{"id":62018,"date":"2023-03-28T15:07:40","date_gmt":"2023-03-28T13:07:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=62018"},"modified":"2023-04-03T15:05:48","modified_gmt":"2023-04-03T13:05:48","slug":"results-march-bidding-contest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/results-march-bidding-contest\/","title":{"rendered":"March bidding contest: the results!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Bidding<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

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

Experts’ answers<\/a>
Deal 1: A novel situation<\/a>
Deal 2: Which part score or which game?<\/a>
Deal 3: A fit that is difficult to show?<\/a>
Deal 4: The great plunge<\/a>
Deal 5: The right track<\/a>
Deal 6: Destructive or constructive?<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your opinion<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

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

The experts’ answers summarised<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"Board<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 1: A novel situation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
* Multi<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

Here is a really confusing situation. <\/strong>West seems to have a weak 2 in Spades, North has enough strength to overcall 2♥<\/strong> and East, probably misfitting, has still found enough with which to mention his diamonds. Poor us in South,<\/strong> who find ourselves with tolerance for Hearts and 11 HCP! It seems we must act; but how? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We listen to L\u00e9vy<\/strong>: “Double. Take-out. This situation has never come up; I must be lacking in experience. But in my system, when a double has not been agreed to be penalties, it should be treated as take-out. This is written in large on Page 1. I recommend to all our readers to adopt this principle urgently.” This choice to double was cited the most; Quantin <\/strong>summarises all of that, additionally specifying, wisely, as it happens, on this deal: “A hand with no natural bid. If North bids 3♥<\/strong>, I shall pass, in order to not penalise Partner for having overcalled with, for example, ♠<\/strong>632 ♥<\/strong>AQ10864 ♦<\/strong>75 ♣<\/strong>A4. This call might allow us to find our real trump suit: Clubs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well spotted, Jean-Christophe<\/strong>; it was the case here that North held: ♠<\/strong>83 ♥<\/strong>A10876 ♦<\/strong>K ♣<\/strong>AJ1092. Every contract is going down, except 5 Clubs! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other, less “dangerous”, options<\/strong> than Double were selected, starting with the 3♠<\/strong> chosen by Rocafort<\/strong>, Desmoulins and Pacault<\/strong>: “Although North usually holds at least six cards in Hearts, it is not certain that 4 Hearts is the right game. You might imagine going down on account of diamond ruffs with nine (or more) top tricks in NT. The weak 2 in Spades having been revealed, 3♠<\/strong> is clearly a cue bid showing a spade stop. When the opponents have shown two suits, cue bids serve to show stops in these two suits and therefore 3♠<\/strong> is asking for a diamond stop.” Second good principle to keep in mind. Clearly an instructive problem!<\/strong> The problem is that North, who will quite rarely have a diamond stop, will find himself in trouble over this 3♠<\/strong> bid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why one final group of experts consider King-doubleton in Hearts to be a sufficient fit and set Hearts as Trumps at the 3-level, such as Jill Meyers<\/strong>: “Debatable between 3♥<\/strong> and 4♥<\/strong>. But I do not want to punish my partner for overcalling with ♠<\/strong>73 ♥<\/strong>AQJ742 ♦<\/strong>K73 ♣<\/strong>42″ or at the 4-level, such as Hackett<\/strong>: “A bit too strong for 3♥<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To finish, Lorenzini<\/strong>‘s contribution, which echoes L\u00e9vy’s: “3♥<\/strong>. The whole problem resides in the meaning of a double. In Version 1, we consider double to be penalties, which is unthinkable with this hand. In Version 2, we consider double to be “Snapdragon”<\/strong>, which applies in sequences where the first three suits have been bid (2♦<\/strong> shows Spades) and then shows at least five clubs and two-card support for Hearts (with an honour). This double generally applies after a 1-level opening but extending its use to after a 2-level opening is not traditional. Being not 100% sure<\/strong> of the context<\/strong> I find myself in here, I prefer to avoid the accident and lean towards raising to 3♥<\/strong>, telling myself that my HCP strength compensates for the poor quality of my fit.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n