Contest conducted by Marc Smith
The leader-board for the annual competition is starting to take shape as we head into the second half of the year.
The European Championships were held in Denmark in late June and early July.
The tournament got off to an excellent start with a double victory by panel members, Cathy and Sophia Baldysz winning the European Women’s Pairs.
Panelists also played in all four categories of the team events, Open, Women, Mixed and Seniors. I am delighted to report that numerous panelists collected medals, with others finishing in the top eight, and thus qualifying for their respective world championships next year.
In the Open Teams, Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski were members of the Swiss team that won silver medals, whilst Andrew Robson, Simon Hult and Cedric Lorenzini were all members of teams that qualified for the 2025 Bermuda Bowl. In the Women’s event, Sophia and Cathy Baldysz, Sally Brock and Nevena Senior all qualified for the 2025 Venice Cup, whilst Alan Mould qualified in the Senior Teams. In the Mixed Teams, Pierre Schmidt and Joanna Zochoewska won silver medals, whilst Sanna Clementsson also qualified for the world championships. Congratulations to all of them. We will report on the successes of panel members at the U.S. Summer Nationals next month.
There were co-winners of the May competition, so we have three guest panelists for this set. Li Mingzhe won in the process of leading the panel as a guest, having also won the March competition. Mingzhe is a 24-year-old graduate who has been playing bridge at the University of Science and Technology of China for over five years. Lysandra Zheng from New Zealand is a 23-year-old graduate student at the University of Auckland. She learned bridge in 2015 and started playing tournaments just over a year ago. She says, “I am thankful to my long-term partner, friends, and community for their continued support and encouragement.” She moved to the top of the 2024 annual competition with her win in May. Milko Slavov comes from the Black Sea resort of Varna in northeastern Bulgaria. He is 62 and he has been playing bridge since 1983. Milko has been a regular competition entrant since we began and he finished in the Top 20 of the 2021 annual
competition. Welcome to them all.
We are delighted to welcome a new star member to our expert panel. I first played against Giorgio Duboin at the 1984 European Junior Championship. He was a good guy then, and he has been a friend for very long time. Representing Italy, Giorgio has won the European Open Team Championship five times and the European Mixed Teams (in 2002), plus six world titles, the Bermuda Bowl twice (in 2005 and 2013), the Rosenblum Cup in 2002 and the World Team Olympiad three times (in 2000, 2004 and, 2008). Benvenuto, Giorgio.
Hand 3 this month comes from regular panelist Marty Bergen. Thanks to him. 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 vote on five of the eight hands in this set. However, a couple of the deals throw up situations on which regular partnerships might find it worth making sure that they are on the same wavelength, as the panel is widely divided about what bids mean.
This is looking like a high-scoring set. The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on three of the eight hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors returns a creditable 65/80 (up from 61/80 in June). The average score this month is the highest of the year so far, at 53.14 (down from the annual high of 55.65 on Set 24-06). We start with a deal on which the panel voted for no less than eight different options (so that should be a fun one to mark!)
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♥ |
10 |
8 |
6 |
|
3♠ |
8 |
4 |
10 |
|
3♥ |
8 |
2 |
0.5 |
|
3♣ |
7 |
2 |
7 |
|
4♣ |
7 |
1 |
1 |
|
2♠ |
6 |
5 |
23 |
|
2♦ |
6 |
1 |
23 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
1 |
14 |
|
4♠ |
3 |
0 |
5 |
|
3♦ |
2 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.73
This may look like a simple enough problem, but it proved to be the lowest-scoring deal of the set. Indeed, the panel found no less than eight different answers. Almost half of competition entrants chose to bid one of their suits at the two-level, so we’ll start with the panel members who took a two-step approach…
BRINK: 2♠. I will bid 2♠ now and, over the likely 3♣ by North, I will then bid 3♦. Sometimes I don't see the problem...
SLAVOV: 2♠. If the opponents compete to 3♣, I will be able to continue with 3♦.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. With the dream cards, we can make 4♠, but I start with 2♠. Even if my partner cannot bid on, it is possible that the opponents will compete further, and I’ll have one more go then.
MOULD: 2♠. I don't fancy Double, which is too likely to end the auction. This ain't such a great hand in what is likely to be a 4-4 fit, so I go low.
S BALDYSZ: 2♠. I play double here as showing a trap pass with good hearts and no club shortage. Although pretty, this hand doesn't meet those requirements.
Joey was alone in adopting an alternative two-step approach…
SILVER: 2♦. This hand cannot be described properly in one bid, so why not use the villains to get the sense of this hand across to the ox sitting opposite? Although my bid is not forcing on partner there is almost no chance the auction will die here with my opponents holding so many rounded suit cards between them. Of course, I will bid my spades over whatever N/S bid next, thus getting across to partner the nature of my hand. Ain’t bridge simple?
The next group opted for a more optimistic value bid…
BROCK: 3♠. 2♠ doesn’t seem to do justice to this hand. 4♠ seems a bit much, because I might be down more or less in top tricks after three rounds of hearts if the ♦A is also missing.
HUNG: 3♠.
C BALDYSZ: 3♠.
MEYERS: 3♠. I would rather have five spades to jump, but my hand is too strong for 2♠ but not quite enough for 4♠.
The rest started by just showing a good hand. This was the most popular way of doing so…
MARSTON: 2♥. I think I am showing this. Let's hope partner sees it that way.
BERGEN: 2♥. The most flexible way to start.
