Analyses 8W48  Main Challenge

Second Place Rose Garden

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in July 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

My rose theme drew a number of excellent guesses. Some thought it might be a tournament in which Rose Meltzer’s team was second, such as the IOC Grand Prix (Women’s) in Salt Lake City. Another popular guess was Portland, Oregon, aka the “City of Roses.” My favorite came from Barry Rigal, who suggested Guaruja, Brazil since Mark Blumenthal was second. Other guesses were Salzburg (Austria); Copenhagen; London; and Italian cities of Venice, Como (close) and St. Vincent (closest).

The tournament was held in Turin, Italy, located in the mountainous northwest. Pictured to the left is the apex of the 550-foot-high La Mole Antonelliana, the definitive landmark of Turin containing the National Cinema Museum, with the Italian Alps in the distance. To the right is the Church of Saint Maria atop the Hill of the Cappuccini on the River Po, which flows through Turin. Pay attention! There’ll be a pop quiz in February when the Winter Olympics hit town.

My title was a wordplay on the British partnership, Albert Rose and Nico Gardener, who were second in this tournament. In my bogus tale, I also used the phrase “rose gardener.” Actually, I feel embarrassed after all the congrats for my prize roses, but my story had enough BS to fertilize 10 gardens. My only gardening accomplishment is growing weeds.

“I realized the way your eyes deceived me…”

My clue to the year was in the background song Paper Roses. This sad but pretty song has been recorded by many artists, but the first was Anita Bryant in 1960. Bryant is also memorable to me as the vivacious “Florida orange juice girl,” a commercial gold mine, kind of like today’s AFLAC duck, though her position ended in controversy when she became outspoken on social issues.

Of about 60 guesses received, only seven were right on both Turin and 1960. Congratulations to Barry White, Richard Morse, Bill Cubley, Bill Erwin, Bill Powell, Peter Clinch and Zoran Bohacek.

Jean-Christophe Clement Wins!

Participation was down this month, perhaps due to summer vacations (last July also dropped from May) or more likely, just lazy players. You know who you are! The average score (44.67) was up from the last poll but still one of the lower ones (fifth lowest), and 683 people scored 45 or higher to make the listing. The problems were not as closely decided as in the last poll, but most were well contested, and none drew a majority vote.

In the overall leaderboard, we have a new leader in Jouko Paganus (Finland) with a remarkable 57.00 average. More than a full point back with 55.75 are David Nolland (England) and previous overall leader David Caprera (Colorado). Next in line are Jorge Castanheira (Portugal) with 55.50 and this month’s winner Jean-Christophe Clement (France) with 55.00.

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

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

The first World Bridge Team Olympiad was held in Turin, Italy, April 27 to May 4, 1960 at the Palazzo delle Belle Arti (Palace of Fine Arts). I wonder if this is where the “fine art” of psyching began.

Twenty-nine teams were divided into three groups (10, 10 and 9), and each group played a complete round-robin of 40-board matches scored by Victory Points. The top two teams in each group advanced to the final. Surviving Group 1: France and USA(S2); Group 2: Great Britain and USA(V1); Group 3: Italy and USA(S1).*

*Due to its large ACBL membership, the United States was allowed four teams: first and second places in the Spingold and Vanderbilt. These are abbreviated S1, S2, V1 and V2. All but V2 qualified for the final. Only one other country was allowed more than one team (Sweden had two).

The six surviving teams would play another complete round-robin, this time with 60-board matches.* The three USA teams faded early, and it came down to a photo finish between France and Great Britain. Final standings were: France 16, Great Britain 15, USA(V1) 9, USA(S2) 8, USA(S1) 8, and Italy 7.

*Only 4 VPs were at stake in each match. Winning by 1-7 IMPs (old style, wider range) was deemed a winning tie with VPs split 3-1.

Instead of picturing the winners, I’ll take exception this time because of my “rose gardener” theme and show the second-place British team. Pictured (L-R, top row first) are Albert Rose, Nico Gardener, Ralph Swimer, Boris Schapiro, Terence Reese and Jeremy Flint.

The 1960 Olympiad was well staged. Each table was surrounded on three sides by a three-tiered grandstand to allow excellent viewing for many kibitzers. Large flags were situated at each table to indicate the competing countries. Buzzers and lights allowed tables to communicate with tournament staff, e.g., to summon a director or order a beverage. Hand records were used to prepare boards, and a “curtain card” was placed in each pocket so players could verify their hands. A massive wall-length scoreboard was updated continually (manually) as matches progressed. Everything ran smoothly. Considering some of the poorly run tournaments since then, it may be time to return to basics.

The most remarkable aspect of the final is the Italian Blue Team finishing last. Is that possible? Perhaps Belladonna was so enamored by the surroundings that he kept buzzing for a waiter, “Another martini, please! Oh, and a dish of spumoni for Walter.”

It’s time to take a walk through the rose garden. Watch out for thorns as you match your bids with the best and second best of 1960.

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 1

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass 1 NT	North Pass 2	East 1 3	South 1 ?	A 10 9 7 4 7 3 10 A K J 9 3

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	577	44
3	9	111	8
4	6	183	14
4	5	322	25
Pass	3	111	8
4	1	3	0

We begin this month with an evaluation problem. What appears to be an excellent playing hand is tarnished by the announcement of a spade stopper behind you. Besides the offside honor(s), chances of a bad trump break are increased, and West may be just itching to double any aggressive venture. Even so, it would be embarrassing to let an opponent talk you out of a game.

By most evaluation schemes* this hand is worth a game try, but the only available means (3 ) is a distortion. So what? That’s my choice. The downside is that partner may upgrade a mediocre hand based on a heart fit, but I see at least two upsides: (1) conveying the true value of your hand to partner, and (2) a smoke screen that may induce misdefense. A new suit after a raise is clearly forcing; and if partner bids 4 , you have an easy retreat to 4 — unless you’re playing to win the “Masochist of the Year” award.

*In my taught methods it is worth 18 points: 12 HCP, 2 for the singleton, 1 for the doubleton, 1 for holding two aces and two 10s, plus 2 extra points after the raise for the long side suit (1 for fourth, 1 for fifth club).

Oh well. The overwhelming consensus was to be conservative and compete to 3 . I can live with that, especially with only a nonvulnerable game at stake. Considering the announced dangers, 3 may be the long-term winner. I just find it difficult to take pessimistic views.

Why not bid your real second suit? Ostensibly, 4 would be a slam try*; but even if partner deems otherwise, it is unlikely to have any benefit. You’re forced to play game, and it’s inconceivable you’d ever want to bid 5 . Further, 4 has no lead-directing merit since you’re on lead against diamonds, and the bid itself precludes defending 3 NT. Perhaps the only advantage is that it might stop West from doubling 4 , either because he thinks you’re trying for slam or he’s worried you’ll run to clubs.

*Many experts treat such bids as shape-descriptive to help partner decide whether to compete later or sell out, but this is a special agreement. By default, forcing to 4 is a slam try.

Jumping to 4 would be a reasonable gamble without the 1 NT bid, but here it’s like a blind man directing traffic. Only West can see what his trumps are, so he’ll know exactly when to double. I’d only feel comfortable in 4 if partner could bid it.

Other choices are extreme. Pass is reminiscent of Casper Milquetoast. Four diamonds is wildly aggressive if not from outer space; but it did get three votes. Fritz and his two brothers?

Here’s what happened in 1960 when the big guns, France and Britain, squared off in the final:

West deals	Q 6 5 2		West	North	East	South
None vul	A J 9 6		Jais	Swimer	Trezel	Flint
	Q 9		Pass	Pass	1	1
	8 7 4		1 NT	2	3	3
J 8 3		K	Pass	Pass	Pass
Q 8 2		K 10 5 4
A 7 6 5		K J 8 4 3 2
Q 10 5		6 2
	A 10 9 7 4
	7 3
	10
	A K J 9 3

Great Britain N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
3 South	4 South	Gardener	Delmouly	Rose	Bourchtoff
Made 4 +170	Made 4 +420	Pass	Pass	1	1
		1 NT	2	Pass	Pass
France +6 IMPs		3	3	Pass	4
		Pass	Pass	Pass

The problem was modeled after the first auction, in which Flint chose the same bid as our consensus. Alas, Jais and Trezel were only kidding with their bids, so a decent game was missed.

Evidently, stoppers were not in style back then, as Gardener made the same 1 NT bid at the second table. Rose exhibited some sense by not bidding twice when he didn’t have his first bid, and Bourchtoff gave up on game. Oops. Gardener gave them another chance, and the French grabbed it. Ten tricks were easily made with the friendly spade lie; 6 IMPs* to France.

*Actually, it was only 4 IMPs due to the wider scale of 1960, but the relative swing was essentially the same. Rather than add confusion, I’ll state all swings in familiar IMPs of today.

Comments for 3

Jean-Christophe Clement: Game is possible, but there are probably four losers. With a 5-5-2-1 distribution, it seems shy to pass.

Brad Theurer: There are some hands partner could have that yield a decent play for game, but also many where 3 is high enough. Perhaps, vulnerable, I’d push a little harder; but 3 (only game try available) isn’t very descriptive, so I’ll settle for just competing. Second choice would be 4 .

David Grainger: The free 1 NT bid suggests partner does not have the perfect hand, and the bidding warns of a bad spade break; so I won’t make a game try.

Jonathan Siegel: Game could be on if partner has the right cards, but I think 3 is enough. …

Jon Sorkin: We have less than half the deck. About the most I could expect is K-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x x-x, and even that isn’t a claimer [for game].

Barbara Reichman: … I will not give away my hand with a club bid.

Anant Rajani: Holding 5=2=1=5 distribution, it is tempting to bid four; but my suit quality is not good, and West has bid 1 NT…

Jack Brawner: I wish I knew my opponents. Against conservative players, pass may well be right; against bid-a-maniacs, I’d bid a confident 4 .

Eric Goff: On average hands, I estimate 3 is down one, making on a good day, or making four on a really good day; so the four level sounds like dangerous territory, indeed. I will settle for a competitive 3 , [and pass] if opponents bid 4 .

Ronald Michaels: If the opponents are bidding honestly, partner probably won’t be able to cover enough losers for game to be made;…so should I just compete, try for game, or bid game? I could hedge somewhat with 3 …, but partner probably has five hearts (3=5=3=2 or 3=5=2=3) so this unfortunately will elicit a 4 bid… All in all, 3 is probably best.

Steve Stein: If North has J-x-x-x and the A, [this] should have a reasonable play, even if spades are 4-0 behind me. …

Justin Lall: It could be right to shoot out a game, but the 1 NT bid scares me. I don’t think I need to preempt the opponents, who may be done bidding, so the question is: What can we make? With West having a trump trick, I’ll take the low road; he may even have a stack.

Glenn McIntyre: There’s something to be said for an initial 2 overcall, as 4 now seems a bit much.

Steve White: With a fit, I won’t sell out to 3 . With West presumably having a spade stopper, 4 is too much…

Karl Barth: It looks like West has a spade trick, maybe two. Unless partner holds a perfecta, 4 is odds-against; so I’ll try to go plus. I’m not too worried about a double.

Colin Baker: With partner unable to give a stronger raise, and being nonvulnerable, there’s not much chance to gain from bidding game. …

Kieran Dyke: I’m a little apprehensive since spades may be stacked, but the extreme shape warrants a bid. Partner had an easy cue-bid raise available…, so game will need a perfecta.

