Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the opening set of the 2024 edition of the world’s most popular bidding competition, which comes to you from our new home at RealBridge.
With just two scores left to add, and competitors who have played every month now dropping their weakest scores, the race for a place both on the podium and on the leader-board in this year’s annual competition is approaching its conclusion. Good luck to all those in contention.
Many congratulations are due to panel members who played in the recent world championships in Argentina. We had a number of panelists who made it into the knockout stage, and a handful of them picked up medals. The star performance came from Zia Mahmood and Bobby Levin, representing USA, who collected gold medals as winners of the Seniors Teams.
In the Women’s Teams, Sanna Clementsson (right) was a member of the Swedish team that collected silver medals, losing to Turkiye in the final by just 13 IMPs. Jill Meyers was a member of the USA team that claimed bronze medals with victory over China in a match which concluded with a final stanza that the trailing American team won by the remarkable score of 88-0. In the Open Teams, Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski were members of the Swiss team that earned bronze medals. Barnet Shenkin also collected a bronze medal, representing Scotland in the Seniors Pairs.
The panel also enjoyed double success at the European Champions Cup, which was held in Italy this month. The winners in the Open section included Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski. They won the final fairly comfortably, having survived a tied match against the Belgian representatives in the semi-final, advancing thanks to the 1.2-IMP carryforward advantage earned from winning the qualifying stage. In the Women’s event, Sally Brock and Nevena Senior were both members of the English team that enjoyed a comfortable win against the Hungarians in their semi-final and then squeaked past the Italian representatives 62-61 in an exciting final. All of those winners, and all the medalists in the team events in Buenos Aires, were stars featured in my World Class books: Zia in the original 1999 edition, and the others in the two 21st Century volumes. Ideal Christmas presents for any bridge players you happen to know, perhaps? 😊
Our guest panelists this month are the co-winners of the September competition. Dror Alexrod from Israel was also the solo winner of the August competition and a creditable performer (74/80) as a guest panelist last month. He is a 42-year-old lawyer from Jerusalem. He is married with a son and two daughters. He says, “I have been very fortunate to have my father, Asher, as a bridge partner, and I am thankful for his continued guidance and support". This was a third competition win for Michael van Gulik from Canada, an anesthesiologist who says, “I am trying to work less and become a bridge playing hobby farmer. I learned bridge in Australia 20 years ago, but have never been able to commit to a regular partnership due to work. I hope to be able to do this as I cut back on work. I find myself more able to concentrate on bidding theory than playing as I am often too tired to concentrate for the length of time required for longer games.” Tim Pan from New Zealand is a 24-year-old mathematics teacher. Having learned bridge from his math teacher as a teenager, he is now continuing the cycle by teaching the game to the next generation of students. He says, “I love card games, and bridge is the best without a doubt. My favourite convention is fit-showing jumps.” Good luck to them all.
A couple of this month’s hands have been sent to me: Hand 1 comes from panelist Barnet Shenkin and Hand 6 from regular competition entrant John Klayman. Thanks to both of them. If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details.
This set of hands produces a number of situations that regular partnerships might benefit from discussing. The panel produce majority votes on four hands, and close to a majority on three others. Does this mean that there will be plenty of competitors scoring well this month?
The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on four of the eight hands. Voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores 58/80 (just up from 57/80 in October). The average score this month is 49.42 (up from 47.23 on Set 24-10). Let’s see what the panel have to say about the hands in this set…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♥ |
10 |
11 |
38 |
|
Pass |
8 |
7 |
18 |
|
3♠ |
7 |
3 |
30 |
|
3♦ |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
0 |
4 |
|
4♠ |
2 |
0 |
8 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.83
The largest group of both panelists and competitors are on the same page, and I defer to weight of numbers even though there was not quite a majority. However, I feel strongly that the second group have the better of the debate. Let’s hear from the bullish members of the panel first…
SALLY BROCK: 3♥. I want to involve partner in the final decision.
JOEY SILVER: 3♥. While competing for the part-score, I might as well stop off and make a tepid game try.
DROR AXELROD: 3♥. Showing my second suit, and helping partner decide how to proceed.
ALAN MOULD: 3♥. Everybody else is bidding - why shouldn't I?
LIZ McGOWAN: 3♥. I have no real idea what is going on, so I may as well tell partner something that might be useful.
WENFEI WANG: 3♥. Natural bid.
P-O SUNDELIN: 3♥.
Simon at least admits that it is an overbid.
SIMON DE WIJS: 3♥. When they are aiming for a double fit, so should we. I am a little light for this, I agree.
And Jill highlights the warning signs that the auction has provided...
JILL MEYERS: 3♥. If partner has the ♥K and the ♠A, we have a decent shot at game, and I would hate to miss a vulnerable game at IMPs. The downside is that my RHO has length in the minors, so I could be running into bad splits, but I am not going to worry about that.
Some consider the hand full-value for the bid…
LARRY COHEN: 3♥. I am worth this natural try. Picture partner with, say the ♠A and Kxxxx in hearts. I am not letting them play 3♦ anyway (they likely have a nine-card fit).
