{"id":60346,"date":"2023-01-24T18:43:00","date_gmt":"2023-01-24T16:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=60346"},"modified":"2023-01-27T16:32:02","modified_gmt":"2023-01-27T14:32:02","slug":"bids-contest-7-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/","title":{"rendered":"January 2023 bidding contest: the results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bridge<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

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

The Experts’ answers<\/a>
Deal #1: Let us remain sensible<\/a>
Deal #2: By process of elimination<\/a>
Deal #3: Another sequence to work on<\/a>
Deal #4: The difficulties of a double fit<\/a>
Deal #5: The nightmare<\/a>
Deal #6: Too easy?<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your view<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Summary of the Experts\u2019 Answers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"Experts'<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal #1: Let us remain sensible<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

Almost unanimous; only one disagreement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rombaut<\/strong>: \u201c2NT. Mild invitation to game; pass would be the defeatist alternative and 3♦ too optimistic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I did indeed expect to get a large majority of passes when I posed this problem but I wanted to see whether some experts were playing different systems from the French Standard, which recommends passing with this hand, as explained by Hackett<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPass. My diamonds are not good enough for doubling and then bidding them. Despite my points, if I double, my partner will surely bid Hearts and we could end up in a precarious contract.\u201d,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Really unfortunate but 3♦ is forcing (to game) and I think I\u2019m a bit short for a 2NT bid!\u201d and Adad: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. I neither play 3♦ as non-forcing, nor 2NT as artificial and allowing me, over the relay to 3♣, to mention my diamonds. And my hand does not lend itself to doubling.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish <\/strong>summarises the situation by listing the different possibilities: \u201cPass. If the Jack of Spades were the Queen, I would risk a natural 2NT. Or if 2NT were artificial, showing Diamonds with three-card support in Clubs; or if we could bid a 3♣ transfer to Diamonds without promising much strength\u2026 But, in reality, nothing can justify a bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This use of transfers, which has not yet caught on in France, is mentioned in some other contributions with varying levels of regret:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini<\/strong>: <\/strong>\u201cPass. Having, to my regret, not yet integrated transfers into these types of situations, I am obliged to pass, not having a sensible bid available.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. I have nothing against skydiving, as long as I have a parachute. With no strength, no suit, no plan for continuations, no way of controlling what happens next, why look for trouble? Even if I had a tool such as transfers available, I would not be a huge fan of setting off on an adventure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. You could play transfers, starting with Double, an idea proposed since the 1970s by Pierre Ghestem. But that is not the case for me\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another idea which is a departure from French Standard is a  3♦ bid being non-forcing. Two experts tell us about that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chidiac: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. A Sputnik Double promises Hearts and 3♦ is a game-forcing bid. Therefore, all that remains is just one option: passing! Those who play NFBs (\u201cNegative Free Bids\u201d) can bid a non-forcing 3♦ without a problem\u201d is contradicted by Zmudzinski: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. I even play that free bids can be weak but, even then, 3♦ is not clear (bad suit, 5 points in the opponents\u2019 suit).\u201d To finish, Jill Meyers\u2019 <\/strong>response, which anticipates the rest of the sequence: \u201cPass. I like to play Lebensohl in this situation if Partner reopens with a double. I would then be very happy to be able to bid a positive 3♦ in that potential scenario. But I am far from having enough to make a free 3♦ bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/stop><\/stop><\/linearGradient><\/defs><\/svg><\/path><\/svg><\/div><\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Remember: transfers and non-forcing bids are not yet fashionable in France in this sequence but use it to discuss the follow-up if Partner reopens with a double\u2026<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Pass: 100 points (23 votes)
2NT: 5 points (1 vote)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #2: By process of elimination<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Like in the previous problem, the hand hardly lends itself to a Sputnik Double with only two cards in Spades. That, however, is the option chosen by several experts, including <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duguet: \u201c<\/strong>Double. If my partner mentions Spades, there will still be time to correct to Clubs.\u201d Sure, it would be awkward to stay in 2♠ in a 4-2 fit but what would Double followed by 3♣ show; a stronger hand than a direct 3♣ but with not enough to make a 3♥ cue bid? This is all rather murky and as L\u00e9vy <\/strong>says: \u201c3♣.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not great with four cards in Clubs but doubling with two cards in Spades goes back to you preparing to bid your clubs over the top of the level Partner has bid his spades at. Therefore, we are giving ourselves more of a run-up in order to jump higher.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If it means bidding 3♣ on the next round, you may as well mention them straightaway; this will provoke less interrogation from your partner about why you initially doubled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the reason why the great majority of the experts resolved to bid 3♣, for lack of a better option, as it transpired from lots of comments\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. 3♥ and 3♦ are overbids and a double too dangerous with only two cards in Spades. The fact that North might only have three clubs does not stop him from having more.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. Not enough strength to my name for bidding 3♦. It is out of the question for me to pass with 10 points. 3♣ seems to me to be the right compromise.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. Again, it is out of the question to double, for the same reasons as before. It would be ideal to have a fifth club but for lack of anything better\u2026 It does not seem reasonable to me to pass, either, with 10 HCP and a fit in Partner\u2019s suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rocafort: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. This is a case of getting into position for possible continuations without throwing oneself in blindly. I have a weakness for thinking that Partner has Clubs when he opens 1♣. Moreover, I have at some point simulated these cases, where it emerged that we intuitively underestimate the length of a 1♣ or 1♦ opener\u2019s suit.\u201dJill Meyers: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. No sensible alternative. This would be better with a fifth club but my points compensate for that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Franceschetti: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. Sure: 10 HCP and only four cards in Clubs. I will probably stifle our game on occasion but any other bid seems optimistic to me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. The hand is a bit too strong and a bit too short in Clubs; but (most often) nothing is perfect, alas!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas Bessis: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. I will not pass with 10 HCP; nor will I double with two cards in Spades or make a game-forcing bid either, will I? So, let us go for 3♣,  with a club fewer than expected but a King extra\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