Jason Flinn: If opponents bid to 4 , I’d rather have bid 4 ; but there is no guarantee of that here.

Fernando Llano: I hope West’s 1 NT bid is for real; otherwise, I would bid 4 .

Michael Palitsch: I hope to show interest in 4 , but more of a distributional hand than a strong hand (3 would be stronger).

David Caprera: I consider this aggressive; anything more is suicidal. Minus 300 won’t surprise me, but partner could have J-x-x A-x-x-x-x x-x-x Q-x, where we have a double partscore swing.

Richard King: We may miss a nonvulnerable game, but I’ll just take the money.

Oliviero Cerri: Just competing; I expect this to be down only one with 3 making.

Tysen Streib: This should be competitive, not invitational.

Jim Tully: It would be easy to fall in love with this hand, but I remember that partner passed, West didn’t make a negative double, partner passed originally, and my suit is pretty ratty. Did I mention that partner passed?

Rita Redlich: Partner has passed; I do not want to get too high and am just competing. …

Jorge Castanheira: If West had not bid 1 NT, I would consider other options; but he sent me a red alert that I cannot ignore.

Paul Flashenberg: I would have overcalled 2 at my first turn, so I probably could get both suits in below the four level.

Christopher Monsour: A bit pessimistic, since East figures to have mostly red cards, and West mostly black cards. …

Brian Zietman: I’m not interested in defending at the three level. Maybe the opponents will push us up to a vulnerable spade game, doubled. …

Alan Kravetz: This may make, or push the opponents into 4 that may not make.

Julian Pottage: Wrong vulnerability to sell out. A game try would be too pushy facing the simple raise, especially with a higher than usual chance of an uneven trump split.

Thijs Veugen: My heart says, “Bid game,” but my mind says, “Watch out!”

Julian Wightwick: I am not worth any more once West claims a stopper and partner cannot bid 2 or 3 . …

Carsten Kofoed: This looks like four losers — for both sides.

Josh Sinnett: Spades are behind me, and hearts will probably lay badly as well (if partner has a finessable honor). If partner has a maximum or extra distribution, he can always take another bid. This might be a tougher problem vulnerable, when stretching to game is more necessary.

Michael G. Phillips: I’d like to encourage partner more, but how? The fact that I took a free bid at the three level will have to be enough — this ain’t matchpoints.

Chuck Lamprey: It’s not hard to find hands where both 3 and 3 make, so I have to compete. Four spades would be too much; partner is likely to be minimum with everyone bidding, and I’m sure to be doubled.

Brad Ross-Jones: I don’t really see 4 making, but this hand has too much distribution to defend. No point in advertising clubs, as bidding them commits us to 4 .

Robin Zigmond: Game seems unlikely if partner has only a raise to two (particularly given the risk of diamond forces), but it does seem wimpy not to compete with this fine two-suiter.

Mauri Saastamoinen: I have to bid and have no idea whether partner has something like K-x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x Q-x, or K-8-x Q-10-x-x-x Q-x-x x-x. If I bid 3 , partner might get excited for the wrong reason. …

Nigel Guthrie: Perhaps I should have overcalled…a cunning 2 .

James Hudson: I have enough shape to give them a push, though West’s 1 NT bid is somewhat worrisome.

Sandy McIlwain: My inclination is to bid four, but warning signs are out. I don’t see much merit in 3 as a game try.

Fraser Rew: At least the [spade layout] is marked, and it’s only 50 a trick. This hand looks like it should be held by declarer.

Sandy Barnes: Color me chicken. Partner needs perfect cards for game, and he is [unlikely] to be able to judge correctly when game is on.

Tim DeLaney: This just isn’t good enough to bid 4 , and pass is out of the question.

Guy Ledanois: If West bids 3 NT, I will bid 4 .

Comments for 3

Imre Csiszar: An expert partner will realize that, with no other invitation available, this does not promise hearts; so he will return to 3 with less than a sound raise (in spite of holding 4+ hearts). If partner is weak, there is a serious danger that opponents can make 3 NT; perhaps the strength-showing 3 will deter West from bidding it.

Dan Mytelka: As my only game try, this need not say anything about hearts.

Charles Leong: Last train? Hopefully, partner understands that. …

Nikolay Demirev: I want to involve partner, whether West passes or raises to 4 . Four spades is likely to have some problems with everyone bidding, so I don’t wish to risk plus 140 for a dubious 420.

Lajos Linczmayer: The only available trial bid.

Ron Sperber: I hope partner knows this is just a generic game invitation because 3 would be competitive.

Mark Raphaelson: … This is the only invitational bid that doesn’t put us past 3 . (Three spades would be simply competitive.)

Bill Powell: Too good merely to compete.

Gordon Humphrys: A help-suit game try; forcing, I hope. …

Mark Abraham: As the only available game try, partner should not read anything into my interest in hearts. … There are plenty of hands suitable for 2 that will combine badly with mine, so I won’t bash into 4 given a reasonable alternative.

Curt Reeves: I hope this is a game try in spades.

Manuel Paulo: Like a last-train cue-bid, this shows game interest…but nothing in particular about hearts. Partner should bid game if he has only eight losers.

Gerald Murphy: I’m willing to play 3 and want to try for game. Can you bid more for me, partner?

Barry Rigal: Maybe I’m being pushy to make a game try, but I won’t sell out; and 3 as the only game try makes sense. I do not need much opposite, do I?

Comments for 4

Damo Nair: Offense all over the place. Four cards in either black suit will make game quite palatable. So here I am!

Mike Cassel: Really tough! If the auction doesn’t end in 4 , this will give partner a better high-level decision, while a jump to 4 might lead to a total guess. …

Ron Landgraff: I can’t let West play in notrump without a club lead, and 4 might even make. Three diamonds will roll.

Robert Eachus: This is weird. I have enough to bid game after partner raises spades, and there is very little chance that 5 will be a better contract than 4 ; so why bid 4 ? … There is a chance the bidding won’t stop at 4 , and this is the best way to inform partner so I can make a forcing pass of 5 . …

Joel Singer: I don’t need much from partner for 4 to have good play; this will aid partner in deciding what to do if the opponents bid 5 .

Alon Amsel: So partner can know what to do against 5 .

Scott Stearns: I think West’s spades are finessable, and I might as well tell partner about my even better five-card suit so he’ll know what to do over further diamond bids.

Kevin Podsiadlik: The question is whether to try to outthink the opponents with a walk-the-dog 3 , put them to a guess with 4 , or be descriptive and try to get partner in on the decision (at the risk of helping opponents judge the auction). I’ll go with the last…

Leonard Helfgott: With a 5 1/2 loser hand, and a…raise of my weaker long suit, I’ll gamble on game and let partner make an informed decision if opponents bid beyond.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Four spades is often only one down. Over 4 , West may bid 4 NT with something like K-x-x A-x-x Q-x-x 10-x-x-x, so it is better to make this lead-director. …

Jonathan Brill: The choice is between 4 and 4 , and this allows partner to make an informed decision if opponents bid 5 …

Ed Barnes: Partner’s a smart guy; I show faith.

Bill Erwin: Let partner decide what to do over 5 . With K-J-x-x x-x-x-x x Q-x-x-x, he will save; or with Q-x-x-x K-Q-x-x x-x-x-x x, he will defend.

Roger Morton: [Showing] an alternative lead [against 4 NT] and a pointer for partner in the next round of bidding. We might have a double fit.

Brian Ross: To help partner out over the forthcoming 5 .

Jonathan Goldberg: I’ll get some help from partner about what to do over 5 .

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 2

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 3	East Pass Pass	South Pass 1 NT ?	4 3 A 9 7 4 2 K 8 7 6 5 7

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	486	37
3	8	101	8
3	7	308	24
3 NT	4	240	18
4	2	172	13

Partner’s shape in the blacks may be the same as yours in the reds, so the misfit suggests 3 NT. Then you realize that notrump may play poorly, either from the strained communication or the lack of a trick source. Therefore, the consensus was to offer a preference to spades, hoping partner will benefit from a club ruff (or two) in your hand. All quite practical, and earning the top spot.

I disagree. It seems right to mention a red suit first, and the obvious question is which one. I’m clearly in the minority, but I firmly believe 3 to be the best bid. Locating a diamond fit might unveil a good slam because both your high cards will be working; e.g., give partner A-K-Q-x-x x A-x-x A-K-x-x. Conversely, locating a heart fit will dull, if not eliminate, slam chances because the K will be wasted. Further, a 5-3 heart fit should play fine in 3 NT, as the heart suit will provide tricks, and a diamond lead is hardly a concern.

Most red-suit bidders, by about a 3:1 ratio, chose to bid hearts; but I suspect this was largely out of habit. Surely, it is too high to expect to bid both suits, so diamonds will be buried forever. Also, consider that partner could be 5=0=4=4, and over 3 his only option will be to bid 3 NT — not pretty with a likely 6 (maybe a grand) going by the wayside.

Bidding 3 NT seems little more than a guess, and even Bob Hamman would reject this one, I hope. If partner has a typical hand like A-K-x-x-x x Q-x A-K-Q-x-x, he will pass 3 NT, and the much superior 4 will be missed.

Jumping to 4 has no merit that I can see, and was added mainly to achieve my five-choice quota. This should show a maximum with a strong doubleton spade and useful values, perhaps Q-J A-x-x-x x-x-x-x Q-x-x; hence, partner will often bid again. And to those who claim it is “fast arrival,” I expect your trip to the nut house will be, too.

Surprise, surprise. Bidding methods were loose in 1960, and neither South even bothered to bid 1 NT. In those days, when you had a suit, you bid it; and with two suits, you bid ‘em both:

South deals	K 9 8 7 6		West	North	East	South
None vul	K 8		Jais	Swimer	Trezel	Flint
	A J					Pass
	A Q J 5		Pass	1	Pass	2
A		Q J 10 5 2	Pass	3	Pass	3
Q 10 6 3		J 5	Pass	3 NT	All Pass
4 3		Q 10 9 2
10 9 6 4 3 2		K 8
	4 3
	A 9 7 4 2
	K 8 7 6 5
	7

Great Britain N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	3 NT North	Gardener	Delmouly	Rose	Bourchtoff
Down 1 -50	Down 2 -100				Pass
		Pass	1	Pass	2
Great Britain +2 IMPs		Pass	3	Pass	3
		Pass	3 NT	All Pass

Identical auctions at each table. North showed the blacks, South the reds, and the twain finally met in 3 NT. The fact that neither game made (Swimer was down one, Delmouly down two) might explain why modern experts don’t respond 2 . Then again, it may explain nothing, as it’s hard to stop below game in any system with 25 HCP and three five-card suits.

In the problem, I had North make an aggressive jump shift to 3 (my choice) over the 1 NT response. Some experts would prefer a simple raise to 2 NT (OK by me), and some would bid a conservative 2 (don’t like it). To each his own.

Comments for 3

Jean-Christophe Clement: With a minimum hand and a singleton club, 3 NT will probably have communication problems.

Brad Theurer: A bid in either red suit should show a longer suit, or at least more values in that suit. This does not promise more than a doubleton spade. If partner bids 3 NT, I will pass. If he bids 4 , East will not know I have club shortness and may not find a trump lead.

Jonathan Siegel: I don’t like 3 NT with such a misfit.

