Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the second set of the 2024 edition of the world’s most popular bidding competition, which is settling into its new home at RealBridge.
We have two guest panelists this month. Owen Lien from Oak Park, Michigan, USA is a professional bridge player who says, “I live with my wonderful girlfriend and our two dogs.” Dave Williams from Llangollen, Wales, is the defending champion in the annual competition and the competition’s most consistent bidder over the last three years. Dave trained as a mathematician and recently retired from his role as a Youth Information and Advice Worker. Dave says, “I love to binge watch box sets and used to have a bridge library of over 650 books but, after a sort out, it is now down to about 330, mostly advanced ones, quizzes, first editions and several by a certain English author including World Class 21st Century. I have been playing online since 2006, now almost exclusively with robots.” Good luck to them both.
We are delighted to welcome a new panelist this month. One of the most charismatic players in the game for almost half a century, Joey Silver announced his arrival on the North American bridge scene by winning the 1974 Vanderbilt Knockout Teams playing with another young, then-unknown Canadian, Eric Kokish. Twenty years later, the partnership were members of the most successful Canadian team ever, reaching the final of the 1995 Bermuda Bowl. More recently, Joey served up a reminder that he was still around, collecting a silver medal at the 2016 World Senior Pairs.
Readers may also be interested in the new program of events recently unveiled by another of our regular expert panelists, Larry Cohen. Information about upcoming cruises, bridge camps and lectures hosted by the great man, in addition to a wealth of informative articles, can all be found at www.larryco.com.
If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details. Remember that the best problems offer three or more sensible actions rather than being a straight choice between two.
The panel produces a majority choice on five of this month’s hands, but they also have a couple on which they are seriously divided. This is surely likely to be a higher scoring set than last month, with the most popular action chosen by competition entrants scoring a ‘10’ on four hands out of eight. Voting with the largest group of competition entrants on every hand this month would score an impressive 70/80 (up from 59/80 last month). Am I making the problems too easy now? With the average score below 5/10 on only one of this month’s deals. the average score is 55.23 (up from 44.59 in January). Let’s see what the panel have to say about this month’s hands…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
5♦ |
10 |
14 |
53 |
|
6♦ |
8 |
7 |
15 |
|
5NT |
7 |
2 |
2 |
|
6♣ |
7 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
0 |
4 |
|
6♠ |
5 |
0 |
4 |
|
5♠ |
4 |
0 |
12 |
|
Dbl |
2 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.75
The panel saw this as a two-way choice: Do we bid our second suit at the five-level or do we commit to slam. The panel voted 14-9 in favor of the more conservative approach, and over half of the competition entrants agree with that assessment. I also gave marks to a number of other reasonable actions that attracted votes from competitors. Let’s start with the majority choice…
COHEN: 5♦. I'm not supposed to bid six, am I?
BROCK: 5♦. Everything is just a guess.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♦. Suits are breaking badly, or I'd be tempted to bid 6♦.
WANG: 5♦. Suits are not going to break well.
MARSTON: 5♦. Partner not doubling suggests few wasted values in declarer's suits, which argues for slam, but bad breaks lie ahead.
BERGEN: 5♦. A slam is possible, but it would be foolish to force to slam. Even if partner's hand fits mine, bad splits are GUARANTEED.
BIRD: 5♦. In diamonds, I am missing four key-cards, so 6♦ seems too much of a gamble. There is an opening bid against us, with bad breaks almost certain.
COPE: 5♦. Whilst we are expecting some bad breaks, partners' pass shows some suitability because, if all of their values were in the rounded suits, they would have doubled.
ZIA: 5♦. First thought was 6♦, but the suits are not breaking. Partner is allowed to raise with a perfecto.
HUNG: 5♦. Partner didn't double 5♣, so perhaps he doesn't have three out of the four critical cards that we need for a slam. Something like Axx/KQJx/Kxxx/Qx. Bidding slam is very tempting, but we could be missing two aces, or we might hit a bad break with South having J109x in a pointed suit.
A couple seemed to consider it a choice between 5♦ and defending.
RONDON: 5♦. I have to introduce my second suit so that partner can decide what and how high to play.
SUNDELIN: 5♦. I know what they say about the five-level.
BRINK: 5♦. As partner didn't double, I don't think the five-level belongs to opponents. Likely north has a 6-6 hand, which also means that colors are breaking badly. So, being calm is required. For me, this is an easy 5♦. Likely it is a slam on okay distribution, but that isn't likely to be the case here.
Miguel has a slightly different view of the meaning of his bid.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. My partner pass suggested a spade fit, so 5♦ is a slam try.
The rest just take the bull by the horns…
HULT: 6♦. If Partner can’t double 5♣, I think we will make slam.
SHENKIN: 6♦. If wrong, they could still bid 7♣ as a phantom, thinking we could have a void somewhere. Partner’s pass of 5♣ is constructive for me.
WILLIAMS: 6♦. Partner is unlikely to have wasted values in the opponents’ suits, so there's an excellent chance of him having three of the four key cards that we require.
LIEN: 6♦. I need very little for slam, and it looks pretty likely that I'm going to find it. If partner had secondary values in hearts and clubs, he would be more inclined to double 5♣. North is probably 6-6.