RONDON: 2♥. As a passed hand, I can take the liberty of using a cue-bid even though I have less than 12 HCP. Let's hear from partner whether he has four spades or if we will be better playing in diamonds.
BIRD: 2♥. I'm happy to show my strength and let partner introduce a suit. Even if I was confident that he held four spades, it would not be easy yet to judge how high to go.
ZHENG: 2♥. I am looking to get to 4♠. This may be an overbid (two heart losers, club wastage, etc.), but I'm an optimist about this hand today...
Andrew and Zia both mention positional considerations.
ROBSON: 2♥. It’s just possible that partner doesn’t have four spades, so I mustn’t make a vulgar leap in spades. I would also rather my hand was dummy, leaving partner’s club holding hidden.
ZIA: 2♥. I am ready for a bidding battle, and I would prefer to try to get partner as declarer.
Simon mentions another alternative.
DE WIJS: 2♥. Normally, I would use a takeout double with only four spades, but it’s just too dangerous here. As I've passed 1♥, I can use the cue-bid to invite for spades and thus avoid the risk of partner thinking he wants to defend 2♣-Doubled.
Only Mingzhe is willing to risk ending the auction right here.
LI: Dbl. Showing four spades with diamonds. Jumping to 3♠ sounds like five spades.
Whilst Larry is concerned that perhaps 2♥ might sound natural…
COHEN: 3♣. This is a very strong hand, especially if partner has five diamonds (picture, say, KQx/x/AJxxx/Axxx. Maybe 2♥ would be taken as natural (QJ10xxxxx of hearts, perhaps) and anyway, I am happy to take away LHO's potential raise to 3♣.
SHENKIN: 3♣. More clubs are coming from the opponents, so I hope this will suggest a shortage as the auction goes on.
A couple propose yet another cue-bid…
WANG: 3♥. This should show both spades and diamonds and about 10 HCP.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 3♥. I have a bit too much for 2♠. I don't like 2♥ (it does not promise four spades), nor 3♣ (I would rather be balanced, 3-4-4-2, for instance, and stronger). After I passed 1♥, what can 3♥ be if not invitational with four spades?
Whilst Giorgio paves the way for even higher possibilities.
DUBOIN: 4♣. I have great support for both of partner’s suits. I like very much to show him my void, and he can then decide what to do.
Everyone valued this hand more highly than the Welsh player who held it in the Senior Camrose, bidding 2♦ and then defending when North’s 3♣ was passed back. That was -130 to go with -420 from the other room, when partner held KJ109/xx/AQJx/Qxx. The spade game needs no more than a winning trump guess, and I suspect that most will get there after North competes to 3♣.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4NT |
10 |
16 |
42 |
|
5♠ |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
Pass |
4 |
1 |
29 |
|
6♠ |
2 |
0 |
16 |
|
5♣ |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.40
The panel were split between two options, although one emerged as a clear favourite and nearly half of competitors echoed that choice. However, the second largest group of competition entrants, nearly a third, thought they had already done enough, whereas all but one panel member wanted to find out more about partner’s trumps. The only question was how to do so…
ZIA: 4NT. This seems simple enough. What am I missing?
WANG/C BALDYSZ/MARSTON/VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. Keycard will give us the answer.
DUBOIN: 4NT. Key-card. Partner accepted my slam try with 4♥.
ZHENG: 4NT. I've mostly described my hand, but it still seems better than what's been said.
BERGEN: 4NT. I’d like better trumps, but otherwise love my hand.
Larry makes a point about our previous bidding.
COHEN: 4NT. I could have bid this previously, so it must be time for it now. Unfortunately, this could be a 5-or-7 hand now that they know which red suit to lead.
MOULD/ROBSON: 4NT. What I would have bid on the last round. I’m absolutely enormous.
BRINK: 4NT. I Blackwood and will bid slam. My hand is enormous, with three cards in spades and all the controls. That the guy on lead doubles 4♥ would not scare me away... (I guess it was Boye!)
BROCK: 4NT. I just need decent trumps, which he is surely likely to deliver after the 4♥ cue.
HUNG: 4NT. We survived our 3♣ bid (prefer 2♥ planning to rebid spades), and now we have a massive hand after partner’s 3♠ rebid.
S BALDYSZ: 4NT. Polish club would make my life so much easier here. I assume 3♠ is more forward going, compared to 4♠? Partner also didn't bid 4♠ over my diamond cue-bid, so he can't have a terrible hand. I’m a bit in the dark here with no agreements, but I’ll Blackwood anyway. With ♠K-Q-J-x-x and ♥K I have a decent shot at slam.
DE WIJS: 4NT. I am definitely not passing. An alternative is 5NT, pick a slam, but that feels like I have only a doubleton spade. In any case, we should be okay opposite a six-card suit.
So, just how good do we need partner’s trumps to be?
SHENKIN: 5♠. I think this is very close between Pass and bid. 5♠ means I need more than just A-Q of trumps (or I would use Blackwood).
RONDON: 5♠. “How good are your trumps?” That's basically what I need to know to decide whether to play slam or not.
SLAVOV: 5♠. I prefer this to 4NT, as partner may have a void.
SILVER: 5♠. I think it is too big a position to pass, so I will give my partner one more chance to examine the quality of his spade holding and decide if he wishes to try to take 12 tricks.
MEYERS: 5♠. I have to make another try and what is most important here is the quality of partner's spades.
