Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2023-1

Welcome to the opening round of the third annual BBO bidding competition, and we start the new year with a record-smashing entry of more than 4,500 BBO members. I don't know what the average monthly entry is for the Master Solvers Club in 'Bridge World' but I suspect it is nowhere near to 4,500, so thank you all for participating in what is now surely the world's most popular bidding competition.

We also start this new year with what seems to be a tough set, with only 9/24 panelists and around 30 out of more than 4,500 competitors returning a score in the 70s. Special congratulations, therefore, to everyone who makes this month’s leader-board.

Congratulations are also due to some of our regular panelists. Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski were both members of the Swiss team that reached the final of the European Champions Cup. At the US Fall Nationals, members of our panel topped the podium in all of the major events. Ishmael Del’monte was a member of the winning foursome in the Soloway KO Teams. This was Ish’s fifth NABC title, but his first since 2013. Michal Klukowski won the prestigious Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs playing with fellow-Pole Jacek Kalita. That was Michal’s second NABC title of the year, following his earlier victory in the Spingold, and he didn’t have to wait long for the third. Michal and Sjoert Brink were both members of the winning team in the prestigious Reisinger BAM Teams.

We have four guest panelists this month, all of whom scored 79/80 to share the win in the November competition. Julian Wightwick from England says, “I enjoy a decent club game at the Cambridge Bridge Club or online, and the occasional English National event with a sympathetic partner.” Stephen Merriman is a website developer from New Zealand who admits, “I have a guilty secret, in that while I've played online for many years, I've never been to a real-life bridge club. I spend most of my bridge hours trying to reverse-engineer GIB's ‘thought’ process and how it could be improved, and posting in the BBO forums.” Welshman Dave Williams made the podium for the annual competition in 2021, finishing in third place, then finished fourth in 2022. He was part of a three-way tie for the win in November last year, and this is his second victory this year. Now in his mid-50s, Dave originally trained as a mathematician but he recently retired after working for 21 years as a Youth Information and Advice Worker. Alexander Cook from Sydney, Australia has been playing competitive bridge for around 20 years. He is a versatile bidder, playing four systems with four partners - Standard American, 2-over-1, a strong club variant based on the original Polish Club; and Standard Modern Precision. He is in contention to win the Australian Bridge Magazine bidding forum and he won the 2022 BBO annual competition with consecutive scores of 79/80 (so he will be back as a guest again next month too).

If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details. Remember that the best problems offer three or more sensible actions rather than being a straight choice between two.

A majority from the panel on only two of the eight hands this month (and another two where an action attracted exactly half of the panel). They also voted for at least five different options on four hands (and a record eight choice on two of them). It looks like a tough start to the year for competitors, with their most popular choice failing to score a ‘10’ on any hand! Even so, voting with the competition entrants' most popular choice would still score an above-average 52/80. The average score this month is 44.70 (down from 46.84 last month). It seems that there is plenty that might be learned from our experts’ views on this month’s hands, so let’s hear what they have to say…

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.88

Not quite a majority on the panel, but a clear favorite nonetheless. The two largest groups of competition entrants both opt to bid a game, whilst the third-largest faction chooses an option not even considered by any panelist. Only 1-in-8 competitors pick up top marks for choosing to defend. Let’s hear the reasoning from our experts…

MARSTON: Pass. Game is not certain. My focus is therefore on going plus.
BOCCHI: Pass. I think this is a good bet if we cannot make slam.
WANG: Pass. I expect to get 300 or 500.
MEYERS: Pass. Unless we have a slam, pass is likely to net us -3 to +3 IMPs, or maybe more (I think the likely result is +300 or +500). Partner is going to double with short diamonds and a 10-count, so game is not guaranteed.
ZIA: Pass. This is the new age. It depends on RHO, but the only options are Pass or 3NT. Pass makes me feel great when I get 800, and not too bad when +300, so I go for gold.
DE WIJS: Pass. Non-vulnerable opponents tend to get out of line. It’s hard to believe they will go down one only, let alone make.
WIGHTWICK: Pass. If we have two diamond stops, we may get 500 or even 800 here. If only one stop, then 3NT could be in jeopardy.
HULT: Pass. Partner doesn’t need to have four hearts and, even if he does, trumps might break badly. I am happy to take my money in 3♦-X.
ROBSON: Pass. This feels like minimum 300 and possibly 800. The other alternative is 4♥, and you can't get more than 480/510 if you bid that.
SAELENSMINDE: Pass.
BIRD: Pass. It is close between Pass and 3NT. At other vulnerabilities, I would prefer 3NT.
COPE: Pass. This would be a tougher decision at matchpoints, as our expected return is 300 or 500. Might I miss slam? Possibly, but partner may be shaded in fourth seat and we may also have to contend with bad breaks that pre-empts often imply.

