Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge
United State Wins Swiss
Scores
by Richard PavlicekAnalyses 8W80 Main Challenge |
| Scores by Richard Pavlicek |
These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in March of 2006, 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 |
Among the wrong guesses offered were Athens and Rhodes, Greece; Vienna, Austria; Rome and Venice, Italy; Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany; Monte Carlo, Monaco; Nice, France (nice try); and back home with New York City (wrong United Nations building); and Long Beach, California. The great majority who guessed, however, were right on target, as my clues were more generous than usual.
The tournament was held in Geneva, Switzerland. The obvious clue was “Swiss” in the title (few bought my Swiss team story); and I contrived to use the word “avenge” twice (anagram of Geneva). Pictured at top is the entryway to the United Nations, lined with flags of each nation. Also pictured is a sunset view of Lake Geneva; and the Jette d’Eau, a huge water fountain that landmarks the city. The coin offered a clue to the location and year. If you look closely at the Swiss 20-franc piece, you can detect 1990.
My title drew comments about the apparent typo, but the spelling is correct. It does not refer to United States but to Germany. About the same time as this tournament, Germany became a “united state” by the reunification of West and East. I can relate to this well, having spent two years in West Germany with the U.S. Army, at which time entering East Germany was verboten.
The background song Fur Elise by German composer Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) was a clue to the winning team, not only by the nationality but by a curious name match with captain Bernhard Ludewig. Hmm… Was the ‘e’ inserted for the electronic age, as in eBay? Whatever, close enough! At least you could rule out Fur Elise as a clue to the year — not much bridge in Beethoven’s day.
Out of about 90 people who offered a guess, 62 were correct with Geneva, and 19 had the right year as well. Congratulations to: Henry Sun, Barry Rigal, Barry White, Nick Krnjevic, Steve White, Karen Walker, Peter Linssen, Christian Osterman, Timothy Liang Kan, David Harari, Kees van Schenk Brill, Kevin Podsiadlik, J.J. Gass, Vitor Lopes, Richard Morse, Bill Cubley, Bill Powell, Tim Francis-Wright and Zoran Bohacek. (List is in order received.)
Francisco Espregueira Wins!Participation was the second highest (topped by 1603 in January). The average score (46.21) was up slightly and just over the all-time average (46.00), and 800 persons scored 47 or higher to be listed. The 11 perfect scores tied the second most ever. Problem 1 bombed, drawing 63 percent for one call, and another was doubtful with almost 50 percent. It happens! The 1990 event was lean with good selections.
In the overall leaderboard, Jean-Christophe Clement (France) took over the top spot with a cool 57.50 average. Jean is a past winner (July 2005) and also holds the highest all-time average (52.46) so the spot is well-deserved — though my “Conehead” encounters make me suspicious of anyone “from France.” Jouko Paganus (Finland) remained in second place with 56.75. Next in line are Ragnar Paulson (Ontario); Joshua Donn (California); and Jorge Castanheira (Portugal), each with 56.00.
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 fourth quadrennial Rosenblum Cup (inaugurated in 1978) was contested in Geneva, Switzerland, September 1-10, 1990 at the Palexpo (a conference center). A new format was introduced for the record 195 teams entered.
Stage 1 consisted of 16 groups of 11 or 12 teams (excluding the top 16 seeds which drew a bye); each group played a complete round-robin, and the top seven teams advanced (128 left). Stage 2 consisted of 16 groups of 8 teams (one seed in each group), and the top four advanced (64 left). Stage 3 had 8 groups of 8 teams, and the top four advanced (32 left). Then two 64-board knockouts reduced the field to eight: Ludewig (Germany), Jones (USA), Rapee (USA), Shen (China), Moss (USA), Weinstein (USA), Stein (Canada) and Ostrowski (Poland).
In the round of 8, Ludewig defeated Jones 232-110, Rapee defeated Shen 142-126, Moss defeated Weinstein 115-111, and Stein defeated Ostrowski 142-130. In the semifinals, Germany defeated Canada 154-151, and Moss defeated Rapee 176-134.
The final was unique in that both teams were four-handed, and neither would have been anyone’s pick to get there. Perhaps their secret was never having to worry about lineups! Playing for Germany (pictured L-R, top row first) were Bernhard Ludewig, Jochen Bitschene, Georg Nippgen and Roland Rohowsky.
Representing the United States were Michael Moss, Charles Coon, Drew Casen and Michael Seamon.
In the 64-board final, the first quarter was about even. United States built up a halftime lead of 73-44 and held strong at the three-quarter mark to lead 108-78. Was the 30-IMP lead enough?
Fasten your seat belts! Germany surged back in the last quarter to win 145-132.
This tournament is infamous for its controversy. A misscored board in the semifinal if corrected would have made Canada the winner over Germany. A sacrifice bid by Germany was scored down five (1100); but a later look after the correction period showed declarer was actually down six (1400) to which both sides agreed. Conditions of Contest stated that a score could be changed after the correction period only if it were manifestly incorrect (e.g., 4 
made 4 = 450). Down five (1100) was manifestly correct and agreed upon at the table, so it stood.
Despite this crushing blow to Canada, the young Germans were gracious gentlemen and offered to accept defeat, but they had no decision; the law ruled. Therefore, in the eyes of the bridge world, their final victory was untarnished — as we remind ourselves: Bridge is a game.
Now it’s time to pull up a chair, enjoy a cup of Swiss chocolate, and match bids with the world champs and runners-up of 1990.
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 1
| IMPs | Both vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West | North | East 1 
| South ? | K Q 10 4 K Q J 8 5 3 2 9 8
|
| Your Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | 992 | 63 |
| 2 (Michaels) | 8 | 370 | 23 |
| Dbl | 5 | 156 | 10 |
| Pass | 2 | 34 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 28 | 2 |
Off to a disappointing start, as I struck out with this problem selection. I thought the case for Michaels would be much stronger — and no doubt it would’ve been if more people were familiar with American methods. Michaels with four spades and five hearts is quite common and the accepted norm* (provided the spade suit is sturdy), because spades will often be lost after a 1 overcall; and a takeout double allows no recovery after a 2 response (equal-level conversion does not apply).
*The fault, however, is only mine because I did not define Michaels in detail in the default agreements. Perhaps I was enamored by the hopes that more people were familiar with “Modern Bridge Conventions” (co-authored with Bill Root).
Even if everyone were familiar with our Michaels usage, it would still be a close decision. The hefty hearts suggest a 1 overcall for lead-direction, plus the hearts are wrong-valued for a spade contract to benefit greatly; e.g., change the suit to A-Q-x-x-x, and Michaels would stand out a mile. Nonetheless, I still prefer Michaels for simplicity — one bid and be done with it — rather than complicate things with 1 . If partner has equal major-suit length (1-1, 2-2 or 3-3), he will prefer hearts to cater to this hand.
Other choices were thrown in mainly as fillers. Double has some merit, but the thought of partner bidding 2 is unbearable. Pass deserves the Chicken Little award; and 1 , the Bozo the Clown award — unless you’re into canape-style overcalls (like the young Germans, read on).
Here’s what happened in Geneva in 1990:
| East deals | A 6 5 3 | West | North | East | South | |
| Both vul | 10 2 | Nippgen | Casen | Rohowsky | Seamon | |
| Q 6 5 | 1 | 1
| ||||
| Q 7 6 5 | Dbl | Pass | 2 | Pass | ||
| J 9 8 |  | 7 2 | Pass | Pass | ||
| 9 7 3 | A 6 4
| |||||
| A J 8 | K 10 9 7 4
| |||||
| K J 3 2 | A 10 4
| |||||
| K Q 10 4
| ||||||
| K Q J 8 5
| ||||||
| 3 2
| ||||||
| 9 8 | ||||||
| USA N-S | Germany N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 2 East | 2 South | Coon | Bitschene | Moss | Ludewig |
| Made 3 +110 | Down 1 -100 | 1 | 1
| ||
| 1 NT | Pass | Pass | 2
| ||
| No swing | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
At the first table, Rohowsky’s 1 opening was canape, denying a four-card major (he could have 5+); hence the atypical negative double and 2 rebid. After Seamon overcalled 1 , he could not conveniently act again; so the cozy 2 contract was missed. Rohowsky made nine tricks, plus 110.
At the second table, the canape-crazed Germans showed it’s possible to lose the spade suit even after bidding it. Ludewig’s overcall showed 3-4 spades with a 5+ card suit elsewhere. Bitschene worried that their canape overcalls were often three cards, so he settled for the 5-2 or 6-2 heart fit. Two hearts was a fair contract and could have been made, but Ludewig chose to play safe for down one rather than hope for a 3-3 trump break. Push board!
Comments for 1 Owen Cotton-Barratt: Surely, K-Q-J-8-x is worth an overcall, and none of the other actions appeal at all.
Scott Stearns: I like to start with my five-carder. Michaels is a reasonable choice, since this hand is really major-oriented; but if we belong [in game], it’s hard to see us not being able to get spades in the picture. Anyone who doubles deserves to hear 3 (or even 5 ) from partner.
Ragnar Paulson: Anything else is worse. Michaels is a consideration, but I’d rather give up the spade suit than [suggest] five when I have only four.
Jeff Hand: I dislike these hands, because whatever I do can easily be wrong. I hope to recover the spade suit later but accept that we might lose a spade fit. My alternative is to double and pass a club bid by partner.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Natural, and lead-directing.
Bill Powell: I don’t want to lose a 5-3 heart fit. Partner may well have a chance to show four spades.
George Klemic: I suspect this will be unanimous. The hand is far [too weak] to double then bid, and Michaels is ugly with 2-2 minors. Just because a crappy rebid problem could come up doesn’t mean it will come up.
Vic Sartor: If I double, I may lose hearts after a 2 response. I hope I don’t lose spades this way, but it seems the lesser of evils.
Jess Cohen: …Double will lose a 5-3 heart fit, but this might not lose a 4-4 spade fit. Too good to pass. I think Mike Lawrence uses this hand when discussing overcalls.
Julian Wightwick: Just a matter of style, but the overcall is surely normal these days.
Karen Walker: All other choices seem eccentric at best; but since the problem is included here, I’ll guess that a world champion trotted out one of them at the table.
Right on! Send a bottle of Champaign to Champagne — or vice versa.
David Harari: Strictly obvious — especially in France, where 1 by advancer shows only four cards.
Joshua Donn: So you decided to give everyone a free 10 points right out of the gate? How sweet of you! OK, OK, I’ll admit my opponents have had decent results using Michaels on this against me; but I still think it’s sick. Partner needs to be able to go to the three level on three-card support in either suit.
Stefan Jonsson: When vulnerable with an unpassed partner, I will not use Michaels with a semibalanced opening hand; partner will expect 5-5 and less HCP.
Ernest Skolnik: I might get a chance to suggest four spades later in the auction at a reasonable level. With a stiff in either minor, I would try 2 (Michaels).
Paul Quodomine: The heart suit is my salient feature. I may be able to show spades later, perhaps by a reopening double; and West may bid 1 [or double], making my hand less attractive.
Manuel Paulo: Indicating a sound lead to partner.
Curt Reeves: I like to bid my five-card suits. If the bidding continues 2 P P, I will double back in to show spades.
Dan Mytelka: I won’t double because I can’t correct to 2 as an unpassed hand. Strength and shape are wrong for Michaels. One spade allows me to show both suits easily on some auctions but distorts too much for competitive bidding and leading; I’d hate to encourage partner to lead a spade at notrump.
John R. Mayne: Wow! A straight-up non-problem; all of the other options are wrong. I’ve got five good hearts, and I’ll bid ‘em. I’ll guess 71 percent of the panel will agree.
John Reardon: I think there is little to choose between this and double, but I want partner to lead a heart against 3 NT.
Thijs Veugen: This suit should be mentioned. Clubs are not good enough for double.
Len Vishnevsky: This is most likely to find a fit, and it also suggests the winning lead.
Chris Willenken: Routine. I could miss spades, but other calls are distortions. The hand is not a great dummy for spades with the secondary heart honors, so we’re unlikely to miss a spade game if partner can’t introduce the suit.
Mark Reeve: This looks obvious. I have plenty to overcall, and not enough to double then bid hearts.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: This risks losing a spade fit,…but the risk of not finding a good game in spades is small. After 2 P P, I will double to show spades. Second choice, double, brings spades in the picture but has a bigger risk of reaching inferior contracts (2 or 1 NT) and not finding a heart fit.
