{"id":56102,"date":"2022-11-24T15:48:07","date_gmt":"2022-11-24T13:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=56102"},"modified":"2022-11-24T15:48:08","modified_gmt":"2022-11-24T13:48:08","slug":"bids-contest-5-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/","title":{"rendered":"November 2022 bidding contest: the results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bidding<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

During the auction, you often ask your partner questions or his view. But sometimes you must exercise your personal judgment and take your responsibilities. That is the case for the six problems of this month. Let us see how our experts have dealt with them.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary<\/strong><\/p>

The Experts’ answers<\/a>
Deal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid<\/a>
Deal #2: Back to The Wall<\/a>
Deal #3: The Lesser Evil<\/a>
Deal #4: You Must Lie<\/a>
Deal #5: Game When in Doubt<\/a>
Deal #6: The Best Way to Investigate<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your view<\/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: Making Up for A Wrong Bid<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

It is hard to decide when you made the wrong bid on the previous round. That is the essence of the comments you are about to read. As expected, the experts\u2019 votes were divided between two nearly equal groups: 5♠ overbid and double. In the absence of judgment elements, it is a bit like a guessing game. That is why you will be told that you should have done otherwise earlier to avoid ending up in this tricky situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 5♠ people think that their pass would not be forcing and there is more to be gained by bidding higher than doubling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski: \u201c<\/strong>5♠. I don\u2019t agree with the previous bid of 4♠. I would have preferred 4♣. The King-doubleton in Clubs and the King-fourth in Spades make twelve tricks. I can\u2019t pass as I am not sure that I am in a forcing pass situation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res:<\/strong> \u201c<\/strong>5♠. I would have bid 4♣ rather than 4♠, which would have allowed me to double 5♥ serenely without, however, promising any holding in the red suits. Now I have no idea of what I should do. When in doubt, both 5-level contracts being makeable, I bid on to 5♠, but I wouldn\u2019t be astonished either if both contracts go two down.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault: \u201c<\/strong>5♠. 4♠ seems insufficient to me. I would have chosen 4♣  to clarify the situation with North. Indeed, 6♠, and a fortiori 5♠, could make as well as 5♥. Anyway, there is much more to be gained by declaring 5♠ than doubling 5♥.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier: \u201c<\/strong>5♠. North made the free 2♠ bid. I bid 5♠. First, to make it (hoping for a club support opposite). Second, because I fear that the opponents will quickly claim 11 tricks\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta: \u201c<\/strong>5♠. I would have bid 4♣ on the previous round to enable North to assess his hand in the best conditions (he would know the value of ♠K102 ♥854 ♦8542 ♣KQ6 or a hand that is a bit worse).   Now I feel obliged to judge by myself and that may be a mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas Bessis: \u201c<\/strong>5♠. Very tricky\u2026 but I have to! If I find the right cards opposite, both 5-level contracts may make. There really is a lot to be gained by bidding higher. Certainly, West didn\u2019t overbid alone over 4♠ after his partner bid diamonds, which suggests that he has some defensive values, but I think that I still have good chances of making 5♠. In fact, it would have probably been better, as always, to anticipate this problem on the previous round: even if it means bidding 4♠, best to clearly put our side in attack by telling my partner that I have distribution, so that he can then assess his cards. In the same spirit, 4♣ would already be better than 4♠ but wouldn\u2019t trigger a forcing process at the 5-level. By contrast, a 4♦ cue bid seems totally appropriate: some points, a diamond shortage and by inference a few clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish: \u201c<\/strong>Double. This is not a penalty double. It means that I intended to make 4♠ with some points and not distribution only. It encourages North to bid 5♠. Maybe it will give North too much responsibility, but he will have to evaluate his black honours to decide whether to bid higher or pass. In fact, South should have bid 4♣ over 3♦ to clarify the situation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: \u201c<\/strong>Double. The 4♠ bid was probably a bit clumsy (I would have bid 4♣). I have no idea of what I should do. My intuition is that 5♠ doesn\u2019t make. My partner may have some holding in diamonds. West\u2019s pass over 4♠ seems to indicate that he wasn\u2019t interested in the suit bid by East. Hence my final double, to protect my score in 4♠.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut: \u201c<\/strong>Double. I wouldn\u2019t have bid 4♠ on the previous round because now I have to decide by myself whether to bid higher or not. I would rather have bid my clubs and then doubled to show defensive tricks. Here, when in doubt, I double.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett: \u201c<\/strong>Double. Not sure that I will make 5♠. I hope to beat 5♥!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marion<\/strong> <\/strong>Canonne:<\/strong> \u201c<\/strong>Double. Vulnerability encourages to bid higher, but it seems to me that it is more reasonable to double, hoping that my partner has some holding in the red suits and not too many clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>Double. Will they make 5♥? Honestly, I don\u2019t think so. My Ace of Spades may be ruffed but West\u2019s pass over 4♠ indicates that he hasn\u2019t got a very big fit in Diamonds. So, without pre-empting how many tricks we will take in Clubs, North is very likely to have a holding in Diamonds guaranteeing the defeat of the contract. We will score between 100 and 500. Do I make 5♠? For the same reasons, it is quite unlikely. I am not sure that I will avoid losing a spade and my clubs are far from being winners.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here North held ♠KQ4 ♥1052 ♦J72 ♣9762. Both 5-level contracts were going down. According to the law of total tricks that, much to my surprise, no-one mentioned. Has it become obsolete?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remember from this problem: anticipate the next part of the sequence and provide elements, as far as possible, to help your partner make the right decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

