Avril 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Sous la direction de Marc Smith

Set 2023-4

Welcome to round four of the 2023 competition. With more than 8,200 entries this month, we have broken the previous record, set in Février, by over 400. Keep encouraging your friends and partners to enter and we’ll hit the 10,000 mark before the end of year.

We start this month with congratulations to one of our regular panelists, Zia Mahmood, on his victory in the prestigious Vanderbilt Knockout Teams at the US Spring Nationals in New Orleans. This was Zia’s 30^th NABC victory and the fifth time he has won the Vanderbilt. Those 30 wins also include two wins in the Spingold and five in the Reisinger. Zia also has 28 second-place finishes in NABC events, including four Vanderbilt and three Spingold finals.

A mention, too, to Simon de Wijs, whose team reached the semi-finals of the Vanderbilt, with a notable victory over 5/6 of the Bermuda Bowl champions on the way.

One other victory by a panel member in New Orleans belongs to Sjoert Brink, who won the Silodor Open Pairs playing with Seb Drijver.

Our two guest panelists this month were tied atop the competitors’ leader-board with a magnificent 79/80 on the difficult Février set. Dawei Chen is a bridge professional from Japan and this was his first victory in the competition. Vincent Lui previously led the field in Octobre last year, and is our youngest ever winner at the age of just 27. Originally from Hong Kong, he was a student in Munich, Germany, but has now graduated and he is working in the field of AI and machine learning. He began learning to play 11 years ago and describes himself as "a casual player who likes playing with robots in my leisure time".

We are delighted to welcome two South Americans to our expert panel, meaning that we once again have panelists from all six occupied continents. Miguel Villas-Boas made his international debut in the Brazilian Junior team at the 1991 World Championships. He was a member of the Chagas team that reached the final of the 1998 Rosenblum Cup and he also collected a silver medal in the IMP Pairs at the 2010 World Championships. More recently, he reached the quarter-finals of the Rosenblum in 2018. Representing Brazil, Miguel won the 1998 IOC Grand Prix and lost in the final of the 2000 Bermuda Bowl. Our second new panelist is a true legend of the game. Marcelo Branco is one of only ten players to have won the ‘Triple Crown’ (Bermuda Bowl, World Team Olympiad and World Open Pairs) and the only player to have won the World Open Pairs twice. Since his first Bermuda Bowl in 1969, Marcelo has played in the world’s most prestigious event an amazing 18 times, collecting medals of all three colors: winning gold in 1989 in Perth, silver in 2000, and bronze in both 1973 and 1974. He won the Olympiad in 1976 and has twice lost in the final of the Rosenblum Cup, in 1978 and 1998. The World Open Pairs is only staged every four years, but Marcelo has reached the final six times. He won the title in 1978 playing with Gabino Cintra and in 1990 in partnership with Gabriel Chagas. Welcome aboard, both of you.

Si vous avez un problème dont vous pensez qu'il pourrait faire l'objet d'une discussion intéressante, veuillez m'envoyer les détails. N'oubliez pas que les meilleurs problèmes proposent au moins trois actions raisonnables plutôt qu'un simple choix entre deux.

The panel produces a clear majority choice on half of this month’s hands, but is seriously divided on the remaining four. It is looking like another tough set, though: for the second time already this year, the most popular action chosen by the competition entrants fails to score ‘10’ on any of the eight hands, Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores 40/80 (down from 44 last month). By a strange quirk of fate, it was possible to outscore that total by just bidding 5♦ on every hand (44/80). The average score this month is 42.77 (up from 40.81 on Set 2023-3). 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.

Note : Toutes les mains de ce mois sont à IMPs.

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.89

We have a real doozie to start the month, with the panel supporting seven different options and no single action attracting more than a quarter of the votes. This is surprising, perhaps, as there is no opposition bidding and this is hardly a totally unexpected auction. So, what do you make of partner’s 3♠ bid? It would seem to me that the obvious message is that he has diamond weakness. Holding two low diamonds, I am surprised, therefore, that even two panelists think we should play in NT. And yet, more than 50% of competitors choose NT as the contract. Let’s start with barmy and barmier…