BIRD: 5♠. If you bid 4NT instead and hear of one key-card, you would be a bit stuck. Would you then bid the slam just when he admitted to the ♠Q?
Yes, we probably don’t want to get to slam opposite KQxxxx or AQxxxx but we do opposite KQJxxx, AQJxxx or even AJ10xxx, so Blackwood does not seem to help.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 5♠. I have two extra good news: ♣A-K (and not A-Q-J) and the stiff ♦A, when my partner could be afraid of a diamond lead. 5♠ is a clear question about the quality of the suit.
Mingzhe was alone in thinking that we had already done enough.
LI: Pass. I have no extras.
Partner had AKxxxx/x/Jxxx/xx, so 6♠ was a decent spot and, opposite this holding, both 4NT and 5♠ will surely get you there.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♦ |
10 |
19 |
48 |
|
2♠ |
6 |
3 |
3 |
|
2♥ |
5 |
2 |
24 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.18
This turned out to be the damp squib of the set. There was a choice of two-level rebids in three suits, but the panel produced a huge majority vote, with almost half of competitors agreeing. However, more than 1-in-5 competitors chose actions that no panelist even considered.
BRINK: 2♦. This is just my style of bidding.... I can give many arguments, but it is just what I learned to bid when I was five years old, and I have never become any better.
BERGEN: 2♦. When I submitted this, I hoped to show both diamonds and spades.
WANG: 2♦. Natural bid.
ROBSON: 2♦. This is the best way to show my shape.
RONDON: 2♦. I'd rather show nine cards than six.
DUBOIN: 2♦. I think the lower bid gives me the most chance to show my hand.
BROCK: 2♦. I have a general principle that when I can’t decide what to bid, I choose the lowest.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 2♦. Let's keep the dialog open. Playing matchpoints is not a valid enough reason to deviate from "normal" bidding.
C BALDYSZ: 2♦.
SHENKIN: 2♦.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♦. I will show my hand against silent opponents.
BIRD: 2♦. No way am I going to raise spades, saying nothing about my minor-suit disposition. 2♦ seems clear.
Some tell us what they are planning to do next…
ZHENG: 2♦. Hoping it doesn't get passed out! I can bid 2♠ over 2♥, which seems descriptive, and I can pull to 3/4♥ if we don't play in spades.
LI: 2♦. Partner won't pass with about 8+ points. I will raise his 2♥ or 2♠ rebid to invite game.
…some don’t…
DE WIJS: 2♦. Interesting. I will bid 2♦ and bid again over 2♥ from partner. I’m not sure what, though, but I'll guess that problem will be one for next year. If not 2♦, I would bid 2♠ rather than 2♥. With so much to tell, it feels weird to only reveal the sixth heart.
Jill sums up the situation for the majority.
MEYERS: 2♦. If partner passes, we are probably high enough. If she bids 2♥, I will bid 2♠ or 3♥ (I’ve not yet decided which). If partner bids 2♠ I will bid 4♠ and, if she bids 2NT, I will bid 3♠. In other words, I think 2♦ is the most flexible bid.
ZIA: 2♦. I am hoping to get my shape in. Partner seems to have some values as the opponents are silent. I know it’s matchpoints, but this hand has too much potential for any other action.
The problem I have with 2♦ is what would you bid with something like Axx/AKJxx/KQxx/x? Do you not have to bid 2♦-2♥-2♠ with that? You cannot jump to 3♠ to show the extra values: Doing so endplays partner when he holds a 6-count and only four spades? So, is the hand we are discussing really good enough for that sequence?
COHEN:2♦. As the late, great Al Roth would say, "if I can get past this round..."
HUNG: 2♦. A good hand for Flannery. (I didn’t know there was such a thing? MS) Both 2♥ and 2♠ feel like underbids, so let's hope we can survive this round.
There were just a few dissenters.
S BALDYSZ: 2♥. If I had a relay system to show 6-3 in the majors I would bid it. But, if partner is 4-2 in the majors, I'm better off in an eight-card fit rather than a seven-card fit.
Is there some reason he is more likely to be 4-2 in the majors rather than 5-1?
SILVER: 2♥. Bidding diamonds will only complicate things. I have a good but not great hand, and I think the most important thing here is to indicate to partner that I have a six-card heart suit before he makes his next bid (if there is a next bid).
When Marty sent the hand to me, I thought this was the obvious choice…
MOULD: 2♠. Any of 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ could be right, and it is rather dependent on partnership style. No strong views.
MARSTON: 2♠.
SLAVOV: 2♠. This is a hard choice between 2♦; 2♥ and 2♠. I choose 2♠ because I have most covering cards in that suit.
There was no companion hand. This was a situation that arose in a class with three viable options, and it seemed worthwhile exploring current expert thinking on the auction.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
11 |
25 |
|
5NT |
8 |
8 |
2 |
|
Pass |
6 |
4 |
32 |
|
6♥ |
6 |
1 |
18 |
|
6♣ |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
4NT |
2 |
0 |
11 |
|
5♣ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
5♥ |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
6♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.98
There is no majority vote from the panel, but two clear favourites emerged: to cue-bid agreeing hearts and perhaps stop at the five-level or to commit to slam whilst retaining the possibility of playing in another strain. The competition entrants also had two clear choices: the cue-bid and passing 4♥, whilst the panel voted 20-4 in favour of bidding on. We start with those who chose to cue-bid…
BERGEN: 5♦. The sky's the limit.
