Mai 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Sous la direction de Marc Smith

Set 2023-5

Welcome to round five of the 2023 competition. Our guest panelist this month is Pedro Gonçalves from Spain, who outscored more than 7,700 other competitors and the whole panel with his 79/80 on the Mars set. Pedro says, "My mother is from Valencia and my father from Lisbon, and they met at a bridge tournament, so you could say that I exist thanks to bridge. I am 34 years old and have been playing since I was 13. Bridge is one of my greatest passions." Pedro has represented the national team on several occasions, both in Junior and Open categories. He has won the Spanish team championship four times, and this week his Spanish team made it into the knockout stages of the European Winter Games in France.

We are delighted to welcome one of the game’s brightest young stars as the newest member of our expert panel. At the age of 14, Sanna Clementsson made her international debut in Sweden’s Under-16 team at the 2014 World Youth Championships. In the eight years since then, she has won five major titles, starting with the Youngsters’ Teams at the 2017 European Youth Championship and the 2018 World Youth Championship. At the age of 19, she was a member of the Swedish team that won the 2019 European Mixed Teams. Later that same year, she became the youngest winner in Venice Cup history. In 2022, Sanna won her second Venice Cup title, earned a silver medal in the World Mixed Teams in Wroclaw, and became the youngest ever Women’s World Grand Master. Michal Klukowski is widely acknowledged as the game’s young superstar, but Sanna can surely claim the equivalent status in the Women’s game.

Thanks to two of our regular panelists for hands this month: Tim Cope for Hand 2 and Simon de Wijs for Hand 3. If you have a hand that you think would produce an interesting panel discussion, please send me details. Remember that the best problems offer three or more sensible actions rather than being a straight choice between two.

The panel produces a clear majority choice on only two of this month’s hands, and is seriously divided on some. This should be good news for competitors, as there will be a number of high-scoring options on many of the hands. This may be the highest-scoring set of the year so far: voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores 60/80 (up from only 40 last month) and the average score is 46.74 (up from 42.77 on Set 2023-4). I’m sure there will still be 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: 7.21

Although the panel offer five different choices, they have a clear favorite and 14 of 22 panelists look no further than game. There is also good news for competitors, with more than a third picking up maximum marks and a second large contingent supporting the second highest-scoring choice, making this the highest-scoring hand this month. Let’s start with the largest group on the panel…

MARSTON : 4♠. I’m not throwing away my inheritance chasing a dream.
BRINK : 4♠. I have no fantasy to think about anything else.
HULT : 4♠. We could make four or seven, who knows? I prefer to go low after a pre-empt.
DE WIJS : 4♠. I go low. I like to give myself and partner plenty of leeway when showing two-suited hands.
ROBSON : 4♠. It's this or 6♣. Partner will stretch to show his 5-5 shape, so I think the game bid is more prudent.
LARSSON : 4♠. This might be the worst bid. We could potentially go down in 4♠ and make 6♣. Still, I feel uninspired.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♠.
CLEMENTSSON: 4♠. We could easily make slam, but there are so many hands where partner has bid reasonably and we're not even close. I don't want to punish partner for making an active bid with both Majors.
OISEAU : 4♠. There is a big range for the 4♦ bid. If partner has the right shape, he will go for it, just to play in the right suit. My clubs may be close to useless and I will stay low, rather than hope for perfect cards.

Sally sums up the reasoning behind the most popular choice.
BROCK : 4♠. I can’t see that I have a sensible slam try to make. Is 5♣ natural? 5♦ maybe doesn’t need a diamond control. I will take the opponents’ lack of further bidding to suggest that partner probably has a doubleton there and, as bad breaks are threatened, will take the low road. Partner doesn’t need the earth for 4♦ here, as he will prefer to get to the right strain. Something like AKxxx/KQxxx/xx/x is certainly possible.

