September 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2023-9

We are now three-quarters of the way through this year’s annual competition, and players will start dropping their weakest scores after this month. Now is when the race to make it into the Top 10 and onto the podium for the annual prize really hots up.

No major victories by panel members to report this month, with the World Championships in Morocco still ongoing. At the time of writing, we have reached the quarter-final stage, and a number of panel members are still alive. In the Venice Cup, Sanna Clementsson (Sweden), Cathy and Sophia Baldysz (Poland) and Jill Meyers (USA2) have all survived the round robin to reach the knockout stage. Similarly, Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski (Switzerland) and Zia Mahmood (USA2) are all playing in the quarter-finals of the Bermuda Bowl. We wish them all good luck over the coming days, and I hope to report next month that members of our panel are amongst the medalists in one or both events.

We have three guest panelists this month, all of whom produced perfect 80/80 sets to win the July competition. Ron Mak, from Portsmouth NH, is 73 years old and he has been playing for almost 50 years. He teaches at the Great Bay DBC in Portsmouth every Monday, where they average 20 tables playing F2F bridge. Hema Abhikary from Berlin, Germany, is a member of German team ‘Bundesliga’. Last year his team finished in the top three at the 52^nd International Wachau Bridge Week, and in both the Teams and Mini Teams at the Mautern event in Austria. Remarkably, for Barry Bragin from Fort Pierce, Florida, this was his second consecutive perfect set. He 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.

A number of this month’s hands come from the recent European Transnational Championships in Strasbourg. Hand 7 was given to me by one of our regular competition entrants, Paul Dubois (BBO: pottsca) from California. 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.

No big majority votes from the panel this month, although they did have a clear choice on three of the eight hands. On some of the others, they offer as many as five or six options and are completely split. A divided panel usually means plenty of bids scoring fairly highly, so perhaps that will produce another high-scoring set. However, the problems this month seem to have proved particularly difficult, with the most popular choice of the competition entrants failing to score ‘10’ on any of the eight deals (the third time that has happened this year). 

Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores only a meagre 44/80 (well down from the annual high of 68/80 last month). The average score is 47.29 (down from 49.13 on Set 2023-8). There is clearly plenty to be learned from the views of our expert panel, so let’s get to it…

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

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.23

The panel gives a fairly clear answer here, with only three actions even considered. However, this is easily the lowest-scoring hand this month. The two most popular choices of the competitors, with votes from almost half of entrants, were for actions that garnered very little support from the panel. Let’s hear what our experts have to say.

BERGEN: 3♣. Seems right.
BRANCO: 3♣. Forcing to game.
BROCK: 3♣. It seems unlikely that South is mucking around too much at adverse vulnerability, but his hand is probably based on clubs. I’m not sure that anything else by me would be forcing.

MAK: 3♣. Game forcing, looking for more information from partner.
Ron’s wife, Alice, asked me to share with all of Ron’s bridge friends on BBO, the sad news that Ron passed away on Friday August 25th from complications surrounding a recent lymphoma diagnosis. She says that he was very proud and excited to have been a guest on the bidding panel, and I’m sure he would have been particularly delighted to have signed off with an impressive 72/80 that beat many of our experts.

RIP, Ron.

