Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the fourth set of the 2025 annual competition. With one third of the year’s scores in the books, the leader-board is beginning to take shape. Remember that only your best nine scores will count, so entering every month will enable you to drop your three weakest scores.
We start with more congratulations from the US Nationals in Memphis, which was also the venue for the final of the WBF World Tour.
The winners were two Australians, one who has been a member of our panel for a while, Andy Hung, and another who is our newest panel member(see below), Sartaj Hans.
This month’s guest panelists are the co-winners of the February competition, in which all four scored a perfect 80/80. Venkatesh Ramaratnam is based in Bengaluru, India, and took early retirement from the IT industry. He began playing 30+ years ago, and represented India in the World Junior Championships in the late 90s. He has subsequently won numerous national titles, and he has donned roles including coach, commentator, director and administrator. Maurizio Partesano is a retired 74-year-old amateur player. He lives in Biella, a small town in Italy’s Piedmont region, with his wife Manuela and their three cats (Michetta, Boh and Cino). Nuno Quaresma from Portugal is a 56-year-old dentist who learned bridge in his final year at university. He was a regular tournament player for almost 15 years, but the demands of career and family life put a halt to that 20 years ago. He says, “I still love the game, and I meet up with a group of friends to discuss the bidding problems each month. I intend to return regularly to the table after my retirement (current prediction: 2043).” Doug Baxter is a Canadian who has been playing since 1977. With his current partner, David Lindop, Doug has represented Canada in one Bermuda Bowl and, more recently, in two D'Orsi Bowls (the World Seniors Teams). Welcome to you all!
As heralded above, we are also delighted to welcome a new member of the panel this month, Australian star Sartaj Hans. Sartaj has been a regular member of the Australian Open team since making his debut at the 2004 Olympiad. He collected a silver medal from the Transnational Teams at the 2011 world championships in Veldhoven. At the 2022 world championships in Wroclaw, his Aussie/Kiwi team reached the Last 16 of the main event, and Sartaj also made it to the final of the Open Pairs playing with Peter Gill. Sartaj and fellow-panelist Andy Hung were both members of the team that finished second in the prestigious Reisinger BAM Teams in 2024. We’ll keep an eye open to see how closely their choices align.
Three of this month’s problems have been sent to me: Hand 8 by panelist Barnet Shenkin, and two by regular competition entrants: Hand 1 comes from the early annual competition lead, Venkatesh Ramaratnam from India, and Hand 6 from New Zealand’s Peter Barker. Thanks to all of them. If you have a hand that you think would make an interesting problem for the panel to discuss, please send me the details.
The panel produce a majority vote on only two hands in this set, but every deal has at least one action that attracts eleven or more panelists. After a tough couple of months, competitors will be glad to learn that there are plenty of high-scoring opportunities on these hands.
The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on four of the eight hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores a respectable 63/80 (well up from 45/80 in March). The average score this month is 54.97 (significantly up from 47.62 on Set 25-03).
On a number of this month’s deal, there are questions about the meaning of some actions, so plenty of discussion topics for regular partnerships. Let’s see what the panel has to say…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♣ |
10 |
19 |
30 |
|
4♦ |
7 |
4 |
10 |
|
5♣ |
6 |
3 |
2 |
|
5♦ |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
4♠ |
4 |
0 |
20 |
|
3♠ |
2 |
1 |
14 |
|
3♦ |
2 |
0 |
14 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.38
We start with the panel’s largest majority vote of the set, and almost a third of competitors start with maximum marks. However, significant numbers of competition entrants voting for weak, non-forcing actions such as 3♦/3♠/4♠ bring down the average score on this deal. Let’s start with a couple of solo efforts…
ALAN MOULD: 3♠. I cannot think of anything clever to do.
Evidently, Alan. I’m sure your partner will have some suggestions at the end of the board.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5♦. I wish I knew what partner’s double meant.
Perhaps the panel will enlighten you P-O. At least you get to game.
I thought that the choice of the next faction would attract more support. It seems likely to simplify the rest of the auction, at least.
SALLY BROCK: 4♦. I don’t think partner’s double shows clubs, just extra values.
DOUG BAXTER: 4♦. Great trump support is the key feature of this hand, so I show that, rather than start with an ambiguous cue-bid. I can cue-bid 5♣ over 4♥ from partner.
NUNO QUARESMA: 4♦. Showing the diamond support. I think this hand is slightly below cue-bid strength (devaluating both kings).
The French make a key point for me – the objective of bidding is to decide on a suit and a level, and the sooner you do the first of those, the more room you have to get the second right.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♦. In this situation, North’s 3♣ bid may be long clubs and nothing else. So, partner’s double can be fairly wide-ranging, depending on his number of spades. For us, Ax/AQx/AQ10xxx/xx or Qxx/Ax/AQJxx/xxx, or even Q/AQxx/AQJxxx/Qx would all double. It seems better to show our diamond fit and concentrate on reaching the right level, rather than starting with a nebulous cue-bid. If partner bids 4♥, our next move will be 4NT (keycard), the risk that partner holds the ♣A being minimal.
The large majority all prefer to start with a cue-bid.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♣. Preserving all options.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♣. Keeping all options open.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4♣. I don’t know where we are going, but starting with a cue-bid should be a good idea.
WENFEI WANG: 4♣. I’m not sure yet if we belong in spades or diamonds. I’ll show enough to force to game and see what partner does next.
HANOI RONDON: 4♣. I have a great hand and I can play in either spades or diamonds, so let's hear where partner’s preference is. We'll worry about the level later.
BARNET SHENKIN/CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♣.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♣. Easy for now. What is partner’s double? I suspect we are headed for 6♦, but let’s go slowly.
Maurizio seems to think even a jump to 4♦ might be non-forcing.
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: 4♣. I am too strong for a simple 4♦.
JOEY SILVER: 4♣. This bid is easy. However, the follow-ups, I am sure, will cause pause.
Some also tell us how they plan to advance the auction.
PAUL MARSTON: 4♣. I plan on bidding 4♠ next. This sequence must imply diamond support or I would have just bid 4♠ now.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♣. I think this should show spades and diamonds with a shortness in clubs. Later, I can bid 5♣ as RKCB exclusion.
