RealBridge Bidding Contest - July 2026 Results

Contest conducted by Marc Smith

 

We are now more than halfway through the 2026 annual competition. Two Brits currently lead the way but, with four Americans in the Top 10, there are still chances for a first annual competition winner from the USA.

 

At the U.S. Nationals in Minneapolis, we had two panel members in the winning Spingold team, Sjoert Brink and Cedric Lorenzini. In a remarkable performance, their team led at the end of every quarter in every match. In the semi-final, their opponent conceded after three stanzas with the score a remarkable 134-4. After the first set in the final, they led 70-19. A truly dominant performance.

 

 

A shout out, too, to one of our regular competition entrants. Johan Sylvan was a member of the Swedish Senior team that collected bronze medals.

 

Talking of medals, we are delighted to welcome as a new panelist, one of the most exciting young players in world bridge. Playing with Geir Helgemo, Nikolai Heiberg-Evenstad was a member of the Norwegian team that won the Open Teams in Latvia. His first international success came with victory in the 2022 World Under-21 Teams. A year later, he won the European Youth Mixed Pairs. In 2025, in addition to winning the European Under-26 Pairs, he also made his mark in the Open game, earning medals in the European Open Pairs and in the Open Teams at the European Winter Games. Welcome aboard, Nikolai.

 

This month’s guest panelist is the solo winner of the May competition, a tough set on which the USA’s John Klayman returned a perfect 80/80. John is a retired software engineer currently splitting his time between Fairfax, Virginia and Bradenton, Florida. He says, “I started bridge in high school and played sporadically until I retired and bridge went seriously online, which has allowed me to play more frequently and with partners scattered across North America.”

 

Three of this month’s hands (1, 2 and 4) come from the recent U.S. Trials, so provide a chance to compare your choices with those made at the table by some of America’s top players. Two more were sent to me: Panelist Alan Mould contributed Hand 8, and regular competition entrant, Carles Acero from Spain, submitted Hand 3. Thanks to 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, and on some of the remaining deals they are widely split. There are hands on which they come up eight, seven and six different options. The good news is that those hands usually produce multiple bids that score fairly well. Does this suggest this will be a high-scoring set?

 

The most popular action chosen by the competition entrants scores ‘10’ on only two of the eight hands, and voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores 55/80 (down from 57/80 in June). However, the average score this month is 52.88 (up from 47.24 on Set 26-06). Let’s find out what the panel has to say about this month’s hands…

 

 

Hand 1

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
3♦	10	15	57
2NT	6	2	12
3♠	5	1	9
3NT	5	0	10
3♣	2	0	5
Dbl	0	0	4
Pass	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.47

 

As the hosts of University Challenge are apt to say, “Here is your starter for 10.” The problem setter always tries to throw in an easy one, and the panel think this is the one for this month. It produces the panel’s largest majority of the set and more than half of competition entrants come up with the same answer too. Between them, David and Paul explain what is wrong with all of the alternatives…

 

DAVID BIRD: 3♦. 2NT is not enough and 3NT may put you in the wrong game. I won't enjoy bidding 3♦, but it seems that nothing is better.

PAUL MARSTON: 3♦. This hand is too good for 3♣, and showing the club fit with 3♠ risks missing 3NT.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♦. Natural and game forcing. We are simple souls.

JOHN KLAYMAN: 3♦. I don't like anything else and this keeps 3NT in play.

SALLY BROCK: 3♦. This seems like the best of a bad lot! Partner can bid 3♠ if he is interested in my stopper.

 

 

LARRY COHEN: 3♦. Vulnerable at IMPs, I have to take the high road. We can still easily reach 3NT.

BARNET SHENKIN: 3♦.

MARTY BERGEN: 3♦. I hope we can make a game. If we belong in 3NT, we should have no problem getting there.

HANOI RONDON: 3♦. This might be a hand for 3NT or slam in a minor, so I'll start describing what I have.

JILL MEYERS: 3♦. Although we may easily end up in 3NT, I am not jumping there with only one spade stopper. We could belong in five or even six of either minor.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 3♦. We have a comfortable game-force after partner's opening. We could raise clubs (via 3♠) but we don't want to preclude 3NT. We could simply bid 3NT over 2♠, but a) we have a good fit for clubs and b) only one spade stopper.

JOEY SILVER: 3♦. I am aiming for 3NT, but I don't want to eliminate chances of playing in a minor-suit contract. I will bid 3NT over 3M and 4♠ over 4m.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 3♦. 3NT is an alternative, but I see no reason to skip the diamonds as we might have a slam. It is also possible that 3NT could be better played from partner’s side.

