|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two of this month's problems are from one of our expert panellists, Frank Stewart. This one received votes for all levels of spades, from a minimum forced response to a jump to game.
Nicoleta Giura: 4
. Double fit in the blacks and 
A opposite a likely 4-4-1-4 shape.
Melissa Iverach: 4. With 8 losers, I was initially reluctant to jump to 4. But with partner sure to be singleton or void in diamonds, and must have HCP in hearts and/or clubs, game should be comfortable.
Welcome to the forum Melissa, I'm always pleased to receive answers from my old hometown!
Frank Stewart: 4. North has a decent hand and is marked with heart length, yet he did not overcall 1
. If his hearts are ragged and his values lie in the black suits, I expect the play to go well. Granted, a trump opening lead may be troublesome.
A lot of the comments suggest partner might be 4-4-1-4, but Frank's suggestion of a 4-5-1-3 (possibly with weak hearts) is more likely.
With a shortage in each hand, there won't be many top losers, but the eight-card fit won't allow us to take many ruffs. So the reader majority went for a far more conservative choice:
Barbara Whitmee: 2. Will make my contract on a cross-ruff.
Ronald Lokers: 2. Because partner didn't bid his hearts in the first round, I suspect he has something like 4-5-1-3 with most points in the black colours. I'm a pessimist: a spade lead or possible club ruffs deem 4 too high. 2 suffices.
Neil Silverman: 2. Hard to construct hands to fit this bidding. Perhaps partner has something like Kxxx-Jxxxx-void-Axxx. 2 seems high enough.
Martyn Rew: 2. game is looking unlikely here - notwithstanding partner's likely diamond void. If invited, I will go to 4.
Robert Black: 2. Might be an underbid.
Ronald Lel: 2. I will not hang partner for protecting. Passing the double is out of the question.
Of course, normally when we use the word "protecting" we are referring to passout seat, but this double also fits the definition. Partner knows he has sole responsibility for getting us into the auction, as he has the diamond shortage.
Alexander Shchennikov: 2. Partner in pre-balance position, and after his pass we have no game balance.
Peter Vlas: 2. Partner probably is pre-balancing. Otherwise he has no 5-card en too much in Clubs and if he sees game options he will act again
Dan Baker: 2. Not entirely untempted to try 3
- a likely reason for partner's reluctance to double before was diamond shortness and club length. But that's likely to have bad breaks, which also means that despite my strength, game in spades may be doomed by East scoring some club ruffs.
Roger Yandle: 2. Where are all the hearts? Is everyone 4441 and East has bid diamonds ahead of a four-card major? So many questions I don't know the answers to, so I'm going low.
Mick McAuliffe: 2. Partner looks to me to be about 10-12 HCP, 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-2-3. No point in cueing their suit as partner will surely bid hearts. This seems to be a partscore battle. Just bid my suit.
A few people placed partner with about 10-12 HCP, while some thought he could be stronger with no clear bid over 1. An opening hand is possible if his shape is 4-4-1-4, but with the more likely 4-5-1-3 I'd say 10 HCP is the upper limit. In fact, passing with 4-5 majors seems so unlikely I actually wonder if partner even has four spades:
Marc Smith: 2. Partner may be 4-4-1-4 but 3-4-1-5 is also possible, so I don't think this hand is worth more than the minimum. Second choice 3.
This doesn't really explain where the hearts are hidden, and I think a 3-5-1-4 is more likely. I'm still expecting a 4-5-1-3 9-count, but the vague chance of a 3-5-1-4 makes the 2 bid look like an attractive choice.
The panel majority went for the middle ground:
David Johnson: 3. North can have opening HCP but didn't double 1 with shortage in diamonds, so seven spade tricks plus a trick in each side suit is possible if North has the max.
Alexander Cook: 3. 2 would be far too feeble.
Hans van Vooren: 3. I feel nervous about bidding just 2. Partner will expect a few points in my hand, but he won't expect my hand to be this good. If he didn't just double because he's short in diamonds, we may well have a vulnerable game on.
Fraser Rew: 3. I'd bid 2 non-vul or at Matchpoints, but the the lure of a 10-imp swing has suckered me in. I just hope they don't lead a trump.
