Octobre 2023 Panel Comments: BBO Bidders Challenge

Sous la direction de Marc Smith

Set 2023-10

We have reached the stage when players in the annual competition begin dropping their weakest scores. This is when the race to make it into the Top 20 and onto the podium really hots up. In just two months, this competition will complete its third year, and we will crown our champion bidder for 2023. Good luck to all of those contenders who have entered every month so far this year.

If there was ever any doubt about the quality of our panel, the latest WBF world rankings include a number of panel members near the top of the lists. In the Open, Michael Klukowski is ranked #2, Simon de Wijs #5 and Sjoert Brink #11. Zia Mahmood and Cedric Lorenzini are also in the top 40. In the Women’s rankings, we have five panel members in the Top 10: Jessica Larsson #2, Wenfei Wang #4, Nevena Senior #5, Sally Brock #7 and Sanna Clementsson #9. Three more panel members, Cathy and Sophia Baldysz and Jill Meyers, are ranked in the top 30. Kudos to them all.

Huge congratulations to two members of our expert panel, Michal Klukowski and Sjoert Brink, who were part of the Switzerland team that won the Bermuda Bowl in Morocco a couple of weeks ago. Commiserations to a few other panel members, who just missed out on a medal in Marrakech. Zia reached the semi-final of the Bermuda Bowl as a member of USA2, but just missed out on a medal, finishing fourth. In the Venice Cup, four panel members made it into the knockout stage but they were all eliminated in the quarter-finals, Sanna Clementsson with Sweden, Cathy and Sophia Baldysz with Poland, and Jill Meyers with USA2.

Our solo guest panelist this month won the Août competition with a score of 79/80. Claus Hastrup from Mørke, Denmark is 47 years old and was educated as a journalist, He lives on the outskirts of Aarhus with his wife and two daughters and plays on a team in the Danish 3rd division. He says, “I like reading bridge books and I have a large collection. I just returned from a vacation in London, where I stumbled across “Chess and Bridge” in Baker Street. My unimpressed family had to wait while I agonized over which books NOT to buy - they had World Championship books on sale for €5... At the airport we had to rearrange the luggage to avoid overweight.”

We are delighted to welcome a new panelist this month, increasing our representation from the Southern Hemisphere. Andy Hung made his international debut in the Australian Schools team at the 2006 World Youth Championships. He was a regular member of his country’s Junior team from 2008-2012, and he made his debut in Australia’s Open team at the 2019 Bermuda Bowl. He also won his first NABC title in 2019, the Open BAM Teams.

Hands 4 and 5 this month were both sent to me by a member of our expert panel, Alan Mould. Hand 6 comes from one of our regular competitors, Paul Dubois (pottsca) from California. Thanks to them both. 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 majority choice on six of this month’s hands. With the panel making clear choices, though, it is easy to drop marks in chunks. The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on three hands (5, 6 and 7), and voting with the largest group of competitors on all eight hands scores 59/80 (up from 44 last month), so this rates to be a high-scoring month. The average score this month is 46.83 (down from 47.29 on Set 2023-9), so there is clearly plenty to be learned from the views of our expert panel. Let’s get to it…

Find your bids here and compare your answers with those of the panel.

HAND 1.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 5.95

This deal completely split the panel, but the marking reflects that 15-of-25 panelists committed to bidding at least game. With no clear preference from the panel, most options score fairly well. However, 30% of competition entrants (those bidding 2♠, 2♣, 3♣, for example) significantly undervalued this hand and score poorly, reducing the average score. Let’s start with those panel members who simply raise spades…

DE WIJS : 4♠. For me, this shows a minimum hand with at least 4-6 in the blacks. (18-19 balanced goes through 2NT).
HUNG: 4♠. I like 4♠ here to show a distributional raise (typically 4-6 shape). A 3♥ splinter followed by 4♠ is okay too. I don't want to miss out on a vulnerable game at IMPs - is partner meant to bid game over a 3♥ splinter with Axxx/Qxx/xxxx/xx or QJxxx/Kxx/xxx/xx?
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♠. Obviously based on distribution rather than high card strength.
BRANCO: 4♠. I considered 4♣, but something is missing for this bid. 3♥ is another option, but maybe partner wouldn’t understand.
What about those who thought the hand worth only an invitational raise?
ZIA : 3♠. Bad trumps, few high cards and no opposition bidding (meaning that partner has a decent hand). Don't lose control by overbidding with this trump holding.
ROBSON : 3♠. There are 13 hearts out there, so partner probably has four of them, and he therefore has at least five spades (or he would have responded 1♥). With the ninth trump, the hand should play quite well. Even so, a splinter would be a big overbid with such poor trumps and, in any event, a jump to 4♥ would leave partner no room for a Last Train. So 3♠ it is, for me a clear choice.
P.O. Suggests that he thinks this is something of an overbid.
SUNDELIN : 3♠. Optimistic perhaps, and may mislead partner.
SHENKIN: 3♠.
HASTRUP: 3♠.
HULT : 3♠. When the opponents haven’t bid, I think partner very often has five spades as he would have responded 1♥ with 4-4 in the Majors. I’m too weak to make a splinter, but partner will usually raise 3♠ to game when he has a fifth spade.
Cathy was alone in raising only to 2♠.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♠.
Another faction attempted to get the best of both worlds…
SAELENSMINDE : 3♥. A mini-splinter. I’ll pass if all partner can do is bid 3♠.
BROCK : 3♥. Splinter. Hopefully, my distribution will make up for lack of HCP. 4♥ is lots of points and no shortage for me. 4♣ is two top honors in both suits.

