Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2022-12

HAND 1.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.07

This is one of the closest votes we have had in the two years of this competition, with the panel almost voting for a five-way tie. This is good news for competitors, of course, as almost everyone will score relatively well, even though their most popular choice attracted only three panelists. Let’s start with those who support the largest group of competition entrants.

ROBSON: Pass. I may well have doubled 4♣, as all my cards are defensive and it is hard to see 4♣ making, and quite hard to see a contract making our way. I'm concerned 4♦ may be meant as forcing, but if partner was not prepared for me to pass with an unsuitable hand, he could have jumped to 5♦.
SAELENSMINDE: Pass.
COPE: Pass. Do I understand what is going on? No. If I had to guess, it sounds as if partner has a 4-2-7-0 shape, with a very strong hand. This makes my ♣A pretty worthless, and my ♥K possibly worthless. Can partner have five spades and say be 5-2-6-0? Not in my book, as he could have doubled 4♣ to get me to bid any three-card pointed suit.
The next two groups are both headed for the same spot. Some simply raise…
BRINK: 5♦. Although I’d like to pass, the attraction of a vulnerable game is what made me do it....
BERGEN: 5♦. I don't know if 4♦ is forcing but, if partner is too strong to bid 3♦ over 2♣, he must have a HUGE hand.
Or, perhaps, a different hand.
MARSTON: 5♦. 4♦ looks forcing to me. 4NT could right, but it is too much of a gamble for me.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♦.
COHEN: 5♦. I have an ace (I might have had the same hand with QJx in clubs). Maybe the ♠10 is a card and who knows, maybe partner has a useful heart honor, bringing my king to life. And, we are vulnerable at IMPs. (If my spade honor were higher, I might try 4♠ on the three-card suit).
Whilst some make a slam try on the way…
WANG: 5♣. I’ll show the ♣A and let partner decide what to do.
DE WIJS: 5♣. Partner has a monster. The ♣A might be just what he needs.
MOULD: 5♣. I owe partner a cue-bid, and 4♥ is not right with the hearts bid over me. Partner may well be void in clubs but, with a singleton, this will encourage him. Partner obviously has a huge hand.
S. BALDYSZ: 5♣. I treat 2♥ then 4♦ as forcing to game. If partner has 4-1-7-1 shape and only needs the ♣A, then maybe we can make 6♦, otherwise 5♦ is where we will end up.
We’ve already heard panelists mention a couple of other alternatives. How about…
LUI: 4NT. I am not very interested in playing in diamonds. There could be a heart ruff or a trump promotion in hearts. I choose to show my club stopper.
MEYERS: 4NT. I am trying to figure out what partner's 2♥ bid is. Perhaps he has a heart card and nothing in clubs, and does not want to jam this into 3NT. I think maybe partner has something like AJx/Qx/AKQJ10xx/x. If that is partner's hand, it is right to bid 4NT, because 5♦ could be down on ♥A, heart ruff and a spade trick. So, I think I am going to just bid 4NT.
BROCK: 4NT. I have no idea really. He must have a helluva hand. 2♦ would have been forcing in my book, certainly 3♦, so he can’t be single-suited with diamonds. It sounds as if he is void in clubs. Maybe something like Axxx/Axx/AKQJxx/---?
SUNDELIN: 4NT. I am hoping he understands what to do with, say, Axxx/Ax/AKQJTx/x.
And, finally, those who would have been right at the table…
SHENKIN: 4♠. Partner is likely to be 5-6.
RIMSTEDT: 4♠. Some kind of preference. God knows what partner is looking for...
BIRD: 4♠. With a powerful diamond single-suiter, partner would have jumped to 3♦ on the previous round. His sequence suggests five spades and six/seven diamonds. As my 1NT response practically denied four spades, I am willing to suggest 4♠ now.
And the person who held the hand at the table…

LARSSON: 4♠. I remember the board or, rather, the 'discussion' afterwards. I quickly bid 4♠ (which I failed to do at the table) so that I don't have to sleep on the couch. Last time I passed, even though I knew 4♦ was forcing, but I didn't believe in 5♦. One can argue that partner should bid 4♥ rather than 4♦, but there is no reason I can't try 4♠ in this situation.