Daniel Korbel: Whenever I see people double with these hands, they have tortured auctions and/or miss a 5-3 heart fit.
Jonathan Steinberg: A classic situation. At the one level, my style is to overcall in a good five-card suit; a 4-4 spade fit can still be found. If I start with a double, a 5-3 heart will be lost forever — and if partner bids clubs, he won’t be happy to see my dummy!
Fergal O’Shea: … I’m happy to have hearts led. I [may be able] to bid or support spades later.
Geoff Bridges: I see no good reason not to start with the obvious call; spades can be brought into the picture later. Double is misguided, and a Michaels cue-bid takes a big position.
Francesco Sallustio: In Italy, double would be the popular choice, since 2 over partner’s 2 would be just a correction, not showing a strong hand. Here, 1 is the least of evils. Michaels would be fine on 5-5, or even 5-4-3-1, but not a square 5-4-2-2.
Paul Meerschaert: Longer suit first; there is still time [to find a spade fit].
Leonard Helfgott: Not playing equal-level conversion, I may as well overcall in a good suit. The risk of missing a spade fit seems lower than the risk of using Michaels to hunt for it.
Stephen Fischer: With neither major-suit ace, I prefer a 5-2 heart fit to a 4-3 spade fit. I might get a chance to show spades [later].
Damo Nair: If partner has a decent, game-going hand, I can always get spades in.
Joon Pahk: I’m not sure which is most revolting: pass, 1 or 2 (vulnerable!). Double might be more tempting if it didn’t distort both my strength and distribution. Meanwhile, 1 has zero flaws; so what’s the problem?
Mark Kornmann: Spades can wait. If West ends up declaring, I want a heart lead, especially in notrump.
Hendrik Sharples: All calls are flawed, but this shows my five-card suit and doesn’t necessarily lose spades. When my opponents double with this hand, their partners never bid clubs; but mine always do.
Andrei Varlan: I think this question is an appetizer (aperitif in French), as other calls are only suitable for players who are drunk.
Barry Rigal: My heart suit is so good that I really want it led. I do not think Michaels is so terrible an idea, however, as it gets the awkward hand off my chest in one go — Mike Lawrence would approve, I know.*
*Interesting. Between you and Jess Cohen, we may have to subpoena Mike for an official statement. -RP
Rosalind Hengeveld: Mostly an issue of bidding theory and style, rather than judgment. Doubling would all but preclude landing in the 5-3 heart fit. This, on the other hand, need not keep us from finding our 4-4 spade fit. I prefer to reserve two-suited overcalls (Michaels or Ghestem) for 5-5.
Joel Singer: Easy. Why double or overcall 1 or 2 , misdescribing the shape of my hand? If spades is the right place to play, partner has a chance to get involved; or I could double back in again later.
Nigel Marlow: I want to get my five-bagger into the auction. I will double later to show spades, if appropriate.
John Lusky: Simplest is best. Michaels could work well on this hand, but it would be destructive to our partnership in the long run.
Steve White: Slightly too strong for Michaels. Hearts is the suit I would love to have led, so I bid it.
Bill Cubley: Partner can still bid spades. If West makes a negative double, opponents may have [trouble] or run into a bad trump split. Michaels on 5-4 at IMPs is iffy.
Gerald Murphy: Hoping I can [show] spades later. I know I have Michaels available, but my hand is too balanced; I feel 5-5 is needed, even though all my points are in the two suits.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Yes, we might easily lose our spade fit; and yes, 2 is a good alternative. On the other hand, Michaels might get us into trouble; e.g., when partner doesn’t have [a fit for] either major and [prefers] spades to hearts.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Why distort? I’d rather pass than take any of the other actions listed.
Olle Morell: Sorry, but I’m too stupid to see the problem. I refuse Michaels with 4-5, and I won’t double because I don’t want to play clubs. Pass? You must be kidding. :)
Nigel Guthrie: The purity of the hand makes Michaels attractive, but I don’t have enough playing tricks at this vulnerability. Double will be embarrassing if partner bids clubs; pass is pusillanimous; and 1 is insane.
Roger Morton: Not ideal; but if I use Michaels, partner might preempt in spades, assuming a five-carder. Double invites an awkward [club] response.
Jyrki Lahtonen: We may miss a 4-4 fit in spades, but I will suggest a good lead. If I double, partner might bid clubs.
Karl Barth: Partner may show spades, or I may get a chance to show them if I balance. I think it’s important to tell partner I prefer a heart [lead].
Eugene Dille: I will bid my best suit and then go quietly.
David Wiltshire: This will be last chance to show my fifth heart. Either partner or I [may be able] to double later to show spades.
Comments for 2 Ed Barnes: If we play the hand, I’ll make it in a major suit. If we defend, I’ll give the opponents a hard time in the auction — and the play, though Zia would prefer Q-x in a minor. …
David Freeling: Even though I’m only 5-4, the strength of the suits makes Michaels worthwhile; let partner pick the major.
Paulino Correa: All the value of the hand is concentrated in the majors.
David Goldstein: I [may be] lying about a fifth spade, but all my strength is in the majors. Overcalling 1 makes it hard to show spades later.
Craig Zastera: Close between this and 1 . I strongly prefer 5-5 or better for Michaels, but this hand seems like an exception (if permitted in our methods); partner should always bid hearts with equal length in the majors. If my majors were reversed, I would overcall 1 and hope to show the hearts later.
Peter Gill: This is a matter of systemic agreement, not covered in your system notes. In America, Michaels is acceptable with 5-4 in the majors; but in other parts of the world, it shows at least 5-5. The Bridge Encyclopedia suggests that 5-4 is OK.
Lajos Linczmayer: A 1 overcall is less dangerous and tells partner what to lead; but this is more preemptive, more descriptive, and I prefer partner to be declarer.
David Caprera: I believe that with 2-2 or 3-3, partner should generally prefer hearts. With five spades and four hearts, I would be more likely to overcall 1 .
Carolyn Ahlert: This isn’t perfect, but the majors are too good to pass — and not good enough to overcall 1 and reverse to spades. Double is dangerous without clubs.
David Shelton: I had a club mixed in with spades.
Jack Brawner: IMP [strategy] is to find a game; and if we have a game, it will be in a major. (Even if we were playing equal-level conversion, this nearly defenseless hand is unsuitable for a double.)
Franklin Gonzalez: A bit risky, but bridge is supposed to be fun. :) …
Tim DeLaney: With slight risk, this maximizes the chances of getting to the right strain.
Micah Fogel: I prefer Michaels to be 6-10 or 15+ HCP, so this is a hair strong; but the lack of aces [and only 5-4] make up for it. The only way to get both suits off my chest is to use Michaels — or lie about the length and bid spades first, which is execrable.
Jonathan Siegel: Damn the vulnerability! Full speed ahead! Michaels is permitted with 5-4 in the majors if the four-carder is good, and this gets my hand across much better than 1 .
Nicoleta Giura: Spades are too good to hide; partner will usually bid hearts with equal length.
Simon Cheung: Michaels should promise 5-5 when vulnerable. Still, it feels right to emphasize majors — K-Q-10-4 is close to a five-carder. Overcalling 1 could easily bury a 4-4 spade fit, as it doesn’t allow an easy rebid. Other choices are much inferior.
Comments for DoublePaul Flashenberg: The hand is not strong enough for two actions, and I don’t like using Michaels with 5-4. If partner bids 2 , I will have to live with it; but the risk is worth taking with such good texture in both majors.
Charles Blair: I had the Q mixed in with my clubs.
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 2
| IMPs | N-S vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 2
| East Pass | South 1 ? | A Q J 7 6 K 4 2 A K 8 5 2
|
| Your Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 NT | 10 | 582 | 37 |
| 2 NT | 8 | 414 | 26 |
| 2 * | 7 | 166 | 11 |
| 3 | 6 | 133 | 8 |
| 2 | 3 | 285 | 18 |
*6+ cards or 5 with 100 honors
Some people complained of the conditions: “Why not open 1 NT?” It’s close, but the prime high-card structure (no queens or jacks in side suits) and the lack of a club stopper make 1 the choice for me. Indeed, 2 is the only response to 1 that creates a problem, which brings us up to date. Also, this might be a good time for a reminder that a 2-over-1 responder must bid again (unless game is reached), so any rebid by opener (under game) is forcing.
The consensus went for 3 NT, ostensibly a point short of the 18-19 it describes, but the primary values and A-K in partner’s suit should compensate for this deficit. The lack of a club stopper is a concern, though sometimes you hold x-x-x opposite J-x-x, or the like, and someone has to bid the notrump. I suppose some 3 NT bidders were Hamman’s Rule deadbeats*, but it also appeals to me as the best description.
*No offense to Bob Hamman, as the rule makes good sense when applied properly. Unfortunately, for some it has become a catchall to solve any bidding problem. I wonder if Bob realized he would become the modern-day Dr. Frankenstein.
Two notrump is also reasonable and arguably the systemic choice, as it fits the 12-17* HCP range. Being at the absolute top of the range (or beyond as it feels like 18), however, will create another problem if partner raises to 3 NT. Will you pass? Or continue to 4 NT? Neither feels comfortable to me, so I prefer to get it off my chest the previous round.
*The Bidding Guide states 13-18 because it was written for opener’s traditional ranges of 13-15, 16-18 (1 NT), 19-20 and 21-22 (2 NT). However, it clarifies under “Opening Bids with a Balanced Hand” that most experienced players lower the ranges to 12-14, 15-17, 18-19 and 20-22. These polls assume a 15-17 1 NT opening, so the lower ranges would apply.
Many players use a 2 rebid as waiting, so I noted the applicable agreement that it shows six spades, or occasionally five with 100 honors. Hence, the actual suit is below par; but only by a 10-spot, so 2 is a sensible rebid. If partner next bids 2 NT (nonforcing), you have an easy raise to 3 NT; if he bids 3 NT, you can bid 4 NT (quantitative). Alas, problems may arise if partner does something else; e.g., over 3 , you’d have to conceal your strength to bid a natural 3 NT.
Raising to 3 is a curious approach and surely has merit, stating the nature of your hand — you do like partner’s suit — and could be the key to reaching an excellent slam. For example, if partner has K-x A-x-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x x, the bidding should continue 3 3 ; 4 , ending in 6 .
Even 2 has the potential to produce a sound auction — unless partner raises hearts. Then you’ll have to struggle in a doubtful Moysian fit (club leads may tap the long hand), or push for a slam in diamonds — alas, only to see partner correct to 6 . A little too adventurous I think. No thanks.
Here is the miserable deal from Geneva:
| South deals | 4 3 | West | North | East | South | |
| N-S vul | A | Bitschene | Seamon | Ludewig | Casen | |
| Q J 8 6 4 2 | 1
| |||||
| K J 9 7 | Pass | 2 | Pass | 2
| ||
| K 10 9 5 |  | 8 2 | Pass | 4 | Pass | Pass |
| Q 9 3 | J 10 8 7 6 5 | Pass | ||||
| 10 5 3 | 9 7
| |||||
| 6 4 3 | A Q 10
| |||||
| A Q J 7 6
| ||||||
| K 4 2
| ||||||
| A K
| ||||||
| 8 5 2 | ||||||
| USA N-S | Germany N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 4 South | 6 South | Moss | Nippgen | Coon | Rohowsky |
| Down 3 -300 | Down 2 -200 | 1
| |||
| Pass | 2 | Pass | 2
| ||
| Germany +3 IMPs | Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
| |
| Pass | 3 | Pass | 3 NT | ||
| Pass | 4 | Pass | 4
| ||
| Pass | 4 | Pass | 4
| ||
| Pass | 5 | Pass | 6
| ||
| All Pass | |||||
At the first table, Seamon’s 4 bid looks strange; but I can understand his aversion to being delicate when the auction seems headed there. Further, I know he is a devout advocate of “fast arrival” principles on minimal 2-over-1 hands to eschew slam investigation. The contract is certainly reasonable, except for the ugly black-suit layout. Casen finished down three; minus 300.
Achtung! Now witness a beautiful German auction: 1 was strong (16+) and 2 showed diamonds, after which six natural bids and five control bids (not necessarily in that order) left the spectators in awe. Alas, if only they could produce the cards to back up their bidding. The good news: 6 was down only two, so the blitzkrieg gained 3 IMPs.
Comments for 3 NTOwen Cotton-Barratt: Having decided that my hand was worth 18 points (by opening 1 rather than 1 NT), surely I must carry this through. Two spades also looks reasonable.
