Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the penultimate set of 2025. ‘Tis nearly the season to be merry so, from everyone at RealBridge, I say a hearty “Ho, ho, ho” to all of our regular readers and to members of the panel. Our thanks for your support. After ten months, just five points separate the top seven contenders in the closest annual competitions we’ve had. Good luck to them all.
A number of panel members were in action in the European Champions Cup, which was held in Latvia this month. In the Women’s competition, Sally Brock was a member of the English team that was returning as 2024 Champions to defend their title. This time around, they made it to the final but were defeated by the Polish Champions. In the Open series, Michal Klukowski was a member of the Swiss team which lost in the final to the Dutch by just 3 IMPs. Cedric Lorenzini was a member of the French team that reached the semi-final stage.
As we go to press, the US Fall Nationals have just begun in San Francisco. I hope to report on numerous successes by panel members next month.
This month’s guest panelists are the co-winners of the September competition. Frenchman Olivier Metzdorff started playing in a Paris bridge club at the age of 21, and competitively a year later. He says, “My job as a computer scientist didn't leave me enough time to play like a professional, but I have been lucky enough to play often against the best players, and beat them some of the time!” Artemis Christaki is a freelance conference interpreter based in Athens, Greece, mainly working for the European Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. She is married with a 16-year-old son. She says “I have been playing this wonderful game since 2018. My favourite tournaments are the French summer festivals and the one-day marathon tournament hosted by my club in Athens between Christmas and New Year. I am always looking for motivated partners with whom I can work.”
Regular competition entrant, Graham Hazel from England, submitted Hand 8 this month. Thanks to him. If you have a hand that you think would make an interesting problem for the panel to discuss, please send me the details.
The panel produce a clear majority vote on only three of the hands in this set, and are split on the rest. How split? On both Hand 5 and Hand 6, the panel offered support for eight alternatives. I’d say that was widely split. With more than one chance of a decent score on a number of boards, will this month be higher-scoring than October’s very difficult set?
The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on four hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores 63/80 (the same as in October). The average score this month is 51.53 (up from 46.46 on Set 25-10). Let’s see what the panel have to say about this month’s hands…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♥ |
10 |
13 |
33 |
|
2♠ |
8 |
8 |
10 |
|
3♣ |
6 |
1 |
8 |
|
2♥ |
5 |
2 |
23 |
|
2♣ |
5 |
1 |
18 |
|
1NT |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.63
We have a majority vote from the panel, with strong support for one alternative. A third of competitors pick up maximum marks, but the rest are fairly widely divided. Let’s start with the minority choices…
LIZ McGOWAN: 2♣. I am downgrading the spade honours. I normally prefer to show the four-card major before the five-card minor, but here partner has an easy conversion to diamonds and I can show the hearts later. And, if North competes, I would prefer a club lead to a heart.
MATS NISLAND: 3♣. Difficult hand, but I don’t like 3♥.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2♥. Great problem. I think I just made the greatest underbid of my life.
BARNET SHENKIN: 2♥. I go low with the spade bidder sitting over my K-J.
Readers should note that if the auction continues 2♠-Pass-Pass, you can now bid 3♣, which would show this shape (as, with five hearts, you would not bother to show clubs but would simply bid 3♥ if taking a second bid).
At the opposite end of the scale, a sizeable group of panelists choose to start with a cue bid…
CHRISTIAN MARI: 2♠. This is forcing to game, except if followed by 3♥.
PAUL MARSTON: 2♠. I plan to follow with 3♥, which keeps all options open.
SARTAJ HANS: 2♠. I will follow up with 3♥ to show an invitational hand with four hearts. I believe that downgrading K-x in LHO's suit is overrated.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: 2♠. Having passed initially, I want to show a maximum hand.
WENFEI WANG: 2♠. I’m a passed hand, so I start with 2♠ to show maximum values. I will then bid 3♥ to show four hearts.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. I start with 2♠, and will bid 3♥ next, showing invitational values but only four hearts.
ROB BRADY: 2♠. As a passed hand this isn't game forcing although, if partner bids 2NT, I'd chance a raise to 3NT. Over all other bids, 3♥ will show four as, with five hearts, we would just bid 3♥/4♥ directly. Maybe 3♣ (or 1NT) is the last making spot but, at matchpoints, I'm hungry for major suits.
JILL MEYERS: 2♠. As a passed hand, I can't have game forcing values, so I expect partner to bid their lowest four card suit (or 2NT with a stopper). If partner bids 3♣, I will probably pass, if she bids 3♦ then I will bid 3♥. Partner would probably play me for only four hearts and longer clubs. This would be more of a problem if I was not a passed hand.
The majority of the panel simply bid their major and show their values with a jump.
SALLY BROCK: 3♥. This seems about right.
MARTY BERGEN: 3♥. This seems straightforward.
HANOI RONDON: 3♥. This is what the hand is worth in terms of strength, even though I'd prefer the suit to be better.
ALAN MOULD: 3♥. This could be wrong, but I want the lead coming up to my hand. At Pairs, bidding clubs would be my last choice.
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 3♥. I am giving up on clubs for the moment, because I want to show my hearts and some sign of life, while also keeping my ♠K protected on the lead. If partner advances with a 3♠ cue-bid, I will bid 3NT.
JOEY SILVER: 3♥. I have to grab the contract in order to protect my spades, thus a cue-bid is out. So, it is between my mangy hearts and robust clubs, and the hearts win out for obvious reasons (form of scoring, and it being usually easier to make ten tricks than eleven.) Since bidding 2♥, keeping the club suit in reserve, seems to me to be too wet, I'll show my courage with 3♥.
DAVID BIRD: 3♥. This will be okay when partner holds four hearts. When he doesn't, we may survive with a continuation of 3♠-3NT.
CATHY BALDYSZ/SOPHIA BALDYSZ/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 3♥.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♥. We should have a fifth heart for this, but we want to play from our hand, and not miss the likely heart fit (at matchpoints). Note: in our personal methods, 2NT would show exactly four hearts and 8+-10 HCP.
