Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 2023-11

Players in the annual competition are now discarding their weakest scores. This is when the gaps between the leaders and those chasing them can shrink very quickly. The race to make it into the Top 10 and onto the podium is picking up speed as we enter the home straight. Good luck to everyone chasing a place near the top of the leader board.

Our guest panelist this month produced a perfect 80/80 score in the September competition. John Rengstorff (Jtorff) from New York, USA, is an actor, writer and bridge teacher. He won the Mitchell Open BAM Teams in 1997 and now has three national wins to his name. He says, “I was brought up in Madison, Wisconsin, and learned bridge in the UW Rathskeller.”

This month, we are delighted to welcome to the panel a duo that have nine World Championship titles and an amazing 45 US National titles between them, Bobby and Jill Levin. Bobby won the Bermuda Bowl in 1981, the World Open Pairs in 2010 and the Rosenblum Cup last year in Wroclaw. Jill won the McConnell Cup in 1994, the Olympiad in 1996, the Venice Cup three times, in 2003, 2007 and 2013, and the Rosenblum Cup in 2022 as npc. Together they finished second in the World Mixed Pairs in 2006. Bobby is also one of the stars featured in the upcoming new edition of World Class that will be released soon. (The same is true of a number of panel members so, for the benefit of those who might be interested in reading more about the lives and experiences of some of the players behind the names they see every month, I’ll give you more details in a few weeks when the book is published.)

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. Readers who would like to see further comment on the most difficult of this month’s hands and a preview of next month’s deals before they submit their entries, can do so by visiting Hanoi’s web site at https://www.youtube.com/user/hanoi5/videos.

The panel produces a majority choice on four of the eight hands this month, but they are seriously divided on some of the others. That is usually good for competitors, as there are likely to be two or three high-scoring choices on a number of the deals. The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on only two hands this month and, on two (Hands 7 and 8), the winning action is the choice of only a very small group of competitors. Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores 51/80 (down from 59 last month). The average score on this set is the lowest so far this year, 38.79 (down from 46.83 on Set 2023-10). 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: 4.98

A majority from the panel, just, although there was strong support for an alternative choice too. The important question for the panel to answer was, “Is 3♦ forcing?” More than a third of competitors agree with the panel’s choice, so we’re off to a good start… Or, are we, as the second-largest group of competition entrants (more than 1-in-6) choose a huge underbid not even considered by any panelist.

MARSTON: 3♦. Surely this is forcing?
DE WIJS: 3♦. Forcing in my book, so the most natural start to describe my hand.
LORENZINI: 3♦. Forcing and descriptive to me.
MOULD: 3♦. For me, this is a reverse and therefore forcing, so no problem. If you don't play this, I suppose you have to start with an ugly 3♠.

HUNG: 3♦. Presumably, partner’s negative double was just showing hearts, so 3♦ here shows 'extra values' and is forcing for one round. I intend to bid more on the next round to imply slam interest.

