Contest conducted by Marc Smith
We are now halfway through the 2024 annual competition, and the leader-board is starting to take shape, with 12 players still averaging 70/80 or higher.
The European Championships in Denmark concluded at the start of July 2024. With panelists competing in all four team events, I hope to be able to report next month that a number of them have come away with medals.
This month, congratulations go to Miguel Villas-Boas, who was a member of the winning team at the Brazilian Open Trials, his team defeating the Chagas team emphatically by 217-110. Special mentions also go to Sally Brock and Nevena Senior, winners of bronze medals in the 1st European Online Women’s Teams.
June's guest panelist, Paul Dubois from San Diego, California, led all entrants in the April competition, with a score of 79/80 that even bettered the leading score on the panel. Having finished in the Top 20 in last year’s annual competition with an average of over 70/80, he is again amongst the leaders in this year’s race. Paul is a retired architect for large scientific codes. He has written a book on bidding for advancing players, which is available to all for free at pfdubois.com.
We are delighted to welcome two new panelists this month. I first met Migry Campanile whilst working for e-bridge around the turn on the century: Migry was a member of the e-bridge team that won the Mixed Teams at the 2000 World Championships and she was, and presumably still is, quite a character. Representing USA, she won the Venice Cup in 2013 and the World Mixed Teams in Morocco in 2023. Pierre Schmidt and Joanna Zochowska are currently the world’s #2 Mixed Pair in the WBF rankings. Joanna was a member of the French Women’s team that won European titles in 2008 and 2010, and the Venice Cup in 2011 and 2015. Together, they won the 2021 online European Mixed Teams, and the same event at both European and World Championships in 2022. Welcome aboard to all of them.
Hand 3 this month comes from Michael Moss of California USA. 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.
This was perhaps a particularly difficult set of hands for our panelists who, as we all know, love to bid. And, yet, Pass was a serious contender on six of the eight hands. One panel member, well known for her optimistic bidding, commented that she could not remember the last time she passed on six hands in a set of eight boards, and she was not the only one. However, Pass was the most popular choice of the competition entrants on only two of the deals.
The panel produce a comfortable majority verdict on all but the last of this month’s hands. 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 scores a creditable 61/80 (the same as last month). With only one hand returning an average below 6/10, the average score this month is the highest of the year so far, at 55.65 (up from 50.78 on Set 24-05). Although this set produced the highest average score of the year so far, premium scores were hard to come by, with fewer than 65 out of more than 1200 competition entrants scoring 70/80 or higher.
Let’s see what the panelists have to say…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
14 |
30 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
4 |
44 |
|
5♣ |
5 |
1 |
12 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
1 |
8 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.64
We begin with a clear decision from the panel, with more than two thirds choosing to Pass. Nearly a third of competitors agree with the panel, but the largest faction there opts to brave the five-level. Let’s hear what our experts have to say in support of their decision…
MOULD: Pass. I don't see any reason to bid here, so I won't.
MARSTON: Pass. I have no idea what we can make, and I have no idea what they can make. Maybe this is the time to give partner a say.
BROCK: Pass. I think it's most likely that both games are going down.
WANG: Pass. We are vulnerable, so I don’t like to bid more on this very moderate hand.
SILVER: Pass. If East could take no other action than raise to game opposite my vulnerable, weak-suit 2-over-1 overcall, I am not about to make a pilgrimage to the five-level at adverse vulnerability. I will be more than happy to defend if partner doubles.
Paul sums up the situation accurately.
DUBOIS: Pass. I have no reason to think we can make 11 tricks, so I’m not going to bid 5♥ vulnerable when I’m not certain we can’t beat 4♠. I know my partner may have very little, but I do have two and a half defensive tricks and maybe the trump split will be awkward for them.
Marty makes a key point.
BERGEN: Pass. If partner had a good hand, he would have cue-bid 3♠.
How good do we think our hand is? Barnet is not impressed with it…
SHENKIN: Pass. I cannot risk anything else with a bad hand and bad hearts. I’ll take my chances on defense: Partner might even want to double.
Whereas Miguel and Hanoi take the opposite view, but with the same result.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. If I could double to show interest in bidding on, I’d do that as this is a good hand, but if I don’t have that option I have to Pass.
RONDON: Pass. Three-suited hands are often overbid. We have a nice hand for our previous action, but nothing to suggest we belong at the five-level. Let partner decide what to do next: He should have a plan after pushing them to game.
David raises the question of whether a pass would be forcing.
BIRD: Pass. Unless your partnership has some special agreement, this is not a forcing-pass situation. I cannot underwrite 5♥, and bidding on might aggravate partner if he has something useful in spades.
Whilst Sophia takes the opposite view.
S BALDYSZ: Pass. I think pass should be forcing here, especially with our side being vulnerable. Depending what partner has, a number of contracts could be right. With Axxxx in hearts, the ♣Q and the ♦A, even slam might make. A-A-K is highly unlikely (I open with such hands and she would certainly have raised hearts via a 3♠ cue-bid with that good a hand). I’m passing now and letting partner evaluate. My alternative would be to Double. I certainly wouldn’t want to go to the five-level on my own with so many losers.