LARRY COHEN: 3♥. North could be very light, and I have too much to go low. (If partner has a spade honor, my hand is worth full value.) While 2♠ (not too much of an overbid by a passed hand) is more accurate, if partner has no spade honor, I don't want to wrongside this.
ANDREW ROBSON: 3♥. The value bid. I am keen to declare to protect the spades. Partner will not double 1♠ without four hearts unless he has extras, in which case he and can now move, probably with 3♠, and we can bid 3NT.
I guess the East who held the hand at the table will not be invited to play with Andrew again. And, I have to say that I agree, as he had a rather motley Qx/Kxx/QJx/AQxxx. No doubt he would say, “It’s matchpoints.”
It may not matter much what you do, as the opponents will often bid and make 3♠. However, West players who jumped to 3♣ were mostly allowed to buy it there, down one undoubled for an excellent result. A jump to 3♥, though, puts you in serious jeopardy if the opponents choose to defend as, even undoubled, that may be -200.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
20 |
49 |
|
6♦ |
6 |
3 |
8 |
|
Pass |
6 |
2 |
12 |
|
4♦ |
2 |
0 |
28 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.54
This is the first of two hands on which the panel produce a huge majority vote, and almost half of competitors agree with that choice. However, over a quarter of competition entrants choose an underbid that gets no support from the panel, but you caught me in a generous mood, when I gave 4♦ two more points than it probably deserves. Let’s start with the choice of both West players at the table I watched…
SALLY BROCK: Pass. Partner’s double is primarily looking for majors. Let’s hope I can get some heart ruffs.
LIZ McGOWAN: Pass. This seems the most likely route to a plus score, although it may be quite small.
Barnet summarises the problem succinctly…
BARNET SHENKIN: 5♦. Pass could be right, but that seems too risky as there is a reasonable chance that partner may be able to raise 5♦ to slam.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♦. My best guess, with pass and lead a heart a close second.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♦. It could be right to pass but, opposite a club void, even a grand could be cold. Of course, as I’ve long maintained, when pulling a double of 4♣, a bid of 4♦ should be FORCING, which would be a useful agreement to have on this hand.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♦. The opponents are likely to have a secondary fit (in hearts) so Pass here is not attractive. Some will feel like they have too much for 5♦, but we like to take a conservative approach after the opponents have pre-empted.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♦. It could be better in a 5-3 spade fit, but I am not able to get there.
MATS NISLAND: 5♦. It looks like partner has both majors, but there is no safety in bidding 4♠.
ALAN MOULD: 5♦. I don't see what else I can bid. Where will 5♣ get me? 6♦ over 5♥ I would have thought. Where will 4NT get me? 6♦ over 5♥ I would have thought. Where will 4♦ get me? 4♦ I would have thought.
SARTAJ HANS: 5♦. Partner can have a major-heavy, off-shape hand, so bidding slam in diamonds is out. 4♦ is too conservative, so bidding game seems like a middle-of-the-road choice.
ROB BRADY: 5♦. Against high-level pre-emption, it's often best to go low and take our plus score rather than gambling on a slam. Even a hand like KQxx/Axxxx/KQx/x isn't a lock for 12 tricks, and we could be off two aces, or a club and a losing spade finesse. I have plenty of sympathy for the 6♦ bidders; but not much for passers. If you want to gamble, aim for your biggest plus.
LARRY COHEN: 5♦. A straightforward expression of my values. I am more worried about missing six, then I am about catching only a doubleton diamond.
Some still have hopes of getting to a slam…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5♦. Great hand. I hope he raises.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. I have two options, 5♦ or 6♦. I will bid game and my partner, with a void in clubs, can perhaps raise.
JILL MEYERS: 5♦. There is a game bonus. Partner should play me for long diamonds and enough to bid game. If partner has extras, it is then up to her to decide if she wants to move on.
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 5♦. Jumping to the five-level shows reasonable values, so I am hoping that partner will go to slam with a void in clubs or some extra high cards. At matchpoints, I would have passed and led my singleton heart, preparing to underlead my aces to get as many ruffs as possible.
CATHY BALDYSZ/WENFEI WANG/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5♦.
PAUL MARSTON: 5♦. There could easily be a slam, but I cannot involve partner in the decision, so I will make do with game.
DAVID BIRD: 5♦. I don't like flying straight to 6♦. 5♦ gives me two chances as, when twelve tricks are there, partner may raise.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5♦. It seems highly likely that partner has a stiff/void in clubs (unless North likes raising with singletons/doubletons). Sometimes 6♦ might be right.
A few were prepared to guess high…
HANOI RONDON: 6♦. Two aces, a singleton and a six-card suit, what else do we need?
OLIVIER METZDORFF: 6♦. With little room to explore, I take a shot at what looks likely to be our best contract.
JOEY SILVER: 6♦. Having to deal with only a 30-point deck, I'll live it up and bid what I hope is not a Canadian slam. (That’s a slam needing two or three finesses, an equal number of suits breaking, and some help on the opening lead).
On this deal from the summer’s Bermuda Bowl round robin, partner held KQJx/AJ9xx/KJ9/x, so 6♦ relied on picking up the trumps. With North holding ♦Q-x, it was an easy make. At both tables in the match I watched, West passed the double and led the ♥10. With two heart ruffs available, that is potentially +800, but East at both tables let the ♥10 run when K-x-x-x appeared in dummy. So, declarer got out for three down and only 500, but that was still okay with our game only worth +420. After the same start at one Venice Cup table, West bid 4♦ and then passed when East advanced with 4♥! (That was a deserved -50 with +920 available.)
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Dbl |
10 |
10 |
13 |
|
1NT |
9 |
7 |
29 |
|
2♦ |
8 |
6 |
11 |
|
2NT |
5 |
1 |
38 |
|
2♥ |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.89
The panel are fairly well split three ways. However, the most popular choice of competitors, with more than a third choosing 2NT, attracts little support from the panel. Let’s start with those for whom the primary question was how many no-trumps to bid.