S. BALDYSZ: 3♣. It depends on methods, as people will play differently. Some play a second double as takeout, but I wouldn’t want to risk defending 2♣-X here, as they could have an 8/9-card fit.
SHENKIN: 3♣
SAELENSMINDE: 3♣.
Alan, Jill and Miguel all make the key point – we do not want to defend.
MOULD: 3♣. I am not sitting for 2♣-X, either by making a takeout double or by passing and partner making a penalty double, depending on methods. I'll try to find our best game.
MEYERS: 3♣. Double would be takeout, but I don't love that action with a void. I want to force to game and hear what partner has to say over 3♣.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♣. I have no interest in defending 2♣-X. I prefer to play in my game, whether that is 3NT, 4♥ or 5♦.
P.O. avoids any question of what is or is not forcing.
SUNDELIN: 3♣. Assuming no suit or NT bids are forcing, my choice is 3♣.
Simon outlines his plan for the rest of the auction.
HULT: 3♣. I will make a slam try with 4♣ over 3♥. Over 3♠, I’ll bid a natural 4♦.
David sums up the problem.
BIRD: 3♣. Some players (not me) double 1NT on nondescript 9-counts. So, I don't regard a Pass now as forcing. In any case, with this hand I wouldn't want to defend 2♣-Doubled. 3♦ would be forcing, but I slightly prefer 3♣, to see if partner bids hearts.
This group thinks/hopes their choice is forcing.
ZIA: 3♦. I guess I’ll soon find out if this is forcing!
ROBSON: 3♦. Natural and surely forcing. Sorry if we've missed a big number, partner.
SENIOR: 3♦.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♦.
ADHIKARY: 3♦. Natural and forcing. A double of 2♣ wouldn´t lead to a good outcome.
DE WIJS: 3♦. 2♦ would be non-forcing for me, and 3♣ is too murky.
Similarly, the next group.
COHEN: Pass. I sure hope this is forcing!
COPE: Pass. This is 100% forcing and leaves all avenues open.
BRAGIN: Pass. Forcing. I shouldn't be making the declare-or-defend decision. Partner opened an 11-count, but if she is 3325, she will double. With 4333 I expect her to bid.
LORENZINI: Pass. Forcing. I am obviously not planning to pass 2♣-X, but this leaves us more space to get information rather than bidding something at the three-level now.
Only Paul was willing to let partner out below game.
MARSTON: 2♦. I will show my hearts on the next round, if there is one 🙂
I suspect there won’t be.
Only Wanfei and Sjoert think double is for takeout AND are willing to risk it on this hand.
WANG: Dbl. I think this is for takeout.
BRINK: Dbl. They are vulnerable, so who knows? By the way, this is take-out.

The panel express various views as to which bids are forcing, or should be. In the Open Teams in Strasbourg, West bid what I think most agree should be a forcing 3♦, and the auction ended there. Partner had K98x/AKJx/x/10xxx so 4♥ was an easy make. Indeed, 7♥ would make with hearts 3-2 and the ♦Q coming down in three. 3♣ is not only unambiguously forcing, but also makes the subsequent auction relatively easy as partner bids 3♥ next. Some of the alternatives look rather like accidents waiting to happen.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.67

Another clear choice from the panel, with a quarter of competition entrants agreeing. The largest group pf competitors, over a third, go for one the panel’s minority choices, but almost everyone scores something on this one.

MOULD: 3NT. Marvellous! A complete guess.
HULT: 3NT. I don’t like any of my options.
BRINK: 3NT. If 3NT is a sensible option, bid it.
Andrew makes a reasonably accurate prediction.
ROBSON: 3NT. Don't we all? It's our best guess and if we don't bid this now, we'll never get there. Second choice is gambling a pass awaiting the hoped-for reopening double.
SAELENSMINDE: 3NT.
MAK: 3NT. Double won't get us to 3NT, and all other bids may be too high already.
COHEN: 3NT. The principles (Hamman's) of a lifetime. I am prepared to look smart (x/Jxxx/Qxxx/KQxx) or ridiculously silly (xx/--/Qxxxx/Qxxxxx).
COPE: 3NT. This really is guesswork opposite a partner who may or may not have some diamond support, but it seems the most likely game after LHO could not open 3♣.

BRAGIN: 3NT. Of course, this could be a silly contract, but that's why people pre-empt. I can't expect partner to reopen with xx/Jxx/xxxx/Axxx.