OISEAU : 3NT. When partner has only a doubleton heart, and is twice as likely to hold 15 HCP than 17, I see no reason to be more ambitious.
David might make his game if diamonds break 4-4, although I am sure he will be convinced that partner should correct to clubs with five-card support.
MARSTON : 4NT. I’m not sure what my man is up to, but I would like to show slam invitational values.
He, in turn, might wonder what you are up to once he sees your hand.
Panelists offered support for all four suits at the four-level, so let’s go up the line.
WANG : 4♣. Slam needs a diamond control. Let’s see if partner can cue-bid.
DE WIJS : 4♣. I am assuming 3♠ showed values. In that case, we are not playing 3NT, and I will bid 4♣ to give partner a chance to cuebid his ♦A, in case he chose to bid 3♠ with something like AQJx/xx/Axx/AJxx. Bidding 4♠ with my hand might be the "correct" bid, but I want to avoid any accidents and, who knows, maybe partner will bid 4♥ over 4♣ as a suggestion to play.
LUI: 4♣. Partner has told us he has weak diamonds, so 3NT is not an option. I think 4♣ is the default bid in this situation.
SUNDELIN : 4♣. In my methods, 3♣ is asking and 3♠ admits to four clubs and denies three hearts, so I confirm clubs. If 3♠ denied a diamond control but showed clubs, I guess 5♣ is okay too. If 3♠ has some secret meaning I abstain.
No ‘secret’ meaning, P.O. The idea is for the panel to tell us what they expect it to mean playing with the proverbial ‘unknown expert’. Larry does just that…
COHEN : 4♣, Partner has either a concentration in spades and fear of bidding 3NT (maybe something like AQJxx/Jx/Qxx/AJx) or some slammish club hand. He didn't support hearts so has only two. If he has decent clubs with a diamond control, 6♣ is still in the picture (say, AQJ/xx/Axxx/AJ10x). I have good clubs and controls, so I am going slowly and leaving room for partner to show a diamond control.
What about bidding the fourth suit? Is it a cue-bid semi-agreeing spades or just offering partner a ‘choice of games’?
HULT : 4♦. Too good to just bid 4♠. Partner can still have AQJxx/xx/Axx/Axx.
ROBSON : 4♦. Showing a good 4♠ bid. Partner will hope for a 3-5-1-4 shape, but I have enough to compensate - hoping for AQJxx/xx/Axx/Axx

CHEN: 4♦. 3♠ could be either a concern about NT or a like for clubs. Neither I am forward going (for slam). 4♦ is the last train for me, I am going to pass any bid from partner.

The next group are trying to put the brakes on in a makeable spot.
BROCK : 4♥. It sounds as if we don’t have a diamond stopper/control.
BERGEN : 4♥. Partner has good spades and weak diamonds without three hearts. Since he even could have three low diamonds, I can’t bid 3NT. After this, 4♣ may be nonforcing, so I see no alternative to playing 4♥ on the 5-2.
MOULE : 4♥. Partner has gone out of his way to advertise weak diamonds. This looks like the safest game. Partner probably has ♥H-x.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. I'm assuming partner has at most the queen in the diamond suit, since he bypassed 3♦. As we're off two top diamonds, I'm hoping to get to the best game
I think Marcelo sums up the situation accurately. 
BRANCO: 4♠. What can be 3♠? It certainly denies three cards in hearts and can therefore be either five spades or four-card support in clubs with spade values but weak diamonds. So, bidding 4♠ seems adequate for both cases. In the second case, opener will correct to 5♣.
SHENKIN: 4♠.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♠.
MEYERS : 4♠. Partner is either advance cue-bidding or he has five spades. I think cue-bidding, so I will cue-bid myself, just in case partner actually has AQJxx/Qx/Qxx/AJx.
LARSSON : 4♠. This should cover my bases, regardless what partner meant 3♠ as.
This was my choice when I had the hand at the table but, in retrospect, I think the 4♠ bidders had the best of the debate.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. It seems to me that 3♠ shows a club fit and denies a diamond control, so I prefer to play 5♣ rather than 3NT.
COPE : 5♣. Partner should have four-card club support with only a doubleton heart and no diamond control. 4♥ may work well if partner has Qx in hearts, otherwise we might be tapped. Principle of fast arrival therefore seems best here.

A fascinating problem to kick things off this month. Partner had AQJ/Qx/Jxx/AJxxx so 5♣ was an easy make and 4♥ was okay too. 3NT was one down. I know David Bird thinks partner should bid 4♣ over 3♣ with this, but 3♠ looks eminently sensible to me. Everyone except the two NT bidders will get to a making game, and perhaps partner will bid again to save them too.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.60

Hands on which the panel is split like this are always tricky to mark. The main question is whether we should bid on or not. With the panel split 13-8 in favor of bidding, I have therefore scored the bidders’ two main choices above Pass, even though Pass was the single most popular action. Although only 1-in-20 competitors scored top marks, more than three-quarters collected at least 8/10, which makes this the highest-scoring deal this month. Let’s start with supporters of the competition entrants’ most popular choice.