3♣️: 100 points (19 votes)
Double: 20 points (4 votes)
Pass: 5 points (1 votes)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #3: Another sequence to work on<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here, the votes were much more varied and all the bids that were chosen found great advocates to defend them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us start with Rocafort: \u201c<\/strong>2♣. Life is unbearable without Inverted Minors. And here I take a firm stand: you need to play them even after overcalls and doubles and, in all cases, to play them as not forcing to game. Snubbing Inverted Minors only has one advantage: providing those making bidding contests with an inexhaustible supply of unsolvable problems, delighting readers by presenting them with a series of contortions as messy as they are desperate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dear Jean-Pierre, the idea of looking for unsolvable problems was far from my mind! On the contrary, I hope, with each suggested deal, to spark a debate and encourage some readers to adopt original solutions recommended by our experts. However, if it is true that Inverted Minors have encountered fans among high-level players in France, to my knowledge, it is rare for those players to extend its use to after an overcall. Let us move on, then\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second minority bid, defended by L\u00e9vy: \u201c<\/strong>Double (or 1♠ as Cachalot). Followed by 3♣ to show a more balanced hand, as well as one more suited to suggesting 3NT than a direct jump to 3♣ (not a pre-empt)\u201d, supported by Saporta<\/strong>: \u201cDouble. Or 1♠ if you play Cachalot. A raise to 3♣ straightaway would be done with one club fewer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am making use of these contributions from Alain and Pierre to remind the experts who are reading this article that I do not ask them to recite French Standard but what it says in their system. So, Alain and Pierre, if you do play Cachalot, do not be ashamed to say so!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third original bid suggested: 2NT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>2NT. Lots to gain from a tactical point of view, with the additional possibility of getting to a vulnerable game. 3NT would have more pre-emptive value but would create a forcing pass situation if East-West were to bid again and North, who would not be expecting this hand, might take an expensive action.\u201d Bessis <\/strong>elaborates on the tactical side mentioned by Kokish: \u201c<\/strong>2NT. A bit of a psyche but somewhat natural too\u2026 It is roughly what the hand is worth and that presents the huge advantage of very probably silencing West, who could be 5-5 or 6-5 in the majors and then might not dare come in\u2026 He will then have to lead to 2NT or 3NT without having had the chance to find out about a fit or anything else\u2026 He might go wrong!\u201d Finally, Duguet: \u201c<\/strong>2NT. I remain consistent, given that that was my bid in Biarritz. Hoping that Partner holds the Ace of Clubs\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was not the case, as my hand opposite was:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