ANDREW ROBSON: 3♦. I am not going to guess to play a partscore, vulnerable at IMPS, so let's bid naturally.

Only a couple are willing to settle for a partscore.

LIZ McGOWAN: 2NT. I may as well suggest the most likely game. This is not worth forcing to game opposite a balanced 11-count...

MATS NILSLAND: 2NT.

And Zia is flying solo.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 3♠. I have no strong views between 3NT and 3♠. Is 4♣ from partner forcing now? I think so.

 

Both West players faced this problem in the final of the U.S. Open Trials where, theoretically, the only winning option was a very feeble 3♣, as partner had x/K98x/AJ10/KQJxx. Joe Grue jumped to 3NT, ending the auction (+660). Kevin Bathurst tried 3♦ and, when partner raised, finished in 5♣, which was two down (losing a spade, two hearts and a diamond ruff). Of course, had North managed to lead a heart from AJx/QJxx/8xxxx/x, 3NT would have lost three hearts and seven spades (-600). Even so, the panel are all hoping partner will continue with 3♥ over 3♦ so that they can try their luck in 3NT.

 

 

Hand 2

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
Pass	10	9	12
5♥	9	8	55
6♥	7	1	20
6♦	4	0	4
Dbl	2	0	9
5♠	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.89

 

The panel is split almost down the middle between those who want to just compete to 5♥ and those who pass intending to pull partner’s likely double to 5♥ as a slam try. The competition entrants are also split into two groups, those who compete to 5♥ and those who guess to bid slam. The clear lesson to be learned from this hand is that you do not have to make the decision alone, but you can involve partner in the process.

 

JOEY SILVER: 5♥. Although I don't want to commit to slam at this juncture, this hand is not for sale!

LIZ McGOWAN: 5♥. If partner had really good clubs, she might have doubled 4NT? When in doubt...

DAVID BIRD: 5♥. To head for a slam is too much when both opponents are in the auction and the breaks will be bad. 5♥ is a middle-of-the-road bid, just what I normally look for. If 6♥ is there, partner is welcome to continue.

In terms of hand evaluation, Paul seems to be in with the Passers, but he apparently plays the sequences the other way around to most…

PAUL MARSTON: 5♥. To me, five-of-a-major invites slam.

BARNET SHENKIN/MATS NILSLAND: 5♥.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 5♥. Competitive decisions are tough, but this one is automatic. a) LoTT dictates we compete - they might be making, and we probably are, too. b) Partner's pass of 4NT suggests a willingness to compete (or at least neutrality on the subject). c) Committing to six is way too ambitious. Pass is possible, but then we probably get a bad result after a longer auction, as opposed to a fighting chance on this one.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 5♥. Is pass forcing? Not if Robson is my partner, so I bid.

Do I get the impression we’ve had an accident involving forcing passes?

ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. This is clearly forcing (only) at these colours. Second choice is to double, as ♠Q-J-x-x could mean the first three tricks to the defence in 5♥ if partner has three low spades.

HANOI RONDON: Pass. After the splinter that we made, this should be forcing.

A number of panelists lay out their plan…

SALLY BROCK: Pass. Presumably forcing. I will remove double to 5♥ to make a slam try, which is stronger than bidding an immediate 5♥.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. Forcing, of course. When partner doubles we will bid 5♥ to show extras.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: Pass. This is clearly a forcing pass. I want to let partner judge what to do. If they double, which they will very often, then I will pull to 5♥ to invite slam.

JOHN KLAYMAN: Pass. This has to be forcing. It sounds as though partner is not short in spades, but I have just enough not to bid 5♥ (yet).

 

 

LARRY COHEN: Pass. Add me to the list of those objecting to a splinter bid with this strength. (A short list of one, I’m afraid, Larry. MS) Now, rather than guess, I will make a forcing pass and see what partner does.

Rob and Marty both comment on partner’s pass of 4NT.

ROB BRADY: Pass. We have voluntarily committed to a red-on-white game, so we are in a forcing pass situation. It is worth noting that partner did not double 4NT, which would have suggested club wastage (opposite our splinter). A hand like Ax/QJxxxx/x/Axxx seems quite possible, but and I wouldn’t expect partner to raise with that if we just compete to 5♥. So, pass and pull a double to 5♥ as a slam try seems best.

Only Marty was willing to commit to slam.

MARTY BERGEN: 6♥. Partner's forcing pass of 4NT is encouraging, so I'll accept his slam try.

