Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the opening set of the 2024 edition of the world’s most popular bidding competition, which comes to you from our new home at RealBridge.
Our guest panelist this month is Fabio Lo Presti from Bergamo, Italy, who was the solo winner of the November competition. Fabio’s international career began as a member of the winning Italian Schools team at the 1998 European Youth Championships. He earned two more gold medals as a junior, winning the 2002 European Junior Teams and the 2003 World Junior Teams titles. He also collected a bronze medal at the 2001 World Junior Pairs, and silver medals at both the 2005 European Junior Teams and the 2006 World Junior Teams. Fabio has worked as a VuGraph operator at most World Championships since 2013.
Thanks for Hand 7 this month, which comes from regular panelist Marty Bergen. 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.
I would like to say a special thank you to Sjoert Brink this month. I usually designate the funniest or most entertaining answer as “Comment of the Month”, but he wins this month for his overall contribution. Almost all of his answers made me laugh, made me think, or both. Sjoert, you are a breath of fresh air, and we really miss your sense of humor and your special brand of ‘completely crazy’ whenever you miss a month.
The panel produces a clear majority choice on four of this month’s hands, but is seriously divided on a couple. With multiple actions scoring well on a number of hands, I thought this had the potential to be a high-scoring set. However, judging from the moderate scores on the panel (only four scores in the 70s), I suspect that it will turn out to be one of the more difficult sets.
The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on three hands and is the second-highest scoring option on three others. Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores 59/80. There are only two hands on which the average score is below 5/10, and the overall average score on this set is 44.59. I’m sure there is plenty to be learned from the views of our expert panel, so let’s get to it…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
5♦ |
10 |
12 |
44 |
|
7♣ |
7 |
1 |
8 |
|
6♦ |
7 |
1 |
1 |
|
6♠ |
6 |
3 |
15 |
|
6♣ |
6 |
1 |
11 |
|
7♠ |
5 |
3 |
5 |
|
5♠ |
2 |
0 |
12 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.20
How adventurous are you feeling? A majority of panelists and nearly half of competitors identify the destination for top marks, but this is otherwise a difficult hand to mark, so I took account of the panelists’ explanations when allocating marks to the alternatives.
BERGEN: 5♦. I must try for seven.
WANG: 5♦. Let’s see if partner can cue-bid hearts.
SHENKIN: 5♦. Waiting for 5♥ from partner.
LO PRESTI: 5♦. Grand slam try. I'm looking for the ♥A to bid 7♣.
ZIA: 5♦. I’ll bid seven if he bids 5♥.
ROBSON: 5♦. I hope to hear a 5♥ control bid, in which case we can go all the way.
MARSTON: 5♦. If this fetches 5♥, I am going for the lot.
DE WIJS: 5♦. You have to weigh the possibility of telling the opponents the right lead and getting to seven. I will cue-bid and hope to reach 7♠.
BIRD: 5♦. I am happy to play in clubs. It is possible that partner has a wildly distributional hand missing the ♥A, so I am not willing to leap to a grand slam at this stage.
Andy makes a key point perhaps…
HUNG: 5♦. I hope partner's 5♥ cue-bid will show first round control. (As he will assume that we are cue-bidding with clubs as trumps and 5♦ commits us to slam, he should not cue-bid a second-round control at this level). I’ll bid 7♠ if he cue-bids in hearts.
This makes sense and I think most of those who bid 5♦ did so on the assumption that a 5♥ cue-bid by partner will show the ace. However, would you not want him to cue-bid the king if you had something like AKxxx/AQJx/--/AQxx?
Tim suggests another small added benefit.
COPE: 5♦. At IMPS, we really do not care which slam we bid as long as it makes. We hope that partner can bid 5♥, but the added benefit is that if he bids 5♠ (cue-bidding his void), we can pass and stop out of slam altogether opposite something like ---/Jxxx/Axx/QJxxxx.
BALDYSZ: 5♦. It is hard to imagine a hand where partner does not have at least one heart honor, as he didn't bid 3NT nor pass the double of 3♦, which he surely would with a good diamond holding. I want to look for slam/grand slam.
Erik chooses another way to route to the grand if partner has the right ace.
SAELENSMINDE: 6♦. Exclusion RKCB.
The rest all pick a contract, with varying degrees of conviction.
SUNDELIN: 6♣. If I bid 7♣, they will know I have no diamond loser and the opening leader will look elsewhere. I do not know any way to find out about ♥A.
VILLAS-BOAS: 6♠. The technical bid is 5♦, but I think 6♠ will produce better results most of the time.
BROCK: 6♠. I don’t know how to find out about heart control. With the weak 2♦ opener on my left, he is not as likely to find the killing heart lead as my RHO is.
MEYERS: 6♠. My initial instinct was to bid 5♦, but I think that screams for a heart lead. Partner must have more than QJTxxx of clubs for his jump and, if he has the king or ace of hearts, that would be great. If it is the ♦A and I get a diamond lead, that would be even better. Or, perhaps the 2♦ bidder on lead will have a stiff club and try to get a ruff.
Sjoert offers a clear explanation as to why 7♣ is better than 7♠.