♠AKQ10 ♥Q43 ♦Q ♣109853.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was better not to play a no-trump contract; the vulnerable set was astronomical! But the opponents were cold for 4 Hearts!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, let us examine the two bids that got the most votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First of all, the bid of 3♣, which is not a pre-empt for the experts who chose it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. Invitational bid with five or six cards in Clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. For me, vulnerable, this shows a bit of strength and is not a pre-empt. I only have good cards but nothing I can do any more with.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kerlero: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. Positive and encouraging in the system I play.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>3♣. I do understand that my hand is a bit strong for this bid, which, for more and more players, looks like a pre-empt. A 2♦cue bid (the other \u201cnatural\u201d option) is a bit of an exaggeration. For those who play Revolving Sputnik, you can turn the problem by first of all bidding 1♠ (a \u201ctake-out double\u201d without a major) before bidding an encouraging 3♣ on the next round. Still, look how much space you are giving to the opponents to show their majors at a relatively low level. Starting off in this way risks our being confronted with a whole new problem one or two rounds later.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And finally, the 2♦ cue bid to show some strength and a fit in Clubs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. Shows a club fit in a hand of at least invitational strength. My system allows me to stop in 3♣ in this sequence. I have a hand with which we might make 3NT with top tricks; I therefore prefer the aggressive option. The other (passive) option is a 3♣ bid, which would be made with the same hand but with one card fewer in Clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. Constructive club raise.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill<\/strong> <\/strong>Meyers<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. Limit bid in Clubs for me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adad: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. A cue bid, not promising a later bid over a minor-suit opening, suits the hand perfectly. But on the following round, I foresee problems!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Franceschetti: \u201c<\/strong>2♦. This great fit in Partner\u2019s minor and this lovely King of Diamonds wholly suffice for me to want to play in a game; I therefore tell my Partner that!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This last contribution from Franceschetti shows the interest in discussing the respective meanings of 3♣ (pre-empt or not) and 2♦ (forcing to game or not) in this everyday sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

