Welcome, normal peoples! Ricco here. What happened last night should prove that I’m the only sane person in my ward — or the whole friggin’ asylum for that matter. Our monthly duplicate had 13 tables in a straight Mitchell. My partner was Rocco, who’s as crazy as the rest of the field, and loves to use the blue card. In fact the back of his shirt read “You Socco? I Rocco!”
On our first seven boards, I was declarer in contract levels from one to seven successively, and was never set! This alone was amazing, but the phenomenal part was that the seven boards produced only two different scores.
Before reading further, test your deductive ability or make your best guesses:
1. What was our highest possible total score for the seven boards? 8460 9440 10320 11040 11840 12120 12560
2. Which pair number were we? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
3. Which direction did we sit? NS EW
*Contest participants did not have the benefit of multiple choice, which was added for this writeup.
Everyone who submitted a correct solution is ranked below by the highest total score (multiple possibilities exist). Ties are broken by date and time of entry (earliest wins).
For seven bidding levels to produce only two different scores, one of those scores must occur at least four times. Thirteen bridge scores [720 690 680 660 640 520 490 480 460 190 170 150 130] are common to exactly four levels, but noticeably absent is a contract of six or seven. Twenty-eight bridge scores are common to exactly three levels; I will spare you the list, but none of them are common to both the six and seven level. Therefore, no combination of these scores can accommodate all levels.*
*data from my file of 2839 possible Duplicate Bridge Results and Scores, which is available on the Utilities page
But wait! One bridge score [1440] is common to five bidding levels [2 3 5 6 7] so all that’s needed is a score to accommodate the one and four levels. There are 19 such scores, the highest of which [2320] could produce the plausible* result sequence below.
*translation: insane… but Rocco kept his promise!
The vulnerability of each result is unchangeable, so the sequence could occur only if a pair’s first seven boards were: V NV NV V NV V NV. In a 13-table Mitchell this vulnerability sequence is unique to Pair 12 NS, starting with boards 23-26 then 1-3.
The above scores total 11840, which is the optimal solution. Besides 2320, lower but correct solutions can be obtained from: 1920 [11040], 1520* [10320 or 10240], 1120 [9440], 720 [8640], 630 [8460], 520 [8240], 190 [7580], 170 [7540], 150 [7500] and 130 [7460].
*also a valid NV 7-level score, which can replace the final 1440
Richard Stein: Contracts are 1 ×× or 1 ×× with 4 overtricks, 2 ×× or 2 ×× with 4 overtricks, 3 ×× or 3 ×× with 4 overtricks, 4 NT×× with 3 overtricks, 5 NT×× with 2 overtricks, 6 NT making, and 7 or 7 making.
Dan Baker: One score must be used 4+ times, which must be 1440 (2:NV 3:NV 5:NV 6:V 7:NV) because it’s the only score that can pair with another to cover the full set. The best pairing candidate is 2320 (1:V 4:V)… and the vulnerability sequence only fits Pair 12 NS.
David Grainger: The two scores break down easily into 1440 and 190… finding 2320 took some digging.
I was amused by the attempted solution of Gerbrand Hop (Netherlands). To achieve the necessary vulnerability match, he had the boards for one round played out of order. His contention was that with all the crazy people involved, this should be common. Nice try, but I’m not buying… though I’ve invited Gerbrand to our next duplicate, where he should feel right at home in our group.
Our fortuitous string of results was not taken lightly, and word spread quickly around the playing room. Usually the knockout phase of our duplicate is at game end, but fisticuffs broke out midway through the fourth round. Rocco was dragged outside for a “bidding lesson” while I managed to fend off my attackers. (Being tougher than nails is a plus.) “You’ll win no masterpoints for this charade!” shouted the inmates as they smashed every BridgeMate in sight. “Go ahead, call the fucking Director!” taunted Clyde; and I could see his point, as the Director was out cold on the floor.
Oh, well. Zero tolerance was never a biggie around here. I even have to tolerate these guys:
Nick Jacob: I need a game with Rocco; maybe then an opponent will finally double 5 NT.
Prahalad Rajkumar: Maybe Rocco is the sane one, redoubling only because of his opponents’ crazy doubles!
Jim Munday: Love the “which pair” wrinkle, adding a fun layer of complexity.
Samuel Pahk: I did this with my teammates over breakfast at the Junior World Championship.
Brad Johnston: Opponents were from the wrong wing of the asylum [to double 4 NT] as Rocco scoffs at our ROPI agreement.
Better from the asylum’s wrong wing than its right wing, where The Donald may be found very soon.
Richard Stein: Yep, I’d fit in very well in this ward.
© 2025 Richard Pavlicek
by Richard Pavlicek by Richard Pavlicek