Welcome to the seventh set of the 2022 competition. For the second major championship in a row, one of our esteemed expert panel was a member of the winning team. Our congratulations to Simon de Wijs and his Dutch teammates on their victory in the European Open Teams in Madeira. Let’s hope we can make it 3-for-3 at the upcoming World Championships in Poland in August. Commiserations to Jessica Larsson, whose Swedish team had to settle for second place in the Womens’ Teams, and to this month’s guest panelist, Radu Mihai, who was a member of the Romanian team that finished second in the Mixed Teams.
Simon de Wijs
This month’s guest panelist is Radu Mihai, a math teacher living in the Romanian capital, Bucharest. Radu has been the #1 player in the Romanian national classification for many years. He won a bronze medal in the Wuhan Cup (Mixed Teams) at the 2019 World Championships in China. He also finished third in the Mixed Pairs at the European Transnational Championships in Istanbul that same year. His Romanian team reached the quarter-finals of the Wuhan Cup at the World Championships in Salsomaggiore earlier this year and collected silver medals from the European Mixed Teams in Madeira just a few days ago.
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.
We are delighted to welcome two new members to our expert panel, Alan Mould and Andrew ‘Tosh’ McIntosh. Alan was a long-time conductor of the 'Marks & Comments' panel in “Bridge Magazine”. He has represented England many times as a player, coach and npc, and won a European championship as coach of the England Women's team in 2001. His partnership with John Holland was instrumental in the England team reaching the final of the Seniors Teams at the 2019 World Championship in Wuhan. Andrew made five appearances for Scotland in the Junior Camrose from 1986-92 and played regularly in the full Camrose before switching his allegiance to England in 1999. He finished sixth in the 2006 World Open Pairs partnering David Bakhshi. As a long-time member of the BLACK team, he collected a silver medal from the Open Teams at the 2016 European Winter Games in Monaco and finished third in the 2018 European Champions Cup.
The panel produce clear majorities on five on the eight hands this month, although the largest group of competition entrants agrees with that majority choice only twice. However, this still promises to be a relatively high-scoring set: voting with the competitors’ favorite choice on all eight hands in the last two months scored just 44 and 37, whilst doing so this month would give you a very respectable 63/80. Although the average score is also up a couple of points this month, to 47.57, there is clearly still plenty to be learned from our panel’s comments. Let’s get to the action…
HAND 1.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
6♣
10
7
22.5
4♠
9
6
10.4
Pass
7
1
13.2
3NT
6
2
22.4
5♣
5
1
9.2
4♣
0
0
13.7
4NT
0
0
5.0
6NT
0
0
1.0
4♥
0
0
0.8
7♣
0
0
0.5
6♠
0
0
0.5
5♠
0
0
0.2
5NT
0
0
0.2
7NT
0
0
0.1
4♦
0
0
0.1
6♥
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.91
The panel is split two ways, with a handful taking a conservative action and the rest at least heading towards slam. No single action gets a clear majority on the panel, where there are two main choices, and the largest group of competition entrants (just) agrees with the most popular of those. Let’s start with the hawks.
ROBSON: 6♣. Tough to see a technical alternative.
LARSSON: 6♣. I’ll take a chance.
SHENKIN: 6♣.
SAELENSMINDE: 6♣. We could easily be making seven, but how to bid it?
Some panelists would have bid on the first round. COHEN: 6♣. Honestly, I would have overcalled 3NT the first time, as I think most experts would. Now, with no reasonable way to investigate, I'll just make a practical guess.
MOULD: 6♣. Whilst I understand it, I cannot see how you can afford to pass 16 counts when they pre-empt. However, this seems to have worked out very well. I cannot see how I can bid less now when as little as x/Kxxx/Kxxx/Kxxx gives me a slam cold on trumps not 3-0. Indeed, I probably should be looking for a grand, but since I can see no practical way of doing so, I will make a Landy slam try.
David alludes to the most popular alternative. BIRD: 6♣. This seems a sensible middle-of-the-road response. I don’t see how bidding 4♠ can help, whatever partner bids next.
The other major faction on the panel preferred the scientific approach. HULT: 4♠. This is a one-suited slam try.
WANG: 4♠. I would have bid on the first round. Now it may be wrong, but I feel I need to catch up.
