March bidding contest: the results!

Bridge bidding contest


The experts’ answers
Deal 1: Major first?
Deal 2: Decoding
Deal 3: Complete indecision
Deal 4: Different ways of supporting
Deal 5: Some flexibility in the double
Deal 6: High-level pragmatism
The winners

The experts’ answers

The experts' answers

Deal 1: Major first?

(*) Weak, six cards

No surprises: 3♥ collected the majority of the votes. The interesting part of the problem was to take stock of the experts’ system in this type of sequence. Notably, knowing the meaning attributed to a 2NT bid. Natural? Mini cue bid? Or Lebensohl (0-6 or 11+ HCP)? This version of 2NT Lebensohl has indeed been adopted more and more in response to a direct take-out double after a weak-two opening. But is it also used after a protective double?

Tignel explains this convention to us a bit further: “3♥. I play Lebensohl in response to the double of a weak two (3♥ directly is positive, whereas 2NT followed by 3♥ is weak). Moreover, I keep the same continuations over a protective double (unlike some, who play 2NT as natural). However, I do not have two invitational bids available in Hearts, which does not allow me to differentiate between four and five cards in Hearts.”

Lots were of the same opinion as him, such as Allavena: “3♥. I play 2NT as the 0-6 or 11+ range, so the direct bid promises that intermediate range. With a real chance of game, I prefer to bid Hearts rather than Diamonds”, Kokish: “3♥. A good hand due to the double fit in the red suits; but playing Lebensohl, a constructive 3♥ bid is sufficient”, Cronier: “3♥. If this is the question, I don’t play 2NT as a mini cue bid in this situation and, in any case, for me, 2NT is negative and bidding a suit somewhat positive.” and Toffier: “3♥. In this position, I play Lebensohl.”

You need a Funbridge Premium or Premium+ subscription to keep reading.

Pour lire la suite des explications des experts, veuillez-vous connecter avec un compte Premium ou Premium+ en cours de validité.

Leave a Reply