 

First time around, Jill bid 5♥ rather than passing to pull and invite slam, so that was +680. Partner had Kx/QJ10xx/J/AK10xx, so 12 tricks were easy. 5♦-doubled is only +500. At the other table, South did not Michaels (on Axxxx/--/Qxxxx/xxx), so EW had an easy ride to slam. Marty and the Passers get a flat board, but it’s a double-digit swing against the 5♥ bidders.

 

 

Hand 3

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
4♥	10	9	10
3♥	7	3	17
6♦	6	2	3
4♦	5	3	13
5♦	5	1	31
3NT	2	0	11
Pass	0	0	12
3♠	0	0	2
4♣	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.79

 

Not quite a majority vote from the panel, but a clear favourite nonetheless. A few panelists choose to guess some number of diamonds to bid, but a third of competitors score poorly as they settle for game whilst most of the panel are looking for slam.

 

LIZ McGOWAN: 3♥. I think this says, “How is your heart stopper?” At Pairs, we may need to settle in NT.

JILL MEYERS: 3♥. I want to hear more from partner before I commit to another bid. How much wastage he has in hearts may be the key here. I think partner would take 4♥ as shortness, but that really does not tell my whole story.

ROB BRADY: 3♥. Did 2♥ create a game force? If so, we could bid 4♦ now to set trumps, but I'm not certain partner would take it this way. The 1NT bid put partner's hand in a box, so we are captain and I think 4♦ would be invitational. That leaves 3♥ or 4♥, splinter... or a leap of faith (6♦). I don't want to scare partner off if they have a hand like Qx/KJxx/Kxxxx/xx, so I'll start with 3♥, then bid 4♦ over 3NT, and they'll know I have a serious slam try. An immediate 4♥ feels more like AQxx/x/KQJx/ AQxx where we are looking for aces and kings as opposed to our actual hand.

So, is 4♦ forcing? Neither Joey nor John think so…

JOEY SILVER: 4♦. At any other form of scoring, I would force to game. Playing pairs, where plus scores reign, I'll slow down.

JOHN KLAYMAN: 4♦. We seem to have at least a nine-card fit. Does partner have an 8-loser hand?

…but the French are certain that it is.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♦. Forcing -- we never play 4m unless in a competitive auction or we have looked for 3NT and did not find the necessary stoppers. Matchpoints is not an excuse for bidding 3♥ and passing partner’s 3NT. If we are making 3NT, there is a good chance that we will make 6♦ too.

Brian is alone in settling for game.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 5♦. Perhaps 4♥ is the right technical bid, but why give partner an extra chance to make a mistake?

Whilst both Larry and David also think they have already heard enough.

LARRY COHEN: 6♦. Science isn't likely to get me anywhere.

 

 

Andrew’s prediction misses the mark, although not by as much as many often do.

ANDREW ROBSON: 4♥. This seems to describe the hand perfectly. I expect a big majority here.

MARTY BERGEN: 4♥. This seems clear.

HANOI RONDON: 4♥. With this splinter, I hope to convey interest in slam. Let’s hope partner is on the same wavelength.

SALLY BROCK: 4♥. Surely a void in this sequence. I am happy to then leave the rest to partner. I think I must have both black suits controlled, so he can bid slam or not depending on his general suitability.

MATS NILSLAND/BARNET SHENKIN: 4♥.

PAUL MARSTON: 4♥. Showing the void. Partner’s 3♦ sounds like a real suit – bypassing 2♠, 2NT and 3♣. Slam does not need much.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♥. There is a possible slam, but I will respect whatever he does.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 4♥. I have an incredible hand. My options are to make a splinter or just jump to a slam (a hand with ♦K-x-x-x and little else might be enough). I think I will go with the splinter - if partner shows any sign of life by making a try, I’ll happily accept.

 

Whether 4♦ is forcing in this type of auction is something regular partnerships should discuss, although I am inclined to agree the French view that it should be. However, I do not see how a forcing 4♦ can be better than 4♥ on this West hand.

At the table, concerned about wasted heart values opposite, West jumped to 5♦. However, partner had the perfect hand, Kx/Qxxx/Kxxx/Qxx and, with diamonds breaking 2-2, 13 tricks were easy. You would certainly want to get to a small slam. Over 4♥, partner will surely advance with a 4♠ cue bid, over which you can hardly bid less than 6♦.

 

 

Hand 4

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
6♥	10	8	13
4♠	9	3	9
3♠	7	2	15
4♥	7	1	25
2♦	7	1	5
4♣	7	1	7
2NT	7	0	1
2♥	6	1	1
3♦	6	1	2
2♠	6	0	11
3♥	6	0	2
5♥	3	0	4
4NT	0	0	4
5♠	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.90

 

The panel come up with eight solutions to this problem, which originated in the final of the U.S Mixed Teams. Remarkably, perhaps, competitors offered 16 different choices, and I awarded marks to a large number of them.