ZHENG: 5♦. For now, but I think we're ending up in 7♥ one way or another.
DUBOIN: 5♦. I am missing one trump, but the chances of making slam, even a grand, are very high.
The rest of this faction seem to be intending to pass if partner bids 5♥.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. Last train.
SLAVOV: 5♦. Partner has bid under pressure, but my hand is too good to pass 4♥.
C BALDYSZ: 5♦.
DE WIJS: 5♦. Passing 4♥ could mean missing a cold grand, so I am definitely bidding. However, with a five-card heart suit, partner can be pretty weak, so I will go low and pass if all he can do is bid 5♥.
SHENKIN: 5♦. If partner has Axxxx trump and the ♣K, slam should be close to 50%, but could be better or worse. Pass is quite reasonable.
A couple of panel members recognized the problem…
BIRD: 5♦. I am very happy to agree hearts. The chance of partner having bid 4♥, rather than doubling, on just A-x-x-x is close to zero. (Yes, I do recall this is the other half of a previous problem, but partner's hand then was a real freak with five diamonds!)
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 5♦. Thanks God, nobody here (in France) plays the 2♦ opening as a natural weak two, as I cannot remember getting any score other than a bottom against this opening. We don't Pass 4♥ when 7♣ can be laydown. We selected our bid (with Joanna) before realizing that this is the companion hand to May's problem #4.
Sjoert sums up the options in his own inimitable style.
BRINK: 5♦. My hand is good enough to try something.... It’s a Pass is for the pessimist, 6♥ for the optimist and 5♦ for the realist....
Only Mingzhe was willing to shove all of his chips into the middle.
LI: 6♥.
The next group commit to slam, but not to hearts…
RONDON: 5NT. Pick a slam. Often the best option in these kinds of situations. Partner will know I have only three hearts.
MOULD: 5NT. Pick a slam. I have no idea how to get everything into the frame but, if partner has four clubs, hopefully we won't miss the ten-card fit!
S BALDYSZ: 5NT. Pick a slam. If partner has clubs on the side, we could make a lot of tricks. Still, I'm going against the trend from the previous panel and not passing. If partner has a balanced hand (3-4-2-4) we're better off in clubs, and if he has long hearts, we'll end up in hearts anyway. I'm committing to slam with the risk of being off two (or even three) aces. Happens!
COHEN: 5NT. Hoping to hear a four-card black suit. If partner repeats hearts, I'll hope for five of them. I can see no realistic way to reach a grand slam, so I might as well try to land in the correct six-level contract.
MEYERS: 5NT. This has to be ‘pick a slam’. If partner happens to bid 6♣, I would be very happy. After all, what is partner supposed to do over 4♦ with something like xx/Axxx/xxx/KQxx?
Andrew gets to the real nitty-gritty of the deal…
ROBSON: 5NT. Pick a slam. Partner will (should!) bid 6♣ with something like 3-4-3-3 shape.
ZIA: 5NT. Let’s try to bring clubs in. Partner will not be able to judge if I advance with a cue-bid or a heart raise. This hand could be an easy 7♥ or a hard 4♥. Opposite something like xx/A10xxx/xxxx/Kx, it may play better in clubs.
True, but it is perhaps asking too much to expect him to bid clubs with only two of them.
HUNG: 5NT. I am tempted by 5NT, ‘pick a slam’ in case partner has four clubs and only four hearts. Maybe we shouldn't punish partner for stretching against a preemptive auction with something like Qxx/Axxxx/xxxx/x and so bid 5♦ to pass the buck. However, will he know to bid slam with x/109xxxx/xxx/KQx? Good problem.
Years of experience means that the remaining panel members are addicted to plus scores…
SILVER: Pass. Without a fourth heart, I have no intention of hanging partner for his enterprising 4♥ bid with this good but not great hand!
MARSTON: Pass. I am not willing to jeopardize game in search of a slam.
WANG: Pass.
BROCK: Pass. It is going to depend on things I can’t find out about (partner’s heart spots if he needs to ruff diamonds in my hand, or whether or he has a suitable club holding). So, I’ll play safe.
As a couple pointed out, this is the companion to Hand 4 from Set 2024-5. Partner had x/A9xx/KQ10xx/K10x, and almost half the panel voted to bid 4♥ after this start. At the table I watched, E/W got to slam, but the wrong one, in hearts (-100) so just making game will bring in the IMPs. However, in another match, the board was nearly flat, with 6♣ (+1370) losing 1 IMP to 4♦-X down six (-1400).
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4NT |
10 |
16 |
42 |
|
5♣ |
9 |
1 |
6 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
7 |
31 |
|
6♦ |
7 |
0 |
4 |
|
6♥ |
7 |
0 |
3 |
|
5♦ |
4 |
0 |
11 |
|
4♠ |
4 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♥ |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
5NT |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.23
The idea behind this problem was a good one – to find out what type of hand the panel expect partner to hold for his jump to 4♦. And, as you will see from the comments, there were two very different opinions. Unfortunately, whilst the operation was a success, the patient died, as 4NT was a sensible solution whichever hand type partner had. So, while everyone scores fairly well, the discussion is interesting, and regular partnerships might want to ensure that they are on the same wavelength.
DE WIJS: 4NT. I hope I am not making a fool of myself by assuming 4♦ is a splinter for spades. If so, I can't see how I could be much better than this, so I am key-carding.