BROCK: 3♦. For me, reverses retain their strength unless I bid a suit partner has shown. So, here, 3♥ would be minimum, but 3♦ shows diamonds and reversing values.
S. BALDYSZ: 3♦. In Polish Club, I play that 3♦ shows 15+ and 5+♣, so I'm hoping this shows a strong hand in Standard too.
HULT: 3♦. Natural and strong.
COPE: 3♦. This should still show reversing values as partner has only ostensibly promised hearts. I have a great hand but need to find a fit first.
Some don’t think it is forcing, but bid it anyway…
ROBSON: 3♦. This shows extras, as partner has said nothing about diamonds, although I would say it's non-forcing (so we are heavy for the bid). But 4♦ is a splinter for hearts (I think), so partner needs to be aware that this is my only diamond bid and that I can be pretty strong.
WANG: 3♦. This looks like a little underbid. If partner bids 3♥ after 3♦, I will continue with 4♣.
BIRD: 3♦. Even if this is rated as non-forcing, it is better to describe my hand rather than bid 3♠, perhaps drawing 4♥ from partner.
BRINK: 3♦. If you play 2NT as scrambling, then 3♦ should show an unbalanced hand with clubs and diamonds. And I don't see a reason that 2NT isn't scrambling.
The other major faction on the panel do not think 3♦ is forcing.
LEVINS: 3♠. Too strong for 3♦, which would show extras but is not 100% forcing.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♠. Forcing to game. I will pass 3NT and advance with a 4♠ cue-bid over 4m.
RENGSTORFF: 3♠. Although I believe 3♦ should be forcing, in this accelerated auction I can't afford to be passed
ZIA: 3♠. I have too much to show. Although I do think 4♦ should be forcing, it's not quite right.
SAELENSMINDE: 3♠.
SENIOR: 3♠.
COHEN: 3♠. More decisions later but, for now, I’ll create a fore with this huge offensive hand and hope to learn more.
BERGEN: 3♠. The sky's the limit in one of my minors. Is 3♦ a forcing reverse? If definitely, definitely YES for our partnership, I'd bid it. But, I'd also want to bid it with a non-minimum such as x/Ax/AKQJ/xxxxxx. So, to avoid torturing partner, I'll bid 3♠.
Only P.O. chose to emphasize his longest suit.
SUNDELIN: 4♣.
Zia rose the question of whether even 4♦ was forcing, whereas Andrew mentioned that if 3♦ is forcing then should 4♦ not be a splinter for hearts… Jill thinks it is natural but not 100% forcing…
MEYERS: 4♦. There are many moderate hands on which I might be "endplayed" into bidding 3♦ (eg. Kxx/x/AQxx/AQxxx) without game-forcing values. 4♦ is highly invitational and should show at least 4-6 in the minors.
And Barnet raises even more questions, so perhaps this is an auction worth coming back to in some form in future.
SHENKIN: 4♦. The most interesting problem of the set. There are several questions to ask. Is a jump to 4♣ here forcing and, if so, does 3♠ followed by 5♣ imply this kind of hand? If not forcing, 3♠ then 5♣ can be a strong single suiter. It is important to bring diamonds into the picture. So, do you bid 4NT, showing the minors, or 4♦? Both seem reasonable and concentrate partners focus. 4♦ gives room to maybe cue 4♠, so I’ll go for that.

Partner held xx/AJxx/Kxxx/Kxx, so a small slam in either minor was cold and 7♦ needed only a 3-2 trump break. A forcing 3♦ would certainly simplify the subsequent auction.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.69

Although a reasonable number picked up maximum marks, overall this proved to be a very difficult hand for competitors, with almost two-thirds making big underbids. It is dispiriting that the largest group of competition entrants (over 40%) think that passing 3♣ is the right answer to this problem. This suggests a huge misevaluation of the hand, with the panel almost universally driving to game and some even looking for slam. Hence this is the lowest-scoring hand this month.

Of primary interest is the realization that 3♠ and 4♠ are not attempts to play in that suit, but value-showing (3♠) and control-showing (4♠) bids agreeing clubs. Having bid 2♦ at your previous turn, you cannot now try to play in spades. I am also a bit surprised that the largest group on the panel simply settled for bidding game, and I marked the forward-going bids chosen by the rest of the panel appropriately generously.

RENGSTORFF: 3♠. It’s not unreasonable to imagine a good 6♣ contract. 3♠ must be a cue-bid with clubs in mind.

MEYERS: 3♠. Partner has extras with at least 5/5 in the minors and, with my club holding, I can imagine something like x/Kx/AKQxx/AJxxx. Her hand could even be a tad better and we could possibly have a slam, but most assuredly we can make game. If partner bids 3NT, I will pass, otherwise I am bidding 5♣ at my next opportunity and I hope that gives partner a picture of my hand.
The final group make a real slam try.
ZIA: 4♠. This is a cue-bid for clubs. If he passes, I will get him to buy the champagne.
MARSTON: 4♠. Clearly showing the ♠A and useful minor-suit cards on the way to 5♣.
MOULD: 4♠. Surely this is a cue agreeing clubs? I have a great hand. Say partner has something like x/Ax/AKxxx/AJ10xx....
Bobby and Jill think 4♣ is forcing, although it seems the rest are not so sure of that.
LEVINS: 4♣. This has to be forcing. Hoping to cue-bid 4♠ next.

