{"id":58119,"date":"2022-12-22T07:37:58","date_gmt":"2022-12-22T05:37:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=58119"},"modified":"2022-12-22T07:38:00","modified_gmt":"2022-12-22T05:38:00","slug":"bids-contest-6-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-6-results\/","title":{"rendered":"December 2022 bidding contest: the results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bidding<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Three problems about exploring slam, two high-level decisions and a car crash to avoid. Happy reading!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Experts’ answers<\/a>
Deal #1: Expected defence?<\/a>
Deal #2: Two-way shot?<\/a>
Deal #3: Some nice black cards<\/a>
Deal #4: Slam? Which slam?<\/a>
Deal #5: Risk of a misunderstanding<\/a>
Deal #6: Spades or Hearts; slam or game?<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your view<\/a><\/p>\n<\/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: Expected defence?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

Thomas Bessis <\/strong>recognised this deal and here is what he thought about it: \u201c5♦. I recognise this hand from the first National Pairs League weekend, where my renowned opponent supported to 4♦. The problem is not, of course, the same at IMPs. My chances of taking 4 Hearts down are slim, whereas I will be one or two down in 5 Diamonds. I therefore pre-empt the opponents in 5♦ and hope that that will make them do something silly, such as bid up to 5♥ or forget to double me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To say the least, his point of view is hardly shared, other than by Chidiac<\/strong>: \u201c5♦. Saying 4♦ is like flogging a dead horse: pointless! 5♦ might lead to 5♥, which I would double!\u201d and by the members of the Deauville Bridge Club<\/strong>, whom we have the pleasure of honouring in this month\u2019s contest: \u201c5♦. The opponents will bid 4♥, a contract which is a favourite to make. May as well bid 5♦ straightaway and provoke the opponents into potentially going down in 5♥.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that I chose this bid at the table, I am raising the bid\u2019s mark to thank the rare people who have supported me. After that bid, the opponents might make a mistake (which happened against me \u2013 they bid up to 5♥ for two down) or not (others had less luck and got doubled in 5♦, losing 300 when 4 Hearts was already going down).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have also given a bonus to an original bid that I really liked, that of Herv<\/strong>\u00e9<\/strong> Pacault<\/strong>: \u201c3♠. 5 Diamonds is certainly going down, whereas 4 Hearts might go down. The possible gain from a 5♦ bid (pushing the opponents up to 5 Hearts, which would be going down with 4 Hearts making) is not sufficient compensation for the loss of a 5-diamond contract going down when 4 Hearts is not making. To get the best chance of making the right decision over 4♥, I bid 3♠, certain of hearing 4♠ over 4♥ if North holds three spades. I will then bid 5♦.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, if Partner holds three cards in Spades, the chance of taking 4 Hearts down diminishes greatly. A nice bid, then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other bids chosen, pass and 4♦, are, on the contrary, passive bids, based on the speculation that 4 Hearts is going down. Is that winning bridge in the long-term? That is not certain. In any case, it conforms to French style. Here are their arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L<\/strong>\u00e9<\/strong>vy<\/strong>: \u201c4♦. Playing in 5 Diamonds will cost at least 300 against 420 but 4 Hearts might go down.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201cPass. We could easily be taking 4 Hearts down.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish<\/strong>: \u201c4♦. This depends a lot on style. This is one of the worst vulnerabilities for making a sacrifice, the reason being that the 3♦ opening cannot just as well be from QT98xxx as from AQJTxxx\u2026 As we might be taking 4 Hearts down and the opponents are unlikely to go to the 5-level, I would not bid 5♦. So 4♦ seems to be the most pragmatic action to take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin:<\/strong> \u201c4♦. That is enough. 5 Diamonds risks being too expensive and I have some hope of taking down a possible 4-Heart contract (by way of a spade ruff).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers<\/strong>: \u201c4♦. At least two down in 5 Diamonds when it is not certain that they are making 4 Hearts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Little desire of getting involved in this one. In Diamonds, we will lose four or five tricks, which will give little value to a sacrifice against their game and, against 4 Hearts, there is nothing to say that we will not take a diamond, two spades and a spade ruff.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez: <\/strong>\u201c4♦. They have not bid 4♥ yet and I have chances of making this contract.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: <\/strong>\u201c4♦. I hope to beat 4 Hearts on a spade lead, so I am not pre-emptively sacrificing in 5♦ and even more so because my hopes of only going one down are quite remote. Of course, if I only say 4♦, it is not to then say 5 on the next round!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adad<\/strong>: \u201c4♦. I am sacrificing against 3♥ but I will leave them to play 4 Hearts. 4♦ is not an invitation to sacrifice that I am giving to my partner: on the contrary, I know what to do over 4♥.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saporta<\/strong>: \u201c4♦. Simply a competitive action. If the opponents bid 4♥, which is not a sure thing, I will let them play it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

