Juillet 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Sous la direction de Marc Smith

Set 2023-7

I begin this month with the very sad news of the death of one of our former panelists, Eric Kokish, at the age of 76. Eric was one of the game’s leading bidding theorists, and a conductor of the ‘The Bridge World’ Master Solvers Club for many years. I recently interviewed him for the upcoming second edition of “World Class”, and I am honored to have counted “The Koach” as a friend. Our condolences go out to Beverly and all of the Kokish family. 

We move into the second half of this year’s annual competition with round seven of the 2023 series.

Going into major championships, I always hope that winning teams will include a panel member. We were spoiled for choice at the 2023 European Transnational Championships held in Strasbourg a couple of weeks ago, with members of the BBO panel winning numerous medals. The absolute star of the show was Cedric Lorenzini (left), who could probably play another 40 years and not have a tournament quite like the one he enjoyed in Strasbourg. At the end of the first week, Cedric won the Mixed Teams and, at the end of the second week, he won the Open Teams. Congratulations on a fantastic double.

We also had two other gold medalists in Strasbourg, Jacek Pszczola winning the Open BAM Teams, and Michal Klukowski, who won gold in the Mixed BAM Teams and bronze in the Mixed Teams.

Our panelists also collected a number of silver medals in Strasbourg. Simon Hult reached the final of the Mixed Teams, Zia Mahmood won silver in the Seniors Teams, and Sally Brock was a finalist in the Women’s Teams. Two panelists playing together also collected silver medals, Sophia and Cathy Baldysz finishing second in the Women’s Pairs. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Wen-Fei Wang was winning a bronze medal as the coach of the Hong Kong Women’s team in the Asia Pacific Championships. She steered her team into the third Asia-Pacific qualifying place for this summer’s Venice Cup in Morocco.

Congratulations to all members of our panel who have won medals in recent weeks. Is there any doubt that the BBO Expert Panel is the strongest ever assembled? We are also proud that it represents all parts of the world, with members from all six occupied continents. We thank every one of our panelists for the time they take each month to both entertain and educate our readers.

Our two guest panelists this month were co-winners of the Mai competition with an excellent 78/80. Maxim Silin says, “I am living near Boston, MA, a part of the USA with excellent local bridge clubs. Unfortunately, my work as an industrial scientist interferes with the full-time enjoyment of bridge.” Bob Boudreau is a long-time Massachusetts resident, although he has spent the last decade in Edina MN. He has been an ACBL member since 1965 and his days at Stonehill College in Easton MA. He won the Décembre competition at the end of last year, so this is his second appearance as a guest panelist. Bob is currently battling his brother, Paul, for the lead in the 2023 annual competition.

Hand 2 this month was sent to me by one of our regular competition entrants, John Klayman (BBO:TheSqueeze), and Hand 5 comes from a regular panelist, Marty Bergen. Thanks to both of them. 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 on only three of the eight hands this month (including two dud problems at the end – I’ll have stern words with the problem setter). That does mean that the most popular choice of competitors picks up maximum marks on four of the eight hands, so this rates to be another high-scoring month. Voting with the largest group of competition entrants this month scores the highest so far this year, 64/80 (up from 60 last month) and the average score is 50.62 (down slightly from 51.38 on Set 2023-6). I’m sure there is still 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: 7.03

Although there was no majority choice from the panel, they did still produce a clear preference. The panel also made it clear which bids they didn’t like, notably 3♥. The good news is that close to two-thirds of competition entrants voted for one of the panel’s top two choice. Let’s hear what each of the groups have to say.