Ola considers one of the more conservative options.
RIMSTEDT: 4♠. Maybe passing is right, but I'll go the optimistic way and aim for a high number of clubs.
DE WIJS: 4♠. Even though I hate to punish partner for reopening light, I am bidding slam, so I might as well start with 4♠. If slam is wrong, I can still claim I only intend to bid 5♣ on my second turn and receive full marks for 4♠.
You get close to the max, if not the whole shebang, Simon. MIHAI: 4♠. I am planning to bid 6♣ next. Needing as little as x/Kxxx/Axxx/Kxxx to make 7♣, I'm going to jump to 6♣ after a cue-bid to show a grand slam invitation. It's not perfect, as partner probably will not raise if that is all he has, but I don't see anything better. I know a lot of people who would have bid 3NT over the 3♠ opening, but maybe I'm not meeting the right people.
Jill also mentions the more conservative options. MEYERS: 4♠. This is tough. I either go low and bid 3NT or 5♣, or I force to slam. At the table, I would bid 4♠, and over 5♦ I would then bid 6♣. It is tempting to bid 6♣ directly but to me that does not give partner options whereas, if I cue and bid 5♣ first, maybe partner will think there is some flexibility. For instance, we want to play in diamonds opposite something like x/KJxx.AKJxxx/Kx.
Just a few panelists stayed low. McINTOSH: 5♣. I would definitely have overcalled 3NT on the previous round (whether 4♣ was non-leaping Michaels or not). Now I'm torn. If partner is the 'right' shape, as little as x/Kxxx/xxxx/Kxxx is a good slam. On the other hand, opposite x/Kxxx/AJxxxx/Kx I'd much rather Pass. I will settle for a wimpy 5♣.
BROCK: 3NT. It could easily be right to do something more ambitious, but partner will double quite light in fourth seat, and prefer to go for a plus score.
Only Tim identified this as the companion hand to a problem set here a few months ago. COPE: 3NT. It actually makes it more difficult when you know the hand opposite. This looks like the complement to the hand a few months back when the panel voted to double in the protective seat on x/KJ10xx/KJ10xx/Qx. At the time, I was out-voted when I used non-leaping Michaels (which would get us to 4♥ on this hand) and now have to decide what to do pretending I do not know the hand opposite. Any contract is possible, ranging from 7♣ to 6♣ to 5♣ to 3NT or passing the double. If we look at what we need to make the grand slam, we would want the ♦A, a red king and ♣Kxxx. All of this is possible, but we have no sensible way to find out. To make 6♣ we need at least two of the aforementioned key controls. I was taught to always try to make a plus score against a pre-empt and, although 6♣ may seem reasonable, with bad breaks possible it is no sure thing. That leaves us with 5♣, 3NT and Pass. Pass rates to net +300 most of the time, but if partner does not have the ♦A we may only get +100, and we surely have game on here. So, it comes down to either 5♣ or 3NT. Since we can always hold up the ♠A if necessary, 3NT looks the safest certain plus as, if partner has club support, that will be our source of tricks, and in a way, I prefer the courageous leap to 6♣ to a pusillanimous 5♣.
I think Zia is the only panelist certain to get a plus score (although the 3NT bidders might have ended in 4♥). ZIA: Pass. There is no guarantee we can make a high-level contract – partner could have an ok hand with 2452 shape. +800 is not chopped liver.
Not the +800 Zia was anticipating, but you would be happy with any plus score on this deal. Yes, partner’s hand was the one Tim quoted, opposite which you can get +100 from 3♠-X and you can make ten tricks in either clubs or hearts. Like many of the panel, when I had the hand at the table, I started with 4♠ and ended in a hopeless 6♣. The moral is clear: I should have overcalled 3NT on the first round, and partner would then have gotten us to out only making game, 4♥.