This is a hand from the Mixed Teams final in Wroclaw. Partner held AKQxx/x/AQJxxx/x and you can make 10 tricks in either spades or diamonds. Any complaints about partner’s bidding should be sent to Mr Helgemo in Norway 😊 (A Michaels cue-bid would have shown spades and clubs, so East had no immediate bid over the 1♥ opening to show this shape.)

HAND 2.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.93

No majority here either, but two clear front-runners amongst the panelist. More than two-thirds of competition entrants are also split between those same two choices. The most remarkable thing about this hand is, perhaps, that not one panelist mentioned Hamman (who usually gets blamed for 3NT bids in this type of situation).

MEYERS: 3NT. Taking my shot.
COHEN: 3NT. If their spades run, such is life. Thanks for the ♠10.
RIMSTEDT: 3NT. No alternatives are particularly close, even if we could make some other game and go down in 3NT.
BERGEN: 3NT. I hope that the favorable-vulnerability opponents can't run spades. Partner is allowed to bid 4♥ with an extreme hand.
C. BALDYSZ: 3NT.
LARSSON: 3NT. 4♣ might be right, but I bid 3NT since I'm in doubt.
BIRD: 3NT. This could easily be the best spot, and we may miss it if I start with a nebulous double instead. If they take the first five tricks in spades, it is not clear that we would have made 4♥ or 5♣ either.
BROCK: 3NT. There are lots of ways for this to work: South with the ♠J or North with both top spades. I really need to know the opponents but, at this vulnerability, partner could easily have a doubleton spade.

Simon raises the interesting question of what 4♣ should mean…

DE WIJS: 3NT. As it is presented as a problem, this can't turn out right, but I'll do it anyway. 4♣ for me would be a slam try in hearts, so that makes this choice even easier.

A couple tried to consult partner.
S. BALDYSZ: Dbl. I wouldn't mind being in 3NT if partner has some sort of spade support (Jx, Kx, Ax, K, etc). I think a direct 3NT is a bit risky: ♠AJ on lead and the king on my right would result in an immediate one or two down.
LUI: Dbl. Partner can bid 3NT holding ♠Kx/Ax (certainly possible at this vulnerability) or singleton king or ace. I will pass partner's 4♥ and otherwise correct to 5♣.
So, what does 4♣ mean?
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣. Natural and forcing. I don’t need much for slam if partner is short in spades.
MARSTON: 4♣. Simple, natural.
ROBSON: 4♣. Natural and forcing. I am not prepared to gamble on the spades for 3NT. Also, facing a singleton spade (which I accept partner may not have), 6♣ cannot be far away. My second choice is to double, in case partner has eg ♠K-x (and the green opps are messing with us) and he can bid 3NT.
SHENKIN: 4♣. Good choice between 3NT and 4♣. Either could be right.
WANG: 4♣. 3NT maybe not safe.
MOULD: 4♣. Yes, 3NT could be right, but it is putting all of the eggs in one basket.
COPE: 4♣. Partner's hand may still have an ultra-long heart suit, which may mean that 4♥ will be the better contract. So, no need to rush off to 5♣. And, if partner has the right hand, we have left room to investigate 6♣.
Sjoert agrees with his former Dutch teammate…
BRINK: 5♣. This is an impossible problem: 3NT, 5♣, all can be winners. I bid 5♣, and hope that I will make it.... 4♣ is a slam try agreeing hearts, so that isn't an option.
SUNDELIN: 5♣. Even if 3NT might be right.