Partner had Kx/x/AKQxx/AJxxx, so 5♣ was easy and 6♣ was certainly playable.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.46

This hand was the question-setter’s error for the month. Perhaps I should have posed the question a round earlier, to see what the panel would do over 3♦? That would raise the question of whether 3M was forcing, but it would also get into problems with panelists who have sophisticated methods such as switching the meaning of 3♥/3♠. To avoid these questions, I asked myself what players would bid opposite an unknown expert with no agreements. The result was the 4♦ cue-bid to which some took exception.

DE WIJS: Abstain. 4♦ as a general good hand is too much to accept for me, sorry.

As is often the case, competitors chose to underbid in large numbers, although over a third at least scored 8/10 for bidding a small slam. It is hard to believe that anyone would bid only 5♥ or, even more incredible, pass 5♣ with this hand. Surely, at least 12 tricks are virtually guaranteed, but more than 1-in-5 competition entrants chose one of those options and scored zero in the process. No clear majority vote from the panel, but close to two-thirds, realizing the danger of alternatives, simply bid a large number of hearts.

WANG: 6♥. I was always going to bid slam.
SUNDELIN: 6♥. Unfortunately, a cue-bid showing "a good hand" to many implies more than one suit.
BIRD: 6♥. Add me to the list of those who regard 4♦ as 'showing a good hand', while not mentioning the hearts, as a LUDICROUS method. If we miss a lay-down 7♥, perhaps partner will agree to switch to what the rest of the world plays opposite 2NT.
And, exactly what do they play after 2NT-(3♦)-? which is effectively the same as this auction. Do you know? Nor, me neither. That was the point.
BROCK: 6♥. I can’t think of any intelligent way to bid this. But, surely most would have some methods here. Or, if not here exactly, surely it would be the same as, e.g. 1NT-(3♦), where 3M would be five in the other major. Some sort of chance if I could show hearts at the three-level rather than the six-level!
I agree, but I doubt that most of our readers would have this switch-major method available.
ZIA: 6♥. I would love to bid seven, but I honestly don't know how to bid it with any confidence...
Most just took the bull by the horns.
HULT: 7♥. We’ll get there one way or another.
COHEN: 7♥. I have no way to find out what I need, so I’ll just take the educated guess at what is likely to be the right place. I should probably have bid this last round if I was going to bid it now.
A couple pick up on partner’s failure to bid 4NT.
COPE: 7♥. Partner could have bid 4NT over 4♦ with particularly good diamond values, so I am expecting decent clubs and perhaps less in diamonds.
S. BALDYSZ: 7♥. I'm pretty much shooting in the dark. Does 4♦ indicate something about shape or just show a good hand without 4-4 in the majors, because I would have doubled? 5♣ I assume is natural/cue, but doesn't have a really good diamond stopper (no 4NT bid) and perhaps also denies the ♠K. It seems probable partner has the AK of clubs and maybe the ♦A too.
HUNG: 7♥. I hope partner's not the type to overcall 2NT with a singleton? Otherwise, I don't see much science here. One thing going for me is that, if partner was loaded in diamonds (i.e. ♦A-Q-J), then he might've bid 4NT, so there's a good chance that he will have ♣A-K.
Paul puts in a bid for the Comment of the Month award.
MARSTON: 7♥. No problem if the ♣A is missing. North will never lead a club, and I will reel in 13 tricks by squeezing righty in the blacks.
I wish Marty would tell us what he really really thinks 😊
BERGEN: 7♥. I HATE HATE HATE the fact that 4♦ did not show hearts, and I would NEVER play your definition of 4♦. FYI: After partner's 2NT and the 3♦ bid, the clearly right way to play is: 3♥ = spades and 3♠ = hearts. 5♥ here can't be forcing. 7H definitely rates to be cold, and might even make if off the ♣A! Picture KQx/xxx/AK/KJ10xx or even 3226.   
Of course, that is a method that regular partnerships who have discussed such auctions might play, but if you sat down with a decent player you’d never seen before, or at the rubber bridge table, would you really expect him to understand that (2♦)-2NT-(3♦)-3♠ showed hearts? Would you even be sure that 3♥ was forcing?
MOULD: 7♥. I have run out of sensible things to do. I could bid 5♦, but partner will bid 6♣ and then I bid 6♥ and .... I will just gamble that partner has the ♣A-K.
SAELENSMINDE: 7♥.
Andrew highlights the danger of the alternative approaches…
ROBSON: 7♥. The danger is that if I keep on bidding diamonds, partner will think I have a major two-suiter and convert my later heart bid to spades. I have to decide now, and I think partner's 5♣ means 90% he has A-K (because I have the queen). We should pick up hearts even facing two low, and our ♠9 will go on dummy's clubs. Surely with the odds.
Flirting with danger are…
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. I am still trying for a grand slam.
LORENZINI: 5♦. Let’s have another round of cue-bidding, but no doubt I will soon bid 7♣ or 7♥. To me, 5♣ is a positive bid, as you should reply to 4♦ according to pass or correct theory.