MEYERS : 3♥. I think my partner has 5+ spades and 4+ hearts, and at least invitational values. My hand could either be good or bad, depending on where partner's HCP lie. I like to play that 3♥ in this auction is heart shortness, either with invitational values only (where I would pass 3♠) or values better than a direct splinter (like 19-20ish). The most important thing I can tell partner here is that I am short in hearts, and that would mean I have length in clubs (at least five) and I don't think I have enough to bid 4♥. So, I am going to temporize with 3♥ (and, yes, I will pass 3♠ if that’s all partner can bid).

The rest all commit to game. This group choose to emphasize their clubs…
WANG : 4♣. Showing clubs and spades.
COHEN : 4♣. Vulnerable at IMPs, I can't afford to bid less. There are many lousy hands (especially if partner has five spades) where game is good. Also, we will probably make lots of tricks or few tricks, not something in between.
COPE : 4♣. The negative is the quality of the spade suit, but I do have first-round control in all the other suits, so I am prepared to drive to game showing the good club suit enroute.
MOULE : 4♣. A considerable overbid, but 3♠ doesn't appeal. Reece used to advocate 2♠ on these hands, and then bid like crazy after that. I choose 4♣ rather than 4♥ since it could definitely be right to play in clubs at slam level.
BERGEN : 4♣. Potentially an overbid, and I hate my lack of spade quality but... The opponents’ silence suggests that partner has a good hand, and his non-heart response makes it likely that he has 5+ spades.
I think the final group probably just about wins the debate.
SENIOR: 4♥. Splinter with a void, as 3♥ would be a singleton.
LORENZINI: 4♥. Showing a void in hearts and 14-15 points.
LARSSON : 4♥. I play this as the weaker void, while a direct 3♥ is singleton/void with 16+, so I go for that.
OISEAU : 4♥. This shows most of what needs to be said. 4♣ is also tempting, showing the good clubs instead of the heart shortage. It's a close decision.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. I'm not sure what the standard is in a natural system. In Polish Club, 4♥ would show a void with spade support. I definitely would want to be in game on this hand. I don't need much from partner.
MARSTON : 4♥. I think I am worth game. This lets partner know that I am bidding game based on shape rather than HCP.

Partner had AQJ108/Jxxxx/Kx/x so 6♠ was a decent contract. Most of the panel’s choice are likely to get you to slam, but those who splinter probably have the easiest subsequent auction.

HAND 2.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 4.11

This looks to be something of a dud problem, with a big majority choice from the panel. However, the largest group of competitors (over 40%) chose a huge underbid, an option not even considered by any panelist, which is why this is one of the lowest-scoring hands this month. There is clearly something to be learned from this deal after all.

One panel member strenuously objected to our previous bidding…

BERGEN: Abstain. I hate to abstain, but there appears to be no end to the awful bids imposed on us. This was as obvious a 2♣ opening as has ever been dealt!
Of the rest, only Jessica had an issue with our previous bidding, and then not with the opening bid.
LARSSON: 4♣. I wish I had bid 2♠ on the previous round. Oh well.
For many, the continuation was clear…
BRANCO: 4♣. Just bidding naturally.
MOULD: 4♣. More bidding to come later.
VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. We may have slam in clubs.
WANG: 4♣. Slam in clubs may still be best.
LORENZINI: 4♣. If sounds as if partner has a stiff spade. I will continue with 4♣ then insist on spades if partner does not raise clubs.
SENIOR: 4♣.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♣.
HASTRUP: 4♣.
SHENKIN: 4♣.

SUNDELIN: 4♣. Partner has x/KQTx/KQxxx/Qxx so we need to get to 6♣.

