{"id":54023,"date":"2022-10-26T17:08:00","date_gmt":"2022-10-26T15:08:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=54023"},"modified":"2022-10-27T17:08:34","modified_gmt":"2022-10-27T15:08:34","slug":"bids-contest-4-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-4-results\/","title":{"rendered":"October 2022 bidding contest: the results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bidding<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This time two-suiters are in the spotlight in all bridge problems except #3. Being able to defend against two-suiter bids or to evaluate your hand when your partner has a two-suiter, that is precisely what our experts are going to help you with.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary<\/strong><\/p>

The Experts’ Answers<\/a>
Deal 1: The love is risk<\/a>
Deal 2: Empty Suits<\/a>
Deal 3: One More Convention<\/a>
Deal 4: Being Able to Adapt to Rare Situations<\/a>
Deal 5: Lack of Space<\/a>
Deal 6: A 22-Points Game<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your opinion<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary of the Experts’ Answers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 1: The love is risk<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
2♠ : Weak, six cards.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

A two-stage problem, as it often happens. First question: should you reopen? A vast majority answered yes, so let\u2019s start with those who passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adad<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Yes, game may be vulnerable. Yes, my partner holds four or five spades and you can make the juicy contract of 2 Spades doubled. But East, with a misfit, may have a lot of points.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta<\/strong>: \u201cPass. The penalty risk seems higher than the chances of making a game to me. The only thing that annoys me really is that they will think that I am a coward.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, there are two major risks. First, your partner may pass and the opponent would get 470. Second, your partner may propel you into the game and East would get the red penalty double card out\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But since fear will not protect you from danger, twenty-one experts have decided to reopen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only five of them decided to make a reopening bid in a suit contract, including Pacault<\/strong>: \u201c3♥. North has spades and an unknown strength that don\u2019t allow him to come forward, though. Reopening with a double is reasonable in match-pointed pairs tournaments, when 2 Spades doubled made equals a zero. In duplicate, I choose 3♥ which provides the double benefit of avoiding the previous risk and offering trumps for the game. Passing is, of course, possible, but a cowardly option.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He is supported by Justin Hackett<\/strong>: \u201c3♥. \u00a0Good problem. Passing or doubling may be on, but the structure of my hand encourages me to bid higher. The most likely game is probably 4 Hearts\u201d and Cronier<\/strong>: \u201c3♥. By process of elimination: I don\u2019t want to pass with an unbalanced hand and a spade singleton. There is no question of making a two-suiter bid. I find the protective double very dangerous as I would have trouble dealing with Partner\u2019s bid in Clubs as well as in NT, knowing that my most likely game is in Hearts. So, I opt for the natural protective bid. I would do the same with a 1♠ opening bid, by the way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have to admit that this is the option I would have gone for because of all the drawbacks previously mentioned that would come with a double. But the double bid won a large majority of the votes, even if many expressed reservations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. Passing would be more reasonable because Partner has fewer points than a 2NT overcall.\u201d Rocafort<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. Really not exciting. I would easily be seduced into opting for something else like  3♥ or pass. I am aware that I am playing big – my partner in ambush will be pleased \u2013 and the risk of playing a trump contact at the 6-level is high.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguet<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. I don\u2019t let this part-score be played with 5-5 and the short spade suit. And I don\u2019t have what is needed for a 4♦ two-suiter bid. If my partner passes the double, we will probably have to work hard in defence\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. My distribution obliges me to bid, but there is no question of making a two-suiter bid with such a weak hand. All the more since Partner may be looking forward to this take-out double to convert eagerly.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. Not enough points (far from it!) to bid 4♦ (red two-suiter). However, not balancing would be very cowardly\u2026\u201d (Again, I told you so.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. I find nothing attractive, but 3♥ seems to be unilateral, while the double gives more flexibility. If North bids 3♣, I will bid 3♦, showing hearts and diamonds only, but without promising a strong hand.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas<\/strong> <\/strong>Bessis<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. Very difficult! I think it would be much more obvious if I had passed straight away as I could reopen with a double without any risks and convert 3♣ into 3♦ or 3♥ without showing a strong hand. Here I try my luck anyway and play in 2 Spades doubled. If Partner doesn\u2019t pass, he will probably bid 2NT (mini cue bid, from 10 HCP) and I will then bid 3♦ to show a not-so-strong protective bid with a clear preference for Diamonds. I know that I will miss the 5-3 fit in Hearts, but I can\u2019t cover all cases anyway\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This deal is more about how you feel it (you should do what seems to fit), but you should take this opportunity to define the meaning you assign to North\u2019s 2NT bid in response to the balancing double. Also ask yourself: if North responds 3♣, is South\u2019s 3♦ bid strong or does it only show a double based on diamonds and hearts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Double: 100 points (16 votes)
3♥️: 30 points (5 votes)
Pass: 20 points (4 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 2: Empty Suits<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Given Partner\u2019s lack of enthusiasm for your two-suiter, should you bid again with these very nice 17 points despite fragile clubs which are the only potential trumps (Partner having denied three cards in Spades)? In fact, it is Kokish <\/strong>who sums up the problem: \u201cPass. If \u00a03♣ guarantees at least 5-5, North could have made a more encouraging bid with a fit in Clubs. If North is 2-4-5-2 with 12-13 points, you can be in danger at a higher level. If 3♣ doesn\u2019t promise five cards, there are more reasons to continue bidding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several experts mentioned this crucial point. Has one ever bid a 5-5 two-suiter? Among them are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy<\/strong>: \u201c4♣. South only made game bids with a two-suiter, five spades and four clubs. His game deserves a slam to be investigated, without putting yourself at risk. North can still apply the brakes with 4♠ or 5♣ (or 4NT) if he has a spade singleton with all his points in the red suits, but he can also respond positively with a hand as ordinary as ♠A4 ♥KJ5 ♦Q1094 ♣K1082.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is also what Quantin<\/strong> implicitly suggests: \u201c4♣. The hand is too strong to stop there. So, I continue to describe my hand, while securing the possibility of stopping with 4 Spades or 4NT if North wants so.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As opposed to Lhuissier<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Slam is likely to be more than uncertain and I already showed a 5-5 hand\u201d and Kerlero<\/strong>: \u201cPass. I already described my nice 5-5 by jumping to 3♣ (if not, I need to switch to another system), so I have nothing to add facing North\u2019s 2-4-5-2 distribution and 12 points.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most experts don\u2019t insist on that point, but in rare circumstances, they agree to cut their losses, some saying it in a peremptory way, like Chemla<\/strong>: \u201c4♣. Maybe optimistic. Reason says pass but, after all, with a good stop in Hearts, Partner can declare 3NT, even if he holds four cards in Clubs. In that case, slam seems to be quite far, but you never know\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leenhardt<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Partner\u2019s points are rather in Diamonds and Hearts. Problems with entries, slam is unlikely.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Volcker<\/strong>: \u201cPass. All these bids don\u2019t really reinforce my opinion about the quality of my partner\u2019s black suits.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Partner seems to have good stops in the red suits, which doesn\u2019t bode well for a slam in Clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez<\/strong>: \u201cPass. I described my distribution: certainly, there are many points, but clubs are too empty to make an effort.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier<\/strong>: \u201cPass. North has a minimum hand with all his points in the red suits, like ♠63 ♥KQJ5 ♦KQ106 ♣Q82. It is hard to imagine playing any other contract than 3NT.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier<\/strong>: \u201cPass. With no qualms.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know if I have already shown 5-5 (it depends on the relay used over 1NT), but only Opener\u2019s hands with four good cards in Clubs can give me some hope. In that case, he should have chosen a less discouraging bid. And don\u2019t tell me that you are not in danger with 4NT in case of a misfit. If Opener is 2-4-5-2 with 12 points, you haven\u2019t found ten tricks yet\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis<\/strong>: \u201cPass. There is no way you can play a good slam when Partner couldn\u2019t make an intermediary bid over 3♣. Partner would need to have the Ace-doubleton in Spades and the King-tripleton in Clubs to have a good slam, which is fairly unlikely when he bids 3NT. However, if I bid on, I am afraid that he might be a bit too excited with the Ace-doubleton in Spades and the Queen-tripleton in Clubs, for instance. No, really, it looks bad here\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partner held ♠64 ♥KQJ ♦K9872 ♣K32. You had to stop as soon as possible. Remember: make sure you know whether these jump bids after 1NT indicate 5-5 or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Pass: 100 points (16 votes)
4♣: 30 points (6 votes)
4NT: 10 points (2 votes)
4♦️: 5 points (1 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal 3: One More Convention<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