There is certainly a case for playing 4♣ as a cue-bid agreeing hearts, which means you have to bid either 3NT, double or 5♣ with the single-suited hand. (This follows the same general principle as when you use 4m as non-Leaping Michaels to show a two suiter over a three-level opening from the opponents.) Expect to see a hand on which you want to make a slam try in partner’s suit sometime in the future. At the table here, partner had Kx/AK10xx/KQ10x/xx, so you make 10 or 11 tricks in 3NT. 5♣ unfortunately goes down on a diamond ruff. You can get +300 from 3♠-X.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 3.85

This was a strange hand, in that there was a majority verdict from the panel, but they also voted for seven different options. Less that 1-in-12 of competition entrants hit the top spot, with the largest group (more than a third) choosing a bid (4♠) rejected as inadequate by almost every panelist. Indeed, competitors voted for a record-equaling 22 different choices. That anyone would be willing to play a partscore on this deal truly beggars belief, and yet more than a quarter of competition entrants voted for 2♠, 3♦ or 3♠. That is why this is the lowest-scoring hand of the month. Let’s find out why our experts think the hand is so much better than do the competitors…

WANG: 5♠. Asking for a heart control.
SUNDELIN: 5♠. Asking for a heart control.
MEYERS: 5♠. Asking partner to bid 6♠ with second round heart control.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♠. Heart cue, partner?
COPE: 5♠. This does risk us going down at the five-level, but what other slam try can I make? And, this specifically asks for a heart control.
MOULD: 5♠. Yes, it is possible that 5♠ goes off, but surely this asks for a heart control and so is the only sensible way to reach a slam.
ROBSON: 5♠. I'm hoping partner will read this as, "Bid six with a heart control." Let's see. By the way, I think 4♣ should be a splinter for spades, but I accept that it is ambiguous.
BERGEN: 5♠. Hoping to have no losers in my two suits. It is possible that we would not have bought the hand in 4♠ anyway.
S. BALDYSZ: 5♠. If partner has as much as a heart cue and some support in spades and diamonds (or the queen of spades drops stiff or doubleton, I know of the nine-card fit) then slam is a possibility.
SHENKIN: 5♠. Asking for a heart control. I might try 5♥ psychic Exclusion Keycard if I need a swing.
Great minds think alike, Barnet, and you were not alone in that thought.

Larry sums up for the majority.

COHEN: 5♠. It just jumps out at me. This is a great way to not only invite slam, but to focus on the key issue (that I have two quick heart losers).

There was one other option that attracted more one panelist.
BIRD: 3♥. This should agree spades and leave me room to find out whether he has a heart control.
RIMSTEDT: 3♥. This shows a strong 4+ raise in spades. I start with double with other strong hands.
DE WIJS: 3♥. I considered 5♠, as that is the clearest way to slam. However, we might be off the ♠Q or a diamond trick, so I'll start with a murky 3♥ and see if partner has anything useful to say.
LARSSON: 3♥. I don't think we can trick them out of leading their hearts, so we need to figure out what we have. Another option would be 5♠ if one thinks that this is the kind of principle where fast denies.
Vincent chooses the other constructive option.
LUI: 4♣. Splinter. If partner can cue-bid 4♥, I bid 5♣, Exclusion RKC.
We have two mavericks who opt for deception.
BROCK: 4♥. OK put me down for a psychic cue-bid.
BRINK: 5♥. Exclusion Blackwood. I am going to bid 6♠ anyway...
And two who choose the contract without consulting partner. One pessimist…
C. BALDYSZ: 4♠.
…and one optimist.
MARSTON: 6♠. Come and get me! Better played from my side.

Partner had Qxxx/Axx/xx/Jxxx so 6♠ was good, and just about everyone except Cathy would get there.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.66

Another majority vote from the panel, although for some 4♥ specifically shows a void whilst for others it is just a splinter. (Most serious partnerships would use 3NT here to show a void or a singleton and the direct jump to show the other). Only about 1-in-8 of competition entrants pick up a 10. As on Hand 3, the largest group of competitors (almost a third here) simply raise to 4♠, which most of the panel feel is just not enough.