There are three main strategies you might adopt. The largest group of panelists simply bid what they think they can make, forcing the opponents to guess about a high-level sacrifice. The second group go via Exclusion Blackwood, trying to bid accurately to the right level.

The third group opt for one of the many ways of ‘walking the dog’, willing to be ‘pushed’ as high as necessary, but with the objective of being allowed to buy the hand in hearts at some level. Yes, you may be able to make 6♥. However, if the opponents can save in 6♠-doubled for -200 or -500, you are still better off playing in 4♥ or 5♥ for +650. Let’s hear what everyone has to say…

 

ROB BRADY: 6♥. This probably makes.

LARRY COHEN: 6♥. It just jumped out of the bidding box at me.

PAUL MARSTON: 6♥. I know we should gamble on game, not slam, but this one is too tempting.

SALLY BROCK: 6♥. Only because I have no idea!

JOHN KLAYMAN: 6♥. It should have play, and it eliminates bidding room for the opponents.

BARNET SHENKIN: 6♥.

MARTY BERGEN: 6♥. I wouldn’t mind having the ♦10.

Andrew considers an alternative approach, but the idea of making the opponents guess is too strong to resist.

ANDREW ROBSON: 6♥. I can either walk the dog (with 4♥) or just bid to my limit. This is the value bid and makes them guess last.

Some prefer an element of science…

HANOI RONDON: 3♠. I’ll start with a splinter, but I doubt the bidding will get resolved before at least the five-level.

MATS NILSLAND: 3♠.

Or, perhaps you prefer to splinter in a different suit…

JILL MEYERS: 4♣. I am going to splinter and then bid again.

This is, I suppose, the correct technical bid.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♠. Exclusion BW.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♠. Is this exclusion? If 3♠ is a splinter, I could be devious, but I am playing poker while I’m answering

DAVID BIRD: 4♠. Exclusion. Yes, they've bid diamonds, but my five-card trump support suggests that 6♥ may be there.

 

 

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 2♦. Let’s see what happens. I don’t want to tip off the strength of our hand. Of course, I plan on taking this hand as high as I need to. I want our side to declare.

LIZ McGOWAN: 3♦. A mixed raise. I may as well try to buy it in hearts with a softly, softly approach

BRIAN GLUBOK: 2♥. We're never selling out (below 6♠) on this hand, so I might as well "walk the dog".

 

At the table in the trials, Michael Rosenberg opted for the majority approach, and jumped to 6♥. Unfortunately, partner had Jxxx/KJxxx/---/KQxx, so that was a quick one down doubled. In the replay, East doubled the 1♦ opening (!?!?!), but the board was flat at N/S -200. I suspect that one or more of the alternative approaches might have secured a more profitable result on this one.

 

 

Hand 5

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
6♥	10	5	8
4♣	10	4	33
5♥	9	2	5
4NT	8	0	9
5NT	8	0	1
Pass	7	4	6
4♥	7	3	32
6♣	5	0	1
6NT	5	0	2
4♦	2	0	4
4♠	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 8.24

 

This is the first of three hands (5,7 and 8) on which the panel offer no clear answer, providing a headache for the marker. Here, almost everyone scores fairly well. Although the 6♥ bidders were the largest faction on the panel, I think the 4♣ bidders had the better of the debate. Those just settling for game (in hearts or NT) were in the minority (7-of-18), hence the marking.

 

MARTY BERGEN: Pass. I am hoping for +660 or + 690.

PAUL MARSTON: Pass. Partner seems adamant about no-trumps. We have plenty of points, and I can easily see us making as many tricks in no-trumps as in hearts.

JOEY SILVER: Pass. Trusting, ain't I? My singleton honours were the convincer.

LIZ McGOWAN: Pass. Partner's HCP are mainly in the minors. 4♥ might score better - or might fail. Who knows?

A few others were also happy playing in game, but preferred hearts.

JOHN KLAYMAN: 4♥. My clubs are too weak to bid anything else.

BARNET SHENKIN: 4♥.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 4♥. As I didn’t start with a Texas transfer, when I bid 4♥ now I show slam interest. I guess 4♦ would be natural here, although I think it should probably be a good 4♥ bid.

If you play Texas (which we don’t), this sequence is theoretically a mild slam try but, in practise, does opener ever bid on after this start?

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♣. A journey of a thousand miles…..

