Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Five months into the annual competition, the contenders will be looking to consolidate their place near the top of the leader-board. So far this year, sets have alternated between difficult and high-scoring. Will this one continue the trend and prove challenging to those seeking to maintain an average at or above 70/80?
Congratulations this month go to Andrew Robson, who was a member of the winning team at the 2024 Spring Foursomes. Andrew’s ORCA team won the 32-board final 84-57. Other panelists who did well in the event were Alan Mould and Jason Hackett, both of whom reached the semi-finals.
This month’s guest panelist led all entrants in the March competition, with 78/80 on what proved to be a very difficult set of hands. Li 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. He mainly participates in school competitions: He finished second in the school Club Cup and earned 6th place in the bdzzx Cup Invitational Pairs Tournament this year. Li says, “Throughout my journey, I have been fortunate to have the guidance and support of my best teammate, Master Chen.”
If you are interested in hearing more from some members of our panel, a number of them are featured in my latest book, World Class: 21st Century: European Stars. See their favorite deals, their most memorable disasters, their tips for aspiring players, their views on what makes a successful partnership work, etc. The second volume, Stars from USA and Rest of the World, which also features a number of our panelists, will also be available on Amazon and other booksellers in the next few weeks.
Hand 6 this month comes from a regular competition entrant, Malcolm Jarvis from San Diego CA, 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.
What an interesting set of hands this proved to be. The panel offer support for a total of 38 different actions on the eight hands this month. They produce a majority vote on only two deals and their only really decisive decision is, curiously, one that would have been disastrous at the table. There are a couple on which they were torn between two choices, and the largest single faction on the panel sometimes did not reflect the overall view, making a couple of deals very tricky to mark. How does all that bode for competitors?
With the vote very close on a number of hands, there are plenty of chances to score well. You might therefore expect a high-scoring month, although with more than half of the panel scoring in the 60s, perhaps not. The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on only two of the eight hands, but voting with the largest group of competitors still scores 61/80 (marginally down from 64/80 in April). However, the average score this month is 50.78 (well up from 46.46 on Set 24-04). Let’s see what the panel have to say about this month’s hands…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2NT |
10 |
9 |
13 |
|
2♦ |
8 |
6 |
23 |
|
Pass |
7 |
3 |
11 |
|
3NT |
5 |
2 |
12 |
|
2♠ |
4 |
1 |
24 |
|
4♠ |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.51
The panel offer six different choices so perhaps it is hardly surprising that the competition entrants are also divided, although the two most popular choices are not the same. The panel is split between a 2♦ cue-bid and a natural 2NT. Plenty of competitors also supported 2♦, but the largest group (just) chose to bid their four-card spade suit. We start with someone trying to take over my role as resident comedian…
RONDON: 2NT. I have sort of a stopper in their suit, don't I?
MOULD: 2NT. OK - did someone invent this hand just to show that cue bids of the opponent's suit are silly? 2NT is absurd, but so is everything else I can think of! I have admiration for anyone who has the courage to pass on the grounds that this is a complete misfit.
Marty offers an interesting idea for regular partnerships to discuss.
BERGEN: 2NT. Amusing problem. I have always believed that after (1 any suit)-2♣-(Pass)-? 2♦ should be totally artificial, with at least some interest in game. That would have been a useful agreement to have had on this deal.
ROBSON: 2NT. I can’t pass, nor jump to 3NT, as we could just about have a spade fit.
COHEN: 2NT. There is no way to bid diamonds naturally and I have too much to pass. So, it is notrump or the four-card spade suit. At least 2NT leaves room for partner.
SHENKIN: 2NT.
David explains the problem with the panel’s most popular alternative…
BIRD: 2NT. I don't like 2♦: That is unlikely to extract a 2♥ rebid from partner, let alone a 2♠ one, and he’s not favorite to have a diamond stopper, so isn’t he most likely to rebid 3♣? How will that help me? 2NT does at least tell him which game I have in mind.
Both Tim and Andy sum up the problem for the largest group on the panel…
COPE: 2NT. It is all about choosing the least lie. Greater lies would be making a cue bid raise, bidding a four-card spade suit, or unilaterally bidding 3NT. 2NT is not perfect, but it seems better than the other three options.
HUNG: 2NT. I have no idea. It feels like 2♦ should deliver at least a doubleton club. Pass gives up on a potential vulnerable game, and jumping to 3NT might just land us in the wrong contract. If partner raises my 2NT to 3NT, let's hope I have enough entries to set up my diamonds. Perhaps North will be kind enough to lead the suit he bid! 😊
So, what about the cue-bid?
DE WIJS: 2♦. I don't have a good feeling about where this is likely to go, but I don't see an alternative.
WANG: 2♦. Forcing one round. Maybe we can find a spade fit.
They don’t sound that convinced.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♦. I will pass 3♣, bid 2NT over 2♥, and raise 2♠ to game.
MINGZHE: 2♦. I will raise partner's 2♠ to 4♠. 3NT will need some good luck if there is no spade fit.
At least we have partnership harmony in Poland…
C BALDYSZ: 2♦. If partner bids 2♥, then I counter with 2NT. It's a misfit that won't play well, but NT should be better than playing in either of partner’s presumed suits.
S BALDYSZ: 2♦. I had to read the auction three times as my first thought was that I must have opened 1♦… Partner could still have both black suits, in which case I wouldn’t mind being in some number of spades. Just a one-round force for now.
