Welcome to the first set of 2026. We finished last year with a very exciting conclusion to the annual competition. Whether this year will be as close, only time will tell. One thing is certain, though: the standard of bidding from those in contention will once again be outstanding. Last year, 39 players scored 630 or higher, thus averaging 70/80 or better over their nine best sets.
This month’s guest panelists are the co-winners of the November competition. Mike Blancher is a retired geoscientist from Calgary, Alberta, in western Canada. He says, “I am predominantly a club bridge player who enjoys using online tools such as the RealBridge bidding contest to help improve my bidding judgement.” Andrzej Knap has won numerous Spanish events. He first represented his country at the 1993 European Championships and he has been a regular member of the Spanish Open team for more than three decades. His most successful campaign resulted in a fourth-place finish at the 2016 World Bridge Games in Wroclaw.
If you have a hand that you think would make an interesting problem for the panel to discuss, please send me the details.
Pierre Schmidt has done computer simulations on half of this month’s problems, and I’ll reveal the results in my summary at the end of those hands. Thanks to Pierre for taking the time to do that.
One of the major objectives of this feature is to introduce readers to things they may not have seen before. Hand 1 this month illustrates a situation where the experts all know what to do, but a huge number of competitors had clearly not come across. Hands 5 and 6 may also provide valuable lessons too for many readers.
The panel produce big majority votes on four hands in this set, and on only one are they widely split. The most popular action chosen by competition entrants scores ‘10’ on only two of the eight hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores 61/80 (down from 65/80 in December). However, the average score drops to 52.60 (down from 58.52 on Set 25-12). Let’s see what the panel have to say about this month’s hands…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♥ |
10 |
21 |
20 |
|
3NT |
5 |
3 |
42 |
|
4♣ |
5 |
0 |
8 |
|
3♣ |
2 |
0 |
24 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
5♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.98
When I included this deal, I expected a large majority from the panel, and so it proved. I also suspected that there would considerable divergence amongst competitors: more than a third raise to 3NT and almost a quarter make a non-forcing 3♣ bid. There is clearly plenty of educational value in this hand. Let’s start with the small faction who matched the choice of the largest group of competition entrants…
LIZ McGOWAN: 3NT. It’s hard to imagine a better spot.
P.O. SUNDELIN: 3NT.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. My partner could have raised to 3♣, but he invited with 2NT, I think 3NT must be the easiest game.
I won’t bore you with all the comments as many were similar, but here is a selection of reasons for choosing 3♥…
ALAN MOULD: 3♥. 3♣ is non-forcing in my world, and I don't fancy 4♣ when 3NT could be the right contract, so I am left with this...
SJOERT BRINK: 3♥. John McAllister once told me, “5-5 come alive”. There is a way to bid 3NT and a way to show your hand. I prefer the latter.
SALLY BROCK: 3♥. 3♥ suggests this hand type, with short spades.
MIKE BLANCHER: 3♥. This describes my hand – extra values and 1-3-5-4 or 0-3-5-5 with concern about NT. Partner can make an informed decision between 3NT, minor-suit games or slam, and even 4♥. If his spades are weak, 5m may be safer than 3NT, and we are playing IMPs.
DAVID BIRD: 3♥. I would have rebid 3♣ if it was forcing. Presumably, 3♥ must show this stronger type of hand. Raising to 3NT could easily miss a slam or land us in the wrong game if partner’s spades are weak.
ANDREW ROBSON: 3♥. For me, the simple guide in analogous positions is 3-minor is non-forcing and 3-Major is forcing. I can't, therefore, bid 3♣ and will have to bid 3♥, often (but not necessarily) a forcing 5-5.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♥. 3♣ would not be forcing. 3♥ is game-forcing and nearly always void in spades (so 0-3-5-5, 0-3-6-4, 0-4-5-4) as you would normally bid 3NT with 1-3-5-4 shape.
ROB BRADY: 3♥. Showing our spade shortness will help partner decide on the best game, which could even be 4♥ in a 4-3 fit. If the hands fit well, we can still find our way to a minor suit slam opposite something like Jxxx/KQx/Kx/Qxxx, via 3♥-4♣-4♦-4♥-6♣.
SIMON DE WIJS: 3♥. Showing short spades and trying to stay out of a bad 3NT. Even slam is still possible.
Sartaj offers a couple of examples for us…
SARTAJ HANS: 3♥. While 3♥ does not promise this exact shape, it is hard to think of an alternative. Partner will strain to bid no-trumps with a strong holding in spades, even with a prime minor suit fit. If he has something like Qxxx/KQ10/KJxx/xx or even J10xxx/KJx/Kx/Qxx, our slam prospects are excellent and he should know we are playing with a 30-point deck.
JILL MEYERS: 3♥. If not having discussed anything artificial for a 3♥ bid here, I would expect it to show a game-forcing hand and most likely 0-3-5-5 (although I guess I could also have a very strong 1-3-5-4).
LARRY COHEN: 3♥. I don't think 3♣ would be forcing, so that's out. I might as well sort of pattern out.
It is easy to see how 3NT may be the wrong game if partner’s spades are weak, perhaps something like Jxxx/KQx/Kxx/Qxx, particularly as North did not overcall, which makes it likely that South has the defenders’ five- (or six-) card spade suit, making the lead very likely too.