BARNET SHENKIN: 1NT. I go low at matchpoints.
SARTAJ HANS: 1NT. 2NT feels too aggressive at matchpoints with such weak hearts. At IMPs, I could understand bidding 2♥, intending to raise partner's 2NT rebid to three. But such a strategy is not attractive at matchpoints.
JOEY SILVER: 1NT. Outside of maybe wrong-siding the heart suit, 1NT has the advantage of describing my hand in one bid, therefore simplifying the auction. (I am too old for complications).
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 1NT. I am showing my flat distribution and my point count. If partner advances, I will be happy to show some encouragement.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 1NT.
Our French Mixed champions are not the only ones to point out the advantage of the alternative way to play negative doubles in this auction.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1NT. Answering this question makes you understand why a large number of high-level pairs now play that double shows four or more spades. You can then bid 1♠, which denies four spades, on hands like this when you don't want to play NT from your side.
You can also play 1♠ shows four or more spades and use double for this type of hand, with fewer than four spades.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 1NT. I’d like to be able to bid 1♠ as a transfer to NT, then I would have no problem with this hand. Now I have to wrong-side it. My bid here would also depend on what types of hand partner opens 1♣ with. If 10-11 counts are possible, I'm downgrading to 1NT, otherwise I might consider 2NT.
Jill is the only panel members stretching to 2NT, and she has misgivings…
JILL MEYERS: 2NT. I acknowledge that 1NT may be the limit of this hand.
The main issue for many panelists is how to play no-trumps from the right side.
SALLY BROCK: 2♦. No choice for me.
MARTY BERGEN: 2♦. This seems obvious.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2♦. It is too tough to tell which wrong bid will work best.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2♦. I want partner to declare no-trumps to protect the hearts.
HANOI RONDON: 2♦: Yes, I'm missing a diamond, but I'd rather partner bid NT if that's our denomination.
ROB BRADY: 2♦. I definitely prefer partner to declare the no-trump if possible, so I'll give him a chance to right-side it now. It's not often that lying about our diamond length causes problems, because partner will still angle for game in no-trumps rather than the minor. The same can't be said for making a negative double with only three spades...
The largest faction on the panel are willing to take that risk…
OLIVIER METZDORFF: Dbl. Help me, partner!
WENFEI WANG: Dbl. I don’t like to bid NT with A-x-x in their suit.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: Dbl. This seems best even if it should show four spades.
ALAN MOULD: Dbl. I play double as DENYING four spades. If you play it as showing four spades, you have ugly problems like this (or even worse - make the ♥A the ♣A). If you insist double shows four spades then I would grumpily bid 2NT, or 1NT maybe, since it is matchpoints.
MATS NISLAND: Dbl. There is a good argument for playing transfer responses here, so double shows 4+♠ and 1♠ shows less than four ♠.
CHRISTIAN MARI: Dbl. Many pairs in France double to show four or more spades and bid 1♠ with less than four, which solves this type of dilemma. Playing traditional methods, I would choose double as the best of a number of poor options.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. All of my writing and teaching says this "promises" four spades. Note the quote marks!
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. I don’t have a good bid with this hand, so I’ll start with a negative double. If my partner bids spades, I can bid NT.
DAVID BIRD: Dbl. With these extra values, I am happy to double without four spades. If partner bids spades now, I may be able to retreat into no-trumps.
LIZ McGOWAN: Dbl. Least bad? If partner shows spades, I can convert to NT and hope she understands.
Paul was flying solo with a cue-bid, which may get you to NT played from the right side, but also seems to run the risk of landing in a 4-3 or even a 3-3 club fit.
PAUL MARSTON: 2♥. I intend to raise 2NT to 3NT, and bid 3♣ over a suit, which I assume is not forcing.
When I held this hand at the table, I doubled and, over partner’s 1♠, continued with 1NT. He had Kxx/xx/A10xx/AKxx. 1NT was an excellent matchpoint spot, losing four hearts and the ♦K for +120, with most of the field either making +110 in 3♦ or going down in 3NT.
With a maximum non-1NT opening, he will certainly raise 2NT to game. Perhaps he will settle for a non-forcing 3♦ over 2♦, but I suspect he is more likely to advance with 2♥ and raise 2NT to game. A win for those who doubled or bid 1NT.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Dbl |
10 |
20 |
25 |
|
4♦ |
6 |
2 |
18 |
|
3NT |
5 |
2 |
24 |
|
4♠ |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
6♦ |
5 |
0 |
4 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
17 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.62
This is the second hand that the panel considered a breather, with a huge majority vote for double. A quarter of competitors agreed, but large groups also opted to bid game (3NT or 5♦) when most of the panel harbored higher ambitions.
ALAN MOULD: Dbl. Sorry. What else?
WENFEI WANG: Dbl. Takeout.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. Showing hearts.
Liz and Joey obviously play with partners much smarter than me.
LIZ McGOWAN: Dbl. The Flexible Friend. Partner will do something intelligent.
JOEY SILVER: Dbl. The ubiquitous double strikes again. Please, partner, do something intelligent, as I am obviously too stupid to do so.
A few are quite happy if this ends the auction…
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: Dbl. Perhaps South raised with only three-card support and partner has ♠A-K-J-x? I like taking four-figure penalties, so I want to give partner a chance to defend.
PAUL MARSTON: Dbl. Good if partner passes - good if partner bids.
ZIA MAHMOOD: Dbl. A good start, but it may be a good finish too.
MATS NISLAND: Dbl. As the opponents are vulnerable. If it was the other way around, I would prefer 4♠.
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: Dbl. I am hoping to find a heart fit (or even a diamond fit, for that matter). I do have some defensive assets if partner chooses to leave the double in. He probably knows what he is doing. If partner bids clubs, I will show my diamonds and hope for the best.