JILL MEYERS: 4♣. I will finish telling my distributional story and show slam interest. Partner only has two hearts but he could still have three good clubs.

MATS NILSLAND: 4♣.

ROB BRADY: 4♣. We show our fifth club and, if partner retreats to 4NT, we can then bid 5♥ to show our sixth heart, which would be... forcing? On the cusp of slam, I wouldn't mind however partner interpreted that sequence. What's the alternative?

With votes for both 4♥ and 6♥, is this perhaps not the best option if you choose not to show your fifth club?

ANDREW ROBSON: 5♥. This is the value bid, and I'll pass 6♣ if partner bids it. Only one member of the partnership knows if he has the ♥Q and/or ♣K-Q and/or the spade/diamond aces, and it ain't me.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♥. Our 3♣ bid already showed five clubs (otherwise we would start with a forcing 2NT). We believe that we have a little too much for 4♥, so let's be optimistic. Our 6511 shape should be clear and we hope our partner can judge his top cards.

The rest just bid what they hope will make.

SALLY BROCK: 6♥. I once read an article that suggested that the fewer bids you take to bid a slam the more likely you are to make it. Let’s test the theory.

HANOI RONDON: 6♥. I think we can make this.

 

 

DAVID BIRD: 6♥. I don't want to play in clubs at matchpoints. Nor do I want to head for a grand in hearts opposite a doubleton trump. It’s a middle-of-the road 6♥ for me.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 6♥. It is possible that 6NT could be better, but 6♥ should be fine. 6♣ might be safer, but this is matchpoints. Partner may like clubs, but he doesn't love them.

 

At the table, partner had AQxx/Jx/AKxx/Kxx so there were 12 easy tricks even with ♥Q-x-x offside. Should partner bid on over 4♥? Perhaps in theory, but in reality they seldom do. The 5♥ bidders will certainly catch a raise. Quite what will happen after 4♣ is less clear. Those passing 3NT will score okay as their +690 will beat everyone playing game in hearts.

 

 

Hand 6

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
4♠	10	6	21
Pass	10	5	18
3♠	8	3	16
3NT	6	1	1
3♥	6	1	8
Rdbl	5	2	10
2♠	3	0	24
2NT	3	0	1
4♥	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.97

 

First, let’s clear up some of the questions about ‘Why no Texas?’ and ‘Why not Stayman?’ My partner had this problem: we do not play Texas, and we play Puppet Stayman. That’s fine for finding 4-4 major-suit fits, but is no good for this type of hand. Out style is to bid 2♥ (transfer), then 3♦ (transfer showing four hearts), then 4♠ if partner bids 3NT.

Close to half of competition entrants opted for one of the two most popular panel choices, but the largest group went for an underbid that got no support from the panel.

 

JILL MEYERS: Pass. OK, they got me! I am going to play 2♥-doubled, and take my chances that I will make at least eight tricks.

MARTY BERGEN: Pass. Redouble would be a re-transfer, so this is my only way to play game at the two-level.

 

 

ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. It's hard to resist. It's very unlikely North has five hearts, so let's gamble it out. After all, 4♠ will be no sinecure.

PAUL MARSTON: Pass. I think North likes the sound of his own voice. Time to make him pay.

This, though, is perhaps too much…

JOEY SILVER: Redbl. Looking to punish North for his temerity. For me, this is not a re-transfer.

BARNET SHENKIN: Redbl. Re-transfer for partner to bid 2♠.

So, that’s clear then! I suspect in an undiscussed partnership it would be taken as a re-transfer, which, as a number of panelists point out, is not really what you want.

LIZ McGOWAN: 3♠. I think redouble here is a re-transfer, demanding 2♠ from partner, but I want to avoid the guaranteed heart lead through my king...

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♠. Chickens: we are a bit frightened by North's double, so now we judge our hand is not worth forcing to game. Redouble (followed by 3♠) or even 3♥ (retransfer, and game try in context) could be wiser to avoid a misunderstanding, but we want to play from our hand to protect the ♥K.

JOHN KLAYMAN: 3♠. Apparently, what I was planning to bid over partner's 2♠. Let's keep the ♥K safe for the moment.

The largest faction on the panel simply bid what they think they can make.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♠. What do you want from my life?

DAVID BIRD: 4♠. The suit is good enough to insist on spades. Surely, I will have plenty of company around the room.

HANOI RONDON: 4♠. I'll take the opportunity to right-side the contract.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 4♠. But I admire Redouble if it is to play. Redouble is not as bold as it appears, as nowadays many play it as artificial (usually a re-transfer).