2♦️: 100 points (9 votes)
3♣️: 70 points (7 votes)
2NT: 40 points (4 votes)
Double: 30 points (3 votes)
2♣️: 10 points (1 vote)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #4: The difficulties of a double fit<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Only two pessimists stopped in 4♠, including Kerlero: \u201c<\/strong>4♠. How awful to be forced to respond 2♣ with that!! Here I am in an untenable situation! We might have 6 Diamonds on a claim; but if I bid 3♠ as with ♠AQ85 ♥75 ♦A8 ♣AQ985, how would you like my partner to get out of that? So, go for 4♠; but the system that has been imposed on me here is clearly bad. I could bid 2♥ but my partner will then think that I have a bad fit, having not supported over 2♦. If we still considered 2 over 1s as forcing to game in France, I could bid 2♠.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A big thank-you to Marc who, in his response, succeeded in talking through all the possibilities offered by this hand. Some had no qualms about choosing 2♥ as fourth suit forcing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackett: \u201c<\/strong>2♥. Looking for further information in order to know whether we should be playing in 4 Spades or a diamond slam\u201d and Chidiac: \u201c<\/strong>2♥. As we have no bid that shows a double fit, I suggest not showing a fit at this stage and going through the fourth suit to gather more information about Opener\u2019s hand. So, for example, over 3♦ by the opener showing 5-5, we continue with 4♦ to show a good fit and interest in slam. Over 3♠, which shows 6-4 (upper range with a nice suit), we will do likewise with 4♦ and we will ask for key cards with 30-41 Blackwood (with Diamonds as Trumps). Over 2♠, we will continue with 3♠. Over 2NT or 3♣, we will continue with 3♦, followed by the appropriate spade bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There you have a detailed plan for going forward!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, indeed, French Standard disapproves of this choice, as if you raise Spades later, that should signify that you have a bad fit (three small trumps, or even Jack-third). Hence, the plebiscite response conforming to the standard was that of 3♠.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>3♠. Means you can find out the strength of the opening bid. If Opener makes positive bids of the type (3♠-4♣- 4♦-4♥), I will suggest 6♦, which will allow Responder to say 7♦ with both corresponding cards (I could not jump to slam with fewer than three aces, as we then risk missing two).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: \u201c<\/strong>3♠. The hand is nice and deserves a mild try. Of course, if the slam needs to be in Diamonds, that risks being difficult to reach.\u201d Rocafort: \u201c<\/strong>3♠. You consider the benefits of Diamonds as Trumps first: you avoid a heart loser with Axx opposite. But that would surely run into entry problems if Partner\u2019s diamonds are not KQ109. On the other hand, if you do not raise Spades straightaway, the fit will no longer be certain later. It therefore seems more effective to first show some ambition (essentially if North has the imagined club singleton) with Spades as Trumps, envisaging suggesting a potential alternative if Partner goes along with it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adad: \u201c<\/strong>3♠. Perfect if Partner stops in game. If he has the inclination for slam, a serious diamond fit will be necessary for us to turn to 6 Diamonds on a 4-4 fit rather than 6 Spades in a 5-3 fit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla: \u201c<\/strong>3♠. If we are envisaging slam, it might be better to bid 3♦, as you should often play in the 4-4 fit in order to discard a heart. But, after all, nothing is stopping us from finding a 6- or even 7-Diamond contract later on.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you will notice, most of the experts insist on the fact that if there is a slam on, it will surely be better in Diamonds (magic of a 4-4 fit).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, should you turn the contract to Diamonds straightaway? Yes, for four experts, including Toffier: \u201c<\/strong>3♦. Too much to stop in 4♠. If we have to play in a slam, that will always be better in a 4-4 fit than a 5-3 one. A normal hand with which we have a good chance of making 6 Diamonds: ♠KQ1063 ♥A3 ♦KQ65 ♣73\u201d and Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>3♦. With its three aces and the double fit, the hand is, frankly, too nice for 4♠.  However, I will have plenty of trouble expressing my diamond fit later if I start with 3♠. The idea is therefore to first support in Diamonds; then, on the next round, bid 4♠ (over 3♥ or 3NT). This would describe my hand and my ambitions. Of course, if, over 3♦, my partner makes a more forceful action, I will have trouble showing the spade fit; but this time, the diamond slam will not be far away.\u201d So be it; the arguments are admissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To finish, the bid put forward by Kerlero: <\/strong>2♠. Clearly, in French Standard, that shows a hand without a heart stop, with two cards in Spades and non-forcing. But it is time for all that to change: that hand almost never comes up! So, my advice is to adopt 2-over-1 game-forcing (articles, and even whole volumes, should be able to tell you more). Thus, the 2♠ bid allows you to fix the fit at a low level, keeping space for developing your ambitions, as our experts explain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini: \u201c<\/strong>2♠. In my system, I say 2♠, which is a slam try in Spades, over which Partner describes his strength and distribution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis: \u201c<\/strong>2♠. Clearly forcing in 2015. You might be supposed to play in Diamonds in the end, especially if Partner shows extras and it is about playing in slam but for the moment, let us aim for a 4-Spade contract. In this sequence, where fourth suit forcing (here 2♥) is also available at the 2-level, I play with my partner that 2♠ 100% guarantees a fit. We reserve jumps to 3♠ for purer hands, notably ones with a real club suit.\u201d Kokish: \u201c<\/strong>2♠. In North America, 2♠ is forcing to game with, in principle, three-card support. I prefer for 3♠ to be reserved for hands with four spades, five clubs and at least one red-suit control. Whereas a jump to 4♠ would show a hand such as ♠KQ62 ♥83 ♦62 ♣AQJ53. The advantage of the 2♠ bid is allowing North to describe himself (for me, 3♣and 3♥ show a singleton, 3♦ a 5-5 hand, 4♦ a 6-1-5-1 hand and 3♠, 4♠, 3NT and 2NT show 5-2-4-2 with, in this order, good spades, good spades and diamonds, 15-17 HCP and everything else). We will easily be able to reach 6 Diamonds by obtaining some precious information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not yet convinced by these explanations? For my part, I am, which explains the boost to this bid\u2019s score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

