card support, so 3 is the only bid to try for 3 NT. I hope partner has K-x-x-x-x K-x-x A-Q-x J-x.
Manuel Paulo: A cue-bid below 3 NT is unassuming, and a search for the best strain. With a heart stopper (e.g., K-x-x-x-x K-x-x A-Q-x J-x) partner bids 3 NT; or with club values (e.g., K-x-x-x-x x-x-x A-Q-x A-x) partner goes on to 5 .
Dale Freeman: I still think there could be a chance that 3 NT is possible.
Hmm… You think there could be a chance it’s possible? Kind of like finding life on the Moon.
Barry Rigal: I’m prepared to stop in 4 ; but 5 , 4 or 3 NT may be best. Three spades by me should surely show three cards.
Lawrence Cheetham: If partner makes the unlikely jump to 5 , it should make on the nose.
Carsten Kofoed: This keeps most possibilities open, and as I understand the system, it’s only forcing to 4 . If North has a heart stopper, he must also contribute the A in 3 NT. To pass with a hand when 6 is possible (?) is too pessimistic.
Gerald Murphy: Asking for a stopper. Three spades would show three-card support, and 4 bypasses 3 NT (which may make).
Josh Sinnett: I’ll start by probing for 3 NT, and end in 4 , 4 or 5 if partner can’t bid it.
Don Hinchey: A trifle aggressive, but surely the most flexible call.
Nick Krnjevic: Five diamonds is likely off three tricks, so let’s try for the nine-trick contract.
Lajos Linczmayer: I will pass over 4 or 3 NT; I bid 4 over 3 ; or 5 over 4 .
George Klemic: I don’t think it’s a stretch to try for 3 NT, and this has another way to win: If partner has good spades and lacks a decent heart stopper, he may bid 3 on the way; then 4 should be a fine contract.
Steve Moese: I’ll try to steal a game. If partner bids 3 , I bid 4 ; over 4 , I bid 5 ; over 3 NT, I pass. …
Comments for 4 Micah Fogel: Three spades would show three-card support for partner; 3 and 4 show better hands. I’m tempted to bid 5 ; but if I do, partner is sure to table K-Q-J-x-x A-x x-x-x A-x-x.
Ed Shapiro: Not the contest-winning call; but if I have to face more bidding from partner, it’ll keep things simple. Pass is my second choice. I don’t cue-bid 3 because…I don’t want to sit for 3 NT (partner didn’t bid 2 NT), and pulling 3 NT to 4 [should be forcing].*
*Good point. Systemically, cue-bids are forcing to game or four of a previously bid minor; but once game is reached, you cannot stop in a partscore — unless 3 NT were doubled. -RP
Christopher Earl: On many of the hands where 3 NT is better than 5 , partner would have tried 2 NT rather than 3 .
Chris Gibson: My hand isn’t good enough to force game, especially with [the K] in front of West, who should have a pretty good hand for his two-level overcall. At the same time, I can easily envision hands for partner that have good plays for game; so I pass the buck and let partner decide.
Jonathan Monroe: I have a very good 7-loser hand, so 5 should have a play opposite any non-minimum opening. Three notrump (via 3 to ask for a heart guard) needs diamonds to run, which implies A-Q-x or A-x-x-x support; and even then, we need the K or A for a ninth trick.
Solaris Whitesail: Just a limit raise. Without a stopper or half stopper in hearts, I am loath to ask with 3 .
Mauri Saastamoinen: Difficult. Three spades would make it easy for partner to bid 4 with K-Q-J-x-x x-x-x A-x-x-x x; but with K-x-x-x-x x-x A-x-x-x A-x, we’d probably reach a lousy 4 instead of 5 ; or with K-J-x-x-x x-x-x A-Q-x Q-x, a lousy 3 instead of 4 .
Kieran Dyke: This (nonforcing) feels right; 3 NT does not. If partner next suggests 4 , he can have it.
Imre Csiszar: If game is available, 5 appears the most likely one; and I prefer the honest, descriptive bid. A misdescriptive 3 may be the winner,…but a bad result is more likely; partner may bid a bad 4 ,…or 4 with K-x-x-x-x x-x A-x-x-x A-x when he would have raised 4 to five.
Comments for 3 Bill Cubley: Partner might [allow for] my having only two spades; but 4 might just make while 5 nets a huge loss. Three notrump is still open for partner to declare.
Leonard Helfgott: Holding A-x and worthless ruffing value is close enough to x-x-x. … While 4 (second choice) should elicit a 4 rebid with chunky spades, partner might not view K-Q-x-x-x as an OK holding. With a six-bagger and great spots, my hand would open 1 ; so it is too good to pass.
Brian Meyer: Seems like our best game will be 4 . … I suppose I could bid 3 and correct to spades later, but that feels like a slam try.
Jim Munday: This should help us reach the best strain; I don’t want to give up on 4 , and [6 ] is also a remote possibility. I am reluctant to pass 3 . Three hearts is possible; but even if partner has hearts stopped, I’m skeptical about notrump since partner didn’t bid 2 NT over 2 .
Dale Rudrum: This is a typical nonforcing 3 — A-x, K-x or Q-x and invitational values for 3 NT or 4 . With [11-12] points and a double fit, I would bid 4 ; with game-forcing hands, I’d cue-bid 3 . I am not sure if partner agrees, but he will next time.
Rainer Herrmann: Too many hands become unbiddable if delayed support cannot be given with a doubleton honor.
Jim Wiitala: Partner would have bid notrump with a heart stopper and [the A] (or 3 if needing only a heart stopper) so spades and diamonds are the choices.
Steve White: … Partner has room to scramble if his spades are weak.
Bill Daly: Partner will know when it is right to bid 3 NT or 4 . We could be overboard, of course, but I’m only wrong if there are exactly nine tricks in diamonds.
K. Scott Kimball: Hmm; would partner have bid notrump instead of diamonds if he had a heart stopper? This should show another spade, but it looks like we are headed to 4 anyway.
Bill Powell: Invitational hand; secondary spade support. …
Nicoleta Giura: I need more than a heart stopper to make 3 NT, so I’m looking for alternatives.
Damo Nair: A natural bid, leaving all options open.
Gerald Cohen: Leaves room for 3 NT while holding open both pointed-suit games.
Comment for 4 Nigel Marlow: Slam rates to be a good prospect if partner has something like K-x-x-x-x K-x-x A-x-x A-x.
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 2
| IMPs | None Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 2
| NORTH 1 Pass | East Pass Pass | South 1 NT ? | 5 8 6 A 9 4 3 2 A Q 9 8 2
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 580 | 40 |
| 2 NT | 8 | 190 | 13 |
| Double (penalty) | 6 | 238 | 16 |
| Pass | 5 | 209 | 14 |
| 3 | 4 | 130 | 9 |
| 3 | 2 | 101 | 7 |
Some respondents complained about the response of 1 NT, which violates my Bidding Guide.* Keep in mind that the Guide is just that, a guide to the basic structure, written primarily for students. Experienced players know that rules are made to be broken, or at least bent, so judgment and foresight are the keys to avoid awkward predicaments.
*Default methods evaluate this hand at 11 points (1 for the doubleton heart but nothing for the singleton in partner’s suit), which makes it good enough for 2 . Trouble is, this would necessitate 3 next, effectively a game force, which is more of an overbid than 1 NT is an underbid.
OK, so 1 NT didn’t work this time.* West’s 2 overcall and partner’s pass jumped out like an angry “Hound Dog,” so now you must make the best of a bad situation. I agree with the consensus to bid 3 . Any attempt to show both minors would surely get you overboard facing a known minimum, so it makes sense to compete in the stronger suit. If dummy hits with three diamonds and a stiff club, too bad.
*Without interference, you would have been well-placed. If opener bid 2 or 2 , I would raise to game; over 2 , I would bid 2 NT; and over 2 , pass seems prudent.
What about an unusual 2 NT for the minors? That would be great if it meant that, or if partner were clairvoyant; but realistically, 2 NT is natural showing a maximum 1 NT response (10 HCP). On a good day, this could be your best spot (e.g., facing K-J-x-x-x Q-x-x-x K-x K-J) — well, except perhaps for 2 doubled. Even if partner lacked a heart stopper, you might lose only five heart tricks and make 2 NT, so it’s a reasonable punt; and surely a lot better than venturing 3 on a lousy suit.
The most dynamic action is to double.* The stiff spade offers prospects for a brutal defense, but the lack of trump length could backfire miserably (opponents could have a nine- or 10-card heart fit for all you know). Double would be appealing at matchpoints, but at IMPs it seems anti-percentage.
*My note that double was penalty was not really required, as this is the standard meaning after partner has bid. Nonetheless, I often clarify the meaning of doubles because of the modern tendency to play more doubles for takeout.
Here’s now the cards fell in Manila:
| Swanson vs Ross | A 9 8 7 3 2 A 10 2 Q 8 K 10
| |
| K 10 K Q J 9 5 4 K 10 7 4 3
| | Q J 6 4 7 3 J 7 6 5 J 6 5
|
| None Vul | 5 8 6 A 9 4 3 2 A Q 9 8 2 | |
| Paulsen West 2
| Swanson NORTH 1 2
| Ross East Pass All Pass | Soloway South 1 NT | 2 North Made 3 +140 |
| Eisenberg West 2 Pass | Passell NORTH 1 Pass 2
| Kantar East Pass Pass All Pass | Hamilton South 1 NT Dbl | 2 North Made 3 +140 No swing |
The problem situation arose at the second table, but I decided not to allow Hamilton’s takeout double — “How con-veen-ient” comes to mind via Dana Carvey as the Church Lady. Lacking this agreement, I suspect Hamilton would bid 3 , too.
Not much excitement on this deal, as 2 made three at each table for a lull in the storm. It seems that 3 would produce 10 tricks for the same push.
Comments for 3 Darren Cotterell: I can hear it now: “Who plays penalty doubles here?” as everyone bemoans the crap system again. :) Hopefully, partner will realize I have very short spades on this sequence — mine never do, though.
Tim Francis-Wright: This is right on values and only one card wrong on length. I want to double 2 , but we ought to be better favorites than this to make the double pay off.
Joshua Donn: Double should suggest more than a couple small hearts; so rather than take a huge risk, I’ll just bid something sensible looking.