BRINK: 4NT. First of all, 4♦ should be splinter, and likely a void. My hand is enormous: The ♥K and great spades, so it feels like 7♠ is close. So, I ask for key cards and will then probably make a grand slam try.
S BALDYSZ: 4NT. I am assuming 4♦ to be a splinter for spades, but not a great hand since partner didn't reverse over 2♦? With ♠A and ♥A-Q, we have a decent slam. Even 7♠ is not out of the equation, so let’s Blackwood.
MOULD: 4NT. 4♦ is a splinter in my book. There is no hand that doesn't raise diamonds and now leaps to 4♦. So, I have a great hand now.
COHEN: 4NT. I will bid 7♠ opposite the likely two key-cards (aces in this case) and hope for reasonable splits. Yes, 4♦ must be a splinter bid, not diamonds (partner would bid 3♦ with diamonds).
By that same argument, why would he not bid 3♠ to agree spades?
BIRD: 4NT. Any hand with three-card diamond support, however strong, would bid only 3♦ at this stage. I am therefore confident that this is a splinter bid agreeing spades. The counter-argument that he could have bid 3♠ with four spades seems weak, since 4♦ is much more descriptive.
HUNG: 4NT. I am not stopping now. The real question is, if partner shows one keycard, do we want to suggest an alternative strain with 6♥? It could be important, opposite something like 0Axxx/QJTxxx/x/Kx if spades split 4-1.
Some are less sure or don’t tell us…
MARSTON: 4NT. I am not sure what is going on, but I must do something. I wish I had bid 3♥ the round before.
C BALDYSZ: 4NT.
RONDON: 4NT. Time for key cards. I won't say which suit I'm asking in, since there are three possibilities.
Now let’s hear from the other half of the majority…
ZIA: 4NT. This sounds like six hearts and three good diamonds. Let’s keep things simple.
DUBOIN: 4NT. I believe my partner has 6♥/4♦ and a minimum. However, I need only two key cards and the ♦Q to make slam, so I use Blackwood,
SHENKIN: 4NT. I need to find out about the ♦Q. If it is missing, I can always shift back into hearts.
BERGEN: 4NT. I'd prefer to have better diamonds, but 4♦ should show strength there.
LI: 4NT. Key card asking. Partner's 4♦ shows slam interest.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 4NT. Generally speaking, we hate to waste space in an uncontested auction, and no, it's not splinter! Partner must have a much better than minimum hand, with six hearts (but not good enough to bid 3♥ over 2♦), and he definitely abandons 3NT. His hand is something like Axx/AJ10xxx/KQJ/x or even a bit more. If we had to choose the final contract now it would be 7♦, but let's check as it does not cost.
Jill spotted the point of the problem, and tried a different solution.
MEYERS: 4♥. I think 4♦ is a very dangerous bid undiscussed. Since I am not sure what it means, I am going to bid 4♥, my safety play.
Again, there were some who thought spades were agreed…
BROCK: 4♥. This bit seems easy. I have no idea what partner’s 4♦ means: For me it would be a splinter for spades. I don’t think this is a suggestion we play here.
WANG: 4♥. Cue-bid, showing a slam try.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. I am in doubt between 4♥ and 4NT, but I think it is important to show the heart control first.
ZHENG: 4♥. It looks like partner is 4612 or 4603. This is a cue-bid showing the ♥K in my partnerships. I am dreaming that partner can now bid keycard...
SLAVOV: 4♥.
Whilst Joey was prepared to play here if partner had a minimum hand with 6-3 in the red suits.
SILVER: 4♥. Partner's delayed jump in my anemic five-card suit does not turn me on, so I go low, showing partner my heart support at a convenient level. I intend to bid a slam if partner makes one more forward going bid.
Andrew got the point, found a clever way to side-step the problem, and also produced an accurate prediction.
ROBSON: 5♣. I confess I’m not 100% sure what’s happening. Is partner showing a good hand with 6♥/3♦ or a splinter agreeing spades? Anyway, 5♣ seems to cover most bases, and we’re probably headed for 6♥.
I confess that I assumed 4♦ was a ‘picture bid’, showing something close to what East held when the auction occurred at the table: xx/AQJ10xx/KQx/xx. 6♥ is the best slam, making easily on a 3-2 diamond break and, if diamonds are 4-1, on a non-club lead. It is equally feasible to play this unusual jump as a splinter agreeing spades, just as long as you both know which it is.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♦ |
10 |
17 |
20 |
|
3♠ |
8 |
3 |
48 |
|
Pass |
6 |
4 |
28 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.32
Only three options were considered by both panel members and competition entrants, although the panel was much more polarized, with another big majority vote. However, I wonder if they perhaps just made what looked like the ‘obvious’ bid. Let’s start with the majority, many of whom had something similar to say…
WANG/RONDON/MEYERS/LI: 3♦. Maybe partner can bid a four-card Major. If not, hopefully she can bid 3NT.
C BALDYSZ/SHENKIN: 3♦.
HUNG: 3♦. The ♣K is a huge card. Let's search for a major-suit game or 3NT.
SILVER: 3♦. I am desperately trying to get my ox to bid a major, or 3 NT. I will pass 4♣ if that is all he can bid.
S BALDYSZ: 3♦. I play that 3♣ here shows a decent hand (it can't be an 11-count with five clubs). If partner bids 3NT I will pass, and if he bids a major - great.