Jon Sorkin: Giving up on a red-suit contract. I will pass 3 NT; cue-bid 4 over 4 or 4 ; or bid 4 over 4 .

Anant Rajani: Partner must have 19-21 HCP. My K is likely to be wasted, and the lack of a fit in partner’s suits is a negative point.

Imre Csiszar: The question is whether to suggest game in notrump, or in spades despite the misfit. … Three hearts looks inferior, as it may not gain much if partner has three hearts, and it loses if partner raises with two cards, expecting a better suit. The only bid that may lead to a good slam is 3 ; unfortunately, it rates to lead to a poor slam more often.

Nicoleta Giura: My hand doesn’t appear very useful in a notrump contract.

Steve White: Partner would expect better hearts for 3 , and [he knows] I’m unlikely to have three spades after starting with 1 NT.

Kieran Dyke: The baboon opposite should be looking for bids other than 4 if he has only five.

Charles Blair: Not a good fit, but could be a lot worse.

Michael Palitsch: Partner can still bid 3 NT with 5=2=2=4 distribution.

Mike Cassel: … I am trying to slow things down, but over 4 I will cue-bid 4 .

Jim Tully: My ratty suits aren’t worth bidding, so I’ll just give partner a preference;…he’ll likely just bid 4 , possibly 3 NT. Slam is unlikely but possible if he bids 4 or 4 …

Ron Landgraff: Notrump doesn’t look good. Partner wants a preference, so I’ll give it to him; my hand may well be useful in 4 .

Bill Powell: A black two-suiter opposite hasn’t improved this hand.

Gordon Humphrys: I’m not that much in love with my 7-count.

Jorge Castanheira: Partner has a good hand, but his second bid didn’t improve my collection. I will [pass] 3 NT if partner considers to give me that option.

Paul Flashenberg: With a potential trump lead, my hand isn’t worth enough for a forward-going, ambiguous bid…

Brian Zietman: At IMPs, I will give a preference to [imply] weakness. At matchpoints, I would risk 3 NT.

Paul Hightower: Partner knows I may have a five-card red suit and can try 4 or 4 on 5-4-3-1 shapes. Three diamonds or 3 sounds like a six-card suit.

Joel Singer: … If partner bids 4 or 4 , I will bid 4 . Certainly, a red suit might be a better fit (partner being 5=3=1=4 or 5=1=3=4) but too difficult to find.

Julian Pottage: Having denied three-card support with 1 NT, my hand is well suited for spades…

Curt Reeves: Showing doubleton support… I would prefer a spade honor to jump to 4 .

Alon Amsel: My long suits are ugly, so I prefer to show doubleton support with this unbalanced hand.

Josh Sinnett: Close between this and 3 , but I’d hate to have partner raise to 4 on Q-x, which he should. Partner can bid 4 with a 5=3=1=4 hand to complete his shape; or if we end in 4 , my low spades are good for ruffing clubs.

Mark LaForge: I will raise any red-suit rebid by partner, or pass 4 .

Scott Stearns: So many bids I’d like to make on this round of bidding alone! My red cards aren’t terrible for partner (he might have a doubleton diamond or singleton honor). While I’d like to play 3 NT, I won’t insist. I tend to follow Kokish’s philosophy of getting out of jump shifter’s way as much as possible; 3 is just neutral and waiting.

Leonard Helfgott: I do have a ruffing value, I’ve basically denied three spades, and my suits are too weak to introduce or to insist on notrump. If partner bids four of a red suit, I’ll be happy to raise that bid…

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: With my doubleton spade and ruffing value, 4 will often be the best contract. If partner is really strong, we may reach a good slam…

John Lusky: Unless partner continues with 3 NT, this hand is likely to play better in spades than notrump. Three hearts should be more heart-oriented.

Robin Zigmond: Three clubs is presumably game-forcing, so a simple preference is enough. Partner is surely more interested in my spades than a ragged five-card red suit.

Jonathan Brill: I’ve denied three spades, yet I like playing in a suit with my side ace, king and singleton. If partner now bids 3 NT or 4 , I will pass; if he bids 4 or 4 , I will bid 4 .

Mauri Saastamoinen: No cheese today! If I bid 3 on this mousetrap, partner may support me with 5=2=1=5 shape; if I bid 3 , the heart suit is lost. We can still find 3 NT if partner bids it.

James Hudson: My suits are too weak to bid, and my hand will not make a bad dummy in a spade contract — though it’s certainly not worth 4 .

Roger Morton: With such poor intermediates, neither of my suits is worth bidding. I’ll back off for the moment.

John R. Mayne: An easy one. Bidding a [weak] heart suit is unlikely to be right; notrump is unlikely to play well; so picking one of partner’s suits, as is often the case, is right.

Barry Rigal: My ruffing value suggests spades may be right, so I won’t overrule partner and bid 3 NT without consulting him. I hope he will bid 3 NT when it is right.

Bill Cubley: A preference is all I dare to do. The better bidders are more daring. :)

Jonathan Goldberg: Partner knows I wouldn’t have three trumps, so I’d better tell him about two. I wish my trumps were better, but my side cards are fast and I have few spot cards [for notrump]. Opponents might beat 3 NT while we could make a slam, though I admit it’s unlikely.

Comments for 3

Eric Goff: Ugh. It is too early to apply the 3 NT bludgeon. Partner could easily have three nice diamonds, making 5 or 6 a nice feather.

Ronald Michaels: … Partner could have a variety of hands where we have a game, or even a slam, in a red suit. Bidding 3 gives the most flexibility to find a fit and does not preclude reaching 3 NT or 4 . (Of course, I may have to think awhile to decide what partner’s upcoming 3 bid means.)

Justin Lall: This leaves room for partner to describe his hand. With six spades, he will rebid spades; with 5=3=1=4 shape, he will bid 3 ; with three diamonds, he will raise. …

Colin Baker: Making the cheapest call should allow us to sort out a contract in either red suit, spades or notrump. My sharp cards could easily produce a slam in diamonds or spades.

David Caprera: I expect partner to bid a three-card heart fragment if he has it. I will raise [3 ] or 3 to four, or pass 3 NT.

Lajos Linczmayer: I don’t like 3 because partner may raise with a doubleton honor without a diamond stopper, e.g., K-Q-J-10-x K-x x-x A-K-Q-x; and if he has three hearts, maybe we can make 3 NT as well. If we have a diamond fit, e.g., A-K-Q-J-x x A-x-x A-x-x-x, even a slam is possible.

K. Scott Kimball: I just want to keep the auction open at the moment; not sure where this is going yet.

Christopher Monsour: … Partner now can bid 3 if he doesn’t know which strain we should be in, then I will bid 3 NT. My honor location suggests this hand is more likely to belong in diamonds (versus notrump) than in hearts.

Mark Abraham: This caters to finding a 5-3 fit in either red suit. Partner can bid 3 with three hearts and be confident of my length when I raise to 4 .

Chuck Lamprey: Then I will pass 3 NT; bid 4 over 3 ; or 4 over 3 or 4 . If partner raises diamonds, that should play well, too.

Richard Morse: Yuk! I suspect the purist answer is to bid 3 , as there’s a risk partner will take 3 as too encouraging. Against that, after 3 I can cope with almost any bid from partner,…and I have given him a chance to [show three hearts].

Bill Erwin: Perhaps partner will bid 3 on a three-bagger. I will correct 4 to 4 .

Fraser Rew: Nasty problem. I suspect we’re headed for 4 (or 6 on a good day) but don’t want to bid 3 with a low doubleton and 5-5 outside. This gives me room to bid 3 over 3 .

Rainer Herrmann: A good philosophy when no bid describes your hand well is to choose the cheapest bid to preserve space. My diamond suit has to be suspect since I would have bid 2 previously as a passed hand [with most strong diamond suits].

Jim Munday: This allows partner to bid a heart fragment or support diamonds, leaving me better able to judge the proper strain. Three hearts is a close second choice.

Jeff Mayhew: Leaves all options open. Partner can bid a three-card heart suit or show six spades. Over 3 NT, I will bid 4 .

Comments for 3

Gary Sikon: I’ll show my heart suit. Partner will bid 3 NT if it’s right, and this leaves him room to rebid spades.

Jack Brawner: This seems the most likely way to keep both 4 and 3 NT in play; 4 won’t go away.

Steve Stein: Hey, why can’t partner be 5=3=0=5?

Catalin Doras: … We are probably headed for 4 (hopefully without a trump lead), but partner might have three hearts…

Mark Raphaelson: No reason partner can’t still have three hearts. My suits aren’t solid enough to think notrump will play well…

Peter Talyigas: If diamonds are the problem, partner can bid 3 , and I have an answer.

Alan Kravetz: Then four diamonds over partner’s next bid. We may still have a 5-3 red fit, and at worst we will play in the 5-2 spade fit.

Stan Dub: Intending to bid 4 over 3 , but I will pass 3 NT.

Julian Wightwick: I’d like a spade honor to bid 3 , and I’d like better red-suit intermediates for 3 NT. My first instinct was to bid 3 , but I don’t think it will ever get us to 4 . This might get us to 4 too often (when partner has only two-card support), but he should temporize with 3 on some of those hands.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Bidding as naturally as I can for the time being. …

Michael G. Phillips: Yikes. I think I prefer a diamond lead to a heart lead if I’m returned to notrump.

Manuel Paulo: Despite partner’s two-suiter, he may have three hearts, then 4 is our best game for sure; hence, this looks like a worthwhile effort.

Frans Buijsen: Bidding as much of my hand as I can (we could still have 4 ). The real problem is what to do over 3 NT.

Matthew Mason: Partner may still have a heart fragment and raise. I’ll pass 3 NT; or bid 4 over 3 , 4 or 4 .

Sandy McIlwain: It’s a bit premature to raise one of partner’s suits. I’ll see if this helps.

Bogdan Vulcan: With a dubious hand for notrump, and no fit for partner, I wouldn’t like to lose a heart fit…

Tim DeLaney: I see no reason to get creative. I am in no position to make a decision, so I’ll make the most descriptive bid I can.

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 3

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 2	East 1 Pass	South 2 ?	9 3 Q 6 A 6 3 A K 10 7 5 2

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	624	48
Pass	9	168	13
2 NT	6	92	7
3	5	268	21
3	3	92	7
3	2	63	5

This problem turned out to be the flop of the month, as a near majority chose to rebid 3 . This was largely due to the fact that some thought 2 was forcing, or that the problem hand was stronger than a minimum two-level overcall.* I thought my inclusion of pass as an option made it clear 2 was nonforcing; but I guess I should have noted it anyway. Thus, the voting is skewed; but even if everyone followed the system, it appears 3 would have won anyway.

*Two-level overcalls show 13-18 points. A new-suit response shows 8-11 points and is nonforcing, so with a better hand responder must cue-bid first then show his suit, or jump.

I disagree with 3 . Chances for game are poor with a minimum-range overcall, no fit and dubious Q; but chances to worsen the contract are great. I have a decent dummy for spades, while partner’s hand may be dreadful for clubs; plus the level would be increased. I showed this hand when I bid 2 , so another club bid does not appeal. West’s silence is also ominous; he may be lying in wait with a club stack.

Curiously, if partner were a passed hand, I would agree with 3 because some hands (i.e., weak two-bids) can be ruled out. Odds are then good that partner has only five spades, so a club contract is likely to be an improvement.