Mike sums up for the majority.
MIKE VAN GULIK: 3♥. I am too strong to pass or bail in 3♠, but too weak to unilaterally jump to 4♠. Neither opponent doubled a spade bid when they had the chance, so partner may have four. This may also get us to 4♥ making when 4♠ fails on a bad split. It may help partner decide what to do over any upcoming 4♦ as well.
Tim offered an alternative way to invite…
TIM PAN: 3♦. We play this as invitational with a diamond shortage, and 3♥ as a general game try. I'm always competing to the three-level, and the hand is just barely good enough for an invitation; game seems unlikely but not out of the picture. If partner reinvites with 3♥ on his passed hand, I will settle for 3♠.
A few were a little more circumspect…
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♠. We have about 20 HCP and eight trumps only, so there is no reason to suggest a game (by bidding 3♥). Let’s try to push them to the four-level and see what happens.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: 3♠.
…including the man who held the hand at the table.
BARNET SHENKIN: 3♠. I sent the problem in. The question is strain or level. I bid 3♥ at table, was raised to game, and went for 500. On reflection, 3♠ may be better.
Or, perhaps, even…?
ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. I see no reason to act here. My club holding is defensive and it looks like a classic 16 trumps, so don't bid Three-over-Three.
ANDY HUNG: Pass. Spades might be breaking badly with our righty showing a two suited hand, so I prefer to defend with just an eight-card fit.
DAVID BIRD: Pass. I don't rate the game chances very highly, and there is no need to bid 3♠ now, if at all.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. My hand seems to me better suited for defense.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
HANOI RONDON: Pass. I'm going to let partner decide and, even if he doesn't, I will get to bid again most likely.
Marty has a reminder for his former partner who, after all, did write The Book…
MARTY BERGEN: Pass. We might have a big heart fit, but I rarely bid "3-over-3" with only an eight-card fit (LOTT!).
South is likely to hold a singleton in one of the majors and North has denied four hearts, so perhaps partner has something like A10x/Kxxxx/xxx/xx, when 4♥ is where you want to play… Or, is it more likely partner will misjudge the auction over 3♥? At the table, the opponents could make ten tricks in diamonds. With South 2-1-5-5, you can make only eight tricks in spades. If partner. makes the wrong choice, going to game, it is -500 in spades, and maybe more if he picks hearts, as he likely will, with Qxx/10xxx/Qxx/Kxx. Only 8/10, but a moral victory for the reticent.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Dbl |
10 |
11 |
18 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
7 |
41 |
|
4♦ |
8 |
1 |
16 |
|
4♣ |
8 |
1 |
<1 |
|
4♠ |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
3NT |
5 |
1 |
16 |
|
5NT |
5 |
0 |
<1 |
|
6♦ |
3 |
0 |
<1 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.26
Although the panel offer six different options, they have two clear favorites, with the largest group of competitors (over 40%) supporting the panel’s minority choice. With a couple of the alternatives essentially doing much the same as 4♥, the vote is close between the two primary choices. We start with those who simply settle for game…
WENFEI WANG: 4♥. This seems like the best option.
DROR AXELROD: 4♥. This seems like the safest contract.
P-O SUNDELIN: 4♥.
Some mention the alternative and dismiss it.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♥. This is my best guess. I don't think doubling will help.
JOEY SILVER: 4♥. I obviously cannot pass and, with 5-5, I don’t see how a negative double will help. I bid game in my heart suit, keeping my diamonds in reserve for the play.
DAVID BIRD: 4♥. To double now, intending to bid 4♥ over partner's 3NT or 4♣, seems no better. If your intention is to rebid 4♦, partner would be uncertain whether you held five hearts. If seems likely that partner has only two spades, so there is a fair chance that he will hold at least three hearts.
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♥. I play this as 5♥+5m (4♦ would be just hearts). Without such an agreement, I guess I would transfer to 4♥ if possible, but maybe that's not in the system and then 4♥ is my bid after all?
The system does not specify Texas transfers but, as many play them, I gave 4♦ the same mark as the intent is the same.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♦. Transfer. I am willing to have partner declare 4♥, even with a seven-card fit. I play and teach that, after partner's 2NT opening or overcall, Texas Transfers are still on after interference (below 4♦).
Two-up transfers are also an alternative method and, although less well known, I think a marked improvement, as our two French stars explain for the benefit of regular partnerships who may be interested.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♣. We’ll score zero, but for a good cause as we can explain our system. We react, in this situation, as if it went 1NT-3♠ by opponents. 4♣ is then a transfer to hearts (which allows partner to bid 4♦ to show a good hand with heart support). 4♦ would be a transfer to clubs, 4♥ a transfer to diamonds, 4♠ both minors and 4NT natural.
The majority preferred to keep options open…
SALLY BROCK: Dbl. Then 4♥ next to show that I’m also playable somewhere else.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. If my partner bid 3NT or 4♣, I will correct to 4♥.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: Dbl. I’ll follow with 4♥ over 3NT, which I think should show five hearts and a minor.