MOULE : Pass. I haven't got that much more that I promised. I don't consider this close.
WANG : Pass. I think partner doesn’t have a very strong hand.
MEYERS : Pass. I am playing partner for long spades and not much else.
SAELENSMINDE : Passez.
SHENKIN: Passez.
MARSTON : Pass. There are many ways to make slam, and many ways to go down. I prefer to gamble on game, not slam.
OISEAU : Pass. Cautious bidding is rarely rewarded on this panel, but I think 10 tricks are more likely then 12. Partner has long spades, yes, but does not guarantee much else.
Does partner need much else, though?
S. BALDYSZ : Pass. To me, 4♠ shouldn't show a really good hand. Partner could have gone through 3♦ or passed and bid 4♠ later. North’s redouble might include a diamond fit but, in the worst scenario, partner has 5-3-3-2 shape and we have losers in every suit other than spades.
So, if we are bidding on, how should we do so. Sally makes a good case for the cue-bid.
BROCK : 5♦. If 5♣ was a cue for spades, that would be an alternative, but can’t I have some strong hand without spades? It looks as if I need a singleton heart or the ♦A anyway. And then it might depend on the club finesse, so I am happy to agree spades and let partner decide. It’s hard to believe I can have a hand without a club control.
LARSSON : 5♦. I should probably pass, but it is such a difficult bid. The green ones tend to stick in my bidding box.
CHEN: 5♦. I am surely worth a try for slam and I do not worry a little about 5♠. I smell a heart shortness from partner.

VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. This hand has two ways to try for slam, 4NT ask for key cards or 5♦ to hear about a heart control. Over 4NT, if my partner shows one key-card, I will be in a trouble, because I will not know if he has a heart control. Over 5♦, partner will show a heart control or he might just bid 6♠ with a good hand such as Kxxxx/xx/Axx/Kxx.

SUNDELIN : 5♦. Not really understanding how partner will know that Kxxxxx/x/Qxx/Kxx is enough.
He may not, but he’ll bid 5♥ with that. Then it may be up to you…
DE WIJS : 5♦. In general, partner’s 4♠ bid should show shape and not points, because he could have made a cue-bid. But, still slam is close, and I am making a try. I will leave bidding slam to partner, so will bid 5♠ over 5♥.
The other major faction preferred Blackwood…
BERGEN : 4NT. A heart lead might be fatal in slam, but I think I need to risk it. As little as Kxxxx/x/xxx/Kxxx is enough, and that is not even close to a 4♠ bid.
LUI: 4NT. RKC. It is reasonable to picture partner holding something like Kxxxx/x/xxxx/Kxx.
BRANCO: 4NT. My hand deserves a try, and the five-level looks pretty safe. I will bid 6♠ if partner has two key cards, otherwise we will stop in 5♠.
ROBSON : 4NT. Keycard. It may backfire if partner is very weak, but I don't need much. For example, even opposite a terrible QJxxxx/xx/xxx/xx slam is still on a hook.
COHEN : 4NT. Slam is not likely to be worse than a club finesse, and could be 100% laydown opposite a sub-minimum like KQxxx/x/Axx/10xxx. Still, why blast into 6♠ when RKC will keep us out opposite, say, QJxxx/x/KJx/K10xx.
Sally was worried that 5♣ might be natural, but Tim thinks not.
COPE : 5♣. We are worth one try, and keycard will not provide the requisite info. We are hoping partner may be able to cue a stiff heart so that we can get to a good slam opposite something like Kxxxxx/x/Jxx/Kxx.
Simon offers a fourth possible route to slam, although I would be concerned that this asked for a diamond control, which is not particularly what we need.
HULT : 5♠. Invitational.

At the table, partner had KJxxx/x/AQJ10x/xx so 6♠ was very good. Should he perhaps start with 3♦ on this hand, as a number of panelists are perhaps expecting less for the jump to 4♠?

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.19

Well, I expected a majority from the panel, and I got one, just not for the action I anticipated. David always tells me that the panel overbids, so it is surprising to see most of them taking the low road here, with only the panel’s self-confessed underbidder making what I thought was the obvious choice when I held the hand at the table.

