Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

The Netherland Showdown

Scores  by Richard Pavlicek

These six bidding problems were published on the Internet in May of 2002, and all bridge players were invited to submit their answers. The problems are from actual deals that were played in a past tournament. I didn’t reveal the tournament location and year in the original poll, but participants were invited to guess from the clues on the page.

Problem 1

2

3

4

5

6

Final Notes

The title of this poll caused many people to guess places in The Netherlands: Amsterdam, Maastricht, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Valkenburg and The Hague. Also there were guesses for Willemstad, Curacao (capital of Netherlands Antilles, a Caribbean island group). Sorry, but my title was a bit deceptive. Note, however, that none of these places relate to “Netherland” in its singular form. Do persons in a “united state” necessarily live in the United States? Of course not. More likely, they’re just engaged in sex. I rest my case.

At least 25 people correctly identified the top picture as the Brooklyn Bridge (it’s for sale, by the way, just make me an offer) so they got the location right. The tournament was held in New York City. Also pictured is the spire of the hotel where the tournament was held. It’s called the Sherry Netherland, and there you see my title connection. Congratulations to Dave Maeer, who was the only person to catch this. The small, luxury hotel in Manhattan is still operational today, though priced well beyond my budget. The swan picture could have been almost anywhere but was taken in Central Park.

The rose, in case you’re wondering, is the state flower of New York. I was going to use a “big apple” but thought it would be too obvious; the Brooklyn Bridge was generous enough. Several astute respondents noticed another clue that never occurred to me: New York City is also known as New Amsterdam.

Many respondents rightly inferred the tournament must be very old from the total-point scoring format. Congratulations to Frans Buijsen, who was the first to identify the venue as the 1953 World Championship. I also liked Eric Leong’s description, “from another time warp,” as he guessed the “early fifties.” Actually, either of two years would be right as the tournament was originally billed as the 1952 World Championship but postponed until January, 1953.

“See the pyramids along the Nile…”

The background song You Belong To Me is one of my all-time favorites. Before doing research for this poll, I thought the early-60s version by The Duprees was the original, but I discovered it first became a #1 hit in 1952 (just a few months before this tournament) by Jo Stafford. Indeed, the popular song has attracted many vocalists since then, including Patti Page, Dean Martin and Anne Murray. The lyrics also inspired a few wild guesses for the tournament location, namely Cairo and Algiers. Sorry to disappoint you, but there aren’t many pyramids along the East River.

On a sad note, preparing this poll caused some tears regarding photos of New York City. The picture of the Brooklyn Bridge, as many familiar with the city will realize, was taken from its former #1 landmark, the Twin Towers. We will never forget.

Josh Sinnett Wins!

Aided by a 59 score this month, Chris Maclauchlan is the new overall leader, with a remarkable average of 58.00. Not far behind are Josh Sinnett and Kieran Dyke (New South Wales, Australia), each with 56.75.

Almost every month I am adding a new country to my list, and this month there were two. I’m sure all join me in welcoming David Chechelashvili of Georgia, and Jabi Peralta of Basque Country (an autonomous region of Spain). The latter is not officially recognized as a country, but being “politically correct” is of no concern to me — except as an oxymoron.

Assume both sides use Standard American bidding (unless noted otherwise) with 15-17 notrumps,
five-card majors and weak two-bids. The object is to determine the best calls based on judgment,
so only basic conventions are allowed. For a system reference, see Standard American Bridge.

Each problem is scored on a 1-to-10 scale. The call receiving the top award of 10 is determined by the voting consensus. Other awards are determined partly by this but mostly by my judgment. What actually happened is included for interest sake but does not affect the scoring.

The Bermuda Bowl, the symbol of world bridge supremacy, was held January 5-10, 1953 at the Sherry Netherland Hotel in New York City. Only two teams were involved: United States vs. Sweden, which won its berth as European champion.

Scoring was by total points.* That’s right! Bridge was still in its infancy, and IMPs were not invented yet (or at least they weren’t accepted). Total-point scoring is like duplicate scoring, with one notable difference: honors count (relevant on Problem 2). The winner is simply determined by the difference in raw scores, without conversion to IMPs or anything else. The match was 256 boards, and the United States won by a hefty margin of 8260 points.

*Several respondents complained about the obsolete total-point scoring, but probably 95 percent of the time you’d bid the same way at any scoring. Bridge is bridge. Therefore, it seemed better to preserve the historical conditions.

Playing for the United States (pictured L-R, top row first) were Theodore Lightner, John Crawford, Howard Schenken, B. Jay Becker, Samuel Stayman and George Rapee. They earned this right by winning the 1952 ACBL Master Team Championship. The team played in varied partnerships (uh-oh) with few conventions.

I was amused by the Becker-Lightner convention card, which read only, “Opening two-bids forcing to game (negative response 2 NT), Blackwood, cue-bids and Lightner slam double.” Wow. They may play a simple system, but don’t ever bid a slam against them.

Playing for Sweden (Europe) in three fixed partnerships were Gunnar Anulf and Nils-Olof Lilliehook, Robert Larsen and Jan Wohlin, and Rudolph Kock and Einar Werner. The last pair were famous as inventors of the Kock-Werner redouble (commonly called SOS today). Hmm, I wonder: If you match up the Lightner double and the Kock-Werner redouble, could the bidding ever end below 7 NT?

Enough silliness. Let’s play total points!

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 1

Total points		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North 2 3 4	East Pass Pass Pass	South 2 4 ?	K Q 10 7 4 10 6 5 3 — K Q J 2

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
5	10	202	24
4 NT (regular BW)	9	162	19
6	8	216	26
4	6	177	21
5	3	74	9
5 NT	1	13	2

An ugly auction, to be sure, but this often seems to happen after the dreaded 2 opening. (Advocates of “1 forcing” are dancing in the streets.) As several respondents pointed out, it might have been wiser to raise hearts at your previous turn, but that wasn’t clear-cut either. Is a raise to game forcing? Perhaps it should be after a positive response, but it certainly isn’t by any standard agreement. Similarly, a preference to 4 now would be fine if partner bids again, but you can’t assume that.

This hand is not as a good as its point count suggests. The void is probably facing at least A-K in partner’s hand, and most of the black-suit honors rate to be useless. In fact, opposite extreme duplication ( A K-Q-J-x-x-x A-K-Q-J-10 x) you won’t even provide a trick for partner.

Despite 6 getting the most votes, my scoring is based on the fact that the majority of respondents (votes for 4 NT, 5 and 5 , and probably most of the 4 bidders) felt the hand was worth a try for slam, not a committal. Even if you ignore the dangerous 5 bid (which I demoted considerably because it should be natural, not a control-bid) the consensus is still clear. Hence, the top score goes to 5 , the leading vote-getter in that category.

Personally, I don’t care for 5 because partner is likely to assume it asks about trump quality. While this may be a concern, it seems less important than the concern about aces. It’s OK to reach a slightly inferior slam on a trump finesse, but not so cool when you’re off two cashable aces. Since partner is an overwhelming favorite to hold the A, I would assume this and bid 4 NT despite the void. Another advantage of Blackwood is that it keeps your grand-slam chances alive when partner has all four aces.

A number of respondents said they would have jumped to 5 on the previous round as “exclusion Roman key-card Blackwood.” Wonderful; would you really spring this on partner with no such agreement? Back in 1953, the conversation might go like this: Exclusion what? Exclusion key-card. Key-card what? Roman key-card. Roman what? Blackwood. Oh, yes! I know him.

So how did the old-timers fare? Let’s have a look:

North deals	J 6		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	A K Q J 7		Rapee	Anulf	Crawford	Lilliehook
	A K Q J 6			2	Pass	3
	8		Pass	3	Pass	4
A 8 3 2		9 5	Pass	6	Pass	Pass
9		8 4 2	Pass
10 9 7 3		8 5 4 2
10 6 5 4		A 9 7 3
	K Q 10 7 4
	10 6 5 3
	—
	K Q J 2

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
6 North	6 North	Werner	Schenken	Kock	Stayman
East leads	East leads		2	Pass	2
Down 1 -50	Made 6 +980	Pass	3	Pass	3
		Pass	4	Pass	5
USA +1030		Pass	6	All Pass

Not so well, as both tables reached the dismal slam. In the second auction, Stayman chose to rebid 3 before jumping to 5 . (I decided this was too eccentric for the poll, so I gave you 4 , not that 4 was necessarily any better.) In this case it may not have been clear whether 5 asked about club control or good trumps, but Schenken had both and carried on to slam. That’s the bad news. The good news is that Kock led a trump. Now all the clubs went away on the top diamonds — easy slam. Who needs Blackwood! Just coax your opponent into a passive lead.

At the first table, the Swedes also had a tricky auction to the slam (note the bluff control-bid by Anulf), but here it seems inexcusable for North not to use Blackwood over 4 . The strong two-bid allowed immediate suit agreement, but they failed to take advantage. In any event, Crawford was not fooled, as he cashed the A and promptly switched to a spade — down one, and 1030 points to the U.S.

[Addendum 6-17-02. Tomasz Radko (Poland) suggested that Anulf’s 3 was an asking bid, and on reflection I believe he is right. Asking bids were popular back then, and this interpretation makes more sense than the bluff control-bid I assumed. Neat. It almost makes me want to take up asking bids so I can reach slams like this.]

It is also worth noting that “exclusion Roman key-card Blackwood,” the alternative suggested by many respondents, would have failed miserably. The response to show two key-cards ( A-K) plus the trump queen would commit you to slam. Modern gadgets may solve a lot of things, but there are few free tickets.

Comments for 5

Josh Sinnett: Completing the picture of my hand, and asking partner to continue to slam with enough controls.

Teymur Tahseen: Process of elimination: I haven’t shown a heart fit yet; may be missing two aces; doesn’t commit to six; gives the best picture of distribution to enable partner to value his hand. With a void and weak heart suit, Blackwood is not particularly useful, and if I sign off at the five level, partner will assume we’re missing two first-round controls.

Thomas Wassel: Assuming North has 22-24 points, we’re off one ace maximum. As long as we’re not off the A and K, I like our chances. Blackwood is iffy since North doesn’t know I have a heart fit yet; if North showed three aces, I still wouldn’t know what to do. I’ll bid 5 and let partner decide if he likes his suit.

Hank Eng: Wouldn’t 5 over 3 be a splinter? Now I’ve got to catch up, and I’m left with no good bid.

Bogdan Vulcan: Hearing partner’s diamond values, grand-slam possibilities seem remote, while 6 looks like a good contract. … Both of my suits are full with honors, and I have an extra trump. Partner will infer the diamond shortness. …

Vil Gravis: Checking to see how good partner’s trumps are. I expect that with the two black aces (in my suits) and A-K-Q-x-x, he will see fit to bid 7 ; with A-Q-x-x-x, we’ll take our chances in 6 ; and with anything less we’ll stay in 5 (still possible despite the 2 opening).

Thomas Peters: I don’t have a good hand opposite a red two-suiter, but 4 is what I would bid with K-Q-10-x-x x-x x K-Q-x-x-x; so I need to jump to show real support. I don’t think 5 carries any special meaning in this auction, as the 2 opener is [usually] boss.

Nicoleta Giura: Partner should wonder why I didn’t use Blackwood over 3 [and deduce] the void in diamonds.

Jean-Christophe Clement: There may be a slam (even a grand, but difficult to seek and unlikely). Five hearts proposes six if North has beautiful hearts and aces; 4 is pessimistic, and 6 optimistic. In my mind, 5 would be interpreted as a fit in diamonds.

Connie Delisle: This should show diamond shortness and a hand too good to bid 4 over 3 . …

Leonard Helfgott: I would have raised hearts on the prior round, but this should be pretty descriptive, asking for trump quality since all suits are bid. Partner won’t have a problem with A-K-Q-x-x-(x), but might with A-K-x-x-x-x thinking me to be 5=3=1=4. If he comes back with a 6 cue-bid, expressing interest in a grand slam somewhere, I will raise to 7 ; and if passed, I expect he can dump heart losers on his diamonds.

Karen Harris: … I am assuming this says, “bid six if you have good trumps.”

Chris Willenken: This hand feels like a trap. If partner has a red two-suiter, my black honors are not pulling their full weight.

Richard Stein: We might be off two aces, but that [seems unlikely]. I’m more worried about losing two trump tricks. Since we’ve bid all the side suits, this should ask partner to bid six with good trumps (A-J-9-x-x, K-Q-9-x-x, or the A-Q). …

Mark Friedlander: Since all four suits have been bid, 5 doesn’t ask for any specific controls. It is easier to find the grand after 5 than 6 .

Geoffrey Toon: I expect partner to realize that I am asking him to bid slam if his trumps are good. We may well be making 12 (or even 13) tricks with two aces missing, as partner is quite possibly void in one of the black suits. After all, he [should have] a game-forcing hand [to open 2 ] with a red two-suiter. …

Bruce Scott: I don’t like bidding 2 … as I can anticipate the bidding will get out of hand. But, when Richard Pavlicek gives you lemons, you make lemonade. I now have a chance for a master bid… which only requires partner to work it out. … The jump to 5 … must show a diamond void; I cannot have a stiff diamond because I didn’t use Blackwood. Partner will know that what matters now are his hearts and his black-suit aces. …

Mark Ganzer: Four hearts would sound like a preference here. I deserve this problem for not raising 3 to 4 , but I’m not sure my partner deserves the problem that 5 will create.

Adam Saroyan: … [There are] lots of 2 openings with this auction where we are off a black ace and a trump trick.

Mark Kinzer: This pinpoints the diamond shortness and shows heart enthusiasm (6 is a close second choice), but I’m concerned that 4 might be taken belatedly as first-round club control. Four hearts sounds too weak, as it could be a simple preference with 5=2=2=4 and 8 HCP; 4 NT with a void is unappealing; and 5 NT sounds like choice of slams.