 LEVINS: 5♦. We both hate 4♦. We would have preferred to bid either 3♠ showing hearts or 3♥ forcing, then hope to bid Exclusion or at least cue-bid a few times thereafter.

SHENKIN: 5♦.
BRINK: 5♦. Most likely, the bidding will end in 7♥. The only question is, why did I start with 4♦? Apparently, I have a plan, and to follow up this plan I bid 5♦ now, for sure showing first round control....
Jill sums up the hopes of the last group.
MEYERS: 5NT. I hope this is grand slam force in clubs. I am giving up on hearts.
RENGSTORFF: 5NT. It's good to be on the same wavelength with myself. This should be a grand slam force asking for two top honours in clubs, and I will then correct to hearts at the appropriate level.
SENIOR: 5NT. Intending to correct clubs to hearts at the six- or seven-level.
This should work okay as long as partner doesn’t later decide that he misunderstood 5NT and thinks you are asking him to choose between the majors.

At the table, partner had KJx/Qx/KJx/AKxxx, so 7♥ was cold but anyone playing in 7♣ would have gone down on a 4-1 trump split.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.13

This was the first of two hands this month on which the panel voted in large numbers for a single action. And yet, only an average of around 16% of competitors chose either of those two options. On this deal, the second-largest group of competitors chose 3NT, an action not considered by a single panelist. Why? Consider a hand such as xx/xxx/x/AQJxxxx opposite, when you can make 6♣, but not 3NT. The largest group also scored poorly as 5♣ is a distinct underbid, with almost everyone on the panel either bidding slam or making a slam try.

WANG: 4♥. Cue-bid and showing a club fit.
MEYERS: 4♥. I am not ruling out slam.
BIRD: 4♥. This seems to tick all the boxes, seeking assistance as to the final level.
HUNG: 4♥. I'll sacrifice the matchpoints 3NT to look for a potential slam. Something like xxx/QJx/x/AQ10xxx gives us a playable slam?
COPE: 4♥. We have to show signs of life in order to reach a potential slam. Since I am never stopping short of 5♣, we can express our slam interest accordingly.
ROBSON: 4♥. Agree clubs, show a heart control and show slam interest. The alternative is 4NT RKCB, but it's a pretty rubbish convention when clubs are trumps.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♥. If partner has ♣A-Q-J and the ♦K or the ♠A, 5♣ will be a decent contract. I'm not sure what the standard agreements are here, like what 4NT would be? Since I didn't agree clubs on the first round, I'm thinking 4♥ will pretty much show the shape that I have.

 VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. The likelihood is that we will play 6♣. With the right cards we can get to a grand slam and with the wrong ones stop in game.