MEYERS: 6♦. This may be an overbid, but I think 5♦ is an underbid. I would bid 5♦ without one of my honors. I realize that things might not be splitting very well (my LHO is likely 6-6) but partner obviously is not loaded in the round suits or she might have doubled 5♣, and there are just too many hands where partner will have three key cards.
Only Joey was worried that perhaps 6♦ was not enough…
SILVER: 6♦. It is impossible, in the face of North's pre-emption, to accurately explore for a grand. Since the pointed suits rate to break badly (to put it mildly), I am just looking for our best fit, and hope to survive the six-level.
Andrew sums up the problem.
ROBSON: 6♦. The first question is “declare or defend?” With partner not doubling, so not great clubs, that one is clear. The second question is “game or slam?” I think that partner’s non-double implies few wasted pictures in the rounded suits. It’s reasonable to expect three out of ♠A, ♥A, ♦K, ♣A, so slam. The third is whether we bring diamonds into the game. With North likely to have 0/1 spades, I think we should cater to partner have ♠Ax and the suit splitting badly. Ergo: 6♦.
Simon and Sophia both commit to slam but via a different route.
DE WIJS: 5NT. If partner doesn’t want to defend 5♣, we’re playing slam, and this looks like the best way to show 6-5.
S. BALDYSZ: 5NT. Several contracts could be right here. Partner didn't double 5♣, so he doesn't have a lot of points wasted in clubs and hearts. Although it's likely that spades are not splitting, I still think we have a shot at slam. I'll bid 5NT asking for partner to pick a slam. Over 6♣, I will bid 6♦.
At the table, partner had the perfect hand, AJ10x/Axxx/Kx/AJx. If you bid 6♦ he will surely bid 7♠ to flatten the board. If you bid 5♦, he’ll bid 6♠. Everyone did better than the player who held the hand at the table in the 2008 World Championships: West doubled 5♣ and doubled again when South gave preference to hearts. That was +1100 but teammates conceded -2210.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
4♣ |
10 |
21 |
81 |
|
Dbl |
4 |
1 |
9 |
|
3NT |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♠ |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♣ |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.62
This is the first dud problem of the year, and my thanks go to Larry Cohen and Sally Brock for ensuring that we avoided the dreaded unanimous panel. The main curiosity is that only David came close to a prediction of unanimity. A whopping 4-out-ot-5 competitors also failed to find an alternative to the panel’s choice, so a good first couple of deals for quite a few competition entrants.
WANG: 4♣. Natural bid, showing at least 5-5 and good hand.
BRINK: 4♣. 5-5 come alive!!!
WILLIAMS: 4♣. What else, especially at IMPs?
LIEN: 4♣. I don't really feel like I have another bid available.
MARSTON: 4♣. Simple stuff. Pity if we have missed a big penalty from 3♥-Doubled.
BERGEN: 4♣. Once again, I'm content to show my second suit.
DE WIJS: 4♣. Bidding your suits is the way to go. I feel that my strength is also well represented in this way.
C.BALDYSZ-SUNDELIN-HULT-SHENKIN: 4♣.
S.BALDYSZ: 4♣. Several contracts could be right here. If I had opened a Polish Club, it would have been so much easier... As it is, I'll opt for the most natural bid, hoping partner will raise if he has something of interest.
It’s unclear to me why starting with a Polish Club would make things easier. Yes, you could now bid 3♠, but you wouldn’t have shown your clubs.
SILVER: 4♣. At the risk of a minus score, North's preemption has let me express the true power of my two-suiter.
David produces one of the most accurate predictions of the year so far…
BIRD: 4♣. As I see it, no other call comes close to 4♣. How could a double assist us? I know better than to predict a unanimous panel, or a reader vote of more than 90%, but... it sure is tempting.
A handful of panelists mentioned an alternative…
ZIA: 4♣ Much as I love penalties, Double would likely produce a diamond bid at some level from partner.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. I don’t like Double with this hand. A natural 4♣ is my choice.
HUNG: 4♣. Bidding where I live. Double might seem more flexible but, if partner bids 4♦ and we convert that to 4♠, that doesn't exactly promise four clubs (e.g. we might do it with a strong 6-1-3-3 for example) and partner won't be able to convert it with a 2-2-5-4 shape.
MEYERS: 4♣. I am not passing, I don't think I have a double of 3♥, and I don't think I have enough to bid 5♣.
One should always be careful what one wishes for (or not)…
ROBSON: 4♣. Unhappily, as I will be if partner goes back to 4♠, but Double is probably worse as I will hate his diamond bid.
Only Hanoi and Tim even mention the other possibility.
RONDON: 4♣. This looks like a hand to play in a suit. Apologies to Bob Hamman.
COPE: 4♣. I cannot double without tolerance for diamonds, and a gamble at 3NT would require partner to have the ♣A. Pass is too wimpish, as some club support and either minor-suit ace may produce a game.
It makes a change for Larry to be flying solo, but his partner apparently has a non-standard bidding box…
COHEN: Dbl. I am dreaming that partner can't find any bidding box cards that have diamonds on them.
Sally is also on her own, but in another direction.