John R Mayne: 3. Partner's stiff diamond opposite my ace looks like it's working hard. We'll cut partner just a little bit of slack in not making a stronger try.
Tony Treloar: 3. Plenty of good features in this hand, but maybe not quite enough to go straight to game.
Alex Kemeny: 3. Surely too good for just 2.
Peter Robinson: 3. Partner could be protecting, or could have a good hand that couldn't bid on the last round. Either way, he should be able to handle my bid.
Lastly, there were a couple of readers who felt that defending might be an option, although most dismissed the idea:
Martyn Rew: 2. Diamonds aren't quite good enough to leave the double in.
Cor Lof: 2. Take out take out doubles.
Emil Battista: 2. Too early in the day to pass 2 doubled. Mind you, where are the other twelve hearts? Partner does not have six of them, so I trust they do hold four spades.
Peter Barker: 2. Passing would be tempting in pairs because +200 would be likely to take all the cookies. But partner is a passed hand and on a risk-reward basis 2 is the bid. I am not going to punish partner by bidding 3. I will respect partner's initial pass.
Carmel Gammal: Pass. We are looking at a partscore, so taking them down doubled will be better.
One final minority:
Matthew Thomson: 3. Before choosing a bid, ask: What is partner's shape? Zero or one diamonds, four hearts (with five partner would have overcalled 1), three or four spades and likely five clubs. As if I hold a 4-4-1-4 shape and 11+ points I routinely double an opening bid of 1. And what is East up to? Surely East has at least four hearts (and that gives West four hearts with their minor suit cards). Assuming West promises at least four cards in each minor to bid like this, East is a very weak 4-4-5-0 shape. So what to do? With both black suits breaking badly do I want to push to game? It's unclear, I'll try 3 and if there's more bidding then 3.
After reading all of the comments, I'm not at all convinced that partner has guaranteed four spades, so I'm upgrading the awards for both 2 and 3 to be equal with 3.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An unusual result here, with all four suits represented by the expert panel. The vote was split evenly between all three of our suits, with one panellist hedging their bets by bidding the opponents's suit:
Marc Smith: 4. I think this should be a choice of games cue in this situation. Second choice 4, but hearts could easily be better.
Rainer Herrmann: 4. Choice of games.
Dan Baker: 4. Jammed to this level, I hope this is more "choice of games" than "slam interest". I'd like to reach 4 if partner is 6-1 in the majors, 4 if 5-2, and perhaps 5 if 5-1.
Peter Robinson: 4. Over the intervention, partner's bid does not promise stand-alone spades. In case it's unclear, I think I have a good hand.
I agree with this interpretation of 4, but the number of panellists who disagreed is high enough to make it an impractical choice. One of those who disagreed is my regular partner, so at least I've learned something.
In the absence of a choice-of-games cue, the panel was evenly split, so let's start with the action that was taken at the table:
Emil Battista: 4. 4 seems a bit unilateral. Unlike me. 4 in a 5-2 fit with trumps breaking badly best left until partner rebids spades to show six.
Peter Barker: 4. Natural forcing and bidding out shape. 3 or 4 is unilateral and not strong enough for 4.
Hans van Vooren: 4. Without a specific agreement, this should be natural. If partner is 6-2 in the majors, the hand may play better in spades, but I really want to avoid playing in a 5-2 fit with trumps likely to split badly.
Mick McAuliffe: 4. 4 best describes my hand. 3NT as one of the bidding options? I must be missing something.
Given that 3NT was the only winning choice at the table, I felt that I had to include it. Many times I have left a bid out of the drop-down box because I thought it was silly, and one of the panellists has pointed out that I under-estimated the bid. Not in this case, of course.
The top choice, by a margin of one vote, was this one:
Ronald Lokers: 4. Fast arrival; first let's tell partner I'm not that strong.
Ronald Lel: 4. 3 is forcing and should show a good suit.
Cor Lof: 4. 3 promises a good six-card suit and is forcing. I hope for the best.
Carmel Gammal: 4. Assumes a strong spade suit and possible double fit in diamonds.
John R Mayne: 4. If we bid 4 and partner does anything but 4, are we happy? If we bid 4, we're rooting for partner to pull to 4. Let's just end up where we're going, and when partner is 5-5 in the pointed suits, we'll explain that it's her fault. Or West's fault, depending on how much of an adventure he tried.
