Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2023-8

We are two-thirds of the way through this year’s annual competition, and fast approaching the point at which players start dropping their weakest scores. Good luck to all those aiming for a place on the annual competition leader-board.  

I am always delighted to report that major events have been won by members of our esteemed panel. This month it was the U.S. Summer Nationals in Chicago, and congratulations are due to a number of panel members. Zia Mahmood and Ola Rimstedt (left), won the Von Zedtwitz Life Masters Pairs, and Jessica Larsson was a member of the winning team in the Mixed BAM Teams.

In the prestigious Spingold Knockout Teams, we were well represented, with panel members in three of the four teams that reached the semi-finals. Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski were knocked out at that stage, but the Bremark team, with Simon Hult, and the Fleisher team, with Cedric Lorenzini, both advanced to the final.

In the end, it was Cedric (right) who came out on top, to earn his fourth NABC title. His three previous wins were all in pairs events. Congratulations to all of those panelists on their excellent performances.

In a couple of weeks, many members of our panel will be headed for Marrakesh, Morocco, the venue for the 2023 World Championships. I hope to report that all four events are won by teams including one or more panel members, so good luck to all of them who will be competing there. No doubt many of our readers will follow their progress, either live on BBO VuGraph or in my regular BBO columns reporting the best of the action from the biggest tournament on the 2023 bridge calendar.

Our two guest panelists this month both produced 80/80 sets to win the June competition, the first perfect scores of 2023. Ugis Jansons from Latvia is 47 years old and began his international career as a member of his country’s team at the 2000 World Universities Championships. He has been a member of the Latvian Open team since making his debut at the 2002 European Championships. He has twice been a member of Latvian teams that just missed medals at the European Small Federations Championships, finishing fourth in 2019 and fifth in 2021. Barry Bragin from Fort Pierce, Florida, says, “The strongest part of my bridge game is being able to predict how experts will handle tough bidding problems.” He has previously been a panelist on The Bridge World’s ‘Master Solvers Club’ panel due to high overall finishes in their bidding contest. Barry returned an amazing second consecutive 80/80 in the July competition, so he will also be back as a guest again next month.

We are delighted to welcome a new member to our expert panel: Nevena Senior, another gold medalist from the recent European Transnational Championships in Strasbourg. A young Nevena Deleva burst onto the international bridge scene as a member of the Bulgarian Women’s team at the 1987 European Championships, where she won the Women’s Pairs. She has since won three more medals (one silver and two bronze) from the European Women’s Pairs, playing with three different partners. A year after that initial appearance, she won a bronze medal representing Bulgaria at the 1988 Venice Cup. After marrying bridge expert and writer Brian Senior, Nevena has been a fixture in the English Women’s team for more than 25 years, winning the World Team Olympiad twice (2008 and 2012) and the European Teams twice (2012 and 2016).

Hand 5 this month was sent to me by one of our regular panelists, Alan Mould. 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.

The panel produces a clear majority choice on four hands this month, but are seriously divided on a couple. We have previously had the odd problem that produced seven different answers from the panel, but we beat that record this month – can you believe that Hands 1 and 2 combined produced an amazing 15 different answers from the panel?

With a couple of hands on which almost everyone scores well, this is looking like another high-scoring set. Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores better than on any set so far this year, 68/80 (up from 64 last month), and the average score is 49.13 (down from 50.62 on Set 2023-7). There is likely to be plenty to be learned from the views of our expert panel, so let’s hear what they have to say…

Find your bids here and compare your answers with those of the panel.

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.36

This problem produces seven different solutions from the panel, although there was still a clear favorite. Half of the competitors were split into two main camps, both of which score well. At the table, this was a win for the competition entrants, but more of that later.

BRANCO: 4♣. After so many doubles we are forced to game, so there is no need for jumps or cue bids.
BROCK: 4♣. This seems fairly descriptive. We are surely in a force after both the second-round doubles.
BRAGIN: 4♣. Partner should have a good idea of my distribution, as I didn't bid 3♣ last time. I'll pass 4♥ or 5♣, but control bid 4♠ over 4♦.
LORENZINI: 4♣. I would show my third suit. The auction is game-forcing after my partner’s two-level negative double and my double of 2NT.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣.
BIRD: 4♣. Over preference to 4♦, I will bid 4♥. Bidding diamonds at any level could miss a good club contract.
MEYERS: 4♣. My double of 2NT would strongly imply that I have extras with three hearts, so bidding 4♣ now should finish painting the picture of my hand. I am not going to force to game, as partner will know I am short in spades and should be able to judge what to do.
Alan raises the question of what partner’s second double means.
MOULD: 4♣. Surely, we are in a game force after three doubles from us. So, I will start here and see where it leads. Don't tell me partner's second double is penalties, because I won't believe you - you cannot double for takeout on one round and for penalties on the next.