In the match I saw, partner had A10xxx/KQx/x/Q10xx. One West simply raised to 3NT (+430). The other bid 3♥, East advanced with 4♣, and 6♣ was soon reached: N/S +920.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2NT |
10 |
9 |
19 |
|
2♠ |
9 |
7 |
20 |
|
Pass |
7 |
7 |
21 |
|
Dbl |
5 |
1 |
15 |
|
3♣ |
2 |
0 |
20 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.32
The first question is, do we bid or not, and the panel votes 17-7 in favour of action, hence the downgrading in the marking of the competitors most popular choice. Not that it was a clear preference from competition entrants, who were split almost five ways, including one choice that received no support at all from the panel. Indeed, only a couple of panelists even mention 3♣ before writing it off as an option. Let’s start with the passers…
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. It's very difficult for us to have a making game on this deal. Defending 2♥ may be our best chance of a plus score.
ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. We won't have game (except for an unlikely 5♣) and we rate to defeat 2♥, so what's the need to do anything? With three/four cards in the overcaller's suit, it's generally wisest to sell.
LIZ McGOWAN: Pass. This looks like our best chance of a plus score. The only alternative I see is 2NT, but I don't like our chances of making 3NT.
CHRISTIAN MARI: Pass. I expect 2♥ to go down. We might be able to make game, but too rarely.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
JOEY SILVER: Pass. I have a good hand, but I am also aware that I have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation. With heart length, I will pass on the idea of bidding opposite a partner who could not bid over the villain's overcall.
SJOERT BRINK: Pass. If Pass is an option, Daniel Zagorin would do it, and his results speak for themselves (unbeatable at US trials). I rest my case.
For the bidders, there were two main choices…
SALLY BROCK: 2♠. This could be idiotic, but I don’t fancy selling to 2♥.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2♠. Pass or 2NT are also possibilities... I expect to make 7/8 tricks in spades without much problem.
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 2♠. I have a semi-solid spade suit, so let's try.
MIKE BLANCHER: 2♠. This is likely a part-score hand. North didn't double and South didn't act, so partner rates to have around 4-8 points. Even opposite a singleton spade, I’d expect to make at least seven tricks in spades, and partner may contribute something in the minors. My main objective is to push them to the three-level. This hand has the feel of a misfit, so Pass (my second choice) could easily be best. I can't double or bid 3♣, and 2NT is riskier than 2♠ at IMPs.
DAVID BIRD: 2♠. I don't like to pass, and 2♠ is safer than 2NT.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 2♠. We put Pass out of the equation, so it remained a question of 2♠ or 2NT. Partner can still have enough values to make 3NT but he does not have three cards in spades. We would have preferred 2NT with the ♠10 rather than the ♠9.
P.O. SUNDELIN: 2♠. Double will probably extract a diamond bid from partner instead of finding a club fit, and 3♣ paints a different picture of my hand. Pass may very well be right.
Others preferred the option more likely to encourage partner to raise…
WENFEI WANG: 2NT. Showing 17-18 points.
HANOI RONDON: 2NT. I have a stopper and a good hand
MARTY BERGEN: 2NT. This definitely could work out badly.
MATS NILSLAND: 2NT.
SIMON DE WIJS: 2NT. I have bad experience with prudent passes, so I will show my extra values even though it might get us too high.
SARTAJ HANS: 2NT. Rebidding no trumps at the cheapest level with an 18-19 balanced hand-type is an approach that seems to work well. This hand is not quite an 18-19 balanced prototype, but it is close enough.
JILL MEYERS: 2NT. Difficult. I have the values and a double heart stopper. I am hoping to find partner with something like 10x/xxx/Kxxx/Axxx, but maybe that is asking too much.
ALAN MOULD: 2NT. Any of Pass, 2♠, 2NT or double could be the winning choice. I'll do this and hope.
Larry was flying solo with his choice on this one.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. I am likely turning a plus into a minus, but I couldn't bear to defend instead of making 600 if partner has some good clubs (eg. xx/xx/Qxx/KQxxxx).
On this deal from the European Champions Cup, both West players faced this problem in the VuGraph match. One tried 2NT, the other 3♣. In both cases, partner raised to game. Partner had xx/xx/xxx/AQJ10xx, so 5♣ was an easy make (+600). 3NT went three down (-300) when North led a diamond from Q-J-10 and the club finesse failed. Defending 2♥ at least gets a plus score, +200 if you find the diamond ruff. Probably only Larry hits the jackpot on this one, although the 2♠ bidders probably also record a plus score.
Pierre Schmidt added, “We hesitated between 2NT and 2♠. At IMPs, it seemed to us that a vulnerable game was still possible, and maybe we would have selected 2NT if we had the ♠10 (as, if partner has enough points to make 3NT, he does not have three spades). Surprisingly, our computer analysis showed that 2♠ will make 70% of the time, 2NT 30%, and 3NT only 8%. The opponents will also make 2♥ on 60% of the boards, so Pass rates not to be a winner.”
So, the computer strongly suggests that 2♠ is the long-term winning choice.
`
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
16 |
53 |
|
5♣ |
7 |
4 |
18 |
|
5♠ |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
6♠ |
5 |
2 |
8 |
|
5♦ |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
4NT |
2 |
0 |
11 |
|
5♥ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.53
When I saw this hand played, I thought it was clear that the fault lay with East, but that was not the universal view. Indeed, with slam good opposite some quite reasonable 4♠ bids (Axxxx/xx/xxxx/xx, Qxxxx/xx/xxxx/Qx and even Qxxxxx/xx/xxxx/x) I am rather surprised at the size of the majority for passing, both amongst the panel and the competitors.
ALAN MOULD: Pass. Not close!