Damo Nair: 4. Not sure. If I try 4 and catch a bad break in hearts it will be trouble.
Melissa Iverach: 4. Partner doesn't have hearts, I have a beautiful heart suit, singleton in West's long suit, we should make game in spades.
David Matthews: 4. Partner is unlimited with a good spade suit and is unlikely to have three hearts. My ruffing values in clubs will help. We may well have slam on. Cueing clubs here would mean at least three-card trump support, which I don't have.
Martyn Rew: 4. I have two spades for partner. Partner might not have two hearts for me.
Martyn sums up the situation well. While our heart suit is better than it might have been, I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that partner's spades are as good as our hearts, but we have no reason to assume that her hearts are as good as our spades.
Still, the player who gave us the problem feels otherwise:
Fraser Rew: 4. I should be loyal to my partner and choose the action she took at the table. But I'm worried about missing a 6-2 heart fit, so here we are.
Roger Yandle: 4. I could show my diamond suit at the four-level but its hardly a thing of beauty so I'll show my sixth heart instead.
Alex Kemeny: 4. I do not really want diamonds to be trumps so I show my sixth heart.
Peter Vlas: 4. Limiting my hand. If partner wants more he can bid 4 with spade or do something else. But in that case I have a massive hand for him
Tony Treloar: 4. No guarantee that partner's spades are better than our hearts, minimum hand with a rebiddable suit.
Ken Berry: 4. Not sure my partner would be happy with 4 or pass. Some old codgers like me might open 2.
Barbara Whitmee: 4. Showing six and partner can bid spades again with good length. We are vul at IMPs.
Neil Silverman: 4. Somedays when you open a good weak two with 1 problems will occur. Can't imagine bidding anything else.
I have no objection to opening this hand with a vulnerable weak two, and I'd love to know how the auction would go after that. If West and North both pass, and East bids, then we should make out quite nicely, but there are other ways the auction might go.
This problem was received from one of our online forum moderators, Fraser Rew:
| |||||||||||
3NT was the only making game, but there's no way to get there unless North takes a gamble on the first round. A transfer method such as Switch would probably have solved the problem.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Another problem from Frank Stewart, and this one also carries some confusion about partner's heart suit. There are a couple of theories about why partner didn't open 2:
Patrick Huang: 4. North didn't open a weak 2 so could be 4-6 in the majors. All my honours are working, so it's an easy 4 raise. North could hold Qxxx-K109xxx-Ax-x. Not sure if the 1NT rebid has denied four spades. If it has, then I might try 3 to reach 3NT in case North holds something like xx-KQxxxx-AJx-xx, and deemed it too strong for a weak two opening.
I was always taught that there is no such thing as a hand that is too strong for 2 and too weak for 1. If that was true in 1990, it's even more true today, where passing with six hearts is a great way to get shut out of an auction.
Sartaj took a different view, but ended in the same place:
Sartaj Hans: 4. Partner has some sort of a flawed preempt. Likely long weak hearts with some outside cards e.g. x-10xxxxxx-Kx-Axx. Game has play opposite that hand and he could have a bit more (e.g 10) which would increase further our prospects.
I'm completely behind Sartaj here, because I really don't expect my partners to jump to 3 with four spades.
In any case, the majority seem to be on board with the whole four-spades theory, so the strong spade support is pushing them to game:
Rainer Herrmann: 4. Partner seems to have spades.
Mick McAuliffe: 4. Maybe try 3NT in MPs, but lead will go thru partner and might be disastrous.
Martyn Rew: 4. A vulnerable game justifies pushing the boat out for IMPs.
Damo Nair: 4. Does North play weak twos? Whatever it is, we are vulnerable and North did bid 3.
Fraser Rew: 4. Partner invites and I have a maximum that's unsuitable for 3NT. What's the problem?
Ronald Lel: 4. I do not like the methods. Why do we not play 2 as checkback here? Why did partner not open 2 with 6 pieces? Anyway with 5 controls I am hardly passing.
We do play Checkback Ron, which makes it even harder to find a hand consistent with partner's auction. Unfortunately, Frank didn't supply the details.