A couple were a little concerned about their choice with an unfamiliar partner…
LIZ McGOWAN: Dbl. This should be takeout unless agreed otherwise… I’ll apologise to partner for giving him the headache, but anything else is a big view.
ANDY HUNG: Dbl. I am hoping partner will not pass so that I can suggest a flexible hand by bidding 4♥ on the next round (over partner’s 3NT or 4♣).
HANOI RONDON: Dbl. Playing in the major is not my only option, and double keeps diamonds in play. Partner should have three hearts, at least, but I want to explore the possibility of slam more than just play in 4♥.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Dbl.
BARNET SHENKIN: Dbl.
Larry doubles to keep other alternatives open…
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. This is the most flexible choice. I don't want to insist on 3NT (partner might have something like ♠K-x). If partner bids 3NT, I'll feel better than if I had insisted on it. If he passes, I'll be happy and, over anything else, we will play game in a red suit.
Jill also outlines methods for regular partnerships to consider.
JILL MEYERS: Dbl. With Kerri, I play 4♣ shows 5+♥. If that is an acceptable answer in this column, I would do that but, if too specialized, then my answer is to make a negative double and correct 4♣ to 4♥, showing five hearts and probably long diamonds. At least, I hope my partner would interpret it that way, as I did not bid 4♥ directly. This hand shows that it is important for partnerships to discuss methods after our side opens 1NT (and gets a pre-emptive intervention) or overcalls 2NT after a weak two opening.
My worry with the next strategy is that partner might expect only four hearts and 5-6 diamonds.
TIM PAN: Dbl. Takeout. Partner rates to have no more than two spades and, unless those are either A-Q or A-K, 3NT looks less than ideal. I will correct clubs to diamonds and hope partner can find the best game. This also right-sides 4♥ sometimes if partner has K-x in spades.
Only Mike was prepared to make his slam effort beyond game…
MIKE VAN GULIK: 4♠. Non-committal interest in slam with two places to play. How much has partner stretched? The five-level should be safe regardless and, depending on partner’s holding, five, six or even seven of a red suit is possible.
Alan flies solo in the other direction, and he raises a potential pitfall that no one else considered…
ALAN MOULD: 3NT. I see no reason why 4♥ should be better. Double is almost certain to get 4♣ or, even worse, 5♣.
Indeed as, presumably, 4♣ would be non-forcing….?
At the table, partner had Ax/AKx/Kxxx/Qxxx, so you can make 12 tricks in diamonds but only 11 in hearts or no-trumps.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
1NT |
10 |
15 |
16 |
|
2♣ |
7 |
5 |
57 |
|
Pass |
5 |
2 |
1 |
|
Dbl |
2 |
0 |
23 |
|
1♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.10
A big majority vote from the panel here, whilst more than half of competitors prefer the panel’s minority choice. However, a fifth of competition entrants opt for an alternative that receives no support at all from the panel.
SALLY BROCK: 1NT. I think this is the best description for now.
LIZ McGOWAN: 1NT. This looks like the best of a bad bunch of options.
JILL MEYERS: 1NT. I think this is the most flexible bid and, yes, I see that I only have Q-x of diamonds.
DROR AXELROD: 1NT. Although missing a full diamond stopper, I feel like this is the best description of my hand.
LARRY COHEN: 1NT. No description is perfect, but his comes closest. Partner can still use Stayman/transfer if we belong in spades. If we rest in 1NT, so be it.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: 1NT.
BARNET SHENKIN: 1NT.
DAVID BIRD: 1NT. 3NT is the most likely game, if any. When partner is weak, 1NT will be an okay spot, even if the diamonds are bare.
MARTY BERGEN: 1NT. I play and teach that a 1NT overcall of their minor does NOT guarantee a stopper in that suit.
A number of panelists mention the alternative…
WENFEI WANG: 1NT. I prefer to bid 1NT rather than 2♣.
ANDY HUNG: 1NT. 2♣ could be right, but this is the easiest way to get to game if our righty opened light in third seat.
HANOI RONDON: 1NT. This reflects the value of our hand and keeps hearts in the picture (if partner Staymans or transfers). 2♣ won't allow us to find the heart fit in many cases.
ALAN MOULD: 1NT. Maybe partner has a stop. Second choice 2♣, but that is a long way back. I haven't got a third choice.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 1NT. 2♣ is the alternative but, if it is our hand, it will be easier to develop the auction after 1NT.
Pierre and Joanna sum up the reasoning for the majority choice.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1NT. Joanna prefers 1NT (the best choice if 3NT or 4♥ is our best spot). I prefer 2♣ (probably better if the hand is a competition for a part-score).
Only a handful prefer to start by bidding their long suit.
SIMON DE WIJS: 2♣. I am really too strong for this, but I am too weak to start with double and then bid my clubs. When in doubt, bid a natural suit.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2♣. Second choice 1NT and third choice pass. But my clubs are pretty good and getting into the auction this way may still get us to a heart fit, eg if LHO bids 2♦ and partner doubles.
Tim takes the form of scoring into account.