Some rule out 3NT because of the slam potential.
ROB BRADY: Dbl. I could see 3NT playing better than a 4-4 heart fit if partner has something like KQx/Axxx/KQx/Qxx, but it's too committal for me on such an offensive powerhouse. I also like keeping 3♠-doubled in the picture, given our opponents’ insane agreement at these colors. A diamond grand is possible opposite as little as Axx/AK/Kxxx/xxxx and we have a chance to get there after X-4♣-4♦-etc.
HANOI RONDON: Dbl. Let's look for a heart fit, otherwise a diamond slam.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: Dbl. I plan to accept all of partner’s invitations.
BARNET SHENKIN: Dbl.
A number of panelists point out that this may not be the end of the decision making…
JILL MEYERS: Dbl. Takeout. If partner bids 3NT, I will still be sitting here deciding whether to pass or to bid 4♦.
ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. I can’t see how this can be wrong. If partner now bids 3NT, we’ll have a decision as to whether to look for slam, but that’s for next time.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. For now. I don’t get paid by the word, so I am not giving you my follow-up plan.
CHRISTIAN MARI: Dbl. Takeout, strongly suggesting four hearts.
MARTY BERGEN: Dbl. When in doubt, make the cheapest reasonable call. FYI: Right or wrong, I define 4♦ here as a transfer, so that’s not an option for me.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Dbl. Difficult. The four-level is our limit opposite KJx/KJxx/KQx/QJx, but we have a laydown grand slam with AJx/AK/Kxxx/Q10xx in our partner's hand. South's bid, with very few values, seems to indicate that the distribution is wild, so let's take a conservative approach and give priority to finding a heart fit.
A couple choose more committal routes to investigate slam…
SARTAJ HANS: 4♦. I am hoping to bid a slam, if partner comes along to the party.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♦.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 4♠.
Whilst only Sally and David think they already know what the right contract is.
SALLY BROCK: 3NT. Hamman’s Rule...
DAVID BIRD: 3NT. It’s not my style to bid a majestic 6♦, only to suppress a groan when dummy goes down.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♣ |
10 |
4 |
5 |
|
4♣ |
10 |
4 |
4 |
|
3♠ |
9 |
2 |
1 |
|
6♣ |
7 |
3 |
6 |
|
4♦ |
6 |
5 |
7 |
|
4♥ |
6 |
4 |
35 |
|
Pass |
6 |
2 |
7 |
|
5NT |
5 |
1 |
14 |
|
3NT |
3 |
0 |
29 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
6♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.92
What a tough hand to score! The panel come up with eight options, none of which garner more than a quarter of the votes. What’s more, their choices range from passing 3♥ to bidding 5NT and 6♣. Almost half the panel commit to playing in clubs, with a quarter keeping both of partner’s suits in play (with 3♠ or 4♦). Compare that to the two largest groups of competitors, with a third raising to game in hearts and over a quarter bidding 3NT. Let’s start with those who commit to hearts…
CHRISTIAN MARI: Pass. Facing a weak 5-6 with bad hearts, pass seems reasonable at matchpoints.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: Pass. Caution is advised with a misfit and bad breaks likely.
SALLY BROCK: 4♥. This could be silly, but the top score at Pairs is also possible.
LIZ McGOWAN: 4♥. I did not double 3♦! Opponents have organised a defence to 3NT, so I hope partner's suits are good enough to cope.
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 4♥. Partner is probably 5-6 in hearts and clubs, but I don’t have enough to look beyond game. I don’t think this is a no-trump hand with such a distributional dummy.
ROB BRADY: 4♥. Partner is 5-6 and it's matchpoints so we play the major, no? 4♦ feels like an overbid without a third heart.
Some try to get more information out of partner…
JOEY SILVER: 3♠. I am torn between 4♥ and 5♣ (or even slam?), so I will mark time with the bid that shows where I live. (Fantasy land?)
JILL MEYERS: 3♠. I am bidding game in a round suit, but I am not yet sure which. I might even be bidding slam. Partner has 2-5-0-6 distribution, and could easily have something like xx/AQxxx/--/AKJxxx. If I bid 3♠ grope, partner will cue bid 4♦ with extras, and will otherwise bid 4♣, 5♣ or 4♥ (depending on how good their hearts are).
The next group have similar intentions, but it’s unclear to me what they expect partner to tell them. Does he bid his stronger suit? Does he bid 4♥ with a minimum and something else with extras? Does 4♦ agree hearts, because you could bid 4♣ to agree that suit?
MARTY BERGEN: 4♦. “When in doubt, cue bid.”
LARRY COHEN: 4♦. Same comment as #4.
MATS NISLAND: 4♦. I am worth a slam try in clubs.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♦. It seems like partner has 5-6 in the rounds (or something similar). Unless North/South like to psyche then East has a diamond void. With a weak hand, I would expect partner to jump to 4♥, so he should have good values? A grand is certainly possible (xx/AQJxx/-/AKQxxx) and I certainly don’t expect to be in danger at the five-level. I will force so far and ace ask, trying to find out if partner has what I need.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♦. Partner is 2-5-0-6 (probably) or even 1-5-0-7. We don’t need much for 6♣ but we must consider (i) why partner opened 1♣ and not 1♥ (1♥ is normal with a minimum and five good hearts) and (ii) why partner bid only 2♥ rather than jumping to 3♥ (not too many extras). Anyway, we can postpone our final decision for a round.
Convinced? Me neither. Those committing to clubs considered how the play would go. Unless both hearts and clubs are solid, in which case you will be cold for a grand slam, there is surely a danger that repeated diamond forces will defeat game in the 5-2 heart fit. The only question for them is how many clubs to bid.
DAVID BIRD: 4♣. Partner has shown his hand already: 2-5-0-6 shape. 4♥ will be at the mercy of a forcing defence, and 4♦ will scarcely help us. I trust there is no panelist who will suggest that 4♣ is non-forcing.
