{"id":26564,"date":"2022-08-23T16:46:49","date_gmt":"2022-08-23T14:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=26564"},"modified":"2022-08-24T15:18:39","modified_gmt":"2022-08-24T13:18:39","slug":"august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/","title":{"rendered":"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Bidding<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>

The Experts’ Answers<\/a>
Deal 1: The Dangers of the 5-level<\/a>
Deal 2: Faulty Braking System<\/a>
Deal 3: Off on an Adventure?<\/a>
Deal 4: Keep it Simple<\/a>
Deal 5: Anglo-American Influences<\/a>
Deal 6: Through the Looking-Glass<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your Opinion<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This bidding contest is an opportunity to emphasise some of the finer points of the system, such as support doubles by Opener or protective bidding. Try to really make the most of the experts’ advice! And my thanks to the Lille Bridge Club, who were really up for playing along. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The<\/strong> Experts’ Answers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 1: The Dangers of the 5-level<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.
*Bicolour Heart-Club.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This first problem brings to light the fuzziness surrounding responding to a two-suited bid: fuzziness caused by the large area covered by a two-suiter. Here are two contributions to this topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla:<\/strong> “Pass. Among the array of Partner’s possible hands, those where you go down in 5 Hearts are far more likely than those where you make a good slam. Broadly speaking, whenever Partner does not hold Ace-fifth or Ace-Queen-fourth, you will most often find yourself in danger.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish:<\/strong> “Pass. It is always dangerous to make a two-suited bid with an intermediate hand, as one then never knows whether to bid 4♥ if Partner only bid 3. If in doubt, you should therefore bow out, especially since North can hold Q10xxx in Hearts and nothing else, in which case you will go down in 5.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of that last hand mentioned by Kokish<\/strong>, most experts opted for prudence and chose to pass. The main argument put forward is the risk of going down at the 5-level which, aside from in competitive auctions, constitutes one of the worst results you can get in bridge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier:<\/strong> “Pass. Although the minimum requirement for a two-suited bid has, oddly, gone down over the last few years, I think that my partner is allowed to say 4♥ with Ace-to-four Hearts and the King of Diamonds. In which case, I will be in big trouble at the 5-level, won’t I?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero:<\/strong> “Pass. I do not tend to make light two-suited bids and the 4♥ bid is not very strong. Even four hearts to the Ace-Queen is not enough to make slam and I don’t want to go down in 5 opposite Queen-third in Hearts and the Ace of Diamonds on the side: a hand which would amply justify the raise to 4♥.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett:<\/strong> “Pass. Not far off bidding 4♠. But I am worried about the trump holding and there is a chance that we might go down at the 5-level.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin<\/strong>: “Pass. Neither extra distribution nor any particular strength compared to what I’ve already shown. Sure, slam is possible; so is going down at the 5-level.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort:<\/strong> “Pass. Firstly, in telling ourselves that 4♥ could just be pre-emptive, it is obvious to pass. Then, we look more closely and see that with just Ace-fifth in Hearts… Finally, even opposite the Ace of Hearts, we are not sure to be able to discard enough spades and, without the Ace, we risk not being able to make more than ten tricks.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The other group of experts emphasise the fact that North has a whole host of bids other than 4♥ available if he has a strong hand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such as Pacault<\/strong> and Thuillez<\/strong>: “Pass. 4♥ only requires three trumps and the quality of my hearts is not encouraging me to continue on, risking going down at a higher level. With enough goodies for slam, North is supposed to make a bid other than 4♥ (3♠, for example).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy:<\/strong> “Pass. North is hoping to make this contract, as is South. With slam interest, North will start with a 3♠ cue bid or a 2NT relay.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski:<\/strong> “Pass. The hearts are too poor-quality. North can bid 3♠ or 2NT rather than 4♥ with a good hand.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Though most of the experts therefore opted for caution, eight decided to show more daring. For them, the best way of looking for a slam is to cue-bid Spades to allow North to show more. Let us examine their arguments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combescure: <\/strong>“4♠. Five hearts to the Ace will suffice for making a slam.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though Rocafort does not agree with this statement, it will no doubt be true in 90% of cases. But what should North do with ♠63 ♥A9632 ♦️654 ♣️543? 6♥? Very difficult…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta:<\/strong> “4♠. Pass would be a bit timid and 4NT will not solve my problem if North shows a key card.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, Chidiac<\/strong> anticipated the problems that could arise: “4♠. Should you pass or investigate slam? North can bid 4♥ with QJxxx in Hearts and nothing else! And North-South are therefore at risk of going down at the 5-level. But the possibility of slam cannot be ruled out. I opt for investigating by bidding 4♠. Demanding control-showing cues by continuing with 4♠ has the advantage of detecting if North has no diamond control, which will comfort South as to the likely presence of values in Hearts, and South would presumably be able to take a chance and bid slam! But how do you continue if North bids 5♦️? After a spade lead, if North does not have the Ace of Hearts, slam is dead on arrival! So, South will then continue on with 5♥, which implies that he is still looking for help in Trumps rather than Clubs (having embarked upon an investigation into slam, he has implicitly suggested having a good club suit).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Remember from this problem: discussion about the meaning of 2NT, 3♦️, 3♠, 4♣️, 4♦️ and 4♥ bids in response to this two-suited bid will be inevitable. Get to work! For both the situation here and the post-mortem, many will have guessed to move on to Problem No. 6…<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