I thought there would be more support for this small group…
SUNDELIN: Pass. Reluctantly, but probably wise.
McGOWAN: Pass. With a bored look. Some situations are just too tough.
Joey points out a reason other than the potential misfit for passing now.
SILVER: Pass. If I want to get to play in diamonds (and I do), I have to rely on lefty's co-operation to re-open the bidding, where upon I can get to bid my diamonds naturally Bidding them now, or after I bid spades, will be a cue-bid rather than natural.
Two multiple Women’s World Champions from opposite sides of the Atlantic are of similar mind…
BROCK: 3NT. Ridiculous bid! Ridiculous hand!
MEYERS: 3NT. Partner has bid at unfavorable vulnerability at the two-level, so I am bidding a game, and this seems the most practical. For me, 2♠ would show at least a five-card suit and it would be non-forcing. I am a blaster!
Paul is the lone flag-waver for a quarter of competitors.
MARSTON: 2♠. Keeping the dream alive. Or is it a nightmare?
Whilst Zia either misread the auction or is doing something so imaginative that it is beyond me to understand.
ZIA: 4♠. Let them find the best fit. I would have splintered if I had Q-x in a side suit.
I suspect they will simply guess to double.
Partner had xx/AJ10x/x/KQJxxx, and South had A9xxx clubs behind partner, which is perhaps not that surprising when diamonds is North’s better minor. North was 4-4-4-1 so you cannot make much: Perhaps 2NT and probably 2♣-X? Would the passers sit when North’s double comes back to them? Running to 2♦, which North might double, may also produce a plus score.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
9 |
26 |
|
Dbl |
8 |
8 |
30 |
|
4NT |
7 |
1 |
14 |
|
5♠ |
7 |
1 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
7 |
1 |
3 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
1 |
22 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.58
This is not quite the highest-scoring hand this month, although almost everyone scores well. Most of the panel and over half of competition entrants are split between the two main choices – double and defend, or cue-bid in the hunt for slam. A handful of panelists also chose to bid on via some other route, with only a couple actually committing to a final contract. Let’s start with the bidders…
WANG: 5♦. Slam try.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. Last train to slam.
RONDON: 5♦. Slam seems close with them having all the missing spades. We should play 5♥ at least, so this sets us on the way to six if it's adequate.
C BALDYSZ: 5♦.
MOULD: 5♦. When I started constructing hands for partner, it was very tough to find a layout where the five-level was not safe, so I will trundle on. Partner will not play me for more suit that this or I would have started by bidding some diamonds.
BIRD: 5♦. Hearts are agreed and 5♦ is the most helpful slam try. He can see a spade control in front of his own eyes. If I had to guess the final contract without any assistance (Pass, Dble, 5♥ or 6♥?) I would bid 5♥ rather than defend.
MEYERS: 5♦. My hand is worth a slam try. It's true that the ♠A may not be working, but give East as little as x/Axxxxx/xxx/AKx and slam is good. So far, I have only shown a limit raise, so I think I owe partner a cue-bid.
What did you make of partner’s pass over 4♠? Some think it was forcing…
BERGEN: 5♦. I definitely believe that partner's pass was forcing.
MINGZHE: 5♦. Slam try. I usually prefer to defend with a balanced hand, but partner certainly has a spade singleton or even void. Suppose partner has 12 points in the other three suits, there are then only six points missing. The 30-point-rule (I made up this name) tells me to bid slam. By the way, partner's pass is forcing in my system. Speaking of my system, maybe I would bid 2♦ first and advance with 5♥ now.
Sophia clearly thinks the pass was non-forcing, but advances anyway…
S BALDYSZ: 5♦. Partner is pretty much marked with a spade void here. It would be ideal if he had a sixth heart. I am not a fan of the inv+ bid – I would have forced to game with a fit (How? MS), which would have created a forcing pass situation over 4♠. Partner could still have ♥A-Q, ♦Q-J and the ♣Q, which is the worst-case scenario, but I think we should still be safe at the five-level, so I’m cue-bidding.
Now we come to the solo artists.
MARSTON: 4NT. Assuming partner has a stiff spade, slam must be a decent shot provided he has at least one ace and the ♥Q.
Barnet is the only supporter of the large group of coemption entrants who did not want to defend but had no slam ambitions.
SHENKIN: 5♥.
Whilst both Tim and P.O. think they have enough to commit to taking 12 tricks without asking partner…
COPE: 5♠. Partner has made a forcing pass, showing suitability to play at the five-level. I am not sure if the ♠A is a working card, but I am prepared to commit to slam opposite this so-called suitable hand. I would have preferred to have bid 2♦ first, as it will be difficult to get to 7♦ opposite something like x/AQxxx/QJxx/Axx, which is a hand consistent with partner's bidding.
SUNDELIN: 6♥. Inviting them to sacrifice.
The rest of the panel take the opposite view…
HUNG: Dbl. Let's take our plus score.
COHEN: Dbl. My hand is too flat to consider bidding on. Partner's pass isn't even forcing as my cue-bid forced only to 3♥.
ROBSON: Dbl. I don’t think partner’s pass is forcing, so he has passed out of weakness. This means 5♥ is not guaranteed, but there should be +500 available on defense.
BROCK: Dbl. For me, partner’s pass is not forcing. I go for what would seem to be the plus score in front of my nose.
McGOWAN: Dbl. This is not a forcing pass situation, so bidding again just shows extras.