Both Andrew and Jill disagree with our previous action…
ROBSON: Pass. I would have doubled on the first round. Bidding on now is a complete guess - I do have a sub-par heart holding after all.
MEYERS: Pass. First, I have to say that I would not have overcalled 2♥: I only have five hearts and they are not very good ones: This is a textbook takeout double for me. But, if you are making me bid 2♥, I would just pass now. I have what looks like 2.5 defensive tricks and I have no reason to think they will make 4♠, but I could be going down two doubled vulnerable in 5♥.
Only a few panelists were willing to commit to the five-level.
DE WIJS: 5♥. Taking this decision by myself feels wrong. Still, defending with a void doesn’t feel right either. We used to play action doubles, but now I can only blame partner for bidding 4♥ if defending 4♠ is right.
C BALDYSZ: 5♥.
CAMPANILE: 5♥. I would have been better positioned had I doubled the first time, but I don’t feel it is right to let them play 4♠, so I bid on and hope for the best.
There was some discord in the French camp.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 5♥. My partner is a passed hand and he had three ways to express a heart fit: Double, 3♠ and 4♥. 4♥ (with probably very few HCP, given the opponents’ bidding) must show at least four trumps and some distribution, so why not xxx/Kxxx/x/Qxxxx? It is difficult to estimate the total tricks as South’s spade length is unknown, but both 4♠ and 5♥ could easily be making. Joanna prefers to Pass, expecting partner to judge the situation (and it’s true that, holding the hand I suggest above, East may well bid 5♥ himself).
Larry was even willing to make a slam try on the way…
COHEN: 5♣. Voids are magical (quoting fellow panelist Marty Bergen). Even opposite a passed hand, slam is still possible if partner has lots of hearts (something like xxx/Kxxxx/Axx/Qx).
Whilst Liz was the lone voice for strongly committing in the opposite direction.
McGOWAN: Dbl. Showing primarily defensive values, I hope, and also what I would have bid on the first round! We may easily be writing -590 on the scorecard, but partner is still there and may do the right thing.
On this hand from the recent Polish Premier League final, at the table West bid 5♥ and found dummy with KQx/9xx/AJxxx/xx. The cards did not lie particularly well and 5♥ was always going down, whereas you have an easy +300 defending 4♠-X (two clubs, two spades and one diamond). My feeling is that if partner wants your input about what action to take over 4♠, he would have created a forcing pass situation by raising hearts via a 3♠ cue-bid. Bidding 4♥ should say that he knows what to do, and he is either planning to bid 5♥ himself or, as with this East hand, he wants to double them. (With a bad hand that does not expect to beat 4♠, he should probably pass and hope that 3♠ ends the auction.) A situation for regular partnerships to discuss, perhaps.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
15 |
45 |
|
4♦ |
6 |
3 |
22 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
2 |
31 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.37
Our second hand produces the month’s largest majority vote from the panel, and almost half of competition entrants agree with them. This was the penultimate deal of the 2023 Spingold final, and determined the outcome. We’ll see later who would have lifted the trophy.
MOULD: Pass. See previous comment.
WANG: Pass. I hope partner will lead a diamond.
BERGEN: Pass. With my nice diamond holding, I hope to beat this.
COHEN: Pass. Sending mental telepathy to partner not to get imaginative on opening lead.
MARSTON: Pass. I do not expect to make 4♦, and I also suspect that they are not in their best contract.
BROCK: Pass. I don’t see that I have anything different to what partner would expect. I don’t know whether or not I want him to lead a diamond.
RONDON: Pass. It's a little against my beliefs to sacrifice on a balanced hand, and doubling is too speculative. Let's just defend.
Are we certain what a double would mean?
BIRD: Pass. I see no need to double for a diamond lead: South has made a take-out double of diamonds, so any other lead would be unattractive. I don't like bidding 4♦ at all. In the unlikely event that it's only one down, 3NT will probably go off.
McGOWAN: Pass. Double would suggest that a diamond lead will beat this, which it might, unless declarer has long clubs, a diamond stopper and a working spade finesse. But partner may well lead a diamond anyway, so why risk another -550 in a dubious cause?
An accurate prediction from Liz, except that declarer had ♠A-Q-J so he could take the finesse twice for -650.
A couple were less convinced, but would have side-stepped the problem in various ways…
CAMPANILE: Pass. I would have raised to 4♦ after South’s Double. I am not sure what a double from me would mean now, so I will take my chances on defense.
S BALDYSZ: Pass. I might have been tempted to redouble on the previous round, unless partner has a tendency to jump to 3♦ on 98xxx. (Then I leave the table!) I think double would ask for an alternative lead rather than diamonds. If declarer has Qxx/xx/Ax/AKQxxx and dummy has AJxx/KQJx/xx/xxx, then only a diamond lead sets 3NT. Sometimes declarer will have ♦K-x but, even after a diamond lead, it doesn’t look likely that he will have nine tricks to cash. I want a diamond lead even though it will sometimes cost an extra undertrick, but with the hands above leading a non-diamond card gives the contract away.
Some considered the other alternative, but dismissed it for different reasons…
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. If they are making 3NT, we will probably go down two or three in 4♦-Doubled.