BROCK: 3NT. Am I going to write ‘Everything is just a guess’ after every answer?
You need partner to make a good decision over 4♣, as he held Kx/xxx/KQxx/9xxx. A heart lead beats 5♣, whereas 4♠ will make as long as they do not have a club ruff to take. Is it clear for him to bid 4♠ rather than 5♣? Larry’s double will presumably get him to 4♠ if partner chooses to respond in diamonds rather than bidding his clubs. At the table, West tried 3NT (which is perhaps why I originally thought it was a problem). That was not a success – three down.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
3NT |
10 |
10 |
20 |
|
5♦ |
9 |
9 |
40 |
|
4NT |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
3♥ |
9 |
2 |
2 |
|
3♠ |
5 |
0 |
8 |
|
4♣ |
5 |
0 |
2 |
|
4♦ |
2 |
0 |
10 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
6♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.75
If your first impression of this hand was that it is virtually a guess between game in no-trumps and the minor-suit game, the panel confirms that view. We have 10 panelists for 3NT and 11 for 5♦ (including those who bid Blackwood on the way) and a couple trying to keep options open. I think the no-trump bidders just won the debate, but everyone scores well on this one.
COHEN: 3NT. If partner has no aces, this has a chance while 5♦ doesn't. Opposite either red ace, 3NT should produce nine tricks (barring a spectacular ♥A lead).
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. I think 3NT is the easiest game. If North doesn’t lead spades, he is likely to lead a small heart away from the ace.
MEYERS: 3NT. This is tough, I don't know how weak ‘weak’ is, but I am bidding 3NT. If partner has the ♦Q and ♥Q-J, I like my chances, and I would not have any chance at 5♦.
BERGEN: 3NT. Although 5♦ might be better. But, if partner is ace-less, 5♦ would be hopeless. If he has a spade void, I expect him not to pass 3NT.
RONDON: 3NT. I'm going for the game in NT, hoping partner has something in hearts or I get a useful lead.
LIEN: 3NT. This seems a likelier contract than 5♦, and I can't think of a sensible way to explore for one or the other. I can construct hands where 3NT is clearly better than 5♦ and vice versa.
BROCK: 3NT. This time I’m going to quote Bob Hamman.
SHENKIN: 3NT.
C. BALDYSZ: 3NT.
BIRD: 3NT. 5♦ might be better, but I am more likely to make the ♥K in 3NT than in the diamond game. In any case, would bidding such as 3♠ allow partner to judge which game is better? I don’t see why.
The other large faction prefer game in diamonds.
BRINK: 5♦. Bid what you think will make. I see no alternative. Sorry.
MARSTON: 5♦. If my man has no ace, I hope they make 4♥.
ROBSON: 5♦. If we’re making 3NT, we’re making 5♦ (barring a spade ruff). But are we making 5♦? We need an ace opposite. It’s hard to find out, so I’ll just blast. It’s not impossible that, if partner has no ace, eg xx/xx/QJxx/Qxxxx, that 5♦ one down is par (breaking it if undoubled) against their 4♥ making.
SUNDELIN: 5♦. The five-level still belongs to the opponents, but I don't seem to learn.
SILVER: 5♦. In the face of East's pre-emption (that is the third time in three hands I have used that word), slam is out, so I will limit myself to a game try.
WILLIAMS: 5♦. Preferring this to 3NT at IMPs, as there's less of a potential downside if it goes off!
Tim sums up the problem fairly well.
COPE: 5♦. My hand looks good for game and we have to decide between 3NT and 5♦. Partner's failure to make a negative double suggests that theopponents have a nine-card heart fit, but we still might get lucky in 3NT if the opening leader has the ♥A. 5♦ may get unlucky if the opps have a spade ruff. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I think.
HULT: 5♦. Wrong hand for 3NT, and partner will not pre-empt with two aces, to there is no need to look for 6♦.
HUNG: 5♦. Partner shouldn't have two aces for a weak raise, right?
Wenfei points out why it may be worth checking on the way to 5♦.
WANG: 4NT. It cannot hurt to ask for keycards, just in case. Maybe partner will show an ace and a spade void. I am effectively bidding 5♦.
DE WIJS: 4NT. Why not? 3NT could be right but, as I’m bidding 5♦, I might as well check for a miracle.
Zia and Sophia try to engage partner in the decision-making process…
ZIA: 3♥. I would probably bid this at the table. A club lead is what I want when we eventually finish in a diamond contract.
Only Sophia seems willing to stop below game.
S. BALDYSZ: 3♥. Depending on how weak 3♦ can be, several bids could be right. If partner has soft values, I'd rather be in 3NT although, on a club lead, we may lack the tempo to set up tricks in diamonds and other suits. If partner has the ♦A and nothing else, then 5♦ is where I want to be. I'd like to investigate more. It's highly likely that partner has 2-3-4-4 or 1-3-5-4. If partner bids 3♠ I will bid 3NT, but if 4♦ I will pass.