Tim Bolshaw: … Four hearts should be a nonforcing preference on a misfit; 4 NT is pointless; and 5 or 5 NT do not show hearts. So the choice is between 5 and 6 . Is partner’s hand x K-Q-J-10-x-x A-K-Q-x-x A, or -- A-K-Q-x-x-x K-Q-10-x-x A-x? The meaning of 5 is unclear, but one could argue that it shows this shape.

Mark Lehto: In my methods this conveys, “Trumps are a touch ropy, but everything else looks good.” Four hearts sounds more like grudging heart support.

Andrew de Sosa: I haven’t supported partner yet, and 4 (which could be a mere preference on a doubleton) doesn’t seem to do justice to this hand. Five hearts should convey the big fit with diamond shortness and slam-invitational values.

Rainer Herrmann: A typical 2 auction, where little useful information has been exchanged after five bids… Four hearts could be the only game, but it looks unduly pessimistic. …

David Davies: Too strong for 4 ; not strong enough for six. … Partner should realize I am short in diamonds.

Phil Clayton: … If partner is looking at strong hearts, I hope he tries 6 ; then I’ll bid 6 to complete the picture.

Andrei Varlan: … The message is that I want to play a slam, but I have a void and/or no aces.

Anthony Golding: I suppose I’ll have to support partner at some stage. Four hearts sounds forced and will likely be passed; 6 is too final; so I’ll go for the Goldilocks 5 . This sort of hand is why I play a strong club system.

Comments for 4 NT

Chris Maclauchlan: My knowledge of total-point strategy is sadly lacking, but I assume it is imperative that I bid my slams. I’m hopelessly confused with the auction (my knowledge of slam bidding is also sadly lacking), but since I’m [probably] bidding at least 6 , I might as well try Blackwood for the grand on the way. …

John R. Mayne: The dreaded void-Blackwood. Partner has the A, I think, and nothing else will convey the monster I have. I’ll count the bullets and set the contract. Five diamonds, an interesting possibility, is rife with the danger we are not on the same page.

Kieran Dyke: One of a number of bad bids. Couldn’t partner have a big 6-5 shape with two black aces missing? Five hearts is the other [reasonable choice]. Five diamonds is obviously impossible since I haven’t shown heart support yet; 4 (nonforcing) sounds like a belated preference; and 5 NT is dumb since partner doesn’t know what trumps are.

Robin Zigmond: Horrible, I know, but very much the best of an awful bunch. If partner shows only one ace (unlikely), I sign off in 5 . If he shows three, I bid six and resign myself to missing the grand some of the time. If he shows two, then I’ll still probably punt at six. This approach at least gets some information — there’s no way I can properly describe my hand.

Bill Jacobs: Only solution here is to shoot Richard. R.I.P., R.P. Four hearts, 5 NT and 6 are too committal; and 5 gets you to, 5 . That leaves 5 and Old Trusty. Five hearts asks partner some ill-defined question he can’t answer. Four notrump has obvious flaws, but it keeps us out of slam missing two cashing aces.

Ian Greig: I will assume that partner has the A. If 4 were forcing, I might bid it, i.e., [some people play] that a positive response to 2 is forcing to at least 4 NT.

Steve Stein: Without detailed agreements, no bid is satisfactory. Four hearts on the previous round (forcing in my partnerships) would have been perfect. Four notrump is lame; but if partner shows four aces and two kings, I’ll go for 7 .

Bill Cubley: Duh. Next time raise 3 to 4 , which [should be] forcing. Blackwood is what you do when you can’t cue-bid. Now the slam becomes a guess if partner has two aces. …

Dave Maeer: Now that I know partner has the A, I can try a little Blackwood. If he shows three aces, I’ll settle in six; if he shows four, I’ll try 5 NT and hope he gets the message that I have plenty of tricks and am a bit worried about trumps.

Richard Higgins: Since partner has shown the A, this will work decently to find out if we belong in [five], six or seven.

David Chechelashvili: I made my life miserable by bidding 4 … now I choose 4 NT, just in case partner has something like A-x A-K-Q-x-x-x A-x-x A-x.

John Haslegrave: Guessing that the trump suit is reasonable; I can subtract the [presumed] A from the response.

Comments for 6

Gareth Birdsall: I’ve been put in a pretty nasty situation by my inability to make a 5 splinter (or raise to 4 , hopefully forcing) at my last go. Now I could be bidding 4 on x-x or even less. …

Gerry Wildenberg: We might make seven, and we might make only five. I don’t know how to investigate, so I try six. Five notrump [should be] a grand slam force for diamonds, so that’s the worst bid.

Peg Kaplan: Oh, yuck. I went back and forth so many times I cannot count! Finally, I decided by elimination: Four notrump seems wrongheaded;… and 5 NT could propel us to a grand with no play (e.g., A-x A-K-Q-J-x-x A-K-x-x x). So I bid 6 ; practical. If we make seven, such is life. I greatly dislike the earlier auction. In my experience, even with a hand as prime as this one, it is better to temporizing with 2 . Wait and see where partner lives, then evaluate. Assuredly on this hand, life would have been far, far easier.

Jonathan Goldberg: Giving up on the grand slam. All the alternatives seem to me to be aimed at winning the postmortem. With no reasonable try, I don’t torture partner.

Damo Nair: If this bidding doesn’t show a void in diamonds, I don’t know what does. Another reasonable possibility is 4 , but it might be mistaken for a simple preference.

Godwin Jeyaseelan: Slam has good chances and at worst [should] be based on a finesse.

Herbert Wilton: This should pinpoint my diamond void, so I’m hoping partner only bids seven with the right hand.

Niklas Warne: My bidding so far leaves a lot to be desired. Five diamonds over 3 to show a void seems a standout. Having missed that, now I can’t even cue-bid [because 5 would sound natural]. … Oh dear! But fear not, because this bid shows heart support.

Gray Robertson: I like 5 , but only if partner is guaranteed to take it as a cue-bid. Bidding a void is always dangerous, and 5 NT is asking too much of partner. My gut feeling is that 6 must be stiff, so I’m going to bid it.

Lance Marrou: There are wasted values in diamonds, so it seems too aggressive to [try for a grand slam]. …

Steve Mager: … My 2 bid should guarantee two of the top three honors. If partner has solid hearts and all the controls, he should carry on to seven knowing about the spade trick source.

Karen Walker: I’ve shown strength, but 4 doesn’t seem like nearly enough, especially since it will sound to partner like I’m making the gun-to-my-head preference on a doubleton. So I’ll continue my earlier approach of using up maximum bidding room and try to get the message across with a jump to 6 . Blackwood, even with the void, might work if I had already supported hearts (expecting to hear the four-ace response and then invite with 5 NT), but here, partner would have no idea which grand I was inviting.

Jonathan Steinberg: The practical call; bid what you think you can make. This implies a diamond void; else why skip Blackwood? If partner has the right hand to bid seven, he might even do it.

Paul Hankin: I can neither see how to avoid slam opposite partner’s worst hands, nor how to get to seven when he holds a perfecta. Also, I’d like the defense to have to guess which black suit to lead.

Jojo Sarkar: It seems like we might make a grand, but there’s really no way to find out. The diamond void is my only first-round control, and partner’s diamond [bid] hurts our combined strength.

Paul Huggins: … I would have preferred to show enthusiasm for hearts straightaway instead of bidding the clubs. If I tried a Josephine 5 NT now, it would be for diamonds, so it seems sensible to bid what I think we can make.

Stu Goodgold: Partner will know what to do with four aces and solid hearts. Five diamonds might be a good bid, but what if partner thinks it shows diamonds?

Jeff Goldsmith: I would have bid 5 [as a splinter] last time; then if partner cue-bid a black ace, I could bid 6 , and partner would have some idea of my controls. Now, I’m guessing a little. I don’t think partner has all five key cards and the trump queen (if he does, he’ll probably bid the grand), so I’ll just bid 6 .

Neelotpal Sahai: There [should be] a slam, but how to reach it is the question. Blackwood is ruled out because of the void. Five hearts is a good bid but can be confusing, so I’ll just bid the slam. Occasionally, a grand will be missed.

Rob Stevens: I don’t [like] the 4 call. Wouldn’t an immediate 5 (splinter) have worked better? And if 5 would not be a splinter, doesn’t this hand illustrate why 4 over 3 should be forcing? … Now it looks as though I will just have to make a value bid of 6 — at least partner knows I have covers for his diamond losers.

Robert Sparks: “Bid what you think will make.” -S.J. Simon

Bob Zorn: A raise to 4 after a 2 opening and a positive response [should] be forcing. Now I’m trapped. Six hearts has the advantage of enabling partner to bid seven with the right hand.

Ed Shapiro: Four clubs? [A dubious call], but if it was right, then 6 should make my hand very clear to partner, who still [can bid seven]. I’ll win the postmortem on the void.

Jyri Tamminen: This sequence is a nightmare. I will probably miss a grand, but at least I won’t land in a 4-0 fit. I cannot find a reasonable grand-slam try that would agree hearts clearly.

Pieter Geerkens: Partner has a four loser hand, and I have a five-loser hand with a big fit for partner’s first suit. According to LTC (losing trick count) I should bid nine hearts! On the premise that strong hands don’t bid bad suits, I bid 6 . I think the only situation partner cannot figure out is holding four key cards missing the A. …

Comments for 4

Sandy Barnes: All of my values seem to be pulling little weight in this auction. I’ll leave partner in charge; and I will not show my void, since it does not look like a great value.

Bill Powell: I’m not ecstatic about the auction so far but showing a good hand with spades, clubs and heart support is a decent description.

Arpan Banerjee: This shows partner where the fit is (so far all the bids except 2 were natural). Maybe partner will cue-bid 4 now so I can cue-bid 5 .

Csaba Raduly: Having made a positive response, I think 4 is enough, even though partner won’t believe I have four trumps. Blackwood won’t help. We could make anything from 10 to 13 tricks.

Charles Blair: I suspect my void is not an asset. If partner liked my black bids, he will continue.

Bijoy Anand: Easy does it! No need to jump and try to guess the level… I have shown a positive hand with values in spades and clubs, and heart support; let partner take over.

Tze Cheow Sng: Bid slowly, showing support this time and agreeing hearts as trumps. If partner bids 4 next, I will bid 5 to show [first-round diamond control].

Ian Payn: If it goes all pass, I shall be very surprised; but it’ll probably be for the best.

Gordon Rainsford: Make the bid I should have made on the last round. Partner [should] know I have [too much] to stop in game, but mine is not the hand to take control.

Peter Schwartz: The auction will [probably] not end here. It is vital that partner become captain, given the [likelihood] of duplicated values.

Jim Tully: Two spades and 4 were natural, showing a good hand; now set the trump suit. If partner bids 4 NT, I will show my void. … Five hearts and 5 NT are wrong because partner may be missing either black ace and infer that you’re holding it. …

Luis Argerich: I think that after [two positive bids], 4 is enough. I don’t want to eat all partner’s space, and this [is unlikely to] end the bidding.

Mike Weber: … I have shown 8+ HCP with values in spades and clubs; now 4 should complete the pattern and imply shortness in diamonds. I hope to hear 4 next by partner, and then proceed to cue-bid.

David Wetzel: I’ve already [made two positive bids]; now partner has shown wasted goodies opposite my void. We’re probably safe at the five-level (famous last words), but if this is all partner needs for slam, I’d expect another move.

Neil Cohen: I wouldn’t have known to bid 4 , but if it’s right not to support hearts immediately, it must be right to support them now.

Anne Bell: I cannot place the contract, therefore [I hope] partner will take control with 4 NT. …

Shekhar Sengupta: I do not expect the bidding to die here; I’m just conserving room for North to bid 4 or 4 NT. Unless my 4 was unequivocally an advance cue-bid, I would have bid 4 at my second turn to confirm trumps. …

Andy Browning: … Only reason I pick 4 is that the other possibilities seem worse. Four notrump doesn’t get the information I need (who cares about the A); 5 doesn’t really help partner [even if he interprets it correctly]; 5 surely asks, “How good are your trumps?”; and 5 NT or 6 are not going to help us get to seven when partner has all the right cards. …

Thomas Kniest: I’m not sure 2 is right to start; it can’t hurt to hear partner’s rebid over 2 ; if it’s 2 NT, you have a lot of tools. Here, you’re really jammed. However, I see that your system defines 2 as 0-7. Oh, well.

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 2

Total points		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North Pass	East Pass 2	South 1 ?	A 8 A K Q J 7 2 9 7 3 K 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
2	10	294	35
2 NT	9	152	18
3	6	267	32
Dbl	5	64	8
3 NT	2	35	4
4	1	32	4

At IMPs or matchpoints, 2 NT stands out a mile to me, as the potential for nine tricks in notrump far exceeds that for 10 tricks in hearts. Alas, this is total points where honors count. The notrump advantage could hardly be great enough to give up 100 points per deal, so the odds favor rebidding hearts. In other words, take the money in the bank.

The consensus was also on the money, though I’m sure many respondents were unaware of the honors issue. (In today’s online environment, many have never even played bridge where honors are scored.) As to bidding 2 or 3 , the former is adequate since any bid after partner passes shows extra strength — let alone that you rate to be set in 3 .

The case for double seems weak. It is clearly for takeout (even back in 1953) because partner hasn’t acted, but it seems useless in describing this hand or reaching the best contract. If partner bids 2 and you correct to 2 , I suppose this is a tad stronger than bidding 2 over 2 ; but it’s moot, and the sequence may never occur. More likely, the bidding will be at 3 next.