Sophia sums up the problem.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. It depends on what values partner has. Defending 3♠-Doubled, settling for 3NT or bidding slam, are all possible on this hand. I'm assuming this sequence will show both minors with some tolerance for hearts, as I could have bid 3♣ directly otherwise.

That all seems very sensible but the next group choose to emphasize their shape with various levels of ambition…
ROBSON: 4♠. I don't need much for slam, and think 4♠ probably shows this shape.
COHEN: 4♠. I am not defending when they have ten trumps. I am hoping not to hear 5♣ but, if I do, that's where we'll reluctantly rest.
WANG: 4♠. This shows minors and short spades.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♠. There seems to be a good chance of six or even seven, so I show a strong hand with spade shortness.
Zia was not alone in preferring a different action earlier in the auction…
ZIA: 4♠. I didn't like my earlier double – I would have cue-bid then. 4♠ now should imply minors and a big hand, I hope.
BERGEN: I abstain!! I’ve never done this before as a panelist, but I VERY VERY strongly object to the totally absurd double of 2NT. All it did was lose a crucial round of bidding space. I definitely would have bid 3♠ there. Now, there is no economical way to investigate for game or slam in the three potential trump suits.
There were a couple of mavericks at the four-level…
SENIOR: 4♥. On the assumption that my double of 2NT showed a good hand without four hearts, I'd now like to introduce my three good ones. To me, the double of 2NT created a game-force, hence partner’s double of 3♠ suggests penalties. Not passing 3♠-X means I am unbalanced, so partner will know that my shape is 1-3-5-4 or, more likely, 0-3-6-4.
Quite how useful that information is to partner is a moot point.
JANSONS: 4♥. I would have bid 3♦ instead of doubling 2NT. It simplifies the bidding, showing that I have six diamonds, and I can then bid 4♠ later. Now, I am afraid that, after doubling 2NT, 4♠ will show some monster hand, which I do not really have. So, even though I am close to 4♠, I will try 4♥. This should show good three-card heart support, taking into account that I made a game forcing bid already (doubling 2NT is a GF for me), so partner might bid on.
DE WIJS: 4♦. I feel that my double already conveyed my extras, so I am content with bidding 4♦ to show my shape.
This was the bid chosen at the table, but not with the result that either Barnet or Tim intended.
SHENKIN: 4NT. Let's play 5m.
COPE: 4NT. If partner is prepared to make a negative double over 2♠, I am willing to commit to game. My bid will show longer diamonds than clubs and, presumably, partner can work out how many spades I have.
Only these three panelists would have produced plus scores on the layout at the table…
SUNDELIN: Pass. Hoping he has K109x/Jxxx/xx/Qxx.
Paul also earns ‘Comment of the Month’ honours…
MARSTON: Pass. Partner knows I am short in spades. There is no reason to keep banging the same drum.
HULT: 3NT. We don’t have a lot of defense. I think we should try to make our own game here!

I am not sure that I agree with Alan Mould’s contention about partner’s second double. On this hand from the semi-finals of the South American Teams, partner had KJ8x/1098xx/Ax/xx. That looks to me like a negative double showing hearts followed by a penalty double of spades. At the table, West bid 4NT in this auction, which proved to be one too high. At the other table, East passed over 2♠, South raised to 3♠, and our hand made a takeout double that partner passed for +800. A definite win for the competition entrants, with almost a quarter collecting the big penalty.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.25

I think this is the most difficult problem of the set, and perhaps of the year, with the panel voting for a record eight different actions. It is also a very tough one to mark (and I’m bound to displease someone, whatever I do) -- the largest single group on the panel opt for 2NT, but with the majority of panelist committing to diamonds I have awarded those bids the top marks.
A quarter of competitors score poorly for bidding 3NT, which shows a hand too good for a non-forcing 3♣ rather than either 18-19 balanced or a diamond fit. Another significant group gets just 2 marks for 3♦, which the whole panel agree is just not enough on this hand, but scores something as 2♣/2♦/3♣ are even bigger underbids. Almost everyone else scores fairly well. Let’s hear from the panel…