Neil Silverman: 4. Must admit I am not sure what methods are in this bridge contest, as most people play two-way new minor. So which is stronger? It is IMPs, so I would just shrug and bid game. .
Neil Ewart: 4. Looks most likely that the 3 bidder is 6-4 majors.
Carmel Gammal: 4. Partner showing a six-card suit, and they must have points elsewhere.
Dan Baker: 4. Partner's 3 is a bit tricky to read since he's a passed hand. I'm guessing around 9 HCP with 4-6 majors (he would use new minor forcing with only 5 hearts, but didn't open 2). If I'm right about that, odds are we have three minor losers and a decent chance at running the rest.
Emil Battista: 4. Temped to say, what else? So, I won't and await reasons for other choices
Roger Yandle: 4. The allure of a vul game at IMPs is too tempting to pass up, even though I don't have great hopes of making it.
Tony Treloar: 4. Vulnerable at IMPs I bid game, would probably pass non-vulnerable of at MPs.
John R Mayne: 4. What the heck does partner have? This is going to depend on the partner, but maybe Qxxx-KQTxxx-Jxx-void? Anyway, partner is asking me to go if I have good stuff for hearts. I do. He's playing it, so it's his problem now.
Alexander Shchennikov: 4. Partner should have about KQxxxxx and a side ace. It should be enough for 4.
Peter Robinson: 4. When I first saw this, I thought, what's the problem? Partner's bid is invitational, and I have some good cards, and we bid game at the drop of a tea-towel. Then I started wondering how partner could not have some sort of opening bid. But in the end, his bid is invitational, and I have some good cards. It really depends on whether his shortage is in the minors (likely) or in spades (duplication, less likely).
There were a few exceptions:
Marc Smith: Pass. Am I really playing with someone who would not open 2 with Qxxx-KQxxxx-Qx-x because he has four spades? How 1980s, but that seems to be the only explanation for his strange bidding.
Steve and Barbara Shepard: Pass. Not sure why partner didn't open 2 but we're pessimistic about our game chances opposite a passed hand.
David Appleton: Pass. Partner either has a poor suit or four spades (given our opening style from Q2). It ought to be the former since they could show the latter. Simply I have three tricks; does a passed hand have six or seven?
Paul Lavings: Pass. With KQxxxx and an ace I would open 1, but what does North have to jump? I would suggest not enough for game.
Melissa Iverach: Pass. I've already described my hand. Partner knows I have 2 from the 1NT rebid. If partner had strength for game he would have bid 4 himself or showed me some feature. I expect Partner has long hearts and little else.
Michael Davy: Pass. my eight losers opposite a passed hand is enough.
Hans van Vooren: Pass. Not having opened 2, partner's heart suit is probably very weak, in which case my hand hasn't improved at all.
Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Partner couldn't open and I have eight losers.
Cor Lof: Pass. Partner did not open so I don't think we miss a game.
Ronald Lokers: Pass. Partner didn't open, so I think this is high enough.
Christer Enkvist: Pass. Respecting partner's inital pass.
David Matthews: Pass. This is strange. Why didn't partner open with 2? I think partner must have a poor hand with seven broken hearts and was embarrassed to open 3 with such a bad suit. I can't see us making game. Trust partner.
Ken Berry: Pass. This time I feel partner will be happy with a pass.
Peter Vlas: Pass. Too many losers in the minors.
There is one option remaining: one of the panellists bid 3, but that was mainly because she didn't notice that partner is a passed hand, and was looking for slam.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
This one is an unusual problem for a bidding forum, because we all knew that 1 would get the top score (whatever the merit of the bid).
Alex Kemeny: 1. "High fives". No reason to start corrupting the hand by replying 1.
Peter Vlas: 1. Despite the quality of the hearts I see no reason to deviate from normal bidding
Carmel Gammal: 1. Higher of two five-card suits.
Tony Treloar: 1. I should be able to get both suits out, not too concerned about the difference in suit quality.
Dan Baker: 1. Lead directing has less value when you have the boss suits. I want to be able to show both, and I can't do that after 1 without overstating my values and misstating my shape.
Paul Sontag: 1. Will someone bid 1? I'm guessing no.
Wrong.
