Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the final set of 2024. Congratulations to everyone who finishes high on the annual competition leader-board. An amazing 22 competitors scored 630 or higher over their best nine scores, thus averaging at least 70/80, which is impressive bidding from so many of you throughout the year. Our thanks go to those who have entered the competition every month. We very much appreciate your support. Everyone at RealBridge wishes you a happy and prosperous New Year, and we look forward to seeing you all again in 2025.
Congratulations are also due to some members of our panel, for their achievements at the U.S. Fall Nationals that finished a couple of weeks ago in Las Vegas, Nevada. The star performance during the two-week festival came from Cedric Lorenzini. His team won the prestigious Soloway Knockout Teams and then led the field through most of the final of the Reisinger B-A-M Teams before eventually finishing third.
Andy Hung’s team, mostly from Down Under, finished second in the Reisinger. Michal Klukowski and Sjoert Brink were members of the team beaten by Lorenzini’s team in the semi-finals of the Soloway, and they also reached the ten-team final of the Reisinger, as did Nick Nickell and Bobby Levin. In other events at the Nationals, Jessica Larsson finished third in the NABC Mixed Pairs. Zia Mahmood and Migry Campanile were members of the team that finished fourth in the six-session Keohane North American Swiss Teams.
This month’s guest panelist is Daniel Savin from Romania, who won the October competition with a perfect 80/80 score. Daniel is the retired CEO of a tech company based in Bucharest. He is a member of the Romanian national Seniors team, and the winner of many national championship titles at both teams and pairs. Daniel adds, “Since retiring in 2021, I have also enjoyed playing a lot of online competitions.”
Hand 5 in this set was sent to me by a member of the Top 10 in this year’s annual competition, Paul Dubois from California, USA. Thanks to him. If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details.
On three of this month’s hands, a member of our panel was there when the hand first occurred. Jill Meyers (twice) and Sjoert Brink were at the table when the deals arose, so their observations may prove enlightening. The panel produces a majority vote on five of the deals in this set, although they also voted for a total of 34 different actions over the eight deals. I wonder if the question setter was feeling the Christmas spirit this month, as there are three deals (5/6/8) that a large number of panelists seemed to find rather easy. Does that mean a cheap 10 marks for competitors too?
The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on four of the eight hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors in this set scores 60/80 (up from 58/80 in November). The average score this month is 55.86 (significantly up from 49.42 on Set 24-11), so it looks as if quite a few competitors will be celebrating the holiday season with a high score.
Let’s see what our esteemed panelists have to say about this month’s hands…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♣ |
10 |
8 |
62 |
|
2NT |
9 |
5 |
4 |
|
1NT |
8 |
4 |
20 |
|
1♠ |
7 |
2 |
4 |
|
3♣ |
6 |
2 |
5 |
|
2♦ |
6 |
1 |
1 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.80
We start this final set of 2024 with something of a curiosity. When the deal occurred in Argentina, I saw world class players respond with six different bids, and our divided panel also came up with those same six choices. However, almost two-thirds of competition entrants clearly thought this was one of my Christmas gifts, and they kicked off the set with 10 marks. We waited until December for a hand on which the competitors’ average score was as high as 8.8/10. Amazingly, what I thought was a really tough problem turned out to be the highest-scoring hand of the 2024 competition. Who’d be a question setter!?! Let’s hear what the panel had to say in support of their choice.
P-O SUNDELIN: 1NT. This looks like the best of several evils.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 1NT. This hand is too weak for a game-force. Nine points in the majors is okay for no-trumps, despite only four cards.
ALAN MOULD: 1NT. Anyone still playing Acol will have a good laugh at this but, in 2/1, there are no options (IMHO). I still expect a huge majority.
So much for that prediction – the panel could hardly have been less unanimous.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1NT. We begin the set with my first disagreement with Joanna. As we play a 2♣ response as game forcing, our choice is limited to 1NT (not forcing) or 2♠, for us showing an invitational hand with 6+♣ (ie probably a 3♣ bid in the RealBridge system). Because of the bad quality of the suit, Joanna prefers to bid 1NT, whereas I would bid 2♠.
Some thought the hand marginally too good for 1NT
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2NT. 1NT would be okay, but I prefer 2NT if that is natural and invitational in our methods. With the opponents silent, partner must have some hearts.
WENFEI WANG: 2NT. This is natural and invitational.
Quite how typical this hand is for the bid is a matter of serious disagreement…
MARTY BERGEN: 2NT. Obviously, NOT a textbook example.
SJOERT BRINK: 2NT. In natural bridge, I think this is the best option. Basically 10-12 HCP, no major and a hand suitable for NT. An ideal example hand for the textbooks....
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 2NT. With my mom, I could bid 2♠ to show a club suit (can be of bad quality). Without that option, 2NT seems the least of evils. My alternative would be to bid 1♠ on the three-card suit.
A couple of panelists have mentioned it, so what about showing an invitational hand with clubs?
JILL MEYERS: 3♣. Everything is a lie on this hand. Playing with my regular partner I would bid 3♣, which we play as natural and invitational. If that is not invitational in RealBridge standard, I guess I would have to force to game with 2♣ ☹. My suit is extremely ratty for inviting but, if partner has good clubs, she will do something intelligent. My last choice is a natural and invitational 2NT, but I hate that.