One other group also settled for game, but chose an alternative strain.
ZIA : 5♣. Maybe they will misjudge. No one knows if I have six or ten.
WANG : 5♣. This should be natural.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♣.
MEYERS : 5♣. I am tempted to bid 6♣. If partner has something like AQxxx/KQJxxx/x/x I would want to be in slam.
The rest were more ambitious…
BRANCO: 5♠. Asking for a super maximum. The five-level seems pretty safe.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♠. I would prefer to play in clubs, but I don't really see how to get there. I am hoping partner has good enough spades and, with diamond shortness, he'll bid slam.
Miguel has even bigger things in mind…
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♠. I don’t have an ideal bid, but 5♠ asks for a diamond control. If my partner bids 6♦, I can then bid 7♣.
Whilst others simply take the bull by the horns…
COHEN : 6♣. I am not interested in a major-suit slam (with likely bad breaks). But, in clubs, we should be good unless we lose the first two tricks (unlikely since no lead-directing double of 4♦).
GONCALVES: 6♣. I don't see a way to propose to play in clubs and ask for diamond control.
SHENKIN: 6♣.
COPE : 6♣. Partner has a good hand with 10+ cards in the Majors. There is no guarantee we can make any slam unless partner has a diamond control but, if we are going to be in slam, 6♣ looks safest.
Marty ploughed a lone furrow with Blackwood although, playing with the proverbial unknown expert, this is presumably just ace asking with no agreed suit. Does finding out that partner has one ace advance your cause any?
BERGEN : 4NT. I hope partner has a diamond control.

At the table, our opponent bid 4♠ while our teammate tried 6♣. East held AKQxx/K98xxx/xx/---, so 6♣ was not a success (indeed, three-down when trumps broke 6-1). Three rounds of diamonds promotes a trump trick for the defense, restricting us to ten tricks in spades even with both majors splitting 3-2.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.20

This is the first of a couple of problems (Hand 8 too) that is a nightmare to mark. The panel offer seven different options and there is no majority choice. Although the largest single vote is for passing, the passers are outvoted 14-8 by those who do not think partner’s double is for penalties, hence the marking. With the panel so split, the good news for competitors is that there are many chances to collect a reasonable score. However, barely 1-in-20 pick up one of the top marks. Let’s hear what everyone has to say to support their choice. We’ll start with those who think it is obvious…

BERGEN : Pass. After partner's initial pass, I think he has hearts.
MARSTON : Pass. Partner has had enough? Fine with me.
LARSSON : Pass. I can't see that this should not be a penalty double.
ZIA : Pass. What is double? I think penalties here, so pass.
GONCALVES: Pass. I think that my partner's double should be for penalties. With spades, clubs or diamonds, he can just bid 3♠ or 4m. I am going to believe my partner and guess that North has made a bad bid.
C. BALDYSZ: Passez.
COHEN : Pass. At the two-level, most doubles mean something other than penalty, but partner's double here (not likely discussed) would be one fancy double too many. This should be plain old penalties, catching them speeding with something like Qxx/KQ10x/xx/xxxx).
Partner will surely only hold that many hearts against the craziest of opponents.
SHENKIN: Pass. 3NT may be right.
Jill was the only one who thought double was for penalties but didn’t pass.
MEYERS : 3NT. Partner is giving me the option of passing 3♥-X. I have a lot of playing strength in NT.
The next group decided the hand was worth a slam try.
ROBSON : 4♥. I think partner has to pass again with a penalty hand-type, so double shows "cards" (albeit not so many given the earlier pass). I think we should bid 4♥ then 5♣ to invite a club slam.
BRANCO: 4♥. I intend to make a slam try with 5♣ if he bids 4♠, or to raise 5♣ to 6♣.
OISEAU : 4♥. Partner has three or fewer hearts, so he cannot have a penalty double. He didn't double 1♥, so I suppose he has some 4-5 HCP. I will show my strength on the way to 5♣ or 5♦.
WANG : 4♥. East has shown some points but not four spades, so maybe we can make 6♣ or 6♦.
Some take an alternative route to game or slam.
BRINK : 4NT. 4NT. I'll go to game. This should show 6-4 in the minors.
SAELENSMINDE : 4NT.
HULT : 4NT. I will raise the minor partner bids.
Sophia is on her own in picking a minor-suit game.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♦. It depends what kind of hearts partner has. If he's got soft values, maybe passing wouldn't be such a bad idea. I do have an awful lot though, for my double: I could have much less. I am hoping partner will have a black king...
The rest all commit to slam…
DE WIJS : 5NT. I guess I have to bid slam. Two black kings are likely, but Kxxxx in clubs might be enough as well.
CLEMENTSSON: 5NT. I think partner's double is kind of responsive, so I don't see what else I could bid.
VILLAS-BOAS: 6♣. According to the auction, my partner must have four or five clubs. So 6♣.
BROCK : 6♣. It is hard to imagine a hand for him that does not contain Kxxxx in clubs. He couldn’t bid over 1♥ but now wants to bid over 3♥. I don’t believe he has four spades, and he doesn’t have that much in diamonds or hearts.
We finish with the man who knows the hand, and can perhaps explain what’s going on better than I can…