TIM PAN: 2♣. If partner weren't a passed hand, I'd try 1NT, because Q-x is a stopper of sorts and this is most likely to get us to the best game. But partner is a passed hand, so I will bid 2♣ to try to find the best part-score, which is particularly important in matchpoint scoring.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 2♣.
JOEY SILVER: 2♣. I have to bid something here, especially at this form of scoring. However, as I ain't making a takeout double with only two spades (I am Jewish not Italian), that leaves me with a two-level overcall in my chunky five-card club suit.
There were just a couple of outliers…
MIKE VAN GULIK: Pass. Let’s wait and see – third hand opening bids aren't always weak. If partner can't balance, we may not have a lot and, if North bids, they may get carried away. There will be time to show strength or interest later.
P-O SUNDELIN: Pass.
This problem examines the panel’s view as to modern style. Partner had J9xxx/Kx/Kxx/Kxx, so 3NT was an easy make, and you are likely to get there whether you start with double, 1NT, 2♣ or, maybe, even Pass.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♦ |
10 |
14 |
29 |
|
4♣ |
8 |
4 |
1 |
|
5♣ |
8 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
5 |
4 |
23 |
|
3♥ |
5 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♦ |
2 |
0 |
24 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
15 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
2NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.75
Another big majority vote from the panel, and a third of competition entrants match their most popular choice. Nearly half of the remaining competitors raise partner’s diamonds, but not as aggressively as the panel think is justified.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: 4♦. I don’t really know who’s making what, but I hope that this is enough to make it difficult for the opponents to find a possible slam.
BARNET SHENKIN: 4♦.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♦.
MIKE VAN GULIK: 4♦. Is South's Pass forcing and what Strong Club system? They have a big heart fit but, if I let North bid 4♥, South may not push on. At this vulnerability, with a minor suit, I can't effectively interfere without risking a penalty that is worse than their best score. Do they have first round diamond control for 6♥? Not showing my full diamond length may leave either unsure about their partner’s length in the suit, and North may find it hard to bid beyond game missing the ♣A-Q if the diamond void is held by South. I am hoping they make 4♥+2.
The majority prefer to take away the opponents’ 4M bids…
SALLY BROCK: 5♦. Put it to them!
HANOI RONDON: 5♦. Let them make the last guess.
DROR AXELROD: 5♦. Pre-empting to the limit. Letting the opponents take it from here.
LARRY COHEN: 5♦. All sorts of fun things I can do but, in these situations, I prefer to just take up lots of space.
P-O SUNDELIN: 5♦.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♦. Once again, following The LAW of Total Tricks.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. They are very close to slam, so I hope to buy it in 5♦-doubled.
TIM PAN: 5♦. The limit of my hand. I follow a simple rule: when I have five-card support and a singleton, I bid game. (This is normally for the four-level for majors, but partner has a whole extra card here!) I don't usually go to the five-level pre-emptively, as the opponents will typically have one fewer way to lose, but I am not going to defend 4M with this hand. 4♥ and 4♠ both look easy to find over 4♦. They should have a harder guess over 5♦.
JOEY SILVER: 5♦. In my heart of hearts, I know I ain't selling to four of a major, so I might as well rip the bandage off and go directly to my final destination, without stopping off in 4♦ first.
A few mentioned an alternative…
SIMON DE WIJS: 5♦. Does my partner know 1♣ is strong? (Otherwise 2♦ would be majors.) Anyway, I very much want a club lead, but I don't want to give North a four-level bid, so I will go straight to 5♦ after all.
ALAN MOULD: 5♦. Let North bid at the six-level if he wants to. 4♣, whilst initially appealing, is daft IMHO, in that it allows an easy 4♦ or 4M bid by North.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♦. Second choice is 4♣ fit-showing, but do I ever want to sell to 4♥ given our 11-card fit?
Do you have to?
ANDY HUNG: 5♦. Anything could be right, so I'll just bid where I live and leave them the last guess. Maybe I should 5♣ as a lead director, but that gives them a 5♦ cue-bid.
Hold that thought, Andy.
DAVID BIRD: 5♦. Bidding clubs is more likely to help the opponents, giving North the option to bid 4♦ over 4♣, to offer a choice of majors, for example. It's best to remove North's bidding space, forcing him to guess.
The final group found what would have been one of the winning options at the table.
LIZ McGOWAN: 4♣. Fit! Whatever I do, North is likely to bid a major. I may as well try to help partner judge what to do next.
WENFEI WANG: 4♣. I hope partner knows that 4♣ is fit-showing.
Although still in the game, Jill talked herself out of what would certainly have been the winning bid.
JILL MEYERS: 4♣. What does South’s Pass show? This is very odd, that my partner has a weak two in diamonds over a Strong Club, and my RHO passes. I am bidding 4♣, lead directing. I am afraid that if I jump to 5♦, I am flagging that I think they could have a slam, and I won't have gotten my lead director in. If I was sure that partner would interpret 5♣ as a lead-directing diamond raise, that is what I would do.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♣. Clubs and diamonds, but 5♦ has its merits too, of course.