MEYERS : 3♣. My hand is much more invitational in clubs than it is in hearts.
MARSTON : 3♣. We could miss 4♥, but there is no safe way to investigate.
COHEN : 3♣. Yes, I see the four-card heart suit but, if partner can't move over 3♣, I doubt we will miss a game.
ROBSON : 3♣. It feels like I'll get another go, so hearts will probably not be lost.
BRINK : 3♣. I really have no good idea.
SUNDELIN : 3♣.
DE WIJS : 3♣. I will overbid a little with this. Over 3NT I will bid 4♥ to complete the picture.
SILIN: 3♣. Expressing both the overall playing strength and the best suit. While I want to bring hearts into the picture, there is no convenient way to do so. If partner bids again, we will be well placed to look for the best game.
OISEAU : 3♣. I am worth a jump and I have a good club suit. 2♥ does not show any values and 3♥ takes us too high into what is not necessarily an eight-card fit. Hopefully, someone is going to bid diamonds, and I can then show my hearts.
The next largest group also chose to bid clubs…
WANG : 2♣. The club suit is much better than the hearts.
S. BALDYSZ : 2♣. I'm bidding where my points and length are.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♣. Partner may have a strong hand with diamonds, in which case I will then have a comfortable 2♥ rebid.
MOULE : 2♣. Irving Rose used to say at rubber bridge "passing for now, coming in later". I kinda feel the same here. Nothing describes this hand properly. I don't believe 2♣ will get passed out (and it may be right if it does!) And, I think I will be able to describe my hand much better starting this way.
BOUDREAU : 2♣. This hand is worth two bids, so I will emphasize the strong club suit and then compete in hearts over their diamonds or 2♠.
BROCK : 2♣. I’m hoping I can survive this round. Then I’ll bid at least 3♥ next time. I don’t really want to play a 4-3 heart fit, but neither do I want to miss a 4-4 one.
By contrast, a couple of panelists thought this hand worth a cue-bid…
BRANCO: 2♠. Cue bid, showing game interest. I think we'll play 5♣, likely, or 4♥.
COPE : 2♠. The hand has game-going qualities and we need room to explore the right strain, which could be hearts, clubs or even NT.
And there was a small modicum of support for responding in hearts…
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♥. The easiest game is 4♥.
HULT : 2♥. Looking for 4♥. I hope partner can raise.
BERGEN : 2♥. The hand is definitely worth a jump, but I'm reluctant to bid 3♥ with Jxxx.

Partner had a monster, A/AKQx/Qxxx/Axxx, so 7♣ and 7♥ were both excellent, but not at all easy to reach, no matter what you respond. Those bidding either 3♣ or 2♠ probably have the best chance of reaching a grand.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.97

This is one of only three majority votes from the panel this month. The competitors are divided into three groups, with the least populus of those backing the panel’s choice. Not that those panelists who double are in agreement as to what comes next…

WANG : Dbl. If partner bid 2♠, I will bid 3♦.
HULT : Dbl. I start with a double and, over 2♠, I’ll bid 3♦.
COPE : Dbl. Sorry partner, I missorted my hand, but I hope you'll get the message when I revert to diamonds after a spade bid by you. This hand is not worth a game-force, so I cannot start with a 3♥ cue-bid.

Maxim is happy to play in the Moysian major-suit fit at matchpoints.
SILIN: Dbl. While it is difficult to construct all the relevant hands for partner, my feeling is to go low opposite a minimum: pass 2♠ (hoping to win the board at +140), bid 3♦ over 2NT. If partner shows extras with a three-level bid other than 3♦, we will continue to a game.

Whereas Paul and Simon plan to force to game anyway…
MARSTON : Dbl. I will follow up with 3♥. I do not mind playing 4♠ if partner insists.
DE WIJS : Dbl. Let's start here. Over spade bids, I will try to get to 3NT. I feel my hand is too balanced for a direct 3♥ offre.
A few just thought this was the obvious answer…
BRANCO: Dbl. An easy one. Looking for a heart stopper.
COHEN : Dbl. Less challenging than most problems in this forum. This doesn't "promise" four spades, so feels pretty routine.
MOULE : Dbl. I had a club in with my spades partner...
S. BALDYSZ : Dbl. I usually play transfers here, so I would have an easier bid. As it is, I'll just settle for a double and see what happens.
C. BALDYSZ: Dbl.
BOUDREAU : Dbl. This is okay with only three spades (good ones) because I can take a ruff in the short hand.
David sums up the case for the majority.
OISEAU : Dbl. You might bid 3♦ on a shapely six-count with a fit, so this hand is a bit too good. 3♥ is too much, and any no-trump bid is eccentric.
The rest were split into two camps … the conservatives…
BROCK : 3♦. I’m going to take the low road with this horrible hand.
SUNDELIN : 3♦. Risky but, if I bid 3♥ instead, partner will not understand that 3NT is right with something like Kx/Jxx/AKQxx/10xx.
BERGEN : 3♦. A lesser-of-evils underbid, but it's not clear that my collection of quacks and weak support merits a stronger action.
ROBSON : 3♦. Heavy, and will double North's 3♥ if that comes now. At IMPs, I may feel the need to do more (but I don't actually like my hand that much).
…and the aggressive…
BRINK : 3♥. Diamond fit, game forcing...
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♥. Double is very dangerous. I prefer the standard 3♥.
MEYERS : 3♥. If partner has hearts stopped and can bid 3NT, I am taking my shot. Arguably, my hand is only worth 3♦, but I would rather go overboard than under.