Let’s see what happened almost 50 years ago:

East deals	K 9 3		West	North	East	South
Both vul	3		Rapee	Wohlin	Stayman	Larsen
	A 10 5 2				Pass	1
	10 9 8 7 2		1	Pass	2	2
Q 10 7 6 5 4 2		J	2	Pass	Pass	3
9 8 5 4		10 6	Pass	Pass	Pass
K 8		Q J 6 4
—		A Q J 6 5 4
	A 8
	A K Q J 7 2
	9 7 3
	K 3

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
3 South	3 NT South	Werner	Becker	Kock	Lightner
West leads	West leads			Pass	1
Made 4 +170	Made 3 +600	1	Pass	2	2 NT
		Pass	3 NT	Pass	Pass
USA +430		Pass

In the second auction, I have to admire the judgment of Lightner, who eschewed the honors and chose the bid most likely to produce a game — and so it did. Nine top tricks in notrump (10 were available but declarer cashed out).

In the first auction, Larsen lumbered away in hearts, missing the excellent game. Having bid hearts twice, it seems he should have tried 2 NT over 2 , which would surely wake up his partner to bid game (or maybe Wohlin should bid game over 3 ). As the cards lie, 4 also comes home; but note that if West had a singleton club instead of a void, 4 would be set. The Swedes collected their honors, but missing the game cost a swing of 330 points to the U.S.

Comments for 2

Josh Sinnett: With partner not being able to take a bid over 1 , this hand isn’t looking for game. Let’s try to keep the bidding low.

Gareth Birdsall: I’d like to bid two and a half hearts, but 2 shows a good hand, so we may still reach game if partner has some goodies.

Teymur Tahseen: Good suit. After opponents have shown reasonable strength, game looks unlikely, and I need pretty good values to bid anyway. If partner is worth a raise from three to four, he is likely to raise two to three, so it’s not worth risking 3 . …

Frans Buijsen: I don’t feel like pushing very hard on this one. Given partner’s lack of action, game is pretty far away, and I don’t see much preemptive value in bidding higher.

Bogdan Vulcan: … I don’t want to double (too much of a lie) or bid notrump. I just want to show my hearts… and I think 2 is enough.

Gerben Dirksen: Partner passed and both opponents show good hands. Two hearts is enough, as it should show a good hand.

Sandy Barnes: I’ll try to end up plus.

Stephen McDevitt: A tempting hand, where I opt for conservatism. Optimists may see the A in partner’s hand and a club lead on its way, but that’s [probably] the only chance for 3 NT. The myriad of other North holdings and other possible leads ( K, for example) make 3 NT an unlikely event. Partner stands to have no ruffing value and no entries. With both vulnerable, I even fear sticking my neck out to 3 because opponents [may] know enough to double it, and I have a good shot to set 4 .

Jean-Christophe Clement: Trying to play at the lowest level. If East-West have no fit in spades or clubs, they may let me play in 2 .

Leonard Helfgott: Partner has passed, and both opponents have values. The likelihood of game is too remote unless partner can find a bid. Put a small heart into the diamond suit and double would be automatic.

Arpan Banerjee: Why hurry with a hand with good defensive strength? Partner has a Yarborough anyway, so go slow.

Paul Redvers: Competitive, and may push the opponents too high.

Gyorgy Ormay: I don’t jump if I don’t have any reason. Two notrump may be the winning bid as well. …

Gray Robertson: Two hearts is plenty to show partner my strength, although this pretty hand may not score many defensive tricks and I’d be loathe to push them into a makable game. I doubt that the opposition is going to be kept out of the bidding, however, and I may even have tactically passed in this seat if you had offered the option.

Geoffrey Toon: Too good to pass; not strong enough to jump at the vulnerability; and double would suggest some diamond interest. Two hearts [may be] a slight underbid, but it’s better to have something in reserve.

Bruce Scott: I am going to choose between 2 and 3 … and 2 is enough. I have at least five losers… and need at least two cover cards from partner to make game. … Two notrump is cute; maybe it’s right, but I’m not bidding it. … Will I sell out to 2 or 3 ? Nope. I will be in there with 3 . (I admit this only so that I may get ridiculed.)

Bijoy Anand: I can only see a maximum of eight tricks in my hand and partner [may have] zero. … Double shows interest in playing elsewhere, and I have none; 3 NT and 4 are too outlandish. … Three hearts is my second choice, but a distant one.

Lance Marrou: Game is [unlikely] if partner cannot bid 1 NT or 2 , so I will merely compete. Although seven tricks in notrump are nearly laydown, an eighth trick is [doubtful] if the opponents do not lead clubs (or if I cannot get to partner’s hand).

Tze Cheow Sng: This hand is too weak to jump to 3 ; must listen to partner’s pass. Partner may have some spades which will provide good defense should they compete to 2 .

Carlos Dabezies: Some caution is indicated, as partner could not muster [any action]. The opponents could easily have all the remaining points, and partner could have enough spades to [deny] them a game. …

Sverre Johnsen: Seven and a half tricks is a bit away from our own game, so 2 is enough for the time being.

Mark Kinzer: This shows a good hand. If partner raises or makes any noise, 3 NT will be automatic. Three hearts should show more hearts and less strength. …

Neil Morgenstern: I’m not really worth anymore. It is true that as long as the opponents cannot run [five] diamonds, I can make 3 NT if partner has just the A; but why should he have that card?

Luc Segers: I have a five-loser hand. … I could double because I have tolerance for diamonds, but my hearts are extremely good. Four hearts is a [poor] gamble, and 3 describes a [more shapely] hand weaker in HCP. If partner can contribute a trick, I can [probably] make 3 NT, so [it’s a close choice] between 2 and 2 NT.

Stu Goodgold: It’s unlikely partner will provide two tricks for me with none of my values in diamonds, so I’ll just walk this one up to 3 .

Larry Gifford: I hate this hand and the auction. Notrump is tempting but could go badly wrong. This shows my extra length and extra values, and it’s enough opposite a passing partner with two bidding opponents. I never buy it in this situation, but I’m better placed for the postmortem.

Jeff Tang: I am not smart enough to bid anything but 2 .

Does that apply only to this auction? Or your life in general?

Elianor Kennie: If I could count on partner for the A, I would bid 3 NT, but that would be a remote possibility. So I will settle for 2 and expect to make it.

Neelotpal Sahai: Emphasizing the suit and additional values. If partner is able to bid 3 (implying support of my hearts) over West’s probable 2 or 3 , then I could bid 3 NT. …

Robert Sparks: I have seven tricks, and with a club lead, eight. Why count on partner for any?

Ed Freeman: I’m vulnerable, so my 2 bid shows plenty extra. I hate to double with so little in diamonds.

Steve Stein: Bidding what I can make. Partner is still there.

Gordon Rainsford: Although my hand is good, if partner has nothing I may not even be able to make a club trick with the A onside.

Ken Masson: With the opponents strength unlimited and partner passing, 2 is sufficient.

Jim Tully: I have a good hand, and this tells the story. Partner is likely weak but could be trapping, and it looks like the opponents may not have a spade fit. Make ‘em play at the three level or try to beat you at 2 .

Len Vishnevsky: I don’t have the values for 2 NT, 3 , 3 NT or 4 , and I don’t have the shape for a double.

Dave Maeer: I’m going quietly. Vulnerable at total points, this shows a good hand. Also, the honors make it slightly less necessary to bid a very pushy game.

Mark Hardaway: This is my last bid since partner [rates to] have no values.

Mike Weber: Bidding what I think I can make (with a club lead).

Daniel Testa: Game is unlikely because partner could not [act]. Since pass is not a choice, 2 seems correct.

David Wetzel: Seven, OK, eight tricks. I really don’t expect partner to produce two tricks. If I have to, I’ll try 3 next.

David Chechelashvili: After partner passed 1 , I can only play him for a specific card (e.g., A) to make 3 NT; so I guess that 2 is enough.

Rai Osborne: Unless partner returns from the dead, I’ve almost reached the limit of this hand. I might double next time.

Comments for 2 NT

John R. Mayne: The even piggier 3 NT also appeals. No number of hearts is worth thinking about, and double is seriously misdirected. I’d shoot out 3 NT with even the J or a seventh heart, but I think partner will read me for roughly this, playing methods where 2 NT is natural.

Rick Kelly: This may help partner make a penalty double if the opponents press on.

Wilson Leung: This describes the hand quite clearly, and I [should win] at least seven tricks.

Vil Gravis: Enough to encourage partner to bid game but not so high as to ask for trouble. … The A in partner’s hand is enough for 3 NT if the opponents find the wrong lead, and West is more likely to lead a club than a spade.

Nicoleta Giura: Solid hearts and stoppers. Perfect.

John Reardon: I think there is still a possibility of game our way, and 3 NT seems most likely; but I won’t bid it on my own.

Peg Kaplan: Gee, I have a good hand! Maybe they will be kind and lead a club; and partner might even have enough to raise me to game — only when it is right, of course. I don’t like 3 NT because if I am doubled, I will have no idea whether or not to sit. I doubt that 2 NT will be doubled, and if partner raises me, I’ll take my chances.

Mircea Petrescu: Bidding what I think I will make, and I’d love to be raised to 3 NT.

Bryson Crowell: Tactical bid. If partner is broke and fits hearts, we [probably] can’t beat 4 ; maybe this will slow them down.

Ross Lam: If there’s a game, notrump seems most likely, and this shows my strength and shape.

Herbert Wilton: I can’t make 3 NT unless partner is able to bid it.

Niklas Warne: Bidding 2 NT with 18-19 points in a balanced hand would be suicidal, so the meaning of this bid seems clear: good hand, good hearts and black stoppers. As little as J-10-x x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x-x will most probably produce nine tricks.

Kieran Dyke: This might persuade partner to bid game with a bit of stuff, and it’s unlikely to be in serious trouble.

Chris Willenken: Three notrump looks like our game (if we have one). This auction should show long strong hearts with stoppers, so partner can make an intelligent decision.

Robin Zigmond: With a solid suit and a semibalanced hand, it’s worth a shot at notrump. But do I bid two or three? I think that partner ought to raise me to game with the trick and a half I need. …

Richard Stein: If West is trained to lead his partner’s suit, I have eight tricks right now; and even if West doesn’t cooperate, they may still be available. Should partner have it in his heart to pop the A in dummy, a thin notrump game should be on.

Bill Jacobs: This hand reeks of notrump. Or maybe it just reeks.

Mark Ganzer: The 9-trick game may be easier than the 10-trick game. If partner is totally broke, 2 NT is only down one, and it will make on a club lead.

Karen Walker: Even with the short stoppers, this looks like a notrump hand. Two notrump is a just-about-perfect description of my high-card strength and playing tricks. And if partner is totally broke, we’ve at least stopped at the two level.

Tommy Cho: … I want to play this contract even if my partner can’t provide a trick. If he happens to have a trick, he may well raise me to 3 NT.

Zuzana Herrmann: With the likely club lead, I have eight tricks. It also signals solid hearts to partner so he may choose 3 NT or 4 after reevaluating his hand.

Weidong Yang: I don’t want to lose 3 NT, so now is the time to show my stoppers in the opponents’ suits.

Tim Bolshaw: It must be right to try for notrump here. I think 2 NT is enough — partner should be able to raise most of the time that he has the bits you need for 3 NT.

Rob Stevens: The value bid, aimed at the most likely game. Obviously, I’m hoping for a club rather than a spade lead.

Andrew de Sosa: Good chance for 3 NT if partner has a quick trick, or slow stoppers in the suits outside of hearts.

Rainer Herrmann: I should show this hand type; with a balanced powerhouse, I can double or cue-bid first. An expert North should not raise just because he is balanced, but inspect his hand more carefully. With lower honors in diamonds, which require time, he should retreat to hearts at the appropriate level; while the A or honors outside of diamonds would argue for 3 NT.

Luis Argerich: This should be pretty safe, and partner will bid 3 NT with some values. …

Richard Higgins: Unlikely the auction will stop here, and I don’t need much from partner for 3 NT.

Tomasz Radko: Down one is good bridge!

Comments for 3

Thomas Peters: Total-point scoring places a huge premium on vulnerable games. That and a double-proof trump suit justify this overbid.

Rahul Chandra: Tough call; I’d bid 3 NT if the K were the A.

Jojo Sarkar: I don’t have much defense to speak of, so I want to talk them out of bidding their possible vulnerable game. Hopefully, I can get out of this for down one.

Kevin Costello: If partner doesn’t have enough to give a reasonable play for 3 , the opponents [may] have a game somewhere.

Paul Huggins: This shows a [self-sufficient] suit. I have seven tricks in my hand, plus a likely eighth in the K; all I need is one trick from partner (possibly a well-placed K) to make 3 . Two hearts would suggest a weaker hand; bidding notrump could be painful, e.g., if West leads a spade before I have time to knock out the A.

Mark Raphaelson: As high as I can [bid] without help from partner. Notrump is too risky when I have such a good play in hearts. The auction [probably] won’t end here, but now partner will be able to make an educated call.

Kees van Schenk Brill: Partner rates to have a king at most on the bidding, and it won’t be the K. I would like to bid [up to] 3 anyway [if West competes], so I would rather do it now. Two notrump? Well, I might get away with it, but if West then supports clubs, I would bid 3 anyway, leaving them much better placed.

Michael Cervantes: [This only requires] one trick from partner, and it [may] force the opponents to the game level, where I might be able to double.

Henry Day: It is very tempting to gamble on notrump; but if they don’t oblige with a club lead, the tempo is likely to work against me, even assuming the A is with East.

Jyri Tamminen: Partly for preemption; partly in hope that partner has a miracle hand and will be able to raise.