An accurate prediction from Andrew…
ROBSON : 4♣. It's cheap and it gets us to 6♣ when partner has three clubs and one spade. Another clear choice, I feel.
Some are clear where they are headed…
MARSTON : 4♣. Just sorting out the trump suit. I expect to play a black-suit slam.
ZIA : 4♣. Start with this and then 5♠ or 5NT later.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♣. I’ll continue with 5♠ over 4NT.
DE WIJS : 4♣. Opposite a singleton spade, clubs could still be best. I'm planning to jump to 5NT over a cue-bid, or to bid 5♠ over 4NT.
Both David and Larry emphasize a basic principle of bidding – space.
COHEN : 4♣. If partner has a fit for us, it is more likely in clubs than spades. Also, this gives us more room to explore.
OISEAU : 4♣. This hand is too strong for 4♠, and an immediate 5♠ is not so good as rebidding the clubs first. Low, and forcing. That's enough to persuade me.
There were a handful of dissenters…
HULT : 4♥. This shows a strong 4♠ bid, so that looks like the best way forward.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♥. Giving partner a last chance to look for slam. If all he can bid is 4♠, I will pass.
COPE : 4♥. Let me try to buy some enthusiasm from partner in case there is still a slam. My 3♣ bid showed reversing values, and the fact that I am removing 3NT must show a hyper-distributional hand. The ball is now in partner's court.
HUNG: 4♥. This should show a strong slam try with 6+♠. Presumably, 4♣ implies 5-5+, 4♦ 5-1-3-4 and, with 5-3-1-4, we can bid a quantitative 4NT. So, what's left is 6-4 or 7-4 slam try hands for the 4♥ bid (bidding 4♠ would show a similar hand with a bit less strength).
Jill gets very esoteric, yet strangely logical.
MEYERS : 5♥. I hope this shows a void in hearts, I can't imagine it being anything else. I know I have already shown extras with my 3♣ bid, but I don't think I have shown this kind of distribution and extras. I must be at least 6-4, and hoping partner will look kindly at a spade honor and the ♣Q.  I hope I haven’t already gotten us too high.
And Sally is the only one to choose the bid made at the table.
BROCK : 5♠. It’s probably right to play in spades rather than clubs. If partner is looking at a spade honor and club fillers, he will know that I don’t have them.

On this hand from a recent Crockfords match, West jumped to 5♠, ending the auction when East held x/AKJxx/KJxxxx/x. Did North find the killing trump lead from K-Q-x? Of course not, so 11 tricks made, which was good enough when West at the other table could not keep out of slam.

HAND 3.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 6,15

A clear majority vote from the panel for caution on this deal. Nearly a third of competition entrants agree, but the largest group of competitors are prepared to soldier on to the four-level. With the panel only offering three options, more than 20% of competitors fail to pick up any marks, lowering the average score on the deal.
Again, one panel member didn’t like our previous bid, although the panel’s decision that the four-level was unsafe seems to support the view that our previous action was right.

BERGEN : Abstain. Since I would have happily raised to 3♦ with modest-strength doubles such as x/Kxxx/KQ10x/A109x, I would have bid 3♠ earlier and HATED the 3♦ bid. So, once again - I must abstain here.
The majority of panelists think we have bid enough…
HULT : Pass. I have told my story.
MARSTON : Pass. I have nothing to add. Indeed, I hope they do not bid game.
SUNDELIN : Pass. Instead of -200.
HUNG: Pass. If partner had four hearts, he would've bid 2♥ first. If he was 4-4 in the minors, he probably would've started with 2♣(?). Thus, he rates to be 3-3-5-2 or 3-3-4-3 (if he had fewer hearts, the opponents may sometimes have bid that suit). I pass as I fear -200 in 4♦-Doubled.
BROCK : Pass. Partner can bid again if he wants. I think 4♦ is too likely to go for 200 (doubled) and 3♠ too likely to make if declarer can’t get to dummy to take a spade finesse. But, don’t listen to me – I am totally crap at matchpoints.

Sophia sums up the situation perfectly.
S. BALDYSZ : Pass. Yuk! Partner could have a zero or a six-count. In the worst case, he would be 3-3-4-3 and 4♦ could then go for 500 or even 800. If he has a maximum, he can still make a move. My 3♦ was not a weak bid.

VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. 4♦-Doubled could easily be one down for -200. Bidding may also push the opponents to bid 4♠, and then I will not know what to do?
OISEAU : Pass. If South has a singleton diamond, my hand is not worth much in defense, so I rule out a double. There could be plenty of losers playing in diamonds, so I will now leave it to partner.
COPE : Pass. My pass does not exclude partner from competing. If partner has nothing, we could be going for the dreaded 200 (or more) at this vulnerability, and I am not even sure if I have any defense to 4♠.
MOULE : Pass. No idea, as I would not have started from here.
WANG : Passez.
C. BALDYSZ: Passez.
LARSSON : Passez.
Larry makes the good point that perhaps our hand looks better than it really is.
COHEN : Pass. Very reluctant, but if the ♦Q-J were small ones (K/Qxx/AKxxx/Axxx) this would be clear. Acting again risks -200 or more.
And some sage advice from the maestro.
ZIA : Pass. Don't compete to 4-minor, unless you can't help yourself!
Some couldn’t, though…
SAELENSMINDE : 4♦. I hope nobody doubles.
LORENZINI: 4♦. Maybe it would be better to double or bid 3NT, but 4♦ seems like the best way of avoiding a disaster.
SENIOR: 4♦.
SHENKIN: 4♦.
ROBSON : 4♦. It feels soft to take the push, but I doubt we'll be doubled, and it may make anyway. Give partner as little as xxxx/JTx/xxxxx/x and 4♦ is going to make, and probably so is 3♠.
The final group took the third alternative…
DE WIJS : Dbl. Let's leave this one up to partner.
MEYERS : Dbl. This is the "torture" card in the bidding box? At IMPs, I would pass but, at MPs, I am doubling again. This shows extras, whereas my 3♦ bid was just competitive, so I am tossing the ball back to partner.
HASTRUP: Dbl. Did South, as Reese put it, bid 3♠ “with the air of a man going to his own funeral”? It sure looks like someone looking to be doubled in 3♠. Yet, I do just that, giving partner a chance to pass with some spades and scattered values. It should show something like the hand I have, not having doubled 2♠.
Only Marcelo agrees with Marty’s preference on the previous round.
BRANCO: Dbl. Showing a very good hand. I would have bid 3♠ over 2♠ – for me, 3♦ was not enough.