ZIA: Dbl. Partner’s pass is non-forcing. No need to panic. I should probably lead a trump.
DE WIJS: Dbl. For me, pass from partner is non-forcing here, so slam is unlikely. The hand does seem to fit well, but who knows? Maybe 5♥ will be down due to a bad trump break.
SILVER: Dbl. With only three hearts, and the real possibility of adverse distributional storms, slam looks unlikely on this auction. Rather than risk a pilgrimage to the five-level, I will take whatever profit I can make right here.
That this was a close decision is reflected by the panel, who voted 13-8 in favour of bidding. And, the majority would have been right on this deal from the final of the Open Teams at the Gold Coast Congress in Australia, where one West doubled (+500) and the other bid Blackwood. 5♦ would surely also get partner to bid 6♥ with x/AQxxx/xx/AQxxx. The club finesse failed but, with the suit breaking 3-3, that was still a comfortable +1430 for the bidders.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♠ |
10 |
9 |
9 |
|
3♣ |
8 |
5 |
20 |
|
3♦ |
7 |
2 |
28 |
|
2NT |
6 |
1 |
1 |
|
5♦ |
5 |
3 |
12 |
|
4NT |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Dbl |
4 |
1 |
8 |
|
4♦ |
4 |
0 |
4 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 (+MS) |
0 |
|
2♣ |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
6♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.37
The panel came up with seven alternatives, and that didn’t include my choice when I answered the set to check that the links were working before sending the hands out. I expected more support for 3♦, which seems to be about what the hand is worth, but the panel quite reasonably point out that 2♠ shows a 3♦ bid or better which, on reflection, is clearly superior. A small faction on the panel made the case for introducing the clubs, and their arguments were persuasive too. Let’s start with the majority…
BERGEN: 2♠. I dislike all the alternatives.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. Showing a strong hand with diamonds
DE WIJS: 2♠. The most likely destination is 5♦. I can't see an auction where I would pass 3NT, but maybe something good will happen, so I'll start here.
Sally and Li both ruled out Double as an option…
BROCK: 2♠. I don’t like doubling with a void.
MINGZHE: 2♠. Cue bid. A very strong hand. Whether 3NT or 5m depends on partner’s response. Bridge is a game of partners and not making decisions based only on your own holdings. I’ll be very happy to bid 5♣ if I hear 3♣ from my partner. I'm afraid that partner will bid 4♥ if I double.
Some were tempted by the club suit, but…
COHEN: 2♠. This hand is too strong/wrong for anything else. True, I really, really don't want to wrong-side this if partner bids clubs, but I can't bring myself to bid any number of clubs myself.
ZIA: 2♠. Let’s show a monster and hope he doesn’t bid clubs before we do. This is the only forcing bid, and I’m not stopping for a while.
MEYERS: 2♠. For starters. I would love to bid 3♣, but I would not love ‘All Pass’ after that. I suppose I could bid 2♣ on the basis that, even if partner passes, the enemy won't, so I will still get to bid again, but I think my hand is just too good to do that.
David still has an optimistic view of the hand…
BIRD: 2♠. It is not attractive to rebid in clubs on 7-4 shape, particularly with such great diamonds. And 3♦ does not seem adequate. Partner may have been deterred from bidding by his spade length, but he may still hold something useful.
One-in-five competitors liked the next choice, so what do the club bidders on the panel have to say?
ROBSON: 3♣. Curious! We could easily be good for a minor-suit slam, and this is surely the way forward.
Joey can never be accused of not telling it how it is…
SILVER: 3♣. If I can catch partner with a decent fit for my clubs, slam is an overwhelming possibility. The best way of doing that is to bid the damn suit, NOT by doubling or bidding diamonds!
Indeed, is finding partner with something like Qxxx/xxxx/-/Qxxxx so impossible?
SHENKIN: 3♣. Maybe 6♣ could be on with the lead from North. Second choice 3NT.
Paul raises the specter of the elephant in the room…
MARSTON: 3♣. What happened to the heart suit?
RONDON: 3♣. I know I don't have any hearts, which they could find after my reopening, but passing is too difficult in this instance.
Liz tries to get her second suit in via a different route, but is this what 2NT means in this auction? Perhaps It is worthwhile checking what your regular partner thinks.
McGOWAN: 2NT. This should show minors. Opponents presumably have a heart fit, but this hand is too good just to Pass.
Is it? With no one else doing so, let me make the case for passing. What is partner likely to hold? Something like 5-6 in the majors would hardly be a surprise, based on the opponents bidding (or lack of it). Do you really want to reach for the sky opposite that? If partner has a less extreme hand, say something like a 5-4-1-3 shape, is there not a risk that the opponents will wake up and bid their heart game if given a second chance? Is a five-level save really at attractive proposition? With no panelist and not even a single competitor duplicating my choice, I fold up my tent and slink off into the night…
There was a modicum of support for the competition entrants’ most popular choice…
SUNDELIN: 3♦. I am planning to bid 4♣ later if given the chance.
C BALDYSZ: 3♦.
Whilst some panelists were more enamored with their hand…
HUNG: 5♦. This could be very wrong, but the opponents may have a big heart fit.
MOULD: 5♦. I’ve no idea, as usual. Where have the hearts gone? I really do not want the bad guys to find them, so I just blast 5♦ and accept that I will quite often miss a slam. Your problems are too hard Marc!