Partner had KJ10x/J10xx/AKxx/x. The defenders can score the doubleton ♦Q via a trump promotion to hold 3♦ to nine tricks, but both 4♠ or 3NT (from responder’s side) are destined to make. It seems that Maxim’s +170 will score rather well, but the paper tigers who forced to game would have come out on top on this layout.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.90

No majority from the panel, but a clear favorite nonetheless. However, quite a mix of evaluations, with the largest group bidding game and some making a slam try, but a few making only a competitive raise and others choosing to double and defend at the three-level. The competition entrants were split three ways, with the largest group choosing the most conservative and the least popular of those options. Nearly 1-in-5 competitors collected maximum marks, but even more scored zero with a 3NT choice not even mentioned by a single panelist. Let’s start with those who bid game…

HULT : 5♣. Let’s try game!
MEYERS : 5♣. There is a game bonus and we are vulnerable.
BOUDREAU : 5♣. Trusting partner’s free 3♣ bid and betting we will only lose one diamond and one black card.
BROCK : 5♣. Partner must have a lot of shape for all this bidding at red.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♣.
MARSTON : 5♣. It would have been better if I had doubled the first time. Now I have to guess.
David thought it was a question of 4♣ or 5♣…
OISEAU : 5♣. I have an ace, a singleton and four-card trump support, plus my diamonds sitting over the bidder. So, no, I am not going to bid just 4♣.
Whereas a couple viewed it as a choice between bidding game or making a slam try…
ROBSON : 5♣. I don't think I have quite enough to make a slam try.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. I thought about bidding 4♦ but, against 6♣, the opponents could lead the ♦A and take a diamond ruff, so 5♣ is ok.
The next largest faction on the panel did make a slam try,
BRANCO: 4♥. Showing slam interest in clubs. My hand deserves it.
WANG : 4♥. This shows a club fit and a good raise.
DE WIJS : 4♥. It’s time to come alive. Being a twice passed hand, I think I can afford to do this.

Tim makes a decent job of predicting the whole hand (see below).
COPE : 4♥. Partner will know I have a fair hand, and that must be based on a penalty pass of diamonds. If we try to read the hands around the table, the 2♥ bidder has some values with only a five-card heart suit (no weak two), and probably has a diamond fit too. RHO is possibly 3-3-6-1, which leaves partner with a 6-1-0-6. There is no reason why hearing about the ♥A and obvious club support should not get us moving towards a good slam.

A couple make their slam try in diamonds.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♦. I usually play here that partner has 2NT available to show a weak hand with a minor, so 3♣ would promise a better hand. Opposite some hands, even slam will be possible, so I'll start with a cue bid agreeing clubs.
SILIN: 4♦. The auction has greatly improved my hand, so a slam try in clubs is the least I can do. 4♥ by partner should show internal solidity of black suits, rather than a heart cue-bid. I hope we are on the same page.
Only Alan and P.O. think 4♣ is enough.
MOULE : 4♣. My ♥A is good but my diamonds are waste paper. This looks enough.
SUNDELIN : 4♣.
And there are three who have perhaps judged things better than anyone else…
COHEN : Dbl. Clearly for penalties, and they are obviously in big trouble. How will they get any tricks, especially if partner has a trump to lead?
BERGEN : Dbl. I'd prefer better hearts, fewer clubs, a different vulnerability, and to be on lead. That's a lot! But with only 17 total trumps, if we can make 5♣, we will get at least 500.
BRINK : Dbl. When I have no idea, double is usually a good move. Then my partner can go wrong.