Larry explains the solution in LOTT terms…
COHEN: Pass. Sure, we probably have a game, but if partner is 4-4-1-4 there are 16 trumps. If we have 10 tricks, we'll do well enough defending. If we have only nine, defending will work even better. And, who is to say partner isn't something like 4-3-2-4, when this will be a huge winner? Also, I have an easy lead/defense.

So, if you are not going to defend, which game should you choose?
BROCK: 3NT. This is probably our best game.
BERGEN: 3NT. When in doubt, after an opponent’s three-bid, strive to play in 3NT.
SHENKIN: 3NT. You may get some bad breaks if you play in a suit contract.
MERRIMAN: 3NT. I am torn between this and pass, as partner could be quite light. But then again, they might not be, and I feel like game will score better in the long run.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. This seems like the most practical choice to me, especially if partner has only three hearts.
WILLIAMS: 3NT. I could settle for passing and the likely plus 300, but North may not even have a diamond to lead, especially if his partner has a seven-card suit. And, if he can lead them, South may not have an outside entry, so I’ll try 3NT.
MOULD: 3NT. I hate passing with poor pips. I should be able to keep South out in the play. 4♥ is one more trick than 3NT; and we may not have a 4-4 heart fit, so I will apply Hamman's First Law.
Some prefer the major…
PSZCZOLA: 4♥. There are three choices, Pass, 3NT and 4♥. I think 4♥ is best as it keeps the ball in play if we belong in slam.
LARSSON: 4♥. We might easily make slam, but pushing up to the five-level when partner often stretches to a double here is not attractive either. Taking the low road.
SUNDELIN: 4♥. I was told the other day that a balancing hand has already "borrowed" three of my points.
COOK: 4♥. If I had the ♦10 rather than the ♦9, I would seriously consider 3NT or Pass.

At the table, partner had AQ9xx/KJ10xx/Jx/x so bidding was best on this layout. 4♥ makes an easy +450 and 3NT makes +400, but only because the spade finesse wins. 3♦-X gets the expected +300.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.52

With the panel evenly divided, I split the tie in favor of those with the best of the debate, so the largest group of competitors (just over a quarter) pick up 9/10, with less than 1-in-10 scoring a maximum. As was the case on multiple hands last month, though, there is also a large group of competitors (around 20% ie just over 1,000 entrants) who score zero for a bid (3♣) considered universally by the panel as a huge underbid. Indeed, a number of panelists mention slam possibilities. Let’s start with the scientists…

PSZCZOLA: 2♠. This is my strongest club raise.
MEYERS: 2♠. This is a good club raise. If partner bids only 3♣, I will make one more try.

MERRIMAN: 2♠. I am probably not stopping short of game, but it's not often you get a chance to make an 'impossible' bid.

A number of panelists mention slam possibilities.
HULT: 2♠. I start with 2♠ as a good club raise. I expect to end up in 5♣, but let’s leave room to investigate slam on the way.
S. BALDYSZ: 2♠. I play that 2♠ shows a club fit and a better hand than a simple raise to 3♣. I want to be in game on this hand, and there are still chances of slam, so let’s leave room to investigate.
ROBSON: 2♠. Let’s start by showing a good raise. Given the opposing silence, I fancy partner for a 3-5-1-4 shape, which is HUGE for us. I am driving to game, but slam is still in the picture.
BOCCHI: 2♠. We may have a slam. If my partner bids 2NT, I will continue with 4♣.
LARSSON: 2♠. I’ll start by showing a good raise to see if something nice happens. I can cue-bid diamonds later.
COPE: 2♠. Rather than muddy the waters with an extravagant leap in diamonds, we can use the impossible 2♠ bid to show a good raise in clubs, then subsequently follow up with a diamond cue.
WIGHTWICK: 2♠. showing a good raise to at least 3♣. I am worth 4♣, but I’ll go slowly via 2♠, then 3♦ if possible, showing some length, then 4♣ pulling 3NT if necessary, to help partner judge.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♠. A good 3♣ bid for now. I would like to bid 4♥ as splinter, but I am not sure if partner would understand. I suppose that could also be used to show H-x in hearts and five clubs.
The other major faction on the panel just bid what they think partner can make.
SUNDELIN: 5♣. Lacking suitable methods, although I might choose not to use them even if they existed.
COHEN: 5♣. There might be some fancy bid I can make (if it is in the system and both of us remember it correctly), but such a bid might tip off the spade lead. Maybe they have a diamond lead and partner has, say, xx/AKxxx/xx/AKxx.
MOULD: 5♣. I don't know how you play 3♦ or 4♦, and don't really care. This hand could easily be about the lead, so I am not going to tip that off. If I miss a slam, so be it.
Only Paul showed his slam interest via a cue-bid.
MARSTON: 4♦. Clearly a control bid for clubs. Good chances for slam. I hope I do not direct them to a spade lead and go down in game.
For some, an invitational 4♣ was the alternative.
BROCK: 5♣. If I’m going to guess, I might as well go for the game bonus.
WILLIAMS: 5♣. As it’s IMPS and I’m unbalanced with two first round controls.
SHENKIN: 5♣. I don't want to bid 2♠ and let them in cheaply. 4♣ is the alternative for me.
DE WIJS: 5♣. It is hard to show this hand, so I go big here. 4♣ is an option too, but partner could easily pass that with eleven tricks available.
BERGEN: 5♣. Why 5♣ rather than 4♣? 1. "The magic of voids." 2. Seeking the vulnerable game.
COOK: 5♣. I don’t like the semi-forcing 1NT. To me, 1NT is forcing or it is not forcing. However, if 1NT is semi-forcing, partner should have four clubs, and thus I prefer to bid 5♣ immediately. If 1NT was forcing (so partner could be 4-5-2-2), I would bid 2♠.
David clearly thinks he is playing with a clairvoyant.
BIRD: 5♣. Since I am clearly bidding this to make, partner will feel free to advance to a small slam when he has some good cards.
Whilst Zia raises more questions than answers.
ZIA: 5♣. How many clubs does partner show? (Almost always four, as 1NT was noted as semi-forcing, so he can pass with a balanced minimum. MS). What is 3♦? Fit or natural? (I was hoping the panel would tell us 😊 MS) If fit that works, otherwise 5♣, a slight overbid if he promises four clubs, but 4♣ if he may have less than four.) Kxx/Axxxx/x/Axxx
Although a number mentioned it as an alternative, only Wen Fei opted for an invitational raise.
WANG: 4♣. Invitational.