Scott Stearns: Partner [rates to have] something in clubs; and it might be as important to protect my K as his club card. …
Ragnar Paulson: Yes, clubs are wide open; but this best describes my shape and point count. All sorts of good things can happen: Partner may correct to 4 with three-card support; he may have a club stopper; or opponents might not lead clubs. …
George Klemic: My first gut instinct was to bid 3 , but it wasn’t listed. Three notrump should show 18-19, which looks like what I have; the only minus is the lack of a club stopper. …
Ed Barnes: Am I really supposed to right-side this on the rare occasion that partner holds K-x or A-Q bare? …
Alecu Pana: In Europe, 2 NT is the right bid. I don’t know American Standard. …
American Standard is a U.S. company that makes toilets. Standard American is a bidding system, also for toilets.
Karen Walker: This old-fashioned value bid at least shows my strength and distribution. … Two hearts feels like the “expert” tactic with little upside, as most of the follow-up auctions will [suggest] extreme club shortness to partner and/or tell the opponents what to lead.
David Freeling: I have [more than] enough to force to game, and I will gamble that opponents cannot run clubs for five tricks. If I had opened 1 NT, I wouldn’t get into this difficulty.
Ted Ying: With my A-K, partner will [likely] have cards in clubs; so it is important to show my [strength] and protect my K.
Paul Flashenberg: … Apart from a club stopper, this accurately reflects both my strength and distribution.
Curt Reeves: Let opponents lead clubs and beat me! …
Michael True: I’d rather pretend that I have 18 HCP than tell partner I [may] have a minimum. [Many] players would open 1 NT to avoid this problem.
Geoff Bridges: Stopper, shmopper. I’m not willing to mislead partner on my red-suit holdings by bidding 2 or 3 . … Most of the time, 3 NT is the right spot. …
Paulino Correa: Showing strength. Only if partner is very strong should we have a slam, but then he will not stay quiet. …
Ron Nordgren: Showing the strength; partner should have a club stopper.
Richard Stein: Partner rates to have something in clubs, so there’s no need to rebid the non-100-honor spade suit.
Mark Kornmann: … If partner is 3=3=5=2 (with x-x), I trust he’ll correct to 4 . …
Hendrik Sharples: … I’d like a club stopper — but who leads minors against notrump anyway? :)
David Caprera: Given your methods, this appears to be a [better description] than 2 NT. I think this shows why many experts play that a 2 rebid is the default.
Joel Singer: This describes my shape and strength accurately enough. …I feel confident West will lead the unbid major. :)
Josh Sinnett: Right shape; right strength. Stoppers are for bathtubs.
Carolyn Ahlert: Hoping partner has a club stopper.
Bill Cubley: Seems like partner has something in clubs, and I [certainly] have enough for game. …
David Shelton: Partner must have an entry to his diamonds in another suit.
Jack Brawner: A non-scientific bid for a non-scientific system; if partner thinks I have 18, big deal. …
Olle Morell: I assume I valued this hand as better than 17 HCP when I didn’t open 1 NT. …
Frans Buijsen: I forgot to open 1 NT, so I’ll bid it now — and play partner for a club stopper.
Franklin Gonzalez: … I may need to be declarer to protect from a heart lead. Clubs? Who [leads] clubs? :) …
Alan Kravetz: Most descriptive on both shape and strength. Since partner’s diamonds lack high cards, he is likely to have a club stopper. (I would have opened 1 NT.)
Micah Fogel: Partner will correct to 4 with three-card support; otherwise, this looks like our best bet for game. If partner has extras, showing my shape and point count will help him [decide] about slam…
Jonathan Siegel: Who decreed that I need 100 honors to rebid spades? …
David Wiltshire: Ugly with no club stopper, but anything else is [worse].
Comments for 2 NTJean-Christophe Clement: In the French system, this shows 15-17 HCP; but is it the same in Standard American?
Richard Morse: Getting the general shape and strength of the hand across; partner must bid again…
Bill Powell: The round suits are a bit weaker than partner will expect — a minor flaw.
Jess Cohen: … Three notrump is OK on values (we have 28+ points); but over 2 NT, partner may bid spades next or rebid diamonds, giving more information. Missing two top diamond honors, partner should have something in clubs…
Julian Wightwick: I see that all my rebids [below game] are forcing, which helps. I’ll lie about my club stopper, rather than distort my shape. West is more likely to lead a heart than a club against notrump, so at least I’ve right-sided that stopper.
Stefan Jonsson: Describing my shape well. If partner rebids 3 , suggesting to play there, I will bid 3 to find the correct game.
Paul Quodomine: Imperfect, and a little heavy, but it allows more room for further descriptive bidding. I hope I don’t wrong-side the contract opposite x-x A-Q-x Q-J-x-x-x-x K-x. Against that, there are many North hands where spades or diamonds are superior that [may require] constructive bidding at a low level.
Tim Prior: I seem to have a strong notrump and failed to open it, but 2 NT is forcing now.
John R. Mayne: I’m trying to match the field, who will treat this as a balanced [12-17], which it is. Two hearts is also reasonable; the 4-3 fit figures to play fine when partner is 1=4=6=2 or similar.
John Reardon: Not ideal — but then nothing ever is in a bidding competition.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Forcing… Over 3 NT, I will bid 4 NT to show a maximum…
Stephen Fischer: Right on values. If partner is worried about clubs, there’s still room to investigate.
Craig Zastera: I prefer a 2 rebid not to promise extra length/strength; but since we agreed that it promises better spades than I have, I seek the least bad alternative [in] our methods — which appears to be 2 NT despite the inappropriate club holding.
Travis Crump: Real men don’t need stoppers.
Peter Gill: Forcing, and guiding us to 3 NT from my side opposite K-x x-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x K-Q; i.e., it’s better to protect my K than to worry about partner’s possibly wrong-sided club holding.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Thankfully forcing, and giving us room to explore alternative strains.
Christian Vennerod: Showing my strength and shape. The strict conditions for a 2 rebid must mean that 2 NT is acceptable with three-small in an unbid suit.
Comments for 2 Vic Sartor: My 7 is [close enough] to a 10 that I don’t want to wrong-side the notrump.
Carsten Kofoed: Forcing, and the best of many indelicate bids. If partner doesn’t have an honor in both hearts and clubs, 3 NT isn’t attractive. …
Ruud von Seida: Partner promises another bid, and this puts me in the best spot to make the right decision next. Over 2 NT, I’ll bid 3 NT; over 3 or 3 , 3 ; over 3 , 3 ; over 3 , 4 ; and over 3 NT, 4 NT.
Ernest Skolnik: … Temporizing; I’ll show my extra strength later. Partner could hold a relative rock-crusher with two or three small clubs, e.g., K-x A-Q-J Q-J-10-x-x-x x-x.
Thijs Veugen: The smallest lie, and keeping the bidding open. Three clubs would be an option too. :)
Len Vishnevsky: Let’s count the lies: 2 is missing a heart; 2 is missing a spade [or an honor]…; 2 NT (or 3 NT) is missing a club stopper; and 3 is missing a diamond (or two, really, since I’m not particularly diamond oriented)… Two spades seems obvious [as the least lie] — though I’m sure 3 will win in a landslide. :)
Mark Reeve: A good description. I won’t bid a suit that I don’t have; 2 NT looks wrong with three low clubs; 3 would promise more support; and 3 NT is greedy. …
Donald Caplin: No good answer. Partner promises another bid, and I hope it’s 3 .
Fergal O’Shea: The least defective bid. I don’t like bidding notrump with the weak club suit, and other bids are worse than [rebidding] my slightly understrength spade suit.
Leonard Helfgott: Very tough problem. Bidding notrump with no club stop is anti positional, despite the hearts. Bidding hearts can be very risky, as club leads could tap partner’s four-card heart holding. A waiting bid (fortunately forcing) in spades is not ideal but maintains flexibility, and it seems the least of evils despite having a weaker holding than prescribed. A diamond raise, however, could easily be right, as partner will never imagine both diamond honors if I don’t.
Lajos Linczmayer: If North has a doubleton club, e.g., K-x A-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x x-x, 2 NT could be fatal. If he has 10-x A-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x K-x, he may make 6 — and I may go down in 3 NT.
Barry Rigal: Anything else will cramp the auction or drastically misrepresent my hand. I’ll put the 2 in my spades if necessary.
Rosalind Hengeveld: I’ll be the first to say, “my fault, partner,” if opponents withhold our 100 honors bonus. :) Notrump is just too anti positional.
Alon Amsel: Three notrump may be a “textbook bid,” but notrump doesn’t look appealing from my side. I prefer to let partner describe his shape; I can make another move later.
Nigel Marlow: Awkward; which lie to tell? I’ll settle for 2 ,…then decide what to do next.
John Lusky: Lying about the 10 is the smallest lie, and now I will probably find out whether or not partner is minimum. Three diamonds could work well — or it could endplay partner if he has something like x x-x-x Q-J-x-x-x-x A-K-J.
Sandy McIlwain: Smallest lie. Partner knows I never hold 100 honors anyway — else I’d be in the rubber game.
Bruce Kretchmer: Partner promises a rebid, so I’ll [mark time]. If I bid notrump, it may wrong-side the contract.
Simon Cheung: Really tough. A space-conserving 2 gives partner the most room to maneuver, and A-Q-J-x-x may be good enough to play a 5-2 fit if he chooses to raise. I won’t experiment with 2 , as I dread [to hear] heart support.
Comments for 3 Bjarni Einarsson: … It could be very important to support partner if he has good cards but a weak suit like Q-10-x-x-x-x. Slam is very likely. …
Neil Paddy: Flexible, leaving game or slam contracts open in diamonds or spades. Two notrump is the value bid, but 3 NT will probably play better from partner’s side…
Chris Willenken: If the 2 response were forcing to game, I would try 2 , hoping to bid 3 over partner’s 2 NT. Here, partner will often jump to 3 NT when we’re in the slam zone; and I don’t really have enough to insure that bidding on is safe (e.g., opposite x-x A-Q-x J-x-x-x-x A-J-x, even 3 NT could go down). So I’ll bid 3 to allow myself to pass 3 NT with a clear conscience.
Damo Nair: So I owe partner another diamond — it’s not like I’ve never lied before! Sometimes partner will be reluctant to try for a slam with six or seven weak diamonds; maybe this will help.
Steve White: Since this is forcing with a high upper limit, I’ll raise. Partner will be pleased with A-K, even though he would prefer another card.
Charles Blair: I am probably guilty of masterminding, but I am willing to give up on slam (unless partner now supports spades) in an attempt to get to the best game.
Tim DeLaney: All bids are flawed, so I’ll [show] three-card support. With values in hearts but not clubs, partner can bid 3 ; then I will bid 3 .
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 3
| IMPs | Both vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 2
| East 2
| South ? | Q 9 7 4 K Q 10 8 7 6 K 4 A
|
| Your Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 10 | 788 | 50 |
| 3 | 8 | 222 | 14 |
| 2 NT (only force) | 6 | 327 | 21 |
| Pass | 4 | 73 | 5 |
| 3 NT | 3 | 86 | 5 |
| Dbl | 2 | 84 | 5 |
Another problem that I wasn’t happy with, but good problems were sparse in Geneva — must have been the Swiss neutrality. Indeed, this would have been a better problem if 3 were forcing (as many play), but the actual system makes the bid more fitting. Overwhelming consensus was to show the sturdy heart suit, and I agree. Game is certainly possible, most likely in hearts, and the fact that partner can check out makes everything cozy — although you may wish you had bid 3 if he passes.*
*A few people commented that 3 should promise diamond tolerance, but I find this absurd. Bridge would be a silly game if you couldn’t bid your own suit unless you liked partner’s.
Competing to 3 is a reasonable choice — more so if you could picture a singleton heart opposite — but has the serious flaw of missing a game in hearts. Imagine if partner held x J-x-x A-Q-10-x-x-x x-x-x; even five hearts is likely to make. This may be the best choice if 3 were forcing (note Moss’s choice to follow).
Two notrump (forcing) is a distinct overbid, not so much by the point count but because it conceals your main asset. Surely, this hand isn’t worth a subsequent 3 bid (forcing) over 3 . On a lucky day, I suppose partner will bid 3 to show a feature (e.g., x-x A-x A-J-10-9-x-x x-x-x), leading to an easy 4 — but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Chances are, 2 NT will create another problem later.