BROCK: 3NT. I think I’ve seen this hand from somewhere. I just hope partner has some clubs.
BIRD: 3NT. South has cleverly removed our bidding space, so we will have to punt. What else can you say? Sorry, but any panelist who mentions H*’s R* (yet again) should be docked five marks.
A couple of panelists mentioned one of the alternatives…
LORENZINI: 3NT. This might be the wrong spot, but it could also be the good one. I could have bid a natural 4♦ too.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. I usually play 4♦ here as hearts and diamonds, so that is not an option for me, Even if partner just has a few quacks, I wouldn't mind being in 3NT opposite something like x/Jxxx/Qxx/QJxxx. It could be okay even if partner doesn't have the ♦Q, but 4♦ could be the best spot.
And a couple went for that option.
ZIA: 4♦. This is why I don't play non-leaping Michaels.
That’s funny, as I play non-leaping Michaels to stop partner bidding 4♦on this type of hand.
SHENKIN: 4♦
BRANCO: 4♦. I can’t see anything better.
A couple agreed with the competitors’ popular choice.
DE WIJS: Dbl. 3NT has too many flaws for me. It’s easy to visualize an easy 6♦ while they are running clubs against 3NT. After double, I am not overly confident we will land on our feet, but we're gonna try.
WANG: Dbl. I don't like to bid 3NT with 4-3-6-0 shape.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. If partner bids clubs, I’ll show my diamonds. 3NT and 4♦ are other options.
SENIOR: Dbl.
ADHIKARY: Dbl. If partner bids clubs, then I’ll bid my diamonds and see how things develop.
Whilst a handful hope it’s a dreadful misfit on which no one can make anything.
BERGEN: Pass. Alas.
C. BALDYSZ: Pass.
SUNDELIN: Pass. Missing all possible games and slams as well as a misfit (and 4♦ shows, of course, a red two-suiter).
MARSTON: Pass. To me, the risk reward ratio is wrong. Any call from me is dangerous and I surely have a plus score defending a spade contract.
MEYERS: Pass. I hope partner can reopen. My RHO is bidding an unfavorable 3♠ with a not very good suit, so I am pretty sure he has a second suit. 3NT is tempting, but I don't have running diamonds. Pass looks sure to generate a plus score.

In the Women’s Teams in Strasbourg, West overcalled 3NT, which ended the auction (+400). Partner had xx/AKxxx/Qx/J10xx so both 6♦ and 6♥ make with careful play, even though North has a 0-4-4-5 shape. If you pass, will partner re-open with a double? Maybe, but maybe not.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.37

A majority vote from the panel,although less than 1-in-50 competitors get a ‘10’ on this one, which is perhaps the lowest so far this year. However, more than a third pick up a decent mark for selecting the only realistic alternative offered by the panel. I was fairly generous with the minor marks as these alternatives all seem clearly better than passing partner’s takeout double, as a quarter of competition entrants did. Let’s start with those who support the competitors’ popular choice.

BERGEN: 4♣. Not very enterprising.
ROBSON: 4♣. I considered shooting out a Pass, and the IMPs bid of 4♦ (choice of games, strain over level, removing 4♥ to 4♠ to imply longer clubs). At Matchpoints, I seek to avoid a bottom, so I take a feeble middle course.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♣.
BIRD: 4♣. Partner can easily hold a strong hand with 3-6-1-3 shape. He will hold four spades less than 50% of the time, as I see it. 5♣ would be too much with seven spot cards to be covered.
MOULD: 4♣. This will play loads better than spades, even if partner has four of them. I don't need to strain for thin games at MPs. Any plus score on this hand should be good, and partner will really strain to compete at this form of scoring.
BRAGIN: 4♣. Partner's most likely shape is 3-6-1-3. Game in clubs is certainly possible but, at this form of scoring, I expect any plus score to do well.

BRANCO: 4♣. This reopening double doesn’t guarantee four spades. I thought about jumping to 5♣, but I think something is missing.