3♠: 100 points (11 votes)
2♠: 80 points (5 votes)
3♦️: 30 points (4 votes)
2♥️: 20 points (3 votes)
4♠: 10 points (2 votes)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #5: The nightmare<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Nothing technical here. As expected, there was a bit of everything in the responses; that comforts me with the notion of showing you that on this type of deal, there is no truth. You have to do what works well at the right moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I therefore present to you those arguments that were the most interesting. The most optimistic (or the believers):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zmudzinski<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Praying for a miracle.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jill Meyers: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Delicate hand but, given that East has passed throughout, I bet my partner has lots of strength.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thuillez: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Oh well, I pass; this will not be my first or last stupid action on this theme.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toffier: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. Hardest question of the series. I do not think that there is one absolute truth. West may well make 3 Spades Doubled but I might equally lose my head at the 4-level\u2026\u201d Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>Pass. To take 3 Spades Doubled down, Partner needs to provide me with four-and-a-half tricks (that is to say, four tricks outside Spades plus the doubleton Jack of Spades, or three tricks plus the doubleton King or Ace of Spades, rendering my Queen of Spades out of reach if Dummy has a singleton). That is a lot; but if he does not have those, I will no doubt make very few tricks in the contract that I will be declaring. If I get the wrong suit, going down risks being astronomical. I therefore have two options: the first, optimistic one, is to pass; the second, perhaps even more disadvantageous, is to bid 3NT. If everyone passes, that is perfect, after all. At the least expensive, we will lose 730 or 930. If East doubles back in, we will be able to redouble to allow North to bid his five-card suit if he has one. This theoretical construction risks, despite everything, leading us to play in 3NT Redoubled if Partner misunderstands. A recent experience leads me to think that it is better to avoid these types of risk\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The miscreants, according to Cronier<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pacault: \u201c<\/strong>3NT. No real positive connotation in this sequence. 3NT just shows a spade stop, here a fragile one. Everything is pointing to East not having a spade fit and some strength and therefore that North is \u201cstrong like a bull\u201d, perhaps with a spade honour. 3NT also has the advantage of allowing North to slowly establish a very strong hand, particularly if he holds length in Clubs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chemla<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>3NT. I have never been one for short-sighted policies but I admit that we are in great trouble here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bessis: \u201c<\/strong>3NT. My cane and my cloak! My decision does clearly depend on my opponents, the type of match I am playing, the score\u2026 Passing is always a possible option; you might very well imagine scoring 200 or 500 when you are down at least two in every contract\u2026 But how hard that is with this hand! If we decide to play in a more sensible way, is it more worth bidding 3NT or 4♦ (or even  4♣)? 3NT has the main disadvantage of making it seem as though we have a better hand and therefore presents the risk of seeing Partner bid again or even leap to slam with a very strong hand\u2026 But several arguments are pushing me to prefer 3NT: first of all, it is still the bid that corresponds most closely to my hand, as I do, after all, have a 4-3-3-3 hand with a stop in Spades. It might also be the last making contract (for example, opposite ♠J6 ♥A85 ♦AK ♣AKQ642).  Finally, if we land awkwardly and get ourselves doubled, it will be easier to run to the least bad trump suit by using SOS redoubles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chidiac<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>3NT. 3NT, Pass or 4♦??? I would abstain if I could!!  However, having adopted Bergen\u2019s \u201cThrump Double\u201d, asking Partner to bid 3NT as a priority whenever he has a spade stop (Thrump Double = Double looking for Th<\/strong>ree Notrump<\/strong>; that is, 3NT). In fact, Doubler might have either: a source of tricks and values outside Spades, specifically looking for a spade stop to play in 3NT; or a normal take-out double for this level. Therefore, the priority is to bid 3NT with a stop and that\u2019s my final word! Passing is a sure-fire way of losing IMPs (you may as well write -730!) and 4♦ is a bid for \u201cseniors\u201d to seek shelter with, that I would have produced had I not adopted the Thrump Double.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And finally, those that some call the pessimists or more serious:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini: \u201c<\/strong>4♦. With a heavy heart; but given my hand, I consider that a 3-Spade contract has strong chances of making: my only value is an <\/p>\n\n\n\n

