October 2014 - 38

was strongly invitational. Bartusek
was at the top of his range, so he bid the
notrump game.
Lien
1♠
2♠
4♣
4♠
5♣

Agica
1♦
2♦
3♣
4♥
4NT
Pass

1♦ was natural and unbalanced,
with 11-15 HCP. 2♦ showed four
hearts. Lien bid 2♠, thinking it was
non-forcing. But due to a recent system
change for the duo, 2♠ is actually a
game force. 4♥ and 4♠ were control
bids after the pair agreed upon clubs.
4NT was a control bid for diamonds
and also served as a "last train" before
slam.
Bridge Bulletin auction: 1♦-1♠;
1NT-2♠; Pass
Scores: 2♠ 10; 3♠ 7; 2♣, 3NT, 4♠ 4;
2NT 3; 3♣ 2
Jones-Bartusek 6, Lien-Agica 2

Problem 3

South deals. E-W vulnerable.
South opens 2NT (5-5 minors, weak).
North bids 3♣ if possible.
West
♠AJ4
♥Q4
♦987652
♣A8
Jones

North

Pass
4♣
4♠

3♣
Pass
All Pass

East
♠ K 10 9 8 7
♥ A J 10 9 8 2
♦-
♣43
Bartusek South
2NT
3♦
Pass
4♦
Pass

Over 3♣, one method to describe
the East hand is with an invitational
cuebid of 3♦. Bartusek also could have
shown the majors with a 4♣ cuebid,
but he did not think he was strong
enough to force to game.
Jones's 4♣ was undiscussed -
Bartusek interpreted it as either a

38 Bridge Bulletin October 2014

slammish control bid or simply picka-major. Bartusek showed mild slam
interest with a 4♦ control bid. Jones,
who thought he may have already
overbid, signed off in spades.
Lien

North

Agica

Pass
4♥

3♣
3♥
All Pass

South
2NT
Pass

The systemic meaning of a potential
3♦ cuebid was unclear to Agica. Trying to prevent another bidding misstep,
Agica instead overcalled his longest
suit, and the pair landed in the top spot.
Bridge Bulletin auction: (2NT)-
Pass-(3♣)-3♦ [majors, invitational];
(Pass)-4♠; All Pass
Scores: 4♥ 10; 4♠ 9; 5♥ 7; 5♠ 6;
6♥, 6♠ 5; 7♠ 3; 7♥ 1
Jones-Bartusek 15, Lien-Agica 12

Problem 4

West deals. Both vulnerable.
West
♠A765
♥J98
♦KJ7
♣Q96

East
♠KQ9
♥ A 10 7 4
♦ A Q 10 6 4
♣8

Jones
Pass
1♠
3♦
4♦

Bartusek
1♦
2♥
3♠
4♠

Bartusek's 2♥ was a reverse, showing extra values. It is on the light side in
terms of HCP, but Bartusek upgraded
his hand because of the working spade
honors and good texture.
Jones's 3♦ was game forcing and
promised three-card support. Bartusek's 3♠ patterned out his hand.
Jones said that his spades were not
good enough for 4♠, and his clubs
were not good enough for 3NT, so he
punted with 4♦. Bartusek's 4♠ was an
offer to play and, according to Jones,
probably showed the ♠K Q.

Lien
1♣
1♥
2♥
3NT

Agica
1♦
2♦
3♦
Pass

Over the multi-1♣ opening, 1♦
showed four hearts. 1♥ was 11-13 balanced, 2♦ was an artificial game force,
2♥ showed three hearts and 3♦ was
natural.
Bridge Bulletin auction: Pass-1♦;
1♠-2♥; 3♦-3♠; 4♠-Pass
Scores: 4♠ 10; 5♦ 8; 4♥ 7; 3NT 6;
4♦ 5; 3♠ 4; 3♥ 3; 2NT 2
Jones-Bartusek 25, Lien-Agica 18

Problem 5

North deals. None vulnerable.
North opens 3♠.
West
♠K6
♥ A K 10 7 3 2
♦KQ
♣KQ4

Jones
Dbl
6♣

East
♠74
♥Q4
♦A8732
♣A965

North
Bartusek South
3♠
Pass
Pass
Pass
4NT
Pass
All Pass

Jones doubled to show extras and
Bartusek bid 4NT for the minors.
Jones wanted to be declarer to protect
his spade holding. Hoping partner was
5-5 in the minors and not wanting to
play in a 6-0 or 6-1 heart fit, Jones
blasted to the club slam.
Lien
Dbl
5♥

North
3♠
Pass
Pass

Agica
Pass
4NT
6♥

South
Pass
Pass
All Pass

Lien said his double not only showed
his hand's strength, it allowed him the
space to introduce hearts at the next
turn. He said he thought it was likely
that partner had two aces for his 4NT
bid and that 5♥ was forcing to slam.
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2014