BROCK: 4♥. I wonder what 3♣ from partner over 1♥ would be. (Fit-showing, perhaps? MS). I’m not going to drive to slam as partner’s 3♣ was non-forcing, but surely this is a slam try.
SUNDELIN: 4♥.
LEVINS: 4♥.
SHENKIN: 4♥.
A couple mentioned 4♣ as a possibility.
LORENZINI: 4♥. This should agree clubs, just in case there is a doubt that 4♣ is forcing.
HULT: 4♥. We should be in a game-forcing auction after the 2♠ bid, so 4♣ is probably okay. However, I’ll try 4♥ just to be sure!
It sounds as if John thinks it would not be forcing.
RENGSTORFF: 4♥. Even though partner’s 3♣ bid is limited, if he can cue 4♠, slam looks pretty good. If I just jump to 5♣ or even just bid 4♣, I can't imagine partner going any further.
Only Sjoert is prepared to take the risk despite the availability of 4♥ as a sensible alternative.
BRINK: 4♣. Expecting and hoping it is forcing. Very likely 6♣ is cold....
The second-largest faction on the panel simply bid what they think partner can make.
MOULD: 6♣. It might have play.
ZIA: 6♣. Who leads a diamond on this auction?
MARSTON: 6♣. Lots of system issues here. Finessing all that, this is my best guess as to the final contract.
SENIOR: 6♣.
BERGEN: 6♣. I believe that: If I passed on the previous round, after partner's two-level response, even though it was not game-forcing he cannot pass 2♥. As partner didn't make a negative double, he probably doesn't have spades. Therefore, my 2♠ should be a game-forcing reverse. If partner is on the same wavelength, I could bid 4♣ or pass now. But, it would be embarrassing to play in 4♣ or defend 3♥. So, after the vulnerable opponent bid 3♥, partner's values are NOT in hearts, so I will just bid what should be a good slam.  
A couple are prepared to tempt partner into a losing option…
DE WIJS: Dbl. No clear bid and still some extra values.
COHEN: Dbl. A bit scary with only one heart, but I can't think of anything better. If partner passes, I can hope for the five obvious tricks (two spades, one diamond and two clubs).
Only Erik is willing to settle for game.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♣.

Partner held Axx/xxx/x/AQ10xxx, so 7♣ and 6NT both needed little more than the clubs coming in. Probably only the 4♥ bidders have a chance of getting to the grand. Might East not pass a double expecting 4-2-6-1 shape? 

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.07

This is the second hand on which the panel produces a huge majority vote. Again, only a fairly small number of competitors agree, with the largest group opting for a totally inadequate, non-forcing 3♣, as I predicted would be the case in my monthly video discussion with Hanoi.

DE WIJS: 3NT. What can go wrong?
BROCK: 3NT. I’ve looked silly before!
WANG: 3NT. It's easy to make.
MEYERS: 3NT. What is there to say?
BRINK: 3NT. Let's roll the dice....
BERGEN: 3NT. Principles of a lifetime.
MOULD: 3NT. And watch them cash the heart suit.
Barnet and Andrew both make similar accurate predictions.
SHENKIN: 3NT. I won’t be alone, methinks.
ROBSON: 3NT. Don't we all? I've a feeling the opponents are about to run hearts, but a mere Jxx opposite is probably enough to stop the suit.

Zia sums it up succinctly and earns ‘Comment of the Month’ honors…

ZIA: 3NT. I expect only the perverts to find another bid.

COPE: 3NT. Solid clubs with a spade stopper, which is roughly what I have.
BIRD: 3NT. Our prospects in clubs are unknown. Those in 3NT look excellent.
MARSTON: 3NT. Love the one you're with.
COHEN: 3NT. If they beat me in the red suits, so be it. Why can't partner just have something plain like Qxxx/Kxxx/xxx/xx?
RENGSTORFF: 3NT. Maybe 3♦ is better as, over 3♥, I can then bid 3NT, but what if he doesn't bid 3♥?
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. Hoping partner has some help in hearts and maybe a club fit or clubs split.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. If partner has a strong hand with spades, he can bid on.
Despite Zia’s expectations, there were a handful of dissenters…
LEVINS: 3♠. Showing clubs and a big hand.
LORENZINI: 3♠. This shows clubs and a one-suited hand strong enough to go to at least the five-level.
SUNDELIN: 4♣. Perhaps it is too optimistic to bypass 3NT.
HUNG: 4♠. Am I being mean to expect partner to know what this bid shows? It feels like partner has a spade stack, but it seems futile to double, as South is going to run to hearts. In fact, they may have a huge heart fit, so hopefully partner will understand 4♠ to be single-suited clubs and a good hand!
HULT: 5♣.
SENIOR: 5♣.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♣.

On this hand from the quarter-finals of the World Youth Teams, West bid 3NT at the table. Dummy had Qxx/9xx/Axxxx/Qx and the ♥J was led, but South, with ♥AKxxx, ducked to declarer’s queen for +720. Alas, that was still 13 IMPs out when the opponents bid to 6♣-X at the other table, and guessed correctly to pick up North’s ♦Q-J doubleton. Ah well!