JILL MEYERS: 4♣. I play that the double of 3♣ shows extras. Looking at this hand, it feels like partner may intend it as a penalty double, but I am still bidding 4♣. If partner continues with 4♦, I’ll raise to 6♦. If she bids 4♥, I can bid 5♦ and, if partner bids 4♠, I will roll out RKCB.
SARTAJ HANS: 4♣. We would like to head towards spades when partner has something like Axx/xxx/AQxxxx/x. But the double does not promise spade support. It could be a good overcall, angling for 3NT or 5♦, for example Qx/AQx/AQJ10xx/xx. I’ll show some strength with a cue-bid and, hopefully, partner’s next bid will set us on the right path.
MATS NILSLAND: 4♣. I'm not sure we agree that double may just show a good hand. I may rebid the spades at some point but, for now, diamonds are okay as trumps.
DAVID BIRD: 4♣. Partner will not hold much in clubs, so I can almost 'see' the ♠A and ♥A. I will cue-bid in clubs before heading for 6♦.
Only Larry seems worried that partner’s double is for penalties.
LARRY COHEN: 4♣. I suppose this double is for penalties, but I'm not in the business of defending with voids in their suit and great support for partner's. It will, however, deter me from driving too high, and I'll probably let partner out in 4♠ or 5♦.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 4♣. Our 1♠ was forcing, and partner's double should be various invitational or better hands. Game should be a cinch, with good chances for slam in either pointed suit. I considered a bid of 5♣ to show my void, but felt 4♣ is better as 5♣ leaves partner no elbow room unless it is clearly defined as Exclusion RKC.
And, not only clearly defined as Exclusion, but Exclusion for which suit?
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 4♣. I could bid 5♣ showing a void and agreeing diamonds (not Exclusion for me), but 4♣ is okay.
Andrew sums up the case both for and against the final option.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♣. This should be a void-showing splinter for diamonds. What can go wrong?
So, does it just show a void, or is it Exclusions RKC?
SJOERT BRINK: 5♣. Partner’s double is take out. My hand is super good, and jumping to 5♣ should show both the void and slam interest. 6♦ would be my choice if I had to guess the contract now.
Ah ok, it just shows a void, or does it…?
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. If this is Exclusion RKC, I think that I the best way to go. We are likely to be able to make 6♦ and perhaps 7♦. The alternative is 4♣.
At the table, West bid 5♣, which was apparently Exclusion Blackwood agreeing spades. His partner showed the three missing aces and West could ask about the ♠Q, but he then had to decide whether to bid the grand and hope the diamonds were solid. Partner had AQ/Axx/AQJxx/Jxx so 7♦ and 7♠ were both excellent.
7♦ would be a good spot even without the ♠Q. It seems to me that 4♦ (clearly forcing) probably makes it easiest to get there, unless a jump to 5♣ is specifically defined as Sjoert suggests, as a slam try in diamonds with a club void. Regular partnerships should at least agree on the meaning of East’s double and of a jump to 5♣ now.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4NT |
10 |
11 |
23 |
|
5♠ |
10 |
11 |
16 |
|
5NT |
9 |
0 |
6 |
|
6♣ |
8 |
0 |
1 |
|
5♣ |
6 |
1 |
13 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
5 |
40 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.32
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! A bonanza for almost everyone, with the two most popular choices from the panel both scoring the maximum. However, the largest group of competition entrants should perhaps be thankful to score as many as 5/10, thanks to finding a handful of panelist in their corner, whilst the rest of the panel members explain why double is likely to be disastrous. A similar number of competitors are split between the two options that score ‘10’. Let’s start with those panelists who concur with the largest group of competitors…
PAUL MARSTON: Dbl. Only partner can see his spade holding.
A couple are hoping a higher power will rescue them from themselves.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Dbl. Praying for partner to bid at the five-level, or 4NT to offer a choice of suit.
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: Dbl. If partner bids a suit at the five-level, I will raise to slam.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Dbl.
SJOERT BRINK: Dbl. I know I do the wrong thing... Sorry, partner.
“Your nuts, M’Lord,” Baldrick says to Blackadder, as he hands round the pistachios.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4NT. Bob Hamman told me to not double again with a void. It puts too much pressure on partner. Just bid 4NT and raise his suit to slam.
SARTAJ HANS: 4NT. Since there is almost no chance that partner will pull a double of 4♠, even with a suitable hand like xx/Kxxx/xxxx/Qxx, I feel compelled to take a unilateral action and force partner to bid. Perhaps the opponents will dive in with 5♠, which I will risk doubling.
DAVID BIRD: 4NT. It seems clear to look for a trump fit first, however I intend to continue. A take-out double would nearly always be passed, so that would be a poor idea when a vulnerable slam is likely our way.
For most, it is only a question of identifying the right suit before bidding a slam.
MARTY BERGEN: 4NT. En route to six or seven, but I might as well be economical.
ALAN MOULD: 4NT. Go on then, I will drive to slam.
BARNET SHENKIN: 4NT.
NUNO QUARESMA: 4NT. Hopefully, by not doubling again, I´m showing a stronger hand and the spade void.
Although a couple are not convinced about how many to bid, they also recognize the need to make a suit other than spades trumps.
HANOI RONDON: 4NT. If I double, partner will pass. 5♠ seems too much, so let's hear from partner, and then decide, although I will probably to go to six anyway.
DOUG BAXTER: 4NT. I am not keen to defend. I do not have quite enough to insist on slam, but 4NT still shows plenty of slam potential.
JILL MEYERS: 4NT. Boy, this is a tough hand. Vulnerable against not, I don't want to defend 4♠-doubled. I think 5♠ is a consideration, but partner could have a total blizzard so, for the time being, I’ll advance with 4NT, although I might very well raise whichever suit partner bids.
Cedric sums up the case for this faction.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4NT. Take out. You can make a slam with no points from partner. It is not my style to double again with a void.
The rest all commit to slam
SALLY BROCK: 5♠. Let’s just bid slam in his best suit.
WENFEI WANG: 5♠. This shows three suits.
