DSBA Bidding Contest Results!
Edited by Jeff Ruben

Many thanks to Jess Stuart, who edited this contest for the last few years. Hopefully he will be back after he recovers from bidding contest burnout. Thanks also to the many international entrants. We welcome your participation and hope you will continue to enter.

I have heard all of the complaints about the hands – the opponents are always preempting, we are always vulnerable, etc. Well, you can blame The Bridge World – the source from which I stole four of the hands. I have spoken to East and West, and they have promised not to bid so much in the next contest.

IMPS	-	Auction:	West	North	East	South
Vul: N-S	AJ8764		-	1	4	?
Dlr: North	K95
You are: S	J973

The majority of the panel and plurality of the solvers decided to bid 5, with no guarantee of success:

Richard Morgen: 5. I have a six-card suit, a void in the overcaller’s suit, and the king in my partner’s suit. Don’t let them steal. Partner knows I am under pressure so he might tread lightly, but we can easily be cold for a small or grand slam.

Richard Popper: 5. This could end up being very wrong, or very right. However, the possible good things outweigh the bad. Both 4 and 5 could be making, or 5 could be a good save, or E-W might bid 5 and go down one.

Jess Stuart: 5. A tough decision. This hand could be a laydown slam if partner has the right 11 HCPs, or you could go for a number if you bid. I think the risk of getting overboard is warranted to give you a chance to make a vulnerable game or find the right slam. Partner should raise with extras and a fit or bid the appropriate minor at the six level with extras but no fit.

Five diamonds seems like a reasonable compromise; too much to pass, not enough to double or bid 5, with a good chance that partner has a real diamond suit.

Andy Kaufman: 5. This hand is not good enough for a 5 call although this may be our best spot at IMPs (true: if you bid 5 and it is indeed you best spot, partner is never passing – J.R.) so I will bid the conservative 5.

4NT bidders: will your partner take your bid as showing two suits (or at least two places to play), as natural, or as some form of Blackwood? I think most partnerships play it the first way, but I know many that do not.

Andy Stayton: 4NT. Should I double and hopefully pick up a few crumbs, or bid 4NT to takeout in an effort to find the best 5-level contract? I am opting for the vulnerable game bonus vs. a small pickup. If partner has a double spade stopper, he may opt to pass 4NT.

Making the case for passing:

Jeff Goldsmith: Pass. It could be so wrong to pass, but red at IMPs bidding could easily produce minus 1400. Opposite a weak NT (partner’s most likely holding when he opens 1), reaching the five-level seems a bit much. Sure, partner could have xxx, KQxx, AQJxx, x, and we miss a laydown slam, with 4 making to boot. Or, partner could have KJTx, Qx, Axxx, Qxxx and they are getting killed while we go down at the five level.

Pass could certainly be right, but I think bidding rates to turn out better in the long run. At least there will be no double game swings against you. As for the doublers, I cannot see any upside unless you are playing negative doubles at that level, which few do.

Rick Rowland: 5. Double is out, they might be making.

IMP	A	Auction:	West	North	East	South
Vul: N-S	A5		-	Pass	Pass	1
Dlr: North	Q7642		1	2	3	?
You are: S	QJT84

Action	Score	Votes(Panel)	Votes(Solvers)
Pass	100	4	10
4	90	2	4
4	80	1	15
5	60	-	9
Double	50	-	2
5	50	-	1
3	40	-	1
3	40	-	1

Are we better off bidding, or shutting up and hoping the opponents stop at the 3-level?

Jess Stuart (with Jeff Goldsmith similarly): Pass. Partner and RHO have both passed. There is no reason to expect the opponents to bid a game in spades with half or less of the HCPs. The vulnerability is not right to try to win the part score battle. Bidding again might encourage partner to take a phantom save over the opponents’ save over our 4 partial.

Harold Jordan (with Richard Popper similarly): Pass. They have already found their fit. I do not want to force them into their game. Let them settle for 3 if they wish.

Dave Smith: 4. I don’t like doing this on a bad suit, but the bidding isn’t over and I want to help partner make a decision.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: 4. Showing my second suit as a try for 5, to make or as a save against 4.

Andy Kaufman: 4. Unclear whether 4 is making, but willing to defend that contract. Unwise to bid a constructive 4 since this will only help the opponents determine their chances in 4.

I think the 5 bidders are being too aggressive. Once in a while the opponents will double and you will make, or they will take the push to 5 and go down one, but more often both 4 and 5 are going down.

IMPs	QJ	Auction:	West	North	East	South
Vul: N-S	K9		-	-	-	1
Dlr: South	KJ8653		Pass	1	3	?
You are: S	AKJ

Another problem where anything could be right.

Richard Popper: 4. The least of evils. I can’t see bidding 3NT without a real spade stopper on this auction. I can’t support hearts with a doubleton, and I have too much to pass. I am quite prepared to play in hearts if partner rebids them.

Jess Stuart: 4. Nothing else comes close to describing the shape and strength of this holding. Bidding 3NT is wishful thinking.

Is double strictly for penalties, or does it just show “cards”?

Andy Stayton (and Andy Kaufman, similarly): Double. Have to show cards. Maybe partner can bid 3NT.

Harold Jordan: 4: It’s not pretty but my only other option is pass, and I can’t bear to hear this one passed out with my extra values.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: 4. Bypasses 3NT, but double would be for penalties. Maybe partner can bid 4 with a good 5-card or 6-card suit.