(Evidently. You are three levels away from something you can make, and worried about not being four levels away. 😊)
S BALDYSZ: 5♦. A number of contracts could be right here, from 3♦ if things break poorly to as many as 6♦ if partner holds both sharp queens, a doubleton club and a diamond fit. But, even opposite xxxx/10xxx/Jxx/xx, 5♦ has fair play. I’d be skeptical about being in NT as it’s likely the opponents have a handful of hearts which they may be very happy to cash. Hopefully, partner has something useful such as a minor queen or queens, the ♠Q, 3-4 low diamonds or a club doubleton, etc., any of which it will be difficult for him to evaluate.
Wenfei also commits to the five-level whilst trying to get her shape across.
WANG: 4NT. Showing long diamonds and a club suit.
Tim was the only one willing to risk a double.
COPE: Dbl. Whilst the ♠K under the overcaller is not an asset, I still have a three-loser hand. I cannot show my strength by merely bidding some number of diamonds, and bidding some number of clubs would not show the disparity in the suit lengths. So, we can start with a Double and, opposite the expected heart response, repeat our diamond suit, showing a hand too strong to have bid just 3♦ earlier.
One West in the New Zealand Mixed Teams Trials followed Tim’s plan. When East could bid only 2♥, he was able to rebid 3♦, and North’s club lead gave declarer his ninth trick, and a hard-to-get plus score on the deal. In the other room, E/W got to 5♦-Doubled, down three for -500 when partner had 1087xx/QJxxx/x/xx. The only legitimate plus scores come from defending 1♠ or buying the hand in 2♦. Some deals are simply too difficult, even for the world’s best!
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
12 |
16 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
10 |
43 |
|
Dbl |
0 |
0 |
38 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
6♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.04
This is one of only two majority votes from the panel this month. They saw this hand as straightforward two-way decision: do you make sure of +620/650 by bidding your vulnerable game, or are you willing to risk collecting +250 with the chance that partner will find a second double and you will get +1100? Nearly two-thirds of competition entrants also chose one of the panel’s two options. However, more than a third also chose to double (scoring zero), and that made this the lowest-scoring hand this month. Did they really think partner would pass, even though double from our side is a responsive/takeout double? Let’s start with the minority faction on the panel…
BERGEN: 4♥. I admire those willing to risk a pass.
COPE: 4♥. Collecting in 50's is not enough at this vulnerability.
MARSTON: 4♥. I don't want to risk defending 4♦ undoubled.
COHEN: 4♥. As if this would happen in real life. Truth is stranger than fiction, so maybe it did. (It did. MS) Anyway, I can't risk collecting 50 a trick (it’s too much to expect partner to double again).
BIRD: 4♥. I have collected different things over the years (stamps, coins, downloaded CDs). Strangely, I have never been that keen on collecting +50s in large numbers.
SUNDELIN: 4♥.
C BALDYSZ: 4♥. Partner won't believe that a double is for penalties.
For Sally, it was a pragmatic choice.
BROCK: 4♥. I expect to make this and see no reason why partner will double (or bid) again if I pass. As most of my hand might be wasted, and I have only a four-card suit, I don’t want to do more.
MEYERS: 4♥. I think partner is void in diamonds, and probably 5-4-4 in some order. If I was certain that she would reopen, I would clearly pass but, at these colours, I am just going to bid 4♥ and make sure of my vulnerable game bonus.
DE WIJS: 4♥. This feels about right. If we are slamming, partner normally can move over 4♥. If partner has a non-standard hand for his double, the bidding might get tough, but I don't see that a different bid from me here would make life any easier.
Those arguments all seem very sensible but, for the rest, the alure of a really big penalty proved irresistible…
ZIA: Pass. Can I trust partner to reopen if I pass? Not really but, if he does, I expect to beat them for a telephone number. What’s South got? Something like AQxxx/x/Jxx/Jxxx, I guess.
ROBSON: Pass. I can’t bear to pass up this penalty. It’s letting the oppo run roughshod over us. Partner will strain to double again with a void.
HUNG: Pass. In tempo, of course.
McGOWAN: Pass. Please double again, partner!
MOULD: Pass. I'll risk taking them in 50s.
RONDON: Pass. In a perfect world, partner will double again. I'm going for that.
SHENKIN: Pass. Partner is still there.
SILVER: Pass. Coming from the colonies I have trapper instincts so, like Columbus, I will take a chance. I hope that partner has similar instincts and decides to reopen with a second double.
WANG: Pass. I can’t believe the opponent have bid 4♦! Of course, it is EW Vul, but I decided to pass and hope partner can double again.
Some were quite optimistic…
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. My partner will probably double again with a void in diamonds.
MINGZHE: Pass. Partner will probably double again with a diamond void, and I’ll convert that for penalties. I prefer defense because I have too many wasted points opposite partner’s void.
Only Sophia mentioned the possibility that pass might be forcing…
S BALDYSZ: Pass. It depends on your agreements here – for example, some partnerships play Pass as forcing at this vulnerability. I am concerned that slam might be making, as partner is pretty much marked with a diamond void (unless South raised with a doubleton or stiff – I’ve seen it happen…). Opposite Axxx/KQJx/–/Axxxx I’d want to play in slam. However, we could easily be off two aces opposite something like KQJx/KQJx/–/QJxxx. If I can play pass as forcing here, one option is to pass and pull to 4♥ as a slam try.