JOEY SILVER: 5♠. Playing with Edgar Kaplan, I might chance a second takeout double, as he was a great believer that takeout doubles should be taken out. However, I would not trust a lesser mortal to bid, so I will put my big boy pants on, and just force to slam in a colour of partner's choosing.
Andrew and Migry both mention a third alternative that will achieve a similar result.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♠. A grand slam try with first-round spade control. (5NT would be small slam only, but both are pick-a-slam.)
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 5♠. Either 5♠ or 5NT seem okay. The one thing we certainly cannot do is to double again, as I don’t want partner to pass, which he will do with most hands.
MATS NILSLAND: 5♠. Cue-bidding the opponent's suit seems to be the theme of this session.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♠. We want to play a slam. Even if partner does not have what we need to make slam, the opponents may save anyway.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♠.
A couple more panelists emphasize the folly of a second double.
LARRY COHEN: 5♠. In the words of Marty Bergen, "voids are magical." If I double, partner will almost always leave it in. There are too many hands where we are laydown for slam and will collect an inadequate penalty. I could just bid 5NT for the same money, as partner is not likely to ever get us to seven. Also, if I am wrong, there is a good chance, we can collect an extra 600 against 6♠-X instead of 4♠-X.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 5♠. If we double again (which some might consider the mechanical bid), partner is odds on to pass with most semi-balanced hands. 4NT may be better if we were sure that it would be interpreted as a three-suited takeout with slam intent, but might partner construe it as a natural attempt to play there? We could have a grand if partner has as little as ♥K-x-x-x-x, so I choose 5♠ to show a void and a three-suited hand. Partner can use 5NT to get to the best strain or, occasionally, to invite a grand slam.
Sophia raises a question that regular partnerships might want to discuss.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5♠. This depends on agreements. For me, partner’s pass is forcing at this vulnerability. A double by East would have shown weakness. Assuming that is the case, it is only a matter of which suit we want to be in.
Having donned his pessimistic boots, P-O is flying solo here, and not for the last time this month. At least he will get a plus score, albeit a smaller one than most of the rest.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5♣. This might easily be too optimistic.
Are we looking at the same 13 cards?
Both West players had to answer this problem in the match between England and Ireland in this year’s Junior Camrose (enjoyed by many on VuGraph at RealBridge last month). The Irish player chose a second double, whilst England’s West preferred a 5♠ cue-bid. Partner had almost a Yarborough, but his shape was suitable: Jxx/xx/xxx/xxxxx, so 7♣ was cold with trumps 2-1. +1390 for 6♣+1 was worth 18 IMPs, as 4♠-doubled also made for -590. (South was 5-2-5-1 and the ♥K-J was in the North hand.) Surely no one think that partner should remove a second double to go to the five-level on that hand!
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
6NT |
10 |
13 |
44 |
|
6♣ |
9 |
11 |
23 |
|
5♣ |
6 |
0 |
8 |
|
5NT |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
7♣ |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
7NT |
6 |
3 |
6 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
5♠ |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.69
For most of the panel, this turned out to be a two-way choice between small slam contracts, and two-thirds of competitors did much the same. A few bemoaned the lack of methods to explore possibilities for a grand slam, which perhaps provides regular partnerships with something to discuss. The key question it seems, is whether anything other than a pass of 4NT accepts partner’s quantitative invitation. Although no panelist even mentioned 5♣, if it is forcing (as I think it should be), is that not the obvious way to explore? For a start, partner will cue-bid the ♦A if he has it. Perhaps you can then sort out the major-suit situation.
SALLY BROCK: 6♣. My best guess!
WENFEI WANG: 6♣. I hope we can make slam.
SJOERT BRINK: 6♣. Let’s go for it.
ALAN MOULD: 6♣. See hand 1
BARNET SHENKIN/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 6♣.
NUNO QUARESMA: 6♣. Partner has shown some values, which will be useful in 6♣.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 6♣. To bid 4NT, my partner should have about two controls (an ace or two kings). Let’s see if we can make slam.
A few recognized that this may not be enough…
PAUL MARSTON: 6♣. We may be able to make seven, but I am not willing to gamble.
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 6♣. A grand slam is a strong possibility, but finding out if he has exactly the ♦A and the right king is too tough to do.
Sartaj makes a good case for choosing to play in clubs.
SARTAJ HANS: 6♣. There is no guarantee that partner has good diamonds. Why can he not have something like KQx/Kx/109xxxx/xx? 5NT pick-a-slam is never going to get a 6♣ bid from him, so we’d better do the job ourselves.
The largest faction made their decision with an eye on the form of scoring.
JILL MEYERS: 6NT. Just because it is matchpoints. I would bid 6♣ at IMPs.
DAVID BIRD: 6NT. At IMPs, I would bid the safer 6♣. I was once about to start writing a book on matchpoints and emailed Boye Brogeland for advice. 'Bid 6NT' was the somewhat limited assistance I received. If I get top marks here, I may send him a belated thank-you email.
DOUG BAXTER: 6NT. I would bid 6♣ at IMPs, but I expect most pairs will bid the slam and there are many hands where 6NT is just as good, or makes on a heart finesse and/or a non-spade lead.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 6NT. It’s matchpoints. At IMPs, 6♣ might be better. I don’t play 2/1 on a regular basis, but I assume that partner has excluded some hand types by not bidding 3♦ directly over 2♣.
Yes, he won’t have something like ♦A-Q-J-x-x-x. With that he would make a positive response.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 6NT. This is the practical bid at matchpoints. But we are surely making seven, unless partner has Kxx/Kxx/QJxxx/xx.
JOEY SILVER: 6NT. I have too many club tricks to refuse partner's invitation, and the siren call of matchpoints beacons me to bid the slam in no-trumps.
MATS NILSLAND: 6NT. It’s matchpoints, and 6NT should be a good result - if I make it!
MARTY BERGEN: 6NT. This rates to make.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 6NT. It is difficult to investigate a grand slam. We can bid 5♥, and maybe hear that partner has no spade control, but that would not guarantee the ♦A and the ♥K. Surely, he could have Qxx/Jxx/AJ10xx/xx for his 4NT.