MARSTON: 2NT. I am too strong for 3♦, but I am not willing to go past 3NT.
JANSONS: 2NT. Not that I like the bid, but I do not really see a better alternative.
SHENKIN: 2NT.
Nevena and Alan both mention an alternative opening bid…
SENIOR: 2NT. It’s not ideal, but I am too good for 3♦ and not good enough to bypass 3NT by bidding 4♦. 3NT would show the same strength, but with longer clubs. I personally might have upgraded the hand to start with and opened 2NT.
MOULD: 2NT. I would not have started from here. This is a 20-22 2NT opener for me and I don't think it is close. Having opened 1♣ and heard this somewhat surprising 1♦, I am now a bit fixed. 3♦ is a huge underbid, 3M splinter, and 3NT a different hand, so I am left with this.
Of course, starting with 2NT also would get you to 3NT rather than 5♦ opposite something like xx/Kxx/KJxxx/Jxx.
S. BALDYSZ: 2NT. I'm not sure what the standard is here, as Polish Club is often very different. I assume that 2NT shows 18-19, although I don't really like bidding NT with Ax/Ax in the majors. All very difficult.
Marcelo intends to commit to diamonds later, whilst Wen-Fei may have similar plans…
BRANCO: 2NT. This forces to game. After a possible 3NT from partner, I intend to bid 4♦, as I prefer the game in diamonds.
WANG: 2NT. 18-19, balanced. It is important to force to game before anything else.
Cedric has a systemic advantage over everyone else.
LORENZINI: 2NT. I play this as showing a strong hand with a diamond fit, as we open 2♦ with 18-19 balanced.
Most of the rest chose to raise diamonds. The only question was how to do so…
HULT: 4♦. I have a great hand!
BROCK: 4♦. I have no idea what this means, so I’ll find out. I would have thought I would bid a shortage with this good a hand, so it should be something like this.
SUNDELIN: 4♦.
BIRD: 4♦. Partner should not introduce a flimsy diamond suit over the double, so our prospects in diamonds rate to be excellent. Since the 4♦ rebid already makes it clear that I have at least five clubs, I see limited merit in the 4♣ alternative.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. Good clubs and strong hand with diamond support.
This was the bid chosen at the table in the Turkish Women’s Teams Final...
MEYERS: 5♦. Wow, my hand has taken on giant proportions. Still, if partner does not have the ♦A-K (or the A-J with the finesse onside) my chances at slam are not so great, and we do have a takeout doubler, so I am just going to bid 5♦.
BRAGIN: 5♦. Partner won't cooperate with xxx/xx/KJ9xx/Jxx, so I'll bid what I think we can make.
Erik commits to game but goes for all the marbles…
SAELENSMINDE: 4NT. I stop in five if partner shows only one ace.
A handful of panelists chose more exotic routes…
ROBSON: 2♥. A fairly safe fabrication. I hope partner has not simply ignored the double and bids some semi-fatuous 1♦ with a weak four-card suit...
COPE: 2♥. The hand looks as if it will play better in diamonds than in NT. Give partner a rubbish hand such as xxx/xx/KJ10xx/xxx, and 5♦ is still good, but 3NT has no play. We therefore have to making a forcing bid to see how we can develop this hand, and 2♥ seems to be the lesser of all evils.
ZIA: 2♥. I have no good bid now. I do agree with opening 1♣ rather than 2NT.

And, even more imaginative…
DE WIJS: 3♥. A fake splinter, as I want to make a very serious slam try for diamonds. Bidding 1♦ over the double should show some serious diamonds, in my opinion

BERGEN: 3♥. Splinter. I need to game-force in support of diamonds, so I choose the most economical lie.
Larry is flying solo with a bid that has been mentioned but ruled out by some.
COHEN: 3NT. Add me to the list of 2NT openers (this hand is worth 20-21). Now, I am too strong for only 2NT and have no convenient way to show a huge diamond raise.