BRINK: 7♣. Obviously, I can be missing the ♥A. Then the question is, “Who is more likely to have it?” That is unclear, but bidding 7♠ surely guarantees a heart lead, whereas South might have to guess a heart or a spade lead against 7♣. Anyway, I expect 2024 will be a lucky year, so it is likely I will make it on a singleton spade lead.
LEVINS: 7♠. This could be a 5-or-7 hand, in which case I want to be in the grand slam. I might not make this bid against Fantoni, but I prefer to gamble with the weak hand on lead rather than cue-bidding 5♦, over which partner might cue-bid the ♥K anyway. As long as there are no guarantees, I might as well go for it.
Does it not seem likely that partner will have one of the high hearts for his jump?
RONDON: 7♠. I'm going for all the marbles. I hope partner holds the ♥A for his bid but, if not, I may well get a routine diamond lead enabling me to throw my losing hearts on the clubs.
COHEN: 7♠. I am so thankful partner didn't pass my double of 3♦. Anyway, there is no way to find out about the ♥A, so I'll just blast away and might make it off the ♥A if they don't lead one.
Partner had x/Axx/Axx/Q10xxxx, so 7♣ and 7♠ are both excellent. At the table, West bid 5♠ and, when his partner bid 6♦, still had no way to bid the grand with certainty. Everyone except those who just bid 6♣ or 6♠ will clearly get to a grand on this layout. Is partner supposed to raise to the grand with two aces? Probably only in the postmortem.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
2♠ |
10 |
10 |
12 |
|
2♦ |
9 |
2 |
11 |
|
4NT |
8 |
7 |
48 |
|
3♥ |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
6♥ |
4 |
0 |
10 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
7♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.64
Technically not quite a majority from the panel, but the vote for creating a force and going slowly is split between 2♠ and 2♦, and 12/21 adopt that approach. The minority faction simply settles for Blackwood, which also attracted close to half of competition entrants. However, are we sure that 4NT is Blackwood? Well over two-thirds of competitors score reasonably well on this deal. Let’s hear the debate.
SHENKIN: 2♠. I start by setting up a force, then I will bid hearts and Old Black.
WANG: 2♠. I start by setting up a game force. I’ll then hope to set hearts and ask for key cards.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. Forcing to game. Let’s take things slowly.
ROBSON: 2♠. Obviously, a good hand for strong jump shifts. We could fabricate a 4♦ splinter, but I hate auctions where both partners think a different suit is trumps (despite my answer on the first hand).
SAELENSMINDE: 2♠.
BALDYSZ: 2♠. In Polish Club, this would be a no-brainer, as 2♦ would show any game force. I am pretty much looking for A-A-K to end up in 7NT. I just start by creating a force.
LO PRESTI: 2♠. Game-forcing and theoretically natural, but it’s better to bid a suit that we know partner cannot raise.
MARSTON: 2♠. Gotta show my two-suiter 😊. The plan is to avoid key card for clubs.
Simon and P.O. mention a couple of the alternatives.
DE WIJS: 2♠. I like the treatment where you can bid 3♥ forcing, but my guess is we cannot do that in this system. So, I'm forcing to game first and will set hearts later.
SUNDELIN: 2♠. I do not think 3♥ is forcing, and a jump to 4NT is natural. I try, optimistically, to create a force and then to find a suit to agree so that I can use a key-card ask, hoping for three if it is clubs.
With similar intentions, a couple preferred to set up the force with the cheapest available bid.
ZIA: 2♦. Let’s set up a force. I’ll then bid hearts followed by key-card.
LEVINS: 2♦. I will bid a forcing 3♥ next. I’ll either have to cue-bid with 4♦ over 3NT or RKC if partner bids hearts at any time. If partner shows two aces, I will certainly bid 7♥ and feel like it won't be worse than a finesse.
In traditional methods, 3♥ would not be forcing. However, playing weak jump shifts, it is certainly possible to agree that 3♥ is forcing in this situation. I would think that is a matter for partnership agreement, and I certainly wouldn’t risk it in an unfamiliar partnership.
BROCK: 3♥. If an initial jump to 2♥ is weak (as presumably it is, or I would have bid 2♥ strong), then 2♥ here should be invitational and 3♥ forcing.
BRINK: 3♥. I wonder why I didn't start with 4NT (real ace asking). Now, do I prefer to ask for real aces or to set hearts and ask for aces after. With my partner, I can bid 3♥ forcing, and I do think everyone should agree to make a jump forcing after partner has shown a one-suited hand. So, my vote is 3♥ now, but deep inside I was hoping for the bidding problem earlier this hand where I could bid 4NT directly, without showing my heart suit.
The rest went for the bludgeon, but is it clear that 4NT means what they want it to mean? I confess that I agree with P.O. above, that it should be natural here. There are lots of ways to bid Blackwood by agreeing a suit first, but what do you do with a no-trump hand that is too strong for 3NT but not strong enough for 6NT?
BIRD: 4NT. Some play that 3♥ is forcing now. They have never managed to persuade me on this idea, nor the learned Director of this panel.