Jill held the East hand at the table and her partner, Kerri Sanborn, did indeed respond 3♣ with this collection, so at least there is partnership harmony on what this hand is worth.
HANOI RONDON: 3♣. I have clubs and an invitational hand. Yes, the clubs could be better and, yes, the ♥Q is singleton, but I just don't feel wise enough to bid 1♠.
Hanoi mentions a possible 1♠ response, and a couple did choose that option.
LARRY COHEN: 1♠. I had a club in with my spades. This looks like the best lie.
ANDREW ROBSON: 1♠. This is awkward in 2/1, but spades could play quite well if we do end up there. And, if we don't, 1♠ will probably work out pretty well.
Some were not so convinced…
DAVID BIRD: 2♣. 1♠ is out of the question when it may attract a three-card raise. I toyed with 2NT, but ended with the 2♣ overbid, which keeps both minor-suit games in play.
Some members of the majority acknowledged that a game-forcing 2♣ was really more than the hand is worth…
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2♣. It’s an overbid, but I don’t like any of the others options.
SIMON DE WIJS: 2♣. Not enough really but, since the alternatives are flawed as well, I will borrow a point or two.
PAUL MARSTON: 2♣. This may get us too high, but at least we will be in the right strain.
JOEY SILVER: 2♣. Even if 2♣ is forcing to game (which I am sure it is not in the Mother Country), I would bid it. Frankly, I have a hard time thinking of a 'reasonable’ alternative.
Although traditionally not FG here in the UK, the RealBridge system is 2/1, reflecting the international nature of this competition.
DANIEL SAVIN: 2♣. I choose le moindre mal. According to my agreement with partner, I'll continue with the minimal description (2NT or 3♣) on the next round.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 2♣.
BARNET SHENKIN: 2♣.
And, finally, what about an inverted diamond raise, which was the option chosen at the table I watched in Argentina, but more of that later.
ANDY HUNG: 2♦. Nothing's perfect here. I could potentially downgrade this to 1NT, but I don't really want to miss out on a vulnerable game. I have no experience with responding in a three-card major, so I'll make do with an inverted raise, planning to rebid 2NT if opener shows a weak NT.
At the table in Argentina, partner had Q10x/xx/AKQ10xx/10x, so it turned out that the hand did not belong to your side at all. 5♦ was a good save over 4♥ and, at some tables, getting there pushed the opponents overboard to 5♥. I’ll leave you to decide which response is most likely to achieve an optimum result. Perhaps a game-forcing 2♣ might even shut out your vulnerable opponents although, as we will see, an inverted raise did not do so.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3NT |
10 |
12 |
18 |
|
3♠ |
8 |
6 |
19 |
|
3♥ |
6 |
2 |
8 |
|
Pass |
5 |
2 |
51 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.35
The panel just produces a majority choice, although I wonder whether that is because many do not have the methods to do what the second-largest faction tried to do: i.e. to ask for a spade stopper. In a clear difference of hand evaluation, the experts voted 22-2 in favour of bidding on, whereas just over half of competitors opted to pass partner’s 3♦ overcall.
HANOI RONDON: 3NT. This might just be our game.
MARTY BERGEN: 3NT. Assuming/hoping/dreaming that partner has spades stopped.
JOEY SILVER: 3NT. The auction encourages me to think that partner has a spade stopper, so I go for that juicy vulnerable game bonus, and grab the contract.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. After South’s pass, I hope I will find a spade stop in my partner’s hand.
BARNET SHENKIN/P-O SUNDELIN: 3NT.
DAVID BIRD: 3NT. Partner can hardly cooperate towards 3NT when I have this club stopper. I must decide whether to bid it or not.
LARRY COHEN: 3NT. If North leads his spades and they run the suit, I'll take the blame. I am picturing something like KQx/QJx/AK10xxx/x opposite.
ANDREW ROBSON: 3NT. With spades unsupported, I'll gamble partner has a stopper. North may not lead one anyway, thinking we have a stopper. "If you've shown a stopper in the bidding, you don't need one in the play" : Hugh Kelsey.
ALAN MOULD: 3NT. An old problem. With a spade stop but no club stop I can bid 3♠. With the stops this way round I just have to punt 3NT or Pass (which would not be ridiculous).
The player who held these cards in a Venice Cup match is consistent with what she did at the table.
JILL MEYERS: 3NT. I suck it up and bid 3NT. I would rather go down in 3NT than miss a game. There was no raise on my right, so I am playing partner for a spade card.
DANIEL SAVIN: 3NT. For sure, primarily this shows clubs stopped and game values. I don't have a spade stop, but there is no perfect bid and it would be cowardly to pass and miss game. For me, 3♠ shows something in spades with diamond support, so that is not an option without a specific alternative agreement.
Some do have an alternative agreement…
SIMON DE WIJS: 3♠. Asking for a spade stopper. I don’t like the agreement that 3♠ shows a stopper for various reasons. This auction is one of them. If 3♠ would show a stopper, I would pass 3♦ instead.