5♠: 100 points (11 votes)
Double: 80 points (9 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #2: Back to The Wall<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here again, the jury was very divided. Nine experts have chosen to bid at a high level straight away, speculating that the opponents probably had a major game to play in. The other eleven have preferred to wait patiently and see how the auction would move forward to determine if defence was essential or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us start with the offensive experts who have opted for many various bids. Here is the most reckless. Adad:<\/strong> \u201c5♣. Honestly, I don\u2019t think that I will bid again later and I don\u2019t want the auction to be at the 4-level in a major suit when it is my turn to speak as it will probably happen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a lower level (the one I chose on this deal from Mixed Pairs National Division) are Rombaut: <\/strong>\u201c4♣. I think I recognise this deal. It comes from the Mixed National Division. I think I had opened 3♣ or 4♣ and then passed.  So, here I will do the same. 4♣,, then pass later\u201d and Saporta:<\/strong> \u201c4♣. A 1♣ or 3♣ opening bid should not prevent the opponents from finding their best fit. And as 5♣ is clearly too much green vs green, I am opting for an intermediate option that can be damaging on occasions. Of course, I don\u2019t intend to bid again.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, all these bids are a bit like double or quits. They have the virtue of disturbing the opposing side, but you may face a backlash if Partner has a major two-suiter\u2026 Maybe will 3♣, followed by a possible overbid, be more tempting? That is the choice made by five experts including Kokish:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c3♣. It seems to be the right tactical choice to me, but then I will have to decide whether to bid 3NT or 4NT if East-West reach a major contract at the 3- or 4-level. If I open 1♣, I will not be able to bid higher without lying about my strength\u201d and Rocafort:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c3♣. In the third seat, we have the sky pretty much to ourselves. A good option to avoid giving them too much space and having them too excited either. If they happily move forward to the game and Partner has no punitive desires, I will succumb to a surprise 4NT bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After some thought, I like this bid that is likely to embarrass the opponent without putting all your eggs in one basket.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other side are all the tacticians who prefer to wait and see what happens. They take the risk of seeing the opposing side describe their hands but will have better chances of making the right decision in the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res: <\/strong>\u201c1♣. With a partner who immediately passed, a pre-empt in Clubs at the 3- or 4-level could be a good tactical choice. However, I prefer not to ignore the diamonds that I will bid more easily after an opening bid at the 1-level. You should clearly bid again if the auction is below the 3-level when it is your turn to speak. If 4♥ or 4♠ are reached, you will need some inspiration, but I like the 4NT overbid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault: <\/strong>\u201c1♣. The opening bid seems to be obvious, with no rebid problem (the repeat of the Clubs) if the opponents don\u2019t overcall. Putting yourself in anticipated defence via a wild 4NT bid is not reasonable with a nice 6-card suit and a bad 5-card one: with 8 cards, it will be better to play in Clubs rather than Diamonds. Also, nothing prevents Partner from having enough holding in the majors to defeat a hypothetical game in the opposing side and you may risk a high penalty for nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: <\/strong>\u201c1♣. At the table, I have hesitated between 1♣ and 5♣ for a long time. In the end, I have decided to open at the 1-level. It seemed to me that vulnerability was not favourable enough for such an action (it seemed clear to me that the bidding would end in 5 Clubs doubled).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c1♣. With the intention of making a NT bid later to show the minor two-suiter. It will depend on the sequence, of course.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marion<\/strong> <\/strong>Canonne:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c1♣. Diamonds are too few for an advanced 4NT opening bid in the third seat and at equal vulnerability. If the bidding reaches the 4-level, I will opt for 4NT anyway, which will show a minor two-suiter with a longer club suit. If the sequence develops more slowly, I will have to think it over\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier:<\/strong> \u201c1♣. I would like to open with a pre-empt but in addition to the fact that I hate 4NT, there is no very satisfactory level: I have way too many points and playing tricks for 3♣, and no control over the situation above that level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Of course, it is not very aggressive, but 1♣ isn\u2019t either. I think that I will be able to better describe my hand with an overcall. I am not considering opening 4NT:  why think that East-West have a cold game? North may be 5-5 in the majors!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chidiac: <\/strong>\u201cPass. The 1♣ opening bid would very likely pave the way for a 2♦ major two-suiter overcall by West, facilitating competitive bids made by the opposing side. With this minor two-suiter, I prefer to pass, collect information and overcall later with a NT pre-empt. If there was a second big honour in Diamonds, I would have opened 4NT in my system to describe a 6-5 or 6-6 minor two-suiter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Choose your side depending on your temperament but don\u2019t copy me. I opened 4♣, my LHO bid 4♠. When it was my turn to speak again, I unilaterally bid higher with 4NT and ended up losing 500 in 5♣ doubled. The 4♠ contract was making but my partner had ♠653 ♥QJ1084 ♦1062 ♣95. A well-deserved bottom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