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.91

No majority choice from the panel, but a close vote between the two main choices. With two-thirds of competition entrants also choosing one of those two options, this is by far the highest-scoring hand of the month. I think this group probably just edged the debate…

MARSTON: Pass. Partner has a good hand with no clear action. Me too.
COHEN: Pass. Let's catch them speeding.
ROBSON: Pass. This feels like a minimum of +300 if we can make game (presumably 5♣).
BROCK: Pass. I’ve looked silly two hands running before!
WANG: Pass. I don't have a good choice, but I think they can't make 3♦-doubled.
BERGEN: Pass. I'd like this better at matchpoints, but you can't play scared bridge. Non-vulnerable opponents are often very frisky.
HUNG: Pass. I lead the ♥J. Passing may work poorly if partner has, say, 3-4-1-5 (maybe he wanted to look for a 4-4 heart fit before bidding 4♠?) However, non-vulnerable opponents will often have only five diamonds for the 2♦ opening and 3♦ may deliver only three-card support.
COPE: Pass. I am leading a trump and expecting +300 as a minimum. It would be more difficult at matchpoints, as I also expect to make 5♣, but at teams would rather take the sure plus score.
David is not quite as confident as the rest…
BIRD: Pass. Eleven tricks in clubs are no certainty, nor is any other game. I will hope for some sort of plus score by defending.
The largest group is more circumspect.
LORENZINI: 4♣. I don't like to pass with such a bad holding in trump. Even though it can be good, it can also be a disaster. 4♣ will bring at least a decent score.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. I thought about pass and 3NT also, but if partner is minimum for his double, it could be disastrous. He has 9-10 cards in hearts and clubs, so 4♣.

LEVINS: 4♣. This seems routine.

MEYERS: 4♣. I am not reckless enough to try 3NT, and I don't have enough to bid anything other than 4♣.
RENGSTORFF: 4♣. I can't think I have enough fire power to try 3NT. I can't even count on a diamond stopper and it looks iffy to defend.
SHENKIN: 4♣.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣.
ZIA: 4♣. Good, but not that good.
S. BALDYSZ: 4♣. A couple of bids could be right here. Opposite some hands, even a club slam could have play.
DE WIJS: 4♣. It would be interesting to know how often 2♦ is only five here. But, 3NT is still not so attractive.
There were a handful of mavericks…
SUNDELIN: 5♣.
BRINK: 3NT. Great problem.... My first thought was 3NT, then I thought, maybe pass. Then I thought, partner will be 2-4-1-6, so maybe 5♣. Then, don't play him for perfect hand – 2-4-2-5 is more likely. But everything can be right or wrong. Ok, I have to make a decision. When 3NT is an option, bid 3NT.... (And yes, likely apologize to partner for not passing or not bidding 4/5♣.)
SENIOR: 3NT.
Hopefully, the rest of the panel solved Alan’s problem.
MOULD: 3♠. I might gamble Pass at matchpoints, but that’s too wild at IMPs, and I cannot think of anything more sensible to do.

East had 10x/AKQx/xx/Q10xxx so you make 3NT if you guess the diamonds (North had ♦K-x-x and the ♠A). As predicted by a number of panelists, you have an easy +300 by passing the double. Clubs has three top losers, so +130 is your limit there.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.99

This is the most contentious hand this month, with the panel offering six different options. The vast majority either invite or commit to slam, so the largest group of competitors score poorly for 4♠, which most panelists thought was clearly not enough. With the second-largest group passing 4♥, an action none of the panel even considered, with an average score below 4/10 this would have been the lowest-scoring hand most months. With more than half of panelists committing to slam, I marked those bids just above the invitational 5♠.