Michael Kaplan: I have eight tricks in hearts or notrump (assuming a club is led or I can reach dummy to lead a club). Partner likely has little, and in defense my hand may yield only 2-3 tricks. I bid 3 and hope partner has a few trumps and I can make it, or they overbid. The risk of minus 200 is bad in matchpoints, but not so bad at total points. Two hearts will not deter them; 4 risks minus 500 or worse.

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 3

Total points		Both vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass Pass	North Pass 2 3	East Pass Pass Pass	South 1 2 1 ?	A K 10 9 3 A K J Q 8 8 5 2
1. You may not agree, but live with it

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
3	10	314	37
3 NT	9	147	17
5	7	150	18
4	6	162	19
3	3	23	3
Pass	2	48	6

The point count surely dictates another bid, but the best game is still in doubt. Three notrump is the most likely game, and opposite a top diamond in partner’s hand, it may be crucial to become declarer with Q-x. Alas, partner may have all his points in clubs (e.g., x-x x-x-x x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x) where 3 NT is hopeless and 5 is a strong favorite.

My choice is to gamble 3 NT because this will sometimes be right even when partner has no honor in diamonds. Lacking major support, he is unlikely to be short in diamonds; so even opposite x-x-x, I’ll probably just need diamonds 4-4. When partner does have a top diamond honor, the declaring advantage rates to be superb.

The consensus of the respondents went the other way, preferring to bid 3 as a forward-going move. Whether this should be a pattern bid (suggesting 5=4=4=0 or 5=4=3=1) or just a noise (akin to responder’s fourth-suit bid) is moot, but it’s clearly forcing. The drawback is that it’s apt to wrong-side 3 NT. The more I think about this hand, the more it seems South should have bid 2 NT (forcing) over 2 ; in preparing the poll, I decided to inflict 2 upon you because it was chosen at the table.

Let’s have a look:

North deals	8 7		West	North	East	South
Both vul	9 6		Schenken	Lilliehook	Rapee	Anulf
	A 9 5			1	Pass	1
	A Q 10 9 7 4		Pass	2	Pass	3
Q J 4		6 5 2	Pass	3 NT	Pass	4 NT
10 7 5 3 2		Q 8 4	Pass	5	Pass	6
K J 7 4		10 6 3 2	All Pass
6		K J 3
	A K 10 9 3
	A K J
	Q 8
	8 5 2

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
6 North	3 NT South	Wohlin	Becker	Larsen	Crawford
East leads	West leads		Pass	Pass	1
Down 2 -200	Made 4 +630	Pass	2	Pass	2
		Pass	3	Pass	3 NT
USA +830		Pass	Pass	Pass

In the second auction, Crawford faced the problem scenario and guessed right to bid 3 NT. It is also worth noting a systemic difference: Crawford was unable (I think) to bid 2 NT over 2 because in those days it was considered nonforcing. (By today’s standards, a two-over-one responder promises a second bid below game, even when he is a passed hand.)

Against 3 NT, Wohlin cleverly shunned the diamond lead, and led the 3 to the queen-king. It seems declarer should immediately cash A-K (ensuring nine tricks when an honor drops), but he led a club to the queen-king. Now a diamond shift would scuttle the contract. Alas, Larsen had no indication not to return a heart, so 10 tricks were made.

At the first table, the Swedes reached an aggressive slam after Lilliehook opened the borderline North hand (I agree) and Anulf drove to slam — or perhaps it was a bidding mix-up, with Anulf intending 4 NT as quantitative and Lilliehook assuming Blackwood. I can only guess because nothing in their system summary explains the strange 3 bid. The slam was not egregious, but hopeless on the actual layout. Or might I say, a bad day for lily hooks. After a diamond lead, declarer was down two, for a swing of 830 points to the U.S.

[Addendum 6-17-02. As on Problem 1, Anulf’s 3 may have been an asking bid. Thanks to Tomasz Radko for pointing this out.]

Comments for 3

Josh Sinnett: Still looking for 3 NT.

Chris Maclauchlan: It seems that lying about this hand is a hard habit to break.

Gareth Birdsall: A routine hand for fourth suit forcing — game forcing, but not sure of the strain.

Gerry Wildenberg: This might get us to 3 NT, or it might get us to 5 . It seems like the best way to investigate.

John R. Mayne: This fourth-suit punt should get us to the right place. Four clubs is a strong contender, and were it not for the notrumpy diamond holding, I’d choose it.

Teymur Tahseen: Game is possible, and a diamond lead is likely so I shouldn’t [gamble] 3 NT. This asks for a diamond guard; if denied, we’ll [probably] end up in 4 or 5 .

Rick Kelly: If partner cannot bid 3 NT, I’ll retreat to 4 .

Gerben Dirksen: Not ready to give up a possible 3 NT.

Tony Rolfe: Asking for help with diamonds for 3 NT.

Sandy Barnes: Why leave this suit out?

Thomas Peters: Three notrump, 4 or 5 could be the right spot. I will insist on bidding some vulnerable game despite the obvious risks.

Nicoleta Giura: Asking for a stopper. I’m ready to bid 3 NT over 3 or 3 to show a partial stopper.

Peg Kaplan: A toughie. Perhaps I am supposed to raise immediately with my three clubs and extra values. I think, however, I shall show my partial stopper first. (Humpty-Dumpty bidding? My bids show what I want them to mean, neither more nor less?) And, for the record, I do like the 2 call.

Damo Nair: I think this hand is worth another call, and 3 doesn’t go past 3 NT.

Connie Delisle: One more try for game.

Herbert Wilton: Too early to commit to an 11-trick game.

Niklas Warne: Five clubs is the most likely destination, but 3 NT can sometimes be a better contract. Hopefully, 3 can extract some useful information.

Kieran Dyke: Then 3 NT over 3 ; 4 over 3 ; 5 over 4 . Wrong-siding 3 NT is a concern.

Arpan Banerjee: Fourth suit forcing, hoping to reach 3 NT. On hearing 4 , I am ready to bid 5 .

Csaba Raduly: Three notrump is still possible. I’ll pass over 3 NT and 4 ; correct 3 to 4 (although that might sound like a slam invitation); and over 3 I’ll try four.

Arend Bayer: Let’s see whether we belong in 3 NT, 4 (if partner has Q-x, he should show it with 3 ) or 5 .

Robin Zigmond: Routine. We play in 3 NT if partner has a diamond stopper; otherwise, 5 . As I was perfectly entitled to pass 3 , it’s difficult to envisage a club slam with this seven-loser hand (well, maybe six and a half).

Tze Cheow Sng: Since I can temporize with 2 , I should be able to temporize with 3 .

Karen Walker: This auction is screaming for someone to bid notrump (I wish it had been me on the last round), and partner ought to be able to hear it, too. If he can’t bid 3 NT over this, I’ll hang him with 5 .

Paul Hankin: [With no diamond stopper] partner will nearly always bid 3 (with three hearts) or 3 (doubleton), then I can bid 3 NT to show a dubious diamond stopper. …

Mike Doecke: With Q-x I’m not giving up on a possible 3 NT contract yet. This keeps all options open.

Zuzana Herrmann: Fishing for 3 NT. If partner says 4 , I’ll pass.

Stu Goodgold: Need to get to 3 NT if possible, but partner might be 2=3=2=6 without a diamond stopper. At least I haven’t distorted my distribution any more than with the 2 bid!

Vikas Phadke: Obviously, a [convenient force]. If partner says 3 , I will bid 4 .

Ian Greig: This might not work out well if partner has A-x-x and bids 3 NT, but it keeps open most game options.

Andrew de Sosa: Looks like I have a four and a half club raise. Three diamonds gives us one more shot at 3 NT, while not giving up on game in clubs. Over 3 or 3 , I will bid 4 and let partner decide the issue.

Ian Payn: I might not agree with it, but I’ll live with it.

Ken Masson: This asks partner to bid 3 NT with a diamond stopper.

Tysen Streib: Fourth suit forcing, asking for a diamond stopper.

Leif Lundberg: I prefer 3 NT if North has a stopper in diamonds; 4 might also be right.

John Vogel: I think this ought to imply club support, as well as an attempt to reach 3 NT.

Patricia Crough: I would open the hand with 1 NT.

David Stern: If partner has 9-11 HCP, most of it will be in the minors, making game a very good prospect. I don’t know what my agreements are regarding the fourth suit here, but it should be forcing so I’ll take a risk.

Jan Gutenwik: It might be better to bid 3 NT with my hand, but I have to live with it.

Andy Browning: Three clubs is presumably passable, so I need to get the message to partner to bid again. If he has a diamond stopper, 3 NT will [be right]; and if he bids 3 , I can bid 4 to show the extra values. If partner bids 3 , I’ll probably bid four. …

Thomas Kniest: If partner’s [points are all] in clubs, then I have his other losers covered and will raise 4 to five. If he bids 3 NT, I’ll sit. It would help on a lot of hands for me to play 3 NT because of the positional value of the Q; however, I think getting to the right game is paramount, and partner is not going to pull 3 NT after I bid it, regardless of his hand.

Mark Florencz: The most flexible solution. I don’t know if [this creates] a game-forcing auction or not; if not, I’ll pass his 4 , as we [rate to] lose a trump and two diamonds. …

Comments for 3 NT

Vil Gravis: If 3 NT is to be on at all, I need the lead to come from West, e.g., if partner has A-x-x or K-x-x and K-Q-J-x-x-x or similar. Five clubs [is likely to be superior to 3 NT] only when partner has x-x [or x-x-x] and solid clubs. Partner can still choose to bid 4 with x-x and Q-x.

Stephen McDevitt: Partner [likely] has some diamonds (or is ignoring me again), and I want the lead coming my way to protect the Q. Two clubs followed by 3 should show enough for a game. Three notrump should be a more flexible contract [than 5 ], e.g., in case partner has a stiff honor in spades.

Eugeen Vannuten: If my offered majors are not of any interest to partner, he must have something in diamonds as well. Three notrump seems to be easy; 5 is obvious but still needs two more tricks than 3 NT; [slam] is too far away.

Jonathan Goldberg: The practical bid. Three diamonds as a delicate try [may be better]; unfortunately, partner might think I’m bidding out a 5=4=3=1 pattern — wrong message.

Bill Huepenbecker: Partner rates to have something in diamonds. Clubs probably aren’t running, but I think I can survive.

Gyorgy Ormay: Oh, I don’t want to pass, but thank you. Partner probably has a stopper in diamonds, and it may be better to play from my hand. Therefore, not 3 .

Gray Robertson: You have to take some risks in life, and with the expected diamond lead, I’d prefer to be playing the hand.

Bruce Scott: … Partner could easily have the hand that makes it right to be in 3 NT; and if so, I really want it to be from my side. Think about partner with x-x x-x A-x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x. If I bid 3 , we now risk going down on a diamond lead because I wrong-sided it. I also am not sure that I want to give partner a chance to preference spades with a doubleton. Oh, and I am a hand hog; I don’t get to play the contract in clubs.

Lance Marrou: Hamman’s rule: “If 3 NT is an option, bid it.” Partner will hopefully have a diamond honor or two because he has no spade or heart [support].

Jonathan Steinberg: We have the values for game. Partner rates to have a diamond card, and 3 NT usually plays better from the Q-x side.

James Hudson: Partner doesn’t like the majors, so he probably has something in diamonds.

Neil Morgenstern: If partner has J-10-x-x and six clubs with one loser, 3 NT is cold and 5 goes down. Opposite K-x-x or A-x-x, I want to play 3 NT from my side; so I can’t bid 3 because partner would bid 3 NT on either holding. There are also holdings where 5 makes and 3 NT doesn’t, e.g., if partner has x-x-x [or x-x] and solid clubs (A-K-Q-x-x-x).

Eric Leong: Gambling that we can make 3 NT from the right side when partner has something like A-x-x, K-x-x, etc.

Olivier La Spada: Certainly 3 NT is better to be played by my hand.

Kees van Schenk Brill: This will at least reach 3 NT from the right side. If partner can contribute just J-x-x, clubs may be running or he may table nice queens in the majors. Diamonds may very well be 5-3, but if we belong in notrump, my hand should declare. This weakens the other options. Five clubs might be reasonable, too, but in that case I will feel very unhappy if the defense has three tricks and [3 NT would make].

Ed Freeman: Partner didn’t preempt and has denied three spades or four hearts. Odds are good that he has at least three diamonds, so I hope it is J-x-x or better.

Comments for 5

Frans Buijsen: I first opted for 3 , but on reflection [there seem to be few hands] that make 3 NT but not 5 , while there are many opportunities for the reverse. Four clubs would be nonforcing, so I rule that out.

Robert Tamlyn: Partner should have the equivalent of A-K-Q-x-x-x. Thanks for making me live with 3 . Now I can be fairly sure that 3 NT is not a good contract since partner did not bid notrump.

Chris Willenken: It’s hard to have a slam opposite a nonforcing 3 bid, so I’ll just bid what I think we can make.

Richard Stein: Partner’s failure to bid 2 NT over 2 is a red flag; I have a feeling his 3 bid wasn’t an effort to right-side notrump with A-x-x. I still definitely want to be in game, and 5 now looks very good. I visualize layouts where 5 makes and 3 NT goes down (e.g., x-x x-x-x K-x K-Q-J-x-x-x or x-x x-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x).

Bill Jacobs: It’s difficult to construct a hand where 3 NT (or 4 ) is superior to 5 . Three diamonds is for those who like to overengineer their auctions. The Acol approach has to be right occasionally.