This hand raises a point that regular partnerships should certainly discuss, with a number of panelists pointing out that 1♦ after North’s takeout double should show a decent suit. Certainly, opposite something like xx/Kxx/KJ10xx/Jxx, you want to play in 5♦, but partner will simply raise a natural 2NT rebid to 3NT? At the table, East clearly had not got the message, and had bid what Andrew referred to as a ‘fatuous 1♦’ with Kxx/10xxx/Axxx/Jx, Thus, 3NT was the only making game, but I imagine that few panellists will agree with 1♦ on that hand after the double. 1♥, presumably, would not guarantee a particularly good suit, but merely four? It’s a question perhaps worth testing in a future month.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.25

Close to half of competition entrants pick up top marks on this hand and the panel produces its biggest majority this month. With some considering the hand too strong for 4sx, a quarter of competitors can consider themselves fortunate to score as many as 4/10 for the 3♠ underbid. Let’s see why…

MARSTON: 4♠. I fancy my chances.
BRANCO: 4♠. I am just bidding what seems likely to be the best game.
COHEN: 4♠. No need to mess around with anything fancy or to look for clubs.
BIRD: 4♠. Three losers are possible, so I am happy to play in spades.
ROBSON: 4♠. An underbid, yes, but it’s hard to bid slam safely and intelligently, and I want to unambiguously get to spades.
SUNDELIN: 4♠.
SHENKIN: 4♠.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♠. Partner needs to have the right cards for slam. South’s 3♥ bid NV-v-Vul might indicate something strange, so 4♠ is ok for me.
BRAGIN: 4♠. Partner needs a red ace and three top spade honors for a slam. With that she might make a move.
A number of panelists mention the primary alternative…
WANG: 4♠. I wonder exactly what 4♥ would mean in this auction. I won’t risk an accident, as 4♠ looks likely to produce a sensible result.
LORENZINI: 4♠. We don't play anything specific here. If I bid 4♥ and my partner has only three spades we would miss what is still likely to be the best game.
BERGEN: 4♠. I believe 4♥ here shows four spades and a long minor.
Zia and Alan highlight a major flaw with 4♥ if it does not have a specific meaning.
ZIA: 4♠. One sometimes needs to be practical. I want to avoid the 4♥-5♦ scenario.
MOULD: 4♠. I cannot think of anything more sensible. 4♥ loses the fifth spade and, if partner happens to bid 5♦, I would wish I were dead.
DE WIJS: 4♠. I would love to get clubs into the picture, but 4♥ for me is a slam try. So, I am making the 'normal' bid and will hope for the best.

Nevena offers serious partnerships an interesting alternative method…
SENIOR: 4♠. With some partners, I play 4♣ here as a non-leaping Michaels type bid, showing at least 5-5 in clubs and spades. However, assuming that is not available in an unfamiliar partnership, I will just bid game in spades.

A handful of panelists thought the hand was too good for 4♠…
HULT: 4♥. We need to make a slam try.
BROCK: 4♥. This is a good 4♠ bid for me.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♥. This normally shows a good 4♠ bid, so I am passing if all he can do is bid 4♠.

Jill has another interesting idea for serious partnerships to think about...
MEYERS: 4♥. I don't have a lot of HCP, but I sure have a lot of distribution. I like to play that, if partner does not like her hand for slam, she should bid 4♠ in case my cue-bid is a one-suited slam try. If partner likes her hand for slam, she should do something else.
Whilst Tim and Sophia are using 4♥ to get both of their suits into the auction.
COPE: 4♥. Obviously, forcing to game with spades and a minor.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♥. I usually play 4♥ here shows spades and a minor, but I’m not sure if that's the standard. It would normally show only four spades and a 5+ minor but, with a decent six-card club suit, I think it's worth showing. If partner has only three spades, sometimes 5♣ could be better.
By contrast to those making a slam try, Ugis is the only member of the panel willing to stop out of game.
JANSONS: 3♠. I’ll continue with 4♣ if partner bids 3NT, or 6♣ if partner bids 4♦. I hope 3♠ won’t be passed out 😊. I mean partner should raise to 4♠ with xxx in hearts, even with a minimum hand.

Partner had a monster: AKQxxx/Axx/AQxx/--, so 7♠ was a fine contract. 4♠, 4♥ and probably even 3♠ will put you on the right track. However, those competitors who started by bidding clubs (or by passing) may struggle to find the top spot.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.74

A majority vote from the panel, and the second-largest group of competition entrants collect top marks. Indeed, almost everyone scores fairly well (except those who seem to have misread the auction, thinking that it is partner who opened 1♠).

On this deal, we are faced with a choice of really bad options. It’s just a case of choosing the one that is least awful.

BROCK: Pass. And pray!
BRAGIN: Pass. When there is no good bid, "no bid" is best.