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

Scores Deal 1<\/strong><\/p>

Pass<\/strong>: 100 points (14 votes)
4♠<\/strong>: 40 points (6 votes)
4NT<\/strong>: 10 points (1 vote)
5♥️<\/strong>: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 2: Faulty Braking System<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Pairs tournament<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

My partner in the Juan-les-Pins Open had this hand and bid 2♦️. My hand opposite: ♠<\/strong>2 ♥️<\/strong><\/strong>AQ865 ♦️K103 ♣️K1082. I bid 2NT, he made it three. A few minutes later, two down put paid to our overly high ambitions. I therefore wanted to see whether it was possible to avoid this downfall. Apparently not, given the overwhelming majority of players who bid 2♦️.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I thank those who did choose something else. I shall begin with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort<\/strong>: “2NT. Let us be pragmatic: Partner is 1-5-3-4, the spades are probably unusable and this hand with no intermediates has very little future. Bidding the fourth suit would go out of control and I would even rather show preference with 2♥️<\/strong><\/strong>. If Partner has an unexpected hand, he can still make that known and the information will be usable.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong>: “3♣️. 2♦️ is game-forcing for me. I do not think that just a jack in Partner’s suits is enough for game opposite a minimum opening.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res:<\/strong> “3♣️. With just 1 point supporting nine of North’s cards, who is also a favourite to hold the rest in Diamonds, suggesting to play with Clubs as Trumps seems to be a good idea: we will have real trouble developing tricks in No-Trumps if Partner is minimum.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

I am strongly in agreement on two points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Statistically, North will often be 1-5-3-4 and, in that case, the best contract will surely be 3 Clubs, unless North has enough HCP in reserve to bid 3NT over 3♣️.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Nowadays, openings, especially non-vulnerable ones, are becoming lighter and lighter. It therefore seems difficult to bid 2♦️ with this hand, as without spade support, it is not worth very much; you might even need to review your continuations over fourth-suit forcing so that you are not forced to play in 3NT with so little. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know that you will argue that in a teams match, one must not brush over games even with 22 or 23 HCP; but in a pairs tournament, this seems to me a bad bet to make. Some will say to never mind about pairs; here are their arguments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy:<\/strong> “2♦️. Why make up false 2♠<\/strong> or 3♣️ bids for the sake of a pairs tournament?” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my view, because pairs tournaments, despised too much in France, are just not the same… <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish:<\/strong> “2♦️. Slight overbid. 2NT and 3♣️ are not incorrect bids but this is the type of hand that will produce lots of tricks opposite Ace-doubleton spade and you can still reach a good club contract.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin:<\/strong> “2♦️. Holding five nice cards in Spades and 11 HCP is a definite contraindication against raising to 3♣️. I recognise that the fourth suit will put us in a game-forcing situation after North’s bid but any other choice would seem odd to me here.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The five nice spades are also put forward by the experts of Deauville<\/strong>: “2♦️. With its concentration of honours in Spades, the hand is too powerful for 3♣️. 4♠<\/strong> is conceivable, even in a 5-2 fit.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez<\/strong>: “2♦️. What else? We can still stop in 2 Spades or 2 No-Trumps if Partner bids 2♥️<\/strong><\/strong>. And if he bids 2NT, we shall play in 3.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier:<\/strong> “2♦️. Obligatory and forced. I am well-placed if Partner shows a spade fit or repeats Hearts (as I will be able to make a non-forcing 2♠<\/strong> bid). I’m assuming 2NT comes back: we’ll play in 3, that’s all. The alternative, an encouraging 3♣️ raise, does not feel satisfactory to me with this bad fit and flat hand.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