1♣: 100 points (8 votes)
3♣: 60 points (5 votes)
Pass: 30 points (3 votes)
4♣: 20 points (2 votes)
4NT: 10 points (1 vote)
5♣: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #3: The Lesser Evil<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The jury is once again very divided. Indeed, there is no really satisfactory bid, as Zmudzinski <\/strong>sums up: <\/strong>\u201c3♦. Nothing satisfactory. 2♠ – big underbid. 2NT – no way without a club stop. 3♣ – overbid. Pass – very very pessimistic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from Pass, all other bids have nevertheless been selected. The bid that got most of the votes is logically 2NT. Let us listen to its advocates\u2019 arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort: <\/strong>\u201c2NT. The perfect hand and the opportunity to protect the tenace over the 3 of Clubs. I am a bit disappointed: I have become accustomed to more Machiavellianism on the topic of bad two-suiters from those who devise bridge problems.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut: <\/strong>\u201c2NT. Slightly game-invitational bid. I have a club stop from length and above all, I don\u2019t see any other bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett: <\/strong>\u201c2NT. No bid is perfect, but I prefer 2NT over 3♦.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pichot: <\/strong>\u201c2NT. To me, the least unacceptable bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then comes the 3♣ fourth-suit forcing, only for the very optimistic ones, I think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tessi\u00e8res: <\/strong>\u201c3♣. The alternative is 2NT but 3♣ allows to play in NT from the right hand and in 4♠ rather than 2NT opposite a minimum 3-5-4-1 hand. These two advantages compensate for the small drawback of playing in game, which can be pushy sometimes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: <\/strong>\u201c3♣. The hand is close to a game-forcing and game-invitational bid. But that one would be 2NT, which means that I would be the declarer in that denomination.  As I am not particularly interested, I opt for a fourth suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: <\/strong>\u201c3♣. Tough\u2026 2NT with the risk of playing from the wrong hand? An optimistic 3♣ bid with 11 points and a misfit? 3♦ with three trumps only? Nothing is working\u2026 As we are vulnerable and this is a teams game, let us go for 3♣. After all, I would have opened and we would have played in game if I had been the dealer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2♠ bid only received two votes. But among those who voted for it is Thomas Bessis<\/strong>, which guarantees detailed explanations: \u201c2♠. What a nightmare! One thing is for sure, I can\u2019t pass with 11 useful points. Also, I can\u2019t force to game either with this same 11-point hand, no fit and no intermediate card. As I can\u2019t resign myself to bidding NT with this weak, to say the least, club stop, there are two bids left: 2♠ and 3♦. Let us go for the flexible 2♠ bid, which has the advantage of making bidding game in Spades (5-3 or 5-2) easier. I should not go down even opposite a hand with a misfit if I manage to make a few ruffs in Hearts from my hand.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I finish with my favourite bid, 3♦, which has been chosen by the foreigners, supported by Pacault<\/strong> <\/strong>and Toffier<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish: <\/strong>\u201c3♦. The world is not perfect and 3♦ seems to me healthier than 2NT since this bid allows to reach 3NT from Partner\u2019s hand. With Diamonds as trumps, card play should be fine, even on the trump lead.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This unusual bid has two merits to me. From one hand, it leaves many doors open (including playing in 3NT from the right hand). On the other hand, if Partner passes, you will play a part-score with at least seven trumps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is precisely what happened with the real deal, Partner holding ♠2 ♥AK762 ♦A1074 ♣J103. Impossible to make the 2NT contract (Queen-fourth in Diamonds). But the 3♦ contract was makeable thanks to a double ruff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores deal #3<\/strong><\/p>