If I were forced to bid again, I would bid 2 NT — at least I think I’m closer to having a heart stopper than a suit worth repeating. The enemy silence also suggests heading for notrump, as suit contracts are likely to play poorly with West poised to overruff the third heart. I might also bid 2 NT if we were vulnerable but wouldn’t be proud of it.

Cue-bidding 3 is hyper aggressive but could be a winner if partner bids 3 NT. Systemically, the cue-bid allows an escape in 4 , so it’s not outrageous — just rosy, but I guess that’s OK this month. I would expect 3 to show the same hand with the A instead of the queen.

The remaining two choices are wayward at best. Raising to 3 with a low doubleton just begs for trouble… Roses are red, violets are blue; if you bid spades, I raise you. Maybe partner will forgive you if you put down “ K-9-3" in dummy until somebody notices. Worst of all must be to bid 3 on a non-suit. What will you do if partner raises to 4 ?

Let’s see what happened 45 years ago when the “rose gardeners” took on Spingold 2:

East deals	A K J 8 5		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	J 8 7 4		Rose	Allinger	Gardener	Mathe
	Q 10				1	2
	9 3		Pass	2	Pass	3
7 4 2		Q 10 6	Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
9 5		A K 10 3 2	Pass
9 8 7 2		K J 5 4
Q J 8 6		4
	9 3
	Q 6
	A 6 3
	A K 10 7 5 2

USA(S2) N-S	Great Britain N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	3 NT North	Schenken	Schapiro	Ogust	Reese
Made 3 +400	Made 3 +400			1	2
		Pass	2 NT	Pass	3 NT
No swing		Pass	Pass	Pass

Mathe faced our problem scenario at the first table and chose the aggressive cue-bid. Fortunately, this caught Allinger with an ideal maximum, and a decent 3 NT was reached. Gardner led the 3, won by the queen. Allinger cashed one club (key play) then led the 9 to the jack and queen. This established eight tricks, and East was unable to avoid an endplay for nine. Well done.

At the second table, Schapiro ignored his spade suit and invited the most likely game with 2 NT, duly accepted by Reese. Ogust wisely led the K and switched to a diamond, the killing defense despite its ugly appearance. The rest of the play is not given, but the defense must have slipped to let Schapiro succeed. Game at each table! Push board.

Comments for 3

Jean-Christophe Clement: I really wonder what partner’s 2 bid means in Standard American: Is it forcing? How many HCP? How many spades?

If the winner can ask these questions there should be hope for us all.

Jon Sorkin: Let partner make the next move. I will bid…3 over 3 , 3 NT over 3 , or 4 over 3 .

Gary Sikon: I expect 90 percent to bid 3 .

Anant Rajani: Cue-bidding without a fit is not my style, so I’ll rebid clubs and wait.

Jack Brawner: This is where I hope my style works for me. Partner knows I don’t overcall on junk, so he will push to game if we have it.

Imre Csiszar: This confirms a sound overcall with a good suit; otherwise I would pass 2 , or have bid 3 immediately.

Ronald Michaels: At this point, my Q is a dubious value, …so I need some additional encouragement to move towards game in spades, clubs or notrump. …

Steve Stein: Why do a feel like a chump for bidding this?

Steve White: Too good to pass; spades too weak to raise.

Jan Andersson: With honor-doubleton in spades, I would bid 3 .

Colin Baker: … I will bid 3 over partner’s next call, then pass 3 NT…

Nikolay Demirev: I want to go plus on this board but still give partner a say. Two notrump and 3 are flawed, and any red-suit bid would require an embarrassing explanation after the session that I pulled the wrong card. …

David Caprera: This is not a sign-off, and partner should appreciate that Q-x and a heart stopper are worth another call.

Damo Nair: This is in the bid-what-I-have category. There’s still time for partner or me to make wild bids to try for 3 NT.

Martin Bootsma: Stresses the quality of my clubs and gives partner the opportunity to bid 3 , over which I will [bid 3 NT].

Christopher Monsour: Just barely worth another call. My quick tricks will be helpful if partner can bid again.

Robert Eachus: Three hearts is an overbid that might get us to 3 NT; pass is reasonable, but I do have a bit extra. Playing 2 [versus 3 ] might be an issue at matchpoints, but not at IMPs.

Joel Singer: Notrump is premature. If partner cue-bids 3 , I will happily bid 3 NT; if he rebids 3 , I’ll raise to 4 . If partner passes 3 , we’re probably in the best spot.

Jerry Merrell: If we have a chance at game, partner will be able to make another bid.

Craig Zastera: One more try for game without going beyond our safety level (hopefully); 3 NT will be good opposite as little as Q-J-x-x-x J-x-x K-x-x Q-x. Three diamonds may be more descriptive but overstates this hand’s game potential and risks getting too high. (I really have little more than a minimum two-level overcall at IMPs.)

Carsten Kofoed: What’s the value of my Q? I’ll give partner a chance to bid 3 or 3 NT with the right cards.

Josh Sinnett: Showing the sixth club and a non-minimum overcall. This seems fairly obvious, so of course I’ll get 6 for it.

Scott Stearns: Two spades isn’t forcing; but if it’s constructive, I don’t want to pass. My hand is about average for the overcall, so I won’t do anything outlandish.

Frans Buijsen: I have too much to pass…but not enough to force, so I’ll choose the safe rebid and leave further initiatives to partner. Over 3 by partner, I’ll bid 3 NT.

Chuck Lamprey: Perhaps a slight underbid, but there’s probably no game if partner can’t continue.

Richard Morse: Good problem. It’s tempting to pass 2 . Two notrump and 3 both seem like overbids.

James Hudson: Timid, but the alternatives (2 NT without a stopper, or 3 ) are too aggressive. Three hearts would sound like a great hand for spades, since 3 is available as a grope for 3 NT.

Sandy Barnes: I have the minimum for my 2 call.

Comments for Pass

Brad Theurer: I have a normal, fairly minimum overcall, with a potentially wasted Q and no fitting spade honor. I’ve done enough.

Eric Goff: I don’t really have any extras, so 2 sounds like a good place to play.

Charles Leong: Two spades is nonforcing, and West’s silence seems to indicate heart length with partner.

Justin Lall: I checked the system notes, and it says 2 is nonforcing, so I’ll pass. Partner may just have a good suit and 10 points or so; I don’t think we’re going anywhere.

Karl Barth: Two spades just shows a suit, and [does not imply] interest in clubs. Since I can tolerate spades, I’ll just hope we get out undoubled.

Charles Blair: I don’t think this is good enough for an invitational 3 , or confusing partner with anything else.

Jim Tully: I play this sequence as nonforcing, …usually showing six spades, and [often] with two clubs (or an honor) in case I can’t tolerate spades.

Mark Raphaelson: Glad the system notes were available. I was unsure if 2 was forcing; but when nonforcing, there is [little] reason to bid.

Bill Powell: I don’t overcall at the two level with much less.

Paul Flashenberg: Assuming 2 is nonforcing, it may be our last makable contract. Besides, I don’t have a good bid, and my Q is probably worthless.

Paul Hightower: Hightower’s Law: Bid cautiously with a bad queen in an opponent’s suit. In my experience, underbidding these hands wins three or four times for every loss.

Carlo Filiberto: Since 2 is nonforcing and I have no great support in the suit, I should pass.

Kevin Podsiadlik: This hand just isn’t that great, and 2 should be playable.

John Lusky: Nonvulnerable, I’ll be conservative. Bidding on is more likely to turn a plus into a minus than to lead to a decent game.

Gerald Murphy: Two spades doesn’t make me certain of a landing spot, so I’ll pass before the double card comes out.

Len Vishnevsky: Partner showed 8-11 points. I have no fit, no stopper and no tricks.

Len is going for a new record in compression play. Call the Guinness book!

Bill Cubley: Just a chicken here, but going on seems to involve psychology and body language. :) Partner could have cue-bid or jumped in spades to show a [good hand].

Comments for 2 NT

Julian Pottage: I would prefer better hearts, but this leaves partner room to [escape] if in doubt. Assuming 2 was nonforcing (from the fact that pass is an option), 3 would be too aggressive. With Q-x and two low hearts, I would bid 3 .

Thijs Veugen: This comes closest to my desire to make a positive bid without denying spade support.

Julian Wightwick: With hearts not raised or rebid, Q-x is a good holding to [speculate on notrump] as partner [rates] to have help. My hand is…better than it might be for a nonvulnerable overcall.

Ed Barnes: Now partner can do the hard work… If he is shabby, he’ll bid 3 or 3 [and I’ll pass]. I love playing with clairvoyants. :)

Comments for 3

Michael Palitsch: I like my hand — maybe too much.

Bruce Kretchmer: … If partner has a heart stopper, 3 NT should have a play; if not, I will pass 3 .

Rita Redlich: This shows a partial stopper and asks partner to bid 3 NT with the same.

Jorge Castanheira: Keeping options open. Pass is a possibility, but I like my hand for notrump.

Brian Zietman: Three notrump is a possibility if partner holds A-x-x or K-x-x; if not, we’ll play in 3 if partner rebids his suit; or maybe partner has some clubs.

Alon Amsel: I don’t even care whether 2 is forcing or not.

Sandy McIlwain: I’m worth a move toward 3 NT, or some other game.

Dale Freeman: Pass and 3 seem too conservative, so I’ll try an all-purpose cue-bid.

Jim Munday: Our best chance for game is 3 NT, and this seems the best way to get partner to bid it.

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 4

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 1 NT 2 3 NT	East Pass Pass Pass	South 2 3 1 ?	K 10 6 A 6 A Q 10 7 5 2 A 4
1. game force

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	188	14
6 NT	9	501	38
4	8	356	27
4	6	11	1
5 NT	5	79	6
4 NT	2	168	13
4	1	4	0

With 38 percent voting for 6 NT, it looks like I overruled the consensus; but that’s not true. Almost everyone who bid 4 , 4 or 4 was trying for a grand slam, and this group totals 42 percent. Further, many of the 5 NT bidders also had grand-slam interest (planning to follow with 6 NT). Therefore, the true consensus is to try for seven, so the winner will come from that camp.

Chances for seven are dimmed by partner’s 3 NT (no diamond fit or a poor hand for slam) but not out. He could easily have the right hand yet not be thrilled by 3 ; e.g., A-Q-J-x K-x-x K-x Q-x-x-x is a nonfitting minimum that belongs in seven. Of the available tries, I am convinced that 4 * is best. While ambiguous (natural or control-bid?), this won’t cause any problem since you can always correct to diamonds or notrump. I hope to hear 4 from partner; then I’ll bid 4 (control) hoping to hear 4 . If partner obliges, were in seven; if he discourages with 4 NT or 5 , I’ll bid 6 NT.

*Some 4 bidders thought it was Gerber, scoring a lucky 10 this time, but system rules require Gerber to be a jump. Further, I would have noted Gerber, as I did on Problem 5.

If I decide to bid the grand, a question still remains whether to play 7 , which might have trump-coup chances with J-x-x-x onside, or 7 NT. Considering that some hands will make 7 NT but not 7 , e.g., A-Q-x-x Q-x-x K-x K-Q-J-x ( J falling and J-x-x-x with the K for a squeeze), and that I hate to give away 2 IMPs, I’ll go for the bundle.