We take the opportunity to say that our responses to a 2♣ opening bid show the number of Italian controls. So, 2♠, for instance, would show three, usually one ace and one king which, as you can see, would be a great help to know that at the two-level!
Really? Thes rest of the world abandoned control-showing responses to 2♣ sometime around the 1970s. You guys really should get out more 😊
CATHY BALDYSZ: 6NT.
Andrew is aware that even the small slam might be on a finesse.
ANDREW ROBSON: 6NT. Partner rates to have, in the worst case, something like Qxx/xxx/AQxxx/xx. Even then, they have to lead something, and partner could have a useful card such as the ♣10.
Whilst Miguel is more concerned that we may have 13 top tricks.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 6NT. We may have a grand slam opposite the right 8-9 count, but I have no way of locating partner's points.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 6NT. Partner's sequence shows around 8-9 HCP but probably not a good diamond suit (else start with 3♦ on the first round). My initial idea was to bid 7NT, assuming partner will hold the ♦A and one of the major-suit kings, and probably another queen too, in which case we should have 13 tricks. However, I subsequently realized that partner can have also have something like KQx/Kxx/Qxxxx/xx, in which case we may be off the ♦A. With no obvious way to explore. I reluctantly settle for the small slam.
A merry band were willing to take a shot for all the marbles.
LARRY COHEN: 7NT. To make up for my underbid last time. Picture the ♦A and ♥K. Partner will have more than that. Picture ♦A-Q-J-10-x-x. Picture ♦A-Q and ♠K, and we are at worse on a finesse. (I am giving myself seven club tricks.) :)
Someone once observed (it might have been me but I don’t remember) that the best partners always produce the dummy to justify my bidding. Maurizio clearly has an excellent partner.
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: 7NT. 4NT should mean the ♦A and at least one of the major-suit kings.
HANOI RONDON: 7NT. I expect something else from partner besides A-Q in diamonds. That’s enough for 13 tricks, in my opinion.
Christian is the only one trying to find out more before committing himself.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5NT. I am trying for a grand slam, as I’ll have 13 tricks opposite a little as the ♦A and the ♥K, but it may need a finesse in others cases. I used to play 5♥ or 5♠ as asking bids, which would be very useful here.
Yes. Plenty here for regular partnerships to discuss. When the hand occurred, playing in a large but moderate field, partner had the perfect J10xx/Kxx/Axxxx/x, so there were 13 easy tricks. Almost no one got to a grand and, indeed, a third of the field played in 3NT or 5♣, and thus getting to only 6♣ scored above average.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5NT |
10 |
11 |
11 |
|
5♥ |
9 |
1 |
8 |
|
4NT |
8 |
2 |
19 |
|
Dbl |
8 |
11 |
18 |
|
6♣ |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|
5♣ |
3 |
0 |
24 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.92
Competitors are widely split on this one, although the largest group (nearly a quarter) chose on option that no panelist even mentioned. However, there were plenty of high-scoring choices to go around. The panel is primarily split into those who simply try to find the best slam (5NT/5♥/4NT) and those who double, some of whom intend it as takeout and some of whom are happy to defend. The key questions that I hoped this problem would answer is the meaning of both double and 4NT. I’m not sure that we have found out. Let’s listen…
PAUL MARSTON: Dbl. Why bid?
SALLY BROCK: Dbl. Not penalties really but, in any event, I’m happy to defend at white when partner has already bid NT.
SJOERT BRINK: Dbl. Just showing points.... Partner can bid if he wants. If bids 4♠, I can then bid 4NT showing both minors.
WENFEI WANG: Dbl. If partner bids something, I will raise to slam.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: Dbl. For me, this is a takeout double. My hand is too flat to take a more positive action.
ALAN MOULD: Dbl. See hand 1
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: Dbl. If partner bids 4♠, I’ll then try 5NT. Even giving partner a wasted king in hearts, slam is still good opposite something like AQxx/Kxx/Qxx/AQx.
CATHY BALDYSZ/BARNET SHENKIN: Dbl.
SARTAJ HANS: Dbl. It will probably go all pass, and we will possibly miss a slam. However, bidding feels very unilateral here. If partner bids 4NT (minors), I'll jump to 6♣.
Venkatesh sums up the case for this faction on the panel.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: Dbl. With combined partnership assets in excess of 30 HCP, we should be close to slam. However, partner's 2NT (instead of double) likely suggests at least three hearts. With the opponents in a nine-card fit with very few high cards, a penalty of +500/800 seems like a better proposition than bidding a dicey slam with bad breaks. If partner pulls the double, I will surely raise to slam.
A couple chose an alternative route, but is the meaning of this clear? Might it not be an attempt to play here after partner has bid a natural 2NT?
DAVID BIRD: 4NT. The meaning of double may be unclear. I will not risk it, even though I am marked with at most one heart and think it should be for take-out. 5NT, pick-a-slam, is a slight overbid. but bridge panelists are a macho bunch.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. They probably have 9-10 hearts, so Double is one option for me but, if partner bids 4♠, what could I then do? I could also pass intending to pass partner’s double, and collect 500 or 800 on a good day. However, we have a good chance of making slam in either minor or no-trumps, so that’s where I am heading.
The rest simply head for slam by one route or another…
MARTY BERGEN/JILL MEYERS: 5NT. Pick a slam.
DOUG BAXTER: 5NT. Pick a slam with some emphasis on the minors.
HANOI RONDON: 5NT. I think this is pick a minor. I hope to have the tricks we need.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5NT. We want to play a slam.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5NT. Let the genius pick the suit…
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5NT. Either slam in a minor or 6NT should be playable. If I double, what will happen is uncertain. How will partner take it?
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5NT. Partner is marked with at most three hearts (unless South is some kind of madman). If partner has a 4-3-4-2 shape, we want to play in diamonds and, with 4-3-2-4, in clubs. If we are off two aces, I'll be asking partner why he overcalled on such a bad 15-count.
LARRY COHEN: 5NT. I wish I could ask for aces, but that is not what 4NT would mean. I will have to just guess, and I am happy to play 6m at this form of scoring.
