AJT8 K32 864 753

West North East South pass 1 1 dbl 2 pass pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers Pass 100 53 63 2 90 37 5 Dbl 90 11 12 3 20 0 15 2NT 20 0 4

Our first hand this month is from the February issue of the magazine, reported by Peter Gill in an article on Slot Bids. In the article, Peter credits a 1970s article by Paul Lavings with the idea of bidding 2 in this auction, and Paul was on board with the bid 50 years later:

Paul Lavings: 2. I suppose you could double but 2 has a certain attraction.

Zia: 2. Sort of slips in the slot, simple and snug (the bid, not me).

Andrew Robson: 2. Four good spades, prepared to play the 4-3 fit – seems perfect!

Alex Kemeny: 2. Still only four spades, but good ones. If partner has only two spades, she can remove to 3m.

2 was chosen by over a third of the expert panel, but the majority were not convinced:

Bob Jones: Pass. The only possible bid with this hand, I think, is 2. As tempting as it is to make a clever bid like that, I would not bid.

Sartaj Hans: Pass. 2 is an alternative but if spades are 3-3, we rate to make a lot of defensive tricks versus 2. So pass is my choice.

Nicoleta Giura: Pass. Ten losers, opposite a likely 3-2-5-3. I might try 2 at Matchpoints.

Peter Barker: Pass. The bidding hasn't improved my hand, and I respect partner's pass. On the vul I might risk 3 in Pairs, but not in Teams.

Neil Silverman: Pass. As much as I dislike letting opponents play 2, bidding seems like bad idea. Partner is most likely 5-4 in minors, and having three-small of both is bad for offense.

There were a couple of strong arguments against bidding again. Most people felt that we already fully described our hand on the previous round:

Roger Yandle: Pass. I'd really like to bid but I think I've already shown my hand.

Ronald Lel: Pass. I have a flat hand and nothing more to contribute.

Cor Lof: Pass. I have said it all.

Hans van Vooren: Pass. I have told all I have and we're going nowhere. Too bad if we lose a double partscore, but that seems to be unlikely.

David Matthews: Pass. This hand has nothing to recommend bidding again.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Don't like selling out so low, but partner has the shortage in their suit and didn't choose to compete, so time to defend with my flat hand.

Furthermore, flat hands are typically better for defending:

Tania Black: Pass. No shape, no bid.

Dan Baker: Pass. Flat, minimum.

Damo Nair: Pass. A flat hand with a minimum. This hand is not worth two calls.

Alexander Cook: Pass. 4-3-3-3 shape and king in opponents' suit, so I don't want to compete to the three-level.

Robert Black: Pass. Nought else appeals. Might still get a positive score defending.

For those who want to bid, but are unwilling to use 2, there are a couple of other options:

Larry Cohen: Dbl. My life as I know it would end if I let them play unmolested in their eight-card fit on the two-level.

Alexander Shchennikov: Dbl. All my points are useful, so at good vulnerability we can fight for the contract.

Fraser Rew: Dbl. What am I missing here? We've got half the deck and they've got an eight-card fit. If you bid 3, I hope you hit a 3-2-4-4 shape opposite.

Mick McAuliffe: Dbl. Partscore battle and too many reasons to do something vs not. Non-vul, my spades are decent and I likely have a heart stopper. Partner appears to be about a 3-2-4-4. If they have a good suit they want to bid, I have three. Else they can bid 2 and leave the three-level for EW.

There are pros and cons for both 2 and Double. 2 pushes us towards the 4-3 spade fit rather than the 5-3 diamond fit, which would be especially useful at Matchpoints, but even at IMPs 2 may be the better spot. Mick suggests that partner is free to bid 2 over our second double, but partner doesn't know how strong our spades are, so I think he is more likely to take out the double to 3 rather than 2.

Our final option is a choice that has no advantages over 2, and was therefore not endorsed by any of the expert panellists:

Ken Berry: 3. I would have bid 2NT in my youth, and feel at my age I should pass, but I am bidding 3 in a quest to find a younger me.

Peter Vlas: 3. I'm not letting them play 2 when non-vul, and since partner was silent I don't think 2NT has a chance.

Ronald Lokers: 3. Non-vul, so let's compete for the partscore.

Emil Battista: 3. Not following the law. Double does not appeal. Nor does a wimpy pass that will probable net 100%.