Pass, double and 3 NT were added mainly as fillers; and among them, I’d rather pass than risk a debacle. Three notrump is a gross overbid and misdirected. Double has some matchpoint appeal (plus 200 versus no game your way), but at IMPs it borders on insanity; imagine returning to your teammates with minus 670 and 4 cold.
Here’s what happened 16 years ago in Geneva:
| West deals | 8 6 | West | North | East | South | |
| Both vul | 5 3 | Bitschene | Coon | Ludewig | Moss | |
| A Q 10 9 7 2 | Pass | 2 | 2 | 3
| ||
| Q 8 5 | Pass | Pass | Pass | |||
| K J | | A 10 5 3 2
| ||||
| 4 2 | A J 9
| |||||
| J 6 5 3 | 8
| |||||
| 10 6 4 3 2 | K J 9 7
| |||||
| Q 9 7 4
| ||||||
| K Q 10 8 7 6
| ||||||
| K 4
| ||||||
| A | ||||||
| USA N-S | Germany N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 3 North | 4 South | Casen | Nippgen | Seamon | Rohowsky |
| Made 3 +110 | Made 4 +620 | Pass | Pass | 1 | 2
|
| Pass | 3 | Pass | 4
| ||
| Germany +11 IMPs | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
The problem scenario arose at the first table, except Moss was crippled by system; 3 would be forcing, so a prudent diamond raise seemed wiser. Coon had no problem producing nine tricks; plus 110.
At the second table, the Germans overbid; more specifically, the culprit was Rohowsky’s final 4 bid — ahh, the impetuousness of youth.* This contract rated to fail, but the friendly trump lie translated to danke schoen. An original minor-suit lead would have been an effective defense, but Casen naturally led the K, after which there was no recovery. Casen shifted to a trump to the nine and 10; then the K left Rohowsky in control; plus 620, 11 IMPs.
*Roland Rohowsky, then 22, is the youngest player ever to win a world team championship. He narrowly eclipsed Bobby Levin’s record of winning the 1981 Bermuda Bowl at age 23.
Comments for 3 Ragnar Paulson: How bad can a vulnerable preempt be? … With a maximum and at least two hearts, partner should bid game; otherwise, 3 is high enough.
Jeff Hand: If partner has a singleton spade and three hearts, 4 rates to be a great contract; and it might make if he has only two hearts. …
Jean-Christophe Clement: Opponents surely have a huge club fit, so I can’t remain silent with such a good hand.
Richard Morse: I seem reasonably well placed here. Three notrump is a [wild] gamble; even on a spade lead, opponents have time to switch to clubs. I might hit the jackpot in hearts; or partner may revert to diamonds, which is fine too.
Bill Powell: Game looks to depend on partner’s heart holding.
George Klemic: Even if nonforcing, this is constructive, which is about what I want to show. Yes, I could double, but the short clubs strongly suggest opponents have a place to run, which may be difficult to defend. I also consider 3 reasonable, as either red-suit bid may take away a cheap club call [from West].
Vic Sartor: With Q-10-x-x, I might try 3 NT.
Gerry Wildenberg: Though nonforcing, this is still a vulnerable, three-level bid opposite a weak two, which might be A-Q-J-x-x-x and out; so partner should take 3 as invitational…
Jess Cohen: This hand might be a player if partner isn’t void in hearts. Do I want to force opposite a weak two-bid if partner has cards in the minors? Not really. I’ll walk the dog with 3 , hoping to play 4 …or double 4 .
Julian Wightwick: I’m glad this is nonforcing. … I would double at matchpoints.
Karen Walker: Even though this isn’t forcing, partner should be looking for an excuse to raise.
David Freeling: Partner will have [sound] values for the second-seat, vulnerable weak two-bid; and he may be short in spades [to provide] a ruffing value. If partner has J-x or better, he will raise to game.
David Harari: Game is possible if partner has a heart fit.
Joshua Donn: I’m an optimist, so sue me. Second-seat, vulnerable, partner shouldn’t be messing around; and the spade bid increases the odds he has heart length. …
Ruud von Seida: With a normal hand and [two or more] hearts, I assume partner will bid 4 . The only problem arises if he has enough values for game but is short in hearts; but then he might bid 3 , and I can try for nine tricks in 3 NT.
Stefan Jonsson: In partner I trust. If he has a maximum and heart [support], he should raise to game.
Bjarni Einarsson: Game is likely if partner has heart support, and he may have short spades. With bad cards, he can pass 3 . My second choice (unlisted) is 4 because partner should have a decent hand in second seat, vulnerable; so I will sometimes make 4 [when he would pass 3 ]; I might also hear 4 on my left, which I would double.
Paul Flashenberg: If partner has a little help in hearts, we could have a game; if not, 3 should be playable. …
Ernest Skolnik: This seems about right and should make opposite two small hearts, and partner might have the hand to raise to game. … Any action could be disastrous; if I double and catch East with 6-5 or 6-4 in the blacks, we may not beat it.
Tim Prior: Partner doesn’t need very much for 4 to be reasonable; and he’ll bid it if right.
John R. Mayne: I might be walking into the jaws of death; but if partner raises, I’m pleased; and I can whack 4 with confidence. My second choice opposite what figures to be a pure weak two-bid (second-seat, vulnerable, IMPs) is 4 , which is not on the list.
Yes, I prune my lists carefully to protect the bridge community from guys like you.
John Reardon: The potential gain seems to outweigh the loss.
Thijs Veugen: Four hearts is probably closer than 3 NT.
Len Vishnevsky: For a second-seat [weak two-bid], partner shows something like x x-x-x A-Q-J-x-x-x x-x-x; so I might make 4 , but not 3 NT. I would be torn between a safe 3 and a forcing 3 ; but a nonforcing 3 seems perfect.
Chris Willenken: This could turn out ugly, but it looks like partner may be short in spades (there can only be so many in the deck), and I can’t afford to miss a vulnerable game. Double is completely crazy; partner would happily pass with x A-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x x-x-x, and both 2 and 4 rate to make.
Mark Reeve: Being nonforcing, this looks spot-on. If partner can’t raise, we won’t miss a game.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: This invites partner to bid 4 with a maximum and 2+ hearts. If I double 2 , opponents may run to 3 .
Daniel Korbel: Partner’s second-seat, vulnerable weak two-bid will deliver the goods; it is possible for him to have x A-x-x A-Q-10-9-x-x x-x-x, which makes 6 a fantastic contract. Change the A to the jack [or a spot], and I’d want to be in 4 .
Jonathan Steinberg: I bid what I have. This may not be forcing, but it would be rare for partner to pass after a vulnerable 2 opening at IMPs.
Fergal O’Shea: This shows a 10-15 point range and a 6+ card suit, which is what I have (I don’t rate the Q to be worth much).
Paulino Correa: With a little help from partner, 4 may succeed. Three notrump is unlikely to make with only one stopper in spades [and clubs].
Paul Meerschaert: I’m going to explore for a fit before I go headhunting. In a perfect world, I will get a shot at 4 — fingers crossed.
Leonard Helfgott: I like showing a good suit with a good hand, especially with support for partner; we could easily have a heart game. Double at IMPs is far too risky.
Sandy Barnes: I like my game chances opposite A-x or J-x.
Antonio Kotsev: I have to try, as partner could have x J-x-x A-Q-x-x-x-x x-x-x.
Damo Nair: This could [find a good heart game] if partner is short in spades with J-x or x-x-x. Trying for 3 NT or 5 with only one ace is too optimistic.
Joon Pahk: If this gets passed out, it’s probably not the end of the world.
Peter Gill: By system, 3 constructive and nonforcing is perfect. When partner has one spade and three hearts, we will reach a good 4 contract.
Hendrik Sharples: I’ll look for our side’s most likely game [in hearts]. Although we probably have eight tricks in notrump after East gives me my spade stopper, where will the ninth trick come from? Two spades doubled may well make.
Lajos Linczmayer: If partner has a good heart fit ( x A-x-x A-J-10-x-x-x x-x-x) or two strong hearts ( x J-9 A-Q-J-x-x-x x-x-x-x), we should play 4 .
Barry Rigal: No reason not to bid my long suit. I might create a small loss by this position, but I lay myself open for a big gain.
David Caprera: I assume this is why I play 3 nonforcing (but partner is allowed to raise).
Joel Singer: I have to [bid] hearts, as game is possible. Partner should have a reasonable hand in second seat, vulnerable.
John Lusky: This hand’s potential is likely to depend on the degree of partner’s heart fit.
Josh Sinnett: While nonforcing, partner should raise with a little support if better than a minimum.
Steve White: Good chance to scramble nine tricks if partner has only x-x; and maybe he can raise.
Mauri Saastamoinen: It’s all about [partner’s] hearts this time. “Two hearts are better than one,” sang Springsteen… And if partner has three, we’re doing just fine.
Brad Theurer: Seems best to bid my own good suit, trying for game. If partner has a decent fit, 4 should have some play — especially if he is short in spades.
Jack Brawner: Could partner have x J-x-x A-Q-x-x-x-x x-x-x? I would think so; and perhaps better. Even if partner doesn’t fit hearts, 3 doesn’t necessarily lead to disaster. Meckstroth: “Always play for the upside.”
Olle Morell: We probably only have eight tricks in notrump, and 4 rates to go down unless partner has a fit. Three diamonds is too defeatist.
Nigel Guthrie: If partner has a heart fit, we may have a game; so a nonforcing 3 seems ideal.
Roger Morton: I’m not familiar with the style, but if 3 is nonforcing, it describes my hand admirably — a good suit and a sniff of game opposite a weak two.
Frans Buijsen: I assume this is a positive bid [even though nonforcing], as 4 is still possible.
Tim DeLaney: The risk of a penalty is balanced by the reward when partner can raise. Double is premature (opponents may escape to 3 if they can’t make 2 ), but I’ll be happy to double 3 .
Alan Kravetz: If we have a heart fit, we have a vulnerable game.
Micah Fogel: OK, I’ll be unhappy if partner shows up with J-x x Q-J-10-x-x-x K-x-x-x, but that’s a pretty ugly second-seat preempt — vulnerable too! Partner is more likely to have x-x x-x A-J-10-x-x-x K-x-x, or some such, opposite which 3 has [good chances]. If 3 comes back to me, I’ll pass and lead the A.
Nicoleta Giura: I’ll go with the majority, or phone a friend. Partner should pass with x or x-x, or bid game with J-x [or better].
Comments for 3 Curt Reeves: … Partner is most likely 2=2=6=3 or 1=2=6=4, so diamonds should be safer than hearts. I’ll pay off to x A-x-x Q-J-10-x-x-x x-x-x.
Dan Mytelka: Partner should have a good suit, vulnerable, so I think we can make nine tricks (one heart, six diamonds, A and a club ruff). On defense, I can see about five tricks in spades: one spade, two diamonds (if they split), one heart and one club, plus chances of a ruff. This bid may [lure] opponents into trouble … Three notrump seems doomed, as I won’t have the tempo to develop a heart trick before they blow up a black suit.
Neil Paddy: I can only see eight tricks in notrump unless partner has the 10 or better, which must be odds-against. I’ll play for the plus and put some pressure on the opponents to compete. I’m not sure if 2 goes down, but I will happily double 3 . Three hearts is unlikely to play well… and it could be a disaster.
Eugene Harvey: Setting up the opponents for a fall — continued bidding will be unhealthy for them. …
Richard Stein: West is probably ready to step in with a 3 bid, so I’ll get in his way. At matchpoints, I would bid 3 .
Travis Crump: Four hearts is the most likely game, but I’m not willing to go past the best partscore. Three notrump [rates to be] hopeless unless partner shows up with both red aces.
Jyrki Lahtonen: I would love to defend a higher spade contract, so I want to sound like I’m just competing.
Karl Barth: This looks right tactically, and it’s the highest bid I think our side should declare. Opponents can’t introduce clubs cheaply, and I’ll be glad to defend against anything else.
Comments for 2 NTRon Nordgren: Planning to bid hearts next.
Mark Kornmann: My spades are not good enough to double, and we could be cold for 3 NT or 4 . If partner shows a heart feature, voila; if a club feature or 3 (assuming West doesn’t raise spades), I will bid 3 , forcing and implying diamond tolerance.
Alon Amsel: Followed by 3 if possible.