SILVER: Pass. My first impulse was to bid 4♦ but, with my diamond fit and good defensive prospects, I'll forego my potential small or medium minus for the real chance of a plus score right here.
DE WIJS: Pass. I like our prospects defending 3NT, although I’ve been disappointed before. Partner might be 1-3-7-2 or 1-3-6-3, in which case 4♦ will not be very cheap, so I don’t feel like taking a “safety” in 4♦-Doubled.
Pierre and Joanna make an excellent point in favor of passing.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. If N/S do not have an eight-card major-suit fit (although they may, North having a 3325 and South a 4513, for example), playing 4♦-Doubled is not very attractive (my doubleton is useless). 3NT will probably make or not depending on who holds the ♠A, but there is a good chance that 5♣ is laydown, and any action might push them there.
There were a handful of dissenters. A couple were willing to gamble on the lead being key…
SHENKIN: Dbl. This could be anything from eight tricks for us to ten or eleven for them.
10, Barnet.
C BALDYSZ: Dbl.
Whilst the other faction went in the other direction.
ROBSON: 4♦. 3NT can easily be cold, or make on the wrong lead. 4♦ could simply be cold too.
Ever the optimist, Andrew.
MEYERS: 4♦. This is another hand on which I would have made a different call on the previous round: I would have bid 4♦. Now I would like to double, but I am afraid partner might not lead a diamond (plus I am not sure I am going to beat 3NT). So, I am belatedly bidding 4♦ now.
DUBOIS: 4♦. I expect around 17 total tricks, so The Law suggests that if they are making 9 in notrump, we’re making 8, which is a good sacrifice even doubled. I assume South’s double was takeout (Stayman), so I think North is something like 3-3-2-5, 3-2-3-5 or 3-2-2-6. Can we set 3NT? Maybe, but they might also have nine top tricks.
At the table in the Spingold final, one West doubled for the lead and the other took the save in 4♦. Partner had x/K10xx/K10xxxxx/x, so 4♦ was only one down (-100). Liz correctly predicted the fate of 3NT above, so double conceded -650 for an 11-IMP swing. The final was decided by a single-digit margin. Alas, weight of numbers means that those who made the winning decision here must console themselves with a moral victory.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
11 |
22 |
|
4NT |
8 |
4 |
12 |
|
Dbl |
6 |
1 |
17 |
|
3NT |
5 |
2 |
27 |
|
4♣ |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
6NT |
3 |
0 |
14 |
|
5NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.19
Competitors were split amongst five choices here, whilst the panel again voted in favor of passing, if not quite as convincingly as on the first two hands. I wonder, though, if they have all really thought through the matchpoint mathematics on this one. A couple did address the issue…
ROBSON: Pass. I hate to let South off the hook - jumping to 6NT being our best alternative guess. I admit we’re unlikely to hold 3♣-Doubled to two tricks, and so beat our 6NT, but we could get it six down to beat our 6♦. We will obviously get it at least four down to beat our games. I’m not worried about partner passing 3♣ out - unless 3♣ was some out-and-out psyche on two low clubs or something! We’ll pay off to that.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. 3♣-Doubled will probably go down five or six. I am not sure we have a slam, so I pass and wait for my partner’s action.
A couple were even willing to settle for quite a small plus score…
SILVER: Pass. I expect partner to re-open with his club shortage, and intend to defend if he gives me the chance, or explore for slam should he instead bid a suit. If partner disappoints me and passes, well it is just matchpoints. Who knows? The field might be going minus in slam while we get +250.
DUBOIS: Pass. If we have a vulnerable slam, we need to bid it. If we don’t, I should pass and trust partner to reopen with a double. I feel like 3NT is a certainty but, in 6NT, I worry about a lack of tricks and getting stuck in my hand. I think I’ll trust my partner: if he has a real minimum and cannot do anything, at least we’ll get a plus score to beat those going off in slam.
Some are not worried about that scenario.
COHEN: Pass. With short clubs, partner won’t pass.
MEYERS: Pass. Surely partner is not going to pass this out. If she doubles, I am obviously passing. If she bids 3♦, I will bid 4NT. If partner bids something else, I will figure it out.
Most just followed their noses…
MARSTON: Pass. South wants to play 3♣? I wish him good luck.
MOULD: Pass. Three passes in a row!
Yes, and each picked up maximum marks, Alan. Perhaps John’s influence is getting to you 😊
RONDON: Pass. Isn't this what matchpoints is for? We have to penalize this opponent so that he respects us next time, also to get the best result.
CAMPANILE: Pass. This is a hard decision at this vulnerability but, if partner has some minimum like Kxxx/Kxxx/AQxxx/void, we don’t have enough tricks for slam. If my partner reopens with a bid rather than a double, I will drive to a slam.
Sophia sums up for the majority.
S BALDYSZ: Pass. Anything could be right, from defending 3♣-Doubled to 6NT if partner has long diamonds. The worst-case scenario he that he has 4-4-4-1 and no source of tricks, something like KJxx/KJxx/Axxx/x. That is eleven tricks with no possibility of a twelfth. It looks like the opponents will go five or six down, depending on whether South has six or seven clubs. I will Pass and wait for partner’s double, and sit for it. My alternative would be an invitational 4NT.