SJOERT BRINK: Pass. Sorry, unless 4♠ showed something unusual, I prefer to try to make my vulnerable game.
SIMON DE WIJS: Pass. Partner’s 4♠ should not be that suitable for slam.
JOEY SILVER: Pass. True, I have an attractive hand, but the five-level is no place to begin slam explorations. Indeed, ten tricks could easily be the limit opposite a partner who has made a pre-emptive raise.
DAVID BIRD: Pass. With a shapely 10 or 11 points, expecting to make 4♠, partner should use Jacoby. If I stretch with 5♣ and am fortunate to hear 5♥, rather than 5♦, there might still be no slam on.
Larry and Marty both offer suggestions for what partner’s hand may look like…
LARRY COHEN: Pass. It is just too much to handle to guess to go on. We could even have issues in 4♠ on a bad day, opposite something like 10xxxx/Jxx/KJxx/x.
MARTY BERGEN: Pass. I definitely want my partners making the LOTT raise to 4♠ even with hands like xxxxx/x/xxxx/xxx or even Q10xx/--/xxxxx/xxxx. Although slam could be great opposite the right near-Yarborough, I would pass in tempo.
I’d certainly agree with Marty’s possibilities non-vulnerable, but would he really raise to 4♠ vulnerable with those hands?
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. There should be few hands on which we can make slam, and we could well be going down at the five-level, so I pass.
SALLY BROCK: Pass. Obviously, slam could be cold, but how can I find out if he has one of the fitting hands that I need?
P.O. SUNDELIN/MATS NILSLAND/WENFEI WANG: Pass.
JILL MEYERS: Pass. If I move with 5♣ and partner cue bids 5♦, we will often be too high already. There are too many hands I can think of for partner opposite which we would not be favourites in a slam (including all hands that start with 10xxxx in spades).
ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. I refuse to guess to bid. Okay, we may miss a good slam if partner has something like ♠A-x-x-x-x, five low diamonds and three rounded cards. But partner has not bid 4♠ for us to move, so let's not. Even ten trumps may not be enough (for slam).
SARTAJ HANS: Pass. We will miss some slams, but there is no certainty that we will accurately diagnose the side-suit fits if we bid on. If, over 4♠, we had the agreement that 5♦ showed shortness, then it would be a consideration. As it is, I don't like pushing to slam when there is no intelligent way of involving partner.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. This is a close choice between Pass and 5♣. At first glance it seems unlikely that partner can cover three of our four losers but, when you think about it, he is likely to be short in both hearts and clubs. If (being more optimistic) we were to bid 5♣ and hear 5♦, we would sign off in 5♠, but even the five-level could be too high.
For those who did move, this was the most popular way to do so…
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 5♣. My slam bidding methods are not very extensive, but I will try to reach slam. On a bad day, I will go down in 5♠.
ROB BRADY: 5♣. Is Qxxxx/xxx/xxx/xx really a vulnerable 4♠ bid? More likely, partner has some shape and shortness opposite our long suits. The five-level seems safe and, if partner can cue bid in hearts, I'll bid the slam.
One downside of this approach is that depending on a heart cue-bid means that you still won’t get to some of the good slams (eg Axxxx/xx/xxxx/Qx).
HANOI RONDON: 5♣. We're vulnerable, so he's likely to have a hand that won't mind playing at the five-level and might take twelve tricks.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♣.
I’m not sure about this choice unless you have the specific agreement that it shows a shortage.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 5♦.
MIKE BLANCHER: 5♠. I expect a shortage somewhere for the raise to 4♠, which will not be in diamonds or we might have heard from the opponents. I will therefore ask about trump quality. With Axxxx, partner should raise. If he has four or more diamonds, slam should make on a cross-ruff, even with a trump lead. Qxxxx would not be enough as they can lead ace and a second spade.
Only a couple are willing to just take the bull by the horns…
LIZ McGOWAN: 6♠. It's punt or pass time, no point in messing about. I am hoping to crossruff my way to twelve tricks.
Zia has some heartening news for us all…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 6♠. Don’t believe anyone who gives a scientific reason for their bid. Nobody knows what to do here.
.
I won’t tell you partner’s hand, as we may be seeing it as a problem in a future month.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♣ |
10 |
10 |
34 |
|
5♣ |
9 |
8 |
11 |
|
3♦ |
8 |
4 |
14 |
|
2♠ |
6 |
1 |
4 |
|
6♥ |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
4 |
1 |
9 |
|
4♥ |
2 |
0 |
15 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
2♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3♠ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.53
With the panel offering varying degrees of support for three choices, there is no majority vote. Over a third of competition entrants collect maximum marks, although their second most popular choice is a huge underbid (4♥) that fails to attract any support from the panel. The panel’s top two choices offer opposing answers to the question., “Do we show or ask?” We start with those who show…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♣. This seems like a reasonable start.
DAVID BIRD: 4♣. It's hard to think of anything more descriptive than this.
MARTY BERGEN: 4♣. This seems like the clearcut first step. Congrats on your sensibly using my logical improvement on Drury to distinguish responder's trump length.
There is some disagreement as to exactly what 4♣ shows…
WENFEI WANG: 4♣. Splinter.
SJOERT BRINK: 4♣. Void-showing.
Andrew starts the year with a prediction that is closer than many we get.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♣. Shortage - I think this is a clear choice, and expect a big majority. The real question is: will we make another move if partner signs off in 4♥ over 4♣? I think not - there's no safety at the five-level if partner has wasted club values.
Alan agrees…
ALAN MOULD: 4♣. If partner bids 4♥ next, I will believe him.