So if nobody is bothered about playing 3 No-Trumps with 22 HCP and a singleton opposite KQJxx or bidding 2♠<\/strong> over 2♥️<\/strong><\/strong> and then playing in a 5-1 rather than a 5-2 or even a 6-2 fit, I give up. And what is there to say about the possible 3♣️ response over the 2♦️ bid? We will find ourselves in even more trouble. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I leave the reader to judge but will not be touching the scores, although I am itching to. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores Deal 2<\/strong><\/p>

2♦<\/strong>: 100 points (17 votes)
3♣<\/strong>: 10 points (3 votes)
2NT<\/strong>: 5 points (1 vote)
2♠<\/strong>: 5 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 3: Off on an Adventure?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The jury was divided into two almost-equal parts. Here, the problem is twofold. Should you stop in 3NT now when you know no more about North’s hand other than that he neither has three spades nor five diamonds? Unfortunately, he could have six hearts and a club stop or five hearts without a club stop (in the standard French system, in any case). Second option: investigating slam in Diamonds, leaving open the possibility of stopping in 5 Diamonds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

What are the arguments of the slight majority who favoured the 3NT bid? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers<\/strong>: “3NT. Partner has denied five cards in Diamonds. I am not going to try making eleven or twelve tricks in my 4-4 fit. As for trying 4♥️, it is no sure thing that Partner even has 6!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta:<\/strong> “3NT. To account for cases where it is the right contract.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin:<\/strong> “3NT. As the great Bob Hamman has been repeating for sixty years: when you are deciding between several bids and 3NT is one of them, choose 3NT.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy:<\/strong> “3NT. I do not like the placement of my honours when imagining a diamond slam in our 4-4 fit, played the wrong way round.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is true that with a completely average hand that corresponds to North’s bidding, such as ♠Q7 ♥️KQJ52 ♦A864 ♣74, it is hardly attractive to bypass 3 No-Trumps. Bidding 4♦ seems to me to require betting on North having a good hand that he has not promised for now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combescure<\/strong>: “4♦: To show my fit and slam interest. I don’t have the best hand for doing this but North should nevertheless be able to give his opinion.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier:<\/strong> “4♦. Playing 3 No-Trumps with stiff Ace of Hearts and only one club stop is inconceivable, especially as we could have slam on if North holds, for example, ♠K3 ♥️KQ7542 ♦AQ62 ♣7. Otherwise, there is still time to stop in 5♦.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res:<\/strong> “4♦. With all these top cards, a diamond slam is possible opposite some average hands and game in Diamonds will often be better than a 3 No-Trump contract, due to a lack of intermediates in the black suits. I am therefore bypassing 3NT despite only having an eight-card fit.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini<\/strong>: “4♦. I’m setting Diamonds as Trumps and showing my ambitions for slam. I have a fair few top cards… This bid therefore seems normal to me, especially as it is very possible that the best game is 5 Diamonds rather than 3 No-Trumps.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish<\/strong> studied these problems and made a full guide for us on the matter; worth considering and working through, in my opinion: “4♦. This is the most complicated fourth-suit forcing auction and should be the focus of some serious work by any advanced partnership [for example: (1) You should play 1♥️-1♠-2♦-3♥️ as forcing, to be certain that a 3♣ bid is not hiding a heart fit. (2) Playing transfers after the 3♣ bid in order to show hands that are at least invitational in the transfer bid’s suit, 3♠ then being a classic fourth-suit forcing bid without a club stop.] If you do not play this, you really need to define the responses to a 3♣ bid: I prefer 3♦ for 5-5 hands, 3♥️ for good-quality 6-4s (otherwise, 2♥️ is bid the first time round), 3♠ with a fit or a 2-5-4-2 missing a club stop and 3NT with a 1-5-4-3 with or without a club stop, as we will often have 3-3 Clubs and this will generally be the last playable contract. In this scenario, I choose a 4♦ bid. If 3♥️ is a dustbin bid, I think that 3NT is the most appropriate bid. I am therefore voting for 4♦ but please explain my choice.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I hope to have correctly translated and rendered the ideas expressed by Kokish, which seem to me to be very interesting ones to use. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposite, there was ♠K6 ♥️QJ9854 ♦A862 ♣A. 6 Diamonds was not a very good contract but had the benefit of succeeding. Would North have been able to bid again over 3NT? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores Deal 3<\/strong><\/p>