This was a strange hand from the South American Teams, where both West players bid 5♣. Partner had close to what Tim predicted, AK109xx/--/x/Q9xxxx. One West got a heart lead, so away went the diamond loser and thus 5♣ made +600. At the other table, a crazy North bid 5♥, and I originally intended to set the problem from partner’s side, but I was persuaded that it was impossible not to bid on to slam as East did at the table. That meant going two down in 6♣ (-300) with 5♥-X four down for +800. Did West encourage his partner too much? Apparently not: only a couple of the panel thought our hand was not worth 5♣ (and some even made a slam try). Perhaps those panelists who made a penalty double of 3♥ were right after all.

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.81

The panel offers no strong opinion on what I thought was the most difficult of this month’s problems, so well done to nearly half of competition entrants who score a maximum. Most of the rest support the panel’s other choices. More than half of the panel rebid their hearts…

BRANCO: 3♥. The normal bid.
MEYERS : 3♥. With a trick and a couple of trumps, partner should raise.
BERGEN : 3♥. A pedestrian bid with such a lovely hand, but this was not the auction I was hoping for.
HULT : 3♥.
SILIN: 3♥. While an underbid with a four-loser hand, I have no reason to disbelieve the opponents or to expect my partner to hold a prime card.
OISEAU : 3♥. This shows a good hand, vulnerable against not. If there is any reason to bid clubs, I look forward to hearing about it.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3♥. I don't like double with 6-4. I prefer 3♥.
COPE : 3♥. It looks as if we may have five losers, so we need two pieces from partner to make game. We are therefore not strong enough to double and then bid 3♥, and introducing the club suit seems to add little value.
Some are more optimistic…
DE WIJS : 4♥. I toyed with Double and 3♣, but will settle for the easy bid.
ROBSON : 4♥. All I need for game is the ♦K.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. Hoping partner will have an ace or a well-located ♦K.
BOUDREAU : 4♥. I don't need much from partner (♥10 and ♦K). The biggest problem is that I have NO defense against 4♠.
SUNDELIN : 4♥. Not knowing anything.
MARSTON : 4♥. Going for something. Bidding clubs can only help them.

Only Alan started with a double, but as he intends to bid 4♥ next, I’ve put him in with that group.
MOULE : Dbl. Then 4♥ next. This is a game drive for me and, if partner cannot cover one of my losers, so be it.

Only a small group echoed my effort at the table by showing their second suit.
WANG : 3♣. Describing my shape.
COHEN : 3♣. I don't want everyone to pass, but this gets partner involved if he should be (either to double 4♠ or to compete with something like Axx/xx/xxx/10xxxx).
BROCK : 3♣. I think 4♥ here would be a ’transfer to 4♠’, and I wouldn’t have a clue whether to double. At least, if I bid clubs, partner may have a better idea of what to do, with or without club length.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♣.
Sjoert offers another way of showing this shape, but are we all convinced that partner would take it this way rather than strong semi-balanced with some spade values?
BRINK : 2NT. Showing 6-4.

At the table on this hand from the Spring Fours, partner had Jxxx/Ax/xxx/xxxx so he passes 3♣, and probably 3♥ too. At the other table, Boye Brogeland opened 4♥, so all but a handful of the panel lose a game swing.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.56

Another high-scoring hand. Although there is no majority from the panel, they offer a fairly clear decision nonetheless, and nearly half of competitors agree with the largest faction on the panel.