Choosing the cheapest bid is often the way to go…
SLAVOV: 3♦. This is the most economical way to show good hand and learn more about partner’s hand.
BIRD: 3♦. It is not particularly likely that we have a 4-4 heart fit, but keeping the bidding low often works well.
Some do not sound at all convinced by their choice…
BROCK: 3♦. This seems to be the best of a bad job!
DUBOIN: 3♦. The 3♦ cue-bid is not very clear, but I do not see any other bids.
ZHENG: 3♦. I don't have a great feeling about this bid, but I think I'm too strong to pass and too weak to bid my major.
ROBSON: 3♦. This should find a major-suit fit, although we may still go minus in the resulting contract. Pass is my second choice.
I’m not convinced by Andrew’s optimism that we will locate an eight-card spade fit via this route.
ZIA: 3♦. This covers a lot, and it may be the wrong direction. However, it is pusillanimous to Pass and too one-directional to bid spades.
Is 3♠ really any more one-directional than 3♦?
Alan seems to hit the nail on the head, but then heads off with the rest of the sheep anyway…
MOULD: 3♦. Pass could be right, but is a bit pessimistic. 3♠ picks up the 5-3 spade fit and 3♦ finds the 4-4 heart fit. Why do all your problems involve the oppo opening a weak 2♦, Marc? Have you been playing a lot with Brian Senior?
Not for a long time, and I didn’t realize that Mr Grumpy was particularly known for his 2♦ openings.
Pierre and Joanna follow Alan’s road to its logical conclusion…
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 3♠. Another 2♦ opening, another drama. We have too much to Pass, so our choice is between 3♦ and 3♠. 3♦ would give us a chance to find a 4-4 heart fit, but we would lose the 5-3 fit in spades. The probability is surely higher that partner holds three spades than four hearts, so we look for the most likely major-suit game, with 3NT still possible if he has a diamond stopper and no spade fit.
That explanation alone is surely worth 10 marks, but weight of numbers are against it.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♠. I can bid 3♦, 3♠ or Pass at matchpoints. I prefer 3♠, which gives us a chance of getting to 4♠ or 3NT.
DE WIJS: 3♠. 3♣ is wide-range, so I am not comfortable passing. Too bad if that's the last plus we could get. Needless to say, I will pass if partner’s next bid is 4♣.
The problem with bidding either 3♦ or 3♠, is that you may still not find a making game, even if there is one. Given the emphasis on plus scores at MPs, I expected more support for this…
BRINK: Pass. I do not have enough tricks to bid anything. Going for a plus score in pairs is always a winning strategy.
MARSTON: Pass. Let’s try to lock in a plus score.
BERGEN: Pass. With no aces, I'll guess to pass.
COHEN: Pass. At IMPs, I'd chance 3♠. Here, if we miss a vulnerable game, the world won't end.
Although outvoted 20-4 on the panel, the presence of two of the most aggressive bidders (Brink and Bergen) in their number, perhaps suggests that the passers are not so far from the mark. Indeed, at the table, partner had K/AQx/10xx/AJ10xxx, so there was no making game, despite the combined 25 count. With clubs 4-1, even the four-level was too high in clubs, so it’s a moral victory for the passers.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♥ |
10 |
9 |
11 |
|
4♥ |
9 |
8 |
47 |
|
4♣ |
9 |
7 |
15 |
|
5♣ |
7 |
0 |
5 |
|
6♣ |
4 |
0 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
4 |
0 |
0.5 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
Redbl |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.06
This was primarily a tactical decision, and the panel were almost evenly divided between three choices. The closeness of the vote means that more than three-quarters of competition entrants score well on the deal. We start with those who simply raise partner’s suit to game.
WANG: 4♥. I show support for hearts first.
MARSTON: 4♥. I will bid 5♥ over North’s 4♠.
C BALDYSZ: 4♥.
HUNG: 4♥.
Some treat this as a two-step process.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. When North bids 4♠, I will continue with 5♣.
MOULD: 4♥. I’ll continue with 5♣ over the inevitable 4♠.
SILVER: 4♥. I am going to play this one straight, and show partner where I live rather than jumping to 5♥. Of course, I intend to bid 5♣ over the expected 4♠, giving partner some say in the subsequent auction.
Sally highlights a flaw in one of the alternatives.
BROCK: 4♥. If I bid 4♣ now, North has an easy 4♥ bid it if he needs it. Since I’m prepared to go to the five-level anyway, I’m going to bid 4♥ this time and 5♣ next.
The largest group prefer to get there immediately…
RONDON: 5♥. Let them guess instead of us.
BERGEN: 5♥. There's no chance of buying this in 4♥.
LI: 5♥. I am sure they can make 4♠.
ZHENG: 5♥. I can bid this before or after they bid 4♠, but I might as well give them the last guess.
BRINK: 5♥. I like to put pressure on the opponents. We will see how this ends.
Larry mentions a fourth alternative.
COHEN: 5♥. I go for a straightforward pre-empt instead of messing around. I could live with 5♣, but that doesn't eat up quite as much space.
DUBOIN: 5♥. Let’s try to put the opponents under pressure. If I bid clubs at any level, I leave the space for North to cue-bid hearts.
Simon comes up with yet another possibility.
DE WIJS: 5♥. I am tempted to go for a jump to 4♠ (natural), but the hand is not quite right for that. I will content myself with a mundane preempt and see if they know what to do over that.
Only Andrew tells us what he plans to do on the next round.