WENFEI WANG: 4♣. Forcing.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♣. I assume this is forcing. He’ll need great clubs for slam, and I’m not sure that the ♠K is working, unless partner has something like xx/AQJxx/--/KQJxxx.
HANOI RONDON: 4♣. Let's hear from partner and choose the level.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. Partner is 2-5-0-6 or 1-5-0-7. I don’t have a good fit, but 5♣ should be okay, whereas 4♥ may fail on diamond forces unless the clubs are solid.
SARTAJ HANS: 5♣. Playing in hearts could score well at MPs but, with a force in diamonds coming at trick one, it could also lead to a zero. Clubs looks like the safer game.
ALAN MOULD: 5♣. I have never ever done this, but I really, really want to abstain. What the *!**&* was this double of 3♦??? A takeout double with five trumps. Really?? I suppose I bid 5♣, playing pard for 5-6 shape.
The West who held the hand clearly thought the double was for penalties.
BARNET SHENKIN: 5♣. Partner is 2-5-0-6 or 1-5-0-7. It is close whether I have a slam try. Even with 5-6 he could open 1♥ with a very weak hand. Is 3♥ forcing? If 3♥ is forcing, I would bid 4♦ then 5♣. If 3♥ is non-forcing then this hand is only worth 5♣. I have to guess, so 5♣.
A few went for all the marbles.
PAUL MARSTON: 6♣. Nothing is clear, so let's go for the jackpot.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 6♣.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 6♣. I have no idea what is right or best.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5NT. Pick a slam. Partner must have a strong hand with six clubs and five hearts. Strong because, if he had bid 3♥ over 2♦, he would have shown already a 6-5, but not forcing. Here, we probably have a slam (small or even grand). But hearts or clubs depend on the quality of East's suits. Does he have Qx/AQJxx/-/AKxxxx or Qx/AJ9xx/-/AKQJxx, for instance?
I’m not so sure about this. Isn’t clubs likely to be better opposite most hands? If clubs break 4-1, is 6♥ not likely to go down too? 6♣, though, might survive a 4-2 heart split whereas 6♥ is less likely to do so.
I switched the conditions to matchpoints to see how many would be tempted by 4♥ or 3NT on this deal that arose in the semi-finals of this summer’s world championships in Denmark. At the table, East held xx/Axxxx/---/KQJ10xx, so the par contract is 5♣. After this start, the Danes in the Bermuda Bowl got to 6♣ (4♣-4♦-6♣), which made on the 3-3 heart break when the defenders failed to lead ace and another trump. More common was a raise to 4♥, which went down on repeated diamond leads. Curiously, no one tried 3NT which, although it looks likely to lose a club and four diamonds, would probably have made on the actual layout (South had the ♣A and ♦10-9-x), but a high diamond lead from AKQxx allows declarer to block the suit.
This auction provides plenty for regular partnerships to discuss. Is 3♥ forcing (the panel seem split on this question)? Is 4♣ forcing (the panel say yes)? Which combination of bids by opener (2♥ or 3♥ at his second turn, 3♥ or 4♥ at his third) shows a weak 5-6 and which shows extras?
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♥ |
10 |
11 |
9 |
|
4♣ |
8 |
1 |
1 |
|
6♣ |
8 |
2 |
2 |
|
5NT |
8 |
3 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
7 |
1 |
3 |
|
3NT |
5 |
5 |
62 |
|
3♠ |
3 |
1 |
7 |
|
4NT |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
10 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.86
This hand is a disaster for a huge number of competition entrants, with almost two-thirds choosing 3NT and the second-largest group bidding 4♠ or a zero. Only 16% choose one of the five highest-scoring options.
As we discussed last month, it is important to try to visualize partner’s hand. On this deal, you have so far shown 6+ HCP and four spades. Opposite that, he is asking you to bid 3NT with a heart stopper. What sort of hand do you think he has?
Even some panel members are unsure if partner haa bid 3♥ to agree spades but, with that type of hand, he can bid 3♠, 4♠ or even 4♥ (we know he has at most one heart). A number of panel members suggest what we should expect partner’s hand to look like, and come to very similar conclusions. Let’s start with those who duplicate the competitors’ popular choice…
LIZ McGOWAN: 3NT. Okay, spades might be a better spot, and we might have slam on if she is void in hearts, but I have a stopper and she need not Pass 3NT.
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 3NT. Oh, well. As I cannot double for penalties, I will settle for bidding our most likely making game.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 3NT.
SALLY BROCK: 3NT. A bit of an underbid, but it’s not clear that we have a fit. I hope partner bids on.
DAVID BIRD: 3NT. I have no wish to conjure a hand for partner that will make 6♣ from me look clever.
It’s not clear what partner will make of this either…
JOEY SILVER: 3♠. Personally, I would like to find a fit before deciding on slam, since I am not sure what exactly partner's cue-bid was based upon.
And Oliver is also on the wrong track.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: 4NT. Blackwood for spades.
I suspect partner will take 4NT as natural and raise to 6NT, against which the opponents will cash two top hearts.
The next group are hedging their bets…
LARRY COHEN: 5NT. Partner doesn't have to have four spades but, if he does, he will choose spades. If partner has, say, ♠K-Q-10-x and A-K-A in the minors, he can bid seven.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5NT. Pick a slam. This might be an overbid but, if partner has long clubs (as seems likely), I want him to play in that suit. If has a strong hand with spade support, he can always pick 6♠. I don't think we'd be making more than that and sometimes even a small slam might be in jeopardy.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5NT. For me, partner has a big club suit, not spade-agreement, and is angling for 3NT. I expect something like Kx/x/Axx/AKJxxxx. No prizes for guessing which slam he’ll bid (but 5NT caters to my having misread his 3♥).
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♣. If 3♥ shows a strong hand with clubs, as it surely should, the ♣Q is a huge card. If partner intends 3♥ to show a strong spade raise, the ♣Q could still be very useful.