As readers of the magazine will be aware, this deal is from the Swiss Pairs at the Summer Festival:

K94 J6 A10653 A74      652      Q54      K8      K10853 Q73 A10987 QJ9 QJ AJ108 K32 742 962

Postscript: Apologies for the error in the magazine where 3NT was given an award of 20 points. Obviously that was a typo: it was meant to say 2NT (not that 2NT is a great bid either, but unlike 3NT, it was chosen by 4% of the readers, and we don't like anyone to go home empty-handed).

Q54 7632 963 842

West North East South 1NT pass pass dbl pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers Pass 100 74 51 2 80 21 19 2 80 5 28

There are only two realistic options on this one, but it's an important hand to discuss (especially when you consider that 28% of the readers came up with a third option).

I've never been a fan of penalty doubles of 1NT, mainly because partner tends to pull them too often. In most partnerships I tend to play double as artificial, which I maintain leads to just as many penalties as a penalty double – in fact, it's easier to defend when the defenders' points are split, rather than 18 HCP in one hand.

Some partnerships have strict rules about when to run, and even if you disagree with them, it's never a bad idea to have rules:

Ron Klinger: 2. Our methods are to run in this auction if below 6 points. If 2 is passed out and we fail, so be it. If 2 is doubled, redouble for rescue.

Sophie Ashton: 2. While passing might lead to the best score, I think I'd bid 2. If that gets doubled I'll redouble and hope to find our best fit.

Michael Ware: 2. A matter of style, but double of 1NT is more likely to be balanced points than 7+ tricks in own hand, making 1NT doubled favourite to make, possibly with overtricks as the 1NT opener is sitting over my partner's high cards. We may be going for a number if I bid, but I doubt it.

Steve Stein: 2. Starting a scramble.

Peter Vlas: 2. I'm too chicken and I run. Since I can't redouble partner for SOS, let's see where this lands.

David Matthews: 2. I'd bid a five-card suit if I had one, otherwise 2.

Sandra Richman: 2. At first I thought minus 180 could be a good score. But on reflection, I have to run, so 2 it is and hope for the best.

Should've stuck with the first answer, Sandra. Minus 180 is the best score available this point (although in terms of actual imps lost on the board, -300 wasn't much worse).

Fraser Rew: 2. Hard to answer without being at the table. If LHO hesitated before passing and partner is a younger sort who doubles on any 13 cards, it's clear to run, and the only question is where we run to. Playing with a more old-fashioned player and against an uninterested LHO, Pass has some attraction.

Nicoleta Giura: 2. Too weak to pass (as Meckstroth would say).

Ronald Lel: 2. This gives a bit of room to wiggle. 2 might excite partner.

If partner gets excited by 2, you need to have a chat with him. 2, and any other bid below 2NT, is extremely discouraging.

Martyn Rew: 2. Hoping to find an undoubled contract.

Now that's what I call optimism! If the opponents let you play an undoubled contract at this point, that probably means that they are relieved that you rescued them from 1NT doubled.

Klinger's suggestion of running with 5 HCP seems wild to me, but as long as partner knows your style, everything should be fine. However, the majority felt that even this lowly two-count was enough to pass:

Bob Jones: Four of spades. This is an opening lead problem, right?

Matthew Thomson: Pass. 1NT may go down, I cannot see an upside in bidding.

Tim Bourke: Pass. This is probably the least costly option. I don't fancy playing in a 4-3 fit, doubled, at the two-level.

Frank Stewart: Pass. Maybe partner has it beat. Or maybe -280 is our best result.

Larry Cohen: Pass. Not happy, but this is what we do with no shape.

Peter Robinson: Pass. This problem arises from time to time, on this occasion a little spiced up by the fact that partner is in the protective position. My observation over the years has been that if I am weak, partner usually has a rockcrusher, and we hold about half the points. (West's pass in front of the double tends to support this). Defending 1NT is often safer than scratching around in the hope of escaping from the double. If I bid something, how does partner know whether to move or sit?

Peter Barker: Pass. There is nothing to indicate that we will improve our position by bidding on. A four-card suit headed by the seven is not likely to develop a lot of tricks. Them making 1NT doubled is less risk than us being doubled in a suit contract.