Other options to try for seven (4 or 4 ) are inferior, as partner will be constrained to do anything helpful. Over 4 , he will never like his hand lacking both unbid-suit aces. Over 4 , he would bid 4 NT (natural, good clubs) with A-J-x-x Q-x-x K-x K-Q-J-x, rather than the desired 4 . With these considerations and the large vote for simplicity, I’ll give second place to 6 NT — not to mention that too many people know where I live.

Some respondents wondered why 6 was not an option. Perhaps I should have included it instead of 4 or 4 NT (either of which is worse), but it’s really a horrible choice. Besides donating 2 IMPs every time both contracts make, imagine going down opposite Q-J-x-x K-J-x K-x K-Q-J-x (4-1 trumps or a stiff spade lead) with 6 NT laydown against any distribution.

Five notrump, logically meaning “pick a slam” (though not stipulated), seems useless since you never want to play 6 . Maybe not. If partner bids 6 and you follow up with 6 NT, this must be a grand-slam invitation — else what was the point of 5 NT? Even so, this only works if partner bids 6 , so it’s wishful thinking at best.

Any bid that allows partner to pass below slam is clearly off base. Four spades or 4 NT* (invitational) flirts with disaster, as the auction is likely to end there. If partner does bid again, you could logically drive to seven; but don’t expect any kudos for that. I never promised you a rose garden. Oh, wait! I did.

*Considering the large vote for 4 NT, it is likely that many thought it was Blackwood (perhaps by their own system rules) and intended to drive to slam. Sorry, but all bids are scored uniformly regardless of intention. In Standard American bidding there is sometimes no way to ask for aces, since the quantitative 4 NT is too valuable to abandon. Also, note that Gerber 4 does not apply because it must be a jump.

Now let’s turn back the clocks to 1960. You might be impressed; I certainly was. Considering all the 6 NT bidders today, one might wonder if bridge has really advanced in 45 years. Take a look:

North deals	A Q J 9		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	J 10 5		Jais	Swimer	Trezel	Flint
	K J			1	Pass	2
	K 10 9 8		Pass	2	Pass	3
8 7 5 3 2		4	Pass	4	Pass	4 NT
K Q 7 2		9 8 4 3	Pass	5	Pass	5 NT
8		9 6 4 3	Pass	7	All Pass
Q J 7		6 5 3 2
	K 10 6
	A 6
	A Q 10 7 5 2
	A 4

Great Britain N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
7 South	7 NT South	Gardener	Delmouly	Rose	Bourchtoff
Made 7 +1440	Made 7 +1520		1	Pass	2
		Pass	2	Pass	2 NT
France +2 IMPs		Pass	3	Pass	3
		Pass	3 NT	Pass	6
		Pass	6 NT	Pass	7 NT
		All Pass

Both tables bid the laydown grand, perhaps aided by the fact that neither North could open 1 NT. Flint-Swimer played 12-14, and Bourchtoff-Delmouly 16-18, so 1 was dictated by both systems. A strong jump shift led to two sensible auctions. Flint’s 4 NT was Culbertson (three aces or two aces and the king of a bid suit), 5 showed the A, and 5 NT guaranteed all the aces inviting seven.

The French auction looks more like guesswork, but all’s well that ends well — with icing on the cake for playing in notrump. I think I hear violins in the rose garden, or maybe it’s just Rose becoming sick after looking at that East hand for so long.

Comments for 4

Jean-Christophe Clement: A slam is almost certain. This shows the A; if partner bids 4 showing the K, a grand slam is possible. If partner bids 4 or 4 , 6 NT…will be the final contract.

Brad Theurer: … This cheap forcing bid will let partner describe his hand further. I’m hoping to hear a delayed diamond raise, whereupon [we may have a grand], e.g., A-Q-x-x K-x-x K-x-x K-x-x.

Mitch Edelman: A grand is still in the picture, e.g., opposite A-Q-J-x K-Q-x K-x-x x-x-x.

Gary Sikon: Clearly a slam try, hoping partner will support diamonds.

Anant Rajani: Showing club control…

Ronald Michaels: The easiest way to get a diamond control-bid from partner. If partner does not have the K, I’ll have to guess whether to play in 6 NT if he has J-x or x-x-x, or 6 in the Moysian fit if he has A-Q-J-x. Since I probably can’t find this out, I’ll just bid 6 NT…

Charles Leong: … I think this is [systemically] natural, but it’s the only intelligent move forward. Four diamonds from partner will be most welcome… Seven notrump is still in the picture: A-Q-x-x K-x-x K-x-x K-x-x.

Colin Baker: I will try to get some sign of enthusiasm for diamonds before working out whether to be in six or seven…

Mike Cassel: I’m hoping to hear 4 but will raise 4 NT to 5 NT.

Wei Victor Zhang: If partner has the A, three kings and a queen, a grand slam is for sure. I would have bid 4 (Gerber) over 1 NT to ask, and then 5 for kings.

Gordon Humphrys: I will not play this in less than 6 NT.

Jorge Castanheira: A grand is still possible if partner can bid 4 now. If he bids 4 NT, I will sign off in 6 NT…

Fraser McLeod: Cue-bid. I want to know if partner has K.

Carlo Filiberto: I’ll try for a grand slam.

Thijs Veugen: Cue-bid, trying to find out if partner likes diamonds even a little.

Manuel Paulo: I want to bid slam (six or seven), so I can’t risk a quantitative 4 NT bid. After cue-bidding at the four level, I will use Blackwood and bid 7 NT if partner shows one ace and three kings, because then he has room for one queen — or if he has, e.g., A-J-x-x K-x-x K-x K-J-x-x, assuming diamonds break well (73 percent), he’ll have to find a 13th trick.

John Lusky: Too early to give up on a grand slam, so I’ll see what a cue-bid brings.

Carlos Dabezies: Allowing partner to support diamonds with K-x.

Comments for 6 NT

Jonathan Siegel: This should have good chances even if partner has only 15 HCP. Partner’s 2 bid lessens the chance that West has A-Q.

Jack Brawner: I am not so sure I haven’t already given the opponents too much information.

Eric Goff: I have the values for 6 NT, so I see no reason to futz around looking for inferior strains.

Nicoleta Giura: I have to admit I wouldn’t have bid 2 ; what good did it do? … On second thought, 2 was a good strategic bid to avoid a heart lead. :)

Rahul Chandra: While a grand is possible, partner might accept…with hands that…rely on a finesse.

Karl Barth: There’s no real point to 5 NT (pick a slam), and inviting with 4 NT is not enough. I know the contract should be 6 NT, so I’ll bid it. Even if partner has no diamond honor, it’s probably [at least] 75 percent.

Kieran Dyke: Surely, the 3 NT bid should kill my grand-slam aspirations.

Michael Palitsch: Seven notrump might be laydown, but the 3 NT bid does not suggest it…

Jim Tully: …My diamond suit has to be worth an extra trick or two if partner is on a dead minimum.

Ron Sperber: Partner didn’t seem to get excited by my 3 , but slam is reasonable even opposite a minimum such as A-Q-x-x K-J-x x-x K-Q-x-x.

Mark Raphaelson: … Give partner a bad-fitting minimum like A-Q-J-x Q-J-x J-x K-J-x-x, and there’s a [good] play for six. At IMPs, I’m not going to try for seven and risk a huge swing.

Peter Talyigas: The practical bid.

Dick Henry: Partner’s worst hand would be something like A-Q-x-x Q-J-x x-x K-Q-J-x, still a good shot at 12 tricks.

Robert Eachus: I don’t like this auction because, according to your rules, 4 is not Gerber and 4 NT is not Blackwood. I’d really like to ask about the A (and then kings) but can’t. … Slam will probably be cold if partner has J-x; the odds go down if he has a small doubleton,…but there are many opportunities for it to make. …

Jerry Merrell: By elimination. Four notrump could miss a slam,…and all other bids could lead to confusion.

Alon Amsel: If partner is not jumping up and down ecstatically after 3 , a grand slam looks [out of reach].

Leonard Helfgott: With a super 17, a good spade holding and a source of tricks, I want to be in 6 NT even opposite a bad 15.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Three notrump is [discouraging] and partner usually won’t have the K, so seven is unlikely. This should be a good contract, even opposite a small doubleton diamond.

Jonathan Brill: It’s hard to imagine this not having a good play. Yes, I know I will miss a grand slam if partner has the perfect hand, but he won’t often have that hand — and even if he has K-x, diamonds may split 4-1.

Ed Barnes: … If partner had A-Q-x-x K-x-x K-x K-x-x-x, he would have bid 3 (not 3 NT), so a grand is out of the question.

Bogdan Vulcan: My diamond suit doesn’t deserve a rebid opposite partner’s presumed small doubleton; 6 NT should be par.

Comments for 4

Jon Sorkin: A perfect minimum produces a near-laydown grand ( A-Q, K, K and K). I’ll see if partner will cue-bid 4 …

Imre Csiszar: … With Blackwood unavailable, I’ll hope partner accepts [diamonds] by cue-bidding the A, then I will ask for aces and kings. I plan to bid seven if partner shows one ace and two (or three) kings.

Dan Mytelka: At matchpoints, 6 NT may be right to avoid giving information that might help the defense… At IMPs, it is worth looking for seven…; the question becomes what bids mean. Over 4 , I hope partner cooperates [by showing the A]. I would have started with 2 (one or more minors), which would allow me to start cue-bidding with 4 after clarifying my suit.

Steve Stein: Setting the trump suit to prepare for investigation; I can always convert a diamond contract to notrump. Even the worst hands for partner should provide a good play for slam.

Justin Lall: No need for anything drastic. I want to ask for aces and kings, as a grand is excellent opposite a minimum such as A-Q-x-x K-x-x K-x K-x-x-x. I know not to play partner for perfect cards, but we have room and time to find out. I’m always going to at least 6 NT, and hopefully partner will cue-bid over 4 , then I can use Blackwood. …

Charles Blair: I don’t have the mental energy to construct a deal on which 6 is the best contract — but I’m sure it exists!

Nikolay Demirev: I’ll establish our fit before suggesting alternatives. Imagine partner with A-Q-J-x K-x-x K-9-x Q-x-x…for a [laydown] 7 NT.

David Caprera: Four diamonds key-card would work much better. :) I need to find out if partner has the K; else he’ll play 6 NT, which is my bid if he retreats to 4 NT. This problem does not show your methods in their best light.

I beg your pardon? My methods always have good light unless the wind blows out my coal-oil lamp.

Catalin Doras: No hurry. This is definitely slam-worthy, so I’ll establish diamonds as trumps. …

Damo Nair: Surely, this is a slam try, and I’m not giving up on a grand.

Lajos Linczmayer: If partner discourages with 4 NT, I’ll bid 6 NT. Over 4 , I will bid 4 NT Blackwood [followed by 5 NT for kings] to invite partner to a grand.

Bill Powell: Will 4 by partner then show the K and A?

Olle Morell: I want to set diamonds as trump, and I think 4 would be natural. …

Christopher Monsour: I’d like to aim at 6 NT or 7 NT and need to get partner to evaluate his hand correctly. …

Mark Abraham: If partner retreats to 4 NT, I’ll dump him in 6 NT…

Brian Zietman: Slowly, slowly, just showing the suit. We must have six or seven in diamonds or notrump.

Paul Hightower: Setting the trump suit to invite cue-bidding. Over 4 , 4 NT should be Blackwood, allowing me to reveal three aces with a subsequent 5 NT to invite a grand slam. …

Joel Singer: Natural and forcing. If partner doesn’t [cooperate], we’ll get to 6 NT.