Norbert van Woerkom: I’m not very happy with this choice. I think I might have chosen 2 on the first round to be able to show my hand better.
John Lusky: … This could turn a plus into a minus; but a penalty double on two small is too rich for my blood.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Pass seems pusillanimous (bridge panels are great vocabulary builders) so I have little choice but to bid my better minor.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: There is no way to show both minor suits. I have a lot of playing strength, so I’ll try 3 (much better suit than diamonds) which will have good chances even if partner doesn’t have support.
Timothy Liang Kan: Unless partner has passed with four hearts or six spades, we must have a minor-suit [fit]. Holding only two hearts argues against trying to punish any misadventure by West — at least at this level — despite the quality 10 HCP, singleton spade and the vulnerability.
David Caprera: We won’t necessarily go plus in 2 doubled or passed; 2 NT is not for minors by any agreement I have; so I bid my best suit at the cheapest level. I don’t get it. You saddle us with this anti-2-over-1 system where nothing is forcing…but then bid 1 NT with a 10-count, extreme shape and two bullets.
I’m an old cowhand…from the Rio Grande. Does that explain the saddle and bullets?
Tysen Streib: I’d love to be able to make an unusual 2 NT bid, but I think the probability of partner misunderstanding it would be high. If 2-over-1 is not game-forcing, as it appears in Problem 1, why did I not bid 2 ?
Mark Reeve: Pass seems [timid]; double is dreadful if it’s penalty since I don’t have anywhere near the defense to guarantee 2 is going off; 2 NT looks natural to me; and 3 is an overbid. So it’s guess-a-minor time, and my clubs are stronger.
Bogdan Vulcan: Double is appealing with two aces and a stiff spade — but not so appealing with 8-6 in trumps, a suit in which partner will assume I have more cards. Bidding 3 is also an option, but I’d hate the 4 rebid [if I ever got the chance].
Chris Gibson: I should have another club for this, but I am comfortable at this nonvulnerable. I’ve already limited my hand, so partner shouldn’t get too excited.
Fraser Rew: If 2 was not game forcing on Problem 1, how can I justify not bidding 2 here? Now I can never adequately describe my hand, so I opt for the bid with the most potential.
Frans Buijsen: Too much to pass…and no way to [show] both my suits; alas, I’ll just have to bid the better and the lower.
Leonard Helfgott: A gamble that could backfire badly; but I simply cannot pass, and a gambling 2 NT is unappetizing.
Brian Meyer: This carries a little risk, but I cannot risk a penalty double. Yes, it’s our hand; but partner will never guess I’d double on x-x in trumps.
Solaris Whitesail: I find a double too risky, and I don’t like giving in to a mere 2 with the balance of points.
Tolga Yuret: And then pray.
Mauri Saastamoinen: … Two notrump would be natural (e.g., x-x A-Q-x K-J-x-x-x x-x-x), and 3 might get us overboard, so there might be no satisfactory answer. Since East was quiet, I will try to go quietly, too. … I bid clubs instead of diamonds because the bidding may die [there]. If East bids 3 , I will continue with 3 NT to show 4-6 in the minors; at best I may find partner with A-K-J-x-x x-x Q-J-x-x x-x.
Dale Rudrum: Serves me right for being such a stickler for HCP! This is a 2 response (when not game-forcing). Now I can only bid 3 and hope for the best.
Carsten Kofoed: If 2 NT showed a two-suiter, this wouldn’t be a problem. If 3 doesn’t come home, West [may] have won eight tricks in 2 .
Jan Andersson: Very difficult; but without special methods, no bid is perfect. With two aces, I cannot give up.
Comments for 2 NTCarlos Dabezies: This [should] mean both minors and a hand at the top of the 1 NT range.
Chris Moore: [I hope] partner will pick a minor. I will pass 3 NT.
Michael Palitsch: This is the most flexible bid without going overboard. I pray that partner will not bid 3 NT without a heart stopper.
Tim DeLaney: My guess is that West can make 2 , and if that’s the case I cannot be hurt at 2 NT. Perhaps partner will be unbalanced and bid a minor. My bid is certainly odd; but can he interpret it as “unusual?”
David Wiltshire: It’s easy to say this clearly shows the minors — when there isn’t a partner to prove you wrong. :)
Thijs Veugen: I don’t mind if partner interprets this as the minors; but despite the lack of a heart stopper, I’m willing to show my extra values.
Ed Shapiro: It would be clearer if the auction were opened 1 and West overcalled 2 , but 2 NT [should be] unusual here, too. Double is just too risky, even though we might pick up a pretty good number.
Jim Grant: Well, if you don’t play 2 NT here as unusual, you should. I don’t know how close we are to six or seven tricks, so I’m not keen on doubling for penalty.
Ned Kohler: Assuming 1 NT was nonforcing, this [should] show the minors.
Jack Lacy: I hope this asks partner to pick a minor.
Sartaj Hans: I want to pass, but I don’t have the courage. Maybe after seeing the result of this hand, I’ll have some courage next time. :)
Rosalind Hengeveld: This may work out even if partner doesn’t take it for the minors (but I think he should). I find it hard to think of a hand with which I would now want to bid a natural 2 NT.
Kees van Schenk Brill: As I could have doubled for penalty [with hearts], 2 NT should not be natural and therefore best played as showing both minors.
Christian Vennerod: If partner does not understand this, I will learn a valuable lesson: I need a new partner.
Amnon Harel: If double is penalty, 2 NT [should] be minors. I usually play competitive 2 NT bids assumed artificial unless clearly natural.
Wolf Klewe: For the minors; a 2 NT contract is anathema.
Jason Rosenfeld: I think that 2 NT on this auction should be takeout for the minors. So long as you have a penalty double of 2 available, it seems [unlikely] that you would need a natural 2 NT bid. …
Sebastien Louveaux: It would be nice if this showed the minors, or if I had a takeout double available. … Nothing is perfect, as three of a minor risks finding partner’s singleton, and 3 would be too much… At least 2 NT shows my high-card values while keeping the bidding low enough.
Rainer Herrmann: Playing 2 NT as natural in this sequence just doesn’t make much sense.
Jean-Christophe Clement: With 10 HCP, I’m a bidder. Double for penalty is too dangerous; pass is reasonable — and may be my choice tomorrow. :)
Olle Morell: If double is penalty, 2 NT [should] show the minors. Otherwise, the system is unplayable.
Simon Cheung: A Humpty-Dumpty bid — meaning whatever I want — is a definite winner in the postmortem. If partner interprets this as natural, I can argue that balanced invitational hands are not handled this way in Standard American… So this should be for takeout, even though not explicitly agreed. …
Brad Theurer: I hope partner works out that I can’t have much in hearts since I didn’t double. I refuse to commit to bidding either of my suits; I’m too good to pass, and not good enough to cue-bid 3 . If partner has a heart stopper and passes 2 NT, that doesn’t have to be bad.
Steve White: There is no mention of this being unusual in the system notes; but within the range of hands suitable for 1 NT, none would be suitable for 2 NT natural.
Alon Amsel: If double is for penalty, partner should understand that 2 NT is based on [both minors]. He will surely bid a 4-card minor if he has one.
Kieran Dyke: If this is an old-fashioned system, maybe I’ve denied the values for a real 2 NT bid and this can be read as minors. If it’s a modern system, why isn’t double for takeout?
Jack Brawner: If double is penalty, this must suggest the minors. Hopefully, it’s been discussed before the post-disaster postmortem. :)
Bill Daly: Is this readable? If I had anything big in hearts, I’d double instead; wouldn’t I?
Nicoleta Giura: I assume this shows minors; we could still have game on.
David Harari: Playing double as penalty is, of course, wrong; and choosing one minor randomly is silly. So this should show both minors…
Hongjun Zhong: I think this should be unusual. The logic is that I would double if I had good hearts and the strength to bid 2 NT naturally.
Comments for DoubleHendrik Sharples: This should mean “do something intelligent”; but barring that…agreement, I’ll hope my 2 1/2 honor tricks [and singleton spade] will do enough damage.
Paul Flashenberg: Even though this is ostensibly penalty, it could work out very well if we can get a defensive crossruff going. I have too much to pass, and anything else is too unilateral. (I’ve been minus 470 before.)
Willem Mevius: This is penalty; but partner won’t expect a stack of hearts, especially in this position. Anyway, I’m quite confident that 2 is going down.
Jorge Castanheira: Great problem — a misfit, yet I cannot pass with two nice suits and good values. Three in any minor is a guess and suggests more then five cards; and 3 is a dangerous overbid… So my choice is between an ambiguous 2 NT and a sharp double. I love the ocean.
Sandy McIlwain: A penalty double under the bidder should look something like this: tricks rather than trumps.
K. Scott Kimball: Why did I bid 1 NT to start with on this hand? I would have planned to bid out my suits. I guess I have to double now. Partner could have heart [length]; and if not, he [may] bid a minor.
Ognian Smilianov: Partner should pull this with two [or fewer] hearts; but with three hearts (three small would be ideal with 3 NT impossible), [he will pass]. The singleton spade is also a key factor [to suggest] double, and not bidding. …
Robin Zigmond: Looks like a misfit. Two hearts doubled down two (or thereabouts) will do nicely.
Comments for PassLuis Argerich: I declare myself fixed, and this way I won’t go for a number. It’s good to be nonvulnerable, as I don’t mind missing a thin game.
John R. Mayne: The system doesn’t call for an initial 2 here? Blargh. And 2 NT is natural? Ick. I’ll take the peaceful, cowardly plus.
Gabor Szots: Sometimes you just have to concede to circumstances.
Richard Morse: All bids are dangerous. Even though pass seems feeble on this collection and risks a sad score, it is ultimately less risky than plowing on to try to find a makable contract.
Roger Morton: … West is probably going off in 2 , but double is too risky with only a doubleton trump. Two notrump for the minors would be nice, but I think it’s natural in this position.
Barry Rigal: We are unlikely to have missed a game. Unless 2 NT shows minors (it does not), I’ll settle for defense. A good hand for a takeout double!
Harold Simon: I’ll take what seems like a fairly sure plus score — and a great deal less dangerous than bidding. Bidding? What?
Bill Powell: I wish I’d bid 2 . At pairs, I’d try an unusual 2 NT; but at IMPs, the desperation to compete isn’t quite that strong.