Carlos Dabezies: Three diamonds might easily be misunderstood, perhaps as a three-suited hand; 3 would tend to show 6-4, and partner might raise with a singleton; pass seems too conservative. It is significant that partner rebid clubs rather than trying notrump or raising one of my suits(!). At matchpoints I might bid 3 NT; but at total points I bid 5 hoping to lose either one diamond and one club, or two diamonds and no clubs. If partner has excellent clubs and the A, he may even go on.

Adam Saroyan: Hope he makes it; no other bid really makes sense to me. If I invite, partner will pass too often when 5 is cold. If 3 NT makes when 5 goes down, I would be very surprised. If partner wants to go on for some reason, this hand should be helpful. …

Jojo Sarkar: If partner has a good club suit, I’m putting down a fairly decent dummy for him. Total-point scoring makes bidding vulnerable games even more important than at IMPs. …

Paul Huggins: Bidding 3 NT could cost if partner has no diamond help; but if partner has, e.g., A-x-x, then I want to play 3 NT from my side, and fourth-suit-forcing 3 would wrong-side the contract. Five clubs is a much better prospect, requiring partner to have either [a running club suit], or high diamond and [a one-loser suit]. …

Tibor Roberts: This looks safer than 3 NT and shows some extras in case partner wants to [bid 6 ]. …

Tim Bolshaw: Even with the help of my Q-x, partner is unlikely to have two diamond stoppers… so [trying for] 3 NT is [against the odds]. A 3 bid would sound like I’m bidding out my shape, rather than a fourth suit effort. So, it’s 4 or 5 . While 4 allows room for partner to bid 4 on Q-x x-x J-x-x A-Q-J-x-x-x, he will feel he has done enough on a hand such as x x-x-x A-x-x K-Q-10-x-x-x, which is more likely.

Alex Perlin: Partner has not admitted to having a diamond stopper for notrump, and I won’t torture him to extract such a confession. If he holds x-x x-x K-x-x K-Q-J-x-x-x, we have no business in 3 NT anyway.

Neelotpal Sahai: Partner is likely to have K-Q-J-x-x-x or better, so 5 will make [almost] whenever 3 NT makes; and 3 NT will sometimes go down if partner doesn’t have [help] in diamonds.

Rob Stevens: I must make a strong move. Three notrump is a wild shot; 4 is nonforcing; 3 is misdirected; 3 is possible, but I’d prefer to have three diamonds so that 3 NT, if partner can bid it, is right-sided. Five clubs is acceptable, and I think it should deny a stiff diamond because 4 is available for that.

Jim Tully: I’d like to play 3 NT if partner has a partial diamond stopper, but he didn’t bid 2 NT or 3 (fourth Suit) so I’m going to play him for a good six-card club suit and a side ticket in the majors.

Comments for 4

John Reardon: Four clubs, 4 or 5 seem to be the [plausible contracts]. Passing is rather cowardly.

Leonard Helfgott: As much as I like 1 NT with a five-card major, both the 1 and 2 calls are correct in my view. Since 3 should be a telling bid (5=4=4=0 or 5=4=3=1) instead of a fourth-suit-force ask, and partner has few cards in majors, this hand doesn’t look good [for it]. As much as I’d like to pass, this is too much, so I’d bid 4 .

Carl Hudecek: This gets us to game if his clubs are as good as A-K-J-x-x-x.

Mark Ganzer: If notrump is right, partner could have bid it by now, since my 2 misdescription was a desperate grasp to compel him to do so. If partner can’t bid notrump, I won’t, having drawn a blueprint for the defense. But I won’t give up on game either.

Mark Kinzer: Five clubs seems impetuous, and precludes a reasonable 4 contract. Pass is wimpy.

Robert Sparks: Three notrump may be the only game, but partner didn’t bid it, so I won’t either.

Gordon Rainsford: I want to bid 3 as fourth suit forcing, but nothing in your bidding notes suggests this is systemically allowed. So I’ll make the most flexible bid available, which allows us to play in 4 if partner has Q-x or J-x.

Len Vishnevsky: Partner’s most likely hand is x-x Q-x-x J-x A-K-x-x-x-x. He might have rebid 2 NT with diamond control and six clubs, so I’ll try for game in a suit. Four clubs lets him pass with garbage or get to 4 with Q-x or J-x.

Dave Maeer: It’s possible 3 NT is right, but I’d bet against it. There are a lot of hands, e.g., something like x-x x-x-x K-x K-Q-J-10-x-x, where partner would bid 3 NT if I bid 3 , and we’d go down with 5 probably making.

Richard Higgins: Partner didn’t bid 2 NT when he had the chance, so I’ll show [extra] points and a fit for a possible game in clubs.

Mike Weber: I’m a little worried about the diamond suit in notrump. Still, game in clubs is doable if partner has good clubs, e.g., x-x x-x x-x-x A-K-Q-x-x-x is all that is required. Let partner make the last mistake.

Ed Shapiro: Tough to live with 2 , but then it must have been forcing, even opposite a passed-hand 2 . Four clubs is enough. Again, I must have had a reason to bid hearts, rather than raise clubs then bid notrump over the likely 3 — the mama-papa auction. So, I guess partner won’t hold the right hand for 3 NT. Is this a Churchill hand?

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 4

Total points		E-W vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North Pass Dbl	East Pass 1	South Pass ?	Q 9 7 5 4 3 Q 8 6 3 — J 10 3

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
4	10	316	37
3	8	145	17
2	7	170	20
Other*	6	56	7
1	4	144	17
Pass	1	13	2

*any bid but spades

I’m sure there are many players, like me, who would have opened this hand (2 or 3 ) in third seat, but the dictated pass can hardly be called wrong. After partner’s passed-hand double, an excellent spade fit is assured (at least nine cards, probably 10); and with opponents having most of the high cards, it makes sense to jam the bidding. Better late than never.

I agree completely with the consensus. The pressure bid of 4 forces the opponents to guess at a high level, plus there’s a fair chance that 4 will make. Give partner a typical takeout double short in clubs (e.g., K-J-x-x K-10-x-x K-x-x-x x) and you need only a little luck in hearts. The opponents, of course, can probably make a game or slam in a minor; but that’s their problem to solve.

Bidding philosophy has really changed over the years — definitely for the better. The actions of 1953 would leave many of today’s players feeling a bit nauseous. To wit:

North deals	K 6 2		West	North	East	South
E-W vul	K J 2		Crawford	Lilliehook	Schenken	Anulf
	Q 8 7 3			Pass	Pass	Pass
	K 8 6		1	1	Dbl	1
J 8		A 10	Pass	Pass	1 NT	Pass
A 7 5		10 9 4	Pass	Pass
K 9 6 5		A J 10 4 2
A Q 7 5		9 4 2
	Q 9 7 5 4 3
	Q 8 6 3
	—
	J 10 3

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
1 NT East	3 South	Kock	Becker	Werner	Lightner
South leads	West leads		Pass	Pass	Pass
Made 2 +120	Made 4 +170	1	Dbl	1	1
		2	Pass	Pass	2
USA +290		3	3	All Pass

The second auction is almost anti-bridge by today’s standards. Note the conservative role by Lightner with his exciting shape, and the aggressive role by Becker with his flat, junky hand. I wouldn’t even double with the North hand, let alone raise to 3 . Even so, it’s hard to criticize Becker’s judgment, as 10 tricks were unstoppable in spades with the friendly breaks.

In retrospect, I like Becker’s double a whole lot more than Lilliehook’s 1 overcall at the first table. Wow. Was this some sophisticated move to steal the enemy suit? Who knows, but it looks pretty sick to me. At least when I overcall, I can take a trick in my suit. The result was fitting, as 1 NT easily made eight tricks for a swing of 290 points to the U.S.

Comments for 4

Josh Sinnett: Could be a double game swing here. It’s time to exert maximum pressure.

Chris Maclauchlan: I think its important to jack up the level quickly so that East and West don’t know the extent of their apparent double fit.

Gareth Birdsall: We shouldn’t come to much harm in 4 .

John R. Mayne: You’ve gotta be kidding. There’s no indication of what the opponents can make, and 4 will be close enough to just bid it. Despite the PavCo endorsement for a tactical bid in another poll, it will do no good on this auction where the opponents have already communicated too much.

Teymur Tahseen: … With a double fit in the majors, playing in 4 will be good. With partner short in clubs, and me in diamonds, there will be very few losers. Partner can have many different 10-counts with 4-4 in the majors [that provide a play for game]. …

Lothar Kuijper: The opponents surely will bid game in diamonds if I temporize; but will they recognize a 7-3 fit if I bid 4 right away?

Rick Kelly: Time for the opponents to have the last guess.

Frans Buijsen: Four spades may be a good save against 3 NT, and it leaves them guessing; that’s the best I can hope for. I can’t see much use to psyching here, though a notrump bid might catch them.

Bogdan Vulcan: The opponents really have a minor fit! No matter what tactics I use, this can’t be taken away from them. With a 6-3 or 6-4 spade fit, 4 [seems right].

Robert Tamlyn: I am torn between “walking the dog” and blasting 4 .

Stephen McDevitt: Who knows? Partner could have A-x-x-x A-J-x-x J-x-x-x x, where 3 NT makes for them, and 4 makes our way.

John Reardon: Partner has already passed so is likely to have [4-4 in the] majors. It seems wrong to make a tactical bid when we have the majors, and it may be our hand by right. I bid as high as [I dare] to try to deter the opponents from competing.

Bill Powell: This could force the opponents into something they wouldn’t otherwise reach; but why be pessimistic?

Jean-Christophe Clement: North is probably short in clubs (4=4=4=1), and a weak hand like A-x-x-x K-J-x-x x-x-x-x x may be enough to make 4 . It’s a gamble, but it’s not dangerous at the vulnerability.

Mircea Petrescu: It looks like the opponents have a game or slam [in a minor], and 4 doubled is peanuts.

Eugeen Vannuten: Thanks to the 1 response, my hand suddenly is worth a lot. Knowing that partner has [at least three spades] and the vulnerability is favorable, a 4 jump seems OK. One disadvantage: I might drive the opponents into game, but in that event partner might have some opposition in diamonds (or in clubs I might be lucky with a diamond lead).

Godwin Jeyaseelan: [With] partner a passed hand, I will sacrifice right away at favorable vulnerability.

Bill Huepenbecker: Trying to [force] the opponents to make the last guess, especially at this vulnerability.

Kieran Dyke: This could be a make opposite a working 10-count. Opponents’ values suggest they can make a game, and I surely don’t want to defend 3 NT.

Arpan Banerjee: Just make it as difficult as possible for the enemy. Why is there no option for 5 ?

Because if I listed 5 , you would have asked about 6 . Then comes 7 , delirium, and ACBL membership.

Arend Bayer: [I hope] this bid does not help the opponents to find a slam.

Chris Willenken: It’s hard to play for less than game. If partner has K-x-x-x A-J-x-x Q-x-x-x x, they make 3 NT (or a slam), while we will likely make 4 .

N. Scott Cardell: I rather admire a tactical 4 bid (which could even be a better contract than 4 ). But I’ll settle for making them guess at a high level, while bidding a contract that just might make.

Rahul Chandra: I’m sure the opponents have a game; maybe a slam. Let them guess at the five level.

Robin Zigmond: Preemption is the name of the game here. If this pushes them into a making five of a minor, I will have to explain to partner why I didn’t make my move on the first round. Third seat at favorable vulnerability — for heaven’s sake!

Richard Stein: Pedal to the metal at favorable.

William Bascom: Facing a partner who could not open, the opponents have to be cold for five or six of a minor. Let’s consume some space and hope that they find the wrong slam.

Geoffrey Toon: As the opponents have the minors and [probably] at least 25 HCP, I am bidding the maximum to make their decision as difficult as possible. If West continues with a game bid in one of the minors, I will pass partner’s double; but if partner passes, I am bidding 5 at this vulnerability.

Carl Hudecek: Partner, as a passed hand, certainly is 4-4 in the majors. An anticipatory save can’t be too bad.

Bijoy Anand: … Partner’s values (and cards) are in majors, and the vulnerability is right. We should have good chances to make, even opposite many minimums, e.g., K-J-x-x K-J-x-x-x x-x-x x or A-J-x-x K-J-x-x-x x-x x-x.

Tze Cheow Sng: Based on a superb fit in hearts and spades. This is more preemptive than constructive, as opponents may have a minor-suit game.

Jonathan Steinberg: Another 15 HCP game? I suspect the auction may not end here.

Paul Hankin: I’m happy to play 4 , and happy to defend any five-level contract…

Tommy Cho: Opponents have the balance of strength, and I would like to make them guess at the level they can play.

Mike Doecke: At this vulnerability, with a double fit I’ll make the opponents do the guessing.

Jojo Sarkar: At these colors, leaving the opponents bidding space is madness. I [probably] should take out insurance against their five-level game also.

Paul Huggins: I want to preempt the opponents as much as possible, as they have near-game values… and the vulnerability is in our favor. Partner is probably 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=4=1 with 10-11 points, and we are probably not going down more than 300 (in which case they will surely have a vulnerable game).

Elianor Kennie: By bidding 4 , the opponents have to guess at the five level. This hand [may be] useless on defense.

Tim Bolshaw: It’s unclear who’s hand this is. Four spades is unsubtle but may make, or give the opponents a problem…

Ian Greig: I seem to have forgotten to open this hand with a preempt in third seat. As a passed hand, I expect partner only to act with a good reason, and most typical hands give me some play for 4 .

Ian Payn: This might bring the auction to an abrupt end. The problem, I suppose, is when it doesn’t.

Kees van Schenk Brill: Tactical bids are nice, but the opponents will have found their double fit before I can bid again; then I won’t feel happy if I have not told partner about our spade fit and the bidding is at [the five level]. …

Gordon Rainsford: I don’t know whose hand it really is, but partner figures to have short clubs; so I’ll put the pressure on and let the opponents take the last guess.