Some think 4NT is key-card for clubs…
COPE: 4NT. I would prefer to bid 4♣ as Minorwood but, as this is not part of the system, I will opt for a simple Keycard bid in clubs and will revert to hearts at the appropriate level depending on partner's response.
HUNG: 4NT. Ideally, I'd like to bid a forcing 3♥ to set the suit. Failing that, an artificial game-forcing 2♦ bid would still make it hard to set hearts as trumps, so perhaps the simple approach would be to ask for key-cards in clubs. If partner shows three, we can bid the grand slam but, if he shows only two, we have to guess as it could be ♦A and ♣K. Where is ordinary Blackwood straight ace ask when you need it?
RONDON: 4NT: I hope partner has two key cards so that I can jump to 6♥, and I'll make it to seven if he has three. If he has only one and it is the ♣K, we're in trouble... but I'll still bid six and hope for a working club finesse.
Larry raises the questions to which regular partnerships need to know the answers…<
COHEN: 4NT. The only question is what kind of Blackwood this is. Am I finding out about aces or keycards in clubs? Opposite two aces, I'm, bidding 7♥, because partner could have either a minor-suit king or Qxx in spades or, at worst, we'll need a finesse. I wonder if 4NT the first time (plain-old ace-asking) was available.
Jill highlights why regular partnerships need to have agreements about these situations.
MEYERS: 4NT. I would bid 4♣, 4♦ or 4NT, whichever is key card for clubs, and then I will bid the appropriate number of hearts.
Marty sums up the problem…
BERGEN: 4NT. I strongly OBJECT to the 1♥ response. 4NT (regular Blackwood) was beyond obvious. Even my beginner students would get this right. If I wanted to bid RKC for clubs, I'd raise clubs first.
But you don't like me to abstain. So, after the absurd 1♥, now what? After 2♣, if using Kickback, if I wanted to ask for club keycards, I'd bid 4♦. After some suit bids at three-level, I believe in some quantitative jumps to 4NT, but that's never needed at the two-level. So once again, I should be able to logically bid the old-fashioned Blackwood that this hand was screaming for the second that partner opened.
If you won't allow me either of those obvious actions, I am left with this. Many years ago, I invented third-suit game forcing. And I have always believed in preferring economical bids to less-economical ones. So, if forced to foolishly twice not bid 4NT, I'd bid 2♦ here, which is a game force, saying nothing about diamonds. (I would reserve 2♠ for a game-force with four spades.) If you use this answer, I'll probably receive a zero My guess is that the panelists who can't bid a sensible 4NT Blackwood, will choose 2♠.
A couple of predictions from Marty – one wrong as his 4NT got 8/10 rather than zero, and one right that the majority chose 2♠.
So, is 1♣-4NT simply ace-asking, is it RKCB for clubs, or is it natural? You can probably play it as either form of Blackwood but, what is most important, is that you know what your partner thinks it is: Another question for regular partnerships to discuss.
At the table, partner had xxx/--/KQxx/AKxxxx, so 6♥ was where you wanted to play, although 6NT at MPs.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
Dbl |
10 |
14 |
45 |
|
Pass |
6 |
4 |
16 |
|
1NT |
5 |
2 |
11 |
|
2♦ |
3 |
1 |
7 |
|
2♣ |
2 |
0 |
8 |
|
2NT |
1 |
0 |
11 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.49
Although there is no good solution to this problem, it still produced the panel’s biggest majority of the month, and almost half of competitors agreed. I set this problem to discover how many would be willing to risk a double despite shortage in the unbid major, how many would choose 1NT despite the lack of a stopper, how many would try their luck with one or both minors, and how many would be disciplined and pass with all positive actions clearly flawed. The answer is fairly resounding – a clear majority, very few, not many and only a handful.
SHENKIN: Dbl. Not perfect, but what else?
HUNG: Dbl. Not ideal, but other actions feel worse (especially Pass).
MARSTON: Dbl. This could work out badly, but so far so good.
BIRD: Dbl. I would be more worried if I had picked something else, such as Pass, 2♦ or 2♣. Certainly not 1NT!
Bobby and Jill sum up the problem perfectly.
LEVINS: Dbl. Yuk!
COHEN: Dbl. I have too much to pass, but I'm surely not overcalling 1NT with a heart stopper consisting of three to the nine.
COPE: Dbl. I cannot bring myself to pass with 18 points, nor can I bid NT without a heart stopper. We have to be prepared for partner to respond in spades, and that will be the more difficult problem as to what we then bid. I guess we will cross that river when the bid gets back to us.
BALDYSZ: Dbl. This is the worst possible heart holding... Hopefully, partner doesn't jump in a lot of spades, but 3NT could be an option. The only other bid I would consider is Pass.
BROCK: Dbl. I don’t like 1NT with no stopper. Pass always works out badly for me. So that leaves double and hope for the best.
BRINK: Dbl. I don't see any alternative. Sorry, no inspiration.
Simon offers a philosophical way to look at such situations.
DE WIJS: Dbl. Yes, future bidding might become awkward but my approach has always been to not worry about those problems, since something unexpected always happens.
A couple of Venice Cup winners reveal their plans if partner does bid 1♠.