3NT<\/strong>: 100 points (12 votes)
4♦<\/strong>: 80 points (10 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 4: Keep it Simple<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Pairs tournament<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On this deal from the last DN1 pairs tournaments, North held ♠K ♥️KJ9865 ♦<\/strong>AKJ ♣K63. The scores varied: from 4
Hearts, three down, to 6 Diamonds making. South’s bid strongly affected the final result. Despite a worrying heart void (North is a favourite to hold 6 or 7 of them), the majority of our experts chose to show their two-suiter in order, helped by the presence of six diamonds and five clubs (what they would have done with five diamonds and six clubs, we will ask them another time). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin:<\/strong> “4♦<\/strong>. The situation is troubling but I see no better choice than bidding my six-card suit, followed by my five-card suit if that fails. A take-out double (or negative or Sputnik, whatever you prefer) is out of the question with a heart void: what would you do if North said 4♥️?” was supported by Saporta:<\/strong> “4♦<\/strong>. Followed by 5♣. If I doubled, I would be really embarrassed after the likely 4♥️ bid” and Piganeau:<\/strong> “4♦<\/strong>. Never mind. Followed by 5♣.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla:<\/strong> “4♦<\/strong>. Impossible to double with a heart void. 4NT would be too ambiguous, unless you have an agreement with your partner and, even then, it is good to show him, by bidding 5♣ later, that you are longer in Diamonds.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us note, however, that a 4NT bid was only chosen once, by Fantoni. It might not be so silly, then, to play that 4NT shows a minor two-suiter rather than a very rare quantitative or a Blackwood that you could use 4 Spades for… <\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy:<\/strong> “4♦<\/strong>. Natural and tasteful, intending to describe my two-suiter at whichever level is convenient. A take-out double on 6-5 distribution never does any good.” On this deal, in any case, indeed it did not do any good; but that was not the opinion of seven experts including Lorenzini:<\/strong> “Double. Clearly, this is not ideal with 6-5 and a heart void; that’s why I would have chosen 4♦<\/strong> at IMPs instead. However, at Pairs, I do not want to take the initiative in bypassing 3NT, which might be the right contract. The other advantage is obviously having two chances to find a minor fit, whereas by making the natural bid, one puts forward one suit ahead of the other.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish:<\/strong> “Double. Difficult problem without a good solution. I’m trying a double as North will not always rebid 4♥️ and, if he bids a minor, slam is possible. 3NT remains a possibility but I cannot bid it myself. My second choice would be Pass as, after all, our best result might be to score +100 or +200 by defending against 3 Spades undoubled. This is just one deal in a pairs tournament, after all.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts of Deauville:<\/strong> “Double. But over a likely 4♥️, the next bid will be problematic. Others bid 4♦<\/strong> directly, or even 4NT as a minor two-suiter, having agreed that, in this situation, Blackwood is bid with 4♠.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Remember: agree the meanings of 4♠ and 4NT in this sequence. Note the difference in approach between Pairs and Teams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores Deal 4<\/strong><\/p>