ROB BRADY: 4♠. I am between the Happy Poo emoji and the Face Vomit emoji: I'm not sure which best describes the 2♥ bid. We have a game force so we should have started with Stayman to look for a heart fit. Having ended up here might be a blessing though, because we can now right side the contract by protecting our ♥K from the opening lead. If you tell me partner has something like Ax/xxx/AKxx/Axxx and 3NT is the only making game, sometimes bridge is too hard.

On the actual layout, 2♥-doubled was the only making game 😊.

LARRY COHEN: 4♠. Why didn't I Texas (or Stayman then 4♥ over 2♥ or delayed Texas)? This is a normal game bid after a 1NT overcall. Anyway, given the second chance, I suppose I will play it from my side, picturing say, Ax/xxx/KJxx/AKQx.

There were just a couple of soloists…

MATS NILSLAND: 3♥.

SALLY BROCK: 3NT. My heart length tends to suggest NTs.

 

In our Seniors KO semi-final, my man chose to Pass. I produced A8/86/Q108xx/AKQx and he managed to bring home the bacon (with a little help) for a magnificent +670 with 4♠ going two down (curiously, undoubled) at the other table. (North was 0-4-4-5). If you bid 4♠ after this start, I suspect South would have wielded the axe with ♠-J-10-9-x-x and the ♦K.

 

 

Hand 7

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
3♥	10	12	19
4♦	7	3	7
2♠	7	1	3
3NT	5	2	20
5♣	3	0	14
4♣	3	0	4
4NT	3	0	2
3♣	0	0	15
2NT	0	0	9
4♥	0	0	4
Pass	0	0	2
3♦	0	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 4.20

 

This is only the panel’s second big majority vote this month. The competition entrants, though, are widely divided, with less than a third choosing one of the panel’s two most popular options.

 

PAUL MARSTON: 3♥. We are going somewhere - let’s see where.

ANDREW ROBSON: 3♥. Not perfect, as it may leave partner nowhere to go without a heart stopper. But 5♣ should be safe and 6♣ possible. Yes, it's matchpoints but they still give you a bonus for making slam. And 5♣ may score the same as 3NT, 11 v 9 tricks.

HANOI RONDON: 3♥. It may be better for partner to play NT. He can also decide if we belong in clubs, which could easily be the right game (or even slam).

 

 

More sage advice from Rob.

ROB BRADY: 3♥. Partner's 3♠ will be a punt and not natural, as we didn't bid 2♠ earlier. This will get us to 3NT opposite Axx/xx/Kxxxx/Qxx and we reach a club contract opposite something like Qxx/x/Axxxx/Qxxx. Going through the cue bid before we bid 3NT doesn't deny a stopper, it merely suggests doubt about 3NT being the right place to play.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 3♥. Asking for a stopper. If partner bids 3♠, I will bid 3NT.

MATS NILSLAND: 3♥.

BARNET SHENKIN: 3♥. To keep flexibility.

JOHN KLAYMAN: 3♥. There are perfect minimums for partner that will make 6♣. Let's rule out the hands that she would be willing to play 3NT, which I plan to pass.

BRIAN GLUBOK: 3♥. I am heading for 5♣, possibly 6♣, although if partner bids 3NT here, I'll probably let him play there as it's matchpoints.

JILL MEYERS: 3♥. I’ll start with 3♥ but I will be bidding again.

LARRY COHEN: 3♥. I am driving to at least game, and hoping this descriptive bid gets us to the right game or possibly 6♣ (opposite something like AQxx/x/Qxxx/Qxxx)

Liz has similar intentions, but chooses an alternative way to investigate.

LIZ McGOWAN: 2♠. Leaving room for all possible future misunderstandings.

Some give themselves the best chance of finding a good slam by committing to clubs now.

JOEY SILVER: 4♦. Slam is too real a possibility to settle for 3NT. I will splinter now, and await partner's next pronouncement.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♦. This is a superior description than the panel’s likely choice (3♥). I need a little help for slam, but not too much

MARTY BERGEN: 4♦. We definitely might belong in 3NT, but: a) I have no good low-level bid to show this hand, so I can't ever know; b) The right balanced 8-count (Axxx/xx/Axx/ xxxx) could produce a great slam, so I will bypass 3NT.

Only Sally and David agree with the largest group of competition entrants in deciding they have heard enough already.

SALLY BROCK: 3NT. I never was very good at matchpoints!

DAVID BIRD: 3NT. 3NT and 5♣ may both make. I will head for the potentially higher matchpoint score. Diamonds, where I am short, is the most likely suit for partner to hold.

 

At the table, partner had Qxxx/xx/AKxx/Qxx so, as Andrew predicted, playing in either 5♣ or 3NT produces the same +600.