COPE : 6♣. Do we trust the opposition and are we confident in our partnership bidding methods? By trusting the opponents, they should have a nine-card heart fit, and our partnership agreement should be that any double where the opponents have bid in accordance with the Law is responsive in nature. Therefore, I would expect my partner to have a hand with insufficient values to have made an initial negative double, but now wishes to compete. This means partner should have clubs, and possible spade losers should be disposed of on our good diamonds. All very logical, I hope. Alas, at the table, we should not have trusted the opponents, as the raise to 3♥ was on a five-card suit, and partner intended their double as penalties, so we wandered one off in 6♦. If partner had had the hand I was hoping for, such as xxxx/xxx/x/Kxxxx, 6♣ would have been a success.

Indeed, 6♣ is not such a bad spot even opposite xxxx/xxx/xx/Kxxx. Add as little as the ♦J and it becomes even better. With the expert panel fairly split on the meaning of partner’s double, readers should perhaps check to see what their regular partner would expect.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.95

What a mess has been caused by the irritating player in the South seat (who, at the table, happened to be our very own Simon de Wijs).
Almost half of the panel force partner to choose a slam (either with 5NT or a 6♦ cue-bid). Perhaps an even better alternative, and one that I am surprised more didn’t opt for, is a forcing Pass. Whether you pull partner’s expected double to 5♠, 5NT or to 6♦, this route should show a stronger hand than bidding immediately, which is surely what we would like to do here.
The double chosen by a large majority of the competitors (with more than two-thirds of the vote) also attracted a surprising number of panelists. I would have thought that defending is the last thing you want to be suggesting here.

ROBSON : 5NT. Pick a slam. Second choice is 5♠, but that's pinhead stuff.
HULT : 5NT. Let’s go for slam.
BERGEN : 5NT. Since I love this hand, I'm willing to force to slam. And, South may be about to save.
LARSSON : 5NT. I correct the potential 6♥ to 6♠.
SAELENSMINDE : 5NT.
SHENKIN: 5NT. If South has psyched we have a slam. I like 5NT -- partner bids 6♣ with clubs. Without clubs he can bid 6♦, appreciating I can have good spades and give me choice. He could also have decent hearts, so my bow has a few arrows. Probably not the top mark. Do your own thing!
CLEMENTSSON: 5NT. It seems like South is trying to be funny. 5NT is what I would've bid after (3♦)-Pass-(5♦), and this is basically the same situation.
ZIA : 5NT. Was my double of 4♠ for penalties? Does anyone know? Who is my RHO?

And the man who caused all the problems…
DE WIJS: 5NT. I vaguely remember this one 🙂 I will gamble that partner has something in clubs, so slam will be playable. Partner should read me for spades and clubs as I would have bid differently with other two-suiters.