Quite a few of those took account of the importance of going plus at matchpoints. At IMPs, I’m sure the next group would have had a much larger majority.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♦. Showing two places to play. I think I know this hand, or I played a similar one this year in Strasbourg in the Mixed Pairs
SHENKIN: 4♦
ZIA: 4♦. I have a plan, .as will others.
The next faction all have the same intention…
HULT: 4♦. Over 4♥, I bid 4♠ and partner will pick 4♠ or 5♣.
BRINK: 4♦. Choice of games. After 4♥, I bid 4♠ showing four spades and longer clubs.
LORENZINI: 4♦. I plan to remove 4♥ to 4♠ to show a flexible hand with longer clubs.
DE WIJS: 4♦. Followed by 4♠ to show spades and longer clubs. This feels pretty normal.
SENIOR: 4♦. Converting 4♥ to 4♠ to express doubt about spades and suggest clubs as an alternative.
COHEN: 4♦. If partner chooses spades, I'm happy. Over the likely 4♥, I will bid 4♠, offering two places to play. Partner will know I have only four spades.
MEYERS: 4♦. I will correct 4♥ to 4♠. I think that should show the black suits with emphasis on clubs, as I could have jumped to 4♠ if I was more interested in spades.
Although not all are quite so certain…
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. I’ll pass 4♠ and bid 5♣ over 4♥.
BROCK: 4♦. Choice of games, in my view. If he bids 4♥ I will bid 5♣ – I don’t want to risk playing in a 4-3 spade fit.
MAK: 4♦. I will pass if East bid 4♠, and correct 4♥ to 5♣. Perhaps a responsive double on the previous round might have saved us this headache.
MARSTON: 4♦. I am going to play game but I am not the one to bid spades.
SUNDELIN: 4♦. Is partner 4513, 4612, 3613? A very small chance to find spades via 4♦, else we’ll play in 5♣.
There were two mavericks who bid game themselves…
ADHIKARY: 4♠. Partner´s double shows spade and extra values.
COPE: 5♣. I am too good for just 4♣, and I do not want to end up in a 4-3 fit by bidding 4♦.
…And one who preferred to try for a good matchpoint score without going to game…
WANG: 3♠. Maybe pass is a good choice, but who knows?

On this hand from the Seniors Pairs in Strasbourg, partner had AKJ10/KJxxxx/x/Jx so the winning action was 4♦and then 4♠ over 4♥ to show four spades and longer clubs (or Hema’s jump to 4♠). You make 10-11 tricks in spades and 10 in clubs, so those who risk playing in 3♠ get +170 to beat everyone in the safe-looking 4♣.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.05

Votes for five different actions from the panel, without anyone choosing the bid made at the table (5♥). There were a number of complaints about our 3♥ overcall, and I think the majority agree that 4♣ showing majors would have been better. However, with 5-7 shape, 3♥ seems like a viable alternative, and only one panelist considered it totally absurd.

BERGEN: Abstain. Sorry, but I must abstain after the absurd 3♥ bid on the previous round. While I think 4♣ was imperfect, it was VERY CLEARLY the practical action.

No majority from the panel, and although the largest single faction voted for 5♠, I cannot see a difference between 5NT and 6♣ which, between them, collected 11 votes, so I awarded top marks to them jointly. More than a third of competitors chose to defend, although that action received support from only three panelists out of 25.

MOULD: 6♣. I cannot think of anything more intelligent to do.
BRANCO: 6♣. Of course, I’ll bid 6♥ over the likely 6♦.
ROBSON: 6♣. Surely, an inferior 3♥ bid when I had an obvious 4♣ Michaels. Now I am guessing to play slam and will offer a choice of suits.
SENIOR: 6♣.
WANG: 6♣. If partner bids 6♦, I will bid 6♠. Why did I not bid 4♣ after 3♣ to show both majors?
HULT: 5NT. Pick a slam.
LORENZINI: 5NT. I’ll remove 6♦ to 6♥ to give him the choice.
MEYERS: 5NT. Over 6♦, I will bid 6♥. That has to show at least 5-5 and probably 5-6.
S. BALDYSZ: 5NT. We could be making six or seven or even sometimes going down in five if trumps are not breaking sensibly. I'll bid 5NT, pick a slam. If partner bids 6♦, I’ll correct to 6♥ to offer a choice of majors.
SAELENSMINDE: 5NT.
ZIA: 5NT. Trying to squeeze out the max!
Most of the rest bid some number of spades…
DE WIJS: 5♠. I am bidding with 5-7 but, for me, this is a forcing pass situation, so partner’s double could be very weak. 5♠ is therefore a very serious bid.

ADHIKARY: 5♠. 6♠ seems like the most likely destination.