 

 

Hand 8

 

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES	Competitors' Entries (%)
3NT	10	5	8
4NT	9	3	6
4♠	9	1	1
Pass	8	4	8
2NT	7	0	9
Dbl	6	2	43
3♣	6	2	18
3♠	2	1	3
3♦	2	0	1

 

Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.44

 

We finish with another one on which the panel are all over the place. The most popular choices are a natural jump to 3NT, a jump to 4NT (or 4♠) showing minors, and Pass. There is only very moderate support for the two choices advocated by nearly two-thirds of competition entrants.

What does 3♠ mean? Without discussion, it would probably be either ‘do you have a spade stopper for 3NT?’ or, better on grounds of frequency, a Michaels type hand not strong enough for a Leaping Micheals 4m. Yes, it would be convenient if it showed minors but, without specific agreement, it doesn’t.

 

JOEY SILVER: Pass. If partner doubles, I will bid 4NT on the way to a minor suit slam. If partner bids 3♥, I am a 3NT bidder. If he passes, I hope I don't regret that we’re not playing pairs.

SALLY BROCK: Pass. Let’s go for a plus score. What else can I do? 3NT? That is not so likely to make unless partner has a club fit. and some of the time he will pull to 4♥ anyway. Hopefully, I can make this decision in my 10 seconds and he will not be under any ethical pressure.

JILL MEYERS: Pass. I have no source of tricks to be bidding at the three-level. I am hoping partner reopens with double, or something other than 3♥, and even over that I can bid 3NT.

PAUL MARSTON: Pass. There is no reason to think partner has length in the minors.

So, how about bidding our suit?

BRIAN GLUBOK: 3♣. Any bid is a guess. I generally like to guess by bidding my longest suit to start.

BARNET SHENKIN: 3♣.

Or…

LARRY COHEN: Dbl. I know partner will kill me forever with hearts, but I will kill him forever by removing. This is the wildest set of eight deals I've seen in this feature. I hope I score above 60/80, but I have my doubts.

Well above that, Larry.

Rob provides some questions for regular partnerships to address.

ROB BRADY: Dbl. Over a 4♥ bid from partner, I think 4NT should show the "double and bid NT" hand type, rather than Blackwood for hearts, but that's a question for the panel. The important point is that partner doesn't always bid 4♥, even if it is likely. Over 2NT (Lebensohl) or 3♥, we can bid 3NT, and be pretty happy with our auction. The alternatives of blasting off into the stratosphere with some minor-suit oriented sequence (e.g. overcalling 4NT) looks misguided, but it could work if partner has a big fit. Even as little as x/xxxxx/Jxxxx/xx gives us some play for a diamond slam, while 3NT has only eight tricks.

Or…

MATS NILSLAND: 3♠. I hope this shows the minors.

It doesn’t, but hope reigns eternal.

HANOI RONDON: 3NT. Anything can be correct here, and everything can be very wrong. I'll bid game and hope partner doesn’t remove to hearts.

NIKOLAI HEIBERG-EVENSTAD: 3NT. The way I play, I could bid 3♠ for the minors, which would be perfect for this hand. Lacking that particular agreement, I would go with 3NT.

MARTY BERGEN: 3NT. Looking at a good hand after an enemy pre-empt is NOT my idea of fun. 

DAVID BIRD: 3NT. Yes, I am willing to risk missing a cold 7♣. I'm also willing to miss forcing partner to choose a minor on his 2-7-2-2 hand.

Some are prepared to take that risk.

ZIA MAHMOOD: 4NT. A sick alternative to pass, but I’ll raise clubs to slam. I’m too old to play in game any more, although my heart says Pass.

ANDREW ROBSON: 4NT. The clincher for this apparently eccentric call is having the fifth club. At least we'll play a 5-3 fit when partner is three-three. The only other sensible option is to pass 2♠, and that's my second choice.

LIZ McGOWAN: 4NT. “Please bid your better minor, partner.” If this is a bad idea, I will take all the blame.

PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4NT. We judge the probability that our partner has a nice fit in a minor is huge. Raising to slam next is a matter of "state of the match"

 

 

When Alan Mould sent me this problem from a Manchester League match, I suggested 2NT (which received NO support from the panel). That’s what Alan’s teammates did: Happy days - partner raises to 3NT, which makes. However, the news is not as good as you might think. No, as partner had xx/KQ/Jxxxxx/KQx, so 7♦ makes on the spade finesse through the 2♠ opener. At the table against Alan, West doubled (fetch me a bucket, please!) and got to 6♦.