A couple think they know where to play…
SARTAJ HANS: 6♣. Partner rates to have long clubs and a good hand. With the lower end of partner's hands looking something like Kxx/x/Axx/AKJxxx, slam rates to have play. It could also be cold opposite the higher end of his range, like Kx/x/Axx/AKJxxxx.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 6♣. In our methods, 3♥ asks for a heart stopper. With a strong spade fit, we double first and bid 4♠ next. It's a bit strange that we have the ♣Q, but our partner must have a bit more than seven good clubs plus the ♦A, maybe an eighth club or a top spade.
Most of the rest are worried that 6♣ may not be enough.
BARNET SHENKIN: 4♦. We are likely going to slam, but is it small or grand? Let’s get the diamond cue in first. Maybe partner can bid 4♥ with a void, and I can then keycard.
A couple are still not absolutely certain what is going on…
JILL MEYERS: 4♥. This hand is too good to bid just 3NT, and partner has one heart at most. I am not sure if partner is coming in clubs or spades, so I will cue bid to find out (and over 4♠ I will bid again).
MATS NISLAND: 4♥. Partner is asking for a stopper, so he should be strong with long clubs. I have a lot of extras, too much for 3NT, and a natural 4NT is not tempting.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 4♥. This will find out if he is asking for a stopper having enormous clubs, or strongly inviting a spade contract based on a weaker hand than mine. I can imagine something like Qx/--/Ax/AKJ10xxxxx or KQxx/--/Axxx/Kxxxx.
With the second hand, would he not bid 4♥, showing a shortage and agreeing spades, rather than 3♥?
Will Paul get the message after partner’s next bid?
PAUL MARSTON: 4♥. Assuming my man has four spades, this must show stuff.
Not if he cue-bids his doubleton ♠K, which is not unlikely it seems. The rest know where they are headed…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♥. Partner has great clubs and a decent hand, such as Qx/x/Axx/AKJxxxx. I am heading for at least 6♣.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♥. “When in doubt, cue bid.”
WENFEI WANG: 4♥. I will bid at least 6♣, but let’s investigate in case we have more.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. I have a very good hand. 7♣ could easily be cold.
ROB BRADY: 4♥. Partner's bidding shows a strong single suiter in clubs. With both opponents bidding on very few values, partner rates to have a heart void fairly often. I'll start here and drive to at least 6♣. Hopefully, we can get enough information along the way to find the grand when he has something like Kx/--/Axxx/AKJxxxx.
HANOI RONDON: 4♥. A cue-bid to show interest in a club slam. We might miss a cold grand if we just jump to 6♣.
Only Alan is even willing to contemplate stopping in game.
ALAN MOULD: 4♥. ♣AKJxxxxx and the ♦A is 12 tricks and partner really ought to have eight clubs when I have the Q-10. He might also have a void heart and the ♠K, and 7♣ will be cold. If all partner can bid is 5♣, I will reluctantly pass, but I really cannot see 5♣ going off. I just feel I have too much for 3NT, but then I have been disappointed before....
In the match I watched, both West players heard the same auction. One bid 3NT and one bid 6♣. Both East players passed with Qxx/---/Axx/AKJxxxx, so that was +460 against +920. Regular partnerships might want to check that 4♣ is forcing here – it surely should be and, if you are sure partner agrees, it looks like a sensible way forward. Without discussion, the largest group on the panel take no chances with their 4♥ cue-bid.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♦ |
10 |
8 |
33 |
|
2♣ |
9 |
7 |
28 |
|
1NT |
9 |
6 |
22 |
|
1♠ |
8 |
4 |
7 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.36
With the panel virtually split four ways, everyone scores well on this one. Aaron Jones, the conductor of the It’s Your Call panel feature in the ACBL magazine, joined Rob Brady when he went through this month’s hands on his YouTube feed. (Search for Bradybot on YouTube to watch Rob’s analysis of the panel hands), The whole discussion was very entertaining and particularly so when they reached this deal.
WENFEI WANG: 2♣. There’s no good choice.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 2♣. A slight underbid.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: 2♣. I see no better option than repeating my clubs.
MATS NISLAND: 2♣. This hand is not good enough for a reverse with a singleton heart.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 2♣. A bit cowardly, perhaps, but I am imagining partner with something like Qxxx/Kxxxx/Jx/xx.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 2♣. A close choice between 2♣ and 2♦. 1NT is not in the equation now, but we could have opened 1NT in anticipation of the unpleasant situation we are in now.
Bizarrely, not in the ACBL, where 1NT is deemed illegal unless the singleton is a high honour!
ALAN MOULD: 2♣. I hate doing this, but I hate everything else even more. I am not reversing with a mis-fitting 15-count, not rebidding 1NT when completely over the top of the range, and not bidding 1♠ on three. This is an area where a weak no-trump system works better as, on this hand, you could then rebid 1NT. It will doubtless scandalise your panel and you, but John and I solve these kinds of hands by opening 1NT.
A similar number preferred an alternative underbid. Aaron Jones commented that he couldn’t believe anyone on the panel would bid 1NT. He said he would be happy to sit down with anyone who did, and explain slowly to them why it is wrong. Well, you have an impressive list to choose from, Aaron.
SALLY BROCK: 1NT. Obviously an underbid, but I am tempted by the matchpoint scoring.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 1NT. I would rebid 2♣ at IMPs, but 1NT looks like the best option playing matchpoints.
LIZ McGOWAN: 1NT. The extra point may prove useful.
JOEY SILVER: 1NT. I, of course, would not have had this problem, being a 1♦ opener. (Isn’t that how you end up in a 4-2 diamond fit when you have eight clubs? MS) However, here I am so, considering the form of scoring, I will show my age by bidding an over strength 1NT rather than rebidding clubs, or a very overbid reverse!
DAVID BIRD: 1NT. The singleton heart is no reason to upgrade this to 2♦. Instead, I will downgrade to 1NT.
JILL MEYERS: 1NT. It is matchpoints, so I am going low. In my world, this hand is not good enough for a reverse.