Rick Rowland: Pass. If this hand were given with xx of spades, it would be a non-problem. 4 on this ratty suit isn’t for me. Partner can reopen with values.

True, but would partner have any reason to reopen with, say, Axx, Qxxx, Qxx, xxx?

I prefer the double as the Andys play it, showing extra values and no clear direction (I call it a transfer double – it transfers blame to your partner). You can’t always have a spade stack, and if you pass you are likely to still be waiting for partner to reopen.

MPs	A9	Auction:	West	North	East	South
Vul: N-S	AQJ		-	1	4	?
Dlr: North	Q42
You are: S	AQT86

Action	Score	Votes(Panel)	Votes(Solvers)
Double	100	4	19
4	80	3	2
4NT	80	-	5
5	70	-	6
5	70	-	7
5	50	-	3
5NT	40	-	1

The last hand was merely impossible. This one is really impossible. Does partner have a stiff or void in diamonds (or the stiff ace), or the dreaded doubleton? The case for doubling:

Jess Stuart (with Andy Stayton, similarly): Double. Double for penalty to take our sure plus (BWS plays negative double only through 3.) This will probably net +500, +800, or even +1100 if RHO is frisky. There is no guaranteed fit with partner and no easy way of finding out if there is one. Spades could easily be 5-1 on this auction.

Daniel de Lind van Wijngaarden: Double. Not completely for penalty. If partner bids 4 I will bid 5, asking for a diamond control.

The case for 4:

Richard Popper: 4. This is an awful problem; I am inclined to go conservative and bid 4, hoping there is no slam. 5 gets us to the wrong denomination at matchpoints, and 4NT will not be helpful enough as I still won’t know about both the strength of partner’s spades and a diamond control.

Harold Jordan: 4. I think settling for a game here makes sense. I am missing a lot of spades to think that slam there is realistic, especially with a likely bad trump break. Plus, there’s a risk of a diamond ruff or simply 2 losers there and not much room to investigate a possible club fit.

Rick Rowland: 4. Double is only right when the preempter has 7 diamonds to the AK. Even then it may be wrong if partner has a stiff diamond and a long spade suit or a club fit. When I hold every outside ace, it will be hard to get partner to move over anything I bid. Playing matchpoints, I am going to bid the major in spite of the expected bad split.

The case (?) for 5:

Richard Morgen: 5: We have a slam, assuming partner doesn’t have 2 diamonds, and I don’t see how to find that out. The only question is which one. 5 seems like the best way to find out.

I think that 4 is masterminding a bit – you would make the same bid with two aces less and two spades more. But +620 or 650 could be the best matchpoint spot. Doubling should get you either 500 or 800; I would bet on the latter given the way people preempt these days. 5 seems like a blind bash into slam. Shouldn’t partner, with a doubleton diamond, count on you for a control?

IMPs	Q95	Auction:	West	North	East	South
Vul: None	A		-	-	Pass	1
Dlr: East	AJ7542		Pass	1	Pass	?
You are: S	AJ5

I think most of us have seen this type of problem before - without a strong club system, there is no good answer. Still, it makes a good quiz problem when you get 6 different answers from 7 panelists, and 9 calls overall. Several people suggested opening 1NT with this hand, but I do not think that would be the majority view. I lean towards rebidding 2, agreeing with:

Richard Morgen: 2. A distortion, but gives the most flexibility. If partner passes, we can’t make a game (and we should easily make our contract – J.R.). If partner bids 2, we can now support spades by bidding 3.

Other choices:

Rick Rowland: 3. I don’t like bidding 3 on such a bad suit, but it looks like the least of evils. Good hand for the Treadwell 2 bid – forcing and asks partner if he has 5 spades.

Actually, I think that treatment comes from K-S, but then again Treadwell has been around longer than either K or S.

Richard Popper: 3. This is a good hand for spades, although the stiff ace is mildly inflexible for getting ruffs in the short hand. I think 4 is a more likely game than 3NT or 5.

Andy Kaufman: 3. You must choose the lesser of evils: jumping to 3 to show values but having a ratty diamond suit (possibly giving up on a spade fit), underbidding with 2 or 2 to see if partner can make another call, or jumping to 3 showing invitational values with spade support, though you are short a spade.

So much evil in the world.

Andy Stayton: 2. A good hand for Rosenberg (2NT over 2 asks opener to show 3- or 4-card support, and a strong or weak hand). Not good enough for 3 or 3. I opt for a conservative raise and hope to hear more from partner if he has a decent hand. Nonvulnerable makes it best not to push.

Harold Jordan: 2. I strongly dislike supporting a major with 3, or jumping in a bad suit.

Jess Stuart: 2. Close between 3 and a manufactured reverse. While at first glance the reverse into a singleton ace looks risky, it is controllable. If partner has 4 hearts and raises hearts strongly or repeatedly, he must have 5 or more spades to bid them first, so you can insist on playing spades (yes, but how high might you get before partner catches on? – J.R.) The reverse gives partner an easier way to show a 5-card spade suit than bidding it over the diamond jump and the reverse makes the path toward 3NT easier if that is the best spot. In short, this bid offers flexibility and safety.

Congratulations to Rainer Herrmann for having the highest score among solvers. He will be on the panel if he enters the next contest.

If you encounter any problem hands you would like to see included in a future contest, please mail them to jmrdel@aol.com.

See you next time.