Robert Black: Pass. I lack any help for partner either in defence or as declarer. But my "confident" pass may persuade LHO to take out the double himself!

That's pretty important. If LHO is looking at a partnership point range of 19-21, it's right for him to sit the double, but players don't always make the right decision in this situation. If West has a five-card suit and/or a singleton, a risk-averse player might run even when 1NT is making. In my case, I went through a risk-averse phase after an event-ending disaster in my first national tournament, the 1990 Youth Championships:

Q62 Q4 Q76 98732      1073      AKJ983      A5      K10 854 65 KJ9832 64 AKJ9 1072 104 AQJ5

Holding the six-point North hand, I redoubled my partner's 1NT opening, and he lost the first 12 tricks for -3400. An experience like that can make you a little skittish.

Neil Silverman: Pass. Minus 180 might not be the worst score on this hand, and once in a while we might beat the opponents to seven tricks.

Alex Kemeny: Pass. If 1NT doubled makes, it will be disappointing but not an IMPs disaster.

Hans van Vooren: Pass. As long as they don't make overtricks, I'm happy. Partner won't be if I pull and he has eight tricks from top. Also, I have two points more than promised.

Dan Baker: Pass. Not sure we'll set this, but don't think any other option looks better.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Don't like it but they are not doubled into game and there is no obvious better spot.

John R Mayne: Pass. OK, -280, lose four, go to the next one. Scrambling out to the 4-3 is no good when they will hit us if wrong.

Lastly, we have a very unexpected minority looking to play in their 7632 suit:

Dave Beauchamp: 2. Yes I will be outvoted here and most of panel will pass and declarer will likely make 1NT. Yes they might double me in 2, but could get lucky and doubler has four hearts also.

Tania Black: 2. Apologies if our negative score from possibly doubled undertricks exceeds that from their doubled overtricks.

Emil Battista: 2. For a start, if I get off to the wrong lead it may be embarrassing.

Roger Yandle: 2. This shows a very weak hand that doesn't think we can defeat 1NT.

Carmel Gammal: 2. Too weak to leave the double in.

Ken Berry: 2. Hopefully partner does not leave the table at the end of the hand.

Sounds like Ken is an online player, so he gets to enjoy the charming experience of partner storming off if they disagree with one of your bids, generally leaving an abusive comment as they disappear. Sometimes they don't even wait until the hand is finished.

The full deal, from the NOT quarter-final:

AKJ86 Q5 J82 AJ6      102      K94      K1054      Q753 973 AJ108 AQ7 K109 Q54 7632 963 842

North was the declarer at all eight tables. At three tables East opened a suit, so North was the first to bid 1NT (one +90, one -50, and one doubled for -100).

On the given auction, after North doubled East's 14-16 notrump, Wiltshire (South) ran to 2, and North ran to spades for -300.

None of the East players declared the hand, but it seems reasonable to assume East would have made just 180 if Wiltshire had passed out the double of 1NT.

85 KQT9763 AQ75 –

West North East South 1 pass 1 pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers 3 100 35 29 4 90 30 17 2 60 20 28 2 40 15 23 3 10 0 1

Clearly we are going to play this hand in hearts, but it's not clear how high we wish to play. And assuming we decide we are willing to gamble on game, we still have to cater for partner's expectations:

Ron Klinger: 2. An atypical underbid, but if I can get past this round, 4 on the next round will be easy. I know, I know, it is a four-loser hand, but the danger of bidding 3 or 4 is that partner places me with much more high-card strength and pushes higher than our values permit. How could partner not sail on towards slam if I rebid 4 and partner has KQxxx-xx-xx-AKJx? Now even 5 is at risk.

That's the primary argument for the 2 bid, but it didn't receive a lot of support (in fact, some of the 2 bidders would not have been unhappy to be left there):

Cor Lof: 2. This seven-card suit prevails, and promises no extra values.

Steve Stein: 2. Hoping partner will bid again, but if not, we may be high enough.

Neil Silverman: 2. I can easily see a 4 bid being the limit on this hand but with only 11 HCP it seems unlikely to go all pass. 4 in first seat was also certainly possible.

Peter Vlas: 2. I can have exciting dreams with a hand like this, but let's be realistic for the time being and bid 2.