Does 3♥ ask for heart help for 3NT? Alternatively, does 3♠ show spade stops but heart weakness, or does it just ask for help in spades? At the table, both 3NT and 5♦ were an easy make opposite x/Axx/Qxxxx/xxxx. However, it seems that partner would also bid 3♦ with x/QJx/Qxxxx/J10xx, when 3NT makes but 5♦ does not, or with something like --/xxx/Axxxx/xxxxx, when 6♦ is good but 3NT may go down. Perhaps it is just a guess, and that is why people pre-empt.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
2NT |
10 |
13 |
18 |
|
3♦ |
8 |
6 |
33 |
|
3NT |
6 |
3 |
22 |
|
3♥ |
5 |
0 |
2 |
|
4♥ |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
3 |
1 |
22 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.60
The panel just produces a majority, whilst 1-in-3 competition entrants prefer the panel’s second choice. Let’s hear the debate.
WANG: 2NT. Natural and invitational.
ROBSON: 2NT. Inviting a no-trump game must be the most practical shot here.
BROCK: 2NT. This is surely some sort of game try. I’m happy to leave this one to partner.
MARSTON: 2NT. Giving partner an out.
BRINK: 2NT. I guess I have too much to pass. A direct 3NT is also possible, but I like to investigate.
ZIA: 2NT. I play this as natural and constructive. After this start, I play 3♣ as a cue-bid for partner’s major. You can send your financial appreciation to my home address!
MEYERS-SHENKIN-HULT-C. BALDYSZ: 2NT.
COPE: 2NT. Not quite enough to force to game and, because of the soft values, NT may be better than hearts as we have an alternate source of tricks.
Dave sums up the case for the majority.
WILLIAMS: 2NT. The diamond length and points outside of hearts suggest no-trumps, but 4♥ or even 5♦ could be the right spot. Let's see what partner rebids.
David explains why he prefers his choice to the alternative.
BIRD: 2NT. I am not worth 3NT opposite a 2♥ overcall. Nor does 3♦ (probably hearing 3♥ opposite) seem likely to help.
A considerable number disagree…
HUNG: 3♦. Natural and forcing for one round. No problem yet.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♦. Natural. I prefer this to either 2NT or 3NT.
RONDON: 3♦. I expect this to be forcing. I don't want to just bid 3NT.
COHEN: 3♦. This should be forcing. I can see no reason to blast to 3NT or 4♥.
SILVER: 3♦. Pass would be craven, so I'll just bid where I live, and await partner's next bid. I am planning to pass 3♥ with sadness and 3NT with joy.
We have another very accurate prediction from a panel member…
DE WIJS: 3♦. 3NT is the most likely contract, but bidding 3♦ will be good if partner has a diamond fit and a black singleton.
There were a few who liked their hand too much for an invitation
BERGEN: 3NT. No guarantees, but I love to play "2 against 1."
LIEN: 3NT.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. I play that overcalls can't be made with a very bad hand. 3♥ would probably have been constructive with a stronger hand. I pretty much need only a few cards from partner to make game, either solid hearts or a diamond filler and side points.
And just one lone wolf who didn’t like it enough…
SUNDELIN: Pass.
Only the passers and the 3NT bidders will not get to a making game. The 2NT bidders will be surprised when partner continues with 3♦. The 3♦ bidders will catch a raise to game, and partner will put down x/AKQxxx/10xxx/Kx. Both 4♥ and 5♦ are comfortable makes with the diamonds breaking 2-1. At the table in the Australian NOT final, West jumped to 3NT and the defenders took the first six tricks on a spade lead.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
2NT |
10 |
10 |
42 |
|
2♠ |
10 |
5 |
6 |
|
Dbl |
7 |
6 |
14 |
|
3NT |
6 |
2 |
18 |
|
3♥ |
6 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♦ |
4 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
12 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.40
Another high-scoring hand for the competitors. No action managed to quite get a majority from the panel, but when you combine the votes for 2NT and 2♠, which are effectively the same thing, they have a comfortable majority. Although 2♠ received fewer votes than 2NT, I awarded them both the top mark, as their meaning is the same and the 2♠ bidders also probably won the debate. 3♥ attempts to achieve the same thing as 2♠, ie no-trumps played from partner’s side to protect the heart holding, but has the disadvantage of committing you to game. Double seems to risk conceding a big minus score when it really says much the same as 2♠/2NT.
WANG: 2NT. Natural and invitational.
BROCK: 2NT. Again, naturalish.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2NT. Vulnerable against not, I prefer to try for a game than for a penalty.
SUNDELIN: 2NT.
COHEN: 2NT. Not enough for 3NT opposite only a balancing action.
SHENKIN: 2NT. I give partner some leeway. Also, a bad diamond break is possible.
WILLIAMS: 2NT. This roughly shows my point count and shape, and 3NT might well punish partner for competing with a good suit and not much outside.
HUNG: 2NT. Partner should raise with ♦KQxxxx and a side ace, and bail out with ♦KQxxxx and a side queen or two.
SILVER: 2NT. In the face of East's simple balance, and with only 13 points (albeit five controls), an invitational 2NT does ample justice to my hand. This leaves me well placed to pass a rebid of 3♦ should partner wish to get out short of game.
BIRD: 2NT. As on the previous problem, 2NT seems right. 3NT would be optimistic facing a protective overcall. 2♠ seems a waste of time. How would that help partner?