I’m with you there, Jill, but the next faction disagrees with that evaluation…
MARTY BERGEN: 2♦. My minimum requirements for this are lower than others.
SARTAJ HANS: 2♦. A bit light, but 2♣ feels pathetic.
PAUL MARSTON: 2♦. Showing my strength and shape - no reason to fear the worst.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2♦. It’s quite a nice hand, so I will force a little.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 2♦. Or 2♣, if playing Polish...
CATHY BALDYSZ: 2♦.
ROB BRADY: 2♦. A classic for bidding contests, where all choices are flawed. Have we found any clarity over the years? I'm a fan of overbidding to try and find the right strain, even if we get too high, rather than lying about my shape with a 2♣ (or 1♠ yuck!) rebid. I believe in a different opening bid on these hands – 1NT is clearly right and it is bizarre that it is illegal in some parts of the world.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2♦. Yuk! At matchpoints, it might be right to underbid with 1NT. Second choice 1♠.
If playing in an event where a 1NT opening is illegal, I confess that I would probably have chosen the following option…
BARNET SHENKIN: 1♠. Imaginative 😊
LARRY COHEN: 1♠. It is too wimpy/wrong to repeat the clubs, and this hand is not strong enough or a reverse. Just as in #2, I owe partner a spade. Here, I won't mind playing a 4-3 fit -- it likely will play well and could be a matchpoint winner.
One panelist is actually hoping that partner raises spades…
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: 1♠. I am hoping to play game in the Moysian spade fit, ruffing hearts in my short trump hand. If partner makes a forcing bid looking for a heart support, I will show my diamonds. I don’t think I am worth a reverse to 2♦ with a singleton in partner’s suit.
HANOI RONDON: 1♠. I don't want to rebid a five-card suit or show 12-14, so I'll make a sort of forcing bid. If partner supports spades, so what? The Moysian fit doesn't look bad.
At the table I watched in a World Open Pairs, West rebid 2♣. Partner had 10xx/J109xx/QJ9x/Q. 2♣ went one down when trumps broke 5-2 and declarer lost control. 3♦ makes +110 but there is an easy +120 available in 1NT. The 1♠ bidders would also reach the highest-scoring spot, as their partner will presumably continue with 1NT.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
6♣ |
10 |
11 |
18 |
|
Dbl |
7 |
9 |
49 |
|
4NT |
7 |
2 |
8 |
|
5♠ |
7 |
2 |
4 |
|
5♣ |
4 |
1 |
15 |
|
5NT |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
6NT |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.71
The panel are split between doubling and bidding slam. With a few advancing via other routes, the vote was 16-9 in favour of bidding. For the competitors, about half opted to double. Let’s hear from that faction on the panel first…
CHRISTIAN MARI: Dbl. What else?
ARTEMIS CHRISTAKI: Dbl. Green versus red? What else?
WENFEI WANG: Dbl. N/S are vulnerable.
True. But South also knew the vulnerability when he bid 4♠.
MATS NISLAND: Dbl. I would prefer something else, but I can’t find it.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. Taking the money. If partner pulls, I will insist on slam.
ALAN MOULD: Dbl. Surely this is going enough off to compensate for our game unless they can really crossruff ten tricks or so. I ain't bidding slam, so this seems a sensible way forward.
SALLY BROCK: Dbl. The way I play, partner is allowed to remove this but, at this vulnerability, I’m happy enough if he doesn’t.
SARTAJ HANS: Dbl. Showing values. Partner will rip if he has a stiff spade and a good hand, and that will be a real problem.
ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. It is tempting to jump to 6♣, but we can get there next time if partner pulls the double. It would be undesirable to play 6♣ if lefty is 5♠/5♣, partner 1♠/3♣, and righty 4♠-0♣!
The rest are all prepared to risk that specific distribution…
MARTY BERGEN: 4NT. I am on my way to 6♣ (at least). South went out of his way to play in 4♠-doubled at unfavourable vulnerability, and he knows his hand better than either of us.
OLIVIER METZDORFF: 4NT. I plan to bid 5♠ next to suggest the possibility of a grand slam.
LIZ McGOWAN: 5♠. I am going for our slam, even at this vulnerability and knowing that suits are breaking badly. Conned again!
As usual, the French have some interesting ideas that regular partnerships might like to discuss.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♠. This is by far the most difficult hand of this set. It's clear that North-South's distributions are wild. Usually, South has five spades and a shortness in his partner's minor. In the extreme, it is possible that they can make 4♠ (our partner having no trump to lead) when we have a laydown 7♣. However, we will face bad breaks in at least two of the three suits other than spades, so do we really want to take the optimistic approach? Regular partnerships have discussed how they would show distribution and strength in this situation, having 4NT, 5♠ and 5NT available as "special" bids. For us, 5♠ means we will play a small or grand slam and we have only one long suit. Unless partner has a strong one-suiter, he bids 5NT and we show our suit (6♣ here).
The largest faction on the panel simply bid what they think they can make.
PAUL MARSTON: 6♣. I hope I’m not playing in North second suit!
ZIA MAHMOOD: 6♣. My heart says grand, but my methods don’t tell me how.
BARNET SHENKIN: 6♣. I hope partner has not a distributional Yarborough, and also that North’s minor is diamonds.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 6♣. Without any clever way to explore, I take my best guess to finish what seems to have been an unusually impossible set of hands.
David highlights the danger of one of the alternative approaches.
DAVID BIRD: 6♣. I am not worth 6NT. In 6♣, spade ruffs will provide an extra trick or two. I don't like 4NT. Firstly, it might be interpreted as either two places-to-play (or natural). Partner might then bid 5♦ with 1-4-5-3 shape. When I then bid 6♣, he may interpret that as offering a choice between clubs and hearts.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 6♣. I would like to bid 5♠, but I run the risk of hearing 6♦, so I give up on the grand and settle for the slam that is almost certain to make.
