| ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL VOTES |
3  |
10 |
12 |
| 4 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
| 3 |
2 |
0 |
4  |
2 |
0 |
| 3 |
0 |
0 |
4  |
0 |
0 |
| 4NT |
0 |
0 |
| 2NT |
0 |
0 |
| 5 |
0 |
0 |
| 5 |
0 |
0 |
| 7 |
0 |
0 |
Just three choices from our experts, with one of those garnering a substantial majority. Our competition entrants, however, came up with a remarkable twelve alternatives, with less than 40% matching either of the panel’s top two choice. Let’s hear first from the majority…
BOCCHI: 3♥. Good hand. Easy.
DE WIJS: 3♥: It seems obvious to show longer hearts and extra strength.
SONTAG: 3♥. Shows a good hand with five spades and six hearts.
BRINK: 3♥. To be honest, I would have overcalled 4♥. But now, having showed majors already, 3♥ is the bid. It describes your hand beautifully!
SENIOR: 3♥. Showing extras with longer hearts than spades. Seems obvious.
Kresten is alone in thinking that 3♥ is forcing...
KRISTENSEN: 3♥. Strong hand with a strong suit and game forcing. Slam is in the picture, and hopefully partner can cue in clubs.
…but the rest were happy that it isn’t…
FREDIN: 3♥. I am going to pass if partner can only bid 3♠.
Andrew ROBSON: 3♥. Pretty clear for me. Not 100% forcing either, which is fine as partner may have two low spades and a singleton heart.
KOKISH: 3♥. This hand is not as good as it might appear. Imagine partner with a 2155 shape with, some values in diamonds and no high club.
BROCK: 3♥. Partner should be able to evaluate spade cards.
LAVEE: 3♥. Partner may only have two spades, one heart, and a weak hand. Bidding 3♥ shows 6+♥ and interest in game.
Zia sums up for the majority with the month’s most accurate prediction…
ZIA: 3♥. Pretty ideal description of my hand. I would be surprised if the learned members didn’t duplicate this perfect bid!
Most of them did exactly that, although a few were slightly more optimistic…
KLUKOWSKI: 4♥. I would like to show partner that my preference to play hearts is really big. Is my hand good enough to be in a game? I hope so!
WANG: 4♥. I hope partner has some points and some fit.
LARSSON: 4♥. 3♥ is the alternative, so naturally I go for 4.
BIRD: 4♥.3♥ would show a good hand with 5-6 shape, yes, but I see no reason why it should be forcing.
Most agree with you, David.
COHEN: 4♥. If I bid only 3♥, I doubt partner would know that the ♣K or ♠Q10x is enough to bid game
Kate hits the nail fairly firmly on the head.
McCALLUM: 4♥. Important to strongly emphasize the hearts as partner may have something like ♠Qx and ♥xx. 4♥ is a bit of an overbid, but partner won’t know what to do over 3♥ with, say, Kx/xx/xxxx/JTxxx or xx/xx/xxxx/AKxxx. 4♦ has some appeal as we can make slam facing Kx/xx/xxxx/KJTxx. The problem is that we may well end up in spades, so it’s not worth the risk looking for the perfecto.
There you have it: some fairly emphatic reasons why more than half of the competition entrants are scoring poorly on this hand. We had just one maverick on the panel (and he is used to it).
CHAGAS: 4♦. Partner should read as doubleton club plus virtually everything else.Gabriel was correct in that it was a slam hand that needed partner to evaluate his club holding. However, he risks ending in the wrong slam, so the rest of the panel were quite right in emphasizing their hearts, as you can make slam only in that suit. Partner held Kxx/x/Qxx/KJ10xxx. Would he make a move towards slam over 3♥? Perhaps we’ll find out in a few months.
Why don't you show us the rest, after we bid ??
Could only do 1 then no further hands available to bid?