JOEY SILVER: 5NT. In the Colonies, this bid is treated as forcing, asking partner to suggest an alternative to no-trumps. Hopefully, the Mother Country got the memo. In the worst case scenario, we shoot it out (I know, illegal in England) in some number of no-trumps, most likely 6NT, which doesn't rate to be terrible.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5NT. It’s nice to have the fifth club, improving the chances of playing in the best fit (eg partner is 4-3-3-3). Of course, doubling and collecting a penalty could be the best option, but…
This looks like an alternative way to achieve the same end…
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: 5♥. If 2NT is strong and natural, we should have a slam.
NUNO QUARESMA: 5♥. Investigating the best slam.
MATS NILSLAND: 5♥. The choice seems to be between doubling or aiming for a slam. Partner probably has K-x or A-x in hearts (in worst case A-K). I have only one jack (good for slam) and we should have a fit in one of the minors. If he has Axx/Ax/Qxxx/AQxx or five diamonds we may make even a grand slam, but I don't know how to find out.
P-O must have got his pilot’s license, as he has been doing a lot of solo flying in this set.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 6♣. I wish we had methods to find out if partner has AQx/A10xx/QJxx/Qx or AQx/KJx/xxx/AQx.
At the table, partner had Ax/A10x/Qxxxx/AQx, so there were 13 top tricks in clubs, diamonds or NT. I don’t think anyone is raising 6♦, so that looks like +940s for most of the panel. Leading trumps (or a minor-suit ace and a trump switch) holds declarer to just five trump tricks in 4♥-doubled (South was 7-4-1-1), so you can get +1100 defending. Probably a small swing in favour of the doublers whose partners’ pass.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♠ |
10 |
11 |
11 |
|
5NT |
9 |
8 |
6 |
|
6♦ |
8 |
4 |
30 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
3 |
22 |
|
6♣ |
5 |
1 |
0 |
|
6♥ |
5 |
1 |
12 |
|
7♦ |
2 |
0 |
6 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
8 |
|
6NT |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.24
This is the most divisive hand of this set, with the panel offering varying degrees of support for six different options. There is also a lack of clarity as to the meaning of various actions, notably 5♠, 5NT and perhaps 6♣. More for regular partnerships to discuss. The largest group of competitors, nearly a third, scored fairly well for simply raising partner’s suit to the six-level, although many members of the panel were not yet willing to give up on other/higher alternatives. Let’s start with those who bid their own suit…
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 5♥. I am hoping this is forcing.
You are alone there, Migry.
SARTAJ HANS: 5♥. It is tempting to force to slam, but that risks losing the hearts. 5♥ might get a raise, or it might be our best spot.
JOEY SILVER: 5♥. My first inclination was to pass, but that is too pessimistic, so I will invite slam by showing partner where I truly live. I intend to pass partner's next bid (except of course 5NT, over which I will bid 6♣).
Whilst Zia makes what looks like a matchpoint choice.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 6♥. I have no idea!
The next faction settles for a simple raise.
BARNET SHENKIN/CATHY BALDYSZ: 6♦.
A couple of accurate predictions from two of our Women’s world champions.
SALLY BROCK: 6♦. I think partner has to have a pretty good suit to jump to 5♦ here. It also looks as if he has spade length, so could be very short in hearts.
JILL MEYERS: 6♦. We could be cold for seven if partner has ♦K-Q-x-x-x-x-(x). However, he could easily have ♦-Q-x-x-x-x-x-x and ♣K-Q, and then the grand would be worse than a finesse.
Alan is flying solo on this one, and perhaps flirting with danger…
ALAN MOULD: 6♣. I cannot think of any hand that passes over 3♠ and then leaps to 5♦. King to eight maybe? I will try 6♣ as a grand try, although probably pointless. Maybe I should just bid a grand, but I don't have the courage for that. One thing is for sure - this hand has to be played in diamonds.
Despite your final comment, Alan, I would think there is at least a chance that you will be playing it in clubs 😊
PAUL MARSTON: 5NT. Buying some flexibility.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 5NT. Pick a slam. I’ll bid 6♦ over 6♣ to offer a choice of red suits.
HANOI RONDON: 5NT. Pick a slam. I don't want to impose hearts, so I’ll correct to 6♦ over 6♣ to offer a choice between the red suits.
So, 5NT is pick-a-slam and converting 6♣ to 6♦ will show red suits…
Or, it’s asking about the quality of partner’s suit…
DOUG BAXTER: 5NT. I think 5NT here should be Grand Slam Force agreeing diamonds. I expect partner to have very good diamonds - at least K-Q-x-x-x and, more likely, a six-card suit. With only five diamonds, I expect a side card (♣K or ♥Q would both be useful). If partner has only one diamond honour, I'll bid 6♥.
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: 5NT. Do you have the ♦K-Q, partner?
Better check with your regular partner to find out what he thinks 5NT means.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5NT.
I’m sure Marty understands the logic of this approach…
MARTY BERGEN: 5NT. If partner rebids 6♦, I'll raise to seven.
It’s time to hear from the largest faction on the panel.
MATS NILSLAND: 5♠. What is 5NT here? (Good question – see above! MS) Even if we agree that 4NT is RKC after a jump bid, I am not sure about 5NT in this auction. I am tempted just to bid 7♦, but I will start with 5♠ to see what happens.
WENFEI WANG: 5♠. A grand slam try.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♠. This is tricky, both in terms of strain and level. But I think ♦A-J is probably good enough support, so I’ll lock into diamonds and try for the grand.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♠. With ♦K-Q-10-x-x-x and nothing more, we would still have a good chance in 7♦.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 5♠. Partner's 5♦ should show at least a decent 6/7-card suit and one outside cover card. In that be case, we should be close to a grand slam. 5NT would be perfect if played as Josephine, but it could be misinterpreted as pick a slam, hence it seems best to start with 5♠, which should be an unambiguous grand slam try.
DAVID BIRD: 5♠. It is clear to make diamonds trumps. I may as well try 5♠ on the way to 6♦, although encouragement from partner seems unlikely.
LARRY COHEN: 5♠. I can't get myself to give up on the grand. I hope partner doesn't give me a slow 6♦.
SJOERT BRINK: 5♠. Grand slam try, showing a spade control.
NUNO QUARESMA: 5♠. My gut feeling is that we will end up in 7♦.