But Simon does not…
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♣. I will start here and bid some more (5♣) after a sign-off. Sometimes we have to get to 6♦. but that seems hard, and even harder now that contract is wrong-sided.
SARTAJ HANS: 4♣. Opposite xxx/Qxxx/xx/AKxx even 4♥ could go down on a bad day (diamond to the ace, spade through). Opposite AQx/Qxxx/xx/xxxx slam is cold. Thus, we have to involve partner in the decision.
Another group also choose to show, but they prefer to tell partner about a different feature of the hand.
JILL MEYERS: 3♦. I would play this as a slam try with length/values in diamonds.
HANOI RONDON: 3♦. Diamonds are possibly an alternate denomination, but the main idea is to look for a slam so I’ll start by showing where my values are.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 3♦.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♦. There is no need to rush the bidding of this hand. Diamonds could even be our best trump suit: imagine something like Qxx/Qxxx/A10xx/Kxx. You make 6♦ but not 6♥.
Larry is again on his own…
LARRY COHEN: 2♠. Let's see if partner can do something slam-useful (like 3♦ or 3♠), as opposed to 3♣, which would slow down the slam hunt. Also possible is 4♣ if it is a self-splinter, but that takes away a lot of space.
The rest all simply ask about the pointed-suit aces…
SALLY BROCK: 5♣. Exclusion. This should get us there most of the time it’s right.
ANDRZEJ KNAP/CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♣. Exclusion Blackwood. This should be clear.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. Exclusion, with zero key cards I’ll stop in five, with one I bid six, and with two I bid seven.
ROB BRADY: 5♣. Exclusion seems perfectly suited for this hand. As long as partner has 3+ clubs, which seems likely given the opposition silence, we have at least a reasonable chance of throwing spades on our diamonds (and even better if they have four clubs).
MIKE BLANCHER: 5♣. We have a ten-card heart fit with A-K, and three losers. How to ask for missing aces? Exclusion Blackwood should be clear here. If partner has one pointed-suit ace, we should be able to discard spade losers on the diamonds. If he has the two key aces, even without the ♥Q, 7♥ is favoured to make.
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. This is the first of two hands this month where I hope we are playing Exclusion Blackwood. Knowing if partner has one or two pointed aces will certainly simplify things for me, in getting to the five, six or seven-level.
Liz highlights one of the flaws of bidding 4♣.
LIZ McGOWAN: 5♣. Partner could have just the right cards for slam, or the five-level might be too high. I could make a game try to focus her attention on spades, but if she jumped to game, I would still not know what to do. A splinter might work if she has the ♦A to cue, not so much if she has the ♠A. So, I shall take responsibility and apologise if Exclusion works out badly.
P.O. perhaps prefers to guess which two aces his partner holds…
P.O. SUNDELIN: 4NT.
At the table, partner had AJ/9xxxx/xx/A10xx so 6♥ was an easy make. With two aces and five trumps, I’d guess partner would be willing to go beyond game to 4♠ if West bids 4♣. A tricky ethical decision for West if partner bids a slow 4♥, though. The 5♣ bidders clearly reach the best contract with no such drama.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2♣ |
10 |
15 |
19 |
|
3♠ |
8 |
1 |
5 |
|
1♥ |
6 |
6 |
49 |
|
5♣ |
5 |
2 |
10 |
|
3♣ |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
1NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.74
I included this hand for two reasons. One was to try to discover whether most have moved into the 21st century and play 3♠ as a splinter, rather than natural and pre-emptive (which was what it meant when I started in the 1970s). Although only one panelist chose that option, a number of others said that it was the bid they would make if they were sure that was the system. For the benefit of competitors who read the system and discovered that 3♠ was defined as a splinter, I have therefore upgraded the score for 3♠.
The second reason is that I watched a multiple world champion respond 1♥ on VuGraph. I am both surprised to find even a small number of panelists in that camp, and horrified to find half of competitors there. Indeed, it irks me to give 1♥ 6/10 (which is at least six more than I think it deserves.) However, I’m glad to say that more panelists were dismissive of 1♥ than chose that option. Let’s start with those who did…
WENFEI WANG: 1♥. Natural.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 1♥. Let's take it slowly.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 1♥. This may be a bad start, but I don't want to forget this suit.
If you think those hearts constitute a suit, perhaps you need to find a new tailor 😊
JILL MEYERS: 1♥. If partner has four hearts, that is the strain I want to be in.
HANOI RONDON: 1♥. This might look like an abomination, but I don't want to lose the only Major we've got. It might also talk them out of a heart lead against a club contract.
It seems unlikely you will get to play peacefully in hearts. When you bid at the five-level over the opponents’ spades all suits are equal and you surely want to play in your best fit.
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 1♥. I have time to take heroic decisions later.
Let sanity return…
SARTAJ HANS: 2♣. This seems okay, assuming we have methods to show spade shortness next. 1♥ is for the "modernists", not for me.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2♣. I’ll start with an inverted raise. I consider a 1♥ response an abomination!
ALAN MOULD: 2♣. Yes, I know this is supposed to deny a four-card major, but surely there are limits....
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 2♣. What else? For us, this does not deny a four-card major, but even if it did...
LARRY COHEN: 2♣. This "denies" a four-card major, but I can't see catching up if I start with 1♥. If 3♠ is a splinter, I'd do it, but most play that as natural/weak.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2♣. I ignore those hearts and start with an inverted raise to 2♣.