When the deal occurred at the table, partner did have enough to reopen with a second double. The passers would have been pleased to defend and restrict declarer to just four tricks for a penalty of +1400. Exciting but, alas, that would have been worth only a 1-IMP gain. I won’t tell you partner’s hand, as it will appear sometime in a future set to see if the panel can effectively flatten the board opposite those West players who chose to bid 4♥.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
8 |
24 |
|
2♥ |
9 |
3 |
12 |
|
4♦ |
8 |
9 |
14 |
|
3♦ |
5 |
2 |
32 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.20
This was essentially a question of how many diamonds to bid, and the panel were closely divided between an invitational 4♦ and committing to game with either 5♦ or a fourth-suit 2♥. Those bidding game outnumbered the inviters 11-9, hence the marking. Only a couple of panelists settle for bidding only 3♦, which was the choice of nearly a third of competition entrants. Let’s hear what the various factions on the panel have to say in support of their choice…
MOULD: 3♦. I wouldn't have started from here. Surely 2♠ would be a fit jump these days?
Yes, it would, but it would be non-forcing, showing a raise to 3♦ only. (Jumping to 3♠ would be a game-forcing fit jump.) This hand looks to me too strong for 2♠ but perhaps not worth a game-force.
COPE: 3♦. This hand is not quite good enough for a game force, as we will need some prime cards from partner. The bidding suggests that partner is not top of the range, as each player seems to have something to say.
Is there perhaps something in between 3♦ and a game-force?
ROBSON: 4♦. Highly invitational - probably 5-5.
WANG: 4♦. Partner has short spades. 4♦ is invitation.
BERGEN: 4♦. The best way to show this kind of support.
McGOWAN: 4♦. Why did I not make a fit jump last round? (see above. MS) I’ve got to try to shut out hearts.
C BALDYSZ: 4♦.
SUNDELIN: 4♦.
BIRD: 4♦. With five-card diamond support I am going to bid that suit at some level. A fourth-suit 2♥ asks partner to describe his hand, and I would take that route with more points and less shape.
DE WIJS: 4♦. This feels weird, but I think partner will know which minimum is suitable for raising to 5♦, so I'm trying to make 4♦ exactly in case he has the wrong kind of hand.
Only Miguel thinks 4♦ is more than invitational.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. Forcing to game with diamond support.
The rest committed to game by some route or another…
MEYERS: 5♦. This hand is too good for a non-forcing 4♦.
BROCK: 5♦. This hand seems familiar and I think last time I bid 4♦ and missed game. So, this time I’ll be more aggressive.
RONDON: 5♦. I've given up on the spades, but I can't give up on the game.
SILVER: 5♦. Not a hand for science (which eliminates looking for slam), but rather for a diamond game try!
Sophia was concerned that she might be missing a slam, so for her there was no question of not bidding game.
S BALDYSZ: 5♦. Anything from 4♦ to 6♦ might be right, depending on how the opponent’s cards split. Partner will hold a 1-3-5-4, 0-4-5-4 or 0-3-5-5 shape unless South had only a doubleton spade for his takeout double (unlikely). I normally play 4♦ in this situation as ace asking, but as I don’t have that agreement here, I’ll put the very aggressive slam back on the shelf. I think 5♦ is the most practical bid.
SHENKIN: 5♦.
MINGZHE: 5♦. We have at least ten diamonds. 3NT is not a good idea with a weak heart doubleton. Slam is out of range unless partner has extras, so I’ll show some respect to the opponent’s double.
Larry leads us nicely on to the fourth option.
COHEN: 5♦. I suppose 2♥ should be fourth suit forcing here, but a straight-forward 5♦ can't be too out of line.
A small group thought the hand justified further investigation…
HUNG: 2♥. Let’s start by setting up a game force with fourth suit. Despite everyone bidding, slam is not out of the picture. Give partner three aces, then trumps just need to split 2-1 and slam is cold.
ZIA: 2♥. Forcing, I presume, although if there was any doubt I would just bid 5♦. I plan to jump in diamonds later to show strength with great trumps. I’d like to make a small slam try if possible.
MARSTON: 2♥. Fourth suit. I am heading to at least game, rising above the NS noise.
At the table, one West jumped to 3♦, ending the auction, while the other advanced with a fourth-suit 2♥ and eventually reached 5♦. Partner had ---/AKx/Qxxxx/Qxxxx so 5♦ was an easy make with trumps 2-1. Would partner raise an invitational 4♦ to game with that hand? With a void in your first suit, perhaps not.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♣ |
10 |
8 |
17 |
|
Pass |
9 |
10 |
63 |
|
4♦ |
8 |
1 |
0 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
1 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
8 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
8 |
1 |
3 |
|
6♣ |
8 |
1 |
5 |
|
5♣ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.51
One of my students held this hand at the table, and asked me whether he should bid on over 3NT. I said I thought it was a close decision, so we’d see what the panel made of it. The competition entrants thought it was easy, with almost two-thirds choosing to pass, but the panel agreed it was a marginal decision, voting by 12-10 to investigate slam. With no single action getting a majority vote, I therefore gave maximum marks to the largest group of bidders. With the decision so close, though, everyone scores fairly well, which makes this the highest-scoring deal of the year so far.
BROCK: 4♣. Looks too good to pass.
HUNG: 4♣. Our hand has too much potential not to try for a slam.
BERGEN: 4♣. Since 2♠ promised club support, I am very interested in 6♣.