Scott Stearns: The stuff nightmares are made of. Partner didn’t bid again, so his hand is minimum; we’re likely in a misfit partscore swing; but I can’t make a penalty double under the bidder at IMPs. I’ll risk losing 6 or 7 IMPs to save myself from going for a phone number. At matchpoints, yes I double.
Don Hinchey: I wanna double, I wanna double, I wanna double — but I’m chicken! :)
Steve Mager: We probably have a partscore in a minor if I guess right; but if I guess wrong, I may turn a likely plus into a minus. At IMPs, I’ll take the likely small plus; at matchpoints, I’d guess a minor.
Steve Moese: All actions misrepresent my hand (or get us too high) when a misfit is likely. … I’ll hope for a small plus. Too bad a balancing double after 1 NT isn’t for takeout.
Damo Nair: Given that double is penalty, isn’t anything a guess here?
Ed Barnes: Having butchered this hand already, I can’t turn it back into a whole cow without some clever tools — but 2 NT for takeout would be a good start.
Sandy Barnes: An “action” double would be my choice; but under the conditions, I will try to go plus on defense. (At matchpoints I would double for penalty.)
Gillian Paty: If I had bid 2 (not 1 NT),…3 would accurately complete my hand description. How can I guess now which minor to bid? Two notrump would confirm a heart stopper; double is for penalty; and 3 with spade shortness will put us in a hopeless contract. … I’m forced to pass now. :)
Gerald Cohen: Unfortunately, neither double nor 2 NT will show this hand. I am sure that three of one minor is better than defending; but I don’t know which one.
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 3
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 1
| East Dbl | SOUTH Pass ? | 6 4 Q A J 8 7 5 Q J 8 5 4
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 10 | 535 | 37 |
| Pass | 9 | 148 | 10 |
| Redouble | 8 | 553 | 38 |
| 2 | 4 | 94 | 6 |
| 1 NT | 3 | 80 | 6 |
| 2 NT | 1 | 38 | 3 |
Just in case you haven’t had your fill of minor two-suiters, here we go again. With 10 HCP, the textbook call is to redouble; but it’s easy to see how this might cause a predicament. Opponents are likely to have a comfortable home in spades, and you’ll be poorly placed if the auction is at 2 or higher by your next turn. Further, your 10 HCP could prove dismal on defense.
It appears from the scoring that I overruled the consensus, but that’s not the case. Basically, there are two sensible approaches: (1) Show your strength, or (2) try to show both suits. Redouble does the first; 2 does the second — but so does pass followed by 2 NT* over the inevitable enemy spade bid. Thus, the combination of 2 bidders and passers clearly outnumber the redoublers.
*Obviously an application of the unusual notrump since you would have bid 1 NT or redoubled previously with any desire to play in notrump.
Some of the redoublers were also pedants to the system, i.e., “I have 10 HCP, so I redouble; end of story.” Sorry, but that’s the kind of thinking that will ruin your bridge game. Experts are well aware that judgment is more important than a point or two with hands on the cusp. Bidding rules are only guides to serious players.
Other options are vastly inferior. Bidding clubs first makes it impractical to bid diamonds later, so it’s little more than a blind guess; and 1 NT is a distortion extraordinaire. And 2 NT? In absence of the Truscott (aka Jordan) convention, I would assume it is natural (invitational); and failure to redouble suggests it is based on a three-card fit. At least, there is no precedent for 2 NT to be unusual in my experience. In real life, however, partner would assume you forgot the system and were showing a limit heart raise — and that could spell disaster.
Warning: Ask your children to leave the room, as these happenings are not for young eyes. Are they gone? OK, then take a peek:
| Swanson vs Ross | A 8 7 2 K 10 8 4 2 6 K 9 3
| |
| K 10 5 J 9 6 5 3 10 3 10 7 2
|  | Q J 9 3 A 7 K Q 9 4 2 A 6
|
| N-S Vul | 6 4 Q A J 8 7 5 Q J 8 5 4 | |
| v.d.Porten West Pass Pass 3 4 Pass All Pass | Swanson North 1 Pass Pass Pass Pass | Rubin East Dbl 3 4 5 5
| Soloway SOUTH Pass 2 Pass Pass Dbl Dbl | 5 × West Down 4 -700 |
| Eisenberg West Pass 1 Pass | Passell North 1 Pass 3
| Kantar East Dbl 2 All Pass | Hamilton SOUTH Pass Pass 2 NT | 3 North Made 4 +130 Swanson +11 IMPs |
The problem scenario arose at each table, as Soloway and Hamilton invoked different but similar tactics to show their two-suiter. Soloway bid 2 intending to bid 3 next, but something strange happened on the way to the forum. Hamilton passed and then neatly applied the unusual 2 NT to find the perfect spot; 3 made 10 tricks when the defense failed to lead or shift to trumps.
At the first table, “The Beast” Rubin seems to have outdone his own image, but it was really a mechanical error. This was the early days of screens and bidding trays, and Rubin thought his partner bid 2 . Meanwhile, Soloway watched quietly for a few rounds, as the beastly auction spiraled and the grave deepened. The five level finally drew the ax, and it all ended in an unglamorous 5 doubled. Poor von der Porten had to play it and did the best he could to finish down four — only 700 in the old scoring but an 11-IMP gift to the Challengers.
Seeing this auction in a world championship brings hope to bridge players everywhere. Our worst blunders are almost never this bad.
Comments for 2 Peter Gill: It’s important to prepare for West’s likely 2 call. Being a passed hand, my best description is to call 2 then 3 .
Darren Cotterell: This leaves room to bid 3 over partner’s 2 , or an opponent’s 2 .
Tim Francis-Wright: This leaves me an easy 3 bid next, whether or not opponents bid 2 . Bidding 2 could lose the diamond suit after a likely 2 intervention.
Joshua Donn: This could be bad if partner passes with a stiff diamond but otherwise leaves me well-placed — as opposed to 1 NT or redouble, which leaves me no good continuation after 2 P P.
Carlos Dabezies: I want to bid both suits, as I would without the intervening double. If I redouble,… I am likely to lose the chance to bid twice easily.
Norbert van Woerkom: Attempting to describe my hand. I don’t want to bypass 2 as a possible contract…
John Lusky: This sets me up to compete with 3 over 2 .
Michael Palitsch: I’m strong enough to redouble but have the wrong distribution. This way, I hope to get a chance to bid clubs.
Tim DeLaney: Simply trying to find our best spot. Redouble is ill-advised because it is very unlikely we can penalize a spade contract.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Redouble is certainly possible; but this isn’t a great 10-count, and I want to give partner some slack for opening in third seat.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Nonforcing… I will bid 3 next if possible. If I redouble first, I am in trouble if opponents bid 2 (or higher).
Kerry Lafferty: I doubt the auction will die before I get to show the club suit.
Thijs Veugen: This gives me the chance to introduce the club suit later. The doubleton spade restrains me from redoubling.
Erik Lauer: This way, I can bid 3 next time.
Bill Cubley: I have enough to bid and not be afraid to play 3 or 3 later. Two notrump should be a limit raise in hearts. … Hmm… two consecutive problems where I cannot bid 2 NT for the minors. Does Al Roth (inventor of the unusual 2 NT) know about this?
Mark Reeve: Pass is wet; redouble will have opponents bidding too many spades. I pick 2 because it’s a slightly stronger suit…
Jonathan Monroe: What about a 1 baby psych? I wouldn’t do it, but it is certainly among my top three choices (along with redouble).
Kalle Byden: This is nonforcing since I would [normally] redouble with 10+ HCP. Next I will bid 3 .
Donald Caplin: Lead-directing; then 3 over 2 if it rides around to me.
Ted Ying: If the auction doesn’t die, I’ll compete to 3 [next].
Rosalind Hengeveld: Bidding 2 now, then 3 over opponents’ expected 2 , looks a lot smarter than to redouble; then what? A new suit after a redouble would be construed as forcing [except by a passed hand]. The fact that 2 is weak and nonforcing does not mean it must always be rubbish.
Leonard Helfgott: Not good enough for redouble, and I want to get in both minors if opponents bid spades.
Christian Vennerod: I need to start showing suits before it is too late. Two notrump unusual would be nice, but it shows heart support.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Redouble might get us buried soon… after West preempts with 2 . If possible, I’ll bid 3 next. Opponents will buy the contract with 3 if they are quick enough to bid it…
Jim Munday: This hand will be tough to describe after a redouble and enemy spade. I plan to rebid 3 …
Dale Rudrum: What a lousy hand. This is not enough for redouble (10+ HCP); I play and prefer 8+ HCP (or a good 7) which makes it an even greater problem. Because 2 is 6-10 points, I can safely bid 3 if I get the chance.
Richard Morse: Tempting to pass and await developments, but the auction may be at 2 by the time it gets back to me. After 2 , I can complete my shape with 3 .
Willem Mevius: I won’t redouble, as I may be stuck if opponents [bid spades]. I won’t bid notrump, as it looks like that should be played from partner’s side…
Jorge Castanheira: I must start bidding my suits, or I’ll be out of the equation soon… A redouble just loses time and space…
Sandy McIlwain: Too soft to redouble; I will try 3 over spades.
David Colbert: Maybe my last bid with this junk.
Jim Wiitala: To get both minors in. If I redouble, what would I bid after 2 by an opponent? Or 3 by partner?
Paulino Correa: There’s a danger that E-W have a spade fit, so I better start describing my two-suiter.
Brad Theurer: Is this hand good enough to redouble? If partner has [four] spades, I want to penalize; but if he doesn’t, I’d rather start to show my suits. At these colors, I’ll give up on the marginal redouble.
Bill Daly: If I get the chance, I’ll bid 3 next. Personally, I play 2 as semiconstructive; if I had Q-J-x-x-x-x-x and out, I would pass.
My partners alert all my bids as “semiconstructive,” but they know it really means “half-assed.”
Imre Csiszar: This (followed by 3 ) describes my strength and shape well, and only risks 2 being passed, or West bidding 2 and East 3 . Because of that, pass followed by an unusual notrump might be preferable, but I’m not sure it would be unambiguous without prior discussion. Redouble, though fine if game is available, makes it hard to stop if not.
Lawrence Cheetham: Then 3 if the chance occurs. Redouble serves no purpose because I have no clear action when 1 (let alone 2 ) is passed around.