ANDY HUNG: 3♠. Asking for a spade stopper, usually implying that I have the clubs covered. It’s good that my black suits aren't reversed :)
WENFEI WANG: 3♠. Asking for a stopper. 3NT seems like our most likely contract.
We even have partnership agreement…
CATHY BALDYSZ: 3♠.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 3♠. If partner has AKxxxx in diamonds and a spade stop, we're close to 3NT, assuming no unfavourable splits. If she has less in diamonds, then she has points elsewhere, which will prevent the opponents from getting too many tricks before we set up the diamonds.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 3♠. I have no idea what this means, but we are red vs white so it must be a serious bid. Hopefully partner, looking at a decent spade holding, will work out what I need. However, I won’t be surprised if Pass is the winning option.
Our French representatives come up with an idea that regular partnerships might like to discuss.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 3♥. This should show that I hold club stopper(s) and not spades. I hope to play 3NT if partner can stop the spades.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♥. Difficult and undiscussed, until now (thank you Marc). When the opponents have bid two (long) suits, it is logical that the cue-bid shows a stopper in this suit and asks for a stopper in the other one. But here, we only have two bids available (3♥ and 3♠) and we want to keep the same logic. So, for us, 3♠ would ask for a club stopper and 3♥ for a spade stopper. The consequence is that you can't bid a natural 3♥, but nobody's perfect (and remember we did not bid 2♥ on the previous round).
Only two decided that their side had already bid enough.
SJOERT BRINK: Pass. No spade stopper and no quick tricks. Going plus is usually good idea.
PAUL MARSTON: Pass. This is not a good time to gamble on game. They know too much about their combined resources.
Partner held AJ/QJx/AJ9xxx/Qx, which was good news and bad news – the spades were what we hoped for but perhaps the diamonds were not. With South holding ♦10-x, 3NT can be made even on a spade lead. At the table in the Venice Cup, the defense gave Jill Meyers an easy ride with a club lead and continuation. In the other room, EW played 4♥ in the Moysian fit, going down one for a game swing to the Americans.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
1♦ |
10 |
12 |
32 |
|
1♥ |
7 |
5 |
27 |
|
2NT |
6 |
4 |
24 |
|
Pass |
4 |
1 |
9 |
|
2♣ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Dbl |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.89
The competitors are split fairly evenly between three choices on this hand, with almost a third claiming top marks. By contrast with Hand 1, this time it was the panel who decided it was more clearcut, and they just produced a majority choice. Let’s start with the smaller factions on the panel…
SIMON DE WIJS: 1♥. I’m still interested in finding a 5-3 heart fit, so I’m not prepared to bury them by overcalling 1♦.
LARRY COHEN: 1♥. I am not willing to commit (with 2NT) to the three-level. But, I am also not willing to give up on a potential easy 4♥ by chickening out with a 1♦ overcall.
ANDY HUNG: 1♥. An Unusual 2NT is a bit rich for me, vulnerable, on this. However, I am not going to ignore a five-card major suit to overcall 1♦, so 1♥ it is.
As both David and the French Mixed champions point out, it all depends on what you think the objective is on this deal.
DAVID BIRD: 1♥. If we have a game, it is likely to be in hearts. That suit is likely to get lost if I choose 1♦ instead and North bids spades. If partner is weak, I might do better to bid 1♦ for the lead. It's a close decision.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1♥. Our second disagreement already: Joanna bids 1♦ and I bid 1♥, and this time we vote for my choice. If the hand belongs to us, 1♥ is better but, if it belongs to the opponents, then 1♦ is for sure more effective. Who knows? Always the optimist, I prefer the bid that might allow our side to bid and make something.
Another faction choose to show both suits right now.
MARTY BERGEN: 2NT. "5-5, Come Alive." "Colours are for children.”
SJOERT BRINK: 2NT. “5-5, Come Alive.” Playing with Seb, I could overcall 1NT, showing 5♦/4M... perfect for getting a diamond lead without losing the heart suit.
JILL MEYERS: 2NT. AARGH! If I bid 1♦, I lose hearts, but I have an incredibly ragged heart suit to bid 2NT. I am not so happy for a heart lead if I overcall 1♥, nor do I have enough to overcall 1♥ and then bid diamonds. Just another hand I hate. I am closing my eyes and bidding 2NT, but I am not proud of it.
Alan sums up the dilemma…
ALAN MOULD: 2NT. I am light for this, to say the least, and if the suits had been reversed I would have overcalled 1♥. However, I cannot stomach leaving 100 honours unbid and getting the wrong lead by overcalling 1♥, so I will overbid with 2NT. I have been for 1100 before.
The majority settled for an overcall in their stronger suit.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 1♦. I’ll treat the hearts as a four-card suit.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 1♦. To show a lead.
BARNET SHENKIN: 1♦. Bid first for the lead.
PAUL MARSTON: 1♦. Helping partner with the lead, and any judgement that may be necessary.
HANOI RONDON: 1♦. I hope there is time and space to bid my major, but I don't want to enter the bidding with a suit I'll be sorry to see led in case it's their hand.
WENFEI WANG: 1♦. Although I have five hearts, bidding this good diamond suit looks right to me.