unthreatening spade honour and my partner\u2019s points are badly positioned with respect to Dummy\u2019s side-suit honours.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quantin: \u201c<\/strong>4♦. I have the vague feeling that I will be changing the score of 730 (3 Spades Doubled making), if I pass, into 800 (or even more), by bidding. I do not have the courage to bid 3NT, which might still be the winning bid.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9vy: \u201c<\/strong>4♦. Burying our head in the sand by passing or trying 3NT like a kamikaze, on the pretext that East passed initially, might yield a good score in a bidding contest, without the risk of seeing your opponent score 930 or 1100.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This argument from L\u00e9vy is not baseless. It is indeed much less risky to pass or bid 3NT on paper than in \u201creal life\u201d. It would have been interesting to confront all our experts with this situation at the bridge table. In any case, after having read all these extremely instructive opinions, I have, unfortunately, not managed to come up with a definitive opinion\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

North\u2019s hand: ♠A ♥AJxx ♦AKQxx ♣Axx. As the cards lay, you had a choice between conceding 730 in 3 Spades Doubled or only losing 500 if you managed to stop in 5 Diamonds (in the scenario where you responded 4♦). If your choice led you to 3NT and your partner bid 4♦, you would have done well by passing, which, at least initially, would have strongly upset North.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Pass: 100 points (9 votes)
4♦️: 70 points (7 votes)
3NT: 60 points (6 votes)
4♣️: 20 points (2 votes)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Deal #6: Too easy?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In a symmetrical manner (but perfectly unintentionally), we conclude with a problem that had 23 votes on one hand and one on the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At IMPs (and even at MPs, which was where this deal came from), it seems logical to turn to a club slam. In fact, the comments that follow show you that there are two things to remember on this deal: what significance does the 3♦ bid have in this sequence? How can we avoid going astray in 6 Clubs when the contracts of 6 Diamonds and 6NT might be superior?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had hoped that lots of experts would see the problem but, no doubt tired from these deals, most contented themselves with a terse \u201c4♣, what else?<\/em>\u201d. Hackett: \u201c<\/strong>4♣. Choice between 3NT and 4♣. Despite my weak trumps, I am trying for slam. Opposite ♠4 ♥73 ♦AK7432 ♣A762, we have to be in it and my partner might have a better hand.\u201dRocafort: \u201c<\/strong>4♣. I suppose that 3♦ is the dustbin bid in this situation (for me, it would have been 3♣ but fine\u2026)? 4♣ is a risky bid: all will be well if Partner has a hand that fits well but if not, who knows how we might get back on our feet. But, as 6 Clubs is playable even with a moth-eaten hand such as ♠75 ♥J6 ♦AQ752 ♣AJ63 and 3NT not even guaranteed, the hand is worth the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cronier: \u201c<\/strong>4♣. If North is 5 and 4, we can make no hypotheses as to the respective quality of his two suits but, if he is 6-4, he must have serviceable clubs, as he would have chosen to say 2♦ over 1♥ with a weak hand, six nice diamonds and four mediocre clubs. But what else is there to say? 3NT when my partner could spread ♠73 ♥6 ♦AK7432 ♣AQJ6, before me, where thirteen tricks would be an excellent bet?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kokish<\/strong>: \u201c<\/strong>4♣. A 3♦ bid has many meanings depending on the players. For me, it is 6-4 with a good hand. I rebid 2♦ with a minimum 6-4 hand and with 5-4 and no spade stop, I bid 3♠ or even 3NT with 3-1-5-4. With 2-2-5-4, I say 3♥ with an honour or  3♠ without. I know that, for many pairs, 3♦ is a dustbin bid without a spade stop or a fifth club. I guess that I will soon find out how French experts treat this sequence\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, Eric, we have been left hanging; but that will not stop our readers from getting up-to-date on this sequence!