BERGEN: 4♥. Points, schmoints!
MARSTON: 4♥. We could easily make a slam. Better to show than go.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♥. Showing a void, for me.
SUNDELIN: 4♥. For me, this shows a void. I make the try, even though he never has what I hope for.
LARSSON: 4♥. Last time I bid 4♥ in this auction, in Brisbane, I played in my 0-2 fit. I hope partner understands that this shows a void. There are other options, and I of course play a lot of tricks here, but here we go.
BRINK: 4♥. I splinter in hearts (for me 3NT). Hopefully, I have a way to show a void rather than a singleton....
RIMSTEDT: 4♥. Void-showing for me. I don't like not giving partner any room to work with below 4♠, therefore 4♥ here is either weak in values or close to slam-force.
BIRD: 4♥. I was tempted to bid 2♣ first, since the splinter gives no clue as to my skewed minor suits. However, if he then rebids in a red suit or notrumps, it might not be easy to get my main message across.
MOULD: 4♥. Assuming this is shortage (I don't have the system in front of me). It seems odd to leave AK10xxxx on the shelf, but 2♣ then spades seems too much and an immediate 4♠ with two first round controls too little, so I guess to do this.
SHENKIN: 4♥. It depends on our system. I would bid 4♥ if it is a splinter. If not, then I would start with 2♣.

Sally sums up for the majority.

BROCK: 4♥. For me, this shows a void rather than a singleton. I don’t want to bid, say, 2♣ because it lets them in easily with a red suit. This hand is much too good for 4♠. I know I am a bit lopsided but it’s the best I can do.

A few opt for the most obvious-looking alternative…
WANG: 2♣. I’ll support spades next.
MEYERS: 2♣. And then, obviously, spades next.
COPE: 2♣. Bad spades, great clubs. Let's start by showing where we live and see how the auction progresses.
ROBSON: 2♣. We could belong in 6♣. Let's set up a game-force and support spades next time.
A couple chose to raise spades via Jacoby.
S. BALDYSZ: 2NT. I usually don't play Jacoby, it's not the Polish style, but here it seems the best option. If partner has some extras, then a small or grand slam would be a possibility. I think a direct 4♠ would be an underbid.
LUI: 2NT. At least I show good support and do not excite partner too much. My first thought was to splinter, but I would then feel embarrassed when partner asks for keycards.
Only a minority thought a raise to game was enough.
DE WIJS: 4♠. It’s too tough to show this hand, so I'll go for this, hoping it's North with a problem now and not partner.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♠.
COHEN: 4♠. Practical. If we miss slam, so be it. I don't want to see my opponents bidding red suits. Getting there quickly could even let us make 4♠ with the wrong lead if partner has something like Qxxxx/AKxx/Qxx/J.

Partner had AKJxxx/Qxx/Ax/Qx, so 13 tricks were easy in either black suit. Starting with a splinter will surely get you to at least a small slam. Probably only those settling for a raise to 4♠ will stop in game.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.48

With close to three-quarters of both panelists and competitors choosing the same option, it seems that everyone is in agreement except for me. I really dislike 1NT overcalls on bad 15 counts, so I found a really terrible one just to see just how low people were prepared to go and, the clear answer is, very low indeed 😊

RIMSTEDT: 1NT. What else?
LUI: 1NT. This describes my hand. Why not?
MEYERS: 1NT. This seems like the most practical bid here.
MOULD: 1NT. You keep setting these strong NT hands when the opponents have opened, and I keep bidding NTs on them. I will continue to do so until regression to the bovine sets in....
COHEN: 1NT. This is where the money is. It’s a bit dangerous, but it has a big upside. I'd surely open 1NT, so I'm not changing my plan because RHO opened white on red.
DE WIJS: 1NT. It’s a little light for 1NT, but the alternatives are worse. Double without a major and with a double stopper in clubs is criminal. I'll leave that one for Zia. A 1♦ overcall feels even worse.
LARSSON: 1NT. Yeah, yeah, NT when in doubt.
SUNDELIN: 1NT. It might lead to the best contract.
C. BALDYSZ: 1NT.
SAELENSMINDE: 1NT.
BRINK: 1NT. But I never play matchpoints.
BROCK: 1NT. Assuming that the 1♣ opening is wobbly. Playing against an Acol pair (who would always have 4+ clubs) I’d probably prefer to double.
BERGEN: 1NT. As I tell my students, "as this is by far the most descriptive overcall, strive to bid it”.
COPE: 1NT. This is matchpoints, and NT scores best. In one bid, we get to show our point count, our club stopper, and the balanced nature of our hand. Partner now has many options from the other side to express their hand type.
That all seems fairly emphatic.