Peter Schwartz: This cannot be expensive, and it makes life difficult for the opponents in finding a possible slam. It [also] could pave the way for an effective sacrifice [at a higher level].

David Davies: Maximum pressure. It’s a shame you don’t offer 5 as an option.

Len Vishnevsky: If partner has A-x-x-x A-x-x-x Q-x-x-x x, both black games might make.

Bill Cubley: I seem to be short in the ace-king department, but this is a great hand [opposite partner’s double]. Let’s push them around and drive them to the slam they would never have bid without my help.

Mike Weber: With 10 cards [likely] in spades, the Law [suggests] a four-level bid. Also, partner rates to be short in clubs, so I should have a crossruff working.

David Stern: The opponents have about 25 points between them, so it’s likely they have a game. Four spades will put pressure on them to decide whether to bid at the five level.

Dirk Enthoven: North’s values [rate to be] in the majors, so 4 will sufficiently muck up the auction to keep the opponents guessing. Tactical bids (or double?) don’t take up enough space. … Four spades might even make.

Pieter Geerkens: The vulnerability is favorable, so let the opponents guess. If I knew for sure that partner had four spades, 5 might even be the right call to steal [their] Blackwood. I expect opponents have a big two-suited minor fit, [so] opener will be reluctant to double… About the worst that can happen is that partner has 3=4=5=1 shape, but [according to the Law] that still yields 18 total tricks without adjusting for my void.

Comments for 3

Vil Gravis: This is about right to put the worst sort of pressure on the opponents, who might double or bid only 4 or 4 when they have game on. Four spades could push opponents into game, and there’s no reason to think they have a slam…

Jonathan Goldberg: I expect the defense to take the first five tricks. So I’ll make it hard for them to get to 3 NT, but I won’t volunteer for a number.

Leonard Helfgott: [Adequate] pressure without burying partner outright.

Csaba Raduly: This should show a hand with good distribution but not too strong in HCP (else 2 ).

Bruce Scott: Wonderful. A reasonable argument can be made for any of the choices (yes, even pass). Sign me up for 3 . The final point in deciding what to bid is that I am not sure where I want the hand to play; maybe they can’t make 3 NT; maybe they can’t make five of a minor. … I wouldn’t actually have this problem at the table, as I’d have perpetrated a 2 opener.

Bill Jacobs: If I made a tactical bid, the opponents would have a misunderstanding and reach the wrong contract. After the first round of diamonds, declarer would smile at dummy and say, “Well, it worked out well after all.”

Carlos Dabezies: The opponents are quite likely to have a game somewhere, so some measure of preemption seems advisable. Having four hearts might be an argument for a tactical bid, but on balance I think 3 may be sufficient…

Adam Saroyan: It is tempting to bid more, but I do have a partner; I like letting him know what I have, and 3 says it best, I think. … Bidding is a lot like flipping coins; it depends on who is doing the flipping.

Karen Walker: I may be a bit heavy for this bid, but it should give partner the general idea of my hand type. Four spades seems too much opposite a hand that could have only three-card support and wasted diamond honors.

Neil Morgenstern: This will do. I don’t want to overpreempt when the opponents have the minors. They might not be making anything; why should they be? … (I would probably open 2 on this hand in third seat.)

Weidong Yang: One spade cannot show the full value of my pattern, and I have not enough strength to bid 2 ; so 3 is the answer, like preemptive bid.

Jeff Goldsmith: Maybe they’ll stop in 4 if I bid only 3 .

Tibor Roberts: Three spades has to be a weak distributional hand with a lot of spades. Surely, partner can go to game if it excites him…

Arvind Srinivasan: This looks the wrong kind of hand to bid 4 , as we may have good defense against 5 . Partner will bid on with good spades.

Neelotpal Sahai: How many spades to preempt? I dislike a preempt of 4 , as it doesn’t give rope to the opponents to make a mistake. Over 4 , they will invariably make the correct bid or double peacefully; 3 leaves a lot of scope for error.

Andrew de Sosa: If partner passes, we are probably in the right spot. If the opponents compete to four of a minor, the vulnerability seems right for 4 to show primary spades and secondary hearts. The big two-suit fit should compensate somewhat for the lack of HCP.

Dave Maeer: I think this shows six spades, distribution and weakness, even opposite a passed hand. I hope it will help partner judge whether to save or not.

James Sheppard: It’s between 2 and 3 ; partner won’t get too excited since we’re both passed hands.

Anthony Golding: I’m happy to play at the three level or defend at the four level, and this makes it harder for them to find their fit.

Comments for 2

Herbert Wilton: They have less than 30 points, so let’s listen to the bidding first. And if I later decide to save, it won’t be so obvious how good it might be.

Jim Tully: Not the time to get cute; I’ll show my six-bagger. The bidding isn’t going to end here.

Phil Clayton: I’ll walk this one.

Andy Browning: No point going bananas here, as partner is a passed hand. Bidding 3 excludes the hearts (which I can probably bid on the next round).

Comments for Other (tactical bid)

Paul Redvers: Two diamonds. I want partner to be declarer in a major if we buy the contract.

Gray Robertson: Two diamonds. Partner’s double suggests both majors, but I’m unconvinced that spades is the best option. … If partner [confirms] a four-card heart suit, I may prefer to play this in 4 or 5 .

Stu Goodgold: Two clubs. This will make for an interesting auction. Someone has to be lying, but who is it?

John Vega: Four clubs. Why give up on a 4-4 heart fit? The diamond ruffs may create additional tricks in hearts.

Peter Cleaves: Three diamonds, asking partner to pick a major at the three level.

Michael Belman: Three clubs (or 3 ), the question being whether I should show or conceal the diamond control. The 4-4 heart fit may be better than spades.

Daniel Testa: Two diamonds. This may be a bit of an overbid, but game may be possible in either major. …

Patricia Crough: Two diamonds, asking partner to choose the major.

Andrei Varlan: Two clubs (mini cue-bid), and I will bid up to 3 if I don’t hear hearts.

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 5

Total points		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West 1	North 1	East 1	South ?	A K 8 6 5 2 Q 10 9 5 4 2 K —

Call	Award	Votes	Percent
6	10	329	39
2	8	146	17
2	7	116	14
4 NT	6	52	6
5	5	98	12
Pass	4	4	0
4	3	99	12

The consensus of the respondents was to take the practical approach, and I agree. While it is certainly possible to miss a laydown grand, it is unlikely you would find out what you need to know; plus, taking the slow route might allow West to bid diamonds (with a minor two-suiter) to direct the lead or spur East into a profitable sacrifice. On a good day, partner will make the slam off both red aces (with a club lead); on a bad day, of course, an opening spade lead will be ruffed by West, and you’ll go down quickly. The odds are in your favor, so take the shot.

Several respondents mentioned they would prefer to bid 4 as a splinter raise, or 5 as void-showing or exclusion asking for aces (or key cards) outside of clubs. Even if these bids were allowed, it seems dreadful to me to advertise against the one lead you probably want. This is a hand for tactics, not science. Even if you have all the controls for a grand slam, it is dubious to bid it because of the announced bad spade break and the potential opening-lead ruff. Now, if there were some way to show a diamond void, it might appeal. Zia?

Before I reveal the actual deal, please ask any children to leave the room. Are the kids gone? OK, then look:

West deals	Q 10		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	A K J		Crawford	Lilliehook	Schenken	Anulf
	Q 9 7 6 4		1	1	1	6
	Q J 7		Pass	Pass	Pass
—		J 9 7 4 3
8 7 3		6
J 10 5 2		A 8 3
10 9 8 6 5 3		A K 4 2
	A K 8 6 5 2
	Q 10 9 5 4 2
	K
	—

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
6 North	5 South	Kock	Becker	Werner	Lightner
East leads	West leads	Pass	1	1	Dbl
Made 6 +1430	Made 5 +650	2	Pass	Pass	2
		Pass	2 NT	Pass	3
Sweden +780		Pass	3	4	4
		Pass	4	5	5
		All Pass

Witness the first auction, which bred the problem. Crawford’s psych wasn’t so surprising at the vulnerability, but I must admit that Lilliehook’s overcall made my jaw drop. Wow! That’s what I call macho. On the previous hand he overcalls on Q-x-x-x, and now A-K-J — hmm, a two-piece suit; if you put them together you have A-K-Q-J-x-x-x. Very nice. It was also illuminating to see Schenken pass quietly over 6 — I guess he’s seen Crawford’s openings before. Seriously, psychs were common in those days, so almost any opening bid at favorable vulnerability was suspect until proven legitimate.

Six hearts cannot be made on its own resources (even with the helpful A lead), but Lilliehook took advantage of a slight defensive slip. After ruffing the A, he crossed to the A and led the J, ducked by East, to pitch the K. Next the J was led to the queen, followed by a low spade (West cannot gain by ruffing) to the queen; then the 10 was led to the jack (South ducking). Declarer was now able to establish and enjoy the long spade. To beat the slam, East must cover the J, which spoils the communication.

The auction at the second table was more plausible, at least for the times. Note the penalty double of 1 — almost unheard of today. Lightner came to rest in 5 , which was well judged since there was no chance to make six from the South side ( 10 lead). Chalk up a shrewd 780 points for the Swedes.

Comments for 6

Josh Sinnett: If this isn’t cold, partner may need to look closer at the vulnerability next time.

Chris Maclauchlan: I can’t wait to see the look on partner’s face. Partner apparently has made a light overcall, making it more likely it was a lead-directing bid with the A-K.

Gareth Birdsall: Four clubs, 5 ? Well, if I can’t bid those, I’ll bid 6 . This has good chances of making, and it should be very hard for them to find a good sacrifice.

John R. Mayne: I bet this has a play, especially at these conditions and vulnerability. Given that, why screw around? A double now by West lacks the Lightner connotation that a double after an informative auction would have.

Frans Buijsen: I can’t really see a good way of investigating our possibilities, though I’d like a 4 option. The bash at least makes it hard for the opponents, too; and 6 almost certainly has chances. I suspect there’s something going on here, but I’ll follow Skid Simon’s advice to just ignore the possibilities of a psych… and bid what you think best.

Bogdan Vulcan: I’ve seen deals like this in which 7 could be made, or it could go down two. … [Most exploratory bids] solve nothing. … Six hearts looks like the best contract, and maybe it remains the best bid, not allowing East-West to find some [undisclosed] diamond fit.

Robert Tamlyn: The opponents may lose their A if I just blast. The only downside is that I will have to double 7 since partner will not know whether I was sacrificing or not.

Vil Gravis: I trust partner’s vulnerable overcall; A-K-x-x-x is enough for slam [almost] surely. If the opponents have a cheap save in 7 , they’ll never find it.

Stephen McDevitt: I can count 12 tricks if partner has his vulnerable overcall, although a spade lead would be nerve-racking. Hopefully, East will observe proper etiquette and lead a club.

Thomas Peters: This is a decent contract opposite just ace-fifth of hearts… Bidding it now is crucial, as East may lead a club… and thereby lose the A. The immediate 6 also makes a possible Lightner double very hard to read; even if East does suspect a void, he might guess diamonds.

Nicoleta Giura: I hope partner doesn’t have — A-J-x-x-x-x A-x-x-x x-x-x.

Peg Kaplan: I think we rate to make it, and I’ll let the opponents guess at the seven level — or the six level (vis a vis 6 ) sounds fine to me. :)

Mircea Petrescu: I don’t want to [investigate] this slowly, as they might have a cheap save somewhere. At total points, slam seems a reasonable bet, so I blast it. I know, it will go: spade ruff, diamond to the ace, spade ruff. Tough luck! Please don’t ask me what I do if the bidding continues 7 , pass, pass.

Bryson Crowell: If East sacrifices in 7 , I can pass to show interest in 7 .

Jonathan Goldberg: What I think we can make. I’ll double a seven-level bid… I don’t think going slowly will keep the opponents out, but let’s face it; when hands are this distributional, there are no clear answers.

Ross Lam: The opponents have a fit in one or both minors, and I don’t want to [leave room for] them to find out, even though 7 might be on. Or maybe this is the way to alert them to the fact. :)

Godwin Jeyaseelan: My choice is between 5 and 6 , but 5 may confuse partner as being a sacrifice bid. Even with a light overcall, slam has very good chances.

Leonard Helfgott: No way to be scientific here. Two clubs is likely to allow the opponents to exchange more information than we could. I’m willing to risk down one or missing seven here.

Niklas Warne: What about 4 ? Don’t you have splinter bids in the United States? Without that option, I’ll try for the slam bonus, so you can ask “Don’t you have any common sense in Sweden?”

OK, so Sweden has splinter bids, meatballs and babes. We in America have Bill Clinton — close enough!

Bill Huepenbecker: This seems like a very practical bid under the circumstances. I would like to bid 2 (with a choice of cue-bids I bid the suit where I have values), but I’m afraid [this may allow] West to double 6 for a spade lead and get a ruff.

Kieran Dyke: Why isn’t 5 NT included as an option? Six hearts looks like a practical shot, and it might even make with two cashing aces out.

Charles Blair: Just maybe I’ll get to defend 6 doubled.

Alan Kravetz: If partner is missing the A [or loses a trick to] the K, the slam could still make if the opponents do not lead a diamond.

Chris Willenken: At total points, I’ll give up on some accuracy in order to shut out the [minor] suits.

Gray Robertson: Go for the jugular here; 5 is for wimps. Let East [guess] what to lead.

Rich Morrison: There could be a slam for either side. Let’s jam them now.

Bruce Scott: Woo-hoo. Perhaps the question should have been what to do if they double me. I will redouble it. (Total points, baby!) What fun. Need I point out the huge crossruff looming? No other choice is acceptable. I will take care of the scoring for you Mr. Pavlicek: 6 = 10; all other bids = 0.