Gerald Murphy: With six hearts, I will attempt to bid them; but game may be available in hearts, [notrump] or diamonds. …
Christian Vennerod: This hand has too much potential not to try for the best game. If partner bids 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT, hoping we have two spade stoppers or nine tricks direct. If he bids 3 , I’ll bid 3 .
Jonathan Siegel: I’ll pass 3 . If partner miraculously bids 3 , I’ll give 3 NT a try…
Eugene Dille: If partner has the K, we have a good shot to make 3 NT; else we’ll play 3 .
David Wiltshire: We’ll play 4 or 5 , depending on what partner has to say — or 4 doubled if opponents [wish].
Simon Cheung: This keeps hearts in the picture (partner may bid 3 to show a [feature], and I can support), uncovers partner’s club stopper, or allows a stop in 3 if he is minimum. …
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 4
| IMPs | Both vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass | North 1 3 NT | East 2 Pass | South 3 ? | Q A K Q J 10 3 A Q 9 5 J 9
|
| Your Call | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 568 | 36 |
| 4 | 9 | 62 | 4 |
| 6 | 7 | 298 | 19 |
| 6 NT | 6 | 217 | 14 |
| 4 | 5 | 115 | 7 |
| 4 NT | 3 | 285 | 18 |
| 4 | 1 | 35 | 2 |
Nice hand! Surely, it’s worth a push toward slam — if not commitment — but how? The consensus was to bid 4 , which seems like a scientific approach; but I wonder what it will accomplish. You can dream about a heart preference, but you’ll probably hear 5 or 4 NT (natural); then you’ll have no more information than you do now, and the final contract will be a stab. Nonetheless, it earns the top score.
It would be nice to ask for aces, but 4 NT would be quantitative, and 4 would be natural. (Perhaps you should have bid 4 NT over 2 , but that’s water under the bridge.) I would bid 4 anyway — a club raise! Why not? I can always correct clubs to hearts later. The advantage is that I can next ask for aces (4 NT is Blackwood after suit agreement) if partner bids anything below 4 NT; and he’ll be more encouraged to do so when he thinks I have a club fit.
Direct slam bids of 6 and 6 NT are reasonable stabs; surely, if you had to guess between game and slam, the latter stands out a mile. As to which slam, I see no clear-cut choice; 6 NT might right-side the contract or prevent a club ruff, while 6 increases security with your ruffing ability. Between them, I let the voting decide.
Cue-bidding 4 feels like a futile attempt to be scientific. Partner will assume a club fit, but nothing he does is likely to help; for one thing, you can forget about ever asking for aces. You’ll probably end up taking a shot at 6 or 6 NT next round, so you might as well do it directly without giving more clues to the opponents.
What about 4 NT quantitative? This strikes me as bizarre with 6-4 shape. Partner’s point count is less crucial than where those points are, as well as the number of aces. For example, 6 is almost laydown opposite the right 11-count ( J-10-x-x 9-x K-x A-K-x-x-x) but doomed opposite an aceless 13 ( K-J-x 9-x K-J-x K-Q-10-x-x).
Last and surely least is to sign off in 4 , although it would have been a wise move at the table. Can you believe this layout from Geneva?
| North deals | J 8 6 5 3 | West | North | East | South | |
| Both vul | — | Nippgen | Moss | Rohowsky | Coon | |
| J 10 7 | 1 | 2 | 3
| |||
| A K Q 10 4 | Pass | 3 NT | Pass | 6 NT | ||
| A 7 | | K 10 9 4 2 | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 | —
| |||||
| 8 | K 6 4 3 2
| |||||
| 6 5 2 | 8 7 3
| |||||
| Q
| ||||||
| A K Q J 10 3
| ||||||
| A Q 9 5
| ||||||
| J 9 | ||||||
| USA N-S | Germany N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 6 NT North | 3 NT South | Casen | Bitschene | Seamon | Ludewig |
| Down 1 -100 | Made 7 +720 | 2 | Pass | 2 NT | |
| Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
| ||
| Germany +13 IMPs | Pass | 3 | Pass | 3 NT | |
| Pass | Pass | Pass | |||
The problem scenario arose at the first table, where Coon took the short route to what seemed like a sound 6 NT. Oops! Off the first two or three spade tricks. The good news: Rohowsky didn’t lead a spade. The bad news: He led a diamond, and Moss hopped with the ace (wouldn’t you?) as it looked like he had 12 top tricks. Down anyway.
At the second table, Bitschene opened 2 (10-15, spades and clubs); 2 NT asked; 3 showed a minimum; 3 asked; and 3 showed shortness in hearts. Ludewig guessed right to go low in 3 NT. After the 9 lead, Ludewig had 11 top tricks; but he took the gamble for 13 or 9 (he couldn’t be beaten) by crossing to the A and running the J. Plus 720; 13 IMPs to Germany.
While the American venture in 6 NT deserves no sympathy, Lady Luck certainly smiled on Germany. Had they reached 6 . the best contract based on the North-South hands alone, they’d have lost 3 IMPs (down two) instead of winning 13.
Comments for 4 Scott Stearns: Too many tricks to settle for game, and I want to hear more. Partner should sign off in 4 NT if he doesn’t like diamonds, but I’ll bid on anyway.
Ragnar Paulson: Six hearts, 6 NT and even 6 are possible — or we could be off two aces.
Ben Bateson: Showing first-round control, which is potentially more useful than my [spade] splinter…
Jeff Hand: Too strong to pass. Slam is still very possible; give partner A-K-Q-x-x-(x)…with a key control card or two.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Showing diamond control…
Richard Morse: I think 4 NT must be quantitative on this sequence, and 4 natural. It’s tempting to blast to slam, but there is no guarantee that partner has an ace. …
Bill Powell: Diamonds could be the best strain.
Ed Barnes: Just checking on a diamond fit before I jump to 6 . Partner might bid 4 over this, in which case I can dust off Blackwood.
Vic Sartor: Followed by 6 . If partner wants to convert to 6 NT, that should be right.
Gerry Wildenberg: It’s hard to construct a hand where 6 (or higher) is a poor contract — only question is which slam move to make, and jumping to six may lose an easy grand. Four clubs suggests a club fit; 4 might lead to down one in seven; …and 4 NT is not Blackwood. When I later bid 6 , partner will know I have a self-sufficient suit.
Jess Cohen: I haven’t given up on seven opposite A-x x-x K-x-x-x A-K-x-x-x. …
Julian Wightwick: … This should encourage partner to [upgrade] the K for slam. Over 4 , I’ll carry on with 4 .
Alecu Pana: Nothing is pressing, so I’ll give and collect information.
David Harari: Natural, forcing, slam try.
Carsten Kofoed: I’ll bid as natural as possible to invite slam, so partner can appreciate the K. When I rebid 5 , I’ll have showed my hand (except the Q).
Joshua Donn: On complex hands, especially strong ones, it’s generally a good idea to make the cheapest reasonable call. …
Ruud von Seida: I hope to get some information about which slam is best. If partner bids 4 NT, I’ll probably still bid slam (6 ). Am I off two aces?
Bjarni Einarsson: Natural, or a cue-bid. [If possible], I will ask for aces next and go to 6 . (Four notrump over 3 NT should be invitational, so that’s out.)
Paul Flashenberg: This gives partner a chance to sign off in either 4 or 4 NT, or cooperate in slam bidding. We could be off both black aces.
Ernest Skolnik: I must make one move toward slam,…and 4 tells where I live.
Really? It’s good you don’t live in Florida! You’d never make it through a hurricane in that diamond shack.
Tim Prior: A grand could still be on.
Curt Reeves: Does partner have K-x-x x-x K-x-x A-K-x-x-x? Or does he have J-10-x-x x K-x-x A-K-Q-x-x? On the off chance he is 3=1=4=5, I’ll introduce diamonds.
John R. Mayne: This will clarify that my next 4 NT call is Blackwood. If partner raises diamonds, I’ll bid 6 . …
John Reardon: I am probably on my way to 6 , but I haven’t ruled out stopping in five. If partner can manage only 4 now, I will try 4 and accept a sign-off in 5 . If partner is really suitable, we could even be on the way to 7 .
Neil Paddy: Natural. We still have some space left to find the best spot — and whether we have 13 tricks or just 11.
Len Vishnevsky: Partner’s A-J-x x-x-x J-x-x A-K-Q-x…puts 7 NT on a hook (or a squeeze) that rates to [fail]. Four notrump seems cautious. This caters to something like A-x x-x K-J-x-x A-x-x-x-x, though it might be tough to get to the grand [in diamonds].
Michael True: Not clear what is the best contract, so I need to keep describing my hand.
Mark Reeve: I’ll give partner a chance to show a heart [preference] then make a slam try with 4 . The five level should be safe.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Forcing, and bringing diamonds into the picture…
Jonathan Steinberg: … I don’t want to give up on a possible grand. I hope to hear 4 ; then I will bid 4 NT, clearly ace-asking.
Geoff Bridges: Let’s try a descriptive call — it’s very un-bridgelike, but I’ll try it anyway.
Francesco Sallustio: I’ll slow down and let partner reevaluate his K.
Paulino Correa: I’d say 4 NT will be understood as quantitative — not what I want. Showing first-round control in diamonds may bring back a 4 cue-bid by partner.
Ron Nordgren: Headed for 6 or 6 .
Rainer Herrmann: If partner raises diamonds, I will invite seven; otherwise, I’ll settle for 6 .
Leonard Helfgott: Giving…partner room either to take a preference to hearts or cue-bid spades.
Sandy Barnes: A clear slam move. I’ll bid 4 NT next if possible.
Antonio Kotsev: Who knows? Partner might have A-x-x x K-x-x-x A-x-x-x-x — about 65 percent to make 7 .
Damo Nair: This hand is too good to give up on slam, and 4 looks like the most logical [try].
Mark Kornmann: There’s a slight chance we’re off two bullets, and this forcing call will find out more…
Lajos Linczmayer: If North has A-x-x, we may have a grand; and if he has A-x-x x K-J-x-x A-x-x-x-x, only 7 makes. Over 4 or 4 (diamond fit), I’ll bid Blackwood.
Rosalind Hengeveld: Partner may well take this to show five diamonds; but I’ll correct to 6 after most sequences leading to 6 , or after any attempt by partner to sign off. This may be the best way to get to 7 if it is on.
Nigel Marlow: A grand may be on, but I need to know partner’s controls. I hope to hear 4 next, then I will invoke Blackwood.
John Lusky: If partner bids 4 , I will bid 4 NT Blackwood.
Steve White: To be followed by 5 . Partner can then decide, knowing I have great hearts and some interest in diamonds. A direct 6 is too committal.
Bill Cubley: Showing my shape, and where a high card from partner is most needed for slam. …
Gerald Murphy: There should be a slam with all these cards, but I can’t be certain;…so I’ll investigate further.
Mauri Saastamoinen: Not perfect; but what is? If I bid 4 NT, we will certainly get a plus score; but would partner bid again with something like K-x-x x K-J-x-x A-Q-x-x-x, or A-J-x x-x K-x-x K-Q-x-x-x? If partner bids 4 NT, I will bid 5 NT. Could that be an invitation only? I’ll let wiser players decide that. If partner raises diamonds, I’ll jump to 6 NT.
Nigel Guthrie: Whatever this means, I’ve got it.
Christian Vennerod: We may make 7 , even opposite a minimum hand, e.g., A-x-x x K-J-10-x A-x-x-x-x.
Roger Morton: I’ll torture partner a little and find out more before choosing the strain for slam.
Franklin Gonzalez: … I am shooting for 6 , but 6 is not out of the question yet. Hopefully, partner can bid 4 ,… then 4 NT is [Blackwood]. If he bids 5 , I’ll bid 5 , and he should get the picture to bid six when appropriate. If he bids 5 , I’ll bid 6 …
Sandy McIlwain: While it is unlikely we will play in diamonds, this bid best describes my hand and leaves…room for discovery. Partner was under some pressure at his last turn not to bypass 3 NT, so he could have a variety of hands.
Comments for 4 Jouko Paganus: I don’t know if we should play in [five], six or seven hearts, so I’ll [pretend] we have a trump fit in clubs.
Chris Willenken: I’m going to play at least a small slam, however, a grand is still easily possible. What would partner bid over 3 with A-x-x x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x? [Considering] what needs to be accomplished, 4 is clear [as it probably will allow Blackwood next].
Peter Gill: En route to 6 . Because 4 NT by system is quantitative, I’ll temporize with a natural 4 before bidding 4 NT Blackwood. Four diamonds is inferior because it leaves fewer bids for partner below 4 NT.