Julian Pottage: I’m not giving up on the grand yet…

Curt Reeves: I’ll see if partner has some interest in diamonds before insisting on slam. My partners never hold the right cards. :)

Julian Wightwick: Four clubs would sound natural, so this seems best, suggesting the sixth diamond. … If partner bids 4 NT, I’ll bid 5 NT.

Carsten Kofoed: I am asking for a control in a major suit. We may still have a good grand slam.

Mark LaForge: I am always going to bid a slam… If partner bids 4 NT, I will raise to 6 NT. If he cue-bids 4 , I will use Blackwood [to look for seven].

Chuck Lamprey: I’ll probably follow with 6 NT hoping partner evaluates his K correctly. It’s infuriating not to have key-card Blackwood available.

Richard Morse: It seems puny to give up on a grand when we could have 13 top tricks [opposite] a minimum, so this knocks out the notrump bids for me. … Since the K is a key card, it seems best to emphasize [my suit].

Matthew Mason: I’m going to slam, so I might as well [bid slowly] to see if partner has the perfect cards for the grand ( A, K, K and K). If I hear 4 , I’ll bid 4 NT Blackwood then 5 NT to ask for kings; if everything is right, I’ll hope for a queen and risk the grand — worst case, it’s on a finesse.

Robin Zigmond: I’ve a feeling this should show a better suit than I have,…but it stands a chance of getting us to a grand if partner has the right cards. Four spades is more descriptive but has the major downside of being passed. :)

Mauri Saastamoinen: Setting diamonds as trumps and [allowing exploration] for a grand slam. …

Nigel Guthrie: Six…should be safe, and perhaps we can make a grand…

Bill Erwin: Over 5 , I’ll try 5 ; then 6 over 5 .

Dale Freeman: Not sure whether 4 would be construed as natural in this system (if 3 showed a one-suiter then 4 is best). I am going to six but still think seven has possibilities.

Sandy Barnes: Five notrump (pick a slam) is possible, but it precludes a grand — and I’m still hopeful.

Jim Munday: I want partner to focus on his diamond holding. If he’s looking at x-x…, I expect to hear 4 NT. …

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 5

IMPs		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 2 2 NT	East Pass Pass	South 1 2 ?	A K 9 8 A Q 10 9 3 A J Q 8

Your Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4 NT	10	417	32
3	8	146	11
3	7	164	13
4 (Gerber)	5	342	26
5 NT	4	59	5
6 NT	2	179	14

Another slam decision, but this time it’s not as rosy. I agree with the consensus to simplify the bidding with a quantitative 4 NT. While a suit slam might still be right, an invitation in notrump does not preclude it. Partner’s point range is narrow*, so acceptance will be based more on judgment than HCP. For instance, with x-x-x K K-x-x-x A-J-10-9-x, partner should bid 5 NT (forcing) in case you can offer 6 . Likewise with x-x J-8 K-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x, in case you can offer 6 .

*Per the default system, 2 did not promise extra strength, and 2 NT was invitational (11-12 range). I didn’t note this because it seemed immaterial. Regardless of system, bidding over an invitation (except a rebid of your suit) is presumed an acceptance, so all listed options are game-forcing.

In my preferred system, I would bid 3 — the key difference being the meaning of a subsequent 4 NT bid. I like to play 4 NT as natural after a minor raise (assuming notrump was previously bid), which leaves a convenient follow-up. In the default methods per the Bidding Guide, 4 NT is Blackwood after any suit raise.* If you try to skirt this with an ambiguous 3 bid (pattern or control?), partner will not know about your excellent club holding.

*An exception exists if 3 NT is bid after a minor raise, as this logically should cancel the raise for purposes of bidding theory. Thus, if partner bids 3 NT over 3 , 4 NT would be natural; but if he bids anything else, 4 NT would be Blackwood.

Some wondered why 3 NT was not an option, no doubt assuming (falsely) that 2 already showed great strength. Really? Even if 2 were a traditional reverse, it seems cowardly to eschew slam with 20 HCP and a key queen in partner’s suit — let alone the hefty spot cards.

Forcing to slam is an overbid, though it would fit nicely with my August theme up next. Gerber (maybe “gerbil” is the right word) seems useless holding three aces, while 5 NT (pick a slam) has some merit; but the truth is that you can still bid 5 NT after Gerber with the same meaning. Thus, considering the large vote for Gerber, I’ll extend you the benefit of doubt and rank it ahead of 5 NT. As for jumping to 6 NT, I see no merit — unless it’s the last hand before dinner.

Can our forefathers keep up the good work? We’ll leave the rose garden for a moment, as this deal occurred in France vs. USA(V1):

South deals	J 4 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	6		Rapee	Bacherich	Silodor	Ghestem
	K 9 7 5					1
	A K 6 3 2		Pass	2	Pass	2
Q 3		10 7 6 5	Pass	2	Pass	4
K J 7 4 2		8 5	Pass	5	Pass	6
Q 10 2		8 6 4 3	All Pass
J 5 4		10 9 7
	A K 9 8
	A Q 10 9 3
	A J
	Q 8

France N-S	USA(V1) N-S	West	North	East	South
6 South	6 North	Jais	Stone	Trezel	Crawford
Made 6 +920	Down 1 -50				1
		Pass	2	Pass	2
France +14 IMPs		Pass	2 NT	Pass	3
		Pass	3 NT	Pass	4 NT
		Pass	5	Pass	5
		Pass	6	All Pass

The auction at the second table parallels the problem, and Crawford chose to show club support. Stone was discouraged by the wasted K and tried to sign off in 3 NT, but Crawford forged ahead, achieving the poetic feat of bidding all five strains.

At the first table, the French began with an artificial 1 (12-23 points). Next came two natural bids, a bizarre 2 , and a few blind stabs. Suffice it to say it was less poetic.

So how did the club slam fare? France had the edge, as South was declarer. After a trump lead, Ghestem drew three rounds (pitching a spade) and led a heart to the 10. West was neatly endplayed, and 12 tricks came home. Stone, however, declared from the North seat with the 8 lead; he could have succeeded but guessed wrong. Down one; 14 IMPs to France.

Is 6 a good contract? Hardly (fair at best) but better than 6 NT. After our consensus auction, North clearly should pass 4 NT with his textureless club suit and dismal heart holding.

Comments for 4 NT

Jean-Christophe Clement: Asking partner to pass if his hand is minimum; else bid 6 NT. With 31 HCP, 4 NT should be [safe].

Brad Theurer: A quantitative invitation with about 19-21 HCP and a relatively balanced hand (considering I’ve shown 4-5 in the majors). Presumably, partner’s hand is also relatively balanced since he didn’t raise either of my suits or rebid clubs.

Jon Sorkin: Giving partner a chance to get out with a misfitting minimum. …

Gary Sikon: I don’t play 2 shows extra values, so now is the time to show my strong semibalanced hand.

Eric Goff: Partner will need a little [extra] to make 6 NT.

Imre Csiszar: … This should show about 20 HCP, which is a perfect description. If partner rejects the invitation, slam is likely against the odds.

Charles Leong: … This misfitting hand could quite easily not produce 12 tricks [so I will invite slam]. Three clubs is [misleading], forging a 4=5=1=3 picture…

Justin Lall: This should imply 4=5=2=2 shape with about my actual values. With 4=5=3=1 or 5=4=1=3, I would pattern out.

Glenn McIntyre: … This seems perfect to show my 4=5=2=2 maximum.

Steve White: Natural invitation. Three clubs should show a stiff diamond.

Karl Barth: … Even if partner has a ratty suit and an 11-count, 4 NT will be easy. If he’s any better than that, he’ll accept the invitation and six should be odds-on.

Colin Baker: The system suggests that I’ve not shown [extra] values yet, so a quantitative raise is [indicated]. This probably should show my exact shape, since I’d raise clubs with three clubs, and could bid 3 with 4=5=3=1…

Michael Palitsch: Invitation to 6 NT. Partner will understand that a good club suit would be very helpful. …

Catalin Doras: Showing a maximum, and inviting slam…

Damo Nair: Even if 2 were a [strong] reverse, I have extras.

Lajos Linczmayer: If partner has a good club suit, e.g., x-x x-x K-Q-10-x A-J-10-9-x, or x-x J-x K-10-x A-J-10-x-x-x, we should play a slam.

Martin Bootsma: Partner might still have something like J-x-x x-x K-Q-x A-J-x-x-x. Therefore, an invitation seems the best way to avoid a bad slam.

Mark Raphaelson: This should describe my strength and shape exactly. What more can I look for in a bid?

Bill Powell: I don’t want to play 6 NT on a 30- [or 31]-point misfit.

K. Scott Kimball: I’ve described my shape, and this shows my extras. I’m tempted to jump to six, but all my partners bid more anyway. :)

Paul Flashenberg: This should show my [strength] and distribution. …

Christopher Monsour: Reading the Bidding Guide, it appears that 2 did not promise extras, and 2 NT showed 11-12 with possibly a bad four-card club suit — not how I prefer to play, but given those details, 4 NT is plenty.

Mark Abraham: Quantitative. … Partner can still offer 6 if that might be right.

Dick Henry: Could partner have as little as x-x x-x K-Q-x-x A-J-x-x-x? If so, I’d like to underbid with 3 NT.

Alan Kravetz: I wanted Gerber on Problem 4, not here. :) This hand is [ideal] for a quantitative invitation…

Paul Hightower: Partner needs extras for this no-fit slam.

Magnus Skaar: I don’t want to commit to slam. Partner may have something like Q-J-x x-x K-x-x A-J-x-x-x.

Robert Eachus: This will [allow] partner to evaluate his hand, and it should be pretty easy to figure out that J-x is an extra value. Three diamonds would tend to indicate a singleton club, and ace asking isn’t going to tell me anything I need or want to know.

Julian Pottage: Describing extra values but no extra shape.

Jerry Merrell: Inviting partner to make the [decision about slam]. A minor-suit bid at the three-level would imply 5-4-3-1 distribution, and 5 NT or 6 NT is premature. Slam is not assured by finding partner with the A.

Julian Wightwick: This hand might possibly be worth 5 NT, based on the strength of the intermediates.

Craig Zastera: Seems straightforward. Slam is poor opposite J-x-x x K-Q-x-x A-J-x-x-x…

Carsten Kofoed: The fit could be better, but my intermediates are fantastic, so I’ll invite partner to bid a slam.

Josh Sinnett: Since partner’s bidding shows 11-12, I cannot force to slam. This should show 4=5=2=2 distribution (with 3-1 in the minors I’d bid my three-card suit) and this point count.

Manuel Paulo: A quantitative proposal; 20 HCP and good spots don’t allow me to impose slam, as partner may have 11 points and a 3=2=3=5 distribution.

Leonard Helfgott: Since the system allows for 2 then 2 NT to be nonforcing…, this should be a good value call. Three clubs…is my second choice. Five notrump, asking partner to pick a slam, is aggressive but could help with partner’s decision if he plays me for this club holding.

Gerald Murphy: Telling partner I am interested in going on…

Sandy McIlwain: Partner is limited, so he needs a fair hand to make slam, as I have no [sure source] of tricks.