SUNDELIN: 4♣.
For some, this was their only try, and they were willing to give up if partner showed no interest.
MOULD: 4♣. I think I have a good hand but, if partner bids 4NT, that will be the end of it.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. We can still stop in 4NT, but I am worth one slam try.
Li makes a good point.
MINGZHE: 4♣. Forcing and slam try. I want to hear partner’s 4♦ cue bid. Since I have nothing much other than key cards, it's probably better to let partner use RKCB and make the final decision.
S BALDYSZ: 4♣. Again, a number of contracts could be right. With ♠J-10-x-x and two red kings, slam is close. He didn’t bid 3NT originally, so it seems he has a stronger hand, and thus I think I can make a move with all these controls.
A handful tried alternative routes to either game or slam in clubs…
ZIA: 4♥. Can I go down in 5♣? I don’t think so. I need to make a slam try with some shape inferences. Something like AJxx/KJxx/xx/Qxx is probably enough
Jill wants to ask for aces. How would you do that with your regular partner?
MEYERS: 4♦. Whatever is key-card in this auction, I am bidding it. For me, that would be 4♦. If I start with a 4♥ cue-bid, is partner really going to play me for three aces and the ♣K. Partner must have some kind of club fit for his 2♠ cue-bid.
Tim agrees that 4NT is a natural raise and not RKCB.
COPE: 4NT. I need to show some extras, as I would have bid the same way up to now without the ♣K. Whilst this is a type of quantitative raise, and we can stop in 4NT, partner should realize that I am angling for 6♣ rather than 6NT.
Only Larry decided that he had already heard enough.
COHEN: 6♣. Sort of where we were heading once partner bid 2♠. I can't picture that any delicate science would be better at this point than just blasting.
However, nearly half the panel thought they had already done enough.
MARSTON: Pass. I cannot imagine the alternative.
You really need to get out more, Paul 😊
WANG: Pass. I have already shown extra strength with 3♦.
Both Barnet and Andrew choose to pass, but both suggest yet another alternative way forward. (4♠ did receive some votes from competitors and, even though none of the panel chose it, I gave it the same mark as the other tries).
SHENKIN: Pass. This seems rather soft with what is a great hand. Advancing with 4♠ could be right.
ROBSON: Pass. I am close to a move (with 4♠?), but partner won’t thank me if he’s stretched.
C BALDYSZ: Pass.
DE WIJS: Pass. 3♦ promised extras. Still, I have more than that, but no guarantee of even a fit, so I go low.
Really? Partner’s 2♠ cue-bid didn’t at least imply a club fit?
McGOWAN: Pass. I suppose partner could have something like Axx/Kxxx/xx/Qxxx, but I think Kxx/KQxx/xx/Qxxx is more likely.
Is that just natural pessimism, Liz, or is there a reason?
SILVER: Pass. Partner's 3NT eliminates any hope for slam I might have had. On the principle that nine tricks are easier to take than eleven, I will chance game right here.
RONDON: Pass. I'm very glad partner bid 3NT. Why would I take him out of what could be our best game?
David’s reputation as a solid, conservative bidder has taken something of a battering in recent months, but he reverts to type on this deal.
BIRD: Pass. I have a bit to spare for my 3♦ rebid, and 3NT should be secure. Partner's 3NT bid, showing spade values, does not improve my confidence in a high club contract.
At the table, partner held AKx/J9xx/xx/xxxx so 6♣ was an easy make on a 2-1 trump split.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
19 |
34 |
|
3♥ |
7 |
2 |
20 |
|
3♠ |
5 |
1 |
9 |
|
2NT |
5 |
0 |
3 |
|
3NT |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
3♦ |
3 |
0 |
25 |
|
4♥ |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.32
This hand produced the month’s only big majority vote from the panel, and over a third of competition entrants agree with them. However, the hugely popular choice would have been disastrous at the table (but more of that later).
MARSTON: Pass. Partner wants to defend 2♠. That's fine with me.
BERGEN: Pass. I have no assurance that we can make a game.
WANG: Pass. We Have no obvious fit.
RONDON: Pass. I think they're going down and I think we don't have any game that is worth bidding.
Some panelist addressed an unasked question, the answer to which would have been significant to the outcome at the table.
COHEN: Pass. Is this an opening lead problem? I am leading a trump.
SHENKIN: Pass. Partner did not act over North’s double. I lead a trump.
COPE: Pass. I cannot see where their tricks are coming from, and cannot guarantee any game our way. The automatic trump lead should hold them to five or so tricks.
It actually holds your side to five tricks, but more of that later.
BROCK: Pass. And lead a trump. This could look really silly, but it looks to me as if partner has three spades and not really a stopper, so where are we going to make game.
MEYERS: Pass. I lead a trump. They could easily be in a 4-3 fit, as I think my RHO has five hearts. This could be a bloodbath for them.
Zia at least has a chance at a plus score…
ZIA: Pass. Partner’s double is at least a suggestion. Should I lead a diamond or a trump. I think a diamond as partner may be able to overruff dummy. They could easily be in a 3-3 fit here.
For some, the decision revolved around the exact meaning of partner’s double.
McGOWAN: Pass. I can’t imagine partner is making a takeout double here.
SILVER: Pass. I may be old fashioned but, even in this day and age, isn't East's double penalty?
HUNG: Pass. Presumably, partner's double is penalties. The opponents can still be in a 4-3 fit.