It is far from clear exactly how all of the above expect partner to respond. At least the French have discussed this situation, and they offer some advice on which partnerships might want to build.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♠. For us, 5NT would be key card BW (not Josephine) and that would make it impossible to find out about the queen of trumps. We expect that, holding KQxxxx(x) in diamonds, partner will bid 5NT over 5♠.
Or, an alternative approach from Christian…
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♠. 5♠ here should be RKCB with the responses: 0, 1, 1+Queen, 2... 5NT would initiate cue-bids.
This hand originated in England’s Premier Grand Masters Pairs (IMPs scoring). The East hand was J10xx/---/Q109xxx/KJx. This was the auction at our table and West tried 6♥, which went down when North had ♥Q-x-x and the ♦K, but 6♦ makes with careful play.
I would think that East would beat a hasty retreat to 6♦ over 5♠. Most rate to stop in the optimum contract, although a few panel members mentioned that they intend to bid on beyond 6♦, which is your last making spot.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♦ |
10 |
13 |
39 |
|
1♦ |
8 |
10 |
19 |
|
3♦ |
5 |
2 |
18 |
|
Pass |
5 |
2 |
5 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
17 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.91
This was a simple question of “How Many Diamonds?” The panel were split between two choices, with well over a third of competition entrants scoring a maximum. Let’s start with the smaller of the two main factions on the panel.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 1♦. This hand is too good for anything else.
ALAN MOULD: 1♦. Feel this isn't right for any sort of pre-empt.
DOUG BAXTER: 1♦. This may not be a popular choice, but I am too good for 3♦ and I don't want to bypass 3NT by opening 4♦.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 1♦. Maybe… I will apologize later if it goes wrong.
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: 1♦. This hand has too much offensive potential for a pre-emptive opening.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 1♦. This hand is too good for a first-seat white three-level pre-empt, and a four-level pre-empt is not very attractive with length in both majors. At these colours, I like to play light minor openings, so 1♦ just about fits the bill.
Andrew earns “Comment of the Month” honours for introducing two excellent new words into the English lexicon.
ANDREW ROBSON: 1♦. This hand is too majory and not diamondy enough for 4♦.
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 1♦. I’ll try 1♦, but any number of diamonds might be right.
NUNO QUARESMA: 1♦. You can make a case for either 1♦, 3♦ or 4♦ opening; I guess you don't want your partner to sacrifice needlessly.
SARTAJ HANS: 1♦. Second choice 4♦. It comes down to partnership style, really.
The largest group prefer to pre-empt.
SJOERT BRINK: 4♦. I like opening 4♦... so I do it as often as I can (and also with a diamond less and a club more).
DAVID BIRD: 4♦. Stick it to the opponents. If they bid over this, I expect to make at least one of my queens on defence.
HANOI RONDON: 4♦. Let's get the opponents too high for their values.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4♦. For me, this is a choice between 1♦ and 4♦. I prefer the pre-empt at matchpoints, as I feel that will be the choice of the field.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♦. Pre-empting in first position is okay for me. It’s hard to place any great value on the major-suit queens.
BARNET SHENKIN/SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♦.
LARRY COHEN: 4♦. I hope we're not playing Namyats.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♦. I wish I had less, but this vulnerability screams, "Pre-empt."
JILL MEYERS: 4♦. In my normal methods, I could open 3NT, showing a broken minor, but I am guessing that is not a standard treatment, in which case I would open 4♦.
For a couple, the choice was not less, but more…
JOEY SILVER: 4♦. I am embarrassed by my timidity. Chalk it up to old age.
WENFEI WANG: 4♦. This is enough on this hand.
SALLY BROCK: 4♦. It seems to leave them more room to go wrong than opening 5♦.
There were a few mavericks. First, the conservatives…
PAUL MARSTON: 3♦. I am a bit heavy for this, but I don’t like to bid more with major-suit length.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♦. For us, it is 3♦ or Pass. We are really too strong for 3♦ in first seat at these colors but, if the hand belongs to the opponents, we can easily score our major-suit queens in defence after such an opening bid. We believe that 4♦ is not in the equation and we dislike 1♦ too.
P-O has a good reason for shunning the most popular choice…
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 3♦. In my methods, 4♦ is not an option as it would show a very good 4♠ opening 😊
…And the ultra-conservatives.
MATS NILSLAND: Pass. I may be in the minority here, but I don't care.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
At the table, partner had AKJxx/Jxx/x/K109x. You could make nine tricks in spades or diamonds and doing so would get a 35-40% score. However, some E/W pairs scored +200 or more by tempting the opponents into the auction at the four-level. (North had xx/AKxx/KQx/Axxx). So, a win for the majority choice on this one.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♥ |
10 |
16 |
46 |
|
5♣ |
8 |
5 |
26 |
|
Pass |
7 |
7 |
24 |
|
Dbl |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.40
This is the question-setter’s Easter Bunny gift. With limited choices, it produces the second of our two majority votes from the panel, and nearly half of competitors cash in with a maximum. With 21/28 panelists choosing to bid on, I downgraded Pass in the marking, although everyone scores fairly well on this hand. Let’s start with the passers…
PAUL MARSTON: Pass. Two low spades puts me off bidding.
JILL MEYERS: Pass. I don’t think we are making 5♥, and I am not sure they are making 4♠.
They weren’t exactly pushed into it.
CATHY BALDYSZ/WENFEI WANG: Pass.
This seems like the worst of all worlds…
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: Pass. If partner doubles, I will pull to 5♥.
Mats was alone in objecting to our opening bid.
MATS NILSLAND: Pass. I would never have opened this hand. I have respect for Milton Work.
CHRISTIAN MARI: Pass. This should be wrong, but what is right?
Some think it’s obvious…
SJOERT BRINK: 5♥. What else?
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 5♥. I am not letting them play… yet.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♥. It could be wrong but, with this shape, I refuse to defend 4♠.
Some were already thinking about the lead problem if the opponents bid again…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5♥. Into the valley…. But I can’t wait to underlead the hearts.
Photo: John Steinberg
DAVID BIRD: 5♥. There is little purpose in introducing the clubs. If they take the push to five or six spades, I will seek fame (or ignomy) by leading the ♥9.