Which leads us nicely on to the panel’s second choice.
WANG: 4NT. I’m very surprised by South’s 3♣ bid. I think 4NT is natural and inviting slam.
DE WIJS: 4NT. Cute problem. If partner has a club void, he can be pretty weak for his opening, so I will go low with a 4NT invite, hoping to reach 6♦ or 6NT. Sure, if he passes, we are probably better off defending 3♣, but for that to go well we still need to cross the hurdle of partner reopening with a hand that doesn’t bid slam now. He is not expecting a penalty pass that often.
And David raises the question of potential ethical issues.
BIRD: 4NT. This is clearly natural, since I could bid 4♣ with primary diamond support. In practice, at the table, it would be superhuman to make a smooth pass on this monster. Once you stop to think about it, partner's ability to re-open with a double would then be restricted.
Marty is paying attention to the mathematics and has his eye on a very large number…
BERGEN: Dbl. 6NT rates to make, so I don’t think +1400 will be enough. Perhaps we can get to a good grand.
Pierre and Joanna sum up the minority opinion, and I think they may be right that the answer is much closer than the voting suggests (hence the marking).
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 4NT. This is very close, and my answer is valid on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. The other days I Pass (Joanna would Pass more often). I’m sure East will bid again if I Pass, but the problem is that South (unless he is at the top of the list of well-known terrorists) is favorite to make 4-5 tricks in 3♣-Doubled. That’s not good enough if we have a (small or grand) slam. Why shouldn’t partner have something like Kxxx/Kxx/AQJxxx/void? 4NT shows a 19-20 HCP balanced hand with a good club stopper. That’s what I have, no? If partner passes 4NT, I will regret not having passed for +800/1100 but, if he bids, the road to the slam is open. At the end of the year, I suspect there will be little difference in outcome between my two options.
Neither Cathy nor Barnet offered any comment with their choice, and I’m not sure I really understand it. Does this not agree diamonds?
SHENKIN: 4♣.
C BALDYSZ: 4♣.
Whilst both Sally and Liz settle for what will surely be a plus score and a vulnerable game bonus.
McGOWAN: 3NT. I don’t think South is completely psychic here (it would be a great shot) and I can’t rely on a re-opening double, so I go for the biggest practical plus score. Yes, we could easily miss slam, but how can I investigate?
4NT perhaps? Or maybe that would be Blackwood for diamonds in Scotland.
BROCK: 3NT. I don’t think a pass from me is forcing at this level. I’ll just go for the ’normal’ result. It might be hard to get more than 500 from 3♣-X anyway.
Are you willing to defend for 50s when you are certain of at least a vulnerable game and perhaps even a slam? If partner is not minimum, how happy will you be with +1400 when most of the field are scoring +1440 (or more)?
At the table, partner had Kxxx/KJx/AJxxx/x. Yes, he has short clubs, but he also has a lousy opening bid, so will he always re-open at the three-level if 3♣ is passed around to him? Indeed, as David pointed out, has your tempo made it impossible for him to double? A couple of panelists observed that collecting +250 defending 3♣ undoubled may not be a disaster, as you will still outscore those going down in a hopeless slam (and there rates to be quite a few of those). Pierre Schmidt sent me an interesting computer analysis of this problem which suggested that passing was statistically the winning action at IMPs but, at matchpoints, Pass and 4NT were about equally successful.
Our California correspondent who sent me the hand reports that his partner did re-open at the table, so that was +1100 with no slam making, and thus most of the marbles.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♦ |
10 |
12 |
22 |
|
4♠ |
8 |
7 |
46 |
|
5♠ |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
22 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.96
At last, a hand on which everyone bid something! This one turned out to be a question of methods. The hand feels like it is too good for 4♠, but is 4♦ and then 4♠ over partner’s likely 4♥ a slam try in spades, or a hand with 4♠/5+♣? Are you willing to jump to 5♠? The average score on this hand is greatly reduced by more than a fifth of competition entrants scoring zero for responding with a non-forcing 3♠ when the panel are concerned that 4♠ is not enough on this hand.
Pierre and Joanna sum up the problem…
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 4♦. Very likely my partner will bid 4♥ and I will correct to 4♠ to show some slam interest with spades. Some partnerships will have the agreement that this sequence shows four spades only (and five or more clubs) but that is not our method.
The majority of the panel are in agreement with the French stars…
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. After 4♥, a bid of 4♠ shows a good hand.
CAMPANILE: 4♦. I hope that if I pull partner’s 4♥ to 4♠, that will show some slam interest.
MEYERS: 4♦. This hand is way too good for a direct jump to 4♠.
SILVER: 4♦. With my two baby diamonds, this hand is only worth the pathetic little slam try that I am making below game.
Most of this faction say nothing about what relative lengths in the suits partner should expect.
WANG: 4♦. I will show a good hand with two suits.
BROCK: 4♦. This shows a good two-suiter for me.
McGOWAN: 4♦. Partner will expect a Major two-suiter but will wake up when I convert hearts to spades.