BRINK: 5NT. Pick a slam. Easy problem.
BROCK: 5NT. Pick a different suit.
ZIA: 5NT. Spades or diamonds?
LORENZINI: 5NT. This should be pick a slam, but I am not sure how to handle this case.
WANG: 5NT. I hope my partner knows that 5NT shows two suits.
S. BALDYSZ: 5NT. 4♠ would definitely seem like an underbid and 5♣ would surely agree hearts. So, I'm hoping partner will understand that I have sharps and I'm asking him to pick a slam.
HUNG: 5NT. Pick a slam. I will give up on looking for a grand slam unless partner can bid 6♣ to show a good hand with first round club control.
BERGEN: 5NT. There is a definite chance that a grand is cold, but I don't see a good, economical alternative. If partner is unsure what to do after 5NT, he can punt with 6♣.
Some were happy to set the suit and invite.
DE WIJS: 5♠. This seems like a nice middle way between game and slam.
BIRD: 5♠. South may hold four spades. I am not inclined to bid more on my own cards.
SAELENSMINDE: 5♠.
MOULD: 5♠. I will give partner an out, but I cannot bid 4♠ as that shows four spades and longer diamonds in my view. This doesn't ask specifically for a club control (an immediate 5♠ would have done that).
MARSTON: 5♠. Inviting slam. Clearly showing diamonds too, otherwise I would have bid 5♠ directly.
John thinks this is forcing, so I wonder if he meant to bid 5♣ and mistyped.
RENGSTORFF: 5♠. This may be crazy, but I'm forcing to slam, suggesting a two-suiter with a club control. If partner cues 6♣, I will jump to 7♦. I'm sure partner would say, “Great bid, I understood perfectly.” Dreaming, I suppose.
The next group also picked the suit, but committed to slam.
SUNDELIN: 6♠. As another cue would show heart support, we must guess.LEVINS: 6♠.

COHEN: 6♠. Sorry partner, but I am punishing you for coming in. Why not 5NT? Because opposite 3-4-4-2, there is no real advantage to playing in diamonds. Why not 6♠ the first time? Maybe partner would have bid 5♣ over 4♣ and we could reach a grand. Opposite a minimum like AQx/KQxx/J10xx/xx, this is the simple way to get +980. I am guessing it won't be the top score, but I think it should be.

Not far off, Larry.

ROBSON: 6♠. We wanted partner to bid 4♠ so we could keycard. Hey ho, let's bid what we think we can make.
A couple want to keep a grand slam in the frame. However, are we all sure this is Blackwood agreeing hearts rather than ‘pick another suit’?
VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. To find out about aces and the ♥K. With two, I bid 6♠ and with three I try a grand slam.
COPE: 4NT. I am on my way to at least a small slam, but I might as well try to investigate higher contracts before probably settling for 6♠.
Is this how you get partner to pick another suit at the five-level, or is it a cue-bid agreeing hearts?
SHENKIN: 5♣. Let’s find the best strain before cue-bidding.
Only a couple of panelists bid only 4♠ as their slam try, but this is, presumably, not as strong as a jump to 5♠…?
MEYERS: 4♠. I am not so sure I would have bid 4♣. I think my hand is good enough to bid 5NT (showing two suits) over the double. Now I feel in a pickle, but I would just bid 4♠, which to me is a one suited slam try. If 4NT shows two suits in the system we are supposed to use, I would bid that, but I play 4NT is quantitative here, so that would not be available to me.
SENIOR: 4♠.

I’m not sure that we resolved the questions of whether 4NT is RKCB for hearts or showing the unbid suits, or whether 5♣ is a cue-bid for hearts or showing S/D. It is perhaps worth checking to see what your regular partner thinks.
I suspect the 5NT bidders may end in 6♦, but partner had AQJ/KJxxx/J10xx/Q, so you want to play 6♠ at matchpoints. Will the 5♠ bidders get a raise? Perhaps not, so maybe getting to 6♦ will produce a decent score anyway.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.55

The panel just about produce a majority, but it was fairly close in what was essentially a two-horse race. One option is simply to bid slam. The alternative is to bid 5NT, which most panelists who chose that option did with the intention of converting 6♣ to 6♦as a grand slam try. There was a third option, but it was not the second most popular choice of competitors - more than a quarter chose to double, an option not even mentioned by any panelist.

MOULD: 5NT. Partner has two places to play - so do I!
DE WIJS: 5NT. If partner can commit to the five-level, I surely can commit to one more.
WANG: 5NT. I have to try for a grand slam.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5NT. Making a try to get to 7♦.
LORENZINI: 5NT. Many places to play. I will correct 6♣ to 6♦ to show interest in a grand.