Only Miguel chose the cue-bid, although it is much the same thing.
VILLAS-BOAS: 6♦. We already know that we will play in spades, it’s just a case of six or seven. I start with 6♦ and, over 6♥, I’ll bid 6♠ (so that partner will be sure we have the spades).
I think the next group win the debate…
MARSTON : Pass. I don't know what to do. Over to you partner.
COHEN : Pass. Hopefully in tempo and hopefully forcing. My rule is "once they are doubled in game, they can't play undoubled."
BRANCO: Pass. Clearly a forcing Pass. After the likely double from partner, I’ll advance with 5♠.
OISEAU : Pass. Pass is forcing after I have doubled at this level. Partner will almost certainly double, and I can then bid a serious 5♠.
S. BALDYSZ : Pass. It looks like South has psyched. I'm pretty sure my pass is now forcing. If partner doubles, I will pull to 5♠, showing an invitational hand to slam.
BRINK : Pass. I love forcing passes. If partner doubles, I'll bid 5♠, to show a slam try. I know, experts don't always think about the best bid, but hopefully more and more will start to “Think like a Brink”.
I think the final group are all being rather defeatist.
COPE : Dbl. If 4♠ was a psyche, well done opponents. It is impossible to expose the psyche now, as I assume my double of 4♠ was a value showing/take-out double, and yet partner chose not to take it out. I cannot see them making 5♦, so we had better take whatever money we can
WANG : Dbl. Are they any other options?
Plenty. See above, Wen-Fei.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
MEYERS : Dbl. I hope South's psych has been exposed and I am not going to get pushed around.
GONCALVES: Dbl. Everybody knows that my RHO is bluffing. Maybe It will be better to bid 6♣ to show clubs and spades, but double leaves open all options.
It may leave all option open, but does it not strongly suggest that you think defending is right?
BROCK : Dbl. I have talked about this type of situation in a lot of partnerships, but I just can’t remember what we agreed. Depending how psychic-inclined my opponents are, it might be wise to play a double of 4♠ as spades, and 5♦ as take-out. Fingers crossed we come out of this alive.

I think most of the panel are destined to lose IMPs, as partner had K10xx/x/10xxx/AQxx and thus you were cold for a grand slam in either black suit. Simon’s imaginative 4♠ jump psyche was on x/QJ9xxxxx/Qxx/x. Believe it or not, at the table, world class opponents let him play in 4♠ undoubled, then misdefended to let him out for nine down: -450 and 18 IMPs when teammates scored +2210 in 7♠.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.49

This is the third hand out of four already this month on which fewer than 1-in-20 competition entrants score a ‘10’. It is also the only hand this month with an average score below 5/10, in large part because more than three-quarters of competition entrants opt for a choice roundly rejected by most of the panel. The main question here is whether this hand is too good to just bid 4♠, and 18 out of 22 panellists said “Yes”. Perhaps very strange is that the second-largest group of competitors thought it right to pass partner’s jump to 4♣. Will partner enjoy playing in the 4-0 or 4-1 fit, I wonder?

SHENKIN: 4♥. I am worth a mild try with four positives: nothing in clubs, help in both red suits, and great trumps.
MARSTON : 4♥. I am not giving up yet. Great trumps compensate for soft heart values.
ZIA : 4♥. If 4♣ promised a void, I would bid 6♠.
OISEAU : 4♥. If partner has a void club, my hand contains two precious jewels and four-card support. My 4♥ will indicate some such values.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. I'm assuming 4♣ is a splinter. I don't have the worst hand, fourth trump, nothing wasted in clubs. I can leave door open for partner, hoping he will understand 4♥ as some sort of last train.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♥.

CLEMENTSSON: 4♥. I like showing a positive hand and still having the option of stopping in 4♠. I hope showing a heart cue won't do too much damage 🙂

A couple of panelists complained about the 2♠ bid but, as the system uses a jump to 3♠ as a limit raise, that was not an option.
BERGEN : 4♥. Not surprisingly, I would have much preferred showing my four-card support with an initial Bergen Raise. After 4♣, I must show a sign of life.
DE WIJS : 4♥. I don't like 2♠ but, here we are. Too much for a 4♦ bid, but no cue, so I'll use last train.
The other major faction on the panel chose an alternative route to say much the same thing,
HULT : 5♠. Good trumps, nothing else. I need to bid something more than 4♠.
LARSSON : 5♠. If 4♣ had guaranteed a void, I would bid Blackwood. Since I'm unsure, I take a middle bid.
WANG : 5♠. Good trumps.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♠. Maximum without a red-suit cue-bid.
BRINK : 5♠. Amazing hand. 5♠ showing good spades.
BROCK : 5♠. I would have bid 3♠ the first time. It’s important to know how many trumps partner has. Presumably, 4♣ is shortage. My hand is too useful to sign off and I have nothing to cue-bid, hence I must have good trumps and/or good third-round red-suit controls.
Tim was one of only a couple of panelists who thought 4♣ showed length rather than shortage, although the evaluation of our hand remained much the same.
COPE : 5♠. In my book partner is making a big two-suited slam try, and cannot have less than AQxxx in spades and AKQxx in clubs. They must have another card to be worthy of a slam try, and I do not think my hand can be better, so we should be safe at the five-level. I am denying a red-suit control so, hopefully, partner can now take the right decision.