He could unfortunately have points in Spades. Having said that, should you settle for a simple 5♥ bid or take this opportunity to make a slam try \u201cby passing\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00e9n\u00e9dicte<\/strong> <\/strong>Cronier<\/strong> <\/strong>has a very different idea: \u201c6♥. In order to avoid any problems on the next bidding round. They will bid  6♠.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It makes sense. The favourable vulnerability might well push West, all at sea, to bid 6♠.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among original proposals, there is also the one made by Chidiac<\/strong>: \u201c5♦. Asking bid, on the way to play in 5 or 6 Hearts (slam will be bid only if North controls the first round of Diamonds). If you don\u2019t play asking bids, you will bid 5♣ (slam try), hoping for 5♦ while informing Partner of the potential of his offensive-defensive play!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Very few pessimists in the jury settled for a simple 5♥ bid. Among them is Thuillez<\/strong>: \u201c5♥. I don\u2019t really believe in slam: one could bid 4NT but to me, it is Blackwood in this sequence\u201d and Kokish <\/strong>who also clarifies the American system in this type of sequences: \u201c5♥. It depends a lot on the system played. If 4♥ is a pre-empt, South must decide between a competitive bid and a slam try (♠7632 ♥A8632 ♦Q73 ♣5), knowing that North may have points in Spades. If South can double to show that he is willing to bid on, as it is seen in North America, that is what I would choose. But if this is a penalty double and pass is non-forcing, it seems wiser to bid higher.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority got seduced by the \u201cfree\u201d side of the 5♣ bid, which allows to suggest a slam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguet<\/strong>: \u201c5♣. I don\u2019t give up the slam if my partner has the miracle cards\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pichot<\/strong>: \u201c5♣. By any chance\u2026 Anyway, it is impossible for me to pass.\u201dPacault<\/strong>: \u201c5♣. A slam is possible if you find the Queen of Diamonds, the Ace-fifth in Hearts and a few spades opposite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, one cannot exclude the possibility of East-West bidding 5♠, or even 6♠, and it is important to know where the defensive tricks are for North to be able to make the right decision over 5♠.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill<\/strong> <\/strong>Meyers<\/strong>: \u201c5♣. A bit exaggerated but I have too many controls to settle for 5♥.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla<\/strong>: \u201c5♣. I would have bid on even if East had passed. His bid is not discouraging in any way to me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some, like Saporta, are more convinced and are selling the virtues of this bid: \u201c5♣. If I bid 5♥, I would have to respond to 5♠. I prefer showing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n