4♦<\/strong><\/strong>: 100 points (14 votes)
Double<\/strong>: 50 points (7 votes)
4NT:<\/strong> 5 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 5:<\/strong> Anglo-American Influences<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A majority (relative, certainly) in favour of supporting with three cards. What is bugging our jury? As a matter of fact, the experts who chose to support with 2♠ are split into two groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First of all, the group of fans to which all of the foreigners belong who, for the most part, do not even understand the question. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski:<\/strong> “2♠. Even in Poland.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts of Deauville:<\/strong> “In pure Nordic or Anglo-Saxon style, there is a large majority of champions who prefer to support with three cards here rather than rebidding the diamonds.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish: <\/strong>“2♠. Very un-French but 1NT and 2♦<\/strong><\/strong> being two awful bids, you sometimes need to be flexible. All Americans and Canadians would bid 2♠ without remorse. Perhaps we shall spark a revolution!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers:<\/strong> “2♠. I don’t think there’s any other option.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort:<\/strong> “2♠. If you posed this question in Bridgeworld<\/em>, half of the comments would be accompanied by a prediction of unanimity. Supporting with three cards… it suffices to try it to convince oneself that for hands that lend themselves to it, it is very effective.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Others were less convinced but resigned themselves to it here for lack of anything better, as Cronier<\/strong> summarises: “2♠. An atypical hand, one where you can choose to raise to 2♠ with three cards rather than doing anything else. Repeating the Diamonds will not facilitate later developments, bidding 1NT with the singleton club is extreme… After all, ruffing in the short hand with three small trumps is not so bad!” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The French resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasion was divided into two groups. I have to say that neither group succeeded in persuading me of the merits of their bid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res:<\/strong> “1NT. Definitely not 2♦<\/strong><\/strong> with this non-existent suit. 1NT gives you the advantage of being able to easily find your major fits. Then, my hand would take on unexpected power and I would award myself an “impossible” bid (3♠ over 2♠, for example).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy:<\/strong> “1NT. In accordance with the system, for a clearly positive price-performance ratio. Anglo-Saxons would, of course, bid 2♠. 2♦<\/strong><\/strong> remains the worst choice.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla:<\/strong> “1NT. I refuse to bid 2♠. 1NT is the most flexible bid for finding contracts in Spades, Hearts and Diamonds. You mustn’t, as is the fashion, neglect the part-scores!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini:<\/strong> “2♦<\/strong><\/strong>. Without any qualms, I choose the classic bid… It is not my style to bid 2♠, although I well understand the benefits that brings.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero:<\/strong> “2♦<\/strong><\/strong>. Without any qualms. I don’t mind playing in a bad part-score from time to time. Bidding 1NT would be a big lie, potentially leading us to miss the best game or slam, which is far more serious. What’s more, as I play that 1♦<\/strong><\/strong>-2♦<\/strong><\/strong> is 5-4 in the majors with around 8-10 points, the risk of missing a heart fit is low.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Opposite was ♠AJ742 ♥️108 ♦<\/strong><\/strong>6 ♣️AK862. On anything other than a spade lead (difficult with King-doubleton), you would make 4 Spades: easily reached after a 2♠ rebid, a bit more difficult after 1NT and very difficult over 2♦<\/strong><\/strong>. Moreover, what should you do over 2♦<\/strong><\/strong> with this hand? A good idea for a future contest…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores: Deal 5<\/strong><\/p>

2♠<\/strong><\/strong>: 100 points (10 votes)
1NT<\/strong>: 60 (6 votes)
2♦<\/strong>: 60 (6 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 6: Through the Looking-Glass<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
Reminder: you are sitting South.
*Bicolour Heart-Club.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

As the majority of the jury, and no doubt you as well, understood, this Hand No. 6 is the counterpart to No. 1 and the majority bid, that I actually disapprove of, was the one I witnessed at the table. Let us look at those who chose it: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta:<\/strong> “4♥️. The ‘cunning’ side of our columnist comes to light…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers:<\/strong> “4♥️. Hey, it’s the hand that goes with the first one.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett:<\/strong> “4♥️. I shall bid the diamonds if they bid 4♠<\/strong><\/strong>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, for the explanations, we remain hungry. Let us see the rest: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero:<\/strong> “4♥️. Would this be the same hand as in Problem No. 1? So, I bid 4♥️ and hope that my partner will pass with his King-empty-fifth in Hearts! With the same hand but a fourth heart, I would make a cue bid to suggest slam. Here, I do not feel I have enough trumps to be able to make use of my diamonds without worrying or to ruff enough clubs, not to mention the two spade losers.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier<\/strong>: “4♥️. I suppose that this is the responding hand from Question No. 1 in the contest? I will also bid 4♥️, which is a practical bid, though not intellectually satisfying. The 4♥️ bid seems normal, as the bid of a heart-club two-suiter is so vague and can be made with so many different hands that, statistically, I think that bidding game will be a good bet. If this is indeed Hand No. 1, we should make 6 Diamonds…” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