Scott Stearns: People who redouble deserve to hear it go 2 P P. I’ll ignore the double and bid the higher ranking of two five card suits like I was taught. …
Don Hinchey: I expect spade bids from the opponents, so I better get my suits in early.
Nick Krnjevic: Although this is nonforcing, West will likely bid 2 ; then I will bid 3 .
Nicoleta Giura: I don’t like redouble with two small spades. I choose 2 [to prepare] for a club bid later.
Ognian Smilianov: No doubt, we are going to face a battle against opponents’ spades, especially when they are white vs. red. Redouble also has merit, but it allows West to bid 1 … I will bid 3 later if possible.
Steve Moese: I don’t have enough defense to redouble, so I’ll mark time for now.
Comments for PassTimothy Liang Kan: If opponents bid spades, I’ll be happy to double for takeout. In contrast, a redouble leaves no room to maneuver when the bidding goes as expected; notrump bids are too distorted; and choosing one 5-card suit to bid over the other is largely a guess.
Ed Shapiro: I may have a chance to double an opponent, or judge later to bid an unusual notrump. I hate redouble, since it would make partner’s pass over West’s call forcing.
Bogdan Vulcan: Pushing the bidding to the three level is hardly a good tactic with a stiff heart and dubious suits. Pass is best, followed by a takeout double when West bids spades.
Bill Erwin: Then I will bid an unusual notrump [over spades] at my next chance to call.
Jean-Christophe Clement: The idea is to bid the unusual 2 NT over the likely spade bid at my next turn.
Simon Cheung: No need to commit; I can always double later if opponents land in a minor, or bid an unusual 2 NT over spades. If instead I guess to bid the wrong minor, I [might not be able] to bid again, and we may lose our fit… Two notrump is nuts, as it shows heart support and a good hand. Redouble…has merit, but I don’t want to create a force and find myself guessing when West preempts in spades… Similarly, if I respond 1 NT and have to contest the bidding over 2 , I have no minor-suit takeout.
Roger Morton: Redouble would seem the obvious option, but we might not have much defense. For instance, am I going to sit for partner’s double of [1 or] 2 ? I’ll listen for the moment.
Barry Rigal: Both 2 and 2 commit the hand unilaterally. So long as I can double on the next round for takeout, I’ll be able to show both suits.
Bill Powell: And hope, without any confidence, that I’ll know what to do next time around.
Nigel Marlow: Redouble looks wrong with nothing in spades. Partner is unlikely to be passed out in 1 doubled, so I’ll await developments.
Comments for RedoubleDavid Caprera: I have 10 HCP and two suits covered. If partner doubles 1 , we play there. …
Chris Gibson: Shows my values and [implies] no fit with partner. This looks like a hand we might want to defend.
Fraser Rew: Then pull partner’s inevitable double of 1 , giving a fair indication of my hand.
Luis Argerich: You never know. If partner is 5-4 in the majors, West may bid a minor, and I can wield the ax. …
John R. Mayne: Even without spades, this is a good start. If the auction’s at a low number of undoubled spades when it gets back to me, I still have a chance to do something intelligent.
Sartaj Hans: If the auction continues 2 P P, I will pass.
Frans Buijsen: First I want to show my values… I’m not afraid of defending a spade contract, but the biggest risk is doubling opponents while missing a game our way.
Paul Flashenberg: If partner has four spades, I’m willing to defend. If West bids 1 , passed back to me, I will try 2 .
Daniel Oakes: This is borderline, but I like the queen in partner’s suit. One notrump is a distortion; 2 and 2 are too unilateral; and pass is cowardly or mistimed. If I’m going to show partner I have stuff, it’s better to do it now while it’s cheap.
Kees van Schenk Brill: Showing my values. … If partner doubles 1 or 2 , I will bid 1 NT or 2 NT — a bid that should [suggest my pattern].
Brian Meyer: … I want partner to know I have values before indicating my shape. …
Gabor Szots: Borderline (at best) but better than passing. … If 1 by West is passed around, I will bid 2 .
Manuel Paulo: After 1 by either opponent, I will bid 2 …
Dale Freeman: For a passed hand, I have [good] values. Partner may have a major two-suiter, and opponents may be in trouble.
Steve White: … I might be tempted to downgrade this hand if unpassed; but with my hand already limited, I’ll redouble.
Jack Brawner: Some Drury users (myself included) use 2 NT to show 5-5 minors with (roughly) invitational values; but barring that agreement, I will redouble.
K. Scott Kimball: I’m a little light, but at least partner knows I have some values and no fit for hearts.
Gerald Murphy: … We still might have a fit and game. As a passed hand, I can show my suits later [because bids will be nonforcing].
Josh Sinnett: This allows partner to double spades for penalty if he wants, in which case a game for us very unlikely. Otherwise, I can bid minors cheaply later…
George Klemic: Seems obvious; I don’t expect opponents to be jumping too high in spades. Being a passed hand, partner can’t place me with much more than this. …
Robin Zigmond: … Perhaps partner can double spades; and if not, I should be able to introduce a minor. (One notrump is also tempting to cut out the 1 bid.)
Ed Barnes: Defending two of a minor doubled would be, um, OK I guess. :)
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 4
| IMPs | N-S Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| WEST Pass Pass Pass | North 1 2 3 1
| East Pass Pass Pass | South 1 2 NT ? | K 10 8 6 2 A 9 5 3 2 Q J 10
|
| 1. forcing | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 510 | 35 |
| 3 | 8 | 124 | 9 |
| 3 NT | 7 | 427 | 29 |
| 5 | 5 | 331 | 23 |
| 3 | 2 | 40 | 3 |
| Pass | 1 | 16 | 1 |
Some respondents wondered why 3 was forcing in standard bidding. Well, it isn’t forcing, which is why it was noted. The partnership encountering the problem played 3 forcing, so I wanted to emulate the actual situation (as I have occasionally done in the past). Certainly, if 3 were nonforcing, pass stands out a mile.
So why is pass listed as an option? Good question, but don’t laugh; it got 16 votes! Hehe, I’m still waiting for the day a listed call gets no votes. Seriously, even if 3 is forcing, there is still the possibility that partner has a minimum 5-5 hand; so pass is barely plausible — though my philosophy is never to violate system agreements, even at the cost of an occasional poor result.
Some respondents questioned the previous decision to bid 2 NT rather than raise to 3 . Either bid is acceptable, to be sure, but I lean toward 2 NT because of the placement of values (honors in black suits and nothing in diamonds). Also note that a 3 raise makes it difficult to reach 3 NT when partner lacks a club stopper (e.g., A K-x-x-x-x A-K-Q-x x-x-x).
One thing is sure: You don’t have the dream hand for partner; 6 points probably wasted, and no honor in trumps. Therefore, if you raise diamonds as seems sensible, you must try to discourage partner. The consensus was right on the money, I think, with a simple raise to 4 — followed by 5 if partner makes any further noise to try for slam.
Another reasonable option is to bid 3 , albeit a slight exaggeration of your spade values. The hitch is that this commits you to playing 3 NT if partner bids it, as a voluntary diamond raise thereafter would be construed as forward going, with 3 being an advance control-bid. While 3 NT might be OK, I have bad vibes about it; e.g., opposite x K-J-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x A-x, you probably need diamonds 2-2, while 5 has much better chances.
Some respondents jumped to 5 on “fast arrival” principles, i.e., to discourage partner from bidding six. Unfortunately, this is not a standard concept. Jumps to five in a minor, while essentially to play, should show good trumps. With only one trick separating game and slam, this could be the one piece of information partner needs to bid six. Surely, that’s the last thing you want partner to think on this hand.
I threw in the 3 preference mainly as a filler, so I was amazed to see it get 40 votes. This seems like anti-bridge to me, and it’s just about impossible to construct a hand where 4 is the best game. Nonetheless, I guess it’s better than passing. Or is it?
Here’s what happened in the Philippines:
| Ross vs Swanson | A K 9 8 7 5 A K 10 8 7 K 8
| |
| Q 5 4 3 10 4 3 2 J 9 6 3 2
| | J 9 7 Q J 6 Q 6 4 A 7 5 4
|
| N-S Vul | K 10 8 6 2 A 9 5 3 2 Q J 10 | |
| Eisenberg WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass | v.d.Porten North 1 2 3 3 NT | Kantar East Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Rubin South 1 2 NT 3
| 3 NT South Made 4 +630 |
| Passell WEST Pass Pass Pass Pass | Wolff North 1 2 3 6
| Hamilton East Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Hamman South 1 2 4
| 6 North Down 1 -100 Ross +12 IMPs |
The problem situation arose at the first table, where “The Beast” plays 3 forcing. Rubin’s 3 had the desired effect to slow down von der Porten, who could picture wasted spade values; and the inferior slam was avoided. After a club lead, Rubin easily won 10 tricks.
At the second table, the big-club auction ironically lacked the room for the delicate “beastly” maneuver. One spade showed 3 controls, then the rest was natural. Wolff’s final stab at 6 was certainly reasonable, as catching even J-x-x-x would bring the slam up to par. Too bad; 10 IMPs away.
It is curious to note that Hamman did not follow his namesake rule. Over 3 , 3 NT is certainly a viable option, yet he raised to 4 . Hmm. Maybe this started the rule. After watching Wolffie go down in slam, he vowed never again.
Comments for 4 Darren Cotterell: Partner has x K-Q-J-x-x A-K-x-x-x x-x, and diamonds split 3-1, so one off is good. :) If partner has an extra black-suit top honor, I would expect him to raise to game.
Tim Francis-Wright: I want to bid 3 NT, but it’s not clear that a diamond game isn’t better; and even 6 is possible (e.g., — K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x A-x-x). At least one of the black suits rates to be a weak spot in 3 NT, since partner has more red cards than an IWW meeting.
Joshua Donn: My hand may still look like notrump, but I already suggested that — and there’s a limit to how long one can deny four-card support.
Carlos Dabezies: I don’t know how good partner’s hand is. Spades may be a problem at notrump, and a diamond slam might be possible. Bypassing 3 NT…should convey the message.
Norbert van Woerkom: Opposite a good hand, a diamond slam must have chances. I am not too concerned about [bypassing 3 NT].
John Lusky: Partner should have [extra values] to force with 3 . My hand is not so heavy in the black suits that I should insist on 3 NT.