The 4♦ bidders would have been right at the table, as partner had xxxx/Jxx/9xxxx/K. You can make 4♦ and South will make 3♠ if he guesses the trumps. Will partner pass a double or remove to 4♦?

HAND 4.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 3.49

Oh dear! This was a very tough hand for competitors, with more than a quarter scoring zero for a 3♦ bid that is clearly not enough, and was not even mentioned by any panelist. More than 10% jumped to 3NT, another bid not considered by the panel, and almost 1-in-20 bid only 2♦, which is why this is one of the lowest-scoring hands we have had this year.
The main choices for the panel are some large number of diamonds, a shortage-showing heart bid, or a strength showing 2♠ cue-bid. Our experts voted emphatically for the last of those options.

HULT : 2♠. I start with 2♠ to establish a game-force.
WANG : 2♠. Cue-bid. Let’s start by showing a strong hand.
VILLAS-BOAS: 2♠. I am too strong to bid 5♦, so let’s take it slowly.
DE WIJS : 2♠. In time trouble, I would bid 5♦, but I think it cannot hurt to check if we might belong in slam. 3NT I won't do with a void in partners non-length.
LARSSON : 2♠.
C. BALDYSZ: 2♠.
SAELENSMINDE : 2♠. Then 5♦ next round.
ZIA : 2♠. No rush. Later 5♦ will suggest power and slam interest.
ROBSON : 2♠. Let’s start by setting up a game force. I can always jump in diamonds later. We're not playing this in 3NT with ten+ hearts out there.
OISEAU : 2♠. There is no need to leap skywards in diamonds. I will show a powerful hand and hope to continue intelligently thereafter.
MARSTON : 2♠. I intend to bid 5♦ at some point. I am getting partner involved in case she wants to bid 6♦. They may have a future in hearts but I am not too worried about that.
LORENZINI: 2♠. I start by showing a strong hand and will then show my long diamonds by following with 4♦ next.
S. BALDYSZ : 2♠. It would be convenient if I had an auto-splinter here... As it is, I will try and investigate a different way. Slam could easily a good option opposite Kxxx/xxx/Kx/Kxxx or something similar.
It’s funny that you should mention splintering, Sophia…
BROCK : 3♥. Shortage with long good diamonds, is it not?
HUNG: 3♥. A self-splinter implying long diamonds (the same as if North had not overcalled). I probably won't be settling for 3NT as that will require some luck, so I might as well show my shortage on the way to 5♦ (or higher).

SHENKIN: 3♥. My first choice originally was 3♣, not wanting to give the lead away if we play 3NT. But, am I really going to sit for 3NT? If you decide “No”, then it makes sense to bid 3♥ to help to investigate 5♦/6♦. If partner says he wants to play 3NT opposite short hearts, that gives you another problem and you might then reconsider.

BERGEN : 3♥. Interesting that it appears no one has hearts. Anyway… The sky's the limit here, as opposite the perfect dummy, Jxxx/xxx/Kx/KQJx, 7♦ is cold. Step 1 must be to show my great hand and long diamonds plus short hearts with a splinter bid.
Alan prefers to give up on 3NT to show his exact heart holding…
MOULE : 4♥. Ah I sent this one in - it was a very ignominious push in 5♦ in a recent Gold Cup match I played. This is a choice between 3♥ and 4♥ for me. 3♥ could be right if partner has heavy heart values, but how likely is that? I am prepared to commit this hand to diamonds, and 4♥ will definitely get the job done if we have a slam on.
The rest opted for some number of diamonds. Are we sure that this is forcing? Did we not have a hand in recent months on which 4♦ was widely considered pre-emptive in a similar auction?
HASTRUP: 4♦. The opponents buried their heart suit. I suspect it may surface when defending NT, which rules out a lazy, sluggish 3NT bid, or ending in 3NT via some detour. 4♦ has to be inviting slam and asking partner to cue-bid. A slam has the advantage of having the spade bidder on lead, preventing the opponents scoring a fast spade trick. Maybe 3♠ would be the right bid if my majors were reversed, and still a worthwhile consideration with this hand, since it leaves more space for partner to describe his hand.
A few settled for the same unsuccessful bid made at both tables when the hand occurred.
MEYERS : 5♦. I think the opponents have lots of hearts, and I am not opening that door for them.
COPE : 5♦. Partner can have a perfect hand, making 6♦ a possibility, but I think we need to take the space away from the opposition before they find their ten-card heart fit.
COHEN : 5♦. The opponents have at least ten hearts, and I am not going to make any low-level bid (like 2♠) which easily lets North back in.
SUNDELIN : 5♦.
Whilst two guessed more successfully.
BRANCO: 6♦. It's what I think my hand is worth, and I don't want to make it easy for the opponents by describing my hand.
SENIOR: 6♦.