MEYERS: Dbl. If partner bids spades, I will pass. I would not know which of my four-card suits to overcall in, and I don't want sit idly by and pass. 1NT is an option too, but I do not have a heart stopper and, if partner does have a heart stopper, I would rather she be declarer.
WANG: Dbl. If partner bids 1♠, I will bid 2♣.
Miguel doesn’t mind what partner does.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. Strong hand with bad shape. If my partner jumps in spades, I think that is not so bad.
A handful preferred to wait and see…
LO PRESTI: Pass. No heart stop, no spades, no suit and no bid...
SUNDELIN: Pass. I have a pessimistic view of what a double now might lead to.
ZIA: Pass. Let’s see. I’m sure it will be easier on the next round.
Perhaps… although, at the table, it probably would have gone 2♥-Pass-Pass, so you do not seem to be any better placed.
ROBSON: Pass. I may enter later - there normally is a "later". I'm not doubling without spades, or bidding 1NT without a stopper, and I strongly dislike the (very) unusual 2NT with only 4-4, as partner is sure to misjudge.
There were a couple of mavericks.
BERGEN: 1NT. I don't expect others to agree. And I'm not proud of my lesser-of-evils answer. But, on the two occasions I did this in real life, it worked out fine.
It would probably have been a winning action on this occasion too.
RONDON: 1NT: Perfect shape, right strength, only lacking the little detail of a heart stopper.
Erik is alone on this one.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♦.
Partner had xx/K/Kxxxx/Jxxxx, so you could make 4m. Strangely, the opponents were cold for 11 tricks in either major, but not enough values to bid game. The 1NT overcall chosen by West at the table made it impossible for them to get beyond 2♥ with KJxxx/109xx/x/xxx opposite Axxx/AQJxx/xxx/x. They probably buy it in a partscore if you pass too, but a double might encourage partner to compete high enough to win the auction.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
3♠ |
10 |
6 |
10 |
|
Dbl |
8 |
6 |
7 |
|
2♠ |
6 |
4 |
68 |
|
Pass |
6 |
3 |
5 |
|
4♠ |
5 |
2 |
8 |
|
2♦ |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.26
When I started playing many moons ago, double here showed 4+♠ and some values, because there was probably at least a 25% chance that 1♠ would be a psyche. However, it is at least 20 years since anyone psyched against me in this auction, and the way the laws are applied now has almost entirely stopped people doing it. The last time the panel was presented with this auction, there was a large majority who said that they played double for takeout. Are they consistent in that view now that you want to make a penalty double? Only a handful chose double, and some of those were not certain what it meant…
ZIA: Dbl. Does double show spades? If so, I double. If not, I bid 2♦.
That’s what we were hoping you would tell us, Z.
COHEN: Dbl. Whatever it means. I have the wrong hand for bidding notrump, as I don't want to see a diamond lead.
Some are sure…
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. Penalties.
LEVINS: Dbl. For penalties. This seems like a free way to start, as partner can still have anything.
MEYERS: Dbl. Showing spades and then, at my next opportunity, I will bid spades. (For me, a direct 2♠ bid would show long spades with a competitive hand only.)
If anyone needed further proof that Sjoert is completely bonkers, this answer provides it 😊
BRINK: Dbl. For me, this is for take-out. Bidding 4♠ would be my second choice, and actually I already like it more. I wish I had second thoughts more often and quicker, then I would be a better bridge player. So, I double, wishing I had bid 4♠.
Another faction opted to ‘wait and see’…
LO PRESTI: Pass. South’s 1♠ is probably a psyche. I'll see what happens and then bid on the next round.
SUNDELIN: Pass. As a double would/might be considered take-outish, I hope for a later chance to jump in spades. It is unclear what a spade jump now would show.
DE WIJS: Pass. Even if double is penalty in our system, I don't want to endorse that treatment by using it. I will double later probably.
The rest bid some number of spades. The question is, how many is right?
BROCK: 2♠. Natural for me.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♠. Natural.
COPE: 2♠. You can call me old fashioned, but this should be natural, showing 5+♠ and biddable values. Since the modern approach by the opponents is to ignore a takeout double, the 1♠ bid may well be based on a four-card suit (or even could be a psyche), so we must ensure that we are not talked out of a viable spade contract.
WANG: 2♠. A natural bid, normally five cards and not too bad.
We all seem to agree that 2♠ is natural, but is it enough on this hand?
SHENKIN: 3♠. This shows a better hand than 2♠.
Paul seems to sum up fairly accurately.
MARSTON: 3♠. It looks like righty is fiddling around with long diamonds, but it doesn’t matter. This hand is too good for 2♠ for a bit too soft to bid 4♠, ergo…
RONDON: 3♠: It's what I would have bid if RHO had passed. Why should his probable psyche change the evaluation of my hand?
HUNG: 3♠. Natural and invitational. Even if South’s 1♠ bid is genuine, we can easily handle a 4-1 split. I bid only 3♠ in case partner has a marginal 3-4-3-3 shape for his takeout double, when we don't want to commit to game. Some might play Double here as 'penalty', but this just gives the opponents room to exchange more information, so I just bid "where I live".