MARTY BERGEN: 2♣. I am happy to ignore these hearts. If 3♠ is a splinter, I would be delighted to make that obvious response but, in my partnerships, 3♠ would be a natural pre-empt. If those are the methods used here, I'd start with 2♣.
SJOERT BRINK: 2♣. When you hold 7-4, start with your seven-card suit - famous rule of Simon de Wijs.
SIMON DE WIJS: 2♣. This seems like a good hand on which to bury the hearts. An immediate 5♣ might work also, but I think I’m a bit too strong for that.
MIKE BLANCHER: 2♣. I'll abandon my normal rule of not bypassing a four-card major as responder, given the threat of the opponent's 9+ card spade fit. We have a 9+ card fit of our own, and need to identify it early on. Also, I don't want a heart lead if North ends up declaring spades.
SALLY BROCK: 2♣. This depends on methods. If it is a splinter, 3♠ would be good but, for me, it’s natural and pre-emptive over 1♣. That leaves me with 2♣, which is presumably at least forcing for one round.
Indeed it is, yes.
ROB BRADY: 2♣. Since 3♠ is natural (is it? MS), our options are limited. I'm willing to suppress the heart suit for two reasons: If we need to bid over 4♠, at this form of scoring we will bid 5♣ not 5♥ and, if partner has a good hand, I don't want to introduce a weak suit.
DAVID BIRD: 2♣. Those who risk 3♠ instead, deserve to have partner sitting back in his chair, wondering whether they have one spade or seven.
Only Liz is sure that her partner knows the system.
LIZ McGOWAN: 3♠. Splinter, showing good clubs. Maybe 3NT will make.
And there were a couple of mavericks…
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. With the spade suit lurking, I'll bid to our most likely game, giving up on slam for now. I could still be pushed there should the villains compete to 5♠, confirming the likelihood of a 30-point deck.
P.O. SUNDELIN: 5♣.
On this deal from the European Champions Cup, a multiple world champion bid 1♥ (or 1♦ showing hearts) and he ended up saving in 6♣ over his partner’s 5♥-doubled! The winning bid is probably a 3♠ splinter, over which partner will bid 3NT on AQJx/KQ10/9xxx/Jx. Whilst 3NT is not guaranteed to make, it has decent chances and did make at the other table. (In our room, 6♣-doubled went only one down when South led a spade from K-x-x).
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5NT |
10 |
5 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
9 |
5 |
13 |
|
4NT |
8 |
5 |
48 |
|
6NT |
8 |
5 |
10 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
2 |
3 |
|
6♥ |
6 |
0 |
8 |
|
Pass |
5 |
2 |
13 |
|
5♣ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.42
The competitors were clear in their choice on this one, but the panel offered very little help with the marking, so a number of choices score well. Splitting hairs comes down to the debate and, perhaps, the result at the table, as I think partner had about the hand we could expect. Let’s start with the cautious…
JILL MEYERS: Pass. Suits are not splitting, so I stay low.
WENFEI WANG: Pass.
Some moved forward tentatively…
LIZ McGOWAN: 5♥. Partner is clearly void in spades, and if her hearts were solid she would have bid 4♥ last time. It is hard to imagine an opening bid without the ♣A, so I’ll ask if her suit will play for one loser.
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 5♥. A poor distribution of trumps is almost guaranteed. But we're here to play...
…and some with a bit more ambition.
DAVID BIRD: 4♠. Facing an opening bid, this must be worth one try.
JOEY SILVER: 4♠. Despite partner's lack of action over 3♠, it would just be too big a view on my part to pass 4♥ and give up on slam. I will bid 5♦ over 5♣ and leave the rest to partner. I will also pass a retreat to 5♥, expecting him to bid a slam with solid hearts.
LARRY COHEN: 4♠. I wonder if partner thought his pass was forcing and, therefore, this pass/pull sequence shows extras. If so, partner might now use RKC.
Larry was almost alone in thinking that partner’s pass of 3♠ might be forcing.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♠.
Mike offers a quite reasonable summary of the reasoning behind this choice.
MIKE BLANCHER: 4♠. So many questions and so much uncertainty. Given possible terrible splits, do I want to be in a heart slam, or do I want to try to locate a minor-suit slam? Is NT better, given we may need to set up either hearts or clubs? Opponents have a maximum of around 8 HCP. Partner has six or more decent hearts (given that I could still have a singleton), but he would have bid 4♥ on the previous round if his suit was solid. The ♣A is the critical card, so I'll cue bid 4♠ to see if partner has it. If I hear 5♣, I’ll continue with 5NT, keeping a minor-suit slam in play. If partner does not have the ♣A, I will stop in 5♥, as a trump loser seems likely.
This seems like a less well reasoned try…
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4NT. Key card, I hope.
MATS NILSLAND: 4NT.
SARTAJ HANS: 4NT. AKJ to six hearts is enough to have reasonable play for slam. I'll probably bid 6NT next.
Is it, with suits likely not to break?
ALAN MOULD: 4NT. Was partner’s pass forcing? (I don’t see why it should be. MS) That makes a big difference. Anyway, this is RKCB in my world, so I will ask and then bid the appropriate number of NTs (probably six).
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4NT. East didn't bid 4♥ over 3♠, so his suit should not be very strong, but 6NT is still possible.
The rest all commit to the six-level…
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 6NT. Finita la commedia. We could have saved one round of bidding.
ROB BRADY: 6NT. What does partner have? Long hearts, but not a good enough hand to bid directly over 3♠. So, there's no way he can hold three key cards. Something like x/KQTxxxx/Jx/Axx sounds possible. 6NT seems practical. 6♥ may go down on ♣A and a club ruff. 6♣ or 6♦ may go down on ♥A and a heart ruff.