Partner held x/KJxxx/Jxx/AKxx, so 6♣ was on the diamond finesse and game was cold. One thing that should now be clear, is that a raise to 3♣ (which partner, with his minimum opening bid, would surely pass) is simply not enough on this hand.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.99

This is the lowest-scoring hand this month. The main question is whether to Pass and take the sure plus score, or to take a shot at 3NT and all the marbles. The largest group of competition entrants (more than a quarter) retreat to 3♦, but what are the chances of partner bidding on? Not good, I suspect, and thus 3♦ seems to get none of the upsides and will likely at best score +110, when surely you can get more than that defending. Ask yourelf, too, how happy you will be if you bid 3

This is the lowest-scoring hand this month. The main question is whether to Pass and take the sure plus score, or to take a shot at 3NT and all the marbles. The largest group of competition entrants (more than a quarter) retreat to 3♦, but what are the chances of partner bidding on? Not good, I suspect, and thus 3♦ seems to get none of the upsides and will likely at best score +110, when surely you can get more than that defending. Ask yourelf, too, how happy you will be if you bid 3

This is the lowest-scoring hand this month. The main question is whether to Pass and take the sure plus score, or to take a shot at 3NT and all the marbles. The largest group of competition entrants (more than a quarter) retreat to 3♦, but what are the chances of partner bidding on? Not good, I suspect, and thus 3♦ seems to get none of the upsides and will likely at best score +110, when surely you can get more than that defending. Ask yourelf, too, how happy you will be if you bid 3♦ and it then goes Pass-Pass-3♥.

As for the 1,000+ choosing the competitors’ second most popular choice, a double which would obviously be for takeout, be thankful that I gave it zero rather than a minus mark. Anyone bidding spades presumably misread the auction, thinking partner has bid the suit.

MARSTON: Pass. I wish North was my partner.
ROBSON: Pass. I can't see a game, so let's just collect a few 50s. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a game: 4♥ for the oppo!
BOCCHI: Pass. I am not sure we can make game.
COHEN: Pass. It’s disappointing to be settling for 50 a trick, but there is no guarantee I have a plus score elsewhere with partner short in both spades and points. If he is short in diamonds, this is clearly right (picture, say, x/Kxxxx/xx/Qxxxx).
S. BALDYSZ: Pass. A bit conservative, but I Pass. If partner had diamond support, he would have bid. Besides, what will I do with all of these spades in a diamond contract, as RHO will be overruffing dummy?
COPE: Pass. It looks as if we have to settle for as many 50's as we can get. If the opposition have psyched, good luck to them. If not, then with partner, who has relative spade shortage not making a bid, I cannot see how we can have the values to make 5♦.

COOK: Pass. Where are the hearts? It sounds like RHO has a good hand with hearts.