HANOI RONDON: 6♣. It's my five-card suit and, although the grand might look good on the surface, it may still go down with, unsurprisingly, everything breaking badly.
ROB BRADY: 6♣. I'm ready to score up my first ever 1380 if clubs are 5-0! The way I see it, 6♣ is usually 920 or 940. Sometimes partner raises to the grand with a spade void and all the missing high cards. Doubling is likely to get 800 or 1100, but sometimes partner doesn't have a trump to lead, and then it's much worse. 6♣ looks like a relatively safe route to a strong plus score. Starting with 5♠ often takes us past 6♣ which could lead to a minus with the bad breaks, although it does give us a better chance to reach a making grand. Similar to problem 2, being a bit conservative when facing pre-emption is often the prudent choice.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 6♣. It seems highly likely that partner can cover the outside losers and limit the trumps losses to one. North probably has diamonds, unless partner likes to make a takeout double with 6-5 in the reds or something similar. It would be very unlucky if partner has 0-4-6-3 shape and North has five clubs. Not the best but, even then, we may still make. I don't think it is right to look beyond a small slam, as South’s vulnerable jump to the four-level suggests the distribution may be crazy.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 6♣.
JOEY SILVER: 6♣. This is my best guess as to suit and level in a very crowded auction. This is why the villains like to pre-empt.
Only Jill is sufficiently concerned about bad breaks to settle for game.
JILL MEYERS: 5♣. The opponents know they are vulnerable, and I will assume they are not entirely crazy. Suits are surely not splitting well for us, so I am going low.
Partner had ---/J9xxx/Kxxx/AKxx. There was no heart ruff for the defence, so 6♣ was good. Clubs were 4-0, so 6♥ from the long side could be beaten with a first-round ruff. (North was 5-3-5-0.) The losing option was double, as 4♠-doubled was -790. Perhaps partner will remove a double with that East hand, but his void may persuade him that your trump ‘stack’ is more impressive than it is.
This was clearly another difficult set. I don’t recall a previous set on which 74/80 made the podium or only 40% of the panel scored in the 70s. Congratulations go to Miguel Villas-Boas, who leads the panel with 78/80. The podium is completed by Alan Mould (76/80) and Wenfei Wang (74/80).
As usual, our thanks to all members of the panel, for taking the time to both entertain and educate our readers. Happy holiday season to you all.
See you all again next month. Marc
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
2♠ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
5♣ |
4♥ |
2♦ |
6♣ |
78 |
|
Alan MOULD |
3♥ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
5♣ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
Dbl |
76 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
2♠ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♣ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
Dbl |
74 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
3♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
Dbl |
4♦ |
5NT |
2♦ |
6♣ |
73 |
|
Rob BRADY |
2♠ |
5♦ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
4♥ |
2♦ |
6♣ |
72 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
2♥ |
5♦ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
4♣ |
4♥ |
1NT |
6♣ |
72 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
3♥ |
6♦ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
4♣ |
4♥ |
1♠ |
6♣ |
72 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
3♥ |
5♦ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
4♦ |
4♥ |
2♦ |
4NT |
71 |
|
P.-O. SUNDELIN |
3♥ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
4♠ |
6♣ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
6♣ |
71 |
|
Joey SILVER |
3♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
3♠ |
1NT |
6♣ |
70 |
|
David BIRD |
3♥ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
3NT |
4♣ |
3NT |
1NT |
6♣ |
69 |
|
Larry COHEN |
3♥ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♦ |
5NT |
1♠ |
Dbl |
69 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
2♠ |
5♦ |
2♥ |
Dbl |
6♣ |
4♥ |
2♦ |
6♣ |
69 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
2♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
Dbl |
5♣ |
4♦ |
1♠ |
6♣ |
69 |
|
Sartaj HANS |
2♠ |
5♦ |
1NT |
4♦ |
5♣ |
6♣ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
68 |
|
Christian MARI |
2♠ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
Dbl |
68 |
|
Mats NILSLAND |
3♣ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♦ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
Dbl |
68 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT & Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
3♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
Dbl |
5NT |
6♣ |
2♣ |
5♠ |
68 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
3♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
4♦ |
6♣ |
3NT |
2♦ |
6♣ |
67 |
|
Artemis CHRISTAKI |
3♥ |
5♦ |
1NT |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
1♠ |
Dbl |
65 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
2♠ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
4♥ |
1NT |
5♣ |
65 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
3♥ |
6♦ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
4♦ |
5NT |
2♦ |
Dbl |
65 |
|
Olivier METZDORFF |
2♠ |
6♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
Pass |
4NT |
2♣ |
4NT |
59 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
2♣ |
Pass |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
5♠ |
58 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3♥ |
Pass |
2♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
Dbl |
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
3♥ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
P |
4♥ |
2♦ |
6♣ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
3♥ 10 |
2♠ 8 |
3♣ 6 |
2♣/2♥ 5 |
|
|
|
HAND 2: |
5♦ 10 |
6♦/Pass 6 |
4♦ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
Dbl 10 |
1NT 9 |
2♦ 8 |
2NT 5 |
2♥ 4 |
|
|
HAND 4: |
Dbl 10 |
4♦ 6 |
3NT/4♠/6♦ 5 |
5♦ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 5: |
4♣/5♣ 10 |
3♠ 9 |
6♣ 7 |
Pass/4♦/4♥ 6 |
5NT 5 |
3NT 3 |
|
HAND 6: |
4♥ 10 |
4♣/5NT/6♣ 8 |
4♦ 7 |
3NT 5 |
3♠/4NT 3 |
|
|
HAND 7: |
2♦ 10 |
1NT/2♣ 9 |
1♠ 8 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
6♣ 10 |
Dbl/4NT/5♠ 7 |
5♣ 4 |
5NT/6NT 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
6.63 |
|
HAND 2: |
6.54 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.89 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.62 |
|
HAND 5: |
5.92 |
|
HAND 6: |
4.86 |
|
HAND 7: |
8.36 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.71 |