Do you show your clubs at the risk of giving North a diamond cue-bid if has a two suiter? Partner had x/Kxx/KJ10xxx/Jxx. With North holding the ♥A, a club lead holds N/S to ten tricks (North has K-x-x), but they can make eleven in either major on diamond lead. 5♦ costs only 500 if they choose to defend. So, 5♣ assures you of a winning board and may even produce a plus score. Bidding 4♣ now will also work as long as you then continue with 5♦ when they try to stop in 4♥, but might you not be happy that they have stopped short of slam? At the table I watched, West bid 5♦, North bid 5♥, and the diamond lead conceded 11 tricks. Good effort, but no cigar!
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
8 |
27 |
|
2♠ |
9 |
6 |
14 |
|
2NT |
8 |
4 |
14 |
|
3♣ |
7 |
4 |
13 |
|
3♦ |
6 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♥ |
4 |
0 |
1 |
|
Dbl |
0 |
0 |
28 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.09
This is the most contentious hand of the set, with the panel offering moderate support for four different choices. The only thing on which they all agree, is that the double chosen by nearly a third of competition entrants is wrong. The first question is should we bid at all, so let’s start with those who think not…
LARRY COHEN: Pass. Hopefully in tempo so I don't announce that I am flummoxed -- and I am!
BARNET SHENKIN: Pass. This is still a live auction and a lot can happen before it ends.
LIZ McGOWAN: Pass. If this is a misfit, I would rather defend.
Can it be a misfit? Surely N/S have at least eight hearts and probably nine.
JILL MEYERS: Pass. I suspect we don't have a game, and I don't want to pick a minor. If it goes All Pass and they can make a part score in hearts and we can make a part score in a minor, so be it.
Andy is the first, but not the last, to point out why a double is wrong.
ANDY HUNG: Pass. A responsive double might easily see the auction go All Pass, so I'll stay quiet for now.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: Pass.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
Pierre and Joanna risk a prediction…
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. We don’t see any reason to bid. Indeed, let's take a risk and say that we would be surprised if some of our colleagues do see one.
Oh, there are plenty who do…
JOEY SILVER: 3♣. Since I don't intend to bid again, I might as well bid my best minor.
P-O SUNDELIN: 3♣.
Alan and Tim both raise the key question that this hand was posed to answer…
ALAN MOULD: 3♣. I am too scared to double, as it will go All Pass about 90% of the time. If I was sure 2♠ and/or 2NT was pick-a-minor, I would bid that, but I ain't, so I just guess to bid my better one. I suspect Pass is actually the winner.
TIM PAN: 3♣. How do we play 2NT? My preference is to play it as minors, in which case I would bid that instead, but without an agreement I will safety bid 3♣. I hope they don't lead a trump.
So, how do we ask partner to pick a minor?
SALLY BROCK: 2NT. For me, this shows minors.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2NT. This must be asking partner to pick a minor.
Must it? Can you not have a natural invitational hand (adjust the strength as you see fit) with good spades, such as QJ10xx/xx/Axx/KJx?
SIMON DE WIJS: 2NT. I am not doubling for takeout with a void, and 2♠ sounds like a stronger/different hand, so I will try 2NT and see what happens. Normally this shows a weak 3m bid for me, but my guess is I can bid this as minors in our system here.
DAVID BIRD: 2NT. 2NT is surely Unusual, on grounds of frequency. If that is the case, why put partner under pressure with a puzzling 2♠?
Not so puzzling, says…
MARTY BERGEN: 2♠. I want partner to choose a minor and, on this auction, I believe this is clearer than 2NT.
WENFEI WANG: 2♠. This shows both minors.
DROR AXELROD: 2♠. My strength is capped on the bidding, so I can use the cue bid to get partner to pick a minor.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. Showing minors. Double could be dangerous.
MIKE VAN GULIK: 2♠. I don't know how high we are going yet, but I can decide whether to raise the minor suit later. At least it won't get passed out like a double may. I love economical cue-bids and, although they have a big heart fit, I won't let them play there.
Hanoi makes what I think is a key point.
HANOI RONDON: 2♠. Let partner choose a minor. There's no other use for the bid anyway.
It is likely that the opponents have a nine-card heart fit, so you first have to decide whether you want to compete at all. For me, knowing that their trumps are not breaking, I’d want to push them up to at least the three-level. If you do decide to bid, would you not prefer partner to choose a minor (rather than having to guess yourself)? So, what are the meanings of Double, 2♠ and 2NT? Double certainly sounds like a suggestion to defend, and the panel widely agree that it is not an option on this hand. To me, 2NT also sounds natural, whereas what else can 2♠ mean? Something for regular partnerships to discuss, perhaps.