Peter Barker: 2. I prefer to show my seven-card suit rather than introduce diamonds. And 11 HCP does not justify a jump to 3 in my view.

Roger Yandle: 2. The fact that the opps are quiet suggests pard has got a good hand so I'm assuming I will have another bid. If we've got a major-suit fit then I'm happy to get more excited.

The panel majority was split between 3 and 4, with 3 narrowly taking the top award:

Frank Stewart: 3. Difficult problem. It's dangerous to overbid the high-card values since partner might launch into 6NT thinking I have more. But the chances for game require a non-minimum rebid. I would bid 2, to facilitate game investigation, if I knew partner would not pass.

Paul Lavings: 3. And if partner bids 3NT I continue with 4. Another option is 2 and then 3, but you might end up playing in 2.

A couple of panellists dreaming of involving partner in the auction with a 2 bid, but afraid of playing there. However, a possibly-passable 2 was the choice of one-fifth of the panellists, and over a quarter of the readers:

Kate McCallum: 2. Even if this is not forcing, there are plenty of points around – it won't be passed out.

David Appleton: 2. Only really harsh if partner has a pass of desperation. This is more descriptive and constructive than a 2 or 3 call here.

Michael Ware: 2. I'm not in love with it going 2, all pass, but I am too good for both 3 & 4, and they both preempt our auction, so am prepared to take that risk to keep auction low.

Alex Kemeny: 2. No need to rush to 4, this isn't being passed out. 4 is likely to be my next bid, completing my description.

Tony Treloar: 2. The silence from the opponents suggests that partner won't be passing this bid. I'll learn more about what this hand is worth by keeping the auction low.

Ian Patterson: 2. 3 next if partner raises, shows preference or repeats his suit. 4 over a limit raise or 2NT or 3.

Barbara Whitmee: 2. Will rebid 4 over partners probable answer of 2NT.

Ronald Lel: 2. I am sure that I can repeat the hearts at an appropriate level later.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. I'd hate for partner to pass this, but my hand is too powerful for a simple 2.

Martyn Rew: 2. Let's see what else partner has to say before I take too much space.

Ronald Lokers: 2. Let's test this to see how strong partner is, before jumping to 4.

Hans van Vooren: 2. 3 when playing Gazzilli in this situation. As it is, I want partner to be able to show secondary support for hearts, or rebid his spades: in both scenarios, I can then raise to 3. Rebidding 2 seems obvious, but will often be passed out with 4 being a good contract.

Gazzilli is an excellent convention that reduces the upper limit of our 3 bid, but the majority felt that the hand was good enough for 3 even without the protection of Gazzilli:

Damo Nair: 3. I am assuming 2 is passable. Other than that, 3 almost shows what I have.

Alexander Shchennikov: 3. If we bid 4 on the previous round, we will not get this problem. Now, the choice between 2 and 3. Bid 3 because two low spades in partner's suit can be useful.

Fraser Rew: 3. If you're asking, it could well be a hand where partner has a miracle 5-1-5-2 shape and we need to bid 2 to get to magical slam. Nonetheless, I'm bidding where I live.

John R Mayne: 3. It's just too much playing strength. A 2 call has ways to work, but I don't want a correct-back opposite Axxxx-x-Kxxx-xxx.

Emil Battista: 3. Forcing me thinks. Diamonds can wait.

Sorry Emil, I have never played in a partnership where 3 would be forcing here. However, it is extremely encouraging, and partner should have a very good reason for passing.

Which brings us to the final group, who did not want to be passed in 3:

Nicoleta Giura: 4. Partner might pass 3 with a singleton.

Peter Robinson: 4. I want partner to know that my hearts are self-sustaining. 2 would set us on an irrelevant path of exploring trump fits. If he wants to go on, he has an easy spade cue-bid available which is exactly what I'm interested in.

David Matthews: 4. I have a partial fit with partner and a good suit. I bid what I think will make. It could be wrong.

Andrew Robson: 4. I think this bid shows a shapely punt, not a great hand.

Bob Jones: 4. I may be the jack of hearts short for this bid, but 3 promises points. 4 promises playing strength. 2 seems a bit wimpy.

I'm with Bob and Andrew here, thinking that 4 is not necessarily a 'stronger' hand than 3, just a hand with so much distribution that playing in a partscore is too risky (and too strong for an opening 4 preempt, of course, which most of the panel agree to be the case here). I wouldn't expect partner to bid on over 4 without appropriate controls.