HAND 2.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
4♥
10
11
27.6
4♣
8
2
14.1
4♦
8
1
0.4
5NT
8
1
2.5
6♦
7
0
0.5
6NT
6
2
25.1
7NT
4
0
1.5
7♦
3
0
0
4NT
0
0
10.8
Pass
0
0
6.7
4♠
0
0
6.3
5♣
0
0
1.6
6♣
0
0
1.1
6♠
0
0
0.9
5♥
0
0
0.4
5♠
0
0
0.4
6♥
0
0
<0.1
7♣
0
0
<0.1
5♦
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.72
Although the panel offers a number of choices, there is a clear majority and more than a quarter of competition entrants agree with them. The second-largest group of competitors, though, commits themselves immediately without investigating alternatives, and thus have to settle for 6/10. Not that everyone agrees on the meaning of 4♥: some think it is just a transfer…
LARSSON: 4♥. Transfer, I presume.
WANG: 4♥. Normally, 4♥ is a transfer, so I’ll start with that and then use keycard before deciding what to do.
DE WIJS: 4♥. I start by transferring into spades and then bid clubs. Most likely partner has a good hand with diamonds, but that doesn't rule out a fit in one of my suits
SHENKIN: 4♥.
COHEN: 4♥. I plan to transfer to spades and jump to 6♣. Sort of like the first problem, where I am just taking my most practical guess. There is no intelligent way to investigate a grand.
RIMSTEDT: 4♥. Planning to jump to some slam afterwards, but I might as well involve the spades at a low and risk-free level.
ZIA: 4♥. I start with a transfer to spades and the jump to 6♣. However, I play 4♣ as a puppet to 4♦ unless partner has a long suit, then he bids 4NT. He could have either long, strong diamonds or 20+ balanced here, and we need to know which.
Others think the cue-bid just shows a random good hand… BROCK: 4♥. I don’t know what this means really, but it seems like a reasonable way to start. I don’t think it is a simple transfer. If partner bids 4♠ I’ll bid 5♣; if he bids 4NT I’ll try 5NT.
MIHAI: 4♥. Let’s start by showing a good hand. Partner should have long diamonds, a heart stopper and maybe something more. We may belong in 6♦ or 7♦ so, with a regular partner, just agreeing his suit with 4♦ could be best in order to allow him to ask for key cards.
HULT: 4♥. 3NT is a good minor hand with a heart stop. I start with 4♥, but most likely we will play in 6♦.
BIRD: 4♥. Few pairs will have discussed responses to 3NT in any detail, but this is a good first move. Partner can advance with 5♦ if his bid is made on a long diamond suit.
The panel offered plenty of alternatives, and this also seems like a sensible way to start… ROBSON: 4♣. I assume no methods, so will start by bidding my best suit. I have a feeling partner has very good diamonds but let’s find out more.
SAELENSMINDE: 4♣. I start by bidding my clubs, then I will bid 5♠ next if partner signs off in 4NT.
Tim thinks he knows where we are going, so it is just a question of level.
COPE: 4♦. Partner has solid diamonds and a heart stopper so 4♦ is forcing and asking for shortage. We will opt for 6NT if partner shows no shortage, but if partner bids 4♠, we can keycard and maybe check if partner has both the ♥A and ♣K in order to get to the grand.
Whilst Tosh is prepared to play in any strain except diamonds… McINTOSH: 5NT. Pick a slam. I will convert 6♦ to 6♠ and, hopefully, partner will convert that to 6NT with a pure diamond hand.
Jill and Alan both just bid what they think they can make. MEYERS: 6NT. Partner has long diamonds for his jump to 3NT. I am not going to try and describe my 5/5 hand.
MOULD: 6NT. I seem to be in punting mood today! The system does not seem to give us any methods over pre-empts and a 3NT overcall. This looks for all the world like partner has bid this based on a diamond suit. Even if I bid (say) 4♥ I am just liable to hear 4NT, so I will simply bid what I consider a practical contract. For the second time in a row, I think a grand is more like than going off at the six-level.
I’ll add the bid I made at the table to the options offered by the panel: 6♦ not only gets you to the best contract, but also protects the ♥Q. Opposite x/Axxx/AKQ10xxx/K, 6♦ was better than 6NT, as you can probably overcome a 4-1 trump break by discarding your heart losers before the defender with the long trump can ruff in. Of course, either grand slam will make if diamonds come in (they did).