BRANCO: 2♠. Another easy hand.
DE WIJS : 2♠. I cannot find enough reasons to not show my hand.
HULT : 2♠. I try to bid my suits.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♠.
S. BALDYSZ : 2♠.
OISEAU : 2♠. I do realize that we cannot have an eight-card fit in either major. Does this mean I'm not allowed to tell partner what I have?
Some were not particularly convinced…
COHEN : 2♠. Barely worth it. However, we could still have a game, so I might as well show what I have.
BERGEN : 2♠. A very upgradable hand although, with no fit, I may regret my reverse.
Maxim has a plan…
SILIN: 2♠. This is too good a hand to settle for 1NT. If my partner shows a weak hand with 2NT, I will complete my pattern description with 3♦.
Others chose to show extra values without revealing their shape…
SUNDELIN : 2NT. Optimistically.
BRINK : 2NT. A limit raise.
BROCK : 2NT. I can never see the point of bidding spades when we know partner doesn’t have them.
BOUDREAU : 2NT. I am counting on partner stopping clubs. This is our best chance for game.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2NT. This could be bad if partner has 3-2-5-3, but it seems better than a natural 2♠ playing matchpoints.
And Paul was even more gung ho.
MARSTON : 3NT. This may be an overbid, but no one has an easy run when partner is at the helm.
The rest were more circumspect.
COPE : 2♥. A great matchpoint problem. We may be better off in NT when partner has decent clubs, though game is farfetched at MPs (get a plus score first). We may even be better off in diamonds when partner's clubs are weak, but I fancy looking for the +140 in hearts as my best MP score.

Andrew makes an excellent point about the strategy at matchpoints.
ROBSON : 2♥. A good hand for Gazilli of course. But at Matchpoints, this is easy really: underbid, overplay.

I think Alan sums up the problem well.
MOULE : 2♦. Great! A classic problem playing strong no-trump. Do I overbid with 2♠, underbid with 2♥ or try a fancy 2♦? Today I will try 2♦.
WANG : 2♦. If partner bids 2♥, I will pass.
MEYERS : 2♦. If partner passes, we don’t belong higher. If partner bids 2♥, I will bid 2♠, which should get the picture across.

Partner had 9/9x/KJ98x/QJ8xx, so diamond or heart contracts rate to score something close +110. At matchpoints, perhaps 1NT is as good a contract as any as +90 or +120 are likely. Unless we’re getting to 3♦, going beyond 2♥ seems to put us in danger of going minus, so I have to say that I agree with the 2♦/2♥ bidders at matchpoints, where there is more emphasis on getting a plus score than on reaching a thin game. We have a panel of optimists, though, so the overbids get the top marks in this forum.

HAND 6.

Note moyenne des participants au concours : 5,02

No majority again from the panel. However, all but one panelist bids game or makes a slam try, so the largest group of competitors score poorly for bidding only 4♣ on this one. Let’s see who wins the debate…

MEYERS : 5♣. Bid what you have.
WANG : 5♣. I think 4♣ is not forcing.
COPE : 5♣. True, partner has not promised clubs,…
He hasn’t? I am not sure how a passed hand can double here without at least 4-4 in the minors as doing so risks endplaying himself on the next round with, say, 2-4-4-3 shape?
COPE (continued):…but we want to be in game if they are kind enough to give us Kxxx in that suit. 4♣ is therefore wishy-washy and a repetition of spades is unilateral.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. Maybe we can make 6♣, but I have no way of knowing. If my partner has two spades and three clubs, 4♠ will be a better game but, with a singleton in spades or with 4+ clubs, 5♣ should be better.
SUNDELIN : 5♣.
OISEAU : 5♣. Partner's pass-then-double closely defines his hand, surely at least 4-4 in the minors and 9+ points. The odds are against him holding two spades.
A couple are hoping partner will rescue them….
HULT : 5♣. I hope partner will raise with the ♦A and the ♣K.
MARSTON : 5♣. Descriptive. Partner might well bid 6♣ with ♣ Kxxx and a red ace.
I think that’s a pipe-dream, which is why I think the next group easily win the debate.
SILIN: 4♥. A slam try in an unspecified minor. I will follow with 5♣ over either 4♠ or 4NT.
ROBSON : 4♥. I think this shows a good 4♠ bid as it stands. However, when I then pull to 5♣ it's a natural slam try.
DE WIJS : 4♥. This is a great bid, which I can explain in the post mortem as choice-of-games or slam try for a minor, depending on how the hand pans out.
Although not all intend it as a slam try…
BRINK : 4♥. Maybe partner bids 4♠, 4NT or 5♣... All is good.
COHEN : 4♥. If partner wants to choose 4♠, I'll be content there.
MOULE : 4♥. Passes the time of day.
Others prefer the relatively safety of their longest suit.
BERGEN : 4♠. Partner didn't guarantee four clubs, so I will hope that my powerful spades will see me through. It's also true that we could have three fast losers.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♠. I think slam unlikely here, but I want to be in game and it's easier to play at the four-level.
BROCK : 4♠. The trouble with bidding clubs is that I’d probably rather play spades if partner has a doubleton or singleton honour. When you bid a minor here, partner will never go back to spades with a singleton honour.
BOUDREAU : 4♠. We probably have a big club fit, but the ♠10-9 make the ten-trick game worth a shot.