ZIA: Pass. Discretion is...etc and this is probably the last plus, although 3NT is tempting.
SUNDELIN: Pass. Life is a gamble.
And then there are the optimists.
HULT: 3NT. Pass could be the winner here...
BROCK: 3NT. You can all laugh at me! The expert player sitting next to me as I answer says she would pass – and she’d probably be right.
WILLIAMS: 3NT. I could Pass and take the modest penalty (150/200?), but I will follow Hamman's Rule (extreme version here!) and punt for the vulnerable game.
BIRD: 3NT. Not a certainty to make, of course, but the expectation is worth more than 200 or so in 50s.
SHENKIN: 3NT.
LARSSON: 3NT. I could bid 2NT, but I have no interest in partner bidding hearts. I heard pass is a bid too, but the call of a game bonus makes me prefer to take action.
MOULD: 3NT. What an amazing problem! I think it is this or Pass. Partner clearly has very little (no double, despite being short in spades) so maybe Pass is the right answer and collect a few 50s, but I just cannot bring myself to do it. 3NT is obviously based on diamonds, so partner will not pull without very long hearts. The problem is that I may be a LOT off in 3NT. Say partner tables something like x/xxxx/xxx/xxxxx. If diamonds do not come in and spades are not led (as they probably will not be) I could be -500. Such is life!
Marty earns ‘Comment of the Month’ honors even if only 9/10 on the scoreboard.
BERGEN: 3NT. Obviously, showing 5-1-6-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A couple tried a slightly more scientific approach.
DE WIJS: 2NT. Original problem this! 2NT is a perverted bid, but I'm hoping for a spade lead should we get to play NT. It's very hard to get +600 by defending 2♠, so I'll gamble a little.
MEYERS: 2NT. I am certainly not defending 2♠ when the opponents are non-vulnerable. My knee jerk reaction was to bid 3NT, but if we belong in 3NT, then partner will raise 2NT to game.
Whilst a handful settled for what seems like the smallest possible plus score in exchange for a pie-in-the-sky wish that partner will suddenly wake up and find himself with enough on which to bid.
WANG: 3♦. I hope partner can raise.
MERRIMAN: 3♦. If partner has the ♥A, we're probably making 3NT. If not, we could be in a huge misfit, so I'll just bid what I have.
PSZCZOLA: 3♦. There is still a chance we can make a game.
WIGHTWICK: 3♦. I hope I can make this. South and East must have a lot of hearts and clubs. I'll try 3NT over 3♥ from partner, or raise 4♦ to game.
SAELENSMINDE: 3♦.

Partner had Q7/Axxx/9xx/Qxxx, so 3NT may rely on picking up the diamonds if they lead a heart or a club. This was an unusual action, but it was the same at both tables in the French Premier League. At one table, West bid 3NT and a spade lead gave him 12 tricks once he got the diamonds right (Qxx with South). That was +690 against +200 from the other table when West chose to defend 2♠ undoubled.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.31

The most contentious hand of the month, with a panel closely divided between the two most popular choices, but for the second consecutive deal offering a record eight different choices. The main choice was whether to take the sure plus score in 3NT or to show extra values with a jump to 4NT (although there was not universal agreement as to the meaning of this). The most popular choice of the competitors (4♥, which attracted more than a third of voters) received little support from the panel.

SAELENSMINDE: 3NT. At least I’m gonna make this one!
ZIA: 3NT. This seems simple enough.
BROCK: 3NT. I think slam is too far off.
ROBSON: 3NT. Solid - stolid - bid with no easy way to investigate slam. We won't get rich from passing the double at these colours. 4♥ is an alternative, but I can't see 3NT going down.
COHEN: 3NT. Very heavy, but with us likely off the ♠A, I would need partner to have all the right cards for slam (and he never does). Will partner know I have more than a 2NT overcall? I don't think so, but maybe I can claim that in the postmortem? 🙂
SHENKIN: 3NT.
BIRD: 3NT. If partner has some sort of fit for hearts, this will aid my prospects in 3NT. He might have bid 4♥ with four cards there, so there's a risk he may hold only two hearts.

WILLIAMS: 3NT. So many questions here! Partner probably denies a four-card heart suit, unless it’s rubbish. Could he be 5-5 in the minors, or could he have bid 4NT to show that? If so, he is likely 1-3-5-4 or 1-3-4-5. Are the opponents bidding on garbage to talk us out of a slam or might North have jumped to 4♠ instead at favorable vulnerability if that were the case? Are our minors 5-3 and 4-2 or 4-3 and 5-2? Could North have the ♠A or could it even be singleton with partner?!  Does 3NT here show my values or was a 2NT overcall not available in our system to show 15-18 semi-balanced with a stop in their suit? I’m taking the guaranteed plus with 3NT as, after 4♠, what happens next is anyone’s guess – you’d need partner to hold ♦AK and ♣K AND for good breaks, which is often not the case after a pre-emptive opening!