At the table, there were 12 top tricks opposite KQx/10xx/Kx/Jxxxx. Except for the 5♦ bidders, most of the panel are likely to get there.

HAND 5.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.21

Here we begin a run of three consecutive high-scoring hands, We have another huge majority from the panel, and agreement from the largest group of competitors, but for what was the losing action at both tables in a recent match. When partner’s hand was presented to the panel earlier this Summer, most agreed with the 4♣ bid. A number of panelists mention that 4♥ shows a flexible hand here, but does it really? Would you not also bid this way with something like xx/AKQ10xx/AKJx/K?

BRANCO: 4♥. This seems normal.
Many of the 4♥ bidders were not happy with their choice.
COHEN : 4♥. I always intended to double and then bid hearts. Granted, this isn't what I had in mind.
HASTRUP: 4♥. I am not proud of my hand, but I think I still need to give 4♥ a chance as we're already at the four-level.
BERGEN : 4♥. This might work out badly, but how can I not bid it.
MARSTON : 4♥. This could be too much, but I can hardly pass.
SHENKIN: 4♥. Not with great enthusiasm.

ZIA : 4♥. I need to try. Who knows what it shows.
Some wishful thinking from David.
OISEAU : 4♥. I would like the hearts to be better, but then the hand wouldn't be appearing here. I will bid 5♣ over their 4♠.
WANG : 4♥.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♥.
SENIOR: 4♥.
SUNDELIN : 4♥.
Jessica and Andy both mention our previous bidding…
LARSSON : 4♥. I don’t like my double but I’m stuck with it now.

HUNG: 4♥. Does 4♥ now show a flexible hand with, typically, 1-5-4-3, or is it a power double? With the latter, perhaps I might bid 5♥ (or 4♥ then 5♥ if forced) given that partner has made a free bid of 4♣? Side note: Without much shape and a questionable ♠Q, an initial overcall of 2♥ seems preferable on this hand.

Then there are the Humpty-Dumpty bidders… this is what it means because this is my hand…
ROBSON : 4♥. Passing is probably the winner but, vulnerable at IMPs, I must try for game. I think 4♥ should be read as flexible ie 1543-type, not strong single-suited.

Why? What would you do instead with a strong hand with six good hearts?
BROCK : 4♥. I don’t think I’ve shown fantastic hearts particularly.
LORENZINI: 4♥. I hope my partner will bid 5♣ if he has short hearts
The minority faction on the panel chose what would have been a winning action at the table…
HULT : 5♣. Let’s play in clubs.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. Maybe it will depend on a finesse.
DE WIJS : 5♣. Perhaps it looks crazy to choose this rather than 4♥, but partner is very likely to have six clubs, and 5♣ feels by far the most likely game. At matchpoints, pass would also be an option.
MEYERS : 5♣. Vulnerable at IMPs, I am taking my shot at game.
S. BALDYSZ : 5♣. It is highly likely that partner has six or even seven clubs (unless our opponents are jumping to the three-level with only three-card support). Even a slam might be possible, but not very likely: partner would need x/Kx/xxx/KQxxxxx and hearts would have to split reasonably.
We finish with the man whose partner held the hand at the table…
MOULE : 5♣. I also sent this one in. After identical auctions at both tables, both West players bid 4♥ now. The trouble is that 4♥ should show a hand too good to overcall. OK, perhaps this hand is (unless you are Kokish), but the problem is that you really ought to have more suit for it. Both East players passed 4♥ with Kx/x/Qxxx/K109xxx and there you were in a zero-play game with slam in either minor playable, and cold on the lie. I think you just have to give up on hearts here. Partner has not made a responsive double of 3♠, so he ought to have a decent suit. I think you have to bid 5♣ and I shall be interested to see what the panel thinks.
Only Tim was willing to pass, and he correctly foresees that a plus score will gain IMPs.
COPE : Pass. Definitely not a 4♥ bid, as that should show a hand too strong for a 2♥ overcall and a better suit than AJxxx. Am I being too cowardly not raising to 5♣? Possibly, but the two probable spade losers means we have to be solid outside, so I will look to take a plus score.
Our other soloist chose to advance by bidding her diamonds (presumably intending it to imply both red suits), and will therefore bid and make game by the back door.
C. BALDYSZ: 4♦.