MAK: 5♠. The only reason I did not bid 6♠ is fear of East holding 4252, when we would have a loser in both red suits. However, Pass is not too far out, with 4-5 likely defensive tricks.
SHENKIN: 5♠
C. BALDYSZ: 5♠.
BRINK: 5♠. Like rest of the panel, I would have shown both majors the first time. Now I bid 5♠, but saying this, I would never have been in this situation.
COHEN: 5♠. I didn't overcall 3♥ to end up defending. If partner converts this to 6♥, we'll have chances to make it.
BIRD: 5♠. I am happy to be the seventh panelist to mention that 4♣ would have made more sense on the previous round. My 3♥ overcall does not set up a forcing-pass situation, surely, so I regard partner's double as showing some values.
BROCK: 6♠. Hope for the best!
SUNDELIN: 6♠.
VILLAS-BOAS: 6♠. We need two of ♠K, ♦A and second-round heart control to make 6♠ good. I have no way to find out if he has all three, so 6♠ is enough for me.
Only three chose to defend.
COPE: Pass. At any other vulnerability, this would be a forcing Pass situation, but here partner's double is values/penalties, and I have enough defense not to overrule him.
BRAGIN: Pass. Passing would be much easier had I bid 4♣ last round. Now we could be -750 when we are cold for a spade slam. But, I dug my own grave, and now I have to hope my aces cash.
MARSTON: Pass. It’s too late to bid spades now. Maybe I should have started with 4♣.

Yes, you might have started with a 4♣ cue-bid, but most of the panel managed to rescue our West from his previous decision. At the table, in the final of a team event, West bid 5♥. He was right in that 6♥ was against the odds, but 6♠ was a good contract opposite KJx/10x/AQxxx/Qxx. With both majors behaving, there were 12 tricks in either suit.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.38

This problem almost split the panel, with just a handful of mavericks. The most popular choice of competitors, with over 40% of entrants, failed to coincide with either of the panel’s popular choices. This is one of those hands on which you must choose between unappetizing choices. Let’s see what each of the groups on the panel have to say in support of their particular medicine.

ADHIKARY: 2♠. I cannot see any other reasonable bid.
WANG: 2♠. Although I have only two-card support, I think it's the best option.
BRAGIN: 2♠. Playing for a plus score. I will double 3♥ if it comes around to me. I’m glad it's only matchpoints.
SHENKIN: 2♠
SAELENSMINDE: 2♠.
MARSTON: 2♠. A bit conservative, but I do not like my hearts.
BIRD: 2♠. This seems easily best, compared with the risks attached to Pass, Double or 3♣. I would do the same at IMPs.
COPE: 2♠. I have to show that I am part of the human race by making a bid, and this seems the least dangerous, especially as partner has opened in third seat.
S. BALDYSZ: 2♠. I think I played this hand in the Mixed Pairs in Strasbourg too. At my table, my opponent bid 3♣ with this hand, but I think either a negative double or 2♠ is better as partner can easily have a 5-3-4-1 shape. As partner opened in third seat, I'll opt for 2♠. Sure, we might be missing an 8/9-card club fit, but at least we're one level lower, and it is matchpoints scoring too.
ZIA: 2♠. Maybe pass is better, but +100 might lose to +110.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. 3♣, Pass and Double are all options, but I prefer 2♠ at matchpoints.
The other major faction preferred a negative double
MOULD: Dbl. I cannot think of anything more intelligent to do.
BRINK: Dbl. I see no other option.
It’s funny to hear that same comment from panelists who have selected different options.
HULT: Dbl. Takeout.
BRANCO: Dbl. Normal bid.
LORENZINI: Dbl. Q-x in spades is perfect for a double. 3♣ would be game-forcing.
Even by a passed hand?
SUNDELIN: Dbl.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
Larry is feeling optimistic…
COHEN: Dbl. Maybe he won't bid 3♦.
Sally comes prepared for the worst.
BROCK: Dbl. If partner bids 3♦, I’ll have to bid 3♠.
Simon chooses double in preference to a third alternative…
DE WIJS: Dbl. 3♦ from partner would not be ideal, but double describes my hand better than 3♣.
There were a couple of dissenters…
BERGEN: 3♣. The honest, imperfect bid.
SENIOR: 3♣.
MAK: 3♣. I should have a sixth club, but my high cards are in the right places. I have to act with a maximum Pass.
Only Andrew and Jill opt for inaction…
ROBSON: Pass. Partner is a big favourite to reopen with double, whereupon I'll bid 3♥ to show a big hand with a choice of contracts, inferentially with long, weak hearts (hence the no initial action). If partner passes out 2♥, defending is probably fine.
MEYERS: Pass. If partner re-opens with a double, I’ll bid 3♣, which shows some values as I play this as a Lebensohl situation. It is tempting to bid 2♠, but not tempting enough for me.