At the table, partner had x/KQ9x/AQ9xx/KQx, so 3NT was a decent spot, but not at all easy to reach. If allowed to do so, would you not rather play in 3♦ than 3♣? Will anyone take another bid if North competes to 3♥? A very tricky combination.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Dbl |
10 |
16 |
37 |
|
4♣ |
7 |
6 |
23 |
|
3♥ |
4 |
0 |
25 |
|
3♠ |
4 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.63
This hand produced the biggest majority of the set, with only two options offered by the panel, although I am a bit surprised that the choice of a quarter of competitors (3♥) received no support at all. Your opening bid cannot be much weaker, so do you really want to give partner any encouragement to bid game? The panelists’ answer is emphatic! Three-quarters of them are prepared to risk it to make sure of playing in the right major, whilst the rest commit to game themselves in order to do so.
ALAN MOULD: Dbl. This seems fine to me.
WENFEI WANG: Dbl. A takeout double, showing both majors.
TIM PAN: Dbl. “Bid your major, partner.”
LIZ McGOWAN: Dbl. When they bid and raise a suit, double is takeout…
DAVID BIRD: Dbl. Why should I choose a major instead, with equal length? It's a good question and I await a good answer.
It looks like you have unanimous agreement from the panel, David.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. This looks like a good hand to play in a major.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: Dbl.
HANOI RONDON: Dbl. I want partner to choose his longer major, and the level. I hope I'm not too high.
SALLY BROCK: Dbl. I’ll leave the rest to partner.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. I am taking a big risk here that partner is on my page.
Simon highlights the key argument for not bidding 3♥ or 3♠…
SIMON DE WIJS: Dbl. Partner’s double far from promised both majors, so you have to be able to double with this kind of hand.
JILL MEYERS: Dbl. Responsive. Partner should play me for enough to compete at the three-level, showing both Majors and short clubs.
JOEY SILVER: Dbl. I am just trying to find a plus score at the three-level, I will leave bidding game to my ox.
Pierre and Joanna raise another point that regular partnerships might like to discuss.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Dbl. 3♥ or 3♠ would show an unbalanced, two-suited hand, not a three-suiter. A jump to 4♥ would show both majors, but we don’t have enough material here.
Andrew and Barnet both considered doing more, but decided against it.
ANDREW ROBSON: Dbl. It's either double or 4♣ but, given the vulnerability and form of scoring, if partner takes a shot and converts the double, I quite fancy the defence for +200.
BARNET SHENKIN: Dbl. I will correct 3♦ to 3♥. 4♣ seems just a little too much at Pairs.
The rest choose what some of them openly admit is an ‘aggressive’ option.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♣. Definitely an overbid, but one that ensures that we'll play in the right major.
ANDY HUNG: 4♣. I’ll overbid a little to get to the right fit. A double here might get partner bidding 4♦ with some 4M4♦ hand. I guess I'll just pay out if partner is 3334.
DROR AXELROD: 4♣. Offering a choice of major suit games.
P-O SUNDELIN: 4♣.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♣.
MIKE VAN GULIK: 4♣. I have too many intermediates, and partner could have passed and waited for a reopening if minimal for their bid. Matchpoints suggests offering 3M via double, but we all love a challenge, especially when dummy.
Partner had KJ10/AJxx/Jxxx/xx. You can make nine tricks in hearts or diamonds (perhaps ten with some good guessing). If the opponents bid on to 4♣, you will need to double and lead trumps to score the magic +200.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♣ |
10 |
12 |
27 |
|
4♥ |
8 |
6 |
3 |
|
Dbl |
6 |
3 |
26 |
|
3♥ |
5 |
1 |
6 |
|
4♣ |
2 |
0 |
20 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.17
This is the panel’s third and last majority vote of the set, and one of the two largest groups of competitors matches their choice. With some panelists looking for slam, this is one of the lowest-scoring hands of the set because over a quarter of competition entrants bid either a very tepid 4♣ or, even more feeble, passed. The aim of some panelists was to get to game quickly to put pressure on the opponents…
LIZ McGOWAN: 5♣. Let’s make them guess at the five-level…
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. I am just trying to give the villains the last guess at the five-level.
ALAN MOULD: 5♣. Same as hand 5. Let them guess at the five-level.
BARNET SHENKIN: 5♣. Let’s bid it now.
SALLY BROCK: 5♣. And hope for the best.
Hanoi saw it as a two-way shot.
HANOI RONDON: 5♣. A reasonable shot. This could be the right contract or they could go too high.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♣. With the magical void, I can hardly do less.
David mentions one of the alternatives, and explains why he rules it out.
DAVID BIRD: 5♣. Again, we should aim to give them the final guess. A double of 3♦ would be a waste of time, and maybe warn them to stay low.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 5♣.
A number mentioned slam possibilities…
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♣. My diamonds are a bad surprise for South, but there are still probably a lot of total tricks. (“A lot” is Joanna’s favourite number). We can make a slam, or maybe not even a game, so let's try to take some middle route.
SIMON DE WIJS: 5♣. My hand is very suitable, and slam might be possible, but I feel a lack a fourth club for a splinter, so I will bid 5♣ right away and let them have the last guess.
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: 5♣. We could easily make slam if partner has a spade shortage, but I am afraid we will get to too many bad slams if I bid 4♥ on this.