2NT: 100 points (7 votes)
3♣️: 80 points (6 votes)
3♦️: 70 points (5 votes)
2♠: 20 points (2 votes)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #4: You Must LieIl faut mentir<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The 2♦ bid could certainly be made with fewer points (non-vulnerable overcalls are weaker and weaker nowadays), but it has received a large majority of the votes. Why? Because here again, any other bid would be worse according to our experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers: <\/strong>\u201c2♦. If my Jack was not in Clubs but in Diamonds, I would bid 3♦. But since my diamonds are not very nice, I remain at a low level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. I would like to bid natural 2♣, but I think it is a cue bid in France. 1NT is too extreme and entries are likely to be an issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c2♦. If my partner has what is needed to bid again, I will still have enough time to consider 3NT.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier: <\/strong>\u201c2♦. My hand is a bit strong for this bid, but it seems exaggerated to me to make a game-invitational bid with a misfit and very bad intermediate cards in Diamonds. If North shows a slight interest, I will still have enough time to reconsider things seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c2♦. The 2♣ bid can\u2019t be natural, so the choice is between 1NT and 2♦. The latter is my favourite, with this distributional hand and above all the sixth card in Diamonds, which is not always there for a 1♦ overcall.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta: <\/strong>\u201c2♦. I am well aware that I am hyper maximum, but other bids don\u2019t fit: 1NT is clumsy with this 6-4 and these two low Spades. 2♣ (cue bid) would rather suggest a semi-fit in Hearts and 3♦ a better suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the absence of certainty about a diamond fit in Partner\u2019s hand for the moment, a cautious approach is recommended. Yet, this is not the opinion shared by seven experts. Some have opted for the 1NT bid that, I must admit, I don\u2019t understand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c1NT. 1NT is a positive bid which doesn\u2019t guarantee a spade stop but suggests one in Clubs. South has too many potential tricks to be content with 2♦. I would have chosen 2♦ without the Ace of Hearts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adad:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c1NT. To tell that I have opening strength. 2♦ would be discouraging and to me, 2♣ would promise three cards in Hearts or a hand in the second range.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assuming that 1NT shows points (I am not very convinced), Partner will have trouble guessing a 2-1-6-4 shape. Also, it would probably be better to play in NT from Partner\u2019s hand which won\u2019t be played through Spades. Finally, 2♦ should be more deterrent than 1NT to prevent North from rebidding his hearts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly, here are two isolated bids that are well supported by their advocates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: <\/strong>\u201c3♦. My suit is not great, but I am too strong for 2♦ which would show a weak overcall, and bidding NT with a 2-1-6-4 hand doesn\u2019t fit. Nor does a cue bid with the short heart suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis: <\/strong>\u201c2♣. Cue bid first. The bid doesn\u2019t necessarily show a heart fit even if, I admit it, it strongly suggests it. 13 nice HCP are really too much to be content with 2♦ as if I had my usual 8 points, whereas 3♦ (this suit is too bad) doesn\u2019t fit either. Finally, 2♣ has merits, especially you know immediately if you are in the game range or not. Partner will respond 2♦ or 2♥ with a weak hand (about 7-10 HCP) and will show strength with a positive hand.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores deal #4<\/strong><\/p>