When I first saw this hand, I intended to pose the problem of what to bid over 4♥ on partner’s hand, but the opinion of all those I asked was that there would be a huge majority for passing, irrespective of claims from some that this sequence shows a flexible hand rather than a strong single-suiter. Personally, I think the problem is with the original double. Overcalling 2♥ with the plan of doubling to show extra strength later would certainly have worked much better on this layout. Plenty for regular partnerships to think about here.

HAND 6.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.63

Other than Hand 1, this was the only problem this month that did not produce a majority choice from the panel. It raises a number of tactical issues and some questions that regular partnerships should be sure to discuss. I am old-fashioned so, to me, 4♣ does NOT invite partner to bid again if North bids 4♠. It says, “I know what to do if they bid 4♠.” One possibility is that you think 5♣ is making, so you want to give North a chance to show his spade support so that you might be allowed to play 5♣ when you bid it on the next round. Assuming that a raise to 4♣ is non-consultative, a number of top pairs play that 3NT is either natural or inviting partner to sacrifice if suitable, so that would certainly be a reasonable option on this hand. The panel offer a wide variety of reasons for bidding 4♣. Let’s hear what they have to say.

BERGEN : 4♣. I'm unwilling to force us any higher than this, but I want to give partner a chance to bid 5♣. At this vulnerability, he easily could have eight clubs and/or extreme distribution.
DE WIJS : 4♣. In my methods, partner is allowed to bid 5♣ (over 4♠) as a save.
S. BALDYSZ : 4♣. We could be making between 3♣ and even 6♣ if partner has a heart void and the ♦Q along with his ♣A-K.
SHENKIN: 4♣.
SENIOR: 4♣.
LARSSON : 4♣.
SAELENSMINDE : 4♣.
Most of those who gave an explanation do not seem to think 4♣ invites partner to the party…
MARSTON : 4♣. I will defend if they bid game. I’m not willing to take an almost certain minus in 5♣.
MEYERS : 4♣. This is the wrong vulnerability to bid 5♣. I have some defense against spades.
WANG : 4♣. Maybe we can make it. If the opponent bid 4♠, I hope we have enough defense.
SUNDELIN : 4♣. Guess now and/or then? LHO could have anything from Qxxx/AJ98x/xxx/x to AKJxxx/10xx/x/Axx. I’ll mumble along with 4♣ for now and then make a decision when North’s 4♠ comes back to me.
A couple adopt a different approach for consulting partner…
HULT : 4♦. Lefty will most likely bid 4♠. If partner has diamond length, I want him to bid. Otherwise, we defend 4♠.
BROCK : 4♦. I should invite partner to the party, so he can help us decide what to do over 4♠. Whatever he does I will respect.
The other major faction seeks to put pressure on North.
BRANCO: 5♣. Turning the problem over to the player in the North seat, who almost certainly has good support for spades. 4♦ would make it too easy for North.
OISEAU : 5♣. I regard asking partner to choose a minor here as misguided. My hand will make a splendid dummy, playing in clubs. Also, this jump to 5♣ may make life difficult for North.
C. BALDYSZ: 5♣.
ZIA : 5♣. Before they know what to do.
ROBSON : 5♣. North has a bunch of spades. There's a good chance we'll get a 5♠ bid out of him.
But, are you sure you want him to bid 5♠?
LORENZINI: 5♣. Better way to put pressure on. They will probably bid 5♠.
VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. I have to create a problem for them, as my LHO is very likely to have support and may bid 5♠.
Perhaps 5♠ will be a good save for them?
MOULE : 5♣. This is a guess as to how partner's red cards are arranged. (Do I feel lucky, punk?) The very worst-case scenario is that partner has some joy like xx/xxx/--/KJ10xxxxx and it is -800. Very best scenario is that it is cold xx/x/Qxx/AKJxxxx. The more tricks we make, the more they are likely to make. I hate having the last guess, so I bid 5♣ now. That might bully LHO into 5♠, when it is the wrong thing to do - they will expect me to be bidding 5♣ to make at these colours. I could bid 4♣, but no one ever knows (least of all me) whether that invites partner to compete further or whether it is a statement to stay out of it because you know what to do over 4♥/♠. If some of the erudite panel could enlighten me on that, I would be delighted 😁.
Yes, I was hoping the panel would tell us.
COHEN : 5♣. No reason to try to introduce diamonds, since I will be on lead -- and we won't want to compete higher than this. I’ll be curious to see how many passers there will be, which would validate or invalidate the originally posed problem.
Yes, when I originally sent out the problems, West had passed and North’s 4♠ came back to you. As the first half dozen panelists to respond all complained about the pass, I wound the auction back a round. Only a couple agreed with the original pass.
COPE : Pass. It does not look right to be competing at this vulnerability and, assuming a 4♠ bid on my left, we still have some hope in defense. The only time competing will be right is when partner has diamond length and heart shortage, which I do not think is the bookies' favourite.
HUNG: Pass. Bidding 4♣ might be okay if partner has a textbook pre-empt and the opponents don't lead a trump, but partner won't always have a textbook hand even at unfavourable vulnerability.