JOEY SILVER: 1♦. With the likelihood that the villains own the spade suit, there is little use in bidding my pathetic heart suit, so I go on the defensive and show partner what to lead.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 1♦. I’d better bid the most important suit 😊.
Sophia reminds us that she still has youthful optimism.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 1♦. …and hope partner bids hearts. I had a similar hand four years ago at a bridge tournament in Poland, and we ended up in 4♥-doubled making.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 1♦.
DANIEL SAVIN: 1♦. For me, the hearts need to be stronger to show this as a two-suited hand. So, 1♦ is enough for the moment.
ANDREW ROBSON: 1♦. It's either 1♦ or 2NT. With LHO likely to bid spades, the diamond lead is of paramount importance, not to mention that lousy heart suit quality for 2NT.
One of our most senior panel members is the only baton-carrier for inaction.
P-O SUNDELIN: Pass.
This hand comes from the Open round robin in Argentina, although I recall almost exactly same problem in the Seniors Teams final in Wuhan, with the same outcome. This time, partner had A10x/AQ10x/8xx/KJx. In the VuGraph match, one West overcalled 1♥ and reached the obvious 4♥ for +620. (2NT would also have achieved the desired result.) The other West overcalled 1♦. East jumped to 3NT, which was one down for a 12-IMP swing. A moral victory for the panel’s minority factions.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♥ |
10 |
10 |
33 |
|
Redble |
9 |
8 |
9 |
|
Pass |
5 |
3 |
53 |
|
2♦ |
4 |
1 |
3 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.79
All but three members of the panel choose to run, with most split between a direct 2♥ and a rescue redouble, planning to offer partner a choice between the red suits. A third of competition entrants score top marks for 2♥, but the largest group, just over half, prefer to take their chances in 1NT-doubled. Let’s start with those members of the panel who choose to stand pat…
ALAN MOULD: Pass. I don't see what I am supposed to do!
MARTY BERGEN: Pass. This may not be our best spot.
LARRY COHEN: Pass. If partner has decent hearts, then 1NT-doubled could be fine. If I run to 2♥ and partner is 5-5 in the blacks, I'm better off passing (he will surely run to 2♣).
The rest all choose to remove themselves in some way or another…
DAVID BIRD: 2♥. I will trust South's double and jump out of the frying pan.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 2♥. South has a good hand and has asked for a spade lead. Where are our tricks at NT? We choose to run away (and pray).
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2♥. 1NT-doubled on a spade lead will not be good, so I will try 2♥.
Paul may be disappointed…
PAUL MARSTON: 2♥. I expect to buy two or three hearts in dummy.
Jill makes her decision after a glance to see if a friend of Kermit is sitting in the North seat.
JILL MEYERS: 2♥. My RHO obviously has spades, so this is close for me between Pass (maybe LHO will bid if I pass) and 2♥. At the table, I would probably bid, so 2♥ it is.
P-O SUNDELIN: 2♥.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2♥. I might have done this before. Now it sounds like South has some spades.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2♥. All-in for hearts. Yes, we may belong in diamonds but I don't fancy going for a few 50s in 2♣ as I launch a rescue operation.
Doesn’t any number of 50s sound like it will be a good result from here?
DANIEL SAVIN: 2♥. It looks like spades are not favourably placed, and South does not have four hearts. Partner is most likely fairly balanced, so 2♥ seems to be the safest option.
There’s nothing new about a panelist objecting to a bid made earlier in the auction but, in this case, I mistakenly thought it was him that made the bid when the hand occurred at the table, which would certainly have been amusing. When I double-checked, it was another genius, Boye Brogeland. There were no other complaints (although the same may not be true when you see partner’s hand).
SJOERT BRINK: 2♥. Why did I bid 1NT? For me, hearts should be bid. Now I have a different situation, but 2♥ is still right, I think, as partner is likely 5-3-2-3.
Life is full of disappointments!
The second-largest faction opted for consultation…
HANOI RONDON: Redbl. Let's include partner in the rescue operation.
SIMON DE WIJS: Redbl. I will try to play in a red suit, so Redouble followed by 2♦ it is.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: Redbl. When partner bids 2♣, I will correct to 2♦ to offer him a choice of red suits.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: Redbl. Showing a two-suited escape. I’ll offer partner a choice of red suits.
ANDY HUNG: Redbl. Let's try to get to the right red suit.
WENFEI WANG: Redbl. This says that I don’t want to play 1NT-doubled. If partner bids 2♣, I will bid 2♦, showing both red suits.
JOEY SILVER: Redbl. HELP! This is an SOS redouble (I hope). I trust South's judgement, and get out of Dodge. I intend to bid 2♦ over partner's expected 2♣, giving him a choice of red suits.
Barnet is even willing to risk playing a second blue card in the auction…
BARNET SHENKIN: Redbl. When partner’s 2♣ is doubled, I’ll redouble again to get partner to choose a red suit.
Cathy is flying solo on this one.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 2♦.