BERGEN: 3♠. Natural and invitational. I strongly believe that double here is takeout, and all spade bids are natural. I'm too strong for 2♠ but, even if I underbid, since the opponents have a huge diamond fit, 2♠ wouldn't buy it. I also like 3♠ as I am probably the only one who knows now about the huge N-S diamond fit. I predict that the best score will go to the 2♦ cue-bidders.
That makes Marty 1-for-3 in the prediction stakes. I expected some support for 2♦ but, curiously, not a single panelist chose that option.
BIRD: 3♠. Many decades ago, 1♠ was non-forcing and often used as a psyche. Double was then for penalties, showing four spades, and 2♠ was natural (with 5+♠). Now that 1♠ is forcing, it is dangerous to psyche and rarely seen. However, my singleton diamond suggests that South may be operating. 3♠ describes my hand well.
Andy and Sophia both goes for all the marbles.
ROBSON: 4♠. Dismissing South's baby psyche. Even if his 1♠ is genuine, 4♠ should still have good chances.
BALDYSZ: 4♠. I'd ideally bid three and a half spades but, opposite a lot of average 13-point doubles, I wouldn't mind being in game.
On this hand from the semi-final of the Open Teams at the Australian Spring Nationals, South has psyched. (He something like a 1-1-4-7 2-count.) Partner held A8xx/K109x/xxx/AK, so 4♠ can be beaten if North finds the unlikely ♥A lead (♥A, heart ruff, club ruff, ♠K) but has much more chance of going down if East is declarer with the singleton heart on lead. Partner probably has enough to bid over 2♠, so all the spade bidders get to game from the right side.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
4♦ |
10 |
7 |
21 |
|
5NT |
8 |
3 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
7 |
5 |
13 |
|
6NT |
7 |
4 |
11 |
|
4NT |
4 |
1 |
7 |
|
5♥ |
4 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
14 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.29
The second consecutive hand on which the panel came to no conclusion, so plenty of chances to score well here, and the largest group of competitors (albeit only just over 1-in-5) pick up top marks. Again, those who score poorly do so because they have undervalued their hand. The largest group on the panel start with a cue-bid, but there is considerable diversity in how they plan to continue.
ZIA: 4♦. My plan is to bid 6♥ next, offering partner a choice.
SHENKIN: 4♦. I intend to continue with 5♥ over 4♠ and I’ll raise 5♣ to slam.
RONDON: 4♦. A cue-bid to keep the bidding open and, hopefully, enable me to ask about key cards on the next round, especially if partner bids 4♥.
WANG: 4♦. Whichever major partner bids, I will ask for key cards. Maybe 6NT will be the final contract.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. I am too strong for 3NT, 4♥ or 4NT, so I’m left with 4♦. I am almost in at least six with this hand.
COPE: 4♦. Partner's double shows values with no clear place to play. So, I am on my way to slam, and the only question is which slam and how high. If, over my 4♦, partner bids 4♥, I can continue with RKCB. Over a 4♠ bid, I may have to ignore the grand slam and settle for 6NT.
Sjoert, as usual, has something interesting to contribute.
BRINK: 4♦. In general, my agreements are that if you jump to six it is a gamble, but making a cue-bid and then bidding 6♥ asks partner to think about bidding seven. So, here, I would like to show that I have a serious 6♥ bid, and the way to do that is to first cue-bid.
Nearly half the panel simply guessed which slam to bid.
BERGEN: 6♥. I'm not proud of this, but I don't want to bid 4♦ and end up as dummy. It is interesting as to what 4NT should mean here.
BALDYSZ: 6♥. We might be making seven, but six seems most likely and I want to right side the contract. I'm assuming partner's double is standard, suggesting both majors.
SAELENSMINDE: 6♥.
SUNDELIN: 6♥.
COHEN: 6♥. A practical guess. I can't see scientifically reaching a laydown grand. Consider two flat 11-counts... Opposite Axxx/KJxx/xx/QJx we have no play, but opposite AQxx/Kxxx/x/Qxxx we want to be there. It’s too difficult to find out.
BROCK: 6NT. I have no idea how to bid the hand scientifically.
MARSTON: 6NT. This should have play.
BIRD: 6NT. It would be easy to postpone the decision by bidding 4♦, but I don’t see how that will help.
MEYERS: 6NT. I am not saying we can't make seven, but I don't know how to set trump to key card and still be declarer protecting the ♦Q.
What about seeing if partner can help?
LEVINS: 5NT. I was going to settle for 6NT, but this must be better as partner will bid 6♥ if he has 4-4 in the majors (4432 or 4423). If he doesn't bid 6♥, then I will bid 6NT.
LO PRESTI: 5NT. Pick up a slam, although I will probably end up bidding 6NT.
DE WIJS: 5NT. I will do this and follow it up with 6♥. That should show something like this. With both majors I would always start with a diamond cue-bid. Should partner misunderstand and bid 6♠, I will bid 6NT and hope for the best. I could have bid 4♥ over double to show a strong hand with 5+♥, but I play that bid as non-forcing and my hand is too strong for that.