ANDREW ROBSON: 6NT. Bucolic, but I'm not willing to watch a suit slam go down on a ruff. Even giving partner a minimum, eg xx/AK9xxx/xx/Axx, we probably still want to be in slam. We know a lot about the opponents’ hands, which will help in the play.
P.O. SUNDELIN: 6NT.
SALLY BROCK: 6NT. Who knows?
With partner’s hearts possibly needing a ruff to set up, perhaps this is the most convincing argument, despite the possibility of a ruff against a suit contract…
SJOERT BRINK/MARTY BERGEN: 5NT. Pick a slam.
HANOI RONDON: 5NT. Pick a slam. I don't quite believe in partner's heart quality as a trump suit, so I hope we can land in the proper denomination at the six level.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5NT. Bad breaks stop me looking for a grand. We could still belong in a minor when partner has a 6-4 shape.
SIMON DE WIJS: 5NT. We are bidding slam, but I am still very unsure about strain. Let’s see if partner has a four-card minor (still possible, I think, with a weak 6-4 hand).
At the table, in the final of an Australian Mixed Teams, West jumped to 6NT. Partner had Qx/AKJxxx/Jxxx/x, but there were two losers when the hearts did not come in (South had the singleton ♥10). You can make 11 tricks in hearts and 10 in NT, but 6♦ makes if you take the heart finesse (as you will once the Michaels bidder follows to two rounds of diamonds).
Pierre’s computer simulation tells us that we want to get to slam on this deal. Its analysis is that 6NT makes on 90% of the boards and 6♥ on 60%, but it does not give us an estimate for the success of 6♦. You have a grand slam on only 10% of layouts.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♣ |
10 |
12 |
19 |
|
3♠ |
8 |
8 |
26 |
|
6♦ |
6 |
2 |
6 |
|
4♦ |
6 |
1 |
3 |
|
5♥ |
6 |
1 |
2 |
|
5NT |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
6♥ |
4 |
0 |
14 |
|
4♣ |
4 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
2 |
0 |
16 |
|
4♥ |
0 |
0 |
4 |
|
5♦ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
7♦ |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
7♥ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.64
There were a couple of complaints about our previous bidding, with suggestions that either 2♠ or 4♦ would have been better on the previous round, but most seemed happy with our 3♦. There was no majority vote from the panel, but there were two clear favourites, and those two were also the most popular choices amongst competitors.
SALLY BROCK: 5♣. Exclusion. Like London buses, you don’t use it for ages and then two come along in one set.
Both Zia and David confirm that they plan on playing in diamonds, but are we sure which suit partner thinks is trumps when we ask for key cards?
ZIA MAHMOOD: 5♣. Exclusion, then diamonds is to play...
DAVID BIRD: 5♣. Near enough perfect for Exclusion Blackwood - intending to revert to diamonds, of course.
Some think it’s clearly agreeing hearts.
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. Key card exclusion Blackwood, I hope! I am planning to end up in 6♦ opposite one or two key cards in hearts, and 7♦ if he shows A-K-Q.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♣. Exclusion for hearts, but I will bid 6/7♦ in the end.
MIKE BLANCHER: 5♣. Exclusion Blackwood, again. If partner can show ♥A-K-Q (unlikely as he did not bid 3♥ last time), I will bid 7♥. After a 5♦ or 5♥ response, we can stop in 5♥. Over 5♠ or 5NT responses (1+Q, 2 without Q), I will bid 6♥. I am giving up on diamond or NT slams as I may still have black-suit losers.
Neither Rob nor Marty want to start from here.
ROB BRADY: 5♣. I see why I'm faced with this problem. The West who held my cards for the ghastly 3♦ bid was escorted out by kibitzers before the auction concluded. Exclusion again, but I'm less enthusiastic this time. If he has two, I'll try 7♦. If partner has only one, I hope we're on the same page about my subsequent 6♦ bid, but 6♥ may also make.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♣. I definitely would have preferred the more economical 2♠ rebid on the previous round. At this point, an Exclusion 5♣ bid seems to be the best I can do.
SIMON DE WIJS: 5♣. Ok, let’s go with Exclusion. I plan to pass 5♥ (no key cards) and bid either 6♦ or 7♦ if he shows one or two.
LARRY COHEN: 5♣. Old-fashioned 5NT GSF would be nice, but these days, it would be pick-a-slam. But, 5♣ lets me find out about heart keycards.
Are we sure that, when we then bid diamonds at the appropriate level, he will understand that we want him to pass?
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 5♣. Exclusion Blackwood. I have a plan. I'll check the aces now it seems the hearts are settled. Then I'll auction the diamonds at the appropriate level, six or seven. I hope my partner doesn't convert back to hearts: even if he does, I have two trumps for him.
Whilst still choosing this option, Andrew highlights another flaw with it…
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♣. Exclusion (I assume). I’ll follow with 7♦ if he shows two key cards. Admittedly, this won't be best if partner has ♠Q, ♥A and ♣A (only one key-card, but 7♦ still cold). However, a more tortuous route eg bidding 3♠ now, probably will leave us none the wiser.
Despite Andrew’s reservations, the second-largest faction on the panel try to coax more out of partner…
CHRISTIAN MARI: 3♠. We need more information before rolling out Exclusion RKCB.
WENFEI WANG: 3♠. Cue bid.
MATS NILSLAND: 3♠.