HAND 3.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
2♠
10
10
7.4
3♥
8
1
4.8
3♦
8
1
0.4
3NT
6
5
55.8
5♣
3
0
1.3
4♥
0
0
9.0
2NT
0
0
8.5
4♠
0
0
3.3
4NT
0
0
3.0
3♣
0
0
2.4
4♣
0
0
1.3
3♠
0
0
0.7
Pass
0
0
0.6
6NT
0
0
0.5
6♣
0
0
0.4
6♥
0
0
0.2
5♠
0
0
<0.1
6♠
0
0
<0.1
4♦
0
0
<0.1
5NT
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.54
With more than half of competitors collecting 6/10, only 1-in-14 claiming top marks and more than 30% making bids that failed to score, this was the lowest-scoring hand this month.
Imagine that you are not playing inverted minor-suit raises and, in an uncontested auction, partner makes a limit/invitational raise of your 1♣ opening to 3♣, which is effectively what has happened here. How strong a hand would you need to bid 3NT? Would you not take a shot at game with, say a good 14-count? Although it attracted more than half of competition entrants, only a minority of panelists thought that this hand should bid 3NT. Let’s hear why?
ZIA: 2♠. We need to know partner’s range, ie whether he is limited or game-forcing, before deciding where to go next.
WANG: 2♠. If partner limits his hand to an invitational raise, then I will bid 3NT next.
MEYERS: 2♠. If partner signs off in 3♣, I will bid 3NT. However, if partner makes more noise, I might get noisy too.
MIHAI: 2♠. Spade values. I will keep the bidding low for now to allow partner to finish describing his hand.
HULT: 2♠. I start to show some values and would like to know more. We could easily belong in 6♣.
RIMSTEDT: 2♠. I think this is a matter of agreement. I want to keep the bidding low while making a reasonably descriptive bid, before deciding on 3NT/5♣ (or more).
LARSSON: 2♠. Values.
BROCK: 2♠. By bidding spades first, before 3NT, I’m hoping to suggest a forward-going hand.
DE WIJS: 2♠. First things first, I have to tell partner we are game-forcing. After that, I hope we have some chance of reaching slam if that's what this hand needs.
MOULD: 2♠. We may as well start here. Doubtless it will all end in 3NT, but 5♣ or even 6♣ may be better.
A couple took a different approach to the same end. SAELENSMINDE: 3♦. Let’s start by setting up a game-force.
COHEN: 3♥. Partner can punt (a word that never translates well when I use it outside the U.S./NFL world -- but it sort of means "kick the ball back to the other side") with 3♠ if he is stuck, then my 3NT will show doubt.
So, let’s hear what the 3NT bidders had to say. BIRD: 3NT. It doesn’t seem a good moment to overbid, when North has shown the majors. East can go again if he has long clubs and a fair hand.
ROBSON: 3NT. I could bid 2♠ but South didn’t double 2♥, so partner may have something there. And, I don’t think 5♣ will make where 3NT doesn’t.
SHENKIN: 3NT
COPE: 3NT. A practical bid showing my values and leaving any further move to come from partner.
We finish with a man who was at the table when the hand came up, although it seems he does not remember.
McINTOSH: 3NT. My first thought was a natural 4NT, but I'm just not quite worth it. Opposite what could easily be xxx/Jx/AJx/AQxxx, a heart lead beats 4NT. So, 3NT it is. It is important to discuss with partner whether this bid can be made on a good weak no-trump (it cannot in my partnership).
At one table in the Alt, West jumped to 3NT and partner, who had Ax/KJ10/AJ10x/Q10xx, passed with 12 tricks easy. The problem was that both players had an ace more than they had shown. At the table where Tosh was East, Tom Paske advanced with 2♠ and Tosh then jumped to 3NT, showing some extra values. West then raised to 4NT and East bid the slam to earn a swing.
HAND 4.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
2♣
10
14
13.6
3♣
8
1
11.8
3NT
6
1
0.7
3♠
5
1
10.2
3♥
5
0
25.9
2NT
2
0
10.1
4♠
0
0
8.6
2♥
0
0
5.1
4♦
0
0
2.7
2♠
0
0
2.6
4NT
0
0
1.8
Pass
0
0
1.7
1NT
0
0
1.4
4♣
0
0
0.9
5♦
0
0
0.7
4♥
0
0
0.6
3♦
0
0
0.5
2♦
0
0
0.4
6♥
0
0
0.2
6♠
0
0
0.2
5♥
0
0
<0.1
5♣
0
0
<0.1
6♣
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.62
A huge majority from the panel, but no bid garnered support from more than a quarter of competition entrants, who offered a new record of 23 different actions. With the obvious choices like 3♥ (poor suit and too spade-oriented) and 3♠ (not enough trumps) clearly flawed, why are so many panelists in agreement about how to handle this awkward situation?