Only a couple were prepared to let partner out below slam.
HUNG: 4NT. Quantitative, inviting slam. Continuing with a 4♦ cue-bid or jumping to 5♥ risks making things confusing for partner. At least 4NT gets the "values" across.
ROBSON: 5♥. I tell partner the trump suit and strongly invite slam.
Partner had QJxx/Kxx/x/QJxxx so 6♥ is good but both 6♣ and 6NT are better. Stopping short of slam rates to lose IMPs.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
5♠ |
10 |
9 |
10 |
|
4NT |
8 |
3 |
5 |
|
4♥ |
7 |
5 |
5 |
|
6♠ |
6 |
3 |
8 |
|
4♠ |
3 |
1 |
60 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.01
This is the second of two poorly scoring hands this month, with the largest group of competitors (nearly two-thirds here) again settling for game when all but one member of the panel is looking for slam. The question for the panel was not whether to investigate, but how to do so. Let’s start with the largest faction.
WANG: 5♠. Natural slam invite.
ROBSON: 5♠. Invitational slam try in spades, quantitative.
SHENKIN: 5♠.
BRINK: 5♠. I am too strong for 4♠ but not strong enough for 6♠. So, I go in between...
BIRD: 5♠. One little bear bid 4♠, another bid 6♠, and the bear in Chandlers Ford...
Jill and Larry highlight the problem with one of the alternatives.
MEYERS: 5♠. I don't want to cue-bid and have partner bid spades, as the lead then goes through my ♥K.
COHEN: 5♠. This should be a general invitation, not asking for a heart control. I can't risk 4♥ and wrong-siding slam opposite, say, AQxx/xx/KQxx/AJx.
Paul raises a third possibility.
MARSTON: 5♠. Again, I would like to bid 4NT for aces, but I expect it would be for the minors in this auction.
Andy summarizes the dilemma…
HUNG: 5♠. This is a very difficult problem. 5♠ might seem like I'm fishing for a heart control (while we have one), but I would prefer to miss slam than to bid one missing two aces opposite something like Qxxx/x/KQxx/AJxx. I hope that partner will understand this as a general slam try and raise us with the right hand. Perhaps 4♥ planning to convert partner's 5-minor to 5♠ might get this message across but, if partner has four spades and bids 4♠, we've now wrong-sided the contract. Thinking about it again, maybe that is best... bid 4♥ and, if partner bids 4♠, raise to 5♠ asking for the same heart control. At least it still allows us to declare the spades if partner does not bid 4♠.
The next group is prepared to risk playing from the wrong side…
LO PRESTI: 4♥. A good 4♠ bid.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♥. Normally a good 4♠ bid.
LEVINS: 4♥. I'll start with 4♥, assuming that is at least a good 4♠ bid. I’ll continue with RKC over a 4♠ signoff.
BALDYSZ: 4♥. A number of contracts could be right - game with very bad splits, slam, even a grand.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. I cannot find a good bid for this hand, so 4♥. If my partner bids 4♠, I can try 6NT.
…Whilst a third group simply bid what they hope they can make.
ZIA: 6♠. The alternative is to bid 4♥ and then 5♠.
BROCK: 6♠. Again … no idea how to bid it scientifically. In my methods, I can bid 4♥ to show a strong 4♠ bid, but it doesn’t sound like a good idea to wrong-side it here.
RONDON: 6♠: I think there is no easy way to invite, so I'm just going to get to the contract I think we can make from the right side of the table.
I think Tim and Simon easily win the debate…
DE WIJS: 4NT. Showing minors, but obviously intending to bid 5♠ next to show a natural slam try with a heart control. (A direct 5♠ bid would deny a heart control.)
COPE: 4NT. Ostensibly, a bid of 4NT in this situation is for the minors, but it can also be used to show a slam try in the unbid major. Here, we expect partner to respond in a minor, and then our 5♠ bid will complete the picture of our hand.
Whilst Marty bids 4NT with different intentions.
BERGEN: 4NT. I hope this is Blackwood. I see that the theme this month is, “When is 4NT old-fashioned Blackwood?” And/or as always, "All good regular partnerships MUST MUST MUST discuss a lot of auctions in advance."
P.O. is low-flying solo on this one.
SUNDELIN: 4♠.
Partner had AQxx/x/Jxxx/AKQx, so 6♠ was an easy make from either side and everyone except the 4♠ bidders are likely to get there.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
2♥ |
10 |
13 |
32 |
|
2NT |
7 |
7 |
39 |
|
3♥ |
4 |
1 |
17 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.66
This is really just a question of evaluation. How good do you think your hand is? The panel were almost split between two choices, with the majority deciding that the hand was really not very good. Nearly three-quarters of competition entrants also voted for one of the panel’s two choices. Let’s start with the majority…
ROBSON: 2♥. Heavyish, but what junk.
ZIA: 2♥. Underbidding… It does happen.
MARSTON: 2♥. Maybe a slight underbid, but surely this is the time.
LO PRESTI: 2♥. If partner doesn't bid again, we won't be missing game.