Just a couple preferred to play game in the major.
BERGEN: 4♥. This should be safer than 3NT. Slam might be cold, but there's no way to safely investigate.
MOULD: 4♥. This hand is not as good as it looks, with ♠K-Q-x little better than three low. I will go low. 3NT may just not make if I have to lose the lead whereas surely 4♥ must be cold.
The second-largest group on the panel made a natural slam try…
BOCCHI: 4NT. A hand too good for 3NT -:))
MERRIMAN: 4NT. I was planning to bid NT when I doubled, and that hasn't changed, but 3NT doesn't seem enough now that partner has shown signs of life.
HULT: 4NT. Natural slam try.
WANG: 4NT. Natural.
MEYERS: 4NT. Quantitative.
DE WIJS: 4♠. For me, 4m is natural and forcing, but 4♥ would not show a strong hand. Holding a strong hand with hearts, I have 4♠ and 5♥ available. With this hand I will show my spade control along the way.
LARSSON: 4NT. This is stretching it a bit, maybe a lot. Maybe 3NT last time would have been more convenient.
Only Paul thinks that 4NT is Blackwood here.
MARSTON: 4NT. Will bid 6♥ if partner shows an ace.
Others try various other slam tries.
COPE: 5♥. A value-showing bid with a decent five-card suit. Let partner decide if they have the values to proceed further.
WIGHTWICK: 5♥. This shows that I was too strong for a 3♥ overcall. I hope partner has some heart tolerance. If he continues with 5NT that sounds like 55+ with the minors, so I'll try 6♦.
SUNDELIN: 6♥. I repeat - life is a gamble.
And only Alexander chooses to defend.
COOK: Pass. I take the sure plus score. If we have slam on, the penalty from 3♠-X should be big enough to compensate.

Partner had x/Jxx/Axxx/KJxxx so you would rather not venture beyond game. 3NT is best but 4♥ is also likely to make easily enough too. Anything higher and you will need some luck.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.58

Given the assumption that you are playing with an ‘unknown expert’ without discussion, I thought this was ‘the easy 10’ this month and, indeed, it did produce the largest majority from the panel. However, the panel also voted for eight different options. Perhaps even more remarkable is that almost half of competitors voted to Pass, an action which received the support of only two panel members. Let’s start with the majority…

BOCCHI: 4♦. Natural and forcing.
WILLIAMS: 4♦. Slam interest with diamonds. Partner likely has 20+ points or a long suit and outside values.
ROBSON: 4♦. We could easily be making a minor-suit slam. And, indeed, 3NT may be going down (off the spades).

BROCK: 4♦. I can’t really have much more than this, or I would have bid over 2♥, so I think the bid is quite descriptive. It’s easy for partner to bid 4NT if he doesn’t fancy a diamond slam.

BIRD: 4♦. Natural and forcing. With a very high point-count, partner might have started with a double, benefiting from Lebensohl responses. His immediate 3NT suggests that his heart stopper is good. Even so, the prospects of a diamond slam cannot be ignored. I’ll pass if he can only bid 4NT.
WIGHTWICK: 4♦. Hopefully natural and forcing here (it’s unlikely we have discussed whether we play transfers in this situation). I could just blast 6♦ and hope, but will bid a delicate 4♦, then 5♦ next to show a slam try.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♦.
A few panelists mention that they have methods for this situation, but they adapted to not having them available…
MEYERS: 4♦. I would usually bid 4♠ (2-under transfers) in this situation. Without any discussion, though, it seems that 4♦ should be natural and forcing, so that looks like the obvious first move.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♦. I usually play transfers here, but I guess that with no agreement bids would be natural and forcing.
ZIA: 4♦. Need a system .. I have one, but you never asked me to share!
MERRIMAN: 4♦. Slam seems worth investigating. I'd like some artificial follow-ups here but, without any specific agreements, this must be forcing so seems safest.
MOULD: 4♦. Do we have any methods here? If 4♦ is conventional, put me down for whatever shows diamonds. This auction is very strange - where are the spades? Also, this auction usually shows a minor-suit hand, but that seems impossible here. I don't really know, so I shall show my suit and hope.
Marty thought we should have bid on the previous round.
BERGEN: 4♦. As for the pass of 2♥, I object, I object, I object!! For those who think of this as an 8 HCP hand, I feel sorry for you. Anyway, for now, all I can do is belatedly show my suit.
COPE: 4♦. Looking at my hand would suggest that partner is being imaginative with a hand such as AKQJxx/AQx/xx/Ax. At the same time, there are many more boring hands that partner might have, and we have to make one try towards slam. Let us see if partner cues or attempts to sign off in 4NT.
A handful of panelists opted to pick what they thought would be the right contract.
WANG: 5♦. I don’t think 3NT will be the right contract.
LARSSON: 6♦. Playing with an ‘unknown expert’, we will have no systemic methods here, so I will take a chance.
SHENKIN: 6♦. This looks like the best shot. I saw the World champions bid a 2-under transfer 4♠ in a similar situation which allowed partner to key-card with 5♣, but I doubt we would have discussed this auction with our proverbial ‘unknown expert’.
Whilst P.O and Paul were the only members of the panel who thought we were already there.
SUNDELIN: Pass. It might make.
MARSTON: Pass. Maybe they will defeat me with a sneak attack in spades with 6♣ lay down, but I have created my own trouble. Why did I pass 2♥?
A couple tried to get both of their suits into the game.
COHEN: 5NT. If partner has bid this based on hearts stopped and running spades, I've probably done the wrong thing. If he has a minor (presumably long clubs), terrific. I am envisioning something like Ax/Kx/xx/AKJxxxx (which is on the light side).
HULT: 4♥. I would like to show both minors if I can.
These made the assumption that their ‘unknown expert’ would interpret the meaning of their own particular methods…
COOK: 4♠. Minor-suit Stayman. I bid 5♦ if partner responds 4NT.
Without specific agreement, I think there must be some danger that he will put down dummy, expecting 4♠ to be natural.
This may work even if misinterpreted…
PSZCZOLA: 4♣. I hope this is a transfer to diamonds.
DE WIJS: 4♣. Transfer to diamonds. Playing with Zia, I no doubt should pass, expecting him to have seven solid spades. With Bauke, that risk is considerably less, so I'll opt to play in one of my minors.