Marcelo made a more direct slam try...
BRANCO: 4NT. As we haven't agreed trump suit, partner should respond showing only the number of aces.
And only Cathy was willing to stop out of game.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♣.

Partner had xx/Jxx/Axxx/KJxx so 6♣ was an excellent contract, but only 4♥ and then 5♣ gets you there. 4♠ makes 10 or 11 tricks depending on the trump break. Bidding 4♣ gets you +170.

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6.51

This is the first of what turned out to be two dud problems, with the most popular choice of competitors (receiving more than half of the votes) matching a large majority vote by the panel. Let’s hear why the panel were so convinced…

BRINK: 3NT. I have no other good bid.
BERGEN: 3NT. I just don't see a good alternative.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. I don't see another good option with this hand.
BOUDREAU: 3NT. Any other bid might get us past 3NT and slam is not in my sight.
BRANCO: 3NT. We may miss a slam in clubs, but I cannot find a better bid.
WANG: 3NT. Although I have good club support, 3NT looks like the right choice.
COHEN: 3NT. If I bid 3♠, we'll never be able to land in our most likely 3NT contract. If they beat us in a red suit (unlikely), c’est la vie.
BIRD: 3NT. A possible club slam represents a small niggle, but there is no convenient way to investigate that,
C. BALDYSZ: 3NT.
SUNDELIN: 3NT.
MOULD: 3NT. I seriously cannot think of any valid alternative. 3♠ to agree clubs takes us past the far and away most likely contract of 3NT. I make what John Armstrong used to refer to as the "practical man's 3NT bid".
COPE: 3NT. The only way to get to 3NT is to bid it ourselves. There is no point in bidding 3♠, as we know partner cannot bid 3NT. Hamman's rule.
Some panelists offer ways to improve on standard methods…
BROCK: 3NT. In my methods, I can bid 2NT to show clubs with a happiness to play NTs.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. I usually play transfers here, so I could bid 2NT as invitational or better with clubs. Here, for lack of agreements, I'll just make the most practical bid.

ROBSON: 3NT. As 1♣ could be a doubleton, there is a good case for playing 3♣ as natural and forcing here, and that would then be the obvious bid. If 3♣ is weak and competitive systemically (as I suspect it is), then I’m left with having to settle for 3NT.

There were just a handful of mavericks.
HULT : 3♠. I try for 6♣ here.
SILIN: 4♣. A surprisingly uncomfortable action, without a convenient way to create a force at a low level. As slam is cold opposite many minimums (eg. xx/KQx/AKx/xxxxx), I don’t want to give up on it yet. If partner continues with 4♦, then 4♠ from me completes the picture of a slam try with values concentrated in the black suits. Otherwise, I will settle for 5♣.
Paul, Jill and Simon all do their best to both have their cake and eat it…
MEYERS : Dbl. There is no rush to bid 3NT. I can do that at my next turn unless partner does something "interesting".
MARSTON : Dbl. Bidding 3♠ would give up on 3NT but jumping to 3NT gives up on 6♣. I’m not willing to do either just yet.
DE WIJS : Dbl. We will bid 2NT with any balanced, regardless of stopper, so I am bidding 3NT over 2NT/3♥. Should partner jump to 4♥, he is supposed to have clubs and hearts, so I will then play in clubs.

This seems to be one of those deals that have to be marked down as ‘just too difficult’. Partner had x/AK10x/AQx/Q10xxx, so 6♣ was cold on any lay of the cards. (With Qxx hearts onside and the diamond finesse working, you also make 13 tricks in NT.) Partner seems to be just short of enough to make a quantitative raise of 3NT to 4NT.