Alon Amsel: I may hear a possible diamond cue-bid (the king), which is [probably] necessary for a grand slam.
Comments for 6 George Klemic: This would be a tougher problem at matchpoints, as 6 NT and 6 will likely make the same tricks; but there are a number of reasons to play 6 — one of which is that partner would happily bid 3 NT with J-10-x-x.
Paul Quodomine: Whether partner has a balanced minimum, or long, strong clubs with an outside card, East’s vulnerable action suggests A-K may be missing…
Dan Mytelka: Why make ambiguous bids when I know where the contract belongs at IMPs?
Craig Zastera: Too good to stop short of slam. I would prefer to have 5 “super Gerber” available in case we’re off two aces, but apparently I do not. Four diamonds (forcing) has some appeal in case we have a diamond fit, but even if partner has A-x-x-x x K-J-x-x K-Q-x-x, 6 should be OK — and wouldn’t he open 1 ? …
Richard Stein: What I think I can make. … Partner might have only J-10-x-x, which is more likely than East having a minor-suit void (when we should play 6 NT). …
Travis Crump: I’d bid 6 NT at matchpoints; but at IMPs, I’d rather not worry about East leading the king from K-J-10-x-x-x…
Barry Rigal: I’ll [give up] on science and guess that hearts will be more flexible than notrump. If East produces a Lightner double, I’ll reconsider.
Charles Blair: Two nightmare cases: (1) East leads the K [from K-J-10-x-x-x] against 6 NT, holding the A, and (2) West leads a club against 6 , and East has the K and A. Case 2 is less likely…
Tim DeLaney: Safer than 6 NT, as partner might be embarrassed by a diamond lead. Also, the assurance of solid hearts might enable partner to raise, e.g., holding A-J-x x J-x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x.
Jonathan Siegel: Just in case partner has A-x-x x-x K-J-x K-Q-x-x-x, and 6 NT goes down when East leads the K.
Comments for 6 NTKaren Walker: I have lots of [ways] to torture partner, but none of them are likely to extract any helpful information. All roads lead to 6 NT, so it looks right to get it over with and save partner’s brain cells for the next problem.
Joel Singer: My solid partner holds A-J-x x K-10-x-x A-10-x-x-x.
Karl Barth: In a bidding contest it’s usually wrong to pick the highest bid; but this should be very playable, and I like having East on lead.
Comments for 4 Jeff Mayhew: I want a cue-bid from partner.
Joon Pahk: I’m close to just blasting 6 ; but if partner bids 5 , I’ll subside.
Hendrik Sharples: Whatever this means, it has to be forcing and show lots of extras. If partner thinks I have club length and bids 6 , I’ll correct to 6 and hope.
David Caprera: Slam try in hearts. I may want to avoid six (off two aces) or bid a…grand ( A-x-x-x x K-J-x A-K-x-x-x); but I don’t want to play in clubs or diamonds.
Brad Theurer: Tough hand. There’s a slight possibility we’re off two aces, and I’m not sure which strain is best for slam (partner could have J-10-x-x, dooming 6 NT). Four clubs should be natural (not Gerber), so I’ll cue-bid 4 …and see what partner can offer.
Simon Cheung: Partner is [not limited to a minimum], and a grand slam is still possible. This should show slam interest in hearts, since I could force with 4 or 4 … I plan to follow up with 6 to show a solid suit (no choice-of-slams bid) and invite a raise.
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 5
| IMPs | N-S vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West Pass Pass | North Pass 1
| East Pass Pass | South ? ? | A Q A 10 8 3 2 A Q 10 4 K 9
|
| Your Call or Calls | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| B. 1 then 2 NT | 10 | 627 | 40 |
| E. 2 NT | 9 | 145 | 9 |
| C. 1 then 3 | 7 | 555 | 35 |
| D. 1 then 3 NT | 4 | 181 | 11 |
| A. 1 then 2 | 2 | 72 | 5 |
What appears to be a routine 1 opening deserves a second look. I would upgrade the 19 HCP to 20 (two 10s in long suits and three aces add value) and open 2 NT. Further, it may be crucial to become declarer to protect your black suits from the opening lead; if you open 1 , partner might respond 1 NT and make you dummy. Alas, 91 percent felt otherwise; so I must be demented (shut up, I heard that).
OK, so you open 1 like a good boy, and partner bids 1 (luckily not 1 NT). Now it seems imperative to grab the notrump; and the consensus clearly agreed, choosing the standard 2 NT rebid (18-19). This makes me nervous, as the hand feels worth 20; but if partner passes, nine tricks may be out of reach.
Many respondents chose the jump shift to 3 , which may be right on values, but it emphasizes the wrong strain. How will you feel if partner raises to 4 ? Yuck. Even if partner judges to bid 3 NT, the contract will be wrong-sided. I suppose there’s a chance to find a good 6 , e.g., opposite K-x-x-x-x x K-J-9-x-x Q-x, but note that you would also find this slam after opening 2 NT. Realistically, the best you can probably hope for is a preference to 3 ; then you can back into 3 NT like a contortionist.
Other choices seem out of the ballpark. Rebidding 3 NT is a fair description of your strength but shows a long running heart suit, usually with a singleton spade.* Rebidding only 2 is a gross underbid, though I suppose it could be right if partner responded on K-x-x-x-x x x-x-x-x J-x-x.
*The double jump to 3 NT is rare after 1 but shows the same kind of hand as after a minor opening.
In Geneva this deal arose in the semifinal matches (Moss vs. Rapee, Germany vs. Canada) where it was played four times. Here’s how the chips fell:
| West deals | K J 8 7 5 | West | North | East | South | |
| N-S vul | Q J | Sukoneck | Casen | Ekeblad | Seamon | |
| 8 | Pass | Pass | Pass | 2 NT | ||
| Q 7 6 4 3 | Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
| ||
| 9 2 | | 10 6 4 3 | Pass | 3 NT | Pass | Pass |
| K 9 7 5 | 6 4 | Pass | ||||
| J 9 3 | K 7 6 5 2
| |||||
| J 10 8 2 | A 5
| |||||
| A Q
| ||||||
| A 10 8 3 2
| ||||||
| A Q 10 4
| ||||||
| K 9 | ||||||
| Moss N-S | Rapee N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 3 NT South | 3 NT South | Coon | Rapee | Moss | Solodar |
| Made 5 +660 | Made 4 +630 | Pass | Pass | Pass | 2 NT |
| Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
| ||
| Moss +1 IMPs | Pass | 3 NT | Pass | Pass | |
| Pass | |||||
In the Moss-Rapee match, both Souths elected to open 2 NT, then a Jacoby transfer sequence led to the best game. Both Casen and Rapee judged well not to bid 4 over 3 , as it would take almost a perfect catch to make 6 a sound contract. In the play, Seamon stole an 11th trick to win an IMP.
| West deals | K J 8 7 5 | West | North | East | South | |
| N-S vul | Q J | Baran | Nippgen | Molson | Rohowsky | |
| 8 | Pass | 2 | Pass | 2 NT | ||
| Q 7 6 4 3 | Pass | 3 | Pass | 4
| ||
| 9 2 | | 10 6 4 3 | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| K 9 7 5 | 6 4
| |||||
| J 9 3 | K 7 6 5 2
| |||||
| J 10 8 2 | A 5
| |||||
| A Q
| ||||||
| A 10 8 3 2
| ||||||
| A Q 10 4
| ||||||
| K 9 | ||||||
| Germany N-S | Canada N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 4 North | 3 NT South | Ludewig | Hobart | Bitschene | Kirr |
| Made 5 +650 | Made 5 +660 | Pass | Pass | 1 | Dbl |
| 2 | Dbl | 2 | Dbl | ||
| No swing | Pass | 3 | Pass | 3 NT | |
| Pass | Pass | Pass | |||
In the Germany-Canada match, neither South even had a chance to open, thanks to a German blitzkrieg. Nippgen, North, opened 2 (weak, spades and clubs); 2 NT was artificial; 3 was a minimum; then Rohowsky opted for the spade game (hard to picture Q-J opposite) and made 11 tricks.
At the other table, Bitschene opened the East hand 1 , no doubt for its lead-directional value. Even though this was canape by their system, it looks more like crape to me. The Canadians coped well with the barrage to reach the best spot. Kirr also made 11 tricks for a push.
Comments for B. 1 then 2 NTScott Stearns: About right on points, distribution and stoppers. Two tens are nice, but the weak five-card suit convinces me not to upgrade this 19-count. I don’t like jump shifting on relatively weak suits if I have a pleasing alternative available.
Ragnar Paulson: With almost half my points in doubletons, this seems a better rebid than 3 — and it protects my K on the opening lead.
Ben Bateson: A borderline 2 NT opener with two tens and a five-card suit.
Jeff Hand: I used to rebid 3 on these hands but now reserve that for more distributional hands.
Jean-Christophe Clement: Showing five hearts first, then 18-19 HCP.
Richard Morse: The shape is surely wrong for 2 NT initially; but once partner blocks one of my weaknesses, I feel encouraged to protect my tenaces and give a reasonable overall picture with 2 NT. Three notrump seems excessive and doesn’t allow partner a further chance to express his shape.
Bill Powell: I would open 2 NT if playing puppet Stayman.
George Klemic: This seems like the best description. Though I have a strong feeling game will be there, partner will decline with a hand such as K-x-x-x x-x J-x-x Q-x-x-x, which will usually be a good decision.
Vic Sartor: If it’s important, this protects the K, while still showing my strength. … Second choice is a straightforward 1 , 3 .
Gerry Wildenberg: Two bids stand out [after opening 1 ] with this semibalanced hand: 2 NT and 3 . I choose 2 NT because of my tenace positions in all four suits. …
Julian Wightwick: Bitter experience of trying to make 11 tricks on this kind of hand dissuades me from rebidding 3 .
Alecu Pana: I would bid 3 with better hearts, or with more high cards in the red suits.
Karen Walker: With honor concentration in the doubletons, this looks like a notrump hand, not a two-suiter.
Carsten Kofoed: This shows [18-19] HCP according to the system…and makes it easier to find 4 than would a 3 rebid. If we land in 3 NT, I’d rather have my diamond suit concealed.
Bjarni Einarsson: Showing 18-19 balanced, [usually] on the way to 3 NT [but saving room] to find a fit and reach the best game.
Paul Flashenberg: Most accurate description, without forcing to game. If partner made a courtesy response, game is doubtful.
Paul Quodomine: No action is perfect, but at least this keeps us out of a game force if partner holds J-10-x-x-x x-x K-x-x Q-x-x.
John R. Mayne: … On value, this hand is worth a 2 NT opening; but [opening 1 to find] a fit may mean a slam. Partner’s 1 salvo makes my primary goal to play the hand, which is why I prefer 2 NT to 3 . … I know there will be 2 bidders who want to “go slow,” but I don’t think they’ll ever be able to catch up.
John Reardon: I don’t think I should insist on game; at least the lead will be around towards the strong hand.
Neil Paddy: Seems to give the best reflection of my hand value, while protecting the K from the lead. The hand is worth a bit more than its 19 HCP; but if partner passes with a flat minimum, 2 NT will probably be right, as dummy won’t have many entries.
Chris Willenken: This might miss a diamond game or slam, but it caters best to a spade contract and right-sides 3 NT.
Michael True: I want to protect my K…
Geoff Bridges: Being 4-2 in the minors does not disqualify me from this straightforward sequence. Opening 2 NT is a poor choice; upgrading a hand to bury a five-card major strikes me as silly.
Paul Meerschaert: With scattered values, I prefer this to 3 .
Leonard Helfgott: With only 19 and not completely balanced, 1 is clear. Rebidding 2 NT protects tenaces and implies spade tolerance, while 3 would be nebulous.
Stephen Fischer: Rebidding 2 is too weak, and 3 risks wrong-siding the contract.
Craig Zastera: Playing a 20-21 2 NT with puppet Stayman, I might stretch to open 2 NT; but 1 seems better playing a [20-22] 2 NT with no way to check for a five-card major. A 3 rebid wouldn’t be awful, but this looks more like a balanced hand than a two-suiter. The notes don’t say what a 3 NT rebid shows, but it should be based on a long running suit.
Joon Pahk: Opening 2 NT is just too much of a distortion; but as a rebid, 2 NT is just right.
Travis Crump: One heart followed by 3 NT should show solid hearts.