DUBOIS: 4♦. I have no bid that actually shows these two suits. However, my partner is supposed to bid his suits up the line so, if I hear 4♥, I will bid 4♠, and he should be able to work out what I am telling him.
BERGEN: 4♦. I feel very good about this bid. The question is what to do after the expected 4♥ bid from partner.
SHENKIN: 4♦.
Sophia mentions the third alternative, and explains why it may not be the best option.
S BALDYSZ: 4♦. When partner bids 4♥, I bid 4♠. I would like to invite slam, but we might be off two aces opposite something like AQxx/KQJx/Kx/xxx. That’s a decent 15-count and, if I jump to 5♠ now, partner would accept with that hand.
There was only one taker for that option…
ROBSON: 5♠. Quantitative. Anything else (via 4♦, for example) will be shrouded in mist.
The rest settled for the pragmatic action.
MARSTON: 4♠. This should have play. I see no reason to go searching for slam.
DE WIJS: 4♠. I don’t have a bidding trick available here, and I am not willing to commit to the five-level.
RONDON: 4♠. My hand is great but probably not enough for venturing alone to the five-level.
C BALDYSZ: 4♠.
Some specifically rule out 4♦ because, for them, it is not this hand…
MOULD: 4♠. 4♦ followed by 4♠ is not this hand, and I ain't committing to the five-level. Yes, I am heavy, but I cannot see anything else more sensible.
BIRD: 4♠. I have a good hand, yes, but will 4♦ help? Partner will doubtless bid 4♥, and then 4♠ would not show any more strength, and it might suggest only a four-card spade suit, too.
COHEN: 4♠. A big underbid, but 4♦ then 4♠ without partnership agreement doesn’t show a big 4♠ bid. More likely it is choice of games with maybe four spades and longer clubs.
Perhaps sometime in the future, we’ll give West something like Kxxx/x/xxx/AKxxx after the same auction, to see how many then bid 4♦-4♥-4♠ claiming it shows that hand.
When the hand occurred at the table, partner had AQJ/AK10x/xx/J9xx so game was quite high enough. Indeed, you could always make 5♣, whereas even 4♠ could have been beaten (although not in practice) as clubs were 4-0.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
12 |
19 |
|
Dbl |
7 |
4 |
43 |
|
2NT |
7 |
3 |
16 |
|
3NT |
5 |
1 |
12 |
|
1NT |
0 |
0 |
7 |
|
2♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.63
The first question is whether to bid at all. Then, if you decide to bid, what action do you take? One reason for including this deal was to ensure that our readers all understand that 2NT in the balancing seat is natural, and not Unusual. The subsidiary question is the range of this natural 2NT. The panel answered the first question with a big majority that avoided the second question, whilst almost half of competitors chose to reopen with a double, with 2NT a distinctly minority choice. Let’s see what our experts have to say…
MARSTON: Pass. No future - no bid.
COHEN: Pass. We are likely to collect +200 or more with no guarantee we have a game.
BERGEN: Pass. +200 defending 1♥ seems more likely than +400 playing in 3NT.
ROBSON: Pass. Let’s get +200 or more on a likely part-score deal.
WANG: Pass. Maybe we cannot make game. Passing seems like the best choice.
McGOWAN: Pass. I hope to collect 200 (or at least get a plus score). The alternative is 2NT, but I can’t see that playing well if partner is very weak.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. We are not going to get them four or five down in 1♥, but I do not think we are favorite to make game. (Jumping to 3NT would be my other option.)
MEYERS: Pass. Another pass from me. They are vulnerable and going down. I’ll just count our tricks.
SHENKIN: Pass. We should go plus defending. I would have bid 2NT at any other vulnerability.
CAMPANILE: Pass.
S BALDYSZ: Pass. We might be making 3NT if partner has Kxxxxx in diamonds, but he didn’t bid over 1♥ so the odds are that he has little to offer. I Pass and wait for those hundreds to land on my scoresheet.
David sums up the case for the majority.
BIRD: Pass. With the hearts sitting over me, I don't expect to make 3NT with a pauper's dummy opposite. If I was in any doubt, the vulnerability here would convince me.
However, nearly half the panel choose to take some action
DE WIJS: Dbl. We will not get +400 on defense, and I believe we are a favorite to make 3NT. I will jump to 3NT after most bids from partner, but I am starting with double, mainly to keep 4♠ in play in case partner has a weak five-card suit there.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. At IMPs I would pass but, playing matchpoints, I double and try for game.
Joey and Alan both mention the range for a natural 2NT.
SILVER: Dbl. I am too strong for a balancing 2NT. Thus, a takeout double followed by 2NT expresses this hand adequately.
MOULD: Dbl. I play 2NT as 19-21, so maybe that is right with downgraded heart length, but I still feel I will show it as more. No objections to 2NT. If I have to Pass, that is just too hard for me, tempting as it is at this vulnerability.
Whereas this hand was within the range for some…
DUBOIS: 2NT. 2NT in this position is not unusual, but natural. Partner couldn’t overcall, but he could still have enough values to make game opposite this hand.
C BALDYSZ: 2NT.