Neil Silverman: 1. This is more of a guessing game than a bridge problem. If partner is going to rebid 1NT or 2 you want to bid 1. If he is going to bid 2 then you will lose hearts. Biggest problem is, if he is 4-2-4-3 he will bid 1NT. That gets me to bid 1.
Ronald Lel: 1. This seems obvious.
Alexander Cook: 1. With 5-5 bid the higher one first. The real question is what to do on the second round when partner rebids 2.
Given the obvious problems with 1, I asked the 1 bidders to explain their future plans over 2. Most people obliged, and quite a few chose 2:
Fraser Rew: 1 then 2. In for a penny, in for a pound. Sure, we'll often get too high, but one off in 4 is better than three off in 2.
Emil Battista: 1 then 2. Not vulnerable against vulnerable I would rebid 3.
Martyn Rew: 1 then 2. playing in either minor does not look like the best option here. I might need to bid hearts again to show it is a genuine suit though.
Ken Berry: 1 then 2. What comes next?
David Matthews: 1 then 2. I only play 4th suit forcing to game at the three-level. At the one- and two-level it is only forcing to the next level of notrump. So I can bid 2 here and await partners bid. We might get into trouble but there may be a Major suit game on.
In the notes, 2 is forcing to game, so this is an alternative way to bid the hand:
Barbara Whitmee: 1 then 3. Best way to describe my hand.
Martyn Rew (2nd answer): 1 then 3. Partner has not precluded a three-card major in their bidding, and if they do have one, this hand looks quite good.
Other options for the 1 bidders:
Sophie Ashton: 1 then 2. It's not until you contemplate all the difficult options after a 1 bid that you realise the difficulty of this hand! At the table I would have bid 1 as that's the normal thing to do but there is an argument for bidding 1. However, this is how I'd likely bid at the table - maybe partner will show extras and follow up 2 pref with 2 or 2NT and you can then bid game in spades or potentially introduce your hearts (in case p has 1354).
John R Mayne: 1 then 2. Well, this is awful. You're not much better placed if you start with 1. 2 doesn't have to end the auction, and when it doesn't, we win. It's IMPs so if we're in the wrong partial it won't cost too much depending on the degree of the Burn's Law of Total Trumps violation. (A 4-1 fit is a severe violation of the Law of Total Trumps: As declarer, have more trumps than the opponents.)
Matthew Thomson: 1 then 2NT. Bidding 1 may well work best but if partner has their most likely hand - a balanced 12-14 then 1 works best, and on a good day they'll have four spades and we'll make 4. I'm not seeing demons.
Robert Black: 1 then 2NT. Hoping to stop partner bidding on with a misfit.
Michael Ware: 1 then Pass. 1 is clear - partner is way more likely to rebid 1NT than 2, and then we have a nice 2 rebid. Over 2 it is ugly. If 2 was natural we would bid that, but it isn't.
Roger Yandle: 1 then Pass. hopefully the opps will lead a heart after this auction and then pard can rough a couple of diamonds in my hand.
Hans van Vooren: 1 then Pass. If partner insists on rebidding 2, I will have the same tough decision to make even if I started with 1. As I don't know what's going to happen, I'm going for the normal 1 bid, feeling a lot less silly if partner happens to rebid 1NT.
Almost a third of the panel and a quarter of the readers took the unconventional route:
Damo Nair: 1. This might one of those very rare times where 1 is the right bid. Is 2 (fourth suit), forcing to game or a one-round force? Over 2 I'll try 2, and should be able to play it there opposite a singleton.
Peter Barker: 1. I bid (and rebid) a suit which shows my strength rather than those anaemic spades. If I were to bid spades partner would not have a clear picture of my hand. I prefer to rebid 2 hearts than pass or show preference over a minor bid from partner.
Cor Lof: 1. I only want to play in spades if partner bids them.I am afraid that I have troubles with a rebid if I start with spades if partner rebids diamonds or bids clubs. My hearts are a lot better than my spades.
Melissa Iverach: 1. I'm not strong enough to show both majors, so I choose to show the strongest. If Partner shows spades by responding 1, I will jump to 4.
Peter Robinson: 1. If you want to get technical about it, I have occasionally treated the spade holding as a four-card suit, and I have occasionally treated he heart holding as a six-card suit. But the clincher is that over 1, partner can introduce a weak four-card spade suit with little risk. By the way, I regard this as reversing values. All I need is a trick more than minimum to reverse.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 1. Let's treat this like I have 4-5-2-2.