RONDON: 2♥: The hand is terrible. If partner can muster another bid, I'll give game a try. If he cannot, I doubt we’ve missed anything.
WANG: 2♥. There is no good choice.
DE WIJS: 2♥. I go low. Too bad if we belong in 3NT, but every other bid is flawed as well.
BROCK: 2♥. I take the low road with such a bad suit and generally bad hand.
SUNDELIN: 2♥.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♥.
A couple referenced the panel’s other choice.
MEYERS: 2♥. Yes, I have 10 HCP, but terrible distribution, no guarantee of an eight-card fit, and not enough to bid 2NT.
LEVINS: 2♥. Too many losers to bid more. Second choice would be a natural 2NT.
Whilst David mentioned the outlier.
BIRD: 2♥. I would respond 2♥ over a double of 1♣, but 3♥ here seems too much.
Sophia was alone in preferring the more aggressive action.
BALDYSZ: 3♥. I am not really a fan of this bid on a 4333 hand, but my alternative would be 2NT and partner will surely then put down a 4441 hand with a stiff club.
The rest chose to ignore the hearts.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2NT. Natural.
COHEN: 2NT. This is a comprise between 2♥ and 3♥.
BERGEN: 2NT. I submitted this problem, so it is also true that for one of the first times this month I am not conflicted.
SHENKIN: 2NT.
HUNG: 2NT. Natural and invitational. This might miss out on a heart fit, but 2♥ is an underbid and 3♥ could be silly if partner has only three-card support.
Sjoert and Tim both have toys for this situation.
BRINK: 2NT. Obviously, I would like to bid 2♦ which, by agreement, should show any 8+ HCP. Without that agreement, 2NT is the only bid I can make, showing a stopper and some points....
COPE: 2NT. Covering all the bases here. If partner choses to take this as natural, our hand does not misrepresent. I prefer to play that, after any two-level natural bid by the opposition, a 2NT bid is a transfer to 3♣, and I can then bid 3♥ to show an invitational hand with only four hearts. Whichever system we are playing, it's a win-win situation.
At the table, partner had AQxx/Q10xxx/Axx/Q, so 4♥ was an easy make, but 2NT caught a raise to the hopeless 3NT. Only Sophia is sure to get to the top spot, but perhaps partner will raise 2♥ and the majority will do so too.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
Competitors' Entries (%) |
|
6♦ |
10 |
11 |
11 |
|
5♠ |
10 |
1 |
<1 |
|
3♥ |
8 |
4 |
24 |
|
4♠ |
7 |
3 |
7 |
|
4♣ |
7 |
1 |
5 |
|
5♦ |
3 |
1 |
39 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.04
Although there are plenty of high-scoring options, this hand still proved to be a tricky one for competitors. The largest group (more than a third) simply raise to game, whilst all but one panelist either bids slam or investigates one. Although it attracted only one panel member, I awarded 5♠ Exclusion Blackwood the same mark as the jump to 6♦, as it is effectively doing the same thing. Let’s start with the majority.
COHEN: 6♦. It should be at worst on a finesse.
VILLAS-BOAS: 6♦. It will be on the heart finesse in the worst case.
ZIA: 6♦. They will lead the ♥A.
LEVINS: 6♦. I am hoping than LHO doesn't have the ♥Q...
SHENKIN: 6♦. This should be cold or on finesse much more often than without play.
SUNDELIN: 6♦.
BERGEN: 6♦. Since my non-vulnerable partner could have a Yarborough, we might have no play for this. (Although if that was true, with my distribution, I believe even a vulnerable opponent would have acted.) We might be cold for seven, but I do NOT want to help N/S to lead and defend.
WANG: 6♦. Maybe we can make 7♦, if partner has the ♥A. But, the opening lead may be important, so I don’t want to give information to the opponents.
BALDYSZ: 6♦. Slam is pretty much on a finesse, depending on the state of the match and style of the 3♦ bid (xxx/Qxx/QJxxx/xx would be ideal). My other option would be to bid 4♠, showing shortage, and partner can then show interest with 4NT if he has values outside of spades.
Tim offers some wise advice.
COPE: 6♦. Let us finish with a punt, but hopefully an educated punt. At worst, this contract will be on a heart guess. At best, the opposition are on lead and may help me out, by leading ♥A. This is not the sort of hand where one should try to be too sophisticated, as there is no real information that partner can give us that will help us in our endeavours. Sometimes KISS is a good system.
BRINK: 6♦. The ♥Q is enough, otherwise it will be on finding the ♥Q onside (thinking partner has 3♠ and 5♦). Anyway, 2024, lucky year, all finesses will work...
Andy makes a raise to 6♦ with potentially huge benefits.
HUNG: 5♠. Exclusion key card. Can we find the perfecto xxx/Ax/Jxxxx/Qxx? Indeed, our opponents are awfully quiet if they have 10+ spades between them, and we don’t even need the ♣Q opposite xxxx/Ax/Jxxxx/xx.
The rest preferred a scientific approach.
ROBSON: 3♥. I'd love the ♥Q more than the ♣Q.
LO PRESTI: 3♥. Natural or values/cue. Let’s see if partner can tell us anything useful.
