{"id":65976,"date":"2023-05-31T15:44:51","date_gmt":"2023-05-31T13:44:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=65976"},"modified":"2023-06-01T11:04:22","modified_gmt":"2023-06-01T09:04:22","slug":"may-bidding-contest-the-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/may-bidding-contest-the-results\/","title":{"rendered":"May 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: Diamonds or No-trumps?<\/a>
Deal 2: The search for the missing control<\/a>
Deal 3: The great leap<\/a>
Deal 4: Tangled up<\/a>
Deal 5: Not even frightened<\/a>
Deal 6: Broken heart<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your opinion<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Deal 1: Diamonds or No-trumps?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"Deal<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

As the experts’ responses show, inverted minor-suit raises continue their steady progression<\/strong> to the heart of the elite; particularly amongst our young stars. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lorenzini and Thomas Bessis:<\/strong> “2♦. With this inverted minor, we are protected by our initial pass and can use the 2♦ bid to show 10-11 HCP and five-card diamond support. 3♣ (invitational diamond raise) would show a more unbalanced hand.” They are backed up by the “elders”, who are not lacking a sense of humour and have long been followers of this system, such as Rocafort: <\/strong>“2♦. I’m used to it: there is always a deal publicising inverted minors. <\/strong>We’ve done that now and can move on to the following deals, which might be a bit more complex” and Chidiac<\/strong>: “2♦. Inverted minor-suit raise showing, as a passed hand, a hand with a diamond fit and 10-11 HCP. I wonder what you do if you don’t play inverted minors<\/strong>!” The hand seemed too weak for many experts to get carried away. Only two opted for a 3♦ bid and three chose 2NT, including Pacault, <\/strong>who justified his choice as follows: “2NT. My opening style of “playable diamonds” implies that Opener has solid diamonds (if the hand is balanced) and strengthens the South hand. I choose 2NT over 3♦, partly due to consideration of stoppers and partly because 3♦, without being a pre-empt, is more generally bid by a hand of 8-9 HCP with more distribution.” The majority, however, opted for a more sensible 1NT bid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three arguments appear time and time again in the comments: the diamonds are poor.<\/strong> Jill Meyers:<\/strong> “1NT. I am debating between 1NT and a limit raise in Diamonds but my diamonds are too ugly, so I’m choosing 1NT.” The honours are scattered. Hy\u00e8res Bridge Club: <\/strong>“1NT. Hand with scattered honours, not worth a 2NT bid” gives the same analysis as Quantin and Saporta<\/strong>: “1NT. With three honours in the three suits outside Diamonds, this response is better than an encouraging jump to 3♦.” The hand is too balanced. Chemla: <\/strong>“1NT. Perhaps a slight underbid but it is still the bid the least far away from this hand.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n