2♦️: 100 points (13 votes)
1NT : 30 points (4 votes)
2♣️: 10 points (2 votes)
3♦️: 5 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #5: Game When in Doubt<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
(*) 5 cards in Hearts.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here the problem is about defining the meaning assigned to the 3♣ bid. Does it promise a weak 5-5 hand with a misfit in Hearts looking for a better contract?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, according to Pacault: <\/strong>\u201cPass. In normal bridge (without this more or less damaging convention), I would have chosen 2NT over 2♣ and would not have had this problem. Here I don\u2019t see why I should bid 3NT, except, of course, if North \u2013 conventionally \u2013 opens 1♣ for the ordinary 5-5 Clubs-Spades\u201d, Toffier: <\/strong>\u201cPass. North has a weak hand with ten black cards. We may already be a bit too high!\u201d and Saporta: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. What a delight! We have reached a nice part-score. I won\u2019t try to be clever now (as we have both given information about our hands and suits, opportunistic opponents, knowing that they are breaking badly, could double 3NT for a 4-digit score).\u201d It is a no for all others. Most of them have chosen the pragmatic 3NT bid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T<\/strong>e<\/strong>ss<\/strong>i<\/strong>\u00e8<\/strong>r<\/strong>e<\/strong>s<\/strong>:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c3NT. To me, 3♣ promises a hand with 15-16 HCP, which justifies forcing to game in South. It will be easier to make game in NT rather than Clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c3NT. Tricky but I can\u2019t resist the temptation to declare this game which can only be tense, all the more since 3♣ should have a slightly positive connotation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez: <\/strong>\u201c3NT. To me, 3♣ shows a good hand although Partner didn\u2019t open 1♣.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis: <\/strong>\u201c3NT. In this sequence, where 2♦ \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise is a sort of optional Jacoby transfer for Hearts (a convention that should be stopped immediately!), the opener is supposed to, with a weak opening, correct with 2♥ or bid 2♠. Certainly, bidding 2♠ with a 5-1-2-5 hand, you can play in 5-1 rather than 5-3. But conversely, bidding 3♣ with 5-5 and 11 points won\u2019t be very good (to put it mildly!) if Responder is 2-5-5-1 for instance\u2026 Having clarified that 3♣ shows reservations (but then 6-5 or 5-5 with bad Clubs for having preferred to open 1♠), it is logical to rebid with this hand. 3NT seems, of course, adapted to these nice red stops (let us thank both 10s!), but I still have two nice cards for playing in NT: the King of Spades and the Ace of Hearts. Does it justify an intermediate 3♦ bid before ending in 3NT, to suggest doubts? Let us not forget that Partner, if he is 6-5, first, preferred to rebid the clubs rather than jump to 3♠. And second, he still has the possibility to bid 4♠. So,  let us go for 3NT.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Echoing the last comments made by Thomas, Marion Canonne <\/strong>prefers not to end the auction immediately: \u201c3♦. Partner is known for having the shortage in Hearts and a nice 5-5 hand (otherwise, he would have rebid 2♠ to cover the case where I have two cards in the suit he opened). So, all my cards are superb (Ace in the shortage, the King of Spades with ruffing possibilities in the short hand to establish the length, and the Queen of Diamonds among the remaining cards in the suit). So, I am considering playing game in Clubs and even in NT\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Rocafort <\/strong>is not even considering the NT game:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c4♣. I guess that this is the convention indicating 5 Hearts with a spare wheel (black suit), whereas 2♥ would be obsessive, right? In these conditions, 2♥ and 2♠ would be North\u2019s normal bids and any other bid would show great ambition. Bidding again is then the least you can do, especially with this holding in Hearts opposite the shortage, but with really puny trumps.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, on this deal from a DN1 (National Division 1) teams game, North had ♠AJ752 ♥3 ♦A6 ♣AQJ64. Many differences of interpretation on this 3♣ bid led to a certain number of missed opportunities, whereas the game was a lay-down in NT or Clubs. If you play this optional 2♦ Jacoby transfer for Hearts, make sure you discuss continuations, as always!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores deal #5<\/strong><\/p>