We had a couple of soloists, but the theme remained the same – this hand is too good for 4♠.

ROBSON: 6♠. I was about to jump to 5♠ but, frankly, our hand is SOOO suitable for a spade slam. Try constructing a jump to 4♣ where slam is NOT good. It's hard to do.
GONCALVES: 5♣. I like my hand, so I have to make some effort to reach slam. I think that partner will understand that I don´t have heart or diamond control, but good spades and some extra values.
And, finally, the pessimists…
COHEN: 4♠. Surely, I am in love with my trumps but, if that's all partner needs, he could have gone differently.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♠.
BRANCO: 4♠. I have no control either in diamonds or hearts.
MEYERS: 4♠. I think partner is two-suited in the blacks, but I have too many losers in the red suits as much as I am tempted to bid 5♠.

Partner had AQxxxx/AKxx/Axx/---, so 6♠ was an easy make. Do those who retreat to 4♠ expect partner to bid again when your bidding is consistent with Jxx/xx/Jxxx/KQxx?

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.47

One of the largest majorities we’ve had in the two and a half years that this panel has been running, but I confess I am still in the minority’s camp. Just over half of competitors agree with the panel and pick up maximum marks. For some, the decision was clear…

BRINK : Dbl. I'm very strong, so I start with double. No alternative.
DE WIJS : Dbl. I think this must be the majority by far. Sure, you could get into trouble, but I'm not prepared to prepare for that.
SAELENSMINDE : Dbl.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
OISEAU : Dbl. How can it be wrong to double first, rather that plunge immediately into one pool or another?
This was the reasoning of many…
WANG : Dbl. If partner bids 3♠, I will bid 4♥.
BRANCO: Dbl. Over the possible bid of 3♠, I intend to bid 4♥. With K-x of diamonds, the hand is not suitable for NT.
HULT : Dbl. Double then 4♥ to show a flexible hand.
COPE : Dbl. Now it seems easy, but our decision will come when partner bids 3♠ -- do we bid 4♥ (great hand with a five-card suit) or 3NT. I would favor the former, as 3NT can go down too often if we are missing the ♥A.
BERGEN : Dbl. Since I sensibly use THRUMP doubles here, and partner is a passed hand, he is very unlikely to jump to 4♠. If he does, I'll pass and expect him to make it.
BROCK : Dbl. I think 4♥ is likely to be a lot better than 3NT. I hope partner does not go too mad over my double: I anticipate 3♠-pass-4♥.
Some thought 3NT the alternative…
GONCALVES: Dbl. I don´t like 3NT -- bad stopper and I can miss a slam.
CLEMENTSSON: Dbl. Followed by 4♥, showing a flexible hand. Of course, 3NT could be the winner but, with only K-x in diamonds and without the ♥A, I think it's incorrect.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. I do not like to bid 3NT on this hand. Over 3♠ I’ll bid 4♥, but I’ll pass if he jumps to 4♠.
MEYERS : Dbl. Over 3♠ by partner, I will bid 4♥. If I had a third diamond, I would bid 3NT.
COHEN : Dbl. With a third diamond, I could be talked into 3NT, but it would be silly opposite, say, Kxxx/10xxx/xx/Qxx. As a passed hand, partner isn't too likely to torture me with 4♠.
Paul even considered 3♥…
MARSTON : Dbl. Too good for 3♥.
And a few did not like the choices at all…

ROBSON : Dbl. Yuk! I hate doubling with only two spades, but what else? 4♥? I don't like 3NT without the hold-up rights in diamonds. Will of course bid 4♥ over 3♠.