That sounds like a fine concept, but I'm not convinced that it's always the case.
JANSONS: Pass. Waiting😊.
SHENKIN: Pass. The auction is still live.
MARSTON: Pass. Why would I take them out of spades?
HULT: Pass. I hope to double later.
SUNDELIN: Pass.
ZIA: Pass.
MEYERS: Pass. Where am I going? I will wait to see how the auction develops and will jump in if and when appropriate
S. BALDYSZ: Pass. I'll wait and see what happens. I just cannot bring myself to overcall on Jack-fifth.
COPE: Pass. This is a good hand to defend with, or subsequently make a takeout double if the opponents find their heart fit. No immediate bid seems to have any merit.

Andrew joins the wishful thinkers…
ROBSON: Pass. It seems likely that the bidding will go 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♥, and I think we all know what we'll do over that...

VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. If my partner fails to reopen with a double, then maybe defending 1♠ is the right thing to do.
Alan not only picks up top marks but gets close to one of those real rarities, an accurate prediction.
MOULD: Pass. I HATE trap passes, but I really cannot think of anything else to do here. 1NT and 2♦ are both absurd, and their only saving grace is that they are better than double or 2NT. I expect a big majority here.
Well, not a BIG majority, as nearly half the panel chose to take positive action…
BRANCO: 2♦. I cannot see anything better - or less bad (argh…)
DE WIJS: 2♦. Very ugly, but I am just not passing with this hand. Yes, in an ideal world, you get to double some heart bids by the opponents, but the real world is never like that.
Very true, Simon, and the choice on the next round for the man who passed at the table was even worse, as we shall see.
SAELENSMINDE: 2♦.
David and Larry both also make accurate predictions about how things might work out…
BIRD: 2♦. If my humble diamond bid attracts some interest from partner, the rewards could be enormous. Bidding 3NT instead would kill the chance of a diamond slam.
COHEN: 2♦. I hope the auction doesn't end here. However, this is the best start to reach a sensible contract (although I do wonder if there will be 1NT overcallers).
Not a single one on the panel. There were some votes for more no-trumps, though…
BERGEN: 2NT. An unusual Unusual 2NT jump overcall.
LORENZINI: 2NT. I would go for the practical bid and try to find a good fit somewhere.
WANG: 2NT. I cannot bring myself to overcall 2♦ with Jxxxx, I hope we can find a fit in one of the minor suits.
Whilst Nevena was alone in opting for another of those choices so disparaged by Alan above.
SENIOR: Dbl. This is not ideal, but it looks to me like the least bad of the options. I’ll just have to hope that partner does not bid 4♥. Over 2♥ or 3♥, I will have an easy NT option.

On this hand from the Australian NOT final, if you start with a Pass, it goes 2♠-Pass-Pass back to you. Are you really going to pass throughout and try to collect a couple of 50s with this hand? I suppose you could back in with 2NT now, but will you bid again when partner chooses a minor?
East had x/Jxxxx/KQ10x/Jxx so 6♦ was an easy make. The ugly 2♦ overcall surely offers the best chance of getting there and 2NT might also get the job done. Are the alternatives really any less awful? 

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.70

Another big majority vote from the panel, and top marks for half of the competition entrants again. However, the pass chosen by over a third of competitors scores zero and lowers the average score on the hand. For many of the panel this was fairly straightforward…

DE WIJS: 4♣. This seems about right.
WANG: 4♣. This is natural and non-forcing, which is what the hand is worth.
MEYERS: 4♣. I am not committing this to game.
MARSTON: 4♣. There is no reason to commit to 5♣, especially with the ♠K likely to be worthless.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. I would like to play from my side.
HULT: 4♣.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣.
BIRD: 4♣. Bidding 4♣, vulnerable, shows close to these values. I don't like 4NT with a two-card discrepancy.
COPE: 4♣. I want to protect my ♠K, so I prefer the natural bid rather than making a responsive double.

Zia offers some sage advice…
ZIA: 4♣. Nothing to add. I don't mind if partner passes or raises, which is always the sign of an accurate bid.