Well, David, pay attention and the experts will explain 😊
BERGEN: 2♠. I am hoping to get to 3NT from partner's side. But, if he bids 3♦, I will risk an overbid of 3NT.
RONDON: 2♠. I hope partner can bid NT, as hearts may be better covered from his side.
MARSTON: 2♠. Showing spade values and bringing partner into the discussion.
The maestro explains in detail.
ZIA: 2♠. I’d like to get to no-trumps, but played from partner’s side of the table in case he holds something like ♥J-x-x or ♥Q-x.
Only Jill is using 2♠ simply to show a good diamond raise.
MEYERS: 2♠. A cue for diamonds. If partner signs off in 3♦, I will pass. If she makes a noise, I will presumably bid 3NT. I don't have enough quick tricks to jump to 3NT – why should partner have any more than KQJxx and an ace for her balancing bid?
The next group set out to achieve the same objective, but their choice seems particularly dangerous to me.
BRINK: Dbl. Showing a good hand without a good bid. What's the problem?
For good bids, see above, Sjoert.
DE WIJS: Dbl. Again, 3NT will often be right. Let’s try to get partner to bid this. He shouldn’t worry about spades on this auction.
LIEN: Dbl. This shows a penalty pass of spades with tolerance to defend hearts.
COPE: Dbl. I assume partner and I are on the same wavelength, and all doubles are for takeout unless previously discussed. This seems the best way to show a decent hand (partner may even infer spade values from my earlier Pass).
Double surely shows spades. However, is it clear exactly how many hearts partner needs to defend?
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
HULT: Dbl.
Andrew and Sophia simply do what they do best, bid game.
ROBSON: 3NT. It’s 2NT or 3NT isn’t it? Vulnerable at Teams, pinheading (playing for 120 in 2NT) just doesn’t cut it.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. Were the vulnerability reversed, I wouldn't mind doubling. On the other hand, diamonds might not be splitting in game but, if partner doesn't have a solid diamond suit, he has to have points elsewhere. KQJxxx and Ax of clubs and it's lay down.
On this deal from the Australian Mixed Teams playoffs, one West passed and the other bid 3NT. Predictably, the panel went for something in between those two extremes. Partner had Jxx/x/KQJxxx/AQx so 3NT was an easy +600 whilst the other West conceded -140, so doubling runs the risk of conceding -570 (although partner should not pass the double with that hand).
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
3♠ |
10 |
8 |
5 |
|
4♠ |
9 |
1 |
2 |
|
5♦ |
9 |
5 |
14 |
|
3♥ |
8 |
2 |
5 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
1 |
1 |
|
2♥ |
6 |
4 |
29 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
2 |
18 |
|
6♦ |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.06
This may look like the most divided panel this month, with seven different options chosen, but they essentially fall into two camps – raise diamonds immediately (3♠/4♠/5♦) so 14 panelists, or get hearts into the auction (Dbl/2♥/3♥/4♥) only 9 panel members. Two of those actions (3♥/4♥) are fit-jumps, so also show the diamonds, so those panelists almost have one foot in each camp. This was the toughest hand for competitors this month, with the largest faction (over a quarter) choosing 2♥ (6/10) and only 1-in-20 picking up top marks.
HULT: 3♠. Let’s play in diamonds.
BROCK: 3♠. Splinter. With so many diamonds I’m going to give up on a heart fit.
MEYERS: 3♠. Showing a shortage. As a passed hand, 2♥ would not be forcing. 4♦ is appealing, but I don't want to bypass 3NT if that is a possibility, and of course I want to pinpoint my shortness.
Sjoert really has an opinion on this one…
BRINK: 3♠. Show your hand!! Bidding hearts is mistake. Just show a splinter...please do. I know the world isn't ready, but it is so much better than showing five hearts.
SHENKIN: 3♠.
COPE: 3♠. One gets the feeling that if I take a lesser action, there may be more spade bidding on my left. Whilst it would be nice to get hearts into the picture, it seems better to get the spade shortage and diamond support across, so that partner will be better placed.
WILLIAMS: 3♠. At matchpoints, you'd usually want to get your hearts in, maybe with a 3♥ fit jump to show the diamonds too. As it looks like they have the spades, there could also be merit in a jump to 5♦ (or maybe even 6♦?) to make the opponents guess at a higher level. But, with six-card diamond support and a spade void, I prefer a 3♠ splinter (or even 4♠), taking space from North too.
BIRD: 3♠. Yes, yes, it is matchpoints and we have five hearts. A big spade bid may be coming from North, though, so it's my duty to show the nature of my diamond support. (I feel the same when 1♦ is opened and responder has six-card diamond support and Qxxx in a major. I wince when players respond 1♥ or 1♠.)
And going just that little bit further… my only question is does this show a void or is it Exclusion?
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♠. Probably if I bid something different, North is going to bid 3♠ or 4♠, so I commit to game and show my shortage just in case.
The next group settle for pure pre-emption…
HUNG: 5♦. Sacrificing science in order to give the opponents the last guess.
RONDON: 5♦. I see no reason to make their life easy by showing hearts.
MARSTON: 5♦. No point worrying about a heart fit.