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fortunately, Bessis<\/strong>, who had played this deal, gave us a more comprehensive guide: \u201c4♣. I recognise this hand that I had in the Juan-les-Pins festival but the situation was a bit different, as we were in a pairs tournament. Even in that format, I supported to 4♣. The annoying thing about this bid, at MPs, is that it almost forces your side to play in slam. Indeed, as long as Partner does not say 4NT now \u2013 which would be very surprising when I hold AK10 in Spades myself \u2013 you can technically no longer stop in that contract. And playing in 5 Clubs, at MPs, with 17 HCP opposite Partner\u2019s opening and a triple stop in every suit, is clearly not an option. Now, bidding 3NT with these cards is too timorous. Even though Partner has promised nothing more with 3♦, you need very little opposite to have a correct slam to play in. So you may as well be optimistic! Even though jumping to 4NT, quantitative, is an interesting option (especially at MPs), it seems preferable to me to support to 4♣, to at least clearly show the contract you are aiming for (6 Clubs). But the follow-up is not clear either. At the table, my main worry was finding the right trump suit for slam, as I wanted to avoid playing in 6 Clubs with six good diamonds and four bad clubs opposite, So, when my partner bid 4♦ over 4♣, I jumped to 5NT to ask him to pick his slam. That turned out to be a good idea on this deal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Very well explained (the sequence is indeed difficult to get right after 4♣) and very well played, too, since Partner had ♠J ♥65 ♦AKJ1092 ♣AJ32. The Queen of Diamonds was onside (twelve tricks in 6 Diamonds or 6NT), whereas there was Q10xx offside in Clubs\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, one expert chose the 4NT bid mentioned by Thomas. As his arguments are quite relevant and he expands on them, I have boosted his score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Franceschetti: \u201c<\/strong>4NT. Quantitative. Sure, I have a club fit; but only a four-card one and, importantly, great stoppers in the majors. My partner could have a normal and minimum 2-2-5-4 hand; I have no reason to force him to slam. If he is maximum, I hope that he will think to say 5NT so that I can show him my clubs. If he bids 6♦ (6-4), I will convert to 6NT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

4♣️: 100 points (23 votes)
4NT: 70 points (1 vote)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Tieltje (Netherlands) has won this bidding contest, congratulations!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are the 10 Funbridge players who scored the most points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Tieltje<\/strong> (Netherlands) – 580 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Brunetm<\/strong> (France) – 570 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"rene74be\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

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

rene74be<\/strong> (France) – 570 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Solmajeur<\/strong> (France) – 570 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

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

ollozo<\/strong> (Austria) – 570 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Jberg17<\/strong> (Norway) – 560 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#<\/strong>7<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

huiva<\/strong> (Norway) – 550 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#<\/strong>7<\/strong> ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lancelot<\/strong> (Hong Kong) – 550 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#9<\/strong><\/strong>\u00a0ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

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

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

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

#9<\/strong><\/strong>\u00a0ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

petitlouis<\/strong>\u00a0(France) \u2013 540 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"Theater77\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

#9<\/strong><\/strong>\u00a0ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theater77<\/strong>\u00a0(France) \u2013 540 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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