Roger Morton: Quantitative. I have bid my shape, and now show extra values. Partner can still bid 6 with a good suit to offer an alternate strain…

Bogdan Vulcan: Unclear hand. … This describes my shape and points. I don’t have enough ruffing potential for a club raise…

John R. Mayne: Quantitative, which describes this hand perfectly.

Dale Freeman: A good description. I would like to show the Q with 3 ; but I think that shows three clubs and short diamonds, so partner will devalue the K.

Rainer Herrmann: Since there seems to be no fit, a slam invitation looks sufficient, though the decision between 4 NT and 6 NT is close. (This hand is worth 21 points.)

Comments for 3

David Caprera: … [System methods] suggest that I need to go slow and solicit partner’s cooperation. A quantitative 4 NT bid won’t enable partner to value the intermediates in his club suit, from which I believe our tricks will have to come. I don’t believe he should assume I am 4=5=1=3; but even if he does, I don’t think he will be disappointed with a robust 20-count.

Rita Redlich: Partner does not need an opening hand for his 2 bid, and he seems to be showing a minimum; so I’ll toss it back to him…

Jorge Castanheira: … I prefer this to 4 NT because…partner will be better placed to decide the final contract [after knowing of my partial club fit].

Scott Stearns: … Showing belated club support. Partner might think I have Q-x-x, but I want to elicit more information about his hand before I blast into slam…

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Showing secondary support; with three clubs I would often bid 3 directly, or 4 now [as a splinter]. … I still have a lot to spare and will bid again if partner [bids 3 NT]. …

Robin Zigmond: … I’m not certain of the best strain, so I’ll [pretend to] bid out my shape (this creates a game force) and see what develops…

Mauri Saastamoinen: … Even opposite a lousy hand like Q-x-x x K-x-x K-J-10-x-x-x, we have an excellent 6 , and partner should have more. We can still get back to notrump if partner has only five clubs.

Bill Erwin: Showing a good hand with [at least] a doubleton club honor, and giving partner room to show the K.

Sandy Barnes: The Q looks big, so I will make a serious try later by raising 3 NT to 4 NT. I need a heart card and [maybe] the K [for a good slam].

Barry Rigal: My club support is too good to conceal; even a 5-2 fit could be right. I hope to advance with 4 NT over 3 NT; is that quantitative?

Jim Munday: Similar to Problem 4, I want partner to bid based on a minor-suit holding, this time clubs. Partner will be in a good position to judge whether to move forward when I offer club help. Over 3 NT, I will raise to four; over any other response, I will drive to slam.

Comments for 3

Anant Rajani: I’ll bid the suit where I have two honors and see what partner bids next.

Charles Blair: My first instinct was to bid 3 , but giving partner the idea that I have only one diamond could be bad if he has something like Q-10-x-x.

Nikolay Demirev: … We’ve managed to wrong-side the notrump already. Over any rebid by partner, I’ll push once more (or bid a slam if he bids at the four level).

Ron Landgraff: Slam looks unlikely, but I want to give one more try. Game almost anywhere ought to be reasonable.

Craig Satersmoen: Followed by 4 .

Good idea. Partner may not be confused enough by 3 so take out insurance by bidding all four suits.

Richard Morse: I think this must still be “fourth suit forcing” to see if I can dredge up some heart support, although it looks like we’ll end in notrump. I’ll laugh (not much) if partner is missing both top clubs.

Nigel Guthrie: Flexible. Six clubs (possibly seven) is still in the frame.

Carlos Dabezies: I want North to focus on his major-suit holdings. … I can’t insist on slam with what could be 30-31 HCP and no good fit.

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

Problem 6

IMPs		None vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass	North 1	East Pass Pass	South 1 ?	7 5 3 9 5 4 3 A K 7 A J 5

Your Call and Opinion	Award	Votes	Percent
A. 1 , agree with 1	10	522	40
B. 1 , disagree with 1	9	262	20
C. 1 NT, agree with 1	7	245	19
D. 1 NT, disagree with 1	6	120	9
E. 2 , agree with 1	4	78	6
F. 2 , disagree with 1	3	80	6

I have no strong views about this problem and could live with any of the options, but I was curious how others felt. My gut feeling is that opening these hands will show a long-term loss versus passing; it’s just too easy to get overboard, although I’ve never kept records to support it. Perhaps the reason I continue to open is the vain hope of recovering my losses. I swear; the day I break even, I’ll be a good boy and pass. (Yeah, right.)

As usual in my two-part problems, the first part (your call) is primary, and the second part (agree or disagree) is secondary; hence the ranking. About 65 percent agreed with opening 1 , so the “agree” option for each bid is ranked ahead of the “disagree” option. Curiously, the alphabetical order A-F was retained (I don’t recall this ever happening before).

Besides the decision to open versus pass, there is also the question of which minor to bid. In the default “better minor” system, a literal interpretation is to open 1 ; but most experts tend to bid 1 with 3-3 unless the difference is extreme. The actual case is close enough for the more convenient 1 .*

*In my experience, the main criteria is to have a stopper in the minor opened. If you open 1 with A-J-x J-x-x, LHO will remain silent with a club suit, and partner will have no reason to worry; then when you bid notrump, the surprise club lead may burn you. Some people feel that opening 1 may inhibit the lead, but good players don’t hesitate to lead clubs. Further, I try to bid the suit with secondary honors, as it’s more natural for constructive bidding, as well as a better lead-director. For example, with K-J-x A-x-x, I open 1 .

A few people commented that this is a non-problem according to my Bidding Guide, which says (1) open the stronger minor with 3-3, (2) a 1 NT rebid should not have a four-card major that can be bid at the one level, and (3) a raise to 2 requires four trumps. Further, with 12 points, this is not an opening bid. Therefore, the answer is Option B; case closed. The fact that Option A won shows that most people do indeed understand the word “guide.” To those who still don’t, let me know your names and I’ll list you among the bots next month. Seriously, judgment in close cases is what winning bridge is all about.

For the record, my choice is Option C (1 NT; agree). While rebidding 1 NT is flawed without a major stopper, bidding 1 on a non-suit and flat shape is flawed even more. Can you imagine what Terence Reese would have said about 1 ? Does it even resemble bridge? My feelings aren’t that strong, but I like to bid what I have; and I don’t have hearts. Holding 4-3-3-3 shape, I like to get to notrump as quickly as possible, because stoppers may not be needed (e.g., x-x-x opposite x-x-x), and suit contracts are sometimes hopeless.

I can empathize with those who raised to 2 , as it’s an attempt to describe what you’re looking at. What bothers me is not the lack of a fourth trump but the flat shape — something partner will never picture. Holding x-x-x x-x A-K-x A-J-x-x-x, it’s routine to bid 2 . Curiously, the majority of 2 bidders did not agree with 1 , while all others did at a 2-to-1 ratio.

A few people objected to this problem, claiming that it’s more a style issue than a matter of judgment. Oh yeah? It’s a matter of judgment for me, because my partners will assure you I have no style. Now it’s time for our final history lesson:

East deals	K 10 9 4		West	North	East	South
None vul	A 2		Ghestem	Reese	Bacherich	Schapiro
	Q J 3				Pass	Pass
	K 10 9 3		Pass	1 NT	Pass	3 NT
Q J 6		A 8 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
K Q 8 6		J 10 7
9 8 5		10 6 4 2
7 6 2		Q 8 4
	7 5 3
	9 5 4 3
	A K 7
	A J 5

Great Britain N-S	France N-S	West	North	East	South
3 NT North	3 NT North	Rose	Jais	Gardener	Trezel
Down 2 -100	Made 3 +400			Pass	1
		Pass	1	Pass	1
France +11 IMPs		Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
		Pass

Schapiro had enough sense to pass the lousy South hand; but when Reese opened 1 NT (13-15), he could hardly stop below game. I’m sure Reese would have felt insulted by a raise to 2 NT. Bacherich led the J, Reese won the second round, crossed to the A, and led a spade to the king — surely the best play, since the double finesse would usually result in five losers. Down two? Not yet, as Bacherich smoothly ducked. Reese now could have succeeded with a correct club guess, but he went wrong. Down two, after all.

The second auction paralleled our problem, and Trezel elected to bid his emaciated heart suit. Score that man a 10! Jais won the first heart, guessed clubs right, and eventually led a spade to the nine. Wow. Evidently, Rose gets the charge for not splitting, but it’s hard to believe Jais would finesse. Making 3 NT; 11 IMPs to France.

Comments for A. 1 , agree with 1

Jean-Christophe Clement: I agree with the opening, as A-K and an ace are good cards. It’s true that the heart suit is not the kind I like; but I don’t want to receive the lead in notrump, and I have no distributional values for 2 .

Brad Theurer: I have three quick tricks, so I agree with 1 . The rebid is a matter of style. Some will rebid 1 NT to show the minimum balanced hand, but notrump might well play better from partner’s side if he has a spade holding to protect. One heart is economical and does not [promise] a good suit.

Jouko Paganus: If notrump is right, it is not from my hand.

Jon Sorkin: I would open with three quick tricks. I’ll let partner play notrump from his side.

Barbara Reichman: I don’t like the heart bid, but it would be better if notrump were played from partner’s side.

Gary Sikon: I won’t bypass the heart suit, as pathetic as it is. … Second choice is 2 . Doesn’t everyone open all 12-counts nowadays?

No, but if you would start to open some 3-counts you could earn your namesake, “Gary, psych on!”

Anant Rajani: Normally, I open 1 with three cards only with 4=4=3=2 shape, so I agree with 1 . Though a poor suit, I do not like to bypass a four-card major; partner may have a fit, or it could work to stop a heart lead.

Eric Goff: At this low level, how bad can 1 be?

Steve Stein: This is one of those religious questions that indicates a player’s bridge upbringing. My father was Roth-trained, but I rebelled against Roth’s teachings and preferred four-card-major methods.

Justin Lall: I generally try to bid notrump [early] with 4-3-3-3 shape, but it is so anti positional that I’m going to bid 1 . If partner bids 2 next, I can bid 2 to show my stiff spade. :) I barely agree with opening, as it has quick tricks and good honor location.

Todd Anderson: I would normally rebid 1 NT with this shape, but the poor-quality majors suggest trying to get partner to declare.

Charles Blair: “Open three honor tricks and blame me when it goes wrong.” -Edgar Kaplan. The opponents’ silence leads me to expect a lot of bidding from partner. If he raises hearts, I hope my next notrump bid will give him a rough idea what I have.

Unfortunately partner’s “rough idea” could be a ruff idea after you bid hearts.

Nikolay Demirev: This hand makes a pretty good dummy, so I’ll let partner declare whatever he pleases.

Michael Palitsch: [As for opening], diamonds is the better suit, but I don’t care. One heart is an easy bid; I don’t like to bid 2 and dislike 1 NT very much.

David Caprera: In my book, ace-king-ace plus a kicker is a [clear-cut] opening. Rebidding 1 NT will wrong-side the hand when partner holds K-x A-x Q-x-x-x-x-x K-x-x, or such. Besides, it is possible that a heart partscore is our best spot, which we may miss if I rebid 1 NT (but 1 NT does not preclude reaching a heart game). Raising to 2 shows an unbalanced hand, and will definitely miss the heart fit…

Catalin Doras: I definitely agree with opening 1 . My hearts can hardly be called a suit, but the alternatives also look bad. … With no stopper in either major, and partner unlimited, this is not the time to wrong-side a notrump contract.