RONDON: 2NT. Reopening bids are a mysterious part of the bidding world. I wouldn't be surprised if someone thinks a natural 2NT in competition is a conspiracy theory.
Only Sally thought she had enough to simply bid game.
BROCK: 3NT. It doesn’t need much.
At the table, partner had Kxxx/x/Jxxxx/98xx, so you can probably make a low spade or diamond contract, but are you ever going to stop there? As the majority accurately judged that passing offers the best realistic chance of a plus score.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♥ |
10 |
15 |
79 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
5 |
10 |
|
6♥ |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.54
This hand was something of a damp squib, with three-quarters of both panelists and competition entrants choosing to take the low road. I did give a couple of bonus marks to 6♥, purely because it was more deserving than the Pass of partner’s takeout double chosen by a few competitors.
CAMPANILE: 4♥. I am a simple soul.
COHEN: 4♥. It is tempting to bid more.
McGOWAN: 4♥. Yes, a bit good, and we might make more, but I do like plus scores.
BROCK: 4♥. A bit good probably, but I think any more is too much.
MARSTON: 4♥. Sure, we might make a slam, but I see no clear pathway.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. A difficult hand, but I can go down in 5♥, so only 4♥ for me.
The ever-pragmatic Joey Silver in one of the stars featured in the second volume of World Class: 21st Century, which will be available from all outlets in the next couple of weeks.
SILVER: 4♥. While this hand is over-valued for a simple 4♥, there is no way to intelligently explore for slam in the face of the enemy preempt, so I will settle for what is in front of my face.
MOULD: 4♥. Again, I am unwilling to commit to the five-level. All the major-suit finesses will be wrong.
WANG: 4♥.
C BALDYSZ: 4♥.
S BALDYSZ: 4♥. If partner has points in diamonds, see Hand 2 - I leave the table.
RONDON: 4♥. Terrible cards in the Majors, so I'll settle for bidding only four.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 4♥. We see no reason to bet on partner holding the magic hand. We could easily be in danger at the five-level and, after a preempt at the four-level, we believe as a general philosophy to underbid rather than overbid.
SHENKIN: 4♥. I go low. 4NT and 5♥ are both reasonable choices, but suits are likely to be breaking badly and I hate to go minus when I don’t have to.
ROBSON: 4♥. I guess to go low. West may lead a short spade through dummy and we lose the first three tricks.
A quarter of the panel tried to catch up after their failure to open in first seat…
DE WIJS: 5♥. Who knows? I feel I owe partner more than 4♥.
DUBOIS: 5♥. This hand seems too good for 4♥. All those little trumps will take care of partner’s diamonds.
MEYERS: 5♥. Maybe this is a little aggressive, but I have too much to bid only 4♥.
BIRD: 5♥. No, this does not ask for a diamond control. With so much space lost, I must have a natural, value-showing response available.
Marty emphasizes that point.
BERGEN: 5♥. This very surprising jump by a passed hand MUST promise diamond shortness.
On this deal from the 2023 Venice Cup in Morocco, partner had AJ/AKQx/Jxx/QJxx so 6♥ was an easy make. There is, perhaps, an inference that none of the panel mentioned: Partner is unlikely to be very short in diamonds (no raise), and therefore she is likely to have a very strong hand for her four-level intervention. Maybe things would have been easier had we opened that weak two after all.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
14 |
59 |
|
5♦ |
6 |
5 |
10 |
|
4NT |
5 |
1 |
18 |
|
4♠ |
5 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♣ |
5 |
0 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
4 |
0 |
5 |
|
5♥ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.00
This hand produced another big majority vote from the panel, with almost three-quarters of the experts and nearly half of competition entrants opting to take their very likely plus score rather than look for slam. Let’s hear the arguments…
MARSTON: Pass. I see no good reason to abandon a game bonus chasing the vague possibility of a slam.
ROBSON: Pass. Partner bid under pressure so I am not hanging him.
SILVER: Pass. Partner was put under a lot of pressure by the villains, so I shall not hang him for the decision he took!
MOULD: Pass. My fourth Pass in seven hands. Yes, I could have a grand on, but partner has to be given a lot of slack in these positions.
BROCK: Pass. I’m glad to have a good dummy.
RONDON: Pass. Let’s give partner some leeway. I'm not sure how much of my hand he's already bid.
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. Again, we see no reason to guess that partner holds the perfect hand. Indeed, we could just repeat all of our comments from the previous deal here.
C BALDYSZ: Pass.
WANG: Pass.
Migry echoes the feelings of many panelists…
CAMPANILE: Pass. Yes, we could have a slam, but partner may have stretched to bid 4♥ and I am not going to punish him.
McGOWAN: Pass. An impossible problem! I think partner is more likely to have solid hearts and not much outside than solid hearts and enough to make 12 tricks. Making a try would probably not help.
S BALDYSZ: Pass. There are too many unknowns in this auction. Partner could easily have something like Qxx/AKQxxx/xx/Kx and then even the five-level could be too high. If I had more room I would investigate, but here there are too many variables so I’m protecting our plus score and passing.
BERGEN: Pass. I may be wrong, but... With 0-1 cards in their suit, I know how little I'd need to bid 4♥ in partner’s position.