Claus illustrates how difficult it can be to predict what the panel will do.
HASTRUP: Pass. Bidding something now at this vulnerability in MPs is too much for me, although I admit 4NT (club tolerance and a second suit) could lead to a delicate sacrifice or the opponents going overboard in 5♠. If desperate, a double could tempt me, but right now just rolling with the field, I hope.

Partner had 10xx/---/xxx/AKJxxxx, so 6♣/6♦ both depended on playing diamonds for no loser (South held Q-x-x). If you pass, North will raise to 4♠. However you achieve it, getting to 5m is obviously preferable to defending 4♠. Whether you will be allowed to play in 5♣ if you jump immediately is unclear, so beware what you wish for!

HAND 7.

Competition Entrants' Average Score: 7.26

This hand is something of a rarity, with a big majority from the panel and half of competition entrants agreeing with their selection. Not that everyone was happy with their choice.

WANG : 3♥. This looks like the only option.
ZIA : 3♥. In a quiet voice!
COHEN : 3♥. Not happy at all.
DE WIJS : 3♥. I'm not defending with 6-4, and game seems too high.
HASTRUP: 3♥. After this development, I wish I had doubled 1♦, as I could bid an "honest" 3♥ now. Well, I still bid 3♥, probably overbidding slightly and hiding my four spades, but getting that sixth heart off my chest.
I confess no one could ever persuade me to double 1♦ with that hand.
OISEAU : 3♥. I can hardly allow them to choose trumps at the three-level. If 3♥ is a bit risky, so be it.
LARSSON : 3♥.
SENIOR: 3♥.
C. BALDYSZ: 3♥.
SHENKIN: 3♥.
SUNDELIN : 3♥.
A few panelists mentioned the main alternative.
BROCK : 3♥. I guess it could be right to double, but I’d rather rebid my 6-card suit and also limit my hand.
HUNG: 3♥. Not ideal, but I would not be happy if I double and partner passes.
LORENZINI: 3♥. I am afraid to double with six hearts and such a weak hand.
MEYERS : 3♥. I’d like to double in the hope of finding a 4-4 spade fit, but I can't really stand 4♣ if I reopen with double.
S. BALDYSZ : 3♥. This is a less complicated decision when playing Polish Club, as partner cannot have both black suits (lack of a Precision-style 2♣ opening). Playing Standard, it's pretty much a guess, as partner can have a handful of clubs with four spades and heart shortness, or a more balanced hand with a doubleton heart, or sometimes even three hearts. My second choice would be double.
Some were prepared to risk a double.
ROBSON : Dbl. I am hoping to survive in 3♥/♠ if partner pulls, or to get +200 if he passes. I have half a memory of holding this hand, doubling, and going -670.
COPE : Dbl. Having decided that I am not prepared to sell out to 3♦, the choice comes down to bidding 3♥ or getting the spade suit into the picture. Partner knows that they can go back to 3♥ but, if he is 4-1-3-5, we will have found a better spot.

BRANCO: Dbl. Looking for a fit in spades or secondary support for hearts. I would have doubled 1♦, showing both Majors, and then later I would bid hearts showing 6+ cards.
I think for most, that would show a much better hand than this, Marcelo.

SAELENSMINDE : Dbl.
VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. This is a little dangerous when partner has 3-2-3-5 (when 3♥ would be better), otherwise double seems best.
There was one real optimist.
MARSTON : Dbl. I am still hoping for game in spades.
And another fairly accurate prediction…
MOULE : Dbl. I don't mind 3♥, but this seems more flexible. I cannot really see any other options (surely nobody passes?)
Not nobody, Alan, but only a couple…
BERGEN : Pass. A reluctant pass. My ♦K is worth more on defense
HULT : Pass. -200 is never a good score.

Some hands are perhaps just too difficult. This time, only Marty and Simon would have gotten a plus score at the table. Partner had A98/Qx/xx/KQJ98x, so both 3♥ and 4♣ were one down. South’s 3♦ was one or two down, depending on whether declarer guessed the trumps. The doublers can win the post-mortem by telling partner they should have defended 3♦-X.

HAND 8.

Note moyenne des participants au concours : 5,02

Six different actions selected by the panel, but still a clear majority choice. Most of the panel either make a game try or force to game, so the choice of around 60% of competitors, 3♦, is widely considered not enough. I apologize if the annotation on partner’s double (that it showed 2♥) did not make it clear that he had a doubleton and was therefore for takeout, as the second-largest group of competition entrants passed. Defending 2♥-X when the opponents have a ten-card fit is almost certain to be wrong. Let’s start with the majority….