As I prefer any of the alternatives, I certainly agree with Wen Fei…

WANG: Dbl. Double is obviously better than 1NT.

MARSTON: Dbl. Not good enough for 1NT. The club holding devalues the hand.
Andrew implies that 1♦ was his alternative.
ROBSON: Dbl. It feels wrong to emphasize diamonds on this hand. At matchpoints, a 4-3 major fit could be just the ticket.
SHENKIN: Dbl.
S. BALDYSZ: Dbl. I'd consider either double or 1NT.
BIRD: Dbl. I will pass 1♥ or 1♠, expecting that to be a fair matchpoint score, if left there. I would be a bit nervous if I chose 1NT instead and that was passed out.

Partner had Qxx/Jxxx/AJx/10xx. Overcalling 1NT perhaps ends the auction for +90, although partner might raise (but not if he knows you overcall 1NT on this type of garbage). Overcalling 1D probably gets you +110 in 2♦ and is thus the matchpoint winner. Double probably gets 2♥ from partner, which is not where you want to be.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.76

No majority on the panel, but a clear favorite nonetheless. Once again, the most popular choice of the competition entrants (3♣), with the support of over a quarter of competitors, was deemed not enough by all but two panelists.

MOULD: 4♣. I cannot think of anything more intelligent.
DE WIJS: 4♣. I think it's between 4♣ and 5♣. Let's go low.
RIMSTEDT: 4♣. This shows an unbalanced invitation to 5♣.
WANG: 4♣. Because it’s matchpoints. I would bid game at IMPs.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. In some cases, partner could have all of his points in hearts and three small spades, putting even 4♣ in jeopardy. At IMPs, I would just bid game. At matchpoints, an invitational 4♣ seems enough.

Sjoert tries to ensure he will win the postmortem…

BRINK: 4♣. Strong invite.... I can blame partner if he does the wrong thing after my brilliant bid.

SAELENSMINDE: 4♣. This should show an unbalanced invite with short hearts.
BROCK: 4♣. I am not quite sure what this means, but it will make an interesting discussion for afterwards.
BIRD: 4♣. Normally a void in partner’s first suit would not be an asset, but the odds change with six-card trump support. Any hand with a good chunk of HCP would merit a fourth-suit 2♦, so partner should expect this shapely hand.
David’s alternative was the choice of a number of panelists…
ROBSON: 2♦. I am too strong for a club raise now, so let's set up a game-force and support clubs in a forcing situation. If partner bids, say, 2NT, I have a "mousse" - facing the likely 1-5-3-4 shape.
MARSTON: 2♦. Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to game we go.
COPE: 2♦. With first-round diamond control, I am too good just to leap to 5♣, and much too good to just bid 3♣, so let's see what partner has to offer.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♦. First create a game-force, then support clubs. If partner has short spades and a bit extra, then even slam is possible.
COHEN: 2♦. There is too much slam potential here to just blast to 5♣. Imagine something miraculous like ---/Qxxxx/KQx/AKxxx, for example.
Compare Larry’s optimism with that of his former sparring partner…
BERGEN: Pass. Unless your partner always tables perfect dummies, I think this is clear-cut.
Vincent was almost as downbeat about his hand…
LUI: 3♣. 3♣ is safe. We can play in a game contract if partner holds extra values.
…whilst the rest all bid what they thought partner could make.
MEYERS: 5♣. With two first round controls, I think this is too good for 4♣.
LARSSON: 5♣. I'm not shy, matchpoints or not.
SHENKIN: 5♣.
SUNDELIN: 5♣. Gambling again.