AQ2 A75432 J 642

West North East South pass 1 1 pass 2 pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers 2 100 32 51 3 100 21 3 2 100 11 6 3 100 5 5 3 90 16 21 2 90 16 0 4 50 0 13

In a scene that is becoming quite typical of bridge at the highest level, two of the three players who faced this auction went straight to game. Bridge at the table is not the same as bridge on the page, and the real-life 4 bid was not selected by even one of our panellists. But quite a few readers went for it:

John R Mayne: 4. Partner made a game try, and we'll try to make game. We could be off four off the top, but I'm uninterested in telegraphing this hand to the enemy.

Peter Vlas: 4. Again exciting dreams. But partner has an invite or better, and if better is a lot better he can still come into action.

Those certainly are exciting dreams. I don't think partner can be "a lot better" on this auction! There are some ten-counts that are worth a kick over a 2 rebid, but none that are worth a kick over a 4 rebid.

Hans van Vooren: 4. Game is on if partner has KQx in hearts, the K and a doubleton club, with which he won't accept any invitation.

I don't know about that; I think that hand would certainly be worth a counter-try over your 2 game try.

Tony Treloar: 4. Difficult hand to assess, but hoping that partner has some of the right cards. Is 3 stronger than 4 here?

If we were in a game-force, 3 would be stronger than 4, but that is not the case here – in this auction, a 'fast-arrival' 4 is simply weaker than forcing options such as 2 or 3. As for 3:

Nicoleta Giura: 3. Too good for 2, not good enough for 4.

Peter Robinson: 4. Even if I had opened on this hand, I would accept an invitation (subtract a loser for a nine-card fit, per Harrison-Gray). The fast arrival presumably shows that I'm not interested in slam opposite a passed-hand invitation.

That's a good guideline from Harrison-Gray. It's quite common for light games to make in a nine-card fit, especially when you have this much distribution. Still, the overwhelming majority felt that we were a bit short of a unilateral 4 bid:

David Matthews: 3. I don't want to jump to 4 immediately. Any club honours we have are badly placed. Will leave the final decision to partner.

Tania Black: 3. I should have bid 2 last time, perhaps avoiding this conundrum.

An initial 2 bid doesn't exactly take away the conundrum; it would have been just another way of deciding that you don't want to bid game. Bidding 2 now would be an equally effective way to do that. It's a bit of a double cross to say you're worth a 3 invitation now, but weren't worth a 1 bid on the first round.

Roger Yandle: 3. Partner is a passed hand, so I won't get carried away just yet.

Alex Kemeny: 3. I am a trick better than I might have been. 2 would be a timid effort.

3 fits in well with the philosophy of not telegraphing the hand to the enemy, but it doesn't help partner much either. As a passed hand, partner's range is already quite narrow, and a point here or there is hardly likely to be the deciding factor that makes game a good proposition.

The panel voted for four different game tries (other than 3) so let's work through them one at a time, starting with a mini-psyche from Mike:

Mike Lawrence: 2. Just waiting for information. 2 is, at least, forward going, something 2 is not. For the record, 2 shows only three hearts. He could bid 3 if he had four of them.

Yes, if partner had four hearts, this would be a unanimous 4 bid. 2 was also the choice from both Dave Beauchamp and Zia, but unsurprisingly, zero votes from the readers.

Next:

Damo Nair: 2. I think I have barely enough to scrape up a 2 bid.

Fraser Rew: 2. Game could be excellent or terrible, depending mostly on how many wasted diamond values partner has. I'll try 2 and bid 4 over 3 or 3, and sign off/pass over 3 or 3.

That was my choice, and nothing I've read in these comments has made me reconsider. In a perfect world, I might have gone this way...

Michael Ware: 3. Short-suit try. If I play long suit / help suit tries, put me down for 3. 4 is too unilateral, when there is room to consult partner.

Neil Ewart: 3. Splinter try.

... but I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of 3. The logic is sound, but 2 is almost as descriptive and less open to a misunderstanding.

And for our fourth game try:

Paul Lavings: 3. If partner has three club losers I need too much from a passed hand for 4 to succeed.

Andrew Robson: 3. Worth a try for game with the ninth trump, this being a help-suit game try, classically three low cards.