RIMSTEDT: 2♣. I hope it won't get passed out. This seems like the best way to keep both hearts and spades in the picture.
BROCK: 2♣. If I can just get past this round ...
WANG: 2♣. I hope partner won’t pass.
MEYERS: 2♣. If it goes all pass, so be it. If partner bids 2♥, I will advance with 2♠.
McINTOSH: 2♣. Let’s hope it doesn't end the auction. I intend to bid 3♠ over 2♥.
SHENKIN: 2♣.
LARSSON: 2♣.
ROBSON: 2♣. Serious partnerships will play methods here. Absent that, we have to invent.
BIRD: 2♣. I would feel uneasy rebidding 3♠ or 3♥. I don’t remember ever rebidding 2♣ myself on this type, but that is what the big boys on panels seem to do. Perhaps they are right.
COHEN: 2♣. An age-old advertisement for a strong club system. In standard, you just pick your poison. The great Al Roth used to say: "If I can get by this round of the bidding."
ZIA: 2♣. Kokish/Gazilli/Stuck bid... A little bit of everything.
HULT: 2♣. Without Gazilli, I start with 2♣ and hope to survive this round. Hopefully, I will get to bid 3♠ next time.
MIHAI: 2♣. A small lie, but no other bid fits the hand. 2♣ is quasi-forcing. I will raise either major to game (a little pushy, perhaps, but we are playing IMPs) and bid 3♦ over a raise to 3♣ to try to find the best game.
Alan has seen this ‘old chestnut’ enough times before… MOULD: 2♣. Really? Really? I have been seeing this “problem” for close to 50 years - enough for a jump to 3♥ but not the suit quality plus secondary spade support. Everyone always bids 2♣ and everyone used to quote Al Roth, but he has been dead so long now that is probably out of fashion. Some play a toy here that 3NT shows 3♠/6♥ and enough for game, and if we did I would do that, but the system says nothing about it.
Alan is right, 3NT in our methods would show a hand too strong for a non-forcing 3♥, but Erik sticks with the alternative meaning suggested by Alan. SAELENSMINDE: 3NT. This shows three spades and six hearts for me. Not facing an unknown expert without discussion, though. Simon chooses the lesser of evils… DE WIJS: 3♠. Yes, the principle of the smallest lie leads me here. My hand has enormous potential for a spade contract and I like this better than a 2NT rebid.
I think Tim’s choice is the obvious alternative… COPE: 3♣. The 1♠ bid upgrades my hand and I feel it is now worth a game force. Perhaps next time we will have Gazilli in our armory.
Partner had 7xxxx/Kx/Kxx/QJx, so 4♥ was decent, needing little more than trumps 3-2. After 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♥-? the main danger is perhaps ending in spades rather than hearts.
HAND 5.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
3♥
10
7
37.5
Pass
9
6
21.3
3NT
7
4
34.3
4♥
0
0
4.9
4♦
0
0
1.2
5♦
0
0
0.5
6♥
0
0
<0.1
3♠
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.06
There are only three main alternatives and the panel are split fairly evenly, as are the competition entrants. With more than 90% of competitors collecting at least 7/10, this is the highest-scoring hand of the year so far. The comments suggest that most of the panel thought it close between 3♥ and Pass, so perhaps I was over-generous when marking 3NT…
SAELENSMINDE: 3♥. I don’t like to pass partner’s takeout doubles.
DE WIJS: 3♥. This feels like the normal bid for me. Maybe against some pairs I should risk a pass...
McINTOSH: 3♥. Very close, and it wouldn't surprise me if Pass was the long-term winner.
LARSSON: 3♥.
MIHAI: 3♥. Pass seems tempting, but at IMPs I consider it too risky. With probably five diamond tricks and some well-placed cards, the contract might even make. On the other side, I don't have enough to bid 4♥ as my honours are wasted opposite partner’s shortage and our finesses are unlikely to work, so only 3♥.