ZIA : Dbl. There is no good answer, including this one.
Jessica seems to want to want the opponents to demonstrate why double may not be the best option…
LARSSON : Dbl. I double with little confidence, but maybe North can't keep quiet and will raise his partner, and maybe I will get more intelligence and know what to do next.
Only a couple of mavericks agreed with my choice.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. This seems like the most practical bid to me. Sure, we can have some hands where even slam makes, but I have too many losers. Partner would have to have perfect points. And, this shows a good hand, so he is allowed to bid on.
SHENKIN: 4♥. Preempts give problems. I don't much like 3NT, although it could be right. Double keeps 3NT open. 4♥ has plusses and minuses, so I go for that, although not with any great enthusiasm.

At the table, whatever you do, North bids 5♦. If that is passed back to you, how do you like your options now? I overcalled 4♥, and partner bid 5♥ over 5♦. Should I then have raised to slam? Yes, as partner held xx/Axxxx/x/Qxxxx.
If you start with double, should partner bid 5♥ over 5♦? If so, you probably raise and thus reach the good slam. However, would he not also bid the same with spades rather than hearts? Presumably so. Similarly, if he passes 5♦ back to you and you double again… Is he supposed to bid 5♥ (or 5♠) then?

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.08

Just to make things more difficult, the final panelist’s vote came in to make it an exact tie between those who passed 3NT and those who bid on. My feeling is that the 4♣ bidders have the better of the debate, but the decision is obviously very close, so more than three-quarters of competition entrants score well.

ZIA : Pass. Rather an easy problem, isn't it?
LARSSON : Pass. When in doubt, play in 3NT.
SHENKIN: Pass. I’d like something in clubs from partner, not hearts.
After your 3♠ bid, surely strongly suggesting heart weakness, is he not guaranteed to have something in hearts?
BROCK : Pass. He could easily have xxx in hearts and 3NT could be the only making game.
Could he?
S. BALDYSZ : Pass. It's true that in some cases partner might have nothing in clubs and a doubleton heart, in which case 5♦ will be better. Depends on my style of preempting, I might have a better idea what to expect. With my Mom I definitely pass.
At least we maintain family harmony.
C. BALDYSZ: Passez.
SAELENSMINDE : Passez.
BRINK : Passez.
WANG : Pass. 5♦ is not safe.
MARSTON : Pass. This looks like the best game.
COPE : Pass. Nine tricks look easier than eleven, …
Does it? Why can partner not have something like xx/KQx/Qxxxx/Jxx, with 6♦ cold and 3NT going down on a club lead?
COPE (cont): We might endure a heart ruff if partner has a heart holding such as Qxx. Twelve tricks in diamonds appears a bit of a fantasy, as we would need partner to have a heart holding such as A-x and, in general, partner would not pre-empt with this type of side-suit holding.
The other half of the panel took the opposite view, with many of them keeping the option of slam open on their way to 5♦.
BRANCO: 4♣. I am still trying for slam, and 5♦ seems pretty safe.
HULT : 4♣. Let’s see if partner can cue-bid hearts.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. Waiting to hear 4♥. If not, I’ll play in 5♦.
COHEN : 4♣. Partner has to have a heart card(s), so how bad can 5♦ (or 6♦) be? I am afraid clubs is a weak spot, for example Jx/KQx/J10xxx/Jxx.
Where have I seen that hand before?
OISEAU : 4♣. Partner's 3NT shows a heart stopper, so 5♦ is looking good. I will bid 4♣ on the way to the minor-suit game, just in case anything interesting happens.

GONCALVES: 4♣. 5♦ is likely to be better than 3NT. We don’t need much to make slam, and it costs nothing to investigate on the way to the minor-suit game.

BERGEN : 4♣. Slam chances are too good to give up.
CLEMENTSSON: 4♣.
DE WIJS : 4♣. 5♦ might be down. Then again, 5♦ might be better than 3NT and, on a very good day, slam will make. Let's keep the auction alive.
Only a couple simply opted for game in the minor without keeping slam options open.
MEYERS : 5♦. I think partner has something in hearts, but maybe nothing in clubs. I think I can make 5♦, but I am not sure about 3NT.
ROBSON : 5♦. I would have bid 3♥ over 3♦, but we are where we are. Partner probably has something like xx/Qxx/QTxxx/Qxx. No ninth trick in no-trumps, with 5♦ having good practical chances (I doubt they'll find the heart ruff).