Partner had indeed bid 3NT based on a long suit, but it is unlikely that you would guess which one as he held AKx/AKQ109x/Qx/Ax. 6NT has 12 top tricks, but the ruffing finesse against the ♥J enables you to make 13 in diamonds. The 4♦ bidders will get enough encouragement to reach at least a small slam. For the rest, the destination is perhaps less clear, except for the 2,300+ competition entrants who score +490 in 3NT.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.41

No majority vote from the panel, but they still produce a clear favorite. We seemed to establish last month that a double in this auction no longer shows four spades, but I do question the idea that 2♠ is also a cue-bid, rather than showing a decent five- or six-card spade suit. As often seems to be the case, the largest group of competition entrants (more than a third) chose to underbid with the most conservative action possible. Fewer than 1-in-20 scored maximum marks on this one.

MEYERS: 2♦. If partner bids 2♥, I will bid 4♥. If he bids 2NT, I will bid 3♣. This hand has too much playing strength not to cue-bid.
COPE: 2♦. I will be powering this hand to game, but the denomination is unclear. The hand is too good just to bid 2♣ or 3♣, but it would be presumptive to assume that partner has four hearts.
BROCK: 2♦. This seems OK for now.
ROBSON: 2♦. Let’s start by creating a force (I think game force), then we can investigate strains.
ZIA: 2♦. There’s no hurry. We can try everything.
HULT: 2♦. I start with 2♦, to see if partner has four hearts. If he does, I’ll bid game.
PSZCZOLA: 2♦. I have a good hand with hearts.
LARSSON: 2♦.
SUNDELIN: 2♦.

Sophia sums up for the majority.
S. BALDYSZ: 2♦. I play Double here as showing spades, so that’s not an option for me. I'll bid 2♦: if partner bids hearts I will raise and, if he bids 2♠/2NT, I can bid 3♣.

The second-largest faction on the panel start with a double.
BOCCHI: Dbl. It looks clear to start with a double.
MARSTON: Dbl. By starting with double, partner will know I also have hearts when I later bid clubs.
COHEN: Dbl. I am reluctant to jump in hearts with only Jxxx. I have too much to bid only 2♥, and I don't want to bid 3♣ and bury the hearts. So, let's start with a double.
BIRD: Dbl. The panel recently informed Marc and me that it was out-of-date to play a double by West as showing spades. In that case, such an action seems marginally better than a 2♦ cuebid.
A number chose to bid one of their suits, but which suit, and at what level?
BERGEN: 2♥. An underbid, but I expect more N/S diamond bidding, and I must show my major now and hope to be raised. If an opponent bids 3♦ and partner passes, I will follow with 4♣.
COOK: 2♥. I am bidding the four-card major first. I plan on bidding 3♣, showing longer clubs, after the opponents bid 2♠.
WANG: 3♣. A difficult choice.
MERRIMAN: 3♣. Four-card majors are overrated. I am happy to play here even if we have a 4-4 heart fit.
WIGHTWICK: 3♣. The panel probably plays double for take-out here, but then what if oppo bid up to 3♦ or 4♦? Having already bid my clubs, I can continue with hearts over those.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♣. I’ll bid hearts later, if there is a later.
MOULD: 2♣. These auctions never end here (he says hopefully) and next round I will bid hearts or double or something. Anyone who bids hearts before clubs here is perverting the hand IMHO.
WILLIAMS: 2♣. I start by bidding my six-carder, especially as my hearts are anaemic. Hopefully, I’ll get them in later.
Even if it is a cue-bid rather than natural, I cannot see how this is better than 2♦…
DE WIJS: 2♠. This shows an invitational or better hand with clubs. (It does? MS) Later I will bid hearts, probably.
SHENKIN: 2♠.