Michael Palitsch: I didn’t show the diamond fit last time, so now I have to. I am unsure whether I have a good hand or not…
Tim DeLaney: Given that 3 is forcing, pass is out of the question. Partner didn’t bid 3 NT, so it cannot be right for me to bid it; so I raise diamonds. Why didn’t I do that last round?
Kevin Podsiadlik: In the context of the auction, my hand is quite lovely. …
Kerry Lafferty: Setting the trump suit. Partner has shown a good two-suiter, and now may cue-bid 4 or 5 .
David Caprera: I bid 2 NT when I might have raised, so I’m certainly raising now; but I bid the minimum since my slow black cards may not be worth much. …
Gregg Deitch: After 2 NT(?) last time, I have no choice. (I would have bid 3 over 2 .) …
Hendrik Sharples: Seems after I failed to raise last time with four trumps and a singleton, the least I can do is raise now.
Mark Reeve: Partner must be rebidding diamonds for a reason (he has a good hand), and my hand is quite good for playing in diamonds. To bid 3 NT is being a hand hog.
Ed Shapiro: … This hand looks familiar, and I have a hunch that a 3 false preference followed by diamonds over a cue-bid will get us to a good 6 . But I haven’t seen this proposed for 30 years and… I want to win the match, not the postmortem.
Chris Gibson: I’ve shown my values already; it’s about time to show my pattern.
Ted Ying: I need partner to have more than a minimum 5-5, so I’ll invite. Looking another way, I have a 7-loser hand; and if partner has a 6-loser hand (i.e., extras), we can make game. …
John R. Mayne: I don’t like bypassing 3 NT, but it’s time. My black cards are awful, so I can’t get excited about this hand.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Strange that 3 should be forcing rather than sign-off — but note the pass filler. :) My four-card support should be a pleasant surprise.
Leonard Helfgott: I’ve already refrained from raising with four, so I should show support now; however, 5 seems a stretch with weak diamonds and only one black control.
Paul Flashenberg: My club values might be wasted, and 5 is down off the top opposite x K-Q-J-10-x A-K-Q-J-x x-x. However, four trumps and the A makes game almost cold opposite A-x K-x-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x x.
Kees van Schenk Brill: If 3 NT were right, partner would have bid it. … My hand is decent for 5 , but surely not more than that. If I were unlimited, 4 could be confusing, but here it is clearly inviting… I do not take the plunge myself as my black-suit values may be useless, and the blank A isn’t pretty.
Brian Meyer: I’d like to bid 3 NT because of my black-suit values, but it doesn’t take much opposite a stiff club and the A to make a slam in diamonds.
Amnon Harel: With a fourth trump (not to mention the unshown third), 3 controls, and a hand already limited by 2 NT, I should make this mild slam try (which denies club control).
Solaris Whitesail: OK, partner, I have some diamond length; you decide on game.
Gabor Szots: This hand is unsuitable for notrump.
Richard Morse: It feels right to go on in diamonds rather than risk 3 NT and a probable club lead. The only question is how high, and 4 leaves more room for investigation.
Sebastien Louveaux: We should play in a suit contract, and a slam is far from impossible. …
Rainer Herrmann: Nonforcing I suppose.
Alan Kravetz: With the stiff A, I would like to have more than one club stopper for 3 NT.
Jorge Castanheira: Hearts are blocked, so I think this hand should play much better in a suit than in notrump…
Sandy McIlwain: Insisting on notrump with one club stopper seems too arbitrary.
Roger Morton: If partner is concerned about notrump, then so am I. This leaves room for cue-bids… as slam may be on with perfect cards.
Manuel Paulo: Notrump may be our best strain, but I won’t insist on it with four-card support and a singleton.
Dale Freeman: Not sure I understand; 3 is forcing yet pass is an option? I guess we’ve all been there. Partner doesn’t like notrump, so I’ll show my good diamond fit.
Steve White: My black suits couldn’t be much weaker than this for 2 NT, so I’m not bidding 3 NT.
Jack Brawner: I can only conceal four-card support for so long. This is not matchpoints.
Bill Daly: In my opinion, this is nonforcing. Partner not only has a good hand but also a strong preference to play in a red suit, and my intermediate honors are likely to be wasted. Three notrump looks bad, considering the stiff ace.
Imre Csiszar: If I have agreed to play this forcing, I must respect it. Although anything above 3 may go down, it is conceivable that even 6 is on, e.g., if partner holds A-x K-x-x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x, x.
Harold Simon: Easy to lose three black-suit tricks…
Gerald Murphy: Partner may have the A and one club, so I’ll let him know I have some diamonds. Slam is a possibility; let’s investigate.
Andrei Varlan: Invitational.
Ognian Smilianov: With four trumps, I’ll put our side in slam searching track.
Jack Rhatigan: Too many soft cards to bid 5 , regardless of the vulnerability.
Comments for 3 Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: … If partner has A-x K-Q-x-x-x A-Q-10-x-x x, we want to be in 5 ; while opposite x K-Q-x-x-x A-Q-10-x-x A-x, 3 NT is a better shot. Bidding 3 will let me find out; partner will bid 3 NT with a singleton spade and a club honor; or 4 , 4 or 4 with a singleton club, over which I will bid 5 . This can’t be a slam try, as I limited my hand with 2 NT.
Bogdan Vulcan: I’d like to bid 4 , but partner may have J-x K-Q-x-x-x A-Q-J-x-x K, and we should be in 3 NT. However, if he has A-x K-Q-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x x, we should be in 5 (or 6 )… The only problem is: What does 3 mean? :) Since I’ve bid 2 NT showing stoppers, it should show a diamond fit, though not enough to bid 4 .
Fraser Rew: … My slow club values and [weak] diamonds look [bad] for a diamond contract… but playing 3 NT opposite two small clubs may not be much fun. So I demur and leave the last mistake to partner.
Kees Schaafsma: This should show a diamond fit (what else) and doubt about clubs [for notrump].
Dale Rudrum: … With a single club stopper, I do not wish to bid notrump again; but I do not want to go past 3 NT either. Three hearts with a single heart does not appeal… If this is a disaster, I can claim I was showing my K as a mild slam try in diamonds. :)
Jean-Christophe Clement: To show five spades and allow partner to bid 3 NT with something in clubs. Otherwise, 5 will be reached.
Brad Theurer: My black-suit honors are wrong for diamonds; but 3 NT will fail if partner doesn’t have club help or enough fast winners. So I’ll explore, hoping partner will return to 3 NT with A-x or K-x. Partner knows I can’t have more than five spades…[so he should infer] that I am concerned about clubs for notrump.
Barry Rigal: Why not bid 3 on the previous round? I’m still angling for 3 NT but intend to raise 4 to 5 (a guess of course).
Kieran Dyke: To give partner a chance to bid 3 NT if he’s not too shapely. …
K. Scott Kimball: I guess it’s time to trot out the extra spade length.
Lawrence Cheetham: Off the first two club tricks, 5 is the value call; partner can move onward with club control, of course. Nonetheless, why not call 3 , then pull partner’s expected 3 NT to 4 , to allow for a more thoughtful conclusion? …
Josh Sinnett: Still probing to find the best contract. If partner bids 3 NT, he probably has a club honor, and my K is wasted at suit play. If he doesn’t, we belong in diamonds at the five or six level.
Lajos Linczmayer: Probably 3 NT is the best contract, but I don’t want to exclude 4 or 5 .
Robin Zigmond: It can’t do any harm to show my shape, even though we’re probably headed for 5 .
Comments for 3 NTErik Lauer: Holding Q-J-10 in the unbid suits seems better in notrump than diamonds.
Andrew Straus: I like my 10 for 3 NT.
Dean Eidler: The only game that may make. I don’t see 5 making with my soft clubs.
Gerard Elsendoorn: Six of my 10 points in partner’s short suits does not make me happy.
Frans Buijsen: I’d like to…bid 4 , but it’s hard to imagine a hand where partner would bid only 2 , and still slam is on. Three notrump looks our best bet, even though partner is 5-5 (or even 5-6) in the reds.
Christian Vennerod: We [probably] don’t have a slam (2 was nonforcing) and may be off three top tricks, e.g., x K-Q-x-x-x A-K-J-x-x x-x, which should play in 3 NT. … But 5 is the best contract opposite Q-x K-x-x-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x —.
Geoff Bowden: It doesn’t look too clever to go past 3 NT, but no doubt you will tell me which slam I have missed. :)
Simon Cheung: My hand has too much luggage in the black suits, so nine tricks in notrump should be easier than 11 in diamonds. I’m pretty sure Mr. Hamman would bid it this way.
Paulino Correa: With three cards in spades, partner would have bid 3 , not 3 .
Don Hinchey: Tough! My black-suit holdings don’t look good for a high-level diamond contract.
Zoran Bohacek: Even with one club stopper, nine tricks may be easier than 11 in diamonds.
Jacek Gackowski: Too much in the black suits to skip 3 NT.
Comments for 5 Donald Caplin: I should have bid 3 last time.
Sven Neirynck: Partner didn’t bid the fourth suit (3 ) to ask for clarification, so 3 NT should not be a good contract. …
Mauri Saastamoinen: I am not sure whether 4 would be forcing, but I’ll go for a whole pot anyway;…6 is a long-distance flight and out of view. Notrump bidders might find dummy with A-x K-Q-x-x-x A-Q-10-x-x x, which has [the same play] for 6 as 3 NT.
Bill Erwin: No black control to cue-bid; too good for 4 , which I presume is nonforcing.
Scott Stearns: Sure, some (maybe all) of my black cards are wasted, but my red cards are super-working. We might miss six. I’m confused as to whether 4 is forcing; I assume not, so I’m bidding what I think we can make.
Nicoleta Giura: If 3 is forcing, 4 must be droppable; 6 needs perfect cards.
David Harari: … This hand should play better in diamonds than notrump, and game is a favorite. I suppose that 4 would be nonforcing.
Damo Nair: With four small trumps, this seems about right; 4 is a nothing bid since 3 is forcing.