On this hand from the Senior Pairs in Strasbourg, partner did not have the most robust of opening bids in third seat. At the table I saw, West bid 2♠ and made +110 for a 70% board opposite AJ9xx/AJ/9xxx/xx. Zia was spot on!

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.42

No majority from the panel, but a clear preference nonetheless, and another deal with less than 1-in-25 competitors picking up maximum marks. It looks to me like many competition entrants are simply looking at their own hand, without actually thinking about what their partner holds. Partner’s 3♥ bid, asking you to bid 3NT with a stopper, surely shows a solid diamond suit and a couple of outside cards. With the vast majority taking positive action, they all score better than the doublers and passers. Let’s see what the panel has to say…

ZIA: 5♦. Sort of normal, I guess.
BROCK: 5♦. This could work in a number of ways.
MARSTON: 5♦. Hopefully, at least one side is making game.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♦.
BRAGIN: 5♦. It could be critical to play from my side, keeping the opening bidder on lead. Picturing partner with something like Ax/x/AKQJxxx/Jxx
S. BALDYSZ: 5♦. In Polish methods, I would have opened 2♠ with this hand. As it is, we could be making 6♣/6♦ if partner has both black aces along with his solid diamonds, but I don't think I have any way to find out about that.
BIRD: 5♦. Partner is likely to hold the ♣A, and maybe the ♠K, alongside his running diamonds. If 5♦ does not attract 10 marks, I will return my crystal ball to Amazon.
No need, David.
COPE: 5♦. Partner has a solid diamond suit with a card and a half on the side - maybe ♠K and ♣A. I’m not sure we are getting enough from 4♥.

The man who held the hand at the table explains his reasoning for making the same bid twice.
LORENZINI: 5♦. With a stiff heart, I think it's a winner to bid rather than to double. Forget about spades, as it’s hard to guess what 4♠ would mean and what partner needs to pass it.

So, what do the 4♠ bidders have to say to support their action?
SUNDELIN: 4♠. I am assuming partner’s 3♥ asked for a heart stopper.
SHENKIN: 4♠
ADHIKARY: 4♠. Partner’s 3♥ was asking for a heart stop, so he is likely to have a running diamond suit plus extras.
Simon, Marty and Wenfei all spell out why 4♠ may work better than 5♦.
DE WIJS: 4♠. I feel protected by my opening pass, so I will blame partner if he sits for this with less than three spades. I don't want to double and defend 4♥ when they have eleven trumps.
BERGEN: 4♠. I'm delighted to be a passed hand.
WANG: 4♠. I am a passed hand, so partner will know that I have only five spades.
Larry gets to much the same spot, although it’s unclear to me exactly why this is any better.
COHEN: 4NT. Surely, he's choosing diamonds, but I don't think I want to bid 5♦. Picturing, maybe K/xxx/AKQxxxx/Ax.
By conrast, the 5♣ bidders offer a compelling reason for their choice.
BRANCO: 5♣. Partner has solid diamonds and will correct. I bid 5♣ to make the defence easier if the opponents bid 5♥.
MAK: 5♣. This will get partner off to the best lead if they bid on. East will correct to 5♦, knowing that I don't have seven clubs.
HULT: 5♣. We are obviously going to play in partner’s solid diamond suit, but I bid 5♣ to tell partner where I have my values in case they bid 5♥.
BRINK: 5♣. Pass/correct. I hope for a good score.
Just a couple are willing to suggest defending.
ROBSON: Dbl. Another guess. Very tricky problems this month! I feel I have to do something, and I hope partner reads this as general values. If partner has the pure Kx/xx/AKQJxxx/Ax, we'll probably get 500 v the 600 we can make in 5♦. If he has a trick fewer, then we'll get 200 when 5♦ isn't on. But, it's a guess and may easily backfire...
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
MEYERS: Dbl. This is tough. I think partner has running diamonds, but I am going to double and preserve equity. Partner can bid if she wants.
…And a small group do not want to get involved.
MOULD: Pass. I cannot think of anything more intelligent to do.