DE WIJS: 5♦. Let’s hope the opponents also don’t know what to do, and my plan of giving them the last guess works.
SUNDELIN: 5♦. As "weak" is very undefined
The rest decide to show their hearts in some way. I expected this to be the most popular choice…
BERGEN: 3♥. As a passed hand, this MUST MUST MUST be a fit bid.
SILVER: 3♥. Hopefully, we are playing fit-showing jumps, so that partner will have some idea what to do over 5♠, should the villains go there. (Of course, I have no intention of selling out when my opponents inevitably bid 4♠.) If we are not, I would bid a simple 5♦, and worry about the future when it arrives.
Or, perhaps even this…
S. BALDYSZ: 4♥. I would have opened playing Polish Club (2♥ showing 5♥ with a five-card minor). I wouldn't mind having a bid in my natural system that shows hearts and a fit here. Maybe 4♥, as I didn't open 2♥/3♥, a jump to 4♥ clearly cannot show just hearts. Then again, opposite xxxx/Ax/KQxx/Axx, I would want to be in slam. Indeed, on a heart split a grand will make. It's also likely that North will support spades after my bid. I could also disregard the hearts and steer towards diamonds, an easy choice at IMPs. I'm hoping my bid is showing hearts and a diamond fit.
As a passed hand, partner will surely expect something like this for 4♥.
Although they plan on bidding them later, the rest choose to say nothing about diamonds at this point…
ZIA: Dbl. I’ll follow a slow route to lots of double. The alternative is a quick 6♦, looking to induce a save by LHO. The problem is that I am not sure if I’m the one who might be saving later!
ROBSON: Dbl. Obviously, we’ll be bidding lots in support later, but we may as well learn more so we can judge. We may even play hearts, for which they pay more (than diamonds) and it is matchpoints.
COHEN: 2♥. For now. My hands (or mouse) are already on 5♦ for the next round.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♥.
LIEN: 2♥.
WANG: 2♥. If the opponents bid 4♠, I will bid 5♦, but I want to keep hearts in the picture at matchpoints.
At the table, West just bid 5♦. Partner had Axx/Qxx/KQxx/AKx and there were two heart losers in both 4♥/5♥ and 5♦, so you wanted to play in hearts at MPs. I remain unpersuaded, so I am still in the 3♥/4♥ fit-showing camp.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
Pass |
10 |
13 |
17 |
|
3NT |
7 |
8 |
48 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
1 |
13 |
|
4NT |
5 |
1 |
5 |
|
4♥ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.06
You can agree to play a double here as takeout or penalties, but you do need to have an agreement about which it would be. Do you know how your regular partner would interpret Double and Pass? Here, you were told that double would be for penalties. The panel were split between two choices, Pass (effectively a takeout double) and 3NT, with half of the competition entrants preferring the latter of those option. Let’s start with the panelists who agreed with the competitors…
COHEN: 3NT. I doubt I'll be down more than one.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. I prefer Polish Club here. If partner has the ♠J, I should be in 3NT. Some hands we might make slam but, hopefully, partner will bid on with those. On some hands, 3NT will be the only makeable contract. Would 2♥ over 2♣ have been a double negative here? I've heard before of such an approach.
No. In the RB system, 2♥ would be a natural positive.
SILVER: 3NT. Bid and pray we are in our best spot, and can take between 9 and 11 tricks. If anyone has a better idea of what to do, I am more than willing to listen!
HUNG: 3NT. Let's change our agreement on double after this hand.
Why? This seems more efficient that double for takeout, as you can choose to make a takeout pass and, if partner doubles to show no great interest, you can then elect to either pass or to bid 3NT. If double is for takeout, the weak hand has to make the decision, probably without a heart stopper.
C. BALDYSZ-LIEN-SUNDELIN: 3NT.
SHENKIN: 3NT. Ultra Conservative. It is likely but not guaranteed that the ♥A is right. If I pass, then I would bid 3NT over double by partner, so I might as well bid it now. A new suit by partner may lead to tenuous slam which could, of course, be the winning action.
Only Jill was willing to bid more.
MEYERS: 4NT. I think this is the toughest problem this month. Lots could be right. Pass would be forcing, but that is only helpful if partner has a long suit to bid. 3NT is tempting but, if there were no 3♥ bid on my right, I would have bid 4NT to show my HCP strength, so I am just going to bite the bullet and bid 4NT anyway.
Whilst Simon was alone in choosing to defend at this point.
HULT: Dbl.
The rest all chose to start with a Pass.
MARSTON: Pass. An easy one at last 😊
WANG: Pass. If double is penalty, I think pass is take out.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. Forcing pass. I’ll listen to my partner.
WILLIAMS: Pass: Tell me more, partner please!
RONDON: Pass. This is obviously forcing. Let's hear from partner.
COPE: Pass. If double is penalties, then Pass is for takeout, and I do not think we will get enough from 3♥-Doubled to compensate for a vulnerable game.
ROBSON: Pass. It’s our cheapest call after all (even cheaper than double, as partner can double after our pass).
The passers seem to be winning the debate and Simon sum up why this is the best option.