JOEY SILVER: 5♥. Keeping my magnificent clubs in reserve, I'll try to push the villains up a level, while contemplating leading the ♥3 against 5/6♠.
LARRY COHEN: 5♥. There is no need for anything fancy to direct a lead, since I will be on lead if they bid 5♠. I am glad you didn't ask me what I would lead against that.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♥. We are not in a forcing situation. We do not believe we can pass with such a distribution, and we are not tempted by the lead of a small heart.
Andrew always has great faith in his partner
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♥. I don’t want partner leading clubs, but a 5♦ bid for obfuscation and helping the defence is possible. However, if I underlead the hearts, it should not be beyond the wit of man for partner to work out why.
Oh, for the optimism of youth! Sophia is thinking about slam possibilities even when it seems much more likely that it is the opponents who may be able to make 12 tricks.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5♥. I would rather 2NT specifically showed either exactly invitational values or was game-forcing. I don't really have a good enough hand to investigate slam, even opposite a game-forcing hand.
BARNET SHENKIN/NUNO QUARESMA/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5♥.
A few mentioned the third alternative…
DOUG BAXTER: 5♥. I have huge playing strength and no defense. I don't think this club suit is worth mentioning with two quick spade losers.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♥. This is my limit. If the opponents continue to 5♠, I’ll pass. Bidding 5♣ is too likely to clarify the hand for the opponents who, on a lucky day, may be able to make 6♠.
SALLY BROCK: 5♥. It looks right to bid on. I know I could bid 5♣ to help him on the next round, but I am sooo minimum!
Some were willing to introduce their clubs…
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 5♣. Naturalish.
HANOI RONDON: 5♣. It's a little cringy, but the distribution calls for another action.
ALAN MOULD: 5♣. I have the death number of spades, but I cannot pass with this shape. 5♣ is not a slam try, just helping partner when they bid 5♠.
SARTAJ HANS: 5♣. There may be more bidding to come, so I want to help partner out with the knowledge of my second suit. Luckily, I'm on lead, so this should not lead to any opening lead disasters. If LHO bids 6♦ and that comes back to me, I'll take my "should" back.
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 5♣. We have little to no defense and plenty of offense. It is clear to take the push to five-level, but we also need to set the ground for a potential six-level decision (say if partner has club values and both sides have a double fit). Here, I like to play five-level bids as showing distributional extras, with any slam try going via 4NT (not RKC).
There was plenty of potential for excitement on this one. At the table, partner had x/8xxx/K10x/KQJxx, so NS make 4♠ and your side can make 5♣ or 5♥. That low heart lead against 5♠ is not looking so great now, though. With the opponents’ hearts breaking 2-2 and the ♦A in the North hand, just defending normally gets you two hearts and a diamond to nip 5♠ by a trick. The 5♣ bidders may well encourage partner to take the ‘save’ at the six-level.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4NT |
10 |
13 |
9 |
|
5♣ |
8 |
6 |
26 |
|
Pass |
7 |
9 |
59 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.11
We finish this set with another ‘play or defend’ question. And, if we choose to play, how do we show our hand? That 19/28 members of the panel chose to bid on is reflected in the marking. More than half of competitors opted for defence, but everyone scores relatively highly. A number of panelists objected to our 2♦ overcall, although I confess that when Barnet sent me the deal, I thought it looked fairly normal. Let’s start with those who agree with the largest group of competition entrants…
SALLY BROCK: Pass. Delighted (at least, at the moment!).
MAURIZIO PARTESANO: Pass. Partner has doubled for penalties and I have two tricks.
DAVID BIRD: Pass. Partner may have something good in trumps and a high card or two, and I am on lead with an ace-king. The flimsy diamonds put me off bidding 4NT.
PAUL MARSTON: Pass. Lacking agreement about double, I see no reason to bid.
DOUG BAXTER/P.-O. SUNDELIN/CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. Now that we have created this situation with our 2♦ overcall (not our cup of tea at all), we are happy to Pass with (hopefully) two defensive tricks.
JILL MEYERS: Pass. You could never persuade me to overcall 2♦ on this hand, so I would not be faced with this problem. If you hold a gun to my head, I will pass and hope I have a couple of clubs to cash and that partner has a couple of tricks.
For the rest, it was only a question of how to find our best spot.
ALAN MOULD: 4NT. I cannot pass with this shape. 4NT seems to keep every suit in play. I expect this to lead to a save against a cold 4♠.
CEDRIC LORENZINI: 4NT. Partner’s double is more card-showing that penalties. I don’t usually pass with a void.
SARTAJ HANS: 4NT. If partner's double is the classic "transferable values" type action, then I have no business passing it with a void spade. A great hand for partnership discussion.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. Showing 6-4.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4NT. This should show any 6-4.
HANOI RONDON: 4NT. Passing is for balanced hands. We've got pretty good offensive values. If we have a good fit in clubs or even hearts, we might be making some game+ contract.
WENFEI WANG: 4NT. Showing diamonds and another suit. I do not like the idea of defending 4♠-doubled with this hand.
LARRY COHEN: 4NT. See my "magic of voids" comment upstream.
More complaints about the 2♦ overcall…
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4NT. I don't like the 2♦ overcall on such a suit, so I would not be in this position. I am advancing with 4NT now to show 6-4 shape.
MIGRY zur CAMPONILE: 4NT. I’m not sure why I overcalled.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4NT. I feel sick!
VENKATESH RAMARATNAM: 4NT. Our initial overcall was based on shape, protecting partner with values who may be unable to enter the auction because of spade length. Partner's double is co-operative penalty (we should pass without sufficient extra shape). At these colors, and with our void and light shapely overcall, I take the insurance and bid 4NT to show 2/3 places to play. This should allow us to get to hearts when it is right, as partner will know I am not all minors (no 2NT overcall on the first round and not 5♣ now).
Andrew mentions the primary alternative…
ANDREW ROBSON: 4NT. I don’t think I’m supposed to pass with a void. Close between 4NT and 5♣ - am I supposed to have five clubs for 5♣ (and have chosen not to Unusual)?