A few mentioned 3NT as an alternative…
BROCK: 4♣. Maybe 3NT is right, but it seems a bit too optimistic.
BERGEN: 4♣. I definitely want to get my suit in. If partner had the unlikely perfect hand to make 3NT, North would probably bid 4♠.
LORENZINI: 4♣. Maybe 3NT is the winning bid, but it could also be a disaster. I think 4♣ looks like the normal bid.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. I assume South’s jump to 3♠ is weak. It is possible that 3NT will be the best spot, but it would take a perfect hand from partner, something like AQx of clubs AK of hearts, or similar.
ROBSON: 4♣. A tad feeble with a six-loser hand, but partner will bid on much of the time game is good. I think the hand is too slow for 3NT (although it's best when partner holds something like Qx/AQxx/Jxxx/AQx).
Only this month’s two guest panelists chose that option…
BRAGIN: 3NT. No guarantees but, if 3NT is right, it's now or never.
JANSONS: 3NT. I might win a lot while the potential loss is (hopefully) not that significant.
Whilst the rest took an alternative optimistic approach…
BRANCO: 5♣. Again, I am just bidding what seems to be the best game.
SHENKIN: 5♣. At least the lead comes to me.
SENIOR: 5♣.
SUNDELIN: 5♣.
COHEN: 5♣. With only one spade stopper, I am afraid of 3NT, although I hate to violate Hamman's rule.
The final word to the man who held the hand at the table, although I have curtailed his answer for the reason explained below.
MOULD: 4♣. I sent this one in. I bid 4♣ at the table. I thought 4♣ was right then and I think it is right now. I do not consider this a game force with this aceless hand, which is what anything else will do. 4NT obviously gets us to game, and if you make a responsive double, the odds are very high that partner will bid 4♥.

For a change, I won’t reveal partner’s hand as we will return to this auction in a future set.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.56

This is a straightforward question of “Do We Take the Money” or go in search of a pot of gold? The panel votes 13-9 in favor of bidding, and by far the largest group do so by bidding their long suit. Almost half of competitors pick up one of the top two marks., with the largest group collecting a ‘10’. Let’s start with those who choose to take the big plus score they can see…

MARSTON: Pass. I am with you brother.
LORENZINI: Pass. Let's see how much we score!
BROCK: Pass. If partner thinks we can make 3♣-Redoubled, who am I to argue?
BIRD: Pass. My top tricks more than make up for the lack of a second club. I will leave it to partner to calculate the eventual score.
MEYERS: Pass. My partner opened 2NT and has advertised that she has good clubs. I may only have one club, but we should have enough HCP to take at least nine tricks.
MOULD: Pass. Unless you tell me otherwise, partner has shown clubs good enough that he wants to play 3♣-XX. That is OK by me. I think we will all have to look at the back of the bidding cards to see how much 3♣-XX +1 or 2 scores.
ROBSON: Pass. I reckon one/two overtricks which, by my calculation, is 1240/1640. That looks like decent odds to me when slam is no sure thing. Plus, one likes to teach these doublers a lesson to keep them on the straight and narrow in the future.
ZIA: Pass. I think 3♣-XX +1 is a safe 1300+, and maybe two overtricks on a good day. Anyway, it’s fun. I would bid at matchpoints.

Larry makes a key point about how the hands are likely to fit…
COHEN: Pass. If partner has five clubs, there is no clear reason to expect we have a slam. Picture, say, QJx/AKJ/Kx/AQ10xx. I'm hoping to have to look at the back of the bidding box card to figure out the score. If nothing else, maybe this opponent will be reluctant to make a lead-directing double against me in the future.

The rest all go in search of slam with varying degrees of commitment.
SENIOR: 3♦. Natural and forcing, I hope. I don't dare to pass 3♣-Redoubled, and 6♦ might be better than 6NT if we belong in slam.
DE WIJS: 3♦. I have no clue what this means after the redouble, but I am not playing this with only one club. My plan is to try for 6♦.
BERGEN: 3♦. Surely this must be forcing. Otherwise, 5NT pick a slam.
BRANCO: 3♦. I am very willing to pass, but redouble here may just show stoppers - probably two. I'll bid 3♦ and intend to follow with 5NT ‘pick a slam’.
SHENKIN: 3♦. I’ll raise 3NT to 4NT.
SAELENSMINDE: 3♦.
SUNDELIN: 3♦.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♦. With my three tricks, we would probably make 3/4♣-Redoubled, but we have a good chance in 6♦ or 6NT.
JANSONS: 3♦. Slam scores more than 3♣-XX unless, of course, you manage a couple of overtricks.
Wen-Fei mentions the alternative way forward and explains why she prefers 3♦.
WANG: 3♦. The alternative seems to be 4♣, but I think that maybe shows 4-4-4-1 shape, so I bid 3♦ to show my five-card suit.
A few did prefer the unambiguity of a cue-bid.
HULT: 4♣. I will not sit for 3♣-XX with a stiff. I’m trying for a slam.
BRAGIN: 4♣. Partner's redouble is only a suggestion. It would be nice to have the agreement that 3♥ now showed 4♠ and the auction could continue as if there had been no interference, but I'm not willing to risk a misunderstanding.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. I'm assuming partner’s redouble shows 4+ good clubs or 5+ clubs. I'm not sure what the standard is here, as I don't play 2NT as strong. Sometimes even pass wouldn't be bad here -- if we don't make slam and I wouldn't mind punishing the opponents. I think 4♣ should be some sort of shortness and both majors but, if partner bids hearts, I can always correct to spades to show spades and diamonds.
Only Tim was willing to commit to the final contract immediately.
COPE: 6NT. We might expect to make 3♣-Redoubled with an overtrick, but that is only 1240. 6NT looks like the value bid with partner having good but marginally wasted values in the club suit.