Partner had QJx/KQ10x/AQx/AJx so 4♥ and 5♣ are both possible, although either may go down on ruffs, whereas 3NT is almost certain to make with the ♦K very likely to be with North. The 2♦ bidders and perhaps the doublers might perhaps get to that top spot, although once you find your heart fit it may be difficult to get back out of it. Perhaps those who jump to 3♣ have the best chance of reaching 3NT.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.52

The two most popular actions from the panel both ask partner for more information. The two most popular actions by competition entrants, each attracting around a quarter of voters, are 4♥ (a definite underbid) and 4♦ (a huge underbid). Partner has made a takeout double at the three-level and we have all these values, and you want to play in a partscore? Really? The majority of the panel are looking for slam: let’s find out why…

COPE: 5♣. I will raise 5♥ to slam, and convert 5♠ to 6♦. I do not have the room to investigate any grands.
BROCK: 5♣. I am effectively driving slam. Will raise 5♥ to 6♥ and bid 6♣ over 6♠.
WILLIAMS: 5♣. We’re slamming somewhere, partner. 5♣ saves space over 5NT and helps us get back to 6♦ over spades if necessary.
WANG: 5♣. If partner bids 5♠ I will bid 6♦.
ROBSON: 5♣. I am angling for six of a red suit declared by partner.
SUNDELIN: 5♣.
SHENKIN: 5♣.
BERGEN: 5♣. With my magical void and very upgradable hand, I am willing to force to the six-level.
A couple were not committing to slam
LARSSON: 5♣. I have a very slam-friendly hand, but partner could have wasted value in clubs so I will pass a five-level bid.
PSZCZOLA: 5♣. I think I have to make a slam try. Double is the alternative.
Our last two panelists both know the hand, but neither were influenced by what happened at the table.
BIRD: 5♣. I wrote up this deal from the Gold Cup final for ‘English Bridge’. Trendafilov bid 5NT (pick a slam) and was entranced to hear a 6♦ response, for +1370. McIntosh bid only 4♥ for +420. It seems to me that 5♣ is better than either of these extremes.

MOULD: 5♣. I know this one - one of our few successes in the Gold Cup final. Tosh bid 4♥, which seems weird to me, whereas Trendafilov bid 5NT (pick a slam) and was charmed when his partner bid 6♦. If you are going to drive slam anyway, I cannot see much wrong with bidding 5♣ on the way.

Others also tried to consult partner…
S. BALDYSZ: Dbl. If partner bids spades, I can pull to diamonds. Slam might still be an option.
BOCCHI: Dbl. If my partner bid 4♠, I will bid 5♦.
COOK: Dbl. I plan on bidding 5♦ if partner bids 4♠.
HULT: Dbl. This hand I played in the Gold Cup final and my opponents did very well.
MERRIMAN: Dbl. Transferring the blame to my future self, who is smarter than me (and at least I'll have more info to work with).
Zia mentions the primary danger with this approach.
ZIA: Dbl. It seems unlikely he will pass, although I wouldn’t like it if he did.
SAELENSMINDE: 4NT.
The rest all settled for one game or another.
COHEN: 4♥. An underbid, but I am not comfortable going higher with only KJxx.
DE WIJS: 4♥. I am too afraid partner will pass if I double, so I am guessing the final contract.
Julian’s pessimistic side took over on this deal.
WIGHTWICK: 5♦. I fear that double will be passed too often. On a good day, 5♦ will catch a raise. Easier at IMPs than Matchpoints. (I wonder what 4NT or 5♣ would mean. Anyway, it's not clear that I am strong enough for such flights of fancy, especially as partner might have stretched to come in with, say, a 5-4-2-2 shape.)
MARSTON: 5♦. My best guess. 4♥ requires four-card support. Why take such a big gamble?
MEYERS: 5♦. I have lots of diamonds and I want to be in game. I am not willing to bid 4♥ and find partner with only three hearts, and have to take the tap.