On this deal from the Open round robin in Argentina, partner had KJ7xx/x/9xx/J10xx. 2♦ is your best spot, and Redouble will surely get you there. At the table I watched, West bid 2♥, but North’s ♦K lead (South holding the singleton ♦10) let him out for -500, for a 4-IMP gain against -630 at the other table. Alas, none of the 2♥ bidders explained why they think their choice is better than Redouble (other than they hoped or expected to find three hearts opposite). You would be lucky to make more than your three top tricks in 1NT-doubled, so passing is likely to cost 800.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♣ |
10 |
19 |
32 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
2 |
36 |
|
3♠ |
5 |
1 |
21 |
|
5♣ |
3 |
0 |
4 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.27
We waited until the 93rd hand to get the biggest majority vote of the year from the panel. Indeed, with 19 votes from the panel in, there was only one lone dissenter, so I am most grateful to those who saved the question setter from the ignominy of a unanimous panel. By contrast, competitors were divided between three main choices, with just under a third choosing the action that the panel thought was my 10-mark Christmas gift.
When I was originally sent this problem, the auction was one round further on, with East having continued to 4♦ after our negative double. The question then was how to get to the good 6♣ – a problem indeed. However, I suspected that there would be one or two complaints from panelists if I stuck them with a double on the first round, hence this problem (and emphatic confirmation of my suspicion). Had the panel voted for double, they would have faced the follow-up question in a future month, but I guess there is now no need for that.
JILL MEYERS: 4♣. Ah, a breather. I bid my longest and strongest.
ALAN MOULD: 4♣. Call me old fashioned, but I shall bid my longest suit this round and my next longest suit on the next round....
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♣. It’s really easy to bid my long suit, then the next longest. Isn’t that called description?
HANOI RONDON: 4♣. I have a great suit and might be able to bid spades at the four-level when the bidding continues.
WENFEI WANG: 4♣. I bid my longest suit.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♣. Definitely a biddable suit.
P-O SUNDELIN: 4♣. Then 4♠ next, if possible.
CATHY BALDYSZ/BARNET SHENKIN: 4♣.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. If my partner bids 4♦, I will continue with 4♠.
Daniel highlights the major problem with the alternatives
ANIEL SAVIN: 4♣. I hope to have space to bid my spades on next round. If I start by bidding (or showing) spades, I will never be able to show my good seven-card club suit.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4♣. I bid the best trump suit first, and I will show my spades on the next round.
ANDY HUNG: 4♣. I start with 4♣, planning to rebid 4♠ next.
DAVID BIRD: 4♣. A double is hardly attractive with 7-5 shape. I may be able to bid 4♠ in a moment or two.
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♣. It seems terrible to conceal a five-card spade suit, but I have to start by bidding my good seven-carder.
SJOERT BRINK: 4♣. With my regular partner, I can bid 4♣ showing clubs and spades, which is obviously a perfect agreement for this hand. Without this agreement, I still think 4♣ is best. Always start with your longest suit...
JOEY SILVER: 4♣. Intending to bid 6♣ if partner shows interest, otherwise I will go low with 4♠ should I hear 4♦. After all, matchpoints is a game of plus scores, and playing in a minor is not necessarily a disaster.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♣. I've got the room to bid both suits, obviously backing in with 4♠ if 4♥ comes back to me. I think a 3♠ bid here is very pessimistic: leaving those clubs unmentioned feels very wrong.
Larry highlights another problem with bidding spades first.
LARRY COHEN: 4♣. As much as I want to bid spades, that could lead to a silly 4♠ when partner raises with Jx/Jxxx/AKxx/KJx.
There were just a few dissenters.
PAUL MARSTON: 3♠. I cannot properly show both black suits, so I’ll focus on the major at matchpoints.
Sophia points out why showing only a four-card spade suit may be better than bidding 3♠.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: Dbl. Only if partner has four spades would I want to be in spades. If he bids anything other than spades, I'm bidding clubs.
Our French couple have a sophisticated structure available, but they are persuaded by the form of scoring to show their spades first.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Dbl. Our agreements are that double shows 4-5♠, never 6+ (partner bids 3♠ with three-card support), 3♠ spades (is usually a balanced hand without four spades), and the transfer to clubs would be 4♦. Because of the context (matchpoints) we choose to show the spades first. At IMPs we would show the clubs.
At the table, partner held Jx/xx/AQJ9xx/KJx. With the diamond finesse working but South 2-7-4-0, you could make only part-scores in spades or diamonds, but twelve tricks were easy in clubs. Partner would raise 4♣ to game and you would surely take a shot at slam. What happens if you show spades first is anyone’s guess, but Larry’s concern that partner may raise 3♠ to 4♠ is certainly a valid one.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
14 |
51 |
|
4NT |
7 |
4 |
9 |
|
Dbl |
6 |
4 |
19 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
14 |
|
5♥ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
5♣ |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.27
The panel offer three choices, but with a big favourite that also attracted more than half of competition entrants. This looks more like one of those Christmas goodies we were promised earlier. Let’s start with the majority choice…
ANDY HUNG: 5♦. I hope my partner isn't 4-4-2-3!
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. Vulnerable against not, I will try 5♦. 4♠-doubled is probably a good sacrifice for them.
Marty and Andrew both wish they had bid their long suit earlier.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♦. Imperfect, but this seems very normal with my 6-4 hand. FYI, I would have opened.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♦. I confess I would probably have opened 1♦, as I prefer to bid my hand at low levels than guess at the four/five-level. Second choice is 4NT, but I do have a big preference for diamonds, plus I want to declare to protect my ♣AQ.