Mark Kornmann: Notrump is odds-on to be better from my side,…and this lets partner pass with a minimum response… The devil inside me tells me to lie and open 2 NT, but that [may lose] a heart game…
Rosalind Hengeveld: Only problem bidding 1 then 2 NT is that it’s dull and unimaginative; problem with not bidding it is that I won’t describe my hand. If we were playing puppet Stayman (quod non), I’d be tempted to open 2 NT.
Joel Singer: Showing my stoppers, and letting partner out on a bare minimum. Three diamonds is a close second. …
Josh Sinnett: Opening 1 should be automatic; then 2 NT describes this hand better than 3 , which [suggests] a more unbalanced hand.
Brad Theurer: Not the right hand for an off-shape 2 NT opening, but I want to protect my tenaces. Rebidding 3 could give partner a problem.
Jack Brawner: As I tell my students: Your job is to describe your hand to your partner who is on your side. …
Fair enough, but my job is to look my opponents straight in the eye, and bid like a pig.
Kevin Podsiadlik: Protecting the club holding without overstepping. Partner knows as well as I do that we are vulnerable at IMPs and will accept on any excuse.
Comments for E. Open 2 NTDavid Freeling: Protecting my tenaces. This is not an overbid, because of my two 10s and prime values…
Ruud von Seida: Looks like 20 points, and balanced.
Ernest Skolnik: By any rational evaluation method, this hand is [worth more than 19]. Additionally, if the final contract is 3 NT, right-siding it may be critical. …
Manuel Paulo: The fifth heart (despite a rather poor suit) and two 10s make up for the point I lack.
Rainer Herrmann: I have to protect my tenaces, and the hand is strong enough to open 2 NT.
Alon Amsel: Sorry partner, but I will declare this board.
Frans Buijsen: The hand looks like I should get the lead towards me.
Nicoleta Giura: I like the 10s and tenaces.
Comments for C. 1 then 3 Joshua Donn: Why not 1 ? Do I have to be a genius on every hand? It isn’t in the 2 NT range anyway, and not worth an upgrade with the lousy five-card suit. Rebidding 2 NT would be normal with this sort of hand, but I’m a bit too good;…at least I’m bidding a good suit.
Stefan Jonsson: I would rather play the right contract in the wrong hand, than the wrong contract in the right hand.
Curt Reeves: I have immense faith in partner to do the right thing, including passing with a 5=1=3=4 4-count.
Len Vishnevsky: Partner would pass 2 with K-x-x-x K J-x-x-x x-x-x-x.
Mark Reeve: One heart looks fine (5-4-2-2 shapes are unbalanced). Rebidding 2 isn’t enough; 2 NT is also an underbid; 3 NT is hoggish; so a jump shift is all that’s left. Over partner’s 3 or 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT.
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: I have enough to force to game, and a diamond slam may be on, e.g., opposite x-x-x-x-x x K-J-x-x A-x-x. I don’t need five diamonds for this bid, as partner has room to show a heart [preference] or [rebid] spades.
Daniel Korbel: Very close between this and rebidding 2 NT, [but] 2 NT will usually kill any diamond slam (at least in my methods). My partners are trained to preference to 3 with a doubleton on most hands, so my 3 NT follow-up will be descriptive enough…
Jonathan Steinberg: I can’t see any reason to conceal my diamond suit; what if partner has K-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x Q-x-x? Over a preference to 3 , I’ll bid 3 NT.
Antonio Kotsev: This has a slight danger of missing 3 NT; but facing K-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x Q-x-x, I’m on the right path.
Richard Stein: This won’t win any awards for beauty, but partner won’t bid 3 NT if his clubs are blowing in the wind. … On a good day, partner will hold K-x-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x Q-x,…and 6 romps.
Peter Gill: Then 3 NT over 3 . I must look for 6 with all my controls, in case partner has something like K-x-x-x-x x K-x-x-x-x Q-x. [Opening] 2 NT on 5-4-2-2 shapes with a five-card major loses in the long run.
Hendrik Sharples: I would open 2 NT if my majors were 5-3, but I avoid that call if possible with 5-2.
Andrei Varlan: After 30 years of teaching, I won’t open 2 NT with two defects: [unbalanced] and a five-card major. …
Lajos Linczmayer: It is tempting to open 2 NT facing a passed partner, but I don’t want to miss a heart or diamond fit. Over 3 (doubleton), I will bid 3 NT. Some superb hands for 6 are: J-10-x-x-x x K-J-x-x-x A-x, or K-x-x-x x K-9-x-x A-x-x-x, or 10-x-x-x x K-9-x-x A-Q-J-x.
Barry Rigal: My plan is to bid 3 NT over 3 or 3 from partner. Rebidding 2 will leave me looking silly too often — but then, that’s the story of my life!
David Caprera: Close between this and a 2 NT rebid. At matchpoints I’d prefer 2 NT…
John Lusky: The hand is strong enough for a 2 NT opening, but that may cause us to miss either a 5-3 heart fit or a diamond slam. I may be able to bid 3 NT on the third round.
Steve White: Aces and kings are undervalued in HCP, but not enough to make this a 2 NT opening, especially when also off-shape. Once partner responds to 1 , it’s good enough to force to game.
Carolyn Ahlert: If partner bids 3 or 3 , I will bid 3 NT.
Bill Cubley: For 3 NT to be right, partner needs some club strength. …
Mauri Saastamoinen: This may be a matter of style… If my hearts were weaker, say, A-x-x-x-x or K-x-x-x-x, I’d [rebid 2 NT].
Charles Blair: I hope to be able to rebid 3 NT over 3 ; over 3 , I will bid 4 . I think this hand is too good for a 2 NT rebid.
Tim DeLaney: With 5-4 in the red suits and game values (after partner’s response), this sends precisely that message.
Karl Barth: This hand was built to play in a suit, so I’ll give it a chance… If partner has 5+ spades, it should play in spades; and I’ll bid 3 NT [over 3 ].
Alan Kravetz: Bidding notrump at any stage may lose a possible diamond slam.
Sandy McIlwain: I think this is good enough to jump shift; plenty of time to get to 3 NT.
Micah Fogel: This seems very Goren to me. I’m a simple guy — some would say a simpleton :) — so I’ll do the simple thing.
Jonathan Siegel: Describes my hand well and still gives me a chance to try 3 NT over partner’s 3 . If partner bids 3 , I will go to 4 …
David Wiltshire: A close call between this…and a 2 NT [rebid] to protect my [black suits]. I don’t think the hand is quite strong enough to open 2 NT (not a great 19-count). …
Simon Cheung: One heart seems normal with 5-4 and only 19 HCP (no good reason to upgrade); and a jump shift looks obvious to bring diamonds into the picture (hand is good enough to force), while conserving bidding space to explore…
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
Problem 6
| IMPs | None vul | You, South, hold: | ||
| West 6
| North 4 Pass | East 5 Pass | South ? ? | Q 7 6 2 8 Q 10 7 5 2 K 7 5
|
| Your Call or Calls | Award | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| C. 5 then Pass | 10 | 478 | 30 |
| D. 5 then 6 | 9 | 371 | 23 |
| E. 6 | 6 | 355 | 22 |
| B. Pass then 6 | 4 | 279 | 18 |
| A. Pass then Pass | 2 | 97 | 6 |
We’ve all faced problems like this in real life, and we all know there is only one right answer: the one that works. At the table, it’s more or less a guess whether 6 is making; but experience will improve your guesses. I’d estimate the slam will make about 70 percent of the time, so I’d sacrifice (Option D), expecting minus 500 versus 980; though it might be only 300 — or a Pyrrhic victory for 800.
Some respondents remarked that their actions might depend on whether their partnership uses Namyats (or similar to show a good preempt), but this should be irrelevant. An opening 4 bid is weak regardless. Hands appropriate for Namyats are opened with one if Namyats is not played, except sometimes opposite a passed hand — or for some Italians out there.
A few people complained the problem was unfair because West’s 6 bid has a different flavor if bid competitively (over 5 ) as opposed to voluntarily (over pass). Perhaps, but you’re supposed to consider each call in turn as at the table, not by what works best for the overall picture. In general, I score two-part problems primarily by the first call; hence, the winner logically came from the group that bid 5 , which drew a majority (53 percent).
The consensus was to compete to 5 then sell out (Option C). This is clearly the percentage move if you feel 6 is only about 50 percent to make, as you will gain more when the slam fails than from a successful sacrifice. Perhaps, the actual odds lie somewhere between 50-50 and my 70-30 estimate. In any case, I certainly respect this decision (especially in view of the actions from Geneva) and award it the top score — but I’ll take a close second.
The macho bid of 6 directly (Option E) got a lot of votes, but I suspect some of those bidders were fudging on the knowledge that West was going to bid 6 . To be sure, it seems hard to believe that so many would bid 6 at the table — or perhaps we have a throng of biathletes hanging around from last month. I’m a firm believer in putting opponents under pressure, but the chance of buying the contract for 5 (doubled) is too likely to give up.
Passing 5 seems wimpy, although it brings to mind the advice of the late Ed Manfield, who warned not to bid five over five except under rare circumstances. Well, this is “rare” enough for me, thank you. Having passed 5 , it’s certainly more obvious to save against 6 , since it was bid voluntarily, as the voting clearly upheld.
This deal is also from the semifinal matches and was played four times. Incredibly, the identical auction occurred at every table:
| North deals | A J 10 9 8 5 4 3 | West | North | East | South | |
| None vul | — | Ludewig | Baran | Bitschene | Molson | |
| 9 8 | 4 | 5 | 5
| |||
| J 8 6 | 6 | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
| K |  | —
| ||||
| J 7 6 4 | A K Q 10 9 5 3 2
| |||||
| A 6 4 | K J 3
| |||||
| A 10 4 3 2 | Q 9
| |||||
| Q 7 6 2
| ||||||
| 8
| ||||||
| Q 10 7 5 2
| ||||||
| K 7 5 | ||||||
| Canada N-S | Germany N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 6 East | 6 East | Kokish | Nippgen | Mittelman | Rohowsky |
| Made 6 +980 | Made 6 +980 | 4 | 5 | 5
| |
| 6 | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
| No swing | |||||
| North deals | A J 10 9 8 5 4 3 | West | North | East | South | |
| None vul | — | Coon | Sutherlin | Moss | Morse | |
| 9 8 | 4 | 5 | 5
| |||
| J 8 6 | 6 | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
| K | | —
| ||||
| J 7 6 4 | A K Q 10 9 5 3 2
| |||||
| A 6 4 | K J 3
| |||||
| A 10 4 3 2 | Q 9
| |||||
| Q 7 6 2
| ||||||
| 8
| ||||||
| Q 10 7 5 2
| ||||||
| K 7 5 | ||||||
| Rapee N-S | Moss N-S | West | North | East | South |
| 6 East | 6 East | Sukoneck | Casen | Ekeblad | Seamon |
| Made 6 +980 | Made 7 +1010 | 4 | 5 | 5
| |
| 6 | Pass | Pass | Pass | ||
| Rapee +1 IMPs | |||||
Imagine that! Neither Molson, Rohowsky, Morse nor Seamon chose to save against 6 . This certainly supports our consensus, while shooting my view all to pieces. Hah! It was right to save this time; so do I at least win a banana? Twelve tricks were easily made, although Ekeblad scored an overtrick when Seamon didn’t cover the Q.
Comments for C. 5 then PassOwen Cotton-Barratt: I’m not selling out to 5 in what might…be a double game swing. Having started with 5 , bidding 6 later is undisciplined — and helping the opponents. Bidding an immediate 6 has some merit but seems to be gambling on partner having no defensive trick.
Scott Stearns: I’ve made West guess, and I don’t think he guessed right because of my minor-suit holdings. A spade might cash, but I kind of doubt it. I don’t sacrifice at [IMPs] unless I’m sure the opponents are making.
Ragnar Paulson: We don’t rate to have much defense against 5 , as I don’t expect partner to have more than one trick outside spades. I won’t sacrifice against 6 , as there is a good chance I’ll take a club and partner one other (club or diamond).
David Cohen: Wimp call of the year!
Jean-Christophe Clement: This is awful! How can I make a clever decision at this level? I will always bid 5 , hoping to play 5 doubled against 5 ; but after 6 by West, both pass and 6 make sense. I’ll pass today, hoping for a plus in the right column; but don’t ask me what I’ll do tomorrow…
Richard Morse: At least this is consistent — pushing opponents and then hoping they go down. I don’t believe anyone would pass on the first round, not knowing that West would raise.