DE WIJS: Pass. Pass and pull to 3NT should show that I have an alternative. Unsure whether that is shape related (four spades) or strength related (too strong). Here I have both.
Of similar mind…
BIRD: Pass. For me, this is so much better than 3NT. If partner has a bust, he will keep the auction alive with a double, and I can bid 3NT then. If instead partner introduces a suit... we are off to the races!
BROCK: Pass. Isn’t this like a take-out double. Presumably, partner can double to get me to bid 3NT with a stopper.
ZIA: Pass. Partner is meant to Double with a balanced hand. If he bids 4m I will raise to…
BERGEN: Pass. Obviously forcing. With a balanced hand, partner will now usually double. As always, I would be MUCH MUCH MUCH happier if we were sensibly playing that a 2♦ response was game forcing.
And, proving that you can please all of the people only some of the time…
BRINK: Pass. Although I would play Double for take-out, so that would be my choice, I guess passing is the same thing - please bid something partner. The problem itself I don't like, as K-x is the worst holding on which to bid NT (no control of the hand as you have to win first trick). So, please, next time, I hope for a better problem 😊.
I give the man a 27-count and he doesn’t like his hand! He obviously hasn’t played enough rubber bridge.
Pass seems to be the most efficient option, as it gives partner the chance to bid spades before you commit to 3NT. At the table, partner would have doubled with xxx/xxx/xxxx/J9x, and you would then have to decide between defending and bidding 3NT. On the layout, spades were 3-3 and North held the singleton ♥A, so defending 3♥-Doubled gets +300 and 3NT would makes ten or eleven tricks for +630/660.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
1NT |
10 |
16 |
42 |
|
2♦ |
6 |
3 |
26 |
|
1♠ |
6 |
2 |
9 |
|
2♥ |
5 |
1 |
7 |
|
2♠ |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♦ |
3 |
0 |
8 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.99
I thought this was by far the most difficult of this month’s problems, but the panel apparently didn’t find it so. Although five of the six possibilities attracted a modicum of support from panel members, there was a perhaps surprisingly huge majority, and almost half of the competition entrants agreed with them.
COHEN: 1NT. Of all the lies, I think this one is the best.
ZIA: 1NT. Blockage doesn’t always mean a bad stomach!
MEYERS: 1NT. Everything about 1NT is right except that I don't have much of a heart stopper. I just cannot bring myself to bid 2♦, though, and partner could have some kind of heart card or even J-10.
BROCK: 1NT. Let’s hope the heart layout is favourable. At least 1NT shows my values.
BERGEN: 1NT. When in doubt, I make the cheapest plausible bid.
SUNDELIN: 1NT. Reluctantly, but I think a diamond bid might mislead partner more.
HULT-LIEN-C. BALDYSZ: 1NT.
ROBSON: 1NT. Second choice 1♠, but I plan to back in with 2♠ over 2♥ by North.
WANG: 1NT. I don't mind having no heart stopper.
HUNG: 1NT. Everything else looks worse. Partner may have a heart card, or the hearts might be blocked, or even if they take five heart tricks, we should have enough values outside to take seven tricks after that.
Yes, but the problem is that partner will have contracted for nine tricks.
BIRD: 1NT. All actions are flawed. 2♦ is inadequate, and 3♦ may end the auction in a horrible 4-3 fit. 1NT shows my shape and values OK. It may be the best spot, despite our lack of a heart stopper.
SILVER: 1NT. Accurately describing both my high card values, and my high hopes of a heart stopper in the face of South's pass.
S. BALDYSZ: 1NT. Yuck. I'd like to put one of my hearts into the spade suit. I don't like bidding 2♦ on 9xxx – it’s not very lead-directing. Partner could have 4-1-3-5 shape and already I'm ruffing hearts with diamond honors. If partner bids 2♥ on the second round as a stronger hand, I can bid 2♠. My alternative would have been bidding 2♠ directly, to show where my points are.
Sjoert offers an opinion on most of the alternatives.
BRINK: 1NT. Great problem... I love every part of it. The options are 1♠ (real bridge players), 1NT (losers), 2♦ (scared players), 2♥ (heroes) and 3♦ (kill me when I bid this!) They are all bad bids, but one of them is better than the others. My heart is for 1♠, but my brain says 1NT is the best bid. I will be curious see what others do on this hand. My guess that De Wijs will bid 3♦...
That was not as far off as many of the predictions we hear from panelists.
Let’s see what the various mavericks have to say…
RONDON: 1♠. I can't jump in this diamond suit. If the bidding is not over, I'll be better positioned.
SHENKIN: 1♠.
Taking the low road are…
DE WIJS: 2♦. Lots of options. Let’s go low and hope to catch up. 1NT is possible. 1♠ or 3♦ feel wrong.
WILLIAMS: 2♦. We don't know how strong partner is, and North could have a black suit ace sitting over one of the kings, devaluing my hand. Let partner clarify his strength/shape and see if it's a part-score or game. If it’s a game hand, we have the space to investigate 3NT along the way too. 2♦ is unlikely to end the auction, and we can always be more enthusiastic later if appropriate, after consulting partner!
It sounds like Paul’s alternative was some number of spades.
MARSTON: 2♦. I am over playing 3-3 fits.