Partner had ---/AJxxx/Kxx/KJxxx, so 6♣ just needed trumps to break 1-1. Getting to game, though, will probably score well above average.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.00

No majority but, again, a clear favorite from a panel that voted for six different options. This time, though, none of those six coincided with the most popular choice of competitors, with nearly a third choosing the huge underbid of a competitive and non-forcing 3♣, when most of the panel were at least offering a strong game invite and, in some cases, investigating slam.

MEYERS: 3♠. Forcing with club support.
BROCK: 3♠. For the moment.
RIMSTEDT: 3♠. I had better show my hand as quickly as possible, before lefty starts to jump in spades.
BIRD: 3♠. No club bid will paint the picture: 3♣ is too little and 5♣ too much. 3♠ is surely better than 4♣.
SUNDELIN: 3♠.
SHENKIN: 3♠.
WANG: 3♠. I hope my partner understand me.
COHEN: 3♠. Repeat my comment from Hand 6. My miracle construction this time is something like xxxx/Kx/A/AJ10xxx.
BRINK: 3♠. Splinter. I strongly believe that 5♣ is more likely to make than 3NT.
Others feel that 4♠ is the splinter…
ROBSON: 4♠. Okay, so maybe for perfection I'd have a low singleton spade and Axx of diamonds. But I do think 4♠ gets pretty close to describing the hand.
BERGEN: 4♠. If we belong in 3NT or a part-score, I will give a semi-sincere apology.

COPE: 4♠. I'm going to bid 5♣ anyway, so I might as well show a spade control, in case partner has a suitable diamond holding in order to make slam.

MARSTON: 4♠. Making sure partner knows it is our hand, and keeping the dream of slam alive.
A couple chose the alternative cue-bid to show the raise.
S. BALDYSZ: 3♦. It seems everyone has enough points to bid. If partner has diamond shortness or ♣AQ, the ♥K and ♦A, then 5♣ is pretty much making.
LUI: 3♦. Good support in clubs. Let’s see what partner can say.
Alan settles for a natural, forcing bid…
MOULD: 3♥. Not 4♠ with a singleton ace, so I will start with 3♥ and pull to 4♠ if he bids 3NT.
A couple try to get hearts into the picture with a takeout double…
SAELENSMINDE: Dbl. Showing hearts, but planning to bid 5♣ later.
LARSSON: Dbl.
DE WIJS: Dbl. I'm bidding 5♣, but starting with a double can't hurt. Who knows what I'll learn along the way.
Whilst Cathy plows her second lone furrow of the month.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♣.

Partner had Qx/10xxx/10/AQJxxx so, although you were one down in 5♣, N/S were cold for 4♠. Perhaps showing a slam try on the way to 5♣ will stop them doubling you. East may give the 3♠ bidders the chance to stop in 4♣, but I doubt the opponents will let you play there.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.09

The panel were all over the place on this one, with six different choices, but one group clearly won the debate for me, so they collect maximum marks. For about the fifth time this month, the largest group of competitors opt for a distinct underbid, with more than a third simply competing to 4♠ and garnering little support from the panel. At first glance, this option may look like an obvious continuation…