A number mentioned the positional advantage of bidding their long suit.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5♦. Those clubs need protecting.
HANOI RONDON: 5♦. It's my six-card suit, and I get to receive the lead into my clubs. What's not to like?
JOEY SILVER: 5♦. I would like to give partner a choice of red suits, but I judge it more important to protect my club holding, so I pray partner has real diamonds.
Not really but, as we’ll see, just real enough.
JILL MEYERS: 5♦. I want the lead coming to me, and diamonds is my longest suit. In the modern style, I know people make takeout doubles with 4-4 in the majors and only a doubleton in the other minor and, if I have to pay off to that, so be it.
CATHY BALDYSZ/P-O SUNDELIN: 5♦.
For some, double was the alternative...
SIMON DE WIJS: 5♦. Double is probably the normal bid, but I cannot bring myself to do it.
SJOERT BRINK: 5♦. “6-4, Bid One More.” I don’t really see an alternative. Maybe double but, in long run, I know that bidding works better with 6-4 shape.
…Whilst a couple considered and rejected an alternative route to the five-level.
DAVID BIRD: 5♦. With 6-4 in the reds, and having to play at the five-level anyway, I don't see that 4NT is better now. A 6-3 (even 6-2) diamond fit is likely to play better than 4-4 in hearts.
ALAN MOULD: 5♦. It could easily be right to double. It could also be right to bid 4NT. But this protects my club holding, which may be vital.
There was some support for keeping hearts in the picture.
WENFEI WANG: 4NT. Showing both red suits.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4NT. Showing two places to play.
BARNET SHENKIN: 4NT. And 5♦ over 5♣ to get hearts into play.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4NT. If partner bids 5♣, I will bid 5♦, showing both red suits.
With the panel voting 18-4 in favour of positive action, I split the tie against those willing to defend.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. I am afraid to commit to the five-level, as partner might be 3-3 in the red suits. Even if he has four hearts, it could be too much to handle. Double doesn't preclude him from bidding with shape. Opposite a typical 4-4-4-1, there are 18 trumps and LOTT says we'll be okay defending if there are approximately 18 tricks.
PAUL MARSTON: Dbl. Partner is the one to judge whether to play or defend.
I suspect that partner will pass upwards of 90% of the time, so it seems to me unrealistic to suggest that double is ‘offering him a choice’.
DANIEL SAVIN: Dbl. I have too many red cards to believe that doubling 4♠ will produce a big penalty for us. However, I don't have enough high cards to expect to make 11 tricks opposite a normal takeout double. Partner should have at least three spades.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Dbl. The specifications for a takeout double have been dramatically lowered over the years, so we don't take the risk of an adventure at the five-level. Let's see who is right this time. If there are 17 or 18 total tricks (count the number of trumps), double is probably right at the end of the year. One more comment, if we may: as with Hand 4, our decision might be (a little bit) influenced by the opponent's system (if a 1♣ opening is 2+ cards or more natural, if they play weak or strong NT, etc.)
On this deal from the Women’s round robin in Argentina, partner had AKx/AKxx/10xx/xxx. At the table I watched, West doubled and, of course, East was quite content to pass. She was perhaps less content with only +100. 5♦ is an easy make, losing just two trumps. 4NT presumably leads to 5♥, which is more of a challenge with trumps 4-1 (South holding two red singletons, the ♥Q and the ♦J). Well judged by a large proportion of both the panel and the competition entrants.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5NT |
10 |
6 |
2 |
|
5♠ |
9 |
5 |
11 |
|
6♠ |
9 |
5 |
32 |
|
5♦ |
8 |
3 |
9 |
|
4♠ |
5 |
1 |
33 |
|
Dbl |
4 |
2 |
4 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.60
This is easily the most contentious of this month’s deals. The panel offer support for six different actions, with no single option garnering even a third of the votes. Two choices each gained the support of almost a third of competitors, with the most popular attracting only a single panelist. We also set yet another record from the year, with only 2% of competitors collecting maximum marks on this hand. More than three-quarters of competition entrants bid their longest suit at some level, so let’s start with those panel members who followed that strategy…
SIMON DE WIJS: 6♠. This feels about right.
ALAN MOULD: 6♠. Without any methods, I will just make my best guess.
P-O SUNDELIN: 6♠. "Trusting" South.
DANIEL SAVIN: 6♠. The slam that I want to play.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 6♠. It could be seven or down in six, but I have to decide now.
Cathy was flying solo at the other end of the scale…
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♠.
…Whilst some chose a middle ground.
WENFEI WANG: 5♠. Invitational to slam.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 5♠. Showing a better hand than 4♠ would.
What does this jump to the five-level say about diamonds?
JILL MEYERS: 5♠. This must be a slam try in spades and, I think, with a diamond control.
PAUL MARSTON: 5♠. This cannot be about diamond control. I can hardly have everything else under control. It is surely about trump support. If RHO has diamond strength, partner is quite likely to have decent spades. I can't wait to hear what partner thinks 😊
DAVID BIRD: 5♠. With so much space lost, I don't see that this should be asking for a diamond control. It is a general slam-try, made on the assumption that partner can read me for diamond shortage. South's 4♦ warns us of bad breaks, so 6♠ is too much for me.