The second-largest group on the panel are willing to take that chance…
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♥. Maybe I shouldn't tip off the hand, and simply jump to 5♣. But we could so easily have a slam.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. Although my hand is weak, the distribution is great, so it's worth a try for slam.
WENFEI WANG: 4♥. With a void heart, I am worth making a splinter bid raise of clubs.
TIM PAN: 4♥. Splinter for partner's clubs. Hopefully the strength shown by the opponents won't dissuade partner from making a strong move with the right honours when our hand is this magical.
ANDY HUNG: 4♥. Ideally, I would have a fourth trump, but this seems to be the most descriptive action. I am hoping to hit the magical ♣A-K and ♦K.
Larry wins this month’s ‘Eternal Optimist’ award…
LARRY COHEN: 4♥. I am always getting us to at least 5♣, so let's think big here. Picture AKxxxx in clubs and a spade control (and something more, which partner would need to think about slam). I can even envision 7♣ – why can he not have Ax/Jxx/Kx/AKxxxx?
Jill makes the case for an alternative minority view.
JILL MEYERS: Dbl. If they bid 3♥ only, I will bid 4♣. I am not unilaterally bidding 5♣, and 4♣ is just competitive. Plus, I have diamonds. Another advantage to double is that we get to hear what LHO does, which will tell us more about his hand than if we force him to a bid at a higher level.
P-O SUNDELIN: Dbl.
MIKE VAN GULIK: Dbl. I show where my strength is so that partner can decide when I bid clubs next.
Whilst Dror chooses to save bidding space by another route.
DROR AXELROD: 3♥. This seems like the best way to further describe our shape and values.
Partner had Ax/Jxx/x/AK9xxxx so a trump lead holds you to eleven tricks in clubs (the ♦K is offside). You can make three aces and a diamond ruff against a heart contract, so they have a cheap save for 300 in 5♥ if they can find it.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3NT |
10 |
11 |
13 |
|
2NT |
8 |
8 |
25 |
|
3♠ |
5 |
1 |
11 |
|
4♦ |
5 |
1 |
12 |
|
Dbl |
3 |
1 |
<1 |
|
3♦ |
3 |
0 |
36 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
3 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.59
The panel effectively chose between only two options. The choice of a third of competitors was neither of those, and not even one of the solo options offered by panelists, who were unanimous that 3♦ simply is not enough on this hand. Let’s hear the case for the panel’s choices…
JILL MEYERS: 2NT. Partner could have enough for game. What are they supposed to do with something like xxx/Kx/AKxxx/Axx after 1♠-Pass-Pass?
SALLY BROCK: 2NT. Surely 3NT is our most likely game.
DROR AXELROD: 2NT. Opposite the right hand we can make 3NT, and this seems like the most flexible way to proceed.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 2NT.
ALAN MOULD: 2NT. I fancy 3NT on this hand. If 2NT isn’t natural here, I suppose I’d have to underbid with 3♦.
Liz has a different interpretation of the meaning…
LIZ McGOWAN: 2NT. I play this as forcing for one round opposite a 2m overcall – partner removes to 3♦ if weak.
BARNET SHENKIN: 2NT. I may have the values for 3NT, but this keeps options open. Partner can bid 3NT, bid 3♦ weak, or bid a new suit to show interest in bypassing NT.
Simon offers further ideas on how the auction might proceed…
SIMON DE WIJS: 2NT. Natural and invitational. Let's hope partner will bid 3♠ with a maximum hand and short spades, so we can get to 5♦ in that case.
By a small margin, the largest faction on the panel think 2NT is not enough…
ANDREW ROBSON: 3NT. All I need opposite is ♦ AKxxxx.
MARTY BERGEN: 3NT. With my well-placed cards, this well make even opposite ♦ AKxxxx and out.
HANOI RONDON: 3NT. With six diamond tricks from partner, we can make this.
TIM PAN: 3NT. The heart and club honours look excellently placed. I'm not willing to risk missing a vulnerable game when partner might pass 2NT with a hand like xx/Kxx/AKxxx/xxx.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3NT. We can’t resist. If partner has the ♦A (and note that he has five or six diamonds when the opponents have only two or three), then we are a clear favourite to make 3NT.
David and Andy both highlight a key reason for preferring the more aggressive action.
DAVID BIRD: 3NT. If the diamonds are running, we have enough for 3NT. If they're not, 3NT could be several down. So, 2NT will not ask the right question.
ANDY HUNG: 3NT. Maybe it pays to be a bit cautious and bid 2NT in case partner doesn't have the ♦A. However, in that scenario, 2NT is going down anyway, so I might as well try for all the marbles. Besides, partner will surely pass 2NT with something like xxx/Kx/AKxxx/xxx.
WENFEI WANG: 3NT. To play.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT.
MIKE VAN GULIK: 3NT. I want the lead coming into me and it will make or not on shape and point location rather than straight points. 5♦ is too many tricks to ask for, especially when no double or NT bid from partner.
Larry points out why one of the other alternatives may not work well…
LARRY COHEN: 3NT. I have too much for only 3♦. If I bid 3♠, partner won't know to bid 3NT with xxx/xx/AKJxxx/xx or the like.
