{"id":69992,"date":"2023-07-28T16:21:34","date_gmt":"2023-07-28T14:21:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/?p=69992"},"modified":"2023-10-25T11:43:00","modified_gmt":"2023-10-25T09:43:00","slug":"july-bidding-contest-the-results","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/funbridge.com\/blog\/en\/july-bidding-contest-the-results\/","title":{"rendered":"July 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

Answers gathered from the experts<\/a>
Deal 1: Rotating Sputnik<\/a>
Deal 2: Pairs Syndrome<\/a>
Deal 3: Not every day is a party!<\/a>
Deal 4: The big plunge<\/a>
Deal 5: A well-protected queen<\/a>
Deal 6: Better to hold than flee<\/a>
Winners<\/a>
Share your opinion with us!<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

Answers gathered from the experts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"Bidding<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Deal 1: Rotating Sputnik<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"Deal<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

As is often the case, two questions in one. First of all: should you force to game with this hand? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, respond the minority of experts, who, in this framework, seem not to have any options other than bidding 2♥. Rombaut: <\/strong>“2♥. A hand too strong to invite to game.<\/strong> Although minimum, I therefore see it as my obligation to force to game.” and Thuillez: <\/strong>“2♥. I am forcing to game if Partner has Hearts stopped. I find this hand too nice to simply settle for an invite.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, the majority answered; but here is where it gets tricky: some still chose to bid 2♥, such as Jill Meyers<\/strong>: “2♥. Limit raise.”, Pichot or Duguet<\/strong>: “2♥. Not forcing to game.” Aside from Rocafort<\/strong>‘s original (and amusing) suggestion<\/strong>: “2♣. Let us quickly move on to the traditional deal advertising Inverted Minors. The usual exclamations can be repurposed: are there still people who insist on living without these? The ideal bid! Nothing can go wrong! What’s for dinner?<\/strong>” and Lorenzini<\/strong>‘s too: “2♠. For me, this bid shows five-card support for Clubs; it is equivalent to a classic 2♥ bid and is forcing to the level of 4♣ if a heart stop is missing and 3NT is not playable.” What was the bid the others chose? Curiously, it was a 1♠ bid!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us look at Cronier<\/strong>‘s explanations: “1♠. Following Rotating Sputnik, <\/strong>my 1♠ bid replaces a take-out double over 1♥. I have no choice: a 2♥ cue bid shows game-forcing support for Clubs, 3♣ a weaker and more distributional hand”, made complete by L\u00e9vy<\/strong>‘s: “1♠. Followed by 3♣ over 1NT, the mid range between supporting directly with 3♣ and making a 2♥ cue bid” and Quantin<\/strong>‘s:<\/strong> “1♠. In the framework of my system, equivalent to a take-out double (double would show four or five cards in Spades).” We shall have to get used to it: the good old Sputnik double is no longer popular! <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n