Pierre Schmidt kindly provides the results of a simulation done on this problem.

 

First, what are the odds of various contracts making?

- a grand slam in a minor: 15%
- a small slam in a minor: 35%
- game only in a minor: 25%
- 3NT makes on 50% of the boards
- 3NT makes when we don’t make game in a minor: 5%
- no game at all: 20%

 

So, you can easily calculate that, if were able to always reach the best contract, your average gain is about + 670. Of course, there is no way you can achieve that at the table: like Icarus, when you approach the sun … you know what happens. Of the possible strategies, what are the statistical outcomes?

#1 bid 4NT and pass 5♣/♦: + 280
#2 bid 4NT and raise to slam next: +360
#3 bid 3NT: +170
#4 Pass: +150 (2♠ is three down on average)

 

Those figures certainly suggest that 4NT (or 4♠) is the action with the largest upside. Interesting indeed.

 

 

As always, our thanks to panel members for the time and effort put in to both entertain and educate our readers. Thanks also to RealBridge for their continued support by hosting this feature.

 

See you all next month.

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

PANEL

 

Andrew ROBSON	3♦	Pass	4♥	6♥	5♥	Pass	3♥	4NT	78
Hanoi RONDON	3♦	Pass	4♥	3♠	6♥	4♠	3♥	3NT	77
Nikolai HEIBERG-EVENSTAD	3♦	Pass	4♥	2♦	4♥	Pass	3♥	3NT	74
Paul MARSTON	3♦	5♥	4♥	6♥	Pass	Pass	3♥	Pass	74
Rob BRADY	3♦	Pass	3♥	6♥	4♣	4♠	3♥	Dbl	73
Larry COHEN	3♦	Pass	6♦	6♥	6♥	4♠	3♥	Dbl	72
Jill MEYERS	3♦	Pass	3♥	4♣	4♣	Pass	3♥	Pass	72
Marty BERGEN	3♦	6♥	4♥	6♥	Pass	Pass	4♦	3NT	71
Pierre SCHMIDT J Joanna ZOCHOWSKA	3♦	Pass	4♦	4♠	5♥	3♠	3♥	4NT	70
David BIRD	3♦	5♥	6♦	4♠	6♥	4♠	3NT	3NT	69
Sally BROCK	3♦	Pass	4♥	6♥	6♥	3NT	3NT	Pass	69
John KLAYMAN	3♦	Pass	4♦	6♥	4♥	3♠	3♥	4♠	69
Zia MAHMOOD	3♠	5♥	4♥	4♠	4♣	4♠	4♦	4NT	69
Barnet SHENKIN	3♦	5♥	4♥	6♥	4♥	Rdbl	3♥	3♣	67
Brian GLUBOK	3♦	5♥	5♦	2♥	6♥	4♠	3♥	3♣	66
Mats NILSLAND	2NT	5♥	4♥	3♠	4♣	3♥	3♥	3♠	60
Liz McGOWAN	2NT	5♥	3♥	3♦	Pass	3♠	2♠	4NT	59
Joey SILVER	3♦	5♥	4♦	4♥	Pass	Rdbl	4♦	Pass	59
TOP SCORE	3♦	Pass	4♥	6♥	4♣/6♥	Pass/4♠	3♥	3NT

 

 

MARKS

 

HAND 1:	3♦ 10	2NT 6	3♠/3NT 5	3♣ 2
HAND 2:	Pass 10	5♥ 9	6♥ 7	6♦ 4	Dbl 2
HAND 3:	4♥ 10	3♥ 7	6♦ 6	4♦/5♦ 5	3NT 2
HAND 4:	6♥ 10	4♠ 9	2♦/2NT/3♠/4♣/4♥ 7	2♥/2♠/3♦/3♥ 6	5♥ 3
HAND 5:	4♣/6♥ 10	5♥ 9	4NT/5NT 8	Pass/4♥ 7	6♣/6NT 5	4♦ 2
HAND 6:	Pass/4♠ 10	3♠ 8	3♥/3NT 6	Rdbl 5	2♠/2NT 3
HAND 7:	3♥ 10	4♦/2♠ 7	3NT 5	4♣/5♣/4NT 3
HAND 8:	3NT 10	4♠/4NT 9	Pass 8	2NT 7	Dbl/3♣ 6	3♦/3♠ 2

 

 

AVERAGE SCORE

 

HAND 1:	7.47
HAND 2:	7.89
HAND 3:	4.79
HAND 4:	6.90
HAND 5:	8.24
HAND 6:	6.97
HAND 7:	4.20
HAND 8:	6.44