DE WIJS : 5♦. There could easily be slam, but I don't think gambling 6♦ here is justified.
COHEN : 5♦. This seems like the best guess, and a guess is all it is. A vulnerable 5♣ bidder has the goods (and likely most of his points in clubs).
HULT : 5♦. We have a suit, but spades might break badly!
MOULE : 5♦. Anything could be right (Dble, 5♠, 5♦!!). I work on the principle that nobody ever went broke supporting John Holland.
COPE : 5♦. Maybe the bid of a coward, but we have no space to investigate and this should lead to a probable plus score. Bidding 5♠ would be unilateral and punting 6♦ a gamble. We have to give credit where credit is due, to the opponent for taking away our bidding space.
MEYERS : 5♦. I can't unilaterally bid 5♠ and they jammed us. I am not going to guess and bid 6♦, so I will settle for what appears to be a sure plus.
SHENKIN: 5♦.
LARSSON : 5♦.
SAELENSMINDE : 5♦
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. 5♦ or 5♠? The odds are high that one or both suits will break badly after the 5♣ overcall, so I prefer 5♦ because I know that is at least an eight-card fit.
BRANCO: 5♦. I don't have room for anything else. Suits may break poorly, so I bid conservatively.
Vincent hopes optimistically that partner will ride to the rescue…
LUI: 5♦. Sometimes we can go down because the breaks will be bad. But, if South is disciplined and holds nine clubs with AKQ, we have very good slam prospects. I think I am obligated to show a fit and hope that partner can judge well whether to raise.
We finish with a couple of pessimists…

S. BALDYSZ : 5♦. Partner could easily have A-K/A-K in the red suits, in which case slam would be a decent option, but I'll protect my plus. Maybe diamonds will be 5-0.

Paul not only doesn’t think about bidding slam, he actually mentions passing as a possibility.
MARSTON : 5♦. My best hand all day. I can't just pass.
The minority faction put their faith in their own suit…
BERGEN : 5♠. It's no fun being preempted.
Well, whose fault it that?!?
WANG : 5♠. I hope partner has some spades.
Andrew makes a valid point, for sure, and an accurate prediction.
ROBSON : 5♠. Preferable to 5♦, as I think it is more likely to lead to a slam.
SUNDELIN : 5♠. As 1♦ might be only three.
I had intended to specify that it showed 4+. Sorry.
BROCK : 5♠. Diamonds could easily be a silly denomination. 5♦ seems not enough, while 6♦ is too much. 5♠ seems to be somewhere in the middle.
David doesn’t seem to have his zig and zag radar working this month.
OISEAU : 6♦. It may surprise some readers to see that there is a limit to my caution. To avoid a possible three poor scores in a row, I will shut my eyes and be bold here.
Only Dawei opts to defend, which does seem particularly cautious on this hand.
CHEN: Dbl. I am not comfortable with either 5♠ or 5♦, so just take the money. If partner bids again, we will be in slam.

The vulnerable South is surely likely to hold most of the high clubs for his leap to the five-level. So, where are partner’s points for his opening bid? Is playing him for A-A-K in the red suits such an outrageous gamble? He actually had the next best thing: Jxxx/KJxx/AKxxx/--. The 5♠ bidders presumably get to slam, but the majority miss out on this one.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.63

No majority on the panel, but a huge vote in favor of the two most popular choices. The 3♦ underbid is the most popular choice amongst competitors, with around a third choosing that option. Unfortunately, there were also a quarter of competition entrants who chose something other than one of the obvious three options that gained support from the panel. Indeed, this problem produced a new record with competitors voting for an amazing total of 30 different actions. (Yes, there were another 12 that received less than 0.1% of the votes, and thus did not make the table above.)

MARSTON : 5♦. At last, an easy one!
MOULE : 5♦. I would prefer a different vulnerability, but I am prepared to risk -800 to give them the last guess.
BRANCO: 5♦. Maybe I should only bid 4♦, but since I'd bid 5♦ over possible opponents' 4M, I'll go straight to 5♦.
SAELENSMINDE : 5♦.
SHENKIN: 5♦.
ROBSON : 5♦. Worst case, I think, is -500 against a making game. I'd hate to bid only 4♦ and feel I had something left in the tank.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♦. My opponents will often be able to bid 4-of-a-Major if I bid only 4♦. I prefer 5♦, even if it might be -500 or -800 on a bad day.
LUI: 5♦. If partner holds the right hand, 5♦ can be made. North probably has a good hand and opponents have a major game anyway. It seems that 5♦ is not likely down three, so I think it should be a good bet.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♦. I'll put the opponents under pressure, as LHO most likely has a shapely hand with both majors. I think a lower jump in diamonds would be too passive. Often you can make game with this hand, if partner has, for example, three aces and a doubleton club.
Simon is tempted by 5♦, but has a legitimate concern…
DE WIJS : 4♦. If you promised me that North had a strong hand and partner didn’t, I wouldn't mind bidding even 5♦ but, at this vulnerability, partner will take me seriously and raise 5♦ to 6♦ too often I feel.
It’s unusual to find Jessica on the wimpish side of the fence…
LARSSON : 4♦. I want to bid 4.5, but 5♦ is too pushy even for me.
MEYERS : 4♦. Lots of diamonds and distribution.
SUNDELIN : 4♦.
HULT : 4♦. What else?