WANG: 3♥. I make the natural bid.
BROCK: 3♥. It seems okay to make a natural bid for the moment.
MEYERS: 3♥. I am not ruling out slam.
ROBSON: 3♥. I could make a huge diamond splinter, but I prefer to show my big second suit, clueing partner in. I'll bid 5♥ over 5♣ too.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♥.
RIMSTEDT: 3♥. The opponents are about to sacrifice, so I had better show what I have before it's too late. If they don't, then we have a bad fit and we probably belong in game only.
Ola makes the point that, whatever you bid now, it is likely to go 5♣-Pass-Pass back to you. So, perhaps this is better…
BRINK: 4♥. Showing both majors.
COPE: 4♥. For the time being, I will show the game values and the two-suited nature of my hand. I do not expect the auction to end here, but it's a good start.
Or, perhaps…
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. Maybe partner has the ♥A and ♠K, so I wouldn't exclude slam on this hand.
Or…
BERGEN: 4♦. I'm not trying hard to get to slam, but it could be cold and I don’t expect to buy it for 4♠.
LARSSON: 4♦.
LUI: 4♦. Splinter. If partner can cue-bid, I will then bid 5♦, Exclusion RKC. If North bids 5♣, partner can judge.
SUNDELIN: 4♦. As nobody plays jump to new as Exclusion RKCB.
However, as you don’t expect to be allowed to play in 4♠ anyway…
DE WIJS: 5♦. Exclusion. With this shape, there is little chance of being allowed to play 4M. Why not check for keycards when we are going to have to bid 5♠ anyway?
BIRD: 5♦. I rate the chance of partner holding the ♠K and ♥A (or ♣A) at around 25%. Exclusion RKCB will at least expose that situation. Opposite the remaining 75% of hands, it would be unlucky to go down at the five-level.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♦. Voidwood.
SHENKIN: 5♦. Exclusion RKCB.
COHEN: 5♦. Exclusion RKC to both find out where we belong and also not have to have North preempt us. If we belong in 4♠ (no keycards outside of diamonds), I doubt we would have been allowed to play there anyway. Meanwhile, opposite two non-diamond keycards we can reach slam (maybe with them sacrificing). I hope we know how to answer in competition if North comes in over my 5♦.

Alan sums up the case…

MOULD: 5♦. Anything could be right here, including a tactical 3♠ so I can be "pushed" to the five-level. As it seems extremely unlikely that I will be allowed to play peacefully in 4♠, I may as well bid Exclusion on the off chance we actually do have a slam on.

Paul tries to buy the hand in game but is willing to commit to the five-level if forced.
MARSTON: 4♠. I am running this hand solo. I will continue with 5♠, if necessary.

Partner had J10x/10x/109xxx/Axx, so 6♠ was on the trump finesse through the bidder (and bidding slam was the winning action at the table).

A win this month for one of our youngest panelists, Sweden’s Ola Rimstedt, who leads the expert panel with 75/80. Joining Ola on the podium, on what looks like the toughest set of the year, are David Bird with 74/80, and Sally Brock, Larry Cohen and Alan Mould, all with 73/80.

As we complete our second annual competition, I must thank our panelists for the time they donate to share their experience and knowledge with our readers. I appreciate their efforts and I’m sure our readers do too. BBO would also like to thank our competition entrants: we began two years ago with a little over 100 a month and now, two years on, we have a consistent entry in excess of 3,500 a month. Encourage your friends to take part and let’s try to break the 5,000-barrier in 2023.

The Expert Panel

MARKS

HAND 1:                    5♦ 10, 4♠ 9, 4NT/5♣ 8, Pass 7
HAND 2:                    3NT 10, 4♣ 9, 5♣/Dbl 7
HAND 3:                    5♠ 10, 3♥ 8, 4♣/4♥/5♥ 7, 6♠ 5, 4♠ 4
HAND 4:                    4♥ 10, 2♣ 7, 2NT 6, 4♠ 5, 3♠ 2
HAND 5:                    1NT 10, Dbl 7, 1♦ 4, Pass 2
HAND 6:                    4♣ 10, 2♦ 8, 5♣ 7, 3♣ 5, Pass 4
HAND 7:                    3♠ 10, 4♠ 8, Dbl/3♦/3♥ 6, 5♣ 5, 4♣ 2
HAND 8:                    5♦ 10, 3♥ 8, 4♦/4♥ 7, 4♣ 6, 4♠ 4, 5♥/6♠ 2

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                                7.07
HAND 2:                                7.93
HAND 3:                                3.85
HAND 4:                                4.66
HAND 5:                                8.48
HAND 6:                                5.76
HAND 7:                                4.00
HAND 8:                                5.09