SUNDELIN : 3♥. I assume partner’s double is for takeout.
Yes, indeed.
WANG : 3♥. Showing short hearts and both minors.
S. BALDYSZ : 3♥. I have maximum for my pass over 1NT. I am hoping that partner will understand this to show both minors.
ZIA : 3♥. I like my hand now.
DE WIJS : 3♥. I will follow with 4♦ next. Who knows? Partner is allowed to have a perfect hand.
SAELENSMINDE : 3♥.
SENIOR: 3♥.
LORENZINI: 3♥. I have a maximum, so perhaps we can make a game. I will remove to 4♦ if partner bids 3NT.

VILLAS-BOAS: 3♥. Having passed 1NT earlier, I now have a strong hand. We could easily make game in a minor.

OISEAU : 3♥. This surprising sign of life after death can be justified only by good minors. I would bid spades otherwise. If partner does bid an unlikely 3NT, I can show my diamond preference then.
A couple are happy to play a Moysian spade fit, even though partner is known to hold at least seven minor-suit cards.
HUNG: 3♥. Those 10's and 9's are pretty juicy. If partner's values are outside of hearts, we may have a potential game (even a 4-3 spade fit is possible).
HASTRUP: 3♥. The opponents have a massive heart fit and are somewhat taciturn about it. Whatever their reasons for that, our hand seems to have grown in value. 4♠ on a 4-3 fit could play quite well, especially as the opponents' relative silence points toward an evenly distributed spade suit. 2NT would focus on the minors. I bid 3♥ and hope partner gives me 3♠.
COHEN : 3♥. This reminds me of a deal from the recent Spingold final, where the player with this hand reached 5m and made it on a very lucky layout.
It is that hand, Larry. I didn’t think the layout was that lucky (it needed the heart bidder to have a doubleton spade honour, so not that unlikely), but it was a well-played hand.
MOULE : 2NT. Assuming double is takeout, which it ought to be, I bid 2NT, pick a minor. I am too old to bid a cute 2♠.
And too wise!
MARSTON : 2NT. Surely this is takeout. I will bid diamonds next. Hopefully, partner will bid game.
Jill and Cathy both go for the esoteric, although I cannot fault the logic.
MEYERS : 4♥. Wow! My hand has really grown. If partner bids 4♠, I will play the Moysian. I think partner will play me for minors and three spades only (or I could have jumped to 4♠).
C. BALDYSZ: 4♥.
A couple duplicated the bid made at the table to complete a very unusual sequence…
ROBSON : 4NT. Pick a minor. We clearly have a prime fit. Give partner something like KQxx/Jx/AKx/ KJxx and 5♣ is on guessing ♣Q, and partner could be more suitable, eg Axxx/xx/AKx/KQJx.
HULT : 4NT. If partner has a maximum with two low hearts, I like my chances in game!
I’m not sure I understand this choice…
LARSSON : 3♠.
And, finally, those who settle for a sure plus score.
BERGEN : 3♦. I don't understand the question. 3♦ seems totally obvious.
Not to most, apparently, Marty.
BROCK : 3♦. This could make more as it’s probably a 30-point pack, but 11 tricks is quite a lot.
SHENKIN: 3♦.
BRANCO: 3♦. I'm a practical player - I don't like to put my partner in dodgy situations. Perhaps the classical bid would be 2NT, showing both minors, but that requires prior agreement, I think. Or am I looking down on partner’s skills?
Perhaps, as he is assumed to be an expert, even though one with whom we haven’t had lengthy discussions.
COPE : 3♦. Whilst our hand has become a lot better after partner's takeout double, I still do not feel we have enough to drive to game. There is no guarantee that clubs will play better than diamonds, so I prefer to show my length rather than bidding 2NT as a minor-suit scramble. This is IMPs, not MP, even if clubs does make one extra trick. Indeed, at MPs, we might even consider 2♠ to look for +140.

As Larry observed, this hand originated in the recent Spingold final in Chicago, where Alfredo Versace jumped to 4NT. He found his partner with Axxx/Ax/KJxx/KQx and, when South did not find the spade lead from K10xx against 5♦, the contract rolled home on an endplay.

We have a tie between Wenfei Wang and David Bird at the top of the panel this month, both with an almost-perfect 79/80. David tops the panel for the second time this year, and for a record sixth time since we began almost three years ago. For Wenfei, it is her fifth time leading the field, tying her with Andrew Robson. Zia Mahmood with 77/80 and Cedric Lorenzini with 76/80 complete this month’s podium.

Our thanks, as always, to all panel members for the time they give up to entertain and educate our readers.

Le groupe d'experts

Find your bids here

MARQUES

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

SCORE MOYEN

HAND 1:                                5.95
HAND 2:                                4.11
HAND 3:                                6.15
HAND 4:                                3.49
HAND 5:                                7.21
HAND 6:                                7.63
HAND 7:                                7.26
HAND 8:                                5.02