HAND 8.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.82

Our second dud in a row, and this time an even more emphatic majority from the panel. Again, too, more than half of competition entrants score maximum marks, but a large proportion fail to score too, hence the relatively low average score.

BRINK: 3NT. At matchpoints, 3NT is always a good option.
HULT: 3NT. I’ll be happy if we make this...
BROCK: 3NT. And hope for the best.
ROBSON: 3NT. Even this won't make opposite some of mine.
S. BALDYSZ: 3NT. It depends on my agreements about preempts, but I usually play that first seat NV-v-V doesn't promise anything.
VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. I don't know how weak we can open 3♣, but 3NT but seems to me to be the natural action.
MEYERS: 3NT. I want to be playing this hand from my side and I am not going to be exploring for a slam.
DE WIJS: 3NT. Slam is not likely, so I will bid the higher scoring game.
MARSTON: 3NT. I’m not willing to gamble on slam.
WANG: 3NT.
SUNDELIN: 3NT.
David earns “Comment of the Month” honours…
BIRD: 3NT. You cannot consider a high club contract with a hand resembling a piece of Swiss cheese.
COHEN: 3NT. A bit of a style question. Opposite an "anything goes" modern favorable preempt, I can't imagine trying for a slam. Too many holes to fill.
BRANCO: 3NT. A conservative bid, but I think something is missing for 6♣.

BOUDREAU: 3NT. IF RHO had bid, I would be more encouraged that finesses would work and so try for slam. Besides white vs. red, partner might be very weak.

BERGEN : 3NT. Opposite a perfecto we could have a slam, but this seems to be the indicated action.
MOULE : 3NT. It is pointless asking what to do opposite 1st in NV v Vul pre-empts without giving an indication of partner's style (and don't bang on about I am sitting opposite a random expert - I would know who the expert is and what their style is). Opposite John Holland I would seriously consider a slam, but opposite Ollie Burgess I would consider passing. I guess to bid 3NT.
Why don’t you tell us what you really think, Alan 😊
SILIN: 3NT. For slam to be better than average partner, as well as the presumed (hoped for?) King-seventh of clubs, needs to also have the ♥K. The ♦K instead will give plenty of play, but slam will not be cold. Not having methods to find out enough, I’ll settle for a chance to get an above-average result in the play.
There were just a couple of lone wolfs willing to investigate…
C. BALDYSZ: 3♦.
COPE : 4♦. Keycard. The cowardly panel will vote unilaterally for a warm, cosy 3NT. Occasionally it is worth taking a risk - have you never opened 3♣ on Axx/xx/x/K10xxxxx? I will accept my bad score for this bid, not with good grace but with the courage of a lion. Assuming partner bids 4♥, I can still sign off in a safe 4NT. However, partner must realize that I have a good hand to bid this way, and if, for once in their life, they have a decent pre-empt such as xx/Kx/xx/KQxxxxx, they can still raise 4NT to 5NT and we can right-side a good 6NT contract.

This partner had Axx/xxx/x/K10xxxx, so probably a 3♣ opening in most people’s book…? With the ♥K onside, you make 13 tricks in clubs as long as declarer guesses the 3-0 trump break correctly. 3NT goes down if he misguesses clubs so, at IMPs, 5♣ would be the preferred contract, but not at Matchpoints.

Congratulations to David Bird who, in the 31^st month of this competition, becomes only the third panelist to produce a perfect 80/80. This is the fifth time that David has topped the panel, which ties him with Wen-Fei Wang and Andrew Robson for the most.

Completing the podium this month are Simon de Wijs with 75/80 and one of our guest panelists, Bob Boudreau, who scored a very creditable 73/80.

Le groupe d'experts

Find your bids here

MARQUES

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

SCORE MOYEN

HAND 1:                                7.03
HAND 2:                                5.97
HAND 3:                                4.90
HAND 4:                                7.81
HAND 5:                                7.56
HAND 6:                                5.02
HAND 7:                                6.51
HAND 8:                                5.82