P.O. SUNDELIN: 3♠. I suspect that 4NT would/should be natural.
ALAN MOULD: 3♠. I wouldn't have started from here! Surely, I should have set the suit by bidding 4♦ on the last round. As it is, I am now struggling to get the information I need. I will try 3♠ and hope to hear 3NT or 4♣, so I’ll know about club values. It feels like I am just going to have to punt 6♦ or 7♦ at some point.
The French have good reason for ruling out 5♣…
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♠. Our first intention was an Exclusion Blackwood 5♣. However, we had to agree that, unfortunately, following our general principles in this kind of situation, that would be with diamonds as trumps. So, we have to go the slow way.
SJOERT BRINK: 3♠. Let’s wait... I like that we adhered to the Simon de Wijs rule and started with our seven-card suit. Now we can tell partner about the rest of our hand. If/when I finally get around to supporting his hearts, he will be able to work out my club holding.
LIZ McGOWAN: 3♠. Partner likely has wasted values in clubs. She could not bid 3NT last time for lack of a spade stopper. If she bids 3NT now, I can bid 5NT, pick a slam. Then I’ll have to guess whether to bid the grand but, thankfully, I don’t have to tell you the answer to that question.
The competition entrants found lots of alternatives and a couple attracted the support of mavericks on the panel…
SARTAJ HANS: 4♦. I would have preferred to rebid 4♦ over 2♥.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 5♥.
JILL MEYERS: 6♦. Very scientific!
HANOI RONDON: 6♦. I think we can call this suit trumps. I expect partner's hearts will take care of my losing spade(s). 4♦ would be my second option.
On this deal from the English Premier League, both West players in the VuGraph match heard this auction. One bid 4♦ and, when partner bid 4♠, he jumped to 6♥. The other bid 5♣, Exclusion, but East bid 5♥ (no key cards with diamonds trumps) and West bid 6♦. Partner had x/KQ8xxxx/xx/AQJ. North had ♥A-x and three diamonds, so 6♦ can always be made, although a trump lead leaves declarer with a lot of work to do. At the other table, South did not lead his singleton diamond against 6♥, so both contracts made 12 tricks.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3NT |
10 |
15 |
26 |
|
Dbl |
7 |
5 |
64 |
|
Pass |
6 |
4 |
6 |
|
3♥ |
0 |
0 |
3 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.44
There are only three real options on this one, but the panel and the competitors produce big majorities for different choices.
WENFEI WANG: 3NT. I don’t like to pass and defend 3♦. 3NT seems like the normal choice.
ROB BRADY: 3NT. Our most likely making game.
SALLY BROCK: 3NT. I pull on my guessing boots and choose to hope for the best today.
Some are not so enthusiastic…
CHRISTIAN MARI: 3NT. I make this bid without conviction.
MARTY BERGEN: 3NT. Needless to say, this is NOT a comfortable rebid.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. It might be really bad, but partner could have around 7 HCP with no sensible bid over 3♦.
ALAN MOULD: 3NT. It could be -1400 on this balanced junk, but you just gotta do it. Every time partner has some flat eight count, you are just binning a vulnerable game by passing.
LIZ McGOWAN: 3NT. This will not be the first time I have gone down a lot in 3NT. Let’s hope South has the singleton diamond.
But the odds justify the risk…
DAVID BIRD: 3NT. Partner rates to hold around 7 HCP. +600 is more likely than -500 or -800 when he holds a bust.
JOEY SILVER: 3NT. I have to decide if I want to play for 50's, or gamble on a vulnerable game bonus. I go for the latter, far more sexy choice.
ANDRZEJ KNAP: 3NT. My 19 HCP + 8 HCP with North means that my partner and South both rate to hold about 6-7 HCP. For 3NT, that should be enough, so let’s try. I have some advantage, as I know something about their hands.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3NT. Pass (especially at matchpoints) could very well be the winner. However, our partner is favourite to hold 7-8 points and that could be enough to start the year with one more stretched vulnerable game. Even if partner has a five-card major, 3NT still rates to be the best game.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 3NT.
SIMON DE WIJS: 3NT. Like on Hand 2, I don’t like passing with these hands. Double might be right, but this hand looks like it belongs in no-trumps.
SARTAJ HANS: 3NT. "With 18-19 balanced, rebid no-trumps at the cheapest level on your next turn" is good advice.
The competition entrants’ most popular choice, by some margin, did get some support from panelists…
JILL MEYERS: Dbl. If partner is the person with one diamond, I want to double but, if he has the doubleton, I want to bid 3NT? No either or bids, right Marc? I’ll guess to double.
MIKE BLANCHER: Dbl. This keeps all options open. I plan on passing any bid partner makes. I hope he will pass but 3NT is also possible. (Mike earns the award for ‘Optimist of the Month’. MS) I won't bid 3NT as I have no source of tricks. Second choice is Pass.
HANOI RONDON: Dbl. I can't grab the green cardboard piece with this many high card points, so I'm choosing the most versatile option.
MATS NILSLAND: Dbl.
LARRY COHEN: Dbl. Again, I am likely turning a plus into a minus, but I can't let this go. Picture, say, xx/KJxxxx/x/Qxxx opposite.
And, perhaps, the few voices of reason…
ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. It's either pass or 3NT, but where are the tricks? We'll go plus defending 3♦, that's for sure. And, probably minus if we pot 3NT.
ZIA MAHMOOD: Pass. Just because I love blood (the enemies’).
P.O. SUNDELIN: Pass. Admittedly, I might double in real life, but pass is probably the percentage action.