BIRD: 3♥. As on a previous problem, there is no need to guess immediately.
BROCK: 3♥. If he doesn’t bid 3♠, I’ll probably pot slam (again!).
MARSTON: 4♣. I am looking for a 4♥ control bid from partner for 7♦. Otherwise, I’ll settle for 6♦. Not 3♠, which lacks clear direction, and not 4♠, which burns up too much room.
MEYERS: 4♠. I think this should be Exclusion. If partner does not think it is Exclusion, she would surely play me for shortness, which is okay too.
RONDON: 4♠. A splinter sounds like a good way of making partner interested in going forward. Just settling for game is too little on this hand.
DE WIJS: 4♠. Splinter. With 5-6, I would bid 3♠ followed by 4♠.
Erik was alone in settling for game.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♦.
Partner had Axxx/x/J9xxx/xxx, so 6♦ was an easy make.
Congratulations to Barnet Shenkin, who leads the panel with a score of 77/80. On what was evidently a difficult set, there were only three other scores in the 70s, Wenfei Wang (with 76/80), Paul Marston (74/80) and David Bird (73/80).
Thanks to all of our experts for taking the time to entertain and educate our readers.
See you all next month.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Tot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
3♠ |
4♦ |
5♠ |
2NT |
6♦ |
77 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
2♠ |
4♦ |
5♠ |
2♥ |
6♦ |
76 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
3♠ |
6NT |
5♠ |
2♥ |
4♣ |
74 |
|
David BIRD |
5♦ |
4NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
6NT |
5♠ |
2♥ |
3♥ |
73 |
|
Tim COPE |
5♦ |
4NT |
Dbl |
2♠ |
4♦ |
4NT |
2NT |
6♦ |
69 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
Pass |
5NT |
4NT |
2♥ |
4♠ |
69 |
|
Andy HUNG |
5♦ |
4NT |
Dbl |
3♠ |
4NT |
5♠ |
2NT |
5♠ |
69 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
5♦ |
2♦ |
Pass |
Dbl |
4♦ |
6♠ |
2♥ |
6♦ |
69 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
6♠ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♦ |
4♥ |
2NT |
6♦ |
68 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
7♣ |
3♥ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
4♦ |
5♠ |
2NT |
6♦ |
67 |
|
Bobby & Jill LEVIN |
7♠ |
2♦ |
Dbl |
Dbl |
6NT |
4♥ |
2♥ |
6♦ |
66 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
6♠ |
4NT |
Dbl |
Dbl |
6NT |
5♠ |
2♥ |
4♠ |
66 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
5♦ |
4NT |
1NT |
3♠ |
6♥ |
4NT |
2NT |
6♦ |
65 |
|
Larry COHEN |
7♠ |
4NT |
Dbl |
Dbl |
6♥ |
5♠ |
2NT |
6♦ |
65 |
|
Fabio LO PRESTI |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Pass |
Pass |
5NT |
4♥ |
2♥ |
3♥ |
65 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
4♠ |
6♥ |
4♥ |
3♥ |
6♦ |
63 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Pass |
4♠ |
5♥ |
5♠ |
2♥ |
3♥ |
63 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
7♠ |
4NT |
1NT |
3♠ |
4♦ |
6♠ |
2♥ |
4♠ |
61 |
|
Sally BROCK |
6♠ |
3♥ |
Dbl |
2♠ |
6NT |
6♠ |
2♥ |
3♥ |
58 |
|
P.O. SUNDELIN |
6♣ |
2♠ |
Pass |
Pass |
6♥ |
4♠ |
2♥ |
6♦ |
58 |
|
Erik SAELENSMINDE |
6♦ |
2♠ |
2♦ |
2♠ |
6♥ |
4♥ |
2♥ |
5♦ |
53 |
|
TOP SCORE |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
3♠ |
4♦ |
5♠ |
2♥ |
6♦ 5♠ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
5♦ 10 |
7♣/6♦ 7 |
6♣/6♠ 6 |
7♠ 5 |
5♠ 2 |
|
|
HAND 2: |
2♠ 10 |
2♦ 9 |
4NT 8 |
3♥ 5 |
6♥ 4 |
|
|
HAND 3: |
Dbl 10 |
Pass 6 |
1NT 5 |
2♦ 3 |
2♣ 2 |
2NT 1 |
|
HAND 4: |
3♠ 10 |
Dbl 8 |
2♠/Pass 6 |
4♠ 5 |
2♦ 3 |
|
|
HAND 5: |
4♦ 10 |
5NT 8 |
6♥/6NT 7 |
4NT/5♥ 4 |
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
5♠ 10 |
4NT 8 |
4♥ 7 |
6♠ 6 |
4♠ 3 |
|
|
HAND 7: |
2♥ 10 |
2NT 7 |
3♥ 4 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
6♦/5♠ 10 |
3♥ 8 |
4♣/4♠ 7 |
5♦ 3 |
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
6.20 |
|
HAND 2: |
6.64 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.49 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.26 |
|
HAND 5: |
4.29 |
|
HAND 6: |
4.01 |
|
HAND 7: |
6.66 |
|
HAND 8: |
5.04 |