At the table, partner had the perfecto heart holding: xxx/A/Qxxxx/J10xx, so 6♦ was easy.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.12

Only the second hand this month on which the panel produce a majority vote, and yet they also offered seven different options. The main question centered around whether partner’s 3♣ was forcing or merely competitive. Most of the panel thought the latter, but they still advanced with a cue-bid. More than half of competition entrants chose a bid (3NT) rejected by most of the panel, and it’s easy enough to see why. If 3♣ is forcing, you clearly want to make a slam try, and if it is not, you want either to bid or try for game in clubs. Either way, 3NT is not the message you want to send. Let’s start with the majority choice…

WANG : 3♠. This shows club support and good controls.
CLEMENTSSON: 3♠. Showing a very nice hand with club support.
HULT : 3♠. We have a strong hand for clubs, so let’s show it.
GONCALVES: 3♠. I have very good cards for my partner, so I will try for game.
OISEAU : 3♠. Partner's sequence is competitive, not invitational. Still, I am expecting five clubs, so an enthusiastic move is appropriate.
BERGEN : 3♠. I'd like to bid a forcing 4♣, but I don't want to risk playing there.
Some are planning to pass if partner offers 3NT.
MEYERS : 3♠. I will pass 3NT by partner. If he does something more aggressive, I might consider bidding slam.
MARSTON : 3♠. I will subside if partner bids 3NT.
S. BALDYSZ : 3♠. I’m not sure what my methods are here. Maybe 3NT would be the best option, if partner has a more balanced hand (5422 or with a spade shortness), but with diamond shortness I think we might be better off in hearts or clubs. Even slam might be possible, if p has K(Q) of hearts and KQ of clubs. I'm hoping partner will bid 3NT with a balanced hand
Some think 3♣ is forcing…
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♠. I have a monster to play in clubs. We can make slam opposite as little as x/Kxxxx/xx/KJ10xx.
ZIA : 3♠. KQxxx and KQxxx = slam. I think this suggests clubs and interest. I will pass 3NT or cue-bid over anything else.
Andrew sums up the dilemma…
ROBSON : 3♠. It is unclear whether partner is making a forcing bid. You could make a strong case for 3♣ to be competitive, with all forcing hands going via double. However, I am so suitable that I'm worth a try for game anyway (plus we don't want a disaster, playing a slam in a part-score). 3♠ shows this sort of spade holding.
Larry is effectively in with the majority…
COHEN : 3♦. I am driving to at least 5♣, and leaving the most space for slam exploration. This will deny three-card heart support and I get to listen to many possibilities. (3♠ wouldn't allow as much room).
Tim points out another reason why 3NT is wrong.
COPE : 4♣. Whilst 3♣ is not forcing, (partner could have re-opened with a double on better hands), I could have enough here for game if partner has extra distribution. Aces win races for suit contracts, not for NT.
The exact nature ranges from unknown to certainty…
LARSSON : 4♣. I don't know the tempo of 3♣, but 4♣ seems like I have covered my bases.
DE WIJS : 4♣. This hand is too good to settle for 3NT. I will bid slam if partner cooperates.
BROCK : 4♣. I have a great hand. A bit depends on my agreements about 3♣ here. For me, it is still FG, and with a more competitive hand I start with 2NT, which is a sort of Lebensohl. This does not need a lot for slam to be on: x/Kxxxx/xx/Kxxxx, for example.
There were mavericks at each end of the scale…
SAELENSMINDE : 4♠.
BRINK : Pass. Yes, my hand is good, but partner has made a non-forcing, non-invitational bid. His hand is something like x/Qxxxx/xx/Qxxxx. So, should I really try to go for 5♣ or 4♥? I don't think so.
And those tilling a completely different furrow…
BRANCO: 3NT. This seems normal holding two spade stoppers.
C. BALDYSZ: 3NT.
SHENKIN: 3NT. I take a chance and hope that partner has five decent clubs. I have three nice 10s and a 9. Brave if it works, but foolish if not.