In the end, we come back to the problem we had above. As bidding a two-suiter is very vague. the 4♥️ lazily both covers hands with five trumps and no strength and hands with three or four trumps that seem good enough for playing in game. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Toffier said, this is not very intellectually satisfying. It is no doubt practical when just game is on (the most frequent scenario, luckily) but that puts Partner in trouble when there is potential for slam… <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Other avenues were therefore explored. A 3♦<\/strong> bid, which seems to be the most appropriate, was, however, only reserved by five experts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy<\/strong>: “3♦️. Impossible to hide this trump suit for slam, even above supporting Hearts. 4♦️ would be a fit-showing bid with four cards in Hearts. Jumping to 4♥️ is as low-scoring as responding 4♥️ over an opening of 1♥️.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier:<\/strong> “3♦️. Forcing for one round, as all changes of suit opposite an overcall. I will bid 4♥️ on the next round.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chidiac:<\/strong> “3♦️. I wonder whether 3♦️ is forcing for everybody.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Note this comment from Chidiac<\/strong> which was less affirmative than L\u00e9vy<\/strong> or Cronier<\/strong> and wait to see the arguments that will follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fans of a 4♦️ bid deserve points for artistry more than technique, as they do not seem too convinced about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combescure:<\/strong> “4♦️. Should show nice diamonds with three cards in Hearts.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault:<\/strong> “4♦️. Clearly, one can recognise Problem No. 1 from behind, which is encouraging this bid. In any case, with a seven-card suit as a potential source of tricks, it is reasonable to be interested in slam when Partner has shown a vulnerable two-suiter. If he has a hand without a spade control, it is likely that he will bid 4♥️ or 5♦️, which will allow you to play in one of those contracts. If he bids 5♥️, I will say 5♦️. If he bids 4♠️, 4NT Blackwood (sets Diamonds as Trumps).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hmm, this is all a bit confusing. What is more, others are unsure of the meaning of 4♦️ and are choosing something else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish:<\/strong> “3♠️. If 4♦️ showed a fit in Hearts with good diamonds, that would be my choice. If not, you have to settle for a cue bid to show your strength. Even if 3♦️ were forcing (and that is not the case), it would not imply a heart fit and I might not be able to show that later.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res:<\/strong> “2NT. I can’t bid 3♦️, which looks non-forcing to me, or 4♥️, which shows a hand which is less strong but with more trumps. I therefore opt for a positive and artificial 2NT bid.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez:<\/strong> “2NT. If 4♦️ could show this hand, that would be ideal. In the meantime, I bid 2NT to find out more.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Remember: the advice handed out in Problem No. 1 is even more valuable after having read the arguments that were given in Problem No. 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores Deal 6<\/strong><\/p>

4♥️<\/strong>: 100 points (8 votes)
3♦<\/strong>: 60 points (5 votes)
4♦<\/strong>: 60 points (5 votes)
2NT<\/strong>: 20 points (2 votes)
3♠<\/strong>: 10 points (1 vote)
3♥️<\/strong>: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

The winners!<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Here are the Funbridge players who won the most points and therefore access the podium. Each winner wins 1,000 Diamonds<\/strong>, allowing them to play in federation tournaments, special tournaments and Funbridge Points tournaments!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

valymi (France)<\/a><\/strong> – 560 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lola (France)<\/a><\/strong> – 540 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adodado (Ireland)<\/a><\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

nikrek (Greece)<\/a><\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marley20 (France)<\/a><\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ASD17 (France)<\/a><\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PhHa<\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#3<\/strong> (ex-aequo)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

