of these partscore problems, it's time to liven things up a bit. It's
hard to know where to start with 12 different options, so we'll begin
with the handful of readers (and one lone panellist) who found the
winning action at the table:
Ware: 4. This
is forcing (unlike 4) and
describe his hand further. First reaction was 5NT (GSF) to find out
if partner has K, but just too much chance partner
doesn't have five
4. Bridge Baron would bid 4 if it didn't have any
other good bid --
but it considers rebidding its six-card minor a good bid.
4. Forcing, looking for the best suit to be
4. Let's hear what more partner has to say.
The problem with 4 is that it
natural and be raised, and 4 is
non-forcing. Really tough problem, as is often the case after a 2 opener.
4. We will get to slam but the strain is
unclear. If partner rebids
spades I will bid 5NT, choice of slams.
Enkvist: 4. Since
partner has denied a weak two in
spades a spade slam
will likely depend on the same things as 6. However, instead of ending
the auction with 6 we may
establish diamonds with the
forcing bid of
4 to see if partner can cuebid spades.
Christer raises an
interesting point about a 4 rebid from partner. Many
would take 4 as natural
comment above), but it makes a lot of sense for 4
to be a control bid for
diamonds here. (Although I'm not clear on how partner denied a weak two
in spades -- but the rest of the reasoning is sound).
4. Tough problem. Does this set the suit?
Here I would like 4 from
pard to be natural. Other times I would like it to be a cue. Who knows?
At least I will get another bid and another chance to show I am strong.
If they bid 5 I bash 6.
4. The 2 waiting
bid tells me nothing. I use a
points reply and have
invented my own nonlinear scale. It works a treat.
Altstock: 6. Go for
the knockout punch and hope
partner might have K!
Whitmee: 6. Trying
6 vulnerable at IMPs. Feel that my partner
king of spades. Could throw a heart off on a long spade. If partner
does have five spades it may not be good playing in the spade contract
because clubs need ruffing in my hand and it may be hard to get to the
other hand to finish drawing trumps.
6. Partner has shown support for spades and
diamonds and a suit
contract is what is needed.
necessarily shown support for diamonds here, but we do have a very good
wasn't the only making slam, but the other one (6) was extremely hard
to bid. Here are a few who thought they might be able to find the heart
4. Ah, the big diamond hand. Bane of the
Standard 2 existence
if you play second negatives, 3 is
follow-ups to that are unclear as to whether they're forcing). Does
partner have KJxxx xxxx xx xx, which is a near-laydown 7? Or some ugly
pile like Jxxx xxx xx KJxx in which any slam is a severe longshot at
best? I'll probably toss down 6 or 6 at my next turn ...
Guthrie: 4. Hope it
Hunter: 4. Please
tell me more partner have you got
5 , then we are
Morse: 4. Surely
my hand has improved with the
I’m not sure if 4 is meant
as a suit or
a forcing bid with
spades in mind. But I don't think partner can pass it.....
4. This has to be forcing right? What does 5 say? I don't know.
some bid by North I'll try 5 or 6 spades.
surprisingly, the majority pinned all their hopes on spades, with
support for all levels of the suit. Game:
Cowlishaw: 4. 2 is less than 3 controls.
4. With as little as KJxxx xxx xx xxx slam
is a good
bet. Hopefully if I show support pard will be able to move forward with
the right hand (i.e. no wasted values in clubs).
4. If partner has 5 spades, this will be
our best chance of making 6
or 7. With only 5 spades, I expect him to be bidding a control,
delaying support for diamonds. He might hold S KJxx H xxx D J1074 C Q4
in which case 6 is the
Bartos: 4. partner
already knows my suit is
diamonds, so can make a
choice - there is at least an eight card trump suit in spades, I don't
know how many diamonds partner has (and if void, spades will work much
4. Partner likely has 5 unless he's
4-3-3-3, but it should play OK
anyway. Not inclined to go for slam after the 2 negative.
Reid: 4. Pd has
something and hopefully five
4. Who has all the clubs? We should make
game if partner has a decent
Yarborough so worth looking for something more but hopefully partner
will push on if need be.
6. 4 as Gerber
best, but under this sequence, it is more likely to be taken as a
control bid (ok) or indicating shape (not
ok). 4 would have natural follow through to 5 which is where the
interest would be.