Jill sums up the case for the majority.
MEYERS: Pass. This is one of those hands that reminds me how effective preempts are. I feel damned if I do and damned if I don't. Partner could have AJx/AK10xxx/xx/xx, on which he would surely bid 4♥, but I want to pass as slam would need a lot to go right. Or, partner could have Qx/AKQxxx/xx/KQx in which case slam is excellent so I want to bid. I think I am going to go low and Pass, although I am only a hair’s breadth away from bidding 5♦.
There were a handful who were not willing to go quietly.
COHEN: 5♦. I like to give partner lots of leeway in these auctions, but I have too much here to pass.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. I try for slam with five controls and J-x support.
SHENKIN: 5♦. My first thought was to Pass. Yes, partner has bid under pressure, but maybe he can make slam with a good 4♥ bid and scramble home at the five-level without. If not, sorry partner!
DE WIJS: 5♦. Obviously, partner might be stretching here. Still, it’s not hard to envision a hand where we make a grand, so I’ll go to the five-level once more.
BIRD: 5♦. With these good cards, including the ace of their suit, it would be feeble to pass. Since I would not bid so strongly merely with a diamond control, partner will place me with something good in the black suits too.
Paul was alone in advancing via RKCB…
DUBOIS: 4NT. It is hard to construct a hand for partner that doesn’t make 6♥, so I’m going to ask for key cards and, if he shows three, I’ll then ask about the ♥Q and think about bidding a grand if he shows that too.
On this hand from the 2023 English Premier League, partner held --/AK10xxxx/Qx/KQ10x so 6♥ was an easy make (with the ♦K on lead) and even 7♥ was makeable with a successful trump guess (Q-x-x onside). Another moral victory for the bidders.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♣ |
10 |
8 |
21 |
|
Pass |
8 |
7 |
14 |
|
2♠ |
7 |
3 |
5 |
|
2NT |
5 |
1 |
5 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
1 |
49 |
|
4♣ |
5 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.32
This was certainly the most difficult of this month’s problems, and also the only one not to produce a majority decision from the panel. The largest group of competition entrants chose an action that was supported by only one panelist. For the sixth hand this month, Pass again featured prominently in the panel’s choices. Let’s start with those who decided to wait and see…
BERGEN: Pass. I have no clear action. If 2♥ ends the auction, I'll hope for +200.
SILVER: Pass. With nothing intelligent to do at this point, I pass and hope that partner can re-open with his heart shortage. I’ll then try to come up with something intelligent.
Paul clearly knows what he plans to do if partner backs in with a double…
MARSTON: Pass. I have no clear call. Next, and there will be a next, we will make them pay.
MEYERS: Pass. I think that’s a record five passes from me this month. My second choice is 2♠, but that is a bit fatuous. I am hoping that partner can balance with his short hearts.
C BALDYSZ: Pass.
CAMPANILE: Pass.
One of the two panelists who passed on six of this month’s hand sums up the case for inaction…
S BALDYSZ: Pass. Anything could be right. I am not a fan of overcalling 3♣ on such a bad suit. I could move one of my clubs into my spades and overcall in that suit. Maybe overcalling 2NT will work too, but the likelihood is that partner has a handful of diamonds, and what would I do if she transfers to diamonds (with 3♣) over my 2NT? I wouldn’t double, as partner will surely bid some number of diamonds. At this vulnerability, Pass seems the most appealing – if North has the rest of the hearts and partner has points, she can double. If partner has the rest of the hearts, we will be better off defending and setting them. End note: this is the most times I've passed in eight boards in a very long time (6/8!). I think my mom is waiting for a set of eight boards where I will pass on all of them 😊
The panel voted 13-7 in favour of taking action, and this was the most popular choice…
COHEN: 3♣. Miserable. I am hoping partner does anything but pass.
RONDON: 3♣. I prefer to enter the bidding on this hand, although it would seem that passing is the theme of the month, so we'll see.
DE WIJS: 3♣. Ugly. On some days, I would double and expect partner to not bid diamonds, but I don’t feel lucky today.
One of the panel’s chances for a medal from the Seniors event in Denmark is not a happy bunny…
MOULD: 3♣. Marvelous! 3♣ is disgusting, but so is everything else, although I am tempted by 2♠. As much of a fan of bent NT bids as I am, I cannot bring myself to bid 2NT on this. I shall be interested to see what the panel does on this one.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♣. The last and most difficult hand. If partner advances with 3♦, I can bid 3♠.
Paul puts the case for an alternative that none of the panel voted for, although perhaps a couple would if they had thought of it…
DUBOIS: 3♣. A jump to 4♣ would be Leaping Michaels for most expert pairs, but that should show five spades, not four. That’s a possibility, as it’s not as big a lie as bidding 2NT with a void. Overcalling 2♠ would be lying about my spade length too, so I might as well go for the leaping lie and show both suits as do that. Just overcalling 3♣ seems like an underbid on this hand but, in the name of partnership trust, I’m going to go low.
Barnet makes a good point in favour of his choice rather than another of the obvious alternatives.