COHEN: 3♥. In my heart, I suspect that pass is the long-run winner, but I can't get myself to take such a deep position. Not enough to bid more than this. Partner can stretch and bid again, knowing I have a wide range. I just have to bid in tempo.
Of this group, only Sally thought that 3NT was the alternative. BROCK: 3♥. I’m not pushing for non-vulnerable game (3NT).
Some of the passers also thought it a close call. ZIA: Pass. At the table, I might pass and I might bid 3♥. It would depend on who the 3♦ opener was.
ROBSON: Pass. In a sense I’d rather have an unpleasant surprise in diamonds not this. But passing rates to go plus while bidding rates to go minus.
BIRD: Pass. Game is uncertain, and it may not be easy to reach the best game anyway. Let’s pick off some high cards in defense.
RIMSTEDT: Pass. I have no tricks to help with in any other contract than 3♦-X.
COPE: Pass. There are no guarantees that partner has four hearts and, other than the sure tricks in diamonds, any finesses we take are likely to be wrong in 3NT. This looks like a good time to take a sure plus.
HULT: Pass. 3♥ looks like a normal bid, but I gamble here. We have a million losers and only defensive values. With a hand like AKxx/Axxx/x/KQxx, partner might raise to 4♥ going down two when we had them two down in 3♦-X.
And a few go for all of the marbles… MOULD: 3NT. Hamman’s rule.
SHENKIN: 3NT.
MEYERS: 3NT. My choices are Pass and 3NT. I don't consider 3♥ an appealing option. My gut says to bid 3NT.
WANG: 3NT. This is a difficult choice between 3♥ and 3NT, but I will bid 3NT because it has the bigger upside if I am right.
Partner had AJxx/AQxx/Qx/AJx so neither 3NT nor 4♥ were good, but you get an easy +300 (and maybe +500) from 3♦-X.
HAND 6.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
4♦
10
6
7.6
4♥
8
2
14.7
6♦
8
2
4.0
5NT
8
3
3.8
4NT
7
2
12.2
4♣
7
2
2.0
5♠
7
0
4.4
4♠
6
0
28.9
5♦
5
0
0.8
6♠
3
0
17.1
6♥
2
0
0.7
5♣
0
0
1.7
3NT
0
0
0.5
6♣
0
0
0.5
5♥
0
0
0.4
7♠
0
0
0.4
Pass
0
0
0.1
7♦
0
0
<0.1
6NT
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.15
A tough hand, and not an easy one to mark either. The majority of the panel (all but four) chose to try to play in a red-suit, some in game and some in slam. The minority opted for an ace-asking bid (either 4♣ or 4NT), concentrating on finding the right level in spades. Close to half of the competitors simply guessed to raise spades to game or slam, although in all they offered 19 different choices, many of which had at least some merit, so more bids than usual score at least something. Although the 4♦ bidders were easily the largest faction on the panel, there was not so much agreement about what to do next.
WANG: 4♦. If partner does not support diamonds, then I will bid 6♥.
MEYERS: 4♦. Wow, what a problem. I am going to bid a forcing 4♦ and, if partner bids 4♠, I will bid 5♥ (as if I am 5-6 with a very good hand). If partner still insists on spades (suggesting something like AQJ10xxx), I would take the push to 6♠.
LARSSON: 4♦
BROCK: 4♦. Partner will probably think I am cue-bidding for spades, but it’s the only bid I can think of that isn’t a complete guess. If partner bids 4♥ (presumably a singleton), I’ll guess 6♦. If he bids 4♠ (presumably at least two hearts), I’ll guess 6♥! That will have partner scratching his head but, hopefully, he won’t be able to think of a bid.
MIHAI: 4♦. If I hit the jackpot and partner bids 4♥ (cue agreeing diamonds) I can ask for key cards and if he raises to 5♦ I can continue with a 5♥ cue. If partner says 4♠, I bid 5♥ (surely forcing) and if he again bids his spades I can make him pick a slam with 5NT.
DE WIJS: 4♦. I prefer to use this as pick-a-major. After that, I can bid 6♦ and leave partner the choice between three suits.