4♦️: 100 points (16 votes)
5♦️: 70 points (4 votes)
3♠: 70 points (1 vote)
Pass: 10 points (2 votes)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #2: Two-way shot?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

It seems that most of the experts were wondering what I wanted from them, such as Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. What else?<\/em>\u201d, Lorenzini<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. That is a bid that seems completely natural to me. Obviously, I might go for 500 against nothing but I will not push the limits of pessimism by bidding 3♠\u201d, Bessis<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. I do not understand the question\u201d or Saporta<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. Something tells me I\u2019ll be scoring 100 points!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it did not seem clear to me to dive into 4♠ at equal vulnerability with defensive honours in the minors and the strongest suit in the deck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet only four experts decided to exercise prudence, including L<\/strong>\u00e9<\/strong>vy<\/strong>: \u201c3♠. Constructive pre-empt at equal vulnerability but I have nothing against 4♠, which might provoke the opponents more into making an error\u201d and Adad<\/strong>: \u201c3♠. I have enough offensive tricks to bid 4♠ but too many defensive tricks to risk an expensive car crash. Whether West passes or bids 4♥, North will not need much to bid 4♠ as a two-way shot.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the contributions below should convince you once again that a bit of aggressiveness in the bidding does not do any harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. Difficult for North to judge his cards if I only say 3♠ (encouraging to game after the 1NT opening). The heart void is a strong argument in favour of the 4♠ bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. The configuration of honours leaves something to be desired but a less aggressive strategy would require a great amount of inspiration to follow. If we end up declaring the contract anyway, we might well expect severe difficulties with communication but we might hope for the lead to help us out if it is not in Hearts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguet<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. Two-way shot and puts the opponents in a tricky spot.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier<\/strong>: \u201c4♠. Dangerous because I might get myself doubled without the opponents having anything on. But I could also make 4 Spades or have a good sacrifice against 4 Hearts. Am I supposed to bid after 3♠-4♥-pass-pass? As for a \u201cclever\u201d 2♦ overcall showing a single-suiter, I don\u2019t think much of that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partner had ♠ A ♥ A8765 ♦ T973 ♣ 643. The lead of a club followed by a diamond switch enabled 4 Spades to be beaten (by way of a ruff).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

4♠: 100 points (19 votes)
3♠: 20 points (4 votes)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #3: Some nice black cards<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A classic multi-layered problem. Step One: should you bid again? The comments that follow are all in the same vein: North has shown 6-4 or 6-5 (using general agreements) in Spades and Clubs with ambitions for slam. There are not too many pessimists:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Volcker<\/strong>: \u201cPass. I have to have good cards to make the contract!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguet<\/strong>: \u201cPass. I have three top cards but is that sufficient for making a slam when I might have clubs to ruff?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis<\/strong>: \u201cPass. Sure, Partner\u2019s sequence shows interest in slam, as he could have jumped to 4♠ straight over 1NT. But the slam he was most seriously picturing, with his 6-5 hand and Ace-empty in Spades, must mostly be 6 Clubs! And perhaps not 6 Spades at all\u2026 Could we be mad at him for treating a hand such as ♠ AT8532 ♥ – ♦ J3 ♣ AQ742, with which I am already in danger at the 4-level, in this way? Remember, too, that with a more serious slam try in Spades, he had two other options available:<\/p>\n\n\n\n