At the table in the Alt, West passed. Partner had QJ/KQJ/K10xx/AKJx and made ten tricks in 3♣-XX for +1240. At the other table, declarer mis-guessed trumps to go down in 6♦ for a 16-IMP swing. I think the Passers definitely win the debate on this one.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.06

Another close decision and, with the panel split 12-11 in favour of bidding, everyone scores fairly well. Nearly half of competition entrants agree with the smallest faction on the panel, but they still score 8/10. Those bidding some number of hearts or using Blackwood, presumably thought partner had opened 2♥, rather than RHO.

SUNDELIN: Pass. Reluctantly.
SAELENSMINDE: Pass. Who knows?
HULT: Pass. I take my plus score.
MARSTON: Pass. I am hardly the one to take them out of hearts.
ZIA: Pass. It's that or some number of NT... so I choose "that".
BRAGIN: Pass. Lots of points but no game in sight. I'll settle for +200/300 defending instead of -100 (or more) playing in 3NT.
LORENZINI: Pass. For now. Somebody will bid spades or my partner should balance if we can make anything.

Marcelo is set to be disappointed on two counts.
BRANCO: Pass. On a special day partner, short in hearts, will reopen with a double. A dream, perhaps.... On a normal day we will collect 300 or 400 against 2♥. 3NT is another possibility, but the intermediate cards in hearts don't excite me.

ROBSON: Pass. If partner can't protect, we may well not have a game. And, if we act immediately, do we double? Will it end well? Who knows? If you pass, you may get 2♠ on your left and 3♠ on your right.
S. BALDYSZ: Pass. I wouldn't mind defending 2♥-Doubled. It doesn't seem likely we are making anything, except maybe a club partscore. I will look forward to partner's double in fourth seat.
MEYERS: Pass. 3NT is a very close second. If partner were not a passed hand, I would bid 3NT. If she has anything worthwhile, she is very likely to balance.
We now come to the paper tigers…
MOULD: 3NT. I see no sensible alternative.
SHENKIN: 3NT. With my eyes closed.
BERGEN: 3NT. Definitely NOT a textbook hand for the bid.
SENIOR: 3NT.
BIRD: 3NT. Defending, undoubled, will not pick up much. I prefer my chances in a vulnerable game.
COHEN: 3NT. I am too afraid of hearing spades if I double. Here, partner shouldn't get us to spades without six, and that is unlikely (no weak two opening). Opposite garbage such as Jxxx/x/K10xxx/xxx, this is where I want to be, so I might as well just do it.
Simon makes a good point.
DE WIJS: 3NT. If partner was not a passed hand, I would start with double. Now, I think the odds of finding a different contract than 3NT are too low for that risk, so I just bid what I think will be the likely contract
But a handful prefer to start with a double.
WANG: Dbl. I have too many points to start with anything other than a double.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. I can’t bring myself to pass with 22 points in honors. If partner jumps to 4♠, I’ll pass.
JANSONS: Dbl. We might have a slam in either minor. Let’s see what partner bids.
BROCK: Dbl. Having already passed, it doesn’t seem likely that partner will bid all the way to 4♠ on his own. And, if he prefers to answer in a minor, double will work better than 3NT.
I’ll let Tim finish with an accurate prediction.
COPE: Dbl. We could decide to defend, but we will not get enough out of 2♥-Doubled if we have a game on. The hand is not, perhaps, as good as it looks, as we have the wrong long suit as a source of tricks. Assuming partner bids 2♠, I would follow up with 2NT, slightly devaluing the hand.