Only Joey tried that route.
JOEY SILVER: 3♠. A bit of an overbid (maybe), but my fifth diamond gives me courage.
Sanna raises a question that I will get the panel to address in a future set…
SANNA CLEMENTSSON: Dbl. This is a weird bid on this hand, but I don’t like bidding either 3♠ or 3NT (having no clue if 3NT/5♦/6♦ is the best spot). If North doesn’t raise spades, I’ll suggest 3NT on the next round.
If there is a next round. Are you sure that double is not penalties in this auction?
Only P-O committed to diamonds.
P-O SUNDELIN: 4♦.
At the table, partner had x/xx/AKQxx/AJ10xx so 5♦ was easy and 6♦ playable. Will partner pass 3NT with that hand? It may make, but it’s not really where you want to play.
A tight race this month sees Larry Cohen leading the pack with an impressive 78/80. Completing the podium, are Hanoi Rondon (77/80), Sally Brock and Liz McGowan (both with 76/80).
With plenty of panel members scoring in the 70s, there seems a good chance that this trend will be duplicated by competition entrants.
As always, we are grateful to every member of the panel who devotes their time and effort to entertain and educate our readers. See you all again next month. Thanks. Marc.
|
Larry COHEN |
3♥ |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
Pass |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
78 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
Pass |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
5♣ |
3NT |
77 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3♥ |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
5♣ |
2NT |
76 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
3♥ |
Dbl |
1NT |
4♣ |
Pass |
Dbl |
5♣ |
2NT |
76 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
Pass |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
75 |
|
David BIRD |
Pass |
4♥ |
1NT |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
5♣ |
3NT |
74 |
|
Andy HUNG |
Pass |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
Pass |
4♣ |
4♥ |
3NT |
73 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT and Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
3♠ |
4♣ |
1NT |
4♣ |
Pass |
Dbl |
5♣ |
3NT |
73 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
3♥ |
4♥ |
1NT |
4♣ |
2♠ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
73 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
Pass |
4♦ |
1NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
4♣ |
5♣ |
3NT |
72 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3♥ |
Dbl |
1NT |
4♣ |
Pass |
Dbl |
Dbl |
2NT |
72 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
3♥ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
5♣ |
2NT |
71 |
|
Alan MOULD |
3♥ |
3NT |
1NT |
5♦ |
3♣ |
Dbl |
5♣ |
2NT |
70 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
3♠ |
Dbl |
1NT |
4♦ |
Pass |
Dbl |
5♣ |
2NT |
70 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
Pass |
4♥ |
2♣ |
5♦ |
2NT |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
69 |
|
Dror AXELROD |
3♥ |
4♥ |
1NT |
5♦ |
2♠ |
4♣ |
3♥ |
2NT |
67 |
|
Tim PAN |
3♦ |
Dbl |
2♣ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
Dbl |
4♥ |
3NT |
67 |
|
Joey SILVER |
3♥ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
5♦ |
3♣ |
Dbl |
5♣ |
3♠ |
67 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
Pass |
Dbl |
2♣ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♣ |
5♣ |
2NT |
65 |
|
Sanna CLEMENTSSON |
3♠ |
Dbl |
1NT |
4♦ |
Pass |
Dbl |
5♣ |
Dbl |
65 |
|
P-O SUNDELIN |
3♥ |
4♥ |
Pass |
5♦ |
3♣ |
4♣ |
Dbl |
4♦ |
58 |
|
Mike VAN GULIK |
3♥ |
4♠ |
Pass |
4♦ |
2♠ |
4♣ |
Dbl |
3NT |
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
3♥ |
Dbl |
1NT |
5♦ |
Pass |
Dbl |
5♣ |
3NT |
|
|
HAND 1: |
3♥ 10 |
Pass 8 |
3♠ 7 |
3♦/Dbl 5 |
4♠ 2 |
|
|
HAND 2: |
Dbl 10 |
4♣/4♦/4♥ 8 |
3NT/4♠/5NT 5 |
6♦ 3 |
|
|
|
HAND 3: |
1NT 10 |
2♣ 7 |
Pass 5 |
Dbl 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 4: |
5♦ 10 |
4♣/5♣ 8 |
3♥/4♦ 5 |
3♦ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 5: |
Pass 10 |
2♠ 9 |
2NT 8 |
3♣ 7 |
3♦ 6 |
3♥ 4 |
|
HAND 6: |
Dbl 10 |
4♣ 7 |
3♥/3♠ 4 |
Pass 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
5♣ 10 |
4♥ 8 |
Dbl 6 |
3♥ 5 |
4♣ 2 |
|
|
HAND 8: |
3NT 10 |
2NT 8 |
3♠/4♦ 5 |
3♦/Dbl 3 |
5♦ 2 |
|
|
HAND 1: |
7.83 |
|
HAND 2: |
7.26 |
|
HAND 3: |
6.10 |
|
HAND 4: |
4.75 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.09 |
|
HAND 6: |
6.63 |
|
HAND 7: |
5.17 |
|
HAND 8: |
5.59 |