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 5
| IMPs | Both Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 2 Pass | NORTH 1 3 3
| East 1 Pass Pass | South 1 3 ? | A Q J 10 8 4 3 A Q 5 K 9 5 —
|
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 99 | 7 |
| 4 | 9 | 207 | 14 |
| 4 | 8 | 181 | 13 |
| 4 NT | 7 | 314 | 22 |
| 6 | 6 | 516 | 36 |
| 4 | 2 | 118 | 8 |
| 3 NT | 1 | 13 | 1 |
From the voting it seems 6 should be the winner, but a closer look shows otherwise. The main camp (comprising 56 percent) was to try for a grand slam; the only question was how to proceed. Within this group (4 , 4 , 4 and 4 NT) the consensus was to bid 4 NT; but I find this impossible to accept, so I will invoke my moderator’s privilege.*
*The top award normally goes to the consensus, but rarely (this is fifth time in 168 problems) I will overrule if confident that a great majority of experts would back my decision.
For a grand slam, the important card to locate is the A; and the bogus club raise is almost certain to do this. If you bid 4 or 4 , partner cannot show the A below game; and 4 NT (Blackwood) will leave you guessing when he has only one ace.* Therefore, since overruling the consensus may draw complaints anyway, I won’t take any half measures; the top award goes to 4 . There is no risk in this bid because you can always convert clubs to spades in the end. I suspect that many who rejected 4 did so by rote, not reason.
*Note that this is regular Blackwood per system guidelines, so you won’t find out about the K. Some respondents were oblivious to this, which may account for the large vote for an obviously inferior call.
If partner bids 4 over 4 , the only remaining concern is the K. In my view, partner should have this card for his 3 bid, as it seems wrong to show a preference on two low cards in a forcing auction (if partner had three spades, he usually would have raised earlier since 1 showed five). Thus, 3 suggests a doubleton honor, which must be the king. Further, even if partner lacks the K, the odds for a grand* should be about right, as a finesse through the overcaller would be a favorite.
*A grand slam at IMPs needs only to be 57+ percent to show a long-term gain over stopping in six. This assumes six will be bid at the other table and ignores anomalies such as doubles.
Those who bid 6 were lazy, and those who bid 3 NT or 4 — well, I’ll make it rhyme — crazy. It’s hard to imagine a dummy that won’t offer a good play for slam, especially with the K surely onside (plus a heart lead is likely anyway). Even a bare minimum like K-x x x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x-x provides a good slam; and as little as K-x x A-x-x A-x-x-x-x-x-x makes an excellent grand.
Here’s what happened in Manila:
| Swanson vs Ross | K 6 9 A 10 6 4 A K 10 5 3 2
| |
| 9 7 5 2 10 7 6 3 Q 7 3 2 6
|  | — K J 8 4 2 J 8 Q J 9 8 7 4
|
| Both Vul | A Q J 10 8 4 3 A Q 5 K 9 5 — | |
| Passell West 2 Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Kantar NORTH 1 3 3 4 6
| Hamilton East 1 Pass Pass Pass Pass | Eisenberg South 1 3 4 5 6
| 6 South Made 7 +1460 |
| Swanson West Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Ross NORTH 2 4 5 6
| Soloway East Pass Pass Pass Pass | Paulsen South 3 4 NT 5 NT 7
| 7 South Made 7 +2210 Ross +13 IMPs |
The problem was derived from the auction at the first table, where Eisenberg chose to bid 4 . This gave Kantar a variety of options, and he elected to show heart and club control, no doubt feeling these were more important than repeating diamond control. Consequently, Eisenberg never could be sure about the A, and the laydown grand was missed.
At the second table, Ross-Paulsen began with a natural 2 opening (Schenken system) and a forcing 3 response; 4 was a control bid, agreeing spades by inference. After learning about the A, Paulsen used Roman key-card Blackwood to locate all the missing key cards, then followed with 5 NT to find one additional king. This provided the comfort needed to bid seven, as Paulsen had no helpful overcall to earmark the heart finesse. Swanson led the 7, and Paulsen faced his cards claiming 13 tricks — and 13 IMPs as well.
Comments for 4 Carlos Dabezies: Given the free vulnerable rebid, the worst hand partner could have is something like K-x x-x Q-J-x K-Q-J-x-x-x. I want to make it easy for him to cue-bid 4 if his hand is somewhat better.
Michael Palitsch: I will play 6 at least… If partner bids 4 over 4 , I will bid 5 NT to ask for the K…
Jerry Merrell: With trumps established, this indicates club control and allows partner an opportunity to show the A.
Gerard Elsendoorn: I miss the 5 option as “exclusion Blackwood.”
Wow. Your eyes may be glaring “exclusion partner” when you put down that dummy in 5 .
Randy Corn: Cue-bidding my lowest control. Please, partner, show me the A…
Luis Argerich: I hate cue-bidding partner’s suit with a void, but I really need to know if partner has the A. … Yes, I’m looking for a grand slam in spades.
Ted Ying: I need specific key cards. This allows me to find out immediately if partner has the A…
Willem Mevius: I know I’m not supposed to cue-bid partner’s suit with a void;…but I’m in control here, and I want to find out about the A — and the K, but I’ll worry about that later. If partner bids 4 , I’ll just jump to 6 ; if he bids 4 , I’ll continue with 4 .
Paulino Correa: I need to know if partner has the A.
Kieran Dyke: This might milk a diamond control out of partner; if not, I’ll settle for 6 . If he does bid 4 , I’ll hope our grand slam force is up to finding the K — I’ll bid seven if I find it, expecting to be on a heart hook at worst.
Nicoleta Giura: Cue-bid, hoping to hear 4 . There could be a grand slam.
George Klemic: … This leaves [room] for a 4 cue-bid by partner. There’s no need to punt 6 , though I suspect that is the direction I will be going. Should partner happen to hold K-x x A-Q-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x, we [will] get to 7 .
Comments for 4 Peter Gill: Four clubs could turn out very badly if partner thinks it’s natural.
Darren Cotterell: Hopefully, this shows first-round heart control. Over 4 or 5 , I will bid 5 next to show second-round diamond control. If partner can show the A, I might bid 7 ; otherwise 6 .
Tim Francis-Wright: I need to find out about the A before I look for a grand. [Insert commercial for exclusion key-card Blackwood here].
Joshua Donn: If partner bids 5 , I will bid 5 NT to find the K; otherwise, I will bid 6 . …
Kevin Podsiadlik: The question here is one of six or seven. I will follow this up with 5 and hope it gets the message across.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Seven spades is still in the picture, as East probably has the K for his vulnerable overcall. If partner bids 4 , I will sign off in 6 . Otherwise, 7 is odds-on, though [investigation] is required to bid it confidently. …
Kerry Lafferty: Looking for a diamond cue-bid from partner.
David Caprera: … I am driving to 6 , but I’d like to find partner with magic cards for seven — which doesn’t take much. … Over 4 or 5 , I’ll bid 5 and hope partner does something intelligent…
Bill Cubley: I do not like the club void, but partner may have K-x as an entry for diamond discards and/or a heart [finesse] and ruff. Let’s get to slam.
Hendrik Sharples: Huge hand; [club] misfit; but too much not to give it one more try.
Ed Shapiro: Showing heart control (3 didn’t guarantee a control). I’ll risk 5 over 4 , then respect partner’s judgment. I have fairly easy decisions over other actions.
Bogdan Vulcan: A simple 6 bid solves the small slam — there are still problem hands, but it seems a good bet. In order to play a grand, partner needs to have…the A and K. I don’t know if I will be able to find this out, but I will try…
Jonathan Monroe: Partner must know that the A is a crucial card when he hears this.
John R. Mayne: Let’s wrest a diamond control out of partner — if that doesn’t work, I’m stopping in six.
Sartaj Hans: Transferring the blame. :)
Ross Cullins: I would like to bid 4 if that were a control-bid. …
Mark LaForge: I won’t hang my partner quite yet.
Bill Erwin: I’m driving to slam and intend to show my K over 5 . Perhaps we have a grand opposite K-9 x-x A-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x…
Alan Kravetz: Three hearts was a general force; now with spades as the agreed trump suit, 4 is a cue-bid.
Olle Morell: I’m driving at least to 6 . If I can get partner to react positively to 4 , I might [locate] the A. I think 4 should be natural, as 3 could have been looking for 3 NT. A very tricky problem.
Dale Freeman: It might be simpler to bid 4 NT then [bid a grand] only if partner has the A, A and K. However, I think 4 followed by 5 then 6 is the correct sequence. …
Steve White: With Roman key-card Blackwood, I would try 4 NT despite the void, planning to bid seven opposite three key cards. With standard Blackwood, confirming the A is best.
Barry Rigal: Preparing to bid 5 over 5 . If you play 4 denies a diamond control (I don’t), I guess you have to bid 4 .
K. Scott Kimball: I’ll cue-bid again in the faint hope partner is able to show the A.
Harold Simon: A diamond cue-bid from partner would make 6 close to a sure thing.
Gerald Murphy: Partner’s hand sounds like 2=2=3=6, but the quality is unknown. I think I will be in slam, but I’ll start with 4 to see if more information is available, as well as to set spades as the trump suit.
Lajos Linczmayer: Although partner may have only two spades, I will bid 7 if he shows the A and the K (over 5 NT).
Steve Moese: This cue-bid shows slam interest but no A. Up to you, partner.
Sandy Barnes: I would have started with 2 , since the suit needs no support, and in spite of my club void. Now, how do I confirm the pointed-suit holdings? …
Gerald Cohen: Since my club void is not an asset, I doubt 6 is good if partner doesn’t have at least one of the A and K; and he won’t bid [beyond 4 ] with neither.
Comments for 4 Norbert van Woerkom: Showing diamond control and serious slam interest. Hopefully, partner can cue-bid 4 ; but if not, I am still going to investigate the number of key cards and bid 6 or 7 .
John Lusky: … I am afraid that 4 could be interpreted as “choice of games”; but this will be interpreted as a slam try in spades.
Thijs Veugen: Cue-bid for spades. I don’t like cue-bidding 4 with a void in partner’s suit.
Fraser Rew: I will bid 6 because of the likely heart lead; I’m really looking for 7 at this stage.
Brian Meyer: This hand is huge. If I can somehow find out about the A and K, we’re home… Opposite K-x x A-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x, I am cold for a grand in spades. It seems wimpish to leap to 6 . The question is: Which slam try is right?