Perhaps the answers above will help you, Alan 🙂
SENIOR: Pass.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. I don’t know what my partner’s bid is like, so I pass and he can decide.

On this deal from the Open Teams final in Strasbourg, doubling would have collected +500. Cedric bid 5♦ and found his partner with Ax/xx/AKQ10xx/Axx: 6♣/6♦ need both minors to come in, so this is about a 50% slam. Although slam would have made, reaching 5♦ still picked up 13 IMPs when the opponents played 4♠-2 at the other table.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.07

A fairly close three-way battle on what is essentially a judgement hand, and the highest-scoring hand of the month for competitors with more than 85% opting for one of the top three choices. I suppose it should be no surprise to find nearly half of competition entrants choosing the most conservative action, although I did not expect quite as much support for that choice from the panel. At the end of the day, is it not predictable that the middle-of-the-road action is the most popular choice amongst panelists?

BRINK: 3♦. I don't see any other possibilities.
BERGEN: 3♦. In my dreams, this will end the auction!
BROCK: 3♦. I don’t believe this is going to end the auction.
DE WIJS: 3♦. I am planning to bid again later.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♦.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♦. The best contract may be 3NT, so 3♦ is ok.
MOULD: 3♦. As often with the hands as set, I would not have started from here. 4♦ or 5♦ according to preference is my call first in. Now I seem to have not much else to bid other than 3♦.
Moving on up the line…
HULT: 4♦. I have to tell partner about my extra diamonds, so 3♦ is not enough.
COHEN: 4♦. I’m giving up on 3NT, but I’m not strong enough to insist on 5♦.
COPE: 4♦. I think this shows this type of hand. I do not feel it necessary to pre-empt further.
ZIA: 4♦. Game needs an ace and a king, or similar.
WANG: 4♦. Invitational.
ROBSON: 4♦. I considered bidding only 3♦, hoping for 3NT opposite. But, partner's most likely shape for that would be 4-4-2-3, and then the clubs may be wide open. So, let's make a value bid and see what happens...
MAK: 4♦. Setting diamonds as trumps. With a bit more than two aces, East will cooperate.
BRAGIN: 4♦. If partner doubles 4♥ with her 4-4-1-4 shape, I'll pass. Hopefully, she will realize that black face cards are not as valuable as bullets if she is considering 5♦.
BIRD: 4♦. I will not waste time dreaming of a spade contract on a 4-3 fit when I have EIGHT diamonds. It seems that 4♦ is around twice as good as either 5♦ or 3♦.
Not so, say the next group…
BRANCO: 5♦. It’s what my hand is worth.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♦.
SUNDELIN: 5♦.
SENIOR: 5♦.
SHENKIN: 5♦
ADHIKARY: 5♦.
S. BALDYSZ: 5♦. A doubleton diamond and the ♠A-K is pretty much all I need from partner.
MARSTON: 5♦. Hopefully, at least one side is making game.
Only Jill stopped to make a support double, although quite why when partner is known to hold exactly four spades, I am not sure.
MEYERS: Dbl. This shows three spades. My next bid (unless partner jumps in spades) will be to bid diamonds again.

At the table, West bid 5♦ on this hand and partner, presumably expecting a bit more, guessed to raise to a two-ace slam with AJxx/Qxx/QJ/KQJx.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.11

Another common enough auction, and the panel is essentially split two ways on a question of judgement – do we look for 3NT or commit to diamonds? Fewer than 1-in-8 competition entrants scored top marks, with less than 30% choosing one of the panel’s two main choices. The two largest groups of competitors, almost half of them, opted for one of two actions selected by a grand total of just one panel member.
This deal posed two primary questions for the panel. What does 3♠ mean? If 3♠ shows a spade stopper, how do you cope with this situation?