3NT : 100 points (9 votes)
Pass: 60 points (6 votes)
4♣️: 20 points (2 votes)
3♦️: 10 points (1 vote)
3♠️: 10 points (1 vote)
5♣️: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #6: The Best Way to Investigate<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

After this pleasant bid by North, there is general agreement about the fact that a small slam is practically certain. But what about a grand slam? Can North have the long King of Hearts and the Ace of Clubs? To sum it up, would he have made a Sputnik double over 3♦ with ♠- ♥K10943 ♦8765 ♣A532? A priori, no. So, a grand slam remains possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Never mind, say four experts who may be ending the auction a bit too fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut: <\/strong>\u201c6♥. The contract I want to play in. Partner should have five cards in Hearts for his bid. We could even hope for 7♥, but after a pre-empt, distributions are not likely to be very nice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier<\/strong>:<\/strong> \u201c<\/strong>6♥. North, who holds at least six cards in Hearts for declaring 4♥ (South\u2019s double can be made with two small cards in Hearts and a strong hand), is unlikely to have the Ace of Clubs too. There is no room for an exclusion Blackwood and the two key cards response with Hearts as trumps could be made with the Ace of Diamonds and the King of Hearts\u2026 The 6♥ bid is probably not very intellectual but seems pragmatic enough to me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis: \u201c<\/strong>6♥. What did Partner show? At least five cards in Hearts, that is for sure, because with only four cards and a good hand, he would have probably bid 4♦ to let me choose the trump suit. All right. What else? Maybe one good card among the King of Hearts, the Ace of Clubs or (unfortunately) the Ace of Diamonds. Right. So, all this should be enough to make slam. Maybe it will be a lay-down (♠73 ♥K85432 ♦63 ♣752)? Maybe the Jack or 10 of Hearts will be missing to make it (♠Q7 ♥98543 ♦A763 ♣J5)?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas has been known more optimistic, but he would have probably doubled 3♦ with the hand that I have previously mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An overwhelming majority has opted for the 5♦ bid, looking for good cards to declare 6♥ or 7♥.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish: <\/strong>\u201c5♦. North may have the King of Hearts and the Ace of Clubs, so I can\u2019t stop in 6♥ directly.\u201dDuguet: <\/strong>\u201c5♦. I will play in small slam and maybe grand slam, although it seems complicated (5♦\u20136♣\u20136♦\u20137♥ with the Ace of Clubs and the King of Hearts\u2026).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

P<\/strong>acault:<\/strong> <\/strong>\u201c5♦. I am hesitating between 6♥ and 5♦ as the double is not promising four cards in Hearts. Grand slam is comfortable if you find the King-sixth in Hearts and the Ace of Clubs opposite, knowing that the King-fifth in Hearts and the Ace of Clubs would suffice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers: <\/strong>\u201c5♦. If Partner bids 6♣, I will bid grand slam. Otherwise, I will stop in small slam.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez: <\/strong>\u201c5♦. Grand slam can still be considered with the King-fifth in Hearts and the Ace of Clubs in Partner\u2019s hand.\u201dSaporta: <\/strong>\u201c5♦. My partner showed five or six cards in Hearts and a good hand with less than 10 points. He will bid 6♣ with the Ace of Clubs and I will stop in 7♥. If he is content with 5♥,  I will stop in 6♥.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong> insists on a sensitive point: \u201c5♦. No luck, it is not an exclusion Blackwood.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, unless it is agreed, as there is no jump, it is not considered as an exclusion Blackwood, although it seems logical to me to play it as such. Either you have a diamond void and you use 5♦ Blackwood or you don\u2019t and you use 4NT Blackwood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in cases where 5♦ is not clearly an exclusion Blackwood, why not choose the solution recommended by Cronier<\/strong>? \u201c6♦. I need the Ace of Clubs and the King of Hearts for a grand slam, two cards that are quite likely to be with North. So, the question is about how to find them. As there is no way that I will stop short of small slam, it seems to me that it is now time for the exclusion Blackwood. North must not bid beyond 6♥ without two key cards, but it is quite natural, especially if you play 41-30.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, North had ♠3 ♥K10952 ♦A86 ♣J1092. Better make him understand that his Ace of Diamonds was useless<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Scores deal #6<\/strong><\/p>