#9<\/strong><\/strong>\u00a0ex \u00e6quo<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LionHeart3NT<\/strong>\u00a0(Brazil) \u2013 540 points<\/p>\n<\/div>\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

Premium subscribers among the top 10 are rewarded with 100 Diamonds<\/strong>, Premium+ subscribers among the top 10 with 1,000 Diamonds<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As promised, all participants were also rewarded with 10 Diamonds<\/strong>, regardless of their score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Have you participated but didn’t receive any Diamonds?<\/strong> We probably did not find in our systems the username you entered in the contest entry form (for example due to a spelling mistake, an e-mail address entered instead of the username, etc.). You can show up in the comments if needed.<\/p>\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><\/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":"

Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Let us remain sensibleDeal #2: By process of eliminationDeal #3: Another sequence to work onDeal #4: The difficulties of a double fitDeal #5: The nightmareDeal #6: Too easy?WinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts\u2019 Answers Deal #1: Let us remain sensible Almost unanimous; only one disagreement: Rombaut: \u201c2NT. Mild invitation to game; pass would be the defeatist alternative and 3♦ too optimistic.\u201d I did indeed expect to get a large majority of passes when I posed this problem but I wanted to see whether some experts were playing different systems from the French Standard, which\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":38,"featured_media":58526,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14933,14887,10635],"tags":[11647,13384,11679],"access":[13331,13334],"class_list":["post-60346","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","tag-bids-en","access-premium-en","access-premium-plus-en"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":5}},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nJanuary 2023 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-7-results\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"January 2023 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Let us remain sensibleDeal #2: By process of eliminationDeal #3: Another sequence to work onDeal #4: The difficulties of a double fitDeal #5: The nightmareDeal #6: Too easy?WinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts\u2019 Answers Deal #1: Let us remain sensible Almost unanimous; only one disagreement: Rombaut: \u201c2NT. Mild invitation to game; pass would be the defeatist alternative and 3♦ too optimistic.\u201d I did indeed expect to get a large majority of passes when I posed this problem but I wanted to see whether some experts were playing different systems from the French Standard, which\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-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=\"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.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=\"26 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-7-results\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lionel Sebbane\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2\"},\"headline\":\"January 2023 bidding contest: the results!\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/\"},\"wordCount\":5214,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"bidding\",\"bidding contest\",\"bids\"],\"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-7-results\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/\",\"name\":\"January 2023 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Bridge 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":"January 2023 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-7-results\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"January 2023 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge","og_description":"Summary The Experts’ answersDeal #1: Let us remain sensibleDeal #2: By process of eliminationDeal #3: Another sequence to work onDeal #4: The difficulties of a double fitDeal #5: The nightmareDeal #6: Too easy?WinnersShare your view Summary of the Experts\u2019 Answers Deal #1: Let us remain sensible Almost unanimous; only one disagreement: Rombaut: \u201c2NT. Mild invitation to game; pass would be the defeatist alternative and 3♦ too optimistic.\u201d I did indeed expect to get a large majority of passes when I posed this problem but I wanted to see whether some experts were playing different systems from the French Standard, which\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-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":"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/"},"author":{"name":"Lionel Sebbane","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a87229c8fa5ebf5d015bd50995989a2"},"headline":"January 2023 bidding contest: the results!","datePublished":"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00","dateModified":"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/"},"wordCount":5214,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg","keywords":["bidding","bidding contest","bids"],"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-7-results\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/","name":"January 2023 bidding contest: the results! - Blog Funbridge","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg","datePublished":"2023-01-24T16:43:00+00:00","dateModified":"2023-01-27T14:32:02+00:00","inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/bids-contest-7-results\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/bidding-contest-purple.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Bridge 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":60346,"fr":60047},"language":"en","pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60346","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=60346"}],"version-history":[{"count":73,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60346\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60469,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60346\/revisions\/60469"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60346"},{"taxonomy":"access","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/access?post=60346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}