ROBSON: Pass. I think partner’s double is optional/penalty (implying three spades) as we’re in a force. I’m happy to pass, frankly.
MINGZHE: Pass. 2♦ is game-forcing, so my last pass means take-out and I consider partner's double as showing a balanced hand willing to defend. Partner has nothing to bid, neither do I.
SUNDELIN: Pass.
C BALDYSZ: Pass.
If we are not going to defend, where are we heading?
S BALDYSZ: Pass. If partner has a good spade stop, we’re close to making game, but he might then have bid NT at some point. He denied six hearts and it doesn’t look like suits are splitting, so I pass.
BIRD: Pass. I am not particularly happy with this, but none of the alternative bids seem any better. Partner spurned the chance to bid 2NT, 3♦ or 3♥, so no game contract beckons strongly.
Only a small group chose offense over defense.
DE WIJS: 3♥. It would be nice to know our exact agreements. Anyway, I'll bid my hand, assuming partner understands that I don't have three hearts after my pass of 2♠.
Although he is in a small minority, I think Alan’s assessment of the problem is closest to the mark.
MOULD: 3♥. You don't tell us what partner’s double is (I was hoping the panelists would tell us. MS), so I assume takeout, but it could be argued that, as it is over the bidder, it is penalties. However, that makes no sense looking at my spade holding.
3♥ seems the best of a bad lot. When we bring back -500 with 3NT cold, I will argue that I had denied three hearts as I did not bid 3♥ on the previous round 😊
Miguel moves forward with an alternative choice.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♠. I am vulnerable against not, so we will play 3NT or 4♥.
We have forced partner to do something, so does his double not simply deny being able to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥? At the table, he had Qx/KQJxx/xx/Axxx, so you will need a 3-3 diamond break to make 4♥ or 5♦, but 3NT will have nine easy tricks, assuming spades break 4-4, as the auction strongly suggests they will. Give partner the ♦J rather than the ♠Q, which is surely still consistent with his bidding, and 2♠-X would likely make, as would 4♥ and 5♦ (as well as 3NT).
If you pass, you might just manage to nip 2♠-X by a trick, but there is a danger that declarer will get the trumps right and score five spade tricks and three clubs. Those who lead a trump virtually guarantee -470 if dummy has KJxx, AJxx or AKJx of trumps, as declarer will now surely drop partner’s doubleton queen.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♥ |
10 |
10 |
45 |
|
2♠ |
8 |
8 |
12 |
|
4♦ |
6 |
1 |
0 |
|
2NT |
6 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♥ |
5 |
3 |
11 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
9 |
|
Dbl |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.25
One reason for including this deal was to examine the difference when the opening 1NT is weak rather than strong. A couple of panelists objected to the given method, strangely including some who grew up in Weak Notrump Land, where playing a double of Stayman or a transfer as a penalty double of the opening 1NT has always been standard. What else are you supposed to do with a flat 16+?
More than 40% of competition entrants agreed with the largest faction on the panel, so let’s start with those who simply bid their long suit…
BROCK: 3♥. I don’t like the methods.
RONDON: 3♥. I have to enter the bidding. Since double won't do it, I'll have a go at 3♥.
Some panelists were concerned with the next round of the auction.
SILVER: 3♥. A feeble attempt to suggest a trump suit, and buy the contract by out-bidding the villain's spades. Frankly, I have no idea what I will do over 4♠.
DE WIJS: 3♥. Followed by a diamond bid. If I bid 4♥, I will not know what to do after partner’s double of 4♠.
For some it was a case of whether to show one suit or two…
COPE: 3♥. Bidding where I live, rather than bidding 2♠ to show a two-suiter.
WANG: 3♥. If I had five hearts and six diamonds, I would bid 2♠. With this hand, I think 3♥ is better.
ZIA: 3♥. I would do this even if double showed hearts. This hand has the wrong six-card suit to use Michaels.
MINGZHE: 3♥. My hearts are longer and stronger than diamonds and I'm ready to bid 4♦ over the opponent’s 3♠.
BIRD: 3♥. If I was in second seat, with a 1♠ opening to my right, I would not make a Michaels overcall on this, so I am going to bid hearts rather than show two suits now. Partner may be able to raise to 4♥ with a doubleton heart and some top cards outside.
For Alan, it was just a case of level…
MOULD: 3♥. I cannot think of anything else to do. 4♥ just feels wrong on this hand, but I might bid it some days of the week.
David Bird asked me if any panelist was crazy enough to jump to 4♥. The answer was, “Of course…”
BERGEN: 4♥. A lot of alternatives, but I love the offensive potential of this hand.
And, Marty was not alone.
SHENKIN: 4♥.
HUNG: 4♥. Maybe 2♠ as a Michaels cue-bid might work better, but I prefer to force them to guess now. If partner doubles 4♠, I’ll trust her!
The rest chose to show the hand as a two-suiter, and they are all agreed as to how to do so. Irrespective of the meaning of double or the strength of the 1NT opening, are they right, though? Should 2♠ not just be a takeout double of spades? What do you bid on 1-4-4-4 or 0-4-(54) shapes? In that case, would 2NT not show any two-suited hand rather than specifically minors? Something for regular partnerships to discuss, but the panel seemed in no doubt…
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. Michaels.
MEYERS: 2♠. I think this shows hearts and a minor.
C BALDYSZ: 2♠.