Ronald Lokers: 1. The options offered here after bidding 1 show the problem. I rather avoid that problem and bid 1 here, and 2 after partner bid 2.
Pat O'Connor: 1. Treat spades as an honorary four-card suit.
Mick McAuliffe: 1. I decided my bid before looking at the options; as it is not there, I will rebid 2 over a 2 bid by partner. (Also, Hand 4 in the July quiz... shouldn't Pass be the 100-point answer and just occasionally, the "experts" mostly got it wrong?)
I mentioned earlier that I tend to include even the unlikely options in the drop-down box, and I thought I'd done so here; maybe I missed one. In any case, all the options approved by the panel were certainly included. On Hand Four from the last quiz I did include the Pass in the list, and I think its score of 80 points was quite generous – I'd be inclined to take the experts' advice on that one. I'd be interested to hear your case for the opposition.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are three problems in this set with only two options, which is unusual; I usually go out of my way to avoid problems with only two answers. I have to admit, after 20+ years running this forum, I'm starting to struggle finding new problems that capture my interest. If you have any hands that you think would be suitable please send them. Be warned, I do reject about 90% of the problems that I receive, for countless different reasons that many people would deem arbitrary – I'm a lot pickier than most people. But for every problem that does make it into the column, I'll offer a six-month extension to your magazine subscription.
Our two options here are to show our second suit, or to not. The top vote, by a small margin, goes to not:
Peter Barker: Pass. Worryingly, I can't see the problem. I don't believe my hand is good enough to raise a level, and I will be comfortable if the hand was to be passed out. I await to be enlightened.
Peter Robinson: Pass. OK, I don't get this. Am I supposed to be frightened that hearts may be better than diamonds (pure speculation), or am I supposed to redouble to play? I've made a perfectly sensible bid and nothing I've heard since suggests that I made a mistake. Opponents seem to have a lot to prove. Maybe they can bid clubs, but they could have done that anyway.
Mick McAuliffe: Pass. I can't see that "my lot" improves any by bidding on at this point. Maybe partner has the right hand for us to make game, and maybe West has about 3-1-4-5.
Melissa Iverach: Pass. I'm happy playing 2 doubled. I'm picking East for 5-5 hearts and diamonds, leaving partner long in clubs and spades with a heart doubleton. I should be able to cross trump to make 2. If East rebids hearts I may double him for penalties.
Dan Baker: Pass. Considered Redouble (good hand, good suit, not worried about a potential trap pass by West), but if the auction should develop in such a way that showing the hearts seems wise, redouble then hearts sounds like a cue and pass then hearts might not. 3 (to block out 2 or 3) is also a possibility.
Fraser Rew: Pass. And sniff the air before I decide whether to compete to 3 over 2 or 3. Looks like a huge misfit, and I'm not going to tempt fate by redoubling. 2 is tempting, but even if we have a fit there, there will be a lot of handling required to bring in the diamonds.
If East hadn't bid hearts we would be very optimistic with this hand, so a lot of people were not willing to let East's 1 bid (which could be 6542) bring down the mood:
Alexander Cook: 2. This should be natural.
John R Mayne: 2. I think this double should be values; mightn't we get to play it here? Yes, we may lose the heart suit if things blast off from here, but we're not off to a blast-off start.
Hans van Vooren: 2. Last chance to describe my hand at a decent level. West didn't double 2, so I'm not going to get killed in 2, while 4 is still very much on the menu. If I pass, West will bid 2 or 3, and bidding then is a lot less fun.
Peter Vlas: 2. Last moment to show my excellent hearts.
Roger Yandle: 2. let pard know to lead hearts if he gets the chance.
Damo Nair: 2. Looks obvious to me. Never 3, retelling the same story. North could easily have 2 or 3 hearts.
Neil Silverman: 2. Where are all the spades and clubs? If partner has them, bidding will be a mistake. My feel is the risk is worth the reward.
This problem is from Boye Brogeland's magazine, Bridge i Norge.
Thanks again for being a part of our forum. The December questions are available here, and the October 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. If you're on the fence, please know that the magazine could really use your support. SUBSCRIBE HERE.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