Bill Jacobs: Preempt diamonds. I wonder if West is smart enough to wheel out an unusual 6 NT. By the way, surely Al Roth would say, “In a lifetime of bridge, I have never…”

Lance Marrou: No penalty double or splinter offered? :) I’ll take a shot at 6 and leave it up to the opponents to guess what to do next… however, I’m scared that West will ruff the opening spade lead. These 6-6-1-0 hands come up so often, though, don’t they?

Karen Walker: With no gadgets available (splinter bids, exclusion Blackwood), I can’t come up with an auction that will give me accurate information about partner’s key cards. The only benefit in going slow with 2 or 2 will accrue to the opponents, who will have room to accurately describe their hands. In any case, I’m not stopping short of 6 (since A-x-x-x-x and out in partner’s hand gives us a play), so maybe the gadgets are a waste of time anyway.

Jonathan Steinberg: I like bidding slams! As in Problem 1, avoiding Blackwood and jumping to slam implies a void somewhere.

Neil Morgenstern: No 4 void-showing splinter? OK, we might lose two red cards… but East might lead the wrong minor suit (his partner did bid clubs, after all).

Jojo Sarkar: This is surely a good shot. Who knows; East could be psyching with a spade void, and West could bid 6 as a sacrifice — I think I read that somewhere. :)

Eric Leong: [After] partner’s vulnerable overcall, 6 should be pretty cold. If the opponents have a good minor-suit sacrifice, let them find it at the seven level.

Paul Huggins: If our system included splinters, then I might go 4 at this point (not 4 , as partner might then show reticence from a slam with two or more small diamonds). Blackwood is pointless with a void. Another possibility is 5 (exclusion Blackwood, asking for aces outside the bid suit). Without this machinery, I may as well punt [now].

Luc Segers: If trumps are 1-1, we are guaranteed 11 tricks missing the A. I will take my chances that partner has either the A or A for 12 tricks.

Jeff Tang: The parking meter’s running.

Olivier La Spada: This is where we are going to end anyway. Less bidding; less time spent; less trouble.

Jim Fox: Let East guess a lead. [As little as] A-x-x-x-x from partner will give us a play. Partner should not bid seven with A-K, since I did not use the grand slam force. If the opponents save in 7 and it is right, my compliments to them.

Mark Raphaelson: Why not? It’s the fun bid, and if partner doesn’t have the A-K, maybe he has the A, or the A [and no diamond lead] to rid the diamond loser.

Rob Stevens: Give up on science and just try to buy the contract. When 6 is making, East-West surely have a good save.

Kees van Schenk Brill: This hand is huge. … The only problem is that 7 won’t be set for very much — well, let them bid it if they dare. I will go to 6 [immediately], as the longer I wait, the more accurate their picture will be.

Jim Tully: I’ll blast to where we’re going anyway and make the opponents guess whether to sacrifice or not. We might be cold for 7 … [and in the worst case] we might make only 4 . … If I bid slowly (i.e., cue-bid 2 or 2 ) the opponents will be able to read the situation [better] and [judge whether] to sacrifice against us.

Len Vishnevsky: [A minimum overcall like] x A-K-x-x-x x-x-x-x x-x-x makes 6 pretty good. How much less can partner have? The opponents might make six of either minor.

Dave Maeer: I can’t ever describe this because of that infuriating spade bid, so I had better put it to them immediately. I can’t see how the low bids (pass and 2 ) are going to help, and 2 runs the risk [of being passed out if misunderstood]. Four hearts could work well if I am able to sneak up on them and get doubled, but I don’t fancy playing in game when A-K-x-x-x and out can make six.

David Wetzel: Hmm. I can imagine write-in votes for about three more choices, none of which are PavCo standard, but all of which could be lots of fun. Going slow with this is a mirage, so I’ll take my best guess now before the opponents get any more information; they might have a slam, too, you know.

Imre Csiszar: Slower bidding starting with 2 might find the three key cards needed for seven, but seven might still fail by a ruff. If 7 will not be bid, slow bidding may help the opponents to find their sacrifice.

Brad Bart: You only live once.

Comments for 2

Jonathan Jacobs: Seven could easily be on, or six might be going off. Let’s try bidding slowly, and see if I can find out what partner has for the overcall.

Teymur Tahseen: … This must be forcing and I’m assuming natural (I’d play 2 as an unassuming cue-bid), and it keeps the bidding low. … Later, I hope to cue-bid clubs, showing the heart fit and enabling partner to come back with a diamond cue-bid; then I can bid the grand slam force (5 NT) to check for top trump honors. …

Wilson Leung: A good prospect of slam (or a grand slam). This [allows me] to get more information.

Jean-Christophe Clement: Wow! What a wild distribution! I need [more information] before going to the slam, but I won’t stop below 5 .

Michael Dodson: Six hearts seems the value bid, but I’ll try to stay out if partner has lots of wasted club [honors].

Arpan Banerjee: With a hand so strong in support of partner, the first step is to give him the good news by cue-bidding the enemy suit, inviting partner to describe his hand further. All that is required for slam is two honors out of A-K, A.

N. Scott Cardell: Followed by supporting hearts, this may get us into a cue-bidding sequence, which it looks like we need. If I cue-bid 2 instead, it is just barely ambiguous (gee, partner, I thought he had a short club, and you had a club suit).

Rahul Chandra: I hope this means a raise in hearts; I’ll cue-bid 4 next if possible…

William Bascom: With two cue-bids available, this should show more values. I intend to show the club control next.

Bijoy Anand: Six hearts should be almost gin (does not need much more than A-K-x-x-x), but 7 may be on if partner has the A. I will start with the higher cue-bid, establishing a game force, and see if I can ferret out any diamond-control information in subsequent bidding. … I am not stopping short of 6 .

Adam Saroyan: I better start with this, as I’m trying for 7 … [Jumping to] 6 does not give us any shot at seven, but it might be all we can make. Why should I guess now? There will be more chances to guess later.

Tibor Roberts: How can I say that partner made me happy to be alive? We must be good for game, and it looks like a slam if partner has either red ace. (With A and J-x-x-x-x we still make six if hearts split.) Since 4 (splinter) isn’t an option, it’s best to start cue-bidding… and 2 gets the ball rolling (2 might appear to be natural).

Elianor Kennie: Hmm. I’m excited with this hand. I might even look for 7 …

Vikas Phadke: Start of a cue-bidding sequence probably. Two clubs may be treated as a suit since people tend to open short clubs.

Neelotpal Sahai: Anything from 4 to 7 is possible. Starting with a 2 cue-bid [confirms] support in hearts; 2 would be natural.

Gordon Rainsford: It’s not clear from your notes what the difference between the two cue-bids would be, but I’ll bid 2 since that’s where all my stuff is. At the table, 6 might well be the practical bid, especially if playing with someone else who’s unclear about the meanings of 2 and 2 .

Bill Cubley: Cue-bidding the higher suit shows the better hand for partner. There are not enough doubled undertricks [against 1 ] to compensate for a missed slam, so I must bid. (The penalty might not even compensate for a game our way.)

Luis Argerich: We might make 7 , so I won’t gamble an [immediate] heart bid. I need to find partner with the A to bid 5 NT; if no A, I’ll see.

Tomasz Radko: What if both North and East are bluffing? Those were the days, my friend; but today, in the boring 21st century, I must bid what I have. Two spades is forcing with heart support.

Jan Gutenwik: I would prefer to bid 4 showing my void here. We might have grand slam, but I’m at least aiming for six.

Dirk Enthoven: The chance that the opponents outbid us is slim, so there’s no rush to reach 6 when seven might be cold. … If partner has no more than A-K-J-x-x and [a side queen or two] for the vulnerable overcall, [minimum heart bids] will tell the story, and 6 will be my last bid. …

Etienne Klis: Opposite the A-J and A, a grand slam is not bad, so I’ll first cue-bid spades, then cue-bid clubs.

Comments for 2

Dinu Raducanu: Let’s first set trumps, then I’ll bid again at some really high level.

Robin Zigmond: Can this be natural? Hopefully partner will have too many clubs to consider that.

Richard Stein: I know for sure that I want our side to play this hand. I will follow up with 4 (or a minimum heart bid if the level is higher) and push all the way to 6 if necessary. [These tactics may cause] the opponents to find it more attractive to defend.

Carl Hudecek: Lead director — eventually I will bid 6 .

Paul Hankin: Six hearts should be safe, but it’s worth angling for seven, hoping partner has short spades (likely!), A-K-x-x-x and the A… Unlike Problem 1, 7 is quite likely, so giving the opponents information and bidding space is a price worth paying.

Stu Goodgold: This time I’m telling the truth! Hey, the vulnerability was different on Problem 4.

Arvind Srinivasan: The cue-bid followed by a push to a small slam might get us to a grand slam when it’s right.

Rai Osborne: The dogs are loose! I expect the bidding to be at the six level when it returns.

Andy Browning: Seven could be on with the right cards in partner’s hand. I need to take things slowly, and bidding the opponent’s suit is the only way. …

Thomas Kniest: Go slow; more bidding by the opponents may help in a later decision. They’re not going to outbid us unless we let them. Double slam swing, anyone?

Mark Florencz: I reckon the total HCP in the deck around 45, but I’ll believe partner to be innocent until [there is] contrary evidence. Two clubs cannot be natural (with a club suit I’d pass). Options like 5 [or 6 ] give up on a grand slam.

Comments for 4 NT

Tze Cheow Sng: There is a good chance for slam. Two rounds of trumps and three spade ruffs will establish the spade suit. …

Alex Perlin: If it were not for the danger of partner teaching me that his one-level overcalls do not guarantee aces, I would have leaped to 6 .

Andrew de Sosa: How bad can our vulnerable one-level overcalls be? I’ll bid 6 if partner shows one ace. Even if we’re off the A and a trump trick, East will most likely lead a club.

Mark Hardaway: Two spades is a good bid as well, but I like 4 NT. If partner shows two aces, then a grand slam may be in the cards; [if one ace], 6 should make.

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

Problem 6

Total points		N-S vul		You, South, hold:
West Pass 2	North Pass Pass	East 1 Pass	South ? ?	A Q Q J 3 A K Q 10 8 4 3 4

Two Calls	Award	Votes	Percent
C. Dbl then 3	10	404	48
A. Dbl then 2	8	144	17
B. Dbl then 3	7	124	15
E. 1 then 3	6	104	12
F. 1 then 3	3	57	7
D. 1 then Dbl	2	11	1

This problem was more like a bidding quiz I might pose to my students, and the consensus clearly homed in on the right answer. The hand is too strong for a 1 overcall; and after doubling, 3 is surely the best description. Following up with a cue-bid is likely to elicit a major-suit bid from partner in preference to bidding 3 NT with a club stopper. A good case can be made to overcall 1 because it is unlikely to be passed out, then a follow-up of 3 should ask for a stopper by logic; hence, I promoted the award for Choice E in relation to D and F.

Some respondents suggested a superior alternative, to bid 3 over 1 as a request for partner to bid 3 NT with a club stopper. Of course, this wasn’t listed because it’s not a standard bid; 3 shows clubs, and lots of them. I agree the convention is excellent and use a similar treatment to show any strong one-suiter; but it’s like bringing an F-18 Hornet into a dogfight with biplanes.

Even though 1953 was well past the biplane era, you would never know it with all the buzzing going on. I enjoyed this one:

West deals	K 10 7 4		West	North	East	South
N-S vul	K 9 8 5		Rapee	Werner	Stayman	Kock
	2		Pass	Pass	1	2
	9 8 7 2		3	Pass	Pass	3
8 5 3		J 9 6 2	Pass	4	Pass	5
A 10 6		7 4 2	Pass	Pass	Pass
9 7 6		J 5
A J 10 5		K Q 6 3
	A Q
	Q J 3
	A K Q 10 8 4 3
	4

Sweden N-S	USA N-S	West	North	East	South
5 South	3 NT South	Larsen	Lightner	Wohlin	Becker
West leads	West leads	Pass	Pass	1	3 NT
Made 5 +600	Made 3 +600	Pass	Pass	Pass
No swing

Note that both Stayman and Wohlin judged the East hand worth an opening bid. Of course! It was just a matter of which suit: Stayman chose the standard 1 ; while Wohlin began a canape sequence with 1 , no doubt for its lead-directing benefit. Seriously, I’m sure both their partners assumed a psych by default, so the risk was negligible.

After the 1 psych, Kock began with a strong jump overcall, and Werner later judged well to raise with a singleton to reach the laydown game in diamonds. The 1 psych made the South hand easy to bid (I’m sure all experts would agree with 3 NT); but in theory the psych worked, driving Becker into the wrong game. Alas, it’s only the wrong game with the right defense. Larsen was wise not to lead a low heart, but he chose a spade — making 3 NT.

A push board? No! There was at least a small amount of justice, as the Swedes picked up 100 points for honors. Many of you probably never thought of that, which shows how times have changed.

Comments for C. Dbl then 3

Josh Sinnett: No immediate 3 bid available? Very well. In that case, I try to get my huge diamond hand across with a double and jump. A 1 call originally deserves to be passed out.

Jonathan Jacobs: Showing a game-going one-suited hand. With a 3=4=5=1 16-count, I may well double and bid 2 ; so the jump is needed to express the power of this hand.

John R. Mayne: I’m just trying to match the field here; a 1 overcall is far more likely to lead to a positive result. Even my field-matching desire can’t make me pick B (double then 3 ), which has a single redeeming feature: It will allow me to blame partner for the resulting debacle.