S BALDYSZ: 2♠. I assume this is Michaels here – it would be in the Baldysz-Baldysz system. Even though partner passed over 1NT I don’t have a bad hand. Worst case scenario I’ll go for 300 (maybe 500), but such things happen sometimes.
COHEN: 2♠. I am not strong enough to double, so it is this or 3♥.
ROBSON: 2♠. I take the cheap chance to show 5-5. My other option is to jam with 4♥, but I’ll have to then sell to 4♠, when it may not be right to do so.
McGOWAN: 2♠. Michaels, showing hearts and a minor. (Although I prefer to play double as two-way, either hearts or L/D – there is rarely any doubt.)
MARSTON: 2♠. This should be Michaels, but I’m not sure, given the loopy agreement that double is a penalty double of a weak NT. (It should be takeout of spades.)
P.O. offers regular partnerships another interesting option to discuss.
SUNDELIN: 4♦. This is a Leaping Michaels situation for me, so I can bid 4♦ to show a good hand with at least 5-5 in the red suits.
Indeed, if Leaping Michaels is part of your system after a 2♠ opening or (1♠)-Pass-(2♠)-? then why not in this auction too?
On this hand from the final of the NZ Mixed Teams trials, those who chose to show a two-suited hand would have fared best, as partner gets you to 3♦, over which the opponents will then bid their 3NT (-400). At the table I watched, West jumped to 4♥, which was not a success (-1100) opposite K10xxx/x/9xx/K10xx. Even though the popular 3♥ overcall leads to -800, that would still have been a 7-IMP gain. No need to worry about what to do when the bad guys bid 4♠ after all 😊.
Huge congratulations to Li Mingzhe, our guest panelist. He leads the panel this month with an impressive 78/80 on a set that offered plenty of chances to drop a couple of marks here and there. His effort also tied him for the lead in the May monthly competition, so he will be returning as a guest again in a couple of months.
Completing this month’s podium are Hanoi Rondon with 77/80 and David Bird with 75/80, in a month where more than half the panel scored in the 60s.
As usual, thanks to all of our panel members for taking the time to both entertain and educate our readers.
|
Li MINGZHE |
2♦ |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Pass |
5♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
3♥ |
78 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
2NT |
5♦ |
3♣ |
Pass |
5♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
3♥ |
77 |
|
David BIRD |
2NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
3♥ |
75 |
|
Larry COHEN |
2NT |
Dbl |
2♠ |
4♥ |
5♦ |
6♣ |
Pass |
2♠ |
72 |
|
Joey SILVER |
Pass |
Dbl |
3♣ |
Pass |
5♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
3♥ |
72 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
2♦ |
5♦ |
5♦ |
Pass |
5♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
2♠ |
71 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
2NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
4♥ |
71 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3NT |
Dbl |
2♠ |
4♥ |
5♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
3♥ |
71 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
2NT |
Dbl |
3♣ |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
2♠ |
71 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
2♦ |
5♦ |
4NT |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
3♥ |
70 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
4♥ |
5♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
2♠ |
69 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
2♦ |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Pass |
4♦ |
4♣ |
3♠ |
2♠ |
69 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
2♦ |
5♦ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
2♠ |
68 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
2♦ |
Dbl |
2♠ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
Pass |
3♥ |
3♥ |
68 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
2NT |
5♥ |
3♣ |
Pass |
5♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
4♥ |
68 |
|
Andy HUNG |
2NT |
Dbl |
5♦ |
Pass |
2♥ |
4♣ |
Pass |
4♥ |
67 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
4♠ |
Dbl |
2♠ |
Pass |
2♥ |
4♥ |
Pass |
3♥ |
67 |
|
Alan MOULD |
2NT |
5♦ |
5♦ |
Pass |
3♦ |
4♣ |
3♥ |
3♥ |
67 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
Pass |
Dbl |
2NT |
Pass |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
2♠ |
66 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
2♠ |
4NT |
3♣ |
4♥ |
2♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
2♠ |
63 |
|
P.O. SUNDELIN |
Pass |
6♥ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
4♦ |
63 |
|
Tim COPE |
2NT |
5♠ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3♦ |
4NT |
Pass |
3♥ |
62 |
|
TOP SCORE |
2NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Pass |
5♦ |
4♣ |
Pass |
3♥ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
2NT 10 |
2♦ 8 |
Pass 7 |
3NT 5 |
2♠ 4 |
4♠ 2 |
|
|
HAND 2: |
5♦ 10 |
Dbl 8 |
4NT/5♠/6♥ 7 |
5♥ 6 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
2♠ 10 |
3♣ 8 |
3♦ 7 |
2NT 6 |
5♦/4NT 5 |
4♦/Dbl 4 |
Pass 2 |
|
HAND 4: |
Pass 10 |
4♥ 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAND 5: |
5♦ 10 |
2♥ 9 |
4♦ 8 |
3♦ 5 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
4♣ 10 |
Pass 9 |
4♦/4♥/4♠/4NT/6♣ 8 |
5♣ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
Pass 10 |
3♥ 7 |
2NT/3♠ 5 |
3♦/3NT 3 |
4♥ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
3♥ 10 |
2♠ 8 |
2NT/4♦ 6 |
4♥ 5 |
Pass 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
5.51 |
|
HAND 2: |
7.58 |
|
HAND 3: |
5.37 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.04 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.20 |
|
HAND 6: |
8.51 |
|
HAND 7: |
6.32 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.25 |
