{"id":25377,"date":"2022-07-21T08:56:06","date_gmt":"2022-07-21T06:56:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=25377"},"modified":"2022-07-26T09:50:25","modified_gmt":"2022-07-26T07:50:25","slug":"bids-contest-1-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-1-results\/","title":{"rendered":"July 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Quick links<\/strong><\/p>

Expert answers<\/a>
Deal #1: Can we say everything all in one bid?<\/a>
Deal #2: With regret\u2026<\/a>
Deal #3: Using double well<\/a>
Deal #4: Prudence prevails<\/a>
Deal #5: Dubious values<\/a>
Deal #6: 3 No-Trumps, the most desirable game<\/a>
Podium and full rankings<\/a>
Share your view<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This bidding contest is the opportunity to emphasise some intricate points about our system, such as Opener\u2019s support double or protective bidding. Try to really benefit from the experts\u2019 advice! And my thanks to the Lille bridge club for kindly playing along this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Expert answers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal #1: Can we say everything all in one bid?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

This is clearly a rare bidding sequence and does not need to be catalogued, except perhaps by Meckstroth-Rodwell or Fantoni-Nunes. However, is it obvious that a 4♣ bid at this point shows exactly this hand?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, eleven experts tell us without many qualms. Some, such as Rombaut<\/strong>, are more adamant than others: \u201c4♣. I think that with a 3-6-4-0, I would first of all bid 3♠, so I must be showing a 3-5-5-0 here\u201d; Quantin<\/strong> too: \u201c4♣.  A perfectly descriptive bid after East\u2019s double, very precisely showing a 3-5-5-0 hand.\u201d  <\/strong> Others are less positive, such as L\u00e9vy<\/strong>: \u201c4♣. The bid closest to representing these cards, which should show a void in Clubs, three cards in Spades and therefore ten cards between Hearts and Diamonds, more likely 5-5 than 6-4\u201d; or Volcker<\/strong>: \u201c4♣. I intend to show my void in Clubs with three cards in Spades and a nice hand. 3-5-5-0 or perhaps even 3-6-4-0\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this hand from the Biarritz tournament, Partner held ♠A10863 ♥A3 ♦J962 ♣AQ. You would easily make 7 Diamonds but not 7 Spades\u2026 The best way to reach it was by repeating Diamonds, thus clearly showing a 4-card ♦fit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This bid of 3♦, however, was only chosen by four experts, including Jill Meyers<\/strong>: \u201c3♦. My diamonds are so nice that my plan is to bid 3♦ and then 4♠ over the likely 3NT bid. Partner should have a pretty good idea about my hand\u201d; and Pacault<\/strong>: \u201c3♦. 3♣, fourth suit forcing, does not promise length in Spades; it only suggests it. The five semi-solid diamonds are more important than the three spades for a future contract, particularly a slam. With flimsier diamonds, I would have gone for 3♠. The Ace of Clubs opposite is useless with Spades as Trumps; it would enable you to discard a spade with Diamonds as Trumps.\u201d  Bravo to Herv\u00e9 for his psychic powers: that was indeed the case on the real-life deal\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now without a doubt, the 4♣ bid deserves points for artistry but the strategy chosen by Jill Meyers seems to me the wiser, especially since this 4♣ bid presents a further disadvantage pointed out by Thomas Bessis<\/strong>: \u201c3♠. To show the three cards in Spades, a priority compared to the five diamonds, despite these being particularly good-quality. As for bidding 4♣, I do not like it for two reasons: first of all, what does it show? 3-5-5-0? 3-6-4-0? A good hand? But most of all: how does Partner arrange to set each of the different suits as Trumps if he has the desire to go to slam? He cannot.\u201d Good spot! Indeed, what would a 4♦ bid mean here: fit in Diamonds; or rather a cue bid for a spade slam? No; on balance, one does better to do things in order (after choosing which order that is) than to attempt to do everything in one go. Adad<\/strong> explains exactly that: \u201c3♠. Priority goes to the fit. Repeating Diamonds or mentioning the club shortage will come later\u201d; as does Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201c3♠. And then 4♦ over 3NT (or 5♣ over 4♠)\u201d; and Kerlero <\/strong>: \u201c3♠. I  show my three cards in Spades. I will try to show the rest later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Scores deal #1<\/strong><\/p>

4♣<\/strong>: 100 points (12 votes)
3♠<\/strong>: 90 points (11 votes)
3♦<\/strong>: 40 points (4 votes)
4♠<\/strong>: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal #2: With regret\u2026<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Balancing bids are often a minefield. The current trend being to respond to an opening bid with very little, they are becoming rather rare. But when they do come up, it is best to be ready for them. According to the standard in France, this hand is too strong for a protective 1♦ bid and is not in the correct  range for balancing with either 1NT (9-13) or 2NT (17-19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, at this point in the sequence, we are regretting having neither suggested a suit nor indicated the strength of the hand. Should we be reviewing all of our standard balancing agreements? All of the experts from abroad, very critical of this protective double, seem to be suggesting so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fantoni <\/strong>: \u201c3♦. I do not like the protective double.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish <\/strong>: \u201c3♦. Unfortunately, aside from 3♥, every other bid would be forcing; there are no words to describe how strongly I disapprove of the protective double, despite having 16 points. A simple 1♦ bid, or 1NT at a stretch, is much more appropriate, in my view. If Partner does not go on over 1♦, we are not missing a game. As I cannot pass over 2♥, the choice has to be between 3♦ on this poor-quality suit, 2NT without a proper stop, 2♠ without five cards and 3♣, which is just as wet as this protective double over 1♣.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett<\/strong>: \u201c2NT. Awful dilemma! Why did I not reopen with 1♦?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201cPass. I disapprove of this protective double. 1♦ would have worked better.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much consensus in the criticism should cause one to reflect and perhaps to adopt a more flexible approach to balancing. Something to think about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To get back to the problem, we had to choose a second bid despite this controversial first double. Four options were selected. Let us start with those partial to the natural bid, chosen by, among others, Lille Bridge Club.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut<\/strong>: \u201c3♦. A good opening hand with Diamonds and without a fit in Hearts; that seems quite representative to me\u201d; and Quantin<\/strong>: \u201c3♦. I thought for a while about passing or suggesting a speculative 2NT. In the end, I opted for the natural bid, aiming to find a 3NT contract (I know; if that is the contract, it is me who should be playing it).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, a potential 3NT contract seems to be best played by the hand with Queen-doubleton in Clubs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why I do not really understand the 3♣ cue bid. Partner either has something in Clubs, in which case you should bid No-Trumps and not wait for him to do so, or he has nothing there and will surely repeat his Hearts, which is hardly going to fill you with joy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why you should either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n