Some panelists wanted to keep clubs in the picture. So, how to do that?
ANDY HUNG: 5♦. Maybe a jump to 5♠ would make the auction simpler in an undiscussed partnership, but partner might be afraid that I needed a diamond control. I'll bid 5♦, planning to rebid 5♠ over partner's 5♥. Hopefully, partner will understand that I have a diamond control. We can still get to clubs if partner follows it up with 5NT pick a slam.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♦. I'm willing to force to slam, but I definitely want to preserve chance of playing in clubs.
JOEY SILVER: 5♦. Surely this hand is worth a slam try. Now all I need is to find a black suit fit and an appropriate level to play it at. Intending, of course, to bid 5♠ over 5♥, and 6♣ if partner advances with 5NT.
Confused? The largest faction preferred to achieve this goal via the most obvious route.
BARNET SHENKIN: 5NT. I’ll gamble to play in a black-suit slam.
HANOI RONDON: 5NT. Good old 'pick up a slam'. Although I am 6-4 in the black suits, if partner offers clubs, I'll be fine passing, I think.
LARRY COHEN: 5NT. I am planning to pass 6♣, or convert anything else to 6♠. Picture something like Ax/AKxx/AKx/Qxxx with spades 4-1.
Hold that thought, Larry.
SJOERT BRINK: 5NT. Pick a slam. If partner bids 6♥, I’ll correct to 6♠. If he bids 6♣, I will know that I did the correct thing.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5NT. My third disagreement with Joanna in this set. She would bid 4NT (not to play!) and 5♠ next, although she admits that she has a bit too much for only a slam invitation. I prefer to bid 5NT (pick a slam) to take the chance (not unlikely when I consider my hand and the 4♦ bid at these colors) that partner bids 6♣.
Only Zia isn’t interested in playing in 6♣.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5NT. I think 5♠ should be forcing in competition but, in absence of specific agreement, I bid 5NT and then 6♠ over anything. I’ll make a grand slam try if his bid is 6♣.
Only a couple preferred to start with an action that gave partner a chance to defend.
ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. Take-out but, should partner convert, I think we'll get at least 800 when we have a slam. Obviously, things are screwy as the vul-v-not South is not crazy. It wouldn't be surprising to find LHO with ♠QJ108(x), so committing to spades (5♠? 6♠?) feels wrong.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: Dbl. Depending on what partner bids. I will look for slam.
Partner had AQ/AKQx/Qx/QJxxx. 6♣ and, curiously, 6♥ in the 4-2 fit, were both easy makes but, as Larry feared, 6♠ went down on a 4-1 trump break.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♦ |
10 |
14 |
43 |
|
Dbl |
6 |
3 |
10 |
|
2♥ |
5 |
3 |
27 |
|
Pass |
4 |
2 |
11 |
|
4♦ |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
3♥ |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.89
We finish the year with another Christmas cracker, on which close to half of competitors collect top marks. The panel offer four options, but there is a big majority. A three -level cue-bid may look overly aggressive on this shapely 8-count, but would you not want to get to game facing as little as xx/Axxx/xxx/xxxx? Let’s see what the hawks have to say for themselves…
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 3♦. Both majors.
ANDY HUNG: 3♦. Getting both of my major suits in before the auction gets too high.
DAVID BIRD: 3♦. I would normally be nervous of bidding a vulnerable 3♦ on so little. Here, the opponents have shown plenty of points, so partner will not be particularly ambitious. Indeed, we may even find a good sacrifice.
DANIEL SAVIN: 3♦. Let's see what partner thinks about the majors.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3♦. I show my two major suits. It’s now or never.
JILL MEYERS: 3♦. I think I am getting only one bid on this hand, and I would rather show both majors than just bid 2♥.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 3♦. A ridiculous bid, but one that always seems to manage to emerge unscathed. Prudent players would bid 2♥. By the way, it is not disclosed whether South’s 2♦ was a game force or limit+.
It was limit or better. Indeed, I rarely use two hands from the same deal together but, at the table I watched, East held Hand 1 of this set.
HANOI RONDON: 3♦. I think my distribution makes up for the lack of HCPs. I'd rather show ten cards than pass or bid only one suit.
PAUL MARSTON: 3♦. I am bidding on shape. With 6-5, it’s worth sharing the news.
MARTY BERGEN: 3♦. I understand ignoring spades, but I get too few 6-5 hands to ignore them.
Alan and Andrew both finish the year with an accurate prediction.
ALAN MOULD: 3♦. Just because they make an inverted raise, it doesn't mean it ain't our hand. I don't think this is close.
ANDREW ROBSON: 3♦. Ah, a breather to finish. I suppose you could make a case for bidding 2♥/3♥ and suppressing spades altogether. But we could easily have a save/make in 4♠, so I'm going to show my two-suiter. I expect most of the field will, too.
JOEY SILVER: 3♦. I know it is dangerous but, holding both majors, passing might be even more dangerous. I guess I will find out soon what is what!