SHENKIN: 3♣. I wanted to try 2♠, but it will then be very hard to get into clubs if that is where we belong. At least after a 3♣ overcall, I can still bid my spades if partner advances with 3♦. The big reward is when he has four or more clubs.
Pierre earns this month’s “Comment of the Month” award as well as 10 marks…
SCHMIDT/ZOCHOWSKA: 3♣. The last torture of this set of hands is the biggest. We are probably down by 50 IMPs after the first seven boards, but I refuse to Pass. I have too much! Of course, neither Double, 2NT, 3♣ nor 2♠ are fully representative of my hand, so I have to make a choice between the inconvenients. I choose 3♣ because I had a dream last night: I held Kx/xx/Jxxx/Kxxxx, LHO opened 2♥ and my partner overcalled 3♣… and then the alarm clock rang.
A few preferred to get their major into the auction…
ROBSON: 2♠. Aiming for the main prize, a spade game.
WANG: 2♠. Very difficult. I don’t want to pass, and this looks like the best of the alternatives.
BIRD: 2♠. Once you think of 2♠, it seems a very good idea. It leaves double, 2NT and 3♣ well in its wake.
And there were two mavericks…
BROCK: 2NT. I hope partner has the diamonds covered.
McGOWAN: Dbl. It doesn’t have to end badly…
When the hand occurred at the table, partner had xxx/xx/A10xx/KQxx. Do you expect him to re-open if you pass? Dream on! With 3NT making easily, the undoubled penalty from 2♥ will not score well. The 3♣ overcallers will hit pay dirt right away, and even Liz’s solo Double would have worked: Playing Lebensohl, partner’s 3♣ response will set you on the path to glory. Clubs were 2-2 and the spade honours were split, so 6♣ was an easy make. I confess I’d have been one of those struggling away in a disgusting 4♠ contract.
Despite passing six times on eight hands, Sophia Baldysz tops the panel with an impressive 78/80. Completing this month’s podium are Paul Marston (the other panelist who voted for Pass six times) with 76/80, and a four-way tie on 75/80 between Alan Mould, Hanoi Rondon, Joey Silver and Wenfei Wang. The French duo finish just a point off the podium, so had Joanna outvoted Pierre on Hands 1 and 3, they would have begun with a perfect 80/80 set.
As always, thanks to all of our panelists for taking the time to both entertain and educate our readers. We’ll see you all next month. Our thanks also to our regular competition entrants. Encourage all of your friends and bridge partners to take part so that you can compare your scores.
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
78 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
76 |
|
Alan MOULD |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
Pass |
3♣ |
75 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
2NT |
4♥ |
Pass |
3♣ |
75 |
|
Joey SILVER |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
75 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
Pass |
Pass |
4NT |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
2♠ |
75 |
|
Migry CAMPONILE |
5♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
74 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT and Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
5♥ |
Pass |
4NT |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
3♣ |
74 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
73 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
Pass |
Pass |
Dbl |
4♦ |
Pass |
5♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
70 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
5♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
70 |
|
Larry COHEN |
5♣ |
Pass |
Pass |
4♠ |
Pass |
4♥ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
69 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
5♠ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
2♠ |
68 |
|
David BIRD |
Pass |
Pass |
4NT |
4♠ |
Pass |
5♥ |
5♦ |
2♠ |
65 |
|
Sally BROCK |
Pass |
Pass |
3NT |
4♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
Pass |
2NT |
65 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
Dbl |
Pass |
3NT |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
Dbl |
65 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
Pass |
Dbl |
4♣ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
65 |
|
Paul DUBOIS |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♦ |
2NT |
5♥ |
4NT |
3♣ |
64 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
5♥ |
Pass |
4NT |
4♠ |
Dbl |
5♥ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
61 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
5♥ |
Dbl |
4♣ |
4♠ |
2NT |
4♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
Pass |
3♣ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
Pass 10 |
5♥ 6 |
5♣/Dbl 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 2: |
Pass 10 |
4♦ 6 |
Dbl 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
Pass 10 |
4NT 8 |
Dbl 6 |
3NT 5 |
4♣ 4 |
6NT 3 |
|
HAND 4: |
4♦ 10 |
4♠ 8 |
5♠ 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 5: |
Pass 10 |
Dbl/2NT 7 |
3NT 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
4♥ 10 |
5♥ 6 |
6♥ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
Pass 10 |
5♦ 6 |
4NT/4♠/5♣ 5 |
6♥ 4 |
5♥ 2 |
|
|
HAND 8: |
3♣ 10 |
Pass 8 |
2♠ 7 |
2NT/Dbl/4♣ 5 |
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
6.64 |
|
HAND 2: |
7.37 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.19 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.96 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.63 |
|
HAND 6: |
8.54 |
|
HAND 7: |
8.00 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.32 |
I am sad to report the death of a former member of our expert panel, Brazilian legend Marcelo Branco. Marcelo died on the 18th of June at the age of 79. One of only ten players to have won the Triple Crown (Bermuda Bowl, World Team Olympiad and World Open Pairs), I recently interviewed Marcelo for the upcoming second volume of World Class: 21st Century, in which he featured in the ‘All-Time Greats’ section. He was a giant of the game in South America and his passing is a great loss to the bridge world. R.I.P., Marcelo.