Ron Klinger: 3. Trial bid, seeking help in clubs. I'd prefer a short-suit trial in diamonds if available.

Me too. I like short-suit trials because partner knows exactly what to look for. Opposite a long-suit trial, the queen is great if partner has as much as king-ten-third, but not so great opposite anything less than that.

Finally, the plurality vote of 2 (plurality is an evil word that just means "The bid that didn't get enough votes to be a convincing winner, but did get more votes than any of the other individual choices"). Sartaj was the only 2 bidder at the table:

Sartaj Hans: 2. Partner could have the magical hand of K, KQ and the K and game might still go down.

Patrick Huang: 2. May be high enough facing Kxx-Qxx-KQxx-Jxx.

Robert Black: 2. Partner might have a maximum pass, but the heart suit has too many gaps.

Neil Silverman: 2. Three small clubs and no raise by opponents suggests going low.

Alexander Shchennikov: 2. After partner pass we have not a lot of chance for game, especially not vul and with three low clubs.

Ronald Lel: 2. I have the worst possible club holding and nothing out of the ordinary.

Dan Baker: 2. Not interested in game opposite a passed hand unless partner really has something special.

Ronald Lokers: 2. Slightly worried about my club holding.

Emil Battista: 2. Yes, I do have a sixth heart and a singleton, but it is still a minimum hand. Why not start with 2?

Well, mainly because 2 is also the bid that you would make if you had the absolute worst hand that you would ever call 1 with. Of course, there are many players who believe that this literally is that hand, so I'm happy to let 2 share the top score with all of the equally-attractive game tries.

The full deal, from the NOT semi-final:

J97 K86 AQ103 1085      K865      J109      7642      J3 1043 Q K985 AKQ97 AQ2 A75432 J 642

In one match, Sartaj Hans bid 2 (110) while Liam Milne bid 4 (-50) for 4 imps to Sartaj's team ASHTON. In the other match, Paul Dalley bid 4 (-100) while the other table were in 3 after a third-seat 3 opening from South (-50).

AKJT97642 753 K –

West North East South 1 pass 1 pass 2 pass 3 pass 4 pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers Pass 100 58 24 5 80 26 13 5 80 11 28 5 80 5 8 6 50 0 14 4NT 50 0 12

In my early days moderating this column, I used to have a habit of frequently including a very wild hand in the fifth spot. Frank Stewart used to call it the "the Goofy Problem of the Month".

This one's not as goofy as it looks though; in fact, it's a pretty fundamental bidding issue. We only want one thing, and we simply need to determine whether partner has it.

Frank's still on the panel twenty years later (in fact, he's written an article for the current issue of the magazine), so I'll give him the first shot:

Frank Stewart: 5. Need heart control. No reason why North can't hold Qx-Qx-AQJx-AKQxx. But if he bids 6, I will bid 7.

Cor Lof: 5. Asking for a heart control.

Peter Barker: 5. If partner has even second-round control in hearts we have worthwhile slam prospects. RKCB doesn't help because of the club void, and you will get a heart lead if you blast straight to 6.

Neil Silverman: 5. Partner is unlikely to have more than two hearts, and when they have just one, it feels like slam would be odds on.

Tony Treloar: 5. If I've agonised over it for too long then I would bid 6.

If you are going to bid, 5 will probably be interpreted correctly most of the time, but not everyone was certain that 5 wasn't just a general try:

John R Mayne: 5. Over 5, I'll bid 5 focusing on hearts. I think a direct 5 should be a general power ask.

So, if we want to go via the cuebid route, which suit do we bid? One panellist cued 5 (the same bid he made at the table), leaving room for a 5 cue from partner:

Dave Beauchamp: 5. All we need to know if pard has a heart control. If partner bids 5, will pass.

Peter Robinson: 5. 4NT works if partner has three aces and we reach the grand, but otherwise it makes it hard to find out about hearts. I don't normally cue a void in partner's suit, and here the alternative tells partner about something very useful. Partner won't bid seven missing both top diamonds. Obviously, this really depends very much on partnership understandings.

Ken Berry: 5. Can partner cue bid hearts?

Steve Stein: 5. I don't like the 3 bid, but at this point, I do need to know if partner has a heart control, and if so, we should almost surely be in six (I doubt we'd ever find seven).