Mauri Saastamoinen: … I intend to go for at least 6 anyway, so it can’t hurt to try to find out whether partner has the cards [for a grand]. Over 4 , I will continue with 5 , which probably forces partner to bid 6 even with this lousy collection: x-x x-x A-Q-x A-Q-10-x-x-x. When I next bid 6 , he will settle for 6 …
Heck, why not continue with 7 and watch him fall out of his chair?
Sandy McIlwain: It’s tempting just to bid 6 and get it over with; however, I would like partner to use Blackwood, and this might encourage him…
Jim Wiitala: Help-suit slam try.
Jim Mathers: A grand is quite possible, so I need to explore. I hope to hear 5 .
Scott Stearns: My hand is looking pretty darn good, so I’ll start with the first cue-bid that looks like it makes sense (4 on a void in partner’s rebid suit is dreadful). I’m aware that partner might not have the K, but I’m willing to explore for slam; he might even have a stiff K and be bidding intelligently — for a change. :)
Nick Krnjevic: This must be a cue-bid since I could have bid a natural 3 last round.
David Harari: If partner has shortness in hearts, slam is a favorite. Let’s ask him.
Damo Nair: I need to get to 6 at the very least. Partner could still show up with the K and A for seven.
Comments for 4 NTChris Gibson: This hand is too good to stop below slam, and I figure to get a heart lead. The A will be useful for a pitch.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Unusual with a void, I know; but I need the aces of clubs and diamonds plus the K for a sensible 7 . Over a two-ace response, I’ll go browsing in the system summary to see if I can ask for the K (and not the K). …
Frans Buijsen: This hand is simpler than it looks. Four clubs is ambiguous (showing support in my view). I’m willing to try 6 if partner has two aces, whilst staying in five opposite one. It would be nice to play Roman key-card, but Ol’ Black will have to do.
Kees van Schenk Brill: OK, I have a void in partner’s suit; but the potential of this hand is huge after partner bid 3 freely,…showing better than a minimum opening… I will assume the A as part of partner’s aces. I could bid 6 straightaway, but there may be a grand.
Christian Vennerod: Partner’s minimum should be at least x-x x A-x-x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x since he rebid freely, vulnerable. … To get to seven, I [might] have to make a fake bid of 4 (showing support); then we could cue-bid 4 , 4 , etc. — possible, but too much can go wrong. I’ll just check that partner has at least one ace and bid 6 .
Sven Neirynck: I’m not looking for seven if partner lacks the A…
Dale Rudrum: This asks for “real aces” so will not find out about the K; but if he has two aces, I will bid 7 . …
Manuel Paulo: I will assume that partner has A-K, and that East has the K. This will let me know if partner has the A; and if so, [5 NT] will locate the K.
Imre Csiszar: This would be easier playing key-card Blackwood; but failing that, I still ask for aces, planning to bid 5 over the expected 5 . An expert partner should figure out that the K is required for slam.
Nigel Marlow: A grand slam is not out of the question, e.g., if partner has K-x x A-x-x A-Q-J-x-x-x-x.
Ognian Smilianov: … Partner’s 3 bid could be made on two small cards (with no other good bid available), so our [contract range] is from 5 to 7 . …
Comments for 6 Michael Fosse: I can never find out what I need to know, so I blast what I think I can make.
Leonard Helfgott: Science be damned! I might miss seven, but with both opponents bidding it’s unlikely. If partner holds either the A or K, I should have a good play for six. …
Amnon Harel: Partner could have K-x x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x-x; but just about any other hand makes 6 [excellent]. … Why should I help the defense?
Solaris Whitesail: I don’t like being void in partner’s suit, but the [free] 3 bid is encouraging.
David Grainger: I’d bid 4 NT if it were key-card, or if I could find out about the K specifically (after finding two aces) — just in case partner has the A, A and K.
Jorge Castanheira: Four clubs is best because it allows partner to cue-bid 4 , then I can explore for a grand; but partner may think I was just looking for 3 NT with club support. No thanks; I don’t want to feel that Russian roulette sensation.
OK, then feel that Portuguese man-of-war sensation when you claim 13 tricks after the opening lead.
Roger Morton: … With vulnerable opponents bidding to the two level missing two top heart honors, seven is most unlikely.
Brad Theurer: Slam is likely to be at worst on a spade finesse, and it could be better. I may not be able to find out what I need to know anyway, so a direct bid gives less information to the opponents.
Bill Daly: Obviously, the village idiot just died, and I was called upon to finish the auction for him. There might at one time have been a way to bid this hand scientifically, but we are long past that point now.
Josh Sinnett: Science may direct West to the best lead (whatever that may be), so I’m hoping the blast makes him choose their side’s suit.
Ed Barnes: If I discover that seven is on the heart finesse, I won’t bid it; so I’m not going to tell them what to lead against six.
Gillian Paty: I could announce red-suit shortness easily, or Blackwood without a club void, and 6 shows all suits controlled. I trust partner to understand this and bid seven with both missing key cards.
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Problem 6
| IMPs | E-W Vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | NORTH 1 2 13
| East Pass Pass Pass | South 2 2 ? | K 7 6 4 2 A Q — A K 10 8 6 5
|
| 1. does not show extra strength | ||||
| Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 497 | 34 |
| 3 | 9 | 383 | 26 |
| 3 NT | 7 | 255 | 18 |
| 4 | 5 | 119 | 8 |
| 4 NT | 3 | 91 | 6 |
| 5 | 2 | 81 | 6 |
| 5 NT | 1 | 22 | 2 |
Misfits; lovely misfits. Partner’s hand is as red as yours is black, so the keyword is caution. The great majority of respondents were wise to this concern, as only 14 percent made aggressive moves toward slam. Essentially, the problem was to choose the best game, or find the best route to achieve this.
I agree with the consensus to bid 4 . The strong doubleton should make this a viable contract, even opposite a mediocre suit; and playing with a trump suit will overcome communication problems that will surely haunt the play in notrump. My only concern is that hearts may play too well and produce 12 tricks — I dream a lot — so I must keep reminding myself to be conservative.
The next popular choice, and only slightly inferior in my view, is to describe your shape with 3 .* This could strike gold if partner is 0=5=6=2, perhaps leading to 6 ; but more likely by about 4:3 odds is that partner will be 2=5=6=0 and raise to 4 , which could be ugly with such a weak spade suit. If partner is 1-1 (or shorter) in the black suits, it probably doesn’t matter what you bid, as the final contract is likely to be 4 unless you elect to play 3 NT.
*A few respondents were unsure whether 3 (or 4 ) would be forcing. Although not explicitly stated in my Bidding Guide, failure to make a limiting rebid after a 2-over-1 response shows game-going values. While the possibility of a misfit might offer an exception, I’m sure expert consensus is to ignore such rare cases and treat any further bid below game as forcing.
Many chose to bid 3 NT, which is probably a favorite to make, but it feels more risky than 4 . Besides the lack of communication, the weak spades may be your downfall. West is likely to lead a spade on the auction; so facing something like x K-10-x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x x, you will probably need 4-3 spades and 3-3 clubs to succeed; while 4 would be a walk in the park.
Bidding 4 seems safe on the surface; if partner bids 4 , you can always return to 4 . But what is partner supposed to bid with 1=5=6=1 shape? He’s already shown 11 red cards, so the natural bid is to raise to 5 ; then you’re up the creek.
Did I really get 22 people to bid 5 NT? Wow. I’m not even sure what it means on this auction, but “pick a grave” comes to mind. OK, I’ll pick Elvis’s final resting place in Graceland.
Here’s what happened on the other side of the world (at least from my house):
| Ross vs Swanson | Q K J 9 6 5 A Q J 10 9 4 9
| |
| A 3 8 7 4 3 2 8 7 3 Q 7 3
|  | J 10 9 8 5 10 K 6 5 2 J 4 2
|
| E-W Vul | K 7 6 4 2 A Q — A K 10 8 6 5 | |
| Swanson West Pass Pass Pass | Hamilton NORTH 1 2 3 3 NT | Soloway East Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Passell South 2 2 3
| 3 NT North Made 3 +400 |
| Rubin West Pass Pass Pass | Wolff NORTH 1 2 3 4
| v.d.Porten East Pass Pass Pass All Pass | Hamman South 2 2 3
| 4 North Made 4 +420 Swanson +1 IMP |
The problem scenario arose at the first table, where Passell chose to bid out his pattern with 3 . Hamilton then ended the auction in 3 NT. Soloway led the J* to Swanson’s ace, then dummy’s spade spots limited the defense to three spades and a club; making 3 NT.
*Even if Soloway led the 5, declarer could get home by winning the third spade and cashing four hearts. East has two easy diamond pitches but then must let go a club (else a spade which lets declarer establish a spade trick); then A-K and a spade endplays East.
Wolff chose a curious route at the second table, bidding and rebidding hearts before mentioning diamonds.* This made it easy to reach the best game, though it seems fortuitous that suppressing the strong diamond suit didn’t matter. Wolff easily won 10 tricks to win an IMP.
*Thanks to Ed Shapiro for pointing out that 2 was more or less dictated by the Hamman-Wolff system. Four-card majors were opened freely, so the first priority was to show five; i.e., 2 would show longer diamonds and deny five hearts.
Comments for 4 Peter Gill: Opposite 5-6 shape, communications in 3 NT look too messy. Three spades could lead either to a hopeless 4 , or a confusing auction: Would 3 4 ; 4 be natural rather than a cue-bid?
Tim Francis-Wright: Whoever deemed “Six-five, come alive” to be great bidding advice forgot that partner is sometimes 6-5 as well. If partner’s diamonds aren’t solid, he’ll need either the Q or friendly breaks all-around to make 6 .
Carlos Dabezies: With North showing 5-6 in hearts and diamonds, spades are likely to be problematic in 3 NT.
Norbert van Woerkom: With such a misfit looming, I want to be really careful. My hand has not improved in the bidding, and I fear a spade lead through the king. …
John Lusky: Transportation may be an insoluble problem in 3 NT, so I’ll try our 5-2 fit.
Tim DeLaney: Hoping to make game on sheer power. Spades and notrump are both unplayable; while 4 could strain the auction to the breaking point. Even 4 could be in jeopardy if partner’s hearts are weak.
Timothy Liang Kan: … The lack of a real [fit] in hearts dissuades me from a unilateral move towards slam, but 4 should play reasonably well.