A we heard above, on this hand from the 2022 Gold Cup final, one West chose 4♥, the other 5NT which led to the excellent 6♦. Partner held AKJ/A9x/K10xx/xxx, so 6♦ was an easy make.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.51

Although there appear to be only three possible choices on this hand, competitors somehow still managed to vote for fifteen different options. The three obvious choices each garnered some support on the panel, but there was also a clear favorite. Let’s hear what they have to say.

MARSTON: 2♣. This hand is way too good for 2NT.
ZIA: 2♣. 1♣ or 2♣? I prefer 2♣ as I will be left with no good bid in standard after 1♣, no matter what partner responds (although some of us play a bid to cover this type of hand).
Indeed, whilst the 2♣ openers are also in agreement about what to do next…
SHENKIN: 2♣. I’ll bid 2NT over 2♦.
DE WIJS: 2♣. I will show this as a 22-23 NT hand.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♣. Then 2NT, 22-24 for me.
LARSSON: 2♣. I’ll show this as a 22-24 NT. It looks like 22.
ROBSON: 2♣. I am treating this as 22-24 balanced and rebidding 2NT. Bidding is normally easier after opener has bid no-trumps.
BIRD: 2♣. In England, 2NT shows 20-22 and that would be my choice. Playing the USA-style 20-21, I am nudged towards 2♣ with a 2NT rebid.
COHEN: 2♣. I am too strong for 2NT. I plan on rebidding 2NT. This hand passed the "balanced yarborough test." That means game might make opposite xxx xxx xxx xxx with a fourth low card somewhere (picture a diamond lead and clubs coming in).
BERGEN: 2♣. For me, this is a total no-brainer. With four aces and a quality six-card suit, this hand definitely evaluates to the 22 points needed to open 2♣ and rebid 2NT.

WIGHTWICK: 2♣. I’ll upgrade and rebid 2NT with the rest of them. I'm not that impressed with my short diamond honours, but let's be optimistic.

COPE: 2♣. This hand is just too strong to open 1♣, and if I am valuing it as a 20-21 2NT opener, this hand is worth a lot more. The six-card suit, the building blocks of the ♣10-9, and the aces that win races, make this an easy upgrade. No doubt I should have just settled for 10 points by opening 2NT, as I feel this is the direction the panel might go.
MEYERS: 2♣. I am on the fence between 2♣ and rebidding 2NT or opening 2NT. However, I would open 2NT with two fewer clubs and thus I am boosting this.
The 2NT opening did have its supporters, although they sound less enthusiastic.
BROCK: 2NT. I hate it really but, if I open 1♣, I can’t see a decent continuation whatever partner responds.
PSZCZOLA: 2NT. This is close enough to a 2NT opening in my opinion.
WILLIAMS: 2NT. 1♣ might save space initially, but are the clubs really good enough for a 3NT rebid?
Part of the Swedish contingent seem to be playing a different method to everyone else.
HULT: 2NT. 22-24.
SUNDELIN: 2NT. Showing 22-23 balanced.
Not without specific agreement, P.O. This is standard everywhere else…
BOCCHI: 2NT. 20-22.
WANG: 2NT.
MERRIMAN: 2NT. I am tempted to open 2♣ but with these types of hands I never seem to have enough entries to dummy to make as many tricks as the hand feels worth.
The third realistic alternative also got some support…
S. BALDYSZ: 1♣. This is a much easier decision playing Polish Club, of course.
MOULD: 1♣. And follow with 3NT to show a good hand with clubs. John plays it about this good, so it should be fine. I don't mind opening NTs on it, but I would dither between 2NT and 2♣ as it is clearly worth a lot more than the raw 20 HCP count.
COOK: 1♣. I am not imaginative enough to open 2NT. After partner’s one-level response, I can rebid 3NT. Opening 2NT makes it harder to reach a club slam if that is where we belong.

Partner had Qxxx/xx/Kxxxxx/K so getting to 6♦ was tough, no matter what you opened, although 2♣ followed by 2NT gives you the best chance of enthusing partner sufficiently.

We open the third annual BBO bidding competition with only the second perfect score by a panel member, Andrew Robson leading the pack with 80/80. Congratulations also to Zia Mahmood (77/80) and Tim Cope (76/80), who complete the podium on a second consecutive month in which fewer than half of the panel return scores in the 70s. Another tough set, so congratulations to all competition entrants who make the leader-board this month.

And finally, on behalf of all those who work hard at BBO to bring you this feature, may I take this opportunity to thank members of our expert panel for the time and effort they put in to share their knowledge and experience with our readers. We hope you all enjoyed a fabulous Christmas, and we wish both our panel members and our readers the best of luck in the New Year.

The Expert Panel

MARKS

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

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                                5.88
HAND 2:                                4.52
HAND 3:                                3.99
HAND 4:                                7.31
HAND 5:                                5.58
HAND 6:                                5.41
HAND 7:                                4.52
HAND 8:                                7.51