Damo Nair: Hopefully, partner has seen my fine, quality bidding before. :) If not, most tournaments have a partnership desk.

Mike Cassel: Notrump is probably better from partner’s side.

Jim Tully: I plan to pass 1 NT; or bid 1 NT over 1 . I will hate to hear 2 , but I will correct to 2 .

Martin Bootsma: I wish I played a weak notrump, so I wouldn’t have these problems; but I open this hand anyway. Although the distribution is bad, the points I have are useful, and I have three quick tricks. I was told never to hide a major suit, so I bid it.

Ron Landgraff: With three quick tricks, I stretch to open. The 1 rebid is easy, especially nonvulnerable.

Rita Redlich: I prefer to have four diamonds to open 1 . I will not deny a four-card major, so I rebid 1 .

K. Scott Kimball: Hand is borderline, but I would open it.

Alan Kravetz: I won’t pass a hand with three quick tricks. Sometimes you’re stuck with a yucky rebid, and 1 NT with two unbid suits wide open is a bit much. This is a good hand for weak notrumps.

Paul Hightower: Ugly, but I think the odds of going plus outweigh the odds of getting overboard. It is pointless to open if you then suppress hearts, as the hand will be strongest in a 4-4 heart fit where dummy can ruff a black card.

Michael Dodson: At the table, I would either open a weak notrump, or rebid 1 NT (Walsh style); but in the context of the system, I don’t see a second choice to either 1 or 1 .

Alon Amsel: Two aces and a king make an opening. Notrump needs to be played from partner’s side.

Craig Zastera: A clear opening (many would open even without the J). In my Walsh-style methods, I would rebid 1 NT to show the shape and limit my strength, as partner won’t have a four-card major (unless he has at least invitational values, in which case he will bid it next). Your notes indicate that 1 is [expected], so I follow the system.

Carsten Kofoed: With this borderline hand, I will follow the system so partner won’t draw any wrong inferences about my distribution. The opponents’ silence suggests partner is strong, so with my major-suit weakness, a notrump contract should be played by him. I open the bidding because I have fine controls.

Mark LaForge: I would have much more sympathy for a 1 opening if partner were a passed hand. … There is no need to distort my shape with a raise to 2 . … Partner most likely has a good hand, and I rely on him to do the right thing…

Scott Stearns: I’d normally rebid 1 NT, but the weakness in both majors tells me to let partner do it. I don’t think Walsh is part of the system, so I won’t bypass the four-card major.

Leonard Helfgott: With 3-3 in the minors, the auction (with positive and negative inferences) develops best if started with 1 , and this shouldn’t be [overruled] unless diamonds are hugely better. In a five-card-major system, I might as well show hearts, though I would hide them with a true spade stopper, e.g., K-Q-x x-x-x-x Q-J-x A-J-x.

Brad Ross-Jones: I like the 1 opening, as we’re nonvulnerable, and I have a reasonable rebid whatever partner says. I’ll bid the hearts, even though they are weak.

Sandy McIlwain: There’s no point in bidding notrump with all deuces in the unbid suits, so I see no reason to bypass my major.

Bill Erwin: One notrump seriously wrong-sides the most likely contract. I’d rather not be so flat to bid two suits, but we may survive if partner can bid notrump.

John R. Mayne: As to 1 , it’s close; but with prime cards it should play well in whatever suit partner has. I have great sympathy for 2 on the second round, but partner will play me for three more minor-suit cards; so the icky 1 is necessary. One notrump is…wrong on orientation and lead value.

Tim DeLaney: Why should I try to outguess Dame Fortune? If I pass, I cannot possibly catch up later; so I open the bidding. Partner expects me to bid 1 when I have four, so I do it.

Rainer Herrmann: With this honor structure I open 1 , even though the Bidding Guide suggests 1 as the better minor. Sure, the heart suit is not very robust, but I will bypass a major only if notrump looked better from my side to protect secondary honors from attack. As I understand the system, 1 neither shows an unbalanced hand nor suggests length in clubs. Should partner preference clubs, I will pass.

Bill Daly: I’d rather have better hearts and clubs, but that wasn’t what I was dealt. :)

Comments for B. 1 , disagree with 1

Karl Barth: In second chair, I probably wouldn’t open; a losing trick count of nine is pretty bad.

Luciano Machado: According to the Rule of 20, this is no opener.

Jason Flinn: Opening seems wrong with all points in the short minors.

Mark Raphaelson: A flat 12-count in second seat? What’s to agree with? Yes, three quick tricks. Big deal!

Brian Zietman: With three quick tricks, Culbertson would have been delighted to open — but not me. …

Robert Eachus: I prefer to bid the stronger minor in this case,…so I’ll disagree; but the suits are close enough in strength that the better bid would be indifferent. Bidding 1 allows me to support diamonds over 1 or 1 NT, and partner shouldn’t raise hearts immediately unless he has four.

Curt Reeves: Three quick tricks are nice, but where is my source of tricks? Hands like this are easier to describe by passing first. Although I like a major-suit rebid after 1 to guarantee four clubs, [I take exception because] I want partner to be declarer in notrump if he has a good hand.

Julian Wightwick: This is a bad 12-count — good controls but poor shape and intermediates — which I rate to be worth about 11 points. Whether I rebid 1 or 1 NT is a matter of system and style; system says 1 , so I’ll go with that. Yes, the suit is weak; but notrump might be better played from partner’s side.

Peter Hudson: No way would I open! …

Richard Morse: I cannot see much point in opening 1 with this motley collection and partner fourth to speak. (A weak notrump might be a different matter for its preemptive value.) Rebidding 1 seems the least offensive continuation. …

Brian Ross: Better minor is better minor. The trend always to open 1 when 3-3 is disturbing.

Comments for C. 1 NT, agree with 1

Robb Gordon: I used to pass these hands, but it is mainstream to open.

Charles Leong: … I have no trouble with opening the weaker minor or bypassing 1 . I open 1 on three only with 4=4=3=2 shape. …

Steve White: Opening 1 is borderline, but with three quick tricks I agree. With 4-3-3-3 shape, I rebid 1 NT.

Colin Baker: Opening 1 seems normal, and I can’t see a heart suit in this balanced hand…

Kieran Dyke: I dread to think which alternative to 1 I should be considering. This is a good moment to spell out that I have a minimum balanced hand.

Paul Flashenberg: This may be the correct contract, even if played from the wrong side. I don’t want to pretend I have a distributional hand with 4-3-3-3 shape, and the hearts aren’t very good anyway.

Mark Abraham: With scattered honors, I could accept passing; but the combinations here are effective. Even if partner would bid 1 with weak balanced hands with both red suits, and I am expected to bid 1 on balanced hands with hearts, I rebid 1 NT.

Joel Singer: … Those hearts look enough like three little to me.

Julian Pottage: With three defensive tricks, it would be wet to pass, even in second seat nonvulnerable. A 1 rebid would be horrible with such flat shape.

Kevin Podsiadlik: Ace-king-ace makes it automatic to open, though I’d have qualms if the hand were, say, J-x-x x-x-x-x A-K-x A-x-x. The rebid, however, has me going in circles: One notrump is a sharper description of my shape than bidding the paper-thin hearts; but notrump is [likely] to be a broken contract relative to my rock-solid holding in partner’s diamond suit; but if I’m going to bid a suit, 1 covers more possibilities than 2 . It’s anybody’s guess, but I’ll go with scissors.

Manuel Paulo: I agree with 1 , as I open 1 with 4+ cards or 4=4=3=2 distribution. … As Terence Reese used to say, “I don’t fancy one of a major on a poor suit with a balanced hand.”

Frans Buijsen: Though I prefer a [strict] “better minor” system, 1 is the [mainstream] bid, and there’s no good reason not to bid it. The 1 NT rebid describes my hand better than the alternatives.

Robin Zigmond: If you ever wanted a reason to switch to weak notrumps, just look at this hand. :) I’d have no qualms about opening 1 NT (weak), so I don’t see why it shouldn’t be opened. One notrump is the only rebid that won’t leave partner seriously confused later.

Mauri Saastamoinen: … I passed once this summer with 13 HCP ( K-Q-J Q 8-7-5-4-2 K-Q-6-3) but don’t remember the last time I passed with 12. This hand has opening values. I rebid 1 NT because I have lousy hearts, and the hand is as balanced as possible.

Nigel Guthrie: I trust that not even an American will rebid 1 .

James Hudson: Eight losers (some would say nine) and only 25 Zar points; but three quick tricks. Since the modern style is to open marginal (even slightly submarginal) hands, I will agree. Any rebid but 1 NT would sound too distributional.

Paul Misso: I would normally bid a four-card major but can’t justify such a horrible suit.

Len Vishnevsky: With 4-3-3-3 shape, I rebid 1 NT. Two diamonds is really weird. …

Bill Cubley: This more truly describes my hand than a heart bid. … I’ve described a balanced minimum, and that’s what I hold.

Mark Pascale: With a minimum opening and 4-3-3-3 shape, I open 1 and rebid 1 NT no matter where the four-card suit is (unless partner bids my four-card major). This hand is no exception despite the weak spades.

Comments for D. 1 NT, disagree with 1

Rahul Chandra: I don’t like opening a 9-loser hand unless it has is some special feature — in which case it probably wouldn’t have nine losers. :)

Christopher Monsour: The Bidding Guide says that partner would bypass diamonds with 4-4 (though not with 4-5), and that’s enough for me to skip this heart suit — especially with the fear that 1 may lead to a 3-3 club fit. Which brings me to: If I am going to open junk like this, I should be playing a weak notrump.

Jonathan Brill: This is not really an opening hand (e.g., it fails the Rule of 20), but the folly of opening 1 has now been exposed. Do I really want to rebid 1 with anemic hearts and 4-3-3-3 pattern? Do I really want to raise to 2 …when I have no ruffing value? Best is to show my pattern…

Barry Rigal: I rarely pass 12-counts, but you could sell me on this one, with only three clubs and no certainty I want a club lead.

Jonathan Goldberg: I now have a choice of ways to dig my own grave. Well, perhaps the opponents’ silence means they don’t have enough tricks to beat me three in 1 NT before I get the lead.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those scoring 51 or higher (top 262) or with an overall average of 50.25 or higher (top 210) prior to this poll, and on each problem only for calls awarded 6 or higher (except for one 5 on Problem 3). 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 Turin and the first World Bridge Olympiad 45 years ago. Stay tuned! Turin will become center stage soon again when it hosts the 2006 Winter Olympics (I’m already waxing up my bobsled). Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Time to water my roses!

I’ll leave you with some other views through rose-colored glasses:

Mary Collver: I hope you haven’t led me down the rose garden path again.

Mark Kornmann: Thorns aplenty — as in the flaws of Standard American.

Bill Powell: I feel sure I know the mystery shrouding this tournament…

Brenda Rigby: Congratulations on your roses! I’m sure you’ll hear from many others, but that’s quite an accomplishment. You mention the mild Florida weather but not the bugs it brings, and therefore the work required to have such beautiful blossoms.

Thanks! I worked hard for those blossoms, but the bugs are mostly in my software.

Curt Reeves: Honestly, Richard, a champion rosarian should know that roses do not have thorns; they have prickles.

What did you just call me? (I looked it up, and he’s right. My cultivating days are numbered!)

Analyses 8W48 Main Challenge

Scores Top Second Place Rose Garden

© 2005 Richard Pavlicek