BBO Discussion Forums: Bidding Competition! - BBO Discussion Forums

My own choices were

1-2♥
2-3♥
3-2♠
4-5♥

I collected 380 over 400.

The Expert panel included these names:

Michael Rosenberg
Erick Rodwell
Billy Eisenberg
Marshall Miles
Eddie Kantar
Zia Mahmood
Eric Kokish
Larry cohen

Problem #1

2♥=100
2♣=80
3♥=60
2♠=50
2♦=40
PASS=30

Problem #2

3♥=100
DBL=50
3♦=30
2 NT=20
3♣=20

Problem # 3

2♠=100
Pass=70
DBL=20
3♣=10

Problem # 4

6♠=100
5♥=80
PASS(forcing)=70
5♦=70
5♠=50
5 NT=30

wank, on 2017-July-13, 09:23, said:

Huh?
Your pd opened and you have 12 count including AAK and no wasted hcps, and you call making a cuebid a "gross overbid"? I think your comment is a "gross overbid"
No wonder the panel disagrees with you.

MrAce, on 2017-July-12, 13:21, said:

Thank you Mr Ace

2. IMP, expert pd and opponents.

I rank
1. 3♥ = CUE. LHO's bid has improved your hand.
2. 3♦ = NAT. Underbid.
3. 2N =NAT. Weird.
4. X = T/O. But partner is likley to think it's PEN.

---

3. IMP, expert pd and opponents.

I rank
1. Pass = NAT.
2. 2♠ = NAT in case opener has 4 ♠s.
3. 3♣ = NAT.
4. Double = T/O. Overbid

---

4. IMP, expert pd and opponents.

I rank
1. 5♠ = NAT.
2. Pass = ART. Forcing.
3. 6♠ = NAT. 3 card support and 3 controls.
4. 5♥ = NAT. In case opponents sacrifice at 6 level.
5. 5♦ = CUE.
6. Double = PEN.

---

So I won the competition, with 350 out of 400.

Still:

I would have bid 1N at the table on board 1. 2♥ ought to promise 6+ H.
I didn't know what I was doing on board 2.
I'm not sure the jury knew what they were doing on board 3.

nullve, on 2017-July-13, 17:31, said:

FYI. expert consensus is to jump to 3♥ with 6♥ and weak hands.

nullve, on 2017-July-13, 17:31, said:

They knew exactly what they were doing as did I. Just because you do not understand them does not mean they do not know what they are doing.

• Your pd can easily hold 4432 or 4333 or 4243 shape. So unless you are passing, only correct call is 2♠ so you do not have to play a 4-3 fit at 3 level instead of 2 level.
• No need to mention, if you have a 4-4 ♣ fit, bidding 2♠ now does not prevent us from finding club fit
• Even if you have a 4-4 fit, playing a 4-3 fit at 2 level, with hcps split equally for both sides, is preferable for most.
• You already denied 4 card major with 1 NT so there is no chance of it being misunderstood (for experts)

I hope that helps you to have a better understanding of the reasons behind their votes.

EDIT: When I voted, I knew it would be between pass and 2♠ and I admit when I voted for 2♠ I was not expecting it to get the top score (despite believing that it is) because most of the expert panel members are like allergic to any undiscussed artificial bids. Which is very reasonable approach but even they voted for 2♠!

I'm not sure I want to bid game on 2 or bid at all on 3, particularly if partner likes to open 11 BAL hands. On 2 we're not vul, have a flat 12, no trick source, no guaranteed diamond fit and partner can't have much of a heart stop given we hold four cards (nor much of a hand given he passed 2H). 3NT will be dicey at best, and where are we going if partner has a singleton in hearts? I would just compete to the 3-level - 2NT if that's understood as both minors, else 3D.

On 3 we have a very defensive hand, opps are likely taking 3 hearts off the top (with a signal from one player or the other to pinpoint their defence), and if partner is unluckily 3433 then we end up going to the 3-level in a 4-3 fit. (Even if partner has four, or indeed five, clubs 3C still might be tough.) I suppose the idea is to get out for -50 against -110 but this is IMPs, not MPs. I agree though that if we do compete 2S is a good call, as this must show three of them and hoping partner has four.