ROBSON: 5♥. Another option is 4♣ and sell to 4♠, but even if we score a club ruff we will still need a fourth trick. And, 5♥ must be live to make, especially as partner rates to have something outside as his suit is known to be broken. Both 4♠ and 5♥ could be one down, but I’ll chance a double of 5♠ as I think the chances of a club ruff are so great and we could easily get +500.
The rest choose to get their clubs in now.
ZIA: 4♣. I’ll bid 5♥ later.
MEYERS: 4♣. Lead directing. If they then bid 4♠, I am bidding 5♥.
David is perhaps hoping to get doubled in 5♥…
BIRD: 4♣. No heart raise is appropriate. I will let them bid spades and allow myself to be pushed upwards.
SHENKIN: 4♣. I start with a fit-showing bid.
SLAVOV: 4♣. I show what I have in my hand so that my partner knows how far to bid.
S BALDYSZ: 4♣. Whatever I bid it will be followed with some number of spades by North. 4♣ and then correct to hearts on the next round should help partner decide whether to bid on or not.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 4♣. My first choice was 5♣, to make things difficult for North-South. We have a rule that once your side has preempted (whether it's an opening bid or an overcall) you can never suggest playing in another suit at the five-level. However, Joanna prefers 4♣, followed by 5♥ over 4♠, to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding and to show such great support for hearts.
Partner had xx/KJxxxxx/Axx/x, so you could make 12 tricks with clubs 3-2 and hearts 2-1. At the table in the Senior Camrose, West jumped to 5♥ and then passed when North’s 5♠ came back to him (which, as predicted by Andrew, was two down when you get three aces and a club ruff).
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♠ |
10 |
17 |
7 |
|
3♥ |
7 |
4 |
35 |
|
3NT |
6 |
2 |
49 |
|
4NT |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.24
We finish with another large majority vote from the panel, although less than 1-in-13 competitors agreed with their choice. Over four-fifths of competition entrants chose one of two options that garnered the support of only a handful of panel members. The majority make quite a compelling case…
MARSTON: 3♠. Keeping the hope of slam alive.
ZIA: 3♠. My black suit holdings and too good for anything else, and this will simplify the later auction. Q-J is not chopped liver.
DUBOIN: 3♠. The ♠J is a super card. I think this is the best way to simplify the rest of the auction.
SHENKIN: 3♠. I will treat this as three-card support. I cannot bid NT with these diamonds. Hopefully, partner has nice cards in the black suits.
A number have slam ambition, so they set out to find out if partner has short diamonds…
ROBSON: 3♠. Q-J doubleton is as good as three. If partner now bids 4♣, I can bid 4♥.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♠. With Q-J and K-J in his suits and A-K-Q in hearts, I have a very good hand for my partner. Let’s set the suit and try to find out if he has short diamonds.
BRINK: 3♠. I am hoping for AKxxx/xxx/void/AQxxx I need to play in a black suit, so I agree spades. Let's see how this continues.
SLAVOV: 3♠. The two black jacks make my hand very strong, but we need to find out what controls partner has. After my partner’s probable bid 4♣, I will bid 4♥, showing the lack of a diamond control.
S BALDYSZ: 3♠. Yuck! If partner has a stiff diamond and ♠A-K/♣A-Q, we should be in slam (assuming no terrible splits as we may only be in a seven-card fit). I play that 3♣ in this auction shows something extra (it can't be a 5-4 12-count), so I might as well look for slam if partner has diamond shortness. My spades are worth more than three low.
C BALDYSZ: 3♠.
MEYERS: 3♠. I don't know where I am heading on this hand, so will throw the ball back to partner. For me, 3♣ should show extras. If partner has AKxxx/xx/x/AQ10xx, that is barely extras but we are still making a slam.
A couple did not approve of our earlier bidding…
BROCK: 3♠. I might regret it, but it is looking as if partner may well be short in diamonds. For me, 2♦ promises five and a 2♣ response could be balanced, and would be what I would have chosen here. It's usually a mistake to bid bad suits on good hands.
DE WIJS: 3♠. The 2♦ feels very wrong: I would respond 2♣. When forced into this spot, I would fake a third spade and look for slam there. It definitely feels right to play in one of partner’s suits.
Some raised the question of what a 3♥ bid would mean in this auction…
LI: 3♠. My hand is too good for 3NT. I want to bid 3♥ if it is natural, but I suspect it is asking for stoppers.
RONDON: 3♠. This is a hard one. What is 3♥? If it were natural, I'd go for that, but ♠Q-J is similar to a three-card fit, I suppose.
BIRD: 3♠. It would help to know if 3♣ promised extra values. Even though 2♦ was forcing to game, 3♥ would not guarantee good hearts but just deny a primary fit for either of partner's suits. Where would it lead?
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 3♠. Tough... At matchpoints, NT cannot be ignored, and we would also like to play from partner's hand, in case he has something ♦K-x. However, our hearts tell us that he is never going to bid NT. Spades can produce an extra trick (a club ruff, perhaps, opposite something like AK109x/Jx/Ax/Axxx for 13 tricks!). The auction is not finished, so let's keep the dialog open.
A handful opted to move forward with the fourth suit…
SILVER: 3♥. With my golden holdings in partner's two suits, slam looks like a real possibility, so 3♥ looks like the obvious first move. Let’s see what partner does next.
ZHENG: 3♥. This seems right for now. Over a probable 3♠ from partner, I can continue with 4NT as a quantitative invite.