BROCK : 4♦. My experience is that, at red, if I bid 5♦, they will just double and take the money, while over 4♦ they might easily bid when that is wrong.

Whilst Tim is tempted in the opposite direction.
COPE : 4♦. I am sure you can produce hands where 3NT is the only making contract, but 4♦ seems more practical and will pre-empt my LHO.
Marty and Larry both know the right level…
BERGEN : 4♦. An obvious LOTT bid at unfavorable vulnerability.
COHEN : 4♦. This combines preemption with somewhat describing my hand.
Only a smattering went for the low road, and for a variety of reasons.
CHEN: 3♦. It's the best I can do at this vulnerability. I hope its preemptive.
OISEAU : 3♦. I chose 4♦ initially, but 3NT is a more likely game than 5♦, so I will give partner a chance to bid it.
WANG : 3♦. Weak. If partner bids 3NT, I will bid 5♦.

Partner had Axx/KQxx/AJxxx/A so 6♦ was cold. He will certainly raise 5♦, and 4♦ might also get you to slam. Will he not just bid 3NT over 3♦? If so, are you bidding again? At the table, 3NT went down on a spade lead in one room and 6♦ was bid and made in the other.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.68

No majority on the panel but, although I think the largest faction are wrong, there is no compelling reason for me to overrule and not give them top marks. Are you certain that partner will take subsequent heart bids as natural if you start with a bid that ostensibly agrees his clubs? Personally, I think both 6♥ and 5♦ are worth 10 points, but those bidders will have to settle for defeat at the hands of democracy on this occasion. High marks all round, at least for the panel. The most popular choice amongst competitors (4♥) garnered the support of just one panelist, and I would also question whether it is natural. Does 4♥ not sound like a splinter agreeing clubs?

MOULE : 3♥. I haven't the faintest idea! 4♥ is obviously the right contract, but it seems impossible to get there. Maybe I should just bid 3NT, but they ARE going to lead a diamond.
HULT : 3♥. I would have overcalled 4♥ the first time. Now, I have to start with 3♥.
I wonder how most play (1♥)-4♥. For sure, some will play it as a good 4♠ overcall. Worth checking with your regular partner, perhaps?
MEYERS : 3♥. If my diamonds and clubs were reversed, I might try 4♥, but I have two losers for sure and, if partner has three little spades, that is at least two more.
BRANCO: 3♥. My first instinct was to bid 6♥, but that might be too much. I bid 3♥ almost like a waiting bid. If partner bids 4♣, I’ll bid only 4♥; if 5♣, I’ll bid 6♥. I expect intelligence from my partner, who is short in hearts, to realize that I want to play in hearts.
Well, Good Luck with that, Marcelo 😊
CHEN: 3♥. I am aiming for a grand or slam in either hearts or clubs. I start with a cue-bid just to investigate it more.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♥. This hand will play better in hearts than in clubs on a spade lead if my partner has a heart void. I’ll start with a 3♥ cue-bid, and continue with hearts at higher levels depending on what partner does.
I suppose that might work.
WANG : 3♥. Then I will bid 6♥ next.
But why not…
OISEAU : 6♥. If I do not bid this now, it is possible that I will never be allowed to play in hearts.
My thoughts exactly!
DE WIJS : 6♥. Even if I can find out about ♣A-K-Q, which feels hard, there is still a chance of a heart loser, so I am settling for this bid, trying to avoid any misunderstanding
SHENKIN: 6♥.
BERGEN : 6♥. Might make seven, might not make six. I'm worried that other heart bids might not sound natural. I hope that South has exactly five hearts.
Indeed, he did.
MARSTON : 6♥. If nothing else, this should get a good laugh.
I wonder if I would have thought of the next option which, in retrospect, does seem like the best choice.
SUNDELIN : 5♦. Genius? Voidwood, to find out if partner's clubs equal my hearts.
Yes, P.O. Genius. Sophia sums up the case admirably.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♦. Is the opponent psyching? I'm sure I opened 1♥! The system says that partner's jump is intermediate. If he has AKQxxx of clubs, I think 7♥ is pretty much lay down (given that clubs don't split 5-0 and partner doesn't have anything else). I'll bid 5♦, hoping partner will understand this as Voidwood agreeing in clubs. After his response, I can decide whether I want to be in 6♥ or 7♥ (hoping he will pass). My other option would be to bid 6♥ directly.
LUI: 5♦. Exclusion RKC. If partner has ♣AKQxxx, we can try 7♥. Thanks to South's 1♥, our only possible game is 5♣. But, with the wrong cards, even 5♣ may not be a good contract. Why not go for a slam directly?
Larry points out why hearts may play better than clubs.