It's worth noting that if you play a weak NT then bidding on 3 looks a lot more attractive, as now partner is likely to have five clubs.

I agree with the answers on 1 and 4 and think I would have made them at the table. Perhaps on the other two hands I'm just not trusting enough in my declarer play - probably quite correctly

ahydra

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 10:42, said:

Only reason why I did not bid NT is, if pd is short in clubs I do not want to discourage him. My 2nd choice was 2♦

MrAce, on 2017-July-13, 18:11, said:

Yes, and the reason is that 3♥ is Law-protected opposite a "normal" takeout double. But don't you play 3♥ as GF opposite 19 BAL? Then you can't jump to 3♥ also on a 6H(322) 2 count.

MrAce, on 2017-July-13, 18:11, said:

"So unless you are passing". But I am passing, for reasons having to do with LoTT and the fact that partner didn't double 2♥ (for takeout). IMO you've only given (valid) reasons why 2♠ is the second best call.<sup>1

1</sup> 18 Jul 2017, after reading Gnasher's post: I forgot that X is an option. IMO 2♠ < X < P.

ahydra, on 2017-July-13, 18:42, said:

A good solution is to improve your declarer play instead of lowering the bar for bidding due to your declarer skills. Once you make the improve, you will see that many bids which look strange to you now will start to look reasonable. In many auctions I find myself playing and/or defending the hand in my mind before the auction is over.

nullve, on 2017-July-13, 18:49, said:

I have no idea, whatsoever, about what you tried to say here.

nullve, on 2017-July-13, 18:49, said:

Yes, pass is the 2nd best call imo. You disagree with me, I know, but those panel members are not my beer buddies, they are there for a reason.

Hand #1 is Problem B from the Master Solvers Club, February 1996:

http://www.bridgewor...sampler-ms.html

Back when I was a beginner in my first year of playing, that problem was in the Article Sampler on the Bridge World's website....... and now, 18 years later, it is still there!

Thiros, on 2017-July-13, 21:28, said:

Probably all of them are.

These 4 were asked in facebook bridge group.

MrAce, on 2017-July-13, 18:44, said:

I think 2♥ comes across as more discouraging than 1NT. Perhaps 2♣ is a better way of showing some values though. I was looking for a Goldilocks effect with 1NT but I seem to be on my own with that so it is probably a poor idea.

Great quiz, Timo. And well done for getting 380 out of 400.

Personally the one bid I do find awkward to swallow is the 2♠ on hand 3 - all your comments on the forum duly noted. Just why would you want to play in a Moysian fit knowing that West is long in ♥ and could well be short in ♠? It could be a small disaster.

For all we know East could have a singleton (even potentially a void) in ♥s, with no place to go, and a stack of ♠s, but with a hand that just wasn't good enough to overcall at the one level.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 23:54, said:

1♠ is not forcing so 2♥ can not be as discouraging as people make of it.

MrAce, on 2017-July-13, 16:26, said:

If partner has heart shortage I expect he'll realise how good a hand he has once I support diamonds. If partner's not short in hearts, game is a long way off, 12 HCP or otherwise.

wank, on 2017-July-14, 01:16, said:

Oh no, please don't tell me you would not compete to 3♦ with much less than this
Take out one of your aces and make your diamonds 4 card and you are still bidding 3♦ all day long.

Great quiz - thanks.

Yes, I can see now that my 3♣ on 3 was silly. In my defence, I am used to playing a weak NT 4-card major system and partners bid will be real (and often a 5-card suit).

MrAce, on 2017-July-14, 01:03, said:

Wouldn't everyone bid 2♥ here with ♠x ♥xxxxxx ♦xxx ♣xxx? If 2♥ were purely constructive it would be ideal but playing that way means not being able to improve the contract on hands where that would be useful. Since we have 2♣ (et al) available for genuinely constructive hands, giving up on the non-constructive ones seems like a losing strategy.

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-14, 02:04, said:

2♥ is neither constructive nor discouraging. With the hand you gave I would pass.