6. If partner has five spades to the jack, 6 is quite a reasonable
contract. There is no easy way of working this out. Even if North has
the king of spades, 7 is a
borderline bid at
IMPs (roughly a 2/3rds
chance of success). Just go straight to 6 and give
information about North's hand as possible.
Battista: 6. Played
from the wrong side of course,
some in the middle:
Tom Moss: 5.
5 is too ambiguous. Sounds like a minor 2
suiter. If it would be
exclusion Blackwood, or void showing, I would like it.
5. Ask partner to bid slam with good
spades, but may be cold for 7.
5. Don’t need much for slam, but
how do we find out?
Weinstein: 5. I hope 3 promises five, too
strong for 4.
Herrmann: 5. This
invitation should ask about trump
quality. Of course
if 5 would be exclusion key card Blackwood...
Ron Lel: 5.
To be honest, I really don't know. I would not have opened this hand
with 2, strong as it is. Two suiters are
notoriously hard to bid. We
also need to have some agreements; can 3 be a 4
carder or is it
carder? Would 4 be a cue
now or natural? I guess 5 is a bit
nothing bid; will partner know to bid 7 holding KJ to 5 and out? I
don't think so.
few optimists were willing to gamble on the meaning of a cuebid:
4. Partner has something apart from 5
spades, so slam is possible. But
does my bid sound like a second suit? Partner's next bid will tell!
4. Setting spades as trumps and promising
1st or 2nd round control in clubs.
If North bids 4 we may
well be on track for slam in
a handful of people chose to ignore the club void and take the simple
4NT. 5 (Exclusion KCB) doesn't quite work
because of concern over J.
If he shows A & K, I want to be in 7NT.
If he shows 0 or 1
key cards, I'll settle for 6. Side
suit of AKQxxx
almost always plays
for 0 losers.
Patterson: 4NT. Keycard.
Cook: 4NT. Partner needs very little for slam to make.
Korner: 4NT. With Kxxxx it is seven and with J10xxx it is six.
doubt there will be some controversy about the two top scores going to
artificial bids that are not documented in the system (both of which
would have led to a minus score on the actual deal). In an attempt to
mitigate this, I will upgrade the scores for all people who explicitly
rejected these bids on system grounds. Namely:
Matheson: 4. An
easy 5 bid if playing
4. How to find the K? 5NT
Trump Ask (on
the last bid suit) would be
my choice with my regular partner.
Freeland: 4NT. RKCB hopefully, would prefer 5 as voidwood.
Campbell: 4NT. RKCB. Slam possible opposite as little as Kxxx. Would
like to try 5 as EKCB if
there was no chance of it
5. Exclusion Blackwood. I asked some Dutch
juniors and we all agreed.
Sjösvärd: 5. If pard
has 5 spades
to the king or 4 good
spades and nothing more, we will probably make 6 or 7.
Bednarek: 5. Void in
clubs, ask (small slam, maybe
Ol-Mårs: 5. Voidwood.
to grand with 5 NT if he
has spade king.
5NT. As I see it, partner's rebid shows five or more cards; so, slam is
likely. I want to know if he holds the king to bid the grand.
Smart: 5NT. Not sure what responses by a 2 negative over a GSF ought
to be, but I need to communicate that it's all about trump quality. KJ
to 6 or K to 7 is enough.
5NT. Pick a slam, since I expect 6// to have decent play. 5
(reasonably void) is an exciting alternative, but I do not know how to
get partner excited with Kxxxx of spades and nothing else, so I give up
on finding a grand.
South did consider bidding 5NT at the table, and she would
have intended it as "pick-a-slam", while her partner would have
interpreted it as a GSF trump ask. The expert panel was similarly
Cohen: 5NT. Sure, 7 could be
there is no intelligent way
to reach it, so I will settle for a small slam (playing diamonds if
partner picks them). It wouldn't shock me if someone else bids 5NT
intending it as the GSF in spades!
Klinger: 5NT. Trump ask.
Prepared to be in 7 opposite
might be better than that . . . or worse.
goes to show that in life, as in AB Standard, players don't always know
the exact meaning of every possible bid. The full
South chose 5, Exclusion
Blackwood, and played in 6 going two
Playing in either red suit would have produced 13 tricks instead of