NUNO QUARESMA: 5♣. Partner’s double shows general values. My clubs may not provide two defensive tricks if partner has length there. At this vulnerability, 5♣ may be the safest spot. Is there anyone else who doesn't like the 2♦ overcall?
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. I expect my ox to pass with a pure penalty double, so I have bidding rights, which I intend to exercise. (Great Expectations – hopefully, partner is familiar with it, or them, for that matter.)
SJOERT BRINK: 5♣. I play this double as primarily for penalties, but usually it is points and, with a void, I should bid.
BARNET SHENKIN: 5♣.
MATS NILSLAND: 5♣. Again, 2♦ would not be my first choice (I would have passed). I am not sure what to do now.
Marty sums up for the majority of the panel.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♣. For me, voids scream offense, so passing is not an option. As to why 5♣ and not 4NT with 6-4? With 5-5 or 6-5 (or 5-6) in the minors, I'd have overcalled 2NT, so I want to clarify that my second suit is clubs rather than hearts.
On this hand from the Transnational Seniors Teams, partner held Axx/A10xx/---/Q9xxxx. You can make 11 tricks in clubs and N/S can make ten in spades, so a clear win for the bidders.
The panel is led this month by one of its youngest stars, Poland’s Sophia Baldysz, with an impressive 79/80. Completing the podium, is a partnership that the bridge world hasn’t seen for many years, proving that they are still as potent as they were back in the day, Marty Bergen (77/80) and Larry Cohen (76/80).
Congratulations too, to this month’s guest panelists, and particularly Venkatesh Ramaratnam, who came into this month leading the annual competition. His 74/80 in this set seems likely to keep him at the front of that race.
Our thanks as always to all members of our expert panel for the time they take to both entertain and educate our readers.
See you all next month. Marc
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6NT |
5NT |
5NT |
4♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
79 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
4♣ |
4NT |
6NT |
5NT |
5NT |
4♦ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
77 |
|
Larry COHEN |
4♣ |
5♠ |
7NT |
5NT |
5♠ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
76 |
|
David BIRD |
4♣ |
4NT |
6NT |
4NT |
5♠ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
Pass |
75 |
|
Cedric LORENZINI |
4♣ |
4NT |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5NT |
4♦ |
5♣ |
4NT |
74 |
|
Venkatesh RAMARATNAM |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6NT |
Dbl |
5♠ |
1♦ |
5♣ |
4NT |
74 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
5♣ |
5♠ |
6NT |
5NT |
5♠ |
1♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
74 |
|
Joey SILVER |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6NT |
5NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
74 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5♠ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4NT |
74 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
4♣ |
4NT |
6NT |
5NT |
6♥ |
1♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
73 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
4♣ |
4NT |
7NT |
5NT |
5NT |
4♦ |
5♣ |
4NT |
73 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
4♣ |
4NT |
6♣ |
Dbl |
6♦ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
73 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
4♣ |
4NT |
6NT |
5NT |
6♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
72 |
|
Doug BAXTER |
4♦ |
4NT |
6NT |
5NT |
5NT |
1♦ |
5♥ |
Pass |
71 |
|
Migry zur CAMPONILE |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5♥ |
1♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
71 |
|
Christian MARI |
4♣ |
5♠ |
5NT |
5NT |
5♠ |
1♦ |
Pass |
4NT |
71 |
|
Nuno QUARESMA |
4♦ |
4NT |
6♣ |
5♥ |
5♠ |
1♦ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
71 |
|
Sally BROCK |
4♦ |
5♠ |
6♣ |
Dbl |
6♦ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
Pass |
69 |
|
Mats NILSLAND |
4♣ |
5♠ |
6NT |
5♥ |
5♠ |
Pass |
Pass |
5♣ |
69 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT & Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
4♦ |
5♠ |
6NT |
5NT |
5♠ |
3♦ |
5♥ |
Pass |
69 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
5♣ |
Dbl |
6NT |
4NT |
5♠ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
69 |
|
Sartaj HANS |
4♣ |
4NT |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5♥ |
1♦ |
Pass |
4NT |
68 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
5♣ |
Dbl |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5♠ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
66 |
|
Maurizio PARTESANO |
4♣ |
Dbl |
7NT |
5♥ |
5NT |
1♦ |
5♣ |
Pass |
62 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
4♣ |
Dbl |
6NT |
Dbl |
6♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
Pass |
60 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
4♣ |
Dbl |
6♣ |
Dbl |
5NT |
3♦ |
Pass |
Pass |
60 |
|
Alan MOULD |
3♠ |
4NT |
6♣ |
Dbl |
6♣ |
1♦ |
5♣ |
4NT |
60 |
|
P.O. SUNDELIN |
5♦ |
5♣ |
6♣ |
6♣ |
5NT |
3♦ |
5♥ |
Pass |
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
4♣ |
4NT/5♠ |
6NT |
5NT |
5♣ |
4♦ |
5♥ |
4NT |
|
|
HAND 1: |
4♣ 10 |
4♦ 7 |
5♣ 6 |
4♠/5♦ 4 |
3♦/3♠ 2 |
|
|
HAND 2: |
4NT/5♠ 10 |
5NT 9 |
6♣ 8 |
5♣ 6 |
Dbl 5 |
5♦ 2 |
|
HAND 3: |
6NT 10 |
6♣ 9 |
5♣/5NT/7♣/7NT 6 |
Pass 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 4: |
5NT 10 |
5♥ 9 |
4NT/Dbl 8 |
6♣ 6 |
5♣ 3 |
|
|
HAND 5: |
5♠ 10 |
5NT 9 |
6♦ 8 |
5♥ 6 |
6♣/6♥ 5 |
Pass/7♦ 2 |
|
HAND 6: |
4♦ 10 |
1♦ 8 |
Pass/3♦ 5 |
5♦ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
5♥ 10 |
5♣ 8 |
Pass 7 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
4NT 10 |
5♣ 8 |
Pass 7 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
5.38 |
|
HAND 2: |
7.32 |
|
HAND 3: |
7.69 |
|
HAND 4: |
5.92 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.24 |
|
HAND 6: |
6.91 |
|
HAND 7: |
8.30 |
|
HAND 8: |
7.11 |