COHEN : 5♦. Opposite two with the queen, I'll take a chance at 7♥. I just hope this is face-to-face bridge so I can see the looks on everyone's faces after both of my bizarre red-suit leaps. I just hope hearts aren't 6-0.
The problem with 7♣ is a spade lead and partner having something like xx/--/Axxx/AKQJxxx.

LARSSON : 5♦. Exclusion. With all keycards, I will bid 7♥.
For me, the 5♦ bidders definitely win the debate.
There were a number of minority choices. I’ll leave you to assess their relative merit.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♥.
ROBSON : 6♣. The play may blow up in partner's face (e.g. a spade lead) but, with so many numbers of tricks possible, from 9 to 13, I may as well gamble for a bonus. I expect good clubs for the fourth-hand bid.
BROCK : 3NT. What a horrible problem! I can’t see that partner is ever going to take any number of hearts from me as natural. I’m gambling that either partner has stuff in diamonds or that they won’t find a diamond lead.
COPE : 3NT. Partner’s 3♣ is intermediate, but 5♣ seems a long way off and any heart bid by me now would not be natural. I will take a punt that partner has a diamond stopper, despite the lead coming through the dummy.

An unusual problem, for sure, but it did happen at the table. My man bid a not unreasonable 6♥ and I held Kx/x/Qxxx/AKQxxx, so the grand slam just needed clubs no worse than 4-1. Well done to the 5♦ bidders who would, presumably, have reached the top spot.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.65

To bid or not to bid, that is the question, and 16 out of 21 panelists said yes. The strange thing for me was that there was not more support for 3♦, a constructive heart raise. Yes, we are a trump short, but the hand is very good for 2♥, which could be on far worse hands than this. The one thing that is certainly clear, is that the most popular choice of the competition entrants, 3♣, is obviously wrong. (Do you really think a 10-count with only a partial fit is good enough to force to game?) A negative double, an option chosen by more than 1-in-8 competitors, is similarly ignored by the experts. None of the panel even mentioned 3♣, whilst a couple specifically ruled out double, which explains why this is the lowest-scoring deal this month. For a change, let’s start with the minority view.

BERGEN : Pass. I don't like the alternatives.
VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. I don’t have a satisfactory bid on this hand, so I pass and wait to see what my partner does.
BRANCO: Pass. I am waiting for partner to reopen with a Double, which seems very likely. I'll then bid 3♦ (cue) trying to say that I have a reasonable hand (9 to 11) that's not good for a negative double.
LUI: Pass. I have a good hand but I have no good bid. If partner cannot bid, game prospects are not good anyway. If partner doubles, I will jump 3♥, so that he can raise with something like xxxx/AKxxx/x/KQx.
MOULE : Pass. I cannot see anything better. And it won't get easier on the next round either, after a reopening double from partner. The best outcome is if partner passes, then I know I have done the right thing. A big upside of playing strong NT rather than weak NT is that you are not worried about partner having an unbiddable 15-17 NT. You cannot afford to pass 2♦ playing a weak no-trump.
The rest all take action.
BROCK : 2♥. Obviously far from ideal, but seems least bad to me.
DE WIJS : 2♥. Interesting hand. Let's try to compensate for the lack of a third heart with a super-maximum in point count.
LARSSON : 2♥. I don’t like it, but I like passing even less.
HULT : 2♥. I have a good hand, so I hope partner will take another bid.
CHEN: 2♥. A comfortable underbid. If I double, then I will put a burden on myself to carry on.
MARSTON : 2♥. Heavy on points, light on trumps. Hoping to get through this round.

Andrew highlights the major problem with passing.
ROBSON : 2♥. It's either 2♥ or pass. My concern with pass, is that I'll be guessing next time (after the presumed reopening double).