BERGEN: 3♥. Hoping to hear partner rebid 3NT.
MARSTON: 3♥. Keeping 3NT in range, pointing to spades as the weak spot.
WANG: 3♥. Game-forcing, but I am not sure which contract is best, so I consult partner.
ROBSON: 3♥. I am close to a 4♦ bid, looking for slam. Indeed, I'd do that at IMPs, as surely 5♦ is safe. At Pairs, I'm reluctant to go past the ubiquitous 3NT.
BIRD: 3♥. Partner can still have three hearts. If not, he can bid 3♠ with something there, steering us into 3NT.
Both Zia and Simon also tell us what they will do if partner raises…
ZIA: 3♥. Hoping for 3NT, but I will play in diamonds if raised.
DE WIJS: 3♥. Okay, I am supposed to have six hearts, but this will work well if partner can bid 3NT. Over a raise to 4♥, I will pass and hope - it's matchpoints after all.
BRAGIN: 3♥. Forcing. With a bad hand and long hearts, responder must pass 3♦. It would be nice to have an agreement as to what 3♠ shows, either now or by partner after my 3♥ punt. Partner knows the form of scoring and will not go pass 3NT unless she has the 1-3-6-3 "nightmare" hand.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♥.
LORENZINI: 3♥. 3♥ can be bid with as few as four cards if you have no spade stopper. We play 3♦ limited, so I am not looking for a slam, but it would be possible to bid 4♦ here too.
P.O. raises the questions I was hoping the panel would answer…
SUNDELIN: 3♥. I am assuming 3♥ is forcing. What is 3♠? Shows stop? Asks for a stop? Shows four spades?
Jill illustrates the problem with bidding 3♠.
MEYERS: 3♠. Groping, saying I can't bid 3NT. I play that 3♠ here denies a spade stopper with my partners, so it is clear to bid 3♠ playing with myself. If the system we are supposed to play here says it shows a spade stopper, I would just bid 3NT.
ADHIKARY: 3♠. Asking for a stopper in spades.
COPE: 3♠. This depends on style, but I play in accordance with Michael Rosenberg's article in the ABW about ten years ago, where he discusses "The trouble with diamonds". So, this asks for a spade stopper, and we await partner's response.
I agree entirely that 3♠ should ask for a stopper. That so few panelists chose that bid, seems to make it clear that, in standard methods and with an unfamiliar partner, it doesn’t ask, otherwise it would have been the obvious bid. Unless specifically agreed, 3♠ surely shows something in spades and implies club weakness.
A sizeable faction head for a diamond contract with varying degrees of enthusiasm…
BROCK: 4♦. Keep it simple.
MAK: 4♦. Forcing, and let East take over as he sees fit.
BRANCO: 4♦. In free auctions, four-level support for a minor is forcing and shows some slam interest.
SENIOR: 4♦.
SHENKIN: 4♦

VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. Playing matchpoints, I need to decide now if I should investigate 6♦. I think this is hand is good enough to look.

MOULD: 4♦. Even at matchpoints, I am not bidding 3NT. There is just too much chance it is the wrong strain or wrong level. I know some play that 3♥ is simply showing five, and that would be very helpful here, but I am not one of them.
COHEN: 4♦. Again, I am giving up on 3NT. This is forcing, and maybe we can reach a good 6♦ opposite, say, AKx/x/AJ10xxxx/Qx.
Sjoert and Erik head in the same direction, but show their club control economically in doing so.
BRINK: 4♣. I play this as control-showing and setting diamonds.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣.
Simon is flying solo in the opposite direction.
HULT: 3NT. No one overcalled 1♠, so it will be unlucky if this doesn’t make.

Partner had Qx/Kx/AQJxxx/KQx, so 5♦was an easy make and 3NT had five top spades to lose. This seems to be the sort of spade holding on which partner gropes with 3♠ over 3♥, in case you have something like Jxx, so most of the panel should get to the right game.

We have a first-time winner this month, as Sophia Baldysz leads the panel with an impressive 78/80. Completing the podium, are David Bird with 77/80 and Cedric Lorenzini with 76/80. Congratulations too, to two of our guest panelists, who finish in the Top 10 with scores in the 70s.

Thanks to all members of the panel, who give up their time to both entertain and educate our readers.

The Expert Panel

Find your bids here

MARKS

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

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                                4.23
HAND 2:                                6.67
HAND 3:                                5.37
HAND 4:                                6.05
HAND 5:                                6.38
HAND 6:                                6.42
HAND 7:                                7.07
HAND 8:                                5.11