MARSTON: 5NT. I think partner's 4NT was offering both minors. Likewise, my 5NT. I will correct 6♣ to 6♦, clearly hinting at a grand.

COHEN: 5NT. I suppose 4NT was a choice of minors, but not sure. Anyway, I will correct 6♣ to 6♦ and hope I've shown some interest in him raising.
SAELENSMINDE: 5NT.
ROBSON: 5NT. I'll bid 5NT to find out more, but I think we're headed for 7♣.
S. BALDYSZ: 5NT. Depending on what kind of hand partner has, either slam or grand could be right. If 4NT indicated some sort of diamond fit we might be better off in 6♦, especially in a 6-4 fit. 5NT for me I think should be pick a slam.
BRINK: 5NT. Vulnerable opponents you should believe. So, I bid 5NT, pick a slam. Let's hope this is a good save or that the opponents make a mistake after...
John and Andy both mention the third alternative, but more of that later.
RENGSTORFF: 5NT. I don't know where to play it. You tell me. I guess Pass would be forcing, but I'm not defending with a void.
HUNG: 5NT. I am not sure who is making what, but I'm not passing with a spade void (pass probably should be forcing, but no one can be 100% sure about what passes are forcing these days).
Most of the rest simply bid slam.
SHENKIN: 6♦. Assuming partner’s 4NT shows both minors, 6♦ may have a shot.
BROCK: 6♦. Presumably, partner’s 4NT suggested diamond tolerance, so I am happy to try for slam.
SUNDELIN: 6♦.
SENIOR: 6♦.
MEYERS: 6♦. Partner has clubs with secondary diamonds, so I am proud to bid 6♦. It might even be right to bid 5NT, showing interest in a grand.
BIRD: 6♦. Again, I am wary of inviting a grand slam after pre-emptive action by the opponents. I don't regard a Pass here as forcing; nor would it help very much.
BERGEN: 6♦. At my second turn, I see absolutely no reason to double. (Complaints about the previous bidding on this one should be addressed to Zia 😊 MS) I definitely would have bid 4NT.  But, now that partner voluntarily showed diamond support via 4NT, I believe that "all's well that ends well." After that, with my solid diamonds and magical void, I think 6♦ is clearcut.
A couple go for the third option.
COPE: Pass. This is 100% forcing. Whether slam makes will probably depend on partner’s heart holding, so I will leave the decision to him.
LEVINS: Pass. Jill abstains because she doesn't know parameters to make a grand slam try in diamonds. I would pass and assume it is forcing, and then pull partner’s likely double to try to make a grand slam try, but of course I don't know the parameters for system either and so just making my best guess.
I agree with Bobby’s assessment, but I am not sure why 5NT and then converting clubs to diamonds would not get the same message across. And, as our final panelist found out at the table, it is also much safer…
ZIA: 6♦. At the table, I thought we were in a forcing pass situation, but I was wrong and I should just have bid 6♦.

The premise of this feature is that your partner is an expert-quality player with whom you have not had detailed system discussions beyond the normal mundane things. You certainly wouldn’t have discussed an auction such as this, so you have to interpret partner’s bids as best you can, and make bids he is most likely to understand. At the table on this deal, you could hardly argue that your partner wasn’t expert enough – it was Jeff Meckstroth. On this hand from the Bermuda Bowl in Morocco, Zia passed, assuming it was forcing, but 5♠ was passed out. The East hand was x/J/10xxx/KQ9xxxxx and there was no club ruff available, so 6♦ makes.

Congratulations to Sophia Baldysz, who led the panel for the first time just a couple of months ago, and now does so again but, this time, with a rare perfect 80/80 score.

This month’s podium is completed by Wenfei Wang with 77/80 and Andrew Robson with 75/80.

Thanks to all of our experts for the time and effort they put in to entertain and educate our readers.

See you all again next month.

The Expert Panel

Find your bids here

MARKS

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

AVERAGE SCORE

HAND 1:                               4.98
HAND 2:                               3.69
HAND 3:                               5.46
HAND 4:                               4.13
HAND 5:                               4.07
HAND 6:                               7.91
HAND 7:                               3.99
HAND 8:                               4.55