G\u00e9b\u00e9 (France)<\/a><\/strong> – 510 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What about you? What is your ranking?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
See the full rankings \u25ba<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What did you think of this article?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We would be grateful to you for taking a few moments to share your opinion in the comment section below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From 1 to 21 August, this bidding contest made up of 6 deals has challenged your bridge skills! Discover now the detailed analysis of each deal by bridge experts as well as the rankings of this contest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":38,"featured_media":45667,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14933,14887,10635],"tags":[13384],"access":[13334],"class_list":["post-26564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bridge-bidding-contest","category-bridge-games","category-let-s-talk-about-bridge","tag-bidding-contest","access-premium-plus-en"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":5}},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAugust 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"From 1 to 21 August, this bidding contest made up of 6 deals has challenged your bridge skills! Discover now the detailed analysis of each deal by bridge experts as well as the rankings of this contest.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Blog Funbridge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Funbridge\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FFBridge\/videos\/1044725156255680\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lionel Sebbane\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@funbridge\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@funbridge\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lionel Sebbane\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lionel Sebbane\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2\"},\"headline\":\"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results!\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\"},\"wordCount\":4473,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"bidding contest\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Bridge Bidding Contest\",\"Bridge games\",\"Let's talk about bridge\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\",\"name\":\"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Bidding contest\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Blog Funbridge\",\"description\":\"Toute l'actualit\u00e9 du bridge et de FunBridge en un clin d'\u0153il\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Funbridge\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Funbridge_Blog.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Funbridge_Blog.png\",\"width\":610,\"height\":148,\"caption\":\"Funbridge\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Funbridge\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/funbridge\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2\",\"name\":\"Lionel Sebbane\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/cropped-Lionel-Sebanne-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/cropped-Lionel-Sebanne-1.png\",\"caption\":\"Lionel Sebbane\"},\"description\":\"N\u00e9 \u00e0 Paris et passionn\u00e9 de jeux t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9s, c\u2019est \u00e0 la caf\u00e9t\u00e9ria de l\u2019ENSAE (Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l\u2019Administration Economique) qu\u2019il a d\u00e9couvert le bridge. Il a alors vite renonc\u00e9 \u00e0 sa carri\u00e8re trac\u00e9e de trader pour devenir statisticien \u00e0 l\u2019INSEE et avoir ainsi assez de temps \u00e0 consacrer \u00e0 son loisir pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 : le bridge.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FFBridge\/videos\/1044725156255680\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/author\/lsebbane\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge","og_description":"From 1 to 21 August, this bidding contest made up of 6 deals has challenged your bridge skills! Discover now the detailed analysis of each deal by bridge experts as well as the rankings of this contest.","og_url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/","og_site_name":"Blog Funbridge","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Funbridge\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FFBridge\/videos\/1044725156255680\/","article_published_time":"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Lionel Sebbane","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@funbridge","twitter_site":"@funbridge","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Lionel Sebbane","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/"},"author":{"name":"Lionel Sebbane","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2"},"headline":"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results!","datePublished":"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00","dateModified":"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/"},"wordCount":4473,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg","keywords":["bidding contest"],"articleSection":["Bridge Bidding Contest","Bridge games","Let's talk about bridge"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/","name":"August 2022 Bidding Contest: the Results! - Blog Funbridge","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-23T14:46:49+00:00","dateModified":"2022-08-24T13:18:39+00:00","inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/august-2022-bidding-contest-the-results\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-orange.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Bidding contest"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/","name":"Blog Funbridge","description":"Toute l'actualit\u00e9 du bridge et de FunBridge en un clin d'\u0153il","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Funbridge","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Funbridge_Blog.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Funbridge_Blog.png","width":610,"height":148,"caption":"Funbridge"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Funbridge\/","https:\/\/x.com\/funbridge"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2","name":"Lionel Sebbane","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/cropped-Lionel-Sebanne-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/cropped-Lionel-Sebanne-1.png","caption":"Lionel Sebbane"},"description":"N\u00e9 \u00e0 Paris et passionn\u00e9 de jeux t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9s, c\u2019est \u00e0 la caf\u00e9t\u00e9ria de l\u2019ENSAE (Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l\u2019Administration Economique) qu\u2019il a d\u00e9couvert le bridge. Il a alors vite renonc\u00e9 \u00e0 sa carri\u00e8re trac\u00e9e de trader pour devenir statisticien \u00e0 l\u2019INSEE et avoir ainsi assez de temps \u00e0 consacrer \u00e0 son loisir pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 : le bridge.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FFBridge\/videos\/1044725156255680\/"],"url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/author\/lsebbane\/"}]}},"lang":"en","translations":{"en":26564,"fr":26429},"language":"en","pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/38"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26564"}],"version-history":[{"count":148,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26564\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49338,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26564\/revisions\/49338"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/45667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26564"},{"taxonomy":"access","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/access?post=26564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}