Whilst Miguel and Tim both take a more optimistic approach.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♥. Vulnerable, I prefer a 2♥ cue-bid to try for game.
COPE: 2♠. I think I have been a solid, upright citizen for the first seven hands - now I am entitled to my first flutter of the set, and it is a question of the lesser lie. 2♦ does not do justice to our values, and 3♦ suggests a better suit. NT should require a heart stopper, and that leaves us with a punt of bidding spades. Our values are right for 2♠. Yes, we happen to be a spade short, but spades remains the most likely game. If the punt goes wrong, I will apologise for mis-sorting my cards
On this deal from an Open Teams final in India, partner held Axxx/x/AKJ10x/Axx, so 5♦ was easy and even slam only needed a winning trump guess. North had AKQ10xx in hearts, so he knew what to lead after partner had raised your 1NT to 3NT. The more I think about this hand, the more I am drawn to either 2♠ or 3♦ (even though either may lead to playing a poor 4-3 fit opposite a minimum double).
Congratulations to David Bird, who tops this month’s panel with a perfect 80/80. Completing the podium are Sjoert Brink (76/80) and Wenfei Wang (75/80). They are closely followed by a slew of panelists on 74/80 and 73/80, including one of our guests, Dave Williams. Well done to him.
After a tough month in January, when only four panelists scored in the 70s, only a handful failed to crack that mark this month. I’ll try to make the problems more difficult next month 😊
Good luck to everyone heading for the Spring Nationals in Louisville in a couple of weeks. I look forward to reporting next month that the major events were won by members of our esteemed panel.
Thanks to all members of our panel, who give their time to entertain and educate our readers. We’ll see you all again next month.
|
David BIRD |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
2NT |
3♠ |
Pass |
1NT |
80 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
5♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
Pass |
1NT |
76 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
5♦ |
4♣ |
4NT |
2NT |
2NT |
2♥ |
Pass |
1NT |
75 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
3NT |
2♠ |
3♥ |
Pass |
1NT |
74 |
|
Sally BROCK |
5♦ |
3NT |
3NT |
2NT |
2NT |
3♠ |
Pass |
1NT |
74 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3♥ |
2NT |
2♠ |
Dbl |
Pass |
1NT |
74 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
5♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
2♠ |
5♦ |
Pass |
2♦ |
74 |
|
Andy HUNG |
5♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
2NT |
5♦ |
3NT |
1NT |
73 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
6♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
2♠ |
3♠ |
4NT |
1NT |
73 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
3♦ |
2♠ |
5♦ |
Pass |
1♠ |
73 |
|
Dave WILLIAMS |
6♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
2NT |
3♠ |
Pass |
2♦ |
73 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
3♦ |
2NT |
4♠ |
Pass |
2♥ |
72 |
|
Tim COPE |
5♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
Pass |
2♠ |
71 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
6♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
2NT |
3♠ |
3NT |
1♠ |
71 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
Dbl |
2♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
70 |
|
Joey SILVER |
6♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
2NT |
3♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
70 |
|
Simon HULT |
6♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
Dbl |
1NT |
69 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
6♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
3NT |
Dbl |
Pass |
1NT |
68 |
|
P.O. SUNDELIN |
5♦ |
4♣ |
5♦ |
Pass |
2NT |
5♦ |
3NT |
1NT |
68 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
5NT |
4♣ |
4NT |
3♦ |
Dbl |
5♦ |
Pass |
2♦ |
66 |
|
Larry COHEN |
5♦ |
Dbl |
3NT |
3♦ |
2NT |
2♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
65 |
|
Owen LIEN |
6♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
3NT |
Dbl |
2♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
64 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
5NT |
4♣ |
3♥ |
3NT |
3NT |
4♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
5♦ |
4♣ |
3NT |
2NT |
2NT/2♠ |
3♠ |
Pass |
1NT |
|
|
HAND 1: |
5♦ 10 |
6♦ 8 |
5NT/6♣ 7 |
5♥ 6 |
6♠ 5 |
5♠ 4 |
Dbl 2 |
|
HAND 2: |
4♣ 10 |
Dbl/3NT 4 |
4♠/5♣ 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
3NT 10 |
3♥/4NT/5♦ 9 |
3♠/4♣ 5 |
4♦ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 4: |
2NT 10 |
3♦ 8 |
3NT 6 |
3♥ 5 |
4♥ 4 |
Pass 3 |
|
|
HAND 5: |
2NT/2♠ 10 |
Dbl 7 |
3♥/3NT 6 |
3♦ 4 |
Pass 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
3♠ 10 |
4♠/5♦ 9 |
3♥/4♥ 8 |
2♥ 6 |
Dbl 5 |
6♦ 2 |
|
|
HAND 7: |
Pass 10 |
3NT 7 |
Dbl/4NT 5 |
4♥ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
1NT 10 |
1♠/2♦ 6 |
2♥/2♠ 5 |
3♦ 3 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
7.75 |
|
HAND 2: |
8.62 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.75 |
|
HAND 4: |
6.60 |
|
HAND 5: |
7.40 |
|
HAND 6: |
5.06 |
|
HAND 7: |
6.06 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.99 |