MEYERS : 2♥. I hate doing this with only a doubleton, but I also would hate passing, so I will credit my ♥Q.
OISEAU : 2♥. It is not right to pass when you have no intention of passing partner's protective double. If there is no further bidding, my dummy will perform admirably.
COPE : 2♥. I cannot just sit here and Pass, and have no wish to look for a penalty at this stage. Bidding 2♥ shows I am part of the human race, and whilst I am a heart short, I have compensating extra values.
WANG : 2♥. Double is not my choice. I prefer a raise to 2♥.
SHENKIN: 2♥.
SAELENSMINDE : 2♥.
S. BALDYSZ : 2♥. The worst-case scenario if that partner has clubs and hearts, and we end up in a 5-2 fit instead of nine-card or bigger club fit. Double is not an option as I will have no sensible bid if partner responds 2♠, and it seems to be too good of a hand to pass.
COHEN : 2♥. Being short a heart makes up for my super strength in aces and the ♥Q. I am not proud of this bid, though. It's just that there is nothing that appeals to me more.
Only P.O. thought the hand was too good for 2♥.
SUNDELIN : 3♦. Promising three-card heart support. I hope three key cards compensates.

Partner had Kxxx/AJ109xx/xx/K, so 4♥ was a decent proposition. Partner might bid game opposite 3♦, but he probably does not move over 2♥. If you pass, he might choose to defend.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.67

A clear majority choice from the panel, but only around 1-in-8 competition entrants pick up top marks. The two most popular choices of competitors both attracted minority support from the panel, Let’s start with those panelists…

WANG : 3♦. Although 3♦ is not good a choice, everything else is even worse.
SAELENSMINDE : 3♦.
SUNDELIN : 3♥. Another lie.
MARSTON : 3♥. Nothing clever. This is about what I am worth.
ROBSON : 3♥. A classic nightmare! I hope partner will have known to respond 2♣ with a game-forcing 4♥/4♣ hand.
I know that might be the trend in the modern style, but it is certainly not how we learned and I suspect most classical bidders hate the idea.
LUI: 3♥. There is no good bid, so I guess to raise hearts.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♥. Again, I have no good bid with this hand. I cannot bid 3♦ with Qxxxxx, so I prefer to lie about the heart length (it looks like a four-card suit to me).
S. BALDYSZ : 3♥. I wouldn't want to bid 3♦ on such a bad suit. My other option would probably be 1♠. At least I'm showing my point range.
LARSSON : 3♥. I’ll put a diamond in with the hearts when I put down dummy.
None of them seem particularly happy with their choice. The rest of the panel all opted for a third version of the lie.
HULT : 1♠. There is no good bid here. I try 1♠ and hope to follow up with a heart bid
MEYERS : 1♠. Nothing is appealing on this hand, so will temporize with 1♠.
BROCK : 1♠. These problems are not fun!

BRANCO: 1♠. I hate bidding a three-card Major, but I don't see a better (or less bad) alternative.

Tim and Alan both invoke the old Al Roth adage…
COPE : 1♠. If I get past this round of the auction, I will be well-placed to describe my values and my shape. I am not prepared to bid 3♦ on such a ropey suit, nor bid 3♥ with only three.
MOULE : 1♠. An old chestnut. As Al Roth said "If I can just get past this round". Well, partner might raise, which would be ugly, but 4♠ might still be right. I ain't bidding 3♦ or 2NT on this.
COHEN : 1♠. The age-old solution to this problem, which every bidding contest features once a decade. The hope is to get a third turn to bid and to support hearts next.
OISEAU : 1♠. This sort of problem has reared its head around once a year for the past half century.  Experts seem to like 1♠ (he said hopefully), so I will give that a try.
CHEN: 1♠. Thanks Goodness. I can psych once in a while to avoid any uncomfortable rebids. I do not see it can backfire.
Is this even a psyche? 3♦ shows a good six-card suit, 3♥ shows four hearts and 1♠ shows four spades. Why is 1♠ any more of a psyche than either of the other choices?
SHENKIN: 1♠.
Marty espouses a principle that is valid in many auctions.
BERGEN : 1♠. I considered 3♥ but, "When in doubt, make the cheapest reasonable bid."
Simon is ever the optimist.
DE WIJS : 1♠. After this, I will jump in hearts. Supporting hearts directly is also possible, but maybe by bidding this way, I can sometimes keep 6♦ in the picture.

Partner had Kxxx/Q109xxxx/---/Qx so 6♥ was an easy make. Once partner has identified his 4-4 spade fit, though, how easy is it going to be to persuade him that hearts is better? I personally preferred 2♣ to 1♠, and David Bird, having described 2♣ as crazy, correctly predicted that not one panelist would choose that option. Even if you start 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥, playing in hearts is now easy, but getting beyond game may still prove challenging. On some hands there really are no good bids, only least bad ones.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.47

We finish with another big majority from the panel, although competition entrants managed to select 27 different choices. The majority were divided between rebidding their eight-card diamond suit at some level, or showing four-card support for partner’s spades, either with a direct raise or via a splinter. Only about 1-in-12 competitors collected top marks by showing both features of their hand with one bid. With all but one panelist committing to game, non-forcing bids below game score particularly poorly. This should be a useful lesson for those who did not realize what a jump to 4♦ shows in this auction.