Bill Powell: I hope West guessed wrong.
George Klemic: What, no option for 5 then double? … Granted, I [wouldn’t take] this action; it just seems like it should be an option. If partner has a pure 4 call, East will probably make 6 ; but I just don’t know, and it’s not clear we are saving much at the vulnerability (800 seems a likely score).
Ed Barnes: Our job is done.
Vic Sartor: Whenever I take out insurance, it’s wrong — opponents are down in six. I’m sure we’re off at least 500 in 6 , so the IMP loss will be [moderate] if 6 makes.
Karen Walker: This feels like another example for the “Last Buffoon” annals. I made West guess at the six level; I have some defense; and I can’t remember the last time it was right to take a six-level dive at IMPs, especially at this vulnerability.
David Freeling: Six spades might be a good save, but might be a phantom. With my minor-suit honors, I’ll just pass and hope to set 6 .
Joshua Donn: I gave it the old college try. Maybe opponents missed a grand; maybe they’re down. Six spades could easily be 800 anyway, or worse ( K-J-10-9-x-x-x-x x x-x-x x), so there’s no way I’m donating that to see if opponents guessed correctly in a jammed auction. I like how you coded the reasonable options (A, C and E as in ace) to make it easy for us.
That also might explain why my choice was Option D, as in dud.
Stefan Jonsson: Partner has not denied a defensive trick.
Paul Flashenberg: If I were going to bid 6 , I would have done so immediately. Opponents are guessing, and I hope they guessed wrong.
Paul Quodomine: One boost, then hope our outside cards come into play on defense. After all, I pushed them there.
Tim Prior: I bid as far as I dare, as soon as I can. Six spades immediately could well be right.
Curt Reeves: While I doubt that a spade will cash, we might have two winners in the minors. I want to avoid minus 800 and minus 50 when we compare scores. Besides, we are already plus 26 IMPs on hands 1-5!
Mark Jackson: Then lead a trump. Where are their 12 tricks?
Dan Mytelka: Partner could have some strength for his opening bid, so I bid 5 as a two-way action: It could make, or it could be good sack… After West’s bid [suggests] that East-West have all the values outside spades, I pass; they may be overvaluing spade shortness in both hands, and I may end up with a trick in diamonds and clubs. Besides, if 6 makes, we may well be down 800 in 6 (at least 500), so the differential is [modest].
Thijs Veugen: Unclear whether 6 will make. We put maximal pressure, and West made the final guess.
Neil Paddy: My hand has some defensive potential, and 6 could well go for a big number whether 6 makes or not. I think the decision would be more difficult if nonvul-vs-vul, as then the question would be simple: Does 6 make?
Len Vishnevsky: I can’t let opponents force me into 6 ; I got this hand off my chest with 5 the first round.
Mark Reeve: Horrible problem; anything could be right. I’m always loath to take phantom saves, so I won’t bid 6 ; however, I expect 5 to be a decent save against 5 .
Daniel Korbel: Initially, my reaction was to bid 5 then 6 ; but now I am not so sure. This hand has just enough defense that setting 6 is a possibility, and there’s no guarantee that 6 isn’t going for 800, although 500 is probably more likely.
Jonathan Steinberg: All white, there is more upside to defeating 6 than saving. Yes, I can construct hands where minus 300 is better than minus 980; but then, plus 50 is preferable to minus 800.
Fergal O’Shea: Partner [implies] seven tricks, so 5 is an easy choice with good support and a singleton heart; but what to do over 6 ? I think it’s going down, so I’ll pass…
Geoff Bridges: I know it’s [often right] to “bid one more” at IMPs, but I have too much defense to sacrifice over 6 . The gentle 5 seems enough.
Antonio Kotsev: Ha! Show me the other three hands please! Preempts create problems for opponents, and for us too sometimes.
Damo Nair: I’ve a smattering of defense. Maybe a spade will cash, and the K will score; who knows. I don’t think East or West knows either.
Craig Zastera: I often get these wrong in real life. Competing to 5 seems clear; but then I usually go on to 6 , [hoping] to concede 500 rather than a slam swing, only to find opponents couldn’t even make five. Have I gotten any wiser? Or just older?
Richard Stein: The spade fit says to go wild, but I have a little too much defense to make any impulsive blasting moves.
David Caprera: I detest “slow playing” this sort of hand, trapping myself into a last guess. I [figure] 6 to be minus 500, and 6 to be making half the time. At equal vulnerability, I think IMP odds favor bidding 5 and defending 6 .
Rosalind Hengeveld: I’m not a believer in taking a lesser risk that would invest 10 IMPs. I’d rather give a preempt a chance to work — as the old maxim has it — and try for a plus score that is not at all unlikely.
Brad Theurer: Despite my spade length, I do have some potential defense and would hate to save over 6 , only to find it goes down. [Further], partner could have bid 6 himself, so perhaps he can contribute a bit of defense as well. East-West hands are [probably] fairly duplicated distribution-wise.
Charles Blair: What about a striped-tailed-ape double?
Comments for D. 5 then 6 Franco Galleni: I don’t like [to bid this way], but the sacrifice will be inexpensive.
Gerry Wildenberg: I wouldn’t bid 6 immediately, as I wasn’t sure West would go to 6 ; but it figures to be a good (phantom?) save, so I’ll bid it now. I hope that if I push opponents to seven, my Q or K will be worth a trick.
Jess Cohen: I am a 50-year member of USAA, so I believe in insurance. If I push opponents to seven, that’s another problem; but maybe partner has an ace and can double, or maybe [my K makes] — or maybe I just lost the match. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Julian Wightwick: Give partner A-K-x-x-x-x-x-x x-x x x-x, and he might get out for two off with 6 cold. On less favorable constructions, we might concede 500 against 450.
David Harari: Insurance!
Carsten Kofoed: … This could even be a good sacrifice against the opponents’ game if partner has a fit in diamonds. Further, this security bid could wrinkle the opponents’ brains and pay back later!
Ruud von Seida: The Law [may apply]: 22 total trumps [suggests] 22 tricks. … I don’t think I need to bid 6 at once, as 7 is probably down.
Bjarni Einarsson: One opponent should be void in spades, so 6 has a good chance to make. Even if 6 fails, 6 should be down only two or three, which is no [great concern versus their game].
Ernest Skolnik: This should be a cheap save… East shouldn’t be allowed to play below 7 , which I’ll pass and hope to beat.
Chris Willenken: Six spades rates to be minus 300 on average, so I don’t want to gamble on the opponents’ distribution. On this type of deal, I may easily hear 7 next!
Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Six spades will usually be a good save against 6 . [This route] may be daisy picking, but now and then we’re allowed to play 5 doubled. With my minor-suit holdings, I am not afraid of an opponent bidding 7 .
David Woulds: I don’t see us taking two tricks in the minors, and there won’t be any in the majors.
Paul Meerschaert: I may be beating 6 , but this rates to be too cheap to pass up.
Fraser Rew: East is likely to be making 6 . The flaws here are that I might have another decision over 7 ; or worse, we could be minus 300 or 500 against an unmakable slam.
Sandy Barnes: I would try to play 5 if possible but take the save for safety.
Joon Pahk: Given that we [probably] have 12 spades, I don’t like our defensive prospects…
Travis Crump: Six spades doubled may be cheaper than 5 , and I’d rather not worry about a spade lead giving a ruff-sluff. :)
Peter Gill: … Integrity demands that I first try to buy the contract in 5 . Then I take the close decision to save, because the cost in 6 doubled might even be less than [opponents’ game].
Hendrik Sharples: I hate to admit this bidding sequence in print, but I’m not willing to risk a giant adverse swing.
Lajos Linczmayer: I bid 5 to prevent West from bidding 5 , and to muddy the water. I bid 6 , as 6 is very likely to make, and I expect less than four down.
Barry Rigal: Five spades might be cheap, but I feel I have to save over 6 — too many spades! The typical 8=2=1=2 shape opposite may lead to minus 300, with 6 depending on one of two finesses.
Alon Amsel: When in doubt, bid! I’m not sure West will bid 6 , which is why I bid just five the first time. Moreover, it doesn’t seem likely East can make 7 .
Roger Morton: I’ll take insurance. Even if 6 is failing, maybe our teammates are allowed to play in five for a small gain.
Comments for E. 6 Alecu Pana: I know that I will bid 6 over the [expected] 6 , so it’s better to bid it the first time.
John R. Mayne: There are only two options: C and E. People who pick B or D should be dragged out to the street and Tasered (I realize some folks will call for the more moderate in-home Tasering). … It doesn’t appear to be our hand, so I bid to the [highest] level I want to get to immediately. Is that 5 ? Maybe, but I think it is 6 ; but whatever I bid the first time, I will [not bid again]. Giving opponents extra chances is suicide.
John Reardon: This could be cheaper than opponents’ game, and it gives them the guess.
Francesco Sallustio: Should East play 6 , my hand is an open book, so I’ll let opponents guess whether to bid a grand slam.
Leonard Helfgott: This could be a good save against a heart game and might propel opponents into a bad grand. … I refuse to bid 5 then 6 , giving opponents opportunity to exchange information; e.g., after raising to 6 , West can pass 6 to show first-round control…
Stephen Fischer: If I bid 5 , I’m pretty sure [West] will bid 6 . Since I’ll bid over that anyway, I’ll bid 6 immediately and make opponents guess last.
Andrei Varlan: Against 6 , I don’t have a trick. The “elevator policy” (ascensseur in French) is stupid. I don’t want East to play 6 , so why should I be “Wandering Around” — great song by Jethro Tull. :)
Nigel Marlow: Five spades gives me the problem when West bids 6 … It seems better to take out some insurance against 6 making and bid 6 immediately. Who knows? Opponents may not even double!
John Lusky: We are likely to have nine tricks, and the opponents are likely to have 12. I choose to exert maximum pressure, since 6 doubled is unlikely to be appreciably worse than defending 5 .
Josh Sinnett: Figuring our side has one defensive trick on average, and about eight declaring tricks, I’ll bid to the indicated level immediately to put pressure on the opponents.
Steve White: I’ll make opponents guess before West has a chance to show heart support. At worst, we’re only one level higher [than we might have been]. Maybe West will bid 7 , down one.
Jack Brawner: He who makes the last guess loses. With Options A through D, the last guesser is me. Waiting for opponents to communicate and then bidding six (B or D) can’t be right. If someone forced me to bid 5 or pass originally, I would at least live with that decision (A or C).
Kevin Podsiadlik: It looks to me like East rates to make 6 . Given that, I’m always sacrificing if it comes to it, so it’s a choice between passing first (possibility of minus 480) or a direct 6 (possibility of plus 50). I’ll go for the bigger upside.
Tim DeLaney: Given my minor-suit honors, opponents are unlikely to bid or make 7 , so I am not worried that I’ll push them. The loss at 6 doubled [may] be smaller than the loss at 5 . I am not willing to defend 6 , so I’ll try to make them guess.
Alan Kravetz: My two minor-suit honors probably equals our only defensive trick.
Mitch Edelman: … As long as we avoid sticks and wheels, this should be OK.
Nicoleta Giura: I’m not keen to defend 6 . Even if 6 is failing, 6 could be a decent save against 5 .
Final NotesComments are selected from those scoring 54 or higher (top 210) or with an overall average of 50.75 or higher (top 202) prior to this poll, and on each problem only for calls awarded 5 or higher. About 80 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 look-back at Geneva, and the exciting 1990 World Championship. I’d send you some Swiss chocolates, but I gummed up my outbox trying to attach them to an e-mail. Thanks to all who participated, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Ahh! Mabel just brought me a mug of hot chocolate (Swiss Miss, of course) so I’ll retire to the chalet. The yodeling crew has stopped by for few numbers:
Jon Greiman: My logic has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Rick Knight: My results from January prove that if you give enough monkeys (players with 30+ masterpoints) enough typewriters (computers on the Internet), anything is attainable (60 on your quiz).
Joshua Donn: If this was my last hurrah at the top of your overall leaderboard, it’s been a good run. As Mozart said when he died in The Terminator, “I’ll be Bach!”
Curt Reeves: If I am going to be an Avenger, dibs on Emma Peel (Diana Rigg) as my partner!
| Analyses 8W80 Main Challenge | | Scores Top United State Wins Swiss |
© 2006 Richard Pavlicek