I wonder what the difference is between this sequence and a quantitative 4NT now.
HUNG: 3♥. I am unsure about our style for the 3♣ bid, so let's find out more information about partner's shape.
COHEN: 3♥. It’s not clear how partner will take this, but I need to mark time, and I cannot do that with any other misleading description. Although there will be votes for 3NT, I hope the panel points out how silly that is -- with all these beautiful black suit values and lousy diamonds. 3NT deserves to buy AK10xx/10xx/void/AQxxx.
A message from Larry to his former partner 😊
BERGEN: 3NT. I would have responded 2♣; the same bid that others would have made if the ♦2 was the ♣2.
WANG: 3NT. To play.
I guess Larry’s message applies equally to Alan’s more ambitious effort.
MOULD: 4NT. Quantitative. This is the best description I can think of.
I had hoped that this deal would enable the panel to clarify a couple of points. Firstly, does partner’s 3♣ promise extra values playing 2/1 or could he still have a poor minimum? Secondly, is 3♥ natural or fourth-suit, asking for a stopper, in a game-forcing auction? I think those who did address those issues suggested that 3♣ does show extras, and that 3♥ here is like other fourth-suit forcing auctions and does not show hearts.
At the table, partner had AK10xx/xx/x/AQxxx, so 6♠ and 6♣ were both excellent contracts. Even if you are not bidding slam, 4♠ and 5♣ are both better than 3NT at MPs.
Dutch ace Simon de Wijs leads an all-star podium with a score of 78/80. Just a point behind, with 77/80, come Cathy Baldysz, David Bird, Giorgio Duboin, Zia Mahmood and Andrew Robson.
A special mention also goes to one of our guest panelists, the young Kiwi Lysandra Zheng. Her score of 75/80 widens her lead in the annual competition. After seven months, she has a very impressive average score of 74.14.
Thanks to all members of our panel for the time they contribute to both entertaining and educating our readers. We look forward to doing it all again next month.
If you are interested in finding out more about some of our expert panelists, a number of them are featured in the second volume of World Class 21st Century: Stars from USA and the Rest of the World, which is now available from Amazon and other booksellers. Hear them discuss winning and losing big matches, marvel at their favourite hands, commiserate with some memorable disasters, and pick up some tips to help your own game. Panel members included in this volume include Marty Bergen, Jill Meyers, Bobby Levin, Miguel Villas-Boas, Wenfei Wang and Joey Silver.
Several members of our panel (including two who made this month’s podium) were also featured in the first volume (subtitled European Stars), which has been available since the end of 2023.
|
Simon DE WIJS |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♠ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
78 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
3♠ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3♠ |
77 |
|
David BIRD |
2♥ |
5♠ |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
77 |
|
Giorgio DUBOIN |
4♣ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
77 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5NT |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
77 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5NT |
5♣ |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
77 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
2♥ |
5♠ |
2♦ |
5NT |
4NT |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
76 |
|
Lysandra ZHENG |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4♥ |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♥ |
75 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
3♣ |
5♠ |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
74 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT and Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
3♥ |
5♠ |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♠ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
73 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
Pass |
5♥ |
3NT |
72 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
2♠ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
Pass |
5♥ |
3♠ |
72 |
|
Andy HUNG |
3♠ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5NT |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3♥ |
72 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3♠ |
4NT |
2♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3♠ |
71 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3♠ |
5♠ |
2♦ |
5NT |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
71 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
2♠ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4♥ |
3♠ |
4♥ |
3♠ |
71 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
2♠ |
4NT |
2♥ |
5NT |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
68 |
|
Larry COHEN |
3♣ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5NT |
4NT |
Pass |
5♥ |
3♥ |
68 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♠ |
Pass |
4NT |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♠ |
67 |
|
Milko SLAVOV |
2♠ |
5♠ |
2♠ |
5♦ |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
67 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
3♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3NT |
67 |
|
Mingzhe LI |
Dbl |
Pass |
2♦ |
6♥ |
4NT |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
65 |
|
Alan MOULD |
2♠ |
4NT |
2♠ |
5NT |
4NT |
3♦ |
4♥ |
4NT |
64 |
|
Joey SILVER |
2♦ |
5♠ |
2♥ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3♥ |
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
2♥ |
4NT |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
3♦ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
2♥ 10 |
3♥/3♠ 8 |
3♣/4♣ 7 |
2♦/2♠ 6 |
Dbl 5 |
4♠ 3 |
3♦ 2 |
|
HAND 2: |
4NT 10 |
5♠ 8 |
Pass 4 |
6♠ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
2♦ 10 |
2♠ 6 |
2♥ 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
HAND 4: |
5♦ 10 |
5NT 8 |
6♥/Pass 6 |
6♣ 4 |
4NT/5♣/5♥ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 5: |
4NT 10 |
5♣ 9 |
4♥ 8 |
6♦/6♥ 7 |
4♠/5♦ 4 |
5♥/5NT 2 |
|
|
HAND 6: |
3♦ 10 |
3♠ 8 |
Pass 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
5♥ 10 |
4♣/4♥ 9 |
5♣ 7 |
6♣/6♥ 4 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
3♠ 10 |
3♥ 7 |
3NT 6 |
4NT 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
5.73 |
|
HAND 2: |
6.40 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.18 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.98 |
|
HAND 5: |
8.23 |
|
HAND 6: |
7.32 |
|
HAND 7: |
7.06 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.24 |