Teymur Tahseen: My aim is to find the best game if there is one. I have a very strong hand, so 1 is not an option; double then 2 does not show this much strength. I have a good enough diamond suit that 3 carries no risk. My major suits are good for 3 NT and also for 5 , as the spade finesse is likely to win. The crucial point, however, is that I need partner to have an entry… if it’s the A, then 5 is a good game.

Rick Kelly: I hope partner gets the picture with a club stopper, and I’m still open to playing in hearts.

Frans Buijsen: … Double then 3 stresses the majors more in my view, and double then 2 seems too feeble.

Vil Gravis: A strong hand with a great diamond suit. Isn’t this how to show it? Partner is asked to bid 3 NT if possible or go further in diamonds. It’s not quite good enough to keep forcing, knowing partner will bid a major.

John Reardon: [This hand is] too good for 1 in the first place because there is a real chance of no further bidding when 3 NT is cold. [After doubling] I must now show my suit, implying a very strong hand with at least eight playing tricks in diamonds.

Bill Powell: Seems the best way of announcing a big hand with diamonds.

Peg Kaplan: Hmm. I would have gone for the full-throated 3 (bid 3 NT with a stopper, partner) the first time around; not an option, I see. [After doubling] I am afraid to bid 3 for fear partner may think I have [both major suits], so 3 at this point. I hope partner works out that I do want 3 NT with a club stopper.

Godwin Jeyaseelan: Showing long diamonds and strength… Partner can have at most 3-5 points; if they are in clubs, 3 NT will have good chances.

Leonard Helfgott: With mild major-suit tolerance and this big a hand in points and tricks, its worth a double (but I’d overcall 1 with -- A-Q-x A-K-Q-10-x-x-x Q-x-x). After the double, 2 is inadequate and 3 implies more major length without ever showing the bulk of my hand.

Herbert Wilton: Too strong not to double first. At his third turn, partner should have an easy call.

Csaba Raduly: Good hand, good suit.

N. Scott Cardell: My hand is too strong to overcall 1 , and I refuse to choose it based on seeing the 2 bid. If partner has a club stopper we rate to make 3 NT, but 3 is going too far as it suggests better majors.

Rahul Chandra: I seem to remember that double then bid shows a strong hand, and I must jump so partner realizes I am not just balancing. …

Gyorgy Ormay: First [I show] the strength, then the suit. I think that partner, with a club stopper, will bid 3 NT. [If I bid] 3 after doubling, it will result in a major-suit selection. …

Richard Stein: I’m obviously too strong for an initial 1 , but I also want to announce my suit early on (doubling and cue-bidding looks three-suited). I see little problem bidding for nine tricks on my own, when I can take roughly this number in my own hand.

Gray Robertson: Too good for an initial 1 bid; hence, double is mandatory. I don’t like 3 next as it looks like you are looking for a major-suit fit. …

Carl Hudecek: This sequence says, “Partner, look and see if you hold a club stopper!”

Bill Jacobs: Meaty problem; deserves lots of ink. On the first round, both double and 1 risk three consecutive passes for a bad result. That seems more likely for the 1 overcall, so I think I’ll double; but there’s little in it. After doubling, 2 feels inadequate; 3 [might] squeeze a club stopper out of partner but likely get you too high if partner is busted. … Jumping to 3 implies a stopper-ask but may let me out in 3 otherwise. … Actually, if I do risk a 1 overcall, then the follow-up of 3 is perfect — almost makes me want to switch to E. …

Bijoy Anand: Easily the hardest problem of the set! Most likely, partner is in 0-4 HCP range, and I need at least the K in his hand to have a chance for 5 with my four-loser hand. Three notrump has a shot if he has a slow stopper in clubs; but what am I pitching on the [second and] third clubs? … Even though I have decent support for the majors, the glaring disparity in suit lengths and quality clearly tilt the balance in favor of doubling and jumping in diamonds. …

Tze Cheow Sng: Double to show strength then jump to show a [self-sufficient] suit. If partner has a stopper in clubs, he should bid 3 NT.

Adam Saroyan: Partner will see this hand when he closes his eyes and thinks…

Mike Doecke: Too strong for a 1 overcall the first bid, and too strong for a 2 balance after doubling.

Jojo Sarkar: Choice A would be my original plan, but this hand looks a little better with their values likely concentrated in clubs. Also, the K rates to be in the box.

Paul Huggins: This hand is too good for a simple overcall, so it falls into the double-then-bid category. Double then 3 suggests more tolerance for the majors than I have. I prefer a 3 rebid (rather than 2 ) as the hand is so strong in diamonds. Partner is limited in that he hasn’t made a free bid, but just the K in his hand would give me a good play for 5 …

Stu Goodgold: Encouraging partner to bid 3 NT with a club stopper. A balancing 2 (after an initial double) just doesn’t show a hand of this playing strength.

Larry Gifford: It’s not my style to overcall with this strength. The second-round jump should show a [self-sufficient] suit.

Tim Bolshaw: If partner has a club stopper, I want to be in 3 NT; however, I am not willing to reach the four level in an attempt to find out. Three diamonds [after doubling] is a very strong call. Note that Plan E would work perfectly [as the bidding went], except 1 on this hand is clearly [wrong].

Neelotpal Sahai: I would have preferred a 3 bid over 1 , which unfortunately was not an option. Of the given choices I would double and bid 3 to show a big single-suiter. If partner has club stopper, he can bid 3 NT. …

John Vega: Perhaps partner has a positional club stopper and can scrape up a 3 NT call once he knows about my diamonds.

Ed Freeman: The last thing I want is to be passed out in 1 , so D, E and F are out since I don’t know the 2 bid is coming. [After doubling] I like 3 as a Western cue-bid, but expect a 3 or 4 response — yuck. So, it’s down to 2 or 3 ; let’s show my full strength.

Gordon Rainsford: Seems like the textbook hand for this sequence — an Acol two-opener.

Jim Tully: Always tell your story, unless you know what to do. Partner may even be able to bid 3 NT with as little as J-10-x-x and a heart card.

Rainer Herrmann: This looks to me like the only sequence that should induce North to bid 3 NT or a long major, and is still safe should North be broke.

Bill Cubley: If partner has as little as the 10, I will make 3 . If he has a club stopper, we make 3 NT.

Leif Lundberg: North may have problems to raise to game with so little as x-x-x-x K-10-x x-x x-x-x-x, but I have to try to show him my excellent hand. If North bids 3 NT, it’s OK by me.

James Sheppard: Obviously, double [first], then I go for 3 because a protective 2 bid could easily be A-Q-x Q-J-x-x A-K-Q-10-x x. [If I follow with] 3 , I cannot cope with the likely spade response…

David Stern: I generally double on all good hands. A double followed by a jump is a very strong action, and given what looks like nine playing tricks, it seems reasonable.

Mark Florencz: [After doubling] I don’t fear missing anything by not cue-bidding 3 , as partner has the option to call 3 NT [over 3 ] with a club control. Three clubs is right [only] if I had a game with partner having nothing at all. …

Comments for A. Dbl then 2

Paul Redvers: Bidding after doubling is sufficient to show this hand, without a jump.

Paul Hankin: … My hand is barely an Acol two-bid, which in these days of heavy overcalls is what’s expected for a double followed by a suit bid. The fact that I’m in balancing seat makes no difference to the meaning of 2 — if I had a normal takeout double, I should double again if I want another go [else pass].

Tibor Roberts: It’s a great hand, easily good enough to double and bid,… but it seems unlikely that partner can cover more than one of my losers. In fact, I could lose four major tricks and a club if I have no entry to dummy. Why get myself in too deep with a preempt?

Rob Stevens: With the acceptable support for the majors, 18 HCP, and no great fear of being preempted, I think that double first is best. This hand is just a bit too strong for a 1 overcall. I think that double followed by a jump in diamonds should be forcing. To double and bid 3 can’t be right, can it? Doesn’t that suggest a huge three-suiter? I certainly don’t think it’s simply asking for a club stopper. …

Dirk Enthoven: … I wonder what happened to the majors. Partner must have one or both with [few if any] points, so double and then 2 will serve my purpose. …

Comments for B. Dbl then 3

Bogdan Vulcan: Double is an interesting choice; the 3-2 in majors could be very useful. I think it’s right to double first rather than bid diamonds, which I can bid at any level. … I choose 3 [hopefully] to push partner to bid 3 NT with something in clubs.

Nicoleta Giura: The equivalent of a Western cue-bid, keeping the option of playing in 5 if partner holds: x-x-x-x K-10-x-x x-x x-x-x.

Jean-Christophe Clement: First I must double, because this hand is too strong for 1 . If North has a stopper in clubs, 3 NT can often be made; if not, I can seek refuge in 4 .

Niklas Warne: With around nine playing tricks, all I need is a club stopper, and this is the easiest way to ask for it.

Chris Willenken: On the first round, double seems clear, as 1 could easily buy it when I have 18 HCP. On the second round, the cue-bid should be a stopper ask. With a big 5-4-4-0 hand, I would double again.

Carlos Dabezies: It is difficult to convey this playing strength without an initial double. Over partner’s next bid [except 3 NT] I will bid 4 . …

Karen Walker: Yet another hand that’s screaming to play notrump. Three clubs would have been handy at my first turn; but without that option, I’ll mark time with a double and [then bid 3 ] hoping to find a stopper.

James Hudson: I hope we can come to rest in a sensible contract. Partner should expect me to have something like this.

Eric Leong: The best sequence to get partner to bid 3 NT when it is right.

Luc Segers: An overcall [does not show this strength] so I have to double first. If partner has a club stopper, we make 3 NT. I will not get there by bidding 2 , and [might not] even with 3 . Three clubs tells North I have an exceptional hand, probably with length in one suit and stoppers in the other suits.

Elianor Kennie: I expect my partner will have what I need to make 3 NT: a club stopper. I’m an optimist, and I can see nine tricks… So go for it!

Mark Raphaelson: I have my eight tricks. If partner can stop clubs, 3 NT works; otherwise, I correct his suit bid to diamonds.

Andrew de Sosa: This should say, “Bid 3 NT with a club stopper,” in the clearest possible terms.

Ian Payn: Well, I’d have bid 3 on the first round, showing a solid suit and asking partner to bid 3 NT if he has a club stopper. If this bid doesn’t exist systemically, then I’ll go for B; less ambiguous than “E”, my second choice.

David Harari: Double is obvious, then 3 seems a little more precise than 3 because a club stopper is nearly sufficient to make 3 NT.

David Wetzel: [This is] too strong to just overcall. After doubling, 3 may be getting pushy; but I do have eight tricks. It seems worth it to try for the vulnerable game; at worst I will end up in 4 , down one.

Rai Osborne: This is about a three-and-a-half-loser hand. If partner bids three of a major [instead of the hoped-for 3 NT], 4 should be passed. If I really wanted to hear about the majors, I would have balanced [with a double].

Shekhar Sengupta: I intend to pass 3 or 3 NT, and raise 3 or 3 to four.

Michael Kaplan: … [Without the availability of an immediate 3 bid, I must double] then 3 should ask for 3 NT with a stopper or a five-card major (which I would raise to game). … Where are all the major cards? …

Comments for E. 1 then 3

Mircea Petrescu: I’d like to bid 3 over 1 to ask for a stopper; but without that choice, 1 then 3 seems to express the same idea. (Cross fingers and hope 1 isn’t passed out.)

Bruce Scott: I bid only 1 to start in the hopes of getting a chance to bid 3 . Maybe Choice B gets the message across, too; but it runs into snags when partner bids spades. …

Kees van Schenk Brill: My singleton club strongly suggests that the opponents will have a fit, so I will show my suit first, and my strength later. If partner can only bid 3 after my cue-bid, this is very likely to be the best spot.

David Davies: I think this [shows] running diamonds and asks for a club stopper. …

Dave Maeer: It’s a shame we aren’t playing a direct 3 in the current style (bid 3 NT with a club stopper), but 1 followed by 3 should get the same message over. The disadvantage of this sequence is that I’d have an impossible problem if West raised to 3 [instead of 2 ].

Imre Csiszar: This is easy if I’m sure that 1 will not be passed. In real life I might prefer C; but after a double the opponents are likely to bid more clubs, and 3 NT requiring only a club stopper may not be reached.

Anthony Golding: … If I double then jump in diamonds, partner [might not] read me to be this good. If I double then bid 3 , he’ll show a major suit rather than a club stopper. This way, hopefully, he’ll [focus on] 3 NT.

Final Notes

Comments are selected from those above average (top 441), and on each problem only for calls awarded 6 or higher. About 67 percent of the eligible comments were included. If you supplied comments that were not used, I thank you for the input.

Use of a comment does not necessarily mean I agree with it, but just that it expressed something relevant, unique or amusing. Comments are quoted exactly except for corrections in spelling and grammar. Where I have included only part of a comment, an ellipsis (…) indicates where text was cut. Text in [brackets] was supplied by me to summarize a cut portion or fix an omission. Comments for each call are listed in order of respondents’ rank, which is my only basis for sequencing.

I hope you enjoyed this flashback to 1953. Thanks to all who entered, and especially those who offered kind remarks about my web site. Lastly, a few remarks from those lost in the shuffle:

Bryson Crowell: I haven’t a clue as to where the tournament was held.

Clueless, eh? Then I should introduce you to:

Peg Kaplan: I need to start traveling more! No guesses about where this tournament might have been, as I know nothing.

Is this your Sergeant Schultz imitation? Don’t worry, Peg. I’m sure your partners would agree.

Rosalind Hengeveld: I haven’t figured out the tournament location, but I do know you would never misspell “Netherland” for “Netherlands.”

Right, Rosalinds.

Analyses 7W88 Main Challenge

Scores Top The Netherland Showdown

© 2002 Richard Pavlicek