Thijs Veugen: Partner seems to have six diamonds and five hearts, so 4 is the most likely game; a slight underbid because of the misfit.
Tysen Streib: … It looks like we have a huge misfit, and I won’t have much transportation to partner’s hand for notrump. Hearts is probably best;…4 feels like an underbid; but with a misfit, who knows?
Hendrik Sharples: Lots of stuff, but where are my tricks coming from? At least in hearts, partner might have a little bit of transportation.
Ed Shapiro: Enough. Partner is not barred from continuing. Despite the footnote, partner should have a decent hand since 1 is the likely opening on a weak red two-suiter.
Jim Grant: With three hearts, I might bid six; but I think 4 is probably the best spot.
Chris Gibson: Our most likely game on this horrible misfit.
Donald Caplin: Even 4 might go down.
Luis Argerich: Misfits and 3 NT can be quite wrong.
John R. Mayne: Partner is 6-5, and we might have a slam; but let’s try to make something on this galloping misfit. The timid 4 has the advantage of being right on strain, and anything else is bleak. Notrump figures to play very poorly.
Frans Buijsen: Our hands look like a misfit, so I’ll go low. Partner’s hand may be worthless in 3 NT due to a lack of communication, and 6 is too hopeful on the misfit.
Paul Flashenberg: I love misfits. :) Three notrump may have terrible transportation problems with partner 5-6 or 5-7 in the red suits. If we have a slam, I hope partner can bid again. …
Christian Vennerod: Partner is 5-6 in the reds, so I’ll stop before we can make nothing; but where? Hearts is the suit that gives [best] communication between the hands, so our top tricks and some ruffs may be enough.
Amnon Harel: We may have a 6-2 club fit; but even so, slam is unlikely on this horrible misfit. …
Sven Neirynck: … Three notrump could be good if partner has help in clubs; but how can I find out? Four hearts is probably the best contract.
Gabor Szots: Trying to go plus.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Even this might be difficult to play with something like x K-J-10-x-x A-Q-10-9-x-x x [after a spade lead and trump shift].
Dale Rudrum: … If partner has x K-J-x-x-x A-Q-J-x-x-x x, 4 is high enough — and often down. …
Richard Morse: It’s annoying not to have 4 available to start a cue-bidding sequence… I have a nice hand, but entries could be difficult… so I’ll err on the side of conservatism.
Bill Erwin: Three spades might get me to a bad 5-2 spade game.
Alan Kravetz: We are both 6-5 in a misfit; at least I have two of the top hearts.
Willem Mevius: This should be the best contract, as there may be problems getting to partner’s hand in 3 NT.
Simon Cheung: Opener has a red two-suiter, at least 5-6; and he does not promise a lot of high cards, given I have forced to game. With a misfit, I will tread cautiously. Meckstroth says that you have a lot of ways to win at IMPs with plus 480, but not with a minus score when game is cold. Four hearts should be better than 3 NT,…as notrump may have communication problems.
Roger Morton: With partner showing 6-5 in the red suits, notrump may play very poorly, and slam is most unlikely given the misfit. We should be able to scramble 10 tricks in hearts. I hope East doesn’t lead a trump.
Manuel Paulo: Despite the misfit, I continue to game on the strength of my trumps. For example, if partner has Q K-10-x-x-x A-K-10-x-x-x x, and West has J-x x-x Q-9-x-x-x J-9-x-x, the only game is 4 .
Dale Freeman: I think it is dangerous to show any extra black distribution because 4 may be our best shot at game…
Alon Amsel: Total misfit. Let’s get the hand over with.
Kieran Dyke: Hideous misfit; probably best in a suit.
Imre Csiszar: Aha! So here is where “The King” bid too much to reach 7 . :) Despite holding 16 HCP, I have no idea whether we can make any game; 4 gives as much encouragement as I can afford with this misfit. I hope partner will go on only if his suits are very strong.
K. Scott Kimball: What a misfit! Let’s hope partner can make 4 .
Carsten Kofoed: With this misfit, I’ll be satisfied to score a game.
Nigel Marlow: With this misfit, slam will probably be too difficult. Partner probably has something like x K-J-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x-x x.
Ognian Smilianov: Many points, but quite a bad fitting hand; I will stick to game only.
David Harari: … I give up on slam because of the misfit, and 3 NT may be awkward with communication problems. …
Sandy Barnes: An evil hand for 3 NT — no transportation and [few] tricks. Four hearts may make on some sort of crossruff.
Gerald Cohen: Handling problems make a slam unlikely.
Comments for 3 Joshua Donn: More to emphasize clubs than spades, but leaving room for partner to bid 3 NT or 4 , so I can bid 4 next.
Michael Palitsch: Maybe 3 NT is the best practical bid, but I want to keep the bidding open for one more round.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: A misfit is likely, but I am strong enough to investigate with 3 …(natural and forcing). I will pass 3 NT; over 4 , I will bid 4 …
David Caprera: Three notrump will play crappily… Four hearts could be the limit of the hand, but it is conceivable that 6 is still the best spot. Where is it written that partner doesn’t have — K-J-10-x-x K-Q-x-x-x-x Q-x? Heck, even A K-J-10-x-x x-x-x-x-x-x 9 isn’t a horrible 6 contract; is that too much to hope for? I’ll bid out my pattern, too; then follow up with 4 and let partner decide. (I hope partner doesn’t raise 3 to 4 !)
David Wiltshire: I will continue with 4 over 3 NT (or 4 )…and partner will be able to judge slam with extras since I would raise 3 to 4 with a minimum 5=2=0=6. …
Mark Reeve: Completing the picture of my hand; this is still forcing.
Mike Vaughn: But don’t ask what I should bid after partner bids 3 NT. :)
Bogdan Vulcan: … Least of evils; after showing 5-6 in spades and clubs, I will bid 4 ; any use, partner? … Five hearts would be nice if partner understood it to mean: Bid a slam if it makes; pass otherwise. :)
Jonathan Monroe: Yuck, a horrible misfit. … I suspect 3 NT is going off due to communication problems, but it [could be] the only game with a prayer…
Ted Ying: After responder’s reverse, this must be forcing; and I’m not willing to bid higher until we have found a strain to play.
Leonard Helfgott: The proper…way to bid a good hand with five spades and six clubs. Over 3 NT, I’ll pull to 4 …and let partner work out what to do. …
Kees van Schenk Brill: I’ll clarify my 5-6 shape… If I had to choose a hand where “The King” bid 7 and trumps didn’t break, this would be my bet.
Sorry, I lied about that story — but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Wolf Klewe: Not so much to suggest playing in spades but to show six clubs.
Solaris Whitesail: Showing my 5-6 distribution… It’s still open for partner to sign off in 3 NT.
Sebastien Louveaux: Showing my shape. It is [likely] we have a misfit, but there’s still a chance [for partner to hold] two clubs.
Jean-Christophe Clement: … This allows partner to bid 4 with two cards; else 3 NT should be reached.
Jim Wiitala: Then 4 over 3 NT (or 4 ). This might get us to slam if partner has [extra values or good suits].
Paulino Correa: Most likely contracts are 4 or 3 NT, but 3 is forcing (five spades and six clubs).
Jack Brawner: This had to be my plan all along; why change now?
Gerald Murphy: Showing my 5-6 distribution… Partner may well have support for [clubs]. If he bids 3 NT, I will bid 4 to show some cards there.
Scott Stearns: I’ll keep bidding my pattern… Fortunately, I can do this below 3 NT, which [may be our best] game. If partner bids 4 , I will try 4 to give him a choice of games. Slam is still in the picture, but not all that likely…
Don Hinchey: Why not complete the description of my hand? Seems like I can always raise hearts later.
Lajos Linczmayer: Showing 5-6. If partner has two clubs and extras, I want to play 6 .
George Klemic: Let the table know it’s a misfit! I will pass 3 NT, or correct 4 to 4 . It is [too dangerous] to try to show additional values…
Comments for 3 NTKevin Podsiadlik: At this point, I’m just hoping my extra strength will be enough to overcome this dreadful misfit.
Rosalind Hengeveld: In 3 NT on this misfit, five club tricks may see me home; while in 4 , where are 10 tricks to come from if partner’s diamonds aren’t semisolid?
Brad Theurer: I have a fine hand, but the auction has not improved it. I’d rather play 3 NT myself to protect my K (at least temporarily). With this much of a misfit, slam seems rather remote.
Steve White: I hope to score 3 NT on power despite the awful misfit. Clubs may well be a source of tricks, with at least one heart entry.
Barry Rigal: Pessimistic; but where are the tricks? Even 3 NT might be in trouble. Maybe 4 is safer; maybe not.
Bill Daly: I can probably muddle through 3 NT, given my high-card strength. I can’t imagine that slam is possible, or that there is a better contract. …
Nick Krnjevic: Much of my hand seems wasted, so I’ll stay low in our misfit.
Ed Barnes: Three notrump; 3 NT; 3 NT. If this ain’t the last making contract, I’ll eat my toothbrush.
Comments for 4 Josh Sinnett: Sounds like a huge misfit, but we could still have a grand opposite, say, — K-J-10-x-x A-x-x-x-x-x Q-x. If partner bids 4 , I’ll bid 4 to play.
Robin Zigmond: This is just about worth a minor slam try.
Gillian Paty: A club fit is still possible; else we will play in hearts.
Final NotesComments are selected from those scoring 52 or higher (top 235) or with an overall average of 50.25 or higher (top 215) prior to this poll, and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. Over 75 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.
Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.
I hope you enjoyed this return to Manila 28 years ago, and the memory of perhaps the greatest entertainer of all time. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site.
Carol Borich: Don’t be cruel!
Scott Stearns: Some of these problems will hound (dog) me well into the night.
Joe Fendel: I thought that an Elvis-themed quiz would have problems about locating a king.
Curt Reeves: After these problems, “Now and then there’s a fool such as I…”
Bill Erwin: This poll had “Something for Everyone,” so I decided to “Follow that Dream” rather than “Surrender.” I’m sure that “Suspicious Minds” would think the tournament was held “In the Ghetto” or during a “Kentucky Rain.”
| Analyses 8W32 Main Challenge | | Scores Top Swan Song Nets Huge Loss |
Acknowledgments to Elvis Presley and Elvis Presley Enterprises
© 2005 Richard Pavlicek