Alan and Andrew both decided that securing a plus score was the goal. ROBSON: 4♥. This looks like our most likely plus score with a bonus. Chances are an opponent will have a four-card red suit, so I don’t fancy 6♦/6♥.
MOULD: 4♥. Can I play non-leaping Michaels over PARTNER’s pre-empts as well please ;-). This is a complete guess. I guess 4♥. Whilst the next group sought to find the best slam… ZIA: 5NT. Hopefully, I will get to bid 6♦ next.
COHEN: 5NT. Dreaming that partner picks a red suit. Over 6♣, I bid 6♦ and hope for the best. Opposite as little as J10xxxxx/x/xxx/xx, I'm okay in 6♦ (and even better if the diamonds are Jxx!)
McINTOSH: 5NT. Well, we will not be playing this hand in spades in my current partnership. It's tempting to go low with 4♥, but I know at the table I would respond 5NT, pick a slam. (With an old-fashioned Josephine, we start with 4♣ agreeing spades).
And a couple just settle for choosing their strongest suit. SAELENSMINDE: 6♦. I could bid 5NT (pick a slam), but that might make it more obvious to lead a trump if that is what’s needed.
SHENKIN: 6♦.
The rest committed to spades and started with their ace-asking bid. HULT: 4♣. Slam try and key card for spades. I will not gamble on other suits than spades here.
COPE: 4♣. Who is partner? What is our style of pre-empts? We could be cold for 7♠ opposite AQJ10xxx, but we could be going down in 6♠ if partner has opened 3♠ on J109xxxx/x/x/Axxx. It will not get the maximum votes, but I believe that most expert pairs play 4♣ as Keycard after a pre-empt. This way we may be on firmer ground after partner’s response.
RIMSTEDT: 4NT. Also a matter of agreements, but I will bid key-card. I had this hand in the actual tournament and decided to Blackwood.
BIRD: 4NT. Partner will hold around three red cards, on average, so I don't think a pick-a-slam 5NT start is likely to help much. I would rather play in spades and find out what he holds there.
Tim hit partner’s hand on the head: J1098xxx/x/x/A10xx. At the table in the Spring Fours, both sides were vulnerable: I adjusted it as I suspect many would not open 3♠ vulnerable but I think most would do so non-vulnerable. Bidding 4♥ is one way to go plus, and asking with 4♣, finding partner’s suit is bad, and stopping in 4♠ also works.
HAND 7.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
2NT
10
14
46.9
Dbl
6
3
41.0
Pass
2
0
7.4
4♥
0
0
1.8
3♥
0
0
0.9
3NT
0
0
0.8
2♠
0
0
0.7
3♣
0
0
0.3
4♠
0
0
<0.1
3♠
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.30
We finish with two deals on which the panel come close to unanimity. And, on this one, nearly half of competition entrants agree with them. When I set this as a problem, I expected a three-way battle between 2NT, Double and Pass, but it hasn’t turned out that way…
SAELENSMINDE: 2NT. This shows what I have.
ZIA: 2NT. I am persuaded by the ♥10.
McINTOSH: 2NT. The ♥10 makes it clear IMO.
ROBSON: 2NT. Close between this and double. The ♥10 swings it.
MEYERS: 2NT. I love the ♥10. Double would be my second choice: I could bid 3NT over a direct 3♦ response, but I would not be happy to hear partner get to 3♦ via Lebensohl.
DE WIJS: 2NT. A little light, but passing is worse. Double is possible.
COHEN: 2NT. Dangerous to bid this, but dangerous not to. Without the ♥10, I might risk a double.
SHENKIN: 2NT.
LARSSON: 2NT.
COPE: 2NT. Balanced 15.5 to 17.5 with a heart stopper. The ♥10 gives me the extra half point.
BROCK: 2NT. I know it is dangerous, but the more vulnerable I am, the more likely it is that they are completely stealing from me. I prefer 2NT rather than double because of the ♥10.
RIMSTEDT: 2NT. What else? Perfect description of my hand. Flat 15 with 1.2 stopper. Double is fine also, but not as descriptive.
WANG: 2NT. Maybe double is better, but I like to be more aggressive.