Partner had x/8xxxx/xx/KJxxx so the 3NT West chose at the table went one down. 5♣ has decent chances and would probably have made as the defensive cards lie.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.22

This deal raises numerous questions. Almost half the panel simply bid what they expect to make, both high and low. The rest try to investigate. However, there seems to be some confusion about what various bids mean. As more and more pairs are playing transfer responses to 1♣, it is important to know how to defend. If the auction had begun with 1♣ and a natural 1♠ response, we all know what double means – either takeout or very strong. Is it the same if the response is a transfer. I would say “No”, and so do…

CLEMENTSSON: 1♠. This should be the equivalent of a takeout double after a natural (1♣)-Pass-(1♠). Double would show hearts.
BRINK : 1♠. This is like a take out double of a natural 1♠ response. (Double here would show hearts.) So, I’ll cue-bid and then bid no-trump or 3♦ next. Let’s wait and see what has happened before we get another go.
BROCK : 1♠. For me, this is a take-out double, which is what I would done over a natural 1♣-P-1♠.
It seems as though this is the correct answer if you are not going to simply jump to 3NT. By contrast, the choice of the next group just seems to be wrong…
MEYERS : Dbl. If partner bids 2♥, I will bid 2NT. That expresses my values.

Yes, but have you not also shown hearts?
GONCALVES: Dbl. I will bid 2NT or 3NT next.
WANG : Dbl. Then I will bid 2NT next.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
SAELENSMINDE : Dbl.
ZIA : Dbl. I double and then bid a large number of NT next.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. I start with a double. I’ll bid 3NT if he bids 2♥.
HULT : Dbl. I start with double and then bid NT later.
As you have shown hearts in a strong hand, is partner with four or five hearts, not going to correct to that strain? Only Paul is actively trying to keep hearts in the picture.
MARSTON : Dbl. There is no need to rush. 4♥ could easily be the right spot.
This is an auction we will come back to sometime in the future. The rest of the panel adopt a pragmatic approach.
ROBSON : 3NT. The practical shot. Frankly, what else?
LARSSON : 3NT. As I said before, when in doubt play in 3NT.
BRANCO: 3NT. It’s what I have! A monster.
DE WIJS : 3NT. Let's not confuse the matter, and just bid what I would be bidding eventually anyway.
SHENKIN: 3NT. It looks likely this is where we will end up, whatever I do now.
OISEAU : 3NT. Those who play these transfers often respond with very little, almost like a controlled psyche. There is no point asking for any help from across the table.
S. BALDYSZ : 3NT. I am hoping partner will have some sort of partial heart support (Jxxx) and a diamond fit, then I'm close to getting nine tricks with 5♦/2♣/1♠ and either a heart or a second spade.

Larry rather sums up the problem.
COHEN: 3NT. I'd need to know what Double and 1♠ mean so, in case we haven't discussed it, I'll make the practical call.

COPE : 3NT. Hamman's rule. If I start by bidding 1♠ as a take-out double and partner bids 2♥, I have the same dilemma. Let's get it over and done with now.
Only Marty adopts the conservative approach.
BERGEN : 2♦. If partner has the expected Yarborough, I don't expect to make 3NT.

At the Table in the Lederer, one West doubled and eventually had to bid 5♦ over partner’s 4♥. At the other table, West made the practical 3NT overcall. Partner had 10x/xxxx/J10xx/Kxx so 3NT was an easy make but 5♦ had three losers. 

David Bird leads the panel this month with an impressive 78/80. Sanna Clementsson scores 77/80 on her debut to claim second place, with Andrew Robson and Simon de Wijs completing the podium on 75/80.
One of only four panelists who have participated every month since we began two and a half years ago, this is the fourth time that David has topped the expert listing. That lifts him into a tie with Wen-Fei Wang, just one win behind Andrew Robson, two more ever-present panelists. (Larry Cohen is the fourth member of that group.)

Le groupe d'experts

Find your bids here

MARQUES

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

SCORE MOYEN

HAND 1:                                7.21
HAND 2:                                5.20
HAND 3:                                5.94
HAND 4:                                4.49
HAND 5:                                6.47
HAND 6:                                7.08
HAND 7:                                5.12
HAND 8:                                5.22