Last word from the majority goes to the man who held the hand at the table, and he demonstrates that great players quickly learn from their mistakes…
SJOERT BRINK: 3♦. Majors... Maybe both sides can make a game.
A few preferred a more economical way of showing their suits…
BARNET SHENKIN: Dbl. This sounds like both Majors
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: Dbl. Takeout. I think the suits are of too poor quality to bid 3♦.
SIMON DE WIJS: Dbl. I really want to know partner’s longest major.
…Whilst some settled for showing only their longest suit.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 2♥. It is not clear that we have anything to gain by bidding, but a distributional hand is a distributional hand.
P-O SUNDELIN/CATHY BALDYSZ: 2♥.
Only a couple decided that discretion was called for…
LARRY COHEN: Pass. Cowardly. Maybe 10% of the time I miss a game, but if there is no game, why get involved (tipping them off in the play)?
WENFEI WANG: Pass. My suits are not good. If we have no fit, bidding which so few values will be very dangerous.
At the table in Argentina, Sjoert passed and then backed in with 3♥ when North’s 3♦ was passed back to him. Unfortunately, his partner, with xx/AJ10x/Jxx/KJxx, saw no reason to bid game in this auction. At the other table, it went 3♦-P-4♦-4♥!
On a good day, scoring +170 in 3♥ might cost only 1 IMP, if teammates can find the cheap save (only -200) in 5♦-doubled. However, that’s not so obvious, vulnerable, having forced the opponents to guess at a high level.
An impressive 79/80 gives Miguel Villas-Boas his second win and his third podium finish in the second half of this year. Completing the podium for December are Zia Mahmood and Joey Silver, both with 77/80. A special mention also goes to our guest panelist, Daniel Savin, for a very creditable 75/80 on what turned out to be an easy set to drop marks.
All that remains is for me to wish a happy holiday season to both our panelists and all of those competitors who have supported this feature throughout the year. I hope that, like me, you are looking forward to doing it all again in 2025.
In the words of Bugs Bunny, “That’s All, Folks!”
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
6♠ |
3♦ |
79 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
2NT |
3♠ |
1♦ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5NT |
3♦ |
77 |
|
Joey SILVER |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
77 |
|
David BIRD |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♥ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5♠ |
3♦ |
76 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
3♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5NT |
3♦ |
75 |
|
Daniel SAVIN |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
Dbl |
6♠ |
3♦ |
75 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
1♠ |
3NT |
1♦ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
Dbl |
3♦ |
72 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
4NT |
5NT |
Dbl |
72 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5♠ |
3♦ |
71 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
2NT |
Pass |
2NT |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5NT |
3♦ |
70 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
2♣ |
3♠ |
1♥ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
5♦ |
6♠ |
Dbl |
69 |
|
Cedric LORENZINI |
1NT |
3♥ |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
4NT |
5♠ |
3♦ |
69 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
2NT |
3NT |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
68 |
|
Andy HUNG |
2♦ |
3♠ |
1♥ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
68 |
|
Alan MOULD |
1NT |
3NT |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
5♦ |
6♠ |
3♦ |
68 |
|
P.-O. SUNDELIN |
1NT |
3NT |
Pass |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
6♠ |
2♥ |
66 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
2NT |
3♠ |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
4♣ |
4NT |
5♠ |
Pass |
66 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
2♣ |
Pass |
1♦ |
2♥ |
3♠ |
Dbl |
5♠ |
3♦ |
65 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
2♣ |
3♠ |
1♦ |
2♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
4♠ |
2♥ |
62 |
|
Sophia BLADYSZ |
2NT |
3♠ |
1♦ |
Rdbl |
Dbl |
4NT |
Dbl |
Dbl |
59 |
|
Larry COHEN |
1♠ |
3NT |
1♥ |
Pass |
4♣ |
Dbl |
5NT |
Pass |
59 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT and Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
1NT |
3♥ |
1♥ |
2♥ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
5NT |
2♥ |
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
2♣ |
3NT |
1♦ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
5NT |
3♦ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
2♣ 10 |
2NT 9 |
1NT 8 |
1♠ 7 |
3♣/2♦ 6 |
|
HAND 2: |
3NT 10 |
3♠ 8 |
3♥ 6 |
Pass 5 |
|
|
HAND 3: |
1♦ 10 |
1♥ 7 |
2NT 6 |
Pass 4 |
|
|
HAND 4: |
2♥ 10 |
Redbl 9 |
Pass 5 |
2♦ 4 |
|
|
HAND 5: |
4♣ 10 |
3♠/Dbl 5 |
5♣ 3 |
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
5♦ 10 |
4NT 7 |
Dbl 6 |
Pass/5♣/5♥ 2 |
|
|
HAND 7: |
5NT 10 |
5♠/6♠ 9 |
5♦ 8 |
4♠/Dbl 5 |
|
|
HAND 8: |
3♦ 10 |
Dbl 6 |
2♥ 5 |
4♦/Pass 4 |
3♥ 2 |
|
HAND 1: |
8.80 |
|
HAND 2: |
6.35 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.89 |
|
HAND 4: |
6.79 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.27 |
|
HAND 6: |
7.27 |
|
HAND 7: |
6.60 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.89 |