5♦️: 100 points (15 votes)
6♥️: 20 points (4 votes)
6♦️: 5 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

Liv300001 (France) and Chris102385 (U.S.A.)<\/strong> have won this bidding contest, congratulations!<\/strong> Here are the 6 Funbridge players who scored the most points. Each of these players wins 1,000 Diamonds<\/strong>, enabling them to play in federation tournaments, special tournaments and Funbridge Points Tournaments! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

#1<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liv300001<\/a> (France) – 600 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#1<\/strong><\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris102385<\/a> (U.S.A.) – 600 pts<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#3<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oceane5<\/a> (France) – 580 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#3<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shigag – 580 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#3<\/strong><\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

X8788<\/a> (France) – 580 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#3<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

djs23<\/a> (United Kingdom) – 580 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
Open 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 bidding contest devised by Lionel Sebbane?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We would be grateful if you could take a few moments to share your opinion in the Comments <\/em>section below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

During the auction, you often ask your partner questions or his view. But sometimes you must exercise your personal judgment and take your responsibilities. That is the case for the six problems of this month. Let us see how our experts have dealt with them. Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid Deal #2: Back to The WallDeal #3: The Lesser EvilDeal #4: You Must LieDeal #5: Game When in DoubtDeal #6: The Best Way to InvestigateWinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts’ Answers Deal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid It is hard to\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":38,"featured_media":45669,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14933,14887,10635],"tags":[11647,13384],"access":[13334],"class_list":["post-56102","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-en","tag-bidding-contest","access-premium-plus-en"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":5}},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nNovember 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\/bids-contest-5-results\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"November 2022 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"During the auction, you often ask your partner questions or his view. But sometimes you must exercise your personal judgment and take your responsibilities. That is the case for the six problems of this month. Let us see how our experts have dealt with them. Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid Deal #2: Back to The WallDeal #3: The Lesser EvilDeal #4: You Must LieDeal #5: Game When in DoubtDeal #6: The Best Way to InvestigateWinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts’ Answers Deal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid It is hard to\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-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=\"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lionel Sebbane\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2\"},\"headline\":\"November 2022 bidding contest: the results!\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/\"},\"wordCount\":4786,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"bidding\",\"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\/bids-contest-5-results\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/\",\"name\":\"November 2022 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.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":"November 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\/bids-contest-5-results\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"November 2022 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge","og_description":"During the auction, you often ask your partner questions or his view. But sometimes you must exercise your personal judgment and take your responsibilities. That is the case for the six problems of this month. Let us see how our experts have dealt with them. Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid Deal #2: Back to The WallDeal #3: The Lesser EvilDeal #4: You Must LieDeal #5: Game When in DoubtDeal #6: The Best Way to InvestigateWinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts’ Answers Deal #1: Making Up for A Wrong Bid It is hard to\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-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":"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/"},"author":{"name":"Lionel Sebbane","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2"},"headline":"November 2022 bidding contest: the results!","datePublished":"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00","dateModified":"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/"},"wordCount":4786,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg","keywords":["bidding","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\/bids-contest-5-results\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/","name":"November 2022 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg","datePublished":"2022-11-24T13:48:07+00:00","dateModified":"2022-11-24T13:48:08+00:00","inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-5-results\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-blue.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":56102,"fr":55945},"language":"en","pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56102","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=56102"}],"version-history":[{"count":46,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56195,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56102\/revisions\/56195"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/45669"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56102"},{"taxonomy":"access","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/access?post=56102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}