Steve doesn't specify what he doesn't like about the 3 bid. If he thinks it was an overbid, then it's weird that he would be kicking on over 4 now. One panellist did suggest that a forcing 2 rebid would have been better (playing 2 as Blackout), but 2 followed by 3 does not imply the exceptional unilateral suit quality of a jump to 3 (for example, you would rebid 2 then 3 on AQ109xxx, or possibly less).

The obvious risk in bidding 5 is that it sounds like we have no club control. It seems to me that bidding 5 is at least as effective as 5; if partner bids 5 over that, we can bid 5, which sounds pretty clear:

Ron Klinger: 5. I know this deal and have written it up. 5 proved to be mistaken by North, assuming club control was needed.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. Control bid. Would like partner to have AK and A.

Ronald Lokers: 5. Let's see if partner has a cue in hearts.

Nicoleta Giura: 5. Intending to invite next with 5.

Carmel Gammal: 5. Want to see partner's holding in hearts.

Roger Yandle: 5. Pard has a strong hand with maybe 2-2-4-5 shape. I'm hoping partner will realise that heart control is the key to slam.

Damo Nair: 5. If North can produce a heart cue, 6 seems a fair shot.

Peter Vlas: 5. I don't like 5 on a void, but don't want partner to bid 5 with a heart control and no A. I can bluff with 5 or 6, but that might backfire and I don't think 5 brings the right message.

Speaking of bluffing with 6:

Dan Baker: 6. A guess. Hope partner has a stiff heart.

Alexander Cook: 6. The practical bid.

Ronald Lel: 6. This is a total guess.

I guess you need to know your opponents to know if this will work.

One thing that all of the above comments ignore, is that partner had an opportunity to bid 4 over 3. Under normal circum­st­ances we would bid controls up the line – we can argue over whether 4 or 4 can be natural after the 3 jump – but however you look at it, I would never expect any of my partners to make that 4 bid with a singleton heart.

Which brings us to the winning bid:

Marc Smith: Pass. I have to trust partner here. His 4 bid surely denies a heart control, or shows a really unsuitable hand. Why should he not have something like x-Jxx-AQJx-AKQxx? Even 4 may be too high and I certainly cannot underwrite the five-level.

Fraser Rew: Pass. It feels like 3 should be suit-setting, possibly unless partner bids 4. Either way, this denies a heart control (e.g. Q-xxx-Axxx-AKQJx). As we've told them what to lead, I'm out.

Hans van Vooren: Pass. With a singleton heart, he might have done bit more than sign off in 4. Trusting partner, I don't think even a small slam is ever going to be better than on a finesse at best, so I'm going to pass and hope that ten tricks are our maximum.

Ian Patterson: Pass. Partner is probably 1-3-4-5 with 16+ HCP and no first- or second-round heart control.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Sounds like two heart losers and maybe a diamond.

Larry Brose: Pass. We are going to lose three heart tricks.

Robert Black: Pass. With three quick losers in the unbid suit, bidding on is a risky gamble.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Yes It could be slam, and a 5 psyche to forestall that lead is tempting, but I'll take the plus.

The full deal, from the semi-final:

Q Q2 AQ102 AK9432      —      AJ986      J98654      J8 853 K104 73 Q10765 AKJ1097642 753 K —

Three of the four tables followed this auction. Coutts passed, and 4 made 480 on a non- heart lead. David Beauchamp bid 5, and his partner Sophie Ashton signed off in 5 for 450. Kieran Dyke also bid 5, but his partner Arlene Dalley bid 6, going one off for an 11-imp loss. At the fourth table, Colin Clifford bid 4 instead of 3 at his second turn, ending the auction.

Thanks again for being a part of our forum. The June questions are available here, and the April magazine should have arrived by the time you read this.

If you aren't already a subscriber to Australian Bridge Magazine, please consider giving us a go. Our subscriptions have taken a huge hit over the COVID period, with many long-time readers giving up the game entirely. If you are an Australian participant in this column, and not an existing subscriber, we are now offering a one-off six-month trial of the magazine (three issues), for the discounted price of $30. All of the people who have taken up the offer so far have gone on to renew their subscriptions. If you're on the fence, please know that the magazine could really use your support. SUBSCRIBE HERE.