This set of FORUM problems was originally
published in vol.
9 nr. 2, March 1998.
FORUM courtesy
of
infotech
directed by Jaap van der Neut
AUTOMATISERING
With each problem we have included a comment (or
two) from a panel member which best represents the plurality opinion. The
panel consists of at least fifteen experts. The breakdown of the panel
votes on each problem is shown as well.
w
Board 1
SOUTH A Q 10 5 4 2
A 6 2
J 6 2
10
S/NS
West -
2
North -
2
East -
Pass
South 1 ?
Panel
choices
(%)
w
3 2 4
58
32
11
Director:
3
Kit Woolsey: 3. Chapter
one: setting the trump suit. The hand isn't good enough to bid stronger.
If partner passes, 4 would usually
have been very shaky.
Onno Eskes: 3. I assume
2 is forcing (as North may
be shaded, following the overcall - ed.), but not game-forcing. If
I bid 2, partner could conceivably
throw in the towel.
w
Board 2 Pairs
SOUTH A 9 6 5 3
2
Q J 9 6 4 3
Q
N/neither
West -
North Pass
East 2*
South ?
*Dutch 2/2:
5+major plus unspecified 4+minor, 5-10 hcp
Panel
choices
(%)
w
3 Pass
2 3 4
47
26
21
5
5
Director:
2
Gaby van Dinteren: 3,
planning to bid the spades too, at the three or four level. My passed partner
won't go crazy that quickly unless he has a good fit, in which case I don't
mind playing a high level contract.
Editor's confession: I held this hand and elected to pass over 2.
When a confidently bid 4 came
back to me, I bid 4, assuming
partner would realize I held a two-suiter (and a weak one at that) in view
of my failure to bid over 2. West
doubled, but as partner held
KQ8 75
A1087 J653 he obviously saw
no reason to run. With the K
onside, the doubled contract was made with an overtrick.
Pass
w
Board 3
SOUTH K 8 7 3
A 7
Q 10 4
9 8 6 2
W/EW
West 3
North Double
East Pass
South ?
Panel
choices
(%)
w
3 3NT
4 Pass
47
21
16
11
Director:
3
Jan-Willem Bomhof: 3. Questionable
hand. 3NT is a gamble. Passing is an option, but could be dangerous if
declarer can pull trumps in time. Only a heart lead looks winning, but
can partner find it? Bidding 4
is nice to show spades and clubs, but you're too weak. Remains: 3
or 4. Overbidding (4)
is expensive if a penalty double or a slam disaster ensues. The game you
might miss is not vulnerable. Ergo: 3
w
Board 4
SOUTH A
A J 8 4
10 7 3
A K 10 6 2
S/both
West -
1
North -
1
East -
Pass
South 1 ?
Panel
choices
(%)
w
2 1NT
2 2NT
3
42
26
11
5
5
Director:
2
Truus van der Spek: 2. If
partner passes we won't miss much, and if he bids again, I have some more
bidding space.
Simon de Wijs: 2. No
call is entirely satisfactory, but 2
has the advantage that, at least, you show trick taking potential for 3NT.
w
Board 5
SOUTH Q J 2
10 6 4
K 10 6 4
K 7 6
E/NS
West -
1 Pass
North -
Double
2
East Pass
Pass
Pass
South Pass
1NT
?
Panel
choices
(%)
w
3NT
2 2NT
3
47
26
11
11
Director:
2NT
Larry Cohen: 3NT. First, I thought of 2(best 3-card major, having virtually denied a 4-card major with 1NT
- ed.) and only then 3NT. But why would I want to suggest alternative
contracts holding the 10
and 3-3-4-3-shape. 3SA seems a very descriptive bid.
w
Board 6 Pairs
SOUTH K 10 9 6 4 3 2
8 5 3 2
-
7 4
S/neither
West -
Pass
5 6 Pass
North -
4 Double
Double
East -
4NT
5 Pass
South 3 Pass
Pass
Pass
What do you lead?
Panel
choices
(%)
w
x
x
x
42
32
26
Director:
x
Director:x. Why did
partner double 5? Presumably he
has enough clubs (and sufficient shortness in the red suits) to know that
East would remove to 5 to let
West pick a red suit, whether or not he doubles. In other words, the double
of 5 asks for a club lead later
on. Why did he subsequently double 6?
Maybe he thinks that contract can go two down (at pairs there's a big difference
between +100 and +300); or, perhaps, he was planning on bidding 5,
and thinks 6 to be a save. That,
too, requires good clubs: how else, with red suits in East, does he expect
to make 5? After all, he won't
be holding many red suit honours.
To FORUM IndexTo
IMP Bridge Index