SJOERT BRINK: Pass. Zagorin 2.0 Even many experts would bid 3NT... Hopefully, they will find out why Zagorin never lost in the trials.
At the table, partner had xxxx/Kxx/xx/Qxxx, so Pass was the most likely route to a plus score. Your chances in 3NT are poor, and are you prepared to rely on partner’s intuition to know to pass if you double?
Pierre Schmidt added, “We thought that trying 3NT was reasonable at IMPs, while at matchpoints, Pass (and ensure a plus score) was best. The computer simulation says that 3NT makes on 50% of the boards (more than we expected) so your average score is about +230 (600x50% -100 or 200x50%). 3♦ rarely makes of course (8%) and the weighted average score is + 100 for you. You could also double: partner will probably never Pass but, if he does, you will score slightly better than at 3NT and, if he bids 3♥/3♠, you still have the option to bid 3NT anyway.
We have co-leaders on the panel this month, with both Marty Bergen and Simon de Wijs returning perfect 80/80 scores. David Bird (78/80) completes the January podium. Despite two perfect scores, still only just over half of the panel scored in the 70s, so this looks like a relatively difficult set for competition entrants with a few managing high scores.
As usual, many thanks to all members of the panel for taking the time and effort to both educate and entertain our readers.
Good luck to everyone who is heading to Prague for the European Winter Games this month. I hope to report next month that the winning teams all contained panel members.
See you next month. Thanks. Marc
|
Marty BERGEN |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
5NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
80 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
5NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
80 |
|
David BIRD |
3♥ |
2♠ |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
4♠ |
5♣ |
3NT |
78 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3♥ |
2♠ |
Pass |
5♣ |
2♣ |
6NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
76 |
|
Alan MOULD |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
4NT |
3♠ |
3NT |
76 |
|
Rob BRADY |
3♥ |
2NT |
5♣ |
5♣ |
2♣ |
6NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
74 |
|
Sartaj HANS |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
4NT |
4♦ |
3NT |
74 |
|
Mats NILSLAND |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
4NT |
3♠ |
Dbl |
73 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT & Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
3♥ |
2♠ |
Pass |
3♦ |
2♣ |
6NT |
3♠ |
3NT |
73 |
|
Sjoert BRINK |
3♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
5NT |
3♠ |
Pass |
71 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
3♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
6NT |
5♣ |
Pass |
71 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
3♥ |
2♠ |
6♠ |
4♣ |
2♣ |
5NT |
5♣ |
Pass |
70 |
|
Joey SILVER |
3♥ |
Pass |
Pass |
5♣ |
5♣ |
4♠ |
5♣ |
3NT |
70 |
|
Mike BLANCHER |
3♥ |
2♠ |
5♠ |
5♣ |
2♣ |
4♠ |
5♣ |
Dbl |
69 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
1♥ |
Pass |
3♠ |
3NT |
69 |
|
Larry COHEN |
3♥ |
Dbl |
Pass |
2♠ |
2♣ |
4♠ |
5♣ |
Dbl |
67 |
|
Andrzej KNAP |
3♥ |
2♠ |
5♣ |
5♣ |
1♥ |
5♥ |
5♣ |
3NT |
67 |
|
Christian MARI |
3♥ |
Pass |
5♣ |
5♣ |
1♥ |
4NT |
3♠ |
3NT |
65 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
3NT |
Pass |
Pass |
5♣ |
1♥ |
4NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
65 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
3♥ |
Pass |
5♦ |
3♦ |
2♣ |
4♠ |
5♥ |
3NT |
64 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
3♥ |
2NT |
5♣ |
3♦ |
1♥ |
5NT |
6♦ |
Dbl |
64 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
3♦ |
1♥ |
Pass |
6♦ |
Dbl |
62 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
3NT |
Pass |
6♠ |
5♣ |
3♠ |
5♥ |
3♠ |
3NT |
58 |
|
P.O. SUNDELIN |
3NT |
2♠ |
Pass |
4NT |
5♣ |
6NT |
3♠ |
Pass |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
3♥ |
2NT |
Pass |
4♣ |
2♣ |
5NT |
5♣ |
3NT |
|
|
HAND 1: |
3♥ 10 |
3NT/4♣ 5 |
3♣ 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 2: |
2NT 10 |
2♠ 9 |
Pass 7 |
Dbl 5 |
3♣ 2 |
|
|
HAND 3: |
Pass 10 |
5♣ 7 |
5♠/6♠ 5 |
5♦ 4 |
4NT 2 |
|
|
HAND 4: |
4♣ 10 |
5♣ 9 |
3♦ 8 |
2♠/6♥ 6 |
4NT 4 |
4♥ 2 |
|
HAND 5: |
2♣ 10 |
3♠ 8 |
1♥ 6 |
5♣ 5 |
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
5NT 10 |
4♠ 9 |
4NT/6NT 8 |
5♥/6♥ 6 |
Pass 5 |
|
|
HAND 7: |
5♣ 10 |
3♠ 8 |
4♦/5♥/6♦ 6 |
4♣/5NT/6♥ 4 |
4NT 2 |
|
|
HAND 8: |
3NT 10 |
Dbl 7 |
Pass 6 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
4.98 |
|
HAND 2: |
6.32 |
|
HAND 3: |
7.53 |
|
HAND 4: |
6.53 |
|
HAND 5: |
5.74 |
|
HAND 6: |
7.42 |
|
HAND 7: |
5.64 |
|
HAND 8: |
7.44 |