On this hand from the Australian Teams final, one West passed and collected +100 defending (declarer makes five hearts a spade and a diamond). The other West jumped to 3NT and found dummy with Kxx/xx/xxx/J10xxx. North did not find the unlikely opening of the ♠A (from A10xxxx), so declarer had time to concede a trick to North’s ♦K and still make 3NT.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.25

This hand produced the largest single vote for any action from competitors this month, with almost two-thirds opting for 3NT. There was also a large majority from the panel too, but not for the competitors’ first choice. Let’s start with those who supported the majority of competition entrants…

COHEN: 3NT. I don't understand this problem. Am I supposed to look for 5♣? Incidentally, this hand is worth 15-17 and I would have opened 1NT (at least as an alternative to showing 11-14).
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. This looks standard with a maximum and 5332.
BRANCO: 3NT. Accepting the invitation with 14 points, five clubs and K-x in partner's suit seems mandatory.
SUNDELIN: 3NT. Reluctantly.
MARSTON: 3NT. This is clearly an accept. Hopefully, partner is not short in spades.
Perhaps we might find out, rather than just hoping?
BERGEN: 3♥. Definitely the most flexible way to decide which game we belong in.
MEYERS: 3♥. If partner has a spade stopper, she can bid 3NT. With a partial stopper, she can bid 3♠ to "grope".
COPE: 3♥. Accepting the invitation with heart values. I do not want to play 3NT if partner has a stiff spade.
S. BALDYSZ: 3♥. I'm definitely accepting the invite. If partner has short spades, I'd rather be in 5♣. If partner has something in spades, he can bid 3NT.
ZIA: 3♥. I’ve got to move, and this is as good as any.

Ugis sums up the reasoning by the majority of the panel…
JANSONS: 3♥. Again, let’s see what happens next. I accept the invitation and strongly suggest that I am worried about spades for NT.

HULT: 3♥. Let’s see if partner has something in spades to help us in 3NT.
DE WIJS: 3♥. Values. I want to try to avoid 3NT opposite short spades.
SENIOR: 3♥.
SAELENSMINDE: 3♥.
LORENZINI: 3♥. I will show some question about playing 3NT.
SHENKIN: 3♥. Ongoing towards game either in 5♣ or 3NT.
WANG: 3♥. Maybe 5♣ will be a good contract. 3♥ is an attempt to reach the best game.
BRAGIN: 3♥. If partner offers 3NT, I'll hope he has 10-x in hearts. Otherwise, we will play for 11 tricks in clubs.
BIRD: 3♥. If the majors were the other way round, I might not bid 3♠. Here 3♥ is attractive, because partner can then bid 3♠ to invite second thoughts about game in notrumps.
ROBSON: 3♥. I can't pass with a fitting maximum. 3♥ is values and, if partner bids 3♠, that should show something in the suit eg Jx/xxx, otherwise partner would go past 3NT (as we have implied weak spades).
I thought Sally’s choice would get more support, as it does much the same thing as 3♥.
BROCK: 3♦. My first thought was 3NT, but it could very easily be right to play in 5♣ if partner has a singleton in one of the majors, so I’ll give him the chance to tell me.
Only Alan committed to the minor-suit game.
MOULD: 5♣. Surely there must be a hole in one of the majors (even a stiff heart ain't great in NTs, whereas it is fine in clubs). I have great cards in the minors and think this may well be one of those odd hands where eleven tricks are easier than nine.

Partner held x/xxx/AQ10xx/KQxx, so the 3♥ bidders avoid the poor 3NT. In the final of the French Premier League, one West bid 3NT after this start and was fortunate to find A-K-x of spades on his right (+460). At the other table, Klukowski/Gawrys reached 6♣, which needed the diamond suit to produce five tricks on a heart lead, but would also have made on any other lead if clubs were 2-2 and you could score four diamonds, as you can make two spade ruffs. That was +920 for the Swiss, so playing in 3NT got what it deserved after all.

We have a three-way tie atop the panel this month, with David Bird, Andrew Robson and Zia Mahmood all scoring 76/80. For Andrew and David, this is a sixth time at the top of the panel, leaving Wen-Fei Wang now one behind with five wins. Right behind the leaders, Cedric Lorenzini and Jill Meyers just edge in front of a packed field with 74/80.

As always, thanks to all of our panellists for the time they devote to both entertaining and educating our readers.

The best of luck to all members of our panel heading for the World Championships in Morocco in a couple of weeks. I hope to report in the next couple of months that all events have been won by teams including one or more panellists.

The Expert Panel

Find your bids here

MARKS

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

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                                6.36
HAND 2:                                5.25
HAND 3:                                6.25
HAND 4:                                6.74
HAND 5:                                5.70
HAND 6:                                5.56
HAND 7:                                7.06
HAND 8:                                6.25