Alan sums up for the majority and earns the ‘Comment on the Month’ award on his debut.
MOULD: 2NT. I am utterly lost. 2NT shows a strong no-trump and I have a strong no-trump. What do you want out of my life? You are doubtless going to tell me I go for 1400. Well, I have been for 1400 before and it doesn’t make it the wrong bid.
There were just three dissenters, who preferred to double. BIRD: Dbl. This is a touch light for 2NT, and it is risky to pass. I hope that a double, coupled with Lebensohl responses, will prove an effective life jacket.
MIHAI: Dbl. 2NT is the alternative, but doubling makes it easier to find a spade fit. If partner signs off in diamonds, let’s hope he has at least five trumps.
HULT: Dbl, If partner is weak, we might find the right partscore. Playing Lebensohl, I will bid 3NT if he makes a positive 3m bid. Overcalling 2NT on this type of hand so often leads to 3NT going down.
At the table, both 2NT and double would probably get you to a making slam, as partner had AJ10xxx/x/x/Axxxx. Whether you could catch up after a pass is another matter.
HAND 8.
ACTION
MARKS
PANELVOTES
Competitors'Entries (%)
4NT
10
14
22.5
Pass
6
3
46.1
5NT
3
0
0.5
6NT
2
0
9.7
6♣
2
0
5.2
4♣
0
0
7.6
5♣
0
0
5.8
4♥
0
0
0.9
4♠
0
0
0.5
7NT
0
0
0.2
7♣
0
0
<0.1
5♠
0
0
<0.1
6♠
0
0
<0.1
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.33
There were really only two realistic options on this deal, and the panel came down decisively in favor of one over the other. Only two-thirds of competition entrants opted for one of those two, though, with fewer than a quarter of competitors getting top marks.
MEYERS: 4NT. I have to give it one try.
McINTOSH: 4NT. Quantitative.
BROCK: 4NT. Just about worth it with solid clubs, I think.
DE WIJS: 4NT. A bit pushy, but they did give me that ♣10 for a reason
BIRD: 4NT. We are missing quite a few points, but one more try is justified. South’s bid may help my partner to excel in the play.
WANG: 4NT. Invitational. I hope we can play either 6♣ or 6NT.
SHENKIN: 4NT.
RIMSTEDT: 4NT. At some point I have to show my strength. Partner is bidding the same with all 15 and 17 counts, and I'm not keen on missing lay-down slams. A number of panellists hit on the key point. ROBSON: 4NT. A little try. I have a feeling my ♦J is rather large.
SAELENSMINDE: 4NT. Invitational. We could have an easy slam with good diamonds from partner.
ZIA: 4NT. Very mild, but it feels like partner may have a diamond suit.
MOULD: 4NT. I either held this hand or one very like it recently. I bid 4NT and pard passed with a minimum and we had 12 stone cold tricks. Pard had ♦AKQ10x, the ♥A and a stray jack. I really don’t see this as a slam force, but maybe my judgement is just off.
Tim makes sure of winning the postmortem. COPE: 4NT. This should show everything about my hand and allow partner to make the last mistake.
MIHAI: 4NT. I don't think I can force to slam, as the cards may not lie well for us. This auction perfectly describes my hand: slam invitational, 5+♣ and a spade stopper, which is exactly what I seem to have.
There were just a small group of pessimists… HULT: Pass. If 6♣ is good, partner would have bid something other than 3NT. If I had no interest in other contracts, I would have just bid 3NT over 2♣.
LARSSON: Pass
COHEN: Pass. Given the interference, I can expect poor splits, which might doom a so-so slam. Also, partner's major suit cards are likely to be poorly located (picture something like KJxx/AQ10/AQxx/xx).
Those who pictured good diamonds in partner’s hand were spot on: he held Qxx/Ax/AKQ10x/xxx so 6NT (or 6♦/6♣) had twelve top tricks. Of course, whether that is enough for him to carry on over 4NT is another matter, but at least you have given him a chance.
A three-way, all-woman tie at the top this month, with Sally Brock, Wen Fei Wang and Jessica Larsson all scoring 76/80. A special mention to our guest panelist, Radu Mihai who, along with Ola Rimstedt, trailed the ladies by just one point.
much apprciated
I enjoy these exercises.