WANG : 4♦. This shows a good diamond suit and four-card spade support.
DE WIJS : 4♦. This shows spades and diamonds. Yes, I'd rather have some spade points as well, but bidding below the four-level with an 8-4 is something I am not doing.
COHEN : 4♦. This shows good long diamonds, 4+ spades and the strength for a raise to the four-level. Yes, I do wish my spades were stronger.
COPE : 4♦. Good hand, great long diamond and four-card spade support. Anything could be right but this comes closest to telling partner something about my hand.
LUI: 4♦. Support for spades and 6+ diamonds. I seldom find partner holding AKQ trump, so this is enough for me.
BERGEN : 4♦. Another 8-4 hand with a fit, a great side suit, and silent opponents that I previously had never seen in 50+ years! Here, since I can raise spades while emphasizing diamonds, I will go that route.
Dawei was even more specific about the meaning of 4♦, but it still fit in with the vaguer majority description.
CHEN: 4♦. For me, it's simple. 4♦ promises game values with spade support and controls in both sides with at most one high spade.
I’m not so sure about that. Surely the classic 4♦ rebid is something like AKJx/xx/AKQ10x/Qx. 
BROCK : 4♦. I think this shows something like this – well, at least a partial spade fit of some sort.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. This should show a good suit and a good hand with spade support. If that is not what 4♦ means, I suppose I would have to bid 4♠, but I don’t like that as much.
ROBSON : 4♦. 4♦ shows this hand in standard, although I play the Zia gadget where it shows a 5♠ bid.

Alan summarizes the case for the majority.
MOULE : 4♦. If I wasn't going to open 5♦ on this (which I would) then it was because I had four spades. So, now I have to show support. I still suspect it is right to play in diamonds (Q: "What do you call eight-card suits?" A: "Trumps"), so I will have a go by showing good diamonds in a raise to 4♠.

A small minority group choose to splinter in support of spades.
SUNDELIN : 4♣. Showing a void, but without any clever idea how to continue.
LARSSON : 4♣. Probably not a great bid. We should play in diamonds. It’s against the law to put down eight cards in a side suit, but it is the last board and I see that partner is a bit more energetic than me.
BRANCO: 4♣. Splinter. Although weak in points, I have a spectacular distribution. Later on, I'll try to tell my partner that I prefer to play in diamonds. How? Jumping to 6♦ if he bids 4♥, perhaps. If, in our methods, 4♦ meant such kind of hand – excellent distribution, four-card support in spades and a good diamond suit - this would be my call.
You have no detailed methods, Marcelo. The assumption is that you are playing with an ‘unknown expert’ and have to decide what he would expect a bid to show.
SHENKIN: 4♣.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♣.
A few go in the opposite direction, completely ignoring their spade fit.
OISEAU : 5♦. Supporting spades with 8-4 shape would invite the men in white coats to pay me a visit. By showing my massive diamonds, partner can decide whether he has enough side-suit tricks to raise.
MEYERS : 5♦. Yes, I know I have four spades, but I am not so sure I want to take an early tap and then handle the hand.
Paul is alone in going for all the marbles in diamonds…
MARSTON : 6♦. Who knows - clearly not me.
Whilst Sophia is looking for them in spades.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♣. Voidwood agreeing spades. The first step shows no aces, so I can pass 5♦ if that is what he bids.
At the other end of the scale, only Simon is willing to play below game.
HULT : 3♠. If partner makes a slam try, I will jump to 6♦. If I’m lucky, he will let me play there.

This hand from a recent Gold Cup match created a swing. I avoided the problem by opening a Gambling 3NT -- +460 opposite Axxx/Axx/x/Q8xxx. At the other table, 4♠ went down when trumps broke 4-1 and declarer found himself quickly cut off from dummy’s diamonds. 5♦ still makes even on the singleton spade lead, losing just a spade and a spade ruff.

We have two stars clear of the pack this month. Simon de Wijs leads the field with an excellent 78/80, whilst Larry Cohen is hot on his heels with 77/80. Alan Mould’s 73/80 earns him the final place on this month’s podium.

Le groupe d'experts

Find your bids here

MARQUES

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

SCORE MOYEN

HAND 1:                                5.89
HAND 2:                                7.60
HAND 3:                                7.19
HAND 4:                                5.64
HAND 5:                                4.68
HAND 6:                                3.65
HAND 7:                                3.67
HAND 8:                                4.47